Meanfield electrodynamics is a subject well worth its own fulllength review, so the foregoing discussion will be limited to the bare essentials. Detailed discussion of the topic can be found in Krause and Rädler (1980); Moffatt (1978), and in the recent review article by Hoyng (2003).
The task at hand is to calculate the components of the and tensor in terms of the statistical properties of the underlying turbulence. A particularly simple case is that of homogeneous, weakly isotropic turbulence, which reduces the and tensor to simple scalars, so that the mean electromotive force becomes
This is the form commonly used in solar dynamo modelling, even though turbulence in the solar interior is most likely inhomogeneous and anisotropic. Moreover, hiding in the above expressions is the assumption that the smallscale magnetic Reynolds number is much smaller than unity, where and are characteristic velocities and length scales for the dominant turbulent eddies, as estimated, e.g., from mixing length theory. With , one finds , so that on that basis alone Equation (20) should be dubious already. In the kinematic regime, and are independent of the magnetic field fluctuations, and end up simply proportional to the averaged kinetic helicity and square fluctuation amplitude: where is the correlation time of the turbulent motions. Orderofmagnitude estimates of the scalar coefficients yield and , where is the solar angular velocity. At the base of the solar convection zone, one then finds and , these being understood as very rough estimates. Because the kinetic helicity may well change sign along the longitudinal (averaging) direction, thus leading to cancellation, the resulting value of may be much smaller than its r.m.s. deviation about the longitudinal mean. In contrast the quantity being averaged on the right hand side of Equation (22) is positive definite, so one would expect a more “stable” mean value (see Hoyng, 1993; Ossendrijver et al., 2001, for further discussion). At any rate, difficulties in computing and from first principle (whether as scalars or tensors) have led to these quantities often being treated as adjustable parameters of meanfield dynamo models, to be adjusted (within reasonable bounds) to yield the best possible fit to observed solar cycle characteristics, most importantly the cycle period. One finds in the literature numerical values in the approximate ranges for and for .The cyclonic character of the effect also indicates that it is equatorially antisymmetric and positive in the Northern solar hemisphere, except perhaps at the base of the convective envelope, where the rapid variation of the turbulent velocity with depth can lead to sign change. These expectations have been confirmed in a general sense by theory and numerical simulations (see, e.g., Rüdiger and Kitchatinov, 1993; Brandenburg et al., 1990; Ossendrijver et al., 2001).
Leaving the kinematic regime, it is expected that both and should depend on the strength of the magnetic field, since magnetic tension will resist deformation by the smallscale turbulent fluid motions. The groundbreaking numerical MHD simulations of Pouquet et al. (1976) suggested that Equation (21) should be replaced by something like
where is the Alfvén speed based on the smallscale magnetic component (see also Durney et al., 1993; Blackman and Brandenburg, 2002). This is rarely used in solar cycle modelling, since the whole point of the meanfield approach is to avoid dealing explicitly with the smallscale, fluctuating components. On the other hand, something is bound to happen when the growing dynamogenerated mean magnetic field reaches a magnitude such that its energy per unit volume is comparable to the kinetic energy of the underlying turbulent fluid motions. Denoting this equipartition field strength by , one often introduces an ad hoc nonlinear dependency of (and sometimes as well) directly on the meanfield by writing: This expression “does the right thing”, in that as starts to exceed . It remains an extreme oversimplification of the complex interaction between flow and field that characterizes MHD turbulence, but its wide usage in solar dynamo modeling makes it a nonlinearity of choice for the illustrative purpose of this section.
Adding this contribution to the MHD induction equation leads to the following form for the axisymmetric meanfield dynamo equations:
where, in general, . There are source terms on both right hand sides, so that dynamo action is now possible in principle. The relative importance of the effect and shearing terms in Equation (26) is measured by the ratio of the two dimensionless dynamo numbers where, in the spirit of dimensional analysis, , , and are “typical” values for the effect, turbulent diffusivity, and angular velocity contrast. These quantities arise naturally in the nondimensional formulation of the meanfield dynamo equations, when time is expressed in units of the magnetic diffusion time based on the envelope (turbulent) diffusivity: In the solar case, it is usually estimated that , so that the term is neglected in Equation (26); this results in the class of dynamo models known as dynamo, which will be the only ones discussed here^{5}.
With the largescale flows, turbulent diffusivity and effect considered given, Equations (25, 26) become truly linear in and . It becomes possible to seek eigensolutions in the form
Substitution of these expressions into Equations (25, 26) yields an eigenvalue problem for and associated eigenfunction . The real part is then a growth rate, and the imaginary part an oscillation frequency. One typically finds that until the product exceeds a certain critical value beyond which , corresponding to a growing solutions. Such solutions are said to be supercritical, while the solution with is critical.Clearly exponential growth of the dynamogenerated magnetic field must cease at some point, once the field starts to backreact on the flow through the Lorentz force. This is the general idea embodied in quenching. If quenching  or some other nonlinearity  is included, then the dynamo equations are usually solved as an initialvalue problem, with some arbitrary lowamplitude seed field used as initial condition. Equations (25, 26) are then integrated forward in time using some appropriate timestepping scheme. A useful quantity to monitor in order to ascertain saturation is the magnetic energy within the computational domain:
One of the most remarkable property of the (linear) dynamo equations is that they support travelling wave solutions. This was first demonstrated in Cartesian geometry by Parker (1955), who proposed that a latitudinallytravelling “dynamo wave” was at the origin of the observed equatorward drift of sunspot emergences in the course of the cycle. This finding was subsequently shown to hold in spherical geometry, as well as for nonlinear models (Yoshimura, 1975; Stix, 1976). Dynamo waves^{6} travel in a direction given by
a result now known as the “ParkerYoshimura sign rule”. Recalling the rather complex form of the helioseismically inferred solar internal differential rotation (cf. Figure 5), even an effect of uniform sign in each hemisphere can produce complex migratory patterns, as will be apparent in the illustrative dynamo solutions to be discussed shortly. Note already at this juncture that if the seat of the dynamo is to be identified with the lowlatitude portion of the tachocline, and if the latter is thin enough for the (positive) radial shear therein to dominate over the latitudinal shear, then equatorward migration of dynamo waves will require a negative effect in the low latitudes of the Northern solar hemisphere.
We first consider models without meridional circulation ( in Equations (25, 26)), with the term omitted in Equation (26), and using the diffusivity profile and angular velocity profile of Figure 5. We will investigate the behavior of models with the effect operating throughout the bulk of the convective envelope (red line in Figure 6), as well as with an effect concentrated just above the coreenvelope interface (green line in Figure 6). We also consider two latitudinal dependencies, namely , which is the “minimal” possible latitudinal dependency compatible with the required equatorial antisymmetry of the Coriolis force, and an effect concentrated towards the equator^{7} via an assumed latitudinal dependency .


It is noteworthy that coexisting dynamo branches, as in Panel B of Figure 7, can have distinct dynamo periods, which in nonlinearly saturated solutions leads to longterm amplitude modulation. This is typically not expected in dynamo models where the only nonlinearity present is a simple algebraic quenching formula such as Equation (24). A portion of the magnetic energy timeseries for that solution is shown in Panel A of Figure 8 to illustrate the effect. Note that this does not occur for the solution (Panel B of Figure 8), where both branches propagate away from each other, but share a common latitude of origin and so are phasedlocked at the onset (cf. Panel D of Figure 7).

Vector magnetograms of sunspots active regions make it possible to estimate the current helicity which is closely related to the usual magnetic helicity , and the amount of twist in the sunspotforming toroidal flux ropes (see, e.g., Hagyard and Pevtsov, 1999, and references therein). Upon assuming that this current helicity reflects that of the diffuse, dynamogenerated magnetic field from which the flux ropes formed, one obtains another useful constraint on dynamo models. In the context of classical meanfield models, predominantly negative current helicity in the Nhemisphere, in agreement with observations, is usually obtained for models with negative effect relying primarily on positive radial shear at the equator (see Gilman and Charbonneau, 1999, and discussion therein).
The models discussed above are based on rather minimalistics and partly ad hoc assumptions on the form of the effect. More elaborate models have been proposed, relying on calculations of the full tensor based on some underlying turbulence models. While this approach usually displaces the ad hoc assumptions away from the effect and into the turbulence model, it has the definite advantage of offering an internally consistent approach to the calculation of turbulent diffusivities and largescale flows. Rüdiger and Brandenburg (1995) remain a good example of the current stateoftheart in this area; see also Rüdiger and Arlt (2003), and references therein.
From a practical point of view, the outstanding success of the meanfield model remains its robust explanation of the observed equatorward drift of toroidal fieldtracing sunspots in the course of the cycle in terms of a dynamowave. On the theoretical front, the model is also buttressed by meanfield electrodynamics which, in principle, offers a physically sound theory from which to compute the (critical) effect and magnetic diffusivity. The models’ primary uncertainties turn out to lie at that level, in that the application of the theory to the Sun in a tractable manner requires additional assumptions that are most certainly not met under solar interior conditions. Those uncertainties are exponentiated when taking the theory into the nonlinear regime, to calculate the dependence of the effect and diffusivity on the magnetic field strength. This latter problem remains very much open at this writing.
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp20052 
© Max Planck Society and the author(s)
Problems/comments to 