Multi-Instrument Solar Flare Observations II: A SC24 retrospective
From RHESSI Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<div style="text-align: center;"> | <div style="text-align: center;"> | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
+ | |+ Table 1 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|| Instrument/Database || C-class || M-class || X-class || Total || Success Rate | || Instrument/Database || C-class || M-class || X-class || Total || Success Rate |
Revision as of 10:08, 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.