A new understanding of the solar dynamo published

Our resident solar expert, Dr. Leif Svalgaard, sends word of this new discovery.

Stanford solar scientists solve one of the sun’s mysteries

The sun’s magnetic field can play havoc with communications technology. Stanford scientists have now described one of the underlying processes that help form the magnetic field, which could help scientists predict its behavior.

By Bjorn Carey

NASA SDO/HMI
The sun’s double-cell meridional circulation structure is shown as streamlines in this diagram based on research at Stanford’s Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory.

Stanford solar scientists have solved one of the few remaining fundamental mysteries of how the sun works.  

The mechanism, known as meridional flow, works something like a conveyor belt. Magnetic plasma migrates north to south on the sun’s surface, from the equator to the poles, and then cycles into the sun’s interior on its way back to the equator.

The rate and depth beneath the surface of the sun at which this process occurs is critical for predicting the sun’s magnetic and flare activity, but has remained largely unknown until now.

The solar scientists used the Stanford-operated Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) – an instrument onboard NASA’s Solar Dynamic Observatory satellite – to track solar waves in much the way seismologists would study seismic movements beneath the surface of the Earth. Every 45 seconds for the past two years, the HMI’s Doppler radar snapped images of plasma waves moving across the sun’s surface.

By identifying patterns of sets of waves, the scientists could recognize how the solar materials move from the sun’s equator toward the poles, and how they return to the equator through the sun’s interior.

“Once we understood how long it takes the wave to pass across the exterior, we determined how fast it moves inside, and thus how deep it goes,” said Junwei Zhao, a senior research scientist at the Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory at Stanford, and lead author on the paper.

Although solar physicists have long hypothesized such a mechanism, at least in general terms, the new observations redefine solar currents in a few ways. First, the returning currents occur 100,000 kilometers below the surface of the sun, roughly half as deep as suspected. As such, solar materials pass through the interior and return to the equator more quickly than hypothesized.

More startling, Zhao said, is that the equator-ward flow is actually sandwiched between two “layers” of pole-ward currents, a more complicated mechanism than previously thought, and one that could help refine predictions of the sun’s activity.

“Considered together, this means that our previously held beliefs about the solar cycle are not totally accurate, and that we may need to make accommodations,” Zhao said.

For example, some computer models projected that the current solar cycle would be strong, but observations have since showed it is actually much weaker than the previous cycle. This inconsistency could be due to the previously unknown inaccuracies of the meridional circulation mechanism used in the simulations.

Improving the accuracy of simulations, Zhao said, will produce a better picture of fluctuations of the sun’s magnetic field, which can interfere with satellites and communications technology on Earth. The sun’s magnetic field resets every 11 years – the next reset will occur sometime in the next few months – and there is evidence that changes in the meridional flow can influence how the magnetic field evolves during a particular cycle.

“We want to continue monitoring variations of the meridional flow,” he said, “so that we can better predict the next solar cycle, when it will come and how active it will be.”

The report was published in the online edition of The Astrophysical Journal Letters. It was co-authored by three other researchers at the Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory – senior scientists Rick Bogart and Alexander Kosovichev and research associate Thomas Hartlep – as well as NASA senior scientist Tom Duvall. Phil Scherrer, a professor of physics at Stanford, is the principal investigator of the HMI project and supervised the study.

=================================================================

Leif adds an excerpt from the paper in an email:

Meridional flow inside the Sun plays an important role in redistributing rotational angular momentum and transporting magnetic flux, and is crucial to our understanding of the strength and duration of sunspot cycles according to flux-transport dynamo theories. At the Sun’s surface and in its shallow interior to at least 30 Mm in depth, the meridional flow is predominantly poleward with a peak speed of approximately 20 m/s.

The poleward plasma flow transports the surface magnetic flux from low latitudes to the polar region, causing the periodic reversals of the global magnetic field, a process important to the prediction of the solar cycles. The speed and variability of the meridional flow also play an important role in determining the strength and duration of the solar cycles, and the unusually long activity minimum at the end of Solar Cycle 23 during 2007–2010 was thought to be associated with an increase of the meridional flow speed during the declining phase of the previous cycle. Therefore, an accurate determination of the meridional flow profile is crucial to our understanding and prediction of solar magnetic activities.

Although the poleward meridional flow at the solar surface and in shallow depths has been well studied, the depth and speed profile of the equatorward return flow, which is expected to exist inside the solar convection zone to meet the mass conservation, largely remains a puzzle. It is generally assumed that the return flow is located near the base of the convection zone, although no convincing evidence had been reported. 

The continuous Doppler observations by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager onboard the recently launched Solar Dynamics Observatory mission (SDO) allow us to measure and detect the long-sought equatorward flow. Our analysis, which takes into account the systematic center-to-limb effect that was recently found in the local helioseismology analysis techniques, gives a two-dimensional cross-section picture of the meridional flow inside the nearly entire solar convection zone, and reveals a double-cell circulation with the equatorward flow located near the middle of the convection zone.

Figure 1 shows the new picture suggested by the HMI data.

solar_meridontal_fig1

This new picture of the solar interior meridional circulation differs substantially from the previously widely believed picture of a single-cell circulation with the equatorward flow near the bottom of the convection zone [the Conveyor Belt Model]. Through removing a systematic center-to-limb effect that was only recently identified, our analysis corrects and improves the previous solar interior meridional flow profile given by Giles (1999) using a similar analysis procedure.

The new meridional circulation profile poses a challenge to the flux-transport dynamo models, but provides more physical constraints to these models creating a new opportunity to further understand how magnetic field is generated and how magnetic flux is transported inside the Sun. Past dynamo simulations have already demonstrated that a meridional circulation profile with multiple cells might not be able to reproduce the butterfly diagram and the phase relationship between the toroidal and poloidal fields as observed, unless the dynamo model was reconsidered. However, on the other hand, solar convection simulations have shown the possibility of multi-cell circulation with a shallow equatorward flow (e.g.,Miesch et al. 2006; Guerrero et al. 2013), demonstrating that our analysis results are reasonable.

Moreover, a recent dynamo simulation, with the double-cell meridional circulation profile incorporated, showed that the solar magnetic properties could be robustly reproduced after taking into consideration of turbulent pumping, turbulent diffusivity, and other factors (Pipin & Kosovichev 2013). All these studies, together with our observational results, suggest a rethinking of how the solar magnetic flux is generated and transported inside the Sun.

Abstract: http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/774/2/L29

pdf here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/ApJL-2013-Meridional-Flow.pdf

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

368 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pinroot
August 29, 2013 9:55 am

…research at Stanford’s Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory.
Please tell me this place isn’t named after James Hansen.

Dr. Lurtz
August 29, 2013 10:05 am

Now take into account the downward motion of the hydrogen [plasma flows] and the burning of the hydrogen into helium on the surface of the core. Again, the core is the place where burned hydrogen waste products are stored. As per other research, the hydrogen density above the core is 75% to 25% helium. In the core the helium is at 75% and the hydrogen at 25%.
These things will explain the 180/360 year cycles.
This model is getting better, but is still not complete.

August 29, 2013 10:06 am

pinroot says:
August 29, 2013 at 9:55 am
…research at Stanford’s Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._W._Hansen

August 29, 2013 10:11 am

Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:05 am
Now take into account the downward motion of the hydrogen [plasma flows] and the burning of the hydrogen into helium on the surface of the core.
No, the burning does not take place on the surface of the core. And you have to be explicit about what you call the core. Energy production maximizes at the center where the temperature is highest.
These things will explain the 180/360 year cycles.
it takes 250,000 years for the energy released in the core to reach the surface, so we cannot say that the core processes explains 180/360 ‘cycles’.

Katherine
August 29, 2013 10:18 am

However, on the other hand, solar convection simulations have shown the possibility of multi-cell circulation with a shallow equatorward flow (e.g.,Miesch et al. 2006; Guerrero et al. 2013), demonstrating that our analysis results are reasonable.
They’re validating their results, which are supposedly based on observational results, with simulations?! Like “our interpretation of the readings must be correct because someone already modeled something similar”? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Dr. Lurtz
August 29, 2013 10:18 am

Again, we can map the interior of the Sun using sound waves. Are they not energy? Do they not move energy faster than 250,000 years? Yes, you can not say what processes explain the cycles, because the model is incomplete!
In addition, you “prove” what happens in the cores interior. A supernova explosion happens in days. That energy moves faster than 250,000 years.
It is time for your theories/proposals; instead of blasting everyone else. What is your theory of the 180/360 year cycles?

Michael Gersh
August 29, 2013 10:19 am

The Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory was founded in 1947. At that time James Hansen was six years old.

IanE
August 29, 2013 10:20 am

Pinroot asked about the source of the name.
No, not the egregious modern-day Hansen, it was named after William Webster Hansen (May 27, 1909 – May 23, 1949), a U.S. physicist who was one of the founders of the technology of microwave electronics. See e.g. wikipedia entry.

August 29, 2013 10:21 am

It’s funny to me to see people who do such a good job criticizing the use of models – computer games – in place of science in the global warming debate embrace the same use of models – comparable computer games – in place of science in solar physics.

Zeke
August 29, 2013 10:29 am


Currents running through the surface of the screw cause it to spin in this demonstration of a Faraday Motor. Currents generate magnetic fields.

Bill
August 29, 2013 10:31 am

You are correct. We should not use models. We will get together some
funds and buy a space ship and send the two of you (Mark and Katherine)
to the sun to take measurements directly. Really, you should think before
you type.
In reality, any equation can be considered a “model” so no one who
knows their ass from a hole in the ground (should I have self-snipped that?)
would think that you can’t use models in science. But eventually they have
to match the real world. That is the point. The problem folks have with
models are the projections 100 years from now of temperatures, weather,
mass extinctions, etc. Short term predictions can be tested and that is
the point of models/science. The GCM’s are not doing that well. It is the
long term catastrophic nth-dimensional projections that are the problem.
By nth-dimensional I mean the chaining together of what-if scenarios.

August 29, 2013 10:34 am

Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:18 am
Again, we can map the interior of the Sun using sound waves. Are they not energy?
The energy of the sound from distant thunder is infinitesimal compared to the energy in the thunderstorm itself.
Katherine says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:18 am
They’re validating their results, which are supposedly based on observational results, with simulations?!
A model simulation is the expression of the physics we know about a phenomenon, so the statement is that the data is consistent with the physics as far as we know it. This is important because both the data and the physics have uncertainties.

Joseph Murphy
August 29, 2013 10:34 am

Thanks Dr. S and Anthony, I always enjoy reading about the Sun and, of course, Dr. S’s comments!

August 29, 2013 10:35 am

In the end, it will be determined that there are two fundamental processes with periods of approximately P1 = 20 and P2 = 23.6 years which beat together, producing variations in flux magnitude at approximate periods of P2*P1/(P2+P1) = 10.8 years, P2*P1/(P2-P1) = 131 years, P1/2 = 10 years, and P2/2 = 11.8 years.

August 29, 2013 10:40 am

Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:18 am
What is your theory of the 180/360 year cycles?
There aren’t any.
Zeke says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:29 am
Currents generate magnetic fields.
In a plasma, movement of the matter in an existing magnetic field generates the electrical currents.
Bart says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:35 am
In the end, it will be determined that there are two fundamental processes with periods of approximately P1 = 20 and P2 = 23.6 years which beat together
Bart, we are trying to discuss science here. So, perhaps, you should not expose your ignorance yet again.

Dr. Lurtz
August 29, 2013 10:41 am

Leif Svalgaard says: ?????????
Again, answer all of my questions. Don’t just cherry pick! Don’t you have theories? Oh, that is correct; you are one of those statisticians, not a real solar scientist.

August 29, 2013 10:42 am

Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:41 am
you are one of those statisticians, not a real solar scientist.
and you are?

August 29, 2013 10:45 am

“Considered together, this means that our previously held beliefs about the solar cycle are not totally accurate, and that we may need to make accommodations,” Zhao said.
Spoken like a true scientist!

Dr. Lurtz
August 29, 2013 10:47 am

I have a PhD is Systems Engineering with a minor in Plasma Physics. I do real math models. I use statistics data to verify whether my model is correct.
I see you still can’t propose any theories!

Jim G
August 29, 2013 10:54 am

Leif,
Are you saying that there are no 180/360 cycles or no theories about them, or both?

August 29, 2013 10:54 am

Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:41 am
Leif Svalgaard says: ?????????
Again, answer all of my questions. Don’t just cherry pick! Don’t you have theories? Oh, that is correct; you are one of those statisticians, not a real solar scientist.
#######################
Mods please
Leif and others should not be subjected to this kind of abusive trolling on a technical scientific thread. Especially from an anonymous poster.

August 29, 2013 11:01 am

Dr. Lurtz says:
“Again, answer all of my questions. Don’t just cherry pick!”
Again, we can map the interior of the Sun using sound waves. Are they not energy?
Answered. Their energy is infintesimal
Do they not move energy faster than 250,000 years?
Not relevant since their energy is infintesimal
What is your theory of the 180/360 year cycles?
Answered. There are no cycles to explain.
So lets see. A Phd asks three questions. Two of the three are answered directly and we can see that the second doesnt matter. No Phd required, just 5th grade reading skills.
And then the Phd demands that all his questions be answered.
Stupid questions exists. folks, you’ve just seen three of them

EthicallyCivil
August 29, 2013 11:05 am

Solar science — careful observation doesn’t match model, model needs revision.
Climate science — careful observation doesn’t match model, wave hands, claim missing data is travesty, point with alarm at what might happen according to the model
It’s all so clear to me now.

August 29, 2013 11:07 am

Dr. Lurtz says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:47 am
I do real math models. I use statistics data to verify whether my model is correct.
‘real’ math models?
In physics, models are an expression of our knowledge [a short-hand you might say] and so what is important is what physical mechanism lies behind an observation. As far as I know you have never explained the physics.
Jim G says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:54 am
Are you saying that there are no 180/360 cycles or no theories about them, or both?
Both. A theory, in science, is not just some hand waving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Steven Mosher says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:54 am
Leif and others should not be subjected to this kind of abusive trolling on a technical scientific thread. Especially from an anonymous poster.
Well, in general we should take care that a thread is not [as in this case] hi-jacked by people who has their own [unfounded] pet ‘theories’ to peddle. I’m myself partly guilty by even replying to them [as their nonsense should just be ignored], but on the other hand there may be readers that need a suitable warning about the spreading of this kind of stuff.

RHL
August 29, 2013 11:09 am

Fascinating story about our closest star. The term “Doppler radar” is used incorrectly, I suspect. It appears that the scientists are creating images similar to Doppler radar, but other techniques are used to generate the images.

1 2 3 15
Verified by MonsterInsights