Search for: All records

Abstract Full-disk measurements of the solar magnetic field by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) are often used for magnetic field extrapolations, but its limited spatial and spectral resolution can lead to significant errors. We compare HMI data with observations of NOAA 12104 by the Hinode Spectropolarimeter (SP) to derive a scaling curve for the magnetic field strength,B. The SP data in the Feilines at 630 nm were inverted with the SIR code. We find that the Milne–Eddington inversion of HMI underestimatesBand the line-of-sight flux, Φ, in all granulation surroundings by an average factor of 4.5 in plage and 9.2 in the quiet Sun in comparison to the SP. The deviation is inversely proportional to the magnetic fill factor,f, in the SP results. We derived a correction curve to match the HMIBwith the effective fluxBfin the SP data that scaled HMIBup by 1.3 on average. A comparison of non-force-free field extrapolations over a larger field of view without and with the correction revealed minor changes in connectivity and a proportional scaling of electric currents and Lorentz force (∝B∼ 1.3) and free energy (∝B² ∼ 2). Magnetic field extrapolations of HMI vector data with large areas of plage and quiet Sun will underestimate the photospheric magnetic field strength by a factor of 5–10 and the coronal magnetic flux by at least a factor of 2. An HMI inversion including a fill factor would mitigate the problem. 

Abstract Understanding the mechanisms underlying the heating of the solar atmosphere is a fundamental problem in solar physics. The lower atmosphere of the Sun (i.e., photosphere and chromosphere) is composed of weakly ionized plasma. This results in anisotropic dissipation of electric currents by Coulomb and Cowling resistivities. Joule heating due to dissipation of currents perpendicular to the magnetic field by Cowling resistivity has been demonstrated to be the main mechanism for the heating of a sunspot umbral light bridge located in NOAA AR 12002 on 2014 March 13. Here, we focus on the same target region and demonstrate the importance of further constraining our Joule heating model using observational data in addition to magnetic field, namely plasma temperature calculated from the inversion of spectroscopic data obtained from the Interferometric BI-dimensional Spectrometer instrument of the ground-based Dunn Solar Telescope. As a parameter in our analysis, temperature is demonstrated to have the highest sensitivity after magnetic field. We show that the heating of the light bridge is a highly dynamic event that necessitates utilization of 3D spatially resolved observational data for temperature rather than a 1D temperature stratification based on theoretical/semiempirical solar atmosphere models. Our improved data-constrained analysis using spatially resolved temperatures shows that the entire light bridge is heated by the proposed mechanism, and yields heating rate values that are consistent with our previous study. 

Abstract The transport of waves and turbulence beyond the photosphere is central to the coronal heating problem. Turbulence in the quiet solar corona has been modeled on the basis of the nearly incompressible magnetohydrodynamic (NI MHD) theory to describe the transport of low-frequency turbulence in open magnetic field regions. It describes the evolution of the coupled majority quasi-2D and minority slab component, driven by the magnetic carpet and advected by a subsonic, sub-Alfvénic flow from the lower corona. In this paper, we couple the NI MHD turbulence transport model with an MHD model of the solar corona to study the heating problem in a coronal loop. In a realistic benchmark coronal loop problem, we find that a loop can be heated to ∼1.5 million K by transport and dissipation of MHD turbulence described by the NI MHD model. We also find that the majority 2D component is as important as the minority slab component in the heating of the coronal loop. We compare our coupled MHD/NI MHD model results with a reduced MHD (RMHD) model. An important distinction between these models is that RMHD solves for small-scale velocity and magnetic field fluctuations and obtains the actual viscous/resistive dissipation associated with their evolution whereas NI MHD evolves scalar moments of the fluctuating velocity and magnetic fields and approximates dissipation using an MHD turbulence phenomenology. Despite the basic differences between the models, their simulation results match remarkably well, yielding almost identical heating rates inside the corona.