1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\usepackage{epsfig}
4:
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: %\lefthead{Zhang}
7: %\righthead{Helicity Observation of Weak and Strong Fields}
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{Helicity Observation of Weak and Strong Fields}
14:
15: \author{Mei Zhang\altaffilmark{1}}
16:
17: \altaffiltext{1}{National Astronomical Observatory,
18: Chinese Academy of Sciences, A20 Datun Road,
19: Chaoyang District, Beijing 100012, China; Email: zhangmei@bao.ac.cn}
20:
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: We report in this letter our analysis of a large
25: sample of photospheric vector magnetic field measurements.
26: Our sample consists of 17200 vector magnetograms obtained from
27: January 1997 to August 2004 by Huairou Solar Observing Station
28: of the Chinese National Astronomical Observatory. Two physical
29: quantities, $\alpha$ and current helicity,
30: are calculated and their signs and amplitudes are studied
31: in a search for solar cycle variations. Different from other
32: studies of the same type, we calculate these quantities
33: for weak ($100G<|B_z|<500G$) and strong ($|B_z|>1000G$) fields
34: separately. For weak fields, we find that the signs of both
35: $\alpha$ and current helicity are consistent with the
36: established hemispheric rule during most years of the
37: solar cycle and their magnitudes show a rough tendency of
38: decreasing with the development of solar cycle.
39: Analysis of strong fields gives an interesting result:
40: Both $\alpha$ and current helicity present a sign
41: opposite to that of weak fields. Implications of these
42: observations on dynamo theory and helicity production
43: are also briefly discussed.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \keywords{MHD --- Sun: magnetic fields --- Sun: interior}
47:
48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
49:
50: \section{Introduction}
51:
52: Magnetic helicity is a physical quantity that
53: measures the topological complexity of a magnetic field,
54: such as the degree of linkage and/or twistedness in the
55: field (Moffatt 1985, Berger \& Field 1984). It has been shown
56: that its total amount is approximately conserved in the Sun
57: even when there is an energy release during fast magnetic
58: reconnection (Berger 1984). This conservation of total
59: magnetic helicity is considered to play an important role
60: in the dynamical processes in the Sun.
61: For example, by considering helicity conservation in the
62: mean-field dynamo, theories have predicted that
63: solar dynamo would produce opposite helicity signs
64: in the mean field and in the fluctuations (Blackman
65: \& Field 2000, see Ossendrijver 2003 for a review).
66: It has also been considered that magnetic helicity and its
67: conservation may play an important role in CME dynamics
68: (Low 2001, Demoulin et al. 2002) where accumulation of
69: total magnetic helicity in the respective northern and
70: southern hemispheres leads to a natural magnetic energy
71: storage for CME eruptions (Zhang \& Low 2005, Zhang, Flyer
72: \& Low 2006).
73:
74:
75: A direct measurement of magnetic helicity and hence a direct test
76: of above theories by observations are still out of our reach
77: because so far the photosphere is still the only layer that we can
78: measure vector magnetic fields with reasonable temporal and
79: spatial resolutions. However, by calculating derived physical
80: quantities, such as $\alpha$ and current helicity, from
81: observed photospheric vector magnetograms we do get a glimpse
82: of properties of magnetic helicity in the Sun. For example,
83: from photospheric magnetic field measurements we learn that
84: magnetic fields emerging from the solar convection zone to the
85: photosphere are already significantly twisted (Kurokawa 1987,
86: Leka et al. 1996) and statistically these fields possess
87: a positive helicity sign in the southern hemisphere and
88: a negative helicity sign in the northern hemisphere
89: (Pevtsov et al. 1995, Bao \& Zhang 1998).
90: These observations thus provide us implications on how
91: magnetic helicity might be produced in the convection zone
92: (Berger \& Ruzmaikin 2000) and how magnetic helicity conservation
93: might have played a role in balancing the twist and writhe
94: helicity in an originally untwisted flux rope (Longcope et al. 1998).
95:
96:
97: In this letter, we intend to use photospheric vector
98: magnetic field measurements to find further observational
99: indications of helicity production and conservation.
100: Different from other works of the same type, we separate
101: studied fields into two parts: strong magnetic fields and
102: weak magnetic fields.
103: We organize our paper as follows: In \S 2, we describe our
104: observation and data reduction. In \S 3, we present our
105: analysis and discussions. We conclude the letter with
106: a brief summary in \S 4.
107:
108:
109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
110:
111: \section{Observation and Data Reduction}
112:
113: The tunable birefringent filter of the solar telescope
114: magnetograph at the Huairou Solar Observing Station of the
115: Chinese National Astronomical Observatory can be aimed at
116: different passbands for different observations
117: (Ai \& Hu 1986). For photospheric observations
118: the passband of the filter is set in the FeI$\lambda$5324
119: line: at 0.075\AA \hspace{1mm} from the line center for
120: the measurement of longitudinal magnetic field (Stokes V)
121: and at the line center for the measurement of transverse
122: magnetic fields (Stokes Q and U). More information of the
123: magnetograph and calibration can be found in Ai et al.
124: (1982) and Zhang \& Ai (1986).
125:
126:
127: A dataset of photospheric vector magnetograms obtained
128: by above magnetograph during the period of 1997 January 1
129: to 2004 August 31 is analyzed in this letter.
130: This dataset contains 17200 vector magnetograms and covers
131: almost all active regions appeared during this period.
132: We calibrate each vector magnetogram according to Ai et al.
133: (1982) and solve the 180-degree ambiguity by setting
134: the directions of transverse fields most closely to a
135: current-free field.
136:
137:
138: We calculate two physical quantities, $\alpha$ and current
139: helicity, of each magnetogram, as helicity proxies.
140: We calculate $\alpha$, either as a best-fit single value
141: $\alpha_{best}$ following Pevtsov et al. (1995) or as a mean
142: value $\langle\alpha_z\rangle$ of the local
143: $\alpha_z=(\nabla\times{\bf B})_z / B_z$
144: as in Pevtsov et al. (1994).
145: The two $\alpha$ values so calculated are all indicators of
146: the twistedness of the measured field and there is a linear
147: relationship between them when derived from the same set of
148: magnetograms (Burnette et al. 2004).
149: We shall use $\alpha_{best}$ in \S 3.1 in comparison with
150: Pevtsov et al. (2001) and $\langle\alpha_z\rangle$ in \S 3.2
151: and \S 3.3 for $\langle\alpha_z\rangle$ is presumably less
152: dependent on the linear force-free assumption.
153: The current helicity is calculated as
154: $h_c=B_z\cdot(\nabla\times{\bf B})_z$, which is actually
155: the longitudinal ($z$) component of the current helicity
156: density at the photosphere ($z=0$). When calculating these
157: quantities we have used only those magnetograms
158: whose longitudes are less than 40 degrees from the disk
159: center and only those data points whose longitudinal flux
160: densities ($|B_z|$), after the correction of projection
161: effect, are greater than 100G and whose transverse flux
162: densities ($|B_x|$ and $|B_y|$) are both greater than 200G.
163: Note our treatments in data reduction so far are as typical as
164: most other authors in reducing vector magnetograms
165: (Pevtsov et al., 1994, 1995, 2001; Bao \& Zhang 1998).
166:
167:
168: Our unique treatment of the data is that we divide our studied
169: fields into two parts: strong magnetic fields whose longitudinal
170: flux densities ($|B_z|$) are greater than 1000G, and weak
171: magnetic fields whose longitudinal flux densities ($|B_z|$)
172: are between 100G and 500G. By such a definition, our strong
173: fields are then mainly consisted of the umbra of sunspots
174: and our weak fields of the enhanced magnetic networks around
175: sunspots. We calculate $\alpha$ and current helicity
176: for such defined strong and weak fields separately. Note
177: by doing so, not only we gain the opportunity to study the
178: possible differences between weak and strong fields within
179: active regions, but also we get a chance to learn indicated
180: helicity properties of the global Sun if we identify our
181: observed weak fields as the representatives of the general
182: weak fields distributed over the whole surface.
183:
184:
185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
186:
187: \section{Analysis and Discussion}
188:
189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
190:
191: \subsection{Comparison with previous studies}
192:
193: Before we proceed to present our results it is useful to
194: check our data reduction of this dataset with previous
195: results obtained by other instruments and datasets.
196: We select a subsample of our dataset, containing observations
197: made between 1997 July to 2000 September, in order to compare
198: with Pevtsov et al. (2001) where $\alpha_{best}$ and current
199: helicity were also calculated for the same period of time.
200: The difference is that their magnetograms were obtained by the
201: Haleakala Stokes Polarimeter (HSP) at Mees Solar Observatory.
202:
203:
204: Figure 1 presents the latitudinal profile of $\alpha_{best}$
205: for the 391 active regions observed by Huairou magnetograph
206: during this period of time. Each point presents the
207: average value of $\alpha_{best}$ when multiple magnetograms
208: of the same active region were obtained. Note in producing
209: this figure we did not separate the weak and strong fields
210: but instead use all data points with $|B_z|>100G$ and
211: $|B_x, B_y|>200G$, in order to make a reasonable comparison
212: with Pevtsov et al. (2001). The green line shows the
213: least-square best-fit linear function of these $\alpha_{best}$
214: values. The similarity between our figure and Figure 1 of
215: Pevtsov et al. (2001) indicates a good consistence between
216: the two datasets.
217:
218:
219: Out of our 391 active regions during this period, 58.9\% of
220: 214 active regions in the northern hemisphere have
221: $\alpha_{best}<0$ and 67.2\% of 117 active regions in
222: the southern hemisphere have $\alpha_{best}>0$. These numbers
223: are consistent with the numbers of 62.9\% and 69.9\% for the
224: northern and southern hemispheres respectively in Pevtsov
225: et al. (2001).
226: Our data shows no tendency of hemispheric rule by current helicity.
227: 44.4\% of 214 active regions in the northern hemisphere have
228: $h_c<0$ and 45.8\% of 117 active regions in the southern
229: hemisphere have $h_c>0$. Note in Pevtsov et al. (2001)
230: a much weaker tendency is also found with numbers of 50\%
231: and 57.5\% for their $h_c$ values in the northern and southern
232: hemispheres respectively. They contribute this difference
233: to Faraday rotation. But we suggest the difference is
234: largely (although possibly not all) because of a physical
235: point which we will return to address below.
236:
237:
238: Averages of $\alpha_{best}$ for active regions observed in each
239: 10 degrees of solar latitudes are also plotted in Figure 1,
240: presented as red square symbols. The large error bars of these
241: averages remind us that our established hemispherical rule is
242: of a statistical result. Individual active regions may present
243: large deviations from the mean values. This is also true for
244: other statistical results that we will present below.
245:
246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
247:
248: \subsection{Helicity observation of weak fields}
249:
250:
251: Figure 2 presents our result of solar cycle variations of
252: $\alpha$ (top panel) and current helicity (middle panel)
253: for weak fields ($100G<|B_z|<500G$). Each point in these plots
254: is a weighted average of $\langle\alpha_z\rangle$ or current helicity
255: for active regions observed during one year. For active regions
256: in the southern hemisphere the weight is set to $1$ and for
257: active regions in the northern hemisphere the weight is set
258: to $-1$. The weighted averages then indicate the magnitudes of
259: $\alpha$ or current helicity averaged over the global
260: surface during a whole year, assuming the northern and
261: southern hemispheres have opposite helicity signs.
262: We see that both averaged $\alpha$ and current helicity
263: have positive signs except for the Year 2004. This tells us
264: that both $\alpha$ and current helicity for weak fields
265: obey the established hemispheric rule during most years of the
266: solar cycle. The averaged $\alpha$ and current helicity
267: for Year 2004 are negative, which indicates the usual hemispheric
268: rule is not followed in this year. This is consistent with
269: Hagino \& Sakurai (2005) where they also found a violation of
270: the usual hemispheric rule during solar minimums.
271:
272:
273: Figure 2 also presents a rough tendency of a decrease of
274: $\alpha$ and current helicity with the development
275: of solar cycle. We notice in Berger \& Ruzmaikin (2000)
276: the helicity production rate by differential rotation in
277: solar interior is calculated and their calculation also shows
278: a similar decrease of magnitudes of the rate of helicity
279: transported into the northern and southern hemisphere respectively.
280: This can be seen from the bottom panel of Figure 2 where
281: the helicity transportation rate into the southern hemisphere
282: by the m=0 mode is replotted, with data taken from
283: Berger \& Ruzmaikin (2000). This interesting consistence
284: seems to suggest that differential rotation is the source
285: of helicity production in solar interior although we are not
286: able to make a conclusion because we do not know whether
287: the $\alpha$ effect will also produce the same tendency or not.
288:
289:
290: As pointed out by the careful referee, the calculated transferred
291: helicity ends at zero during solar minimums whereas our observation
292: as well as Hagino \& Sakurai (2005) show the helicity goes to
293: the opposite sign during solar minimums. We intend to explain this
294: as a result of trans-equatorial reconnection (Pevtsov 2000)
295: which has consumed the helicity of the dominate sign in
296: each hemisphere, a point interesting of itself but is out of
297: the scope of current letter.
298:
299:
300: Another interesting implication of Figure 2 is that,
301: whereas we usually consider helicity variation as a function
302: of latitude as presented in Figure 1, another possibility is
303: that the helicity variation is more associated with
304: solar cycle dependence and the known latitude dependence is
305: just a derived relation from this solar cycle dependence of
306: helicity and the Butterfly diagram.
307:
308:
309: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
310:
311: \subsection{Helicity observation of strong fields}
312:
313:
314: For strong magnetic fields ($|B_z|>1000G$), calculation of
315: weighted averages of $\alpha$ and current helicity
316: presents an interesting result, shown in Figure 3.
317: All averaged $\alpha$ and current
318: helicity are negative, which means they do not follow the
319: usual hemispheric rule. This also means that strong fields
320: have a helicity sign opposite to that of weak fields.
321:
322:
323: As we have mentioned earlier, if we interpret our observed
324: weak fields in active regions as the representatives of the
325: general weak fields distributed over the global Sun, then we
326: may use them to represent the large-scale field. Our strong
327: fields may be used to represent the small-scale fluctuations
328: compared to the large-scale of the global Sun. Then under this
329: interpretation our observation seems to be consistent with the
330: theory that solar dynamo would produce opposite helicity signs
331: in the mean field and in the fluctuations.
332:
333:
334: It is also interesting to notice that in Berger \& Ruzmaikin
335: (2000) the higher modes helicity, such as the m=5 mode
336: replotted in Figure 3, also has a sign opposite to that
337: of the m=0 mode. Again, if we interpret their low-degree (such
338: as m=0) mode field corresponds to our weak field because
339: both of them represent a more uniformly-distributed field
340: over the global Sun and their high-degree (such as m=5) mode
341: field corresponds to our strong field because both of them
342: are sporadically appeared on the surface, then their
343: calculation and our observation show a consistence again.
344:
345:
346: The observation that strong fields have a helicity sign
347: opposite to that of weak fields may help us understand why
348: $\alpha_{best}$ usually shows a better hemispheric rule than
349: current helicity if both quantities are calculated from
350: vector magnetograms of the whole field (Pevtsov et al. 2001).
351: We interpret it as follows. When we calculate $\alpha_{best}$
352: of the whole field, each data point is given an equal weight.
353: This results in the calculated $\alpha_{best}$ presenting
354: the sign of weak fields, whose number of data points dominates
355: over that of strong fields. But when we calculate the current
356: helicity of the whole field, defined as
357: $h_c=B_z\cdot(\nabla\times{\bf B})_z = \alpha B_z^2$,
358: we have attributed a weight of $B_z^2$ to each data point.
359: This then results in a nearly cancellation of current helicity
360: between the weak and strong fields because weak and strong
361: fields happen to have opposite helicity signs and the former
362: has a larger number of data points but smaller $B_z^2$ values
363: for each data point whereas the latter has a smaller number of
364: data points but each data point has a larger $B_z^2$ value.
365:
366:
367: It has been suggested that Faraday rotation contributes to
368: the difference between $\alpha_{best}$ and current helicity.
369: We suggest the main reason is the opposite helicity signs
370: between weak and strong fields. J. T. Su \& H. Q. Zhang (2006,
371: in preparation) recently did a calculation and it shows
372: that whereas Faraday rotation may rotate the transverse fields
373: to 20 - 30 degrees, the resultant $\alpha$ values are less
374: influenced, with changes of $\alpha$ values all less than
375: a few percentages. Another comment is that if Faraday rotation
376: is the reason of the difference we should not see the difference
377: in the dataset obtained by spectrograph-type magnetographs
378: where the effect of Faraday rotation can be taken care of by
379: inversion methods. But the difference is observed in Pevtsov
380: et al. (2001) where HSP data are used. We have recently
381: checked several active regions observed by ASP/HAO.
382: Similar feature of opposite helicity signs between weak and
383: strong fields is found, although not in every region
384: examined. Also kindly pointed out by the referee, similar
385: tendency of opposite helicity signs is also indicated in a
386: decaying active region observed by ASP (Figure 4 of
387: Pevtsov \& Canfield 1999).
388:
389:
390: Finally we point out another consistence of our observation
391: with previous study. By applying a known reconstruction
392: technique to MDI data Pevtsov and Latushko (2000) calculated
393: the current helicity of the global Sun. They found that the usual
394: hemispheric rule is followed for regions above 40 degrees of
395: solar latitudes whereas the rule is surprisingly not obvious
396: for regions within 40 degrees of solar latitudes.
397: With our observation, we now can interpret it as follows.
398: In high latitudes magnetic fields are dominated by weak fields
399: with their signs following the usual hemispherical rule, whereas
400: in low latitudes strong fields with an opposite helicity sign
401: present to result in a reduction to the usual hemispherical rule.
402:
403:
404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
405:
406: \section{Summary}
407:
408:
409: A large sample of 17200 photospheric vector magnetograms
410: of active regions obtained from January 1997 to August 2004
411: is analyzed in this letter. Different from other works,
412: we calculate the helicity proxies, $\alpha$ and current helicity,
413: for weak ($100G<|B_z|<500G$) and strong ($|B_z|>1000G$) fields
414: separately.
415:
416:
417: By analyzing this dataset we find that:
418: 1. For weak magnetic fields, the signs of both
419: $\alpha$ and current helicity follow the established
420: hemispheric rule except during the Year 2004.
421: The magnitudes of their weighted averages show a weak tendency
422: of decreasing with the development of solar cycle.
423: 2. For strong magnetic fields, both $\alpha$ and
424: current helicity show a helicity sign opposite to that
425: of weak fields.
426:
427:
428: Our results seem to be consistent
429: with the theoretical prediction that solar dynamo would produce
430: opposite helicity signs in the mean field and in the fluctuations
431: as well as the theoretical calculations of helicity production rate
432: by differential rotation. However, as pointed out by the referee,
433: some previous studies (Longcope et al. 1998,1999; Chae 2001) have
434: suggested that neither the interface dynamo nor the differential
435: rotation would generate sufficient amount of helicity (twist).
436: So our observation with its interesting implications advocates
437: further investigations, both observationally and theoretically.
438:
439: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
440:
441: \acknowledgements
442:
443: I thank Mitchell Berger for providing his calculation
444: data used in the letter.
445: I also thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments and
446: suggestions.
447: This work was supported by the One-Hundred-Talent Program
448: of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Chinese National Science
449: Foundation under Grant 10373016, and the U.S. National Science
450: Foundation under Grant ATM-0548060.
451:
452: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
453:
454: \begin{thebibliography}{}
455:
456: \bibitem[]{424}
457: Ai, G., Li, W., Zhang, H. 1982, Chinese Astronomy
458: and Astrophysics, 6, 129
459:
460: \bibitem[]{428}
461: Ai, G., Hu, Y. 1986, Acta Astron. Sin, 27, 173
462:
463: \bibitem[Bao \& Zhang 1998]{bao98}
464: Bao, S., Zhang, H. Q. 1998, ApJ, 496, L43
465:
466: \bibitem[Berger 1984] {berger84}
467: Berger, M. A. 1984, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dynamics, 30, 79
468:
469: \bibitem[Berger and Field 1984] {bf84}
470: Berger, M. A., Field, G. B. 1984, J. Fluid Mech., 147, 133
471:
472: \bibitem[Berger \& Ruzmaikin 2000]{berger00}
473: Berger, M. A., Ruzmaikin, A. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10481
474:
475: \bibitem[Blackman \& Field 2000] {blackman00}
476: Blackman, E. G., Field, G. B. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 724
477:
478: \bibitem[Burnette et al. 2004]{burnette04}
479: Burnette, A. B., Canfield, R. C., Pevtsov, A. A. 2004, ApJ, 606, 565
480:
481: \bibitem[Chae 2001] {chae01}
482: Chae, J. 2001, ApJ, 560, L95
483:
484: \bibitem[Demoulin et al. 2002] {demoulin02}
485: Demoulin, P., et al. 2002, A\&A, 382, 650
486:
487: \bibitem[] {hagino05}
488: Hagino, M., Sakurai, T. 2005, PASP, 57, 481
489:
490: \bibitem[Kurokawa 1987]{kurokawa87}
491: Kurokawa, H. 1987, Sol. Phys., 113, 259
492:
493: \bibitem[Leka et al. 1996]{leka96}
494: Leka, K. D., Canfield, R. C., McClymont, A. N.,
495: van Driel-Gesztelyi, L. 1996. ApJ, 462, 547
496:
497: \bibitem[] {longcope98}
498: Longcope, D. W., Fisher, G. H., Pevtsov, A. A. 1998, ApJ, 507, 417
499:
500: \bibitem[Longcope et al. 1999]{longcope99}
501: Longcope, D. W., Linton, M., Pevtsov, A. A., et al. 1999,
502: in {\it Magnetic Helicity in Space and Laboratory Plasma},
503: Geophysical Monograph 111, ed. M. R. Brown, R. C. Canfield,
504: A. A. Pevtsov, p.93
505:
506: \bibitem[Low 2001] {low01}
507: Low, B. C. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 25141
508:
509: \bibitem[Moffatt 1985]{moffatt85}
510: Moffatt, H. K. 1985, J. Fluid Mech., 159, 359
511:
512: \bibitem[Low 2001] {low01}
513: Ossendrijver, M. 2003, Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 11, 287
514:
515: \bibitem[Pevtsov 2000]{pevtsov00a}
516: Pevtsov, A. A. 2000, ApJ, 531, 553
517:
518: \bibitem[Pevtsov et al. 1999]{pevtsov99}
519: Pevtsov, A. A., Canfield, R. C. 1999,
520: in {\it Magnetic Helicity in Space and Laboratory Plasma},
521: Geophysical Monograph 111, ed. M. R. Brown, R. C. Canfield,
522: A. A. Pevtsov, p.103
523:
524: \bibitem[Pevtsov et al. 2001]{pevtsov01}
525: Pevtsov, A. A., Canfield, R. C., Latushko, S. M. 2001, ApJ, 549, L261
526:
527: \bibitem[Pevtsov et al. 1994]{pevtsov94}
528: Pevtsov, A. A., Canfield, R. C., Metcalf, T. R. 1994, ApJ, 425, L117
529:
530: \bibitem[Pevtsov et al. 1995]{pevtsov95}
531: Pevtsov, A. A., Canfield, R. C., Metcalf, T. R. 1995, ApJ, 440, L109
532:
533: \bibitem[Pevtsov et al. 2000]{pevtsov00}
534: Pevtsov, A. A., Latushko, S. M. 2000, ApJ, 528, 999
535:
536: \bibitem[]{492}
537: Zhang, H. Q., Ai, G. X. 1986, Acta Astron. Sin., 27, 217
538:
539: \bibitem[Zhang and Low 2005]{zhang05}
540: Zhang, M., Low, B. C. 2005, ARAA, 43, 103
541:
542: \bibitem[Zhang et al. 2006]{zhang06}
543: Zhang, M., Flyer, N., Low, B. C. 2006, ApJ, 644, 575
544:
545: \end{thebibliography}
546:
547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
548:
549: \begin{figure}
550: \epsscale{.85}
551: \plotone{f1.eps}
552: \caption{Latitudinal profile of $\alpha_{best}$ for the 391
553: active regions observed by Huairou magnetograph between
554: 1997 July and 2000 September.}
555: \end{figure}
556:
557: \clearpage
558:
559: \begin{figure}
560: \epsscale{.80}
561: \plotone{f2.eps}
562: \caption{Solar cycle variations of weighted averages
563: of $\alpha$ (top panel) and current helicity
564: (middle panel) for weak fields ($100G<|B_z|<500G$).
565: Bottom panel: Calculated transfer rate of $m=0$ mode helicity,
566: created by differential rotation in the interior, into the
567: southern hemisphere. Adopted from Berger \& Ruzmaikin (2000).}
568: \end{figure}
569:
570: \clearpage
571:
572: \begin{figure}
573: \epsscale{.80}
574: \plotone{f3.eps}
575: \caption{Top and middle panels: Same as in Figure 2
576: but for strong fields ($|B_z|>1000G$). Bottom panel:
577: Same as in Figure 2 but for $m=5$ mode.}
578: \end{figure}
579:
580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
581:
582: \end{document}
583:
584: