Table of Contents
======================================================================
1. Message from SPA Advocacy Committee: Identifying Connections to 
   Home States

2. The GEM Student Representative Report

3. 2013 Workshop Report from Magnetosheath Focus Group (FG)

4. Post-doctoral Fellowship for Geomagnetically Induced Current 
   Effects (USGS)
======================================================================

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

                                                  Volume 23, Number 21
                                                        August 9, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Message from SPA Advocacy Committee: Identifying Connections to 
   Home States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harlan Spence <harlan.spence at unh.edu>

Dear Colleague:

As recently announced - see 
http://solarnews.nso.edu/current.html#section3 - the Space Physics & 
Aeronomy (SPA) Section of the American Geophysical Union has formed an 
SPA Advocacy Committee, tasked with advocating the scientific and 
other benefits of heliophysics research to key stakeholders.  A fairly 
obvious strategy involves strengthening connections with House and 
Senate members of the respective CJS (Commerce, Justice, and Science) 
Appropriations Committees (and their staff).  The members of these 
Appropriations Committee come from various states (see lists at 
http://appropriations.house.gov/about/members/commercejusticescience.htm
and http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/sc-commerce.cfm ), and each 
should be particularly receptive to advocacy from individuals that 
have a connection to his/her home state.

Now, it is rather straightforward for the SPA Advocacy Committee to 
identify individuals that WORK in particular states, but it is less 
straightforward to identify individuals who have other connections to 
these states (for example, individuals who have graduated from 
universities in those states). Therefore, I have a simple request - if, 
after reviewing the appropriations committee membership, you believe 
that you have a meaningful connection with one of the states 
represented on its membership, please sent me a short e-mail at:

SPA-Advocacy@guero.sr.unh.edu

indicating the nature of the connection.  For graduates, indicate the 
university(ies) from which you hold degrees and the years in which 
these degrees were earned.

Similar emails are going out simultaneously to the CEDAR and SolarNews 
communities, as well, so if you receive multiple requests, you need 
only respond to one request as the Advocacy committee will be 
coordinating responses.

Thanks in advance,
 - Harlan Spence

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The GEM Student Representative Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roxanne Katus <rkatus at umich.edu>

The GEM students had a great week in Snowmass. This year we had 78 
students, which made the students nearly 30% of the total attendees. 
The week began with student day on Sunday. We had an early morning 
icebreaker. Then several students presented tutorials. There were many 
great tutorials but the best student tutorial award went to Christine 
Gabrielse. Student day closed with a visit from the incoming and 
outgoing chairs of the steering committee, David Sibeck and Eric 
Donovan. Several students commented that they really enjoyed the 
informal meet and greet with them and hope that that continues in 
future years. 

On Monday we had a research area based discussion group before the 
student dinner. The students really appreciated this new gathering. 
The time allowed people to ask questions and discuss science with 
their peers. This encouraged students to practice talking about their 
research and meet people who work in the field during the student 
dinner.

The students gave a lot of good feedback. They really enjoyed doing 
the introductions to the plenary. The slots filled up very quickly. 
They also liked the new poster award. In particular they appreciated 
getting feedback on their posters. Thank you everyone who took the 
time to judge the student poster contest. The only complaint that 
students had was that the talks were very short. 

Finally, welcome new student representative Ian Cohen.

(Note: Presentations of student tutorials are available at the Student 
Forum page at GemWiki, 
http://aten.igpp.ucla.edu/gemwiki/index.php/GEM_Student_Forum )

----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 2013 Workshop Report from Magnetosheath Focus Group (FG)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Katariina Nykyri <nykyrik at erau.edu>

During 2012-2013 several publications relevant to the topics put 
forward in the GEM magnetosheath FG proposal and magnetosheath 
challenge have either been published or submitted. Magnetosheath FG 
sessions were well attended at both the Fall-AGU mini-GEM and the 
Summer GEM meeting. The summer workshop held two sessions and had nine 
speakers and few posters. We have listed two main conclusions for each 
speaker and have divided the talks under five different topics:  

   1. Magnetosheath Structure and Properties
   2. Impact of the Magnetosheath Properties on the Physical 
Mechanisms at the Magnetopause
   3. Magnetosheath and Magnetotail Structure at Lunar Distances (new 
results from Artemis mission)
   4. New Imaging Techniques of the Magnetosheath
   5. Magnetosheath and Cusps as a source for Magnetospheric Plasma

1.	Magnetosheath Structure and Properties 

Nick Omidi: ¡§Generation of large scale density and temperature 
structures in the MSH in global hybrid simulations¡¨: 1. Localized ion 
acceleration at quasi-parallel shocks results in the formation of 
large density and temperature structures in the MSH. The structures 
show anti-correlation between density and temperature and typically 
have no electromagnetic signatures. 2. The structures are more 
coherent at lower Mach numbers where the level of ULF turbulence in 
the sheath is low. 

Andrey Samsonov: ¡§Influence of IMF cone angle on MSH parameters: 
isotropic and anisotropic MHD results¡¨: 1. Magnetic field stronger on 
quasi-perpendicular shock side and for small cone angles; dawn side 
magnetosheath has smaller magnetic field strength. 2. For large cone 
angles, the magnetosheath is wider and has a larger discrepancy 
between anisotropic and isotropic MHD. Anisotropic MHD predicts growth 
of firehose instability in radial IMF cases. 

Katariina Nykyri: ¡§Statistical study of the MSH properties using 5 
years of THEMIS data¡¨: Statistical methodology addresses the motion of 
the magnetosheath boundaries, the bow shock and magnetopause. Results 
show that: 1. MSH at the quasi-parallel shock side is at least 10 
percent hotter than in the quasi-perp. side. 2. density, velocity and 
magnetic field profiles agree reasonably well with global MHD 
simulations except that quasi-perp. shock MSH is thicker and that no 
clear MSH density asymmetry was observed.   
 
Jean Berchem: ¡§3D Global Hybrid ¡V Global MHD Comparisons¡¨: 1. 
Northward IMF: Global MHD did not observe cusp flows. Higher 
temperature in magnetosphere in global MHD. 2. Southward IMF: Higher 
density for global MHD than for global hybrid. Greater magnetic field 
intensity erosion at the dayside in the global hybrid model, possibly 
due to a different reconnection rate. Higher temperature in the cusps 
for global MHD. 2. Impact of the MSH Properties on Physical Mechanisms 
at the Magnetopause 

Viacheslav Merkin: ¡§Kelvin-Helmholtz instability(KHI) of the 
magnetospheric boundary in a 3-dimensional global MHD simulation (LFM)  
during northward IMF conditions¡¨: 1. The KHI is not limited to low-
latitude boundary layer; high-latitude boundary layer also shows 
undulations; the surface modes are coupled to body modes; field-
aligned currents are generated on closed field lines in the inner part 
of the velocity shear layer. 2. Computed growth rates of the 
instability are in excellent agreement with the linear theory. 

3. Magnetosheath and Magnetotail Structure at Lunar Distances

David Sibeck: ¡§Global MHD simulations of the size and shape of the 
distant magnetotail (at lunar distances)¡¨: 1.  The anisotropic 
pressure of the IMF magnetic field lines flattens the dimensions of 
the magnetotail in the direction perpendicular to the IMF, but 
enhances these dimensions in the direction parallel to the IMF. 2. For 
a typical ecliptic IMF orientation, the northern and southern 
magnetosheath thicknesses are greater than the dawn and dusk 
magnetosheath dimensions.

Chih-Ping Wang: ¡§Unusual encounters with the magnetosheath within the 
nominal magnetotail¡¨: 1. Magnetosheath-like plasma can sometimes be 
observed by ARTEMIS well within the nominal magnetopause in the 
magnetotail (X < -40 Re). 2. The appearance of the magnetosheath-like 
plasma is usually short (from a few minutes to 10s of minutes). From 
one event of simultaneous observation by the two ARTEMIS spacecraft, 
the scale of the magnetosheath-like plasma is about 1 Re.

4. New Imaging Techniques of the MSH 

Brian Walsh: ¡§X-ray emissions from the Earth's MSH¡¨: 1. Soft X-rays 
are generated through charge-exchange and are emitted from the Earth's 
magnetosheath. 2. Modeling and instrument development show global 
images of the MSH and bow shock can be created through observing soft 
X-rays from charge exchange.

5. Magnetosheath and Cusps as a source for Magnetospheric Plasma

Ted Fritz: 1. High-energy electrons accelerated in the cusp appear to 
travel along the magnetopause to the magnetotail, coupling into the 
plasma sheet all along the distant dusk magnetopause.  The resulting 
pitch angle distributions can be used to infer the arrival time of 
these drifting electrons at the four Cluster satellites. 2. Modeled 
electron drift rates (295 km/s) are higher than 65 km/s drift rates 
computed from spacecraft timing of the arrival of one example of these 
electrons at three of the satellites separated in GSE-Y.  The 
technique should be very sensitive to establishing the large-scale 
configuration of the geomagnetic field and the role of the cross-tail 
electric field.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Post-doctoral Fellowship for Geomagnetically Induced Current 
   Effects (USGS) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Love <jlove at usgs.gov>

I'd like to draw your attention to a Mendenhall post-doctoral 
opportunity at the USGS. Developing regional to national 3D 
conductivity models from MT data is an important component of this 
work.

More information about this opportunity can be found at: 

http://geology.usgs.gov/postdoc/opps/2014/14-28%20Gannon.htm

General information on the Mendenhall post-doctoral program can be 
found at:

http://geology.usgs.gov/postdoc/opps/research.html

Applications will be accepted through Sep 20, 2013 and include a 
research proposal to be developed in coordination with the research 
advisors.  Interested applicants having received their PhD within the 
last 5 years are encouraged to apply. 

Weathering the storm: The ground-level response to geomagnetic 
disturbance - GICs and critical infrastructure

We seek a postdoctoral fellow with strong quantitative skills to 
advance USGS research related to Geomagnetically Induced Currects 
(GIC).The goal of this project is to extend and improve existing 
electric field models for GIC applications using this data, as well as 
pursue relevant scientific questions on the nature and statistics of 
electric fields induced by geomagnetic disturbances such as magnetic 
storms and substorms.

Direct measurement of electric fields for GIC studies is difficult due 
to the wide range of geological structure and variable nature of the 
induced fields over areas of interest. However, local or regional 
estimates are critical to providing accurate hazard assessments to end 
users who may be affected by ground-level electric field variation 
(for example, power utilities).  

The following data are available and may help in the pursuit of 
research under this Opportunity:

--Directly-measured GIC values from SUNBURST network monitors
--Directly-measured GIC values from interested power grid operators 
(e.g., Dominion Power in the Virginia/East Coast region)
--Electric field values calculated from system models based on the 
SUNBURST GIC data;
3-D crustal-scale conductivity structure for the northwestern U.S., 
derived from EarthScope USArray magnetotelluric data.
--Long-term historical and real-time preliminary magnetic field data 
from USGS magnetic observatories
--Local magnetic field information from variometer and academic 
magnetometer arrays across the United States.

Electric field estimates are typically calculated in the frequency 
domain using surface impedance estimates, derived from local ground 
conductivity models, and the spectral characteristics of the magnetic 
field driver. Some of the uncertainties and scientific topics the 
successful applicant may choose to pursue might include:

--How accurate is a local estimate of the magnetic field based on 
observatory inputs; how important are spatial variations in the 
magnetic field to GIC calculations?
--How well do interpolation methods work for magnetic field inputs to 
electric field calculations?
--Are the existing one-dimensional conductivity models sufficient? 
Where are more advanced models needed?
--How significant are coastal and other transverse variations in 
conductivity to GIC calculations?
--What are the possible electric field values and GIC impacts of 
extreme geomagnetic events?

Research Advisors:
Jeffrey Love, +1 303 273 8540, jlove@usgs.gov.
Paul Bedrosian, +1 303 236 4834, pbedrosian@usgs
Jennifer Gannon, +1 303 666 6738, gannonjl@gmail.com 
Andrei Swidinsky (Colorado School of Mines), +1 303 273 3934, 
aswidins@mines.edu


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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       |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+