X-ray, EUV

Flare &Eruption

CME, Shock
High-eneryg particles

space weather
disturbances

Solar-C Science Meeting
Takayama, Hida, 11 Nov, 2013

Will Solar-C be able to contribute theprediction of solar eruption?
Kanya Kusano
Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory
Nagoya University

OutlookIntroductionPrediction of solar eruption as a Solar-C scienceobjective.

Current status of the prediction of solareruption
 What determines the onset of solar
eruptions?
Comparative study between simulation andobservations

Strategy of prediction in Solar-C era.

Scientific Objectives of Solar-C
High-resolution 3D magnetic field Magnetic reconnection(fundamental physical processes)
 Chromospheric and coronal heating
 Origin of solar wind Solar activity prediction (prediction of solar eruption)
Empirical prediction
Vs.
Physics-based prediction
Prediction ofsolar eruption

current stage of s/w prediction

Understanding ofsolar eruption•

Halley's prediction of thecomet's return (1758)•

Einstein’s prediction of
the apparent bending oflight (1919)

Current Status of Flare Prediction
Crown 2012 “Validation of NOAA FlarePrediction for Cycle 23” Space Weather

Contingency Table for X-class Flares Prediction with the lead time of one-dayObs.
Prediction

YesNoYesNo

50526731315

50/(50+52)~49% of predictions
was success.

50/(50+67)~43% of flares
was predicted.

Skill Score=(50-67)/(50+52)=－0.17

Empirical PredictionMcIntosh Classification

McIntosh 1990

Gallacher, Moon, Wang 2002 Sol. Phys.

Discrimination Analysis

Barnes and Leka 2008
(M&X class within 1d)# of ARw/o flare

with flare

Total excess energy
Leka & Barnes 2003

R: unsigned flux
over the highgradient polarityseparation lines
Schrijver 2007
Effective connectedmagnetic field
Georgoulis & Rust 20072013/11/11

NLFFF Model Analysis
Inoue, Kusano et al. ApJ 2011
HinodeSPsmoothedvector mag.

MagneticTwist

NLFF

Tn = (4π ) −1 ∫field line

Smaller than unity

α dl

fairly stable even in
pre-flare state !

Prediction is difficult, because
many kinds of large-scale magnetic parameters (e.g.
total magnetic free energy) and the 3D NLFFF modelcannot provide the sufficient information to predict theonset of large flare.
 The limited capability implies that there is some
hidden parameters to determine the flareproductivity.
The clarification of the hidden parameters shouldbe the important subject of Solar-C, because it islikely to be related to small magnetic feature.

Ensemble 3D MHD Simulation

Kusano et al. 2012 ApJ

strong shear

weak shear

potential field

Right Polarity

Opposite Polarity

Normal Shear

Right Polarity

Reversed Shear

Simulation Results

flare productive regionOPstrong shear

RSNo
Eruption

NoEruption
Total
KineticEnergy

weak shear

potential field

Right Polarity

Opposite Polarity

Normal Shear

Reverse ShearRight Polarity

Eruption-induced Reconnection

X-flare on 2006 Dec 13aHinode/SOTF’
Ca H IIF

02:18UTF’F

Opposite Polarity type perturbation
aaFF’aF
02:22UTF’F’FF
02:26UTF’Reconnection-induced eruptionM-flare on 2011 Feb 13

Reversed-Shear type perturbation

RS
configuration

PIL Structures Triggering FlaresRSOP
2006-12-13 02:22 UTRSRSOPZirin and Wang 1993

OP
Kurokawa, Wang & Ishii 2002

Green, Kliem & Wallace 2011

Bamba et al. 2013 ApJ
Poster S4-P-12

Two X-flares in AR10930

X3.4 class flareX1.5 class flareDestabilizing metastable statecriticality
stability~large-scale
structure

trigger~small-scale
structuremetastablelinearly
unstableStrategy
Solar-C

vector magnetic field on
Photosphere &Chromosphere
Large-scale

Small-scale

NLFFF

perturbation
model

Stability Analysis

advanced models

3D magnetic field measurement with Solar-C will firstenable the physics-based prediction of solar eruption.