Analysis of irregular behavior in the solar magnetic activity cycle
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7242/1999-6691/2026.19.3.28Keywords:
solar cycle, nonlinear dynamo model, numerical simulations, chaotic dynamics, alpha-effectAbstract
We numerically investigate the irregular behavior of the nonlinear solar dynamo model incorporating algebraic quenching of the $\alpha$-effect and dynamical feedback via the small-scale current helicity. Numerically stable computation of quenching functions is provided by using asymptotic expansions which makes it possible to eliminate catastrophic cancellation. A parametric study is carried out to examine how the dynamo number and the magnetic contribution to the $\alpha$-effect influence the statistical and spectral characteristics of cycles. Distributions of cycle amplitudes, periods, and peak phase offsets are determined based on the long time series of the energy of the dipolar component of the toroidal magnetic field. It is shown that the inherent model dynamics generates irregular modulation without external stochastic forcing while retaining distinct cyclicity. The increasing complexity of its behavior leads to the appearance of broadband components in both energy and current helicity spectra. Comparison with the number of sunspots shows that similarity of individual cyclic sequences does not guarantee agreement between their statistical distributions: at the largest of the examined dynamo-number magnitudes the relative variability of periods and amplitudes exceeds the observed range. The interpretation of differences requires accounting for the limited observational sampling and the relationship between magnetic energy and the activity index. The stability of statistical estimates is investigated as the number of analyzed cycles increases. In the reference case, the distributions stabilize, while the local concentration of phases weakens. The variability of histograms across consecutive blocks decreases approximately in inverse proportion to the square root of the number of cycles. These results demonstrate the necessity of long-term integration to reliably estimate the cycle variability and phase coherence.
Downloads
References
Parker E.N. Hydromagnetic dynamo models. The Astrophysical Journal. 1955. Vol. 122. P. 293–314. DOI: 10.1086/146087
Steenbeck M., Krause F., Rädler K.-H. Berechnung der mittleren Lorentz-Feldstärke für ein elektrisch leitendes Medium in turbulenter, durch Coriolis-Kräfte beeinflußter Bewegung. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A. 1966. Vol. 21, no. 4. P. 369–376. DOI: 10.1515/zna-1966-0401
Krause F., Rädler K.-H. Mean-field magnetohydrodynamics and dynamo theory. Pergamon Press, 1980. DOI: 10.1016/C2013-0-03269-0
Cameron R.H., Schüssler M. Solar activity: periodicities beyond 11 years are consistent with random forcing. Astronomy & Astrophysics. 2019. Vol. 625. A28. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935290
Stepanov R., Kuzanyan K.M., Obridko V. Wavelet analysis of temporal fluctuations of the solar polar magnetic field. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2026. Vol. 550, no. 1. stag1040. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stag1040
Weiss N.O., Cattaneo F., Jones C.A. Periodic and aperiodic dynamo waves. Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics. 1984. Vol. 30, no. 4. P. 305–341. DOI: 10.1080/03091928408219262
Pipin V.V., Sokoloff D.D., Usoskin I.G. Variations of the solar cycle profile in a solar dynamo with fluctuating dynamo governing parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics. 2012. Vol. 542. A26. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118733
Cameron R.H., Schüssler M. Understanding solar cycle variability. The Astrophysical Journal. 2017. Vol. 843, no. 2. 111. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa767a
Pouquet A., Frisch U., Léorat J. Strong MHD helical turbulence and the nonlinear dynamo effect. Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 1976. Vol. 77, no. 2. P. 321–354. DOI: 10.1017/S0022112076002140
Kleeorin N.I., Ruzmaikin A.A. Dynamics of the average turbulent helicity in a magnetic field. Magnetohydrodynamics. 1982. Vol. 18, no. 2. P. 116–122.
Kleeorin Y., Safiullin N., Kleeorin N., Porshnev S., Rogachevskii I., Sokoloff D. The dynamics of Wolf numbers based on nonlinear dynamos with magnetic helicity: comparisons with observations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2016. Vol. 460, no. 4. P. 3960–3967. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stw1267
Safiullin N., Kleeorin N., Porshnev S., Rogachevskii I., Ruzmaikin A. Nonlinear mean-field dynamo and prediction of solar activity. Journal of Plasma Physics. 2018. Vol. 84, no. 3. 735840306. DOI: 10.1017/S0022377818000600
Kleeorin N., Kuzanyan K., Safiullin N., Rogachevskii I., Obridko V., Porshnev S., Stepanov R. Forecast of solar activity based on mean-field dynamo model and neural network. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions. 2024. Vol. 34, no. 4. P. 371–388. eprint: 2411.10380
Stefani F., Giesecke A., Weier T. A model of a tidally synchronized solar dynamo. Solar Physics. 2019. Vol. 294, no. 5. 60. DOI: 10.1007/s11207-019-1447-1
Stepanov R.A., Gladkikh A.V., Tashkinov G.A. Synchronization effect in a nonlinear solar dynamo model. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics. 2025. Vol. 89, no. 7. P. 1170–1174. DOI: 10.1134/S1062873825711882
Weisshaar E., Cameron R.H., Schüssler M. No evidence for synchronization of the solar cycle by a “clock”. Astronomy & Astrophysics. 2023. Vol. 671. A87. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244997
Stefani F., Beer J., Weier T. No Evidence for Absence of Solar Dynamo Synchronization. Solar Physics. 2023. Vol. 298, no. 6. 83. DOI: 10.1007/s11207-023-02174-x
Zhang H., Moss D., Kleeorin N., Kuzanyan K., Rogachevskii I., Sokoloff D., Gao Y., Xu H. Current Helicity of Active Regions as a Tracer of Large-scale Solar Magnetic Helicity. The Astrophysical Journal. 2012. Vol. 751, no. 1. 47. DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/47
Jouve L., Brun A.S., Arlt R., et al. A solar mean field dynamo benchmark. Astronomy & Astrophysics. 2008. Vol. 483, no. 3. P. 949–960. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078351
WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium. Sunspot Number: 13-month smoothed monthly total sunspot number, version 2.0. 2015. DOI: 10.24414/qnza-ac80
Stefani F., Stepanov R., Weier T. Shaken and Stirred: When Bond Meets Suess–de Vries and Gnevyshev–Ohl. Solar Physics. 2021. Vol. 296, no. 6. 88. DOI: 10.1007/s11207-021-01822-4
Frik P.G. Turbulentnost’: podkhody i modeli. 2nd ed. M.: R&C Dynamics, 2010. 330 p.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Computational Continuum Mechanics

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.