1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \renewcommand{\vec}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath{$#1$}}}
4:
5: \title{Solar cycle related changes at the base of the convection zone}
6: \author{Charles S. Baldner and Sarbani Basu}
7: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Yale University, P.O. Box 208101, New Haven, CT, 06520-8101}
8: \email{charles.baldner@yale.edu}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11: \begin{abstract}
12: The frequencies of solar oscillations are known to change with solar
13: activity. We use Principal Component Analysis to examine these changes
14: with high precision. In addition to the well-documented changes in solar
15: normal mode oscillations with activity as a function of frequency, which
16: originate in the surface layers of the Sun, we find a small but
17: statistically significant change in frequencies with an origin at and
18: below the base of the convection zone. We find that at
19: $r=(0.712^{+0.0097}_{-0.0029})R_\odot$, the change in sound speed is
20: $\delta c^2 / c^2 = (7.23 \pm 2.08) \times 10^{-5}$ between high and low activity.
21: This change is very tightly correlated with solar activity. In addition,
22: we use the splitting coefficients to examine the latitudinal structure
23: of these changes. We find changes in sound speed correlated with
24: surface activity for $r \gtrsim 0.9R_\odot$.
25: \end{abstract}
26: \keywords{Sun: helioseismology, Sun: activity, Sun: interior}
27:
28: \section{INTRODUCTION}
29: \label{sec:intro}
30: Normal modes of oscillation of the Sun have provided a
31: powerful tool to peer into the solar interior. In particular,
32: modern experiments, both ground- and space-based, have measured
33: the intermediate degree global oscillation spectrum with high
34: precision since the beginning of solar cycle 23. Accurate
35: determinations of interior structure and dynamics are now possible
36: (see, e.g., review by \citealt{C-D02}). These measurements
37: contain a wealth of information about the fundamental causes of
38: solar variability.
39:
40: It is generally believed that the seat of the solar dynamo is located
41: at the base of the convection zone \citep[e.g., review by][]{Charbonneau2005}.
42: Because helioseismology provides the only direct measurements of this
43: region of the solar interior, these results can play an important role in
44: constraining dynamo theories. In particular, a number of authors have attempted
45: to use global and local helioseismic techniques to determine limits on
46: the strength of the magnetic field at the base of the convection zone
47: \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{Chouetal03}. In this paper, we attempt to improve
48: helioseismic measurements of changes in this region.
49:
50: Global modes of solar oscillation are described by three numbers that
51: characterize the spherical harmonics that are used to define the horizontal
52: structure of the mode. These are (1) radial order $n$ that related to the number
53: of nodes in the radial direction, (2) the degree $\ell$ that is related to
54: the horizontal wavelength of the mode, and (3) the azimuthal order $m$
55: that defines the number of nodes along the equator. In a spherically
56: symmetric star, the $2\ell + 1$ modes of an $(n,\ell)$ multiplet are
57: degenerate, but effects that break spherical symmetry such as magnetic fields or
58: rotation lift the degeneracy and results in frequency splittings.
59: The frequencies $\nu_{n\ell m}$ of the modes within a multiplet can be expressed
60: as an expansion in orthogonal polynomials:
61: \begin{equation}
62: \nu_{n\ell m}
63: = \nu_{n\ell} + \sum_{j=1}^{j_{\rm max}} a_j (n,\ell) \, {\cal P}_j^{(\ell)}(m).
64: \label{eq:acoefs}
65: \end{equation}
66: Early investigators \citep[e.g.,][]{Duvalletal86} commonly used Legendre
67: polynomials, whereas now one often uses the
68: Ritzwoller-Lavely formulation of the Clebsch-Gordan expansion \citep{RL91}
69: where the basis functions are polynomials related
70: to the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients.
71: In either case, the coefficients $a_j$ are referred to as $a$-coefficients
72: or splitting coefficients. Solar structure is determined by inverting
73: the mean frequency $\nu_{n\ell}$, while the odd-order coefficients
74: $a_1, a_3, \ldots$ depend principally on the rotation rate \citep{Durneyetal88}
75: and reflect the advective, latitudinally symmetric part
76: of the perturbations caused by rotation. Hence, these
77: are used to determine the rate of rotation inside the Sun.
78: The even order $a$ coefficients on the
79: other hand result from
80: magnetic fields and asphericities in solar structure,
81: and the second order effects of rotation
82: \citep[e.g.,][]{GT90,DG91}.
83:
84: Solar oscillation frequencies are known to vary on timescales
85: related to the solar activity cycle. This was first suggested
86: by \citet{WN85} and confirmed soon after by \citet{Elsworthetal90}
87: and \citet{LW90}. It was quickly established
88: that the frequency shifts were strongly correlated with surface activity
89: \citep[etc.]{Woodardetal91,BB93,Elsworthetal94,Reguloetal94}. \citet{LW90}
90: observed that the frequency shifts depended very strongly on mode
91: frequency $\nu$, and very weakly on degree $\ell$ of the mode, and
92: \citet{A-Getal92} and \citet{Elsworthetal94} confirmed these results.
93: These authors concluded that all or most of the physical changes
94: responsible for the changes in frequency were confined to the
95: shallow layers of the Sun. In general, this picture has been
96: confirmed in more recent studies (e.g., observational
97: results: \citealt{HKH99,HKH02,BA00,Verneretal04,DG05}, etc., and theoretical
98: results: \citealt{Goldetal91,Balmforthetal96,Lietal03}, etc.). A change in
99: the second helium ionization zone at $r=0.98R_\odot$, first suggested by \citet{Goldetal91}
100: and \citet{Gough02}, has been confirmed by \citet{BM04} and
101: \citet{Verneretal06}.
102:
103: The even-order mode splitting parameters sample effects of
104: structural asphericities on the mode
105: frequency. \citet{K88} suggested that they were correlated with
106: observed changes in surface temperature. Subsequent work has
107: shown that the aspherical components of the mode frequencies
108: are tightly correlated with surface magnetic activity
109: \citep{HKH99,Antiaetal01}. This high correlation
110: lends further credence to the idea that frequency shits are
111: caused by surface and/or near-surface effects. This can be tested
112: directly with high degree modes that sample the near-surface
113: layers of the Sun. However, as the degree $l$ increases, global
114: modes become increasingly hard to measure precisely due to the
115: decrease in mode lifetimes \citep{Rhodesetal98,R-Setal01,Korzenniketal04}.
116: The lack of reliable measurements of these modes has led some authors
117: to use ring diagrams to measure high degree modes and measure changes
118: in the shallow layers of the solar convection zone. These studies have
119: confirmed that structural changes do occur in the near-surface layers of the
120: Sun \citep{Betal07}.
121:
122: Direct inversions of changes
123: in the structure of the solar interior probed by the spherically symmetric global
124: modes have not yielded any measurable differences in the deep
125: interior \citep{Basu02,E-Detal02} and there have been
126: upper limits placed on the changes at the base of the convection
127: zone \citep{E-Detal02}. \citet{CS05} and \citet{SC05} have presented
128: evidence of a possible change in mode frequencies with lower turning
129: points near the base of the convection zone.
130:
131: Internal dynamics, on the other hand, show clear and unequivocal
132: evidence of change over the course of the solar cycle.
133: In the convection zone, bands of different rotational velocities
134: (called zonal flows) have been shown to migrate poleward at
135: high latitudes and equator-ward at low latitudes
136: \citep{Schou99,Howeetal00,AB00,AB01}. Temporal variations in dynamics
137: have been shown to penetrate throughout the entire convection
138: zone, and even below \citep{Vorontsovetal02,BA06,Howeetal05,Howeetal06}.
139:
140: One conclusion that can be drawn unequivocally from previous
141: studies of the changes in solar structure is that any changes
142: deeper than those in the outermost layers of the Sun are very small, and hence
143: very difficult to detect through their signatures in oscillation
144: frequencies. \citet{CS05} used a smoothing technique
145: to attempt to remove the effect of surface variations, and
146: found that the scaled frequency differences showed evidence
147: of change near the base of the convection zone, but could not
148: say more about the physical nature of the changes. Attempts
149: to invert the frequencies directly have never shown any changes
150: larger than the inversion errors \citep[e.g.,][]{Basu02,E-Detal02}.
151: Therefore, although current
152: helioseismic instruments have determined the solar oscillation
153: frequencies with tremendous precision, statistical errors in
154: those frequencies are still too large to make any direct detections
155: of structure changes in the deep interior.
156:
157: In this work, we take a somewhat different approach to attempting to
158: detect changes at the base of the convection.
159: We use Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to separate the frequency
160: differences over the last solar cycle into a linear combination of
161: different time-dependent components. This has the effect of
162: decreasing the effects of
163: measurement errors in the measured helioseismic frequencies, which
164: allows us to isolate as precisely as possible the changes in frequency
165: over time. In section \ref{sec:data},
166: we describe the data used, and the methods employed to analyze
167: them. In section \ref{sec:results}, we present the results in detail.
168: Finally, in section \ref{sec:conc} we discuss the significance of
169: the results and presents our conclusions.
170:
171:
172: %It is generally believed that the seat of the solar dynamo is located
173: %at the base of the convection zone and in the tachocline region
174: %\citep[see, e.g., review by][]{Charbonneau2005}. Obviously, since
175: %helioseismology provides the only direct measurements of the properties
176: %of this region, these results play an important role in motivating and
177: %constraining various solar dynamo models. Although a full discussion of
178: %the possible implications of finding changes in structure at the
179: %convection zone base is well beyond the scope of this introduction, we
180: %can point out a few important open questions that discoveries in
181: %helioseismology could help solve. The physical nature of the process(es)
182: %which generate and amplify the torroidal field which emerges at the
183: %surfarce is not understood. One important question is whether or not
184: %the magnetic field is confined in tachocline region for amplification,
185: %or whether or not the primary dynamo mechanism takes place in the
186: %convection zone itself \citep[see][for a discussion of the relative merrits
187: %of various locations for field generation]{B&S2005}. Furthermore, a
188: %measurement of the strength of the magnetic field would provide an
189: %important clue to the nature of the mechanism limitting field
190: %amplification.
191: %
192: \section{DATA \& ANALYSIS}
193: \label{sec:data}
194: \subsection{Data}
195: For this work, we use helioseismic global-mode data sets from two
196: different projects, one from the
197: Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) on-board the SOHO spacecraft, and the other
198: from the Global Oscillations Network Group (GONG). The MDI mode sets
199: consist of frequencies and splittings obtained from 72-day long time
200: series \citep{Schou99}. We use 54 of these sets, spanning the period from 1996 May 1
201: to 2007 May 16. The GONG mode sets are derived from 108-day time series \citep{Hilletal96}.
202: Although GONG provides sets that overlap in time, we only use non-overlapping
203: sets in the present work. We use 40 sets from the period 1995 May 7 to
204: 2007 April 14. Because the two sets are from completely different
205: instruments and independent data reduction pipelines, any real solar
206: signatures should show up in both sets. The $f$-modes do not sample the
207: deep interior and are dominated by surface effects, so we exclude them
208: from our study. The $n = 1$ modes have larger errors than the higher
209: order modes, and so we exclude them as well. The included modes are
210: low and intermediate degree modes up to $\ell=176$, with order $n$ from
211: 2 to 16.
212:
213: As a proxy for total solar activity, we use the 10.7cm radio flux
214: measurements taken by the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory (DRAO)
215: \footnote{Data can be found at \\
216: http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/icarus/www/sol\_home.shtml}.
217: This measurement has been found to be very tightly correlated with
218: solar activity \citep[e.g.,][]{Tapping87}. We average the $F_\mathrm{10.7}$
219: measurements over 72-day periods
220: for comparison with MDI data, and 108-day periods for comparison with GONG
221: data. For latitudinal structure in surface activity, we use the surface
222: magnetic field, taken from SOHO/MDI synoptic maps
223: \footnote{MDI synoptic maps of Carrington rotations can be found at\\
224: http://soi.stanford.edu/magnetic/index6.html}.
225: The magnetic field strengths are averaged over the same 72-day periods
226: as the $F_{10.7}$ data, and over the appropriate ranges in latitude.
227:
228: \subsection{Method}
229: We use Principal Component Analysis to describe the temporal variations of the
230: weighted frequencies as a small number of uncorrelated basis functions. The use of
231: PCA is a common technique in multivariate data analysis to reduce dimensionality
232: and expose underlying variables (see \citealp[Chapter 2]{MH87},
233: for a discussion of its astrophysical applications).
234: A brief description of the method and discussion of its limitations is
235: included in the Appendix. PCA is a technique whereby a set of observations
236: is expressed as a set of uncorrelated vectors.
237: The usefulness of the technique arises from
238: the fact that variation of the data about the first vector is maximal,
239: and about the second vector, maximal subject to the constraint that it
240: be orthogonal to the first vector, and so on. In other words, PCA
241: provides a very efficient linear representation of a data set, and it
242: is able to substantially reduce the dimensionality of the data set
243: without losing any significant information.
244:
245: It has been known for many years that the frequencies of the solar global
246: modes of oscillation change with the solar activity cycle. With the
247: arrival of high quality measurements of intermediate degree modes, it
248: is clear that the amount of frequency shift over the solar cycle is
249: dependent on the mode. Each mode has an associated mode inertia $E_{nl}$.
250: Frequency differences can be scaled by the quantity $Q_{n\ell}=E_{n\ell}/\bar{E}_0(\nu_{n\ell})$,
251: where $\bar{E}_0(\nu_{n\ell})$ is the inertia of the $\ell = 0$ modes
252: interpolated to the frequency of the $(n,\ell)$ mode
253: \citep{C-DB91}. This scaling accounts for
254: the fact that the frequencies of modes with lower inertia are changed by a
255: larger amount than modes with a higher inertia by the same underlying perturbation.
256: When scaled in this way, the degree-dependence of the frequencies over the
257: solar cycle largely vanish, and the frequency changes become
258: slowly varying functions of frequency only \citep[e.g.,][]{Chaplinetal01,Basu02}.
259: %The frequency shifts are known to be correlated with solar activity
260: %\citep[e.g.,][etc.]{Woodardetal91,BB93,Elsworthetal94,Bhatnagaretal99,HKH99,Jainetal00}.
261:
262: Our data points are the scaled frequency differences
263: $Q_{n\ell}\delta \nu_{n\ell} / \nu_{n\ell}$. For the MDI observations, there
264: are 54 total mode sets in our work, which, when one is removed to be used
265: as the base set, giving us 53 sets of scaled frequency differences. There are 40
266: mode sets in our GONG data set, or 39 difference sets. Because the PCA method
267: requires a complete covariance matrix (see the Appendix), we
268: can only include
269: a mode if it is present in all mode sets. This dramatically reduces the
270: amount of usable information, particularly since many excluded modes are
271: missing in only one or two sets out of 53. For these modes, it is possible to
272: interpolate a value for the missing frequency differences.
273: In this case, because most of the frequency differences for the mode
274: in question will be actually observed, any errors
275: introduced through the interpolation will have a negligible effect on the
276: PCA results. We tested two interpolation methods --- one a spline interpolation
277: along ridges in the $\ell$-$\nu$ diagram (interpolated from modes with the
278: same radial order $n$), and the
279: other a linear interpolation between neighboring modes in time. When tested
280: against existing modes, the interpolation along time proved superior, reproducing
281: the actual data to better than a factor of 1.2$\sigma$,
282: while the interpolation along the ridge results had a 2$\sigma$ distribution.
283: Therefore, only results using the time interpolation are discussed in this paper, but the
284: PCA results using interpolation over degree were entirely consistent. Finally, to ensure
285: that the PCA is robust, Monte Carlo simulations were performed to ensure that
286: the exclusion of certain modes would not affect the results. The PCA analysis
287: of these data appears to be very robust. Errors in the PCA components were
288: computed by means of a Monte Carlo simulation.
289:
290: In addition to the mean frequencies $\nu_{n\ell}$, which contain information about
291: the spherically symmetric part of the solar interior, we have the even-order splitting
292: coefficients $a_{2j}(n,\ell)$, which allow us to reproduce mode frequencies as a
293: function of latitude. Latitudinal frequencies as a function of colatitude
294: $\theta$ can be obtained as follows:
295: \begin{equation}\label{eq:lat}
296: \nu_{n\ell}(\theta) = \nu_{n\ell} + \sum_k \frac{\ell a_{2k}(n,\ell)}{\mathcal{Q}_{\ell k}}P_{2k}(\cos \theta),
297: \end{equation}
298: where $\mathcal{Q}_{\ell k}$ are the angular integrals given by
299: \begin{equation}
300: \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi \int_0^\pi \sin \theta d\theta Y_\ell^m(Y_\ell^m)^* P_{2k}(\cos \theta) = \frac{1}{\ell}\mathcal{Q}_{\ell k}\mathcal{P}_{2k}^{(\ell)}(m),
301: \end{equation}
302: and $P_{2k}(\cos \theta)$ are Legendre polynomials of degree $2k$, and the
303: $\mathcal{P}_{2k}^{(\ell)}$ are the same polynomials as in equation \ref{eq:acoefs}.
304:
305: Ultimately, we are interested in helioseismic data for what they can
306: tell us about the solar interior. To extract this information, we invert
307: these data sets for the parameters of interest. We
308: use two different inversion techniques, and invert for the change in
309: sound speed relative to the comparison frequency. The first technique used
310: is Subtractively Optimized Local Averages \citep[SOLA][]{PT94}.
311: A description of the implementation used here, and how to select
312: inversion parameters can be found in \citet{R-Setal99}. The
313: second inversion technique is that of Regularized Least Squares (RLS). The
314: implementation used here and the selection of inversion parameters have been
315: discussed in \citet{AB94} and \citet{BT96}. The use
316: of these two techniques in tandem is crucial because the techniques are
317: complimentary in nature \citep{Sekii97}. Inversions can be trusted if
318: both inversion techniques return the same results.
319:
320: The quantities which we invert are appropriately scaled eigenvectors from
321: the PCA of the frequency differences. The differences are taken relative to
322: some fiducial set, usually the first mode set (corresponding to activity minimum
323: at the beginning of solar cycle 23). The eigenvectors, $\vec{\xi}_i$, are
324: normalized so that $\vec{\xi}_i \cdot \vec{\xi}_i = 1$. Each data set is
325: the vector $\vec{x}(t)$ that contains the individual mode frequencies
326: $Q_{n \ell}\delta \nu_{n \ell} / \nu_{n \ell}$. These data can be
327: represented as a linear combination of the the eigenvectors with
328: coefficients given by $c_i(t) = \sum_j \xi_{ij}x_j(t)$ (see the Appendix).
329: The scaled eigenvector $c_i(t)\vec{\xi}_i$, therefore, has a physically reasonable
330: magnitude, and in all following cases, it is this quantity that we invert.
331: In general, we choose the coefficient with the largest magnitude, which represents
332: the largest variation in sound speed. This coefficient is usually the one associated
333: with the set at maximum activity.
334:
335: \section{RESULTS \& DISCUSSION}
336: \label{sec:results}
337: \subsection{Mean frequencies}
338: We have performed the PCA decomposition of the MDI mean frequencies with respect
339: to the first set (set \#1216, start day 1996 May 1, end day 1996 July 12). This
340: is a low activity set. The first four eigenvectors $\vec{\xi}_1$ --- $\vec{\xi}_4$
341: are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:MDIvec}, both as a function of frequency and of the
342: lower turning point of the modes.
343: The scaling coefficients for the first four eigenvectors are presented in Fig.
344: \ref{fig:MDIcoef}. Also shown in the figure is the difference in the 10.7 cm
345: radio flux between the first set and the subsequent sets.
346:
347: When plotted as a function of frequency, the first eigenvector $\vec{\xi}_1$
348: appears to be almost entirely due to near-surface effects --- it is seems to
349: be a slowly varying function of frequency
350: only. As a function of $r_t$, however, a change in the average level
351: of the frequency differences can be seen below the base of the convection zone
352: (around $r \approx 0.713R_\odot$ --- marked by a vertical line in
353: Fig. \ref{fig:MDIvec}). This implies a time
354: dependent change near the base of the solar convection zone. We conclude, therefore,
355: that there is a statistically significant component of the frequency
356: variability picked out by $\vec{\xi}_1$ that does not originate at the surface.
357: The coefficients for $\vec{\xi}_1$ are tightly correlated with the 10.7cm
358: radio flux, a proxy for surface activity; the correlation coefficient is 0.99.
359: A linear regression fit to the change in radio flux relative to solar minimum,
360: $\Delta F_\mathrm{10.7}$, gives the relation between the 10.7cm flux and the
361: coefficients of $\vec{\xi}_1$ as:
362: \begin{equation}
363: \label{eq:f10line}
364: c_1 = (2.53\times 10^{-5} \pm 3.13 \times 10^{-6})\Delta F_\mathrm{10.7} + 3.95\times 10^{-5} \pm 1.6 \times 10^{-4}.
365: \end{equation}
366: Thus, all changes, as manifest by $\vec{\xi}_1$, are tightly correlated with
367: surface magnetic activity.
368:
369: The second eigenvector, $\vec{\xi}_2$, also shows variability over the solar cycle.
370: Comparing it as a function of $\nu$ and of $r_t$, it is clear that the structure is neither
371: a pure function of frequency nor of lower turning point. The first four obvious
372: downturn features correspond to modes of order $n=2$, 3, 4, and 5. As a
373: function of $r_t$, it seems clear that the structure is concentrated at or
374: near the surface. However, the differences can not be fit by the usual ``surface
375: term", and further examination reveals that it cannot be fit even by higher-order
376: surface terms of the form considered in \citet{BV93} and \citet{A95}. The coefficients for
377: $\vec{\xi}_2$ offer some hint as to what is going on. They exhibit no obvious
378: solar cycle dependency, but rather seem to be a roughly linearly decreasing
379: function of time. There does not seem to be any periodicity on a scale of
380: eleven years or shorter. Larson \& Schou (2008) have undertaken an in depth study of the
381: systematics in the MDI data reduction pipeline. The plate scale in the
382: MDI instrument has changed slightly over the course of SOHO's mission,
383: and they have shown that the effect of the resultant
384: error in the measured radius introduces errors that look exactly like
385: the $\vec{\xi}_2$ eigenvector computed in this work. We do not believe, therefore,
386: that the features in $\vec{\xi}_2$ are solar in origin, but are rather artifacts
387: from the MDI data reduction pipeline. As we will show below, analysis of
388: GONG data confirms our belief.
389:
390: The third and fourth eigenvectors, $\vec{\xi}_3$ and $\vec{\xi}_4$ do not exhibit
391: any significant structure at all. The vector $\vec{\xi}_3$ shows a slight trend
392: with frequency, but the scaling coefficients $c_3$ are normally distributed, and
393: we cannot identify any physical significance in this eigenvector. The remaining
394: eigenvectors are statistically consistent with Gaussian noise distributed around zero.
395: We conclude, therefore, that the temporal variation of the MDI frequencies
396: is dependent on a linear combination of $\vec{\xi}_1$ and $\vec{\xi}_2$ alone.
397: In Fig. \ref{fig:MDIrecon}, we show two data sets reconstructed from the
398: first two eigenvectors. This figure
399: shows that the PCA decomposition does indeed accurately capture the original data
400: while significantly reducing the random scatter in the data. The residuals
401: normalized by the errors are plotted, and are consistent with Gaussian noise, with
402: distributions of 1.1$\sigma$ and 0.9$\sigma$ for the two cases. Having confirmed that
403: the third and subsequent eigenvectors are Gaussian noise, we do not consider them
404: further in this paper.
405: This reduction in noise is important for attempting to invert the small signatures
406: we are looking at here.
407:
408: The fact that the PCA is applied to a set of mode sets relative to a single
409: base set raises the possibility that we are unduly influenced by the choice
410: of that base set. We therefore repeat the PCA taking a base set from
411: halfway up the solar cycle: MDI set \#2224 (start date: 1999 February 3, end date
412: 1999 April 16, and an activity level during the 72 day period of $F_\mathrm{10.7}=130.7$
413: SFU). The eigenvectors are consistent with those obtained from the base
414: \#1216 set insofar as their inner products are close to unity. We conclude, therefore,
415: that the PCA results are not unduly influenced by the choice of base set.
416:
417: The mode parameters measured from GONG data are somewhat noisier
418: than those measured from MDI data. Nevertheless, a similar
419: analysis of the GONG data allows us to confirm results obtained from
420: MDI data. The first two eigenvectors from the GONG observations
421: are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:GONGvec}. As with the MDI data, $\vec{\xi}_1$ plotted
422: against $r_t$ shows some structure in the deep interior. The second
423: eigenvector, $\vec{\xi}_2$, shows no more structure than the MDI $\vec{\xi}_3$
424: eigenvector, and the remaining eigenvectors appear to be Gaussian noise,
425: reinforcing our conclusions that the structure in $\vec{\xi}_2$ from the MDI data
426: set is instrumental in origin.
427:
428: We invert the appropriately scaled $\vec{\xi}_1$ eigenvectors to determine the
429: change in the sound speed as a function of radius.
430: We show the results of the inversion of the $\vec{\xi}_1$ vector with the
431: \#1216 base set in Fig. \ref{fig:MDIinv}. This vector has been scaled by
432: the coefficient for set \#3160 (start date: 2001 August 27) in order to
433: give the inversion results physical meaning. It
434: is readily apparent that at a depth of $r \approx 0.713R_\odot$, near the
435: location of the convection zone base, there is a change in the sound speed.
436: This feature is well matched in both the RLS and the SOLA inversions,
437: which implies that the feature is actually present in the data. The depression
438: in sound speed at the base of the convection zone with increasing activity is
439: matched with a corresponding enhancement below the convection zone.
440: We invert the GONG data as well. The inversion results are shown in Fig.
441: \ref{fig:GONGinv}. There is a clear feature at the base of the convection
442: zone, as seen with MDI data. The presence of this feature in
443: the data of an independent instrument with an independent reduction pipeline is
444: very encouraging --- it strongly implies that the changes implied by the
445: inversions are present in the Sun itself rather than artifacts in the data.
446: Figure \ref{fig:MDIinv} shows the difference in sound speed between two extrema
447: in the solar cycle. To show how the interior changes with time, in Fig.
448: \ref{fig:MDIcsq} we show the sound speed inversions at three radii as a function
449: of $\Delta F_\mathrm{10.7}$.
450:
451: We confirm, therefore, that the signature in mode frequencies is consistent
452: with a change in structure at the base of the convection zone. Other
453: authors have looked for changes in this region, but have not found any changes.
454: The change that we have detected, while statistically significant, is
455: very small, and it is only with the benefit of an entire solar cycle's
456: worth of high precision observations that we can detect changes at this level.
457: \citet{BA01} examined the mode frequencies for evidence of a
458: change in the location of the base of the convection zone. They did not
459: detect any change, and the sound speed profile that we find in Fig. \ref{fig:MDIinv}
460: is very different from the one they expected from a change in the base of
461: the convection zone. This implies that, even if the change we are detecting
462: is thermal in nature, it is unlikely to be related in any way to a change
463: in the position of the base of the convection zone.
464:
465: These inversions have been done assuming that the frequency differences are a result
466: of a change in sound speed only. It is almost certain, however, given how tightly
467: correlated this change is with solar activity, that the observed changes are
468: related in some way to changes in the internal magnetic fields. What we have really
469: inverted for, therefore, is a change in the {\em wave} speed. If we assume
470: that the entire change is due to a change in the wave propagation speed due the presence of
471: magnetic fields, in other words that $\delta c^2 / c^2 \approx v_A^2 / c^2$, as in
472: \citet{Betal04}, we can obtain a value for $B$. The change at the
473: base of the convection zone is $\delta c^2 / c^2 = (7.23 \pm 2.08) \times 10^{-5}$,
474: which implies a magnetic field strength of 290 kG. This is consistent with
475: the results of earlier authors --- \citet{GD93} placed an upper limit of 1MG on the
476: toroidal field at the base of the convection zone, and \citet{Basu97} found that the
477: magnetic field in this region could not exceed 300kG. \citet{CS02} found somewhat
478: stronger fields (400 to 700kG).
479:
480:
481: \subsection{Latitudinal changes}
482: The MDI and GONG data sets also contain splitting coefficients. The even-order
483: coefficients contain information about the non-spherically symmetric structure
484: in the solar interior. Because the surface manifestations of solar activity
485: are strongly latitudinally dependent, we have used these coefficients to study the
486: temporal variability of structure at different latitudes. The frequencies
487: corresponding to different latitudes are computed using equation \ref{eq:lat}.
488: The PCA procedure is performed for each latitude as was done with the mean frequencies,
489: and as usual is done with respect to set \#1216.
490: The first eigenvector for six different latitudes is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:LATvec}.
491: When plotted as a function of frequency, the latitudes from the equator to 30$^\circ$
492: show a similar frequency dependence as in the case of the mean frequencies in
493: Fig. \ref{fig:MDIvec}. When plotted as a function of $r_t$, we see change at
494: and below the convection zone base. The higher latitudes show no
495: structure, and the eigenvectors for these latitudes are consistent with Gaussian
496: noise. The scaling coefficients for each latitude as a function of time are
497: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:LATcoef}, along with the surface magnetic field. Like
498: the scaling coefficients for the mean frequencies shown in Fig. \ref{fig:MDIcoef},
499: the latitudinal scaling coefficients closely follow the surface activity.
500:
501: We show the sound speed inversions for the equator, 15$^\circ$, 30$^\circ$,
502: and 45$^\circ$ in Fig. \ref{fig:LATinv}. The errors in the eigenvectors are
503: larger here than for the mean frequencies, in large part because each frequency
504: is a combination of mean frequency and splitting coefficients, each with their own
505: errors. Nevertheless, there are several points of interest
506: in these inversions. The first is a clear sound speed change for radii greater than
507: approximately $r=0.86R_\odot$ at 15$^\circ$ and the equator. The change seen
508: in the SOLA inversion results is well matched in this region by the RLS inversion results,
509: and the significance of the change approaches 2$\sigma$. There is the
510: possibility, though less statistically significant, of a change at greater depth,
511: i.e., approximately $r=0.82R_\odot$. At 30$^\circ$, a change in sound speed through
512: the tachocline is seen in the RLS results, but it does not appear to be as clear
513: in the SOLA results.. It is unclear whether or not this result is statistically
514: significant. At latitudes of 45$^\circ$ and higher, the inversion errors become large,
515: and the inversion results themselves become extremely sensitive to the inversion parameters.
516: We conclude that there are no structural changes in the solar interior at
517: or above a latitude of 45$^\circ$ large enough to be present in our data sets.
518:
519: We have also analyzed directly the change in solar structural asphericity over
520: the course of the solar cycle, by taking the scaled frequency differences of
521: high latitudes with respect to the equator. For this analysis, therefore, we have
522: 54 mode sets at each latitude. The difference is equator$-$latitude.
523: Figure \ref{fig:ASPHvec} shows the
524: $\vec{\xi}_1$ eigenvectors for five different latitudes with respect to the equator.
525: Clearly, the signal to noise in these data are worse than either the latitudinal
526: frequencies or the mean frequencies, but radial structure is discernible in the
527: eigenvectors for the equator relative to 15$^\circ$, 30$^\circ$, and 45$^\circ$.
528: In fig. \ref{fig:ASPHcoef}, the scaling coefficients for the asphericity terms
529: are shown. There is an evident phase delay in the scaling coefficients of 15$\circ$
530: and 30$^\circ$ with respect to the equator. This is expected from Fig. \ref{fig:LATcoef}.
531: The scaling coefficients for higher latitudes (45$^\circ$ and 60$^\circ$ with respect
532: to the equator) show no structure except for an abrupt change from mostly positive
533: to negative, corresponding closely to the peak of the solar activity cycle.
534:
535: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
536: \label{sec:conc}
537: We have analyzed the changes in solar oscillation frequencies over the
538: course of solar cycle 23. In order to reduce the effects of
539: measurement errors and detect the faintest signatures of solar
540: variability possible, we have employed a Principal Component Analysis
541: of the frequencies. The mean frequencies are known to vary over the
542: solar cycle, and this variation is known to be tightly correlated with
543: surface activity. We have found this correlation as well.
544:
545: In addition to the frequency dependent change which these
546: earlier authors have detected, we have found a small but statistically
547: significant change in modes with turning points at or below the convection
548: zone. This confirms the result of \citet{CS05}. This
549: signature is present in both the MDI and the GONG data sets. We have
550: inverted these results to obtain the difference in sound speed, and we
551: have confirmed that there is a change in solar structure at the base of
552: the convection zone over the course of the solar cycle. The measured
553: change at a radius of $r=(0.712^{+0.0097}_{-0.0029})R_\odot$ is
554: $\delta c^2 / c^2 = (7.23 \pm 2.08) \times 10^{-5}$, where
555: the errors in radius are a measure of the resolution of the inversion
556: taken from the first and third quartile points of the inversion kernel.
557:
558: We have also used the splitting coefficients to investigate how the
559: changes in structure vary over latitude. We have found that the
560: changes in the solar interior are tightly correlated with the
561: latitudinal distribution of surface activity. The most statistically
562: significant changes detected in the analysis are changes in sound
563: speed in the outer ten percent (by radius) of the solar interior.
564:
565: \acknowledgements
566: We wish to thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments which helped
567: to clarify a number of the discussions in this paper. We are also grateful
568: to T.~ Larson and J.~ Schou for their helpful discussion of the anomalous
569: results in the MDI data.
570: This work utilizes data obtained by the Global Oscillation
571: Network Group (GONG) project, managed by the National Solar Observatory,
572: which is operated by AURA, Inc. under a cooperative agreement with the
573: National Science Foundation. The data were acquired by instruments
574: operated by the Big Bear Solar Observatory, High Altitude Observatory,
575: Learmonth Solar Observatory, Udaipur Solar Observatory, Instituto de
576: Astrofisico de Canarias, and Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory.
577: This work also utilizes data from the Solar Oscillations
578: Investigation/ Michelson Doppler Imager (SOI/MDI) on the Solar
579: and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). SOHO is a project of
580: international cooperation between ESA and NASA.
581: MDI is supported by NASA grants NAG5-8878 and NAG5-10483
582: to Stanford University. This work is partially supported by NSF grants
583: ATM 0348837 and ATM 073770 to SB.
584:
585:
586: \appendix
587: \section{PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS}
588: \label{sec:PCAappend}
589: We give a brief description of the Principal Component Analysis
590: technique that follows the one found in \citet{Kendall80}. This technique assumes
591: that we begin with a set of observations, each one consisting of a set of data
592: points (for example, a set of spectra of different objects, or a set of images, or,
593: as in this paper, sets of mode frequency measurements at different points in time).
594: Assume we have
595: $m$ observations, each with $n$ data points. The $m$ vectors $\vec{x}_i$ each
596: contain the $n$ data points $x_{ij}$, measured relative to the mean $\bar{\vec{x}}_j$
597: We wish to find a new set of vectors $\vec{c}_i$ that are linearly dependent
598: on $\vec{x}_i$, and uncorrelated with each other. In addition, we require that they
599: have stationary values of their variance. This condition is imposed to ensure that
600: most of the variance is accounted for in as few vectors $\vec{c}_i$ as possible.
601: Alternatively, this condition can be viewed geometrically as a rotation of the basis
602: vectors such that the variance of the data with respect to each basis vector is maximal.
603: This is most easily understood in the case of a two dimensional data set, where PCA is
604: equivalent to a linear fit to the data, and the rotation sets one basis vector parallel
605: to that fit.
606: The vectors $\vec{c}_i$ will be given by a linear combination of the original observations:
607: \begin{equation}\label{eq:AP1}
608: \vec{c}_i = \sum_{j = 1}^n \xi_{ji}\vec{x}_j.
609: \end{equation}
610: The vectors $\vec{\xi}_j$ will form a new basis set for the observations. The variance of
611: $\vec{c}_i$ is given by
612: \begin{equation}\label{eq:var}
613: \textrm{var}\ \vec{c}_i = \sum_{j=1}^n \sum_{k=1}^n \xi_{ji} \xi_{ki} e_{jk},
614: \end{equation}
615: where $e_{jk}$ is the covariance between $x_j$ and $x_k$. The covariance matrix is given
616: by
617: \begin{equation}\label{cov}
618: \mathbf{E} = \frac{1}{n}\mathbf{XX}^\mathrm{T},
619: \end{equation}
620: where $\mathbf{X}$ is the matrix $\left( \vec{x}_1, \vec{x}_2, \ldots, \vec{x}_m \right)$. In order to
621: get unique solutions for the values of $\xi_{ji}$, we impose a normalization condition:
622: \begin{equation}\label{eq:constraint}
623: \sum_{i=1}^m \xi_{ji}^2 = 1.
624: \end{equation}
625: Finding the stationary values of $\textrm{var}\ \vec{c}_i$ (eq. \ref{eq:var}) with the
626: condition \ref{eq:constraint} is equivalent to finding the stationary values of:
627: \begin{equation}\label{eq:newvar}
628: \sum_{j=1}^m \sum_{k=1}^m \xi_{ij} \xi_{ik} e_{jk} - \lambda \left( \sum_{j=1}^m \xi_{ij}^2 - 1 \right),
629: \end{equation}
630: where $\lambda$ is some constant. To find
631: the stationary values, we differentiate \ref{eq:newvar} by $\xi_{ij}$ and find the roots
632: of the equation:
633: \begin{equation}
634: \sum_{k=1}^m \xi_{ik} e_{jk} - \lambda \xi_{ij} = 0.
635: \end{equation}
636: This is an eigenvalue problem --- the vector $\vec{\xi}_j$ is an eigenvector of
637: $\mathbf{E}$ and $\lambda$ is the corresponding eigenvalue. The eigenvectors form an orthonormal
638: basis set and are called the `principal components' of the data set. When they are
639: ordered by decreasing eigenvalue $\lambda$, the first principal component will have
640: the largest possible variance, the second the second largest variance, and so on. In
641: our work, we use the singular value decomposition of the covariance matrix to get the
642: eigenvalues and vectors. The vectors $\vec{c}_i$ are the scaling coefficients for the
643: principal components.
644:
645: The PCA technique has several known weaknesses. The first is that its simplest
646: implementation requires a completely filled covariance matrix --- in other words
647: there can be no missing data in $\mathbf{X}$. This is a problem for us
648: since not all modes are identified
649: in each different observation epoch. There are generalizations
650: of the technique which allow for large quantities of missing data. In our case, however,
651: the modes in which we are interested tend to be identified in most of the mode sets, so
652: we can simply interpolate the missing modes from the existing frequency measurements
653: without any significant effect on the results. We do not, therefore, use a more
654: specialized technique.
655:
656: A second problem with PCA is its sensitivity to outliers. One often-quoted example
657: shows a PCA decomposition where the correlation coefficient between the first two
658: components with one outlier removed is 0.99 \citep[e.g.,][]{Huber81}. There are
659: available routines for making PCA more robust, but in our case, because the
660: dimensionality of the problem is relatively small, we can instead empirically test
661: the sensitivity of the data set to outliers. Monte Carlo tests show that our data
662: set is not prone to errors in the PCA due to outliers.
663:
664: Principal Component Analysis has been used in a wide variety of astronomical contexts
665: (see references in \citealp[Chapter2]{MH87}). In solar physics, PCA has been used for,
666: among other things, the inversion of Stokes profiles \citep[e.g.,][]{Eydenbergetal05,R-Vetal06}, in
667: detecting structures in coronal activity \citep[e.g.,][]{Cadavidetal07}, and in helioseismic
668: rotation inversions \citep[e.g.,][]{E-Detal04}.
669:
670:
671: \begin{thebibliography}{}
672: \bibitem[Anguera Gubau et al.(1992)]{A-Getal92} Anguera Gubau,
673: M., Palle, P.~L., Perez Hernandez, F., Regulo, C., \& Roca Cortes, T.\
674: 1992, \aap, 255, 363
675:
676: \bibitem[Antia(1995)]{A95} Antia, H.~M.\ 1995, \mnras, 274,
677: 499
678:
679: \bibitem[Antia \& Basu(1994)]{AB94} Antia, H.~M., \& Basu,
680: S.\ 1994, \aaps, 107, 421
681:
682: \bibitem[Antia \& Basu(2000)]{AB00} Antia, H.~M., \& Basu,
683: S.\ 2000, \apj, 541, 442
684:
685: \bibitem[Antia \& Basu(2001)]{AB01} Antia, H.~M., \& Basu,
686: S.\ 2001, \apjl, 559, L67
687:
688: \bibitem[Antia et al.(2001)]{Antiaetal01} Antia, H.~M., Basu, S.,
689: Hill, F., Howe, R., Komm, R.~W., \& Schou, J.\ 2001, SOHO 10/GONG 2000
690: Workshop: Helio- and Asteroseismology at the Dawn of the Millennium, 464, 45
691:
692: \bibitem[Bachmann \& Brown(1993)]{BB93} Bachmann, K.~T.,
693: \& Brown, T.~M.\ 1993, \apjl, 411, L45
694:
695: \bibitem[Balmforth et al.(1996)]{Balmforthetal96} Balmforth, N.~J.,
696: Gough, D.~O., \& Merryfield, W.~J.\ 1996, \mnras, 278, 437
697:
698: \bibitem[Basu(1997)]{Basu97} Basu, S.\ 1997, \mnras, 288, 572
699:
700: \bibitem[Basu(2002)]{Basu02} Basu, S.\ 2002, From Solar Min to
701: Max: Half a Solar Cycle with SOHO, 508, 7
702:
703: \bibitem[Basu \& Antia(2000)]{BA00} Basu, S., \& Antia,
704: H.~M.\ 2000, \solphys, 192, 449
705:
706: \bibitem[Basu \& Antia(2001)]{BA01} Basu, S., \& Antia,
707: H.~M.\ 2001, SOHO 10/GONG 2000 Workshop: Helio- and Asteroseismology
708: at the Dawn of the Millennium, 464, 297
709:
710: \bibitem[Basu \& Antia(2006)]{BA06} Basu, S., \& Antia,
711: H.~M.\ 2006, Proceedings of SOHO 18/GONG 2006/HELAS I, Beyond the
712: spherical Sun, 624, 128
713:
714: \bibitem[Basu et al.(2004)]{Betal04} Basu, S., Antia, H.~M.,
715: \& Bogart, R.~S.\ 2004, \apj, 610, 1157
716:
717: \bibitem[Basu et al.(2007)]{Betal07} Basu, S., Antia, H.~M.,
718: \& Bogart, R.~S.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 1146
719:
720: \bibitem[Basu \& Mandel(2004)]{BM04} Basu, S., \& Mandel,
721: A.\ 2004, \apjl, 617, L155
722:
723: \bibitem[Basu \& Thompson(1996)]{BT96} Basu, S., \&
724: Thompson, M.~J.\ 1996, \aap, 305, 631
725:
726: %\bibitem[Bhatnagar et al.(1999)]{Bhatnagaretal99} Bhatnagar, A., Jain,
727: %K., \& Tripathy, S.~C.\ 1999, \apj, 521, 885
728: %
729: %
730: %\bibitem[Brandenburg \& Subramanian(2005)]{B&S2005} Brandenburg, A.,
731: %\& Subramanian, K.\ 2005, \physrep, 417, 1
732: %
733: \bibitem[Brodsky \& Vorontsov(1993)]{BV93} Brodsky, M., \& Vorontsov,
734: S.~V.\ 1993, \apj, 409, 455
735:
736: \bibitem[Cadavid et al.(2007)]{Cadavidetal07} Cadavid, A.~C.,
737: Lawrence, J.~K., \& Ruzmaikin, A.\ 2008, \solphys, 248, 247
738:
739: \bibitem[Chaplin et al.(2001)]{Chaplinetal01} Chaplin, W.~J.,
740: Elsworth, Y., Isaak, G.~R., New, R., \& Appourchaux, T.\ 2001, SOHO
741: 10/GONG 2000 Workshop: Helio- and Asteroseismology at the Dawn of the
742: Millennium, 464, 83
743:
744: \bibitem[Charbonneau(2005)]{Charbonneau2005} Charbonneau, P.\ 2005,
745: Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 2, 2
746:
747: \bibitem[Chou \& Serebryanskiy(2002)]{CS02} Chou, D.-Y., \&
748: Serebryanskiy, A.\ 2002, \apjl, 578, L157
749:
750: \bibitem[Chou \& Serebryanskiy(2005)]{CS05} Chou, D.-Y.,
751: \& Serebryanskiy, A.\ 2005, \apj, 624, 420
752:
753: \bibitem[Chou et al.(2003)]{Chouetal03} Chou, D.-Y., Serebryanskiy,
754: A., \& Sun, M.-T.\ 2003, Space Science Reviews, 107, 35
755:
756: \bibitem[Christensen-Dalsgaard(2002)]{C-D02}
757: Christensen-Dalsgaard, J.\ 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1073
758:
759: \bibitem[Christensen-Dalsgaard \& Berthomieu(1991)]{C-DB91}
760: Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., \& Berthomieu, G.\ 1991, Solar Interior and
761: Atmosphere, 401
762:
763: \bibitem[Durney et al.(1988)]{Durneyetal88} Durney, B.~R., Hill, F.,
764: \& Goode, P.~R.\ 1988, \apj, 326, 486
765:
766: \bibitem[Duvall et al.(1986)]{Duvalletal86} Duvall, T.~L., Jr.,
767: Harvey, J.~W., \& Pomerantz, M.~A.\ 1986, \nat, 321, 500
768:
769: \bibitem[Dziembowski \& Goode(1991)]{DG91} Dziembowski,
770: W.~A., \& Goode, P.~R.\ 1991, Solar Interior and Atmosphere, 501
771:
772: %\bibitem[Dziembowski \& Goode(2002)]{DG02} Dziembowski,
773: %W.~A., \& Goode, P.~R.\ 2002, IAU Colloq.~185: Radial and Nonradial
774: %Pulsationsn as Probes of Stellar Physics, 259, 476
775:
776: \bibitem[Dziembowski \& Goode(2005)]{DG05} Dziembowski,
777: W.~A., \& Goode, P.~R.\ 2005, \apj, 625, 548
778:
779: \bibitem[Eff-Darwich et al.(2004)]{E-Detal04} Eff-Darwich, A.,
780: Korzennik, S.~G., Jim{\'e}nez-Reyes, S., \& Garc{\'{\i}}a, R.~A.\ 2004,
781: SOHO 14 Helio- and Asteroseismology: Towards a Golden Future, 559, 420
782:
783: \bibitem[Eff-Darwich et al.(2002)]{E-Detal02} Eff-Darwich, A.,
784: Korzennik, S.~G., Jim{\'e}nez-Reyes, S.~J., \& P{\'e}rez Hern{\'a}ndez,
785: F.\ 2002, \apj, 580, 574
786:
787: \bibitem[Elsworth et al.(1994)]{Elsworthetal94} Elsworth, Y., Howe,
788: R., Isaak, G.~R., McLeod, C.~P., Miller, B.~A., New, R., Speake, C.~C.,
789: \& Wheeler, S.~J.\ 1994, \apj, 434, 801
790:
791: \bibitem[Elsworth et al.(1990)]{Elsworthetal90} Elsworth, Y., Howe,
792: R., Isaak, G.~R., McLeod, C.~P., \& New, R.\ 1990, \nat, 345, 322
793:
794: \bibitem[Eydenberg et al.(2005)]{Eydenbergetal05} Eydenberg, M.~S.,
795: Balasubramaniam, K.~S., \& L{\'o}pez Ariste, A.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 1167
796:
797: \bibitem[Goldreich et al.(1991)]{Goldetal91} Goldreich, P.,
798: Murray, N., Willette, G., \& Kumar, P.\ 1991, \apj, 370, 752
799:
800: \bibitem[Goode \& Dziembowski(1993)]{GD93} Goode, P.~R.,
801: \& Dziembowski, W.~A.\ 1993, GONG 1992.~Seismic Investigation of the Sun
802: and Stars, 42, 229
803:
804: \bibitem[Gough(2002)]{Gough02} Gough, D.~O.\ 2002, From Solar
805: Min to Max: Half a Solar Cycle with SOHO, 508, 577
806:
807: \bibitem[Gough \& Thompson(1990)]{GT90} Gough, D.~O.,
808: \& Thompson, M.~J.\ 1990, \mnras, 242, 25
809:
810: \bibitem[Hill et al.(1996)]{Hilletal96} Hill, F., et al.\ 1996,
811: Science, 272, 1292
812:
813: \bibitem[Howe et al.(2000)]{Howeetal00} Howe, R.,
814: Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Hill, F., Komm, R.~W., Larsen, R.~M., Schou, J.,
815: Thompson, M.~J., \& Toomre, J.\ 2000, Science, 287, 2456
816:
817: \bibitem[Howe et al.(2005)]{Howeetal05} Howe, R.,
818: Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Hill, F., Komm, R., Schou, J.,
819: \& Thompson, M.~J.\ 2005, \apj, 634, 1405
820:
821: \bibitem[Howe et al.(1999)]{HKH99} Howe, R., Komm, R.,
822: \& Hill, F.\ 1999, \apj, 524, 1084
823:
824: \bibitem[Howe et al.(2002)]{HKH02} Howe, R., Komm, R.~W.,
825: \& Hill, F.\ 2002, \apj, 580, 1172
826:
827: \bibitem[Howe et al.(2006)]{Howeetal06} Howe, R., Rempel, M.,
828: Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Hill, F., Komm, R., Larsen, R.~M., Schou, J.,
829: \& Thompson, M.~J.\ 2006, \apj, 649, 1155
830:
831: \bibitem[Huber(1981)]{Huber81} Huber, P.~J., 1981, Robust Statistics,
832: (New York, NY: Wiley)
833:
834: %\bibitem[Jain et al.(2000)]{Jainetal00} Jain, K., Tripathy, S.~C.,
835: %\& Bhatnagar, A.\ 2000, \apj, 542, 521
836:
837: \bibitem[Kendall(1980)]{Kendall80} Kendall, M. 1980, Multivariate
838: Analysis, (2nd Ed.; New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co)
839:
840: \bibitem[Korzennik et al.(2004)]{Korzenniketal04} Korzennik, S.~G.,
841: Rabello-Soares, M.~C., \& Schou, J.\ 2004, \apj, 602, 481
842:
843: \bibitem[Kuhn(1988)]{K88} Kuhn, J.~R.\ 1988, \apjl, 331,
844: L131
845:
846: \bibitem[Larson \& Schou(2008)]{LarsonSchou08} Larson, T., \& Schou, J.\ 2008,
847: in Helioseismology, Asteroseismology and MHD Connections, J.~ Phys.: Conf.~ Ser.,
848: ed. Gizon, L., in press
849:
850: \bibitem[Li et al.(2003)]{Lietal03} Li, L.~H., Basu, S., Sofia,
851: S., Robinson, F.~J., Demarque, P., \& Guenther, D.~B.\ 2003, \apj, 591, 1267
852:
853: \bibitem[Libbrecht \& Woodard(1990)]{LW90} Libbrecht,
854: K.~G., \& Woodard, M.~F.\ 1990, \nat, 345, 779
855:
856: \bibitem[Murtagh \& Heck(1987)]{MH87} Murtagh, F., \& Heck,
857: A.\ 1987, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 131
858:
859: \bibitem[Pijpers \& Thompson(1994)]{PT94} Pijpers, F.~P.,
860: \& Thompson, M.~J.\ 1994, \aap, 281, 231
861:
862: \bibitem[Rabello-Soares et al.(1999)]{R-Setal99} Rabello-Soares,
863: M.~C., Basu, S., \& Christensen-Dalsgaard, J.\ 1999, \mnras, 309, 35
864:
865: \bibitem[Rabello-Soares et al.(2001)]{R-Setal01} Rabello-Soares,
866: M.~C., Korzennik, S.~G., \& Schou, J.\ 2001, SOHO 10/GONG 2000 Workshop:
867: Helio- and Asteroseismology at the Dawn of the Millennium, 464, 129
868:
869: \bibitem[R{\'a}mirez V{\'e}lez et al.(2006)]{R-Vetal06}
870: R{\'a}mirez V{\'e}lez, J.~C., Semel, M., Stift, M.~J., \& Leone, F.\ 2006,
871: Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 358, 405
872:
873: \bibitem[Regulo et al.(1994)]{Reguloetal94} Regulo, C., Jimenez, A.,
874: Palle, P.~L., Perez Hernandez, F., \& Roca Cortes, T.\ 1994, \apj, 434, 384
875:
876: \bibitem[Rhodes et al.(1998)]{Rhodesetal98} Rhodes, E.~J., Jr.,
877: Reiter, J., Kosovichev, A.~G., Schou, J., \& Scherrer, P.~H.\ 1998,
878: Structure and Dynamics of the Interior of the Sun and Sun-like Stars, 418, 73
879:
880: \bibitem[Ritzwoller \& Lavely(1991)]{RL91} Ritzwoller,
881: M.~H., \& Lavely, E.~M.\ 1991, \apj, 369, 557
882:
883: \bibitem[Schou(1999)]{Schou99} Schou, J.\ 1999, \apjl, 523,
884: L181
885:
886: \bibitem[Sekii(1997)]{Sekii97} Sekii, T.\ 1997, Sounding Solar
887: and Stellar Interiors, 181, 189
888:
889: \bibitem[Serebryanskiy \& Chou(2005)]{SC05} Serebryanskiy,
890: A., \& Chou, D.-Y.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 1187
891:
892: \bibitem[Tapping(1987)]{Tapping87} Tapping, K.~F.\ 1987, \jgr,
893: 92, 829
894:
895: \bibitem[Verner et al.(2004)]{Verneretal04} Verner, G.~A., Chaplin,
896: W.~J., \& Elsworth, Y.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, 311
897:
898: \bibitem[Verner et al.(2006)]{Verneretal06} Verner, G.~A., Chaplin,
899: W.~J., \& Elsworth, Y.\ 2006, \apjl, 640, L95
900:
901: \bibitem[Woodard \& Noyes(1985)]{WN85} Woodard, M.~F.,
902: \& Noyes, R.~W.\ 1985, \nat, 318, 449
903:
904: \bibitem[Woodard et al.(1991)]{Woodardetal91} Woodard, M.~F.,
905: Libbrecht, K.~G., Kuhn, J.~R., \& Murray, N.\ 1991, \apjl, 373, L81
906:
907: \bibitem[Vorontsov et al.(2002)]{Vorontsovetal02} Vorontsov, S.~V.,
908: Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Schou, J., Strakhov, V.~N., \& Thompson,
909: M.~J.\ 2002, Science, 296, 101
910: \end{thebibliography}
911:
912: \begin{figure}
913: %\centering
914: %\includegraphics[width=1.\textwidth]{f1}
915: \plotone{f1.ps}
916: \caption{The first four eigenvectors for the MDI data set are shown. The
917: base set is \#1216 (1996 May 1). The left-hand panels show the eigenvectors
918: as a function of frequency, and the right-hand panels show it as a function
919: of the lower turning point of the mode. The vertical line shows the
920: position of the base of the convection zone. The vertical axis units are
921: arbitrary (the vectors are normalized so that $\vec{\xi}_i \cdot \vec{\xi}_i=1$).
922: The error bars show representative errors calculated using a Monte Carlo
923: simulation.
924: \label{fig:MDIvec}}
925: \end{figure}
926:
927: \begin{figure}
928: \plotone{f2.ps}
929: \caption{The scaling coefficients for the first four eigenvectors are shown as
930: points. They are shown as a function of time (the start date of the
931: MDI mode sets). The dotted line is the change in 10.7cm radio flux with
932: respect to the beginning of the solar cycle. The units are Solar Flux
933: Units (SFU).
934: \label{fig:MDIcoef}}
935: \end{figure}
936:
937: \begin{figure}
938: \plotone{f3.ps}
939: \caption{To demonstrate that the PCA representation of the data does indeed
940: capture the actual data, we present two reconstructed data sets and compare
941: them to the actual data. Two frequency difference sets are examined: sets \#3160
942: (2001 August 27, panel a) and \# 4528 (2005 May 26, panel b), both with respect
943: to \# 1216. At left, the frequency differences are plotted (panel (c) for set
944: \#3160 and panel (d) for set \#4528). The actual data is shown
945: in red, and the reconstructed data set using $\vec{\xi}_1$ and $\vec{\xi}_2$
946: are overplotted in black. The normalized residuals are binned and shown
947: against a Gaussian curve to show that the information which has been
948: removed is statistically random.
949: \label{fig:MDIrecon}}
950: \end{figure}
951:
952: \begin{figure}
953: \plotone{f4.ps}
954: \caption{The first two eigenvectors for the GONG data sets plotted as
955: a function of frequency (the left-hand panels) and as a function of the
956: lower turning radius (the right-hand panels). The first eigenvector $\vec{\xi}_1$
957: shows a signature similar to the one seen in the MDI data, albeit much
958: less obviously. The eigenvector $\vec{\xi}_2$ shows no structure, unlike the
959: equivalent eigenvector for MDI, implying that the MDI $\vec{\xi}_2$ is an
960: instrumental artifact.
961: \label{fig:GONGvec}}
962: \end{figure}
963:
964: \begin{figure}
965: \plotone{f5.ps}
966: \caption{Inversion for sound speed of the $\vec{\xi}_1$ eigenvector.
967: The top panel shows the inversion of the MDI data. The lower panel
968: shows the inversion of the GONG data. The solid cyan line is the
969: result from the RLS inversion (the dotted lines are the vertical
970: error bounds). The red points are the results from the SOLA
971: inversion. The horizontal dashed line is the zero-point. The
972: vertical dashed line represents the location of the base of the
973: convection zone. At the convection zone base, the MDI inversion
974: results show a clear depression in sound speed at high activity
975: (the sense of the inversion is low activity minus high activity)
976: and an enhancement in the tachocline region. The depression is
977: matched in the GONG inversion results. The location of this feature,
978: though slightly deeper, is within the horizontal errors of the
979: MDI result.
980: \label{fig:MDIinv}
981: \label{fig:GONGinv}}
982: \end{figure}
983:
984: \begin{figure}
985: \plotone{f6.ps}
986: \caption{Change in inferred sound speed as function of activity level
987: (10.7cm radio flux) is shown for different radii around the base of
988: the convection zone. The shaded regions show the errors for each
989: set of inversions.
990: \label{fig:MDIcsq}}
991: \end{figure}
992:
993: \begin{figure}
994: \plotone{f7.ps}
995: \caption{The first eigenvector $\vec{\xi}_1(\theta)$ for latitudes from
996: 0$^\circ$ to 75$^\circ$. The data are from MDI and are relative to the
997: \#1216 mode set. The left-hand panels show the eigenvectors as functions
998: of frequency, and the right-hand panels as functions of the lower turning
999: points.
1000: \label{fig:LATvec}}
1001: \end{figure}
1002:
1003: \begin{figure}
1004: \plotone{f8.ps}
1005: \caption{The scaling coefficients are plotted as a function of time
1006: and latitude. The top panel shows the coefficients for each individual
1007: eigenvector $\vec{\xi}_1(\theta)$. The bottom panel shows the scaling coefficients
1008: for all the latitudes as a function of the $\vec{\xi}_1(15^\circ)$. This shows
1009: how the changes represented by that eigenvector change as a function of
1010: both time and latitude. The average unsigned magnetic flux from MDI
1011: carrington rotation synoptic maps over each 72-day period is shown in contour.
1012: The contours are spaced every 52G, with the lowest at 56.5G. The vertical
1013: bars in 1998 are gaps in MDI coverage due to spacecraft problems.
1014: \label{fig:LATcoef}}
1015: \end{figure}
1016:
1017: \begin{figure}
1018: \plotone{f9.ps}
1019: \caption{The inversions of the latitudinal frequencies are shown for
1020: four different latitudes from the equator to $45^\circ$. The differences
1021: are with respect to MDI set \#1216. As expected from an examination
1022: of the raw frequencies, there are no discernible features in the inversion
1023: for $45^\circ$ and above --- the inversions are extremely unstable to the
1024: choice of inversion parameters. At $15^\circ$ and the equator, a significant
1025: (about 2$\sigma$) enhancement in sound speed at high activity is observed
1026: above approximately $r=0.98R_\odot$. As before, the vertical dashed line
1027: indicates the position of the base of the convection zone ($r=0.713R_\odot$).
1028: \label{fig:LATinv}}
1029: \end{figure}
1030:
1031: \begin{figure}
1032: \plotone{f10.ps}
1033: \caption{The $\vec{\xi}_1$ eigenvectors for the asphericity terms --- equator minus
1034: latitude --- are shown for five different latitudes. As usual, the left panels
1035: show the eigenvectors with respect to frequency, and the right hand panels are
1036: with respect to lower turning point.
1037: \label{fig:ASPHvec}}
1038: \end{figure}
1039:
1040: \begin{figure}
1041: \plotone{f11.ps}
1042: \caption{The scaling coefficients for the asphericity eigenvectors are shown.
1043: The dotted line is the $F_{10.7}$ flux. The $0^\circ-15^\circ$ and $0^\circ - 30^\circ$
1044: both show a phase shift, consistent with the butterfly diagram from Fig. \ref{fig:LATcoef}.
1045: The higher latitudes show a distinct change from mostly positive to negative at
1046: high activity.
1047: \label{fig:ASPHcoef}}
1048: \end{figure}
1049: \end{document}
1050: