Driving a physical ionospheric model with a magnetospheric MHD model

Details Driving a physical ionospheric model with a magnetospheric MHD model Driving a physical ionospheric model with a magnetospheric MHD model

Sep 1997

adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1997jgr...10222209s&link_type=abstract

Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 102, Issue A10, p. 22209-22220

Physics

Plasma Physics

12

Ionosphere: Modeling And Forecasting, Ionosphere: Plasma Convection, Magnetospheric Physics: Magnetosphere/Ionosphere Interactions, Space Plasma Physics: Numerical Simulation Studies

Scientific paper

This is the first study in which a physical ionospheric model (time-dependent ionospheric model (TDIM) has been driven through a substorm using self-consistent magnetospheric convection electric field and auroral electron precipitation inputs. Both of these were generated from a simulation of a real substorm event using the MHD model [Fedder et al., 1995b]. Interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) data were available for 1.5 hours until the substorm breakup. Hence the substorm growth and expansion dynamics is captured in a 1.5-hour time period. As a reference against which to compare this TDIM substorm simulation, a typical climatological TDIM simulation was carried out using standard statistical representations of the convection electric field and auroral oval. Note that these statistical representations are driven by the Kp index. This is a 3-hour index, yet the substorm growth and expansion occurs in 1.5 hours. Hence a static convection electric field and auroral oval are used for the TDIM reference simulation. From the comparison of these two simulations, we find, as expected, the E region densities are different. However, these differences lead to factors of 2-4 differences in the integrated Hall and Pedersen conductivities. These conductivities, in turn, are crucial as an ionospheric boundary condition for magnetospheric MHD modeling. The F region spatial and temporal responses are complex and exhibit large differences, from tens of percents to factors of 4 in density and up to +/-70km in hmF2. These differences are all larger than typical experimental uncertainties. The dayside and cusp variabilities are very sensitive to the convection pattern and are not well correlated to magnetic indices, such as the 3-hourly Kp index. In the polar cap, the differences in the location of the tongues of ionization and the polar holes readily lead to factors of 2-4 in local density differences. Differences in the locations of ``boundaries'' in the plasma convection and auroral precipitation lead to large differences in the local F region densities and in the locations of strong density gradients, both of which are relevant to space weather applications.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

Driving a physical ionospheric model with a magnetospheric MHD model 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 Driving a physical ionospheric model with a magnetospheric MHD model, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Driving a physical ionospheric model with a magnetospheric MHD model will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-1227532