Table of Contents
======================================================================
1. Call for Proposals for New GEM Focus Groups
2. 2012 WORKSHOP REPORT: Plasmasphere Magnetosphere Interactions (PMI) 
   Focus Group
======================================================================

                     ***************************
                     **   THE GEM MESSENGER   **
                     ***************************

                                                  Volume 22, Number 18
                                                       August 10, 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Call for Proposals for New GEM Focus Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: The GEM Steering Committee
 
The GEM Steering Committee (SC) is now accepting proposals for new 
Focus Groups (FGs).  This call is open until November 23. 
 
The first step in preparing a proposal is to consult one (or more) of 
the Research Area Coordinators, whose names are listed at
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/gemwiki/index.php/Organization_and_People
They will advise on possible overlap with other existing or proposed 
Focus Groups, opportunities for (highly desirable) cross-disciplinary 
studies, and help identify potential co-chairs.
 
When preparing the proposal, please follow the guidelines in the GEM 
by-laws:
  http://aten.igpp.ucla.edu/gemwiki/index.php/GEM_Bylaws
 
Please keep the proposals to 4 pages, yet include the following:
  -- A description of the topic
  -- A statement on timeliness of the FG idea
  -- A description of how the FG would relate to existing FGs
  -- A specific goal that includes a deliverable (see below)
  -- The names of the proposed co-chairs
  -- The Research Area with which it will be associated
  -- The term, not more than 5 years (so, ending on or before summer
     2017)
  -- Expected activities, for example topics of sessions or challenges
 
Deliverables can be GGCM modules, empirical relations that lead to 
modules, solutions to specific science problems, challenges, data sets 
for validation and metrics, or paper collections.
 
Two groups ended this past summer, leaving 10 active FGs. Here is the 
breakdown, according to research area:
 
*  IMS: 2 ending in 2013/2014
*  Tail:  3 ending in 2013/2016
*  Dayside: 2 ending in 2014/2016
*  MIC: 1 ending in 2015
*  Metrics and Validation: 1 ending in 2015
*  Joint MIC/GGCM: 1 ending in 2015
 
More details of the existing FGs are available on the GEM website:
 http://aten.igpp.ucla.edu/gemwiki/index.php/GEM_Focus_Groups
 
Because there is no upper limit on the number of active FGs within a 
research area, please don't hesitate to submit a proposal if you have 
a good idea.  The GEM SC will seriously and thoughtfully consider all 
proposals received before the submission deadline.
 
The FG proposals will be posted on the GEM Wiki website before the GEM 
Mini-Workshop at the Fall AGU.  There will be a late-afternoon session 
at the Mini-Workshop during which the FG proposals will be presented 
and discussed in a forum open to the entire GEM community.  The SC 
will then meet after the mini-workshop sessions to decide which 
proposals will be selected to become new GEM Focus Groups.  If you are 
proposing a FG, then please plan to give a 5-minute presentation 
during this session.
 
Please send FG proposals to the GEM Steering Committee chair, David 
Sibeck David.G.Sibeck@nasa.gov.  Questions should be directed to the 
SC Chair or to the specific Research Area Coordinator for your topic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 2012 WORKSHOP REPORT: Plasmasphere Magnetosphere Interactions (PMI) 
   Focus Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J. Goldstein <jgoldstein at swri.edu>, M. Spasojevic,
      J. Borovsky

Plasmasphere Magnetosphere Interactions (PMI) Focus Group
How Are Magnetospheric Processes Regulated By Plasmaspheric Dynamics 
(and Vice Versa)?

Wiki:   
http://aten.igpp.ucla.edu/gemwiki/index.php/FG11._Plasmasphere-
Magnetosphere_Interactions
ABRIDGED LINK:    http://tinyurl.com/pmiFGwiki

Purpose of This Report
This is a report of activities of the Plasmasphere-Magnetosphere 
Interactions (PMI) Focus Group (FG) at the 2012 Geospace Environment 
Modeling (GEM) Workshop in Snowmass, Colorado. This report includes a 
broad overview of PMI scientific progress.  The report is posted 
online at the GEM PMI Wiki page:  http://tinyurl.com/pmiFGwiki.

Format of the 2012 GEM PMI Sessions
Presenters were encouraged (both in advance and at the sessions) to 
keep their presentations brief and informal, leaving time for 
questions and discussions, fostering an atmosphere of active exchange 
of ideas among all attendees and speakers. 

PMI Breakout Sessions
To address the PMI FG's central question, "How Are Magnetospheric 
Processes Regulated By Plasmaspheric Dynamics (and Vice Versa)?" we 
hosted five (5) Breakout sessions at the 2012 GEM Summer Workshop, 
listed below.  There were two topics covered:
A.	Density, Waves, and Fields Sessions:  These sessions highlighted 
recent research on: the spatial and temporal dependence of plasma 
properties (density, temperature, composition), growth and propagation 
of waves, and electric, magnetic, and convection flow fields in the 
inner magnetosphere.

B.	GEM PMI Challenge Sessions:    In these sessions, speakers 
presented data and modeling results for the GEM PMI Challenge, which 
is described below (see PMI Breakout 2)

List of Sessions:
•  PMI-1  [Mon, 18 June, 3:30p]:	Density, Waves, & Fields I 
•  PMI-2  [Tue, 19 June, 10:30a]:	GEM PMI Challenge I 
•  PMI-3  [Tue, 19 June, 1:30p]:	GEM PMI Challenge II
•  PMI-4  [Tue, 19 June, 3:30p]:	Density, Waves, & Fields II 
•  PMI-5  [Wed, 20 June, 1:30]:	        Density, Waves, & Fields III

The detailed schedule (GEM_PMI12_final.pdf) is posted on the PMI Wiki. 
These PMI Breakout sessions drew (on average) ~25 people per session, 
with significant (and at times quite animated) discussion. Directly 
below, each PMI Breakout Session is listed with its Topic, followed by 
a brief summary of what was discussed and accomplished at the session. 

Notes from PMI Breakout Sessions:

Monday, 18 June 2012
PMI Breakout 1 	[3:30p]		    
Topic:  "Density, Waves, & Fields I".
Session Chairs:  Claudepierre, de Soria-Santacruz Pich

This session focused on the density features of the plasmasphere, the 
dependence of wave growth and propagation on the presence or absence 
of cold plasma, and the fields that influence cold plasma evolution.  
The session featured seven (5) scheduled presentations by Chappell, 
Claudepierre, de Soria-Santacruz Pich, Golden, and Matsui.  Chappell's 
analysis of OGO-5 ion density data produced the first reported 
observation of a possible minimum scale size of under 250 km (0.04 RE) 
for the fine-scale structure within plasmaspheric plumes, hinting at 
the mechanism responsible for the structure.  Simulations using the 
LFM-RCM coupled model by Claudepierre, including a static plasmasphere, 
show a significant effect of the plasmasphere upon the ULF wave mode 
structure:  the frequency of FLRs is lowered, and spectral power is 
shifted inward in L-shell by the presence of the inner cavity.  de 
Soria-Santacruz Pich showed results of modeling EMIC wave growth, 
propagation, and dispersion relation in order to study radiation belt 
remediation (RBR), and found that wave-particle interactions of 
interest to RBR occur for <400 MeV protons, within the oxygen band in 
the inner belt, and for <10 MeV electrons, within the proton band in 
the outer belt.  Golden (presented by Goldstein) used regression 
analysis to produce a THEMIS-based empirical model of chorus emissions, 
keyed to indices (Sym-H, AE, Pdyn, and the Newell coupling function), 
binned in L and MLT, with RMS errors of <3 pT.  Matsui (presented by 
Goldstein) has updated the 2008 Cluster+ground-based global electric 
field empirical model:  the updated model (valid from L=2-10 at all 
MLT) gives electric potential versus X and Y (SM coordinates), and 
with newer Cluster data to include active periods not part of the 
original model.  

Tuesday, 19 June 2012
PMI Breakout 2 	[10:30a]		    
Topic:  "GEM PMI Challenge I".
Session Chairs:  Chi, Chen

The goal of the PMI Modeling Challenge is to evaluate the current 
state of modeling of the evolution of cold plasma density, and the 
impact of this distribution on specific magnetospheric processes.  In 
collaboration with the NASA LWS plasmasphere FST, two Challenge events 
were selected:  (A) a disturbance interval, 8-11 June 2001; and (B) a 
quiet interval, 2-5 February 2001.  The results are to be published in 
JGR space physics, with authors to include "GEM PMI Challenge" in the 
manuscript title.  

PMI Breakout 2 was the first of two sessions dedicated to the sharing 
of first results from the PMI Modeling Challenge.  To kick off the 
session, an overview of the two PMI Challenge events (provided by 
Spasojevic) was presented.  For event A, both manual and automated 
extractions of plasmapause locations show a two-phase erosion 
coincident with two corresponding negative excursions in Dst on 9 June 
and 10 June; the recovery was marked by a double plume (one per 
erosion phase) and the growth (0.2-0.4 RE/h) of a dayside shoulder.  
For event B, multiple density traces by IMAGE RPI, from successive 
perigee passes of the spacecraft were used to characterize refilling 
at 4 MLT and 16 MLT.

The session then featured five (5) scheduled presentations by 
Spasojevic, Maruyama, Lunjin Chen, Fraser, and Chi.  Spasojevic 
(presented by Goldstein) showed correlation between regions of cold, 
dense plasma (from IMAGE EUV and LANL MPA) and EMIC waves, either 
directly observed by GOES magnetometers, or inferred using the Blum et 
al. [2012] LANL plasma-based proxy.  Maruyama presented Challenge 
results from the coupled CTIP-RCM model, illustrating how ionosphere-
thermosphere (IT) coupling (i.e., neutral wind effects) enhances SAPS, 
and extends it to lower latitudes.  Chen modeled the propagation 
characteristics of EMIC waves, showing large wave growth for the 
guided mode, and within 10 degrees of the equator, and finding O+ band 
growth only during recovery, and H+ band growth throughout the storm, 
preferred for the guided mode and inside the plasmaspheric plume.  
Fraser presented GOES data for Event B, in which EMIC waves were 
unstructured in the outer magnetosphere, and structured closer in with 
dominant power in the He band and with polarization characteristics 
indicating propagating left-handed waves.  Chi used field line 
resonance (FLR) sounding to obtain ground-based remote-sensing 
measurements of the mass density distribution from 2006-2007, finding 
a dependence consistent with L to the -4 power, higher mass weighting 
at lower L, higher mass density in winter (consistent with a winter 
helium bulge), and a dayside density rise (presumably from ionospheric 
filling) that begins at noon MLT, rather than at the dawn terminator.  

PMI Breakout 3 	[1:30p]		    
Topic:  "GEM PMI Challenge II".
Session Chairs:  Zaharia, Maruyama

This was the second of two sessions dedicated to the sharing of first 
results from the PMI Modeling Challenge.  The session featured six (6) 
scheduled presentations by Ozhogin, R. Denton, Takahashi, Zaharia, 
Buzulukova, and Krall.  Ozhogin (presented by Denton) showed active 
RPI sounding measurements for the PMI Challenge, including 97 active 
traces, and the fitting parameters that specify the density inversion 
for both PMI Challenge events (and one additional LWS FST event); 
these fitting parameters are indexed at http://goo.gl/MmMqb.  The 
Ozhogin density fits specify a field-aligned dependence; for intervals 
with multiple sounding within a 1-RE distance, an L-shell dependence 
was also inferred.  Denton presented global refilling rates inferred 
from analysis of passive RPI data, for Event B, and the LWS FST event 
26 Nov-1 Dec 2001, finding respective L-dependent refilling rates of 
56,000 L^(-5.1) cm-3 per day, and 24x10^(1.8-0.42L) cm-3 per day.  
Takahashi (presented by Denton) used GOES 8 and 10 data to obtain mass 
density measurements for 2001 day 32-38, showing a gradual increase 
from 10 to 100 amu per cm3 that is consistent with a 2-phase refilling, 
and for Event A (8-11 June 2001), showing increased O+ in the 
plasmatrough to produce an apparently L-independent mass density.  
Zaharia presented RAM code plasmasphere simulations from 9 June 2001 
(Event A) for three different electric fields (Volland-Stern, Weimer, 
and RCM-embedded), finding the strongest plumes occurred in the self-
consistent (embedded RCM) E-field run.  Buzulukova presented CRCM 
simulations of Event A, with self-consistent E and dynamic Tsyganenko 
B, finding fairly reasonable agreement with the IMAGE EUV observations:  
although no dayside shoulder was observed, the wrapped plume from the 
recovery phase was fairly well reproduced.  Krall showed SAMI3 
preliminary (no neutral wind) model runs including a multi-species 
plasmasphere (H, O, He, and others), interhemispheric interactions, a 
Weimer E-field (plus corotation).  Sazykin presented RCM runs for 
Event A, in which the ring current injection caused nightside 
inflation of the cold plasma.  

PMI Breakout 4 	[3:30p]		    
Topic:  "Density, Waves, & Fields II".
Session Chairs:  Baker, Blum

PMI Breakout 4 was the second session focused on the density features 
of the plasmasphere, the dependence of wave growth and propagation on 
the presence or absence of cold plasma, and the fields that influence 
cold plasma evolution.  The session featured four (4) scheduled 
presentations by Erickson, Eun-Hwa Kim, Jo Baker, and Engebretson.  
Erickson (presented by Goldstein) showed observations of strong 
spatial and temporal E-field gradients and variability in the 
subauroral ionosphere within SAPS channels, seen in both low-altitude 
orbiting spacecraft and ground-based radar.  Kim showed the results of 
an finite element method (FEM), cold linearlized plasma wave modeling 
code with adaptive resolution, in which a plasmapsheric plume provided 
boundaries that confined wave energy, and using different wave 
perturbation methods (point source, field-aligned, and north-south 
asymmetric).  Baker showed conjugate (SuperDARN, north and south) mid-
latitude radar observations from the plasmasphere boundary layer (PBL) 
illustrating the determination of SAPS flow channels.  Engebretson 
presented and discussed ground-based and satellite (AMPTE, CRRES) 
observations to determine whether cold plasma is a preferred site for 
EMIC waves, finding modest agreement with a superposed epoch approach.  

Wednesday, 20 June 2012
PMI Breakout 5 	[1:30p]		    
Topic:  "Density, Waves, & Fields III".
Session Chairs:  Denton, Zhang

PMI Breakout 5 was the final PMI session, and the third session 
focused on the density features of the plasmasphere, the dependence of 
wave growth and propagation on the presence or absence of cold plasma, 
and the fields that influence cold plasma evolution.  The session 
featured six (6) scheduled presenters:  Zhang, Allen, R. Denton, Blum, 
Krall, and Brito. Zhang showed EMIC wave observations from Cluster for 
two events, (Z1) a weak main phase on 30 March 2002 and (Z2) the 
recovery phase of a super storm on 22 November 2003, extending the 
observations to higher energies using both CODIF and RAPID instruments.  
Allen compared observed Cluster (CODIF and RAPID) EMIC observations 
with the predictions of linear theory using the Blum et al. [2012] 
plasma proxy parameters, finding key differences between the two 
events.  Event Z1 had strong anisotropy, consistency with theory, and 
waves locally generated and still in the source region.  Event Z2 had 
weak anisotropy, inconsistency with theory, and the observations 
suggested non-local generation.  Denton presented statistical analysis 
of bulk H+ vs O+ composition using GOES Alfven waves and LANL MPA data, 
finding that with increased F10.7 and Dst magnitude, there is 
increased mass density and fractional O+ composition, but lower light 
ion density, and finding that both mass density and ion density 
increase in the afternoon MLT sector.  Blum presented a statistical 
comparison of the predictions of the LANL-MPA-based plasma proxy 
parameters, and directly-observed waves in GOES data, showing good 
correlation (in MLT and epoch time) between the two quantities.  Krall 
presented a preliminary "proof-of-concept" SAMI3 simulation including 
a Volland-Stern potential.  Brito showed 3D test particle simulations 
of the response of relativistic radiation belt electrons to shock-
induced ULF wave oscillations, finding that the ULF waves can cause 
electron precipitation on short time scales.  The simulation results, 
consistent with MINIS balloon data from 21 January 2005, finally 
explain these observations as resulting from ULF modulation of the 
loss cone angle, which can widen by as much as 40% from the large-
amplitude ULF waves.

Conclusions and Activities for the Coming Year

This year, several main science results were collectively presented.  
In the area of ion composition, several studies of mass density were 
presented, yielding new insight into the spatial relationships of the 
O+ torus, and of its effects on the growth and propagation of EMIC 
waves.  It was found that fine scale structure within plumes may have 
a measurable lower limit in scale size, hinting at the generation 
mechanism for this fine structure.  In the area of fields, updated 
electric field empirical models and observations, and the effect of 
self-consistent magnetic fields, were explored.  Finally, multiple 
case studies, simulations, and statistical results are explaining wave 
mode structure and its importance for hot particles, and are starting 
to converge on a consensus system-level picture of EMIC and chorus 
wave occurrence, growth, and propagation.

The PMI Modeling Challenge will feature reproduction of plasmaspheric 
dynamics for two selected events (see PMI Breakout 2 above), and 
modeling and observations of EMIC waves.  Led by Maria Spasojevic, all 
data and modeling/simulation results and participants are and will be 
found at two locations: 
•  http://vlf-sharealike.stanford.edu/~gem/
•  http://tinyurl.com/gempmi
The results of the GEM PMI Modeling Challenge will be presented at GEM 
2013, and published in a coordinated, linked series of papers, most 
likely in Journal of Geophysical Research.


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| To subscribe GEM Messengers, send an e-mail to                    |
|   <Majordomo@igpp.ucla.edu>                                       |
|   with the following command in the body of your e-mail message:  |
|      subscribe gem                                                |
| To remove yourself from the mailing list, the command is:         |
|      unsubscribe gem                                              |
|                                                                   |
| To broadcast a message to the GEM community, please contact       |
|   Peter Chi at <gemeditor at igpp.ucla.edu>                       |
|                                                                   |
| Please use plain text as the format of your submission.           |
|                                                                   |
| GEM Messenger is also posted online via newsfeed at               |
|   http://heliophysics.blogspot.com   and                          |
|   http://www.facebook.com/heliophysics                            |
|                                                                   |
| Back issues are available at ftp://igpp.ucla.edu/scratch/gem/     |
|                                                                   |
| URL of GEM Home Page:  http://aten.igpp.ucla.edu/gemwiki          |
| Workshop Information:  http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gem/index.html       |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+