ASTRONOMY AND

ASTROPHYSICS LIBRARY
Series Editors: G. Börner, Garching, Germany
A. Burkert, München, Germany
W. B. Burton, Charlottesville, VA, USA and
Leiden, The Netherlands
M. A. Dopita, Canberra, Australia
A. Eckart, Köln, Germany
T. Encrenaz, Meudon, France
E. K. Grebel, Heidelberg, Germany
B. Leibundgut, Garching, Germany
J. Lequeux, Paris, France
A. Maeder, Sauverny, Switzerland
V. Trimble, College Park, MD, and Irvine, CA, USA
Kenneth R. Lang

The Sun from Space

Second Edition

123
Kenneth R. Lang
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Tufts University
Medford MA 02155
USA
[email protected]

Cover image: Solar cycle magnetic variations. These magnetograms portray the polarity and distribution
of the magnetism in the solar photosphere. They were made with the Vacuum Tower Telescope of the
National Solar Observatory at Kitt Peak from 8 January 1992, at a maximum in the sunspot cycle (lower
left) to 25 July 1999, well into the next maximum (lower right). Each magnetogram shows opposite
polarities as darker and brighter than average tint. When the Sun is most active, the number of sunspots is
at a maximum, with large bipolar sunspots that are oriented in the east–west (left–right) direction within
two parallel bands. At times of low activity (top middle), there are no large sunspots and tiny magnetic
fields of different magnetic polarity can be observed all over the photosphere. The haze around the images
is the inner solar corona. (Courtesy of Carolus J. Schrijver, NSO, NOAO and NSF.)

ISBN: 978-3-540-76952-1 e-ISBN: 978-3-540-76953-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2008933407


c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication
or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9,
1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Violations are
liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply,
even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws
and regulations and therefore free for general use.

Cover design: eStudio Calamar S.L.

Printed on acid-free paper

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

springer.com
This book is dedicated to everyone who is
curious, imaginative, and intelligent, thereby
strengthening the human spirit.
Preface to the Second Edition

The First Edition of The Sun from Space, completed in 1999, focused on the early
accomplishments of three solar spacecraft, SOHO, Ulysses, and Yohkoh, primarily
during a minimum in the Sun’s 11-year cycle of magnetic activity. The compre-
hensive Second Edition includes the main findings of these three spacecraft over
an entire activity cycle, including two minima and a maximum, and discusses the
significant results of six more solar missions. Four of these, the Hinode, RHESSI,
STEREO, and TRACE missions were launched after the First Edition was either
finished or nearly so, and the other two, the ACE and Wind spacecraft, extend our
investigations from the Sun to its varying input to the Earth.
The Second Edition does not contain simple updates or cosmetic patch ups to the
material in the First Edition. It instead contains the relevant discoveries of the past
decade, integrated into chapters completely rewritten for the purpose. This provides
a fresh perspective to the major topics of solar enquiry, written in an enjoyable,
easily understood text accessible to all readers, from the interested layperson to the
student or professional.
The main scientific accomplishments of the ACE, RHESSI, SOHO, TRACE,
Ulysses, and Wind missions, which are included in their 2005 Senior Review Pro-
posals, have been described in Chapter 1 and included in greater detail in the rele-
vant chapters. (Yohkoh completed its decade-long scrutiny of the X-ray Sun in 2001,
while Hinode and STEREO were not launched until late 2006.)
Members of the Solar Physics Community were consulted about key discover-
ies or important reviews during the past decade. Persons who provided important
review articles or other significant new information include Loren Acton, Markus
J. Aschwanden, Eugene H. Avrett, Sarbani Basu, Paul M. Bellan, Benjamin D. G.
Chandran, James Chen, Steven R. Cranmer, George A. Doschek, Murray Dryer,
Peter Foukal, Joseph V. Hollweg, Gordon D. Holman, Stephen W. Kahler, James
A. Klimchuk, Jun Lin, Donald Liebenberg, Noé Lugaz, Ward Manchester, Scott
W. McIntosh, Mark Miesch, Ronald L. Moore, Judit Pap, Eugene Parker, Alexei A.
Pevtsov, Arthur I. Poland, Arik Posner, Ilia Roussev, Wilfred Schröder, Leonard
Strachan, Yi-Ming Wang, David F. Webb, Thomas N. Woods, Jie Zhang, and
Thomas H. Zurbuchen.
Draft chapters were then sent to experts in the field, who have provided important
suggestions for changes, deletions, and omissions. They are: Loren Acton, Markus

vii
viii Preface to the Second Edition

Aschwanden, George Doschek, Leon Golub, Bernhard Fleck, Arik Posner, Takashi
Sakurai, Carolus Schrijver, and Saku Tsuneta for the introductory Chapter 1; each
commenting on the spacecraft they are most familiar with; Steven Cranmer for
Chapter 2; Thomas Duval, Bernhard Fleck, John Harvey, Rachel Howe, Mark
Miesch, and Junwei Zhao for Chapter 3; Loren Acton, Markus Aschwanden, and
Steven Cranmer for Chapter 4; Steven Cranmer, John Kohl, Edward Stone, Yi-Ming
Wang, and Thomas Zurbuchen for Chapter 5; Markus Aschwanden, Arnold Benz,
Richard Canfield, Terry Forbes, Stephen Kahler, Ronald Moore, Alexei Pevtsov, and
Jie Zhang for parts of Chapter 6, and Peter Foukal, Stephen Kahler, Alexei Pevtsov,
David Webb, and Thomas Woods for Chapter 7.
The combination of Senior Reviews, advice from the Solar Physics Community,
and careful reading of individual chapters by experts in the field have assured that
the text is fully up to date and complete.
The First Chapter of the Second Edition describes the scientific objectives of
each of the nine solar missions, together with the instruments that are being used to
accomplish these objectives. The Second Chapter retains the historical perspective
to studies of the Sun and heliosphere found in the First Edition, including semi-
nal contributions to our understanding of the Sun during the past century. The next
five chapters present key improvements in our understanding of the solar interior;
the heating of the million-degree outer atmosphere of the Sun, known as the solar
corona; the origin and nature of the Sun’s winds; the cause, prediction, and propa-
gation of explosive solar flares and coronal mass ejections; and all aspects of space-
weather interactions of the Sun with either the Earth or with unprotected astronauts
and spacecraft in outer space or on the Moon or Mars.
Each of these five chapters ends with Summary Highlights of key ideas and fun-
damental discoveries in capsule form, followed by a time line of significant events
in our understanding of the Sun, updated to include recent results. An Appendix
provides Internet Addresses for the spacecraft and the topics of each book chapter.
The Second Edition of The Sun from Space ends with comprehensive references to
more than 2,500 fundamental research papers and review articles.
Since the publication of the First Edition, the Ulysses spacecraft has completed
a second orbit over the solar poles, during a maximum in the solar activity cycle.
After more than 17 years of pioneering solar science, the Ulysses mission ended on
1 July 2008. As shown in this Second Edition, Ulysses has therefore determined the
distribution of solar wind velocities and, together with other solar spacecraft, helped
identify the wind sources at both activity maximum and minimum. The Second Edi-
tion also presents the results of years of observations of solar oscillations acquired
by SOHO, which probe the rotation and motions of the solar interior, as well as ex-
tensive new SOHO data on the magnetic structure of the solar wind sources, and the
powerful, explosive solar flares that are triggered and powered by magnetic recon-
nection in the low solar corona.
The main results of the Transition Region And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated
TRACE and launched on 1 April 1998, are also included in this Second Edition of
The Sun from Space. It has obtained significant new information about the nature
Preface to the Second Edition ix

of the magnetic loops that thread the solar corona and the sources of heating the
million-degree solar corona.
The new edition additionally includes the seminal findings of the Ramaty High
Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager, or RHESSI for short, launched on 5
February 2002. It has used images and spectroscopy of the high-energy radiation
from solar flares to explore the basic physics of particle acceleration and explo-
sive energy release, including new information about magnetic reconnection and
the emission of the neutron capture and pair-annihilation lines during solar flares.
The Second Edition of The Sun from Space provides an account of the initial dis-
coveries of the Japanese Hinode (formerly known as Solar-B) spacecraft launched
on 23 September 2006. It consists of a coordinated set of optical, EUV, and X-ray
instruments that study the interaction between the Sun’s magnetic field and its high-
temperature, ionized atmosphere. They measure the detailed density, temperature,
and velocity structures in the visible solar disk, the photosphere, the low corona, and
the transition region between them with high spatial, spectral, and temporal resolu-
tion, resulting in new information about the Sun’s varying magnetism and its rela-
tionship to solar flares and the expansion of the solar corona into the Sun’s winds.
Also included are significant new findings of NASA’s Solar TErrestrial REla-
tions Observatory, or STEREO for short, launched on 25 October 2006. It is a pair
of spacecraft, leading and lagging the Earth in its orbit, which investigates the origin,
evolution, and interplanetary consequences of the billion-ton solar eruptions known
as coronal mass ejections. The combined observations from the two STEREO space-
craft provide a three-dimensional view of these outbursts, from their onset at the Sun
to the orbit of the Earth, improving our understanding of these solar explosions and
our ability to predict their trajectories and consequences.
This Second Edition of The Sun from Space emphasizes the human impact of
NASA solar missions, with a full discussion of their implications for Sun-driven
space weather. Our technological society has become increasingly vulnerable to
these storms from the Sun, both on Earth and in the human and robotic exploration
of the heliosphere. Solar flares or coronal mass ejections may affect the health and
safety of travelers in space, influence the habitability of the Moon or Mars, and
damage or disable spacecraft both near the Earth and in outer space.
Instruments aboard RHESSI, SOHO, and Hinode are, for example, helping us un-
derstand and forecast solar flares. These catastrophic outbursts can suddenly flood
the solar system with intense radiation and energetic particles, releasing energy
equivalent to millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time.
The X-rays from a solar flare modify our atmosphere, disrupt radio communica-
tions, and alter satellite orbits. The energetic particles that are hurled out into inter-
planetary space during solar flares can threaten the safety of unprotected astronauts
traveling beyond the safety of the Earth’s magnetic field to the Moon or Mars. These
flare particles can also damage or destroy satellites used for communication, navi-
gation, and military reconnaissance and surveillance.
The instruments aboard SOHO and STEREO are additionally providing new in-
sights to the mechanisms and prediction of coronal mass ejections; giant magnetic
bubbles that expand as they propagate outward from the Sun to rapidly rival it
x Preface to the Second Edition

in size. These violent eruptions throw billions of tons of material into interplan-
etary space, and their associated shocks accelerate and propel vast quantities of
high-speed particles ahead of them. They can produce spectacular auroras, create in-
tense geomagnetic storms, and disrupt satellites, radio communications, and Earth’s
power systems. Energetic particles associated with coronal mass ejections can also
be hazardous to spacecraft and astronauts traveling to the Moon or exploring its
surface.
Special thanks are extended to Joe Bredekamp and Bill Wagner at NASA Head-
quarters. They have actively encouraged the writing of this book and helped fund
it through NASA Grant NNX07AU93G entitled NASA’S COSMOS, with funding
evenly split between NASA’s Solar and Heliospheric Physics SR&T Program and
NASA’s Applied Information Systems Research Program.

Tufts University and Anguilla, Kenneth R. Lang

British West Indies
New Year’s Eve, 2008
Preface to the First Edition

Our familiar, but often inscrutable, star exhibits a variety of enigmatic phenomena
that have continued to defy explanations. Our book begins with a brief account
of these unsolved mysteries. Scientists could not, for example, understand how
the Sun’s intense magnetism is concentrated into dark sunspots that are as large
as the Earth and thousands of times more magnetic. Nor did they know exactly how
the magnetic fields are generated within the Sun, for no one could look inside it.
Another long-standing mystery is the million-degree solar atmosphere, or corona,
that lies just above the cooler, visible solar disk, or photosphere. Heat should not
emanate from a cold object to a hotter one anymore than water should flow up hill.
Researchers have hunted for the elusive coronal heating mechanism for more than
half a century.
The Sun’s hot and stormy atmosphere is continuously expanding in all directions,
creating a relentless solar wind that seems to blow forever. The exact sources for
all the wind’s components, and the mechanisms for accelerating it to supersonic
velocities, remained perplexing problems as well.
The relatively calm solar atmosphere can be violently disrupted by powerful ex-
plosions, filling the solar system with radio waves, X-rays, and gamma rays, and
hurling charged particles out into space at nearly the speed of light. Other solar ex-
plosions, called Coronal Mass Ejections, throw billions of tons of coronal gases into
interplanetary space, creating powerful gusts in the solar wind. Yet, we have only
just begun to understand the detailed causes of the Sun’s explosive outbursts, and
no one has been able to predict exactly when they will occur.
In less than a decade, three pioneering spacecraft, named the SOlar and Helio-
spheric Observatory, or SOHO for short, Ulysses, and Yohkoh, have transformed our
perception of the Sun. They are also described in the introductory chapter, together
with their principal scientific goals. This scientific troika has examined the Sun with
exquisitely sensitive and precise instruments that have widened our range of percep-
tion, giving us the eyes to see the invisible and the hands to touch what cannot be
felt. They have extended our gaze from the visible solar disk, down to the hidden
core of the Sun and out in all directions through the Sun’s tenuous, expanding atmo-
sphere. SOHO, Ulysses, and Yohkoh have together provided insights that are vastly
more focused and detailed than those of previous solar missions, providing clues to
many of the crucial, unsolved problems in our understanding of the Sun.

xi
xii Preface to the First Edition

Scientific discoveries are usually not isolated “eureka” moments, occurring in

a mental or experiential vacuum. They are built upon a foundation of previous in-
vestigations and extrapolated into the future. Our recent accomplishments in solar
physics are the culmination of a long history of prior research, from the earliest op-
tical and radio telescopes to rockets and then full-fledged spacecraft such as Skylab,
Helios 1 and 2, and the Solar Maximum Mission.
The second chapter of our book describes the discovery of space, providing the
historical framework needed to understand subsequent results. Here we also intro-
duce ideas and terms that have become so common to our space-age vocabulary that
even many practicing scientists have forgotten their origin and meaning.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, just half a century ago most people visualized our
planet as a solitary sphere traveling in a cold, dark vacuum around the Sun. Inquisi-
tive spacecraft have now shown that the space outside the Earth’s atmosphere is not
empty, and demonstrated that the Earth and other planets are immersed within an
eternal, stormy wind. The solar wind is mainly composed of electrons and protons,
set free from hydrogen atoms, the most abundant element in the Sun, but it also
contains heavier ions and a magnetic field.
The second chapter also describes the discovery that intense magnetism pervades
the Sun’s atmosphere, creating an 11-year variation in the level of explosive solar
activity, as well as the amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth from the space out-
side our solar system. X-ray photographs from rockets and the Skylab Space Station
demonstrated that the Sun’s magnetic fields mold and constrain the million-degree
gases found in the low solar atmosphere. Long-lasting coronal holes, without any
detectable X-ray radiation in Skylab’s photographs, were also compared with other
spacecraft measurements to show that these places expel a high-speed solar wind.
Contextual and historical preludes are also woven into the texture of subsequent
chapters, and usually presented in chronological order. Every chapter, except the
first, contains a concluding time-line table that highlights key events and discoveries
in the area under consideration. Complete references to seminal articles are given at
the end of this book. The reader can consult these fundamental research papers for
further details on important scientific results, from centuries ago to the present day.
Set-aside focus elements are also inserted throughout the text, which enhance and
amplify the discussion with interesting details or fundamental physics. They will be
read by the curious person or serious student, but do not interfere with the general
flow of the text and can be bypassed by the educated reader who wants to follow the
main ideas.
The discovery of how the Sun shines by thermonuclear reactions within its hot,
dense core is spelled out in the beginning of the third chapter of our book. It then de-
scribes how the unseen depths of the Sun are being probed using the new science of
helioseismology. Today, we can peel back the outer layers of the Sun, and glimpse
inside it by observing widespread throbbing motions in the Sun’s visible material.
Helioseismologists decipher these oscillations, caused by sounds trapped within the
Sun, to reveal its internal constitution. This procedure resembles Computed Axial
Tomography (CAT) scans that derive views inside our bodies from numerous read-
ings of X-rays that cross them from different directions.
Preface to the First Edition xiii

The Sun’s internal sound waves have been used as a thermometer, taking the
temperature of the Sun’s energy-generating core and showing that it agrees with
model predictions. This strongly disfavors any astrophysical solution for the solar
neutrino problem in which massive subterranean instruments always come up short,
detecting only one-third to one-half the number of neutrinos that theory says they
should detect. The ghostly neutrinos seem to have an identity crisis, transforming
themselves on the way out of the Sun into a form that we cannot detect and a flavor
that we cannot taste.
SOHO’s helioseismology instruments have shown how the Sun rotates inside,
using the Doppler effect in which motion changes the pitch of sound waves. Regions
near the Sun’s poles rotate with exceptionally slow speeds, while the equatorial
regions spin rapidly. This differential rotation persists to about a third of the way
inside the Sun, where the rotation becomes uniform from pole to pole. The Sun’s
magnetism is probably generated at the interface between the deep interior, which
rotates at one speed, and the overlying gas that spins faster in the equatorial middle.
Internal flows have also been discovered by the SOHO helioseismologists. White-
hot currents of gas move beneath the Sun we see with our eyes, streaming at a
leisurely pace when compared to the rotation. They circulate near the equator, and
between the equator and poles.
In the fourth chapter, we describe the tenuous, million-degree gas called the
corona that lies outside the sharp apparent edge of the Sun. The visible solar disk is
closer to the Sun’s core than the million-degree corona, but is several hundred times
cooler. This violates common sense, as well as the second law of thermodynamics,
which holds that heat cannot be continuously transferred from a cooler body to a
warmer one without doing work.
Attempts to solve the Sun’s heating crisis are also discussed in the fourth chapter.
The paradox cannot be solved by sunlight, which passes right through the transpar-
ent corona, and spacecraft have shown that sound waves cannot get out of the Sun
to provide the corona’s heat. Moreover, when SOHO focuses in on the material just
above the photosphere, it all seems to be falling down into the Sun, so nothing seems
to be carrying the heat out into the overlying corona.
Yohkoh and SOHO images at X-ray and extreme-ultraviolet wavelengths have
provided some solutions to the coronal heating problem, in which the million-degree
outer solar atmosphere overlies the Sun’s cooler visible disk. They have shown that
the hottest, densest material in the low corona is concentrated within thin, long mag-
netized loops that are in a state of continual agitation. Wherever the magnetism is
strongest, the coronal gas is hottest. These magnetic loops are often coming together,
releasing magnetic energy when they make contact. This provides a plausible expla-
nation for heating the low corona.
The hot coronal gases are expanding out in all directions, filling the solar
system with a ceaseless flow – called the solar wind – that contains electrons,
protons, and other ions, and magnetic fields. The fifth chapter provides a de-
tailed discussion of this solar wind, together with recent investigations into its ori-
gin and acceleration. Early spacecraft measurements showed that the Sun’s wind
blows hard and soft. That is, there are two kinds of wind, a fast one moving at
xiv Preface to the First Edition

about 750 km s−1 and a slow one with about half that speed. Ulysses provided
the first measurements of the solar wind all around the Sun, conclusively show-
ing that much of the steady, high-speed wind squirts out of polar coronal holes.
A capricious, gusty, slow wind emanates from the Sun’s equatorial regions near
the minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle when the SOHO and Ulysses
measurements were made. The high-speed wind is accelerated very close to the
Sun, within just a few solar radii, and the slow component obtains full speed fur-
ther out.
SOHO instruments have unexpectedly demonstrated that oxygen ions move
faster than protons in coronal holes. Absorbing more power from magnetic waves
might preferentially accelerate the heavier ions, as they gyrate about open mag-
netic fields. Ulysses has detected magnetic waves further out above the Sun’s poles,
where the waves apparently block the incoming cosmic rays. Instruments aboard
SOHO have also pinpointed the source of the high-speed wind; it is coming out of
honeycomb-shaped magnetic fields at the base of coronal holes.
Our sixth chapter describes sudden, brief, and intense outbursts, called solar
flares, which release magnetic energy equivalent to billions of nuclear bombs on
Earth. The Sun’s flares flood the solar system with intense radiation across the full
electromagnetic spectrum from the longest radio wavelengths to the shortest X-rays
and gamma rays. The radio bursts provide evidence for the ejection of very energetic
particles into space, either as electron beams moving at nearly the speed of light or
as the result of shock waves moving out at a more leisurely pace.
The Solar Maximum Mission, abbreviated SMM, and Yohkoh spacecraft have
shown that solar flares also hurl high-speed electrons and protons down into the
Sun, colliding with the denser gas and emitting hard X-rays and gamma rays. Soft
X-ray observations indicate that Earth-sized regions can be heated to about ten mil-
lion degrees during the later stages of a solar flare, becoming about as hot as the
center of the Sun.
Magnetic bubbles of surprising proportion, called Coronal Mass Ejections, or
CMEs for short, are also discussed in the sixth chapter. They have been routinely de-
tected with instruments on board several solar satellites, most recently from SOHO.
The CMEs expand as they propagate outward from the Sun to rapidly rival it in size,
and carry up to ten billion tons of coronal material away from the Sun. Their as-
sociated shocks accelerate and propel vast quantities of high-speed particles ahead
of them.
The sixth chapter additionally describes how explosive solar activity can occur
when magnetic fields come together and reconnect in the corona. Stored magnetic
energy is released rapidly at the place where the magnetic fields touch. Here we also
discuss how high-speed particles, released from solar flares or accelerated by CME
shock waves, have been directly measured in situ by spacecraft in interplanetary
space. These spacecraft also detect intense radiation, shock waves and magnetic
fields.
The seventh chapter describes how forceful coronal mass ejections can create in-
tense magnetic storms on Earth, trigger intense auroras in the skies, damage or de-
stroy Earth-orbiting satellites, and induce destructive power surges in long-distance
Preface to the First Edition xv

transmission lines on Earth. These solar ejections travel to the Earth in a few days,
so there is some warning time.
Intense radiation from a solar flare reaches the Earth’s atmosphere in just 8 min,
moving at the speed of light – the fastest thing around. Flaring X-rays increase the
ionization of our air, and disrupt long-distance radio communications. A satellite’s
orbit around the Earth can be disturbed by the enhanced drag of the expanded atmo-
sphere.
The Earth’s magnetic field shields us from most of the high-speed particles
ejected by solar flares or accelerated by CME shock waves, but the energetic charged
particles can endanger astronauts in space and destroy satellite electronics. Some of
the particles move at nearly the speed of light, so there is not much time to seek pro-
tection from their effects. If we knew the solar magnetic changes preceding these
violent events, then spacecraft could provide the necessary early warning. As an ex-
ample, when the coronal magnetic fields get twisted into an S, or inverted S, shape,
they are probably getting ready to release a mass ejection.
As our civilization becomes increasingly dependent on sophisticated systems in
space, it becomes more vulnerable to this Sun-driven space weather, which is tuned
to the rhythm of the Sun’s 11-year magnetic activity cycle. It is of such vital im-
portance that national centers employ space-weather forecasters, and continuously
monitor the Sun from ground and space to warn of threatening solar events.
As also described in the seventh chapter, solar X-ray and ultraviolet radiation
are extremely variable, changing in step with the 11-year cycle of magnetic activity.
The fluctuating X-rays produce substantial alterations of the Earth’s ionosphere, and
the changing ultraviolet modulates our ozone layer. The varying magnetic activity
also changes the Sun’s total brightness, but to a lesser degree. During the past 130
years, the Earth’s surface temperature has been associated with decade-long varia-
tions in solar activity, perhaps because of changing cloud cover related to the Sun’s
modulation of the amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth. Observations of the bright-
ness variations of Sun-like stars indicate that they are capable of a wider range of
variation in total radiation than has been observed for the Sun so far.
Radioactive isotopes found in tree rings and ice cores indicate that the Sun’s ac-
tivity has fallen to unusually low levels at least three times during the past 1,000
years, each drop corresponding to a long cold spell of roughly a century in dura-
tion. Further back in time, during the past one million years, our climate has been
dominated by the recurrent ice ages, each lasting about 100,000 years. They are
explained by three overlapping astronomical cycles, which combine to alter the dis-
tribution and amount of sunlight falling on Earth.
Our book ends with a description of the Sun’s distant past and remote future. The
Sun is gradually increasing in brightness with age, by a startling 30% over the 4.5
billion years since it began to shine. This slow, inexorable brightening ought to have
important long-term terrestrial consequences, but some global thermostat has kept
the Earth’s surface temperature relatively unchanged, as the Sun grew brighter and
hotter. A powerful atmospheric greenhouse might have warmed the young Earth,
gradually weakening over time, or plants and animals might have beneficially con-
trolled their environment for the past 3 billion years. The Sun’s steady increase in
xvi Preface to the First Edition

luminous intensity is nevertheless expected to boil our oceans away in about 3 bil-
lion years; and the Sun will expand into a giant star in another 4 billion years. It will
then engulf Mercury, melt the Earth’s surface rocks, and turn the frozen moons of
the distant giant planets into globes of liquid water.
I am very grateful to my expert colleagues who have read portions of this book,
and commented on its accuracy, clarity, and completeness, substantially improving
the manuscript. They include Loren W. Acton, Markus J. Aschwanden, W. Ian Ax-
ford, Arnold O. Benz, Richard C. Canfield, Edward L. Chupp, Edward W. Cliver,
George A. Doschek, A. Gordon Emslie, Bernhard Fleck, Peter V. Foukal, Claus
Fröhlich, John W. Harvey, Hugh S. Hudson, Stephen W. Kahler, Mukul R. Kundu,
John W. Leibacher, Michael E. Mann, Richard G. Marsden, Ronald L. Moore, Eu-
gene N. Parker, John C. Raymond, Andrew P. Skumanich, Charles P. Sonett, Bar-
bara Thompson, Virginia L. Trimble, Bruce T. Tsurutani, Yi-Ming Wang, and David
F. Webb.
Locating quality figures is perhaps the most time-consuming and frustrating
aspect of producing a volume like this, so I am especially thankful for the sup-
port of ESA, ISAS, and NASA for providing them. Individuals that were espe-
cially helpful in locating and providing specific images include Loren W. Acton,
David Alexander, Cary Anderson, Frances Bagenel, Richard C, Canfield, Michael
Changery, David Chenette, Fred Espenak, Bernhard Fleck, Eigil Friis-Christensen,
Claus Fröhlich, Bruce Goldstein, Leon Golub, Steele Hill, Gordon Holman, Beth
Jacob, Imelda Joson, Therese Kucera, Judith Lean, William C. Livingston, Michael
E. Mann, Richard Marsden, Michael J. Reiner, Thomas Rimmele, Kazunari Shibata,
Gregory Lee Slater, Barbara Thompson, Haimin Wang, and Joachim Woch.
In conclusion, this book uses the International System of Units (Systeme Interna-
tional, SI) for most quantities, but the reader should be warned that centimeter-gram-
second (c.g.s.) units are employed in the nearly all of the seminal papers referenced
in this book. Moreover, many solar astronomers still use the c.g.s. units. The fol-
lowing Table P.1 provides unit abbreviations and conversions between units. Some
other common units are the nanometer (nm) with 1 nm = 10−9 meters, the Angstrom
unit of wavelength, where 1 Angstrom = 1 Å = 10−10 meters = 10−8 centimeters,

Table P.1 Principal SI units and their conversion to corresponding c.g.s. units
Quantity SI units Conversion to c.g.s. units

Length Meter (m) 100 centimeters (cm)

Nanometer (nm) = 10−9 m 10−7 cm = 10 Angstroms = 10 A
Mass Kilogram (kg) 1,000 grams (g)
Velocity Meter per second (m s−1 ) 100 centimeters per second (cm s−1 )
Energy∗ Joule (J) 10,000,000 erg
Power Watt (W) = Joule per 10, 000, 000 erg s−1
second (J s−1 )
Magnetic flux density Tesla (T) 10,000 Gauss (G)
∗ The energy of high-energy particles and X-ray radiation are often expressed in units of kilo-

electron volts, or keV, where 1 keV = 1.602 × 10−16 Joule, or MeV = 1, 000 keV.
Preface to the First Edition xvii

the nanoTesla (nT) unit of magnetic flux density, where 1 nT = 10−9 Tesla = 10−5
Gauss, the electron volt (eV) unit of energy, with 1 eV = 1.6 × 10−19 Joule, and
the ton measurement of mass, where 1 ton = 103 kilograms. The accompanying
Table P.2 provides numerical values for solar quantities and fundamental constants.

Table P.2 Solar quantities and fundamental constants∗

Symbol Name Value

L Luminosity of Sun 3.854 × 1026 Joule s−1

M Mass of Sun 1.989 × 1030 kilograms
R Radius of Sun 6.955 × 108 meters
AU Mean distance of Sun 1.496 × 1011 meters
Te Effective temperature of photosphere 5780 Kelvin
c Velocity of light 2.9979 × 108 m s−1
−2
G Gravitational constant 6.6726 × 10−11 N m2 kg
k Boltzmann’s constant 1.38066 × 10−23 J K−1
h Planck’s constant 6.6261 × 10−34 J s
a Radiation density constant 7.5659 × 10−16 J m−3 K−4
me Mass of electron 9.1094 × 10−31 kg
e Charge of electron 1.6022 × 10−19 C
mH Mass of hydrogen atom 1.673534 × 10−27 kg
mp Mass of proton 1.672623 × 10−27 kg
ε Permittivity of free space 10−9 /(36π) = 8.854 × 10−12 F m−1
μ Permeability of free space 4π × 10−7 = 12.566 × 10−7 N A−2
∗ Adaptedfrom Lang (1991). One Joule per second = 1 J s−1 is equal to one Watt = 1 W. The unit
symbols are J for Joule, s for second, kg for kilogram, m for meter, K for degree Kelvin, C for
Coulomb, N for Newton, and A for ampere.
Contents

1 Instruments for a Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Solar Mysteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Yohkoh Detects Unrest on an Awesome Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Ulysses Moves into Unexplored Territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 Wind Investigates the Sun’s Varying Input to Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.5 The Sun Does Not Set for SOHO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.6 ACE Measures the Composition of High-Energy Particles
Bombarding Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.7 TRACE Focuses on Fine Details of the High-Temperature Gas . . . . . 30
1.8 High-Energy Solar Outbursts Observed with RHESSI . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.9 Hinode Observes How Varying Magnetic Fields Heat the Corona
and Power Explosive Outbursts There . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.10 STEREO Observes Coronal Mass Ejections in Three Dimensions
from the Sun to Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
1.11 Summary Highlights: Modern Solar Space Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2 Discovering Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.1 Space Is Not Empty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.1.1 Auroras and Geomagnetic Storms from the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.1.2 The Main Ingredients of the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.1.3 The Hot Solar Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.1.4 Discovery of the Solar Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.2 Touching the Unseen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.2.1 The First Direct Measurements of the Solar Wind . . . . . . . . . 64
2.2.2 Properties of the Solar Wind at Earth’s Orbit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.3 Cosmic Rays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.4 Pervasive Solar Magnetism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.4.1 Magnetic Fields in the Photosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.4.2 The 11-Year Magnetic Activity Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.4.3 Magnetic Fields in the Corona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.4.4 Interplanetary Magnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

xix
xx Contents

2.5 X-rays from the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

2.6 Solar Outbursts Send Energetic Radiation and Particles into Space . 89
2.6.1 Solar Flares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2.6.2 Erupting Prominences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2.6.3 Coronal Mass Ejections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2.7 Summary Highlights: Discovery of Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
2.8 Key Events in the Discovery of Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

3.1 What Makes the Sun Shine? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.1.1 The Sun’s Size, Mass, and Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.1.2 Nuclear Reactions in the Sun’s Central Regions . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.1.3 Solving the Solar Neutrino Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
3.2 How the Energy Gets Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3.3 Taking the Sun’s Pulse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.4 Looking Within the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.5 How the Sun Rotates Inside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3.6 Waves in the Sun’s Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.7 Internal Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.7.1 Early Work and New Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.7.2 Poleward Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.7.3 Zonal Flow Bands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.7.4 Internal Changes Over the 11-year Cycle
of Magnetic Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
3.8 Three-Dimensional Views of Sunspots and Active Regions . . . . . . . . 142
3.8.1 Looking Beneath Sunspots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
3.8.2 Swirling Flows Beneath Active Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.8.3 Detecting Active Regions on the Far Side of the Sun . . . . . . . 144
3.9 The Solar Dynamo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
3.10 Summary Highlights: Exploring the Inside of the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.11 Key Events in the Understanding of the Internal Constitution of
the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

4.1 Mysterious Heat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
4.2 Wave Heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
4.3 Heating Coronal Loops in Active Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
4.4 Heating the “Quiet” Corona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
4.4.1 Heat from Jets, Bright Points, Blinkers, Explosive Events,
and Interacting, Non-Flaring Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
4.4.2 Nanoflares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
4.4.3 The Magnetic Carpet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
4.5 How Hot Is a Coronal Hole? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
4.6 Summary Highlights: The Sun’s Heating Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4.7 Key Events in Coronal Heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Contents xxi

5 Winds Across the Void . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

5.1 The Fullness of Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
5.2 The Two Solar Winds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
5.3 Where Do the Sun’s Winds Come From? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
5.3.1 Source Regions of the Solar Winds Near Solar
Activity Minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
5.3.2 Source Regions of the Solar Winds Near
Solar Activity Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
5.3.3 Fast Wind Sources in Coronal Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
5.4 Getting Up to Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.5 Riding the Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
5.6 Magnetic Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5.6.1 Flowing Wide Open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5.6.2 Unexpected Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
5.7 Ingredients of the Sun’s Winds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
5.7.1 Different Sources, Varying Ionization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
5.7.2 Shocking Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
5.7.3 Pick-Ups Near and Far . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
5.7.4 Super-Hot and Undemocratic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
5.8 Edge of the Solar System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
5.9 Summary Highlights: The Sun’s Expanding Corona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5.10 Key Events in Studies of the Solar Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

6 Our Violent Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

6.1 Solar Outbursts of Awesome Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
6.2 Flare Ribbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
6.3 X-Ray Flares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
6.3.1 Soft X-Rays and Hard X-Rays from Solar Flares . . . . . . . . . . 261
6.3.2 A Model of Flaring X-Ray Emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
6.4 White-Light Flares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
6.5 Gamma Rays from Solar Flares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
6.6 Solar Radio Bursts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
6.7 Filaments Lift Off, Prominences Erupt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
6.8 Coronal Mass Ejections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
6.8.1 Coronagraph Observations of Coronal Mass Ejections . . . . . 287
6.8.2 Physical Properties of Coronal Mass Ejections . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
6.9 After the Blast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
6.9.1 Solar Flares Excite Coronal Loop Oscillations . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
6.9.2 Sunquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
6.9.3 Coronal Dimming After Coronal Mass Ejections . . . . . . . . . . 299
6.9.4 Large Flares Excite Global Waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
6.10.1 What We Do Not Know About Solar Outbursts . . . . . . . . . . . 301
6.10.2 Magnetic Reconnection During Solar Flares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
6.10.3 Extension of Magnetic Reconnection to Coronal
Mass Ejections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
6.10.4 Flares, Avalanches, and Earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
xxii Contents

6.10.5 All Twisted Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314

6.11 Summary Highlights: Solar Flares, Erupting Prominences, and
Coronal Mass Ejections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
6.12 Key Events in Understanding Solar Outbursts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

7 Space Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

7.1 The Space Weather Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
7.2 Forecasting Space Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
7.3 Solar Energetic Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
7.3.1 Energetic Particles Accelerated by Solar Flares or Coronal
Mass Ejection Shocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
7.3.2 Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections, Interplanetary
Shocks, and Magnetic Clouds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
7.3.3 Observations of Solar Energetic Particles
with Contemporary Spacecraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
7.3.4 Two Classes of Solar Energetic Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
7.4 Impacting Planet Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
7.4.1 Our Protective Magnetic Cocoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
7.4.2 Earth’s Magnetic Storms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
7.4.3 The Auroras – Cosmic Neon Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
7.4.4 High-Flying Humans at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
7.4.5 Failing to Communicate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
7.4.6 Satellites in Danger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
7.4.7 Varying Solar Radiation and Earth’s Changing Atmosphere . 367
7.5 Sun – Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
7.5.1 An Inconstant Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
7.5.2 Solar Variability and Climate Change
Over the Past 1,000 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
7.5.3 The Earth’s Rising Fever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
7.5.4 Climate Change Over Millions and Billions of Years . . . . . . . 381
7.6 Summary Highlights: Space Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
7.7 Key Events in the Discovery of Solar-Terrestrial Interactions . . . . . . 391

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
I. Solar Space Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
II. Helioseismology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
III. Space Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
IV. Solar Observatories and Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
V. Virtual Observatories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
VI. Educational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
VII. NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533

List of Figures

1.1 Anatomy of the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Coronal loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 The ultraviolet Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Spacecraft launch dates and the Sun’s activity cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 X-ray view of the solar cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.6 Distributions of solar wind speeds at solar minimum and maximum . 14
1.7 Coronal mass ejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.8 Magnetic loops made visible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.9 Stitching up the wound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.10 Flare spectral lines at high energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.11 Magnetic fields with high resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.12 Sigmoid details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.13 Colliding sunspots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

2.1 Aurora Borealis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2.2 Spectroheliograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.3 The red-faced Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.4 Eclipse corona streamers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.5 Sunspot group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.6 Solar magnetic activity cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.7 Magnetogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.8 Solar cycle magnetic variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.9 Magnetic and gas pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.10 Interplanetary magnetic sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.11 X-ray corona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.12 X-ray coronal loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2.13 X-ray bright points and jets in a coronal hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
2.14 A prominence erupts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

3.1 Sudbury neutrino observatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

3.2 How Sudbury works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

xxiii
xxiv List of Figures

3.3 Energy works its way out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

3.4 Double, double toil and trouble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.5 Doppler effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.6 Supergranulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
3.7 Internal contortions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
3.8 The pulsating Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.9 Oscillation frequency and angular degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
3.10 Sound paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.11 Radial variations of sound speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3.12 Internal rotation of the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.13 Gravity waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.14 Interior flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
3.15 What lies beneath a sunspot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.16 Looking through the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
3.17 Winding up the field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

4.1 Spicules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

4.2 Coronal loops shine in X-rays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.3 Loops during the solar cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
4.4 Loops heated from below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
4.5 Multiple narrow strands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
4.6 Loops at the edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
4.7 X-ray jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
4.8 Connecting magnetism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.9 Bright spots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
4.10 Magnetic carpet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.11 Carpet loop heights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
4.12 Different temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.13 Alfvén waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

5.1 The heliosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

5.2 Solar wind speeds at activity minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
5.3 Solar wind velocity and coronal electron temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
5.4 Coronal structures near sunspot minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
5.5 Magnetism at minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
5.6 Ballerina model of current sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
5.7 Winds and holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
5.8 Solar wind speeds at activity maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
5.9 Coronal structures following sunspot maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
5.10 Coronal rays in eclipse composite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
5.11 Fast and slow winds, open and closed magnetism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
5.12 Source of the high-speed solar wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
5.13 Coronal funnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.14 Slow winds break out slowly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
5.15 Fast winds accelerate rapidly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
List of Figures xxv

5.16 Heavier ions move faster than lighter ones in coronal holes . . . . . . . . . 221
5.17 Magnetic fields near and far . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
5.18 Magnetic spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
5.19 Co-rotating interaction regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
5.20 Edge of the solar system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
5.21 Stellar bow shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

6.1 Extreme-ultraviolet flare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

6.2 Eruptive prominence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
6.3 Ejection from the corona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
6.4 Flare ribbons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
6.5 Impulsive and gradual phases of a flare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
6.6 Bremsstrahlung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.7 Energy spectrum of flare electrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
6.8 Post-flare loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
6.9 Solar X-ray flare model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
6.10 Loop-top impulsive hard X-ray flare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
6.11 Double hard X-ray and white light flare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
6.12 Solar radio bursts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
6.13 Synchrotron radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
6.14 Twin prominences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
6.15 Erupting prominence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
6.16 Filament lifts off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
6.17 Twisted prominence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
6.18 Magnetic arcade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
6.19 Three-part coronal mass ejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
6.20 Model of three-part coronal mass ejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
6.21 Coronal mass ejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
6.22 Fatal impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
6.23 Loop oscillation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
6.24 Sunquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
6.25 Waves across the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
6.26 Cusp geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
6.27 Reconnection model of coronal jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
6.28 Model of solar eruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
6.29 Detailed model of coronal mass ejection and solar flare . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
6.30 The Sun getting ready to strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
6.31 Kinky flux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

7.1 Solar flare produces energetic particle storm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

7.2 Interplanetary CME shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
7.3 Magnetic cloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
7.4 Asymmetric magnetosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
7.5 Elements of the magnetosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
7.6 Magnetic connection on the backside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
xxvi List of Figures

7.7 The aurora oval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363

7.8 Unprotected from space weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
7.9 Sun-layered atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
7.10 Varying solar heating of the upper atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
7.11 Variations in the solar constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
7.12 Long periods of solar inactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
7.13 Rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
7.14 Astronomical cycles cause the ice ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
7.15 Ice age temperatures and greenhouse gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
7.16 The Sun’s fate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
List of Focus Elements

1.1 SOHO Lost in Space and Recovered from Oblivion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.1 Escape from the Sun, Earth, and Moon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.2 Charged Particles Gyrate Around Magnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.3 The Zeeman Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.4 Magnetic and Gas Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.5 The Energy of Light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1 The Luminosity, Effective Temperature, and Central Temperature
of the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.2 The Proton–Proton Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
3.3 The Doppler Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.4 Expert Reviews About Helioseismology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.5 The Speed of Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
3.6 Confirming Einstein’s Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.7 Local Helioseismology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.1 Expert Reviews about Heating the Solar Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
4.2 Magnetohydrodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
5.1 Why a Solar Wind has to Exist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
5.2 Expert Reviews about the Solar Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
5.3 Temperature, Mass, and Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
5.4 Particles Gyrating about Magnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.5 The Heliosphere’s Outer Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
5.6 The Oort Comet Cloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
6.1 Expert Reviews about Energetic Solar Outbursts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
6.2 Bremsstrahlung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.3 Nuclear Reactions on the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
6.4 Terrestrial Gamma-Ray Flashes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
6.5 Exciting Plasma Oscillations in the Corona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
6.6 More than a Thousand Comets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
6.7 Mass, Mass Flux, Energy, and Time Delay of Coronal Mass
Ejections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

xxvii
xxviii List of Focus Elements

6.8 Energizing Solar Flares and Erupting Prominences by Magnetic

Reconnection – the CSHKP Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
6.9 Coronal Jets, Emerging Flux and Magnetic Reconnection . . . . . . . . . 307
6.10 Helicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
7.1 Expert Reviews about Space Weather Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
7.2 Tracking Solar Storms in Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
7.3 Turning Off the Lights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
7.4 The Greenhouse Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
List of Tables

P.1 Principal SI units and their conversion to corresponding c.g.s. units . xvi
P.2 Solar quantities and fundamental constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

1.1 Launch dates and instrument papers for nine solar missions . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Yohkoh’s instruments arranged alphabetically by acronym . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3 Yohkoh principal investigators and their institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 Ulysses’ instruments arranged alphabetically by acronym . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.5 Ulysses principal investigators and their institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.6 Wind’s instruments arranged alphabetically by acronym . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.7 Wind principal investigators and their institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.8 SOHO’s instruments arranged alphabetically by acronym within
three areas of investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.9 SOHO principal investigators and their institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.10 ACE instruments arranged alphabetically and by acronym . . . . . . . . . . 31
1.11 Hinode instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.12 Hinode principal investigators and their institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.13 STEREO’s instruments arranged alphabetically by acronym . . . . . . . . 45
1.14 STEREO principal investigators and their institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.1 Prominent absorption lines in photosphere sunlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2.2 Strong coronal forbidden emission lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.3 Relative importance of solar wind and radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.4 Mean values of solar wind parameters at the Earth’s orbit . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.5 Average fluxes of primary cosmic rays at the top of the atmosphere . . 70
2.6 Particle speeds at different particle energies, expressed as fractions
of the speed of light, c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.7 Dates of the minimum and maximum in solar activity since 1960 . . . 76

3.1 Physical parameters of the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

3.2 Differential rotation of the Sun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

xxix
xxx List of Tables

4.1 Coronal structures and their energy losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

4.2 Some prominent solar emission lines in the transition region and
low corona observed with the EIT instrument aboard SOHO . . . . . . . . 173
4.3 TRACE spectral regions and temperature range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

5.1 Average solar wind parameters measured from Helios 1 and 2

between December 1974 and December 1976 normalized to the
distance of the Earth’s orbit at 1 AU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

6.1 Solar flare X-ray classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

6.2 Some important gamma-ray lines from solar flares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
6.3 Types of solar radio bursts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
6.4 Space-borne orbiting coronagraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
6.5 Physical properties of coronal mass ejections near the Sun . . . . . . . . . 293

7.1 Energy and flux of protons arriving at Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

7.2 Properties of impulsive and gradual solar energetic particle events . . . 354
Chapter 1
Instruments for a Revolution

1.1 Solar Mysteries

From afar, the Sun does not look very complex. To the casual observer, it is just
a smooth, uniform ball of gas. Close inspection, however, shows that the star is in
constant turmoil. The seemingly calm Sun is a churning, quivering, and explosive
body, driven by intense, variable magnetism.
The ultimate power source for the Sun’s relentless activity lies deep down in its
energy-generating core, where nuclear fusion releases radiation that works its way
out and eventually drives an overturning, convective motion of the solar gas just
below its visible disk, the photosphere (Fig. 1.1). The photosphere is the source of
all our visible light, the part of the Sun we see each day and the lowest, densest
level of the solar atmosphere. The overlying gas includes the thin chromosphere,
with a temperature of about 10,000 K, and the hot, extended corona at temperatures
of a few million Kelvin. Both the chromosphere and corona are so rarefied that
we look right through them, just as we see through the Earth’s clean air. They are
separated by a narrow transition region, a highly variable, corrugated zone which is
dynamically modulated by brief, jet-like spicules that can shoot up for thousands of
kilometers.
Although we cannot see it with our eyes, the diffuse solar gas extends all the way
to the Earth and beyond. The gas is so hot, and moving so fast, that it overcomes
the Sun’s gravity and perpetually expands out into surrounding space. The Sun’s hot
and stormy atmosphere is carried throughout the solar system by these solar winds.
Contemporary solar spacecraft can observe the winds at their origin on the Sun and
sample its ingredients in situ, or in place, near the Earth’s orbit.
The entire solar atmosphere is permeated by magnetic fields that are generated
inside the Sun and rise up through the photosphere into the overlying atmosphere,
carrying energy with them. Dark islands on the Sun’s visible disk, called sunspots,
mark intense concentrations of magnetism, which can be as large as the Earth and
thousands of times more magnetic. Invisible magnetic arches loop between regions
of opposite magnetic polarity in the underlying photosphere (Fig. 1.2). Many of
these invisible coronal loops are filled with high-temperature, ionized gas, which is
detected by its extreme-ultraviolet or X-ray radiation (Fig. 1.3).

K.R. Lang, The Sun from Space, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, 1

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
2 1 Instruments for a Revolution

Fig. 1.1 Anatomy of the Sun. The Sun is an incandescent ball of ionized gas powered by the
fusion of hydrogen in its core. As shown in this interior cross-section, energy produced by nuclear
fusion is transported outward, first by countless absorptions and emissions within the radiative
zone, and then by convection. The visible disk of the Sun, called the photosphere, contains dark
sunspots, which are Earth-sized regions of intense magnetic fields. A transparent atmosphere en-
velops the photosphere, including the low-lying chromosphere with its jet-like spicules and the
million-degree corona that contains holes with open magnetic fields, the source of the high-speed
solar wind. Loops of closed magnetic fields constrain and suspend the hot million-degree gas within
coronal loops and cooler material in prominences

Driven by motions inside the Sun, and rooted in the photosphere, the coronal
loops rise, fall, move sideways, and interact, carrying energy with them. Their con-
centration varies with the 11-year solar activity cycle, delineated by the number of
sunspots and bright coronal loops joining them. Some of the magnetism is even car-
ried into interplanetary space by the Sun’s intense winds, providing channels for the
flow of energetic particles and modulating the effects of space weather.
This new perception of a volatile, ever-changing Sun has resulted in several fun-
damental, unsolved mysteries. Scientists could not, for example, understand how the
Sun generates its magnetic fields, which are responsible for most solar activity. Nor
did they know why some of this intense magnetism is concentrated into sunspots.
Furthermore, they could not explain why the Sun’s magnetic activity varies dramat-
ically, waning and intensifying again every 11 years or so. The answers to these
puzzles have been hidden deep down inside the Sun where its powerful magnetism
is generated.
1.1 Solar Mysteries 3

Fast Slow
Solar Solar
Open Wind Stalk Wind
Magnetic Coronal
Field Loop Coronal
Closed Streamer
Magnetic
Corona Field
T=2 million ºK
Chromosphere
Prominence T= 10,000 ºK

Photosphere T= 5,780 ºK

Fig. 1.2 Coronal loops. The corona is stitched together with the ubiquitous coronal loops that are
created when upwelling magnetic fields generated inside the Sun push through the photosphere
into the overlying chromosphere and corona. These closed magnetic structures are anchored in
the photosphere at footpoints of opposite magnetic polarity. Coronal loops can be filled with hot
gas that shines brightly at extreme ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths. Driven by motions in the
underling photosphere and below, the coronal loops twist, rise, shear, writhe, and interact, releasing
magnetic energy that can heat the solar corona and power intense solar flares or coronal mass
ejections. Large coronal loops are found in the bulb-like base of coronal steamers, whose long,
thin stalks extend out into space. Magnetic fields that are anchored in the photosphere at one end
can also be carried by the solar wind into interplanetary space, resulting in open magnetic fields
and a channel for the fast solar wind

Further out, the normally invisible solar atmosphere, the corona, presents one of
the most puzzling paradoxes of modern science. It is unexpectedly hot, reaching
temperatures of a few million Kelvin, which are several hundred times hotter than
the Sun’s underlying visible disk or photosphere. Heat simply should not flow out-
ward from a cooler to a hotter region. It violates the second law of thermodynamics
and common sense as well. After more than a half-century of speculations, scientists
still could not explain precisely how the million-degree corona is heated.
The high-temperature atmosphere creates an outward pressure that enables its
outward expansion in regions of open magnetic flux, filling the solar system with a
ceaseless flow – called the solar wind – that contains electrons, ions, and magnetic
fields. Early spacecraft obtained important information about the speed and particle
content of the solar wind, but the exact sources of all the wind’s components and the
mechanisms for accelerating it to high velocities remained longstanding mysteries.
Without warning, the relatively calm solar atmosphere can be torn asunder by
sudden, catastrophic outbursts of awesome scale. These short-lived solar flares
can flood the solar system with intense radiation and energetic particles, releas-
ing energy equivalent to millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the
same time.
The X-rays from a solar flare modify our atmosphere, disrupt radio communi-
cations, and alter satellite orbits. The energetic particles that are hurled out into
interplanetary space during solar flares can threaten unprotected astronauts travel-
ing beyond the safety of the Earth’s magnetic field to the Moon or Mars. These flare
4 1 Instruments for a Revolution

Fig. 1.3 The ultraviolet Sun. This composite image, taken by two instruments aboard the SO-
lar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, reveals the ultraviolet light of the Sun’s
atmosphere from the base of the corona to millions of kilometers above the visible solar disk. The
region outside the black circle, obtained by the UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer, abbrevi-
ated UVCS, instrument, shines in the ultraviolet light emitted by oxygen ions flowing away from
the Sun to form the solar wind. The inner image, obtained by the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging
Telescope, or EIT for short, shows the ultraviolet light emitted by iron ions at a temperature near
2 × 106 K. The overall structure is controlled by the solar magnetic field. Dark regions, known as
coronal holes, have open magnetic fields that extend into interplanetary space; they are the source
regions of the fast solar wind. Active regions are closed magnetic structures with very strong mag-
netic fields, and they mark the location of explosive solar outbursts known as solar flares. The
largest closed-field structures are found at the base of coronal steamers, shown here extending out
near the solar equator; they are related to the gusty, slow wind. [Courtesy of the SOHO UVCS
consortium (outer region) and the SOHO EIT consortium (inner region). SOHO is a project of
international cooperation between ESA and NASA.]

particles can also damage or destroy Earth-orbiting satellites used for communica-
tion, navigation, and military reconnaissance and surveillance.
Arching magnetic fields also suspend masses of relatively cool and dense ma-
terial within the million-degree corona. These filaments are huge structures, bigger
than active-region coronal loops and sometimes large enough to stretch from the
Earth to the Moon. A quiescent filament can remain for weeks or even months at a
time, never falling down, and then suddenly lose its equilibrium as the result of some
sort of magnetic or kink instability, and erupt, carrying vast quantities of material
into space.
1.1 Solar Mysteries 5

Other explosive outbursts from the Sun hurl billions of tons of coronal gases into
interplanetary space, producing strong gusts in the steady outward flow of the relent-
less solar wind. These giant magnetic bubbles, called coronal mass ejections, expand
as they propagate outward from the Sun to rapidly rival it in size. They are often as-
sociated with the eruption of an underlying filament and are frequently accompanied
by solar flares. Their associated shocks accelerate and propel vast quantities of high-
speed particles ahead of them. When impacting the Earth with the right magnetic
orientation, coronal mass ejections can produce spectacular auroras, create intense
magnetic storms on Earth, and disrupt satellites, radio communications, and Earth’s
power systems.
Energetic particles associated with coronal mass ejections can also be hazardous
to spacecraft and astronauts traveling to the Moon or Mars and exploring their sur-
faces. Yet, no one has been able to predict exactly when either solar flares or coronal
mass ejections will occur or exactly how they are created. So, despite their vital im-
portance for space weather, scientists have not yet been able to reliably warn and
protect astronauts and spacecraft from these powerful outbursts from the Sun.
In summary, there were many perplexing enigmas that resulted from our new
perception of the Sun. These unsolved puzzles include the internal generating mech-
anism for the Sun’s all-important magnetic field, the heating of the million-degree
corona, the origin and driving force of the solar wind, and the triggering and energy
source of the Sun’s unpredictable explosions, the solar flares and coronal mass ejec-
tions. While these mysteries were quite well established empirically, very little was
understood about the underlying physical causes. To clarify and help solve many of
these outstanding mysteries – and to better predict the Sun’s impact on our planet –
nine solar missions have been employed. Listed in the order of the date of their first
solar observations, they are named Yohkoh, Ulysses, Wind, SOHO, ACE, TRACE,
RHESSI, Hinode, and STEREO, with launch dates and references to instrument
papers given in Table 1.1.
As illustrated in Fig. 1.4, these nine solar missions have been launched near either
the minimum or the maximum of the Sun’s 11-year solar activity cycle, sometimes
viewing an entire subsequent cycle. This cycle is illustrated by the changing number
of sunspots, but all forms of solar activity vary in step with it, including solar flares,
coronal mass ejections, and even the total luminous output of the Sun.
The extraordinary results of the Yohkoh, Ulysses, Wind, SOHO, ACE, TRACE,
RHESSI, Hinode, and STEREO spacecraft are due to observations at wavelengths
that do not reach the ground, such as extreme-ultraviolet or soft X-ray radiation, by
direct detection of solar wind particles, and by observing visible sunlight in ways
that are impossible to achieve on the ground, such as high-resolution observations
unimpeded by the Earth’s obscuring atmosphere, precise detection of small varia-
tions in the Sun’s luminous output, and stereoscopic observations of coronal mass
ejections.
Virtual observatories now provide a way to find and access the data from all
of these missions, with tools for analyzing their results. The Virtual Heliospheric
Observatory is at http://vho.nasa.gov, and the Virtual Space Physics Observatory
can be found at http://vspo.gsfc.nasa.gov. The Virtual Solar Observatory has three
6 1 Instruments for a Revolution

Table 1.1 Launch dates and instrument papers for nine solar missions
Name Launch date Instrument papers
Yohkoh 30 August 1991 Y. Ogawara et al., T. Kosugi et al.,
(“sunbeam”) S. Tsuneta et al., M. Yoshimori et al.,
(Formerly and J. L. Culhane et al., Solar Physics
Solar-A) 136, 1–104 (1991). Also see
L. W. Acton et al., Science 258,
618–625 (1992).
Ulysses 6 October 1990 (First Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement
polar passage 13 Series, Ulysses Instruments Special
September 1994) Issue 92, No. 2, 207–440 (1992).
Wind 1 November 1994 M. H. Acuña et al., Space Science
Reviews 71, 5–21 (1995).
SOHO (SOlar 2 December 1995 V. Domingo et al., and numerous others,
and Solar Physics 162, 1–531 (1995).
Heliospheric
Observatory)
ACE (Advanced 25 August 1997 E. C. Stone, and nine co-investigators
Composition their colleagues, Space Science
Explorer) Reviews 86, No. 1–4 (1998).
TRACE 1 April 1998 B. N. Handy et al., Solar Physics 187,
(Transition 229–260 (1999). Also see
Region and C. J. Schrijver et al., Solar Physics 187,
Coronal 261–302 (1999).
Explorer)
RHESSI (Ramaty 5 February 2002 R. P. Lin et al., D. M. Smith et al.,
High Energy G. J. Hurford et al., Solar Physics 210,
Solar 3–32, 33–60, 61–86 (2002).
Spectroscopic
Imager)
Hinode 23 September 2006 T. Kosugi et al. (overview), J. L. Culhane
(“sunrise”) et al. (EIS), L. Golub et al. (XRT),
(Formerly Solar Physics 243, 3–17, 19–61 and
Solar-B) 63–86 (2007), and S. Tsuneta et al.
(SOT), Solar Physics 249, 167–196
(2008). Also see K. Shibata et al.,
Astronomical Society of the Pacific
Conference Series 369, 1–593 (2007).
STEREO (Solar 25 October 2006 M. L. Kaiser et al. (introduction),
TErrestrial J. L. Bougeret et al. (SWAVES),
RElations H. B. Galvin et al. (PLASTIC),
Observatory) R. A. Howard et al. (SECCHI), and
J. G. Luhmann et al. (IMPACT), Space
Science Reviews 136, Issues 1–4, 5–16,
487–586, 437–486, 67–115, 117–184
(2008).
1.2 Yohkoh Detects Unrest on an Awesome Scale 7

Yohkoh ACE
200
Ulysses Ulysses TRACE
(first polar
Number of Sunspots

passage) RHESSI STEREO

150
SOHO
100 Wind Hinode

50

0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Date

Fig. 1.4 Spacecraft launch dates and the Sun’s activity cycle. The launch dates of nine solar
missions are shown on this plot of the international sunspot number, recorded at monthly intervals
and smoothed. Two 11-year solar cycles of magnetic activity are included, each from a maximum
in sunspot numbers to a minimum number and back to a maximum. The acronyms are SOHO for
the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, ACE for the Advanced Composition Explorer, TRACE
for the Transition Region And Coronal Explorer, RHESSI for the Ramaty High Energy Solar Spec-
troscopic Imager, and STEREO for the Solar TErrestrial Relations Observatory. Although Yohkoh
was shut down in December 2001, all of the other eight spacecraft were still observing the Sun
throughout 2007

components, at the Goddard Space Flight Center, http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/vso,

at the National Solar Observatory, http://vso.nso.gov, and at Stanford University
http://vso.stanford.edu.
We will next give an account of the scientific objectives of each spacecraft, to-
gether with an outline of some of their significant discoveries and descriptions of
their instruments. The main part of this book will then explain their fascinating
results in greater detail.

1.2 Yohkoh Detects Unrest on an Awesome Scale

Scientists in Japan, the land of the rising Sun, have been particularly interested in
sudden, powerful outbursts called solar flares. These dynamic, short-lived events in-
volve the sudden release of enormous amounts of energy, both as intense radiation
in all regions of the electromagnetic spectrum and as accelerated particles whose
speeds approach the velocity of light. Such flares are best studied during the maxi-
mum in the 11-year solar activity cycle, when they occur most frequently.
Following its successful Hinotori, the Japanese word for “fire-bird,” solar flare
mission, launched on 21 February 1981, near a solar maximum, the Institute of
Space and Astronautical Science, abbreviated ISAS, in Japan organized a new
mission, initially called Solar-A. It was designed to investigate high-energy X-ray
and gamma ray radiations from the Sun. Solar flares would be studied with high
8 1 Instruments for a Revolution

angular and energy resolution during the next maximum in solar activity; quiescent,
non-flaring structures and pre-flare activity would also be scrutinized.
The 390-kg spacecraft was launched by ISAS from the Kagoshima Space Center
on 30 August 1991, into a 96-min, nearly circular Earth orbit. Following launch, the
mission was renamed Yohkoh, the Japanese word for “sunbeam.” After a decade of
studying high-energy processes on the Sun, Yohkoh was shut down due to a loss of
control during an annular solar eclipse on 14 December 2001.
The primary scientific objective of Yohkoh was to obtain high-resolution spatial
and temporal information about high-energy flare phenomena, permitting detailed
scrutiny of where and how flare energy is released and flare particle acceleration
takes place.
To accomplish its objectives, Yohkoh carried four co-aligned soft and hard X-
ray imaging and spectrometry instruments contributed by Japan, the United King-
dom, and the United States. The X-ray radiation resembles light waves, except
with shorter wavelengths and greater energy. A soft X-ray is one of relatively
long wavelength and low energy; this form of electromagnetic radiation has en-
ergies of 1–10 keV and wavelengths between 10−9 and 10−10 m. Hard X-rays have
shorter wavelengths, between 10−10 and 10−11 m, and higher energy, between 10
and 100 keV. Gamma rays are even shorter and more energetic. (The kilo-electron
volt, abbreviated keV, is a unit of energy. For conversions, 1 keV = 1.602 × 10−16 J
and the photon energy, E, associated with a wavelength λ in nm is E = (1.986 ×
10−16 /λ ) J, where 1 nm is 10−9 m.)
The Yohkoh telescopes had full-Sun fields of view with then unparalleled an-
gular and spatial resolution. The Hard X-ray Telescope, abbreviated HXT, imaged
hard X-rays emitted by high-speed electrons accelerated in impulsive flares. Both
the flaring and the quiescent, or non-flaring, Sun were detected at soft X-ray wave-
lengths with a rapid, uniform rate using the Soft X-ray Telescope, or SXT for short.
It routinely imaged high-temperature gas, above 2–3 × 106 K, across the solar disk.
The SXT observed the Sun with an accuracy and steadiness that permitted images at
invisible X-ray wavelengths which are as sharp and clear as pictures made in visible
wavelengths from telescopes on the ground.
Yohkoh also contained four Bragg Crystal Spectrometers, abbreviated BCS,
which were capable of measuring violent gas motions and upflowing gas at multi-
million degree temperatures in solar flares.
The soft X-ray and hard X-ray instruments on Yohkoh have been used to compare
the location and geometry of flaring sources to the topology of the solar magnetic
field. They have shown that solar flares and coronal mass ejections can be trig-
gered by magnetic reconnection, where oppositely directed magnetic fields merge
together, releasing the necessary energy at the place where they touch. This site
of magnetic energy release and particle acceleration is often just above low-lying
coronal loops, and attributed to the interaction of such loops. Yohkoh’s Soft X-ray
Telescope has additionally shown that solar flares or coronal mass ejections may be
triggered when the bright X-ray emitting coronal loops are twisted into a helical,
kinked, and twisted S-shape.
1.2 Yohkoh Detects Unrest on an Awesome Scale 9

The Soft X-ray Telescope has obtained more than six million images that have
been used to study how the hot gases evolve, interact, and change their magnetic
structure when a flare is not in progress, showing that the quiet Sun within and away
from active regions is in a continued state of change on both small and global scales.
Dynamic processes and transient events, such as bright points, faint nanoflares, and
jets, have been discovered and monitored. The intrepid spacecraft has shown that
the ever-changing corona has no permanent features and is never still, always in a
continued state of metamorphosis.
Yohkoh was also the first spacecraft to continuously observe the Sun in X-rays
over an entire solar activity cycle. Since the million-degree corona emits soft X-rays,
its Soft X-ray Telescope has provided information on the heating and expansion of
the high-temperature gas and tracked its dramatic year-to-year evolution over the
11-year cycle of solar magnetic activity (Fig. 1.5).
The Bragg Crystal Spectrometer’s aboard Yohkoh detected gas heated from
10,000 K in the chromosphere up to 20 × 106 K, flowing into flaring coronal loops
at typical speeds of 350 km s−1 and producing the copious soft X-ray emission seen
during flares. These motions were studied and compared with the prediction of the-
oretical models of flares. Turbulent motions in flaring gas of unknown origin on
the order of 150 km s−1 and decaying to 60 km s−1 or less were also observed from
the onset of flares into the decay phase. The BCS instruments were able to show

Fig. 1.5 X-ray view of the solar cycle. Dramatic changes in the solar corona are revealed in this
10-year montage of images from the Soft X-ray Telescope, abbreviated SXT, aboard Yohkoh. The
images are spaced in 4-month intervals from the time of the satellite’s launch in August 1991, at the
maximum phase of the 11-year solar activity cycle (left), through the minimum phase (center) and
on to the next maximum (right). The bright glow of X-rays near activity maximum comes from
very hot, million-degree coronal gases that are confined within the powerful magnetic fields of
active regions. Near the cycle minimum, the active regions have almost disappeared, and there is an
overall decrease in X-ray brightness by a factor of 100. (Courtesy of JAXA, NASA and LMSAL.)
10 1 Instruments for a Revolution

that the bulk of the gas in solar flares reaches a maximum temperature of about
23 × 106 K, or hotter than the center of the Sun. Some stellar flares can be much
hotter, and the reason for the solar limit is still unknown.
Yohkoh provides an excellent example of international cooperation. Even with
the challenge of a formidable language barrier, the Yohkoh team of scientists from
Japan, America, and England has collaborated and shared resources in a collegial
and trusting atmosphere, working shoulder-to-shoulder operating the spacecraft, an-
alyzing data and publishing results in an extremely austere staffing environment.
Yohkoh’s principal telemetry and operation control center was provided by ISAS
near Tokyo, Japan, while NASA obtained the telemetry data captured during passes
over its Deep Space Network ground stations in Goldstone, California, Canberra,
Australia, and Madrid, Spain. The operation of the Yohkoh mission has been the
responsibility of the Yohkoh science team. Interested scientists throughout the world
have shared data from all four instruments. All of the useable scientific data obtained
from all of the Yohkoh instruments are available at http://solar.physics.montana.edu/
ylegacy/, in forms convenient for use by non-experts. This Yohkoh legacy archive
includes flare catalogs, images and movies from the Soft X-ray Telescope, archival
documentation, and weekly science highlights from 1997 to 2002.
Detailed descriptions of the Yohkoh instruments are provided in Table 1.2.
The Principal Investigators of these instruments and their institutions are given in

Table 1.2 Yohkoh’s instruments arranged alphabetically by acronyma

Instrument Measurement
BCS The Bragg Crystal Spectrometer measured X-ray spectral lines of highly ionized
iron, Fe XXV and Fe XXVI, calcium, Ca XIX, and sulfur, S XV, between 0.18
and 0.51 nm with a time resolution as short as 0.125 s and across the full solar
disk. Subtract one from the ion symbol to get the number of missing electrons.
HXT The Hard X-ray Telescope imaged flare radiation with energy from 20 to 80 keV
in four channels, with an angular resolution of about 7 arcseconds, a time
resolution of 0.5 s and a field of view that includes the entire visible disk.
SXT The Soft X-ray Telescope achieved 4 s of arc spatial resolution and 2 s temporal
resolution, detecting radiation with energy between 0.6 and 4 keV
(2.07–0.31 nm) with a wide dynamic range (up to 200,000). It rendered images
taken at a uniform rate across the full solar disk for both the faint, quiescent
and intense flaring X-ray structures with temperatures above 2–3 × 106 K.
WBS The Wide Band Spectrometer measured X-rays and gamma-rays from 3 keV to
30 MeV during solar flares, and was also sensitive to neutrons emitted during
flares; it observed the full solar disk with a time resolution as short as 0.125 s.
a The hardware for BCS was provided by the United Kingdom, and the U.S. Naval Research Labo-
ratory funded the structure and crystals for the BCS, and also data analysis software later. The HXT
and WBS were contributed by Japan’s ISAS and the SXT was prepared by the Lockheed-Martin
Solar and Astrophysics Research Laboratory, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and
the University of Tokyo with the support of NASA and ISAS. The mission overview is given by
Y. Ogawara et al. (1991), and the BCS, HXT, SXT and WBS instruments, respectively, described
by J. L. Culhane et al. (1991), T. Kosugi et al. (1991), S. Tsuneta et al. (1991) and M. Yoshimori
et al. (1991).
1.3 Ulysses Moves into Unexplored Territory 11

Table 1.3 Yohkoh principal investigators and their institutions

Instrument Principal Institution
investigator
BCS Eijiro Hiei National Astronomical Observatory of Japan,
Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan
J. Leonard Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University
Culhane College, London, United Kingdom
George A. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District
Doschek of Columbia, United States
HXT Kazuo University of Tokyo, Japan
Makishima
Takeo Kosugi University of Tokyo, Japan
SXT Loren W. Acton Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana,
United States
Tadashi National Astronomical Observatory of Japan,
Hirayama Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan
Saku Tsuneta University of Tokyo, Japan
WBS Masato Rikkyo University, Tokyo, Japan
Yoshimori
Jun Nishimura Institute of Space and Astronautical Science,
Japan

Table 1.3. The Project Scientist for Yohkoh was Yutaka Uchida of the University of
Tokyo. Yohkoh’s accomplishments are described in greater detail within subsequent
chapters of this book.

1.3 Ulysses Moves into Unexplored Territory

Ionized gases expand away from the Sun in all directions, carving out a bubble in
the space around our star, which extends far beyond the planets. This vast region,
known as the heliosphere, is filled with the Sun’s tenuous, expanding atmosphere
and dominated by the continuous outflow of its winds. They are composed of elec-
trons, protons, and heavier ions, technically called plasma, and magnetic fields. Yet,
until quite recently, most of our knowledge of the immense heliosphere came from
interplanetary spacecraft that traveled within – or very close to – the ecliptic, the
plane of the Earth’s orbital motion about the Sun. This is because spacecraft often
rendezvous with another planet whose orbit lies near that plane, and also because
their launch vehicles obtain a natural boost by traveling in the same direction as the
Earth’s spin and in the plane of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun.
Because the solar equator nearly coincides with the ecliptic, scientific probes
have only sampled a thin plane that intersects the Sun at its midsection. They have
been unable to directly sample any regions more than 16◦ north or south solar lat-
itude, confining their perspective to a narrow, two-dimensional, “flat-land” slice of
12 1 Instruments for a Revolution

the heliosphere. (The solar latitude is the angular distance from the plane of the
Sun’s equator.) Then in the 1990s a single craft, Ulysses, ventured out of this thin
zone into uncharted interplanetary space, moving up to 80◦ north and south of the
solar equator, and probing the third dimension of the heliosphere for the first time.
The Ulysses mission is a joint undertaking of the European Space Agency, ab-
breviated ESA, and NASA. Dornier Systems of Germany built the spacecraft for
ESA, while NASA provided the launch via the Space Shuttle Discovery and the
U.S. Department of Energy supplied a radioisotope thermoelectric generator that
powers the spacecraft. European and United States investigators provided science
instruments, and Ulysses was operated from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Cali-
fornia by a joint team from ESA and NASA.
The spacecraft is named Ulysses in honor of the mythical Greek adventurer
Ulysses, whose exploits and long wanderings are recounted in Homer’s Iliad and
Odyssey. In the 26th Canto of Dante Alighieri’s Inferno, Ulysses recalls his restless
desire:
To venture the uncharted distances.
Exhorting his friends to embark on one last occasion.
Of feeling life and the new experience.
Of the uninhabited world behind the Sun.
To follow after knowledge and excellence.
Like the legendary explorer, the Ulysses spacecraft has traveled into previously
unexplored regions, improving out knowledge of them.
The thrust and high speed needed to send a probe directly on a trajectory over
the poles of the Sun are beyond the capability of today’s most powerful rockets.
To move out of the ecliptic, Ulysses therefore had to travel out to Jupiter, using the
planet’s powerful gravity like a slingshot, to accelerate and propel the spacecraft
into an inclined orbit that sent it under the Sun.
Launched by NASA’s Space Shuttle Discovery on 6 October 1990, Ulysses en-
countered Jupiter on 8 February 1992, which hurled the spacecraft into an elliptical
orbit about the Sun with a period of 6.3 years. Its distance from the Sun varies from
5.4 AU, near Jupiter’s orbit, to 1.3 AU at its closest approach to the Sun; the dis-
tance over the Sun’s polar regions ranges from 2.0 AU (north) to 2.3 AU (south).
The astronomical unit, 1.0 AU, is the mean distance from the Sun to the Earth, or
about 150 × 106 (1.5 × 108 ) km. Thus, at the time of polar passage, Ulysses was not
close to the Sun; it was more than twice as far from the Sun as the Earth.
After traveling about 3 × 109 km for nearly 4 years since leaving Earth, brave
stalwart Ulysses reached the summit of its trajectory beneath the south polar regions
of the Sun on 13 September 1994. In response to the Sun’s gravitational pull, Ulysses
arched up toward the solar equator and crossed over the north polar regions on 31
July 1995. The spacecraft’s trajectory took it back toward Jupiter’s orbit, and then on
a return trip over the solar poles, passing beneath the Sun’s southern polar regions
on 27 November 2000, and over its north polar regions on 13 October 2001. Ulysses
then continued on its epic journey, traveling away from the Sun and back again to
1.3 Ulysses Moves into Unexplored Territory 13

once more go where no other spacecraft has gone before, swooping under the Sun’s
south polar regions on 17 February 2007, and over its north polar regions on 14
January 2008. The Ulysses mission ended on 1 July 2008.
The primary scientific objective of the Ulysses spacecraft is to explore and define
the heliosphere in three dimensions, characterizing it as a function of solar latitude
and time. The solar wind speed and magnetic field strength have been measured
from pole to pole, compositional differences have been established for the expand-
ing solar atmosphere, and the flux of galactic cosmic rays has been measured as
a function of solar latitude. Interplanetary dust, solar energetic particles, plasma
waves, and solar radio bursts have also been measured.
In more than 17 years of Ulysses operations, the spacecraft has completed three
polar orbits, providing a unique perspective from which to study the Sun and its
effect on surrounding space. It has followed the complete course of the 11-year solar
activity cycle, first during a minimum in the number of sunspots (in 1994–1995),
then when the sunspot number was at its maximum (2000–2001).
Ulysses thus measured the distribution of solar wind velocities at both the min-
imum and maximum of the solar cycle (Fig. 1.6). During its first polar orbit, at
sunspot minimum, it found fast wind over the poles, and slower, variable wind con-
fined near the solar equator. The second polar orbit, performed near solar maxi-
mum, revealed variable solar wind at all latitudes including near the poles. During
this second polar orbit at sunspot maximum, the Sun’s polar fields disappeared and
then reappeared with the opposite polarity or direction. The third orbit over the solar
poles is also at an activity minimum (2007–2008), but under very different circum-
stances after a reversal of the magnetic poles of the Sun, permitting studies of the
changed magnetic field and its effect on the solar wind, galactic cosmic rays, and
solar energetic particles.
Ulysses has also provided new insight to the composition of the solar wind, show-
ing that it contains ions originating from both the Sun and the interstellar gas.
As the solar wind streams away from the Sun, it pulls the Sun’s magnetic field
radially outward, and the Sun’s rotation bends and coils the radial pattern into a
spiral shape within the plane of the solar equator. Ulysses found indications for de-
viations from this simple model, related to the fact that one end of the solar magnetic
field remains firmly rooted in the ever-changing solar photosphere and below, while
the other end is extended and stretched out into space by the solar wind. Random
motions and systematic differential rotation of the magnetic anchoring points influ-
ence the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric magnetic field, perhaps by
causing direct magnetic connections at different latitudes far out into interplanetary
space.
The instruments aboard Ulysses have additionally enhanced and extended pre-
vious investigations of interstellar atoms that have moved into the heliosphere, be-
come ionized there, and then picked up by the solar wind and entrained in its flow.
These pick-up ions have a different, low state of ionization from more highly ionized
elements coming from the Sun. The pick-up helium ions have been carefully scruti-
nized; interstellar pick-up hydrogen was discovered; and the oxygen, nitrogen, and
neon pick-ups observed. These investigations permitted study of the physical and
14 1 Instruments for a Revolution

Fig. 1.6 Distributions of solar wind speeds at solar minimum and maximum. Plots of the
solar wind speed as a function of solar latitude, obtained from two orbits of the Ulysses spacecraft
(top panels). The north and south poles of the Sun are at the top and bottom of each plot, the
solar equator is located along the middle, and the velocities are in units of kilometers per second,
abbreviated km s−1 . The sunspot numbers (bottom panel) indicate that the first orbit (top left)
occurred near a minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle, and that the second orbit (top right)
spanned a maximum in activity. Ultraviolet images of the solar disk and white-light images of
the inner solar corona form a central backdrop for the wind speed data, and indicate probable
sources of the winds. Near activity minimum (top left), polar coronal holes, with open magnetic
fields, give rise to the fast, low-density wind streams, whereas equatorial streamer regions of closed
magnetic fields are associated with the slow, gusty, dense winds. At solar maximum (top right),
small, low-latitude coronal holes give rise to fast winds, and a variety of slow-wind and fast-wind
sources resulted in little average latitudinal variation of solar wind speed. (Courtesy of David J.
McComas and Richard G. Marsden. The Ulysses mission is a project of international collaboration
between ESA and NASA. The central images are from the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope
and the Large Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory,
abbreviated SOHO, as well as the Mauna Loa K-coronameter.)

chemical properties of the nearby interstellar medium. In addition, singly ionized

carbon was discovered, which has to originate very close to the Sun rather than
from interstellar space.
As the result of coronal expansion and solar rotation, the fast and slow wind
flows intersect, forming structures that co-rotate with the Sun. Ulysses has provided
new insight to the three-dimensional nature of these co-rotating interaction regions,
including their production of energetic particles and shocks and their relationship to
the motion of open magnetic fields connected to the Sun.
1.3 Ulysses Moves into Unexplored Territory 15

Ulysses’ formidable accomplishments have been achieved using four European

and five American instruments that make the measurements of fundamental param-
eters as a function of distance from the Sun and solar latitude. They include devices
that measure the solar wind speed, a pair of magnetometers that measure magnetic
fields, and several instruments that study electrons, protons, and heavier ions that
come both from the quiescent and active Sun and from the interstellar space, the
galactic cosmic rays. The spacecraft radio is used to study the Sun’s outer atmo-
sphere, in addition to its communication functions. The acronyms and measure-
ments of all of the instruments on Ulysses are given in Table 1.4, while the Principal

Table 1.4 Ulysses’ instruments arranged alphabetically by acronyma

Instrument Measurement

COSPIN The COsmic ray and Solar Particle INstrument records ions with energies of
0.3–600 MeV per nucleon and electrons with energies of 4–2000 MeV.
DUST Measures interplanetary dust particles with mass between 10−19 and 10−10 kg.
EPAC/GAS The Energetic PArticle Composition and interstellar neutral GAS instrument
records energetic ion composition for energies of 80 keV–15 MeV per nucleon
and neutral helium atoms.
GRB The Gamma Ray Burst instrument measures solar flare X-rays and cosmic
gamma ray bursts with energies of 15–150 keV.
GWE The Gravitational Wave Experiment records Doppler shifts in the satellite radio
signal that might be due to gravitational waves.
HISCALE The Heliosphere Instrument for Spectra, Composition, and Anisotropy at Low
Energies instrument measures ions with energies of 50 keV–5 MeV and
electrons with energies of 30–200 keV.
SCE The Solar Corona Experiment uses the radio signals from the spacecraft to
measure the density, velocity, and turbulence spectra in the solar corona and
solar wind.
SWICS The Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer records elemental and
ionic-charge composition, temperature, and the mean speed of solar wind ions
for speeds of 145 (H+ ) to 1350 (Fe+8 ) km s−1 .
SWOOPS The Solar Wind Observations Over the Poles of the Sun instrument measures
ions from 237 eV to 35 keV per charge and electrons from 1 to 860 eV.
URAP The Unified Radio And Plasma wave experiment records plasma waves at
frequencies from 1 to 60 kHz, remotely senses traveling solar radio bursts
exciting plasma frequencies from 1 to 940 kHz, and measures the electron
density.
VHM/FGM A pair of magnetometers, the Vector Helium Magnetometer and the scalar Flux
Gate Magnetometer, that measure the magnetic field strength and direction in
the heliosphere and the Jovian magnetosphere from 0.01 to 44,000 nT or from
10−7 to 0.44 G.
a The Ulysses instruments are described in the Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series 92,

No. 2, 207–440 (1992). See for example the articles by A. Balogh et al. (1992), S. J. Bame et al.
(1992), J. A. Simpson et al. (1992), and R. G. Stone et al. (1992). Particle energies are often ex-
pressed in electron volts, or eV, where 1 eV = 1.602 × 10−19 J = 1.602 × 10−12 erg. High-energy
particles can have energies expressed in kilo-electron volts, or keV, and mega-electron volts, or
MeV, where 1 keV = 103 eV = 1.602 × 10−16 J and 1 MeV = 106 eV = 1.602 × 10−13 J. The mag-
netic field strength is given in units of Tesla, where 1 T = 10, 000 G or 1 nT = 10−9 T = 10−5 G
16 1 Instruments for a Revolution

Table 1.5 Ulysses principal investigators and their institutions

Instrument Principal investigator Institution
COSPIN R. Bruce McKibben University of New Hampshire, Durham, New
Hampshire, United States
DUST Eberhard Grün Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Heidelberg,
Germany
EPAC Erhard Keppler Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung
Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
GRB Kevin C. Hurley University of California, Berkeley, United States
GWE Bruno Bertotti Universitá di Pavia, Italy
HISCALE Louis J. Lanzerotti New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New
Jersey, United States
SCE Mike K. Bird Universität Bonn, Germany
SWICS Johannes Geiss International Space Sciences Institute, Bern,
Switzerland
George Gloeckler University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
United States
SWOOPS Dave J. McComas Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas,
United States
URAP Robert J. MacDowall Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland,
United States
VHM/FGM Andre Balogh Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

Investigators and their institutions are tabulated in Table 1.5. The Project Scien-
tists are Edward J. Smith at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Richard Marsden
of the European Space Agency. Fundamental information about the various ex-
periments can be found on the Ulysses home page (http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/)
or (http://helio.estec.esa.nl/ulysses/). Ulysses’ accomplishments are discussed in
subsequent chapters of this book. Not included here are Ulysses’ study of cos-
mic gamma-ray bursts and its investigations of the Jovian magnetosphere obtained
during the Jupiter flyby.

1.4 Wind Investigates the Sun’s Varying Input to Earth

Light and heat are not the Sun’s only contribution to our home planet Earth. There is
the rarefied solar wind of charged particles, carrying the Sun’s magnetic fields with
them, and the much more energetic electrons, protons, and heavier nuclei hurled
into interplanetary space by explosive outbursts on the Sun, the solar flares, and
coronal mass ejections. We are protected from these invisible, subatomic particles
by our planet’s magnetic field, which deflects them around the Earth. So we reside
in a magnetic cocoon, called the magnetosphere, which shields the Earth from the
full force of the Sun’s stormy weather and tempestuous behavior.
NASA’s Wind mission was designed to make accurate measurements of parti-
cles and magnetic fields upstream from a place where the solar wind first meets
1.4 Wind Investigates the Sun’s Varying Input to Earth 17

the Earth’s magnetosphere. The 1250-kg spacecraft was carried into space aboard a
Delta II rocket from the Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida, on 1 November 1994.
It was initially sent into a lunar swing-by orbit in which the Moon’s gravity helped
propel Wind through the sunlit, dayside of the Earth’s magnetosphere. The space-
craft was then placed just outside the Earth’s magnetosphere on its sunward side, at
a special location called Lagrange L1 where the Sun and Earth’s gravitational pull
cancel out allowing the spacecraft to hover, rather than orbit around Earth. Thus,
Wind is capable of providing nearly continuous, direct, in situ measurements of the
solar wind, magnetic fields, and energetic particles arriving at the magnetosphere,
which it has been doing for more than a decade. (The spacecraft was redirected into
the Earth’s deep magnetotail on the planet’s night-side for about 2 months in late
2003 and early 2004, before resuming its long vigil on the dayside.)
These Wind observations complement those made by the Polar spacecraft, which
looked down at the Earth’s magnetic polar cusps where charged particles can pene-
trate into the Earth’s atmosphere, and by the Geotail spacecraft, which skimmed the
outer edge of the magnetosphere and dove deep into the magnetotail, more than a
million kilometers from Earth. And the SOHO spacecraft was also included, to iden-
tify and analyze the solar events that contribute to these terrestrial effects. It was all
part of an International Solar-Terrestrial Physics, abbreviated ISTP, Program in the
1990s that combined measurements from all four spacecraft to determine how the
Sun generates energy and feeds it into the space near Earth, and how energy is cou-
pled back and forth between the gusty, incident solar wind and the magnetosphere
on one hand and between the magnetosphere and the Earth’s upper atmosphere on
the other hand.
Since launch, Wind has also made important measurements that supplement the
mission’s original plan. It has investigated shocks generated by coronal mass ejec-
tions, using their radio signals to track them from launch in the corona through
interplanetary space to the Earth, and showed that the most powerful shocks pro-
duce a wider wavelength range of radio emission. Radio signals produced by these
shocks are triangulated using instruments aboard the Wind, Ulysses, Cassini, and
the twin STEREO spacecraft, permitting a three-dimensional determination of their
trajectory.
The characteristics of magnetic clouds, the special subclass of coronal mass ejec-
tions that preserve their tubular magnetic flux rope geometry all the way to the Earth
and beyond, have been delineated, including their magnetic connections back to the
Sun. And Wind has also made in situ measurements of impulsive bursts of energetic
electrons and ions that reach the Earth’s orbit following solar flares, while tracking
the radio emission of these electrons as they traveled through space.
One recent very intriguing discovery, resulting from measurements by both the
Wind and ACE spacecraft, was solar-wind magnetic fields that merge and join to-
gether near the Earth’s orbit, in long, steady reconnection layers that stretch out for
hundreds of Earth radii. This magnetic reconnection was previously thought to oc-
cur only within very small regions in a very short, patchy manner. The discovery of
the longer, steady reconnection process, which is thought to be also in operation in
18 1 Instruments for a Revolution

the solar corona, has significant implications for our understanding of how the Sun
can initiate and launch coronal mass ejections.
One of Wind’s instruments has additionally shown that the slowest solar winds
contain the greatest amount of helium, while the faster winds have the least abun-
dance of helium. This gives clues to the source regions of the slow solar wind, which
is currently not known in sufficient detail.

Table 1.6 Wind’s instruments arranged alphabetically by acronyma

Instrument Measurement
EPACT The Energetic Particles: Acceleration, Composition, and Transport instrument
makes comprehensive observations of solar and interplanetary particles over
wide ranges of charge, mass, and intensity, but particularly during the more
intense solar outbursts.
http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/gamcosray/lecr/EPACT/epact.html
KONUS The KONUS instrument provides continuous monitoring of cosmic gamma-ray
bursts and solar flares in the energy range 10 keV–10 MeV.
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/wind.html
MFI The Magnetic Field Experiment measures the interplanetary vector magnetic
field. http://lepmfi.gsfc.nasa.gov/mfi/windmfi.html
SMS The SMS instrument consists of three different sensors: the Solar Wind Ion
Spectrometer (SWICS), the High Mass Resolution Spectrometer (MASS), and
the Supra-Thermal Ion Composition Spectrometer (STICS). Their combined
data determine the composition of the solar wind and of solar and
interplanetary energetic particles.
http://solar-heliospheric.engin.umich.edu/wind/
SWE The Solar Wind Experiment measures the velocity distribution functions of
electrons, protons and helium ions within the solar wind.
http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/s/space/www/wind.html
3DP The Three-Dimensional Plasma experiment is designed to measure the full
three-dimensional distribution of suprathermal electrons and ions at energies
from a few eV to over several hundred keV. Its high sensitivity, wide dynamic
range, and good energy and angular resolution make it especially capable of
detecting and characterizing the numerous populations of particles that are
present in interplanetary space at energies above the bulk of the solar wind
particles and below the energies typical of most cosmic rays.
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/wind3dp/
TGRS The Transient Gamma-Ray Spectrometer makes a high-resolution spectroscopic
survey of cosmic gamma-ray bursts, but also detects gamma-ray lines emitted
during solar flares.
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/wind.html
WAVES The WAVES instrument provides comprehensive coverage of radio and plasma
wave phenomena in the frequency range from a fraction of a Hertz up to about
14 MHz for the electric field and 3 kHz for the magnetic field. It provides
two-dimensional radio tracking of shocks driven by coronal mass ejections,
and when combined with Ulysses and/or Cassini radio observations
determines the three-dimensional trajectory of these shocks.
http://lep694.gsfc.nasa.gov/waves/waves.html
a Wind instrument descriptions are given at http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/wind inst.shtml
1.4 Wind Investigates the Sun’s Varying Input to Earth 19

Wind continues with its direct measurements of the incoming solar wind plasma,
its magnetic fields and energetic particles, but as a result of the spacecraft’s recent
accomplishments, the mission’s scientific objectives now include studies of the in-
terplanetary manifestations of coronal mass ejections, with their associated shocks
and magnetic clouds, investigations of large-scale solar-wind structures including
interplanetary magnetic reconnection events and turbulent structures, and measure-
ments of energetic particles that arrive at the Earth’s orbit, accelerated by a rich
variety of shocks throughout the heliosphere.
Driven by coronal mass ejections, magnetic clouds, and/or interacting solar wind
streams, interplanetary shocks pump up a particle’s energy before arriving at Earth.
And when they reach the planet, Wind detects them. Such energized electrons, pro-
tons, and other nuclei have been dubbed solar energetic particles, to distinguish
them from more energetic and less abundant cosmic rays that arrive from interstellar
space. Scientists are now using Wind data to help determine where the solar ener-
getic particles come from, how they are accelerated, and how they escape and prop-
agate from solar flares or coronal mass ejections to Earth. This is accomplished by
combining Wind measurements with those from the ACE, STEREO and/or Ulysses
spacecraft at the Earth’s orbit or beyond, and with those of RHESSI, TRACE, or
SOHO that look back to the Sun, the source of it all.
All of Wind’s accomplishments are discussed in greater detail in subsequent
chapters of this book. The acronyms and measurements of its instruments are given
in Table 1.6, while the instrument Principal Investigators and their institutions
are provided in Table 1.7. The NASA Project Scientist for Wind is Adam Szabo,
and Mario H. Acuña et al. have described the Global Geospace Science Program
and the Wind instruments in Space Science Reviews 71, 5–21 (1995). Additional

Table 1.7 Wind principal investigators and their institutions

Instrument Principal investigator Institution

EPACT Tycho T. von Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland,

Rosenvinge United States
KONUS Evgenii P. Mazets Ioffe Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
Thomas L. Cline Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland,
United States
MFI Ronald P. Lepping Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland,
United States
SMS George Gloeckler University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
United States
SWE Keith W. Ogilvie Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland,
United States
3DP Robert P. Lin University of California, Berkeley, United States
TGRS Bonnard J. Teegarden Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland,
United States
WAVES Jean-Louis Bougeret Observatoire de Paris, Meudon, France
Michael L. Kaiser Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland,
United States
20 1 Instruments for a Revolution

information about the Wind mission and its data may be found at http://wind.nasa.gov.
Near real-time Wind data are available at http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/windnrt/.

1.5 The Sun Does Not Set for SOHO

A great observatory of the Sun, the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO
for short, has stared the Sun down with an unblinking eye for more than a decade.
This 1850-kg spacecraft was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida, aboard an
Atlas II-AS vehicle on 2 December 1995 and reached its permanent position on
14 February 1996, beginning normal operations in May 1996. The one-billion-
dollar mission is a project of international cooperation between the European Space
Agency and NASA.
SOHO is located sunward at about 1.5 × 106 km out in space, or at about one
percent of the way to the Sun. At this place, only about 1/100th of the distance to
the Sun, the combined gravity of the Earth and Sun keep SOHO in an orbit locked to
the Earth–Sun line. Such a position is known in astronomy as the inner Lagrangian,
or L1 , point after the French mathematician Joseph Louis Lagrange, who first calcu-
lated its location near the end of the 19th century. From this strategic vantage point,
SOHO can monitor the Sun with a continuous, uninterrupted view 24 h a day, every
day, all year round.
The spacecraft has been keeping watch over the Sun through all its tempestuous
seasons – from a lull in its 11-year magnetic activity cycle at the time of launch
to an activity maximum near the turn of the century and on into the next activity
minimum. Except, that is, for a 3-month interlude when controllers lost contact with
the spacecraft (Focus 1.1).

Focus 1.1
SOHO Lost in Space and Recovered from Oblivion
After more than 2 years of uninterrupted views of the Sun, and completing its pri-
mary mission with unqualified success, SOHO’s eyes were abruptly closed. During
routine maintenance maneuvers and spacecraft gyroscope calibrations on 25 June
1998, the spacecraft spun out of control and engineers could not re-establish ra-
dio contact with it. SOHO was no longer pointing at the Sun and therefore losing
electrical power normally supplied by its solar panels.
A group of experts, with the ponderous title “The SOHO Mission Interruption
Joint ESA/NASA Investigation Board,” was assembled to find out what went wrong.
Their post-mortem found no fault with the spacecraft itself; a sequence of oper-
ational mistakes added up to its loss. A combination of human error and faulty
computer command software, which had not been previously used or adequately
tested, disabled some of SOHO’s stabilizing gyroscopes. Continuous firings of its
jet thrusters failed to bring the spacecraft into balance, and instead sent it spinning
faster.
1.5 The Sun Does Not Set for SOHO 21

For nearly a month, the crippled spacecraft failed to respond to signals sent daily.
Scientists feared that SOHO might be drifting away from its expected orbit, gone
forever and never to be heard from again. However, the wayward satellite was found
nearly a month after it was lost, by transmitting a powerful radar pulse to it from
the world’s largest radio telescope located in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. The faint radio
echo indicated that SOHO was close to its predicted location with its solar panels
turned edge-on toward the Sun, so its internal power had to be draining away and
the spacecraft was unable to receive or send communications.
Electrical power might nevertheless be regained as the panels slowly turned to a
more favorable alignment with the Sun during SOHO’s annual orbit around the star.
Antennas in NASA’s Deep Space Network therefore continued to send the satellite
wake-up messages, asking it to call home.
After nearly 6 weeks of silence, a feeble and intermittent response was received
from the dormant spacecraft, like the faint, erratic heartbeat of a patient in a coma
or the worn-out, distressed cries of a tired, lost child. The elated European engi-
neers, who built the spacecraft, knew that SOHO was alive and immediately began
regaining control of it.
It was a long, slow recovery. The onboard batteries had to be recharged, and
the inner workings had to be warmed up after an enforced period of deep freeze.
Almost all of the propellant in its tanks had been frozen solid, and the pipes that
carry fuel to the craft’s jet thrusters also had to be thawed out. Fortunately, the fuel,
named hydrazine, does not expand when it freezes, so the fuel pipes did not crack
open as sometimes happens when a building’s water pipes freeze during the loss of
heat in a severe winter storm. SOHO operations eventually returned to normal on 25
September 1998, so altogether it took 3 months from the initial loss of radio contact
to recovery.
As luck would have it, SOHO’s tribulations were not yet over, since its gyro-
scopes acted up just a few months after recovery. The satellite had to constantly fire
its onboard jets to keep it balanced and pointed toward the Sun, and this was rapidly
exhausting its fuel supply. Ingenious engineers fixed the problem by instructing the
spacecraft to bypass the gyroscopes and use stars to determine its position, some-
what like the ancient mariners who navigated by the stars. All of SOHO’s sensitive
instruments were restored to full health, showing no signs of damage from their
unexpected ordeal, and the mission continued uninterrupted for many years.
The fantastic rescue from deep space was an intense, unprecedented drama, and
a remarkable achievement by a heroic international team working together in the
face of overwhelming obstacles. In the end, it was human ingenuity, hope, and per-
severance that brought SOHO back to life.

If SOHO were positioned exactly at the Lagrangian point, NASA’s tracking tele-
scopes would look directly at the Sun. The intense radio interference generated by
the Sun would then severely limit satellite communications with Earth and the bright
glare might even burn terrestrial telescope receivers up. As a result, SOHO flies as
close to the Lagrangian point as possible, in an elliptical orbit whose plane is perpen-
dicular to the line joining the Sun to the Earth and whose radius is about 600,000 km.
22 1 Instruments for a Revolution

When viewed from Earth, the spacecraft forms a closed curve around the Sun, like
a halo, so its trajectory is often called a halo orbit. As it loops about the Lagrangian
point, SOHO also orbits the Sun in step with Earth, experiencing perpetual day and
continuously gazing at the Sun with an unobstructed view.
All previous observatories with telescopes that look at the Sun have either been
on the solid Earth, and spinning with it, or in orbit around our planet. Terrestrial
telescopes are limited by inclement weather conditions and atmospheric distortion
of the Sun’s signal, and of course they cannot observe the Sun at night. Although the
weather problem has been removed for solar telescopes orbiting the Earth above its
atmosphere, the observations are still periodically interrupted when the spacecraft
enters our planet’s shadow. So, SOHO was the first solar observatory to look directly
at the Sun nonstop.
The SOHO spacecraft was designed and built in Europe by an industry team
led by Matra Marconi Space, Toulouse, France. NASA launched SOHO and oper-
ates the satellite from the Experimenters’ Operations Facility at the Goddard Space
Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Large radio telescopes around the world,
which form NASA’s Deep Space Network, are used to track the satellite and re-
trieve its data. Over a thousand images have been routed to the Experimenters’ Op-
eration Facility every day for more than 10 years. Here solar physicists from around
the world continue to work together, watching the Sun night and day from a room
without windows.
The SOHO mission has three principal scientific goals: to measure the struc-
ture and dynamics of the solar interior; to gain an understanding of the heating
mechanisms of the Sun’s million-degree atmosphere, or solar corona, and related
processes in the chromosphere and the transition region to the corona; and to deter-
mine where the solar wind and solar energetic particles originate and how they are
accelerated. SOHO has accomplished many of these objectives, providing an unpar-
alleled breadth and depth of information about the Sun from its interior, through the
hot and dynamic atmosphere, and out to the solar wind. In addition, the spacecraft
has provided near real-time solar data for space weather prediction.
Analysis of global helioseismology data from SOHO has shed new light on struc-
tural and dynamic phenomena in the solar interior. It has shown that differential ro-
tation, in which equatorial regions rotate faster than the regions closer to the poles,
persists throughout the convective zone. At greater depths, in the radiative zone,
the rotation speed becomes uniform from equator to pole. The Sun’s magnetism is
probably generated at the interface between the two zones, where the outmost part
of the radiative zone, rotating at one speed, meets the bottom of the convective zone,
which spins faster in its equatorial middle.
SOHO temperature measurements of the solar core have placed significant con-
straints on the amount of neutrinos generated there, suggesting that the paucity of
observed neutrinos must be due to changes in neutrino type or flavor, which subse-
quent experiments have demonstrated. Evidence for the possible existence of gravity
waves, located deep within the Sun, has also been provided, for the first time, by an
instrument aboard SOHO.
A SOHO helioseismology instrument has made pioneering observations of large-
scale streams inside the Sun, discovering sub-photospheric zonal and meridional
1.5 The Sun Does Not Set for SOHO 23

flows, transient storms, high and low pressure zones, and swirling flows near active
regions, which vary like weather patterns in the Earth’s atmosphere.
SOHO has also helped pioneer local helioseismology on finer scales, obtain-
ing the first three-dimensional structure and flow images of the interior of a star.
These acoustic tomography results have revealed the internal structure of sunspots,
showing that they are relatively shallow and that strong converging downflows hold
sunspots together, explaining why they can last for weeks without breaking apart.
The SOHO helioseismologists have also demonstrated that sound waves traveling
through the Sun can be used to estimate the location and magnitude of large active
regions on the invisible backside of the Sun well before they rotate into view on
the solar disk. This technique has been refined to give daily images of these unseen
active regions from both SOHO and the ground-based Global Oscillation Network
Group, abbreviated GONG.
SOHO’s instruments have monitored ever-changing magnetic forces as they in-
teract to help shape, mold, heat, and constrain the solar atmosphere and modulate
conditions in the solar wind. They have shown that there is significant, variable mag-
netism dispersed all across the photosphere outside of sunspots. Tens of thousands
of small magnetic loops are constantly being generated, rising up and out of the
photosphere, interacting, fragmenting and disappearing within hours or days. The
entire magnetic content of the so-called quiet Sun outside active regions is contin-
uously replenished every 40 h or so, transferring magnetic energy from the visible
disk toward the overlying corona. When magnetic fields of adjacent magnetic loops
meet, they can break apart and reconnect with each other into simpler magnetic
configurations, releasing energy that can provide heat to the quiet corona.
The solar magnetic field that has been drawn out into space by the Sun’s wind
evolves in response to the changing photospheric field at it base. This evolution,
together with rotation of the Sun, helps drive space weather through continuously
changing conditions in the solar wind and the magnetic field embedded within it.
SOHO instruments have also helped identify source regions and acceleration sites
for the fast and slow components of the solar wind. Regions of open magnetic fields,
known as coronal holes, give rise to fast, low density winds, both near the solar poles
and sometimes closer to the solar equator. The fast winds are accelerated very close
to the Sun. The slower, dense wind puffs out from areas of closed magnetic fields
near equatorial regions, and takes a longer time to get up to speed. One interesting
proposal for the origin of the fast solar wind invokes open magnetic funnels in the
low corona, which might be fed by closed magnetic loops, swept by convection into
the funnel regions.
Moreover, heavier ions in the polar coronal holes move faster than light ones,
so something is unexpectedly and preferentially energizing the more massive ions.
Magnetic waves might provide the extra boost that pushes the heavier particles to
higher speeds. Instruments aboard Ulysses have detected magnetic fluctuations at-
tributed to such Alfvén waves moving far above the Sun’s poles, and they have been
observed closer to the Sun, in the chromosphere and corona, by instruments aboard
Hinode.
24 1 Instruments for a Revolution

Through high-resolution images and movies, the SOHO mission has also re-
vealed how the Sun’s global magnetic fields interact and restructure to release
energy on incredible scales, forming gigantic magnetic bubbles, the coronal mass
ejections, which can be hurled toward the Earth with potentially dangerous conse-
quences. One of SOHO’s instruments has provided over 10 years of measurements
of their physical properties, such as their mass, speed, and energy, with fascinating
images that display their various magnetic structures including twisted ropes, vacant
cavities, and halos (Fig. 1.7). Such observations have provided the groundwork for
more elaborate, three-dimensional observations of coronal mass ejections from the
STEREO mission described in Sect. 1.10.
Another SOHO instrument monitors the dimming of the Sun’s extreme ultraviolet
radiation that occurs when coronal mass ejections tear out part of the solar corona.
When these awesome bubbles lift off, the closed magnetic fields are ripped open
at their tops, causing them to shake and reverberate at lower levels and producing
waves in the extreme ultraviolet radiation.
SOHO’s numerous discoveries have been achieved with a dozen instruments;
European scientists provided nine of them and United States scientists a further

Fig. 1.7 Coronal mass ejection. A huge coronal mass ejection is seen in this coronagraph image,
taken on 5 December 2003, with the Large Angle and Spectrometric COronagraph, abbreviated
LASCO, on the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short. The black area cor-
responds to the occulting disk of the coronagraph that blocks intense sunlight and permits the
corona to be seen. An image of the singly ionized helium, denoted He II, emission of the Sun,
taken at about the same time, has been appropriately scaled and superimposed at the center of the
LASCO image. The full-disk helium image was taken at a wavelength of 30.4 nm, corresponding
to a temperature of about 60,000 K, using the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, or EIT for
short, aboard SOHO. (Courtesy of the SOHO LASCO and EIT consortia. SOHO is a project of
international cooperation between ESA and NASA.)
1.5 The Sun Does Not Set for SOHO 25

three. International consortia involving scientific institutes in 15 countries devel-

oped them. These instruments have examined the Sun from its deep interior, through
its million-degree atmosphere and ceaseless wind, to our home planet, Earth. Three
devices probe the Sun’s internal structure and dynamics; six measure the solar at-
mosphere; and three keep track of the star’s far-reaching winds.
The hidden interior of the Sun is illuminated by its in-and-out, heaving motions.
These oscillations arise from sounds that move inside the Sun. On striking the Sun’s
apparent edge and rebounding back inside, the sound waves cause the visible gas to
move up and down. The oscillating motions these sounds create are imperceptible
to the naked eye, but SOHO instruments routinely pick them out.
The Sun’s hot atmosphere is probed by observing ultraviolet, extreme-ultraviolet,
or X-ray radiation. This is because hot material emits most of its energy at these
wavelengths. Also, the underlying visible disk of the Sun is too cool to emit intense
radiation at these wavelengths, so it appears dark under the hot gas.
To map out structures across the solar disk, ranging in temperature from 6000 to
2 × 106 K, the SOHO instruments tune into ultraviolet or extreme ultraviolet spec-
tral features emitted by different ions at various definite wavelengths. Atoms in a
hotter gas lose more electrons through collisions and so they become more highly
ionized. The wavelength-specific radiation of different ions therefore serves as a
kind of thermometer, and SOHO telescopes transform the emission from a given
ion into high-resolution images of the structures formed at the relevant tempera-
ture. The speed of the material moving in these regions is inferred from the Doppler
wavelength changes of the spectral features that SOHO records.
Other SOHO instruments directly measure energetic solar electrons, protons, and
heavier ions in situ as they sweep past the satellite. By analyzing these elements, sci-
entists reach conclusions about conditions in the Sun’s atmosphere where its winds
originate. SOHO and other spacecraft near Earth also detect very energetic particles
accelerated by coronal mass ejections and solar flares.
SOHO’s instruments uniquely examine many different levels in the solar atmo-
sphere simultaneously, including for the first time the locations where the million-
degree gases are heated and the Sun’s winds are accelerated. Moreover, many of
the instruments complement each other and are operated together, establishing con-
nections between various phenomena at different places in the volume of the Sun
and in the interplanetary medium. Their combined data can link events in the Sun’s
atmosphere and solar wind to the changes taking place within the solar interior. In
effect, SOHO can combine data from its instruments to look all the way from deep
inside the Sun to our planet. It provides a completely new perspective of how agita-
tion originating inside the Sun and transmitted through the solar atmosphere directly
affects us on Earth.
SOHO has made pioneering contributions to space weather investigations. Its
continued stream of extreme-ultraviolet images has been used to describe changes
in the Sun’s dynamic atmosphere and to forecast disruptive activity there, while
another SOHO instrument monitors the Sun for coronal mass ejections. SOHO
helioseismology observations detect powerful active regions anywhere on the far
side of the Sun, providing up to 14 days warning before they rotate to face and
26 1 Instruments for a Revolution

Table 1.8 SOHO’s instruments arranged alphabetically by acronym within three areas of
investigationa
Instrument Measurement
Helioseismology instruments
GOLF The Global Oscillations at Low Frequencies device records the velocity of
global oscillations within the Sun. http://golfwww.medoc-ias.u-psud.fr/
MDI The Michelson Doppler Imager measures the velocity of oscillations,
produced by sounds trapped inside the Sun, and obtains high-resolution
magnetograms. http://soi.stanford.edu/science/obs prog.html/
VIRGO The Variability of solar IRradiance and Gravity Oscillations instrument
measures fluctuations in the Sun’s brightness, as well as its precise
energy output. http://www.ias.u-psud.fr/virgo/
Coronal instruments
CDS The Coronal Diagnostic Spectrometer records the temperature and density
of gases in the corona. http://solar.bnsc.rl.ac.uk/
EIT The Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope provides full-disk images of
the chromosphere and the corona at wavelengths of 17.11, 19.51, 28.42
and 30.38 nm, corresponding to radiation produced by highly ionized
iron, Fe XI and Fe X, Fe XII, and Fe XV, and helium, He II,
respectively, formed at temperatures of 1.0 × 106 , 1.5 × 106 , 2.5 × 106
and 60,000 K. http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/eit/
SUMER The Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted Radiation instrument
gives data about the temperatures, densities, and velocities of various
gases in the chromosphere and corona.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/soho/sumer/
LASCO The Large Angle and Spectrometric COronagraph provides images that
reveal the corona’s activity, mass, momentum, and energy, including
coronal mass ejections and comets that come near the Sun.
http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/
UVCS The UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer measures the temperatures
and velocities of hydrogen atoms, oxygen ions and other ions in the low
corona between 1.5 and 10 solar radii. http:/cfa-www.harvard.edu/uvcs/
SWAN The Solar Wind ANisotropies device monitors latitudinal and
temporalvariations in the solar wind.
http://www.fmi.fi/research space/space 7.html
“In-situ” instruments
CELIAS The Charge, ELement and Isotope Analysis System quantifies the mass,
charge, composition, and energy distribution of particles in the solar
wind.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=30956/
COSTEP The COmprehensive SupraThermal and Energetic Particle analyzer
determines the energy distribution of protons, helium isotopes, and
electrons. http://www.ieap.uni-kiel.de/et/ag-hebe r/costep/
ERNE The Energetic and Relativistic Nuclei and Electron experiment measures
the energy distribution and isotopic composition of protons, other ions,
and electrons. http://www.srl.utu.fi/projects/erne/index english.html/
a The SOHO instruments are described in Solar Physics 162, 3–531 (1992). For an overview see
article by V. Domingo et al. (1995); for specific instruments see GOLF: A. H. Gabriel et al. (1995),
VIRGO: C. Fröhlich et al. (1995), MDI: P. H. Scherrer et al. (1995), SUMER: K. Wilhelm et al.
(1995), CDS: R. A. Harrison et al. (1995), EIT: J.-P. Delaboudinière et al. (1995), UVCS: J. L. Kohl
et al. (1995), LASCO: G. E. Brueckner et al. (1995), SWAN: J. L. Bertaux et al. (1995), CELIAS:
D. Hovestadt et al. (1995), COSTEP: R. Müller-Mellin et al. (1995), and ERNE: J. Torsti et al.
(1995).
1.5 The Sun Does Not Set for SOHO 27

threaten the Earth. Short-term forecasting of explosive solar outbursts, which can
send lethal energetic particles toward our planet, may be achieved by detecting high-
speed electrons that arrive near the Earth about an hour ahead of the more dangerous
ions. SOHO instruments have also refined measurements of the Sun’s total radiative
output, the so-called solar constant, helping to monitor nearly three decades of its
variation. This unparalleled record indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely
to significantly affect future global warming by humans.

Table 1.9 SOHO principal investigators and their institutions

Instrument Principal Institution
investigator

Helioseismology instruments
GOLF Alan H. Gabriel Institut d’Astrophysique Spatiale, Orsay, France
MDI Philip H. Stanford University, Stanford, California, United
Scherrer States
VIRGO Claus Fröhlich Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium,
World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Coronal instruments
CDS Richard A. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton,
Harrison Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
Andrzej Fludra Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton,
Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
EIT Jean-Pierre De- Institut d’Astrophysique Spatiale, Orsay, France
laboudinière
Frédéric Auchère Institut d’Asrophysique Spatiale, Orsay, France
SUMER Klaus Wilhelm Max-Planck-Institut für Aeronomie,
Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
Werner Curdt Max-Planck-Institut für Aeronomie,
Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
LASCO Guenter Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of
Brueckner Columbia, United States
Russell Howard Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of
Columbia, United States
UVCS John L. Kohl Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, United States
SWAN Jean-Loup Service d’Aéronomie, Verrieres-le-Buisson Cedex,
Bertaux France
Eric Quémearis Service d’Aéronomie, Verrieres-le-Buisson Cedex,
France
“In-situ”
instruments
CELIAS Peter Bochsler University of Bern, Switzerland
Berndt Klecker Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik,
Garching, Germany
COSTEP Horst Kunow University of Kiel, Germany
Bernd Heber University of Kiel, Germany
ERNE Jarmo Torsti University of Turku, Finland
Eino Valtonen University of Turku, Finland
28 1 Instruments for a Revolution

All of SOHO’s magnificent accomplishments are discussed in the subsequent

chapters of this book. The acronyms and measurements of its instruments are given
in Table 1.8; the Principal Investigators and their institutions are provided in
Table 1.9. The Project Scientist for SOHO is Bernhard Fleck of ESA. Many of the
unique images and movies that SOHO detects move nearly instantaneously to the
SOHO home page (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov) on the World Wide Web.

1.6 ACE Measures the Composition of High-Energy Particles

Bombarding Earth

Our planet is immersed within a cosmic shooting gallery of protons, other atomic
nuclei, and ions coming from the Sun and interstellar space. The solar wind supplies
a steady stream of them. These charged particles originate near the Sun and can be
additionally accelerated on their way to our planet. Energetic outbursts on the Sun,
the solar flares and coronal mass ejections, expel brief pulses of energized atomic
nuclei, producing powerful gusts in the solar wind. And extraordinarily energetic
nuclei, the comic rays, rain down on the Earth, coming in at all directions from
interstellar space and traveling at nearly the velocity of light.
So there is danger blowing in the Sun’s winds, with its gusts and squalls, and the
less abundant but more energetic cosmic rays also pose a threat. Energetic nuclei
from both sources can injure and even kill unprotected astronauts traveling in deep
space, repairing spacecraft or a space station, or visiting the Moon or Mars. This
space weather can also endanger Earth-orbiting satellites, disrupt communications
on Earth, and produce geomagnetic storms that can overload power grids.
NASA’s Advanced Composition Explorer, abbreviated ACE, spacecraft keeps a
careful watch on this vast and shifting web of subatomic particles as they bombard
the Earth, measuring their properties in order to determine their origin and subse-
quent transformations. The 785-kg spacecraft was built at the Applied Physics Lab-
oratory of the John Hopkins University and launched by a Delta II rocket from the
Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida, on 25 August 1997. ACE is located at the inner
Lagrangian, or L1 , point of gravitational equilibrium between the Earth and the Sun,
just outside our planet in the direction of the incoming solar wind just 1.5 × 106 km
from the Earth and about 150 × 106 km from the Sun. From this vantage point, ACE
has monitored the solar wind, with its charged particles and magnetic fields, and
observed high-energy particles accelerated at the Sun, within the solar wind, or in
the galactic regions beyond the heliosphere. It has additionally provided nearly a
decade of continuous, real-time, space-weather observations, forecasting advance
warnings of hazardous events.
ACE carries a total of nine instruments. Six of these instruments measure with un-
precedented precision the composition of energetic nuclei and ions from low solar-
wind energies to high cosmic ray ones. The other three instruments provide the
interplanetary context for these studies, including the interplanetary magnetic field
and the velocity, density, and temperature of the solar-wind protons.
1.6 ACE Measures the Composition of High-Energy Particles Bombarding Earth 29

The primary scientific goal of ACE is to measure and compare the composition of
nuclei originating at the Sun or in the local interstellar medium, and to identify how
these nuclei are subsequently transformed as they make their way through interplan-
etary space. The mission’s objectives include the specification of the elemental and
isotopic composition of energetic nuclei at their place of origin, and the identifi-
cation of processes that subsequently accelerate the nuclei to higher energies, alter
their composition, and affect their motion.
ACE has accomplished many of its scientific objectives during recent years. It has
provided new insights to the acceleration of nuclei by impulsive flares and by inter-
planetary shocks associated with either coronal mass ejections or the interaction of
fast and slow steams in the solar wind. When solar energetic particles arriving at
ACE and Wind are, for example, compared with RHESSI observations of particles
accelerated in large flares, it is found that the flares are not responsible for the most
energetic solar particles arriving at Earth. They are most likely accelerated by in-
terplanetary shocks driven by fast coronal mass ejections. Data from instruments
on ACE have indeed shown that the energetic solar electrons and ions arriving at
Earth are usually released after flare onset. In some situations, however, there can
be difficulty in distinguishing between direct flare acceleration and acceleration by
the coronal-mass-ejection shocks.
Solar energetic particles observed with the ULEIS instrument on ACE show en-
richments in the rare isotope of helium, designated 3 He rather than the usual, more
abundant 4 He. Although discovered in the 1970s and subsequently associated with
impulsive events and radio bursts from the Sun, their source remained unknown.
Then comparisons with SOHO images indicated that every one of the ACE events,
observed over a 6-year period, originates from small, flaring active regions that re-
connect with open magnetic field lines in nearby coronal holes. The 3 He events and
associated jet-like ejections are attributed to footpoint exchanges between closed
and open field lines.
ACE instruments have additionally demonstrated that the magnetic fields en-
trained in the solar wind can be reconfigured when oppositely directed magnetic
fields merge and join together, reconnecting with each other and even disconnecting
from the Sun. The spacecraft has provided the first direct evidence that such mag-
netic reconnection occurs in the solar wind near the Earth’s orbit, producing mag-
netic reversals and releasing magnetic energy with an associated blast of accelerated
ions. Instruments aboard ACE have observed numerous instances of such magnetic
reconnections within interplanetary space, many of them also observed with instru-
ments aboard the Wind spacecraft. Multi-spacecraft observations have demonstrated
that the magnetic reconnections are prolonged and steady, extending for hundreds
of Earth radii along the X-line where oppositely directed magnetic field lines meet.
The SWICS instruments on both ACE and Ulysses have made comprehensive and
continuous observations of singly ionized, abundant elements with just one electron
missing. They are largely of interstellar origin due to atoms that have drifted into
the heliosphere to become ionized there and picked-up by the magnetic field en-
trained in the solar wind. Measurements of these pick-up ions have been used to
30 1 Instruments for a Revolution

infer the abundance, chemical and physical properties of the local interstellar cloud,
and the extent of the heliosphere.
Measurements of the velocity distribution of both solar-wind and pick-up ions,
with instruments aboard ACE and Ulysses, reveal unexpectedly rapid ion motions
of up to at least 50 times the speed of other ions in the solar wind. Since these
exceptionally fast ions have energies larger than those typically found in the hot, ex-
panding corona, they have been dubbed suprathermal ions. By measuring the com-
position and time variations of these previously unknown ions, the instruments on
ACE were able to show that shocks driven by coronal mass ejections and transient
interplanetary shocks preferentially accelerate the suprathermal nuclei, which have
already been pre-accelerated by some currently unknown process. That is, solar en-
ergetic particles arriving at the Earth are not accelerated from the bulk solar wind,
but instead consist of suprathermal ions that have been further accelerated to higher
energies by interplanetary shocks.
All of ACE’s accomplishments are discussed in greater detail in subsequent
chapters of this book. The acronyms and measurements of its instruments are given
in Table 1.10, and described in instrument papers by Edward C. Stone and others
in a special issue of Space Science Reviews 86, No. 1–4 (1998). The ACE Principal
Investigator is Edward C. Stone at the California Institute of Technology, abbrevi-
ated Caltech. The NASA Project Scientist for ACE is Tycho T. von Rosenbinge, and
the Caltech ACE Mission Scientist is Richard A. Mewaldt. There are 18 scientific
co-investigators of the ACE mission, whose names and institutions can be found on
the ACE Home Page at http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/.

1.7 TRACE Focuses on Fine Details of the High-Temperature Gas

When a telescope in space zooms in to take a close look at the Sun’s detailed be-
havior, which cannot be fully observed from the ground, the telescope can discover
a host of unsuspected fine structure and rapid dynamic changes. Such information
cannot be achieved from observations with coarser resolution, from space or on the
ground, for they integrate or smear out the small-scale and rapidly varying phenom-
ena. The Transition Region And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, was the
first spacecraft to achieve this high-resolution perspective for the transition region
between the chromosphere and the corona, and the low corona as well.
TRACE is the fourth mission of NASA’s Small Explorer, or SMEX, Program
for focused, relatively inexpensive space science missions. SMEX spacecraft are
limited in mass to between 200 and 300 kg, so they can be sent into orbit using
rocket launch vehicles, and each mission is expected to cost approximately $35
million for design, development, and operations through the first 30 days in orbit.
The 241-kg TRACE spacecraft was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base on 1
April 1998 aboard a Pegasus XL vehicle, a three-stage rocket launched from a jet
aircraft and used to deploy small payloads. It was sent into a full-Sun orbit, the first
solar observatory to have that advantage.
1.7 TRACE Focuses on Fine Details of the High-Temperature Gas 31

Table 1.10 ACE instruments arranged alphabetically and by acronyma

Instrument Measurement
CRIS The Cosmic Ray Isotope Spectrometer observes 24 species of cosmic rays in
seven energy ranges from 60 to more than 400 MeV per nucleon.
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/CRIS SIS/cris.html
EPAM The Electron, Proton and Alpha Monitor observes ions with energies between
0.05 and 5 MeV, and electrons with 38 to 312 keV in energy.
http://sd-www.jhuapl.edu/ACE/EPAM/
MAG The Magnetometer measures the vector magnetic field.
http://www.ssg.sr.unh.edu/mag/ACE.html
SEPICA The Solar Energetic Particle Ion Composition Spectrometer measures the charge
state of eight species of solar and interplanetary particles with energies
between 0.3 and 5 MeV per nucleon. This instrument has not been fully
operational since 2000. http://www.ssg.sr.unh.edu/tof/Missions/Ace/
SIS The Solar Isotope Spectrometer observes solar particles and cosmic rays with
energies of 6 to more than 100 MeV per nucleon.
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/CRIS SIS/sis.html
SWEPAM The Solar Wind Electron Proton Alpha Monitor measures the solar-wind
electrons, the solar-wind proton velocity, density, and temperature, and the
helium to hydrogen ion ratio 4 He/H+ in the solar wind.
http://swepam.lanl.gov/
SWICS The Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer measures the helium density, the
helium isotope ratio 3 He/4 He, the bulk and thermal ion speeds of helium,
carbon, oxygen, and iron nuclei, the abundances, relative to oxygen, and
charge state distributions of helium, carbon, neon, magnesium, silicon, and
iron. http://solar-heliospheric.engin.umich.edu/ace/
SWIMS The Solar Wind Ion Mass Spectrometer observes the nitrogen and sulfur
abundances relative to oxygen and the isotopes of magnesium and neon.
http://solar-heliospheric.engin.umich.edu/ace/
ULEIS The Ultra Low-Energy Ion Spectrometer observes solar and interplanetary
particles with energies between 0.04 and 4 MeV per nucleon, including the
helium ion abundance ratio 3 He/4 He. http://sd-www.jhuapl.edu/ACE/ULEIS/
a TheACE instrument papers are given in a special issue of Space Science Reviews 86, No. 1–4,
1–22, 267–632 (1998). EPAM, MAG, SIS and SWEPAM supply ACE real-time solar wind data.

TRACE has provided new insights to the magnetized coronal loops that mold and
constrain the million-degree gas in solar active regions, resolving them into long,
thin strands or threads that stand alone and are not braided together (Fig. 1.8). The
individual loops are brightest at their base, where the legs emerge from and return
to the photosphere, suggesting that the loop material is heated from below. Some of
the coronal loops are so unexpectedly dense, so crammed full with hot gas, that they
ought to break apart unless the material is being fed into them and drained away
from below. They seem to be continuously pumped up and deflated, heated from
below by upward pulses of hot material in matters of minutes, almost bursting apart
at the seams, but cooling down by radiation and the conductivity of heat to lower
levels in the chromosphere.
High-cadence TRACE images have detected highly dynamic processes in the
bright, non-flaring coronal loops located in solar active regions, including flows.
32 1 Instruments for a Revolution

Fig. 1.8 Magnetic loops made visible. An electrified, million-degree gas, known as plasma,
is channeled by magnetic fields into bright, thin loops. The magnetized loops stretch up to
500,000 km from the visible solar disk, spanning up to 40 times the diameter of planet Earth.
The magnetic loops are seen in extreme ultraviolet radiation of eight and nine times ionized iron,
denoted Fe IX and Fe X, at a wavelength of 17.1 nm, formed at a temperature of about 1.0 × 106 K.
The hot plasma is heated at the bases of loops near the place where their legs emerge from and
return to the photosphere. Bright loops with a broad range of lengths all have a fine, thread-like
substructure with widths as small as the telescope resolution of 1 s of arc, or 725 km at the Sun.
This image was taken with the Transition Region And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE,
spacecraft. (Courtesy of the TRACE consortium, LMSAL and NASA; TRACE is a mission of the
Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research, a joint program of the Lockheed-Martin Solar
and Astrophysics Laboratory, or LMSAL for short, and Stanford’s Solar Observatories Group.)

These magnetic loops also oscillate, or move back and forth, with periods of be-
tween 2 and 7 min, appearing when flares excite the oscillations. Wave and oscillat-
ing activity in coronal loops can be used to probe their physical characteristics, in a
relatively new investigation known as coronal seismology.
The high-resolution and rapid sequential images of the TRACE telescope de-
scribe how coronal loops evolve, varying with the ever-changing magnetism. When
combined with other simultaneous observations, from the ground or space, they pro-
vide evidence for the mechanisms that trigger solar flares or coronal mass ejections.
Driven by churning, turbulent motions at their roots in the photosphere and below,
the coronal loops shear, twist, and writhe, sometimes merging together, expanding,
or breaking out of their confinement. Then, in the wake of these outbursts and the
release of magnetic energy, the coronal loops reform in stable configurations, often
in elegant arcades (Fig. 1.9).
TRACE has also provided new characterizations of the quiet corona and transition
region, away from solar active regions. Bright, extreme-ultraviolet, flare-like events,
dubbed nanoflares, flash on and off, but with insufficient energy, frequency, or power
1.7 TRACE Focuses on Fine Details of the High-Temperature Gas 33

Fig. 1.9 Stitching up the wound. An arcade of post-flare loops shines in the extreme ultraviolet
radiation of eight and nine times ionized iron, Fe IX and Fe X at a wavelength of 17.1 nm, formed
at a temperature of about 1.0 × 106 K. This image was taken on 8 November 2000, just after a
solar flare occurred in the same active region; at least one coronal mass ejection also accompanied
the event. High-energy particles from the flare entered the Earth’s radiation belts, and an associ-
ated coronal mass ejection produced a strong geomagnetic storm. This image was taken from the
Transition Region and Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE. (Courtesy of the TRACE consor-
tium and NASA; TRACE is a mission of the Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research, a
joint program of the Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, or LMSAL for short,
and Stanford’s Solar Observatories Group.)

to noticeably heat the corona. Ultraviolet brightness oscillations are also observed
across the Sun, with the 5-min period of internal sound waves that push the photo-
sphere in and out from below. Some of these waves leak out into the chromosphere,
powering shocks that drive upward flows along magnetic flux tubes and forming the
ubiquitous, jet-like spicules. More than 10,000 spicules can be seen at any moment
on the Sun, continuously rising and falling every 5 min and carrying a mass flux
of 100 times that of the solar wind into the low solar corona. This TRACE discov-
ery of the previously unknown cause of spicules confirms related studies from the
Swedish Solar Telescope on La Palma, which uses adaptive optics to achieve high
angular resolution from the ground.
When comparing TRACE images with in situ measurements of the solar wind ob-
tained by the ACE spacecraft, scientists have shown that the speed and composition
of the solar wind at the Earth’s orbit have deep roots in the solar atmosphere. There
is a shallow, dense chromosphere below the strong, closed magnetic regions that
34 1 Instruments for a Revolution

are related to the slow, dense solar-wind outflow. Deep, less dense chromosphere is
found below the open magnetic regions, or coronal holes, where the fast, tenuous
winds originate.
Detailed discussions of these and other discoveries from TRACE are found in the
other chapters of this book. They provide the foundation for more comprehensive
investigations with the Hinode spacecraft discussed in Sect. 1.9.
The 30-cm aperture TRACE telescope zeros in on specific regions of the Sun’s
low corona with an 8.5 × 8.5 arc minute field of view and an angular resolution of
one second of arc, the highest resolution of coronal structures ever achieved. By
way of comparison, the angular diameter of the Sun is about 30 min of arc, which
is observed in its entirety by SOHO telescopes with less angular resolution. By ob-
serving the solar atmosphere in the ultraviolet and extreme-ultraviolet radiation of
different spectral lines, the TRACE instrument provides detailed images at temper-
atures from about 10,000 to about 10 × 106 K. They are spectral lines formed by
ionized iron and helium, denoted by Fe IX/X, Fe XII, Fe XV, and He II, at respec-
tive wavelengths of 17.11, 19.51, 28.52, and 30.38 nm and formation temperatures
of 1.0 × 106 , 1.5 × 106 , 2.5 × 106 , and 60,000 K. B. N. Handy et al. (1999) give the
TRACE instrument paper; also see C. J. Schrijver et al. (1999).
Alan M. Title, of the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory,
abbreviated LMSAL, was the Principal Investigator of the TRACE Mission, but
Carolus J. Schrijver, also of LMSAL, now replaces him. The Project Scientist
of the TRACE Mission is Joseph B. Gurman of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight
Center. The TRACE team consists of scientists at LMSAL, the Smithsonian As-
trophysical Observatory, the Montana State University, the Goddard Space Flight
Center, the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the United Kingdom, and Stan-
ford University. More information about these groups can be found on the World
Wide Web at the sites: http://www.lmsal.com, http://hea-www.harvard.edu/SSXG/,
http://solar.physics.montana.edu, http://sspg1.bnsc.rl.ac.uk/Share/sol.html, and
http://sun.stanford.edu/.

1.8 High-Energy Solar Outbursts Observed with RHESSI

Intense X-rays and extreme-ultraviolet radiation are not the only things unleashed
during a solar flare. For large flares, a significant fraction of the total explosion
energy is used to accelerate electrons, protons, and other ions to speeds approach-
ing the velocity of light. Solar flares are indeed the most powerful accelerators in
the solar system, producing ions with energies up to many GeV and electrons as
energetic as hundreds of MeV. (Billions and millions of electron volts, respectively
abbreviated as GeV and MeV, are the units of energy used to describe very energetic
particles, where 1 eV = 1.6 × 10−19 J and 1 J is equal to 10 × 106 erg.)
The energetic particles move rapidly away from their acceleration site in the low
solar corona, traveling down into the Sun and out into space. When the energetic
ions are beamed into the lower solar atmosphere, they initiate nuclear collisions that
produce hard X-ray and gamma-ray radiation. The electrons also emit radiation at
1.8 High-Energy Solar Outbursts Observed with RHESSI 35

these wavelengths when they are hurled down into the denser parts of the Sun’s
atmosphere.
The Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager, abbreviated RHESSI, mis-
sion provides unique observations of high-energy acceleration processes close to the
Sun by observing energetic flare radiation over an enormous range in energy, from
soft X-rays (3 keV) to gamma rays (17 MeV). It thereby obtains information about
the location, energy spectrum, and composition of the flare-accelerated particles.
This has important implications for flare particle acceleration and escape processes,
as well as energy release in solar flares. RHESSI has observed over 12,000 flares
with detectable emission above 12 keV, more than 1500 above 25 keV, and more
than a dozen gamma ray flares.
RHESSI is one of NASA’s Small Explorer, or SMEX, Missions designed to do
focused space science research in a relatively inexpensive manner. It is the only
solar mission named for an individual, Reuven Ramaty, a pioneer in the fields of
solar physics, gamma-ray astronomy, nuclear astrophysics, and cosmic rays, and a
co-investigator and one of the founding members of the HESSI team.
The 293-kg spacecraft was launched from the Kennedy Space Center on 5 Febru-
ary 2002, aboard a Pegasus XL vehicle released from a jet aircraft.
The main scientific objective of RHESSI is to explore the basic physics of particle
acceleration and energy release in solar flares through spectroscopy and imaging of
gamma-ray lines at specific wavelengths and the X-ray and gamma-ray continuum
radiation emitted at all wavelengths by flare-accelerated ions and electrons. It has
determined the frequency, location, and evolution of impulsive flare emission in the
corona, and studied the acceleration, propagation, and evolution of flare-associated
electrons, protons, and heavier ions.
Although previous solar spacecraft have detected solar gamma-ray lines, pro-
duced by nuclear collisions with flare-accelerated ions, RHESSI provided the first
high-resolution spectroscopy and imaging of them. It provided the first ever gamma-
ray line image of a solar flare, showing that the flare-accelerated ions are separated
from the accelerated electrons by about 15,000 km, which was confirmed by sub-
sequent RHESSI flare observations. This could be explained by different accelera-
tion sites for ions and electrons, or possibly by a common acceleration site with a
difference in the place where they lose their energy by collision. The gamma-ray
images from solar flares observed so far are nevertheless located in the flare active
region, showing that the responsible ions are accelerated by a flare process and not
by shocks such as those generated during fast coronal mass ejections.
One of the more fascinating spectral features is the one produced when anti-
matter is destroyed almost immediately after its creation during a solar flare. That
is, positrons, the anti-matter counterpart of electrons, annihilate with electrons pro-
ducing radiation at 0.511 MeV (Fig. 1.10), which is the energy contained in the
entire mass of a non-moving electron. RHESSI has resolved the positron annihila-
tion line for the first time and showed that it is unexpectedly broad, a disconcerting
anomaly that no one has been able to explain so far.
RHESSI has also confirmed that large-scale magnetic reconnection in the low
corona is the most likely explanation for how flares suddenly release so much
36 1 Instruments for a Revolution

10 -1
e+-e-
511 keV Neutron Capture
2.223 MeV
Coumts (cm-2 s-1 keV-1)

10 -2
Bremsstrahlung

10 -3

10 -4 Narrow lines

10 -5
0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
Photon Energy (MeV)

Fig. 1.10 Flare spectral lines at high energy. This energy spectrum of radiation, from a flare on
28 October 2003, exhibits two prominent spectral lines and numerous less intense, narrow ones.
The line with energy of 511 keV, or 0.511 MeV, is emitted when electrons collide with their anti-
matter counterparts, the positrons or “positive electrons”; both particles are destroyed while emit-
ting the high-energy radiation. The neutron-capture line at 2.223 MeV, and several narrow lines
from accelerated protons are also seen. Underlying the line features is the bremsstrahlung con-
tinuum from accelerated electrons. These data were obtained from NASA’s Ramaty High Energy
Solar Spectroscopic Imager, abbreviated RHESSI. (Courtesy of Brian R. Dennis, NASA.)

energy. The spacecraft’s X-ray images indicate that the coronal source of a flare can
be separated from the underlying flare loops, rising to higher altitude and moving
away from the reconnection site.
RHESSI observations of the particles accelerated during large flares have been
compared with in situ energetic particle measurements near the Earth’s orbit with
the WIND and ACE spacecraft, and for the most energetic ions at the ground. Many
were surprised when this comparison showed that the most energetic ions and elec-
trons accelerated during solar flares are not responsible for many of the powerful
solar energetic particles that arrive in the vicinity of the Earth. It appears that a
different acceleration process, one associated with the shocks of fast coronal mass
ejections, may often be responsible for the very energetic particles that can threaten
humans and satellites near our planet, with important implications for space weather.
The relative roles of flare acceleration and shock acceleration are nevertheless still
controversial, and energetic particles accelerated in modest flares still appear to be
similar to weaker concentrations of energetic particles arriving near Earth.
These and other significant accomplishments of RHESSI are discussed in greater
detail in other chapters of this book.
They have been achieved with instruments that image solar flares from X-rays to
gamma rays with a full Sun field of view and an angular resolution of 2 s of arc for
photon energies below 100 keV to 36 s of arc for photon energies above 100 MeV,
and a temporal resolution as short as tens of milliseconds. The Paul Scherrer Insti-
tut in Switzerland provided the imaging telescope and optical aspect system, while
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center provided the detection grids. RHESSI also
1.9 Hinode Observes the Sun’s Varying Magnetic Fields, Atmosphere and Activity 37

observes the spectral lines emitted during solar flares with a spectral resolution as
fine as 1 keV for photon energies below 100 keV and just a few keV for higher MeV
photon energies.
R. P. Lin et al. (2002) give the RHESSI instrument paper, the RHESSI spectrome-
ter is described by D. M. Smith et al. (2002), and G. J. Hurford et al. (2002) delineate
the RHESSI imaging concept.
RHESSI is the first of NASA’s Small Explorers to be managed in the Prin-
cipal Investigator mode, by Robert P. Lin at the Space Sciences Laboratory of
the University of California, Berkeley. The RHESSI Mission Scientist is Brian R.
Dennis of the Solar Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Cen-
ter. Supporting scientists are located throughout the world at institutions such as
Montana State University, the University of Alabama, the Lawrence Berkeley Na-
tional Laboratory, the ETH Institute of Astronomy in Zurich, Switzerland, the Uni-
versity of Glasgow, Scotland, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan,
and the Observatoire de Paris-Meudon, France. A complete list of participating
scientists may be found at the RHESSI Web Sites http://hessi.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/hessi. RHESSI data are available at http://
rhessidatacenter.ssl.berkeley.edu and a mirrored version at http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.
gov/rhessidatacenter/.

1.9 Hinode Observes How Varying Magnetic Fields Heat

the Corona and Power Explosive Outbursts There

Solar scientists have now found that magnetic energy is the most likely source of
heating the million-degree corona and powering solar flares and coronal mass ejec-
tions. And instruments aboard the Yohkoh, SOHO, RHESSI, and TRACE spacecraft
have provided abundant evidence for changing magnetic fields that interact to re-
lease magnetic energy as heat, energetic radiation, and particle acceleration. Build-
ing on these results, the Hinode mission uses a coordinated set of three telescopes,
operating at visible-light, X-ray, and extreme-ultraviolet wavelengths, to measure
the emergence, decay, structure, and motions of the Sun’s ever-varying magnetic
field with continuous fine detail, and to investigate how the high-temperature, ion-
ized atmosphere responds to the changing magnetism.
The 900-kg Japanese Solar-B spacecraft was launched on a M-V rocket out of
the Uchinoura Space Center in Kagoshima Prefecture, Japan on 23 September 2006,
and renamed Hinode, the Japanese word for “sunrise,” after launch. It has been
placed in a full-Sun orbit about the Earth, permitting continuous observations of the
Sun for 24 h a day during 8 months each year.
Hinode is a mission of the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency, abbreviated
JAXA, with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, or NAOJ for short,
as domestic partner and NASA and the Science and Technology Facilities Council,
abbreviated STFC, of the United Kingdom as international partners. It is operated
by these agencies in co-operation with ESA and NSC (Norway).
38 1 Instruments for a Revolution

The Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, or ISAS/JAXA, developed and

launched the spacecraft. NAOJ and ISAS/JAXA provided the visible-light Solar
Optical Telescope and the camera for the X-Ray Telescope. In the United States,
NASA helped with the development, funding, and assembly of the spacecraft’s three
science instruments. The United Kingdom has additionally supported the develop-
ment and construction of the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer through the
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, abbreviated PPARC, with contri-
butions from Japan and the United States. The European Space Agency, in partner-
ship with Norway, provides spacecraft tracking and data acquisition, down linking
Hinode data during each orbit using the satellite station situated on the Norwegian
Svalbard islands. Mission operations are the shared responsibility of the Japanese,
United Kingdom, and United States partners.
Hinode’s comprehensive set of scientific objectives includes an understanding of
the creation and destruction of the Sun’s magnetic fields, determining how magnetic
interactions and related processes generate the solar atmosphere and solar activity,
investigating the coupling between the photosphere and corona, determining how
varying magnetism modulates the total output of energy from the Sun over its 11-
year activity cycle, investigation of how magnetic interactions convert magnetic en-
ergy into intense ultraviolet and X-ray radiation, studies of the magnetic causes of
energetic outbursts known as solar flares and coronal mass ejections, and an under-
standing of the origin and acceleration of the solar wind.
To accomplish these scientific objectives, Hinode contains a Solar Optical Tele-
scope, abbreviated SOT, an X-Ray Telescope, or XRT for short, and an Extreme-
ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer, denoted EIS. Impressive first results were already
on hand a year after Hinode launch, following the completion of calibration pro-
cesses. Its uninterrupted high-resolution observations, from each instrument alone
or combined with each other, are helping scientists unravel several longstanding
solar mysteries.
The Solar Optical Telescope aboard Hinode is the largest visible-light solar tele-
scope ever flown in space, with an angular resolution as good as 0.2 s of arc. It pro-
vides the first space-borne observations of the photosphere’s vector magnetic field
(Fig. 1.11). Although ground-based solar telescopes can resolve such fine detail un-
der conditions of exceptionally good seeing, the Solar Optical Telescope provides it
all the time. Moreover, it measures both the longitudinal and the horizontal compo-
nents of the photosphere’s magnetic field, while most previous instruments observed
just the longitudinal one. At the center of the solar disk, the longitudinal component
is the vertical one, and the horizontal component is transverse. One surprising new
finding from the Hinode observations is the ubiquitous presence of intense horizon-
tal magnetic fields in the quiet solar disk away from active regions; the horizontal
components are on average five times stronger than the vertical ones.
The uninterrupted, high-resolution observations from Hinode’s Solar Optical
Telescope have also been used to study the emergence, motions, evolution, flows,
decay, and disintegration of sunspots with unprecedented detail. And its combina-
tion of high spatial and temporal resolution have shown that the photosphere’s mag-
netism is much more turbulent and dynamic than previously thought, continuously
1.9 Hinode Observes the Sun’s Varying Magnetic Fields, Atmosphere and Activity 39

Fig. 1.11 Magnetic fields with high resolution. The longitudinal component of the magnetic field
in the quiet solar photosphere, measured with the Spectro-Polarimeter, or SP for short, of the Solar
Optical Telescope aboard Hinode on 22 November 2006. The black areas indicate magnetic fields
pointing into the Sun, and the white places denote fields pointing out of the Sun. The average
magnetic flux density of the longitudinal component, at the Hinode SP angular resolution of 0.3 s
of arc, is 11.0 Maxwell per square centimeter. In contrast, the horizontal component of the pho-
tosphere magnetic field for the same area has an average apparent flux density of 55 in the same
units, assuming these structures are spatially resolved. [Courtesy of Bruce Lites, the SOT consor-
tium, NASA, JAXA and NAOJ, adapted from Lites and co-workers (2007). Hinode is a Japanese
mission developed and launched by ISAS/JAXA, with NAOJ as domestic partner and NASA and
STFC (UK) as international partners. It is operated by these agencies in co-operation with ESA
and NSC (Norway).]

bringing magnetic fields together to power jets and waves that move through the
overlying chromosphere and corona.
The Hinode X-Ray Telescope provides an unprecedented combination of spa-
tial resolution, field of view, and image cadence. It has the broadest temperature
coverage of any coronal imager to date, from 1 × 106 to 30 × 106 K. Its extremely
large dynamic range permits detection of the entire corona, from coronal holes to
the largest X-ray flares, and the high data rate permits observations of rapid changes
in coronal magnetic and temperature structures.
The new level of detail afforded by the X-Ray Telescope, in both space and time,
have provided new insights to the X-ray bright points, discovered from Skylab,
and the X-ray jets previously investigated using the Soft X-ray Telescope aboard
Yohkoh. The Hinode results have demonstrated that the bright points, which appear
40 1 Instruments for a Revolution

all over the Sun, are not points at all, but are instead resolved into small-scale mag-
netic loops.
High-speed jets of hot material are ejected when a closed magnetic loop emerges
within a locally unipolar, or open, magnetic field region, releasing energy by
means of magnetic reconnection. Observations from Hinode’s X-Ray Telescope
have shown that the jets are formed frequently in polar coronal holes, where open
magnetic fields predominate, at the rate of about 60 jets per day. The large number
of events, coupled with the high velocities of the apparent flows, indicate that the
jets may generate magnetic waves, or Alfvén waves, which could help drive the fast
solar wind into space. The X-Ray Telescope has also discovered continuous outflow
of X-ray emitting gas from the edge of an active region adjacent to a coronal hole,
supplying heated material into the upper corona and providing a possible source of
the slow solar wind.
The X-Ray Telescope aboard Hinode has additionally provided new insights to
the sigmoid shapes previously observed with poorer spatial resolution from Yohkoh.
The twisted and tangled magnetic fields store large amounts of magnetic free en-
ergy, which can be released when they relax to a simpler configuration. The sigmoid
shapes may therefore be used to predict when the Sun is about to release mag-
netic energy in powerful explosive outbursts, the solar flares and coronal mass ejec-
tions. The X-Ray Telescope has resolved the detailed structure of these S-shaped
sigmoids, showing that they can be composed of discontinuous loops, strands, or
threads (Fig. 1.12). Such observations are being used to test various models of how
the sigmoids are formed and subsequently release magnetic energy to power solar
outbursts.
The Hinode Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer measures the tempera-
ture, density, and velocity structures of the Sun’s high-temperature, ionized atmo-
sphere with high spatial and temporal resolution. It is the first extreme-ultraviolet,
orbiting solar spectrometer capable of obtaining high spectral resolution data with
both high spatial and temporal resolution. Electron temperature and density maps
can be obtained by using the instrument to image the Sun in different spectral lines,
with an angular resolution of about 2 s of arc for both quiet and active solar struc-
tures. The spectral line wavelengths and profiles can also be used to determine ve-
locities of motions using the Doppler effect. These capabilities sharpen and refine
tests of coronal heating models.
The Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer aboard Hinode is placing con-
straints on both static and dynamic heating mechanisms for active-region coronal
loops over a broad temperature range. Loop widths and cross sections have been
established for relatively cool and hot structures, and strong non-thermal velocities
of about 100 km s−1 have been measured in the loop legs. In non-thermal motion,
the emitting material is moving faster than expected on the basis of its tempera-
ture alone.
New and unexpected results have also been obtained from Extreme-ultraviolet
Imaging Spectrometer observations of the quiet Sun away from active regions. The
quiet places are highly structured, with loops at temperatures between 0.4 × 106
and 2.6 × 106 K. The cooler loops are the smaller and low-lying ones, and they are
1.9 Hinode Observes the Sun’s Varying Magnetic Fields, Atmosphere and Activity 41

Fig. 1.12 Sigmoid details. The X-Ray Telescope, abbreviated XRT, aboard Hinode has resolved
the S-shaped sigmoid in this active region into discontinuous, distinguishable threads highly inter-
woven with the surrounding material. The magnetic fields have a complex, non-potential configu-
ration that is capable of storing free magnetic energy, which can be released to power solar flares
or coronal mass ejections. This image of AR 10949 was taken by the XRT on 5 February 2007.
[Courtesy of Monica Bobra, Leon Golub, Katharine Reeves, the XRT consortium, SAO, NASA,
JAXA and NAOJ. Hinode is a Japanese mission developed and launched by ISAS/JAXA, with
NAOJ as domestic partner and NASA and STFC (UK) as international partners. It is operated by
these agencies, in co-operation with ESA and NSC (Norway).]

isolated from the larger, hotter, higher ones. Large outflow velocities on the order of
100 km s−1 have also been discovered in the quiet corona.
The three Hinode telescopes are operated together, continuously viewing the
same structures at different heights. The Solar Optical Telescope monitors the
rapidly changing photospheric magnetism; the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Spec-
trometer provides detailed temperature, density, and dynamic information in the
overlying transition region; and the X-Ray Telescope provides high-resolution tem-
poral, temperature, and context information in the low corona. The combined data
from all three instruments determine how the solar magnetic field originates and
changes, what magnetic configuration initiates energy release in powerful solar out-
bursts, what magnetic reorientation is needed to produce these outbursts over a short
time, and how this variability modulates the Sun’s output and creates powerful gusts
in the solar wind.
The Solar Optical Telescope has, for example, been used to observe dynamic
phenomena in the chromosphere that are associated with jets and waves detected by
42 1 Instruments for a Revolution

the X-Ray Telescope in the overlying corona. The chromospheric jets often exhibit
an upside-down Y shape, providing evidence of ubiquitous magnetic reconnections.
Energy associated with chromospheric Alfvén waves may be sufficient to heat the
chromosphere or corona and accelerate the solar wind.
The twisted shapes of active regions, detected in X-rays with the X-Ray Tele-
scope, have been correlated with sheared magnetic fields in the underlying photo-
sphere, observed from the Solar Optical Telescope. The shear creates non-potential
magnetic fields in the overlying corona, detected with the X-Ray Telescope. In one
instance, colliding sunspots detected with the Solar Optical Telescope (Fig. 1.13)
were associated with a major solar flare that was detected by other Hinode instru-
ments, as well as by the spacecraft that observed threatening high-energy protons
near Earth. By using Hinode to follow the evolution of solar structures that outline
the magnetic field before, during, and after solar flares and coronal mass ejections,
scientists hope to enhance our understanding of the way magnetic fields connect and
reconfigure to cause these energetic outbursts.
The three instruments aboard Hinode are also being combined to improve our
understanding of the heating of the solar atmosphere. Simultaneous observations of
active regions with the X-Ray Telescope and the Solar Optical Telescope, for ex-
ample, show that transient X-ray brightening is associated with emerging magnetic
flux in the underlying photosphere, which must be contributing to the heating of the
chromosphere and corona. Observations of transient active-region heating with the
Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer and the X-Ray Telescope indicate that

Fig. 1.13 Colliding sunspots. Hinode’s Solar Optical Telescope detects the whirl of a new devel-
oping sunspot colliding with an existing spot. Yingna Su and co-workers (2007) have shown how
the sheared magnetic fields caused by the colliding sunspots resulted in a powerful X-class flare
from this active region on 13 December 2006. The flare produced high-energy protons that reached
the Earth at the time of a Space Shuttle flight. [Courtesy of Hinode, JAXA, NASA, and PPARC.
Hinode is a Japanese mission developed and launched by ISAS/JAXA, with NAOJ as domestic
partner and NASA and STFC (UK) as international partners. It is operated by these agencies in
co-operation with ESA and NSC (Norway).]
1.9 Hinode Observes the Sun’s Varying Magnetic Fields, Atmosphere and Activity 43

Table 1.11 Hinode instruments

Instrument Measurement
SOT The Solar Optical Telescope has a 50-cm aperture with an angular resolution of
0.25 arcseconds, or 175 km on the Sun, covering a visible-light wavelength
range of 480–650 nm. It provides vector magneto grams, Doppler velocity, and
intensity measurements of the photosphere with a temporal resolution of
5 min. S. Tsuneta et al., Solar Physics 249, 167–196 (2008).
XRT The X-Ray Telescope is a high-resolution grazing incidence telescope, a
successor to the highly successful Soft X-ray Telescope on Yohkoh, but with a
better angular resolution of about 2 arcseconds over a broad temperature range
of 1–30 × 106 K with both full disk and partial fields of view and a temporal
resolution as short as 2 s. L. Golub et al., Solar Physics 243, 63–86 (2007) and
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/
EIS The Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer provides images of the transition
region and corona with an angular resolution of 2 arcseconds and a time
resolution as short as 3 s, determining the temperature and density structure of
the ionized gas and measuring the flow velocity, or speed, of the solar particles
with a resolution of 3 km s−1 . J. L. Culhane et al., Solar Physics 243, 19–61
(2007).

coronal loops at temperatures of about 1 × 106 K are not in equilibrium, and that
dynamic, impulsive heating may play an important role in heating them.
The Hinode instruments are described in greater detail in Table 1.11. The Prin-
cipal Investigators of these instruments are listed in Table 1.12, together with their

Table 1.12 Hinode principal investigators and their institutions

Instrument Principal Institution
investigator

SOT Saku Tsuneta National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Mitaka,

Tokyo, Japan
Ted Tarbell Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Palo
Alto, California, United States, succeeding Alan Title of
the same institution.
XRT Kiyoto Shibasaki National Astronomical Observatory, Nobeyama, Radio
Observatory, Nobeyama, Japan
Edward E. DeLuca Center for Astrophysics, Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States,
succeeding Leon Golub of the same institution.
EIS Tetsuya Watanabe National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Mitaka,
Tokyo, Japan
Louise Harra Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College,
London, United Kingdom, succeeding J. Leonard
Culhane of the same institution.
George A. Doschek Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of
Columbia, United States
44 1 Instruments for a Revolution

institutions. Takeo Kosugi was the Hinode Project Manager through launch until
his very untimely death. T. Kosugi and colleagues give an overview of the Hin-
ode mission in Solar Physics 243, 3–17 (2007). Ichiro Nakatani is the current
JAXA Project Manager for Hinode; the ESA Project Scientist for the mission is
Bernhard Fleck. Additional information about the mission may be found at the
ISAS site http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/enterp/missions/solar-b/, the Solar-B project site
at http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/home/solar/, the NASA site at http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov,
and the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan site http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/
index e.shtml.

1.10 STEREO Observes Coronal Mass Ejections in Three

Dimensions from the Sun to Earth

When impacting the Earth with the proper orientation, the billion-ton solar out-
bursts known as coronal mass ejections can cause powerful geomagnetic storms
and intense auroras, and disrupt satellites, radio communications, and power grids.
And an understanding of their trajectories and consequences is now being dramati-
cally improved with the three-dimensional imaging provided for the first time by the
twin spacecraft of NASA’s Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory, or STEREO for
short; the pair of spacecraft are designated STEREO A and STEREO B, each with a
mass of approximately 620 kg, which study the origin, evolution, and interplanetary
consequences of coronal mass ejections.
Just as the slight offset between a person’s eyes provides depth perception, the
separation of the two STEREO spacecraft, which precede and follow the Earth in
its orbit, allows a three-dimensional, stereoscopic view of coronal mass ejections
from their onset at the Sun to the orbit of the Earth. This will enable scientists to
forecast their arrival at the Earth within a few hours, permitting satellite and utility
operators to take precautions to minimize damage. Shocks driven by coronal mass
ejections play a significant role in accelerating the solar energetic particles that can
damage spacecraft and harm unprotected astronauts, so STEREO can also be used
for warnings of these threats to interplanetary spacecraft or astronauts on the Moon
or Mars.
STEREO was launched on 25 October 2006, from a Delta II rocket launch vehicle
from Cape Canaveral, Florida. The two spacecraft drift away from Earth at an aver-
age rate of about 22.5◦ per year; STEREO A drifts ahead of the Earth and STEREO B
behind. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory designed, built,
and operates the twin observatories. NASA’S Goddard Space Flight Center’s Solar
Terrestrial Probes Program Office manages the STEREO Mission, instruments and
science center.
STEREO’s scientific objectives are to understand the origin, evolution, and mech-
anisms of coronal mass ejections and to characterize their propagation through the
solar system. Its instruments are additionally investigating the mechanisms and sites
of energetic particle acceleration by coronal mass ejections in the low corona and
the interplanetary medium, and improving our understanding of the structure of the
gusty solar wind.
1.10 STEREO Observes Coronal Mass Ejections in Three Dimensions from the Sun to Earth 45

Additional details about the STEREO Mission can be found at http://stereo.

jhuapl.edu and http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/, and in the book edited by Christopher
Russell (2008). The instruments described in Table 1.13 are accomplishing
STEREO’s scientific objectives. They include in situ measurements of particles and
magnetic fields at the location of the two spacecraft, as well as extreme-ultraviolet
imagers, white-light coronagraphs, and heliosphere imagers that can follow the evo-
lution of coronal mass ejections from the Sun through interplanetary space. They
have provided the first three-dimensional reconstructions of coronal loops and the
first images of coronal mass ejections outside the Sun–Earth line. The instrument
Principal Investigators and their institutions are given in Table 1.14. The STEREO
Project Scientist is Michael Kaiser at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The
accomplishments of the STEREO Mission are discussed in greater detail in other
chapters of this book.
Armed with the most sophisticated detectors and telescopes ever focused on the
Sun and space, this scientific armada of nine solar missions, named Yohkoh, Ulysses,
Wind, SOHO, ACE, TRACE, RHESSI, Hinode, and STEREO, has vastly improved
our understanding of the Sun and its interaction with the Earth. To fully interpret
their results, we must first understand the landscape that they have either moved
within or viewed from afar. We therefore next describe the early exploration of
space, providing the historical context from which our modern discoveries came.

Table 1.13 STEREO’s instruments arranged alphabetically by acronym

Instrument Measurement

IMPACT The In-situ Measurements of Particles and CME Transients samples the
three-dimensional distribution and provides plasma characteristics of solar
energetic particles and the local vector magnetic field. See J. G. Luhmann
et al., M. H. Acuña et al., R. P. Lin et al., G. M. Mason et al., and J. A. Sauvaud
et al., Space Science Reviews 136, 117–184, 203–236, 241–255, 257–284,
227–238 (2008) and http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/impact/ for more information.
PLASTIC The PLAsma and SupraThermal Ion COmposition instrument provides plasma
characteristics of protons, alpha particles, and heavy ions. It determines the
mass and charge state composition of heavy ions and characterizes the CME
plasma. Additional details are found at A. B. Galvin et al., Space Science
Reviews 136, 437–486 (2008) and http://stereo.sr.unh.edu/.
SECCHI The Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation has four
instruments: an extreme ultraviolet imager, two white-light coronagraphs, and
a heliospheric imager. These instruments study the three-dimensional
evolution of CMEs from their origin in the low solar corona, through the
expanding solar atmosphere, and interplanetary medium, to their eventual
impact at Earth. Additional details of the SECCHI instruments can be found at
R. A. Howard et al., Space Science Reviews 136, 67–115 (2008) and
http://secchi.nrl.navy.mil, http://secchi.lmsal.com/EUVI/,
http://cor1.gsfc.nasa.gov/, and http://www.stereo.rl.ac.uk/science/
SWAVES STEREO/WAVES is an interplanetary radio burst tracker that traces the
generation and evolution of traveling radio disturbances from the Sun to the
orbit of Earth. Additional details are available at J. L. Bougeret et al., Space
Science Reviews 136, 487–528 (2008) and http://swaves.gsfc.nasa.gov/.
46 1 Instruments for a Revolution

Table 1.14 STEREO principal investigators and their institutions

Instrument Principal investigator Institution
SECCHI Russell Howard Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of
Columbia, United States
SWAVES Jean-Louis H. Bougeret Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,
Observatoire de Paris, France
IMPACT Janet G. Luhmann University of California, Berkeley, United States
PLASTIC Antoinette Galvin University of New Hampshire, Durham, New
Hampshire, United States

This will establish the framework needed for envisaging the new results, while in-
troducing basic concepts and fundamental terms.

1.11 Summary Highlights: Modern Solar Space Missions

• The Sun is a vigorous and violent place of hot, writhing gases and powerful
explosive outbursts, driven by intense variable magnetism.
• A transparent, high-temperature atmosphere, which lies above the visible solar
disk or photosphere, consists of a thin chromosphere at a temperature of about
10,000 K and an extended million-degree corona.
• Magnetic fields that are generated inside the Sun loop through the photosphere
and overlying solar atmosphere. These coronal loops constrain high-temperature,
ionized gas that can be detected by its extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray radiation.
Strong magnetic fields are often connected to sunspots within solar active re-
gions, which are the sites of intense outbursts called solar flares. There is almost
no detectable X-ray emission from coronal holes, whose open magnetic fields
provide a pathway for material leaving the Sun.
• Scientists have had difficulty in explaining how the Sun’s intense magnetism
is generated, why it is concentrated into Earth-sized sunspots, and why solar
magnetic activity varies over an 11-year cycle.
• The heating mechanism for the Sun’s million-degree outer atmosphere, the solar
corona, remained an unresolved paradox for more than half a century.
• The exact sources and accelerating mechanisms for the Sun’s perpetual winds of
electrons, ions, and magnetic fields are just beginning to be understood.
• The location, energy source, and triggering mechanism for the Sun’s explosive
outbursts, known as solar flares and coronal mass ejections, remained perplexing
enigmas for decades.
• Eruptions on the Sun send energetic particles, intense radiation, and massive
magnetic bubbles into interplanetary space. They can affect the health and safety
of travelers in space, influence the habitability of the Moon and Mars, damage
or disable spacecraft both near the Earth and in outer space, produce spectacular
1.11 Summary Highlights: Modern Solar Space Missions 47

auroras and intense geomagnetic storms, and can damage electrical transmission
systems on the Earth. Scientists are not yet able to reliably predict these space
weather effects and thereby provide protection from them.
• Sensitive and precise instruments aboard nine solar missions, named Yohkoh,
Ulysses, Wind, SOHO, ACE, TRACE, RHESSI, Hinode, and STEREO, detect oth-
erwise invisible particles, optical or visible, ultraviolet, and X-ray radiation, and
magnetic fields, tracing the flow of energy and matter from down inside the Sun
to the Earth and beyond.
• The nine solar missions have been used to solve many of the outstanding prob-
lems in our understanding of the Sun and its impact on Earth, while also revealing
new unsolved dilemmas.
• The X-ray telescopes aboard the Yohkoh spacecraft tracked variations in the
million-degree corona for 10 years, over an entire solar activity cycle, pin-
pointed the coronal site of magnetic energy release and particle acceleration dur-
ing solar flares, and described how solar flares may be triggered by contorted
magnetic fields and magnetic interactions in the low solar corona. Yohkoh also
demonstrated that the X-ray emitting corona outside solar active regions has no
permanent features, exhibiting trans-equatorial loops, bright transient jets and
nanoflares.
• Ulysses is the first and only spacecraft to pass over the north and south polar
regions of the Sun, measuring the properties of the Sun’s magnetic fields and the
solar wind there. It has moved across each of these polar regions three times in
a 17-year period, which included two minima and one maximum in the 11-year
solar activity cycle. When combined with the results of other spacecraft, instru-
ments aboard Ulysses have observed dramatic changes in the solar wind structure
from the minimum to the maximum in the 11-year solar activity cycle. In quiet
times, near solar minimum, the high-speed solar wind rushes out of open mag-
netic fields in polar coronal holes and the slow-speed wind originates at low solar
latitudes near equatorial coronal streamers, regions of closed magnetic fields and
extended stalks. The fast and slow winds have different compositions, related to
their sources, and different electron temperatures. Ulysses and other spacecraft
have shown that the solar wind does not just flow unperturbed from the Sun to
the Earth and beyond, and that it is instead altered by interplanetary magnetic re-
connections, by the interactions of the fast and slow winds, and by coronal mass
ejections as they travel through the vast territory between the planets. Ulysses has
additionally provided new insights to “pick-up” ions, some of which were cre-
ated when interstellar atoms penetrated the heliosphere, became ionized there,
and were picked up and entrained by the solar wind.
• Instruments aboard the Wind spacecraft measure the solar-wind particles, mag-
netic fields, and other energetic particles arriving at the dayside of the Earth’s
magnetosphere. The spacecraft also tracks radio signals generated by solar-
flare electrons and coronal-mass-ejection driven shocks, and when combined
with similar observations from STEREO, Ulysses, and/or Cassini determines the
three-dimensional locations of their sources. Wind, ACE, and other spacecraft
have demonstrated that oppositely directed magnetic fields in the solar wind are
48 1 Instruments for a Revolution

joining together near the Earth’s orbit, reconnecting in long, steady layers that
stretch out for hundreds of Earth radii. Wind also measures impulsive bursts
of energetic particles arriving at Earth from solar flares, as well as those more
gradual but much longer lasting bursts likely coming from coronal mass ejec-
tions. These Wind observations help to determine the sources of solar energetic
particles, the physical processes that accelerate them, and how they escape and
propagate through space, all crucial information for protecting space assets and
astronauts.
• SOHO is equipped with helioseismology instruments that measure the structure,
rotation, and flows within the solar interior. They have shown that differential
rotation, in which equatorial regions rotate faster than regions closer to the poles,
persists to about one-third the way into the Sun, where the rotation changes and
the Sun’s magnetic field is probably generated. The temperature of the Sun’s
core, inferred from the helioseismology data, is consistent with our understand-
ing of the Sun’s internal structure, which showed that the shortfall in observed
neutrinos from the Sun was due to an incomplete knowledge of neutrinos. The he-
lioseismology results also contain hints of gravity waves that might reside in the
central parts of the Sun. Internal flows have been discovered moving at different
speeds in the direction of rotation and from equator to pole and back. Helioseis-
mology instruments also routinely use sound waves to delineate active regions
on the invisible backside of the Sun. The new techniques of local helioseismol-
ogy have been used with SOHO data to obtain three-dimensional images of the
structure and flows below the visible solar disk, including those below sunspots
and active regions.
• SOHO’s magnetic imager has demonstrated that tens of thousands of small mag-
netic loops are constantly being generated and renewed from inside the Sun, ris-
ing up and out of the photosphere to help heat the solar atmosphere. Other SOHO
instruments have confirmed that the fast and slow solar winds respectively origi-
nate in regions of open and closed magnetic fields, which are rooted deep within
the chromosphere or below, and suggested that the some of the fast winds could
be fed from magnetic funnels arising from a magnetic network within polar coro-
nal holes. Observations from SOHO have additionally shown that the heavier ions
in the polar regions unexpectedly move faster than lighter ones, perhaps as the re-
sult of magnetic waves. Yet another SOHO instrument has provided more than a
decade of physical information about coronal mass ejections, including their var-
ious structures, while incidentally resulting in the discovery of over 1350 comets.
Dimming and waves associated with coronal mass ejections are found in extreme
ultraviolet radiation detected by another SOHO instrument.
• Instruments aboard the ACE spacecraft measure the composition of energetic nu-
clei as they bombard the Earth, providing clues to their origin and subsequent
transformations, both near the Sun and in the solar wind. Other ACE instruments
monitor magnetic fields and shocks in the solar wind at the Earth’s orbit. The
source of threatening solar energetic particles arriving at Earth has been inves-
tigated by combining ACE observations with those of spacecraft that look back
at the Sun, such as RHESSI and SOHO. Particle acceleration by interplanetary
1.11 Summary Highlights: Modern Solar Space Missions 49

shocks, driven by coronal mass ejections, seems to be responsible for the most
energetic solar particles arriving at Earth. ACE produced the first direct evidence
that magnetic fields in the solar wind can merge and join together near the Earth’s
orbit, releasing magnetic energy to produce an accelerated ion flow. Observations
with ACE, Wind and other spacecraft have demonstrated that this magnetic re-
connection can be prolonged, steady and large-scale, extending for hundreds of
Earth radii along the layer where oppositely directed magnetic fields meet. ACE
and Ulysses observations of the velocity distributions of ions reveal a “suprather-
mal” tail with up to 50 times the speed of other ions in the solar wind. They serve
as a pre-accelerated source for further acceleration by interplanetary shocks asso-
ciated with either coronal mass ejections or interacting fast and slow solar winds.
• Pioneering high-resolution observations with the TRACE telescope have been
used to study the low solar corona, and the transition region between the visible-
light photosphere and corona, with finer detail than ever achieved before. It has
demonstrated the ubiquity of dynamic evolution of the coronal magnetic field and
the intermittent heating of the solar corona; discovered the wide-spread presence
of magneto-hydrodynamic, or MHD, waves, both longitudinal and transverse,
many of which travel through the chromosphere with unanticipated efficiency;
and resolved the structure of the corona down to the smallest observable scale,
with little significant cross-sectional variation in coronal loops. TRACE has
shown that bright arch-like magnetic structures in solar active regions are com-
posed of numerous long, thin strands that are heated at their base and contain
flowing material, with little observable twists or braids and generally surprisingly
efficient reconnection. TRACE has investigated the structure and dynamic behav-
ior of these coronal loops before, during and after solar flares and coronal mass
ejections, providing new insights to the triggering mechanisms and magnetic en-
ergy release of these explosive outbursts. It has also permitted measurements of
reconnection rates, twist and writhe in filaments, and showed that active-region
magnetic loops oscillate to and fro or reform in the wake of solar flares. Fine de-
tails of moving structures have also been observed all across the Sun, including
those that produce ubiquitous, jet-like spicules.
• RHESSI obtains images and spectroscopy of solar flares at hard X-ray and
gamma-ray wavelengths, locating the regions of flare energy release in the
low corona and studying the acceleration, propagation, and evolution of flare-
accelerated electrons, protons, and heavier ions. It has provided the first ever
gamma-ray line image of a solar flare and the first spectroscopic resolution of
the anti-matter positron annihilation line, confirmed that solar flares can be ener-
gized by large-scale magnetic reconnection in the low corona, and together with
other spacecraft shown that the most energetic solar particles arriving at Earth
are often accelerated by coronal mass ejections rather than flares.
• Instruments aboard Hinode measure the Sun’s varying magnetic field with un-
precedented detail, and observe how magnetic energy is ultimately dissipated to
heat the million-degree corona, drive the solar wind, and energize solar flares
and coronal mass ejections. It contains the largest visible-light solar telescope
ever flown in space, an X-ray telescope with unprecedented spatial resolution
50 1 Instruments for a Revolution

and the broadest temperature range of any coronal imager to date, and the first
extreme-ultraviolet orbiting solar spectrometer capable of obtaining simultane-
ous spectral data with high spectral, spatial, and temporal resolution. Impressive
first results indicate that the Sun’s magnetism is much more dynamic than pre-
viously known, with evidence for filamentary structures, current systems, mag-
netic waves, oscillations and shocks, and rapid reconfiguration and reconnection.
New Hinode discoveries and observations include intense, ubiquitous horizontal
magnetic fields in the photosphere, the detailed emergence, evolution and disinte-
gration of sunspots, the loop structure of X-ray bright points, the magnetic recon-
nection that energizes high-speed jets in the chromosphere and corona, magnetic
Alfvén waves and outflowing hot gas that may contribute to the solar wind, the
detailed structure and underlying magnetic shear of X-ray sigmoids that precede
solar outbursts, non-thermal motions in active-region coronal loops, and both
cool and hot loops in the quiet Sun away from active regions.
• STEREO consists of two identical satellites, moving before and after the Earth
in its orbit, each equipped with instruments that together permit observations
of coronal mass ejections in three dimensions from the Sun to the Earth. Each
STEREO spacecraft includes in situ particle and magnetic field detectors, an
extreme-ultraviolet imager, a white-light coronagraph, a heliospheric imager, and
a radio burst tracker. These instruments are poised to determine the trajectories
and consequences of coronal mass ejections, and to greatly improve forecasts of
their potential effects. Some of them have already been used for the first three-
dimensional reconstruction of coronal loops, and to obtain the first view of a
coronal mass ejection from outside the Earth–Sun line.
Chapter 2
Discovering Space

2.1 Space Is Not Empty

2.1.1 Auroras and Geomagnetic Storms from the Sun

The first suggestions that space is not a cold, empty void came from the Earth,
where auroras light up the polar regions and magnetic variations make compass
needles quiver. They both suggested that the Sun was sending material corpuscles
into space.
The aurora borealis and aurora australis, or northern and southern lights, illumi-
nate the Arctic and Antarctic skies, where curtains of multi-colored light dance and
shimmer across the night sky far above the highest clouds (Fig. 2.1). And it is not
by accident that the auroras occur near the Earth’s geographic poles, for the Earth
is a huge dipolar magnet, with north and south magnetic poles located near the ge-
ographic ones. That is why a compass points roughly north or south. As suggested
by the great English astronomer Edmond Halley in 1716, the aurora lights are due
to “magnetical effluvia” circulating poleward in the Earth’s dipolar magnetic field.
In 1733, the French scientist Jean Jacques d’Ortous de Mairan asserted that the
aurora is a cosmic phenomenon, arising from the entry of solar gas into the Earth’s
atmosphere. He also suggested a possible connection between the “frequency, the
cessation and the return of sunspots and the manifestation of the aurora borealis.”
Nearly one and a half centuries later, Elias Loomis, Professor of Natural Philosophy
and Astronomy at Yale College, demonstrated a correlation between great auroras
and the times of maximum in the number of sunspots, which varies with a period of
about 11 years.
At the turn of the 20th century, the Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland ar-
gued that the Earth’s magnetism focuses incoming electrons to the polar regions
where they produce auroras. This is because magnetic fields create an invisible bar-
rier to charged particles, causing them to move along their magnetic conduits rather
than across them. Birkeland demonstrated his aurora theory in laboratory experi-
ments by sending cathode rays, or beams of electrons, toward a magnetized sphere,
called a terella, with a dipolar magnetic field, using phosphorescent paint to show
where the electrons struck it. The resulting light was emitted near the magnetic

K.R. Lang, The Sun from Space, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, 51

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
52 2 Discovering Space

Fig. 2.1 Aurora Borealis. Swirling walls and rays of shimmering green and red light are found
in this portrayal of the fluorescent Northern Lights, or Aurora Borealis, painted in 1865 by the
American artist Frederic Church. (Courtesy of the National Museum of American Art, Smithsonian
Institution, gift of Eleanor Blodgett.)

poles, with glowing shapes that reproduced many of the observed features of the
auroras.
As Birkeland expressed it in 1913:
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view that the whole of space is filled
with electrons and flying ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in
evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore
to think that a greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar
systems or nebulae, but in “empty” space.

Another indication of the fullness of space came from watching compass nee-
dles, which fluctuate, jiggle, and do not always point in exactly the same direc-
tion. When the compass needles swing violently to and fro, with the greatest sway,
the Earth’s magnetic fields are being shook to their very foundations. And these
powerful, global disturbances of the Earth’s magnetism, the intense geomagnetic
storms, are also synchronized with the Sun’s 11-year sunspot cycle, suggesting that
outbursts from the Sun are buffeting, compressing, and distorting the Earth’s mag-
netism, causing at least some of the geomagnetic storms that produce large, irregular
fluctuations of compass needles.
During a 9-month northern polar expedition, in 1902 and 1903, Birkeland moni-
tored auroras and geomagnetic activity, noting that there are always detectable vari-
ations in the geomagnetic field at high latitudes and that a faint aurora borealis is
also usually present. So, electrically charged particles seemed to be always flow-
ing from the Sun to the Earth, indirectly accounting for both the nearly continuous
2.1 Space Is Not Empty 53

northern lights and the geomagnetic storms, but with varying brilliance and intensity
that seemed to be controlled by the Sun.
Birkeland thought in terms of electron beams and currents of electrons from the
Sun. Such ideas were challenged first by Arthur Schuster in 1911 and then in 1919
by Frederick A. Lindemann, Professor of Physics at Oxford and Science Advisor
to Winston Churchill. Both scientists argued that a beam of solar electrons would
disperse, and effectively blow itself apart, because of the repulsive force of like
charges, long before reaching the Earth. Lindemann noted, however, that a stream
of solar electrons and protons in equal numbers could retain its shape and travel
to the Earth to initiate magnetic disturbances there. Then in 1930–1931, Sidney
Chapman and Vincent Ferraro described how sudden changes in the geomagnetic
field could result when clouds of solar electrons and protons collide with the Earth’s
magnetic field.
But what, you might wonder, is the Sun made out of, and how could the appar-
ently calm, serene, and unchanging Sun be sending this material into space?

2.1.2 The Main Ingredients of the Sun

The visible disk of the Sun is called the photosphere, which simply means the sphere
in which sunlight originates – from the Greek photos for light. And when the pho-
tosphere’s light is spread out into its different colors, or wavelengths, it is cut by
several dark gaps, now called absorption lines, which identify the chemical ingre-
dients of the Sun. They were first noticed by William Hyde Wollaston in 1802 and
investigated in far greater detail by Joseph Von Fraunhofer in 1814–1815.
The dark spectral features are called absorption lines because they each look like
a line in a spectral display of light intensity at different wavelengths, and because
they are produced when atoms in a cool, tenuous gas absorb the radiation of hot,
dense underlying material. Since each element, and only that element, produces a
unique set of dark absorption lines, their specific wavelengths can be used to finger-
print the atom or ion from which they originated.
By comparing the solar absorption lines with those emitted by the elements va-
porized in the laboratory, Gustav Kirchhoff was able to identify many of the el-
ements in the solar spectrum in 1861. Working with Robert Bunsen, inventor of
the Bunsen burner, Kirchhoff showed that the Sun contains sodium, calcium, and
iron (Table 2.1). This suggested that the Sun is made out of terrestrial elements
that are vaporized at the high stellar temperatures, but that is only partly true.
Many of the visible spectral lines were associated with hydrogen, a terrestrially rare
element.
In 1885 Johann Balmer developed a mathematical formula that described the
regular spacing of the wavelengths of the Fraunhofer absorption lines of the hy-
drogen atom that are seen in the visible light of the Sun. His formula was used
to predict hydrogen spectral lines that were subsequently observed at the invisible
54 2 Discovering Space

Table 2.1 Prominent absorption lines in photosphere sunlighta

Wavelength Fraunhofer Element symbol and name
(nm) letter
393.368 K Ionized Calcium, Ca II
396.849 H Ionized Calcium, Ca II
410.175 h Hydrogen, Hδ , Balmer delta transition
422.674 g Neutral Calcium, Ca I
431.0 ± 1.0 G CH molecule
438.356 d Neutral Iron, Fe I
486.134 F Hydrogen, Hβ , Balmer beta transition
516.733 b4 Neutral Magnesium, Mg I
517.270 b2 Neutral Magnesium, Mg I
518.362 b1 Neutral Magnesium, Mg I
526.955 E Neutral Iron, Fe I
587.6 D3 Helium, He I
588.997b D2 Neutral Sodium, Na I
589.594 D1 Neutral Sodium, Na I
656.281 C Hydrogen, Hα , Balmer alpha transition
686.719 B Molecular Oxygen, O2 , in our air
759.370 A Molecular Oxygen, O2 , in our air
a Adapted from Lang (2001). The wavelengths are in nanometer units, where 1 nm = 10−9 m. As-
tronomers have often used the Angstrom unit of wavelength, where 1 Angstrom = 1 Å = 0.1 nm.
Joseph von Fraunhofer used the letters around 1814 to designate the spectral lines before they were
chemically identified, but the subscripts denote components that were not resolved by Fraunhofer.
A Roman numeral I after an element symbol denotes a neutral, or unionized atom, with no elec-
trons missing, whereas the Roman numeral II denotes a singly ionized atom with one electron
missing. The lines A and B are produced by molecular oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere
b Fraunhofer’s D line includes the two sodium lines, designated D and D , and the helium line at
1 2
587.6 nm, designated D3

infrared, ultraviolet and radio wavelengths. The most intense Balmer line is now
known as the Balmer hydrogen alpha line, designated Hα, at a red wavelength of
656.3 nanometers.
Balmer’s equation was explained by Niels Bohr’s 1913 model of the hydrogen
atom, in which the atom’s single electron can only occupy specific orbits with def-
inite, quantized values of energy. The observed absorption lines of hydrogen occur
when an electron jumps between these allowed orbits.
Detailed investigations of the Sun’s absorption-line intensities, by Albrecht
Unsöld in 1928, suggested that the Sun is mainly composed of the lightest element,
hydrogen, which is terrestrially rare. The observed luminosity of the Sun addition-
ally requires that the entire star must be predominantly composed of hydrogen. In
contrast, the Earth is primarily made out of heavy elements that are relatively un-
common in the Sun.
Helium is so rare on the Earth that it was first discovered in the Sun – by the
French astronomer Pierre Jules César (P. J. C.) Janssen and the British astronomer
Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer as an unidentified yellow emission line in the solar
spectrum observed during the solar eclipse of 18 August 1868. It was probably not
2.1 Space Is Not Empty 55

until the following year that Norman Lockyer convinced himself that the yellow line
at 587.6 nm could not be identified with any known terrestrial element, and named
the element “helium” after the Greek Sun god, Helios, who daily traveled across the
sky in a chariot of fire drawn by four swift horses. Helium was not found on Earth
until 1895, when the Scottish chemist William Ramsay discovered it as a gaseous
emission given off by a heated uranium mineral clevite. Ramsay received the Nobel
Prize in Chemistry in 1904 for his discovery of inert gaseous elements in the air and
his determination of their place in the periodic system.
Altogether, 92.1% of the atoms of the Sun are hydrogen atoms, 7.8% are helium
atoms, and all the other heavier elements make up only 0.1%. In contrast, the main
ingredients of the rocky Earth are the heavier elements like silicon and iron, which
explains the Earth’s higher mass density – about four times that of the Sun, which
is about as dense as water.
Earth has insufficient gravity to hold either hydrogen or helium in its atmosphere.
Today, helium is used on Earth to inflate party balloons and in its liquid state to keep
sensitive electronic equipment cold, but there is so little helium left on the Earth that
we will run out of it soon.

2.1.3 The Hot Solar Atmosphere

We sometimes consider the photosphere to be the surface of the Sun, but it is not
really a surface. Being entirely gaseous, the Sun has no solid surface and no perma-
nent features. Moreover, the sharp outer rim of the Sun is illusory, for a hot, invisible
atmosphere envelops it and extends all the way to the Earth and beyond. The photo-
sphere merely marks the level beyond which the solar gases become tenuous enough
to be transparent.
The atmosphere just above the round, visible disk of the Sun is far less substantial
than a whisper, and more rarefied than the best vacuum on Earth. It is so tenuous that
we see right through it, just as we see through the Earth’s clear air. This diaphanous
atmosphere of the Sun includes, from its deepest part outward, the photosphere, the
chromosphere, from chromos, the Greek word for color, and the corona, from the
Latin word for crown, as well as the transition region between the chromosphere
and the corona.
Because of their very low densities and high temperatures, the chromosphere
and corona produce bright spectral features called emission lines. Atoms and ions
in a hot tenuous gas produce such emission features, heated to incandescence and
shining at precisely the same wavelengths as the dark absorption lines produced by
the same substance.
The chromosphere is normally invisible because of the glare of the photosphere
shining through it, but it becomes briefly visible for just a few seconds at the begin-
ning or end of a total eclipse of the Sun, as a narrow pink or rose-colored rim around
the Moon’s disk. The reddish hue is due to the bright red Balmer alpha transition
of hydrogen, dubbed hydrogen alpha, at 656.3 nm, the wavelength of Fraunhofer’s
56 2 Discovering Space

C line. The unusual intensity of the chromosphere’s hydrogen line, which is seen
in emission rather than absorption, confirmed the great abundance of hydrogen in
the solar atmosphere, for larger amounts of a substance tend to produce a brighter
spectral line.
Other prominent emission lines of the chromosphere are the yellow line of helium
at 587.6 nm and the two violet lines of calcium ions. The calcium atoms have been
singly ionized, so they are missing one electron and are designated Ca II. They emit
radiation at wavelengths of 393.4 and 396.8 nm, and are often called the calcium H
and K lines after Fraunhofer’s designation of the corresponding absorption lines in
the underlying photosphere.
In 1891, the French astronomer Henri Deslandres at Meudon and the American
astronomer George Ellery Hale at Mount Wilson independently invented an entirely
new way of observing the chromosphere. Instead of looking at all of the Sun’s col-
ors together, they devised an instrument, called the spectroheliograph, meaning Sun
spectrum recorder. It creates an image of the Sun in just one color or wavelength,
without the blinding glare of all the other visible wavelengths. In a spectrohelio-
graph, the sunlight falls on a vertical slit, and light coming through the slit is spread
out in wavelength by a diffraction grating (Fig. 2.2). Light at the wavelength of one
of the bright emission lines is then directed through a second slit. The two slits are
moved together, with the first slit scanning the Sun from side to side, and an image
of the Sun is obtained at the chosen wavelength.
By tuning in the red emission of hydrogen or a violet line of calcium, the spec-
troheliograph can be used to isolate the light of the chromosphere and produce pho-
tographs or digital images of it without all the rest of visible sunlight. In this way,

Sun

Fig. 2.2 Spectroheliograph. Horizontal

Motion Solar Image
A small section of the Sun’s
image at the focal plane Focal Plane
of a telescope is selected Entry Slit, S1 Exit Slit, S2
with a narrow entry slit, S1 ,
and this light passes to a
diffraction grating, producing
a spectrum. A second slit,
S2 , at the focal plane selects
a specific wavelength from
the spectrum. If the plate
containing the two slits is
moved horizontally, then the
entrance slit passes adjacent
D
iff

strips of the solar image.

ra
ct

The light leaving the moving

io
n
G

exit slit then builds up an

ra
tin

image of the Sun at a specific

g

wavelength
2.1 Space Is Not Empty 57

the chromosphere can be observed across the entire disk whenever the Sun is in the
sky, rather than just at the edge during a brief, infrequent solar eclipse.
Bright regions, called plage from the French word for “beach”, glow in hydrogen-
alpha light (Fig. 2.3); they are often located near sunspots in places with intense
magnetism. Long, dark filaments also curl across the hydrogen-alpha Sun. They are
huge regions of dense, cool gas supported by powerful magnetic forces. Indeed,
the Sun’s magnetism dominates the chromosphere and gives rise to its startling
inhomogeneity.
The corona becomes visible to the unaided eye for only a few minutes when
the Sun’s bright disk is blocked out, or eclipsed, by the Moon. During such a total
solar eclipse, the corona is seen at the limb, or apparent edge, of the Sun, against
the blackened sky as a faint halo of white light, or all the visible colors combined.
The eclipse corona contains high-density coronal streamers that are bulb shaped in

Fig. 2.3 The red-faced Sun. At optical or visible wavelengths, solar activity is best viewed by
tuning to the red line of atomic hydrogen – the Balmer hydrogen alpha transition at 656.3 nm.
Light at this wavelength originates in the chromospheric layers of the Sun, which lie just above
the part we see with the eye. An active region, shown in the right half of this image, contains
two round, dark sunspots, each about the size of the Earth, and bright plage that marks highly
magnetized regions. Long, dark filaments are held in place by arched magnetic fields. This image
was taken on 26 April 1978. (Courtesy of Victor Gaizauskas, Ottawa River Solar Observatory,
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics National Research Council of Canada.)
58 2 Discovering Space

Fig. 2.4 Eclipse corona streamers. The million-degree solar atmosphere, known as the corona,
is seen around the black disk of the Moon, photographed in white light, or all the colors com-
bined, from atop Mauna Kea, Hawaii during the solar eclipse on 11 July 1991. The million-degree,
electrically charged gas is concentrated in numerous fine rays as well as larger helmet streamers.
(Courtesy of the High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research.)

the low corona and have narrow, ray-like stalks which can extend to large distances
from the Sun (Fig. 2.4). Such features are sometimes called helmet streamers, whose
name is derived from spiked helmets once common in Europe.
To look further out in the corona at times other than a total eclipse of the Sun,
astronomers use a special telescope called the coronagraph, which has a small oc-
culting disk, or miniature moon, to mask the Sun’s face and block out the photo-
sphere’s light. A coronagraph detects the photosphere sunlight scattered off coronal
electrons, providing an edge-on, side view of the corona.
The first coronagraph was developed in 1930–1931 by the French astronomer
Bernard Lyot, and soon installed by him at the Pic du Midi observatory in the
Pyrenees. As Lyot realized, such observations are limited by the bright sky to high-
altitude sites where the thin, dust-free air scatters less sunlight. The best coronagraph
2.1 Space Is Not Empty 59

images with the finest detail are obtained from high-flying satellites where almost
no air is left and where the daytime sky is truly and starkly black.
As detailed in Chaps. 4 and 5, space-borne coronagraphs can provide unique
perspectives on the regions where the corona is heated, and the solar winds origi-
nate and are accelerated to high speeds. In 1979–1982, for example, John L. Kohl
and his co-workers used 5-min rocket flights of an ultraviolet coronagraph spec-
trometer to pioneer spectroscopic observations of the low, extended corona in the
absence of a total solar eclipse. They used similar observations from Spartan 201’s
for about 40 h each in the 1990s, in preparation for the UltraViolet Coronagraph
Spectrometer, abbreviated UVCS, instrument aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric
Observatory, or SOHO.
The solar corona presents one of the most puzzling enigmas of solar physics. It
is hundreds of times hotter than the underlying photosphere. The corona’s searing
heat was suggested by the identification of emission lines, first observed during
solar eclipses more than a century ago. And the exceptionally hot corona was fully
confirmed by observations of the Sun’s radio emission.
During the solar eclipse of 7 August 1869, both Charles Young and William
Harkness first found that a conspicuous green emission line characterizes the spec-
trum of the solar corona. Within half a century, eclipse observers had detected at
least ten coronal emission lines and the number doubled in a few decades more, but
not one of them had been convincingly explained.
Since none of the coronal features had been observed to come from terrestrial
substances, astronomers concluded that the solar corona consisted of some myste-
rious ingredient, which they named “coronium.” Belief in the new element lingered
for many years, until it became obvious that there was no place for it in the atomic
periodic table, and it was therefore not an unknown element, but a known substance
in an unusual state.
The solution to the coronium puzzle was provided by Walter Grotrian, of Pots-
dam, and the Swedish spectroscopist, Bengt Edlén, in 1939 and 1941, respectively,
who attributed the coronal emission lines to familiar terrestrial elements, but in an
astonishingly high degree of ionization and at an unexpectedly hot temperature.
The spectral lines were attributed to relatively rare transitions in a very tenuous gas
(Table 2.2). They are called forbidden emission lines because collisions can keep
them from happening in even the best vacuum on Earth.
The identified features were emitted by the atoms deprived of 9–14 electrons
(Table 2.2). The coronal particles would have to be moving very fast, with tempera-
tures of millions of Kelvin, to have enough energy to rip off so many electrons dur-
ing atomic collisions. Elements also move at a faster speed in a hotter gas, produc-
ing Doppler shifts in their radiation and broadening the observed spectral features.
Already in 1941, Edlén noticed that the observed widths of the emission lines in the
corona indicate a temperature of about 2 × 106 K.
In 1946 Australian scientists, led by Joseph L. Pawsey, used war-surplus radar
(radio detection and ranging) equipment to monitor the Sun’s radio emission at
1.5-m wavelength, showing that its intensity, though highly variable, almost never
fell below a threshold level. Pawsey’s colleague, David F. Martyn, noticed that the
source of the steady radio component must be the corona, since radiation at meter
60 2 Discovering Space
Table 2.2 Strong coronal forbidden emission linesa
Wavelength (nm) Ion Name Wavelength (nm) Ion

338.8 Fe XIII 670.2 Ni XV

423.2 Ni XII 789.2 Fe XI
530.3 Fe XIV Green line 802.4 Ni XV
569.4 Ca XV Yellow line 1074.7 Fe XIII
637.4 Fe X Red line 1079.8 Fe XIII
a Adapted from Edlén (1941). The symbols Ca, Fe, and Ni denote, respectively, calcium, iron, and
nickel. Subtract one from the Roman numeral to obtain the number of missing electrons. Thus,
the ion Fe XIII is an iron atom missing 12 electrons. The wavelength is in units of nanometers,
or 10−9 m. Astronomers have often used the Angstrom unit of wavelength, where 1 Angstrom =
1 Å = 0.1 nm = 10−10 m

wavelengths would be reflected by this outer part of the Sun and one could not
use long radio waves to look past it. Moreover, the observed intensity of the radio
emission from such a tenuous gas corresponded to a temperature of approximately
a million Kelvin. The existence of a million-degree corona, first suggested by the
corona’s emission lines, was thereby confirmed from its radio emission, in papers
published in the same year by Martyn, Pawsey and independently by the Russian
physicist Vitalii L. Ginzburg.
The corona is so intensely hot that its abundant hydrogen is torn into numerous
electrons and protons; each hydrogen atom consists of one electron moving about
one central, nuclear proton. The solar atmosphere therefore consists mainly of elec-
trons and protons, with smaller amounts of heavier ions created from the less abun-
dant elements in the Sun. These electrons, set free from former atoms, scatter the
photosphere sunlight that strikes them, providing the pearl-white coronal radiation
seen during a total solar eclipse.
Although the corona’s electrons, protons, and other ions are electrically charged,
the overall corona is electrically neutral and has no net charge. In such an ionized
gas, often called plasma, the total negative charge of all the electrons is equal to the
combined positive charge of all the ions.
Somehow the corona is heated to a few million Kelvin just above the photosphere
with a temperature of 5,780 K, which is completely unexpected. It is something like
watching a glass of water boiling on your cool kitchen counter. Heat normally moves
from a hotter to a colder region, not the other way around. Simply put, there is too
much heat in the corona. Early attempts to resolve this heating paradox and modern
possibilities for explaining it are given in Chap. 4.
But for now the main point, as far as interplanetary space is concerned, is that
the corona is so hot that it cannot stay still. At a million Kelvin, the sizzling heat is
too hot to be entirely constrained by either the Sun’s inward gravitational pull or its
magnetic forces. An overflow corona is forever expanding in all directions, filling
the solar system with a great eternal wind of charged particles and magnetic fields
that are always blowing away from the Sun.
2.1 Space Is Not Empty 61

2.1.4 Discovery of the Solar Wind

The notion that something is always being expelled from the Sun first arose from
the observations of comet tails. Comets appear unexpectedly almost anywhere in
the sky, moving in every possible direction, but with tails that always point away
from the Sun. A comet therefore travels headfirst when approaching the Sun and
tail-first when departing from it. Ancient Chinese astronomers concluded that the
Sun must have a chi, or “life force,” that blows the comet tails away. And in the
early 1600s, the German astronomer Johannes Kepler proposed that the pressure of
sunlight pushes the comet tails away from the Sun.
Modern scientists noticed that a comet could have two tails. One is a yellow tail
of dust, which can litter the comet’s curved path. The dust is pushed away from the
Sun by the pressure of sunlight. The other tail is electric blue, shining in the light
of ionized particles. The comet ion tails always stream along straight paths away
from the Sun with velocities many times higher than could be caused by the weak
pressure of sunlight.
In the early 1950s, the German astrophysicist Ludwig Biermann proposed that
streams of electrically charged particles, called corpuscular radiation, poured out of
the Sun at all times and in all directions to shape the comet ion tails. Summing up
his work in 1957, Biermann concluded that:
The acceleration of the ion tails of comets has been recognized as being due to the inter-
action between the corpuscular radiation of the Sun and the tail plasma. The observations
of comets indicate that there is practically always a sufficient intensity of solar corpuscu-
lar radiation to produce an acceleration of the tail ions of at least about twenty times solar
gravity.
Thus, the ion tails of comets act like an interplanetary windsock, demonstrating
the existence of a continuous, space-filling flow of charged particles from the Sun.
Biermann proposed that a perpetual stream of electrically charged particles pours
out of the Sun at all times and in all directions, colliding with the cometary ions and
imparting momentum to them. This would accelerate the comet ions and push them
radially away from the Sun in straight tails.
The comet tails serve as probes of the solar particles streaming away from the
Sun; it is something like putting a wet finger in the wind to show it is there. Bier-
mann estimated a speed of 500–1, 000 km s−1 from moving irregularities and the
directions of comet tails.
By 1957, the English geophysicist Sydney Chapman had presented mathemat-
ical arguments that seemed to show that Biermann was wrong. Chapman noticed
that the free electrons in the very hot corona make it a good thermal conductor, even
better than a metal. The electrons in the corona would therefore carry its intense
heat far into space, somewhat like an iron bar that is heated at one end and therefore
becomes hot all over. This meant that a static corona must spread out to the Earth’s
orbit and beyond. According to Chapman, this extended, non-expanding corona
would block any outward corpuscular stream from the Sun. Biermann disagreed,
62 2 Discovering Space

arguing that the solar corpuscles would sweep any stationary gas out of the solar
system.
In 1958 Eugene N. Parker, of the University of Chicago, reconciled these con-
flicting ideas of a static corona and a perpetual stream of charged particles. He added
dynamic terms to Chapman’s equations, showing how a relentless steady-state out-
ward expansion from the Sun might work – and dubbing it the solar wind. A very
hot coronal gas can create an outward pressure that becomes greater than the inward
pull of the Sun’s gravity at increasing distances from the Sun, where the expanding
gas accelerates from slow, subsonic speeds near the Sun to fast, supersonic speeds
in interplanetary space. Parker also argued that the wind would pull the Sun’s mag-
netic field into surrounding interplanetary space, obtaining a spiral shape due to the
combination of radial flow and solar rotation.
Parker’s theoretical conclusions were very controversial, and were initially re-
ceived with a great deal of skepticism by established scientists. Referees objected
to the publication of Parker’s ideas, and Sydney Chapman publicly clashed with
Parker over his notion of an expanding solar wind, preferring a static, non-expanding
corona. The Sun might be sporadically hurling material out from localized, explo-
sive outbursts, but it was difficult to envisage a continual ejection over the entire
Sun. Critics also wondered how the solar atmosphere could be hot enough to sus-
tain such a powerful wind.
Even with a temperature of 106 K, the thermal energy of protons is several times
less than the Sun’s gravitational pull on them at the bottom of the corona. In scien-
tific terms, the proton’s average thermal velocity, due to its hot temperature, is still
less than the escape velocity of the Sun (Focus 2.1).

Focus 2.1
Escape from the Sun, Earth, and Moon
When the kinetic energy of motion of an object or a particle of mass m moving at
velocity V is just equal to the gravitational potential energy exerted on it by a larger
mass M, we have the relation:

mV 2 Gm M
Kinetic energy = = = Gravitational potential energy,
2 D
−2
where the Newtonian gravitational potential is G = 6.67 × 10−11 N m2 kg , and
D is the distance between the centers of the two masses. When we solve for the
velocity, we obtain the escape velocity

2GM
Vescape = ,
D
√
where the sign denotes the square root of the following term and the subscript
escape has been added to show that the object or particle must be moving faster
than Vescape to leave a larger mass M. This expression is independent of the smaller
mass m.
2.1 Space Is Not Empty 63

At the solar photosphere, where D becomes the solar radius of 696 × 106 (6.96 ×
m and the Sun’s mass is 1.989 × 1030 kg, the equation gives
108 )

V escape (Sun s photosphere) = 617 km s−1 .

By way of comparison, the escape velocity at the Earth’s surface is:

Vescape (Earth s surface) = 11.2 km s−1 ,

where the mean radius of the Earth is 6.378 × 106 m and the mass of the Earth is
5.9742 × 1024 kg. The escape velocity from the surface of the Moon is:

Vescape (Moon s surface) = 2.37 km s−1 ,

for the Moon’s mass is 7.348 × 1022 kg and its mean radius is 1.738 × 106 m.
A rocket must move faster than 11.2 km s−1 if it is to move from the Earth into
interplanetary space, and if it travels at a slower speed the rocket will crash back
down into the Earth. A lunar craft only needs to be propelled at about one-fifth of
this speed to leave the Moon. There is no atmosphere on the Moon because it has a
very low escape velocity, and molecules that are heated by the Sun’s radiation can
therefore easily leave it.
An atom, ion, or molecule moves about because it is hot. Its kinetic temperature T
is defined in terms of the thermal velocity, Vthermal , given by the expression equating
the thermal energy to the kinetic energy of motion,
3 1 2
Thermal energy = k T = m Vthermal = Kinetic energy
2 2
or solving for the thermal velocity:

3kT
Vthermal = ,
m

where Boltzmann’s constant k = 1.38 × 10−23 J s, the temperature of the particle is

denoted by T , and its mass by m. We see right away that at a given temperature,
lighter particles move at faster speeds. Colder particles of a given mass travel at
slower speed.
Anything will cease to move when it reaches absolute zero on the Kelvin scale of
temperature. But everything in the Universe moves, and there is nothing completely
at rest. You might say that motion seems to define existence.
For the lightest known element, hydrogen, our expression gives

Vthermal (hydrogen atoms) = 157 T 1/2 m s−1 ,

where the mass of a hydrogen atom is m = 1.674 × 10−27 kg. So, hydrogen atoms
move at about 12.0 and 15.7 km s−1 in the photosphere and the chromosphere,
where the respective temperatures are 5,780 and 10,000 K. Since these velocities
64 2 Discovering Space

are way below the Sun’s escape velocity, hydrogen and any other heavier element
must be retained in the low solar atmosphere. Even at the corona’s temperature
of 2 × 106 K, the thermal velocity of a hydrogen atom is 222 km s−1 . To leave the
Sun, hot coronal hydrogen has to be given an extra push out to a distance of a
few solar radii, where the solar gravity and escape velocity have become smaller.
The same conclusion applies to protons that have essentially the same mass as a
hydrogen atom. Since a free electron is 1,836 times lighter than a proton, it has a
thermal velocity that is 42.8 times faster at a given temperature, so the electrons in
the million-degree corona can easily escape the Sun’s powerful gravity.
But that’s not the entire story, for if the electrons all escaped, then the protons
would be left behind and a net charge would build up. The effective “escape speed”
is also affected by the electric attraction between electrons and protons, and a more
complete discussion has been given in Arthur Hundhausen (1972a), Nicole Meyer-
Vernet (1999), and Steven Cranmer (2002).

The hot, million-degree protons are not moving fast enough, on average, to over-
come the gravity in the low corona, next to the visible Sun, and move out into the
solar wind. So, some additional source of energy seemed to be required to help the
corona break away from the Sun’s powerful gravitational grasp.
Nevertheless, in just 4 years American and Soviet scientists confirmed the solar
wind’s existence with direct observations of the interplanetary medium, verifying
many aspects of Parker’s model. Arthur Hundhausen (1972a) has told the colorful
story of the turbulent years preceding this vindication of the ideas of a relatively
young scientist in his book, Coronal Expansion and the Solar Wind. Historical rec-
ollections have also been published by Parker (1998, 2001, 2002).
The confirmation of Parker’s theory did not, however, reveal how or where the
electrons and protons in the solar wind are accelerated to their high speeds, or the
precise place of their origin on the Sun. These topics are considered in Chap. 5.

2.2 Touching the Unseen

2.2.1 The First Direct Measurements of the Solar Wind

Our civilization was forever changed with the launch of Prosteyshiy Sputnik, the
simplest satellite, by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957. It began a space age
that has led to our daily use of artificial satellites for communications, navigation,
and weather forecasting. And it also instigated a competitive race to land the first
humans on the Moon, which the United States won.
To many Americans, Sputnik verified the threat that the Soviet Union posed to
world peace. So it is not surprising that many of the space-age improvements in our
life grew out of military applications. They include reconnaissance satellites that
monitor enemy activity, navigation satellites that accurately target missiles launched
2.2 Touching the Unseen 65

from ships or airplanes, and intercontinental ballistic missiles that can either carry
nuclear warheads to distant countries or toss satellites into space. Yet, there has
always been a strong scientific component to the American and Russian space pro-
grams from the very beginning.
Some of the earliest spacecraft reached out to touch, feel, and identify the invis-
ible constituents of space. For instance, America’s first Satellite 1958α – launched
on 1 February 1958 and better known today as Explorer 1, included James A. Van
Allen’s instruments that detected energetic charged particles in nearby space. They
are trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field into donut-shaped regions that girdle our
planet’s equator. Other spacecraft soon characterized the material components of the
solar wind outside the Earth’s magnetic domain.
The first direct measurements of the solar wind’s corpuscular, or particle, content
were made by a group of Soviet scientists led by Konstantin I. Gringauz, using
four ion traps aboard the Lunik 2 (Luna 2) spacecraft launched to the Moon on 12
September 1959. Each trap contained external, charged grids that acted as gates
to exclude low-energy ions and to keep energetic electrons out. Only high-speed
ions could pass through the trap door. All four ion traps detected the energetic ions,
leading Gringauz and his colleagues to report in 1960 that “the corpuscular emission
of the Sun . . . has thus been observed for the first time in the interplanetary space
outside the magnetic field of the Earth.”
In the following year, Gringauz reported that the maximum current in all four
ion traps corresponded to a solar wind flux of two million million (2 × 1012 ) ions
(presumably protons) per square meter per second. This is in rough accord with all
subsequent measurements. No evidence for a stationary component of the interplan-
etary gas was found. Moreover, since the ion traps were strategically placed around
the rotating spacecraft, the group could show that the wind flows from the Sun and
not toward it.
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology group first carried out solar wind mea-
surements by American scientists with instruments aboard Explorer 10 in 1961, but
unfortunately the spacecraft did not travel completely beyond the Earth’s magnetic
field to pristine, “undisturbed” interplanetary space.
All reasonable doubt concerning the existence of the solar wind was removed by
the measurements made on board Mariner 2, launched on 27 August 1962. Marcia
Neugebauer and Conway W. Snyder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory used more
than 100 days of Mariner 2 data, obtained as the spacecraft traveled to Venus, to
show that charged particles are continuously emanating from the Sun, for at least
as long as Mariner 2 observed them. The key aspect of their measurements was
that both the velocity and the density were measured separately while the Russian
mission just measured the total particle flux, which is related to the product of the
velocity and density. Only by knowing the separate values could Parker’s theory
be fully confirmed. The velocity of the solar wind was accurately determined from
the Mariner 2 observations, with an average speed of 500 km s−1 , in rough accord
with Biermann’s and Parker’s predictions. In 1997 Marcia Neugebauer published
a personal history of these early direct measurements of the solar wind, as well as
later ones.
66 2 Discovering Space

The solar wind flux determined by Neugebauer and Snyder was in good agree-
ment with the values measured with the ion traps on Lunik 2. The average wind ion
density was shown to be five million (5 × 106 protons per cubic meter near the dis-
tance of the Earth from the Sun. We now know that such a low density close to the
Earth’s orbit is a natural consequence of the wind’s expansion into an ever-greater
volume, but that variable wind components can gust with higher densities.
The Mariner 2 data unexpectedly indicated that the solar wind has a slow and
a fast component. The slow one moves at a speed of 300–400 km s−1 ; the fast one
travels at twice that speed. The low-velocity wind was identified with the perpetual
expansion of the very hot corona. Uncertainties over which type of solar wind, the
fast or slow one, is “ambient” persisted for decades because the observations were
always made near the ecliptic, until Ulysses passed over the solar polar regions in
1994 and showed that the uniform fast wind is the dominant component, at least dur-
ing the minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle, with the slow wind contributing
a varying input at low solar latitudes.
The high-velocity component swept past the Mariner 2 spacecraft every 27 days,
suggesting long-lived, localized sources on the rotating Sun. (The Sun spins about
its axis with a period of about 25 days at the equator, but since the Earth is orbiting
the Sun in the same direction that the Sun rotates, the rotation period observed from
the Earth is about 27 days.) Moreover, peaks in geomagnetic activity, also repeating
every 27 days, were correlated with the arrival of these high-speed streams at the
Earth, indicating a direct connection between some unknown region on the Sun and
disturbances of the Earth’s magnetic field.

2.2.2 Properties of the Solar Wind at Earth’s Orbit

Interplanetary space probes have been making in situ (Latin for “in place”) measure-
ments for decades, both within space near the Earth and further out in the Earth’s
orbital plane. Unlike any wind on Earth, the solar wind is rarefied plasma or an elec-
trically neutral mixture of electrons, protons, and heavier ions, and magnetic fields
streaming radially outward in all directions from the Sun at supersonic speeds of
hundreds of kilometers per second.
This perpetual solar gale brushes past the planets and engulfs them, carrying the
Sun’s corona out into interstellar space at the rate of almost a billion (109 ) kilograms
every second. As the corona disperses, gases welling up from below to feed the wind
must replace it. Exactly where this material comes from and how it is accelerated
to high speeds are important subjects of contemporary space research, discussed in
greater detail in Chap. 5.
Although the Sun is continuously blowing itself away, the outflow can continue
for billions of years without significantly reducing the Sun’s mass. Every second, the
solar wind blows away a million tons (106 tons = 109 kg). That sounds like a lot of
mass loss, but it is four times less than the amount consumed every second during the
thermonuclear reactions that make the Sun shine. To supply the Sun’s present lumi-
nosity, hydrogen must be converted into helium, within the Sun’s energy-generating
2.2 Touching the Unseen 67

Table 2.3 Relative importance of solar wind and radiationa

Solar wind Sun’s radiation

Mass loss rate 109 kg s−1 4 × 109 kg s−1

Total mass loss (In five 0.00005 M 0.0002 M
billion years)
Energy flux (1 AU) 0.00016 J m−2 s−1 1, 400 J m−2 s−1
Momentum flux (1 AU) 8 × 10−10 kg m−1 s−1 5 × 10−6 kg m−1 s−1
Despin time 1016 years 1012 years
a Adapted from Axford (1985). M denotes the Sun’s mass of 2 × 1030 kg. The mean distance of
the Earth from the Sun is one astronomical unit, or 1 AU for short, where 1 AU = 1.496 × 1011 m

core, with a mass loss of about 4 × 106 tons every second. It is carried away by the
Sun’s radiation, whose energy and momentum flux vastly exceed those of the solar
wind (Table 2.3). A more significant concern is the depletion of hydrogen; the Sun
will run out of hydrogen in its core in about seven billion years, when our star will
expand into a giant star. By that time, the Sun will have lost only about 0.005% of
its mass by the solar wind at the present rate.
The hot corona extends all the way to the Earth, where it has only cooled to a
little more than 100,000 K. Even though the electrons near the Earth are awfully hot,
they are so scarce and widely separated that an astronaut or satellite will not burn up

Table 2.4 Mean values of solar wind parameters at the Earth’s orbita
Parameter Mean value

Particle density, N N ≈ 10 million particles per cubic meter (five electrons

and five protons per cubic centimeter)
Velocity, V V ≈ 600 km s−1
Mass density, ρ ρ = 10−20 kg m−3 (protons)
Flux, F F ≈ 1012 –1013 particles per square meter per second
Temperature, T T ≈ 120, 000 K (protons) to 140,000 K (electrons)
Particle thermal energy, kT kT ≈ 2 × 10−18 J ≈ 12 eV
Proton kinetic energy, 0.5 mpV 2 0.5 mpV 2 ≈ 10−16 J ≈ 1, 000 eV = 1 keV
Particle thermal energy density NkT ≈ 10−11 J m−3
Proton kinetic energy density 0.25 N mpV 2 ≈ 10−9 J m−3
Radial magnetic field, Hr Hr = 2.5 × 10−9 T = 2.5 nT = 2.5 × 10−5 G
Alfvén velocity, VA VA = 32 km s−1
Sound speed, Cs Cs = 41 km s−1
a These solar wind parameters are at the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun, or at one astro-
nomical unit, 1 AU, where 1 AU = 1.496 × 1011 m; the Sun’s radius, R , is R = 6.96 × 108 m.
Boltzmann’s constant k = 1.38 × 10−23 J K−1 relates temperature and thermal energy. The proton
mass mp = 1.67 × 10−27 kg. The flux of cosmic-ray protons arriving at the Earth, discussed in the
next section, is about one ten billionth (10−10 ) that of the solar wind at the Earth’s orbit. The most
abundant cosmic ray protons near Earth have an energy of 10−10 J but a local energy density of
about 10−13 J m−3 , or about one ten thousandth (10−4 ) the kinetic energy density of protons in the
solar wind
68 2 Discovering Space

when venturing into interplanetary space. Although the velocity is high, the density
of the expanding corona is so low that if we could go into space and put our hands
on it, we would not be able to feel it.
The reason that space looks empty is that the solar wind is very tenuous, even
when compared to our transparent atmosphere. By the time it reaches the Earth’s
orbit, the solar wind is diluted to about five electrons and five protons per cubic cen-
timeter, a very rarefied gas (Table 2.4). By way of comparison, there are 25 billion,
billion (2.5 × 1019 ) molecules in every cubic centimeter of our air at sea level.
Still, at a mean speed of about 600 km s−1 , the flux of solar wind particles is far
greater than anything else out there in space. Between one and ten million million
(1012 –1013 ) particles in the solar wind cross every square meter of space each sec-
ond (Table 2.4). That flux far surpasses the flux of more energetic cosmic rays that
enter our atmosphere, which are discussed next.

2.3 Cosmic Rays

Although the Sun’s winds dominate the space within our solar system, cosmic rays
form an important additional ingredient. These extraordinarily energetic charged
particles enter the Earth’s atmosphere from all directions in outer space.
Cosmic rays were discovered in 1912, when the Austrian physicist Victor Franz
Hess, an ardent amateur balloonist, measured the amount of ionization at differ-
ent heights within our atmosphere. It was already known that radioactive rocks at
the Earth’s surface were emitting energetic “rays” that ionize the atmosphere near
the ground, but it was expected that the ionizing substance would be completely
absorbed after passing through sufficient quantities of the air.
Although the measured ionization at first decreased with altitude, as would be
expected from atmospheric absorption of rays emitted by radioactive rocks, the ion-
ization rate measured by Hess from balloons increased at even higher altitudes to
the levels exceeding that at the ground. This meant that some penetrating source of
ionization came from beyond the Earth. By flying his balloon at night and during a
solar eclipse, when the high-altitude signals persisted, Hess showed that they could
not come from the Sun, but from some other source. In 1936 he was awarded the
Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery of these cosmic rays.
Further balloon observations by Werner Kolhörster of Berlin showed that the ion-
ization continued to increase with height. By 1926 the American physicist Robert
A. Millikan had used high-altitude balloon measurements to confirm that the “ra-
diation” comes from beyond the terrestrial atmosphere, and incidentally gave it the
present name of cosmic rays. Millikan was the first president of the California In-
stitute of Technology, and the first American to win the Nobel Prize in Physics –
in 1923 for his work on the elementary charge of electricity and the photoelectric
effect.
Cosmic rays were initially believed to be high-energy radiation, in the form of
gamma rays, but global measurements showed that they are charged particles de-
flected by the Earth’s magnetic field toward its magnetic poles (Focus 2.2). In 1927,
2.3 Cosmic Rays 69

the Dutch physicist Jacob Clay published the results of cosmic ray measurements
during ocean voyages between Genoa and the Dutch colony of Java. He found lower
cosmic ray intensity near the Earth’s equator, suggesting that the cosmic rays con-
sisted, in part at least, of charged particles. Clay’s results were confirmed and ex-
tended between 1930 and 1933 by Arthur H. Compton of the University of Chicago.
He conclusively demonstrated an increase in cosmic ray intensity with terrestrial
latitude, and also made measurements at mountain altitudes, where the latitude in-
crease was even stronger.

Focus 2.2
Charged Particles Gyrate Around Magnetic Fields
A charged particle cannot move straight across a magnetic field, but instead gyrates
around it. If the particle approaches the magnetic field straight on, in the perpendic-
ular direction, a magnetic force pulls it into a circular motion about the magnetic
field line. Since the particle can move freely in the direction of the magnetic field, it
spirals around it with a helical trajectory.
The size of the circular motion, called the radius of gyration and designated by
Rg , depends on the velocity V⊥ of the particle in the perpendicular direction, the
magnetic field strength B, and the mass m and charge Ze of the particle. That gyra-
tion radius is described by the equation:

Rg = [m/(Ze)][V⊥ /B],

provided that the velocity is not close to the velocity of light c. The period P of the
circular orbit is P = 2πRg /V⊥ = 2πm/(eZB), and the frequency νg is νg = 2π/P =
eZB/m.
This expression for the gyration radius provides a shorthand method of explain-
ing a lot of intuitively logical aspects of the charged-particle motion. It says that
faster particles will gyrate in larger circles, and that a stronger magnetic field tight-
ens the gyration into smaller coils. The attractive magnetic force increases with the
charge, also resulting in a tighter gyration.
For an electron with mass me = 9.11 × 10−31 kg and charge e = 1.60 × 10−19 C,
with Z = 1.0, the corresponding gyration radius is:

Rg (electron) = 5.7 × 10−12 [V⊥ /B] m,

where V⊥ is in m s−1 and B is in Tesla. Since the proton has the same charge, but a
mass mp that is larger by the ratio mp /me = 1836, the proton’s gyration radius is:

Rp (proton) = 1.05 × 10−8 [V⊥ /B] m.

At high particle velocities approaching that of light, the radius equation is multi-
plied by a Lorentz factor γ = [1 − (V /c)2 ]−1/2 , which becomes unimportant at low
velocities V when γ = 1. For cosmic ray protons of high velocity and large energies,
E = γmc2 , our equation becomes:
70 2 Discovering Space

Rg = 3.3 E/B m,

when the energy E is in units of GeV and the magnetic field strength is in Tesla.
Thus, the path of a 1-GeV cosmic ray proton will be coiled into a gyration radius
of about 1010 m in the interstellar medium where B ≈ 10−10 T = 10−6 G, which
is about 15 times smaller than the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun.
When that 1 GeV proton encounters the terrestrial magnetic field, whose strength is
roughly 10−4 T or 1 G, its radius of gyration is Rg ≈ 10, 000 m, or hundreds of times
smaller than the Earth whose mean radius is 6.37 × 106 m. That means the pro-
ton will gyrate about the magnetic field, and move toward Earth’s magnetic poles.

The latitude increase showed that cosmic rays had to be electrically charged,
but both negative and positive charges would show a similar effect. The sign of
the charge was inferred in the late 1930s from the hemispheric distribution of the
cutoff energy below which no vertically arriving particles are found. Lower-energy
particles of positive charge will be observed if they arrive from the west; negatively
charged cosmic rays of lower energy will be found in the east. Measurements of this
east–west effect showed that the most abundant cosmic rays are positively charged,
and most likely protons.
By the late 1940s, instruments carried by high-altitude balloons established that
the cosmic rays consist of hydrogen nuclei (protons), helium nuclei (alpha parti-
cles), and heavier nuclei (Table 2.5). Cosmic ray electrons were not discovered un-
til 1961, mainly because they are far less abundant than the cosmic ray protons
at a given energy. The presence of very energetic electrons in interstellar space
had nevertheless been inferred from the radio emissions of our Galaxy. Some-
times the term galactic cosmic ray is used to distinguish between very energetic,
charged particles coming from interstellar space and somewhat less energetic ones
coming from the Sun, historically called solar cosmic rays. Nowadays, the term
cosmic ray usually refers to those originating outside the solar system, and the
most energetic particles from the Sun’s outbursts are known as solar energetic
particles.

Table 2.5 Average fluxes of primary cosmic rays at the top of the atmospherea
Type of Nucleus Flux (particles m−2 s−1 )

Hydrogen (protons) 640

Helium (alpha particles) 94
Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen 6
a Adapted from Friedlander (1989). The flux is in units of nuclei per square meter per second
for particles with energies greater than 1.5 billion (1.5 × 109 ) electron volts per nucleon, denoted
1.5 GeV per nucleon, arriving at the top of the atmosphere from directions within 30◦ of the vertical
2.3 Cosmic Rays 71

Since the cosmic rays enter the atmosphere with energies greater than could be
produced by particle accelerators on Earth, physicists used them as colossal atom
destroyers, examining their subatomic debris after colliding with atoms in our at-
mosphere. These studies of fundamental particles led to several other Nobel Prizes
in Physics – to Charles T. R. Wilson in 1927 for his cloud chamber that makes
the tracks of the electrically charged particles visible by condensation of vapor; to
Carl D. Anderson in 1936 for his detection of the positron, the anti-particle of the
electron, amongst the byproducts of cosmic rays colliding in the air; to Patrick M.
S. Blackett in 1948 for his development of the Wilson cloud chamber method, and
his discoveries therewith in the fields of nuclear physics and cosmic radiation; and
to Cecil F. Powell in 1950 for his discovery of a fundamental particle, called the
meson, from high-altitude studies of cosmic rays using a photographic method.
Unlike electromagnetic radiation, the charged cosmic ray particles are deflected
and change direction during encounters with the interstellar magnetic field that
wends its way through the stars. So, we cannot look back along their incoming
path and tell where cosmic rays originate; the direction of arrival just shows where
they last changed course. As suggested by Walter Baade and Fritz Zwicky in 1934,
cosmic rays are most likely accelerated to their tremendous energies during the ex-
plosions of dying stars, called supernovae.
A great majority of these supernovae are formed by the core collapse of mas-
sive O and B stars, which originate in OB associations whose component super-
nova explosions combine to blast out a surrounding superbubble – described by
Mordecai-Mark Mac Low and Richard McCray in 1988. A decade later, James C.
Higdon, Richard E. Lingenfelter, and Reuven Ramaty proposed that a substantial
fraction of cosmic rays have originated in these superbubbles, which could account
for the abundances of cosmic ray neon isotopes observed more recently from the
ACE spacecraft.
Although they are relatively few in number, cosmic rays contain phenomenal
amounts of energy. That energy is usually measured in units of electron volts, abbre-
viated eV – for conversion use 1 eV = 1.602 × 10−19 J. The greatest flux of cosmic
ray protons arriving at Earth occurs at about 1 GeV, or at a billion (109 ) electron
volts of energy. This is about a million times more than the kinetic energy of a typi-
cal proton in the solar wind. At this energy, a cosmic ray proton must be traveling at
88% of the speed of light (Table 2.6) while a proton in the Sun’s wind moves about
500 times slower.
Cosmic rays do not all have the same energy, and there are fewer of them with
higher energy above peak energy of about a billion (109 ) electron volts or 1 GeV.
The number of particles with kinetic energy E is proportional to E −α , where the
index α = 2.5–2.7 for energies from a billion to a million million (109 –1012 ) elec-
tron volts. At higher energies there are relatively few particles. At lower energies the
magnetized solar wind acts as a valve for the more abundant lower-energy cosmic
rays, controlling the amount entering the solar system.
72 2 Discovering Space

Table 2.6 Particle speeds at different particle energies, expressed as fractions of the speed of
light, ca
Particle kinetic energy (keV) Electron speed (times c) Proton speed (times c)
1 keV 0.063 c 0.0015 c
1, 000 keV = 1 MeV 0.94 c 0.046 c
100, 000 keV = 100 MeV 0.999987 c 0.43 c
1, 000, 000 keV = 1 GeV 0.99999987 c 0.88 c
a An energy of one kilo-electron volt is 1 keV = 1.6022 × 10−16 J, and the speed of light
c = 2.99792458 × 108 m s−1

2.4 Pervasive Solar Magnetism

2.4.1 Magnetic Fields in the Photosphere

To most of us, the Sun looks like a perfect, white-hot globe, smooth and without a
blemish. However, detailed scrutiny indicates that our star is not perfectly smooth,
just as the texture of a beautiful face increases when viewed close up. Magnetism
protrudes to darken the skin of the Sun in Earth-sized spots detected in its visi-
ble disk, the photosphere (Fig. 2.5). Our understanding of what causes these dark,
ephemeral sunspots is relatively recent, at least in comparison to how long they have
been known. The earliest Chinese records of sunspots, seen with the unaided eye,
date back 3,000 years.
In 1908 George Ellery Hale first established the existence of intense, concen-
trated magnetic fields in sunspots, using subtle wavelength shifts in spectral lines
detected at his solar observatory on Mt. Wilson, California. Such a shift, or line split-
ting, is called the Zeeman effect after Pieter Zeeman who observed it with magnetic
fields on the Earth in 1896; Hendrik Lorentz predicted the effect, and the two Dutch
physicists shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1907 for their researches into the
influence of magnetism upon radiation.
The size of the sunspot wavelength shifts measured by Hale indicated that they
contain magnetic fields as strong as 0.3 T, or 3,000 G (Focus 2.3). That is about
10,000 times the strength of the terrestrial magnetic field, which orients our com-
passes. The intense sunspot magnetism acts as both a valve and a refrigerator, chok-
ing off the outward flow of heat and energy from the solar interior and keeping the
sunspots cooler and darker than their surroundings.

Focus 2.3
The Zeeman Effect
When an atom is placed in a magnetic field, it acts like a tiny compass, adjusting
the energy levels of its electrons. If the atomic compass is aligned in the direction
of the magnetic field, the electron’s energy increases; if it is aligned in the opposite
direction, the energy decreases. Since each energy change coincides with a change
2.4 Pervasive Solar Magnetism 73

Fig. 2.5 Sunspot group. Intense magnetic fields emerge from the interior of the Sun through the
photosphere, producing groups of sunspots. The sunspots appear dark because they are slightly
cooler than the surrounding photosphere gas. This composite image shows the visible solar disk
in white light, or all the colors combined (upper right), and an enlarged white-light image of the
largest sunspot group (middle), which is about 12 times larger than the Earth whose size is denoted
by the black spot (lower left). (Courtesy of SOHO, ESA and NASA.)

in the wavelength or frequency emitted by that electron, a spectral line emitted at a

single wavelength by a randomly oriented collection of atoms becomes a group of
three lines of slightly different wavelengths in the presence of a magnetic field. This
magnetic transformation has been named the Zeeman effect, after Pieter Zeeman,
who first noticed it in the terrestrial laboratory. The size of an atom’s internal ad-
justments, and the extent of its spectral division, increases with the strength of the
magnetic field.
We can understand the Zeeman effect by considering the motion of a free electron
in the presence of a magnetic field. The electron will circle about the magnetic field
with a radius, Rg , described in Focus 2.2, and with a period, P, given by:

P = 2π Rg /V⊥ = 2π me /(eB).

At the velocity V⊥ , the electron goes once around the circumference 2π R in the
period P. The frequency, νg , of this motion is

νg = 2π /P = eB/me = 1.8 × 1011 B Hz,

74 2 Discovering Space

where B is the magnetic field strength in Tesla. Here e and me , respectively, denote
the charge and mass of the electron.
When an atom is placed in a magnetic field, a very similar thing happens to its
electrons and the spectral lines they emit. A line that radiates at a wavelength λ
without a magnetic field becomes split into two or three components depending on
the orientation of the magnetic field. For the three component split, the shift, Δλ , in
wavelength of the two outer components is given by:

Δλ = λ2 Δν /c = 4.7 × 10−8 λ 2 B nm,

where the shift in frequency is Δν , the velocity of light is c = 2.9794 × 108 m s−1 ;
both Δλ and λ are in nanometers, or 10−9 m, and B is in Tesla.
The separation is thus proportional to the magnetic field strength B. In 1908
George Ellery Hale made measurements of this Zeeman splitting in sunspots, show-
ing that they have magnetic field strengths of about 0.3 T or 3,000 G.

Magnetic fields are described by lines of force, like those joining the north and
south poles of the Earth or the opposite poles of a bar magnet. When the lines are
close together, the force of the field is strong; when they are far apart, the force
is weak. The direction of the lines of force, and the orientation of the magnetic
fields, can be inferred from the polarization of the spectral lines. Magnetic field
lines pointing out of the Sun have positive magnetic polarity, while inward-directed
fields have negative polarity.
Sunspots tend to travel in pairs of opposite polarity, roughly aligned in the east
west, rotational direction on the Sun. The twinned sunspots are joined by invisi-
ble magnetic loops that rise above the photosphere into the corona, like an arching
bridge connecting two magnetic islands. The magnetic field lines emerge from the
Sun at a spot with one polarity and re-enter it at another one of opposite polarity.
The magnetized atmosphere in, around, and above bipolar sunspot groups is
called a solar active region. Active regions are places of concentrated, enhanced
magnetic fields, large enough and strong enough to stand out from the magnetically
weaker areas. These disturbed regions also emit intense X-rays and are prone to
awesome explosions. They mark one location of extreme unrest on the Sun.
Unlike the Earth, magnetism on the Sun does not consist of just one simple
dipole. The Sun is spotted all over, like a young child with the measles, and con-
tains numerous pairs of opposite magnetic polarity. They are found everywhere on
the Sun, including active regions with their sunspots and the quiet places outside of
active regions.
The invisible magnetized bridges that join the ubiquitous pairs of opposite mag-
netic polarity have become known as coronal loops. Powerful magnetism, spawned
deep inside the Sun, threads its way through the solar atmosphere, creating a dra-
matic, ubiquitous, and ever-changing panorama of coronal loops and arcades.
2.4 Pervasive Solar Magnetism 75

2.4.2 The 11-Year Magnetic Activity Cycle

The Sun’s magnetism is forever changing and is never still, just like everything
else in the Universe. Sunspots, and the active-region magnetic loops that join them,
are temporary. They come and go with lifetimes ranging from hours to months.
Moreover, the total number of sunspots varies periodically, from a maximum to
a minimum and back to a maximum, in about 11 years (Fig. 2.6 and Table 2.7).
Samuel Heinrich Schwabe, an amateur astronomer of Dessau, Germany, discovered
this periodic variation in the early 1840s. At the maximum in the sunspot cycle,
there may be 100 or more spots on the visible hemisphere of the Sun at one time;
at sunspot minimum very few of them are seen, and for periods as long as a month
none can be found.
The number of active regions, with their bipolar sunspots and coronal loops,
varies in step with the sunspot cycle, peaking at sunspot maximum when they dom-
inate the structure of the inner corona. At sunspot minimum, the active regions are
largely absent and the strength of the extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray emission of the
corona is greatly reduced. And since most forms of solar activity are magnetic in
origin, the sunspot cycle is also called the solar cycle of magnetic activity.
The places that sunspots emerge and disappear also vary over the slow 11-year
sunspot cycle (Fig. 2.6). At the beginning of the cycle, when the number of sunspots
just starts to grow, sunspots break out in belts of activity at middle solar latitudes
of 30◦ –45◦ , parallel to the equator in both the northern and the southern hemi-
sphere. The two belts move to lower solar latitudes, or toward the equator, as the

90N

200
Number of Sunspots

30N
Latitude (degrees)

EQ
100

30S

0 90S
1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000
Date Date

Fig. 2.6 Solar magnetic activity cycle. The 11-year solar cycle of magnetic activity plotted from
1975 to 2007. Both the positions of sunspots (left) and the numbers of sunspots (right) wax and
wane in cycles that peak every 11 years. Similar 11-year cycles have been plotted for more than
a century. At the beginning of each cycle, the first sunspots appear at about 30◦ solar latitude and
then migrate to 0◦ solar latitude, or the solar equator, at the cycle’s end. This plot of the changing
positions of sunspots resembles the wings of a butterfly, and has therefore been called the butterfly
diagram. The cycles overlap with spots from a new cycle appearing at high latitudes when the spots
from the old cycle persist in the equatorial regions. The solar latitude is the angular distance from
the plane of the Sun’s equator, which is very close to the plane of the Earth’s orbit about the Sun,
called the ecliptic. (Courtesy of David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC.)
76 2 Discovering Space

Table 2.7 Dates of the minimum and maximum in solar activity since 1960a
Cycle number Date of minimum Date of maximum
Cycle 20 1964.9 1968.9
Cycle 21 1976.5 1979.9
Cycle 22 1986.8 1989.6
Cycle 23 1996.9 2000.5
Cycle 24 2008.3 2011.5
a Courtesy of David H. Hathaway

cycle progresses and the number of sunspots increases to a maximum. The zones
of sunspot activity keep on moving closer and closer to the equator, but they never
reach it. The sunspots fizzle out and gradually disappear at sunspot minimum, just
before coming together at the equator.
As old spots linger near the equator, new ones break out about a third of the way
toward the poles (Fig. 2.6). But the magnetic polarities of the new spots are reversed
with north becoming south and vice versa – as if the Sun had turned itself inside
out. The magnetic field at the solar poles approximates that of a dipole; this field
also reverses polarity every 11 years. Thus, the full magnetic cycle for the return of
both the sunspot pair orientation in each hemisphere and the polarity of the general
polar magnetic field takes an average of 22 years.
Magnetographs are now used to chart the magnetic fields running in and out of
the Sun. These instruments consist of an array of tiny detectors that measure the
Zeeman effect at different locations on the photosphere. Two images are produced,
one in each polarization; and the difference produces a magnetogram (Fig. 2.7),
with strong magnetic fields displayed as bright or dark regions depending on their
direction. Magnetograms with high spatial resolution are obtained from instruments
aboard spacecraft, above the obscuring effects of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Zeeman effect measures the longitudinal component of the magnetic field,
or the component that is directed toward or away from us. The polarization of the
radiation provides the in or out direction. Some modern instruments, called vector
magnetographs, also measure the component of the magnetic field directed across
our line-of-sight, or the transverse component of the magnetic field, in addition to
the longitudinal component. Such a vector magnetograph is attached to the Solar
Optical Telescope aboard Hinode.
The magnetograms demonstrate that there is a lot of magnetism in the photo-
sphere outside sunspots. More than 90% of these magnetic fields are concentrated
into intense magnetic flux tubes that appear, disappear, and are renewed in just 40 h.
The individual flux tubes are a few hundred kilometers across and have magnetic
fields strengths comparable to those of the much larger sunspots.
The magnetograms also indicate that at sunspot minimum there is still plenty
of magnetism, even though there are no large spots on the Sun (Fig. 2.8). Small
magnetized regions continuously well up all over the photosphere throughout the
11-year solar cycle. Moreover, the solar magnetic fields are always clumped together
2.4 Pervasive Solar Magnetism 77

Fig. 2.7 Magnetogram. This magnetogram was taken on 12 February 1989, close to the maximum
in the Sun’s 11-year cycle of magnetic activity. Yellow represents positive or north polarity pointing
out of the Sun, with red the strongest fields which are within or near sunspots; blue is negative
or south polarity that points into the Sun, with green the strongest. In the northern hemisphere
(top half) positive fields lead, in the southern hemisphere (bottom half) the polarities are exactly
reversed and the negative fields lead. (Courtesy of William C. Livingston, NSO and NOAO.)

into intense bundles that cover only a few percent of the Sun’s surface, both at
sunspot minimum and at sunspot maximum.

2.4.3 Magnetic Fields in the Corona

About 100 years ago Frank H. Bigelow used the shape of the corona, detected dur-
ing total eclipses of the Sun, to make some very prescient speculations about so-
lar magnetism on large scales. He supposed that rays seen near the solar poles are
open “lines of force discharging coronal matter from the body of the Sun.” Bigelow
also concluded that the “long equatorial wings” of the corona, detected at peri-
ods of minimum activity, are “due to the closing of the lines of force about the
equator.”
At times of reduced magnetic activity, prominent coronal streamers, detected dur-
ing a solar eclipse, are indeed restricted to near the solar equator. At activity min-
imum, the streamers are molded by the available magnetism into extended shapes
78 2 Discovering Space

Fig. 2.8 Solar cycle magnetic variations. These magnetograms portray the polarity and distribu-
tion of the magnetism in the solar photosphere. They were made with the Vacuum Tower Telescope
of the National Solar Observatory at Kitt Peak from 8 January 1992, at a maximum in the sunspot
cycle (lower left) to 25 July 1999, well into the next maximum (lower right). Each magnetogram
shows opposite polarities as darker and brighter than average tint. When the Sun is most active,
the number of sunspots is at a maximum, with large bipolar sunspots that are oriented in the east–
west (left–right) direction within two parallel bands. At times of low activity (top middle), there
are no large sunspots and tiny magnetic fields of different magnetic polarity can be observed all
over the photosphere. The haze around the images is the inner solar corona. (Courtesy of Carolus
J. Schrijver, NSO, NOAO and NSF.)

that point along the equatorial plane, often forming a ring or belt of hot gas that
extends around the Sun. The streamers have bulb shapes in the low corona near the
Sun, where electrified matter is densely concentrated within closed magnetic loops
or arches that straddle the equator. Farther out in the extended corona, the equatorial
streamers narrow and stretch out into long, thin stalks extending tens of millions of
kilometers in space.
Near a minimum in the activity cycle, the corona is relatively dim at the poles
where faint plumes diverge out into interplanetary space, apparently outlining a
global, dipolar magnetic field of about 0.001 T or 10 G in strength. This large-scale
magnetism becomes pulled outward at the solar equator, confining hot material in
the streamer belt. The streamers are then sandwiched between regions of opposite
magnetic direction or polarity, and are confined along an equatorial current sheet
that is magnetically neutral.
Near the maximum in the activity cycle, the shape of the corona and the distribu-
tion of the Sun’s extended magnetism can be much more complex. The corona then
becomes crowded with streamers that can be found closer to the Sun’s poles.
At times of maximum magnetic activity, the widths of streamers are smaller and
their radial extension is shorter; near minimum, they are wide and well developed
2.4 Pervasive Solar Magnetism 79

107
Solar Wind
Acceleration Region β>1
106

105 Corona
Height (km)

104 β<1

103
Chromosphere
Photosphere
102
β>1

10 -4
10 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102
Plasma β = Gas Pressure/Magnetic Pressure

Fig. 2.9 Magnetic and gas pressure. The ratio of gas to magnetic pressure, denoted by the symbol
β , plotted as a function of height above the photosphere. The magnetic pressure is greater than the
gas pressure in the low corona, where β is less than one and magnetic fields dictate the structure
of the corona. Large local variations of β occur in active regions because of the presence of dense
loops. Further out, the gas pressure can exceed the magnetic pressure and the Sun’s magnetic field
is carried out into interplanetary space by the solar wind. In the photosphere, below the corona and
chromosphere, the gas pressure also exceeds the magnetic pressure, and the moving gas carries
the magnetic fields around. [Adapted from G. Allen Gary (2001); this survey ignores non-radial
structure.]

along the equator. The shape, location, and tilt of extended sheets of opposing mag-
netic polarity are variable near sunspot maximum. At about this time, the Sun swaps
its north and south magnetic poles, so a much more volatile corona exists at solar
maximum.
Throughout the solar atmosphere, a dynamic tension is set up between the
charged particles and the magnetic field (Fig. 2.9, Focus 2.4). In the photosphere
and below, the gas pressure dominates the magnetic pressure, allowing the mag-
netic field to be carried around by the moving gas. Because the churning gases are
ionized, and hence electrically conductive, they sweep the magnetic field along. The
situation is reversed in the low corona within active regions. Here strong magnetism
wins and the hot particles are confined within coronal loops. Nevertheless, the loops
are themselves tied into the underlying photosphere, which is stirred up by mass
motions. The gas pressure can become greater than the magnetic pressure further
out in the corona, where the magnetic field decreases in strength and the solar wind
carries the Sun’s magnetism out into interplanetary space.

Focus 2.4
Magnetic and Gas Pressure
A magnetic field tends to restrain a collection of electrons and protons, called
plasma, while the plasma exerts a pressure that opposes this. The pressure, PB , pro-
duced by a magnetic field transverse to its direction is given by:
80 2 Discovering Space

PB = B2 /(2μ0 ),

for a magnetic field of strength B in Tesla, and the permeability of free space μ0 =
4π × 10−7 in units of newtons per square ampere or N A−2 . As expected, a stronger
magnetic field applies a greater restraining pressure.
Hot plasma generates a gas pressure, PG , owing to the motions of its particles. It
is described by the expression
PG = NkT,
where N is the particle number density, k = 1.38 × 10−23 joule per Kelvin, or J K−1 ,
is Boltzmann’s constant, and T is the temperature in Kelvin. Hotter particles move
faster and create greater pressure to oppose the magnetic field, and denser plasma
also results in greater pressure.
The two kinds of pressure compete for control of the solar atmosphere. In the
low solar corona, strong magnetic fields in active regions hold the hot, dense elec-
trified gas within coronal loops. The magnetic and gas pressure become equal for a
magnetic field, B, given by:

B = [(2μ0 k)NT]1/2 = [3.46 × 10−29 NT]1/2 T.

If a coronal loop contains a hot, dense plasma, with N = 1017 electrons per cubic
meter and T = 106 K, the magnetic field must be stronger than B = 0.002 T = 20 G.
The magnetic field strengths of coronal loops in active regions are therefore strong
enough to hold this gas in, at least within the low corona near sunspots.
Far from the Sun, the magnetic fields of coronal loops also become too weak to
constrain the outward pressure of the hot gas, and the loops might expand or break
open to allow electrons and protons to escape, contributing to the solar wind and
carrying the magnetic fields away. Within the solar wind, the gas pressure of the
electrons and protons is roughly equal to the magnetic pressure of the interplanetary
magnetic field.

2.4.4 Interplanetary Magnetic Fields

Low-energy, cosmic ray protons are significantly more numerous when solar activity
is minimal. And when solar activity is at the peak of its 11-year cycle, the flux of
low-energy cosmic rays detected at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is least. This
unexpected anti-correlation is often called the Forbush effect, after its discovery by
Scott Forbush in the early 1950s. It was explained in 1956 by Peter Meyer, Eugene
Parker, and John Simpson, who proposed that enhanced interplanetary magnetism
near the maximum in the 11-year solar activity cycle deflects cosmic rays from their
Earth-bound paths.
2.4 Pervasive Solar Magnetism 81

Interplanetary magnetic fields act as a barrier to electrically charged cosmic rays

that are coming from the depths of space, preventing them from reaching the Earth.
During the maximum in the solar cycle, stronger solar magnetic fields are carried
out into interplanetary space by the Sun’s wind, deflecting more cosmic rays. Less
extensive interplanetary magnetism, during a minimum in the 11-year cycle of mag-
netic activity, lowers the barrier to the cosmic particles and allows more of them to
arrive at Earth.
In 1958, Parker showed that the solar wind ought to carry both the Sun’s particles
and the magnetic fields outward to the far reaches of the solar system. He also con-
cluded that interplanetary magnetism ought to have a spiral shape. This results from
the combined effects of solar rotation and the radial expansion of the solar wind.
While one end of the interplanetary magnetic field remains firmly rooted in the Sun,
the other end is extended and stretched out by the solar wind. The Sun’s rotation
bends this radial pattern into an interplanetary spiral shape, coiling the magnetism
up like a tightly wound spring (Fig. 2.10). Because it is wrapped up into a spiral,
the magnetic field’s strength only falls off linearly with distance from the Sun, in
contrast to the wind density that decreases much more rapidly with distance as it
fills a larger volume. Of course, Parker’s model was a theoretical speculation, with
many skeptics. At the time, even the solar wind had yet to be directly measured, and
evidence for Parker’s spiral awaited the observations.

45°

Fig. 2.10 Interplanetary magnetic sectors. If viewed from above, the magnetic field in the Sun’s
equatorial plane would be drawn out into a spiral pattern that is divided into magnetic sectors
which point in opposite directions (arrows, gray and white). The rotating Sun sweeps these sectors
of opposite magnetic polarity past the Earth, represented by the small black dot. At the Earth’s
location, the pulling effect of the solar wind is about equal to the twisting effect of the Sun’s
rotation, so the stretched-our field makes an angle of about 45◦ with the radial direction from the
Sun. [Adapted from Lief Svalgaard and John M. Wilcox (1976).]
82 2 Discovering Space

Studies of the interplanetary magnetic field were pioneered using America’s In-
terplanetary Monitoring Platform 1, or IMP 1 for short, launched on 26 November
1963. Its magnetic field experiment, under the direction of Norman F. Ness from
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, measured both the strength and the direction
of the magnetic field in interplanetary space near the Earth. The measurements con-
firmed that the interplanetary magnetic field has a spiral shape. The magnetometers
aboard IMP 1 also provided important results on the confinement and distortion of
the Earth’s magnetic field by the solar wind.
Ness teamed up with John M. Wilcox to investigate the relation between solar
and interplanetary magnetism, discovering large interplanetary regions of alternat-
ing magnetic polarity. In 1964, they showed that the magnetic field borne by the
solar wind near a minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle is divided into several
magnetic sectors directed toward or away from the Sun within the plane of the solar
equator and the orbital plane of the planets, the ecliptic. As reviewed by Wilcox in
1968, the interplanetary magnetic field observed by spacecraft is thus dominated by
a sector structure, co-rotating with the Sun and following an Archimedean spiral
pattern (also see Fig. 2.10); as the field swings past the Earth, it points predom-
inantly away from the Sun for several days, and then toward the Sun for several
days, etc. Wilcox also suggested a connection between the fast solar wind and the
open magnetic fields near the Sun’s polar regions.
The polarity of the interplanetary magnetic field in the ecliptic was first predicted
from photosphere magnetograms using a simple, potential field model proposed by
Kenneth Schatten, Wilcox, and Ness in 1969; Lief Svalgaard and Wilcox reviewed
the many successes of this model in 1978. Subsequent refinements to the model
include that of Yi-Ming Wang and Neil R. Sheeley, Jr., in 1992.
A magnetically neutral layer, or electric current sheet, that lies approximately in
the plane of the solar equator separates the large-scale regions of opposite magnetic
polarity. This dividing sheet is not precisely flat and is instead warped. So, when the
Sun rotates, the current sheet wobbles up and down, sweeping regions of opposite
magnetic polarity past the Earth.
Magnetic measurements from the Pioneer 11 spacecraft, reported by Edward J.
Smith and his colleagues in 1978, showed that the magnetic sectors disappeared
when the spacecraft rose above the equatorial current sheet, where they were re-
placed by a magnetic field of one polarity. Pioneer 11 traveled up to solar latitude of
16◦ after its encounter with Jupiter, whereas all previous spacecraft remained near
the ecliptic plane at less than 7◦ solar latitude. The new measurements supported a
model in which the current sheet separates magnetic fields of opposite polarity in
each hemisphere of the Sun, associated with its north and south magnetic poles.
Measurements over the subsequent decades have confirmed the equatorial mag-
netic sectors near activity minimum, and repeatedly demonstrated that the inter-
planetary magnetic field is oriented into a simple spiral pattern, if averaged over a
sufficiently long time. When a spacecraft is below the equatorial current sheet, it
detects magnetic fields pointed in one direction. When located above the sheet, the
observed fields point in the opposite direction. The magnetic field on one side of
the sheet points toward the Sun near the minimum in one 11-year activity cycle, and
2.5 X-rays from the Sun 83

away from the Sun near the minimum of the next cycle, but the fields on the two
sides of the current sheet always point in opposite directions.
Nevertheless, until very recently no spacecraft has ventured far out of the eclip-
tic to see what happens way above the equatorial plane of the Sun. As described
in Chap. 5, the Ulysses spacecraft has now completed three orbits above the Sun’s
poles, observing the Parker spiral from above, and showing that it is generally pre-
served to the highest latitudes – but with significant departures that might be at-
tributed to magnetic waves in the solar wind.

2.5 X-rays from the Sun

Guglielmo Marconi, an Italian electrical engineer, astonished the world on

12 December 1901 when he sent a long-wavelength radio signal across the Atlantic
Ocean. Radio waves travel in straight lines, and cannot pass through the solid Earth;
so many wondered how Marconi could send them half way around the world.
The radio signals got around the Earth’s curvature by reflection from the
ionosphere, or spherical shell of ions, an electrically charged layer in the upper
atmosphere located about 100 km above your head. X-rays from the Sun create this
spherical layer of ions. That is, the molecules in our atmosphere are ionized by this
invisible, short-wavelength radiation, but not by the sunlight we see with our eyes.
When the solar X-rays reach the upper atmosphere, they rip electrons off the nitro-
gen and oxygen molecules, producing free electrons and atomic and molecular ions.
The energy of radiation is inversely proportional to its wavelength; so invisible
waves with short wavelengths have more energy than visible light with longer ones
(Focus 2.5). This can be understood by looking at your hand in different ways. In
visible light, you see the skin of your hand, but shorter ultraviolet rays enter the skin
to give you sunburn. The even shorter, more energetic X-rays penetrate through the
skin and muscles of your hand to delineate its bones. Also, any heated gas emits its
most intense radiation at a wavelength that decreases with increasing temperature,
and the very hot corona, at a temperature of a million Kelvin, radiates most of its
energy at X-ray wavelengths (Focus 2.5). Although this emission waxes and wanes
in step with the 11-year activity cycle, it is always there at some level.

Focus 2.5
The Energy of Light
The Sun continuously radiates energy that spreads throughout space. This radia-
tion is called “electromagnetic” because it propagates by the interplay of oscillating
electrical and magnetic fields in space. Electromagnetic waves all travel through
empty space at the same constant speed – the velocity of light. It is usually de-
noted by the lower case letter c, and has the value of c = 2.9979 × 108 m s−1 or
about 300, 000 km s−1 . No energy can be transported more swiftly than the speed
of light.
84 2 Discovering Space

Astronomers describe radiation in terms of its wavelength, frequency, or energy.

When light propagates from one place to another, it often seems to behave like
waves or ripples on a pond. The light waves have a characteristic wavelength, often
denoted by the symbol λ , the separation between wave crests. Sometimes radiation
is described by its frequency, denoted by the symbol ν , instead of its wavelength.
Radio stations are, for example, denoted by their call letters and the frequency of
their broadcasts. The product of the wavelength and frequency is equal to the veloc-
ity of light, or
λ ν = c.
When light is absorbed or emitted by atoms, it behaves like packages of energy,
called photons. The photons are created whenever a material object emits electro-
magnetic radiation, and they are consumed when matter absorbs radiation. More-
over, each elemental atom can only absorb and radiate a very specific set of photon
energies. The photon energy is given by:

hc
Photon energy = hν = ,
λ
where Planck’s constant h = 6.6261 × 10−34 J s. From this expression we see that
photons of radiation at shorter wavelengths have greater energy. This is the reason
that short, energetic X-rays can penetrate inside your body, while longer, less ener-
getic visible light just warms your face.
A hot gas at temperature, T , will emit radiation at all wavelengths, but the peak
intensity of that radiation is emitted at a maximum wavelength, λmax , that varies
inversely with the temperature. This can be seen by equating the thermal energy of
the gas to the photon energy of its radiation, or by:

3 hc
Gas thermal energy = kT = = Radiation photon energy
2 λmax

where Boltzmann’s constant k = 1.38066 × 10−23 J K−1 . Collecting terms and in-
serting the values for the constants, this expression gives λmax = 2hc/(3kT ) ≈
0.001/T m. The exact relationship, known as the Wien displacement law, is given by

0.0028978
λmax = m
T
or λmax = 2.8978 × 106 /T nm =, where 1 nm = 10−9 m. This tells us that the Sun’s
corona, with a temperature of about 2 × 106 K, will emit most of its radiation at
X-ray wavelengths of 10−9 − 10−10 m, with photon energies of 1–10 keV, where
1 keV = 1.602 × 10−16 J. In contrast, the solar photosphere with a temperature of
5,780 K will radiate most of its energy at a visible wavelength of about 5 × 10−7 m.

Solar ultraviolet radiation is partially blocked by the Earth’s atmosphere, and

the Sun’s X-rays are completely absorbed in our air. These components of solar
2.5 X-rays from the Sun 85

radiation must therefore be observed with telescopes and other instruments in space.
Scientists at the United States Naval Research Laboratory, or NRL for short, pi-
oneered such investigations. Richard Tousey and his colleagues at NRL used V-2
rockets, captured from the Germans at the end of World War II, to obtain the first
photographs of the solar ultraviolet spectrum in 1946, and to first detect the Sun’s
X-rays in 1948.
By the late 1940s, scientists knew that the corona had a temperature of about a
million Kelvin, and should therefore produce X-rays, but it appeared so dilute that
its radiant flux might not have a major effect on the Earth’s atmosphere. But then
in 1951, Herbert Friedman’s team at NRL used instruments aboard a V-2 rocket to
show that there are enough solar X-rays coming in from outside our atmosphere to
create the ionosphere. Subsequent measurements made by this group using Aerobee
sounding rockets over the course of a full sunspot cycle indicated that the intensity of
the Sun’s X-rays rises and falls with the number of sunspots, as does the temperature
in the ionosphere.
The first X-ray image of the Sun was obtained by the NRL group in 1960 during
a brief 5-min rocket flight. This primitive picture set the stage for the detailed X-ray
images of the Sun taken from NASA sounding rockets in the early 1970s. During
this time, solar X-ray instruments were also developed using NASA’s series of small
satellites known as the Orbiting Solar Observatories, or OSOs, launched from 1962
(OSO 1) to 1975 (OSO 8).
Our perspective of the X-ray Sun was forever changed with NASA’s orbiting Sky-
lab, launched on 14 May 1973, and manned by three-person crews until 8 February
1974. Skylab’s X-ray telescope, and those to follow, could be used to look back at
the Sun’s hot corona, viewing it across the Sun’s face for hours, days, and months
at a time. This is because very hot material – such as that within the million-degree
corona – emits most of its energy at these wavelengths. Also, the photosphere is too
cool to emit intense X-ray radiation, so it appears dark under the hot gas.
Numerous Skylab X-ray photographs, first reported by Giuseppe Vaiana and
his co-workers (1973a, b) showed that the X-ray corona is highly structured, con-
taining coronal holes, coronal loops, and X-ray bright points (Fig. 2.11). Magne-
tized coronal loops mold, shape, and constrain the high-temperature, electrified gas
(Fig. 2.12), and since the hot coronal gases are almost completely ionized, they can-
not readily cross the intense, closed magnetic field lines. Typically, the electrons
contained in coronal loops have temperatures of a few million Kelvin and a density
of up to 100 million billion (1017 ) electrons per cubic meter.
Although Skylab demonstrated the ubiquitous nature of the X-ray-emitting coro-
nal loops, its X-ray telescope provided blurred images without fine detail. It lacked
the resolution, sensitivity, and rapid, uniform imaging required to fully understand
them. As described in Chap. 4, this has now largely been accomplished, first by
the X-ray telescope aboard the Yohkoh spacecraft, then at extreme-ultraviolet wave-
lengths with telescopes aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO
for short, and the Transition Region And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, and
most recently at X-ray wavelengths with the X-Ray Telescope aboard Hinode.
Skylab’s inquisitive X-ray eyes also recorded black, seemingly empty places,
called coronal holes. Max Waldmeier first observed them from the ground as
86 2 Discovering Space

Fig. 2.11 X-ray corona. An X-ray photograph of the solar corona taken at wavelengths of 10–
600 nm from a satellite of the American Science and Engineering Company. It shows active re-
gions with coronal loops (large bright features distributed along the solar equator), small bright
points nearly uniformly distributed over the Sun, and a coronal hole seen as a large dark area ex-
tending from the north pole of the Sun down through the middle of the disk. The coronal holes
are regions where plasma might easily escape, giving rise to high-velocity streams in the solar
wind. (Courtesy of Giuseppe Vaiana and the Solar Physics Group, American Science and Engi-
neering, Inc.; presented by Vaiana and his colleagues at the 8 April 1974 meeting of the American
Geophysical Union.)

long-lived regions of negligible intensity in coronal images of the green iron line –
(Fe XIV) at 530.3 nm – naming them holes in 1957. Waldmeier used the green
line to study polar coronal holes for nearly 40 years, from 1940 to 1978, reporting
in 1981 that they exist permanently for about 7 years during each 11-year activity
cycle, including activity minimum, but that the large polar coronal holes seem to
disappear for a few years near sunspot maximum.
Dark, coronal holes were noted in the X-ray images obtained on NASA sounding
rockets in 1970 and extensively described by Skylab; instruments aboard the Yohkoh,
SOHO, and Hinode spacecraft routinely detect them. The large polar coronal holes
are always present near the minimum of the solar activity cycle, but at activity maxi-
mum they are replaced by smaller coronal holes scattered all over the Sun. The large
2.5 X-rays from the Sun 87

Fig. 2.12 X-ray coronal loops. A comparison of a Skylab X-ray image and a visible light (Hα)
picture of a solar active region taken at the same time on 6 July 1973. The bright coronal loops
shown in the X-ray image contain hot (million degree), dense (10 million billion, or 1016 , electrons
per cubic meter) electrons trapped within magnetic loops that connect underlying regions of op-
posite magnetic polarity. The coronal loops are about 100,000 km in extent, or about ten times the
Earth’s diameter. (Courtesy of the Solar Physics Group, American Science and Engineering, Inc.)

polar coronal holes reappear soon after activity maximum, with opposite magnetic
polarity.
Coronal holes are not empty. They are just more rarefied and cooler than other
places in the corona, so their X-ray and extreme-ultraviolet emissions are faint. The
electrons in coronal holes have densities a factor of ten smaller than the typical
value in coronal loops. This is because most of the magnetic field lines in coronal
holes do not form locally closed loops. Coronal holes are instead characterized by
open magnetic fields that do not return to another place on the Sun, allowing the
charged coronal particles to escape the Sun’s magnetic grasp and flow outward into
the surrounding space.
Allen S. Krieger, Adrienne F. Timothy, and Edmond C. Roelof concluded in
1973 that coronal holes are the sources of at least some of the recurrent high-speed
streams observed in the solar wind near the ecliptic. They did this by comparing
an X-ray photograph of the Sun, taken with a 5-min rocket flight in 1970, with in
situ measurements of the solar wind velocity and flux from the Vela and Pioneer
VI spacecraft. The recurrent high-speed streams were associated with equator-ward
extensions of the polar coronal holes, rotating with a 27-day period. This result was
substantiated in 1974 by detailed comparisons of the coronal holes mapped by Sky-
lab with satellite measurements of the solar wind. Also in 1973, Giancarlo Noci
showed that a strong solar wind is likely to originate in coronal holes as the result
of their physical properties – open magnetic field lines, exceptionally low coronal
density and temperature, outward thermal conduction and pressure.
88 2 Discovering Space

Sounding rocket observations of extreme ultraviolet lines in coronal holes pro-

vided additional early evidence that they are the unknown font of the high-speed
solar wind. As shown by Gary J. Rottman, Frank Q. Orrall, and James A. Klimchuk
in 1982–1983, these spectral features had shorter wavelengths than their counter-
parts on the rest of the solar disk, indicating that material was moving out from the
coronal holes at a velocity of 7–8 km s−1 . As discussed in Chap. 5, observations
with instruments aboard the Ulysses and Yohkoh spacecraft conclusively demon-
strated that the polar coronal holes provide a fast lane for the high-speed solar wind
near a minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle.
As also shown in Chap. 5, it remained for instruments aboard SOHO, TRACE,
and Hinode to delineate possible escape sites within holes, and to suggest how
the liberated gases might be subsequently accelerated to create winds that move
at speeds of up to 800 km s−1 .
First discovered during rocket flights, but extensively studied during Skylab’s
coverage, the X-ray bright points appear all over the Sun, in active regions, coronal
holes, and the places in between (Fig. 2.13). The ubiquitous small features glow like
tiny, blinking lights in X-ray images of the Sun. The Skylab observations, described
by Leon Golub and his colleagues (1974, 1976a, b), indicate that hundreds and even
thousands of X-ray bright points appear each day, coming and going and usually
lasting about 8 h; but some flare up and fade in just a few minutes while others last
for days.

Fig. 2.13 X-ray bright points and jets in a coronal hole. This X-ray image, taken from the Skylab
spacecraft in July 1973, shows several small, bright X-ray sources that project radially outward in
a dark coronal hole at the Sun’s north pole. The features are less than 10,000 km in width and
have temperatures in excess of a million Kelvin. (Courtesy of the Solar Physics Group, American
Science and Engineering, Inc.)
2.6 Solar Outbursts Send Energetic Radiation and Particles into Space 89

The X-ray bright points are concentrated regions of intense magnetism, some al-
most as large as the Earth. Many of them overlie magnetic regions that have both
positive and negative polarity, and they fluctuate in brightness and emit X-ray jets
that resemble small flares. The quantity of magnetic flux emerging in the form of
X-ray bright points at high latitudes alone is estimated to be as large as the contri-
bution from all active regions. Skylab showed that ubiquitous bright points dot the
ultraviolet Sun as well. The varying ultraviolet and X-ray features have a tempera-
ture of about a million Kelvin. Observations from Hinode are describing how X-ray
bright points, X-ray jets, and magnetic waves may help heat the corona and power
the solar wind.
To complete our introductory survey of the discovery of space, we now turn to
explosive solar outbursts that send intense radiation and high-speed charged parti-
cles into interplanetary space.

2.6 Solar Outbursts Send Energetic Radiation

and Particles into Space

2.6.1 Solar Flares

Solar flares are sudden, rapid outbursts of awesome power and violence, on a scale
unknown on Earth, the biggest explosions in the solar system. In minutes, the
disturbance spreads along concentrated magnetic fields, releasing energy equiva-
lent to millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time, and
raising the temperature of Earth-sized regions to tens of millions of Kelvin. Solar
flares are therefore hotter than the corona. Sometimes they temporarily go out of
control and lose equilibrium, becoming hotter than the center of the Sun for a short
period of time.
The short-lived solar flares, which usually last only 10 min or less, unleash their
vast power from a relatively small volume within solar active regions, the magne-
tized atmosphere in, around, and above sunspots. The largest solar flares cover but a
few tenths of a percent of the solar disk, and are intimately related to the magnetized
coronal loops that link sunspots and other regions of opposite magnetic polarity in
the underlying photosphere. These incredible explosive outbursts become more fre-
quent and violent when the number of sunspots is greatest; several solar flares can
be observed on a busy day near the maximum of the sunspot cycle. They are not
caused by sunspots, but are instead powered by the magnetic energy stored higher
in the corona.
Despite the powerful cataclysm, most solar flares are not detected on the visible
solar disk. Although emitting awesome amounts of energy, a solar flare releases less
than one-tenth the total energy radiated by the Sun every second. And since most
of this radiation is in visible sunlight, solar flares are only minor perturbations in
the combined colors, or white light, of the Sun. The first record of a solar flare,
observed in the white light of the photosphere, therefore did not occur until the mid
90 2 Discovering Space

19th century – on 1 September 1859 when the English astronomers, Richard C.

Carrington and Richard Hodgson, independently noticed one.
A new perspective, which demonstrated the frequent occurrence of solar flares,
was made possible when they were observed in the red Balmer alpha transition
of hydrogen at 656.3 nm, originating in the chromosphere. This was not possible
until the early 20th century, after the invention of the spectroheliograph, which iso-
lated the red hydrogen-alpha emission from the Sun’s intense visible light at other
wavelengths. Then, for more than half a century, astronomers throughout the world
carried out a vigilant flare patrol, like hunters waiting for the sudden flash of game
birds. They showed that at the chromospheric level in the solar atmosphere a solar
flare consists in simplest form as two extended, parallel flare ribbons. But a fun-
damental understanding of the physical processes responsible for solar flares had
to wait until they were detected at invisible wavelengths from both the ground and
the space.
During World War II, it was discovered that sudden, intense radio outbursts from
the Sun, associated with solar flares, could interfere with radio communications
and radar systems. And in 1946, for example, the English physicists, Edward V.
Appleton and James Stanley Hey, demonstrated that meter-wavelength solar radio
noise originates in the vicinity of sunspot-associated active regions, and that sudden
large increases in the Sun’s radio output are associated with solar flares.
Soon after the War, in the 1950s, J. Paul Wild’s group of Australian radio as-
tronomers used swept frequency receivers to track the outward motions of the im-
pulsive radio bursts, designated Type III, showing that solar flares are sending beams
of electrons out into space at nearly the velocity of light. And at about the same time,
Scott Forbush and his colleagues demonstrated that charged particles with low cos-
mic ray energies could be detected at the Earth during solar flares. Another slower
kind of solar radio burst, denoted Type II, was also discovered by Wild’s group, and
attributed to shock waves being hurled out into space. These radio bursts were sub-
sequently found to be associated with coronal mass ejections. Both types of radio
bursts are discussed in greater detail in Chap. 6.
Although the radio emission from solar outbursts helps specify their magnetic
and temperature structure, and identifies the expulsion of high-speed electrons or
shock waves, the bulk of the radiation from high-temperature solar flares is emitted
at much shorter, invisible wavelengths. These catastrophic explosions can briefly
outshine the entire Sun at X-ray and extreme-ultraviolet wavelengths. This radia-
tion is absorbed in the Earth’s atmosphere, so astronomers have observed it with
telescopes in outer space, beginning with primitive instruments aboard balloons or
sounding rockets and continuing with increasingly sophisticated telescopes to the
present day.
Since the ionosphere is created by the Sun’s X-rays, it is perhaps not so surpris-
ing that X-rays from solar flares can alter the ionosphere and disrupt its ability to
mirror radio waves. During moderately intense solar flares, long-wavelength radio
communication can be silenced over the Earth’s entire sunlit hemisphere, and it does
not return to normal until the flaring activity stops. This was a major concern during
2.6 Solar Outbursts Send Energetic Radiation and Particles into Space 91

World War II, when scientists would use the number of sunspots to forecast such
interruptions.
Milestones in the early history of space observations of solar flares began with
a balloon flight in 1958, when Laurence E. Peterson and John Randolph Winckler
observed a flare-associated burst of high-energy radiation, followed by pioneering
rocket observations of X-rays emitted by solar flares in the late 1950s and early
1960s by Herbert Friedman and his colleagues, showing that the X-ray radiation
emitted during solar flares can outshine the entire X-ray Sun. Then an instrument
aboard Mariner 2 observed interplanetary shocks associated with solar activity, re-
ported by Charles P. Sonett and his co-workers in 1964.
NASA’s Orbiting Solar Observatory, or OSO, series of satellites, next improved
our knowledge of solar X-ray flares. In 1972, for example, Edward L. Chupp and his
colleagues detected gamma ray lines from solar flares using an instrument aboard
OSO 7, including the 0.511-MeV line caused by the annihilation of electrons with
their anti-matter counterparts, the positrons. And the Skylab mission obtained high-
resolution images of solar flares at ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths in 1973–1974.
Satellites designed to study high-energy radiation from solar flares near the max-
imum in the 11-year solar activity cycle followed these pioneering investigations.
They included NASA’s Solar Maximum Mission, abbreviated SMM, launched in
1980, the Japanese Hinotori and Yohkoh spacecraft, respectively launched in 1981
and 1991, and NASA’s Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager, launched
in 1998. Instruments aboard other contemporary solar spacecraft, including SOHO,
TRACE, Hinode, and STEREO, contribute to our understanding of coronal mass
ejections or solar flares, and all of these results, from SMM to Hinode, are presented
in Chap. 6.

2.6.2 Erupting Prominences

Arches of incandescent gas can be briefly detected during a total eclipse of the Sun,
as illustrated by this account given in 1842 by Francis Bailey, a stockbroker and
enthusiastic amateur astronomer in England:
I had anticipated a luminous circle round the Moon during the time of total obscurity. . .,
but the most remarkable circumstance attending this phenomenon was the appearance of
three large protuberances apparently emanating from the circumference of the Moon, but
evidently forming a portion of the corona.

The protuberances that Bailey observed were arches of incandescent gas that loop
up from the chromosphere into the solar corona. Astronomers now call the looping
features prominences, the French word for “protuberances.” Early observations, by
Richard A. Proctor in 1871, also indicated that prominences are often associated
with eruptive phenomena.
Magnetic fields suspend and insulate the elongated prominences, which are filled
with material at a temperature of about 10,000 K and are hundreds of times cooler
and denser than the surrounding corona. Prominences can remain suspended and
92 2 Discovering Space

almost motionless above the photosphere for weeks or months, but there comes a
time when they cannot bear the strain. Without warning, the supporting magnetism
becomes unhinged, most likely because it got so twisted out of shape that it snapped.
And a surprising thing happens! Instead of falling down under gravity, the stately,
self-contained structures erupt, often rising as though propelled outward through the
corona by a loaded spring (Fig. 2.14).
It is as if the lid had been taken off the caged material. Cool gas is then flung
outward in slingshot fashion, tearing apart the overlying corona and ejecting large
quantities of matter into space.
These eruptive prominences, as they are called when viewed at the Sun’s apparent
edge, are hurled outward at speeds of several hundreds of kilometers per second,

Fig. 2.14 A prominence erupts. Rapid, sequential photography, at the Balmer hydrogen alpha
transition of 656.3 nm, catches an erupting prominence, which had not been detected as a filament
during previous days. It suddenly rose from an active region and expanded at an apparent velocity
of 375 km s−1 , hurling material far away from the Sun. Here the magnetic loops rise to a maximum
visible extent of 360,000 km in just 16 min. This sequence of hydrogen-alpha images was taken on
the west edge, or limb, of the Sun using the automatic flare patrol heliograph at the Meudon Station
of the Observatoire de Paris; the solar disk has been occulted to give a better view of the event.
(Courtesy of Madame Marie-Josephe Martres, and observer Michel Bernot, Observatoire de Paris,
Meudon, DASOP.)
2.6 Solar Outbursts Send Energetic Radiation and Particles into Space 93

releasing a mass equivalent to that of a small mountain in just a few hours. Eruptive
prominences can be larger, longer lasting, and more massive than solar flares.
Low-lying magnetic loops apparently support the long structures, which reside
beneath magnetic aches that cross above them. This arcade of closed loops is an-
chored in the Sun, but is opened up by the rising prominence. It is as if some minor
irritation builds up beyond the limit of tolerance, and the magnetic structure tosses
off the pent-up frustration, like a dog shaking off the rain. The prominence rises and
disappears, replaced by an elongated arcade of bright extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray
loops that reform near their initial positions, and a new prominence often re-forms
in the same shape and place after the explosive convulsion.
The disappearing prominences are strongly correlated with another form of en-
ergetic solar activity, the coronal mass ejections, which play an important role in
solar–terrestrial interactions.

2.6.3 Coronal Mass Ejections

Powerful solar eruptions, originally termed coronal transients and now known
as coronal mass ejections, were discovered using space-borne, white-light coro-
nagraphs in the 1970s, first with the Orbiting Solar Observatory 7, or OSO 7
for short, launched on 29 September 1971, then in greater profusion by Skylab,
whose initial observations were reported by John T. Gosling and his colleagues in
1974. Since then, thousands of coronal mass ejections have been identified using
coronagraph data from Skylab in 1973–1974, the U.S. Air Force’s P78-1 satel-
lite from 1979 to 1985, NASA’s Solar Maximum Mission in 1980 and from 1984
to 1989, the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory from 1996 on, and STEREO
from 2007.
The P78-1 data, for example, resulted in the discovery of halo coronal mass
ejections by Russell A. Howard and his colleagues in 1982. These mass ejections
originate near the center of the solar disk, as viewed from Earth, and appear in coro-
nagraph images as a ring or halo around the occulting disk. They may be headed
toward the Earth, with threatening consequences, or away from it. More might be
known about coronal mass ejections, at an earlier time, if the Air Force had not
decided to shoot down the P78-1 satellite during a test of an anti-satellite missile
in 1985.
Coronal mass ejections are gigantic magnetic bubbles that can rush away from
the Sun at supersonic speeds of more than 1, 000 km s−1 , expanding to become
larger than the Sun in a few hours. They carry billions of tons of material out into
space, produce intense shock waves, and accelerate vast quantities of energetic parti-
cles in interplanetary space. Arthur J. Hundhausen and his colleagues, for example,
used the coronagraph aboard the Solar Maximum Mission satellite to specify the
mass, velocity, energy, shape, and form of a large number of coronal mass ejections,
fully reported in the literature in the 1990s and discussed in Chap. 6.
94 2 Discovering Space

The physical size of the mass ejections dwarfs that of solar flares and even the
active regions in which flares occur. Solar flares are nevertheless often associated
with coronal mass ejections, and similar processes probably cause both of them.
Like solar flares, the rate of occurrence of coronal mass ejections varies with the
11-year cycle of solar magnetic activity, ballooning out of the corona several times
a day during activity maximum.
All kinds of solar activity therefore seem to be related to the sudden release
of stored magnetic energy, but the exact relation between them is unclear. Large
coronal mass ejections can occur together with an eruptive prominence, with a solar
flare, or without either one of them. And although the frequency of solar eruptions
increases with the number of sunspots, their strength does not necessarily increase.
The most intense solar flares and coronal mass ejections are spread throughout the
solar cycle.
Even though we are 150 × 106 km away, we still notice the disrupting effects of
solar eruptions. Intense radiation from powerful solar flares can travel to the Earth
in just 499 s, or about 8 min, altering our atmosphere, disrupting long-distance radio
communications, and affecting satellite orbits. Very energetic particles, accelerated
during the flare process, traveling almost as fast as light, can endanger unprotected
astronauts or destroy satellite electronics. The coronal mass ejections arrive at the
Earth 1–4 days after a major eruption on the Sun. They can result in strong geomag-
netic storms with accompanying auroras and the threat of electrical power blackouts.
All of these space weather effects are considered in Chap. 7, and they are of such vi-
tal importance that national centers now employ space weather forecasters to predict
or warn us about storms in space.
In summary, there is a lot more going on at the Sun than meets the eye. Hot
gases are caught within looping magnetic cages. Long-lasting magnetized holes,
found at the Sun’s poles, are locked open to expel a high-speed wind. The corona’s
magnetic energy is abruptly released, to power violent flares or mass ejections with
threatening effects for the Earth. The entire solar atmosphere seethes and writhes in
tune with the Sun’s ever-changing magnetism.
Yet, even a decade ago, we did not understand how the Sun’s magnetism origi-
nates and is regenerated in an 11-year cycle. We did not even have a firm grasp on the
origins of sunspots. As we shall next see, the ancient mysteries of the sunspots and
the Sun’s cyclic magnetic variations have at least been partly solved by pinpointing
the elusive dynamo that generates the solar magnetic fields. This has been accom-
plished by looking deep inside the Sun where internal motions amplify, compress,
and slowly transform the Sun’s spotty, ever-changing magnetism.

2.7 Summary Highlights: Discovery of Space

• The aurora borealis and aurora australis, or the northern and southern lights, were
attributed to electrically charged, material corpuscles from the Sun, channeled to
2.7 Summary Highlights: Discovery of Space 95

the Earth’s polar regions by its magnetic fields and providing early evidence that
space is not empty.
• Powerful geomagnetic storms are caused by explosive outbursts from the Sun,
which travel through interplanetary space and can compress the Earth’s mag-
netic field.
• The most abundant element in the Sun is hydrogen, and helium is the second
most abundant solar element.
• The sharp outer edge of the visible solar disk, the photosphere, is somewhat
illusory, for a hot, normally invisible, outer atmosphere, called the corona, en-
velops it.
• Coronal emission lines, observed during total eclipses of the Sun, were eventu-
ally attributed to iron, nickel, and calcium ionized at a temperature of a million
Kelvin.
• The million-degree corona consists mainly of electrons and protons torn out
of the Sun’s abundant hydrogen atoms during frequent collisions, with lesser
amounts of heavier ions and magnetic fields as well.
• The corona is always expanding away from the Sun, filling space with a relentless
solar wind that envelops the Earth and all the other planets.
• The solar wind was inferred from comet ion tails, suggested by theoretical con-
siderations, and fully confirmed by direct measurements with the Soviet Lunik 2
(Luna 2) and American Mariner 2 spacecraft.
• The ever-flowing solar wind blows at two supersonic speeds – a slow wind mov-
ing at about 400 km s−1 and a fast wind moving at about twice that speed.
• Numerous spacecraft have measured the physical properties of the solar wind for
more than 45 years.
• Interplanetary space also contains very energetic atomic nuclei, the cosmic rays,
which come from nearby interstellar space.
• The most abundant cosmic rays are protons, which are about a million times more
energetic than solar wind protons, but with a flux at the Earth’s orbit of 10 × 109
times less than their solar wind counterparts.
• Magnetic fields penetrate the visible solar disk, or photosphere, forming Earth-
sized sunspots whose strength, measured by the Zeeman effect, is thousands of
times greater than the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field.
• The photosphere’s magnetism is continuously varying as bipolar magnetic fields
appear and disappear all over the Sun, creating ever-varying magnetic loops in
the overlying chromosphere and corona.
• There is an 11-year cyclic variation in the number and positions of sunspots, the
shape of the corona, the level of explosive solar activity, and even the amount of
cosmic rays reaching the Earth.
• In the photosphere and below, gas pressure dominates the magnetic pressure, so
the moving gas carries the magnetic fields around, but it is the other way around
in the low overlying corona, where the magnetic fields shape, mold, and constrain
the hot gas.
96 2 Discovering Space

• Interplanetary magnetic fields are anchored at one end in the Sun, carried and
stretched out into space by the solar wind, and twisted into a spiral shape by the
Sun’s rotation.
• The interplanetary magnetic field is divided into magnetic sectors that point in or
out of the Sun and are separated by a magnetically neutral current sheet.
• The Sun’s million-degree corona emits powerful X-rays that can only be detected
from above the Earth’s absorbing atmosphere.
• The Sun’s X-rays and extreme-ultraviolet radiation create the Earth’s ionosphere
by tearing atmospheric molecules into their atomic components and ionizing
the atoms.
• The corona’s X-rays were first detected with instruments aboard 5-min rocket
flights, confirmed from the Orbiting Solar Observatory, abbreviated OSO, satel-
lites, and imaged from Skylab, which demonstrated the ubiquitous presence of
coronal loops, X-ray bright points, and coronal holes.
• Comparisons of an X-ray image of a coronal hole, taken during a rocket flight,
and solar wind velocity and flux measurements from the Vela and Pioneer VI
satellites suggested that polar coronal holes are the source of the fast solar winds
detected near the ecliptic, at least near a minimum in the 11-year cycle of so-
lar magnetic activity. This was confirmed when Skylab X-ray photographs were
compared to the solar wind measurements from the Interplanetary Monitoring
Platforms 6, 7, and 8.
• Although normally unseen in the Sun’s visible light, solar flares can outshine the
entire Sun at radio and X-ray wavelengths. Radio bursts observed with telescopes
on the ground provide evidence for the ejection of electron beams or shock waves
into interplanetary space during solar outbursts. The most intense radiation from
solar flares is emitted at X-ray wavelengths, detected with increasing sophistica-
tion from balloons, rockets, and satellites.
• Looping arches of magnetism suspend elongated prominences seen in the red
light of the Balmer alpha transition of hydrogen at 656.3 nm; they can suddenly
and unpredictably open up and expel their contents into interplanetary space,
defying the Sun’s enormous gravity.
• Coronal mass ejections throw billions of tons of material into interplanetary
space, and their associated shocks accelerate and propel vast quantities of high-
speed particles and intense magnetic fields ahead of them. Coronal mass ejec-
tions were discovered using space-borne, white-light coronagraphs, first with the
Orbiting Solar Observatory 7, and then in greater numbers from Skylab, the Air
Force’s P78-1 satellite, and NASA’s Solar Maximum Mission.
• The rates of occurrence of solar flares, erupting prominences, and coronal mass
ejections all vary in tandem with the 11-year cycle of solar magnetic activity.
• X-rays from solar flares alter our atmosphere, disrupt long-distance radio com-
munications, and affect satellite orbits; protons accelerated in solar flares or
by coronal mass ejection shocks endanger unprotected astronauts and satellites;
coronal mass ejections can produce strong geomagnetic storms and intense auro-
ras, and they may cause electrical power blackouts.
2.8 Key Events in the Discovery of Space 97

2.8 Key Events in the Discovery of Space∗

Date Event

1600 William Gilbert, physician to Queen Elizabeth I of England, publishes a small

treatise demonstrating that “the terrestrial globe is itself a great magnet.”
1610–1613 Galileo Galilei first systematically studies sunspots through a telescope.
1716 Edmund Halley suggests that aurora rays delineate terrestrial magnetic field lines,
and that the auroras are due to a magnetized fluid that circulates poleward along
the Earth’s dipole magnetic field lines.
1724 George Graham discovers large, irregular fluctuations in compass needles, later
called magnetic storms; Anders Celsius saw them at about the same time.
1733 Jean Jacques d’Ortous de Mairan argues for a connection between the occurrence
of auroras and sunspots.
1799–1804 Alexander von Humboldt makes regular, precise measurements of the strength,
dip, and inclination of the Earth’s magnetic field during his voyage to South
America. The term “magnetic storm” came into common usage as the result of
Humboldt’s scientific analyses and reports.
1802 William Hyde Wollaston discovers that the solar spectrum is cut by several dark
gaps, now called absorption lines.
1814 Joseph von Fraunhofer allows light to pass through a narrow slit and then a prism,
detecting and cataloging more than 300 absorption lines in the spectrum of visible
sunlight, assigning Roman letters to the most prominent; these absorption lines
are now sometimes called Fraunhofer lines.
1838 Carl Friedrich Gauss publishes a mathematical description of the Earth’s dipo-
lar magnetic field, using it with observations to show that the magnetism must
originate deep down inside the Earth’s core.
1844 Samuel Heinrich Schwabe demonstrates that the number of sunspots varies from
a maximum to a minimum and back to a maximum again in a period of about 11
years.
1852 Edward Sabine shows that global magnetic disturbances of the Earth, now called
geomagnetic storms, vary in tandem with the 11-year sunspot cycle.
1858 Richard C. Carrington demonstrates that sunspots move from high latitudes to
near the solar equator during the 11-year sunspot cycle.
1859–1860 In 1859, Richard C. Carrington and Richard Hodgson independently observe a
solar flare in the white light of the photosphere, and in 1860 publish the first
account of such a flare. Seventeen hours after the flare a large magnetic storm
begins on the Earth.
1859–1861 By comparing the Sun’s absorption lines with emission lines of elements vapor-
ized in the terrestrial laboratory, Gustav Kirchhoff and Robert Bunsen identify
in the solar atmosphere several elements known on Earth, including sodium, cal-
cium, and iron.
1862 Anders Jonas Ångström announces his discovery of hydrogen in the spectrum of
the Sun.

∗ See the References at the end of this book for complete references to these seminal papers. Also
see the Key Event tables at the end of subsequent chapters for greater detail on the history of
specific unsolved problems, including contributions after 1980 and the main results of the Yohkoh,
Ulysses, Wind, SOHO, ACE, TRACE, RHESSI, and Hinode missions.
98 2 Discovering Space

Date Event

1868 Anders Jonas Ångström provides measurements of the wavelengths of more than
100 dark lines in the Sun’s visible spectrum, in units that become known as the
Ångström, abbreviated Å, where 1 Å = 10−10 m.
1868 During a solar eclipse on 18 August 1868, several observers noted a chromo-
spheric line in the yellow. Most of them identified it as the sodium D line in
emission, but Norman Lockyer pointed out that there was a discrepancy in the
wavelength. Pierre Jules César (P. J. C.) Janssen and Lockyer independently re-
alized how to observe the chromosphere outside the eclipse, resulting in a more
leisurely method of measuring the wavelengths. It was probably not until the fol-
lowing year that Lockyer convinced himself that the yellow line could not be
matched with any known terrestrial element, and coined the name “helium” for
the new element. Helium was not identified on the Earth until 1895 when William
Ramsay detected the line in gases given off by a uranium mineral called clevite.
1869 At the solar eclipse of 7 August 1869, Charles A. Young, and, independently,
William Harkness, discovers a single, bright, green emission line in the spec-
trum of the solar corona. This conspicuous feature remained unidentified with
any known terrestrial element for more than half a century, but it was eventually
associated with highly ionized iron atoms missing 13 electrons, denoted Fe XIV,
indicating that the corona has a million-degree temperature (see 1939–1941).
1873 Elias Loomis demonstrates a correlation between intense auroras and the number
of sunspots, both recurring with an 11-year periodicity and with similar times of
maximum.
1882 Henry Rowland invents the concave diffraction grating, in which up to 20,000
lines to the inch are engraved on a spherical concave mirrored surface. The grating
revolutionized spectrometry by widely dispersing light and permitting numerous
spectral lines to be investigated with great accuracy and efficiency. Rowland used
his grating to investigate the visible-light spectrum of the Sun, publishing the
wavelengths for 14,000 lines.
1885 Johann Balmer publishes an equation that describes the regular spacing of the
wavelengths of the four lines of hydrogen detected in the spectrum of visible
sunlight, and predicts the wavelengths of other solar hydrogen lines at invisible
ultraviolet, infrared, and radio wavelengths. In 1913, Niels Bohr developed an
atomic model that explains Balmer’s equation in terms of specific electron orbits
with quantized values of energy.
1889–1890 Frank H. Bigelow argues that the structure of the corona detected during solar
eclipses provides strong evidence for large-scale solar magnetic or electric fields.
He correctly speculated that polar rays delineate open magnetic field lines along
which material escapes from the Sun, and that equatorial elongations of the corona
mark closed magnetic field lines.
1891 Henri Deslandres and George Ellery Hale independently invent the spectrohelio-
graph used to image the Sun in the light of one particular wavelength only.
1895 William Ramsay discovers that a uranium mineral named cleveite produces the
chemically inert gas helium when heated. Helium was known from spectrographic
evidence to be present on the Sun, but had not yet been found on Earth.
1896–1913 Kristian Birkeland argues that polar auroras and geomagnetic storms are due to
beams of electrons.
1901 On 12 December 1901, Guglielmo Marconi sends a long-wavelength radio signal
in Morse code between Poldhu, Cornwall, and St John’s, Newfoundland, across
the Atlantic Ocean and over a distance of about 3,500 km.
2.8 Key Events in the Discovery of Space 99

Date Event

1908 George Ellery Hale (1908b, c) uses the Zeeman splitting of spectral lines to mea-
sure intense magnetic fields in sunspots. They are thousands of times stronger than
the Earth’s magnetism.
1911 Arthur Schuster shows that a beam of electrons from the Sun cannot hold itself
together against the mutual electrostatic repulsion of the electrons.
1912 During balloon flights, Victor F. Hess discovers an increase of atmospheric ioniza-
tion at high altitudes, attributing the increase to energetic “radiation” that comes
from outer space. His balloon flights at night and during the solar eclipse of 12
April 1912 additionally proved that the ionization was not caused by the Sun.
1919 George Ellery Hale and colleagues show that sunspots occur in bipolar pairs with
a polarity orientation that varies over 22 years.
1919 Frederick Alexander Lindemann (later Lord Cherwell) suggests that an electri-
cally neutral plasma ejection from the Sun is responsible for intense, non-recurrent
geomagnetic storms.
1926 Robert A. Millikan confirms that penetrating radiation comes from beyond the
Earth, and gives it the name cosmic rays.
1927 Jacob Clay shows that cosmic rays are less intense near the equator than at higher
latitudes, suggesting that they are charged particles deflected toward the Earth’s
magnetic poles.
1928–1932 In 1928, Albrecht Unsöld uses solar absorption lines to show that hydrogen is
at least a million times more abundant than any other element in the solar pho-
tosphere. In the following year, William H. Mc Crea similarly demonstrates the
overwhelming abundance of hydrogen in the chromosphere, and by 1932 Bengt
Strömgren shows that hydrogen has to be the most abundant element in the entire
star.
1930–1960 Hydrogen alpha, or Hα , observations of chromosphere brightening, at the red
Balmer alpha transition of hydrogen at 656.3 nm, by V. Bumba, Helen W. Dobson,
Mervyn Archdall Ellison, Ronald G. Giovanelli, Harold W. Newton, Robert S.
Richardson, A. B. Severny, and Max Waldmeier, show that chromosphere flares
occur close to sunspots, usually between the two main spots of a bipolar group,
that magnetically complex sunspot groups are most likely to emit flares, and that
hydrogen alpha flare ribbons lie adjacent and parallel to the magnetic neutral line.
1930 Bernard Lyot invents the coronagraph, a telescope with an occulting disk that
blocks out the intense light of the solar disk, permitting the observation of the
solar corona.
1931–1940 Sydney Chapman and Vincent C. A. Ferraro propose that magnetic storms are
caused when an electrically neutral plasma cloud ejected from the Sun envelops
the Earth.
1932–1933 Arthur H. Compton demonstrates that the Earth’s dipolar magnetic field is de-
flecting cosmic rays incident from outer space, resulting in an increase of their
intensity with terrestrial latitude and showing that cosmic rays are very energetic
charged particles.
1932 Carl D. Anderson (1932b) discovers the positron, or anti-electron, in cloud cham-
ber observations of secondary particles produced by cosmic rays in our atmo-
sphere
1934 Walter Baade and Fritz Zwicky propose that cosmic rays are accelerated and pro-
pelled into interstellar space during the explosion of massive dying stars called
supernovae.
1935–1937 J. Howard Dellinger suggests that the sudden ionosphere disturbances that inter-
fere with radio signals have a solar origin.
100 2 Discovering Space

Date Event

1938 Thomas H. Johnson uses the east–west effect to show that the most abundant
cosmic rays are positively charged.
1939–1941 Walter Grotrian and Bengt Edlén identify coronal emission lines with highly ion-
ized elements, indicating that the Sun’s outer atmosphere has a temperature of
about a million Kelvin. The conspicuous green emission line was identified with
an iron atom missing 13 electrons, designated (Fe XIV).
1944 Robert S. Richardson proposes the term solar flare for sudden, bright, rapid, and
localized variations detected in the hydrogen alpha, or Hα, light of the chromo-
sphere.
1946 Edward V. Appleton and J. Stanley Hey demonstrate that meter-wavelength solar
radio noise originates in sunspot-associated active regions, and that sudden large
increases in the Sun’s radio output are associated with chromosphere brightenings,
also known as solar flares.
1946 Vitalii L. Ginzburg, David F. Martyn, and Joseph L. Pawsey independently con-
firm the existence of a very hot solar corona, with a temperature of about a million
Kelvin, from the observations of the Sun’s radio radiation.
1946 Richard Tousey and his colleagues at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory use
a V-2 rocket to obtain the first extreme-ultraviolet spectrum of the Sun on 10
October 1946.
1946, 1950 Scott E. Forbush and his colleagues describe flare-associated transient increases in
the cosmic ray intensity at the Earth’s surface, and attribute them to very energetic
charged particles from the Sun.
1947 Ruby Payne-Scott, D. E. Yabsley, and John G. Bolton discover that meter-
wavelength solar radio bursts often arrive later at lower frequencies and longer
wavelengths. They attributed the delays to disturbances moving outward at veloc-
ities of 500–750 km s−1 , exciting radio emission at the local plasma frequency.
1948–1949 Soft X-rays from the Sun are first detected on 5 August 1948 with a V-2 rocket
experiment performed by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, abbreviated NRL,
reported by T. Robert Burnight in 1949. Subsequent sounding rocket observations
by the NRL scientists revealed that the Sun is a significant emitter of X-rays and
that the X-ray emission is related to solar activity.
1948–1950 High-altitude balloon measurements by Helmut L. Bradt and Bernard Peters, and
independently by Phyllis Freier and colleagues (1948a, b), show that cosmic rays
consist of hydrogen nuclei (protons), with lesser amounts of helium nuclei (alpha
particles) and heavier nuclei.
1950–1954 Scott F. Forbush demonstrates the inverse correlation between the intensity of
cosmic rays arriving at Earth and the number of sunspots over two 11-year solar
activity cycles.
1950–1959 John Paul Wild and his colleagues use a swept frequency receiver to delineate
Type II radio bursts, attributed to shock waves moving out during a solar outburst
at about 1, 000 km s−1 , and Type III radio bursts, due to outward streams of high-
energy electrons. The electrons are accelerated at the onset of a solar flare and
move at nearly the velocity of light, or close to 300, 000 km s−1 .
1951–1952 Herbert Friedman and his colleagues at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory use
instruments aboard sounding rockets to show that the Sun emits enough X-ray and
extreme-ultraviolet radiation to create the ionosphere.
2.8 Key Events in the Discovery of Space 101

Date Event

1951–1957 Ludwig F. Biermann argues that a continuous flow of solar corpuscles is required
to push comet ion tails into straight paths away from the Sun, correctly inferring
solar wind speeds as high as 500–1, 000 km s−1 .
1951–1963 Herbert Friedman and his colleagues at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory use
rocket and satellite observations to show that intense X-rays are emitted from the
Sun, that the X-ray emission is related to solar activity, and that X-rays emitted
during solar flares are the cause of sudden ionosphere disturbances.
1955 Leverett Davis Jr. argues that solar corpuscular emission will carve out a cavity
in the interstellar medium, now known as the heliosphere, accounting for some
observed properties of low-energy cosmic rays.
1955 Horace W. Babcock and Harold D. Babcock use magnetograms, taken over a 2-
year period from 1952 to 1954, to show that the Sun has a general dipolar magnetic
field of about 10−4 T, or 1 G, in strength, usually limited to solar latitudes greater
than ±55◦ . Bipolar magnetic regions are found at lower solar latitudes. Occasional
extended unipolar areas, of only one outstanding magnetic polarity, are also found;
they speculated that these unipolar regions might be related to 27-day recurrent
terrestrial magnetic storms.
1956 Peter Meyer, Eugene N. Parker, and John A. Simpson argue that enhanced inter-
planetary magnetism at the peak of the solar activity cycle deflects cosmic rays
from their Earth-bound paths.
1957 Max Waldmeier introduces the name coronal holes for seemingly vacant places
with no detectable coronal radiation in the 530.3 nm emission line of ionized iron
(Fe XIV). In 1981, Waldmeier reported his studies of these polar coronal holes
from 1940 to 1978, noting that they are permanently present for about 7 years,
including the minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle, but that they seem to
disappear for about 3 years near activity maximum.
1957 The first artificial satellite, Prosteyshiy Sputnik, was launched by the Soviet Union
on 4 October 1957.
1957–1959 Sydney Chapman (1957, 1958, 1959a, b) shows that a very hot, static corona
should extend to the Earth’s orbit and beyond.
1958 Eugene N. Parker (1958d) suggests that a perpetual supersonic flow of electric
corpuscles, which he called the solar wind, naturally results from the expansion
of a very hot corona. He also demonstrates that the solar magnetic field will be
pulled into interplanetary space, attaining a spiral shape in the plane of the Sun’s
equator due to the combined effects of the radial solar wind flow and the Sun’s
rotation.
1958–1959 The first American satellite, Explorer 1, was launched into orbit on 1 February
1958, followed by Explorer 3 on 26 March 1958. James A. Van Allen and col-
leagues used instruments aboard these spacecraft to discover the belts of charged
particles that girdle the Earth’s equator.
1958–1959 During a balloon flight on 20 March 1958, Laurence E. Peterson and John Ran-
dolph Winckler observed a burst of high-energy, gamma-ray radiation (200–
500 keV) coincident with a solar flare, suggesting non-thermal particle acceler-
ation during such outbursts on the Sun.
1960–1961 Konstantin I. Gringauz reports that the Soviet spacecraft, Lunik 2 (Luna 2),
launched on 12 September 1959, has measured high-speed ions in interplanetary
space outside the Earth’s magnetic field with a flux of 200 million (2 × 108 ) ions
(protons) per square centimeter per second.
102 2 Discovering Space

Date Event

1960–1961 Herbert Friedman and colleagues at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory obtain
the first, primitive X-ray picture of the Sun during a brief rocket flight.
1961 Cosmic ray electrons are discovered, but in much lower flux than protons, in cloud
chamber observations by James A. Earl and by the balloon measurements of Peter
Meyer and Rochus Vogt.
1961–1962 Herbert A. Bridge and co-workers use a plasma probe aboard the American space-
craft Explorer 10, launched 25 March 1961, to provide rough measurements of the
density, speed, and direction of the solar wind, but the spacecraft never reached
the undisturbed interplanetary medium.
1962–1967 Mariner 2 was launched on 7 August 1962. Using the data obtained during
Mariner’s voyage to Venus, Marcia Neugebauer and Conway W. Snyder demon-
strate that a low-speed solar wind plasma is continuously emitted by the Sun, and
discover high-speed wind streams that recur with a 27-day period within the or-
bital plane of the planets. Interplanetary shocks associated with solar activity are
detected using instruments aboard the Mariner 2 spacecraft in 1962, reported by
Charles P. Sonett and colleagues in 1964.
1963 NASA launches Explorer 18, the first Interplanetary Monitoring Platform and
abbreviated IMP 1, which first mapped the Earth’s magnetotail.
1964–1966 Norman F. Ness and John M. Wilcox use magnetometers aboard NASA’s Inter-
planetary Monitoring Platform 1, launched on 27 November 1963, to measure
the strength and direction of the interplanetary magnetic field, to show that it has
a spiral shape, and to discover large-scale magnetic sectors in interplanetary space
that point toward or away from the Sun.
1968 John M. Wilcox suggests that the fast solar wind might originate in magnetically
open regions near the poles of the Sun.
1968 Giuseppe Vaiana and his colleagues show that the soft X-ray emission of a solar
flare corresponds spatially with the intense visible-light emission at the Balmer
alpha transition of hydrogen, with roughly the same size, suggesting a close link
between the two phenomena.
1968 Werner M. Neupert uses soft X-ray flare data, obtained with the third Orbiting
Solar Observatory, abbreviated OSO 3, to confirm that soft X-rays slowly build
up in strengths, and to show that the rise to maximum intensity resembles the time
integral of the rapid, impulsive radio burst.
1969 Kenneth Schatten, John M. Wilcox, and Norman F. Ness develop a simple poten-
tial field model to predict the polarity of the interplanetary magnetic field in the
ecliptic from the magnetic field measurements in the photosphere.
1971–1973 The first good, space-based observation of a coronal transient, now called a coro-
nal mass ejection, was obtained on 14 December 1971 using the coronagraph
aboard NASA’s seventh Orbiting Solar Observatory, abbreviated OSO 7, reported
by Richard Tousey in 1973.
1972–1973 Edward L. Chupp and his colleagues detect solar gamma-ray lines for the first
time using a monitor aboard NASA’s seventh Orbiting Solar Observatory, or
OSO 7. They observed the neutron capture (2.223 MeV) and positron annihila-
tion (0.511 MeV) lines associated with solar flares. The 2.223 MeV line had been
anticipated theoretically by Philip Morrison.
1973 Allen S. Krieger, Adrienne F. Timothy, and Edmond C. Roelof compare an X-ray
photograph of the Sun, obtained during a rocket flight on 24 November 1970, with
Vela and Pioneer VI satellite measurements of the solar wind flux and velocity to
show that coronal holes are the probable source of recurrent high-speed streams
in the solar wind.
2.8 Key Events in the Discovery of Space 103

Date Event

1973 Giuseppe S. Vaiana and his colleagues (1973a, b) use solar X-ray observations
taken from rockets during the preceding decade to identify the three-fold mag-
netic structure of the solar corona – coronal holes, coronal loops, and X-ray bright
points.
1973–1974 The manned, orbiting solar observatory, Skylab, is launched on 14 May 1973, and
manned by three person crews until 8 February 1974. Skylab’s Apollo Telescope
Mount contained 12 tons of solar observing instruments that spatially resolved so-
lar flares at soft X-ray and ultraviolet wavelengths, fully confirmed coronal holes,
coronal loops, and X-ray bright points, and recorded many coronal mass ejections
that sometimes moved fast enough to produce interplanetary shocks.
1973–1977 X-ray photographs of the Sun taken using the Apollo Telescope Mount on the
manned, orbiting Skylab satellite, launched on 14 May 1973, fully confirm coronal
holes, the ubiquitous coronal loops, and X-ray bright points. Detailed comparisons
of Skylab X-ray photographs and measurements of the solar wind, made from
Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms, abbreviated IMPs, 6, 7, and 8, confirm that
solar coronal holes are the source of the high-velocity solar wind streams detected
in the ecliptic.
1974 John Thomas Gosling and colleagues report observations of coronal mass ejec-
tions, then called coronal disturbances or coronal transients, with the coronagraph
aboard Skylab, noting that some of them have the high outward speed of up to
1, 000 km s−1 needed to produce interplanetary shocks.
1974, 1976 Leon Golub and his colleagues (1974, 1976a, b) describe the physical properties
of X-ray bright points observed with Skylab.
1974–1986 The Helios 1 and 2 spacecraft, respectively launched in December 1974 and in
January 1976, measured the solar wind parameters as close as 0.3 AU from the
Sun for an entire 11-year solar cycle.
1978 Edward J. Smith, Bruce T. Tsurutani, and Ronald L Rosenberg use observations
from Pioneer 11 to show that the solar wind becomes unipolar, or obtains a single
magnetic polarity, at high heliographic latitudes near 16◦ .
1979–1982 John L. Kohl and co-workers used 5-min rocket flights of an ultraviolet corona-
graph spectrometer to pioneer spectroscopy of the extended corona in the absence
of a solar eclipse. Observations over 40-h periods were obtained in the 1990s from
Spartan 201s deployed and retrieved from the Space Shuttle, preparing the way for
the UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer, abbreviated UVCS, aboard the SOlar
and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short.
1980, NASA launches the Solar Maximum Mission, abbreviated SMM, satellite on 14
1984–1989 February 1980, with an in-orbit repair from the Space Shuttle Challenger on 6
April 1984 and a mission end on 17 November 1989. It excelled in X-ray and
gamma ray spectroscopy of solar flares, and in coronagraph observations of coro-
nal mass ejections, during a maximum in the 11-year solar activity cycle. Radio-
metric data taken from SMM during the decade after launch were used to show
that the total solar irradiance of Earth, known as the solar constant, varies in step
with the 11-year cycle of solar activity. The so-called solar constant has a total
decline and rise of about 0.1%.
1981–1982 The Japanese spacecraft Hinotori, meaning firebird, was launched on 21 February
1981 and operated until 11 October 1982. It created images of solar-flare X-rays
with an energy of around 20 keV, and measured solar flare temperatures of be-
tween 10 and 40 × 106 K using soft X-ray spectroscopy.
104 2 Discovering Space

Date Event

1980–1989 George Doschek, Ester Antonucci, and their colleagues use P78-1 and Solar Max-
imum Mission observations of soft X-ray spectral lines to show that the impulsive
phase of solar flares is associated with upward flows of heated chromosphere ma-
terial with velocities of several hundred kilometers per second. Such an upflow is
called chromospheric evaporation. In 1982, Katsuo Tanaka and colleagues used a
spectrometer aboard the Hinotori spacecraft to independently confirm this up-flow
associated with solar flares.
1982 Russell A. Howard and co-workers report the discovery of a halo coronal tran-
sient, or coronal mass ejection, using white-light coronagraph observations with
the P78-1 satellite; such halo events can be directed toward Earth,
1982–1983 Gary J. Rottman, Frank Q. Orrall, and James A. Klimchuk obtain rocket obser-
vations of extreme-ultraviolet resonance lines formed in the low corona and tran-
sition region, showing that the lines are systematically shifted to shorter wave-
lengths in large polar coronal holes. Outflow velocities of 7–8 km s−1 are inferred
from these Doppler shifts.
1980–2007 See the key events at the end of Chaps. 3–7.
Chapter 3
Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

3.1 What Makes the Sun Shine?

3.1.1 The Sun’s Size, Mass, and Temperature

To understand what makes the Sun shine, we must first describe the star’s physical
characteristics. The entire Sun is nothing but a big luminous ball of gas, hot and
concentrated at the center and cooler and more tenuous further out. It is the most
massive and largest object in our solar system. The Sun’s mass, which is 333,000
times Earth’s mass, can be inferred from Kepler’s third law and the Earth’s orbital
period and mean distance from the Sun. And the Sun’s size, at 109 times the diam-
eter of the Earth, can be inferred from the Sun’s distance and angular extent.
From the Sun’s size and luminous output, we can infer the temperature of
its visible disk, 5780 K (Focus 3.1). The gas we see in this photosphere is ex-
tremely rarefied, about 10,000 times less dense than the air we breathe. The pres-
sure of the tenuous gas in the photosphere is less than that beneath the foot of
a spider.

Focus 3.1
The Luminosity, Effective Temperature, and Central Temperature of the Sun
Satellites have been used to accurately measure the Sun’s total irradiance just out-
side the Earth’s atmosphere, establishing the value of the solar constant:

f = 1361 J s−1 m−2 ,

where 1 J s−1 is equivalent to 1 W. The solar constant is defined as the total amount
of radiant solar energy per unit time per unit area reaching the top of the Earth’s
atmosphere at the Earth’s mean distance from the Sun. We can use it to determine
the Sun’s absolute luminosity, L , from:

L = 4πf (AU)2 = 3.854 × 1026 J s−1 ,

where the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun is 1 AU = 1.496 × 1011 m.

K.R. Lang, The Sun from Space, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, 105

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
106 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

The effective temperature, T , of the visible solar disk, called the photosphere,
can be determined using the Stefan-Boltzmann law:

L = 4πσ R2 T 4 ,

where the Stefan-Boltzmann constant σ = 5.670×10−8 J m−2 K−1 s−1 , and the Sun’s
radius is R = 6.955 × 108 m. Solving for the temperature:

T = [L /(4πR 2 )]1/4 = 5780 K.

Incidentally, the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to other stars, indicating that at a

given temperature bigger, giant stars have greater luminosity.
The temperature, TC , at the center of the Sun can be estimated by assuming that
a proton must be hot enough and move fast enough to counteract the gravitational
compression it experiences from all the rest of the star. That is:
3 G mP M
Thermal energy = k TC = = Gravitational potential energy,
2 R

where Boltzmann’s constant k = 1.38066 × 10−23 J K−1 , the gravitational constant

G = 6.6726 × 10−11 Nm2 kg−2 , the Sun’s mass M = 1.989 × 1030 kg, and the
mass of the proton is mP = 1.6726 × 10−27 kg. Solving for the central temperature
we obtain:
2G mP M
TC = = 1.56 × 107 K,
3 k R
so the temperature at the center of the Sun is 15.6 × 106 K.

The material deep down inside the Sun must become hotter and more densely
concentrated to support the overlying weight and to keep our star from collapsing.
Calculations show that the temperature reaches 15.6 × 106 (1.5 × 107 ) K at the cen-
ter of the Sun (also see Focus 3.1). The outward pressure generated by this hot gas
is 233 billion (2.33 × 1011 ) times Earth’s air pressure at sea level. The center is also
extremely compacted with a density of 1, 500 kg m−3 , which is about 10 times the
density of gold or lead – but it still behaves like a gas. All of the essential physical
properties of the Sun are given in Table 3.1.

3.1.2 Nuclear Reactions in the Sun’s Central Regions

The lightest known element, hydrogen, is the most abundant ingredient of the Sun,
about 75% by mass and 92.1% by number of atoms. Each hydrogen atom contains
one proton at its center and one electron outside this nucleus, and they are both
liberated from their atomic bonds in the hot solar gas. Helium accounts for almost all
the rest of the solar material; the heavier elements only amount to 0.1% by number.
3.1 What Makes the Sun Shine? 107

Table 3.1 Physical parameters of the Suna

Mass 1.989 × 1030 kg (332,946 Earth masses)
Radius 6.955 × 108 m (109 Earth radii)
Volume 1.412 × 1027 m3 (1.3 million Earths)
Density (center) 151, 300 kg m−3
Density (mean) 1, 409 kg m−3
Pressure (center) 2.334 × 1011 bars
Pressure (photosphere) 0.0001 bar
Temperature (center) 15.6 × 106 K
Temperature (photosphere) 5,780 K
Temperature (corona) 2–3 × 106 K
Luminosity 3.854 × 1026 J s−1
Solar constant 1, 361 J s−1 m−2 = 1, 361 W m−2
Mean distance 1.4959787 × 1011 m = 1.0 AU
Age 4.55 billion years
Principal chemical constituents
(by number of atoms)
Hydrogen 92.1%
Helium 7.8%
All others 0.1%
a Mass density is given in kilograms per cubic meter, or kg m−3 ; the density of water is
1, 000 kg m−3 . The unit of pressure is bars, where 1.013 bars is the pressure of the Earth’s at-
mosphere at sea level. The unit of luminosity is J s−1 , power is often expressed in watts, where
1.0 W = 1.0 J s−1

As demonstrated by Francis W. Aston in 1917, the helium atom is slightly less

massive, by just 0.7%, than the sum of the four hydrogen atoms that enter into it.
In a sequence of nuclear reactions at the center of the Sun, four protons are suc-
cessively fused together into one heavier helium nucleus. The helium is slightly
less massive (by a mere 0.7%) than the four protons that combine to make it. This
mass difference, Δm, is converted into energy, ΔE, according to the famous equa-
tion ΔE = Δmc2 , derived by Einstein in 1905–1906; since the velocity of light, c, is
a large number, about 300, 000 km s−1 , a small mass difference, Δm, can account for
the Sun’s awesome energy.
The details of just how helium nuclei are synthesized from protons had to await
the discovery of fundamental particles, such as the neutron and positron that were
both discovered in 1932, by James Chadwick and Carl Anderson, respectively. (The
positron, denoted as e+ , is the positive electron, or the anti-matter version of the
electron, denoted by e− , with the same mass and an opposite charge.) It was not until
1938 that Hans A. Bethe and Charles L. Critchfield demonstrated how a sequence of
nuclear reactions, called the proton–proton chain, makes the Sun shine (Focus 3.2).
Bethe was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1967 for this and other discoveries
concerning energy production in stars.
108 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

Focus 3.2
The Proton–Proton Chain
The hydrogen-burning reactions that fuel the Sun are collectively called the proton–
proton chain. It begins when two of the fastest moving protons, designated by the
symbol p, collide head on. They move into each other and fuse together to make a
deuteron, D2 , the nucleus of a heavy form of hydrogen known as deuterium. Since a
deuteron consists of one proton and one neutron, one of the protons entering into the
reaction must be transformed into a neutron, emitting a positron, e+ , to carry away
the proton’s charge, together with an electron neutrino, νe , to balance the energy in
the reaction. This first step in the proton–proton chain is written:

p + p → D2 + e+ + νe .

The deuteron next collides with another proton to form a nucleus of light helium,
He3 , together with energetic gamma-ray radiation, denoted by the symbol γ. In the
final part of the proton–proton chain, two such light helium nuclei meet and fuse
together to form a nucleus of normal heavy helium, He4 , returning two protons to
the solar gas. These reactions are written:

D2 + p → He3 + γ
He3 + He3 → He4 + 2p.

Additional gamma rays are in the meantime produced when the positrons, e+ ,
combine with electrons, e− , in the pair annihilation reaction:

e+ + e− → 2γ.

The net result is that four protons have been fused together to make one helium
nucleus, gamma rays, and electron neutrinos, or that:

4p → He4 + 6γ + 2νe

with the creation of an amount of energy, ΔE, given by:

ΔE = Δm c2 = (4mp − mHe )c2 = 0.007(4mp ) c2 = 0.428 × 10−11 J,

where mp = 1.6726 × 10−27 kg and mHe = 6.6465 × 10−27 kg, respectively, denote
the mass of the proton and the helium nucleus, and c = 2.9979 × 108 m s−1 is the
velocity of light.
The number, N, of helium nuclei that are formed every second is N = L /ΔE ≈
1038 , where the solar luminosity is L = 3.854 × 1026 J s−1 . That is, a hundred tril-
lion trillion trillion helium nuclei are formed each second to produce the Sun’s en-
ergy at its present rate. In the process, the amount of mass, ΔM, consumed every
second is ΔM = 1038 Δm = 4.76 × 109 kg ≈ 5 × 106 tons, where 1 ton is equivalent
to 1,000 kg.
3.1 What Makes the Sun Shine? 109

Each second, 2 × 1038 electron neutrinos are released from the Sun, moving out
in all directions in space at the velocity of light. The Earth will intercept a small
fraction of these, but it is still a large number, about 4 × 1029 = 2 × 1038 (RE /AU)2 ,
where the Earth’s radius is RE = 6.371 × 106 m and its mean distance from the Sun
is AU = 1.496 × 1011 m. This means that each second the number of solar electron
neutrinos that pass through every square meter of the Earth is 4 × 1029 /(πRE 2 ) = 3
million billion (3 × 1015 ) electron neutrinos per square meter.

The Sun is consuming itself at a prodigious rate. Its central nuclear reactions turn
about 700×106 tons of hydrogen into helium every second. In doing so, 5×106 tons
(0.7%) of this matter disappears as pure radiation energy, and every second the Sun
becomes that much less massive (also see Focus 3.2). Yet, the loss of material is
insignificant compared to the Sun’s total mass; it has lost only 1% of its original
mass since the Sun began to shine about 4.6 billion years ago.
The center of the Sun is so densely packed that a proton can only move about
1 cm before encountering another proton. Moreover, at a central temperature of
15.6 × 106 K, the protons are darting about so fast that each one of them collides
with other protons about 100 million times every second. Yet, the protons nearly al-
ways bounce off each other without triggering a nuclear reaction during a collision.
Since protons have the same electrical charge, they repel each other, and this
repulsion must be overcome for protons to fuse together. Only a tiny fraction of the
protons are moving fast enough to break through this barrier. Even then, they have
to be helped along by a quantum mechanical process that operates in the realm of
the very small.
George Gamow introduced the basic idea in 1928, when explaining why a ra-
dioactive element occasionally hurls an energetic particle out of its tightly bound
nucleus. According to quantum theory, such a particle acts like a spread-out thing
with a set of probabilities for being in a range of places. As a result of this location
uncertainty, a sub-atomic particle’s sphere of influence is larger than was previously
thought. It might be anywhere, although with decreasing probability at regions far
from the most likely location. This explains the escape of fast-moving, energetic
particles from the nuclei of radioactive atoms like uranium; these particles usually
lack the energy to overcome the nuclear barrier, but some of them have a small
probability of escaping to the outside world.
A similar tunneling process, or barrier penetration, occurs the other way around
in the Sun. It means that a proton has a very small but finite chance of occasion-
ally moving close enough to another proton to overcome the barrier of repulsion
and tunnel through it. Protons therefore sometimes fuse together, even though their
average energy is well below that required to overcome their electrical repulsion.
Even with tunneling at work, it is still not hot enough at the center of the Sun
for the vast majority of protons to fuse together. Most of them do not move fast
enough, electrical repulsion between even the fastest protons keeps them from join-
ing together, and tunneling does not happen very often. As a result, nuclear reactions
proceed at a slow, stately pace inside the Sun. And that is a very good thing! Fre-
quent fusion could make the Sun blow up like a giant hydrogen bomb.
110 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

All the Sun’s nuclear energy is released in its dense, high-temperature core. Out-
side of the core, where the overlying weight and compression are less, the gas
is cooler and thinner, and nuclear fusion cannot occur. It requires a high-speed
collision that can only be obtained with both a very high temperature in excess
of 5 × 106 K and the help of quantum mechanical tunneling. The energy-generating
core therefore only extends to about one quarter the distance from the center of the
Sun to the visible photosphere or about 175,000 km from the center, accounting for
only 1.6% of the Sun’s volume but about half its mass.
Astronomers have built mathematical models to deduce the Sun’s internal struc-
ture. These models use the laws of physics to describe a self-gravitating sphere of
protons, helium nuclei, electrons, and small quantities of heavier elements. At ev-
ery point inside the Sun, the force of gravity must be balanced precisely by the
gas pressure, which itself increases with the temperature. The energy released by
nuclear fusion in the Sun’s core heats the gas, keeps it ionized, and creates the pres-
sure. This energy must also make its way out to the visible solar disk to keep it
shining at the presently observed rate.
Detailed models of the interiors of the Sun and other stars were developed in
the 1950s and 1960s, and then continued to be refined for decades using extensive
computer programs. Such models must include and explain the evolution of the Sun,
from the time it began to shine by nuclear reactions about 4.6 billion years ago. The
reason for tracking the evolving Sun is that its structure changes as more and more
hydrogen is converted into helium within the core, which slowly and inexorably
heats up to make the Sun shine a bit brighter as time goes on. The evolutionary
calculations are reworked until the simulated Sun ends up with its known mass,
radius, energy output, and photosphere temperature. According to the models, the
Sun has now used up about half the available hydrogen in its central parts since nu-
clear reactions began, and should continue to shine by hydrogen fusion for another
7 billion years.

3.1.3 Solving the Solar Neutrino Problem

Neutrinos, or little neutral ones, have no electric charge and almost no mass. They
are so insubstantial, and interact so weakly with matter, that they move nearly un-
noticed through any amount of material, including the Sun and Earth.
Every time a helium nucleus is synthesized within the Sun’s energy-generating
core, two electron neutrinos are created. And the helium is being produced at such
a rapid rate that many trillions of electron neutrinos are produced faster than you
can blink your eye. Each second, about 3 million billion (3 × 1015 ) of them are
passing through every square meter of the side of the Earth facing the Sun, and out
the opposite side unimpeded. And a very small fraction of these electron neutrinos
have been captured using massive detectors that are buried deep underground so that
only neutrinos can reach them.
The first solar neutrino detection experiment, constructed by Raymond Davis
Jr. in 1967, is a huge tank containing 378,000 liters of a cleaning fluid (C2 Cl4 or
3.1 What Makes the Sun Shine? 111

perchloroethylene), which is located 1.5 km underground in the Homestake Gold

Mine near Lead, South Dakota. Almost all of the solar electron neutrinos pass right
through the tank, but when one of them very occasionally strikes a chlorine atom in
the cleaning fluid head on, it produces a radioactive argon atom. Every 2 months,
on average, Davis and his colleagues extracted just 130 argon atoms from their
tank. Over a period of 30 years they succeeded in capturing a total of 2,000 argon
atoms, thereby detecting 2,000 electron neutrinos and proving that nuclear fusion
provides the Sun’s energy – a feat that resulted in Davis sharing the 2002 Nobel
Prize in Physics.
But there was a small, unexpected problem with these results. The Homestake
instrument always detected about one-third the number of electron neutrinos ex-
pected from theoretical calculations – mainly by John N. Bahcall and co-workers.
In 1998, for example, Bruce T. Cleveland and co-workers reported that the neutrino
flux detected during three decades of Homestake observations was 2.56 ± 0.25 solar
neutrino units, where the ± value denotes an uncertainty of one standard deviation.
In contrast, the most recent theoretical result predicted that they should have ob-
served a flux 8.5 ± 1.8 solar neutrino units. This discrepancy between the observed
and the predicted number of electron neutrinos is known as the solar neutrino prob-
lem.
Another giant, underground neutrino detector, called Kamiokande, had begun to
monitor solar neutrinos in 1987. This second experiment, located a kilometer under-
ground in a zinc mine near Kamioka, Japan, initially consisted of a 4.5 × 106 -liter
tank of pure water. Nearly a thousand light detectors were placed in the tank’s walls
to measure signals emitted by electrons knocked free from water molecules by rare
head-on collisions with neutrinos. After 1,000 days of observation, Yoji Totsuka,
speaking for the Kamiokande collaboration led by Masatoshi Koshiba, reported in
1991 that the directional information obtained from the observed light signals in-
dicated that the neutrinos are indeed coming from the Sun, and the instrument also
confirmed the neutrino deficit observed by Davis. Moreover, the Japanese experi-
ment had already detected, on 23 February 1987, a brief burst of just 11 neutrinos
from a distant supernova explosion known as SN 1987A. Koshiba shared the 2002
Nobel Prize in Physics, for confirming Davis’s results and detecting neutrinos from
a supernova.
The solar neutrino problem was additionally substantiated in the 1990s by the
Soviet-American Gallium Experiment, abbreviated SAGE, located some 2 km be-
low the summit of Mount Andyrchi in the northern Caucasus, and a second multina-
tional experiment, dubbed GALLEX for gallium experiment, placed about 1.4 km
below a peak in the Appenine Mountains of Italy.
There are two possible explanations to the solar neutrino problem. Either we
do not really know exactly how the Sun creates its energy, or we have an incom-
plete knowledge of neutrinos. But astronomers became convinced that they knew
precisely how the Sun is generating energy, with the predicted quantities of solar
electron neutrinos, and they therefore suspected that there is something wrong with
our understanding of the neutrino. Already in 1990, John N. Bahcall and Hans A.
Bethe, for example, announced that a more comprehensive knowledge of neutrinos
was required if the Homestake and Kamiokande experiments were both correct.
112 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

And the astronomers became even more convinced of the veracity of their solar
models when sound waves were used as a thermometer to measure the temperatures
inside the Sun. If the Sun’s central temperature is lower than their models assumed,
then the number of electron neutrinos produced by nuclear reactions would be less.
In 1996–1997, several investigators used observations with the Michelson Doppler
Imager instrument aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory with the tech-
niques of helioseismology, discussed a bit later in this chapter, to determine the
internal temperature of the Sun. That is, they measured the sound wave velocities,
showing that the sound speeds and temperatures are in agreement with predictions
throughout almost the entire Sun, confirming the predicted central temperature of
15.6 × 106 K with a high degree of accuracy and strongly disfavoring any astrophys-
ical explanation of the solar neutrino problem. By 2001, Sylvaine Turck-Chièze
and her colleagues at Saclay, France, had refined these helioseismology tempera-
ture measurements to show that the neutrino deficit measured on Earth cannot be
explained by adjustments to the solar model calculations.
The Japanese experiment had in the meantime been upgraded to Super-Kamio-
kande status, with a tank containing 50 × 106 liters of highly purified water sur-
rounded by 13,000 light sensors, so sensitive that they could each detect a
single photon of light generated by a neutrino interacting with the water. Super-
Kamiokande can observe both solar electron neutrinos and atmospheric muon
neutrinos, distinguishing between them by the tightness of the cone of light that
is produced. (There are three types, or flavors, of neutrinos, each named after the
fundamental, sub-atomic particle with which it is most likely to interact. All of the
neutrinos generated inside the Sun are electron neutrinos, the kind that interacts
with electrons. The other two flavors, the muon neutrino and the tau neutrino, inter-
act with muons and tau particles, respectively.)
Super-Kamiokande continued to confirm the solar neutrino deficit, at about half
the predicted amount using 3 years of data. But an even more startling result had al-
ready been obtained after monitoring the neutrino light patterns for about 500 days.
As reported by Y. Fukuda and co-workers in 1998, the muon neutrinos produced
by cosmic rays interacting with the Earth’s atmosphere change type in mid-flight.
Since roughly twice as many muon neutrinos were coming from the atmosphere
directly over the detector than those coming up from the other side of the Earth,
some of the ghost-like muon neutrinos were disappearing, transforming themselves
into an invisible form during their journey through the Earth to arrive at the detector
from below.
This suggested that some of the electron neutrinos created by nuclear reactions
inside the Sun transform themselves during their journey to the Earth, escaping de-
tection by changing character. In fact, Vladimir Gribov and Bruno Pontecorvo pro-
posed such an idea in 1969, soon after Davis began his experiment. They reasoned
that the solar electron neutrinos could switch from electron neutrinos to another type
as they travel in the near vacuum of space between the Sun and the Earth. Almost
a decade later, Lincoln Wolfenstein showed that the neutrinos could oscillate, or
change type, more vigorously by interacting with matter, rather than in a vacuum,
and in 1985 Stanislav P. Mikheyev and Alexei Y. Smirnov explained how the matter
oscillations might explain the solar neutrino problem.
3.1 What Makes the Sun Shine? 113

The chameleon-like change in identity is not one way, for a neutrino of one type
can change into another kind of neutrino and back again as it moves along. The
effect is called neutrino oscillation since the probability of metamorphosis between
neutrino types has a sinusoidal, in and out, oscillating dependence on path length.
In order to change from one form to another, neutrinos must have some substance in
the first place. They can only pull off their vanishing act if the neutrino, long thought
to have no mass, possesses a very small one. And the Super-Kamiokande results
proved that the atmospheric muon neutrinos had to have some mass. Nevertheless,
the terrestrial muon neutrinos did not come from the Sun, and they are not directly
related to nuclear fusion reactions in the solar core, which produce a different kind
of neutrinos, the electron type. So the solution to the solar neutrino problem was not
definitely known until 2001, when the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory demonstrated
that solar electron neutrinos are changing type when traveling to the Earth.
The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, abbreviated SNO and pronounced “snow”,
is a collaboration of Canadian, American, and British scientists. The detector is lo-
cated 2 km underground in the Creighton nickel mine near Sudbury, Ontario. Unlike
Kamiokande and Super-Kamiokande, which contain a purified form of the normal
water you drink, the SNO detector contains heavy water, which does not appear any
different but is toxic to humans in large quantities.
But the hydrogen in heavy water has a nucleus, called a deuteron, which con-
sists of a proton and a neutron, rather than just a proton as in the nucleus of the
hydrogen in ordinary water. And it is the deuteron that makes the Sudbury Neutrino
Observatory sensitive to not just one type of neutrino but to all three known vari-
eties of neutrinos. One million liters of heavy water has been placed in a central
spherical cistern with transparent acrylic walls (Fig. 3.1), and a geodesic array of
about 10,000 photo-multiplier tubes surrounds the vessel to detect the flash of light
given off by heavy water when it is hit by a neutrino. Both the light sensors and the
central tank are enveloped by a 7.8 × 106 -liter jacket of ordinary water (Fig. 3.2),
to shield the heavy water from weak natural radiation, gamma rays, and neutrons
coming from the underground rocks. As with the other neutrino detectors, the over-
lying rock blocks energetic particles generated by cosmic rays interacting with the
Earth’s atmosphere.
The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory can be operated in two modes, one sensi-
tive only to electron neutrinos and the other equally sensitive to all three types of
neutrinos. When the experiment was operated in the first mode, measuring electron
neutrinos from the Sun, it made history. In June 2001, the SNO Project Director,
Arthur B. McDonald announced that:
We now have high confidence that the [solar neutrino problem] discrepancy is not caused
by models of the Sun but by changes in the neutrinos themselves as they travel from the
core of the Sun to the Earth. Earlier measurements had been unable to provide definitive
results showing that this transformation from solar electron neutrinos to other types occurs.
The new results from SNO, combined with previous work, now reveal this transformation
clearly, and show that the total number of electron neutrinos produced in the Sun is just as
predicted by detailed solar models.
114 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

Fig. 3.1 Sudbury neutrino observatory. The central spherical flask of this neutrino observatory
is 12 m in diameter, and is surrounded by a geodesic array of thousands of light sensors to detect
the flash of light from the interaction of a neutrino with the heavy water. (Courtesy of Kevin Lesko,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.)

By catching about 10 neutrinos a day, the SNO scientists detected about one-third
of the solar electron neutrinos predicted by the standard solar model. The Super-
Kamiokande detected about half the predicted number, but it had a small sensitivity
to other neutrino types. The difference between the two measurements provided ev-
idence that solar neutrinos oscillate, or change type, when traveling from the Sun,
and showed that the total number of neutrinos emitted by the Sun agrees with pre-
dictions. After 33 years, the solar neutrino problem had been solved.
The epochal SNO results continued in succeeding years, when 2 tons of table salt
was added to the 1,000 tons of heavy water. In 2003, the group announced that the
salt experiment indicates that the total number of neutrinos of all types reaching the
Earth from the Sun is precisely equal to the number of electron neutrinos produced
by nuclear reactions in the core of the Sun, but that two-thirds of the electron-type
neutrinos were observed to change to muon- or tau-type neutrinos before reaching
the Earth.
3.1 What Makes the Sun Shine? 115

Neutrinos from the Sun

pass through the Earth

Neutrinos emit
cone of light
Geodesic array
contains light
sensors
Heavy water
in acrylic tank

Normal water
in outer chamber

Fig. 3.2 How Sudbury works. Neutrinos from the Sun travel through more than 2 km of rock,
entering an acrylic tank containing 1,000 tons (1 × 106 liters) of heavy water. When one of these
neutrinos interacts with a water molecule, it produces a flash of light that is detected by a geodesic
array of photo-multiplier tubes. Some 7,800 tons (7.8 × 106 liters) of ordinary water surrounding
the acrylic tank absorbs radiation from the rock, while the overlying rock blocks energetic particles
generated by cosmic rays in our atmosphere. The heavy water is sensitive to all three types of
neutrinos

American and Japanese scientists next teamed up to construct the Kamioka

Liquid scintillator Anti-Neutrino Detector, abbreviated KamLAND, at the site of
the older Kamiokande solar neutrino detector. KamLAND detects electron anti-
neutrinos that have traveled through the Earth from 51 nuclear reactors in Japan
plus 18 reactors in South Korea. The measurements, reported in 2003–2005, show
that some of the electron anti-neutrinos are disappearing when traveling to the de-
tector. By 2005, the SNO salt-phase results for solar electron neutrinos had been
combined with the KamLAND experiment to provide estimates for the tiny neu-
trino mass and for other properties of neutrino oscillation, while also indicating that
most of the solar neutrino metamorphosis occurs inside the Sun.
So, the solar neutrino problem has been resolved without affecting our models
of the solar interior. They indicate that nuclear reactions consume hydrogen to form
helium in the Sun’s central core, and that these nuclear reactions cannot continue
beyond the outer edge of the core, located at about a quarter of the distance from the
center of the Sun to the visible disk.
116 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

3.2 How the Energy Gets Out

So how does radiation get from the energy-producing core to the sunlight that illu-
minates and warms our days? Because we cannot see inside the Sun, astronomers
combine basic theoretical equations, such as those for equilibrium and energy gen-
eration or transport, with observed boundary conditions, like the Sun’s mass and
luminous output, to create models of the Sun’s internal structure. These models
consist of two nested spherical shells that surround the hot, dense core (Fig. 3.3). In
the innermost shell, called the radiative zone, energy is transported by radiation; it
reaches out from the core to roughly 70% of the distance from the center of the Sun
to the visible solar disk. As the name implies, energy moves through this region by
radiation. It is a relatively tranquil, serene, and placid place, analogous to the deeper
parts of Earth’s oceans. The outermost layer is known as the convective zone, where

Fig. 3.3 Energy works its way out. The Sun is powered by the nuclear fusion of hydrogen in its
core at a central temperature of 15.6 × 106 K. Energy produced by these fusion reactions is trans-
ported outward, first by countless absorptions and emissions within the radiative zone, and then
by turbulent motion in the outer convective zone. The visible disk of the Sun, called the photo-
sphere, has a temperature of 5,780 K. Just above the photosphere are the thin chromosphere and a
transition region to the rarefied, million-degree outer atmosphere of the Sun. They are represented
by an image at the extreme ultraviolet wavelength of 30.4 nm wavelength, emitted by singly ion-
ized helium, denoted He II, at a temperature of about 60,000 K, taken from the Extreme-ultraviolet
Imaging Telescope, abbreviated EIT, aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO
for short. (Courtesy of the SOHO EIT consortium and NASA. SOHO is a project of international
cooperation between ESA and NASA.)
3.2 How the Energy Gets Out 117

energy is transported in a churning, wheeling motion called convection; it is a lively,

turbulent, and vigorous place, encompassing the radiative zone.
The Sun’s interior cools with increasing distance from the core, as heat and ra-
diation spread out into an ever-larger volume. The temperature always decreases
outward, so the Sun is hottest at the core and coolest at the visible disk, the pho-
tosphere. Because the flux of radiation depends on temperature, there is slightly
more outbound radiation than there is inbound. The energy is therefore always
flowing outwards, at a rate controlled by the gas’ opacity, its ability to absorb the
radiation.
Radiation does not move quickly through the radiative zone, but instead diffuses
slowly outward in a haphazard zigzag pattern. An energetic gamma ray produced
by nuclear fusion in the solar core almost instantly collides with a particle in the
radiative zone, and is re-radiated at a lower energy and longer wavelength. As the
radiation travels outward, the process continues over and over again countless times,
with continued ricocheting, innumerable collisions, and the steady loss of radiation
photon energy.
Computations performed by R. Mitalas and K. R. Sills in 1992 indicate that it
takes about 170,000 years, on the average, for radiation to work its way out from
the Sun’s core to the bottom of the convective zone. By this time, the radiation has
shed so much energy that it emerges on the other side of the convective zone as
visible light.
At the bottom of the convective zone, the temperature has become cool enough,
at about 2 × 106 K, to allow some heavy nuclei to capture electrons; because of their
lighter weight and greater speed, the abundant hydrogen and helium remain fully
ionized. The less abundant heavy particles absorb light and block the flow of heat,
obstructing the outward flow of radiation like dirt on a window. This causes the gas
to become hotter than it would otherwise be, and the pent-up-energy is transported
by convection, which occurs whenever a gas or fluid is sufficiently heated from
below. The convective motions carry heat through the outer part of the Sun, from a
depth of about 200,000 km up to the photosphere in about 10 days.
In response to heating, gases in the bottom layer of the convective zone expand
and thereby become less dense than the gas in the overlying layers. The heated
material, due to its low density, rises to the visible solar disk and cools by radiation.
The cooled gas then sinks, because it is denser than the hotter one, only to be re-
heated and rise again. Such wheeling convective motions occur in a kettle of boiling
water or a simmering pot of oatmeal, with hot rising bubbles and cooler sinking
material.
The convective zone is capped by the photosphere, the place where the gaseous
material changes from being completely opaque to radiation to being transparent. It
is the visible layer of the Sun, where radiation last interacts with atoms before es-
caping from the Sun. This sunlight takes just 8.3 min to travel from the photosphere
to the Earth.
As first noticed by William Herschel in 1801, the photosphere contains a fine
granular pattern. These closely packed granulation cells can now be examined us-
ing high-resolution images taken from ground-based telescopes under conditions of
118 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

Fig. 3.4 Double, double toil and trouble. When optical, or visible light, telescopes zoom in and
take a detailed look at the visible Sun, they resolve a strongly textured granular pattern. Hot gran-
ules, each about 1,400 km across, rise at speeds of 500 m s−1 , like supersonic bubbles in an im-
mense, boiling cauldron. The rising granules burst apart, liberating their energy, and cool material
then sinks downwards along the dark, inter-granular lanes. This photograph was taken at 430.8 nm
with a 1-nm interference filter. It has an exceptional angular resolution of 0.2 s of arc, or 150 km
at the Sun. (Courtesy of Richard Muller and Thierry Roudier, Observatoire du Pic-du-Midi et de
Toulouse.)

excellent seeing (Fig. 3.4), or from spacecraft located outside the Earth’s obscuring
atmosphere. The images reveal a host of granules with bright centers surrounded by
dark lanes, exhibiting a non-stationary, overturning motion caused by the underlying
convection.
The bright center of each granule, or convection cell, is the highest point of a
rising column of hot gas. The dark edges of each granule are the cooled gas, which
sinks because it is denser than the hotter gas. Each individual granule lasts only
about 15 min before it is replaced by another one, never reappearing in precisely the
same location.
3.2 How the Energy Gets Out 119

The mean angular distance between the bright centers of adjacent granules is
about 2.0 s of arc, corresponding to about 1,500 km at the Sun. That seems very
large, but an individual granule is about the smallest thing you can see on the Sun
when peering through our turbulent atmosphere.
There are at least a million granules on the visible solar disk at any moment. They
are constantly evolving and changing, producing a honeycomb pattern of rising and
falling gas that is in constant turmoil, completely changing on time scales of minutes
and never exactly repeating themselves.
The granules are superimposed on a larger cellular pattern, called the supergranu-
lation, studied by Robert B. Leighton and his collaborators in the early 1960s. They
modified a spectroheliograph, invented 65 years earlier by George Ellery Hale for
photographing the Sun in a single wavelength, to image the Sun using the Doppler
effect and to thereby study motions in the photosphere. The Doppler effect occurs
whenever a source of light or sound moves with respect to the observer, and results
in a change in the length of the waves (Fig. 3.5). When part of the Sun approaches us,
the wavelength of light emitted from that region becomes shorter, the wave fronts
or crests appear closer together, and the light therefore becomes bluer; when the
light source moves away, the wavelength becomes longer and the light redder. The
magnitude of the wavelength change, in either direction, establishes the velocity of
motion along the line of sight, either approaching or receding from the observer
(Focus 3.3).

Focus 3.3
The Doppler Effect
Just as a source of sound can vary in pitch or wavelength, depending on its mo-
tion, the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation changes when the emitting source
moves with respect to the observer. This Doppler shift is named after Christian
Doppler who discovered it in 1842. If the motion is toward the observer, the shift
is to shorter wavelengths, and when the motion is away the wavelength becomes
longer. You notice the sound-wave effect when listening to the changing pitch of a
passing ambulance siren. The tone of the siren is higher while the ambulance ap-
proaches you and lower when it moves away.
If radiation is emitted at a specific wavelength, λemitted , by a source at rest, the
wavelength, λobserved , observed from a moving source is given by the relation:

λobserved − λemitted Vr
z= = ,
λemittted c
where Vr is the radial velocity of the source along the line of sight away from the
observer. The parameter z is called the redshift since the Doppler shift is toward
the longer, redder wavelengths in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
When the motion is toward the observer, Vr is negative and there is a blueshift to
shorter, bluer wavelengths.
The Doppler effect applies to all kinds of electromagnetic radiation, including
X-rays, visible light, and radio waves. Because everything in the Universe moves,
120 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

the Doppler effect is a very important tool for astronomers, determining the radial
velocity of all kinds of cosmic objects.
Our equation is strictly valid for radial velocities that are smaller than the velocity
of light. For objects that move at speeds comparable to that of light, a somewhat
more complicated expression describes the Doppler effect.

Leighton and his colleagues subtracted a long-wavelength spectroheliograph im-

age from a short-wavelength one, creating Dopplergrams of motions in the photo-
sphere. The Dopplergrams revealed a supergranulation pattern of horizontal flow,
each an estimated 16,000 km across, or a bit larger than the Earth, with lifetimes
of roughly 24 h. Because the motion is predominantly horizontal, the supergranules
were not detected when looking directly at the center of the solar disk, but further

Stationary Star

Direction
Moving Star of Motion

Line of
Sight

Redshift Blueshift

Fig. 3.5 Doppler effect. A stationary star (top) emits regularly spaced light waves that get
stretched out or scrunched up if the star moves (bottom). Here we show a star moving away (bot-
tom right) from the observer (bottom left). The stretching of light waves that occurs when the star
moves away from an observer along the line of sight is called a redshift, because red light waves
are relatively long visible light waves; the compression of light waves that occurs when the star
moves along the line of sight toward an observer is called a blueshift, because blue light waves
are relatively short. The wavelength change, from the stationary to moving condition, is called the
Doppler shift, and its size provides a measurement of radial velocity, or the velocity of the com-
ponent of motion along the line of sight. The Doppler effect is named after the Austrian physicist
Christian Doppler, who first considered it in 1842
3.2 How the Energy Gets Out 121

out toward the sides of the round solar disk, where the horizontal motion is partially
directed along the line of sight.
Roughly 3,000 supergranules are seen on the visible solar disk at any moment.
And like the ordinary granulation, the changing pattern of supergranulation is
caused by convection. But unlike the granules, whose gases move up and down, the
material in each supergranule cell rises in the center, and exhibits a sideways mo-
tion as it moves away from the center with a typical velocity of about 0.4 km s−1 .
Only after this prolonged horizontal motion does the material eventually sinks down
again at the cell boundary. The supergranular flow carries the magnetic field across
the photosphere, sweeping the magnetism to the edges of the supergranulation cells
where it collects, strengthens, and forms a network of concentrated magnetic field.
Modern instruments, such as the Michelson Doppler Imager, or MDI for short,
aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, use a very

Fig. 3.6 Supergranulation. Thousands of large convection cells, the supergranules, are detected
in this Dopplergram, which shows motion toward and away from the observer, along the line of
sight, as light and dark patches, respectively. It was obtained using the Doppler effect of a single
spectral line with the Michelson Doppler Imager, abbreviated MDI, instrument on the SOlar and
Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short. The image contains about 3,000 supergranules, each
usually between 12,000 and 20,000 km across and typically lasting between 16 and 23 h. Near the
disk center the supergranules do not contribute to the signal; their motion is predominantly hori-
zontal and MDI measures only the component of motion directed towards or away from SOHO.
Material in supergranules flows out and sideways from their centers, with a typical velocity of
400 m s−1 . (Courtesy of the SOHO MDI consortium. SOHO is a project of international coopera-
tion between ESA and NASA.)
122 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

similar Doppler cancellation technique, with full-disk, line-of-sight Doppler veloc-

ity measurements, to investigate the supergranules (Fig. 3.6). As reported by Marc
L. De Rosa and Juri Toomre in 2004 using MDI data, the supergranules have an
average diameter that lies between 12,000 and 20,000 km and average lifetimes in
the 16–23 h range.
In 2003, Laurent Gizon, Thomas L Duvall Jr. and Jesper Schou used SOHO’s
MDI to discover possible wavelike properties of the supergranulation with periods
from 6 to 9 days. Since the waves move in the same direction as the Sun rotates,
the supergranulation appears to rotate faster than the other visible solar gas and
magnetic features like sunspots. This apparent motion could resemble the “wave”
of spectators at a baseball, football, or soccer game. When people in a stadium do
the wave, nobody actually moves in the direction of the wave – they just jump up
and sit down. As suggested by David H. Hathaway, Peter E. Williams, and Manfred
Cuntz in 2006, the supergranular superrotation may alternatively be just a projection
effect.
So that concludes our discussion of how energy generated by nuclear reactions
in the Sun’s core works its way out of the overlying radiative and convective zones.
However, some of the details may have been overlooked by the assumption of spher-
ical symmetry and ignoring internal movements or magnetic fields. We can now ex-
amine some of these details by using sound waves to open a window into the Sun’s
interior.

3.3 Taking the Sun’s Pulse

The unseen depths of the Sun are explored by watching the widespread throbbing
motions of the photosphere. Robert B. Leighton and his co-workers discovered these
vertical up and down oscillations in the early 1960s with the same instrument that
they used to investigate supergranules, finding that the subtracted images in the
Dopplergrams exhibit a periodic oscillation of about 5 min. As Leighton announced,
at an international conference in 1960:
These vertical motions show a strong oscillatory character, with a period of 296 ± 3 s.

When discovered, the 5-min vertical oscillations of the photosphere seemed to be

a chaotic, short-lived, and purely local effect, with each small region moving in-
dependent of nearby ones. However, subsequent research demonstrated that all the
local motions are driven by sound waves that echo and resonate through the solar
interior, and that the entire Sun is vibrating with ponderous rhythms that extend to
its very core. The resulting global oscillations of the Sun have been identified as
steady, pressure-driven, or p-mode, sound waves generated in the convective zone.
The 5-min oscillations are not directly related to individual granules moving up
and down, but they are associated with turbulent convection. In 1952–1954, Michael
James Lighthill demonstrated how sound can be generated by turbulence, and in 1977
Peter Goldreich and Douglas A. Kelley showed how vigorous turbulent motion in the
3.3 Taking the Sun’s Pulse 123

convective zone produces intense, random noise, somewhat like the deafening roar of
a jet aircraft or the hissing noises made by a pot of boiling water. When these sound
waves strike the photosphere and rebound back down, they disturb the gases there,
causing them to rise and fall, slowly and rhythmically at 5-min intervals, like the tides
in a bay or a beating heart (Figs. 3.7 and 3.8). Each 5-min period is the time it takes
for the localized motion to change from moving outward to moving inward and back
outward again. Such 5-min oscillations are imperceptible to the unaided eye, for the
photosphere moves a mere hundred-thousandth (0.00001) of the solar radius.
These sounds are trapped inside the Sun, for they cannot propagate through the
near vacuum of interplanetary space. As suggested in 1970 by Roger Ulrich, and
independently in 1971 by John Leibacher and Robert F. Stein, the sounds move
within resonant cavities, or spherical shells, inside the Sun, like the shouts of a
child traveling far across a cloud-covered lake on a summer night. The Sun’s sound
waves move around and around inside this circular waveguide, bouncing repeatedly
against the photosphere, reverberating between the cavity boundaries and driving
oscillations in the overlying material.
A real breakthrough came in 1975, when Franz-Ludwig Deubner showed that
the Sun’s oscillating power is concentrated into narrow ridges in a spatial-temporal
display, which meant that they are due to the standing acoustic waves moving in
the predicted cavity. Instead of meaningless, random fluctuations, orderly resonant
motions produce enhanced oscillation power with specific combinations of size and
frequency (Fig. 3.9). The frequencies of these resonant, pressure-driven p-modes
correspond to periods of about 5 min.
Starting near the photosphere, a sound wave moves into the Sun toward its center.
Since the speed of sound increases with temperature, which in the Sun increases
with depth, the wavefront’s deeper, inner edge travels faster than its shallower outer
edge, so the inner edge pulls ahead. Gradually, an advancing wavefront is refracted,
or bent, until the wave is once again headed toward the Sun’s photosphere.

Fig. 3.7 Internal contortions. The Sun exhibits over a million shapes produced by its oscillations.
Two of these shapes are illustrated here with exaggerated amplitude. (Courtesy of Arthur N. Cox
and Randall J. Bos, Los Alamos National Laboratory.)
124 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

Photosphere

Convection
Zone

Radiative
Zone

Energy-
generating
Core

Fig. 3.8 The pulsating Sun. Sound waves inside the Sun cause the visible solar disk to move in
and out. This heaving motion can be described as the superposition of literally millions of oscil-
lations, including the one shown here for regions pulsing inward (red regions) and outward (blue
regions). The sound waves, whose paths are represented here by black lines inside the cutaway
section, resonate through the Sun. They are produced by hot gas churning in the convective zone,
which lies above the radiative zone and the Sun’s core. (Courtesy of John W. Harvey, National
Optical Astronomy Observatories, except cutaway.)

The outer cavity boundary is caused by an abrupt change in sound speed asso-
ciated with the enormous drop in density and steep temperature gradient near the
photosphere, which reflects the waves traveling outward back in.
Each of these resonating sounds has a well-defined trajectory (Fig. 3.10). Those
that travel far into the Sun move nearly perpendicular to the photosphere when they
hit it, and they touch the photosphere only a few times during each internal circuit
around the Sun. These deep sound waves cause the entire Sun to ring like a bell.
Sound waves with shorter trajectories strike the photosphere at a glancing angle, and
travel through shallower and cooler layers. They bounce off the visible photosphere
more frequently, and describe motions and structure in the outer shell of the Sun.
Astronomers look inside the Sun by recording the 5-min oscillations in the pho-
tosphere and using them to examine sound waves that travel within the Sun on dif-
fering paths. They use the term helioseismology to describe such investigations of
3.3 Taking the Sun’s Pulse 125

6
Frequency, mHz

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Angular degree

Fig. 3.9 Oscillation frequency and angular degree. Sound waves resonate deep within the Sun,
producing photosphere oscillations with a frequency near 3 mHz, or 0.003 cycles per second, which
corresponds to a wave period of 5 min. Here the frequency is plotted as a function of the spherical
harmonic degree, l, for just 8 h of high-resolution data taken with the SOHO MDI instrument.
The degree, l, is the inverse of the spatial wavelength, or surface size; an l of 400 corresponds
to waves on the order of 10,000 km in size. The oscillation power is contained within specific
combinations of frequency and degree, demonstrating that the photosphere oscillations are due to
the standing waves confined within resonant cavities. The depth of the resonating cavity depends on
the oscillation frequency and the degree, l. What is happening near the core of the Sun is described
by oscillations in the lower left corner of the diagram. Moving up in frequency or degree tells more
about what is happening near the photosphere. (Courtesy of the SOHO MDI consortium. SOHO is
a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.)

the solar interior. It is a hybrid name combining the word Helios for the Greek god
of the Sun, the Greek word seismos meaning quake or tremor, and logos for rea-
soning or discourse. So literally translated helioseismology is the logical study of
solar tremors. Geophysicists similarly unravel the internal structure of the Earth by
recording earthquakes, or seismic waves, that travel to different depths; this type of
investigation is called seismology.
The helioseismology observations have been used to refine computer models
that show, among other things, how the pressure, temperature, mass density, sound
speed, and material content vary as a function of radius inside the Sun. In addi-
tion, the helioseismologists have demonstrated how gases rotate and flow inside the
Sun, and pinpointed where the Sun’s magnetism is probably generated. They have
also discovered internal weather patterns that swirl around active regions, converg-
ing flows beneath sunspots that help hold them together, and hints of gravity waves
within the Sun’s core.
Many of these recent advances have been made from the SOlar and Helio-
spheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO. Out in quiet, peaceful, and tranquil space,
126 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

Fig. 3.10 Sound paths. The trajectories of sound waves are shown in a cross section of the solar
interior. The rays are bent inside the Sun, like light within the lens of an eye, and circle the solar
interior in spherical shells or resonant cavities. Each shell is bounded at the top by a large, rapid
density drop near the photosphere and bounded at the bottom at the inner turning point (dotted
circles), where the bending rays undergo total internal refraction, owing to the increase in sound
speed with depth inside the Sun. How deep a wave penetrates and how far around the Sun it goes
before it hits the photosphere depends on the harmonic degree, l. The white curve is for l = 0, the
blue one for l = 2, green for l = 20, yellow for l = 25, and red for l = 75. (Courtesy of Jørgen
Christensen-Dalsgaard and Philip H. Scherrer.)

unperturbed by terrestrial interference, it has a long, clear undistorted view of the

Sun’s pulsations, obtaining recordings of both large-scale global oscillations and
small-scale ones with unprecedented quality. Two of its instruments, the Michelson
Doppler Imager, or MDI for short, and the Global Oscillations at Low Frequency,
abbreviated GOLF, record small periodic changes in the wavelength of light, mea-
suring the oscillation speeds using the Doppler effect. A single, very narrow spectral
feature is observed, and photosphere motions are inferred by taking solar images at
different wavelengths on both the long-wavelength and the short-wavelength sides
of it, determining the Doppler shift. Sequences of such measurements, taken at regu-
lar, successive intervals of time, are used to determine the periodicity of the motions.
When a lot of MDI’s measurements are averaged over adjacent places or long
times, the velocity of the photosphere oscillations can be determined with a remark-
able precision of better than 1 mm s−1 – when the Sun’s surface is moving in and out
about a million times faster. Moreover, the MDI telescope detects these motions at
a million points across the Sun every minute. Because the instrument is positioned
3.3 Taking the Sun’s Pulse 127

well above Earth’s obscuring atmosphere, MDI continuously resolves fine detail
on small oscillation scales that cannot always be seen from the ground due to the
blurring effects of our atmosphere, cloudy weather and the day–night cycle. The
fantastic results and images from MDI can be found at http://soi.stanford.edu, as
well as the SOHO home page at http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/.
SOHO’s GOLF instrument observes the entire disk of the Sun, without resolving
tiny surface details, and thereby garners long, undisturbed views of global, whole-
Sun oscillations that probe the deep solar interior. It gathers and integrates light over
the visible solar disk and tends to average out the peaks and troughs of the smaller
localized undulations that occur randomly at many different places and times within
the field of view. But GOLF has the clearest view of either sound or gravity waves
that penetrate deep within the Sun, even to its core. This instrument and its results
are described at the GOLF site http://golfwww.medoc-ias.u-psud.fr and the SOHO
home page.
Spacecraft have by no means rendered ground-based helioseismology obsolete.
A worldwide, six-station network of observatories, known by the acronym GONG
for the Global Oscillations Network Group, also observes the Sun around the clock.
They form an unbroken chain that follows the Sun as the Earth rotates, providing
additional studies of the internal structure and dynamics of the Sun using helioseis-
mology. Their web site is located at http://gong.nso.edu.
The major accomplishments of SOHO’s MDI and GOLF and the ground-based
GONG are presented in the rest of this chapter. They will provide the foundation
for future investigations with these instruments, as well as those from the Helioseis-
mic and Magnetic Imager aboard NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, currently
scheduled for launch in December 2008.
The serious student or curious reader may also want to consult reviews of these
subjects prepared by professionals in the field (Focus 3.4).

Focus 3.4
Expert Reviews About Helioseismology
Professional solar astronomers and astrophysicists have reviewed important recent
developments in helioseismology, often in technical terms. In alphabetical order,
they are: Jørgen Christensen-Dalsgaard’s (2002) review of helioseismology, the
special issue of Science on GONG helioseismology in 1996, beginning with Dou-
glas O. Gough, John W. Leibacher, Philip H. Scherrer, and Juri Toomre’s perspec-
tives on helioseismology, and including Christensen-Dalsgaard and co-workers ac-
count of the then-current state of solar modeling, Sami K. Solanki’s (2006) re-
view of the solar magnetic field, and Michael J. Thompson, Jørgen Christensen-
Dalsgaard, Mark S. Miesch, and Juri Toomre’s (2003) review of the internal rotation
of the Sun.
Very thorough Living Reviews are also available on the web at the portal http://
solarphysics.livingreviews.org/. In alphabetical order, the ones relevant to helioseis-
mology include Paul Charbonneau’s (2005) review of Dynamo Models of the Solar
Cycle, Laurent Gizon and Aaron C. Birch’s (2005) account of Local Helioseismol-
128 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

ogy, Yuhong Fan’s (2004) discussion of Magnetic Fields in the Solar Convection
Zone, Mark S. Miesch’s (2005) review of Large-Scale Dynamics of the Convec-
tion Zone and Tachocline, and Neil R. Sheeley Jr.’s (2005) discussion of Surface
Evolution of the Sun’s Magnetic Field: A Historical Review of the Flux Transport
Mechanism.
The contributions of scientists working with specific spacecraft data are often
presented at workshops that are subsequently published in book form. The proceed-
ings of SOHO or SOHO/GONG workshops that deal with helioseismology include,
in chronological order: SOHO-4: Helioseismology, edited by J. Todd Hoeksema,
Vicente Domingo, Bernhard Fleck, and Bruce Battric (1995); SOHO-6/GONG 98:
Structure and Dynamics of the Interior of the Sun and Sun-like Stars, edited by
Sylvain Korzennik and Andrew Wilson (1998); SOHO-9: Helioseismic Diagnos-
tics of Solar Convection and Activity, edited by Thomas L. Duvall Jr., John W.
Harvey, Alexander G. Kosovichev, and Zdenek Svetka (2000); SOHO-10/GONG
2000: Helio- and Asteroseismology at the Dawn of the Millenium, edited by Andrew
Wilson and Pere L. Pallé (2001); SOHO-12/GONG 2002: Local and Global Helio-
seismology: The Present and Future, edited by Huguette Sawaya-Lacoste (2003);
SOHO-14/GONG 2004: Helio- and Asteroseismology: Towards a Golden Future,
edited by Dorothea Danesy (2004); SOHO-18/GONG 2006: Beyond the Spheri-
cal Sun, edited by Karen Fletcher and Michael Thompson (2006); and SOHO-
19/GONG 2007: Seismology of Magnetic Activity, which will be published in a
double Topical Issue of Solar Physics on Heliosiesmology, Astroseismology and
MHD Connections, edited by John Leibacher and Lidia van Driel-Gesztelyi, joined
by guest editors Laurent Gizon and Paul Cally.

3.4 Looking Within the Sun

The combined sound of all the notes reverberating inside the Sun has been compared
to a gong in a sandstorm, being repeatedly struck with tiny particles and randomly
ringing with an incredible din. The Sun produces order out of this chaos by reinforcing
certain notes that resonate within it, like the rhythmic beat of a drum. This resonance
effect is somewhat analogous to repeated pushes on a swing. If the pushes occur
at the same point in each swing, they can increase the energy of the motion. In the
absence of such a resonance, the perturbations would be haphazard and the effect
would eventually fade away. When you regularly move water in a bathtub, the waves
similarly grow in size, but when you swish it randomly, the water develops a choppy
confusion of small waves. To put it another way, destructive interference filters out all
but the resonant frequencies that combine and reinforce each other, transforming the
random convective noise into a rich spectrum of resonant notes in the 5-min range.
Individual pulsations of the photosphere have velocity amplitudes of no more
than 0.1 m s−1 , but when millions of them are superimposed, they produce oscilla-
tions that move with thousands of times this speed. The low-amplitude components
reinforce each other, producing the strong 5-min oscillations that grow and decay
3.4 Looking Within the Sun 129

as numerous vibrations go in and out of phase to combine and disperse and then
combine again, somewhat like groups of birds, schools of fish, or cars on a highway
that gather together, move apart, and congregate again.
The photosphere oscillations are the combined effect of about 10 million separate
notes resonating in the Sun – each of which has a unique path of propagation and
samples a well-defined section inside the Sun. So, to determine the Sun’s internal
constitution all the way through – from its churning convective zone into its radiative
zone and down to the core – we must determine the exact pitch of all the notes and
measure the precise frequency of every one of them. Prolonged observations with high
spatial resolution and detailed computer analyses are required to sort them all out.
The main goal of helioseismology is to infer the internal properties of the Sun
from the oscillation frequencies of many different sound waves that travel along
different paths within the Sun. The precise frequency depends on the propagation
speed of the sound wave and the thickness of its resonant cavity. So the oscillation
frequencies obtained for many different waves, which penetrate to different depths,
can be inverted to determine the radial density and temperature profile inside the
Sun, as well as the internal rotation and other motions.
To be precise, the observed frequencies are integral measures of the speed along
the path of the sound wave, and helioseismologists have to invert these measured
data to get the sound speed, which depends on the temperature and chemical com-
position of the material it is traveling in (Focus 3.5).

Focus 3.5
The Speed of Sound
Sound waves are produced by perturbations in an otherwise undisturbed gas. They
can be described as a propagating change in the gas mass density, ρ, which is itself
related to the pressure, P, and temperature, T , by the ideal gas law:

ρkT
P=nkT = ,
mu μ

where n is the number of particles per unit volume, Boltzmann’s constant k =

1.38066 × 10−23 J K−1 , and the atomic mass unit mu = 1.66054 × 10−27 kg. The
mean molecular weight, μ , is given by μ = 2/(1 + 3X + 0.5Y ) where X, Y, and Z
represent the concentration by mass of hydrogen, helium, and heavier elements and
X + Y + Z = 1. For a fully ionized hydrogen gas, μ = 1/2, and for a fully ionized
helium gas μ = 4/3.
The wavelength, λ , and frequency, ν , of the sound waves are related by:

λ ν = cs ,

and the velocity of sound, cs , is given by:

 1/2  1/2
∂P γkT
cs = = ,
∂ρ mu μ
130 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

where the symbol ∂ denotes a differentiation under conditions of constant en-

tropy. For an adiabatic process, the pressure, P, and mass density, ρ, are related by
P = Kργ , where K is a constant. For adiabatic perturbations of a monatomic gas
the index γ = 5/3 and for isothermal perturbations γ = 1. For both adiabatic and
isothermal perturbations the sound speed is on the order of the mean thermal speed
of the ions of the gas, or numerically:

cs ≈ 10(T/104 K)1/2 km s−1 .

By considering a sequence of resonant p-modes, which can travel to different

depths, it is possible to peel away progressively deeper layers of the Sun and estab-
lish the radial profile of the sound speed (Fig. 3.11). When determining this profile
in 1991, Jørgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Douglas O. Gough, and Michael J. Thomp-
son detected a small but definite change in sound speed, which marks the lower
boundary of the convective zone, indicating that it has a radius of 0.713 ± 0.003 of
the Sun’s radius.
Since the speed of sound depends on both the composition and the temperature
of the material it is moving in, the precise depth of the convective zone depends
on the relative abundances of the elements within the Sun. A group led by Martin
Asplund therefore caused quite a stir when they announced in 2004 that the solar
photosphere appears to contain about 30% less oxygen than previously believed, and
that this suggested lower abundances of other heavy elements such as neon, which
does not show up in the photosphere’s spectrum. These elements provide an opacity
that impedes the outward flow of radiation, and when these opacities are used in
detailed models of the Sun, they predict slightly different values for the speed of
sound than those previously inferred from helioseismology at the same locations.
This suggested a slight adjustment of the depth of the convective zone, from 0.287
to 0.274 solar radii, and perhaps more importantly, implied a disagreement between
abundance determinations from spectroscopy and those inferred from solar models
and helioseismology observations.
However, in 2007 Enrico Landi, Uri Feldman, and George A. Doschek used the
Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted Radiation, abbreviated SUMER, instru-
ment aboard SOHO to determine a substantially higher absolute neon abundance in
a solar flare, in agreement with previous estimates, but higher than the one inferred
from the low oxygen photosphere abundance and the relative amounts of neon and
oxygen. This implied that the low oxygen abundance should be revised back upward
by a factor of almost two, bringing it into closer accord with the earlier helioseis-
mology results.
Future studies may resolve the differences and uncertainties in the photosphere
abundances, but in the meantime we do not have to worry about the neutrino calcu-
lations. Even the worst abundance discrepancies occur at a temperature range that
is too cool and distant from the Sun center to significantly affect the helioseismic
measurements of the Sun’s hotter, deeper temperatures. So the model calculations
of the amount of neutrinos emitted by the Sun remain the same.
3.5 How the Sun Rotates Inside 131

Fig. 3.11 Radial variations of sound speed. Just as scientists can use measurements of seismic
waves, produced by earthquakes, to determine conditions under the Earth’s surface, measurements
of the Sun’s oscillations, and the sound waves that produce them, can be used to determine the
internal structure of the Sun. This composite image shows the extreme ultraviolet radiation of the
solar disk (orange) and internal measurements of the speed of sound (cutaway). In the red-colored
layers in the solar interior, sound waves travel faster than predicted by the standard solar model
(yellow), implying that the temperature is higher than expected. Blue corresponds to slower sound
waves and temperatures that are colder than expected. The conspicuous red layer, about a third of
the way down, shows unexpected high temperatures at the boundary between the turbulent outer
region (convective zone) and the more stable region inside it (radiative zone). The disk measure-
ments were made at a wavelength of 30.4 nm, emitted by singly-ionized helium, denoted He II,
at a temperature of about 60,000 K using the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, abbreviated
EIT, aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short, and the MDI/SOI and
VIRGO instruments on SOHO made the sound speed measurements over a period of 12 months be-
ginning in May 1996. (Composite image courtesy of Steele Hill, SOHO is a project of international
cooperation between ESA and NASA.)

SOHO helioseismologists have also used measurements of sound wave frequen-

cies to infer rotational and other motions inside the Sun. The moving material pro-
duces slight changes in the frequency of a sound wave that passes through it, as
expected from the well-known Doppler effect.

3.5 How the Sun Rotates Inside

It has been known ever since telescopes were used to carefully monitor sunspots
that the visible solar disk rotates differently at different solar latitudes, at a faster
132 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

rate near the solar equator than nearer the solar poles with a smooth variation in
between. As on Earth, the solar latitude is the angular distance north or south of the
equator.
The sidereal rotation period of the photosphere, from east to west against the
stars, is about 25 days at the equator where the solar latitude is zero degrees; the
rotation period reaches 34 days at about ±75◦ solar latitude. These rotation periods
can be converted into velocities – just divide the circumference at the latitude by
its period (Table 3.2). Regions near the poles rotate with very slow speeds, in part
because the rate of rotation is smaller, but also because the material near the poles
is closer to the Sun’s axis and the distance around the Sun is shorter.
The varying rotation of the photosphere is known as differential rotation, be-
cause it differs with latitude. The differential rotation pattern is remarkably smooth
and steady, systematically varying with solar latitude and not changing by more than
5% since the first systematic measurements were made by Richard C. Carrington in
1863 – through careful tracking of sunspots at different latitudes. H. W. Newton and
M. L. Nunn in 1951 and Herschel B. Snodgrass in 1983 have more recently pro-
vided differential rotation parameters for the magnetic features in the photosphere.
Doppler shift measurements of photosphere rotation at different latitudes also reveal
the effect, as documented by P. A. Gilman in 1974 and E. H. Schröter in 1985.
Every point on the surface of the Earth rotates at the same speed, so a day is 24 h
long everywhere on the Earth. Such a uniform spin is called solid-body rotation.
Only a gaseous or liquid body can undergo differential rotation; it would tear a solid
body into pieces.
Until recently, we had no knowledge of how fast the Sun spins inside. This has
now been determined using the photosphere oscillations driven by internal sound
waves. The waves propagating in the direction of rotation will tend to be carried
along by the moving gas, and will travel faster than they would in a static, non-
moving medium. A bird or a jet airplane similarly moves faster when traveling with
the wind and takes a shorter time to complete a trip. The resonating sound wave
crests moving with the rotation will therefore appear, to a fixed observer, to travel
faster and their measured periods will be shorter. Waves propagating against the
rotation will be slowed down, with longer periods.
Thus, rotation imparts a clear signature to the oscillation periods, lengthening
them in one direction and shortening them in the other. These opposite effects make

Table 3.2 Differential rotation of the Suna

Solar latitude Rotation period Rotation speed Rotation speed Angular velocity
(degrees) (days) (km h−1 ) (m s−1 ) (nHz)

0 (Equator) 25.67 7097 1971 451

15 25.88 6807 1891 447
30 26.64 5922 1645 434
45 28.26 4544 1262 410
60 30.76 2961 823 376
75 33.40 1416 393 347
a Data from the MDI instrument aboard the SOHO spacecraft
3.5 How the Sun Rotates Inside 133

an oscillation period divide, splitting the frequencies of the p-modes. Such rotational
splitting depends on both depth and latitude within the Sun. The solar oscillations
have a period of about 5 min, so the rotational splitting is roughly 5 min divided by
25 days, or about one part in 7,000. The oscillations have to be measured 10 or a 100
times more accurately than this to determine subtle variations in the Sun’s rotation,
or as accurately as one part in a million.
In 1986, Thomas L. Duvall Jr., John W. Harvey, and Martin A. Pomerantz
showed that the general pattern of differential rotation persists through the con-
vective zone, and Timothy M. Brown and his co-workers confirmed this in greater
detail in 1989. Years of SOHO oscillation data have more recently enabled re-
searchers to determine the radial and latitude dependence of the Sun’s internal
rotation all the way down to the core (Fig. 3.12). In 1998, Jesper Schou and co-
workers used data from the MDI instrument on SOHO to show that there is lit-
tle variation of rotation with depth within the convective zone, where differential
rotation is preserved. So at any specific solar latitude, the inside of the Sun does
not rotate any faster than the outside. At greater depths, within the radiative zone,
the rotation rate becomes independent of latitude, acting as if the Sun were a solid
body. Though gaseous, the radiative interior of the Sun rotates at a nearly uniform
rate intermediate between the equatorial and high-latitude rates in the overlying
convective zone.
Thus the rotation velocity changes sharply at the top of the radiative zone, lo-
cated nearly one-third of the way down to the center. At this place, the outer
parts of the radiative interior, which rotates at roughly the same speed regardless
of solar latitude, meets the overlying convective zone, which spins faster in its
equatorial middle. This narrow interface region, known as the tachocline, proba-
bly marks the location of the solar dynamo that generates the Sun’s magnetic field
(see Sect. 3.9).
There is also a sharp rotational gradient just beneath the photosphere, for the
fastest rotation rate at a given solar latitude occurs at about 0.95 solar radii instead of
exactly 1.00 where the photosphere is located. This was suspected from differences
between gas and magnetic rotation rates detected in the photosphere, and it is a
pronounced feature in the radial rotation profiles from GONG and MDI. Thierry
Corbard and Michael J. Thompson described the global MDI measurements of this
rotational increase in 2002, while Rachel Howe and co-workers (2006b) discussed
its local helioseismology analysis.
In 2003, Sebastien Couvidat and his co-workers combined observations with
SOHO’s MDI and GOLF instruments to infer the radial rotation profile down to
the core. After removing the effects of differential rotation in the convective zone, a
uniform rotation is obtained throughout the radiative zone and into the outer parts of
the core, down to two tenths of the Sun’s radius. To this depth, there is no indication
of either a rapidly or slowly rotating center.
The central parts of the Sun’s energy-generating core have not been resolved, so
its rotation and structure remain a mystery, but there are hints that the core spins at a
slightly faster rate than the radiative zone. Nevertheless, no asymmetry or oblateness
in the shape of the Sun has been detected, as would be expected from exceptionally
134 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

23 500
Solar Dynamo 0º

Angular Ve locity (nHz)

Rotation Period (days)

26 30º 450
45º
29 400
60º

75º 350
33

38 Radiative Convective 300

Core zone zone

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Fig. 3.12 Internal rotation of the Sun. The rotation rate inside the Sun, determined from he-
lioseismology. The outer parts of the Sun exhibit differential rotation, with high solar latitudes
rotating more slowly than equatorial ones. This differential rotation persists to the bottom of the
convective zone at 28.7% of the way down. The rotation period in days is given at the left axis,
and the corresponding angular velocity scale is on the right axis in units of nanoHertz, abbreviated
nHz, where 1 nHz = 10−9 Hz, or a billionth, of a cycle per second. A rotation rate of 320 nHz cor-
responds to a period of about 36 days (solar poles), and a rate of 460 nHz to a period of about 25
days (solar equator). The rotation in the outer parts of the Sun, at latitudes of zero (solar equator),
30◦ , 45◦ , 60◦ , and 75◦ , has been inferred from 144 days of data using the Michelson Doppler Im-
ager, abbreviated MDI, aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short. Just
below the convective zone, the rotational speed changes markedly, and shearing motions along this
interface may be the dynamo source of the Sun’s magnetism. By examining more than 5 years
of low-order acoustic modes, obtained using the GOLF and MDI instruments aboard SOHO, the
rotation rate has been inferred for the deep solar layers (error bars), mainly along the solar equator.
There is uniform rotation in the radiative zone, from the base of the convective zone at 0.713 solar
radii to about 0.25 solar radii. The acoustic modes (sound waves) do not reach the central part
of the energy-generating core. (Courtesy of Alexander G. Kosovichev for the MDI data showing
differential rotation in the convective zone, and Sebastien Couvidat, Rafael Garcı́a, and Sylvaine
Turck-Chièze for the GOLF/MDI data in the radiative zone. SOHO is a project of international
cooperation between ESA and NASA.)

rapid rotation inside the Sun, and this has important implications for theories of
gravity (Focus 3.6).

Focus 3.6
Confirming Einstein’s Theory
An interesting implication of the helioseismology rotation results involves tests of
Einstein’s theory of gravity. According to his General Theory of Relativity, space
is distorted or curved in the neighborhood of matter, and this distortion is the cause
of gravity. The result is a gravitational effect that departs slightly from Newton’s
expression, producing planetary orbits that are not exactly elliptical. Instead of re-
turning to its starting point to form a closed ellipse in one orbital period, a planet
moves slightly ahead in a winding path that can be described as a rotating ellipse.
3.6 Waves in the Sun’s Core 135

Einstein first used this theory to describe such a previously unexplained twisting of
Mercury’s orbit.
Mercury’s anomalous orbital shift, of only 43 s of arc per century, is in almost
exact agreement with Einstein’s prediction, but this accord depends on the assump-
tion that the Sun is a nearly perfect sphere. If the interior of the Sun is rotating very
fast, it will push the equator out further than the poles, so its shape ought to be
somewhat oblate rather than perfectly spherical. The gravitational influence of the
outward bulge, called a quadrupole moment, will provide an added twist to Mer-
cury’s orbital motion, shifting its orbit around the Sun by an additional amount and
lessening the agreement with Einstein’s theory of gravity.
Fortunately, helioseismology data indicate that most of the inside of the Sun does
not rotate significantly faster than the outside, at least down to the energy-generating
core. Even if the core of the Sun is spinning rapidly, a substantial asymmetry cannot
be produced in the shape of the Sun. So, we may safely conclude that measurements
of Mercury’s orbit confirm the predictions of General Relativity. In fact, the small
quadrupole moment inferred from the oscillation data by Thomas L. Duvall Jr. and
colleagues in 1984, which is about one ten millionth rather than exactly zero as
Einstein assumed, is consistent with a very small improvement in Mercury’s orbit
measured in recent times. So, the Sun does have an extremely small, middle-aged
bulge after all.

3.6 Waves in the Sun’s Core

In 2007, Rafael A. Garcı́a and co-workers on SOHO’s Global Oscillations at Low

Frequency, abbreviated GOLF, team reported their detection of gravity waves. These
long-period resonant oscillations are generated in the deeper parts of the Sun and
have their largest amplitudes there (Fig. 3.13). And they are known as gravity waves,
or g-modes, because it is the force of gravity that determines how quickly they
rise and fall. (These are totally unrelated to the gravitational radiation predicted by
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.)
Gravity waves, or g-modes, occur in regions where there is a stable density differ-
ence, or stratification in density. They are produced when a parcel of gas oscillates
above and below an equilibrium position, like waves in the deep sea. When a high-
density parcel moves up into a lower-density region, it is pulled back into place by
gravity, and then moves back due to the restoring force of buoyancy. In contrast,
sound waves are restored by pressure, and are therefore designated p-modes with p
for pressure.
Gravity waves become evanescent, or non-propagating, in regions where the gas
is not stably stratified, such as the turbulent convective zone. As a result, they are
largely confined to the Sun’s deep interior where they are the strongest. Gravity
waves that manage to reach the photosphere are expected to raise and lower an entire
136 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

Core
Photosphere

Fig. 3.13 Gravity waves. A cross section of the solar interior showing the ray paths of sound
waves (p modes) and gravity waves (g modes). Sound waves produce oscillations detected in the
photosphere, and can be used to determine the internal properties of the Sun down to about 0.2 of
the solar radius. Gravity waves never reach the photosphere and are instead turned around inside
the Sun, probing its central depths and reaching the core

hemisphere every few hours or so, but with a severe attenuation to low amplitude
due to propagation through the convective zone. They are therefore very difficult to
observe.
The detection of g-modes is nevertheless favored by the fact that they maintain
phase coherence, or stay in sync, for years, so they could produce an observable
signal when averaged over a very long time. The GOLF team therefore examined a
10-year sequence of observations, and looked for the distinctive, even spacing of the
g-mode periods, which are unlike the sound-wave p-modes that have evenly spaced
frequencies. And an evenly spaced, periodic structure was found in the GOLF data
that is in agreement with the period separation predicted by the theory for grav-
ity waves.
In addition to showing that g-modes may indeed exist, Garcı́a and colleagues
were able to make a rough estimate of the rotation rate of the Sun’s core. By com-
paring their observations with theoretical models of the g-modes, they found some
evidence that the core is spinning three to five times faster than the overlying radia-
tive zone, but this may not be consistent with p-mode estimates of a uniform rotation
in the radiative zone down to 0.2 solar radii. If there is an extra spin deep down in
the solar core, it could be left over from the Sun’s formation; the outer parts of the
Sun would have been slowed over the eons by the braking action of the solar wind.
Since the g-mode detection has not been confirmed by any other measurements,
there is still a possibility that it may not survive the test of time. If confirmed, how-
ever, these exciting reports of gravity waves and hints of a rapidly spinning core will
become one of the key discoveries of helioseismology.
3.7 Internal Flows 137

3.7 Internal Flows

3.7.1 Early Work and New Methods

Large-scale flows were first reported in 1979–1980 from the Doppler shift velocity
measurements of spectral lines formed in the photosphere. More than a decade of
full-disk velocity measurements from Mount Wilson were used by Robert Howard
in 1979 to infer a poleward-directed motion of about 20 m s−1 . Thomas L. Duvall
Jr. endorsed this result in the same year using Doppler shift measurements with
the Stanford magnetograph. This poleward motion in the photosphere is also called
meridional flow, since the gas circulates north or south along meridians that pass
through the Sun’s poles.
The meridional flow was also inferred from numerical simulations of the ob-
served movements of the magnetic remnants of former active regions during the
11-year sunspot cycle, conclusively demonstrated by Yi-Ming Wang, Ana G. Nash,
and Neil Sheeley Jr. in 1989.
And well before that, in 1980, Robert Howard and Barry Labonte used the
Mount Wilson velocity data to discover alternating latitude zones of slow and
fast rotation – after subtracting the much larger differential rotation. The wave-
like zones of anomalous rotations keep up with and flank the sunspot zones of
magnetic activity, and drift from high latitudes, where they originate, to the equa-
tor in about 11 years. The east–west zonal flow bands are sometimes called tor-
sional oscillations, since they were initially attributed to such an oscillation in
which the solar rotation is periodically sped up or slowed down in certain zones of
latitude.
Both the poleward motions and the zonal rotation bands move at a slow pace,
with speeds that reach no more than 20 m s−1 . They can only be detected when much
faster and stronger motions are removed from the data. The Sun’s equatorial rotation
speed, for example, is about 2, 000 m s−1 , or hundreds of times greater than the flow
speeds, and there are also granulation and supergranulation motions and the 5-min
photosphere oscillations that might contaminate the Doppler-shift measurements in
the photosphere.
Perhaps because of these uncertainties, the large-scale photosphere motions did
not generate enthusiastic, widespread interest until accurate helioseismology mea-
surements were used to confirm them and to show that the flows extend deeply
into the Sun. And because it is not possible to use global helioseismology to detect
flows in meridional planes, new techniques of local helioseismology were devel-
oped to investigate the structure and flows just below the photosphere. As with local
anesthesia, it applies to localized areas on the Sun rather than its global, full-body
properties.
One of the methods of local helioseismology, known as helioseismic tomography
or time-distance helioseismology, is an adaptation of the tomographic techniques
introduced by Ronald N. Bracewell in 1956 to infer the structure of cosmic ra-
dio sources from interferometer scans, and by Allan M. Cormack in 1963 to
138 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

determine the internal properties of an object using beams of X-rays. This led to the
development of Computer Assisted Tomography, or CAT, scans to derive clear views
of the insides of living bodies from the numerous readings of X-rays criss-crossing
the body from different directions, and incidentally led to Allan sharing the 1979
Nobel Prize in Medicine for his contribution. By recording sounds that have passed
through the Sun at different angles, one can use triangulation to obtain similar to-
mographical information.
The time–distance, or helioseismic tomography, method measures and interprets
the travel times of sound waves between any two locations on the photosphere. This
travel time tells of both the temperature and the gas flows along the internal path
connecting the two points. If the local temperature is high, sound waves move more
quickly – as they do if they travel with the flow of gas. The travel time is obtained
for a great many sets of points, and then inverted in a computer to chart the three-
dimensional internal structure and dynamics of the Sun, including the sound speed,
flow speed, and direction of motion.
Since the MDI instrument on SOHO can continuously obtain clear, sharp im-
ages with fine detail, it has proved particularly useful in helioseismic tomography,
directly measuring travel times and distances for sound waves and enabling three-
dimensional images of the structure and flows below the photosphere. It is one of
several methods of local helioseismology described in Focus 3.7.

Focus 3.7
Local Helioseismology
Laurent Gizon and Aaron C. Birch reviewed the main mathematical techniques
and results of local helioseismology in 2005, describing a number of different ap-
proaches that complement each other. Listed in chronological order of their first
use, they are Fourier-Hankel decomposition, ring-diagram analysis, time–distance
helioseismology or helioseismic tomography, helioseismic holography, and direct
modeling.
Douglas C. Braun, Thomas L. Duvall Jr., and Barry J. Labonte introduced Hankel
spectral analysis in 1987 in order to study the relationship between inward and out-
ward traveling waves around sunspots, thereby demonstrating that sound waves are
absorbed in and around sunspots.
The ring-diagram analysis can be used to infer the speed and direction of hori-
zontal flows below the photosphere by obtaining the Doppler shifts of sound waves
from a spectral analysis of solar oscillations. Frank Hill introduced this method in
1988, when he used it to demonstrate internal meridional flow directed from the
equator toward the south pole.
Time–distance helioseismology, which is also known as helioseismic tomogra-
phy, was introduced in 1993 by Thomas L. Duvall Jr., Stuart Mark Jefferies, John
W. Harvey, and Martin A. Pomerantz, noting that it can be used to detect inhomo-
geneities and motions below sunspots and other flows beneath the photosphere. In
1996, Alexander G. Kosovichev used the method to detect converging downflows
and an increase in sound speed below active regions. (Active regions are the areas
3.7 Internal Flows 139

in, around, above, and below sunspots, the seat of powerful explosions called so-
lar flares.) And in 2000, Kosovichev, Duvall, and Philip H. Scherrer reviewed the
time–distance inversion methods and results for active regions, sunspots, flows. and
supergranulation.
Charles Lindsey and Douglas C. Braun described the basic principles of helio-
seismic holography in 1997, using it in 2000 to demonstrate how one can image
active regions on the far side of the Sun. The basic holography concept, which was
first suggested by Francois Roddier in 1975, is that the line-of-sight Doppler veloc-
ity observed at the solar photosphere can be used to estimate the sound wave field
at any location in the solar interior at any instant of time.
And in 2002, Martin F. Woodard introduced the idea of estimating internal flows
from direct inversion of the correlations seen in the wave field in the Fourier spectral
domain, using it to determine the supergranular flow below the photosphere.

3.7.2 Poleward Flows

In 1996, David Hathaway and co-workers inferred a meridional circulation with a

poleward flow of about 20 m s−1 from Doppler velocity observations obtained with
the Global Oscillation Network Group, abbreviated GONG, which was consistent
with the earlier photosphere observations of Robert F. Howard and independently
Thomas L. Duvall in 1979. Then in the 1997, Peter M. Giles and his colleagues
used MDI observations to demonstrate that the meridional flow penetrates deeply
(Fig. 3.14). They found that the entire outer layer of the Sun, to a depth of at least
25,000 km, is slowly but steadily flowing from the equator to the poles with a speed
of about 20 m s−1 . At this rate, an object would be transported from the equator to
a pole in a little more than 1 year. And by applying the time–distance helioseis-
mology measurements to 6 years of MDI data, from 1996 to 2002, Junwei Zhao
and Alexander G. Kosovichev found that meridional flows of order of 20 m s−1 re-
mained poleward during the whole period of observation, and that extra meridional
circulation cells converge toward the sunspot belts in both hemispheres.

3.7.3 Zonal Flow Bands

In the meantime, Kosovichev and Jesper Schou used rotational splitting of the solar
oscillation frequencies observed with MDI to show in 1997 that alternating flow bands
of faster and slower rotation, the so-called torsional oscillations, also extend to a
considerable depth below the photosphere (Fig. 3.14). These broad zonal bands of gas
lie parallel to the Sun’s equator and sweep along at different speeds relative to each
other, reminding us of the trade winds and jet streams in the Earth’s atmosphere and the
Gulf Stream in our oceans. The solar banding looks symmetric about the solar equator
because the analysis method using global p-modes cannot distinguish between the
140 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

Intermediate-latitude
Shear Zone

Equator-to-pole
Currents

(No Data)

“Trade Wind”
Bands Polar “Jet Stream”

Fig. 3.14 Interior flows. Global helioseismology of internal flows in the Sun with rotation re-
moved. Red corresponds to faster-than-average flows, yellow to slower than average, and blue to
slower yet. On the left side, deeply rooted zonal flows (yellow bands), analogous to the Earth’s
trade winds, travel slightly faster than their surroundings (blue regions). The streamlines in the
right-hand cutaway reveal a slow meridional flow toward the solar poles from the equator; the re-
turn flow below it is inferred. This image is the result of computations using 1 year of continuous
observation, from May 1996 to May 1997, with the Michelson Doppler Imager, abbreviated MDI,
instrument aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short. (Courtesy of Philip
H. Scherrer and the SOHO SOI/MDI consortium. SOHO is a project of international cooperation
between ESA and NASA.)

northern and the southern hemispheres of the Sun. There seem to be at least two zones
of faster rotation and two zones of slower rotation in each hemisphere of the Sun. And
a single zonal flow band is broad and deep, more than 65,000 km wide and penetrating
as far as 20,000 km below the surface. The velocity of the faster zonal flows is about
5 m s−1 higher than gases to either side. This is substantially smaller than the mean
velocity of rotation, which is about 2, 000 m s−1 , so the fast zones glide along in the
spinning gas, like wide, lazy rivers of fire.
In 2000, Rachel Howe and co-workers used over 4 years of helioseismology data
from GONG and SOHO’s MDI to show that the bands of slower- and faster-than
average rotation extend down to at least 60,000 km, and then in 2002 Sergey V.
Vorontsov and co-workers used 6 years of SOHO MDI data to show that the zonal
flow bands are coherent over the full depth of the convective zone, so the entire
convection envelope appears to be involved.
3.7 Internal Flows 141

3.7.4 Internal Changes Over the 11-year Cycle

of Magnetic Activity

The ways in which internal flows change with time are of particular interest since
they may provide clues to the origin of the Sun’s varying magnetism. And helio-
seismologists have indeed shown that both the zonal flow bands and the poleward
flows vary over the 11-year cycle of solar magnetic activity. Pioneering observa-
tions of these effects, by Jesper Schou in 1999, H. M. Anita and Sarbani Basu in
2000, and Dean-Yi Chou and De-Chang Dai in 2001 quickly evolved into more
detailed investigations by Sergey V. Vorontsov and colleagues in 2002, John G.
Beck, Laurent Gizon and Duvall in 2002, and Junwei Zhao and Alexander G.
Kosovichev in 2004. More recently, Rachel Howe and her co-workers (2006b)
used MDI and GONG data to obtain both global and local helioseismology of
the zonal flows beneath the photosphere, confirming that zones of faster rotation
approach the solar equator from mid-latitudes during the 11-year solar activity
cycle.
Sunspots and the active regions that envelop them are located in solar latitude
zones, or activity belts, which move from mid-latitudes to the solar equator during
the sunspot cycle. The zonal bands of slower and faster rotation migrate in solar lat-
itude together with these activity belts over the 11-year cycle. The zonal flow bands
are most likely a side effect of the magnetic activity cycle and the internal flows
around active regions, but this does not altogether explain why the bands persist at
solar activity minimum.
The meridional flow also changes with time over the 11-year cycle, and is
strongly correlated with the dominant latitude of magnetic activity. Time–distance
helioseismology of SOHO MDI data indicates that the poleward meridional flow
may be diverging out of the activity belts, and that extra meridional circulation cells
converge toward the belts. These converging flow cells also migrate toward the solar
equator, together with the activity belts as the solar cycle evolves.
Moreover, the internal structure of the Sun is not strictly spherically symmetric,
with a latitude variation in sound speed. Sarbani Basu, H.M. Antia, and Richard S.
Bogart showed in 2007 that this asphericity changes with solar activity, at least in
the outer layers of the Sun.
After subtracting out the contributions from differential rotation, zonal rotation
bands, and poleward meridional circulation, changing residual flows are found over
a range of spatial scales. Deborah A. Haber, Bradley W. Hindman, and Rudi Komm
and their co-workers, have investigated them, in 2002, 2004, and 2007, respectively.
They reveal a pattern of solar subsurface weather that resembles the high- and low-
pressure regions and swirling winds in the Earth’s atmosphere, but on a much larger
scale with hotter temperatures and no rain in sight. On the Sun, the meteorology and
weather forecasts are linked to the varying solar magnetism, increasing in complex-
ity as the 11-year solar cycle evolves towards activity maximum. And this brings us
to a study of the structure and flows beneath active regions and sunspots.
142 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

3.8 Three-Dimensional Views of Sunspots

and Active Regions

3.8.1 Looking Beneath Sunspots

For centuries, people have wondered about those strange dark spots on the Sun.
What holds them together, so they last for weeks without breaking apart? The out-
ward pressure of their strong magnetic fields ought to make sunspots expand at their
edges and disperse into the surrounding photosphere, just as magnets with like po-
larity repel each other. And how far do the sunspots extend below the photosphere?
Are they magnetic islands floating on the top of the convective zone, or are they
anchored deep within it? These questions were finally answered when helioseismic
tomography, or time–distance helioseismology, was used to zero in and see what
lies beneath sunspots.
In 1996, Thomas L. Duvall Jr. and co-workers used the technique of helioseis-
mic tomography with the data they obtained at the South Pole in 1991 to detect
strong downflows beneath sunspots, with velocities of about 2 km s−1 . The pow-
erful flows bind the intense magnetic fields together, and stabilize the structure of
sunspots.
Five years later, Junwei Zhao, working with his colleagues Alexander
G. Kosovichev and Duvall, used the method with data from MDI to trace out the
motions of hot flowing gas in, around, and below a sunspot (Fig. 3.15). They de-
tected strong converging flows around the sunspot and downward directed flows
in it. The adjacent streams of gas strengthen and converge towards the sunspots,
pushing and concentrating the magnetic fields into them. Cool down-flowing ma-
terial beneath the sunspots may also draw the surrounding gas and magnetic fields
inward.
Further down, at depths of about 10,000 km, the flows seem to rip through a
sunspot, apparently causing them to merge into deeper heated layers. This suggests
that the sunspots are relatively shallow phenomena, extending about 5,000 km below
the photosphere, so sunspots are about as deep as they are broad. It is as if the
buoyant, concentrated magnetic fields rose up to the photosphere, gathering together
and spreading out like a lotus flower on a lake, but perhaps connected to the depths
with slender, thread-like roots.
Much of current helioseismology is devoted to the study of the influence of mag-
netic fields on sound waves and validation of the implications of their observations
on the internal structure of sunspots. Detailed observations over several years, dur-
ing various parts of the activity cycle, should tell us more about how the motions
of hot solar gas interact with concentrations of the Sun’s magnetism and give rise
to its explosive activity. Current helioseismology suggests that swirling currents of
gas beneath solar active regions may account for powerful outbursts known as solar
flares.
3.8 Three-Dimensional Views of Sunspots and Active Regions 143

Fig. 3.15 What lies beneath a sunspot. The temperature and flow structure under a sunspot have
been probed using local helioseismology techniques with data obtained by the Michelson Doppler
Imager instrument aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short. The in-
tense magnetic fields in and below a sunspot act as a plug that prevents the up-flow of energy from
the hot solar interior. As a result, the sunspot is cooler and darker than its surroundings (dark blue
region in the bottom cross section). Heat builds up below the magnetic plug, so the material un-
derneath the sunspot’s magnetic fields becomes hotter (red area in cross section). The converging
flows of surrounding cooler material, denoted by the arrows, help hold a sunspot together. (Cour-
tesy of the SOHO MDI consortium. SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA
and NASA.)

3.8.2 Swirling Flows Beneath Active Regions

Active regions are locations in the solar atmosphere where intense magnetic fields,
generated in the solar interior, have emerged through the photosphere and looped
through the corona. The total numbers of active regions on the visible solar disk wax
and wane with the 11-year cycle of solar activity, in tandem with the sunspots that
they contain. Active-region coronal loops exhibit enhanced X-ray radiation, owing
to the dense, hot gas within them, and the intensity of the X-ray emission varies
in step with the activity cycle. Active regions are also the sites of intense outbursts
called solar flares, which are more frequent at maximum solar activity.
144 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

The methods of local helioseismology are used to study the structure and dynam-
ics of active regions below the photosphere. The helioseismic tomography that has
been used to look beneath sunspots has, for example, been applied to the more ex-
tended and deeper regions beneath active regions. In 2003 and 2004, Junwei Zhao
and Alexander G. Kosovichev applied this technique to SOHO MDI data to find
deep, strong horizontal flows that converge into active regions and swirl around
them, resembling cyclones in the Earth’s atmosphere. They suggested that these
sub-photospheric vortical flows might build up a significant amount of magnetic
helicity and energy to power solar outbursts in the overlying solar atmosphere.
Twisting and shearing of the X-ray emitting coronal loops in active regions, as
well as the interaction of existing loops with new emerging ones, may indeed cause
solar flares and coronal mass ejections (see Sect. 6.10), and the helioseismic to-
mography results suggest that these coronal effects may be related to the internal
vortical, swirling flows.
In 2006, Douglas Mason and co-workers used the ring-diagram technique of lo-
cal helioseismology to survey flows beneath active regions using both GONG and
SOHO MDI data. Their examination of more than 500 active regions indicated that
the maximum sub-photospheric, horizontal vorticity, in both zonal east–west and
meridional north–south components, is correlated with the X-ray flare intensity. In
other words, the greater the circulating, sideways twist down below, the stronger the
flare up above. The vertical vorticity component showed no clear relation to flare
activity.
The methods of local helioseismology are also being applied to investigations
of the life cycle of active regions, to their emergence, evolution, and decay. The
initial results, obtained by Kosovichev and Duvall, show that some larger active
regions are formed by repeated magnetic flux emergence from the deep interior,
rooted at least 50,000 km below the photosphere. There is no initial evidence of a
single large magnetic loop emerging from the interior to form an active region, but
instead many thinner strands may be forming them. Large-scale, loop-like structures
have nevertheless been detected below at least one active region.
Soon after formation, the active regions change the temperature structure and
flow dynamics of the upper convective zone, forming large circulation cells of con-
verging flows.

3.8.3 Detecting Active Regions on the Far Side of the Sun

Scientists are also now using sound waves to see right through the Sun to its hid-
den, normally invisible, backside, describing active regions on the far side of the
Sun days before they rotate onto the side facing Earth. They use the technique of
helioseismic holography with observations of the Sun’s oscillations to create a sort
of mathematical lens that focuses to different depths. A wide ring of sound waves is
examined, which emanates from a region on the side of the Sun facing away from
the Earth, the far side, and reaches the near side that faces the Earth (Fig. 3.16).
3.8 Three-Dimensional Views of Sunspots and Active Regions 145

Focal Focal
Point Point

1-skip
Pupil
2-skip 3-skip
Pupil Pupil Observer
Observer

Fig. 3.16 Looking through the Sun. The arcing trajectories of sound waves from the far side of
the Sun are reflected internally before reaching the front side, where they are observed with the
Michelson Doppler Imager, abbreviated MDI, aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or
SOHO for short, or the Global Oscillation Network Group, abbreviated GONG. Here we show a
two-skip correlation scheme (left) and a one-skip/three-skip correlation scheme (right) of seismic
holography used to image active regions (focal point) on the otherwise unseen far side of the Sun.
These methods permit complete seismic imaging of the entire far hemisphere of the Sun, provided
daily at http://soi.stanford.edu/data/full farside/or http://gong.nso.edu/. This permits scientists to
detect potentially threatening active regions on the far side of the Sun before the Sun’s rotation
brings them around to the front side that faces the Earth. [Adapted from Douglas C. Braun and
Charles Lindsey, Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 560, L189 (2001).]

When a large solar active region is present on the backside of the Sun, its intense
magnetic fields cool the gas there, thus changing the level at which sound waves are
reflected. A sound wave that would ordinarily take about 6 h to travel from the near
side to the far side of the Sun and back again takes approximately 12 s less when it
bounces off an active region on the far side. When nearside photosphere oscillations
are examined, the quick return of these sound waves can be detected.
This remarkable result was introduced by Douglas C. Braun and Charles Lind-
sey in 2000, and first used by them in 2001 with SOHO MDI data to demon-
strate how active regions can be detected on the side of the Sun facing away from
Earth. These techniques have subsequently been refined to map the entire back-
side of the Sun, including the polar regions. In 2007, Junwei Zhao and Alexan-
der G. Kosovichev, for example, provided new developments based on the Braun
and Lindsey approach. Phase-sensitive helioseismic holography using MDI data
is used on a routine basis to give daily images of magnetic activity on the far
side of the Sun, which we cannot directly see from Earth. Images and movies are
available at http://soi.stanford.edu/data/full farside/ Similar work with GONG data
also yields daily images of active regions on the far side of the Sun, available at
http://gong.nso.edu/.
Solar astronomers are using this technique to monitor the structure and evolution
of large regions of magnetic activity as they cross the back side of the Sun, thereby
revealing the regions that are growing in magnetic complexity or strength and seem
146 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

primed for explosive outbursts. Since the solar equator rotates with a period of 27
days, when viewed from the Earth, this can give more than a week’s extra warning
of potential solar flares or coronal mass ejections before the active region swings
into view, threatening the Earth with possible intense radiation, energetic particles,
or mass ejections from these outbursts.

3.9 The Solar Dynamo

Where do the Sun’s magnetic fields come from, why do they vary in intensity and
location, and how are they maintained? Hot, electrically conducting gases circulate
within the Sun, generating electrical currents that produce magnetic fields, and the
changing magnetic fields produce electric currents and sustain the generation of
electricity, just as in a power-plant dynamo. The mechanical energy of the motion
of the charged gas particles is thereby converted into the energy of magnetic fields.
The Earth’s magnetic field is supposed to be generated by such a dynamo, operating
on a much smaller scale within its molten core.
The magnetic fields that have been spawned by the Sun’s internal dynamo are en-
trained and “frozen” into the conducting gas that carries the magnetic fields along.
As they move with the gas, the embedded magnetic fields are deformed, folded,
stretched, twisted, and amplified, and eventually thread their way out of the Sun to
form bipolar sunspots in the photosphere. This dynamo mechanism does not explain
how the magnetic fields originated, but rather how they are amplified and main-
tained. The process of field amplification is nevertheless cumulative, so a dynamo
can generate a strong magnetic field from an initially weak one.
A conceptually simple model of the solar dynamo, devised in 1961 by Horace
W. Babcock, begins at sunspot minimum with a global, dipolar magnetic field that
runs inside the Sun from south to north, or from pole to pole. Uneven, or differen-
tial, rotation shears the electrically conducting gases of the interior, so the entrained
magnetic fields get stretched out and squeezed together. The magnetism is coiled,
bunched, and amplified as it is wrapped around the inside of the solar globe, even-
tually becoming strong enough to rise to the surface and break through it in active-
region belts with their bipolar sunspot pairs (Fig. 3.17), like a stitch of yarn pulled
from a woolen sweater. The surrounding gas buoys up the concentrated magnetism,
just as a piece of wood is subject to buoyant forces when it is immersed in water.
As Babcock expressed it:
Shallow submerged lines of force of an initial, axisymmetric dipolar field are drawn out in
longitude by the differential rotation. . .. Twisting of the irregular flux strands by the faster
shallow layers in low latitudes forms “ropes” with local concentrations that are brought
to the surface by magnetic buoyancy to produce bipolar magnetic regions (BMRs) with
associated sunspots and related activity.

Building upon a previous speculation with his father, Harold, in 1955, Babcock
supposed that the poleward migration of the trailing parts of bipolar regions is re-
sponsible for the cancellation and reversal of the polar field, and that the leading
3.9 The Solar Dynamo 147

+ + +

North Pole
Magnetic
Loop
+
Magnetic -
Field Lines
East West

Direction of Rotation
+ -
South Pole Magnetic
Loop
- - -
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3.17 Winding up the field. A simple model for generating the changing location, orientation,
and polarity of the sunspot magnetic fields. At the beginning of the 11-year cycle of magnetic ac-
tivity, when the number of sunspots is at a minimum, the magnetic field is the dipolar or poloidal
field seen at the poles of the Sun (left). The internal magnetic fields then run below the photosphere
from the south to the north poles. As time proceeds, the highly conductive, rotating material inside
the Sun carries the magnetic field along and winds it up. Because the equatorial regions rotate at
a faster rate than the polar ones, the internal magnetic fields become stretched out and wrapped
around the Sun’s center, becoming deformed into a partly toroidal field (middle and right). The
fields are then concentrated and twisted together like ropes. With increasing strength, the sub-
merged magnetism becomes buoyant, rises and penetrates the visible solar disk, or photosphere,
creating magnetic loops and bipolar sunspots that are formed in two belts, one each in the northern
and southern hemisphere (right). [Adapted from Horace W. Babcock, Astrophysical Journal 133,
572–587 (1961).]

parts of the bipolar regions at low latitudes must migrate toward the equator where
they are cancelled. Or in his own words:
“Preceding” parts of BMRs expand toward the equator as they age, to be neutralized by
merging; “following” parts expand or migrate poleward so that their lines of force neutralize
then replace the initial dipolar field [with reversed polarity].

The sunspots appear in bipolar pairs of opposite magnetic polarity, and the leading
spots (which are leading in the sense of rotation) in the northern belt of sunspots
all have the same magnetic polarity, while the following spots have the opposite
magnetic polarity. In the southern hemisphere, the leading and trailing sunspots of
any sunspot pair also exhibit opposite polarities, but the magnetic direction of the
bipolar sunspots in the southern belt is the reverse of that in the northern one.
In Babcock’s model, the initial global dipole, or poloidal, magnetic field is
sheared and stretched by differential rotation into a submerged toroidal, or ring-
shaped, field running parallel to the equator, or east to west. Bipolar sunspot pairs
are supposed to be produced by a lifting and twisting process related to the rising
toroidal magnetic fields. Apparently, the dynamo generates two toroidal magnetic
fields, one in the northern hemisphere and one in the southern hemisphere, but op-
positely directed, which bubble up at mid- to low-latitudes to spawn the two belts of
active regions, symmetrically placed on each side of the equator. Thus, according to
Babcock’s scenario, we may view the solar cycle as an engine in which differential
rotation drives an oscillation between global poloidal and toroidal magnetic field
geometries.
148 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

As the 11-year cycle progresses, the internal magnetic field is wound tighter and
tighter by the shearing action of differential rotation, and the two belts of new active
regions slowly migrate toward the solar equator. Because the active regions emerge,
on the average, with their leading ends slightly twisted toward the equator, the lead-
ing sunspots in the two hemispheres tend to merge and cancel out, or neutralize,
each other at the equator. This leaves a surplus of following-polarity magnetism in
each hemisphere, north and south, which is eventually carried poleward at sunspot
minimum.
In 1964, Robert B. Leighton interpreted the dispersal and migration of the
photosphere magnetic regions as a random walk, diffusion-like process caused by
supergranulation convection currents in the Sun’s outer layers. The magnetic flux
originates in sunspot groups and spreads outward in the photosphere via supergran-
ular diffusion. And in 1969, he proposed a kinematical model of the solar cycle
based on magnetic field amplification by solar differential rotation.
The resultant Babcock–Leighton model of the solar dynamo has served as the
basis for decades of numerical simulations of photosphere magnetic observations,
beginning with Kenneth H. Schatten and co-workers’ 1972 computation of large-
scale solar magnetic fields. They allowed the observed active-region fields to diffuse
and to be sheared by differential rotation in accordance with Leighton’s model.
More recent revisions of magnetic flux transport in the Babcock and Leighton
models, reviewed by Neil R. Sheeley Jr. in 2005, have simulated the Sun’s observed
photosphere magnetic field over many sunspot cycles. They indicate that although
most of the magnetic flux on the Sun originates in low-latitude sunspot belts, this
flux is dispersed over a much wider range of solar latitudes by both supergranu-
lar convective motions and poleward meridional flow. As demonstrated by Yi-Ming
Wang, Ana G. Nash, and Sheeley in 1989, the numerical simulations show that
supergranular diffusion and poleward flows apparently sweep remnants of former
active regions into streams, each dominated by a single magnetic polarity, which
slowly wind their way from the low- and mid-latitude active-region belts to the Sun’s
poles. Deep meridional flow, or north–south circulation, is supposed to thereby help
regenerate the global dipole field, also accounting for its reversal, and explain why
sunspots do not form at high latitudes. By sunspot minimum, when the active re-
gions have largely disintegrated, submerged, or annihilated each other, the contin-
ued poleward transport of their debris may form a global dipole. Because the Sun’s
polar field is created from the following polarity of decaying active regions, they
reverse the overall dipole polarity at sunspot minimum, so the north and south pole
switch magnetic direction or polarity. The internal magnetism has then readjusted to
a poloidal form, and the magnetic cycle begins again. When the Sun’s global dipolar
magnetic flip is taken into account, we see that it takes two activity cycles, or about
22 years, for the overall magnetic polarity to get back where it started.
Thus, the revised Babcock–Leighton model seems to explain all of the repeti-
tive aspects of the Sun’s magnetism, including the 11-year periodic variation in the
number of sunspots, their cyclic migration toward the equator, the roughly east–west
orientation, location and polarity of bipolar sunspot pairs, and the periodic reversal
of the overall global dipole.
3.9 The Solar Dynamo 149

The exact position of the solar dynamo has remained something of a mystery
for several decades, leading some to doubt the dynamo theory. In the 1970s it was
believed that the dynamo was located somewhere in the convective zone, but in the
early 1980s the solar internal rotation profile inferred from helioseismology sent the
dynamo theorists back to the drawing boards. That is, the persistence of differential
rotation throughout the convective zone was not consistent with dynamo theories at
the time. Theorists temporarily avoided this problem by placing the dynamo down
near to the Sun’s center, where no one could observe it and thereby contradict or
confirm its hypothetical properties.
Many scientists now think that the solar dynamo may operate in both the con-
vective zone and in a thin layer, called the tachocline, located near the bottom of the
convective zone. Below the tachocline the Sun rotates like a solid object, with too
little variation in spin to drive a solar dynamo, but there is a great deal of rotational
shear at the tachocline, which is located at the boundary between uniform and dif-
ferential rotation. In the vast majority of dynamo models, a poloidal magnetic field
is generated in the convective zone and a toroidal field in the tachocline, and the two
work together to give rise to the solar magnetic cycle.
Helioseismology results indicate that the tachocline is centered at a radius of
0.693 ± 0.003 solar radii near the solar equator. This is just below the bottom of
the convective zone at 0.713 ± 0.003 of the Sun’s radius. At higher solar latitudes,
the location of the tachocline shifts upward, reaching 0.717 ± 0.003 at solar latitude
of 60◦ . The base of the convective zone does not exhibit any significant latitude
variation.
So according to one modern theory, magnetic fields of about 100,000 G in
strength are generated by dynamo action at the tachocline. Buoyant magnetic flux
tubes rise through the convective zone and emerge at the photosphere in active re-
gions, where they form sunspots with magnetic field strengths of roughly 1,000 G
and overlying coronal loops with field strengths of 10–100 G. Differential rotation
winds up the photosphere magnetic field, which fragments under the stress and cir-
culates meridionally to the poles. And a return meridional counterflow deep within
the Sun most likely drives the migration of sunspots toward the equator.
The theory for dynamo models and the large-scale dynamics of the turbulent
convective zone is quite complicated, and largely a subject for experts in fluid dy-
namics and magnetohydrodynamics. Reviews have been given by Peter A. Gilman
in 2000, Yuhong Fan in 2004 updated in 2007, Paul Charbonneau in 2005, and Mark
S. Miesch in 2005. Current large-scale solar dynamo models are of the flux-transport
type, which involves three basic processes: generation of toroidal fields by shearing
of pre-existing poloidal fields by differential rotation, called the Ω -effect; regener-
ation of poloidal fields by lifting and twisting the toroidal flux tubes, known as the
α-effect; and meridional circulation.
As demonstrated by Mausumi Dikpati and co-workers in 2006, the flux-transport
model can be used with helioseismology constraints to predict the strength and
timing of future solar activity cycles. They forecast that cycle 24 will have a
30–50% higher peak than the previous one, and that it will only start in late 2007 or
early 2008.
150 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

Nevertheless, despite all the mathematical complexity, or perhaps because of it,

there is no solar dynamo model that explains the different aspects of the Sun’s mag-
netic activity cycle in detail. And no one has yet observed the magnetic fields deep
inside the Sun, so it is safe to say that we do not now have a complete, detailed
understanding of just how the solar dynamo works.

3.10 Summary Highlights: Exploring the Inside of the Sun

• The Sun is energized by the fusion of hydrogen nuclei, or protons, within its
hot, dense core, where mass is converted into energy in a sequence of nuclear
reactions called the proton–proton chain.
• Two protons tunnel through the electrical barrier produced by the repulsion of
their charges. This tunneling is a quantum mechanical process, made possible
because protons do not have exact positions.
• When two protons fuse together, they produce a positron, the anti-particle of
the electron, and an electron neutrino. The anti-matter positrons immediately
collide with the material electrons, disappearing in a puff of energetic gamma-ray
radiation, but the neutrinos pass effortlessly through both the Sun and the Earth.
• Electron neutrinos are produced in vast quantities by the central nuclear reactions
in the Sun, and massive subterranean neutrino detectors have captured a small
number of them. They detected only one-third to one-half the expected amounts,
a discrepancy known as the solar neutrino problem.
• By measuring the internal velocity of sound waves, scientists have taken the tem-
perature of the Sun’s energy-generating core, showing that it agrees with model
predictions, at 15.6 × 106 K, and apparently ruling out any astrophysical solution
to the solar neutrino problem.
• The solar neutrino problem has now been resolved by observations at the Sudbury
Neutrino Observatory, which indicate that solar neutrinos switch between types,
or flavors, on their way to Earth. Some of the Sun’s electron neutrinos transform
into other types of neutrinos that were undetectable by the pioneering neutrino
experiments.
• Only the core of the Sun is hot enough and dense enough to generate energy
by nuclear fusion reactions. The energy produced in the core of the Sun slowly
works its way out to the visible solar disk by radiation and convection.
• At any moment, about a million granules can be seen in the white light of the
visible solar disk, the photosphere. They mark the tops of gases rising out of
the Sun by convection, each granule lasting for about 15 min before another one
replaces it. The granules are superposed on a larger cellular pattern called the
supergranulation.
• Sound waves generated in the convective zone remain trapped inside the Sun and
push the photosphere in and out, producing vertical oscillations with a period of
about 5 min. They are detected by the Doppler effect of a spectral line seen in the
visible sunlight of the photosphere.
3.10 Summary Highlights: Exploring the Inside of the Sun 151

• Observations of the 5-min solar oscillations have been used to detect low-pitched
sound waves that travel to different depths within the Sun, enabling determi-
nation of the inner structure and dynamics of the Sun by the techniques of
helioseismology.
• Significant helioseismology results have been obtained with instruments aboard
the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, which has had a
continued, uninterrupted view of the Sun for more than 10 years. The Sun has
also been followed 24 h a day for years by a worldwide network of ground-
based observatories known as the Global Oscillations Network Group, or GONG
for short.
• A small but definite change in sound speed has pinpointed the bottom of the con-
vective zone. It is located at a radius of 0.713 ± 0.003 of the Sun’s
radius.
• The visible solar disk rotates at different speeds at different solar latitudes, with
a faster rate at the solar equator than the solar poles and a smooth variation in
between. This differential rotation persists through the convective zone to about
a third of the way inside the Sun, where the rotation becomes uniform from pole
to pole.
• A 10-year sequence of photosphere observations with SOHO’s Global Oscil-
lations at Low Frequencies, abbreviated GOLF, instrument exhibits a periodic
structure that could be due to gravity waves, or g-modes, generated in the deeper
parts of the Sun. If confirmed, this could also suggest that the solar core could be
rotating three to five times faster than the radiative zone.
• Helioseismic tomography, or time–distance helioseismology, has been used with
SOHO Michelson Doppler Imager, abbreviated MDI, data to show that poleward
motions, also called meridional flows, extend deep beneath the photosphere.
They move with speeds of about 20 m s−1 .
• Helioseismology techniques have been used to show that after average rota-
tion is removed from both MDI and GONG data, zonal bands of slower- and
faster-rotation, sometimes called torsional oscillations, are detected, which ex-
tend throughout the convective zone. The zonal rotation bands migrate in solar
latitude, together with belts of sunspots and active regions over the 11-year solar
activity cycle.
• After subtracting the contributions of differential rotation, zonal rotation bands,
and poleward meridional circulation, a swirling pattern of residual flows is found;
this subsurface solar weather increases in complexity with the 11-year cycle of
solar magnetic activity.
• The Sun is not strictly spherical, and its asphericity changes with solar activity,
at least in the outer layers of the Sun.
• Helioseismic tomography has been used with SOHO MDI data to look beneath
sunspots, and to discover that strong converging flows push and force the sunspot
magnetic fields together, keeping sunspots from expanding at their edges and
dispersing into the surrounding photosphere.
152 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

• GONG and SOHO MDI data have been used with the techniques of local helio-
seismology to detect deep swirling flows that circulate horizontally around solar
active regions, and to show that the strength of this twisting flow is correlated
with the intensity of X-ray flares emitted from active regions.
• Helioseismic holography is used with SOHO MDI or GONG data to determine
the location and magnitude of active regions anywhere on the backside of the
Sun days before they rotate into view on the visible solar disk. Daily images of
these unseen active regions are available on the web, and can be used to give
advance warning of possible solar flares and coronal mass ejections when the
active regions rotate to face the Earth.
• The Sun’s magnetism is probably sustained by dynamo action in the convective
zone and at the tachocline interface between the deep interior, which rotates at
one speed, and the overlying gas that spins faster in the equatorial middle.

3.11 Key Events in the Understanding of the Internal

Constitution of the Sun*

Date Event

1905–1906 Albert Einstein uses the postulates of special relativity to show that energy
radiated is equivalent to mass loss. Fifteen years later, Arthur Stanley Ed-
dington and Jean Baptiste Perrin independently suggest that the transfor-
mation of mass into radiated energy might be the process that makes the
Sun shine.
1917 Francis W. Aston demonstrates that the helium atom is slightly less massive,
by a mere 0.7%, than the sum of the masses of the four hydrogen atoms that
enter into it.
1919 Joseph Larmor proposes that the magnetic fields of the Earth and the Sun can
be generated by the internal motions of conducting material through the action
of a self-sustaining dynamo.
1920 In an article entitled The Internal Constitution of the Stars, Arthur Stanley Ed-
dington suggests that nuclear processes in the hot cores of stars might provide
the energy that makes them shine, and specifically describes the possibility
that hydrogen could be transformed to helium, with the resultant mass differ-
ence released as energy to power a star. Jean Baptiste Perrin proposed a similar
idea at about the same time.
1920 Ernest Rutherford announces that the massive nuclei of all atoms are com-
posed of hydrogen nuclei, which he named protons. He also postulates
the existence of an uncharged nuclear particle, later called the neutron,
which was required to keep the positively charged protons from repelling
each other.

∗ See the References at the end of this book for complete references to these seminal papers.
3.11 Key Events in the Understanding of the Internal Constitution of the Sun 153

Date Event

1928 Paul A. M. Dirac formulates the relativistic theory of the electron from which
he predicted the existence of the positron, or positive electron, the anti-matter
particle of the electron.
1928 George Gamow uses quantum mechanics to show how energetic charged par-
ticles can escape the nuclei of radioactive atoms, tunneling through the nuclear
electrical barrier that constrains them. The tunneling process involves a quan-
tum waviness, uncertainty, or spread-out character, which makes it possible
for a sub-atomic particle to occasionally penetrate electrical barriers. It makes
nuclear fusion possible at temperatures that exist inside the Sun and other stars.
1929 Robert d’Escourt Atkinson and Fritz Georg Houtermans provide the first at-
tempt at a theory of nuclear energy generation in the hot central portions of
stars, showing that the most likely nuclear reactions will involve light nuclei
with low electrical charge. They also show that only a few, rare, high-velocity
nuclei will be able to penetrate the electrical barrier between them, explaining
why nuclear reactions proceed slowly inside stars.
1930 Wolfgang Pauli proposes that an invisible particle, with no charge and little or
no mass, is removing energy during a kind of radioactivity called beta decay.
In this process, the nucleus of a radioactive atom emits an energetic electron,
or beta particle, whose energy is less than that lost by the nucleus, and the
unseen particle was postulated to carry away the remaining energy. Four years
later, Enrico Fermi provided further evidence for Pauli’s conjecture and called
the particle the neutrino, Italian for “little neutral one.”
1931 In an article entitled Atomic Synthesis and Stellar Energy, Robert d’Escourt
Atkinson argues that the most effective nuclear reactions in stars involve pro-
tons, the nuclei of hydrogen atoms, and proposes that the observed relative
abundances of the elements might be explained by the synthesis of heavy ele-
ments from hydrogen and helium by successive proton captures.
1932 Carl Anderson (1932b) reports his discovery of the positrons, or positive elec-
trons, the first anti-matter particle to be found, which are created when cosmic
rays from outer space interact with particles in the Earth’s atmosphere. At the
time of his discovery, Anderson was unaware of Dirac’s theoretical prediction
of the positron in 1928.
1932 James Chadwick discovers the neutron when bombarding atoms with energetic
particles.
1934 Enrico Fermi provides the correct theory for beta decay, incorporating neutri-
nos, which he named.
1938 Hans Bethe and Charles L. Critchfield demonstrate that the fusion of hydrogen
nuclei, or protons, into helium nuclei by the proton–proton chain provides the
energy that makes the Sun shine.
1939 Hans A. Bethe publishes a seminal paper on energy production in stars.
1952–1954 Michael James Lighthill demonstrates how sound is generated aerodynami-
cally, and shows that turbulent motions generate acoustic power.
1954 A. B. Hart describes evidence for velocity variations from point to point in
the photosphere, and presents some evidence for bands of constant velocity
occurring perpendicular to the solar equator.
1956 Frederick Reines and Clyde L. Cowan detect electron anti-neutrinos emitted
from the Savannah River nuclear reactor in South Carolina.
1960–1962 Robert B. Leighton and co-workers Robert W. Noyes and George W. Simon
discover the supergranulation pattern, with predominantly horizontal motion,
and the 5-min vertical velocity oscillations in the solar atmosphere.
1961 Horace W. Babcock proposes a model of the Sun’s magnetic field and the 22-
year magnetic cycle involving shallow, submerged magnetic fields of an initial
dipolar field drawn out in solar longitude by differential rotation.
154 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

Date Event

1964 Raymond Davis Jr. and John N. Bahcall, respectively, present the experimental
and theoretical aspects of a proposal to study solar neutrinos with a chlorine
detector.
1964 Robert B. Leighton interprets the dispersal and migration of solar magnetic
regions as a random walk, diffusion-like process caused by supergranulation
convection currents in the Sun’s outer layers.
1967 Raymond Davis Jr. and co-workers detect neutrinos emitted from the Sun
using a massive container of cleaning fluid buried deep underground in the
Homestake Gold Mine near Lead, South Dakota. This pioneering experiment,
reported by Davis et al. (1968), was continued for more than a quarter-century,
always detecting about one third of the expected amount of solar neutrinos.
1967 Bruno M. Pontecorvo first discusses the possibility of solar neutrino oscilla-
tions between different types of neutrinos.
1968 Edward N. Frazier demonstrates that the power of the 5-min oscillations in the
photosphere exists over a broad range of frequencies (or periods) and horizon-
tal wave numbers (or sizes).
1969 Vladimir Gribov and Bruno Pontecorvo propose that the discrepancy between
the observed flux of solar neutrinos and theoretical expectations could be ex-
plained if some solar neutrinos switch from electron neutrinos to another type
of neutrino as they travel in the near vacuum of space from Sun to Earth,
thereby escaping detection.
1970–1972 The resonant-cavity, spherical shell model for internal sound waves is further
developed and used to make predictions for the solar 5-min oscillations – by
Roger K. Ulrich in 1970, John Leibacher and Robert F. Stein in 1971, and
Charles L. Wolff in 1972.
1972 Kenneth H. Schatten, Robert B. Leighton, Robert Howard, and John M.
Wilcox present the first numerical simulation of the large-scale photosphere
magnetic field with the diffusion of active-regions fields.
1975 Franz-Ludwig Deubner confirms the acoustic cavity hypothesis, showing that
the oscillating power of the observed 5-min oscillations at low degrees is con-
centrated into narrow ridges in a spatial-temporal display.
1975 Francois Roddier describes a procedure for creating an acoustical hologram of
the photosphere.
1975 Hiroyasu Ando and Yoji Osaki develop theoretical models of sound waves
trapped in the Sun.
1976 Douglas O. Gough points out the diagnostic capabilities of helioseismology
for the internal constitution of the Sun.
1977 Peter Goldreich and Douglas A. Keeley describe how sound waves are excited
by turbulent convection in the Sun’s convective zone.
1977–1978 Lincoln Wolfenstein discusses the oscillations of neutrinos traveling through
matter.
1979 Franz-Ludwig Deubner, Roger K. Ulrich, and Edward J. Rhodes Jr. publish
the first study of internal differential rotation using solar oscillations.
1979 Robert Howard and Thomas L. Duvall Jr. independently use observations of
Doppler line shifts of material in the photosphere to infer a mean polewards
flow, or meridional circulation, with a velocity of about 20 m s−1 .
1979 First observational studies of the global, low-degree modes (l ≈ 1, 2, 3) of the
5-min oscillations that penetrate deeply in the Sun by Andre Claverie, George
R. Isaak, Clive P. McLeod, H. Bob van der Raay, and Teodoro Roca Cortes.
3.11 Key Events in the Understanding of the Internal Constitution of the Sun 155

Date Event

1980 Robert Howard and Barry J. Labonte use 12 years of Mount Wilson veloc-
ity measurements of the photosphere to discover alternating latitude zones of
fast and slow rotation after subtracting a differential rotating frame. The resid-
ual zonal flow bands, also called torsional oscillations, have speeds of about
3 m s−1 and move from high solar latitudes, where they originate, to the equa-
tor with a period of 11 years.
1980–1983 High-quality, low-degree (l ≈ 0, 1, 2, 3) spectra of solar oscillations obtained
by Gérard Grec, Eric Fossat, and Martin A. Pomerantz from continuous ob-
servations (120 h) at the South Pole.
1982 Thomas L. Duvall Jr. demonstrates a dispersion law for solar oscillations.
1982 John H. Thomas, Lawrence E. Cram, and Alan H. Nye describe how the 5-min
oscillations can be used as a subsurface probe of sunspot structure.
1983 Solar oscillations observed in the Sun’s total irradiance of the Earth by Mar-
tin F. Woodard and Hugh S. Hudson (1983a, b) using the Active Cavity Ra-
diometer Irradiance Monitor, abbreviated ACRIM, aboard the Solar Maximum
Mission satellite.
1983 Thomas L. Duvall Jr. and John W. Harvey obtain the first observations con-
necting solar oscillations of low and high degree (l = 1–139).
1983 Eugene N. Parker describes how a loss of magnetic flux through the free sur-
face of a star into the surrounding space has important implications for the
generation of the field within the star.
1984 Thomas L. Duvall Jr., Wojciech A. Dziembowski, Philip R. Goode, Douglas
O. Gough, John W. Harvey, and John W. Leibacher use solar oscillations to de-
termine the Sun’s internal rotation near its equatorial plane, and show that the
rotation rate through the solar convective zone is very close to that observed at
the photosphere. They infer a slow rotation for much of the solar interior, with
very little solar oblateness (low quadrupole moment), increasing the accuracy
of the confirmation of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity using Mercury’s
orbital motion.
1985 First determination of the speed of sound in the solar interior from inver-
sions of the frequencies of the Sun’s 5-min oscillations by Jørgen Christensen-
Dalsgaard, Thomas L. Duvall Jr., Douglas O. Gough, John W. Harvey, and
Edward J. Rhodes Jr.
1985 Stanislav P. Mikheyev and Alexei Y. Smirnov show that the idea of neutrino
oscillations can provide an explanation for the solar neutrino problem.
1986–1989 Thomas L. Duvall Jr., John W. Harvey, and Martin A. Pomerantz use solar
oscillation data to show that the entire convective zone mimics the observed
surface differential rotation, with slower rotation at higher solar latitudes. Tim-
othy M. Brown, Jørgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Wojciech A. Dziembowski,
Philip Goode, Douglas O. Gough, and Cherilynn A. Morrow confirmed this in
greater detail.
1987–1988 Discovery of the absorption of sound waves in and around sunspots by Dou-
glas C. Braun, Thomas L. Duvall Jr., and Barry J. Labonte.
1988 Frank Hill describes a ring method of determining local structure under the
photosphere and presents evidence for a flow of 100 m s−1 directed from the
equator toward the south pole.
1988–1989 Discovery that the frequencies of sound waves change during the 11-year so-
lar activity cycle for both low-degree oscillations and intermediate or high-
degree oscillations. The relevant observations and data analysis are reported
by Pere L. Pallé, Clara Régulo, and Teodoro Roca-Cortés in 1989; Yvonne P.
Elsworth, Rachel Howe, George R. Isaak, Clive P. McLeod, and Roger New
in 1990; Kenneth G. Libbrecht in 1989; and Kenneth G. Libbrecht and Martin
F. Woodard in 1990.
156 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

Date Event

1989 Yi-Ming Wang, Ana G. Nash, and Neil R. Sheeley Jr. use numerical simulations
to show that magnetic flux is dispersed poleward by supergranular convective mo-
tions and meridional circulation.
1990 John N. Bahcall and Hans A. Bethe argue that new particle physics is required if
the Homestake and Kamiokande solar neutrino experiments are both correct; or
in other words, the solar neutrino problem is due to an incomplete knowledge of
neutrinos.
1990 Peter Goldreich and Pawan Kumar use theoretical arguments and oscillation data
obtained by Kenneth Libbrecht to demonstrate that sound waves are excited by
turbulent convection in the upper part of the solar convective zone.
1990 Charles Lindsey and Douglas C. Braun propose that helioseismic imaging could
be used to produce seismic maps of magnetic regions on the far side of the Sun.
1991 Accurate determination of the radius of the bottom of the solar convective zone
at 0.713 ± 0.003 solar radii by Jørgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Douglas O. Gough,
and Michael J. Thompson from the observed frequencies of solar oscillations.
1991 Yoji Totsuka reports that the Kamiokande solar neutrino detector confirms the
neutrino deficit first observed by Raymond Davis Jr. with the Homestake detector,
while additionally using directional information to show that the neutrinos were
coming from the Sun.
1991–1992 The Soviet-American Gallium Experiment, abbreviated SAGE, in Russia and the
multi-national GALLEX experiment in Italy confirm the solar neutrino deficit in
radiochemical experiments involving gallium.
1993 Thomas L. Duvall Jr., Stuart Mark Jefferies, John W. Harvey, and Martin A.
Pomerantz introduce helioseismic tomography, or time–distance helioseismology.
1995 The SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, is launched on 2
December 1995. It is a project of international collaboration between ESA and
NASA.
1995–1997 Observations of solar oscillations from the ground and space indicate that the
deep solar interior, from the base of the convective zone down to about 0.2 solar
radii, rotates like a rigid body with a uniform latitude-independent rate that is
somewhat slower than the surface equatorial rate. The relevant observations and
data analysis are reported by Yvonne P. Elsworth and colleagues in 1995, Steven
Tomczyk, Jesper Schou, and Michael J. Thompson in 1995; Michael J. Thompson
and colleagues in 1996; and Alexander G. Kosovichev and colleagues in 1997.
1996 Thomas L. Duvall Jr., Sydney D’Silva, Stuart M. Jefferies, John W. Harvey, and
Jesper Schou detect downflows under sunspots using helioseismic tomography
with the data they obtained at the South Pole in 1991. The downflows hold the
magnetic fields together to form a sunspot.
1996 David H. Hathaway and co-workers use Doppler velocity data obtained with the
Global Oscillation Network Group instruments to measure the Sun’s meridional
circulation with a poleward flow moving at about 20 m s−1 .
1996 Alexander G. Kosovichev uses helioseismic tomography to detect strong converg-
ing downflows and an increase in sound speed below an active region.
1996–1997 Helioseismological measurements of sound waves with low and intermediate fre-
quencies are inverted to obtain sound speeds that are in agreement with predic-
tions of numerical (standard) solar models to within 0.2% throughout almost the
entire Sun. This agreement indicates that any nonstandard solar model or related
astrophysical solutions cannot resolve the solar neutrino problem. The relevant
observations and data analysis are reported by Sarbani Basu and colleagues in
1996; Alexander G. Kosovichev and colleagues in 1997; John N. Bahcall and col-
leagues in 1997; and D. B. Guenther and Pierre Demarque in 1997.
3.11 Key Events in the Understanding of the Internal Constitution of the Sun 157

Date Event

1997 Charles Lindsey and Douglas C. Braun describe the basic principles of helio-
seismic holography of local regions beneath the photosphere.
1997 Alexander G. Kosovichev and Jesper Schou use the Michelson Doppler Im-
ager on SOHO to demonstrate that zonal flow bands extend deep below the
photosphere.
1997 Peter M. Giles, Thomas L. Duvall Jr., Philip H. Scherrer, and Richard S. Bog-
art use the Michelson Doppler Imager on SOHO to detect a subsurface flow of
material from the Sun’s equator to its poles.
1997 Martin F. Woodard describes the implications of localized acoustic absorption
when using acoustic tomography to map the three-dimensional structure of the
Sun.
1998 Bruce T. Cleveland and colleagues summarize three decades of solar neutrino
flux measurements with the Homestake solar neutrino detector; the observed
flux is 2.56 ± 0.25 solar neutrino units and less than the predicted flux of 8.5 ±
1.8.
1998 Y. Fukuda and co-workers report Kamiokande observations indicating that
muon neutrinos, generated by cosmic rays in the terrestrial atmosphere, may
be undergoing oscillations and changing type, and that some neutrinos may
therefore possess a very small mass.
1998 Jesper Schou and co-workers present comprehensive helioseismic studies of
differential rotation, meridional flow, and torsional oscillations.
1998 Alexander G. Kosovichev and Valentina V. Zharkova use the Michelson
Doppler Imager aboard SOHO to detect seismic waves generated when a flare
impacts the lower solar atmosphere.
1999 Jesper Schou uses the Michelson Doppler Imager aboard SOHO to detect the
migration of zonal flows toward the equator.
2000 Rachel Howe and colleagues use helioseismic observations over 4 years from
the Global Oscillation Network Group and the Michelson Doppler Imager on
board SOHO to show that the torsional oscillations, the bands of slower- and
faster-than-average rotation, extend downward at least 60,000 km.
2000 Rachel Howe and co-workers detect changes in the rotation of the Sun near
the base of its convective zone, at the presumed site of the solar dynamo.
2000 Charles Lindsey and Douglas C. Braun (2000a, b) demonstrate how helioseis-
mic holography can be used to image active regions on the far side of the Sun.
2001 Sylvaine Turck-Chièze and her colleagues use solar oscillation data obtained
with instruments aboard the SOHO spacecraft to place constraints on the neu-
trino flux emitted by nuclear reactions in the Sun’s core, showing that the neu-
trino deficit measured on Earth cannot be explained by adjustments to solar
model calculations.
2001 Arthur B. McDonald announces that observations with the Solar Neutrino Ob-
servatory, when combined with previous work, indicate that solar electron neu-
trinos change type as they travel from the core of the Sun to Earth, explaining
the solar neutrino problem, and that the total number of electron neutrinos
produced in the Sun is just as predicted by detailed solar models.
2001 Junwei Zhao, Alexander G. Kosovichev, and Thomas L. Duvall Jr. use helio-
seismic tomography, or time–distance helioseismology, with SOHO Michel-
son Doppler Imager data to examine the structure and flows along, in, and
under a large sunspot.
2001–2002 Q. R. Ahmad and colleagues (2001, 2002a) report evidence for solar neutrino
flavor transformations using observations at the Sudbury Neutrino Observa-
tory, indicating that some solar electron neutrinos change to another type dur-
ing propagation from the Sun’s core to Earth.
158 3 Exploring Unseen Depths of the Sun

Date Event

2002 John G. Beck, Laurent Gizon, and Thomas L. Duvall Jr. use time–distance
helioseismology to provide maps of torsional oscillations and meridional flows
in the Sun.
2002 Sergey V. Vorontsov, Jørgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Jesper Schou, V.N.
Strakhov, and Michael J. Thompson use 6 years of SOHO Michelson Doppler
Imager data to show that the bands of slower and faster rotation, the so-called
torsional oscillations, propagate poleward and equatorward from mid-latitudes
at all depths throughout the convective zone.
2002 Martin F. Woodard uses SOHO Michelson Doppler Imager data to determine
the subsurface, supergranular flow, showing that it is in general agreement with
the flow detected in the photosphere.
2002–2007 Deborah A. Haber, Bradley W. Hindman, and Rudi Komm and their co-
workers describe residual sub-photosphere flows, detected when differential
rotation, zonal rotation bands, and meridional circulation are removed from
helioseismology data.
2003 Sebastien Couvidat and co-workers (2003a) use helioseismology observations
with the Global Oscillations at Low-Frequency and Michelson Doppler Imager
instruments on SOHO and LOWL data to infer the radial rotation profile down
to 0.2 solar radii.
2003 Sebastien Couvidat, Sylvaine Turck-Chièze, and Alexander G. Kosovichev
(2003b) use helioseismology observations of the internal sound speed, ob-
tained from both the Global Oscillations at Low-Frequency and Michelson
Doppler Imager instruments on SOHO, to derive neutrino fluxes and oscilla-
tion properties, all compatible with the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory results.
2003 K. Equchi and colleagues report evidence for the disappearance of anti-
electron neutrinos, generated by terrestrial nuclear reactors, when propagating
through the Earth.
2003 Junwei Zhao and Alexander G. Kosovichev use SOHO Michelson Doppler
Imager data with time–distance helioseismology to infer the structure and dy-
namics of a rotating sunspot beneath the solar photosphere.
2004 Junwei Zhao and Alexander G. Kosovichev use SOHO Michelson Doppler
Imager data with time–distance helioseismology to determine torsional oscil-
lation, meridional flows, and vorticity in the upper convective zone of the Sun.
2005 B. Aharmin and co-workers report salt phase observations from the Sudbury
Neutrino Observatory, providing estimates for the mass and oscillation param-
eters for electron neutrinos.
2005 T. Araki and co-workers present KamLAND observations of neutrino oscilla-
tions based on anti-electron neutrinos generated by terrestrial nuclear reactors
and sent through the Earth.
2005 Charles Lindsey and Douglas C. Braun (2005a, b) develop the acoustic show-
erglass technique for seismic diagnostics of photosphere magnetic fields and
imaging active regions below the photosphere.
2005 Arthur B. McDonald summarizes the results of the Sudbury Neutrino Observa-
tory. When combined with other measurements, they demonstrate and define
the oscillation parameters and flavor change of neutrinos.
2006 J. Hosaka and co-workers report solar neutrino measurements in Super-
Kamiokande-I with neutrino oscillation results.
2006 Douglas Mason and co-workers survey flows beneath more than 500 solar
active regions, showing that horizontal, swirling motions are correlated with
the intensity of X-ray flares emitted by the active regions.
3.11 Key Events in the Understanding of the Internal Constitution of the Sun 159

Date Event

2007 Sarbani Basu, H.M. Antia and Richard S. Bogart use SOHO’s Michelson
Doppler Imager data from 1996 to 2003 to show that the internal structure of
the Sun is not strictly spherically symmetric, and that its asphericity changes
with solar activity, at least in the outer layers.
2007 Rafael A. Garcı́a and co-workers use data from the Global Oscillations at Low-
Frequency instrument on SOHO to detect a periodic structure attributed to
solar gravity modes in the Sun’s core. If confirmed, this will be a significant
discovery, and it may indicate that the core rotates at a faster rate than the
radiative zone
Chapter 4
Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

4.1 Mysterious Heat

More than half a century ago, astronomers discovered that the Sun’s corona has an
unexpectedly high temperature of a few million Kelvin (Sect. 2.1). The visible solar
disk, the photosphere, is closer to the Sun’s center than the corona, but the photo-
sphere is several hundred times cooler, and this comes as a big surprise. The essen-
tial paradox is that energy should not flow from the cooler photosphere to the hotter
corona anymore than water should flow uphill. When you sit far away from a fire,
for example, it warms you less.
The temperature of the corona is just not supposed to be so much higher than that
of the atmosphere immediately below it. It violates common sense, as well as the
second law of thermodynamics, which holds that heat cannot be continuously trans-
ferred from a cooler body to a warmer one without doing work. This unexpected
aspect of the corona has baffled scientists for decades, and they are still trying to
explain where all the heat is coming from.
We know that visible sunlight emitted by the photosphere cannot heat the corona.
There is so little material in the corona that it is transparent to almost all of the
photosphere’s radiation. Sunlight therefore passes right through the corona without
depositing substantial quantities of energy in it, traveling out to warm the Earth and
to also keep the photosphere cool.
So radiation cannot resolve the heating paradox, and we must look for alternate
sources of energy. They are related to the motions and magnetic fields in the photo-
sphere and below, which supply either the kinetic energy of moving material or the
magnetic energy stored in magnetic fields. Unlike radiation, both of these forms of
energy can flow from cold to hot regions, working to keep the corona hot.
Everything is in motion within the seething photosphere and the turbulent con-
vective zone beneath it, and magnetic fields thread their way through the entire solar
atmosphere. And somehow kinetic energy and/or magnetic energy are being trans-
mitted into the vibrant, dynamic chromosphere and low corona and dissipated as
heat within just a few hundred thousand kilometers above the photosphere, or in
less than 1% of the solar radius.

K.R. Lang, The Sun from Space, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, 161

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
162 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

George Withbroe and Robert Noyes estimated the flux of energy that must be
provided to heat the corona more than three decades ago. They showed that the
total corona energy losses per unit area and time vary from about 30,000 to almost
10 × 106 erg cm−2 s−1 , depending on the location. By way of comparison, the total
amount of energy radiated into space by the Sun is about 63 billion (6.3 × 1010 ) in
the same units – just divide the solar luminosity by the Sun’s area. So comparatively
small amounts of energy must be supplied to heat the chromosphere and corona, it
is just that sunlight cannot supply it.
The heating requirements vary between coronal structures – the active regions,
the quiet Sun, and coronal holes (Table 4.1). The active regions have the hottest
temperatures and greatest density of coronal material, so they require the most heat-
ing. The magnetic loops in the so-called quiet Sun outside active regions are slightly
cooler and less dense, and coronal holes contain the coolest and most rarefied coro-
nal material, since it flows out along the open magnetic fields there rather than being
constrained within coronal loops.
The heating processes are selective in both space and time. They are correlated
with magnetic structure, occur over a wide range of spatial scales, change over both
short and long intervals of time, and depend on how magnetically active the Sun is at
the moment. And it is likely that different heating mechanisms dominate at different
places or times.
The way in which motions in and below the photosphere provide heat depends
on the timescale, or how rapidly their energy is coupled to the solar atmosphere. If
the motions are relatively rapid, changing within a few minutes, they can generate
waves that propagate into the chromosphere or corona. Dissipation of wave energy
is referred to as alternating current heating, or AC for short. Slower motions stress
the overlying magnetic fields, twisting, braiding, and shearing them. The dissipation
of magnetic stress is known as direct current heating, abbreviated DC.
Magnetic fields seems to play a fundamental role in channeling, storing, and
transforming the energy into heat, supplying it on different timescales and sending it
to various structures. When the magnetic geometry does not change, the magnetism
plays a passive role, guiding the flow of charged particles, heat, and waves along
the field lines. And when the magnetic configuration changes, the magnetism can
play an active role by triggering instabilities and releasing stored magnetic energy
through merging and reconnection of closed magnetic field lines.

Table 4.1 Coronal structures and their energy lossesa

Feature Largest extent Coronal Coronal electron Coronal energy
(km) temperature density loss
(106 K) (108 cm−3 ) (erg cm−2 s−1 )

Active regions 10,000 ≥ 2.0 10–100 0.2–2 × 106

Quiet Sun – ≈ 1.5 1.9 ± 0.8 0.1–2 × 105
Coronal holes 900,000 ≈ 1.0 0.8–1.1 0.5–1 × 104
a Adapted from Aschwanden and Acton (2001) and Aschwanden (2001a, b). Energy losses are in
units of erg cm−2 s−1 , to convert to J m−2 s−1 divide by 103 .
4.1 Mysterious Heat 163

As pointed out by James Klimchuk in his 2006 review, finding out where the
energy is coming from is just the first step in solving the heating problem. Once the
source of energy has been identified, one must determine where and how that energy
is transported and dissipated as heat to different structures in the solar atmosphere,
specify how the local gases respond to this heating, and identify the observed signa-
tures of the various processes in the Sun’s radiation spectrum. So it is not a simple
problem!
But major discoveries have been made using the Soft X-ray Telescope aboard
Yohkoh, and the extreme-ultraviolet telescopes on board the SOlar and Heliospheric
Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, and the Transition Region And Coronal Explorer,
or TRACE for short. And important contributions are being made using the visible
light, extreme-ultraviolet, and X-ray telescopes on board Hinode. The instruments
on these spacecraft have detected the signatures of sound and magnetic waves in
the dynamic, changing solar atmosphere, shown that warm coronal loops in active
regions contain numerous narrow strands that are intermittently heated from their
lower regions, discovered ubiquitous, ever-changing loops that interact to release
magnetic energy in the transition region or low corona, and found the signatures of
unexpected heating processes in coronal holes, where the temperature depends on
both the direction and the mass of the particles.
All of these discoveries will be discussed in the rest of this chapter, showing how
they are related to heating the 10,000-K chromosphere, the multi-million Kelvin
coronal loops in active regions, the million-Kelvin corona in “quiet” regions outside
active regions, and the heating of the extended corona in coronal holes.
A number of plausible theories have been proposed to explain many of the de-
tailed aspects of the coronal heating problem. But they are often exceptionally math-
ematical and thus outside the scope of this book. The serious student or curious
reader who wants to delve into the topic in greater detail will want to consult any
of the numerous reviews of these subjects prepared by professionals in the field
(Focus 4.1) or read Markus Aschwanden’s (2004, 2006) comprehensive book
Physics of the Solar Corona: An Introduction, which includes topics such as in-
stabilities and heating of plasmas, MHD oscillations and waves, and magnetic re-
connection and particle acceleration processes.

Focus 4.1
Expert Reviews about Heating the Solar Atmosphere
Professional solar astronomers and astrophysicists have reviewed important devel-
opments in our knowledge of chromospheric and coronal heating, often in technical
terms. In alphabetical order, they include Markus J. Aschwanden, Arthur I. Poland,
and Douglas M. Rabin’s (2001) review of the new solar corona; Sir William I. Ax-
ford and colleagues (1999) review of heating in coronal holes; James A. Klimchuk’s
(2006) approach to solving the coronal heating problems; John L. Kohl, Giancarlo
Noci, Steven R. Cranmer, and John C. Raymond’s (2006) review of ultraviolet spec-
troscopy of the extended solar corona; Max Kuperus, James A. Ionson, and Daniel
S. Spicer’s (1981) review of the theory of coronal heating mechanisms; Dana W.
164 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

Longcope’s (2005) review of topological methods for the analysis of solar magnetic
fields; David J. McComas and colleagues’ (2007) summary of unsolved problems in
understanding coronal heating. Udit Narain and Peter Ulmschneider’s (1990, 1996)
reviews of chromospheric and coronal heating mechanisms; Leon Ofman’s (2005)
review of MHD waves and heating in coronal holes; Sami K. Solanki’s (2006) re-
view of the solar magnetic field; Robert William Walsh and Jack Ireland’s (2003)
review of the heating of the solar corona; George L. Withbroe and Robert W. Noyes
(1977) review of mass and energy flow in the solar chromosphere and corona; and
Jack Zirker’s (1993) review of coronal heating.
The contributions of scientists working with specific spacecraft data are often
presented at workshops that are subsequently published in book form or in spe-
cial issues of a journal. An example is the proceedings of the TRACE workshop
Physics of the Solar Corona and Transition Region, edited by Oddbjorn Engvold
and John W. Harvey in collaboration with Carolus J. Schrijver and Neal E. Hulburt
(2004). The proceedings of SOHO workshops that deal with the chromosphere, the
corona, and the transition region between them include SOHO-1: Coronal Stream-
ers, Coronal Loops, and Coronal and Solar Wind Composition edited by Clare
Mattok (1992); SOHO-2: Mass Supply and Flows in the Solar Corona edited
by Bernhard Fleck, Giancarlo Noci, and Giannina Poletto (1994); SOHO-5: The
Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum Activity edited by Olav Kjeldseth-Moe and
Andrew Wilson (1997); SOHO-8: Plasma Dynamics and Diagnostics in the Solar
Transition Region and Corona edited by Jean-Claude Vial and Brigitte Kaldeich-
Schürmann (1999); SOHO-11: From Solar Min to Max: Half a Solar Cycle with
SOHO edited by Andrew Wilson (2002); SOHO-13: Waves, Oscillations and Small-
Scale Transient Events in the Solar Atmosphere: A Joint View from SOHO and
TRACE edited by Hugette Lacoste (2004); SOHO-15: Coronal Heating edited by
Robert William Walsh, Jack Ireland, Dorothea Danesy, and Bernard Fleck (2004);
and SOHO-17: 10 Years of SOHO and Beyond edited by Huguette Lacoste (2006).

4.2 Wave Heating

Ludwig Biermann, Martin Schwarzschild, and Evry Schatzman first suggested heat-
ing of the solar atmosphere by sound waves in 1948–1949, independently, with
further considerations by Peter Ulmschneider in 1971 and Max Kuperus, James
A. Ionson and Daniel S. Spicer in 1981. We now know that turbulent motions in
the convective zone generate sound waves that course through the Sun (Sect. 3.3),
and in the late 1940s it was thought that the up and down motion of the piston-like
convection cells, the granules, will generate a thundering sound in the overlying at-
mosphere, in much the same way that a throbbing high-fidelity speaker drives sound
waves in the air.
The sound (acoustic) waves should accelerate and strengthen as they travel out-
ward through the increasingly rarefied solar atmosphere, until supersonic shocks
occur that resemble sonic booms of jet aircraft. These shocks would dissipate
4.2 Wave Heating 165

their energy rapidly, and perhaps generate enough heat to account for the high-
temperature corona.
Acoustic waves propagate at the sound speed cs = (γP/ρ)1/2 , where P is the gas
pressure, ρ is the mass density, and the index γ is 5/3 for a monatomic gas and one
for an isothermal perturbation. And since the gas pressure is a linear function of the
temperature, T , the speed of sound varies as the square root of the temperature, or
cs ∝ (T )1/2 , and it has the approximate values of about 10 km s−1 in the photosphere
and chromosphere and up to 150 km s−1 in the corona.
Although the majority of the sound waves are reflected back into the solar interior
at the photosphere, and remain trapped inside the Sun, a small percentage of them
manage to slip through the photosphere, dissipating their energy rapidly within the
chromosphere and generating large amounts of heat there. In the 1990s, for example,
Mats Carlsson and Robert F. Stein were able to use one-dimensional simulations to
show how acoustic shocks can form bright grains in the chromosphere. And in 2001,
Philip G. Judge, Theodore D. Tarbell, and Klaus Wilhelm used a rapid sequence of
observations with instruments on board SOHO and TRACE to show that the 5-min
photospheric oscillations drive similar oscillations in the overlying chromosphere.
Then in 2005, Bart De Pontieu, Robert Erdélyi, and Ineke De Moortel used numer-
ical models to show that photospheric oscillations with periods around 5 min can
propagate up into the overlying solar atmosphere; magnetic flux tubes that are tilted
away from the vertical focus and guide the oscillations up into the chromosphere.
So the low chromosphere may indeed be heated by sound waves that are gen-
erated in the convective zone and dissipated by shocks in the chromosphere. This
method of chromosphere heating is generally consistent with the fact that other stars
with outer convective zones have chromospheres, while stars that have no outer con-
vective zones do not exhibit a detectable chromosphere. There is still however some
controversy about the issue, for Astrid Fossum and Mats Carlsson (2005a) used ob-
servations and numerical simulations to assert that acoustic waves cannot constitute
the dominant heating mechanism of the solar chromosphere, falling short by a factor
of at least 10, while Sven Wedemeyer-Böhm, and colleagues used various compar-
isons between TRACE data, ground-based data, and three-dimensional simulations
in 2007 to come to a contradicting conclusion that acoustic flux provides sufficient
energy for heating the solar chromosphere in internetwork regions within super-
granules. But in 2007, Mats Carlsson and colleagues combined TRACE and Hin-
ode observations to conclude that the acoustic-wave energy flux in the internetwork
chromosphere of the quiet Sun cannot provide sufficient heat, so the controversy
continues, as described by Wolfgang Kalkofen in 2008.
The supergranules, discussed in Sect. 3.2, outline a network of large convec-
tion cells with magnetic fields concentrated at their boundaries. As first modeled by
Roger Kopp and Max Kuperus in 1968 and by Alan H. Gabriel in 1976, the intense
magnetism at the narrow edges of this magnetic network expands with height, open-
ing up into the overlying solar chromosphere and forming a canopy, like the trees
in a rain forest; the tree trunks correspond to the magnetic flux tubes in the pho-
tosphere that rise in the vertical direction and spread out like branch foliage in the
chromosphere. In 2003, Carolus J. Schrijver and Alan M. Title presented a different
166 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

picture, in which as much as half the magnetic flux over the very quiet photosphere
resides inside the network edges, rather than the funnel-shaped magnetic canopy.
Exactly how do sound waves, which are normally trapped beneath the photo-
sphere, manage to leak out into the chromosphere to heat it? The magnetic field
can act like a trap door, opening or closing to the waves that are constantly pass-
ing by, depending on the magnetic field inclination. In 2006, Scott W. McIntosh
and Stuart M. Jefferies used observations of a sunspot with the Transition Region
And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, spacecraft to demonstrate that such a
mechanism lets some of the sounds out, using the magnetic fields as a guide. And
in the same year, Jefferies and co-workers showed that the inclined magnetic field
lines at the crack-like boundaries of supergranule convection cells provide the por-
tals through which magnetoacoustic waves can break out and propagate into the
chromosphere.
Although the chromosphere is often described as a thin, uniform layer of gas,
about 2,000-km thick, it contains a jagged, dynamic, ever-changing set of little ver-
tical spikes, which were described as early as 1877 by Pietro Angelo Secchi, and
named spicules by the Walter Orr Roberts in 1945. Each needle-shaped spicule
shoots up to heights as tall as 15,000 km in 5 min, moving at speeds of up to
250 km s−1 . The spicule then falls back down again, but new spicules continually
arise as old ones fade away. If one includes these varying, jet-like spicules, the ex-
tended, dynamic chromosphere might average about 5,000-km thick.
These days, the vertically oriented structures are called mottles on the disk, and
spicules at the limb. The material in the jet-like spicules and mottles is relatively
cool, no hotter than about 20,000 K.
When you observe the Sun in the red spectral line of hydrogen, the Balmer alpha
transition at 656.3 nm, with high spatial resolution, hundreds of thousands of the
evanescent, flame-like spicules are observed dancing in the chromosphere at any
given moment, rising and falling like waves on the sea or a prairie fire of burning,
wind-blown grass (Fig. 4.1). For more than a century, no one knew for certain just
what causes the upward-moving spicules, but the mystery now seems to have been
solved. There were two clues to the solution. First, the spicule lifetimes are compa-
rable to the 5-min period of the photosphere oscillations, and second, the spicules
consist largely of ionized material that will follow the direction of magnetic field
lines. In 2004, Bart De Pontieu, Robert Erdélyi, and Stewart P. James used a combi-
nation of modeling and observations with the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope to show
how the 5-min solar oscillations leak sufficient energy along inclined magnetic fields
into the chromosphere to power shocks that drive upward flows and form spicules.
There are still some residual uncertainties about these new results, at least for some
members of the solar physics community, but they do provide a startling new ap-
proach to the origin of spicules.
And even more recently, De Pontieu and co-workers report the detection of two
kinds of spicules with the Solar Optical Telescope aboard Hinode, distinguished
by their dynamics and timescales. One type moves up and down on time scales of
3–5 min, driven by shock waves when global oscillations leak into the chromosphere
along magnetic field lines. A second type of jet-like spicules is more dynamic, with
4.2 Wave Heating 167

Fig. 4.1 Spicules. Thousands of dark, long, thin spicules, or little spikes, jet out of this high-
resolution image of a solar active region, taken on 16 June 2003 on the blue-shifted wing of the
Balmer hydrogen-alpha transition at 656.3-nm line with the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope, abbre-
viated SST, on the Canary Island of La Palma, Spain. Layered, needle-shaped spicules (right side),
each about a kilometer wide, shoot out to more than 15,000 km. The relatively narrow jets of gas
are moving out of the solar chromosphere in magnetic channels, or flux tubes, at supersonic speeds
of up to 250 km s−1 . Time-sequenced images have shown that these spicules rise and fall in about
5 min, driven by sound waves beneath them. The dimensions of the image are 65, 000 × 45, 000 km.
(Courtesy of SST, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and LMSAL.)

typical lifetimes of 10–60 s; they seem to be energized by magnetic reconnection

and may be associated with rapid heating in the chromosphere and above.
In 1978, R. Grant Athay and Oran R. White, and independently by Elmo
C. Bruner, used observations from the eighth Orbiting Solar Observatory, abbre-
viated OSO 8, to show that sound waves do not transport significant amounts of
energy beyond the chromosphere. These measurements indicated that the sounds
might have enough energy to heat the chromosphere, at a temperature of about
10,000 K, but that the inferred energy is far less than that required to heat the corona.
The acoustic waves and shocks that are so effective in heating the chromosphere are
severely damped by the time they reach the low corona. The sounds just cannot
reach that far, being reflected inward by the steep temperature and density gradient
in the transition region between the chromosphere and the corona.
For coronal heating, another kind of waves must be considered, the magnetic
waves that can propagate into the corona and carry energy into it. The Sun’s ever-
changing coronal magnetic fields are always being jostled, twisted, and stirred
around by motions deep down inside the Sun where the magnetism originates. A
tension acts to resist the motions and pull the disturbed magnetism back, generating
waves that propagate along magnetic fields, somewhat like a vibrating string. These
waves do not form shocks, and once generated they can propagate large distances,
directing their energy along open magnetic fields into the overlying corona.
168 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

Such waves are now called Alfvén waves, after Hannes Alfvén who first de-
scribed them mathematically in 1942 and argued in 1947 that they might heat the
corona. Ronald G. Giovanelli in 1949, Jack H. Piddington in 1956, and Donald
E. Osterbrock in 1961 subsequently discussed the heating of the chromosphere and
corona by Alfvén waves.
Alfvén pioneered a new field of study with the ponderous name of magnetohy-
drodynamics (Focus 4.2), and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970 for
his discoveries in it. In technical jargon, the Alfvén waves are incompressible trans-
verse oscillations that propagate along magnetic field lines with magnetic tension as
the restoring force. They propagate at the Alfvén velocity vA = B/(4πρ )1/2 for a
magnetic field of strength B and a mass density ρ . This velocity has an approximate
value of 10 km s−1 in the photosphere and up to 2, 000 km s−1 in the corona.

Focus 4.2
Magnetohydrodynamics
The theory that deals with the interaction of a hot gas, or plasma, and a magnetic
field is called magnetohydrodynamics, or MHD for short. As the name suggests,
the equations are a combination of those of electromagnetism and fluid mechanics.
The plasma is treated as an electrically conducting fluid of conductivity, σ , and
magnetic diffusivity, η = 1/(μ0 σ ), where μ0 is the permeability of free space. The
time dependence of the magnetic field, B, is given by the induction equation:

∂B
= ∇ × (v × B) + η ∇2 B,
∂t
where the symbol ∂ denotes the partial derivative with respect to time, t, the ∇
indicates a three-dimensional spatial gradient, and v is the bulk speed of the fluid.
This expression implies that the magnetic field changes in time due to transport of
the magnetic field with the plasma (the first term on the right) and diffusion of the
magnetic field through the plasma (the second term). For a fluid at rest, with velocity
v = 0, this relation describes magnetic diffusion in a time τ = L2 /η = μ0 σ L2 over
a linear scale L. The diffusion time for the Sun as a whole is larger than its age, so
it takes a very long time for magnetic fields to leak out of a star by diffusion.
In the case of zero resistivity or “infinite conductivity,” we have a perfectly con-
ducting medium and the magnetic field satisfies the relation:

∂B
+ ∇ × (v × B) = 0.
∂t
This equation expresses a condition in which the magnetic field is tied to, or
frozen within, the plasma and moves with it.
For most of the Universe, the second term in our first equation is very much
smaller than the first term, so the second equation is a good approximation. An im-
portant exception is in singularities called current sheets, where the magnetic gra-
dient and electric current are extremely large. In such current sheets, the magnetic
field lines can merge together, break and reconnect by slipping through the plasma
4.2 Wave Heating 169

and, in the process, magnetic energy is converted to heat, kinetic, and fast-particle
energy. This process, called magnetic reconnection, is important in heating the solar
corona and in energizing solar flares.
Another important equation of magnetohydrodynamics is the equation of motion:

dv
ρ = −∇P + j × B,
dt
where j × B is the force that the magnetic field exerts on a plasma of density, ρ , the
pressure is denoted by P and the velocity by v, and the electric current is given by
Ampere’s law:
1
j = ∇ × B.
μ0
This equation of motion neglects the Sun’s gravity, which is probably okay for
the corona, but not for the photosphere or chromosphere.
The induction equation and the equation of motion can be combined to describe
perturbations in density that act as waves, with a velocity, v, given by

v = (cs 2 + vA 2 )1/2 ,

where cs is the velocity of sound, and the Alfvén velocity, vA , is given by

vA = B/(μ0 ρ)1/2 .

The waves represent alternating compression and rarefaction of the gas and field.
They are called fast magnetoacoustic waves since they are faster than both the sound
and the Alfvén waves.
When the velocity of sound, cs , is much smaller than the Alfvén velocity, vA , or
when cs << vA , we have a compressional Alfvén wave. These waves may propagate
in a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field with gas particles oscillating in the
direction of propagation.
A more general relation describes fast, slow, and Alfvén magnetohydrodynamic
waves. When the direction of wave propagation is parallel to the magnetic field,
one can have the slow wave and the Alfvén wave moving at the Alfvén velocity,
where the particles oscillate in transverse motion to both the magnetic field and the
direction of propagation.

Alfvén waves have been directly measured from spacecraft cruising through inter-
planetary space far from the Sun, detecting the waves that sweep by their instruments.
In these locations, the solar magnetic field has been carried out into space, with one
end tied to the Sun and the other end extending out to far beyond the planets, and the
waves travel out along the open-ended magnetic fields. Plasma and magnetic field
detectors aboard Mariner 5 detected the Alfvén waves on its way to Venus in 1967,
and they were subsequently detected from the two Helios spacecraft in the ecliptic
and from Ulysses above the Sun’s polar regions. But such waves have only recently
been observed in the lower solar atmosphere where they are presumably generated.
170 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

The SUMER and UVCS instruments aboard SOHO have provided evidence
for Alfvén waves close to the Sun; these results have been included in Steven
R. Cranmer and Adriaan A. van Ballegooijen’s 2005 summary of Alfvén wave
measurements. Observations from TRACE have additionally demonstrated the
widespread presence of magneto-hydrodynamic, or MHD, waves, both longitudi-
nal and transverse, many of which travel through the chromosphere with unantici-
pated efficiency. And in 2007, several research teams reported evidence of Alfvén
waves using instruments aboard Hinode, in articles by Jonathan Cirtain and col-
leagues, Takenori J. Okamoto and co-workers, and Bart De Pontieu and colleagues.
These waves could potentially heat the corona to extreme temperatures by releas-
ing energy as they travel outward from the Sun along magnetic field lines. Both
types of spicules detected in the chromosphere by De Pontieu and colleagues, for
example, are observed to carry Alfvén waves with significant amplitudes of about
20 km s−1 .
The important question is whether or not Alfvén waves propagating through the
corona dissipate sufficient energy to heat it. Steven Tomczyk and co-workers re-
ported in 2007 the detection of numerous Alfvén waves in the corona itself, using
an instrument at the National Solar Observatory in New Mexico. Their estimate of
the energy carried by the Alfvén waves that they spatially resolved indicated that
they are too weak to heat the solar corona; however, unresolved ones might carry
enough energy. In contrast, De Pontieu’s team showed in 2007 that the energy asso-
ciated with the Alfvén waves they detected in the chromosphere may be sufficient
to heat the corona and accelerate the solar wind.
And in 2005, Cranmer and van Ballegooijen teamed up with Richard J. Edgar
to describe coronal heating from Alfvén waves along open magnetic field lines
that reach from the photosphere into interplanetary space. As with earlier work
by Yi-Ming Wang in 1993, the coronal base temperature increases with decreasing
magnetic flux-tube divergence rate. They were continuing a long tradition of using
Alfvén waves to produce coronal heating at places where open magnetic fields can
channel the waves into the distant corona, beginning with John W. Belcher in 1971
and Belcher and Stanislaw Olbert in 1975. These investigations will be further dis-
cussed in Sect. 4.5 on the heating of polar coronal holes, but in the meantime let us
consider the closed magnetic loops, which can contain the hottest coronal material
requiring the greatest heat.

4.3 Heating Coronal Loops in Active Regions

An active region in the solar atmosphere develops when strong magnetic fields
emerge from the inside of the Sun, and break through the photosphere in large, adja-
cent patches of positive and negative magnetic polarities, often marked by sunspots.
Magnetic loops join these regions of opposite magnetic polarity, rising into the
corona from the footpoint of one magnetic polarity and turning back into the other
one. Hot, ionized gas is confined within the coronal loops, and when filled, these
4.3 Heating Coronal Loops in Active Regions 171

active-region coronal loops therefore shine brightly in extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray

radiation.
The Soft X-ray Telescope aboard Yohkoh sharpened our understanding of the
ubiquitous coronal loops, showing that they provide the woven fabric of the ac-
tive corona (Fig. 4.2). The intense X-ray emission, at temperatures of 2–4 × 106 K,
outlines the magnetic shape and structure of the loops, and demonstrates that the
dynamic, ever-changing corona has no permanent features.
The Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, or EIT, aboard the SOlar and Helio-
spheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, confirmed that the magnetically confined
gas in solar active regions is extremely dynamic and time-variable, changing on time
scales from hours to days. So the apparently steady corona that is frozen into a sin-
gle image or photograph is an illusion. Using such a single picture to represent the
corona provides no information about its varying spatial and temporal complexity.

Fig. 4.2 Coronal loops shine in X-rays. Ionized gases at a temperature of a few million Kelvin
produce the bright glow seen in this X-ray image of the Sun. It shows magnetic coronal loops
that thread the corona and hold the hot gases in place. The brightest features are called active
regions and correspond to the sites of intense magnetic fields. The Soft X-ray Telescope (SXT)
aboard the Japanese Yohkoh satellite recorded this image of the Sun’s corona on 1 February 1992,
near a maximum of the 11-year cycle of solar magnetic activity. Subsequent SXT images, taken
about 5 years later near activity minimum, show a remarkable dimming of the corona when the
active regions associated with sunspots have almost disappeared, and the Sun’s magnetic field
has changed from a complex structure to a simpler configuration. (Courtesy of Gregory L. Slater,
Gary A, Linford, and Lawrence Shing, NASA, ISAS, the Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics
Laboratory, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, and the University of Tokyo.)
172 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

Fig. 4.3 Loops during the solar cycle. A complete 11-year solar cycle of magnetic activity ob-
served from the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, abbreviated EIT, on the SOlar and Helio-
spheric Observatory, or SOHO for short. These images were taken in the light of 14 times ionized
iron, designated Fe XV, at 28.4 nm, formed at a temperature of about 2.5 × 106 K. In late 1996,
shortly after its launch, SOHO was able to observe the last activity minimum, when there were
hardly any active regions. The minimum was followed by a rapid rise in solar activity, peaking at
maximum in 2001 and 2002, with intense extreme-ultraviolet radiation from million-degree gas
constrained in active-region coronal loops. Activity levels slowly declined since then. These im-
ages were picked by Steele Hill to illustrate the relative activity of the Sun. (Courtesy of the SOHO
EIT consortium. SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.)

SOHO’s EIT has kept the low corona and underlying transition region under
careful watch for more than a decade, demonstrating that the abundance of active
regions, and the coronal loops they contain, rises and falls in step with the 11-year
cycle of solar magnetic activity, the sunspot cycle, becoming more intense and nu-
merous near the peak of the cycle (Fig. 4.3). At activity maximum, coronal loops
in active regions are the brightest and hottest things around, at least in the corona,
dominating the Sun’s extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray emission and making up about
80% of the total coronal heating energy.
The EIT takes full-disk images at three lines of ionized iron, Fe IX, Fe XII, and
Fe XV, and one line of ionized helium, He II; these are the permitted lines emitted
by ionized atoms, sensitive to temperatures from 60,000 to 2.1 × 106 K (Table 4.2),
and not the forbidden lines detected at visible wavelengths.
Because a given stage of ionization occurs within a narrow range of temperature,
the different spectral lines can be used to tune in coronal loops at particular tem-
peratures. They have revealed that cool and hot loops are found side by side and
under and over each other, all over the Sun, each with its own unique temperature
4.3 Heating Coronal Loops in Active Regions 173

Table 4.2 Some prominent solar emission lines in the transition region and low corona observed
with the EIT instrument aboard SOHOa
Wavelength (nm) Emitting ion Formation
temperature (Kelvin)

17.11 Iron, Fe IX, and Fe X 1,000,000

19.51 Iron, Fe XII 1,400,000
28.42 Iron, Fe XV 2,100,000
30.38 Helium, He II 60,000
a Subtract1 from the Roman numeral to get the number of missing electrons. The wavelengths are
in nanometers, abbreviated nm, where 1 nm = 10−9 m. Astronomers sometimes use the Ångström
unit of wavelength, abbreviated Å, where 1 Å = 10−10 m = 10 nm.

and location. In 1997, for example, Andre Fludra and colleagues used the Coronal
Diagnostic Spectrometer, or CDS for short, on SOHO to show that coronal loops
with different temperatures can co-exist in active region, sometimes very close to
each other; the magnetic fields of individual loops apparently insulate them from ad-
jacent ones and contain gas heated to a specific temperature for that particular loop.
So what makes these coronal loops so hot, and where does their heat come
from? An early clue was provided in 1992 when Toshifumi Shimizu and co-workers
showed that transient X-ray brightening is common in active regions, suggesting that
these coronal loops are far from static. Six years later, Olav Kjeldseth-Moe and Paal
Brekke used SOHO’s CDS to detect large Doppler shifts, indicating fast motions
and rapid time variation in the coronal loops, and suggesting that plasma flows play
an important role in heating them. And James Klimchuk supplied another hint in
2000, demonstrating that the coronal loops observed by Yohkoh are approximately
constant in cross-section. Hinode observations of transient active-region heating,
reported in 2007 by Hui Li, Harry P. Warren, and their colleagues, indicate that
emerging magnetic flux in the photosphere may produce the X-ray brightening, con-
tributing heat by magnetic reconnection. Other Hinode results, reported by George
Doschek et al. (2007a, b) and David H. Brooks et al. (2007), demonstrate the exis-
tence of strong non-thermal motions in active regions and approximately uniform
loop cross sections that are difficult to reproduce with steady-state heating models,
for both low- and high-temperature loops.
The widespread, dynamic evolution of the coronal magnetic field and the inter-
mittent heating of the solar corona were established when the Transition Region
And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, was used to zero in on active regions.
Like the EIT on SOHO, the TRACE telescope observes the Sun in the extreme-
ultraviolet radiation of specific spectral lines sensitive to a wide range of tem-
peratures (Table 4.3); but unlike EIT, which images the entire solar disk, TRACE
observes specific regions on the Sun with higher spatial and temporal resolution,
detecting fine details that could not be seen from previous spacecraft whose instru-
ments integrated or smeared them out.
With its angular resolution of just 1.25 s of arc, or about 900 km on the Sun,
TRACE demonstrated that the corona in active regions contains long, thin loops that
174 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

Table 4.3 TRACE spectral regions and temperature rangea

Central Ion Region of solar Temperature Temperature range
wavelength atmosphere (Kelvin) (Kelvin)
(nm)

250 Continuum Photosphere 5,000 4,000–6,300

170 Continuum Tmin /Chromosphere 6,300 4,000–10,000
160 CI, FeII, CIV Tmin /Chromosphere 6,300 4,000–250,000
155 CIV Transition Region 126,000 63,000–250,000
121.6 Hydrogen Ly α Chromosphere 16,000 10,000–32,000
28.4 Fe XV Corona 2,000,000 1,000,000–5,000,000
19.5 Fe XII Corona 1,259,000 100,000–2,500,000
17.1 Fe IX/X Corona 795,000 200,000–2,000,000
a Adapted from the TRACE 2003 Senior Review Proposal. Subtract 1 from the Roman numeral to

get the number of missing electrons. The wavelengths are in nanometers, abbreviated nm, where
1 nm = 10−9 ms. Astronomers sometimes use the Ångström unit of wavelength, abbreviated Å,
where 1 Å = 10−10 m = 10 nm.

Fig. 4.4 Loops heated from below. Tall, thin coronal loops observed from the Transition Re-
gion And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, satellite, taken on 9 August 1999, in the 17.1-nm
passband sensitive to a temperature of about 1 million degrees. High arching loops stand out, to a
height of approximately 120,000 km. The loops are visible along their entire length, and compar-
isons with the 19.5-nm observations indicate the temperature varies little along them. The fact that
the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concen-
trated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so. (Courtesy of the TRACE consortium and NASA.
TRACE is a mission of the Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research, and part of the NASA
Small Explorer program.)
4.3 Heating Coronal Loops in Active Regions 175

Fig. 4.5 Multiple narrow strands. The Transition Region And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated
TRACE, demonstrated that the corona in active regions contains long thin strands. The multiple
narrow loops stand alone without braiding, twisting, or otherwise interacting with neighboring
strands. This TRACE image was taken in the 17.1-nm passband sensitive to a temperature of about
1 × 106 K. (Courtesy of the TRACE consortium and NASA. TRACE is a mission of the Stanford-
Lockheed Institute for Space Research, and part of the NASA Small Explorer Program.)

break through the photosphere in multiple narrow strands or threads (Figs. 4.4, 4.5
and 4.6). As reported by Carolus Schrijver and his colleagues in 1999, the numer-
ous thin, bright strands arch through the active-region corona, each connecting two
photospheric regions of opposite magnetic polarity. The widths of the strands are
often at or just above the instrumental resolution, but when resolved the loop cross-
sections show no significant variation with height.

Fig. 4.6 Loops at the edge. The highly structured corona observed at the edge of the Sun using
the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, satellite on 21 June 2001. This
image was taken in the 17.1-nm passband sensitive to a temperature of about 1 × 106 K. (Courtesy
of the TRACE consortium and NASA: TRACE is a mission of the Stanford-Lockheed Institute for
Space Research, and part of the NASA Small Explorer program.)
176 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

Narrow loops with significantly different temperatures are found within active re-
gions, each standing alone without braiding, twisting, or otherwise interacting with
their neighboring loops. High, cool loops, with temperatures of 1–2 × 106 K arch
over hotter ones at 3–5 ×106 K. And each strand appears to have its own unique
temperature.
The thin coronal loops seen in TRACE images of active regions continuously
change in shape, with the hot, ionized gas moving back and forth within its magnetic
cage. Each narrow strand is typically detected for only a few hours, while new ones
constantly appear, as density and temperature evolve in response to the changing
heating.
More than three decades ago, in 1978, Robert Rosner, Wallace H. Tucker, and
Giuseppe Vaiana introduced one of the first analytical models for heating coronal
loops in active regions. They assumed that the loops seen in Skylab X-ray pho-
tographs are in hydrostatic equilibrium with spatially uniform heating along an un-
changing loop, deriving a scaling law between the loop temperature, pressure, and
size that fit the observations. This then seemed like a reasonable approach, since
the observed coronal loops appeared to be steady or unchanging with respect to the
relevant physical time scales, such as the radiative and cooling times of roughly
10 min. Similar scaling relationships were derived and tested over the subsequent
two decades using statistical samples of hot soft X-ray loops, with temperatures of
a few million Kelvin, observed with the Soft X-ray Telescope aboard Yohkoh.
But now, on the basis of subsequent SOHO, TRACE, and Hinode results, the
underlying assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium has been challenged, at least for
warm loops with temperatures of about 1 × 106 K. Many of these loops are found to
be far from equilibrium and are not in a steady state, thus requiring dynamic models.
In 1999, for example, Dawn D. Lenz and her colleagues showed that long-lived
loops observed with TRACE are incompatible with the traditional steady, uniformly
heated loops model. And Markus J. Aschwanden (2001a, b) examined soft X-ray
and extreme-ultraviolet observations from Yohkoh, SOHO, and TRACE, concluding
that the observed coronal loops in active regions are overdense, by about an order
of magnitude, when compared to the equilibrium, steady-state solutions for loop
density and temperature. One way of explaining this apparent excess is to abandon
the assumption of uniform heating, and supplying the extra density by upflows of
heated material from the footpoints of the loops in the chromosphere.
The heating of these active-region loops may therefore be intermittent in both
space and time, rather than steady. Upward pulses of hot material are apparently
pumping up the loops from below, until they are crammed so full that they are on the
verge of bursting apart at the seams. But then in minutes or tens of minutes the heat-
ing stops, and essentially shuts down over the entire loop volume for hours at a time.
The TRACE observations, described by Carolus J. Schrijver in 2001, indicate that
whenever the heating is interrupted – which happens frequently – the loops cool
down and the gas filling the overdense loops, no longer supported by its own pres-
sure, rains back down into the transition region and chromosphere. In some of the
new models, gas is heated to coronal temperatures in the chromosphere or transition
region, with subsequent impulsive upflow into multiple narrow strands. The bright
4.4 Heating the “Quiet” Corona 177

active-region loops are in the process of filling by heated upflows; and when they
disappear from view, the material rains back down to the place it came from.
In 2008, Markus J. Aschwanden and David Tsiklauri provided another ap-
proach to the overdensity, or overpressure, of warm coronal loops observed at
extreme-ultraviolet wavelengths. They conclude that steady-state equilibrium so-
lutions cannot explain all of the observed loop physical parameters, but they can be
explained by a non-stationary and non-equilibrium cooling process after the heating
has ceased. This solution avoids discussion of how the loops are heated, by upflow
from loop footpoints, by waves, or by some other mechanism.
The heating source, which is still not understood in detail, is presumed to be
magnetic in origin, and is thus related to the larger questions of what is energizing
the ubiquitous coronal loops found outside of active regions, which we will now
consider.

4.4 Heating the “Quiet” Corona

Historically, the areas outside active regions were called quiet regions, but we now
know that the term “quiet Sun” is only justified in relative terms. And for a work-
ing definition, we will describe the quiet Sun in terms of all the closed magnetic
structures in the corona or below, except those in active regions and excluding the
magnetically open coronal holes. These ubiquitous loops are the dominant structural
element in the quiet solar atmosphere, popping out all over the Sun.
First results from the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer aboard Hinode,
for example, indicate that quiet-corona regions can exhibit high outflow velocities,
on the order of 100 km s−1 , and that the quiet solar atmosphere is composed of
both small, cool loops, with temperatures of about 0.4 × 106 K, and larger, high-
temperature ones at 1–2 × 106 K. Kenneth P. Dere and colleagues and Keiichi
Matsuzaki and co-workers, respectively, reported these results in 2007.
And although active regions are the sites of the most intense outbursts on the
Sun, known as solar flares, the quiet Sun exhibits all sorts of small-scale explosive
events observed at soft X-ray or extreme-ultraviolet wavelengths. There are X-ray
jets and bright points, for example, and bright extreme-ultraviolet events that flash
on and off. Millions of them have been observed from instruments aboard Yohkoh,
SOHO, TRACE, and Hinode. And they have received all sorts of designations, such
as jets, blinkers, explosive events, microflares, and nanoflares.

4.4.1 Heat from Jets, Bright Points, Blinkers, Explosive Events,

and Interacting, Non-Flaring Loops

The soft X-ray telescope aboard Yohkoh showed that the gas and magnetic fields
in the corona are forever changing in shape, intensity, and location throughout the
178 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

quiet Sun outside active regions. The hot gas outlines magnetic loops that contin-
uously shift around, become twisted up or deformed, and break up and form new
connections, responding to internal motions. Coronal loops can suddenly appear out
of nowhere, filling up with superheated material. Hot, X-ray emitting gas can be pro-
pelled to remote locations within well-collimated jets, even across the solar equator
and to or from the polar coronal holes; these magnetic conduits are sometimes as
long as the Sun is wide.
These Yohkoh observations demonstrated that coronal magnetic energy could be
released, suddenly and catastrophically, when opposing magnetic fields merge and
cancel each other. The magnetic fields move into each other, but never end. They
reform or reconnect in new magnetic orientations and in so doing release energy into
the corona. Such magnetic reconnections may occur when newly emerging magnetic
fields rise through the photosphere to encounter pre-existing ones in the corona, or
when the existing coronal loops are forced together. In either case, the moving coils
are charged with pent-up energy and ready to erupt.
As an example, Kazunari Shibata and his colleagues demonstrated, in the 1990s,
that many collimated X-ray jets display the morphology and physical characteristics
of magnetic reconnection. They are sometimes propelled by magnetic connections
involving new magnetic flux, coming up through the photosphere, and pre-existing
open or closed magnetic fields (Fig. 4.7). Roughly a decade later, in 2007, Shibata
and his colleagues reported Hinode observations of ubiquitous jets in the chromo-
sphere, detected in the ionized calcium line, Ca II H, at 396.85 nm. They often ex-
hibit inverted Y-shapes implying magnetic reconnection of an emerging magnetic
dipole with a pre-existing unipolar, or open, magnetic field region.

Jet

35,000 km
Bright Loop

Fig. 4.7 X-ray jet. This figure shows how an X-ray jet (left) is produced by an emerging mag-
netic loop that connects with pre-existing magnetism (right). This magnetic configuration has been
called the anemone jet, since the active region at the footpoint of the jet looks like a sea anemone.
The collimated X-ray jets can shoot across large distances in the solar corona, sometimes nearly all
the way across the visible solar disk. The Soft X-ray Telescope on Yohkoh took the X-ray image.
[Courtesy of Kazunari Shibata, adapted from T. Yokoyama and K. Shibata (1995).]
4.4 Heating the “Quiet” Corona 179

The ubiquitous X-ray bright points, first observed extensively by Leon Golub
and his colleagues during the Skylab mission (Sect. 2.5), also apparently result from
magnetic reconnection in the low corona. Unlike sunspots and active regions, X-ray
bright points are uniformly distributed over the Sun, even appearing at the poles
and in coronal holes. However, like coronal loops in active regions, the X-ray bright
points occur above regions of opposite magnetic polarity in the photosphere. The
X-Ray Telescope aboard Hinode has resolved the so-called points into small-scale
magnetic loops. About one of the loop-like bright points appears per hour averaged
over the whole Sun.
The theory of magnetic reconnection was initiated in the 1950s and 1960s
to explain the awesome release of energy during solar flares (Sect. 6.10). Harry
E. Petschek, Peter A. Sweet, and Eugene Parker each made important contributions
during that time, describing fast or slow reconnection. In both scenarios, oppositely
directed field lines merge together and are effectively cut at the place where they
touch, rejoining into a lower-energy configuration. The new, reconnected field lines
are sharply bent, and so experience a strong magnetic tension force that snaps them
apart. This accelerates and hurls material in opposite directions, like squeezing a
tube of toothpaste open at both ends.
Davina Innes and colleagues observed such bi-directional collimated jets in
1997 (Fig. 4.8). Their SOHO ultraviolet spectra of explosive events in the chro-
mosphere showed emission that was Doppler shifted to both longer wavelengths

Red VA

<< VA

<< VA

Scan 1 2 3 VA
Blue

Fig. 4.8 Connecting magnetism. Ultraviolet spectral line observations with the SOHO SUMER
instrument reveal Doppler shifts that change as the spectrometer scans across a jet structure (left).
A magnetic reconnection model (right) explains the observations. It involves magnetic field lines
(dashed lines with arrows for magnetic direction) and plasma flow (solid arrows). Material flowing
inwards from each side, at speeds much less than the Alfvén velocity, VA , carries anti-parallel
magnetic fields together. At the center X, magnetic fields that point in opposite directions meet
and join together. This catapults jets that move in both directions away from the point of magnetic
contact at about the Alfvén velocity. [Adapted from Davina E. Innes, et al. (1997).]
180 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

and shorter ones. This indicated material emanating in opposite directions from
a common point, presumably driven by the magnetic reconnection process. The
structure of these jets evolved in the manner predicted by theoretical models of
magnetic reconnection, suggesting that it is a fundamental process for heating ma-
terial on the Sun. Oppositely directed “exhaust” jets attributed to such reconnec-
tion events have incidentally been detected in the solar wind just outside the Earth
(Sect. 5.6).
When SOHO looks at the Sun in extreme-ultraviolet radiation, it is mottled all
over with a granular appearance, like an orange, a stone beach, or a festering rash
(Fig. 4.9). Each stone is a continent-sized bubble of hot gas, which flashes on and off
in about 10 min and reaches temperatures of several hundred thousand to a million
Kelvin. About 3,000 of these brightenings, known as blinkers, are seen erupting all
over the Sun, including the darkest and quietest places at the solar poles. But even
though there are a lot of these blinkers, their total thermal energy is still significantly
less than that required to fully heat the corona.

Fig. 4.9 Bright spots. Extreme-ultraviolet image of the low transition region at temperatures of
60,000–80,000 K, taken with the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, or EIT for short, aboard
the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO. It shows bright spots all over the Sun
that can contribute to coronal heating. Two intense active regions with numerous magnetic loops
are also seen, as well as a huge eruptive prominence at the solar limb (left). The image was taken
on 14 September 1997, in the extreme ultraviolet resonance line of singly ionized helium, denoted
He II, at 30.4 nm. (Courtesy of the SOHO EIT consortium. SOHO is a project of international
cooperation between ESA and NASA.)
4.4 Heating the “Quiet” Corona 181

In another perspective, observations of extreme-ultraviolet lines, originating in

the transition region at temperatures of about 100,000 K, have revealed the presence
of localized hot spots that explode and hurl material outward at speeds of hundreds
of kilometers per second. Guenter E. Brueckner and John-David F. Bartoe discov-
ered such high-speed jets of matter in 1983 during brief rocket observations of the
transition region. During the subsequent decade, Kenneth P. Dere and his colleagues
at the Naval Research Laboratory carried out additional observations of the explo-
sive transition-region jets, from rockets and the Space Shuttle, showing that they of-
ten occur in the magnetic network lanes. Jason G. Porter, David A. Falconer, Ronald
L. Moore, and colleagues reasoned in the mid 1980s that ultraviolet flares might be
frequent and powerful enough to heat the corona.
SOHO’s ultraviolet and extreme-ultraviolet eyes have now shown that the tiny
explosive events are going off all over the Sun and all the time – as many as 20,000
of them per minute, like an endless string of firecrackers. Richard A. Harrison and
his colleagues have used SOHO instruments to show that the inner solar atmosphere
remains a vigorous and violent place, even during the apparent lull at activity min-
imum when the whole Sun seems to sparkle in the ultraviolet light of thousands
of localized bright spots formed at temperatures of up to a million Kelvin. Since
these hot spots seem to be anchored within magnetic loops that move about and
interact, magnetic reconnection is a prime candidate for powering the myriad of
explosions.
Contorted and sheared coronal loops are commonly found in high-resolution
Yohkoh soft X-ray images. Motions down below may imprint their twisted patterns
up above, and the complex, oddly shaped magnetic geometry may be a signature of
current flows in the corona. The free electrons in the coronal gas can move along the
magnetic fields lines in thin sheets where oppositely directed magnetism is pressed
together, creating very large electric currents that can generate their own magnetism
and alter the overall magnetic shape. These electrical currents might heat the resis-
tive gas in much the same way that currents heat the filaments of a light bulb.
New loops can rise up to interact with existing ones, releasing energy to heat
the corona in non-flaring reconnection involving such electrical currents. In 1996,
for example, Saku Tsuneta used Yohkoh soft X-ray observations to show how active
regions in opposite hemispheres of the Sun can reconnect to form new transequato-
rial coronal loops with non-explosive coronal heating, and in 2000, Alexei Pevtsov
showed that approximately one-third of all active regions on the Sun exhibit such
soft X-ray, transequatorial loops that develop between existing active regions or be-
tween mature regions and newly emerging ones. In 2005, Dana W. Longcope and
co-workers described the energy released when active regions, observed at extreme-
ultraviolet wavelengths, emerge and reconnect in the corona, and in 2007, Loraine
Lundquist and colleagues used observations with the X-ray telescope aboard Hin-
ode to describe the interaction between emerging flux and ubiquitous large-scale
loop systems that connect solar active regions to relatively distant reaches of the
corona, both quiet and active. Such inter-connectivity, which commonly occurs over
as much as one third of the solar disk area, may play a role in direct heating of the
quiet solar corona by the interactions of coronal loops within it.
182 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

4.4.2 Nanoflares

Energy released by flare-like magnetic interactions might provide the searing heat
of the corona. Already in 1960, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle argued that explo-
sive solar flares are powered by stressed magnetic loops that interact, dissipating
their energy in the corona. Then, in 1964, Gold suggested that the twisted magnetic
field configurations might heat the corona. During the ensuing decades, Eugene
N. Parker developed related heating models involving the winding and wrapping
of coronal loops caused by the random, continuous motion of their footprints in the
photosphere.
In 1988, Parker proposed, for example, that the solar X-ray corona is produced by
the interaction of coronal loops that produce frequent numerous, small-scale explo-
sions, which he dubbed nanoflares, which occur at random locations. In this picture,
the coronal magnetic fields braid, twist and writhe in a perpetual dance, becoming
entangled by the random motion of their footpoints caused by turbulent convec-
tion. Thus, energized from below, the ubiquitous coronal loops rise, fall, intertwine,
and couple together to cumulatively produce the nanoflares that heat the quiescent
corona. If nanoflares were true to their name, a billion of them would be required to
release the same amount of energy as a normal flare.
But the fields cannot go on getting all wrapped up and entwined forever, entan-
gling indefinitely and removing all signs of the coronal loops. As Parker proposed,
the tangled fields eventually generate currents and reconnect into new configura-
tions, releasing stored magnetic energy to power the nanoflares and disentangle the
fields.
The nanoflare-heating concept has been a subject of “heated” controversy for
about two decades, and it just would not go away. On the theoretical front, Peter
J. Cargill examined its implications in 1994, proposing a related picture of multi-
stranded, impulsively heated coronal loops. Cargill teamed up with James Klimchuk
in 1997 to model coronal loops observed from Yohkoh, heated randomly and im-
pulsively by nanoflares. And in 2005, Russell B. Dahlburg, Klimchuk, and Spiro
K. Antiochos proposed a “switch-on” mechanism that can enable the magnetic en-
ergy release.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, the debate over the nanoflare heating scenario
focused on extrapolations from observations of strong flares, to determine if un-
detected weaker ones might provide sufficient energy to heat and power the quiet
corona. The Sun exhibits flares of all intensity, the frequency of occurrence in-
creasing rapidly with decreasing strength, suggesting that the combined total en-
ergy released by the more numerous, but unseen, weaker flares might provide the
necessary heat.
But as Hugh Hudson pointed out in 1991, the hypothetical heating flares have to
be an entirely different breed from normal solar flares. Extrapolations from existing
observations of solar flares to unobserved ones of smaller energy suggest that the
low-energy variety does not occur often enough to collectively supply the corona’s
heat. Since that time various groups have characterized the distribution of energetic
events observed in the corona or transition region, extrapolating the data to lower
4.4 Heating the “Quiet” Corona 183

energies and inferring their total contribution. In scientific parlance, it all depends
on the power law index of the flare frequency distribution. When there is a negative
index larger than 2.0 most of the energy is released by the sum of the smallest flares,
and when that index is less than 2.0 there is not sufficient combined power for the
small ones to do the job.
Arnold O. Benz and Säm Krucker have used Yohkoh and SOHO observations
to conclude, in 1998 and 1999, that microflares have a steep power law exponent
of −2.5. This suggested that the weak flaring multitudes could raise up to rule the
heating process. Other observers have disputed some of these conclusions. In 2000,
Clare E. Parnell and Peter E. Jupp used observations from TRACE to conclude
that there is insufficient energy input from nanoflares to explain the total energy
losses of the quiet corona, but they did not rule out the possibility that yet weaker,
and unobserved, events could heat it. And in 2002, Markus Aschwanden and Paul
Charbonneau gathered statistics of solar flares, microflares, and nanoflares over a
broad energy range, concluding that the power law index falls below the threshold
required to sustain appreciable coronal heating by nanoflares.
The nanoflare model predicts that coronal loops are collections of unresolved
strands, impulsively heated to high temperatures, but according to Aschwanden’s
account in 2008 (a, b), this is in disagreement with TRACE observations of resolved
loop widths. He proposes instead that the hypothetical nanoflare events be relocated
from the low corona down to the chromosphere and transition region, where high-
resolution magnetograms reveal many low-lying magnetic loops.

4.4.3 The Magnetic Carpet

At any one time, the Michelson Doppler Imager, abbreviated MDI, instrument
aboard SOHO reveals a salt-and-pepper sprinkling of about 50,000 small magnetic
bipolar regions in the photosphere. Each one of them has a north and south pole con-
nected by a rising magnetic arch. They together form a complex web of low-lying
coronal loops known as the magnetic carpet (Fig. 4.10). So in addition to the large
active-region coronal loops, there are numerous smaller loops being formed all the
time. It seems that there ought to be many more of the smaller loops than larger
ones since it would take less energy to thrust them up above the photosphere, just as
ocean waves toss many more smaller shells or pebbles on the beach than larger ones.
Uninterrupted by atmospheric turbulence, bad weather, and night, SOHO’s MDI
magnetograms track the evolution of the small magnetic loops, showing that they
are continuously emerging at seemingly random locations in the photosphere, frag-
menting in response to sheared flows, merging together or retracting inside the Sun.
The observations, reported by Carolus J. Schrijver, Alan M. Title and co-workers
from 1997 to 2002, indicate that the entire magnetic flux in the quiet solar photo-
sphere disappears and is replenished every 15–40 h.
Tens of thousands of the small magnetic loops are constantly being generated,
rising up and out of the photosphere, interacting, fragmenting, and disappearing
184 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

Fig. 4.10 Magnetic carpet. Magnetic loops of all sizes rise up into the solar transition region from
regions of opposite magnetic polarity (black and white) in the photosphere (green), forming a ver-
itable carpet of magnetism in the low corona. Energy released when oppositely directed magnetic
fields meet in the corona, to reconnect and form new magnetic configurations, is one likely cause
for making the solar corona so hot. (Courtesy of the SOHO EIT and MDI consortia. SOHO is a
project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.)

within hours or days. And the numerous magnetic loops in this “magnetic carpet”
are always being replaced, in a sort of self-cleaning action initiated from below. Mo-
tions in the photosphere and underlying turbulent convection push the carpet loops
around, and when the magnetic fields of adjacent loops meet, they can break and re-
connect with each other into simpler magnetic configurations, releasing energy that
might be used to continuously heat the overlying corona.
How big are the numerous, smaller loops, and how far up do they rise above the
photosphere? In 2003, Richard M. Close, Clare E. Parnell, Duncan H. Mackay, and
Eric R. Priest examined the statistical properties of the quiet Sun magnetic fields
displayed in the MDI data, discovering that the magnetic elements of one polarity
connect preferentially to their nearest neighbors of opposite polarity, which seems
logical since less energy would have to be expended to move over the shorter dis-
tance. And this means that most of the loops in the magnetic carpet are about as low
as they can be. On average, 50% of them extend no higher than 2,500 km above the
photosphere, and most of them never penetrate the corona (Fig. 4.11). They instead
lie within the chromosphere and the transition region to the corona. In contrast, the
coronal loops associated with active regions and their sunspots have sizes of more
than 100,000 km and form the brightest part of the low corona.
4.4 Heating the “Quiet” Corona 185

Corona

25,000 km

90% Transition
Closure Region
of Flux
Chromosphere

50% 2,500 km
Closure
of Flux Photosphere

Fig. 4.11 Carpet loop heights. Side view of typical three-dimensional magnetic carpet fields.
Fifty percent of the magnetic flux closes into loops below 2,500 km, while only 5–10% of the flux
extends above 25,000 km. By way of comparison, the jet-like spicules in the chromosphere can rise
to heights of 10,000 km, and the coronal loops in active regions can achieve heights of 100,000 km.
[Adapted from Richard M. Close, Clare E. Parnell, Duncan H. Mackay and Eric Priest (2003).]

The loops in the magnetic carpet can produce heat by coming together and re-
leasing stored magnetic energy when they make contact. Motions down inside the
convective zone twist and stretch the overlying magnetic fields, slowly building up
their energy. When these magnetic fields are pressed together, they can merge and
join at the place where they touch, releasing their pent-up energy to heat the gas. The
magnetic fields reform or reconnect in new magnetic orientations, so this method of
heating is also termed magnetic reconnection.
But how is the energy propelled up to heat the corona high above? According
to one explanation, proposed by Margarita Ryutova and Theodore Tarbell in 2003,
merging carpet loops can form shock waves that are launched by the bent mag-
netic fields in slingshot fashion, flinging heated gas through the overlying transition
region.
So to sum up, there is abundant evidence that the quiet corona outside active re-
gions is linked to the interaction of magnetic loops, either lying within the corona or
residing beneath it. Exactly which structures predominate is still unknown, a mys-
tery to be solved by future observations with instruments aboard Hinode, in collabo-
ration with those on SOHO and TRACE. After all, that is one of the main objectives
of Hinode, to measure the emergence, structure, and motions of the Sun’s mag-
netic field with continuous, fine detail, and to investigate how the high-temperature,
ionized atmosphere responds to the changing magnetism. Similar investigations are
being planned for the Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission, scheduled for launch
in December 2008.
And even then, all of the heating problems will not be completely solved, for
the proposed magnetic reconnection processes operate in or beneath the low corona
where the ubiquitous magnetic loops rise and disappear. The outer corona must also
be heated, in the extended corona above active regions, in coronal streamers, and
above the coronal holes. At distances greater than a few tenths of a solar radius above
the photosphere, the density of the corona is so low that collisions between particles
186 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

become infrequent and the protons and electrons have different temperatures. In
active regions and the quiet corona, the electrons seem to be hotter; in coronal holes,
the protons seem to be hotter and heavier ions still hotter.

4.5 How Hot Is a Coronal Hole?

Observations from the UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer, or UVCS, aboard

SOHO, reported by John L. Kohl and co-workers in 1997–1999, have revealed the
most surprising and unexpected aspects of coronal heating imaginable. In polar
coronal holes at activity minimum, the heating is preferential and it has a direc-
tion. The heavy oxygen ions, designated O VI, in coronal holes are hotter than the
protons there, which are in turn hotter than the relatively cool electrons. And the ion
temperatures are anisotropic, with a higher temperature in the direction perpendicu-
lar to the radial direction than parallel to it. Moreover, the heating in coronal holes is
extreme. While the protons attain plausible temperatures of several million Kelvin,
the oxygen ions have searing kinetic temperatures, inferred from the Doppler broad-
ening of their spectral lines, approaching 200 × 106 K. That is more than 10 times
hotter than the center of the Sun! In 2003, Richard A. Frazin and co-workers used
the UVCS to demonstrate that similar temperature differences exist at the edges of
coronal streamers, but not in their dense central parts.
Unlike the magnetic carpet or active regions, the heating in coronal holes extends
far away from the Sun, and that is because the magnetic fields in coronal holes are
open instead of arching back down into the Sun to make loops. And the particles in
coronal holes are not in thermal equilibrium, since they are so rarefied and spread out
that they rarely collide with each other. As a result, the preferential and directional
heating extends far out in the expanding solar corona (Fig. 4.12).
The unusual heating process in coronal holes occurs in nearly collisionless
plasma where every ion species has its own unique temperature, and one plausible
explanation is ion cyclotron heating by Alfvén waves, at least for the more mas-
sive ions. The magnetic waves might give them an extra boost, pushing them to
higher speeds and kinetic temperatures, while also whirling them about in the direc-
tion perpendicular to the open, radial magnetic fields. Such Alfvén waves have been
observed from the Sun to past the orbit of Earth (Fig. 4.13).
In 2000, Steven R. Cranmer demonstrated that the Alfvén wave heating must
occur throughout the extended corona, and in 2005 Cranmer and his colleague
Adriaan A. van Ballegooijen presented a comprehensive model of how Alfvén
waves are generated in the photosphere, propagate up funnel-like, open magnetic
flux tubes, and seed turbulence that determines the general properties of heating in
the extended corona. In technical terms, the energy input comes from kink-mode
magnetic field motion, generated by transverse shaking in intergranular lanes and
transformed into Alfvén waves in the canopies of the transition region.
The ubiquitous X-ray jets formed in polar coronal holes may also play a role
in heating them. As reported by Antonia Savcheva and colleagues in 2007, the
4.5 How Hot Is a Coronal Hole? 187

Fig. 4.12 Different temperatures. Summary of the radial dependence of temperature in coronal
holes and the high-speed solar wind at the minimum of the 11-year solar activity cycle. The dis-
tance is given as height above the photosphere in units of the Sun’s radius. Note the “gap” between
telescopic observations near the Sun and direct particle detection by spacecraft far from the Sun.
The temperatures of the electrons (solid lines), protons (dotted lines), and ionized oxygen (dashed
and dot-dashed lines) are all different from one another. Paired sets of curves give representative
ranges of observational uncertainty. [Courtesy of Steven R. Cranmer, adapted from John L. Kohl,
Giancarlo Noci, Steven R. Cranmer and John C. Raymond (2006).]

103
Non-WKB Alfven wave model:
(δ V), (δ B)/(4πρ)½
Velocity amplitude (km/s)

102
SUMER
(on-disk)

10
μturb

SUMER
(off-limb) UVCS IPS IPS in situ
1
10–4 10–2 100 102
(r/R ) – 1

Fig. 4.13 Alfvén waves. The amplitudes of Alfvén waves, expressed as transverse velocities of
the oscillating magnetic field lines, versus height above the photosphere, given in units of the
solar radius. The solid curves denote a model constructed by Steven R. Cranmer and Adriaan
A. Ballegooijen (2005); the other data points and curves denote various kinds of observational
inferences of the wave amplitudes. The left-most two sets of data (pink dotted curve and yellow
points) represent radial motions and may not correspond directly to the transversely oscillating
Alfvén waves. (Courtesy of Steven R. Cranmer.)
188 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

X-Ray Telescope aboard Hinode has demonstrated the frequent occurrence, at about
60 jets per day, and high outflow velocities of the jets, suggesting that they may
contribute to the high-speed wind that flows from these regions. And this brings
us to the solar wind heating problem, or just how the expanding corona is accel-
erated to supersonic speed near the Sun, continuing to cruise out to the Earth and
beyond.

4.6 Summary Highlights: The Sun’s Heating Crisis

• Instead of growing colder at higher regions of its atmosphere, the temperature of

the Sun’s corona soars to several million Kelvin, hundreds of times hotter than
the photosphere just below.
• Coronal heating processes are selective in both space and time, depending on the
magnetic structure and how magnetically active the Sun is at the time. There are
hot, dense coronal loops in active regions, slightly cooler and less dense coronal
loops in the quiet Sun outside active regions, and even cooler and more rarefied
coronal holes.
• One of the earliest explanations of coronal heating involved sound waves gen-
erated in the photosphere and turbulent convective zone. The sound (acoustic)
waves produce shocks as they travel out and dissipate their energy to heat the
chromosphere.
• Magnetic fields act like a trap door letting some sound waves through the pho-
tosphere, depending on the inclination of the local magnetic field with respect to
the propagating waves.
• Hundreds of thousands of jet-like spicules rise and fall within the chomosphere
every 5 min or so. A second, more dynamic type of spicule, observed from Hin-
ode, has typical lifetimes of 10–60 s.
• The 5-min oscillations of the photosphere might leak sufficient energy along in-
clined magnetic fields into the chromosphere to power shocks that drive upward
flows and form spicules.
• Spacecraft measurements in 1978 showed that although the lower chromosphere
is probably heated by the dissipation of sound waves, there is not enough energy
left over to heat the overlying corona by any substantial amount.
• Coronal heating is usually greatest where the magnetic fields are strongest.
• Unlike sound waves, magnetic waves generated in the photosphere can prop-
agate into the corona along open magnetic field lines, carrying energy into it.
Such Alfvén waves have been directly sampled in situ from spacecraft within in-
terplanetary space far from the Sun. The TRACE telescope has demonstrated the
widespread presence of magneto-hydrodynamic waves in the transition region,
both longitudinal and transverse, many of which travel through the chromosphere
with unanticipated efficiency. Several research teams have reported evidence
of Alfvén waves in the chromosphere, transition region, or low corona using
4.6 Summary Highlights: The Sun’s Heating Crisis 189

instruments aboard Hinode, noting that the energy associated with these waves
may be sufficient to heat the corona and accelerate the solar wind.
• Near the maximum in the 11-year cycle of solar magnetic activity, coronal loops
in active regions make up about 80% of the total coronal heating energy.
• The Skylab, Yohkoh, and SOHO spacecraft have demonstrated that the hottest,
densest material in the low corona, with the most intense X-ray and extreme-
ultraviolet emission, is concentrated within strongly magnetized loops located
in solar active regions, and that the active-region coronal loops are constantly
varying on all detectable spatial and temporal scales.
• Observations from TRACE have demonstrated that the corona in active regions
is structured on the smallest observable scale, and that it is comprised of nu-
merous long, thin coronal loops with little significant cross-sectional variation or
observable twists or braids.
• Coronal loops of different temperatures co-exist in active regions, with cool loops
arching over hot ones.
• SOHO and TRACE extreme-ultraviolet observations of some coronal loops in ac-
tive regions are inconsistent with steady, uniformly heated loop models. TRACE
measurements of overdense coronal loops can be explained if the loops are in-
termittently heated by upflows of heated material from the loop footpoints or
legs. They can also be explained by a non-stationary and non-equilibrium cool-
ing process after the heating has ceased, regardless of the heating mechanism by
upflows, waves, or some other mechanism.
• Bright active region loops are being filled with material heated to coronal tem-
peratures in the chromosphere or transition region; and when the observed loops
disappear from view, the hot gas is cooling and raining back down to the place it
came from.
• Continued dynamic activity and forced magnetic connections are ubiquitous fea-
tures throughout the low solar corona. Magnetic concentrations merge together
and cancel all the time and all over the Sun, providing a plausible explanation for
heating the low corona outside active regions.
• The so-called quiet corona outside active regions, and excluding coronal holes,
could be at least partially heated when coronal loops merge and join together into
new magnetic configurations. Observations from Yohkoh’s soft X-ray telescope
indicate that such magnetic merging and reconnection may occur when newly
emerging magnetic fields rise through the photosphere to encounter pre-existing
ones in the corona or when existing coronal loops are forced together.
• X-ray jets, X-ray bright points, ultraviolet explosive events, and large-scale, non-
flaring, interacting X-ray loops can result from magnetic reconnection, contribut-
ing to the heating of the quiet solar corona. The large number of jets observed
from Yohkoh and Hinode in polar coronal holes, for example, combined with
their high outflow velocity, suggests that they may contribute to coronal heating
and the high-speed solar wind.
• The combined total energy released by numerous, frequent weak flares, dubbed
nanoflares, could contribute to the heating of the low corona or the underlying
chromosphere and transition region.
190 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

• Magnetogram observations from SOHO’s Michelson Doppler Imager indicate

that a magnetic carpet of tens of thousands of small, low-lying loops continuously
emerges from seemingly random locations in the photosphere, and that the entire
magnetic flux in the quiet solar photosphere disappears and is replenished every
15–40 h.
• Most of the loops in the magnetic carpet lie within the chromosphere and transi-
tion region, never penetrating the corona.
• Magnetic energy generated when loops in the magnetic carpet interact can be
used to heat the material in their vicinity, and the interacting loops can form
shock waves that fling the heated gas into higher places.
• At distances of more than a few tenths of a solar radius above the solar photo-
sphere, the density of the coronal plasma drops to a point where particle-particle
collisions become infrequent. In such an environment, the temperature of the two
most numerous kinds of particles, the protons and electrons, can become differ-
ent from one another. In active regions and the quiet corona, the electrons seem
to be hotter; in coronal holes, the protons seem to be hotter.
• Observations from SOHO’s UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer near activity
minimum indicate that heating in polar coronal holes is preferential, extreme,
and directional. The particles are not in thermal equilibrium, the massive ions
are hotter than the less massive ions, and the massive ions have temperatures
approaching 200×106 K with a higher temperature in the direction perpendicular
to the radial direction than parallel to it.
• A plausible explanation for heating the extended, open-field coronal holes is ion
cyclotron heating by Alfvén waves, at least for the heavy ions.

4.7 Key Events in Coronal Heating∗

Date Event

1939–1941 Walter Grotrian and Bengt Edlén identify coronal emission lines with highly ion-
ized elements, indicating that the Sun’s outer atmosphere has a temperature of
millions of Kelvin. The conspicuous coronal green line was identified with (Fe
XIV), an iron atom missing 13 electrons.
1946 Vitalii Ginzburg, David F. Martyn, and Joseph L. Pawsey independently confirm
a coronal temperature of about a million Kelvin from observations of the Sun’s
radio emission.
1947 Hannes Alfvén argues that convective granulation can generate magnetohydrody-
namic waves that can heat the inner corona.

∗ See the References at the end of this book for complete references to these seminal papers.
4.7 Key Events in Coronal Heating 191

Date Event

1947–1949 Ronald G. Giovanelli develops a theory of solar flares involving the magnetic
fields in the solar atmosphere above sunspots, including electric currents at
magnetic neutral points. He also describes how Alfvén waves might heat the
solar corona.
1948–1949 Ludwig F. Biermann, Martin Schwarzschild, and Evry Schatzman indepen-
dently reason that sound waves, produced by convective granulation, might
transport mechanical energy into the chromosphere and corona. These sound
waves would be quickly deformed into shock waves as they pass into regions
of decreasing density, dissipating energy and heating the gas.
1958 Peter A. Sweet (1958a, b) develops a theory of slow magnetic reconnection.
1960 Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle show that magnetic energy must power solar
flares, and argue that these explosions are triggered when two magnetic loops
of opposite sense or direction interact, merge, and suddenly dissipate their
stored magnetic energy in the corona.
1963 Eugene N. Parker (1963a) derives detailed theory of slow magnetic reconnec-
tion.
1964 Thomas Gold suggests that the corona is heated by the relaxation of twisted
or stressed coronal magnetic fields, driven by turbulent motion in the convec-
tive zone, and compares the energy dissipation mechanism to the magnetic
interaction theory of solar flares developed by Gold and Fred Hoyle in 1960.
1964 Harry E. Petschek clarifies the process of fast magnetic field reconnection and
shows that it can occur rapidly even in highly conducting plasma.
1968 Roger A. Kopp and Max Kuperus discuss the temperature structure and mag-
netic field of the transition region between the chromosphere and the corona.
1969–1971 Magnetic fluctuations are observed in the solar wind from Mariner 5 on its way
to Venus, and attributed to large-amplitude Alfvén waves by John W. Belcher,
Leverett Davis Jr., and Edward J. Smith.
1970–1977 X-ray photographs from rockets, and then from the Skylab mission, are used
to show that magnetic fields create a threefold structure in the inner corona,
with its coronal holes, coronal loops, and X-ray bright points.
1974 Leon Golub and co-workers provide the first detailed studies of X-ray bright
points using Skylab data, providing values for their densities, temperatures,
sizes, lifetimes, and rate of occurrence.
1976 Alan H. Gabriel introduces a two-dimensional model of the chromosphere
and corona, and the transition region between them, in which magnetic flux is
concentrated at the boundaries of supergranular convection cells that produce
a magnetic network. These flux tubes flare out as they rise into the overlying
solar atmosphere to produce a magnetic canopy.
1976 George A. Doschek, Uri Feldman, and J. David Bohlin use Doppler wave-
length shifts of ultraviolet lines observed from Skylab to suggest that most
observable material in the transition region is falling down into the Sun rather
than moving away from it.
1978 John T. Mariska, Uri Feldman, and George A. Doschek show that extreme
ultraviolet lines observed from Skylab are wider than would be expected from
thermal Doppler broadening alone.
1978 Robert Rosner, Wallace H. Tucker, and Giuseppe S. Vaiana use Skylab X-ray
data and a theoretical model to derive a scaling law for coronal loops that
are in hydrostatic equilibrium and uniformly heated, connecting their length,
temperature, and density.
192 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

Date Event

1978–1981 R. Grant Athay and Oran R. White, and independently Elmo C. Bruner Jr., ob-
serve chromosphere oscillations in the ultraviolet lines of ionized carbon from
the eighth Orbiting Solar Observatory, abbreviated OSO 8, spacecraft. These
observations indicate that the chromosphere might be heated by sound waves,
but that there is not enough power in the sound waves to heat the overlying
corona.
1983 Eugene N. Parker (1983b) argues that the main source of coronal heating is the
dynamical dissipation of energy from coronal magnetic fields that have been
twisted by sub-photosphere convection into neutral point reconnection.
1983 Rocket observations of the ultraviolet solar spectrum by Guenter E. Brueckner
and John-David F. Bartoe reveal high-energy jets in the transition region out-
side active regions. Kenneth P. Dere and colleagues subsequently provide de-
tailed observations of these compact, short-lived explosive events from rock-
ets, the Space Shuttle, and satellites, showing that they occur in the solar mag-
netic network lanes at the boundaries of supergranular convective cells and
might play a role in coronal heating.
1984–1998 Jason G. Porter, David A. Falconer, Ronald L. Moore, and colleagues observe
low-lying, ultraviolet microflares in the transition region and low corona, us-
ing the Solar Maximum Mission satellite and SOHO. These events are located
on magnetic neutral lines in active regions and in the magnetic network, and
estimates suggest that they are frequent enough and powerful enough to heat
the corona.
1986 Eric R. Priest and Terry G. Forbes put the idea of fast magnetic reconnection
on a firm foundation, and discover a new family of fast regimes.
1988 Eugene N. Parker interprets the solar X-ray corona in terms of undetected
nanoflares, occurring more often and with less intensity than observed solar
flares. The nanoflares are related to bipolar magnetic fields driven by underly-
ing convective motion.
1991 Kenneth P. Dere and colleagues report the detection of explosive events seen in
extreme-ultraviolet light of the transition region, associating them with mag-
netic reconnection there.
1991 Hugh S. Hudson uses extrapolations from existing flare observations to show
that similar, but less energetic, microflares cannot heat the corona.
1991 The Yohkoh Mission is launched on 31 August 1991.
1991–2000 The Soft X-ray Telescope on the Yohkoh satellite demonstrates the structured,
dynamic nature of the inner corona more clearly than ever before.
1992 Toshifumi Shimizu and co-workers report observations of frequent transient
brightening in active-region coronal loops observed with the Yohkoh Soft X-
ray Telescope, concluding that the loops are far from static and must be dy-
namic.
1992, 1995 Mats Carlsson and Robert F. Stein show how acoustic shocks can dissipate
energy in the chromosphere, producing bright grains there.
1992–1996 Kazsunari Shibata, Toshifumi Shimizu, Saku Tsuneta, and their colleagues use
data from Yohkoh’s Soft X-ray Telescope to show that magnetic reconnection
is rather common in the low corona, particularly inside active regions.
1993 Yi-Ming Wang uses model calculations based on the coronal energy balance
to show how the magnetic flux-tube divergence rate can control the coronal
temperature.
1994 Peter J. Cargill examines some implications of the nanoflare concept, in which
the active-region corona is comprised of many hundreds of small elemental
magnetic flux tubes randomly and impulsively heated by nanoflares.
4.7 Key Events in Coronal Heating 193

Date Event

1994 Eric R. Priest, Clare E. Parnell, Sara F. Martin, and Leon Golub (Parnell et al.
1994, Priest et al. 1994) give a model for heating X-ray bright points by mag-
netic reconnection, and show that this model explains the observed bright
points.
1995 The SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, is launched on
2 December 1995.
1996 Saku Tsuneta (1996a, b) uses Yohkoh soft X-ray observations to describe how
solar active regions in opposite hemispheres can reconnect to form new transe-
quatorial coronal loops and heat the corona in a less explosive way than in solar
flares.
1997 Peter J. Cargill and James A. Klimchuk use a nanoflare model to explain the
heating of active-region loops observed by the Yohkoh Soft X-ray Telescope.
1997 Andre Fludra and colleagues use the Coronal Diagnostic Spectrometer on
SOHO to identify coronal loops with different temperatures that can co-exist
in active regions.
1997 Davina Innes, Bernd Inhester, Sir William Ian Axford, and Klaus Wilhelm
obtain SOHO observations that exhibit the bi-directional jets expected from
Petschek-type magnetic reconnection.
1997–1998 Richard A. Harrison (1997b) reports SOHO observations of thousands of
small-scale brightening events in the extreme-ultraviolet, inactive Sun. These
blinkers flash on and off in about 10 min and reach temperatures of up to a
million Kelvin.
1997–1998 Carolus J. Schrijver, et al. (1997a, 1998) use magnetograms from the Michel-
son Doppler Imager instrument aboard SOHO to show that the solar photo-
sphere outside active regions contains numerous bipolar magnetic elements
that mark the footpoints of low-lying loops, and that all the magnetic flux
in this magnetic carpet is cancelled out and replenished every 15–40 h. Tens
of thousands of small magnetic loops are being generated and renewed from
inside the Sun, and magnetic reconnection associated with the interaction of
these loops will heat the solar atmosphere.
1998 Olav Kjeldseth-Moe and Paal Brekke use the Coronal Diagnostic Spectrome-
ter on SOHO to detect rapid flows in active-region coronal loops, suggesting
models that combine very fine structure and episodic heating with disturbances
propagating in the loop legs.
1998 Werner M. Neupert and co-workers use the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Tele-
scope on SOHO to measure iosthermal coronal loops and conclude that the
data are not consistent with a heating source high in the corona.
1998 The Transition Region and Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, is launched
on 1 April 1998.
1998 Eric R. Priest and his colleagues show that the heating of the large-scale corona
is uniform, and is likely to be due to turbulent reconnection of many small
current sheets.
1998–1999 Arnold O. Benz and Säm Krucker use SOHO data to demonstrate that numer-
ous low-level, unexpectedly frequent microflares could heat the quiet corona
outside active regions. Subsequent observations by Clare E. Parnell and Pe-
ter E. Jupp (1999) and by Markus J. Aschwanden and colleagues (1999d)
using TRACE observations suggest that there may not be enough energy in
microflares or nanoflares to heat the entire quiet corona.
194 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

Date Event

1998–2001 John L. Kohl, Steven R. Cranmer, and Mari Paz Miralles and their co-workers
publish a series of papers reporting preferential and directional temperatures in
polar coronal holes measured with the UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer
aboard SOHO near the minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle. The oxy-
gen ions are hotter than protons, which are in turn hotter than electrons, and
the oxygen ions have greater temperatures perpendicular to the radial direc-
tion than along it. In 2003, Richard A. Frazin and colleagues reported similar
oxygen ion measurements at the edges of coronal streamers but not in them.
1999 Dana W. Longcope and Charles C. Kankelborg present models of coronal heat-
ing by collision and cancellation of magnetic elements.
1999 Carolus J. Schrijver, Alan M. Title, and co-workers present TRACE observa-
tions that show that coronal loops in active regions are comprised of numerous
long, thin strands, that loops of significantly different temperatures exist side
by side, and that relatively cool loops tend to arch over hotter ones within
active regions.
1999 Dawn D. Lenz and co-workers report that long-lived, active-region coronal
loops observed from TRACE have no significant temperature stratification, and
that they are denser than the classic steady, uniformly heated loop model pre-
dicts.
2000 Alexei A. Pevtsov uses Yohkoh soft X-ray data and magnetograms to show that
approximately one-third of all active regions on the Sun exhibit transequatorial
loops that may develop between existing active regions or between mature
regions and newly emerging ones.
2000 Julie Anne Watko and James A. Klimchuk report that active-region coronal
loops observed from TRACE have cross-sections that lie near the instrumental
resolution, and that there is no significant change in width with height for the
loops that are resolved. This is consistent with Klimchuk’s report of unvarying
cross-sections along X-ray coronal loops observed from Yohkoh, but for much
larger widths.
2000–2001 Markus J. Aschwanden and colleagues demonstrate that coronal loops ob-
served from TRACE are overdense, when compared with uniform heating
models, and suggest that the loops are heated and filled from beneath the
corona, at 10,000–20,000 km above the photosphere.
2001 Carolus J. Schrijver reports TRACE observations of catastrophic cooling and
high-speed downflow in active-region coronal loops, indicating that they are
heated intermittently and that when the heating stops the hot material rains
down to the place it came from.
2002 Markus J. Aschwanden and Paul Charbonneau examine the statistics of solar
flares, microflares, and nanoflares observed over a wide range of energy us-
ing the extreme-ultraviolet telescopes aboard the SOHO and TRACE satellites,
concluding that these observations pose a serious challenge to coronal heating
by nanoflares.
2002–2003 Amy R. Winebarger, Harry P. Warren, and their co-workers report the de-
tection of upward flows in extreme-ultraviolet, active-region loops observed
from SOHO and TRACE, which are inconsistent with previous hydrostatic
loop models, and instead develop non-static, dynamic models with intermit-
tent, impulsive heating from below
2003 Richard M. Close, Clare E. Parnell, Duncan H. Mackay, and Eric R. Priest ex-
amine the statistical properties of the magnetic carpet observed with SOHO’s
Michelson Doppler Imager, finding that the magnetic flux fragments connect
preferentially to their nearest neighbors of opposite magnetic polarity, that half
of the magnetic loops in the quiet Sun extend no higher than 2,500 km above
the photosphere, and that most of them do not reach the corona
4.7 Key Events in Coronal Heating 195

Date Event

2003 Margarita Ryutova and Theodore Tarbell use simultaneous observations from
SOHO and TRACE to support their proposal that shock waves produced by
the interaction of low-lying magnetic elements can propel heated material and
energy up into the overlying transition region.
2003 Carolus J. Schrijver and Alan M. Title estimate that as much as half of the
coronal magnetic field over the very quiet Sun may be rooted in mixed-polarity
internetwork fields within the supergranules rather than in the network flux
concentrations at the supergranule edges.
2004 Bart De Pontieu, Robert Erdélyi, and Stewart P. James use observations with
TRACE to demonstrate that photospheric oscillations leak into the chromo-
sphere where they can power shocks, drive upward flows, and form spicules.
2005 Steven R. Cranmer and Adriaan A. van Ballegooijen model the properties of
Alfvén waves from the photosphere to a distance past the Earth’s orbit, with
wave periods ranging from 3 s to 3 days.
2005 Markus J. Aschwanden and Richard W. Nightingale analyze the multithread
structure of coronal loops observed from TRACE, concluding that the vast
majority are isothermal with a unique temperature.
2005 Russell B. Dahlburg, James A. Klimchuk, and Spiro K. Antiochos propose a
mechanism that “switches on” energy release via magnetic reconnection of
coronal loops that merge together due to the random mixing of the magnetic
loop footpoints by photospheric motions.
2006 The Hinode spacecraft is launched on 23 September 2006.
2006 Stuart M. Jefferies and co-workers use telescopes on board SOHO and TRACE
and on the ground to show that inclined magnetic field lines at the boundaries
of supergranule convection cells provide portals through which magnetoacous-
tic waves can propagate into the solar chromosphere.
2007 Steven R. Cranmer, Adriaan A. van Ballegooijen, and Richard J. Edgar present
models for coronal heating by Alfvén waves, which propagate along open
magnetic field lines into interplanetary space.
2007 Bart De Pontieu and co-workers (2007b) use data from the Solar Optical Tele-
scope on board Hinode to show that the chromosphere is permeated with
Alfvén waves with velocity amplitudes of 10–25 km s−1 and periods of 100–
500 s, and note that spicules carry such waves.
2007 Loraine Lundquist and co-workers use observations from the X-Ray Telescope
on Hinode to describe the interaction between emerging flux and large-scale
loop systems that connect active regions with the distant reaches of the corona,
both quiet and active, and commonly cover as much as one third of the solar
disk.
2007 Steven Tomczyk and co-workers report the detection of Alfvén waves in the
solar corona. The spatially resolved waves are too weak to heat the solar
corona; however, unresolved Alfvén wave may carry sufficient energy.
2007 Jonathan Cirtain et al. (2007b), Takenorie J. Okamoto et al. (2007), and Bart
De Pontieu et al. (2007b) present evidence of Alfvén waves using instruments
aboard Hinode. The energy associated with these weaves is apparently suffi-
cient to heat the corona and accelerate the solar wind.
196 4 Solving the Sun’s Heating Crisis

Date Event

2008 Markus J. Aschwanden (2008a) argues that the quasi-isothermal coronal loop
structures whose widths have been resolved with the TRACE telescope contra-
dict the nanoflare heating hypothesis, which predicts that they should contain
unresolved strands, and proposes that the hypothetical nanoflare events be re-
located from the corona down to the chromosphere or transition region.
2008 Markus J. Aschwanden and David Tsiklauri conclude that steady-state equi-
librium solutions cannot explain all the physical parameters of coronal loops
observed at extreme-ultraviolet wavelengths, but that they can be explained
by a non-stationary and non-equilibrium cooling process after the heating has
ceased, regardless of how the loops are heated.
Chapter 5
Winds Across the Void

5.1 The Fullness of Space

With a temperature of a few million Kelvin, the outer solar atmosphere, or corona,
is so hot it cannot remain still. It has to expand out from the Sun, like heat es-
caping from a chimney on a cold day. The high pressure at the bottom of the
corona naturally pushes the high-temperature gas away from the Sun in all directions
(Focus 5.1).

Focus 5.1
Why a Solar Wind has to Exist
The theoretical concept of a solar wind grew out of consideration of a static, non-
expanding, isothermal corona. At a distance, r, in the corona, the balance between
the pressure gradient, dp/dr, and the gravitational force can be expressed by:

dp GM ρ
=− ,
dr r2
where G is the gravitational constant, M is the Sun’s mass, and ρ is the corona’s
mass density. If we take the coronal protons and electrons to have the same temper-
ature, T , the ideal gas law for the pressure, p, becomes

p = nk(Te + Tp ) = 2nkT ,

where n is the number density of particles per unit volume, k is Boltzmann’s con-
stant, the subscripts e and p denote electrons and protons, and the coronal mass
density is given by
mp
ρ = n(me + mp ) = nm =
2kT
and m is the sum of the electron and proton mass, or essentially the proton mass
since the electron has a relatively low mass.
By substitution, we obtain the differential equation:

1 dp GM m 1
=− .
p dr 2kT r2

K.R. Lang, The Sun from Space, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, 197

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
198 5 Winds Across the Void

The solution of this equation for the pressure p(r) at distance, r, is:
  
GM m 1 1
p(r) = p0 exp − ,
2kT r R

where p0 is the pressure at the base of the corona and R is the radius of the Sun.
As one would expect, the pressure decreases with increasing distance, r, but the
difficulty is that it does not decrease fast enough. If we let the distance go to infinity,
or r → ∞, the pressure approaches the value:

p(infinity) = p0 exp[−GM  m/(2kT R )],

where the coronal temperature can be taken to be T = 106 K, since this temper-
ature falls off very slowly with distance owing to the high thermal conductiv-
−2
ity of the corona. The other constants are G = 6.6726 × 10−11 N m2 kg , M =
1.989 × 1030 kg, m = mp = 1.6726 × 10−27 kg, k = 1.38066 × 10−23 J K−1 , and
R = 6.955 × 108 m.
So, the pressure at infinity is a small fraction of the high pressure at the base of the
corona, but still many orders of magnitude higher than the pressure thought to exist
in the interstellar medium. This means that the static, isothermal corona cannot be in
equilibrium with the distant interstellar spaces, which is what led Eugene N. Parker
to introduce in 1958 an expanding corona with nonzero flow speeds, v, obtaining
the differential equation:

dv dn GM
ρv = −2kT −ρ 2 .
dr dr r
Although Parker only had to wait 4 years until the Mariner 2 spacecraft con-
firmed his prediction, they were a turbulent 4 years since some well-known sci-
entists, including Sydney Chapman, publicly clashed with him about this (see
Chap. 2).

So the wide-open spaces between the planets, once thought to be a tranquil,

empty void, is swarming with hot, charged invisible pieces of the Sun. They expand
and flow away from the Sun at supersonic speeds, faster than 300 km s−1 , forming
a perpetual solar wind. Unlike any wind on Earth, the solar wind is an exceedingly
rarefied mixture of electrons and protons set free from the Sun’s abundant hydro-
gen atoms; but like terrestrial winds, the solar gale has strong gusts and periods of
relative calm.
The Sun constantly blows itself away, sending a billion (109 ) kilograms, or a
million tons, of electrons and protons into space every second. All of this material
must be replaced from below, but this is a small amount compared with the enor-
mous total mass of the Sun. At the present rate, it would take 10 billion years for the
Sun to lose only 0.01% of its mass by the solar wind, and the Sun will evolve into a
giant star long before it blows away completely.
5.1 The Fullness of Space 199

The solar wind streams out in all directions from the Sun, and the planets move
through it as if they were ships at sea. So the Earth is immersed within the seemingly
eternal flow, and as a result we are living in the outer part of the Sun, encased within
its relentless stormy wind.
The reason that space looks so empty is that the Sun’s wind is very tenuous. Even
at its origin near the visible Sun, the hot corona is so rarified that its pressure is no
more than the pressure under the foot of a spider. By the time that it reaches the
Earth’s orbit, the solar wind has been further diluted by expanding into the increas-
ing volume of space. There are about five million electrons and five million protons
per cubic meter in the solar wind near the Earth. By way of comparison, there are
25 million billion billion (2.5 × 1025 ) molecules in every cubic meter of our trans-
parent air at sea level. The density of the solar wind is so low that if we could go out
into space and put our hands in it, we would not be able to feel it.
The tenuous solar gale brushes past the planets and engulfs them, carrying the
Sun’s magnetic fields and outer atmosphere into the space between the stars. It
thereby creates a teardrop-shaped bubble in interstellar space known as the helio-
sphere, from Helios, the “God of the Sun” in Greek mythology. In 1955, Leverett
Davis Jr. postulated the existence of such a cavity in the interstellar medium to
account for some observed properties of low-energy cosmic rays. The heliosphere
is inflated by the solar wind, and threaded by open magnetic fields that have one end
attached to the Sun (Fig. 5.1).

Fig. 5.1 The heliosphere. With its solar wind going out in all directions, the Sun blows a huge
bubble within interstellar space called the heliosphere, with the Sun at its center and the planets
inside. It is threaded by open magnetic fields that are connected to the Sun at one end, carried into
space by the relentless solar wind on the other end, and twisted by the rotating Sun. Interstellar
winds mold the heliosphere into a non-spherical teardrop shape, creating a bow shock (left) where
interstellar forces encounter the solar wind. The heliosphere extends to about 100 times the distance
between the Earth and the Sun. (Courtesy of Thomas H. Zurbuchen.)
200 5 Winds Across the Void

Within the heliosphere, conditions are regulated by the Sun. Its domain extends
out to about 100 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun, or about 100
astronomical units, marking the outer boundary or edge of the solar system. Out
there, the solar wind has become so weakened by expansion that it can no longer
repel interstellar forces.
As shown in Chap. 2, the relentless solar wind was inferred from comet tails, sug-
gested by theoretical considerations, and fully confirmed by direct in situ measure-
ments from spacecraft in the early 1960s. Instruments aboard numerous spacecraft
have subsequently measured the detailed properties of the solar wind, finding gales
that move at both slow and fast speeds. Scientists are just beginning to understand
where these winds come from and how they might be accelerated to supersonic
velocities.
Once released, the solar wind remains linked to the Sun by its magnetic field and
explosive outbursts, so the winds vary with the Sun’s tempestuous behavior. The
solar wind also acquires its own independent characteristics, like children who have
left home to make their own life. And it is additionally impacted from the outside
by the local interstellar medium. All of these topics are discussed in greater detail
within the rest of this chapter. The serious student or curious reader may want to
consult reviews of these subjects prepared by professionals in the field (Focus 5.2).

Focus 5.2
Expert Reviews about the Solar Wind
Professional solar astronomers and astrophysicists have reviewed important
developments in our knowledge of the Sun’s winds, often in technical terms. In
alphabetical order, they include Roberto Bruno and Vincenzo Carbone’s (2005) re-
view of solar wind turbulence, Benjamin D. G. Chandran’s (2004) review of magne-
tohydrodyamic turbulence, Steven R. Cranmer’s (2002) review of coronal holes and
the high-speed solar wind, Johannes Geiss and George Gloeckler’s (2001) review
of heliospheric and interstellar phenomena deduced from pick-up ion observations,
John T. Gosling’s (1996) discussion of co-rotation and transient wind flow, Joseph
V. Hollweg’s (2006) overview of our changing perspectives of solar wind acceler-
ation, Joseph V. Hollweg and Philip A. Isenberg’s (2002) review of the generation
of the fast solar wind emphasizing the resonant cyclotron interaction, John L. Kohl,
Giancarlo Noci, Steven R. Cranmer, and John C. Raymond’s (2006) comprehensive
review of coronal ultraviolet spectroscopy that places constraints on the source re-
gions and acceleration mechanisms of the solar wind, Serge Koutchmy and Moissei
Livshits’ (1992) review of coronal streamers, Eckart Marsch’s (2006) review of our
theoretical understanding of in situ measurements of solar wind particles and waves,
and David J. Mc Comas and his colleagues’ (2007) summary of unsolved problems
in understanding coronal heating and solar wind acceleration.
The contributions of scientists working with specific spacecraft data are of-
ten presented at workshops that are subsequently published in book form. The
Ulysses perspective of the heliosphere at solar minimum is given in the volume
edited by André Balogh, Richard G. Marsden, and Edward J. Smith (2001). Specific
issues of Space Science Reviews contain the results of other workshops, and have
5.2 The Two Solar Winds 201

been republished in book form by Kluwer Academic Publishers or Springer Verlag.

They include Solar Dynamics and Its Effects on the Heliosphere, edited by Daniel
N. Baker and his colleagues (2006), The Three-Dimensional Heliosphere at Solar
Maximum, edited by Richard G. Marsden (2001), Co-rotating Interaction Regions,
edited by André Balogh and his colleagues (1999), and The Heliosphere in the Local
Interstellar Medium, edited by Rudolf Von Steiger and colleagues (1996). The pro-
ceedings of SOHO workshops that deal with the solar wind include SOHO-1, Coro-
nal Streamers, Coronal Loops and Coronal and Solar Wind Composition, edited
by Clare Mattok (1992), SOHO-2. Mass Supply and Flows in the Solar Corona,
edited by Bernhard Fleck, Giancarlo Noci, and Giannina Poletto (1994), SOHO-5.
The Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum Activity, edited by Olav Kjeldseth-Moe
and Andrew Wilson (1997), SOHO-7. Coronal Holes and Solar Wind Acceleration,
edited by John L. Kohl and Steven R. Cranmer (1999), SOHO-16. Connecting Sun
and Heliosphere, edited by Bernhard Fleck and Thomas H. Zurbuchen (2005), and
SOHO-20. Transient Events on the Sun and in the Heliosphere, edited by Bernhard
Fleck, Joseph B. Gurman, Jean-Francois Hochedez, and Eva Robbrecht (2008).

5.2 The Two Solar Winds

The earliest in situ measurements of the solar wind, in the 1960s by the Mariner 2
spacecraft on its way to Venus (Sect. 2.2), revealed that the solar wind travels with
two main velocities, like an automobile with one high gear and one low gear. The
fast wind moves at about 750 km s−1 and the slow wind blows at about half that
speed. Both the winds are always present, never disappearing during the more than
four decades that the solar wind has been observed with spacecraft.
Helios 1 and Helios 2 provided in situ analyses of the solar wind that tightened
constraints on the two components. These twin spacecraft, respectively launched on
10 December 1974 and 15 January 1976, repeatedly looped as close as 0.3 AU from
the Sun for years – until March 1986 for Helios 1 and March 1980 for Helios 2.
(The mean distance between the Earth and the Sun is 1 AU, or about 150 × 106 km.)
Instruments aboard these spacecraft confirmed, in greater detail, that there are two
kinds of solar wind flow, the fast and slow ones, with different physical properties
(Table 5.1).
As the result of measurements from Helios, Ulysses, and other spacecraft, we
now know that the high-speed wind is steady, uniform, and of relatively low proton
density, while the slow-speed wind is variable, gusty, and of high proton density.
When compared with the fast wind, a higher electron temperature, lower proton
temperature, reduced helium abundance, and greater enrichment in easily ionized
elements with low first ionization potentials also characterize the slow wind.
The massive protons dominate the energy transported by the solar wind. Helios
instruments showed that the proton density is high whenever the wind is slow, and
202 5 Winds Across the Void

Table 5.1 Average solar wind parameters measured from Helios 1 and 2 between December 1974
and December 1976 normalized to the distance of the Earth’s orbit at 1 AUa
Parameter Fast wind Slow wind
Source Coronal holes Equatorial steamers
Composition, temperature Uniform Highly variable
and density
Proton density, Np 3 × 106 m−3 10.7 × 106 m−3
Proton speed, Vp 667 km s−1 348 km s−1
(750 km s−1 )b
Proton flux, Fp = NpVp 1.99 × 1012 m−2 s−1 3.66 × 1012 m−2 s−1
Proton temperature, Tp 280,000 K 55,000 K
Electron temperature, Te 130,000 K 190,000 K
Helium temperature, Tα 730,000 K 170,000 K
Helium to proton 0.036 (constant) 0.025 (very variable)
abundance, Aa
a Adapted from Rainer Schwenn (1990). Measurements are referred to a distance of 1 AU = 1.496×

108 km. The helium ion to proton abundance A = Nα /Np , where N is the number density and the
subscripts α and p, respectively, denote the helium ions, or alpha particles, and the protons
b The Helios 1 and 2 spacecraft traveled near the ecliptic where the slow solar wind dominates the

flow, and this led to an underestimate of the velocity of the high-speed component. It has a speed
of about 750 km s−1

that the proton density is low when the wind speed is high. The product of the proton
density and velocity, or the proton flux, is about the same in the fast and slow winds,
with a value of between 1.5 and 4 million million [(1.5–4)×1012 ] protons per square
meter per second at the Earth’s distance from the Sun.
Instruments aboard the two Helios spacecraft measured temperatures of the
charged particles blowing in the wind, showing significant and unexpected differ-
ences. In the high-speed wind, heavier particles have higher temperatures; but it is
the other way around in the slow wind, where lighter particles are hotter. In the
high-speed wind, the protons are a few times hotter than the electrons, and the he-
lium nuclei, or alpha particles, are even hotter than the protons.
The existence of two solar winds, the fast and slow ones, was also indicated
by observing remote radio sources that fluctuate, or scintillate, when observed
through the rarefied solar wind, in much the same way that stars twinkle when seen
through the Earth’s wind-blown atmosphere. The radio waves are perturbed when
they pass through the solar wind, producing a hazy, blinking, and distorted image.
It is something like looking at a light from the bottom of a swimming pool.
The fluctuating radio signals sweep past the Earth like the beacon of a search-
light, and the velocity of the solar wind can be inferred from the time it takes the
sweeping signal to move between two antennas. You could similarly watch the
shadow of a wind-blown cloud and determine the cloud’s speed by seeing how long
it takes the shadow to move from place to place. Barney J. Rickett and William A.
Coles in the United States and Takakiyo Kakinuma and Masayoshi Kojima in Japan
used this interplanetary scintillation technique to study the solar wind throughout
the 1970s and 1980s.
5.2 The Two Solar Winds 203

Their radio scintillation data indicated that the average wind velocity increases
from the solar equator to higher solar latitudes toward the solar pole near the
minimum in the 11-year activity cycle, suggesting that the fast wind then originates
near the poles. And because the slow wind was confined to low solar latitudes near
the solar equator, it most likely originated there, at least near activity minimum.
The blinking radio signals also indicated that the slow-speed wind does not blow
steadily; it exhibits squalls and calms. In contrast, a uniform, fast wind seemed to
spill out of higher solar latitudes.
The bimodal, fast–slow nature of the solar wind was fully confirmed during
Ulysses’ pioneering polar orbit at the 1994–1995 minimum in the 11-year solar
activity cycle. It provided the first measurements of the wind speed all around the
Sun, over the full range of solar latitudes, or angular distances from the solar equator.
This velocity data, reported by David J. McComas and his colleagues, conclusively
proved the existence of two basic types of solar wind at activity minimum. The fast
gale blows at a smooth, uniform, and steady clip at high latitudes, filling over 60%

Fig. 5.2 Solar wind speeds at activity minimum. A polar diagram of the solar wind speed varia-
tion with solar latitude, from 0◦ at the solar equator to ±90◦ at the Sun’s north and south poles (top
and bottom respectively). These 1-day averages of the proton speed, derived from Ulysses SWICS
observations from March 1992 to March 1997, show that the fast wind dominates the outflow at
most latitudes near the minimum in the 11-year cycle of solar activity, when the slow wind is local-
ized near the equatorial regions. The equatorial slow-speed wind exhibits strong fluctuations; the
polar high-speed one also fluctuates, but at much lower levels. There are fewer fluctuations in the
slow wind at the left-center because Ulysses was then moving rapidly over the equatorial regions.
No shading represents fast coronal hole streams, while the reddish color denotes the slow solar
wind and the streamer belt. These data are compared with previous measurements at lower lati-
tudes by the Helios spacecraft [dotted line, Bruno et al. (1986)] and by interplanetary scintillations
of extragalactic radio sources [dashed red line, Kakinuma (1977)]. [Courtesy of Joachim Wach,
and adapted from Joachim Woch et al. (1997).]
204 5 Winds Across the Void

of the heliosphere near the 1994–1995 solar minimum, while the slower, more gusty,
and variable breeze was confined to low latitudes near the solar equator (Fig. 5.2).
The radio scintillation and Ulysses discoveries completely reversed some earlier
interpretations, based mainly on spacecraft that had stayed close to the ecliptic.
This previous view, which was now found to be wrong, interpreted the high-speed
streams as an occasional perturbation of the slow wind, typically called the “ambient
solar wind.” But a uniform fast wind was now found to be the dominant component,
at least during the minimum in the solar activity cycle, with the slow wind contribut-
ing a varying input at low solar latitudes.
Instruments aboard Ulysses also showed that the two solar wind types have dif-
fering ion compositions. As ions move out into the increasingly rarefied corona,
collisions become infrequent and the ions decouple from other particles, retaining,
or “freezing-in”, an unchanging temperature. Johannes Geiss, George Gloeckler,
and Rudolf Von Steiger used Ulysses measurements of these thermometers to show
that the fast wind originates from regions where the coronal electron temperature is
relatively low, and that the slow wind comes from regions of higher coronal elec-
tron temperature (Fig. 5.3), at least at heights where the ions freeze in, down around
1.1 solar radii from Sun center. At these distances, the density of the corona drops
to a point where particle collisions become infrequent, and the temperatures of the
protons and electrons can become different from one another. In active regions and

4 1015
Ulysses 1996
3 1015 Ulysses 2003
ACE 2003 Ulysses 2003
2 1015
Vsw2/2 (cm s-1)2

1 1015 Ulysses 1996

ACE 2003

0 100

-1 1015 Fisk’s Formula

-2 1015
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Constant/Electron Temperature

Fig. 5.3 Solar wind velocity and coronal electron temperature. Solar wind velocity, VSW , plot-
ted as a function of inverse coronal electron temperature, 1/Te , from the SWICS instruments on
Ulysses (filled triangles and open circles) and ACE (filled circles). The temperatures are inferred
from the oxygen ion abundance ratio, O7+ /O6+ , or oxygen ionized seven and six times. This es-
tablishes the freezing-in temperature at which the ions were formed. The temperature when the
oxygen ions were created is high in the slow-speed wind, at about 1.6 × 106 K, while the forma-
tion temperature for the ions found in the high-speed wind is relatively low, about 1.2 × 106 K.
The dashed and solid curves are fits to the Ulysses and ACE observations, respectively, using Len
Fisk’s (2003) model in which coronal loops reconnect with open magnetic field lines to feed the
solar winds. The 1996 Ulysses high-latitude curve (open red circles) has a flatter shape from which
small loop heights might be inferred. (Adapted from both the ACE and Ulysses 2005 Senior Review
Proposals.)
5.3 Where Do the Sun’s Winds Come From? 205

the quiet corona, the electrons seem to be hotter than the protons; in coronal holes,
the protons seem to be hotter than the electrons.
Some theoretical proposals attribute this result to the radiation energy losses of
hot coronal structures. This radiated energy is no longer available to accelerate the
solar wind and hence the solar wind originating in hot regions is slower. The tem-
perature trend could reverse at higher altitudes, say between 2 and 10 solar radii,
with high coronal electron temperatures that might be associated with the fast wind
and vice versa, but there are still no direct measurements of the electron temperature
at those heights.
In 2007, Steven R. Cranmer and his co-workers proposed an alternative expla-
nation, incorporating models in which both the slow and the fast winds arise from
open magnetic flux tubes rooted in coronal holes, streamers, and active regions,
while also tackling the issue of a possible reversal of electron temperature above the
freezing-in height.

5.3 Where Do the Sun’s Winds Come From?

The two solar winds do not blow uniformly from all points of the Sun, but instead
depend on solar latitude. The spatial distribution of the two types of winds also
depends upon the Sun’s magnetic field configuration, which varies dramatically with
the 11-year solar activity cycle.

5.3.1 Source Regions of the Solar Winds Near Solar

Activity Minimum

Near activity minimum, the Sun can be described as a simple magnet with north
and south poles where large coronal holes are located. The northern hole is of one
magnetic polarity, or direction, and the southern one of opposite magnetic polarity
(Fig. 5.4). According to a model proposed by Gerald W. Pneuman and Roger A.
Kopp in 1971, the negative and positive field lines loop outside the Sun and meet
in between the poles, near the solar equator, where a magnetically neutral layer,
or current sheet, is dragged out into space by the radially outflowing solar wind
(Fig. 5.5). Near the Sun, the current sheet is rooted in a belt of streamers that seems
to meander across the star like the seam of a baseball.
The wind’s magnetic sectors, detected by spacecraft in the ecliptic (Sect. 2.4),
have been described by a “ballerina model”, which was advocated in the late 1970s
by Hannes Alfvén. Since the Sun’s magnetic dipole axis is tilted with respect to its
rotation axis, the current sheet is warped. And as the Sun rotates, the current sheet
wobbles up and down, like the edge of a spinning ballerina’s skirt, sweeping sectors
of opposite magnetic polarity past the Earth (Fig. 5.6).
Comparisons of solar X-ray images, obtained from rockets and the Skylab mis-
sion, with satellite wind measurements taken at about the same time in the 1970s
206 5 Winds Across the Void

Fig. 5.4 Coronal structures near sunspot minimum. The Sun’s corona becomes visible to the
unaided eye during a total solar eclipse, such as this one observed from Oranjestad, Aruba on
26 February 1998, close to a minimum in the Sun’s 11-year cycle of magnetic activity. Several in-
dividual photographs, made with different exposure times, were combined and processed electron-
ically in a computer to produce this composite image, which shows the solar corona approximately
as it appears to the human eye during totality. Note the fine rays and helmet streamers that extend
far from the Sun along the equatorial regions (left and right), and the polar rays (top and bottom)
that suggest a global, dipolar magnetic field. (Courtesy of Fred Espenak.)

established that at least some of the high-speed solar wind has its origin in the
extended, low-density coronal holes (Sect. 2.5).
As suggested by Sir William Ian Axford in the 1980s and 1990s, the steady,
uniform, high-speed wind emanates from magnetically open configurations in the
corona. The open magnetic fields in coronal holes provide a conduit for the fast
wind, like the express lane of a divided highway. In contrast, the slow wind, which
is filamentary and transient, involves the intermittent release of material from previ-
ously closed magnetic regions, like cars leaving a traffic jam, so the slow wind may
not be treated as an equilibrium flow in a steady state.
The intrepid explorer, Ulysses, has clarified our knowledge of the two solar wind
sources by venturing into the polar regions never before visited by any spacecraft.
However, Ulysses always kept its distance, never passing closer to the Sun than
the Earth does. Scientists therefore had to rely on other instruments to tell exactly
where the winds come from. Fortunately, the first Ulysses measurements, which
occurred during its polar orbit in 1994–1995, were obtained near activity minimum
with a particularly simple corona characterized by marked symmetry and stability.
There were pronounced coronal holes at the Sun’s north and south poles, and coronal
streamers encircled the solar equator.
5.3 Where Do the Sun’s Winds Come From? 207

Fast Wind
N

+
Slow
Streamer Wind
-

S
Fast Wind

Fig. 5.5 Magnetism at minimum. Theoretical cross section of the magnetic field lines expected
in the Sun’s corona with a dipole-type geometry and equatorial current sheet near the minimum
in the 11-year cycle of solar magnetic activity. The high-speed wind escapes along the open mag-
netic field lines in the polar regions. At the equator, where the slow wind originates, the magnetic
field lines have been pulled outward by the solar wind into oppositely directed, parallel mag-
netic fields separated by a neutral current sheet. Here, the transition from closed to open field
lines at the equator occurs at two and a half times the Sun’s radius. [Adapted from Pneuman and
Kopp (1971).]

Magnetic Rotation Current

Axis Axis Sheet
Sun

Open
Magnetic
Fields
Closed
Magnetic
Fields

Fig. 5.6 Ballerina model of current sheet. Near the Sun, closed magnetic loops begin and end
on the Sun. Further out, magnetic field lines have only one end in the Sun, with the other “end”
being carried off by the solar wind. The shaded surface is the heliospheric current sheet, which is
bounded by magnetic fields that are directed in and out of the Sun (arrows). It is shown as warped,
because the equivalent magnetic symmetry axis does not coincide with the Sun’s rotation axis. The
tilt angle between the two axes causes the current sheet to take the form of a wavy ballerina skirt
as it rotates past the Earth
208 5 Winds Across the Void

Comparisons of Ulysses’ high-latitude passes with Yohkoh soft X-ray images

showed that at least some of the high-speed component of the solar wind escapes
from holes in the corona near the Sun’s poles (Fig. 5.7). The coronal holes mark the
base of extended, open magnetic field lines that are unable to restrain the coronal
gas, so the hot particles rush out unimpeded to form the fast solar wind. The ion
composition and temperature of the fast solar wind imply an origin in a place of rel-
atively low electron temperature, which is consistent with genesis in coronal holes
whose electron temperatures are several hundred thousand degrees cooler than the
temperatures in lower latitude coronal streamers. So, there is now a general consen-
sus that polar coronal holes are the source of the extremely uniform and steady, fast
solar wind at activity minimum.
The high-speed wind is not only found directly above polar coronal holes, but
also at lower latitudes nearer the solar equator and outside the radial projection of
the coronal hole edges. One explanation is that the magnetic field lines emerging
from coronal holes splay and bend outward, like the petals of an opening flower,
allowing the fast wind to spread out as it escapes.
At the next activity minimum, in 2007–2008, Ulysses found steady, fast solar
wind flows at high solar latitudes, which were virtually indistinguishable from the
polar coronal hole winds observed during the spacecraft’s first polar orbit, indicat-
ing a return to a simple bimodal, fast–slow wind structure associated with large,
persistent polar coronal holes and quiescent equatorial streamers. During this mini-
mum, the polar high-speed wind was confined to solar latitudes above 45◦ , with less
spillover to lower solar latitudes than during the previous solar activity minimum.
And where do the slow winds come from? Early solar wind measurements from
the sixth, seventh, and eighth Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms, or IMP, 6, 7,
and 8, in 1981 led John T. Gosling and his colleagues to propose that a substantial
fraction of the low-speed solar wind originates in coronal streamers, particularly
near the minimum in the solar activity cycle, and this site agreed with the radio
scintillation observations at activity minimum that showed the slow wind is confined
to low latitudes where the equatorial streamer belt is located.
A few years later, Ulysses measurements showed that the slow wind detected at
distances comparable to the Earth’s orbit during activity minimum is confined to
the equatorial regions where bright helmet streamers are seen in white-light coron-
agraphs. A slow-wind origin in their vicinity is additionally consistent with SOHO
abundance measurements.
Electrified matter is densely concentrated within closed magnetic fields at the
base of coronal streamers. The ragged, slow wind probably remains largely bottled
up in this magnetic cage. The part that manages to escape seems to be worn out and
varies in strength as the result of the effort.
As shown by Neil R. Sheeley Jr., Yi-Ming Wang, and their colleagues (Sheeley
et al., 1997; Wang et al., 2000), SOHO’s Large Angle and Spectrometric COrona-
graph, abbreviated LASCO, detects a gusty flow of bright, dense material concen-
trations, or blobs, from the cusp-like base of the equatorial streamers, which are
therefore indeed streaming. The blobs accelerate away from the Sun and flow along
the magnetically open streamer axes, or stalks, like leaves floating on a moving
stream, tracing the outflow of the slow solar wind.
5.3 Where Do the Sun’s Winds Come From? 209

Fig. 5.7 Winds and holes. An X-ray image (top) taken with the Soft X-ray Telescope (SXT) on
Yohkoh is compared with measurements of the solar wind proton flow speed and density obtained
with the Ulysses SWOOPS instrument (bottom) near a minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle.
At least some of the high-speed solar wind originates in coronal holes (the dark areas shown at
both poles of the X-ray image). At high latitudes the velocity is high and the density is low; near
the equator the velocity is low and the density is high. [Adapted from John L. Phillips, et al. (1995),
and courtesy of the Ulysses SWOOPS consortium. Ulysses is a project of international cooperation
between ESA and NASA.]
210 5 Winds Across the Void

In 1992, Yutaka Uchida and his colleagues reported observations with Yohkoh’s
Soft X-ray Telescope showing that the corona above active regions expands, some-
times continually. Interplanetary scintillation measurements by Paul Hick and his
colleagues in 1995 also suggested that active regions might be the source of the slow
winds near activity minimum, noticing that this would be consistent with Yohkoh
soft X-ray observations of expanding active-region loops.
Taro Sakao and co-workers used the X-Ray Telescope aboard Hinode to iden-
tify, in 2007, X-ray-emitting plasma continually flowing into the upper corona. The
continuous outflow occurred at the edge of a solar active region, adjacent to an
equatorial coronal hole, with an apparent velocity of 140 km s−1 . Like the expand-
ing active-region corona detected by Uchida, this is another possible source region
of the low-speed solar wind.
At least some of the slow wind might also leak out of the bottled-up part of
the streamers, like water working its way through a beaver dam or down a clogged
sink, but it is not known if the spurt-like blobs or expanding loops dominate the
low-speed wind.
In 2002, Leonard Strachan and co-workers used another SOHO instrument, the
UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer or UVCS, to derive the wind outflow speeds
in the vicinity of coronal streamers. They found no detectable outflow in the appar-
ently closed fields of the central core region of a streamer, but flows were found
outside the bright streamer edges and along the streamer axis. Moreover, John
Raymond had previously used the UVCS instrument to conclude, in 1999, that the
abundances in the closed-field parts of the steamers are in complete disagreement
with the abundances seen in the slow solar wind, while the open-field “legs” of the
streamers exhibit slow-solar-wind abundances. And in 2005, Ester Antonucci and
colleagues used UVCS to conclude that the slow wind during the 1996–1997 min-
imum came from the region external to and running along the streamer boundary
and in the region above the streamer core beyond 2.7 solar radii, where the transi-
tion between closed and open field lines takes place. The UVCS results collectively
suggest that the slow wind comes mainly from the vicinity of the streamer legs, and
that the lower “core” never, or only very rarely, opens up.
Still, there is no general agreement about the exact genesis and acceleration
mechanism of the slow wind that arises in the vicinity of the quiescent solar mini-
mum streamers. One possible source for the slow solar wind is the magnetic fields
in the coronal holes that border the streamers. If there were a magnetic connection
between one leg of a streamer and an adjacent open field line, some of the streamer
material would be released there. Or the slow solar wind could originate directly
from the rapidly diverging, open flux tubes inside coronal hole boundaries.
In another explanation, the streamer stalks serve as the wellspring of the slow
solar wind. The inward- and outward-directed magnetic fields on each side of the
narrow stalks could be pressed together, joining at the place where they touch. The
lower parts of a streamer would then close down and collapse, and the outer discon-
nected segment would be propelled out to form a gust in the slow solar wind.
In summary, the likely source regions of the two solar winds near activity
minimum are coronal holes and coronal streamers. A steady torrent of high-speed
5.3 Where Do the Sun’s Winds Come From? 211

wind rushes out of the open magnetic fields in the Sun’s polar regions, emerging
from the central regions of large coronal holes. A slow, gusty and variable wind
moves away from regions near the Sun’s equator, associated with streamer cusps,
legs, stalks, or the streamer/coronal-hole boundary regions.

5.3.2 Source Regions of the Solar Winds Near

Solar Activity Maximum

Ulysses data indicate that the simple, bimodal fast–slow wind structure disappears
near the maximum in the 11-year solar activity cycle, when the wind speeds are
much more variable and typically lower. A chaotic and complex mixture of varying
solar wind flows is found at all solar latitudes, including near the poles (Fig. 5.8).
And the winds arise from a variety of sources including coronal holes, coronal
streamers, coronal mass ejections, and solar active regions.
These sources are related to the complex magnetic structure near solar activity
maximum, which differs from the simpler one at minimum activity. When the Sun’s
activity cycle peaks, active regions, streamers and long, narrow rays emerge at solar
latitudes of up to 45◦ , with strong magnetic fields that extend far out into the corona

1000

500

1000 1000

500

1000

Fig. 5.8 Solar wind speeds at activity maximum. The distribution of solar wind speeds as a
function of solar latitude, obtained with the SWOOPS instrument aboard Ulysses during its second
polar orbit near a maximum in the 11-year solar activity cycle. The north and south poles of the Sun
are at the top and bottom of the plot, the solar equator is located along the middle, and the velocities
are in units of kilometers per second, abbreviated km s−1 . At solar maximum, small, low-latitude
coronal holes give rise to fast winds, and a variety of slow-wind and fast-wind sources resulted
in little average latitudinal variation of the solar wind speed. (Courtesy of David J. McComas and
Richard G. Marsden. The Ulysses mission is a project of international collaboration between ESA
and NASA. The central images are from the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, or EIT, and the
Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph, denoted LASCO, aboard the Solar and Heliospheric
Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, as well as the Muana Loa K-coronameter.)
212 5 Winds Across the Void

Fig. 5.9 Coronal structures following sunspot maximum. Miloslav Druckmüller and Peter
Aniol took this image of the solar corona during the total eclipse of 29 March 2006 from Libya. At
this time, the Sun was in a declining phase from a maximum in the solar activity cycle, in 2000, so
polar coronal holes, with their radial magnetic fields, were well developed, but active regions were
still present at a variety of solar latitudes. The bulk of the long fine rays arise from polar and low-
latitude plumes that overlie small magnetic bipoles inside coronal holes, helmet streamer rays that
overlie large loop arcades and separate coronal holes of opposite polarity, and “pseudostreamer”
rays that overlie twin loop arcades and separate coronal holes of the same polarity. [Courtesy of
Miloslav Druckmüller, Peter Aniol and Serge Koutchmy, and adapted from Wang et al. (2007).]

(Figs. 5.9 and 5.10). These active-region streamers tend to be narrower and brighter
than their quiescent equatorial counterparts at solar minimum. And the remnants
of these active regions are carried to higher latitudes by supergranular diffusion
and meridional flow (see Sect. 3.9). The global magnetic structure is then changing
radically, with a switch in overall magnetic polarity; the north magnetic pole even-
tually becomes south and vice versa, and the dipolar, warped-current-sheet model
falls apart. The main current sheet then moves about and secondary sheets are often
present.
At activity maximum, the large polar coronal holes shrink and disappear, smaller
coronal holes appear at all solar latitudes, the slow and fast winds seem to emanate
from all over the Sun, and the high-speed winds abate. The slow winds seem to be
associated with closed magnetic structures, such as active regions and their associ-
ated streamers, or small coronal holes in their vicinity, while the fast winds rush out
of the interiors of the largest of the smaller coronal holes (Fig. 5.11). Coronal mass
ejections briefly provide a noticeable third flow as they pass through interplanetary
space near the maximum of the activity cycle.
The speed of the solar wind emerging from the two main coronal sites may
be related to the structure of the chromosphere underlying them. By combining
measurements from two NASA spacecraft, Scott W. McIntosh and Robert J. Lea-
mon were able to show in 2005 that the solar wind speed and composition near Earth
5.3 Where Do the Sun’s Winds Come From? 213

Fig. 5.10 Coronal rays in eclipse composite. Total eclipse of the Sun on 11 August 1999, near
a maximum in the 11-year solar activity cycle. These simultaneous images are in white light,
taken from the ground (blue background ) and from a coronagraph in space (LASCO 2 on SOHO,
orange background ). The contrast in both images has been enhanced to reveal the large-scale
coronal structures and their sources in the lower corona. Careful alignment shows numerous long,
narrow rays in both images, extending several solar diameters into space from both low and high
solar latitudes. [Courtesy of Serge Koutchmy and Steele Hill, description in Koutchmy and co-
workers (2004).]

seem to be rooted deep within chromosphere structures of different magnetic topol-

ogy. The Advanced Composition Explorer, abbreviated ACE, spacecraft measured
the wind velocity near Earth, while the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer, or
TRACE for short, was used to measure the time sound waves took to travel between
two heights in the chromosphere. The comparison suggested that the speed of the
solar wind emerging from a given area of the solar corona might be estimated from
the properties of the underlying chromosphere and the magnetic fields threading it.
A dense chromosphere might be correlated with closed magnetic structures and a
slow, dense solar wind outflow. A less dense chromosphere may be associated with
open magnetic fields and fast, tenuous solar winds.
ACE and Ulysses studies of solar wind source regions near solar maximum,
reported by Paulett Liewer, Marcia Neugebauer, and Thomas Zurbuchen in 2004,
indicated that some solar wind originates from open magnetic flux rooted in ac-
tive regions with observational signatures of small coronal holes. Richard Woo
and Shadia Habbal reasoned in 2005 that active regions can be a source of the
slow solar wind when the Sun is in a more active phase, even when there is no
streamer around. In fact, there are very convincing correlations of coronal composi-
tion and the properties of the neighborhoods near active regions, as found by Marcia
Neugebauer and co-workers.
214 5 Winds Across the Void

Fig. 5.11 Fast and slow winds, open and closed magnetism. The solar atmosphere, or corona, is
threaded with magnetic fields (yellow lines). Regions with open magnetic fields, known as coronal
holes, give rise to fast, low density, solar wind streams (long, solid red arrows). In addition to
permanent coronal holes at the Sun’s poles (top and bottom), coronal holes can sometimes occur
closer to the Sun’s equator (center). Areas with closed magnetic fields yield the slow, dense wind
(short, dashed red arrows). Comparisons of TRACE images with solar wind ACE data indicate that
the speed and composition of the solar wind emerging from a given area have deep roots in the
chromosphere. There is a shallow dense chromosphere below the strong, closed magnetic regions
with a slow, dense, solar wind outflow; deep, less dense chromosphere is found below the open
magnetic regions with fast, tenuous, solar wind outflow. This image was taken on 11 September
2003, with the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, abbreviated EIT, aboard the SOlar and
Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short. (Courtesy of the SOHO EIT consortium. SOHO is
a project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA.)

And in the meantime other spacecraft were beginning to zero in on the detailed
source regions of the fast solar wind in polar coronal holes.

5.3.3 Fast Wind Sources in Coronal Holes

The open, nozzle-like polar plumes might be an important source of the high-speed
wind. These dense, long, narrow features are the brightest ultraviolet things found in
a dark coronal hole and something has to be energizing them. The tall, conspicuous
features rise out of Earth-sized magnetic regions in the photosphere, and extend
millions of kilometers into space like long ropes, lasting for about a day but
recurring from the same footpoint.
5.3 Where Do the Sun’s Winds Come From? 215

In 1998, Klaus Wilhelm and his colleagues used the Solar Ultraviolet Mea-
surements of Emitted Radiation, abbreviated SUMER, instrument on SOHO to
determine the physical parameters above a polar coronal hole, stating that the
polar plumes are not a major source of the fast solar wind streams. Since the
high-speed wind was apparently coming out of the entire coronal hole, with no
substantial difference in speed between plumes and adjacent places, and since the
interplume regions occupy most of the polar-hole area, the interplume regions were
probably the main source of the polar high-speed wind. More recently, in 2005,
Alan H. Gabriel and his colleagues extended the observations to higher heights,
with SOHO’s UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer, or UVCS for short, to con-
clude that the outflow velocities in the plumes exceed those in the interplume re-
gions at low heights and fall below interplume velocities at heights greater than
1.6 solar radii, presumably through mass transfer to the interplume regions, so that
approximately half of the fast solar wind arises from plumes. Thus, there is a contro-
versial uncertainty about how much of the mass, momentum, and energy flux of the
fast solar wind comes from the dense polar plumes or in the low-density interplume
region.
And if the plumes are not the main source, there are other bright places that could
provide most of the action in coronal holes, such as the X-ray bright points and jets.
Leon Golub and his colleagues discovered the ubiquitous X-ray bright points in
1974 Skylab observations (Sect. 2.5), observing them at all latitudes from equator
to poles. The X-ray jets, associated with flare-like bright points, were discovered
by Kazunari Shibata and his colleagues in 1992 using observations with the soft
X-ray telescope aboard Yohkoh; they proposed that the X-ray jets are caused by
reconnection between emerging magnetic flux and the overlying coronal magnetic
field. In 1998, Yi-Ming Wang and his co-workers reported correlated SOHO obser-
vations of white-light and extreme-ultraviolet jets from polar coronal holes, propos-
ing that they are triggered by small-scale magnetic reconnection events between
emerging bipolar loops and neighboring open, unipolar flux in coronal holes. And in
2007, Shibata and his co-workers used Hinode observations to discover large num-
bers of jets in the chromosphere, with inverted Y-shapes suggesting such magnetic
reconnections.
Observations of X-ray jets in polar coronal holes, with the soft X-ray telescope
aboard Hinode and reported by Jonathan W. Cirtain and colleagues in 2007, indicate
that these jets may contribute significantly to the high-speed wind from coronal
holes, but the relative amounts of the fast solar wind contributed by plumes, inter-
plume regions, and jets from polar coronal holes are still uncertain.
By examining the ultraviolet lines emitted at the base of the corona in coronal
holes, Donald M. Hassler and his colleagues have used the SUMER instrument
on SOHO to show that the high-speed outflow emerges mainly from the funnel-like
boundaries of the magnetic network formed by underlying supergranular convection
cells (Fig. 5.12). They seem to gush out of the crack-like edges of the network, like
grass or weeds growing in the dirt where paving stones meet. This implies that
the high-speed winds could be expelled by explosive magnetic interactions along
the boundaries or boundary intersections of the chromosphere’s magnetic network
inside coronal holes.
216 5 Winds Across the Void

Fig. 5.12 Source of the high-speed solar wind. This full-disk image of the Sun shows coronal
gas at 1.5 × 106 K, shining in the extreme-ultraviolet light of 11 times ionized iron, the Fe XII line
at 19.5 nm. Bright regions indicate the hot, dense material confined within strong magnetic loops,
while the dark polar regions (top and bottom) imply open magnetic fields. These polar coronal holes
are the source of much of the high-speed solar wind. The inset provides a close-up, Doppler ve-
locity map of the million-degree gas at the base of the corona where the fast solar wind originates,
taken in the extreme-ultraviolet light of six times ionized neon, the Ne VIII line at 77 nm. Dark
blue represents an outflow, or blueshift, at a velocity of 10 km s−1 ; it marks the beginning of the
high-speed solar wind. Dark red indicates a downflow at the same speed. Superposed are the edges
of the “honey-comb” shaped pattern of the magnetic network, where the strongest outward flows
(dark blue) are found. The relationship between the outflow velocities and the network suggests
that the high-speed wind emanates from the boundaries and boundary intersections of the mag-
netic network. These observations were taken on 22 September 1996, with the Extreme-ultraviolet
Imaging Telescopes, abbreviated EIT (full disk) and the Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emit-
ted Radiation, or SUMER for short (velocity inset) spectrometer on the SOlar and Heliospheric
Observatory, abbreviated SOHO. [Adapted from Hassler et al. (1999), courtesy of the SOHO EIT
consortium and the SOHO SUMER consortium. SOHO is a project of international collaboration
between ESA and NASA.]

The network boundaries are places where the magnetic fields are concentrated
into funnel-shaped magnetic fields that open up and rapidly fan out to fill the over-
lying corona. Chuan-Yi Tu and his colleagues have used the SOHO SUMER instru-
ment to show that the solar wind indeed escapes from coronal holes in funnels of
open magnetic fields (Fig. 5.13). The winds start flowing out of the corona at be-
tween 5,000 and 20,000 km above the photosphere, with outflow speed of 10 km s−1
or less. As we shall next see, other mechanisms are required to accelerate the fast
winds to their interplanetary speeds of about 750 km s−1 .
5.4 Getting Up to Speed 217

Fig. 5.13 Coronal funnels. The fast solar wind emerges from the coronal funnels located in polar
coronal holes. The magnetic curves are open magnetic field lines; dark gray arches show closed
ones. The lower diagram shows the magnetic vertical components measured by the SOHO MDI
instrument (blue to red). The upper diagram shows Ne VIII Doppler shifts from the SOHO SUMER
instrument (hatched regions have large outflows), together with the inclination of the magnetic field
(blue to red), as extrapolated from MDI measurements. [Courtesy of the SOHO MDI and SUMER
consortia, and adapted from Tu et al. (2005). SOHO is a project of international collaboration
between ESA and NASA.]

5.4 Getting Up to Speed

What forces propel the solar wind to its supersonic velocities of hundreds of kilo-
meters per second? Since the winds are due to the expansion of the hot corona, their
acceleration is related to the heating of the solar corona, discussed in the preceding
Chap. 4. But we will now separately discuss the acceleration of the slow and fast
winds, describing measurements of the relevant velocities and proposed acceleration
mechanisms.
The solar wind outflow begins slowly near the Sun, where the solar gravity is
the strongest, and then continuously accelerates out into space, gaining speed with
distance. But the wind cannot go on accelerating forever, for there is a limit to the
amount of energy being pumped into it. The slow and fast winds therefore break
away from the Sun, and eventually cruise along at a roughly constant speed, called
the asymptotic or terminal velocity.
More than one mechanism is required to explain the acceleration of the two types
of solar winds, the slow and fast ones, for they move in very different ways. The slow
wind naturally reaches terminal velocities of a few hundred kilometers per second
as the corona expands away from the Sun. Additional energy must be deposited in
the low corona to give the fast wind an extra boost and double its speed. In technical
218 5 Winds Across the Void

terms, the fast wind has a velocity and mass flux density that are too high to be
explained by heat transport and classical thermal conduction alone. And when the
complicated magnetic field geometry of the slow wind source regions is taken into
account, additional energy may be needed there as well.
And where are the winds accelerated? Near the minimum in the 11-year solar
activity cycle, the slow winds that are detected by Ulysses at distances comparable
to the Earth are found at low solar latitudes where coronal streamers reside. And
time-lapse sequences of white-light coronagraph images, obtained during activity
minimum conditions in 1996 with SOHO’s Large Angle and Spectrometric Corona-
graph, or LASCO for short, indicate that the coronal streamers are far more dynamic
than was previously thought. The LASCO images show that blobs of high-density
material are being ejected at the streamer cusps and accelerate outward along their
stalks. These blobs are regarded as tracers of the ambient slow solar wind flow, and
they show that the slow wind takes a while to get up to speed. In 1997, Neil R.
Sheeley Jr. and coworkers showed that they accelerate at a leisurely pace and move
out to 25 solar radii before reaching a terminal velocity of about 300 km s−1 , and Yi-
Ming Wang and his co-workers substantiated this conclusion with greater amounts
of data in 2000 (Fig. 5.14).
In 2002, Leonard Strachan and co-workers used another SOHO instrument, the
UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer or UVCS, to derive the slow wind outflow in
coronal streamers, finding low-speed winds along the streamer axis at heights above
about 3.5 solar radii from Sun center, with a gradual increase to only 90 km s−1 at
about 5 solar radii in the streamer stalk.
Radio scintillation measurements indicate that the fast solar wind accelerates
quickly, like a racehorse breaking away from a starting gate. The high-speed wind
flowing from polar coronal holes reaches terminal speeds of 750 km s−1 within 10
solar radii (Fig. 5.15). And in 1998 John Kohl, Steven R. Cranmer, and co-workers
used UVCS measurements of the velocities, derived from the dimming of spectral
lines caused by Doppler shifts, to suggest that the high-speed solar wind emerging
from coronal holes accelerates to supersonic velocity within just 2.5 solar radii from
the Sun center. So the fast wind is accelerated relatively close to the Sun.
In 1977, Randolph H. Levine, Martin D. Altschuler, and John W. Harvey reported
that the fastest solar-wind streams are correlated with those magnetic flux tubes that
expand least in cross-sectional area over the distance between the photosphere and
the coronal height where the solar wind begins. Then in 1990, Yi-Ming Wang and
Neil R. Sheeley Jr. (1990a) showed that the solar-wind speed is inversely correlated
with the rate of magnetic flux-tube expansion in the corona. If the field strength falls
off slowly with height, the “heating” energy extends to greater heights, permitting
acceleration of the winds to higher speeds. In other words, the faster winds are ac-
celerated in the slowly diverging, open field lines. When the field diverges rapidly
with height, less of the deposited energy goes into accelerating the wind. It is some-
thing like the rapid jet of water from an open nozzle on a hose, and the slower,
fountain-like spray from a partially closed nozzle.
The fast solar wind could be accelerated to its high speeds in open magnetic
funnels located in coronal holes. Closed magnetic loops may be swept by underlying
5.4 Getting Up to Speed 219

500

400
Velocity (km s-1)

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance in Solar Radii (r/R )

Fig. 5.14 Slow winds break out slowly. Time-lapse sequences of white-light images, obtained
with the SOHO LASCO instrument, show prominent features, sometimes called blobs, that trace
out the flow of the slow wind during a minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle. The blobs
move radially out from the Sun in its equatorial regions at the vicinity of helmet streamers. The
velocity of about 80 blobs, observed along edge-on structures, is plotted versus distance from the
Sun center in units of the solar radius. The speed does not reach an asymptotic speed of roughly
300 kilometers per second, denoted 300 km s−1 , until about 15 solar radii from the Sun center. The
solid curve shows Eugene Parker’s (1963) solution for a radially expanding, isothermal wind at
a temperature of 1 × 106 K, whose sonic point is located at 5.8 solar radii. [Courtesy of Yi-Ming
Wang, and adapted from Wang et al. (2000).]

convection into the funnel regions where they undergo magnetic reconnection with
the existing open magnetic field lines, releasing energy to power the fast wind in
polar coronal holes.
In 1999, for example, Len A. Fisk, Nathan A. Schwadron, and Thomas H.
Zurbuchen proposed that the fast solar wind is accelerated by the continual emer-
gence of small magnetic loops that reconnect with open field lines near their base.
Fisk extended the idea in 2003, reasoning that both the fast and the slow winds arise
from this process, and that the inverse dependence of solar wind speed on electron
temperature is an intrinsic signature of the material in the coronal loops that are
releasing mass into the open regions. An alternative model, proposed by Steven R.
Cranmer and his co-workers in 2007, associates most of the solar wind, both slow
and fast, with open, “unipolar” regions on the Sun where loops do not seem to be
prevalent.
The SOHO UVCS instrument has demonstrated that the fast solar wind in coronal
holes at solar minimum exhibits the most bizarre and unexpected motions imagin-
able. In 1998, John L. Kohl, Giancarlo Noci, Steven Cranmer, and their co-workers
announced that the Doppler broadening of ultraviolet lines indicates that oxygen
ions have velocities that depend on direction, with larger velocities in the direction
perpendicular to the radial than along it. And since the open magnetic fields extend
220 5 Winds Across the Void

1000

800
Ve locity (km s-1)

600

400

200

0
1 20 40 60 80 100
Distance in Solar Radii (r/ R )

Fig. 5.15 Fast winds accelerate rapidly. Interferometric observations of interplanetary radio
scintillations measure the apparent flow speed of the fast solar wind, plotted here as a function
of distance from the Sun center in units of the solar radius. The results indicate that the fast solar
wind accelerates to its high velocity very close to the Sun, within 10–20 solar radii. The vertical
bar on each data point is the 90% confidence limit, and the horizontal bar indicates the distance
range over which the scintillation estimate is averaged. Measurements with the Very Long Base-
line Array, abbreviated VLBA, are marked with circles and squares. The upper and lower bounds
of the Ulysses velocity measurements, at much larger distances from the Sun, are plotted as hori-
zontal dotted lines, and the mean Ulysses fast-wind velocity is marked with an arrow at 100 solar
radii. The flow speed from a wave-assisted acceleration model is plotted as a dashed line, and the
apparent scintillation velocity calculated from this model is plotted as a heavy solid line. The point
nearest the Sun is estimated from Spartan-201 coronagraph measurements. [Adapted from Grall
et al. (1996).]

out of coronal holes in the radial direction, the ion velocity measured perpendicular
to the magnetic field is greater than that in the parallel direction. A similar veloc-
ity anisotropy is found further out, by in situ measurements of the protons in the
solar wind.
Moreover, the same heavy ions, the less abundant ones, are preferentially ac-
celerated, even though they experience larger gravitational forces due to their extra
mass (Fig. 5.16). Above two solar radii from the Sun’s center, oxygen ions within
coronal holes move at about twice the speed of neutral hydrogen, which in the lower
corona should be strongly coupled to the protons. The oxygen ions and the protons
seem to live on their own, isolated from each other and cut off from their neighbors.
They just do not have enough time to jostle together and smooth out their velocity
differences.
So the heavier particles in coronal holes are moving faster, but even if they are
separated from their lighter neighbors it is still very surprising. It would be some-
thing like heavier adults jogging around a racetrack much more rapidly than lighter,
slimmer youngsters, or overweight people at a party dancing wildly about when all
their slim companions are waltzing at a slow tempo.
5.4 Getting Up to Speed 221

700

600

500
Ve locity (km s-1)

400 O5+
H0
300

200

100 Proton mass

flux conservation

0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Distance in Solar Radii (r/ R )

Fig. 5.16 Heavier ions move faster than lighter ones in coronal holes. Outflow speeds at differ-
ent distances over the solar poles for hydrogen atoms, denoted by H0 or H I, and ionized oxygen,
designated O5+ or O VI. Here the distances are given in units of the solar radius, denoted R .
These data were taken in late 1996 and early 1997, with the UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrome-
ter, abbreviated UVCS, aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short. They
show that the heavier oxygen ions move out of coronal holes at faster speeds than the lighter hy-
drogen, and that the oxygen ions attain supersonic velocities within 2.5 solar radii from the Sun
center. The proton mass flux conservation area denotes the hydrogen outflow speed derived from
mass flux conservation; for a time-steady flow, the product of the density, speed, and flow-tube area
should be constant. (Courtesy of the SOHO UVCS consortium. SOHO is a project of international
collaboration between ESA and NASA.)

In contrast, within equatorial regions where the slow-speed wind begins, the
lighter hydrogen moves faster than the oxygen, as one would expect for a gas with
thermal equilibrium among different types of particles that remain in contact with
each other (Focus 5.3). Frequent collisions within the dense central parts of coronal
streamers, where the density is greater than in coronal holes, adjust particle tem-
peratures to similar values, while also wiping out any memory of the initial accel-
eration mechanism and erasing signatures of it. The UVCS observations, reported
by Richard Frazin and co-workers in 2003, nevertheless indicate particle velocity, or
temperature, differences at the low-density edges of coronal streamers that resemble
those in coronal holes.

Focus 5.3
Temperature, Mass, and Motion
The kinetic temperature, T , of a particle is obtained by equating the thermal energy
of the particle to its kinetic energy of motion, or by:
3 1 2
Thermal energy = kT = mVthermal = Kinetic energy
2 2
222 5 Winds Across the Void

or equivalently:
2
mVthermal
T= ,
3k
where m is the mass of the particle and Boltzmann’s constant k = 1.38066 ×
10−23 J K−1 . When particles are in thermal equilibrium at the same temperature,
lighter particles with smaller mass move faster than heavier, massive ones. That
is what happens in the dense, central pars of coronal steamers, but not in the low-
density coronal holes where some non-thermal process preferentially accelerates the
heavier particles.

So the UVCS instrument on SOHO revealed that the acceleration region of the
fast solar wind, in polar coronal holes at activity minimum, is far from thermal equi-
librium, and that some non-thermal process is unexpectedly and preferentially ac-
celerating the heavier particles in coronal holes. And this led to renewed discussion
of collisionless acceleration mechanisms of the solar wind.
In one explanation, developed by Sir William Ian Axford, Joseph V. Hollweg,
Phillip A. Isenberg, Eckart Marsch, James F. McKenzie, and others, magnetic waves
pump energy into the heavy ions by driving their gyrations around the magnetic
field lines. The charged particles move around the magnetic fields in coronal holes
in the same way that charged particles move in laboratory particle accelerators or
cyclotrons. As the waves move along the magnetic fields, they will produce rapid
gyrations in the direction perpendicular to the fields and little extra motion along
them, something like a hula-hoop that moves in and out from your hips but not up
and down them.
According to the cyclotron resonance theory, the heavier ions gyrate with lower
frequencies where the magnetic waves are most intense. The ions resonate with
the waves that match their natural vibration in a magnetic field, at the cyclotron
frequency (Focus 5.4). These waves damp and dissipate energy, losing it when they
resonate with the ions, and thereby accelerate them. And because the heavier ions
consume more magnetic-wave energy, they are accelerated to higher speeds. This
process might explain the rapid acceleration of the fast wind close to the Sun, in
coronal holes at activity minimum.

Focus 5.4
Particles Gyrating about Magnetic Fields
If a magnetic field of strength, B, acts on a particle with charge eZ, for elec-
tron charge e, and velocity, V, the particle experiences a force, F, called the
Lorentz force:
F = eZ(V × B)
and from Newton’s law for a particle of mass, m, and momentum, mV, we have
dV
m = F = eZ(V×B),
dt
5.4 Getting Up to Speed 223

where we have assumed that gravitational forces are negligible.

The motion of the charged particle is a circle, and it does not change the parti-
cle’s kinetic energy. If V⊥ denotes the component of velocity perpendicular to the
magnetic field, we can rewrite our equation as:
 2
d2V⊥ eZB dV⊥ eZB
2
= = V⊥ ,
dt m dt m

which describes circular motion with a cyclotron frequency, νc , given by:

νc = eZB/m = 1.8 × 1011 (Zme /m)B Hz,

where me denotes the electron mass, the magnetic field strength B is in units of
Tesla, and 1 Hz is equivalent to one cycle per second.
The radius of gyration, RC , is obtained from
V⊥ mV⊥
RC = = .
νC eZB
In the context of the acceleration of particles by waves in coronal holes, there
is more power in the lower frequencies, and heavier particles gyrate at these lower
frequencies.

Observations, models, and theory have all been applied to the ion cyclotron reso-
nance process in recent years. In 2000, for example, Steven R. Cranmer considered
the wave-dissipation arising from more than 2000 low-abundance ion species, con-
cluding that the waves that accelerate the high-speed solar wind must be generated
throughout the extended corona. Five years later, Xing Li and Shadia Habbal (2005)
focused on the acceleration process due to the resonant interaction between the ion
cyclotron waves and both oxygen ions and protons.
But there is no agreement on where these waves come from. According to one
hypothesis, proposed by Joseph V. Hollweg and W. Johnson in 1988, the Sun could
launch low-frequency Alfvén waves that cascade up to high-frequency waves where
they are dissipated by cyclotron resonance. Yet, Philip A. Isenberg, one of the
pioneering experts in theoretical aspects of the process, cast a shadow of uncer-
tainty on all these speculations, declaring in 2004 “the generation of fast solar wind
is not caused by the collisionless dissipation of parallel propagating ion cyclotron
waves.” But perhaps, oblique waves dominate the solar wind, rather than parallel
propagating ones, or there might be some other assumption that could be corrected
to alleviate the model’s failure.
One model attributes the rapid, close acceleration of the solar wind to protons
that have been pumped up by cyclotron resonance. Others argue that the whole
resonance idea is wrong for protons, the main ingredients of the solar wind, but still
viable for heavy ions. So even if the ion cyclotron resonance process does prefer-
entially accelerate the minor heavy ions, we still might not understand the physical
224 5 Winds Across the Void

processes that accelerate the other charged particles in the solar wind – the protons
and electrons.
This brings us to the observation of Alfvén waves blowing further out in
the winds.

5.5 Riding the Waves

The solar wind is described by the equations of magnetohydrodynamics, or MHD

for short, which specify the dynamics of an electrically conducting fluid in the
presence of a magnetic field. This is just what the solar corona and wind are all
about – the motion of electrically charged particles in a magnetic field. And the
general properties of the solar wind, derived by Eugene Parker in 1958, are spec-
ified by the MHD equations of the steady, radial expansion of the million-degree
corona.
More than 40 years of in situ measurements have nevertheless demonstrated that
the solar wind is by no means steady, spherically symmetric, or without structure.
The wind’s physical properties are instead variable in both space and time, and
these variations are often attributed to waves that can be observed by spacecraft and
specified by the MHD equations.
Hannes Alfvén described one such oscillation in 1942; he received the Nobel
Prize in Physics in 1970 for his pioneering MHD work. Alfvén showed that when
charged particles are perturbed in the presence of a magnetic field, they will move
up, down, and forward, oscillating and propagating like a wave. These oscillations
are now known as Alfvén waves, which move at the Alfvén velocity. Their speed
increases with increasing magnetic field strength and decreasing particle density,
with a value of roughly 1, 000 km s−1 in the low solar corona and about 32 km s−1
in the solar wind at the Earth’s orbit.
The presence of Alfvén waves in the solar wind has been confirmed by direct
observations ever since the late 1960s. Paul J. Coleman Jr., for example, noticed
in 1968 that the solar wind flow is turbulent, as evidenced by variations in the
magnetic field strength and wind velocity observed from Mariner 2. He used these
measurements to estimate the power spectra of the turbulent variations, and noticed
that they would produce Alfvén waves, especially in the fast wind. And within a
year, John W. Belcher, Leverett Davis Jr., and Edward J. Smith attributed the mag-
netic fluctuations observed from Mariner 5 to large-amplitude Alfvén waves. And in
1971, both Belcher and independently G. Alazraki and P. Couterier described solar
wind acceleration by the gradient in Alfvén wave pressure.
The ubiquitous Alfvén waves have been continuously reconfirmed for decades,
usually from spacecraft moving in the ecliptic and near the Earth’s orbit; the
observed waves have periods of hours, and predominantly propagate away from
the Sun.
Alvfén waves were detected far outside the ecliptic, above the Sun’s polar re-
gions, when magnetometers aboard Ulysses detected magnetic fluctuations in the
fast, high-latitude wind, with periods of 10–20 h. They were changes in the direction
5.5 Riding the Waves 225

of the magnetic field, and not variations in its strength. Andre Balogh, Edward J.
Smith, Bruce T. Tsurutani, and their colleagues attributed the fluctuations to large-
amplitude Alfvén waves, similar in properties to those seen in the fast solar wind
near the ecliptic by Helios 1 and 2 and previous spacecraft.
The magnetic waves rippling through the Sun’s polar regions tend to block in-
coming high-energy cosmic rays, intruders from outer space. Scientists expected
that the charged cosmic ray particles would be able to penetrate deep within the
regions above the Sun’s poles, where the magnetic fields stretch out radially and
smoothly with little twist. Since solar rotation winds up the solar wind’s magnetism
in the equatorial plane of the Sun, cosmic rays might have more difficulty in pen-
etrating these regions. After all, increased magnetism in the solar wind, associated
with a maximum in the 11-year solar activity cycle, was known to cut off cosmic
rays so that fewer of them reach the Earth at activity maximum (Sect. 2.4).
Ulysses’ instruments surprised nearly everyone; they did not register substan-
tially more cosmic rays over the poles than near the ecliptic. As suggested by
J. Randy Jokipii and Joseph Kóta in 1989, strong magnetic waves in the polar re-
gions can repel the high-energy ions, sending them back into space. The incoming
cosmic rays meet an opposing force, like a swimmer encountering powerful currents
or pounding surf. To put it in more scientific language, the Alfvén waves are very
long, with wavelengths reaching one-third the distance between the Earth and the
Sun, or 0.33 AU, so they can resonate with the energetic cosmic rays and oppose
their entry into the polar regions.
The Alfvén waves exert a pressure that can provide an extra boost to the heat-
driven solar wind, accelerating it to higher speed. This has led to a long series of
models of wave-driven winds, ever since Alfvén waves were discovered in the solar
wind and John W. Belcher proposed that they push the solar wind to its higher speed.
In effect, the fast winds are pushed along by the pressure of the Alfvén waves,
resembling the way the Sun’s radiation pressure might propel a spacecraft with a
large enough solar sail.
When reviewing the wind-acceleration mystery in 2006, Joseph V. Hollweg nev-
ertheless pronounced that wave-driven models all ultimately fail to explain the rapid
acceleration of the fast wind close to the Sun. But in 2005, Steven R. Cranmer
and Adriaan van Ballegooijen described the generation, propagation, and reflec-
tion of Alfvén waves all the way from the solar photosphere to the distant helio-
sphere, concluding that their model of these waves gives the right amount of wave
damping and associated heating of the extended solar corona. One unsettled ques-
tion is whether there is enough power in the Alfvén waves at low frequencies close
to the Sun to drive the fast solar wind.
Some evidence is provided from the observations of cosmic radio sources or ra-
dio signals from spacecraft as their radiation passes through the solar wind. Charac-
teristics of coronal Alfvén waves inferred from such measurements of natural radio
sources led Salvatore Mancuso and Steven R. Spangler to report in 1999 that there
is not enough Alvén wave flux to heat and accelerate the solar wind. On the other
hand, V. E. Andreev and colleagues reported in 1997 that observations of radio sig-
nals from the two Helios spacecraft demonstrate substantial transfer of wave energy
226 5 Winds Across the Void

to the solar wind. And John K. Harmon and William A. Coles’ announced in 2005
the possible indirect evidence for Alfvén waves near the Sun in radio scattering and
scintillation observations of the inner solar wind.
As mentioned in Sect. 4.5, instruments aboard Hinode have detected Alfvén
waves lower down and closer to the Sun. Observations with its X-Ray Telescope
reveal ubiquitous X-ray jets in polar coronal holes and provide evidence for Alfvén
waves generated at the bottom of coronal holes, leading Jonathan W. Cirtain and his
colleagues to speculate in 2007 that these waves may contribute to the high-speed
solar wind. And observations with the Solar Optical Telescope on Hinode, reported
by Bart De Pontieu and co-workers (2007b), indicate that the chromosphere is per-
meated with Alfvén waves that are energetic enough to accelerate the solar wind.
So the controversy continues, and they say old theories never die. They are just
resurrected in a slightly different form. We can therefore count on future accelera-
tion models that incorporate magnetic Alfvén waves, and new observations might
yet substantiate one of them.

5.6 Magnetic Connections

5.6.1 Flowing Wide Open

Magnetic fields generated within the Sun can emerge into the outer solar atmo-
sphere, the corona, forming magnetic loops that are often filled with material heated
to temperatures of a few million Kelvin. But, owing to its high temperature, some
of the electrified coronal material escapes the Sun’s gravitational pull, and carries
the solar magnetic field into the heliosphere (Fig. 5.17). These magnetic fields are
open, pointing in just one direction – either in or out of the Sun, with one end rooted
in the Sun and the other transported out into the heliosphere by the solar wind.
Whenever spacecraft have ventured into interplanetary space, either within the
ecliptic or at higher solar latitudes, the large-scale magnetic field extending from the
Sun is open, never closed into a loop-like structure. The only exception is the short-
lived, loop-like magnetic structures hurled through space by coronal mass ejections,
which can contribute a noticeable fraction of the magnetic fields in the heliosphere
near a maximum in the 11-year solar activity cycle.
As Ulysses traveled along its orbit, the spacecraft’s magnetometers always mea-
sured a similar component of the magnetic field, pointing in the radial direction
away from the Sun and when normalized to the same distance from it. This indi-
cated that the Sun’s distant, open magnetic flux is uniform all around the Sun, or at
all solar latitudes and longitudes.
This is not what you would expect for the distribution of magnetic fields near a
dipole, which is more concentrated over the poles. The magnetic fields of a dipole
come together at the poles and spread out between them. But by the time the so-
lar wind has traveled out to Ulysses’ distance, which is comparable to that of the
5.6 Magnetic Connections 227

Fig. 5.17 Magnetic fields near and far. In the low solar corona, strong magnetic fields are tied to
the Sun at both ends, trapping hot, dense electrified gas within magnetized loops. Far from the Sun,
the magnetic fields are too weak to constrain the outward pressure of the hot gas, and the loops are
opened up, allowing electrically charged particles to escape, forming the solar wind, and carrying
magnetic fields away. (Courtesy of Newton Magazine, the Kyoikusha Company.)

Earth or more, the solar magnetism had been redistributed, producing a uniform
radial field.
Moreover, the open magnetic flux remained approximately constant during the
entire 11-year solar activity cycle. Near sunspot and activity minimum, most of
the open flux resides in large polar coronal holes, whereas at sunspot and activity
maximum it is rooted in relatively small, low-latitude holes located near active re-
gions and characterized by strong footpoint fields. Since the decrease in total area
228 5 Winds Across the Void

occupied by the holes is offset by the increase in magnetic field strength, the open
magnetic flux, or magnetic field strength per unit area, remains roughly constant
from minimum to maximum.
Something is transforming a complex and varied magnetic structure near the
Sun into a uniform, open magnetic flux further out. And this apparently happens
both near activity minimum, when magnetic fields extending from coronal holes
dominate much of the heliosphere, and near the maximum in solar activity when the
open flux also originates in the vicinity of active regions.
So what keeps the magnetic flux open, uniform, and radial far from the Sun?
Although the technical details differ, several groups have proposed that the Sun’s
open magnetic regions form as the result of the emergence, dispersal, and/or inter-
action of magnetic fields in the underlying photosphere, particularly in coronal holes
where most of the open flux is concentrated. These holes rotate at the same speed
at all solar latitudes, in sharp contrast with the differential rotation of the underly-
ing photosphere, which spins faster at lower solar latitudes. In 1988, Ana G. Nash,
Neil Sheeley Jr., and Yi-Ming Wang proposed, for example, that the uniform, rigid
rotation of large, polar coronal holes is due to the ongoing field-line reconnections,
as the result of differential rotation, supergranular diffusion, and meridional flows
in the photosphere and below.
And Len Fisk and his colleagues have also attributed the Sun’s open magnetic
flux to a diffusive displacement process resulting from the reconnection of open
field lines with closed loops. This reconnection between closed solar and open he-
liospheric field lines has been dubbed an interchange reconnection, since their iden-
tities are interchanged. A footpoint initially attached to a closed loop becomes open,
and vice versa.
Wang and Sheeley addressed the problem again in 2004, arguing that footpoint
exchanges between open and closed magnetic field lines, the interchange reconnec-
tions, cause open flux to jump from one location to another when active regions
emerge. They act to untie the rotation of coronal holes from the underlying photo-
sphere, counteracting differential rotational shear in the holes and maintaining their
uniform rotation.
The Sheeley–Wang duo also noticed that some of the open magnetic flux even-
tually closes down again, producing inflowing material that helps to keep the total
amount of open magnetic flux roughly constant over the solar cycle. The episodic
downflows generally occur below 5.5 solar radii from the Sun center, the point of
no return for the escaping solar gas and magnetic fields. The returning inflow most
likely occurs after magnetic reconnection of adjacent open fields that point in and
out of the Sun at magnetic sector boundaries.

5.6.2 Unexpected Behavior

The heliosphere’s magnetic field does not just placidly stream away from the Sun,
entrained in the steady flow of the solar wind. The magnetic field lines are instead
5.6 Magnetic Connections 229

going where they are not supposed to be, and making forbidden liaisons there. They
reorganize, merge, and join together into new configurations, reconnecting with
each other and even disconnecting from the Sun. Significant amounts of magnetic
energy can be extracted to accelerate particles in the process.
Direct evidence that such magnetic reconnection occurs in the solar wind has
been found in Advanced Composition Explorer, abbreviated ACE, observations near
the Earth’s orbit. As reported by John T. Gosling and his co-workers (2005a, b), the
main evidence consists of an accelerated ion flow within magnetic field reversals in
the solar wind. The high-speed ions are hurled out in a direction perpendicular to
the X-line where oppositely directed magnetic field lines meet and reconnect.
These jetting flows have been called Petschek-type reconnection exhausts, as the
result of Harry E. Petschek’s 1963 theoretical discussion of the annihilation of op-
positely directed fields and the related conversion of magnetic energy into particle
energy during solar flares. The solar wind exhausts are often found in the compres-
sion regions of coronal mass ejections arriving near Earth.
As reported by Tai D. Phan and coworkers in 2006, and Gosling and his
colleagues in 2006 and 2007, multi-spacecraft observations of the reconnection ex-
hausts in the solar wind suggest that the accelerated flow associated with reconnec-
tion in the solar wind is a large-scale, prolonged, and steady process that can extend
along enormous distances. In 2007, for example, Gosling and his co-workers re-
ported observations of exhaust jets from a magnetic reconnection X-line extending
more than 4 × 106 km, or hundreds of Earth radii, in the solar wind at the Earth’s
orbit, persisting for at least 5 h and 20 min. These oppositely directed plasma jets
were observed from a flotilla of five well-separated spacecraft – STEREO A and B,
ACE, Wind, and Geotail.
As the solar wind streams radially outward, pulling the Sun’s magnetism with
it, the rotating star twists the magnetic fields into a spiral shape within the plane of
the Sun’s equator. It is sometimes called the Parker spiral, after Eugene Parker who
explained it in 1958. The shape is also that of an Archimedean spiral described in
the third century BC by the Greek mathematician Archimedes. (An Archimedean
spiral is the locus of points described by a point moving away from a fixed point
with a constant speed along a line that rotates with constant angular velocity.) Mea-
surements from spacecraft have demonstrated that the interplanetary magnetic field
in the ecliptic is oriented in a simple spiral pattern, if averaged over a sufficiently
long time.
Observations from Ulysses also showed that the large-scale, global magnetic field
is in good agreement with Parker’s model throughout the heliosphere, although the
magnetic spiral is less tightly wound than predicted at high solar latitudes. The high-
latitude distortions of the spiral shape may be due to the magnetic waves propagating
out and above the Sun’s polar regions.
Since charged particles cannot easily cross magnetic field lines, high-speed elec-
trons that are hurled into space by solar flares must follow a curved spiral path rather
than a straight line. And these electrons have trajectories, inferred from their radio
emissions, which confirm this expectation (Fig. 5.18).
230 5 Winds Across the Void

100

Sun

Oct 30

272 Mercury

Oct 25
100
Venus
81

Earth

Fig. 5.18 Magnetic spiral. The trajectory of flare electrons in interplanetary space as viewed
from above the polar regions using the Ulysses spacecraft. The squares and crosses show Ulysses
radio measurements of type III radio bursts on 25 October 1994 and 30 October 1994. As the
high-speed electrons move out from the Sun, they excite radiation at successively lower plasma
frequencies. The numbers denote the observed frequency in kiloHertz, or kHz. Since the flaring
electrons are forced to follow the interplanetary magnetic field, they do not move in a straight
line out from the Sun, but instead move along the spiral pattern of the interplanetary magnetic
field, shown by the solid curved lines. The magnetic fields are drawn out into space by the radial
solar wind, and attached at one end to the rotating Sun. The approximate locations of the orbits of
Mercury, Venus, and the Earth are shown as circles. [Courtesy of Michael J. Reiner, and adapted
from Reiner, Fainberg and Stone (1995). Ulysses is a project of international collaboration between
ESA and NASA.]

But the magnetic fields are also linked to their sources in the ever-varying pho-
tosphere. Random motions and systematic differential rotation of these magnetic
anchoring points can produce unexpected behavior. They can, for example, carry
open field lines across coronal hole boundaries, making them connect and creating
“sub-Parker” spirals.
The movements of the magnetic fields down at the Sun can also enable magnetic
reconnections between different solar latitudes out in the solar wind, enhancing the
propagation of energetic particles from low latitudes to higher ones. Recurrent elec-
tron enhancements have, for example, been unexpectedly observed up to the highest
solar latitudes observed by Ulysses.
5.7 Ingredients of the Sun’s Winds 231

Louis J. Lanzerotti, George M. Simnett, and their co-workers reported such en-
hancements during Ulysses’ first polar orbit, at activity minimum when they were
only expected at low solar latitudes. The electrons are accelerated in the low places
by the shocks produced when the slow and fast winds meet. But once produced, the
accelerated electrons follow the outward spiral of the magnetic field. So they were
not expected at high solar latitudes, beyond the extent of the interaction regions that
occur at low latitudes where the minimum slow wind is concentrated.
In 1996, Len Fisk attributed the unexpected, high-latitude appearance of recur-
rent electron enhancements to the motions of the footpoints of open magnetic field
lines from low to high solar latitudes. An alternative theory, proposed by J. Randy
Jokipii in 1966, proposed that energetic particles might propagate to higher solar
latitudes as the result of perpendicular diffusion driven by random solar motions at
the feet of magnetic field lines.
Motions of magnetic fields at the photosphere are coupled to the outer he-
liosphere, resulting in the braiding, mixing, and reconnection of interplanetary
magnetic fields lines. Such mixing was inferred in 2000 by Joseph E. Mazur and co-
workers from ACE flare observations of magnetic flux tubes that are alternately filled
and devoid of flare ions even though they had a common flare source on the Sun.
Roberto Bruno and Vincenzo Carbone in 2005, Eckart Marsch in 2006, and
B. R. Ragot (2006b, c) have described the theoretical aspects of interacting mag-
netic fields in the turbulent solar wind. In 2005, Benjamin D.G. Chandran dis-
cussed weakly turbulent Alfvén waves and fast magetosonic waves, including their
effects on minor ions in the solar corona. On the observational front, in 2002
Steven R. Spangler and colleagues have reported Very Long Baseline Interferometry
measurements of turbulence in the inner solar wind.

5.7 Ingredients of the Sun’s Winds

The material input to the solar wind is by no means uniform, and this is reflected
in the composition of the winds. The slow wind, the fast wind, and energetic gusts
in the winds exhibit different ion abundances, and some of these differences are
attributed to their varying circumstances of origin. Processes in the solar wind can
subsequently accelerate the ions to higher energies, alter their composition, and af-
fect their motion. Ions arriving at the Earth’s orbit therefore exhibit a variety of com-
positions and energies, which are detected by instruments aboard the ACE, Ulysses,
STEREO A and B, and Wind spacecraft. The ions in the solar wind, for example,
usually have relatively low energies, but the winds occasionally contain a fewer
number of ions that have been accelerated to higher energies by explosive outbursts
near the Sun or by interplanetary shocks further out. And spacecraft can also detect
relatively rare and exceptionally energetic cosmic ray ions that arrive from outside
the solar system.
232 5 Winds Across the Void

5.7.1 Different Sources, Varying Ionization

The electron that is most easily extracted from an atom, and least tightly bound
to it, is the electron in the outermost, first orbit. And the first ionization potential,
abbreviated FIP, is the energy required to remove that electron. Those elements with
the lowest first ionization potentials, the lowest FIPs, are more abundant in the solar
wind than in the underlying photosphere.
Ove Havnes discovered such an enhancement in the abundance of elements with
low FIPs in the early 1970s for cosmic rays. In the late 1970s and early 1980s,
instruments aboard the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft recorded the FIP effect in the
solar energetic particles emitted by solar flares, leading Walter R. Cook, Edward C.
Stone, and Rochus E. Vogt to conclude in 1984 that “both the solar energetic parti-
cles and the solar wind composition are significantly and persistently different from
that measured for the photosphere.”
Over the ensuing decades, spacecraft observations have confirmed the systematic
overabundance of low FIP elements, when compared to photosphere abundances,
for particles hurled into interplanetary space during explosive solar outbursts. And
they have established a similar FIP effect for the slow solar wind at times of quies-
cent solar activity – by Peter Bochsler and Johannes Geiss in 1989. Measurements
from Ulysses, presented by Rudolf Von Steiger and co-workers in 2000, indicated
that the low-FIP elements in the unperturbed slow wind are about three or four times
more abundant than those in photosphere. The FIP effect is also present in the fast
wind, but with a smaller enhancement.
These abundance differences most likely reflect the element abundances in the
wind’s place of origin. If the physical conditions, such as temperature, density, or
magnetic field strength, are different in various locations within the chromosphere
and low corona, where the winds originate, then it seems logical that the easily ion-
ized elements will vary in abundance. In the 1990s, Uri Feldman and co-workers
(1992, 1993) reported measurements with the Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of
Emitted Radiation, or SUMER for short, instrument aboard SOHO, which indicate
the high-temperature chromosphere and corona indeed exhibit element abundances
similar to those seen further out in the solar wind and solar energetic particles, and
different from the abundances of these elements in the photosphere, also noticing
that the element abundances change from region to region. And in 1999, John Ray-
mond reviewed the composition variations observed with SOHO’s UltraViolet Coro-
nagraph Spectrometer, abbreviated UVCS, instrument, confirming that the FIP ef-
fect is found in both the low corona and the solar wind, and must originate in the
chromosphere by some unknown physical process. One possibility is that the fast
wind is related to small, short-lived loops interacting with open fields, while the
slow wind may come from larger, longer-lived coronal structures.
5.7 Ingredients of the Sun’s Winds 233

5.7.2 Shocking Times

Some ions found in the solar wind move far too swiftly to have been accelerated at
the wind’s source near the Sun. They have been propelled to higher speeds within
interplanetary space, at places where the fast solar wind overtakes the slower wind
ahead of it, producing compressed regions that are bounded by forward and reverse
shocks and co-rotate with the Sun (Fig. 5.19). The leading edge of the co-rotating
interaction regions is a forward pressure wave that propagates into the sluggish flow
ahead, while the trailing edge is a reverse pressure wave that propagates into the
trailing high-speed flow. At large distances, the bounding pressure waves steepen
into forward and reverse shocks that can accelerate particles.
Theoretical investigations of co-rotating interaction regions extend back to 1963
when Eugene Parker (1963b) noticed that solar wind flows of different speeds
will interact in co-rotating regions of high pressure, roughly aligned with the
Archimedean spiral pattern of the interplanetary magnetic field. In the early 1970s,
Arthur J. Hundhausen (1972a, b, 1973) predicted that these compression regions
would be bounded by forward–reverse shock pairs not too far beyond Earth’s orbit,
which was confirmed by the observations in the mid-1970s with the Pioneer 10 and
11 deep space probes, reported by Edward J. Smith and John H. Wolfe in 1976.
In the same year, Frank B. McDonald and his colleagues showed that the observed
Compression

Slow
Rarefaction
Slow Forward
Shock
Compress
Slow ion
Fast

Fast Reverse
Shock

Plasma Temperature

Solar Wind Speed

Density

Magnetic Field
Intensity

Flow Angle

Fig. 5.19 Co-rotating interaction regions. Magnetic fields and solar wind compression and rar-
efaction regions when the fast winds overtake the slow ones are shown in the upper figure in a coor-
dinate system rotating with the Sun. Variations in the velocity, density and magnetic field strength
are shown in the lower part of the figure, for conditions near the Earth’s orbit. At larger distances,
the edges of the interaction/compression region steepen into shocks. [Adapted from Belcher and
Davis (1971).]
234 5 Winds Across the Void

co-rotating interaction regions also accelerate ions to high energies. Instruments

aboard the Helios 1 and 2 spacecraft subsequently detected the shocks in the in-
ner heliosphere, within the Earth’s orbit, and Voyager 2 found that the forward–
reverse shock pairs are a common feature of the solar wind at distances beyond the
Earth’s orbit.
We now know that co-rotating regions are the dominant large-scale structure in
the heliosphere during both the declining and the minimum parts of the 11-year solar
activity cycle, when they are the main source of accelerating particles to energies
from several keV to several MeV. They are also responsible for 27-day recurrent
geomagnetic storms observed at Earth during activity minimum.
Shocks formed by coronal mass ejections dominate interplanetary acceleration
processes during the active phase of the solar cycle, and these ejections can trig-
ger intense geomagnetic storms when arriving at the Earth with the right magnetic
orientation.
The Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer, abbreviated SWICS, instruments
aboard the Ulysses and ACE spacecraft have confirmed and extended the role of co-
rotating interaction regions in accelerating particles, especially near activity mini-
mum and in the low solar latitude parts of the heliosphere where the fast–slow wind
interaction occurs – see the review by Glenn M. Mason and colleagues in 1999 and
Ian G. Richardson’s account in 2004. As previously mentioned, magnetic connec-
tions provide an access for these particles to higher latitudes, where they have been
observed from Ulysses. And in 2008, Alexis P. Rouillard and co-workers reported
the first observations of co-rotating solar winds flows and their source with the two
STEREO spacecraft.

5.7.3 Pick-Ups Near and Far

Owing to the corona’s very high temperature, the hydrogen and helium in the Sun’s
expanding corona are fully ionized with all of their electrons freed from atomic
bonds. The free electrons, hydrogen nuclei or protons, and helium nuclei flow with
the solar wind unattached to each other. Such helium ions are doubly ionized, with
both the electrons removed from each helium atom, and therefore denoted by He++ .
The observations of singly ionized helium, or He+ , therefore came as an un-
expected surprise. Rainer Schwenn and Jack T. Gosling and their co-workers first
found the singly ionized helium in the solar wind in 1980, respectively using He-
lios 1 and seventh Interplanetary Monitoring Platform, or IMP 7 for short; they
attributed these ions to interplanetary shocks. But then in 1985, Eberhard S. Möbius
and his colleagues called attention to quite another source for singly ionized helium,
using instruments aboard the Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Explorers, ab-
breviated AMPTE, spacecraft. They showed that the observed solar wind He+ has a
velocity distribution that unambiguously indicates an interstellar origin.
Perfectly normal, unionized helium atoms in nearby interstellar space drift far
inside the heliosphere with relatively slow velocities of about 26 km s−1 , as the
result of the Sun’s motion through the local interstellar cloud. And because they
5.7 Ingredients of the Sun’s Winds 235

are uncharged, the electrically neutral atoms are completely oblivious of the solar
wind’s magnetic field. As pointed out by Möbius, the Sun’s gravity focuses the in-
coming helium atoms into a conical region in the direction opposite to the direction
from which they came.
But just one electron is eventually removed from each incoming helium atom
when it gets close to the Sun, as the result of the increasing intensity of ionizing
ultraviolet sunlight and/or the greater density of solar wind material that can interact
with the helium to alter its charge. And now that they are electrically charged, the
newborn He+ ions are picked up by the magnetic field in the out-flowing solar wind
and taken for a ride. So Möbius and his colleagues called them He+ pick-up ions.
The basic idea had been introduced by Len A. Fisk, Benzion Kozlovsky, and
Reuven Ramaty in 1974, when they proposed that observed enhancements of cos-
mic ray oxygen and nitrogen, with energies of about 10 MeV, could result from
neutral interstellar particles that are swept into the solar vicinity by the motion of
the Sun through the interstellar medium, and which are subsequently ionized, car-
ried along by the solar wind magnetic field, and taken back to the edge of the solar
system. There they can rebound at higher velocities due to shock waves, something
like a squash or tennis ball bouncing off a wall, and become accelerated to even
higher energies. Because the abundances and compositions of these particles are
unusual, when compared to other types of cosmic rays, scientists call them anoma-
lous cosmic rays.
In 1996, Johannes Geiss, George Gloeckler, and Rudolf von Steiger announced
that pick-up carbon, denoted C+ , had been detected from Ulysses close to the Earth’s
orbit, and that it originates in a different inner source located within a few times the
Earth’s distance from the Sun. The ionized carbon could not possibly originate from
interstellar carbon atoms, because they would have been ionized by solar ultraviolet
radiation much further from the Sun and carried out by the solar wind. An inner
source close to the Sun also produces singly ionized oxygen or nitrogen, but it does
not significantly contribute to their total amounts. The inner source pick-ups have a
velocity distribution that peaks at or below the solar wind speed, and exhibits a com-
position similar to the solar wind. And since their amounts decrease roughly with
increasing distance from the Sun, they most likely originate near the Sun, perhaps
from abundant interplanetary dust grains.
The SWICS instruments on Ulysses and ACE have revealed a vast population
of interstellar pick-up ions, many for the first time and each with just one electron
missing. These investigations have been reported in several articles published by
George Gloeckler and his co-workers ever since the launch of the two spacecraft.
The Ulysses instrument, for example, discovered interstellar pick-up hydrogen, de-
noted H+ , in the solar system, identifying it by its distinct velocity distribution.
And both spacecraft have carried out continuous and comprehensive observations
of pick-up helium, He+ , nitrogen, N+ , oxygen, O+ , and neon, Ne+ .
The properties of the pick-up ions have been used to extrapolate back into the
place they came from, permitting inferences about the abundance of elements and
the chemical and physical conditions in the local interstellar cloud, as well as the
extent of the heliosphere. The observations have also fully confirmed the hypothesis
236 5 Winds Across the Void

that pick-up ions derived from the interstellar gas are the dominant source of
anomalous cosmic rays, which are pre-accelerated inside the heliosphere and re-
accelerated at the terminal shock of the solar wind out at the edge of the helio-
sphere. Moreover, the pick-up ions already residing within the solar wind are pref-
erentially boosted to higher energies by the interplanetary shocks associated with
either co-rotating interaction regions or coronal mass ejections.

5.7.4 Super-Hot and Undemocratic

A Maxellian distribution, first derived by James Clerk Maxwell in 1860, describes

the velocities of particles in any gas at thermal equilibrium at a given temperature.
In this velocity distribution, most of the particles have an average speed governed by
the gas temperature, and a very few are found in the low-velocity or high-velocity
tails of the distribution. It is the same distribution that describes the grades of a large
number of students taking a test, most with an average grade and a small number
with the lowest or highest ones.
Instruments aboard Ulysses and ACE have unexpectedly shown that some ions
in the solar wind move at exceptionally fast speeds, up to at least 50 times the ve-
locity of other solar wind ions. As reported by George Gloeckler in 2003, these
high-speed particles are observed in the velocity distributions of both the solar wind
and the pick-up ions, for protons and all heavier ions that can be detected and ex-
tending to the highest energies that can be measured. And since there are more of
the ubiquitous high-speed ions than expected from a thermal, Maxwellian velocity
distribution of the corona, at a temperature of a few million Kelvin, they have been
dubbed “suprathermal” particles. They are also super-hot and decidedly undemo-
cratic, forming an exceptional group that attains the highest energies.
Moreover, the abundant pre-accelerated suprathermal solar wind and pick-up
ions are further accelerated to higher energies by interplanetary shocks. In 2006,
for example, Mihir I. Desai and his colleagues published a comprehensive survey
of heavy-ion abundances observed by ACE during solar energetic particle events
arriving at Earth’s orbit. They concluded that shocks generated by coronal mass
ejections accelerate a suprathermal seed population that is already enriched in high-
speed, heavy ions, and that the solar energetic particles are not the result of the
shocks accelerating ambient coronal or solar wind ions.

5.8 Edge of the Solar System

How far does the Sun’s influence extend, and where does it all end? The relent-
less solar wind streams out in all directions, rushing past the planets and carving an
immense heliosphere in interstellar space. But since the solar wind thins out as it ex-
pands into a greater volume, it eventually becomes too dispersed to repel interstellar
5.8 Edge of the Solar System 237

forces. The winds are no longer dense or powerful enough to withstand the pressure
of gas and magnetic fields coursing between the stars. The radius of this celestial
standoff distance, in which the pressure of the solar wind falls to a value compara-
ble to the interstellar pressure, has been estimated at about 100 AU, or 100 times the
mean distance between the Earth and the Sun (Focus 5.5).

Focus 5.5
The Heliosphere’s Outer Boundary
The solar wind carves out a cavity in the interstellar medium known as the helio-
sphere. The radius of the heliosphere can be estimated by determining the standoff
distance, or stagnation point, in which the ram pressure, PW , of the solar wind falls
to a value comparable to the interstellar pressure, PI . As the wind flows outward, its
velocity remains nearly constant, while its density decreases as the inverse square
of the distance. The dynamic pressure of the solar wind therefore also falls off as
the square of the distance, and we can use the solar wind properties at the Earth’s
distance of 1 AU to infer the pressure, PWS , at the stagnation-point distance, RS .
Equating this to the interstellar pressure we have:
 2  
1 AU   1 AU 2
PWS = P1 AU × = N1 AUV12 AU × = PI ,
RS RS

where the number density of the solar wind near the Earth is about N1 AU = 5 million
particles per cubic meter and the velocity there is about V1 AU = 500 km s−1 .
To determine the distance to the edge of the solar system, RS , we also need to
know the interstellar pressure, which is the sum of the thermal pressure, the dynamic
pressure, and the magnetic pressure in the local interstellar medium. It is estimated
at PI = (1.3 ± 0.2) × 10−12 dyn cm−2 , resulting in RS = 100 AU or more, far beyond
the orbits of the known outer planets. However, the estimates by different authors
give a broad range for the distance to the edge of the heliosphere, depending on the
uncertain values of various components of the interstellar pressure.

Instruments aboard the twin Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft, launched in 1977 and
now cruising far beyond the outermost planets, have approached this edge of the
solar system from different directions, Voyager 1 moving in the northern hemi-
sphere of the heliosphere and Voyager 2 in the southern hemisphere (Fig. 5.20). In
2005, three articles in the same issue of Science, by Leonard F. Burlaga, Richard B.
Decker, and Edward C. Stone and their co-workers, announced that Voyager 1 had
crossed the termination shock of the supersonic flow of the solar wind on 16 De-
cember 2004, at a distance of 94 times the mean distance between the Earth and
the Sun, or at 94 AU from the Sun. At this distance, the spacecraft’s instruments
recorded a sudden increase in the strength of the magnetic field carried by the solar
wind, as expected when the solar wind slows down and its particles pile up at the
termination shock.
Voyager 2 crossed the termination shock on 30 August 2007, at a distance of 84
AU from the Sun. The observations, published by Leonard F. Burlaga, Richard B.
238 5 Winds Across the Void

Fig. 5.20 Edge of the solar system. Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft, shown at respective distances
of about 90 and 70 AU, approach the place where the solar system ends and interstellar space
begins. One astronomical unit is the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun, and the edge
of the solar system is located at roughly 100 times this distance. At the termination shock, the
supersonic solar wind abruptly slows from an average speed of 400 km s−1 to less than one-quarter
that speed. Beyond the termination shock is the heliosheath, a vast region where the turbulent and
hot solar wind is compressed as it presses outward against the interstellar wind. The edge of the
solar system is found at the heliopause, where the pressure of the solar wind balances that of the
interstellar medium. A bow shock likely forms as the interstellar wind approaches and is deflected
around the heliosphere, forcing it into a teardrop-shaped structure with a long, comet-like tail.
(Courtesy of JPL and NASA.)

Decker, Donald A. Gurnett, John D. Richardson, and Edward C. Stone and their
co-workers in 2008, indicated that there were multiple crossings, three of which
occurred when data were being received from the spacecraft. It appears that there is
a significant north/south asymmetry in the heliosphere, likely due to the direction of
the local interstellar magnetic field.
Both Voyager 1 and 2 have therefore now crossed into the vast, turbulent he-
liosheath, the region where the interstellar gas and solar wind interact, due to the
reflection and deflection of the solar wind ions by the magnetized wind beyond the
heliosheath. In technical terms, the solar wind ions in the heliosheath are deflected
by magnetosonic waves reflecting off of the heliopause, causing the ions to flow
parallel to the termination shock toward the heliotail.
But the Sun’s winds are not alone in the dark, cold outer fringes of the solar
system. About a million million, or 1012 , unseen comets have been hibernating out
there ever since the solar system formed (Focus 5.6). These comets are so small
and widely spaced that it is exceedingly unlikely that the Voyager 1 or 2 spacecraft
5.8 Edge of the Solar System 239

will encounter even one of them, just as the Voyagers passed through the asteroid
belt unaffected by the billions of asteroids there. Before they come close to the Sun,
comets are tiny balls of ice about 10 km across, and large asteroids are battered
chunks of rock of about the same size.

Focus 5.6
The Oort Comet Cloud
In 1950, Jan Hendrik Oort postulated the existence of a remote spherical shell of
comets occupying the outer parts of the solar system. His careful examination of
the trajectories of observed long-period comets, which became visible when they
entered the inner parts of the solar system, could only be explained if these comets
came from a distant reservoir, which he located at between 50,000 and 150,000 AU,
where 1 AU is the mean distance between the Erath and the Sun. At greater dis-
tances, the stars in the neighborhood of our solar system compete for gravitational
control of the comets. And since the observed comets come from all possible direc-
tion in the sky, the reservoir had to be in the shape of a spherical shell.
Modern calculations suggest that there is an inner Oort cloud, with an inner edge
at around 3,000 AU and a density falling off with greater distance. The outer Oort
cloud is continuous with this, but is defined to be those objects at distances greater
than 20,000 AU. The cloud fades away with increasing distance, and its tenuous
outer edge is dynamically limited to about 200,000 AU by the galactic gravity field.
But how do comets fall from the Oort comet cloud to the heart of the solar sys-
tem? The distant comets are only weakly bound to the solar system, and are easily
perturbed by the gravitation of nearby, moving objects, which throw some of the
comets back into the planetary system. The random gravitational jostling of individ-
ual stars passing nearby, for example, knocks just a few of the comets in the Oort
cloud from their stable orbits, either injecting them into interstellar space or grad-
ually deflecting their paths toward the Sun. Every one million years, about a dozen
stars pass close enough to stir up the comet cloud, sending a steady trickle of comets
into the inner solar system on very long elliptical orbits. A giant interstellar molec-
ular cloud can also impart a gravitational tug when it moves past the Oort comet
cloud, helping to jostle some of them out of their remote resting place. Tidal forces
generated in the cloud by the disk of our galaxy, the Milky Way, also help to feed
new long-period comets into the planetary region.
As time goes on, the accumulated effects of these tugs will send a few comets in
toward the Sun – or outward to interstellar space. If the several hundred new comets
observed during recorded history have been shuffled into view by the perturbing
action of the nearby stars or molecular clouds, then there are at least one hundred
billion, or 1011 , comets in the Oort cloud. There may be a trillion, 1012 , or even
10 trillion, 1013 , of them, each a frozen ball of ice no larger than New York City
or Paris. This large population of unseen comets can sustain the visible long-period
comets and persist without serious depletion for many billions of years, until long
after the Sun expands to consume Mercury and boil the Earth’s oceans away.
240 5 Winds Across the Void

Fig. 5.21 Stellar bow shock. A crescent-shaped bow shock is formed when the material in the
fast wind from the bright, very young star, LL Ori (center) collides with the slow-moving gas in
its vicinity, coming from the lower right. The stellar wind is a stream of charged particles moving
rapidly outward from the star. It is a less energetic version of the solar wind that flows from the
Sun. This image was taken from the Hubble Space Telescope. This star is located in the Orion
Nebula; an intense star-forming region located about 1,500 light-years from the Earth. (Courtesy
of NASA, the Hubble Heritage Team, STScI, and AURA.)

Both Voyager spacecraft are equipped with plutonium power sources expected
to last until at least 2020 and perhaps 2025. So they ought to eventually measure
the heliopause, at the outer edge of the heliosheath. It is the place where interstellar
space begins.
The motion of the interstellar gas, with its own wind, compresses the heliosphere
on one side, producing a teardrop-like, non-spherical shape with an extended tail.
A bow shock is formed when the interstellar wind first encounters the heliosphere;
just as a bow shock is created when the solar wind strikes the Earth’s magneto-
sphere. And the graceful arc of a bow shock, created by an interstellar wind, has
been detected around the young star LL Orionis (Fig. 5.21).
Closer to home, space physicists are concerned about the impact of powerful
solar eruptions on the Earth’s environment in space.

5.9 Summary Highlights: The Sun’s Expanding Corona

• The Sun’s hot and stormy atmosphere is forever expanding in all directions, fill-
ing the solar system with a ceaseless flow – called the solar wind – that contains
electrons, protons, and also heavier ions as well as magnetic fields.
• The solar wind creates a teardrop-shaped bubble in interstellar space, known as
the heliosphere, which extends out to about 100 times the mean distance between
the Earth and the Sun or to about 100 AU.
5.9 Summary Highlights: The Sun’s Expanding Corona 241

• The Earth is immersed in the solar wind, which engulfs all the planets, so we live
inside the expanding outer atmosphere of the Sun.
• Early spacecraft measurements showed that there are two kinds of solar wind, a
fast one moving at about 750 km s−1 and a slow one with about half that speed.
• The twinkling, or scintillation, of radio sources suggested that a fast wind is
streaming out at high solar latitudes near a minimum in the 11-year solar activity
cycle, and coordinated X-ray and interplanetary particle and magnetic field data
showed that the fast winds originate from polar coronal holes near the activity
minimum.
• Measurements from the Helios 1 and 2 spacecraft indicated that the electrons,
protons, and helium nuclei in the solar wind have different temperatures; in the
high-speed wind, the more massive particles are hotter.
• The differing ion composition of the fast and slow solar winds indicates that
the wind speed is inversely correlated with the electron temperature at the wind
sources, and that the slow wind originates from very different sources than the
fast wind.
• The Ulysses spacecraft has made measurements all around the Sun, at a distance
comparable to that of the Earth. Its first polar orbit occurred near a minimum in
the Sun’s 11-year activity cycle, while the second polar orbit was near an activity
maximum, and the third polar orbit was near the cycle minimum again, but with
the Sun’s magnetic poles reversed from the first time around.
• A comparison of Ulysses velocity data and X-ray and white-light coronagraph
observations indicated that at activity minimum the uniform, tenuous fast wind
rushed out along the open magnetic field lines of polar coronal holes, and that
the variable, dense slow wind was confined to low solar latitudes in the vicinity
of coronal streamers.
• Near the maximum in the 11-year solar activity cycle, the large polar coronal
holes are replaced by a collection of smaller holes scattered over a wide range
of solar latitudes, and the fast wind at this time comes from the interiors of the
largest of these “smaller holes.” The smallest coronal holes, including those asso-
ciated with active regions with or without streamers, may give rise to a slow solar
wind at all latitudes. Coronal mass ejections provide a transient contribution to
the solar wind flow near the maximum in the solar cycle.
• The slow, dense solar wind outflow emerges from a dense chromosphere with
closed magnetic structures; the fast, tenuous winds are associated with a less
dense chromosphere and open magnetic fields.
• The fast-wind sources in coronal holes have been attributed to polar plumes,
X-ray bright points and jets, the boundaries of the chromosphere’s magnetic net-
work, and/or coronal magnetic funnels.
• The high-speed wind is accelerated very close to the Sun, within just a few solar
radii, and the slow component obtains full speed much further away.
• The fast and slow winds could be accelerated by different-size coronal loops
that emerge from the underlying photosphere and reconnect with open magnetic
fields lines near their base, releasing the bottled up solar material, or they might
242 5 Winds Across the Void

be associated with open “unipolar” regions on the Sun where loops do not seem
to be prevalent.
• SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, observations of ultra-
violet line broadening in polar coronal holes at solar activity minimum demon-
strate that heavy ions have velocities that depend on direction, with faster speeds
in a direction perpendicular to the open, radial magnetic field.
• Ultraviolet line observations from SOHO indicate that heavy ions in polar coronal
holes move faster than light ions in polar coronal holes.
• The velocity anisotropy and preferential acceleration of heavier ions in coronal
holes could be due to waves that resonate with ion cyclotron motion in a mag-
netic field.
• Alfvén waves have been observed in the solar wind for decades, leading to spec-
ulations that these waves accelerate the fast solar wind to its higher speed.
• Instruments aboard Ulysses have detected magnetic fluctuations, attributed to
Alfvén waves, far above the Sun’s poles; they may block cosmic rays trying to
enter these regions.
• Magnetic field measurements from Ulysses indicate that the large-scale magnetic
field in the solar wind at distances comparable to the Earth’s orbit is always open,
uniform, and radial, pointing away from the Sun and never closed into loop-like
structures, and that the solar wind at these distances contains the same open mag-
netic flux at all solar latitudes and during the entire 11-year solar activity cycle.
• Instruments aboard the Advanced Composition Explorer, abbreviated ACE, have
provided direct evidence that oppositely directed magnetic fields in the solar
wind merge and join near the Earth’s orbit, releasing magnetic energy to ac-
celerate ions in prolonged, steady magnetic reconnection layers that extend for
hundreds of Earth radii.
• The spiral shape of the open magnetic field in the solar wind is underwound at
high solar latitudes.
• The heliosphere’s magnetic field is anchored in the Sun’s ever-changing photo-
sphere, whose random motions and differential rotation can enhance the propa-
gation of electrons to high solar latitudes and result in magnetic reconnections
between solar latitudes.
• The composition of ions in the solar wind, as well as those produced during solar
outbursts, are significantly and persistently different from those measured in the
photosphere. The enhanced abundance of elements with low first ionization po-
tential in solar outbursts and in the slow and fast solar wind, when compared with
their abundance in the underlying photosphere, reflects the physical conditions
in their place of origin.
• The interaction of fast and slow solar winds produces co-rotating interaction re-
gions whose associated shocks accelerate particles within the solar wind.
• The Wind spacecraft measures magnetic fields and energetic particles arriving in
the solar wind at the dayside of the Earth’s magnetosphere, contributing to the
investigations of magnetic field reconnection in the solar wind and the origin,
acceleration, and propagation of energetic particles associated with solar flares
5.10 Key Events in Studies of the Solar Wind 243

or coronal mass ejections. Instruments aboard Wind also track the radio signals
generated by shocks that are driven by coronal mass ejections.
• The Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer, abbreviated SWICS, instruments
on ACE and Ulysses have made comprehensive and continuous measurements of
singly ionized particles, including those of hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen,
and oxygen, and many of them for the first time. Some of these pick-up ions,
with just one electron missing, have been attributed to interstellar atoms that
once moved slowly into the heliosphere, became ionized by the Sun’s ultraviolet
radiation, electron impact, or charge exchange, and were picked up and carried
away by the magnetic field in the outflowing solar wind; but pick-up carbon has
been found too close to the Sun to be of interstellar origin and has been attributed
to an inner source.
• ACE and Ulysses observations of the velocity distributions of both solar wind
ions and pick-up ions include a ubiquitous suprathermal tail, indicating mo-
tions much faster than expected from a thermal distribution for the corona. The
suprathermal ions can move at least 50 times the speed of other ions in the so-
lar wind.
• The Voyager 1 spacecraft crossed the termination shock of the supersonic flow
of the solar wind on 16 December 2004, at a distance from the Sun of 94 times
the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun, or 94 AU, becoming the first
spacecraft to begin exploring the heliosheath, the outermost layer of the helio-
sphere.
• The Voyager 2 spacecraft crossed the termination shock of the solar wind on 30
August 2007, at a distance of 84 AU from the Sun.
• Hinode telescopes detect Alfvén waves that are thought to be energetic enough
to accelerate the solar wind.
• Observations from the Hinode spacecraft indicate that some of the X-ray corona
can continuously flow from an active region next to an equatorial coronal hole,
suggesting a source of the slow solar wind.

5.10 Key Events in Studies of the Solar Wind∗

Date Event

1869 At the solar eclipse of 7 August 1869, Charles A. Young, and, independently,
William Harkness, discovered a single, bright, green emission line in the spec-
trum of the solar corona. This conspicuous feature remained unidentified with
any known terrestrial element for more than half a century, but it was eventually
associated with highly ionized iron atoms missing 13 electrons, designated [Fe
XIV], indicating that the corona has a temperature of about a million Kelvin (see
1939–1941).

∗ See the References at the end of this book for complete references to these seminal papers. An

AU is the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun, or about 146 × 106 km.
244 5 Winds Across the Void

Date Event

1889–1990 Frank H. Bigelow (1889, 1890a, b) argues that the structure of the corona detected
during solar eclipses provides strong evidence for large-scale solar magnetic or
electric fields. He correctly speculated that polar rays delineate open magnetic
field lines along which material escapes from the Sun, and that equatorial elonga-
tions of the corona mark closed magnetic field lines.
1896–1913 Kristian Birkeland argues that polar auroras and geomagnetic storms are due to
beams of electrons from the Sun.
1908 George Ellery Hale measures intense magnetic fields in sunspots, thousands of
times stronger than the Earth’s magnetism.
1919 Frederick Alexander Lindemann (later Lord Cherwell) suggests that an electri-
cally neutral plasma ejection from the Sun is responsible for non-recurrent geo-
magnetic storms.
1939–1941 Walter Grotrian and Bengt Edlén identify coronal emission lines with highly ion-
ized elements, indicating that the Sun’s outer atmosphere has a temperature of
about a million Kelvin. The conspicuous green emission line was identified with
[Fe XIV], an iron atom missing 13 electrons.
1942 Hannes Alfvén uses theoretical equations to demonstrate the existence of
electromagnetic–hydrodynamic waves, subsequently known as Alfvén waves.
1944–1956 Herman Bondi, Fred Hoyle, and William H. Mc Crea develop a theory for spheri-
cally symmetric accretion of interstellar matter by a star, including a critical solu-
tion for transonic accretion flow; it is applicable to the solar wind, with flow away
from, instead of into, the star.
1946 Vitalii L. Ginzburg, David F. Martyn, and Joseph L. Pawsey independently con-
firm the existence of a very hot solar corona, with a temperature of about a million
Kelvin, from the observations of the Sun’s radio radiation.
1948–1949 Soft X-rays from the Sun are first detected on 5 August 1948, with a V-2 rocket ex-
periment performed by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, reported by T. Robert
Burnight in 1949. Subsequent sounding rocket observations by the NRL scientists
revealed that the Sun is a significant emitter of X-rays and that the X-ray emission
is related to solar activity.
1950–1954 Scott F. Forbush demonstrates the inverse correlation between the intensity of
cosmic rays arriving at Earth and the number of sunspots over two 11-year solar
activity cycles.
1951–1952 Herbert Friedman and his colleagues at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory use
instruments aboard sounding rockets to show that the Sun emits enough X-ray and
ultraviolet radiation to create the ionosphere.
1951–1957 Ludwig F. Biermann argues that a continuous flow of solar corpuscles is required
to push comet ion tails into straight paths away from the Sun, correctly inferring
solar wind speeds of between 500 and 1, 000 km s−1 .
1955 Leverett Davis Jr. argues that solar corpuscular emission will carve out a cavity
in the interstellar medium, now known as the heliosphere, accounting for some
observed properties of low-energy cosmic rays.
1955 Horace W. Babcock and Harold D. Babcock use magnetograms taken over a 2-
year period, 1952–1954, to show that the Sun has a general dipolar magnetic field
of about 10−4 T, or 1 G, in strength usually limited to solar latitudes greater than
±55◦ . Bipolar regions are found at lower solar latitudes. They argued that occa-
sional extended unipolar areas of only one outstanding magnetic polarity might
be related to 27-day recurrent terrestrial magnetic storms.
1956 Peter Meyer, Eugene N. Parker, and John A. Simpson argue that enhanced inter-
planetary magnetism at the peak of the solar activity cycle deflects cosmic rays
from their Earth-bound paths.
5.10 Key Events in Studies of the Solar Wind 245

Date Event

1957 Max Waldmeier introduces the name coronal holes for seemingly vacant places
with no detectable coronal radiation in the 530.3 nm emission line of ionized iron
[Fe XIV]. In 1981, Waldmeier reported his studies of these polar coronal holes
from 1940 to 1978, noting that they are permanently present for about 7 years,
including the minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle, but that they seem to
disappear for about 3 years near activity maximum.
1957–1959 Sydney Chapman (1959a, b) shows that a hot, static corona should extend to the
Earth’s orbit and beyond.
1957–1967 Rocket observations by Richard Tousey and colleagues at the U.S. Naval Research
Laboratory indicate that the brightest line in the ultraviolet spectrum of the solar
corona is the Lyman alpha transition of hydrogen atoms.
1958 Eugene N. Parker suggests that a perpetual supersonic flow of electrically charged
corpuscles, which he called the solar wind, naturally results from the expansion
of a very hot corona. He also demonstrates that the solar magnetic field will be
pulled into interplanetary space, attaining a spiral shape in the plane of the Sun’s
equator due to the combined effects of the Sun’s rotation and radial wind flow.
1960–1961 Konstantin I. Gringauz reports that the Soviet spacecraft, Lunik 2 or Luna 2,
launched on 12 September 1959, has measured high-speed ions in interplanetary
space outside the Earth’s magnetic field, with a flux of 2 million million (2×1012 )
ions (protons) per square meter per second.
1962–1967 Mariner 2 was launched on 7 August 1962. Using the data obtained during
Mariner’s voyage to Venus, Marcia Neugebauer and Conway W. Snyder demon-
strated that a low-speed solar wind plasma is continuously emitted by the Sun, and
discovered high-speed wind streams that recur with a 27-day period within the or-
bital plane of the planets. Interplanetary shocks associated with solar activity are
detected using instruments aboard the Mariner 2 spacecraft in 1962, reported by
Charles P. Sonett and colleagues in 1964.
1964–1966 Norman F. Ness and John M. Wilcox use magnetometers aboard NASA’s Inter-
planetary Monitoring Platform 1, launched on 27 November 1963, to measure the
strength and direction of the interplanetary magnetic field. They confirm that the
interplanetary magnetic field is pulled into a spiral shape by the combined effects
of the Sun’s rotation and radial wind flow. They also discover large-scale magnetic
sectors in interplanetary space, which point toward or away from the Sun.
1966 Peter A. Sturrock and Richard E. Hartle propose a two-component (electrons and
protons) model of the solar wind driven by electron heat conduction from a hot
corona. However, the wind is too slow and the protons are too cool when compared
with the observations of the fast solar wind, normalized to the distance of the
Earth’s orbit.
1967 Edmund J. Weber and Leverett Davis Jr. consider the effects of solar rotation and
magnetic fields on a steady solar wind flow in the equatorial plane. They show that
co-rotation of the wind and Sun exists out to the Alfvén critical point, or radial
distance, where the Alfvén Mach number is one.
1968 Paul J. Coleman Jr. determines the power-law spectra of solar wind magnetic
fields and velocities measured from the Mariner 2 spacecraft, concluding that the
solar wind flow is often turbulent in the region near the Earth’s orbit at 1 AU and
that Alfvén waves will be formed, particularly in the fast wind.
1968 Roger A. Kopp and Max Kuperus discuss the temperature structure and magnetic
field of the transition region between the chromosphere and the corona.
1969–1971 Magnetic fluctuations are observed in the solar wind from Mariner 5 on its way
to Venus, and attributed to large-amplitude Alfvén waves by John W. Belcher,
Leverett Davis Jr., and Edward J. Smith.
246 5 Winds Across the Void

Date Event

1970 Klaus Jockers and others demonstrate that totally collisionless (exospheric) mod-
els of the solar wind do not work.
1970 Thomas E. Holzer and William Ian Axford review the theory of steady, radial,
spherically symmetric solar-wind flow, introducing heating of the corona to sev-
eral million Kelvin (with thermal velocities above the Sun’s escape velocity) and
showing that rapid wind acceleration occurs close to the Sun. They additionally
pointed out that ionization states could be used to determine coronal temperatures.
1970 D. E. Robbins, Arthur J. Hundhausen, and Samuel J. Bame describe differential
flows of protons and alpha particles (helium nuclei) in the solar wind.
1971 John W. Belcher and Leverett Davis Jr. note the ubiquitous presence of large-
amplitude Alfvén waves in the solar wind, and show how the interaction of slow
and fast solar wind streams will lead to co-rotating interaction regions with the
shocks that affect the internal properties of the solar wind.
1971 John W. Belcher, and independently G. Alazraki and P. Couterier, showed how
solar wind acceleration might be caused by the gradient of Alfvén wave pressure.
1971 Alan H. Gabriel explains the coronal Lyman alpha line in terms of resonant scat-
tering of ultraviolet light generated below the corona.
1971 Ove Havnes discovers systematic differences between the abundances of cosmic
rays of low energy and universal abundances. These differences are correlated
with the first ionization potentials of the corresponding elements, and it has be-
come known as the FIP effect.
1971 Gerald W. Pneuman and Roger A. Kopp propose a dipolar magnetic model for the
Sun, in which the solar wind drags the Sun’s magnetic field into a neutral current
sheet of oppositely directed magnetism near the plane of the solar equator.
1972 Johannes Geiss and Hubert Reeves publish measurements of the solar wind he-
lium abundance, using the foil collectors left by American astronauts on the
Moon.
1973 Allen S. Krieger, Adrienne F. Timothy, and Edmond C. Roelof compare an X-ray
photograph, obtained during a rocket flight on 24 November 1970, with Vela and
Pioneer VI satellite measurements of the solar wind to show that coronal holes are
the source of recurrent high-speed streams in the solar wind.
1973 Giuseppe S. Vaiana and his colleagues use solar X-ray observations taken from
rockets during the preceding decade to identify the threefold magnetic structure
of the solar corona – coronal holes, coronal loops, and X-ray bright points.
1973–1977 X-ray photographs of the Sun taken using the Apollo Telescope Mount on the
manned Skylab satellite, launched on 14 May 1973, fully confirm coronal holes,
the ubiquitous coronal loops, and X-ray bright points. Detailed comparisons of
Skylab X-ray photographs and measurements of the solar wind, made from the
sixth, seventh, and eighth Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms, abbreviated IMP
6, 7, and 8, confirm that solar coronal holes are the source of the high-velocity
solar wind streams. John Wilcox had previously suggested that the fast streams
might originate in magnetically open, unipolar regions on the Sun, but the Skylab
X-ray photographs definitely identified the place.
1974 Len A. Fisk, Benzion Kozlovsky, and Reuven Ramaty propose that anomalous
enhancements in cosmic ray oxygen and nitrogen, observed at energies of about
10 MeV per nucleon, could result from neutral interstellar atoms that are swept
into the heliosphere by the Sun’s motion through the interstellar medium and sub-
sequently ionized and accelerated.
1974 Leon Golub and his colleagues announce the discovery, and describe the observed
properties, of ubiquitous X-ray bright points found at all solar latitudes from equa-
tor to the poles.
5.10 Key Events in Studies of the Solar Wind 247

Date Event

1974–1978 Hannes Alfvén, and independently Lief Svalgaard and John M. Wilcox, interpret
the magnetic structure of the solar wind, at activity minimum, in terms of a warped
neutral current sheet dividing the solar wind into two hemispheres of opposite
magnetic polarity.
1974–1986 The Helios 1 and 2 spacecraft, respectively launched on 10 December 1974 and on
15 January 1976, measure the solar wind parameters as close as 0.3 AU from the
Sun for a whole 11-year solar cycle. They confirmed the existence of two kinds
of solar wind flow. There is a steady, uniform high-speed wind and a varying,
slow-speed wind.
1976 Alan H. Gabriel introduces a two-dimensional model of the chromosphere and
corona, and the transition region between them, in which magnetic flux is concen-
trated at the boundaries of supergranular convection cells that produce a magnetic
network. These flux tubes flare out as they rise into the overlying solar atmosphere
to produce a magnetic canopy.
1976 Edward J. Smith and John H. Wolfe report Pioneer 10 and 11 observations of
the interaction regions and co-rotating shocks between 1 and 5 AU, and Frank
B. McDonald and his colleagues show that these shocks accelerate ions to high
energies.
1977 Randolph H. Levine, Martin D. Altschuler, and John W. Harvey report that the
fastest solar wind streams are correlated with those magnetic flux tubes that ex-
pand least in cross-sectional area over the distance between the photosphere and
the coronal height where the solar wind begins.
1977–1991 Barney J. Rickett and William A. Coles, and independently by Takakiyo
Kakinuma and Mayoshi Kojima, use interplanetary scintillations of extragalactic
radio sources to investigate the solar wind speed outside the plane of the ecliptic.
Their data show that near the minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle, the
slow wind is confined to low solar latitudes, while the fast wind emanates from
high solar latitudes. Near activity maximum, the slow wind is dominant over the
whole range of observable latitudes.
1977–1980 Helmuth R. Rosenbauer, Wolfgang K. H. Schmidt, and their colleagues use mea-
surements from Helios 1 and 2 and the first International Sun-Earth Explorer,
abbreviated ISEE-1, spacecraft to show that helium and other heavy ions move
faster than protons in the high-speed wind. In addition, the electrons are cooler
than the protons in this fast component of the solar wind.
1978 Edward J. Smith, Bruce T. Tsurutani, and Ronald L. Rosenberg use observations
from Pioneer 11 to show that the solar wind becomes unipolar, or obtains a single
magnetic polarity, at solar latitudes near 16◦ .
1980 Rainer Schwenn and John T. Gosling and their colleagues respectively use in-
struments aboard Helios 1 and the seventh Interplanetary Monitoring Platform,
abbreviated Imp 7, to detect singly-ionized helium, He+ , produced in the solar
wind by interplanetary shocks.
1981 John T. Gosling and his colleagues use solar wind data from the sixth, seventh,
and eighth Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms, abbreviated IMP 6, 7, and 8, to
suggest that a substantial fraction of the low-speed solar wind originates in the
vicinity of coronal streamers, particularly near the minimum in the solar activ-
ity cycle.
1982–1983 Gary J. Rottman, Frank Q. Orrall, and James A. Klimchuk obtain rocket
observations of extreme-ultraviolet resonance lines formed in the low corona and
transition region, showing that the lines are systematically shifted to shorter wave-
lengths in large polar coronal holes with well-developed, low-latitude extensions.
Outflow velocities of between 7 and 8 km s−1 are inferred from these Doppler
shifts.
248 5 Winds Across the Void

Date Event

1983 Philip A. Isenberg reviews early attempts to explain the high ion speed and tem-
peratures in the solar wind by ion-cyclotron resonance, which accelerates and
heats the ions.
1984 Walter R. Cook, Edward C. Stone, and Rochus E. Vogt report measurements from
the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft of the FIP effect in solar energetic particles emitted
by solar flares, and conclude that both the solar energetic particles and the solar
wind composition are significantly different from that measured for the photo-
sphere.
1985 Eberhard S. Möbius and his colleagues use instruments aboard the Active Mag-
netospheric Particle Tracer Explorers, abbreviated AMPTE, spacecraft to detect
singly ionized helium, He+ , attributing it to interstellar helium atoms that have
entered the solar system, become ionized there, and then picked-up and entrained
in the solar wind.
1986 James F. Dowdy Jr., Douglas M. Rabin, and Ronald L. Moore show that narrow
magnetic funnels open up into the base of the corona, emerging from only a frac-
tion of the magnetic network.
1986–1988 Joseph V. Hollweg and colleagues describe ion–cyclotron resonance effects in the
solar wind close to the Sun.
1989 J. Randy Jokipii and Joseph Kóta argue that Alfvén waves streaming out of the
Sun’s polar regions may block the incoming cosmic rays.
1989 George Gloeckler and Johannes Geiss describe the abundance enrichment of solar
wind ions with low first ionization potential, the FIP effect.
1990 Yi-Ming Wang and Neil R. Sheeley Jr. (1990a, b) develop a model of the solar
wind that includes the inverse correlation between solar wind speed at 1 AU and
the rate of coronal magnetic flux-tube expansion.
1990 The Ulysses spacecraft is launched on 6 October 1990.
1991 The Yohkoh spacecraft is launched on 30 August 1991.
1992 Uri Feldman reports that element abundances in the upper solar atmosphere are
similar in nature to those in the solar wind and solar energetic particles, but dif-
ferent from abundances in the underlying photosphere.
1992 Yutaka Uchida and his colleagues use data from the Soft X-ray Telescope aboard
Yohkoh to show that the active-region corona is continuously expanding, perhaps
as the source of the slow solar wind. This idea was subsequently supported by
SOHO LASCO coronagraph images that show expanding coronal loops near the
Sun’s equatorial regions.
1993 George Gloeckler and co-workers use an instrument on Ulysses to detect interstel-
lar pick-up hydrogen in the solar system.
1993 Kazunari Shibata and his colleagues discover X-ray jets in the solar corona using
the Soft X-ray Telescope onboard the Yohkoh satellite.
1994 The Ulysses spacecraft begins its first passage over the Sun’s polar regions.
1994 The Wind spacecraft is launched on 1 November 1994.
1995 David J. McComas and his coworkers use the Solar Wind Observations Over the
Poles of the Sun, abbreviated SWOOPS, instrument aboard the Ulysses spacecraft
to determine the latitudinal structure of the three-dimensional solar wind near a
minimum in the Sun’s 11-year activity cycle, finding fast wind over the Sun’s
polar regions and variable wind confined near the solar equator. John L. Phillips
and his colleagues use correlations with other data to show that the slow wind
is narrowly confined to low latitudes above an equatorial steamer belt. They also
showed that at least some of the fast wind is emitted from polar coronal holes, and
that the fast wind extends to lower latitudes than the radial extension of coronal
holes during activity minimum.
5.10 Key Events in Studies of the Solar Wind 249

Date Event

1995 Andre Balogh and Edward J. Smith, and their colleagues, show that the radial
component of the magnetic field detected, and normalized to 1 AU by Ulysses
does not vary with solar latitude.
1995 Johannes Geiss, George Gloeckler, and Rudolf Von Steiger (1996a) use Ulysses
ion composition measurements to suggest that the fast solar wind originates in a
region of low electron temperature and that the slow solar wind originates in a
region of high electron temperature.
1995 Louis J. Lanzerotti and George M. Simnett and their co-workers discover un-
expected, recurrent enhancements of electrons at high solar latitudes using
Ulysses data.
1995 The SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, is launched on 2
December 1995
1995–1996 Ulysses’ measurements of cosmic rays, obtained by John A. Simpson and col-
leagues (1995a, b), do not show substantially more cosmic rays above the Sun’s
poles than near the ecliptic. This may be explained by Alfvén waves observed
in the polar fast wind by Edward J. Smith, Bruce T. Tsurutani, and colleagues
with Ulysses; the magnetic waves repel the incoming cosmic rays above the polar
regions.
1995–1997 Sir William Ian Axford, Joseph V. Hollweg, Phillip A. Isenberg, Eckart Marsch,
James F. Mc Kenzie, and others develop fast solar wind models in which magnetic
waves heat the corona and preferentially accelerate heavier ions.
1995–1997 Data from the Ulysses, Yohkoh and SOHO spacecraft independently show that the
polar fast wind originates in a relatively low electron temperature region when
compared with the electron temperature of the source of the slow wind.
1997 Eckart Marsch and Chuan-Yi Tu provide a theoretical model in which the solar
wind is heated and accelerated by Alfvén waves in magnetic funnels opening into
the corona from the chromosphere magnetic network.
1997 The Advanced Composition Explorer, or ACE for short, was launched on 25
August 1997.
1997–2000 Neil R. Sheeley Jr. et al. (1997) and Yi-Ming Wang et al. (2000) use time-lapse
coronagraph images, taken from SOHO’s Large Angle and Spectrometric COron-
agraph instrument, abbreviated LASCO, to show that one component of the slow
wind may be emitted far out in coronal steamers, and that it does not accelerate to
terminal velocity until 20 or 30 solar radii from the Sun center.
1997–1998 John L. Kohl, Giancarlo Noci, and their colleagues use SOHO UltraViolet Coron-
agraph Spectrometer, abbreviated UVCS, measurements to show that oxygen ions
flowing out of coronal holes accelerate to supersonic outflow velocities within 2.5
solar radii of the Sun center. The outflow velocities of the oxygen ions are faster
than protons in coronal holes, and electrons in these regions move at even slower
speeds. The ion velocities in the direction perpendicular to the radial direction are
greater than those parallel to the radial direction.
1998–2001 John L. Kohl, Steven R. Cranmer, and Mari Paz Miralles and their co-workers
publish a series of papers reporting preferential and directional temperatures in
polar coronal holes measured with the UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer
aboard SOHO near the minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle. The oxy-
gen ions are hotter than protons, which are in turn hotter than electrons, and the
oxygen ions have greater temperatures perpendicular to the radial direction than
along it. In 2003, Richard A. Frazin and colleagues reported similar oxygen ion
measurements at the edges of coronal streamers, but not in them.
250 5 Winds Across the Void

Date Event

1998 George Gloeckler and Johannes Geiss describe pick-up ions observed in the solar
wind with the Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer, abbreviated SWICS,
on Ulysses, including hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, oxygen, and neon ions of in-
terstellar origin. They also report the discovery in 1993 of pick-up hydrogen from
interstellar space, the discovery of singly ionized carbon in the inner heliosphere
that cannot be of interstellar origin, and the discovery of a new extended source
of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen pick-up ions in the inner solar system.
1998 Martin Hilchenbach and his colleagues use the Charge, Element, and Isotope
Analysis System, abbreviated CELIAS, instrument on SOHO to detect energetic
hydrogen atoms assumed to be coming from the heliosheath.
1999 Donald M. Hassler and his colleagues use the SOHO Solar Ultraviolet Measure-
ments of Emitted Radiation, abbreviated SUMER, spectrometer to show that the
high-speed, solar wind outflow velocity, observed in the low corona in a polar
coronal hole, is spatially correlated with the boundaries of the magnetic network
seen in the underlying chromosphere.
1999 John Raymond reviews the composition variations observed with SOHO’s Ultra-
Violet Coronagraph Spectrometer, abbreviated UVCS, instrument to confirm that
the FIP effect is found in both the low corona and the solar wind.
2000 Len A. Fisk, Nathan A. Schwadron, and Thomas H. Zurbuchen propose that the
fast solar wind is accelerated by the continual emergence of small magnetic loops
that reconnect with open magnetic field lines near their base, and attribute large-
scale motions of the heliosphere magnetic field to differential rotation of the pho-
tosphere and non-radial expansion of the solar wind near the Sun
2000 Joseph E. Mazur and his co-workers use impulsive flare particles to demonstrate
the mixing of interplanetary magnetic fields.
2000 Sheela Shodhan and her colleagues use the third International Sun-Earth Ex-
plorer, abbreviated ISEE 3, the eighth Interplanetary Monitoring Platform, ab-
breviated IMP 8, and Wind observations of counter-streaming electrons to in-
fer the topology of interplanetary magnetic clouds associated with coronal mass
ejections.
2000 Rudolf Von Steiger and colleagues use the Solar Wind Ion Composition Spec-
trometer, abbreviated SWICS, instrument on Ulysses to confirm the enhanced
abundance of elements with low first ionization potential in the slow solar wind,
and report its presence at lower amounts in the fast wind.
2002 Leonard Strachan and co-workers use the UltraViolet Cornonagraph Spectrome-
ter, abbreviated UVCS, instrument on SOHO to detect slow solar winds along the
axis of coronal streamers at heights above three solar radii from the Sun center,
with velocities that gradually increase to about 90 km s−1 at five solar radii from
the Sun center.
2003 Len A. Fisk proposes that the reconnection of coronal loops with open magnetic
fields can account for both the fast and the slow winds, and that the inverse de-
pendence of solar wind speed on electron temperature is an intrinsic signature of
the material in the coronal loops that release mass.
2003 George Gloeckler uses the Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer, abbrevi-
ated SWICS, instruments on Ulysses and the Advanced Composition Explorer,
abbreviated ACE, to detect ubiquitous high-speed suprathermal ions moving from
twice to 50 times the solar wind speed.
2003 David J. McComas and his colleagues use the Solar Wind Observations Over the
Poles of the Sun, abbreviated SWOOPS, instrument aboard Ulysses to determine
the three-dimensional latitudinal structure of the solar wind during the spacecraft’s
second polar orbit, performed near solar maximum, revealing a mixture of slow
and fast winds at all solar latitudes, including near the poles.
5.10 Key Events in Studies of the Solar Wind 251

Date Event

2003 John D. Richardson, Chi Wang, and Leonard F. Burlaga use Voyager 2 observa-
tions to demonstrate correlated variations in speed, density, and magnetic fields
within the outer heliosphere. The density and speed are generally anti-correlated
in the inner heliosphere.
2004 Nancy U. Crooker and her colleagues use Wind observations to describe large-
scale magnetic field inversions at solar wind sector boundaries.
2005 Three articles published in the same issue of Science, by Leonard F. Burlaga,
Robert B. Decker, and Edward C. Stone, report that Voyager 1 crossed the termi-
nation shock of the supersonic flow of the solar wind on 16 December 2004, at a
distance of 94 AU from the Sun, becoming the first spacecraft to begin exploring
the heliosheath, the outermost layer of the heliosphere.
2005 Jack T. Gosling and his colleagues (2005a, b) provide direct evidence for magnetic
reconnection in the solar wind near the Earth’s orbit at 1 AU.
2005 Chuan-Yi Tu and his colleagues use SOHO observations to suggest a model in
which the solar wind in coronal holes originates from coronal funnels.
2006 The Hinode spacecraft is launched on 23 September 2006
2006 The Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory, abbreviated STEREO, is launched
on 25 October 2006.
2006–2007 In 2006, Tai D. Phan and his colleagues report three-spacecraft observations that
show magnetic reconnection can occur over extended regions in the solar wind, at
least 390 times the Earth in size. In 2007, John T. Gosling and co-workers (2007a,
b) report five-spacecraft observations of oppositely directed exhaust jets from a
magnetic reconnection X-line extending 4.26 × 106 km in the solar wind at 1 AU.
2007 Voyager 2 crosses the termination shock of the solar wind on 30 August 2007, at a
distance of 84 AU from the Sun, suggesting a north (Voyager 1, termination shock
at 94 AU) – south (Voyager 2 at 84 AU) asymmetry in the heliosphere, likely
due to the direction of the local interstellar magnetic field. Leonard F. Burlaga,
Richard B. Decker, Donald A. Gurnett, John D. Richardson, and Edward C. Stone,
and their colleagues, report these observations in 2008.
2007 Bart De Pontieu and co-workers (2007b) report observations with the Solar Op-
tical Telescope on Hinode that show the chromosphere is permeated with Alfvén
waves that are energetic enough to accelerate the solar wind, and Jonathan W.
Cirtain and colleagues describe evidence for Alfvén waves in the solar X-ray jets
seen in polar coronal holes, which may contribute to the high-speed solar wind.
2007 Jonathan Cirtain, Takenorie J. Okamoto, and Bart De Pontieu and their colleagues
present evidence of Alfvén waves using instruments aboard Hinode. The energy
associated with these waves is apparently sufficient to heat the corona and accel-
erate the solar wind.
2007 Taro Sakao and colleagues use the X-ray Telescope aboard Hinode to detect the
continuous outflow of X-ray emitting material at the edges of active regions adja-
cent to an equatorial coronal hole, suggesting a plausible source of the solar wind
possibly related to the observations by Yutaka Uchida in 1992 with Yohkoh.
2007–2008 Instruments aboard Ulysses detect a steady, fast solar wind flow at high solar lat-
itudes, originating from polar coronal holes and confined to solar latitudes above
45◦ .
Chapter 6
Our Violent Sun

6.1 Solar Outbursts of Awesome Power

Without warning, the relatively calm solar atmosphere can be torn asunder by brief
and catastrophic outbursts of incredible energy, called solar flares, which occur in
active regions, the magnetized atmosphere in and around sunspots. They are sudden
and brief, usually lasting no more than 10 min, and rapidly increase the tempera-
ture of relatively small, Earth-sized region of the corona to temperatures as high
as 20 × 106 K. As a result, solar flares can outshine the entire Sun in X-rays and
extreme-ultraviolet radiation (Fig. 6.1). Solar flares are normally not detected in
bright, visible sunlight, but they can be seen at visible wavelengths when focusing
in on the red spectral line of hydrogen, the Balmer alpha transition at 656.3 nm.
Since the invisible extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray flare radiation is absorbed in
the Earth’s atmosphere, it is observed from telescopes in space, such as Yohkoh,
the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short, the Transition Region
And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, the Ramaty High Energy Solar Spec-
troscopic Imager, abbreviated RHESSI, and Hinode.
Solar flares accelerate particles to nearly the velocity of light, hurling them out
into the solar system and down into the Sun. As the high-speed electrons move
outward, they spiral around magnetic fields in the low corona, shining brightly in
radio waves. High-speed electrons that are thrown down into the Sun emit hard
X-rays when entering the lower solar atmosphere. Energetic flare protons create
nuclear reactions when they are tossed down into the chromosphere or photosphere,
emitting gamma rays in the process.
Solar flares are the biggest explosions in the solar system. The most power-
ful ones involve the explosive release of incredible amounts of energy, sometimes
amounting to as much as a million, billion, billion (or 25 orders of magnitude and
1025 ) Joule in a relatively short time between 100 and 1,000 s. This is comparable in
strength to the simultaneous explosion of 20 million nuclear bombs, each blowing
up with an energy of 100 megatons of TNT.
A substantial fraction of this energy goes into accelerating electrons and ions
to high speeds at a substantial fraction of the velocity of light. These high-energy
particles result in enhanced radio, soft X-ray, hard X-ray, and gamma-ray radiation
from the Sun.

K.R. Lang, The Sun from Space, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, 253

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
254 6 Our Violent Sun

Fig. 6.1 Extreme-ultraviolet flare. An X3.9 flare on 24 August 2002, observed with the Transi-
tion Region And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, telescope in the 19.5-nm passband sensi-
tive to gas temperatures of about 1.4 × 106 K. This image shows the cooling phase of the flare, in
which part of the material involved in the flare has cooled from several million degrees to some
10, 000–20, 000◦ K. That cooler material is no longer transparent for the extreme ultraviolet radi-
ation emitted by the hot gases behind it; it therefore appears as dark strands as it slides along dif-
ferent magnetic field lines. (Courtesy of Dick Shine, the TRACE consortium and NASA; TRACE
is a mission of the Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research, and part of the NASA Small
Explorer Program.)

To classify the power of a solar flare, scientists use the maximum soft X-ray flux,
in W m−2 , measured near the Earth with a GOES spacecraft in the wavelength range
0.1–0.8 nm. GOES is an acronym for a Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellite, which remains above a given location on Earth by orbiting the planet once
every 24 h at a height of 35,790 km. Once a GOES spacecraft is launched success-
fully, it is given a number; GOES 1 was launched in 1975 and we are up to GOES
13, with several others still in operation, imaging the Earth beneath them for short-
term terrestrial weather forecasting and storm tracking and monitoring the space
environment – including the temporal variation of the Sun’s soft X-ray flux received
at the spacecraft.
The GOES scheme classifies the soft X-ray radiation of solar flares as A, B, C,
M, or X, from the weakest to the strongest, according to the peak detected flux
(Table 6.1). Each class has a peak flux 10 times greater than the preceding one; with
X class flares greater than 0.0001, or 10−4 , W m−2 . A given class of X-ray flares
has nine linear subdivisions; numbered from 1 to 9 in increasing flux, so an X2
6.1 Solar Outbursts of Awesome Power 255

Table 6.1 Solar flare X-ray classificationa

Class Peak soft X-ray flux
(W m−2 )

A Less than 10−7

B 10−7 − 10−6
C 10−6 − 10−5
M 10−5 − 10−4
X Greater than 10−4
a Thepeak flux is measured from the GOES spacecraft near Earth at soft X-ray wavelengths
between 0.1 and 0.8 nm or 1 and 8 Å

flare is twice as powerful as an X1 flare. The largest X-ray flare on record occurred
on 4 November 2003; it saturated the GOES X-ray detectors at X17.4 and had an
estimated classification of X28, or 0.0028 Wm−2 , and perhaps even up to X45.
The X-class flares are major events that can trigger planet-wide radio blackouts
and longlasting radiation storms; M-class flares produce brief radio blackouts and
minor radiation storms, while C-, B- and A-class flares have few noticeable conse-
quences here on Earth.
The rate of occurrence of solar flares varies with the 11-year cycle of solar mag-
netic activity, becoming more frequent near activity maximum. Truly outstanding
flares are infrequent, occurring only a few times a year even at times of maximum
solar activity; like rare vintages, they are often denoted by their date or given a spe-
cial name. An example is the Bastille Day Flare that occurred on 14 July 2000, near
the peak of a maximum in the solar activity cycle. Flares of lesser magnitude occur
much more frequently; several tens of such events may be observed from spacecraft
on a busy day near the cycle maximum.
There are other types of solar outbursts such as the erupting prominences.
A prominence consists of relatively cool material, with a temperature of about
10,000 K, suspended above the solar photosphere. It can stretch up to half way
across the Sun, and remain there for weeks or months at a time. Prominences can be
detected by focusing in on the red spectral line of hydrogen with telescopes on the
ground, or by observing their extreme-ultraviolet spectral signatures from space.
These magnetically supported features are called prominences when detected at
the apparent edge of the Sun, where they stand out against the dark background.
They appear as dark snaking features, called filaments, when projected against the
bright solar chromosphere. So, prominence and filament are essentially two words
that describe different perspectives of the same thing. And sometimes, their mag-
netic support becomes unhinged, and a prominence erupts or a filament lifts off,
ejecting large quantities of matter into space (Fig. 6.2).
Coronal mass ejections are another type of outburst from the Sun. They carry
billions of tons of coronal material into interplanetary space, expanding as they
balloon out from the corona and becoming bigger than the Sun in a few hours or
less. They are often accompanied by solar flares and erupting prominences, and the
shocks associated with coronal mass ejections accelerate and propel vast quantities
of high-speed particles ahead of them.
256 6 Our Violent Sun

Fig. 6.2 Eruptive prominence. The Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, abbreviated EIT,
aboard SOHO imaged this large erupting prominence in the extreme ultraviolet light of ionized
helium (He II at 30.4 nm) on 24 July 1999. The comparison image of the Earth shows that the
prominence extends over 35 Earths out from the Sun, while the inset full-disk solar image indi-
cates that the eruption looped out for a distance almost equal to the Sun’s radius. (Courtesy of the
SOHO EIT consortium. SOHO is a project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA.)

These mass ejections are detected in an entirely different manner from either
solar flares or erupting prominences, by using a space-borne coronagraph whose
occulting disk blocks out the bright light of the Sun’s photosphere. Such a corona-
graph is used to record sequential images of the corona’s white light, the combined
colors of all the sunlight reflected by the rarefied coronal particles.
Coronal mass ejections are routinely imaged with the Large Angle and Spectro-
metric Coronagraph, abbreviated LASCO, aboard SOHO (Fig. 6.3). And the coron-
agraphs aboard the twin spacecraft of the Solar TErrestrial RElations Obervatory,
or STEREO A and B for short, are poised to help follow their trajectory from the Sun
to the orbit of the Earth.
6.1 Solar Outbursts of Awesome Power 257

Fig. 6.3 Ejection from the corona. The occulting disk of a coronagraph blocks the intense light
from the photosphere, revealing the surrounding faint corona and a coronal mass ejection (bottom
left) on 23 April 2000. In this composite image, created by Steele Hill, an extreme-ultraviolet im-
age, taken on the same day, has been superposed at the location corresponding to the visible solar
disk and masked by the coronagraph. The coronagraph image was taken with the Large Angle and
Spectrometric COronagraph, abbreviated LASCO, on the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or
SOHO for short, and the superposed image was taken with the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Tele-
scope, abbreviated EIT, on SOHO. (Courtesy of Steele Hill, the SOHO LASCO and EIT consortia
and NASA. SOHO is a project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA.)

The appearance of a solar flare depends on how you look at it. That is, a flare
produces copious radiation across the full electromagnetic spectrum, and one sees
varied aspects of it when using different wavelengths. Both the spatial and the tem-
poral behaviors of a solar flare depend on the perspective you choose, and each view
focuses in on a different aspect of the flaring mechanism. In this chapter, we will
therefore first discuss solar flares as seen from different viewpoints – as flare rib-
bons in the chromosphere, in soft and hard X-rays – with a model for the flaring
X-ray emission, in white-light visible to the aided eye, as solar radio bursts, and in
gamma rays.
Erupting prominences or filaments are the next topic, followed by coronal mass
ejections. An account of the aftermath of solar flares and coronal mass ejections
follows, including loop oscillations, global waves, and coronal dimming.
258 6 Our Violent Sun

Possible explanations of the magnetic triggering and energy release of these var-
ious kinds of energetic solar outbursts – the solar flares, erupting prominences, and
coronal mass ejections – are then discussed.
This chapter therefore introduces an enormous range of interesting and important
topics. The serious student or curious reader may want to explore some of them in
greater detail, and they should consult reviews of these subjects prepared by profes-
sionals in the field (Focus 6.1).

Focus 6.1
Expert Reviews about Energetic Solar Outbursts
Professional solar astronomers and astrophysicists have reviewed important devel-
opments in our knowledge of solar flares, erupting prominences, and coronal mass
ejections, sometimes in technical terms. In alphabetical order, they include Markus
J. Aschwanden’s (2004, 2006) book entitled Physics of the Solar Corona: An In-
troduction, which includes discussions of magnetic reconnection and particle ac-
celeration during flares and coronal mass ejections, Aschwanden’s (2006) review
of the localization of particle acceleration sites in solar flares and coronal mass
ejections, Aschwanden and co-worker’s (2006) review of theoretical modeling for
the STEREO mission, Amitava Bhattacharjee’s (2004) review of impulsive mag-
netic reconnection in the Earth’s magnetotail and the solar corona, James Chen’s
(2001) review of the physics of coronal mass ejections, Edward L. Chupp’s (1984,
1987) reviews of the observations and physics of gamma ray and neutron produc-
tion during solar flares, Terry G. Forbes’s (2000) review of the genesis of coronal
mass ejections, Terry G. Forbes and co-worker’s (2006) review of the theory and
models for coronal mass ejections, Natchimuthuk Gopalswamy and co-worker’s
(2006a) review of the pre-eruptive Sun, Hugh S. Hudson, Jean-Louis Bougeret
and Joan Burkepile’s (2006a) review of observations of coronal mass ejections,
Hugh S. Hudson, C. Jacob Wolfson, and Thomas R. Metcalf’s (2006b) review of
white-light flares, Stephen W. Kahler’s (1992) review of solar flares and coronal
mass ejections and Kahler’s (2007) review of the solar sources of heliospheric ener-
getic electron events, James A. Klimchuk’s (2001) review of the theory of coronal
mass ejections, Horst Kunow and co-worker’s (2006) review of coronal mass ejec-
tions, Robert P. Lin’s (1987) review of particle acceleration by the Sun, Jun Lin,
Willie Soon, and Sallie L. Baliunas’ (2003) review of theories of solar eruptions,
David E. McKenzie’s (2002) review of the signatures of reconnection in eruptive
flares, Zoran Mikic and M. A. Lee’s (2006) introduction to the theory and models
of coronal mass ejections, shocks and solar energetic particles, Ronald L. Moore
and Alphonse C. Sterling’s (2006) review of the initiation of coronal mass ejec-
tions, Valery M. Nakariakov and Erwin Verwichte’s (2005) review of coronal waves
and oscillations, Donald F. Neidig’s (1989) review of the photometric and spec-
trographic observations of white-light flares, Monique Pick and colleagues (2006)
review of radio emission from the Sun and the interplanetary medium, Eric R. Priest
and Terry G. Forbes’s (2002) review of the magnetic nature of solar flares, Rainer
Schwenn and co-worker’s review of coronal observations of coronal mass ejections,
6.2 Flare Ribbons 259

Sami K. Solanki’s (2006) review of the solar magnetic field, and Mei Zhang and
Boon Chye Low’s (2005) review of the hydromagnetic nature of solar coronal mass
ejections. Arnold O. Benz (2008) has provided a complete review of Flare Obser-
vations in a Living Review, available at http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/.
The contributions of scientists working on specific topics are often presented
at meetings or workshops and subsequently published in book form. They in-
clude Coronal Mass Ejections, edited by Nancy Crooker, Jo Ann Joselyn, and Joan
Feynman (1997), Multi-wavelength Observations of Coronal Structure and Dynam-
ics, edited by Petrus C. H. Martens and David P. Cauffman (2002), SOHO-13:
Waves, Oscillations and Small-Scale Transient Events in the Solar Atmosphere:
A Joint View from SOHO and TRACE, edited by Hugette Lacoste (2004), Solar
Eruptions and Energetic Particles, edited by Natchimuthuk Gopalswamy, Richard
Mewaldt, and Jarmo Torsti (2006b), and SOHO-20: Transient Events on the Sun
and in the Heliosphere, edited by Bernhard Fleck, Joseph B. Gurman, Jean-Francois
Hochedez, and Eva Robbrecht (2008).

6.2 Flare Ribbons

Routine and frequent visual observations of solar flares have been carried out from
ground-based telescopes for at least 80 years, by monitoring the Sun’s chromo-
sphere in the red light of the Balmer alpha transition of hydrogen, designated Hα,
at 656.3 nm wavelength. When viewed in this way, a solar flare appears as a sud-
den brightening, lasting from a few minutes to an hour, usually in strong, complex
magnetic regions. They emit a sudden flash of red light followed by a slower decay,
somewhat like igniting a fire in a pool of gasoline.
The Hα flares are nearly always located close to sunspots and comparable in area
to them, often occupying less than one ten thousandth (0.01%) of the Sun’s visible
disk. They do not occur directly on top of sunspots, but are instead located between
regions of opposite magnetic polarity, near the line or place of magnetic neutrality.
They often appear on each side of the magnetic neutral line as two extended, parallel
ribbons, like the double yellow line at the center of a highway (Fig. 6.4).
Much, of not most, of a flare’s energy goes into accelerating large numbers of
electrons and protons to a good fraction of the speed of light. These charged particles
move away from the flare-initiation site in the low corona, down along magnetic
fields into the upper layers of the chromosphere, where they form the bright ribbons
visible in hydrogen alpha.
Such flare ribbons have also been detected at extreme-ultraviolet wavelengths
using instruments aboard SOHO and TRACE. In 2001 and 2004, for example, Lyn-
dsay Fletcher and colleagues used the high cadence and resolution of TRACE to
obtain detailed measurements of the magnetic structure and generation of the flare
ribbons, as well as the motion of the ribbons as the flare progresses. These results
260 6 Our Violent Sun

18:30:06 19:01:35 19:43:35

19:57:35 20:18:35 20:29:05

Fig. 6.4 Flare ribbons. A large solar flare observed in the red light of the Balmer alpha transition
of hydrogen, called hydrogen alpha or Hα for short. It portrays two extended, parallel flare ribbons
in the chromosphere. Each image is 200,000 km in width, subtending an angle of 300 s of arc, or
about one-sixth the angular extent of the Sun. These photographs were taken at the Big Bear Solar
Observatory on 29 April 1998. (Courtesy of Haimin Wang.)

support the hypothesis that the flare ribbons map out the chromospheric footpoints
of reconnected, newly formed coronal loops, and indicate that the footpoints move
apart as the flare progresses, at a speed of about 15 km s−1 .
The magnetic reconnection rate is measured by using TRACE to track the parti-
cle precipitation sites as they move across the photosphere magnetic field in SOHO
Michelson Doppler Imager, abbreviated MDI, magnetograms. In 2003, Haimin
Wang and colleaques inferred similar ribbon separation speeds and magnetic re-
connection rates from Hα observations and magnetic fields obtained from MDI. As
reported by Fletcher and Hugh S. Hudson in 2002, the hard X-ray footpoint ribbons
also exhibit systematic motions.
When impacting the chromosphere, the kinetic energy of the flare-accelerated
particles is transformed into heat. The heated chromospheric matter responds by
moving into the corona, where it can increase the gas density within a flaring loop
a 1000-fold. As proposed by Tadashi Hirayama in 1974, the dense, heated material
comes from the chromosphere “by a process like evaporation while the flare is in
progress,” giving rise to the soft X-ray radiation of the flare. The heat is then quickly
lost into space in the form of bright X-ray radiation.
Hydrogen-alpha or extreme-ultraviolet images of the Sun’s flaring atmosphere
provide a two-dimensional, flatland picture of the chromosphere or transition region
without information about what is happening above them. Observations at X-ray
6.3 X-Ray Flares 261

wavelengths from the Yohkoh and Hinode spacecraft provide a three-dimensional

perspective, leading to a more complete understanding of the physical processes
responsible for solar flares. As we shall next see, they have confirmed Hirayama’s
hypothesis of chromospheric evaporation, and identified the particle acceleration
site in the low solar corona.

6.3 X-Ray Flares

6.3.1 Soft X-Rays and Hard X-Rays from Solar Flares

Much of the energy radiated during a solar flare is emitted as X-rays. This radiation
provides detailed information about the flare process including why and where flares
occur. The wavelength of an X-ray is on the order of, or smaller than, the size of an
atom, or between 10−11 and 10−9 m.
Researchers also describe X-rays by the energy of the radiation photons. There
are soft X-rays with relatively low energy and modest penetrating power. The hard
X-rays have higher energy and greater penetrating power. As a metaphor, one thinks
of the large, pliant softballs and the compact, firm hardballs, used in the two kinds
of American baseball games.
The energy of the X-ray radiation is a measure of the energy of the electrons
that produce it. The high-energy, hard X-ray radiation of solar flares is produced by
non-thermal electrons accelerated to nearly the velocity of light. They tell us about
the acceleration, propagation, and confinement of very energetic electrons. The soft
X-rays describe the thermal radiation of hot electrons of lower energy.
Like energetic charged particles, the energy of flaring X-rays is often specified in
kilo-electron volts, denoted keV. Soft X-rays have energies between 1 and 10 keV,
and hard X-rays lie between 10 and 100 keV. Gamma rays are even more energetic
than X-rays, exceeding 100 keV in energy. The wavelength of radiation is inversely
proportional to its energy, so hard X-rays are shorter than soft X-rays, and the wave-
lengths of gamma rays are still smaller. Electrons with a given amount of energy
produce X-rays or gamma rays with about the same energy.
Although X-rays can penetrate small amounts of material substances, including
your skin and muscles, solar X-rays are totally absorbed in the atmosphere. This
radiation is therefore now observed from satellites orbiting the Earth above our air.
Pioneering observations of the X-ray emission from solar flares using rockets, the
Orbiting Solar Observatories and Skylab were discussed in Sect. 2.5, and are in-
cluded in the key events given at the end of this chapter.
The radiation at different X-ray wavelengths, the hard and soft varieties, de-
scribes different parts of the flare time profile and is attributed to different physical
mechanisms. They are known as the impulsive hard-X-ray phase and gradual soft
X-ray decay phases of a solar flare (Fig. 6.5). At the impulsive stage of a solar flare,
electrons are accelerated rapidly, in a second or less, to energies that can exceed
262 6 Our Violent Sun

1500
14 -23 keV
1000

500

0
800
600 23 -33 keV

400
200
Intensity

0
600
33 -53 keV
400

200

0
400
53 -93 keV

200

0
22:32 22:34 22:36 22:38 22:40 22:42 22:44
Time (UT)

Fig. 6.5 Impulsive and gradual phases of a flare. This time profile of a solar flare observed at
hard X-ray energies, above 30 keV (bottom), is characterized by an impulsive feature that lasts for
about 1 min. This impulsive phase coincides with the acceleration of high-speed electrons that emit
non-thermal bremsstrahlung at hard X-ray wavelengths and non-thermal synchrotron radiation at
centimeter radio wavelengths. The less-energetic emission, below 30 keV (top), can be composed
of two components, an impulsive component followed by a gradual one. The latter component
builds up slowly and becomes most intense during the decay phase of solar flares when thermal ra-
diation dominates. At even lower soft X-ray energies (about 10 keV), the gradual phase dominates
the flare emission. These data were taken on 15 November 1991 with the Hard X-ray Telescope
(HXT) aboard Yohkoh. (Courtesy of NASA, ISAS, the Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics
Laboratory, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, and the University of Tokyo.)

1 MeV. The high-energy electrons emit hard X-rays and gamma rays that mark the
flare onset. The soft X-rays emitted during solar flares gradually build up in strength
and peak a few minutes after the impulsive emission, so the soft X-rays are a delayed
effect of the main flare outburst.
The soft X-rays emitted during solar flares are thermal radiation, released by
virtue of their intense heat and dependent upon the random thermal motions of
very hot electrons. At such high temperatures, the electrons are set free from atoms
6.3 X-Ray Flares 263

Proton
Accelerated
Electron

X-ray
Photon

Fig. 6.6 Bremsstrahlung. When an electron moves rapidly and freely outside an atom, it in-
evitably moves near a proton in the ambient gas. There is an electrical attraction between the
electron and the proton because they have equal and opposite charge, and this pulls the electron
toward the proton, bending the electron’s trajectory and altering its speed. The electron emits elec-
tromagnetic radiation in the process. This radiation is known as bremsstrahlung from the German
word for “braking radiation”

and move off at high speed, leaving the ions (primarily protons) behind. When an
electron moves through the surrounding material, it is attracted to the oppositely
charged protons and emits a kind of thermal radiation called bremsstrahlung (Fig. 6.6,
Focus 6.2).

Focus 6.2
Bremsstrahlung
When a hot electron moves rapidly and freely outside an atom, it inevitably moves
near a proton in the ambient gas. The free electron is deflected from a straight path
and changes its speed during its encounter with the proton, emitting electromagnetic
radiation in the process. This radiation is known as bremsstrahlung from the German
word for “braking radiation.”
Because of their greater mass, the protons move more slowly than the electrons
with the same temperature or kinetic energy. So, one can picture a proton at rest with
the electron moving by. There is an electrical attraction between the electron and
the proton because they have equal and opposite charge, and this pulls the electron
toward the proton, bending the electron’s trajectory and altering its speed (Fig. 6.6).
The bremsstrahlung is produced at the point of the electron’s closest approach to the
proton. Bremsstrahlung can be emitted at all wavelengths, from long radio waves to
short X-rays, but during solar flares it becomes very intense at X-ray wavelengths.
The greater the number of electrons, the stronger the thermal bremsstrahlung is.
To be precise, the thermal bremsstrahlung power, P, increases with the square of the
electron density, Ne , and the volume of the radiating source, V . It also depends upon
the temperature of the electrons, Te . A formula for the bremsstrahlung power is:
1/2
P = constant × Ne2V Te ,

where the constant is also a function of the electron temperature. Scientists can use
this expression with measurements of the X-ray power during a flare to determine
the density of electrons participating in the radiation, assuming that they completely
264 6 Our Violent Sun

fill the observed volume. Electron density values of Ne ≈ 1017 electrons per cubic
meter are often obtained.
How much energy is released during a typical solar flare? The total flare energy,
ET , expended in producing electrons with energies, Ee , of about 30 keV, or 5.8 ×
10−15 J, in a radius R with an electron density of Ne ≈ 1017 electrons per cubic
meter is:
ET = (4 π R3 Ee Ne )/3 ≈ 2 × 1024 J,
where the radius of a compact, impulsive flare is R = 107 m, subtending an angular
radius of 14 s of arc when viewed from the Earth.
What fuels these catastrophic eruptions on the Sun, and where does such a large
amount of energy come from? The almost universal consensus is that solar flares
are powered by magnetic energy. The magnetic energy, EM , for a magnetic field of
strength, B, in a volume with radius, R, is:

EM = [4π /(6 μ0 )]B2 R3 = 0.166 × 106 B2 R3 J,

where the permeability of free space is μ0 = 4π×10−7 H m−1 , the radius is in meters
and the magnetic field strength in Tesla.
Magnetic reconnection in the low solar corona serves as an efficient method for
converting magnetic energy into plasma kinetic energy and thermal energy. Let us
suppose that the reconnection site is just above a coronal loop of radius R = 107 m,
with a comparable size. To provide the flare energy, ET = 2 × 1024 J in a volume of
radius R = 107 m, a magnetic field of about 0.03 T is required. Solar astronomers
often use the c.g.s. unit of Gauss, where 1 T = 10, 000 G, so the required magnetic
field change in the corona is roughly 300 G.

There are two kinds of bremsstrahlung emitted at X-ray wavelengths during solar
flares. They are called thermal bremsstrahlung and non-thermal bremsstrahlung,
which distinguishes both the method of electron acceleration and the energy of
the X-rays. The thermal, soft X-ray bremsstrahlung predominates during the decay
phase of a solar flare. This radiation is produced when electrons are heated to high
temperatures of about 10 × 106 K, moving at speeds of about 0.05 times the velocity
of light and emitting soft X-rays when they encounter protons.
The electrons accelerated to high velocities during the impulsive phase of a flare
radiate hard X-rays by non-thermal bremsstrahlung, which is the same process as the
thermal one except the electrons are moving at non-thermal speeds near the velocity
of light, faster than possible in a hot gas, and the photon energy of the radiation is
much greater.
The intensity of thermal bremsstrahlung falls off rapidly with increasing photon
energy, while that of the non-thermal hard X-ray flare radiation follows a less steep,
power-law drop at increasing energy (Fig. 6.7). For the power law situation, the
number of non-thermal electrons with energy, E, varies as E −P , where the power-
law index P is a small positive number. Observation of non-thermal bremsstrahlung
provides a way to study the accelerated electrons and specify this index.
6.3 X-Ray Flares 265

1000.00
Nonthermal
Thermal
Flux (photons cm-2 s-1 keV-1)

100.00 Total

10.00

1.00

0.10

0.01
10 100
Photon Energy (keV)

Fig. 6.7 Energy spectrum of flare electrons. The spatially integrated energy spectrum of the
radiation photons during a 14-s time interval at the peak of a solar flare on 20 February 2002.
The observed low-energy spectrum is described by a thermal spectrum at a temperature of 15 ×
106 K. The high-energy emission is attributed to non-thermal emission of energetic electrons with
a power-law spectral index of 4.4. These data were obtained from NASA’s Ramaty High Energy
Solar Spectroscopic Imager, abbreviated RHESSI. (Courtesy of Brian R. Dennis, NASA.)

The physical processes that give rise to the soft X-ray and hard X-ray flare emis-
sion were first suggested by observations from the Solar Maximum Mission, abbre-
viated SMM, in the 1980s, and amplified, confirmed, and extended with instruments
aboard Yohkoh, with improved angular and temporal resolution and a wider energy
range. Images from Yohkoh’s Hard X-ray Telescope, or HXT, clarified, for exam-
ple, the double-source, loop-footpoint structure of impulsive hard X-ray flares with
unprecedented clarity. It established a double-source structure for the hard X-ray
emission of roughly half the flares observed in the purely non-thermal energy range
above 30 keV. The other half of the flares detected with Yohkoh were either single
sources, which could be double ones that are too small to be resolved, or multiple
sources that could be an ensemble of double sources.
When the two hard X-ray sources (above 30 keV) are seen from Yohkoh, they are
located on opposite sides of the line that separates regions of different magnetic po-
larity (the magnetic neutral line), strongly suggesting that the hard X-rays are emit-
ted from the footpoints of a flaring magnetic loop. The double hard X-ray sources
occur and vary nearly simultaneously in time, within 0.1 s or less, a result that ex-
cludes transport mechanisms other than high-energy electrons in coronal loops.
In 1968, Werner M. Neupert reported that the slow, smooth rise of the soft X-ray
flares, observed from the third Orbiting Solar Observatory, resemble the time inte-
gration of the rapid, impulsive radio bursts at centimeter wavelengths. After SMM
was launched, the temporal correlation, which is now known as the Neupert effect,
was extended and confirmed for soft and hard X-rays, showing that the impulsive
hard X-ray flux corresponds to the time derivative of the soft X-ray flux. This sug-
gests that the energetic electron beams that gives rise to the hard X-ray flare is the
266 6 Our Violent Sun

main source of heating and mass supply of the coronal plasma that emits the soft
X-ray flare. In 2005, Astrid M. Veronig and co-workers discussed the physical im-
plications and possible limitations of this interpretation using RHESSI hard X-ray
and GOES soft X-ray data.
The four Bragg Crystal Spectrometers, abbreviated BCS, aboard Yohkoh mea-
sured the motions and temperatures of the flaring gas using soft X-ray spectral
lines. Doppler shifts of these lines to shorter wavelengths indicated that this ma-
terial was moving upwards during solar flares at typical speeds of 350 km s−1 . Such
upward flare motions were suggested by SMM data, but not with fine detail. From
the Yohkoh results, it was shown that during a solar flare gas in the chromosphere is
heated from 10, 000 K to 20 × 106 K, beginning at the footpoints of magnetic loops
where the hard X-ray flare sources are found, and that the hot gas flows up into
flaring coronal loops to produce the copious soft X-ray emission seen during solar
flares.
This rise in heated material during solar flares is described by the theory of chro-
mospheric evaporation, first suggested by Tadashi Hirayama in his 1974 interpre-
tation of the soft X-ray flare, but it has nothing to do with the evaporation of any
liquid. Initially cool chromospheric material, heated by down flowing, or precipi-
tating, flare electrons, expands upwards into the low-density corona along magnetic
loops that shine brightly in soft X-rays after filling. The Yohkoh BCS data indicate
that when replenished in full, the post-impulsive flare loops contain gas heated to a
maximum temperature of about 23 × 106 K, even hotter than the center of the Sun at
15.6 × 106 K.

Fig. 6.8 Post-flare loops. This image was taken from the Transition Region And Coronal Explorer,
abbreviated TRACE, telescope in the 17.1-nm passband sensitive to gas temperatures of about
◦
1 × 106 . It shows some post-flare loops, cooling after an M2 flare that started 2 h prior to this
image. (Courtesy of Dawn Myers, the TRACE consortium and NASA; TRACE is a mission of the
Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research, and part of the NASA Small Explorer program.)
6.3 X-Ray Flares 267

The SMM observations of chromospheric evaporation include those of Loren Ac-

ton and co-workers in 1982, Ester Antonucci and colleagues in 1983 and 1984, and
Andre Fludra and co-workers in 1989. The Yohkoh results were reported by George
A. Doschek in 1990, 1991, and John T. Mariska in 1994, and revisited in the context
of numerical models by Doschek and Harry P. Warren in 2005. In the meantime,
Anja Czaykowska and colleagues in 1999 and by Jeffrey W. Brosius and Kenneth J.
H. Phillips in 2004 had used the Coronal Diagnostic Spectrometer aboard SOHO to
describe the material flowing out from loop footpoints.
While the Yohkoh observations reveal magnetic structures that become filled by
hot flare plasma, at temperatures of 10–20 × 106 K, the Transition Region And Coro-
nal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, shows the locations of the post-flare plasma, after
it has cooled down to 1 or 2 × 106 K, often tracing out post-flare loops (Fig. 6.8).

6.3.2 A Model of Flaring X-Ray Emission

A well-developed model describes the hard X-ray and soft X-ray radiation of solar
flares (Fig. 6.9). According to this picture, solar flare energy release occurs mainly

Electrons
Non-thermal
Electrons Flare Energy
Release

Evaporation

Radiation

Accelerated
Footpoints Particles
of Loop
N
Magnetic Loop

Hard X-rays
S
Sun
Nuclear
Gamma Rays
Chromosphere

Fig. 6.9 Solar X-ray flare model. A solar flare is powered by magnetic energy released from a
magnetic interaction site above the top of the loop shown schematically here. Electrons are ac-
celerated to high speed, generating a burst of radio energy as well as impulsive loop-top hard
X-ray emission. Some of these non-thermal electrons are channeled down the loop and strike the
chromosphere at nearly the speed of light, emitting hard X-rays by electron-ion bremsstrahlung at
the loop footpoints. When beams of accelerated protons enter the dense, lower atmosphere, they
cause nuclear reactions that result in gamma-ray spectral lines and energetic neutrons. Material
in the chromosphere is heated very quickly and rises into the loop, accompanied by a slow, grad-
ual increase in soft X-ray radiation. This upwelling of heated material is called chromospheric
evaporation, and occurs in the decay phase of the flare
268 6 Our Violent Sun

during the rapid, impulsive phase, when charged particles are accelerated and non-
thermal hard X-rays are emitted. The thermal decay phase, detected by the gradual
build up of soft X-rays, is viewed as an atmospheric response to the energetic par-
ticles generated during the impulsive hard X-ray phase. The historical development
of this model is deferred until Sect. 6.10, where we introduce early proposals for
magnetic reconnection at the flare particle acceleration site, with refinements of the
X-ray model developed by Kazunari Shibata and colleagues in 1995 and by Saku
Tsuneta in 1996 and 1997, as well as the subsequent inclusion of coronal mass ejec-
tions. But for now, we will focus on the implications for the X-ray emission of solar
flares.
It is generally believed that a solar flare is triggered by an instability or rear-
rangement in the magnetic configuration in the low corona. This results in the rapid
release of stored, non-potential magnetic energy and the acceleration of non-thermal
particles by processes that are still not well understood. In 1994–1995, Satoshi
Masuda and co-workers used Yohkoh hard X-ray and soft X-ray observations of
compact impulsive flares near the solar limb to infer the site of primary flare energy
release. In addition to double-footpoint sources, a hard X-ray source was found well
above the corresponding soft X-ray loop structure at around the peak time of the im-
pulsive phase (Fig. 6.10). The energetic particles that give rise to the loop-top hard
X-rays were accelerated in the corona and above the bright soft X-ray flare loops,

Fig. 6.10 Loop-top impulsive hard X-ray flare. Hard and soft X-ray images of a solar flare
occurring near the solar limb on 13 January 1992. The white contour maps show three impulsive
hard X-ray sources from high-energy electrons accelerated during the solar flare, superposed on the
loop-like configuration of soft X-rays emitted by plasma heated during the flare gradual or decay
phase to temperatures of 10–20 × 106 K. In addition to the double-footpoint sources, a hard X-ray
source exists above the corresponding soft X-ray magnetic loop structure, with an intensity varia-
tion similar to those of the other two hard X-ray sources. This indicates that the flare is energized
from a site near the magnetic cusp. These simultaneous images were taken with the Hard X-ray
Telescope (HXT) and the Soft X-ray Telescope (SXT) aboard the Yohkoh satellite. (Adapted from
Satoshi Masuda, 1994; Courtesy of NASA, ISAS, the Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics
Laboratory, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, and the University of Tokyo.)
6.4 White-Light Flares 269

which are formed during the flare process and filled with evaporated plasma from
the chromosphere.
This particle acceleration site was confirmed in 1996 by Markus S. Aschwanden
and colleagues from observations of fast (subsecond) pulses of hard X-ray flare
emission, which exhibit electron time-of-flight delays as the result of propagation
between the coronal acceleration site and the hard X-ray footpoints in the chromo-
sphere. The energy-dependent time delays were measured with an instrument aboard
the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, abbreviated CGRO. And the correspond-
ing time-of-flight distances indicated that the flare acceleration site is located about
50% higher than the soft X-ray flare loop height inferred from Yohkoh observations.
Such an acceleration site was additionally confirmed in 1997 when Aschwanden
and Arnold O. Benz used radio observations to infer the location between upward-
moving and downward-moving electron beams.
In less than a few seconds, electrons and protons are accelerated in the low
corona, and beamed into the lower, denser reaches of the solar chromosphere, along
newly linked coronal loops, or hurled out into space along open magnetic field lines.
As the non-thermal electrons move either out or down along magnetic channels, they
generate intense radio emission. Further down, at the footpoints of the arching mag-
netic loops, the high-speed electrons emit non-thermal hard X-ray bremsstrahlung
via interactions with the ambient protons.
The chromosphere at the loop footpoints is heated very rapidly (in seconds) by
the accelerated particles that slam into it. The high-temperature material in the chro-
mosphere is driven upward by the large pressure gradients and “evaporates” along
the guiding magnetic field to get rid of the excess energy. Relatively long-lived (tens
of minutes) soft X-ray radiation is then emitted by thermal bremsstrahlung as the
flaring loop is filled with the hot, rising material, and the coronal loop relaxes into
a more stable configuration during the cooling, decay phase of a solar flare. And in
the meantime, the rarely seen, white-light flares can be produced by the downward
impact of the impulsive, non-thermal electrons when they strike the chromosphere
or photosphere.

6.4 White-Light Flares

Exceptionally powerful solar flares can be detected in the combined colors of sun-
light, or in white light. These white-light flares, as they are now called, create only
a minor perturbation in the steady luminous output of the photosphere, so they are
rarely seen. Richard Carrington and Richard Hodgson independently published the
first account of one in 1860. But during the ensuing centuries, no more than about
100 white-light flares have been reported from ground-based observatories.
In recent decades, it has been shown that the white-light emission correlates well
with the hard X-ray emission from solar flares in both time and space (Fig. 6.11).
That is, the white-light flare usually occurs during the impulsive phase of a solar
flare and is found at the footpoints of coronal loops, suggesting that the visible
270 6 Our Violent Sun

Fig. 6.11 Double hard X-ray and white light flare. Hard X-ray sources in solar flares often
occur in simultaneous pairs that are aligned with the photosphere footpoints of a flaring magnetic
loop detected at soft X-ray wavelengths. These footpoints can also be the sites of white-light flare
emission. The time profiles of this flare, detected on 15 November 1991, show that the increase of
white-light emission matches almost exactly that of the hard X-ray flux. This and the simultaneity
of hard X-ray emission from the two footpoints establish that non-thermal electrons transport the
impulsive-phase energy along the flare loops. These soft X-ray, hard X-ray, and white-light images
of the solar flare were taken with telescopes aboard the Yohkoh mission. (Courtesy of NASA, ISAS,
the Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, the National Astronomical Observatory
of Japan, and the University of Tokyo.)

radiation may be related to non-thermal electrons accelerated in the low corona

and beamed down into the chromosphere and upper photosphere. An acoustic pulse
associated with white-light flares marks the location where the flare impulse hits the
photosphere.
White-light flares have been observed with TRACE, and compared to simul-
taneous hard X-ray observations with RHESSI. These results, reported by Hugh
S. Hudson, C. Jacob Wolfson. and Thomas R. Metcalf (2006b), confirmed the strong
association of white-light emission with hard X-ray sources. The TRACE imaging
capability was also used to show that the white-light emission is highly localized
6.5 Gamma Rays from Solar Flares 271

and intermittent, and commonly contains unresolved features less than 1 s of arc
in size.
In 2007, Lyndsay Fletcher and colleagues compared co-spatial TRACE white-
light continuum and RHESSI hard X-ray observations of loop footpoints, showing
that the energy required to power the white-light emission was comparable to the
total energy carried by the electron beam giving rise to the hard X-rays, and that the
white-light flares are energized by the more numerous low-energy electrons which
carry most of the total energy. Such low-energy electrons cannot penetrate into the
photosphere or lower chromosphere, so they deposit energy in the upper chromo-
sphere where flare ribbons are detected.
It was not until 2004 that Thomas N. Woods and colleagues reported the first
detection of a flare in the Sun’s total irradiance, which is dominated by visible sun-
light, using NASA’s SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment, abbreviated SORCE.
In 2006, Woods, Greg Kopp, and Phillip C. Chamberlin demonstrated that the flare
energy inferred from the total solar irradiance of large flares is about 100 times
greater than the soft X-ray measurements from the GOES spacecraft at 0.1–0.8 nm.

6.5 Gamma Rays from Solar Flares

Normally you cannot observe gamma rays from the Sun, even from outer space, for
their intensity is too low to be detected with the available instruments. But when pro-
tons and heavier ions are accelerated to high speed during solar flares, and beamed
down into the chromosphere, they produce nuclear reactions and generate gamma
rays that have been detected. They are the most energetic kind of radiation detected
from solar flares.
The gamma rays have energies of about 1 MeV, equivalent to a 1,000 keV, so the
gamma rays are 10–100 times more energetic than the hard X-rays and soft X-rays
detected during solar flares. Like X-rays, the gamma rays are totally absorbed in our
atmosphere and must be observed from space.
Some of the protons accelerated during a solar flare slam into the dense, lower
atmosphere, like a bullet hitting a concrete wall, shattering abundant heavy nuclei in
a process called spallation. The lighter nuclear fragments are left in an excited state,
but promptly calm down and get rid of their excess energy by emitting gamma rays.
Other abundant nuclei are directly excited by collision with the flare-accelerated
protons, and radiate the extra energy in gamma rays, thereby relaxing to their former
unexcited state. Thus, nuclear reactions can occur on the visible disk of the Sun, as
well as deep down in its energy-generating core (Table 6.2).
During bombardment by flare-accelerated ions, energetic neutrons can be torn
out of the nuclei of atoms. Many of these neutrons are eventually captured by
ambient, or non-flaring, hydrogen nuclei, the protons, in the photosphere, making
deuterons, the nuclei of deuterium atoms, and emitting one of the Sun’s strongest
gamma-ray lines, at 2.223 MeV. The neutrons must slow down and lose some energy
272 6 Our Violent Sun

Table 6.2 Some important gamma-ray lines from solar flaresa

Process Particles or elements Energy (MeV)
Pair annihilation e + + e− 0.511∗
Neutron capture 2H (=2 D) 2.223∗
Spallation 12 C 4.438∗
Spallation 16 O 6.129∗
6.917∗
7.117∗
2.741
Alpha excitation 7 Be 0.431∗
Alpha excitation 7 Li 0.478∗
Proton excitation 14 N 5.105∗
2.313
Proton excitation 20 Ne 1.634∗
2.613
3.34
Proton excitation 24 Mg 1.369∗
2.754
Proton excitation 28 Si 1.779∗
6.878
Proton excitation 56 Fe 0.847∗
1.238∗
1.811
a The most prominent lines are marked with an asterisk ∗ and have been detected in the flare of
27 April 1981 (Murphy et al., 1985). The energy is given in MeV, where 1 MeV = 1, 000 keV =
1.602 × 10−13 J or 1.602 × 10−6 erg.

by collisions before the protons can capture them, so the gamma-ray line is delayed
by a minute or two from the onset of impulsive flare emission.
Neutrons produced by accelerated particle interactions during solar flares can
also escape from the Sun, avoiding capture there. Neutrons with energies above
1,000 MeV have even been directly measured in space near Earth, in the 1980s from
the SMM, and in the 1990s from the CGRO. In the most energetic flares, the asso-
ciated neutrons can reach the Earth, and produce a signal in ground-level neutron
monitors.
Another strong gamma-ray line emitted during solar flares is the 0.511 MeV
positron annihilation line. Positrons, the anti-matter counterpart of electrons, are
released during the decay of radioactive nuclei produced when flare-accelerated
protons and heavier nuclei interact with the lower solar atmosphere. The positrons
annihilate with the electrons, producing radiation at 0.511 MeV, which is the energy
contained in the entire mass of a non-moving electron. Before the positrons can in-
teract with the ambient thermal electrons, they must also slow down by collisions
until they have similar velocities. The positron can even combine with an electron
to briefly produce a positronium “atom”, before self-destructing with the production
of the 0.511 MeV spectral feature.
6.5 Gamma Rays from Solar Flares 273

The detection of gamma-ray lines during solar flares is not a recent thing. Ed-
ward L. Chupp observed the positron-annihilation, neutron capture, and carbon and
oxygen de-excitation lines in 1971, using an instrument aboard NASA’s seventh
Orbiting Solar Observatory, abbreviated OSO 7. But our understanding of the high-
energy processes that produce solar-flare gamma rays and neutrons has been sig-
nificantly improved as the result of observations in the 1980s, using the Gamma
Ray Spectrometer aboard the SMM, reviewed by Chupp in 1984 and 1987, in the
1990s with the CGRO, and after 2002 from the Ramaty High Energy Solar Spec-
troscopic Imager, abbreviated RHESSI. Instruments aboard RHESSI have detected
the delayed neutron capture line, the pair-annihilation line, and the gamma-ray lines
from excited nuclei of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, neon, magnesium, silicon, and iron
during solar flares (Focus 6.3).

Focus 6.3
Nuclear Reactions on the Sun
Nuclear reactions during solar flares produce gamma-ray lines, emitted at energies
between 0.4 and 7.1 MeV. They result from the interaction of flare-accelerated pro-
tons and helium nuclei, having energies between 1 and 100 MeV, with nuclei in the
dense atmosphere below the acceleration site.
When protons with energies above 300 MeV interact with the abundant hydrogen
in the solar atmosphere, they can produce short-lived fundamental particles, called
mesons, whose decay leads to gamma-ray emission. The decay of neutral mesons
produces a broad gamma-ray peak at 70 MeV, and the decay of charged mesons
leads to bremsstrahlung giving a continuum of gamma rays with energies extending
to several MeV. Neutrons with energies above 1,000 MeV are also produced.
Narrow gamma-ray lines (≤ 100 keV in width) have been observed during solar
flares from deuterium formation, electron–positron annihilation, and excited carbon,
nitrogen, oxygen and heavier nuclei (also see Table 6.2). These reactions are often
written using letters to denote the nuclei, a Greek letter γ to denote gamma-ray
radiation, and an arrow → to specify the reaction; nuclei on the left side of the
arrow react to form products given on the right side of the arrow. The letter p is used
to denote a proton, the nucleus of a hydrogen atom; the Greek letter α signifies an
alpha particle, which is the nucleus of the helium atom.
As an example, the collision of a flare-associated proton, p, or alpha particle,
α, with a heavy nucleus in the dense solar atmosphere may result in a spallation
reaction that causes the nucleus to break up into lighter fragments which are left
in excited states denoted by an asterisk (∗ ). They subsequently de-excite to emit
gamma-ray lines. Important examples are the production of excited carbon, 12 C∗ ,
and oxygen, 16 O∗ , by flaring protons, p, that break up oxygen, 16 O, or neon, 20 Ne,
nuclei by the reactions:
p +16 O →12 C∗ + α
and
p +20 Ne →16 O∗ + α,
274 6 Our Violent Sun

with de-excitation and emission of a gamma-ray line, γ, of energy, hν, by:

12 ∗
C →12 C + γ (hν = 4.438 MeV)

and
16
O∗ →16 O + γ (hν = 6.129 MeV).
Flare-accelerated protons, p, can also interact with abundant nuclei, N, in the
solar atmosphere, exciting nuclei that emit gamma-ray lines on de-excitation. The
inelastic scattering of the nucleus, N, with a proton, p, can be written:

N + p → N∗ + p ,

where the unprimed and primed sides, respectively, denote the incident and scattered
proton, p, and the excited nucleus N∗ reverts to its former state emitting a gamma-
ray line, γ, by:
N∗ → N + γ.
Elements and energies of prominent gamma-ray lines resulting from proton ex-
citation of abundant elements were given in Table 6.2.
Heavy excited nuclei can also be generated by the fusion of flare-associated par-
ticles with lighter nuclei in the solar atmosphere. Examples include beryllium, 7 Be∗ ,
and lithium, 7 Li∗ , produced by flaring alpha particles, α, and ambient helium, 4 He.
4
He + α →7 Be∗ + n

and
4
He + α →7 Li∗ + p,
with the excited nuclei reverting to their former unexcited state accompanied by the
emission of a gamma-ray line, γ, of energy, hν, by:
7
Be∗ →7 Be + γ (hν = 0.431 MeV)

and
7
Li∗ →7 Li + γ (hν = 0.478 MeV).
Additional gamma-ray lines that are observed during solar flares include those
associated with electron–positron annihilation at 0.511 MeV, denoted by:

e− + e+ → γ + γ (hν = 0.511 MeV),

where e− and e+ , respectively, denote an electron and a positron. The positron,

or positive electron, is the anti-matter particle of the electron. Another common
gamma-ray line is the feature at 2.223 MeV associated with neutron, n, capture by
hydrogen nuclei, 1 H or p, to produce excited deuterium, 2 H∗ , that relaxes with emis-
sion of gamma rays, γ.
1
H + n →2 H∗
6.5 Gamma Rays from Solar Flares 275

with
2
H∗ →2 H + γ (hν = 2.223 MeV).
The neutrons are produced when nuclei in the solar atmosphere are shattered
during collisions with ions that have been accelerated in the flare. The line emission
is usually delayed from the time of flare acceleration in order to allow the neutrons
to thermalize, or slow down, before they are captured by the abundant hydrogen
nuclei in the photosphere.

As an interesting aside, instruments aboard CGRO and RHESSI have also de-
tected gamma ray flashes associated with lightning high in the Earth’s atmosphere
(Focus 6.4).

Focus 6.4
Terrestrial Gamma-Ray Flashes
In 1994, G. Jerry Fishman and colleagues reported observations from the CGRO
of intense, millisecond gamma-ray flashes in the Earth’s atmosphere. And in 2005,
David M. Smith and co-workers announced RHESSI observations of more frequent
terrestrial gamma-ray flashes of even greater energy. These flashes are generated by
high-speed electrons, with energies of up to 20 MeV, occur every day or two, and
appear to be due to high-altitude lightning discharge above thunderstorms.

High-resolution spectroscopy from RHESSI has resulted in spectrally resolved

electron–positron annihilation and nuclear de-excitation lines for the first time, re-
spectively reported in 2003 by Gerald H. Share and David M. Smith and their col-
leagues. The 0.511 MeV electron–positron annihilation line exhibited variable and
unexpectedly broad widths, reflecting conditions where the annihilation positrons
reside. The nuclear de-excitation lines of neon, magnesium, silicon, iron, carbon,
and oxygen showed mass-dependent Doppler redshifts of 0.1–0.8%, attributed to
tilted magnetic loops or downward motion of the accelerated protons.
The first gamma-ray images of solar flares have also been obtained from an in-
strument aboard RHESSI, and reported by Gordon J. Hurford and his colleagues
in 2003 and 2006. The images, obtained in the 2.223 MeV neutron-capture line,
showed gamma ray sources that were spatially separated from the hard X-ray flare-
loop footpoints. This unexpected displacement indicates that the accelerated pro-
tons, which result in the neutron-capture line, are not co-spatial with the accelerated
electrons, which produce the hard X-rays. Perhaps, the protons and electrons are ac-
celerated in different places, or once accelerated they may propagate and lose their
energy differently. One of the flares, occurring on 28 October 2003, yielded the first
image of double-footpoint, gamma-ray line sources. The gamma-ray images from
solar flares observed so far are located in the flare active region, demonstrating that
the responsible protons and other ions are accelerated by a flare process and not by
shocks such as those generated during fast coronal mass ejections.
276 6 Our Violent Sun

RHESSI has additionally been used to image the flaring regions at hard X-ray en-
ergies. In 2003, for example, Linhui Sui and Gordon Holman discovered a compact
coronal X-ray source whose motions, initially downward and subsequently upward,
reveal the site of flare energy release, located between the coronal source and the
underlying flare loops. In 2005 and 2006. Sui and Holman teamed up with Brian
R. Dennis to present additional evidence for impulsive flare energy release in the
corona, between the tops of the flare loops and a separate, higher coronal source.
The high-speed electrons that are accelerated during the impulsive phase of a
solar flare are not all beamed down into the Sun along magnetic loops. Some of
them break free of the arching magnetic structures, and are tossed into surrounding
interplanetary space along open magnetic fields where they emit radio radiation. So
this takes us from the shortest waves emitted during a solar flare, the gamma rays,
to the longest ones, the radio waves.

6.6 Solar Radio Bursts

The radio emission of a solar flare is often called a radio burst to emphasize its brief,
energetic, and eruptive characteristics. During such bursts, the Sun’s radio emission
can increase up to a million times normal intensity in just a few seconds, so they can
outshine the entire Sun at radio wavelengths.
Solar radio bursts are very effective probes of the physical state of the flaring so-
lar atmosphere, providing an important diagnostic tool for magnetic and temperature
structures and displaying signatures of electrons accelerated to very high speeds,
approaching that of light. The expulsion of these energetic electrons has been con-
firmed by direct in situ measurements in interplanetary space (Sect. 7.3).
As first shown by Ruby Payne-Scott, Donald E. Yabsley, and John G. Bolton
in 1947, the bursts do not occur simultaneously at different radio frequencies or
wavelengths, but instead drift to later arrival times at lower frequencies and longer
wavelengths. This is explained by a disturbance that travels out through the progres-
sively more rarefied layers of the solar corona, making the local electrons vibrate at
their natural frequency of oscillation, called the plasma frequency (Focus 6.5).

Focus 6.5
Exciting Plasma Oscillations in the Corona
At the high temperature of the solar corona, of about a million Kelvin, electrons are
stripped from the gaseous atoms by innumerable collisions, leaving electrons and
ions that are free to move about. The electrons have a negative charge, and since
ions are atoms that are missing one or more electrons, they are positively charged.
An un-ionized atom is electrically neutral without charge. In the solar corona, the
negative charge of the electrons equals the positive charge of the protons, so the
mixture of electrons and protons, called plasma, has no net charge. The entire Sun,
including its outer atmosphere, is nothing but a giant, hot ball of plasma.
6.6 Solar Radio Bursts 277

When a flare-associated disturbance, such as an electron beam or a shock wave,

moves though the coronal plasma, the local electrons are displaced with respect to
the protons, which are more massive than the electrons. The electrical attraction
between the electrons and protons pulls the electrons back in the opposite direc-
tion, but they overshoot the equilibrium position. The light, free electrons therefore
oscillate back and forth when a moving disturbance passes through the corona.
The natural frequency of oscillation, called the plasma frequency, depends on
the local electron concentration, with a higher plasma frequency at greater coronal
electron densities. The exact expression for the square of the plasma frequency,
νp 2 , is:
νp2 = e2 Ne /(4π2 εo me ) = 81 Ne Hz2 ,
where the electron density, denoted by Ne , is in units of electrons per cubic meter, the
electron charge e = 1.60 × 10−19 coulomb, the electron mass me = 9.11 × 10−31 kg,
and the permittivity of free space εo = 10−9 /(36π) F m−1 . Low in the solar corona,
where Ne ≈ 1014 m−3 , the plasma frequency is νp ≈ 9 × 107 Hz = 90 MHz, where
1 MHz is a million Hz or a million cycles per second. Thus, a solar flare can set the
corona oscillating at radio frequencies, and this plasma frequency decreases with
diminishing electron density at greater distances from the Sun.
As the explosive disturbance moves out through the progressively more rar-
efied layers of the corona, it excites radiation at lower and lower radio frequencies.
Ground-based radio telescopes can identify these radio signals by changing the fre-
quency to which their receiver is tuned. As an example, the radiation at a frequency
of 200 MHz, or at 1.5 m wavelength, might arrive about a minute before the 20 MHz
(15 m) outburst. The product of frequency and wavelength is equal to the velocity
of light c = 2.9979 × 108 m s−1 .
With an electron density model of the solar atmosphere, the emission frequency
can be related to height, and combined with the time delays between frequencies
to obtain the outward velocity of the moving disturbance. One can alternatively use
the relationship between the drift rate, dν /dt, near frequency ν , and the disturbance
velocity, V :
dν /dt = (N −1 dN/ds) ν V /2,
where the gradient of density, N, with height, s, is (N −1 dN/ds) = 10−8 m−1 for the
solar corona at a temperature of 2 × 106 K.
For type III radio bursts, a velocity between 0.2 and 0.8 c is determined, with an
average velocity of 0.4 c, where c is the velocity of light. Beams of high-speed elec-
trons, thrown out from solar flares, excite progressively lower plasma frequencies.
The kinetic energy of the flare-associated electrons is 10–100 keV. One kiloelectron
volt is equivalent to an energy of 1.6 × 10−16 J, and the rest mass energy of the elec-
tron, me c2 = 511 keV, where me is the mass of the electron and c is the velocity
of light.
As the hot corona expands into space, creating the solar wind, it fills an ever-
greater volume and thins out, becoming more and more rarefied at greater distances
from the Sun. There are only about 10 million electrons per cubic meter in inter-
planetary space near the Earth’s orbit, corresponding to a plasma frequency of about
278 6 Our Violent Sun

28,000 Hz, or 28 kHz. Radio experiments aboard spacecraft have followed the high-
speed electrons of type III bursts as they have moved out into these more rarefied
regions, mapping out the spiral structure of the interplanetary magnetic field that
guides the electron motion.
The ionosphere is also plasma, with a plasma frequency of up to 10 MHz corre-
sponding to wavelengths longer than 30 m. The Sun’s X-ray and extreme-ultraviolet
radiation create this electrically charged layer, located between 50 and 1,000 km
above the Earth’s surface. It reaches a maximum density of almost one million mil-
lion (1012 ) electrons per cubic meter at an altitude of a few hundred kilometers.
The ionosphere reflects radiation with frequencies lower than the ionosphere’s
plasma frequency. Terrestrial long-wavelength radio communication utilizes this
mirroring capability of the ionosphere to get around the curvature of the Earth.
The ionosphere similarly reflects incoming solar radio waves back into space if
their frequency is lower than about 10 MHz. Spacecraft lofted above the ionosphere
must therefore be used to track high-speed electrons or shock waves at remote dis-
tances from the Sun, where the density and plasma frequency are lower. They have
monitored the corona’s plasma radiation at frequencies from 0.01 to 10 MHz for
more than three decades, beginning in 1963 from the Alouette-I satellite followed
by the first Radio Astronomy Explorer, abbreviated RAE-1, launched in 1968.

Ground-based radio telescopes observe the dynamic spectra, or frequency drift,

for solar radio bursts between 10 and 8,000 MHz. In the 1950s, John Paul Wild’s
group in Australia, for example, used a swept-frequency receiver to distinguish at
least two types of meter-wavelength radio bursts (Fig. 6.12, Table 6.3). Designated
as type II and type III bursts, they both show a drift from higher to lower frequencies,
but at different rates. Solar radio astronomers usually measure this frequency in units
of MHz, where 1 MHz is equal to a million, or 106 , Hz. A frequency of 300 MHz
corresponds to a wavelength of 1 m.
In 1963, Wild, Stefan F. Smerd and A. A. Weiss reviewed their pioneering in-
vestigations of radio bursts from the solar corona. Monique Pick and her colleagues
gave a recent review of solar radio emissions from the Sun and the interplanetary
medium in 2006, and in 2008 Arnold Benz provided a comprehensive review of
flare observations as a Living Review in Solar Physics.
Modern instruments that detect the changing frequency of solar radio bursts in-
clude those aboard the Wind, Ulysses, and the STEREO A and B spacecraft. They
have been used to triangulate the trajectories of type II bursts, which are produced
by the shocks driven by coronal mass ejections. These results permit a three-
dimensional determination of the shock’s motion through space from the low corona
near the Sun to the Earth’s orbit.
The most common bursts detected at meter wavelengths are the fast-drift type
III bursts, which provide evidence for the ejection of very fast electrons from the
Sun. These radio bursts last for only a few minutes at the very onset of solar flares
and extend over a wide range of radio frequencies (also see Fig. 6.12). The rapid
6.6 Solar Radio Bursts 279

104 5
Type III 2
102
Type II 5
2
106 10

Height (R )
5
Frequency (Hz)

Type IVM 2
IV
ype 1
ingT
v
Mo 5
108 2
Type I Storm
Type IV 10-1
DM Fine
Structure 5
2
Micro- Microwave
10 wave
10 Burst Type IV

Flare

-2 2 4 6 8 10 12
Flash
Phase Time (hours)

Fig. 6.12 Solar radio bursts. Schematic representation of the radio spectrum during and after a
large solar flare. It can be associated with several different kinds of intense radio emission, depend-
ing on the frequency or wavelength (left vertical axis) and time after the explosion (bottom axis).
In these plots, the impulsive, or flash, phase of the solar flare is indicated at 0 h; it normally lasts
about 10 min and is associated with a powerful microwave burst. Dynamic spectra at frequencies
of about 108 Hz, or 100 MHz, show bursts that drift from high to low frequencies as time goes
on, but at different rates depending on the type of burst. Types II and III radio bursts have been
respectively attributed to shock waves and electron beams moving outward into the solar atmo-
sphere, or corona, exciting plasma oscillations. The height scale (right vertical axis) corresponds
to the height, in units of the Sun’s radius of 696 × 106 m, at which the coronal electron density
yields a plasma frequency corresponding to the frequency on the left-hand side. At frequencies
less than about 107 Hz, or 10 MHz, the bursts must be observed from spacecraft, above the iono-
sphere that deflects incoming radio waves at these low frequencies and long wavelengths. [Adapted
from H. Rosenberg (1976).]

frequency drift corresponds to an outward velocity of about half the speed of light
(also see Focus 6.5).
Electrons have to be accelerated to very high energies to move this fast. An elec-
tron’s energy is often specified in units of kilo-electron-volts, or keV for short. One
kiloelectron volt is equivalent to 1,000 eV, and to an energy of 1.6 × 10−16 J. An
electron volt is the energy acquired by an electron when it is accelerated through a
potential difference of 1 V. The electrons responsible for type III bursts have been
accelerated to energies of about 100 keV.
A type III radio burst emits radiation generated by non-thermal processes, and
cannot be due to the thermal radiation of a hot gas. Thermal radiation is emitted by
a collection of particles that collide with each other and exchange energy frequently,
280 6 Our Violent Sun

Table 6.3 Types of solar radio burstsa

Burst Characteristics
Type I Long-lived (hours to days) sources of radio emission with brightness tem-
peratures from 10 million to a billion (107 –109 ) Kelvin. Although these
noise storms are the most common type of activity observed on the Sun at
meter wavelengths, they are not associated with solar flares. Noise storms
are attributed to electrons accelerated to modest energies of a few keV
within large-scale magnetic loops that connect active regions to more dis-
tant areas of the Sun.
Type II Meter-wavelength type II bursts have been observed at frequencies be-
tween 0.1 and 100 MHz. A slow drift to lower frequencies of a rate of
about 1 MHz s−1 suggests an outward motion at about 1, 000 km s−1 and
has been attributed to shock waves.
Type III The most common flare-associated radio bursts at meter wavelengths, ob-
served from 0.1 to 1,000 MHz. Type III bursts are characterized by a fast
drift from high to low frequency, at a rate of up to 100 MHz s−1 . They are
attributed to beams of electrons thrown out from the Sun with kinetic en-
ergies of 10–100 keV, and velocities of up to half the velocity of light, or
up to 150, 000 km s−1 . The U-type bursts are a variant of type III bursts
that first decrease in frequency and then increase again, indicating motion
along closed magnetic field lines.
Type IV Broadband continuum radiation lasting for up to 1 h after impulsive flare
onset. The radiation from a type IV burst is partly circularly polarized,
and has been attributed to synchrotron emission from energetic electrons
trapped within magnetic clouds that travel out into space with velocities
from several hundred to a 1, 000 km s−1 .
Centimeter Impulsive continuum radiation at centimeter wavelengths that lasts just a
few minutes at flare onset. These microwave bursts are attributed to the
gyrosynchrotron radiation of high-speed electrons accelerated to energies
of 100–1,000 keV. The site of acceleration is located above the tops of
coronal loops.
Millisecond Radio flares observed at 200–1,400 MHz can include literally thousands
of spikes, each lasting a few milliseconds, suggesting sizes less than a
1,000 km across and brightness temperatures of up to a million billion
(1015 ) Kelvin, requiring a coherent radiation mechanism.
aA frequency of 1 MHz corresponds to a million Hz, or 106 Hz. An energy of 1 keV corresponds
to 1.6 × 10−16 J or 1.6 × 10−9 erg

giving a distribution of particle energy that can be characterized by a single tempera-

ture. Impulsive solar flares do not have enough time to achieve this equilibrium, and
the flaring electrons are far too energetic for a thermal process to work. To make
electrons travel at half the speed of light, a thermal gas would have to be heated to
implausible temperatures of 1.5 × 109 K, or about 100 times hotter than the center
of the Sun.
Electron beams excite the resonance frequency at which electrons in the coronal
plasma oscillate versus protons. This oscillation, in turn, emits radio waves at the
same frequency or its harmonic.
6.6 Solar Radio Bursts 281

The radio emission from the slow-drift type II bursts consists of two bands that
drift to lower frequencies at a leisurely pace, corresponding to an outward velocity
of about 1, 000 km s−1 . They are excited by shock waves set up at the time of a
solar outburst and moving out into space. Spatially resolved radio interferometry
observations in the 1950s confirmed the outward motion of type II bursts at these
speeds, and also indicated that they can be very large, with angular extents that
can become comparable to that of the Sun. As it turned out, at least some of the
type II bursts were the radio counterparts of the coronal mass ejections that were
subsequently discovered using space-borne coronagraphs.
We now know that radio bursts at meter wavelengths occur at altitudes far above
the site where the flare energy is released and particles are accelerated, but it took
solar physicists surprisingly long to realize that the bursts originate much lower in
the corona. In the 1980s and 1990s, Arnold O. Benz and collaborators systemati-
cally studied the decimeter bursts (1 dm = 0.1 m = 10 cm). They discovered low-
altitude signatures of electron beams at frequencies up to 8,000 MHz, or at wave-
lengths as short as 3.75 cm, moving downward from the acceleration regions into
the low corona. In 1997, Markus Aschwanden and Benz used swept frequency mea-
surements of solar bursts to specify the acceleration site, located in the low corona
between upward and downward electron beams. A giant array of radio telescopes,
located near Socorro, New Mexico, and called the Very Large Array, can zoom in
at the very moment of a solar flare, taking snapshot images with just a few sec-
onds exposure. It has pinpointed the location of the impulsive decimeter radiation
and the electrons that produce it. These radio bursts are triggered low in the Sun’s
atmosphere, unleashing their vast power in a relatively small area within solar ac-
tive regions, often accelerating the radio-emitting electrons just above the apex of
coronal loops.
In 1998, Timothy Bastian, Arnold Benz, and Dale Gary reviewed the available
knowledge of the radio emission from solar flares, including incoherent gyrosyn-
chrotron emission at millimeter and centimeter wavelengths and coherent plasma
radiation at decimeter and meter wavelengths. The high-speed electrons that emit
centimeter bursts spiral around the magnetic field lines, moving rapidly at velocities
near that of light, and sending out radio waves called gyrosynchrotron radiation af-
ter the man-made synchrotron particle accelerator where a similar kind of radiation
was first observed (Fig. 6.13). Synchrotron radiation was used to explain the radio
emission from our Galaxy and other cosmic radio sources in the 1950s, even before
being applied to the radio emission of solar flares.
Some interesting subsequent work includes radio measurements of the height
and strength of magnetic fields above sunspots, by Jeffrey Brosius and Stephen
White in 2006, the triangulation of type II bursts from solar spacecraft, and the still
controversial suggestion by Gregory D. Fleishman, Gelu M. Nita, and Dale Gary
in 2005 that some decimeter solar bursts may be produced by resonant transition
radiation.
282 6 Our Violent Sun

Non-thermal
Radiation
Polarization
Electron

Magnetic Field

Non-thermal
Radiation

Fig. 6.13 Synchrotron radiation. High-speed electrons moving at velocities near that of light
emit a narrow beam of synchrotron radiation as they spiral around a magnetic field. This emission
is sometimes called non-thermal radiation because the electron speeds are much greater than those
of thermal motion at any plausible temperature. The name “synchrotron” refers to the man-made,
ring-shaped synchrotron particle accelerator where this type of radiation was first observed; a syn-
chronous mechanism keeps the particles in step with the acceleration as they circulate in the ring

6.7 Filaments Lift Off, Prominences Erupt

A filament, or prominence, is a region of relatively cool gas embedded within the

much hotter corona, and suspended above the photosphere by a low-lying magnetic
loop. It can stretch horizontally for large distances across the Sun, above and along
the magnetic neutral line dividing opposite polarity in the photosphere, and like all
magnetic loops, it is connected at both ends to photosphere magnetic fields that point
in or out of the Sun. But there are differences that make filaments unique. The core
magnetic loop of a filament is long and low-lying, with oppositely curved elbows
on each end, giving the filament a twisted, sinuous form. And the filament magnetic
loop dips down in its long middle, forming a reservoir where the cool gas collects
like water in a valley.
The filament material has temperatures characteristic of the chromosphere, at
roughly 10,000 K. On the solar disk, these cool, dense features appear dark in
hydrogen-alpha or extreme-ultraviolet images, in absorption against the bright back-
ground. And a prominence is just a filament viewed at the edge or limb of the Sun,
in emission against the less-intense background (Figs. 6.14 and 6.15).
A further distinction is made between filaments, or prominences, in active regions
and those in the quiet Sun outside active regions. The active-region filaments are
relatively compact, with typical lengths of about 30,000 km, and often connected to
opposite polarity sunspots. The quiescent filaments can stretch across up to half a
solar radius, with lengths up to 300,000 km, and are relatively long-lived, lasting for
up to several months. Both types of filaments are much lower than they are long, as if
pressed down by the weight of all the material the magnetic loop is holding up. The
active region filaments lie only a few thousand kilometers above the photosphere,
while the large quiescent filaments have typical heights of 50,000 km.
6.7 Filaments Lift Off, Prominences Erupt 283

Fig. 6.14 Twin prominences. Two solar prominences arise from the Sun’s southern (lower) hemi-
sphere in this image taken on 21 March 2003 with the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, or
EIT for short, aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO. The promi-
nences are composed of relatively cool, dense plasma, appearing as dark filaments against the
brilliant solar disk, but as bright arcs when seen against the thin, million-degree corona at the edge
of the visible Sun. This image was taken at a wavelength of 30.4 nm, emitted by singly ionized he-
lium, denoted He II, at a temperature of about 60,000 K. (Courtesy of the SOHO EIT consortium.
SOHO is a project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA.)

An arcade of magnetic loops arches above the filament’s core magnetic loop.
In contrast to the core magnetism, which holds the filament up, the anchoring
fields are directed across the magnetic neutral line in the photosphere, rather than
along it, and they are rooted in regions of opposite magnetic polarity whose sep-
aration is considerably greater than the height of the low-lying filament core. The
higher, arching fields help restrain the filament, and keep it from expanding into
space.
At first glance, filaments look grand and stable, as if they could stay there forever.
But the loop material that is held within their magnetic confines is in a state of
continued agitation. As indicated in the 1990 review by Bodgan Rompolt, motions
in small-scale filamentary structures of prominences have been studied for more
than a century. In 1998, Sara F. Martin, for example, reviewed the conditions for
their formation and maintenance, and in the same year, Jack B. Zirker, Oddbjorn
Engvold and Martin described counter-streaming gas flows in solar prominences, as
evidence for vertical magnetic fields.
284 6 Our Violent Sun

Fig. 6.15 Erupting prominence. An extreme ultraviolet image of the Sun with a huge, handle-
shaped prominence (top right). It was taken on 14 September 1999 at a wavelength of 30.4 nm,
emitted by singly ionized helium, designated He II, with the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Tele-
scope, abbreviated EIT, aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for short.
Prominences are huge clouds of relatively cool, dense plasma suspended in the Sun’s hot, thin
corona. At times, they can erupt, escaping from the Sun’s gravitational embrace. Emission in this
helium spectral line shows the upper chromosphere at a temperature of about 60,000 K. Every
feature in the image traces magnetic field structure. The hottest areas appear almost white, while
the darker red areas indicate cooler material. (Courtesy of the SOHO EIT consortium. SOHO is a
project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA.)

Observations from TRACE also reveal strands of continually moving cool gas,
appearing to slosh back and forth within the nearly horizontal, core magnetic field.
As reported by Carolus Schrijver and co-workers in 1999 and Therese Kucera and
colleagues in 2003, 2006, the TRACE observations indicate that the material in low,
elongated filaments is extremely dynamic, exhibiting counter-streaming on nearby
field lines. Such flows suggest that cool gas is fed into filaments from their magnetic
ends near the chromosphere.
Both active-region and quiescent filaments or prominences can erupt, rising out
away from the Sun. The very largest filament eruptions are the quiescent fila-
ments that reside outside active regions and have relatively weak magnetic fields.
Although small in extent, active-region filament eruptions are more powerful, ex-
pending 10–100 times as much magnetic energy as their quiescent counterparts.
Many solar flares are often accompanied by the disruption of an active-region
6.7 Filaments Lift Off, Prominences Erupt 285

Fig. 6.16 Filament lifts off. A filament is caught at the moment of erupting from the Sun. The
dark matter is relatively cool, around 20,000 K, while the bright material is at a temperature of
about a million Kelvin. The structure extends 120,000 km from top to bottom. This image was
taken from the Transition Region And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, on 19 July 2000 at
a wavelength of 17.11 nm, emitted by eight and nine times ionized iron, denoted Fe IX and Fe
X, at a temperature of about 1 × 106 K. (Courtesy of the TRACE consortium and NASA; TRACE
is a mission of the Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research, and part of the NASA Small
Explorer program.)

filament, whose closed magnetic fields can be blown open during the flare’s im-
pulsive phase.
And what makes the filament or prominence erupt? As pointed out by Ronald L.
Moore in 1988, the chromosphere material in both the active-region and the quies-
cent filaments resides in, and traces out, sheared magnetic fields lying above mag-
netic neutral or inversion lines, and the eruption is related to the expansion and
untwisting of the flux tube in which the core erupting filament is embedded. The
highly sheared magnetic fields, which suspend and insulate the filament, can be-
come so twisted at their roots that they lose their equilibrium, and the filament lifts
off or the prominence erupts (Fig. 6.16). The erupting fields can expand out, form-
ing either a twisted, arched magnetic flux rope (Fig. 6.17) or a uniform, untwisted
one. Or the core field can untwist and restructure without forming a rising flux rope,
resulting in a failed filament or prominence eruption.
The rising magnetic fields of an erupting prominence can break through the
arches straddling it, but after the prominence lifts off the magnetic arcade regroups
beneath it and closes up again, forming bright, glowing magnetic loops detected
at extreme-ultraviolet or X-ray wavelengths, aligned like the bones in your rib
cage or the arched trestle in a rose garden (Fig. 6.18). First observed from Sky-
lab and subsequently investigated with both the Soft X-ray Telescope on Yohkoh
and from TRACE, the arcade of loops retains a memory of its former stability,
286 6 Our Violent Sun

Fig. 6.17 Twisted prominence. An erupting prominence twists out into space on 12 January 2000,
caught in this image taken with the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, or EIT for short, aboard
the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO. A prominence is composed of rela-
tively cool, dense plasma immersed in the hot, thin, corona and seen as bright material at the edge
of the visible Sun. This image was taken at a wavelength of 30.4 nm, emitted by singly ionized he-
lium, denoted He II, at a temperature of about 60,000 K. (Courtesy of the SOHO EIT consortium.
SOHO is a project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA.)

stitching together and healing the wound inflicted by emptying that part of the
corona. The original low-lying magnetic channel above and along the magnetic
neutral line is also restored, so the filament or prominence can reform at the same
place.
The disappearing filaments and prominences are strongly correlated with another
sort of solar outburst, the coronal mass ejections. In 1979, for example, Richard
H. Munro and co-workers found that more than 70% of coronal mass ejections
are associated with eruptive filaments, while G. P. Zhou and colleagues showed in
2006 that ejected filaments accompany 94% of Earth-directed “halo” coronal mass
ejections. So, we will next discuss these fantastic coronal mass ejections, which
can form an expanding bubble around and above the filament, before consider-
ing, in Sect. 6.10, the various theories for the formation of solar flares, erupting
prominences, and coronal mass ejections.
6.8 Coronal Mass Ejections 287

Fig. 6.18 Magnetic arcade. The Transition Region And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE,
observed this arcade of cooling loops almost 3 h after the peak of an X28 flare and a very fast
coronal mass ejection on 4 November 2003. It is taken in the 19.5-nm passband, sensitive to gas
at a temperature of about 1.4 × 106 K. The arcade of magnetic loops was part of the disrupted
magnetic field during the early eruptive phase of the flare, and the heat deposited by the flare
caused the loops to fill with hot gases. Now, these are cooling and raining back down toward the
solar photosphere. (Courtesy of the TRACE consortium and NASA; TRACE is a mission of the
Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research, and part of the NASA Small Explorer program.)

6.8 Coronal Mass Ejections

6.8.1 Coronagraph Observations of Coronal Mass Ejections

The most spectacular solar eruptions are gigantic magnetic bubbles, called coronal
mass ejections, which expand outward from the Sun. A typical coronal mass ejection
carries about 10 billion tons, or 10 million million kilograms, of coronal material
as it lifts off into space, removing about a tenth of the total coronal mass. By way
of comparison, the weight of water in a large lake, measuring 10 km wide and long
and 100 m deep, is also about 10 billion tons.
The outward-moving coronal mass ejections can sometimes stretch the magnetic
field until it snaps, leaving behind only bright rays rooted in the Sun. And at other
times the expanding mass ejection develops in a magnetic cloud stretching all the
way to the Earth, but rooted at both ends in the Sun.
Nearly everything we know about coronal mass ejections has been learned in just
a few decades. They could not be clearly identified until special telescopes known
as coronagraphs were flown in space beginning in the early 1970s (See Sect. 2.6).
These instruments have a small occulting disk to mask the Sun’s face and block out
the photosphere’s direct sunlight. The bright solar glare previously hid the corona
288 6 Our Violent Sun

from view, except during rare and brief total eclipses of the Sun. Space-borne coro-
nagraphs provide nearly continuous edge-on views of the corona extending far out
into space around their miniature-occulting moon.
You might wonder why these spectacular mass ejections have not been observed
during total eclipses of the Sun, when the Moon passes in front of the photosphere
and the corona becomes briefly visible. A thorough search of eclipse records, after
the discovery of coronal mass ejections, did result in two or three possible coronal
transient events during the past two centuries – including a possible one during the
total solar eclipse of 18 July 1860 (Eddy, 1974). When combined with the rarity and
short duration of a total solar eclipse, and the known occurrence rate and speeds of
the ejections, there is in fact about one chance per century of seeing one during a
total eclipse of the Sun.
But since 1970, a multitude of coronal mass ejections has been observed us-
ing the space-borne coronagraphs listed in Table 6.4. More than 10,000 of them
have been observed with the Large Angle and Spectrometric COronagraph, ab-
breviated LASCO, aboard the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for
short, since its launch in 1996. They are listed and described in an online catalog
at http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME/list. And now we have the inner and outer white-
light coronagraphs, designated COR1 and COR2, aboard the twin Solar TErrestrial
RElations Observatory, or STEREO A and B, spacecraft launched 25 October 2006.
The inner coronagraph has a field of view from 1.3 to 4.0 solar radii, with some
overlap with the outer one, from 2 to 15 solar radii.
Russell A. Howard gave an overview of the P 78-1 Solwind observations of
1979–1980 in 1985. The Solar Maximum Mission results, in 1980 and from 1984
to 1989, are included in the 1998 book edited by Keith T. Strong and colleagues.
Natchimuthuk Gopalswamy and colleagues in 2003 and Seiji Yashiro and co-
workers in 2004 have described the statistical properties of nearly 7,000 events ob-
served from LASCO on SOHO from 1996 to 2002.

Table 6.4 Space-borne orbiting coronagraphsa

Satellite OSO 7 Skylab P78-1 SMM SOHO

Coronagraph ATM Solwind C/P LASCO/C3b

Observation Oct. 71 to May 73 March 79 Feb.–Sept. Feb. 96 on
Time June 74 to to 80 Apr.
Feb. Sept. 85 84 to
74 Nov. 89
Field of 3–10 R 1.6–6 R 2.6–10 R 1.6–8 R 3.7–30 R
view
Resolution 75 arc s 8 arc s 1.25 arc m 6.4 arc s 56 arc s
a Here R denotes the solar radius, or 696 million (6.96 × 108 ) meters, and an angular resolution
of 1 arc s corresponds to 725,000 (7.25 × 105 ) m at the Sun. Not included are the inner and outer
coronagraphs, COR1 and COR2, on both the STEREO A and B spacecraft launched on 25 October
2006, with respective fields of view of 1.3–4.0 and 2–15 solar radii
b LASCO consists of three coronagraphs, designated C1, C2, and C3, with respective overlapping

fields of view of 1.1–3.0, 1.7–6.0, and 3.7–32.0 solar radii and respective pixel angular resolutions
of 5.6, 11.2, and 56.0 arc s. C1 has not been operational since the temporary loss of SOHO in June
1998
6.8 Coronal Mass Ejections 289

Ground-based coronagraphs are limited by the brightness and variation of the

sky, but they can complement space-based coronagraphs by providing higher tem-
poral resolution. Routine observations have been carried out at the Mauna Loa Solar
Observatory for many years. The Mark IV coronagraph has been in use since 1998,
recording polarized brightness images of the inner corona, from 1.08 to 2.85 solar
radii, every 3 min, from 17 to 22 h universal time, weather permitting.
The book Coronal Mass Ejections, edited by Horst Kunow and colleagues and
published in 2006, provides a fine overview of our current knowledge of these out-
bursts, including summaries of their observations by Rainer Schwenn and his co-
workers and by Hugh S. Hudson, Jean-Louis Bougeret, and Joan Burkepile (2006a).
Ultraviolet observations of coronal mass ejections, from the UltraViolet Corona-
graph Spectrometer, abbreviated UVCS, on SOHO, are included in the review by
John L. Kohl and colleagues in 2006.

6.8.2 Physical Properties of Coronal Mass Ejections

So what exactly is a coronal mass ejection? All of the space-borne, white-light coro-
nagraphs show what appear to be bright magnetic loops accelerating off the solar

Fig. 6.19 Three-part coronal mass ejection. A coronal mass ejection (top bright loop) rises
above a dark cavity, followed by a rising prominence (central bright oval). An occulting disk of a
coronagraph has blocked the intense sunlight from the photosphere, revealing the surrounding faint
corona, and the white circle denotes the edge of the photosphere. This image was taken with the
Large Angle and Spectrometric COronagraph, abbreviated LASCO, on the SOlar and Heliospheric
Observatory, or SOHO for short. (Courtesy of the SOHO LASCO consortium and NASA. SOHO
is a project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA.)
290 6 Our Violent Sun

limb into space, moving outward across the coronagraph field of view in a few
minutes to several hours. They can expand to become larger than the visible solar
disk, streaming outward past the planets and dwarfing everything in their path. Such
events work only in one direction, always moving away from the Sun into interplan-
etary space and almost never falling back in the reverse direction. As announced by
Yi-Ming Wang and Neil R. Sheeley Jr. in 2002, significant amounts of material can
nevertheless fall back into the Sun during the outward motion of some coronal mass
ejections.
Coronal mass ejections often exhibit a three-part structure – a bright outer front,
followed by a darker, underlying cavity, surrounding a brighter core (Fig. 6.19). The
outer leading edge may be a region where an expanding magnetic bubble-like shell
has compressed the overlying gas, piling the corona up and shoving it out like a
snowplow. The bright outer edge has also been pictured as an expanding magnetic
loop filled with dense, shining gas. The cavity or void is an expanding, low-density
region whose high magnetic pressure and strong magnetic field might push coronal
material aside. The core is the brightest part of the coronal mass ejection, because
of its high density. It is often identified as an erupting prominence (Fig. 6.20), on the

Plasma Pileup

Prominence Shock

Cavity

Hα Ribbons

X-ray Loops

Fig. 6.20 Model of three-part coronal mass ejection. In this model of a three-part coronal mass
ejection, portrayed by Terry Forbes (2000), swept-up, compressed mass and a bow shock have been
added to the eruptive-flare portrayal of Tadashi Hirayama (1974). The combined representation
includes compressed material at the leading edge of a low-density, magnetic bubble or cavity, and
dense prominence gas. The prominence and its surrounding cavity rise through the lower corona,
followed by sequential magnetic reconnection and the formation of flare ribbons at the footpoints of
a loop arcade. [Adapted from Hugh S. Hudson, Jean-Louis Bougeret and Joan Burkepile (2006a).]
6.8 Coronal Mass Ejections 291

basis of its visibility in chromospheric emission lines. These three parts are usually
well maintained as the ejection expands, almost with a nearly perfect circular cross
section.
Not all coronal mass ejections display the classical three-part structure; some
exhibit splayed and twisted forms (Fig. 6.21). Coronal mass ejections can have voids
with no prominence in them, and others have no detectable leading edge, perhaps
because it is too faint to be seen. Narrow ejections with no resemblance to the usual
images have also been observed.
But the observed shapes are two-dimensional projections of three-dimensional
structures, and it is often difficult to disentangle the overlapping features that can
produce distortions and confuse the interpretation. The situation should be improved
with the STEREO mission, since its two spacecraft are poised to gather information
from two perspectives, or angles, outside the Sun–Earth line, and to combine them
into a three-dimensional view that removes some ambiguities and uncertainties in
the two-dimensional image of a single coronagraph.

Fig. 6.21 Coronal mass ejection. A contorted coronal mass ejection is seen in this coronagraph
image, taken on 4 January 2002. The white circle denotes the edge of the photosphere, so the
length of the ejected material is about twice the size of the visible disk of the Sun. The dark area
corresponds to the occulting disk that blocked the intense sunlight from the photosphere, reveal-
ing the surrounding faint corona. This image was taken with the Large Angle and Spectrometric
COronagraph, abbreviated LASCO, on the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO for
short. (Courtesy of the SOHO LASCO consortium and NASA. SOHO is a project of international
collaboration between ESA and NASA.)
292 6 Our Violent Sun

Fig. 6.22 Fatal impact. This composite image records a comet plunging into the Sun on 23
December 1996. The innermost image (center) records the bottom of the million-degree solar
atmosphere, known as the corona. The electrically charged coronal gas is seen blowing away from
the Sun just outside the inner dark circle, which marks the edge of one instrumental occulting disk.
Another instrument records the comet (lower left), as well as the coronal streamers at more distant
regions and the stars of the Milky Way. (Courtesy of the SOHO EIT, UVCS and LASCO consortia.
SOHO is a project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA.)

The LASCO instrument aboard SOHO has watched thousands of coronal mass
ejections leaving the Sun, in beautiful images available at the SOHO web site
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/. And in the process LASCO unexpectedly lo-
cated more than a thousand comets passing near the Sun or even into it. (Fig. 6.22,
Focus 6.6).

Focus 6.6
More than a Thousand Comets
SOHO’s LASCO has provided unexpected measurements of over a thousand comets.
Most of them belong to the Kreutz family of sungrazers, which pass very close to
the Sun, and some of them are hurtling toward a complete meltdown on suicide mis-
sions into the Sun. The sungrazers are named after the German astronomer Heinrich
Kreutz, who found that many of the comets that came closest to the Sun in the 19th
century seemed to have a common origin with similar orbits.
Nearly half of all the comets for which orbital elements have been determined,
since 1761, were discovered in LASCO images, and over two-thirds of those by
amateur astronomers accessing LASCO data via the Web. Each day, numerous
6.8 Coronal Mass Ejections 293

people from all over the world download the near-real-time images to search for
new comets.

Spacecraft observations have demonstrated that coronal mass ejections are big,
massive, fast, and energetic. They are events of surprising proportion, blowing away
huge pieces of the corona. Each time a mass ejection rises out of the corona, it carries
away 1–50 × 109 tons (1 × 1012 − 5 × 1013 kg).
The frequency of occurrence, location on the Sun, and average speed of coronal
mass ejections all depend on the 11-year cycle of solar activity (Table 6.5). Data
obtained from SOHO’s LASCO between 1996 and 2002 indicate an order of mag-
nitude increase in the detection rate, from 0.5 per day at activity minimum to 6 per
day at activity maximum. The average apparent speed of coronal mass ejections in-
creases from 300 to 500 km s−1 from activity minimum to maximum. Coronal mass
ejections were detected around the Sun’s equatorial regions during activity mini-
mum, while during activity maximum they appeared at all solar latitudes, even at the
high ones near the solar poles. The high-latitude events are prominence-associated,
while the ones at lower latitudes are associated with active regions, and there ap-
pears to be a north–south asymmetry to the high-latitude ones.
As the coronal mass ejection rises, it probably starts out slowly and then accel-
erates to higher speed in order to overcome the Sun’s gravity and move into space.
The observed apparent speeds in the coronagraph field of view range from 50 to
3, 400 km s−1 , but the escape velocity of the Sun is about 614 km s−1 . The average
mass ejection speed, of between 300 and 500 km s−1 , is comparable to that of the
slow solar wind and less than the fast solar wind, at about 800 km s−1 , as if the mass

Table 6.5 Physical properties of coronal mass ejections near the Suna
Characteristic Value

Mass ejected 1 × 1012 − 5 × 1013 kg

(1–50 × 109 tons)
Angular width (Heliocentric) 20–120◦
Average angular width 47◦ (activity minimum)
61◦ (activity maximum)
Solar latitudes Equatorial region (activity minimum)
All latitudes (activity maximum)
Frequency of occurrence 0.5 events per day (activity minimum)
6 events per day (activity maximum)
Apparent speed 100–3, 400 km s−1
Average apparent speed 300 km s−1 (activity minimum)
500 km s−1 (activity maximum)
Mass flow rate About 2 × 108 kg s−1
Average time to reach Earth About 100 h
Average kinetic energy Approximately 1023 –1024 J
a Adapted from Seiji Yashiro and colleagues (2004), Natchimuthuk Gopalswamy and co-workers
(2003), John Gosling (1993), and Arthur Hundhausen (1997). One kilogram = 1, 000 g, 1 ton =
1, 000 kg, 1 m s−1 = 0.001 km s−1 , and 1 J = 10 × 106 erg
294 6 Our Violent Sun

ejections were riding along with the solar wind. Those with higher speeds, greater
than 1, 000 km s−1 , move faster than the characteristic velocity, sound speed, and
Alfvén speed of the fast or slow solar wind.
In 1999, Neil Sheeley Jr. and co-workers proposed two classes of coronal mass
ejections – the extremely impulsive events with high speeds and strong, rapid ac-
celeration of more than 1, 000 m s−2 , and the gradual ones, characterized by slow
speeds and weak, persistent acceleration of less than 20 m s−2 . The impulsive class
has observed apparent speeds in excess of 750–1, 000 km s−1 , and prompt acceler-
ation followed by either constant speed or deceleration at distances of 2 solar radii
or more. The gradual class, with slow apparent speeds of 400–600 km s−1 , is grad-
ually accelerated for several hours throughout the inner and outer corona and to
distances of about 30 solar radii. Since the gradual coronal mass ejections move at
speeds comparable to the average speed, most coronal mass ejections belong to this
category.
Nevertheless, the statistical studies by Jie Zhang and Kenneth P. Dere in 2006
indicate that both the magnitude and duration of the acceleration do not demonstrate
a strong either-or, bimodal distribution, and that most coronal mass ejections are
characterized by a moderate acceleration of hundreds of meters per square second.
Perhaps the more important point is that the major acceleration of the fast coro-
nal mass ejections occurs low in the corona, below 2 solar radii, with subsequent
evolution that may even include deceleration, and they usually carry the most ki-
netic energy. The slower mass ejections take their time getting up to speed, and are
usually less energetic.
The faster, more impulsive coronal mass ejections also tend to be associated
with active regions and solar flares, while the gradual class is often associated with
erupting prominences, but these are somewhat murky distinctions. Flares can be
associated with both fast and slow coronal mass ejections. Both fast and slow mass
ejections can be accompanied by an eruptive prominence or a solar flare, or they
might not be accompanied by either one of them. And no associated coronal mass
ejection has been detected for nearly half of the big flares, of GOES class M and X.
By the time that they are a few solar radii above the Sun’s edge, most coronal
mass ejections have reached a cruising velocity of about 400 km s−1 . At that speed,
the expelled mass can reach the Earth in about 100 h, carrying with it an average ki-
netic energy of 1023 –1024 J or 1030 –1031 erg (Focus 6.7). The amount of energy that
a coronal mass ejection liberates in producing the motions of the expelled mass and
in lifting it against the Sun’s powerful gravity is roughly comparable to the energy
of a typical solar flare. However, most of the energy of a mass ejection goes into
the expelled material, while a flare’s energy is mainly transferred into accelerated
particles that subsequently emit intense X-ray and radio radiation and travel into
interplanetary space or move down into the Sun. Some very fast and wide coronal
mass ejections can have kinetic energies exceeding 1033 erg; they generally originate
from large active regions and are accompanied by powerful flares.
6.8 Coronal Mass Ejections 295

Focus 6.7
Mass, Mass Flux, Energy, and Time Delay of Coronal Mass Ejections
Coronal mass ejections are detected as localized brightness increases in white-light
coronagraph images. Integration of the brightness increase, which depends only on
the electron density, Ne , permits evaluation of the total mass, M, of the ejection. For
a sphere of radius, R, we have:

M = 4 π R3 Ne mp /3,

where the proton mass mp = 1.67 × 10−27 kg. The corona is a fully ionized, predom-
inantly (90%) hydrogen plasma, so the number density of protons and electrons are
equal; but since the protons are 1,836 times more massive than the electrons, the
protons dominate the mass. For a mass ejection with an electron, or proton, density
of Ne = 1013 electrons per cubic meter, that has grown as large as the Sun, with
R = 6.96 × 108 m, this expression gives

M = 1013 kg = 10 × 109 tons.

At the rate of one ejection per day, and 1013 kg per ejection, this amounts to a
mass flow rate of about 108 kg s−1 , since there are 86,400 s per day, and a mass loss
rate of about 2 × 10−11 kg m−2 s−1 ; just divide the mass by the time of 1 day and by
4π R2 , where the Sun’s radius R = 6.955 × 108 m.
By way of comparison, the solar wind flux observed in the ecliptic at the
orbit of the Earth is about 5 × 1012 protons per square meter per second, or
8.3 × 10−15 kg m−2 s−1 . If this flux is typical of that over the entire Sun-centered
sphere, with an average Sun–Earth distance of D = 1.5 × 1011 m, we can multiply
by the sphere’s surface area, 4π D2 , to obtain a solar wind mass flow rate of about
2 × 109 kg s−1 . That is 20 times the mass flow rate from coronal mass ejections, or
in other words the coronal mass ejection rate is about 5% that of the steady, perpet-
ual solar wind. Other measurements indicate that the mass outflow of the solar wind
in coronal holes amounts to about 2 × 10−9 kg m−2 s−1 , or about 100 times that of
coronal mass ejections. Thus, coronal mass ejections contribute roughly 1–5% of
the solar wind mass flux.
The kinetic energy, KE, of a coronal mass ejection with a speed of V = 400 km s−1
and a mass M = 1013 kg is:

KE = MV 2 /2 ≈ 1024 J = 1031 erg.

This is comparable to the energies of large solar flares that lie between 1021 and
1025 J.
At a speed of V = 400 km s−1 , the time, T , to travel from the Sun to the Earth, at
an average distance, D, is:

T = D/V = 3.75 × 105 s = 104 h = 4.34 days.

296 6 Our Violent Sun

Although most coronal mass ejections are observed as magnetic bubbles ejected
from one side of the Sun, these events are not likely to collide with the Earth. The
outward rush of an Earth-directed mass ejection appears in coronagraph images as
a gradually expanding, Sun-centered ring or halo around the occulting disk. Russell
A. Howard and colleagues first observed such a halo mass ejection in 1982, using
the Solwind coronagraph on the P78-1 satellite. Since that time, about 3% of the
coronal mass ejections detected in the LASCO images have been halos, expanding
into a circumsolar ring in the coronagraph images.
When ejected from the front side of the Sun facing Earth, a halo ejection can
cause intense geomagnetic storms, provided it has the right magnetic orientation
when striking the Earth. In contrast, coronal mass ejections that are expelled from
near the visible edge of the Sun will not impact Earth, but threaten other parts
of space.
Images from a single white-light coronagraph are normally unable to determine
if the halo-like ejection is traveling toward or away from the observer. In 2004,
however, Thomas G. Moran and Joseph M. Davilla demonstrated how polarization
techniques could be used with LASCO data to obtain three-dimensional images of
coronal mass ejections, determining their direction and computing their true speeds,
rather than apparent ones.
The twin STEREO spacecraft can potentially remove all the ambiguity, determin-
ing the trajectories of coronal mass ejections from their onset at the Sun to the orbit
of the Earth. The earliest results from the STEREO A and B coronagraphs demon-
strate their potential; in 2008, Richard A. Harrison and colleagues reported the first
images of a coronal mass ejection viewed from outside the Sun–Earth line. Also in
2008, J. A. Davies and co-workers published the first observations of coronal mass
ejections from the Sun to distances greater than that of the Earth’s orbit, using the
Heliospheric Imagers aboard the STEREO spacecraft.
The Earth-directed coronal mass ejections may be identified by associated coro-
nal activity at extreme ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths near the center of the solar
disk, as viewed from the Earth. These coronal waves and dimming are discussed
with other outburst consequences in the next Sect. 6.9.

6.9 After the Blast

6.9.1 Solar Flares Excite Coronal Loop Oscillations

The explosive solar flares can set coronal loops quivering in an oscillatory mo-
tion, like a lone tree leaf vibrating in a gust of wind. These loop oscillations
were discovered using rapid, sequential images from TRACE and SOHO. Markus
J. Aschwanden and co-workers and Valery M. Nakariakov and colleagues reported
the TRACE results in 1999, noting that the loops are displaced up and down, in the
transverse direction, with a period of between 2 and 7 min, and that they damp very
6.9 After the Blast 297

2
Oscillation Amplitude

-1

-2

-3
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (seconds)

Fig. 6.23 Loop oscillation. An example of a transverse loop oscillation observed from the Tran-
sition Region And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, in the 17.1-nm passband. The ob-
served data points are denoted by diamonds and fitted with a damped sinusoidal oscillation (dark,
wide solid line). Transverse magnetohydrodynamic, or MHD, kink-mode oscillation amplitudes
(light solid line) have been fitted to the data. [Adapted from Markus J. Aschwanden and col-
leagues (2002).]

quickly, within just a few oscillations (Fig. 6.23). A review of the early TRACE ob-
servations of transverse loop oscillations, by Carolus J. Schrijver and co-workers
and Aschwanden and colleagues in 2002, indicates that they usually occur in loops
that lie within an active region, or in loops that connect an active region to a neigh-
boring site, and that the loops do not resonate; they are just a brief response excited
by the explosive power of a large flare in their vicinity.
In 2002, Tongjiang J. Wang and colleagues reported oscillations of very hot
loops in active regions, revealed by Doppler shifts of spectral lines detected with
the SUMER instrument aboard SOHO. A review of these hot coronal loop oscil-
lations, provided by Wang in 2003, shows that their periods lie between 7 and
31 min, with a comparable decay time, that they are only found in hot flare spec-
tral lines at temperatures higher than 6 × 106 K, and that they are excited by small
flares.
The coronal loop oscillations detected from both TRACE and SOHO are at-
tributed to magenetohydrodynamic, or MHD, waves that are strongly damped.
Aschwanden has reviewed the theoretical aspects of these MHD waves in his 2004,
2006 book The Solar Corona: An Introduction. Nakariakov and Erwin Verwichte
have additionally described them in a 2005 Living Review on Coronal Waves and
Oscillations. Comparisons of the observations with theoretical expectations have
given rise to the field of coronal seismology, in which observed waves or oscilla-
tions are used to infer properties of the coronal loops.
298 6 Our Violent Sun

6.9.2 Sunquakes
An exceptionally powerful solar flare can also generate major seismic waves in the
Sun’s interior. SOHO’s Michelson Doppler Imager has detected such a powerful
sunquake caused by electron beams sent down into the Sun from a solar flare origi-
nating in the low corona, and observed circular flare-generated seismic waves mov-
ing out in all directions from the flare site, like ripples from a pebble tossed into a
pond. In 1998, Alexander G. Kosovichev and Valentina V. Zharkova reported the he-
lioseismic response to an X-class flare, which occurred on 8 July 1996. It consisted
of a series of concentric, expanding wave fronts, propagating at an average speed of
about 50 km s−1 out to a distance of 120,000 km from the flare site (Fig. 6.24).

100

50
y, Mm

–50

–100

100

50
y, Mm

–50

–100
–100 –50 0 50 100 –100 –50 0 50 100
x, Mm x, Mm

Fig. 6.24 Sunquake. A powerful flare in the solar atmosphere sent shock waves into the under-
lying gases, causing a massive sunquake that resembles a seismic earthquake on our planet. The
explosion, on 9 July 1996, produced concentric rings of a sunquake that spread away from the flare,
somewhat like ripples from a rock dropped into a pool. Over the course of an hour, the solar waves
traveled for a distance equal to 10 Earth diameters. The Sun was quaking with about 40,000 times
the energy released in the great earthquake that devastated San Francisco in 1906. (Courtesy of
Alexander G. Kosovichev and Valentina V. Zharkova, and the SOHO SOI/MDI consortium. SOHO
is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.)
6.9 After the Blast 299

Most flares nevertheless do not generate detectable sunquakes. Alina-Catalina

Donea and Charles Lindsey published the next report of seismic waves emitted by
powerful solar flares in 2005, for X-class flares that occurred on 28 and 29 October
2003. They used helioseismic holography to image multiple acoustic sources of the
waves associated with the footpoints of a coronal loop where the flare hard X-ray
emission was located in RHESSI images. The high-speed electrons generated during
the flare’s impulsive phase were sent down into the Sun with such force that they
generated powerful shocks in the dense solar atmosphere, which then produced the
seismic waves.

6.9.3 Coronal Dimming After Coronal Mass Ejections

Another repercussion of solar outbursts accompanies the launch of a coronal mass

ejection. They rip huge pieces out of the corona, noticeably reducing the intensity
of its radiation at extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths. Richard T. Hansen
and his colleagues first recorded the scars of such abrupt depletions of the corona
in 1974 using a ground-based, white-light coronagraph, but with limited spatial and
temporal resolution. David M. Rust and Ernest Hildner noted the corresponding
X-ray effects in Skylab data in 1976.
Yohkoh’s Soft X-ray Telescope, abbreviated SXT, was subsequently used to ob-
serve large-scale dimming of the soft X-ray corona near the time and location of
coronal mass ejections. In 1996, for example, Hugh S. Hudson, Loren W. Acton,
and Sam L. Freeland noticed that large regions of the X-ray corona appeared empty
in SXT images during a long-duration flare, identifying the missing material with a
coronal mass ejection in the process of launching an estimated mass of 4 × 1011 kg
of material. Then in 1997, Alphonse C. Sterling and Hugh S. Hudson reported a
sudden intensity decrease of X-rays just prior to a halo coronal mass ejection, sug-
gesting that the dimming might be used to predict coronal mass ejections headed
toward the Earth.
SOHO’s EIT has also been used to monitor the dimming associated with halo
coronal mass ejections, for instance, by Dominic M. Zarro and co-workers in 1999.
Spectral data, obtained by Richard A. Harrison and colleagues in 2003, indicated
that the dimming is due to mass loss, rather than a temperature change, and that the
extracted mass is comparable to that estimated for the coronal mass ejection. This
means that the dimming can be used to describe the volume, structure, and source
of the ejection. In 2007, Louise K. Harra and her colleagues combined observa-
tions from EIT and Hinode to show that the dimming regions marks the locations
of strong outflows at velocities of up to 60 km s−1 , apparently at the footpoints of
extended loops.

6.9.4 Large Flares Excite Global Waves

Large flares can generate concentric waves that propagate across the Sun in the
low corona, away from the ejection site at speeds of 200–500 km s−1 . The powerful
300 6 Our Violent Sun

disturbances, observed with SOHO’s EIT and first reported by Barbara J. Thompson
and her colleagues in 1998–1999, move away from the erupting region like tidal
waves or tsunami going across the ocean (Fig. 6.25), usually affecting most of the
visible solar disk and traversing a solar diameter in less than an hour. Curiously, the
waves do not cross a coronal hole, either because the hole stops them or there is too
little material to sustain the waves.
They have been identified as the coronal manifestation of Moreton waves, first
observed in the chromosphere by Gail E. Moreton in 1960–1961. He used rapid,

Fig. 6.25 Waves across the Sun. This sequence of images, taken with the Extreme-ultraviolet
Imaging Telescope, or EIT for short, instrument on the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, ab-
breviated SOHO, shows a wave running across the solar disk in the corona at supersonic velocities
of about 1.5 × 109 m h−1 . It originated in the vicinity of a solar explosion, or flare, on 7 April 1997.
◦
The images were taken at 19.5 nm in the emission lines of iron ions (Fe XII) formed at 1.5×106 K.
Each image is the difference between the one taken at the time shown and the previous one. (Cour-
tesy of the SOHO EIT consortium. SOHO is a project of international collaboration between ESA
and NASA.)
6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen 301

time-lapse photographs taken in the light of the Balmer alpha transition of hydro-
gen to record wave-like chromosphere disturbances initiated by solar flares; these
Moreton waves move across the Sun from the flare site for distances of hundreds
of thousands of kilometers with velocities of around 1, 000 km s−1 . So the EIT phe-
nomena have been variously called EIT, Thompson, or coronal-Moreton waves. Al-
though the vast majority of solar flares do not produce these waves, many, but not
all, coronal mass ejections do.
The EIT waves and Moreton waves are not seismic waves, but instead magneto-
hydrodynamic, or MHD, waves set up in the low corona. In 1968, and again in 1973,
Yutaka Uchida interpreted the chromospheric Moreton waves in terms of a MHD
shock, predicting that it would have a strong coronal counterpart. The shock, gen-
erated by a powerful impulse, propagates through the low corona, and the Moreton
waves track the intersection of the expanding coronal disturbance and the chromo-
sphere. In the case of the EIT waves, the initiating impulse is a large solar flare asso-
ciated with a halo coronal mass ejection, and the waves record the shock-generated
coronal disturbance. This shock wave may also generate a type II radio burst.
So this completes our overview of the aftermath of powerful solar flares or coro-
nal mass ejections, detected at the Sun, and we now turn to a discussion of why
these solar outbursts occur, as a prelude to the following space-weather chapter,
which includes possible methods of predicting them as well as their consequences
in interplanetary space and at planet Earth.

6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen

6.10.1 What We Do Not Know About Solar Outbursts

Why does the Sun suddenly release vast quantities of energy in solar flares, erupting
prominences, or coronal mass ejections? All three types of explosive outbursts in-
clude a reconfiguration of the Sun’s magnetic field; they are all most likely triggered
by a magnetic instability or interaction; and they all derive their power from mag-
netic energy. Nevertheless, we do not yet understand in detail how that energy is
converted into the thermal energy of intense flare radiation or into the expulsive
mechanical energy of erupting prominences or coronal mass ejections. And we are
still unable to understand exactly how particles are accelerated to such high energies
during solar flares.
The possible relationship between solar flares and coronal mass ejections con-
tinues to be a controversial topic. It was once thought that solar flares acted like
colossal bombs which blasted the coronal mass ejections out of the Sun. But now
scientists are not so sure. Many strong flares have no associated coronal mass ejec-
tion, and some coronal mass ejections arise from erupting prominences without de-
tectable flares.
302 6 Our Violent Sun

The strongest, fastest coronal mass ejections are nevertheless almost always ac-
companied by solar flares in active regions, as noticed by Murray Dryer, Hugh
Hudson, and others over the years. Impulsive coronal mass ejections, with rapid
acceleration close to the Sun, are, for example, usually correlated with soft X-ray
flares detected from GOES.
The notion that there is a cause–effect relation between the two phenomena, with
flares causing the coronal mass ejections or the other way around, is not now in
vogue. There instead seems to be a growing consensus that coronal mass ejections
and flares are a different manifestation of the same magnetic energy-release pro-
cess in the corona, possibly via magnetic reconnection. That is, both kinds of out-
bursts may involve a process in which oppositely directed magnetic fields merge
together and reconnect into new configurations, releasing free magnetic energy in
the process.
Still, there is no consensus regarding the magnetic field configuration that causes
a coronal mass ejection, and we are unable to determine with certainty when and
where the hypothetical magnetic reconnection occurs. It might initiate the outburst
or result from it. And if reconnection drives a coronal mass ejection, its relation to
other features, such as prominences or solar flares, is uncertain. Magnetic reconnec-
tion might not even account for the loss of equilibrium that triggers solar outbursts;
alternative candidates include the kink and tearing-mode instabilities.
Part of the difficulty is observational. Owing to the coronagraph occulting disks,
coronal mass ejections are first detected at some distance from the Sun, away from
their place of origin, and they are most clearly viewed when erupting from the Sun’s
edge. In contrast, the details of solar flares and active regions are best detected on
the solar disk.
The spatial and temporal resolution required to study pre-eruptive magnetic con-
figurations on the Sun have only become available in relatively recent times, with
spacecraft such as SOHO, TRACE, and Hinode. And solar astronomers are currently
using instruments aboard these satellites to study just how the magnetic fields and
plasmas in the low corona, chromosphere, and photosphere shear, twist, writhe, in-
teract, and otherwise change prior to and during solar outbursts, on both a local
and global scale, seeking to unravel their detailed mechanisms. Future observations
from STEREO A and B, as well as the Solar Dynamics Observatory, are expected to
additionally help constrain or test the theories.
Current research into the origins of coronal mass ejections, and what triggers
and drives them, involves the interplay between new observational results, numer-
ical simulations, and theoretical considerations, with comparisons of observations
with models for specific events. There have been several excellent reviews of this
work, including the difficulties involved when the models confront the observations.
In 2000, for example, Terry G. Forbes reviewed the possible instabilities involved
in the genesis of coronal mass ejections, concluding that none of the proposed ex-
planations provide an accurate prediction of their occurrence. A year later, James
A. Klimchuk described the physical attributes of the various theories. He favors
a storage and release model that involves the slow buildup of magnetic energy
by gradual stressing of the coronal magnetic field related to the slow motion of
6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen 303

photospheric footpoints, with energy release triggered by magnetic reconnection.

In 2006, Ronald L. Moore and Alphonse C. Sterling reviewed magnetic reconnec-
tion processes that might result in a coronal mass ejection. But back in 2001, James
Chen advocated an alternative scenario, involving twisted magnetic flux ropes that
exist prior to the eruption, suspended in the corona and extending deep inside the
Sun, with eruption driven and energized from below and magnetic reconnection as
a consequence of the eruption. And in 2006, Ilia I. Roussev and Igor V. Sokolov
described the theory and simulations of both the storage release and the erupting
flux rope scenarios, concluding that the observations do not convincingly prove or
disprove either explanation.
So there are all kinds of theories. Perhaps none of them are correct, perhaps sev-
eral are, or maybe different models are applicable in different situations. The best
we can do at this stage is to understand the possibilities. And since the fastest and
most powerful coronal mass ejections are practically always associated with flares,
and the notion of magnetic reconnection on the Sun originated with explanations
of solar flares, we will begin there. Because solar flares and coronal mass ejections
could be a byproduct of a common magnetic instability or reconfiguration, this in-
troduction will help us understand some of the subsequent proposed explanations
for coronal mass ejections.

6.10.2 Magnetic Reconnection During Solar Flares

To explain how solar flares happen, we must know where their colossal energy
comes from; why that energy is suddenly and rapidly released; and how it is trans-
ferred to accelerated particles and intense radiation. As stressed by Thomas Gold
and Fred Hoyle in 1960, the Sun’s magnetic field provides the only plausible source
of energy for solar flares, and we now think it is most likely released during mag-
netic reconnection.
We can see how the required magnetic energy might be produced in the corona
by considering a single magnetic loop that connects regions of opposite magnetic
polarity in the photosphere, divided by a magnetic neutral line. If the magnetic fields
connect the two underlying magnetic elements in the shortest, most direct path,
and therefore run perpendicular to the magnetic neutral line, scientists say that the
magnetic field has a potential configuration. It can be distorted into a non-potential
shape when flows at or below the photosphere shear and twist the looping fields.
These non-potential magnetic fields have more magnetic energy than the potential
ones, and this extra energy is called free magnetic energy, perhaps because it is free
to power solar outbursts.
Strong coronal magnetic fields are tied to the photosphere at both ends, trapping
hot, dense electrified gas within low-lying coronal loops. Higher up, the relatively
weak, outermost coronal loops cannot constrain the outward pressure of the hot gas.
Their magnetic fields get caught up by the solar wind and are pulled into interplan-
etary space. The overall result consists of closed loops down low, and two extended
304 6 Our Violent Sun

stalks of oppositely directed magnetic field further out. The ensemble resembles the
shape of an inverted Y.
Such a magnetic geometry is inferred from the observations of coronal streamers
above active regions, and it was used in one of the first magnetic theories for the
origin of solar flares, proposed by Ronald G. Giovanelli in 1946–1948. According
to Giovanelli’s model, varying magnetic fields generate currents at a special place in
the corona, called the neutral point. It is located at the interface between the closed
and open magnetic structures. The currents were supposed to build up excess energy
at the neutral point until an electrical discharge releases it as a solar flare.
During the 1950s, James W. Dungey further considered the growth of currents
and subsequent electrical discharge at neutral points of the coronal magnetic field.
He noticed that the effect of the discharge would be to quickly “reconnect” the ini-
tially open, oppositely directed magnetic lines of force at the place where they touch.
According to Dungey’s model, beams of accelerated particles are shot out from the
neutral-point discharge in two directions, up into space and down toward the Sun.
Such a bi-directional flow, driven by magnetic reconnection at the neutral point, is
part of the CSHKP model of solar flares and erupting prominences developed be-
tween 1964 and 1976 (Focus 6.8).

Focus 6.8
Energizing Solar Flares and Erupting Prominences by Magnetic
Reconnection – the CSHKP Model
The theory of magnetic reconnection at the neutral-point interface between closed
and open magnetic structures took several decades to develop. Following the pio-
neering work by Ronald G. Giovanelli in the 1940s and James W. Dungey in the
1950s, Peter A. Sweet considered magnetic fields that are brought into contact at
a neutral point boundary. This magnetic reconnection was attributed to twists in
complex sunspot magnetic configurations in active regions, and it was supposed
to release energy to accelerate high-energy particles in solar flares. In 1958, he
showed that the electric current formed between merging, oppositely directed mag-
netic fields would flow in a flat, two-dimensional plane. It is shaped like a sheet on a
well-made bed, and is hence called a current sheet. And since the magnetic direction
cancels into neutrality at the place where oppositely directed fields meet, the term
neutral current sheet is also used.
By 1963, Eugene Parker had evaluated this “slow” magnetic reconnection qual-
itatively and derived its detailed mathematics. And in the following year, Harry
E. Petschek described how a faster rate of magnetic field annihilation might be
achieved; showing that fast reconnection in the current sheet could permit the rapid
conversion of magnetic energy within the observed minute-length duration of so-
lar flares. The two models of magnetic reconnection are now known as the slow
Sweet-Parker reconnection and fast Petschek reconnection.
In 1964, Hugh Carmichael proposed that magnetic field lines high above the
photosphere could be forced open by the solar wind, and discussed how they might
be brought together above coronal loops to accelerate high-energy particles. The
6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen 305

magnetic geometry would resemble that of a coronal helmet streamer, with closed
magnetic loops beneath open magnetic stalks, forming an upside-down Y shape.
In the 1966–1968 model of Peter Sturrock, a tearing-mode instability near the in-
verted Y neutral point might trigger a solar flare, as the result of footpoint motions
of sheared coronal loops. The stretched-out, open magnetic fields would become
unstable to tearing, like caramel candy pulled until it snaps apart, thereby releas-
ing stored magnetic energy in ways that might account for particle acceleration in a
downward direction and shock waves and plasma ejection in the outward direction.
Tadashi Hirayama added an erupting prominence to the magnetic-reconnection
solar flare model in 1974, proposing that the prominence rises above an X-type neu-
tral point between oppositely directed open magnetic fields. The X marks the spot
where magnetic reconnection and energy dissipation occur, with electric currents
flowing parallel to the neutral line in the underlying photosphere. Some of the non-
thermal particles accelerated at the reconnection current sheet move down into the
chromosphere, forming flare ribbons and resulting in chromospheric evaporation
that fills the newly linked magnetic fields with hot X-ray emitting material.
By 1976, Skylab had obtained results showing that pre-existing, closed magnetic
loops in the corona can be torn open by an erupting prominence, leading Roger A.
Kopp and Gerald W. Pneuman to refine Hirayama’s comprehensive model, predict-
ing a continuous rise of the reconnection point, with newly connected loops that
increase in height and have wider footpoints, resulting in the separation of flare
ribbons.
This theoretical model for both solar flares and erupting prominences, involving
magnetic reconnection at a Y or X neutral point between closed and open magnetic
fields in the low corona, became known as the CSHKP model after the first letters
of the last names of the five people who developed it, in a chronological listing by
publication date between 1964 and 1976.

For several decades, theoretical models involving free magnetic energy, associ-
ated with non-potential magnetic fields, primarily dictated our knowledge of so-
lar flares. The coiled magnetic fields were supposed to hold the excess energy in
place, remaining without substantial change for days, weeks, and even months at a
time. Then, suddenly and unpredictably, they might go out of control, ripping the
magnetic cage open and breaking its grip apart. The free magnetic energy was sup-
posed to be released to accelerate particles and expel them away from the site of
energy release by mechanisms that were not clearly understood.
Then, Yohkoh came along to demonstrate that magnetic interactions could indeed
strike the match that ignites solar explosions. Its Soft X-ray Telescope, abbreviated
SXT, observed the sharp, peaked cusp-like structure attributed to magnetic recon-
nection along a neutral line, or current sheet above a coronal loop (Fig. 6.26). First
reported by Saku Tsuneta and co-workers in 1992, the peaked cusp shape marks
the place where oppositely directed magnetic field lines stretch out nearly paral-
lel to each other and are brought into close proximity. Here the magnetism comes
306 6 Our Violent Sun

Fig. 6.26 Cusp geometry. A large helmet-type structure is seen in the south west (lower right)
of this negative soft X-ray image obtained on 25 January 1992 following a coronal mass ejection.
The cusp, seen edge-on at the top of the arch, is the place where the oppositely directed magnetic
fields, threading the two legs of the arch, are stretched out and brought together. Several similar im-
ages have been taken with the Soft X-ray Telescope (SXT) aboard Yohkoh, showing that magnetic
reconnection is a common method of energizing solar explosions. (Courtesy of Loren W. Acton,
NASA, ISAS, the Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, the National Astronomical
Observatory of Japan, and the University of Tokyo.)

together, merges and annihilates part of itself, releasing the energy needed to power
a solar flare.
An X-point neutral sheet, located just above the detectable cusp, marks the site of
magnetic-reconnection energy release and particle acceleration, while the rounded
soft X-ray shape seen just below the cusp tip outlines magnetic fields newly linked
by the reconnection. This scenario is consistent with other Yohkoh flare observations
showing an impulsive hard X-ray source above the top of the soft X-ray flare loops,
discovered by Satoshi Masuda and colleagues in 1994 and presumed to mark the
site of magnetic reconnection. It is also supported by Yohkoh observations of chro-
mospheric evaporation.
The combined Yohkoh observations resulted in a more detailed version of the
CSHKP model of magnetic reconnection in solar flares and erupting prominences.
These elaborate extensions, provided by Kazunari Shibata and co-workers in 1995
and by Saku Tsuneta in 1996 and 1997, included reconnection inflows at the current
sheet, plasma ejections, shocks, outflows, and other inflows.
6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen 307

As shown by Terry Forbes and Loren Acton in 1996, some initially open mag-
netic fields lines will reconnect to form cusp-shaped, closed loops that will then
relax and shrink inward into round ones. And by 2002, Eric Priest and Forbes could
review the situation, declaring that the flare eruption stretches out the magnetic field
lines, which reconnect to form a rising arcade of soft X-ray loops and separating
flare ribbons.
That is all in accord with the extended CSHKP interpretation, in which the mag-
netic reconnection starts low and progressively rises with time. As the outburst pro-
gresses, newly formed, post-flare loops will become progressively higher and wider
with an increase in footpoint and flare-ribbon separation, brightening as they are
filled by chromospheric evaporation and fading away quickly as their material cools
and rains back down.
Observations from the Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager, abbre-
viated RHESSI, have apparently confirmed that large-scale magnetic reconnection
in the low corona is the most likely explanation for how solar flares suddenly release
so much energy. It has detected hot post-flare loops that move upward with time, in
agreement with the classical CSHKP model as extended by Shibata and Tsuneta. In
some flares, instruments aboard RHESSI have also detected a much weaker, com-
pact X-ray source above the bright X-ray loops during the impulsive phase of intense
solar flares.
In 2003, Linhui Sui and Gordon D. Holman interpreted this extra source in terms
of a neutral current sheet that formed above the nested coronal loops. Other mag-
netic loops, formed by magnetic reconnection in the current sheet, moved downward
onto the existing ones, which then emitted bright X-ray radiation, and other recon-
nected magnetic fields and plasma flowed and twisted upward, again consistent with
the classical flare model. Then in 2004 and 2006, Sui, Holman and Brian R. Den-
nis reported that the coronal source detected from RHESSI above flare loops moved
downward for a few minutes during the impulsive phase of a flare, before the flare
loops moved upward. They associated the initial, contracting feature, which was
not predicted by the existing flare models, with the formation and development of a
current sheet between the loop tops and the coronal source.
But not all the features of the magnetic-reconnection, solar flare model have been
fully confirmed or explained. It requires inflow from the sides of the X-point current
sheet to push the oppositely directed magnetic fields into a new connection. Ob-
servations of such inflows during solar flares are scarce, with just one reported by
Takaaki Yokoyama and colleagues in 2001. There are nevertheless different kinds
of solar outbursts, known as coronal jets, in which the outflow of material ex-
pected from magnetic reconnection has quite definitely been detected (Focus 6.9,
Fig. 6.27).

Focus 6.9
Coronal Jets, Emerging Flux and Magnetic Reconnection
Observations of numerous X-ray jets with the Soft X-ray Telescope aboard Yohkoh
inspired a reconnection model between open and closed magnetic structures,
308 6 Our Violent Sun

Hot Jet

Reconnection Cool Jet

X-point

Evaporating
Flow

Flaring Loops
Emerging Flux Region

Fig. 6.27 Reconnection model of coronal jet. In this model of X-ray jets, developed by Kazu-
nari Shibata and co-workers in the 1990s, a closed magnetic loop emerges from beneath the pho-
tosphere and encounters open magnetic field lines in the low corona, shown here at an oblique
angle – also see Fig. 4.7. The closed and open magnetic structures merge together and reconnect
at the X-point, releasing magnetic energy that powers the collimated, jet-like ejections. Hot jets
can emerge from the reconnection region, accelerated by fast shocks, and cool jets can arise as the
result of evaporation occurring when high-energy particles are sent down into the chromosphere
from the reconnection site. As shown here, small footpoint flares often accompany X-ray jets. The
arrows denote the direction of the magnetic field lines

developed by Kazunari Shibata and colleagues in the 1990s. It followed an emerg-

ing flux model for solar flares proposed by Jean Heyvaerts, Eric R. Priest, and David
M. Rust in 1977, which included a rising magnetic loop that reconnects with over-
lying, open coronal magnetic fields, with ejection of material along the open fields
(Fig. 6.27). This scenario is fundamentally different from magnetic reconnection
models for solar flares, erupting prominences, and coronal mass ejections, which
involve a sudden disruption of a closed magnetic field configuration.
Kazunari Shibata and his colleagues summarized the physical parameters of so-
lar X-ray jets in 1992, and Masumi Shimojo and Shibata further specified them in
2000. They are bursts of hot plasma, with temperatures of 3–8 × 106 K, ejected in a
collimated, radial motion, outward from the Sun along presumably open magnetic
fields with apparent velocities that are usually near or below the sound speed of a
few hundred kilometers per second. A large percentage of these jets are associated
with small footpoint flares, and they have been observed in polar coronal holes, the
quiet Sun, and active regions. Shibata distinguishes between high-temperature jets
from active regions, which might emerge from the reconnection point, and cooler
jets in coronal holes, which could result from chromospheric evaporation along open
magnetic field lines (Fig. 6.27).
In 2007, Shibata and his co-workers used observations with an instrument
aboard Hinode to discover large numbers of jets in the chromosphere, with inverted
Y-shapes that can be attributed to magnetic reconnection. Another type of coronal
6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen 309

jet has been detected in white-light, from the LASCO instrument aboard SOHO. In
1998, Yi-Ming Wang and colleagues combined LASCO observations of these jets,
which arise from polar coronal holes, with data from the EIT on SOHO, showing
that the white-light coronal jets are also due to closed magnetic loops reconnecting
with overlying open ones. And in 2006, Wang, Monique Pick, and Glenn Mason
showed that impulsive solar energetic particles, observed near the Earth from 1997
to 2003, are associated with jets arising from magnetic reconnection between closed
and open fields.
Recent observations with the X-Ray Telescope aboard Hinode, reported by
Jonathan W. Cirtain and colleagues in 2007, indicate that X-ray jets from polar
coronal holes have two distinct velocity components. One component moves at near
the sound speed of about 200 km s−1 , but the other one travels near the Alfvén speed
of about 800 km s−1 . Both components could be generated as the result of magnetic
reconnection, and the faster one might contribute to the fast solar wind arising from
polar coronal holes. So there is abundant evidence that the process is at work in jets.

It still is not clear, from the theoretical point of view, how the vertical current
sheet can be formed, since it may break apart as the result of the tearing-mode
instability. And all the expected outflows, down flows, shocks, and waves are just
beginning to be scrutinized, partly as the result of their possible association with
coronal mass ejections as well as solar flares.

6.10.3 Extension of Magnetic Reconnection to Coronal

Mass Ejections

What forces expel the erupting prominences and coronal mass ejections? And what
causes the Sun’s magnetism to suddenly erupt with enough force to drive a large
part of the corona out against the restraining forces of closed magnetic loops and
solar gravity?
There are two competing magnetic forces, magnetic pressure and tension. Re-
gions with strong magnetic fields have greater magnetic pressure, and tend to expand
into places of weaker magnetic field. That pressure would push an isolated flux rope
or coronal loop outward, but magnetic tension holds them in place. An outburst
might occur when an instability or magnetic reconfiguration tips the balance in fa-
vor of the outward pressure gradient. Coronal mass ejections, for example, erupt
from the Sun as self-contained structures of hot material and magnetic fields, with a
magnetic imbalance possibly triggered by reconnection events similar to those that
ignite solar flares.
Once magnetic reconnection had been successfully applied to solar flares and
erupting prominences; it was indeed natural and inevitable that the models would
be extended to include coronal mass ejections. The close proximity of all three types
of solar outbursts in space and time suggests that they are consequences of a similar
310 6 Our Violent Sun

magnetic restructuring, with the mass ejections strongly coupled to the processes
that cause solar flares and/or erupting prominences.
One possibility, suggested by Ulrich Anzer and Gerald W. Pneuman in 1982, is
that the impulsive prominence stretches the erupting magnetic fields, which couple
together in a current sheet below the prominence, pinching off the rising material
like a hot-air balloon with its tethers cut (Fig. 6.28). That would be something like
blowing soap bubbles and watching them pinch off at the bottom as they waft into
space, except in this case it is magnetic bubbles blasting off at supersonic speeds
and growing larger than the Sun.
In this type of model, a coronal mass ejection, with an accompanying promi-
nence, rises up, blowing open the previously closed, overlying magnetic fields. But
the newly opened magnetism promptly couples together again to reform closed
loops below the rising material. So the magnetism opens and closes like a sea
anemone. Post-eruptive arcades, frequently detected at extreme-ultraviolet and soft
X-ray wavelengths in the aftermath of a coronal mass ejection, are identified with
these newly linked, post-flare loops, which rise to successively higher altitudes as
the reconnection site is dragged outward along the outstretched neutral line by the
rising coronal mass ejection, like closing up a zipper.
This theoretical model for coronal mass ejections has been widely developed
in recent years. In 1994, Zoran Mikic and Jon A. Linker, for example, examined

CME
Shock

Prominence Hot Plasma

Photosphere

Fig. 6.28 Model of solar eruption. A magnetic reconnection takes place at a current sheet (dark
vertical line) beneath a prominence and above closed magnetic field lines. The coronal mass ejec-
tion, abbreviated CME, traps hot plasma below it (dark region). The solid curve at the top is the
bow shock driven by the CME. The closed field region above the prominence (center) is supposed
to become a flux rope in the interplanetary medium. [Adapted from Petrus C. Martens and N. Paul
Kuin (1989).]
6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen 311

how coronal magnetic-field arches, subject to shearing photospheric flows, can be

disrupted, opening up to form current sheets and magnetic reconnection, while in
2000 Jun Lin and Terry Forbes examined the effects of magnetic reconnection in
permitting a magnetic flux rope to escape.
A contemporary version of one model for the coronal mass ejection and solar
flare system is shown in Fig. 6.29. It employs some of the detailed events described
in Saku Tsuneta’s 1997 description of solar flares, and extends this interpretation
to include a larger, overlying, and pre-existing magnetic flux rope that is severed by
reconnection, as portrayed in the 2000 model of Jun Lin and Terry G. Forbes. In such
an interpretation, a rising flux rope can be identified with an erupting prominence at
the dense core of a three-component coronal mass ejection.
Then in 2001, Ronald L. Moore and co-workers presented observations of the
evolving, photospheric magnetic field recorded in Kitt Peak magnetograms during
several eruptive solar flares observed with Yohkoh’s Soft X-ray Telescope, conclud-
ing that each magnetic explosion was unleashed by runaway tether-cutting via re-
connection in the middle of a sheared and twisted bipolar loop. And in 2007, Sujin
Kim and colleagues combined Hinode X-Ray Telescope observations with TRACE
and SOHO MDI images to delineate an evolving flare structure consistent with a
tether-cutting model involving a single-bipolar explosion. The tethers are the mag-
netic field lines that provide the tension which was holding the magnetic loop in
place, and the reconnection occurs underneath the erupting structure.
An alternative breakout model, introduced by Spiro K. Antiochos in 1998, and
by Antiochos, Carl Richard DeVore, and James A. Klimchuk in 1999, involves a
highly sheared magnetic field held down by an overlying, unsheared fields. The new
aspects of this model are that it involves at least two magnetic loops instead of one,
in quadrupolar geometry, and that magnetic reconnection occurs above the erupting
structure. When the overlying, restraining magnetic fields, which represent the teth-
ers, are weakened or partially removed by merging with neighboring magnetism,
the low-lying, sheared loops can “break on through to the other side” as the Doors
song puts it. Observational support for the breakout model has been provided by
Guillaume Aulanier and co-workers in 2000, for the renown Bastille day flare on
14 July 2000; by G. Allen Gary and Ronald L. Moore in 2004; and by B. J. Lynch
and colleagues, also in 2004. In the same year, Alphonse C. Sterling and Moore re-
ported that observations of some other outbursts were consistent with both runaway
tether-cutting and breakout reconnection.
In 2007, however, Ignacio Ugarte-Urra, Harry P. Warren, and Amy R. Winebarger
found that the magnetic topology of only 7 of 23 coronal mass ejections could be
interpreted in terms of the breakout model, and Moore and Sterling discussed a new
subclass of ejections with an explosion from one foot of a loop that blows its top off.
In another interpretation, the coronal mass ejection is driven and energized from
below, resulting in the eruption of a pre-existing magnetic flux rope. James Chen
and Jonathan Krall and their colleagues have described observational evidence for
such a catastrophic event in 1997 and 2006, respectively and Yi-Ming Wang and
Neil R. Sheeley Jr. provided other observational evidence for erupting flux ropes
in 2006. In the catastrophe model, magnetic reconnection occurs as a byproduct
312 6 Our Violent Sun

plasma + magnetic
flux ejected
magnetic field line

+ flux rope
separatrix bubble

plasma flow plasma flow

electric field in
the current sheet

reconnection reconnection
inflow inflow
current sheet &
reconnection outflow

solar surface

reconnection inflow current sheet

super hot (hard X-ray) regions
(> 108 K)

isothermal Petschek shock

Mach 2 jets
termination shock
post shock flow
conduction front
shock enhanced cooling
K)
condensation inflow
07

UV loops (105 K)
s (1

magnetic field line

loop

Hα loops (104 K)
x-ray

condensation downflow

evaporation
chromosphere
flare ribbon
chromospheric
downflow

Fig. 6.29 Detailed model of coronal mass ejection and solar flare. Schematic magnetic field
configuration and flow pattern for a coronal mass ejection and flare system. The upper part of
the diagram portrays the flux-rope model of coronal mass ejections advocated by Jun Lin and
Terry Forbes (2000), showing the eruption of the flux rope, the current sheet formed behind it,
and the post-flare loops below, as well as the inflows and outflows associated with the magnetic
reconnection at the current sheet. The lower part of the diagram is an enlarged view of the post-flare
loops, adapted from Terry Forbes and Loren Acton (1996). The upper tip of the reconnection cusp
rises as reconnection proceeds. Ultraviolet spectroscopy of coronal mass ejections has contributed
to this cross-sectional model of magnetic reconnection inflow that cuts off a magnetic bubble and
flux rope with underlying coronal loops and chromosphere flare ribbons. [The combined diagram is
courtesy of John N. Kohl and Steven R. Cranmer. It is adapted from Jun Lin, John C. Raymond, and
Adriaan A. van Ballegooijen (2004) as well as John L. Kohl, Giancarlo Noci, Steven R. Cranmer,
and John C. Raymond (2006).]
6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen 313

of the eruption; while in both the tether-cutting and breakout models the magnetic
reconnection is responsible for the onset and growth of the coronal mass ejection,
not a consequence of it.
Observational evidence has also been obtained for the magnetic-reconnection
current sheet developed when outstretched and oppositely directed magnetic field
lines are pushed together. In 2003, David F. Webb and colleagues suggested that
bright rays formed in the wake of many coronal mass ejections mark trailing current
sheets that can last for several hours and extend more than five solar radii into the
outer corona; these ejections were observed from the Solar Maximum Mission satel-
lite. The UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer, abbreviated UVCS, aboard SOHO
has also been used to describe the current sheets, which appear as geometrically
long and narrow features in high-temperature emission lines – see the reports by
Angela Ciaravella, Yuan-Kuen Ko, and Jun Lin and their colleagues in 2002, 2003,
and 2005, respectively.
Other astronomers have focused on the later evolution of coronal mass ejections,
when a rising locus of newly filled post-flare loops has been observed from TRACE.
In 2004, for example, Neil Sheeley Jr., Harry P. Warren, and Yi-Ming Wang used
TRACE observations to describe the post-flare loops as “the end result of the forma-
tion, filling, deceleration and cooling of magnetic loops produced by the reconnec-
tion of field lines blown open by the flare.”
Already in 2001, Markus Aschwanden and David Alexander had described
TRACE observations of the Bastille-day flare, including a curved arcade of about
100 post-flare loops that brightened in a sequential manner from highly-sheared,
low-lying bipolar loops to higher-lying less sheared ones. As described by Lyndsay
Fletcher and Hugh Hudson, also in 2001, there was a systematic increase in the
flare ribbon separation observed in both extreme-ultraviolet and hard X-ray radi-
ation during this outburst. Mei Zhang and Leon Golub demonstrated in 2003 that
flares associated with fast coronal mass ejections usually show footpoint-separating,
two-ribbon brightening observed with TRACE. And in 2006, Lidia Contarina and
colleagues combined TRACE and RHESSI observations of separating, extreme-
ultraviolet footpoints and rising X-ray loop tops as evidence for the formation of
an X-point current sheet and consequent reconnection.
Observations have nevertheless been found that are compatible with every one
of the models, and it appears that no single model is consistent with all of the ob-
served coronal mass ejections. Moreover, no one knows for sure just what triggers
the sudden and apparently unpredictable solar flares and/or coronal mass ejections?
A comparison of solar flares with avalanches and earthquakes is instructive.

6.10.4 Flares, Avalanches, and Earthquakes

The occurrence rate, or frequency distribution, of solar flares exhibits a well-ordered

dependence on the flare energy, with systematically more frequent flares at lower en-
ergies, from giant flares to nanoflares. In technical terms, the frequency distribution
N(E) of flares of energy, E, varies as E −α over eight orders of magnitude or energies
314 6 Our Violent Sun

from 1017 to 1025 J and 1024 to 1032 erg. The power law exponent α has a value of
about 1.55.
As proposed by Edward T. Lu and Russell J. Hamilton in 1991, such a distri-
bution can be explained if the coronal magnetic field in solar active regions is in a
self-organized critical state analogous to avalanches in a pile of sand. The sand can
be added to the pile until a critical state is reached. After that, the addition of more
material causes avalanches, keeping the system in the same critical state. In this
analogy, the electric currents and stored magnetic energy in coronal loops slowly
build up until they are on the brink of instability, in a critical condition where fur-
ther perturbation results in avalanche-like disruptions. And the time profile of the
solar flare might be pictured as avalanches of very small magnetic reconnection
events. However, Marina Battaglia, Paolo C. Grigis, and Arnold O. Benz showed
in 2006 that small flares have different hard X-ray characteristics than large flares.
Thus the latter cannot be just the sum of many small flares.
A solar flare has also been likened to the loss of equilibrium during an earth-
quake. According to this comparison, the moving footpoints of a sheared magnetic
loop are analogous to two tectonic plates. As the plates move in opposite directions
along a fault line, they build up stress and energy. When the stress is pushed to the
limit, the two plates cannot slide further and the accumulated energy is released as
an earthquake. After the earthquake, that part of the fault line then lurches back to
its original, equilibrium position, waiting for the next big one.
The sheared magnetic loop may be sent into an increasingly stressed situation
like the tectonic plates, until the loop can no longer bear the strain and releases its
pent-up energy as a solar flare. In this analogy, the flare time profile is interpreted as
a sequence of earthquake aftershocks. And when the Sun’s explosive convulsion dies
down, the magnetic fields regain their composure, fusing together and becoming
primed for the next outburst.
Solar flares do, in fact, occur in regions of strong magnetic shear in the photo-
sphere, and the coronal loops are constantly being reconfigured as they twist and
writhe in response to internal differential rotation and convection motions. And an
essential part of both the tether-cutting and breakout models for coronal mass ejec-
tions is strongly sheared magnetic fields. Both the solar flares and the mass ejec-
tions, in these models, are powered by magnetic free energy that is slowly built up
in stressed conditions.

6.10.5 All Twisted Up

So it is now widely believed that many solar flares and coronal mass ejections are
magnetic explosions, powered by free magnetic energy. They usually happen in
active regions with initially closed coronal loops located above one or more neu-
tral lines separating regions of opposite magnetic polarity in the photosphere. And
the free magnetic energy is generated when one or more of these closed magnetic
bipoles is sheared or twisted into a non-potential configuration.
6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen 315

The hot coronal plasma that is constrained within the contorted loops is illumi-
nated by its soft X-ray emission, which is twisted into a large sigmoid with an S
or reversed-S shape (Fig. 6.30). Such sinuous X-ray emission, within active regions
and not between them, received their designation by David M. Rust and Ashok
Kumar who in 1996 noticed that many of the sigmoid features detected in Yohkoh
Soft X-ray Telescope images evolved into arcades of bright loops which are often
associated with coronal mass ejections. In 1997, Alphonse C. Sterling and Hugh S.
Hudson used the Yohkoh instrument to study a halo coronal mass ejection, and found
that the pre-eruption sigmoid disappeared, leaving a soft X-ray arcade and two “tran-
sient coronal holes” behind. Then 2 years later, in 1999, Richard C. Canfield, Hud-
son, and David E. McKenzie examined 2 years of full-Sun Yohkoh images, demon-
strating a correlation between the appearance of large twisted sigmoid features in
solar active regions and the probable occurrence of eruptive activity there, identified
by arcades and cusped loops. When the bright X-ray emitting, active-region coronal

Fig. 6.30 The Sun getting ready to strike. The strong magnetic fields that constrain hot, X-ray
emitting gas in this active region have been contorted into an S, or sigmoid, shape that has been
resolved at the moment of eruption on 12 February 2007 with the X-Ray Telescope, abbreviated
XRT, aboard Hinode. Statistical studies of such features, detected from the Yohkoh satellite with
less detail, indicate that the appearance of such a large S or inverted S shape in soft X-rays is likely
to be followed by a solar flare or coronal mass ejection in just a few days. The twisted coronal
loops then release their pent-up magnetic energy in a solar explosion also detected in X-rays.
The fine details observed from Hinode’s XRT are helping decide between competing models for
the formation of these structures and their subsequent eruption (McKenzie and Canfield, 2008).
The sigmoid portrayed here, for example, consists of many fine strands gathered into two back-
to-back J shapes, which merge together into the familiar S when observed with poorer angular
resolution. [Courtesy of Monica Bobra, Leon Golub, Katharine Reeves, the XRT consortium, SAO,
NASA, JAXA and NAOJ. Hinode is a Japanese mission developed and launched by ISAS/JAXA,
with NAOJ as domestic partner and NASA and STFC (UK) as international partners. It is operated
by these agencies in co-operation with ESA and NSC (Norway).]
316 6 Our Violent Sun

loops were twisted into a sigmoid shape, they were 68% more likely to be eruptive
than non-sigmoid regions. In other words, the magnetism tends to be distorted into
a sigmoid before it explodes, and then relaxes to a simpler, less stressful situation.
In their synopsis in 2006, Moore and Sterling concluded that the basic process
that triggers and drives the explosion is a core magnetic loop structure, which is
sheared and twisted into the shape of a sigmoid with an oppositely curved elbow at
each end. The sigmoid may or may not be embedded in strong magnetic fields, and
it may or may not contain a flux rope before it starts to explode.
And in 2007, Canfield and his colleagues examined 107 sigmoid active regions
over the full decade-long span of the Yohkoh mission, showing that they are fre-
quently accompanied by subsequent coronal mass ejections. Altogether 163 erup-
tions were associated with these sigmoids, and 83% of these were also detected as
mass ejections by the LASCO instrument on SOHO. So, when the coronal mag-
netism in active regions gets stirred up into a complex, stressed, and twisted S or
reverse-S shape, it is likely to be a prelude to an explosive outburst, something like
a coiled-up rattlesnake waiting to strike.
But unlike the snake’s rattle, we do not have a signal that will predict exactly
when the solar outburst might occur. Scientists have therefore trained the Hinode X-
Ray Telescope onto coronal sigmoids, hoping that the high-resolution observations
might reveal their inner workings. All of the sigmoids detected with Yohkoh, with
poorer resolution, were composed of multiple loops, without exception, and the
initial Hinode results, reported by McKenzie and Canfield in 2008, indicated that
during the pre-eruptive phase the loops or strands, which extend along the sigmoid’s
length, consist of two separate J shapes whose straight sections lie anti-parallel to
each other in the middle of the S, on opposite sides of the magnetic polarity inversion
line (also see Fig. 6.30). Images during the eruptive phase reveal that the sigmoid
lifts off in its middle, even before the soft X-ray flare begins.
Similar observations in the future may be important for understanding, and per-
haps predicting, coronal mass ejections. But there is more than one way to describe
and detect an active region that is getting all twisted up.
Soon after the discovery of the soft X-ray sigmoids, astronomers tried to explain
how they are formed and evolve, and to describe the conditions that drive them to
eruption as coronal mass ejections. Already in 1996, for example, Rust and Kumar
suggested that the observed sigmoids exhibit a twisted and bent, or kinked, magnetic
flux rope topology, and a measure of this twisted structure is known as helicity
(Focus 6.10). Theoreticians then described the mathematics of twisted flux ropes,
and performed numerical simulations of their evolution, culminating in an eruption.

Focus 6.10
Helicity
Magnetic helicity quantifies how the magnetic field is twisted, and the direction or
sign of the twist, known as chirality or handedness, tends to change at the solar equa-
tor. Magnetic structures in the Sun’s northern hemisphere most often exhibit a neg-
ative, left-handed helicity, while those in the southern hemisphere usually display
6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen 317

a positive, right-handed one. So a magnetic screw or vortex would turn in one di-
rection in the north and in the opposite one in the south, like water running out of
a bathtub in the northern or southern hemispheres of the Earth – but for a different
reason.
In 1990, Norbert Seehafer first attracted attention to the use of active region vec-
tor magnetograms to study the hemispheric helicity trend, but with a small number
of active regions. Alexei A. Pevtsov, Richard C. Canfield, and Thomas R. Metcalf
described it in greater detail in 1995, and in 1999 Pevtsov and Canfield were careful
to note that the handedness of the magnetic twist is a dominant tendency rather than
a definite rule. Then in 2008, Pevtsov and colleagues examined the solar active-
region hemispheric helicity behavior over a 19-year period, concluding that it is a
weak tendency with significant scatter, and that almost 100 active regions are needed
to get a plausible result. This indicates that annual subsets used to study temporal
variations of the helicity rule are not likely to be reliable.
Filaments, or prominences, also seem to be helically twisted in different direc-
tions in the two solar hemispheres. And in 1994, David Rust noticed that interplan-
etary magnetic clouds usually have the same direction of magnetic helicity as the
erupting prominences that presumably spawned them; at about the same time, Sara
F. Martin and her colleagues investigated the handedness of the twist and shear of
the solar magnetic field in prominences, or filaments. SOHO LASCO observations
also indicate that a significant fraction of coronal mass ejections exhibit a helical
structure in their cores. The soft X-ray sigmoids that often appear before coronal
mass ejections also tend to exhibit this magnetic helicity segregation.
So it appears that magnetic helicity is conserved in the emergence of magnetic
flux into the solar corona and its expulsion in solar outbursts, which has been
stressed by John W. Bieber and Rust in 1995 and in the review by Mei Zhang and
Boon Chye Low in 2005. If so, it would be a good thing, for magnetic helicity is
continuously being accumulated inside the Sun, as the result of local shearing mo-
tions, differential rotation, and the emergence of twisted flux systems. If there was
not some mechanism to shed the magnetic helicity and stop the internal build up, it
might even stop the solar dynamo that generates the Sun’s magnetic fields.

It turned out that the observed sigmoids tend to be twisted one way in the Sun’s
southern hemisphere, say into a forward-S shape, and in the opposite reverse or
reverse-S direction in the other hemisphere. To be consistent with this hemisphere
rule, the sheared magnetic flux ropes should dip in the middle, and be heated there
to shine in soft X-rays. And in 1999, Viacheslav S. Titov and Pascal Démoulin
proposed a way that a twisted coronal loop, which is tied to the photosphere at both
ends, can generate electric currents and heat up in its middle, sort of like a filament
in a light bulb.
Moreover, as this twisted flux tube emerges from below the photosphere to a
certain height in the corona, it can become unstable and form an erupting promi-
nence and a two-ribbon flare. This theory, known as the bald-patch separatrix
model, receives its ponderous name from the bald place where the dipped field
318 6 Our Violent Sun

touches the photosphere and the separate surfaces that are found there during
flux rope emergence.
In 2004 and 2006, Yuhong Fan and Sarah E. Gibson proposed an alternative
kinked flux rope model. Their numerical simulations indicated that current sheets
in the twisted rope can form a sigmoid shape, with the observed orientation, and
that the flux rope will erupt as it crosses a threshold of magnetic twist. When the
kinked flux rope is twisted beyond a few turns, it becomes unstable to the kink-mode
instability and an outburst occurs, which can be likened to a rubber band that snaps
when wound too tightly.
The application of the kink instability to solar outbursts has a long history. In
1976, Takashi Sakurai was the first to interpret an erupting prominence as an un-
stable kinked flux rope. Three years later, Alan William Hood and Eric R. Priest
suggested that solar flares are caused by the kink instability, which sets in when
the amount of magnetic twist in a flux tube exceeds a critical value. In their 1996
discussion of sigmoids, Rust and Kumar attributed both coronal mass ejections and
erupting prominences to the helical kink instability, and in 2000 Tahar Amari and
co-workers presented a twisted flux rope interpretation of the soft X-ray sigmoids,
which cannot stay in equilibrium.
In 2005, Yuhong Fan and Tibor Török and Bernhard Kliem independently pre-
sented numerical simulations that showed how coronal magnetic field lines could
become twisted and lead to an erupting prominence or a coronal mass ejection from
a kink-unstable flux rope. Török and Kliem considered both confined and ejective
eruptions, and it turns out that their model provided a good description of a failed
filament eruption observed from TRACE (Fig. 6.31). And by 2006, Gibson, Fan,
Török, and Kliem had teamed up to describe the evolving sigmoid as evidence for
magnetic flux ropes in the corona before, during, and after coronal mass ejections.
But there is still controversy over the way in which sigmoids erupt. The 2008
Hinode observations of McKenzie and Canfield favor the Titov and Démoulin ap-
proach rather than the kink instability. And there are contradictory reports about
whether or not the observed level of twist is sufficient for the kink instability to
trigger solar flares and coronal mass ejections – see the descriptions by Robert
J. Leamon and colleagues in 2003, Kimberly D. Leka and co-workers in 2005, and
Rust and Barry J. LaBonte, also, in 2005.
And although the magnetic energy that fuels solar outbursts seems to be released
in the low corona, the eruptions might well be triggered from below, even deep down
inside the Sun. That is where all of the action originates – with convection motions
that shear and twist coronal loops or emerging magnetic loops which interact with
those already there. So scientists have been keeping a careful watch on magnetic
activity in the photosphere and below, using magnetograms and helioseismology.
The photospheric magnetic structures before, during, and after solar flares are
being scrutinized with the hope of discovering the magnetic activity that might trig-
ger solar flares. These outbursts have indeed long been known to often occur within
complex delta configurations of sunspots. Rapid and permanent changes in the pho-
tosphere magnetic field occur during some strong solar flares, as reported by Jeffrey
Sudal and John W. Harvey in 2005 and by Haimin Wang and colleagues in 2002
6.10 Explaining Why Solar Outbursts Happen 319

Fig. 6.31 Kinky flux. A confined, or failed, filament eruption observed at 18.5 nm wavelength
from the Transition Region And Coronal Explorer, or TRACE for short, on 27 May 2002. Tibor
Török and Bernard Kliem (2005) have presented numerical simulations of twisted magnetic field
lines, projected from the photosphere magnetograms, to show how the kink instability can produce
the observed evolution of this event, rising to a maximum altitude of 80,000 km and outlining
the twisted core of a kink-unstable flux rope. (Courtesy of the TRACE consortium and NASA;
TRACE is a mission of the Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research, a joint program of the
Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, or LMSAL for short, and Stanford’s Solar
Observatories Group.)

and 2005. And in 2005 Valentina Abramenko used active-region magnetograms to

show that a steep magnetic power spectrum is a measure of flare productivity.
All the motions and twists in the solar atmosphere are ultimately driven by in-
ternal flows. Comparisons of Yohkoh soft X-ray sigmoids with photosphere vec-
tor magnetograms indicated to Alexei Pevtsov, Richard Canfield, and Alexander
McClymont in 1997 that currents responsible for the coronal structures originate
below the photosphere; their twist, or magnetic helicity, could be injected from
their footpoints. And in 2005, Carolus J. Schrijver and colleagues used TRACE and
SOHO MDI observations of 95 active regions to demonstrate that significant non-
potentiality, or free magnetic energy, in their coronal configurations is driven by flux
emergence from below, with a characteristic growth and decay of 10–30 h.
Motions beneath the photosphere can be examined with the techniques of helio-
seismology (Sects. 3.7 and 3.8). As an example, Douglas Mason and his colleagues
used the method of local helioseismic tomography to examine the swirling flows
320 6 Our Violent Sun

beneath hundreds of active regions, showing that the intensity of X-ray flares from
these regions is greater when there is a stronger, sideways circulation beneath them.
So, to sum up, there are several possible explanations for the initiation and ex-
pulsion of solar outbursts, and many of them are related to twisted, sheared mag-
netic configurations. Solar flares appear to be energized by magnetic reconnection
of sheared coronal loops. Coronal mass ejections seem to be related to sheared and
twisted magnetic loops – by tether-cutting reconnection in the low corona below the
erupting structure, by breakout reconnection above it, by the expulsion of helically
twisted flux ropes driven from beneath the photosphere, and perhaps by the tearing
mode or kink instabilities of sheared, twisted magnetic configurations that do not
intimately involve reconnection.
So what is all the fuss about anyway? A coronal mass ejection could be triggered
from down below, from up above, or from in between. And it might happen anytime,
and no one knows precisely how. Hundreds of scientists have been nibbling away at
the problem for decades, and several costly spacecraft are dedicated to finding some
clues to the unsolved problem.
The sense of urgency, and one of the dominant underlying objectives, is to some-
day forecast threatening solar outbursts that can cause potential harm in outer space
or at the Earth. As we shall next see, these hazardous events are related to strong
solar flares, powerful coronal mass ejections, and to shocks and other processes in
interplanetary space.

6.11 Summary Highlights: Solar Flares, Erupting Prominences,

and Coronal Mass Ejections

• The relatively calm solar atmosphere can be torn asunder by sudden, brief out-
bursts called solar flares, the most powerful explosions in the solar system. In
minutes, they release energy equivalent to millions of 100-megaton hydrogen
bombs exploding at the same time, and raise the temperature of Earth-sized re-
gions in the low corona up to 20 × 106 K.
• Large looping arches of magnetism, containing relatively cool material with a
temperature of about 10,000 K, can suddenly expand out into space; such erupt-
ing prominences or filaments are often associated with coronal mass ejections.
• Coronal mass ejections rip out billions of tons of material from the corona, hurl-
ing it into interplanetary space in expanding magnetic bubbles that rapidly rival
the Sun in size.
• The soft X-ray emission arriving at the Earth from solar flares is monitored by
the Geostationary Operations Environmental Satellites, abbreviated GOES, clas-
sifying them by their peak flux; those of X-class or M-class are the most powerful
ones and have noticeable consequences on Earth.
• Flares are detected in the chromosphere by tuning into the red spectral line
of hydrogen, the Balmer alpha transition at 656.3 nm. These chromospheric
hydrogen-alpha flares often exhibit two parallel ribbons of light, attributed to
6.11 Summary Highlights: Solar Flares, Erupting Prominences, and Coronal Mass Ejections 321

energetic particles beamed down into the chromosphere along newly linked coro-
nal loops.
• Flare ribbons can be detected at extreme-ultraviolet wavelengths from TRACE,
with high spatial and temporal resolution. It has been used to measure the sep-
aration speed of loop-footpoint ribbons and the rate of magnetic reconnection
above them.
• Hard X-rays are detected during the impulsive phase of solar flares, when elec-
trons are accelerated to high velocities and hurled down to the footpoints of coro-
nal loops.
• Soft X-rays are emitted during the decay phase of solar flares, when material
from the chromosphere rises up to fill newly linked coronal loops in a process
called chromospheric evaporation.
• Solar-flare X-rays are emitted by bremsstrahlung, or braking radiation, when
electrons encounter protons; thermal electrons give rise to soft X-ray
bremsstrahlung and more energetic, non-thermal electrons produce hard X-ray
bremsstrahlung.
• The slow, smooth rise of the flare emission at soft X-rays resembles the time in-
tegration of a flare’s impulsive hard X-ray radiation. This Neupert effect suggests
that the electron beams that give rise to the hard X-rays produce chromospheric
evaporation that fills coronal loops and gives rise to the soft X-ray emission.
• Observations with the Hard X-ray Telescope aboard Yohkoh have confirmed that
the hard X-rays of many flares are emitted from the footpoints of a flaring coro-
nal loop.
• The Bragg Crystal Spectrometer aboard Yohkoh has been used to show that flar-
ing gas is heated in the chromosphere from 10,000 to 20 × 106 K, flowing up into
flaring coronal loops that produce the flare soft X-ray emission.
• Yohkoh’s Hard X-ray Telescope has been used to discover non-thermal, loop-
top hard X-ray sources located just above flaring loops detected by the Soft X-
ray Telescope, suggesting that very energetic electrons are accelerated above the
flare loops.
• A flare particle acceleration site that is located about 50% higher than the soft
X-ray flare loop heights has been inferred from electron time-of-flight measure-
ments with the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory and from ground-based ob-
servations of upward and downward moving radio bursts.
• Rare white-light flares correlate well with the flare hard X-ray emission, in both
space and time, suggesting a similar origin.
• The total irradiance of solar flares, at all wavelengths including the visible ones,
has been measured, indicating a total energy about 100 times that of the soft
X-ray flare emission.
• Flare-associated protons and heavier ions can be beamed down into the lower
solar atmosphere, producing nuclear reactions with the emission of gamma-ray
spectral lines, meson decay gamma rays, and neutrons that move nearly at the
speed of light.
• High-resolution, gamma-ray spectroscopy from RHESSI has spectrally resolved
the electron-positron annihilation and nuclear de-excitation lines for the first
322 6 Our Violent Sun

time, with unexpectedly wide annihilation lines and mass-dependent Doppler

shifts of the de-excitation lines.
• The first gamma-ray images of solar flares, in the 2.223 MeV neutron-capture
line, have been obtained from an instrument aboard RHESSI, showing that the
flaring gamma-ray sources are spatially displaced from the hard X-ray ones.
• The RHESSI imaging instrument has located the region of flare energy release in
the corona between the tops of flare loops and a higher coronal source of X-rays.
• A solar flare can outshine the entire Sun at radio wavelengths. These radio bursts
are used to probe the flare acceleration site.
• Type II and type III radio bursts are respectively attributed to shock waves
and high-speed electron beams that move outward through the corona, exciting
plasma oscillations at successively lower plasma frequencies.
• A filament is a region of relatively cool gas embedded in the corona, seen in ab-
sorption on the solar disk and suspended by a long, low-lying core magnetic loop.
• A prominence is a filament seen in emission at the edge, or limb, of the Sun.
• An erupting prominence, or filament, can be caused by excessive shear of its low-
lying, core magnetic loop, which can rise to open the overlying magnetic arches
that straddle it.
• Many thousands of coronal mass ejections have been observed since the 1970s
from space-borne coronagraphs. The LASCO instrument aboard SOHO has
recorded images of more than 10,000 coronal mass ejections, and incidentally
resulted in the discovery of more than a thousand comets.
• Coronal mass ejections can exhibit a three-part structure – a bright outer front,
followed by a darker, underlying cavity, surrounding a brighter core; but not all
coronal mass ejections display these nearly circular shapes.
• Coronal mass ejections hurl between 1 and 50 billion tons, or 1012 − 5 ×
1013 kg, of material out from the Sun at apparent speeds near the Sun of up to
3, 400 km s−1 . But most coronal mass ejections exhibit apparent speeds of be-
tween 300 and 500 km s−1 .
• At the minimum in the Sun’s 11-year activity cycle, coronal mass ejections ap-
pear near equatorial latitudes with an average rate of 0.5 events detected per day;
near cycle maximum they appear at all latitudes, including the poles, with an
average rate of six events per day.
• Coronal loops are sent into quivering oscillations in the aftermath of solar flares.
Such oscillations can be used to infer the physical properties of the loops, in a
technique known as coronal seismology.
• Coronal mass ejections can generate waves that propagate across the entire Sun,
which have been detected with the EIT instrument on SOHO.
• Coronal mass ejections are associated with depleted regions of the corona, which
have been detected as reductions in the soft X-ray emission observed by instru-
ments aboard the Yohkoh and Hinode spacecraft; a related dimming of the Sun’s
extreme-ultraviolet radiation has been detected from SOHO.
• The rate of occurrence of solar flares, erupting prominences, and coronal mass
ejections varies in step with the 11-year cycle of solar magnetic activity, becoming
6.11 Summary Highlights: Solar Flares, Erupting Prominences, and Coronal Mass Ejections 323

more frequent near the cycle maximum and suggesting an origin related to strong
magnetic fields.
• Coronal mass ejections and solar flares may be a manifestation of a similar
energy-release process in the solar corona. Exceptionally fast and energetic coro-
nal mass ejections are commonly accompanied by solar flares, and vice versa, but
each type of solar outburst can occur without the other one and there appears to
be no general cause–effect relation between the two.
• Solar flares can be ignited when oppositely directed and current-carrying mag-
netic loops come together and coalesce in a process called magnetic reconnec-
tion. During this coronal merging process, the stressed magnetic fields partially
annihilate each other, release energy stored in them, and reconnect into less-
energetic, more stable configurations.
• The Soft X-ray Telescope aboard Yohkoh has been used to discover a soft X-ray,
cusp-type geometry in the low corona, seen edge-on at the apex of long-lived,
gradual (hours) flaring loops that can be associated with coronal mass ejections.
This morphology was predicted by magnetic reconnection theory.
• Coronal jets have been attributed to magnetic reconnection between rising mag-
netic loops and overlying, open coronal magnetic fields.
• Despite more than 30 years of study, there is no known, universal mechanism
that can account for all the observations of coronal mass ejections, but different
models are supported by observations of different specific events.
• There are several plausible models for coronal mass ejections in which magnetic
reconnection is responsible for the onset and growth of the ejection. They include
the breakout model involving at least two magnetic loops and reconnection above
the erupting structure, and the tether-cutting model with just one magnetic loop
and reconnection below the erupting structure. An alternative catastrophe model
involves a pre-existing magnetic flux rope anchored and driven from below, with
magnetic reconnection as a byproduct of the eruption.
• The frequency distribution of solar flares exhibits a well-ordered, power-law de-
pendence on energy over a broad energy range, with systematically more flares
of lower energy, suggesting that the coronal magnetic field in solar active re-
gions is in a self-organized critical state similar to avalanches in a sand pile or to
earthquakes.
• Solar flares and coronal mass ejections most likely arise from coronal loops
that have been sheared and twisted into non-potential configurations with free
magnetic energy available to power the outbursts. This twist can be detected as
active-region sigmoid structures in soft X-rays, and in images of both eruptive
prominences and coronal mass ejections. The twisted structures may be related
to the helicity seen in photospheric magnetograms of active regions, which tend
to display an opposite helicity sign or direction in the two solar hemispheres,
and/or to swirling flows beneath active regions.
• A twisted magnetic flux tube that emerges into the corona can become unstable
to form an erupting prominence or coronal mass ejections. There are at least two
models for the outbursts, and one of them includes the kink instability that sets
in when there is too much twist.
324 6 Our Violent Sun

6.12 Key Events in Understanding Solar Outbursts∗

Date Event

1852 Edward Sabine demonstrates that global magnetic disturbances of the Earth, now
called geomagnetic storms, vary in tandem with the 11-year sunspot cycle.
1859–1960 In 1859, Richard C. Carrington and Richard Hodgson independently observe a
solar flare in the white light of the photosphere, and in 1860 publish the first
account of such a flare. There was no perceptible change in the sunspots after the
“sudden conflagration”, leading Carrington to conclude that it occurred above and
over the sunspots. Seventeen hours after the flare a large magnetic storm began on
the Earth.
1908 George Ellery Hale uses the Zeeman splitting of spectral lines to measure intense
magnetic fields in sunspots. They are thousands of times stronger than the Earth’s
magnetism.
1919 Frederick Alexander Lindemann (later Lord Cherwell) suggests that an elec-
trically neutral plasma ejection from the Sun is responsible for powerful non-
recurrent geomagnetic storms.
1919 George Ellery Hale and his colleagues show that sunspots occur in bipolar pairs
with an orientation that varies with a 22-year period.
1930–1960 Observations of solar flares in the chromosphere, at the Balmer alpha transition
of hydrogen, by Václav Bumba, Helen W. Dobson, Mervyn Archdall Ellison,
Ronald G. Giovanelli, Harold W. Newton, Robert S. Richardson, Andrei B. Sev-
erny, and Max Waldmeier, show that chromosphere flares occur close to sunspots,
usually between the two main spots of a bi-polar group, that magnetically com-
plex sunspot groups are most likely to emit flares, and that hydrogen-alpha flare
ribbons lie adjacent and parallel to the magnetic neutral line in the photosphere.
1935–1937 J. Howard Dellinger suggests that the sudden ionosphere disturbances that inter-
fere with short-wave radio signals have a solar origin.
1944 Robert S. Richardson proposes the term solar flare for sudden, bright, rapid, and
localized variations detected in the chromosphere at the Balmer alpha transition
of hydrogen.
1946 Edward V. Appleton and J. Stanley Hey demonstrate that meter-wavelength solar
radio noise originates in sunspot-associated active regions, and that sudden large
increases in the Sun’s radio output are associated with chromosphere brightening,
also known as solar flares.
1946–1948 Ronald G. Giovanelli develops a theory of solar flares involving the magnetic
fields in the solar atmosphere above sunspots, including electric currents at mag-
netic neutral points.
1946, 1950 Scott E. Forbush and his colleagues describe brief, flare-associated increases in
the intensity of cosmic rays arriving at the Earth’s surface, and attribute the tran-
sient increases to very energetic charged particles from the Sun. They were origi-
nally designated solar cosmic rays, but are more recently known as solar energetic
particles.

∗ See the References at the end of this book for complete references to these seminal papers
6.12 Key Events in Understanding Solar Outbursts 325

Date Event

1947 Ruby Payne-Scott, Donald E. Yabsley, and John G. Bolton discover that meter-
wavelength solar radio bursts often arrive later at lower frequencies and longer
wavelengths. They attributed the delays to disturbances moving outward at veloc-
ities of 500–750 km s−1 , exciting radio emission at the local plasma frequency.
1948–1949 Soft X-rays from the Sun were first detected on 6 August 1948, with a V-2 rocket
experiment performed by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, reported by T.
Robert Burnight in 1949.
1949 Alfred H. Joy and Milton L. Humason show that main sequence (dwarf M) stars
other than the Sun emit flares.
1950–1959 John Paul Wild and his colleagues use a swept frequency receiver to delineate
type II radio bursts, attributed to shock waves moving out during a solar outburst
at about a 1, 000 km s−1 , and type III radio bursts, due to outward streams of high-
energy electrons, accelerated at the onset of a solar flare and moving at nearly the
velocity of light, or at almost 300, 000 km s−1 .
1950 Hannes Alfvén and Nicolai Herlofson argue that synchrotron radiation of high-
speed electrons spiraling about magnetic fields might generate the observed radio
emission from discrete cosmic sources, and Karl Otto Kiepenheuer reasons that
the synchrotron radiation mechanism can account for the radio emission of our
Galaxy.
1950–1954 Scott E. Forbush demonstrates the inverse correlation between the long-term in-
tensity of cosmic rays arriving at Earth and the number of sunspots over two 11-
year solar activity cycles.
1951–1963 Herbert Friedman and his colleagues at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory use
rocket and satellite observations to show that intense X-rays are emitted from the
Sun, that the X-ray emission is related to solar activity, and that X-rays emitted
during solar flares are the cause of sudden ionosphere disturbances.
1953 James W. Dungey proposes a magnetic neutral point discharge theory for solar
flares.
1954 Philip Morrison proposes that magnetized clouds of gas, emitted by the active Sun,
account for worldwide decreases in the cosmic ray intensity observed at Earth,
lasting for days and correlated roughly with geomagnetic storms.
1957 André Boischot discovers moving type IV radio bursts, and Boischot and Jean-
Francoise Denisse explain them in terms of magnetic clouds of high-energy elec-
trons propelled into interplanetary space.
1958 Alan Maxwell and Govind Swarup call attention to U-type radio bursts, a spec-
tral variation of type III fast-drift bursts that first decrease and then increase in
frequency, suggesting motions away from and into the Sun along closed magnetic
field lines.
1958 Peter A. Sweet develops the neutral point theory of solar flares, including mag-
netic reconnection in a current sheet resulting from the twist and shear of photo-
sphere magnetic fields.
1958–1959 During a balloon flight on 20 March 1958, Laurence E. Peterson and John Ran-
dolph Winckler observed a burst of high-energy, gamma ray radiation (200–
500 keV) coincident in time with a solar flare, suggesting non-thermal particle
acceleration during such outbursts on the Sun.
326 6 Our Violent Sun

Date Event

1959 Thomas Gold argues that solar flares will eject material within magnetic clouds,
which remain magnetically connected to the Sun, and suggests that an associated
shock front can produce sudden geomagnetic storms. He also coined the term
magnetosphere for the region in the vicinity of the Earth in which the Earth’s
magnetic field dominates all dynamical processes involving charged particles.
1960 Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle show that magnetic energy must power solar flares,
and argue that flares are triggered when two magnetic loops of opposite sense or
direction interact, merge, and suddenly dissipate their stored magnetic energy.
1960–1961 Gail E. Moreton uses rapid, time-lapse photography of the chromosphere in the
red light of the Balmer alpha transition of hydrogen to discover wave-like distur-
bances initiated by solar flares. These Moreton waves move away from the site of
impulsive flares, across the visible solar disk with velocities of around a thousand
kilometers per second.
1961–1963 Mukul R. Kundu demonstrates the similar time profiles of centimeter wavelength,
impulsive radio bursts and hard X-ray radiation from solar flares. In 1963, Kees
de Jager and Kundu explained the similarity in the profiles in terms of the same
energetic electrons producing the radio and hard X-ray emission.
1962–1967 Interplanetary shocks associated with solar activity are detected using instruments
aboard the Mariner 2 spacecraft in 1962, reported by Charles P. Sonett and col-
leagues in 1964 and by Marcia Neugebauer and Conway W. Snyder in 1967.
1963 Eugene Parker develops the details of Sweet’s 1958 method of magnetic recon-
nection, subsequently known as slow Sweet-Parker reconnection.
1964 Hugh Carmichael proposes that the magnetic field lines above low-lying coro-
nal loops could be forced open by the solar wind, and discusses how magnetic
fields might be brought together at the interface of the closed and open magnetic
structures to accelerate high-energy particles.
1964 T. R. Hartz obtains the first spacecraft observations of solar type III bursts using a
swept frequency receiver from 1.5 to 10 MHz.
1964 Harry E. Petschek clarifies the process of magnetic field reconnection, showing
how magnetic energy might be quickly released within the short duration of solar
flares, in a process of magnetic field annihilation now known as fast Petschek
reconnection.
1966–1968 Peter A. Sturrock develops a model for solar flares in which sheared coronal loops
trigger a tearing mode instability near the Y neutral point between closed and open
magnetic fields in the low corona, accounting for particle acceleration in a down-
ward direction and shock waves and plasma ejection in the outward direction.
1967–1968 Roger L. Arnoldy, Sharad R. Kane, and John Randolph Winckler demonstrate a
flux correlation for centimeter-wavelength impulsive radio bursts and hard X-ray
solar flares.
1968 Giuseppe Vaiana and his colleagues show that the soft X-ray emission of a solar
flare corresponds spatially with the chromospheric brightening, with roughly the
same size, indicating a close association between the two phenomena.
1968 Werner M. Neupert uses soft X-ray flare data, obtained with the third Orbiting
Solar Observatory, abbreviated OSO 3, to confirm that soft X-rays slowly build
up in strength, and to show that the rise to maximum intensity resembles the time
integral of the rapid, impulsive radio burst.
6.12 Key Events in Understanding Solar Outbursts 327

Date Event

1968 Yutaka Uchida interprets Moreton waves by a shock-initiated, expanding coronal

disturbance intersecting the chromosphere.
1970–1973 Ke Chiang Hsieh, John A. Simpson, Joan Hirshberg, William F. Dietrich, and their
colleagues demonstrate that impulsive solar flares can produce a large relative
abundance of helium in the solar wind with an enrichment of the helium-3 isotope.
1971–1973 The first good, space-based observation of a coronal disturbance or transient, now
called a coronal mass ejection, was obtained on 14 December 1971, using the
coronagraph aboard NASA’s seventh Orbiting Solar Observatory, or OSO 7 for
short, reported by Richard Tousey in 1973.
1972–1973 Edward L. Chupp and his colleagues detect solar gamma-ray lines for the first time
using a monitor aboard NASA’s seventh Orbiting Solar Observatory, abbreviated
OSO 7. They observed the neutron capture (2.223 MeV) and electron–positron
annihilation (0.511 MeV) lines associated with solar flares. The 2.223 MeV line
had been anticipated theoretically by Philip Morrison.
1973–1974 Yutaka Uchida and colleagues explain chromosphere Moreton disturbances in
terms of magnetohydrodynamic waves responsible for type II bursts.
1973–1974 The manned, orbiting solar observatory, Skylab, is launched on 14 May 1973, and
manned by three-person crews until 8 February 1974. Skylab’s Apollo Telescope
Mount contained 12 tons of solar observing instruments that spatially resolved
solar flares at soft X-ray and ultraviolet wavelengths.
1974 John Thomas Gosling and colleagues report observations of coronal mass ejec-
tions, then called coronal disturbances or coronal transients, with the coronagraph
aboard Skylab, noting that some of them have a high outward speed of up to a
1, 000 km s−1 needed to produce interplanetary shocks. They also found that some
coronal mass ejections are not associated with solar flares, but instead with the
eruption of filaments or prominences.
1974 Richard T. Hansen and colleagues observe sudden depletions of background re-
gions of the inner solar corona using the Mark I coronagraph at Mauna Loa.
1974 Tadashi Hirayama develops a theoretical model of two-ribbon solar flares and
erupting prominences or filaments in which magnetic reconnection occurs at an
X-type neutral line under a prominence and rises up as the prominence moves out
into space. The oppositely directed magnetic fields are brought together at the X-
point to release free magnetic energy, accelerating particles that move down into
the chromosphere to form flare ribbons and undergo chromospheric evaporation
of material heated to about 10 × 106 K, producing the soft X-ray flare emission.
1976 Roger A. Kopp and Gerald W. Pneuman develop a theory for two-ribbon flares
in which coronal magnetic fields above active regions come together during the
outward expulsion of a prominence, predicting a continuous rise of the recon-
nection point, the increase in height of the newly connected magnetic loops, and
separating loop footpoints and flare ribbons.
1976 Takashi Sakurai interprets solar erupting prominences, or filament eruptions, as
unstable, kinked flux ropes.
1977 Jean Heyvaerts, Eric R. Priest, and David M. Rust propose an emerging flux model
of solar flares, in which a magnetic loop rises into the corona, merging and re-
connecting with pre-existing magnetic structures and forming a current-sheet that
heats up and becomes unstable. Although this mechanism is apparently only appli-
cable to small flares, it is related to Kazunari Shibata’s 1992–1996 interpretations
of coronal X-ray jets.
328 6 Our Violent Sun

Date Event

1977 Roberto Pallavicini, Salvatore Serio, and Giuseppe S. Vaiana use Skylab observa-
tions to define two classes of soft X-ray flares: compact, brief (minutes) events,
and extensive, long-enduring (hours) ones associated with soft X-ray arcades, fil-
ament eruptions, and coronal mass ejections.
1977–1978 Franz Dröge and Cornelius Slottje independently discover microwave spikes that
are a few milliseconds in duration, estimating sizes of less than a thousand kilo-
meters across and brightness temperatures of a million billion (1015 ) Kelvin.
1979 Alan William Hood and Eric R. Priest suggest that the kink instability of coronal
loops, or magnetic flux tubes, is the cause of solar flares; the instability sets in
when the amount of magnetic twist in the flux tube exceeds a critical value.
1980 The Solar Maximum Mission, abbreviated SMM, satellite is launched on 14 Febru-
ary 1980, to study the physics of solar flares during a period of maximum solar
activity. It excelled in X-ray and gamma ray spectroscopy of solar flares, as well
as observing the white-light emission of coronal mass ejections in 1980 and from
1984 to 1989.
1980–1989 George Doschek, Ester Antonucci, and their colleagues use P78-1 and Solar Max-
imum Mission observations of soft X-ray spectral lines to show that the impulsive
phase of solar flares is associated with the upward flow of heated chromosphere
material with velocities of several hundred kilometers per second. Such an upflow
is called chromospheric evaporation, predicted by Tadashi Hirayama in 1974. Kat-
suo Tanaka and colleagues use a spectrometer aboard the Hinotori spacecraft to
independently confirm chromospheric evaporation in 1982.
1980 Arthur J. Hundhausen and colleagues use the coronagraph aboard the Solar
1984–1989 Maximum Mission satellite to specify the mass, velocity, energy, shape, and form
of a large number of coronal mass ejections, fully reported in the literature in the
1990s (Hundhausen, 1994).
1980–1982 Edward L. Chupp and his colleagues use the Gamma Ray Spectrometer, or GRS,
on the Solar Maximum Mission satellite to detect energetic solar neutrons near the
Earth following a solar flare, which occurred on 21 June 1980 (Chupp, 1984).
1980–1984 Kenneth A. Marsh and Gordon J. Hurford use the Very Large Array, or VLA,
in 1980 to resolve a two-centimeter burst source and locate it near the top of
a flaring coronal loop. This implies that the initial flare energy release occurs
near or above the loop apex, and may indicate trapping of the energetic electrons
there. In 1984, Robert F. Willson and Kenneth R. Lang used the VLA to show
that flaring emission at 20 cm wavelength also originates near the apex of coronal
loops, marking the site of flare energy release above the loop tops in the low
corona.
1981 Robert P. Lin and colleagues find that solar flares can produce thermal sources
with high enough temperatures to be detectable as hard X-rays.
1981–1982 The Japanese spacecraft Hinotori, meaning firebird, was launched on 21 February
1981 and operated until 11 October 1982. It created images of solar flare X-rays
with an energy of around 20 keV, and measured solar flare temperatures of be-
tween 10 and 40 million (1–4 × 107 ) Kelvin using soft X-ray spectroscopy.
1981–1982 Peter Hoyng, André Duijveman, and their colleagues use instruments aboard the
Solar Maximum Mission satellite to resolve hard X-ray solar flares into double
sources found at the two footpoints of coronal loops. Tatsuo Takakura and his
colleagues found similar structures using the Hinotori spacecraft, but most of the
detected flares were apparently single rather than double.
6.12 Key Events in Understanding Solar Outbursts 329

Date Event

1981–1983 In 1981–1983, Arnold O. Benz and colleagues discover decimetric type II bursts
that drift rapidly from low to high frequencies, indicating downward-directed
electron beams. This suggests flare energy release and electron acceleration in the
low corona above the downward beams. Markus Aschwanden and Benz subse-
quently pinpoint the acceleration site at the demarcation between the downward-
moving and upward-moving electron beams.
1982 Ulrich Anzer and Gerald W. Pneuman introduce a theoretical model that combines
a two-ribbon solar flare and a coronal mass ejection, or a coronal transient as it was
then called. The rising flare loop system undergoes magnetic reconnection, and
employs this reconnection as the coronal transient’s driving force. As in previous
models of solar flares and erupting prominences, a lower loop is created that is
rooted in the photosphere and an upper, disconnected loop is produced, which
rises and drives the coronal transient.
1982 Russell A. Howard and colleagues report the first detection of an Earth-directed
halo coronal mass ejection, and its associated interplanetary shock observed near
the Earth, traveling at a speed of nearly 2, 000 km s−1 . The coronal mass ejection,
then known as a coronal transient, was detected from the Solwind coronagraph
aboard the P78-1 satellite; the shock wave was detected with instruments aboard
the third International Sun-Earth Explorer, abbreviated ISEE 3, spacecraft.
1982 Zdenek Svestka and colleagues use instruments aboard the Solar Maximum Mis-
sion satellite to discover giant X-ray post-flare arches above eruptive flares.
1982–1990 Edward L. Chupp, Hermann Debrunner, and colleagues report the observation of
neutron emission at the Earth from the 3 June 1982 flare, giving signals in both
the Solar Maximum Mission detector and the neutron monitor on Jungfraujoch in
Switzerland.
1983 David J. Forrest and Edward L. Chupp use Solar Maximum Mission satellite ob-
servations to demonstrate the simultaneous acceleration of relativistic electrons
(hard X-rays) and energetic ions (gamma rays) to within a few seconds. Masato
Yoshimori and colleagues confirmed this simultaneity using observations from the
Hinotori spacecraft.
1985 David J. Forrest and colleagues report the observation of gamma rays from the
decay of neutral mesons during the 3 June 1982 solar flare.
1985, 95 Raghunath K. Shevgaonkar and Mukul R. Kundu use the Very Large Array to
resolve a double, loop-footpoint source at 2-cm wavelength during an impulsive
solar flare in 1985. A decade later, Kundu and his colleagues use the Nobeyama
radioheliograph and the Yohkoh spacecraft to show that the two-centimeter and
hard X-ray sources coincide spatially. The two non-thermal radio sources were
circularly polarized with opposite polarities, indicating oppositely directed mag-
netic fields, consistent with the footpoints of a single coronal loop.
1987 Hilary V. Cane, Neil R. Sheeley Jr., and Russell A. Howard show that strong inter-
planetary shocks are associated with fast coronal mass ejection moving at speeds
greater than 500 km s−1 . They used the third International Sun-Earth Explorer,
abbreviated ISEE 3, low-frequency (< 1 MHz) radio data and Solwind corona-
graph observations from the P78-1 satellite.
1988 Marcos E. Machado and colleagues use X-ray images, taken with the Solar Max-
imum Mission spacecraft, to show that the interaction of magnetic loops in the
corona is an essential ingredient in triggering flare energy release.
330 6 Our Violent Sun

Date Event

1988 Donald V. Reames proposes that the abundances of solar energetic particles arriv-
ing at Earth, observed from the International Sun-Earth Explorer spacecraft over
an 8.5-year period, imply two distinct population of particles of separate origin.
The 3 He and electron-rich events are attributed to impulsive solar flares; the other
population, which has lower helium and electron abundances and is responsible
for most large proton events seen at Earth, is supposed to be accelerated by coronal
mass ejections or interplanetary shocks.
1989 Petrus C. Martens and N. Paul Kuin derive a circuit model for solar filament erup-
tions and two-ribbon flares, involving the filament and a current sheet at the top
of post-flare loops.
1989 Peter A. Sturrock argues that the loss of equilibrium concept cannot be applied to
prominence eruptions or coronal mass ejections, and that they are probably caused
by instability of a plasma configuration.
1990 Eric R. Priest and Terry G. Forbes give a model for prominence eruptions from
twisted magnetic fields, including magnetic reconnection and the creation of cur-
rents below the erupting prominence.
1990 Norbert Seehafer demonstrates that magnetic helicity in a small number of active
regions at the photosphere level is predominantly negative in the Sun’s northern
hemisphere and positive in its southern hemisphere.
1991 Edward T. Lu and Russell J. Hamilton propose that the solar coronal magnetic
field is in a self-organized critical state, thus explaining the observed power-law
dependence of the frequency distribution of solar flares on their energy, with
systematically more frequent flares at lower energy. They picture solar flares as
avalanches of many small reconnection events, in analogy to avalanches of sand.
1991 The Japanese Yohkoh, meaning sunbeam, satellite is launched on 30 August 1991,
to study the soft and hard X-ray emission from solar flares and soft X-rays from
non-flaring structures.
1991–2001 The Soft X-ray Telescope, or SXT, on the Yohkoh satellite reveals the magnetically
structured, dynamic nature of the inner corona more clearly than ever before.
1991–2001 The Bragg Crystal Spectrometers, or BCS, aboard Yohkoh are used to show that
gas heated in the chromosphere from 10,000 K up to about 20 × 106 K flows into
flaring coronal loops at typical speeds of 350 km s−1 , producing the copious soft
X-ray emission seen during flares. These motions were studied and compared with
the prediction of theoretical models of flares. The BCS instruments were able to
show that the bulk of the gas in solar flares reaches a maximum temperature of
about 23 × 106 K, in contrast to some stellar flares that can be much hotter. The
reason for the solar limit is still unknown.
1991–1993 Gottfried Kanbach and colleagues report observations with the Compton Gamma
Ray Observatory of meson decay, gamma-ray flare on 11 June 1991, lasting 8 h.
1991–1998 Philip A. Isenberg, Terry G. Forbes, Pascal Démoulin, and Jun Lin develop the
catastrophe model of eruptive flares and coronal mass ejections involving the loss
of mechanical equilibrium of a force-free magnetic flux rope.
1992 Saku Tsuneta and his colleagues discover a cusp geometry in Yohkoh Soft X-
ray Telescope images of a longlasting (hours) soft X-ray flare at the solar limb
on 21 February 1992. The observations included a soft X-ray arch with a rising
cusp structure and separating footpoints, at speeds of 10–30 km s−1 , and were
explained by magnetic reconnection at a neutral sheet above the loop created by
pre-flare magnetic restructuring.
1992–1996 Kazunari Shibata and co-workers describe the physical parameters of coronal X-
ray jets, and develop a model for them involving reconnection between closed and
open magnetic field lines.
6.12 Key Events in Understanding Solar Outbursts 331

Date Event

1992–1996 Satoshi Masuda and his colleagues use the Hard X-ray Telescope aboard Yohkoh
to discover loop-top hard X-ray sources in compact two-ribbon and impulsive
solar flares, suggesting that flare particle acceleration and magnetic reconnection
occur in the cusp area above the closed soft X-ray flaring loop. The two expected
hard X-ray sources at the footpoints of that loop were also detected.
1994 Zoran Mikic and Jon A. Linker introduce a theoretical model in which solar flares
and coronal mass ejections are initiated by sudden disruptions of coronal mag-
netic field arcades when photospheric flows drive the arcades beyond a critical
shear. The magnetic fields expand outward, opening the field lines, and magnetic
reconnection releases magnetic energy with the ejection of plasma.
1994 David M. Rust proposes that helical magnetic fields spawned inside the Sun, and
detected in active regions and filaments, are expelled during solar outbursts to give
rise to observed helical magnetic clouds.
1994 Taro Sakao uses Yohkoh data to show that hard X-ray bursts occur simultaneously
at the footpoints of coronal loops, to within 0.2 s. This confirms that high-speed
electrons are accelerated in closed magnetic loops, with the emission of hard X-
rays as the electrons stream downwards along the magnetic field lines and enter
the dense lower layers of the solar atmosphere.
1994 The Wind spacecraft is launched on 1 November 1994. It provides nearly continu-
ous, direct, in-situ measurements of the solar wind, magnetic fields, and energetic
particles arriving at the Earth’s magnetosphere. Wind has also investigated the
shocks generated by coronal mass ejections, examined the characteristics of mag-
netic clouds, and with other spacecraft measured long, steady reconnection layers
in the solar wind near Earth.
1994–1997 Yoichiro Hanaoka and Kazsunari Shibata use data from Yohkoh’s Soft X-ray Tele-
scope to show that solar flares are associated with the magnetic interaction of
coronal loops, confirming Solar Maximum Mission observations by Marcos E.
Machado and colleagues in 1988.
1995 John W. Bieber and David M. Rust propose that emerging toroidal magnetic flux,
generated by dynamo action inside the Sun, is ejected into space by coronal mass
ejections, filament eruptions, and active region flares or loop expansion, collec-
tively removing some magnetic helicity from the Sun.
1995 Alexei A. Pevtsov, Richard C. Canfield, and Thomas R. Metcalf study the average
magnetic helicity in magnetographs of solar active regions over an 8-year period,
confirming the predominant hemisphere sign difference reported in 1990 by Nor-
bert Seehafer. Pevtsov and Canfield additionally confirmed such a hemisphere
helicity rule in 1999, but at a low level, and in 2008 Pevtsov and co-workers
showed that the solar active-region hemispheric helicity rule is a weak tendency
with significant scatter and with reliable results only for a large number of active
regions.
1995 The SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, is launched on 2
December 1995. The Large Angle and Spectometric Coronagraph, or LASCO for
short, aboard SOHO carried out more than a decade of investigations of coronal
mass ejections. SOHO’s Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, abbreviated EIT,
observed solar flares and the aftermath of coronal mass ejections during the same
period. The UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer, or UVCS for short, aboard
SOHO has also been used to study coronal mass ejections, as well as the solar
wind.
1995–1997 Kazunari Shibata and co-workers and Saku Tsuneta develop models of solar
flares, in which the main energy release and magnetic reconnection occur at an
X-point above the soft-X-ray flare loops. These loops are interpreted as newly
linked, closed magnetic fields, subsequently heated by slow shocks and filled by
chromospheric evaporation. These are detailed and elaborate extensions of the
CSHKP X-point magnetic-reconnection model of solar flares and erupting promi-
nences.
332 6 Our Violent Sun

Date Event

1996 Terry G. Forbes and Loren Acton use images of flare loops taken with the Soft
X-ray Telescope aboard Yohkoh to describe the decrease in height, or shrinkage,
of open field lines after they reconnect to form closed loops during solar flares.
1996 Alexei A. Pevtsov, Richard C. Canfield, and Harold Zirin present vector magne-
tograms and X-ray images of reconnection and helicity during a solar flare with
an observed twist that exceeds the threshold for the kink instability.
1996 David M. Rust and Ashok Kumar demonstrate that many Yohkoh soft X-ray im-
ages of the Sun exhibit transient brightening, known to be associated with erupting
prominences and coronal mass ejections, which are sigmoid, or S-shaped, with ra-
tios of length to width consistent with an eruption or ejection caused by the helical
kink instability of a kinked and twisted magnetic flux rope.
1996, 98 Markus J. Aschwanden and colleagues use observations with the Compton
Gamma Ray Observatory, abbreviated CGRO, to model electron time-of-flight
distances of fast, sub-second hard X-ray flare pulses, from the coronal accelera-
tion site to the chromosphere, showing that the acceleration occurs 50% higher
than the soft X-ray flare loop heights observed from Yohkoh.
1997 The Advanced Composition Explorer, or ACE for short, was launched on 25 Au-
gust 1997. From a vantage point just outside the Earth, ACE monitors the solar
wind, with its charged particles and magnetic fields, and observes high-energy
particles accelerated at the Sun, within the solar wind, or in galactic regions be-
yond the heliosphere.
1997 Markus J. Aschwanden and Arnold O Benz compare Yohkoh observations of soft
X-ray flare loops with electron densities inferred from the plasma frequencies of
decimetric and type III radio bursts, showing that the flare acceleration site is
located above the bright soft X-ray flare loops.
1997 J. Daniel Moses and colleagues describe the first observations with the Extreme-
ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, abbreviated EIT, aboard the SOlar and Helio-
spheric Observatory, or SOHO for short. New observations of coronal structures
with temperatures of 1–2 × 106 K are presented, including jets in polar coro-
nal holes.
1997 Alphonse C. Sterling and Hugh S. Hudson report Yohkoh Soft X-ray Telescope
observations of X-ray dimming associated with a halo coronal mass ejection, and
two years later Dominic M. Zarro and co-workers described SOHO EIT observa-
tions of extreme-ultraviolet dimming just before such a halo event.
1997–1999 Barbara J. Thompson and her colleagues report the detection of large-scale tran-
sient waves in the low corona, initiated by large solar flares that are also asso-
ciated with coronal mass ejections. The coronal waves were detected using the
EIT instrument aboard SOHO. They were identified as the coronal counterpart of
Moreton waves discovered in the chromosphere by Gail Moreton in 1960–1961
and explained by Yutaka Uchida in 1968 and 1973–1974, and have been variously
called EIT waves, Thompson waves, and coronal-Moreton waves.
1998 Sarah E. Gibson and Boon Chye Low present a theoretical model for the expulsion
of a coronal mass ejection involving a twisted magnetic flux rope.
1998 Sara F, Martin reviews the conditions for the formation and maintenance of fil-
aments, or prominences, and Jack B. Zirker, Oddbjorn Engvold, and Martin de-
scribe counter-streaming flows in them. Bogdan Rompolt previously reviewed the
small-scale filamentary structure and dynamics of prominences in 1990.
1998 The Transition Region And Coronal Explorer, abbreviated TRACE, is launched
on 1 April 1998; the high spatial resolution and rapid sequential images of the
TRACE telescope have, when combined with other simultaneous observations,
provided evidence for the mechanisms that trigger solar flares or coronal mass
ejections, as well as detailed information about flare ribbons and post-flare loops.
6.12 Key Events in Understanding Solar Outbursts 333

Date Event

1998 Alexander G. Kosovichev and Valentina V. Zharkova use the Michelson Doppler
Imager aboard SOHO to detect seismic waves generated when a powerful solar
flare sent beams of electrons into the Sun. Although most flares do not generate
detectable seismic waves, they were generated by flares in October 2003, and
reported by Alina-Catalina Donea and Charles Lindsey in 2005.
1998–1999 Spiro K. Antiochos, and his colleagues Carl Richard DeVore and James A. Klim-
chuk, present a magnetic breakout model for coronal mass ejections involving at
least two sets of closed magnetic loops, with a quadrupolar or multi-polar topol-
ogy, in which magnetic reconnection occurs between the overlying unsheared
loops and highly-sheared, low-lying ones, removing the unsheared field and al-
lowing the core sheared flux to burst open. In 2000, Guillaume Aulanier and col-
leagues presented observational support for this magnetic breakout model, as did
G. Allen Gary and Ronald L. Moore in 2004, but observations of other coronal
mass ejections are not consistent with it.
1999 Markus J. Aschwanden and colleagues, and Valery M. Nakariakov and co-workers
report TRACE observations of coronal loop oscillations excited by large flares.
They have periods of 2–7 min and are rapidly damped in comparable times. Caro-
lus J. Schrijver and co-workers gave an overview of these transverse loop oscilla-
tions in 2002, and Aschwanden and colleagues described the relevant geometrical
and physical parameters in the same year. In 2005, Nakariakov and Erwin Ver-
wiche prepared a Living Review about coronal waves and oscillations.
1999 Kenneth P. Dere and co-workers report observations of helical structure in coronal
mass ejections observed with the LASCO and EIT instruments aboard SOHO.
1999 Viacheslav S. Titov and Pascal Démoulin describe the topology of a force-free,
twisted magnetic flux rope that emerges from below the photosphere and becomes
unstable and erupts in the low corona.
2000 Tahar Amari and co-workers carry out numerical simulations of a twisted flux
rope model for coronal mass ejections, erupting prominences, and two-ribbon
flares. The twisted flux rope, which represents a prominence and exhibits an S-
shaped structure as observed in soft X-ray sigmoids, cannot stay in equilibrium
and releases considerable magnetic energy on disruption.
2000 Jun Lin and Terry G. Forbes investigate how magnetic reconnection affects the
acceleration of coronal mass ejections and vice versa. They describe a model of a
pre-existing magnetic flux rope that drives the ejection by means of a catastrophic
loss of mechanical equilibrium. The erupting field creates reconnection in a cur-
rent sheet, allowing the flux rope to overcome magnetic tension and escape from
the Sun.
2000 Angelos Vourlidas and colleagues use observations with SOHO’s LASCO to de-
termine the potential and kinetic energies of coronal mass ejections that exhibit
flux-rope morphologies, showing that they are magnetically driven.
2001 Lyndsay Fletcher and Hugh Hudson use SOHO, TRACE, and Yohkoh images of
flare ribbons at extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths, to support the hypoth-
esis that the flare ribbons mark out the chromospheric footpoints of magnetic
loops newly linked by reconnection.
2001 Petrus C. Martens and Cornelis Zwaan present a model for the formation, evolu-
tion, and eruption of solar filaments or prominences.
334 6 Our Violent Sun

Date Event

2001 Ronald L. Moore and colleagues provide observational evidence in support of a

tether-cutting model of coronal mass ejections. It is a single-loop, bipolar model
for eruptive solar flares, and their associated coronal mass ejections, in which a
magnetic explosion is unleashed by runaway tether-cutting via internal magnetic
connection in the middle of a single sheared and twisted core bipole with a sig-
moid shape.
2001 Jie Zhang and co-workers use instruments aboard SOHO to study the temporal
relationship between coronal mass ejections and solar flares, describing a three-
phase speed profile for coronal mass ejections – the initiation, impulsive acceler-
ation, and propagation phases. The initiation phase is characterized by a slow rise
with a speed of about 80 kilometers per second for a period of tens of minutes.
The subsequent acceleration phase, which coincides with the flare impulsive rise
and lasts a few to tens of minutes, ceases near the peak of the soft X-ray emission
and is followed by the propagation phase.
2002 The Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager, abbreviated RHESSI, is
launched on 5 February 2002 to investigate high-energy acceleration processes
close to the Sun by observing flare radiation from soft X-rays to gamma rays.
2002–2003 Tongjiang J. Wang and co-workers discover and describe hot coronal loop oscilla-
tions, with temperatures greater than 6 × 106 K and oscillation and decay periods
between 7 and 31 min. They were detected as Doppler shifts of spectral lines using
the SUMER instrument aboard SOHO.
2003 Gordon J. Hurford and co-workers obtain the first image of a solar flare at gamma-
ray wavelengths, in the 2.223 MeV neutron capture line using an imaging instru-
ment aboard RHESSI. The gamma-ray sources were displaced from the hard X-ray
ones, which was not expected. The first image of a double-footpoint, gamma-ray
line, flare source was also obtained from RHESSI.
2003 Ilia I. Roussev and colleagues (2003a, b) present numerical simulations of the
eruption of a three-dimensional magnetic flux rope balanced between magnetic
compression and tension forces, and investigate the loss of equilibrium that might
initiate a coronal mass ejection, as suggested by Titov and Démoulin in 1999.
2003 Gerald H. Share and David M. Smith, and their colleagues, report the spectral res-
olution of the positron-annihilation and nuclear de-excitation lines at gamma-ray
wavelengths during solar flares using an instrument aboard RHESSI. The annihi-
lation lines were unexpectedly broad and the de-excitation lines exhibited mass
dependent Doppler shifts.
2003 Haiman Wang and colleagues use observations of the separation of two flare rib-
bons, associated with a quiescent filament eruption and fast coronal mass ejec-
tion, to provide evidence that the impulsive flare energy release is governed by
fast magnetic reconnection in the corona.
2003 David F. Webb and co-workers show that about half the coronal mass ejections
observed from 1984 to 1989 with the coronagraph aboard the Solar Maximum
Mission spacecraft are followed by coaxial, bright rays, suggesting trailing current
sheets and magnetic reconnection in an X-type neutral point that rises in the wake
of the ejection.
2003 Mei Zhang and Leon Golub investigate TRACE observations of flares associated
with fast and slow coronal mass ejections detected with the LASCO instrument
on SOHO, showing that footpoint-separating, two-ribbon brightenings are often
present during the fast mass ejections while appearing less often in flares associ-
ated with slow coronal mass ejections.
6.12 Key Events in Understanding Solar Outbursts 335

Date Event

2003–2005 Linhui Sui and Gordon Holman use an imaging instrument aboard RHESSI in
2003 to discover a compact coronal X-ray source with a temperature gradient
increasing downward, opposite to that at the top of flare X-ray loops below the
compact source, demonstrating that energy release occurred in the corona between
the top of the loops and the coronal source. In 2005, they teamed up with Brian
Dennis to show that the weak coronal X-ray sources propagate outward following
a coronal mass ejection, supporting a model in which free magnetic energy is
released in a coronal current sheet where magnetic reconnection occurs.
2003–2007 Angela Ciaravella, Yuan-Kuen Ko, and Jun Lin, and their colleagues, report
SOHO UVCS observations of the dynamical and physical properties of long, nar-
row current sheets formed in the wake of coronal mass ejections detected with
LASCO on SOHO.
2004 Yuhong Fan and Sarah E. Gibson provide numerical simulations of three-
dimensional coronal magnetic fields resulting from the emergence of twisted
flux tubes.
2004 Lyndsay Fletcher and co-workers use TRACE to measure the motions of a solar
flare’s foopoint ribbons, obtaining an average speed of 15 km s−1 and measuring
the magnetic reconnection rate.
2004 Jun Lin, John C. Raymond, and Adriaan A. Van Ballegooijen investigate the role
of magnetic reconnection on the observable features of a coronal mass ejection,
tentatively identifying the outer shell, the expanded bubble and a pre-existing flux
rope with the leading edge, void, and core of a three-component mass ejection, and
show that the observed features and physical processes are similar to those of a
model in which a flux rope is made during the eruption by magnetic reconnection.
2004 Thomas G. Moran and Joseph M. Davila present the first three-dimensional po-
larimetric imaging of a coronal mass ejection using data taken with the LASCO
instrument aboard SOHO.
2004 Thomas N. Woods and colleagues report the first detection of a solar flare in the
total solar irradiance, on 28 October 2003, using NASA’s SOlar Radiation and
Climate Experiment, abbreviated SORCE.
2004 Jie Zhang and co-workers report correlations between the observed features of
solar flares and coronal mass ejections, which indicate that when the two kinds
of outbursts occur together they are strongly coupled, with the same processes
involved in the mass ejection and flare energy release.
2005 Marina Battaglia, Paolo C. Grigis, and Arnold O. Benz find that small flares have
on the average a softer hard X-ray spectrum than large flares. Thus large flares
cannot be composed of many small flares.
2005 George A. Doschek and Harry P. Warren revisit chromospheric evaporation in
flares using soft X-ray spectra obtained by the Bragg Crystal Spectrometer exper-
iment on Yohkoh, with comparisons to different models.
2005 Gregory D. Fleishman, Gelu M. Nita, and Dale E. Gary present controversial ev-
idence that some decimetric continuum radio bursts, in the 10–30 cm wavelength
range, are produced by an incoherent emission mechanism, most likely resonant
transition radiation resulting from the interaction of fast electrons with small-scale
inhomogeneities in the background plasma.
2005 Carolus J. Schrijver and colleagues use TRACE and SOHO MDI observations to
show that non-potential coronal magnetic fields in active regions emerge from be-
low.
336 6 Our Violent Sun

Date Event

2005 Vasyl Yurchyshyn and co-workers study the statistical distribution of the observed
speeds of 4,315 coronal mass ejections in the plane of the sky, obtaining a log
normal distribution. It suggests that the same non-linear driving mechanism is
acting in both slow and fast coronal mass ejections.
2006 Sarah E. Gibson and Yuhong Fan further develop the twisted magnetic flux rope
interpretation of soft X-ray sigmoids and prominence eruptions, and with Tibor
Török and Bernhard Kliem review the evolution of evolving sigmoids as evidence
for magnetic flux ropes before, during, and after coronal mass ejections.
2006 The Japanese Hinode, meaning sunrise, spacecraft is launched on 23 September
2006 to investigate how magnetic interactions and related processes generate the
solar atmosphere and solar activity, including how magnetic energy is converted
into intense ultraviolet and X-ray radiation and how magnetic interactions cause
solar flares and coronal mass ejections.
2006 The twin spacecraft of the Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory, abbrevi-
ated STEREO A and B, are launched on 25 October 2006, to obtain a three-
dimensional, stereoscopic view of coronal mass ejections from their onset at the
Sun to the orbit of the Earth, and to thereby investigate the origin, evolution, mech-
anisms, and interplanetary propagation of coronal mass ejections.
2006 Thomas N. Woods, Greg Kopp, and Philip C. Chamberlin report the detection of
very energetic flares in total solar irradiance measurements from NASA’s SOlar
Radiation and Climate Experiment, abbreviated SORCE, and demonstrate that
the total flare energy is about 100 times the energy observed in soft X-rays from
GOES in the 0.1–0.8 nm range.
2007 Richard C. Canfield and colleagues study the structure, formation, and evolution
of 107 bright sigmoids viewed over a decade of observations with the Soft X-ray
Telescope aboard Yohkoh, showing that they are all composed of multiple loops,
and compare their X-ray configurations to magnetic field extrapolations from pho-
tospheric magnetograms. They identified 163 eruptions associated with the sig-
moids, 83% of which were detected as coronal mass ejections by the LASCO
instrument aboard SOHO.
2007 Sujin Kim and colleagues combine Hinode X-Ray Telescope images of an im-
pulsive flare with those from TRACE and SOHO’s MDI to support a flare tether-
cutting model involving a single-bipole explosion with a sigmoidal structure and
two-step, pre-flare and main phase, magnetic reconnection.
2008 David E. McKenzie and Richard C. Canfield present high-resolution Hinode ob-
servations of a longlasting coronal sigmoid that erupted as a solar flare, and
show that the sigmoid is composed of two separate J-shaped, anti-parallel bun-
dles of loops.
Chapter 7
Space Weather

7.1 The Space Weather Concept

The Sun is the ultimate power source. It warms the ground we walk on, lights our
days, sustains life, and provides directly or indirectly most of the energy on our
planet. And it is solar heat that powers the winds and cycles water from sea to rain,
the source of our weather and arbiter of our climate. Nowadays, and in all former
times, it is the Sun-driven seasons that dominate weather on Earth.
Once it was realized that the space between the Sun and the Earth is not empty,
and just more rarefied than our transparent atmosphere, it was natural to suppose
that the Sun also powered weather in space. In 1959, for example, Thomas Gold
proposed that space vehicles should measure the permanent and variable features
of the interplanetary medium, as the “counterpart of meteorology on Earth,” de-
termining the space equivalents of “meteorological measurements of temperature,
pressure, and wind.” And that is just what happened, beginning just a few years
later when the Soviet and American spacecraft, Luna 2 and Mariner 2, reached out
to sample the density and speed of the solar wind.
In 2006, R.P. Kane traced the term space weather to a 1967 technical report by
T.M. Georges and to the preface of a 1970 book edited by Patrick McIntosh and
Murray Dryer. So Gold apparently did not introduce the designation, but in his 1959
discussion he did coin the word magnetosphere, as the region in space near the Earth
where the terrestrial magnetic field dominates the motions of charged particles.
The modern definition of the term space weather, adopted by the U.S. National
Space Weather Plan, refers to conditions on the Sun and in the solar wind, magne-
tosphere, ionosphere, and thermosphere, which can influence the performance and
reliability of space-borne and ground-based technological systems and which can
affect human life and health. The ionosphere and thermosphere refer to the upper
layers of the Earth’s atmosphere, which are heated and ionized by the Sun’s variable
extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray radiation.
So space weather includes effects near the Earth, driven by processes on the
Sun, and two of these effects, intense auroras and geomagnetic storms, have long
been attributed to solar activity. Already in 1716, Edmond Halley, for example, had
suggested that a spectacular aurora display was due to particles, or “magnetical

K.R. Lang, The Sun from Space, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, 337

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009
338 7 Space Weather

effluvia” moving along the Earth’s magnetic field lines, and in 1773 Jean Jacques
d’Ortous de Mairan had asserted that the aurora are due to a mingling of the solar
and terrestrial atmospheres.
In 1722, George Graham developed a sensitive compass and used it to show
that the Earth’s magnetic field undergoes large and rapid variations, which are
now called geomagnetic storms. Anders Celsius, who independently discovered the
storms around the same time, collaborated with Graham to compare the magnetic
variations in London and Uppsala, showing that the disturbances are planetary rather
than local in scale. And in 1747, Celsius’ student, Olaf Hioter, noted that auroras
are accompanied by magnetic deflections.
About a century later, in 1843, Samuel Heinrich Schwabe announced his discov-
ery of the decade-long variation in the number of sunspots, and at about this time
Edward Sabine was analyzing the magnetic measurements obtained at army stations
in Britain and its colonies. In 1852, the astronomer, John Herschel, wrote to Sabine
about the 11-year sunspot period and its possible relationship to the magnetic field
measurements. In reply, Colonel Sabine reported that the frequency of global mag-
netic storms rose and fell with the number of sunspots.
Sunspots do not cause geomagnetic storms, but for quite a long time it was
supposed that solar flares do produce them. The first recorded white-light flare,
independently discovered by Richard Carrington and Richard Hodgson in 1859,
was followed some 17.5 h later by one of the largest magnetic storms on record,
measured at the Kew Observatory in London. And George Ellery Hale presented
systematic evidence for a relation between solar flares and geomagnetic storms in
1931. He used systematic, Balmer hydrogen-alpha flare observations and terrestrial
magnetic data to show that the great magnetic storms tend to follow solar flares
in about 26 h, the time it might take flare particles to reach the Earth. Harold W.
Newton further bolstered the case for a flare connection in 1943, when he examined
about a half-century of observations and found a significant correlation between
very intense solar flares and great magnetic storms that occurred about a day later.
So for many decades, it was widely supposed that the great, non-recurrent
geomagnetic storms that shake the Earth’s magnetic field to its very foundations
are indeed caused by powerful solar flares. After all, these storms occur most often
when the Sun is more spotted and solar flares are also more frequent.
The solar flare theory nevertheless had its problems. Since electrons repel each
other, a focused stream of electrons sent into space from solar flares will disperse
before it reaches Earth. Frederick Lindemann (later Lord Cherwell) temporarily
saved the explanation in 1919 when he suggested that an electrically neutral cloud
or stream, containing equal numbers of electrons and protons, would hold itself
together when traveling from the Sun to the Earth. About a decade later, Sydney
Chapman and Vincent C.A. Ferraro suggested that electric currents are induced in
such a plasma cloud when it encounters the Earth’s magnetic field, resulting in geo-
magnetic storms.
The prophetic Thomas Gold noticed in 1955 that interplanetary shocks gener-
ated by ejections from the Sun could cause the abrupt, sudden onsets of geomag-
netic storms when striking the Earth. Of course, coronal mass ejections were not
7.1 The Space Weather Concept 339

even discovered until the 1970s, but it was eventually realized that they push strong
shocks ahead of them. If directed toward the Earth, these shocks can ram into the
terrestrial magnetic fields and trigger the initial phase, or sudden commencement,
of a large geomagnetic storm. The most intense, non-recurrent geomagnetic storms
occur when fast coronal mass ejections hit the Earth’s magnetosphere with the right
magnetic alignment, and they also generate power surges on transmission lines that
could cause electrical power blackouts of entire cities. And since solar flares of-
ten accompany the fast, intense coronal mass ejections, the observed correlations of
flares and great geomagnetic storms would be explained.
But solar flares do have important space-weather consequences. During World
War II, for example, it was realized that strong flares could disrupt radio commu-
nications on Earth. Intense X-ray and extreme-ultraviolet radiation emitted during
the flares heats the Earth’s atmosphere, disrupting communications and also altering
satellite orbits.
Sudden signals in cosmic ray detectors at Earth were associated with solar flares,
by Scott Forbush in 1946 and Peter Meyer and colleagues in 1956. This suggested
that the flares could accelerate charged particles to extraordinarily high, cosmic ray
energies in excess of 5 GeV.
We now realize that very energetic particles can also be accelerated by the in-
terplanetary shocks associated with coronal mass ejections, and not just at the Sun
during solar flares. Charles P. Sonett and colleagues and Marcia Neugebauer and
Conway W. Snyder first observed interplanetary shock waves, in 1964 and 1967,
respectively, using instruments aboard the Mariner 2 spacecraft. Early theoretical
insights were summarized by Eugene Parker in his concise 1963 book entitled In-
terplanetary Dynamical Processes, while pioneering observations were reviewed
by David S. Colburn and Sonett in 1966, Leonard F. Burlaga in 1971, and Murray
Dryer in 1974 and 1982.
As our civilization deploys ever more sophisticated, space-borne technological
systems, it becomes increasingly at the mercy of storms in space. Its gusts and
squalls, the cosmic equivalent of terrestrial blizzards or hurricanes, are related to
explosive outbursts on the Sun, and to dynamic processes in interplanetary space, in
near-Earth space, and in the magnetosphere.
Down here on the ground, we are shielded from much of this space weather by
the Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic fields, keeping us from bodily harm. But out in
deep space there is no place to hide, and both humans and satellites are vulnerable.
Energetic protons accelerated by solar flares or coronal mass ejections can crip-
ple spacecraft and seriously endanger unprotected astronauts that venture into outer
space. Sun storms can also disrupt global radio communications and disable satel-
lites used for navigation, military reconnaissance or surveillance, and communica-
tion, from cell phones to pagers, with considerable economic, safety, and security
consequences. This technology has become part of our everyday lives, enhancing
our vulnerability to space weather and increasing the importance of understanding
and predicting it.
Exceptionally powerful solar outbursts, producing the greatest damage at Earth,
are legendary. In March 1989, for example, a geomagnetic storm produced by a
340 7 Space Weather

powerful coronal mass ejection disrupted the electrical power system in Quebec,
Canada, plunging the entire province into complete darkness. In March and April
2001, the space weather spawned by solar flares and coronal mass ejections cut off
radio communications, and disrupted or damaged several military and commercial
satellites. And damage from the Bastille Day flare (Fig. 7.1), on 14 July 2000, was
mitigated by alerts and warnings to industry, the military, and space agencies.
There were the record-breaking Halloween storms of 18 October and 5 Novem-
ber 2003, when scores of coronal mass ejections traveled fast and wide through in-
terplanetary space. During these Halloween storms, there were 11 flares of the most
powerful X-class, including the most intense one ever recorded from the GOES se-
ries of spacecraft, 90 coronal mass ejections detected by SOHO, at least 16 shocks
observed near the Sun, with 8 of them intercepted by spacecraft along the Sun–Earth
line. Powerful solar energetic particle events arrived at Earth, where they were ob-
served from the ACE and GOES spacecraft, including some of the highest proton
fluxes on record. And intense geomagnetic storms were also measured, including 2
of the 12 biggest ones since records began in 1932.
The Halloween storms damaged 28 satellites, knocking two out of commission,
and caused power blackouts in Sweden. Astronauts in the International Space Sta-
tion were ordered into the aft portion of the station five times during this time
interval. Power-grid operators on Earth modified their system operations to avoid
damage and outages, and nuclear power stations reduced their power output or de-
layed power switching. Global positional system and satellite communication sys-

Fig. 7.1 Solar flare produces energetic particle storm. A powerful solar flare (left), occurring
at 10 h 24 min Universal Time on Bastille day 14 July 2000, unleashed high-energy protons that
began striking the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, spacecraft near Earth
about 8 min later, continuing for many hours, as shown in the image taken on 22 h 43 min Uni-
versal Time on the same day (right). Both images were taken at a wavelength of 19.5 nm, emitted
at the Sun by 11 times ionized iron, denoted Fe XII, at a temperature of about 1.5 × 106 K, us-
ing the Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, abbreviated EIT, on the SOlar and Heliospheric
Observatory, or SOHO for short. (Courtesy of the SOHO EIT consortium. SOHO is a project of
international cooperation between ESA and NASA)
7.1 The Space Weather Concept 341

tems experienced difficulty, and airplanes were diverted to avoid dangerous radia-
tion and communication outages.
The field of space weather is growing rapidly. A space-weather monograph,
edited by Paul Song, Howard J. Singer, and George L. Siscoe, was published in
2001, and a well written book entitled Storms from the Sun: The Emerging Science
of Space Weather was published by Michael Carlowicz and Ramon Lopez in 2002.
Volker Bothmer and Ionannis A. Daglis published Space Weather – Physics and Ef-
fects in 2006; it is written by a team of international experts on topics that include
space-weather impacts on the terrestrial atmosphere and magnetosphere, communi-
cations, power grids, spacecraft hardware and operations, and satellite navigation, as
well as space-weather forecasting. An international journal devoted to the topic, and
appropriately named Space Weather, was launched by the American Geophysical
Union in 2003, with the help of the U.S. National Science Foundation. The serious
student or curious reader may want to explore some of these topics in greater detail,
and they should consult reviews prepared by professionals in the field (Focus 7.1).

Focus 7.1
Expert Reviews about Space Weather Topics
Professional solar astronomers and astrophysicists have reviewed important devel-
opments in our knowledge of space weather. In alphabetical order, they include
Markus Aschwanden and co-worker’s (2006) review of theoretical modeling for
the STEREO mission, Edward L. Chupp’s (1984, 1987) reviews of the observa-
tions and physics of gamma ray and neutron production during solar flares, Wal-
ter D. Gonzalez, Bruce T. Tsurutani, and Alicia D. Clau De Gonzales’s (1999)
review of the interplanetary origin of geomagnetic storms, Natchimuthuk Gopal-
swamy and co-worker’s (2006b) review of the pre-eruptive Sun, John T. Gosling’s
(1996) review of co-rotating and transient solar wind flows in three dimensions,
Stephen W. Kahler’s (1992) review of solar flares and coronal mass ejections and
Kahler’s (2007) review of the solar sources of heliospheric energetic electron events,
Berndt Klecker and co-workers (2006) review of energetic particle observations,
Horst Kunow and co-worker’s (2006) review of coronal mass ejections, Robert P.
Lin’s (1987) review of particle acceleration by the Sun, Glenn Mason and Trevor
R. Sanderson’s (1999) review of co-rotating interaction region associated energetic
particles in the inner and middle heliosphere, Zoran Mikic and M. A. Lee’s (2006)
introduction to the theory and models of coronal mass ejections, shocks, and solar
energetic particles, Donald V. Reames’s (1999) review of particle acceleration at the
Sun and in the heliosphere, and Rainer Schwenn and co-worker’s (2006) review of
coronal observations of coronal mass ejections.
The contributions of scientists working on specific topics are often presented
at meetings or workshops and subsequently published in book form. They in-
clude Coronal Mass Ejections, edited by Nancy Crooker, Jo Ann Joselyn, and Joan
Feynman (1997), a book of the same title edited by Horst Kunow in 2006, Solar
Eruptions and Energetic Particles, edited by Natchimuthuk Gopalswamy, Richard
Mewaldt, and Jarmo Torsti (2006a), and SOHO-20: Transient Events on the Sun
342 7 Space Weather

and in the Heliosphere, edited by Bernhard Fleck, Joseph B. Gurman, Jean-Francois

Hochedez, and Eva Robbrecht (2008).
And there are no less than five recent living reviews on related topics, at
http://www.livingreviews.org. They are: Rainer Schwenn’s (2006) review of Space
Weather: The Solar Perspective; Tuija Pulkkinen’s (2007) Space Weather: Terres-
trial Perspective; on longer time scales, Joanna D. Haigh’s (2007) The Sun and the
Earth’s Climate and Manuel Güdel’s (2007) The Sun in Time: Activity and Environ-
ment, and Arnold O Benz’s (2008) Flare Observations. Mark Moldwin has created a
fascinating timeline of solar-terrestrial physics at http://measure.igpp.ucla.edu/solar-
terrestrial-luminaries/timeline.html.

To fully understand space weather, we must first learn how a storm develops on
the Sun, and our beginning investigations of the origin of solar flares and coronal
mass ejections were discussed in the previous Sect. 6.10. We would also like to
anticipate when a solar storm is likely to occur, and the next Sect. 7.2 describes some
of the forecast possibilities. And like everyday weather forecasts here on Earth,
we want to know if a storm is headed our way, how it changes while traveling
toward us, when it will arrive, and how dangerous it is likely to be. Section 7.3
describes the hazardous solar energetic particles that are accelerated to high energy
on the Sun or in interplanetary space and travel to the Earth, while their effects when
impacting our planet are presented in Sect. 7.4. The concluding Sect. 7.5 considers
longer-term effects of the Sun on Earth, on time scales of decades, centuries, and
millennia, which we term Sun – climate. This concluding section also discusses
human-induced global warming and the next astronomically induced ice age.

7.2 Forecasting Space Weather

What everyone wants to know is when a Sun storm is going to occur. Most of the
fastest coronal mass ejections, with the largest amount of energy, come from mag-
netic explosions in active regions with sunspots, producing a flare in tandem with the
ejections and often beginning with an erupting prominence or filament. So a good
place to begin our space weather forecasts is to know when a threatening active
region, with its sunspots and strong magnetic fields, is on the Sun.
Active regions appear more frequently near the maximum of the 11-year sunspot
cycle, as do solar flares and coronal mass ejections. So long-term solar activity can
be forecast in a general way using this cycle.
On a shorter time scale of weeks, we can use helioseismology to detect large
solar active regions on the hidden backside of the Sun, with techniques introduced
by Douglas C. Braun and Charles Lindsey in 2001 (also see Sect. 3.8). Since the
solar equator rotates with a period of 27 days, when viewed from Earth, the de-
tection of a magnetically complex and strong active region on the far side of the
Sun can give more than a week’s warning before it swings into view to threaten the
Earth. Daily images of the unseen, far side of the Sun are available on the web at
http://soi.stanford.edu/data/full farside and http://gong.nso.edu.
7.2 Forecasting Space Weather 343

Once a strong active region rotates into view, we know it’s there, perhaps primed
for an outburst like a dark storm cloud looming on the horizon. Its strong, complex
magnetic fields can be detected in the photosphere using magnetograms, from the
ground or space, and its intense extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray radiation can be mon-
itored from spacecraft such as SOHO, TRACE, Hinode, and in the near future from
the Solar Dynamics Observatory.
So we know when there is a threatening cloud on the horizon, so to speak, but we
still do not know, with certainty, if and when the storm might occur, with an active
region emitting a powerful solar flare and/or coronal mass ejection. But timely space
weather forecasts can be linked to observations of the active-region magnetic fields,
determining when they are sheared and twisted away from the potential, current-free
state (also see Sect. 6.10). Moreover, there are also the occasional erupting filaments
or prominences that are not associated with sunspots or active regions; they can also
affect the Earth and additionally trace the magnetic field topology involved in the
associated coronal mass ejection.
One indication of such a stressed magnetic configuration is the presence of a
soft X-ray, active-region sigmoid. As demonstrated by Richard Canfield, Alphonse
Sterling, and their colleagues in 1999 and 2000, such sigmoid regions are more
likely to produce coronal mass ejections than non-sigmoid active regions. Pre-
eruptive sigmoid patterns are apparently present in over half the coronal mass ejec-
tions, but there is not a one-to-one correspondence. Scientists are now using Hinode
to study the detailed evolution of sheared magnetic fields in a sigmoid, hoping to
understand the mechanisms that lead to solar outbursts from them – see for exam-
ple the studies by David McKenzie and Richard Canfield and by Yingna Sun and
colleagues in 2008.
Another approach uses magnetograms to assess the non-potentiality of active-
region magnetic fields. In 2002, for example, David A. Falconer, Ronald L. Moore,
and Gilmer Allen Gary demonstrated that the coronal mass ejection productivity of
solar active regions is correlated with their overall non-potentiality, or their overall
twist and shear, detected in vector magnetograms.
The signature of an immanent explosion might be found deeper down, under the
photosphere. In 2005, Carolus J. Schrijver and colleagues used TRACE and SOHO’s
MDI to show that the non-potentiality, or magnetic free energy, in the coronal con-
figuration of active regions is driven by flux emergence from below. And in the
following year, Douglas Mason and co-workers used the techniques of local helio-
seismology to demonstrate that the strength of flares from active regions is corre-
lated with the amount of circulating, sideways flows beneath them. Helioseismic
inversions using GONG data also show the development of strong vorticity flows
below sunspots prior to flare activity.
However, some regions that exhibit magnetic shear and twist never erupt, so con-
torted magnetism may be a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for solar flares
or coronal mass ejections. And the Sun’s sudden and unexpected outbursts often
remain as unpredictable as most human passions. They just keep on happening, and
even seem to be necessary to purge the Sun of pent-up frustration and to relieve it
of twisted, contorted magnetism.
344 7 Space Weather

And to be honest, scientists have not solved the question of what exactly initiates
a solar flare or coronal mass ejection, igniting the explosion from stressed coronal
magnetic fields? They think the storms might be triggered when magnetized coronal
loops are pressed together, driven by motions beneath them, meeting to touch each
other, merging to break open the magnetic fields and release free magnetic energy.
But no one has identified a signature that allows the prediction of exactly when such
an outburst might occur. So far, we only have signs of a possible solar storm; it is
something like seeing that dark storm cloud but not knowing if it is going to rain.
But even after a solar outburst has occurred, there is still time to take cover from
some of the most damaging results. The exact warning time depends on the type of
solar hazard, since they travel with different velocities and on various trajectories
in space. Powerful solar flares can be detected just 8.3 min after they happen, in the
time it takes for their intense radiation to travel from the Sun to just outside the Earth
where SOHO or the GOES satellites are located. But once you see the radiation, it
is too late, for it has already arrived.
In comparison to radiation, the forecast times for coronal mass ejections can be
quite comfortable. The fastest ones are usually accompanied by intense flares, which
can signal the mass ejection. Then, at a speed of about 1, 000 km s−1 , it takes 42 h or
1.7 days for the coronal mass ejection to reach Earth. Such coronal mass ejections
have a direct impact on the Earth, including intense geomagnetic storms and aurora
(Sect. 7.4).
Of course, coronal mass ejections are not always accompanied by solar flares,
and vice versa; indeed, the large majority of flares occur without ejecting substantial
mass. But there are other ways to know when an Earth-approaching ejection has
occurred on the Sun.
If it is headed toward our planet, a coronal mass ejection must occur on the visible
solar disk, and such front-side halo events are seen in white-light coronagraphs,
such as SOHO’s LASCO. The actual source regions are most likely hidden by the
coronagraph-occulting disk, but there are extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray signatures
that can be detected with other instruments. Hugh S. Hudson and Edward W. Cliver
summarized these non-coronagraphic manifestations in 2001, including the coronal
X-ray dimming discussed in Sect. 6.9. Natchimuthuk Gopalswamy and colleagues
have also reviewed possible signatures of an impending ejection in 2006.
Solar energetic particles, accelerated by solar flares or coronal mass ejection and
interplanetary shocks, pose a real threat to unprotected astronauts and equipment in
space. Although the high-energy electrons move about as fast as radiation, the more
dangerous protons apparently move at slower speeds. As demonstrated by Arik Pos-
ner in 2007, the measured arrivals of 50 MeV protons are delayed on average 63 min
from the first-arriving high-speed electrons. Solar electron monitoring can therefore
give about an hour’s advance warning of the arrival of energetic protons and heav-
ier ions, which carry a significantly higher long-term risk to astronaut health than
the electrons. For robotic missions, forecasts by the direct, in situ electron measure-
ments can be used to switch off sensitive equipment, protecting both the instruments
and their data.
7.3 Solar Energetic Particles 345

Spacecraft that are situated at the first Lagrangian point, at 1.4 × 106 km from the
Earth, provide measurements of the incoming solar energetic particles and the solar
wind an additional 40 min to an hour before they reach the outer edges of the magne-
tosphere, traveling at solar wind velocities, so they can be used for forecasting with
up to an extra hour’s warning time. As an example, the Advanced Composition Ex-
plorer, abbreviated ACE, uses real-time observations to provide short-term forecasts
of shock-accelerated, high-energy protons at http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ASC/
rtsw.html, reducing the risk to astronauts and space hardware located closer to
the Earth.
But what exactly are these threats, and how do they move through space from the
Sun to the Earth? These are our next topics.

7.3 Solar Energetic Particles

7.3.1 Energetic Particles Accelerated by Solar Flares or Coronal

Mass Ejection Shocks

For more than half a century, we have known that extraordinarily energetic particles
can be hurled into space during a solar flare, with some of them striking the Earth.
In the 1940s, for example, Scott Forbush and his colleagues used ground-based
cosmic ray detectors to rather unexpectedly record transient increases in the number
of energetic charged particles arriving at Earth after solar flares. Balloon and rocket
observations in the late 1950s and early 1960s indicated that the most energetic
particles detected near the Earth following solar flares are mainly protons. And since
they seemed to be created at or near the Sun, they were dubbed solar cosmic rays.
The other “galactic” cosmic rays also include energetic protons and heavier ions that
rain down on the Earth, coming in all directions from interstellar space. They travel
with even greater energy than the solar protons, but with lower flux (Table 7.1).
Today, we use the term solar energetic particles to denote high-energy electrons,
protons, or other ions arriving at the Earth from the Sun.
Solar energetic particle events, which can be associated with either coronal mass
ejections or solar flares, are a major element of space weather. They can severely

Table 7.1 Energy and flux of protons arriving at Eartha

Source Energy (MeV) Flux (protons m−2 s−1 )

Cosmic rays 1,000 6 × 102

Coronal mass ejections 10 3 × 108
Solar flares 10 1 × 107
Solar wind 0.001 5 × 1012
a An energy of 1 MeV = 106 eV = 1.6 × 10−6 erg = 1.6 × 10−13 J
346 7 Space Weather

affect the health of unprotected astronauts traveling outside the Earth’s protective
magnetosphere, and they are capable of penetrating spacecraft to damage or disrupt
sensitive technical systems. The strongest events produce radiation doses that might
be lethal to astronauts fixing a spacecraft in outer space or taking a walk on the Moon
or Mars. So there is danger blowing in the gusts and squalls of the Sun’s winds.
Energetic particles coming at the Earth from the Sun have the same main in-
gredients as the steady, ever-flowing solar wind, but with much faster speeds and
vastly greater energy. During solar flares, protons and electrons can be accelerated
to speeds of more than 100 times that of the solar wind, achieving energies as high
as 20,000 million electron volts (20 GeV) and 100 million electron volts (100 MeV),
respectively; this is at least 10,000 times more energetic than solar wind particles.
Because protons are 1,836 times as massive as electrons, and move with comparable
speed, protons are far more energetic than electrons in both flares and the wind.
Observations of flaring hard X-ray continuum and gamma ray spectral lines,
which are respectively produced by energetic electrons and protons hurled down
into the Sun, have shown that intense flares can accelerate electrons up to hundreds
of MeV and protons up to many GeV in energy. This radiation has been observed
for decades, and so have the flare-associated protons and electrons, observed in situ
with particle detectors aboard spacecraft stationed near the Earth or traveling in in-
terplanetary space. In 1984 and 1987, Edward L. Chupp reviewed some of the early
results obtained with instruments aboard the Solar Maximum Mission.
Only exceptionally rare and energetic solar protons are detected at the Earth’s
surface. They need energies of about 1 GeV to spiral around the terrestrial magnetic
fields with a large enough radius to reach the ground. Lower-energy protons move
along the terrestrial magnetic fields in a tighter spiral, and are channeled into the
polar regions where they enhance the ionosphere.
Energetic electrons produced during solar outbursts have been inferred from
ground-based radio astronomical observations. In 1963, John Paul Wild, Stephan F.
Smerd, and A.A. Weiss reviewed the pioneering radio investigations of the 1950s,
inferring two separate phases of electron acceleration. The impulsive type III bursts
were attributed to electrons moving at with energies of 10–100 keV. In large flares,
electrons were supposed to be additionally accelerated to higher energies of up to
1 GeV, by shocks that propagated away from the Sun; and these shocks were also
supposed to produce type II radio bursts. Radio astronomers spotted these elec-
trons leaving the Sun, stimulating oscillations of lower and lower frequency as they
passed through and jostled the progressively more rarefied coronal atmosphere,
with a fast drift for the type III bursts and a slower drift for type II radio bursts
(Sect. 6.6).
Energetic charged particles generated during solar flares will only threaten our
planet if they occur at just the right place on the Sun, at one end of a spiral magnetic
field line that connects the flaring region to the Earth. Given the right circumstances,
with a flare near the west limb and the solar equator, the magnetic spiral acts like an
interplanetary highway that connects the flaring electrons to the Earth. Spacecraft
observations of type III radio bursts have been used to track the electrons as they
move away from the Sun, confirming that open magnetic field lines connect flares
7.3 Solar Energetic Particles 347

directly into the interplanetary medium. And studies combining Helios 1 and 2 and
IMP 8 observations have demonstrated that the spacecraft with a spiral magnetic
connection closest to the flare nearly always detects the highest intensity of energetic
particles.
Moving along its spiral magnetic conduit at about half the speed of light, a 100-
keV electron generated during a type III radio burst travels from the Sun to the
Earth in about 20 min. These interplanetary electrons have been directly sampled
by in situ measurements using interplanetary probes and Earth-orbiting satellites. In
1965, James A. Van Allen and Stramatios M. Krimigis, for example, used a detector
on NASA’s Mars-bound spacecraft Mariner 4 to observe impulsive bursts of high-
speed electrons in deep space, with energies greater than 40 keV.
Direct particle detections from spacecraft in the 1970s indicated that the relative
abundances of solar energetic particles arriving at the Earth depend on the initiating
event at the Sun or in interplanetary space. In 1970, for example, Robert P. Lin pre-
sented evidence obtained from the Interplanetary Magnetic Platform, abbreviated
IMP, satellites in the 1960s, to propose two separate electron acceleration and/or
emission mechanisms. One of them produces electrons with about 40 keV in en-
ergy, or more, and is accompanied by the type III radio bursts; the other produces
relativistic MeV electrons, and is associated with solar proton events and type II
bursts.
And in the same year, Ke Chiang Hsieh and John A. Simpson used observa-
tions from the fourth IMP satellite to discover solar flare events with an enhanced
abundance of the rare helium isotope 3 He, which was at least a hundred times more
abundant in solar flares than in the solar corona. Gordon J. Hurford and co-workers
then used instruments aboard IMP 7 to show, in 1975, that 3 He-rich solar flares
also exhibit enhancements of heavy ions like iron, by about an order of magnitude.
This heavy-ion enhancement of 3 He-rich solar particle events was confirmed and
extended in 1986 by Glenn M. Mason and colleagues using an instrument aboard
the third International Sun-Earth Explorer, or ISEE-3 for short. But there were
other solar energetic particle events, not necessarily associated with flares, which
did not exhibit the abundance enhancements, just as there were some other events
that mainly consisted of abundant high-energy protons. And this suggested that al-
though some of the particle events arriving at Earth were accelerated in solar flares,
different processes might accelerate other ones, either at the Sun or within interplan-
etary space.
Interplanetary shocks do provide an alternative mechanism for particle acceler-
ation, as anticipated by Thomas Gold in 1955 and 1959. His suggestions involved
closed magnetic fields ejected from a region of the corona that did not previously
contribute to the solar wind, and which generated shocks as they moved into inter-
planetary space. Such shock waves are not blast waves from flares, but are instead
driven by magnetic structures ejected from the Sun, with shocks developing between
the ejected material and the interplanetary medium already present. And according
to Gold, the expanding magnetic loops might even remain attached to the Sun at
both ends while moving all the way to the Earth.
348 7 Space Weather

When coronal mass ejections were discovered in the 1970s, it was realized that
they might develop the interplanetary shocks proposed by Gold in the 1950s and
detected from spacecraft in the 1960s. And comparisons of coronagraph data with
type II radio bursts, detected from space at low frequencies, suggested that energetic
interplanetary shocks were indeed being propelled by fast coronal mass ejections.
In coronagraph images, the CMEs look like big magnetic bubbles, with no ex-
ceptionally high-speed particles in sight. And observations of type II radio bursts
associated with CMEs suggest relatively slow shock waves moving at speeds of
1, 000 km s−1 or less. So you do not “see” the acceleration of high-energy particles
very near the Sun; the particles are instead accelerated and detected further out in
space after the shocks have left the Sun.
And in contrast to the energetic particles hurled out from solar flares, which
follow the interplanetary magnetic spiral, a coronal mass ejection can move right
through the interplanetary magnetic field, hardly noticing it and continuously pump-
ing up the energy of particles and accelerating them all the way from the Sun to
the Earth.
By 1985, Neil R. Sheeley Jr. and co-workers were able to conclusively demon-
strate that coronal mass ejections are producing interplanetary shocks. They
combined P78-1 coronagraph observations of coronal mass ejections with Helios
1 observations of interplanetary shocks, showing that nearly all of the shocks were
associated with fast mass ejections. And within a decade or two, sophisticated in-
struments aboard SOHO were used to directly detect the shock waves as they were
being driven by the coronal mass ejections, by John C. Raymond and colleagues
in 2000, Angelous Vourlidas and co-workers in 2003, and Angela Ciaravella and
colleagues in 2005–2006.
Strong mass ejections plow into the slower-moving solar wind, like a car out of
control, serving as pistons to drive huge shock waves millions of kilometers ahead
of them (Fig. 7.2). The shock waves propelled by coronal mass ejections carry along
electrons and ions in the interplanetary medium, crossing magnetic field lines and
accelerating particles as they go, much as ocean waves propel surfers. When slow
coronal mass ejections move outward into interplanetary space, with speeds below
that of the ambient solar wind, no shock waves are generated and energetic solar
particle events are not observed.
It is generally thought that metric type II radio bursts, observed from radio tele-
scopes on the ground, are due to the electrons accelerated at an outward propagating
coronal shock front near the Sun, within a few solar radii. Another kind of solar ra-
dio burst, called the kilometric type II radio burst and only observable from space,
is attributed to the electrons accelerated at interplanetary shock waves between the
Sun and the Earth. Some argue that both the metric and the kilometric bursts are
produced by CME-driven shocks. Others, such as William J. Wagner and Robert
M. MacQueen in 1983, have proposed that the type II radio bursts observed at me-
ter wavelengths could stem from the coronal shocks driven by flares or blast waves
near the Sun, but the interplanetary shocks signaled by the kilometric type II bursts,
detected from spacecraft such as Wind, are driven by CMEs.
7.3 Solar Energetic Particles 349

Shock

CME
Sun
Field Strength
Magnetic

B
Speed

Fig. 7.2 Interplanetary CME shock. As it moves away from the Sun (top left), a fast coronal
mass ejection (CME, top right) pushes an interplanetary shock wave before it, amplifying the solar
wind speed, V, and magnetic field strength, B (bottom). The CME produces a speed increase all
the way to the shock front, where the wind’s motion then slows down precipitously to its steady,
unperturbed speed. Compression, resulting from the relative motion between the fast CME and
its surroundings, produces strong magnetic fields in a broad region extending sunward from the
shock. The strong magnetic fields and high flow speeds commonly associated with interplanetary
disturbances driven by fast CMEs are what make such events effective in stimulating geomagnetic
activity

Whatever the detailed connection with type II radio bursts might be, the available
evidence indicates that solar particle events that contain abundant, threatening high-
energy protons arise from coronal mass ejections that are moving fast enough to
generate interplanetary shocks, usually with speeds greater than 750 km s−1 – see
for example Donald V. Reames, Stephen W. Kahler, and Chee K. Ng’s article in
1997 and the review by Berndt Klecker and colleagues in 2006.

7.3.2 Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections, Interplanetary

Shocks, and Magnetic Clouds

When a coronal mass ejection, or CME, travels out into interplanetary space, it is of-
ten called an interplanetary coronal mass ejection, abbreviated ICME, to distinguish
350 7 Space Weather

it from the CME seen near the Sun in a coronagraph. Some surveys suggest that
only about 10% of the CMEs observed with coronagraphs are detected as ICMEs.
These mass ejections are generally faster and wider, and hence more energetic.
As we have previously noted, interplanetary shocks, observed in the ecliptic
at low solar latitudes in the 1960s and 1970s, are often associated with coronal
mass ejections. As reported by John T. Gosling and colleagues in 1998, instruments
aboard Ulysses have additionally demonstrated that interplanetary shocks can be
formed at high solar latitudes by “over-expanding” CMEs. And spacecraft such as
Voyager 1 and 2 have also shown that interplanetary shocks are formed by the in-
teraction of fast and slow streams in the solar wind. The shocks driven by these
co-rotating interaction regions, described in Sect. 5.7.2, are generally formed far
beyond the Earth’s orbit, at greater distances from the Sun. So as far as major space
weather at the Earth is concerned, it is the CMEs propagating at low solar latitudes
that are of dominant interest.
Spacecraft have been used to probe the nearby interplanetary magnetic topol-
ogy at the time the ejecta arrive in the vicinity of the Earth (Fig. 7.3). They tem-
porarily block the flow of cosmic rays to our planet, producing brief reductions or

Fig. 7.3 Magnetic cloud. When a coronal mass ejection travels into interplanetary space, it can
create a huge magnetic cloud containing bidirectional, or counter-streaming, beams of electrons
that flow in opposite directions within the magnetic loops that are rooted at both ends in the Sun.
The magnetic cloud also drives an upstream shock ahead of it. Magnetic clouds are only present
in a subset of observed interplanetary coronal mass ejections. (Courtesy of Deborah Eddy and
Thomas Zurbuchen)
7.3 Solar Energetic Particles 351

depressions in the cosmic ray density of up to 70%. This suggests that the interplan-
etary ejecta are predominantly closed magnetic structures. As suggested by Philip
Morrison in 1954, long before the discovery of coronal mass ejections, ionized mag-
netic clouds emitted by the active Sun will deflect cosmic rays from an Earth-bound
path, thereby accounting for the observed worldwide decreases in cosmic ray in-
tensity, lasting for days and correlated roughly with geomagnetic storms. We now
realize that these clouds can originate at the Sun as coronal mass ejections.
Other evidence, reviewed by Ian G. Richardson in 1997, includes the bidirec-
tional particle flows present in regions of some ejections, which is consistent with
particle circulation and reflection, or mirroring, within closed magnetic structures.
The observations of solar particle event onsets inside some ejections suggest that
their magnetic field lines are rooted at the Sun. So, at least some of the mass
ejections travel out into interplanetary space as looped magnetic fields that remain
rooted in the Sun at both ends, producing a sort of magnetic bottle as they move into
space, much as Gold had predicted in 1959.
As a coronal mass ejection expands into interplanetary space, it often takes the
form of a magnetic cloud that contains a well-organized, twisted magnetic flux tube.
Leonard F. Burlaga and colleagues discovered one in 1981, using the data from five
spacecraft (Voyager 1 and 2, Helios 1 and 2, and the eighth Interplanetary Magnetic
Platform, or IMP 8) to describe a magnetic cloud moving behind an interplanetary
shock as it expanded away from the Sun. This cloud was characterized by magnetic
loops that attained a radial extent of about half the distance between the Earth and
the Sun. The following year, Burlaga and co-workers showed that an interplane-
tary magnetic cloud, observed from Helios 1, was associated with a coronal mass
ejection observed with the Solwind coronagraph on the P78-1 spacecraft. Also in
1982, Larry W. Klein and Burlaga described 45 interplanetary magnetic clouds ar-
riving at Earth’s orbit, some associated with CMEs, and by 1984 Robert M. Wilson
and Ernest Hildner presented striking evidence linking magnetic clouds with coro-
nal mass ejections. Four years later, Guowei Zhang and Burlaga described the basic
characteristics of magnetic clouds, including their ability to block the flow of cos-
mic rays toward the Earth and to produce geomagnetic activity. A magnetic cloud
observed at the Earth’s orbit is defined by the following characteristics relative to
the background solar wind: enhanced magnetic field strength, a smooth rotation of
the field direction through a large angle, and a low proton temperature with a low
ratio of particle pressure to magnetic pressure. The clouds can arrive behind inter-
planetary shocks and can extend in the radial direction from the Sun for more than
half its distance from the Earth.
Such clouds can twist and spiral out, like a giant corkscrew, carrying intense, heli-
cal magnetic fields with them. As described by Volker Bothmer and Rainer Schwenn
in 1994, and independently by David Rust in the same year, the twisted, helical
fields in the expanding flux ropes of interplanetary magnetic clouds are comparable
to those of the erupting prominences, or filaments, from which they arise. More-
over, in 2004, Jarmo Torsti, Esa Riihonen, and Leon Kocharov used an instrument
aboard SOHO to detect energetic protons inside a magnetic cloud, associated with a
352 7 Space Weather

previous coronal mass ejection, and demonstrated that the magnetic flux-tube struc-
ture of the CME provided a “highway” for the transport of solar energetic protons.
But single spacecraft observations suggest that as few as one-third of the in-
terplanetary coronal mass ejections observed near Earth are characterized as mag-
netic clouds. The other two-thirds could exhibit magnetically complex ejecta, which
could be attributed to the interaction of coronal mass ejections moving at different
speeds. As described by Natchimuthuk Gopalswamy and colleagues in 2001–2002,
radio signatures suggest that a fast CME can overtake a slow one, cannibalizing it
and enhancing the acceleration of solar energetic particles from its material. Iso-
lated magnetic clouds nevertheless appear to be more effective than complex ejecta
in producing geomagnetic storms.

7.3.3 Observations of Solar Energetic Particles

with Contemporary Spacecraft

In recent decades, instruments aboard several spacecraft have been used to exam-
ine the detailed properties of solar energetic particles. They have determined their
intensity-time profiles, energy spectra, and elemental, isotopic, and charge compo-
sition. These observations help to determine the sources of the solar energetic parti-
cles, the physical processes that accelerate them, and how they escape and propagate
through space, all crucial information for protecting spacecraft and astronauts.
NASA’s Advanced Composition Explorer, abbreviated ACE, and Wind spacecraft
have been keeping a careful watch on the vast and shifting web of subatomic par-
ticles as they bombard the Earth, inferring their origin and subsequent transforma-
tions both at the Sun and in interplanetary space. They also measure conditions in
the solar wind at the Earth’s orbit, including its magnetic fields and shocks.
The source of the threatening solar energetic particles arriving at Earth has also
been investigated by combining ACE and Wind observations with those of space-
craft that look back at the Sun, such as the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, or
SOHO for short, and the Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager, abbre-
viated RHESSI, to investigate the solar origin of the particles. Comparisons of ACE
observations of 3 He-rich impulsive solar energetic particles with solar images from
SOHO, by Yi-Ming Wang, Monique Pick, and Glenn M. Mason in 2006, indicate
that every one of the impulsive events observed over a 6-year period originated from
a small flaring active region that lies next to a coronal hole containing Earth-directed
open magnetic field lines. The impulsive particles are interpreted in terms of mag-
netic reconnection, or footpoint exchange, between closed and open field lines.
And when the ACE and Wind detections are compared to RHESSI observations of
particles accelerated in large solar flares, it is found that the flares are not responsible
for the most energetic solar particles arriving at Earth. As reported by Robert P. Lin
in 2005, they are most likely accelerated by the interplanetary shocks driven by fast
coronal mass ejections. The relative roles of flare acceleration and shock acceler-
ation are nevertheless still controversial, and particles accelerated in modest flares
7.3 Solar Energetic Particles 353

still appear to be similar to weaker concentrations of energetic particles arriving

near Earth, which are rich in electrons, 3 He, and heavy ions. And in some situations
there can also be difficulty in distinguishing between direct flare acceleration and
acceleration by CME-driven or interplanetary shocks.
Statistical timing comparisons of impulsive type III radio bursts and electron
events observed at the Earth’s orbit from the Wind spacecraft, by Säm Krucker and
co-workers in 1999, indicated that the radio burst onset coincided with the electron
release times, suggesting a common acceleration mechanism. However, additional
comparisons with Wind and ACE detections, by Dennis K. Haggerty and Edmond
C. Roelof in 2002, and George M. Simnett, Roelof, and Haggerty in 2002, indi-
cated that some near-relativistic electron events, with energies of 40–300 keV, were
released about 10 min after their associated radio or soft X-ray emission. This led
to controversial proposals that these electrons arrived at Earth after being acceler-
ated by shocks associated with coronal mass ejections. But as reviewed by Stephen
W. Kahler in 2007, the acceleration of the near-relativistic electron events usually
occurs in solar flares, while the CME-driven shocks are the dominant acceleration
mechanism for the most energetic electron events, with relativistic MeV energies.
And an additional caveat resulting from ACE observations, as reviewed by
Mihir I. Desai and colleagues in 2006, suggests that solar energetic particles arriv-
ing at the Earth are not accelerated by CMEs from the bulk solar wind, but instead
consist of suprathermal ions that have been further accelerated to higher energies by
the interplanetary shocks. That is, the shocks preferentially accelerate these excep-
tionally hot, suprathermal nuclei, discussed in Sect. 5.7.4, which have already been
pre-accelerated by some currently unknown process.

7.3.4 Two Classes of Solar Energetic Particles

Summing up 8.5 years of energetic-particle observations from ISEE-3 in 1988,

Donald V. Reames argued for two classes of solar energetic particle events based
on their probable acceleration mechanism, the particle composition when arriv-
ing at the Earth, and the duration of the associated radio or soft X-ray emis-
sion at the Sun. The two categories of solar energetic particle events are known
as impulsive and gradual events, a designation that may have been derived from
Roberto Pallavicini, Salvatore Serio, and Giuseppe Vaiana’s use of Skylab data to
define, in 1977, two classes of soft X-ray flares based on their duration – com-
pact, brief (minutes) impulsive events, and gradual, long-enduring (hours) ones
associated with soft X-ray arcades, filament eruptions, and coronal mass ejec-
tions. But the classification has been extended to include differences in compo-
sition and acceleration sites for the solar energetic particles detected near Earth
(Table 7.2).
The impulsive solar particle events are associated with rapid, impulsive solar
flares and accompanied by type III radio bursts. They are dominated by near-
relativistic electrons and have relatively weak ion abundances, albeit greatly enriched
354 7 Space Weather

Table 7.2 Properties of impulsive and gradual solar energetic particle eventsa
Impulsive events Gradual events
Particles Electron-rich Proton-rich
3 He/4 He ≈1 ≈ 0.0005
Fe/O ≈1 ≈ 0.1
H/He ≈ 10 ≈ 100
Duration of X-ray flare Impulsive (minutes, hard Gradual (hours, soft X-rays)
X-rays)
Duration of particle event Hours Days
Radio bursts Types III and Vb Types II and IV
Coronagraph Nothing detected Coronal mass ejections, 96%
Acceleration site Solar flares Interplanetary shocks
Solar wind Energetic particles Very energetic particles
Longitudinal extent < 30◦ ≈ 180◦
Events per year ≈ 1, 000 ≈ 100
a Adapted from Gosling (1993) and Reames (1997)
b Impulsive type III and V bursts can be followed by type II and IV

in 3 He and heavy ions, with charge states characteristic of the high temperatures of
up to 10 × 106 K found in impulsively heated solar flares. The impulsive events are
the most commonly observed solar events detected at the Earth’s orbit, occurring
roughly 100 times more frequently than gradual ones. They can last for hours, at
the Earth’s orbit, are not associated with coronal mass ejections, and extend over
a limited region in solar longitude of less than 30◦ . The narrow excursion in so-
lar longitude is attributed to acceleration of the charged particles in localized flares
on the Sun, which then follow a well-defined magnetic pathway along the spiral
interplanetary magnetic fields.
The gradual events are associated with long-lasting (hours) soft X-ray emission,
and are accompanied by coronal mass ejections and by type II radio emission. They
are responsible for most of the large proton events seen at Earth, and are proba-
bly accelerated from ambient material by coronal and interplanetary shocks. The
smooth, extended time profile of the gradual solar particle events, which last for
days in the vicinity of the Earth, comes from continuous acceleration by shocks
moving away from the Sun to the Earth. These gradual events often spread over
more than 180◦ of solar longitude, which is attributed to large-scale shock waves
that can easily propagate across magnetic field lines. Although fast coronal mass
ejections are usually accompanied by solar flares, any flare-accelerated particles
would follow the nearest spiral magnetic field lines and could not be transported
to the very distant magnetic field lines where the gradual solar particle events are
observed.
Of course, for every rule there is an exception, and the separation of solar ener-
getic particle events into two distinct classes may be an oversimplification. There
are no doubt cases that blur the distinctions, but they remain useful for a first-order
appraisal of the events.
7.3 Solar Energetic Particles 355

So coronal mass ejections, or CMEs, now seem like the most dangerous cul-
prit as far as the high-speed proton events go. And as we shall next see, the shock
waves, ejected mass, and magnetic fields associated with coronal mass ejections can
produce intense geomagnetic storms, create power surges in terrestrial transmission
lines, and trigger brilliant auroras in the polar skies. And astronomers are now devel-
oping ways to follow their trajectories in space using multiple spacecraft, numerical
simulations, and theoretical considerations, with the hope of predicting threatening
dangers coming along their path (Focus 7.2).

Focus 7.2
Tracking Solar Storms in Space
The combination of data from space-based instruments and ground-based telescopes
allows us to track solar outbursts from their beginning on the Sun, to their passage
through the interplanetary medium, and in some cases on to their ending impact
at Earth. Instruments aboard SOHO and Hinode, for example, monitor the varying
magnetic fields in the photosphere, as well as the extreme-ultraviolet or X-ray emis-
sion from solar flares. Coronagraphs aboard SOHO and the twin STEREO A and
B spacecraft routinely detect coronal mass ejections, abbreviated CME. And the
progress of solar flare electrons and CME-driven shocks can be followed into space
by type III and type II radio bursts, respectively – by ground-based radio telescopes
near the Sun and from the ACE, Wind, Ulysses, and STEREO spacecraft further
out in interplanetary space. The spacecraft observations of these radio bursts can
be triangulated to specify their three-dimensional trajectory. Near the Earth’s or-
bit, GOES monitors flaring X-ray radiation and energetic particles, while ACE and
Wind measure the arrival of interplanetary shocks, magnetic clouds, and solar en-
ergetic particle events. Down on Earth, routine magnetic field measurements detect
geomagnetic storms.
The combined set of measurements, taken at a multitude of points in space, spec-
ify how energy is generated on the Sun and transferred to the space near Earth.
They provide the boundary conditions for theoretical models and numerical simu-
lations that describe the initiation of solar flares or coronal mass ejections, and the
evolution and propagation of the CMEs with their associated interplanetary shocks
and particle acceleration. In 2006, Markus J. Aschwanden and colleagues, Terry
G. Forbes and co-workers, and Zoran Mikic and M. A. Lee provided reviews of
some of the relevant theories and models. Models of the CME initiation include
magnetic shearing, kink instability, filament eruption, and magnetic reconnection in
the flaring lower corona, while the modeling of CME propagation entails interplane-
tary shocks, interplanetary particle acceleration and beams, solar energetic particles,
and geoeffective connections.
The magnetohydrodynamic, or MHD, modeling and numerical simulation of
flares, coronal mass ejections, and interplanetary shocks were pioneered by Murray
Dryer, who has reviewed early work in 1974 and provided subsequent accounts
of later developments, including one in 1998 when real-time, continuous three-
dimensional, numerical MHD simulations were being used to forecast
356 7 Space Weather

solar-interplanetary space weather when solar flares or CMEs were observed – for
U.S. Air Force Space Weather interests. Several other groups, including one at the
Center for Space Environment Modeling at the University of Michigan, are cur-
rently developing three-dimensional models. They have developed an end-to-end
Space Weather Modeling Framework, abbreviated SWMF, that includes everything
from the solar corona, eruptive filaments, inner heliosphere, solar energetic parti-
cles, global magnetosphere, inner magnetosphere, radiation belts, ionosphere elec-
tron dynamics and the upper atmosphere in a high-performance coupled model –
see http://csem.engin.umich.edu/swmf/. Integrated space weather modeling is also
described at http://www.bu.edu/cism.
In 2007, Gábor Tóth and co-workers used the SWMF to perform the first Sun-to-
thermosphere simulation of a real space storm, of 28–30 October 2003. And in 2004
Murray Dryer and colleagues described real-time shock arrival predictions during
the Halloween storm period. When combined with observations from space and the
ground, these models and numerical simulations provide the framework for tracking
the movements of future space storms and forecasting their possible dangers at Earth
or in outer space.

7.4 Impacting Planet Earth

7.4.1 Our Protective Magnetic Cocoon

Our planet is immersed within the hot, gusty, electrically charged solar wind that
blows out from the Sun in all directions and never stops, carrying with it a magnetic
field rooted in the Sun. Fortunately, we are protected from the full force of this
relentless, stormy gale by the Earth’s magnetic field.
As demonstrated by William Gilbert in 1600, the Earth is itself a great magnet.
The magnetic fields emerge from the south geographic pole, loop through nearby
space, and re-enter at the north geographic pole, so the north geographic pole corre-
sponds to the south magnetic pole and vice versa. The Earth’s magnetic field has an
intensity of about 50,000 nT in the polar regions, where the magnetic fields bunch
close together, and about 30,000 nT above the equator where the magnetic fields
spread out. And because charged particles do not cross magnetic field lines, and in-
stead move around and along them, most of the solar wind is diverted around our
planet at a distance far above the atmosphere, like a stream flowing around a rock
or air deflected around the windshield of a car. Magnetic clouds associated with
coronal mass ejections have magnetic field strengths of just 15–30 nT, so the much
stronger terrestrial magnetic field also provides a good protection from them.
Although the solar wind is exceedingly rarefied, far less substantial than a
terrestrial breeze, it possesses the power to bend and move things in its path.
Measurements from NASA’s first Interplanetary Monitoring Platform, or IMP 1, in
the mid-1960s showed that the never-ending flow from the Sun shapes the Earth’s
magnetic cocoon into the form of a comet or a teardrop (Fig. 7.4). It produces a
7.4 Impacting Planet Earth 357

Fig. 7.4 Asymmetric magnetosphere. The Earth’s magnetic field carves out a hollow in the solar
wind, creating a protective cavity, called the magnetosphere (blue). It is sculpted into an asym-
metric shape by the solar wind, with a bow shock that forms at about 10 Earth radii on the sunlit,
day-side facing the Sun (left). The location of the bow shock is highly variable since it is pushed
in and out by the gusty solar wind. The magnetopause marks the outer boundary of the magne-
tosphere, at the place where the solar wind takes control of the motions of charged particles. The
solar wind is deflected around the Earth, pulling the terrestrial magnetic field into a long magne-
totail on the night side (right). The red regions in the inner magnetosphere contain both the ring
current and the outer Van Allen belt, where electrons, protons, and other ions are trapped on closed
drift paths. (Courtesy of ESA.)

shock wave, called a bow shock, when first encountering the Earth’s magnetism.
Under typical conditions the bow shock is located at about 10 Earth radii upstream,
or upwind, of the Earth, but very strong wind gusts can push the bow shock in to
about half that distance. The relentless wind drags and stretches the terrestrial mag-
netic field out into a long magnetotail on the night side of Earth. The stretched-out,
terrestrial magnetic field points roughly toward the Earth in the northern half of the
tail and away in the southern half. And the field strength drops to nearly zero at
the center of the tail, where the opposite magnetic orientations meet in a neutral
current sheet.
Thus, the terrestrial magnetic field hollows out a cavity in the solar wind, called
the magnetosphere, bounded at the manetopause where the plasma and magnetic
fields of the solar wind and magnetosphere are in pressure balance. The Earth’s
magnetosphere is not precisely spherical, so the term magnetosphere does not refer
to form or shape. It instead implies a sphere of influence. The magnetosphere of the
Earth, or any other planet, is that region surrounding the planet in which its magnetic
field dominates the motions of energetic charged particles such as electrons, protons,
and other ions.
358 7 Space Weather

Particles in the solar wind transport only one ten-billionth the energy of that
carried by sunlight, and Earth is protected from the full blast of even this dilute,
varying solar wind by the terrestrial magnetosphere. The Earth’s magnetic shield
is so perfect that only 0.1% of the mass of the solar wind that hits it manages to
penetrate inside. Yet, even that small fraction of the wind particles has a profound
influence on the Earth’s nearby environment in space. They create an invisible world
of energetic particles and electric currents that flow, swirl, and encircle the Earth.
Some charged particles flowing from the Sun can enter the Earth’s magnetic do-
main and become trapped within it. They can be stored along the stretched dipolar
field lines, earthward of the tail magnetic connection site, in a region called the
plasma sheet (Fig. 7.5). It acts as a holding tank of electrons and ions, suddenly re-
leasing them when stimulated by the ever-changing Sun. Nearer the Earth particles
are stored in the radiation belts, donut- or torus-shaped regions of unexpectedly high
flux of high-energy electrons and protons that girdle the Earth at roughly 2 and 3
Earth radii in the equatorial regions. These places are sometimes called the inner and
outer Van Allen radiation belts, named after James A. Van Allen, whose instruments
aboard the Explorer 1 and 3 satellites first observed them in 1958; they have been

Magnetosheath
Magnetopause
ck
Sho
Bow

Tail Lobe
Polar
Cusp

Plasma Sheet

Neutral Sheet

Plasmasphere

Solar
Wind

Van Allen
Radiation Belts

Fig. 7.5 Elements of the magnetosphere. The Earth’s magnetic field carves out a hollow in the
solar wind, creating a protective cavity, called the magnetosphere. A bow shock forms at about
10 Earth radii on the sunlit side of our planet. The location of the bow shock is highly variable
since it is pushed in and out by the gusty solar wind. The magnetopause marks the outer boundary
of the magnetosphere, at the place where the solar wind takes control of the motions of charged
particles. The solar wind is deflected around the Earth, pulling the terrestrial magnetic field into a
long magnetotail on the night side. Plasma in the solar wind is deflected at the bow shock (left),
flows along the magnetopause into the magnetic tail (right), and is then injected back toward the
Earth within the plasma sheet (center). The Earth, its auroras, atmosphere and ionosphere, and the
two Van Allen radiation belts all lie within this magnetic cocoon
7.4 Impacting Planet Earth 359

dubbed radiation belts since the charged particles that they contain were known as
corpuscular radiation at the time of their discovery. The nomenclature is still used
today, but it does not imply either electromagnetic radiation or radioactivity. The
Van Allen radiation belts mainly consist of high-energy electrons and protons that
bounce back and forth between polar mirror points in seconds to minutes and drift
around the planet on time scales of hours. A ring current also circulates around the
Earth just outside the Van Allan belts. Particles in the ring current and the Van Allen
belts originate from both the external solar wind and the ionosphere down below.
Although the solar wind never actually reaches the Earth’s surface, it can cause
dramatic changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. Under constant buffeting by the vary-
ing solar wind, the terrestrial magnetic fields are buckled, distorted, and reshaped,
producing invisible magnetic storms far above any rain, sleet, or snow. These large
and rapid variations in the Earth’s magnetic field produce wide, irregular movements
in the direction that compass needles point.

7.4.2 Earth’s Magnetic Storms

As the solar wind and coronal mass ejections brush past the Earth, they carry some
of the Sun’s magnetic field with them. And since magnetic fields have a direction,
their magnetism can point toward or away from the direction of the Earth’s magnetic
field. As postulated by James Dungey in 1961, a small portion of the solar wind can
gain entry into the magnetosphere through the magnetopause when the magnetic
field in the solar wind points in the opposite direction to the magnetosphere fields.
With this orientation, they can join each other and become linked, just as the oppo-
site poles of two toy magnets stick together. The magnetic field in the solar wind is
then broken, and reconnects with the terrestrial magnetic field.
So geomagnetic activity is primarily driven by magnetic reconnection between
the interplanetary magnetic field and the terrestrial magnetic field. That may happen
if the northward pointing Earth field on the front of the magnetosphere is hit by solar
wind carrying southward pointing interplanetary magnetic fields. They can connect
and merge together at the place they touch, and as a result, the solar wind energy,
momentum, and mass can interact with the magnetosphere.
In 1966, Donald H. Fairfield and Larry J. Cahill Jr. compared Explorer 12 mea-
surements of the magnetic field outside the magnetosphere to ground magnetograms
from arctic observations to show that exterior fields with a southerly component
tend to be associated with a magnetic disturbance detected on the ground. A north-
ward exterior field was associated with magnetically quiet conditions. These results
were confirmed and extended by comparisons of magnetic variations on Earth with
interplanetary magnetic field measurements by Explorer 33 and 35, published by
Joan Hirshberg and David S. Colburn in 1969, and by Rande K. Burton, Robert L.
McPherron, and Christopher T. Russell in 1975.
Semi-annual variations in geomagnetic activity have been attributed to the change
in the orientation of the Earth’s dipole axis relative to the Sun–Earth line over the
360 7 Space Weather

course of a year, which causes a change in its orientation with respect to the inter-
planetary magnetic field. As demonstrated by Christopher T. Russell and Robert L.
McPherron in 1973, the Earth’s magnetic activity is largest when its dipole is tilted
to increase the projection of the southward component of the interplanetary mag-
netic field on the geomagnetic field. In the following year, Russell, McPherron and
Rande K. Burton provided other evidence that geomagnetic storms are associated
with strong southward interplanetary magnetic fields, confirming Dungey’s mag-
netic reconnection theory for the storms.
Energy transfer is most efficient when the reconnection takes place at the day-
side of the magnetopause, when the interplanetary field points southward and is thus
antiparallel to the intrinsic geomagnetic field. But when the magnetic coupling oc-
curs, it can be dragged downstream all along the length of the Earth’s magnetotail.
Since the immense magnetic tail forms the bulk of the magnetosphere, it provides
the main location for breaching the Earth’s magnetic defense.
Dynamic processes that occur in the magnetotail’s plasma sheet, where the en-
ergy entering the magnetosphere from the solar wind is focused, largely drive mag-
netosphere space weather events. This focusing action leads to structural changes
in the neutral current sheet separating the oppositely directed magnetic fields in the
magnetotail, including reconnection which can provide a back door entry that fun-
nels some of the gusty solar wind into the magnetosphere (Fig. 7.6). The passing
solar wind is slowed down by the connected fields and decelerates in the vicinity of
the tail. Energy is thereby extracted from the nearby solar wind and drives a large-
scale circulation, or convection, of charged particles within the magnetosphere.
Thus, while creating and sustaining the magnetotail, the solar wind brings the
oppositely directed tail lobes into close contact, where they can merge together. The
magnetotail then snaps like a rubber band that has been stretched too far. The snap
catapults part of the tail downstream into space, creating a gust-like eddy in the
solar wind. The other part of the tail, propelled by energy released in the magnetic

Solar
Wind

Fig. 7.6 Magnetic connection on the backside. The Sun’s winds bring solar and terrestrial mag-
netic fields together on the night side of Earth’s magnetosphere, in its magnetotail. Magnetic fields
that point in opposite directions (thin arrows), or roughly toward and away from the Earth, are
brought together and merge, reconnecting and pinching off the magnetotail close to Earth. Ma-
terial in the plasma sheet is accelerated away from this disturbance (thick arrows). Some of the
plasma is ejected down the magnetotail and away from the Earth, while other charged particles
follow magnetic field lines back toward Earth
7.4 Impacting Planet Earth 361

merging, rebounds back toward the Earth. The solar wind is then plugged into the
Earth’s electrical socket, and our planet becomes wired to the Sun. Electrons and
ions hurtle along magnetic conduits that are connected to the Earth, linking the solar
wind to both equatorial storage regions and down into the polar caps.
Events on the Sun leading to large perturbations of the Earth’s magnetosphere
are called geoeffective. And coronal mass ejections can be geoeffective, producing
strong geomagnetic storms, primarily because they can bring to Earth strong south-
ward magnetic fields of long duration. In fact, we now know that the most powerful
geomagnetic storms, the great non-recurrent ones that shake the Earth’s magnetic
field to its very foundations, are caused by coronal mass ejections. But not every
coronal mass ejection produces a great storm. The faster ones are more effective,
and they also have to impact our planet with the right orientation. When the loop-
like fields have strong components directed southward, they merge and reconnect
with the Earth’s magnetic fields that point to the north. With this alignment, the
two fields become linked during a reconnection process, and this both triggers and
energizes the most powerful geomagnetic storms.
Studies of Earth-directed, halo coronal mass ejections from SOHO, by Hilary
V. Cane, Ian G. Richardson, and O. Christopher St. Cyr in 2000, indicate that their
ability to produce geomagnetic storms depends on the southward magnetic field
strength. Such coronal mass ejections are the dominant cause of major, intense,
non-recurrent geomagnetic storms that occur most often near the maximum in the
11-year solar activity cycle.
But only about half of the front-side halo coronal mass ejections even encounter
the Earth, and only about one-quarter of the ones that do manage to strike our planet
result in noticeable geomagnetic activity. As we shall see, a CMEs effectiveness in
disturbing terrestrial magnetism depends on the magnetic orientation of the CME;
the solar wind speed and dynamic pressure are also factors.
The energy gained from the coronal mass ejection drives currents that create the
intense magnetic storm. The Earth intercepts about 70 coronal mass ejections per
year when solar activity is at its peak, and several of them will produce great mag-
netic storms and exceptionally intense auroras. And the cosmic flow of electric cur-
rents associated with the most intense, non-recurrent geomagnetic storms can even
interfere with electrical power grids here on Earth, creating voltage surges on long-
distance power lines (Focus 7.3). Strong aurora currents in the ionosphere can also
induce currents in oil and gas pipelines, railway systems, and telecommunication
cables, especially at high terrestrial latitudes where auroras are commonly seen.

Focus 7.3
Turning Off the Lights
The whole Earth has become wired together, first with telegraph wires, then by
telephone lines and electrical-power grids. And when solar storms produce changes
in the Earth’s magnetism, disabling electrical currents and voltages can be produced
in the wires. This threat is greatest in high-latitude regions where the currents are
strongest, such as Canada, the northern United States, Scandinavia, and Russia.
362 7 Space Weather

Even back in the 1840s, when telegraph lines were first deployed, operators no-
ticed extra current whenever overhead auroras signaled the presence of an intense
geomagnetic storm. And about a century and a half later, on 13 March 1989, a par-
ticularly severe geomagnetic storm, produced by a coronal mass ejection, plunged
virtually all of the Canadian province of Quebec into complete darkness, without
warning and within a few seconds. The disturbed magnetic fields induced electric
currents in the Earth’s surface, which in turn created voltage surges on the long-
distance power lines, blowing circuit breakers, overheating or melting the windings
of transformers, and causing the massive electrical failure.
As demand for electricity increases, utility companies rely more and more on
large, interconnected grids of power transmission lines that can span continents,
providing rapid response to the diverse energy demands of users scattered through-
out the globe. In the United States alone, nearly a million kilometers of electrical
transmission lines connect more than 10,000 power stations. Such power distribu-
tion systems are threatened by severe geomagnetic storms, initiated when a coronal
mass ejection with the right magnetic orientation makes contact with the magneto-
sphere. They can plunge major urban centers, like New York City or Montreal, into
complete darkness, causing social chaos, threatening safety, and resulting in large
losses in revenue. The threat does not occur very often, perhaps once a year, but the
potential consequences are serious enough to employ early warning systems.

The clear-cut association between geomagnetic storms and some coronal mass
ejections falls apart when moderate and low-level storms are considered, especially
near the minimum in the 11-year solar activity cycle when the weaker storms are
easier to detect. They can recur with a 27-day period corresponding to the apparent
rotation period of the solar equator.
The moderate, recurrent geomagnetic storms have been associated with the high-
speed solar wind emanating from coronal holes, but with an interplanetary origin
and a geoeffectiveness that also depends on the southward component of the in-
terplanetary magnetic field. In 1987, for example, Bruce T. Tsurutani and Walter
Gonzalez attributed low-level geomagnetic substorms to interplanetary, co-rotating
interaction regions, where the fast wind overtakes the slow one, but caused by the re-
lated compressed southward component of the interplanetary magnetic field striking
Earth. Near cycle maximum, coronal mass ejections dominate the variable interplan-
etary medium, producing the most intense geomagnetic storms, and the low-level
storms are less noticeable.

7.4.3 The Auroras – Cosmic Neon Signs

The great geomagnetic storms are also associated with intense aurora. At such times,
energy is also expended in accelerating both the infiltrating solar wind particles and
the local particles to make polar auroras. The accelerated electrons are guided along
7.4 Impacting Planet Earth 363

the Earth’s magnetic fields into the upper atmosphere at the Earth’s polar regions,
generating spectacular northern and southern lights, named the aurora borealis and
aurora australis in Latin. Residents in far northern locations can see the green and
red lights shimmering far above the highest clouds every clear and dark winter
night. Rare, brilliant auroras, associated with great magnetic storms, can even ex-
tend down toward the Earth’s equator. Auroras have also been observed around the
poles of Jupiter and Saturn, two other planets in our solar system that have extensive
magnetospheres.
Energetic electrons bombarding the upper atmosphere principally cause the
multi-colored aurora light show. As the electrons cascade down the polar magnetic
field lines into the atmosphere, they are slowed down by collisions with the increas-
ingly dense air, exciting oxygen and nitrogen atoms. The pumped-up atoms then
give up the energy acquired from the electrons, emitting a burst of color and fluo-
rescing like a cosmic neon sign.
Today, spacecraft look down on the aurora from high above the north polar
region, showing the northern lights in their entirety as an immense aurora oval
centered at the north magnetic pole (Fig. 7.7). Currents can be produced along the
aurora ovals that are as strong as a million amperes. These currents flow down from
the magnetosphere, through the ionosphere in the upper atmosphere, around the au-
rora oval, and back out and up to the magnetosphere.

Fig. 7.7 The aurora oval. Instruments aboard the POLAR spacecraft look down on the aurora from
high above the Earth’s north polar region on 22 October 1999, showing the northern lights in their
entirety. The glowing oval, imaged in ultraviolet light, is 4,500 km across. The most intense aurora
activity appears in bright red or yellow, toward the night side of the Earth; it is typically produced
by magnetic reconnection events in the Earth’s magnetotail. The luminous aurora oval is constantly
in motion, expanding toward the equator or contracting toward the pole, and always changing
in brightness. Such ever-changing aurora ovals are created simultaneously in both hemispheres.
(Courtesy of the Visible Imaging System, University of Iowa and NASA.)
364 7 Space Weather

Visual auroras normally occur in the ionosphere, at 100–250 km above the

ground. This height is much smaller than either the average radius of the aurora
oval, at 2,250 km, or the radius of the Earth, about 6,380 km. An observer on the
ground therefore sees only a small, changing piece of the aurora oval, which can
resemble a bright, thin, wind-blown curtain hanging vertically down from the Arc-
tic sky.
The Space Shuttle has even flown right through the aurora. When inside the dis-
play, astronauts have closed their eyes and seen flashes of light by the beams of
high-energy particles, which ripped through the satellite walls and passed through
their eyeballs, making them glow inside. And as astronauts travel further out into
space, they become immersed within a cosmic shooting gallery of solar energetic
particles, which can threaten their health and even their lives.

7.4.4 High-Flying Humans at Risk

Energetic solar particles can pose a threat to people in airplanes flying along polar
routes. The Earth’s magnetic field deflects many of these particles, and the atmo-
sphere usually absorbs all but the ones of greatest energy, which can gain access to
its lower layers. However, the high-energy particles created by solar flares or coro-
nal mass ejections can be channeled along the magnetic field and penetrate to low
altitudes in the polar regions, exposing airline crews and passengers to elevated lev-
els of particles from space. The higher the plane is flying and the closer to the poles,
the greater the dose. The health risk is small, but most for frequent fliers, pilots and
flight attendants who travel polar routes often. Pregnant women are advised to not
take an airplane flying a polar route during a storm on the Sun, to avoid risk of birth
defects.
There are even greater hazards aboard spacecraft at higher altitudes. Go far
enough into space and the chemical bonds in your molecules will be broken apart by
storms from the Sun, increasing the risk of cancer and errors in genetic information.
Space agencies therefore set limits to the exposure to solar energetic particles and
radiation an astronaut can have while traveling or working unprotected in space.
Solar energetic particle events can endanger the health and even the lives of as-
tronauts when they venture into outer space, completely unprotected by the Earth’s
magnetic field or even a spacecraft (Fig. 7.8), to unload spacecraft cargo, construct a
space station, or walk on the Moon or Mars. High-energy protons from a solar flare
or coronal mass ejection can easily pierce a space suit, causing damage to human
cells and tissues.
A future trip to Mars will involve considerable risks. Astronauts would spend 6
months or more in transit each way, and stay on the Martian surface for as long as a
year-and-a-half, until the red planet again moved closest to the Earth. Some estimate
that every third human cell would be damaged by solar energetic particles during
the flight, and others worry about how to keep the astronauts from being irradiated
to death. Long exposures to cosmic rays in space also increase the risk of getting
7.4 Impacting Planet Earth 365

Fig. 7.8 Unprotected from space weather. The first untethered walk in space, on 7 February
1984, where there is no place to hide from Sun-driven storms. Astronaut Bruce McCandless II, a
mission specialist, wears a 300-pound (136 kg) Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) with 24 nitro-
gen gas thrusters and a 35 mm camera. The MMU permits motion in space where the sensation of
gravity has vanished, but it does not protect the astronaut from solar flares or coronal mass ejec-
tions. High-energy particles resulting from these explosions on the Sun could injure or even kill
the unprotected astronaut. (Courtesy of NASA.)

cancer, apparently to a 40% lifetime chance after a voyage to Mars and far above
acceptable thresholds of government agencies. A future return trip to the Moon,
with an extended stay, or to explore Mars, must include methods of protection of
the crew from the harmful effects of Sun-driven space weather and cosmic rays.
Solar astronomers, and employees of national space-weather forecast centers,
therefore keep careful watch over the Sun during space missions, to warn of possible
solar activity occurring at just the wrong place and time. Space flight controllers
can then postpone space walks during solar storms, keeping astronauts within the
heavily shielded recesses of a satellite or space station. The astronauts would also
be told to curtail any strolls on the Moon or Mars, and to move inside underground
storm shelters.

7.4.5 Failing to Communicate

Eight minutes after the outburst of an energetic flare on the Sun, a strong blast of
X-rays and extreme-ultraviolet radiation reaches the Earth traveling at the speed of
366 7 Space Weather

light, and radically alters the structure of the planet’s upper atmosphere, the iono-
sphere, by producing an increase in the amount of free electrons that are no longer
attached to atoms. And enhanced aurora currents at times of intense geomagnetic
storms also affect the ionosphere.
Changes in the ionosphere resulting from solar flares or coronal mass ejections
can attenuate or disrupt high-frequency radio wave communications that utilize re-
flection from the ionosphere to carry signals to distances beyond the local horizon.
Even during moderately intense flares, long-distance radio communications can be
temporarily silenced over the Earth’s entire sunlit hemisphere. The radio blackouts
are particularly troublesome for the commercial airline industry, which uses radio
transmissions for weather, air traffic, and location information; the United States Air
Force and Navy are also concerned about this solar threat to radio communications.
The Air Force operates a global system of ground-based radio and optical tele-
scopes and taps into the output of national, space-borne X-ray telescopes and parti-
cle detectors in order to continuously monitor the Sun for intense flares that might
severely disrupt military communications and satellite surveillance. The Air Force
has also recently tested a Solar Mass Ejection Imager, abbreviated SMEI, aboard its
Coriolus spacecraft, designed to help forecast the arrival of coronal mass ejections –
as reported by David F. Webb and colleagues in 2006 and 2008.
Space weather interference with radio communication can be avoided by us-
ing short-wavelength, ultra-high-frequency signals that pass right through the iono-
sphere to satellites that can relay the transmissions to other locations. Signals in this
frequency range are nevertheless also vulnerable to the aurora currents in the iono-
sphere, and can be degraded or completely lost during times of high geomagnetic
activity.
The telecommunications industry is also threatened by the loss of their satellites
due to disabling solar outbursts.

7.4.6 Satellites in Danger

Solar energetic particles arising from solar flares or coronal mass ejections can de-
grade, disrupt or destroy a satellite. And there are now roughly 1,000 of them in daily
use by governments, corporations, and ordinary citizens. Geosynchronous satellites,
which orbit the Earth at the same rate that the planet spins, stay above the same
place on Earth to relay and beam down signals used for aviation and marine nav-
igation, cellular phones, global positioning systems, national defense, and internet
commerce and data transmission. Other satellites whip around the planet, scanning
air, land, and sea for environmental change, weather forecasting and military recon-
naissance. All of these spacecraft can be temporarily or permanently disabled by
solar energetic particle events, causing engineers to design spacecraft with greater
shielding and increased redundancy in their components.
Geosynchronous satellites, for example, are endangered by the coronal mass
ejections that cause intense geomagnetic storms. These satellites orbit our planet
7.4 Impacting Planet Earth 367

once every 24 h at about 6.6 Earth radii, and thus remain at constant longitude above
the Earth. A powerful coronal mass ejection can compress the magnetosphere from
its usual location at about 10 Earth radii to below the satellites’ geostationary orbits,
exposing them to the full brunt of the gusty solar wind and its charged, energized
ingredients. Geosynchronous satellites are also affected by high-energy electrons
associated with high-speed, solar-wind streams during the declining phase of the
solar activity cycle.
When intense solar storms buffet the magnetosphere, they can greatly increase
the amounts of high-speed electrons trapped in the Van Allen radiation belts. The
high-energy electrons can move right through the thin metallic skin of a spacecraft,
penetrating electronic equipment. The excess negative charge can give rise to poten-
tial differences and intense voltage discharges, severe current pulses, and damaging
surges of electric energy. Metal shielding and radiation-hardened computer chips
are used to guard against this recurrent hazard, and satellite orbits can be designed
to minimize time in the radiation belts, or to avoid them altogether.
Nothing can be done to shield the solar cells used to power nearly all Earth-
orbiting satellites; the photovoltaic cells convert sunlight to electricity and therefore
have to be exposed to space. When satellites repeatedly pass through the radiation
belts, its energetic particles slowly deteriorate and shorten the useful lives of their
solar cells.
Infrequent, anomalously large eruptions on the Sun can hurl very energetic pro-
tons toward the Earth and elsewhere in space. The solar protons can easily enter
a spacecraft to produce single event upsets in electronic components by ionizing
a track along parts of their circuits. The ionized tracks can occur in transistors and
memory devices, producing erroneous commands and crippling their microelectron-
ics. Such single event upsets have already destroyed at least one weather satellite
and disabled several communications satellites. Space weapons can also wipe out a
satellite; so if you did not know the Sun was at fault, you might think someone was
trying to shoot down our satellites. But error-correcting software has been developed
to decrease damages by single event upsets to satellite operations.
To put the space-weather threat in perspective, just a few satellites have been lost
to storms from the Sun out of thousands deployed. And the U.S. military is more
concerned with disruption of communications, since they build satellites that can
withstand the effects of a nuclear bomb exploded in space. Commercial satellites
are less expensive and more vulnerable.

7.4.7 Varying Solar Radiation and Earth’s Changing Atmosphere

Unlike the charged particles in the solar wind, the Sun’s electromagnetic radiation
passes right through the Earth’s magnetic fields without noticing them. Short-
wavelength radiation, that contributes only a tiny fraction of the Sun’s total
luminosity, is mainly absorbed high in the Earth’s atmosphere, ionizing the air and
transforming its physical condition. And although the temperature of the atmosphere
368 7 Space Weather

at first drops with height, where the air expands and becomes colder in the lower
density and pressure, the temperature then increases at higher altitudes where it be-
comes hotter than the ground – in the stratosphere where the Sun’s ultraviolet rays
produce the ozone layer and in the ionosphere, produced by solar X-ray radiation
(Fig. 7.9).
The increased solar output at extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths during
the maximum in the Sun’s 11-year activity cycle can cause the temperature of the
upper atmosphere to soar to more than twice the values encountered at activity min-
imum (Fig. 7.10). The enhanced radiation caused by increasing solar activity heats
the atmosphere and causes it to expand. This brings higher gas densities to a given
altitude, increasing the friction and drag exerted on a satellite, pulling it to a lower
altitude, and sometimes causing ground controllers to lose contact with them.
Increased atmospheric friction caused by rising solar activity has sent several
satellites to a premature, uncontrollable, and fatal spiral toward the Earth, includ-
ing Skylab and the Solar Maximum Mission. Both spacecraft were ungratefully de-
stroyed by the very phenomenon they were designed to study – solar flares and/or
coronal mass ejections. Space stations have to be periodically boosted in altitude to
higher orbit to avoid a similar fate.
Precise monitoring of all orbiting objects depends on accurate knowledge of the
atmospheric change caused by storms from the Sun. The U.S. Space Command, for

2000
1000 Magnetosphere 10 -10
500
200 Ionosphere
Pressure (millibars)

100 0.01
Height (km)

Mesosphere
50 Ozone Layer
20 Stratosphere

10 100
5
Troposphere
2
1
0 1000
150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290
Temperature (K)

Fig. 7.9 Sun-layered atmosphere. The pressure of our atmosphere (right scale) decreases with
height (left scale). This is because fewer particles are able to overcome the Earth’s gravitational
pull and reach greater heights. The temperature (bottom scale) also decreases steadily with height
in the ground-hugging troposphere, but the temperature increases in two higher layers that are
heated by the Sun. They are the stratosphere, with its critical ozone layer, and the ionosphere. The
stratosphere is mainly heated by ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, and the ionosphere is created
and modulated by the Sun’s X-ray and extreme-ultraviolet radiation
7.5 Sun – Climate 369

log Electron Number Density (number m-3)

9 10 11 12 13

log Total Neutral Density (kg m-3)

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6
800
Total
700 neutral
density Neutral
temperature
600
Height (km)

500
Electron
density
400

300

200

100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Temperature (K)

Fig. 7.10 Varying solar heating of the upper atmosphere. During the Sun’s 11-year activity
cycle, the upper-atmosphere temperatures fluctuate by factors of 2, and neutral (un-ionized atom)
and electron densities by factors of 10. The bold lines (right side) register maximum values and
the less bold (left side) the minimum values. Enhanced magnetic activity on the Sun produces
increased ultraviolet and X-ray radiation that heats the Earth’s upper atmosphere and causes it to
expand, resulting in higher temperatures and greater densities at a given altitude in our atmosphere.
(Courtesy of Judith Lean.)

example, often has to recompute the orbits of many hundreds of low-Earth-orbit

objects affected by the Sun-induced increase in air friction.
But it is visible sunlight that penetrates our transparent atmosphere to warm the
ground and produce winds, rain, and snow in the lowest level of the atmosphere,
the troposphere. And the amount of this visible radiation also varies in tandem with
the 11-year solar activity cycle.

7.5 Sun – Climate

Over the eons, the annual seasons and weather patterns on Earth have been driven
by the sunlight that reaches the lower atmosphere and ground, and modulated by the
winds, the ocean currents, and the shifting configurations of land and sea. So it is
possible, even likely, that the terrestrial climate is also related to varying activity on
the Sun.
In recent decades, it has indeed been shown that the total amount of sunlight
received by the Earth varies with the 11-year cycle of solar activity, albeit by very
small amounts. And the amount of the Sun’s ultraviolet and X-ray radiation, which
370 7 Space Weather

is absorbed in the terrestrial atmosphere, varies by enormous factors of 100 or more

over the activity cycle. At periods of high solar activity, the Earth is subject to en-
hanced radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, as well as a greater incidence
of solar energetic particles and fewer cosmic rays. They may all alter the atmosphere
and contribute to our climate.
The possible influence of solar variations on the Earth’s climate has been recently
discussed by Thomas J. Crowley in 2000, Peter Foukal and colleagues in 2004 and
2006, Johanna D. Haigh in 2007, Michael E. Mann in 2000, and Nigel Marsh and
Hendrik Svenmark in 2003, sometimes in the context of current global warming.
The variable Sun may have contributed to past climate changes, but the bright-
ening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming
since 1950. And since the human-induced heating of the Earth is such an important
topic, it is considered next. We conclude by discussing long-term climate change
over millions and billions of years, as recorded in polar ice cores, and the recurrent
ice ages, in which the Sun plays a significant role.

7.5.1 An Inconstant Sun

Day after day the Sun rises and sets in a seemingly endless cycle, illuminating our
days and warming our world. And the total amount of its life-sustaining energy has
been called the “solar constant,” because no variations could be reliably detected
from anywhere beneath the Earth’s changing atmosphere. The solar constant is the
average amount of radiant energy per second per unit area reaching the top of the
Earth’s atmosphere at a mean distance of 1 AU. Nowadays, it is also known as
the total solar irradiance, abbreviated TSI, perhaps because it is not constant.
The discovery of variations in the total solar radiation was somewhat unexpected.
Throughout most of the 20th century, most astronomers and climatologists insisted
that the Sun shines steadily, and any fluctuations in the amount of sunlight reaching
the ground were attributed to variable absorption and scattering in the atmosphere.
After all, when a cloud passes by and casts its shadow on the ground, we do not
attribute the temporary cooling to a varying Sun. Nevertheless, as reliable as it ap-
pears, the Sun is an inconstant companion, brightening and fading in step with the
11-year sunspot cycle.
The measurement precision required to detect the Sun’s varying radiation out-
put was not obtained until the early 1980s, with an exquisitely sensitive detector,
created by Richard C. Willson and known as the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradi-
ance Monitor, or ACRIM for short. It was aboard NASA’s Solar Maximum Mission,
placed just outside the Earth on February 1980, and detected the total solar radiation
reaching the satellite with an incredible precision of 0.01% or one part in 10,000,
when averaged over 1 day. At this level of accuracy, the Sun’s total radiation output
is almost always changing, at amounts of up to a few tenths of a percent and on all
time scales from 1 s to 10 years. Similar variations were also detected by the Earth
7.5 Sun – Climate 371

Radiation Budget, or ERB, radiometer aboard the Nimbus 7 satellite, launched in

October 1978, with an even longer record, but with less precision.
Hugh S. Hudson teamed up with Willson to help him identify the irradiance vari-
ations with well-known features on the Sun. The largest, relatively brief, downward
excursions correspond to, and are explained by, the rotation of a large group of
sunspots across the face of the Sun. The concentrated magnetism in sunspots acts
as a valve, blocking the energy outflow, which is why sunspots are dark and cool,
producing reductions in the Sun’s output of up to 0.3% that last a few days.
Bright patches on the visible solar surface cause the increased luminosity. They
are called faculae, from the Latin for “little torches.” On the short-term scale of
minutes to days, sunspot blocking is greater than facular brightening; on the long-
term scale of months and years, faculae are dominant because they have significantly
longer lifetimes than sunspots and cover a larger fraction of the solar disc.
As demonstrated by Peter V. Foukal and Judith Lean in 1990, the decade-long
variations in the Sun’s total radiation output are the result of a competition between
dark sunspots, in which radiation is depleted, and bright faculae, which are sources
of enhanced radiation, with the faculae winning out. As magnetic activity increases,
they both appear more often, but the excess radiance from bright faculae is greater
than the loss from sunspots.
Five instruments on different spacecraft have measured the total solar irradiance
for three decades, determining the average amount of radiant solar energy per unit
time per unit area just outside the Earth (Fig. 7.11). Their combined results, de-
scribed by Claus Fröhlich and Judith Lean in 2004 and Fröhlich in 2006, indicate
an average minimum value over 30 years of 1, 365.5 ± 0.04 W m−2 .
There are significant uncertainties between these instruments, which disagree
among themselves by a few watts per square meter. They are also about 5 W m−2
higher, on average, than recent measurements from the SOlar Radiation and Cli-
mate Experiment, abbreviated SORCE and reported by Greg Kopp and colleagues
in 2005, which suggest a somewhat lower average value of about 1361 W m−2 but
with similar varying quantities and apparently no instrument or calibration errors.
The solar-cycle variation in the total solar irradiation is known with much greater
accuracy, showing a change of about 0.07% from cycle minimum to maximum. Al-
though the most intense part of the solar radiation, including that at visible wave-
lengths, exhibits this relatively modest variation, the entire spectrum of the Sun’s
radiation is modulated by solar activity.
Radiation at the short-wavelength, invisible parts of the solar spectrum change
significantly during the solar cycle, though contributing only a tiny fraction of the
Sun’s total radiation. As we have discussed in the previous Sect. 7.4, the Earth’s
upper atmosphere acts as a sponge, soaking up the unseen ultraviolet and X-ray
radiation. At times of high solar activity, the Sun pumps out much more of the
invisible rays, the air absorbs more of them, and our upper atmosphere heats up;
when solar activity diminishes, the high-altitude air absorbs less and cools down.
Only the least variable, visible portion of the solar spectrum penetrates through to
the relatively placid lower atmosphere, but this sunlight might still vary enough to
warm and cool the air.
372 7 Space Weather

ACRIM II
ACRIM I

ACRIM I

VIRGO
Model

HF

HF

HF
Solar Irradiance (Wm-2)

1368

1366

1364

1362
1977 1983 1989 1995 2001 2007
Year

Fig. 7.11 Variations in the solar constant. Observations with very stable and precise detectors on
several Earth-orbiting satellites from 1978 to 2007 show that the Sun’s total radiation input to the
Earth, termed the solar irradiance, is not a constant, but instead varies over time scales of days and
years. Here the total irradiance just outside our atmosphere, also called the solar constant, is given
in units of watts per square meter, abbreviated W m−2 , where 1 W is equivalent to 1 J s−1 . The
observations show that the Sun’s output fluctuates during each 11-year cycle of solar magnetic ac-
tivity, changing by about 0.1% between maximums (1979, 1990, and 2001) and minimums (1987,
1997, and 2008) in magnetic activity. The average minimum value is 1, 365.509 ± 0.426 W m−2 ,
and the cycle amplitudes are 0.934 ± 0.019, 0.897 ± 0.020 and 0.829 ± 0.017 W m−2 above the
average minimum value. Measurements with the Total Irradiance Monitor aboard the SOlar Radi-
aton and Climate Experiment, abbreviated SORCE, indicate a lower value of about 1, 361 W m−2 .
Temporary dips of up to 0.3% and a few days’ duration are due to the presence of large sunspots
on the visible hemisphere. The larger number of sunspots near the peak in the 11-year cycle is ac-
companied by a rise in magnetic activity that creates an increase in luminous output which exceeds
the cooling effects of sunspots. The capital letters given at the top are acronyms for the different
radiometers. They are the Hickey-Frieden (HF) radiometer of the Earth Radiation Budget (ERB)
experiment on the Nimbus-7 spacecraft, the two Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors
(ACRIM I and II) placed aboard the Solar Maximum Mission satellite and the Upper Atmosphere
Research Satellite (UARS), respectively, and the Variability of solar IRradiance and Gravity Os-
cillations (VIRGO) radiometers flying on the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated
SOHO. [Courtesy of Claus Fröhlich, see Frölich and Judith Lean (2004) for a discussion.]

The precise lengths of the 11-year solar cycle might be indicators of the solar
activity closely associated with climate. In 1991, Eigil Friss-Christensen and Knud
Lassen published an interesting correlation between cycle length and temperature
variations over the past 130 years. That is, the yearly mean air temperature over land
in the Northern Hemisphere has moved higher or lower, by about 0.2◦ Centigrade,
in close synchronism with the solar-cycle length during this period. Short cycles are
characteristic of greater solar activity that seems to produce a temperature increase,
while longer cycles signify decreased activity on the Sun and cooler times at the
Earth’s surface.
Peter Laut and Jesper Gundermann updated this work in 2000, using longer
records and finding a weaker correlation between temperature variations and cy-
cle length. Although there is still a correspondence in the 20th century, it is not
detectable in more recent times, so the measurements cannot be used in support of
any connection between the Sun and global warming since 1970.
7.5 Sun – Climate 373

Nevertheless, surface temperatures, cloud cover, drought, rainfall, tropical mon-

soons, and forest fires all show some correlation with solar activity, but the corre-
lations are variable and uncertain, and climate experts usually cannot explain why
they might occur. They just do not know how the climate responds to the solar vari-
ability. It is difficult to understand how the feeble changes in the solar brightness,
that have been observed so far, can have a noticeable effect on the Earth’s climate.
But climate modelers find that the Sun’s heating effect can be amplified, especially
for specific regions due to subtle changes in the ocean circulation patterns. In 2001
and 2003 Drew T. Shindell and co-workers demonstrated, for example, that long-
term regional changes in the climate during the pre-industrial era were dominated
by the Sun’s variable activity. Their models show that solar irradiance reductions in
the late 17th and most of the 18th century produced significant regional temperature
changes that were much larger than global average changes, with cooler tempera-
tures in the Northern Hemisphere agreeing with historical records of cold surface
temperatures during the prolonged Maunder Minimum of low solar activity.
Other scientists have reasoned that the Sun may also be influencing the Earth by
powerful indirect routes geared to the solar activity cycle. As an example, one solar-
cycle mechanism, suggested by Edward P. Ney in 1959, involves changes in the solar
wind, galactic cosmic rays, and terrestrial clouds. In 1975, Robert E. Dickinson pro-
posed related ideas in which solar variability modulates the cosmic ray input to Earth
and therefore the cloudiness of its atmosphere. At times of enhanced activity on the
Sun, the solar wind is pumped up with intense magnetic fields that extend far out
into interplanetary space, blocking cosmic rays that would otherwise arrive at Earth.
The resulting decrease in cosmic rays means that fewer energetic charged particles
penetrate to the lower atmosphere where they may help produce clouds, particu-
larly at higher latitudes where the shielding by Earth’s magnetic field is less. The
reduction in clouds, which reflect sunlight, would explain why the Earth’s surface
temperature gets hotter when the Sun is more active. In 1997, Henrik Svensmark
and Eigil Friis-Christensen indeed found that during the previous 11-year activity
cycle of the Sun, the cloudiness on a global scale decreased with increasing solar
activity and a lower intensity of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.
The mechanism proposed by Dickinson, in which changing cloud properties via
cosmic ray ionization influences atmospheric transparency, was advocated by Nigel
Marsh and Svensmark in their 2003 review of the solar influence on Earth’s climate.
But the idea still remains controversial. Also in 2003, Peter Laut challenged the
statistical certainty of the proposed correlations between cosmic ray intensity and
total or low cloud cover, and in 2007 Joanna D. Haigh questioned if the relatively
small ions produced by cosmic rays could act directly as cloud condensation nuclei.
And even if the cloud formation mechanism is feasible, its possible impact on the
climate remains uncertain.
The direct effects of enhanced solar activity on the upper atmosphere are far less
controversial. We know with certainty that the Sun’s ultraviolet rays create ozone
in the stratosphere, and the pioneering work of Karin Labitzke and Harold Van
Loon in the 1990s demonstrated that the varying intensity of solar ultraviolet radi-
ation produces a solar-cycle variation in the temperature of the stratosphere. These
374 7 Space Weather

temperature changes drive high-altitude winds and global circulation patterns that
move downward through the ground-hugging troposphere, where all our weather oc-
curs. So the entire lower atmosphere might beat to the 11-year solar rhythm. Climate
dynamists, such as Joanna D. Haigh and colleagues in 2005, are studying how the
resultant solar-cycle temperature changes in the lower stratosphere might produce
important changes in the underlying troposphere where all our weather and climate
occur. One difficulty may nevertheless be that the solar ultraviolet variations during
the 20th century do not correlate well with global temperatures in that century.
A related discovery, by Udo Schüle and colleagues in 2000, is that the quiet,
inactive Sun at far-ultraviolet wavelengths also changes with the solar activity cycle.
Moreover, the 11-year cycle that clocks the rise and fall of magnetic activity on the
Sun may not repeat with the same strength at minimum. It instead seems to be
modulated over century-long time intervals.
A substantial community of scientists is now seeking methods of amplifying
small variations in the Sun’s radiative output to produce significant variations in
global temperatures. When, and if, that link is identified, we will have a more com-
plete understanding of the Sun–climate interaction.

7.5.2 Solar Variability and Climate Change

Over the Past 1,000 Years

A crucial question is whether the Sun’s total irradiance exhibits pronounced changes
over time scales greater than the solar activity cycle. For the three decades that it has
been measured, the total radiation from the Sun might show a systematic brightness
increase or decrease smaller than the solar-cycle one. In 2003, Richard C. Willson
and Alexander V. Mordvinov reported an increase of 0.05% from the minimum in
1986 to the minimum in 1996; however, this result is controversial owing in part
to the difficulty in combining measurements from several different missions and
instruments. The more recent and reliable comparison for the minimum in 2008
indicates a decrease of 0.02% from the minimum in 1996.
But past observations of sunspots and observations of other stars once suggested
that more dramatic variations could occur, and may have happened during the past
millennium. Despite diligent observations by European astronomers, for example,
very few dark spots were found on the Sun between 1645 and 1715, a 70-year period
that included the reign of France’s “Sun King” Louis XIV. Gustav Spörer called at-
tention to the 70-year absence in 1887. An indirect consequence of the missing
sunspots was reported much earlier, in 1733, by Jean Jacques D’Ortous de Mairan,
as a decrease in the number of auroras seen on Earth, but he was ridiculed for think-
ing that the northern lights could be related to increases in the number of sunspots.
E. Walter Maunder fully documented the dearth of sunspots using extensive
historical records covering hundreds of years. His accounts, entitled A Prolonged
Sunspot Minimum, were presented to the Royal Astronomical Society in 1890 and
1894, but they remained largely ignored until the 1970s when John A. “Jack” Eddy
7.5 Sun – Climate 375

provided further evidence for the “Maunder Minimum”, as he called it, using the
growth rings of trees.
As the trees lay down their rings each year, they record the amount of atmo-
spheric carbon dioxide captured in the process of photosynthesis. The carbon intake
comes in two varieties, or isotopes, stable carbon 12 and radioactive carbon 14,
and the radioactive type tells us how active the Sun was at the time. Cosmic rays
from outer space produce radioactive carbon 14 when they strike atoms in the air.
Because the cosmic rays are deflected away from the Earth by the Sun’s magnetic
fields during high solar-activity levels, there is less radioactive carbon in the air dur-
ing episodes of high solar activity, and more of it at times of low activity on the Sun.
An analysis of the world’s longest-lived trees, the bristle cone pines, suggests that
the Sun’s output has been turned low for several extended periods in the past mil-
lennia. Eddy used the technique to read the history of solar activity all the way back
to the Bronze Age, and showed that the tree-ring data are supported by other evi-
dence such as the ancient sightings of terrestrial auroras (Fig. 7.12). In 1976, Eddy
concluded that the Sun has spent nearly a third of the past 2,000 years in a relatively
inactive state. He pinpointed several periods of low activity with significantly more
radioactive carbon 14, each about a century long, naming them the Maunder, Spörer,
and Wolf minima.
Since the Sun’s total radiative output has only been precisely measured from
space since 1978, earlier brightness changes must be inferred from the historical
records of solar activity and observations of Sun-like stars. This two-part recon-
struction of the past involves the use of ancient sunspot observations to estimate

-100
Carbon-14

Wolf Spörer Maunder Minimum

-80 200
20 -60
Sunspots
Auroras

-40 100
10

0 0
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Fig. 7.12 Long periods of solar inactivity. Three independent indices demonstrate the existence
of prolonged decreases in the level of solar activity. The observed annual mean sunspot numbers
(scale at right) also follows the 11-year solar activity cycle after 1700. The curve extending from
AD 1000 to 1900 is a proxy sunspot number index derived from measurements of carbon-14 in tree
rings. Increased carbon-14 is plotted downward (scale at left-inside), so increased solar activity
and larger proxy sunspot numbers correspond to reduced amounts of radiocarbon in the Earth’s
atmosphere. Open circles are an index of the occurrence of auroras in the Northern Hemisphere
(scale at left-outside). The pronounced absence of sunspots from 1645 and 1715 is named for the
English astronomer E. Walter Maunder, who fully documented it, and another noticeable lack of
solar activity is named for the German astronomer Gustav Spörer who previously called attention
to the prolonged absence between 1645 and 1715. The third prolonged absence of sunspots is
named for the Swiss astronomer, Johann Rudolf Wolf, who investigated the connection of the 11-
year sunspot cycle with geomagnetic activity and devised what is now known as the Wolf sunspot
number. (Courtesy of John A. “Jack” Eddy.)
376 7 Space Weather

the variable radiation from solar active regions, and extrapolations from the bright-
ness variations of other solar-type stars permit estimates for the possible total range
in brightness variation of the Sun in past and future centuries, from the inactive,
non-cycling lulls to the active, cycling luminosity highs.
Observations of Sun-like stars prompted Sallie L. Baliunas and Robert L. Jastrow
to speculate in 1990 that the Sun might have undergone substantial luminosity vari-
ations on time scales of centuries, associated with dramatic changes in the Earth’s
climate. And in 1995, Judith Lean, Jürg Beer, and Raymond Bradley used such stel-
lar comparisons in combination with proxies of solar activity to estimate the Sun’s
effect on the Earth’s climate since 1610. They concluded that the Sun’s low lumi-
nosity during the Maunder Minimum could account for a simultaneous long, cold
spell on Earth, and that the Sun’s subsequent brightness increase might account for
much of the global warming since then. Already in 1994, however, Peter Foukal
suggested that the levels of solar activity required for this to occur are not observed
in the carbon-14 records over the past several millennia, which indicated to Foukal
that such changes in the Sun’s luminosity are now unlikely.
Then in 2002, Lean and co-workers retracted the stellar evidence, and the solar
irradiance reconstructions based on it, with the admission that the long-term irradi-
ance variations used in climate models for the previous decade may be a factor of
five larger than justified. In other words, the variations during the past several cen-
turies should be more in accord with the spacecraft measurements during the past
three decades. So, Peter Foukal and his colleagues reviewed the situation, in 2004
and again in 2006, concluding that the brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had
a significant influence on global warming since the 17th century.
In the meantime, Michael Lockwood, Richard Stamper, and Matthew N. Wild
reported in 1999 that direct and surrogate measurements of the near-Earth inter-
planetary magnetic field indicate a magnetic flux doubling during the past 100
years. Sami K. Solanki and co-workers quickly estimated the long-term changes
of the solar magnetic field back to the Maunder Minimum, supporting the doubling
of the Sun’s large-scale, coronal magnetic field in the past century. And in 2005,
Yi-Ming Wang, Judith L. Lean, and Neil R. Sheeley Jr. modeled both the Sun’s
magnetic field and irradiance since 1713, inferring much smaller irradiance changes
for the Maunder Minimum period in the late 1600s than the previous estimates using
stellar variability results. Interestingly, Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West showed in
2006 that both the new lower levels and previous higher levels of solar variations for
the Maunder Minimum can empirically fit the reconstructed temperature trend from
the 1600s up to about 1950, with a good correspondence between global surface
temperature records and solar-induced temperature curves during the pre-industrial
era from 1600 to 1800.
But removal of these effects from the climate records results in a very large tem-
perature increase in the late 20th century, which cannot be explained by natural
effects. Michael Mann and colleagues noted this dramatic temperature rise in 1999;
it was independently noted by Mann and Thomas Crowley in 2000. And in 2007,
Lockwood and Fröhlich reaffirmed that the observed rise in global mean tempera-
tures over the previous 20 years could not be attributed to the Sun.
7.5 Sun – Climate 377

Although there is some controversy about some remaining solar influence on

the climate during the past few decades, the temperature increase observed on Earth
certainly coincides with the unprecedented release of carbon dioxide and other heat-
trapping gases into the Earth’s atmosphere, suggesting that human activity is taking
control of the world’s temperature, boosting it to unheard levels.

7.5.3 The Earth’s Rising Fever

We have been turning up the global thermostat by dumping more and more carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Because carbon diox-
ide is colorless, odorless, and disperses immediately in the atmosphere, few real-
ized how much of the potentially dangerous gas enters into the air. Half a century
ago, no one even knew if any of the carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere or if
it was all being absorbed in the forests and oceans. But in 1958, Charles Keeling
began measurements of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (Keeling,
1960), which demonstrated its smooth exponential increase over the past half cen-
tury (Fig. 7.13). Both the increase and its acceleration have been as inexorable as
the expansion of the world’s population, human industry, and pollution. This sys-
tematic rise in the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide is the direct result
of burning coal, oil, and natural gas.
Carbon dioxide and other gases, generated as the result of human activity, trap
heat radiation near the Earth’s surface and elevate its temperature by the greenhouse
effect (Focus 7.4). Without remedial action, the levels of atmospheric carbon diox-
ide in this century will, for example, become twice those of the previous century
and this will eventually raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface by alarming
amounts. So much of the world’s population has, to put it mildly, become alarmed
about continued global warming by this effect if the irreversible buildup of carbon
dioxide and other heat-trapping gases continues unabated. The concern was demon-
strated by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to an Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and to Albert A. Gore Jr. “for their efforts to build up
and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the
foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

Focus 7.4
The Greenhouse Effect
Our planet’s surface is now comfortably warm because the atmosphere traps some
of the Sun’s heat and keeps it near the surface. The thin blanket of gas acts like a one-
way filter, allowing sunlight through to warm the surface, but preventing the escape
of some of the heat into the cold, unfillable sink of space. Much of the ground’s
heat is re-radiated out toward space in the form of longer infrared waves that are
less energetic than visible ones and thus do not pass through the atmosphere’s gas
as easily as sunlight.
378 7 Space Weather

380

370
Carbon Dioxide (p.p.m.v.)

360

350

340

330

320
310
1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Year

Fig. 7.13 Rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The average monthly concentration of atmo-
spheric carbon dioxide, denoted CO2 , in parts per million by volume, abbreviated ppmv, of dry
air plotted against time in years observed continuously since 1958 at the Mauna Loa Observatory,
Hawaii. It shows that the atmospheric amounts of the principal waste gas of industrial societies,
carbon dioxide, have risen steadily for nearly half a century. The up and down fluctuations, which
are superimposed on the systematic increase, reflect a local seasonal rise and fall in the absorption
of carbon dioxide by trees and other vegetation. Summertime lows are caused by the uptake of
carbon dioxide by plants, and the winter highs occur when the plants’ leaves fall and some of the
gas is returned to the air. Carbon dioxide ice-core data indicate that the exponential increase in the
amount of carbon dioxide has been continuing for the past two and a half centuries. (Courtesy of
Dave Keeling and Tim Whorf, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.)

This is why cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear nights; escaping infrared
heat radiation is blocked by the water vapor in the clouds, keeping the ground warm
at night. The glass windows of a greenhouse also retain heat and humidity inside of a
greenhouse, so the atmospheric warming has also come to be called the greenhouse
effect. But the designation is a misnomer, since the air inside a garden greenhouse is
not heated by retaining infrared radiation; it is heated because it is enclosed, prevent-
ing the circulation of air currents that would carry away heat and cool the interior.
As first shown by John Tyndall in 1861, the main ingredients of the atmosphere,
nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), play no part in the warming of the Earth’s surface,
since these diatomic molecules do not absorb noticeable amounts of infrared radiation,
but the less abundant, triatomic molecules, like water vapor and carbon dioxide, absorb
the infrared heat, retaining it and raising the temperature of the planet.
The greenhouse effect is literally a matter of life and death. If the Earth had no
atmosphere, it would be directly heated by the Sun’s light to only 255 K, which is
well below the freezing point of water at 273 K. Fortunately for life on Earth, the
greenhouse gases in the air warm the planet to as much as 288 K, and this extra
heat can keep the oceans, lakes and streams from turning into ice. Most of this
“natural” greenhouse warming comes from water molecules, and carbon dioxide
only provides about 10% of it.
Since the industrial revolution, humans have released heat-trapping gases into
the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate, creating an “unnatural” greenhouse ef-
fect. The amount of carbon dioxide in our air has, for example, been steadily
7.5 Sun – Climate 379

accumulating as the result of the rapid growth of the world population and in-
creased burning of coal, oil, and natural gas. During the past few decades, other
heat-trapping gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, have been accumulating
noticeably in the atmosphere; methane, also known as natural gas, is released from
swamps, coalmines, and even cows, and nitrous oxide, or laughing gas, originates
from fertilizers.

There can be no doubt that the temperatures are already rising. The evidence
comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface
ocean temperatures, as well as retreating glaciers, increases in average global sea
levels, and changes to many physical and biological systems.
Residents of northern countries may welcome the increasing heat. The growing
season of crops will be lengthened, there will be less snow to shovel, and many
days will be warmer, comparable to current more temperate climes in Mediterranean
countries.
But some disturbing consequences of global warming are forecast for the future.
The details cannot be precise, owing to the uncertain effects of clouds and oceans,
but that should not distract us from the overall, worldwide problems. If current emis-
sions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases go unchecked, the increased heat
and violent weather will drastically change the climate we are used to.
The associated rise in sea level will flood coastal cities, inundate island nations,
and erase fertile deltas at the mouths of major rivers, like the Nile, Yangtze, Mekong,
and Mississippi. More than a hundred million people live within a meter of mean
sea level. And when many of the world’s glaciers experience complete meltdown,
in about 100 years or less at the present rate, some of these people will have their
homes destroyed. But the Antarctica glaciers are not expected to melt, and some
cities are likely to save homes by building protective dams. Some of the poorest
regions on Earth will be hit hardest, such as densely populated Bangladesh. The
resultant flooding will disrupt major cities such as Alexandria, Bangkok, Boston,
New York City, Shanghai, Tokyo, and Venice.
And there are other catastrophes that might result from significant global warm-
ing in the future. Hurricanes will become stronger and wetter; water supplies will be
reduced and forest fires will become more common; more species will become ex-
tinct; drought will be intensified within the interiors of many continents; the Ameri-
can Midwest might become a colossal dust bowl; power companies will be unable to
air condition our sweltering cities; and extreme heat waves will cause great human
stress and more deaths, particularly among the poor, elderly, and weak or those with
cardiovascular and respiratory disease.
Although the most severe consequences of global warming are not likely to be
noticed by you or your children, we’ve already initiated changes that will affect
future generations. Once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide stays there for centuries,
so our grandchildren and their children will have to contend with the consequences
of our present actions. The invisible waste gases that we have already dumped in
the air will slowly change the climate of the Earth regardless of future actions, and
380 7 Space Weather

sometime in the future a lot of people might be feeling like the world is melting
down in a pool of sweat.
Most scientists therefore support prudent steps to curb the continued buildup of
heat-trapping gases, even asserting that the evidence warrants a sense of urgency. In
2005, for example, the world’s most influential scientific academies warned world
leaders that they can no longer ignore the “clear and increasing” threat posed by
global warming, and that “the scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” The unprecedented joint
statement included the heads of the scientific academies of Brazil, Canada, China,
France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United
States.
Current international agreements to curtail the production of heat-trapping gases
are not going to solve the problem. The Kyoto Protocol, which calls for manda-
tory reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and
methane, has not been signed by the United States, which contributes about 18% of
the total emissions with just 4% of the world’s population. And developing nations
are not bound by the treaty restrictions even though their emissions are expected
to surpass even the unrestrained emissions of the richer nations in a few decades.
China, for example, is rapidly increasing its consumption of coal and oil and is ex-
pected to overtake the United States as the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitter.
And the combined increase in greenhouse gases contributed by these two countries
will outstrip any reductions agreed to by other countries.
While waiting for the world’s governments to get their act together, and ef-
fectively curtail the global emissions of heat trapping gases, state and national
governments can curtail future global warming by setting carbon dioxide emission
limits on cars, which account for 21% of the world’s total carbon dioxide emission.
They can adopt energy policies that shift from coal and oil to gas, and eventually
to wind, water, solar, or nuclear power. Countries can avoid the clearing of their
forests and plant a lot more trees, and farmers can use plants to pull carbon out
of the air, while not plowing the soil that releases the carbon back into the air. By
protecting existing forests and planting new ones, or by practicing no-till farming,
countries might offset up to 20% of the expected carbon dioxide build up during this
century.
Individuals can also take steps to help. They can stop buying gas-guzzling sports
utility vehicles, and instead purchase compact, hybrid cars. Ordinary people can
also reduce their consumption of coal, oil, or natural gas that electrify and heat their
homes, offices, and schools, power their vehicles, and fuel their factories. And they
can additionally use energy-efficient appliances, reduce their daily electricity use,
drive their cars less, and insulate their buildings.
And if government and individual action do not solve the global-warming prob-
lem, nature will. In perhaps 100 years or even less, we will completely exhaust oil
supplies, and the entire world will run out of gas. Once that happens, the Earth’s
climate should cool gradually, as the deep ocean waters slowly absorb the carbon
dioxide pumped into the air during the recent frenetic pulse of activity. Then a long-
overdue ice age might be on its way.
7.5 Sun – Climate 381

7.5.4 Climate Change Over Millions and Billions of Years

During the past two million years, huge ice sheets have advanced across the North-
ern Hemisphere and retreated again more than 20 times. The great, extended ice
sheets last roughly 100,000 years, keeping the climate cold and the sea level low.
The warm periods that punctuates the cold spells, called an interglacial, lasts roughly
10,000 years.
The most recent advance of the glaciers started about 120,000 years ago in
Canada, Scandinavia, and Siberia. By the time the ice had spread to its maximum
southern extent, most of northern Europe, New England, and the Midwestern United
States were buried under ice a kilometer thick. The sea level had fallen to about
100 m lower than it is today, enlarging the size of continents above their surround-
ing waters and making it possible to walk from England to France, from Siberia to
Alaska, and from New Guinea to Australia.
We now live during an interglacial, known as the Holocene period, which be-
gan about 10,000 years ago, when the world became warmer and wetter, about
5 K warmer on average, and human civilization flourished. The ice sheets melted
and shrank back to their present-day configurations, leaving only the glacial ice in
Greenland and parts of arctic Canada, as well as the massive ice sheets of Antarctica,
and the sea level rose around the world.
The rhythmic ebb and flow of the great continental glaciers are affected by three
astronomical rhythms that slowly alter the distances and angles at which sunlight
strikes the Earth (Fig. 7.14). They are sometimes called the Milankovitch cycles,
after the Milutin Milankovitch who described how variations in the planet’s orbit,
wobble, and tilt could influence the pattern of incoming solar radiation at different
locations on the globe. Joseph Alphonse Adhémar previously suggested, in 1842,
that the ice ages might be due to variations in the way the Earth moves around the
Sun, and James Croll took up the idea in greater detail in 1876, showing how long
periodic variations in the Earth’s distance from the Sun might change the terrestrial
climate. But the theory received its fullest mathematical development from 1920 to
1941 by Milankovitch.
The shortest astronomical rhythm is a periodic wobble in the Earth’s rotation axis
that is repeated in periods of 23,000 years. It determines whether the seasons in a
given hemisphere are enhanced or weakened by orbital variations. A longer periodic
variation, of the Earth’s axial tilt from 21.5◦ to 24.5◦ and back again, occurs every
41,000 years. It is currently 23.5◦ , and accounts for our yearly seasons. The greater
the tilt is, the more intense the seasons in both hemispheres, with hotter summers
and colder winters.
The third and longest cycle is due to a slow periodic change in the shape of the
Earth’s orbit every 100,000 years. As the orbit becomes more elongated, the Earth’s
distance from the Sun varies more during the year, intensifying the seasons in one
hemisphere and moderating them in the other.
The astronomical theory for the recurring ice ages was not strongly supported
until 1976, when climate scientists James D. Hays, John Imbrie, and Nicholas
J. “Nick” Shackleton demonstrated that variations in the Earth’s orbit serve as a
382 7 Space Weather

Interglacials (Warm Periods)

-1.0
Oxygen Isotope Ratio

-0.5

0.0

0.5
Last Glacial
Maximum
1.0
Axis Tilt (degrees)

24

23

22

0.05
Eccentricity/Precession

-0.05

500 400 300 200 100 Today -100

Thousands of Years Ago

Fig. 7.14 Astronomical cycles cause the ice ages. The advance and retreat of glaciers are con-
trolled by changes in the Earth’s orbital shape or eccentricity, and variations in its axial tilt and
wobble. They alter the angles and distances from which solar radiation reaches Earth, and there-
fore change the amount and distribution of sunlight on our planet. The global ebb and flow of ice
is inferred from the presence of lighter and heavier forms of oxygen, called isotopes, in the fos-
silized shells of tiny marine animals found in deep-sea sediments. During glaciations, the shells are
enriched with oxygen-18 because oxygen-16, a lighter form, is trapped in glacial ice. The relative
abundance of oxygen-18 and oxygen-16 (top) is compared with periodic 41,000-year variations in
the tilt of the Earth’s axis (middle) and in the shape, or eccentricity – longer 100,000-year variation,
and wobble, or precession, of the Earth’s orbit – shorter 23,000-year variation (bottom).
7.5 Sun – Climate 383

pacemaker of the ice ages. They used an analysis of different types, or isotopes, of
oxygen atoms in deep-sea sediments to infer the proportion of the world’s water that
was frozen within the glacial ice sheets at different times, revealing all three astro-
nomical rhythms, with a dominant 100,000-year one. Analysis of cores extracted
from the glacial ice in Antarctica and Greenland between 1985 and 2005 confirmed
that the major ice ages are initiated every 100,000 years by orbital-induced changes
in the intensity and distribution of sunlight arriving at Earth.
It was somewhat surprising that the glaciers have advanced and retreated in syn-
chronism with this longer rhythmic stretching of the Earth’s orbit. The shorter cy-
cles have a greater, direct effect on the seasonal change in incident sunlight, but
apparently produce smaller changes in ice volume than the longer one that has
a weaker seasonal effect. By itself the 100,000-year cycle does not appear strong
enough to bring about direct alterations of the terrestrial climate, so it must be lever-
aged by some other factor, and it has been found in ice cores from Greenland and
Antarctica.
Microscopic air bubbles, which have been trapped in falling snowflakes and en-
tombed in the glacial ice, record long-term climate changes over hundreds of thou-
sands of years. Successive layers of the frozen snow build up on top of each other,
like layers of sediment in geological strata, and the air bubbles entrapped in deep
ice cores can be used to determine ancient variations in the temperature and atmo-
spheric composition (Fig. 7.15). Analyses of the deep ice core taken from Vostok,
Antarctica, reveal the roughly 100,000-year periodicity of the ice ages over the past
420,000 years, and indicate that transitions from glacial to warm epochs are ac-
companied by an increase in the atmospheric concentration of the three principal
greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The temperatures
go up whenever the levels of the heat-trapping gases increase, and they decrease
together as well, rising and falling in tandem as the glaciers come and go and come
again. These results were published by Jean-Robert Petit and colleagues in 1999 and
reviewed by Bernhard Stauffer in 2000.
Scientists cannot yet agree whether the increase in greenhouse gases preceded or
followed the rising temperatures, but the increase does answer the riddle of why the
largest climate variations occur every 100,000 years. Changing orbital parameters
initiate the end of a glacial epoch, through a relatively small increase in the inten-
sity of incident solar radiation, and an increase in greenhouse gases amplifies the
weak orbital signal. Melting of the large ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere then
further increases warming.
The ice cores can also be used to study the solar activity at times that pre-date
historical records. In 1990, for example, Jürg Beer and co-workers demonstrated
how the beryllium concentrations in polar ice can be used to study the 11-year solar
activity cycle long before the first telescopic observations of sunspots, and in 1998
Gisela Dreschhoff and Edward J. Zeller described how high nitrate concentrations
in ice cores signal solar proton events injected into the polar stratosphere during past
centuries.
And the die is cast for the next advance of the glaciers, when the ice will come
again. But because the current level of greenhouse gases, recently deposited in our
384 7 Space Weather

360

Carbon Dioxide (p.p.m.v.)

300
Carbon Dioxide

250

2
Temperature Difference (°C)

200
0

Temperature
-2

1700
-4

700
-6

Methane (p.p.b.v.)
Methane
600

500

400

300

150 100 50 Today

Thousands of Years Ago

Fig. 7.15 Ice age temperatures and greenhouse gases. Ice-core data indicate that changes in
the atmospheric temperature over Antarctica closely parallel variations in the atmospheric con-
centrations of two greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, for the past 160,000 years.
When the temperature rises, so does the amount of these two greenhouse gases, and vice versa. A
deeper Vostok ice core has extended the correlation to the past 420,000 years – see Jean Robert
Petit and colleagues (1999) and Bernhard Stauffer (2000). The carbon dioxide (parts per million
per volume) and methane (parts per billion per volume) increases may have contributed to the
glacial–interglacial changes by amplifying orbital forcing of climate change. The ice-core data
do not include the past 200 years, shown as dashed and broken lines at the right. They indicate
that the present-day levels of carbon dioxide and methane are unprecedented during the past four
150,000-year glacial-interglacial cycles. (Adapted from Claude Lorius, EOS, 69(26), 1988.)

atmosphere by humans, far surpasses any natural fluctuation of these substances

recorded during past ice ages, we are not sure if the next ice age will dampen future
global warming or whether recent global warming is delaying the coming of the ice.
Nevertheless, when we completely exhaust oil supplies, in 100 years or less, and
when our sources of coal and natural gas are also depleted, perhaps in a few hundred
years, the ice should be on its way. And the next time it happens, the advancing
glaciers could bury Copenhagen, Detroit, and Montreal under mountains of ice.
7.5 Sun – Climate 385

Climate changes over even longer periods, of about 100 million years, are very
difficult to forecast. For instance, there was a time, some 65 million years ago, when
there were no polar ice caps and dinosaurs roamed the Earth in a climate that was
perhaps 15 K warmer than today. And many millions of years from now, continents
will have collided, creating towering mountain ranges, or spilt open to make way for
new oceans, altering the flow of our air and sea and strongly influencing the future
climate in unforeseen ways.
And when we step back to view the Earth’s probable climate on cosmic time
scales of billions of years, we realize that the Sun’s long, gradual evolution plays a
role in both the remote past and the distant future. Our star began it life, for example,
shining with only 70% of its present luminosity, slowing growing in luminous in-
tensity as it aged. So the total solar irradiance has been steadily increasing at the rate
of about 1% every 150 million years, with a total increase of roughly 30% since the
Sun formed 4.6 billion years ago. This inexorable increase in the Sun’s brightness is
a consequence of increasing amounts of helium in the Sun’s core; the greater mean
density produces higher core temperatures, faster nuclear reactions, and a steady
increase in luminosity.
If the Sun was 70% dimmer billions of years ago, the Earth should have been
in a deep freeze, provided its atmosphere was not fundamentally different from to-
day. That is, assuming an unchanging atmosphere, with the same composition and
reflecting properties as today, the decreased solar luminosity would have caused the
Earth’s global surface temperature to drop below the freezing point of water during
its first 2.5 billion years. Yet, there is clear geological evidence that the Earth was
never this cold, and must have had a warm climate in its early history. Sedimentary
rocks, which had to be deposited in liquid water, date from 3.8 billion years ago,
when the Earth was less than one billion years old, and there is fossil evidence in
these rocks for the emergence of life at least 3.5 billion years ago.
The discrepancy between the Earth’s warm climatic record and an initially dim-
mer Sun has come to be known as the faint-young-Sun paradox, which has been
reviewed by James F. Kasting and Owen B. Toon in 1989. It can be resolved if
the Earth has a long-lasting climate control system that maintained relatively con-
stant surface temperatures throughout the four billion years of recorded geologi-
cal history. One possibility, proposed by Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972,
Tobias C. Owen and colleagues in 1979, and Sagan and Christopher Chyba in
1997, is that there was a stronger atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases,
such as carbon dioxide, methane, or ammonia, in the Earth’s early history. If the
planet’s primitive atmosphere contained hundreds of times more carbon dioxide
than it does now, the greater heating of the enhanced greenhouse effect could have
kept the oceans from freezing. The Earth could then only maintain a temperate cli-
mate by turning down its greenhouse effect as the Sun grew warmer and turned up
the heat.
A different remedy of the faint-young-Sun problem, proposed by I.-Juliana
Sackmann and Arnold Boothroyd in 2003, is that the young Sun was not faint.
It might have began shining as a bigger, brighter, hotter, and more massive star,
subsequently losing much of that mass in strong solar winds associated with its
386 7 Space Weather

youth – see Manuel Güdel’s 2007 review of evidence for an active young Sun. Or
perhaps because of its faster rotation, the young Sun might have had stronger mag-
netic fields with enhanced extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray radiation and a greater out-
put of high-energy particles. They could have played a role in modifying our planet’s
atmosphere back then. And as with humans, the Sun’s bright or active youth might
have evolved into a calmer, statelier old age, with lower luminosity, slower winds,
and moderate magnetic activity.
An alternative explanation of the paradox involves the ancient oceans, during
the first 1.5 billion years on Earth, and the regulatory effects of plants and animals
thereafter. The very young Earth contained very little dry land, and the greater ocean
surface would have absorbed more of the incoming solar radiation than it does today.
Then, for the past three billion years, plants and animals could have developed the
capability to control the environment, transforming the atmosphere and regulating
the surface temperature. According to this Gaia hypothesis, developed by James E.
Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s, it is life that continues to control the
environment, making it comfortable for living things in spite of adverse physical
and chemical changes. For example, there was little or no oxygen in our atmosphere
billions of years ago, but oxygen now makes up about a fifth of our air. If plants
did not continuously replenish the oxygen, animals that breathe oxygen would use
it all up.
But there is probably no escape in the end. Whatever life on Earth does, its remote
future is not secure. As the Sun continues to brighten, the planet will eventually be-
come a burned-out cinder, a dead and sterile place. From both astrophysical theory
and observations of other stars, we know that the Sun will grow enormously in size
and luminosity billions of years from now (Fig. 7.16). Astronomers calculate that
the Sun will be hot enough in three billion years to boil the Earth’s oceans away,
and four billion years thereafter, our star will balloon into a giant star, engulfing the
planet Mercury and becoming 2,000 times brighter than it is now. Its light will be in-
tense enough to melt the Earth’s surface. So, our long-term prospects are not all that
great, and we might as well concentrate on protecting, improving, and experiencing
the magnificent world that we are so privileged to inhabit.

7.6 Summary Highlights: Space Weather

• Space weather refers to conditions on the Sun and in the solar wind, magne-
tosphere, ionosphere, and thermosphere that can influence the performance and
reliability of space-borne and ground-based technological systems and can affect
human life and health.
• The Sun powers weather in space, with explosive outbursts that produce gusts
and squalls in the tempestuous solar wind.
• Energetic protons accelerated by solar flares or coronal mass ejections can crip-
ple spacecraft and seriously endanger unprotected astronauts that venture into
outer space. Sun storms can also disrupt global radio communications and disable
7.6 Summary Highlights: Space Weather 387

Luminosity (times present value)

1,000 Sun’s
Luminosity

100 Helium-
Shell Flashes
Contraction
10 Leaves Main First
Sequence Red-Giant
Now Peak
1
“Faint Early Sun”
Diameter (times present value)

Sun’s
100 Diameter

Helium-
Shell Flashes
10
Contraction
Leaves Main First
Sequence Red-Giant
Now Peak White
1 Dwarf

0 5 10 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.3650 12.3655

Age (billions of years)

Fig. 7.16 The Sun’s fate. In about eight billion years the Sun will become much brighter (top) and
larger (bottom). The time scale has been expanded near the end of the Sun’s life to show relatively
rapid changes. (Courtesy of I-Juliana Sackmann and Arnold I. Boothroyd.)

satellites used for navigation, military reconnaissance or surveillance, and com-

munication, from cell phones to pagers, with considerable economic, safety, and
security consequences.
• Stormy weather in space occurs after the outburst of coronal mass ejections
and/or solar flares, which erupt from solar active regions that appear more fre-
quently near the maximum of the 11-year solar activity cycle.
• Helioseimology is used to detect magnetically complex and strong active regions
on the hidden back side of the Sun, and to provide more than a week of warning
before they rotate into view to threaten the Earth.
• Potential solar outbursts can be forecast by monitoring the twist and shear of
active-region magnetic fields using vector magnetograms on the ground or in
space, by the detection of twisted soft X-ray sigmoid shapes, or by observing
emerging or swirling flows beneath the active regions.
• No one has yet identified a forecast signature that predicts exactly when a solar
flare or coronal mass ejection will begin, but once they occur there is still some
warning time – of about 1 to 2 days for a fast coronal mass ejection.
388 7 Space Weather

• When initiated, threatening coronal mass ejections can be accompanied at or

near the photosphere by solar flares, halo coronal mass ejections, coronal X-ray
or extreme-ultraviolet dimming and global extreme-ultraviolet waves.
• The direct in situ detection of high-speed electrons at a spacecraft can give about
an hour’s advance warning of the arrival of more dangerous, energetic protons at
the same location.
• Solar energetic particle events, of high-energy electrons, protons, or heavier ions,
arrive at the Earth within tens of minutes from the Sun following solar flares or
coronal mass ejections.
• The solar proton events are the most energetic and therefore the most dangerous
solar energetic particles. They can severely affect the health of unprotected as-
tronauts traveling outside the Earth’s protective magnetosphere, and they are ca-
pable of penetrating spacecraft to damage or disrupt sensitive technical systems.
The strongest events produce radiation doses that might be lethal to astronauts
fixing a spacecraft in outer space or taking a walk on the Moon or Mars.
• Energetic charged particles generated during solar flares will only threaten our
planet or any other place in space if they occur at just the right place on the Sun,
at one end of a spiral magnetic field line that connects the flaring region to that
location.
• Solar energetic particles can be accelerated to very high energies in solar flares
or by interplanetary shocks driven by fast coronal mass ejections, abbreviated
CMEs. The flare-associated particles are produced at the Sun and follow the in-
terplanetary magnetic fields, while the CME-driven shocks can cross magnetic
fields lines and accelerate particles all the way from the Sun to the Earth.
• Type II radio bursts are due to the electrons accelerated at an outward propagating
shock front. The meter-wavelength type II bursts are generated in the corona
near the Sun and can be observed from the ground, while kilometer-wavelength
ones originate further out in interplanetary space and can only be observed from
spacecraft.
• Coronal mass ejections propagating in interplanetary space are known as inter-
planetary coronal mass ejections, or ICMEs for short. Their magnetic topology
when arriving near Earth has been probed by spacecraft, indicating that many of
them are closed, looping magnetic structures rooted in the Sun at both ends and
extending radially from the Sun to the Earth.
• Interplanetary magnetic clouds often travel behind interplanetary shocks, which
are driven by coronal mass ejections. Such a magnetic cloud contains a well-
organized, twisted magnetic flux tube, which can provide a “highway” for the
transport of solar energetic particles. When arriving near Earth, a magnetic cloud
exhibits an enhanced magnetic field strength, a smooth rotation of the field di-
rection through a large angle, and a low proton temperature with a low ratio of
particle pressure to magnetic pressure.
• Only about a third of the ICMEs arriving near Earth can be characterized as
magnetic clouds. The other, magnetically complex ejecta might be attributed to
the interaction of coronal mass ejections moving at different speeds, with the fast
ones even cannibalizing the slower ones.
7.6 Summary Highlights: Space Weather 389

• Impulsive solar energetic particle events are accelerated at the Sun during rapid
solar flares, accompanied by type III radio bursts, rich in near-relativistic elec-
trons, the rare helium isotope 3 He and heavy ions, and can last minutes at the
Sun and hours at the Earth’s orbit.
• Gradual solar particle events are accelerated by CME-driven interplanetary
shocks, accompanied by type II radio bursts and long-lasting (hours) soft X-ray
emission. They are responsible for most of the large proton events seen at Earth,
and they can last days in the vicinity of the Earth.
• We are protected from the full blast of the Sun’s violent activity by a dipolar
magnetic field that diverts charged particles around the Earth and forms a cavity,
called the magnetosphere, within the Sun’s relentless winds.
• Doughnut-shaped belts of energetic electrons and protons girdle the Earth’s
equator.
• The Sun’s winds bring the solar and terrestrial magnetic fields together on the
night side of the Earth, where magnetic fields that point in the opposite direc-
tion can merge together. Electrons and protons can enter the magnetosphere at
this point of magnetic reconnection, and these particles can become accelerated
within the magnetosphere.
• Intense, non-recurrent geomagnetic storms, accompanied by exceptionally bright
aurora, are caused when coronal mass ejections encounter the Earth’s magneto-
sphere with the right magnetic alignment.
• Coronal mass ejections that strike the Earth can generate power surges on trans-
mission lines that could cause electrical power blackouts of entire cities.
• Low-level, recurrent geomagnetic storms, with a 27-day repetition period, are
produced by co-rotating interaction regions in the solar wind. When the fast-
speed and slow-speed solar winds meet, they produce one of these co-rotating
interaction regions.
• The auroras are caused by high-speed electrons that pump up oxygen and ni-
trogen molecules in the atmosphere, causing them to fluoresce like a cosmic
neon sign.
• When viewed from space, the auroras form an oval centered on each magnetic
pole, where magnetic fields guide energetic electrons down into the Earth’s upper
atmosphere.
• High-speed protons generated during explosive outbursts on the Sun can cripple
satellites and endanger space-walking astronauts.
• Changes in the ionosphere resulting from solar flares or coronal mass ejections
can attenuate or disrupt high-frequency radio wave communications that utilize
reflection from the ionosphere to carry signals to distances beyond the local hori-
zon. Even during moderately intense flares, long-distance radio communications
can be temporarily silenced over the Earth’s entire sunlit hemisphere.
• Space weather interference with radio communication can be avoided by using
short-wavelength, ultra-high-frequency signals that pass right through the iono-
sphere to satellites that can relay the transmissions to other locations. Signals
in this frequency range are nevertheless also vulnerable to the aurora currents
in the ionosphere, and can be degraded or completely lost during times of high
geomagnetic activity.
390 7 Space Weather

• When encountering the Earth, coronal mass ejections can compress the magneto-
sphere below the orbits of geosynchronous satellites that hover above one place
on Earth, exposing the satellites to the full force of the solar wind.
• Solar X-rays and extreme-ultraviolet radiation both produce and significantly al-
ter the Earth’s ionosphere. The solar X-rays fluctuate in intensity by two orders of
magnitude, or a factor of 100, during the Sun’s 11-year magnetic activity cycle.
Near activity maximum greater amounts of X-rays produce increased ionization,
greater heat, and expansion of our upper atmosphere, altering satellite orbits and
disrupting communications.
• The total solar irradiance of the Earth, the so-called solar constant, rises and
falls in step with the 11-year magnetic activity cycle, but with a total recent
change of only about 0.1%. When sunspots cross the visible solar disk, they
produce, in themselves, a brief dimming of the Sun’s radiative output, amount-
ing to a few tenths of 1% for just a few days; a brightness increase caused by
faculae and plage exceeds the overall sunspot decrease at times of high solar
activity.
• The Earth is now hotter than any time during the previous 1,000 years. This
global warming is attributed to carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping green-
house gases released into the atmosphere by humans.
• The major ice ages, that repeat every 100,000 years, are caused by astronomical
rhythms that alter the angles and distances from which sunlight strikes the Earth.
• Analysis of the deep ice core taken from Vostok, Antarctica, reveal the roughly
100,000-year periodicity of the ice ages over the past 420,000 years, and indicate
that transitions from glacial to warm epochs are accompanied by an increase in
the atmospheric concentration of the three principal greenhouse gases – carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. A relativity small increase in the intensity
of incident solar radiation, associated with a 100,000-year periodic change in the
Earth’s orbit, may be amplified by an increase in greenhouse gases to produce a
warm, interglacial epoch.
• Our star began its life shining with only 70% of its present luminosity, slowly
growing in luminous intensity as it aged. Assuming an unchanging atmosphere,
with the same composition and reflecting properties as today, the past decreased
solar luminosity would have caused the Earth’s global surface temperature to
drop below the freezing point of water during its first 2.5 billion years. Yet, there
is clear geological evidence that the Earth was never this cold, and must have
had a warm climate in its early history. The discrepancy between the Earth’s
warm climatic record and an initially dimmer Sun has come to be known as the
faint-young-Sun paradox.
• The faint-young-Sun paradox can be resolved if there was a stronger atmospheric
concentration of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, or ammo-
nia, in the Earth’s early history; the greater heating of the enhanced greenhouse
effect could have kept the oceans from freezing. Another solution is that the
young Sun was a bigger, brighter, hotter, and more massive star than it is now,
subsequently losing much of that mass in strong solar winds associated with
its youth.
7.7 Key Events in the Discovery of Solar-Terrestrial Interactions 391

• The Sun will be hot enough in three billion years to boil the Earth’s oceans away,
and four billion years thereafter, our star will balloon into a giant star, engulfing
the planet Mercury and becoming hot enough to melt the Earth’s surface.

7.7 Key Events in the Discovery of Solar-Terrestrial

Interactions∗

Date Event

1600 William Gilbert, physician to Queen Elizabeth I of England, publishes a small

treatise demonstrating that “the terrestrial globe is itself a great magnet”.
1610–1613 Galileo Galilei first systematically studies sunspots through a telescope.
1716 Edmund Halley suggests that aurora rays delineate terrestrial magnetic field lines,
and that the auroras are due to a magnetized fluid that circulates poleward along
the Earth’s dipole magnetic field lines.
1724 George Graham discovers large, irregular fluctuations in compass needles, later
called magnetic storms; Anders Celsius saw them at about the same time.
1733 Jean Jacques d’Ortous de Mairan argues for a connection between the occurrence
of auroras and sunspots.
1799–1804 Alexander von Humboldt makes regular, precise measurements of the strength,
dip, and inclination of the Earth’s magnetic field during his voyage to South
America. The term “magnetic storm” came into common usage as the result of
Humboldt’s scientific analyses and reports.
1838 Carl Friedrich Gauss publishes a mathematical description of the Earth’s dipo-
lar magnetic field, using it with observations to show that the magnetism must
originate deep down inside the Earth’s core.
1842 Joseph Alphose Adhémar suggests that the ice ages might be caused by variations
in the way the Earth moves around the Sun, basing his theory on changes in the
tilt of the Earth’s rotation axis over long periods of time.
1844 Samuel Heinrich Schwabe demonstrates that the number of sunspots varies from
a maximum to a minimum and back to a maximum again in a period of about
11 years.
1852 Edward Sabine demonstrates that global magnetic disturbances of the Earth, now
called geomagnetic storms, vary in tandem with the 11-year sunspot cycle.
1859–1860 In 1859, Richard C. Carrington and Richard Hodgson independently observe a
solar flare in the white light of the photosphere, and in 1860 publish the first
account of such a flare. Seventeen hours after the flare a large magnetic storm
begins on the Earth.
1876 James Croll publishes his theory of climate change based on long-term changes
in the shape of the Earth’s orbit and the wobble of its spin axis, arguing that ice
ages develop when winters are colder than average.
1887–1889 Gustav Friedrich Wilhelm Spörer draws attention to a long, continued “damping-
down” in solar activity between 1645 and 1715, when almost no sunspots
were seen.

∗ See the References at the end of this book for complete references to these seminal papers.
392 7 Space Weather

Date Event

1892 William Thomson (Baron Kelvin) shows that geomagnetic storms cannot be due
to the direct magnetic action of the Sun, arguing that the “supposed connection
between magnetic storms and sunspots is unreal.”
1892, 1900 George Francis Fitzgerald and Oliver Lodge independently suggest that terrestrial
magnetic disturbances might be due to electrified particles emitted by the Sun.
1896–1913 Kristian Birkeland argues that polar auroras and geomagnetic storms are due to
beams of electrons from the Sun.
1899–1902 Guglielmo Marconi successfully sends radio signals across the Atlantic Ocean.
Arthur E. Kennelly and Oliver Heaviside independently postulate the existence
of an electrically conducting atmospheric layer, now called the ionosphere, to
explain Marconi’s radio transmission. The radio waves found their way around
the curved Earth because they were reflected from the ionosphere.
1905 Edward Walter Maunder shows that geomagnetic storms tend to recur at 27-day
intervals, the rotation period (relative to Earth) of low solar latitudes, and argues
that the recurrent storms are due to narrow streams emanating from active areas
on the Sun of limited extent.
1908 George Ellery Hale uses the Zeeman splitting of spectral lines to measure in-
tense magnetic fields in sunspots, thousands of times stronger than the Earth’s
magnetism, but points out that the sunspot magnetic fields are still inadequate to
account for geomagnetic storms by direct magnetic action.
1911 Arthur Schuster shows that a beam of electrons from the Sun cannot hold itself
together against the mutual electrostatic repulsion of the electrons.
1919 Frederick Alexander Lindemann (later Lord Cherwell) suggests that an electri-
cally neutral plasma ejection from the Sun is responsible for non-recurrent geo-
magnetic storms.
1920–1941 Milutin Milankovitch describes how the major ice ages might be produced by
rhythmic fluctuations in the wobble and tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis and the
shape of the Earth’s orbit with periods of 23,000, 41,000 and 100,000 years. They
cause cold northern summers that prevent winter snow from melting and produce
the ice ages.
1922 Edward Walter Maunder provides a full account of the 70-year dearth of sunspots,
from 1645 to 1715, previously noticed by Gustav Friedrich Wilhelm Spörer in
1887–1889. This interruption in the normal sunspot cycle is now referred to as the
Maunder Minimum.
1925 Edward Victor Appleton, and his research student M. A. F. Barnett, uses radio
transmissions in the United Kingdom to verify the existence of the electrically
conducting ionosphere, or the Kennelly-Heaviside layer as it was subsequently
known. Gregory Breit and M. A. Tuve in America confirmed this in 1926. A
height of about 100 km was inferred for the radio-reflecting layer by measuring
the time delay between the transmission of the radio signal and the reception of
its echo.
1929 William M.H. Greaves and Harold W. Newton distinguish between great, non-
recurrent geomagnetic storms and smaller ones with a 27-day recurrence.
1931–1940 Sydney Chapman and Vincent C.A. Ferraro propose that a magnetic storm is
caused when an electrically neutral plasma cloud ejected from the Sun envelops
the Earth.
1931, 1943 George Ellery Hale and H.W. Newton present evidence that great geomagnetic
storms are associated with solar flares observed with the spectrohelioscope.
1935–1937 J. Howard Dellinger suggests that the sudden ionosphere disturbances that inter-
fere with short-wave radio signals have a solar origin.
7.7 Key Events in the Discovery of Solar-Terrestrial Interactions 393

Date Event

1946 Edward V. Appleton and J. Stanley Hey demonstrate that meter-wavelength solar
radio noise originates in sunspot-associated active regions, and that sudden large
increases in the Sun’s radio output are associated with chromosphere brightening,
also known as solar flares.
1946, 1950 Scott E. Forbush and his colleagues describe flare-associated transient increases in
the cosmic ray intensity at the Earth’s surface, and attribute them to very energetic
charged particles from the Sun. They were originally designated solar cosmic rays,
but are more recently known as solar energetic particles.
1947 Ruby Payne-Scott, Donald E. Yabsley, and John G. Bolton discover that meter-
wavelength solar radio bursts often arrive later at lower frequencies and longer
wavelengths. They attributed the delays to disturbances moving outward at veloc-
ities of 500–750 km s−1 , exciting radio emission at the local plasma frequency.
1950–1954 Scott E. Forbush demonstrates the inverse correlation between the intensity of
cosmic rays arriving at Earth and the number of sunspots over two 11-year solar
activity cycles.
1951–1963 Herbert Friedman and his colleagues at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory use
sounding rocket and satellite observations to show that intense X-rays are emitted
from the Sun, that the Sun emits enough X-ray and extreme ultraviolet radiation
to create the ionosphere, that the X-ray emission is related to solar activity, and
that X-rays emitted during solar flares are the cause of sudden ionosphere distur-
bances.
1950–1959 John Paul Wild and his colleagues use a swept frequency receiver to delineate
type II radio bursts, attributed to shock waves moving out during a solar outburst
at about a 1, 000 km s−1 , and type III radio bursts, due to outward streams of high-
energy electrons, accelerated at the onset of a solar flare and moving at nearly the
velocity of light, or at almost 300, 000 km s−1 .
1951–1957 Ludwig F. Biermann argues that a continuous flow of solar corpuscles is required
to push comet ion tails into straight paths away from the Sun, correctly inferring
solar wind speeds as high as 500–1,000 km s−1 .
1954 Philip Morrison proposes that magnetized clouds of gas, emitted by the active Sun,
account for worldwide decreases in the cosmic ray intensity observed at Earth,
lasting for days and correlated roughly with geomagnetic storms.
1955–1966 Cesare Emiliani shows that cyclic oxygen isotopic variations in deep-sea sedi-
ments can record the ebb and flow of the ice ages over the past 700,000 years.
Although he initially thought the data recorded temperature variations, Nicholas
J. Shakleton subsequently shows that it records changes in the global ice volume.
1956 Peter Meyer, Eugene N. Parker, and John A. Simpson argue that enhanced inter-
planetary magnetism at the peak of the solar activity cycle deflects cosmic rays
from their Earth-bound paths.
1957 André Boischot discovers moving type IV radio bursts, and Boischot and Jean-
Francoise Denisse explain them in terms of the magnetic clouds of high-energy
electrons propelled into interplanetary space.
1958 Eugene N. Parker suggests that a perpetual supersonic flow of electric corpuscles,
which he called the solar wind, naturally results from the expansion of a very
hot corona. He also demonstrates that the solar magnetic field will be pulled into
interplanetary space, attaining a spiral shape in the plane of the Sun’s equator due
to the combined effects of the radial solar wind flow and the Sun’s rotation.
394 7 Space Weather

Date Event

1958–1981 Stellar evolution theory is used by several different authors, including Douglas
O. Gough, C. B. Haselgrove, Fred Hoyle, Martin Schwarzschild, and Roger K.
Ulrich, to reliably predict that the solar luminosity has risen steadily by about 30%
during the 4.5 billion-year life of the Sun. Schwarzschild speculates in 1958 that
the changing solar brightness might have detectable geological and geophysical
consequences.
1958–1959 The first American satellite, Explorer 1, was launched into orbit on 1 February
1958, followed by Explorer 3 on 26 March 1958; instruments aboard these space-
craft, provided by James A. Van Allen and colleagues, discovered belts of charged
particles that girdle the Earth’s equator.
1958–1959 During a balloon flight on 20 March 1958, Laurence E. Peterson and John Ran-
dolph Winckler observed a burst of high energy, gamma ray radiation (200–
500 keV) coincident in time with a solar flare, suggesting non-thermal particle
acceleration during such outbursts on the Sun.
1958, 1965 Wolfgang Gleissberg finds an 80-year cycle in the record of the number of
sunspots, and subsequently in the frequency of auroras.
1959 Thomas Gold suggests that geomagnetic storms are caused by a shock front as-
sociated with magnetic clouds ejected from the Sun, and coins the term magne-
tosphere for the region in the vicinity of the Earth in which the Earth’s magnetic
field dominates all dynamical processes involving charged particles.
1959 Edward P. Ney argues that the 11-year, solar-cycle modulation of cosmic rays
may produce a climate effect in the Earth’s lower atmosphere, the troposphere,
by producing enhanced ionization, more stormy weather, greater cloud cover, and
reduced ground temperatures at times of activity minimum and vice versa.
1961 James W. Dungey proposes a mechanism for transmitting solar wind energy to the
magnetosphere by direct magnetic linkage or merging between the interplanetary
and the terrestrial magnetic fields in a process now known as magnetic recon-
nection. In 1946–1948, Ronald G. Giovanelli developed a theory of solar flares
involving magnetic neutral points, and in 1953 Dungey had shown how magnetic
reconnection might energize solar flares.
1961 William Ian Axford and Colin O. Hines raise the possibility that the magneto-
sphere is energized by fluid friction at its boundary with the solar wind.
1961 Minze Stuiver makes a comparison of variations in sunspot activity and fluctua-
tions in the radiocarbon, or carbon 14, concentration during the past 13 centuries,
with suggestions of some correspondence between the two. The larger the num-
ber of sunspots, the greater the depression of cosmic ray intensity in the higher
atmosphere with a corresponding decrease in radiocarbon.
1962–1967 Mariner 2 was launched on 7 August 1962. Using the data obtained during the
spacecraft’s voyage to Venus, Marcia Neugebauer and Conway W. Snyder demon-
strate that a low-speed solar wind plasma is continuously emitted by the Sun, and
discover high-speed wind streams that recur with a 27-day period within the or-
bital plane of the planets.
1962–1964 An interplanetary shock associated with solar activity is detected using instru-
ments aboard the Mariner 2 spacecraft in 1962, reported by Charles P. Sonett,
David S. Colburn, Leverett Davis Jr., Edward J. Smith, and Paul J. Coleman Jr. in
1964 and by Marcia Neugebauer and Conway W. Snyder in 1967.
1964 Syun-Ichi Akasofu develops the notion of a magnetosphere substorm.
1964 T. R. Hartz obtains the first spacecraft observations of solar type III bursts using a
swept frequency receiver from 1.5 to 10 MHz.
7.7 Key Events in the Discovery of Solar-Terrestrial Interactions 395

Date Event

1964–1968 Norman F. Ness and colleagues use instruments aboard NASA’s first Interplane-
tary Monitoring Platform, or IMP-1, launched on 27 November 1963, to detect a
large bow shock formed in the solar wind ahead of the magnetosphere and a long
magnetic tail on the night side of the Earth. An extended magnetotail was previ-
ously measured by Charles P. Sonett in 1960 and Edward J. Smith in 1962, using
instruments on Explorer 6 and 10. Ness and John M. Wilcox also use magne-
tometers aboard IMP-1 to measure the strength and direction of the interplanetary
magnetic field. They show that the interplanetary magnetic field is pulled into a
spiral shape by the combined effects of the Sun’s rotation and radial wind flow.
They also discover large-scale magnetic sectors in interplanetary space that point
toward or away from the Sun.
1965 Hans E. Suess discovers an approximate 200-year periodicity in the amount of
radioactive carbon 14 within tree rings back to 5000 years BC.
1966 Donald H. Fairfield and Larry J. Cahill Jr. argue that geomagnetic activity is great-
est when the interplanetary magnetic field is southward, leading to an enhanced
merging rate between it and the geomagnetic fields. Also see the 1969 paper by
Joan Hirshberg and David S. Colburn and the 1975 paper by Rande K. Burton,
Robert L. McPherron, and Christopher T. Russell.
1966–1978 Olin C. Wilson measures the long-term magnetic activity of roughly 100 Sun-
like stars by way of variations in their violent emission lines of singly ionized
calcium – the H and K lines at 393.3 and 396.7 nm.
1969–1971 Magnetic fluctuations are observed in the solar wind from Mariner 5 on its way
to Venus, and attributed to large-amplitude Alfvén waves by John W. Belcher,
Leverett Davis Jr., and Edward J. Smith.
1970 Ke Chiang Hsieh and John A. Simpson use the fourth Interplanetary Monitoring
Platform, or IMP-4, to discover greatly enhanced interplanetary abundances of
the rare helium isotope 3 He associated with solar flares.
1970 Robert P. Lin uses observations from Interplanetary Monitoring Platform satel-
lites in 1964–1967 to propose two separate acceleration and/or emission mecha-
nisms for solar energetic particles – one for solar proton events and the other for
enhanced abundances of 40 keV electrons.
1971 John W. Belcher and Leverett Davis Jr. note the ubiquitous presence of large-
amplitude Alfvén waves in the solar wind and show how the interaction of slow
and fast solar wind streams will lead to co-rotating interaction regions with shocks
that affect the internal properties of the solar wind.
1971 Ove Havnes discovers systematic differences between the abundances of cosmic
rays of low energy and universal abundances. These differences are correlated
with the first ionization potentials of the corresponding elements, and it has be-
come known as the FIP effect.
1971–1973 The first good, space-based observation of a coronal disturbance or transient, now
called a coronal mass ejection, was obtained on 14 December 1971 using the
coronagraph aboard NASA’s seventh Orbiting Solar Observatory, or OSO 7 for
short, reported by Richard Tousey in 1973.
1972 Carl Sagan and George Mullen show that the faint brightness of the young Sun
is in conflict with the temperature history of the Earth, and suggest compensat-
ing terrestrial action by modification of the Earth’s early atmosphere. With an
unchanging atmosphere, the Earth’s oceans would have frozen over about two bil-
lion years ago, which is conflict with geological evidence for liquid water on Earth
more than three billion years ago.
396 7 Space Weather

Date Event

1972–1973 Edward L. Chupp and his colleagues detect solar gamma ray lines for the first time
using a monitor aboard NASA’s seventh Orbiting Solar Observatory, abbreviated
OSO 7. They observed the neutron capture (2.223 MeV) and electron–positron
annihilation (0.511 MeV) lines associated with solar flares. The 2.223 MeV line
had been anticipated theoretically by Philip Morrison.
1973 James E. Lovelock and Lynn Margulis suggest the Gaia hypothesis in which
plants and animals have developed the capability to control their environment,
keeping it comfortable for living things in spite of threatening changes.
1973–1974 In 1973, Christopher T. Russell and Robert L. McPherron propose that the semian-
nual variation in geomagnetic activity is caused by a change in the effective south-
ward component of the interplanetary magnetic field, related to the changing tilt
of the Earth’s dipole axis over the course of a year. In 1974, Russell, McPherron
and Rande K. Burton show that strong southward interplanetary magnetic fields
can be associated with the development of geomagnetic storms.
1973–1974 The manned, orbiting solar observatory, Skylab, is launched on 14 May 1973, and
manned by three person crews until 8 February 1974. Skylab’s Apollo Telescope
Mount contained 12 tons of solar observing instruments that spatially resolved
solar flares at soft X-ray and ultraviolet wavelengths.
1974 John Thomas Gosling and colleagues report observations of coronal mass ejec-
tions, or CMEs, then called coronal disturbances or coronal transients, with the
coronagraph aboard Skylab. They found that many CMEs are not associated with
solar flares and that some CMEs have the high outward speed of up to a 1,000
km s−1 needed to produce interplanetary shocks.
1974–1978 Hannes Alfvén, and independently Lief Svalgaard and John M. Wilcox, interpret
the magnetic structure of the solar wind, at activity minimum, in terms of a warped
neutral current sheet dividing the solar wind into two hemispheres of opposite
magnetic polarity.
1974–1986 The Helios 1 and 2 spacecraft, respectively launched on 10 December 1974 and on
15 January 1976, measure the solar wind parameters as close as 0.3 AU from the
Sun for a whole 11-year solar cycle. They confirmed the existence of two kinds
of solar-wind flow. There is a steady, uniform high-speed wind and a varying,
slow-speed wind.
1975 Robert E. Dickinson reviews mechanisms connecting solar activity to the meteo-
rology of the Earth’s lower atmosphere, showing that related variations in cloudi-
ness, caused by cosmic rays, could be important.
1975 Gordon J. Hurford and colleagues use an instrument aboard the seventh Interplan-
etary Monitoring Platform, or IMP-7, to show that 3 He-rich solar flares exhibit
an enrichment of heavy nuclei like iron. This enhanced abundance of interplane-
tary helium and iron associated with solar flares was confirmed and extended by
Glenn M. Mason and co-workers in 1986 using the third International Sun-Earth
Explorer, abbreviated ISEE-3.
1975–1977 A meeting held at the California Institute of Technology to discuss the solar con-
stant and the Earth’s atmosphere stimulates interest in spacecraft measurements
of the solar irradiance of Earth. The results of these discussions were published in
a book edited by Oran R. White in 1977, and contributed to the inclusion of the
Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor, abbreviated ACRIM, aboard the
Solar Maximum Mission, or SMM, satellite.
1976 John A. Eddy shows that the prolonged sunspot minimum from 1645 to 1715
coincided with a decrease in solar activity, as characterized by a marked absence
of terrestrial auroras, an abnormally high terrestrial carbon 14 abundance, and
exceptionally low temperatures on Earth.
7.7 Key Events in the Discovery of Solar-Terrestrial Interactions 397

Date Event

1976 Roger A. Kopp and Gerald W. Pneuman model eruptive solar flares at the base of
reconnecting magnetic loops left behind an erupting prominence or coronal mass
ejection.
1976 Edward J. Smith and John H. Wolfe use Pioneer 10 and 11 data to investigate
co-rotating interaction regions of the fast and slow solar wind between 1 and 5
AU, and Frank B. McDonald and his colleagues show that the shocks generated
by these regions accelerate ions to high energies. Charles P. Sonett and colleagues
first detected them during studies of the geomagnetic field about 1970. CIRs are
the probable source of the 27-day repetition period of the so-called substorm, but
there is still controversy about this conclusion.
1976 James D. Hays, John Imbrie, and Nicholas J. Shackleton use an analysis of oxygen
isotopes in deep-sea sediments to show that the major ice ages during the past half
million years recurred at intervals of 19,000, 23,000, 41,000, and 100,000 years,
with a dominant 100,000-year recurrence. This supported the idea that the ice ages
are caused by a variation in the intensity and distribution of solar energy arriving
at the Earth. The double wobble period of 19,000 and 23,000 years was explained
by refined astronomical calculations by André Berger in the following year.
1977 Stephen W. Kahler finds that X-ray long duration events are well associated with
white light coronal mass ejections and are the X-ray analogs of the post-flare loop
systems modeled by Roger A. Kopp and Gerald W. Pneuman.
1977 Michael J. Newman and Robert T. Rood suggest that the faint-young-Sun para-
dox could be resolved by a strong greenhouse effect in the past. Carl Sagan and
Christopher Chyba also considered this in 1997.
1977 Roberto Pallavicini, Salvatore Serio, and Giuseppe S. Vaiana use Skylab observa-
tions to define two classes of soft X-ray flares: compact, brief (minutes) events,
and extensive, long-enduring (hours) ones associated with soft X-ray arcades, fil-
ament eruptions, and coronal mass ejections.
1977–1980 Helmuth R. Rosenbauer, Wolfgang K.H. Schmidt, and their colleagues use mea-
surements from Helios 1 and 2 and the first International Sun-Earth Explorer,
abbreviated ISEE-1, spacecraft to show that helium and other heavy ions move
faster than protons in the high-speed wind. In addition, the electrons are cooler
than the protons in this fast component of the solar wind.
1978 Edward J. Smith, Bruce T. Tsurutani, and Ronald L. Rosenberg use observations
from Pioneer 11 to show that the solar wind becomes unipolar, or obtains a single
magnetic polarity, at solar latitudes near 16◦ .
1980 Rainer Schwenn and John T. Gosling and their colleagues respectively use in-
struments aboard Helios 1 and the seventh Interplanetary Monitoring Platform,
abbreviated Imp 7, to detect singly-ionized helium, He+ , produced in the solar
wind by interplanetary shocks.
1980 The Solar Maximum Mission, abbreviated SMM, satellite is launched on 14 Febru-
ary 1980, to study the physics of solar flares during a period of maximum solar
activity. It excelled in X-ray and gamma ray spectroscopy of solar flares, as well
as observing the white-light emission of coronal mass ejections in 1980 and from
1984 to 1989.
1980–1982 Edward L. Chupp and his colleagues use the Gamma Ray Spectrometer, or GRS,
on the Solar Maximum Mission satellite to detect energetic solar neutrons near the
Earth following a solar flare, which occurred on 21 June 1980.
1980, 1984 Minze Stuiver and Paul D. Quay attribute the changing atmospheric carbon 14 to
a variable Sun, and Charles P. Sonett provides further evidence for the 200-year
periodicity in the radiocarbon data.
398 7 Space Weather

Date Event

1980 Arthur J. Hundhausen and colleagues use the coronagraph aboard the Solar
1984–1989 Maximum Mission satellite to specify the mass, velocity, energy, shape, and form
of a large number of coronal mass ejections, fully reported in the literature in the
1990s.
1981 Robert P. Lin and colleagues find that solar flares can produce thermal sources
with high enough temperatures to be detectable as hard X-rays.
1981 Jo Ann Joselyn and Patrick S. McIntosh make a convincing case that large mag-
netic storms can occasionally be associated with disappearing solar filaments.
Filament disruptions were previously found to be associated with coronal mass
ejections.
1981 Richard C. Willson, Samuel Gulkis, Michael Janssen, Hugh S. Hudson, and
Gary A. Chapman report high-precision measurements of variations in the to-
tal solar irradiance of the Earth, or the solar constant, with an amplitude of up to
0.2%, made with the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) on
the Solar Maximum Mission satellite.
1981–1982 The Japanese spacecraft Hinotori, meaning firebird, was launched on 21 February
1981 and operated until 11 October 1982. It created images of solar flare X-rays
with an energy of around 20 keV, and measured solar flare temperatures of be-
tween 10 and 40 million (1–4 × 107 ) Kelvin using soft X-ray spectroscopy.
1981–1984 In 1981, Leonard F. Burlaga and colleagues discover interplanetary magnetic
clouds using measurements from five spacecraft in 1981, the Voyager 1 and 2, He-
lios 1 and 2, and the eighth Interplanetary Magnetic Platform, abbreviated IMP-8,
and in 1982 they use Helios 1 and the Solwind coronagraph on the P78-1 space-
craft to demonstrate that the magnetic clouds can be associated with coronal mass
ejections. In 1984, Robert M. Wilson and Ernest Hildner present strong evidence
linking magnetic clouds with coronal mass ejections. In interplanetary space near
the Earth, these magnetic clouds are associated with an increase in the magnetic
field strength, a smooth rotation of the magnetic field direction over a large angle,
and a low proton temperature. They arrive behind interplanetary shocks and can
extend to more than half the distance toward the Sun.
1982 Russell A. Howard and colleagues report the first detection of an Earth-directed
halo coronal mass ejection, and its associated interplanetary shock observed near
the Earth, traveling at a speed of nearly 2, 000 km s−1 . The coronal mass ejection,
then known as a coronal transient, was detected from the Solwind coronagraph
aboard the P78-1 satellite; the shock wave was detected with instruments aboard
the third International Sun-Earth Explorer, abbreviated ISEE 3, spacecraft.
1982–1990 Edward L. Chupp, Hermann Debrunner, and colleagues report the observation of
neutron emission at the Earth from the 3 June 1982 flare, giving signals in both
the Solar Maximum Mission detector and the neutron monitor on Jungfraujoch in
Switzerland.
1983 David J. Forrest and Edward L. Chupp use Solar Maximum Mission satellite ob-
servations to demonstrate the simultaneous acceleration of relativistic electrons
(hard X-rays) and energetic ions (gamma rays) to within a few seconds. Masato
Yoshimori and colleagues confirmed this simultaneity using observations from the
Hinotori spacecraft.
1984 Walter R. Cook, Edward C. Stone, and Rochus E. Vogt report measurements from
the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft of the FIP effect in solar energetic particles emitted
by solar flares, and conclude that both the solar energetic particles and the solar
wind composition are significantly different from that measured for the photo-
sphere.
7.7 Key Events in the Discovery of Solar-Terrestrial Interactions 399

Date Event

1985 Eberhard S. Möbius and his colleagues use instruments aboard the Active Mag-
netospheric Particle Tracer Explorers, abbreviated AMPTE, spacecraft to detect
singly ionized helium, He+ , attributing it to interstellar helium atoms that have
entered the solar system, become ionized there, and then picked-up and entrained
in the solar wind.
1985 Neil R. Sheeley Jr. and colleagues combine P78-1 Solwind coronagraph obser-
vations of coronal mass ejections with Helios 1 observations of interplanetary
shocks to demonstrate that fast mass ejections drive the shocks.
1985–1999 Ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica are used to determine the local
temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane content in the po-
lar regions for up to 420,000 years ago, including four glacial-interglacial cy-
cles. This data confirmed the evidence from deep-sea sediments for initiation
of the major ice ages every 100,000 years by changes in the intensity and dis-
tribution of sunlight arriving at Earth. The ice-core data also showed that the
climate repeatedly warms and cools when the amounts of carbon dioxide and
methane increase or decrease, respectively. (See papers with first authors of
J. Chappellaz, C. Genthon, C. Lorius, J. R. Petit, and D. Raynaud.)
1986–1988 Louis A. Frank and his colleagues report images of the entire aurora oval from
space using the Dynamics Explorer 1 satellite.
1987 Hilary V. Cane, Neil R. Sheeley Jr., and Robert A. Howard show that strong in-
terplanetary shocks are associated with fast coronal mass ejections that move at
speeds greater than 500 km s−1 . They used data from the third International Sun-
Earth Explorer (ISEE-3) low-frequency (< 1 MHz) radio instrument and the Sol-
wind coronagraph.
1987 Bruce T. Tsurutani and Walter D. Gonzalez show that Alfvén waves in the high-
speed (coronal hole) solar wind streams can cause periodic magnetic reconnec-
tion, frequent magnetic substorms and aurora activity during the declining phase
of the 11-year solar cycle, near solar minimum. They used the data gathered in
1978–1979 by the third International Sun-Earth Explorer, abbreviated ISEE-3.
1987, 1991 George C. Reid demonstrates that the globally averaged sea surface temperature
over the past 130 years shows a very significant correlation with the envelope of
the 11-year sunspot cycle. He explained the correlation by a variation in the Sun’s
total irradiance of Earth (the solar constant) over the same time interval.
1988 Donald V. Reames proposes that the abundances of solar energetic particles arriv-
ing at Earth, observed from the International Sun-Earth Explorer spacecraft over
an 8.5-year period, imply two distinct populations of particles of separate origin.
The 3 He and electron-rich events are attributed to impulsive solar flares; the other
populations, which has lower helium and electron abundances and is responsi-
ble for most large proton events seen at Earth, are supposed to be accelerated by
coronal mass ejections or interplanetary shocks.
1988–1993 Karin Labitzke and Harold Van Loon discover an association between the vari-
ability of the Sun and winds in the middle atmosphere. The winter storms in the
stratosphere follow an 11-year pattern of low-pressure systems over the North
Atlantic Ocean, matching the solar cycle in both period and phase.
400 7 Space Weather

Date Event

1988–1992 Richard C. Willson and Hugh S. Hudson use radiometric data taken with the
Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) instrument on the Solar
Maximum Mission (SMM) to demonstrate that the total solar irradiance of Earth
(the solar constant) varies in step with the 11-year cycle of solar activity. It has
a total decline and rise of about 0.1%. They also used ACRIM data to show that
the intense magnetic fields of sunspots produce a short-term (days) decrease of
several tenths of a percent in the solar constant when the sunspots cross the vis-
ible solar disk. Douglas V. Hoyt, John R. Hickey, and their colleagues confirmed
this solar cycle variation in the solar constant using data from the Earth Radiation
Budget (ERB) experiment on the Nimbus 7 satellite from 1978 to 1991.
1989 J. Randy Jokipii and Joseph Kóta argue that Alfvén waves streaming out of the
Sun’s polar regions may block the incoming cosmic rays.
1990 Jürg Beer and colleagues show that concentrations of the beryllium isotope 10 Be
in polar ice can be used to study variations in solar activity, particularly the 11-
year activity cycle, in time periods that pre-date historical records.
1990 Charles Lindsey and Douglas C. Braun propose that heliosiemic imaging could
be used to produce seismic maps of magnetic regions on the far side of the Sun.
1990 Peter V. Foukal and Judith Lean show that the observed changes of the total so-
lar irradiance of the Earth (the solar constant) during the previous 11-year cycle
of magnetic activity can be explained by the increased emission of photosphere
magnetic structures, called faculae. Their increased area and brightening near so-
lar activity maximum exceed the irradiance reductions caused by dark sunspots
whose numbers also increase in step with solar activity.
1990 Richard R. Radick, G. Wesley Lockwood, and Sallie L. Baliunas show that main-
sequence stars similar to the Sun become brighter as their magnetic activity level
increases. Baliunas and Robert Jastrow speculate that the long-term brightness
changes of Sun-like stars indicate that the Sun could undergo substantial luminos-
ity variations on time scales of centuries. They could exceed by a factor of four or
five the 0.1% change in the Sun’s total irradiance of the Earth (the solar constant)
observed during the previous 11-year solar cycle.
1990 The Ulysses spacecraft is launched on 6 October 1990.
1990–1993 John T. Gosling and his colleagues argue that large, non-recurrent geomagnetic
storms are caused by interplanetary disturbances driven by coronal mass ejections.
1991 The Yohkoh, meaning sunbeam, spacecraft is launched on 30 August 1991.
1991, 1994 Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen find a high correlation between the vari-
able period of the “11-year” sunspot cycle and the long-term variations of the land
air temperature in the Northern Hemisphere for the past 130 years, and perhaps
for the past five centuries.
1992 Uri Feldman reports that element abundances in the upper solar atmosphere are
similar in nature to those in the solar wind and solar energetic particles, but dif-
ferent from abundances in the underlying photosphere.
1992, 1993, Steven W. Kahler and John T. Gosling reason that large, non-recurrent geomag-
1995 netic storms, interplanetary shock waves, and energetic interplanetary particle
events are all mainly due to coronal mass ejections rather than solar flares. Hugh
Hudson, Bernhard Haisch, and Keith T. Strong argue that both flares and coronal
mass ejections result from solar eruptions that can have terrestrial consequences.
7.7 Key Events in the Discovery of Solar-Terrestrial Interactions 401

Date Event

1994 Volker Bothmer and Rainer Schwenn provide evidence that eruptive prominences
on the Sun are sources of magnetic clouds detected in the solar wind.
1994 David M. Rust notes that the helical magnetic fields in solar filaments and inter-
planetary magnetic clouds display a similar helicity, obeying a solar-hemisphere
sign preference, and argues that they shed helical magnetic fields spawned within
the Sun.
1994 David F. Webb and Russell A. Howard find that the coronal mass ejection rate
tracks the sunspot number in amplitude and timing over the solar activity cycle.
1994 The Wind spacecraft is launched on 1 November 1994. It provides nearly continu-
ous, direct, in-situ measurements of the solar wind, magnetic fields, and energetic
particles arriving at the Earth’s magnetosphere. Wind has also investigated the
shocks generated by coronal mass ejections, examined the characteristics of mag-
netic clouds, and with other spacecraft measured long, steady reconnection layers
in the solar wind near Earth.
1994 Qizhou Zhang and colleagues use observations of solar-type stars to demon-
strate that their brightness increases with magnetic activity and determine pos-
sible brightness variations of the Sun in past centuries. This suggests that the solar
brightness has increased 0.2–0.6% as the magnetic activity increased from the
Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) to the 1980s.
1995 Johannes Geiss, George Gloeckler and Rudolf Von Steiger use Ulysses ion com-
position measurements to suggest that the fast solar wind originates in a region
of low electron temperature and that the slow solar wind originates in a region of
high electron temperature.
1995 Louis J. Lanzerotti and George M. Simnett and their co-workers discover unex-
pected, recurrent enhancements of electrons at high solar latitudes using Ulysses
data.
1995 The SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, abbreviated SOHO, is launched on 2
December 1995. The Large Angle and Spectometric Coronagraph, or LASCO for
short, aboard SOHO carried out more than a decade of investigations of coronal
mass ejections. SOHO’s Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, abbreviated EIT,
observed solar flares and the aftermath of coronal mass ejections during the same
period. The UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer, or UVCS for short, aboard
SOHO has also been used to study coronal mass ejections, as well as the solar
wind.
1995–1998 Judith Lean, Jürg Beer, and Raymond Bradley use a comparison of the recon-
structed solar irradiance variation and the estimated northern hemispheric surface
temperature changes to show that the Sun’s varying brightness correlated best
with the climate in the pre-industrial period between 1610 and 1800. They also
found that solar forcing could have driven about half of the 0.55 ◦ C global warm-
ing since 1860, and that the Sun might explain about one-third of the temperature
increase since 1970. Thomas J. Crowley and Kwang-Yul Kim provide a similar
comparison and arrive at a similar conclusion in 1996. In 1998, Claus Fröhlich and
Judith Lean presented the first reliable composite of nearly two decades of mea-
surements of the Sun’s total irradiance of Earth, or the solar constant, concluding
that the Sun contributed little to global warming during the previous decade.
1997 The Advanced Composition Explorer, or ACE for short, was launched on 25 Au-
gust 1997. From a vantage point just outside the Earth, ACE monitors the solar
wind, with its charged particles and magnetic fields, and observes high-energy
particles accelerated at the Sun, within the solar wind, or in the galactic regions
beyond the heliosphere.
402 7 Space Weather

Date Event

1997 Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen show that global cloud cover dur-
ing the previous solar cycle was strongly correlated with the cosmic ray flux,
which is itself inversely correlated with solar activity. The observed association
of global temperature variations and the solar cycle length might be explained by
this solar-driven fluctuation in cloud cover.
1997 Warren B. White, Judith Lean, Daniel R. Cayan, and Michael D. Dettinger show
that the global-average sea surface temperatures are warming and cooling by up
to 0.1 ◦ C in time with the 11-year solar cycle for the past 50 years. These temper-
ature changes could be related to increases and decreases in the solar irradiance
of Earth.
1997, 1999 Alphonse C. Sterling and Hugh S. Hudson, and then Richard C. Canfield, Hugh
S. Hudson, and David E. McKenzie, demonstrate a strong correlation between
the appearance of large sigmoid (S or inverted S) shapes, in Yohkoh soft X-ray
images, and the likelihood of a coronal mass ejection. The ejections were detected
by transient X-ray activity, with arcades or cusp signatures, in the same region a
few days after the twisted warning signatures.
1998 Gisela Dreschhoff and Edward J. Zeller report the discovery of unexpectedly high
nitrate concentrations in Greenland ice cores, attributed to individual solar pro-
ton events injected into the winter polar stratosphere during the past 415 years,
suggesting that such ice cores can be used to measure solar energetic particles
arriving at the Earth in pre-historic times.
1998–2000 Michael E. Mann, Raymond E. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes, and indepen-
dently Thomas Crowley, examine the causes of climate change over the past 1,000
years, concluding that greenhouse gases released by human activity are responsi-
ble for global warming in the late 20th century.
1999 Michael Lockwood, Richard Stamper, and Matthew N. Wild report a doubling of
the Sun’s coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years.
1999–2000 Richard C. Canfield, Hugh S. Hudson, and David McKenzie find that active re-
gions with an obvious soft X-ray sigmoid running through them are more likely
to produce coronal mass ejections than active regions showing no large-scale sig-
moid structures. Alphonse C. Sterling reports that a pre-eruption sigmoid pattern
is present in over half the coronal mass ejections.
1999–2000 Jean Robert Petit and colleagues report the climate and atmospheric history of the
past 420,000 years form the deep ice core extracted from Vostok, Antarctica. The
results, also summarized by Bernhard Stauffer in 2000, indicate that the long-term
increases and decreases in the air temperature are associated with the rise and fall
of the atmospheric concentration of the three principal greenhouse gases – carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
1999–2002 Säm Krucker and colleagues, Dennis K. Haggerty and Edmond C. Roelof, and
George M. Simnett and co-workers compare the solar release time of near-
relativistic (40–300 keV) electrons arriving at Earth, and observed from Wind and
ACE, with the onset of associated radio or soft X-ray radiation, suggesting de-
layed injection or propagation delays of about 10 min for some of these electrons.
In 2006, Stephen Kahler reports that most near-relativistic electron events were ac-
celerated in solar flares, but that relativistic electrons with energies above 300 keV
are often accelerated by CME-driven shocks.
2000 Hilary Cane, Ian G. Richardson, and O. Christopher St. Cyr study the relation-
ship between coronal mass ejections, abbreviated CMEs, and geomagnetic storms,
concluding that only about half of frontside halo CMEs, observed from SOHO’s
LASCO, encounter Earth, that three quarters of such CMEs do not result in even
moderate geomagnetic activity, and that the goeeffectiveness of a CME depends
strongly on its southward magnetic field strength.
7.7 Key Events in the Discovery of Solar-Terrestrial Interactions 403

Date Event

2000 Joseph E. Mazur and his co-workers use impulsive flare particles to demonstrate
the mixing of interplanetary magnetic fields.
2000 John C. Raymond and colleagues present the first ultraviolet spectral evidence for
a shock wave driven by a coronal mass ejection. These results were enhanced and
extended by Angela Ciaravella and co-workers in 2005–2006.
2000 Udo Schüle and colleagues use the Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted
Radiation, abbreviated SUMER, instrument aboard SOHO to show that quiet-Sun
radiance variations occur during the 11-year solar activity cycle.
2000 Sheela Shodhan and her colleagues use the third International Sun-Earth Ex-
plorer, abbreviated ISEE 3, the eighth Interplanetary Monitoring Platform, ab-
breviated IMP 8, and Wind observations of counter-streaming electrons to infer
the topology of interplanetary magnetic clouds associated with coronal mass ejec-
tions.
2000 Sami K. Solanki and co-workers estimate and model the long-term changes of the
Sun’s large-scale magnetic field back to the Maunder Minimum in the late 1600s,
reproducing the previously reported doubling of the interplanetary magnetic field
in the past 100 years.
2001 Douglas C. Braun and Charles Lindsey apply phase-sensitive helioseismic holog-
raphy to SOHO MDI data to demonstrate seismic imaging of the far hemisphere
of the Sun.
2001 Leonard F. Burlaga and co-workers identify two classes of fast solar ejecta moving
past the Earth, the magnetic clouds with a flux-rope magnetic structure and com-
plex ejecta with disordered magnetic fields. Only about one-third of the ejecta
observed at Earth are magnetic clouds, and the other complex ejecta may be the
result of the interaction of multiple coronal ejections moving at different speeds.
Geomagnetic storms seem to be preferentially produced by magnetic clouds.
2001 Natchimuthuk Gopalswamy and co-workers detect intense radio emission follow-
ing an interplanetary type II burst, at the time a fast coronal mass ejection over-
takes a slow one, describing the interaction as coronal mass ejection “cannibal-
ism” that might enhance the acceleration of solar energetic particles in the slow
coronal mass ejection.
2001 Jie Zhang and co-workers use instruments aboard SOHO to study the temporal
relationship between coronal mass ejections and solar flares, describing a three-
phase speed profile for coronal mass ejections – the initiation, impulsive acceler-
ation, and propagation phases. The initiation phase is characterized by a slow rise
with a speed of about 80 km s−1 for a period of tens of minutes. The subsequent
acceleration phase, which coincides with the flare impulsive rise and lasts a few to
tens of minutes, ceases near the peak of the soft X-ray emission, and is followed
by the propagation phase.
2002 The Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager, abbreviated RHESSI, is
launched on 5 February 2002, to investigate high-energy acceleration processes
close to the Sun by observing flare radiation from soft X-rays to gamma rays.
2002 Thomas Woods and Gary Rottman review the solar irradiance variability and pro-
vide reference spectra from 0.1 to 200 nm for studies of planetary atmospheres.
2002 David A. Falconer, Ronald L. Moore, and Gilmer Allen Gary demonstrate that
the coronal mass ejection productivity of solar active regions is correlated with
their global, non-potentiality, or overall shear and twist, detected in vector mag-
netograms.
404 7 Space Weather

Date Event

2003 George Gloeckler uses the Solar Wind Ion Composition Spectrometer, abbrevi-
ated SWICS, instruments on Ulysses and the Advanced Composition Explorer,
abbreviated ACE, to detect ubiquitous high-speed, suprathermal ions moving from
two to 50 times the solar wind speed.
2003 Angelos Vourlidas and colleagues use observations and numerical simulations of
a unique coronal mass ejection seen with SOHO’s LASCO, without the classical
three-part structure, to infer direct detection of a shock driven by the ejection.
2004 Nancy U. Crooker and her colleagues use Wind observations to describe large-
scale magnetic field inversions at solar-wind sector boundaries.
2004 Igor V. Sokolov, Ilia I. Roussev, and co-workers model solar proton acceleration
by coronal-mass-ejection driven shocks, showing how protons with GeV energy
can be accelerated by these shock waves within 6 solar radii.
2004 Gerard Thuillier and colleagues provide reference spectra for the solar irradiance
from 0.5 to 2,400 nm.
2004 Jarmo Torsti, Esa Riihonen, and Leon Kocharov use an instrument on SOHO to
monitor protons while the spacecraft was inside an interplanetary magnetic cloud
associated with a coronal mass ejection, or CME. They conclude that the magnetic
flux-rope structure of the CME provides a “highway” for the transport of solar
energetic protons with a parallel mean free path of at least 10 AU.
2004–2006 Peter Foukal and co-workers conclude that solar irradiance variations are unlikely
to have had a significant influence on global warming since the 17th century.
2005 Jack T. Gosling and his colleagues provide direct evidence for magnetic recon-
nection in the solar wind near the Earth’s orbit at 1 AU.
2005 Carolus J. Schrijver and colleagues use TRACE and SOHO MDI observations to
show that non-potential, coronal magnetic fields in active regions emerge from be-
low.
2005 Allan J. Tylka and colleagues propose that the interplay between shock geometry
and a compound seed population accounts for the variable composition of large,
gradual solar energetic particle events.
2005 Yi-Ming Wang, Judith L. Lean, and Neil R. Sheeley Jr. model the Sun’s magnetic
field and irradiance since 1713. Their model suggests much smaller irradiance
changes for the Maunder Minimum period in the late 1600s than previous esti-
mates that use stellar variability results.
2005–2006 Phil Chamberlin develops the Flare Irradiance Spectral Model, abbreviated FISM.
2006 Peter Foukal, Claus Fröhlich, Hendrik Spruit, and Thomas M. L. Wigley report
that variations of the Sun’s total energy output measured from spacecraft since
1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming
over the past 30 years, and that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a
significant influence on global warming since the 17th century.
2006 The Japanese Hinode, meaning sunrise, spacecraft is launched on 23 September
2006, to investigate how magnetic interactions and related processes generate the
solar atmosphere and solar activity, including how magnetic energy is converted
into intense ultraviolet and X-ray radiation and how magnetic interactions cause
solar flares and coronal mass ejections.
7.7 Key Events in the Discovery of Solar-Terrestrial Interactions 405

Date Event

2006 The twin spacecraft of the Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory, abbrevi-
ated STEREO A and B, are launched on 25 October 2006, to obtain a three-
dimensional, stereoscopic view of coronal mass ejections from their onset at the
Sun to the orbit of the Earth, and to thereby investigate the origin, evolution, mech-
anisms, and interplanetary propagation of coronal mass ejections.
2006 David F. Webb and colleagues report the successful test flight of the Solar Mass
Ejection Imager, abbreviated SMEI, aboard the Air Force’s Coriolus spacecraft,
launched on 6 January 2003. During the first 1.5 years of operation, 130 coronal
mass ejections were observed traveling through the inner heliosphere, as far as
the Earth’s orbit and beyond, and at last 30 of these events were associated with
major geomagnetic storms on Earth; most of these were observed as front-side
halo events by SOHO’s LASCO.
2006–2007 In 2006, Tai D. Phan and his colleagues report three-spacecraft observations that
show magnetic reconnection can occur over extended regions in the solar wind, at
least 390 times the Earth in size. In 2007, John T. Gosling and co-workers report
five-spacecraft observations of oppositely directed exhaust jets from a magnetic
reconnection X-line extending 4.26 × 106 km in the solar wind at 1 AU.
2007 Arik Posner demonstrates that solar energetic electrons, traveling at nearly the
velocity of light, always arrive at the Earth’s orbit ahead of the solar energetic
protons and other ions, permitting up to 1-h forecasting of radiation hazards from
the solar energetic ion events.
Appendix

I. Solar Space Missions

The internet addresses for the Solar Space Missions discussed in this book are listed
alphabetically below. The internet addresses for instruments aboard these spacecraft
are given in Chap. 1, and usually on the spacecraft home pages given below.

ACE:

http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/

Hinode:

http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/home/solar/
http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/
http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/index e.shtml

RHESSI:

http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/hessi/
http://hessi.ssl.berkeley.edu/
http://rhessidatacenter.ssl.berkeley/
http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/rhessidatacenter/

407
408 Appendix

SOHO:

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

STEREO:

http://stereo.jhuapl.edu/
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Ulysses:

http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://helio.estec.esa.nl/ulysses/

Wind:

http://wind.nasa.gov
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/windnrt/

Yohkoh:

http://solar.physics.montana.edu/ylegacy/
http://www.lmsal.com/SXT/
http://ydac.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/ydac/

II. Helioseismology

http://soi.stanford.edu
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
http://golfwww.medoc-ias.u-psud.fr
http://gong.nso.edu
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/
http://soi.stanford.edu/data/full farside/
VI. Appendix 409

III. Space Weather

http://solar.sec.noaa.gov/
http://www.spaceweather.com
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/spaceweather
http://www.esa-spaceweather.net/
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/

IV. Solar Observatories and Groups

http://www.gong.nso.edu/
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/
http://www.nso.edu/
http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/
http://www.lmsal.com
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/SSXG/
http://solar.physics.montana.edu/ylegacy/
http://sspg1.bnsc.rl.ac.uk/Share/sol.html
http://sun.stanford.edu/

V. Virtual Observatories

http://vho.nasa.gov/
http://vspo.gsfc.nasa.gov
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/vso
http://vso.nso.gov/
http://vso.stanford.edu

VI. Educational

http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/outreach/
http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/exhibit/
http://www.lmsal.com/YPOP/
410 Appendix

VII. NASA

http://nasascience.nasa.gov/
http://sec.gsfc.nasa.gov
http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/solar connections.html
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/
References

Abdurashitov, J. N., et al. (2002): Measurement of the solar neutrino capture rate by the Russian-
American gallium solar neutrino experiment during one half of the 22 year cycle of solar activ-
ity. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 95, 181–193.
Abramenko, V. I. (2005a): Multifractal analysis of solar magnetograms. Solar Physics 228, 29–42.
Abramenko, V. I. (2005b): Relationship between magnetic power spectrum and flare productivity
in solar active regions. Astrophysical Journal 629, 1141–1149.
Abramenko, V. I., Longscope, D. W. (2005): Distribution of the magnetic flux in elements of the
magnetic field in active regions. The Astrophysical Journal 619, 1160–1166.
Abramenko, V. I., Pevtsov, A. A., Romano, P. (2006): Coronal heating and photospheric turbulence
parameters: observational aspects. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 646, L81.
Acton, L. W., et al. (1982): Chromospheric evaporation in a well-observed compact flare. Astro-
physical Journal 263, 409–422.
Acton, L. W., et al. (1992a): The Yohkoh mission for high-energy solar physics. Science 258,
618–625.
Acton, L. W., et al. (1992b): The morphology of 20 × 106 K plasma in large non-impulsive solar
flares. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 44, L71–L75.
Acuña, M. H., et al. (1995): The global geospace science program and its investigations. Space
Science Reviews 71, 5–21.
Acuña, M. H., et al. (2008): The STEREO/IMPACT magnetic field experiment. Space Science
Reviews 136, Issue 1–4, 203–226.
Adhémar, J. A. (1842): Révolutions de la Mer. Paris: Deluges Périodiques.
Aelig, M. R., et al. (1997): Solar wind iron charge states observed with high time resolu-
tion with SOHO/CELIAS/CTOF. In: Proceedings of the fifth SOHO workshop. The corona
and solar wind near minimum activity. ESA SP-101. Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division,
pp. 157–161.
Aharmin, B., et al. (2005): Electron energy spectra, fluxes, and day-night asymmetries of 8 B solar
neutrinos from measurements with NaCl dissolved in the heavy-water detector at the Sudbury
Neutrino Observatory. Physical Review C 72, 055502–055549.
Ahmad, Q. R., et al. (2001): Measurement of the rate of the electron neutrino plus deuterium
interactions produced by 8 B solar neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. Physical
Review Letters 87, 071301–071307.
Ahmad, Q. R., et al. (2002a): Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-
current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. Physical Review Letters 89,
011301–011302.

411
412 References

Ahmad, Q. R., et al. (2002b): Measurement of day and night neutrino energy spectra at SNO and
constraints on neutrino mixing parameters. Physical Review Letters 89, 011303–011307.
Ahmed, S. N., et al. (2004): Measurement of the total active 8 B solar neutrino flux at the Sudbury
Neutrino Observatory with enhanced neutral current sensitivity. Physical Review Letters 92,
181301.
Aiouaz, T., Peter, H., Lemaire, P. (2005): The correlation between coronal Doppler shifts and the
supergranular network. Astronomy and Astrophysics 435, 713–721.
Akasofu, S.-I. (1964): The development of the auroral substorm. Planetary and Space Science 12,
273–282.
Akasofu, S.-I. (1968): Polar and magnetospheric substorms. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Akasofu, S.-I., Chapman, S. (1972): Solar-terrestrial physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Akasofu, S.-I. (1977): Physics of magnetospheric substorms. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Akasofu, S.-I. (1981): Energy coupling between the solar wind and the magnetosphere. Space
Science Reviews 28, 121–190.
Akasofu, S.-I. (1989): Substorms. EOS American Geophysical Union 70, 529–532.
Alazraki, G., Couterier, P. (1971): Solar wind acceleration caused by the gradient of Alfvén wave
pressure. Astronomy and Astrophysics 13, 380–389.
Alexander, D., Richardson, I. G., Zurbuchen, T. H. (2006): A brief history of CME science. Space
Science Reviews 123, 3–11.
Alexander, P. (1992): History of solar coronal expansion studies. EOS Transactions of the
American Geophysical Union 73(41), 433, 438.
Alfvén, H. (1942): The existence of electromagnetic-hydrodynamic waves. Nature 150, 405.
Alfvén, H. (1947): Granulation, magneto-hydrodynamic waves, and the heating of the solar corona.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 107, 211–219.
Alfvén, H. (1950): Cosmical Electrodynamics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Alfvén, H. (1975): Electric current structure of the magnetosphere. In: Physics of the Hot Plasma
in the Magnetosphere (Eds. B. Hultqvist and L. Stenflo). New York: Plenum 1975, pp. 1–22.
Alfvén, H. (1977): Electric currents in cosmic plasmas. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics
15, 271–284.
Alfvén, H., Carlqvist, P. (1967): Currents in the solar atmosphere and a theory of solar flares. Solar
Physics 1, 220–228.
Alfvén, H., Herlofson, N. (1950): Cosmic radiation and radio stars. Physical Review 78, 616. Re-
produced in: A source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics 1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and
O. Gingerich). Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1977.
Aliani, P., et al. (2004): Neutrino mass parameters from KamLAND, SNO, and other solar evi-
dence. Physical Review D 69, 013005–013012.
Allen, C. W. (1947): Interpretation of electron densities from corona brightness. Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society 107, 426–432.
Altschuler, M. D., Newkirk, G. (1969): Magnetic fields and the structure of the solar corona.
I. Methods in calculating coronal fields. Solar Physics 9, 131–149.
Amari, T., et al. (2000): A twisted flux rope model for coronal mass ejections and two ribbon flares.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 529, L49–L52.
Anderson, C. D. (1932a): Energies of cosmic-ray particles. Physical Review 41, 405–421.
Anderson, C. D. (1932b): The apparent existence of easily deflectable positives. Science 76,
238–239.
Anderson, C. D. (1933): The positive electron. Physical Review 43, 491–494. Reproduced in:
Cosmic Rays (Ed. A. M. Hillas). New York: Pergamon Press 1972.
Anderson, C. D., Neddermeyer, S. H. (1936): Cloud chamber observations of cosmic rays at 4300
meters elevation and near sea-level. Physical Review 50, 263–271.
Anderson, K. A., Winckler, J. R. (1962): Solar flare X-ray burst on September 28, 1961. Journal
of Geophysical Research 67, 4103–4117.
Anderson, L. S., Athay, R. G. (1989): Chromospheric and coronal heating. The Astrophysical Jour-
nal 336, 1089–1091.
References 413

Anderson, L. S., Athay, R. G. (1989): Model solar chromosphere with prescribed heating. The
Astrophysical Journal 346, 1010–1018.
Anderson, P. C., et al. (1998): Energetic auroral electron distributions derived from global X-ray
measurements and comparison with in-situ particle measurements. Geophysical Research Let-
ters 25, 4105–4108.
Ando, H., Osaki, Y. (1975): Nonadiabatic nonradial oscillations – an application to the five-minute
oscillation of the Sun. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 27, 581–603.
Andreev, V. E., et al. (1997): Characteristics of coronal Alfvén waves deduced from Helios Faraday
rotation measurements. Solar Physics 176, 387–402.
Antia, H. M. (1998): Estimate of solar radius from f-mode frequencies. Astronomy and Astro-
physics 330, 336–340.
Antia, H. M., Basu, S. (2000): Temporal variations of the rotation rate in the solar interior. The
Astrophysical Journal 541, 442–448.
Antia, H. M., Basu, S. (2001): Temporal variations of the solar rotation rate at high latitudes. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 559, L67–L70.
Antia, H. M., Basu, S. (2005): The discrepancy between solar abundances and helioseismology.
The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 620, L129–L132.
Antia, H. M., Chitre, S. M. (1995): Helioseismic bounds on the central temperature of the Sun. The
Astrophysical Journal 442, 434–445.
Antia, H. M., Chitre, S. M., Kale, D. M. (1978): Overstabilization of acoustic modes in a polytropic
atmosphere. Solar Physics 56, 275–292.
Antia, H. M., et al. (2001): Solar-cycle variation of the sound speed asphericity from GONG and
MDI data 1995–2000. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 327, 1029–1040.
Antiochos, S. K. (1996): A model for coronal mass ejections. Bulletin of the American Astronomi-
cal Society 28, 1346.
Antiochos, S. K. (1998): The magnetic topology of solar eruptions. The Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 502, L181.
Antiochos, S. K., De Vore, C.R., Klimchuk, J.A. (1999): A model for coronal mass ejections.
Astrophysical Journal 510, 485–493.
Antiochos, S. K., et al. (2003): Constraints on active region coronal heating. The Astrophysical
Journal 590, 54.
Antiochos, S. K., Noci, G. (1986): The structure of the static corona and transition region. The
Astrophysical Journal 301, 440–447.
Antonucci, E. (2006): Wind in the solar corona: dynamics and composition. Space Science Reviews
124, 35–50.
Antonucci, E., Abbo, L., Dodero, M. A. (2005): Slow wind and magnetic topology in the solar
minimum corona in 1996–1997. Astronomy and Astrophysics 435, 699–711.
Antonucci, E., Abbo, L., Teloni, D. (2006): Oxygen abundance and energy deposition in the slow
coronal wind. The Astrophysical Journal 643, 1239–1244.
Antonucci, E., Dennis, B. R. (1983): Observations of chromospheric evaporation during the Solar
Maximum Mission. Solar Physics 86, 67–77.
Antonucci, E., Dodero, M. A., Giordano, S. (2000): Fast solar wind velocity in a polar coronal hole
during solar minimum. Solar Physics 197, 115.
Antonucci, E., et al. (1982): Impulsive phase of flares in soft X-ray emission. Solar Physics 78,
107–123.
Antonucci, E., Gabriel, A. H., Dennis, B. R. (1984): The energetics of chromospheric evaporation
in solar flares. The Astrophysical Journal 287, 917–925.
Antonucci, E., Rosner, R. Tsinganos, K. (1986): On magnetic field stochasticity and nonthermal
line broadening in solar flares. The Astrophysical Journal 301, 975–980.
Anzer, U., Pneuman, G. W. (1982): Magnetic reconnection and coronal transients. Solar Physics
79, 129–147.
Appleton, E. V. (1932): Wireless studies of the ionosphere. Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical
Engineers 71, 642–650.
414 References

Appleton, E. V., Barnett, M. A. F. (1925a): Local reflection of wireless waves from the upper
atmosphere. Nature 115, 333–334.
Appleton, E. V., Barnett, M. A. F. (1925b): On some direct evidence for downward atmospheric
reflection of electric rays. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 109, 621–641.
Appleton, E. V., Hey, J. S. (1946): Solar radio noise. Philosophical Magazine 37, 73–84.
Araki, T., et al. (2005): Measurement of neutrino oscillation with KamLAND: Evidence of spectral
distortion. Physical Review Letters 94, 081801.
Aran, A., et al. (2007): Modeling and forecasting solar energetic particle events
at Mars: the event on 6 March 1989. Astronomy and Astrophysics 469,
1123–1134.
Armstrong, A. H., Harrison, F. B., Heckman, H. H., Rosen, L. (1961): Charged particles in the
inner Van Allen radiation belt. Journal of Geophysical Research 66, 351.
Arndt, M. B., Habbal, S. R., Karovska, M. (1994): The discrete and localized nature of the variable
emission from active regions. Solar Physics 150, 165–178.
Arnoldy, R. L. (1971): Signature in the interplanetary medium for substorms. Journal of Geophys-
ical Research 76, 5189–5201.
Arnoldy, R. L., Kane, S. R., Winckler, J. R. (1967): A study of energetic solar flare X-rays. Solar
Physics 2, 171–178.
Arnoldy, R. L., Kane, S. R., Winckler, J. R. (1968): Energetic solar flare X-rays observed by satel-
lite and their correlation with solar radio and energetic particle emission. Astrophysical Journal
151, 711–736.
Arrhenius, S. (1896): On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the
ground. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 41, 237–268.
Aschwanden, M. J. (1999): Do EUV nanoflares account for coronal heating? Solar Physics 190,
233–247.
Aschwanden, M. J. (2001a): Revisiting the determination of the coronal heating function from
Yohkoh data. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 559, L171–L174.
Aschwanden, M. J. (2001b): An evaluation of coronal heating models for active regions based on
Yohkoh, SOHO and TRACE observations. The Astrophysical Journal 560, 1035–1044.
Aschwanden, M. J. (2002): The differential emission measure distribution in the multiloop corona.
The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 580, L79–L83.
Aschwanden, M. J. (2004, 2006): Physics of the Solar Corona: An Introduction. New York:
Springer-Verlag 2004, Second Edition 2006.
Aschwanden, M. J. (2006a): Particle acceleration in solar flares and escape into interplane-
tary space. In: Solar Eruptions and Energetic Particles: Geophysical Monograph Series 165.
(Eds. N. Gopalswamy, R. Mewaldt and J. Torsti) Washington: American Geophysical Union,
pp. 189–197.
Aschwanden, M. J. (2006b): The localization of particle acceleration sites in solar flares and CMEs.
Space Science Reviews 124, 361–372.
Aschwanden, M. J. (2008a): An observational test that disproves coronal nanoflare heating models.
The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 672, L135–L138.
Aschwanden, M. J. (2008b): Understanding the overpressure in cooling coronal loops. The Astro-
physical Journal – submitted.
Aschwanden, M. J., Acton, L. W. (2001): Temperature tomography of the soft x-ray corona: Mea-
surements of electron densities, temperatures and differential emission measure distributions
above the limb. The Astrophysical Journal 550, 475–492.
Aschwanden, M. J., Alexander, D. (2001): Flare plasma cooling from 30 MK down to 1 MK mod-
eled from Yohkoh, GOES, and TRACE observations of the Bastille Day event (14 July 2000).
Solar Physics 204, 91–120.
Aschwanden, M. J., Benz, A. O. (1997): Electron densities in solar flare loops, chromospheric
evaporation upflows, and acceleration sites. Astrophysical Journal 480, 825–839.
Aschwanden, M. J., Charbonneau, P. (2002): Effects of temperature bias on nanoflare statistics.
The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 566, L59–L62.
References 415

Aschwanden, M. J., De Pontieu, B., Schrijver, C.J., Title, A.M. (2002): Transverse oscillations in
coronal loops observed with TRACE – II Measurements of geometric and physical parameters.
Solar Physics 206, 99–132.
Aschwanden, M. J., et al. (1996a): Electron time-of-flight distances and flare loop geometries com-
pared from CGRO and Yohkoh observations. Astrophysical Journal 468, 398–417.
Aschwanden, M. J., et al. (1996b): Electron time-of-flight measurements during the Masuda flare,
1992 January 13. Astrophysical Journal 464, 985–998.
Aschwanden, M. J., et al. (1998): The scaling law between electron time-of-flight distances and
loop lengths in solar flares. Astrophysical Journal 470, 1198–1217.
Aschwanden, M. J., et al. (1999a): Coronal loop oscillations observed with the Transition Region
and Coronal Explorer. Astrophysical Journal 520, 880–894.
Aschwanden, M. J., et al. (1999b): Quadrupolar magnetic reconnection in solar flares three-
dimensional geometry inferred from Yohkoh observations. The Astrophysical Journal 526,
1026–1045.
Aschwanden, M. J., et al. (1999c): Three-dimensional stereoscopic analysis of solar active region
loops I. SOHO/EIT observations at temperatures of (1.0–1.5) × 106 K. The Astrophysical Jour-
nal 515, 842–867.
Aschwanden, M. J., et al. (1999d): Time variability of the “quiet” sun observed with TRACE. II.
Physical parameters, temperature evolution, and energetics of euv nanoflares. The Astrophysical
Journal 535, 1047–1065.
Aschwanden, M. J., et al. (2000): Three-dimensional stereoscopic analysis of solar active region
loops II. SOHO/EIT observations of temperatures of 1.5–2.5 MK. The Astrophysical Journal
531, 1129–1149.
Aschwanden, M. J., et al. (2006): Theoretical modeling for the STEREO mission. Space Science
Reviews 123, 127.
Aschwanden, M. J., Lyndsay, F., Schrijver, C.J., David, A. (1999): Coronal loop oscillations
observed with the Transition Region And Coronal Explorer. The Astrophysical Journal 520,
880–894.
Aschwanden, M. J., Nightingale, R. W. (2005): Elementary loop structures of the solar corona
analyzed from TRACE triple-filter images. The Astrophysical Journal 633, 499–517.
Aschwanden, M. J., Nightingale, R. W., Alexander, D. (2000): Evidence for nonuniform heating of
coronal loops inferred from multithread modeling of TRACE data. The Astrophysical Journal
541, 1059–1077.
Aschwanden, M. J., Nitta, N., Wuelser, J.-P., Lement, J. (2008): First 3D reconstructions of coronal
loops with the STEREO A + B spacecraft II. Electron density and temperature measurements.
The Astrophysical Journal 680, 1477–1495.
Aschwanden, M. J., Poland, A., Rabin, D. M. (2001): The new solar corona. Annual Review of
Astronomy and Astrophysics 39, 175–210.
Aschwanden, M. J., Schrijver, C. J., David, A. (2001): Modeling of coronal EUV loops observed
with TRACE I. Hydrostatic solutions with nonuniform heating. The Astrophysical Journal 550,
1036–1050.
Aschwanden, M. J., Tsiklauri, D. (2008): The non-equilibrium scaling law of cooling coronal
loops. The Astrophysical Journal – submitted.
Aschwanden, M. J., Winebarger, A., Tsiklauri, D., Peter, H. (2007): The coronal heating paradox.
The Astrophysical Journal 659, 1673–1681.
Ashie, Y., et al. (2004): Evidence for an oscillatory signature in atmospheric neutrino oscillations.
Physical Review Letters 93, 101801.
Asplund, M., et al. (2004): Line formation in solar granulation IV. [O I], O I and OH lines and the
photospheric O abundance. Astronomy and Astrophysics 417, 751–768.
Aston, F. W. (1920): The mass-spectra of chemical elements. Philosophical Magazine and Journal
of Science 39, 611–625.
Aström, E. (1950): On waves in an ionized gas. Arkiv Fur Fysik 2, 443.
416 References

Athay, R. G., Moreton, G. E. (1961): Impulsive phenomena of the solar atmosphere I. Some optical
events associated with flares showing explosive phase. The Astrophysical Journal 133, 935–
945.
Athay, R. G., White, O. R. (1978): Chromospheric and coronal heating by sound waves. The As-
trophysical Journal 226, 1135–1139.
Athay, R. G., White, O. R. (1979): Chromospheric oscillations observed with OSO 8 IV. Power
and phase spectra for CIV. The Astrophysical Journal 229, 1147–1162.
Atkinson, R. d’E. (1931): Atomic synthesis and stellar energy I, II. The Astrophysical Journal
73, 250–295, 308–347. Reproduced in A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics 1900–
1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press
1979, 303–308.
Atkinson, R. d’E., Houtermans, F. G. (1929): Zur frage de aufbaumöglichkeit der elements in
sternen. Zeitschrift für Physik 54, 656.
Aulanier, G., et al. (2000): The topology and evolution of the Bastille Day flare. Astrophysical
Journal 540(2), 1126–1142.
Aulanier, G., et al. (2007): Slipping magnetic reconnection in coronal loops. Science 318,
1588–1590.
Avignon, Y., Martres, M. J., Pick, M. (1966): Etude de la “composante lentement variable”
en relation avec la structure des centres d’activité solaire associés. Annales d’Astrophysique
29, 33–42.
Axford, W. I. (1960): The modulation of galactic cosmic rays in the interplanetary medium. Plan-
etary and Space Science 13, 115–130.
Axford, W. I. (1962): The interaction between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetosphere. Jour-
nal of Geophysical Research 67, 3791–3796.
Axford, W. I. (1972): The interaction of the Solar wind with the interstellar medium. In: Solar
Wind: Proceedings of the Second International Conference (Eds. C.P. Sonnett, P.j. Coleman, Jr.
and J.M. Wilcox). NASA SP-308., p. 609.
Axford, W. I. (1980): Very hot plasmas in the solar system. Highlights of Astronomy 5, 351–359.
Axford, W. I. (1985): The solar wind. Solar Physics 100, 575–586.
Axford, W. I. (1994): The good old days. Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 19199–19212.
Axford, W. I., Dessler, A. J., Gottlieb, B. (1963): Termination of solar wind and solar magnetic
field. The Astrophysical Journal 137, 1268–1278.
Axford, W. I., et al. (1999): Acceleration of the high speed solar wind in coronal holes. Space
Science Reviews 97, 25–41.
Axford, W. I., Hines, C. O. (1961): A unifying theory of high-latitude geophysical phenomena and
geomagnetic storms. Canadian Journal of Physics 39, 1433–1464.
Axford, W. I., Mc Kenzie, J. F. (1997): Solar wind. In: Cosmic Winds and the Heliosphere (Eds.
J. R. Jokipii, C. P. Sonett and M. S. Giampapa). Tucson: University of Arizona Press 1997,
pp. 31–66.
Axford, W. I., McKenzie, J. (1992): The origin of high speed solar wind streams. In: Solar Wind
Seven (Eds. E. Marsch and R. Schwenn). New York: Elsevier, p. 1.
Ayres, T. R. (1997): Evolution of the solar ionizing flux. Journal of Geophysical Research 102,
1641–1652.

Baade, W., Zwicky, F. (1934): Cosmic rays from super-novae. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (Washington) 20, 259.
Babcock, H. W. (1947): Zeeman effect in stellar spectra. The Astrophysical Journal 105, 105–119.
Babcock, H. W. (1961): The topology of the sun’s magnetic field and the 22-year cycle. The Astro-
physical Journal 133, 572–587.
References 417

Babcock, H. W., Babcock, H. D. (1955): The sun’s magnetic field, 1952-1954. The Astrophysical
Journal 121, 349–366.
Bahall, J. N., Davis, R., Wolfenstein, L. (1988): Solar neutrinos: a field in transition. Nature 334,
487–493.
Bahcall, J. N. (1964): Solar neutrinos I. Theoretical. Physical Review Letters 12, 300–302.
Reproduced in A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang,
O. Gingerich). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1979, 389–395.
Bahcall, J. N. (1978): Solar neutrino experiments. Review of Modern Physics 50, 881–903.
Bahcall, J. N. (1996): Solar neutrinos: where we are, where we are going. The Astrophysical Jour-
nal 467, 475–484.
Bahcall, J. N., Basu, S., Kumar, P. (1997): Localized helioseismic constraints on solar structure.
The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 485, L91–L94.
Bahcall, J. N., Basu, S., Pinsonneault, M., Serenelli, A. M. (2005): Helioseismological implications
of recent solar abundance determinations. The Astrophysical Journal 618, 1049–1056.
Bahcall, J. N., Basu, S., Serenelli, A. M. (2005): What is the neon abundance of the Sun? The
Astrophysical Journal 631, 1281–1285.
Bahcall, J. N., Bethe, H. A. (1990): A solution to the solar neutrino problem. Physical Review
Letters 65, 2233–2235.
Bahcall, J. N., et al. (1995): Progress and prospects in neutrino astrophysics. Nature 375, 29–34.
Bahcall, J. N., et al. (1997): Are standard solar models reliable? Physical Review Letters 78,
171–174.
Bahcall, J. N., Gonzalez-Garcia, M. C., Pena-Garay, C. (2003): Does the Sun shine by pp or CNO
fusion reactions? Physical Review Letters 90, 131301–131305.
Bahcall, J. N., Pinsonneault, M. H. (2004): What do we (not) know theoretically about solar neu-
trino fluxes? Physical Review Letters 92, 121301.
Bahcall, J. N., Pinsonneault, M. H., Basu, S. (2001): Solar models: current epoch and time depen-
dences, neutrinos and helioseismological properties. The Astrophysical Journal 555, 990–1012.
Bahcall, J. N., Pinsonneault, M. H., Basu, S., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. (1997): Are standard solar
models reliable? Physical Review Letters 78, 171–174.
Bahcall, J. N., Serenelli, A. M. (2005): How do uncertainties in the surface chemical composition
of the Sun affect the predicted solar neutrino fluxes? The Astrophysical Journal 626, 530–542.
Bahcall, J. N., Serenelli, A. M., Basu, S. (2005): New solar opacities, abundances, helioseismology,
and neutrino fluxes. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 621, L85–L88.
Bahcall, J. N., Serenelli, A. M., Basu, S. (2006): 10,000 standard solar models: a Monte Carlo
simulation. Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 165, 400–431.
Bailey, D. K. (1957): Disturbances in the lower ionosphere observed at VHF following the so-
lar flare of 23 February 1956 with particular reference to auroral zone absorption. Journal of
Geophysical Research 62, 431–463.
Bailey, F. (1842): Some remarks on the total eclipse of the Sun, on July 8th 1842. Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society 5, 208–214.
Baker, D. N. (2000): The occurrence of operational anomalies in spacecraft and their relationship
to space weather. IEEE Transactions of Plasma Science 28, 2007–2016.
Baker, D. N., Carovillano, R. (1997): IASTP and solar-terrestrial physics. Advances in Space Re-
search 20, 531–538.
Baker, D. N., et al. (1987): Deep dielectric charging effects due to high energy electrons in Earth’s
outer magnetosphere. Journal of Electrostatics 20, 3.
Baker, D. N., et al. (2001): The global efficiency of relativistic electron production in the Earth’s
magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 19169.
Baker, D. N., et al. (Eds., 2006): Solar dynamics and its effects on the heliosphere and earth. Space
Science Reviews 124, issue 1–4, 1–372. Reprinted by: Springer and the International Space
Science Institute.
Balantekin, A. B., Yuksel, H. (2003): Constraints on neutrino parameters from neutral-current solar
neutrino measurements. Physical Review D 68, 113002–113007.
418 References

Balasubrahmanyan, V. K., Serlemitsos, A. T. (1974): Solar energetic particle event with 3 He/4 He
greater than 1. Nature 252, 460–462.
Baliunas, S. L. (1991): The past, present and future of solar magnetism: stellar magnetic activity.
In: The Sun in Time (Eds. C. P. Sonett, M. S. Giampapa and M. S. Matthews). Tucson: The
University of Arizona Press, pp. 809–831.
Baliunas, S. L., et al. (1995): Chromospheric variations in main-sequence stars. II. The Astrophys-
ical Journal 438, 269–287.
Baliunas, S. L., et al. (1996): A dynamo interpretation of stellar activity cycles. The Astrophysical
Journal 460, 848–854.
Baliunas, S. L., Jastrow, R. (1990): Evidence for long-term brightness changes of solar-type stars.
Nature 348, 520–523.
Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W. (1995): Are variations in the length of the activity cycle related to changes
in brightness in solar-type stars? The Astrophysical Journal 450, 896–901.
Baliunas, S. L., Vaughan, A. H. (1985): Stellar activity cycles. Annual Review of Astronomy and
Astrophysics 23, 379–412.
Balogh, A. (1998): Magnetic fields in the inner heliosphere. Space Science Reviews 83, 93–104.
Balogh, A., et al. (1992): The magnetic field investigation on the Ulysses mission – Instrumen-
tation and preliminary scientific results. Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series 92,
No. 2, 221–236.
Balogh, A., et al. (1995): The heliospheric magnetic field over the south polar region of the sun.
Science 268, 1007–1010.
Balogh, A., et al. (1999): The solar origin of corotating interaction regions and their formation in
the inner heliosphere. Space Science Reviews 89, 141–178.
Balogh, A., et al. (Eds., 1999): Co-rotating interaction regions. Space Science Reviews 89, 1–410.
Reprinted by: Kluwer Academic Publishers and the International Space Science Institute.
Balogh, A., Marsden, R. G., Smith, E. J. (Eds., 2001): The Heliosphere Near Solar Minimum: The
Ulysses Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag 2001.
Bame, S. J., Asbridge, J. R., Gosling, J. T. (1977): Evidence for a structure-free state at high solar
wind speeds. Journal of Geophysical Research 82, 1487.
Bame, S. J., et al. (1974): The quiet corona: temperature and temperature gradient. Solar Physics
35, 137–152.
Bame, S. J., et al. (1975): Solar wind heavy ion abundances. Solar Physics 43: 463–473.
Bame, S. J., et al. (1976): Solar cycle evolution of high-speed solar wind streams. The Astrophysical
Journal 207, 977–980.
Bame, S. J., et al. (1977a): A search for a general gradient in the solar wind speed at low solar
latitudes. Journal of Geophysical Research 82, 173–176.
Bame, S. J., et al. (1977b): Evidence for a structure-free state at high solar wind speeds. Journal of
Geophysical Research 82, 1487–1492.
Bame, S. J., et al. (1992): The Ulysses solar wind plasma experiment. Astronomy and Astrophysics
Supplement Series 92, No. 2, 237–265.
Bame, S. J., et al. (1993): Ulysses observations of a recurrent high speed solar wind stream and the
heliomagnetic streamer belt. Geophysical Research Letters 20(21), 2323–2326.
Bame, S. J., Hundhausen, A. J., Asbridge, J. R., Strong, I. B. (1968): Solar wind ion composition.
Physical Review Letters 20, 393.
Bamert, K., et al. (2004): Hydromagnetic wave excitation upstream of an interplanetary traveling
shock. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 601, L99–L102.
Bard, E., et al. (1997): Solar modulation of cosmogenic nuclide production over the last millen-
nium: comparison between 14 C and 10 Be records. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 150,
453–462.
Barnes, A. (1975): Plasma processes in the expansion of the solar wind and in the interplanetary
medium. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 13(3), 1049–1053.
Barnes, A. (1992): Acceleration of the solar wind. Reviews of Geophysics 30, 43–55.
References 419

Barnes, A., Gazis, P. R., Phillips, J. L. (1995): Constraints on solar wind acceleration mechanisms
from Ulysses plasma observations: the first polar pass. Geophysical Research Letters 22(23),
3309–3311.
Barnett, T. P. (1989): A solar-ocean relation: fact or fiction? Geophysical Research Letters 16,
803–806.
Barnola, J. M., et al. (1987): Vostok ice core provides 160,000-year record of atmospheric CO2 .
Nature 329, 408–414.
Bartels, J. (1932): Terrestrial-magnetic activity and its relations to solar phenomena. Terrestrial
Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity 37, 1–52.
Bartels, J. (1934): Twenty-seven day recurrences in terrestrial magnetic and solar activity,
1923–1933. Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity 39, 201–202.
Bartels, J. (1940): Solar radiation and geomagnetism. Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric
Electricity 45, 339–343.
Bartels, J. (1963): Discussion of time-variations of geomagnetic activity indices KP and AP ,
1932–1961. Annales de Géophysique 19, 1–20.
Bastian, T. S., Benz, A. O., Gary, D. E. (1998): Radio emission from solar flares. Annual Review
of Astronomy and Astrophysics 36, 131–188.
Basu, S., Antia, H. M. (2003): Changes in solar dynamics from 1995 to 2002. The Astrophysical
Journal 585, 553–565.
Basu, S., Antia, H. M., Bogart, R. S. (2007): Structure of the near-surface layers of the Sun:
Asphericity and time variation. The Astrophysical Journal 654, 1146–1165.
Basu, S., et al. (1996): The Sun’s hydrostatic structure from LOWL data. The Astrophysical Journal
460, 1064–1070.
Battaglia, M., Grigis, P. C., Benz, O. (2006): Size dependence of solar X-ray flare properties.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 439, 737–747.
Baumback, M. M., Kurth, W. S., Gurnett, D. A. (1976): Direction-finding measurements of type
III radio bursts out of the ecliptic plane. Solar Physics 48, 361–380.
Beck, J. G., Giles, P. (2005): Helioseismic determination of the solar rotation axis. The Astrophys-
ical Journal (Letters) 621, L153–L156.
Beck, J. G., Gizon, L., Duvall, T. L. Jr. (2002): A new component of solar dynamics: North-south
diverging flows migrating toward the equator with an 11 year period. The Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 575, L47–L50.
Beckers, J. M. (2007): Effects of foreshortening on shallow sub-surface flows observed with local
helioseismology. Solar Physics 240, 3–7.
Beer, J., et al. (1988): Information on past solar activity and geomagnetism from 10 Be in the Camp
Century ice core. Nature 331, 675–679.
Beer, J., et al. (1990): Use of 10 Be in polar ice to trace the 11-year cycle of solar activity: informa-
tion on cosmic ray history. Nature 347, 164–166.
Belcher, J. W. (1971): Alfvénic wave pressures and the solar wind. The Astrophysical Journal 168,
509–524.
Belcher, J. W., Davis, L. Jr. (1971): Large-amplitude Alfvén waves in the interplanetary medium,
2. Journal of Geophysical Research 76, 3534–3563.
Belcher, J. W., Davis, L. Jr., Smith, E. J. (1969): Large-amplitude Alfvén waves in the interplane-
tary medium: Mariner 5. Journal of Geophysical Research 74, 2303–2308.
Belcher, J. W., Olbert, S. (1975): Stellar winds driven by Alfvén waves. The Astrophysical Journal
200, 369–382.
Bell, B., Glazer, H. (1958): Some sunspot and flare statistics. Smithsonian Contributions to Astro-
physics 3, 25–38.
Bemporad, A., et al. (2006): Current sheet evolution in the aftermath of a CME event. The Astro-
physical Journal 638, 1110–1128.
Bentley, R. D., et al. (1994): The correlation of solar flare hard X-ray bursts with Doppler
blueshifted soft X-ray flare emission. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 421, L55–L58.
Bentley, R. D., Mariska, J. T. (Eds., 1996): Magnetic Reconnection in the Solar Atmosphere. San
Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, p. 111.
420 References

Benz, A. O. (1986): Millisecond radio spikes. Solar Physics 104, 99–110.

Benz, A. O. (2008): Flare Observations. Living Reviews in Solar Physics 5, 1.
Benz, A. O., Bernold, T. E. X., Dennis, B. R. (1983): Radio blips and hard X-rays in solar flares.
Astrophysical Journal 271, 355–366.
Benz, A. O., Csillaghy, A., Aschwanden, M. J. (1996): Metric spikes and electron acceleration in
the solar corona. Astronomy and Astrophysics 309, 291–300.
Benz, A. O., et al. (1981): Solar radio blips and X-ray kernals. Nature 291, 210–211.
Benz, A. O., et al. (1992): Electron beams in the low corona. Solar Physics 141, 335–346.
Benz, A. O., et al. (1994): Particle acceleration in flares. Solar Physics 153, 33–53.
Benz, A. O., Krucker, S. (1998a): Energy distribution of heating processes in the quiet solar corona.
The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 501, L213–L216.
Benz, A. O., Krucker, S. (1998b): Heating events in the quiet solar corona. Solar Physics 182,
349–363.
Benz, A. O., Krucker, S. (1999): Heating events in the quiet solar corona: Multiwavelength corre-
lations. Astronomy and Astrophysics 341, 286–295.
Berger, A. (1977): Support for the astronomical theory of climatic change. Nature 2 68, 44–45.
Berger, A. (1978a): Long-term variations of caloric insolation resulting from the Earth’s orbital
elements. Quaternary Research 9, 139–167.
Berger, A. (1978b): Long-term variations of daily insolation and Quaternary climatic changes.
Journal of Atmospheric Science 35(2), 2362–2367.
Berger, A. (1980): The Milankovitch astronomical theory of paleoclimates: a modern review. Vistas
in Astronomy 24, 103–122.
Berger, A. (1988): Milankovitch theory and climate. Review of Geophysics 26, 624–657.
Berger, A. (1991): Long-term history of climate ice ages and Milankovitch periodicity. In: The Sun
in Time (Eds. C. P. Sonett, M. S. Giampapa and M. S. Mathews). Tucson: The University of
Arizona Press, pp. 498–510.
Berger, T. E., et al. (2004): Solar magnetic elements at 0.1 arcsec resolution. General appearance
and magnetic structure. The Astronomy and Astrophysics 428, 613–628.
Berghmans, D., Clette, F. (1999): Active region EUV transient brightenings – first results by EIT
of SOHO JOP 80. Solar Physics 186, 207–229.
Bertaux, J. L., et al. (1995): SWAN: A study of Solar Wind Anisotropies on SOHO with Lyman
alpha sky mapping. Solar Physics 162, 403–439.
Bertaux, J. L., et al. (1997a): First results from SWAN Lyman-α solar wind mapper on SOHO.
Solar Physics 175, 737–770. Reprinted in: The First Results From SOHO (Eds. B. Fleck and
Z. Svestka). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 737–770.
Bertaux, J. L., et al. (1997b): The first 1.5 year of observations from SWAN Lyman- alpha solar
wind mapper on SOHO. In: Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO Workshop. The Corona and Solar
Wind Near Minimum Activity. ESA SP-404. Noorwidjk: ESA Publications Division, pp. 29–36.
Bethe, H. A. (1939): Energy production in stars. Physical Review 55, 434–456. Reproduced in
A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics 1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich).
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1979, 320–338.
Bhattacharjee, A. (2004): Impulsive magnetic reconnection in the earth’s magnetotail and the solar
corona. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 42, 365–384.
Bieber, J. W., Rust, D. M. (1995): The escape of magnetic flux from the sun. Astrophysical Journal
453, 911.
Biermann, L. F. (1948): Über die Ursache der chromosphärischen Turbulenz und des UV-Exzesses
der Sonnenstrahlung. Zeitschrift für Astrophysik 25, 161–177.
Biermann, L. F. (1951): Kometenschweife und solare Korpuskularstrahlung. Zeitschrift für Astro-
physik 29, 274–286.
Biermann, L. F. (1953): Physical processes in comet tails and their relation to solar activity. La
Physique des cometes. IAU Colloquium No. 4, 251–262.
Biermann, L. F. (1957): Solar corpuscular radiation and the interplanetary gas. Observatory 77,
109–110. Reproduced in: A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1900–1975 (Eds.
References 421

K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1979,

pp. 147–148.
Biermann, L. F., Haxel, O., Schlüter, A. (1951): Neutrale ultrastrahlung von der sonne. Zeitschrift
für Naturforschung A6, 47–48.
Bigazzi, A., Biferale, L., Gama, S. M. A., Velli, M. (2006): Small-scale anisotropy and intermit-
tence in high- and low-latitude solar wind. The Astrophysical Journal 638, 499–507.
Bigelow, F. H. (1889): The Solar Corona Discussed by Spherical Harmonics. Washington: The
Smithsonian Institution 1889.
Bigelow, F. H. (1890a): Further Study of the Solar Corona, New Haven.
Bigelow, F. H. (1890b): The solar corona. Sidereal Messenger 9, 93.
Bilenko, I. A. (2002): Longitudinal distribution of coronal holes during 1976–2002. Solar Physics
221, 261–282.
Billings, D. E. (1959): Distribution of matter with temperature in the emission corona. The Astro-
physical Journal 130, 961–971.
Binns, W. R., et al. (2005): Cosmic-ray neon, wolf-rayet stars, and the superbubble origin of galac-
tic cosmic rays. The Astrophysical Journal 634, 351–364.
Birch, A. C., Kosovichev, A. G. (1998): Latitudinal variation of solar subsurface rotation inferred
from p-mode frequency splittings measured with SOI-MDI and GONG. The Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 503, L187–L190.
Bird, M. K., Edenhofer, P. (1990): Remote sensing observations of the solar corona. In: Physics of
the Inner Heliosphere I. Large-Scale Phenomena (Eds. R. Schewenn and E. Marsch). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, pp. 13–87.
Bird, M. K., et al. (1992): The coronal-sounding experiment. Astronomy and Astrophysics Supple-
ment 92(2), 425–430.
Birkeland, K. (1896): Sur les rayons cathodiques sons l’action de forces magnetiques. Archives des
Sciences Physiques et Naturelles 1, 497.
Birkeland, K. (1908, 1913): The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition, 1902–1903, Vol. I., On the
Cause of Magnetic Storms and the Origin of Terrestrial Magnetism Christinania, Denmark: H.
Aschehoug & Co. 1908, 1st Section; 1913, 2nd Section.
Blackett, P. M. S., Occhialini, G. P. S. (1933): Some photographs of the tracks of penetrating
radiation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 139, 699–718.
Blackwell, D. E. (1960): The zodiacal light and its interpretation. Endeavor 19, 14–19.
Blackwell, D. E., Ingham, M. F. (1961): Observations of the zodiacal light from a very high altitude
station. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 122, 129–141.
Bochsler, P., et al. (2000): Determination of the abundance of aluminum in the solar wind with
SOHO/CELIAS/MTOF. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(A6), 12659–12666.
Bochsler, P., Geiss, J., Maeder, A. (1990): The abundance of 3 He in the solar wind – a constraint
for models of solar evolution. Solar Physics 128, 203–215.
Bogdan, T. J. (2000): Sunspot oscillations: a review. Solar Physics 192, 373–394.
Bogdan, T. J., et al. (2003): Waves in the magnetized solar atmosphere II. Waves from localized
sources in magnetic flux concentrations. The Astrophysical Journal 599, 626–660.
Bohlin, J. D., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (1978): Extreme ultraviolet observations of coronal holes. Solar
Physics 56, 125–151.
Boischot, A. (1957): Caracteres d’un type d’émission hertzienne associé a certaines éruptions chro-
mosphériques. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences 244, 1326–1329.
Boischot, A. (1958): Etude du rayonnement radioélectrique solaire sur 169 MHz a l’aide d’un
grand interférometre a réseau. Annales d’Astrophysique 21, 273–344.
Boischot, A., Denisse, J.-F. (1957): Les émissions de type IV et l’origine des rayons cosmiques
associés aux éruptions chromosphériques. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences 245,
2194–2197.
Bond, G., et al. (1993): Correlations between climate records from north Atlantic sediments and
Greenland ice. Nature 365, 143–147.
Bond, G., et al. (2001): Persistent solar influence on north Atlantic climate during the holocene.
Science 294, 2130–2136.
422 References

Bondi, H. (1952): On spherically symmetrical accretion. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi-
cal Society 112, 195–204.
Bondi, H., Hoyle, F. (1944): On the mechanism of accretion by stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society 104, 273–282.
Bone, N. (1991): The Aurora, Sun-Earth Interactions. New York: Ellis Norwood.
Bonetti, A., et al. (1963): Explorer 10 plasma measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research 68,
4017–4062.
Boothroyd, A. I., Sackmann, I.-J., Fowler, W. A. (1991): Our Sun. II. Early mass loss of 0.1 M and
the case of the missing lithium. The Astrophysical Journal 377, 318–329.
Borrini, G., et al. (1982): Helium abundance enhancements in the solar wind. Journal of Geophys-
ical Research 87, 7370–7378.
Boschler, P., Geiss, J. (1989): Composition of the solar wind. In: Solar System Plasma Physics
Geophysical Monograph 54 (Eds. J. H. Waite Jr., J. L. Burch and R. L. Moore). Washington,
D. C.: American Geophysical Union 1989, 133–141.
Boteler, D. H., Pirjola, R. J., Nevanlinna, H. (1998): The effects of geomagnetic disturbances on
electrical systems at the Earth’s surface. Advances in Space Research 26, 17–27.
Bothe, W., Kolhörster, W. (1929): The nature of the high-altitude radiation. Zeitschrift für Physik
56, 751–777. Reproduced in English in: Cosmic Rays (Ed. A. M. Hillas). New York: Pergamon
Press 1972.
Bothmer, V., Daglis, I. A. (2006): Space Weather – Physics and Effects. New York: Springer.
Bothmer, V., et al. (1996): Ulysses observations of open and closed magnetic field lines within a
coronal mass ejection. Astronomy and Astrophysics 316, 493–498.
Bothmer, V., et al. (1997): Solar energetic particle events and coronal mass ejections: new insights
from SOHO. In: 31st ESLAB Symposium. Noordwijk: ESA/ESTEC, pp. 207–216.
Bothmer, V., Schwenn, R. (1994): Eruptive prominences as sources of magnetic clouds in the solar
wind. Space Science Reviews 70, 215–220.
Bothmer, V., Schwenn, R. (1998): The structure and origin of magnetic clouds in the solar wind.
Annales Geophysicae 16, 1–24.
Bougeret, J. -L., et al. (2008): S/WAVES: The radio and plasma wave investigation on the STEREO
mission. Space Science Reviews 136, No. 1–4, 487–528.
Bracewell, R. N. (1956): Strip integration in radio astronomy. Australian Journal of Physics 9, 198.
Bradley, R. S., Jones, P. D. (1993): “Little Ice Age” summer temperature variations: their nature
and relevance to recent global warming trends. Holocene 3, 367–376.
Bradt, H. L., Peters, B. (1948): Investigation of the primary cosmic radiation with nuclear photo-
graphic emulsions. Physical Review 74, 1828–1837.
Bradt, H. L., Peters, B. (1950): The heavy nuclei of the primary cosmic radiation. Physical Review
77, 54–70.
Brandenburg, A. (2005): The case for a distributed solar dynamo shaped by near surface shear. The
Astrophysical Journal 625, 539–547.
Brandt, J. C., et al. (1969): Interplanetary gas. A calculation of angular momentum of the solar
wind. The Astrophysical Journal 156, 1117–1124.
Braun, D. C., Duvall, T. L. Jr., Labonte, B. J. (1987): Acoustic absorption by sunspots. The Astro-
physical Journal (Letters) 319, L27–L31.
Braun, D. C., Duvall, T. L. Jr., La Bonte, B. J. (1988): The absorption of high- degree p-mode
oscillations in and around sunspots. The Astrophysical Journal 335, 1015–1025.
Braun, D. C., Fay, Y. (1998): Helioseismic measurements of the subsurface meridional flow. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 508, L105–L108.
Braun, D. C., Lindsey, C. (1999): Helioseismic images of an active region complex. The Astro-
physical Journal (Letters) 513, L79–L82.
Braun, D. C., Lindsey, C. (2000): Phase-sensitive holography of solar activity. Solar Physics 192,
307–319.
Braun, D. C., Lindsey, C. (2001): Seismic imaging of the far hemisphere of the sun. The Astro-
physical Journal (Letters) 560, L189–L192.
References 423

Bravo, S., Stewart, G. A. (1997): Fast and slow wind from solar coronal holes. The Astrophysical
Journal 489, 992–999.
Bray, R. J., Loughhead, R. E., Durrant, C. J. (1967): The Solar Granulation. First edition London:
Chapman and Hall 1967 Second edition New York: Cambridge University Press 1984.
Breen, A.R., et al. (1997) Ground and Space-based studies of solar wind acceleration. In: The
Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum Activity. Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO Workshop.
ESA SP-404. Noordwijk, The Netherlands: ESA Publications, pp. 223–228.
Breit, G., Tuve, M. A. (1926): A test of the existence of the conducting layer. Physical Review 28,
554–575.
Brekke, P., Hassler, D. M., Wilhelm, K. (1997a): Doppler shifts in the quiet-Sun transition region
and corona observed with SUMER on SOHO. Solar Physics 175, 349–374. Reprinted in: The
First Results From SOHO (Eds. B. Fleck and Z. Svestka). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers, pp. 349–374.
Brekke, P., Hassler, D. M., Wilhelm, K. (1997b): Systematic redshifts in the quiet Sun transition
region and corona observed with SUMER on SOHO. In: The Corona and Solar Wind Near
Minimum Activity. Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO Workshop. ESA SP-404. Noordwijk: ESA
Publications Division, pp. 229–234.
Bridge, H. S., et al. (1962): Direct observations of the interplanetary plasma. Journal of the Physi-
cal Society of Japan 17, Supplement A-II, 553–559.
Broecker, W. S., Denton, G. H. (1990): What drives glacial cycles? Scientific American 262, 49–56.
Brooks, D. H., et al. (2007): Hinode EUV imaging spectrometer observations of active region loop
morphology: Implications for static heating models of coronal emission. Publications of the
Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S691–S697.
Brosius, J. W., Holman, G. D. (2007): Chromospheric evaporation in a remote solar flare-like
transient observed at high time resolution with SOHO’s CDS and RHESSI. The Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 659, L73–L76.
Brosius, J. W., Phillips, K. J. H. (2004): Extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray spectroscopy of a solar flare
loop observed at high time resolution: A case study in chromospheric evaporation. Astrophysi-
cal Journal 613, 580–591.
Brosius, J. W., White, S. M. (2006): Radio measurements of the height of strong coronal magnetic
fields above sunspots at the solar limb. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 641, L69–L72.
Brown, B. P., Haber, D. A., Hindman, B. W., Toomre, J. (2004): Variations of solar subsurface
weather in the vicinity of active regions. In: Helio- and Asteroseismology: Towards a Golden
Future (Ed. D. Dansey). ESA SP-559, 345.
Brown, D. S., et al. (2003): Observations of rotating sunspots from TRACE. Solar Physics 216,
79–108.
Brown, J. C. (1971): The deduction of energy spectra of non-thermal electrons in flares from the
observed dynamic spectra of hard X-ray bursts. Solar Physics 18, 489–502.
Brown, J. C. (1972a): The decay characteristics of models of solar hard X-ray bursts. Solar Physics
25, 158–177.
Brown, J. C. (1972b): The directivity and polarization of thick target X-ray bremsstrahlung from
solar flares. Solar Physics 26, 441–459.
Brown, J. C. (1973): Thick target X-ray bremsstrahlung from partially ionized targets in solar
flares. Solar Physics 28, 151–158.
Brown, J. C. (1975): The interpretation of spectra, polarization, and directivity of solar hard X-
rays. In: Solar gamma-, X-, and EUV radiation. Proceedings of IAU Symposium No. 68 (Ed. S.
R. Kane). Boston: D. Reidel, pp. 245–282.
Brown, J. C. (1991): Energetic particles in solar flares: theory and diagnostics. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society (London) A336, 413–424.
Brown, J. C., Emslie, A. G. (1989): Self-similar Lagrangian hydrodynamics of beam-heated solar
flare atmospheres. The Astrophysical Journal 339, 1123–1131.
Brown, J. C., et al. (1990): Beam heating in solar flares: electrons or protons? The Astrophysical
Journal Supplement 73, 343–348.
Brown, T. M. (1985): Solar rotation as a function of depth and latitude. Nature 317, 591–594.
424 References

Brown, T. M., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. (1998): Accurate determination of the solar photospheric

radius. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 500, L195–L198.
Brown, T. M., et al. (1989): Inferring the Sun’s internal angular velocity from observed p-mode
frequency splittings. The Astrophysical Journal 343, 526–546.
Brown, T. M., Gilliland, R. L. (1994): Astroseismology. Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astro-
physics 32, 37–82.
Brown, T. M., Morrow, C. A. (1987): Depth and latitude dependence of solar rotation. The Astro-
physical Journal (Letters) 314, L21–L26.
Brueckner, G. E. (1974): The behavior of the outer solar corona (3R to 10 R during a large solar
flare observed from OSO-7 in white light. In: Coronal Disturbances, IAU Symposium No. 57
(Ed. G. Newkirk, Jr.). Boston: Reidel, pp. 333–334.
Brueckner, G. E., Bartoe, J. -D. F. (1983): Observations of high-energy jets in the corona above the
quiet sun, the heating of the corona, and the acceleration of the solar wind. The Astrophysical
Journal 272, 329–348.
Brueckner, G. E., et al. (1995): The Large Angle Spectroscopic Coronagraph (LASCO). Solar
Physics 162, 357–402.
Brun, A. S., Miesch, M. S., Toomre, J. (2004): Global-scale turbulent convection and magnetic
dynamo action in the solar envelope. The Astrophysical Journal 614, 1073–1098.
Bruner, E. C. Jr. (1978): Dynamics of the solar transition zone. The Astrophysical Journal 226,
1140–1146.
Bruner, E. C. Jr. (1981): OSO 8 observational limits to the acoustic coronal heating mechanism.
The Astrophysical Journal 247, 317–324.
Bruno, R., Carbone, V. (2005): The solar wind as a turbulence laboratory. Living Reviews in Solar
Physics 2–4.
Bruno, R., et al. (1986): In-situ observations of the latitudinal gradients of the solar wind parame-
ters during 1976 and 1977. Solar Physics 104, 431–445.
Bruzek, A. (1964): On the association between loop prominences and flares. The Astrophysical
Journal 140, 746–759.
Bryant, D. A., et al. (1962): Explorer 12 observations of solar cosmic rays and energetic storm
particles after the solar flare of September 28, 1961. Journal of Geophysical Research 67, 4983.
Budyko, M. I. (1969): Effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of Earth. Tellus 21,
611–620.
Bumba, V. (1958): Relation between chromospheric flares and magnetic fields of sunspot groups.
Bulletin of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory 19, 105–114.
Bumba, V., Howard, R. (1965): Large-scale distribution of solar magnetic fields. The Astrophysical
Journal 141, 1502–1512.
Bunsen, R. (1859): Letter to H. E. Roscoe in November 1859. Quoted by Roscoe in: The Life and
Experiences of Sir Henry Enfield Roscoe, London 1906, p. 71. Reproduced by A. J. Meadows
in: The origins of astrophysics, found in The General History of Astronomy, Vol. 1. Astrophysics
and Twentieth-Century Astronomy to 1950, part A (Ed. O. Gingerich). New York: Cambridge
University Press 1984, p. 5.
Burchfield, J. D. (1990): Lord Kelvin and The Age of the Earth. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bürgi, A., Geiss, J. (1986): Helium and minor ions in the corona and solar wind: dynamics and
charge states. Solar Physics 103, 347–383.
Burkepile, J. T., et al. (2004): Role of projection effects on solar coronal mass ejection proper-
ties: 1. A study of CMEs associated with limb activity. Journal of Geophysical Research 109,
A03103.
Burkepile, J. T., St. Cyr, O. C. (1993): A revised and expanded catalogue of mass ejections observed
by the Solar Maximum Mission coronagraph. NCAR/TN-369 + STR. Boulder, Colorado: Na-
tional Center for Atmospheric Research.
Burlaga, L. F. (1971): Hydromagnetic waves and discontinuities in the solar wind. Space Science
Reviews 12, 600–657.
References 425

Burlaga, L. F. (1983): Understanding the heliosphere and its energetic particles. Proceedings of the
18th International Conference of Cosmic Rays, 12, 21–60.
Burlaga, L. F. (1984): MHD processes in the outer heliosphere. Space Science Reviews 39,
255–316.
Burlaga, L. F. (1988): Magnetic clouds and force-free fields with constant alpha. Journal of
Geophysical Research 93, 7217–7224.
Burlaga, L. F. (1990): Magnetic clouds. In: Physics of the Inner Heliosphere II. Particles, Waves
and Turbulence (Eds. R. Schwenn and E. Marsch). New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1–22.
Burlaga, L. F. (1991): Magnetic clouds. In Physics of the Inner Heliosphere, Vol. II: Particles,
Waves and Turbulence (Eds. R. Schwenn and E. Marsch). New York: Springer, pp. 1–22.
Burlaga, L. F. (1995): Interplanetary Magnetohydrodynamics, Vol. 3 of International Series on
Astronomy and Astrophysics. New York, Oxford University Press.
Burlaga, L. F., et al. (1978): Sources of magnetic fields in recurrent interplanetary streams. Journal
of Geophysical Research 83, 4177–4185.
Burlaga, L. F., et al. (1981): Magnetic loop behind an interplanetary shock: Voyager, Helios, and
IMP 8 observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 86, 6673–6684.
Burlaga, L. F., et al. (1982): A magnetic cloud and a coronal mass ejection. Geophysical Research
Letters 9, 1317–1320.
Burlaga, L. F., Behannon, K. W., Klein, L. W. (1987): Compound streams, magnetic clouds and
major magnetic storms. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 5725–5734.
Burlaga, L. F., et al. (1998): A magnetic cloud containing prominence material: January 1997.
Journal of Geophysical Research 103(A1), 277–285.
Burlaga, L. F., et al. (2001): Fast ejecta during the ascending phase of solar cycle 23: ACE
observations, 1998–1999. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, A10, 20957–20977.
Burlaga, L. F., et al. (2005a): Voyager 2 observations related to the October–November 2003 solar
events. Geophysical Research Letters 32, L03S05.
Burlaga, L. F., et al. (2005b): Crossing the termination shock into the heliosheath: magnetic fields.
Science 309, 2027–2029.
Burlaga, L. F., et al. (2008): Magnetic fields at the termination shock by Voyager 2. Nature 454,
75–77.
Burlaga, L. F., King, J. H. (1979): Intense interplanetary magnetic fields observed by geocentric
spacecraft during 1963–1975. Journal of Geophysical Research 84, 6633–6640.
Burlaga, L. F., Lepping, R. P. (1977): The causes of recurrent geomagnetic storms. Planetary and
Space Science 25, 1151–1160.
Burlaga, L. F., Ness, N. F., Belcher, J. W., Whang, Y. C. (1996): Pickup protons and pressure-
balance structures from 39 to 43 AU: Voyager 2 observations during 1993 and 1994. Journal
of Geophysical Research 101(A7), 15523–15254.
Burlaga, L. F., Sittler, E., Mariani, F., Schwenn, R. (1981): Magnetic loop behind an interplanetary
shock – Voyager, Helios and IMP 8 observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 86,
6673–6684.
Burlaga, L. F., Viñas, A.-F. (2005): Tsallis distributions of the large-scale magnetic field strength
fluctuations in the solar wind from 7 to 87 AU. Journal of Geophysical Research 110(A7),
A07110.
Burnight, T. R. (1949): Soft X-radiation in the upper atmosphere. Physical Review 76, 165.
Burroughs, W. J. (1992): Weather Cycles: Real or Imaginary. New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Burton, M. E., et al. (1996): Ulysses out-of-ecliptic observations of interplanetary shocks.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 316, 313–322.
Burton, R. K., Mcpherron, R. L., Russell, C. T. (1975): An empirical relationship between
interplanetary conditions and Dst. Journal of Geophysical Research 80, 4204–4214.
Byram, E. T., Chubb, T. A., Friedman, H. (1953): The contribution of solar X- rays to E-layer
ionization. Physical Review 92, 1066–1067.
Byram, E. T., Chubb, T. A., Friedman, H. (1954): Solar X-ray emission. Physical Review 96, 860.
Byram, E. T., Chubb, T. A., Friedman, H. (1956): The solar X-ray spectrum and the density of the
upper atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research 61, 251–263.
426 References

Cahill, L. J., Patel, V. L. (1967): The boundary of the geomagnetic field, August to November
1961. Planetary and Space Science 15, 997–1033.
Cane, H. V. (1985a): The evolution of interplanetary shocks. Journal of Geophysical Research 90,
191–197.
Cane, H. V. (1985b): The evolution of interplanetary transients, type II bursts and interplanetary
shocks. Astronomy and Astrophysics 140, 205–209.
Cane, H. V. (1997): The current status of our understanding of energetic particles, coronal mass
ejections and flares. In: Coronal Mass Ejections. Geophysical Monograph 99 (Eds. N. Crooker,
J. A. Joselyn and J. Feynman). Washington: American Geophysical Union, pp. 205–215.
Cane, H. V., Erickson, W. C. (2005): Solar type II radio bursts and IP type II events. The
Astrophysical Journal 623, 1180–1194.
Cane, H. V., Lario, D. (2006): An introduction to CMEs and energetic particles. Space Science
Reviews 123, 45–56.
Cane, H. V., McGuire, R. E., Von Rosenvinge, T. T. (1986): Two classes of solar energetic particle
events associated with impulsive and long duration soft X- ray events. The Astrophysical
Journal 301, 448–459.
Cane, H. V., Reames, D. V. (1988a): Soft X-ray emissions, meter-wavelength radio bursts, and
particle acceleration in solar flares. The Astrophysical Journal 325, 895–900.
Cane, H. V., Reames, D. V. (1988b): Some statistics of solar radio bursts of spectral types II and
IV. The Astrophysical Journal 325, 901–904.
Cane, H. V., Richardson, I. G., Cyr, O. C. St. (2000): Coronal mass ejections, interplanetary eject
and geomagnetic storms. Geophysical Research Letters 27, Issue 21, 3591–3594.
Cane, H. V., Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Howard, R. A. (1987): Energetic interplanetary shocks, radio
emission, and coronal mass ejections. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 9869–9874.
Canfield, R. C., et al. (2007): Yohkoh SXT full-resolution observations of sigmoids: Structure,
formation, and eruption. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 671, L81–L84.
Canfield, R. C., Hudson, H. S., McKenzie, D. E. (1999): Sigmoidal morphology and eruptive solar
activity. Geophysical Research Letters 26(6), 627–630.
Canuto, V. M., et al. (1983): The young Sun and the atmosphere and photochemistry of the early
Earth. Nature 305, 281–286.
Cargill, P. J. (1994): Some implications of the nanoflare concept. The Astrophysical Journal 422,
381–393.
Cargill, P. J., Klimchuk, J. A. (1997): A nanoflare explanation for the heating for coronal loops
observed by Yohkoh. The Astrophysical Journal 478, 799–806.
Cargill, P. J., Klimchuk, J. A. (2004): Nanoflare heating of the corona revisited. The Astrophysical
Journal 605, 911–920.
Cargill, P. J., Priest, E. R. (1983): The heating of post-flare loops. The Astrophysical Journal 266,
383–389.
Carloqwicz, M., Lopez, R. (2002): Storms from the Sun: The Emerging Science of Space Weather.
Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Carlqvist, P. (1969): Current limitation and solar flares. Solar Physics 7, 377–392.
Carlsson, M., et al. (2007): Can high frequency acoustic waves heat the quiet sun chromosphere?
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S663–S668.
Carlsson, M., Judge, P. G., Wilhelm, K. (1997): SUMER observations confirm the dynamic nature
of the quiet solar outer atmosphere: the internetwork chromosphere. The Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 486, L63.
Carlsson, M., Stein, R. F. (1992): Non-LTE radiating acoustic shocks and Ca II K2V bright points.
The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 397, L59–L62.
Carlsson, M., Stein, R. F. (1995): Does a nonmagnetic solar chromosphere exist? The Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 440, L29–L32.
References 427

Carlsson, M., Stein, R. F. (1997): Formation of solar calcium H and K bright grains. The
Astrophysical Journal 481, 500.
Carlsson, M., Stein, R. F. (2002): Dynamic hydrogen ionization. The Astrophysical Journal 572,
626–635.
Carmichael, H. (1964): A process for flares. In: AAS-NASA Symposium on the Physics of
Solar Flares NASA SP-50 (Ed. W. N. Hess). Washington: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, pp. 451–456.
Carovillano, R. L., Siscoe, G. L. (1969): Co-rotating structure in the solar wind. Solar Physics 8,
401–414.
Carrington, R. C. (1858): On the distribution of the solar spots in latitude since the beginning of
the year 1854. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 19, 1–3. Reproduced in:
Early Solar Physics (Ed. A. J. Meadows). Oxford: Pergamon Press 1970, pp. 169–172.
Carrington, R. C. (1860): Description of a singular appearance seen in the Sun on September 1,
1859. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 20, 13–15. Reproduced in: Early
Solar Physics (Ed. A. J. Meadows). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press 1970, pp. 181–183.
Carrington, R. C. (1863): Observations of the Spots on the Sun. London: Williams and Norgate.
Cavendish, H. (1790): On the height of the luminous arch which was seen on Feb. 23, 1784.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) 80, 101–105.
Celsius, A. (1747): Bemerkungen über der Magnetnadel Stündliche Veränderungen in ihrer
Abweichung. Svenska Ventensk. Handl. 8, 296.
Cess, R. D., Ramanathan, V., Owen, T. (1980): The Martian paleoclimate and enhanced
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Icarus 41, 159–165.
Chae, J., et al. (1998): Chromospheric upflow events associated with transition region explosive
events. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 504, L123–L126.
Chae, J., et al. (1998): Photospheric magnetic field changes associated with transition region
explosive events. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 497, L109.
Chamberlain, J. W. (1960): Interplanetary gas II. Expansion of a model corona. The Astrophysical
Journal 131, 47–56.
Chamberlain, J. W. (1963): Planetary coronae and atmospheric evaporation. Planetary and Space
Science 11, 901–960.
Chamberlin, P., Woods, T. N., Eparvier, F. G. (2006): Flare Irradiance Spectral Model (FISM) use
for space weather applications. Proceedings of the ILWS Workshop (Eds. N. Gopalswamy and
A. Bhattacharyya), p. 153.
Chamberlin, T. C. (1899): An attempt to frame a working hypothesis of the cause of the glacial
periods on an atmospheric basis. The Journal of Geology 7, 545–584.
Chandra, S. (1991): The solar UV related changes in total ozone from a solar rotation to a solar
cycle. Geophysical Research Letters 18, 837–840.
Chandran, B. D. G. (2004): A review of the theory of incompressible MHD turbulence.
Astrophysics and Space Science 292, 17–28.
Chandran, B. D. G. (2005): Weak compressible magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in the solar
corona. Physical Review Letters 95, 265004–265300.
Chapman, G. A. (1984): On the energy balance of solar active regions. Nature 308, 252–254.
Chapman, G. A. (1987): Variations of solar irradiance due to magnetic activity. Annual Review of
Astronomy and Astrophysics 25, 633–667.
Chapman, G. A., Cookson, A. M., Dobias, J. J. (1996): Variations in total solar irradiance during
solar cycle 22. Journal of Geophysical Research 101, 13541–13548.
Chapman, G. A., Cookson, A. M., Dobias, J. J. (1997): Solar variability and the relation of facular
to sunspot areas during solar cycle 22. The Astrophysical Journal 482, 541–545.
Chapman, G. A., et al. (1984): Solar luminosity fluctuations and active region photometry. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 282, L99–L101.
Chapman, S. (1918): An outline of a theory of magnetic storms. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London A 95, 61–83.
Chapman, S. (1918): The energy of magnetic storms. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society 79, 70–83.
428 References

Chapman, S. (1929): Solar streams of corpuscles – their geometry, absorption of light and
penetration. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 89, 456–470.
Chapman, S. (1950): Corpuscular influences upon the upper atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical
Research 55, 361–372. Reproduced in: A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics,
1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1979,
pp. 125–131.
Chapman, S. (1954): The viscosity and thermal conductivity of a completely ionized gas. The
Astrophysical Journal 120, 151–155.
Chapman, S. (1957): Notes on the solar corona and the terrestrial atmosphere. Smithsonian
Contributions to Astrophysics 2(1), 1–14.
Chapman, S. (1958): Thermal diffusion in ionized gases. Proceedings of the Physical Society of
London 72, 353–362.
Chapman, S. (1959a): Interplanetary space and the earth’s outermost atmosphere. Proceedings of
the Royal Society (London) A253, 462–481.
Chapman, S. (1959b): The outermost ionosphere. Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics
15, 43–47.
Chapman, S., Bartels, J. (1940): Geomagnetism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Chapman, S., Ferraro, V. C. A. (1929): The electrical state of solar streams of corpuscles. Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 89, 470–479.
Chapman, S., Ferraro, V. C. A. (1931): A new theory of magnetic storms, I, The initial phase.
Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity 36, 77–97, 171–186; 37, 147–156,
421–429 (1932).
Chapman, S., Ferraro, V. C. A. (1933): A new theory of magnetic storms, II, The main phase.
Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity 38, 79–86.
Chapman, S., Ferraro, V. C. A. (1940): A theory of the first phase of geomagnetic storms.
Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity 45, 245–268.
Chappellaz, J., et al. (1990): Ice-core record of atmospheric methane over the past 160,000 years.
Nature 345, 127–131.
Chappellaz, J., et al. (1993): Synchronous changes in atmospheric CH4 and Greenland climate
between 40 and 8 kyr BP. Nature 366, 443–445.
Charbonneau, P. (2005): Dynamo models of the solar cycle. Living Reviews in Solar Physics 2, 2.
Charlson, R. J., Wigley, T. M. L. (1994): Sulfate aerosol and climate change. Scientific American
270, 48–57.
Chen, J. (1989): Effects of toroidal forces in current loops embedded in a background plasma. The
Astrophysical Journal 338, 453–470.
Chen, J. (1996): Theory of prominence eruption and propagation: interplanetary consequences.
Journal of Geophysical Research 101(A12), 27499–27519.
Chen, J. (2001): Physics of coronal mass ejections: a new paradigm of solar eruptions. Space
Science Reviews 95, 165–190.
Chen, J., et al. (1995): Simulation of geomagnetic storms during the passage of magnetic clouds.
Geophysical Research Letters 22(13), 1749–1752.
Chen, J., et al. (1997): Evidence of an erupting magnetic flux rope: LASCO coronal mass ejection
of 1997 April 13. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 490, L191–L194.
Chen, J., et al. (2000): Magnetic geometry and dynamics of the fast coronal mass ejection of 1997
September 9. The Astrophysical Journal 533, 481–500.
Chen, J., et al. (2006): The flux-rope scaling of the acceleration of coronal mass ejections and
eruptive prominences. The Astrophysical Journal 649, 452–463.
Chen, J., Garren, D. A. (1993): Interplanetary magnetic clouds: topology and driving mechanism.
Geophysical Research Letters 20(21), 2319–2322.
Chen, Y., Esser, R., Strachan, L., Hu, Y. (2004): Stagnated outflow of O5 ions in the source region
of the slow solar wind at solar minimum. The Astrophysical Journal 602, 415–421.
Chen, Y., Li, X. (2004): An ion-cyclotron resonance-driven three-fluid model of the slow wind
near the Sun. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 609, L41–L44.
References 429

Cheng, C.-C., Doschek, G. A., Feldman, U. (1979): The dynamical properties of the solar corona
from intensities and line widths of EUV forbidden lines. The Astrophysical Journal 227,
1037–1046.
Cheng, C.-C., et al. (1981): Spatial and temporal structures of impulsive bursts from solar flares
observed in UV and hard X-rays. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 248, L39–L43.
Cheng, C.-C., Pallavicini, R. (1987): Analysis of ultraviolet and X-ray observations of three
homologous solar flares from SMM. The Astrophysical Journal 318, 459–473.
Chiang, W. H., Foukal, P. V. (1985): The influence of faculae on sunspot heat blocking. Solar
Physics 97, 9–20.
Chitre, S. M., Gokhale, M. H. (1975): The five-minute oscillations in the solar atmosphere. Solar
Physics 43, 49–55.
Chou, D. -Y., Dai, D. -C. (2001): Solar cycle variations of subsurface meridional flows in the Sun.
The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 559, L175–L178.
Chou, D.-Y., et al. (1995): Taiwan oscillation network. Solar Physics 160, 237–243.
Chou, D.-Y., Ladenkov, O. (2005): Evolution of solar subsurface meridional flows in the declining
phase of cycle 23. The Astrophysical Journal 630, 1206–1212.
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. (2002): Helioseismology. Reviews of Modern Physics 74, 1073–1129.
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. (1985): Speed of sound in the solar interior. Nature 315, 378–382.
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., et al. (1996): The current state of solar modeling. Science 272,
1286–1292.
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Gough, D. O., Thompson, M. J. (1991): The depth of the solar
convection zone. The Astrophysical Journal 378, 413–437.
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Gough, D. O., Toomre, J. (1985): Seismology of the Sun. Science 229,
923–931.
Christiansen, W. N. (1984): The first decade of solar radio astronomy in Australia. In: The Early
Years of Radio Astronomy (Ed. W. T. Sullivan III). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chubb, T. A., Friedman, H., Kreplin, R. W. (1960): Measurements made of high-energy X-rays
accompanying three class 2+ solar flares. Journal of Geophysical Research 65, 1831–1832.
Chupp, E. L. (1971): Gamma ray and neutron emissions from the Sun. Space Science Reviews 12,
486–525.
Chupp, E. L. (1976): Gamma-ray Astronomy. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Chupp, E. L. (1984): High energy neutral radiation from the Sun. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 22, 359–387.
Chupp, E. L. (1987): High-energy particle production in solar flares (SEP, gamma-ray and neutron
emissions). Physica Scripta T18, 5–19.
Chupp, E. L. (1990): Emission characteristics of three intense solar flares observed in cycle 21.
The Astrophysical Journal Supplement 73, 213–226.
Chupp, E. L. (1990): Transient particle acceleration with solar flares. Science 250, 229–236.
Chupp, E. L., Benz, A. O. (Eds., 1994): Particle Acceleration Phenomena in Astrophysical
Plasmas. Proceedings of the International Astronomical union (IAU) Colloquium 142. The
Astrophysical Journal Supplement 90, 511–983.
Chupp, E. L., et al. (1973): Solar gamma ray lines observed during the solar activity of August 2
to August 11, 1972. Nature 241, 333–334.
Chupp, E. L., et al. (1982): A direct observation of solar neutrons following the 0118 UT flare on
1980 June 21. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 263, L95–L99.
Chupp, E. L., et al. (1987): Solar neutron emissivity during the large flare on 1982 June 3.
Astrophysical Journal 318, 913–929.
Ciaravella, A., et al. (1997): Ultraviolet coronagraph spectrometer observation of the 1996
December 23 coronal mass ejection. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 491, L59.
Ciaravella, A., et al. (2002): Elemental abundances and post-coronal mass ejection current sheet
in a very hot active region. Astrophysical Journal 575, 1116–1130.
Ciaravella, A., et al. (2005): Detection and diagnostics of a coronal shock wave driven
by a partial-halo coronal mass ejection on 2000 June 28. Astrophysical Journal 621,
1121–1128.
430 References

Ciaravella, A., Raymond, J. C., Kahler, S. W. (2006): Ultraviolet properties of halo coronal mass
ejections: Doppler shifts, angles, shocks, and bulk morphology. Astrophysical Journal 652,
774–792.
Cinicastagoli, G., et al. (1984): Solar cycles in the last centuries in 10 Be and O18 in polar ice and
in thermoluminescence signals of a sea sediment. Nuovo Cimento 7C, 235–244.
Cinicastagoli, G., Lal, D. (1980): Solar modulation effects in terrestrial production of carbon-14.
Radiocarbon 22, 133–158.
Cirtain, J. W., et al. (2007): Evidence for Alfvén waves in solar polar jets. Science 318, 1580–1582.
Cirtain, J. W., et al. (2007a): Active region loops: Temperature measurements as a function of time
from joint TRACE and SOHO CDS observations. The Astrophysical Journal 655, 598–605.
Cirtain, J. W., et al. (2007b): Evidence for Alfvén waves in solar polar jets. Science 318,
1580–1582.
Claverie, A., et al. (1979): Solar structure from global studies of the five-minute oscillation. Nature
282, 591–594.
Clay, J. (1927): Penetrating radiation. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen te
Amsterdam, Proceedings of the Section of Sciences 30, 1115.
Clay, J. (1932): The Earth-magnetic effect and the corpuscular nature of (cosmic) ultra-radiation.
IV. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Proceedings of the
Section of Sciences 35, 1282–1290. Reproduced in: Cosmic Rays (Ed. A. M. Hillas). New
York: Pergamon Press 1972.
Cleveland, B. T., et al. (1998): Measurement of the solar electron neutrino flux with the Homestake
chlorine detector. The Astrophysical Journal 496, 505–526.
Cline, T. L., McDonald, F. B. (1968): Relativistic electrons from solar flares. Solar Physics 5,
507–530.
Cliver, E. W. (1994a): Solar activity and geomagnetic storms: the corpuscular hypothesis. EOS 75,
609, 612–613.
Cliver, E. W. (1994b): Solar activity and geomagnetic storms: the first 40 years. EOS 75, 569,
574–575.
Cliver, E. W. (1995a): Solar activity and geomagnetic storms: from M regions and flares to coronal
holes and CMEs. EOS 76, 75, 83–84.
Cliver, E. W. (1995b): Solar flare nomenclature. Solar Physics 157, 285–293.
Cliver, E. W., Boriakoff, V., Feynman, J. (1998): Solar variability and climate change: geomagnetic
a index and global surface temperature. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 1035–1038.
Cliver, E. W., Cane, H. V. (2002): Gradual and impulsive solar energetic particle events. EOS
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 83, 61–68.
Cliver, E. W., et al. (1989): Solar flare nuclear gamma-rays and interplanetary proton events. The
Astrophysical Journal 343, 953–970.
Cliver, E. W., Kahler, S. W., Reames, D. V. (2004): Coronal shocks and solar energetic proton
events. The Astrophysical Journal 605, 902–910.
Cliver, E. W., Webb, D. F., Howard, R. A. (1999): On the origin of solar metric type II bursts.
Solar Physics 187, 89–114.
Close, R. M., Parnell, C. E., Mackay, D. M., Priest, E. R. (2003): Statistical flux-tube properties
of 3D magnetic carpet fields. Solar Physics 212, 251–275.
Cocconi, G., et al. (1958): The cosmic ray flare effect. Nuovo Cimento Supplement Series 8(2),
161–168.
Cohen, C. M. S., et al. (1999): New observations of heavy-ion-rich solar particle events from ACE.
Geophysical Research Letters 26(17), 2697–2700.
Colburn, D. S., Sonett, C. P. (1966): Discontinuities in the solar wind. Space Science Reviews 5,
439–506.
Coleman, P. J. Jr. (1968): Turbulence, viscosity, and dissipation in the solar wind plasma.
Astrophysical Journal 153, 371–388.
Coleman, P. J. Jr., et al. (1966): Measurements of magnetic fields in the vicinity of the magne-
tosphere and in interplanetary space: preliminary results from Mariner 4. Space Research 6,
907–928.
References 431

Coles, W. A., et al. (1980): Solar cycle changes in the polar solar wind. Nature 286, 239–241.
Coles, W. A., Rickett, B. (1976): IPS observations of solar wind speed out of the ecliptic. Journal
of Geophysical Research 77, 4797–4799.
Compton, A. H. (1932): Variation of the cosmic rays with latitude. Physical Review 41, 111–113.
Compton, A. H. (1933): A geographic study of the cosmic rays. Physical Review 43, 387–403.
Contarino, L., Romano, P., Zuccarello, F. (2006): RHESSI and TRACE observations of an M 2.5
flare: A direct application of the Kopp and Pneuman model. Astronomy and Astrophysics 458,
297–300.
Cook, W. R., et al. (1979): Elemental composition of solar energetic particles in 1977 and 1978.
Proceedings of the 16th International Cosmic Ray Conference 12, 265.
Cook, W. R., Stone, E. C., Vogt, R. (1984): Elemental composition of solar energetic particles.
Astrophysical Journal 279, 827–838.
Coplan, M. A., Ogilvie, K. W., Bochsler, P., Geiss, J. (1984): Interpretation of 3 He abundance
variations in the solar wind. Solar Physics 93, 415–434.
Corbard, T., Thompson, J. (2002): The subsurface radial gradient of solar angular velocity from
MDI f-mode observations. Solar Physics 205, 211–229.
Cormack, A. M. (1963): Representation of a function by its line integrals, with some radiological
applications. Journal of Applied Physics 34, 2722–2727.
Corti, G., et al. (1997): Physical parameters in plume and interplume regions from UVCS
observations. In: The Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum Activity. Proceedings of the Fifth
SOHO Workshop. ESA SP-404. Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division, pp. 289–294.
Couvidat, S., et al (2003a): The rotation of the deep solar layers. The Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 597, L77–L79.
Couvidat, S., Turck-Chièze, S., Kosovichev, A. G. (2003b): Solar seismic models and the neutrino
predictions. The Astrophysical Journal 599, 1434–1448.
Covington, A. E. (1951): Some characteristics of 10.7 cm solar noise. Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society of Canada 45, 15–22.
Covington, A. E., Harvey, G. A. (1958): Impulsive and long-enduring sudden enhancements
of solar radio emission at 10-cm wave-length. Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of
Canada 52, 161–166.
Cowan, C. L. Jr., et al. (1956): Detection of the free neutrino: a confirmation. Science 124, 103.
Cox, A. (1969): Geomagnetic reversals. Science 163, 237–245.
Cox, A. N., Livingston, W. C., Matthews, M. S. (Eds., 1991): Solar Interior and Atmosphere.
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Craig, I. J. D., McClymont, A. N., Underwood, J. H. (1978): The temperature and density structure
of active region coronal loops. Astronomy and Astrophysics 70, 1–11.
Cranmer, S. R. (2000): Ion cyclotron wave dissipation in the solar corona; the summed effect of
more than 2000 ion species. Astrophysical Journal 532, 1197–1208.
Cranmer, S. R. (2002): Coronal holes and the high-speed solar wind. Space Science Reviews 101,
229–294.
Cranmer, S. R. (2004): New views of the solar wind with the Lambert W function. American
Journal of Physics 72, 1397–1403.
Cranmer, S. R., et al. (1999): An empirical model of a polar coronal hole at solar minimum. The
Astrophysical Journal 511, 481–501.
Cranmer, S. R., Field, G. B., Kohl, J. L. (1998): Spectroscopic constraints on models of ion-
cyclotron resonance heating in the polar solar corona and fast solar wind. EOS Transactions
AGU 79, F722.
Cranmer, S. R., Van Ballegooijen, A. A. (2003): Alfvénic turbulence in the extended solar corona:
kinetic effects and proton heating. The Astrophysical Journal 594, 573–591.
Cranmer, S. R., Van Ballegooijen, A. A. (2005): On the generation, propagation and reflection
of Alfvén waves from the photosphere to the distant heliosphere. Astrophysical Journal
Supplement Series 156, 265–293.
432 References

Cranmer, S. R., Van Ballegooijen, A. A., Edgard, R. J. (2007): Self consistent coronal heating
and solar wind acceleration from anisotropic magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. Astrophysical
Journal Supplement 171, 520–551.
Crawford, H. J., et al. (1975): Solar flare particles: energy-dependent composition and relationship
to solar composition. The Astrophysical Journal 195, 213–221.
Crawford, H. J., Price, P., Sullivan, J. D. (1972): Composition and energy spectra of heavy nuclei
with .5 less than E less than 40 MeV per nucleon in the 1971 January 24 and September 1 solar
flares. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 175, L149.
Croll, J. (1875): Climate and Time in their Geological Relations. New York: Appleton and
London: David Bogue (1876).
Crommelynck, D., et al. (1995): First realization of the space absolute radiometric ref-
erence (SARR) during the ATLAS 2 flight period. Advances in Space Research
16(8), 17–23.
Crooker, N. U. (2000): Solar and heliospheric geoeffective disturbances. Journal of Atmospheric
and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 62, 1071–1085.
Crooker, N. U., Cliver, E. W. (1994): Postmodern view of M-regions. Journal of Geophysical
Research 99, 23383–23390.
Crooker, N. U., et al. (1999): CIR morphology, turbulence, discontinuities and energetic particles.
Space Science Reviews 89, 179–220.
Crooker, N. U., et al. (2004): Heliospheric plasma sheets. Journal of Geophysical Research
109(A3), A03107.
Crooker, N. U., Goslling, J. T., Kahler, S. W. (2002): Reducing heliospheric magnetic flux
from coronal mass ejections without disconnection. Journal of Geophysical Research (Space
Physics) 107(A2), SSH 3–1.
Crooker, N. U., Joselyn, J. A., Feynman, J. (Eds., 1997): Coronal Mass Ejections, Geophysical
Monograph Series 99. Washington: American Geophysical Union.
Crooker, N. U., Kahler, S. W., Larson, D. E., Lin, R. P. (2004): Large-scale magnetic field
inversions at sector boundaries. Journal of Geophysical Research 109(A3), A03108.
Crooker, N. U., Kahler, S. W., Larson, D. E., Lin, R. P. (2004): Large-scale magnetic field
inversions at sector boundaries. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, A3, A03108.
Crosby, N. B., Aschwanden, M. J., Dennis, B. R. (1993): Frequency distributions and correlations
of solar X-ray flare parameters. Solar Physics 143, 275–299.
Crowley, T. J. (1983): The geologic record of climatic change. Review of Geophysics and Space
Physics 21, 828–877.
Crowley, T. J. (2000): Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science 289,
270–277.
Crowley, T. J., Kim, K.-Y. (1996): Comparison of proxy records of climate change and solar
forcing. Geophysical Research Letters 23, 359–362.
Crowley, T. J., Kim, K.-Y. (1999): Modeling the temperature response to forced climate change
over the last six centuries. Geophysical Research Letters 26, 1901–1904.
Crutzen, P. J., Isaksen, I. S. A., Reid, G. C. (1975): Solar proton events: stratospheric sources of
nitric oxide. Science 189, 457–459.
Cubasch, U., et al. (1997): Simulation of the influence of solar radiation variations on the global
climate with an ocean-atmosphere general circulation model. Climate Dynamics 13, 757–767.
Culhane, J. L., et al. (1991): The Bragg Crystal Spectrometer for SOLAR-A. Solar Physics
136, 89–104.
Culhane, J. L., et al. (2007): Hinode EUV study of jets in the Sun’s south polar corona.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S751–S756.
Culhane, J. L., et al. (2007): The UV imaging spectrometer for Solar-B. Solar Physics 243, 19–61.
Culhane, J. L., Jordan, C. (Eds., 1991): The Physics of Solar Flares. London: The Royal Society.
Cummings, A. C., Stone, E. C., Webber, W. R. (1993): Estimate of the distance to the solar wind
termination shock from gradients of anomalous cosmic ray oxygen. Journal of Geophysical
Research 98, 15165–15168.
References 433

Currie, R. G. (1974): Solar cycle signal in surface air temperature. Journal of Geophysical
Research 79, 5657–5660.
Cushman, G. W., Rense, W. A. (1976): Evidence of outward flow of plasma in a coronal hole. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 207, L61–L62.
Czaykowska, A., De Pontieu, B., Alexander, D., Rank, G. (1999): Evidence for chromospheric
evaporation in the late gradual flare phase from SOHO/CDS observations. The Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 521, L75–L78.

Daglis, I. A., et al. (1999): The terrestrial ring current: origin, formation, and decay. Review of
Geophysics 37, 407–438.
Dahlburg, R. B., Klimchuk, J. A., Antiochos, S. K. (2005): An explanation of the “switch-on”
nature of magnetic energy release and its application to coronal heating. The Astrophysical
Journal 622, 1191–1201.
Damon, P. E., Jirikowic, J. L. (1994): Solar forcing of global climate change. In: The Sun as a
Variable Star (Eds. J. Pap, H. Hudson and S. Solanki). New York: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 301–314.
Damon, P. E., Peristykh, A. N. (1999): Solar cycle length and twentieth century northern
hemisphere warming. Geophysical Research Letters 26, 2469–2472.
Damon, P. E., Sonett, C. P. (1991): Solar and terrestrial components of the atmospheric 14 C
variation spectrum. In: The Sun in Time (Eds. C. P. Sonett, M. S. Giampapa and M. S.
Matthews). Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 360–388.
Danesy, D. (Ed., 2004): SOHO-14/GONG 2004: Helio- and Asteroseismology: Towards a Golden
Future. ESA SP-559 2004.
Dansgaard, W., et al. (1980): Climatic record revealed by the Camp Century ice core. In: The
Late-Glacial Ages (Ed. K. Turekian). New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 37–46.
Dansgaard, W., et al. (1984): North Atlantic climate oscillations revealed by deep Greenland
ice cores. In: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity. American Geophysical Union
Geophysical Monograph 29 (Eds. J. E. Hansen and T. Takahashi). Washington: American
Geophysical Union, pp. 288–298.
Dansgaard, W., et al. (1989): A new Greenland deep ice core. Science 218, 1273–1277.
Dasso, S., Milano, L. J., Matthaeus, W. H., Smith, C. W. (2005): Anisotropy in fast and slow wind
fluctuations. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 635, L181–L184.
David, C., et al. (1998): Measurement of the electron temperature gradient in a solar coronal hole.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 336, L90–L94.
David, C., Gabriel, A. H., Bely-Dubau, F. (1997): Temperature structure in coronal holes. In: The
Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum Activity Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO Workshop.
ESA SP-404. Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division, pp. 319–322.
Davis, L. Jr. (1955): Interplanetary magnetic fields and cosmic rays. Physical Review 100,
1440–1444.
Davis, L. Jr. (1972): The interplanetary magnetic field. In: Solar Wind: The Proceedings of
a Conference Sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA
SP-308 (Eds. C. P. Sonett, P. J. Coleman, Jr., J. M. Wilcox) Washington: NASA, pp. 73–103.
Davis, R. Jr. (1964): Solar neutrinos II. Experimental. Physical Review Letters 12, 303 305.
Davis, R. Jr., Harmer, D. S., Hoffman, K. C. (1968): Search for neutrinos from the Sun. Physical
Review Letters 20, 1205–1209. Reproduced in: A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics
1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1979,
pp. 389–395.
Davis, J. A., et al. (2008): First observation of a CME from the Sun to a distance greater than 1 AU
using the Heliospheric Imager aboard STEREO A. Geophysical Research Letters – submitted.
434 References

De Forest, C. E. (2004): High-frequency waves detected in the solar atmosphere. The Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 617, L89–L92.
De Forest, C. E., et al. (1997): Polar plume anatomy: results of a coordinated observation. Solar
Physics 175, 393–410. Reproduced in: The First Results from SOHO (Eds. B. Fleck and
Z. Svestka). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 393–410.
De Forest, C. E., Gurman, J. B. (1998): Observation of quasi-periodic compressive waves in solar
polar plumes. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 501, L217–L220.
De Jager, C. (1986): Solar flares and particle acceleration. Space Science Reviews 44, 43–90.
De Jager, C., Kundu, M. R. (1963): A note on bursts of radio emission and high energy
(> 20 keV) X-rays from solar flares. Space Research 3, 836–838.
De Jong, A. F. M., Mook, W. G., Becker, B. (1979): Confirmation of the Suess wiggles. Nature
280, 48–49.
De Keyser, J., Roth, M., Forsyth, R., Reisenfeld, D. (2000): Ulysses observations of sector
boundaries at aphelion. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(A7), 15689–15698.
De Mairan, J. J. D. (1733): Traité Physique et Historique de l’Aurore Boréale. Paris: Imprimerie
Royale.
De Moortel, I., Hood, A. W., Ireland, J., Walsh, R. W. (2002): Longitudinal intensity oscillations
in coronal loops observed with TRACE II. Discussion of measured parameters. Solar Physics
209, 89–108.
De Moortel, I., Ireland, J., Walsh, R. W. (2000): Observation of oscillations in coronal loops.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 355, L23–L26.
De Pontieu, B., Berger, T. E., Schrijver, C. J., Title, A. M. (1999): Dynamics of transition region
moss at high time resolution. Solar Physics 190, 419–435.
De Pontieu, B., Erdélyi, R., De Moortel, I. (2005): How to channel photospheric oscillations into
the corona. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 624, L61–L64.
De Pontieu, B., Erdélyi, R., Stewart, J. P. (2004): Solar chromospheric spicules from the leakage
of photospheric oscillations and flows. Nature 430, 536–539.
De Pontieu, B., et al. (2007a): A tale of two spicules: the impact of spicules on the magnetic
chromosphere. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S655–S662.
De Pontieu, B., et al. (2007b): Chromospheric Alfvenic waves strong enough to power the solar
wind. Science 318, 1574–1576.
De Pontieu, B., Martens, P. C. H., Hudson, H. S. (2001): Chromospheric damping of Alfvén
waves. The Astrophysical Journal 558, 859–871.
De Pontieu, B., Tarbell, T., Erdelyi, R. (2003): Correlations on arcsecond scales between chro-
mospheric and transition region emission in active regions. The Astrophysical Journal 590,
502–518.
De Rosa, M. L., Gilman, P. A., Toomre, J. (2002): Solar multiscale convection and rotation
gradients studied in shallow spherical shells. The Astrophysical Journal 581, 1356–1374.
De Rosa, M. L., Toomre, J. (2004): Evolution of solar supergranulation. The Astrophysical Journal
616, 1242–1260.
De Vorkin, D. H. (1992): Science with a Vengeance: How the Military Created the US Space
Sciences after World War II. New York: Springer-Verlag.
De Vries, H. L. (1958): Variation in concentration of radiocarbon with time and location on Earth.
Proceedings Koninlijke Nederlandse Akademie Wetenschappen B, 61, 94–102.
Dearborn, D. S. P., Blake, J. R. (1980a): Is the Sun constant? The Astrophysical Journal 237,
616–619.
Dearborn, D. S. P., Blake, J. R. (1980b): Magnetic fields and the solar constant. Nature 287,
365–366.
Dearborn, D. S. P., Blake, J. R. (1982): Surface magnetic fields and the solar luminosity. The
Astrophysical Journal 257, 896–900.
Debrunner, H., et al. (1983): The solar cosmic ray neutron event on June 3, 1982. Proceedings
18th International Cosmic Ray Conference 4, 75–78.
Debrunner, H., Flückiger, E. O., Lockwood, J. A. (1990): Signature of the solar cosmic-ray event
on 1982 June 3. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement 73, 259–262.
References 435

Decker, R. B., et al. (2005): Voyager 1 in the foreshock, termination shock, and heliosheath.
Science 309, 2020–2024.
Decker, R. B., et al. (2008): Mediation of the solar wind termination shock by non-thermal ions.
Nature 454, 67–70.
Delaboudinière, J. -P., et al. (1995): EIT: Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Telescope for the SOHO
mission. Solar Physics 162, 291–312.
Dellinger, J. H. (1935): A new radio transmission phenomenon. Physical Review 48, 705.
Dellinger, J. H. (1937): Sudden ionospheric disturbances. Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric
Electricity 42, 49–53.
Delmas, R. J., et al. (1992): 1000 years of explosive volcanism recorded at South Pole. Tellus 44B,
335–350.
Denisse, J. F. (1984): The early years of radio astronomy in France. In: The Early Years of Radio
Astronomy (Ed. W. T. Sullivan III). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 303–316.
Denisse, J. F., Boischot, A., Pick, M. (1960): Propiétes deséruptions chromospheriques assoiciées
a la production de rayons cosmiques par le soliel. In: Space Research, Proceedings of the
First International Space Science Symposium. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co.,
pp. 637–648.
Dennis, B. R. (1985): Solar hard X-ray bursts. Solar Physics 100, 465–490.
Dennis, B. R. (1988): Solar flare hard X-ray observations. Solar Physics 118, 49–94.
Dennis, B. R., Zarro, D. M. (1993): The Neupert effect: what can it tell us about the impulsive and
gradual phases of solar flares? Solar Physics 146, 177–190.
Dennison, P. A., Hewish, A. (1967): The solar wind outside the plane of the ecliptic. Nature 213,
343–346.
Denskat, K. U., Neubauer, F. M. (1983): Observations of hydromagnetic turbulence in the
solar wind. In: Solar Wind Five (Ed. M. Neugebauer). Washington, D.C.: NASA CP-2280,
pp. 81–91.
Dere, K. P. (1994): Explosive events, magnetic reconnection, and coronal heating. Advances in
Space Research 14(4), 13–22.
Dere, K. P., et al. (1991): Explosive events and magnetic reconnection in the solar atmosphere.
Journal of Geophysical Research 96, 9399–9407.
Dere, K. P., et al. (1997): EIT and LASCO observations of the initiation of a coronal mass ejection.
Solar Physics 175, 601–612. Reproduced in: The First Results from SOHO (Eds. B. Fleck and
Z. Svestka). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 601–612.
Dere, K. P., et al. (1999): LASCO and EIT observations of helical structure in coronal mass
ejections. Astrophysical Journal 516, 465–474.
Dere, K. P., et al. (2007): The structure and dynamics of the quiet corona from observations with
the extreme ultraviolet imaging spectrometer on Hinode. Publications of the Astronomical
Society of Japan 59, S721–S726.
Dere, K. P., Mason, H. E. (1993): Nonthermal velocities in the solar transition zone observed with
the high-resolution telescope and spectrograph. Solar Physics 144, 217–242.
Dere, K. P., Wang, D., Howard, R. (2005): Three-dimensional structure of coronal mass ejec-
tions from LASCO polarization measurements. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 620,
L119–L122.
Desai, M. I., et al. (2003): Evidence for a suprathermal seed population of heavy ions accelerated
by interplanetary shocks near 1 AU. The Astrophysical Journal 588, 1149–1162.
Desai, M. I., et al. (2006): Heavy-ion elemental abundances in large solar energetic particle events
and their implications for the seed population. Astrophysical Journal 649, 470–489.
Desai, M. I., et al. (2006): The seed population for energetic particles accelerated by CME-driven
shocks. Space Science Reviews 124, 261–275.
Dessler, A. J. (1967): Solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field. Reviews of Geophysics 5, 1–41.
Deubner, F. -L. (1975): Observations of low wave number nonradial eigenmodes of the Sun.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 44, 371–375.
Deubner, F. -L., Ulrich, R. K., Rhodes, E. J. Jr. (1979): Solar p-mode oscillations as a tracer of
radial differential rotation. Astronomy and Astrophysics 72, 177–185.
436 References

Deubner, F.-L., Gough, D. (1984): Helioseismology – oscillations as a diagnostic of the solar

interior. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 22, 593–619.
Dicke, R. H. (1978): Is there a chronometer hidden deep in the Sun? Nature 276, 676–680.
Dickinson, R. E. (1975): Solar variability and the lower atmosphere. Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society 56, 1240–1248.
Dickinson, R. W., Cicerone, R. J. (1986): Future global warming from atmospheric trace gases.
Nature 319, 109–115.
Dietrich, W. F. (1973): The differential energy spectra of solar-flare 1 H, 3 He and 4 He. The
Astrophysical Journal 180, 955–973.
Dikpati, M. (2005): Solar magnetic fields and the dynamo theory. Advances in Space Research
35(3), 322–328.
Dikpati, M., De Toma, G., Gilman, P. A. (2006): Predicting the strength of solar cycle 24 using a
flux-transport dynamo-based tool. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L5102.
Dikpati, M., Gilman, P. A. (2005): A shallow-water theory for the Sun’s active longitudes. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 635, L193–L196.
Dikpati, M., Gilman, P. A., Mac Gregor, K. B. (2005): Constraints on the applicability of an
interface dynamo to the Sun. The Astrophysical Journal 631, 647–652.
Dilke, F. W. W., Gough, D. O. (1972): The solar spoon. Nature 240, 262–264, 293, 294.
Dirac, P. A. M. (1931): Quantized singularities in the electromagnetic field. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London A 133, 60–72.
Dobrzycka, D., et al. (2003): Ultraviolet spectroscopy of narrow coronal mass ejections. The
Astrophysical Journal 588, 586–595.
Dobrzycka, D., Raymond, J. C., Cranmer, S. R. (2000): Ultraviolet spectroscopy of polar coronal
jets. The Astrophysical Journal 538, 922–931.
Dobson, G. M. B. (1968): Forty years’ research on atmospheric ozone at Oxford: a history.
Applied Optics 7, 387–405.
Dodson, H. W., Hedeman, E. R. (1970): Major Hα flares in centers of activity with very small or
no spots. Solar Physics 13, 401–419.
Dodson, H. W., Hedeman, E. R., Owren, L. (1953): Solar flares and associated 200 Mc/sec
radiation. The Astrophysical Journal 118, 169–196.
Domı́nguez Cerdeña, I., Kneer, F., Sánchez Almeida, J. (2003): Quiet-Sun magnetic fields at high
spatial resolution. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 582, L55–L58.
Domingo, V., Fleck, B., Poland, A. I. (1995): The SOHO mission: An overview. Solar Physics
162, 1–37.
Donea, A.-C., Lindsey, C. (2005): Seismic emission from the solar flares of 2003 October 28 and
29. Astrophysical Journal 630, 1168–1183.
Dones, L., et al. (2004): Oort cloud formation and dynamics. In: Comets II (Eds. M. C. Festou,
H. U. Keller and H. A. Weaver). Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 153–174. Also in
Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Proceedings 323, 371.
Donnelly, R. F. (1967): The solar flare radiations responsible for sudden frequency deviations.
Journal of Geophysical Research 72, 5247–5256.
Doschek, G. A. (1983a): Solar flare X-ray spectra from the P78–1 spacecraft. Solar Physics
86, 49–58.
Doschek, G. A. (1983b): Solar instruments on the P78–1 spacecraft. Solar Physics 86, 9–17.
Doschek, G. A. (1990): Soft X-ray spectroscopy of solar flares – an overview. Astrophysical
Journal Supplement 73, 117–130.
Doschek, G. A. (1991): High-temperature plasma in solar flares. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society (London) A336, 451–460.
Doschek, G. A., et al. (1980): High-resolution X-ray spectra of solar flares III. General spectral
properties of X1 –X5 type flares. The Astrophysical Journal 239, 725–737.
Doschek, G. A., et al. (1993): The 1992 January 5 flare at 13.3 UT: observations from Yohkoh.
The Astrophysical Journal 416, 845–856.
References 437

Doschek, G. A., et al. (2007a): Nonthermal velocities in solar active regions observed with the
extreme-ultraviolet imaging spectrometer on Hinode. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 667,
L109–L112.
Doschek, G. A., et al. (2007b): The temperature and density structure of an active region observed
with the extreme-ultraviolet imaging spectrometer on Hinode. Publications of the Astronomical
Society of Japan 59, S707–S712.
Doschek, G. A., Feldman, U., Bohlin, J. D. (1976): Doppler wavelength shifts of transition zone
lines measured in Skylab solar spectra. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 205, L177–L180.
Doschek, G. A., Kreplin, R. W., Feldman, U. (1979): High-resolution solar flare X-ray spectra.
The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 233, L157–L160.
Doschek, G. A., Mariska, J. T., Sakao, T. (1996): Soft X-ray flare dynamics. The Astrophysical
Journal 459, 823–835.
Doschek, G. A., Strong, K. T., Tsuneta, S. (1995): The bright knots at the tops of soft X-ray flare
loops. Quantitative results from Yohkoh. The Astrophysical Journal 440, 370–385.
Doschek, G. A., Warren, H. P. (2005): Chromospheric evaporation in solar flares revisited.
Astrophysical Journal 629, 1150–1163.
Dowdy, J. F. Jr., Rabin, D., Moore, R. L. (1986): On the magnetic structure of the quiet transition
region. Solar Physics 105, 35–45.
Dröge, F. (1977): Millisecond fine-structures of solar burst radiation in the range 0.2–1.4 GHz.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 57, 285–290.
Dröge, W., Kartavykh, Y. Y., Klecker, B., Mason, G. M. (2006): Acceleration and transport
modeling of solar energetic particle charge sates for the event of 1998 September 9. The
Astrophysical Journal 645, 1516–1524.
Drake, J. J., Testa, P. (2005): The ‘solar model problem’ solved by the abundance of neon in
nearby stars. Nature 436, 525–528.
Dreschhoff, G., Zeller, E. J. (1998): Ultra-high nitrate in polar ice as indicator of past solar activity.
Solar Physics 177, 365–374.
Dryer, M. (1974): Interplanetary shock waves generated by solar flares. Space Science Reviews
15, 403–468.
Dryer, M. (1982): Coronal transient phenomenon. Space Science Reviews 33, 233–275.
Dryer, M. (1994): Interplanetary studies: propagation of disturbances between the Sun and the
magnetosphere. Space Science Reviews 67, 363–419.
Dryer, M. (1996): Comments on the origins of coronal mass ejections. Solar Physics 169, 421–429.
Dryer, M. (1998): Multidimensional, magnetohydrodynamic simulation of solar generated distur-
bances: space weather forecasting of geomagnetic storms. American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics Journal 36(3), 365–370.
Dryer, M., et al. (2004): Real-time shock arrival predictions during the “Halloween 2003 epoch”.
Space Weather 2, S09001.
Dryer, M., Jones, D. L. (1968): Energy deposition in the solar wind by flare-generated shock
waves. Journal of Geophysical Research, Space Physics 73, 4875–4881.
Dryer, M., McIntosh, P. S. (1972): Preface to solar activity and predictions. American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Proceedings 30, 1–3.
Dryer, M., Wu, C.-C., Smith, Z. K. (1997): Three-dimensional MHD simulation of the April 14,
1994 interplanetary coronal mass ejection and its propagation to Earth and Ulysses. Journal of
Geophysical Research 102(A7), 14065–14074.
D’silva, S. (1998): Computing travel time in time-distance helioseismology. The Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 498, L79–L82.
Duijveman, A., Hoyng, P., Machado, M. E. (1982): X-ray imaging of three flares during the
impulsive phase. Solar Physics 81, 137–157.
Dulk, G. A. (1985): Radio emission from the Sun and other stars. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 23, 169–224.
Dungey, J. W. (1953): Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical
systems. Philosophical Magazine 44, 725–738.
438 References

Dungey, J. W. (1958): The neutral point discharge theory of solar flares. A reply to Cowling’s crit-
icism. In: Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics. Proceedings of IAU Symposium
No. 6 (Ed. B. Lehnert). Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press 1958, pp. 135–140.
Dungey, J. W. (1961): Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones. Physical Review Letters
6, 47–48.
Dungey, J. W. (1979): First evidence and early studies of the Earth’s bow shock. Nuovo Cimento
C 2, 655–660.
Dungey, J. W. (1994): Memories, maxims, and motives. Journal of Geophysical Research 99,
19189–19197.
Duvall, T. L. Jr. (1979): Large-scale solar velocity fields. Solar Physics 63, 3–15.
Duvall, T. L. Jr. (1980): The equatorial rotation rate of the supergranulation cells. Solar Physics
66, 213–221.
Duvall, T. L. Jr. (1982): A dispersion law for solar oscillations. Nature 300, 242–243.
Duvall, T. L. Jr., Birch, A. C., Gizon, L. (2006): Direct measurement of travel-time kernels for
helioseismology. The Astrophysical Journal 646, 553–559.
Duvall, T. L. Jr., et al. (1984): Internal rotation of the Sun. Nature 310, 22–25.
Duvall, T. L. Jr., et al. (1996): Downflows under sunspots detected by helioseismic tomography.
Nature 379, 235–237.
Duvall, T. L. Jr., et al. (1997): Time-distance helioseismology with the MDI instrument. Solar
Physics 170, 63–73. Reprinted in: The First Results from SOHO (Eds. B. Fleck and Z. Svestka).
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 63–73.
Duvall, T. L. Jr., Harvey, J. W. (1983): Observations of solar oscillations of low and intermediate
degree. Nature 302, 24–27.
Duvall, T. L. Jr., Harvey, J. W. (1984): Rotational frequency splitting of solar oscillations. Nature
310, 19–22.
Duvall, T. L. Jr., Harvey, J. W., Kosovichev, A. G., Svestka, Z. (Eds., 2000) SOHO 9: Helioseismic
Diagnostics of Solar Convection and Activity. Solar Physics 192, Nos. 21–22, 1–478.
Duvall, T. L. Jr., Harvey, J. W., Pomerantz, M. A. (1986): Latitude and depth variation of solar
rotation. Nature 321, 500–501.
Duvall, T. L. Jr., Jeffries, S. M., Harvey, J. W., Pomerantz, M. A. (1993): Time-distance
helioseismology. Nature 362, 430–432.
Dziembowski, W. A., Goode, P. R. (2004): Helioseismic probing of solar variability: The
formation and simple assessments. The Astrophysical Journal 600, 464–479.

Earl, J. A. (1961): Cloud-chamber observations of primary cosmic-ray electrons. Physical Review

Letters 6, 125–128.
Eather, R. H. (1980): Majestic Lights. The Aurora in Science, History, and the Arts. Washington:
American Geophysical Union.
Eddington, A. S. (1920): The internal constitution of the stars. Nature 106, 14–20.
Eddy, J. A. (1974): A nineteenth-century coronal transient. Astronomy and Astrophysics 34,
235–240.
Eddy, J. A. (1976): The Maunder minimum. The reign of Louis XIV appears to have been a time
of real anomaly in the behavior of the sun. Science 192, 1189–1202.
Eddy, J. A. (1977a): Climate and the changing Sun. Climate Change 1, 173–190.
Eddy, J. A. (1977b): The case of the missing sunspots. Scientific American 236, 80–95, May.
Eddy, J. A. (1977c): Historical evidence for the existence of the solar cycle. In: The Solar Output
and Its Variation (Ed. ORAN R. WHITE). Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press,
pp. 51–71.
References 439

Eddy, J. A. (1979): A New Sun: The Solar Results From Skylab. Washington: National Aeronautics
and Space Administration SP-402 1979.
Eddy, J. A. (1983a): The Maunder minimum: a reappraisal. Solar Physics 89, 195–207.
Eddy, J. A. (1983b): Keynote address: an historical review of solar variability, weather, and
climate. In: Weather and Climate Responses to Solar Variations (Ed. B. M. McCormac).
Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press, pp. 1–23.
Eddy, J. A. (1990): Some thoughts on Sun-weather relations. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London A 330, 543–545.
Eddy, J. A., Gilliland, R. L., Hoyt, D. V. (1982): Changes in the solar constant and climatic effects.
Nature 300, 689–693.
Eddy, J. A., Stephenson, F. R., Yau, K. K. C. (1989): On pre-telescopic sunspot records. Quarterly
Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 30, 60–73.
Edlén, B. (1994): An attempt to identify the emission lines in the spectrum of the solar corona.
Arkiv för Matematik, Astronomi och Fysik 28B, 1–4. Reproduced in: A Source Book in
Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1900-1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press 1975, pp. 120–124.
Edlén, B. (1942): Die Deutung der Emissionslinien im Spektrum der Sonnenkorona. Zeitschrift
für Astrophysik 22, 30–64.
Edlén, B. (1945): The identification of the coronal lines. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom-
ical Society 105, 323–333.
Eguci, K., et al. (2003): First results from KamLAND: evidence for reactor anti-neutrino
disappearance. Physical Review Letters 90, 021802.
Einaudi, G., et al. (1999): Formation of the slow solar wind in a coronal streamer. Journal of
Geophysical Research 104(A1), 521–534.
Einaudi, G., et al. (2001): Plasmoid formation and acceleration in the solar streamer belt. The
Astrophysical Journal 547, 1167–1177.
Einstein, A. (1905): Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energeieinhalt abhängig? (Does the
inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?), Annalen der Physik 18, 639–641. English
translation given in A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics 1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang
and O. Gingerich). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1979, pp. 276–278.
Einstein, A. (1906): Das Prinzip von der Erhaltung der Schwerpunktsbewegung und die Trägheit
der Energie. (The principle of the conservation of the motion of the center of gravity and the
inertia of energy), Annalen der Physik 20, 627–633. English translation given in A Source Book
in Astronomy and Astrophysics 1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1979, pp. 276–280.
Elliott, H. A., McComas, D. J., Riley, P. (2003): Latitudinal extent of large-scale structures in the
solar wind. Annales Geophysicae 21(6), 1331–1339.
Elliott, J. R., Kosovichev, A. G. (1998): The adiabatic exponent in the solar core. The Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 500, L199–L202.
Ellison, M. A. (1942): Some studies of the motions of hydrogen flocculi by Doppler displacements
of the Hα line. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 102, 11–21.
Ellison, M. A. (1946): Visual and spectrographic observations of a great solar flare 1946 July 25.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 106, 500–508.
Ellison, M. A. (1948): Distinction between flares and prominences. Observatory 68, 69–70.
Ellison, M. A. (1949): Characteristic properties of chromospheric flares. Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society 109, 1–27.
Elphinstone, R. E., Murphree, J. S., Cogger, L. L. (1996): What is a global auroral substorm?
Reviews of Geophysics 34, 169–232.
Elsworth, Y. P., et al. (1990): Variation of low-order acoustic solar oscillations over the solar cycle.
Nature 345, 322–324.
Elsworth, Y. P., et al. (1995): Slow rotation of the Sun’s interior. Nature 376, 669–672.
Emiliani, C. (1966): Isotopic paleotemperatures. Science 154, 851–857.
Emslie, A. G., et al. (2004): Energy partition in two solar flare/CME events. Journal of Geophysical
Research 109(A10), A10104.
440 References

Endeve, E., et al. (2005): Release of helium from closed-field regions of the Sun. The Astrophysical
Journal 624, 02.
Evans, J. V. (1982): The Sun’s influence on the Earth’s atmosphere and interplanetary space.
Science 216, 467–474.
Evenson, P. Meyer, P. Pyle, K. R. (1983): Protons from the decay of solar flare neutrons. The
Astrophysical Journal 274, 875–882.
Evershed, J. (1948): Spectrum lines in chromospheric flares. Observatory 68, 67–68.

Fabian, P., Pyle, J. A., Wells, R. J. (1979): The August 72 proton event and the atmospheric ozone
layer. Nature 277, 458–460.
Fainberg, J., Stone, R. G. (1974): Satellite observations of type III radio bursts at low frequencies.
Space Science Reviews 16, 145–188.
Fairfield, D. H., Cahill, L. J. Jr. (1966): Transition region magnetic field and polar magnetic
disturbances. Journal of Geophysical Research 71, 155–169.
Falconer, D. A., et al. (1997): Neutral-line magnetic shear and enhanced coronal heating in solar
active regions. The Astrophysical Journal 482, 519–534.
Falconer, D. A., Moore, R. L., Gary, G. A. (2002): Correlation of the coronal mass ejection
productivity of solar active regions with measures of their global nonpotentiality from vector
magnetograms: baseline results. Astrophysical Journal 569, 1016–1025.
Falconer, D. A., Moore, R. L., Porter, J. G., Hathaway, D. H. (1998): Network coronal bright
points: coronal heating concentrations found in the solar magnetic network. The Astrophysical
Journal 501, 386–396.
Fan, Y. (2004): Magnetic fields in the solar convection zone. Living Reviews in Solar Physics 1, 1.
Fan, Y. (2005): Coronal mass ejections as loss of confinement of kinked magnetic flux ropes.
Astrophysical Journal 630, 543–551.
Fan, Y., Gibson, S. E. (2004): Numerical simulations of three-dimensional coronal magnetic
fields resulting from the emergence of twisted magnetic flux tubes. Astrophysical Journal 609,
1123–1133.
Fan, Y., Gibson, S. E. (2006): On the nature of the x-ray bright core in a stable filament channel.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 641, L149–L152.
Fan, Y., Gibson, S. E. (2007): Onset of coronal mass ejections due to loss of confinement of
coronal flux ropes. The Astrophysical Journal 668, 1232–1245.
Farrugia, C. J., Burlaga, L. F., Lepping, R. P. (1997): Magnetic clouds and the quiet storm effect
at Earth. In: Magnetic Storms: Geophysical Monograph 98 (Eds. B. T. Tsurutani, et al.).
Washington: American Geophysical Union, pp. 91–106.
Farrugia, C. J., et al. (1993): The Earth’s magnetosphere under continued forcing: substorm
activity during the passage of an interplanetary magnetic cloud. Journal of Geophysical
Research 98, 7657–7671.
Feldman, U. (1992): Elemental abundances in the upper solar atmosphere. Physica Scripta 46,
202–220.
Feldman, U., et al. (1980): High-resolution X-ray spectra of solar flares IV. General spectral
properties of M-type flares. The Astrophysical Journal 241, 1175–1185.
Feldman, U., et al. (1994): The morphology of the 107 plasma in solar flares I. Nonimpulsive
flares. Astrophysical Journal 424, 444–458.
Feldman, U., et al. (1996a): Electron temperature, emission measure, and X-ray flux in A2 to X2
X-ray class solar flares. Astrophysical Journal 460, 1034–1041.
Feldman, U., Widing, K. G. (1993): Elemental abundances in the upper solar atmosphere of
quiet and coronal hole regions (Te is approximately equal to 4.3 × 10 exp 5 K). Astrophysical
Journal 414, 381–388.
References 441

Feldman, W. C., et al. (1976): High-speed solar wind parameters at 1 AU. Journal of Geophysical
Research 81, 5054–5060.
Feldman, W. C., et al. (1977): Plasma and magnetic fields from the Sun. In: The Solar Output and
its Variations (Ed. O. R. White). Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press, pp. 351–381.
Feldman, W. C., et al. (1981): The solar origins of solar wind interstream flows: near-equatorial
coronal streamers. Journal of Geophysical Research 86(A7), 5408–5416.
Feldman, W. C., et al. (1996b): Constraints on high-speed solar wind structure near its coronal
base: a Ulysses perspective. Astronomy and Astrophysics 316, 355–367.
Feldman, W. C., et al. (1997): Experimental constraints on pulsed and steady state models of the
solar wind near the Sun. Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 26, 905.
Feng, L. B., et al. (2007): First stereoscopic coronal loop reconstructions from STEREO SECCHI
images. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 671, 205.
Fermi, E. (1934): Versuch einer theorie de beta-strahlen I. (An attempt at the theory of beta-
rays.), Zeitschrift fur Physik 88, 161. English translation in American Journal of Physics 36,
1150 (1968).
Fichtel, C. E., Guss, D. E. (1961): Heavy nuclei in solar cosmic rays. Physical Review 6,
495–497.
Fireman, E. L. (1980): Solar activity during the past 10,000 years from radionuclides in lunar sam-
ples. In: The Ancient Sun:Fossil Record in the Earth, Moon and Meteorites (Eds. R. O. Pepin,
J. A. Eddy and R. B. Merrill). New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 365–386.
Fischer, H., et al. (1999): Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial
terminations. Science 283, 1712–1714.
Fishman, G. J., et al. (1994): Discovery of intense gamma-ray flashes of atmospheric origin.
Science 264, 1313–1316.
Fisk, L. A. (1978): He-3 rich flares – a possible explanation. The Astrophysical Journal 224,
1048–1055.
Fisk, L. A. (1996): Motion of the footpoints of heliospheric magnetic field lines at the Sun:
Implications for recurrent energetic particle events at high heliographic latitudes. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 101, A7, 15547–15554.
Fisk, L. A. (2001): On the global structure of the heliospheric magnetic field. Journal of
Geophysical Research 106(A8), 15849–15858.
Fisk, L. A. (2003): Acceleration of the solar wind as a result of the reconnection of open magnetic
flux with coronal loops. Journal of Geophysical Research 108, A4, SSH 7-1, 1157.
Fisk, L. A. (2005): The open magnetic flux of the Sun 1. Transport by reconnections with coronal
loops. The Astrophysical Journal 626, 563–573.
Fisk, L. A., et al. (2003): Acceleration of the solar wind as a result of the reconnection of open
magnetic flux with coronal loops. American Institute of Physics Proceedings 679, 287–292.
Fisk, L. A., Gloeckler, G. (2006): The common spectrum for accelerated ions in the quiet-time
solar wind. The Astrophysicla Journal (Letters) 640, L79–L82.
Fisk, L. A., Jokipii, J. R. (1999): Mechanisms for latitudinal transport of energetic particles in the
heliosphere. Space Science Reviews 89, 115–124.
Fisk, L. A., Kozlovsky, B., Ramaty, R. (1974): An interpretation of the observed oxygen and nitro-
gen enhancements in low-energy cosmic rays. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 190, L35–L37.
Fisk, L. A., Lee, M. A. (1980): Shock acceleration of energetic particles in co-rotating interaction
regions in the solar wind. The Astrophysical Journal 237, 620–626.
Fisk, L. A., Schwadron, N. A. (2001a): Origin of the solar wind theory. Space Science Reviews
97, 221.
Fisk, L. A., Schwadron, N. A. (2001b): The behavior of open magnetic field of the sun. The
Astrophysical Journal 560, 425–438.
Fisk, L. A., Schwadron, N. A., Zurbuchen, T. H. (1999): Acceleration of the fast solar wind by the
emergence of new magnetic flux. Journal of Geophysical Research 104, A9, 19765–19772.
Fisk, L. A., Schwadron, N. A., Zuruchen, T. H. (1998): On the slow solar wind. Space Science
Reviews 86, 51–60.
442 References

Fisk, L. A., Zurbuchen, T. H. (2006): Distribution and properties of open magnetic flux outside of
coronal holes. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, A09115.
Fisk, L. A., Zurbuchen, T. H., Schwadron, N. A. (1999): On the coronal magnetic field:
consequences of large-scale motion. The Astrophysical Journal 521, 868–877.
Fitzenreiter, R. J., et al. (2003): Modification of the solar wind electron velocity distribution at
interplanetary shocks. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(A12), SSH 1–1.
Fitzgerald, G. F. (1892): Sunspots and magnetic storms. The Electrician 30, 48.
Fitzgerald, G. F. (1900): Sunspots, magnetic storms, comets’ tails, atmospheric electricity and
aurorae. The Electrician 46, 249, 287–288.
Fleck, B. (2005): Eight years of SOHO: some highlights. In: Solar Magnetic Phenomena Astro-
physics and Space Science Library 320, (Eds. A. Hanslmeier, A. Veronig, M. Messerotti) New
York: Springer, 139–166.
Fleck, B., Domingo, V., Poland, A. I. (Eds., 1995): The SOHO mission. Solar Physics 162, Nos.
1, 2. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fleck, B., Gurman, J. B., Hochedez, J. -F., Robbrecht, E. (Eds., 2008): SOHO-20: transient events
on the sun and in the heliosphere. Annales Geophysicae.
Fleck, B., Noci, G., Poletto, G. (Eds., 1994): SOHO-2: Mass supply and flows in the solar corona.
Space Science Reviews 70(1–2).
Fleck, B., Svestka, Z., (Eds., 1997): The First Results from SOHO. Solar Physics 170(1), 175(2).
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fleck, B., Zurbuchen, T. H. (Eds., 2005): Solar Wind 11/SOHO 16: Connecting Sun and
Heliosphere. ESA SP-592 2005 Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
Fleishman, G. D., Nita, G. M., Gary, D. E. (2005): Evidence for resonant transition radiation in
decimetric continuum solar bursts. Astrophysical Journal 620, 506–516.
Fletcher, K., Thompson, M. (Eds., 2006): SOHO-18/GONG 2006: Beyond the Spherical Sun. ESA
SP-624 2006.
Fletcher, L. Hannah, I. G., Hudson, H. S., Metcalf, T. R. (2007): A TRACE white light and RHESSI
hard X-ray study of flare energetics. Astrophysical Journal 656, 1187–1196.
Fletcher, L., Huber, M. C. E. (1997): O5+ acceleration by turbulence in polar coronal holes. In: The
Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum Activity. Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO Workshop.
ESA SP-404. Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division, pp. 379–384.
Fletcher, L., Hudson, H. (2001): The magnetic structure and generation of EUV flare ribbons.
Solar Physics 204, 69–89.
Fletcher, L., Hudson, H. (2002): Spectral and spatial variations of flare hard x-ray footpoints.
Solar Physics 210, 307–321.
Fletcher, L., Pollock, J. A., Potts, H. E. (2004): Tracking of TRACE ultraviolet flare footpoints.
Solar Physics 222, 279–298.
Fludra, A., et al. (1989): Turbulent and directed plasma motions in solar flares. The Astrophysical
Journal 344, 991–1003.
Fludra, A., et al. (1997): Active regions observed in extreme ultraviolet light by the coronal
diagnostic spectrometer on SOHO. Solar Physics 175, 487–509.
Fludra, A., Ireland, J. (2003): Inversion of the intensity-magnetic field relationship in solar active
regions. Astronomy and Astrophysics 398, 297–303.
Fogli, G. L., et al. (2003a): Addendum to “solar neutrino oscillation parameters after first
KamLAND results. Physical Review D 69, 017301.
Fogli, G. L., et al. (2003b): Solar neutrino oscillation parameters after first KamLAND results.
Physical Review D 67, 073002–073012.
Foley, C. R., Culhane, J. L., Acton, L. W. (1997): Yohkoh soft X-ray determination of plasma
parameters in a polar coronal hole. The Astrophysical Journal 491, 933–938.
Foley, C. R., et al. (2001): Eruption of a flux rope on the disk of the Sun: evidence for the coronal
mass ejection trigger? The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 560, L91–L94.
Folland, C. K., Karl, T. R., Vinikov, K. Y. (1990): Observed climate variations and change. In:
Climate Change, the IPCC Scientific Assessment (Eds. J. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins and
J. J. Ephraums). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–218.
References 443

Forbes, T. G. (1986): Fast-shock formation in line-tied magnetic reconnection models of solar

flares. The Astrophysical Journal 305, 553–563.
Forbes, T. G. (2000) A review on the genesis of coronal mass ejections. Journal of Geophysical
Research 105, A10, 23153–23166.
Forbes, T. G., Acton, L. W. (1996): Reconnection and field line shrinkage in solar flares.
Astrophysical Journal 459, 330–341.
Forbes, T. G., et al. (2006): CME theory and models. Space Science Reviews 123, 251–302.
Forbes, T. G., Isenberg, P. A. (1991): A catastrophe mechanism for coronal mass ejections. The
Astrophysical Journal 373, 294–307.
Forbes, T. G., Malherbe, J. M., Priest, E. R. (1989): The formation of flare loops by magnetic
reconnection and chromospheric ablation. Solar Physics 120, 285–307.
Forbes, T. G., Priest, E. R. (1987): A comparison of analytical and numerical models for steadily
driven reconnection. Review of Geophysics 25, 1583–1607.
Forbush, S. E. (1937): On diurnal variation in cosmic-ray intensity. Terrestrial Magnetism and
Atmospheric Electricity 42, 1–16.
Forbush, S. E. (1938a): On cosmic-ray effects associated with magnetic storms. Terrestrial
Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity 43, 203–218.
Forbush, S. E. (1938b): On the world-wide changes in cosmic ray intensity. Physical Review 54,
975–988.
Forbush, S. E. (1946): Three unusual cosmic-ray increases possibly due to charged particles from
the Sun. Physical Review 70, 771–772.
Forbush, S. E. (1950): Cosmic-ray intensity variations during two solar cycles. Journal of
Geophysical Research 63, 651–669.
Forbush, S. E. (1954): World-wide cosmic-ray variations, 1937-1952. Journal of Geophysical
Research 59, 525–542.
Forbush, S. E., Stinchcomb, T. B., Schein, M. (1950): The extraordinary increase of cosmic-ray
intensity on November 19, 1949. Physical Review 79, 501–504.
Forrest, D. J., Chupp, E. L. (1983): Simultaneous acceleration of electrons and ions in solar flares.
Nature 305, 291–292.
Forrest, D. J., et al. (1985): Neutral pion production in solar flares. Proceedings of the 19th
International Cosmic Ray Conference 4, 146–149.
Forsyth, R. J., et al. (1996): The heliospheric magnetic field at solar minimum: Ulysses
observations from pole to pole. Astronomy and Astrophysics 316, 287–295.
Forsyth, R. J., et al. (2006): ICMEs in the inner heliosphere: origin, evolution and propagation
effects. Space Science Reviews 123, 383–416.
Fossat, E., Grec, G., Pomerantz, M. A. (1981): Solar pulsations observed from the geographic
south pole – initial results. Solar Physics 74, 59–63.
Fossum, A., Carlsson, M. (2005a): High-frequency acoustic waves are not sufficient to heat the
solar chromosphere. Nature 435, 919–921.
Fossum, A., Carlsson, M. (2005b): Response functions of the ultraviolet filters of TRACE
and the detection of high-frequency acoustic waves. The Astrophysical Journal 625,
556–562.
Foukal, P. (1990a): Solar luminosity variations over timescales of days to the past few solar cycles.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 330, 591–599.
Foukal, P. (1990b): The variable Sun. Scientific American 262, 34–41.
Foukal, P. (1994): Stellar luminosity variations and global warming. Science 264, 238–239.
Foukal, P., Fröhlich, C., Spruit, H., Wigley, T. M. L. (2006): Variations in solar luminosity and
their effect on the earth’s climate. Nature 443, 161–166.
Foukal, P., Lean, J. (1986): The influence of faculae on total irradiance and luminosity. The
Astrophysical Journal 302, 826–835.
Foukal, P., Lean, J. (1988): Magnetic modulation of solar luminosity by photospheric activity. The
Astrophysical Journal 328, 347–357.
Foukal, P., Lean, J. (1990): An empirical model of total solar irradiance variation between 1874
and 1988. Science 247, 556–558.
444 References

Foukal, P., North, G., Wigley, T. (2004): A stellar view on solar variations and climate. Science
306, 68–69.
Frank, L. A., Craven, J. D. (1988): Imaging results from Dynamics Explorer 1. Review of
Geophysics and Space Physics 26, 249–283.
Frank, L. A., et al. (1986): The theta aurora. Journal of Geophysical Research 91, 3177–3224.
Fraunhofer, J. (1814–1815): Bestimmung des Brechungs - und Farbenzerstreutuungs – Vermögens
Verschiedener Glassarten. Denkschriften (Munich Academy of Sciences) 5, 195, 202. Auszug
davon in Gilb. Annalen der Physik 56, 264 (1817).
Frazier, E. N. (1968): A spatio-temporal analysis of velocity fields in the solar photosphere.
Zeitschrift für Astrophysik 68, 345–358.
Frazin, R. A., Cranmer, S. R., Kohl, J. L. (2003): Empirically determined anisotropic velocity
distributions and outflows of O5+ ions in a coronal streamer at solar minimum. Astrophysical
Journal 597, 1145–1157.
Freier, P., et al. (1948a): Evidence for heavy nuclei in the primary cosmic radiation. Physical
Review 74, 213–217.
Freier, P., et al. (1948b): The heavy component of primary cosmic rays. Physical Review 74,
1818–1827.
Freier, P., Ney, E. P., Winckler, J. R. (1959): Balloon observations of solar cosmic rays on March
26, 1958. Journal of Geophysical Research 64, 685–688.
Frick, P., et al. (1997): Wavelet analysis of stellar chromospheric activity variations. The
Astrophysical Journal 483, 426–434.
Friedlander, M. W. (1989): Cosmic Rays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Friedman, H. (1961): X-ray and extreme ultraviolet observations of the Sun. In: Space Research II
(Eds. H. C. Van De Hulst, C. De Jager and A. F. Moore). Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co.
Reproduced in: A Source Book in Astronomy and astrophysics 1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang
and O. Gingerich). Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1979, pp. 56–61.
Friedman, H. (1963): Solar X-ray emission. In: The Solar Corona. Proceedings of International
Astronomical Union Symposium No. 16 (Ed. J. W. EVANS). New York: Academic Press,
pp. 45–48.
Friedman, H. (1986): Sun and Earth. New York: Scientific American Library.
Friedman, H., Lichtman, S. W., Byram, E. T. (1951): Photon counter measurements of solar
X-rays and extreme ultraviolet light. Physical Review 83, 1025–1030.
Friis-Christensen, E., Lassen, K. (1991): Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity
closely associated with climate. Science 254, 698–700.
Friis-Christensen, E., Lassen, K. (1994): Solar activity and global temperature. In: The Sun as a
Variable Star: Solar and Stellar Luminosity Variations (Eds. J. Pap, C. Fröhlich, H. Hudson,
S. K. Solanki). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 339–347.
Fröhlich, C. (1987): Variability of the solar “constant” on time scales of minutes to years. Journal
of Geophysical Research 92, 796–800.
Fröhlich, C. (2006): Solar irradiance variability since 1978. Space Science Reviews 125, 53–65.
Fröhlich, C., et al. (1995): VIRGO: Experiment for helioseismology and solar irradiance
monitoring. Solar Physics 162, 101–128.
Fröhlich, C., et al. (1997a): First results from VIRGO, the experiment for helioseismology and
solar irradiance monitoring in SOHO. Solar Physics 170, 1–25. Reprinted in: The First Results
from SOHO (Eds. B. FLECK and Z. SVESTKA). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997,
pp. 1–25.
Fröhlich, C., et al. (1997b): In-flight performances of VIRGO solar irradiance instruments on
SOHO. Solar Physics 175, 267–286.
Fröhlich, C., Lean, J. (1998): The sun’s total irradiance: cycles, trends and related climate change
uncertainties since 1976. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 4377–4380.
Fröhlich, C., Lean, J. (1999): Total solar irradiance variations: The construction of a composite and
its comparison with models. In: New Eyes to See Inside the Sun and Stars. IAU Symposium 185
(Eds. F. L. Deubner, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard and D. Kurtz). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publications, pp. 89–102. Space Science Reviews 88(3–4).
References 445

Fröhlich, C., Lean, J. (2002): Solar irradiance variability and climate. Astronomische Nachrichten
323, 203–212.
Fröhlich, C., Lean, J. (2004): Solar radiative output and its variability: evidence and mechanisms.
Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 12(4), 273–320.
Fukuda, Y., et al. (1996): Solar neutrino data covering solar cycle 22, Physical Review Letters 77,
1683–1686.
Fukuda, Y., et al. (1998): Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos. Physical Review
Letters 81, 1562–1567.
Fukuda, Y., et al. (2001): Solar boron 8 and hep neutrino measurements from 1258 days of
super-kamiokande data. Physical Review Letters 86, 5651–5655.
Furth, H. P., Kileen, J., Rosenbluth, M. N. (1963): Finite-resistivity instabilities of a sheet pinch.
Physics of Fluids 6(4), 459–484.
Fürst, E., Benz, A. O., Hirth, W. (1982). About the relation between radio and soft X-ray emission
in case of very weak solar activity. Astrnomy and Astrophysics 107, 178–185.

Gabriel, A. H. (1971): Measurements on the Lyman alpha corona. Solar Physics 21, 392–400.
Gabriel, A. H. (1976): A magnetic model of the solar transition region. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society (London) A281, 339–352.
Gabriel, A. H. (1977): Structure of the quiet chromosphere and corona. In: The Energy Balance and
Hydrodynamics of the Solar Chromosphere and Corona. Proceedings of IAU Colloquium No.
36 (Eds. R.-M. Bonnet and P. H. Delache). Paris: G. de Bussac Clermont-Ferrand, pp. 375–399.
Gabriel, A. H., Bely-Dubau, F., Lemaire, P. (2003): The contribution of polar plumes to the fast
solar wind. The Astrophysical Journal 589, 623–634.
Gabriel, A. H., et al. (1971): Rocket observations of the ultraviolet solar spectrum during the total
eclipse of 1970 March 7. The Astrophysical Journal 169, 595–614.
Gabriel, A. H., et al. (1995): Global Oscillations at Low Frequency from the SOHO mission
(GOLF). Solar Physics 12, 61–99.
Gabriel, A. H., et al. (1997): Performance and early results from the GOLF instrument flown in
the SOHO mission. Solar Physics 175, 207–226. Reprinted in: The First Results from SOHO
(Eds. B. Fleck and Z. Svestka). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 207–226.
Gabriel, A. H., et al. (2002): A search for solar g modes in the golf data. Astronomy and
Astrophysics 390, 111–113.
Gabriel, A. H., et al. (2005): Solar wind outflow in polar plumes form 1.05 to 2.4 Rsolar.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 635, L185–188.
Galileo G. (1613): Istoria e Dimostrazioni Intorno alle Macchie Solari e Loro Accidenti. Rome.
Gallagher, P. T., et al. (2002): RHESSI and TRACE observations of the 21 April 2002 X1.5 flare.
Solar Physics 210, 312–356.
Galloway, D. J., Weiss, N. O. (1981): Convection and magnetic fields in stars. The Astrophysical
Journal 243: 945–953.
Galvin, A. B., et al. (2008): The Plasma and Suprathermal Ion Composition (PLASTIC)
investigation on the STEREO observatories. Space Science Reviews, 136, No. 1–4, 437–486.
Gamow, G. (1928): Zur quanten theorie der atomzertrümmerung (On the quantum theory of the
atomic nucleus). Zeitschrift fur Physik 52, 510.
Garcı́a, R. A., et al. (2007): Tracking solar gravity modes: The dynamics of the solar core. Science
316, 1591–1597.
Garcı́a, H. A. (2000): Thermal-spatial analysis of medium and large solar flares, 1976 to. 1996.
The Astrophysical Journal Supplement 127, 189–210.
Garrett, H. B. (1981): The charging of spacecraft surfaces. Review of Geophysics 19, 577.
446 References

Gary, D. E., Hurford, G. J. (1994): Coronal temperature, density, and magnetic field maps of a solar
active region using the Owens Valley Solar Array. The Astrophysical Journal 420, 903–912.
Gary, D. E., Keller, C. U. (2004): Solar and Space Weather Radiophysics – Current Status and
Future Developments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gary, G. A. (2001): Plasma beta above a solar active region: Rethinking the paradigm. Solar
Physics 203, 71–86.
Gary, G. A., et al. (1987): Nonpotential features observed in the magnetic field of an active region.
The Astrophysical Journal 314, 782–794.
Gary, G. A., Moore, R. L. (2004): Eruption of a multiple-turn helical magnetic flux tube in a large
flare: Evidence for external and internal reconnection that fits the breakout model of solar
magnetic eruption. Astrophysical Journal 611, 545–556.
Gauss, C. F. (1841): Allgemeine Theorie des Erdmagnetismus, Resultate aus den Beobachtungen
des Magnetischen Verein im Jarhre. Translated by Mrs. Sabine, revised by Sir John Herschel
in Scientific Memoirs Selected From Transactions of Foreign Academies and Learned Societies
and From Foreign Journals 2, 184–251.
Gavaghan, H. (1998): Something New Under the Sun: Satellites and the Beginning of the Space
Age. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gazis, P. R., et al. (2006): ICMEs at high latitudes and in the outer heliosphere. Space Science
Reviews 123, 417–451.
Geiss, J., Bochsler, P. (1991): Long time variations in solar wind properties – Possible causes
versus observations”. In: The Sun in Time (Eds. C. P. Sonett, M. S. Giampapa and M. S.
Matthews). Tucson, University of Arizona Press, pp. 98–117.
Geiss, J., et al. (1970): Apollo 11 and 12 solar wind composition experiments: fluxes of He and
Ne isotopes. Journal of Geophysical Research 75, 5972–5979.
Geiss, J., et al. (1995b): The southern high-speed stream – results from the SWICS instrument on
Ulysses. Science 268, 1033–1036.
Geiss, J., Gloeckler, G. (2001): Heliospheric and interstellar phenomena deduced from pickup ion
observations. Space Science Reviews 97, 169–181.
Geiss, J., Gloeckler, G., Fisk, L. A., von Steiger, R. (1995): C+ pickup ions in the heliosphere and
their origin. Journal of Geophysical Research 100(A12), 23373–23378.
Geiss, J., Gloeckler, G., Von Steiger, R. (1996a): Origin of C+ ions in the heliosphere. Space
Science Reviews 78, 43–52.
Geiss, J., Gloeckler, G., Von Steiger, R. (1996b): Origin of the solar wind from composition data.
Space Science Reviews 72, 49–60.
Geiss, J., Reeves, H. (1972): Cosmic and solar system abundances of deuterium and helium-3.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 18, 126–132.
Geiss, J., Witte, M. (1996): Properties of the interstellar gas inside the heliosphere. Space Science
Reviews 78, 229–238.
Genthon, C., et al. (1987): Vostok ice core: climatic response to CO2 and orbital forcing changes
over the last climatic cycle. Nature 329, 414–418.
Georges, T. M. (1967): Ionospheric effects of atmospheric waves. ESSA Technical Report IER
57-ITSA 54. Institute for telecommunication and aeronomy, Boulder, Colorado, p. 3.
Giacalone, J., Jokipii, J. R. (2004): Magnetic footpoint diffusion at the Sun and its relation to the
heliospheic magnetic field. The Astrophysical Journal 616, 573–577.
Gibson, S. E., et al. (2004): Observational consequences of a magnetic flux rope emerging into the
corona. The Astrophysical Journal 617, 600–613.
Gibson, S. E., et al. (2006): The evolving sigmoid: evidence for magnetic flux ropes in the corona
before, during, and after CMEs. Space Science Reviews 124, 131–144.
Gibson, S. E., Fan, Y. (2006): Coronal prominence structure and dynamics: a magnetic flux rope
interpretation. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, A12103.
Gibson, S. E., Low, B. C. (1998): A time-dependent three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic
model of coronal mass ejection. Astrophysical Journal 493, 460.
Gilbert, W. (1600): De Magnete, Magneticisque Corporibus, et de Magno Magnete Tellure:
Physiologia Nova, Plurimis and Argumentis, and Experimentis Demonstrata. London. English
References 447

translation by P. Fleury Mottelay, William Gilbert of Colchester. . .on the great magnet of the
earth. Ann Arbor 1893 and Silvanus P. Thompson, reprinted from the 1900 edition by Basic
Books, New York 1958.
Gilbert, W.: De Magnete, Magneticisque Corporibus, et de Magno Magnete Tellure: Physiologia
Nova, Plurimis and Argumentis, and Experimentis Demonstrata London 1600. English
translation by P. Fleury Mottelay, William Gilbert of Colchester. . . on the great magnet of the
earth. Ann Arbor 1893 and Silvanus P. Thompson, reprinted from the 1900 edition by Basic
Books, New York 1958.
Giles, P. M., Duvall, T. L. Jr., Scherrer, P. H., Bogart, R. S. (1997): A subsurface flow of material
from the Sun’s equator to its pole. Nature 390, 52–54.
Gille, J. C., Smythe, C. M., Heath, D. F. (1984): Observed ozone response to variations in solar
ultraviolet radiation. Science 225, 315–317.
Gilliland, R. L. (1980): Solar luminosity variations. Nature 286, 838–839.
Gilliland, R. L. (1981): Solar radius variations over the past 265 years. The Astrophysical Journal
248, 1144–1155.
Gilliland, R. L. (1982): Modeling solar variability. The Astrophysical Journal 253, 399–405.
Gilliland, R. L. (1989): Solar evolution. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
75, 35–55.
Gilman, P. A. (1974): Solar rotation. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 12, 47–70.
Gilman, P. A. (2000): Fluid dynamics and MHD of the solar convection zone and tachocline:
Current understanding and unresolvcd problems. Solar Physics 192, 27–48.
Gilman, P. A., Miesch, M. S. (2004): Limits to penetration of meridional circulation below the
solar convection zone. The Astrophysical Journal 611, 568–574.
Ginzburg, V. L. (1946): On solar radiation in the radio spectrum. Comptes Rendus (Doklady) de
l’Académie des Sciences de l’ URSS 52, 487.
Ginzburg, V. L. (1956): The nature of cosmic radio emission and the origin of cosmic rays. Nuovo
Cimento Supplement 3, 38–48. Reproduced in: A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics
1900–1975. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1977, pp. 677–684.
Giordano, S., et al. (2000): Identification of he coronal sources of the fast solar wind. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 531, L79–L82.
Giovanelli, R. G. (1939): The relations between eruptions and sunspots. The Astrophysical Journal
89, 555–567.
Giovanelli, R. G. (1940): Solar eruptions. The Astrophysical Journal 91, 344–349.
Giovanelli, R. G. (1946): A theory of chromospheric flares. Nature 158, 81–82.
Giovanelli, R. G. (1947): Magnetic and electric phenomena in the Sun’s atmosphere associated
with sunspots. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 107, 338–355.
Giovanelli, R. G. (1948): Chromospheric flares. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society 108, 163–176.
Giovanelli, R. G. (1949): A note on heat transfer in the upper chromosphere and corona. Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 109, 372.
Giovanelli, R. G., McCabe, M. K. (1958): The flare-surge event. Australian Journal of Physics 11,
191–200.
Giovanni, L., Knoll, D. A. (2005): Effect of a converging flow at the streamer cusp on the genesis
of the slow solar wind. The Astrophysical Journal 624, 1049–1056.
Gizon, L. (2004): Helioseismology of time-varying flows through the solar cycle. Solar Physics
224, 217.
Gizon, L., Birch, A. C. (2002): Time-distance helioseismology: the forward problem for random
distributed sources. The Astrophysical Journal 571, 966–986.
Gizon, L., Birch, A. C. (2004): Time-distance helioseismoogy: noise estimation. The Astrophysical
Journal 614, 472–489.
Gizon, L., Birch, A. C. (2005): Local helioseismology. Living Reviews in Solar Physics 2, 6.
Gizon, L., Duvall, T. L. Jr., Schou, J. (2003): Wave-like properties of solar supergranulations.
Nature 421, 43–44.
448 References

Gleeson, L. J., Axford, W. I. (1968): Solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays. The Astrophysical
Journal 154, 1011–1019.
Gleissberg, W. (1943): Predictions for the coming sunspot-cycle. Terrestrial Magnetism and
Atmospheric Electricity 48, 243–244.
Gleissberg, W. (1958): The eighty-year sunspot cycle. Journal of the British Astronomical
Association 68, 148–152.
Gleissberg, W. (1965): The 80-year solar cycle in auroral frequency number. Journal of the British
Astronomical Association 75, 227–231.
Gleissberg, W. (1966): Ascent and descent in the eighty-year cycles of solar activity. Journal of
the British Astronomical Association 76, 265–270.
Gloeckler, G. (1999): Observation of injection and pre-acceleration processes in the slow solar
wind. Space Science Reviews 89, 91–104.
Gloeckler, G. (2003): Ubiquitous suprathermal tails on the soar wind and pickup ion distributions.
Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Proceedings 679, 583–588.
Gloeckler, G. et al. (1999): Unusual composition of the solar wind in the 2–3 May 1998 CME
observed with SWICS on ACE. Geophysical Research Letters 26, 157–160.
Gloeckler, G., et al. (1986): Solar wind carbon, nitrogen and oxygen abundances measured in the
Earth’s magnetosheath with AMPTE/CCE. Geophysical Research Letters 13, 793–796.
Gloeckler, G., et al. (1989): Heavy ion abundances in coronal hole solar wind flows. EOS 70, 424.
Gloeckler, G., et al. (1992): The solar wind ion composition spectrometer. Astronomy and
Astrophysics Supplement 92(2), 267–289.
Gloeckler, G., et al. (1993): Detection of interstellar pick-up hydrogen in the solar system. Science
261, 70–73.
Gloeckler, G., et al. (1994): Acceleration of interstellar pickup ions in the disturbed solar wind
observed on Ulysses. Journal of Geophysical Research 99(A9), 17637–17643.
Gloeckler, G., et al. (1999): Unusual composition of the solar wind in the 2–3 May 1998 CME
observed with SWICS on ACE. Geophysical Research Letters 26, 157–160.
Gloeckler, G., et al. (2000): Interception of comet Hyakutake’s ion tail at a distance of 500 million
kilometers. Nature 404, 576–578.
Gloeckler, G., et al. (2004a): Cometary ions trapped in a coronal mass ejection The Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 604, L121–L124.
Gloeckler, G., et al. (2004b): Observations of the helium focusing cone with pickup ions.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 426, 845–854.
Gloeckler, G., Fisk, L. A., Geiss, J. (1997): Anomalously small magnetic field in the local
interstellar cloud. Nature 386, 374–377.
Gloeckler, G., Fisk, L. A., Zurbuchen, T. H., Schwadron, N. A. (2000): Acceleration and transport
of energetic particles observed in the heliosphere. American Institute of Physics Conference
Proceedings 528, 221–228.
Gloeckler, G., Geiss, J. (1989): The abundances of elements and isotopes in the solar wind.
American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings 183, 49–71.
Gloeckler, G., Geiss, J. (1996): Abundance of 3 He in the local interstellar cloud. Nature 381,
210–212.
Gloeckler, G., Geiss, J. (1998): Interstellar and inner source pickup ions observed with SWICS on
Ulysses. Space Science Reviews 86, 127–159.
Gloeckler, G., Geiss, J. (1998): Measurement of the abundance of helium-3 in the Sun and in the
local interstellar cloud with SWICS on Ulysses. Space Science Reviews 84, 275–284.
Gloeckler, G., Geiss, J. (2004): Composition of the local interstellar medium as diagnosed with
pickup ions. Advances in Space Research 34(1), 53–60.
Gloeckler, G., Zurbuchen, T. H., Geiss, J. (2003): Implications of the observed anticorrelation
between solar wind speed and coronal electron temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research
(Space Physics) 108(A4), SSH 8–1.
Gold, T. (1955): Discussion of shock waves and rarefied gases. In: Gas Dynamics of Cosmic
Clouds (Eds. J. C. van de Hulst and J. M. BURGERS). New York: North-Holland 1955, p. 103.
Gold, T. (1959a): Magnetic field in the solar system. Nuovo Cimento Supplemento 13, 318–323.
References 449

Gold, T. (1959b): Plasma and magnetic fields in the solar system. Journal of Geophysical Research
64, 1665–1674.
Gold, T. (1960): Energetic particle fluxes in the solar system and near the Earth. The Astrophysical
Journal Supplement 4, 406–426.
Gold, T. (1962): Magnetic storms. Space Science Review 1, 100–114.
Gold, T. (1964): Magnetic energy shedding in the solar atmosphere. In: AAS-NASA Symposium
on the Physics of Solar Flares NASA SP-50 (Ed. W. N. Hess). Washington, DC: National
Aeronautics and Space Administration 1964, pp. 389–395.
Gold, T., Hoyle, F. (1960): On the origin of solar flares. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society 120, 89–105.
Goldreich, P. Murrray, N., Kumar, P. (1994): Excitation of solar p modes. The Astrophysical
Journal 424, 466–479.
Goldreich, P., Keeley, D. A. (1977a): Solar seismology I. The stability of the solar p-modes. The
Astrophysical Journal 211, 934–942.
Goldreich, P., Keeley, D. A. (1977b): Solar seismology II. The stochastic excitation of the solar
p-modes by turbulent convections. The Astrophysical Journal 212, 243–251.
Goldreich, P., Kumar, P. (1990): Wave generation by turbulent convection. The Astrophysical
Journal 363, 694–704.
Goldstein, B. E. (1993): The solar wind as we know it today. EOS Transactions of the American
Geophysical Union 74(20), 229.
Goldstein, B. E., et al. (1996): Ulysses plasma parameters: latitudinal, radial, and temporal
variations. Astronomy and Astrophysics 316, 296–303.
Goldstein, M. L., Roberts, D. A., Matthaeus, W. H. (1995): Magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in
the solar wind. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 33, 283–326.
Goldstein, M. L., Roberts, D. A., Matthaeus, W. H. (1997): Magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in
cosmic winds. In: Cosmic Winds and the Heliosphere (Eds. J. R. Jokipii, C. P. Sonett and M.
S. Giampapa). Tuscon, University of Arizona Press, pp. 521–580.
Golub, L., et al. (1974): Solar x-ray bright points. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 189, L93–L97.
Golub, L., et al. (1980): Magnetic fields and coronal heating. Astrophysical Journal 238, 343–348.
Golub, L., et al. (2007): The X-ray telescope (XRT) for the Hinode mission. Solar Physics 243,
63–86.
Golub, L., Krieger, A. S., Harvey, J. W., Vaiana, G. S. (1977): Magnetic properties of X-ray bright
points. Solar Physics 53, 111–121.
Golub, L., Krieger, A. S., Vaiana, G. S. (1976a): Distribution of lifetimes for coronal soft X-ray
bright points. Solar Physics 49, 79–90.
Golub, L., Krieger, A. S., Vaiana, G. S. (1976b): Observation of spatial and temporal variations in
X-ray bright point emergence patterns. Solar Physics 50, 311–327.
Golub, L., Pasachoft J. M. (1997): The Solar Corona. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gonzalez, W. D., et al. (1994): What is a geomagnetic storm? Journal of Geophysical Research
99, 5771–5792.
Gonzalez, W. D., et al. (2004): Prediction of peak-Dst from halo CME/magnetic cloud speed
observations. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 66, 161–165.
Gonzalez, W. D., Tsurutani, B. T. (1987): Criteria of interplanetary parameters causing intense
magnetic storms (Dst < −100 nT). Planetary and Space Science 35, 1101–1108.
Gonzalez, W. D., Tsurutani, B. T., de Gonzalez, A. L. C. (1999): Interplanetary origin of
geomagnetic storms. Space Science Reviews 88, 529–582.
Goode, P. R., et al. (1991): What we know about the Sun’s internal rotation from oscillations.
Astrophysical Journal 367, 649–657.
Gopalswamy, et al. (1998): Origin of coronal and interplanetary shocks – A new look with Wind
spacecraft data. Journal of Geophysical Research 103, 307.
Gopalswamy, N. (2006): Properties of interplanetary coronal mass ejections. Space Science
Reviews 124, 145–168.
450 References

Gopalswamy, N., et al. (1999): Microwave enhancement and variability in the elephant’s trunk
coronal hole: Comparison with SOHO observations. Journal of Geophysical Research
104(A5), 9767–9779.
Gopalswamy, N., et al. (2001): Radio signatures of coronal mass ejection interaction: coronal
mass ejection cannibalism? Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 548, L91–L94.
Gopalswamy, N., et al. (2002): Interacting coronal mass ejections and solar energetic particles.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 572, L103–L107.
Gopalswamy, N., et al. (2003): Coronal mass ejection activity during solar cycle 23. In: Solar Vari-
ability as an Input to the Earth’s Environment. International Solar Cycle Studies Symposium.
ESA SP-535 (Ed. A. Wilson), pp. 403–414.
Gopalswamy, N., et al. (2005): Coronal mass ejections and other extreme characteristics of the
2003 October–November solar eruptions. Journal of Geophysical Research 110(A9), A09S15.
Gopalswamy, N., et al. (2006): The pre-CME Sun. Space Science Reviews 123, 303–339.
Gopalswamy, N., Hanaoka, Y. (1998): Coronal dimming associated with a giant prominence
eruption. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 498, L179–L182.
Gopalswamy, N., Mewaldt, R., Torsti, J. (Eds., 2006): Solar Eruptions and Energetic Particles:
Geophysical Monograph Series 165, Washington: American Geophysical Union 2006.
Gorney, D. J. (1990): Solar cycle effects on the near-earth space environment. Reviews of
Geophysics 28, 315–336.
Gosling, J. T. (1990): Coronal mass ejections and magnetic flux ropes in interplanetary space.
In: Physics of Magnetic Flux Ropes: Geophysical Monograph 58 (Eds. C. T. Russell et al.).
Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union 1990, pp. 343–364.
Gosling, J. T. (1993): The solar flare myth. Journal of Geophysical Research 98, 18937–18949.
Gosling, J. T. (1994): The solar flare myth in solar-terrestrial physics. In: Solar System Plasmas
in Space and Time. Geophysical Monograph 84 (Eds. J. L. Burch and J. H. Waite, Jr.)
Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union 1994, pp. 65–69.
Gosling, J. T. (1996): Corotating and transient solar wind flows in three dimensions. Annual
Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 34, 35–74.
Gosling, J. T. (1997): Coronal mass ejections – an overview. In: Coronal Mass Ejections Geo-
physical Monograph 99 (Eds. N. Crooker, J. A. Joselyn and J. Feynman). Washington, DC:
American Geophysical Union 1997, pp. 9–16.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (1974): Mass ejections from the Sun: A view from Skylab. Journal of
Geophysical Research 79, 4581–4587.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (1975): Direct observations of a flare related coronal and solar wind
disturbance. Solar Physics 40, 439–448.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (1976a): Solar wind speed variations 1962–1974. Journal of Geophysical
Research 81, 5061–5070.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (1976b): The speeds of coronal mass ejection events. Solar Physics 48,
389–397.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (1980): Observations of large fluxes of He+ in the solar wind following an
interplanetary shock. Journal of Geophysical Research 85, 3431–3434.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (1981): Coronal streamers in the solar wind at 1 AU. Journal of Geophysical
Research 86, A7, 5438–5448.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (1987): Bidirectional solar wind electron heat flux events. Journal of
Geophysical Research 92, 8519–8535.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (1990): Coronal mass ejections and large geomagnetic storms. Geophysical
Research Letters 17, 901–904.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (1991): Geomagnetic activity associated with Earth passsage of interplan-
etary shock disturbances and coronal mass ejections. Journal of Geophysical Research 96,
7831–7839.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (1994): Solar wind corotating stream interaction regions out of the ecliptic
plane: Ulysses. Space Science Reviews 72, 99–104.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (1994): The speeds of coronal mass ejections in the solar wind at mid
heliographic latitudes: Ulysses. Geophysical Research Letters 21(12), 1109–1112.
References 451

Gosling, J. T., et al. (1995): Coronal mass ejections at high heliographic latitudes: Ulysses. Space
Science Reviews 72, 133–136.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (2004): Dispersionless modulations in low-energy solar electron bursts and
discontinuous changes in the solar wind electron strahl. Journal of Geophysical Research 10,
A05102.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (2006): Petschek-type reconnection exhausts in the solar wind well beyond 1
AU. Ulysses. Astrophysical Journal 644, 613–621.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (2007): Direct evidence for prolonged magnetic reconnection at a continuous
x-line within the heliospheric current sheet. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L06102.
Gosling, J. T., et al. (2007b): Five spacecraft observations of oppositely directed exhaust jets from
a magnetic reconnection x-line extending more than 4.26 million kilometers in the solar wind
at 1 AU. Geophysical Research Letters 34, L20108.
Gosling, J. T., Hundhausen, A. J. (1977): Waves in the solar wind. Scientific American 236,
36–43 – March.
Gosling, J. T., Mc Comas, D. J., Skooug, R. M., Forsyth, R. J. (2001): Stream interaction regions
at high heliographic latitudes during Ulysses 12/22/2004 6:25pm second polar orbit. Space
Science Reviews 97, 189–192.
Gosling, J. T., Pizzo, V. (1999): Formation and evolution of corotating interaction regions and
their three dimensional structure. Space Science Reviews 89, 21–52.
Gosling, J. T., Pizzo, V., Bame, S. J. (1973): Anomalously low proton temperatures in the solar
wind following interplanetary shock waves – evidence for magnetic bottles? Journal of
Geophysical Research 78, 2001–2009.
Gosling, J. T., Riley, P., Mccomas, D. J., Pizzo, V. J. (1998): Overexpanding coronal mass ejections
at high heliographic latitudes – observations and simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research
103, 1941–1954.
Gosling, J. T., Roelof, E. C. (1974): A comment on the detection of closed magnetic structures in
the solar wind. Solar Physics 39, 405–408.
Gosling, J. T., Skoug, R. M. (2002): On the origin of radial magnetic fields in the heliosphere.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 107(A10 SSH), 19–1, 1327.
Gosling, J. T., Skoug, R. M., Mc Comas, D. J. (2004): Low-energy solar electron bursts and solar
wind stream structure at 1 AU. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, A04104.
Gosling, J. T., Skoug, R. M., Mccomas, D. J., Smith, C. W. (2005a): Direct evidence for magnetic
reconnection in the solar wind near 1 AU. Journal of Geophysical Research 110, A1, A01107.
Gosling, J. T., Skoug, R. M., Mccomas, D. J., Smith, C. W. (2005b): Magnetic disconnection form
the Sun: observations of a reconnection exhaust in the solar wind at the heliospheric current
sheet. Geophysical Research Letters 32, 5. L05105.
Gough, D. O. (1976): Random remarks on solar hydrodynamics. In: The Energy Balance and
Hydrodynamics of the Solar Chromosphere and Corona. Proceedings of the International
Astronomical Union Colloquium No. 36 (Eds. R. -M. Bonnet and P. H. Delache). Paris: G. De
Bussac, Clermont-Ferrand 1976, pp. 3–36.
Gough, D. O. (1981): Solar interior structure and luminosity variations. Solar Physics 74, 21–34.
Gough, D. O. (1989): Deep roots of solar cycles. Nature 336, 618–619.
Gough, D. O., Leibacher, J. W., Scherrer, P. H., Toomre, J. (1996): Perspectives in helioseismology.
Science 272, 1281–1284.
Gough, D. O., Toomre, J. (1991): Seismic observations of the solar interior. Annual Review of
Astronomy and Astrophysics 29, 627–684.
Graham, G. (1724): An account of observations made of the variation of the horizontal needle at
London, in the latter part of the year 1722 and beginning of 1723. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society (London) 33(383), 96–107.
Grall, R. R., et al. (1996): Rapid acceleration of the polar solar wind. Nature 379, 429–432.
Gray, D. F., Livingston, W. C. (1997): Monitoring the solar temperature: Spectroscopic temperature
variations of the Sun. Astrophysical Journal 474, 802–809.
Greaves, W. M. H., Newton, H. W. (1929): On the recurrence of magnetic storms. Monthly Notices
of the Royal Astronomical Society 89, 641–646.
452 References

Grec, G., Fossat, E., Pomerantz, M. A. (1980): Solar oscillations – full disk observations from the
geographic south pole. Nature 288, 541–544.
Grec, G., Fossat, E., Pomerantz, M. A. (1983): Full-disk observations of solar oscillations from
the geographic south pole – latest results. Solar Physics 82, 55–66.
Green, C. A., Kosovichev, A. G. (2007): Magnetic effect on wavelike properties of solar
supergranulation. Astrophysical Journal (Letters), Part 2 665, L75–L78.
Greenland Ice-Core Project (GRIP) Members (1993): Climate instability during the last
interglacial period recorded in the GRIP ice core. Nature 364, 103–207.
Gribov, V. N., Pontecorvo, B. M. (1969): Neutrino astronomy and lepton charge. Physics Letters
B 28, 493–496.
Gringauz, K. I. (1961): Some results of experiments in interplanetary space by means of charged
particle traps on Soviet space probes. Space Research 2, 539–553.
Gringauz, K. I., et al. (1960): A study of the interplanetary ionized gas, high-energy electrons, and
corpuscular radiation from the Sun by means of the three-electrode trap for charged particles
on the second Soviet cosmic rocket. Soviet Physics (Doklady) 5, 361–364.
Grip Members (1993): Climate instability during the last interglacial period recorded in the
GReenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) ice core. Nature 364, 203–207.
Grotrian, W. (1934): Über das Fraunhofersche Spektrum der Sonnenkorona. Zeitschrift für
Astrophysik 8, 124–146.
Grotrian, W. (1939): On the question of the significance of the lines in the spectrum of the solar
corona. Naturwissenschaften 27, 214. English translation in: A Source Book in Astronomy
and Astrophysics 1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press 1979, pp. 120–122.
Gruen, E., et al. (1992): The Ulysses dust experiment. Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement
92(2), 411–423.
Güdel, M. (2007): The Sun in time: Activity and environment. Living Reviews in Solar Physics 4, 3.
Güdel, M., Guinan, E. F., Skinner, S. L. (1997): The X-ray Sun in time: A study of the long-term
evolution of coronae of solar-type stars. The Astrophysical Journal 483, 947–960.
Güdel, M., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., Benz, A. O (1994): Discovery of microwave emission from four
nearby solar-type G stars. Science 265, 933–935.
Gudiksen, B. V., Nordlund, A. (2002): Bulk heating and slender magnetic loops in the solar
corona. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) a572, L113–L116.
Gudiksen, B. V., Nordlund, A. (2005): An ab initio approach to the solar coronal heating problem.
The Astrophysical Journal 618, 1020–1030.
Guenther, D. B., Demarque, P. (1997): Seismic tests of the Sun’s interior structure, composition,
and age, and implications for solar neutrinos. The Astrophysical Journal 484, 937–959.
Guenther, D. B., Jaffe, A., Demarque, P. (1989): The standard solar model: Composition, opacities,
and seismology. Astrophysical Journal 345, 1022–1033.
Guhathakurta, M., Fisher, R. (1998): Solar wind consequences of a coronal hole density profile:
Spartan 201–03 coronagraph and Ulysses observations from 1.15 Ro to 4 AU. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 499, L215–L218.
Gurnett, D. A., Baumback, M. M., Rosenbauer, H. (1978): Stereoscopic direction finding analysis
of a type III solar radio burst: Evidence for emission at 2 f p Journal of Geophysical Research
83, 616–622.
Gurnett, D. A., et al. (1993): Radio emission from the heliopause triggered by an interplanetary
shock. Science 262, 199–203.
Gurnett, D. A., Kurth, W. S. (2008): Intense plasma waves observed at and near the solar wind
termination shock. Nature 454, 78–80.
Guzxik, J. A., Watson, I. S., Cox, A. N. (2005): Can enhanced diffusion improve helioseismic
agreement for solar models with revised abundances? Astrophysical Journal 627, 1049–1056.
References 453

Habbal, S. R., et al. (1997): Origins of the slow and the ubiquitous fast solar wind. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 489, L103–L106.
Haber, D. A., et al. (2002): Evolving submerged meridional circulation cells within the upper
convection zone revealed by ring-diagram analysis. The Astrophysical Journal 570, 855–864.
Haber, D. A., et al. (2004): Organized subsurface flows near active regions. Solar Physics 220,
371–380.
Hagenaar, H. J., Schrijver, C. J., Title, A. M. (1997): The distribution of cell sizes of the solar
chromospheric network. Astrophysical Journal 481, 988–995.
Haggerty, D. K., Roelof, E. C. (2002): Impulsive near-relativistic solar electron events: delayed
injection with respect to solar electromagnetic emission. Astrophysical Journal 579, 841–853.
Haigh, J. D, Blackburn, M., Day, R. (2005): The response of tropospheric circulation to
perturbations in lower-stratospheric temperature. Journal of Climate 18, 3672–3685.
Haigh, J. D. (1994): The role of stratospheric ozone in modulating the solar radiative forcing of
climate. Nature 370, 544–546.
Haigh, J. D. (1996): The impact of solar variability on climate. Science 272, 981–984.
Haigh, J. D. (2001): Climate variability and the influence of the Sun. Science 294, 2109–2111.
Haigh, J. D. (2007): The Sun and the Earth’s climate. Living Reviews in Solar Physics 4, 2.
Haisch, B. M., Rodono, M. (Eds., 1989): Solar and stellar flares. Proceedings of IAU Colloquium
No. 104. Solar Physics 121(1, 2). Reprinted Boston: Kluwer 1989.
Haisch, B., Strong, K. T., Rodono, M. (1991): Flares on the Sun and other stars. Annual Review of
Astronomy and Astrophysics 29, 275–324.
Hale, G. E. (1892a): A remarkable solar disturbance. Astronomy and Astrophysics 11, 611–613.
Hale, G. E. (1892b): On the condition of the Sun’s surface in June and July, 1892, as compared
with the record of terrestrial magnetism. Astronomy and Astrophysics 11, 917–925.
Hale, G. E. (1908a): On the probable existence of a magnetic field in Sun-spots. Astrophys-
ical Journal 28, 315–343. Reproduced in: A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics
1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1979,
pp. 96–105.
Hale, G. E. (1908b): Solar vortices. The Astrophysical Journal 28, 100–116.
Hale, G. E. (1908c): The Zeeman effect in the Sun. Publications of the Astronomical Society of
the Pacific 20, 287–288.
Hale, G. E. (1926): Visual observations of the solar atmosphere. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science 12, 286–295.
Hale, G. E. (1929): The spectrohelioscope and its work. Part I. History, instruments, adjustments,
and methods of observation. Astrophysical Journal 70, 265–311.
Hale, G. E. (1931): The spectrohelioscope and its work. Part III. Solar eruptions and their apparent
terrestrial effects. Astrophysical Journal 73, 379–412.
Hale, G. E., et al. (1919): The magnetic polarity of sun-spots. Astrophysical Journal 49, 153–178.
Halley, E. (1716): An account of the late surprising appearance of the lights seen in the air.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) 29, 406–428.
Hammer, C. U. (1977): Past volcanism revealed by Greenland ice sheet impurities. Nature 270,
482–486.
Hampel, W., et al. (1999): GALLEX solar neutrino observations: Results for GALLEX IV. Physics
Letters 44, 127–133.
Hanaoka, Y. (1994): A flare caused by interacting coronal loops. Astrophysical Journal (Letters)
420, L37–L40.
Hanaoka, Y. (1996): Flares and plasma flow caused by interacting coronal loops. Solar Physics
165, 275–301.
Hanaoka, Y. (1997): Double-loop configuration of solar flares. Solar Physics 173, 319–346.
Hanasoge, S. M., et al. (2006): Computational acoustics in spherical geometry: Steps toward
validating helioseismology. Astrophysical Journal 648, 1268–1275.
454 References

Handy, B. N., et al. (1999): The Transition Region and Coronal Explorer. Solar Physics 187,
229–260.
Handy, B. N., Schrijver, C. J. (2001): On the evolution of the solar photospheric and coronal
magnetic field. Astrophysical Journal 547, 1100–1108.
Hansen, J. E., Lacis, A. A. (1990): Sun and dust versus greenhouse gases: An assessment of their
relative roles in global climate change. Nature 346, 713–719.
Hansen, J. E., Lebedeff, S. (1987): Global trends of measured surface air temperature. Journal of
Geophysical Research 92, 13345–13372.
Hansen, J. E., Lebedeff, S. (1988): Global surface air temperatures: Update through 1987.
Geophysical Research Letters 15, 323–326.
Hansen, J. F., Bellan, P. M. (2001): Experimental demonstration of how strapping fields can inhibit
solar prominence eruptions. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 563, L183–L186.
Hansen, R. T., Garcia, C. J., Hansen, S. F., Yasukawa, E. (1974): Abrupt depletions of the inner
corona. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 86, 500–515.
Hara, H., et al. (1994): Temperatures of coronal holes observed with Yohkoh SXT. Publications of
the Astronomical Society of Japan 46, 493–502.
Harmon, J. K., Coles, W. A. (2005): Modeling radio scattering and scintillation observations of the
inner solar wind using oblique Alfvén/ion cyclotron waves. Journal of Geophysical Research
110, A03101.
Harra, L. K., et al. (2007): Coronal dimming observed with Hinode: Outflows related to a coronal
mass ejection. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S801–S806.
Harra, L. K., Sterling, A. C. (2003): Imaging and spectroscopic investigations of a solar coronal
wave: Properties of the wave front and associated erupting material. Astrophysical Journal
587, 429–438.
Harrison, R. A. (1986): Solar coronal mass ejections and flares. Astronomy and Astrophysics 162,
283–291.
Harrison, R. A. (1991): Coronal mass ejection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
(London) A336, 401–412.
Harrison, R. A. (1994): A statistical study of the coronal mass ejection phenomenon. Advances in
Space Research 14(4), 23–28.
Harrison, R. A. (1997a): CME onset studies. In: The Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum
Activity. Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO Workshop ESA SP-404. Noordwijk: ESA Publications
Division 1997, pp. 85–91.
Harrison, R. A. (1997b): EUV blinkers – the significance of variations in the extreme ultraviolet
quiet Sun. Solar Physics 175, 467–485. Reprinted in: The First Results from SOHO (Eds.
B. Fleck and Z. Svestka). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997, pp. 467–485.
Harrison, R. A. (1997c): One year of CDS: Highlights from observations using the coronal
diagnostic spectrometer on SOHO. In: The Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum Activity.
Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO Workshop. ESA SP-404. Noorwijk: ESA Publications Division
1997, pp. 7–16.
Harrison, R. A., Bryans, P., Simnett, G. M., Lyons, M. (2003): Coronal dimming and the coronal
mass ejection onset. Astronomy and Astrophysics 400, 1071–1083.
Harrison, R. A., et al. (1990): The launch of solar coronal mass ejections: Results from the coronal
mass ejection onset program. Journal of Geophysical Research 95, 917–937.
Harrison, R. A., et al. (1995): The Coronal Diagnostic Spectrometer for the Solar and Heliospheric
Observatory. Solar Physics 162, 233–290.
Harrison, R. A., et al. (2008): First imaging of coronal mass ejections in the heliosphere viewed
from outside the Sun-Earth line. Solar Physics 247, 171–193.
Harrison, R. A., Lyons, M. (2000): A spectroscopic study of coronal dimming associated with a
coronal mass ejection. Astronomy and Astrophysics 358, 1097–1108.
Hart, A. B. (1954): Motions in the Sun at the photospheric level IV. The equatorial rotation and
possible velocity fields in the photosphere. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
114, 17–38.
References 455

Hart, A. B. (1956): Motions in the Sun at the photospheric level VI. Large scale motions in the
equatorial region. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 116, 38–55.
Hartle, R. E., Sturrock, P. A. (1968): Two-fluid model of the solar wind. Astrophysical Journal
151, 1155–1170.
Hartmann, L. W., Noyes, R. W. (1987): Rotation and magnetic activity in main-sequence stars.
Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 25, 271–301.
Hartz, T. R. (1964): Solar noise observations from the Alouette satellite. Annales d’Astrophysique
27, 831–836.
Hartz, T. R. (1969): Type III solar radio noise bursts at hectometer wavelengths. Planetary and
Space Science 17, 267–287.
Harvey, J. W. (1995): Helioseismology. Physics Today 48, 32–38 – October.
Harvey, J. W., et al. (1996): The Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) project. Science 272,
1284–1286.
Harvey, J. W., Kennedy, J. R., Leibacher, J. W. (1987): GONG – to see inside our Sun. Sky and
Telescope 74, 470–476 – November.
Harvey, K. L., et al. (1999): Does magnetic flux submerge at flux cancellation sites? Solar Physics
190, 35–44.
Harvey, K. L., Martin, S. F. (1973): Ephemeral active regions. Solar Physics 32, 389–402.
Harvey, K. L., Recely, F. (2002): Polar coronal holes during cycles 22 and 23. Solar Physics
211, 31–52.
Haselgrove, B., Hoyle, F. (1959): Main-sequence stars. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society 119, 112–120.
Hassler, D. M., et al. (1997): Observations of polar plumes with the SUMER instrument on SOHO.
Solar Physics 175, 375–391. Reprinted In: The First Results from SOHO (Eds. B. Fleck and
Z. Svestka). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997, pp. 375–391.
Hassler, D. M., et al. (1999): Solar wind outflow and the chromospheric magnetic network.
Science 283, 810–813.
Hastings, D. E., Garret, H. (1996): Spacecraft–Environment Interactions. Cambridge Atmospheric
and Space Science Series. New York: Cambridge University Press 1996.
Hathaway, D. H. (1996): Doppler measurements of the Sun’s meridional flow. Astrophysical
Journal 460, 1027–1033.
Hathaway, D. H., et al. (1996): GONG observations of solar surface flows. Science 272,
1306–1309.
Hathaway, D. H., et al. (2000): The photospheric convection spectrum. Solar Physics 193,
299–312.
Hathaway, D. H., et al. (2002): Radial flows in supergranules. Solar Physics 205, 25–38.
Hathaway, D. H., et al. (2003): Evidence that a deep meriodional flow sets the sunspot cycle
period. Astrophysical Journal 589, 665–670.
Hathaway, D. H., Williams, P. E., Cuntz, M. (2006): Supergranule superrotation identified as a
projection effect. The Astrophysical Journal 644, 598–602.
Havnes, O. (1971): Abundances and accelerations mechanisms of cosmic rays. Nature 229,
548–549.
Hays, J. D., Imbrie, J., Shackleton, N. J. (1976): Variations in the Earth’s orbit: pacemaker of the
ice ages. Science 194, 1121–1132.
Heath, D. F., Krueger, A. J., Crutzen, J. (1977): Solar proton events: Influence on stratospheric
ozone. Science 197: 888–889.
Heaviside, O. (1902): Telegraphy In: Encyclopedia Britannica 113, 215.
Henderson-Sellers, A. (1979): Clouds and the long term stability of the earth’s atmosphere and
climate. Nature 279, 786–788.
Hernandez, I. Gonzalez, et al. (2006): Meridional circulation variability from large aperture
ring-diagram analysis of global oscillation network group and Michelson Doppler imager data.
Astrophysical Journal 638, 576–583.
Herschel, W. (1801): Observations tending to investigate the nature of the Sun, in order to find
the causes or symptoms of its variable emission of light and heat; with remarks on the use
456 References

that may possibly be drawn from solar observations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London 91, 265–318.
Hess, V. F. (1912): Concerning observations of penetrating radiation on seven free balloon flights.
Physikalishe Zeitschrift 13, 1084–1091. English translation in: A Source Book in Astronomy
and Astrophysics 1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press 1979, pp. 13–20.
Hewish, A. (1955): The irregular structure of the outer regions of the solar corona. Proceedings of
the Royal Society (London) 228A, 238–251.
Hewish, A. (1958): The scattering of radio waves in the solar corona. Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society 118, 534–546.
Hey, J. S. (1946): Solar radiations in the 4–6 metre radio wavelength band. Nature 157, 47–48.
Hey, J. S. (1973): The Evolution of Radio Astronomy. New York: Science History Publications,
Neale Watson Academic Publications 1973.
Heyvaerts, J., Priest, E. R. (1983): Coronal heating by phase-mixed shear Alfvén waves. Astronomy
and Astrophysics 117, 220.
Heyvaerts, J., Priest, E. R. (1984): Coronal heating by reconnection in DC current systems.
A theory based on Taylor’s hypothesis. Astronomy and Astrophysics 137, 63–78.
Heyvaerts, J., Priest, E. R., Rust, D. M. (1977): An emerging flux model for the solar flare
phenomenon. Astrophysical Journal 216, 123–137.
Hick, P., et al. (1995): Synoptic IPS and Yohkoh soft X-ray observations. Geophysical Research
Letters 22(5), 643–646.
Hickey, J. R., et al. (1981): Solar variability indications from Nimbus 7 satellite data. In: Variations
of the Solar Constant (Ed. S. SOFIA). Washington: NASA CP-2191, pp. 59–72.
Hickey, J. R., et al. (1988a): Observation of total solar irradiance variability from Nimbus satellites.
Advances in Space Research 9(7), 5–10.
Hickey, J. R., et al. (1988b): Total solar irradiance measurements by ERB/Nimbus-7: a review of
nine years. Space Science Reviews 48, 321–342.
Hiei, E., Hundhausen, A. J., Sime, D. G. (1993): Reformation of a coronal helmet streamer
by magnetic reconnection after a coronal mass ejection. Geophysical Research Letters 20,
2785–2788.
Higdon, J. C., Lingenfelter, R. E. (2003): The superbubble origin of 22 Ne in cosmic rays.
Astrophysical Journal 590, 822–832.
Higdon, J. C., Lingenfelter, R. E. (2006): The superbubble origin for galactic cosmic rays.
Advances in Space Research 37, 1913–1917.
Higdon, J. C., Lingenfelter, R. E., Ramaty, R. (1998): Cosmic-ray acceleration from supernova
ejecta in superbubbles. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 509, L33–L36.
Hilchenbach, M., et al. (1998): Detection of 55–80 keV hydrogen atoms of heliospheric origin by
CELIAS/HSTOF on SOHO. Astrophysical Journal 503, 916.
Hildner, E., et al. (1975): The sources of material comprising a mass ejection coronal transient.
Solar Physics 45, 363–376.
Hill, F. (1988): Rings and trumpets – three-dimensional power spectra of solar oscillations. The
Astrophysical Journal 333, 996–1013.
Hill, R. (1989): Solar oscillation ring diagrams and large-scale flows. Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 343, L69–L71.
Hill, T. W., Dessler, A. J. (1991): Plasma motions in planetary magnetospheres. Science 252,
410–415 – April.
Hillas, A. M. (1972): Cosmic Rays. New York: Pergamon Press 1972.
Hindman, B. W., et al. (2004): Comparison of solar subsurface flows assessed by ring and
time-distance analyses. The Astrophysical Journal 613, 1253–1262.
Hines, C. O. (1974): A possible mechanism for the production of sun-weather correlations.
Journal of Atmospheric Science 31, 589–591.
Hioter, O. P. (1747): Om Magnet-nalens Atskillige andreingar. Kongle Swen Wetenskaps Acad.
Handlgar, 27–43.
References 457

Hirayama, T. (1974): Theoretical model of flares and prominences I. Evaporating flare model.
Solar Physics 34, 323–338.
Hirshberg, J., Bame, S. J., Robbins, D. E. (1972): Solar flares and solar wind helium enrichments:
July 1965–July 1967. Solar Physics 23, 467–486.
Hirshberg, J., Colburn, D. S. (1969): Interplanetary field and geomagnetic variations – a unified
view. Planetary and Space Science 17, 1183–1206.
Hodgson, R. (1860): On a curious appearance seen in the Sun. Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society 20, 15–16. Reproduced in: Early Solar Physics (Ed. A. J. Meadows).
Oxford: Pergamon Press 1970, p. 185.
Hoeksema, J. T. (1994): The large-scale structure of the heliospheric current sheet during the
Ulysses epoch. Space Science Reviews 72, 137–148.
Hoeksema, J. T., Domingo, V., Fleck, B, Battrick, B. (Eds) (1995): SOHO-4: Helioseismology.
ESA SP-376.
Hoeksema, J. T., Scherrer, P. H. (1987): Rotation of the coronal magnetic field. Astrophysical
Journal 318, 428–436.
Hoeksema, J. T., Wilcox, J. M., Scherrer, P. H. (1982): Structure of the heliospheric current sheet in
the early portion of sunspot cycle 21. Journal of Geophysical Research 87A, 10, 331–10, 338.
Hofer, M. Y., et al. (2003): Transition to solar minimum at high solar latitudes: Energetic particles
from corotating interaction regions. Geophysical Research Letters 30(19), ULY 8–1.
Hollweg, J. V. (1972): Alfvénic motions in the solar atmosphere. Astrophysical Journal 177,
255–259.
Hollweg, J. V. (1973): Transverse Alfvén waves in the solar wind. Wave pressure, Poynting flux,
and angular momentum. Journal of Geophysical Research 78, 3643–3652.
Hollweg, J. V. (1975): Waves and instabilities in the solar wind. Reviews of Geophysics 13,
263–289.
Hollweg, J. V. (1978): Some physical processes in the solar wind. Reviews of Geophysics 16,
689–720.
Hollweg, J. V. (1984): Resonances of coronal loops. Astrophysical Journal 277, 392–403.
Hollweg, J. V. (1986): Transition region, corona and solar wind in coronal holes. Journal of
Geophysical Research 91, 4111.
Hollweg, J. V. (1990): MHD waves on solar magnetic flux tubes – tutorial review. In: Physics of
Magnetic Flux Ropes. Geophysical Monograph 58 (Eds. C. T. Russell, E. R. Priest and L. C.
Lee). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union 1990, pp. 23–31.
Hollweg, J. V. (2006): The solar wind: then and now. Recurrent magnetic storms: Co-rotating
solar wind streams. Geophysical Monograph Series 167, 19–30.
Hollweg, J. V., et al. (1982): Possible evidence for coronal Alfvén waves. Journal of Geophysical
Research 97, 1–8.
Hollweg, J. V., Isenberg, P. A. (2002): Generation of the fast solar wind: a review with emphasis
on the resonant cyclotron interaction. Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 107,
A7, 1147, SSH 12–1.
Hollweg, J. V., Johnson, W. (1988): Transition regions, corona, and solar wind in coronal holes:
some two-fluid models. Journal of Geophysical Research 87, 1.
Holman, G. D. (2005): Energetic electrons in solar flares as viewed in X-rays. Advances in Space
Research 35, 1669–1674.
Holzer, T. E. (1977): Effects of rapidly diverging flow, heat addition, and momentum addition in
the solar wind and stellar winds. Journal of Geophysical Research 82, 23–35.
Holzer, T. E. (1989): Interaction between the solar wind and the interstellar medium Annual
Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 27, 199–234.
Holzer, T. E., Axford, W. I. (1970): The theory of stellar winds and related flows. Annual Review
of Astronomy and Astrophysics 8, 31–60.
Holzer, T. E., Leer, E. (1997): Coronal hole structure and the high speed solar wind. In: The
Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum Activity. Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO Work-
shop. ESA SP-404. (Eds. O. Kjeldseth-Moe, A. Wilson) Noordwijk, The Netherlands: ESA
Publications Division 1997, pp. 65–74.
458 References

Hood, A. W., Priest, E. R. (1979): Kink instability of solar coronal loops as the cause of solar
flares. Solar Physics 64, 303–321.
Hood, L. L. (1987): Solar ultraviolet radiation induced variations in the stratosphere and
mesosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 876–888.
Horbury, T. S., Tsurutani, B. (2001): Ulysses measurements of waves, turbulence and discontinu-
ities. In: The Heliosphere Near Solar Minimum: The Ulysses perspective (Eds. A. Balogh, R.
G. Marsden and E. J. Smith). New York: Springer, Praxis 2001, pp. 167–227.
Hosaka, J., et al. (2006): Solar neutrino measurements in super-kamiokande-1. Physical Review D
73, 112001–112007.
Hovestadt, D., et al. (1978): The nuclear and ionic charge distribution particle experiments on
the ISEE-1 and ISEE-C spacecraft. IEEE Transactions Geoscience Electronics Vol. GE–16,
166–175.
Hovestadt, D., et al. (1981): Singly charged energetic helium emitted in solar flares. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 246, L81–L84.
Hovestadt, D., et al. (1984): Survey of He(+)/He(2+) abundance ratios in energetic particle
events. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 282, L39–L42.
Hovestadt, D., et al. (1995): CELIAS – Charge, Element and Isotope Analysis System for SOHO.
Solar Physics 162, 441–481.
Hovestadt, D., Vollmer, O., Gloeckler, G, Fan, C.-Y. (1973): Measurement of elemental abundance
of very low energy solar cosmic rays. Proceedings of the 13th International Cosmic Ray
Conference, 1498–1503.
Hovestadt, D., Vollmer, O., Gloeckler, G., Fan, C.-Y. (1973): Differential energy spectra of
low-energy (less than 8.5 MeV per nucleon) heavy cosmic rays during solar quiet times.
Physical Review Letters 31, 650–653.
Howard, R. (1974): Studies of solar magnetic fields. Solar Physics 38, 283–299.
Howard, R. (1979): Evidence for large-scale velocity features on the Sun. The Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 228, L45–L50.
Howard, R. (1985): Eight decades of solar research at Mount Wilson. Solar Physics 100, 171–187.
Howard, R. A., et al. (1982): The observation of a coronal transient directed at Earth. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 263, L101–L104.
Howard, R. A., et al. (1985): Coronal mass ejections: 1979–1981. Journal of Geophysical
Research 90, 8173–8191.
Howard, R. A., et al. (1997): Observations of CMEs from SOHO/LASCO. In: Coronal Mass
Ejections. Geophysical Monograph 99 (Eds. N. Crooker, J. A. Joselyn and J. Feynman).
Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union 1997, pp. 17–26.
Howard, R. A., et al. (2008): Sun Earth Connection Coronal and Heliospheric Investigation
(SECCHI). Space Science Reviews 136, Issue 1–4, 67–115.
Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J. (1974): Observation of sectored structure in the outer solar corona:
Correlation with interplanetary magnetic field. Solar Physics 37, 469–475.
Howard, R. A., Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Michels, D. J., Koomen, M. J. (1985): Coronal mass ejections
1979–1981. Journal of Geophysical Research 90, 8173–8191.
Howard, R., Labonte, B. J. (1980): The Sun is observed to be a torsional oscillator with a period
of 11 years. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 239, L33–L36.
Howard, R., Labonte, B. J. (1981): Surface magnetic fields during the solar activity cycle. Solar
Physics 74, 131–145.
Howe, R. (2003): The internal rotation of the Sun. In: Proceedings of SOHO 12/GONG +
2002. Local and Global Helioseismology: The Present and Future. ESA SP-517 (Ed. H.
Sawaya-Lacoste). Noordwijk, the Netherlands pp. 81–86.
Howe, R., et al. (2000a): Deeply penetrating banded zonal flows in the solar convection zone. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 533, L163–L166.
Howe, R., et al. (2000b): Dynamic variations at the base of the solar convections zone. Science
287, 2456–2460.
Howe, R., et al. (2004): Convection-zone dynamics from GONG and MDI, 1995–2004. In Helio-
and Asterosismology: Towards a Golden Future ESA SP-559 (Ed. D. Danesy). p. 472.
References 459

Howe, R., et al. (2006a): Large-scale zonal flows near the solar surface. Solar Physics 235, 1–15.
Howe, R., et al. (2006b): Solar convection zone dynamics: How sensitive are inversion to subtle
dynamo features? The Astrophysical Journal 649, 1155–1168.
Hoyle, F. (1949): Some Recent Researches in Solar Physics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge at
the University Press 1949.
Hoyle, F. (1958): Remarks on the computation of stellar evolution tracks. In: Stellar Populations
(Ed. J. K. O’CONNELL). Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, pp. 223–226.
Hoyle, F., Bates, D. R. (1948): The production of the E-layer. Terrestrial Magnetism and
Atmospheric Electricity 53, 51–62.
Hoyng, P., et al. (1981): Origin and location of the hard X-ray emission in a two-ribbon flare.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 246, L155–L159.
Hoyt, D. V, Eddy, J. A., Hudson, H. S. (1983): Sunspot areas and solar irradiance variations during
1980. Astrophysical Journal 275, 878–888.
Hoyt, D. V. et al. (1992): The Nimbus 7 solar total irradiance: a new algorithm for its derivation.
Journal of Geophysical Research 97, 51–63.
Hoyt, D. V., Schatten, K. H. (1993): A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations,
1700–1992. Journal of Geophysical Research 98, 18895–18906.
Hoyt, D. V., Schatten, K. H. (1997): The Role of the Sun in Climate Change. New York: Oxford
University Press 1997.
Hoyt, D. V., Schatten, K. H., Nesmes-Ribes, E. (1994): The one hundredth year of Rudolf Wolf’s
death: Do we have the correct reconstruction of solar activity? Geophysical Research Letters
21, 2067–2070.
Hsieh, K. C., Simpson, J. A. (1970): The relative abundances and energy spectra of 3 He and 4 He
from solar flares. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 162, L191–L196.
Hu, Q., et al. (2003): Double flux-rope magnetic cloud in the solar wind at 1 AU. Geophysical
Research Letters 30(7), 38–1.
Hu, Q., Smith, C. W., Ness, N. F., Skoug, R. M. (2004): Multiple flux rope magnetic ejecta in the
solar wind. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, A03102.
Hudson, H. S. (1972): Thick-target processes and white-light flares. Solar Physics 24, 414–428.
Hudson, H. S. (1987): Solar flare discovery. Solar Physics 113, 1–12.
Hudson, H. S. (1988): Observed variability of the solar luminosity. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 26, 473–508.
Hudson, H. S. (1991): Solar flares, microflares, nanoflares and coronal heating. Solar Physics 133,
367–369.
Hudson, H. S. (1997): The solar antecedents of geomagnetic storms. In: Magnetic Storms (Eds.
B. T. Tsurutani, W. D. Gonzales and Y. Kamide). Washington, DC: American Geophysical
Union 1997, 37–44.
Hudson, H. S., Acton, L. W., Freeland, S. L. (1996): A long-duration solar flare with mass ejection
and global consequences. Astrophysical Journal 470, 629–635.
Hudson, H. S., Bougeret, J.-L., Burkepile, J. (2006a): Coronal mass ejections: Overview of
observations. Space Science Reviews, 123, 13–30.
Hudson, H. S., Cliver, E.W, (2001): Observing coronal mass ejections without coronagraphs.
Journal of Geophysical Research 106(A11), 251199–25214.
Hudson, H. S., Silva, S., Woodard, M. (1982): The effect of sunspots on solar irradiance. Solar
Physics 76, 211–219.
Hudson, H. S., et al. (1994): Impulsive behavior in solar soft X-radiation. Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 422, L25–L27.
Hudson, H. S., et al. (1998): X-ray coronal changes during halo CMEs. Geophysical Research
Letters 25, 2481–2484.
Hudson, H. S., Haisch, B. M., Strong, K. T. (1995): Comment on ‘The solar flare myth’ by
J. T. Gosling. Journal of Geophysical Research 100, 3473–3477.
Hudson, H. S., Ryan, J. (1995): High-energy particles in solar flares. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 33, 239–282.
460 References

Hudson, H. S., Warmuth, A. (2004): Coronal loop oscillations and flare shock waves. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 614, L85–L88.
Hudson, H. S., Webb, D. F. (1997): Soft X-ray signatures of coronal ejections. In: Coronal Mass
Ejections. Geophysical Monograph 99 (Eds. N. Crooker, J. A. Joselyn and J. Feynman).
Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union 1997, pp. 27–38.
Hudson, H. S., Wolfson, C. J., and Metcalf, T. R. (2006b): White-light flares: A TRACE/RHESSI
overview. Solar Physics 234, 79–93.
Hudson, M. K., et al. (2004): 3D modeling of shock-induced trapping of solar energetic particles
in the Earth’s magnetosphere. Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics 66, 1389–1397.
Hufbauer, K. (1991): Exploring the Sun: Solar Science Since Galileo. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns
Hopkins University Press 1991.
Hulburt, E. O. (1938): Photoelectric ionization in the ionosphere. Physical Review 53, 344–351.
Humboldt, F. W. H. A. von (1799–1804): Voyage aux régions équinoxiales du Nouveau Continent,
fait en 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, et 1804 par Al [exandre] de Humboldt et A [imé]
Bonpland. Paris, 1805–1834.
Humboldt, F. W. H. A. Von (1845, 1847): Kosmos. Cotta, Stuttgart 1845, 1847.
Hundhausen, A. J. (1972a): Coronal Expansion and Solar Wind. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hundhausen, A. J. (1972b): Interplanetary shock waves and the structure of solar wind distur-
bances. In: Solar Wind: NASA SP-308 (Eds. C. P. Sonett, P. J. Coleman and J. M. Wilcox).
Washington: NASA 1972, pp. 393–417.
Hundhausen, A. J. (1973): Nonlinear model of high-speed solar wind streams. Journal of
Geophysical Research 78, 1528–1542.
Hundhausen, A. J. (1977): An interplanetary view of coronal holes. In: Coronal Holes and High
Speed Wind Streams (Ed. J. Zirker). Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press 1977,
pp. 225–329.
Hundhausen, A. J. (1987): The origin and propagation of coronal mass ejections. In: Solar Wind
Six (Eds. V. J. Pizzo, T. Holzer and D. G. Sime). Boulder, Colorado: National Center for
Atmospheric Research 1987, p. 181.
Hundhausen, A. J. (1993): Sizes and locations of coronal mass ejections: SMM observations from
1980 and 1984–1989. Journal of Geophysical Research 98, 13177–13200.
Hundhausen, A. J. (1997): An introduction. In: Coronal Mass Ejections: Geophysical Monograph
99 (Eds. N. Crooker, J. A. Joselyn and J. Feynman). Washington: American Geophysical
Union, pp. 1–7.
Hundhausen, A. J. (1997): Coronal mass ejections. In: Cosmic Winds and the Heliosphere (Eds.
J. R. Jokipii, C. P. Sonett and M. S. Giampapa). Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press
1997, pp. 259–296.
Hundhausen, A. J., Bame, S. J., Montgomery, M. D. (1970): Large-scale characteristics of
flare-associated solar wind disturbances. Journal of Geophysical Research 75, 4631–4642.
Hundhausen, A. J., Burkepile, J. T., St. Cyr, O. C. (1994): Speeds of coronal mass ejections: SMM
observations from 1980 and 1984–1989. Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 6543–6552.
Hundhausen, A. J., Gosling, J. T. (1976): Solar wind structure at large heliocentric distances: an
interpretation of Pioneer 10 observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 81, 1436–1440.
Hundhausen, A. J., Stanger, A. L., Serbicki, S. A. (1994): Mass and energy contents of coronal
mass ejections: SMM results from 1980 and 1984–1989. In: Solar Dynamical Phenomena
and Solar Wind Consequences. Proceedings of the Third SOHO Workshop. ESA SP-373.
Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division, pp. 409–412.
Hunt, J. J., Domingo, V. (Eds., 1994): SOHO-3: Solar Dynamic Phenomena and Solar Wind
Consequences. ESA SP-373 1994.
Hurford, G. J., et al. (2002): The RHESSI imaging concept. Solar Physics 210, 61–86.
Hurford, G. J., et al. (2003): First gamma-ray images of a solar flare. Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 595, L77–L80.
Hurford, G. J., et al. (2006): Gamma-ray imaging of the 2003 October/November solar flares.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 644, L93–L96.
Hurford, G. J., Mewaldt, R. A., Stone, E. C., Vogt, R. E. (1975): Enrichment of heavy nuclei in
He-3-rich flares. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 201, L95–L97.
References 461

Hurley, K., et al. (1992): The solar X-ray/cosmic gamma-ray burst experiment aboard Ulysses.
Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement 92(2), 401–410.
Huttunen, E. C., et al. (2008): STEREO and Wind observations of a magnetic cloud on May 21–23,
2007. Astrophysical Journal – submitted.
Huttunen, K. E. J., et al. (2002): April 2000 magnetic storm: Solar wind driver and magnetospheric
response. Journal of Geophysical Research 107, 1440.
Huttunen, K. E. J., et al. (2005): Properties and geoeffectiveness of magnetic clouds in the rising,
maximum and early declining phases of solar cycle 23. Annales Geophysicae 23, 625–641.
Huttunen, K. E. J., Koskinen, H. E. J. (2004): Importance of post-shock streams and sheath region
as drivers of intense magnetospheric storms and high-latitude activity. Annales Geophysicae
22, 1729–1738.

Ichimoto, K., et al. (2007a): Twisting motions of sunspot penumbral filaments. Science 318,
1597–1599.
Iichimoto, K., et al. (2007b): Fine-scale structures of the Evershed effect observed by the Solar
Optical Telescope aboard Hinode. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59,
S593–S599.
Illing, R. M. E., Hundhausen, A. J. (1983): Possible observation of a disconnected magnetic
structure in a coronal transient. Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 10210–10214.
Imada, S., et al. (2007): Discovery of a temperature-dependent upflow in the plage region during
a gradual phase of the X-class flare. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59,
S793–S799.
Imbrie, J. (1982): Astronomical theory of the Pleistocene ice ages. A brief historical. Icarus 50,
408–432.
Imbrie, J., Imbrie, K. P. (1979): Ice ages – Solving the Mystery. Short Hills, New Jersey: Enslow
Publishers 1979.
Imbrie, J., Imbrie, J. Z. (1980): Modeling the climatic response to orbital variations. Science 207,
943–953.
Imbrie, J., Imbrie, K. P. (1986): Ice ages – Solving the Mystery. Second Edition. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1986.
Imbrie, J., et al. (1984): The orbital theory of Pleistocene climate: Support from a revised
chronology of the marine δ18 O record. In: Milankovitch and Climate, Part 1 (Eds.L. Berger
et al.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel 1984, pp. 269–305.
Imbrie, J., et al. (1992): On the structure and origin of major glaciation cycles 1. Linear responses
to Milankovich forcing. Paleoceanography 7, 701–738.
Innes, D. E, Inhester, B., Axford, W. I., Wilhelm, K. (1997): Bi-directional plasma jets produced
by magnetic reconnection on the Sun. Nature 386, 811–813.
Insley, J. E., More, V., Harrison, R. A. (1995): The differential rotation of the corona as indicated
by coronal holes. Solar Physics 160, 1–18.
Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (2001, 2007): The Scientific Basis. Contribution of
Working Group 1 to the Third and the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. New York: Cambridge University Press 2001, 2007.
Intriligator, D. S., et al. (2005): From the Sun to the outer heliosphere: Modeling and analyses
of the interplanetary propagation of the October/November (Halloween) 2003 solar events.
Journal of Geophysical Research 110, A09S10.
Ionson, J. A. (1978): Resonant absorption of Alfvénic surface waves and the heating of solar
coronal loops. Astrophysical Journal 226, 650–673.
Ireland, J., Will-Davey, M., Walsh, R. W. (1999): Coronal heating events in high cadence TRACE
data. Solar Physics 190, 207–232.
462 References

Isenberg, P. A. (1983): Acceleration of heavy ions in the solar wind. In: Solar Wind Five (Ed.
M. Neugebauer). Washington: NASA, pp. 655.
Isenberg, P. A. (1990): Investigations of a turbulent-driven solar wind model. Journal of
Geophysical Research 95, 6437.
Isenberg, P. A. (1991): The solar wind. Geomagnetism 4, 1–85.
Isenberg, P. A. (2001): Heating of coronal holes and generation of the solar wind by ion-cyclotron
resonance. Space Science Reviews 95, 119.
Isenberg, P. A. (2003): The kinetic shell model of coronal heating and acceleration by ion
cyclotron waves: 3. The proton halo and dispersive waves. Journal of Geophysical Research
109, A03101.
Isenberg, P. A., Forbes, T. G. (1993): Catastrophic evolution of a force-free flux rope: A model for
eruptive flares. Astrophysical Journal 417, 368–386.
Isenberg, P. A., Forbes, T. G. (2007): A three-dimensional line-tied magnetic filed model for solar
eruptions. Astrophysics Journal 670, 1453–1466.
Isobe, H., et al. (2007): Flare ribbons observed with G-band and Fe I 6302 Å filters of the Solar
Optical Telescope on board Hinode. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59,
S807–S813.
Izmodenov, V., Gloeckler, G., Malama, Y. (2003): When will Voyager 1 and 2 cross the termination
shock? Geophysical Research Letters 30(7) 3–1.

Jackman, C. H., et al. (2005): Neutral atmospheric influences of the solar proton events in
October–November 2003. Journal of Geophysical Research 110, 9.
James, I. N., James, P. M. (1989): Ultra-low-frequency variability in a simple atmospheric
circulation model. Nature 342, 53–55.
Janssen, P. J. C. (1872): Observations of the solar eclipse of 12 December 1871. Nature 5, 249.
Reproduced In: Early Solar Physics (Ed. A. J. Meadows). New York: Pergamon Press 1970,
pp. 223–224.
Jefferies, S. M., et al. (2006): Magnetoacoustic portals and the basal heating of the solar
chromosphere. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 648, L151–L155.
Jensen, J. M., Pijpers, F. P., Thompson, M. J. (2006): Time-distance measurements of cross-
correlation asymmetries around NOAA AR 10486. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 648,
L75–L78.
Jing, J., et al. (2006): The statistical relationship between the photospheric magnetic parameters
and the flare productivity of active regions. The Astrophysical Journal 38, 259.
Jockers, K. (1970): Solar wind models based on exospheric theory. Astronomy and Astrophysics
6, 215–239.
Johnson, T. H. (1938): Nature of primary cosmic radiation. Physical Review 54, 385–387.
Jokipii, J. R. (1966): Cosmic-ray propagation I. Charged particles in a random magnetic field.
Astrophysical Journal, 146, 480.
Jokipii, J. R. (1971): Propagation of cosmic rays in the solar wind. Review of Geophysics and
Space Physics 9, 27–87.
Jokipii, J. R., Davis, L. Jr. (1969): Long-wavelength turbulence and the heating of the solar wind.
The Astrophysical Journal 156, 1101–1106.
Jokipii, J. R., et al. (1995): Interpretation and consequences of large-scale magnetic variances
observed at high heliographic latitude. Geophysical Research Letters 22(23), 3385–3388.
Jokipii, J. R., Giacalone, J. (2004): Radial streaming anisotropies of charged particles accelerated
at the solar wind termination shock. The Astrophysical Journal 605, L145–L148.
References 463

Jokipii, J. R., Giacalone, J., Kóta, J. (2004): Transverse streaming anisotropies of charged
particles accelerated at the solar wind termination shock. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 611,
L141–L144.
Jokipii, J. R., Kóta, J. (1989): The polar heliospheric magnetic field. Geophysical Research Letters
16, 1–4.
Jokipii, J. R., Levy, E. H. (1977): Effects of particle drifts on the solar modulation of galactic
cosmic rays. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 213, L85–L88.
Jokipii, J. R., Mc Donald, F. B. (1995): Quest for the limits of the heliosphere. Scientific American
272, 58–63 – April.
Jokipii, J. R., Sonett, C. P., Giampapa, M. S. (Eds., 1997): Cosmic Winds and the Heliosphere.
Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press 1997.
Jones, G. H., Balogh, A. (2003): The global heliospheric magnetic field polarity distribution as
seen at Ulysses. Annales Geophysicae 21(6), 1377–1382.
Jones, P. D., Wigley, T. M. L., Wright, P. B. (1986): Global temperature variations between 1861
and 1984. Nature 322, 430–434.
Joselyn, J. A., McIntosh, P. S. (1981): Disappearing solar filaments: a useful predictor of
geomagnetic activity. Journal of Geophysical Research 86, 4555–4564.
Jouzel, J., et al. (1987): Vostok ice core: A continuous isotope temperature record over the last
climatic cycle (160,000 years). Nature 329, 402–408.
Jouzel, J., et al. (1993): Extending the Vostok ice core record of palaeoclimate to the penultimate
glacial period. Nature 364, 407–412.
Joy, A. H., Humason, M. L. (1949): Observations of the faint dwarf star L726–8. Publications of
the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 61, 133–134.
Juckett, D. A. (2006): Long period (0.9–5.5 year) oscillations in surface spherical harmonics of
sunspot longitudinal distributions. Solar Physics 237, 351–364.
Judge, P. G., Tarbell, T. D., Klaus, W. (2001): A study of chromospheric oscillations using the
SOHO and TRACE spacecraft. The Astrophysical Journal 554, 424–444.

Kahler, S. W. (1977): The morphological and statistical properties of solar X-ray events with long
decay times. The Astrophysical Journal 214, 891–897.
Kahler, S. W. (1982): The role of the big flare syndrome in correlations of solar energetic proton
fluxes and associated microwave burst parameters. Journal of Geophysical Research 87,
3439–3448.
Kahler, S. W. (1987): Coronal mass ejections. Reviews of Geophysics 25, 663–675.
Kahler, S. W. (1992): Solar flares and coronal mass ejections. Annual Review of Astronomy and
Astrophysics 30, 113–141.
Kahler, S. W. (2001): The correlation between solar energetic particle peak intensities and speeds
of coronal mass ejections: Effects of ambient particle intensities and energy spectra. Journal
of Geophysical Research 106, 20947–20956.
Kahler, S.W. (2007): Solar sources of heliospheric energetic events: shocks or flares? Space
Science Reviews 129, 359–390.
Kahler, S. W., Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Liggett, M. (1989): Coronal mass ejections and associated X-ray
flare durations. Astrophysical Journal 344, 1026–1033.
Kahler, S. W., et al. (1984): Associations between coronal mass ejections and solar energetic
proton events. Journal of Geophysical Research 89, 9683–9693.
Kahler, S. W., et al. (1986): Solar filament eruptions and energetic particle events. Astrophysical
Journal 302, 504–510.
Kahn, F. D. (1961): Sound waves trapped in the solar atmosphere. Astrophysical Journal 134,
343–346.
464 References

Kaiser, M. L. (2008): The STEREO mission: An introduction. Space Science Reviews, 136, No.
1–4, 5–16.
Kakinuma, T. (1977): Observations of interplanetary scintillation: solar wind velocity measure-
ments. In: Study of Traveling Interplanetary Phenomena (Eds. M. A. Shea, D. F. Smart and
S. T. Wu). Dordrecht: D. Reidel 1977, pp. 101–118.
Kalkofen, W. (2008): Heating and dynamics of the quiet chromosphere. Proceedings of the
International Astronomical Union Symposium 247, 93–98.
Kallenbach, R., et al. (1998): Fractionation of Si, Ne, and Mg isotopes in the solar wind as
measured by Soho/Celias/Mtof. Space Science Reviews 85, 357–370.
Kallenbach, R., Geiss, J., Gloeckler, G., Von Steiger, R. (2000): Pick-up ion measurements in the
heliosphere – A review. Astrophysics and Space Science 274, 97–114.
Kallenrode, M.-B. (1998): Space Physics. An Introduction to Plasmas and Particles in the
Heliosphere and Magnetospheres. New York: Springer-Verlag 1998.
Kamio, S., et al. (2007): Velocity structure of jets in a coronal hole. Publications of the
Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S757–S762.
Kanbach, G., et al. (1993): Detection of a long-duration solar gamma-ray flare on June 11,
1991 with EGRET on COMPTON-GRO. Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series 97,
349–353.
Kane, R. P. (2006): The idea of space weather – a historical perspective. Advances in Space
Research 37, 1261–1264.
Kane, S. R. (1974): Impulsive (flash) phase of solar flares: Hard X-ray, microwave, EUV and
optical :emissions. In: Coronal Disturbances. Proceedings of IAU Symposium No. 57 (Ed.
G. Newkirk, Jr.) Boston: D. Reidel 1974, pp. 105–141.
Kane, S. R. (Ed., 1975): Solar Gamma-, X-, and EUV Radiation. Proceedings of IAU Symposium
No. 68. Boston: D. Reidel 1975.
Kane, S. R., et al. (1980): Impulsive phase of solar flares. In: Solar Flares: A Monograph from
Skylab Solar Workshop II (Ed. P. A. Sturrock). Boulder, Colorado: Colorado Associated
University Press 1980, pp. 187–229.
Kane, S. R., et al. (1986): Rapid acceleration of energetic particles in the 1982 February 8 solar
flare. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 300, L95–L98.
Kane, S. R., et al. (1995): Energy release and dissipation during giant solar flares. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 446, L47–L50.
Kano, R., Tsuneta, S. (1995): Scaling law of solar coronal loops obtained with Yohkoh.
Astrophysical Journal 454, 934–944.
Kano, R., Tsuneta, S. (1996): Temperature distributions and energy scaling law of solar coronal
loops obtained with Yohkoh. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 48, 535–543.
Kappenman, J. G. (1996): Geomagnetic storms and their impact on power systems. IEEE Power
Engineering Review 16, 5–8.
Karlén, W., Kuylenstierna, J. (1996): Evidence from the Scandinavian tree lines since the last
ice age. In: The Global Warming Debate (Ed. J. Emsley). London: European Science and
Environment Forum 1996, pp. 192–204.
Karpen, J. T., Antiochos, S. K., Klimchuk, J. A. (2006): The origin of high speed motions and
threads in prominences. Astrophysical Journal 637, 531–540.
Karpen, J. T., et al. (1998): Dynamic responses to magnetic reconnection in solar arcades.
Astrophysical Journal 495, 491.
Kasting, J. F. (1989): Long-term stability of the Earth’s climate. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclima-
tology, Palaeoecology 75, 83–95.
Kasting, J. F., Ackerman, T. P. (1986): Climatic consequences of very high carbon dioxide levels
in Earth’s early atmosphere. Science 234, 1383–1385.
Kasting, J. F., Catling, D. (2003): Evolution of a habitable planet. Annual Reviews of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 41, 429–463.
Kasting, J. F., Grinspoon, D. H. (1991): The faint young sun problem. In: The Sun in Time (Eds.
C. P. Sonett, M. S. Giampapa and M. S. Matthews). Tucson, Arizona: The University of
Arizona Press 1991, pp. 447–462.
References 465

Kasting, J. F., Toon, O. B. (1989): Climate evolution on the terrestrial planets. In: Origin and
Evolution of Planetary and Satellite Atmospheres, (Eds.S. K. Alrya, J. B. Pollack, M. S.
Matthews). Tucson, University of Arizona Press, pp. 423–449.
Katsukawa, Y., et al. (2007a): Formation process of a light bridge revealed with the Hinode Solar
Optical Telescope. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S577–S584.
Katsukawa, Y., et al. (2007b): Small-scale jetlike features in penumbral chromospheres. Science
318, 1594–1596.
Katsukawa, Y., Tsuneta, S. (2005): Magnetic properties at footpoints of hot and cool loops.
Astrophysical Journal 621, 498–511.
Kawabata, K. (1960): The relationship between post-burst increases of solar microwave radiation
and sudden ionospheric disturbances. Report of Ionosphere and Space Research in Japan 14,
405–426.
Keating, G. M., et al. (1986): Detection of stratospheric HNO3 and NO2 response to short-term
solar ultraviolet variability. Nature 322, 43–46.
Keating, G. M., et al. (1987): Response of middle atmosphere to short-term ultraviolet variations
1. Observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 889–902.
Keeling, C. D. (1960): The concentration and isotopic abundance of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. Tellus 12, 200–203.
Kellogg, P. J. (1962): Flow of plasma around the earth. Journal of Geophysical Research 67,
3805–3811.
Kelly, P. M. (1977): Solar influence on North Atlantic mean sea level pressure. Nature 269,
320–322.
Kelly, P. M., Wigley, T. M. L. (1990): The influence of solar forcing trends on global mean
temperature since 1861. Nature 347, 460–462.
Kelly, P. M., Wigley, T. M. L. (1992): Solar cycle length, greenhouse forcing and global climate.
Nature 360, 328–330.
Kelvin, Lord: see Thomson, W. (Baron Kelvin) (1892): Presidential address to the Royal Society
on November 30, 1892. In: Popular Lectures and Addresses by Sir William Thomson Baron
Kelvin. Volume II. Geology and General Physics. London: Macmillan and Company 1894,
508–529.
Kennelly, A. E. (1902): On the elevation of the electrically-conducting strata in the Earth’s
atmosphere. Electrical World and Engineer 39, 473.
Keppler, E., et al. (1992): The Ulysses energetic particle composition experiment EPAC.
Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement 92(2), 317–331.
Kiepenheuer, K. O. (1950): Cosmic rays and radio emission from our galaxy. Physical Review
79, 738–739. Reproduced In: A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics 1900–1975 (Eds.
K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1977,
pp. 677–679.
Kim, S., et al. (2007): Two-step reconnections in a C3.3 flare and its preflare activity observed by
Hinode XRT. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S831–S836.
Kim, Y.-H., et al. (2007): Small-scale X-ray/EUV jets seen in Hinode XRT and TRACE.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S763–S769.
King, D. B., et al. (2003): Propagating EUV disturbances in the solar corona: Twowavelength
observations. Astronomy and Astrophysics 404, L1–L4.
Kirchhoff, G. (1861): On the chemical analysis of the solar atmosphere. Philosophical Magazine
and Journal of Science 21, 185–188. Reproduced in: Early Solar Physics (Ed. A. J. Meadows).
New York: Pergamon Press 1970, pp. 103–106.
Kirchhoff, G., Bunsen, R. (1860): Chemical analysis of spectrum – observations. Philosophical
Magazine and Journal of Science 20, 89–109, 22, 329–249, 498–510 (1861).
Kitai, R., et al. (2007): Umbral fine structures in sunspots observed with Hinode Solar Optical
Telescope. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S585–S591.
Kivelson, M. G., Russell, C. T. (Eds., 1997):Introduction to Space Physics. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press 1997.
466 References

Kjeldseth-Moe, O., Brekke, P. (1998): Time variability of active region loops observed with the
coronal diagnostic spectrometer on SOHO. Solar Physics 182, 73–95.
Kjeldseth-Moe, O., Wilson, A. (Eds., 1997): SOHO-5: The Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum
Activity. ESA SP-404 Noordwijk, Netherlands 1997.
Klecker, B., et al. (2006): Energetic particle observations. Space Science Reviews 123, 217–250.
Klecker, B., Möbius, E., Popecki, M. A. (2007): Ionic charge states of solar energetic particles.
A clue to the source. Space Science Reviews 130, 273–282.
Kleim, B., Dammasch, J. E., Curdt, W., Wilhelm, K. (2002): Correlated dynamics of hot and cool
plasmas in the main phase of a solar flare. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 568, L61–L65.
Kleim, B., Titov, V. S., Törok, T. (2003): Formation of current sheets and sigmoidal structure by
the kink instability of a magnetic loop. Astronomy and Astrophysics 413, L23–L26.
Klein, J., et al. (1980): Radiocarbon concentrations in the atmosphere: 8000 year record of
variations in tree rings. Radiocarbon 22, 950–961.
Klein, K.-L. (2003): Introduction. In: Energy Conversion and Particle Acceleration in the Solar
Corona, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 612 (Ed. K.-L. Klein). New York: Springer-Verlag 2003,
pp. 1–6.
Klein, L. W., Burlaga, L. F. (1982): Interplanetary magnetic clouds at 1 AU. Journal of
Geophysical Research 87, 613–624.
Klimchuk, J. A. (2000): Cross-sectional properties of coronal loops. Solar Physics 193, 53–75.
Klimchuk, J. A. (2001): Theory of coronal mass ejections. Space Weather, Geophysical
Monograph 125, 143–157.
Klimchuk, J. A. (2006): On solving the coronal heating problem. Solar Physics 234, 41–77.
Klimchuk, J. A., Cargill, P. J. (2001): Spectroscopic diagnostics of nanoflare- heated loops. The
Astrophysical Journal 553, 440–448.
Klimchuk, J. A., Gary, D. E. (1995): A comparison of active region temperatures and emission
measures observed in soft X-rays and microwaves and implications for coronal heating. The
Astrophysical Journal 448, 925–937.
Klimchuk, J. A., Porter, L. J. (1995): Scaling of heating rates in solar coronal loops. Nature 377,
131–133.
Klimchuk, J. A., Tanner, S. E. M., De Moortel, I. (2004): Coronal seismology and the propagation
of acoustic waves along coronal loops. Astrophysical Journal 616, 1232–1241.
Ko, Y.-K., et al. (1997): An empirical study of the electron temperature and heavy ion velocities
in the south polar coronal hole. Solar Physics 171, 345–361.
Ko, Y.-K., et al. (2003): Dynamical and physical properties of a post-coronal mass ejection current
sheet. Astrophysical Journal 594, 1068–1084.
Kocharov, L., Torsti, J. (2003): The origin of high-energy 3 He-rich solar particle events. The
Astrophysical Journal 586, 1430–1435.
Kohl, J. L., Cranmer, S. R. (Eds., 1999): SOHO-7: Coronal holes and solar wind acceleration.
Space Science Reviews 87 (1–2), 1–368.
Kohl, J. L., et al. (1980): Measurement of coronal temperatures from 1.5 to 3 solar radii. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 241, L117–L121.
Kohl, J. L., et al. (1995): Spartan 201 coronal spectroscopy during the polar passes of Ulysses.
Space Science Reviews 72, 29–38.
Kohl, J. L., et al. (1995): The Ultraviolet Coronagraph Spectrometer for the Solar and Heliospheric
Observatory. Solar Physics 162, 313–356.
Kohl, J. L., et al. (1997): First results from the SOHO ultraviolet coronagraph spectrometer.
Solar Physics 175, 613–644. Reprinted in: The First Results from SOHO (Eds. B. Fleck and
Z. Svestka). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997, pp. 613–644.
Kohl, J. L., et al. (1998): UVCS/SOHO empirical determinations of anisotropic velocity
distributions in the solar corona. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 501, L127–L131.
Kohl, J. L., et al. (1999): EUV spectral line profiles in polar coronal holes from 1.3 to 3.0 R solar.
The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 510, L59–L62.
References 467

Kohl, J. L., Noci, G., Cranmer, R., Raymond, J. C. (2006): Ultraviolet spectroscopy of the
extended solar corona. Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 13, 31–157.
Kohl, J. L., Withbroe, G. L. (1982): EUV spectroscopic plasma diagnostics for the solar wind
acceleration region. Astrophysical Journal 256, 263–270.
Kojima, M., et al. (2004): Fast solar wind after the rapid acceleration. Journal of Geophysical
Research 109(A4), A04103.
Kojima, M., Kakinuma, T. (1987): Solar cycle evolution of solar wind speed structure between
1973 and 1985 observed with the interplanetary scintillation method. Journal of Geophysical
Research 92, 7269–7279.
Kolhörster, W. (1913): Messungen der durchdringenden Strahlung im Freiballon im gröβeren
Höhen. Physikalishe Zeitschrift 14, 1153–1156.
Kolmogoroff, A. N. (1941a): Dissipation of energy in the locally isotropic turbulence. Compt.
Rend (Dokl.) Acad. Sci. (SSSR) 32, 16.
Kolmogoroff, A. N. (1941b): The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluids for
very large Reynolds numbers. Compt. Rend (Dokl.) Acad. Sci (SSSR) 30, 301.
Kominz, M. A., Pisias, N. G. (1979): Pleistocene climate: Deterministic or stochastic. Science
204, 171–173.
Komm, R., et al. (2004): Solar subsurface fluid dynamics descriptors derived from Global
Oscillation Network Group and Michelson Doppler Imager data. Astrophysical Journal 605,
554–567.
Komm, R., et al. (2007): Divergence and vorticity of solar subsurface flows derived from
ring-diagram analysis of MDI and GONG data. The Astrophysical Journal 667, 571–584.
Kopp, G., Lawrence, G., Rottman, G. (2005): The Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM): Science results.
Solar Physics 230, 129–139.
Kopp, R. A., Holzer, T. E. (1976): Dynamics of coronal hole regions 1.: Steady polytropic flows
with multiple critical points. Solar Physics 49, 43–56.
Kopp, R. A., Kuperus, M. (1968): Magnetic fields and the temperature structure of the
chromosphere-corona interface. Solar Physics 4, 212–223.
Kopp, R. A., Pneuman, G. W. (1976): Magnetic reconnection in the corona and the loop
prominence phenomenon. Solar Physics 50, 85–98.
Korzennik, S., Wilson, A. (Eds., 1998): SOHO-6/GONG 98: Structure and Dynamics of the
Interior of the Sun and Sun-like Stars. ESA SP-418 1998.
Kosovichev, A. G., Duvall, T. L. Jr. (2006): Active region dynamics. Space Science Reviews 124,
1–12. Also in Solar Dynamics and Its Effects on the Heliosphere and Earth, Space Science
Series of ISSI Volume 22. New York: Springer 2007, pp. 1–12.
Kosovichev, A. G., Duvall, T. L. Jr., Scherrer, P. H. (2000): Time-distance inversion methods and
results – invited review. Solar Physics 192, 159–176.
Kosovichev, A. G., et al. (1997): Structure and rotation of the solar interior: Initial results from
the MDI medium-L program. Solar Physics 170, 43–61. Reprinted in: The First Results From
SOHO (Eds. B. Fleck and Z. Svestka). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997, pp. 43–61.
Kosovichev, A. G., Schou, J. (1997): Detection of zonal shear flows beneath the Sun’s surface
from f -mode frequency splitting. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 482, L207–L210.
Kosovichev, A. G., Zharkova, V. V. (1998): X-ray flare quakes the Sun. Nature 393, 317–318.
Kosugi, T., et al. (1991): The Hard X-ray Telescope (HXT) for the SOLAR-A mission. Solar
Physics 136, 17–36.
Kosugi, T., et al. (1992): The Hard X-ray Telescope (HXT) onboard Yohkoh: Its performance and
some initial results. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 44, L45–L49.
Kosugi, T., et al. (2007a): The Hinode (Solar-B) mission: An overview. Solar Physics 243, 3–17.
Kotoku, J., et al. (2007b): Magnetic feature and morphological study of X-ray bright points with
Hinode. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S735–S743.
Koutchmy, S., et al. (2004): The August 11th, 1999 CME. Astronomy and Astrophysics 420,
709–718.
Koutchmy, S., Livshits, M. (1992): Coronal streamers. Space Science Reviews 61, 393–417.
468 References

Kozlovsky, B., Ramaty, R. (1977): Narrow lines from alpha-alpha reactions. Astrophysical Letters
19, 19–24.
Krall, J., et al. (2001): Erupting solar magnetic flux ropes: Theory and observation. Astrophysical
Journal 562, 1045–1057.
Krall, J., et al. (2006): Flux rope model of the 2003 October 28–30 coronal mass ejection and
interplanetary coronal mass ejections. Astrophysical Journal 642, 541–553.
Kreplin, R. W. (1961): Solar X-rays. Annales de Géophysique 17, 151–161.
Kreplin, R. W., Chubb, T. A., Friedman, H. (1962): X-ray and Lyman-alpha emission from the
Sun as measured from the Nrl Sr-1 satellite. Journal of Geophysical Research 67, 2231–2253.
Krieger, A. S., et al. (1974): X-ray observations of coronal holes and their relation to high velocity
solar wind streams. In: Solar Wind Three (Ed. C. T. Russell). Los Angeles, California: Institute
of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, UCLA 1974, 132–139.
Krieger, A. S., Timothy, A. F., Roelof, E. C. (1973): A coronal hole and its identification as the
source of a high velocity solar wind stream. Solar Physics 29, 505–525.
Krijger, J. M., et al. (2001): Dynamics of the solar chromosphere. III. Ultraviolet brightness
oscillations from TRACE. Astronomy and Astrophysics 379, 1052–1082.
Krimigis, S. M., et al. (2003): Voyager 1 exited the solar wind at a distance of approximately 85
AU from the Sun. Nature 426, 45–48.
Krucker, S., Benz, A. O. (1998): Energy distribution of heating processes in the quiet solar corona.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 501, L213–L216.
Krucker, S., Benz, A. O., Bastian, T. S., Acton, L. W. (1997): X-ray network flares of the quiet
sun. Astrophysical Journal 488, 499–505.
Krucker, S., et al. (2002): Hard X-ray microflares down to 3 keV. Solar Physics 210, 445–456.
Krucker, S., Hurford, G. J., Lin, R. P. (2003): Hard X-ray source motions in the 2002 July 23
gamma-ray flare. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 595, L103–L106.
Krucker, S., Larson, D. E., Lin, R. P., Thompson, B. J. (1999): On the origin of impulsive electron
events observed at 1 AU. The Astrophysical Journal 519, 864–875.
Krucker, S., Lin, R. P. (2000): Two classes of solar proton events derived from onset time analysis.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 542, L61–L64.
Krüger, A. (1979): Introduction to Solar Radio Astronomy and Radio Physics. Dordrecht D.
Reidel 1979.
Kubo, M., et al. (2007a): Hinode observations of a vector magnetic field change associated
with a flare on 2006 December 13. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59,
S779–S784.
Kubo, M., et al. (2007b): Formation of moving magnetic features and penumbral magnetic fields
with Hinode/SOT. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S607–S612.
Kucera T. A. (2006): Ultraviolet observations of prominence activation and coronal loop dynamics.
Astrophysical Journal 645, 1525–1536.
Kucera, T. A., Tovar, M., De Pontieu, B. (2003): Prominence motions observed at high cadences
in temperatures from 10 000 to 250 000 K. Solar Physics 212, 81–97.
Kucharek, H., et al. (2003): On the source and acceleration of energetic He+ : A long term
observation with ACE/SEPICA. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(A10), LIS 15–1.
Kuhn, J. R., Bush, R. I., Scherrer, P., Scheick, S. (1998): The sun’s shape and brightness. Nature
392, 155–157.
Kuhn, J. R., Kasting, J. F. (1983): The effects of increased CO2 concentrations of surface
temperature of the early Earth. Nature 301, 53–55.
Kuhn, J. R., Libbrecht, K. G., Dicke, R. H. (1988): The surface temperature of the Sun and
changes in the solar constant. Science 242, 908–911.
Kukla, G. (1975): Missing link between Milankovitch and climate. Nature 253, 600–603.
Kukla, G., et al. (1981): Orbital signature of interglacials. Nature 290, 295–300.
Kumar, A., Rust, D. M. (1996): Interplanetary magnetic clouds, helicity conservation and
current-core flux-ropes. Journal of Geophysical Research 101(A7), 15667–15684.
Kundu, M. R. (1961): Bursts of centimeter-wave emission and the region of origin of X-rays from
solar flares. Journal of Geophysical Research 66, 4308–4312.
References 469

Kundu, M. R. (1965): Solar Radio Astronomy. New York: Wiley Interscience.

Kundu, M. R. (1982): Advances in solar radio astronomy. Reports on Progress in Physics 45,
1435–1541.
Kundu, M. R., et al. (1995): Microwave and hard X-ray observations of footpoint emission from
solar flares. Astrophysical Journal 454, 522–530.
Kundu, M. R., Lang, K. R. (1985): The sun and nearby stars: Microwave observations at high
resolution. Science 228, 9–15.
Kundu, M. R., Vlahos, L. (1982): Solar microwave bursts – a review. Space Science Reviews 32,
405–462.
Kundu, M. R., Woodgate, B., Schmahl, E. J. (Eds., 1989): Energetic Phenomena on the Sun.
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kunow, H., et al. (1999): Co-rotating interaction regions at high latitudes. Space Science Reviews
89, 221–268.
Kunow, H., et al. (Eds., 2006): Coronal mass ejections, Space Science Reviews 123, 1–484.
Reprinted by Springer Verlag and the International Space Science Institute.
Kuperus, M., Ionson, J. A., Spicer, D. S. (1981): On the theory of coronal heating mechanisms.
Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 19, 7–40.
Kyle, H. L., Hoyt, D. V., Hickey, J. R. (1994): A review of the Nimbus 7 ERB solar data set.
In: The Sun as a Variable Star: Solar and Stellar Luminosity] Variations (Eds. J. M. Pap, C.
Fröhlich, H. S. Hudson and S. K. Solanki). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–12.

Labitzke, K. (1987): Sunspots, the QBO and the stratospheric temperature in the north polar
region. Geophysical Research Letters 14, 535–537.
Labitzke, K., van Loon, H. (1988): Associations between the 11-year solar cycle, the QBO, and
the atmosphere. Part 1. The troposphere and stratosphere in the northern hemisphere winter.
Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics 50, 197–206.
Labitzke, K., van Loon, H. (1990): Associations between the 11-year solar cycle, the quasi-biennial
oscillation and the atmosphere: a summary of recent work. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society (London) A330, 557–589.
Labitzke, K., van Loon, H. (1992): On the association between the QBO and the extratropical
stratosphere. Journal of Atmosphere and Terrestrial Physics 54, 1453–1463.
Labitzke, K., van Loon, H. (1993): Some recent studies of probable connections between solar
and atmospheric variability. Annales Geophysicae 11, 1084–1094.
Labitzke, K., van Loon, H. (1995): Connection between the troposphere and stratosphere on a
decadal scale. Tellus A 47, 275–286.
Labonte, B. J., Howard, R. (1982): Solar rotation measurements at Mount Wilson. III – meridional
flow and limbshift. Solar Physics 80, 361–372.
Lacis, A. A., Carlson, B. E. (1992): Global warming: Keeping the Sun in proportion. Nature
360, 297.
Lacoste, H. (Ed., 2006) SOHO-17: 10 Years of SOHO and Beyond. ESA SP-617 2006.
Laitinen, T. V., et al. (2005): The magnetotail reconnection region in a global MHD simulation.
Annales Geophysicae 23, 3753.
Laitinen, T. V., et al. (2006): On the characterization of magnetic reconnection in MHD
simulations. Annales Geophysicae 24, 3059–3069.
Lamb, H. H. (1965): The early Medieval warm epoch and its sequel. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 1, 13–37.
Lamb, H. H. (1977): Climate: Present, Past and Future: Climate History and the Future. London:
Methuen.
Lamb, H. H. (1982): Climate History and the Modern World. London: Methuen.
470 References

Landi, E., Feldman, U., Doschek, G. A. (2007): Neon and oxygen absolute abundances in the
corona. The Astrophysical Journal 659, 743–749.
Lane, J. H. (1870): On the theoretical temperature of the sun; under the hypothesis of a gaseous
mass maintaining its volume by its internal heat, and depending on the laws of gases as
known to terrestrial experiment. American Journal of Science and Arts (2nd series) 50, 57–74.
Reproduced in: Early Solar Physics (Ed. A. J. Meadows). New York: Pergamon Press 1970,
pp. 257–276.
Lang, K. R. (1994): Radio evidence for nonthermal particle acceleration on stars of late spectral
type. Astrophysical Journal Supplement 90, 753–764.
Lang, K. R. (1996): Unsolved mysteries of the Sun – Part 1, 2. Sky and Telescope 92(2), 38–42,
August, 92(3), 24–28, September.
Lang, K. R. (1997): SOHO reveals the secrets of the sun. Scientific American 276(3), 32–47,
March. Updated in: Magnificent Cosmos, a Scientific American Publication (1998), March.
New York City, Scientific American.
Lang, K. R. (1999a): The Sun. In: The New Solar System (Eds. J. Kelly Beatty, C. C. Petersen, and
A. Chaikin). New York: Cambridge University Press 1999, pp. 23–38.
Lang, K. R. (1999b): Astrophysical Formulae. Vol. I. Radiation, Gas Processes and High Energy
Astrophysics. New York: Springer Verlag.
Lang, K. R. (1999c): Astrophysical Formulae. Vol. II. Space, Time, Mass and Cosmology. New
York: Springer Verlag.
Lang, K. R. (2001): The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Sun. Cambridge, England, Cambridge
University Press.
Lang, K. R. (2006): Sun, Earth and Sky, 2nd edition. New York: Springer Verlag.
Lang, K. R., Gingerich, O. (Eds., 1979): A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics
1900–1975. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lang, K. R., et al. (1993): Magnetospheres of solar active regions inferred from spectral-
polarization observations with high spatial resolution. Astrophysical Journal 419, 398–417.
Langer, S. H., Petrosian, V. (1977): Impulsive solar X-ray bursts. III. Polarization, directivity, and
spectrum of the reflected and total bremsstrahlung radiation from a beam of electrons directed
toward the photosphere. The Astrophysical Journal 215, 666–676.
Lanzerotti, L. J. (2001a): Space weather effects on communications. In: Space Storms and
Space Weather Hazards, NATO Science Series II, Vol. 38. (Ed. I. A. Daglis). Boston: Kluwer,
pp. 313–334.
Lanzerotti, L. J. (2001b): Space weather effects on technologies. In: Space Weather (Eds. P. Song,
H. J. Singer and G. L. Siscoe). Washington, D. C: American Geophysical Union, p. 11.
Lanzerotti, L. J., et al. (1992): Heliosphere instrument for spectra, composition and anisotropy at
low energies. Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement 92(2), 349–363.
Lanzerotti, L. J., et al. (1995): Over the southern solar pole: low-energy interplanetary charged
particles. Science 268, 1010–1013.
Lapenta, G., Knoll, D. A. (2005): Effect of a converging flow at the streamer cusp on the genesis
of the slow solar wind. The Astrophysical Journal 624, 1049–1056.
Lario, D., et al. (2000): Energetic proton observations at 1 and 5 AU: 2. Rising phase of the solar
cycle 23. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(A8), 18251–18274.
Larsen, D. E., et al. (1997): Tracing the topology of the October 18–20, 1995, magnetic cloud
with 0.1 to 100 keV electrons. Geophysical Research Letters 24, 1911–1914.
Lassen, K., Friis-Christensen, E. (1995): Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five
centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate. Journal of Atmospheric and
Terrestrial Physics 57, 835–845.
Lassen, K., Friis-Christensen, E. (1996): A long-term comparison of sunspot cycle length and
temperature change from Zurich observatory. In: The Global Warming Debate (Ed. J. Emsley).
London: European Science and Environment Forum, pp. 224–232.
Lattes, C. M. G., et al. (1947): Processes involving charged mesons. Nature 159, 694–697.
References 471

Lattes, C. M. G., Occhialini, G. P. S., Powell, C. F. (1947): Observations on the tracks

of slow mesons in photographic emulsions. Nature 160, 453–456, 492. Reproduced in:
HILLAS (1972).
Laut, P. (2003): Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations.
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65, 801–812.
Laut, P., Gundermann, J. (2000): Solar cycle lengths and climate: a reference revisited. Journal of
Geophysical Research 105, 27489–27492.
Leamon, R. J., Canfield, R. C., Bleh, M. Z., Pevtsov, A. A. (2003): What is the role of the kink
instability in solar coronal eruptions? Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 596, L255–L258.
Leamon, R. J., Canfield, R. C., Pevtsov, A. A. (2002): Properties of magnetic clouds and geomag-
netic storms associated with eruption of coronal sigmoids. Journal of Geophysical Research
(Space Physics) 107(A9), SSH 1–1.
Lean, J. (1987): Solar uv irradiance variation: A review. Journal of Geophysical Research 92,
839–868.
Lean, J. (1989): Contribution of ultraviolet irradiance variations to changes in the Sun’s total
irradiance. Science 244, 197–200.
Lean, J. (1991): Variations in the Sun’s radiative output. Reviews of Geophysics 29, 505–535.
Lean, J. (1997): The Sun’s variable radiation and its relevance for Earth. Annual Review of
Astronomy and Astrophysics 35, 33–67.
Lean, J. (2000): Evolution of the Sun’s spectral irradiance since the Maunder Minimum.
Geophysical Research Letters 27, 2425–2428.
Lean, J., Beer, J., Bradley, R. (1995): Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: implications
for climate change. Geophysical Research Letters 22, 3195–3198.
Lean, J., et al. (1995): Correlated brightness variations in solar radiative output from the
photosphere to the corona. Geophysical Research Letters 22, 655–658.
Lean, J., et al. (1998): Magnetic sources of the solar irradiance cycle. Astrophysical Journal 492,
390–401.
Lean, J., Foukal, P. (1988): A model of solar luminosity modulation by magnetic activity between
1954 and 1984. Science 240, 906–908.
Lean, J., Rind, D. (1994): Solar variability: Implications for global change. EOS 75(1), 1–6.
Lean, J., Skumanich, A., White, O. (1992): Estimating the Sun’s radiative output during the
Maunder minimum. Geophysical Research Letters 19, 1591–1594.
Lean, J., Wang, Y.M., Sheeley, N. Jr. (2002): The effect of increasing solar activity on the Sun’s
total and open magnetic flux during multiple cycles: implications for solar forcing of climate.
Geophysical Research Letters 29(24), 2224.
Lee, R. B., et al. (1995): Long-term solar irradiance variability during sunspot cycle 22. Journal
of Geophysical Research 100, 1667–1675.
Leer, E., Holzer, T. E. (1980): Energy addition in the solar wind. Journal of Geophysical Research
85, 4681–4688.
Lefebvre, S., Kosovichev, A. G. (2005): Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with
the 11–year activity cycle. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 633, L149–L152.
Leibacher, J. W., Stein, R. F. (1971): A new description of the solar five-minute oscillation.
Astrophysical Letters 7, 191–192.
Leibacher, J. W., Van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., Gizon, L., Cally, P. (Eds., 2008): SOHO-19/GONG
2007: Seismology of Magnetic Activity. Solar Physics. – submitted.
Leighton, R. B. (1961): Considerations on localized velocity fields in stellar atmospheres:
Prototype – The solar atmosphere. In: Aerodynamic Phenomena in Stellar Atmospheres.
Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Cosmical Gas Dynamics. Supplemento del Nuovo
Cimento 22, 321–325.
Leighton, R. B. (1963): The solar granulation. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics
1, 19–40.
Leighton, R. B. (1964): Transport of magnetic fields on the sun. The Astrophysical Journal 140,
1547–1562.
472 References

Leighton, R. B. (1969): A magneto-kinematic model or the solar cycle. The Astrophysical Journal
156, 1–26.
Leighton, R. B., Noyes, R. W., Simon, G. W. (1962): Velocity fields in the solar atmosphere I.
Preliminary report. The Astrophysical Journal 135, 474–499.
Leka, K. D., Canfield, R. C., Mc Clymont, A. N., Van Driel-Gesztelyi, L. (1996): Evidence for
current-carrying emerging flux. The Astrophysical Journal 462, 547.
Leka, K. D., Fan, Y. L., Barnes, G. (2005): On the availability of sufficient twist in solar active
regions to trigger the kink instability. The Astrophysical Journal 626, 1091–1095.
Lemon, R. J., Mcintosh, S. W. (2007): Empirical solar wind forecasting from the chromosphere.
Astrophysical Journal, Issue 659, 738–742.
Lenz, D. D., et al. (1999): Temperature and emission-measure profiles along long-lived solar
coronal loops observed with the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer. The Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 517, L155–L158.
Lepping, R. P., et al. (1991): The interaction of a very large interplanetary magnetic cloud with
the magnetosphere and with cosmic rays. Journal of Geophysical Research 96, 9425–9438.
Lepri, S. T., Zurbuchen, T. H. (2004): Iron charge state distributions as an indicator of hot
ICMEs: Possible sources and temporal and spatial variations during solar maximum. Journal
of Geophysical Research 109(A1), A01112.
Letaw, J. R., Silberberg, R., Tsao, C. H. (1987): Radiation hazards on space missions. Nature 330,
709–710.
Le Treut, H, Ghil, M. (1983): Orbital forcing, climatic interactions, and glaciation cycles. Journal
of Geophysical Research 99, 5167–5190.
Levine, J. S., Hays, P. B., Walker, J. C. G. (1979): The evolution and variability of atmospheric
ozone over geological time. Icarus 39, 295–309.
Levine, R. H. (1974): Acceleration of thermal particles in collapsing magnetic regions. The
Astrophysical Journal 190, 447–456.
Levine, R. H., Altschuler, M. D., Harvey, J. W. (1977): Solar sources of the interplanetary
magnetic field and solar wind. Journal of Geophysical Research 82, 1061–1065.
Li, B., Li, X., Hu, Y.-Q., Habbal, S. R. (2004): A two-dimensional Alfvén wave-driven solar wind
model with proton temperature anisotropy. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, A07103.
Li, H., et al. (2007): Response of the solar atmosphere to magnetic flux emergence from Hinode
observations. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S643–S648.
Li, X. (2002): Heating in coronal funnels by ion cyclotron waves. Astrophysical Journal (Letters)
571, L67–L70.
Li, X. (2003): Transition region, coronal heating and the fast solar wind. Astronomy and
Astrophysics 406, 345–356.
Li, X. (2004): Variations of 0.7–6.0 MeV electrons at geosynchronous orbit as a function of solar
wind. Space Weather 2(3), S03006.
Li, X., et al. (1998): The effect of temperature anisotropy on observations of Doppler dimming
and pumping in the inner corona. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 501, L133.
Li. X., Habbal, S. R. (2005): Hybrid simulation of ion cyclotron resonance in the solar wind. Evo-
lution of velocity distribution functions. Journal of Geophysical Research 110, A10, A10109.
Li, Y., et al. (2008): The solar magnetic field and coronal dynamics of the eruption on 19 May
2007. Astrophysical Journal Letters 681, L37–L39.
Libbrecht, K. G. (1989): Solar p-mode frequency splittings. The Astrophysical Journal 336,
1092–1097.
Libbrecht, K. G., Woodard, M. F. (1990): Solar-cycle effects on solar oscillation frequencies.
Nature 345, 779–782.
Libby, W. F. (1955): Radiocarbon Dating. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Liewer, P. C., Neugebauer, M., Zurbuchen, T. (2004): Characteristics of active-region sources of
solar wind near solar maximum. Solar Physics 223, 209–229.
Liewer, P., et al. (2008): Stereoscopic analysis of STEREO/EUVI observations of May 29, 2007
erupting filament. Astrophysical Journal – submitted.
References 473

Lighthill, M. J. (1952): On sound generated aerodynamically: I. General theory. Proceedings of

the Royal Society of London A 211, 564.
Lighthill, M. J. (1954): On sound generated aerodynamically: II. Turbulence as a source of sound.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 222, 1.
Lin, J. (2007): Observational features of large-scale structures as revealed by the catastrophe
model of solar eruptions. Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics 7(4), 457–476.
Lin, J., et al. (2005): Direct observations of the magnetic reconnection site of an eruption on 2003
November 18. The Astrophysical Journal 622, 1251–1264.
Lin, J., et al. (2007): Features and properties of coronal mass ejection/flare current sheets. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 658, L123–L126.
Lin, J., Forbes, T. G. (2000): Effects of reconnection on the coronal mass ejection process. Journal
of Geophysical Research 105(A2), 2375–2392.
Lin, J., Forbes, T. G., Isenberg, P. A., Demoulin, P. (1998): The effect of curvature on flux-rope
models of coronal mass ejections. The Astrophysical Journal 504, 1006.
Lin, J., Mancuso, S., Vourlidas, A. (2006): Theoretical investigation of the onsets of type II radio
bursts during solar eruptions. The Astrophysical Journal 649, 1110–1123.
Lin, J., Raymond, J. C., Van Ballegooijen, A. A. (2004): The role of magnetic reconnection in the
observable features of solar eruptions. The Astrophysical Journal 602, 422–435.
Lin, J., Soon, W. (2004): Evolution of morphological features of CMEs deduced from catastrophe
model of solar eruptions. New Astronomy 9, 611–628.
Lin, J., Soon, W., Baliunas, S. L. (2003): Theories of solar eruptions: A review. New Astronomy
Reviews 47, 53–84.
Lin, R. P. (1970): The emission and propagation of 40 keV solar electrons, I. The relationship of
40 keV electron to energetic proton and relativistic electron emission by the Sun. Solar Physics
12, 266–303.
Lin, R. P. (1985): Energetic solar electrons in the interplanetary medium. Solar Physics 100,
537–561.
Lin, R. P. (1987): Solar particle acceleration and propagation. Reviews of Geophysics 25, 676–684.
Lin, R. P. (2005): Relationship of solar flare accelerated particles to solar energetic particles
(SEPs) observed in the interplanetary medium. Advances in Space Research 35, 1857–1863.
Lin, R. P. (2006): Particle acceleration by the Sun: Electrons, hard X-rays/gamma-rays. Space
Science Reviews 124, 233–248.
Lin, R. P., et al. (1981): A new component of hard X-rays in solar flares. Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 251, L109–L114.
Lin, R. P., et al. (1984): Solar hard X-ray microflares. The Astrophysical Journal 283, 421–425.
Lin, R. P., et al. (2002): The Reuven Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI).
Solar Physics 210, 3–32.
Lin, R. P., et al. (2008): The STEREO IMPACT Suprathermal Electron (STE) instrument Space
Science Reviews Issue 1–4, 241–255.
Lin, R. P., Evans, L. G., Fainberg, J. (1973): Simultaneous observations of fast solar electrons and
type III radio burst emission near 1 AU. Astrophysical Letters 14, 191–198.
Lin, R. P., Hudson, H. S. (1976): Non-thermal processes in large solar flares. Solar Physics 50,
153–178.
Lindemann, F. A. (1919): Note on the theory of magnetic storms. Philosophical Magazine 38,
669–684.
Lindsey, C., Braun, D. C. (1990): Helioseismic imaging of sunspots at their antipodes. Solar
Physics 126, 101–115.
Lindsey, C., Braun, D. C. (1997): Helioseismic holography. The Astrophysical Journal 485,
895–503.
Lindsey, C., Braun, D. C. (2000a): Basic principles of solar acoustic holography. Solar Physics
192, 261–284.
Lindsey, C., Braun, D. C. (2000b): Seismic images of the far side of the Sun. Science 287,
1799–1801.
474 References

Lindsey, C., Braun, D. C. (2005a): The acoustic showerglass II. Imaging active region subphoto-
spheres. The Astrophysical Journal 620, 1118–1131.
Lindsey, C., Braun, D. C. (2005b): The acoustic showerglass I. Seismic diagnostics of photospheric
magnetic fields. The Astrophysical Journal 620, 1107–1117.
Lingenfelter, R. E. (1969): Solar flare optical, neutron, and gamma-ray emission. Solar Physics 8,
341–347.
Lingenfelter, R. E., et al. (1965): High-energy solar neutrons 1. Production in flares. Journal of
Geophysical Research 70, 4077–4086.
Lingenfelter, R. E., Ramaty, R. (1967): High energy nuclear reactions in solar flares. In: High
Energy Nuclear Reactions in Astrophysics (Ed. B. Shen). New York: W. A. Benjamin 1967,
pp. 99–158.
Linker, J. A., Mikic, Z. (1995): Disruption of a helmet streamer by photospheric shear. Astrophys-
ical Journal (Letters) 38, L45–L48.
Linsky, J. L. (1980): Stellar chromospheres. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 18,
439–488.
Lionello, R., Riley, P., Linker, J. A., Mikic, Z. (2005): The effects of differential rotation on the
magnetic structure of the solar corona: Magnetohydrodynamic simulations. Astrophysical
Journal 625, 463–473.
Lites, B. W., Hansen, E. R. (1977): Ultraviolet brightenings in active regions as observed from
OSO-8. Solar Physics 55, 347–358.
Lites, B., et al. (2007): Hinode observations of horizontal quiet Sun magnetic flux and the
“hidden turbulent magnetic flux”. t Astrophysical Journal 634, 651–662.Publications of the
Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S571–S576.
Litwin, C., Rosner, R. (1993): On the structure of solar and stellar coronae – Loops and loop heat
transport. Astrophysical Journal 412, 375.
Livingston, W., Wallace, L., White, O. R. (1988): Spectrum line intensity as a surrogate for solar
irradiance variations. Science 240, 1765–1767.
Lockwood, G. W., et al. (1984): The photometric variability of solar-type stars. IV. Detection of
rotational modulation among Hyades stars. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the
Pacific 96, 714–722.
Lockwood, G. W., et al. (1992): Long-term solar brightness changes estimated from a survey of
sun-like stars. Nature 360, 653–655.
Lockwood, G. W., Skiff, B. A., Radick, R. R. (1997): The photometric variability of sun-like stars:
Observations and results, 1984–1995. The Astrophysical Journal 485, 789–811.
Lockwood, M., Forsyth, R. B., Balogh, A., Mc Comas, D. J. (2004): Open solar flux estimates
from near-Earth measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field: Comparison of the first
two perihelion passes of the Ulysses spacecraft. Annales Geophysicae 22, 1395–1405.
Lockwood, M., Frölich, C. (2007): Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and
the global mean surface air temperature. Proceedings of the Royal Society 463, 2447–2460.
Lockwood, M., Stamper, R., Wild, M. N. (1999): A doubling of the Sun’s coronal magnetic field
during the past 100 years. Nature 399, 37–439.
Lockyer, J. N. (1869): Spectroscopic observations of the Sun. III, IV. Proceedings of the Royal
Society 17, 350–356, 415–418. Reproduced in: Early Solar Physics (Ed. A. J. Meadows). New
York: Pergamon Press 1970, pp. 193–202, 233–236.
Lockyer, J. N. (1874): Contributions to Solar Physics. London: Macmillan
Lodders, K. (2003a): Abundances and condensation temperatures of the elements. Meteoritics and
Planetary Science 38, 5272.
Lodders, K. (2003b): Solar system abundances and condensation temperatures of the elements.
Astrophysical Journal 591, 1220–1247.
Lodge, O. (1900): Sun spots, magnetic storms, comet tails, atmospheric electricity, and aurorae.
The Electrician 46, 249–250, 287–288.
Lomb, N. R., Andersen, A. P. (1980): The analysis and forecasting of the Wolfsunspot numbers.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 190, 723–732.
References 475

Longcope, D. W. (2005): Topological methods for the analysis of solar magnetic fields. Living
Reviews in Solar Physics 2, 7.
Longcope, D. W., Brown, D. S., Priest, E. R. (2003): On the distribution of magnetic null points
above the solar photosphere. Physics of Plasmas 10, 3321–3334.
Longcope, D. W., et al. (2005): Observations of separator reconnection to an emerging active
region. The Astrophysical Journal 630, 596–614.
Longcope, D. W., Kankelborg, C. C. (1999): Coronal heating by collision and cancellation of
magnetic elements. The Astrophysical Journal 524, 483–495.
Loomis, E. (1860): On the geographical distribution of auroras in the northern hemisphere.
American Journal of Science and Arts 30, 89.
Loomis, E. (1864): The aurora borealis, or polar light: Its phenomena and laws. Smithsonian In-
stitute Annual Report 1864 Washington, D.C. US Government Printing Office 1865, 208–248.
Loomis, E. (1866–1871): Notices of auroras extracted from the meteorological journals of
Reverend Ezra Stiles. Transactions of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 1, 155.
Lorius, C., et al. (1985): A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice. Nature 316, 591–596.
Lorius, C., et al. (1988): Antarctic ice core: CO2 and climatic change over the last climatic cycle.
EOS 69, 681, 683–684.
Lorius, C., et al. (1990): The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming.
Nature 347, 139–147.
Lovelock, J. E. (1979): Gaia, a New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lovelock, J. E. (1988): The Ages of Gaia. New York: Norton.
Lovelock, J. E., Margulis, L. (1973): Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the gaia
hypothesis. Tellus 26, 1–9.
Lovelock, J. E., Whitfield, M. (1982): Life span of the biosphere. Nature 296, 561–563.
Low, B. C. (1996): Solar activity and the corona. Solar Physics 167, 217–265.
Lu, E. T., Hamilton, R. J. (1991): Avalanches and the distribution of solar flares. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 380, L89–L92.
Lu, Q. M., Wu, C. S., Wang, S. (2006): The nearly isotropic velocity distributions of energetic
electrons in the solar wind. The Astrophysical Journal 638, 1169–1175.
Lucek, E. A., Balogh, A. (1998): The identification and characterization of Alfvénic fluctuations
in Ulysses data at midlatitudes. The Astrophysical Journal 507, 984–900.
Lugaz, N., Manchester, W. B. IV, Gombosi, T. I. (2005): Numerical simulation of the interaction
of two coronal mass ejections from Sun to Earth. The Astrophysical Journal 634, 651–662.
Luhmann, J. G., et al. (2007): STEREO IMPACT investigation goals, measurements, and data
products overview. Space Science Reviews, 136, No. 1–4, 117–184.
Lundquist, L. L., et al. (2007): Interaction between emerging flux and large-scale loop systems
observed with Hinode XRT. Presented at the 30 May 2007 Meeting of the Solar Physics
Division, American Astronomical Society, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Lüst, R., Schlüter, A. (1954): Kraftfreie magneticfelder. Zeitschrift für Astrophysik 34, 263–282.
Lynch, B. J., et al. (2004): Observable properties of the breakout model for coronal mass ejections.
The Astrophysical Journal 617, 589–599.
Lyons, L. R. (1992): Formation of auroral arcs via magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling. Reviews
of Geophysics 30, 93–112.
Lyons, L. R., Williams, D. J. (1984): Quantitative Aspects of Magnetospheric Physics. Boston,
D. Reidel.
Lyot, B. (1930): La couronne solair etudie en dehors des eclipses. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie
des Sciences Paris 191, 834.
476 References

Machado, M. E., et al. (1988): The observed characteristics of flare energy release I. Magnetic
structure at the energy release site. The Astrophysical Journal 326, 425–450.
Mackay, D. H., Van Ballegooijen, A. A. (2005): New results in modeling the hemispheric pattern
of solar filaments. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 621, L77–L80.
Macklin, R. J. Jr., Neugebauer, M. M. (Eds., 1966): The Solar Wind: Proceedings of a Conference
held at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, April 1–4, 1964, and
Sponsored by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Maclennan, C. G., Lanzerotti, L. J., Gold, R. E. (2003): Low energy charged particles in the high
latitude heliosphere: Comparing solar maximum and solar minimum. Geophysical Research
Letters 30(19), ULY 7–1.
Mac Low, M. -M., McCray, R. (1988): Superbubbles in disk galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal
324, 776–785.
Mac Neice, et al. (2004): A numerical study of the breakout model for coronal mass ejection
initiation. The Astrophysical Journal 614, 1028–1041.
Mac Queen, R. M. (1980): Coronal transients: A summary. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society (London) A297, 605–620.
Mac Queen, R. M., et al. (1974): The outer solar corona as observed from Skylab: Preliminary
results. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 187, L85–L88.
Mac Queen, R. M., et al. (1976): Initial results from the high altitude observatory white light
coronagraph on Skylab – a progress report. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
(London) A281, 405–414.
Maher, K. A., Stevenson, D. J. (1988): Impact frustration of the origin of life. Nature 331, 612–614.
Mairan, J. J.: Traité Physique et Historique de l’Aurorae Boréale, Paris: L’Imprimerie Royale
1733 (1st edition), 1754 (2nd revised edition).
Mall, U., Fichtner, H., Rucinski, D. (1996): Interstellar atom and pick-up ion fluxes along the
Ulysses flight-path. Astronomy and Astrophysics 316, 511–518.
Maltoni, M., et al. (2003): Status of three-neutrino oscillations after the SNO-salt data. Physical
Review D68, 113010–113028.
Manchester, W. B., et al. (2004): Modeling a space weather event from the Sun to the Earth: CME
generation and interplanetary propagation. Journal of Geophysical Research 109, A02107.
Manchester, W. B., et al. (2005): Coronal mass ejection shock and sheath structures relevant to
particle acceleration. Astrophysical Journal 622, 1225–1239.
Mancuso, S., Spangler, S. R. (1999): Coronal Faraday rotation observations: measurements and
limits on plasma inhomogeneities. The Astrophysical Journal 525, 195–208.
Mandrini, C. H., Démoulin, P, Klimchuk, J. A. (2000): Magnetic field and plasma scaling laws:
Their implications for corona heating models. The Astrophysical Journal 530, 999–1015.
Mann, M. E. (2000): Climate change: lessons for a new millennium. Science 289, 253–254.
Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S., Hughes, M. K. (1998): Global-scale temperature patterns and climate
forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392, 779–787.
Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S., Hughes, M. K. (1999): Northern hemisphere temperatures during the
past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26,
759–762.
Mann, M. E., Park, J., Bradley, R. S. (1995): Global interdecadal and century- scale climate
oscillations during the last five centuries. Nature 378, 266–270.
Manoharan, P. K., et al. (1996): Evidence for large-scale solar magnetic reconnection from radio
and X-ray measurements. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 468, L73–L76.
Marconi, G. (1899): Wireless telegraphy. Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers
28, 273.
Margulis, L., Lovelock, J. E. (1974): Biological modulation of the Earth’s atmosphere. Icarus 21,
471–489.
References 477

Mariska, J. T. (1986): The quiet solar transition region. Annual Review of Astronomy and
Astrophysics 24, 23–28.
Mariska, J. T. (1992): The Solar Transition Region. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mariska, J. T. (1994): Flare plasma dynamics observed with the Yohkoh Bragg crystal. The
Astrophysical Journal 434, 756.
Mariska, J. T., Doschek, G. A., Bentley, R. D. (1993): Flare plasma dynamics observed with the
Yohkoh Bragg crystal spectrometer I. Properties of the Ca XIX resonance line. Astrophysical
Journal 419, 418–425.
Mariska, J. T., Feldman, U., Doschek, G. A. (1978): Measurements of extreme- ultraviolet
emission-line profiles near the solar limb. Astrophysical Journal 226, 698–705.
Markovskii, S. A., et al. (2006): Dissipation of the perpendicular turbulent cascade in the solar
wind. Astrophysical Journal 639, 1177–1185.
Markovskii, S. A., Hollweg, J. V. (2004): Intermittent heating of the solar corona by heat
flux-generated ion cyclotron waves. Astrophysical Journal 609, 1112–1122.
Markson, R. (1978): Solar modulation of atmospheric electrification and possible implications for
the Sun-weather relationship. Nature 273, 103–109.
Marsch, E. (1991): MHD turbulence in the solar wind. In: Physics of the Inner Heliospere, Vol. II
(Eds. R. Schwenn and E. Marsch). Heildelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 159–241.
Marsch, E. (1997): Working group 3: Coronal hole structure and high speed solar wind. In: The
Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum Activity. Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO Workshop.
ESA SP-404. Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division, pp. 135–140.
Marsch, E. (2006): Kinetic physics of the solar corona and solar wind. Living Reviews in Solar
Physics 3, 1.
Marsch, E., Goertz, C. K., Richter, K. (1982): Wave heating and acceleration of solar wind ions
by cyclotron resonance. Journal of Geophysical Research 87(A7), 5030–5044.
Marsch, E., Tu, C.-Y. (1990): On the radial evolution of MHD turbulence in the inner heliosphere.
Journal of Geophysical Research 95, 8211–8229.
Marsch, E., Tu, C. -Y. (1997): The effects of high-frequency Alfvén waves on coronal heating and
solar wind acceleration. Astronomy and Astrophysics 319, L17–L20.
Marsch, E., Tu, C.-Y. (1997): Solar wind and chromospheric network. Solar Physics 176, 87–106.
Marsch, E., Tu, C.-Y. (2001): Evidence for pitch angle diffusion of solar wind protons in resonance
with cyclotron waves. Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 8357.
Marsden, R. G. (Ed., 1995): The High Latitude Heliosphere. New York: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Marsden, R. G. (Ed., 2001): The 3-D heliosphere at solar maximum. Space Science Reviews 97,
1–429. Reprinted by: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Marsden, R. G., et al. (1987): ISEE 3 observations of low-energy proton bidirectional events and
their relation to isolated interplanetary magnetic structures. Journal of Geophysical Research
92, 11009–11019.
Marsden, R. G., et al. (1996): Ulysses at high heliographic latitudes: An introduction. Astronomy
and Astrophysics 316, 279–286.
Marsden, R. G., Smith, E. J. (1996): Ulysses: Solar sojourner. Sky and Telescope 91, 24–30, March.
Marsh, K. A. (1978): Ephemeral region flares and the diffusion of the network. Solar Physics 59,
105–113.
Marsh, K. A., Hurford, G. J. (1980): VLA maps of solar bursts at 15 and 23 GHz with arcsecond
resolution. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 240, L111–L114.
Marsh, M. S., Walsh, R. W., De Moortel, I., Ireland, J. (2003): Joint observations of propagating
oscillations with SOHO/CDS and TRACE. Astronomy and Astrophysics 404, L37–L41.
Marsh, N. D., Svensmark, H. (2000): Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays. Physical
Review Letters 85, 5004–5007.
Marsh, N. D., Svensmark, H. (2003): Solar influence on Earth’s climate. Space Science Reviews
107, 317–325.
Martens, P. C. H., Cauffman, D. (Eds., 2002): Multi-wavelength Observations of Coronal Structure
and Dynamics Yohkoh 10th Anniversary Meeting. New York: Pergamon.
478 References

Martens, P. C. H., Kuin, N. P. M. (1989): A circuit model for filament eruptions and two-ribbon
flares. Solar Physics 122, 263–302.
Martens, P. C. H., Zwaan, C. (2001): Origin and evolution of filament-prominence systems.
Astrophysical Journal 558, 872–877.
Martin, S. F. (1998): Conditions for the formation and maintenance of filaments (invited review).
Solar Physics 183, 107–137.
Martin, S. F., Bilimoria, R., Tracadas, P. W. (1994): Magnetic field configurations basic to filament
channels and filaments. In: Solar Surface Magnetism (Eds. R. J. Rutten and C. J. Schrijver).
NATO Series C433, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht the Netherlands, p. 303.
Martinson, D. G., et al. (1987): Age dating and the orbital theory of the ice ages: Development of
a high-resolution 0 to 300,000–year chronostratigraphy. Quaternary Research 27, 1–29.
Martyn, D. F. (1946): Temperature radiation from the quiet Sun in the radio spectrum. Nature 158,
632–633.
Mason, D., et al. (2006): Flares, magnetic fields, and subsurface vorticity: a survey of GONG and
MDI data. Astrophysical Journal 645, 1543–1553.
Mason, G. M. (2001): Heliospheric lessons for galactic cosmic-ray acceleration. Space Science
Reviews 99, 119–133.
Mason, G. M., et al. (1986): The heavy-ion compositional signature in He-3-rich solar particle
events. Astrophysical Journal 303, 849–860.
Mason, G. M., et al. (1999): Origin, injection and acceleration of CIR particles: observations
report of working group 6. Space Science Reviews 89, 327–367.
Mason, G. M., et al. (2007): The Suprathermal Ion Telescope (SIT) for the IMPACT/SEP
investigation. Space Science Reviews 136, No. 1–4, 257–284.
Mason, G. M., Mazur, J. E., Dwyer, J. R. (1999): 3He enhancements in large solar energetic
particle events. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 525, L133–L136.
Mason, G. M., Sanderson, T. R. (1999): CIR associated energetic particles in the inner and middle
heliosphere. Space Science Reviews 89, 77–90.
Masuda, S. (1994): Hard X-ray Sources and the Primary Energy Release Site in Solar Flares.
Ph. D. Thesis. Mitaka: University of Tokyo, the Yohkoh HXT group, National Astronomical
Observatory.
Masuda, S., et al. (1994): A loop-top hard X-ray source in a compact solar flare as evidence for
magnetic reconnection. Nature 371, 495–497.
Masuda, S., et al. (1995): Hard X-ray sources and the primary energy-release site in solar flares.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 47, 677–689.
Masuda, S., Kosugi, T., Tsuneta, S., Hara, H. (1996): Discovery of a loop-top hard X-ray source
in impulsive solar flares. Advances in Space Research 17, 4–5, 63–66.
Matsuzaki, K., et al. (2007): Hot and cool loops composing the corona of the quiet Sun.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S683–S689.
Matthaeus, W. H., et al. (2005): Spatial correlation of solar-wind turbulence from two point
measurements. Physical Review Letters 95, 231101.
Matthaeus, W. H., Lamkin, S. L. (1986): Turbulent magnetic reconnection. Physics of Fluids
29, 2513.
Matthes, K., et al. (2003): Improved 11-year solar signal in the Freie Universität Berlin climate
middle atmosphere model (fub-cmam). Journal of Geophysical Research 109, D06101.
Mattok, C. (Ed., 1992): SOHO-1: Coronal Steamers, Coronal Loops, and Coronal and Solar Wind
Compositions. ESA SP-348 1992 Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
Maunder, E. W. (1890): Professor Spoerer’s researches on sunspots. Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society 50, 251–252.
Maunder, E. W. (1894): A prolonged sunspot minimum. Knowledge 17(106), 173–176.
Maunder, E. W. (1905): Magnetic disturbances, 1882 to 1903, as recorded at the royal observatory,
greenwich, and their association with sun-spots. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society 65, 2–34.
Maunder, E. W. (1922): The prolonged sunspot minimum, 1645–1715. Journal of the British
Astronomical Association 32, 140–145.
References 479

Maxwell, A., Swarup, G. (1958): A new spectral characteristic in solar radio emission. Nature
181, 36–38.
Maxwell, J. C. (1860): Illustrations of the dynamical theory of gases: Part I. On the motions and
collisions of perfectly elastic spheres. Philosophical Magazine 19, 19.
Mazur, J. E., et al. (1992): The energy spectra of solar flare hydrogen, helium, oxygen, and iron:
Evidence for stochastic acceleration. Astrophysical Journal 401, 398–410.
Mazur, J. E., et al. (2000): Interplanetary magnetic field line mixing deduced from impulsive solar
flare properties. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 532, L79–L82.
Mazur, J. E., et al. (2002): Charge states of energetic particles from co-rotating interaction regions
as constraints on their source. Astrophysical Journal 566, 555–561.
Mc Allister, A. H., Crooker, N. U. (2002): Coronal mass ejections, corotating interaction regions,
and geomagnetic storms. In: Coronal Mass Ejections. Geophysical Monograph 99 (Eds.
N. Crooker, J. A. Joselyn and J. Feynman). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union
1997, pp. 279–290.
Mc Ateer, et al. (2004): Ultraviolet oscillations in the chromosphere of the quiet Sun. Astrophysical
Journal 602, 436–445.
Mc Comas, D. J., et al. (1998a): Ulysses’ rapid crossing of the polar coronal hole boundary.
Journal of Geophysical Research 103, 1955.
Mc Comas, D. J., et al. (1998b): Ulysses’ return to the slow solar wind. Geophysical Research
Letters 25, 1–4.
Mc Comas, D. J., et al. (2000): Solar wind observations over Ulysses’ first full polar orbit. Journal
of Geophysical Research 105(A5), 10419–10434.
Mc Comas, D. J., et al. (2002): Ulysses’ second fast-latitude scan: Complexity near solar maximum
and the reformation of polar coronal holes. Geophysical Research Letters 29(9), 4–1.
Mccomas, D. J., et al. (2003): The three-dimensional solar wind around solar maximum.
Geophysical Research Letters 30(10), 1517.
McComas, D. J., et al. (2007): Understanding coronal heating and solar wind acceleration: Case
for in situ near-Sun measurements. Reviews of Geophysics 45, 1–26.
Mc Crea, W. H. (1929): The hydrogen chromosphere. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society 89, 483–497.
Mc Crea, W. H. (1956): Shock waves in steady radial motion under gravity. Astrophysical Journal
124, 461–468.
Mc Donald, A. B., et al. (2001): First neutrino observations from the Sudbury Neutrino
Observatory. Nuclear Physics B – Proceedings Supplements 91, 21–28.
Mc Hargue, L. R., Damon, P. E. (1991): The global beryllium 10 cycle. Reviews of Geophysics
29, 141–158.
McIntosh, P. S., Dryer, M. (Eds., 1970): Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 30.
Cambridge: MIT Press, Preface.
Mcintosh, S. W., et al. (2001): An observational manifestation of magnetoatmospheric waves
in internetwork regions of the chromosphere and transition region. Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 548, L237–L241.
Mcintosh, S. W., Fleck, B., Tarbell, T. D. (2004): Chromospheric oscillations in an equatorial
coronal hole. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 609, L95–L98.
McIntosh, S. W., Jefferies, S. M. (2006): Observing the modification of the acoustic cutoff
frequency by field inclination angle. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 647, L77–L81.
Mcintosh, S. W., Judge, P. O. (2001): On the nature of magnetic shadows in the solar chromo-
sphere. Astrophysical Journal 561, 420–426.
Mcintosh, S. W., Leamon, R. J. (2005): Is there a chromospheric footprint of the solar wind?
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 624, L117–L120.
McKenzie, D. E. (2002): Signatures of reconnection in eruptive flares. In Multi Wavelength
Observations of Coronal Structure and Dynamics (Eds. P. C. H. Martens and D. P. Cauffman).
McKenzie, D. E., Canfield, R. C. (2008): Hinode XRT observations of a long-lasting coronal
sigmoid. Astronomy and Astrophysics Letters. 481, L65–L68.
480 References

Mc Kenzie, D. E., Hudson, H. S. (1999): X-ray observations of motions and structure above a
solar flare arcade. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 519, L93–L96.
Mc Kenzie, J. F., Axford, W. I., Banaszkiewicz, M. (1997): The fast solar wind. Geophysical
Research Letters 24(22), 2877–2880.
Mc Kenzie, J. F., Banaszkiewicz, M., Axford, W. I. (1995): Acceleration of the high speed solar
wind. Astronomy and Astrophysics303, L45–L46.
Mc Kenzie, J. F., Bornatici, M. (1974): Effect of sound waves, Alfvén waves, and heat flow on
interplanetary shock waves. Journal of Geophysical Research 79, 4589–4594.
Mc Kibben, R. B., et al. (1996): Observations of galactic cosmic rays and the anomalous helium
during Ulysses passage from the south to the north solar pole. Astronomy and Astrophysics
316, 547–554.
Mc Kibben, R. B., et al. (2003): Ulysses COSPIN observations of cosmic rays and solar energetic
articles from the South Pole to the North Pole of the Sun during solar maximum. Annales
Geophysicae 21, 1217–1228.
Mc Kibben, R. B., Lopate, C., Zhang, M. (2001): Simultaneous observations of solar energetic
particle events by IMP 9 and the Ulysses COSPIN high energy telescope at high solar latitudes.
Space Science Reviews 97, 257–262.
Mc Lean, D. J. (2005): Metrewave solar radio bursts. In: Solar Radiophysics (Eds. D. J. Mc Lean
and N. R. Labrum). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1985, pp. 37–52.
Mc Lean, D. J., Labrum, N. R. (Eds., 1985): Solar Radiophysics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mc Lennan, J. C., Shrum, G. M. (1926): On the origin of the auroral green line 5577 Å and
other spectra associated with the aurora borealis. Proceedings of the Royal Society (London)
A108, 501.
Mc Mulllin, D. R., et al. (2004): Heliospheric conditions that affect the interstellar gas inside the
heliosphere. Astronomy and Astrophysics 426, 885–895.
McDonald, A. B. (2001): First results from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory explain the missing
solar neutrinos and reveal new neutrino properties. News Release of the Sudbury Neutrino
Observatory on 18 June 2001. Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.
McDonald, A. B. (2005): Sudbury Neutrino Observatory results. Physica Scripta T 121, 29–32.
Meadows, A. J. (1970): Early Solar Physics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Meadows, A. J. (1975): A 100 years of controversy over sunspots and weathers. Nature 256, 95–97.
Meadows, A. J., Kennedy, J. E. (1982): The origin of solar-terrestrial studies. Vistas in Astronomy
25, 419–426.
Melrose, D. B. (1995): Current paths in the corona and energy release in solar flares. Astrophysical
Journal 451, 391–401.
Melrose, D. B. (1997): A solar flare model based on magnetic reconnection between current-
carrying loops. Astrophysical Journal 486, 521–533.
Mewaldt, R. A. (2006): Solar energetic particle composition, energy spectra and space weather.
Space Science Reviews 124, 303–316.
Mewaldt, R. A., et al. (2005): Solar-particle energy spectra during the large events of October–
November 2003 and January 2005. 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference Pune, 1,
101–104.
Meyer, J.-P. (1981): A tentative ordering of all available solar energetic particle abundance
observations. Proceedings of the 17th International Cosmic Ray Conference 3, 145–152.
Meyer, J.-P. (1985a): Solar-stellar outer atmospheres and energetic particles, and galactic cosmic
rays. Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 57, 173–204.
Meyer, J.-P. (1985b): The baseline composition of solar energetic particles. Astrophysical Journal
Supplement Series 57, 151–171.
Meyer, J.-P. (1991): Diagnostic methods for coronal abundances. Advances in Space Research
11(1), 269–280.
Meyer, P., Parker, E. N., Simpson, J. A. (1956): Solar cosmic rays of February, 1956 and their
propagation through interplanetary space. Physical Review 104, 768–783.
References 481

Meyer, P., Simpson, J. A. (1954): Changes in amplitude of the cosmic-ray 27–day intensity
variation with solar activity. Physical Review 96, 1085–1088.
Meyer, P., Simpson, J. A. (1955): Changes in the low-energy particle cutoff and primary spectrum
of cosmic radiation. Physical Review 99, 1517–1523.
Meyer, P., Simpson, J. A. (1957): Changes in the low-energy particle cutoff and primary spectrum
of cosmic rays. Physical Review 106, 568–571.
Meyer, P., Vogt, R. (1961): Electrons in the primary cosmic radiation. Physical Review Letters 6,
193–196.
Meyer, P., Vogt, R. (1962): High-energy electrons of solar origin. Physical Review Letters 8,
387–389.
Meyer-Vernet, N. (1999): How does the solar wind blow? A simple kinetic model. European
Journal of Physics 20, No. 3, 167–176.
Michel, F. C., Dessler, A. J. (1965): Physical significance of inhomogeneities in polar cap
absorption events. Journal of Geophysical Research 70, 4305–4311.
Miesch, M. S. (2003): Numerical modeling of the solar tachocline II. Forced turbulence with
imposed shear. Astrophysical Journal 586, 663–684.
Miesch, M. S. (2005): Large-scale dynamics of the convection zone and tachocline. Living
Reviews in Solar Physics 2, 1.
Miesch, M. S., Gilman, P. A. (2004): Thin-shell magnetohydrodynamic equations for the solar
tachocline. Solar Physics 220, 287–305.
Mikheyev, S. P., Smirnov, A. Y. (1985): Resonance enhancement of oscillations in matter and
solar neutrino spectroscopy. Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics 42, 913–917.
Mikic, Z., Lee, M. A. (2006): An introduction to theory and models of CMEs, shocks and solar
energetic particles Space Science Reviews 123, 57–80.
Mikic, Z., Linker, J. A. (1994): Disruption of coronal magnetic field arcades. Astrophysical
Journal 430, 898–912.
Milankovitch, M. M. (1920): Théorie Mathématique des Phénomenes Thermiques Produits
par la Radiation Solarie. Académie Yugoslave des Sciences et des Arts de Zagreb. Paris:
Gauthier-Villars.
Milankovitch, M. M. (1941): Kanon der Erdbestrahlung une sei Eiszeitenproblem (Canon of
insolation and the ice-age problem). Königliche Serbische Akademie, Beograd, Publication
132, Section of Mathematics and Natural Science 33, 1941. (English translation by the Israel
Program for Scientific Translations and published for the U. S. Department of Commerce and
the National Science Foundation, Jerusalem 1970).
Miller, J. A., et al. (1997): Critical issues for understanding particle acceleration in impulsive solar
flares. Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 14631–14659.
Millikan, R. A. (1926): High frequency rays of cosmic origin. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 12, 48–55.
Millikan, R. A., Cameron, G. H. (1926): High frequency rays of cosmic origin III. Measurements
in snow-fed lakes at high altitudes. Physical Review 28, 851–868.
Minton, D. A., Malhotra, R. (2007): Assessing the massive young Sun hypothesis to solve the
warm young Earth puzzle. Astrophysical Journal 660, 170–1706.
Miralles, M. P., Cranmer, S. R., Kohl, J. L. (2001): Ultraviolet coronagraph spectrometer obser-
vations of a high-latitude coronal hole with high oxygen temperatures and the next solar cycle
polarity. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 560, L193–L196.
Miralles, M. P., Cranmer, S. R., Kohl, J. L. (2004): Low-latitude coronal holes during solar
maximum. Advances in Space Research 33, 696.
Miralles, M. P., Cranmer, S. R., Kohl, J. L. (2005): Solar cycle variations of coronal hole
properties. American Geophysical Union Spring Meeting, Abstract SP51B-07.
Miralles, M. P., et al. (2001): Comparison of empirical models for polar and equatorial coronal
holes. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 549, L257–L260.
Miranda, O. G., et al. (2004): Constraining the neutrino magnetic moment with antineutrinos from
the Sun. Physical Review Letters 93, 051304.
482 References

Mitalas, R., Sills, K. R. (1992): On the photon diffusion time scale for the Sun. The Astrophysical
Journal 401, 759.
Mitchell, J. F. B. (1989): The “greenhouse” effect and climate change. Reviews of Geophysics 27,
115–139.
Mizuno, D. R., et al. (2005): Very high altitude aurora observations with the solar mass ejection
imager. Journal of Geophysical Research 110, A07230.
Möbius, E., et al. (1985): Direct observation of He (+) pick-up ions of interstellar origin in the
solar wind. Nature 318, 426–429.
Möbius, E., et al. (2002): Charge state of energetic (about 0.5 MeV/nucleon) ions in co-rotating
interaction regions at 1 AU and implications on source populations. Geophysical Research
Letters 29(2), 1016.
Möbius, E., et al. (2004): Synopsis of interstellar He parameters from combined neutral gas, pickup
ion and UV scattering observations and related consequences. Astronomy and Astrophysics
426(3), 897–907.
Molina, M. J., Rowland, F. S. (1974): Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes. chlorine
atomic-atalyzed destruction of ozone. Nature 249, 810–812.
Montgomery, M. D., et al. (1974): Solar wind electron temperature depressions following some
interplanetary shock waves: Evidence for magnetic merging? Journal of Geophysical Research
79, 3103–3123.
Moon, Y.-J., et al. (2002): A statistical study of two classes of coronal mass ejections. Astrophysical
Journal 581, 694–702.
Moon, Y.-J., et al. (2007): Hinode sp vector magnetogram of AR 10930 and its cross comparison
with MDI. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S625–S630.
Moore, R. L. (1988): Evidence that magnetic energy shedding in solar filament eruptions is
the drive in accompanying flares and coronal mass ejections. Astrophysical Journal 324,
1132–1137.
Moore, R. L., et al. (1980): The thermal X-ray flare plasma. In: Solar Flares. Skylab Solar
Workshop II (Ed. P. A. Sturrock). Boulder, Colorado: Colorado Associated University Press
1980, pp. 341–409.
Moore, R. L., Schmieder, B., Hathaway, D. H., Tarbell, T. D. (1997): 3–d magnetic field
configuration late in a large two-ribbon flare. Solar Physics 176, 153–169.
Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C. (2006): Initiation of coronal mass ejections. In Solar Eruptions and
Energetic Particles. Geophysical Monograph Series 165. (Ed. N. Gopalswamy, R. Mewaldt
and J. Torsti). Washington: American Geophysical Union.
Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C. (2007): The coronal-dimming footprint of a streamer puff coronal
mass ejection: Confirmation of the magnetic-arch-blowout scenario. Astrophysical Journal
661, 543–550.
Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., Lemen, J. R. (2001): Onset of the magnetic explosion
in solar flares and coronal mass ejections. Astrophysical Journal 552, 833–848.
Moore, R. L., Sterling, A. C., Suess, S. T. (2007): The width of a solar coronal mass ejection
and the source of the driving magnetic explosion: A test of the standard scenario for CME
production. Astrophysical Journal 668, 1221–1231.
Moore, R. L., Suess, S. T., Musielak, Z. E., An, C. -H. (1991): Alfvén wave trapping, network
microflaring and heating in coronal holes. The Astrophysical Journal 378, 347–359.
Moran, T. G., Davila, J. M. (2004): Three-dimensional polarimetric imaging of coronal mass
ejections. Science 305, 66–70.
Moreton, G. E. (1960): Hα observations of flare-initiated disturbances with velocities
≈ 1000 km/sec. The Astronomical Journal 65, 494–495.
Moreton, G. E. (1961): Fast-moving disturbances on the Sun. Sky and Telescope 21, 145–147.
Moreton, G. E. (1964): Ha shock wave and winking filaments with the flare of 20 September
1963. The Astronomical Journal 69, 145.
Moreton, G. E., Severny, A. B. (1968): Magnetic fields and flares in the region cmp 20 September
1963. Solar Physics 3, 282–297.
Morrison, P. (1954): Solar-connected variations of the cosmic rays. Physical Review 95, 646.
References 483

Morrison, P. (1958): On gamma-ray astronomy. Nuovo Cimento 7, 858–865.

Moses, D. et al. (1997): EIT observations of the extreme ultraviolet Sun. Solar Physics 175,
571–599. Reprinted in: The First Results From SOHO (Eds. B. Fleck and Z. Svestka). Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997, pp. 571–599.
Müller-Mellin, R., et al. (1995): COSTEP – Comprehensive Suprathermal and Energetic Particle
Analyser. Solar Physics 162, 483–504.
Mullen, E. G., et al. (1991): A double-peaked inner radiation belt: Cause and effect as seen on
CRRES. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 38, 1713–1717.
Munro, R. H., et al. (1979): The association of coronal mass ejection transients with other forms
of solar activity. Solar Physics 61, 201–215.
Munro, R. H., Jackson, B. V. (1977): Physical properties of a polar coronal hole from 2 to 5 solar
radii. The Astrophysical Journal 213, 874–886.
Murphy, N., Smith, E. J., Schwadron, N. A. (2002): Strongly underwound magnetic fields in
co-rotating interaction regions: Observations and implications. Geophysical Research Letters
29(22), 2066.
Murphy, R. J., Dermer, C. D., Ramaty, R. (1987): High-energy processes in solar flares.
Astrophysical Journal Supplement 63, 721–748.
Murphy, R. J., et al. (1985): Solar flare gamma-ray line spectroscopy. Proceedings 19th
International Cosmic Ray Conference (La Jolla) 4, 253–256.
Murphy, R. J., et al. (1991): Solar abundances from gamma-ray spectroscopy: Comparisons with
energetic particle, photospheric, and coronal abundances. The Astrophysical Journal 371,
793–803.
Murphy, R. J., Ramaty, R. (1984): Solar flare neutrons and gamma rays. Advances in Space
Research 4(7), 127–136.

Nagashima, K., et al. (2007): Observations of sunspot oscillations in G band and Ca II H line with
Solar Optical Telescope on Hinode. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59,
S631–S636.
Nakamura, M., et al. (1998): Reconnection event at the dayside magnetopause on January 10,
1997. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 2529–2532.
Nakariakov, V. M., et al. (1999): TRACE observations of damped coronal loop oscillations:
Implications for coronal heating. Science 285, 862–864.
Nakariakov, V. M., Verwichte, E. (2005): Coronal waves and oscillations. Living Reviews in Solar
Physics 2, 3.
Narain, U., Ulmschneider, P. (1990): Chromospheric and coronal heating mechanisms. Space
Science Reviews 54, 377–445.
Narain, U., Ulmschneider, P. (1996): Chromospheric and coronal heating mechanisms II. Space
Science Reviews 75, 453–509.
Nash, A. G., Sheeley, N. R., Wang, Y. -M. (1988): Mechanisms for the rigid rotation of coronal
holes. Solar Physics 117, 359–389.
National Research Council: Solar influences on global change. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press 1994.
Neftel, A., et al. (1982): Ice core sample measurements give atmospheric CO2 content during the
past 40,000 years. Nature 295, 220–223.
Neftel, A., et al. (1985): Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the
past two centuries. Nature 315, 45–47.
Neftel, A., Oeschger, H., Suess, H. E. (1981): Secular non-random variations of cosmogenic
carbon-14 in the terrestrial atmosphere. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 56, 127–147.
Neidig, D. F. (1989): The importance of solar white-light flares. Solar Physics 121, 261–269.
484 References

Nerney, S., Suess, S. T. (2005): Stagnation flow in thin streamer boundaries. The Astrophysical
Journal 624, 378–391.
Nesme-Ribes, E., Baliunas, S. L., Sokoloff, D. (1996): The stellar dynamo. Scientific American
275, 46–52 – August.
Nesme-Ribes, E., et al. (1993): Solar dynamics and its impact on solar irradiance and the terrestrial
climate. Journal of Geophysical Research 98, 18923–18935.
Nesme-Ribes, E., Mangeney, A. (1992): On a plausible physical mechanism linking the Maunder
Minimum to the Little Ice Age. Radiocarbon 34(2), 263–270.
Nesme-Ribes, E., Sokoloff, D., Sadourny, R.: Solar rotation, irradiance changes and climate. In:
The Sun as a Variable Star (Eds. J. Pap, H. Hudson and S. Solanki). New York: Cambridge
University Press 1994, pp. 244–251.
Ness, N. F. (1965): The Earth’s magnetic tail. Journal of Geophysical Research 70, 2989–3005.
Ness, N. F. (1968): Observed properties of the interplanetary plasma. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 6, 79–114.
Ness, N. F. (1996): Pioneering the swinging 1960s into the 1970s and 1980s. Journal of
Geophysical Research 101(A5), 10497–10509.
Ness, N. F., Hundhausen, A. J., Bame, S. J. (1971): Observations of the interplanetary medium:
Vela 3 and IMP 3, 1965–1967. Journal of Geophysical Research 76, 6643–6660.
Ness, N. F., Scearce, C. S., Seek, J. B. (1964): Initial results of the IMP 1 magnetic field
experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research 69, 3531–3569.
Ness, N. F., Wilcox, J. M. (1964): Solar origin of the interplanetary magnetic field. Physical
Review Letters 13, 461–464.
Ness, N. F., Wilcox, J. M. (1966): Extension of the photospheric magnetic field into interplanetary
space. Astrophysical Journal 143, 23–31.
Neugebauer, M. (1981): Observations of solar-wind helium. Fundamentals of Cosmic Physics 7,
131–199.
Neugebauer, M. (1992): Knowledge of coronal heating and solar wind acceleration obtained
from observations of the solar wind near 1 AU. In: Solar Wind Seven (Eds. E. Marsch and
R. Schwenn). Oxford: Pergamon 1992, p. 69.
Neugebauer, M. (1997): Pioneers of space physics: a career in the solar wind. Journal of
Geophysical Research 102, A12, 26,887–26,894.
Neugebauer, M., et al. (2002): Sources of the solar wind at solar activity maximum. Journal of
Geophysical Research 107(A12), 1488.
Neugebauer, M., Snyder, C. W. (1962): The mission of Mariner II – preliminary observations.
Solar plasma experiment. Science 138, 1095–1096.
Neugebauer, M., Snyder, C. W. (1966): Mariner 2 observations of the solar wind. Journal of
Geophysical Research 71, 4469–4484.
Neugebauer, M., Snyder, C. W. (1967): Mariner 2 observations of the solar wind 2. Relation of
plasma properties to the magnetic field. Journal of Geophysical Research 72, 1823–1828.
Neupert, W. M. (1968): Comparison of solar X-ray line emission with microwave emission during
flares. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 153, L59–L64.
Neupert, W. M. (1989): Transient coronal extreme ultraviolet emission before and during the
impulsive phase of a solar flare. The Astrophysical Journal 344, 504–512.
Neupert, W. M., et al. (1967): Observation of the solar flare X-ray emission line spectrum of iron
from 1.3 to 20 Å. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 149, L79–L83.
Neupert, W. M., et al. (1998): Obsevations of coronal structures above an active region by EIT and
implications for coronal energy deposition. Solar Physics 183, 305–321.
Neupert, W. M., Pizzo, V. (1974): Solar coronal holes as sources of recurrent geomagnetic
disturbances. Journal of Geophysical Research 79, 3701–3709.
Newell, N. E., et al. (1989): Global marine temperature variation and the solar magnetic cycle.
Geophysical Research Letters 16, 311–314.
Newell, P. T., Meng, C.-I., Wing, S. (1998): Relation to solar activity of intense aurorae in sunlight
and darkness. Nature 393, 342–345.
References 485

Newkirk, G. Jr. (Ed. 1974): Coronal Disturbances: Proceedings of IAU Symposium No. 57.
Boston: D. Reidel 1974.
Newkirk, G. Jr., Harvey, J. (1968): Coronal polar plumes. Solar Physics 3, 321–343.
Newman, M. J., Rood, R. T. (1977): Implications of solar evolution for the Earth’s early
atmosphere. Science 198, 1035–1037.
Newton, H. W. (1930): An active region of the Sun on 1930 August 12. Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society 90, 820–825.
Newton, H. W. (1932): The 27-day period in terrestrial magnetic disturbances. Observatory 55,
256–261.
Newton, H. W. (1935): Note on two allied types of chromospheric eruptions. Monthly Notices of
the Royal Astronomical Society 95, 650–665.
Newton, H. W. (1942): Characteristic radial motions of Hα absorption markings seen with bright
eruptions on the Sun’s disc. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 102, 2–10.
Newton, H. W. (1943): Solar flares and magnetic storms. Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society 103, 244–257.
Newton, H. W., Nunn, M. L. (1951): The Sun’s rotation derived from sunspots 1934 –1944 and
additional results. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 111, 413–421.
Ney, E. P. (1959): Cosmic radiation and the weather. Nature 183, 451–452.
Ng, C. K., Reames, D. V., Tylka, A. J. (1999): Effect of proton-amplified waves on the evolution
of solar energetic particle composition in gradual events. Geophysical Research Letters 26(14),
2145–2148.
Nightingale, R. W., et al. (2002): Concurrent rotating sunspots, twisted coronal fans, sigmoid
structures and coronal mass ejections. In: Multi-wavelength Observations of Coronal Structure
and Dynamics – Yohkoh 10th Anniversary Meeting (Eds. P. C. H. Martens and D. Cauffman).
New York: Elsevier Science 2002, p. 149.
Nisbet, E. G. (2000): The realms of Archaean life. Nature 405, 625–626.
Nisbet, E. G., Sleep, N. H. (2001): The habitat and nature of early life. Nature 409, 1083–1091.
Nishio, M., et al. (1997): Magnetic field configuration in impulsive solar flares inferred from
coaligned microwave/X-ray images. The Astrophysical Journal 489, 976.
Nitta, N. V., et al. (2006): Solar sources of impulsive solar energetic particle events and their
magnetic field connection to the Earth. The Astrophysical Journal, 650(1), 438–450.
Noci, G. (1973): Energy budget in coronal holes. Solar Physics 28, 403–407.
Noci, G. (2002): The temperature of the solar corona. Memoires Societa Astronomia Italiana 74,
704.
Noci, G., et al. (1997): First results from UVCS/SOHO. Advances in Space Research 20(12), 2219.
Noci, G., et al. (1997): The quiescent corona and slow solar wind. In: The Corona and Solar
Wind near Minimum Activity Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO Workshop. ESA SP-404 (Eds.
O. Kjeldseth-Moe, A. Wilson). Noordwijk, The Netherlands: ESA Publications Division 1997,
pp. 75–84.
Noci, G., Kohl, J. L., Withbroe, G. L. (1987): Solar wind diagnostics from Doppler-enhanced
scattering. The Astrophysical Journal 315, 706–715.
Nolte, J. T., et al. (1976): Coronal holes as sources of solar wind. Solar Physics 46, 303–322.
November, L. J. (1989): The vertical component of the supergranular convection. The Astrophys-
ical Journal 344, 494–503.
November, L. J., Koutchmy, S. (1996): White-light coronal dark threads and density fine structure.
The Astrophysical Journal 466, 512–528.
Noyes, R. W. (1971): Ultraviolet studies of the solar atmosphere. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 9, 209–236.
Noyes, R. W., Baliunas, S. L., Guinan, E. F.: What can other stars tell us about the Sun? In:
The Solar Interior and Atmosphere (Eds. A. N. Cox, W. C. Livingston and M. S. Matthews).
Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press 1991, pp. 1161–1186.
Noyes, R. W., et al. (1984): Rotation, convection, and magnetic activity in lower main sequence
stars. The Astrophysical Journal 279, 763–777.
486 References

Noyes, R. W., Leighton, R. B. (1963): Velocity fields in the solar atmosphere II. The oscillation
field. The Astrophysical Journal 138, 631–647.
Noyes, R. W., Weiss, N. O., Vaughan, A. H. (1984): The relation between stellar rotation rate and
activity cycle periods. The Astrophysical Journal 287, 769–773.

Ofman, L. (2005): MHD waves and heating in coronal holes. Space Science Reviews 120, 67–94.
Ofman, L., Davila, J. M., Shimizu, T. (1996): Signatures of global mode Alfvén resonance heating
in coronal loops. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 459, L39–L42.
Ofman, L., Gary, S. P., Vinas, A. (2002): Resonant heating and acceleration of ions in coronal holes
by cyclotron resonant spectra. Journal of Geophysical Research 107(A12), 1461, SSH 9–1.
Ogawara, Y., et al. (1991): The SOLAR-A mission: An overview. Solar Physics 136, 1–16.
Ogilvie, K. W., Coplan, M. A. (1995): Solar wind composition. Reviews of Geophysics Supplement
33, 615–622.
Ogilvie, K. W., Desch, M. D. (1997): The Wind spacecraft and its early scientific results. In:
Results of the IASTP Program (Ed. C. T. Russell). New York: Elsevier, p. 559.
Okamoto, T. J., et al. (2007): Coronal transverse magnetohydrodynamic waves in a solar
prominence. Science 318, 1577–1578.
Oort, J. H. (1950): The structure of the cloud of comets surrounding the solar system and a
hypothesis concerning its origin. Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands 11,
91–110. Reproduced in: A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics 1900–1975 (Eds. K.
R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1979, pp. 132–137.
Oranje, B. J. (1983): The Ca II emission from the Sun as a star II. The plage emission profile.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 124, 43–49.
Orrall, F. Q., Rottman, G. J., Klimchuk, J. A. (1983): Outflow from the Sun’s polar corona. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 266, L65–L68.
Oster, L., Sofia, S., Schatten, K. (1982): Solar irradiance variations due to active regions. The
Astrophysical Journal 256, 768–773.
Osterbrock, D. E. (1961): The heating of the solar chromosphere, plages, and corona by
magnetohydrodynamic waves. The Astrophysical Journal 134, 347–388.
Otsuji, K., et al. (2007): Small-scale magnetic-flux emergence observed with Hinode Solar Optical
Telescope. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S649–S654.
Owen, T., Cess, R. D., Ramanathan, V. (1979): Enhanced CO2 greenhouse to compensate for
reduced solar luminosity on early Earth. Nature 277, 640–642.

Paillard, D. (1998): The timing of Pleistocene glaciations from a simple multiple-state climate
model. Nature 391, 378–381.
Pallavicini, R., Serio, S., Vaiana, G. S. (1977): A survey of solar X-ray limb flare images: The
relation between their structure in the corona and other physical parameters. Astrophysical
Journal 216, 108–122.
Pallé, P. L., Régulo, C., Roca-Cortés, T. (1989): Solar cycle induced variations of the low l solar
acoustic spectrum. Astronomy and Astrophysics 224, 253–258.
Parker, E. N. (1955): Dynamics of the interplanetary gas and magnetic fields. The Astrophysical
Journal 125, 668–676.
References 487

Parker, E. N. (1957a): Sweet’s mechanism for merging magnetic fields in conducting fluids.
Journal of Geophysical Research 62, 509–520.
Parker, E. N. (1957b): Acceleration of cosmic rays in solar flares. Physical Review 107, 830–836.
Parker, E. N. (1958a): Dynamical instability in an anisotropic ionized gas of low density. Physical
Review 109, 1874–1876.
Parker, E. N. (1958b): Dynamics of the interplanetary gas and magnetic fields. Astrophysical
Journal 128, 664–676.
Parker, E. N. (1958c): Interaction of the solar wind with the geomagnetic field. The Physics of
Fluids 1, 171–187.
Parker, E. N. (1958d): Cosmic-ray modulation by solar wind. Physical Review 110, 1445–1449.
Reproduced in: Cosmic Rays (Ed., A. M. Hillas). New York: Pergamon Press 1972.
Parker, E. N. (1959): Extension of the solar corona into interplanetary space. Journal of
Geophysical Research 64, 1675–1681.
Parker, E. N. (1960): The hydrodynamic theory of solar corpuscular radiation and stellar winds.
The Astrophysical Journal 132, 821–866.
Parker, E. N. (1961): Sudden expansion of the corona following a large solar flare and the attendant
magnetic field and cosmic-ray effects. The Astrophysical Journal 133, 1014–1033.
Parker, E. N. (1963): Interplanetary Dynamical Processes. New York: John Wiley.
Parker, E. N. (1963): The solar flare phenomenon and the theory of reconnection and annihilation
of magnetic fields. Astrophysical Journal Supplement 8(77), 177–211.
Parker, E. N. (1964): Dynamical properties of stellar coronas and stellar winds I. Integration of
the momentum equation. The Astrophysical Journal 139, 72–92.
Parker, E. N. (1965): Dynamical theory of the solar wind. Space Science Reviews 4, 666–708.
Parker, E. N. (1972): Topological dissipation and the small-scale fields in turbulent gases.
Astrophysical Journal 174, 499–510.
Parker, E. N. (1973): Convection and magnetic fields in an atmosphere with constant temperature
gradient. I. Hydrodynamic flows. Astrophysical Journal 186, 643–664.
Parker, E. N. (1979): Sunspots and the physics of magnetic flux tubes. I. The general nature of the
sunspot. II. Aerodynamic drag. Astrophysical Journal 230, 905–913.
Parker, E. N. (1983a): Magnetic fields in the cosmos. Scientific American 249, 44–65.
Parker, E. N. (1983b): Magnetic neutral sheets in evolving fields II. Formation of the solar corona.
The Astrophysical Journal 264, 642–647.
Parker, E. N. (1988): Nanoflares and the solar x-ray corona. The Astrophysical Journal 330,
474–479.
Parker, E. N. (1991): Heating solar coronal holes. Astrophysical Journal 372, 719–727.
Parker, E. N. (1996): Something stirs under the Sun. Nature 379, 209–210.
Parker, E. N. (1997a): Reflections on macrophysics and the Sun. Solar Physics 176, 219–247.
Parker, E. N. (1997b): Mass ejection and a brief history of the solar wind concept. In: Cosmic
Winds and the Heliopshere (Eds. J. R. Jokipii, C. P. Sonett, and M. S. Giampapa). Tucson:
University of Arizona Press 1997.
Parker, E. N. (1998): Reflection on macrophysics and the Sun (Special historical review). Solar
Physics 176, 2, 219–247.
Parker, E. N. (2001): A history of early work on the heliospheric magnetic field. Journal of
Geophysical Research 106, A8, 15797–15802.
Parker, E. N. (2002): A history of the solar wind concept. In: The Century of Space Science I (Eds.
J.A.M. Bleeker, J. Geiss, M. Huber). Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Kluwer 2002, 225–255.
Parkinson, J. H., Morrison, L. V., Stephenson, F. V. (1980): The constancy of the solar diameter
over the past 250 years. Nature 288, 548–551.
Parnell, C. E., Jupp, P. E. (2000): Statistical analysis of the energy distribution of nanoflares in the
quiet sun. The Astrophysical Journal 529, 554–569.
Parnell, C. E., Priest, E. R., Golub, L. (1994): The three-dimensional structures of X-ray bright
points. Solar Physics 151, 57–74.
Paschmann, G. (1997): Observational evidence for transfer of plasma across the magnetopause.
Space Science Reviews 80, 217–234.
488 References

Patsourakos, S., Klimchuk, J. A., Mac Neice, P. J. (2004): The instability of steady-flow models to
explain the extreme-ultarviolet coronal loops. Astrophysical Journal 603, 322–329.
Pauli, W. (1930): Les theories quantities du magnetisive l’electron magnetique (The theory of
magnetic quantities: The magnetic electron. Septiene Cousieil Phys. Solvay, Proceedings of
the Sixth Solvay Conference 1930, Bruxelles, Gauthier-Vill 183–186.
Pauli, W. (1933): Remarks at the seventh solvay conference. Reproduced in the original French
in: Collected Scientific Papers of Wolfgang Pauli, Vol. 2 (Eds. R. Kronig and V. F. Weiskopf).
New York: Wiley Interscience 1964.
Pawsey, J. L. (1946): Observation of million degree thermal radiation from the sun at a wave-length
of 1.5 meters. Nature 158, 633–634.
Payne-Scott, R., Little, A. G. (1952): The position and movement on the solar disk of sources of
radiation at a frequency of 97 Mc/s. III–Outbursts. Australian Journal of Scientific Research
A5, 32–46.
Payne-Scott, R., Yabsley, D. E., Bolton, J. G. (1947): Relative times of arrival of bursts of solar
noise on different radio frequencies. Nature 160, 256–257.
Pecker, J. C., Runcorn, S. K. (Eds., 1990): The Earth’s climate and variability of the Sun over recent
millennia: Geophysical, astronomical and archaeological aspects. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society (London) A330, 395–687. New York: Cambridge: University Press.
Peres, G., et al. (2000): The Sun as an X-Ray star. II. Using the Yohkoh/Soft X-ray Telescope-
derived solar emission measure versus temperature to interpret stellar X-ray observations.
Astrophysical Journal 528, 537–551.
Perrin, J. B. (1920): Atomes et lumiere. La Revue du Mois 21, 113–166.
Peterson, L. E. (1963): The 0.5-Mev gamma-ray and low-energy gamma-ray spectrum to 6 grams
per square centimeter over Minneapolis. Journal of Geophysical Research 68, 979–987.
Peterson, L. E., Winckler, J. R. (1959): Gamma ray burst from a solar flare. Journal of Geophysical
Research 64, 697–707.
Petit, J. R., et al. (1999): Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the
Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399, 429–436.
Petschek, H. E. (1964): Magnetic field annihilation. In: AAS-NASA Symposium on the Physics of
Solar Flares NASA SP-50 (Ed. W. N. Hess). Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, pp. 425–439.
Petschek, H. E., Thorne, R. M. (1967): The existence of intermediate waves in neutral sheets.
Astrophysical Journal 147, 1157–1163.
Pevtsov, A. A. (2000): Transequatorial loops in the solar atmosphere. The Astrophysical Journal
531, 553–560.
Pevtsov, A. A., Canfield, R. C. (1999): Helicity of the photospheric magnetic field. In: Magnetic
Helicity in Space and Laboratory Plasmas. Geophysical Monograph 111. (Eds.. M. R. Brown,
R. C. Canfield, and A. A. Pevtsov). Washington: American Geophysical Union, p. 103.
Pevtsov, A. A., Canfield, R. C., Metcalf, T. R. (1995): Latitudinal variation of helicity of
photospheric magnetic fields. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 440, L109–L112.
Pevtsov, A. A., Canfield, R. C., Zirin, H. (1996): Reconnection and helicity in a solar flare.
Astrophysical Journal 473, 533–538.
Pevtsov, A. A., et al. (1997): On the subphotospheric origin of coronal electric currents.
Astrophysical Journal 481, 973.
Pevtsov, A. A., et al. (2008): On the solar cycle variation of the hemispheric helicity rule.
Astrophysical Journal 677, 719–722.
Phan, T. D., et al. (2005): Magnetopause processes. Space Science Reviews 118, 367–424.
Phan, T. D., et al. (2006): A magnetic reconnection X-line extending more than 390 Earth radii in
the solar wind. Nature 439, 175–178.
Phillips, J. L., et al. (1995a): Ulysses solar wind plasma observations at high southerly latitudes.
Science 268, 1030–1033.
Phillips, J. L., et al. (1995): Ulysses solar wind plasma observations from pole to pole. Geophysical
Research Letters 22(23), 3301–3304.
References 489

Phillips, J. L., et al. (1995b): Sources of shocks and compressions in the high-latitude solar wind:
Ulysses. Geophysical Research Letters 22(23), 3305–3308.
Phillips, K. J. H. (1991): Spectroscopy of high-temperature solar flare plasmas. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society (London) A336, 461–470.
Pick, M., et al. (2006): Multi-wavelength observations of CMEs and associated phenomena. Space
Science Reviews 123, 341–382.
Pick, M., Van den Oord, G. H. J. (1990): Observations of beam propagation. Solar Physics
130, 83–99.
Piddington, J. H. (1956): Solar atmospheric heating by hydromagnetic waves. Monthly Notices of
the Royal Astronomical Society 116, 314.
Piddington, J. H. (1958): Interplanetary magnetic field and its control of cosmic ray variations.
Physical Review 112, 589–596.
Pike, C. D., Mason, H. E. (2002): EUV spectroscopic observations of spray ejecta from an X2
flare. Solar Physics 206, 359–381.
Pizzo, V. J., Gosling, J. T. (1994): Three-dimensional simulation of high-latitude interaction
regions: comparison with Ulysses results. Geophysical Research Letters 21, 2063–2066.
Pneuman, G. W., Kopp, R. A. (1971): Gas-magnetic field interactions in the solar corona. Solar
Physics 18, 258–270.
Poincaré, H. (1896): Remarques sur une experience de M. Birkeland. Comptes Rendus de
l’Academie des Sciences 123, 530–533.
Poland, A. I., et al. (1981): Coronal transients near sunspot maximum. Solar Physics 69, 169–175.
Poletto, G., et al. (2002): Low-latitude solar wind during the fall 1998 SOHO-Ulysses quadrature.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 107(A10), SSH 9–1.
Pollack, H., Huang, S., Shen, P. Y. (1998): Climate change revealed by subsurface temperatures:
A global perspective. Science 282, 279–281.
Pomerantz, M. A., Duggal, S. P. (1973): Record-breaking cosmic ray storm stemming from solar
activity in August 1972. Nature 241, 331–333.
Pontecorvo, B. M. (1967): Neutrino experiments and the problem of conservation of leptonic
charge zhurnal eksperimental’noi i teoreticheskoi fiziki 53, 1717–1725. Soviet Physics JETP
26, 984 (1968).
Popescu, M. D., Doyle, J. G., Xia, L. D. (2004): Network boundary origins of fast solar wind seen
in the low transitions regions? Astronomy and Astrophysics 421, 339–348.
Porter, J. G., Dere, K. P. (1991): The magnetic network location of explosive events observed in
the solar transition region. The Astrophysical Journal 370, 775–778.
Porter, J. G., et al. (1987): Microflares in the solar magnetic network. The Astrophysical Journal
323, 380–390.
Porter, J. G., Fontenla, J. M., Simnett, G. M. (1995): Simultaneous ultraviolet and X-ray
observations of solar microflares. Astrophysical Journal 438, 472–479.
Porter, J. G., Klimchuk, J. A. (1995): Soft X-ray loops and coronal heating. The Astrophysical
Journal 454, 499–511.
Porter, J. G., Moore, R. L. (1988): Coronal heating by microflares. In: Solar and Stellar Coronal
Structure and Dynamics (Ed. R. C. Altrock). Sunspot: National Solar Observatory, Sacramento
Peak, pp. 125–129.
Porter, J. G., Toomre, J., Gebbie, K. B. (1984): Frequent ultraviolet brightenings observed in a
solar active regions with Solar Maximum Mission. The Astrophysical Journal 283, 879–886.
Porter, L. J., Klimchuk, J. A. (1995): Soft X-ray loops and coronal heating. Astrophysical Journal
454, 499–511.
Porter, L. J., Klimchuk, J. A., Sturrock, P. A. (1994a): The possible role of high-frequency waves
in heating solar coronal loops. The Astrophysical Journal 435, 502–514.
Porter, L. J., Klimchuk, J. A., Sturrock, P. A. (1994b): The possible role of MHD waves in heating
the solar corona. The Astrophysical Journal 435, 482–501.
Posner, A. (2007): Up to one-hour forecasting of radiation hazards from solar energetic ion events
with relativistic electrons. Space Weather 5, S05001–S05029.
490 References

Posner, A., et al. (2001): Nature of the boundary between open and closed magnetic field line
regions at the Sun revealed by composition data and numerical models. Journal of Geophysical
Research 106(A8), 15869–15880.
Pres, P. (1999): The magnetic association of coronal bright points. The Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 510, L73–L76.
Priem, H. N. A. (1997): CO2 and climate: A geologist’s view. Space Science Reviews 81, 173–198.
Priest, E. R. (1978): The structure of coronal loops. Solar Physics 58, 57–87.
Priest, E. R. (1982): Solar Magnetohydrodynamics. Boston: D. Reidel.
Priest, E. R. (1991): The magnetohydrodynamics of energy release in solar flares. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society (London) A336, 363–380.
Priest, E. R. (1996): Coronal heating by magnetic reconnection. Astrophysics and Space Science
237, 49–73.
Priest, E. R. (1999): How is the solar corona heated? Solar and Stellar Activity: Similarities and
Differences. Asp Conference Series 158, 321–333.
Priest, E. R., Foley, C. R., Heyvaerts, J., Arber, T. D., Culhane, J. L., Acton, L. W. (1998): Nature
of the heating mechanism for the diffuse solar corona. Nature 393, 545–547.
Priest, E. R., Forbes, T. G. (1986): New models for fast steady-state magnetic reconnection.
Journal of Geophysical Research 91, 5579–5588.
Priest, E. R., Forbes, T. G. (1990): Magnetic field evolution during prominence eruptions and
two-ribbon flares. Solar Physics 126, 319–350.
Priest, E. R., Forbes, T. G. (2002): The magnetic nature of solar flares. Astronomy and Astrophysics
Review 10(4), 313–377.
Priest, E. R., Heyvaerts, J. F., Title, A. M. (2002): A flux-tube tectonics model for solar coronal
heating driven by the magnetic carpet. The Astrophysical Journal 576, 533–551.
Priest, E. R., Parnell, C. E., Martin, S. F. (1994): A converging flux model of an X-ray bright point
and an associated canceling magnetic feature. The Astrophysical Journal 427, 459–474.
Priest, E. R., Schrijver, C. J. (1999): Aspects of three-dimensional magnetic reconnection (invited
review). Solar Physics 190, 1–24.
Pudovkin, M. I., Veretenenko, S. V. (1996): Variations of the cosmic rays as one of the possible
links between the solar activity and the lower atmosphere. Advances in Space Research 17(11),
161–164.
Pulkiinen, T. I., et al. (2001): The Sun–Earth connection on time scales from years to decades and
centuries. Space Science Reviews 95, 625–637.
Pulkkinen, T. I. (2007): Space weather: terrestrial perspective. Living Reviews in Solar Physics 4, 1.
Purcell, J. D., Tousey, R., Watanabe, K. (1949): Observations at high altitudes of extreme
ultraviolet and X-rays from the Sun. Physical Review 76, 165–166.

Qiu, J., et al. (2007): On the magnetic flux budget in low-corona magnetic reconnection and
interplanetary coronal mass ejections. The Astrophysical Journal 659, 758–772.
Qiu, J., Wang, H., Cheng, C. Z., Gary, D. E. (2004): Magnetic reconnection and mass acceleration
in flare-coronal mass ejections events. Astrophysical Journal 604, 900–905.
Quinn, T. J., Fröhlich, C. (1999): Accurate radiometers should measure the output of the Sun.
Nature 401, 841.
References 491

Radick, R. R., Lockwood, G. W., Baliunas, S. L. (1990): Stellar activity and brightness variations:
a glimpse at the Sun’s history. Science 247, 39–44.
Ragot, B. R. (2006a): Mean cross-field displacement of magnetic field lines: Full nonlinear cal-
culation and comparison with generalized quasi-linear results in the solar wind. Astrophysical
Journal 644, 622–630.
Ragot, B. R. (2006b): Nonresonant pitch-angle scattering of low-energy electrons in the solar
wind. The Astrophysical Journal 642, 1163–1172.
Ragot, B. R. (2006c): Distributions of magnetic field orientations in the turbulent solar wind. The
Astrophysical Journal 651, 1209–1218.
Ragot, B. R. (2006d): Lengths of wandering magnetic field lines in the turbulent solar wind. The
Astrophysical Journal 653, 1493–1498.
Raisbeck, G. M., et al. (1981): Cosmogenic 10 Be concentrations in Antarctic ice during the past
30,000 years. Nature 292, 825–826.
Raisbeck, G. M., et al. (1985): Evidence for an increase in cosmogenic 10 Be during a geomagnetic
reversal. Nature 315, 315–317.
Raisbeck, G. M., et al. (1987): Evidence for two intervals of enhanced 10 Be deposition in Antarctic
ice during the last glacial period. Nature 326, 273–277.
Raisbeck, G. M., et al. (1990): 10 Be and 2 H in polar ice cores as a probe of the solar variability’s
influence on climate. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) A300,
463–470.
Raisbeck, G. M., Yiou, F. (1988): 10 Be as a proxy indicator of variations in solar activity and
geomagnetic field intensity during the last 10,000 years. In: Secular, Solar and Geomagnetic
Variations in the Last 10,000 Years (Eds. F. R. Stephenson and W. Wolfendale). Drodrecht:
Kluwer, pp. 287–296.
Ramanathan, V. (1988): The greenhouse theory of climate change. Science 240, 293–299.
Ramanathan, V., et al. (1989): Cloud-radiative forcing and climate: Results from the Earth
Radiation Budget experiment. Science 243, 57–62.
Ramaty, R. (1969): Gyrosynchrotron emission and absorption in a magnetoactive plasma.
Astrophysical Journal 158, 753–770.
Ramaty, R., et al. (1983): Implications of high-energy neutron observations from solar flares.
Astrophysical Journal Letters 273, L41–L45.
Ramaty, R., et al. (1993): Acceleration in solar flares: Interacting particles versus interplanetary
particles. Advances in Space Research 13(9), 275–284.
Ramaty, R., et al. (1994): Gamma-ray and millimeter-wave emissions from the 1991 June X-class
flares. The Astrophysical Journal 436, 941–949.
Ramaty, R., Kozlovsky, B., Lingenfelter, R. E. (1979): Nuclear gamma rays from energetic particle
interactions. Astrophysical Journal Supplement 40, 487–526.
Ramaty, R., Lingenfelter, R. E. (1966): Galactic cosmic-ray electrons. Journal of Geophysical
Research 71, 3687–3703.
Ramaty, R., Lingenfelter, R. E. (1979): γ-Ray line astronomy. Nature 278, 127–132.
Ramaty, R., Lingenfelter, R. E. (1983): Gamma-ray line astronomy. Space Science Reviews 36,
305–317.
Ramaty, R., Mandzhavidze, N. (1994): Theoretical models for high-energy solar flare emissions.
In: High Energy Solar Phenomena – A New Era of Spacecraft Measurements (Eds. J. M. Ryan
and W. T. Vestrand). New York: American Institute of Physics, pp. 26–44.
Ramaty, R., Murphy, R. J. (1987): Nuclear processes and accelerated particles in solar flares.
Space Science Reviews 45, 213–268.
Ramaty, R., Petrosian, V. (1972): Free-free absorption of gyrosynchrotron radiation in solar
microwave bursts. The Astrophysical Journal 178, 241–249.
Ramsay, W. (1901): The inert constituents of the atmosphere. Nature 65, 161–164.
492 References

Ramsey, H. E., Smith, S. F. (1966): Flare-initiated filament oscillations. Astronomical Journal 71,
197–199.
Rao, U. R. (1972): Solar modulation of galactic cosmic radiation. Space Science Reviews 12,
719–809.
Raouafi, N. E., Harvey, J. W., Solanki, S. K. (2007): Properties of solar polar coronal plumes
constrained by ultraviolet coronagraph spectrometer data. The Astrophysical Journal 658,
643–656.
Rappazzo, A. F., Velli, M., Einaudi, G., Dahlburg, R. B. (2005): Diamagnetic and expansion effects
on the observable properties of the slow solar wind in a coronal streamer. The Astrophysical
Journal 633, 474–488.
Raymond, J. C. (1999): Composition variations in the solar corona and solar wind. Space Science
Reviews 87, 55–66.
Raymond, J. C. (2004): Enhanced: Imaging the Sun’s eruptions in three dimensions. Science
305, 49–50.
Raymond, J. C., et al. (1997): Composition of coronal streamers from the ultraviolet coronagraph
spectrometer. Solar Physics 175, 645–655. Reprinted in The First Results From SOHO (Eds.
B. Fleck and Z. Svestka). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 645–665.
Raymond, J. C., et al. (2000): SOHO and radio observations of a CME shock wave. Geophysical
Research Letters 27(10), 1439–1442.
Raymond, J. C., et al. (2003): Far-ultraviolet spectra of fast coronal mass ejections associated with
X-class flares. Astrophysical Journal 597, 1106–1117.
Raynaud, D., et al. (1993): The ice record of greenhouse gases. Science 259, 926–934.
Reale, F., et al. (2007): Fine thermal structure of a coronal active region. Science 318, 1582–1584.
Reale, F., Peres, G. (2000): TRACE-derived temperature and emission measure profiles along long-
lived coronal loops: The role of filamentation. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 528, L45–L48.
Reames, D. V. (1988): Bimodal abundances in the energetic particles of solar and interplanetary
origin. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 330, L71–L75.
Reames, D. V. (1990): Energetic particles from impulsive solar flares. Astrophysical Journal
Supplement Series 73, 235–251.
Reames, D. V. (1993): Non-thermal particles in the interplanetary medium. Advances in Space
Research 13, 331–339.
Reames, D. V. (1995): Solar energetic particles: A paradigm shift. Reviews of Geophysics
Supplement 33, 585–589.
Reames, D. V. (1997): Energetic particles and the structure of coronal mass ejections. In: Coronal
Mass Ejections. Geophysical Monograph 99 (Eds. N. Crooker, J. A. Joselyn, J. Feynman).
Washington: American Geophysical Union, pp. 217–226.
Reames, D. V. (1999): Particle acceleration at the Sun and in the heliosphere. Space Science
Reviews 90, 413–491.
Reames, D. V. (2002): Magnetic topology of impulsive and gradual solar energetic particle events.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 571, L63–L66.
Reames, D. V., Barbier, L. M., Ng, C. K. (1996): The spatial distribution of particles accelerated
by coronal mass ejection-driven shocks. Astrophysical Journal 466, 473.
Reames, D. V., Kahler, S. W., Ng, C. K. (1997): Spatial and temporal invariance in the spectra of
energetic particles in gradual solar events. Astrophysical Journal 491, 414.
Reames, D. V., Ng, C. K. (2004): Heavy-element abundances in solar energetic particle events.
Astrophysical Journal 610, 510–522.
Reames, D. V., Richardson, I. G., Wenzel, K. P. (1992): Energy spectra of ions from impulsive
solar flares. Astrophysical Journal 387, 715–725.
Reedy, R. C., Arnold, J. R. (1972): Interaction of solar and galactic cosmic-ray particles with the
Moon. Journal of Geophysical Research 77, 537–555.
Reedy, R. C., Arnold, J. R., Lal, D. (1983): Cosmic-ray record in solar system matter. Science
219, 127–135.
Reeves, K. K., Warren, H. P. (2002): Modeling the cooling of postflare loops. Astrophysical
Journal 578, 590–597.
References 493

Reid, G. C. (1976): Influence of ancient solar-proton events on the evolution of life. Nature 259,
177–179.
Reid, G. C. (1987): Influence of solar variability on global sea surface temperatures. Nature 329,
142–143.
Reid, G. C. (1991): Solar irradiance variations and global ocean temperature. Journal of
Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity 43, 795–801.
Reid, G. C. (1991): Solar total irradiance variations and the global sea surface temperature record.
Journal of Geophysical Research 96, 2835–2844.
Reid, G. C., Leinbach, H. (1959): Low-energy cosmic-ray events associated with solar flares.
Journal of Geophysical Research 64, 1801–1805.
Reinard, A. (2005): Comparison of interplanetary CME charge state composition with CME-
associated flare magnitude. Astrophysical Journal 620, 501–505.
Reiner, M. J. et al. (1998): On the origin of radio emissions associated with the January 6–11,
1997 CME. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 2493–2496.
Reiner, M. J., Fainberg, J., Stone, R. G. (1995): Large-scale interplanetary magnetic field
configuration revealed by solar radio bursts. Science 270, 461–464.
Reines, F., Cowan, C. L. Jr. (1953): Detection of the free neutrino. Physical Review 92, 830–831.
Reines, F., Cowan, C. L. Jr. (1956): The neutrino. Nature 178, 446.
Reisenfeld, D. B., et al. (2003): Properties of high-latitude CME-driven disturbances during
Ulysses second northern polar passage. Geophysical Research Letters 30(19), ULY 5–1.
Revelle, R., Suess, H. E. (1957): Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the
question of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past decades. Tellus 9, 18–27.
Rhodes, E. J. Jr., et al. (1997): Measurements of frequencies of solar oscillation for the MDI
medium-l program. Solar Physics 175, 287–310. Reprinted in: The First Results From SOHO
(Eds. B. Fleck and Z. Svestka). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 287–310.
Rhodes, E. J. Jr., Ulrich, R. K., Simon, G. W. (1977): Observations of nonradial p-mode
oscillations on the Sun. Astrophysical Journal 218, 901–919.
Ribes, E. (1990): Astronomical determinations of the solar variability. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society (London) A330, 487–497.
Ribes, J. C., Nesmeribes, E. (1990): The solar sunspot cycle in the Maunder minimum Ad 1645 to
Ad 1715. Astronomy and Astrophysics 276, 549–563.
Rice, J. B., Strassmeier, K. G. (2001): Doppler imaging of stellar surface structure.XVII. The
solar-type Pleiades star HII 314 = V1038 Tauri. Astronomy and Astrophysics 377, 264–272.
Richard, O., Theado, S., Vauclair, S. (2004): Updated Toulouse solar models including the
diffusion-circulation coupling and the effect of μ-gradients. Solar Physics 220, 234–259.
Richardson, I. G. (1997): Using energetic particles to probe the magnetic topology of ejecta.
In: Coronal Mass Ejections, Geophysical Monograph 99 (Eds. N. Crooker, J. A. Joselyn,
J. Feynman). Washington: American Geophysical Union, p. 189.
Richardson, I. G. (2004): Energetic particles and co-rotating interaction regions in the solar wind.
Space Science Reviews 111, 3, 267–376.
Richardson, I. G., Cane, H. V. (1995): Regions of abnormally low proton temperature in the solar
wind (1965–1991) and their association with ejecta. Journal of Geophysical Research 100,
23397–23412.
Richardson, I. G., Cane, H. V. (2004): Identification of interplanetary coronal mass ejections
at 1 AU using multiple solar wind plasma composition anomalies. Journal of Geophysical
Research 109, A09104.
Richardson, J. D., et al. (2008): Cool heliosheath plasma and deceleration of the upstream
solar wind at the termination shock. Nature 454, 63–66.
Richardson, J. D., Wang, C., Burlaga, L. F. (2003): Correlated solar wind speed density, and
magnetic field changes at Voyager 2. Geophysical Research Letters 30(23), 2007.
Richardson, R. S. (1939): Intensity changes in bright chromospheric disturbances. Astrophysical
Journal 90, 368–377.
Richardson, R. S. (1944): Solar flares versus bright chromospheric eruptions: A question of
terminology. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 56, 156–158.
494 References

Richardson, R. S. (1951): Characteristics of solar flares. Astrophysical Journal 114, 356–366.

Rickett, B. J., Coles, W. A. (1980): Solar cycle changes in the high latitude solar wind. In: Study
of the Solar Cycle From Space. Nasa Conference Publication CP-2098. (Eds. G. Newkirk,
J. B. Zirker) Washington: National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1980, pp. 233–243.
Rickett, B. J., Coles, W. A. (1982): Solar cycle evolution of the solar wind in the three dimen-
sions. In: Solar Wind Five. NASA Conference Publication CP-2280. (Ed. M. Neugebauer)
Washington: NASA 1983, pp. 315–321.
Rickett, B. J., Coles, W. A. (1991): Evolution of the solar wind structure over a solar cycle:
Interplanetary scintillation velocity measurements compared with coronal observations.
Journal of Geophysical Research 96, A2, 1717–1736.
Riley, P. (2007): An alternative interpretation of the relationship between the inferred open solar
flux and the interplanetary magnetic field. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 667, L97–L100.
Riley, P., Crooker, N. U. (2004): Kinematic treatment of coronal mass ejection evolution in the
solar wind. Astrophysical Journal 600, 1035–1042.
Riley, P., et al. (2007): “Bursty” reconnection following solar eruptions: MHD simulations and
comparison with observations. Astrophysical Journal 655, 591–597.
Riley, P., Gosling, J. T., Crooker, N. U. (2004): Ulysses observations of the magnetic connectivity
between coronal mass ejections and the sun. Astrophysical Journal 608, 1100–1105.
Robbins, D. E., Hundhausen, A. J., Bame, S. J. (1970): Helium in the solar wind. Journal of
Geophysical Research 75, 1178–1187.
Robbrecht, E., et al. (2001): Slow magnetoacoustic waves in coronal loops: EIT and TRACE.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 370, 591–601.
Roberts, D. A. (1989): Interplanetary observational constraints on Alfvén wave acceleration of the
solar wind. Journal of Geophysical Research 94, 6899–6905.
Roberts, D. A., Goldstein, M. L. (1991): Turbulence and waves in the solar wind. Review of
Geophysics Supplement 29, 932–943.
Roddier, F. (1975): Principe de realisation d’un hologramme acoustique de la surface du Soleil.
(Procedure to form an acouostical hologram of the solar surface.) Comptes rendus de
l’Académie des Sciences Paris B 281, 93–95.
Roelof, E. C. (1974): Coronal structure and the solar wind. In: Solar Wind Three (Ed. C. T.
Russell). Los Angeles: Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics UCLA, pp. 98–131.
Roelof, E. C., et al. (1992): Low-energy solar electrons and ions observed at Ulysses February-
April, 1991 – The inner heliosphere as a particle reservoir. Geophysical Research Letters
19(12), 1243–1246.
Rohen, G., et al. (2005): Ozone depletion during the solar proton events of October/November
2003 as seen by Sciamachy. Journal of Geophysical Research 110, A09S39.
Romano, P., Contarino, L., Zuccarello, F. (2005): Observational evidence of the primary role
played by photospheric motions in magnetic helicity transport before a filament eruption.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 433, 683–690.
Rompolt, B. (1975): Spectral features to be expected from rotational and expansional motions in
fine solar structures. Solar Physics 41, 329–348.
Rompolt, B. (1990): Small scale structure and dynamics of prominences. Hvar Observatory
Bulletin 14, 37–102.
Rosenbauer, H. R., et al. (1977): A survey of initial results of the Helios plasma experiment.
Journal of Geophysics 42, 561–580.
Rosenberg, H. (1976): Solar radio observations and interpretations. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society (London) A281, 461–471.
Rosenberg, R. L. (1970): Unified theory of the interplanetary magnetic field. Solar Physics
15, 72–78.
Rosenberg, R. L., Coleman, P. J. Jr. (1969): Heliographic latitude dependence of the dominant
polarity of the interplanetary magnetic field. Journal of Geophysical Research 74, 5611–5622.
Rosenthal, C. S., et al. (2002): Waves in the magnetized solar atmosphere I. Basic processes and
internetwork oscillations. The Astrophysical Journal 564, 508–524.
References 495

Rosner, R., Tucker, W. H., Vaiana, G. S. (1978): Dynamics of the quiescent solar corona. The
Astrophysical Journal 220, 643–665.
Rossi, B. (1991): The interplanetary plasma. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics
29, 1–8.
Rostoker, G., Fälthammar, C.-G. (1967): Relationship between changes in the interplanetary mag-
netic field and variations in the magnetic field at the Earth’s surface. Journal of Geophysical
Research 72, 5853–5863.
Rottman, G. J. (1981): Rocket measurements of the solar spectral irradiance during solar
minimum. Journal of Geophysical Research 86, 6697–6705.
Rottman, G. J., Orrall, F. Q., Klimchuk, J. A. (1982): Measurements of outflow from the base of
solar coronal holes. Astrophysical Journal 260, 326–337.
Rouillard, A. P., et al. (2008): First imaging of co-rotating solar wind flows and their source
regions using the STEREO spacecraft. Geophysical Research Letters 35, L10110.
Roussev, I. I., et al. (2003a): A three-dimensional flux rope model for coronal mass ejections
based on a loss of equilibrium. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 588, L45–L48.
Roussev, I. I., et al. (2003b): A three-dimensional model of the solar wind incorporating solar
magnetogram observations. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 595, L57–L61.
Roussev, I. I., et al. (2004): A numerical model of a coronal mass ejection: shock development
with implications for the acceleration of GeV protons. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 605,
L73–L76.
Roussev, I. I., Sokolov, I. S. (2006): Models of solar eruptions: Recent advances from theory
and simulations. In Solar Eruptions and Energetic Particles, Geophysical Monograph Series
165, 89–102
Roussev, I., et al. (1999): Modeling of explosive events in the solar transition region. Romanian
Astronomical Journal 9, 57.
Roussev, I., et al. (2001): Modeling of explosive events in the solar transition region in a 2D
environment Ii. Various MHD experiments. Astronomy and Astrophysics 375, 228–242.
Roussev, I., et al. (2001): Modeling of solar explosive events in 2D environments. III. Observable
consequences. Astronomy and Astrophysics 380, 719–726.
Rucinski, D., Bzowski, M., Fahr, H. J. (2003): Imprints from the solar cycle on the helium atom
and helium pickup ion distributions. Annales Geophysicae 21(6), 1315–1330.
Russell, C. (2008): The STEREO Mission. Space Science Reviews 136, Issues 1–4. New York,
Springer.
Russell, C. T., (Ed., 1995): The global geospace mission. Space Science Reviews 71, 1–878.
Russell, C. T., (Ed., 1997): Results of the IASTP program. Advances in Space Research 20,
523–1107.
Russell, C. T., McPherron, R. L. (1973): Semiannual variation of geomagnetic activity. Journal of
Geophysical Research 78, 92–108.
Rust, D. M. (1976): An active role for magnetic fields in solar flares. Solar Physics 47, 21–40.
Rust, D. M. (1982): Solar flares, proton showers, and the space shuttle. Science 216, 939–946.
Rust, D. M. (1983): Coronal disturbances and their terrestrial effects. Space Science Reviews
34, 21–36.
Rust, D. M. (1994): Spawning and shedding helical magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere.
Geophysical Research Letters 21(4), 241–244.
Rust, D. M. (2001): A new paradigm for solar filament eruptions. Journal of Geophysical Research
106(A11), 25075–25088.
Rust, D. M., et al. (2005): Comparison of interplanetary disturbances at the NEAR spacecraft with
coronal mass ejections at the Sun. Astrophysical Journal 621, 524–536.
Rust, D. M., Hildner, E. (1976): Expansion of an X-ray coronal arch into the outer corona. Solar
Physics 48, 381–387.
Russell, C. (2008): The STEREO Mission Space Science Reviews, 138 Issues 1–4. New York
Springer.
Rust, D. M., Kumar, A. (1996): Evidence for helically kinked magnetic flux ropes in solar
eruptions. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 464, L199–L202.
496 References

Rust, D. M., Labonte, B. J. (2005): Observational evidence of the kink instability in solar filament
eruptions and sigmoids. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 622, L69–L72.
Rust, D. M., Nakagawa, Y., Neupert, W. M. (1975): EUV emission, filament activation and
magnetic fields in a slow-rise flare. Solar Physics 41, 397–414.
Rust, D. M., Svestka, Z. (1979): Slowly moving disturbances in the X-ray corona. Solar Physics
63, 279–295.
Rust, D. M., Webb, D. F. (1977): Soft X-ray observations of large-scale active region brightenings.
Solar Physics 54, 403–417.
Ruzmaikin, A. A., et al. (1996): Spectral properties of solar convection and diffusion. Astrophysical
Journal 471, 1022–1029.
Ryan, J., et al. (1994): Neutron and gamma-ray measurements of the solar flare of 1991 June 9.
In: High-Energy Solar Phenomena – A New Era of Spacecraft Measurements. AIP Conference
Proceedings 294 (Eds. J. M. Ryan and W. T. Vestrand). New York: American Institute of
Physics, p. 89.
Rye, R., Kuo, P. H., Holland, H. D. (1995): Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations before 2.2
billion years ago. Nature 378, 603–605.
Ryutova, M., Tarbell, T. (2003): MHD shocks and the origin of the solar transition region. Physical
Review Letters 90, 191101.

Saba, J. L. R., Strong, K. T. (1991): Nonthermal broadening. Astrophysical Journal 375, 789–799.
Sabine, E. (1852): Letter to John Herschel 16 March 1852. Herschel Letters No. 15.235. (Royal
Society). In: The origin of solar-terrestrial studies (Quoted by A. J. Meadows and J. E.
Kennedy). Vistas in Astronomy 25, 419–426 (1982).
Sabine, E. (1852): On periodical laws discoverable in the mean effects of the larger magnetic
disturbances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) 142, 103–124.
Sackmann, I.-J., Boothroyd, A. I. (2003): Our Sun. V. A bright young Sun consistent with
helioseismology and warm temperatures on ancient Earth and Mars. Astrophysical Journal
583, 1024–1039.
Sackmann, I.-J., Boothroyd, A. I., Kraemer, K. E. (1993): Our Sun III. Present and future.
Astrophysical Journal 418, 457–468.
Sagan, C., Chyba, C. (1997): The early faint Sun paradox: organic shielding of ultraviolet-labile
greenhouse gases. Science 276, 1217–1221.
Sagan, C., Mullen, G. (1972): Earth and Mars: evolution of atmospheres and surface temperatures.
Science 177, 52–56. .
Sagdeev, R. Z., Kennel, C. F. (1991): Collisionless shock waves. Scientific American 264,
106–113, April.
Saito, T. (1975): Two-hemisphere model of the three-dimensional magnetic structure of the
interplanetary space. Science Reports of the Tohoku University, Series 5, 26, 37–54.
Sakai, J.-I., De Jager, C. (1996): Solar flares and collisions between current-carrying loops. Space
Science Reviews 77, 1–192.
Sakao, T. (1994): Characteristics of Solar Flare Hard X-ray Sources as Revealed with the Hard
X-ray Telescope aboard the Yohkoh Satellite. Ph. D. Thesis. Mitaka: University of Tokyo, the
Yohkoh HXT group, National Astronomical Observatory.
Sakao, T., et al. (2007): Continuous plasma outflows from the edge of a solar active region as a
possible source of solar wind. Science 318, 1585–1587.
Sakurai, T. (1976): Magnetohydrodynamic interpretation of the motion of prominences. Publica-
tions of the Astronomical Society of Japan 28, 177–198.
Sakurai, T. (1991): Observations from the Hinotori mission. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society (London) A336, 339–347.
References 497

Sakurai, T., Spangler, S. R. (1994): The study of coronal plasma structures and fluctuations with
Faraday rotation measurements. Astrophysical Journal 434, 773–785.
Sandbaek, O., Leer, E. (1995): Coronal heating and solar wind energy balance. Astrophysical
Journal 454, 486–498.
Sandbaek, O., Leer, E., Hansteen, V. H. (1994): On the relation between coronal heating, flux tube
divergence, and the solar wind proton flux and flow speed. Astrophysical Journal 436, 390–399.
Sanderson, T. R., et al. (1983): Correlated particle and magnetic field observations of a large-scale
magnetic loop structure behind an interplanetary shock. Geophysical Research Letters 10,
916–919.
Sarabhai, V. (1963): Some consequences of nonuniformity of solar wind velocity. Journal of
Geophysical Research 68, 1555–1557.
Sauvaud, J.-A., et al. (2007): The IMPACT Solar Wind Electron Analyzer (SWEA). Space Science
Reviews 136, Issue 1–4, 227–239.
Savcheva, A., et al. (2007): A study of polar jet parameters based on Hinode XRT observations.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S771–S778.
Sawaya-Lacoste, H. (Ed., 2003): SOHO-12/GONG 2002: Local and Global Helioseismology: The
Present and Future. ESA SP-517 2003.
Scafetta, N., West, B. J. (2006): Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed
northern hemisphere temperature record. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L17718.
Schatten, K. H. (1988): A model for solar constant secular changes. Geophysical Research Letters
15, 121–124.
Schatten, K. H., et al. (1985): The importance of improved facular observations in understanding
solar constant variations. Astrophysical Journal 294, 689–696.
Schatten, K. H., Leighton, R. B., Howard, R., Wilcox, J. M. (1972): Large scale photospheric
magnetic field: The diffusion of active region fields. Solar Physics 26, 283–289.
Schatten, K. H., Wilcox, J. M., Ness, N. F. (1969): A model of interplanetary and coronal magnetic
fields. Solar Physics 6, 442–455.
Schatzman, E. (1949): The heating of the solar corona and chromosphere. Annales d’Astrophysique
12, 203–218.
Schein, M., Jesse, W. P., Wollan, E. O. (1941): The nature of the primary cosmic radiation and the
origin of the mesotron. Physical Review 59, 615.
Scherb, F. (1964): Velocity distributions of the interplanetary plasma detected by Explorer 10.
Space Research 4, 797–818.
Scherrer, P. H., et al. (1995): The Solar Oscillations Investigation – Michelson Doppler Imager.
Solar Physics 162, 129–188.
Schlesinger, M. E., Ramankutty, N. (1992): Implications for global warming of intercycle solar
irradiance variations. Nature 360, 330–333.
Schmahl, E., Hildner, E. (1977): Coronal mass-ejections-kinematics of the 19 December 1973
event. Solar Physics 55, 473–490.
Schmelz, J. T., et al. (2005): All coronal loops are the same: Evidence to the contrary. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 627, L81–L84.
Schmidt, A. (1924): Das erdmagnetische Aussenfeld. Zeitschrift Geophysikalische 1, 3–13.
Schmidt, W. K. H., et al. (1980): On temperature and speed of He++ and O6+ ions in the solar
wind. Geophysical Research Letters 7, 697–700.
Schöll, M., et al. (2007): Long-term reconstruction of the total solar irradiance based on neutron
monitor and support data. Advances in Space Research 40, 996–999.
Schou, J. (1999): Migration of zonal flows detected using Michelson Doppler Imager f mode
frequency splittings. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 523, L181–L184.
Schou, J. (2003): Wavelike properties of solar supergranulation detected in Doppler shift data.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 596, L259–L262.
Schou, J., et al. (1997): Determination of the Sun’s seismic radius from the SOHO Michelson
Doppler Imager. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 489, L197–L200.
498 References

Schou, J., et al. (1998): Helioseismic studies of differential rotation in the solar envelope by the
solar oscillations investigation using the Michelson Doppler Image. The Astrophysical Journal
505, 390–417.
Schove, D. J. (1955): The sunspot cycle 649 BC to 2000 AD. Journal of Geophysical Research
60, 127–145.
Schrijver, C. J. (1997): Working group 6: Magnetic fields, coronal structure and phenomena.
In: The Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum Activity. Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO
Workshop. ESA SP-404. Noordwijk: Esa Publications Division, pp. 149–153.
Schrijver, C. J. (2001): Catastrophic cooling and high-sped downflow in quiescent solar coronal
loops observed with TRACE. Solar Physics 198, 325–345.
Schrijver, C. J. (2007): Braiding-induced interchange reconnection of the magnetic field and the
width of solar coronal loops. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 662, L119–L122.
Schrijver, C. J., Aschwanden, M. J., Title, A. M. (2002): Transverse oscillations in coronal loops
observed with TRACE – I. An overview of events, movies, and a discussion of common
properties and required conditions. Solar Physics 206, 69–98.
Schrijver, C. J., Brown, D. S. (2000): Oscillations in the magnetic field of the solar corona in
response to flares near the photosphere. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 537, L69–L72.
Schrijver, C. J., De Rosa, M. L. (2003): Photospheric and heliospheric magnetic fields. Solar
Physics 212, 165–200.
Schrijver, C. J., De Rosa, M. L., Title, A. M. (2002): What is missing from our understanding of
long-term solar and heliospheric activity? Astrophysical Journal 577, 1006–1012.
Schrijver, C. J., De Rosa, M. L., Title, A.M., Metcalf, T. R. (2005): The non-potentiality of
active-region coronae and the dynamics of the photospheric magnetic field. Astrophysical
Journal 628, 501–513.
Schrijver, C. J., et al. (1989): Relations between the photospheric magnetic field and the emission
from the outer atmospheres of cool stars. I. The solar Ca II K line core emission. Astrophysical
Journal 337, 964–976.
Schrijver, C. J., et al. (1996): Dynamics of the chromosphric network: Mobility, dispersal, and
diffusion coefficients. Astrophysical Journal 468, 921.
Schrijver, C. J., et al. (1997a): Sustaining the quiet photospheric network: The balance of
flux emergence, fragmentation, merging, and cancellation. The Astrophysical Journal 487,
424–436.
Schrijver, C. J., et al. (1997b): The dynamic quiet solar corona: 4 days of joint observing with
MDI and EIT. In: The Corona and Solar Wind Near Minimum Activity. Proceedings of the
Fifth SOHO Workshop. ESA SP-404. Noordwijk: ESA Publications 1997, pp. 669–674.
Schrijver, C. J., et al. (1998): Large-scale coronal heating by the small-scale magnetic field of the
Sun. Nature 394, 152–154.
Schrijver, C. J., et al. (1999): A new view of the solar outer atmosphere by the Transition Region
and Coronal Explorer. Solar Physics 187, 261–302.
Schrijver, C. J., Hagenaar, H. J., Title, A. M. (1997): On the patterns of the solar granulation and
supergranulation. Astrophysical Journal 475, 328.
Schrijver, C. J., Lemen, J. R., Mewe, R. (1989): Coronal activity in F-, G-, and K type stars.
IV. Evidence for expanding loop geometries in stellar coronae. Astrophysical Journal 341,
484–492.
Schrijver, C. J., Mewe, R., Walter, F. M. (1984): Coronal activity in F-, G-, and K-type stars. Ii.
Coronal structure and rotation. Astronomy and Astrophysics 138, 258–266.
Schrijver, C. J., Title, A. M. (2001): On the Formation of polar spots in Sun-like stars. The
Astrophysical Journal 551, 1099–1106.
Schrijver, C. J., Title, A. M. (2002): The topology of a mixed-polarity potential field, and
inferences for the heating of the quiet solar corona. Solar Physics 207, 223–240.
Schrijver, C. J., Title, A. M. (2003): The magnetic connection between the solar photosphere and
the corona. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 597, L165–L168.
Schrijver, C. J., Van Ballegooijen, A. A. (2005): Is the quiet-sun corona a quasi steady, force-free
environment? Astrophysical Journal 630, 552–560.
References 499

Schrijver, C. J., Zwann, C. (2000): Solar and Stellar Magnetic Activity. Cambridge Astrophysics
Series 34, Cambridge: Cambridg University Press.
Schröder, W. (1988): Aurorae during the Maunder Minimum. Meteorology and Atmospheric
Physics 38, 246–251.
Schröder, W. (1994): Behavior of auroras during the Spörer minimum (1450–1550). Annales
Geophysicae 12, 808–809.
Schröder, W. (1997): Some aspects of the earlier history of solar-terrestrial physics. Planetary and
Space Science 45, 395–400.
Schröter, E. H. (1985): The solar differential rotation: Present status of observations. Solar Physics
100, 141–160.
Schröter, E. H., Wöhl, H. (1975): Differential rotation, meridional and random motions of the
solar Ca+ network. Solar Physics 42, 3–16.
Schuck, P. W. (2005): Local correlation tracking and the magnetic induction equation. Astrophys-
ical Journal (Letters) 632, L53–L56.
Schuck, P. W. (2006): Tracking magnetic footpoints with the magnetic induction equation.
Astrophysical Journal 646, 1358–1391.
Schüle, U., et al. (2000): Radiance variations of the quiet Sun at far-ultraviolet wavelengths.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 354, L71–L74.
Schultz, M. (1973): Interplanetary sector structure and the heliomagnetic equator. Astrophysics
and Space Science 24, 371–383.
Schumacher, J., Kliem, B. (1997): Coalescence of magnetic islands including anomalous
resistivity. Physics of Plasmas 4(10), 3533.
Schumacher, J., Kliem, B. (1997): Transient fast reconnection in dynamic current sheets with
anomalous resistivity. Advances in Space Research 19, 1797.
Schüssler, M., et al. (1996): Distribution of starspots on cool stars. I. Young and main sequence
stars of 1 M . Astronomy and Astrophysics 314, 503–512.
Schüssler, M., Solanki, S. K. (1992): Why rapid rotators have polar spots. Astronomy and
Astrophysics 264, L13–L16.
Schuster, A. (1911): The origin of magnetic storms. Proceedings of the Physical Society (London)
A85, 61.
Schwabe, S. H. (1844): Sonnen-Beobachtungem im Jahre 1843. Astronomische Nachrichten 21,
No. 495, 233–236. Reprinted in: Kosmos (Ed. A. Von Humboldt). English translation in: Solar
observations during 1843 in Early Solar Physics (Ed. A. J. Meadows). Oxford: Pergamon
Press 1970, pp. 95–98.
Schwadron, N. A. (2002): An explanation for strongly underwound magnetic field in co-rotating
rarefaction regions and its relationship to footpoint motion on the Sun. Geophysical Research
Letters 29(14), 1663.
Schwadron, N. A., et al. (2000): Inner source distributions; Theoretical interpretation, implications,
and evidence for inner source protons. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(A4), 7465–7472.
Schwadron, N. A., et al. (2005): Solar wind from the coronal hole boundaries. Journal of
Geophysical Research 110(A4), A04104.
Schwadron, N. A., Mc Comas, D. J. (2003): Solar wind scaling law. Astrophysical Journal 599,
1395–1403.
Schwadron, N. A., Mc Comas, D. J. (2005): The sub-Parker spiral structure of the heliospheric
magnetic field. Geophysical Research Letters 32(3), L03112.
Schwadron, N. A., Mc Comas, D. J., De Forest, C. (2006): Relationship between solar wind and
coronal heating: Scaling laws from solar X-rays. The Astrophysical Journal 642, 1173–1178.
Schwarzschild, M. (1948): On noise arising from the solar granulation. The Astrophysical Journal
107, 1–5.
Schwarzschild, M. (1958): Structure and Evolution of the Stars. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, p. 207.
Schwenn, R. (1981): Solar wind and its interactions with the magnetosphere: Measured
parameters. Advances in Space Research 1, 3–17.
500 References

Schwenn, R. (1983): Direct correlations between coronal transients and interplanetary distur-
bances. Space Science Reviews 34, 85–99.
Schwenn, R. (1986): Relationship of coronal transients to interplanetary shocks: 3D aspects.
Space Science Reviews 44(1–2), 139–186.
Schwenn, R. (1990): Large-scale structure of the interplanetary medium. In: Physics of the
Inner Heliosphere I. Large-Scale Phenomena (Eds. R. Schwenn and E. Marsch). New York:
Springer-Verlag 1990, pp. 99–181.
Schwenn, R. (2006a): Space weather: the solar perspective. Living Reviews in Solar Physics 3, 2.
Schwenn, R. (2006b): Solar wind sources and their variations over the solar cycle. Space Science
Reviews 124, 51–76.
Schwenn, R., et al. (2005): The association of coronal mass ejections with their effects near the
Earth. Annales Geophysicae 23, 1033–1059.
Schwenn, R., et al. (2006): Coronal observations of CMEs. Space Science Reviews 123, 127–176.
Schwenn, R., Marsch, E. (Eds., 1990): Physics of the Inner Heliosphere 1. Large- scale
Phenomena, 2 Particles, Waves and Turbulence. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Schwenn, R., Rosenbauer, H., Muehlhaeuser, K. -H. (1980): Singly-ionized helium in the driver
gas of interplanetary shock wave. Geophysical Research Letters 7, 201–204.
Seehafer, N. (1990): Electric current helicity in the solar atmosphere. Solar Physics 125, 219–232.
Seppälä, A., et al. (2006): Destruction of the tertiary ozone maximum during a solar proton event.
Geophysical Research Letters 33, L07804.
Serebryanskiy, A., Chou, D.-Y. (2005): Comparison of solar cycle variations of solar p-mode
frequencies from GONG and MDI. Astrophysical Journal 633(1), 1187–1190.
Severny, A. B. (1958): The appearance of flares in neutral points of the solar magnetic field and
the pinch-effect. Bulletin of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory 20, 22–51.
Shackleton, N. J. (1977): The oxygen isotope stratigraphic record of the late Pleistocene.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) B280, 169–182.
Share, G. H., et al. (2003). Directionality of flare-accelerated alpha particles at the sun.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 595, L89–L92.
Share, G. H., et al. (2004): RHESSI e + -e− annihilation radiation observations: Implications for
conditions in the flaring solar chromosphere. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 615, L169–L172.
Share, G. H., Murphy, R. J. (1997): Intensity and directionality of flare-accelerated α-particles at
the sun. Astrophysical Journal 485, 409–418.
Share, G. H., Murphy, R. J., Ryan, J. (1997): Solar and stellar gamma ray observations with
COMPTON. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Compton Symposium (Eds. C. D. Dermer, M. S.
Strickman and J. D. Kurfess). New York: American Institute of Physics, pp. 17–36.
Shaviv, N. J. (2003): Toward a solution to the early faint Sun paradox: A lower cosmic ray flux
from a stronger solar wind. Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 3.
Shea, M. A., Smart, D. F. (1990): A summary of major solar proton events. Solar Physics 127,
297–320.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (2005): Surface of the sun’s magnetic field: A historical review of the
flux-transport mechanism. Living Reviews in Solar Physics 2, 5.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., et al. (1975): Coronal changes associated with a disappearing filament. Solar
Physics 45, 377–392.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., et al. (1977): A pictorial comparison of interplanetary magnetic field polarity,
solar wind speed, and geomagnetic disturbances index during the sunspot cycle. Solar Physics
52, 485–495.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., et al. (1983): Associations between coronal mass ejections and interplanetary
shocks. In Solar Wind Five, NASA Conference Publication Vol. 2280. Washington, DC: NASA,
pp. 693–702.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., et al. (1983): Associations between coronal mass ejections and soft X-ray
events. Astrophysical Journal 272, 349–354.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., et al. (1984): Associations between coronal mass ejections and metric type II
bursts. Astrophysical Journal 279, 839–847.
References 501

Sheeley, N. R. Jr., et al. (1985): Coronal mass ejections and interplanetary shocks. Journal of
Geophysical Research 90, 163–175.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., et al. (1997b): Measurements of flow speeds in the corona between 2 and 30
solar radii. Astrophysical Journal 484, 472–478.
Sheeley et al. (1997)
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., et al. (1999): Continuous tracking of coronal outflows: Two kinds of coronal
mass ejections. Journal of Geophysical Research 104(A11), 24739–24768.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Harvey, J. W., Feldman, W. C. (1976): Coronal holes, solar wind streams, and
recurrent geomagnetic disturbances: 1973–1976. Solar Physics 49, 271–278.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Knudson, T. N., Wang, Y.-M. (2001): Coronal inflows and the Sun’s
nonaxisymmetric open flux. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 546, L131–L135.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Nash, A. G., Wang, Y.-M. (1987): The origin of rigidly rotating magnetic field
patterns on the Sun. Astrophysical Journal 319, 481–502.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Wang, Y.-M. (1991): Magnetic field configurations associated with fast solar
wind. Solar Physics 131, 165–186.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Wang, Y.-M. (2001): Coronal inflows and sector magnetism. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 562, L107–L110.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Wang, Y.-M. (2002): Characteristics of coronal inflows. Astrophysical Journal
579, 874–887.
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Wang, Y. -M., Phillips, J. L. (1997a): Near-Sun magnetic fields and the solar
wind. In: Cosmic Winds and the Heliosphere (Eds. J. R. Jokipii, C. P. Sonett and M. S.
Giampapa). Tucson: University of Arizona Press 1997, pp. 459–483.
Sheeley, N. R., Jr., Warren, H. P., Wang, Y.-M. (2004): The origin of postflare loops. Astrophysical
Journal 616, 1224–1231.
Shevgaonkar, R. K., Kundu, M. R. (1984): Three-dimensional structures of two solar active regions
from Vla observations at 2, 6 and 20 centimeters wavelength. Astrophysical Journal 283,
413–420.
Shevgaonkar, R. K., Kundu, M. R. (1985): Dual frequency observations of solar microwave bursts
using the VLA. Astrophysical Journal 292, 733–751.
Shibahashi, H. (2007): Meridional circulation and differential rotation in the solar convection
zone. Astronomische Nachrichten 328, 264.
Shibata, K. (1996): New observational facts about solar flares from Yohkoh studies – Evidence
of magnetic reconnection and a unified model of flares. Advances in Space Research 17(4/5),
9–18.
Shibata, K. (1997): Rapidly time variable phenomena: Jets, explosive events, and flares. In: The
Corona and Solar Wind NearMminimum Activity. Proceedings of the Fifth SOHO Workshop.
ESA SP-404. Noordwijk: Esa Publications Division, pp. 103–112.
Shibata, K., et al. (1992): Observations of X-ray jets with the Yohkoh soft X-ray telescope.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 44, L173–L179.
Shibata, K., et al. (1994): A gigantic coronal jet ejected from a compact active region in a coronal
hole. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 431, L51.
Shibata, K., et al. (1995): Hot plasma ejections associated with compact-loop solar flares.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 451, L83–L85.
Shibata, K., et al. (2007a): New solar physics with Solar-B mission. Astronomical Society of the
Pacific Conference Series 369, 1–593.
Shibata, K., et al. (2007b): Chromospheric anemone jets as evidence of ubiquitous reconnection.
Science 318, 1591–1593.
Shimizu, T. (1995): Energetics and occurrence rate of active-region transient brightenings and
implications for the heating of the active-region corona. Publications of the Astronomical
Society of Japan 47, 251–263.
Shimizu, T. (Ed., 1996): Yohkoh Views the Sun – The First Five Years. Tokyo: The Institute of
Space and Astronautical Science, National Astronomical Observatory, Yohkoh Group.
Shimizu, T., Tsuneta, S. (1997): Deep survey of solar nanoflares with Yohkoh. Astrophysical
Journal 486, 1045–1057.
502 References

Shimizu, T., Tsuneta, S., Acton, L. W., Lemen, J. R., Uchida, Y. (1992): Transient brightenings
in active regions observed by the Soft X-ray Telescope on Yohkoh. Publications of the
Astronomical Society of Japan 44, L147–L153.
Shimojo, M., et al. (2007): Fine structures of solar X-ray jets observed with the X-ray telescope
aboard Hinode. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S745–S750.
Shimojo, M., Shibata, K. (1999): Occurrence rate of microflares in an X-ray bright point within
an active region. Astrophysical Journal 516, 934–938.
Shimojo, M., Shibata, K. (2000): Physical parameters of solar X-ray jets. Astrophysical Journal
542, 1100–1108.
Shindell, D. T., et al. (2001): Solar forcing of regional climate change during the maunder
minimum. Science 294, 2149–2152.
Shindell, D. T., et al. (2003): Volcanic and solar forcing of climate change during the pre-industrial
era. Journal of Climate 16, 4094–4107.
Shine, R. A., Simon, G. W., Hulburt, N. E. (2000): Supergranule and mesogranule evolution. Solar
Physics 193, 313–331.
Shklovskii, I. S., Moroz, V. I., Kurt, V. G. (1960): The nature of the Earth’s third radiation belt.
Soviet Astronomy AJ 4, 871–873.
Shodhan, S., et al. (2000): Counterstreaming electrons in magnetic clouds. Journal of Geophysical
Research 105(A12), 27261–27268.
Silverman, S. M. (1992): Secular variation of the aurora for the past 500 years. Reviews of
Geophysics 30(4), 333–351.
Simnett, G. M. (1973): Relativistic electrons in space. Space Research 13, 745–762.
Simnett, G. M. (1991): Energetic particle production in flares. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society (London) A336, 439–450.
Simnett, G. M., Roelof, E. C., Haggerty, D. K. (2002): The acceleration and release of
near-relativistic electrons by coronal mass ejections. Astrophysical Journal 579, 854–862.
Simon, G. W. (1967): Observations of horizontal motions in solar granulation: Their relation to
supergranulation. Zeitschrift für Astrophysick 65, 345–363.
Simon, G. W., Leighton, R. B. (1964): Velocity fields in the solar atmosphere. III. Large-scale
motions, the chromospheric network, and magnetic fields. Astrophysical Journal 140,
1120–1147.
Simon, G. W., Title, A. M., Weiss, N. O. (1995): Kinematical models of supergranular diffusion
on the Sun. Astrophysical Journal 442, 886–897.
Simon, G. W., Title, A. M., Weiss, N. O. (2001): Sustaining the Sun’s magnetic network with
emerging bipoles. Astrophysical Journal 561, 427–434.
Simon, T., Herbig, G., Boesgaard, A. M. (1985): The evolution of chromospheric activity and the
spin-down of solar-type stars. Astrophysical Journal 293, 551–574.
Simpson, J. A. (1954): Cosmic-radiation intensity-time variations and their origin III. The origin
of 27-day variations. Physical Review 94, 426–440.
Simpson, J. A. (1983): Elemental and isotopic composition of the galactic cosmic rays. Annual
Review of Nuclear Particle Science 33, 323–381.
Simpson, J. A. (1998): Brief history of recurrent solar modulation of the galactic cosmic rays
(1937–1990). Space Science Reviews 83, 169–176.
Simpson, J. A., Connell, J. J. (2001): Cosmic ray isotopic composition studies with the Ulysses
high energy telescope: Implications for origin and distribution in the Galaxy. Space Science
Reviews 97, 337–341.
Simpson, J. A., et al. (1992): The Ulysses Cosmic Ray and Solar Particle Investigation. Astronomy
and Astrophysics Supplement Series 92, No. 2, 365–399.
Simpson, J. A., et al. (1995a): Cosmic ray and solar particle investigations over the south polar
regions of the Sun. Science 268, 1019–1023.
Simpson, J. A., et al. (1995b): The latitude gradients of galactic cosmic ray and anomalous helium
fluxes measured on Ulysses from the Sun’s south polar region to the equator. Geophysical
Research Letters 22(23), 3337–3340.
Singer, S. F. (1957): A new model of magnetic storms and aurorae. EOS 38, 175–190.
References 503

Siscoe, G. (2000): The space-weather enterprise: Past, present, and future. Journal of Atmospheric
and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 62, 1223–1232.
Siscoe, G. L. (1976): Three-dimensional aspects of interplanetary shock waves. Journal of
Geophysical Research 81, 6235–6241.
Siscoe, G. L. (1980): Evidence in the auroral record for secular solar variations. Review of
Geophysics and Space Physics 18, 647–658.
Skoug, R. M., et al. (2004): Extremely high speed solar wind: 29–30 October 2003. Journal of
Geophysical Research 109(A9), A09102.
Skumanich, A., et al. (1984): The Sun as a star: Three-component analysis of chromospheric
variability in the calcium K line. Astrophysical Journal 282, 776–783.
Slottje, C. (1978): Millisecond microwave spikes in a solar flare. Nature 275, 520–521.
Smith, D. M., et al. (2002): The RHESSI spectrometer. Solar Physics 210, 33–60.
Smith, D. M., et al. (2003): High-resolution spectroscopy of gamma-ray lines from the X class
solar flare of 2002 July 23. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 595, L81–L84.
Smith, D. M., et al. (2005): Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes observed up to 20 MeV. Science 307,
1085–1088.
Smith, E. J. (1962): A comparison of Explorer 6 and Explorer 10 magnetometer data. Journal of
Geophysical Research 67, 2045–2049.
Smith, E. J., Balogh, A. (1995): Ulysses observations of the radial magnetic field. Geophysical
Research Letters 22(23), 3317–3320.
Smith, E. J., et al. (1995): Ulysses observations of Alfvén waves in the southern and northern solar
hemispheres. Geophysical Research Letters 22(23), 3381–3384.
Smith, E. J., et al. (2000): Recent observations of the heliospheric magnetic field at Ulysses:
Return to low latitude. Advances in Space Research 26(5), 823–832.
Smith, E. J., et al. (2003): The Sun and heliosphere at solar maximum. Science 302, 1165–1169.
Smith, E. J., Marsden, R. G. (1995): Ulysses observations from pole-to-pole: An introduction.
Geophysical Research Letters 22(23), 3297–3300.
Smith, E. J., Marsden, R. G. (1998): The Ulysses mission. Scientific American 278, 74–79, January.
Smith, E. J., Marsden, R. G., Page, D. E. (1995): Ulysses above the Sun’s south pole – an
introduction. Science 268, 1005–1006.
Smith, E. J., Sonett, C. P., Dungey, J. W. (1964): Satellite observation of the geomagnetic field
during magnetic storms. Journal of Geophysical Research 69, 2669–2688.
Smith, E. J., Tsurutani, B. T., Rosenberg, R. L. (1978): Observations of the interplanetary sector
structure up to heliographic latitudes of 16 degrees by Pioneer 11. Journal of Geophysical
Research 83, 717–724.
Smith, E. J., Wolfe, J. H. (1976): Observations of interaction regions and co-rotating shocks
between one and five AU: Pioneers 10 and 11. Geophysical Research Letters 3, 137–140.
Smith, E. J., Wolfe, J. H. (1977): Pioneeer 10, 11 observations of evolving solar wind streams
and shocks beyond 1 AU. In Study of Traveling Interplanetary Phenomena (Eds. M. A. Shea,
D. F. Smart and S. T. Wu). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 227–257.
Smy, M. B., et al. (2004): Precise measurement of the solar neutrino day-night and seasonal
variation in Super-Kamiokande-I. Physical Review D 69, 011104–011109.
Sno Collaboration (1999): The Sudbury neutrino observatory projects. Nuclear Physics B –
Proceedings Supplements 77, 43–47.
Sno Collaboration (2000): The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. Nuclear Instruments and Methods
in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated
Equipment 449, 172–207.
Snodgrass, H. B. (1983): Magnetic rotation of the solar photosphere. The Astrophysical Journal
270, 288–299.
Snodgrass, H. B. (1985): Solar torsional oscillations: A net pattern with wavenumber 2 as artifact.
Astrophysical Journal 291, 339–343.
Snodgrass, H. B., Howard, R. (1985): Torsional oscillations of the sun. Science 228, 945–952.
Snyder, C. W., Neugebauer, M. (1964): Interplanetary solar-wind measurements by Mariner II.
Space Research 4, 89–113.
504 References

Snyder, C. W., Neugebauer, M., Rao, U. R. (1963): The solar wind velocity and its correlation
with cosmic-ray variations and with solar and geomagnetic activity. Journal of Geophysical
Research 68, 6361–6370.
Socas-Navarro, H., Sánchez Almeida, J. (2002): Magnetic properties of photospheric regions with
very low magnetic flux. Astrophysical Journal 565, 1323–1334.
Soderblom, D. R. (1985): A survey of chromospheric emission and rotation among solar-type
stars in the solar neighborhood. Astronomical Journal 90, 2103–2115.
Soderblom, D. R., Baliunas, S. L. (1988): The sun among the stars: What stars indicate about
solar variability. In: Secular, Solar and Geomagnetic Variations in the Last 10,000 Uears (Eds.
F. R. Stephenson and A. W. Wolfendale). Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 25–48.
Sokolov, I. V., et al. (2004): A new field line advection model for solar particle acceleration.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 616, L171–L174.
Solanki, S. K. (2006): The solar magnetic field. Reports on Progress in Physics 69, 563–668.
Solanki, S. K., et al. (2003): Three-dimensional magnetic field topology in a region of solar
coronal heating. Nature 425, 692–695.
Solanki, S. K., Fligge, M. (1998): Solar irradiance since 1874 revisted. Geophysical Research
Letters 25, 341–344.
Solanki, S. K., Fligge, M. (1999): A reconstruction of total solar irradiance since 1700.
Geophysical Research Letters 26, 2465–2468.
Solanki, S. K., Inhester, B., Schussler, M. (2006): The solar magnetic field. Reports on Progress
in Physics 69, (3), 563.
Solanki, S. K., Schüssler, M., Fligge, M. (2000): Evolution of the Sun’s large scale magnetic field
since the Maunder Minimum. Nature 408, 445–447.
Somov, B. V., Kosugi, T. (1997): Collisonless reconnection and high-energy particle acceleration
in solar flares. Astrophysical Journal 485, 859–868.
Sonett, C. P. (1984): Very long solar periods and the radiocarbon record. Reviews of Geophysics
and Space Physics 22(3), 239–254.
Sonett, C. P., Colburn, D. S., Davis, L. Jr., Smith, E. J., Colman, P. J. Jr. (1964): Evidence for a
collision-free magnetohydrodynamic shock in interplanetary space. Physical Review Letters
13, 153–156.
Sonett, C. P., et al. (1960): Current systems in the vestigial geomagnetic field: Explorer 6. Physical
Review Letters 4, 161–163.
Sonett, C. P., Giampapa, M. S., Matthews, M. S. (Eds., 1991): The Sun in Time. Tucson: University
of Arizona Press.
Sonett, C. P., Suess, H. E. (1984): Correlation of bristlecone pine ring widths with atmospheric
14 C variations: A climate-Sun relation. Nature 307, 141–143.

Song, P., Singer, H. J., Siscoe, G. L. (Eds., 2001): Space Weather Geophysical Monograph
No. 125. Washington: American Geophysical Union.
Soon, W. H., Posmentier, E. S., Baliunas, S. L. (1996): Inference of solar irradiance variabil-
ity from terrestrial temperature changes, 1880–1993: An astrophysical application of the
Sun-climate connection. Astrophysical Journal 472, 891–902.
Southworth, G. C. (1945): Microwave radiation from the Sun. Journal of the Franklin Institute
239, 285–297.
Spadaro, D., et al. (2003): A transient heating model for coronal structure and dynamics.
Astrophysical Journal 582, 486–494.
Spangler, S. R., et al. (2002): Very long baseline interferometer measurements of turbulence in the
inner solar wind. Astronomy and Astrophysics 384, 654–665.
Spangler, S. R., Mancuso, S. (2000): Radio astronomical constraints on coronal heating by
high-frequency Alfvén waves. Astrophysical Journal 530, 491–499.
Spicer, D. S., Sibeck, D., Thompson, B. J., Davila, J. M. (2006): A Kopp Pneuman-like picture of
coronal mass ejections. Astrophysical Journal 643, 1304–1316.
Spiegel, E. A., Weiss, N. O. (1980): Magnetic activity and variations in solar luminosity. Nature
287, 616–617.
Spörer, G. F. W. (1874–1976): Beobachtungen der Sonnenflecken zu Anclam. Leipzig.
References 505

Spörer, G. F. W. (1887): Üeber die periodicität der Sonnenflecken seit dem Jahre 1618.
Vierteljahrsschr Astronomische Gesellschaft (Leipzig) 22, 323–329.
Spörer, G. F. W. (1889): Üeber die periodicität der Sonnenflecken seit dem Jahre 1618. R.
Leopold-Caroline Acad. Aston. Halle 53, 283–324.
Spörer, G. F. W. (1899): Sur les différences que présentent l’Hémisphere nord el l’Hémisphere
sud du Soleil. Bulletin Astronomique 6, 60.
Spreybroeck, L. P. Van, Krieger, A. S., Vaiana, G. S. (1970): X-ray photographs of the Sun on
March 7, 1970. Nature 227, 818–822.
Spruit, H. C. (1982): Effect of spots on a star’s radius and luminosity. Astronomy and Astrophysics
108, 348–355.
Spruit, H. C. (1988): Influence of magnetic activity on the solar luminosity and radius. In:
Solar Radiative Output Variations (Ed. P. V. Foukal). Cambridge: Cambridge Research and
Instrumentation, pp. 254–288.
Srivastava, N., Venkatakrishnan, P. (2002): Relationship between CME speed and geomagnetic
storm intensity. Geophysical Research Letters 29, 1.
St. Cyr, O. C., et al. (2000): Properties of coronal mass ejections: SOHO LASCO observations
from January 1996 to June 1998. Journal of Geophysical Research 105, 18169–18186.
Stamper, R., et al. (1999): Solar causes of the long-term increase in geomagnetic activity. Journal
of Geophysical Research 104(A12), 28325–28342.
Stauffer, B. (2000): Long term climate records from polar ice. Space Science Reviews 94, 321–336.
Stauffer, B., et al. (1998): Atmospheric Co2 concentration and millennial-scale climate change
during the last glacial period. Nature 392, 59–61.
Steig, E. L., et al. (1996): Large amplitude solar modulation cycles of 10 Be in Antarctica:
Implications for atmospheric mixing processes and interpretation of the ice core record.
Geophysical Research Letters 23, 523–526.
Stein, R. F., Nordlund A. (2001): Solar oscillations and convection Ii. Excitation of radial
oscillations. Astrophysical Journal 546, 585–603.
Stenborg, G., Cobelli, P. J. (2003): A wavelet packets equalization technique to reveal the multiple
spatial-scale nature of coronal structures. Astronomy and Astrophysics 398, 1185–1193.
Stenflo, J. O. (1974): Differential rotation and sector structure of solar magnetic fields. Solar
Physics 36, 495–515.
Sterling, A. C. (2000): Sigmoid CME source regions at the Sun; some recent results. Journal of
Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 62, 1427–1435.
Sterling, A. C., et al. (2007): Hinode observations of the onset stage of a solar filament eruption.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S823–S829.
Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S. (1997): Yohkoh SXT observations of X-ray “dimming” associated
with a halo coronal mass ejection. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 491, L55–L58.
Sterling, A. C., Hudson, H. S., Thompson, B. J., Zarro, D. M. (2000):Yohkoh SXT and SOHO EIT
observations of sigmoid-to-arcade evolution of structures associated with halo coronal mass
ejections. Astrophysical Journal 532, 628–647.
Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L. (2004): External and internal reconnection in two filament-carrying
magnetic cavity solar eruptions. Astrophysical Journal 613, 1221–1232.
Sterling, A. C., Moore, R. L. (2005): Slow-rise and fast-rise phases of an erupting solar filament,
and flare emission onset. Astrophysical Journal 630, 1148–1159.
Stern, D. P. (1989): A brief history of magnetospheric physics before the spaceflight era. Reviews
of Geophysics 27, 103–114.
Stix, M. (1981): Theory of the solar cycle. Solar Physics 74, 79–101.
Stone, E. C., et al. (1998): The Advanced Composition Explorer. Space Science Reviews 86, 1–22,
257–632.
Stone, E. C., et al. (2005): Voyager 1 explores the termination shock region and the heliosheath
beyond. Science 309, 2017–2020.
Stone, E. C., et al. (2008): An asymmetric solar wind termination shock. Nature 454, 71–74.
Stone, R. G., et al. (1992): The Unified Radio and Plasma wave investigation. Astronomy and
Astrophysics Supplement Series 92, No. 2, 291–316.
506 References

Størmer, C. (1907): Sur les trajectories des corpuscles, electrisés dans l’espace sous l’action du
magnétisme terrestre avec l’application aux aurores boréales. Archives des sciences physiques
et naturelles (Geneva) 24, 5, 113, 221, 317; 32, 117–123, 190–219, 277–314, 415–436,
505–509 (1911); 33, 51–69, 113–150 (1912).
Størmer, C. (1917): Corpuscular theory of the aurora borealis. Journal of Geophysical Research
22, 23–34, 97–112.
Størmer, C. (1930): Periodische electronenbahnen im fielde lines elementarmagneton und ihre
awendung auf eschenhagens elementarwellen des erdmagnetismus. Astrophysics 1, 237.
Størmer, C. (1955): The Polar Aurora. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Strachan, L., et al. (2002): Empirical densities, kinetic temperatures, and outflow velocities in the
equatorial streamer belt at solar minimum. Astrophysical Journal 571, 1008–1014.
Strassmeier, K. G., Rice, J. B. (1998): Doppler imaging of stellar surface structure. VI. HD 129333
= EK Draconis: a stellar analog of the active young Sun. Astronomy and Astrophysics 330,
685–695.
Strong, K. T. (1991): Observations from the Solar Maximum Mission. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society (London). A336, 327–337.
Strong, K. T., et al. (1984): A multiwavelength study of a double impulsive flare. Solar Physics
91, 325–344.
Strong, K. T., et al. (1992): Observations of the variability of coronal bright points by the soft
X-ray telescope on Yohkoh. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 44, L161–L166.
Strong, K. T., et al. (Eds., 1998): The Many Faces of the Sun. A Summary of the Results from
NASA’s Solar Maximum Mission. New York: Springer Verlag.
Strömgren, B. (1932): The opacity of stellar matter and the hydrogen content of the stars.
Zeitschrift für Astrophysik 4, 118–152.
Stuiver, M. (1961): Variations in atmospheric carbon-14 attributed to a variable sun. Science
207, 11–19.
Stuiver, M. (1961): Variations in radiocarbon concentration and sunspot activity. Journal of
Geophysical Research 66, 273–276.
Stuiver, M. (1980): Solar variability and climatic change during the current millennium. Nature
286, 868–871.
Stuiver, M., Braziunas, T. F. (1989): Atmospheric 14 C and century-scale solar oscillations. Nature
338, 405–408.
Stuiver, M., Braziunas, T. F. (1993): Sun, ocean, climate and atmospheric 14 co2: an evaluation of
causal and spectral relationships. Holocene 3(4), 289–305.
Stuiver, M., Quay, P. D. (1980): Changes in atmospheric carbon-14 attributed to a variable Sun.
Science 207, 11–19.
Sturrock, P. A. (1966): Model of the high-energy phase of solar flares. Nature 211, 695–697.
Sturrock, P. A. (1968): A model of solar flares. In: Structure and Development of Solar Active
Regions. International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 35 (Ed. K. O. Kiepenheuer).
Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., pp. 471–477.
Sturrock, P. A. (Ed., 1980): Solar Flares: A Monograph From Skylab Solar Workshop II. Boulder:
Colorado Associated University Press.
Sturrock, P. A. (1989): The role of eruption in solar flares. Solar Physics 121, 387–397.
Sturrock, P. A., Hartle, R. E. (1966): Two-fluid model of the solar wind. Physical Review Letters
16, 628–631.
Sturrock, P. A., Uchida, Y. (1981): Coronal heating by stochastic magnetic pumping. The
Astrophysical Journal 246, 331–336.
Sturrock, P. A., Wheatland, M. S., Acton, L. W. (1996): Yohkoh soft x-ray telescope images of the
diffuse solar corona. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 461, L115–L117.
Su, Y., et al. (2007): Evolution of the sheared magnetic fields of two X-class flares observed by
Hinode/XRT. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S785–S791.
Su, Y., Golub, L., Van Ballegooijen, A. A. (2007): A statistical study of shear motion of the
footpoints in two-ribbon flares. Astrophysical Journal 655, 606–614.
References 507

Sudol, J. J., Harvey, J. W. (2005): Longitudinal magnetic field changes accompanying solar flares.
Astrophysical Journal 635, 647–658.
Suess, H. E. (1955): Radiocarbon concentration in modern wood. Science 122, 415–417.
Suess, H. E. (1965): Secular variations of the cosmic-ray produced carbon 14 in the atmosphere
and their interpretations. Journal of Geophysical Research 70, 5937–5952.
Suess, H. E. (1968): Climate changes, solar activity, and cosmic-ray production rate of natural
radiocarbon. Meteorology Monograph 8, 146–150.
Suess, H. E. (1973): Natural radiocarbon. Endeavor 32, 34–38.
Suess, H. E. (1980): Radiocarbon geophysics. Endeavor 4, 113–117.
Suess, H. E., Linick, T. W. (1990): The 14 C record in bristlecone pine wood of the past 8000 years
based on the dendrochronology of the late C. W. Ferguson. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society (London) A330, 403–412.
Suess, S. T. (1990): The heliopause. Reviews of Geophysics 28, 97–115.
Suess, S. T., et al. (1996): Latitudinal dependence of the radial IMF component – interplanetary
imprint. Astronomy and Astrophysics 316, 304–312.
Suess, S. T., Smith, E. J. (1996): Latitudinal dependence of the radial IMF component coronal
imprint. Geophysical Research Letters 23(22), 3267–3270.
Sui, L., Holman, G. D. (2003): Evidence for the formation of a large-scale current sheet in a solar
flare. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 596, L251–L254.
Sui, L., Holman, G. D., Dennis, B. R. (2005): Evidence for magnetic reconnection in three
homologous solar flares observed by RHESSI. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, 612, 546–556.
Sui, L., Holman, G. D., Dennis, B. R. (2006): Enigma of a flare involving multiple-loop interac-
tions: Emerging, colliding loops or magnetic breakout? Astrophysical Journal 646, 605–614.
Sullivan, W. T. III. (Ed., 1984): The Early Years of Radio Astronomy. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Svalgaard, L., Duvall, T. L., Scherrer, P. H. (1978): The strength of the Sun’s polar fields. Solar
Physics 58, 225–239.
Svalgaard, L., et al. (1975): The Sun’s sector structure. Solar Physics 45, 83–91.
Svalgaard, L., Wilcox, J. M. (1975): Long-term evolution of solar sector structure. Solar Physics
41, 461–475.
Svalgaard, L., Wilcox, J. M. (1976): Structure of the extended solar magnetic field and the sunspot
cycle variation in cosmic ray intensity. Nature 262, 766–768.
Svalgaard, L., Wilcox, J. M. (1978): A view of solar magnetic fields, the solar corona, and the
solar wind in three dimensions. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 16, 429–443.
Svalgaard, L., Wilcox, J. M., Duvall, T. L. (1974): A model combining the polar and the sector
structured solar magnetic fields. Solar Physics 37, 157–172.
Svensmark, H. (1998): Influence of cosmic rays on Earth’s climate. Physical Review Letters 81,
5027–5030.
Svensmark, H., et al. (2007): Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation
under atmospheric conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society 463, 385–396.
Svensmark, H., Friis-Christensen, E. (1997): Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud
coverage – a missing link in solar-climate relationships. Journal of Atmospheric and
Solar-Terrestrial Physics 59, 1225–1232.
Svensmark, H., Friss-Christensen, E. (2007): Reply to Lockwood and Frölich: The persistent role
of the Sun in climate forcing. Danish National Space Center: Scientific Report 3/2007.
Svestka, Z. (1976): Solar Flares. Norwell: Kluwer.
Svestka, Z. (1995): On “the solar flare myth” postulated by Gosling. Solar Physics 160, 153–156.
Svestka, Z., Cliver, E. W. (1992): History and basic characteristics of eruptive flares. In: Eruptive
Solar Flares. Proceedings of International Astronomical Union Colloquium No. 133 (Eds.
Z. Svestka, B. V. Jackson and M. E. Machado). New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1–14.
Svestka, Z., et al. (1982): Observations of a post-flare radio burst in X-rays. Solar Physics 75,
305–329.
Svestka, Z., et al. (1987): Multi-thermal observations of newly formed loops in a dynamic flare.
Solar Physics 108, 237–250.
508 References

Sweet, P. A. (1958): The neutral point theory of solar flares. In: Electromagnetic Phenomen in
Cosmical Physics. International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 6 (Ed. B. Lehnert).
Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press 1958, pp. 123–134.
Sweet, P. A. (1958): The production of high energy particles in solar flares. Nuovo Cimento (10)8,
Suppl. 2, 188–196., Suppl. 2, 188–196.
Sweet, P. A. (1958b): The neutral point theory of solar flares. In: Electromagnetic Phenomen
in Cosmical Physics. International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 6 (Ed. B. Lehnert).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1958, pp. 123–134.
Sweet, P. A. (1969): Mechanisms of solar flares. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 7,
149–176.
Syrovatskii, S. I. (1981): Pinch sheets and reconnection in astrophysics. Annual Review of
Astronomy and Astrophysics 19, 163–229.

Takakura, T. (1961): Acceleration of electrons in the solar atmosphere and type IV radio outbursts.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 13, 166–172.
Takakura, T. (1967): Theory of solar bursts. Solar Physics 1, 304–353.
Takakura, T. (1995): Imaging spectra of hard X-rays from the foot points of impulsive loop flares.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 47, 355–364.
Takakura, T., et al. (1993): Time variation of the hard X-ray image during the early phase of solar
impulsive bursts. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 45, 737–753.
Takakura, T., Kai, K. (1966): Energy distribution of electrons producing microwave impulsive
bursts and X-ray bursts from the Sun. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan
18, 57–76.
Tanaka, K. (1987): Impact of X-ray observations from the Hinotori satellite on solar flare research.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 39, 1–45.
Tanaka, K. (1991): Studies on a very flare-active delta group - peculiar delta spot evolution and
inferred subsurface magnetic rope structure. Solar Physics 136, 133–149.
Tanaka, K., et al. (1982): High-resolution solar flare X-ray spectra obtained with rotating
spectrometers on the Hinotori satellite. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 254, L59–L63.
Tandberg-Hanssen, E., Emslie, A. G. (1988): The Physics of Solar Flares. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Tandon, J. N., Das, M. K. (1982): The effect of a magnetic field on solar luminosity. Astrophysical
Journal 260, 338–341.
Tang, F. (1981): Rotation rate of high-latitude sunspots. Solar Physics 69, 399–404.
Telleschi, A., et al. (2005): Coronal evolution of the Sun in time: High-resolution X Ray
spectroscopy of solar analogs with different ages. Astrophysical Journal 622, 653–679.
Tett, S. F. B., et al. (1999): Causes of twentieth-century temperature change near the Earth’s
surface. Nature 399, 569–572.
Thernisien, A., et al. (2008): Three-dimensional reconstruction of CMEs from SECCHI
observations. Astrophysical Journal, Submitted.
Thomas, B. T., Smith, E. J. (1980): The Parker spiral configuration of the interplanetary magnetic
field between 1 and 8.5 AU. Journal of Geophysical Research 85, 6861–6867.
Thomas, B. T., Smith, E. J. (1981): The structure and dynamics of the heliospheric current sheet.
Journal of Geophysical Research 86, 11105–11110.
Thomas, J. H., Cram, L. E., Nye, A. H. (1982): Five-minute oscillations as a probe of sunspot
structure. Nature 297, 485–487.
Thompson, B. J., et al. (1998): SOHO/EIT observations of an earth-directed coronal mass ejection
on May 12, 1997. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 2465–2468.
References 509

Thompson, B. J., et al. (1999): SOHO/EIT observations of the 1997 April 7 coronal transient:
Possible evidence of coronal Moreton waves. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 517, L151–L154.
Thompson, M. J., et al. (1996): Differential rotation and dynamics of the solar interior. Science
272, 1300–1305.
Thompson, M. J., et al. (2003): The internal rotation of the sun. Annual Review of Astronomy and
Astrophysics 41, 599–643.
Thomsen, M. F., et al. (1998): The magnetospheric response to the CME passage of January
10–11, 1997, as seen at geosynchronous orbit. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 2545–2548.
Thomson, W. (Baron Kelvin) (1892): Presidential address to the Royal Society on November 30,
1892. In: Popular Lectures and Addresses by Sir William Thomson Baron Kelvin. Volume II.
Geology and General Physics. London: Macmillan and Company 1894, pp. 508–529.
Thuillier, G., et al. (2004) Solar irradiance reference spectra for two solar active levels. Advances
in Space Research 34, 256–261.
Timothy, A. F., Krieger, A. S., Vaiana, G. S. (1975): The structure and evolution of coronal holes.
Solar Physics 42, 135–156.
Tinsley, B. A. (1988): The solar cycle and the QBO influences on the latitude of storm tracks in
the North Atlantic. Geophysical Research Letters 15, 409–412.
Tinsley, B. A. (1994): Solar wind mechanism suggested for weather and climate change. EOS
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 75(32), 369–376.
Titov, V., Demoulin, P. (1999): Basic topology of twisted magnetic configurations in solar flares.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 351, 701–720.
Tomczyk, S., et al. (2007): Alfvén waves in the solar corona. Science 317, 1192–1196.
Tomczyk, S., Schou, J., Thompson, M. J. (1995): Measurement of the rotation rate in the deep
solar interior. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 448, L57–L60.
Toomre, J. (2002): Order amidst turbulence. Science 296, 64–65.
Topka, K., Moore, R., Labonte, B. J., Howard, R. (1982): Evidence for a poleward meridional
flow on the Sun. Solar Physics 79, 231–245.
Török, T., Kliem, B. (2005): Confined and ejective eruptions of kink-unstable flux ropes.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 630, L97–L100.
Torsti, J., et al. (1995): Energetic particle experiment ERNE. Solar Physics 162, 505–531.
Torsti, J., et al. (1998): Energetic (∼ 1 to 50 MeV) protons associated with Earth- directed coronal
mass ejections. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 2525–2528.
Torsti, J., et al. (2002): Solar particle event with exceptionally high 3 He enhancement in the energy
range up to 50 MeV nucleon. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 573, L59–L63.
Torsti, J., Laivola, J., Kocharov, L. (2003): Common overabundance of 3 He in high-energy solar
particles. Astronomy and Astrophysics 408, L1–L4.
Torsti, J., Riihonen, E., Kocharov, L. (2004): The 1998 May 2–3 magnetic cloud: an interplanetary
“highway” for solar energetic particles observed with SOHO/ERNE. Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 600, L83–L86.
Toth, G., et al. (2007): Sun to thermosphere simulation of the October 28–30, 2003 storm with the
space weather modeling framework. Space Weather 5, S06003.
Totsuka, Y. (1991): Recent results on solar neutrinos from Kamiokande. Nuclear Physics B
19, 69–76.
Tousey, R. (1963): The extreme ultraviolet spectrum of the Sun. Space Science Review 2, 3–69.
Tousey, R. (1967): Some results of twenty years of extreme ultraviolet solar research. Astrophysical
Journal 149, 239–252.
Tousey, R. (1973): The solar corona. Space Research 13, 713–730.
Tousey, R. (1976): Eruptive prominences recorded by the X u.v. spectroheliograph on Skylab.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) A281, 359–364.
Tousey, R., et al. (1946): The solar ultraviolet spectrum from a V-2 rocket. The Astronomical
Journal 52, 158–159.
Tousey, R., et al. (1973): A preliminary study of the extreme ultraviolet spectroheliograms from
Skylab. Solar Physics 33, 265–280.
510 References

Trattner, K. J., et al. (1996): Ulysses COSPIN/LET: latitudinal gradients of anomalous cosmic ray
O, N and Ne. Astronomy and Astrophysics 316, 519–527.
Tsuneta, S. (1995): Particle acceleration and magnetic reconnection in solar flares. Publications of
the Astronomical Society of Japan 47, 691–697.
Tsuneta, S. (1996): Interacting active regions in the solar corona. Astrophysical Journal (Letters)
456, L63–L65.
Tsuneta, S. (1996): Structure and dynamics of magnetic reconnection in a solar flare. Astrophysical
Journal 456, 840–849.
Tsuneta, S. (1997): Moving plasmoid and formation of the neutral sheet in a solar flare.
Astrophysical Journal 483, 507.
Tsuneta, S., et al. (1983): Vertical structure of hard X-ray flare. Solar Physics 86, 313–321.
Tsuneta, S., et al. (1991): The Soft X-ray Telescope for the SOLAR-A mission. Solar Physics
136, 36–67.
Tsuneta, S., et al. (1992): Global restructuring of the coronal magnetic fields observed with
the Yohkoh Soft X-ray Telescope. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 44,
L211–L214.
Tsuneta, S., et al. (1992): Observation of a solar flare at the limb with the Yohkoh Soft X-ray
Telescope. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 44, L63–L69.
Tsuneta, S., et al. (2008): The Solar Optical Telescope (SOT) for the Solar-B mission, Solar
Physics, 249, 167–196.
Tsurutani, B. T., et al. (1988): Origin of interplanetary southward magnetic fields responsible for
major magnetic storms near solar maximum (1978–1979). Journal of Geophysical Research
93, 8519–8531.
Tsurutani, B. T., et al. (1990): Interplanetary Alfvén waves and auroral (substorm) activity: IMP
8. Journal of Geophysical Research 95, 2241–2252.
Tsurutani, B. T., et al. (1994): The relationship between interplanetary discontinuities and Alfvén
waves: Ulysses observations. Geophysical Research Letters 21(21), 2267–2270.
Tsurutani, B. T., et al. (1995a): Interplanetary origin of geomagnetic activity in the declining
phase of the solar cycle. Journal of Geophysical Research 100, 21717–21733.
Tsurutani, B. T., et al. (1995b): Large amplitude IMF fluctuations in co-rotating interaction
regions: Ulysses at midlatitudes. Geophysical Research Letters 22(23), 3397–3400.
Tsurutani, B. T., et al. (1996): Interplanetary discontinuities and Alfvén waves at high heliographic
latitudes: Ulysses. Journal of Geophysical Research 101, 11027–11038.
Tsurutani, B. T., Gonzalez, W. D. (1987): The cause of high-intensity, long-duration continuous
AE activity (HILDCAAs): interplanetary Alfvén wave trains. Planetary and Space Science 35,
405–412.
Tsurutani, B. T., Gonzalez, W. D. (1997): The interplanetary causes of magnetic storms:
A review. In: Magnetic Storms: Geophysical Monograph 98 (Eds. B. T. Tsurutani,
W. D. Gonzalez, Y. Kamide and J. K. Arbailo). Washington, DC: American Geophysical
Union, pp. 77–89.
Tsurutani, B. T., Gonzalez, W. D., Kamide, Y., Arballo, J. K. (Eds., 1997): Magnetic Storms.
Geophysics Monograph 98. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.
Tsurutani, B. T., Lin, R. P. (1985): Acceleration of greater than 47 keV ions and greater than 2 keV
electrons by interplanetary shocks at 1 AU. Journal of Geophysical Research 90, 1–11.
Tu, C. -Y., et al. (2005): Solar wind origin in coronal funnels. Science 308, 519–523.
Tu, C.-Y., Marsch, E. (1992): The evolution of MHD turbulence in the solar wind. In: Solar Wind
Seven, (Eds. E. Marsch, R. Schwenn) Oxford, Pergamon, pp. 549–554.
Tu, C.-Y., Marsch, E. (1995): MHD structures, waves and turbulence in the solar wind:
Observations and theories. Space Science Reviews 73, 1–210.
Tu, C.-Y., Marsch, E. (2001): On cyclotron wave heating and acceleration of solar wind ions in
the outer corona. Journal of Geophysical Research 106(A5), 8233–8252.
Tu, C.-Y., Marsch, E., Qin, Z.-R. (2004): Dependence of the proton beam drift velocity on the
proton core plasma beta in the solar wind. Journal of Geophysical Research 109(A5), A05101.
References 511

Tu, C.-Y., Marsch, E., Wilhelm, K., Curdt, W. (1998): Ion temperatures in a solar polar coronal
hole observed by SUMER on SOHO. Astrophysical Journal 503, 475.
Turck-Chièze, S., et al. (2001): Solar neutrino emission deduced from a seismic model. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 555, L69–L73.
Turck-Chieze, S, et al. (1988): Revisiting the solar model. Astrophysical Journal 335, 415–424.
Turck-Chieze, S., et al. (1997): First results of the solar core from GOLF acoustic modes. Solar
Physics 175, 247–265. Reprinted in: The First Results From SOHO (Eds. B. Fleck and
Z. Svestka). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 247–265.
Turck-Chieze, S., et al. (2004): Looking for gravity-mode multiplets with the GOLF experiment
aboard SOHO. Astrophysical Journal 604, 455–468.
Tylka, A. J., et al. (2002): Flare- and shock-accelerated energetic particles in the solar events of
2001 April 12 and 15. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 581, L119–L123.
Tylka, A. J., et al. (2005): Shock geometry, seed populations, and the origin of variable elemental
composition at high energies in large gradual solar particle events. Astrophysical Journal 625,
474–495.
Tyndall, J. (1861): On the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapors, and on the
physical connection of radiation, absorption, and conduction. Philosophical Magazine and
Journal of Science 22A, 276–277.
Tzedakis, P. C., et al. (1997): Comparison of terrestrial and marine records of changing climate of
the last 500,000 years. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 150, 171–176.

Uchida, Y. (1963): An effect of the magnetic field in the shock wave heating theory of the solar
corona. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 15, 376–399.
Uchida, Y. (1968): Propagation of hydromagnetic disturbances in the solar corona and Moreton’s
wave phenomenon. Solar Physics 4, 30.
Uchida, Y. (1974): Behavior of flare-produced coronal mhd wavefront and the occurrence of type
II radio bursts. Solar Physics 39, 431–449.
Uchida, Y., Altschuler, M. D., Newkirk, G. Jr. (1973): Flare-produced coronal MHD-fast-mode
wavefronts and Moreton’s wave phenomenon. Solar Physics 28, 495–516.
Uchida, Y., Canfield, R. C., Watanabe, T., Hiei, E. (Eds., 1991): Flare Physics in Solar Activity
Maximum 22. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Uchida, Y., et al. (1992): Continual expansion of the active-region corona observed by the Yohkoh
Soft X-ray Telescope. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 44, L155–L160.
Uchida, Y., et al. (Eds., 1994): X-ray Solar Physics From Yohkoh. Tokyo: University
Academy Press.
Uchida, Y., Kosugi, T., Hudson, H. S. (Eds., 1996): Magnetodynamic Phenomena in the Solar
Atmosphere - Prototypes of Stellar Magnetic Activity. IAU Colloquium No. 153. Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ugarte-Urra, I., Warren, H. P., Winebarger, A. R. (2007): The magnetic topology of coronal mass
ejection sources. Astrophysical Journal 662, 1293–1301.
Ulmschneider, P., Priest, E. R., Rosner, R. (Eds., 1991): Mechanisms of Chromospheric and
Coronal Heating. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ulrich, R. K. (1970): The five-minute oscillations on the solar surface. Astrophysical Journal 162,
993–1002.
Ulrich, R. K. (1970): The five-minute oscillations on the solar surface. The Astrophysical Journal
162, 993–1002.
Ulrich, R. K. (1975): Solar neutrinos and variations in the solar luminosity. Science 190, 619–624.
Ulrich, R. K., Bertello, L. (1995): Solar-cycle dependence of the sun’s apparent radius in the
neutral iron spectral line at 525 nm. Nature 377, 214–215.
512 References

Ulrich, R. K., Boyden, J. E. (2005): The solar surface toroidal magnetic field. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 620, L123–L127.
Ulrich, R. K., Rhodes, E. J. Jr. (1977): The sensitivity of nonradial p mode eigenfrequencies to
solar envelope structure. Astrophysical Journal 218, 521–529.
Underwood, J. H., et al. (1976): Preliminary results from S-056 X-ray telescope experiment aboard
the Skylab-Apollo Telescope Mount. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics 48, 179–195.
Unsöld, A. (1928): Über die Struktur der Fraunhoferschen Linien und die quantitative Spektral-
analyse der Sonnenatmosphäre. Zeitschrift fur Physik 46, 765.
Ushida, Y., et al. (2003): TRACE observation of an arcade flare showing evidence supporting
quadrupole magnetic source model for arcade flares. Publications of the Astronomical Society
of Japan 55(1), 305–312.
Usmanov, A. V., Dryer, M. (1995): A global 3-d simulation of interplanetary dynamics in June,
1991. Solar Physics 159, 347–370.
Uzdensky, D. A. (2007): Fast collisionless reconnection condition and self- organization of solar
coronal heating. Astrophysical Journal 671, 2139–2153.

Vaiana, G. S., et al. (1968): X-ray structures of the Sun during the importance 1n flare of 8 June
1968. Science 161, 564–567.
Vaiana, G. S., et al. (1973a): X-ray observations of characteristic structures and time variations
from the solar corona: Preliminary results from Skylab. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters)
185, L47–L51.
Vaiana, G. S., Krieger, A. S., Timothy, A. F. (1973b): Identification and analysis of structures in
the corona from X-ray photography. Solar Physics 32, 81–116.
Vaiana, G. S., Rosner, R. (1978): Recent advances in coronal physics. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 16, 393–428.
Vainio, R., Schlickeiser, R. (1999): Self-consistent Alfvén-wave transmission and test-particle
acceleration at parallel shocks. Astronomy and Astrophysics 343, 303–311.
Van Allen, J. A. (1975): Interplanetary particles and fields. Scientific American 233, 160–162,
September.
Van Allen, J. A., Fennell, J. F., Ness, N. F. (1971): Asymmetric access of energetic solar
protons to the Earth’s north and south polar caps. Journal of Geophysical Research 76,
4262–4275.
van Allen, J. A., Krimigis, S. M. (1965): Impulsive emission of ≈ 40-keV electrons from the Sun.
Journal of Geophysical Research 70, 5737–5751.
van Allen, J. A., McIlwain, C. E., Ludwig, G. H. (1959): Radiation observations with satellite
1958ε. Journal of Geophysical Research 64, 271–286. Reproduced in:A Source Book in
Astronomy and Astrophysics 1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich). Cambridge:
Harvard University Press 1979, pp. 149–151.
Van Allen, J. A., Ness, N. F. (1969): Particle shadowing by the Moon. Journal of Geophysical
Research 74, 91–93.
Van Ballegooijen, A. A., et al. (1998): Dynamics of magnetic flux elements in the solar
photosphere. Astrophysical Journal 508, 435–447.
Van Ballegooijen, A. A., Martens, P. C. H. (1989): Formation and eruption of solar prominences.
Astrophysical Journal 343, 971–984.
Van De Hulst, H. C. (1947): Zodiacal light in the solar corona. Astrophysical Journal 105,
471–488.
Van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., et al. (1996): X-ray bright point flares due to magnetic reconnection.
Solar Physics 163, 145–170.
References 513

van Loon, H., Labitzke, K. (1988): Association between the 11-year solar cycle, the QBO and
the atmosphere, Part II. Surface and 700 mb on the northern hemisphere in winter. Journal of
Climate 1, 905–920.
van Loon, H., Labitzke, K. (1990): Association between the 11-year solar cycle and the atmo-
sphere. Part IV. The stratosphere, not grouped by the phase of the QBO. Journal of Climate 3,
827–837.
Van Speybroeck, L. P., Krieger, A. S., Vaiana, G. S. (1970): X-ray photographs of the Sun on
March 7, 1970. Nature 227, 818–822.
Vandegriff, J., Wagstaff, K., Ho, G., Plauger, J. (2005): Forecasting space weather: predicting
interplanetary shocks using neural networks. Advances in Space Research 36(12), 2323–2327.
Vasyliunas, V. M. (1975): Theoretical models of magnetic field line merging. I. Reviews of
Geophysics and Space Physics 13, 303–336.
Vaughan, A. H., Preston, G. W. (1980): A survey of chromospheric Ca II H and K emission in
field stars of the solar neighborhood. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific
92, 385–391.
Veck, N. J., Parkinson, J. H. (1981): Solar abundances form X-ray flare observations. Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 197, 41–55.
Vegard, L. (1913): On spectra of the aurora borealis. Physikalishe Zeitschrift 14, 677.
Veronig, A. M., et al. (2005): Physics of the Neupert effect: Estimates of the effects of source
energy, mass transport, and geometry using RHESSI and GOES data. Astrophysical Journal
621, 482–497.
Vestrand, W. T. (1991): High-energy flare observations from the Solar Maximum Mission.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society A336, 349–362.
Vial, J. C., Bocchialini, K., Boumier, P. (Eds., 1999): Space Solar Physics. Theoretical and
Observational Issues in the Context of the SOHO Mission. Lecture Notes in Physics No. 507.
Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Vial, J. C., Kaldeich-Schürmann (Eds., 1999): SOHO-8: Plasma Dynamics and Diagnostics in the
Solar Transition Region and Corona. ESA SP-446 1999.
Voitenko, Y., Goossens, M. (2004): Cross-field heating of coronal ions by low frequency Alfvén
waves. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 605, L149–L152.
Völk, H. J. (1975): Cosmic ray propagation in interplanetary space. Review of Geophysics and
Space Physics 13, 547–566.
von Humboldt, F. W. H. A. (1799–1804): Voyage aux régions équinoxiales du Nouveau Continent,
fait en 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803, et 1804 par Al [exandre] de Humboldt et A [imé]
Bonpland. Paris, 1805–1834.
Von Steiger, R., et al. (1992): Variable carbon and oxygen abundances in the solar wind as
observed in Earth’s magnetosheath by AMPTE/CCE. Astrophysical Journal 389, 791–799.
Von Steiger, R., et al. (2000): Composition of quasi-stationary solar wind flows from Ulysses/solar
wind ion composition spectrometer. Journal of Geophysical Research 105, A12, 27217–27238.
Von Steiger, R., Lallement, R., Lee, M. A. (Eds., 1996): The heliosphere in the local interstellar
medium. Space Science Reviews 78, 1–399. Reprinted by: Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, the Netherlands and the International Space Science Institute, Bern, Switzerland.
Vorontsov, S. V., et al. (2002): Helioseismic measurement of solar torsional oscillations. Science
296, 101–103.
Vourlidas, A., et al. (2003): Direct detection of a coronal mass ejection-associated shock in large
angle and spectrometeric coronagraph experiment white-light images. Astrophysical Journal
598, 1392–1402.
Vourlidas, A., Subramanian, P., Dere, K. P., Howard, R. A. (2000): Large angle spectrometric
coronagraph measurements of the energetics of coronal mass ejections. Astrophysical Journal
534, 456–467.
Vrsnak, B., Ruzjak, V., Romplt, B. (1991): Stability of prominences exposing helical-like patterns.
Solar Physics 136, 151–167.
514 References

Wagner, W. J. (1984): Coronal mass ejections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 22,
267–289.
Wagner, W, J., Mac Queen, R. M. (1983): The excitation of type II radio bursts in the corona.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 120, 136–138.
Waldmeier, M. (1938): Chromosphärische eruptionen I. Zeitschrift für Astrophysik 16, 276–290.
Waldmeier, M. (1940): Chromosphärische eruptionen II. Zeitschrift für Astrophysik 20, 46–66.
Waldmeier, M. (1951): Spektralphotometrische klassifikation der protuberanzen. Zeitschrift für
Astrophysik 28, 208–218.
Waldmeier, M. (1951, 1957): Die Sonnenkorona I, II. Basel: Birkhäuser 1951, 1957.
Waldmeier, M. (1961): The Sunspot Activity in the Years 1610–1960. Zurich: Schulthess.
Waldmeier, M. (1975): The coronal hole at the 7 March 1970 eclipse. Solar Physics 40, 351–358.
Waldmeier, M. (1981): Cyclic variations of the polar coronal hole. Solar Physics 70, 251–258.
Wallerstein, G. (1988): Mixing in stars. Science 240, 1743–1750.
Walsh, R. W., Ireland, J. (2003): The heating of the solar corona. The Astronomy and Astrophysics
Review 12, 1–41.
Walsh, R. W., Ireland, J., Danesy, D., Fleck, B. (Eds., 2004): SOHO-15: Coronal Heating. ESA
SP-575 2004.
Wang, H., Chang, L., Deng, Y, Zhang, H. (2005): Reevaluation of the magnetic structure and
evolution associated with the Bastille Day flare on 2000 July 12. Astrophysical Journal 627,
1031–1039.
Wang, H., et al. (2002): Rapid changes of magnetic fields associated with six X-class flares.
Astrophysical Journal 576, 497–504.
Wang, H., Qiu, J., Jing, J., Zhang, H. (2003): Study of ribbon separation of a flare associated with
a quiescent filament eruption. Astrophysical Journal 593, 564–570.
Wang, T. J., et al. (2002): Doppler shift oscillations of hot solar coronal plasma seen by SUMER:
A signature of loop oscillations? Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 574 L101–L104.
Wang, T. J., et al. (2003): Hot coronal loop oscillations observed with SUMER: Examples and
statistics. Astronomy and Astrophysics 406, 1105–1121.
Wang, Y.-M. (1993): Flux-tube divergence, coronal heating, and the solar wind. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 410, L123–L126.
Wang, Y.-M. (1994a): Polar plumes and the solar wind. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 435,
L153–L156.
Wang, Y.-M. (1994b): Two types of slow solar wind. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 437, L67–
L70.
Wang, Y.-M. (1998): Network activity and the evaporative formation of polar plumes. Astrophys-
ical Journal (Letters) 501, L145–L150.
Wang, Y.-M., et al. (1997a): Solar wind stream interactions and the wind speed- expansion factor
relationship. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 488, L51–L54.
Wang, Y.-M., et al. (1997b): The green line corona and its relation to the photospheric magnetic
field. Astrophysical Journal 485, 419–429.
Wang, Y.-M., et al. (1998a): Coronagraph observations of inflows during high solar activity.
Geophysical Research Letters 26, 1203–1206.
Wang, Y.-M., et al. (1998b): Origin of streamer material in the outer corona. Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 498, L165–L168.
Wang, Y. -M., et al. (1998): Observations of correlated white-light and extreme ultraviolet jets
from polar coronal holes. Astrophysical Journal 508, 899–907.
Wang, Y. -M., et al. (2000): The dynamical nature of coronal streamers. Journal of Geophysical
Research 105, A11, 25133–25142.
Wang, Y. -M., et al. (2007): The solar eclipse of 2006 and the origin of raylike features in the
white-light corona. Astrophysical Journal 660, 882–892.
References 515

Wang, Y. -M., Nash, A. G., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (1989): Magnetic flux transport on the Sun. Science
245, 712–718.
Wang, Y. -M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (1990a): Solar wind speed and coronal flux-tube expansion.
Astrophysical Journal 355, 726–732.
Wang, Y. -M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (1990b): Magnetic flux transport and the sunspot- cycle evolution
of coronal holes and their wind streams. Astrophysical Journal 365, 372–386.
Wang, Y. -M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (1992): On potential field models of the solar corona. Solar
Physics 392, 310–319.
Wang, Y. -M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (2004): Footprint switching and the evolution of coronal holes.
Astrophysical Journal 612, 1196–1205.
Wang, Y.-M., et al. (1999a): Coronagraph observations of inflows during high solar activity.
Geophysical Research Letters 26, 1203–1206.
Wang, Y.-M., et al. (1999b): Streamer disconnection events observed with the LASCO corona-
graph. Geophysical Research Letters 26, 1349–1352.
Wang, Y.-M., Hawley, S. H., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (1996): The magnetic nature of coronal holes.
Science 271, 464–469.
Wang, Y.-M., Lean, J. L., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (2005) Modeling the Sun’s magnetic field and
irradiance since 1713. Astrophysical Journal 625, 522–538.
Wang, Y.-M., Pick, M., Mason, G. M. (2006): Coronal holes, jets, and the origin of 3 He particle
events. Astrophysical Journal 639, 495–509.
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (1991a): Magnetic flux transport and the Sun’s dipole moment:
New twists to the Babcock-Leighton model. Astrophysical Journal 375, 761–770.
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (1991b): Why fast solar wind originates from slowly expanding
coronal flux tubes. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 372, L45–L48.
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (1997): The high-latitude solar wind near sunspot maximum.
Geophysical Research Letters 24(24), 3141–3144.
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (2002a): Coronal white-light jets near sunspot maximum.
Astrophysical Journal 575, 542–552.
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (2002b): Observations of core fallback during coronal mass
ejections. Astrophysical Journal 567, 1211–1224.
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (2002c): Sunspot activity and the long-term variation of the Sun’s
open magnetic flux. Journal of Geophysical Research 107(A10), 1302.
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (2003): On the topological evolution of the coronal magnetic field
during the solar cycle. Astrophysical Journal 599, 1404–1417.
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr. (2006): Observations of flux rope formation in the outer corona.
Astrophysical Journal 650, 1172–1183.
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Nash, A. G. (1990): Latitudinal distribution of solar-wind speed
from magnetic observations of the Sun. Nature 347, 439–444.
Wang, Y.-M., Sheeley, N. R. Jr., Nash, A. G. (1991): A new solar cycle model including meridional
circulation. Astrophysical Journal 383, 431–442.
Warren, H. P. (2000): Fine structure in solar flares. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 536,
L105–L108.
Warren, H. P., et al. (1997): Doppler shifts and nonthermal broadening in the quiet solar transition
region: O VI. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 484, L91–L94.
Warren, H. P., et al. (2007): Observations of transient active region heating with Hinode.
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S675–S681.
Warren, H. P., Winebarger, A. R., Hamilton, P. S. (2002): Hydrodynamic modeling of active
region loops. The Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 579, L41–L44.
Watko, J. A., Klimchuk, J. A. (2000): Width variations along coronal loops observed by TRACE.
Solar Physics 193, 77–92.
Webb, D. F. (1992): The solar sources of coronal mass ejections. In: Eruptive Solar Flares (Eds.
Z. Svestka, B. V. Jackson and M. E. Machado). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 234–247.
Webb, D. F. (1995): Coronal mass ejections: The key to major interplanetary and geomagnetic
disturbances. Reviews of Geophysics, Supplement 33, 577–583.
516 References

Webb, D. F., Burkepile, J., Forbes, T. G., Riley, P. (2003): Observational evidence of new current
sheets trailing coronal mass ejections. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(A12), 1440.
Webb, D. F., et al. (1998): The solar origin of the January 1997 coronal mass ejection, magnetic
cloud and geomagnetic storm. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 2469–2472.
Webb, D. F., et al. (2000): Relationship of halo coronal mass ejections, magnetic clouds, and
magnetic storms. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(A4), 7491–7508.
Webb, D. F., et al. (2005): Commission 49: Interplanetary plasma and heliosphere. Proceedings of
the International Astronomical Union 1, 103–120.
Webb, D. F., et al. (2006): Solar mass ejection imager (SMEI) observations of coronal mass
ejections (CMEs) in the heliosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, A12101.
Webb, D. F., et al. (2008): Studying geoeffective icmes between the Sun and Earth: space weather
implications of smei observations. Submitted to Space Weather.
Webb, D. F., Howard, R. A. (1994): The solar cycle variation of coronal mass ejections and the
solar wind mass flux. Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 4201–4220.
Webb, D. F., Hundhausen, A. J. (1987): Activity associated with the solar origin of coronal mass
ejections. Solar Physics 108, 383–401.
Webb, D. F., Krieger, A. S., Rust, D. M. (1976): Coronal X-ray enhancements associated with Hα
filament disappearances. Solar Physics 48, 159–186.
Weber, E. J., Davis, L. Jr. (1967): The angular momentum of the solar wind. Astrophysical Journal
148, 217–227.
Wedemeyer-Böhm, S., Steiner, O., Bruls, J., Rammacher, W. (2007): What is heating the quiet-sun
chromosphere? Physics of the Chromospheric Plasmas ASP Conversence Series 368, 93.
Weiss, J. E., Weiss, N. O. (1979): Andrew Marvell and the Maunder minimum. Quarterly Journal
of the Royal Astronomical Society 20, 115–118.
Weiss, N. O. (1990): Periodicity and aperiodicity in solar magnetic activity. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society (London) A330, 617–625.
Weizsäcker, C. F. Von (1938): Über Elementumwandlungen in Innern der Sterne II (Element
transformation inside stars II), Physikalische Zeitschrift 39, 633–646. English translation in A
Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics 1900–1975 (Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich).
Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1979, pp. 309–319.
Whang, Y. C., Burlaga, L. F. (1994): Interaction of global merged interaction region shock with
the heliopause and its relation to the 2- and 3-kHz radio emissions. Journal of Geophysical
Research 99(A11), 21457–21466.
Wheatland, M. S., Sturrock, P. A., Acton, L. W. (1997): Coronal heating and the vertical
temperature structure of the quiet corona. Astrophysical Journal 482, 510–518.
White, O. R. (Ed., 1997): The Solar Output and Its Variation. Boulder: Colorado Associated
University Press.
White, O. R., Livingston, W. C. (1981): Solar luminosity variation III. Calcium K variation from
solar minimum to maximum in cycle 21. Astrophysical Journal 249, 798–816.
White, O. R., Livingston, W. C., Wallace, L. (1987): Variability of chromospheric and photospheric
lines in solar cycle 21. Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 823–827.
White, W. B., et al. (1997): Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar
irradiance. Journal of Geophysical Research 102, 3255–3266.
Wiegelmann, T., et al. (2005): Comparing magnetic field extrapolations with measurements of
magnetic loops. Astronomy and Astrophysics 433, 701–705.
Wiegelmann, T., Xia, L.-D., Marsch, E. (2005): Links between magnetic fields and plasma flows
in a coronal hole. Astronomy and Astrophysics 432, L1–L4.
Wigley, T. M. L. (1976): Spectral analysis: Astronomical theory of climatic change. Nature 264,
629–631.
Wigley, T. M. L., Kelly, P. M. (1990): Holocene climatic change, 14 C wiggles and variations in
solar irradiance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) A330, 547–560.
Wigley, T. M. L., Raper, S. C. B. (1990): Climatic change due to solar irradiance changes.
Geophysical Research Letters 17, 2169–2172.
References 517

Wilcox, J. M. (1968): The interplanetary magnetic field, solar origin and terrestrial effects. Space
Science Reviews 8, 258–328.
Wilcox, J. M., Ness, N. F. (1965): Quasi-stationary co-rotating structure in the interplanetary
medium. Journal of Geophysical Research 70, 5793–5805.
Wild, J. P. (1950): Observations of the spectrum of high-intensity solar radiation at meter
wavelengths. II – Outbursts, III – Isolated Bursts. Australian Journal of Scientific Research
A3, 399–408, 541–557.
Wild, J. P. (1963): Fast phenomena in the solar corona. In: The Solar Corona. Proceedings of IAU
Symposium No. 16 (Ed. J. W. Evans). New York: Academic Press, pp. 115–127.
Wild, J. P., Mc Cready, L. L. (1950): Observations of the spectrum of high-intensity solar radiation
at meter wavelengths. I – The apparatus and spectral types. Australian Journal of Scientific
Research A3, 387–398.
Wild, J. P., Murray, J. D., Rowe, W. C. (1953): Evidence of harmonics in the spectrum of a solar
radio outburst. Nature 172, 533–534.
Wild, J. P., Roberts, J. A., Murray, J. D. (1954): Radio evidence of the ejection of very fast
particles from the Sun. Nature 173, 532–534.
Wild, J. P., Sheridan, K. V., Neylan, A. A. (1959): An investigation of the speed of the solar
disturbances responsible for type III radio bursts. Australian Journal of Physics 12, 369–398.
Wild, J. P., Smerd, S. F. (1972): Radio bursts from the solar corona. Annual Review of Astronomy
and Astrophysics 10, 159–196.
Wild, J. P., Smerd, S. F., Weiss, A. A. (1963): Solar bursts. Annual Review of Astronomy and
Astrophysics 1, 291–366.
Wilhelm, K. (2006): Solar coronal-hole plasma densities and temperatures. Astronomy and
Astrophysics 455, 697–708.
Wilhelm, K., et al. (1995): SUMER – Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted Radiation. Solar
Physics 162, 189–232.
Wilhelm, K., et al. (1998): The solar corona above polar coronal holes as seen by SUMER on
SOHO. Astrophysical Journal 500, 1023–1038.
Wilhelm, K., et al. (2000): On the source regions of the fast solar wind in polar coronal holes.
Astronomy and Astrophysics 353, 749–756.
Wills-Davey, M. J., Thompson, D. J. (1999): Observations of a propagating disturbance in TRACE.
Solar Physics 190, 467–483.
Willson, R. C, et al. (1981): Observations of solar irradiance variability. Science 211, 700–702.
Willson, R. C. (1982): Solar irradiance variations and solar activity. Journal of Geophysical
Research 87, 4319–4324.
Willson, R. C. (1984): Measurements of solar total irradiance and its variability. Space Science
Reviews 38, 203–242.
Willson, R. C. (1991): The Sun’s luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42–44.
Willson, R. C. (1997): Total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21 and 22. Science 277,
1963–1965.
Willson, R. C., et al. (1986): Long-term downward trend in total solar irradiance. Science 234,
1114–1117.
Willson, R. C., Hudson, H. S. (1988): Solar luminosity variations in solar cycle 21. Nature
332, 810–812.
Willson, R. C., Hudson, H. S. (1991): The Sun’s luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature
351, 42–44.
Willson, R. C., Mordvinov, A. V. (2003): Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles
21–23. Geophysical Research Letters 30, 1199.
Willson, R. F., Lang, K. R. (1984): Very large array observations of solar active regions IV.
Structure and evolution of radio bursts from 20 centimeter loops. Astrophysical Journal 279,
427–437.
Willson, R. F., Lang, K. R., Gary, D. E. (1993): Particle acceleration and flare triggering in
large-scale magnetic loops joining widely separated active regions. Astrophysical Journal 418,
490–495.
518 References

Wilson, A. (Ed., 2002): SOHO-11: From Solar Min to Max: Half a Solar Cycle with SOHO. ESA
SP-508 2002.
Wilson, A., Pallé, P. L. (Eds., 2001): SOHO-10/GONG 2000: Helio- and Asteroseismology at the
Dawn of the Millenium. ESA SP-464 2001.
Wilson, J. W., et al. (2004): Deep space environments for human exploration. Advances in Space
Research 34, 1281–1287.
Wilson, O. C. (1966a): Stellar chromospheres. Science 151, 1487–1498.
Wilson, O. C. (1966b): Stellar convection zones, chromospheres, and rotation. Astrophysical
Journal 144, 695–708.
Wilson, O. C. (1978): Chromospheric variations in main-sequence stars. Astrophysical Journal
226, 379–396.
Wilson, O. C., Wooley, R. (1970): Calcium emission intensities as indicators of stellar age.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 148, 463–475.
Wilson, P. R., McIntosh, P. S. (1991): The reversal of the solar polar magnetic fields. Solar Physics
136, 221–237.
Wilson, P. R., McIntosh, P. S., Snodgrass, H. B. (1990): The reversal of the solar polar magnetic
fields I. The surface transport of magnetic flux. Solar Physics 127, 1–9.
Wilson, R. M., Hildner, E. (1984): Are interplanetary magnetic clouds manifestations of coronal
transients at 1 AU? Solar Physics 91, 169–180.
Wimmer-Schwingruber, R. F. (2006): Coronal mass ejections. Space Science Reviews 123(1–3),
471–480.
Winebarger, A. R., et al. (2002): Steady flows detected in extreme-ultraviolet loops. The
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 567, L89–L92.
Winebarger, A. R., Warren, H. P. (2005): Cooling active region loops observed with SXT and
TRACE. Astrophysical Journal 626, 543–550.
Winebarger, A. R., Warren, H. P., Mariska, J. T. (2003): Transition Region and Coronal Explorer
and Soft X-ray Telescope active region loop observations: Comparisons with static solutions
of the hydrodynamic equations. The Astrophysical Journal 587, 439–449.
Winograd, I. J., et al. (1988): A 250,000-year climatic record from great basin vein calcite:
Implications for Milankovitch theory. Science 242, 1275–1280.
Withbroe, G. L. (1981): Activity and outer atmosphere of the sun. In: Activity and Outer
Atmospheres of the Sun and Stars, 11th Advanced Course of the Swiss National Academy of
Sciences. Sauverny: Observatoire de Geneve.
Withbroe, G. L. (1988): The temperature structure, mass, and energy flow in the corona and inner
solar wind. Astrophysical Journal 325, 442–467.
Withbroe, G. L. (1989): The solar wind mass flux. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 337, L49–L52.
Withbroe, G. L., et al. (1982): Probing the solar wind acceleration region using spectroscopic
techniques. Space Science Reviews 33, 17–52.
Withbroe, G. L., Feldman, W. C., Ahluwalia, H. S. (1991): The solar wind and its coronal origins.
In: Solar Interior and Atmosphere (Eds. A. N. Cox, W. C. Livingston and M. S. Matthews).
Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 1087–1106.
Withbroe, G. L., Noyes, R. W. (1977): Mass and energy flow in the solar chromosphere and
corona. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 15, 363–387.
Witte, M., et al. (1992): The interstellar neutral-gas experiment on Ulysses. Astronomy and
Astrophysics Supplement 92(2), 333–348.
Woch, J., et al. (1997): SWICS/Ulysses observations: The three-dimensional structure of the
heliosphere in the declining/minimum phase of the solar cycle. Geophysical Research Letters
24(22), 2885–2888.
Wolfenstein, L. (1978): Neutrino oscillations in matter. Physical Review D 17, 2369–2374.
Wolff, C. L. (1972a): Free oscillations of the Sun and their possible stimulation by solar flares.
The Astrophysical Journal 176, 833–842.
Wolff, C. L. (1972b): The five-minute oscillations as nonradial pulsations of the entire Sun.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 177, L87–L92.
Wolfson, R. (1983): The active solar corona. Scientific American 248, 104–119, February.
References 519

Wollaston, W. H. (1802): A method of examining refractive and dispersive power by prismatic

reflection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 92, 365–380.
Woo, R. (2006): Ultra-fine-scale filamentary structures in the outer corona and the solar magnetic
field. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 639, L95–L98.
Woo, R., et al. (1995): Fine-scale filamentary structure in coronal streamers. Astrophysical Journal
(Letters) 449, L91–L94.
Woo, R., Habbal, S. R. (1997): Extension of coronal structure into interplanetary space.
Geophysical Research Letters 24(10), 1159–1162.
Woo, R., Habbal, S. R. (2005): Origin and acceleration of the slow solar wind. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 629, L129–L132.
Woo, R., Habbal, S. R., Feldman, U. (2004): Role of closed magnetic fields in solar wind flow.
Astrophysical Journal 612, 1171–1174.
Wood, B. E., et al. (1999): Comparison of two coronal mass ejections observed by EIT and
LASCO with a model of an erupting magnetic flux rope. Astrophysical Journal 512, 484–495.
Wood, B. E., et al. (2005): New mass-loss measurements from atmospheric Lyman alpha
absorption. Astrophysical Journal Letters 628, L143–L146.
Woodard, M. F. (1997): Implications of localized, acoustic absorption for heliotomographic
analysis of sunspots. The Astrophysical Journal 485, 890–894.
Woodard, M. F. (2002): Solar subsurface flow inferred directly from frequency wavenumber
correlations in the seismic velocity field. The Astrophysical Journal 565, 634–639.
Woodard, M. F., Hudson, H. (1983a): Frequencies, amplitudes and line widths of solar oscillations
from total solar irradiance observations. Nature 305, 589–593.
Woodard, M. F., Hudson, H. (1983b): Solar oscillations observed in the total irradiance. Solar
Physics 82, 67–73.
Woodard, M. F., Noyes, R. C. (1985): Change of the solar oscillation eigenfrequencies with the
solar cycle. Nature 318, 449–450.
Woods, T. N., et al. (2004): Solar irradiance variability during the October 2003 solar storm
period. Geophysical Research Letters 31, L10802.
Woods, T. N., et al. (2005): The Solar Euv Experiment (SEE): mission overview and first results.
Journal of Geophysical Research 110, A01312.
Woods, T. N., Kopp, G., Chamberlin, P. C. (2006): Contributions of the solar ultraviolet irradiance
to the total solar irradiance during large flares. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, A10S14.
Woods, T. N., Rottman, G. J. (2002): Solar ultraviolet variability over time periods of aeronomic
interest. In: Comparative Aeronomy in the Solar System. Geophysical Monograph Series 130
(Eds. M. Mendillo, A. Nagy, J. Hunter Waite Jr.) Washington: American Geophysical Union,
pp. 221–234.
Wu, S. T., et al. (1989): Flare energetics. In: Energetic Phenomena on the Sun (Eds. M. R. Kundu,
B. Woodgate and E. J. Schmahl). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 377–492.

Xia, L.-D., Marsch, E., Wilhelm, K. (2004): On the network structures in solar equatorial coronal
holes – Observations of SUMER and MDI on SOHO. Astronomy and Astrophysics 424,
1025–1037.
Xie, H., Ofman, L., Vinãs, A. (2004): Multiple ions resonant heating and acceleration by Alfvén/
cyclotron fluctuations in the corona and the solar wind. Journal of Geophysical Research 109,
A08103.
520 References

Yamada, M. (1999): Review of controlled laboratory experiments on physics of magnetic

reconnection. Journal of Geophysical Research 104(A7), 14529–14541.
Yamamoto, T. T., et al. (2005): Magnetic helicity injection and sigmoidal coronal loops.
Astrophysical Journal 624, 1072–1079.
Yamauchi, Y., et al. (2004): The magnetic structure of hydrogen alpha macrospicules in solar
coronal holes. Astrophysical Journal 605, 511–520.
Yamauchi, Y., Suess, S. T., Steinberg, J. T., Sakurai, T. (2004): Differential velocity between
solar wind protons and alpha particles in pressure balance structures. Journal of Geophysical
Research 109, A03104.
Yan, Y., et al. (2007): Diagnostics of radio fine structures around 3 GHz with Hinode data in
the impulsive phase of an X3.4/4B flare event on 2006 December 13. Publications of the
Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S815–S821.
Yashiro, S., et al. (2004): A catalog of white light coronal mass ejections observed by the SOHO
spacecraft. Journal of Geophysical Research 109(A7), A07105.
Yiou, F., et al. (1985): 10 Be in ice at Vostok Antarctica during the last climatic cycle. Nature 316,
616–617.
Yokoyama, T., et al. (2001): Clear evidence of reconnection inflow of a solar flare. Astrophysical
Journal (Letters) 546, L69–L72.
Yokoyama, T., Shibata, K. (1995): Magnetic reconnection as the origin of x-ray jets and Hα surges
on the Sun. Nature 375, 42–44.
Yoshida, T., Tsuneta, S. (1996): Temperature structure of solar active regions. Astrophysical
Journal 459, 342–346.
Yoshimori, M. (1989): Observational studies of gamma-rays and neutrons from solar flares. Space
Science Reviews 51, 85–115.
Yoshimori, M., et al. (1983): Gamma-ray observations from Hinotori. Solar Physics 86, 375–382.
Yoshimori, M., et al. (1991): The Wide Band Spectrometer on the SOLAR-A. Solar Physics
136, 69–88.
Young, C. A (1896): The Sun. New York: Appleton.
Young, C. A. (1869): On a new method of observing contacts at the Sun’s limb, and other
spectroscopic observations during the recent eclipse. American Journal of Sciences and Arts
48, 370–378. Reproduced in: Early Solar Physics (Ed. A. J. Meadows). Oxford: Pergamon
Press 1970, pp. 125–134.
Young, P. R., et al. (2007): Solar transition region features observed with Hinode/EIS. Publications
of the Astronomical Society of Japan 59, S727–S733.
Yurchyshyn, V. B., et al. (2001): Orientation of the magnetic fields in interplanetary flux ropes and
solar filaments. Astrophysical Journal 563, 381–388.
Yurchyshyn, V., et al. (2005): Statistical distributions of speeds of coronal mass ejections.
Astrophysical Journal 619, 599–603.
Yurchyshyn, V., Wang, H., Abramenko, V. (2004): Correlation between speeds of coronal mass
ejections and the intensity of geomagnetic storms. Space Weather 2, S02001.

Zaatri, A., et al. (2006): North-south asymmetry of zonal and meridional flows determined from
ring diagram analysis of GONG data. Solar Physics 236, 227–244.
Zank, G. P., Gaisser, T. K. (Eds., 1992): Particle Acceleration in Cosmic Plasmas. New York:
American Institute of Physics.
References 521

Zarro, D. M., Canfield, R. C. (1989): H-alpha redshifts as a diagnostic of solar flare heating.
Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 338, L33–L36.
Zarro, D. M., et al. (1999): SOHO EIT observations of extreme-ultraviolet “dimming” associated
with a halo coronal mass ejection 520, L139–L142.
Zhang, G., Burlaga, L. F. (1988): Magnetic clouds, geomagnetic disturbances, and cosmic ray
decreases. Journal of Geophysical Research 93, 2511–2518.
Zhang, J., Dere, K. P. (2006): A statistical study of main and residual accelerations of coronal
mass ejections. Astrophysical Journal 649, 1100–1109.
Zhang, J., Dere, K., Howard, R. A. (2001): Relationship between coronal mass ejections and
flares. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union 82, 47.
Zhang, J., et al. (2001): On the temporal relationship between coronal mass ejections and flares.
Astrophysical Journal 559, 452–462.
Zhang, J., et al. (2004): A study of the kinematic evolution of coronal mass ejections. Astrophysical
Journal 604, 420–432.
Zhang, K., et al. (2003): A three-dimensional spherical nonlinear interface dynamo. Astrophysical
Journal 596, 663–679.
Zhang, M. (2006): Helicity observations of weak and strong fields. Astrophysical Journal (Letters)
646, L85–L88.
Zhang, M., Golub, L. (2003): The dynamical morphologies of flares associated with the two types
of solar coronal mass ejections. Astrophysical Journal 595, 1251–1258.
Zhang, M., Low, B. C. (2003): Magnetic flux emergence into the solar corona III. The role of
magnetic helicity conservation. Astrophysical Journal 584, 479–496.
Zhang, M., Low, B. C. (2005): The hydromagnetic nature of solar coronal mass ejections. Annual
Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 43, 103–137.
Zhang, Q., et al. (1994): A method of determining possible brightness variations of the Sun
in past centuries from observations of solar-type stars. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 427,
L111–L114.
Zhang, T. X. (2003): Preferential heating of particles by h-cyclotron waves generated by a global
magnetohydrodynamic mode in solar coronal holes. Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 597,
L69–L72.
Zhao, J., Kosovichev, A. G. (2003): Helioseismic observations of the structure and dynamics of a
rotating sunspot beneath the solar surface. The Astrophysical Journal 591, 446–453.
Zhao, J., Kosovichev, A. G. (2004): Torsional oscillation, meridional flows, and vorticity inferred
in the upper convection zone of the sun by time-distance helioseismology. The Astrophysical
Journal 603, 776–784.
Zhao, J., Kosovichev, A. G. (2006): Surface magnetism effects in time-distance helioseismology.
Astrophysical Journal 643, 1317–1324.
Zhao, J., Kosovichev, A. G., Duvall, T. L. Jr. (2001): Investigation of mass flows beneath a sunspot
by time-distance helioseismology. The Astrophysical Journal 557, 384–388.
Zhao, X. P., Hoeksema, J. T. (1997): Is the geoeffectiveness of the 6 January 1997CME predictable
from solar observations? Geophysical Research Letters 24, 2965–2968.
Zhou, G. P., Wang, J. X., Zhang, J. (2006): Large-scale source regions of Earth-directed coronal
mass ejections. Astronomy and Astrophysics 445, 1133–1141.
Zhou, X., Tsurutani, B. T. (2001): Interplanetary shock triggering of nightside geomagnetic
activity: Substorms, pseudo breakups, and quiescent events. Journal of Geophysical Research
106, 18957–18968.
Zirin, H., Moore, R., Walters, J. (1976): Proceedings of the workshop: The solar constant and the
Earth’s atmosphere. Solar Physics 46, 377–409.
Zirker, J. B. (1977): Coronal holes – an overview. In: Coronal holes and High Speed Wind Streams
(Ed. J. B. Zirker). Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press, pp. 1–26.
Zirker, J. B. (1993): Coronal heating. Solar Physics 148, 43–60.
Zirker, J. B. (Ed., 1977): Coronal Holes and High Speed Wind Streams. Boulder: Colorado
Associated University Press.
522 References

Zirker, J. B., Engvold, O., Martin, S. F. (1998): Counter-streaming gas flows in solar prominences
as evidence for vertical magnetic fields. Nature 396, 440–441.
Zurbuchen, T. H. (2007): A new view of the coupling of the Sun and heliosphere. Annual Review
of Astronomy and Astrophysics 45, 297–338.
Zurbuchen, T. H., et al. (1999): The transition between fast and slow solar wind from composition
data. Space Science Reviews 87, 353–356.
Zurbuchen, T. H., et al. (2004): On the fast coronal mass ejections in October/November 2003:
ACE-SWICS results. Geophysical Research Letters 31(11), L11805.
Zurbuchen, T. H., Fisk, L. A., Gloeckler, G., Von Steiger, R. (2002): The solar wind composition
throughout the solar cycle: A continuum of dynamic states. Geophysical Research Letters
29(9), 66–1.
Zurbuchen, T. H., Richardson, I. G. (2006): In-situ solar wind and magnetic field signatures of
interplanetary coronal mass ejections. Space Science Reviews 123, 31–43.
Zurbuchen, T. H., Schwadron, N. A., Fisk, L. A. (1997): Direct observational evidence for a
heliospheric magnetic field with large excursions in latitude. Journal of Geophysical Research
102(A11), 24175–24182.
Author Index

Acton, L. W., 6 (Table 1.1), 162, 267, 299, 306 Axford, W. I., 163, 193, 206, 222, 246,
fig. 6.26, 307, 312 fig. 6.29, 332 249, 394
Acuña, M. H., 6 (Table 1.1), 19, 45
(Table 1.13) Baade, W., 71, 99
Adhémar, J. A., 381, 391 Babcock, H. D., 101, 244
Aharmin, B., 158 Babcock, H. W., 101, 146, 147 fig. 3.17, 153,
Ahmad, Q. R., 157 244
Akasofu, S. -I., 394 Bahcall, J. N., 111, 154, 156
Alazraki, G., 224, 246 Bailey, F., 91
Alexander, D., 313 Baker, D. N., 201
Alfvén, H., 168, 190, 205, 224, 244, 247, 325, Baliunas, S. L., 258, 267, 376, 400
396 Balmer, J., 53, 98
Alighieri, D., 12 Balogh, A., 16 (Table 1.5), 200, 201, 225, 244
Altschuler, M. D., 218, 247 Bame, S. J., 246
Amari, T., 318, 333, 338 Barnett, M. A. F., 392
Anderson, C. D., 71, 99, 107, 132 Bartoe, J. -D. F., 181, 192
Ando, H., 154 Bastian, T., 281
Andreev, V. E., 226 Basu, S., 141, 156, 159
Angström, A. J., 97, 98 Battaglia, M., 314, 335
Aniol, P., 212 fig. 5.9 Battric, B., 128
Antia, H. M., 141, 159 Beck, J. G., 141, 158
Antiochos, S. K., 182, 195, 311, 333 Beer, J., 141, 376, 383, 400, 401
Antonucci, E., 104, 210, 267, 328 Belcher, J. W., 170, 191, 224, 225, 233 fig.
Anzer, U., 310, 329 5.19, 245, 246, 395
Appleton, E. V., 90, 100, 324, 392, 393 Benz, A. O., 183, 193, 259, 269, 278, 281, 314,
Araki, T., 158 329, 335, 342
Archmides, 229 Berger, A., 397
Arnoldy, R. L., 326 Bernot, M., 92 fig. 2.14
Aschwanden, M. J., 163, 176, 177, 183, 193, Bertaux, J. -L., 27 (Table 1.9)
194, 195, 196, 258, 269, 281, 296, 297 fig. Bertotti, B., 16 (Table 1.5)
6.23, 313, 332, 333, 341, 355 Bethe, H. A., 107, 111, 153, 156
Asplund, M., 130 Bhattachajee, A., 258
Aston, F. W., 107, 152 Bieber, J. W., 317, 331
Athay, R. G., 167, 192 Biermann, L. F., 61, 65, 101, 164, 191,
Atkinson, R. d’E., 153 244, 393
Auchère, F., 27 (Table 1.9) Bigelow, F. H., 77, 98, 244
Aulanier, G., 311 Birch, A. C., 127, 138

523
524 Author Index

Bird, M. K., 16 (Table 1.5) Chandran, B. D. G., 200, 231

Birkeland, K., 51, 98, 244, 392 Chapman, G. A., 398
Blackett, P. M. S., 71 Chapman, S., 53, 61, 62, 99, 101, 198, 245,
Bobra, M., 41 fig. 1.12, 315 fig. 6.30 338, 392
Bochsler, P., 27 (Table 1.9), 232 Chappellaz, J., 399
Bogart, R. S., 141, 157, 159 Charbonneau, P., 127, 149, 183, 194
Bohlin, J. D., 191 Chen, J., 258, 303, 311
Bohr, N., 54, 98 Chou, D. -Y., 141
Boischot, A., 325, 393 Christensen, E. F., 372
Bolton, J. G., 100, 276, 325, 393 Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 126 fig. 3.10, 127,
Bondi, H., 244 130, 155, 156, 158
Boothroyd, A. J., 385, 387 fig. 7.16 Chupp, E. L., 91, 102, 258, 273, 327, 328, 329,
Bothmer, V., 341, 351, 401 341, 346, 396, 397, 398
Bougeret, J. -L., 6 (Table 1.1), 19 (Table 1.7), Chyba, C., 385, 397
45 (Table 1.13), 46 (Table 1.14), 258, 289, Ciaravella, A., 313, 335, 348
290 fig. 6.20 Cirtain, J., 170, 195, 215, 226, 251, 309
Bracewell, R. N., 137 Claverie, A., 154
Bradley, R. E., 376, 401, 402 Clay, J., 69, 99
Bradt, H. L., 100 Cleveland, B. T., 111, 157
Braun, D. C., 138, 139, 145, 155, 156, 157, Cline, T. L., 19 (Table 1.7)
158, 342, 400, 403 Cliver, E. W., xvi, 344
Breit, G., 392 Close, R. M., 184, 185 fig. 4.11, 194
Brekke, P., 173, 193 Colburn, D. S., 339, 359, 394, 395
Bridge, H. A., 102 Coleman, P. J. Jr., 224, 245, 394
Brooks, D. H., 173 Coles, W. A., 202, 226, 247
Brosius, J. W., 266 Compton, A. H., 69, 99
Brown, T. M., 133, 155 Contarina, P., 313
Brueckner, G. E., 27 (Table 1.9), 181, 192 Cook, W. R., 232, 248, 398
Bruner, E. C. Jr., 167, 192 Corbard, T., 133
Bruno, R., 200, 231 Cormack, A. M., 137
Bumba, V., 99, 324 Cortes, T. R., 154
Bunsen, R., 53, 97 Couterier, P., 224, 246
Burkepile, J., 258, 289, 290 fig. 6.20 Couvidat, S., 133, 134 fig. 3.12, 158
Burlaga, L. F., 237, 251, 339, 351, 398, 403 Cowan, C. L., 153
Burnight, T. R., 100, 244, 325 Cox, A. N., 123
Burton, R. K., 359, 360, 395 Cram, L. E., 155
Cranmer, S. R., 163, 170, 186, 187 fig. (4.12,
Cahill, L. J. Jr., 359, 395 4.13), 194, 195, 200, 201, 205, 218, 219,
Cally, P., 128 220, 223, 225, 249, 312 fig. 6.29
Cane, H. V., 329, 361, 399, 402 Critchfield, C. L., 107, 153
Canfield, R. C., 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 331, Croll, J., 381, 391
332, 336, 343, 402 Crooker, N. U., 251, 259, 341, 404
Carbone, V., 200, 231 Crowley, T. J., 370, 376, 401, 402
Cargill, P. J., 182, 192, 193 Culhane, J. L., 6 (Table 1.1), 11 (Table 1.3), 43
Carlowicz, M., 341 (Table 1.11, 1.12)
Carlsson, M., 165, 192 Cuntz, M., 122
Carmichael, H., 304, 326 Curdt, W., 27
Carrington, R. C., 90, 97, 132, 269, 324, Czaykowska, A., 267
338, 391
Cauffman, D. P., 259 Daglis, I. A., 341
Cayan, D. R., 402 Dahlburg, R. B., 182, 195
Celsius, A., 338, 391 Dai, D. -C., 141
Chadwick, J., 107, 153 Danesy, D., 128, 164
Chamberlin, P. C., 271, 336, 404 Davila, J. M., 296, 335
Author Index 525

Davis, L. Jr., 101, 191, 199, 224, 233 fig. 2.19, Engvold, O., 164, 283, 332
244, 245, 246, 394, 395 Equchi, K., 158
Davis, R. Jr., 110, 154, 156 Erdélyi, R., 165, 166, 195
De Jage, K., 326 Espenak, F., 206 fig. 5.4
De Mairan, J. J. D., 51, 97, 338, 374, 391
De Moortel, I., 165 Fairfield, D. H., 359, 395
De Pontieu, B., 165, 166, 170, 195, 226, 251 Falconer; D. A., 181, 192, 343, 403
De Rosa, M. L. 122 Fan, Y., 128, 149, 318, 335, 336
Debrunner, H., 329, 398 Feldman, U., 130, 191, 232, 248, 400
Decker, R. B., 237, 238, 251 Fermi, E., 153
Delaboudinière, J. -P. 27 (Table 1.9) Ferraro, V. C. A., 53, 99, 338, 392
Dellinger, J. H., 99, 324, 392 Feynman, J., 259, 341
DeLuca, E. E., 43 (Table 1.12) Fishman, G. J., 128, 275
Demarque, P., 156 Fisk, L. A., 219, 228, 231, 235, 246, 250
Démoulin, P., 317, 318, 330, 333, 334 Fitzgerald, G. F., 392
Denisse, J. -F., 325, 393 Fleck, B., 28, 128, 164, 201, 259, 342
Dennis, B. R., 37, 265 fig. 6.7, 275, 307 Fleishman, G. D., 281, 335
Dere, K. P., 177, 181, 192, 294, 333 Fletcher, K., 128
Desai, M. I., 236, 353 Fletcher, L., 259, 271, 313, 333, 335
Deslandres, H., 56, 98 Fludra, A., 27 (Table 1.9), 173
Dettinger, M. D., 402 Forbes, T. G., 192, 258, 290 fig. 6.20, 302, 307,
Deubner, F. -L., 123, 154 311, 312 fig. 6.29, 330, 332, 333, 355
Dickinson, R. E., 373, 396 Forbush, S. E., 79, 80, 90, 100, 244, 324, 325,
Dietrich, W. P., 327 339, 345, 393
Dikpati, M., 149 Forrest, D. J., 329, 398
Dirac, P. A. M., 153 Fossat, E., 155
Dobson, H. W., 99, 324 Fossum, A., 165
Domingo, V., 6 (Table 1.1), 128 Foukal, P. V., 370, 371, 376, 400, 404
Donea, A. -C., 299, 332 Frank, L. A., 399
Doppler, C., 119, 120 fig. 3.5 Frazier, E. N., 154
Doschek, G. A., 11 (Table 1.3), 43 (Table Frazin, R., 221
1.12), 104, 130, 173, 191, 267, 328, 335 Freeland, S. L., 299
Dowdy, J. F. Jr., 248 Freier, P., 100
Dreschhoff, G., 383, 402 Friedman, H., 85, 91, 100, 101, 102, 244, 325,
Dröge, F., 328 393
Druckmüler, M., 212 fig. 5.9 Friis-Christensen, E., 373, 400, 402
Dryer, M., 302, 337, 339, 355, 356 Fröhlich, C., 27 (Table 1.9), 371, 372, 401, 404
D’Silva, S., 156 Fukuda, Y., 112, 157
Duijveman, A., 328
Dungey, J. W., 304, 325, 359, 394 Gabriel, A. H., 27 (Table 1.9), 165, 191, 215,
Duvall, T. L. Jr., 122, 128, 133, 135, 137, 138, 246, 247
139, 142, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 Gaizauskas, V., 57 fig. 2.3
Dziembowski, W. A., 155 Galilei, G., 97, 391
Galvin, A., 46 (Table 1.14)
Earl, J. A., 102 Galvin, H. B., 6 (Table 1.1), 45 (Table 1.13)
Eddington, A. S., 152 Gamow, G., 109, 153
Eddy, D., 350 fig. 7.3 Garcı́a, R. A., 134 fig. 3.12, 135, 136, 159
Eddy, J. A., 288, 374, 375 fig. 7.12, 396 Gary, D., 281, 335
Edgar, R. J., 170, 195 Gary, G. A., 79 fig. 2.9, 311, 333, 343, 403
Edlén, B., 59, 100, 190, 244 Gauss, C. F., 97, 391
Einstein, A., 107, 134, 152 Geiss, J., 16 (Table 1.5), 200, 204, 232, 235,
Ellison, M. A., 99, 324 246, 248, 249, 250, 401
Elsworth, Y. P., 155, 156 Genthon, C., 399
Emiliani, C., 393 Gibson, S. E., 318, 332, 335, 336
526 Author Index

Gilbert, W., 97, 356, 391 Harra, L., 43 (Table 1.12), 299
Giles, P. M., 139, 157 Harrison, R. A., 27 (Table 1.9), 181, 193, 296,
Gilman, P. A., 132, 149 299
Ginzburg, V. L., 60, 100, 190, 244 Hart, A. B., 153
Giovanelli, R. G., 99, 168, 191, 304, 324, 394 Hartle, R. E., 245
Gizon, L., 122, 127, 128, 138, 141, 158 Hartz, T. R., 326, 394
Gleissberg, W., 394 Harvey, J. W., 124 fig. 3.8, 128, 133, 138, 155,
Gloeckler, G., 16 (Table 1.5), 19 (Table 1.7), 156, 164, 218, 247, 318
200, 204, 235, 236, 248, 249, 250, 401, 404 Haselgrove, C. B., 394
Gold, T., 182, 191, 303, 326, 337, 338, 347, Hassler, D. M., 215, 216 fig. 5.12, 250
394, 397 Hathaway, D. H., 75 fig. 2.6, 76 (Table 2.7),
Goldreich, P., 122, 154, 156 122, 139, 156
Golub, L., 6 (Table 1.1), 41 fig. 1.12, 43 (Table Havnes, O., 232, 246, 395
1.11, 1.12), 88, 103, 179, 191, 193, 215, Hays, J. D., 381, 397
246, 315 fig. 6.30, 313, 334 Heaviside, O., 392
Gonzalez, W. D., 341, 362, 399 Heber, B., 27 (Table 1.9)
Goode, P. R., 155 Herlofson, N., 325
Gopalswamy, N., 258, 259, 288, 293 (Table Herschel, J., 338
6.5), 341, 344, 352, 403 Herschel, W., 117
Gore, A. A. Jr., 377 Hess, V. F., 68, 99
Gosling, J. T., 93, 103, 200, 208, 229, 234, Hey, J. S., 90, 100, 324, 393
247, 251, 327, 341, 350, 396, 397, 400, 404, Heyvaerts, J., 308, 327
405 Hick, P., 210
Gough, D. O., 127, 130, 154, 155, 156, 394 Hickey, J. R., 400
Graham, G., 97, 338, 391 Hiei, E., 11 (Table 1.3)
Grall, R. R., 220 fig. 5.15 Higdon, J. C., 71
Greaves, W. M. H., 392 Hilchenbach, M., 250
Grec, G., 155 Hildner, E., 299, 351, 398
Gribov, V., 112, 154 Hill, F., 138, 155
Grigis, P. C., 314, 335 Hill, S., 131 fig. 3.11, 213 fig. 5.10, 257 fig. 6.3
Gringauz, K. I., 65, 101, 245 Hindman, B. W., 141, 158
Grotrian, W., 59, 100, 190, 244 Hines, C. O., 394
Grün, E., 16 (Table 1.5) Hioter, D., 338
Güdel, M., 342, 386 Hirayama, T., 11 (Table 1.3), 260, 266, 290 fig.
Guenther, D. B., 156 6.20, 305, 327, 328
Gulkis, S., 398 Hirshberg, J., 327, 359, 395
Gundermann, J., 372 Hochedez, J. -F., 201, 259, 342
Gurman, J. B., 34, 201, 259, 342 Hodgson, R., 90, 97, 269, 324, 338, 391
Gurnett, D. A., 238, 251 Hoeksema, J. T., 128
Hollweg, J. V., 200, 222, 223, 225, 248, 249
Habbal, S. R., 213 Holman, G., 276, 307, 335
Haber, D. A., 141, 158 Holzer, T. E., 246
Haggerty, D. K., 402 Homer, 12
Haigh, J. D., 342, 370, 373, 374 Hood, A. W., 317, 328
Haisch, B., 400 Hosaka, J., 158
Hale, G. E., 56, 72, 74, 98, 99, 119, 244, 324, Houtermans, F. G., 153
338, 392 Howard, R. A., 6 (Table 1.1), 27 (Table 1.9),
Halley, E., 51, 97, 337, 391 45 (Table 1.13), 46 (Table 1.14), 93, 104,
Hamilton, R. J., 314, 330 288, 296, 329, 398, 401
Hanaoka, Y., 331 Howard, R. F., 137, 139, 154, 155
Handy, B. N., 6 (Table 1.1) Howe, R., 133, 140, 141, 155, 157
Hansen, R. T., 299, 327 Hoyle, F., 182, 191, 244, 303, 326, 394
Harkness, W., 59, 98, 243 Hoyng, P., 328
Harmon, J. K., 226 Hoyt, D. V., 400
Author Index 527

Hsieh, K. C., 327, 347, 395 Kim, K. -Y., 401

Hudson, H. S., 155, 182, 192, 258, 260, 269, Kim, S., 311, 336
289, 290 fig. 6.20, 299, 302, 313, 315, 332, Kirchhoff, G., 53, 97
333, 344, 371, 398, 400, 402 Kjeldseth-Moe, O., 164, 173, 193, 201
Hughes, M. K., 402 Klecker, B., 27 (Table 1.9), 341, 349
Hulburt, N. E., 164 Kleim, B., 318, 336
Humason, M. L., 325 Klein, L. W., 351
Hundhausen, A. J., 64, 93, 233, 328, 398 Klimchuk, J. A., 88, 104, 163, 173, 182, 193,
Hurford, G. J., 6 (Table 1.1), 37, 275, 328, 334, 194, 195, 247, 258, 302, 311, 333
346, 396 Ko, Y. -K., 313, 335
Hurley, K. C., 16 (Table 1.5) Kocharov, L., 351, 404
Kohl, J. L., 27 (Table 1.9), 59, 103, 163, 186,
Imbrie, J., 381, 397 187 fig. 4.12, 194, 200, 201, 218, 220, 249,
Inhester, B., 193 289, 312 fig. 6.29
Innes, D. E., 179 fig. 4.8, 193 Kojima, M., 202, 247
Ionson, J. A., 163, 164 Kolhörster, W., 68
Ireland, J., 164 Komm, R., 141, 158
Isaak, G. R., 154, 155 Kopp, G., 271, 336, 371
Isenberg, P. A., 200, 222, 223, 248, 249, 330 Kopp, R. A., 165, 191, 205, 207, 245, 246,
305, 327, 397
James, S. P., 166, 195 Korzennik, S., 128
Janssen, J., 98 Koshiba, M., 111
Janssen, M., 398 Kosovichev, A. G., 128, 134 fig. 3.12, 138,
Janssen, P. J. C., 54, 98 139, 141, 144, 145, 156, 157, 158, 298 fig.
Jastrow, R., 1, 376, 400 6.24, 333
Jefferies, S. M., 138, 156, 166, 195 Kosugi, T., 6 (Table 1.1), 11 (Table 1.3), 44
Jockers, K., 246 Kóta J., 225, 248, 400
Johnson, T. H., 100 Koutchmy, S., 200, 212 fig. 5.9, 213 fig. 5.10
Johnson, W., 223 Kozlovsky, B., 235, 246
Jokipii, J. R., 225, 231, 248, 400 Krall, J., 311
Joselyn, J. A., 259, 341, 398 Kreutz, H., 292
Joseph, A. A., 381 Krieger, A. S., 87, 102, 246
Joseph, K., 225, 400 Krimigis, S. M., 347
Joy, A. H., 325 Krucker, S., 183, 193, 353, 402
Judge, P. G., 165 Kucera, T., 284
Jupp, P. E., 183, 193 Kuin, N. P., 310 fig. 6.28, 330
Kumar, A., 315, 332
Kahler, S. W., 258, 341, 349, 353, 397, 400, Kumar, P., 156
402 Kundu, M. R., 326, 329
Kaiser, M. L., 6 (Table 1.1), 19 (Table 1.7), 45 Kunow, H., 27 (Table 1.9), 258, 289, 341
Kakinuma, T., 202, 203 fig. 5.2, 247 Kuperus, M., 163, 164, 165, 191, 245
Kaldeich-Schürmann, B., 164
Kalkofen, W., 165 Labitzke, K., 373, 399
Kanbach, G., 330 LaBonte, B. J., 137, 155, 318
Kane, R. P., 337 Lacoste, H., 128, 164, 259
Kane, S. R., 326, 337 Lagrange, J. L., 20
Kankelborg, C. C., 193 Lang, K. R., 328
Kasting, J. F., 385 Lanzerotti, L. J., 16 (Table 1.5), 231, 249, 401
Keeley, D. A., 154 Larmor, J., 152
Keeling, C., 377 Lassen, K., 372, 400
Keeling, D., 378 fig. 7.13 Laut, P., 372
Kelley, D. A., 122 Leamon, R. J., 212, 318
Kennelly, A. E., 392 Lean, J. L., 369 fig. 7.10, 371, 372, 376, 400,
Keppler, E., 16 (Table 1.5) 401, 402, 404
528 Author Index

Lee, M. A., 258, 341, 355 Mackay, D. H., 184, 185 fig. 4.11, 194
Leibacher, J. W., 123, 127, 128, 154, 155 McKenzie, D. E., 258, 315, 336, 343, 402
Leighton, R. B., 73, 119, 122, 148, 153, 154 McKenzie, J. F., 222, 249
Leka, K. D., 318 McKibben, R. B., 16 (Table 1.5)
Lenz, D. D., 176, 194 McLeod, C. P., 154, 155
Lepping, R. P., 19 (Table 1.7) McPherron, R. L., 359, 360, 395
Lesko, K., 114 fig. 3.1 MacQueen, R. M., 348
Levine, R. H., 218, 247 Makishima, K., 11 (Table 1.3)
Li, H., 173 Mancuso, S., 225
Li, X., 223 Mann, M. E., 370, 376, 402
Libbrecht, K. G., 155, 156 Marconi, G., 83, 98, 392
Liewer, P., 213 Margulis, L., 386, 396
Lighthill, M. J., 122, 153 Mariska, J. T., 191, 267
Lin, J., 258, 311, 312 fig. 6.29, 313, 330, 333, Marsch, E., 200, 231, 249
335 Marsden, R. G., 14 fig. 1.6, 16, 200, 201, 211
Lin, R. P., 6 (Table 1.1), 19 (Table 1.7), 37, 45 fig. 5.8
(Table 1.13), 258, 311, 328, 341, 347, 352, Marsh, K. A., 328
395, 398 Marsh, N., 370
Lindemann, F. A., 53, 99, 244, 324, 338, 392 Martens, P. C., 259, 310 fig. 6.28, 333
Lindsey, C., 145, 156, 158, 333, 342, 400, 403 Martin, S. F., 193, 283, 317, 332
Linford, G. A., 171 fig. 4.2 Martres, M. -J., 92 fig. 2.14
Lingenfelter, R. E., 71 Martyn, D. F., 59, 100, 190, 244
Linker, J. A., 310, 331 Mason, D., 144, 158, 319, 343
Lites, B., 39 fig. 1.11 Mason, G. M., 45 (Table 1.13), 234, 309, 341,
Livingston, W. C., 77 fig. 2.7 347, 352, 396
Livshits, M., 200 Masuda, S., 268 fig. 6.10, 306, 331
Lockwood, G. W., 400 Matsuzaki, K., 127
Lockwood, M., 376, 402 Mattok, C., 164, 201
Lockyer, N., 54, 55, 98 Maunder, E. W., 374, 375 fig. 7.12, 392
Lodge, O., 392 Maxwell, A., 325
Longcope, D. W., 164, 181 Maxwell, J. C., 236
Loomis, E., 51, 98 Mazets, E. P., 19 (Table 1.7)
Lopez, R., 341 Mazur, J. E., 231, 250, 403
Lorentz, H., 72 Metcalf, T. R., 258, 270, 317, 331
Lorius, C., 384 fig. 7.15, 399 Mewaldt, R. A., 30, 259, 341
Lovelock, J. E., 386, 396 Meyer, P., 80, 101, 102, 244, 339, 393
Low, B. C., 258, 317, 332 Miesch, M. S., 127, 128, 149
Lu, E. T., 314, 330 Mikheyev, S. P., 112, 155
Luhmann, J. G., 6 (Table 1.1), 45 (Table 1.13), Mikic, Z., 258, 310, 331, 341, 355
46 (Table 1.14) Milankovitch, M., 381, 392
Lundquist, L., 181, 195 Millikan, R. A., 68, 99
Lynch, B. J., 311 Miralles, M. P., 194, 249
Lyot, B., 58, 99 Mitalas, R., 117
Möbius, E. S., 234, 235, 248, 399
McClymont, A., 319 Moldwin, M., 342
McComas, D. J., 14 fig. 1.6, 16 (Table 1.5), Moore, R. L., 181, 192, 248, 258, 285, 303,
163, 200, 203, 211 fig. 5.8, 248, 250 311, 333, 334, 343, 403
McCrea, W. H., 244 Moran, T. G., 296, 335
McDonald, A. B., 113, 157, 158 Mordvinov, A. V., 374
McDonald, F. B., 233, 247 Moreton, G. E., 300, 326, 332
MacDowell, R. J., 16 (Table 1.5) Morrison, P., 102, 325, 327, 351, 393, 396
Machado, M. E., 329, 331 Morrow, C. A., 155
McIntosh, P., 337, 398 Moses, J. D., 332
McIntosh, S., 166, 217 Mullen, G., 385, 395
Author Index 529

Muller, R., 118 fig. 3.4 Piddington, J. H., 168

Munro, R. H., 286 Pneuman, G. W., 205, 207 fig. 5.5, 246, 305,
Myers, D., 266 fig. 6.8 310, 327, 329, 397
Poland, A. I., 163
Nakariakov, V. M., 258, 296, 297, 333 Poletto, G., 164, 201
Nakatani, I., 44 Pomerantz, M. A., 133, 138, 155, 156
Narain, U., 164 Pontecorvo, B. M., 112, 154
Nash, A. G., 137, 148, 156, 228 Porter, J. G., 181, 192
Neidig, D. F., 258 Posner, A., 344, 405
Ness, N. F., 82, 102, 245, 395 Powell, C. F., 71
Neugebauer, M., 65, 102, 213, 245, 326, 339, Priest, E. R., 184, 185 fig. 4.11, 192, 193, 194,
394 258, 307, 308, 318, 327, 328, 330
Neupert, W. M., 102, 193, 265, 326 Proctor, R. A., 91
New, R., 155 Pulkkinen, T., 342
Newman, M. J., 397
Newton, H. W., 99, 132, 324, 338, 392 Quay, P. D., 397
Ney, E. P., 373, 394 Quémearis, E., 27 (Table 1.9)
Ng, C. K., 349
Nightingale, R. W., 195 Rabin, D. M., 163, 248
Nishimura, J., 11 (Table 1.3) Radick, R. R., 400
Nita, G. M., 281, 335 Ramaty, R., 35, 71, 235, 246
Noci, G., 87, 163, 164, 187 fig. 4.12, 200, 201, Ramsay, W., 55, 98
219, 220, 249, 312 fig. 6.29 Randall. J. B., 123
Noyes, R. W., 153, 162, 164 Raymond, J. C., 163, 187 fig. 4.12, 200, 210,
Nunn, M. L., 132 232, 250, 312 fig. 6.29, 335, 348, 403
Nye, A. H., 155 Raynaud, D., 399
Reames, D. V., 330, 341, 399
Ofman, L., 164 Reeves, H., 246
Ogawara, Y., 6 (Table 1.1) Reeves, K., 41 fig. 1.12, 315 fig. 6.30
Ogilvie, K. W., 19 (Table 1.7) Régulo, C., 155
Okamoto, T. J., 170, 195, 251 Reid, G. C., 399
Olbert, S., 170 Reiner, M. J., 230 fig. 5.18
Oort, J. H., 239 Reines, F., 153
Orrall, F. Q., 88, 104, 247 Rhodes, E. J. Jr., 154, 155
Osaki, Y., 154 Richardson, I. G., 234, 351, 361, 402
Osterbrock, D. E., 168 Richardson, J. D., 238, 251
Richardson, R. S., 100, 324
Pallavicini, R., 328, 353, 397 Rickett, B. J., 202, 247
Pallé, P. L., 128, 155 Riihonen, E., 351, 404
Parker, E. N., 62, 80, 101, 155, 179, 182, 191, Robbrecht, E., 201, 259, 342
192, 198, 224, 229, 244, 245, 304, 326 Roberts, W. O., 166
Parnell, C. E., 183, 184, 185 fig. 4.11, 193, 194 Roca-Cortés, T., 155
Pauli, W., 153 Roddier, F., 139, 154
Pawsey, J. L., 59, 100, 190, 244 Roelof, E. C., 87, 102, 246, 353, 402
Payne-Scott, R., 100, 276, 325, 393 Rompolt, B., 283, 332
Peters, B., 100 Rood, R. T., 397
Peterson, L. E., 91, 101, 325, 394 Rosenbauer, H. R., 247, 397
Petit, J. R., 383, 384 fig. 7.15, 399, 402 Rosenberg, H., 278 fig. 6.12
Petschek, H. E., 179, 191, 229, 304, 326 Rosenberg, R. L., 103, 247, 397
Pevtsov, A., 181, 194, 317, 319, 331, 332 Rosner, R., 176, 191
Phan, T. D., 229, 251, 405 Rottman, G. J., 88, 104, 247, 403
Phillips, J. L., 209 fig. 5.7, 248 Roudier, T., 118 fig. 3.4
Phillips, K. J. H., 266 Rouillard, A. P., 234
Pick, M., 258, 278, 309, 352 Roussev, I. I., 303, 334, 404
530 Author Index

Rowland, H., 98 Shing, L., 171 fig. 4.2

Russell, C. T., 359, 360, 395 Shodhan, S., 250, 403
Rust, D. M., 299, 308, 315, 317, 327, 331, 332, Sills, K. R., 117
351, 401 Simnett, G. M., 231, 249, 353, 401, 402
Rutherford, E., 152 Simon, G. W., 153
Ryutova, M., 185, 195 Simpson, J. A., 80, 101, 244, 249, 327, 347,
393, 395
Sabine, E., 97, 324, 338, 391 Singer, H. J., 341
Sackmann, I. -J., 387 fig. 7.16 Siscoe, G. L., 341
Sagan, C., 385, 395, 397 Slater, G. L., 171 fig. 4.2
St. Cyr, O. C., 361 Slottje, C., 328
Sakao, T., 210, 251, 331 Smerd, S. F., 278, 346
Sakurai, T., 318, 327 Smirnov, A. Y., 112, 155
Sanderson, T. R., 341 Smith, D. M., 6 (Table 1.1), 275, 334
Sauvaud, J. A., 45 (Table 1.13) Smith, E. J., 16, 82, 103, 191, 200,
Savcheva, A., 186 224, 225, 233, 245, 247, 249, 394,
Sawaya-Lacoste, H., 128 395, 397
Scafetta, N., 376 Snodgrass, H. B., 132
Schatten, K. H., 82, 102, 148, 154 Snyder, C. W., 65, 102, 245, 326, 339, 394
Schatzman, E., 164, 191 Sokolov, I. V., 303, 404
Scherrer, P. H., 27 (Table 1.9), 126 fig. 3.10, Solanki, S. K., 127, 164, 259, 376, 403
127, 139, 140 fig. 3.14, 157 Sonett, C. P., 102, 245, 326, 339, 394, 395, 397
Scherrer, P., 36 Soon, W., 258
Schmidt, W. K. H., 247, 397 Spangler, S. R., 225, 231
Schou, J., 122, 133, 139, 141, 156, 157, 158 Spicer, D. S., 163, 164
Schrijver, C. J., 6 (Table 1.1), 34, 78 fig. 2.8, Spörer, G. F. W., 374, 375 fig. 7.12, 391, 392
165, 175, 176, 183, 193, 194, 195, 284, 297, Spruit, H., 404
319, 335, 343, 404 Stamper, R., 376, 402
Schröter, E. H., 132 Stauffer, B., 402
Schüle, U., 374, 403 Stein, R. F., 123, 154, 165, 192
Schuster, A., 53, 99, 392 Sterling, A. C., 258, 299, 303, 311, 315, 332,
Schwabe, S. H., 75, 97, 338, 391 343, 402
Schwadron, N. A., 219, 250 Stone, E. C., 6 (Table 1.1), 30, 232, 237, 238,
Schwarzschild, M., 164, 191, 394 248, 251, 398
Schwenn, R., 202 (Table 5.1), 234, 247, 258, Strachan, L., 210, 218, 250
289, 341, 342, 351, 397, 401 Strakhov, V. N., 158
Secchi, P. A., 166 Strömgren, B., 99
Seehafer, N., 317, 330, 331 Strong, K. T., 288, 400
Serio, S., 328, 353, 397 Stuiver, M., 394, 397
Severny, A. B., 99, 324 Sturrock, P. A., 245, 305, 326, 330
Shackleton, N. J., 381, 397 Sudal, J., 318
Share, G. H., 275, 334 Suess, H. E., 395
Sheeley, N. R. Jr., 82, 128, 137, 148, 156, 208, Sui, L., 276, 307, 335
218, 228, 248, 249, 290, 294, 309, 311, 313, Sun, Y., 343
329, 348, 376, 399, 404 Svalgaard, L., 81 fig. 2.10, 82, 247, 396
Shevgaonkar, R. K., 329 Svensmark, H., 370, 373, 402
Shibasaki, K., 43 (Table 1.12) Svestka, Z., 128, 329
Shibata, K., 6 (Table 1.1), 178 fig. 4.7, 192, Swarup, G., 325
215, 248, 268, 306, 308 fig. 6.27, 327, 330, Sweet, P. A., 179, 191, 304, 325
331 Szabo, A., 19
Shimizu, T., 173, 192
Shimojo, M., 308 Takakura, I., 328
Shindell, D. T., 373 Tanaka, K., 328
Shine, D., 254 fig. 6.1 Tarbell, T., 43 (Table 1.12), 165, 185, 195
Author Index 531

Teegarden, B. J., 19 (Table 1.7) Vorontsov, S. V., 140, 141, 158

Thomas, J. H., 155 Vourlidas, A., 333, 348
Thompson, B. J., 299, 332
Thompson, M. J., 127, 128, 130, 133, 156, 158 Wach, J., 203 fig. 5.2
Thomson, W. (Baron Kelvin), 392 Wagner, W. J., 348
Thuillier, G., 404 Waldmeier, M., 85, 99, 101, 245, 324
Timothy, A. F., 87, 102, 246 Walsh, R. W., 164
Title, A. M., 34, 165, 183, 193, 194, 195 Wang, H., 260 fig. 6.4, 318, 334
Titov, V. S., 317, 333, 334 Wang, T. J., 297, 334
Tomczyk, S., 156, 170, 195 Wang, Y. -M., 82, 137, 148, 156, 170, 192,
Toomre, J., 122, 127 208, 212 fig. 5.9, 215, 218, 219 fig. 5.14,
Török, T., 318, 336 248, 249, 290, 309, 311, 313, 352, 376, 404
Torsti, J., 27 (Table 1.9), 259, 341, 351, 404 Warren, H. P., 173, 194, 267, 311, 313, 335,
Tóth, G., 356 402
Totsuka, Y., 111, 156 Watanabe, T., 43 (Table 1.12)
Tousey, R., 85, 100, 102, 245, 327, 395 Watko, J. A., 194
Tsiklauri, D., 177, 196 Webb, D. F., 334, 366, 401, 405
Tsuneta, S., 6 (Table 1.1), 11 (Table 1.3), 43 Weber, E. J., 245
(Table 1.11, 1.12), 181, 192, 193, 268, 305, Wedemeyer-Böhm, S., 165
306, 330, 331 Weiss, A. A., 228, 346
Tsurutani, B. T., 103, 225, 247, 249, 341, 362, West, B. J., 376
397, 399 White, O. R., 167, 192, 396
Tu, C. -Y., 216, 217 fig. 5.13, 249, 251 White, W. B., 402
Tucker, W. H., 176, 191 Whorf, T., 378 fig. 7.13
Turck-Chièze, S., 112, 134 fig. 3.12, 157, 158 Wigley, T. M. L., 404
Tuve, M. A., 392 Wilcox, J. M., 81 fig. 2.10, 82, 102, 154, 245,
Tylka, A. J., 404 246, 247, 395, 396
Tyndall, J., 378 Wild, J. P., 90, 100, 278, 325, 346, 393
Wild, M. N., 376, 402
Uchida, Y., 11, 210, 248, 251, 301, 327, 332 Wilhelm, K., 27 (Table 1.9), 165, 193, 215,
Ugarte-Urra, I., 311 391, 392
Ulmschneider, P., 164 Williams, P. E., 122
Ulrich, R. K., 123, 154, 394 Willson, R. C., 370, 374, 398
Unsöld, A., 54, 99 Willson, R. F., 328
Wilson, A., 128, 164, 201
Vaiana, G. S., 85, 86 fig. 2.11, 102, 103, 176, Wilson, C. T. R., 71
191, 246, 326, 328, 353, 397 Wilson, O. C., 395
Valtonen, E., 27 (Table 1.9) Wilson, R. M., 351, 398
Van Allen, J. A., 65, 101, 347, 357, 358, 359, Winckler, J. R., 91, 101, 325, 326, 394
394 Winebarger, A. R., 311
Van Ballegooijen, A. A., 170, 186, 195, 225, Withbroe, G. L., 162, 164
335 Woch, J., 203
van der Raay, H. B., 154 Wolfe, J. H., 233, 247, 397
van Driel-Gesztelyi, L., 128 Wolfenstein, L., 112, 154
Van Loon, H., 373, 399 Wolff, C. L., 154
Veronig, A. M., 266 Wolfson, C. J., 258, 270
Verwichte, E., 258, 297 Wollaston, W. H., 53, 97
Vial, J. -C., 164 Woo, R., 213
Vogt, R. E., 102, 232, 248, 398 Woodard, M. F., 139, 155, 157, 158
Von Fraunhofer, J., 53, 97 Woods, T. N., 271, 335, 336, 403
Von Humboldt, A., 97, 391
von Rosenvinge, T. T., 19 (Table 1.7), 30 Yabsley, D. E., 100, 276, 325, 393
Von Steiger, R., 201, 204, 232, 235, 249, 250, Yashiro, S., 288, 293 (Table 6.5)
401 Yokoyama, T., 307
532 Author Index

Yoshimori, M., 6 (Table 1.1), 11 (Table 1.3), Zhang, Q., 401

329, 398 Zhao, J., 139, 141, 142, 144, 145, 157, 158
Young, C. A., 59, 98, 243 Zharkova, V. V., 157, 298 fig. 6.24, 333
Yurchyshyn, V., 336 Zhou, G. P., 286
Zarro, D. M., 299 Zirin, H., 332
Zeeman, P., 72, 73 Zirker, J., 164, 283, 332
Zeller, E. J., 383, 402 Zurbuchen, T. H., 199 fig. 5.1, 201, 213, 219,
Zhang, G., 351 250, 350 fig. 7.3
Zhang, J., 294, 334, 335, 402 Zwaan, C., 333
Zhang, M., 259, 313, 317, 334 Zwicky, F., 71, 99
Subject Index

Absorption lines, 53, 54, 55, 56, 97, 99 Active-region expansion, 3

Absorption, polar cap, 361 Active-region filaments, 49, 282, 284, 285, 331
Abundance, solar wind helium, 202 Active-region heating, 42, 173
Accelerated electrons, 231 Active-region magnetic fields, 343, 387
Accelerated particles, 7, 35, 267, 269, 272, Active regions, 4, 33, 35, 38, 40, 42, 48, 49,
294, 303, 304, 354 50, 57, 74, 87, 92, 94, 100, 125, 137,
Acceleration 144, 145, 146, 148, 156, 167, 170, 171,
electron, 231 173, 176, 177, 183, 189, 192, 194, 210,
fast solar wind, 218, 219, 220 212, 241, 243, 248, 275, 282, 284, 297,
particle, 233, 234 315, 317, 331, 343, 352, 387
slow solar wind, 208, 210 internal flows, 143
Acceleration mechanisms, 200, 210, 217, 221, on far side of Sun, 25, 139, 144–146,
222, 353 157, 342
Acceleration process, solar flares, 258 Active-region streamers, 47, 212
Acceleration regions of fast solar wind, 79, Activity cycle, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 20, 38, 47,
222, 281 66, 75, 80, 82, 83, 86, 88, 91, 101, 103,
Acceleration site, coronal, 258 141, 143, 150, 151, 155, 187, 194, 203,
Accretion, 244 208, 211, 213, 218, 225, 234, 245, 247,
Accretion of interstellar matter by a star, 244 248, 249, 255, 361, 362, 367, 369, 370,
ACE, 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 28–30, 31, 36, 45, 47, 48, 373, 375, 400
49, 71, 204, 213, 229, 231, 234, 236, Advanced Composition Explorer, see ACE
242, 249, 250, 332, 340, 345, 352, 353, Air temperature, 372, 379, 400, 402
355, 401, 402, 404 Antarctica, 384
ACE instruments, 29, 31, 34, 48 Alfvén velocity, 67, 168, 169, 179, 224, 309
ACE scientific objectives, 29 Alfvén wave heating, 186
Acoustical hologram, 154 Alfvén waves, 23, 40, 42, 50, 168, 169, 170,
Acoustic tomography, 23, 157 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 195, 223, 224,
Acoustic-wave energy, 165 225, 226, 243, 244, 248, 249, 251,
Acoustic waves, 123, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 395, 400
188, 195 in the solar wind, 224, 246, 395
see also sound waves Alouette I satellite, 278
Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor Alpha particles, 45
(ACRIM), 155, 370, 372, 396, 398, 400 AMPTE, 234, 248, 399
Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Angström, 54, 60
Explorers, 234, 248, 399 Annihilation
Active region on the back side, 387 electron positron, 273, 274
Active-region coronal loops, 143 Anomalous cosmic rays, 235, 236

533
534 Subject Index

Antarctica, 379 Beta decay, 153

air temperature, 372 Bi-directional collimated jets, 179
temperature record, 376 Bi-directional jets, 193
Anti-electron neutrinos, 158 Bipolar magnetic regions, 101, 146
Antimatter, 35, 36 Bipolar pairs, 324
Apollo Telescope Mount, 246 sunspots, 324
Arcade, 32, 33, 74, 93, 212, 283, 285, 287, Bipolar regions, 183
290, 307, 310, 313, 315, 331, 353, Bipolar sunspots, 75
397, 402 Blinkers, 177–181, 193
Arcade formation, 307 Blobs, 208, 210, 218, 219
Arcade of magnetic loops, 283, 287 Bow shock, 238, 290
Archimedean spiral, 82, 229, 233 Bragg Crystal Spectrometer, see BCS (Yohkoh)
Areas, unipolar, 178 Breakout model, 311, 313, 314, 333
Astronauts, 3, 5, 28, 44, 48, 94, 246, 339, 340, Breakout reconnection, 311, 320
344, 345, 346, 352, 364, 365 Bremsstrahlung, 36, 262, 263–267, 269, 273
Astronomical cycles, 382 non-thermal, 262, 264
Astronomical unit, 67 non-thermal hard X-ray, 264
Asymmetry, solar wind, 238 power, 263
Atmosphere thermal, 263, 269
pressure, 368 Brightenings, chromosphere, 324
temperature, 244, 246 Bright points, 9, 39, 50, 85, 86, 88, 89, 103,
upper, temperature, 284, 368 177–181, 189, 191, 193, 215, 246
Atmospheric carbon dioxide, 375, 378, 399 Bursts
Atmospheric drag, 368 centimeter, 281
Atmospheric friction, 368 decimeter, 281
Auroras, 5, 44, 51–53, 94, 96, 97, 244, 337, decimetric type III, 329
338, 355, 361, 362–364, 374, 375, millisecond, 280
391, 394
type I, 280
australis, 51, 363
type II, 280
borealis, 51, 363
type III, 278, 279, 280, 326, 346
electrons, 363
type IV, 279, 280, 393
geomagnetic activity, 52
U type, 280, 325
northern and southern lights, 51
Butterfly diagram, 75
oval, 363, 364, 399
rays, 391
Avalanche, 313, 314, 330 Calcium, 10, 53, 54, 56, 60, 97, 178, 395
Calcium, H and K line, 395
Babcock-Leighton model, 148 Capture, neutron, 272
Backside of sun, 23, 48, 144, 145, 342, 360 Carbon, 14, 31, 70, 192, 200, 231, 235, 250,
Bald-patch separatrix model, 317 273, 275, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380,
Ballerina model, 205, 207 383, 384, 385, 394, 396, 397, 402
Balmer alpha transition of hydrogen, 55, 90, atmospheric, variable Sun, 397
99, 102, 253, 259, 260, 301, 324, 326 200 year periodicity, 395
Balmer hydrogen alpha transition, 57, 92, 167 Carbon dioxide, 375, 377, 378, 380, 383, 384,
Barrier penetration, 109 385, 399, 402
Base of the convective zone, 134 atmospheric, 375, 378
Bastille Day Flare, 255, 311, 313, 340 Carbon nuclei, excited, 273
BCS (Yohkoh), 8, 9, 10, 266, 330, 335 Cassini, 17, 18
10 Be, 358 Catastrophe model, 311, 330
Beams, electron, 265, 269, 271, 277, 279, Catastrophic cooling, 194
281, 298 CAT scans, 138
Belt, equatorial streamer, 78, 208 CDS (SOHO), 26, 27, 173
Beryllium, 274 CELIAS (SOHO), 26, 27, 250
Beryllium isotope, 400 Centimeter bursts, 281
Subject Index 535

Central temperature of Sun, 105, 106, 109, Convection zone depth, 130
112, 116 Convective zone, 22, 116, 117, 122, 123, 124,
CGRO, 269, 272, 273, 275, 332 129, 130, 133, 136, 142, 144, 149, 154,
Chemical ingredients, 53 155, 156, 158, 161, 164, 165, 185, 191
Chromosphere, 1, 2, 3, 9, 22, 23, 26, 30, 33, Cool loops, 176, 177, 194
39, 41, 42, 55, 56, 57, 63, 79, 90, 91, Core of Sun, 1, 2, 22, 67, 71, 97, 110, 113,
98, 99, 100, 116, 161, 162, 163, 164, 115, 117, 122, 125, 127, 129, 133, 134,
165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 176, 178, 179, 135, 136, 146, 152, 157, 210, 271, 282,
183, 185, 191, 192, 195, 212, 213, 214, 283, 284, 285, 290, 311, 316, 317, 319,
226, 232 333, 335, 340, 370, 378, 383, 384, 385,
Chromosphere brightenings, 100 391, 399, 402
Chromosphere flares, 99, 324 Coriolus, 366, 405
Chromosphere heat, 165 Corona, 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30,
Chromosphere hydrogen, 56 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43,
Chromosphere ribbons, 257 44, 55, 57, 59, 60, 64, 66, 68, 74, 77,
Chromospheric evaporation, 104, 261, 266, 78, 79, 80, 85, 87, 89, 91, 94, 98, 100,
267, 305, 306, 308, 327, 328, 331, 335 103, 107, 143, 161, 163, 165, 167–170,
Chromospheric jets, 42 173, 175, 177, 181, 183, 191, 195, 197,
Circuit model, 330 198, 204, 205, 206, 210, 213, 214, 215,
Classification, X-ray flares, 255 220, 224, 227, 232, 234, 236, 253, 257,
Climate, 271, 337 261, 264, 268
Earth, 342 coronium, 59
Climate change, 370 depletions, 299
Closed magnetic field lines, 85, 98, 162, 228, emission lines, 60
244, 280, 312, 325 green emission line, 59
Cloud cover, 123, 373, 394, 402 hard X-ray source, 265
Clouds, 17, 19, 51, 53, 250, 280, 317, 325, heating of the, 163
326, 331, 350, 351, 352, 355, 356, 363, heating mechanisms, 163
373, 378, 379, 393, 394, 398, 401, 403 hot, static, 245
Clouds, magnetic, 250, 280, 317 interaction of magnetic loops, 329
CME, 24, 29, 33, 45, 90, 211, 226, 229, 234, magnetized loops, 189
287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 296, 299, million degree solar, 292
301, 302, 303, 310, 311, 313, 315, 343, plasma oscillations, 276
344, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 355, 361, polar, 170
402, 404 solar, 163, 208
Coherent radiation, 280 static, isothermal, 198
Colliding sunspots, 42 X-rays, 96
Comet cloud, 239 Coronagraph, 4, 14, 24, 26, 45, 58, 59, 93,
Comet ion tails, 61, 101, 244, 393 99, 102, 103, 186, 208, 210, 213, 215,
Comets, 26, 61, 238, 239, 292, 293 218, 220, 221, 232, 256, 281, 287–289,
Comet tails, 61, 200 291, 295, 296, 299, 302, 344, 348, 350,
Communication satellites, 339 351, 355
Components, solar wind, 242, 248 Large Angle and Spectrometric, 208
Composition, 6, 7, 13, 15, 18, 26, 28–30, 35, space borne, 256
45, 48, 129, 130, 138, 202, 204, 208, Coronal
213, 214, 229, 232, 235, 248, 249, 250, acceleration site, 269
345, 352, 353, 383, 385, 398, 401, 404 dimming, 257, 299
fast/slow wind, 241 disturbances, 103, 327, 396
of solar wind, 13, 15, 18, 26, 164, 201, electron density, 162
232, 248 emission lines, 59, 100, 190, 244
Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, see CGRO energy loss, 162
Convection, 117 forbidden emission lines, 60
Convection zone, 124, 128 funnels, 217, 251
boundary, 130 hard X-ray source, 276
536 Subject Index

heating, 40, 163, 170, 172, 180, 181, 183, Corona radio emission, 17, 60, 258,
186, 192, 194, 200 269, 278
energy, 172 Coronium, 59
mechanisms, 163 Co-rotating interaction regions, 14, 201, 233,
models, 40 234, 236, 242, 246, 350, 362
problem, 163 Co-rotation shocks, 233, 246, 247
processes, 188 Corpuscles, solar, 244
holes, 4, 14, 23, 29, 34, 40, 47, 50, 85, 86, Corpuscular radiation, 61, 359
88, 87, 162, 163, 164, 170177, 178, Cosmic ray electrons, 70, 102
179, 185, 186–188, 190, 200, 205, 206, Cosmic ray energy, 15, 28, 68, 71, 90, 199,
208, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 217, 219, 225, 339
220, 222, 226, 227, 228, 230, 300, 308, Cosmic ray flux, 402
309, 315, 352, 362 Cosmic ray proton, 67, 69, 70, 71, 80
temperature, 163 Cosmic rays, 13, 15, 18, 28, 35, 68–72, 80,
jets, 307, 309 81, 99, 100, 101, 112, 113, 115, 153,
loops, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 31, 32, 40, 43, 45, 74, 157, 199, 225, 232, 235, 244, 246, 248,
75, 79, 80, 85, 86, 87, 143, 144, 162, 249, 324, 325, 345, 350, 351, 364, 370,
170, 171, 176, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 373, 375
185, 266 average fluxes, 70
heating, 170–177 block incoming, 225
magnetic interaction, 267 diffusion, 148
oscillations, 296–297, 333, 334 electrons, 70
scaling law, 176, 191 energy, 68
sheared, 305 galactic, 345
strands, 163, 183 protons, 69
solar, 201
twisted, 315
COSPIN (Ulysses), 15, 16
Lyman alpha line, 246
COSTEP (SOHO), 26, 27
magnetic funnels, 241
CRIS (ACE), 31, 138, 161–196
rays, 213
Critical shear, 331
seismology, 32, 297
Cross sections of coronal loops, 40, 173, 194
streamers, 57, 77, 164, 185, 186, 194, 200, CSHKP model, 304–307, 329
201, 206, 208, 210, 211, 218, 221, 247, Current sheets, 78, 82, 83, 86, 168, 193, 205,
249, 250, 292, 304 207, 212, 304, 305, 306, 307, 309, 310,
streamer temperature, 140 311, 312, 313, 318, 360
structures, 34, 162, 205, 206, 212, 213, 232, Cusp geometry, 306, 330
319, 332 Cusp-like structure, 305
transients, 93, 102, 103, 104, 288, 327, 329, Cusp shaped loop structures, 307
396, 398 Cycle of magnetic activity, 75, 77, 81, 141,
waves, 258, 296, 297, 332, 333 147, 172, 206, 400
Coronal mass ejections, 287–296 Cyclotron frequency, 222, 223
cannibalism, 403 Cyclotron resonance, 222, 223
energy, 186 Cyclotron resonance theory, 222
erupting prominences, 255
halo, 286 Decay meson, 273, 321, 329, 330
mass, 186 Decay phase, 9, 261, 262, 264, 267, 268, 269
mass flux, 295 Decimeter bursts, 281
rate, 295, 401 Decimetric type III bursts, 278
satellites, 339 Deep Space Network (NASA), 10, 21, 22
size, 239 Density
time delay, 295 fast/slow wind, 218
twisted .soft X-ray structures, 387 proton, 201
see also CME Depletions, sudden, 327
Coronal-Moreton waves, 300–301, 326, 332 Deuterium formation, 273
Subject Index 537

Differential rotation, 13, 22, 48, 132, 133, 134, Electrical power blackouts, 339
137, 141, 146, 147, 148, 149, 228, 230, Electrical power grids, 361
314, 317 Electromagnetic waves, 83
Diffuse corona, heating mechanism, 164 Electron acceleration, 264, 329
Diffusion of cosmic rays, 153 low corona, 217
Dimming, 24, 171, 218, 257, 296, 299, 344 Electron beams, 265, 269, 271, 277, 279,
coronal, 257 281, 298
Dipolar magnetic field, 51, 78, 97, 99, 146, Electron density
206, 391 atmosphere, 277
Dipolar magnetic model, 246 coronal, 190
Dipole field, Earth, 359–360 Electron enhancements, 230, 231
Directional temperatures, 194, 249 Electron neutrinos, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112,
Discharge, neutral point, 304 113, 114, 115
Disk, visible, 259 Electron positron annihilation line (0.511
Doppler effect, 40, 119, 120, 121, 126 MeV), 102, 273–275, 327, 396
Dopplergrams, 120, 122 Electrons, 150, 153, 173, 186
Doppler shift, 15, 104, 59, 119, 120, 126, 132, accelerated, 231
137, 173, 179, 204, 218, 266, 297 beams of, 244
Double hard X-ray flare, 265, 270 energetic, 258
Downflowing material, 142 flare associated, 277
Downflows, 23, 138, 142, 156, 228 flaring, 230
DUST (Ulysses), 15, 16 high energy, 261
Dynamic spectra, 278 high speed, 229, 230
Dynamo, 146–150 interplanetary, 230
Dynamo models, 127, 149 non-thermal, 261, 264
Electrons and energetic ions, 329
Earth Electron temperature,
climate, 342 fast/slow wind 202
core, 391 Electron volts, 34
dipole field, 359 Element abundance in solar wind, 232, 400
long cold spell on, 376 Elemental composition, 15, 29
magnetic field, 245 Emerging flux model of solar flares, 308, 327
variations, 338 Emission, gamma ray, 273
magnetosphere, 240 Emission lines, 55, 56, 59, 60, 97, 173, 244,
mean distance from the Sun, 105 291, 300, 313
orbit, 256 solar, 173
shape, 382 Energetic charged particles, Sun, 324
rotational axis, 392 Energetic electrons, 261
Earthquake, 125, 131, 298, 313, 314 Energetic interplanetary electrons, 348
Earth Radiation Budget (ERB), 372 Energetic ions, 329
East-west effect, 70, 100 Energetic nuclei, 28, 29, 48
Eclipse, total solar, 55 Energetic particles, 2, 3, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 25,
Edge, solar system, 200, 235 27, 29, 30, 34, 36, 44, 45, 70, 93, 94,
Effective temperature, 105, 106 109, 113, 115, 146, 230, 231, 232, 236,
Eighth Orbiting Solar Observatory 258, 268, 309, 339, 341, 342, 344, 345,
(OSO 8), 167 347, 348, 352, 353, 354, 355, 358, 364,
Eighty year cycle, 394 366, 370
EIS (Hinode), 6, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 177 Energy
EIT (SOHO), 4, 24, 26, 27, 116, 131, 171, coronal mass ejections, 229
172, 173, 180, 184, 211, 214, 216, 256, kinetic, 221, 223
257, 283, 284, 286, 292, 299, 300, 309, magnetic, 229, 264
340, 401 solar flares, 229
EIT waves, 301, 332 thermal, 221
Ejection, plasma, 244 Energy flux, solar wind, 67
538 Subject Index

Energy generating core, 110 Explorer 3, 101, 394

Energy release, 8, 35, 49, 182, 258, 267, 268, Explorer 10, 65, 102
276, 302, 303, 305, 306 Explorer 12, 359
Energy release, flare, 258 Explorer 33, 359
Energy-release process, 302, 323 Explorer 35, 359
Energy spectrum of flare electrons, 265 Explosive events, 177, 179, 181, 192
EPAC/GAS (Ulysses), 15 Extended corona, 1, 59, 78, 103, 163, 185,
EPACT (Wind), 18 186, 223
EPAM (ACE), 31 Extreme ultraviolet, 1, 3, 5, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34,
Episodic heating, 193 37, 40, 45, 46, 75, 85, 87, 88, 90, 93,
Equation of motion, 169 116, 163, 171, 172, 176, 177, 180, 181,
Equatorial slow speed wind, 203 215, 216, 253, 255, 256, 259, 260, 282,
Equatorial steamer belt, 203 284, 285, 296, 299, 313, 337, 339, 343,
ERB (Earth Radiation Budget), 371 344, 355, 365, 368, 386
ERNE (SOHO), 26, 27 Extreme-ultraviolet dimming, 332, 388
Erupting filament, 285 Extreme-ultraviolet flare, 32, 254
Erupting prominences, 91–93, 255, 256, 257, Extreme-ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer, see
258, 285, 286, 290, 294, 301, 304, EIS (Hinode)
305, 308, 309, 310, 311, 317, 318, Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, see
342, 351 EIT (SOHO)
Erupting prominences and coronal mass
ejections, 258 Faculae, 371, 390, 400
Eruptive prominences, 323 Faint-young-Sun paradox, 385, 390, 397
ESA, 4, 12, 14,16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 38, 39, Far side, 25, 139, 144–146, 156, 157, 342, 400
41, 44, 73, 116, 121, 125, 131, Far side active regions, 25, 139, 144–146, 157
140, 143, 172, 180, 184, 209, 211, Far side of the Sun, 25, 139, 144–146,
214, 216, 217, 221, 230, 256, 257, 156, 342
283, 284, 289, 291, 292, 298, 300, 315, Fast-drift type III bursts, 278
340, 357 Fast magnetic reconnection, 192, 334
Escape velocity, 62, 63, 64, 293 Fast Petschek reconnection, 304, 326
European Space Agency, see ESA Fast reconnection, 304
Evaporation, chromospheric, 261, 266, 267, Fast and slow winds, 202, 214
305, 307, 321 Fast solar wind, 3, 4, 23, 40, 82, 96, 102, 200,
Events 208, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219,
gradual, 353 220, 222, 223, 225, 233, 293, 309,
impulsive, 294, 352 395, 401
solar energetic particle, 236 composition, 241
Excitation, proton, 272 density, 214
Excited carbon nuclei, 273 electron temperature, 241
Excited heavier nuclei, 273 helium to proton abundance, 202
Excited nitrogen nuclei, 273 helium temperature, 202
Excited nuclei, 273 proton density, 202
Excited oxygen nuclei, 273 proton flux, 202
Exhaust jets, 180, 229, 251, 405 proton speed, 202
Expanding coronal loops, 248 proton temperature, 202
Expanding loops, 210 source, 202
Experiment, neutrino temperature, 202
GALLEX, 111 Fast stream
HOMESTAKE, 111 composition differences, 186
KAMIOKANDE, 111 temperature differences, 186
SAGE, 111 Fast wind, 13, 14, 23, 66, 201, 202, 203, 204,
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, 113–114 205, 207, 208, 211, 212, 214, 216, 217,
Experimenter’s Operations Facility, 22 218, 219, 220, 222, 224, 225, 231, 232,
Explorer 1, 65, 101, 358, 359, 394, 399 233, 240, 362
Subject Index 539

Fast wind acceleration, 23, 217, 222, 225 impulsive, 250

Fast wind sources, 14, 211, 214–217 long duration, 299
Fields loop top impulsive hard X-ray, 268
dipolar magnetic, 206 soft X-ray, 265, 268, 302
interplanetary magnetic, 229, 231 solar, 3, 169, 177, 179, 182, 191, 229, 248,
large scale solar magnetic, 226 254, 257, 261, 262, 264
magnetic, 193, 204, 205 white light, 258, 269–271, 338
solar magnetic, 164 X-ray, 253
Filament eruptions, 284, 327, 328, 330, 331, Flare X-ray classification, 255
353, 397 Flaring electrons, 230
Filaments, 4, 5, 57, 92, 106, 181, 188, 255, Flaring soft X-ray loops, temperatures, 176
257, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 317, 318, Flows, 14, 23, 31, 33, 38, 40, 121, 125,
319, 327, 332, 342, 343, 351, 353, 137–144, 148, 166, 173, 181, 183, 211,
355, 356 229, 237, 284, 309, 341, 343
disruptions, 398 high speed, 233
erupting, 285 solar wind, 246
FIP effect, 232, 246, 248, 250, 395, 398 Flows, fluctuations, 370
First ionization potential, 201, 232, 246, 248, Flux
250, 395 proton, 202
FISM, 404 solar wind, 30, 31
Five-minute (5-min) Flux tubes, 33, 76, 149, 165, 186, 205, 210,
5-min, 33, 59, 85, 96, 103, 122, 123, 218, 231
128, 137, 151, 154, 155, 165, Footpoint exchange, 29, 228, 352
166, 188 Footpoint ribbons, 260, 321
5-min oscillations, 122, 123, 124, 154, Footpoints, 3, 176, 177, 182, 231, 260, 265,
155, 188 266, 267, 269, 270, 271, 275, 290, 299,
Flare-accelerated ions, 35, 271 303, 305, 314
Flare-accelerated particles, 35, 260, 354 Forbidden emission lines, 59, 60
Flare-accelerated protons, 271, 272, 273, 274 Forbush effect, 80
Flare acceleration, 29, 36, 269, 275, 332, Forecasting space weather, 342
352, 353 Formation
Flare acceleration site, 269, 332 arcade, 283
Flare associated electrons, 277 deuterium, 273
Flare associated neutrons, 272 Forward-reverse shock, 233, 234
Flare energy release, 267, 268, 276, 328, Forward-S shape, 317
329, 335 Fourier-Hankel decomposition, 138
Flare Irradiance Spectral Model, see FISM Fraunhofer lines, 97
Flare protons, 253 Free magnetic energy, 41, 302, 305, 314, 319
Flare ribbons, 90, 99, 257, 259, 260, 271, 290, Frequency, 32, 35, 69, 72, 73, 74, 84, 90, 94,
305, 307, 312, 324, 327, 333 123, 125, 129, 131, 183, 223, 276, 278,
hydrogen alpha, 259 280, 293, 313, 366
Flare-ribbon separation, 307 Frequency distribution of solar flares, 313, 330
Flares, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, 25, 28, 29, 32, 35, Frequency of occurrence, coronal mass
36, 39, 40, 89, 90, 91, 94, 139, 142, ejections, 293
144, 146, 169, 177, 179, 181, 182, 183, Frequency, plasma, 276, 277, 278
229, 232, 253, 255, 258, 261, 264, 265,
266, 270, 273, 274, 275, 278, 280, 281, Gaia hypothesis, 386, 396
284, 286, 290, 295, 296, 299, 301–314, Galactic cosmic rays, 13, 15, 345, 373
318, 339, 344, 348, 355 GALLEX, 111, 156
chromospheric, 306 Gallium experiment, 111
double hard X-ray, 270 Gamma-ray emission, 273
gradual, 261 Gamma-ray flashes, 275
hard X-ray, 264 Gamma-ray images of solar flares, 275
He, 182 Gamma-ray line image, 49
540 Subject Index

Gamma-ray lines, 18, 35, 102, 271–273, 274 “natural”, 378

positron annihilation, 273 “unnatural”, 378
solar, 297 Greenhouse gases, 379, 380, 383, 384, 390
Gamma-ray radiation, 34, 101, 108, 253, 273 man made, 377
Gamma rays, 10, 35, 68, 108, 113, 257, 261, Green iron line, 86
271, 273, 276, 321 Greenland, 381
Gas pressure, 79, 80, 110, 165 Green line, 60, 86
General Theory of Relativity, 134, 135, 155 GWE (Ulysses), 15, 16
Geoeffective, 355, 361, 362 Gyration radius, 69, 70
Geomagnetic storms, 28, 44, 52, 53, 94, 97, Gyrosynchrotron emission, 281
99, 234, 296, 338, 339, 340, 341, 344, Gyrosynchrotron radiation, 280, 281
351, 352, 355, 360, 362, 366
27 day interval, 392 Hα , 54, 55, 57, 90, 92, 99, 100, 259, 260, 282,
non-recurrent, 244, 338 320–321
recurrent, 234 Halloween storms, 340
sudden commencement, 339 Halo coronal mass ejections, 299, 301, 315,
see also magnetic storms 329, 332, 361, 398
Geostationary Operations Environmental Halo coronal transient, 104
Satellites, see GOES Halo mass ejections, 296
Geosynchronous satellites, 366, 367, 390 Halo orbit, 22
Geotail, 17, 229 Hard X-ray, 8, 34, 253, 260, 261–267, 268,
Giant star, 386 270, 271, 275, 306, 312, 313, 321, 328,
Gleissberg cycle, 394 329, 331, 335
Global Oscillation Network Group, see GONG Hard X-ray bremsstrahlung, non thermal, 321
Global Oscillations at Low Frequencies, see Hard X-ray flare, loop top impulsive, 268
GOLF Hard X-ray imaging instruments, 334
Global surface temperatures, sunspot, cycle, Hard X-ray phase, impulsive, 261
399 Hard X-ray solar flares, 326, 328
Global temperature variations, 402 Hard X-ray sources, 265
Global warming, 27, 342, 370, 372, 376, 377, corona, 266
379, 380, 384 Hard X-ray Telescope, see HXT
Global waves, 257, 299–301 3 He, 29, 31, 327, 330, 347, 352, 353, 354, 389,

G-modes, 135, 136, 151 395, 399

GOES, 254, 255, 266, 271, 294, 302, 320, 329, Heat the corona, 33, 37, 89, 161, 162, 167,
340, 344, 355 170, 180, 181, 185, 192, 249, 251
GOLF (SOHO), 26, 27, 126, 127, 134, Heated waves, 165
135, 136 Heating, 5, 22, 37, 40, 43, 60, 117, 162, 164,
GONG, 23, 127, 128, 139, 140, 141, 145, 167, 170, 173, 176, 177, 182, 186
151, 343 Heating of active-region loops, 193
GRB (Ulysses), 15, 16 Heating the chromosphere, 167
Gradual coronal mass ejections, 294 Heating of the corona, 246
Gradual events, 353 Heating in coronal holes, 163, 164, 186
Gradual flares, 261 Heating coronal loops, 170–177
Gradual phase, 262 Heating of coronal loops in active regions,
Gradual soft X-ray flares, 261 170–177
Gradual solar particle events, 354 Heating mechanisms, 22, 40, 162, 163, 164
Granulation, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 137, Heating models, 173
139, 148 Heating paradox, 60, 161
Granules, 118, 119, 121, 122, 164 Heating processes, 162, 163
Gravity waves, 22, 125, 127, 135, 136 Heating of quiet corona, 177–186
GRB (Ulysses), 15 Heating X-ray bright points, 193
Green emission line, 59, 98, 100, 243, Heat, magnetic waves, 167
244 Heat-trapping gases, 377, 378, 379, 380, 383
Greenhouse effect, 377, 378, 385, 390, 397 Heavier nuclei, excited, 273
Subject Index 541

Heavy particles, 117 wind, 94, 102, 188, 202, 204, 206, 207, 208,
Heavy water, 113, 114, 115 212, 214, 215, 216, 218
Helical, 8, 69, 317, 318, 331, 332, 351, 401 streams, 102, 245, 394
Helical kink instability, 318, 332 Hinode, 5, 7, 23, 37–44, 85, 86, 88, 91, 163,
Helically twisted flux ropes, 320 165, 170, 173, 177, 179, 185, 215, 226
Helical magnetic fields, 331, 351, 401 Hinode instruments, 42, 43
Helicity, 144, 316, 317, 331 Hinode principal investigators, 43
Heliopause, 238, 240 Hinode scientific objectives, 38
Helios 1, 103, 201, 202, 225, 234, 247, 347, Hinotori, 7, 91, 103, 104, 328, 329, 398
348, 351, 396, 397, 398, 399 hard X-ray imaging instruments, 334
Helios 2, 103, 201, 225, 234, 241, 247, HISCALE (Ulysses), 15, 16
351, 396 Holes, coronal, 162, 163, 170, 177, 178,
Helioseismic holography, 138, 139, 145, 152, 179, 189
157, 299, 403 polar coronal, 170
Helioseismic tomography, 137, 138, 142, 144, Holocene period, 381
156, 319 Homestake experiment, 111
Helioseismology, 22, 23, 25, 112, 124, 127, Homestake Gold Mine, 111, 154
128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, Horizontal magnetic fields, 38
140, 141, 143, 144, 149, 319, 342 Hot loops, 172, 297
Heliosheath, 238, 240 Hot solar corona, 100, 204
Heliosphere, 11, 13, 15, 19, 28, 30, 45, 47, Hot static corona, 245
101, 199, 200, 204, 225, 226, 228, 231, HXT (Yohkoh), 8, 10, 11, 262, 265, 268
234, 237, 238, 240 Hydrazine, 21
shape and content, 238 Hydrogen, 2, 3, 13, 26, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60,
size, 238 63, 64, 66, 67, 89, 90, 92, 106, 108,
Heliosphere edge, 236 110, 113, 129, 162, 167, 198, 220, 221,
Heliospheric imager, 45, 296 235, 255, 259, 260, 273, 282, 295, 338
Helium, 13, 15, 18, 24, 26, 29, 31, 54, 55, 66, Hydrogen alpha, 54, 55, 57, 90, 92, 99, 100,
70, 98, 100, 107, 108, 109, 110, 116, 167, 260, 282, 338
117, 129, 131, 201, 234, 235, 273 flare ribbons, 324
Helium–3, see 3 He flares, 320
Helium abundance, 201, 246 Hydrogen-burning reactions, 108
Helium isotope, 26, 31, 347, 395 Hydrogen nuclei, 70
Helium nuclei, 70
Helium to proton abundance Ice ages, 342, 370, 381, 382, 383, 384, 390,
fast/slow wind, 202 391, 397
Helium temperature astronomical theory, 381
fast/slow, 202 Ice age temperatures, 384
Helmet streamers, 58, 206, 208, 212, 219, 305 Ice core, 370, 378, 383, 384, 399
3 He-rich impulsive solar energetic
ICME, 349–352
particles, 352 Ideal gas law, 129, 197
3 He-rich solar particle events, 347
IMP 1 (Interplanetary Monitoring Platform 1),
High energy electrons, 262, 265 82, 102, 245, 395
High energy jets, 192 IMP 7, 234, 247, 347, 396
High-energy particles, 28–30, 33, 253, 304, IMPACT (STEREO), 45, 46
308, 348, 364, 365, 386 IMP (Interplanetary Monitoring Platform),
High speed 234, 356
component, solar wind, 187, 200, 202, Impulsive coronal mass ejections, 294, 302
208, 216 Impulsive events, 294, 352
electrons, 229, 230 Impulsive flare energy release, 276, 334
flows, 233 Impulsive flares, 8, 29, 268, 326
solar wind, 2, 47, 88, 187, 189, 200, 206, Impulsive and gradual events, 353
209, 216, 218, 223, 226, 367 Impulsive hard X-ray phase, 261, 268
outflow velocity, 250 Impulsive particle events, 352
542 Subject Index

Impulsive phase, 104, 262, 264, 268, 269, 276, Interplume regions, 215
285, 299, 307, 277 Interstellar cloud, 30, 234, 235
Impulsive phase of solar flares, 104, 321, 328 Interstellar pick-up ions, 235
Impulsive radio bursts, 265 Interstellar pressure, 237
Impulsive solar flares, 280 Ion composition, 15, 18, 32, 45, 204, 208, 234,
Impulsive solar particle events, 353 249, 250
Ingredients of the Sun winds, 53–55 Ion cyclotron resonance, 223, 248
Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Ionized calcium
see ISAS H lines, 54
Interacting Regions, Co-rotating, 233, 234 K lines, 54
Interacting solar wind streams, 19 Ionosphere, 83, 85, 90, 96, 99, 100, 101, 244,
Interaction of fast and slow streams, 350 278, 279, 324, 337, 356, 358, 361, 364,
Interaction of magnetic loops, corona, 329 366, 368, 393
Interaction of fast and slow winds, 47 layer, 278
Interchange reconnection, 228 Ionosphere disturbances, sudden, 324, 325
Interglacial, 381, 382, 384, 399 Ions
Intermittent heating, 49, 173 energetic, 329
Internal differential rotation, 154, 314 oxygen, 186, 204
Internal flows, 137–141 pick up, 235
Internal rotation, 127, 129, 133, 134, 149, 155 preferentially accelerate heavier, 249
Internal speed of sound, 131 Ion tails, 61, 101, 244, 393
International Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 17 Ion tails, comet, 393
International Solar Terrestrial Physics Irradiance
program, see ISTP oscillations, 155
International Sun-Earth Explorer-1, see solar, 370
ISEE-1 Irradiance decrease, sunspots, 371
Interplanetary clouds, 19 Irradiance increase, faculae or plage, 390
Interplanetary CME shock, 349 ISAS, 7, 8, 10, 11, 38, 41, 42, 44, 171, 262,
Interplanetary coronal mass ejection, see 270, 306
ICME ISEE–1, 247, 329, 396, 397, 398
Interplanetary electrons, 347 Isothermal coronal loops, 196
Interplanetary magnetic clouds, 250, 317, 351, Isotopic composition, 26, 29
401, 403 ISTP, 17, 409
Interplanetary magnetic fields, 28, 80, 81, 82,
96, 102, 229, 230, 231, 233, 348, 354, Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency, see
359, 360, 403 JAXA
spiral pattern, 230 JAXA, 9, 37, 39, 41, 44, 315
Interplanetary magnetic reconnections, 47 Jets, 21, 39, 40, 42, 89, 177, 178, 180,
Interplanetary magnetic sector, 81 181, 188, 215, 226, 229, 307,
Interplanetary magnetic spiral, 348 308, 312
Interplanetary medium, 258
Interplanetary Monitoring Platform 1 (IMP I), Kamioka, 111
82, 102, 245 Kamiokande, 111, 112, 113, 115
Interplanetary Monitoring Platform 7, 96, 103, KamLAND, 115, 158
208, 247 Kepler’s third law, 105
Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms 6, 7 and, Key events
8, 96 coronal heating, 190
Interplanetary Monitoring Platforms (IMPs), discovery of space, 97
103, 203 explosive solar activity, 231
Interplanetary scintillation, 202, 203, 210 helioseismology, 124
Interplanetary shocks, 19, 29, 30, 91, 103, 231, solar terrestrial interactions, 391
234, 236, 245, 247, 348, 349, 350, 355 Kilo electron volts, 261
Interplanetary shock waves, 339, 348, 400 Kinetic energy, 221, 223
Interplanetary space, magnetic sectors, 65 Kinetic temperature, 63, 186, 221
Subject Index 543

Kinked flux rope, 318, 327 Luna 2, 65, 101, 245

Kinked flux rope model, 318 Lunik 2, 65, 66, 95, 101, 245
Kink instability, 4, 318, 319, 328,
332, 355 MAG (ACE), 31
KONUS (Wind), 18, 19 Magnetic activity, 75
Kreutz family, 292 long term, 395
Kyoto Protocol, 380 maximum, 78
solar type stars, 401
Lagrangian point, 21, 22, 345 stars, 395
Land air temperature, 400 Magnetic activity cycle, 75, 150, 390
Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph, Magnetic arcade, 285, 287
see LASCO (SOHO) Magnetic breakout model, 333
Large-scale magnetic reconnection, 35, 307 Magnetic canopy, 166, 191, 247
Large-scale solar magnetic fields, 148 Magnetic carpet, 183–185, 186, 190, 193, 194
Largest mass, ejected, 355 Magnetic clouds, 17, 19, 250, 280, 287, 317,
LASCO (SOHO), 24, 26, 27, 208, 211, 218, 325, 326, 331, 349, 350, 351–352, 355,
219, 257, 288, 291, 292, 293, 296, 309, 388, 393, 394, 398, 401, 403
317, 344 interplanetary, 317
Latitude increase, cosmic rays, 70 Magnetic connections, low corona, 226
Law, ideal gas, 129, 197 Magnetic diffusion, 168
Layer, ozone, 368 Magnetic energy, 3, 23, 29, 32, 37, 38, 40, 41,
Legacy archive, 10 89, 94, 161–163, 169, 178, 185, 190,
Lightning, 275 191, 229, 242, 264, 268, 284, 301–305,
Lines 308, 314, 315, 318, 319, 323, 326, 327,
coronal emission, 190 331, 333, 335, 336, 344, 404
coronal Lyman alpha, 246 free, 302
emission, 190 Magnetic energy release, 8, 47, 49, 182, 267,
gamma ray, 267, 271 302
hydrogen alpha, 54 Magnetic fields, 2, 3, 4, 9, 14, 32, 37–44,
magnetic neutral, 192, 259 46–50, 57, 69–70, 72–74, 77–79,
Local helioseismology, 23, 133, 137, 138, 141, 80–83, 95–96, 99, 143, 146–150, 151,
143, 144, 343 152, 153, 156, 158, 171, 179, 184,
Long duration flares, 299 188–189, 191–192, 199, 207, 212, 214,
Long lasting soft X-ray flare, 354 216, 222–224, 226–228, 230, 233,
Loop apex, flare energy, 328 240–242, 244–245, 250, 251, 253, 306,
Loop oscillations, 257, 296, 297, 333, 315, 323–327, 329, 330–332, 339, 349,
334 360, 387–389, 392, 394, 395, 396, 400,
Loops 401, 403, 404
coronal, 144, 162 Earth, 245, 338
expanding, 210 variations, 224
expanding coronal, 248 interplanetary, 229
magnetic, 147 direction, 60
scaling law, 176 non potential, 303, 305
Loop structures, cusp shaped, 307 sunspots, 72, 99, 244, 324, 392
Loop-top hard X-ray flares, 267, 268 Magnetic field reconnection, 242
Loop top impulsive hard X-ray flare, 268 Magnetic fields in sunspots, 72, 99, 244,
Low corona, 23, 26, 30, 34, 41, 44, 58, 64, 78, 324, 392
79, 80, 104, 161, 163, 167, 172, 179, Magnetic field strength, 69, 70, 74
183, 184, 232, 259, 268, 270, 278, 281, Magnetic fluctuations, 23, 191, 224, 242,
299, 301, 302, 307, 320 245, 395
Low corona, electron acceleration, 264 Magnetic flux, 3, 39, 42, 89, 144, 148, 155,
Low energy flares, 182 156, 166, 173, 178, 183, 185, 190, 191,
Low luminosity, Sun, 376 193, 194, 213, 215, 226, 227, 228, 242,
Low solar activity, 373 312, 317, 331, 376
544 Subject Index

Magnetic flux rope, 17, 285, 303, 311, 316, Magnetograph, 76, 137, 331
317, 318, 323, 330, 332, 333, 334, Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), 149,
336, 404 168–170, 224
Magnetic flux tubes, 33, 76, 149, 165, 170, Magnetohydrodynamic waves, 169,
186, 192, 205, 218, 231, 247, 328 188–189, 327
Magnetic funnels, 23, 48, 218, 241, 248, 249 Magnetopause, 357
Magnetic helicity, 144, 316, 317, 319, 330, 331 Magnetosphere, 15–17, 47, 240, 242, 326, 331,
Magnetic interaction of coronal loops, 331 337, 339, 341, 345, 346, 356–363, 367,
Magnetic loops, 23, 32, 40, 48, 49, 74, 75, 78, 368, 386, 388, 389, 390, 394, 395, 401
87, 92, 93, 95, 147, 162, 170, 178–185, Earth, 240
191, 193, 194, 207, 216, 218, 219, 226, Magnetosphere substorm, 394
250, 266, 269, 275, 276, 280, 282, 283, Magnetotail, 17, 102, 258, 357, 358, 360, 363,
285, 287, 289–290, 305, 307, 309, 311, 395
313, 318, 320, 323, 326, 327, 329, 331, Mariner 2, 65–66, 91, 95, 102, 198, 201, 224,
333, 347, 350, 351, 397 245, 326, 337, 339, 394
Magnetic network, 48, 165, 181, 191, 192, Mariner 4, 347
215, 216, 241, 247, 248, 249, 250 Mariner 5, 169, 191, 224, 245, 395
Magnetic neutral line, 192, 259, 265, 282, 283, Mars, 3–4, 5, 28, 44, 46, 346, 347, 364,
286, 303 365, 388
Magnetic neutral point, 191, 324, 325, 394 Mass ejections
Magnetic pressure, 79–80, 95, 237, 290, 309, coronal, 211, 226, 229, 234, 236, 241, 243,
351, 388 255, 257, 258
Magnetic reconnection, 179, 191, 192, 193, Mass, Sun, 67
195, 251, 306, 309–313, 321, 323, 325, Maunder Minimum, 373, 375, 376, 392, 401,
326, 327, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, 403, 404
336, 363, 389, 394, 399, 404, 405 Maximum magnetic activity, 78–79
location, 228 Maxwellian distribution, 236
low corona, 161 M-class flares, 255
site, 268 MDI (SOHO), 26, 112, 121, 126, 134, 140,
Magnetic-reconnection current sheet, 313 143, 145, 151, 157, 158, 159, 183, 190,
Magnetic reconnection during solar flares, 193, 194, 298, 333
303–313 Meridional circulation, 139, 141, 149, 151,
Magnetic reconnection rate, 260, 335 154, 156, 158
Magnetic reconnection site, 264, 310 Meridional flow, 137–141, 148, 151, 157, 158,
Magnetic sector, 81, 82, 96, 102, 205, 228, 212, 228
245, 395 Mesons, 273, 329
Magnetic shear, 50, 314, 343, 355 MFI (Wind), 18, 19
Magnetic spiral, 229, 230, 346, 348 MHD waves, 49, 164, 170, 297, 301
Magnetic storms, 5, 28, 44, 47, 51–53, 94, 95, Michelson Doppler Imager, see MDI
96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 234, 244, 296, 324, Microflares, 177, 183, 192, 193, 194
325, 326, 337–341, 344, 351, 352, 355, Milankovitch cycles, 381
359–361, 363, 366, 389, 391, 392, 393, Million-degree corona, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 37, 46, 47,
394, 396, 398, 400, 402, 403, 405 49, 60, 64, 85, 95, 96, 224, 283
Magnetic tail, 358 Minimum magnetic activity, 77
Magnetic waves, 23, 40, 48, 50, 83, 89, 163, Model of flaring X-ray emission, 267–269
167, 186, 188, 222, 225, 229, 249 Moon, 3, 4, 5, 17, 28, 44, 46, 55, 57, 58, 62–65,
Magnetic waves heat, 249 91, 246, 288, 346, 364–365, 388
Magnetism, 283 Moreton waves, 300–301, 326, 327, 332
interplanetary, 244 Mottles, 166
Magnetized clouds of gas, 325, 393 Muon neutrinos, 112–113, 157
Magnetized plasma clouds, 338
Magnetogram, 26, 76–78, 82, 101, 183, 190, Nanoflare heating, 182, 196
193, 194, 244, 260, 311, 317–319, 323, Nanoflares, 9, 32, 47, 177, 182–183, 192, 193,
332, 336, 343, 359, 387, 403 194, 196, 313
Subject Index 545

NAOJ, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 315 Non-recurrent geomagnetic storms, 99, 244,
Narrow loops, 175, 176 338, 339, 361, 389, 392, 400
NASA, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18–22, 24, 26, Non-thermal bremsstrahlung, 262, 264
28, 30, 32–42, 44–45, 73, 75, 82, 85, Non-thermal electrons, 261, 267, 269
86, 91, 93, 96, 102, 103, 116, 121, 125, Non-thermal hard X-ray bremsstrahlung, 269
127, 131, 134, 140, 143, 156, 171, 172, Non-thermal motions, 173
174, 175, 180, 184, 209, 211, 212, 214, Non-thermal radiation, 282
216, 217, 221, 230, 238, 240, 245, 254, Non-thermal radio sources, 329
256, 257, 262, 265, 266, 268, 270, 283, Non-thermal transition region, 193
284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 291, 292, 298, Northern lights, 363
300, 306, 315, 319, 327, 336, 340, 347, NSC, 315
352, 356, 365, 370, 395, 396, 407 Nuclear de-excitation lines, 275, 321, 334
NASA’s Deep Space Network, 21, 22 Nuclear energy, 110
NASA’s Orbiting Solar Observatory Nuclear fusion, 1, 2, 110, 111, 116, 117, 153
(OSO), 91 Nuclear fusion reactions, 113, 150
National Astronomical Observatory of Japan Nuclear reactions, 66, 106–107, 109–110, 112,
see, NAOJ 114–115, 122, 153, 253, 267, 271,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- 321, 385
tration, see NOAO Nuclear reactions on the Sun, 150, 157,
Naval Research Laboratory, 85, 100, 181, 273–275
244, 325 Nuclei, 16, 19, 26, 28–31, 48, 70, 95, 100, 107,
Network, 139 108–110, 117, 150, 152, 153, 202, 234,
magnetic, 165, 181, 191, 215, 216, 249 241, 246, 271–275, 353, 373, 396
Neupert effect, 265, 321 excited, 273
Neutral current sheet, 96, 207, 246, 247, 304, Number of sunspots, 244, 338
307, 357, 360, 396
Neutral line, 259 Occurrence frequency, coronal mass
magnetic, 259 ejections, 211
Neutral point, 191, 192, 304–305, 324–326, Oort cloud, 239
334, 394 Oort comet cloud, 239–240
Neutral point discharge, 304 Opacity, 117
Neutral point theory of solar flares, 325 Open magnetic field lines, 29, 87, 98, 170,
Neutral sheet, 306, 330, 358 188, 195, 204, 207, 208, 217, 219,
Neutrino mass, 115 231, 241, 244, 250, 269, 308, 330,
Neutrino oscillation, 113, 115, 154, 155, 158 346, 352
Neutrinos, 22, 48, 108–115, 130, 150, Open magnetic fields, 2, 3, 4, 14, 23, 40,
153–154, 156–158 46, 47, 82, 87, 162, 167, 170, 199,
Neutron, 10, 107, 108, 113, 152, 153, 258, 206, 207, 211, 213, 214, 216, 219,
267, 271–275, 321, 322, 327, 328, 329, 226–228, 241, 250, 276, 305, 307,
334, 341, 396, 397, 398 308, 326
flare associated, 274 Open magnetic flux, 3, 186, 205, 213, 226,
relativistic, 153 227–228, 242
solar, 328 Orbit,
Neutron capture, 102, 272, 273, 334, 396 Earth, 347
Neutron-capture line (2.223 MeV), 36, 102, halo, 22
275, 322, 327, 396 Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO), 85, 91, 261
Nimbus 7 satellite, 371, 372, 400 Orbiting Solar Observatory 3 (OSO 3), 102,
Nitrogen nuclei, excited, 273 326
NOAO, 77, 78 Orbiting Solar Observatory 7 (OSO 7), 91, 93,
Nobeyama Radioheliograph, 329 102, 273, 288, 327, 395, 396
Noise storms, 280 Orbiting Solar Observatory 8 (OSO 8), 85,
Non-potential coronal magnetic fields, 167, 192
335, 404 Oscillations, plasma, 276
Non-potential magnetic fields, 42, 303, 305 OSO, see Orbiting Solar Observatory
546 Subject Index

Outbursts, 3, 5, 7, 16, 28, 32, 37–44, 49, 52, Pick-up ions, 13, 29, 30, 47, 235–236,
62, 70, 95, 101, 142, 143, 146, 177, 243, 250
200, 386, 389, 394 Pioneer VI, 87, 96, 102, 246
Outflow, solar wind, 295 Pioneer 10, 233, 247, 397
Outflow velocity, solar wind, 250 Pioneer 11, 82, 103, 247, 397
Overdense coronal loops, 189 Plage, 57, 390
Over-expanding CMEs, 350 Plasma, 32, 79, 168, 173
Oxygen ion, 186, 204 clouds, 339, 392
Oxygen isotope, 382, 397 ejection, 244, 305
Oxygen nuclei, excited, 273 frequency, 100, 276–279, 325, 393
Ozone destroying chemicals, 368 interplanetary, 338
Ozone layer, 368 magnetized, 393
oscillations, 276–280, 322
PLASTIC (STEREO), 6, 45, 46
P78-1, 93, 96, 104, 288, 296, 328, 329, 348,
Plumes, polar, 214, 215, 241
351, 398, 399
P-mode, 122, 123, 130, 133, 135, 136, 139
Pair annihilation, 108, 272, 273
Point
Pairs, bipolar, 324
magnetic neutral, 324
Parker spiral, 83, 229, 230 stagnation, 237
Particle acceleration, 8, 35, 37, 44, 47, 48, 101, X-ray bright, 179
163, 305, 306, 325, 326, 331, 341, 347, Polar, 17, 363
355, 394 Polar cap absorptions, 361
Particle acceleration site, 258, 261, 268, Polar corona, 170
269, 321 Polar coronal holes, 14, 23, 40, 47, 48, 86–88,
Particles 96, 101, 104, 170, 178, 186, 189, 190,
acceleration, 223 194, 208, 212, 214–219, 222, 226, 227,
density, solar wind, 66 228, 241, 242, 245, 247–249, 251, 308,
energetic, 230 309, 332
heavy, 117 Polarimeter, 171
kinetic energy, 62 Polar plumes, 214, 215, 241
speeds, 72 Polar regions, 169
thermal energy density, solar wind, 67 POLAR satellite, 363
thermal energy, solar wind, 67 Poles, 132
Permitted lines, 172 Poleward flows, 139–140, 141, 148
Petschek reconnection, 229 Positrons, 35, 36, 71, 91, 108, 150, 153,
Phases of solar flares 272, 275
gradual, 218, 239 Positron annihilation, 102, 273–275, 321, 327,
impulsive, 262, 264 334, 396
impulsive hard X-ray, 261 Positron annihilation, gamma ray lines, 272
thermal, 261 Positron annihilation line (0.511 MeV), 35, 49,
Photon energy, 8, 36, 84, 117, 264, 265 102, 272, 274, 327, 396
Photons, 84, 261, 265 Post-eruptive arcades, 310
Photosphere, 2, 3, 32, 39, 43, 54, 73, 78, 79, Post-flare arcades, 33
107, 116, 124, 125, 126, 136, 147, 153, Post-flare arches, X-ray, 329
154, 155, 157, 158, 174, 185, 187, Post-flare loops, 33, 266, 267, 307, 310,
188–190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 257, 270, 312–313, 330, 332
287, 289, 291, 308, 310, 319, 324, 325, Power
329, 333, 398, 400 bremsstrahlung, 263
Photospheric magnetic field, 72–74, 311 solar flares, 259
Photospheric oscillations, 165, 195 Power generation plants, 146
Physical parameters of the Sun, 107 Power grids, 28, 44, 341, 361
Physical properties, coronal mass ejections, Power transmission lines, 362
289–296 Precession, 382
Pick-up hydrogen, 13, 235, 248, 250 Precipitating electrons, 266
Subject Index 547

Precursor phase, solar flare, 169 gamma ray, 273

Pre-eruption twist, 315 non thermal, 282
Preferentially accelerate heavier ions, 249 soft X-ray, 254, 260
Pressure synchrotron, 262, 280, 281
gas, 79, 165, 197 thermal, 279
interstellar, 237 Radiation belts
magnetic, 79 Van Allen, 358, 359, 367
solar wind, 136, 164 inner, 358
Primary cosmic rays, 70 Radiative zone, 2, 22, 116–117, 124, 129, 131,
Project scientists of solar spacecraft, 11, 16, 133–134, 136, 151, 159
19, 28, 30, 34, 44, 45 Radioactive isotope, 375
Prominences, 2, 91–93, 96, 255–258, 282–287, Radio Astronomy Explorer 1, see RAE 1
294, 301–302, 304–306, 308–310, Radio burst, 13, 15, 29, 45, 50, 90, 96, 100,
317–318, 320–323, 327, 329, 331–333, 102, 230, 257, 265, 276–282, 301, 321,
343, 351, 401 322, 325, 326, 332, 335, 346–349, 355,
eruptive, 256, 294 389, 393
Properties, physical, coronal mass impulsive, 265
ejections, 211 solar, 257, 276, 278
Prosteyshiy Sputnik, 64, 101 type II, 278, 280, 281
Proton, 186 type III, 230, 277, 278, 279, 280
events, 330, 347, 354, 355, 383, 388, 389, type IV, 325
395, 399, 402 U type, 325
proton chain, 107, 108–110, 150, 153 Radiocarbon, 375, 394, 397
Proton density, Radio communications, 3, 5, 44, 90, 94, 96,
fast/slow wind, 202 339–340, 366, 386, 389
Proton and electron events, interplanetary, 341 Radio emission, 17, 59–60, 70, 90, 100, 190,
Proton excitation, 272 229, 258–259, 269, 276, 278–281, 325,
Proton flux, 354, 393, 403
fast/slow wind, 202 Radio noise, 90, 100, 324, 393
Proton kinetic energy density, solar wind, 67 solar, 324
Proton kinetic energy, solar wind, 67 Radio radiation, 100, 244, 276, 294
Protons Radio scintillations, 203–204, 208, 218, 220
cosmic rays, 67 Radio sources, non thermal, 281
energy, interplanetary, 258 Radio transmission, 366
flux, interplanetary, 276 Radius of
interplanetary, 208 convective zone, 2, 22, 116–117, 124, 129,
solar, 209 131, 133–134, 136, 151, 159
solar wind, 209 gyration, 69, 70, 223
Proton speed, the heliosphere, 237
fast/ slow wind, 202 RAE I, 278
Proton temperature, Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic
fast/slow wind, 202 Imager, see RHESSI
Proton velocities, solar wind, 31 Rate of magnetic reconnection, 321
Rays, 138
Quadrupole moment, 135, 155 anomalous cosmic, 235
Quantum mechanics, 153 block incoming cosmic, 225
Quiescent filaments, 282, 284–285 cosmic, 199, 225, 235, 242, 244, 246, 249,
Quiet corona, 23, 32, 41, 177–186, 189, 190, 345, 350
193, 205 Reaction
Quiet Sun, 9, 23, 40, 50, 162, 165, 177, 178, nuclear, 267, 271
184, 188, 194, 195, 282, 308, 403 spallation, 273
Reconnection
Radiation magnetic, 189, 192, 195, 215, 219, 229
coherent, 280 magnetic field, 242
548 Subject Index

Reconnection exhausts, 229 329, 331, 334, 346, 368, 370, 372, 396,
Reconnection inflows, 306 397, 398, 400
Recurrent geomagnetic storms, 99, 234, Sputnik, 64, 101
244, 324, 338, 339, 361, 362, 389, TRACE, 30
392, 400 Ulysses, 12–14, 19, 83, 230, 241, 248, 400
Redshift, 119, 120, 275 Wind, 16
Region of flare energy release, 322 Yohkoh, 47, 85, 88, 91, 248, 329
Regions Satellites, 4–5, 28, 36, 44, 50, 59, 64,
active, 137 65, 85, 91, 96, 105, 192, 194,
bipolar, 183 261, 302, 320, 339–340, 344, 347,
polar, 146 358, 366–367, 368, 372, 387, 389,
solar active, 171 390, 395
Sun’s polar, 169 communication, 21, 340–341
Relativistic electrons, simultaneous ac- Scaling law, 176, 191
celeration with energetic ions, coronal loops, 176, 191
329 SCE (Ulysses), 15, 16
Release of free magnetic energy, 331 Science and Technologies Facility Council, see
Resonant cavity, 129, 154 STFC
Resonant frequencies, 128 Scientific goal, 22, 29
Resonant transition radiation, 281, 335 Scientific objectives of solar spacecraft, 7, 8,
Retreating glaciers, 379 13, 19, 29, 35, 38, 44, 45
Reverse-S shape, 316 Scintillation, 202, 203, 204, 208, 210, 218,
RHESSI, 7, 35, 36, 253, 265, 273, 307, 334, 220, 226, 241, 247
352, 403 interplanetary, 202, 203, 210, 247
RHESSI scientific objectives–34 radio, 203, 204, 208, 218, 220
Ribbons, chromospheric flare, 257, 260, 327 Sea surface temperature, 373, 386, 399, 402
Ring diagram, 138, 144 global, 376, 385
analysis, 138 SECCHI (STEREO), 6, 45, 46
Rise in sea level, 379 Seismic waves, 125, 131, 157, 298–299,
Rotation 301, 333
period, 66, 132, 134, 362, 392 Sector; magnetic, 81, 82
rate, 133 Self-organized critical state, 314, 323, 330
speed, 22, 132, 137 SEPICA (ACE), 31
Shape, spiral, 62
SAGE, 111, 156 Sheared, twisted coronal loops, 315
Satellite (names) Sheet
ACE, 28 current, 168–169
Alouette-I, 278 neutral current, 96, 207, 246, 247, 304, 307,
Explorer-1, 6, 65, 101, 102, 358, 359, 394, 357, 360, 396
399 Shock acceleration, 36, 352
Geotail, 229 Shocks, 345–356, 388, 389, 395, 396, 397,
Helios 1 and2, 103, 201, 225, 234, 247, 351, 398, 399, 401, 402, 404
396 interplanetary, 19, 29, 30, 49, 91, 102, 103,
Lunik 2, 65 231, 234, 236, 245, 247, 326, 327, 329,
Mariner, 2, 65 330, 338–339, 344, 347–355, 388, 389,
Nimbus, 7, 371 394, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400
P78–1, 78, 93 Shock waves, 90, 93, 96, 100, 166–167, 185,
POLAR, 17 190, 191, 195, 235, 278, 279, 280, 281,
Prosteyshiy Sputnik, 64 298, 305, 322, 325, 326, 339, 347–348,
RHESSI, 34 354, 355, 393, 400, 404
Satellite 1958α , 65 Sidereal rotation period, 132
SOHO, 17, 22, 132, 157, 189, 249, 340 Sigmoids, 40, 41, 50, 315–319, 323, 332, 333,
Solar Maximum Mission (SMM), 91, 93, 96, 334, 336, 343, 387, 402
103, 104, 155, 192, 265, 288, 313, 328, shapes, 40, 315, 316, 318, 334, 387
Subject Index 549

Singly ionized carbon, 14, 250 Soft X-rays, 9, 35, 100, 102, 244, 261–262,
Singly ionized helium, 24, 116, 131, 180, 234, 264, 266, 268, 271, 315, 317, 321, 323,
247, 248, 283, 284, 286, 397, 399 325, 326, 330, 334, 336, 354, 403
SIS (ACE), 31 Soft X-ray Telescope, see SXT
Size SOHO, 4, 7, 14, 20, 24, 59, 85, 93, 103, 112,
coronal mass ejections, 320 116, 121, 125, 131, 134, 140, 143, 145,
heliosphere, 251 151, 156, 163, 171, 172, 180, 193, 211,
Skylab, 39–40, 85–89, 91, 93, 96, 103, 176, 214, 216, 221, 242, 249, 253, 257, 283,
179, 189, 191, 205, 215, 246, 261, 285, 284, 286, 288, 289, 291, 300, 331, 332,
288, 299, 305, 327, 328, 353, 368, 340, 352, 372
396, 397 CDS, 26, 173
Slow dense solar wind, 34, 213, 214, 241 CELIAS, 26, 27, 350
Slow-drift type II bursts, 281 COSTEP, 26, 27
Slow magnetic reconnection, 191, 304 EIT, 4, 116, 172, 180, 184, 214, 216, 256,
Slow reconnection, 179 283, 284, 286, 292, 300, 332, 340
Slow solar wind, 3, 18, 40, 48, 49, 202, 203, ERNE, 26, 27
208, 210, 213, 218, 232, 241, 242, 243, GOLF, 26, 27, 127, 133, 134, 135, 136, 151
248, 249, 250, 293, 294, 397, 401 home page, 28, 127
acceleration, 49, 218, 294 instruments, 23, 25, 26, 27, 48, 181
composition, 18, 202, 208, 213, 232, 241, LASCO, 24, 219, 248, 257, 289, 291, 317
242, 248, 249, 250, 401 Lost in Space, 20–21
density, 202, 218, 232 MDI/SOI, 121, 125, 131, 140, 141, 143,
electron temperature, 202 144, 145, 151, 152, 217, 298, 311, 319,
helium to proton abundance, 202 335, 403
helium temperature, 202 mission, 20, 22, 24
proton density, 202 scientific goals, 22
proton flux, 202 SUMER, 26, 27, 179, 216, 217
proton speed, 202 SWAN, 26, 27
proton temperature, 202 UVCS, 4, 219, 221, 335
source, 202 VIRGO, 26, 27, 131, 372
sporadic, 62 SOHO-4, 128
temperature, 202 SOHO instruments, 23, 24, 25, 26
Slow-speed wind, 47, 201, 203, 204, 221, SOHO principal investigators, 27
247, 396 SOHO scientific objectives, 22
Slow stream Solar-A, 6, 7, 375
composition differences, 233–234 Solar active regions, 31, 32, 46, 47, 49,
temperature differences, 233–234 74, 87, 89, 142, 145, 152, 158,
Slow Sweet-Parker reconnection, 304, 326 167, 171, 181, 189, 193, 210,
Slow winds, 47, 202, 208, 210, 212, 214, 218, 211, 281, 315, 331, 342, 343, 376,
219, 241, 250 387, 403
Small Explorer, see SMEX Solar activity, 227
Small scale magnetic fields, 215 back side of the Sun, 145–146, 387
SMEX, 30, 35, 37, 174, 175, 254, 266, low, 373
285, 287 maximum, 143, 255, 328, 397
SMS (Wind), instruments, 18, 19 minimum, 141, 205–211, 242
SMM (Solar Maximum Mission) satellite, 91, temperature fluctuation, 55–60, 172, 368
93, 96, 103, 104, 155, 192, 265, 288, warning time, 344, 345, 387
313, 328, 329, 331, 334, 346, 368, 370, 11 year cycle, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 47, 66, 80,
372, 396, 397, 398, 400 82, 88, 91, 101, 103, 141, 151, 155,
SNO, see Sudbury Neutrino Observatory 187, 194, 203, 205, 209, 211, 213, 218,
Soft X-ray flares, 265, 302, 328, 353, 397 219, 225, 226, 227, 234, 241, 242, 245,
Soft X-ray radiation, 5, 254, 260, 267, 247, 249, 361, 362, 369, 375, 383, 387,
269, 402 403
550 Subject Index

Solar activity cycle, 9, 47, 86, 101, 149, 204, model, 305, 307
208, 212, 244, 247, 255, 367, 373, 374, phases, 261–262
393, 401 power, 254
SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory, see satellites, 91
SOHO two ribbon, 327, 329
Solar atmosphere, 55–60, 143–144, 161–165, X-rays, 15, 103, 255, 321, 328, 335, 398
191, 193, 197, 214, 226, 247, 248, 253, weather, 338
272–277, 279, 292, 298, 299, 319, 321, Solar flare temperatures, 103, 328, 398
324, 331, 336, 400, 404 Solar gamma-ray lines, 35, 102, 327
Solar-B, 6, 37, 44, 407 Solar interior, 22, 25, 48, 72, 115, 122, 125,
Solar cells, 367 126, 127, 131, 136, 139, 143, 155,
Solar constant, 27, 103, 105, 107, 370, 372, 156, 165
390, 396, 398, 399, 400, 401 Solar irradiance
Solar corona, 3, 9, 14, 46, 47, 78, 86, 178, 184, total of Earth, 103
206, 212, 227 total variations, 103, 271, 335, 336, 370,
Solar corpuscles, 62, 101, 244, 393 371, 385, 390, 400
Solar cosmic rays, 70, 324, 345, 393 variation, reconstruction, 376
Solar cycle, 9, 13, 75, 78, 81, 94, 141, 147, Solar irradiance variations, 404, 444
148, 228, 234, 241, 371, 373–374, 402
Solar latitude, 11–15, 47, 66, 75, 82, 101,
length, 372, 402
131–134, 141, 148, 149, 151, 155,
modulation of cosmic rays, 394 203–205, 208, 211–213, 218, 226,
X-ray view, 9 228–231, 234, 241–242, 244, 246–247,
ll year magnetic activity cycle, 20, 75–77, 249, 250, 251, 293, 350, 392, 397, 401
141, 150, 390
Solar magnetic activity ll year cycle, 75
Solar Dynamics Observatory, 127, 185,
Solar magnetic fields, 76, 81, 94, 148, 164
302, 343
Solar magnetism, 72–83, 141, 227
Solar dynamo, 133, 134, 146–150, 157, 317
Solar Mass Ejection Imager (SMEI), 366, 405
Solar eclipse, 8, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 68, 77–78,
Solar Maximum Mission, 91, 93, 96, 103, 104,
98, 99, 103, 206, 243, 244, 288
155, 192, 265, 288, 313, 328–329, 331,
Solar electron neutrinos, 109, 111–115, 157
334, 346, 368, 370, 372, 396–398, 400
Solar emission lines, 173
Solar Maximum Mission, see SMM
Solar energetic electrons, 405
Solar meteorology, 141, 396
Solar energetic particle events, 236, 340, 345,
347, 353–355, 364, 366, 368, 389, 404 Solar models, 112, 113, 130, 156, 157
Solar energetic particles, 13, 19, 22, 29, 30, Solar neutrino detection experiments, 110–111
36, 44, 45, 48, 70, 232, 236, 248, 258, Solar neutrino experiments, 110–111, 156
309, 324, 330, 341, 342, 345–356, 364, Solar neutrino oscillations, 154
366–367, 370, 388, 393, 395, 398, 399, Solar neutrino problem, 110–115, 150, 155,
400, 402, 403 156, 157
Solar energetic protons, 352, 404, 405 Solar neutrons, 328, 397
Solar energy, 105, 371, 397 Solar oblateness, 155
Solar-flare electrons, 261, 355 Solar observatories, 32, 33, 85, 261, 319, 409
Solar flares, 3, 4, 18, 41, 46–49, 89–91, 96, Solar Optical Telescope (SOT), see SOT
100–104, 143–144, 177, 182–183, (Hinode)
191–194, 242, 248, 253–259, 261–264, Solar oscillations, 133, 138, 151, 154, 155,
266–275, 278, 280–281, 284, 286, 294, 156, 166
296–297, 301–314, 318, 320–336, Solar oscillations, dispersion law, 155
339–348, 352–356, 364–366, 368, Solar outbursts, 4, 18, 27, 34–37, 40, 41, 44,
386–389, 392–404 50, 89–94, 144, 232, 242, 253–336,
hard X-ray, 264–266, 268, 269, 275, 332 339–340, 343, 346, 355, 366, 387
impulsive, 280, 327, 330, 331, 353, 399 Solar proton events, 347, 383, 388, 395, 402
impulsive phase, 269–271, 276 Solar protons, 345, 346, 367
magnetic energy, 3, 41, 89–91, 191, 267, Solar protons, kill an unprotected astronaut,
315, 326, 327 28, 365
Subject Index 551

Solar radiation, 271, 335, 336, 367–369, 370, Sound waves, 23, 25, 33, 48, 112, 122–126,
371, 381–383, 386, 390 129, 131, 132, 134–136, 138, 142,
SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment 144–145, 150–151, 154–156, 164–167,
(SORCE), 271, 335, 336, 371 188, 191, 192, 213
Solar radio bursts, 13, 15, 100, 257, 276–282, periods, 154
325, 393 see also acoustic waves
Solar radio noise, 90, 100, 324, 393 Source
Solar space missions, 46–50, 407–410 coronal hard X-ray, 322
Solar storm, early warning, 355–356 double hard X-ray, 265
Solar subsurface weather, 141 fast wind, 14, 202
Solar system magnetic, 335
edge, 238 noise, 90
see also system, solar solar, early warning, 362
Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory, see Source regions of the solar winds, 205–217
STEREO Southern lights, 51, 94–95, 363
Solar-type stars, 376, 401 Southward component of interplanetary
increasing brightness, 401 magnetic field, 360, 362, 396
magnetic activity, 401 Soviet American Gallium Experiment, see
Solar ultraviolet radiation, 84, 235, 373 SAGE
Solar variability, 373, 374–377 Space borne coronagraphs, 59, 281, 288, 322
Space-borne orbiting coronagraphs, 288
Solar wind, 2, 3, 4, 14, 60–68, 79, 81, 86, 187,
Spacecraft, see Satellite
199, 201–205, 207, 209, 211, 214, 216,
Space Shuttle, 12, 42, 103, 181, 192, 364
220, 230, 233, 238, 243–251, 357, 358
Space Shuttle Discovery, 12
acceleration, 79, 200–201, 217–223, 224,
Space weather, 2, 5, 22, 23, 25, 28, 36, 47, 94,
246
301, 337–405
density, 14, 23, 66, 117, 206, 214, 215,
astronauts, 339, 340, 344–345, 346, 352,
218, 221
364, 365, 386, 388, 389
discovery, 60–68
communication systems, 339–341, 361, 366,
exhausts, 229
367, 386, 387, 389, 390
flux, 65, 66, 102, 295
electric power grids, 341, 361–362
helium abundance, 201, 246 endanger humans, 339, 364, 366, 386, 389
high speed, 2, 47, 88, 187, 189, 200, 206, high altitude aircraft crews, 371, 374
209, 216, 218, 223, 226, 250, 251, 367 radio communications, 339–340, 366,
ingredients, 231–236 386–387, 389
outflow velocity, 189, 250 radio navigation systems, 366–367
parameters, 67, 103, 202, 247, 396 Spallation, 271, 272, 273
protons, 28, 95 reaction, 273
slow speed, 47, 201, 203, 204, 221, 247, 396 Spartan, 59, 103, 201, 220
source regions, 205–213 Spatial asymmetry, solar wind, 204, 209
speeds, 13, 14, 15, 101, 203, 211, 212, 218, Spectra, dynamic, 278–279
219, 233, 235, 244, 247, 248, 250, 349, Spectroheliograph, 56, 90, 98, 119, 120
361, 393 Spectrohelioscope, 392
variation, 211 Spectrometer, 179
velocities, 13, 87, 96, 204, 345 HXRBS (Hard X-ray Burst Spectrometer),
Solar X-rays, 83, 85, 261, 390 331
Solid-body rotation, 132 Speed
Solwind, 288 coronal mass ejection, 293, 294
Solwind coronagraph, 296, 329, 351, 398, 399 solar wind, 206–214
SOT (Hinode), 38, 39, 41–43, 76, 166, 195, sound, 123, 129–130, 131,
226, 251 155, 165
Sound speed, 67, 112, 124, 125, 126, 129, Speed of coronal mass ejections, 293
130–131, 138–139, 141, 151, 156, 158, Speed of sound, 123, 129, 130, 131, 155, 165
165, 294, 308, 309 Spherical harmonic degree, 125
552 Subject Index

Spicules, 1, 2, 33, 49, 166–167, 170, 185, helmet, 58, 206, 208, 212, 219, 305
188, 195 stalks, 210
Spikes, microwave, 328 Streams
Spiral, Parker, 229 high speed, 66, 87, 102, 204, 246
Spiral shape, 13, 62, 81, 82, 96, 101, 102, 229, wind, 102, 245, 394
242, 245, 393, 395 Sub-Parker spirals, 230
interplanetary magnetic field, 81 Subsurface weather, 141
Spörer Minimum, 375 Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, 113–114, 150,
Sputnik, 64, 101 157, 158
S-shape, 8, 332, 358 Sudden depletions, 327
S-shaped sigmoids, 40, 41 Sudden ionosphere disturbances, 99, 101, 324,
Stagnation point, 237 325, 392, 393
Stalks, 3, 47, 58, 78, 208, 210, 211, 218, SUMER (SOHO), 26, 27, 130, 170, 179, 187,
304, 305 215, 216, 217, 232, 250, 297, 334, 403
streamer, 210 Sun
Standing acoustic waves, 123 absolute luminosity, 105
Stars activity, 7, 211
accretion of interstellar matter, 244 age, 107
brightness, 400 atmosphere, 4, 25, 35, 281
magnetic activity, 400 brightening, 27
solar type, 376, 401 central temperature, 105, 106, 109, 112, 116
increasing brightness, 401 chemical ingredients, 53, 107
magnetic activity, 401 chromosphere, 116
Sun like, 128, 375, 376, 400 corona, 66, 84, 161, 171, 188, 206, 207, 402
Static isothermal corona, 198 density, 107
Steady heating, 173 distance, 107, 109
Stefan Boltzmann law, 106 Earth climate, 369–386
STEREO, 6, 7, 44, 251, 288, 336, 405 effective temperature, 105–106
STEREO A, 44, 229, 231, 256, 278, 288, 296, energetic charged particles, 65, 68, 70
302, 336, 355, 405 escape velocity, 62–64, 293
STEREO B, 44 faint brightness, 395
STEREO instruments, 45 faint young Sun paradox, 385, 390, 397
STEREO principal investigators, 46 giant star, 67, 106, 198, 386, 391
STEREO scientific objectives, 44 growing luminosity, 385, 390
STFC, 37, 39, 41, 42, 315 growing size, 310
Storms low luminosity, 376
geomagnetic, 47, 52, 234, 296, 340, 344, luminosity, 376, 385
355, 362, 366–367 mass, 63, 66, 67, 105, 106, 116, 197
27 day interval, 234, 392 mean distance, 107, 109
non-recurrent 99, 244, 338, 339, 361, 389, polar regions, 12, 82, 169, 211, 224–225,
392, 400 229, 248, 400
recurrent, 234, 362, 389, 392 pressure, 107
sudden commencement, 339 principal chemical constituents, 107
Strands, 31, 40, 49, 144, 146, 163, 175, 176, radiation, 108
183, 194, 196, 254, 284, 315, 316 radio emission, 59, 190, 276
Stratosphere, 368, 373–374, 383, 399, 402 radius, 107, 109
Streamers, 47, 57, 58, 77–78, 164, 185, 186, slow growth in luminous intensity, 385, 390
194, 200, 201, 205, 206, 208, 210–212, solar constant, 27, 107
218, 219, 221, 241, 247, 249, 250, 292, temperature, 200
304 ultraviolet radiation, 243
belt, 78, 203, 208 variability, 337, 373
coronal, 3, 47, 57, 77, 164, 185, 186, 194, variable atmospheric carbon, 14, 377
200, 201, 206, 208, 210, 211, 218, 221, variable brightness, 110
241, 247, 249, 250, 292, 304 volume, 107
Subject Index 553

Sun–climate, 342, 369–386 SWAVES (STEREO), 6, 45, 46

Sungrazers, 292 SWE (Wind), 18, 19
Sunlight arriving at Earth Sweet-Parker reconnection, 304, 326
distribution, 399 SWEPAM (ACE), 31
intensity, 399 SWICS (ACE or Ulysses), 15, 16, 18, 29, 31,
Sun like stars, 128, 375, 376, 400 203, 204, 234, 235, 243, 250
brightness variations, 376, 401 SWIMS (ACE), 31
Sunquake, 298–299 Swirling flows, 23, 152, 319, 323, 387
Sun’s fate, 387 beneath active regions, 143–144
Sunspot cycle, 89, 141, 148, 172 SWOOPS (Ulysses), 15, 16, 209, 211,
global surface temperatures, 374, 402 248, 250
Sunspot minimum, prolonged, 396 SXT (Yohkoh), 8–10, 39, 43, 163, 171, 176,
Sunspots, 1, 2, 7, 42, 57, 73, 75–77, 78, 177–178, 189, 192, 193, 209, 210, 215,
142–149, 171, 372, 375 248, 268, 285, 299, 305, 306, 307, 311,
bipolar pairs, 99, 147, 324 315, 323, 330, 331, 332, 336
blocking, 371 Synchrotron radiation, 262, 280, 281, 282, 325
cycle, 52, 75, 78, 85, 89, 97, 137, 141, 148, System, solar, 1, 3, 34, 44, 52, 60, 62, 68,
172, 324, 342, 370, 375, 391, 392, 70, 71, 81, 89, 105, 200, 231, 235,
399, 400 236–240, 248, 250, 253, 320, 363, 399
downflows, 23, 138–139, 142, 156, 194,
216, 228, 312 Tachocline, 128, 133, 149, 152
internal structure, 142 Tails, comet ion, 101
irradiance decrease, 396 Tau neutrinos, 112
irradiance increase, 398 Tearing mode instability, 305, 309, 326
magnetic fields, 392 Telescope, Soft X-ray (SXT), 8, 171
maximum, 13, 75, 77, 79, 86, 212 Temperature
minimum, 13, 75, 76, 77, 146, 148, 206, corona, 165
374, 396 coronal hole, 186
number of, 2, 5, 7, 13, 51, 75, 76, 78, 85, 89, coronal streamer, 186
91, 94, 97, 98, 100, 147, 148, 244, 325, kinetic, 186
338, 372, 374, 391, 393, 394 solar wind, 28, 170
pairs, 146, 147, 148 Temperature
polarity, 74 in coronal holes, 187
structure, 155 differences of fast and slow streams,
11year cycle, 9, 46, 75, 77, 80, 81, 94, 96, 139, 140
103, 141, 143, 147, 148, 151, 171, 172, fast/slow wind, 201, 202
189, 203, 206, 207, 255, 293, 322, 369, of the Sun’s corona, 188
372, 374, 400 variations, global, 374
Superbubble, 71 Terminal velocity, 217, 218, 249
Supergranular Termination shock, 237–238, 243, 251, 312
convection cells, 191, 215, 247 Terrestrial clouds, 373
convective motions, 148, 156 Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes, 275–276
diffusion, 148, 212, 228 Tether-cutting model, 311, 323, 334
superrotation, 122 Tether-cutting reconnection, 320
Supergranulation, 119–122, 137, 139, 148, TGRS (Wind), 18, 19
150, 153, 154 Thermal bremsstrahlung, 262–264, 269
Supergranules, 120–122, 165, 195 Thermal energy, 180
Super-Kamiokande, 112–114, 158 Thermal equilibrium, 186, 190, 221, 222, 226
Supernovae, 71, 99 Thermal phase, solar flare, 279
Supersonic, 62, 66, 93, 95, 101, 118, 164, 167, Thermal radiation, 261
188, 198, 200, 217, 218, 221, 237, 238, Thermal soft X-ray bremsstrahlung, 264
243, 245, 249, 251, 300, 310, 393 Thermal velocity, 62–64
Suprathermal ions, 30, 243, 250, 353, 404 Thin coronal loops, 2, 79, 80, 162, 174,
SWAN (SOHO), 26, 27 176, 189
554 Subject Index

Thompson waves, 332 Two component (electrons and protons), solar

Three-component coronal mass ejection, 311 wind, 197, 245
3 DP (Wind), 18 Two-ribbon flares, 317, 327, 330, 333
Three-part coronal mass ejections, 289, 290 Type I bursts, 280
Time delay Type II bursts, 278, 280, 281, 327, 329, 347,
of coronal mass ejections, 295 348, 388, 403
Time-distance helioseismology, 137, 138, 139, Type III bursts, 279, 280, 322, 325, 332,
141, 142, 151, 156, 157, 158 346, 347
Tomography, 23, 137–138, 142, 144, 151, 156, decimetric, 329
157, 319 Type IV bursts, 279, 280, 289, 325
Tops of magnetic loops, acceleration, 267 Type II radio bursts, 100, 301, 325, 346,
Toroidal magnetic field, 147 348–349, 355, 388, 389, 393
Toroidal magnetic flux, 331 Type III radio bursts, 100, 230, 277, 322, 325,
Torsional oscillations, 137, 139, 151, 155, 332, 346, 347, 353, 389, 393
157, 158 Type IV radio bursts, 325, 393
Total irradiance flare, 271
Total irradiance of solar flares, 321
ULEIS (ACE), 29, 31
Total solar eclipse, 57, 59, 60, 206, 288
Ultraviolet, 163, 282
Total solar irradiance, 103, 271, 335, 336, 370,
UltraViolet Coronagraph Spectrometer, see
371, 385, 390, 398, 400
UVCS
TRACE, 6, 7, 30, 32, 33, 85, 163, 166, 173,
Ultraviolet flares, 181
174, 175, 193, 213, 253, 254, 266, 267,
285, 287, 297, 319, 332 Ultraviolet radiation, solar, 84, 235, 368
TRACE scientific objectives, 30 Ultraviolet rays, 83, 368, 373
Tracking solar storms, 355–356 Ulysses, 6, 11–16, 47, 225, 241
Transequatorial coronal loops, 181, 193 COSPIN, 15
Transition region, 1, 22, 32, 41, 43, 49, 55, 92, DUST, 15
104, 116, 163, 164, 167, 172, 173, 176, EPAC/GAS, 15
180–186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, GRB, 15
195, 196, 245, 247, 260–261 GWE, 15
Transition Region And Coronal Explorer, see HISCALE, 15
TRACE instruments, 15
Transmission lines, 339, 355, 362, 389 SCE, 15
Travel time, from Sun to Earth, 295 scientific objectives, 13
Tree rings, 375 SWICS, 15
Triggering flares, 32 SWOOPS, 15
Triggering mechanisms, 49 URAP, 10
Troposphere, 369 VHM/FGM, 10
Tunneling, 109–110, 150, 153 Ulysses home page, 16
process, 109, 153 Ulysses instruments, 15, 225
Turbulent, 19, 38–39, 64, 117, 119, 131, 193, Ulysses principal investigators, 16
198, 224, 231, 238, 245 Ulysses scientific objectives, 13
convection, 122, 135, 149, 154, 156, 161, Uniform high-speed wind, 206, 247,
182, 184, 188 396
motions, 9, 32, 116, 153, 164, 191 Unipolar areas, 244
27-day recurrent geomagnetic storms, 234 Unipolar regions, 101, 219, 242, 246
Twisted flux rope model, 333 Upflows of heated material, 176,
Twisted flux tubes, 335 189
Twisted helical fields, 351 URAP (Ulysses), 15, 16
Twisted magnetic field, 182, 319, 330 U.S. Space Command, 368–369
Twisted magnetic flux rope, 303, 332, U type bursts, 280, 325
333, 336 UVCS (SOHO), 4, 26, 27, 59, 103, 170, 186,
Twisted magnetic loops, 320 187, 210, 215, 218, 219, 221–222, 232,
Twisted sheared magnetic configurations, 320 249, 250, 289, 292, 313, 331, 335, 401
Subject Index 555

Van Allen radiation belts, 358, 359, 367 333, 334, 335, 348, 366, 367, 368, 371,
Variability of solar IRradiance and Gravity 374, 388, 389, 393, 396
Oscillations, see VIRGO Waves,
Variable gusty slow wind, 201 Alfvén, 168, 169, 187, 190
Variations in the Sun’s radiative output, 367 magnetic, 163, 167
Varying slow-speed wind, 247, 396 magnetohydrodynamic, 224
Varying solar wind, 211, 358 shock, 166, 190, 235
Vector magnetic field, 18, 31, 38, 45 sound, 112, 119, 122, 123, 129, 150
Vector magnetograph, 76 WAVES (Wind), 18, 19
Vela, 87, 96, 102, 111, 157, 246 WBS (Yohkoh), 10, 11
Velocity white-light flares, 258, 269–271, 321
coronal mass ejection, 201, 202 WBS (Yohkoh), 10
outflow, 188 Weather satellites, 367
proton, 69 Weather, space, 2, 51, 337–356
solar wind, 13, 87, 96, 204, 345 White light, 256, 295
sound, 129, 130 White light flares, 156, 269–271
terminal, 217 Wide Band Spectrometer, 10
type II bursts, 280, 282 Wien displacement law, 84
type III bursts, 280, 282 Wind, 16–19
Velocity of light, 7, 28, 34, 69, 74, 83, 84, 90, Wind instruments, 19
100, 107, 108, 109, 120, 253, 261, 264, Wind principal investigators, 19
277, 280, 325, 393, 405 Wind scientific objectives, 19
Velocity of sound waves, 150 Wind, solar, 3, 5, 29, 30, 170, 180, 187, 188,
Vertical oscillations, 122, 150 189, 191, 197, 277, 293
Very Large Array (VLA), 281, 328, 329 acceleration, fast, 218
VHM/FGM (Ulysses), 15, 16 acceleration, slow, 208, 219
VIRGO (SOHO), 26, 131, 372 composition, fast, 202
Virtual Heliospheric Observatory, 5 composition, slow, 202
Virtual observatories, 5, 409 density, fast, 202
density, slow, 202
Virtual Solar Observatory, 5–6
electron temperature, fast, 202
Virtual Space Physics Observatory, 5
electron temperature, slow, 202
Visible disk, 271
equatorial, slow speed, 205
VLA, see Very Large Array
fast, 40, 200, 202, 205, 208, 215, 217–221,
Vortical flows, 144
225, 233, 242, 245, 293
Vorticity, 144, 158, 343
helium to proton abundance, fast, 202
Vorticity flows, 343
helium to proton abundance, slow, 202
Voyager 1, 232, 237, 238, 243, 248, 251, 350,
helium temperature, fast, 202
351, 398
helium temperature, slow, 202
Voyager 2, 234, 237, 243, 251
high speed, 47, 189, 200, 206, 209, 217–221,
225, 233, 242, 293
Warning time, 344, 345, 387 proton density, fast, 202
Warning time, solar activity, 344 proton density, slow, 202
Water vapor, 378 proton flux, fast, 202
Wave-driven winds, 225 proton flux, slow, 202
Wave heating, 164–168, 186 proton speed, fast, 202
Wavelength, 3, 5, 8, 17, 24–26, 32, 33, 34–35, proton speed, slow, 202
37, 40, 43, 49, 53–57, 59–60, 72–74, proton temperature, fast, 202
83–86, 88, 90, 91, 96, 98, 100, 103, proton temperature, slow, 202
104, 116, 117, 119, 120, 125, 126, 129, slow, 200, 202, 208, 214, 217, 219, 293
131, 172–174, 177, 179, 181, 191, 196, source, fast, 202, 211
225, 247, 253–255, 257, 259, 261–266, source, slow, 202
270, 276–281, 283–286, 296, 310, 319, streams, high speed, 350
321, 322, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, temperature, fast, 202
556 Subject Index

temperature, slow, 202 hard, 253, 257, 261, 265

varying, slow speed, 200, 229 soft, 244, 261, 266, 268, 271
X-Ray Telescope (XRT)– see XRT (Hinode)
X-class flares, 255, 299 X-ray wavelengths, 83, 255
X neutral point, 305 XRT (Hinode), 6, 38, 41, 43, 315
X-point, 308, 331 X-type neutral line, 327
X-point current sheet, 307, 313
X-point neural sheet, 306 Yellow line, 55, 56, 60, 98, 214, 259
X-ray bright points, 39, 50, 85, 88–89, 96, 103, Y neutral point, 305, 326
179, 189, 191, 193, 215, 241, 246 Yohkoh, 6–11, 37, 39–40, 43, 45, 47, 85,
X-ray bright points by magnetic reconnection, 86, 88, 91, 97, 163, 171, 173, 176,
179 177–178, 181–183, 189, 192, 193, 194,
X-ray classification of solar flares, 255 208, 209, 210, 215, 248, 249, 251,
X-ray corona, 85, 86, 87, 182, 192, 194, 253, 261–270, 285, 299, 305–307, 311,
243, 299 315–316, 319, 321, 322, 323, 329, 330,
X-ray dimming, 332, 344 331, 332, 333, 335, 336, 400, 402, 408
X-ray flares, 39, 91, 152, 158, 254, 261–269, BCS, 266
302, 320, 328, 353, 397 hard X-ray imaging instruments, 322
gradual soft, 261 home page, 16
X-ray images, 171 HXT, 262
X-ray jets, 39, 89, 177, 178, 186, 189, instruments, 10
215, 226, 248, 251, 307, 308, 309, scientific objectives, 8
327 SXT, 10
X-ray long duration events, 397 WBS, 10
X-ray loops, 176, 189 Yohkoh instruments, 10
X-ray post flare arches, 329 Yohkoh legacy archive, 10
X-ray radiation, 1, 5, 8, 25, 38, 46, 47, 85, 91, Yohkoh principal investigators, 11
143, 171, 254, 260–261, 267, 269, 307, Yohkoh, scientific objective, 8
313, 321, 326, 336, 337, 343, 355, 368,
369, 371, 386, 402, 404 Zeeman effect, 72–73, 76, 95
X-rays, 83–89, 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 171, Zonal bands, 139–140, 141, 151
244, 261–268, 271, 315, 321, 322, 323, Zonal flow, 140, 141, 157
325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 334, 336, 390, Zonal flow bands, 137, 139–140, 141, 155, 157
393, 398, 403 Zonal rotation bands, 137, 141, 151, 158