利用GOES数据分析地磁暴期间Tsyganenko磁场模型的精度

IF 0.6 Q4 ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.5140/jass.2022.39.4.159
Seok-Min Song, K. Min
{"title":"利用GOES数据分析地磁暴期间Tsyganenko磁场模型的精度","authors":"Seok-Min Song, K. Min","doi":"10.5140/jass.2022.39.4.159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Because of the small number of spacecraft available in the Earth’s magnetosphere\n at any given time, it is not possible to obtain direct measurements of the fundamental\n quantities, such as the magnetic field and plasma density, with a spatial coverage\n necessary for studying, global magnetospheric phenomena. In such cases, empirical as\n well as physics-based models are proven to be extremely valuable. This requires not only\n having high fidelity and high accuracy models, but also knowing the weakness and\n strength of such models. In this study, we assess the accuracy of the widely used\n Tsyganenko magnetic field models, T96, T01, and T04, by comparing the calculated\n magnetic field with the ones measured in-situ by the GOES satellites during\n geomagnetically disturbed times. We first set the baseline accuracy of the models from a\n data-model comparison during the intervals of geomagnetically quiet times. During quiet\n times, we find that all three models exhibit a systematic error of about 10% in the\n magnetic field magnitude, while the error in the field vector direction is on average\n less than 1%. We then assess the model accuracy by a data-model comparison during twelve\n geomagnetic storm events. We find that the errors in both the magnitude and the\n direction are well maintained at the quiet-time level throughout the storm phase, except\n during the main phase of the storms in which the largest error can reach 15% on average,\n and exceed well over 70% in the worst case. Interestingly, the largest error occurs not\n at the Dst minimum but 2–3 hours before the minimum. Finally, the T96 model has\n consistently underperformed compared to the other models, likely due to the lack of\n computation for the effects of ring current. However, the T96 and T01 models are\n accurate enough for most of the time except for highly disturbed periods.","PeriodicalId":44366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of the Tsyganenko Magnetic Field Model Accuracy during Geomagnetic Storm\\n Times Using the GOES Data\",\"authors\":\"Seok-Min Song, K. Min\",\"doi\":\"10.5140/jass.2022.39.4.159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Because of the small number of spacecraft available in the Earth’s magnetosphere\\n at any given time, it is not possible to obtain direct measurements of the fundamental\\n quantities, such as the magnetic field and plasma density, with a spatial coverage\\n necessary for studying, global magnetospheric phenomena. In such cases, empirical as\\n well as physics-based models are proven to be extremely valuable. This requires not only\\n having high fidelity and high accuracy models, but also knowing the weakness and\\n strength of such models. In this study, we assess the accuracy of the widely used\\n Tsyganenko magnetic field models, T96, T01, and T04, by comparing the calculated\\n magnetic field with the ones measured in-situ by the GOES satellites during\\n geomagnetically disturbed times. We first set the baseline accuracy of the models from a\\n data-model comparison during the intervals of geomagnetically quiet times. During quiet\\n times, we find that all three models exhibit a systematic error of about 10% in the\\n magnetic field magnitude, while the error in the field vector direction is on average\\n less than 1%. We then assess the model accuracy by a data-model comparison during twelve\\n geomagnetic storm events. We find that the errors in both the magnitude and the\\n direction are well maintained at the quiet-time level throughout the storm phase, except\\n during the main phase of the storms in which the largest error can reach 15% on average,\\n and exceed well over 70% in the worst case. Interestingly, the largest error occurs not\\n at the Dst minimum but 2–3 hours before the minimum. Finally, the T96 model has\\n consistently underperformed compared to the other models, likely due to the lack of\\n computation for the effects of ring current. However, the T96 and T01 models are\\n accurate enough for most of the time except for highly disturbed periods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44366,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5140/jass.2022.39.4.159\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5140/jass.2022.39.4.159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于在任何给定时间,地球磁层中可用的航天器数量很少,因此不可能获得对磁场和等离子体密度等基本量的直接测量,而这些量的空间覆盖是研究全球磁层现象所必需的。在这种情况下,经验模型和基于物理的模型被证明是非常有价值的。这不仅需要高保真度和高精度的模型,还需要了解这些模型的优缺点。在本研究中,我们通过将计算的磁场与GOES卫星在地磁干扰时期的原位测量磁场进行比较,评估了广泛使用的Tsyganenko磁场模型T96、T01和T04的准确性。我们首先通过数据模型比较,在地磁安静时间间隔内设置模型的基线精度。在安静时,我们发现这三种模型在磁场大小上的系统误差都在10%左右,而在场矢量方向上的误差平均小于1%。然后,我们通过12次地磁风暴事件的数据模型比较来评估模型的准确性。我们发现,在整个风暴阶段,误差的大小和方向都很好地保持在安静时间水平,除了在风暴的主阶段,最大误差平均可达到15%,最坏的情况下可超过70%。有趣的是,最大的误差不是发生在Dst最小值,而是发生在最小值之前的2-3小时。最后,与其他模型相比,T96模型一直表现不佳,可能是由于缺乏环电流影响的计算。然而,T96和T01模型在大部分时间都足够准确,除了高度扰动的时期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Analysis of the Tsyganenko Magnetic Field Model Accuracy during Geomagnetic Storm Times Using the GOES Data
Because of the small number of spacecraft available in the Earth’s magnetosphere at any given time, it is not possible to obtain direct measurements of the fundamental quantities, such as the magnetic field and plasma density, with a spatial coverage necessary for studying, global magnetospheric phenomena. In such cases, empirical as well as physics-based models are proven to be extremely valuable. This requires not only having high fidelity and high accuracy models, but also knowing the weakness and strength of such models. In this study, we assess the accuracy of the widely used Tsyganenko magnetic field models, T96, T01, and T04, by comparing the calculated magnetic field with the ones measured in-situ by the GOES satellites during geomagnetically disturbed times. We first set the baseline accuracy of the models from a data-model comparison during the intervals of geomagnetically quiet times. During quiet times, we find that all three models exhibit a systematic error of about 10% in the magnetic field magnitude, while the error in the field vector direction is on average less than 1%. We then assess the model accuracy by a data-model comparison during twelve geomagnetic storm events. We find that the errors in both the magnitude and the direction are well maintained at the quiet-time level throughout the storm phase, except during the main phase of the storms in which the largest error can reach 15% on average, and exceed well over 70% in the worst case. Interestingly, the largest error occurs not at the Dst minimum but 2–3 hours before the minimum. Finally, the T96 model has consistently underperformed compared to the other models, likely due to the lack of computation for the effects of ring current. However, the T96 and T01 models are accurate enough for most of the time except for highly disturbed periods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences
Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: JASS aims for the promotion of global awareness and understanding of space science and related applications. Unlike other journals that focus either on space science or on space technologies, it intends to bridge the two communities of space science and technologies, by providing opportunities to exchange ideas and viewpoints in a single journal. Topics suitable for publication in JASS include researches in the following fields: space astronomy, solar physics, magnetospheric and ionospheric physics, cosmic ray, space weather, and planetary sciences; space instrumentation, satellite dynamics, geodesy, spacecraft control, and spacecraft navigation. However, the topics covered by JASS are not restricted to those mentioned above as the journal also encourages submission of research results in all other branches related to space science and technologies. Even though JASS was established on the heritage and achievements of the Korean space science community, it is now open to the worldwide community, while maintaining a high standard as a leading international journal. Hence, it solicits papers from the international community with a vision of global collaboration in the fields of space science and technologies.
期刊最新文献
Structural Design of Planar Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Antenna for Microsatellites Preliminary Characterization of Secondary Illumination at Shackleton Crater Permanently Shadowed Region from ShadowCam Observations and Modeling Search for Dark Photon in e+e− → A′A′ Using Future Collider Experiments Preparation of Contingency Trajectory Operation for the Korea Pathfinder Lunar Orbiter ShadowCam Instrument and Investigation Overview
×
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