JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 105, NO.

A10, PAGES 23,153-23,165, OCTOBER 1, 2000

A review on the genesis coronalmassejections of

T. G. Forbes
Institutefor the Studyof Earth,Oceans, andSpace,Universityof New Hampshire, Durham

Abstract. This paperprovidesa shortreview of someof the basicconcepts relatedto the origin of coronalmassejections (CMEs). The variousideaswhichhavebeenput forwardto explain the initiation of CMEs are categorized termsof whetherthey are force-freeor non-force-free in andideal or nonideal. A few representative modelsof eachcategory examinedto illustrate are the principles involved. At the present time thereis no modelwhichis sufficientlydeveloped to aid forecasters their effortsto predictCMEs, but giventhe currentpaceof research, situain this tion couldimprovedramatically the nearfuture. in
observed Hotimages in [Zirin, 1988]. These brightenings Hot in thechromosphere known flareribbons Figure and are as (see lc),

1. Introduction

Figure 1 illustrates threedifferenttypesof large-scale eruptive phenomena occurringin the solar atmosphere, specificallycoronal mass ejections (CMEs), prominenceeruptions,and large flares. They are all closelyrelatedand may, in fact, be different manifestations a singlephysicalprocess.Let us first consider of
the CME.

theytypically occur pairs, in although more complex formations

are not uncommon.More recently,the term "flares"hasbeen

used describe rapid to the onset X-rayandUV emissions the of in corona.The softer X-ray andUV emissions appear theform in

ofloops Figure with (see ld) temperatures from to3 ranging 105
x 107 K and with the UV loopsnested belowthe X-ray ones.

Here we will use the term "CME" to indicate the entire processthat leadsto the ejectionof massand magneticflux into interplanetary space. Traditionally,observers havedefineda CME as the outwardtravelingbright arc seenin coronagraphs (Figure l a) and the dark cavity (also Figure l a), prominencematerial (Figure lb), and X-ray loops (Figure ld) that appearbehindthis arc are not considered the CME even thoughthey are associas atedwith it. The bright arc is thoughtto resultfrom the pileupof the helmet streamerwhich typically overliesthe eruptingregion [Hundhausen,1988; Low, 1996], but most of the models we discuss here do not include a helmet streamer. Since there is no

CoolHotloops, correspondingtemperature104 appear toa of K,

underneath UV loops,and it is generallyaccepted the that they are formedfrom the hot loopsby a thermalcondensation process [Parker, 1953; Cox, 1972]. The outermost edgeof the hot X-ray loops maps to the outer edge of the ribbons [Schmiederet al., 1996], while the innermost edgeof the cool Hotloopsmapsto the inner edge of the ribbons [Rust and Bar, 1973]. During the courseof the flare the separation betweenthe ribbonsincreases, andboth hot andcool loopsappearto grow largerwith time. Figure 2 showsthe temporalbehaviorat variouswavelengths for a very large flare which occurredon August 28, 1966. This event had intense Hot, X-ray, and radio emissions,and it produced a high-speedshock wave which manifesteditself in the chromosphere a "Morton wave." The Morton wave is thought as to be the chromospheric footprintof a fast mode MHD shockin the corona,and it is caused a slightdisturbance the chromoby of sphere at the location where the fast mode wave intersectsthe
solar surface [Dodson and Hedeman, 1968; Zirin and Lacknet, 1969; Uchida, 1970, 1974]. The Hot emissionin Figure 2a comesfrom the two chromosphericribbons whose appearance the classicalsignatureof is flare onset. The Hot emission becomes quite intense within 5 min after onsetbut takesa long time to decay. Even after 6 hours,it still exceeds the preflare emission by almost a factor of 2. During the rapid rise phaseof the Hot emissionthe flare ribbons

feature in these models which can be associated with the bright arc, they are not modelsof CMEs according the standard to definition of many observers.However,for a generaltheoretical discussionwe need to have a term which refers not just to an isolated featureseenby a particularinstrument to the underlying but physical reality of the entire phenomenon. Already many researchers the term CME in just this way. Even thoughthis use creates certaindegreeof confusion, is naturalfor the definia it tion of a phenomenon evolve from one that is basedpurely on to observational aspects one that is basedon an understanding to of the physicalphenomenon itself. CMEs constitutelarge-scaleejectionsof massand magnetic flux from the lower corona into the interplanetary medium. Measurements from spacecraft and coronagraphs showthat a typ-

icalCMEinjects roughly Maxwells magnetic and move 1023 of flux apart a rateof more at than100km s butassoon the -1, as 1016 of plasma interplanetary [Gosling, g into space 1990; Webb peakis reached, they quicklyslowto a speed the orderof 4 km of et al., 1994]. During the quiet phaseof the solarcycle thereare s Anevent this -1. of type, lasting many for hours, known a is as
approximatelytwo CMEs per week, but during the active phase the rate can exceedone per day. Although most CMEs are not associatedwith large flares, if a large flare does occur, it is inevitably associated with a CME.
eningsof the chromosphere over the courseof a few minutesas
Copyright 2000 by the American Geophysical Union
Papernumber2000JA000005.
0148- 0227/00/2000JA000005509.00

"Long Duration Event" or LDE, for short. To the extent that it canbe determined with imperfectobservations, LDEs are always
associated with a CME.

Historically, flareshavebeendefined thelocalized as bright-

The soft X rays, which are thermalin origin, are produced by

thehot> 107K flareloops whose footpoints totheHotribmap

bons. Both the Hot ribbonsand the soft X-ray loops persistfor many hours, sometimesas long as 2 days after a really large

event [qvestka, 1976].HardX rays 20 keV)appear dur(> only

ing the impulsive phasewhen the Hot and the soft X-ray emissions are rapidly increasingin intensity. The hard X rays are
23,153

23,154

FORBES: CORONAL

MASS EJECTIONS REVIEW

(a)

(d)

Figure Solar 1. eruptive phenomena:white coronagraph ofa coronal ejection (a) light image mass (CME) containinganerupted prominence. white The circular inthe line upper right-hand indicates location the comer the of Sun's surface behind occulting of theinstrument the disk (August 1980, 18, SMMarchive, High-Altitude Observatory). (b)Hot image the of large prominence eruption, known "granddaddy" 4, 1946, as (June High-Altitude Observatory). (c)Hot ribbons produceda flare by associated a CME(July 1973, Bear with 29, Big Solar Observatory).Cusp(d) shaped loop X-ray system,seen the as on limb the after eruptive (March, 1999, of Sun an event 8 Yohkoh archive, Institute Space Astronautical of and Science). posteruption systems commonthe Such loop are to three phenomena
of CMEs,erupting prominences, largeflares. and

tion [Harveyand Recely,1984]. The eruption a largequiesof centprominence does usually not produce significant hardX-ray probably because occurs a regionwhere it in terpretation [vestka Simon, and 1969].During impulsive or y-ray emissions, the phase, ?'rays neutrons appear, and also which indicates pres- the field is relativelyweak (< 10 G). the High-resolution imagesobtained the soft X-ray telescope by ence high-energy of protons energies excess 100MeV. with in of on Yohkoh in 1992 have madeit clear that all CMEs and promiMore thanhalf of all CMEs are associated the eruption with of eruptions create faint X-ray loopswhichare sometimes prominences. Large quiescent prominences exist which outside nence to arches" qvestka 1997].These [e.g., etal., of activeregions canbe quite spectacular whenthey erupt,as referred as"giant giantarches the CME counterparts theflareloops are of occurshownin Figure lb, and they nearly alwayscreatea CME. flares, theyoftenexhibit pattern mobut a of However,the muchsmaller prominences existwithinactive ringin two-ribbon that of regions alsoerupt, can usually association flares, it is tion different from thatof the flare loops. Instead continually in with but with time,the arches moveupward a ratewhichreat not knownhow well they correlate with CMEs. In manycases slowing or with time these smallprominences difficultto identify,andtheirfateis mainsnearlyconstant whichmay evenincrease are

generally thought be produced nonthermal to by electrons, and theyareaccompanied radioemissions by which support inthis

often difficult to determine.

[qvestka, 1996]. However, difference be explained this can by

with height[Lin and As observations haveimproved, hasbecome it increasingly the variationof the coronalAlfv6n speed clearthaterupting prominences outside active regions havemany Forbes, 2000]. The interrelationship between various the features whichone features typical largeflares.Likelargeflares, of erupting promiwith CMEs is shownin Figure3. It should kept be nences produce loops ribbons and which moveapart time,but canassociate in unlike largeflares, ribbons usually faintto beseen the are too in in mind that these features are not necessarilypresentin all nor Ha. However, ribbons often seen theHe 10830 CMEs. Not all CMEs containa prominence, do all CMEs the can be in A havedetectable chromospheric ribbons shock and waves. line, whichis a moresensitive indicator chromospheric of excita-

FORBES' CORONAL

MASS EJECTIONS REVIEW

23,155

ia) 0.6 .............

0.4
0.2

Hot-

photosphere isweakly ionized, having than --4 less 10 charged carriers per neutral particle, comparedto the fully ionized corona. These modelsinvoke the sameprocess that occursin laboratory MHD generators when a weakly ionized plasmaflows acrossa stationarymagneticfield. However, Melrose and McClymont [ 1987] have shownthat the conceptof a photospheric dynamoof this type is grosslyinconsistent with the observedpropertiesof the photosphere and the way it is coupledto the regionsabove
and below it.

0.0

,--,

evelnt, , level

lO 4
103

ib)I I I I I I Soft Rays I I I , I X I I I (0.5-3 keV)

A related flux injection model has been proposedby Chen [1989] which impulsively injects magneticflux and power from
the convection zone into the corona at CME onset. This model

o 102 101 ' i , i i i i , i i , i I I I I , i , i

m2

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

UT

Figure 2. Time evolutionof the radiation produced a flare on by August28, 1966, which was associated with both a two-ribbon flare and a prominence eruption: (a) Hot ribbon intensity [Dodsonand Hedeman, 1968], (b) thermal,soft X-ray emission [Zirin and Lackner, 1969], and (c) nonthermal, hard X-ray emission[Arnoldyet al., 1968].

requiresa rapid increasein the magneticenergyof the corona during the eruption,rather than a decrease in the storagemodas els, and it does not addressthe reasonwhy the convectionzone should suddenlyinject flux into the corona. An analysisby McClymontand Fisher [ 1989] finds that the flux injectionmodel requires large-scalehorizontal motions that are not consistent with thosethat are observed. Although the photosphere only is weakly ionized, it is still an excellent conductor,and field lines there are frozen to the plasma. Thus any sudden injectionof flux from the convection zone to the corona must necessarilymove the photospheric plasma. Modelsbasedon the storage magnetic of energyprior to CME onsetalsotransferenergyfrom the convective zoneto the corona, but this processoccursover a long time period of the order of hoursto days prior to the CME. The photospheric motionsare directlyobserved, while the buildupof currentwhich resultsfrom them can be inferred from vector magnetograms and changes in field-alignedplasmastructures (e.g., filamentsandfibrils). How muchenergyis required drivea CME canbe discerned to from Table 1, which showsthe estimated energyoutputof a very fast CME of moderatelylarge size (valuesare from Canfieldet

2. Energetics
When CMEs were first clearly identified by Skylab in 1973, many researchers assumed that they were caused the outward by expansionof hot plasmaproducedby a large flare. We now
know that this is not the case, for several reasons. First, less than

20% of all CMEs are associated with largeflares[Gosling,1993]. Second, CMEs that are associatedwith flares often appear to start before the onsetof the flare [Wagner et al., 1981; Simnett and Harrison, 1985]. Finally, the thermalpressure produced a by flare is too small to blow open the strongmagneticfield of the
corona.

At the present time, the mostgenerallyaccepted explanation for the causeof CMEs is that they are produced a lossof staby bility or equilibrium of the coronal magneticfield [cf. Low, 1996]. The continual emergence new flux from the convection of zone and the shuffling of the footpointsof closedcoronalfield lines causestresses build up in the coronalfield. Eventually, to thesestresses exceeda thresholdbeyondwhich a stableequilibrium cannotbe maintained,and the field erupts. The eruption releases magneticenergystoredin the fields associated the with
coronal currents, so models based on this mechanism can be

thoughtof as "storage models."

However, from time to time, various researchershave consid-

ered the possibilitythat the energy sourcewhich drives CMEs and flares lies within or below the photosphere.Senand White [1972], Heyvaerts[1974], Hdnoux[1986], and Kan et al. [1983] have proposed electricdynamomodelsbasedon the fact that the

Figure 3. Schematic diagramshowingthe relationship between variousfeaturesassociated with a CME. The shadedregion labeled "plasma pileup" refers to the outer circular arc seen in coronagraphs.

23,156

FORBES: CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS REVIEW

Table 2. Estimates Coronal of Energy Sources
EnergyDensity

Table1. Energy Requirements a Moderately for Large CME

Parameter Value

Kineticenergy (CME, prominence, shock) and

Heating andradiation Work doneagainstgravity
Volume involved

1032 ergs 1032 ergs 1031 ergs

1030cm3

Form Energy of

Observed Average Values

ergs -3 crn

Kinetic ((mpnV2)/2) 109 -3, = 1km n= cm V s -1

Thermal (nkT) T = 106 K

10 -5
0.1

Gravitational (mpngh)
Magnetic (B2/8r)

h = 105 km
B = 100 G

0.5
400

Energy density

100 crn ergs -3

a sheet emerging model flares flux for shown al. [1980] Webb al. [1980]).Bydividing total and et the energy lizingcurrent isthe in Figure Asnew emerges thephotosphere, 4b. flux from it requirementthevolume thecorona by of which erupts, can we a sheet it presses as against structures are field that deduce the source that musthavean energy density theorder forms current of present. the As currentthe in sheet grows,may it then of 100 cm Now uscompare value the ergs -3. let this with kinetic, already a for of thermal, gravitational, magnetic and energy densities the reach criticalthreshold the onset a micro-instability. in
corona as shown in Table 2. The kinetic energy density

Although model this releases magnetic energy,does eject it not any ormagnetic so cannot mass flux, it explain orpromiCMEs (mpnV2/2, isthe rest is-10 ergs-3 nence where mp protonmass) -5 cm eruptions,it may applicable compact but be tosmall flares assumingthe that coronal nis-109 -3and the density cm that vewith assume the that locity isofthe V order 1 kms (the of -1 convective of notassociated CMEs. MostCME models velocity configuration force-free such thesheared is a field as arstructures photosphere). thermal in the The energy density (nkT, initial shown Figure Various in 4a. proposalshow afield for such where is Boltzmann's k constant)-0.1 ergs -3 since is cm the cade erupt bediscussed will in section 4. temperature T is-106K, and gravitational density might the energy Animportant constraintCMEmodelstheobservation for is (mpngh,gis solar gravity x104 s thatthenormal wherethe surface of 2.47 cm -2) component photospheric of the magnetic field is of theorder 0.5ergs -3, assuming theaverage of cm that mass remains virtually unchanged the during course the of event. The height is -1010cm. Finally, magnetic h the energy density
(B2/8r) -400ergs -3 foranaverage strength100 is cm field of G, aswould appropriate aneruption be for involving active an region.Thus only magnetic the energy density exceeds rethe slow movements of sunspots other and magnetic featuresthe in

photosphere are unaffected occurrence CME bythe ofthe be-

cause plasmathe the in photosphere 109 isalmost times denser

mous difference density in means it isvery that difficult disfor turbances thetenuous in corona have to much effect theexon

the in corona flares where originate. enorThis quired energy density100 cm For of ergs -3. reasonswilldis- than plasmathe we
cuss shortly allofthe not magnetic energy density available is to drive eruption, the an but extraction aquarter it isstill ofonly of ample enoughaccount even most to for the energetic ofCMEs. Because magnetic the energy density greatly exceeds the thermal gravitational density thecorona, curand energy in the rents associated themagnetic with energy stored must there either

tremely massive plasma thephotospheric Field of layer. lines mapping thecorona thephotosphere tobe from to aresaid "inertially line-tied," means the which that footpoints ofcoronal
fieldlines essentially are stationary thetimescale the over of

Therefore component coronal due the ofthe field to be force-free, illustrated Figure4a, or confined current eruption. as in to photospheric field sources remains invariant aneruption during sheets, illustrated Figure as in 4b. In other words, energy the not to release. cannot stored a distributed, be as non-force-free current theab- anddoes contribute theenergy in
sence any of significant pressure gas orgravitational which force
could counterbalance a magneticx B force.Thus j storage modelsforflares CMEsaregenerally and divided those into based on
force-free currents those and based current on sheets, although as

Although coronal the magnetic cannot directly field be ob-

served thecorona, is possible estimate strength in it to its and

form taking by advantage fact plasma ofthe that structures inthe

corona chromosphere and are strongly influencedthe by magnetic

we will discuss section it is possible small in 4.4, that deviations

field. By using magnetogram surface at the a of the field photosphere and assumingcontours that ofconstant and density from perfectly a force-free might a rolein triggering state play temperature lie along coronal lines, ispossibleconfield it to some eruptions.well-known A example a storage utiof model
reconnection

jl

x whenj>Jcritic

/ << 1 - j x B -- 0 (a)

/-- 1only inside sheet thin (b)

Figure Examples two ofcoronal 4. ofthe types configurations possible low-pressure which are inthe environment
ofthe corona: aforce-free with parallel and afield (a) field a current (b) containing current athin sheet.

FORBES:CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS REVIEW

23,157

1.0 ...
. .V..--' ''.':'-:'..i ;': .....:::: ':'::'-"' ':.,i:':: ,er :'. .i"
0.5

I ' ';,' ' I

. .... %-. )'?:':-. ?

,-....... )::>'c::

:: :_ -.... ;:.: : .,. .. .... '

. -? ?' . .'?.,..::,.. ..

0.0':',.........'"' f /';,.: ."'(""::?v"11.;. .' .... ...... [' .,: '":'"'"": "ji'"'"-'" '-':" ......................
.':' [ ," ..':",-"', '...' . ::' :: :.' .,g '::,',:." ,:...:.
x,\.. n..:.,.;i .-._..;,. ;s ,,.., :. --.: :, .,,...-.
-1.0

[!/

:".."'

prominences

-o.s ,.:...I:.:..:. ......,":"::I.. ,,

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. (a) Hotimageof prominences observed theOttawaRiverSolarObservatory July22, 1979,and(b) a by on linear force-freemodelof the field obtained extrapolating normalcomponent the photospheric by the of magnetic
field [from Mackay etal., 1997].

is thoughtto be located at the base of the convectionzone (see Glatzmaier[ 1985] for references).Althoughmanyaspects the of there is a consensus totalmagnetic energy(including bothcoronal andphotospheric dynamo region remain poorly understood, that sources)to the potential magneticenergy (the photospheric amongresearchers it leadsto the formationof largemagnetic sources alone) is -1.3 [Mackay and Longbottom, privatecom- flux ropesthat rise to the surfaceof the Sun because magnetic of munication]. buoyancy[Browningand Priest, 1986; Low, 1996]. As the flux Duringa CME, magnetic field linesmapping fromtheejected ropesrise,they expandand are disrupted the turbulent by flow in plasmato the photosphere stretched are outwardto form an ex- which they are imbedded, so that much of the magnetic field

struct force-free models thefield asshown Figure5. Using of in thismethod,Mackay etal. [ 1997] havefoundthat the ratioof the

tended, open-field structure. Thisopening thefieldcreates of an apparent paradox,sincethe stretching the field linesimplies of that the magneticenergyof the system increasing, is whereas storage modelsrequireit to decrease [Sturrock etal., 1984]. Aly [1991] andSturrock [1991]haveestablished for a simply that connected field, thefully opened field configuration always a has highermagnetic energythanthe corresponding force-free field. Aly hasalsoshown that for a simplyconnected magnetic field the ratio of the total magnetic energy the potential to magnetic energyis necessarily lessthan 2. For example,the maximum ratio for a Sun-centered dipoleis 1.66 [Low and Smith,1993]. The Aly-Sturrock constraint worriedmanyproponents has of storage modelsbecause seems imply that suchmodels it to are energetically impossible.However,thereare several possible waysaround constraint. the First,themagnetic field maynotbe simplyconnected maycontain and knotted field lines. Second, it
may containfield linesthatare completely disconnected from the surface.Third, anidealMHD eruption still extend can field lines aslongasit doesnot openthemall the way to infinity. Fourth,

which reaches the surface is contained in fine-scale structures

concentrated within the boundary layersbetweensupergranual convectioncells. (The boundarylayers are often referredto as the "network.") Thesecellshavea characteristic lengthof 3 x

104 which bedue thefact helium km, may to that becomes fully
ionizedat a depthbelow the photosphere whichis equalto this length. (Similarly,it hasbeenproposed theionization hythat of drogenandthe singleionizationof heliumgive riseto the smaller

characteristic scales length associated thegranulation with and

themeso-granulation, respectively [Priest, i982].) It is now

possible with the adventof helioseismology detectthe largerto scalestructures beforetheyreachthe photosphere [Kosovichev et

al., 2000]. Oncethe interiorfield emerges through surface the

into the corona,it is no longerbuoyant,so it remainstransfixed between corona the andtheconvection zonefor a periodof days to weeksbeforedisappearing. Large-scale structures disappear by breakingup into increasinglysmallerscalestructures which eventuallybecometoo small to see with existingtelescopes.
Thus the eventual fate of the surface field remains unknown.

Exactly what the preeruptive magneticfield structures in are anidealMHD eruption bepossible it onlyopens portion may if a of theclosed field lines. Fifth,smalldeviations froma perfectly the coronaand how they get that way is a subjectof activereforce-free initial state mightmakea difference.Finally,a non- search [e.g.,Krall etal., 1998;Fan etal., 1999]. Fromplasma idealprocess, specifically magnetic reconnection, mightbe im- structures observedat variouswavelengths, appears it that the portant. fieldisin theformof a sheared arcade half-emerged rope. or flux The two possibilities essentially are indistinguishable unless the

3. Origin of the Fields and Currents

The magneticfields observed the photosphere quite at are complex,and the areasthat eventuallygenerateCMEs do not necessarily include activeregions containing sunspots strong and magnetic fields. The coronalfield that eruptsoutwardduringa CME hasits originin the Sun'smagnetic dynamo region, which

axisof the flux roperisesabovethe surface.From measurements of the magnetic field andflowsin prominences, is inferredthat it the amount twistin thefield is notlarge,sothatif the structure of

is a flux rope, number tumswithinit is something the of between

one and two [Leroy etal., 1983; Gaizauskas,1979;Antiochoset

al., 1994]. Low [1993] andGibson Low [2000]haveargued and

persuasively that the region of strongmagneticfield within the

23,158

FORBES' CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS REVIEW

flux rope shouldbe identified with the dark cavity that is typically observedboth before and after the onsetof a CME (see Figures 1a and 3). Perhaps mostimportantquantityto consider any storthe for age model is the coronal currentdensityin the preeruptiveconfiguration. The distribution of the current density determines how muchenergyis storedandwhetheror not the field is stable. Unfortunately,because currentdensityis the derivativeof the the magnetic field, it is even more difficult to measureaccurately
than the field itself.

As for the origin of the currentdensity,there are essentially two possibilities:One is that it is created the observed by surface flows which stress field. The other is that the currentdensity the is transported alongwith the field asit emerges from the convection zone [Low, 1996]. It is not alwayseasyto distinguish between thesetwo processes sincethe motion of the photospheric footpoints the field line may be part of the emergence of process. (a) (b) Many storagemodelsassume that the coronais initially currenthavingthe free and that the buildup of magneticenergyis entirely due to Figure 6. Two force-freemagneticconfigurations same magnetic boundary condition. The field withinthethick (a) stressing the coronal field by the observed of photospheric moand but it tions. Thesemotions of the orderof 1 km s or less,and line is unsheared potential, the field outside is sheared are -l

andnonpotential. The field is everywhere (b) potential except for anequatorial current sheet extending outward fromthecusp.The 1032 needed a large ergs for CME. However, large very CMEs closed configuration Figure6a hasa highermagin have sometimes beenobserved regionswherethe photospheric completely in configuration Figure6b in motions are too slow and of too short a duration to store 1032 neticenergythanthe partlyopened [afterWolfson andLow, 1992]. ergs. Theseeventsimply that the magnetic fieldsemerging from
over a time period of a few days they are sufficientto storethe

the convection zone may not be currentfree and may alreadybe in a stressed state[McClymontand Fisher, 1989]. (This conclusion appearsto confirm a statementthat was once made to the authorby H. Zirin that "big flaresarebornbad.")
4. Illustrative Models

condition. Their initial and final configurations with this property are shownin Figure 6. Unfortunately,their methodof solution does not allow them to determine whether a transition from

In this sectionwe discuss somerepresentative modelswhich are all based the principle on thatCMEs arepowered the sudby denrelease magnetic of energy stored thecorona.Fourdifferin ent classes modelscan be distinguished:First is a classof of force-free models whichattempt explaintheeruption to solelyin termsof an idealMHD process. Second a class models is of that invokeresistive MHD processes as magnetic such reconnection

the closedstateto the openstateis possible the absence rein of connection,so at the presenttime there is still no model which demonstrates a partly open magneticfield can be achieved that solelyby a lossof ideal MHD equilibriumor stability. Perhaps furtherexplorationof the configurations considered Wolfson by andLow couldbe carriedout usingnumericalmethods.
4.2. Resistive MHD Models

to trigger eruption.Thirdis a class hybrid the of models which Another way to get aroundthe Aly-Sturrock constraint to is initiatethe eruption a purelyidealMHD process require appeal to a nonideal process,such as magnetic reconnection, by but thenonideal process magnetic of reconnection orderto sustain since the constraintonly applies to strictly ideal MHD. How in the eruption.Finallyis a fourthclass models of whichsupposes sucha process might work is shownin Figure 7, which is taken
that the small deviationsfrom a completelyforce-freefield,

caused gravityor gaspressure, playa significant in by may role

the initiation of an eruption.
4.1. Ideal MHD Models

from a numerical calculation Miki6 and Linker [ 1994]. Fromt by = 0 to 540 :A arcadeis sheared the with the resistivity nearto as zero as possible (where 'Ais the Alfv6n scaletime of the global structure).After 540 :A shearing stopped, theresistivthe is and ity is instantaneously increased a value which givesan effecto

The classof ideal MHD modelsdealswith processes require tivemagnetic that Reynolds number of-104. Thisincrease to leads no dissipation diffusion of the magneticfield to operate. reconnection the formationof a flux rope which is expelled or and Although dissipative a process reconnection occur, is outward,away from the Sun. If the resistivitydoesnot increase, like may it gradually(i.e. quasi-statically) opens up assumed play no role in the eruption the field. Modelsof thenthe configuration to of eruptionof the field. this type are severely restricted the Aly-Sturrock by constraint withoutany sudden discussed section2, namely, that a completelyopenedmagin The magnetic forcewhich drivesthe flux ropeoutward origineticfield alwayshas a highermagnetic energythanthe corre- natesfrom two differenteffects' The first is the compression of sponding closed state. However, oneway around constraint the magneticfield betweenthe flux rope and the solarsurface. this is to suppose duringa CME eruption that only a portionof the Thisforceis dueto theinertialline-tying thephotosphere, at and referredto as the diamagnetic force [Yeh, 1983]. total field is opened, while the remainderremains closed it is sometimes [Wolfson,1993]. The secondis the curvatureforce causedby the pinchingof Wolfson and Low [1992] have shownexplicitlythat a partly poloidal field at the inner edge of the curved flux rope forceis the opened statecanexistwhichhasa lowermagnetic energy thanan [Shafranov,1966]. Of thesetwo forces,the curvature initial fully closedstatewith the samephotospheric boundary moreimportant because actsovera muchlongerrange it thanthe

FORBES: CORONALMASS EJECTIONS REVIEW

23,159

t = 900 r A

t=0

t = 540 :A

t = 563 *A

(a)

1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4

1.3 1.2

-_

1.1

1.0 s,
0

200

400

600

800

1000

t/
(b)

Figure 7. (a) Quasi-static evolution an axiallysymmetric of arcade whichis sheared rotating Northern by the and Southern Hemispheres the Sunin opposite of directions. The initialfield at t = 0 is a Suncentered dipolewhich

evolves theforce-free shown t = 540:A.Aftera rotation 126o,thefieldbecomes opened t = into field at of flly at 900 :/t,if themagnetic resistivity r/remains zero. However, eruption an occurs t = 563 :A r/is suddenly at if increased.(b) The corresponding evolution totalenergy of dividedby the potential energy[afterMiki and Linker,
1994].

photospheric motions thatenergy be stored the coronal so can in currents. Aftertheeruption must fastsothatenergy be it be can released rapidly.Thusa complete model theeruption of process mustexplainwhy thereconnection suddenly rate changes the at time of the eruption. There are severalpossible mechanisms
to the tearingmodeinstability, thenreconnection not occur will until the lengthof the currentsheetbecomes longerthan -2r

diamagnetic force,whichquicklydiesawayasthe flux rope times width its [Furth al., 1963].Alternatively,thecurrent et as movesaway from the Sun. sheet builds itscurrent up, density exceed threshold a may the of In order Miki andLinker's for [1994]model explain to CMEs, micro-instability, creates anomalous which an resistivity [Galeev the reconnection mustundergo sudden rate a transition. Priorto andZelenyi, 1975; Heyvaerts Priest,1976]. Theanomalous and the eruptionit must be much slower than the timescaleof the resistivity subsequently rapid triggers reconnection theejecand
tionof a flux rope.

Another example a model of which requires anonideal process

is themodel developed Antiochos al. [1999]which the by et has spherical quadrupolar geometry shown Figure Asthecenin 8.

which could this. Forexample, thecurrent do if sheet subject against x lineabove andcreates curved, is the it a horizontal current

tralarcade straddling equator sheared,pushes the is it upward

layer.In theabsencegas of pressureresistivity layer an or this is

infinitely thin sheet,and it confinesthe centralarcadeso that it

23,160

FORBES: CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS REVIEW

(a)

(b)

Figure Magnetic configurations model Antiochos [1999] (a)anearly and a late 8. field inthe by etal. at time (b) time.Because fieldissymmetric theaxis rotation, one isshown. force-free the about of only side A current creis ated shearing arcade (thick by the field lines) the at equator, acurrent horizontal solar but layer tothe surfacealso is created thesheared bulges as region outward. Reconnection field ofthe lines this in layer allows sheared the field
lines open to outward infinity to (figure templates courtesy S.Antiochos). of

cannot open. Whengaspressure reconnection included, poloidalfield at the inner edgeof the flux rope). However,this and are sourceof the the current whichdevelops thex line is initially quitediffuse, balancecannotbe maintainedif the photospheric at so rapid reconnection doesnot occurat first. However,as the coronal field is reduced below a critical value. When the balance at heightas shear increases,the diffuse current evolves into a thin current is lost,the flux ropejumpsto an equilibrium a higher shown Figure10, anda relativelysmallfraction 10%)of the in (< sheet whicheventually undergoes rapidreconnection. magnetic energy released. newequilibrium is The contains Antiochos al. [1999] have rigorouslyshownthat the mag- stored et neticenergy stored thefinal,partlyopened in state less is thanthe a vertical currentsheetlocatedbelow the flux rope (see.Figure magnetic energystored the preeruptive in state. This resultis 9), and unlessreconnectionoccursin this sheet,the flux rope escape into interplanetary space.Justhow fastthe reconsimilar to the one of Wolfson and Low [ 1992] discussed above, cannot to except thatherethereis a cleardescription thetransition of from nectionrate hasto be in order for a smoothescape occurhas by the closedstateto the partly opened state. The precise natureof beenestimated Lin and Forbes[2000] for a two-dimensional with translational symmetry(i.e., a Cartesian systhe transition from slowreconnection rapidreconnection the configuration to in model still remains to be determined. tem). They showthat a smoothescape possible the inflow is if
Alfv6n Mach number into the current sheet exceeds -0.005. The
actual value of this number inferred from the observations is

4.3. Ideal ResistiveHybrids

The resistive model of Mikid and Linker [1994] describedin

-0.025 [Polettoand Kopp,1986],soa smooth escape to be exis

pected.

section utilizesa sudden 4.2 change the rateof reconnection in to producea dynamiceruption. If sucha change doesnot occur, thenthesystem evolves just quasi-statically theratesetby the at slowevolution the photospheric of field. Although onset a the of micro-instabilityis one way to changethe reconnection rate rapidly,another way is to havean ideal MHD process suddenly
create a current sheet.

The quasi-static evolution Figures and 10 beforeeruption in 9 occurs accomplished a highlyidealized is in manner reducing by the strength the photospheric of field (in this casea simpleSuncentered dipole). This reduction requires footpoints field the of
lines in the Northern and SouthernHemispheresto migrate toward the equatorandreconnect thatthe work donein moving so these footpoints is transferred to the coronal currentsvia a Poynting flux. Although colliding polaritieswhich reconnect might conceivably a sourceof someeruptions be [Zirin, 1988], any photospheric boundary condition whichchanges relative the

An example how this processwould work is illustratedin Figures and 10, whichshowan idealizedflux ropemodelwith 9 the sameaxial symmetryas that assumed Mikid and Linker by [ 1994]. The particular modelshown Figures and10 wasdein 9 rived by Lin et al. [1998], but the basicconcept wasdeveloped earlier by Van Tend and Kuperus[1978], Molodenskii and Fillipov [1987], and van Ballegooijenand Martens [1989], among others.Initially, the flux ropeis suspended the corona in by a balance between magnetic tension, compression, andcurvature forces(the latter caused the pinchingof the by

strength the repulsiveand attractive of forcesactingon the flux rope will suffice. For example,in the two-dimensional analysis by Forbesand Priest [ 1995] a lossof equilibrium triggered is by simply moving the photospheric sources closerto one another withoutreconnection a reduction the photospheric or of field. Because the assumed of symmetry, flux ropein Figure 9 the
is a toms which encircles the Sun, and thus it containsfield lines

FORBES:CORONAL MASS EJECTIONSREVIEW

I I I

23,161

questionto consideris whetherthe configuration can become kink unstable. Since the kink instability is an inherently threedimensional process, can be quite difficult to obtain stability it criteriafor it in a complexconfiguration involvinga curvedflux

rope,a line-tyingboundary, a nonuniform and externalfield. In the absence line-tyingor externalfields, a straight of flux ropeis
alwaysunstableno matterwhat the currentdistribution insideit is [Anzer, 1968]. A straight,isolatedflux rope of finite lengthcan be stabilizedby anchoring endsat fixed boundaries only if its but the twist is lessthan a critical value [Hood and Priest, 1981]. For a force-freeflux rope with a uniform twist the critical value is 3.3 r correspondingto 1.7 turns of the flux rope between the two boundaries[Hood and Priest, 1979], but this number may be higher or lower dependingon the distributionof currentwithin the flux rope. If the flux rope is twisted beyondthe critical numberof turns, it becomesunstableand dynamicallyjumps to a lower energy state [Arber et al., 1999] which necessarilycontains a current sheet[Bhattacharjee and Wang,1991]. It seems unreasonable to suppose that curving the flux rope and addingan externalbackground field would causethe line-tying to become so efficient that the flux rope would becomeunconditionally stableno matter how muchit is twisted. If this were true, thengraduallyreducing
the curvature and external field to zero would not recover the

(a)

(b)

Figure 9. Axially symmetric flux ropemodelshowing ideal the MHD transition from (a) thehigh-energy equilibrium statebefore eruptionto (b) the low energyequilibriumstateafter eruption. The difference scalebetweenthe figures9a and9b is indicated in by the difference the sizeof the Sun. Initially,theradius the in of

flux ropeis assumed be -104 km. Thefieldlinesremain to

closedthroughout, the configuration but formedafterwardcontainsa currentsheet. The flux rope can only escape a smooth in mannerif the reconnection process the sheetis fast enough in
[after Lin et al., 1998].

result of Hood and Priest [ 1979].

Titov and Dgmoulin[1999] have recentlyanalyzedthe special caseof a circular flux rope which is imbeddedin a line-tying surface as shownin Figure 11a. The outwardcurvature force acting on the rope is counterbalanced the field from two point magby

which are not attachedto the solarsurfaceas shownin Figure 9. It has been arguedby Antiochoset al. [1999] that the flux rope
model will not work once its ends are anchored(i.e., line-tied) to

neticcharges buriedat a depthz =-d belowthe surface andlocatedat x = +_Las indicatedin Figure 11. In additionto the external field generated the point charges, by thereis also a contribution from an infinitely long line currentwhich coincideswith
the x axis. The field produced this line currentexertsno force by

the photosphere. However, their argument assumes thejump that in the flux rope model involves a violation of the Aly-Sturrock constraint which, as originally formulated,doesnot includeconfigurations with unattached field lines. In fact,onecanshowrigorouslythat for this particularmodelthe energyof the openstate exceeds otherstates all [seeLin et al., 1998], a resultwhichsuggeststhat the Aly-Sturrock limit may also apply to at least some configurations with detached field lines. The importantaspectof Lin et al. 's [1998] model, which is not presentin the modelsof

MikM andLinker [1994] or Antiochos al. [1999],is thatslowly et

changingthe photospheric field can lead to the sudden formation of a currentsheet. (A process oftenreferredto as a "catastrophe" according the usageintroduced Thom [1972].) to by The maximum total magneticenergywhich can be storedin this flux rope model before equilibriumis lost is 1.53 times the energyof the potentialfield, lessthan the limiting value of 1.66 for the fully openedfield. The way the model getsaroundthe Aly-Sturrockconstraint by invokingthe nonidealprocess is of magneticreconnection. The only role of the ideal MHD transition is the sudden creationof a currentsheet,and this process replaces onsetof a micro-instability the that hasbeeninvokedin otherresistive MHD models[e.g.,Mikt and Linker, 1994]. Whether the catastrophicprocesswhich createsthe current sheetwill still work whenthe endsof the flux ropeare tied to the photosphere remains an unanswered question. However, it is likely that it will for the followingreason:When the endsof the flux ropearetied, an upwarddisplacement a middleportionof of the flux rope constitutes ideal MHD kink. Thus the relevant an

0
0.0

I
0.5

'

" current sheet forms

1.0 1.5

2.0

Figure10. Theequilibrium height of thefluxrope h shown in Figure inunits thesolar 9 of radius function thestrength, as of o', of theSun centered dipole normalized Thedotted in units. portionof thecurve indicates extrapolation an between asympthe
totic solution (upperportionof curve)andthe no-current-sheet

solution (lower portion). When fieldstrengthis slowly the o' reduced 0.95,thefluxrope to undergoes a dynamic to a new jump
statecontaining current a sheet. Upon furtherreduction crto of

0.74(dashed thefieldevolves line), quasi-statically open tothe

state[afterLin et al., 1998].

23,162

FORBES: CORONAL

MASS EJECTIONS

REVIEW

,""

t"

/ '':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: E...::-$

::F.,..."*'%-.r:' .- :''*""'"'*o*:;:

:::::::::::::::::::::::

:;":::*%% ..... :.::..----:**:::**:**:.,:::.:...-, $.:..

........... ....... ..... ........ ... _ ... """'"'"'"'""':*",........................ *'*'a """'"'"''""

-50 0 50

Figure 11. Line-tied flux rope modelof Titov and Ddmoulin[1999]: (a) three-dimensional view showingthe relation of the flux rope(shaded toms)to the background field sources a depthd below the surface.Thesesources at are point magneticcharges q locatedat x = + L and a line currentrunningalongthe x axis. (b) normalcomponents + of the surface magneticfield with regionsof opposite polarityindicated dark andlight tones.The polarityinversion by line is indicated a thin blackline, while the bald-patch by regionis indicated a thick blackline. The photospheric by tracesof the magnetic separatrices indicated the whitelines. are by

on the flux rope,andits purpose to maketheoverallfield strucis ture more nearly resemble that occurring the corona. Without in
the field from the line current the field lines at the surface of the

dius, ofthe rope R, flux (Figurea)exceeds inthe 11 L limit

thatd is small.Although donotprove result they this rigorously, they are ableto establish the configuration equilibrium that has properties similar to the completelysymmetric configuration
shownin Figure9.

TitovandDdmoulin [1999] havealsoconsidered stability the of theirconfiguration assert it is unstable thelargeraand that if

flux ropeare purelypoloidal,andtheyhavean infinitenumber of turnsin a finite length. This is quiteunrealistic because variety a
of observations indicate that the maximum number of turns on

any field line is probably less than two (see section 3). Incorporating line currentfield eliminates the this problemby creating strong a toroidalfield whichensures no field lines that are highlytwisted. By adjusting strength the line current the of
one can achieve a reasonable amount of twist everywhere as shownin Figure 1lb.

Thereis alsoa fully three-dimensional simulation Amariet by al. [2000]whichshows howa flux ropecanbe formed reconby nectingthe photospheric footpoints a sheared of arcade. Sucha process was suggested years ago by van Ballegooijenand 10 Martens [1989] and later simulatedin two dimensions by
Inhester et al. [1992]. In the simulation of Amari et al. the re-

connection the photospheric of field leadsto the sudden forma-

tionof a flux ropewitha vertical current sheet below(seeFigure

12). However, it is not at all clear if the transition to this state

constitutes a truecatastrophe, because photospheric the boundary condition thesimulation Changed a ratewhich toorapid in is at is to be considered quasi-static. Thusthemis still no convincing demonstrationthepresent thata realistic at time eruption be can modeled usinga line-tiedflux ropeconfiguration thatshown like
in Figure 11.

Evenif it should outthata simple turn curved ropecannot flux produce realisticeruption, a thereare othercloselyrelatedconfigurations that may be ableto do so. Gibsonand Low [1998, 2000] have shownthat the overall appearance CMEs both of beforeand after eruption be modeled can quitewell usingthe sametype of force-freefields as occurs spheromaks, the in but equilibrium stability and properties these of fieldsin thepresence of a line-tyingsurface remainto be determined.
4.4. Non-Force-Free Models

Therestriction imposed theAly-Sturrock by constraint be can Figure12. Magnetic configuration field formed reconnecting sidestepped initial by if the configuration force-free.isgenisnot It
the photospheric footpoints a fully three-dimensional of amade (from the simulation Amari et al. [2000]). by

erally supposed thecoronal that magnetic is nearly field forcefreebecause thedominance themagnetic of of energy all over

FORBES: CORONAL

MASS EJECTIONS

REVIEW

23,163

other forms (see Table 2), but it is possiblethat small deviations from a purely force-freefield might play a role in triggeringan eruption. Low [1999] has pointedout that total magneticenergyin the coronacanbe expressed as

dV=
> Ro8zr

= Ro 8zr

Br B - B -pdS 2- o

The effectsof both pressure and gravity have beenconsidered by Low and Smith [ 1993], Wolfsonand Dlamini [ 1997], and Wolfson and Saran [ 1998]. As can be seenfrom the virial theorem, pressure reduces magneticenergythat can be storedin the the corona,but unlike gravity,pressure itself propelmaterial can outwardgiven the appropriate gradient. However,the problem still remainsthat the thermalenergydensityassociated with pressure in the lower corona is so small that it is difficult for it to

have a significanteffect.

Many modelshave been developedto explain the appearance or propagationof CMEs, but very few have been developed (or nents r, BO, Be, isthecoronal pressure, thecoro- which really explainthe exactnatureof the mechanism mechB and p gas p is nal density,G is the universalconstant gravitation,Mo is the anisms) of whichtriggersthem. For example,several the models of solarmass,dV is the differentialvolumeelement,Ro is the solar we have discussed here propose that CMEs are triggeredby the radius, and dS is the differential surface element. The above exonsetof a micro-instability which leadsto a sudden enhancement pression is obtained from the MHD virial theorem (see of the resistivityin a currentsheet,but they do not actuallypreChandrasekhar[1961] or Priest [1982]), and it expresses the scribethe process whichproduces micro-instability.What is the coronalmagneticenergyin terms of the surfacemagneticfield requiredis a mechanism that will causea sudden transition from and gas pressureand the volumetric gravitational and thermal the preonsetquasi steady state to the postonset dynamic state. energyin the corona. The mechanismwhich triggersthe eruptionneed not involve a If the gravitational andthermalenergyare ignored,the field is micro-instability. There are models,suchas the flux rope model force-free,and the magneticenergyis given entirely in termsof discussed section4.3, which use an ideal MHD catastrophe in to form a current sheet on a timescale of the same order as the an integral over the components the surfacefield. From the of form of the integrandone seesthat the value of this integralhas Alfv6n timescale of the system (typically 10-100 s in the an upper bound given by integratingover the radial component corona). Br. Sincethe line-tying of the field at the surfacemakesBr inAt the presenttime, there is a general(but not universal)convariant there, the amountof total magneticenergymustbe less sensus that the onset mechanism involves the release of the free than that obtainedby integrating radial component the po- magneticenergy associated the of with currentsflowing in the corona. tential field over all space. In other words, the maximum total However, there is no consensus about the mechanism which remagnetic energy of a force-free field in the corona cannot be leases this energy. Nevertheless, observations generalinas and more than about doublethat of the potentialfield, one of Aly's terestin CMEs increase,there is every reasonto hopethat the isresults (see section2). suemay be resolvedwithin a few years. If gravity is importantbut pressure not, then the magnetic is field is no longer force-free, and it is possibleto increasethe Acknowledgments. The author thanks Boon-Chye Low and Spiro Antiochos their helpful comments the originalmanuscript also for on and magneticenergystoredin the coronaaboveits force-freelimit by Nancy Crooker and JanetLuhmann for their invitation to presentthis an amount equalto the gravitational potential energy:

Ii pGMo
37 dV ,

>Ro r

5. Summary

whereB is the total coronalmagnetic field with spherical compo-

Ji dVpGMo GMcMo
r go

whereM c is the coronalmasssupported the field. This graviby tational energy is essentiallythe sameas that listed in Table 1, but it is a factorof Ro/h (-7) greaterthanthatconsidered Table in 2, whichis the energygainedif an objectfalls to the surface from a coronal scale height h rather than infinity. Thus the gravitational energy could allow the storedmagneticenergyto exceed its maximumforce-freevalueby as muchas 10%. Some of the cool plasmain an eruptingprominence often is seento fall backto the surface, whichsuggests a CME might that be triggered if the magnetic field slowly evolves to a critical pointwhereit canno longersupport prominence the [Low, 1999]. In otherwords,the weightof the prominence actsas a lid which allowsthe magnetic energyto increase abovethe openlimit, and when the lid is suddenlyremoved, the field springsoutward. Even if the drainingof the materialis not sufficient openthe to

work at the SolarandHeliospheric INterplanetary Environment (SHINE) meeting held June 14-17, 1999, in Boulder, Colorado. This work was supported by NASA grants NAG5-4856 and NAG5-1479 to the University of New Hampshireand NAS 8-37334 to the Lockheed-Martin Corporation. Janet G. Luhmann thanksRichard Wolfson and Spiro K. Antiochos for their assistance evaluating in thispaper.

References
Aly, J. J., How much energycan be storedin a three-dimensional forcefree field?,Astrophys. 375, L61-L64, 1991. J., Amari, T., J. F. Luciani, Z. Mikic, and J. Linker, A twisted flux rope modelfor coronalmassejections andtwo-ribbonflares,Astrophys. J.,
529, L49-L52, 2000.

Antiochos,S. K., R. B. Dahlburg,andJ. A. Klimchuk,The magneticfield of solarprominences, Astrophys. 420, L41-L44, 1994. J., Antiochos, S. K., C. R. DeVore, and J. A. Klimchuk, A model for solar coronalmassejections,Astrophys. 510, 485-493, 1999. J., Anzer, U., The stability of force-free magneticfields with cylindrical symmetryin the contextof solarflares,Sol. Phys.,3, 298-315, 1968.

Arber,T. D., A. W. Longbottom, R. A. M. vanderLinden,Unstable and coronalloops:Numericalsimulations with predicted observational signatures, Astrophys. 517, 990-1001, 1999. J., field, it could, nevertheless, lead to the formation of a current Arnoldy, L., S. R. Kane,andJ. R. Winkler,Theobservation 10-50 R. of sheet. However, many CMEs do not appear to contain any key solarflareparticles, Structure Development SolarActive in and of prominence material,soit seems unlikelythatsucha mechanism Regions:IA U Symposium editedby K. O. Kiepenheuer, 49035, pp.
could account for all CMEs.

509, D. Reidel, Norwell, Mass., 1968.

23,164

FORBES: CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS REVIEW

Krall, J., J. Chen, R. Santoro, D. S. Spicer, S. T. Zalesak, and P. J. Cargill, Simulationof buoyantflux ropesin a magnetized solaratmosphere, Astrophys. , 500, 992-1002, 1998. J. Leroy, J. L., V. Bommier, and S. Sahal-Brechot, The magneticfield in the prominences the polarcrown,Sol.Phys.,83, 135-142,1983. of Lin, J., and T. G. Forbes, Effects of reconnection on the coronal mass ejectionprocess, Geophys. J. Res., 105, 2375-2392, 2000. Lin, J., T. G. Forbes,P. A. Isenberg, and P. D6moulin,The effect of curvature on flux-rope modelsof coronalmassejections, Astrophys. J.,
504, 1006-1019, 1998.

Bhattacharjee, andX. Wang,Current A., sheet formation rapidreand

connection the solarcorona, in Astrophys. 372, 321-328, 1991. J.,

Browning, K., andE. R. Priest, shape buoyant P. The of coronal loops in a magnetic field andthe eruption coronal of transients promiand
nences, Phys.,106, 335-351,1986. Sol. Canfield, C., C.-C. Cheng, P. Dere,G. A. Dulk, D. J. McLean, R. K. R.D. Robinson E. J. Schmahl, Jr., and S. A. Schoolman, Radiativeenergy output the 5 September of 1973flare,in SolarFlares: Monogram A

FromtheSkylab SolarWorkshop, edited P. A. Sturrock, 451by pp.

469, Colo.Assoc. Univ. Press, Boulder, Colo., 1980.

Chandrasekhar, Hydrodynamic Hydromagnetic S., and Stability, Dover,

Mineola, N.Y., 1961.

Low, B. C., Magnetohydrodynamic processes the solarcorona:Flares, in coronal massejections, magnetic and helicity,Phys.Plasmas, 16841,
1690, 1993.

Low, B.C., Solaractivityandthe corona,Sol.Phys.,167,217-265, 1996. Low, B.C., Coronal massejections,flares and prominences, Solar in Wind Nine, edited by S. R. Habbal et al., pp. 109-114, AIP, 1972. Woodbury,N.Y., 1999. Dodson, W., andE. R. Hedeman, proton H. The flareof August 1966, 28, Low, B. C., and D. F. Smith, The free energies partiallyopencoronal of Sol. Phys.,4, 229-239, 1968. magnetic fields,Astrophys. 410, 412-425, 1993. J., Fan,Y., E.G. Zweibel,M. G. Linton,andG. H. Fisher, Theriseof kinkMackay, D. H., V. Gaizauskas, J. Rickard, andE. R. Priest,Force-free G. unstable magnetic flux tubesand the origin of b-configuration andpotentialmodelsof a filamentchannelin which a filamentforms, Astrophys. 486, 534-549, 1997. J., sunspots, Astrophys. 521,460-477, 1999. J., McClymont,A. N., and G. H. Fisher,On the mechanical energyavailable Forbes, G., andE. R. Priest,Photospheric T. magnetic field evolution and to drive solar flares, in Solar SystemPlasma Physics, Geophys. eruptive flares, Astrophys. 446, 377-389,1995. J., Monogr. Ser., vol. 54, editedby J. H. Waite Jr., J. L. Burch,andR. L. Furth,H. P., J. Killeen,andM. N. Rosenbluth, Finite-resistivity instabiliMoore, pp. 219-225, AGU, Washington, D.C., 1989. tiesof a sheet pinch, Phys. Fluids,6, 459-484,1963. of Gaizauskas, Braidedstructures V., observed flare-associated alpha Melrose, D. B., and A. N. McClymont, The resistances the photoin H sphere of a flaringcoronal and loop,Sol.Phys.,113, 241-246, 1987. filaments,in Physics Solar Prominences: o.f IAU Colloquium 44, field arcades, edited E. Jensen, Maltby,andF. Q. Orrall,pp. 272-275, by P. Oslo Miki6, Z., andJ. A. Linker, Disruptionof coronalmagnetic Astrophys. 430, 898-912, 1994. J., Univ. Press,Oslo, 1979. Galeev,A. A., and L. M. Zelenyi, Metastable states diffuseneutral Molodenskii, M. M., and B. P. Filippov, Rapid motion of filamentsin of solar active regions, II, Sov. Astron. (Engl.. Transl.),31, 564-568, sheetand the substorm explosive phase,JETP Letts.,22, 170-172,
1975.
1987.

Chen,J., Effectsof toroidal forces current in loops embedded a backin ground plasma, Astrophys. 338,453-470,1989. J., Cox,D. P., Theoretical structure spectrum a shock and of wavein theinterstellar medium: The Cygnus Loop,Astrophys. 178, 143-157, J.,

Gibson, E., andB. C. Low, A time-dependent S. three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic modelof thecoronal mass ejection, Astrophys. J.,
493, 460-473, 1998.

Parker,E. N., Instabilityof thermalfields, Astrophys. 117, 431-436, J.,

1953.

Gibson,S. E., andB. C. Low, Three-dimensional twisted: An MHD and

interpretation on-disk of observational characteristicscoronal of mass ejections, Geophys. J. Res.,in press, 2000.
Glatzmaier,G. A., Numericalsimulations stellarconvective of dynamos, 3, At the baseof the convection zone, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn.,31,137-150, 1985.

Polet[o,G., and R. A. Kopp, Macroscopic electricfields duringtwo-ribbon flares, in The Lower Atmosphere Solar Flares, editedby D. F. o.f Neidig, pp. 453-465, NSO, Sunspot, N.M., 1986. Priest,E. R., Solar Magnetohydrodynamics, Reidel, Norwell, Mass., D.
1982.

Rust,D. M., andV. Bar, Magneticfields,loopprominences the great and flaresof August,1972, Sol. Phys.,33, 445-459, 1973. Schmieder,B., P. Heinzel, L. van Driel-Gesztelyi, J. E. Wiik, and J. Gosling, T., Coronal J. mass ejections magnetic ropes intel'and flux in Lemen, Hot and cool post-flare loops: Formation and dynamics,in planetaryspace,in Physicso.f Magnetic Flux Ropes, Geophys. Magnetodynamic Phenomena the Solar Atmosphere, in edited by Y. Monogr. Ser.,vol. 58, edited C. T. Russell, R. Priest, L. C. by E. and Uchida, T. Kosugi, and H. S. Hudson,pp. 211-212, Kluwer Acad., Lee, pp. 343-364,AGU, Washington, D.C., 1990.

Gosling, T., Thesolar J. flaremyth, Geophys. 98, 18,937-18,949, Sen,H. K., and M. L. White, A physicalmechanism the production J. Res., for of 1993.
Harvey,K. L., andF. Recely, I 10830observations the3N/M4.0 Shafranov,V. D., Plasmaequilibrium in a magneticfield, Rev. Plasma He of flareof 4 September, 1982,Sol.Phys., 127-139, 91, 1984. Phys., 2, 103-151, 1966. H6noux,J.-C., Dynamotheoriesof solar flares, in Solar Maximum Simnett,G. M., and R. A. Harrison,The onsetof ceronalmassejections, Analysis, edited V. E. Stepanov V. N. Obridko, 109-122, by and pp. Sol. Phys., 99, 291-311, 1985.
VNU Sci. Press, Utrecht, 1986.

Norwell, Mass., 1996.

solarflares,Sol. Phys.,23, 146-154,1972.

Heyvaerts, Coronal J., electriccurrents produced photospheric by motions,Sol.Phys., 419-437, 1974. 38,

Heyvaerts, andE. R. Priest, J., Thermal evolution current of sheets and theflashphase solar of flares, Phys., 223-231,1976. Sol. 47,
Hood, A. W., andE. R. Priest, Kink instabilityof solarcoronal loopsas the cause solarflares,Sol.Phys.,64, 303-321, 1979. of Hood,A. W., andE. R. Priest,Criticalconditions magnetic for instabilitiesin force-free coronal loops,Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn.,17,
297-318, 1981.

Sturrock,P. A., Maximum energyof semi-infinitemagneticfield configurations, Astrophys. 380, 655-659, 1991. J., Sturrock, A., P. Kaufmann, L. Moore, andD. F. Smith,EnergyreP. R. leasein solarflares,Sol. Phys.,94,341-357, 1984.

;vestka, Solar Z., Flares, Reidel, D. Norwell, Mass., 1976.

;vestka, Speeds rising Z., of post-flare structures, Phys., 403Sol. 169,

413, 1996.

;vestka,and Simon, Z., P. Proton project, Sol. flare 1966, Phys., 3-59, 1O,
1969.

Hundhausen, J., The originandpropagation coronal A. of mass ejections, active coronalphenomena Yohkoh SXT images,III, Enhanced in in Proceedings theSixth o.[ International SolarWindCon. ference, vol. post-flare streamer, Phys.,176, 355-371, 1997. Sol. 1, edited V.J. Pizzo, Holzer,andD.G. Sime, by T. National Center for Thom, R., Stabilitg Structurelleet Morphogdnbse,Benjamin,White Atmospheric Research TechnicalNote, NCAR TN-306+Proc., pp. Plains, N.Y., 1972. 181-241, Boulder, Colo., 1988. Titov, V. S., and P. D6moulin,Basictopologyof twistedmagnetic conInhester, J. Birn, andM. Hesse, B., The evolution line-tiedcoronal of arfigurations solarflares, in Astron. Astrophys., 351,701-720, 1999. cades including convergent a footpoint motion, Sol.Phys., 138,257- Uchida, Y., Diagnosisof coronalmagneticstructure flare-associated by 281, 1992. hydromagnetic disturbances, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn., 22, 341-364, Kan,J. R., S.-I. Akasofu, L. C. Lee, A dynamo and theoryof solar flares, 1970. Sol. Phys.,84, 153-167, 1983. Uchida,Y., Behaviorof the flare produced coronal MHD wavefront and
Kosovichev,A. G., T. L. Duvall, and P. H. Scherrer,Time-distanceinversion methodsand results- (invited review), Sol. Phys., 192, 159176, 2000.

;vestka, F. Farnik, Hick, S.Hudson, Y. Uchida, Z., P. H. and Large-scale

the occurrence type II radiobursts, of Sol. Phys.,39, 431-449, 1974. van Ballegooijen, A., andP. C. H. Martens,Formation eruption A. and of solarprominences, Astrophys. 343, 971-984, 1989. J.,

FORBES: CORONAL

MASS EJECTIONS REVIEW

23,165

Van Tend, W., and M. Kuperus,The development coronalelectric of currentsystems active regionsand their relation to filamentsand in flares,So/.Phys.,59, 115-127, 1978. Wagner, W. J., E. Hildner, L. L. House, C. Sawyer, K. V. Sheridan,and G. A. Dulk, Radio and visible light observations matterejected of from the sun,Astrophys. 244, L123-L126, 1981. J., Webb, D. F., C.-C. Cheng,G. A. Dulk, S. J. Edberg,S. F. Martin, S. L. McKenna, and D. J. McLean, Mechanical energy output of the 5 September 1973 flare, in Solar Flares:A MonogramFrom the Skylab Solar Workshop, editedby P. A. Sturrock, 471-499, Colo. Assoc. pp.
Univ. Press,Boulder, Colo., 1980.

Wolfson, R., and B.C. Low, Energy buildupin sheared force-freemagneticfields,Astrophys. 391,353-358, 1992. J., Wolfson, R., and S. Saran,Energetics coronalmassejections:Role of of the streamer cavity,Astrophys. 499, 496-503, 1998. J., Yeh, T., Diamagnetic forceon a flux tube,Astrophys. 264, 630-634, J.,
1983.

Zirin, H., Astrophysics the Sun, CambridgeUniv. Press,New York, of

1988.

Zirin, H., and D. R. Lackner, The solarflares of August28 and 30, 1966, Sol. Phys.,6, 86-103, 1969.

Webb, D. F., T. G. Forbes,H. Aurass,J. Chen,P. Martens,B. Rompolt, V. Rusin, S. F. Martin, and V. Gaizauskas, Material ejection:Report of the Flares 22 Workshop held at Ottawa, CanadaMay 1993, Sol. Phys., 153, 73-89, 1994. Wolfson, R., Energy requirements for opening the solar corona, Astrophys. 419, 382-387, 1993. J., Wolfson,R., andB. Dlamini, Cross-field currents:An energysource for coronalmassejections?, Astrophys. 483, 961-971, 1997. J.,

T. G. Forbes,Institutefor the Study of Earth, Oceans,and Space,39 College Road, University of New Hampshire,Durham, NH 03824. (terry.forbes unh.edu) @

(ReceivedJanuary 2000; revisedMarch 13, 2000; 5,

accepted March13, 2000.)