So how are we doing? Results from a recent simulation are shown in Figure 13
. On the positive side, the
angular velocity exhibits a realistic latitudinal variation and contrast (Challenges 1 and 2), with little radial
variation above mid-latitudes (Challenge 3). On the negative side, the low-latitude angular
velocity contours are somewhat more cylindrical than suggested by helioseismology, with more
radial shear. Furthermore, at present there is little tendency for simulations such as these to
form rotational shear layers near the top and bottom of the convection zone (Challenge 4).
Although these simulations do exhibit non-periodic angular velocity fluctuations of about the
right amplitude relative to helioseismic inversions (a few percent; see Miesch, 2000
; Brun and
Toomre, 2002
), there is currently little evidence for systematic behavior such as torsional oscillations
(Challenge 5). We will now proceed to discuss the implications of these results in a little more
detail.
|
|
|
An additional complication to the problem of polar spin-up occurs when the convection is allowed to
penetrate into an underlying stable region, as demonstrated in panel b of Figure 15
. In turbulent parameter
regimes, the convection is dominated by downflow plumes and lanes which acquire cyclonic vorticity
in the upper convection zone due to the tendency for converging horizontal flows to conserve
their angular momentum (see Section 6.2). As these plumes move deeper into the convection
zone, they may converge further due to the density stratification and thus spin up even more
(although this convergence may be partially suppressed by entrainment, which has a spreading
effect). When the plumes reach the overshoot region, they are decelerated by buoyancy and
mass is spread out horizontally and redirected into upflows. The Coriolis force acting on these
diverging downflows induce anticyclonic vorticity, leading to a sign reversal of the helicity (Miesch
et al., 2000
).
These downflow plumes are not purely radial. Rather, the influence of the Coriolis force tends to orient
them toward the rotation axis in a process known as turbulent alignment (Brummell et al., 1996). Thus,
when buoyancy removes the plumes’ vertical momentum in the overshoot region, they have a
residual horizontal momentum which diverts them toward the equator. The combination of
anticyclonic vorticity and equatorward circulation gives rise to a convergence of angular momentum
flux from the Reynolds stress,
, at high latitudes, which tends to spin up the poles. In
other words, angular momentum transport in the overshoot region is generally poleward. The
meridional circulation component,
, enhances this poleward transport. As a result, sufficiently
turbulent global-scale simulations of solar convection which include convective penetration
tend to exhibit relatively fast polar rotation (Miesch et al., 2000
, 2004). Thus, the slow polar
rotation in the Sun remains somewhat enigmatic, although some non-penetrative simulations like
Case M3 do a reasonably good job. One possibility is that the transition from sub-adiabatic to
super-adiabatic stratification in the penetrative convective simulations is not yet sharp enough (see
Section 7.1).
The second challenge listed above has been less problematic; many simulations exhibit an angular
velocity contrast between the equator and higher latitudes of about the right amplitude relative to the Sun
(
). However, the third challenge, that of nearly radial angular velocity contours, has proven
every bit as difficult as the first. As discussed in Section 4.3, there are two ways to break the tendency for
cylindrical angular velocity contours: the Reynolds stress (i.e., the effective Rossby number is not
small), and baroclinic driving (latitudinal entropy gradients), which can establish a thermal
wind.
Figure 16
illustrates the relative importance of these two contributions in a simulation which exhibits
a solar-like rotation profile (Challenges 1-3 are nearly met). This is Case AB of Brun and
Toomre (2002
), which is a close relative of Case M3 but is non-magnetic. Frames (a) and (b) illustrate
the mean zonal velocity and its gradient along the rotation axis. If the differential rotation
were in thermal wind balance, then this axial gradient (Figure 16
, panel b) would be equal
to the baroclinic term on the left-hand-side of Equation (11
), which is shown in panel c of
Figure 16
7.
The departure from thermal wind balance is demonstrated in panel d of Figure 16
.
|
We emphasize that the ASH code was not tuned in any way to achieve the results shown in Figure 13
and elsewhere. The simulations typically begin from uniform rotation or from previous simulations with
different parameter values. Boundary conditions are generally stress-free so angular momentum is conserved
and uniform-flux or uniform-entropy so a thermal wind is not artificially driven. The subgrid-scale models
are purely diffusive. Mean flows and thermal gradients are established solely via momentum and entropy
transport by turbulent convection under the influence of rotation. Still, some parameter regimes and
boundary conditions do marginally better than others. Low Prandtl numbers (
) tend to
produce the most solar-like angular velocity contrasts (Challenge 2) and tend to avoid large-scale
meridional circulations which can spin up the poles (Challenge 1). Fixing the heat flux at the
boundaries rather than the entropy is more conducive to establishing latitudinal entropy gradients
which can help to break the tendency for cylindrical rotational profiles, as discussed above
(Challenge 3). Although recent results show a substantial improvement over the early, relatively
low-resolution simulations by Gilman and Glatzmier (see Section 6.1), higher Reynolds and Rayleigh
numbers do not necessarily yield more solar-like profiles. This may be because the north-south
downflow lanes in more turbulent simulations are more confined to lower latitudes than in laminar
simulations. Since these structures are primarily responsible for equatorward angular momentum
transport as discussed above, the net result is often relatively fast polar rotation and a reduced
angular velocity contrast. For further elaboration see Miesch (2000
), Elliott et al. (2000
) and
Brun and Toomre (2002
). See also Section 7 where possible resolutions to these issues are
discussed.
Global convection simulations are only beginning to address the complicated issues surrounding challenge number 4 above, regarding rotational shear layers. Still, some progress has been made in understanding the speedup of angular velocity below the photosphere, inferred from helioseismic inversions and previously from tracer measurements (see Section 3.1). A plausible origin for this layer is in the tendency for the more vigorous convection in the solar surface layers to conserve angular momentum, spinning up as it approaches the rotation axis. This was first suggested by Foukal and Jokipii (1975) and has generally been borne out in convection simulations by Gilman and Foukal (1979) and more recently by DeRosa et al. (2002). However, these simulations were confined to the upper convection zone; deep shell simulations thus far show little tendency to form near-surface shear layers. Global convection simulations also have yet to form strong shear layers near the base of the convection zone which are comparable in structure to the solar tachocline. This may be because the viscous diffusion is too large and the spatial resolution is insufficient to capture small-scale dynamics occurring in the overshoot region (Section 7). Furthermore, the simulations may have insufficient temporal duration to capture the possibly long-term dynamics which drive the radiative interior toward uniform rotation (see Section 8.5).
Global simulations do not yet exhibit periodic temporal variations such as the solar torsional oscillations
discussed in Section 3.3. However, similar torsional oscillations do arise naturally in mean-field dynamo
models when the back reaction of the Lorentz force on the differential rotation is taken into
account (Yoshimura, 1981
; Schüssler, 1981
; Kitchatinov et al., 1999
; Durney, 2000b
; Covas
et al., 2001
, 2004
; Bushby and Mason, 2004
). An alternative possibility was recently proposed by
Spruit (2003) who argues that torsional oscillations may be a surface phenomenon which arise as a
geostrophic flow response to thermally-induced latitudinal pressure gradients associated with belts of
magnetic activity. Shorter-period tachocline oscillations may arise from the spatiotemporal
fragmentation of torsional oscillations (Covas et al., 2001
, 2004
) or from the interaction of gravity
waves with differential rotation (Section 8.4). Oscillatory shear instabilies may also play a role
(Section 8.2).
As a final comment to close this section, we note that the five challenges posed here are in all likelihood intimately connected. Since the radiative interior possesses much more mechanical and thermal inertia than the convective envelope, the differential rotation in the convection zone may be sensitive to the complex dynamics occuring in the tachocline. In other words, we may not fully understand the rotation profile in the convection zone until we get the tachocline right. A realistic tachocline is probably also a prerequisite to achieving the solar-like dynamo cycles and wave-mean flow interactions which appear to be responsible for torsional and tachocline oscillations. These issues will be discussed further in Section 7.3.
| http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2005-1 |
© Max Planck Society and the author(s)
Problems/comments to |