Comparison of predictive estimates of high‐latitude electrodynamics with observations of global‐scale Birkeland currents

Two of the geomagnetic storms for the Space Weather Prediction Center Geospace Environment Modeling challenge occurred after data were first acquired by the Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment (AMPERE). We compare Birkeland currents from AMPERE with predictions from four models for the 4–5 April 2010 and 5–6 August 2011 storms. The four models are the Weimer (2005b) field‐aligned current statistical model, the Lyon‐Fedder‐Mobarry magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation, the Open Global Geospace Circulation Model MHD simulation, and the Space Weather Modeling Framework MHD simulation. The MHD simulations were run as described in Pulkkinen et al. (2013) and the results obtained from the Community Coordinated Modeling Center. The total radial Birkeland current, ITotal, and the distribution of radial current density, Jr, for all models are compared with AMPERE results. While the total currents are well correlated, the quantitative agreement varies considerably. The Jr distributions reveal discrepancies between the models and observations related to the latitude distribution, morphologies, and lack of nightside current systems in the models. The results motivate enhancing the simulations first by increasing the simulation resolution and then by examining the relative merits of implementing more sophisticated ionospheric conductance models, including ionospheric outflows or other omitted physical processes. Some aspects of the system, including substorm timing and location, may remain challenging to simulate, implying a continuing need for real‐time specification.Key PointsPresents the first comparison between observed field‐aligned currents and models previously evaluated for space weather operational useThe model and observed integrated currents are well correlated, but the ratio between them ranges from 1/3 to 3The 2‐D current densities are weakly correlated with observations implying significant areas for improvements in the modelsPeer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136469/1/swe20415_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136469/2/swe20415.pd

Reimagining Heliophysics: A bold new vision for the next decade and beyond

The field of Heliophysics has a branding problem. We need an answer to the question: ``What is Heliophysics\?'', the answer to which should clearly and succinctly defines our science in a compelling way that simultaneously introduces a sense of wonder and exploration into our science and our missions. Unfortunately, recent over-reliance on space weather to define our field, as opposed to simply using it as a practical and relatable example of applied Heliophysics science, narrows the scope of what solar and space physics is and diminishes its fundamental importance. Moving forward, our community needs to be bold and unabashed in our definition of Heliophysics and its big questions. We should emphasize the general and fundamental importance and excitement of our science with a new mindset that generalizes and expands the definition of Heliophysics to include new ``frontiers'' of increasing interest to the community. Heliophysics should be unbound from its current confinement to the Sun-Earth connection and expanded to studies of the fundamental nature of space plasma physics across the solar system and greater cosmos. Finally, we need to come together as a community to advance our science by envisioning, prioritizing, and supporting -- with a unified voice -- a set of bold new missions that target compelling science questions - even if they do not explore the traditional Sun- and Earth-centric aspects of Heliophysics science. Such new, large missions to expand the frontiers and scope of Heliophysics science large missions can be the key to galvanizing the public and policymakers to support the overall Heliophysics program

The Earth: Plasma Sources, Losses, and Transport Processes

This paper reviews the state of knowledge concerning the source of magnetospheric plasma at Earth. Source of plasma, its acceleration and transport throughout the system, its consequences on system dynamics, and its loss are all discussed. Both observational and modeling advances since the last time this subject was covered in detail (Hultqvist et al., Magnetospheric Plasma Sources and Losses, 1999) are addressed

On the Impact of Fluctuations on the Magnetotail Reconnection

When the cross-tail current sheet is sufficiently thin, any adequate perturbation can trigger a reconnection. In this presentation we discuss initial results of a statistical correlation study using 8+ years of THEMIS measurements between magnetosheath and plasma sheet fluctuations (magnetic and velocity fields, and mass flux) and in the ULF Pc2-Pc5 ranges for Southward, Northward, and Parker-Spiral IMF, and for fast and slow solar wind intervals. The statistical fluctuation properties are compared to the typical magnetotail reconnection characteristics such as reconnection flows, and electron to ion temperature and velocity ratios. Global LFM MHD simulations are used for studying how deeply into the plasma sheet the vorticity created by the magnetopause processes such as Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability can penetrate and what are the corresponding amplitudes. Local MHD simulations in a Modified Harris-sheet equilibrium are used for studying how the fluctuations in magnetic field and mass flux (with the observed amplitudes and frequencies from the THEMIS statistical study) impact the magnetotail reconnection characteristics