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
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.
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Geomagnetic activity and the solar wind during the Maunder Minimum
Edward W. Cliver1,
Valentín Boriakoff1,
Khaled H. Bounar2
Article first published online: 7 DEC 2012
DOI: 10.1029/98GL00500
Copyright 1998 by the American Geophysical Union.
Issue
Geophysical Research Letters
Volume 25, Issue 6, pages 897–900, 15 March 1998
Additional Information(Show All)
How to CiteAuthor InformationPublication History
SEARCH
Search ScopeAll contentPublication titlesIn this journalIn this issueBy Citation
Search String
AGU EASI Search >
Browse by Index Term >
ARTICLE TOOLS
Get PDF (540K)
Save to My Profile
E-mail Link to this Article
Export Citation for this Article
Get Citation Alerts
Request Permissions
More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on citeulikeShare on connoteaShare on deliciousShare on http://www.mendeley.comShare on twitter
Abstract
References
Cited By
Get PDF (540K)
We used a strong (r = 0.96) correlation between 11-year averages of sunspot number (SSN) and the geomagnetic aa index to infer that the mean level of geomagnetic activity during the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) was approximately a third of that observed for recent solar cycles (∼7 nT vs. ∼24 nT). We determined the variation of 11-year averages of solar wind speed (v) and the southward component of the interplanetary magnetic field (Bs) with cycle-averaged SSN for the two most recent cycles and also compared cycle-averaged variations of v²Bs and aa for the same interval. We then extrapolated these observed solar wind variations to Maunder Minimum conditions (mean SSN of ∼ 2 and mean aa value of ∼ 7 nT) to deduce that, on average, the solar wind during that period was somewhat slower (v = 340 ± 50 km s−1), and the interplanetary magnetic field much smoother (Bs = 0.3±0.1 nT), than at present (∼ 440 km s−1 and ∼ 1.2 nT). Various lines of evidence (including 10Be data) suggest that, despite the virtual absence of sunspots that characterized the Maunder Minimum, the 11-year geomagnetic (solar wind) cycle persisted throughout this period.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 30, 2013 at 1:26 pm
sep 2012 same
In your zeal, you overlook that the reference is to that same old obsolete paper. It just happens to be included in the publisher’s catalog in 2012.
dec 2012, alive and well is this theory.
Leif you are just amusing, nothing more .
they are not going to publish a paper that still is not valid.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 30, 2013 at 1:50 pm
they are not going to publish a paper that still is not valid.
The paper was published in 1998.
Dear Moderators, hasn’t “Salvatore Del Prete” crossed over to “thread spamming” yet?
Aa and Ap index are closely related (se wiki definitions).
Some time ago, I compiled volcanic index for the N. Hemisphere’s high latitudes and surprise, surprise
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
Since according to our Solar Sage solar activity can not be a trigger for volcanic activity, there is the inverse possibility.
Oh no, no, I am not suggesting (not as yet, but you never know) that volcanic eruptions affect solar activity.
What I was about to say, before I digressed, is that volcanic activity has short term effect on the Earths magnetic field, and this is registered by the magnetometers as the Ap/Aa magnetic variability.
This would render Ap and Aa indices somewhat less important metrics of the past or present solar activity.
Nonsense, I hear.
Well, you do have one extra choice, in addition to the three mentioned above, and that is ‘ a coincidence’.
Just ignore it, and do keep trashing the empty straw.
vukcevic says:
August 30, 2013 at 2:41 pm
volcanic activity has short term effect on the Earths magnetic field, and this is registered by the magnetometers as the Ap/Aa magnetic variability.
No, there is no such influence, unless the volcano erupts under the observatory.
Nonsense, I hear.
When you know it is nonsense, why bother us with it?
Volcanic eruptions are accompanied by prolong pre- & post earthquake activity. It is well known fact that there are strong geomagnetic disturbances at the time of strong quakes. Here is one of the more recent and best known examples:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Japan.gif
Over and out.
vukcevic says:
August 30, 2013 at 2:58 pm
It is well known fact that there are strong geomagnetic disturbances at the time of strong quakes.
no, that is not well known, in fact there is no effect, unless you are just on top of the earthquake.
Hey Leif, there’s another one about to go over to the Dark Nutty Side, comparing SSN (they just discovered the SIDC monthly graph) to Earth climate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/30/the-wuwt-hot-sheet-for-friday-august-30th-2013/#comment-1404136
My dear doc
I’ve just checked Tromso is still in Norway, as it was in March of 2011, not in Japan
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Japan.gif
Interiesting. I wonder if there is a similar structure in the upper atmosphere, with a counter flowing cell in the stratosphere above the known lower cell, and what effect that would have on atmospheric models.
vukcevic says:
August 30, 2013 at 3:30 pm
I’ve just checked Tromso is still in Norway, as it was in March of 2011, not in Japan
That should make it clear that there is no connection.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 30, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Hey Leif, there’s another one about to go over to the Dark Nutty Side, comparing SSN (they just discovered the SIDC monthly graph) to Earth climate
As Jack Eddy remarked “there is a hypnotism about cycles that seems to attract people. It draws all kinds of creatures out of the woodwork”. Having said that he went on to rediscover the Maunder Minimum…
anengineer says:
August 30, 2013 at 3:36 pm
I wonder if there is a similar structure in the upper atmosphere, with a counter flowing cell in the stratosphere above the known lower cell
There is a circulation in the upper atmosphere. It is however not a counter-flow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer-Dobson_circulation
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 30, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Dear Moderators, hasn’t “Salvatore Del Prete” crossed over to “thread spamming” yet?
—————————————————————————————————————-
That thought has crossed my mind, also. I have never had to scroll past so much blank space before, on this site.
There are a lot of folks still thinking the Sun has hold of the climate variation valve. Even Lord Monckton thinks this and he is on the climate stage saying it. I for one do not mind Salvatore bringing forth his pet theories. It allows examination of an unfortunately broadly head view out there in publicland.
Pamela Gray says:
August 30, 2013 at 5:08 pm
I for one do not mind Salvatore bringing forth his pet theories.
Neither do I, if he could do that without the extraneous fluff and snide comments [“Leif you are just amusing, nothing more”]. On the other hand, we have heard his opinion so often that it would be good if he could wait with more until he has something new to say.
Jeez, we just have Bart bow out and up pops Vuk again. I feel like am watching a WWF tag team match. As for Sal, I agree that something new would be nice.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 29, 2013 at 10:09 pm
..The latter effect can lead to a non-monotonic profile of the amplitude of the large-scale poloidal magnetic field in response to an increase of the circulation speed. The models qualitatively explains the observed synchronization between the polar magnetic field strength and the sunspot number”..
—
This sounds backwards to me..
More like a squelching of the poloidal magnetic field gradually began occurring first..
With a decrease in the polar rotation part of the solar differential rotation..
Then the increase of equatorial rotation..
And shearing of emerging flux ropes..
Leading to no spots for Ol Sol..
Which can be seen in the more comet like shape that the heliosphere bubble is in now..the squashed field.
But that is not why I’m here today..
J.G.Luhmann has some interesting work on a flux rope (HUGE FLuX RoPes) in the ionosphere of Mercury. Talk about a feed back loop, back into the solar extended corona when that puppy snaps..
Giant flux ropes observed in the magnetized ionosphere at Venus
T. L. Zhang,1,2 W. Baumjohann,2 W. L. Teh,2 R. Nakamura,2 C. T. Russell,3
J. G. Luhmann,4 K. H. Glassmeier,5 E. Dubinin,6 H. Y. Wei,3 A. M. Du,7 Q. M. Lu,1
S. Wang,1 and M. Balikhin8
Received 15 October 2012; accepted 9 November 2012; published 14 December 2012.
[1] The Venus ionospheric response to solar and solar wind
variations is most evident in its magnetic field properties.
Early Pioneer Venus observations during the solar maximum
revealed that the Venus ionosphere exhibits two magnetic
states depending on the solar wind dynamic pressure conditions:
magnetized ionosphere with large-scale horizontal
magnetic field; or unmagnetized ionosphere with numerous
small-scale thin structures, so-called flux ropes.
Here we report yet another magnetic state of Venus’ ionosphere, giant
flux ropes in the magnetized ionosphere, using Venus Express magnetic
field measurements during solar minimum.
These giant flux ropes all have strong core fields and diameters of
hundreds of kilometers, which is about the vertical
dimension of the ionosphere. This finding represents the first
observation of these giant flux ropes at Venus. The cause of
these giant flux ropes remains unknown and speculative…
Would any one care to comment about Venus getting wrapped in a “giant flux rope?”
Carla says:
August 30, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Then the increase of equatorial rotation..And shearing of emerging flux ropes..Leading to no spots for Ol Sol..
That would be nice, but, unfortunately, is not the way it works. The new cycle is build from the debris from the old cycle.
Which can be seen in the more comet like shape that the heliosphere bubble is in now..the squashed field.
Whatever happens out at the edge of the heliosphere has no influence on solar activity. The solar wind sweeps everything out. And the heliosphere is not an analog for the solar convection zone anyway.
J.G.Luhmann has some interesting work on a flux rope (HUGE FLuX RoPes) in the ionosphere of Mercury. Talk about a feed back loop, back into the solar extended corona when that puppy snaps..
Mercury or Venus? Doesn’t matter, the solar corona will not know. No feed back loop of consequence. The horse has already left the barn.
“These giant flux ropes all have strong core fields and diameters of hundreds of kilometers, which is about the vertical dimension of the ionosphere. This finding represents the first observation of these giant flux ropes at Venus. The cause of these giant flux ropes remains unknown and speculative…”
Would any one care to comment about Venus getting wrapped in a “giant flux rope?”
Don’t sound that ‘giant’ to me, but I guess every paper has to be sexed up a bit nowadays to appeal to the peanut gallery…
The Earth is wrapped in flux ropes a million miles across every week or so…
http://www.vsp.ucar.edu/Heliophysics/pdf/MoldwinM_MagneticFluxRopesSpacePlasmas_07.pdf
Pamela Gray says:
August 30, 2013 at 5:08 pm
“There are a lot of folks still thinking the Sun has hold of the climate variation valve.”
That appears to suggest you do not believe it. What is your hypothesis, then, for what is driving temperature variations? Does not all the heat ultimately have to be derived from the Sun? What is modulating the heat flows from the Sun if not direct variation at the source, in your opinion?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 30, 2013 at 12:03 pm
..B is a main factor in modulating cosmic rays. If Ap is low year after year, there will be no modulation of cosmic rays, yet during the Maunder Minimum the cosmic ray modulation was strong [even stronger than the past several cycles]. So, that argues for Ap not being low, year after year.
—
What if during the Maunder Min., the amount of cosmic rays in the solar neighborhood, were less than they are now, for this Modern Min.? Like maybe there are more now than then in the local solar neighborhood. They have seen them coming from two different regions, GCR, plus the ACR (anomalous cosmic rays) factor.
Bart says:
August 30, 2013 at 6:29 pm
What is modulating the heat flows from the Sun if not direct variation at the source
Try your hammer on the global temperature. If there is, as you suggest, a direct relationship, then you should find the same two ‘cycles’ beating against each other. If you do not, then there are other factors involved, or the relationship is not ‘direct’.