• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Draft version June 26, 2021 A Preprint typeset using LTEX style emulateapj v. 05/04/06 SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOLAR FLARES AND CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS S. Yashiro,1,2 G. Michalek,1,2,3 S. Akiyama,1,2 N. Gopalswamy,2 and R. A. Howard4 Draft version June 26, 2021 ABSTRACT We report on the spatial relationship between solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) ob- served during 1996-2005 inclusive. We identified 496 flare-CME pairs considering limb flares (distance from central meridian ≥ 45◦) with soft X-ray flare size ≥ C3 level. The CMEs were detected by the Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) on board the Solar and Heliospheric Obser- vatory (SOHO). We investigated the flare positions with respect to the CME span for the events with X-class, M-class, and C-class flares separately. It is found that the most frequent flare site is at the center of the CME span for all the three classes, but that frequency is different for the different classes. Many X-class flares often lie at the center of the associated CME, while C-class flares widely spread to the outside of the CME span. The former is different from previous studies, which concluded that no preferred flare site exists. We compared our result with the previous studies and conclude that the long-term LASCO observation enabled us to obtain the detailed spatial relation between flares and CMEs. Our finding calls for a closer flare-CME relationship and supports eruption models typified by the CSHKP magnetic reconnection model. Subject headings: Sun: flares — Sun: CMEs 1. INTRODUCTION that flare positions did not peak neither at the center A solar flare is sudden flash of electromagnetic radia- nor at one leg of the CMEs. They concurred with Har- tion (suggesting plasma heating) in the solar atmosphere, rison at the point that the observations do not match and a coronal mass ejection (CME) is an eruption of with the CSHKP model, while disagreeing with the re- the atmospheric plasma into interplanetary space. Both sult that flares are likely to occur at one leg of CMEs. phenomena are thought to be different manifestations They pointed out that the parameter employed by Har- of the same process which releases magnetic free energy rison was biased, and concluded that both observations stored in the solar atmosphere. The spatial relation be- are compatible with the fact that there is no preferred tween flares and CMEs contains information on the mag- flare site with respect to the CME span. It should be netic field configurations involved in the eruptive pro- noted that the two studies applied different criteria for cess and hence is important for modeling them. Many the event selection. Harrison did not apply any criteria flare-CME models are based on the CSHKP (Carmichael, on flare X-ray intensity, flare location, and CME span, Sturrock, Hirayama, Kopp & Pneuman) magnetic recon- while Kahler et al. used only strong limb flares (≥ M1 level; central meridian distance (CMD) ≥ 40◦) and wide nection model. The model requires that a flare occurs ◦ just underneath of an erupting filament which eventu- CMEs (angular span ≥ 40 ). Different criteria might ally becomes the core of the CME associated with the produce different spatial distributions, but the results in flare. Normally the core corresponds to the center of both the studies were inconsistent with the schematic the CME, thus the CSHKP model requires that the flare view of the CSHKP type flare-CME model. occurs near the center of the CME span. The Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO; Brueckner et al. 1995) on board the Solar and arXiv:0710.3054v1 [astro-ph] 16 Oct 2007 Full-scale studies on the flare-CME relationship started in the 70s and 80s with the CME observations obtained Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) mission has observed by the Solwind coronagraph on board P78-1 and the more than 11,000 CMEs from 1996, which provides a Coronagraph/Polarimeter telescope on board the Solar great opportunity to investigate the flare-CME relation- Maximum Mission (SMM). Harrison (1986) carried out ship. Harrison (2006) reviewed several flare-CME studies a detailed analysis of three flare-CME events observed and stated that ”the pre-SOHO conclusions about rela- by SMM and reported that flares occurred near one tive flare-CME locations and asymmetry are consistent foot of an X-ray arch, which is supposed to become a with many recent studies.” However, systematic statisti- CME. He also analyzed 48 flare-CME events observed cal study is needed before reaching a firm conclusion. In by SMM and Solwind and reported that many flares oc- this paper we revisit this issue using the large CME data curred near one leg of the associated CMEs. This result, obtained by SOHO LASCO. called the flare-ejection asymmetry, is inconsistent with 2. the CSHKP flare-CME model. Kahler et al. (1989) ex- DATA AND ANALYSIS amined 35 events observed by the Solwind and reported Solar flares are continuously monitored by the X-ray Sensor (XRS) on board the Geostationary Operational 1 Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064 Environmental Satellite (GOES) missions. The XRS ob- 2 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 3 serves the whole-sun X-ray flux in the 0.1-0.8 nm wave- Astronomical Observatory of Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland length band to detect solar flares. The flare location has 4 Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375 been determined by Hα images obtained by ground-base observatories and X-ray images obtained by Soft X-ray 2 Yashiro et al. Fig. 1.— Three CMEs observed by SOHO LASCO to illustrate the measurement of CME span. The top row shows direct images used to measure the main CME body, and the bottom row shows corresponding running difference images used to measure the whole CMEs. φ1 and φ2 indicate the PAs of side edges of the main CME body, and φA and φB indicate those of the whole CME. Arrows point to the position of the flares associated with the CMEs. Imager (SXI) on GOES. All flares have been listed in a shock wave driven by the CME (Sheeley et al. 2000; the Solar Geophysical Data (SGD) and the online solar Vourlidas et al. 2003; Ciaravella et al. 2005), thus there event report5 compiled by NOAA Space Environment is a problem whether the envelope is a part of the CMEs Center. From the online report we selected limb flares or not (see St. Cyr 2005). However, since there is no (CMD ≥ 45◦) with soft X-ray flare size ≥ C3 level. established way to identify a shock by coronagraph ob- We used the SOHO LASCO CME Catalog6 servation itself, we have included the envelope structures (Yashiro et al. 2004) to investigate the CME asso- as a part of the CME and refer to all the CME features ciations. The CME candidates associated with a given as the whole CME. flare were searched within a 3 hr time window (90 For the comparison between flare and CME positions, minutes before and 90 minutes after the onset of the it is ideal if we could measure the position angles7 (PAs) flare). However, because the time window analysis by of the CME edges on the solar limb. The innermost itself could produce false flare-CME pairs, we checked coronagraph C1 is the best, but its data are not available the consistency of the associations by viewing both flare for the most of the CMEs. Since several CMEs did show and CME movies in the Catalog. We played movies non-radial motion (Gopalswamy et al. 2000; Zhang et al. obtained by the Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope 2004), we measured PAs of the CME edges in C2 images (EIT) on SOHO and Soft X-ray Telescope (SXT) on as close to the occulting disk as possible. Yohkoh to look for any eruptive surface activities (e.g., Figure 1 illustrates how we measured the PAs of the filament eruptions, dimmings, and arcade formations) main CME body and the whole CME. Top panels are associated with the flares. All flares can be divided into LASCO C2 images for three CMEs with the correspond- those with and without CMEs except for some in which ing running difference images (previous images are sub- the eruptive signatures were obscure. We excluded such tracted to enhance the faint structure of the CMEs) in uncertain flare-CME pairs from this analysis. From the bottom panels. The side edges of the main CME 1996 to 2005, we found 496 definitive flare-CME pairs. body (the whole CME) are denoted by φ1 and φ2 (φA A typical CME consists of a bright frontal struc- and φB ). The CME on 1997 November 14 (Figs. 1a and ture (leading edge), followed by a dark cavity, and a 1b) did not have an envelope, thus the φ1 (φ2) and φA bright core. This configuration is called the CME three- (φB) are identical. On the other hand, the CME on 2000 part structure (Illing & Hundhausen 1985; Webb 1988). June 25 had a faint envelope to the north of the main The bright core corresponds to the erupting filament CME body (Figs. 1c and 1d). Since it is hard to see it in (Webb & Hundhausen 1987; Gopalswamy et al. 2003a). print, we traced out the edge of the envelope by a dotted There is an issue whether narrow CMEs have the three- curve on Fig. 1d. The northern edge of the envelope de- part structure or not (e.g. Gilbert et al. 2001), but at noted by φB is used for the edge of the whole CME.

Load more

  7

Copy Link