Paper detail

Magnetic helicity and energy of emerging solar active regions and their erruptivity

Aims. We investigate the role of the accumulation of both magnetic helicity and magnetic energy in the generation of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) from emerging solar active regions (ARs). Methods. Using vector magnetic field data obtained by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager on board the Solar Dynamics Observatory, we calculate the magnetic helicity and magnetic energy injection rates as well as the resulting accumulated budgets in 52 emerging ARs from the start time of magnetic flux emergence until they reach heliographic longitude of 45$^{\circ}$ West (W45). Results. Seven of the ARs produced CMEs while 45 did not. In a statistical sense, the eruptive ARs accumulate larger budgets of both magnetic helicity and energy than the noneruptive ones over intervals that start from flux emergence start time and end (i) at the end of flux emergence phase, and (ii) when the AR produces its first CME or crosses W45, whichever happens first. We found magnetic helicity and energy thresholds of $9 \times 10^{41}$ Mx$^2$ and $2 \times 10^{32}$ erg, respectively, which, if crossed, ARs are likely to erupt. The segregation, in terms of accumulated magnetic helicity and energy budgets, of the eruptive ARs from the noneruptive ones is violated in one case when an AR erupts early in its emergence phase and in six cases with noneruptive ARs exhibiting large magnetic helicity and energy budgets. Decay index calculations may indicate that these ARs did not erupt because the overlying magnetic field provided stronger or more extended confinement than in eruptive ARs. Conclusions. Our results indicate that emerging ARs tend to produce CMEs when they accumulate significant budgets of both magnetic helicity and energy. Any study of their eruptive potential should place magnetic helicity on equal footing with magnetic energy.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.