Origin of Parity Changes in the Sunspot Cycle 1

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stz2476/5561524 by CEA SACLAY, [email protected] on 06 September 2019

The Origin of Parity Changes in the Solar Cycle

Soumitra Hazra1,2? and Dibyendu Nandy1,2 †

1 Departmentof Physical Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur 741246, West Bengal, India
2 Center
of Excellence and Space Sciences India, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata, Mohanpur 741246,
West Bengal, India

4 September 2019

ABSTRACT
Although sunspots have been systematically observed on the Sun’s surface over the last four centuries
their magnetic properties have been revealed and documented only since the early 1900s. Sunspots
typically appear in pairs of opposite magnetic polarities which have a systematic orientation. This
polarity orientation is opposite across the equator – a trend that has persisted over the last century.
Taken together with the configuration of the global poloidal field of the Sun – this phenomena is
consistent with the dipolar parity state of an underlying magnetohydrodynamic dynamo. Although
transient hemispheric asymmetry in sunspot emergence is observed, a global parity shift has never
been observed. We simulate hemispheric asymmetry through introduction of random fluctuations
in a computational dynamo model of the solar cycle and demonstrate that changes in parity are
indeed possible in long-term simulations covering thousands of years. Quadrupolar modes are found
to exist over significant fraction of the simulated time. In particular, we find that a parity shift in
the underlying nature of the sunspot cycle is more likely to occur when sunspot activity dominates
in any one hemisphere for a time which is significantly longer than the cycle period. We establish
causal pathways connecting hemispheric asymmetry to parity flips mediated via a decoupling of the
dynamo cycle period across the two solar hemispheres. Our findings indicate that the solar cycle
may have resided in quadrupolar parity states in the past, and provides a possible pathway for
predicting parity flips in the future.
Key words: Sun: interior- magnetic fields

1 INTRODUCTION solar magnetic field observations cannot address this ques-

tion.
In 1843 Samuel Heinrich Schwabe identified the existence
of the 11-year solar cycle in long-term sunspot observations To investigate this issue, we utilize a kinematic flux
which were initiated in the early 17th century. However, de- transport solar dynamo model which involves the genera-
tailed observations regarding the nature of solar magnetic tion and recycling of the toroidal and poloidal components
field exist only for the last hundred years (Hale et al. 1919). of the solar magnetic field (Parker 1955). In this model,
Additionally, observations also reveal the systematic orien- the toroidal field is produced by stretching of poloidal field
tation associated with magnetic polarity of sunspots emerg- lines in the solar convection zone due to strong differen-
ing on the solar surface. Sunspots, in general, appear in pairs tial rotation (Parker 1955) and the poloidal field is gen-
with a leading and a following spot of opposite magnetic po- erated from the toroidal field through a combination of
larities. The magnetic polarity of the leading and following mean field α-effect due to helical turbulence in the solar
polarity spots belonging to different hemispheres are oppo- convection zone (Parker 1955) and the Babcock-Leighton
site, i.e., they are antisymmetric across the equator. This can mechanism due to decay and dispersal of tilted bipolar
arise only from oppositely directed toroidal field belts in the sunspot regions at the near-surface layers (Babcock 1961;
two hemispheres of the Sun and is a manifestation of the Leighton 1969). The kinematic flux transport dynamo model
dipolar nature of the underlying magnetic field. However, based on the Babcock-Leighton mechanism for poloidal
one may pose the question – have the solar magnetic fields field generation has successful in explaining diverse obser-
always been in a dipolar parity state? The limited span of vational aspects of the solar cycle (Dikpati & Charbonneau
1999; Nandy & Choudhuri 2002; Chatterjee et al. 2004;
Jouve & Brun 2007; Goel & Choudhuri 2009; Nandy et al.
2011; DeRosa et al. 2012; Passos et al. 2014; Hazra et al.
? E-mail: [email protected] 2014; Hazra & Nandy 2016). Recent solar activity ob-
† E-mail: [email protected] servations and reconstructions lend strong support to
2 Hazra & Nandy

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stz2476/5561524 by CEA SACLAY, [email protected] on 06 September 2019

the Babcock-Leighton mechanism as the dominant source metry can be found in a review paper by Norton et al.
for poloidal field generation (Dasi-Espuig et al. 2010; (2014).
Muñoz-Jaramillo et al. 2013; Bhowmik & Nandy 2018). To investigate hemispheric asymmetry and parity
Moreover, novel utilization of such models based on the issues and their inter-relationship, we first analyze the solar
Babcock-Leighton mechanism have led to predictive mod- magnetic field in terms of axial dipolar and quadrupolar
els of the solar cycle (Bhowmik & Nandy 2018) modes and find that parity reversal in the Sun may be
It is widely thought that stochastic fluctuations in the related to hemispheric asymmetry. Then we attempt to
poloidal field generation mechanism is the primary source for verify these findings from our kinematic solar dynamo
irregularity in the solar cycle (Hoyng 1988; Choudhuri 1992; model. We introduce stochastic fluctuations in both the
Charbonneau & Dikpati 2000; Charbonneau et al. 2004). In Babcock-Leighton mechanism and the additional mean field
the Babcock-Leighton framework, poloidal field generation α-effect and find that a stochastically driven dynamo can
depends on the tilt angle of bipolar sunspot pairs, which is self-consistently change parity. The above result begs the
imparted by the action of the Coriolis force on buoyantly question whether it is possible to predict parity flips in the
rising toroidal flux tubes from the base of the solar convec- Sun. Through our analysis we establish that parity flips in
tion zone. Observational scatter of tilt angles around the the sunspot cycle tend to occur when solar activity in one
mean given by Joy’s law may be produced by turbulent buf- hemisphere strongly dominates over the other hemisphere
feting that a rising flux tube experiences during its journey for a period significantly longer than the sunspot cycle
through the convection zone (Longcope & Choudhuri 2002). timescale.
Thus the Babcock-Leighton mechanism for poloidal field
generation is not an entirely deterministic process but has
inherent randomness (Choudhuri et al. 2007). Another pri-
mary source in solar cycle irregularity is fluctuations in the 2 MODEL
meridional circulation (Lopes & Passos 2009; Karak 2010).
On the one hand, two different types of symmetries Our model is based on αΩ dynamo equations in the axisym-
are obtained, in general, in the solutions of the dynamo metric spherical formulation wherein the dynamo equations
equations. The global magnetic field is of dipolar nature are:
(dipolar or odd parity) if the toroidal field is antisymmetric
∂A 1 f
!
across the equator (Fig. 1). Conversely, if the toroidal field g 1
+ vp · ∇(s A) = η ∇2 − 2 A + S(r, θ, B) (1)
is symmetric across the equator then the global field is of ∂t s s
quadrupolar nature (quadrupolar or even parity; Fig. 1).
Some previous studies have found solutions that are of ∂B
"
B
!#
1
!
quadrupolar nature using low diffusivity in their kinematic + s vp · ∇ + (∇ · vp )B = η ∇2 − 2 B
∂t s s
dynamo models (Dikpati & Gilman 2001). It has been sug- f g  1 ∂(sB) ∂η
gested that an additional alpha effect at the base of the +s ∇ × ( Aêφ ) · ∇Ω + , (2)
convection zone is essential to produce the observed dipo- s ∂r ∂r
lar parity (Dikpati & Gilman 2001; Bonanno et al. 2002). where, B(r, θ) (i.e. Bφ ) and A(r, θ) are the toroidal com-
However, other studies indicate that strong hemispheric ponent and vector potential for the poloidal component of
coupling in presence of higher diffusivity is sufficient for the magnetic field respectively. Here Ω is the differential ro-
maintaining global dipolar parity without considering any tation, vp is the meridional flow, η is the turbulent mag-
additional alpha effect at the base of the convection netic diffusivity and s = r sin(θ). For diffusivity and differ-
zone (Chatterjee et al. 2004; Chatterjee & Choudhuri 2006; ential rotation profile, we use double step radial diffusivity
Hotta & Yokoyama 2010). These past studies have been in- profile ensuring a smooth transition to the low diffusivity
spired with the primary aim of ensuring dipolar solutions beneath the base of the convection zone and an analytic
to the dynamo equations with the notion that the solar dy- fit of observed differential rotation. For meridional circula-
namo has always persisted in the dipolar parity state with tion, we use the same profile as described in Hazra & Nandy
antisymmetric toroidal fields across the equator. (2013). In this present study, we use the parameters as given
On the other hand unequal solar activity in the in Hazra & Nandy (2013) except we take R p = 0.65R0 (i.e.
northern and southern solar hemispheres (known as hemi- penetration depth of the meridional flow) and v0 = 17m s −1
spheric asymmetry) is well documented (Waldmeier 1955, (i.e. surface meridional flow speed).
1971; Chowdhury et al. 2013; McClintock & Norton 2013). In our model, toroidal field is generated due to strong
Observational evidence of strong hemispheric asymmetry differential rotation; while poloidal field is generated due
exists during the onset of grand-minima like episodes to the combined effect of the Babcock-Leighton mechanism
(Sokoloff & Nesme-Ribes 1994). Theoretical and observa- and the mean field alpha effect. In this paper, we model the
tional studies also suggest that hemispheric polar field at Babcock-Leighton mechanism by the method of double ring
the minimum of the solar cycle can be used as a precursor (Durney 1997; Hazra & Nandy 2013; Muñoz-Jaramillo et al.
to predict the amplitude of the next cycle (Schatten et al. 2010). In the double ring algorithm, we define the vector
1978; Schatten 2005; Jiang et al. 2007; Goel & Choudhuri potential associated with each ring doublet as:
2009; Karak & Nandy 2012). Recent studies also suggest
Aar (r, θ,t) = K1 A(Φ,t)F (r)G(θ), (3)
that the interplay between different dynamo modes may
explain the origin of hemispheric asymmetry (Käpylä et al. where, A(Φ,t) defines the strength of ring doublet, and the
2016; Shukuya & Kusano 2017; Schüssler & Cameron 2018). constant K1 ensures supercritical solutions. Φ is the mag-
Details about hemispheric coupling and hemispheric asym- netic flux. We use the profiles of F(r) and G(θ) as described
 Origin of Parity Changes in the Sunspot Cycle 3

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stz2476/5561524 by CEA SACLAY, [email protected] on 06 September 2019

[!h]

80

60 10

40
5
20
Latitude

0 0

−20
−5
−40

−60 −10

−80
−15
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 (G)
Time (years)

Figure 1. Top Panel shows dipolar (left) and quadrupolar (right) parity configuration. In the case of dipolar parity configuration (left
image), polarity orientation is opposite across the equator; while in the case of quadrupolar parity configuration (right image), polarity
orientation is same across the equator. Bottom panel shows the generated Butterfly diagram using observations fed into a surface flux
transport model, indicating that the Sun has resided in a dipolar parity state as long as observations have existed.

in Hazra & Nandy (2013). In this algorithm, we choose a lat- additional mechanism takes place inside the bulk of the con-
itude randomly in both northern and southern hemispheres vection zone.
and check whether the toroidal field strength at this latitude We run our simulation without any fluctuation and find
of the convection zone base exceeds the critical buoyancy solar-like solution with always dipolar parity.
threshold. If the toroidal field strength exceeds the buoyancy
threshold then we remove a portion of the corresponding
magnetic flux from this latitude at the base of the convection 3 RESULTS
zone and place this flux at the surface in the form of ring
doublets at the same latitude (see Muñoz-Jaramillo et al. 3.1 Multipolar Expansions of Solar Magnetic
(2010); Hazra & Nandy (2013); Hazra (2016) for detailed Fields and Parity-Asymmetry Relationship
explanation of the double ring algorithm). We can express solar photospheric magnetic fields in terms
We define the mean field α-effect as: of spherical harmonics. It can be written as,

cos θ
"
r − r1
!# "
r − r2
!# lX
ma x l
α m f = α0m f 1 + erf
X
1 − erf Br (θ, φ,t) = Blm (t)Ylm (θ, φ), (5)
4 d1 d2
l=0 m=0
1
×  2 (4) where θ and φ are the colatitude and longitude respectively,
B
1 + B uφp and t is the time. The spherical harmonics Ylm (θ, φ) are de-
fined as,
where α0m f controls the amplitude of this additional mean-
s
m m 2l + 1 (l − m)! m
field α-effect, r 1 = 0.71R , r 2 = R , d 1 = d 2 = 0.25R , Yl (θ, φ) = (−1) P (cos θ) e i mφ , (6)
4π (l + m)! l
and Bu p = 104 G i.e. the upper threshold. The function

1
 2 ensures that this additional α effect is only ef- where Plm (cos θ) are the associated Legendre polynomials
B φ
1+ Bu p of degree l and order m. Considering axial symmetry (m =
fective on weak magnetic field strengths (below the upper 0), we can write the expression of radial magnetic field in
threshold Bu p ) and the value of r 1 and r 2 confirms that this terms of axial dipolar and quadrupolar moments (assuming
4 Hazra & Nandy

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stz2476/5561524 by CEA SACLAY, [email protected] on 06 September 2019

can also define parity function P(t) in terms of quadrupolar
1

|Bn| > |Bs| |Bn| > |Bs|

and dipolar moments.
0.8

0.6
|QM | − |DM |
P(t) = , (14)
|QM | + |DM |
0.4

0.2
|Q M
D M | −1 QM
Parity

≥0


QM DM

0 
 D M |+1

 |
= ,

−0.2
 (15)
 DM
 1− | Q M | QM
<0


−0.4 
 1+| D M | DM

 QM
−0.6
|Bs| > |Bn|
−0.8 where QM is the quadrupolar moment, and DM is the
−1
dipolar moment. Value of parity function is -1 for dipolar
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Bn/Bs parity and +1 for quadrupolar parity.

Figure 2. Dependence of parity function P(t) on B n Fig. 2 shows the dependence of parity function P(t) on
B s . Region
between two dashed line indicates the region where the unsigned the ratio of signed magnetic field strength between north-
magnetic field strengths in the southern hemisphere are greater ern and southern hemispheres. From Fig. 2, we find that
than the northern hemisphere. parity shift is associated with the change in the relative
absolute magnetic field strengths between two hemispheres
(i.e., |Bn |/|Bs |). This result indicates that nonlinear coupling
the axial dipolar and quadrupolar moments are the main
between dipolar and quadrupolar modes of solar magnetic
determinants of radial magnetic field):
fields across the hemisphere may be an important factor in
Br (θ, φ,t) = C1 ∗ DM ∗ P1 (cos(θ)) + C2 ∗ QM ∗ P2 (cos(θ)), (7) characterizing parity reversals. Some recent studies also in-
dicate that coupling between different modes are respon-
where the dipolar (DM) and quadrupolar q (QM) moments q sible for long term solar variability as well as hemispheric
represent B1 and B2 respectively, C1 = 4π
0 0 3 and C =
2
5
4π . asymmetry (Käpylä et al. 2016; Shukuya & Kusano 2017;
Expression of radial magnetic field at a particular latitude Schüssler & Cameron 2018).
for the northern hemisphere is given by,
1
Bn = C1 ∗ DM ∗ cos(θ) + C2 ∗ QM ∗ (3 cos2 (θ) − 1), (8) 3.2 Parity-Asymmetry Relationship from
2
and for the southern hemisphere, Mean-field Kinematic Solar Dynamo Model

1 We investigate our theoretical findings about parity-

Bs = −C1 ∗ DM ∗ cos(θ) + C2 ∗ QM ∗ (3 cos2 (θ) − 1). (9) asymmetry relationship in detail using the kinematic
2
Babcock-Leighton solar dynamo model. To explore the par-
Combining equations (8) and (9), we get,
ity issue with our kinematic dynamo simulations, we calcu-
1 late the parity function in terms of quadrupolar and dipolar
DM = (Bn − Bs ), (10)
2 C1 cos(θ) moments following Eq. 15. We calculate quadrupolar and
and dipolar moments following Eq. 12 and 13 in terms of Bn and
1 Bs :
QM = (Bn + Bs ). (11)
C2 (3 cos2 (θ) − 1)
Z t+T /2
Note that, here Bn and Bs are the signed magnetic field Bn = B N (t 0 )dt 0 (16)
strengths in northern and southern hemispheres. t −T /2
So, for a particular latitude, we get,
Bn Z t+T /2
QM Bn + B s B +1 Bs = BS (t 0 )dt 0 (17)
= C3 = C3 B s , (12) t −T /2
DM Bn − B s n
Bs − 1
where B N and BS are the amplitudes of the toroidal field at
and
25◦ latitude in both northern and southern hemispheres at
Bn
DM Bn − B s B −1 the base of the solar convection zone, and T is the cycle pe-
= C4 = C4 B s , (13) riod in any one hemisphere. Value of the constants C3 and C4
Bn + B s
Bs + 1
QM n
(appeared in Eq. 12 and 13) are calculated for 25◦ latitude.
where C3 and C4 are constants for a particular lati- The value of parity function should be +1 for quadrupolar
tude. We assume these constants to be equal to unity for parity and -1 for dipolar parity. In the first scenario, we run
simplicity of calculation. We find that relative strengths of dynamo simulations without fluctuations, considering both
signed axial quadrupolar (QM) and dipolar (DM) moments the Babcock-Leighton mechanism and mean field alpha ef-
depend on the ratio of signed magnetic field strengths fect as a poloidal field generation process. We find the parity
between northern and southern hemispheres i.e., B n
B s . As of the solutions are always dipolar.
parity is essentially the measure of relative strength between Earlier studies have indicated that the dipolar parity
quadrupolar and dipolar modes of solar magnetic fields, we of dynamo solutions is associated with strong hemispheric
 Origin of Parity Changes in the Sunspot Cycle 5

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stz2476/5561524 by CEA SACLAY, [email protected] on 06 September 2019

Figure 3. First panel shows the evolution of smoothed parity (red colour) and 22 year averaged smoothed normalized signed asymmetry
(blue color) obtained from our simulations. Second, third, fourth and fifth panels are the simulated butterfly diagrams for different time
intervals where parity change takes place. Selected time intervals are shown in top panel by double arrow. All these plots indicate that
a change in solar parity takes place when sunspot activity in one hemisphere dominates over the other for a sufficiently large period of
time. This simulations corresponds to 60% fluctuations in the Babcock-Leighton mechanism and 50 % fluctuations in mean field α.

coupling – which can be obtained either by increasing dif- to helical turbulence inside the convection zone. Motivated
fusivity (Chatterjee et al. 2004) or by introducing an addi- by this fact, we introduce stochastic fluctuations in both
tional mean field α effect (distributed through the convec- the Babcock-Leighton source (K ar ) and mean field poloidal
tion zone, or tachocline; Dikpati & Gilman (2001)). How- source terms (α m f ). We find that parity of dynamo solu-
ever, none of these models consider stochastic fluctuation in tions oscillate between dipolar and quadrapolar modes (see
their simulations. In reality, the Babcock-Leighton mecha- top panels of Fig. 3 and 4).
nism is not a fully deterministic process but has some in-
What is the cause of parity change in our model?
trinsic randomness. This random nature arises due to scat-
One possible reason is the different levels of fluctuations
ter in tilt angles (an observed fact) of bipolar sunspot pairs
in poloidal field source terms associated with northern and
whose underlying flux tubes are subject to turbulent buf-
southern hemispheres. Stochastic fluctuations or random-
feting during their ascent through the turbulent convec-
ness in the poloidal source is plausibly at the heart of hemi-
tion zone (Longcope & Choudhuri 2002). The other poloidal
spheric asymmetry (Hoyng 1988). We find no north-south
field generation mechanism, namely mean field alpha ef-
asymmetry in the simulated solar cycle by performing dy-
fect, is also inherently random as this mechanism arises due
namo simulations without stochastic fluctuation. Thus we
6 Hazra & Nandy

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stz2476/5561524 by CEA SACLAY, [email protected] on 06 September 2019

Figure 4. First panel shows the evolution of smoothed parity (red colour) and 22 year averaged smoothed normalized signed asymmetry
(blue color) obtained from our simulations. Second, third, fourth and fifth panels are the simulated butterfly diagram for different time
intervals where parity change takes place. Selected time intervals are shown in top panel by double arrow. These simulations indicate
solar cycle parity changes take place when sunspot activity in one hemisphere dominates over the other for a sufficiently large period of
time. This simulation corresponds to 75% fluctuation in the Babcock-Leighton mechanism and 150 % fluctuation in mean field α.

speculate there is a relationship between hemispheric asym- signed asymmetry relationship with the different level of
metry and parity change. To investigate the relationship be- fluctuations in the Babcock-Leighton mechanism and mean
tween parity and hemispheric asymmetry, we need to define field α-effect. The top panel in Fig. 3 and 4 shows the time
hemispheric asymmetry in the context of our simulations. In evolution of parity and 22 years averaged signed asymme-
our kinematic flux transport dynamo model, we model the try. A comparison between the time evolution of parity and
Babcock-Leighton mechanism by the double ring algorithm. smoothed signed asymmetry reveals that change in parity
We believe that this algorithm to be a more realistic way to is associated with the strong dominance of flux emergence
capture the essence of the Babcock-Leighton mechanism as in one hemisphere for a long period. The same phenomenon
well as sunspots. For this work, we take the difference be- is reflected in the simulated butterfly diagrams. The sec-
tween number of double ring eruptions in the northern and ond, third, fourth and fifth panels of Fig. 3 and 4 are the
southern hemispheres as a measure of hemispheric asymme- corresponding butterfly diagrams for different time intervals
try. We define this difference the signed asymmetry for the where parity change takes place. However, we also notice
rest of the paper. that on some rare occasions there is a strong dominance of
eruptions in one hemisphere, but the parity does not change.
Figures 3 and 4 is the representative plot of parity and
 Origin of Parity Changes in the Sunspot Cycle 7

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stz2476/5561524 by CEA SACLAY, [email protected] on 06 September 2019

Figure 5. Top panel shows the simulated buttefly diagram when southern hemisphere is stronger than northern hemisphere throughout
the simulation. Middle panel shows the evolution of parity which indicates that parity is oscillating between dipolar and quadrupolar
mode with regular interval. The bottom panel shows how much cyclic activity in the northern hemisphere shifts over the southern
i
hemisphere with time (phase shift variation) with time (i.e., T N − TSi where T N
i
and TSi is the time of i t h cycle minima in the northern
and southern hemispheres respectively). The blue dotted line indicates the phase shift duration when parity change will take place (-5, 5,
16, 27 years). This result confirms our previous result that the Sun is more likely to shift the parity when one hemisphere is sufficiently
stronger over the other for few cycles.

To further validate our results we have performed some ad- similar hemispheric asymmetry persists over a significantly
ditional simulations in which one hemisphere strongly dom- long period lasting over several solar cycles, this allows a
inates over the other throughout the simulation. We ensure complete shift of parity. Interestingly, we find that cyclic
this single hemispheric dominance in these simulations by in- magnetic activity in the stronger hemisphere proceeds faster
creasing the number of double ring eruptions in the southern (i.e., completes more number of cycles in a given time) than
hemisphere by 10% relative to the northern hemisphere. This the weaker hemisphere and this eventually flips the parity
is achieved by appropriately biasing the buoyancy algorithm as time progresses.
to allow for higher eruptions in the southern hemisphere. In
The top and bottom panel of Fig. 6 shows how the
this scenario we always find the oscillation of parity with
cyclic magnetic activity in the northern hemisphere shifts
a regular interval (dipolar to quadrupolar and vice versa);
compared to the southern hemisphere with time for dynamo
this puts our findings based on stochastically forced dynamo
simulations with stochastic fluctuation. We also find a signif-
simulations on firmer grounds (see top panel of Fig. 5).
icant negative correlation (Spearman correlation coefficient
What are the physical pathways connecting hemispheric −0.64 with 99% confidence level) exists between the peri-
asymmetry in flux emergence, cycle phase shifts and par- odicity of the nt h cycle and the amplitude of the (n+1)t h
ity flips in these simulations? The presence of stochastic cycle (Fig. 7). However, there exist no correlation between
fluctuation breaks hemispheric coupling. In this scenario the periodicity of the nt h cycle and the amplitude of nt h ,
the toroidal field in the two hemispheres evolves indepen- (n-1)t h and (n+2)t h cycle (see Fig. 7) in these simulations.
dently with different periodicity resulting in a continuous Thus in principle, one may use cycle length to predict the
phase shift between the cycles in the two hemispheres. If a amplitude of the next solar cycle. This result also implies
8 Hazra & Nandy

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stz2476/5561524 by CEA SACLAY, [email protected] on 06 September 2019

Figure 6. The top and bottom panels show how much cyclic magnetic activity in the northern hemisphere shifts over the southern
hemisphere with time (i.e., phase shift versus time). We define the phase shift as the time by which cyclic magnetic activity in northern
i
hemisphere shifts over the southern hemisphere due to hemispheric asymmetry (i.e., T N − TSi where T Ni
and TSi is the time of i t h
cycle minima in the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively). The blue dotted line indicates the phase shift duration when
parity changes take place (-5.5, 5.5, 16.5 years). Top panel corresponds to the result of the simulation with 60% fluctuations in the
Babcock-Leighton mechanism and 50 % fluctuations in mean field α. The bottom panel corresponds to the result of simulation with 75
% fluctuation in the Babcock-Leighton mechanism and 100 % fluctuation in the mean field α.

that the solar dynamo has a memory of one cycle, which is effect. By introducing stochastic fluctuations in the poloidal
in agreement with earlier observational results Solanki et al. field source terms we find dynamo solutions with changing
(2002). In summary, cycle length correlates with the ampli- parity. Earlier results in a different context (without any con-
tude of the next cycle. These findings lead to the conclusion sideration of stochastic fluctuations in the dynamo source
that if solar activity in a certain hemisphere strongly domi- terms) indicated that the parity issue may be related to
nates over the other hemisphere for several solar cycles, then the coupling between hemispheres (Chatterjee & Choudhuri
it is more likely that magnetic activity in the stronger hemi- 2006). We demonstrate that the presence of stochastic fluc-
sphere will complete more number of cycles compared to the tuations makes hemispheric coupling weak which can some-
weaker hemisphere – eventually resulting in a hemispheric times lead to a global parity shift in the solar cycle. The
decoupling. interplay of dipolar and quadrupolar modes can be inter-
We perform several numerical simulations by introduc- preted as continuous nonlinear interactions between poloidal
ing different levels of fluctuations in both poloidal field and toroidal components of the solar magnetic fields. Our
sources and find that our model results are robust. investigation reveals that parity changes are likely to occur
only when one hemisphere strongly dominates over the other
hemisphere for a long period persisting over several solar cy-
4 CONCLUSIONS cles. Our findings may open pathways for predicting parity
flips in the Sun.
In order to establish causal connections between parity and
hemispheric asymmetry we first decompose the solar surface Systematic observations over the past century indicate
magnetic field in terms of axial dipolar and quadrupolar mo- that the solar magnetic field has always been in the dipolar
ments. We find that hemispheric asymmetry significantly af- parity state. However, it has been noted that there was large
fects the nonlinear coupling between dipolar and quadrupo- asymmetry in activity in the recovery phase of the Maunder
lar modes of the solar magnetic field across the hemisphere minimum, wherein, the appearance of sunspots was almost
and changes the parity over long time scales. We verify this confined to the southern hemisphere (Ribes & Nesme-Ribes
result by performing kinematic solar dynamo simulations. 1993). At this point, it is unclear whether this was related
We perform solar dynamo simulations where the poloidal to a possible parity change in the Sun before or after the
field generation takes place through the combined effect of Maunder minimum. Observations also indicate the possibil-
both the Babcock-Leighton mechanism and mean field α- ity of a “lost” cycle during the solar Dalton minimum which
 Origin of Parity Changes in the Sunspot Cycle 9

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stz2476/5561524 by CEA SACLAY, [email protected] on 06 September 2019

1.8 1.8
r p = -0.21 (99 %) r p = -0.12 (99 %)
1.6 r s = -0.23 (99 %) 1.6 r s = -0.11 (99 %)

1.4 1.4
Amp(n-1)

Amp(n)
1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
9 10 11 12 13 14 9 10 11 12 13 14
T(n) T(n)

1.8 1.8
r p = -0.65 (99 %) r p = -0.09 (99 %)
1.6 r s = -0.64 (99 %) 1.6 r s = -0.11 (99 %)

1.4 1.4
Amp(n+1)

Amp(n+2)

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
9 10 11 12 13 14 9 10 11 12 13 14
T(n) T(n)

Figure 7. Cycle-to-cycle correlations between cycle period, T(n), and (a) cycle amplitude Amp(n-1) (b) Amp(n) (c) Amp(n+1) (d)
Amp(n+2). The Pearson (r p ) and Spearman (r s ) correlation coefficients along with significance levels are inscribed.

was weak and short and may have had a role in a transient REFERENCES
parity shift (Karoff et al. 2015). We note that simulations
Babcock H. W., 1961, ApJ, 133, 572
utilizing low order solar dynamo models also independently Beer J., Tobias S., Weiss N., 1998, Sol. Phys., 181, 237
highlight the possibility of parity flips in the Sun (Beer et al. Bhowmik P., Nandy D., 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 5209
1998; Knobloch et al. 1998). Bonanno A., Elstner D., Rüdiger G., Belvedere G., 2002, A&A,
Thus, our results, taken together with other investiga- 390, 673
tions point out that hemispheric asymmetry or conversely Charbonneau P., Dikpati M., 2000, ApJ, 543, 1027
hemispheric coupling, cycle period fluctuation mediated par- Charbonneau P., Blais-Laurier G., St-Jean C., 2004, ApJ,
ity shifts and the occurrence of grand minima episodes may 616, L183
be related. We believe that a better understanding of these Chatterjee P., Choudhuri A. R., 2006, Sol. Phys., 239, 29
inter-relationships may provide pathways for predicting par- Chatterjee P., Nandy D., Choudhuri A. R., 2004, A&A, 427, 1019
ity shifts and the onset of grand minima episodes in solar Choudhuri A. R., 1992, A&A, 253, 277
activity. Choudhuri A. R., Chatterjee P., Jiang J., 2007,
Physical Review Letters, 98, 131103
Chowdhury P., Choudhary D. P., Gosain S., 2013, ApJ, 768, 188
Dasi-Espuig M., Solanki S. K., Krivova N. A., Cameron R.,
Peñuela T., 2010, A&A, 518, A7
DeRosa M. L., Brun A. S., Hoeksema J. T., 2012, ApJ, 757, 96
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dikpati M., Charbonneau P., 1999, ApJ, 518, 508
Dikpati M., Gilman P. A., 2001, ApJ, 559, 428
The Center of Excellence in Space Sciences India (CESSI) is
Durney B. R., 1997, ApJ, 486, 1065
supported by the Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Goel A., Choudhuri A. R., 2009,
Government of India. We thank the Council for Scientific Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 9, 115
and Industrial Research and University Grants Commission Hale G. E., Ellerman F., Nicholson S. B., Joy A. H., 1919, ApJ,
of the Government of India for supporting this research. We 49, 153
thank Prantika Bhowmik, Mayukh Panja and an anonymous Hazra S., 2016, preprint, (arXiv:1604.00563)
referee for reading this manuscript and providing useful sug- Hazra S., Nandy D., 2013, in Astronomical Society of India Con-
gestions. ference Series. (arXiv:1302.3133)
10 Hazra & Nandy

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/mnras/stz2476/5561524 by CEA SACLAY, [email protected] on 06 September 2019

Hazra S., Nandy D., 2016, ApJ, 832, 9
Hazra S., Passos D., Nandy D., 2014, ApJ, 789, 5
Hotta H., Yokoyama T., 2010, ApJ, 714, L308
Hoyng P., 1988, ApJ, 332, 857
Jiang J., Chatterjee P., Choudhuri A. R., 2007, MNRAS,
381, 1527
Jouve L., Brun A. S., 2007, A&A, 474, 239
Käpylä M. J., Käpylä P. J., Olspert N., Brandenburg A., War-
necke J., Karak B. B., Pelt J., 2016, A&A, 589, A56
Karak B. B., 2010, ApJ, 724, 1021
Karak B. B., Nandy D., 2012, ApJ, 761, L13
Karoff C., Inceoglu F., Knudsen M. F., Olsen J., Fogtmann-Schulz
A., 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 575, A77
Knobloch E., Tobias S. M., Weiss N. O., 1998, MNRAS, 297, 1123
Leighton R. B., 1969, ApJ, 156, 1
Longcope D., Choudhuri A. R., 2002, Sol. Phys., 205, 63
Lopes I., Passos D., 2009, Sol. Phys., 257, 1
McClintock B. H., Norton A. A., 2013, Sol. Phys., 287, 215
Muñoz-Jaramillo A., Nandy D., Martens P. C. H., Yeates A. R.,
2010, ApJ, 720, L20
Muñoz-Jaramillo A., Dasi-Espuig M., Balmaceda L. A., DeLuca
E. E., 2013, ApJ, 767, L25
Nandy D., Choudhuri A. R., 2002, Science, 296, 1671
Nandy D., Muñoz-Jaramillo A., Martens P. C. H., 2011, Nature,
471, 80
Norton A. A., Charbonneau P., Passos D., 2014, Space Sci. Rev.,
186, 251
Parker E. N., 1955, ApJ, 122, 293
Passos D., Nandy D., Hazra S., Lopes I., 2014, A&A, 563, A18
Ribes J. C., Nesme-Ribes E., 1993, A&A, 276, 549
Schatten K., 2005, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L21106
Schatten K. H., Scherrer P. H., Svalgaard L., Wilcox J. M., 1978,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 5, 411
Schüssler M., Cameron R. H., 2018, A&A, 618, A89
Shukuya D., Kusano K., 2017, ApJ, 835, 84
Sokoloff D., Nesme-Ribes E., 1994, A&A, 288, 293
Solanki S. K., Krivova N. A., Schüssler M., Fligge M., 2002, A&A,
396, 1029
Waldmeier M., 1955, Ergebnisse und Probleme der Sonnen-
forschung.
Waldmeier M., 1971, Sol. Phys., 20, 332