1 / 36

New Insights on Geomagnetic Storms From Model Simulations Using Multi-Spacecraft Data

New Insights on Geomagnetic Storms From Model Simulations Using Multi-Spacecraft Data. by Vania K. Jordanova Space Science Center/EOS Department of Physics University of New Hampshire, Durham, USA. • Solar and interplanetary origin of geomagnetic storms

sundari
Download Presentation

New Insights on Geomagnetic Storms From Model Simulations Using Multi-Spacecraft Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New Insights on Geomagnetic Storms From Model Simulations Using Multi-Spacecraft Data by Vania K. Jordanova Space Science Center/EOS Department of Physics University of New Hampshire, Durham, USA • • Solar and interplanetary origin of geomagnetic storms • • Sources, acceleration, and losses of ring current ions • • Modeling the evolution of the terrestrial ring current using multi-satellite data

  2. Geomagnetic Storm: Ring Current Evolution Sudden Commencement main recovery phase

  3. Geomagnetic Storm: Ring Current Evolution Sudden Commencement • • Composition: e-, H+, He+, O+, N+, He++ • • Energy Range: ~ 1 keV < E < 300 keV • • Location: ~ 2 < L < 8 • • Energy Density: ~ 10 - 1000 keV/cm3 main recovery phase

  4. • Flow of plasma within the magnetosphere (convection) Solar - Interplanetary - Magnetosphere Coupling [Gonzalez et al., 1994]

  5. • Flow of plasma within the magnetosphere (convection) Solar - Interplanetary - Magnetosphere Coupling [Gonzalez et al., 1994]

  6. Sources of Ring Current Ions • • Solar wind • • Ionosphere [Chappell et al., 1987]

  7. Sources of Ring Current Ions • • Solar wind • • Ionosphere [Chappell et al., 1987] max H+: solar min & quiet conditions max O+: solar max & active conditions Total ionospheric flux ~ 1026ions/s => comparable to solar wind source

  8. Ring Current Loss Processes Ring Current Belt (1-300 keV) Density Isocontours Plasmapause Lower Density Cold Plasmaspheric Plasma (Dusk Bulge Region) Dawn ( L~4) Dusk ( L~8 ) ( L~6 ) [Kozyra & Nagy, 1991]

  9. Ring Current Loss Processes Energetic Ring Current Belt (1-300 keV) Density Isocontours Neutral Plasmapause Precipitation Lower Density Cold Plasmaspheric Plasma (Dusk Bulge Region) Dawn Charge Exchange ( L~4) Dusk ( L~8 ) ( L~6 ) [Kozyra & Nagy, 1991]

  10. Ring Current Loss Processes Energetic Ring Current Belt (1-300 keV) Density Isocontours Neutral Plasmapause Precipitation Lower Density Cold Plasmaspheric Plasma (Dusk Bulge Region) Dawn Charge Exchange Coulomb Conjugate Collisions SAR Arcs Between Ring Currents ( L~4) and Dusk Thermals Anisotropic (Shaded Area) Energetic Ion Precipitation ( L~8 ) ( L~6 ) [Kozyra & Nagy, 1991]

  11. Ring Current Loss Processes Energetic Ring Current Belt (1-300 keV) Density Isocontours Neutral Plasmapause Precipitation Lower Density Cold Plasmaspheric Plasma (Dusk Bulge Region) Dawn Ion Cyclotron Charge Waves Exchange Coulomb Conjugate Collisions SAR Arcs Between Ring Currents ( L~4) and Dusk Thermals Anisotropic (Shaded Area) Energetic Ion Precipitation ( L~8 ) ( L~6 ) Wave Scattering of Ring Current Ions Isotropic Energetic Ion [Kozyra & Nagy, 1991] Precipitation

  12. Theoretical Approaches • • Single particlemotion - describes the motion of a particle under the influence of external electric and magnetic fields • • Magnetohydrodynamics and Multi-Fluid theory - the plasma is treated as conducting fluids with macroscopic variables • • Kinetic theory - adopts a statistical approach and looks at the development of the distribution function for a system of particles

  13. Kinetic Model of the Terrestrial Ring Current • •Initial conditions: POLAR and EQUATOR-S data • •Boundary conditions: LANL/MPA and SOPA data where and - radial distance in the equatorial plane from 2 to 6.5 RE - azimuthal angle from 0 to 360 - kinetic energy from 100 eV to 400 keV - equatorial pitch angle form 0 to 90 - bounce-averaging (between mirror points) [Jordanova et al., 1994; 1997]

  14. Charge Exchange Model Equatorial exospheric Hydrogen densities [Rairden et al., 1986] Charge exchange cross sections [Phaneuf et al., 1987; Barnett, 1990]

  15. Plasmasphere Model Equatorial plasmaspheric electron density Ion composition: 77% H+, 20% He+, 3% O+

  16. Plasmasphere Model Comparison with geosynchronous LANL data Equatorial plasmaspheric electron density Ion composition: 77% H+, 20% He+, 3% O+

  17. Wave-Particle Interactions Model • Solve the hot plasma dispersion relation for • EMIC waves: • where nt, EII, At are calculated with our kinetic model for H+, He+, and O+ ions • Integrate the local growth rate along wave paths and obtain the wave gain G(dB)

  18. Wave-Particle Interactions Model • Solve the hot plasma dispersion relation for EMIC waves: • where nt, EII, At are calculated with our kinetic model for H+, He+, and O+ ions • Integrate the local growth rate along wave paths and obtain the wave gain G(dB) • Use a semi-empirical model to relate G to the wave amplitude Bw: [Jordanova et al., 2001]

  19. Wave-Particle Interactions Model • Solve the hot plasma dispersion relation for EMIC waves: • where nt, EII, At are calculated with our kinetic model for H+, He+, and O+ ions • Integrate the local growth rate along wave paths and obtain the wave gain G(dB) • Use a semi-empirical model to relate G to the wave amplitude Bw: [Jordanova et al., 2001]

  20. WIND Data & Geomagnetic Indices • •Magnetic cloud • •Moderate geomagnetic storm Dst=-83 nT & Kp=6

  21. Model Results: Dst Index, Jan 10, 1997 • Comparison of: • •Kp-dependent Volland-Stern model • • IMF-dependent Weimer model • => Weimer model predicts larger electric field, which results in larger injection rate and stronger ring current buildup

  22. Effects of Wave-Particle Interactions • Model results & HYDRA data comparison: • • Pitch anglescattering has larger effect thanenergydiffusion • • Non-localeffects of WPI due to transport

  23. Effects of Collisional Losses Comparison of model results with POLAR data Larger effect on: - postnoon spectra - low L shells - high magnetic latitudes - slowly drifting ~1-30 keV ions

  24. Effects of Time-Dependent Plasmasheet Source Population: October 1995 • • Enhancement in the convection electric fieldalone is not sufficient to reproduce the stormtime Dst • •The strength of the ring current doubles when the stormtime enhancement of plasmasheet densityis considered

  25. Effects of Inner Magnetospheric Convection: March 9-13, 1998 • Electric potential in the equatorial plane: • • Both models predict strongest fields during the main phase of the storm • •Volland-Stern model is symmetric about dawn/dusk by definition • •Weimermodel is more complex and exhibits variable east-west symmetry and spatial irregularities

  26. Modeled H+ Distribution and POLAR Data: March 1998 HYDRA Volland-Stern Model Weimer Model

  27. Bounce-averaged Drift Paths of Ring Current Ions • • East-West transitionoccurs at lower energy inVolland-Sternmodel • • Particles follow drift paths at larger distances from Earth and experience lesscollisional lossesinWeimermodel

  28. Ring Current Energization & Dst:July 13-18, 2000

  29. Ring Current Asymmetry & Ion Composition • • A very asymmetric ring current distribution during the main and early recovery phases of the great storm • • Near Dst minimum O+ becomes the dominant ion in agreement with previous observations of great storms

  30. EMIC Waves Excitation • • Intense EMIC waves from the O+ band are excited near Dst minimum • • The wave gain of the O+ band exceeds the magnitude of the He+ band • • EMIC waves from the O+ band are excited at larger L shells than the He+ band waves

  31. Ion Pitch Angle Distributions from POLAR/IPS L=7 • • Data are from the northern pass at ~hour 75 (left) and from the southern pass at ~hour 93 (right), MLT~16 • • Isotropic pitch angle distributions, indicating strong diffusion scattering are observed at large L shells near Dst minimum • • Partially filled loss cones, indicating moderate diffusion are observed at lower L shells and during the recovery phase L=6 L=5 L=4 L=3

  32. Hour 75 Model Results: Precipitating Proton Flux

  33. Hour 75 Hour 93 Model Results: Precipitating Proton Flux • • Precipitating H+ fluxes are significantly enhanced by wave-particle interactions • • Their temporal and spatial evolution is in good agreement with POLAR/IPS data

  34. Proton Ring Current Energy Losses • • Proton precipitation losses increase by more than an order of magnitude when WPI are considered • • Losses due to charge exchange are, however, predominant

  35. Conclusions • Thering currentis a very dynamic region that couples the magnetosphere and the ionosphere during geomagnetic storms • New resultsemerging from recent simulation studies were discussed: • • the effect of theconvection electric fieldon ring current dynamics: influence on Dst index, east-west transition energy, dips in the distribution function • • the important role of the stormtime plasmasheet enhancementfor ring current buildup • • the formation of anasymmetricring current during the main and early recovery storm phases • • it was shown that charge exchangeis the dominant ring current loss process • • wave-particle interactionscontribute significantly to ion precipitation, however, their effect on the total energy balance of the ring current population is only ~2-8% reduction • More studies are needed • • to determine the effect of WPI on the heavy ion components, moreoverO+is the dominant ring current specie during great storms • • to determine the contribution of substorminduced electric fieldson ring current dynamics

  36. Acknowledgments • Many thanks are due to: • C. Farrugia, L. Kistler, M. Popecki, and R. Torbert, • Space Science Center/EOS, University of New Hampshire, Durham • R. Thorne, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, UCLA, CA • J. Fennell and J. Roeder, Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, CA • M. Thomsen, J. Borovsky, and G. Reeves, Los Alamos Nat Laboratory, NM • J. Foster, MIT Haystack Observatory, Westford, MA • R. Erlandson, Johns Hopkins University, APL, Laurel, MD • K. Mursula, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland • This research has been supported in part by NASA under grants NAG5-7804, NAG5-4680, NAG5-8041 and NSF under grant ATM 0101095

More Related