Dependence of plasmaspheric morphology on the electric field description during the recovery phase of the 17 April 2002 magnetic storm

被引:70
|
作者
Liemohn, MW
Ridley, AJ
Gallagher, DL
Ober, DM
Kozyra, JU
机构
[1] Univ Michigan, Dept Atmospher Ocean & Space Sci, Ctr Space Environm Modeling, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[2] NASA, Natl Space Sci & Technol Ctr, Marshall Space Flight Ctr, Huntsville, AL 35899 USA
[3] Mission Res Corp, Nashua, NH 03062 USA
关键词
plasmapause location; magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling; magnetic storms;
D O I
10.1029/2003JA010304
中图分类号
P1 [天文学];
学科分类号
0704 ;
摘要
A comparison of how well three different electric field models can predict the storm time plasmapause shape is conducted. The magnetic storm of 17 April 2002 is selected for this event, and plasmapause locations are extracted from images from the EUV instrument on the Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Geomagnetic Effects (IMAGE) satellite throughout the main phase and recovery phase of the event. The three electric field descriptions are as follows: the modified McIlwain E5D analytical formula, the Weimer statistical compilation from low-Earth orbit satellite data, and a self-consistent Poisson equation solution for the subauroral potential pattern. It is found that all of the models have certain strengths and weaknesses in predicting the plasmapause location during this storm. The modified McIlwain model did well on the nightside but not on the dayside because the electric fields near noon are too small (analogous to too large of a conductance in the subauroral dayside ionosphere). The Weimer model did well overall, but the resulting plasmapause is usually smaller than the observed one because the electric fields are a bit too strong in the inner magnetosphere (perhaps because of an ionosphere-magnetosphere mapping problem). The self-consistent model is also quite good in general, but the plasmapause in the postmidnight sector was always inward of the observed one. This is because of too low a conductance at the location of the field-aligned currents that close the partial ring current. It is concluded that the latter two models provide a sufficient description of the storm time development of the plasmaspheric morphology during this storm, with the self-consistent model being the best choice. Another conclusion is that plasmapause locations extracted from EUV images should be compared with peak density gradients from model results rather than with any one isocontour of the cold plasma density itself.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] EFFECT OF FIELD-ALIGNED CURRENTS IN THE POLAR-CAP AT THE RECOVERY PHASE OF A MAGNETIC STORM
    DOLGINOV, SS
    FELDSTEIN, YI
    STRUNNIKOVA, LV
    PLANETARY AND SPACE SCIENCE, 1981, 29 (12) : 1315 - 1318
  • [22] Modeling of variations of the peak F2 layer electron density and total electron content during the recovery period after the magnetic storm of April 15–20, 2002
    M. G. Botova
    A. A. Namgaladze
    B. E. Prokhorov
    Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 2013, 7 : 606 - 610
  • [23] Daytime VLF Emissions during the Magnetic Storm Recovery Phase: the Event of January 5, 2015
    Manninen, J.
    Kleimenova, N. G.
    Gromova, L., I
    Fedorenko, Yu, V
    Nikitenko, A. S.
    Lebed, O. M.
    GEOMAGNETISM AND AERONOMY, 2020, 60 (03) : 301 - 310
  • [24] Daytime VLF Emissions during the Magnetic Storm Recovery Phase: the Event of January 5, 2015
    J. Manninen
    N. G. Kleimenova
    L. I. Gromova
    Yu. V. Fedorenko
    A. S. Nikitenko
    O. M. Lebed’
    Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 2020, 60 : 301 - 310
  • [25] Intense dayside Joule heating during the 5 April 2010 geomagnetic storm recovery phase observed by AMIE and AMPERE
    Wilder, F. D.
    Crowley, G.
    Anderson, B. J.
    Richmond, A. D.
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, 2012, 117
  • [26] COMPARISON OF ELECTRON RESPONSE IN MAGNETOSPHERE AT L = 5 WITH SOLAR WIND DURING APRIL 17-18 1965 MAGNETIC STORM
    LANZEROT.LJ
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 1968, 73 (01): : 438 - &
  • [27] FIELD-ALIGNED CURRENT, CONVECTIVE ELECTRIC-FIELD, AND AURORAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS DURING A MAJOR MAGNETIC STORM
    SHUMAN, BM
    VANCOUR, RP
    SMIDDY, M
    SAFLEKOS, NA
    RICH, FJ
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, 1981, 86 (NA7): : 5561 - 5575
  • [28] Modeling of variations of the peak F2 layer electron density and total electron content during the recovery period after the magnetic storm of April 15-20, 2002
    Botova, M. G.
    Namgaladze, A. A.
    Prokhorov, B. E.
    RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY B, 2013, 7 (05) : 606 - 610
  • [29] Interpretation of the energy spectrum and time dynamics of electron fluxes with energies of 0.8–6.0 MeV in geostationary orbit during the recovery phase of the magnetic storm of April 6, 2000
    M. F. Bakhareva
    L. V. Tverskaya
    T. A. Ivanova
    N. N. Veden’kin
    Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, 2007, 47 : 165 - 174
  • [30] Signatures of substorm related overshielding electric field at equatorial latitudes under steady southward IMF Bz during main phase of magnetic storm
    Veenadhari, Bhaskara
    Kikuchi, Takashi
    Kumar, Sandeep
    Tulasiram, S.
    Chakrabarty, D.
    Ebihara, Yusuke
    Reeves, G. D.
    ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH, 2019, 64 (10) : 1975 - 1988