4.7 Article

A floor in the solar wind magnetic field

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 661, 期 2, 页码 L203-L206

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/518786

关键词

interplanetary medium; solar wind; Sun : magnetic fields

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-term (similar to 130 years) reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) based on geomagnetic indices indicates that the solar wind magnetic field strength has a floor, a baseline value in annual averages that it approaches at each 11 yr solar minimum. In the ecliptic plane at 1 AU, the IMF floor is similar to 4.6 nT, a value substantiated by direct solar wind measurements and cosmogenic nuclei data. At high heliolatitudes, Ulysses measured a constant radial field with a magnitude (normalized to 1 AU) of similar to 3.2 nT during solar minimum conditions in similar to 1995 when the observed solar polar fields were similar to 100 mu T and in 2006 when the polar fields were similar to 60 mu T, as well as for solar maximum conditions in 2001 when the polar fields were close to zero. We identify the floor with a constant (over centuries) baseline open magnetic flux at 1 AU of similar to 4 x 10(14) Wb, corresponding to a constant strength (similar to 10(11) A) of the heliospheric current. Solar cycle variations of the IMF strength ride on top of the floor. The floor has implications for (1) the solar wind during grand minima - we are given a glimpse of Maunder minimum conditions at every 11 yr minimum; (2) current models of the solar wind - both source surface and MHD models are based on the assumption, invalidated by Ulysses, that the largest scale fields determine the magnitude of the IMF; consequently, these models are unable to reproduce the high-latitude observations; and (3) the use of geomagnetic input data for precursor- type predictions of the coming sunspot maximum - this common practice is rendered doubtful by the observed disconnect between solar polar field strength and heliospheric field strength.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据