Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T08:26:55.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A porcupine Sun? Implications for the solar wind and Earth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2012

Sarah E. Gibson
Affiliation:
NCAR/HAO, 3080 Center Green Dr., Boulder, CO email: [email protected]
Liang Zhao
Affiliation:
NCAR/HAO, 3080 Center Green Dr., Boulder, CO 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.

The recent minimum was unusually long, and it was not just the case of the “usual story” slowed down. The coronal magnetic field never became completely dipolar as in recent Space Age minima, but rather gradually evolved into an (essentially axisymmetric) global configuration possessing mixed open and closed magnetic structures at many latitudes. In the process, the impact of the solar wind at the Earth went from resembling that from a sequence of rotating “fire-hoses” to what might be expected from a weak, omnidirectional “lawn-sprinkler”. The previous (1996) solar minimum was a more classic dipolar configuration, and was characterized by slow wind of hot origin localized to the heliospheric current sheet, and fast wind of cold origin emitted from polar holes, but filling most of the heliosphere. In contrast, the more recent minimum solar wind possessed a broad range of speeds and source temperatures (although cooler overall than the prior minimum). We discuss possible connections between these observations and the near-radial expansion and small spatial scales characteristic of the recent minimum's porcupine-like magnetic field.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2012

References

de Toma, G. 2011, Solar Phys., 274, 195 doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9677-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, S. E., Kozyra, J. U., de Toma, G., Emery, B. A., Onsager, T., & Thompson, B. J. 2009, Journ. Geophys. Res., 114, A09105, doi:10.1029/2009JA014342Google Scholar
Gibson, S. E. et al. , 2011, Solar Phys., 274, 5, doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9921-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, J., Thayer, J. P., Wang, W., & McPherron, R. L. 2010, Solar Phys., 274, 427, doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9563-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mewaldt, R. A. et al. , 2010, Astrophys. J. (Letters), 723, L1, 723, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/723/1/L1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, P. & Luhmann, J. 2012, Solar Phys., 421, in press, doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9909-0Google Scholar
Thompson, B. et al. , 2011, Solar Phys., 274, 29, doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9891-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Steiger, R. & Zurbuchen, T. H. 2011, Journ. Geophys. Res., 116, A01105, doi:10.1029/2010JA015835Google Scholar
Wang, Y.-M. & Sheeley, N. 1990, Astrophys. J., 355, 726, doi:10.1086/168805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, L. & Fisk, L. 2011, Solar Phys., 274, 379, 10.1007/s11207-011-9840-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar