Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Magnetospheric energy budget during huge geomagnetic activity using Cluster and ground-based data
Uppsala universitet, Institutet för rymdfysik, Uppsalaavdelningen.
Uppsala universitet, Institutet för rymdfysik, Uppsalaavdelningen.
Uppsala universitet, Institutet för rymdfysik, Uppsalaavdelningen.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1654-841x
Show others and affiliations
2006 (English)In: Journal of Geophysical Research, ISSN 0148-0227, E-ISSN 2156-2202, Vol. 111, no A10, article id A10211Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The Cluster spacecraft crossed the magnetopause at the duskward flank of the tail while the European Incoherent Scatter (EISCAT) radars and magnetometers observed the ionosphere during a sequence of intense substorm-like geomagnetic activity in October 2003. We attempt to estimate the local and global energy flow from the magnetosheath into the magnetotail and the ionosphere under these extreme conditions. We make for the first time direct observational estimates of the local solar wind power input using Cluster measurements. The global power input based on Cluster observations was found to be between 17 and 40 TW at the onset of the substorm intensification. However, spacecraft observations and global modelling of the magnetotail suggest that it is most probably closer to 17 TW. This is more than two times lower than the predicted epsilon parameter value ( 37 TW). Energy deposition in the ionosphere has been estimated locally with EISCAT and globally with the assimilated mapping of ionospheric electrodynamics (AMIE) technique. The amount of the global solar wind power input ( 17 TW) that is dissipated via Joule heating in the ionosphere is found to be 30%. The corresponding ratio based on empirical estimates is only 3%. However, empirical proxies seem to underestimate the magnitude of the Joule heating rate as compared to AMIE estimates (similar to a factor 4) and the epsilon parameter is more than twice as large as the Cluster estimate. In summary, the observational estimates provide a good balance between the energy input to the magnetosphere and deposition in the ionosphere. Empirical proxies seem to suffer from overestimations ( epsilon parameter) and underestimations ( Joule heating proxies) when pushed to the extreme circumstances during the early main phase of this storm period.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2006. Vol. 111, no A10, article id A10211
National Category
Physical Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-253632DOI: 10.1029/2006JA011608ISI: 000241301300003OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-253632DiVA, id: diva2:1325461
Note

QC 20190617

Available from: 2019-06-15 Created: 2019-06-15 Last updated: 2020-01-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Vaivads, Andris

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Vaivads, Andris
In the same journal
Journal of Geophysical Research
Physical Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 1 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf