1. Magnetic Shear in Two-ribbon Solar Flares Yingna Su 1,2 Advisors: Leon Golub 1, Guangli Huang 2 Collaborators: A. A. Van Ballegooijen 1, E. E. Deluca 1, J. McCaughey 1, K. K. Reeves 1, and M. Gros 3 1. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA 2. Purple Mountain Observatory, China 3. DSM/DAPNIA/Service d’Astrophysique, CEA Saclay, France 2007 SPD dissertation talk, Honolulu, 05/28/2007

2. Acknowledgements Advisors: Leon Golub (CfA), Guangli Huang (PMO) Collaborators: A. A. Van Ballegooijen, E. E. Deluca, J. McCaughey, K. K. Reeves, and M. Gros Valuable suggestions from S. K. Antiochos, J. Lin, J. Karpen, B. Schmieder… Other CfA SSXG group members: M. Weber, J. Cirtain, M. Bobra, P. J. Jibben, S. Saar, K. Korreck, A. Savcheva, L. Lundquist, and J. Bookbinder Instruments: TRACE, Hinode/XRT, SOHO/MDI, SOHO/LASCO, SOHO/EIT, NJIT/BBSO, SPI/ACS, Hinode/SOT, RHESSI Financial support: TRACE contract from Lockheed Martin and NASA contract NNM07AA02C at CfA

3. Outline  Background (Su et al. 2006, solar physics, 236, 325)  Statistical Analysis of Shear Motion (Su et al. 2007a, ApJ, 655, 606)  What Determines the Intensity of Solar Flare/CME events? (Su et al. 2007b, ApJ, 665, 1448)  Conclusions  Preliminary results from Hinode/XRT -- Evolution of the sheared magnetic fields in AR10930 (Su et al. 2007c, PASJ, submitted)

4. Shear Motion of Footpoints  EUV brightening pairs Start: close to the magnetic inversion line (MIL), but widely separated along the MIL (Fig. a, highly sheared) End: straight across and far from the MIL (Fig. f, weakly sheared)  Strong-to-weak shear motion of the footpoints  Hard X-ray observations (Yohkoh/HXT) (Masuda, Kosugi, and Hudson 2001)  H α, EUV, and microwave observations (Su et al. 2006 and references therein)

5. This observed shear change can be understood by the cartoon we made corresponding to the standard model for solar flares. (e.g., Moore et al. 2001 and references therein). Interpretation Cartoon of the evolution of the magnetic field in the standard model of solar flares ( Su et al. 2006).

6. Outline  Background (Su et al. 2006, solar physics, 236, 325)  Statistical Analysis of Shear Motion (Su et al. 2007a, ApJ, 655, 606)  What Determines the Intensity of Solar Flare/CME events? (Su et al. 2007b, ApJ, 665, 1448)  Conclusions  Preliminary results from Hinode/XRT -- Evolution of the sheared magnetic fields in AR10930 (Su et al. 2007c, PASJ, submitted)

7. Motivation Two Questions:  Is the shear motion of the footpoints common?  Could the change from the impulsive to gradual phase be related to the magnetic shear change? (Lynch et al. 2004)

8. Distribution of Shear Angles Data sample: 50 two-ribbon flares well observed by TRACE  Type I flares: 86% (43 out of 50)  Ribbon separation: Yes  Shear motion: Yes  For 24 Type I flares  Initial shear angles: 50°– 80°  Final shear angles: 15°– 55°  Change of shear angles: 10°– 60°

9. Distribution of Distribution of T EIP - T CSM  15 Type I flares  measured shear angle  corresponding HXR observations  T EIP - T CSM : 0~2 min In most events, the cessation of shear change is 0-2 minutes earlier than the end of the impulsive phase.

10. Outline  Background (Su et al. 2006, solar physics, 236, 325)  Statistical Analysis of Shear Motion (Su et al. 2007a, ApJ, 655, 606)  What Determines the Intensity of Solar Flare/CME events? (Su et al. 2007b, ApJ, 665, 1448)  Conclusions  Preliminary results from Hinode/XRT -- Evolution of the sheared magnetic fields in AR10930 (Su et al. 2007c, PASJ, submitted)

11. Data sets and methods  Data sample: 18 Type I flares  associated with CMEs  measured shear angles  Six magnetic parameters:  Parameters representing magnetic size: Background field strength (B), the area (S), and magnetic flux (  )  Parameters representing magnetic shear: Initial shear angle (   ), final shear angle (   ), and change of shear angle(   )  Intensity of flare/CME events: Peak flare flux (PFF) and CME speed (V CME )

12. Result I  log 10 B, log 10 S, log 10  vs. log 10 (PFF), V CME : positive correlations  log 10  is better than log 10 B, log 10 S (  =B×S)

13. Result II    vs. log 10 (PFF), V CME : no correlation    is better than both   and   (   =   -   )   ,   vs. log 10 (PFF), V CME : negative and positive correlations

14. Result III  Three multi-parameter combinations vs. log 10 (PFF) and V CME : strong linear correlations  Combination 2 ( log 10 ,  ,   ) is the top-ranked combination  Combination 2 is only slightly better than combination 3 ( log 10 ,   )

15. Outline  Background (Su et al. 2006, solar physics, 236, 325)  Statistical Analysis of Shear Motion (Su et al. 2007a, ApJ, 655, 606)  What Determines the Intensity of Solar Flare/CME events? (Su et al. 2007b, ApJ, 665, 1448)  Conclusions  Preliminary results from Hinode/XRT -- Evolution of the sheared magnetic fields in AR10930 (Su et al. 2007c, PASJ, submitted)

16. Conclusions  The strong-to-weak shear motion of the footpoints is a common feature in two-ribbon flares.  The cessation of magnetic shear change is 0-2 minutes earlier than the end of the impulsive phase in 10 out of the 15 events, which suggests that the change from impulsive phase to gradual phase is related to the magnetic shear change.  The magnetic flux and change of shear angle are two best parameters which show comparably strong correlations with the peak flare flux and CME speed. A multi-parameter combination shows better correlation than individual parameter.  The intensity of solar flare/CME events may depend mainly on the released magnetic free energy (   ) rather than the total magnetic free energy (   ) stored prior to the eruption.

17. Outline  Background (Su et al. 2006, solar physics, 236, 325)  Statistical Analysis of Shear Motion (Su et al. 2007a, ApJ, 655, 606)  What Determines the Intensity of Solar Flare/CME events? (Su et al. 2007b, ApJ, 665, 1448)  Conclusions  Preliminary results from Hinode/XRT -- Evolution of the sheared magnetic fields in AR10930 (Su et al. 2007c, PASJ, submitted)

18. Observational Data  Target: NOAA AR 10930 where two X-class flares occurred: X3.4 flare on 2006/Dec/13 X1.5 flare on 2006/Dec/14  Data from: Hinode/XRT Hinode/SOT TRACE SOHO/MDI  Topic: Evolution of the sheared core field prior to, during, and after the flares.

19. Formation of the sheared core field XRT observations of sheared field formation: From 00:19 UT on Dec 10 To 12:43 UT on Dec 12 SOT observations of 1.Emerging flux 2.West-to-east Motion 3.CCW Rotation in the Lower sunspot

20. Part of the sheared cored field erupted, while part of them stayed behind. X 3.4 flare on 2006/12/13X1.5 flare on 2006/12/14

21. Pre-flare vs. post-flare sheared core field (Dec 13 flare)  Post-flare core field is less sheared than the pre-flare core field  Reformation or partial eruption of the filament

22. Pre-flare vs. post-flare sheared core field (Dec 14 flare)  Post-flare core field is less sheared than the pre-flare core field  Reformation or partial eruption of the filament

23. Summary  The formation of the sheared core field is caused by the CCW rotation and west-to-east motion of an emerging sunspot.  XRT observations of partial eruption of the sheared core field may explain the existence of the filament after the flare.  Post-flare core field is much less sheared than the pre-flare core field, which is consistent with the scenario that the energy released during the flare is stored in the highly sheared core field.

24. Thank you for your attention !

27. Part of the sheared cored fields erupted, Part of the sheared core fields stayed behind