Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:03:48.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Magnetic Helicity as a Predictor of the Solar Cycle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2018

G. Hawkes  and
M. A. Berger
G. Hawkes
Affiliation:
College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Exeter University, United Kingdom, EX4 4PY, email: [email protected]
M. A. Berger
Affiliation:
College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, Exeter University, United Kingdom, EX4 4PY, email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It is known that the poloidal field is at its maximum during solar minima, and that the behaviour during this time acts as a strong predictor of the strength of the following solar cycle. This relationship relies on the action of differential rotation (the Omega effect) on the poloidal field, which generates the toroidal flux observed in sunspots and active regions. We measure the helicity flux into both the northern and southern hemispheres using a model that takes account of the omega effect, which we find offers a strong quantification of the above relationship. We find that said helicity flux offers a strong prediction of solar activity up to 5 years in advance of the next solar cycle.

Keywords

Sun: ActivitySun: Magnetic FieldsMagnetic Fields
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 13 , Symposium S335: Space Weather of the Heliosphere: Processes and Forecasts , July 2017 , pp. 20 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2018 

References

Choudhuri, A., Chatterjee, P. & Jiang, J., 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, M. A. & Field, G. B., 1984, J. Fluid. Mech, 147, 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, M. A. & Ruzmaikin, A, 2000, J. Geophys Research, 105, 10481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, S. E. S. & Potgieter, M. S., 2004, ApJ, 603, 744Google Scholar
Munoz-Jaramillo, A., Balmaceda, L. A. & Deluca, E. E. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111 (4)Google Scholar
Pariat, E., Leake, J. E., Valori, G., Linton, M. G., Zuccarello, F. P. & Dalmasse, K., 2016, A & AR, 631, 976Google Scholar