Comparing magnetopause predictions from two MHD models during a geomagnetic storm and a quiet period

IF 2.6 3区 物理与天体物理 Q2 ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences Pub Date : 2023-08-02 DOI:10.3389/fspas.2023.1213331
P. Dredger, R. Lopez, Y. Collado-Vega
{"title":"Comparing magnetopause predictions from two MHD models during a geomagnetic storm and a quiet period","authors":"P. Dredger, R. Lopez, Y. Collado-Vega","doi":"10.3389/fspas.2023.1213331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Magnetopause location is an important prediction of numerical simulations of the magnetosphere, yet the models can err, either under-predicting or over-predicting the motion of the boundary. This study compares results from two of the most widely used magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) models, the Lyon–Fedder–Mobarry (LFM) model and the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF), to data from the GOES 13 and 15 satellites during the geomagnetic storm on 22 June 2015, and to THEMIS A, D, and E during a quiet period on 31 January 2013. The models not only reproduce the magnetopause crossings of the spacecraft during the storm, but they also predict spurious magnetopause motion after the crossings seen in the GOES data. We investigate the possible causes of the over-predictions during the storm and find the following. First, using different ionospheric conductance models does not significantly alter predictions of the magnetopause location. Second, coupling the Rice Convection Model (RCM) to the MHD codes improves the SWMF magnetopause predictions more than it does for the LFM predictions. Third, the SWMF produces a stronger ring current than LFM, both with and without the RCM and regardless of the LFM spatial resolution. During the non-storm event, LFM predicts the THEMIS magnetopause crossings due to the southward interplanetary magnetic field better than the SWMF. Additionally, increasing the LFM spatial grid resolution improves the THEMIS predictions, while increasing the SWMF grid resolutions does not.","PeriodicalId":46793,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2023.1213331","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Magnetopause location is an important prediction of numerical simulations of the magnetosphere, yet the models can err, either under-predicting or over-predicting the motion of the boundary. This study compares results from two of the most widely used magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) models, the Lyon–Fedder–Mobarry (LFM) model and the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF), to data from the GOES 13 and 15 satellites during the geomagnetic storm on 22 June 2015, and to THEMIS A, D, and E during a quiet period on 31 January 2013. The models not only reproduce the magnetopause crossings of the spacecraft during the storm, but they also predict spurious magnetopause motion after the crossings seen in the GOES data. We investigate the possible causes of the over-predictions during the storm and find the following. First, using different ionospheric conductance models does not significantly alter predictions of the magnetopause location. Second, coupling the Rice Convection Model (RCM) to the MHD codes improves the SWMF magnetopause predictions more than it does for the LFM predictions. Third, the SWMF produces a stronger ring current than LFM, both with and without the RCM and regardless of the LFM spatial resolution. During the non-storm event, LFM predicts the THEMIS magnetopause crossings due to the southward interplanetary magnetic field better than the SWMF. Additionally, increasing the LFM spatial grid resolution improves the THEMIS predictions, while increasing the SWMF grid resolutions does not.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较两个MHD模型在地磁风暴和平静期的磁层顶预测
磁层顶位置是磁层数值模拟的一个重要预测,但模型可能会出错,要么预测不足,要么预测过度。本研究比较了两个最广泛使用的磁流体动力学(MHD)模型,即Lyon–Fedder–Mobarry(LFM)模型和空间天气建模框架(SWMF),与2015年6月22日地磁风暴期间GOES 13和15卫星的数据,以及2013年1月31日平静期的THEMIS A、D和E的数据。这些模型不仅再现了风暴期间航天器的磁层顶交叉,而且还预测了GOES数据中看到的交叉后的伪磁层顶运动。我们调查了风暴期间过度预测的可能原因,发现如下。首先,使用不同的电离层电导模型不会显著改变对磁层顶位置的预测。其次,将Rice对流模型(RCM)与MHD代码相结合,比LFM预测更能改进SWMF磁层顶预测。第三,SWMF产生比LFM更强的环电流,无论有没有RCM,也无论LFM的空间分辨率如何。在非风暴事件期间,LFM预测,由于向南的行星际磁场,THEMIS磁层顶交叉比SWMF更好。此外,增加LFM空间网格分辨率可以改善THEMIS预测,而增加SWMF网格分辨率则不能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences
Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
363
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Application of collisional analysis to the differential velocity of solar wind ions Sun-as-a-star variability of Hα and Ca II 854.2 nm lines Coherence of Elsässer Variables in the slow solar wind from 0.1 au to 0.3 au Forecasting solar flares with a transformer network Ultra-broadband infrared metamaterial absorber based on MDMDM structure for optical sensing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1