NGTS Observations of Enhanced Nanoflare Activity in Fully Convective Stars Linked to Plasma Resistivity

Previous examination of fully-convective M-dwarf stars highlighted unexplained enhanced rates of nanoflare activity. A potential explanation was linked to the helical turbulence dynamo which operates in fully convective stars. However, recent studies have found this helical dynamo does not appear significantly different to the Solar dynamo. The specific role the convective boundary plays on observed nanoflare rates, until now, was not known. Here we find evidence that fully convective M2.5V (and later) stars display greatly enhanced nanoflare rates compared with their pre-convective boundary counterparts. Importantly, the rate of nanoflare activity increases with increasing spectral sub-type, with nanoflares exhibiting greatly enhanced flaring rates via Sweet-Parker reconnection. This occurs more favourably at increased plasma resistivities experienced in these later MV stars, suggesting a direct interplay between the rate of nanoflare occurrence and the intrinsic plasma parameters. As such, nanoflare behaviour is likely to be unrelated to the behaviour of the local dynamo.

Signature of the turbulent component of the solar dynamo on active region scales and its association with flaring activity

ABSTRACT It is a challenging problem to obtain observational evidence of the turbulent component of solar dynamo operating in the convective zone because the dynamo action is hidden below the photosphere. Here we present results of a statistical study of flaring active regions (ARs) that produced strong solar flares of an X-ray class X1.0 and higher during a time period that covered solar cycles 23 and 24. We introduced a magneto-morphological classification of ARs, which allowed us to estimate the possible contribution of the turbulent component of the dynamo into the structure of an AR. We found that in 72 per cent of cases, flaring ARs do not comply with the empirical laws of the global dynamo (frequently they are not bipolar ARs or, if they are, they violate the Hale polarity law, the Joy law, or the leading sunspot prevalence rule). This can be attributed to the influence of the turbulent dynamo action inside the convective zone on spatial scales of typical ARs. Thus, it appears that the flaring is governed by the turbulent component of the solar dynamo. The contribution into the flaring from these AR ‘violators’ (irregular ARs) is enhanced during the second maximum and the descending phase of a solar cycle, when the toroidal field weakens and the influence of the turbulent component becomes more pronounced. These observational findings are in consensus with a concept of the essential role of non-linearities and turbulent intermittence in the magnetic fields generation inside the convective zone, which follows from dynamo simulations.

The magnetic helicity density patterns from non-axisymmetric solar dynamo

We study the helicity density patterns which can result from the emerging bipolar regions. Using the relevant dynamo model and the magnetic helicity conservation law we find that the helicity density patterns around the bipolar regions depend on the configuration of the ambient large-scale magnetic field, and in general they show a quadrupole distribution. The position of this pattern relative to the equator can depend on the tilt of the bipolar region. We compute the time–latitude diagrams of the helicity density evolution. The longitudinally averaged effect of the bipolar regions shows two bands of sign for the density distributions in each hemisphere. Similar helicity density patterns are provided by the helicity density flux from the emerging bipolar regions subjected to surface differential rotation.

Does the mean-field α effect have any impact on the memory of the solar cycle?

Context. Predictions of solar cycle 24 obtained from advection-dominated and diffusion-dominated kinematic dynamo models are different if the Babcock–Leighton mechanism is the only source of the poloidal field. Some previous studies argue that the discrepancy arises due to different memories of the solar dynamo for advection- and diffusion-dominated solar convection zones. Aims. We aim to investigate the differences in solar cycle memory obtained from advection-dominated and diffusion-dominated kinematic solar dynamo models. Specifically, we explore whether inclusion of Parker’s mean-field α effect, in addition to the Babcock–Leighton mechanism, has any impact on the memory of the solar cycle. Methods. We used a kinematic flux transport solar dynamo model where poloidal field generation takes place due to both the Babcock–Leighton mechanism and the mean-field α effect. We additionally considered stochastic fluctuations in this model and explored cycle-to-cycle correlations between the polar field at minima and toroidal field at cycle maxima. Results. Solar dynamo memory is always limited to only one cycle in diffusion-dominated dynamo regimes while in advection-dominated regimes the memory is distributed over a few solar cycles. However, the addition of a mean-field α effect reduces the memory of the solar dynamo to within one cycle in the advection-dominated dynamo regime when there are no fluctuations in the mean-field α effect. When fluctuations are introduced in the mean-field poloidal source a more complex scenario is evident, with very weak but significant correlations emerging across a few cycles. Conclusions. Our results imply that inclusion of a mean-field α effect in the framework of a flux transport Babcock–Leighton dynamo model leads to additional complexities that may impact memory and predictability of predictive dynamo models of the solar cycle.

Dynamics of Phase Synchronization between Solar Polar Magnetic Fields Assessed with Van Der Pol and Kuramoto Models

We establish the similarity in two model-based reconstructions of the coupling between the polar magnetic fields of the Sun represented by the solar faculae time series. The reconstructions are inferred from the pair of the coupled oscillators modelled with the Van der Pol and Kuramoto equations. They are associated with the substantial simplification of solar dynamo models and, respectively, a simple ad hoc model reproducing the phenomenon of synchronization. While the polar fields are synchronized, both of the reconstruction procedures restore couplings, which attain moderate values and follow each other rather accurately as the functions of time. We also estimate the evolution of the phase difference between the polar fields and claim that they tend to move apart more quickly than approach each other.

Shape of solar cycles and mid-term solar activity oscillations

ABSTRACT The evolution of solar activity comprises, apart from the well-known 11-year cycle, various temporal scales ranging from months up to the secondary cycles known as mid-term oscillations. Its nature deserves a physical explanation. In this work, we have considered the 5–6 year oscillations as derived both from sunspots and solar magnetic dipole time series. Using a solar dynamo model, we have deduced that these variations may be a manifestation of dynamo non-linearities and the non-harmonic shape of the solar activity cycles. We have concluded that the observed mid-term oscillations are related to the non-linear saturation of dynamo processes in the solar interior.

Solar Dynamo

The solar dynamo is the action of flows inside the Sun to maintain its magnetic field against Ohmic decay. On small scales the magnetic field is seen at the solar surface as a ubiquitous “salt-and-pepper” disorganized field that may be generated directly by the turbulent convection. On large scales, the magnetic field is remarkably organized, with an 11-year activity cycle. During each cycle the field emerging in each hemisphere has a specific East–West alignment (known as Hale’s law) that alternates from cycle to cycle, and a statistical tendency for a North-South alignment (Joy’s law). The polar fields reverse sign during the period of maximum activity of each cycle. The relevant flows for the large-scale dynamo are those of convection, the bulk rotation of the Sun, and motions driven by magnetic fields, as well as flows produced by the interaction of these. Particularly important are the Sun’s large-scale differential rotation (for example, the equator rotates faster than the poles), and small-scale helical motions resulting from the Coriolis force acting on convective motions or on the motions associated with buoyantly rising magnetic flux. These two types of motions result in a magnetic cycle. In one phase of the cycle, differential rotation winds up a poloidal magnetic field to produce a toroidal field. Subsequently, helical motions are thought to bend the toroidal field to create new poloidal magnetic flux that reverses and replaces the poloidal field that was present at the start of the cycle. It is now clear that both small- and large-scale dynamo action are in principle possible, and the challenge is to understand which combination of flows and driving mechanisms are responsible for the time-dependent magnetic fields seen on the Sun.

3. Spots and magnetic fields

‘Spots and magnetic fields’ explores sunspot behaviour. We have known since 1908 that sunspots are magnetic, but why does the Sun form them at all? Is the Sun extraordinary in this, or is its behaviour in line with other stars? The Sun’s magnetic field is generated by a solar dynamo, which can be partly explained by magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)—the study of the magnetic properties and behaviour of electrically conducting fluids—however, there is no full consensus on the solar dynamo. In the 1960s the new science of helioseismology gave us insights into the Sun’s interior rotation, but we are unable to make truly critical observations in the solar interior.