The Heliospheric Magnetic Field
- 6.6k Downloads
The heliospheric magnetic field (HMF) is the extension of the coronal magnetic field carried out into the solar system by the solar wind. It is the means by which the Sun interacts with planetary magnetospheres and channels charged particles propagating through the heliosphere. As the HMF remains rooted at the solar photosphere as the Sun rotates, the large-scale HMF traces out an Archimedean spiral. This pattern is distorted by the interaction of fast and slow solar wind streams, as well as the interplanetary manifestations of transient solar eruptions called coronal mass ejections. On the smaller scale, the HMF exhibits an array of waves, discontinuities, and turbulence, which give hints to the solar wind formation process. This review aims to summarise observations and theory of the small- and large-scale structure of the HMF. Solar-cycle and cycle-to-cycle evolution of the HMF is discussed in terms of recent spacecraft observations and pre-spaceage proxies for the HMF in geomagnetic and galactic cosmic ray records.
KeywordsHeliosphere Magnetic field Solar wind
The solar corona is a highly conductive, magnetically-dominated plasma. With increasing height through the solar corona, increasing temperature results in pressure-driven solar wind outflow (Parker, 1958) and within a few solar radii, the flow momentum is comparable to the magnetic pressure. Thus, the solar wind drags the coronal magnetic field out into the solar system, forming the heliospheric magnetic field (HMF), historically referred to as the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), which pervades the entire heliosphere. The structure and dynamics of the HMF are key to understanding and forecasting space weather, as it directly couples the Sun with planetary magnetospheres, as well as channeling the flow of solar and cosmic energetic particles. The HMF is also the only aspect of the solar magnetic field which is accessible to direct measurement, providing strong constraints on theories of solar wind formation and the solar dynamo.
Information about the HMF can be obtained through a variety of indirect means, as discussed in Sections 2.2 and 3, but the bulk of our understanding comes from spacecraft-borne magnetometers, which make in situ observations of the of HMF. The first observations of the near-Earth solar wind were made by the Mariner spacecraft in the early 1960s. Subsequent spacecraft in near-Earth space have provided a reasonably complete record of the near-Earth heliospheric magnetic field since 1965. The OMNI dataset (see Section 5.3) collates the near-Earth solar wind measurements from numerous spacecraft. A full review of all heliospheric spacecraft is beyond the scope of this review, but there are a number which bear particular note as they form the basis of much of the discussion in the rest of the paper. Pioneer 10 and 11 (Smith et al., 1975), launched in the early 1970s, were the first spacecraft to explore beyond 1 AU. While contact has been lost, Pioneer 10 was tracked to nearly 80 AU. Voyager 1 and 2 (Behannon et al., 1977) were launched in 1977. Both have scientific instruments still operating. Voyager 1 crossed the termination shock in 2004 at 94.5 AU and recently became the first spacecraft to cross the heliopause at 121.6 AU and enter interstellar space. Voyager 2, following behind, crossed the termination shock at 84 AU in 2007. See Section 2.6 for further detail. Helios 1 and 2 (Scearce et al., 1975), launched in 1974 and 1976, explored the inner heliosphere in the ecliptic plane between 0.3 and 1 AU from the Sun. Ulysses (Balogh et al., 1992), launched in 1990 into an approximately 6-year orbit of the Sun inclined at 80.2° to the solar equator, with perihelion at 1.3 AU and aphelion at 5.4 AU. It was the first spacecraft to explore the 3-dimensional structure of the heliosphere over a large latitude range. Operations ceased in 2009 after nearly 3 orbits. Finally, STEREO (Acuña et al., 2008), launched in 2006, consists of two spacecraft at 1 AU separating in solar longitude ahead of and behind the Earth. They carry instrumentation aimed at obtaining stereoscopic views of the Sun and making multi-point in-situ measurements of the solar wind and HMF.
There have been a number of excellent reviews of the HMF (e.g., Balogh and Erdős, 2013; Zurbuchen, 2007), particularly focussed on the three-dimensional structure revealed by the Ulysses spacecraft (Smith, 2008). Here, we hope to incorporate observations from the most recent solar cycle and put it in context of the long-term evolution of the HMF. Recent models of HMF evolution will also be discussed. Section 2 introduces the steady-state heliosphere, an approximation most valid when the solar corona is slowly evolving over a solar rotation period, such as times close to solar minimum. Section 3 briefly discusses particle probes of the HMF, as these underpin our understanding of transient HMF structures summarised in Section 4. Section 5 discusses the evolution of the HMF over the solar cycle, including the long-term variation of the HMF inferred from proxy data.
2 Steady State Heliosphere
The solar magnetic field evolves on a range of time scales, from seconds to centuries. At the shortest time scales, waves and turbulence result in fine-scale HMF structure, briefly reviewed in Section 4.3. The solar wind, and hence the HMF, exhibits recurrence at the ∼ 25.4-day solar rotation period, explained in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. Evolution on the scale of the 11-year solar cycle is discussed in Section 5 and the century scale variations evident from geomagnetic records specifically in Section 5.5. Nevertheless, much of the structure of the HMF can be understood by the steady-state approximation.
2.1 Magnetic origin of the solar wind
The solar corona is a low beta, high conductivity plasma. Thus, coronal dynamics are dominated by the evolution of the coronal magnetic field, which in turn is driven by plasma motions in the photosphere. The coronal plasma is heated to around 1–2 million Kelvin, by processes which are still under debate (e.g., Cranmer, 2008; McComas et al., 2007), though it must involve the coronal magnetic field as it is the only source of sufficient energy density. The high coronal temperature leads to the formation of the solar wind, which becomes super-Alfvénic within 10–20 solar radii. The solar wind drags the coronal magnetic field out into the heliosphere, forming the HMF. Thus, the large scale structure and dynamics of the HMF is governed by the solar wind flow, which in turn has its origin in the magnetic structure of the corona. The simplest steady-state picture is observed under solar minimum conditions when the coronal magnetic field is closest to dipolar, typically with the magnetic dipole axis tilted by a few degrees to the solar rotation axis. The corona is observed to be organised into a belt of dense bright streamers around the magnetic equator with darker polar coronal holes in the high latitude regions. At this time fast solar wind (typical speeds ∼ 750 km s−1) fills most of the heliosphere, flowing outwards from the Sun from the regions of open magnetic field lines originating in the polar coronal holes. However, a belt of slower solar wind (typical speeds ∼ 300–400 km s−1) of about 20° latitudinal width originates from the streamer belt region corresponding to the magnetic equator. The magnetic field boundary separating oppositely directed magnetic field lines originating from the northern and southern polar coronal holes is carried out by this slower solar wind to form the heliospheric current sheet (HCS), a large scale magnetic boundary which extends throughout the heliosphere. The heliospheric magnetic field structure which arises under these conditions is described in more detail in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 and the evolution into a more complex field structure under solar maximum conditions in Section 5.2.
2.2 Photospheric extrapolations
Remote observations of the photospheric magnetic field have the potential to give us a valuable synoptic picture of the coronal magnetic field which is vital in understanding the global structure of the HMF. The line-of-sight component of the photopsheric magnetic field can be routinely imaged using ground- and space-based magnetographs (e.g., Hoeksema and Scherrer, 1986). Most of this photospheric flux is “closed” solar flux, meaning it forms chromospheric or coronal loops below the height at which gas pressure exceeds magnetic pressure and, thus, does not contribute to the heliospheric magnetic field carried by the solar wind (e.g., Wang and Sheeley Jr, 2003). A fraction of these loops (∼ 10 to 50%, e.g., Arge et al., 2002) do extend high enough to be dragged out by the solar wind, as detailed below. This flux is often termed “open,” as it extends out to form the HMF (note that flux open to the corona may still form closed loops within the heliosphere. See Section 3.1). From photospheric observations alone, it is not possible to discern between open and closed solar magnetic flux and, thus, estimate the magnitude and configuration of the HMF. The observed photospheric magnetic field can, however, be used as a boundary condition to coronal models. Extrapolation of the photospheric magnetic field requires a complete map of the photospheric field. As all past and present magnetograph instruments are either ground based or in near-Earth space, this means the solar rotation poles are poorly viewed and accruing complete longitudinal coverage requires a full synodic solar rotation, ∼ 27.27 days. Thus, photospheric extrapolation is best suited to reconstruction of the steady-state corona and HMF and, consequently, is generally more applicable to solar minimum conditions than the rapidly evolving structures at solar maximum.
The Potential-Field Source-Surface model (PFSS, Schatten et al., 1969; Altschuler and Newkirk Jr, 1969) is the most widely used photospheric extrapolation technique, owing to its simplicity and low computational overhead. It assumes zero current density in the corona, meaning PFSS solutions approximate the minimum energy state of the corona for a given photospheric boundary condition. The inner boundary is the observed photospheric magnetic field, while the outer boundary is the “source surface” where the field is assumed to be radial, typically placed around 2–2.5 R S in order to best match spacecraft observations (e.g., Hoeksema et al., 1982; Lee et al., 2011). Open solar flux, and hence the HMF, is then defined as any magnetic loop threading the source surface. While the PFSS model has proven invaluable for understanding the solar cycle evolution of the HMF (e.g., see Section 5.4), it should be noted that it does not provide perfect agreement with in situ spacecraft observations of HMF intensity or sector structure, and many features are ad hoc, rather than based on first principles. On the basis of the Ulysses observation of a latitudinal invariance in the strength of the radial HMF (see Section 2.3), a thin current sheet model Schatten (1971) is sometimes added to the PFSS model in order to create a more uniform radial field strength at the source surface (e.g., Wang and Sheeley Jr, 1995).
Photospheric magnetograms can also be used to constrain 3-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) models of the corona, such as Magnetohydrodynamics Around a Sphere (MAS) (Linker et al., 1999; Mikić et al., 1999, see also http://www.imhd.net) and the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF) (Tóth et al., 2005). Initial conditions are typically derived using the PFSS model and the time-dependent MHD equations then solved to allow the solution to relax to steady state. In general, this produces qualitatively similar results for the heliospheric magnetic field configuration and magnitude to PFSS solutions (Riley et al., 2006a). In principle, the MHD approach allows for a time-dependent inner boundary condition, though at present this involves an ad-hoc manipulation of the photospheric magnetic field and has only been possible for specific event studies (e.g., Linker et al., 2003).
Both PFSS and MHD extrapolations find that open solar flux, the foot points of heliospheric field lines, usually map to dark regions in soft X-ray and EUV images known as coronal holes (e.g., Levine et al., 1977; Wang et al., 1996), which are predominantly confined to the poles at solar minimum (see also Cranmer, 2009). Regions determined to have closed solar magnetic fields are closely associated with the observed locations of coronal bright regions such as helmet streamers, which are confined to the equatorial regions near solar minimum. (Note that alternative interpretations of the source of open solar flux do exist, e.g., Woo (2005).) This pattern was somewhat disrupted during the most recent solar minimum between solar cycles 23 and 24, due to the decreased strength of the polar fields allowing weak equatorial field regions to generate low-latitude coronal holes (Luhmann et al., 2009; Abramenko et al., 2010).
2.3 Parker spiral magnetic field
These equations show that at colatitude θ, field lines can be viewed as wrapped around the surface of a cone of half angle θ or, alternatively, that the field lines gradually become less tightly wound with latitude until a field line originating from the Sun’s rotational pole should be purely radial. In the inertial frame the velocity streamline is radial but the field line remains the same.
The discovery from early observations (e.g., Wilcox and Ness, 1965) that the in-ecliptic HMF is divided into just a few magnetic field polarity sectors in each solar rotation indicates that the HMF structure in the heliosphere is much simpler than the complexes of activity seen in the photosphere and corona, as indicated schematically in Figure 1. This phenomenon was interpreted (Schulz, 1973) as the dominant dipole and weaker higher order components of the solar field being carried out into the heliosphere by the solar wind, the two polarities of the dipole being separated by the warped heliospheric current sheet (HCS), shown as the green dashed line in Figure 1. The polarity pattern in the heliosphere is discussed in more detail in Section 2.4.
At both solar minimum and solar maximum polar passes, Ulysses observations showed R2B R to be invariant with latitude (Smith and Balogh, 1995, 2003), contrary to the expectations of PFSS model fields, which approximate a dipolar field at solar minimum. This suggests that close to the Sun (i.e., well within 10 R S ), the coronal magnetic field undergoes significant non-radial expansion so as to equilibrate tangential magnetic pressure, and hence B R , on the solar wind source surface (Suess and Smith, 1996). Consequently, the degree of non-radial expansion undergone by coronal flux tubes can vary considerably depending on the location of the photospheric foot point within a coronal hole. Using a PFSS model of the corona, Wang and Sheeley Jr (1990) found an anticorrelation between flux-tube expansion and resulting solar wind speed, discussed further in Section 2.4. The “Ulysses result” of R2B R invariance with latitude also means that a measurement of B R at any point in the heliosphere is, in principle, sufficient to estimate the total magnetic flux threading a heliocentric sphere at the point of observation, which is directly related to the magnetic flux threading the solar wind source surface, usually referred to as the total unsigned open solar flux (OSF; e.g., Smith and Balogh, 1995; Lockwood et al., 2004, see also Section 5).
2.4 Solar minimum: Quasi-dipolar magnetic field
At solar minimum, open solar flux and, therefore, the HMF largely maps to polar coronal holes. Thus, assuming the Wang and Sheeley Jr (1990) framework, fast solar wind would be expected from the large-scale unipolar regions over the poles, where the field undergoes little non-radial expansion at high latitudes in comparison to nearer the edges of the streamer belt. Conversely, slower solar wind is expected nearer the solar equator, where opposite magnetic polarities converge to produce helmet streamers and significant non-radial expansion is needed to equalise ∣B R ∣ over the source surface. This solar wind structure was observed by Ulysses (McComas et al., 2003) and is shown in the right-hand column of Figure 4. Note, however, that while flux-tube expansion is extremely useful for identifying the location of slow solar wind, it is unlikely to be the actual mechanism by which it is formed (e.g., McComas et al., 2007, and references therein). At solar maximum, slow solar wind fills much of the heliosphere, as discussed in Section 5.2. In general the sources of the fast wind are better understood than those of the slow wind.
2.5 Stream interaction regions
As the HMF is frozen to the solar wind flow, it should be dragged in the same sense as the deflected flow within an interaction region. Clack et al. (2000) found that this expected large scale correlation between the flow and the magnetic field was hard to extract from the general variability of the magnetic field direction. However, due to the compression of the HMF within the interaction region, the varying magnetic field is forced to lie in a plane approximately parallel to the SI. As a consequence of the relationship between the HCS and the coronal streamer belt, the HCS is located at the centre of the slow solar wind band near the Sun. Indeed, the HCS is often observed to be embedded within SIRs and CIRs (Gosling and Pizzo, 1999). As the forward wave/shock propagates into the slow solar wind ahead of a CIR it can eventually overtake the HCS boundary, making it more likely for the HCS to be embedded within a CIR with increasing distance from the Sun (Thomas and Smith, 1981). In Figure 8, the location of the HCS is shown by the green dashed line. Behind the compressed interaction region, at the trailing end of the high-speed stream the fast solar wind runs away from the slow solar wind behind it, creating a rarefaction region in which the magnetic field intensity and plasma density are reduced, and the solar wind speed monotonically declines. Behind the SI and within the rarefaction region it is often noticed that the magnetic field components have higher variance. This is because the presence of large amplitude Alfvén waves is a typical property of the fast solar wind (e.g., Belcher and Davis Jr, 1971).
2.6 Outer heliosphere
With the Voyager 1 spacecraft having recently passed the heliopause (Gurnett et al., 2013) and Voyager 2 close behind, our understanding of the outer heliosphere is evolving rapidly. This section contains a very brief summary of the outer heliosphere magnetic field. For a more comprehensive discussion of these topics, Zank (1999) and Linsky (2009) provide excellent, in-depth reviews of the distant heliospheric structure, while Balogh and Jokipii (2009) review the heliospheric magnetic field in the heliosheath.
Inside the termination shock, the HMF is generally well described by the Parker spiral model, however, there is some debate about whether the fall-off in magnetic field intensity is faster than predicted. Note that the radial magnetic field, B R , decreases as the square of the heliocentric distance [Equation (1)] and can be both positive and negative, meaning it is technically challenging to make measurements of the outer-heliosphere B R with sufficient accuracy to test the Parker model. The magnetic field intensity, B, is a scalar quantity, so can be averaged over long time periods. Analysis of the Pioneer 10 and 11 data suggested B decreases by approximately 1% per AU more than predicted by the Parker model (Winterhalter et al., 1990). The existence of such a “flux deficit” (Thomas et al., 1986) is disputed by Burlaga et al. (2002), who argue that the Voyager observations are consistent with the Parker model within observational uncertainty, if both the solar cycle variation of the solar source B and time/latitude variations in solar wind speed are accounted for.
Assuming the observed latitudinal invariance in B R in the inner heliosphere, the sin θ term in B ϕ [Equation (3)] means B in the outer heliosphere should be stronger near the equator than the poles. Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft, however, did not find strong evidence of latitudinal gradients in B (Winterhalter et al., 1990). There are a number of possible explanations for these observations. The confinement of SIRs to low latitudes at solar minimum means that the HMF has a tendency to become more radial than the Parker model predicts. Furthermore, the excess plasma pressure produced by heating at the SIR forward/reverse shocks could lead to a meridional expansion of the HMF, transporting flux to higher latitudes, in agreement with the small poleward plasma flows detected by Voyager (e.g., Richardson and Paularena, 1996). Alternatively, at solar minimum, the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability could act between the high-latitude fast wind and the low-latitude slow wind to generate a channel of vortices to drive such plasma flows and, hence, transport HMF (Burlaga and Richardson, 2000).
The shorter time-scale dynamics of the outer heliospheric HMF are dominated by merged interaction regions (MIRs, e.g., Burlaga et al., 2003; Hanlon et al., 2004); huge structures of compressed magnetic field and plasma which form from coalescing solar wind structures such as CIRs and ICMEs. The early formation of these structures can be observed even at 1 AU, where they can result in prolonged and severe geomagnetic effects. In the outer heliosphere, they can produce significant (if transient) deviations to the Parker spiral magnetic field. (See also Section 4.2.) MIRs also provide strong barriers to galactic cosmic ray propagation and in extreme cases may produce a significant disturbance to the structure of the heliopause and termination shock.
3 Particle Probes of the HMF
While in situ magnetometer measurements can make extremely accurate observations of the local magnetic field strength and orientation, information about the global heliospheric magnetic field topology, particularly HMF connectivity to the solar surface, can be probed through energetic particle observations.
3.1 Suprathermal electrons
Suprathermal electrons (STEs) have energies well above the thermal plasma (e.g., > 70 eV), allowing them to stream along the HMF and carry the heat flux away from the Sun (Feldman et al., 1975; Rosenbauer et al., 1977). As the STEs move out into the heliosphere, a strong STE field-aligned beam, or “strahl,” is formed by conservation of magnetic moment. This strahl serves as an effective tracer of heliospheric magnetic field topology. As STEs move much faster along magnetic fields than the bulk plasma flow, they also act as near-instantaneous indicators of magnetic connection to the Sun.
Finally, at (d), the HMF has no connection to the photosphere, forming a disconnected loop in the heliosphere. No strahl is expected on such a flux system, and periods of “heat flux dropouts” (HFDs; McComas et al., 1989) or, more accurately, “electron dropouts” (EDs; Owens and Crooker, 2007) are expected. However, they are observed to be extremely rare in solar wind observations (Pagel et al., 2005, 2007). Note that this does not necessarily mean that the disconnection of heliospheric flux is uncommon, just that the signature of disconnection is only fleetingly observable at 1 AU (see Owens and Crooker, 2007, for more detail).
3.2 High-energy particles
While suprathermal electrons are ubiquitous in the solar wind, there are also intermittent bursts of much higher energy particles, both electrons and ions, which result from particle acceleration at solar flare sites and at shock fronts driven by solar eruptions and stream interaction regions (SIRs). As the flare-associated impulsive solar energetic particles (SEPs) have distinct launch times, the dispersion in arrival times of particles of different energies can provide information about the length of the field line connecting the observer and the source (e.g., Larson et al., 1997; Chollet and Giacalone, 2011; Kahler et al., 2011). When the particle acceleration site can be reliably determined (e.g., using extreme ultra-violet or soft X-ray observations of a flare), the spatial connection between the observer and the Sun can also be inferred. Energetic particles accelerated at SIR-driven shock fronts (see Section 2.5) have been particularly useful for understanding changing connectivity of the HMF to the photosphere (Fisk, 1996, see also Section 5.4).
Energetic particles from non-solar sources can also reveal information about the large-scale heliospheric magnetic field. Energetic electrons released by the Jovian magnetosphere (Teegarden et al., 1974; Chenette et al., 1974) provide a point source in the heliosphere which can be used to infer magnetic connectivity to Jupiter and, hence, the large-scale structure of the HMF (Chenette, 1980; Moses, 1987; Owens et al., 2010). Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) (e.g., Usoskin, 2013, and references therein), which originate outside the solar system, are near isotropic. Thus, changes in GCR flux can reveal information about the large-scale HMF, particularly the total open solar flux (OSF) and heliospheric current sheet orientation (e.g., Ferreira and Potgieter, 2003; Alanko-Huotari et al., 2007, see also Section 5.5.3). Cosmic-ray intensity in the heliosphere rises and falls in anticorrelation with the OSF and, hence, shows a strong 11-year solar cycle variation. Cosmic-ray intensity, however, also shows a 22-year cycle (Webber and Lockwood, 1988; Smith, 1990), with alternate cycles displaying “peak-” and “dome-like” variations. This is primarily due to differing cosmic ray drift patterns in alternate global solar magnetic polarities (Jokipii et al., 1977), though there is some evidence that the OSF and latitudinal extent of the heliospheric current sheet are enhanced during odd-numbered solar cycles relative to even ones, which may lead to direct modulation of cosmic rays by differing heliospheric structure (Cliver and Ling, 2001; Thomas et al., 2013).
While less directly relevant to this review, we note there are a host of other non-solar energetic particles present in the heliosphere which are of great interest to a range of scientific areas. Pickup ions are formed when neutral particles become ionized and entrained in the solar wind and, hence, reveal information about both the neutral interstellar medium and the inner heliospheric dust distribution (see Gloeckler et al., 2001, for an excellent review of the subject). As pickup ions can contribute as much as 10% of the abundance of solar wind ions in the outer heliosphere, they can affect solar wind dynamics at large heliocentric distances. Energetic neutral atoms (ENAs), on the other hand, are high-energy charged particles which charge exchange with the solar wind to become neutral. As they are demagnetised, they travel large distances undisturbed, enabling remote sensing of magnetospheres or distant heliospheric structure, such as the heliopause (Gruntman, 1997). The Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) mission (McComas et al., 2009) is currently mapping the structure of the heliopause through ENA imaging, as discussed in Section 2.6.
4 Transient and Fine-scale Structure
4.1 Deviations from the Parker model
While the Parker model describes the HMF remarkably well, there are a number of “second-order” alterations or additions required to fully explain observations. One such observation is the existence of shock-accelerated particles at latitudes higher than where CIR shocks are located. In the declining phase of the solar cycle, Ulysses observed CIRs to be confined to within 40° of the solar equator, about 10° greater than the ∼ 30° maximum latitude of the HCS at the time, but the energetic protons and electrons associated with CIR shocks were observed at much higher latitudes (Roelof et al., 1997). While solar wind particles are typically frozen to field lines, one possible explanation is that these more energetic particles effectively diffuse across the magnetic field as a result of scattering off magnetic waves and inhomogeneities (Kóta and Jokipii, 1995).
Alternatively, if the photospheric connectivity of heliospheric field lines changes in a systematic fashion, particles accelerated at CIRs close to the HCS could be expected at high latitudes without the need for strong cross-field diffusion. Such a framework was described by Fisk (1996). It results from combining a number of observations of the solar magnetic field, most importantly, the photospheric plasma and magnetic field are known to rotate differentially with latitude, from a rotational period of approximately 25 days at the equator, to over 30 days in the polar regions. Coronal holes, on the other hand, are observed to rotate rigidly about the rotation axis but with an axis of symmetry which is tilted with respect to the rotation axis (e.g., Bird and Edenhofer, 1990, and references therein). The non-radial overexpansion of the magnetic field within coronal holes described at the end of Section 2.3 also takes place about this symmetry axis. If this symmetry axis and rotational axis are aligned, HMF footpoints drift around the rotation axis resulting in a Parker-like heliospheric field in which the HMF traces out cones of constant latitude even if the field lines are rooted at a higher latitude in the photosphere. If, however, the symmetry axis of the magnetic structure is inclined to the rotational axis, the HMF becomes more complex and a field line from a particular moving photospheric source can make large excursions in latitude over time in the heliosphere due to experiencing different amounts of overexpansion in the corona. A further consequence of magnetic inclination to the rotation axis is that reconnection between the open HMF within coronal holes and closed coronal loops at the edges of coronal holes (referred to as “interchange reconnection,” e.g., Crooker et al., 2002) allows the HMF footpoints to saltate across the photosphere against differential rotation (Nash et al., 1988; Wang and Sheeley Jr, 2004). See Fisk et al. (1999) for more detail.
The effects of the above model should be most systematic in the stable tilted dipole configuration of the solar corona often encountered in the declining and minimum phases of the solar cycle, such as was charactersitic of the 1992–1997 Ulysses data. Attempts have been made to detect systematic latitudinal components in the Ulysses HMF data (Zurbuchen et al., 1997; Forsyth et al., 2002) but it was found likely that the amplitude of the signal would be too small to stand out from the general variability of the field. Alternative observational evidence for the resulting deviations from the Parker model can be found in rarefaction regions behind CIRs, where the HMF is found to be systematically more radial than an ideal Parker spiral for the observed solar wind speed (Murphy et al., 2002). This has been interpreted as the changing solar wind speed at the HMF footpoint (Schwadron, 2002), which could be expected if the HMF footpoint moves across the coronal hole boundary at the trailing edge of the fast stream as a result of differential rotation. Indeed, a similar mechanism has been proposed as the source of the slow solar wind (Fisk, 2003).
Solar wind intervals have also been identified in which the HMF is Parker spiral-aligned, but the suprathermal electron strahl is directed toward the Sun (Kahler et al., 1996; Crooker et al., 2004b, and references therein). This must result from the HMF being locally inverted, most likely as a result of interchange reconnection in the corona opening up a previously closed coronal loop (Owens et al., 2013), possibly a further signature of the circulation of the HMF.
Stimulated by asymmetries noted in the latitudinal gradients of cosmic rays in 1995 solar minimum Ulysses observations, there has been continuing interest as to whether there is a north-south asymmetry present in both the solar and heliospheric magnetic fields. It was noted at the time that these results could be explained by a ∼ 10° southward displacement of the heliomagnetic equator and, hence, the heliospheric current sheet (e.g., Simpson et al., 1996). Although initial analysis of Ulysses magnetic field data did not support such a large displacement, Smith et al. (2000) showed that Wind data in the ecliptic were consistent with a ∼ 10° displacement at this time, the effect at Ulysses being masked by temporal changes. Subsequent analysis of HMF data at 1 AU (Mursula and Hiltula, 2003) and at Ulysses (Erdős and Balogh, 2010) have yielded results consistent with a long term trend of a few (∼ 2–3) degrees southward displacement of the HCS. During the Ulysses mission, this displacement has been consistently southward, independent of the reversals in the solar magnetic dipole polarity in alternate solar cycles. As discussed in the review of Smith (2008), the interpretation and comparison of these and similar studies requires care in separating spatial and temporal effects.
4.2 Interplanetary coronal mass ejections
Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are huge eruptions of solar plasma and magnetic field. As CME initiation and release frequently involves magnetic reconnection, CMEs are often spatially and temporally collocated with solar flares, though it is now clear that flares do not trigger CMEs (Harrison, 1995). CMEs move out through the corona and into the heliosphere where fast (slow) CMEs are accelerated (decelerated) towards the ambient solar wind speed (e.g., Gopalswamy et al., 2000; Cargill, 2004). These interplanetary CMEs (ICMEs) can be observed both remotely with white-light heliospheric imagers as density perturbations (e.g., Davis et al., 2009) and directly with in situ magnetic field and particle detectors. ICMEs produce the largest deviations from the Parker spiral magnetic field and are the primary source of strong meridional HMF in the near-Earth solar wind, making ICMEs particularly geoeffective (e.g., Gosling, 1993; Schwenn, 2006, and references therein). The out-of-ecliptic magnetic field can result both from the ICME structure itself (see Section 4.2.1) and from distortion of the ambient HMF (e.g., Jones et al., 2002, see also Section 2.5).
There are a number of plasma, magnetic field, compositional and charge-state signatures used to identify ICMEs from in situ data, though no one signature is either necessary or sufficient for classification. Ion charge state and elemental abundance signatures are generally consistent with CMEs forming in the hotter corona, below the bulk solar wind acceleration height (e.g., Gloeckler et al., 1999; Lepri and Zurbuchen, 2004). Plasma density and pressure are usually lower than the bulk solar wind, suggesting ICMEs undergo greater expansion than the bulk solar wind (e.g., Cane and Richardson, 2003). See Neugebauer and Goldstein (1997) and Wimmer-Schweingruber et al. (2006) for thorough reviews of ICME signatures and their implications for the formation and evolution of ejecta. In this review, we concentrate on the magnetic signatures of ICMEs, and how ICMEs relate to the HMF in general.
4.2.1 Magnetic clouds
MCs comprise between a third (Gosling, 1990) to a half (Cane and Richardson, 2003) of all ICMEs in near-Earth space, with some evidence of this fraction varying with the solar cycle (Riley et al., 2006b). At present, it is unclear whether or not all CMEs involve erupting flux ropes, but the signature is simply not seen in in situ observations because of sampling effects, in-transit distortion, etc. (e.g., Jacobs et al., 2009). Although constituting a minority of total ICMEs observed, MCs have received considerable attention for two reasons. Firstly, they drive the largest geomagnetic disturbances (Gosling, 1993; Richardson et al., 2002). Secondly, fitting a flux rope model to the single-point in situ data allows estimation of the large-scale magnetic properties of ICMEs to be estimated, notably the local flux-rope orientation and total magnetic flux content, information unobtainable by other methods and/or observations.
4.2.2 Relation of CMEs to the HMF
The total CME mass flux, as estimated from coronagraph observations, is only a minor contribution to the solar wind (Webb and Howard, 1994). Similarly, the magnetic flux carried by a single magnetic cloud is ∼ 1012–1013 Wb (Lynch et al., 2005; Owens, 2008), only a few percent of the estimated total open solar magnetic flux at any time (∼ 1015 Wb, e.g., Owens et al., 2008a). This is in rough agreement with the small fraction of time the near-Earth solar wind can be attributed to recognisable ICME material (Richardson et al., 2000). However, while a single CME is unlikely to have a significant contribution to the total open solar flux, the net CME contribution also depends on the time for which CME magnetic flux remains connected to the Sun, as discussed in Section 5.4. Indeed, there are a number of observations which suggest CMEs are intrinsically linked with the large-scale evolution of the HMF, as discussed here.
Particularly during solar minimum, when the streamer belt and heliospheric current sheet coincide, magnetic clouds are frequently encountered at magnetic sector boundaries. In such instances, the normally sharp transition from inward to outward magnetic polarities associated with a crossing of the HCS instead takes the form of a smooth rotation in the magnetic field direction associated with the passage of the MC’s flux rope (Crooker et al., 1998a). Clearly, the magnetic cloud polarity is determined by the large-scale solar magnetic field orientation and may be a means by which the large-scale field evolves, shifting the location of the sector boundary in response to a change in the photospheric magnetic flux (Crooker et al., 1998b, see also Section 5.4). Note, however, that many CMEs do not result in a permanent change to the HCS position (Zhao and Hoeksema, 1996). The relation between the large-scale solar magnetic field and ICMEs is further evidenced by the observed solar-cycle and hemispheric trends in magnetic cloud orientations and polarities. In-ecliptic observations of magnetic clouds show that their orientation and polarity follows the Hale law of sunspot polarity (Hale and Nicholson, 1925), where the polarity of the leading (in the sense of solar rotation), lower-latitude sunspot is the same as the dominant hemispheric polarity at the start of the solar cycle (Bothmer and Rust, 1997; Bothmer and Schwenn, 1998; Mulligan et al., 1998; Li et al., 2011). Many photospheric and coronal structures exhibit magnetic helicity ordered by hemisphere, with the northern (southern) hemisphere associated with left- (right-) handed helicity. In the heliosphere, magnetic clouds showing the same trends (Rust, 1994; Marubashi, 1997). Ulysses out-of-ecliptic observations of magnetic clouds over solar cycle 23 (Rees and Forsyth, 2003) further support the idea that ICMEs project the Hale cycle out into the heliosphere. These relations have important consequences for the means by which the solar cycle polarity reversal is communicated out to the heliospheric magnetic field, as discussed in Section 5.4.
Counterstreaming suprathermal electron observations of magnetic clouds indicate that approximately 50–60% of ICME-associated magnetic flux is formed of heliospheric loops with both ends attached to the Sun, with little change in this fraction between 1 and 5 AU (Gosling et al., 1987; Shodhan et al., 2000; Crooker et al., 2004a; Riley et al., 2004). Hence, Crooker et al. (2004a) and Riley et al. (2004) concluded that closed loops within ICMEs must add to the total open solar flux for long time scales (months to years). This is discussed further in Section 5.4.
4.3 Fine-scale structure
In addition to the large-scale, global features discussed thus far, single-point spacecraft observations reveal fluctuations in the HMF over all observable time scales. These are interpreted as a combination of spatial and temporal variations in the rest frame of the plasma, with waves, shocks, turbulence, tangential- and rotational discontinuities all likely contributing (e.g., Matthaeus et al., 1986; Horbury et al., 2001; Bruno et al., 2001; Bruno and Carbone, 2013). A complete discussion of such phenomena is beyond the scope of this review, but we provide a brief overview of the observations which pertain to the origin of the HMF itself.
The solar wind exhibits a large array of different wave modes, many of which directly perturb the heliospheric magnetic field (see Tu and Marsch, 1995 and Marsch, 2006). The HMF in the high speed solar wind, particularly the polar regions at solar minimum, is dominated by Alfvénic fluctuations, flowing predominantly anti-sunward in the plasma frame (Smith et al., 1995; Goldstein et al., 1995; Horbury et al., 1995). The solar wind is also highly turbulent, further adding to the spectrum of fluctuations in the HMF (Bruno and Carbone, 2013, and references therein). However, the full extent of this turbulence is debated, as magnetic field discontinuities could equally be the result of spacecraft encountering structures convected by the solar wind (Mariani et al., 1973; Tu and Marsch, 1993; Bruno et al., 2001; Borovsky, 2008). In this model of the HMF, the largest changes in the magnetic field direction are the result of crossing boundaries between large, coherent flux tubes, while the smaller fluctuations are true turbulent fluctuations within the flux tubes themselves. Such structures pass spacecraft with a time scale ∼ 10 minutes, thus the inferred flux tube size is in approximate agreement with super-granules on the Sun (Neugebauer et al., 1995). However, the weak association between large magnetic discontinuities and compositional changes (Owens et al., 2011b), mean they are equally likely to have formed by turbulence during transit, as be of solar origin.
The largest amplitude waves, driven by fast ICMEs or the interaction of fast and slow solar wind streams, can steepen into interplanetary shock waves (Balogh et al., 1995). CIR shocks and associated structures are discussed in Section 2.5. For fast ICMEs, shocks can form inside the corona. The region of compressed solar wind bounded by the shock and the ICME leading edge is referred to as the “sheath,” and is analogous to the planetary magnetosheaths (though see Siscoe and Odstrčil, 2008; Savani et al., 2011). Magnetic fields in ICME sheaths can frequently be strong enough to trigger geomagnetic activity in their own right (Owens et al., 2005), with a quarter (Richardson et al., 2001) to a half (Tsurutani et al., 1988) of all geomagnetic storms potentially attributable to ICME sheaths. As with CIRs, pre-existing structures or fluctuations in the upstream solar wind are swept up into the ICME sheath and compressed into planes perpendicular to the ICME leading edge or stream interface (Jones et al., 2002).
Large magnetic field discontinuities in the solar wind would seem to provide ideal conditions for magnetic reconnection. The relatively high plasma beta, however, argues against widespread reconnection in the solar wind. This debate was finally settled in 2005, when signatures of reconnection, in the form of large-scale reconnection outflow exhausts, were observed in the near-Earth solar wind (Gosling et al., 2005; Phan et al., 2006). The leading edge of fast ICMEs seems to be a preferential location for reconnection, but it is also regularly occurs at low HMF shear angles in low plasma beta fields, often found within ICMEs (e.g., Gosling et al., 2007).
5 Solar Cycle Variations
5.1 Solar minimum and the rise/declining phases
As discussed in Section 2.4, the HMF at solar minimum is well approximated by a dipolar-like magnetic field with a small inclination between the magnetic and rotational axes. Consequently, the heliospheric current sheet lies close to the rotational equator, perhaps still with some small warps due to weak non-dipolar structure. Coronal holes are confined to the polar regions while helmet streamers overlie the equator, thus fast solar wind fills the high-latitude heliosphere and the ecliptic plane generally sees alternate fast and slow solar wind streams. At this time, CMEs are much less frequent and are mainly observed at low latitudes (St Cyr et al., 2000). In near-Earth space, the Parker spiral field is a very good approximation to the observed HMF, with relatively few ICMEs and, hence, few significant meridional excursions of the HMF.
Associated with the HCS latitudinal extent increase, the coronal magnetic field structure begins to evolve more rapidly. CMEs become more frequent and cover a greater latitudinal span (e.g., St Cyr et al., 2000; Yashiro et al., 2004). At greater number of ICMEs are encountered in the ecliptic, meaning the HMF, on average, exhibits a greater departure from an ideal Parker spiral.
5.2 Solar maximum
If the solar magnetic field remained approximately dipolar throughout the solar cycle, Figure 13 suggests that with increasing solar activity, the HCS and associated slow solar wind band should extend to higher latitudes, while fast solar wind from the magnetic poles should be increasingly encountered in the ecliptic plane. During the rise and particularly the declining phase of the solar cycle, this picture does hold to some extent. However, around solar maximum, additional factors also come into play.
Firstly, the solar magnetic field is at its most dynamic around solar maximum. The coronal magnetic field evolves rapidly, and disturbances due to CMEs become much more frequent as a consequence. In near-Earth space, a significant fraction of the solar wind can be attributed directly to ICMEs (Cane and Richardson, 2003; Owens and Crooker, 2006). Furthermore, quadrupolar and higher order moments of the solar magnetic field become more significant (e.g., Hoeksema, 1991; Wang et al., 2000b). The increased complexity of the magnetic field structure means that while the total open solar flux increases, it occurs in smaller spatial concentrations, in particular there is a decline in polar coronal hole area and, hence, a reduction in the occurrence of fast solar wind. As can be seen in the Ulysses solar maximum fast-latitude scan (Figure 4), this results in slow solar wind becoming prevalent at all latitudes. Consequently, CIRs are rare close to solar maximum, and interplanetary shocks result primary from fast ICMEs at this time.
Around the time of solar maximum, the polarity of the polar fields reverse, though the north and south poles do not typically reverse simultaneously, often showing around 1-year delay (Babcock, 1959). This polarity reversal process, as seen in the heliosphere, is discussed in Section 5.4.
5.3 The space age solar cycles
The bottom panel shows the 27-day averages of the total unsigned heliospheric flux threading the 1-AU sphere, Φ1AU = 4π AU2∣B R (1 AU)∣, using a 1-day modulus of 1-hour measurements of ∣B R (1 AU)∣ (Owens et al., 2008a). Extrapolation from a single-point measurement of B R to a global measure of total unsigned heliospheric flux is possible because of the Ulysses result of the latitude invariance in B R (Smith and Balogh, 2003; Lockwood et al., 2004). Interpreting Φ1AU in terms of the coronal source-surface open solar flux is not trivial: As the 1-AU B R -averaging interval is increased, e.g., from 1 hour to 1 day, the estimate of Φ1 AU will decrease as more in/out flux is canceled (Lockwood and Owens, 2009). A value of 1 day gives the best match between in situ and PFSS estimates of coronal source surface OSF (Wang et al., 2000a). The choice of this averaging interval is equivalent to defining a minimum size for B R structures at 1 AU which originate at the coronal source surface, as opposed to forming between the source surface and 1 AU by kinematic effects, waves, turbulence, inverted HMF intervals, etc. There are currently a number of different approaches to dealing with this issue (Smith and Balogh, 2003; Owens et al., 2008a; Lockwood et al., 2009a; Erdős and Balogh, 2012) which yield slightly different absolute values for the coronal source-surface OSF, but result in very similar solar cycle trends, discussed here.
Both ∣B∣ and Φ1 AU show similar trends, with clear solar cycle variations in phase with the R variation (e.g., Slavin and Smith, 1983; Richardson et al., 2000; Smith and Balogh, 2003; Owens et al., 2008a; Zhou and Smith, 2009; Lockwood et al., 2009a). However, the Gnevyshev gap, the small drop in solar magnetic activity at the time of solar maximum (Gnevyshev, 1977; Richardson et al., 2002), is much more pronounced in Φ and B than it is in sunspot number. While ICMEs are strongly associated with short-term enhancements in B and ICME rates are known to vary in phase with the solar cycle (Cane and Richardson, 2003; Riley et al., 2006b), Richardson et al. (2000) concluded that the solar cycle variation in B was not a direct result of spacecraft being increasingly immersed in identifiable ICME material. See Section 5.4 for further discussion.
Cycle-to-cycle variations are discussed as part of long-term records of HMF in Section 5.5. However, we note here that the most recent solar minimum between the end of solar cycle 23 and the start of cycle 24, centred around 2008–2009, has been longest and deepest of the space age, with the lowest B and Φ directly observed (Smith and Balogh, 2008; Lockwood et al., 2009a,b). This has been accompanied by a significant reduction in the solar wind momentum flux (McComas et al., 2008). At the photosphere, this minimum was manifest in the largest number of consecutive sunspot-free days since 1913 and the lowest polar magnetic field strength since routine observations began in 1975, which is likely the continuation of a decline in magnetic field strength which began several years previously (Wang et al., 2009, see also the Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) long-term polar magnetic field observations). As of early 2013, the photospheric magnetic field suggests the North pole has changed polarity, while the southern polar field is slowly weakening prior to reversal (Shiota et al., 2012). This suggests the Sun is presently very close to, if not just past, solar maximum, despite ∣B∣ and Φ1 AU being at comparable levels to the 1996 solar minimum. Thus, cycle 24 is likely to be the weakest of the space age in terms of HMF strength and sunspot number (e.g., Svalgaard et al., 2005). Section 5.5 puts these observations in a longer-term context.
5.4 Models of solar-cycle evolution
Over the solar cycle, the total unsigned OSF varies by approximately a factor two, roughly in phase with the sunspot variation. The large-scale solar polarity reversal means the structure of the heliospheric field varies from approximately a rotationally-aligned dipolar-like field at solar minimum, through increasing inclination and warping of the heliospheric current sheet towards solar maximum, before a return to rotationally-aligned dipolar field of opposite polarity the following minimum (Section 2.4). A number of theoretical constraints can be placed on the mechanism(s) by which this heliospheric evolution takes place. As the solar wind is super Alfvénic, the total OSF can only be increased by transporting a closed coronal loop out past the source surface so that it is dragged out into the heliosphere. As magnetic flux can not be transported back towards the Sun through the source surface, the only way to reduce the total OSF is by “disconnecting” open flux by magnetic reconfiguration below the source surface (though these open field lines may form closed loops in the heliosphere, so that flux is not truly disconnected from the Sun). There does, however, remain some debate about the magnetic flux systems and topologies involved in HMF creation and loss, and whether this process occurs in quasi-steady state or as a series of transient events.
The solar cycle evolution of photospheric magnetic flux has been well characterised by three complete cycles of observation (Schrijver and DeRosa, 2003; Hathaway, 2010). As predicted by Babcock (1959, 1961), existing polar fields are “eroded” by opposite polarity flux within emerging bipoles, such as sunspots, before being repopulated by flux of the opposite polarity. Wang and Sheeley Jr (2003) used a series of PFSS solutions to show that emerging mid-latitude bipoles cause pre-existing closed coronal loops to rise and destroy/create open flux. This process both increases the total open solar flux, and creates/destroys open flux in the manner required for the polarity reversal. Over the solar cycle, the rise to solar maximum sees the axial dipole component of the Sun’s field weaken, while the quadrupolar component strengthens, as observed (Hoeksema, 1991; Wang et al., 2000a). While the polar fields are expected to reverse polarity around solar maximum, this model does not explicitly require the poles to flip simultaneously.
However, despite the success of such quasi-steady state models in capturing the large-scale evolution of the HMF, it is important to remember that PFSS models do not contain any time evolution and cannot account for transient structures such as CMEs. The location of newly opening solar magnetic flux between successive PFSS solutions correlates well with the timing and location of CMEs observed by coronagraphs (Luhmann et al., 1998, 1999; Yeates et al., 2010). Thus, in this “dynamic” picture, emerging active regions do not directly open new magnetic flux themselves, but act as source regions for CMEs, which provide the mechanism by which new magnetic loops are added to the heliosphere (see also Low, 2001). Indeed, in situ suprathermal electron observations clearly indicate that ICMEs carry new magnetic flux into the heliosphere (Gosling et al., 1987, see also Section 3.1). The remaining question is the relative contribution to new HMF from CMEs compared with that from rising ambient loops. Coronagraph estimates of CME rates (St Cyr et al., 2000; Yashiro et al., 2004) coupled with in situ estimates of typical ICME magnetic flux content (Lynch et al., 2005; Owens, 2008) suggest that CMEs potentially carry sufficient closed magnetic flux to account for the solar cycle variation of the OSF (Owens and Crooker, 2006, 2007; Connick et al., 2011). Similarly, CMEs may act as important sinks of newly emerging magnetic helicity, by bodily removing it from the corona (Low, 2001; Lynch et al., 2005). CMEs also project the Hale cycle of sunspot polarities out into the heliosphere. Gopalswamy et al. (2003) noted a correspondence between the cessation of high latitude CMEs and the polar field reversal. Low (2001); Low and Zhang (2004) suggested that CMEs play the role of emerging loops in the model of Wang and Sheeley Jr (2003), bodily removing old open solar flux from the corona for replacement by new open flux of opposite polarity, thus bringing about the global polarity reversal. More recently, Owens et al. (2007) suggested that the addition and removal of CME loops provides open flux transport, rather than open flux destruction, which agrees with suprathermal electron observations (McComas et al., 1992; Pagel et al., 2005), particularly within magnetic clouds (Crooker et al., 2008; Lavraud et al., 2011, see also Section 4.2.1).
In the Fisk model of coronal evolution, described in section 4.1, the solar cycle reversal of the HMF polarity can proceed as a rotation of the HCS (Fisk et al., 1999), as suggested by Ulysses observations of the magnetic sector structure throughout the solar cycle (Jones et al., 2003). Such a rotation would require “preferential” longitudes for the dipole axis as it approaches the solar equator, which have been suggested from observations of the HMF polarity (Neugebauer et al., 2000). Fisk and Schwadron (2001) suggest HCS rotation is driven by a diffusive process involving reconnection between open and closed flux (interchange reconnection, Crooker et al., 2002), which is thought to continually operate at the coronal hole boundaries (Nash et al., 1988; Wang and Sheeley Jr, 2004). Unlike the potential-field corona, where open flux is confined to the interiors of coronal holes, this allows the foot points of the HMF to move through the streamer belt by reconnection with, and subsequent opening of, closed coronal loops. This could provide the mechanism for the release of the slow solar wind (Fisk and Schwadron, 2001) and explain the difference in first ionisation potential (FIP, Geiss et al., 1995) between fast and slow streams (Zurbuchen et al., 1998; Schwadron et al., 1999), which is not accounted for by steady state models. However, there are theoretical issues with open solar flux existing within closed field regions (Antiochos et al., 2007) and the MHD-simulated coronal response to evolving photospheric magnetic flux shows limited evidence of this behaviour (Lionello et al., 2006; Linker et al., 2011).
5.5 Long-term evolution of the HMF
There are a number of sources of proxy data for the heliospheric magnetic field hundreds to thousands of years into the past, allowing insight into long-term solar variability. This section contains a very brief summary of the long-term evolution of the HMF.
5.5.1 Geomagnetic activity
5.5.2 Sunspot records
While there are issues with the intercalibration of sunspot records, the near-contiguous observations from 1610 to present (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1998) are invaluable for understanding the evolution of the solar magnetic field. While the geomagnetic and cosmogenic isotope proxies relate directly to the HMF, sunspot records are related to large-scale magnetic features on the photosphere. In order to relate the two data sets, Solanki et al. (2000) proposed a continuity model of the OSF. The OSF source term must describe the rate at which new closed loops are added to the heliosphere and, thus, can be approximated by sunspot number. The loss term is more difficult to quantify. One approach is to assume various OSF contributions decay with different timescales (Krivova et al., 2007; Vieira and Solanki, 2010). Owens and Lockwood (2012) instead assume that the OSF source term follow the CME rate, which is linked to the sunspot number (Webb and Howard, 1994), and that the OSF loss term follows the HCS tilt, owing to reconnection driven by differential rotation (Owens et al., 2011a).
5.5.3 Cosmogenic isotope records
Ground-based neutron monitor counts, a proxy for the galactic cosmic ray flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, show a strong solar cycle variation in anti-phase with sunspot number. At solar maximum, the increase in OSF, coupled with the increased latitudinal extent of the HCS/CIRs, provides a more effective barrier to cosmic rays reaching the inner heliosphere (e.g., Usoskin et al., 2005, and references therein). Cosmogenic isotope abundances, e.g., in ice-core records, can provide proxies for GCR flux and, hence, the HMF, over ∼ 10 000 years (e.g., McCracken, 2007; Usoskin, 2013; Steinhilber et al., 2010; Solanki et al., 2004). The red and blue lines in Figure 16 show 22-year running averages of OSF inferred from heliospheric modulation potentials consistent with the 10Be and 14C abundances, respectively, since 1610 and extended to the space age using neutron monitor records (see Muscheler et al., 2007; Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2008, and references therein for more detail). The long-term features such as the Dalton and Maunder minima, as well as the 20th century trends, are clearly present. The full record suggests that the HMF has been as strong as that of the space age on 24 previous occasions in the last 9300 years, though this grand solar maximum (GSM) is the longest in the record (Abreu et al., 2008). Two of the 24 previous ends of GSMs have resulted in Maunder minimum-like conditions within 50 years (Barnard et al., 2011).
This review has aimed to summarise our current understanding of the heliospheric magnetic field (HMF); its structure, its relation to the coronal and photospheric magnetic fields, its evolution over the solar cycle and longer periods. While some of this material, such as the Parker spiral, is mature and established enough to part of standard textbooks on space physics, other areas are very much developing at the time of writing. A number of HMF reviews already exist, so we have tried to focus on aspects of the heliospheric magnetic field where our knowledge is rapidly evolving: The outer heliosphere, the solar cycle variations, the link to solar wind formation, long-term variations in the HMF, etc. These areas will doubtless develop considerably over the coming months and years and this Living Review will be updated accordingly.
We are indebted to two excellent anonymous referees who provided much useful input on the review. We are grateful to the Space Physics Data Facility (SPDF) and National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) for OMNI data, as well as magnetic field data from Pioneer 6 and 7 (PI N. Ness), Pioneer 10 and 11 (PI E. Smith), Pioneer Venus Orbiter (PI C. Russell), Helios (PI N. Ness), Voyager (PI L. Burlaga) ICE/ISEE3 (PI E. Smith), Ulysses (PI A. Balogh) and STEREO (PI M. Acuña). We have also benefitted from the availability of WSO magnetograms (T. Hoeksema and Standford University) Ulysses SWOOPS data (PI: D. McComas). The potential-field source-surface model used in this paper was based on code provided by J. Luhmann.
- Balogh, A., Beek, T.J., Forsyth, R.J., Hedgecock, P.C., Marquedant, R.J., Smith, E.J., Southwood, D.J. and Tsurutani, B.T., 1992, “The magnetic field investigation on the ULYSSES mission: Instrumentation and preliminary scientific results”, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl., 92, 221–236. [ADS] (Cited on page 5.)ADSGoogle Scholar
- Bird, M.K. and Edenhofer, P., 1990, “Remote Sensing Observations of the Solar Corona”, in Physics of the Inner Heliosphere, Vol. I: Large-Scale Phenomena, (Eds.) Schwenn, R., Marsch, E., Physics and Chemistry in Space, 20, chap. 2, pp. 13–62, Springer, Berlin; New York. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 22.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bothmer, V. and Rust, D.M., 1997, “The field configuration of magnetic clouds and the solar cycle”, in Coronal Mass Ejections, (Eds.) Crooker, N., Joselyn, J.A., Feynman, J., Geophysical Monograph, 99, pp. 139–146, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 25.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bruno, R. and Bavassano, B., 1997, “On the winding of the IMF spiral for slow and fast wind within the inner heliosphere”, J. Geophys. Res., 24, 2267–2270. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 10.)Google Scholar
- Bruno, R. and Carbone, V., 2013, “The Solar Wind as a Turbulence Laboratory”, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 10, lrsp-2013-2. [DOI], [ADS]. URL (accessed 13 August 2013): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2013-2 (Cited on page 26.)
- Cranmer, S.R., 2008, “On Competing Models of Coronal Heating and Solar Wind Acceleration: The Debate in’ 08”, arXiv, e-print. [ADS], [arXiv:0804.3058] (Cited on pages 6 and 26.)Google Scholar
- Cranmer, S.R., 2009, “Coronal Holes”, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 6, lrsp-2009-3. [DOI], [ADS], [arXiv:0909.2847 [astro-ph.SR]]. URL (accessed 7 November 2013): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2009-3 (Cited on page 7.)
- Davis Jr, L., Smith, E.J., Coleman Jr, P.J. and Sonett, C.P., 1966, “Interplanetary Magnetic Measurements”, in The Solar Wind, Proceedings of a conference held at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, 1–4 April, 1964, (Eds.) Mackin Jr, R.J., Neugebauer, M., JPL Technical Report, 32-630, Pergamon Press; JPL, Oxford; New York; Pasadena. [ADS] (Cited on page 9.)Google Scholar
- Gloeckler, G., Geiss, J. and Fisk, L.A., 2001, “Heliospheric and interstellar phenomena revealed from observations of pickup ions”, in The Heliosphere Near Solar Minimum: The Ulysses perspective, (Eds.) Balogh, A., Marsden, R.G., Smith, E.J., Springer-Praxis Books in Astrophysics and Astronomy, chap. 7, pp. 287–326, Springer; Praxis, Berlin; New York; Chichester. [ADS], [Google Books] (Cited on page 21.)Google Scholar
- Goldstein, B.E., Smith, E.J., Balogh, A., Horbury, T.S., Goldstein, M.L. and Roberts, D.A., 1995, “Properties of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in the solar wind as observed by Ulysses at high heliographic latitudes”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 3393–3396. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 26.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gosling, J.T., 1990, “Coronal mass ejections and magnetic flux ropes in interplanetary space”, in Physics of Magnetic Flux Ropes, Based on papers presented at the AGU Chapman Conference, held in Hamilton, Bermuda on March 27–31, 1989, (Eds.) Russell, C.T., Priest, E.R., Lee, L.C., Geophysical Monograph, 58, pp. 343–364, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 24.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gosling, J.T., Bame, S.J., Feldman, W.C., McComas, D.J., Phillips, J.L. and Goldstein, B.E., 1993a, “Counterstreaming suprathermal electron events upstream of corotating shocks in the solar wind beyond ∼2 AU: Ulysses”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20, 2335–2338. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 20.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hanlon, P.G., Dougherty, M.K., Forsyth, R.J., Owens, M.J., Hansen, K.C., Tóth, G., Crary, F.J. and Young, D.T., 2004, “On the evolution of the solar wind between 1 and 5 AU at the time of the Cassini Jupiter flyby: Multispacecraft observations of interplanetary coronal mass ejections including the formation of a merged interaction region”, J. Geophys. Res., 109, A09S03. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 18.)ADSGoogle Scholar
- Hathaway, D.H., 2010, “The Solar Cycle”, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 7, lrsp-2010-1. [DOI], [ADS]. URL (accessed 17 April 2013): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2010-1 (Cited on page 31.)
- Lee, C.O., Luhmann, J.G., Hoeksema, J.T., Sun, X., Arge, C.N. and de Pater, I., 2011, “Coronal Field Opens at Lower Height During the Solar Cycles 22 and 23 Minimum Periods: IMF Comparison Suggests the Source Surface Should Be Lowered”, Solar Phys., 269, 367–388. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 7.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Linsky, J.L., 2009, “Results from the ISSI Workshop: ‘From the Outer Heliosphere to the Local Bubble: Comparison of New Observations with Theory’”, in The Local Bubble and Beyond II, Proceedings of the International Conference, Philadelphia, PA, 21–24 April 2008, (Eds.) Smith, R.K., Snowden, S.L., Kuntz, K.D., AIP Conference Series, 1156, pp. 184–195, American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 17.)Google Scholar
- Lockwood, M., 2013, “Reconstruction and Prediction of Variations in the Open Solar Magnetic Flux and Interplanetary Conditions”, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 10, lrsp-2013-4. [DOI], [ADS]. URL (accessed 7 November 2013): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2013-4 (Cited on page 33.)
- Lockwood, M. and Fröhlich, C., 2008, “Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale”, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 464, 1367–1385. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 35.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lockwood, M., Forsyth, R.J., Balogh, A. and McComas, D.J., 2004, “Open solar flux estimates from near-Earth measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field: comparison of the first two perihelion passes of the Ulysses spacecraft”, Ann. Geophys., 22, 1395–1405. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on pages 10 and 29.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lockwood, M., Barnard, L., Nevanlinna, H., Owens, M.J., Harrison, R.G., Rouillard, A.P. and Davis, C.J., 2013a, “Reconstruction of geomagnetic activity and near-Earth interplanetary conditions over the past 167 yr — Part 1: A new geomagnetic data composite”, Ann. Geophys., 31, 1957–1977. [DOI] (Cited on pages 33, 34, and 35.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lockwood, M., Barnard, L., Nevanlinna, H., Owens, M.J., Harrison, R.G., Rouillard, A.P. and Davis, C.J., 2013b, “Reconstruction of geomagnetic activity and near-Earth interplanetary conditions over the past 167 yr — Part 2: A new reconstruction of the interplanetary magnetic field”, Ann. Geophys., 31, 1979–1992. [DOI] (Cited on pages 33, 34, and 35.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Luhmann, J.G., Larson, D., Hoeksema, J.T., Zhao, X.-P., Arge, N. and St Cyr, O.C., 1999, “Connections between the slow solar wind, CMEs, and the helmet streamer belt inferred from coronal field models”, in Solar Wind Nine, Proceedings of the Ninth International Solar Wind Conference, Nantucket, MA, 5–9 October 1998, (Eds.) Habbal, S.R., Esser, R., Hollweg, J.V., Isenberg, P.A., AIP Conference Proceedings, 471, pp. 725–728, American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, NY. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 32.)Google Scholar
- Marsch, E., 2006, “Kinetic Physics of the Solar Corona and Solar Wind”, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 3, lrsp-2006-1. [DOI], [ADS]. URL (accessed 17 April 2013): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2006-1 (Cited on page 26.)
- Neugebauer, M. and Goldstein, R., 1997, “Particle and field signatures of coronal mass ejections in the Solar Wind”, in Coronal Mass Ejections, (Eds.) Crooker, N.U., Joselyn, J.A., Feynman, J., Geophysical Monograph, 99, pp. 245–251, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. [DOI] (Cited on page 23.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Richardson, I.G., Cliver, E.W. and Cane, H.V., 2000, “Sources of geomagnetic activity over the solar cycle: Relative importance of coronal mass ejections, high-speed streams, and slow solar wind”, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 18,203–18,214. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on pages 25 and 31.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Roelof, E.C., Simnett, G.M., Decker, R.B., Lanzerotti, L.J., Maclennan, C.G., Armstrong, T.P. and Gold, R.E., 1997, “Reappearance of recurrent low-energy particle events at Ulysses/HI-SCALE in the northern heliosphere”, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 11,251–11,262. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on page 22.)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rosenbauer, H., Schwenn, R., Marsch, E. et al., 1977, “A survey on initial results of the HELIOS plasma experiment”, J. Geophys., 42(6), 561–580. [ADS] (Cited on page 19.)Google Scholar
- Schwenn, R., 2006, “Space Weather: The Solar Perspective”, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 3, lrsp-2006-2. [DOI], [ADS]. URL (accessed 17 April 2013): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2006-2 (Cited on page 23.)
- Slavin, J.A. and Smith, E.J., 1983, “Solar cycle variations in the interplanetary magnetic field”, in Solar Wind Five, Proceedings of a conference held in Woodstock, Vermont, November 1–5 1982, (Ed.) Neugebauer, M., NASA Conference Publication, 2280, pp. 323–331, NASA, Washington, DC. [ADS] (Cited on page 31.)Google Scholar
- Smith, E.J., 2008, “The global heliospheric magnetic field”, in The Heliosphere through the Solar Activity Cycle, (Eds.) Balogh, A., Lanzerotti, L.J., Suess, S.T., Springer-Praxis Books in Astronomy and Space Sciences, chap. 4, pp. 79–150, Springer; Praxis, Berlin; New York; Chichester. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on pages 5 and 23.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Smith, E.J. and Balogh, A., 2003, “Open Magnetic Flux: Variation with Latitude and Solar Cycle”, in Solar Wind Ten, Proceedings of the Tenth International Solar Wind Conference, Pisa, Italy, 17–21 June 2002, (Eds.) Velli, M., Bruno, R., Malara, F., AIP Conference Proceedings, 679, pp. 67–70, American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY. [DOI], [ADS] (Cited on pages 10, 29, and 31.)Google Scholar
- Usoskin, I.G., 2013, “A History of Solar Activity over Millennia”, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 10, lrsp-2013-1. [DOI], [ADS]. URL (accessed 7 November 2013): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2013-1 (Cited on pages 20 and 35.)