Do the Jovian Bow Shock and Magnetopause Surfaces in the Joy et al. (2002) Model Predict Measured Boundary Normals Correctly?

Details Do the Jovian Bow Shock and Magnetopause Surfaces in the Joy et al. (2002) Model Predict Measured Boundary Normals Correctly? Do the Jovian Bow Shock and Magnetopause Surfaces in the Joy et al. (2002) Model Predict Measured Boundary Normals Correctly?

Dec 2003

adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2003agufmsm22b0239j&link_type=abstract

American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2003, abstract #SM22B-0239

Statistics

2724 Magnetopause, Cusp, And Boundary Layers, 2728 Magnetosheath, 2756 Planetary Magnetospheres (5443, 5737, 6030), 5737 Magnetospheres (2756), 6220 Jupiter

Scientific paper

Joy et al. (2002) provided probabilistic descriptions of the jovian bow shock and magnetopause by mapping spacecraft observations to the sub-solar point along model surfaces derived from the MHD simulation of Ogino et al. (1998). The resulting statistics are strongly affected by the surface models used in the mapping process. Here we analyze the quality of the surface models used in that mapping by comparing the normal directions of the observed boundary crossings to the normal directions predicted by the surface models. We have identified 116 magnetopause and 74 bow shock crossings in the Galileo data from orbits 0 through 34 using both the plasma wave (PWS) and magnetometer (MAG) data sets. We have determined the boundary normal directions for both these newly identified crossings and the previously published crossings of Galileo, Ulysses, Voyagers 1 and 2, and Pioneers 10 and 11. When possible, boundary normals were determined from the MAG data by using the minimum variance technique of Sonnerup and Cahill. Some boundary crossings could not be analyzed because of data gaps or inadequate sampling resolution. The boundary crossings are well distributed in local time ( ˜03:00 to 19:00) and are mostly near equatorial. Initial results indicate that the shape models used by Joy et al. (2002) are reasonable. We will examine the small non-zero mean difference between the observed and model boundary normal directions to determine whether the discrepancy is statistically significant. The large variance of the normal direction about the mean may imply that the normal directions fluctuate because of surface waves on the boundaries or that steady-state surface models do not apply in the presence of changing solar wind conditions.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

Do the Jovian Bow Shock and Magnetopause Surfaces in the Joy et al. (2002) Model Predict Measured Boundary Normals Correctly? does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with Do the Jovian Bow Shock and Magnetopause Surfaces in the Joy et al. (2002) Model Predict Measured Boundary Normals Correctly?, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Do the Jovian Bow Shock and Magnetopause Surfaces in the Joy et al. (2002) Model Predict Measured Boundary Normals Correctly? will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1648777