Multi-Instrument Solar Flare Observations II: A SC24 retrospective
From RHESSI Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
| - | Using the search capabilities outlines in a previous nugget, we can now do a retrospective analysis to see how | + | Using the search capabilities outlines in a previous nugget, we can now do a retrospective analysis to see how effective our coordinated observations - either planned or serendipitous - have been during Solar Cycle 24. We consider the first 6.5 years after SDO was launched (1 May 2010-31 Oct 2016), which encompasses the peak of Solar Cycle 24 (vertical dotted lines in Figure 1). |
[[File:solar_cycle_monthly_ssn.png|600px|thumb|center|Figure 1: Plot of Solar Cycles 23 and 24 (average monthly sunspot number) with mission durations overplotted. The two vertical dotted lines denote the 6.5 year time range considered for this study. Note that SDO/EVE MEGS-A and IRIS only overlapped for ~11 months.]] | [[File:solar_cycle_monthly_ssn.png|600px|thumb|center|Figure 1: Plot of Solar Cycles 23 and 24 (average monthly sunspot number) with mission durations overplotted. The two vertical dotted lines denote the 6.5 year time range considered for this study. Note that SDO/EVE MEGS-A and IRIS only overlapped for ~11 months.]] | ||
==Statistics== | ==Statistics== | ||
| + | |||
| + | First we shall take a look at how instrument performed individually. Table 1 shows the breakdown of flares (by class) | ||
<div style="text-align: center;"> | <div style="text-align: center;"> | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|- | |- | ||
| - | || Instrument || C-class || M-class || X-class || Total || Success Rate | + | || Instrument/Database || C-class || M-class || X-class || Total || Success Rate |
|- | |- | ||
| + | | SSW Latest Events || 6,339 || 581 || 33 || 6,953 || N/A | ||
| + | |- - | ||
| RHESSI || 3,673 || 370 || 23 || 4,066 || 58% | | RHESSI || 3,673 || 370 || 23 || 4,066 || 58% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 47: | Line 51: | ||
| 6 instruments || 37 || 0.5% | | 6 instruments || 37 || 0.5% | ||
|- | |- | ||
| - | | 7 instruments || 3 (934) || 0.3% | + | | All 7 instruments || 3 (934) || 0.3% |
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 10:02, 7 March 2017
Contents |
Introduction
Using the search capabilities outlines in a previous nugget, we can now do a retrospective analysis to see how effective our coordinated observations - either planned or serendipitous - have been during Solar Cycle 24. We consider the first 6.5 years after SDO was launched (1 May 2010-31 Oct 2016), which encompasses the peak of Solar Cycle 24 (vertical dotted lines in Figure 1).
Statistics
First we shall take a look at how instrument performed individually. Table 1 shows the breakdown of flares (by class)
| Instrument/Database | C-class | M-class | X-class | Total | Success Rate |
| SSW Latest Events | 6,339 | 581 | 33 | 6,953 | N/A |
| RHESSI | 3,673 | 370 | 23 | 4,066 | 58% |
| SDO/EVE MEGS-A | 3,825 | 343 | 19 | 4,187 | 100% |
| SDO/EVE MEGS-B | 787 | 97 | 8 | 892 | 12% |
| Hinode/EIS | 496 | 54 | 6 | 556 | 8% |
| Hinode/SOT | 1,167 | 177 | 15 | 1,359 | 20% |
| Hinode/XRT | 3,793 | 357 | 26 | 4,122 | 59% |
| IRIS | 523 (3,349) | 76 (335) | 5 (16) | 604 (3,700) | 16% |
| Degree | Number of flares observed | % of potentially observable flares |
| No instrument | 127 | 1.8% |
| Only 1 instrument | 1,432 | 20.6% |
| 2 instruments | 2,371 | 34.1% |
| 3 instruments | 2,035 | 29.2 |
| 4 instruments | 720 | 10.3% |
| 5 instruments | 228 | 3.3% |
| 6 instruments | 37 | 0.5% |
| All 7 instruments | 3 (934) | 0.3% |
UpSetR plots
Conclusions
Biographical Note
Ryan Milligan is currently an Ernest Rutherford Fellow at the University of Glasgow.
