Substorm occurrence during quiet solar wind driving

Peer reviewe

On the characterization of magnetic reconnection in global MHD simulations

The conventional definition of reconnection rate as the electric field parallel to an x-line is problematic in global MHD simulations for several reasons: the x-line itself may be hard to find in a non-trivial geometry such as at the magnetopause, and the lack of realistic resistivity modelling leaves us without reliable non-convective electric field. In this article we describe reconnection characterization methods that avoid those problems and are practical to apply in global MHD simulations. We propose that the reconnection separator line can be identified as the region where magnetic field lines of different topological properties meet, rather than by local considerations. The global convection associated with reconnection is then quantified by calculating the transfer of mass, energy or magnetic field across the boundary of closed and open field line regions. The extent of the diffusion region is determined from the destruction of electromagnetic energy, given by the divergence of the Poynting vector. Integrals of this energy conversion provide a way to estimate the total reconnection efficiency

The magnetotail reconnection region in a global MHD simulation

International audienceThis work investigates the nature and the role of magnetic reconnection in a global magnetohydrodynamic simulation of the magnetosphere. We use the Gumics-4 simulation to study reconnection that occurs in the near-Earth region of the current sheet in the magnetotail. We locate the current sheet surface and the magnetic x-line that appears when reconnection starts. We illustrate the difference between quiet and active states of the reconnection region: variations in such quantities as the current sheet thickness, plasma flow velocities, and Poynting vector divergence are strong. A characteristic feature is strong asymmetry caused by non-perpendicular inflows. We determine the reconnection efficiency by the net rate of Poynting flux into the reconnection region. The reconnection efficiency in the simulation is directly proportional to the energy flux into the magnetosphere through the magnetopause: about half of all energy flowing through the magnetosphere is converted from an electromagnetic into a mechanical form in the reconnection region. Thus, the tail reconnection that is central to the magnetospheric circulation is directly driven; the tail does not exhibit a cycle of storage and rapid release of magnetic energy. We find similar behaviour of the tail in both synthetic and real event runs

Evaluation of the Tail Current Contribution to \u3cem\u3eDst\u3c/em\u3e

The Dst index is produced using low-latitude ground magnetic field measurements and frequently is used as an estimate of the energy density of the ring current carried mainly by energetic (∼10-200 keV) ions relatively close to the Earth. However, other magnetospheric current systems can cause field perturbations at the Earth\u27s surface: for example, dayside magnetopause currents are known to contribute to the Dst index. It has also been suggested that the nightside tail current sheet can significantly affect the Dst index during high magnetic activity periods when the currents are intense and flow relatively close to the Earth. In this study, several disturbed periods are input into Tsyganenko magnetic field models. From the time series of the external and internal fields an artificial Dst index is computed using the same procedure followed in the actual Dst calculation. A tail region in the magnetosphere is explicitly defined and the T96 and T89 models are used to calculate the effect of current within this tail region on ground measurements and therefore on Dst. The results are then compared with the measured Dst to determine the tail current contribution to Dst. It is found that for a geomagnetic storm and a storm-time substorm with Dst of ~80 nT the tail current contribution is between 22 and 26 nT. The same analysis is also applied to several isolated non-storm-time substorms, yielding a nearly linear relationship between Dst and the tail current contribution. This contribution is approximately one quarter of Dst

Reply to Comment on Evaluation of the Tail Current Contribution to \u3cem\u3eDst\u3c/em\u3e

Turner et al. [2000] analyzed the contribution of cross-tail currents to the Dst index. In order to estimate this contribution we used modified versions of the Tsyganenko models which had been adjusted to match spacecraft data in the tail, and we isolated a tail region and calculated its influence. We concluded that the tail currents were responsible for around 25% of the Dst response during moderately disturbed times. Maltsev and Ostapenko [2002] conclude that our estimate was low by a factor of 2, owing to that fact that we neglected dayside currents and that the model we used systematically underestimates the cross-tail current system. We appreciate their insightful analysis of our work, but we disagree with their conclusions. The models we used were modified to match spacecraft data in the tail, so we do not feel they underestimate the tail currents, and we consider the tail currents to be primarily located in the magnetotail, so we feel our decision to neglect dayside currents was justified. Additionally, we feel that some of the discrepancies between our results and theirs are due to different definitions of tail and ring currents and our decisions on whether to include the induced ground current contribution in our estimates of the tail current contribution to Dst. Here we respond briefly to their arguments and conclude that we still find the approximate magnitude of the tail current contribution to Dst to be around 25%. Additionally, Maltsev and Ostapenko include their own analysis of the tail current contribution to Dst, but we will limit our response to those comments which directly relate to our work

Seasonal and Diurnal Variation of Geomagnetic Activity: Revised \u3cem\u3eDst\u3c/em\u3e Versus External Drivers

Daily and seasonal variability of long time series of magnetometer data from Dst stations is examined. Each station separately shows a local minimum of horizontal magnetic component near 18 local time (LT) and weakest activity near 06 LT. The stations were found to have different baselines such that the average levels of activity differed by about 10 nT. This effect was corrected for by introducing a new “base method” for the elimination of the secular variation. This changed the seasonal variability of the Dst index by about 3 nT. The hemispheric differences between the annual variation (larger activity during local winter and autumn solstice) were demonstrated and eliminated from the Dst index by addition of two Southern Hemisphere stations to a new index termed Dst6. Three external drivers of geomagnetic activity were considered: the heliographic latitude, the equinoctial effect, and the Russell–McPherron effect. Using the newly created Dst6 index, it is demonstrated that these three effects account for only about 50% of the daily and seasonal variability of the index. It is not clear what drives the other 50% of the daily and seasonal variability, but it is suggested that the station distribution may play a role

Magnetosheath control of solar wind-magnetosphere coupling efficiency

We examine the role of the magnetosheath in solar wind-magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling using the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms plasma and magnetic field observations in the magnetosheath together with OMNI solar wind data and auroral electrojet recordings from the International Monitor for Auroral Geomagnetic Effects (IMAGE) magnetometer chain. We demonstrate that the electric field and Poynting flux reaching the magnetopause are not linear functions of the electric field and Poynting flux observed in the solar wind: the electric field and Poynting flux at the magnetopause during higher driving conditions are lower than those predicted from a linear function. We also show that the Poynting flux normal to the magnetopause is linearly correlated with the directly driven part of the auroral electrojets in the ionosphere. This indicates that the energy entering the magnetosphere in the form of the Poynting flux is directly responsible for driving the electrojets. Furthermore, we argue that the polar cap potential saturation discussed in the literature is associated with the way solar wind plasma gets processed during the bow shock crossing and motion within the magnetosheath.Peer reviewe

Supermagnetosonic jets behind a collisionless quasi-parallel shock

The downstream region of a collisionless quasi-parallel shock is structured containing bulk flows with high kinetic energy density from a previously unidentified source. We present Cluster multi-spacecraft measurements of this type of supermagnetosonic jet as well as of a weak secondary shock front within the sheath, that allow us to propose the following generation mechanism for the jets: The local curvature variations inherent to quasi-parallel shocks can create fast, deflected jets accompanied by density variations in the downstream region. If the speed of the jet is super(magneto)sonic in the reference frame of the obstacle, a second shock front forms in the sheath closer to the obstacle. Our results can be applied to collisionless quasi-parallel shocks in many plasma environments.Comment: accepted to Phys. Rev. Lett. (Nov 5, 2009