gem - User contributions [en]

2016 GEM-CEDAR Workshop

2016-06-20T14:01:24Z

Sazykin:

'''The ''"Fluid"'' Speaker List'''

Below is a ''fluid'' list of speakers in GEM-related sessions provided by Focus Group Leaders. The information here serves as a rough guide for those who wish to know the most updated session plans. Due to the dynamic nature of the Workshop, Focus Groups may continue to revise their agenda as needed.

All other information about the 2016 Joint GEM-CEDAR Workshop can be found at [http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gem/index.html the GEM Meeting Coordinator Website] and [https://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Main the CEDARwiki 2016 Workshop Page].

== Monday, June 20 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

Location: SFCC Sweeney E/F

* '''Welcome''' by ''Josh Semeter, Mike Wiltberger, Students, Student Institutions, and Therese Moretto Jorgensen''

* '''Tutorial GC#1''' by ''Roger Varney'' -- Geospace electrodynamics

=== 1025-1200: Plenary Session ===

Location: SFCC Sweeney E/F

* '''Tutorial GC#2''' by ''Jesper Gjerloev'' -- Multiscale MI coupling

* '''Upcoming Session Info'''

=== 1330-1530: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] M3-I2: Merged Modeling & Measurement of Injection Ionospheric Plasma into the Magnetosphere and Its Effects ====

Location: SFCC Sweeney A

*MONDAY PM1 13:30-15:30 SFCC SWEENEY A
*Topic: Effects of Ionospheric Ion Injections on the Magnetosphere
*Chair: Barbara Giles Scribe: Vince Eccles
#Charles R. Chappell (Invited) - Status of Injection of Ionospheric Plasma into the Magnetosphere
#Daniel Welling (Invited) - Status of Modeling the Effects of Ion Injection into the Magnetosphere
*Short contributed presentations with discussion
#Barbara Giles - MMS Observations
#Matina Gkioulidou - Van Allen Probe Ring Current Observations
#Naritoshi Kitamura - MMS FPI Observations
*Open Floor Discussion (bring a slide)
#Questions & methodology on magnetosphere effects of ion outflow.
#Ring current
#Plasmapause
#Tail and Substorms

==== [FG] Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

Location: SFCC Sweeney C

This session will focus on kinetic physics in day- and night-side reconnection. With the recent launch of the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) satellites, there is already a wealth of new data on kinetic scale physics. Scene setting talks to frame relevant questions and generate discussion will include particle acceleration in dayside reconnection (Allison Jaynes, CU-Boulder) and how global/non-local physics impacts kinetic reconnection physics (John Dorelli, NASA-GSFC), both of which will include discussion of MMS data. Other speakers on dayside reconnection are (in no particular order) Joo Hwang, Sun Hee Lee, Richard Denton, Jan Egedal, Rishi Mistry, Kris Maynard, and Cong Zhao. In addition, we will have a discussion of magnetotail stability, with a scene setting talk on recent progress (Slava Merkin, JHU-APL). Other speakers on magnetotail reconnection are (in no particular order) Yongliang Zhang, Stefan Kiehas, Haoming Liang, Misha Sitnov, Andrei Runov, Joachim Birn, Phil Pritchett, and Tony Lui.

==== [FG] (Joint) Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection + Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====

Location: SFCC O'Keefe/Milagro/Kearny

*Topic: Impact of large-scale or transient electric fields on inner magnetosphere populations, and the role of particle precipitation of magnetospheric origin on the ionospheric electrodynamics
* Chairs: Stanislav Sazykin, Yiqun Yu
#Richard Selesnick: Control of the inner electron radiation belt by large-scale electric fields
#Sam Califf: Van Allen Probes observations of subauroral polarization streams (SAPS) electric fields
#Scott Thaller: Van Allen Probes investing of the night/dusk asymmetries of the plasmapause and dawn-dusk electric field, a synoptic study
#Joe Huba : Storm-time electrodynamics of the ionosphere/plasmasphere system using SAMI3/RCM
#Carlos Martinis: Coincident observations of all-sky images and Van Allen Probes
#Raluca Ilie: TBD
#Yiqun Yu: A new ionospheric precipitation module coupled with RAM-SCB in geospace general circulation model

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:GEM_CEDAR_Modeling_Challenge GEM-CEDAR Modeling Challenge] ====

Location: SFCC Sweeney B

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Particle_Precipitation Particle Precipitation and the Effects on Earth's Atmosphere] ====

Location: SFCC Coronado/DeVargas

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Data_Integration_in_Geospace Data Integration in Geospace] ====

Location: Eldorado, Zia

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:High_Latitude_Geospace_System Grand Challenge: The High-Latitude Geospace System] ====

Location: SFCC Sweeney E/F

=== 1600-1800: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] M3-I2: Merged Modeling & Measurement of Injection Ionospheric Plasma into the Magnetosphere and Its Effects ====

Location: SFCC Sweeney A

*MONDAY PM2 16:00-18:00 SFCC SWEENEY A (GEM-CEDAR JOINT SESSION)
*Topic: Polar Wind Models and the Ionospheric Boundary Definition
*Chair: Shasha Zou Scribe: Barbara Giles
#Roger Varney (Invited) - Ion Energization in Polar Wind Models
#George Khazanov (Invited) - Polar Wind M-I-T Coupling: Kinetic Versus Hydrodynamic
*Short contributed presentations with discussion
#Shunrong Zhang - ISR Campaigns
#Doug Roland - Vision Sounding Rocket
#Bruce Fritz - Renu Sounding Rocket
#Bill Peterson - ePoP
*Open Floor Discussion (bring a slide)
#Questions & methodology on ionospheric boundary layer and ion energization.
#F-region/topside ionosphere processes as lower boundary
#Polar wind
#Model-measurement comparisons

==== [FG] (Joint) Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere + Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====

Location: SFCC Sweeney C

==== [FG] ULF wave Modeling, Effects, and Applications ====

Location: Eldorado, Zia

*Topic: “Introducing the ULF wave modeling, effects, and applications focus group”
* Chairs: Michael Hartinger, Kazue Takahashi, and Brian Kress
#Michael Hartinger: Introduce UMEA FG, co-chairs
#Kazue Takahashi: ULF waves in the ring current: Source mechanisms and interaction with particles
#Mark Engebretson: EMIC waves
#Allison Jaynes: ULF wave modulation of VLF waves, precipitation, and the aurora
#Toshi Nishimura: ULF wave observation campaigns
#Seth Claudepierre: ULF wave interactions with the plasmasphere and modeling challenges
#Brian Kress: ULF wave modeling and radiation belt interactions
#Scot Elkington: ULF wave-particle interactions
#All: Discussion of open questions/challenges, 1-slide walk-ins
#Peter Chi: Global Poloidal modes
#Chih-Ping Wang: Pi2 waves

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:GEM_CEDAR_Modeling_Challenge GEM-CEDAR Modeling Challenge] ====

Location: SFCC Sweeney B

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Community_Input_for_new_NASA_missions Community Input for new NASA missions] ====

Location: SFCC Sweeney D

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Lidar_workshop_on_AIM_coupling Lidar workshop on AIM coupling] ====

Location: SFCC O'Keefe/Milagro/Kearny

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Exosphere_impacts_on_the_plasmasphere Exosphere impacts on the plasmasphere] ====

Location: SFCC Coronado/DeVargas

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Python_in_Space_Science Python in Space Science] ====

Location: SFCC Peralta/Lamy

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:High_Latitude_Geospace_System Grand Challenge: The High-Latitude Geospace System] ====

Location: SFCC Sweeney E/F

== Tuesday, June 21 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

Location: SFCC Sweeney E/F

* '''Agency Updates''' by ''Therese Moretto Jorgensen, Ruth Lieberman, Janet Kozyra, John Meriwether, Tom Berger, Dan Moses (NSF, NASA, NOAA)''

* '''Science Highlight #1''' by ''S. Ukhorskiy''-- MI precursor to earthquakes

* '''Science Highlight #2a''' by ''Forbes'' -- Electrical Connections and Consequences Within the Earth System: Project Overview

* '''Science Highlight #2b''' by ''Thayer'' -- Electrical Connections and Consequences Within the Earth System: A quasi-static Global Electric Circuit (GEC) Model in WACCM

=== 1025-1200: Plenary Session ===

Location: SFCC Sweeney E/F

* '''Portfolio Review''' by ''Bill Lotko, Dave Hysell, John Meriwether''

* '''Upcoming Session Info'''

=== 1330-1530: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
*Topic: “Radiation Belt (RB) particles and modeling”
* Chairs: Weichao Tu and Steve Morley
#Hong Zhao: On the relation between radiation belt electron fluxes and solar wind parameters/geomagnetic indices
#Xinlin Li: Radiation belt electron intensity variations: Van Allen Probes era vs. previous two solar cycles
#Ashley Jones: Secular drift of the SAA from SAMPEX particle counts
#Drew Turner: The source of inner zone electrons by sudden injections
#Shri Kanekal: Near-Instantaneous energization of radiation belt electrons by IP shocks, including the March 17 2015 event
#Dan Baker: The March and June 2015 storms and their implications for radiation belt models
#Mary Hudson: Simulations of the March 2013 and March 2015 Storms
#Vania Jordanova: Modeling the seed population of the radiation belts with SHIELDS
#Adam Kellerman: Recent development and performance of the data-assimilative VERB code
#Lutz Rastaetter: CCMC results for challenge events
#Suk-bin Kang: Modeling of dropout and drift loss to the magnetopause using CIMI model for GEM challenge event on June 1 2013
#Alexander Drozdov: Response of radiation belt simulations to different radial diffusion coefficients
#Sasha Ukhorskiy (walk-in)

==== [FG] (Joint) Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere + Dayside Kinetic Processes in Global Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Interaction ====

'''Dayside magnetopause processes and transport'''

Topics: Magnetopause reconnection, flux-transfer events, Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, magnetopause waves, and other boundary layer processes

#Sanni Hoilijoki: Dayside magnetopause reconnection using a hybrid-Vlasov simulation code Vlasiator
#Sun-Hee Lee: Inverse Energy Dispersion of Energetic Ions Observed in the Magnetosheath: the Extent of the Reconnection Line
#Xuanya Ma: Magnetic Reconnection with a super-fast perpendicular shear flow (simulation)
#Sasha Ukhorskiy: The role of KH instability in the magnetopause losses of energetic particles: Hight-resolution MHD-test-particle simulations
#Andrey Samsonov: Magnetopause positions for northward and southward IMF: comparison between empirical and MHD models
#Naritoshi Kitamura: Part1: Current status of Geotail and use of the data. Part 2: Shift of the magnetopause reconnection line to the winter hemisphere under southward IMF conditions: Geotail and MMS observations
#Eunjin Choi: TBD
#Chih-Ping Wang: Magnetopause perturbations in the mid-tail during steady N IMF: ARTEMIS observations and global MHD simulations

==== [FG] Modeling Methods and Validation (Joint with CEDAR-GEM Modeling Challenge) ====

'''Dan Welling''' - Ionospheric Conductance in Global MHD

'''Ryan McGranaghan''' - High-latitude conductance observations and data assimilation

'''Contributed talks for conductance discussion'''
*'''Slava Merkin''' - Ionospheric turbulence contribution to conductivity and global effects

Followed by discussion of GEM Conductance Challenge

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:GEM_CEDAR_Modeling_Challenge GEM-CEDAR Modeling Challenge] ====

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Crowd_to_Cloud Crowd to Cloud: Exploiting Crowd-Sourced Data for Geospace Science] ====

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:MIT_Coupling_Drivers_and_Impacts MIT Coupling Drivers and Impacts] ====

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Quo_Vadis Exploring the Geospace Frontier: Quo Vadis?] ====

== Wednesday, June 22 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

Location: Eldorado, Anasazi

* '''GEM Tutorial #1''' by ''James Smith'' -- System science tutorial

* '''GEM Tutorial #2''' by ''Marc Lessard'' -- Aurora and ionosphere/thermosphere coupling

=== 1025-1200: Plenary Session ===

Location: Eldorado, Anasazi

* '''GEM Tutorial #3''' by ''Maria Usanova'' -- Student invited tutorial

* '''Upcoming Session Info'''

=== 1330-1530: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail Environment and Dynamics at Lunar Distances + Modeling Methods and Validation ====
Mid-Tail Modeling Challenge: A prolonged N IMF event from 13 to 14 Feb 2014

'''Chih-Ping Wang:''' Overview of the event

'''Joseph Jensen:''' OpenGGCM

'''Slava Merkin:''' LFM

'''Ilja Honkonen:''' GUMICS

'''Xueyi Wang:''' Auburn University Global Hybrid code

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
*Topic: “Waves and local interactions”
*Chairs: Wen Li and Jay Albert
#Louis Ozeke: Quantifying the ULF wave radial diffusion coefficients using global ground based magnetometer measurements for each of the GEM challenge events
#Jean-Francois Ripoll: Reproducing the observed energy-dependent structure of Earth’s electron radiation belts during storm recovery with an event-specific diffusion model
#Irina Zhelavskaya: Automated determination of electron density from electric field measurements on the Van Allen Probes spacecraft using neural networks
#Xiangning Chu: Observation and neural network modeling of the refilling plasmasphere
#Dave Hartley: Quantifying the variable sheath impedance of the Van Allen Probes EFW instrument using whistler-mode waves
#Wen Li: New chorus wave properties near the equator from Van Allen Probes wave observations
#Homayon Aryan: Average chorus scale size
#Jinxing Li: Coherent Whistler Waves Simultaneously Observed in Unexpectedly Large Spatial Scale
#Jacob Bortnik: The observed and simulated saturation characteristics of chorus waves
#Lunjin Chen: Evaluation of electron pitch angle scattering rates based on observed EMIC waves
#Xiaojia Zhang: The statistical distribution of EMIC wave spectra using Van Allen Probes observations
#Xiangrong Fu: Modeling EMIC wave properties: linear theory and hybrid simulation
#Oleksiy Agapitov

==== [FG] (Joint) Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures + ULF wave Modeling, Effects, and Applications + Dayside Kinetic Processes in Global Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Interaction ====

'''Magnetospheric signatures of dayside transients'''

'''Heli Hietala'''- Impact rates of magnetosheath high speed jets (to discuss observational inputs required for magnetospheric models)

'''Hui Zhang''' – HFA generated ULF waves in the magnetosphere

'''Boyi Wang''' - Triggering of poleward moving auroral forms by satellite-imager coordinated observations

'''Boyi Wang''' - Response of dayside aurora on closed field lines to solar wind driving

'''Desheng Han''' - Throat aurora: the ionospheric signature of cold magnetospheric plasmas interaction with the dayside magnetopause reconnection

'''Alexa Halford''' - BARREL observations of the open closed boundary

'''Slava Merkin''' - Energetic particles losses through KHI at the magnetopause

'''Mike Hartinger'''- Inter-hemispheric (Antarctica/Greenland magnetometers) comparisons of the response to an interplanetary shock

Reserve time to brainstorm on how to connect the future activities of the new Dayside Kinetics and ULF Wave FGs

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:MIT_Coupling_Drivers_and_Impacts MIT Coupling Drivers and Impacts] ====

== Thursday, June 23 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

Location: SFCC Sweeney E/F

* '''Tutorial GC#3''' by ''Phil Erickson'' -- Cold plasma effect

* '''Science Highlight GC#4''' by ''Paul Cassak'' -- A Summary of Results from Year 1 of the Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) Mission

* '''Science Highlight GC#5''' by ''Brian Walsh'' -- Reconnection

* '''Science Highlight GC#6''' by ''Eftyhia Zesta'' -- LWS TR&T

=== 1025-1200: Plenary Session ===

Location: SFCC Sweeney E/F

* '''Tutorial GC#4''' by ''Shasha Zou'' -- Dynamic Ionospheric Convection: Drivers and Effects

* '''Upcoming Session Info'''

=== 1330-1530: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
(Sweeney A)

'''Substorm event presentation & discussion'''
*'''Larry Lyons'''
*'''Larry Kepko'''
*'''Tony Lui'''

'''Short contributed talks'''
*'''Dick Wolf''': Kelvin-Helmholtz instability and interchange stability in a growth-phase arc
*'''Eric Donovan''': Evolution and mapping of substorm onset arc
*'''Shin Ohtani''': PBI-polar cap flow connection
*'''Misha Sitnov''': Distinguish between roles as triggers of the substorm instability and drivers
*'''Larry Kepko''': Statistical analysis of substorm onset and auroral streamers
*'''Liz MacDonald''': Aurorasaurus--Auroral beads seen by citizen scientists

==== [FG] (Joint) M3-I2: Modeling Methods and Validation + Dayside Kinetic Processes in Global Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Interaction ====

'''Kick-off session of the first dayside modelling challenge'''

* Heli Hietala: Introduction to the focus group and overview of the challenge
* Yuxi Chen (student): MHD-EPIC and its application for Earth's magnetopause
* Sanni Hoilijoki (student): global hybrid-Vlasov simulation Vlasiator
* Naritoshi Kitamura: overview of two MMS-Geotail conjunctions
* Heli Hietala: list of THEMIS-Cluster-Geotail conjunctions
* Andrew Dimmock: THEMIS statistics of magnetosheath properties

Followed by open discussion on science priorities, specs and metrics

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:suprathermal_particles Origin and effects of suprathermal particles in the MI system] ====

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Data_Assimilation_for_Space_Weather Data Assimilation for Space Weather] ====

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Geospace_Empirical_Models Geospace Empirical Models] ====

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:MIT_Coupling Grand Challenge: Storms and Substorms Without Borders] ====

=== 1600-1800: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
(Cont'd from the 13:30-15:30 session, Sweeney A)

'''Substorm event presentation & discussion'''
*'''Larry Lyons'''
*'''Larry Kepko'''
*'''Tony Lui'''

'''Short contributed talks'''
*'''Dick Wolf''': Kelvin-Helmholtz instability and interchange stability in a growth-phase arc
*'''Eric Donovan''': Evolution and mapping of substorm onset arc
*'''Shin Ohtani''': PBI-polar cap flow connection
*'''Misha Sitnov''': Distinguish between roles as triggers of the substorm instability and drivers
*'''Larry Kepko''': Statistical analysis of substorm onset and auroral streamers
*'''Liz MacDonald''': Aurorasaurus--Auroral beads seen by citizen scientists

==== [FG] Tail Environment and Dynamics at Lunar Distances ====
'''1. Gabor Facsko:''' Properties of the solar wind near the Moon in the magnetotail

'''2. Peter Chi:''' Waves at ion gyrofrequencies in the magnetotail: ARTEMIS observations near the Moon

'''3. Anton Artemyev:''' Conjugated observations of magnetotail by THEMIS, Geotail, and ARTEMIS spacecraft

'''4. Chih-Ping Wang:''' ARTEMIS-THEMIS tail conjunctions: initiating next modeling challenge for connection between mid-tail and near-Earth magnetosphere

'''5. Shin Ohtain:''' Poleward boundary intensification and polar-cap flows

'''6. Simon Wing:''' DMSP observations of polar-cap boundary during the 2014-02-13 N IMF event

'''7. Chih-Ping Wang:''' ULF waves at mid-tail and ground magnetic field during the 2014-02-13 N IMF event

==== [FG] (Joint) ULF wave Modeling, Effects, and Applications + Modeling Models and Validation ====
*Topic: “ULF wave modeling”
*Chairs: Michael Hartinger and Lutz Rastaetter
#Bob Lysak: ULF waves at the terminator under solstice conditions
#Mike Hartinger: Magnetopause surface eigenmodes
#Colin Komar: Capturing the Drift Resonant Interaction in a Bounce-Averaged Kinetic Model
#Rualdo Soto: RBSPICE measurements of ring current ion modulations of pc5 waves
#Lutz Rastaetter: TBD
#All: discussion of the ongoing modeling challenge, open discussion of other challenges

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:Making_sense_of_geospace_observations Making sense of high-latitude geospace observations: modeling, data fusion and assimilation] ====

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:none Coupling between the atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetosphere through tropospheric and magnetospheric sources] ====

==== [GEM-CEDAR] [http://cedarweb.vsp.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/2016_Workshop:MIT_Coupling Grand Challenge: Storms and Substorms Without Borders] ====

== Friday, June 24 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

Location: Eldorado, Anasazi

* '''GEM Tutorial #4''' by ''Bob Lysak'' -- ULF wave modeling

* '''GEM Tutorial #5''' by ''Mike Hartinger'' -- ULF wave observations

=== 1025-1200: Plenary Session ===

Location: Eldorado, Anasazi

* '''GEM Tutorial #6''' by ''Hui Zhang'' -- SWMI

=== 1330-1530: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] M3-I2: Merged Modeling & Measurement of Injection Ionospheric Plasma into the Magnetosphere and Its Effects ====

*FRIDAY PM1 13:30-15:30 SFCC SWEENEY A (CEDAR scientists invited)
*Topic: Planning for M3-I2 Focus Area: 5-Year Plan and 1-Year Plan (Must attend to influence plans!)
*Chair: Vince Eccles Scribe: Shasha Zou
#Bob Strangeway - What are the Questions of Ion Injection and Magnetospheric Response
# TBA
*Short contributed presentations with discussion.
#Vince Eccles - Summary of Monday Sessions
#Naritoshi Kitamura - Model and Measurement Comparisons of Ion Outflow
*OPEN FLOOR for 5-year plan (bring a slide)
#Questions to address
#Methodologies to address questions (quiet time and storms)
#Specific collaborations (meetings, with other focus groups, challenges)
#Desired products (GGCM, reports, special sections)
*OPEN FLOOR for 1-year plan (bring a slide)
#AGU session [https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm16/preliminaryview.cgi/Session12921|SM014. Ion Upflow/Outflow Physics and Their Effects on the Coupled Magnetosphere-Ionosphere System]
#Specific period studies for models and measurements

==== [FG] (Joint) Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling + ULF wave Modeling, Effects, and Applications ====
*Topic: “ULF waves and nonlocal transport”
*Chairs: Jay Albert and Kazue Takahashi
#Greg Cunningham: Radial diffusion in non-dipolar background fields
#Theodore Sarris: Quantifying outer belt electron radial diffusion based on Van Allen Probes data and test particle simulation
#Wen Li (walk-in): The potential importance of pitch angle dependence in DLL
#Anthony Chan: Evaluation of Drift-Shell-Splitting Effects using 3D Diffusion Modeling
#Qianli Ma: Radial intrusion of energetic electrons in the slot region
#Solene Lejosne: Modulations of the electric drift below L~3 due to the ionosphere dynamo
#Yan Song: The role of ULF waves in the particle acceleration
#Mike Hartinger: Globally coherent ULF waves: azimuthal wave numbers and other properties

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topics: wave-particle interactions
#Mark Engebretson: Location of EMIC Wave Events Relative to the Plasmapause: Van Allen Probes Observations
#Delong Wang: Geomagnetic Storms and EMIC waves: Van Allen Probe Observations and Related Calculations.
#Anthony Saikin: Testing Linear Theory on EMIC waves observed by Van Allen Probes
#Jichun Zhang: EMIC waves and associated relativistic electron precipitation on 25-26 January 2013
#Kaijun Liu: Ion Bernstein instability dependence on the proton-to-electron mass ratio: linear dispersion theory

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====

Location: Sweeney D

Speakers:

1. '''Slava Merkin'''

2. '''Misha Sitnov'''

3. '''Dan Baker:''' “Van Allen Probes and MMS combined studies of substorm injections"

4. '''Christine Gabrielse'''

5. '''W. Douglas Cramer:''' “Importance of Ring Current Plasma Transport Mechanisms in the Magnetotail”

==== [FG] Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

This session will begin by completing any presentations that were not finished during the Monday 1:30pm session. There will be presentations by Kai Germaschewski and Amitava Bhattacharjee on incorporating multi-fluid and kinetic effects into global models and an update by Yi-Hsin Liu on efforts to incorporate kinetic modeling into NASA’s CCMC. In the remaining time, there will be an open forum for discussion of topics about reconnection in the magnetosphere and a discussion on topics of interest for next year and the potential future of the reconnection focus group beyond when the current version ends next year.

=== 1600-1800: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Merged Modeling & Measurement of Injection Ionospheric Plasma into the Magnetosphere and Its Effects ====

*FRIDAY PM2 16:00-18:00 SFCC SWEENEY A
*Topic: Planning for M3-I2 Focus Area
*Chair: Vince Eccles Scribe: Shasha Zou
*Continued discussion if necessary

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
*Topic: “RB "dropout" and "buildup" challenges and future plans”
*Chairs: Steve Morley and Wen Li
#Hui Zhu: Long-term relativistic radiation belt simulation with VERB code: using various parameterizations
#Nikita Aseev: Understanding the dynamics of electrons at GEO
#Yi-Jiun Su: Formation of the inner electron radiation belt by enhanced large-scale electric fields during the March 2013 storm
#Qianli Ma: Magnetosonic waves during the challenge events
#Weichao Tu: Low-altitude electron distributions during the challenge events
#Jay Albert: LCDS calculations for the challenge events
#Ashar Ali (by Scot Elkington): DLL quantification using Van Allen Probes Data
#Steve Morley on behalf of FG: Summary of challenge event resources

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topics: interactions between plasma and electric/magnetic fields in the mid-tail to inner magnetosphere/ionosphere region
#Jiang Liu: Depolarization flux boudle’s (DFB) role in exciting inner magnetospheric injections
#Yiqun Yu: The effect of ionospheric conductance on magnetotail dynamics
#Thiago Brito: Ion fluxes at geosynchronous orbit from backwards tracing simulations
#Colby Lemon: TBD
#Bing Yang: Storm-time convection dynamics viewed from optical aurora: from Streamers to Patch Pulsating Aurora
#Cristian Ferradas: Temporal evolution of ion spectral structures during a geomagnetic storm: observations and modeling
#Jichun Zhang : Electron spectral features: observations and simulations

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====

'''Xiangning Chu and Bob McPherron:''' Association of substorm onset lists with each other and with fast flow in the plasma sheet

'''Banafhseh (Bashi) Ferdousi:''' Mapping plasma sheet flows from the magnetosphere to the ionosphere

'''Nadine Kalmoni:''' Dynamics of the onset arc

'''Eric Grono and Eric Donovan:''' Analysis of the motion of aurora in the red line (REGO) imagers

'''Bob Lysak:''' Plasma bubbles and M-I coupling

'''Kyle Murphy:''' Statistical analysis of auroral motion during the growth and expansion phase

'''Jiang Lui:''' Plasma sheet--a source of both R1 and R2 Birkeland currents

'''Toshi Nishimura:''' Similarities and differences between auroral streamers during isolated, active and non substorm times

'''Katie Garcia-Sage:''' Magnetotail modeling and plasma sheet flows

'''Jian Yang:''' RCM perspective of growth phase bubbles and streamers

==== [FG] (Joint) Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures + Dayside Kinetic Processes in Global Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Interaction ====

'''Kinetic and transient processes in the foreshock, bow shock, and magnetosheath'''

'''Terry Liu''' - Observations of a new foreshock region upstream of a foreshock bubble's shock

'''Sanni Hoilijoki''' - Magnetopause-foreshock interactions induced by dayside reconnection

'''Heli Hietala''' - Growth rate and properties of ion beam generated foreshock ULF waves - ARTEMIS observations

'''Andrey Samsonov''' - Can we predict magnetospheric expansion for radial IMF using MHD codes?

'''Hui Zhang''' - A statistical study on Hot Flow Anomaly Current Sheets

2015 Summer Workshop

2015-06-18T15:47:07Z

Sazykin: /* [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection */

'''June 14-19 2015'''

'''Viceroy Hotels, Resorts & Residences, Snowmass, Colorado'''

Below is a ''fluid'' list of speakers provided by the GEM Workshop Coordinator and Focus Groups. The information here serves as a rough guide for those who wish to know the most updated session plans. Due to the nature of the GEM Workshop, Focus Groups may continue to revise their agenda as needed.

All other information about the 2015 Summer Workshop can be found at the [http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gem/index.html GEM Meeting Coordinator Website].

== Monday, June 15 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MPS tutorial''' by ''Toshi Nishimura'' -- Fast flow channels in the magnetotail and auroral oval: Reconnection, substorm and beyond
* '''GSM tutorial''' by ''Alex Glocer'' -- Global modeling of the space environment system

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Tail Environment and Dynamics at Lunar Distances ====

* Hui Zhang: Transient phenomena at tail Bow shock and magnetopause
* Sheng-Hsien Chen: K-H at the magnetopause and waves at LLBL
* Denny Oliveria: Tail response to interplanetary shocks
* Tim Stubbs (presented by David Sibeck): Mid-tail structure
* Rob Fear: Magnetotail structure associated with transpolar arcs
* Peter Chi: Ion cyclotron waves at the Moon and their connection to the plasma sheet and the lunar exosphere
* Ivan Vasko:Geotail observations in mid and distant tail
* Andrei Runov: Reconnection in the mid-tail
* John Lyon: LFM simulation of bubble formation in mid-tail during growth phase
* Joe Borovsky: The role of mid-tail in Geospace Systems Science

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models'''

* Bob Schunk: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 1 (15 min)
* Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 2 (15 min)
* Abdallah Barakat: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 3 (15 min)
* Dan Welling: Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models (20 min)
* Katie Garcia-Sage: MFLFM Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Simulation Results (20 min)
* Bill Lotko: Overview of Recent LFM Modeling and Thoughts for the Future (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Larry Lyons: Review--Hybrid scenario
*Mike Henderson: Review--Inside-out scenario
*Larry Kepko: Review--Outside-in scenario
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Yukinaga Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Phil Pritchett: Comments from modeler
*Joachim Birn: Comments from modeler
*Misha Sitnov: Comments from modeler
*Mostafa El-Alaoui: Comments from modeler
*Walk-ins welcome.

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 1 (Mon, 01:30-03:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Radiation Belt (RB) observations and modeling results”

''Chairs: Weichao Tu and Steve Morley''

:1. Mary Hudson: Recent simulation of the 'St Patrick's Day storm'
:2. Alexander Drozdov: The VERB code modeling of the St. Patrick’s day Storm
:3. Dan Baker: Impenetrable Barrier during March 17 2015 storm
:4. Allison Jaynes: Fast diffusion of ultra-relativistic electrons: 17 March 2015 storm event
:5. Thiago Brito: Simulations on Radiation Belt Electron Precipitation Response to ULF Waves
:6. Drew Turner: Storm-time analysis of RB
:7. Xinlin Li: Deep Injections of 10s – 100s of keV electrons (RBSP observations)
:8. Jay Albert: Modeling “peculiar” pitch angle distributions with MS waves

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models Compared to Observations'''

* Dan Welling: Merged Ionos-Magnetosphere Models for GEM Storms (15 min)
* Lynn Kistler: Cluster Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Joe Borovsky: LANL Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Stein Haaland: The Estimation of Cold Plasma Outflow During Storms (20 min)
* Discussion

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Robert McPherron: Point Processes: Association of Lists
*Nadine Kalmoni: Auroral dispersion relation
*Kyle Murphy: tools and methods
*Eric Donovan: Circle grams

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 2 (Mon, 03:30-05:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Various magnetospheric wave characteristics and their global distribution required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Wen Li and Jay Albert''

:1. Ashar Ali: Radial Diffusion Coefficients Using E and B Field Data from the Van Allen Probes
:2. Seth Claudepierre: Advertisement for the GEM ULF Wave Challenge
:3. Xinlin Li: Relation between ULF and radial diffusion of RB electrons
:4. Lauren Blum: The relationship between EMIC waves and radiation belt electron precipitation
:5. Wen Li: Global distribution of chorus wave intensity using the statistical model and POES technique
:6. Jay Albert: Nonlinear wave-particle interaction
:7. Qianli Ma: Evaluation of electron scattering due to typical magnetosonic waves using analytical formula
:8. Lunjin Chen: The effect of bounce resonance with magnetosonic waves on the radiation belt electrons
:9. Oleksiy Agapitov: Storm-induced energization and losses of radiation belt electrons: Effects of wave obliquity

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Inter-Model Comparison for GEM Storm Periods and New Measurements'''

* Continued Discussion of Merged Models and Measurements Comparison
* Naritoshi Kitamura: Ion Outflow Topics (20 min)
* Roger Varney: Hysteresis Effects in Coupled MFLFM-IPWM Models (15 min)
* Barbara Giles: Initial Plasma Measurements from MMS (20 min)
* Jonathan Krall: Ion Fluxes Into and Out of a Model Plasmasphere During Storm and Plasmasphere Refilling During Quiet Time (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Vassilis Angelopoulos: HSO
*FG learders: Future planning

== Tuesday, June 16 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Weichao Tu'' -- Quantitative Modeling of Radiation Belt Dynamics: Overview and Challenges
* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Seth Claudepierre'' -- Van Allen Probes: Where We've Been and Where We're Going

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 3 (Tue, 10:30-12:15 PM, Salon 2):''' “Seed populations, plasma density, and magnetic field configuration required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Jay Albert and Weichao Tu''

:1. Natalia Ganushkina: Low energy electrons in the inner magnetosphere
:2. Mick Denton: An empirical model of electron and ion fluxes derived from observations at geosynchronous orbit
:3. Alex Boyd: Quantifying the Radiation Belt Seed Population During the Van Allen Probes Era
:4. Jian Yang: RCM-E simulation of energetic electron injections during an idealized storm
:5. Oleksiy Agapitov: Time Domain Structures: generation mechanisms and effects for electrons
:6. Xiangrong Fu: Double layers associated with electron/ion acoustic waves
:7. James McCollough: DSX is still happening
:8. Alex Crew: New results from FIREBIRD II
:9. Quintin Schiller: A novel technique to apply electron lifetimes to radial diffusion models

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''General Discussion of Modeling and Observations and Focus Group Planning'''

* Yuri Omelchenko: Global Multiscale Magnetospheric Simulations: HYPERS (15 min)
* John Wygant: The Powering of Highly Efficient Poynting Flux-Driven Wind Using Polar Spacecraft Measurements (15 min)
* Bruce Fritz: Ion Upflow Dependence on Ionospheric Density and Solar Photoionization (15 min)
* Bill Peterson: A New Look at DE-1 Escaping Ion Observations at Non-Storm Times (10 min) -- Accompanying poster by Kristina Lu

==== [FG] (Joint) Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms + Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Shin Ohtani - Morphological mapping based on the stability of the magnetotail
*Emma Spanswick - Riometer injection
*Elizabeth Roy - Open-closed boundary
*Jiang Liu - Current wedge structuring
*Chao Yue - 3-D magnetic field modeling
*Chu Xiangning "how does flux transport and pileup change mapping during substorms? "

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 4 (Tue, 01:30-03:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “RB "dropout" and "buildup" challenges and Planning for future activities”

''Chairs: Steve Morley and Wen Li''

General short presentations (01:30-02:15 PM)

:1. Yuri Shprits: Recent results of the reanalysis
:2. Brian Kress: Observations and modeling of rebuilding during storms
:3. Zhao Li: 3D test-particle simulation of the 17-18 March, 2013 CME-shock driven storm
:4. Shri Kanekal and Dan Baker: Electron bursts during 17 March 2015 storm

"Dropout" and "Buildup" Challenges (02:15-03:00 PM)
:5. Drew Turner: Candidate “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:6. QARBM FG leaders: Discussion of “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:7. Open discussions and plan for future FG activities

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

The two SIMIC sessions on Tuesday afternoon will focus mainly on the chosen events: 2013-03-17 and 2012-11-01 storms

A tentative list of presenters:
<Presentation titles omitted>

# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Lyons/Nishimura/Gallardo (UCLA)
# Bea Gallardo (UCLA)
# Rick Wilder (LASP)
# Margaret Chen (Aerospace)
# Gang Lu (NCAR)
# Jonathan Krall (NRL)
# Lois Smith (Michigan)
# Alex Glocer for Mei-Ching Fok (NASA)
# Mike Liemohn and Roxanne Katus (Michigan)
# Yiqun Yu and Vania Jordanova (LANL)
# Elizabeth MacDonald (GSFC)
# Bob Lysak (Univ. Minnesota)
# Mike Schulz
# James Weygand (UCLA)
# Phil Valek (SwRI)
# Brian Anderson (JHU/APL)

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Vassilis Angelopoulos (TIMI), Pontus Brandt (TIMI), John Lyon (TIMI), Frank Toffoletto (TIMI), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene Setting talks
:1. Joachim Birn
:2. Jim Drake

Contributed talks (amended to reflect order of talks in the session)
:1. Phil Pritchett - structure of reconnection flow jets
:2. Joo Hwang (by David Sibeck) - recent MMS observations of dipolarization fronts
:3. Misha Sitnov - temperature increase at dipolarization fronts
:4. Haoming Liang (w/Ashour-Abdalla and Walker) - oxygen effects on dipolarization fronts
:5. Mike Wiltberger - flow channels in global MHD simulations
:6. Yu Lin - global hybrid simulation of the storm-time magnetotail and reconnection flux ropes

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling + Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
'''Session 5 (Tue, 03:30-05:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Joint session with “Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions” FG”

''Chairs: Jichun Zhang and Weichao Tu

:1. Wen Li: Quantitative simulation of radiation belt electron dynamics using 3D diffusion code
:2. Yuri Shprits: Combined Convective and Diffusive Simulation: VERB-4D Results
:3. Xiangrong Fu: Modeling EMIC wave generation from ring current ions
:4. Anthony Saikin: The geomagnetic condition dependence of the spatial distributions of EMIC waves observed by the Van Allen Probes
:5. Jacob Bortnik: Generation of chorus waves in a lab plasma
:6. Xin An: Linear excitation of whistler waves
:7. Shuo Wu: Hybrid Code Simulations of Whistler Waves in Compressed Dipole Field
:8. Chih-ping Wang: Multi-point observation of ULF waves

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Continuing the [http://gem.epss.ucla.edu/mediawikiwiki/index.php/2015_Summer_Workshop#.5BFG.5D_Storm-time_Inner_Magnetosphere-Ionosphere_Convection SIMIC session at 1330-1500].

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Time Lags in Solar Wind-Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Interactions”

speakers will include

Mick Denton: mass transport

Bob McPherron: physical interpretation of time lags

Roger Varney: ionospheric outflow

Shin Ohtani: circuit timescales

Bob Clauer: ionospheric convection

Audience Discussion

== Wednesday, June 17 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''Agency report''' by ''Vladimir Papitashvili'' -- Introduction
* '''Agency report''' by ''Janet Kozyra'' -- NSF GEM Program
* '''Agency report''' by ''Howard Singer'' -- NOAA Agency Report
* ''Bill Lotko'' -- Overview of NSF AGS Portfolio Review and Discussion

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "wave-particle interactions"

June 17, Wednesday 10:30-12:15pm

# Mark Engebretson (Challenge event) - Van Allen probes, NOAA, and ground observations of an intense Pc 1 wave event extending 12 hours in MLT and its resulting depletion of the outer radiation belt
# Justin Lee (Challenge event) - Discussion of Wave-Particle Interactions during the 18-22 Feb 2014 Storm
# Michael Hartinger -The effect of azimuthal wave number on ULF wave-particle interactions
# Chen Zhou - Excitation of Dayside Chorus Waves due to Magnetic Field Line Compression in Response to Interplanetary Shocks
# Homayon Aryan - The distribution of plasmaspheric Hiss and Chorus waves in the inner magnetosphere as functions of geomagnetic activity and solar wind parameters
# Robert Allen - Statistical study of EMIC waves observed by Cluster
# Konstantin Gamayunov - Multiscale nature of electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave development in Earth’s magnetosphere
# Vania Jordanova - RAM-SCB simulations of plasma wave dynamics
# Adam Kellerman - Forecasting the Earth’s radiation environment with GREEP and VERB: a synthesis of empirical- and physics-based modeling across multiple energies and spatial regions

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Foreshock and Magnetosheath Phenomena

1. Zixu Liu "THEMIS observations of tangential discontinuity-driven foreshock bubbles"

2. Nick Omidi (presented by Jean Berchem) “Impacts of SHFAs on the Magnetosheath & Magnetopause”

3. Hui Zhang "Evolution of HFAs: Cluster Observations"

4. Olga Gutynska “Density enhancements in the magnetosheath: comparison with simulations”

5. Narges Ahmadi “Effects of Electron Anisotropy in Mirror Instability Evolution in the Magnetosheath”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #1: Magnetopause crossing challenge and additional M&V contributions'''

* Lutz Rastaetter: Overview and initial results from the Magnetopause Crossing Challenge
* Mike Wiltberger: Magnetopause dynamics during the March 17th, 2013 event
* Rob Redmon: The future of GOES: Magnetic field and particle observation and modeling to determine magnetopause crossings
* Mike Liemohn: Assessment of the CCMC Experimental Real-time SWMF-Geospace Results
* Dan Welling: Model skill as a function of solar wind driving.
* Ilja Honkonen: Data / Model comparisons with GUMICS

''' M&V Wrap up: Recent highlights and future plans for Metrics & Validation at GEM'''
* Howard Singer dicussion lead

==== [Special] HSO coordination ====
''Discussions on science and campaigns for the upcoming HSO satellite-ground coordination.''
*Vassilis Angelopoulos (Intro, an overview and THEMIS-MMS coordination, THEMIS plans)
*Toshi Nishimura (a PPT on coordination: times, geometry, tentative assets)
*Marilia Samara (on MMS and ground based?)
*Brian Anderson (AMPERE)
*Eric Donovan (TREx)
*Stephen Mende (AGOs)
*Jo Baker (SuperDARN)
*Yukinaga Miyashita (ERG)
*Naritoshi Kitamura (Geotail)
*Sasha Ukhorsky (Van Allen Probes)
*Marc Lessard (WAIS)
*Peter Chi (ULTIMA)
*Drew Turner, Seth Claudepierre, Jacob Bortnik, Mike Hartinger, Shin Ohtani, Jimmy Raeder, Wen Li, Bill Lotko, Rick Chappell, Liz McDonald, Frank Toffoletto, Paul Cassak (Science comments)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "plasma-field coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 1:30-3:00pm

# Lois Smith - Plasmaspheric Suprathermal Heating from Cyclotron Resonance with Equatorial Noise
# Raluca Ilie - Calculating the Inductive electric fields in the terrestrial magnetosphere
# Samuel Califf - Van Allen Probes observations of SAPS during the 28 June 2013 geomagnetic storm
# Hong Zhao - The evolution of ring current ion energy density and energy content during geomagnetic storms based on Van Allen Probes measurements
# Jichun Zhang - “Trunk-like” heavy ion structures observed by the Van Allen Probes
# Cristian Ferradas - Ion nose spectral structures observed by the Van Allen Probes
# Jesse Woodroffe -
# Colby Lemon - Electron precipitation in the March 17, 2013 event

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

1. David Sibeck “The Solar wind Magnetosphere Ionosphere Link Explorer (SMILE) Mission”

2. Christina Chu “Hot Flow Anomalies at the Bow Shock: THEMIS Observations”

3. Brian Walsh “KH waves at the dayside magnetopause”

4. Sun-Hee Lee (Presented by Hui Zhang) “Cold dense plasma observed at the Dayside Magnetopause and their dependence on solar wind and geomagnetic conditions”

5. Chih-Ping Wang “The hot electron enhancement in mid-tail magnetosheath and its dawn-dusk asymmetry”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #2: ULF Wave Challenge - 10 minutes per talk, please...'''

* Seth Claudepierre: ULF Wave Challenge overview and addressable science questions
'' Observations''
* Ian Mann: Preliminary challenge time periods based on ground magnetometers
* Peter Chi: Global distribution of ULF power from ULTIMA, and in-situ observations of poloidal waves
* Ashar Ali: From Van Allen Probes E & B measurements to radial diffusion coefficients.
* Chih-Ping Wang: Observations (RBSP, THEMIS, Geotail) and simulations (LFM) of a 2-hour ULF wave interval.
'' Simulations ''
* Lutz Rastaetter: Newly developed CCMC analysis tools supporting the ULF Challenge, and initial results
* Colin Komar: ULF power in the BATSRUS model and resonance conditions with electrons
* Bob Lysak: ULF waves in local MHD model
* Slava Merkin: ULF waves in the LFM.
* Scot Elkington: Mode structure calculations

==== [Special] SPEDAS Software ====

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
*Topic: "magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 3:30-5:00pm

# Dan Welling - Relationship between ionospheric outflow and the ring current
# George Khazanov - Superthermal Electrons Magnetosphere – Ionosphere Coupling in the Regions of Diffuse Aurora
# Megan Gillies - Investigating pulsating aurora at low electron energies
# Ryan Mcgranaghan - Modes of high-latitude conductance variability derived from DMSP F6-F8 and F16-F18 energetic electron precipitation observations: Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis
# Alexa Halford (challenge event) - BARREL Observations of long period precipitation on Jan 26th 2013
# Jichun Zhang (challenge event) - EMIC waves and associated relativistic electron precipitation on 25-26 January 2013
# Yiqun Yu (challenge event) - Modeling ionospheric electron precipitation due to wave particle interactions in the ring current during the 25-26 January 2013 event

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

1. Hyunju Connor “Thermospheric heating in the high-latitude dayside regions after the sudden enhancement of solar wind dynamic pressure: OpenGGCM-CTIM results”

2. Denny Oliveira <dennymauricio@gmail.com> “Impact angle control of IP shock geoeffectiveness: results of simulations and observations"

3. Michael Hartinger “The global structure and time evolution of dayside magnetopause surface eigenmodes”

4. Michael Hartinger “The effect of northern-southern hemisphere conductivity asymmetries on ground magnetic responses during a large solar wind transient”

==== [FG] (Joint) Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere + Metrics and Validation ====

''Chairs: Masha Kuznetsova (CCMC), Lutz Rastaetter (CCMC), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection),

The Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) satellites were recently launched to measure the electron dissipation region during magnetic reconnection. NASA's Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC), a repository of codes and models with runs-on-request, is pursuing support of MMS science, including the implementation of particle-in-cell simulations to their portfolio. This session will include a discussion of what capabilities members of the community (modelers and observers alike) would like from CCMC for MMS science.

==== [Special] TDAS demo ====

== Thursday, June 18 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''SWMI tutorial''' by ''Robert Fear'' -- Flux transfer events: Looking ahead to MMS
* '''Student-invited tutorial''' by ''Barbara Giles'' -- Engage in NASA's newest flagship to understand the fundamental process of magnetic reconnection -- Magnetospheric Multiscale

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Analysis of Extreme Events”

Surja Sharma: overview talk

Jeff Love: Dst statistics

Slava Merkin: ionospheric turbulence

Allison Jaynes: seed populations of relativistic electrons

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Challenge work in progress, OCB work especially welcome
*Speakers including Peter Porazik 'Modification of the loss cone for energetic particles', Phil Valek "TWINS/RBSP comparison on Nov 14., 2012 storm, Kristie Llera, Liz MacDonald "OCB scenario Nov 14 2012", Alexa Halford "BARREL OCB observations," and more

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Topics include overlap with TIMI (role of entropy bubbles in the inner magnetosphere), as well as other topics relevant to both focus groups.

Presenters: <presentation titles omitted>

# Mike Wiltberger
# Mike Henderson(LANL)
# George Khazanov (GSFC)
# Sheng-Hsien (Sean) Chen (GSFC)
# Matina Gkioulidou (JHU/APL)
# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Xueling Shi (VTech)
# Jian Yang (Rice U.)
# Bing Yang (U. Calgary)
# Natalia Ganushkina (U. Michigan)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Geospace Systems Science + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Joe Borovsky (Systems), Bill Lotko (Systems), Vadim Uritsky (Systems), Juan Valdivia (Systems), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene setting talks
:1. Binzheng Zhang
:2. Colin Komar

Contributed talks
:1. Misha Sitnov - tearing stability criterion
:2. Bill Lotko - effects of auroral (low-altitude) field-aligned potential drops on nightside reconnection and energy flow in MI coupling
:3. Yi-Hsin Liu, Orientation of x-line in asymmetric reconnection
:4. Phil Pritchett - instability of current sheets with a localized accumulation of magnetic flux
:5. Slava Merkin - magnetotail stability in the presence of B_z minimum
:6. Misha Sitnov - new class of equilibria taking into account dipole field and B_z hump

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*The final session, surveying progress and the path forward!
*Raluca Ilie "mapping isotropic boundaries to the tail"
*Ideas to consider: EOS or review article, new focus group (and topics?), upcoming BARREL-SWEDEN campaign

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
Salon 1
Note: First 30 min will be used to finish joint TIMI-Reconnection session from Tuesday

# Drew Turner, (Aerospace)
# Sasha Ukhorskiy, (JHU/APL), “Proton Acceleration at Injection Fronts in the Inner Magnetosphere”
# Chih-Ping Wang, (UCLA)
# Christine Gabrielse, (UCLA)
# Larry Lyons (UCLA)
# Jian Yang, (Rice)

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Systems-Science Tools, Methodologies, and Results”

Jacob Bortnik: Machine learning

Misha Balikhin: New model

Konstantin Gamayunov: System-based approach to EMIC waves

Delores Knipp: Estimating uncertainty in DMSP Poynting

Lutz Rastatter: Modeling joule heat in the ionosphere

Mikhail Sitnov: Empirical models

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

:1. Ying Zou - imager observations of PBI triggering by polar cap structures (joint with TIMI)
:2. Toshi Nishimura - MHD simulation of nightside localized reconnection triggering by lobe flow channels (joint with TIMI)
:3. Colby Haggerty, heating during reconnection
:4. Shan Wang - Electron heating during magnetotail reconnection: deriving the heating coefficient and effects of unloading
:5. Jason Shuster, the microphysics of how electrons are energized by the reconnection process
:6. Liang Wang - Integrating a multi-fluid moment code into OpenGGCM
:7. Rick Wilder, moving X-line in cusp
:8. Paul Cassak, asymmetric reconnection with flow shear

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
Salon 1
#Jodie Barker Ream (UCLA), “Pi2 propagation in global MHD simulations”
# Aaron Schutza, (Rice), "Thin filament simulations"
# Roxanne Katus, (Univ. Michigan), “Magnetospheric ion temperature derived from TWINS flux data”
# Zhengwei Cheng, (UNH), , “A case study of the particle carriers of field-aligned currents in the magnetotail during a substorm: Cluster observation.”
# Jiang Liu (UCLA), “Asymmetric FACs of dipolarizing flux bundles and how they form the substorm current wedge”

== Friday, June 19 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MIC tutorial''' by ''Stein Haaland'' -- Cold ion outflow from the polar cap

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Behavior of the Geospace System”

Jonathan Krall: SAMI3 simulations of M-I-T coupling

Wen Li: solar wind and the radiation belts

Vania Jordanova: multiple connections in the magnetosphere in the SHIELDS project

Joe Borovsky: behavior modes from global correlation analysis

Audience Discussion

2015 Summer Workshop

2015-06-16T21:57:44Z

Sazykin: /* [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection */

'''June 14-19 2015'''

'''Viceroy Hotels, Resorts & Residences, Snowmass, Colorado'''

Below is a ''fluid'' list of speakers provided by the GEM Workshop Coordinator and Focus Groups. The information here serves as a rough guide for those who wish to know the most updated session plans. Due to the nature of the GEM Workshop, Focus Groups may continue to revise their agenda as needed.

All other information about the 2015 Summer Workshop can be found at the [http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gem/index.html GEM Meeting Coordinator Website].

== Monday, June 15 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MPS tutorial''' by ''Toshi Nishimura'' -- Fast flow channels in the magnetotail and auroral oval: Reconnection, substorm and beyond
* '''GSM tutorial''' by ''Alex Glocer'' -- Global modeling of the space environment system

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Tail Environment and Dynamics at Lunar Distances ====

* Hui Zhang: Transient phenomena at tail Bow shock and magnetopause
* Sheng-Hsien Chen: K-H at the magnetopause and waves at LLBL
* Denny Oliveria: Tail response to interplanetary shocks
* Tim Stubbs (presented by David Sibeck): Mid-tail structure
* Rob Fear: Magnetotail structure associated with transpolar arcs
* Peter Chi: Ion cyclotron waves at the Moon and their connection to the plasma sheet and the lunar exosphere
* Ivan Vasko:Geotail observations in mid and distant tail
* Andrei Runov: Reconnection in the mid-tail
* John Lyon: LFM simulation of bubble formation in mid-tail during growth phase
* Joe Borovsky: The role of mid-tail in Geospace Systems Science

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models'''

* Bob Schunk: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 1 (15 min)
* Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 2 (15 min)
* Abdallah Barakat: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 3 (15 min)
* Dan Welling: Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models (20 min)
* Katie Garcia-Sage: MFLFM Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Simulation Results (20 min)
* Bill Lotko: Overview of Recent LFM Modeling and Thoughts for the Future (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Larry Lyons: Review--Hybrid scenario
*Mike Henderson: Review--Inside-out scenario
*Larry Kepko: Review--Outside-in scenario
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Yukinaga Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Phil Pritchett: Comments from modeler
*Joachim Birn: Comments from modeler
*Misha Sitnov: Comments from modeler
*Mostafa El-Alaoui: Comments from modeler
*Walk-ins welcome.

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 1 (Mon, 01:30-03:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Radiation Belt (RB) observations and modeling results”

''Chairs: Weichao Tu and Steve Morley''

:1. Mary Hudson: Recent simulation of the 'St Patrick's Day storm'
:2. Alexander Drozdov: The VERB code modeling of the St. Patrick’s day Storm
:3. Dan Baker: Impenetrable Barrier during March 17 2015 storm
:4. Allison Jaynes: Fast diffusion of ultra-relativistic electrons: 17 March 2015 storm event
:5. Thiago Brito: Simulations on Radiation Belt Electron Precipitation Response to ULF Waves
:6. Drew Turner: Storm-time analysis of RB
:7. Xinlin Li: Deep Injections of 10s – 100s of keV electrons (RBSP observations)
:8. Jay Albert: Modeling “peculiar” pitch angle distributions with MS waves

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models Compared to Observations'''

* Dan Welling: Merged Ionos-Magnetosphere Models for GEM Storms (15 min)
* Lynn Kistler: Cluster Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Joe Borovsky: LANL Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Stein Haaland: The Estimation of Cold Plasma Outflow During Storms (20 min)
* Discussion

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Robert McPherron: Point Processes: Association of Lists
*Nadine Kalmoni: Auroral dispersion relation
*Kyle Murphy: tools and methods
*Eric Donovan: Circle grams

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 2 (Mon, 03:30-05:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Various magnetospheric wave characteristics and their global distribution required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Wen Li and Jay Albert''

:1. Ashar Ali: Radial Diffusion Coefficients Using E and B Field Data from the Van Allen Probes
:2. Seth Claudepierre: Advertisement for the GEM ULF Wave Challenge
:3. Xinlin Li: Relation between ULF and radial diffusion of RB electrons
:4. Lauren Blum: The relationship between EMIC waves and radiation belt electron precipitation
:5. Wen Li: Global distribution of chorus wave intensity using the statistical model and POES technique
:6. Jay Albert: Nonlinear wave-particle interaction
:7. Qianli Ma: Evaluation of electron scattering due to typical magnetosonic waves using analytical formula
:8. Lunjin Chen: The effect of bounce resonance with magnetosonic waves on the radiation belt electrons
:9. Oleksiy Agapitov: Storm-induced energization and losses of radiation belt electrons: Effects of wave obliquity

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Inter-Model Comparison for GEM Storm Periods and New Measurements'''

* Continued Discussion of Merged Models and Measurements Comparison
* Naritoshi Kitamura: Ion Outflow Topics (20 min)
* Roger Varney: Hysteresis Effects in Coupled MFLFM-IPWM Models (15 min)
* Barbara Giles: Initial Plasma Measurements from MMS (20 min)
* Jonathan Krall: Ion Fluxes Into and Out of a Model Plasmasphere During Storm and Plasmasphere Refilling During Quiet Time (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Vassilis Angelopoulos: HSO
*FG learders: Future planning

== Tuesday, June 16 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Weichao Tu'' -- Quantitative Modeling of Radiation Belt Dynamics: Overview and Challenges
* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Seth Claudepierre'' -- Van Allen Probes: Where We've Been and Where We're Going

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 3 (Tue, 10:30-12:15 PM, Salon 2):''' “Seed populations, plasma density, and magnetic field configuration required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Jay Albert and Weichao Tu''

:1. Natalia Ganushkina: Low energy electrons in the inner magnetosphere
:2. Mick Denton: An empirical model of electron and ion fluxes derived from observations at geosynchronous orbit
:3. Alex Boyd: Quantifying the Radiation Belt Seed Population During the Van Allen Probes Era
:4. Jian Yang: RCM-E simulation of energetic electron injections during an idealized storm
:5. Oleksiy Agapitov: Time Domain Structures: generation mechanisms and effects for electrons
:6. Xiangrong Fu: Double layers associated with electron/ion acoustic waves
:7. James McCollough: DSX is still happening
:8. Alex Crew: New results from FIREBIRD II
:9. Quintin Schiller: A novel technique to apply electron lifetimes to radial diffusion models

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''General Discussion of Modeling and Observations and Focus Group Planning'''

* Yuri Omelchenko: Global Multiscale Magnetospheric Simulations: HYPERS (15 min)
* John Wygant: The Powering of Highly Efficient Poynting Flux-Driven Wind Using Polar Spacecraft Measurements (15 min)
* Bruce Fritz: Ion Upflow Dependence on Ionospheric Density and Solar Photoionization (15 min)
* Bill Peterson: A New Look at DE-1 Escaping Ion Observations at Non-Storm Times (10 min) -- Accompanying poster by Kristina Lu

==== [FG] (Joint) Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms + Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Shin Ohtani - Morphological mapping based on the stability of the magnetotail
*Emma Spanswick - Riometer injection
*Elizabeth Roy - Open-closed boundary
*Jiang Liu - Current wedge structuring
*Chao Yue - 3-D magnetic field modeling
*Chu Xiangning "how does flux transport and pileup change mapping during substorms? "

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 4 (Tue, 01:30-03:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “RB "dropout" and "buildup" challenges and Planning for future activities”

''Chairs: Steve Morley and Wen Li''

General short presentations (01:30-02:15 PM)

:1. Yuri Shprits: Recent results of the reanalysis
:2. Brian Kress: Observations and modeling of rebuilding during storms
:3. Zhao Li: 3D test-particle simulation of the 17-18 March, 2013 CME-shock driven storm
:4. Shri Kanekal and Dan Baker: Electron bursts during 17 March 2015 storm

"Dropout" and "Buildup" Challenges (02:15-03:00 PM)
:5. Drew Turner: Candidate “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:6. QARBM FG leaders: Discussion of “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:7. Open discussions and plan for future FG activities

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

The two SIMIC sessions on Tuesday afternoon will focus mainly on the chosen events: 2013-03-17 and 2012-11-01 storms

A tentative list of presenters:
<Presentation titles omitted>

# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Lyons/Nishimura/Gallardo (UCLA)
# Bea Gallardo (UCLA)
# Rick Wilder (LASP)
# Margaret Chen (Aerospace)
# Gang Lu (NCAR)
# Jonathan Krall (NRL)
# Lois Smith (Michigan)
# Alex Glocer for Mei-Ching Fok (NASA)
# Mike Liemohn and Roxanne Katus (Michigan)
# Yiqun Yu and Vania Jordanova (LANL)
# Elizabeth MacDonald (GSFC)
# Bob Lysak (Univ. Minnesota)
# Mike Schulz
# James Weygand (UCLA)
# Phil Valek (SwRI)
# Brian Anderson (JHU/APL)

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Vassilis Angelopoulos (TIMI), Pontus Brandt (TIMI), John Lyon (TIMI), Frank Toffoletto (TIMI), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene Setting talks
:1. Joachim Birn
:2. Jim Drake

Contributed talks (not in order)
:1. Slava Merkin - magnetotail stability in the presence of B_z minimum
:2. Misha Sitnov - new class of equilibria taking into account dipole field and B_z hump
:3. Misha Sitnov - temperature increase at dipolarization fronts
:4. Haoming Liang (w/Ashour-Abdalla and Walker) - oxygen effects on dipolarization fronts
:5. Ying Zou - imager observations of PBI triggering by polar cap structures
:6. Toshi Nishimura - MHD simulation of nightside localized reconnection triggering by lobe flow channels
:7. Yu Lin - global hybrid simulation of the storm-time magnetotail and reconnection flux ropes
:8. Phil Pritchett - instability of current sheets with a localized accumulation of magnetic flux
:9. Phil Pritchett - structure of reconnection flow jets
:10. Joo Hwang (by David Sibeck) - recent MMS observations of dipolarization fronts
:11. Mike Wiltberger - flow channels in global MHD simulations

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling + Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
'''Session 5 (Tue, 03:30-05:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Joint session with “Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions” FG”

''Chairs: Jichun Zhang and Weichao Tu

:1. Wen Li: Quantitative simulation of radiation belt electron dynamics using 3D diffusion code
:2. Yuri Shprits: Combined Convective and Diffusive Simulation: VERB-4D Results
:3. Xiangrong Fu: Modeling EMIC wave generation from ring current ions
:4. Anthony Saikin: The geomagnetic condition dependence of the spatial distributions of EMIC waves observed by the Van Allen Probes
:5. Jacob Bortnik: Generation of chorus waves in a lab plasma
:6. Xin An: Linear excitation of whistler waves
:7. Shuo Wu: Hybrid Code Simulations of Whistler Waves in Compressed Dipole Field
:8. Chih-ping Wang: Multi-point observation of ULF waves

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Continuing the [http://gem.epss.ucla.edu/mediawikiwiki/index.php/2015_Summer_Workshop#.5BFG.5D_Storm-time_Inner_Magnetosphere-Ionosphere_Convection SIMIC session at 1330-1500].

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Time Lags in Solar Wind-Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Interactions”

speakers will include

Mick Denton: mass transport

Bob McPherron: physical interpretation of time lags

Roger Varney: ionospheric outflow

Shin Ohtani: circuit timescales

Bob Clauer: ionospheric convection

Audience Discussion

== Wednesday, June 17 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''Agency report''' by ''Vladimir Papitashvili'' -- Introduction
* '''Agency report''' by ''Janet Kozyra'' -- NSF GEM Program
* '''Agency report''' by ''Howard Singer'' -- NOAA Agency Report
* ''Bill Lotko'' -- Overview of NSF AGS Portfolio Review and Discussion

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "wave-particle interactions"

June 17, Wednesday 10:30-12:15pm

# Mark Engebretson (Challenge event) - Van Allen probes, NOAA, and ground observations of an intense Pc 1 wave event extending 12 hours in MLT and its resulting depletion of the outer radiation belt
# Justin Lee (Challenge event) - Discussion of Wave-Particle Interactions during the 18-22 Feb 2014 Storm
# Michael Hartinger -The effect of azimuthal wave number on ULF wave-particle interactions
# Chen Zhou - Excitation of Dayside Chorus Waves due to Magnetic Field Line Compression in Response to Interplanetary Shocks
# Homayon Aryan - The distribution of plasmaspheric Hiss and Chorus waves in the inner magnetosphere as functions of geomagnetic activity and solar wind parameters
# Robert Allen - Statistical study of EMIC waves observed by Cluster
# Konstantin Gamayunov - Multiscale nature of electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave development in Earth’s magnetosphere
# Vania Jordanova - RAM-SCB simulations of plasma wave dynamics
# Adam Kellerman - Forecasting the Earth’s radiation environment with GREEP and VERB: a synthesis of empirical- and physics-based modeling across multiple energies and spatial regions

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Foreshock and Magnetosheath Phenomena

1. Zixu Liu "THEMIS observations of tangential discontinuity-driven foreshock bubbles"

2. Nick Omidi (presented by Jean Berchem) “Impacts of SHFAs on the Magnetosheath & Magnetopause”

3. Hui Zhang "Evolution of HFAs: Cluster Observations"

4. Olga Gutynska “Density enhancements in the magnetosheath: comparison with simulations”

5. Narges Ahmadi “Effects of Electron Anisotropy in Mirror Instability Evolution in the Magnetosheath”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #1: Magnetopause crossing challenge and additional M&V contributions'''

* Lutz Rastaetter: Overview and initial results from the Magnetopause Crossing Challenge
* Mike Wiltberger: Magnetopause dynamics during the March 17th, 2013 event
* Rob Redmon: The future of GOES: Magnetic field and particle observation and modeling to determine magnetopause crossings
* Mike Liemohn: Assessment of the CCMC Experimental Real-time SWMF-Geospace Results
* Dan Welling: Model skill as a function of solar wind driving.
* Ilja Honkonen: Data / Model comparisons with GUMICS

''' M&V Wrap up: Recent highlights and future plans for Metrics & Validation at GEM'''
* Howard Singer dicussion lead

==== [Special] HSO coordination ====
''Discussions on science and campaigns for the upcoming HSO satellite-ground coordination.''
*Vassilis Angelopoulos (Intro, an overview and THEMIS-MMS coordination, THEMIS plans)
*Toshi Nishimura (a PPT on coordination: times, geometry, tentative assets)
*Marilia Samara (on MMS and ground based?)
*Brian Anderson (AMPERE)
*Eric Donovan (TREx)
*Stephen Mende (AGOs)
*Jo Baker (SuperDARN)
*Yukinaga Miyashita (ERG)
*Naritoshi Kitamura (Geotail)
*Sasha Ukhorsky (Van Allen Probes)
*Marc Lessard (WAIS)
*Peter Chi (ULTIMA)
*Drew Turner, Seth Claudepierre, Jacob Bortnik, Mike Hartinger, Shin Ohtani, Jimmy Raeder, Wen Li, Bill Lotko, Rick Chappell, Liz McDonald, Frank Toffoletto, Paul Cassak (Science comments)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "plasma-field coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 1:30-3:00pm

# Lois Smith - Plasmaspheric Suprathermal Heating from Cyclotron Resonance with Equatorial Noise
# Raluca Ilie - Calculating the Inductive electric fields in the terrestrial magnetosphere
# Samuel Califf - Van Allen Probes observations of SAPS during the 28 June 2013 geomagnetic storm
# Hong Zhao - The evolution of ring current ion energy density and energy content during geomagnetic storms based on Van Allen Probes measurements
# Jichun Zhang - “Trunk-like” heavy ion structures observed by the Van Allen Probes
# Cristian Ferradas - Ion nose spectral structures observed by the Van Allen Probes

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

1. David Sibeck “The Solar wind Magnetosphere Ionosphere Link Explorer (SMILE) Mission”

2. Michael Hartinger “The global structure and time evolution of dayside magnetopause surface eigenmodes”

3. Brian Walsh “KH waves at the dayside magnetopause”

4. Chih-Ping Wang “The hot electron enhancement in mid-tail magnetosheath and its dawn-dusk asymmetry”

5. Sun-Hee Lee (Presented by Hui Zhang) “Cold dense plasma observed at the Dayside Magnetopause and their dependence on solar wind and geomagnetic conditions”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #2: ULF Wave Challenge - 10 minutes per talk, please...'''

* Seth Claudepierre: ULF Wave Challenge overview and addressable science questions
'' Observations''
* Ian Mann: Preliminary challenge time periods based on ground magnetometers
* Peter Chi: Global distribution of ULF power from ULTIMA, and in-situ observations of poloidal waves
* Ashar Ali: From Van Allen Probes E & B measurements to radial diffusion coefficients.
* Chih-Ping Wang: Observations (RBSP, THEMIS, Geotail) and simulations (LFM) of a 2-hour ULF wave interval.
'' Simulations ''
* Lutz Rastaetter: Newly developed CCMC analysis tools supporting the ULF Challenge, and initial results
* Colin Komar: ULF power in the BATSRUS model and resonance conditions with electrons
* Bob Lysak: ULF waves in local MHD model
* Slava Merkin: ULF waves in the LFM.
* Scot Elkington: Mode structure calculations

==== [Special] SPEDAS Software ====

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
*Topic: "magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 3:30-5:00pm

# Dan Welling - Relationship between ionospheric outflow and the ring current
# George Khazanov - Superthermal Electrons Magnetosphere – Ionosphere Coupling in the Regions of Diffuse Aurora
# Megan Gillies - Investigating pulsating aurora at low electron energies
# Ryan Mcgranaghan - Modes of high-latitude conductance variability derived from DMSP F6-F8 and F16-F18 energetic electron precipitation observations: Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis
# Alexa Halford (challenge event) - BARREL Observations of long period precipitation on Jan 26th 2013
# Jichun Zhang (challenge event) - EMIC waves and associated relativistic electron precipitation on 25-26 January 2013
# Yiqun Yu (challenge event) - Modeling ionospheric electron precipitation due to wave particle interactions in the ring current during the 25-26 January 2013 event
# Yi-Jiun Su (challenge event) -RBSP/MagEIS observations: Local electron acceleration in the inner radiation belt?

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

1. Hyunju Connor “Thermospheric heating in the high-latitude dayside regions after the sudden enhancement of solar wind dynamic pressure: OpenGGCM-CTIM results”

2. Denny Oliveira <dennymauricio@gmail.com> “Impact angle control of IP shock geoeffectiveness: results of simulations and observations"

3. Michael Hartinger “The effect of northern-southern hemisphere conductivity asymmetries on ground magnetic responses during a large solar wind transient”

4. Christina Chu “Hot Flow Anomalies at the Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures”

==== [FG] (Joint) Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere + Metrics and Validation ====

''Chairs: Masha Kuznetsova (CCMC), Lutz Rastaetter (CCMC), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection),

The Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) satellites were recently launched to measure the electron dissipation region during magnetic reconnection. NASA's Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC), a repository of codes and models with runs-on-request, is pursuing support of MMS science, including the implementation of particle-in-cell simulations to their portfolio. This session will include a discussion of what capabilities members of the community (modelers and observers alike) would like from CCMC for MMS science.

==== [Special] TDAS demo ====

== Thursday, June 18 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''SWMI tutorial''' by ''Robert Fear'' -- Flux transfer events: Looking ahead to MMS
* '''Student-invited tutorial''' by ''Barbara Giles'' -- Engage in NASA's newest flagship to understand the fundamental process of magnetic reconnection -- Magnetospheric Multiscale

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Analysis of Extreme Events”

Surja Sharma: overview talk

Jeff Love: Dst statistics

Slava Merkin: ionospheric turbulence

Allison Jaynes: seed populations of relativistic electrons

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Challenge work in progress, OCB work especially welcome
*Speakers including Peter Porazik 'Modification of the loss cone for energetic particles', Raluca Ilie "mapping isotropic boundaries to the tail", Phil Valek "TWINS/RBSP comparison on Nov 14., 2012 storm, Liz MacDonald "OCB scenario Nov 14 2012", Alexa Halford "BARREL OCB observations," Chu Xiangning "" and more

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Topics include overlap with TIMI (role of entropy bubbles in the inner magnetosphere), as well as other topics relevant to both focus groups.

Presenters: <presentation titles omitted>

# Mike Wiltberger
# Mike Henderson(LANL)
# George Khazanov (GSFC)
# Sheng-Hsien (Sean) Chen (GSFC)
# Matina Gkioulidou (JHU/APL)
# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Xueling Shi (VTech)
# Jian Yang (Rice U.)
# Bing Yang (U. Calgary)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Geospace Systems Science + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Joe Borovsky (Systems), Bill Lotko (Systems), Vadim Uritsky (Systems), Juan Valdivia (Systems), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene setting talks
:1. Binzheng Zhang
:2. Colin Komar

Contributed talks
:1. Misha Sitnov - tearing stability criterion'
:2. Bill Lotko - effects of auroral (low-altitude) field-aligned potential drops on nightside reconnection and energy flow in MI coupling

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*The final session, surveying progress and the path forward!
*Ideas to consider: EOS or review article, new focus group (and topics?), upcoming BARREL-SWEDEN campaign

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Drew Turner, (Aerospace)

2. Sasha Ukhorskiy, (JHU/APL), “Proton Acceleration at Injection Fronts in the Inner Magnetosphere”

3. Chih-Ping Wang, (UCLA)

4. Christine Gabrielse, (UCLA)

5. Larry Lyons (UCLA)

6. Jian Yang, (Rice)

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Systems-Science Tools, Methodologies, and Results”

Jacob Bortnik: Machine learning

Misha Balikhin: New model

Konstantin Gamayunov: System-based approach to EMIC waves

Delores Knipp: Estimating uncertainty in DMSP Poynting

Lutz Rastatter: Modeling joule heat in the ionosphere

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

:1. Colby Haggerty, heating during reconnection
:2. Shan Wang - Electron heating during magnetotail reconnection: deriving the heating coefficient and effects of unloading
:3. Liang Wang - Integrating a multi-fluid moment code into OpenGGCM
:4. Rick Wilder, moving X-line in cusp
:5. Paul Cassak, asymmetric reconnection with flow shear
:6. Jason Shuster, the microphysics of how electrons are energized by the reconnection process
:7. Yi-Hsin Liu, Orientation of x-line in asymmetric reconnection

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Jodie Barker Ream (UCLA), “Pi2 propagation in global MHD simulations”

2. Aaron Schutza, (Rice), "Thin filament simulations"

3. Roxanne Katus, (Univ. Michigan), “Magnetospheric ion temperature derived from TWINS flux data”

4. John Wygant, (Univ. Minnesota)

5. Zhengwei Cheng, (UNH), , “A case study of the particle carriers of field-aligned currents in the magnetotail during a substorm: Cluster observation.”

6. Jiang Liu (UCLA), “Asymmetric FACs of dipolarizing flux bundles and how they form the substorm current wedge”

== Friday, June 19 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MIC tutorial''' by ''Stein Haaland'' -- Cold ion outflow from the polar cap

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Behavior of the Geospace System”

Jonathan Krall: SAMI3 simulations of M-I-T coupling

Wen Li: solar wind and the radiation belts

Vania Jordanova: multiple connections in the magnetosphere in the SHIELDS project

Joe Borovsky: behavior modes from global correlation analysis

Audience Discussion

2015 Summer Workshop

2015-06-16T17:59:28Z

Sazykin: /* [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection */

'''June 14-19 2015'''

'''Viceroy Hotels, Resorts & Residences, Snowmass, Colorado'''

Below is a ''fluid'' list of speakers provided by the GEM Workshop Coordinator and Focus Groups. The information here serves as a rough guide for those who wish to know the most updated session plans. Due to the nature of the GEM Workshop, Focus Groups may continue to revise their agenda as needed.

All other information about the 2015 Summer Workshop can be found at the [http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gem/index.html GEM Meeting Coordinator Website].

== Monday, June 15 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MPS tutorial''' by ''Toshi Nishimura'' -- Fast flow channels in the magnetotail and auroral oval: Reconnection, substorm and beyond
* '''GSM tutorial''' by ''Alex Glocer'' -- Global modeling of the space environment system

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Tail Environment and Dynamics at Lunar Distances ====

* Hui Zhang: Transient phenomena at tail Bow shock and magnetopause
* Sheng-Hsien Chen: K-H at the magnetopause and waves at LLBL
* Denny Oliveria: Tail response to interplanetary shocks
* Tim Stubbs (presented by David Sibeck): Mid-tail structure
* Rob Fear: Magnetotail structure associated with transpolar arcs
* Peter Chi: Ion cyclotron waves at the Moon and their connection to the plasma sheet and the lunar exosphere
* Ivan Vasko:Geotail observations in mid and distant tail
* Andrei Runov: Reconnection in the mid-tail
* John Lyon: LFM simulation of bubble formation in mid-tail during growth phase
* Joe Borovsky: The role of mid-tail in Geospace Systems Science

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models'''

* Bob Schunk: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 1 (15 min)
* Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 2 (15 min)
* Abdallah Barakat: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 3 (15 min)
* Dan Welling: Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models (20 min)
* Katie Garcia-Sage: MFLFM Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Simulation Results (20 min)
* Bill Lotko: Overview of Recent LFM Modeling and Thoughts for the Future (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Larry Lyons: Review--Hybrid scenario
*Mike Henderson: Review--Inside-out scenario
*Larry Kepko: Review--Outside-in scenario
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Yukinaga Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Phil Pritchett: Comments from modeler
*Joachim Birn: Comments from modeler
*Misha Sitnov: Comments from modeler
*Mostafa El-Alaoui: Comments from modeler
*Walk-ins welcome.

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 1 (Mon, 01:30-03:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Radiation Belt (RB) observations and modeling results”

''Chairs: Weichao Tu and Steve Morley''

:1. Mary Hudson: Recent simulation of the 'St Patrick's Day storm'
:2. Alexander Drozdov: The VERB code modeling of the St. Patrick’s day Storm
:3. Dan Baker: Impenetrable Barrier during March 17 2015 storm
:4. Allison Jaynes: Fast diffusion of ultra-relativistic electrons: 17 March 2015 storm event
:5. Thiago Brito: Simulations on Radiation Belt Electron Precipitation Response to ULF Waves
:6. Drew Turner: Storm-time analysis of RB
:7. Xinlin Li: Deep Injections of 10s – 100s of keV electrons (RBSP observations)
:8. Jay Albert: Modeling “peculiar” pitch angle distributions with MS waves

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models Compared to Observations'''

* Dan Welling: Merged Ionos-Magnetosphere Models for GEM Storms (15 min)
* Lynn Kistler: Cluster Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Joe Borovsky: LANL Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Stein Haaland: The Estimation of Cold Plasma Outflow During Storms (20 min)
* Discussion

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Robert McPherron: Point Processes: Association of Lists
*Nadine Kalmoni: Auroral dispersion relation
*Kyle Murphy: tools and methods
*Eric Donovan: Circle grams

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 2 (Mon, 03:30-05:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Various magnetospheric wave characteristics and their global distribution required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Wen Li and Jay Albert''

:1. Ashar Ali: Radial Diffusion Coefficients Using E and B Field Data from the Van Allen Probes
:2. Seth Claudepierre: Advertisement for the GEM ULF Wave Challenge
:3. Xinlin Li: Relation between ULF and radial diffusion of RB electrons
:4. Lauren Blum: The relationship between EMIC waves and radiation belt electron precipitation
:5. Wen Li: Global distribution of chorus wave intensity using the statistical model and POES technique
:6. Jay Albert: Nonlinear wave-particle interaction
:7. Qianli Ma: Evaluation of electron scattering due to typical magnetosonic waves using analytical formula
:8. Lunjin Chen: The effect of bounce resonance with magnetosonic waves on the radiation belt electrons
:9. Oleksiy Agapitov: Storm-induced energization and losses of radiation belt electrons: Effects of wave obliquity

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Inter-Model Comparison for GEM Storm Periods and New Measurements'''

* Continued Discussion of Merged Models and Measurements Comparison
* Naritoshi Kitamura: Ion Outflow Topics (20 min)
* Roger Varney: Hysteresis Effects in Coupled MFLFM-IPWM Models (15 min)
* Barbara Giles: Initial Plasma Measurements from MMS (20 min)
* Jonathan Krall: Ion Fluxes Into and Out of a Model Plasmasphere During Storm and Plasmasphere Refilling During Quiet Time (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Vassilis Angelopoulos: HSO
*FG learders: Future planning

== Tuesday, June 16 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Weichao Tu'' -- Quantitative Modeling of Radiation Belt Dynamics: Overview and Challenges
* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Seth Claudepierre'' -- Van Allen Probes: Where We've Been and Where We're Going

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 3 (Tue, 10:30-12:15 PM, Salon 2):''' “Seed populations, plasma density, and magnetic field configuration required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Jay Albert and Weichao Tu''

:1. Natalia Ganushkina: Low energy electrons in the inner magnetosphere
:2. Mick Denton: An empirical model of electron and ion fluxes derived from observations at geosynchronous orbit
:3. Alex Boyd: Quantifying the Radiation Belt Seed Population During the Van Allen Probes Era
:4. Jian Yang: RCM-E simulation of energetic electron injections during an idealized storm
:5. Oleksiy Agapitov: Time Domain Structures: generation mechanisms and effects for electrons
:6. Xiangrong Fu: Double layers associated with electron/ion acoustic waves
:7. James McCollough: DSX is still happening
:8. Alex Crew: New results from FIREBIRD II
:9. Quintin Schiller: A novel technique to apply electron lifetimes to radial diffusion models

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''General Discussion of Modeling and Observations and Focus Group Planning'''

* Yuri Omelchenko: Global Multiscale Magnetospheric Simulations: HYPERS (15 min)
* John Wygant: The Powering of Highly Efficient Poynting Flux-Driven Wind Using Polar Spacecraft Measurements (15 min)
* Bruce Fritz: Ion Upflow Dependence on Ionospheric Density and Solar Photoionization (15 min)
* Bill Peterson: A New Look at DE-1 Escaping Ion Observations at Non-Storm Times (10 min) -- Accompanying poster by Kristina Lu

==== [FG] (Joint) Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms + Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Shin Ohtani - Morphological mapping based on the stability of the magnetotail
*Emma Spanswick - Riometer injection
*Elizabeth Roy - Open-closed boundary
*Jiang Liu - Current wedge structuring
*Chao Yue - 3-D magnetic field modeling
*Chu Xiangning "how does flux transport and pileup change mapping during substorms? "

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 4 (Tue, 01:30-03:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “RB "dropout" and "buildup" challenges and Planning for future activities”

''Chairs: Steve Morley and Wen Li''

General short presentations (01:30-02:15 PM)

:1. Yuri Shprits: Recent results of the reanalysis
:2. Brian Kress: Observations and modeling of rebuilding during storms
:3. Zhao Li: 3D test-particle simulation of the 17-18 March, 2013 CME-shock driven storm
:4. Shri Kanekal and Dan Baker: Electron bursts during 17 March 2015 storm

"Dropout" and "Buildup" Challenges (02:15-03:00 PM)
:5. Drew Turner: Candidate “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:6. QARBM FG leaders: Discussion of “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:7. Open discussions and plan for future FG activities

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

The two SIMIC sessions on Tuesday afternoon will focus mainly on the chosen events: 2013-03-17 and 2012-11-01 storms

A tentative list of presenters:
<Presentation titles omitted>

# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Lyons/Nishimura/Gallardo (UCLA)
# Bea Gallardo (UCLA)
# Rick Wilder (LASP)
# Margaret Chen (Aerospace)
# Gang Lu (NCAR)
# Jonathan Krall (NRL)
# Lois Smith (Michigan)
# Alex Glocer for Mei-Ching Fok (NASA)
# Mike Liemohn and Roxanne Katus (Michigan)
# Yiqun Yu and Vania Jordanova (LANL)
# Elizabeth MacDonald (GSFC)
# Bob Lysak (Univ. Minnesota)
# Mike Schulz
# James Weygand (UCLA)
# Phil Valek (SwRI)
# Doug Cramer (UNH)
# Brian Anderson (JHU/APL)

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Vassilis Angelopoulos (TIMI), Pontus Brandt (TIMI), John Lyon (TIMI), Frank Toffoletto (TIMI), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene Setting talks
:1. Joachim Birn
:2. Jim Drake

Contributed talks
:1. Slava Merkin - magnetotail stability in the presence of B_z minimum
:2. Misha Sitnov - new class of equilibria taking into account dipole field and B_z hump
:3. Misha Sitnov - temperature increase at dipolarization fronts
:4. Haoming Liang (w/Ashour-Abdalla and Walker) - oxygen effects on dipolarization fronts
:5. Ying Zou - imager observations of PBI triggering by polar cap structures
:6. Toshi Nishimura - MHD simulation of nightside localized reconnection triggering by lobe flow channels
:7. Yu Lin - global hybrid simulation of the storm-time magnetotail and reconnection flux ropes
:8. Phil Pritchett - instability of current sheets with a localized accumulation of magnetic flux
:9. Phil Pritchett - structure of reconnection flow jets
:10. Joo Hwang (by David Sibeck) - recent MMS observations of dipolarization fronts

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling + Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
'''Session 5 (Tue, 03:30-05:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Joint session with “Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions” FG”

''Chairs: Jichun Zhang and Weichao Tu

:1. Wen Li: Quantitative simulation of radiation belt electron dynamics using 3D diffusion code
:2. Yuri Shprits: Combined Convective and Diffusive Simulation: VERB-4D Results
:3. Xiangrong Fu: Modeling EMIC wave generation from ring current ions
:4. Anthony Saikin: The geomagnetic condition dependence of the spatial distributions of EMIC waves observed by the Van Allen Probes
:5. Jacob Bortnik: Generation of chorus waves in a lab plasma
:6. Xin An: Linear excitation of whistler waves
:7. Shuo Wu: Hybrid Code Simulations of Whistler Waves in Compressed Dipole Field
:8. Chih-ping Wang: Multi-point observation of ULF waves

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Continuing the [http://gem.epss.ucla.edu/mediawikiwiki/index.php/2015_Summer_Workshop#.5BFG.5D_Storm-time_Inner_Magnetosphere-Ionosphere_Convection SIMIC session at 1330-1500].

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Time Lags in Solar Wind-Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Interactions”

speakers will include

Mick Denton: mass transport

Bob McPherron: physical interpretation of time lags

Roger Varney: ionospheric outflow

Shin Ohtani: circuit timescales

Bob Clauer: ionospheric convection

Audience Discussion

== Wednesday, June 17 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''Agency report''' by ''Vladimir Papitashvili'' -- Introduction
* '''Agency report''' by ''Janet Kozyra'' -- NSF GEM Program
* '''Agency report''' by ''Howard Singer'' -- NOAA Agency Report
* ''Bill Lotko'' -- Overview of NSF AGS Portfolio Review and Discussion

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "wave-particle interactions"

June 17, Wednesday 10:30-12:15pm

# Mark Engebretson (Challenge event) - Van Allen probes, NOAA, and ground observations of an intense Pc 1 wave event extending 12 hours in MLT and its resulting depletion of the outer radiation belt
# Justin Lee (Challenge event) - Discussion of Wave-Particle Interactions during the 18-22 Feb 2014 Storm
# Michael Hartinger -The effect of azimuthal wave number on ULF wave-particle interactions
# Chen Zhou - Excitation of Dayside Chorus Waves due to Magnetic Field Line Compression in Response to Interplanetary Shocks
# Homayon Aryan - The distribution of plasmaspheric Hiss and Chorus waves in the inner magnetosphere as functions of geomagnetic activity and solar wind parameters
# Robert Allen - Statistical study of EMIC waves observed by Cluster
# Konstantin Gamayunov - Multiscale nature of electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave development in Earth’s magnetosphere
# Vania Jordanova - RAM-SCB simulations of plasma wave dynamics
# Adam Kellerman - Forecasting the Earth’s radiation environment with GREEP and VERB: a synthesis of empirical- and physics-based modeling across multiple energies and spatial regions

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Foreshock and Magnetosheath Phenomena

1. Zixu Liu "THEMIS observations of tangential discontinuity-driven foreshock bubbles"

2. Nick Omidi (presented by Jean Berchem) “Impacts of SHFAs on the Magnetosheath & Magnetopause”

3. Hui Zhang "Evolution of HFAs: Cluster Observations"

4. Olga Gutynska “Density enhancements in the magnetosheath: comparison with simulations”

5. Narges Ahmadi “Effects of Electron Anisotropy in Mirror Instability Evolution in the Magnetosheath”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #1: Magnetopause crossing challenge and additional M&V contributions'''

* Lutz Rastaetter: Overview and initial results from the Magnetopause Crossing Challenge
* Mike Wiltberger: Magnetopause dynamics during the March 17th, 2013 event
* Rob Redmon: The future of GOES: Magnetic field and particle observation and modeling to determine magnetopause crossings
* Mike Liemohn: Assessment of the CCMC Experimental Real-time SWMF-Geospace Results
* Dan Welling: Model skill as a function of solar wind driving.
* Ilja Honkonen: Data / Model comparisons with GUMICS

''' M&V Wrap up: Recent highlights and future plans for Metrics & Validation at GEM'''
* Howard Singer dicussion lead

==== [Special] HSO coordination ====
''Discussions on science and campaigns for the upcoming HSO satellite-ground coordination.''
*Vassilis Angelopoulos (Intro, an overview and THEMIS-MMS coordination, THEMIS plans)
*Toshi Nishimura (a PPT on coordination: times, geometry, tentative assets)
*Marilia Samara (on MMS and ground based?)
*Brian Anderson (AMPERE)
*Eric Donovan (TREx)
*Stephen Mende (AGOs)
*Jo Baker (SuperDARN)
*Yukinaga Miyashita (ERG)
*Naritoshi Kitamura (Geotail)
*Sasha Ukhorsky (Van Allen Probes)
*Marc Lessard (WAIS)
*Peter Chi (ULTIMA)
*Drew Turner, Seth Claudepierre, Jacob Bortnik, Mike Hartinger, Shin Ohtani, Jimmy Raeder, Wen Li, Bill Lotko, Rick Chappell, Liz McDonald, Frank Toffoletto, Paul Cassak (Science comments)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "plasma-field coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 1:30-3:00pm

# Lois Smith - Plasmaspheric Suprathermal Heating from Cyclotron Resonance with Equatorial Noise
# Raluca Ilie - Calculating the Inductive electric fields in the terrestrial magnetosphere
# Samuel Califf - Van Allen Probes observations of SAPS during the 28 June 2013 geomagnetic storm
# Hong Zhao - The evolution of ring current ion energy density and energy content during geomagnetic storms based on Van Allen Probes measurements
# Jichun Zhang - “Trunk-like” heavy ion structures observed by the Van Allen Probes
# Cristian Ferradas - Ion nose spectral structures observed by the Van Allen Probes

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

1. David Sibeck “The Solar wind Magnetosphere Ionosphere Link Explorer (SMILE) Mission”

2. Michael Hartinger “The global structure and time evolution of dayside magnetopause surface eigenmodes”

3. Brian Walsh “KH waves at the dayside magnetopause”

4. Chih-Ping Wang “The hot electron enhancement in mid-tail magnetosheath and its dawn-dusk asymmetry”

5. Sun-Hee Lee (Presented by Hui Zhang) “Cold dense plasma observed at the Dayside Magnetopause and their dependence on solar wind and geomagnetic conditions”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #2: ULF Wave Challenge'''

* Seth Claudepierre: ULF Wave Challenge overview and addressable science questions
* Ian Mann: Preliminary challenge time periods based on ground magnetometers
* Peter Chi: Global distribution of ULF power from ULTIMA, and in-situ observations of poloidal waves
* Lutz Rastaetter: Newly developed CCMC analysis tools supporting the ULF Challenge, and initial results
* Colin Komar: ULF power in the BATSRUS model and resonance conditions with electrons
* Scot Elkington: Mode structure calculations
* Seth Claudepierre: a few walk on slides
* Ashar Ali: From Van Allen Probes E & B measurements to radial diffusion coefficients.
* Slava Merkin: ULF waves in the LFM.
* Chih-Ping Wang: Observations (RBSP, THEMIS, Geotail) and simulations (LFM) of a 2-hour ULF wave interval.

==== [Special] SPEDAS Software ====

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
*Topic: "magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 3:30-5:00pm

# Dan Welling - Relationship between ionospheric outflow and the ring current
# George Khazanov - Superthermal Electrons Magnetosphere – Ionosphere Coupling in the Regions of Diffuse Aurora
# Megan Gillies - Investigating pulsating aurora at low electron energies
# Ryan Mcgranaghan - Modes of high-latitude conductance variability derived from DMSP F6-F8 and F16-F18 energetic electron precipitation observations: Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis
# Alexa Halford (challenge event) - BARREL Observations of long period precipitation on Jan 26th 2013
# Jichun Zhang (challenge event) - EMIC waves and associated relativistic electron precipitation on 25-26 January 2013
# Yiqun Yu (challenge event) - Modeling ionospheric electron precipitation due to wave particle interactions in the ring current during the 25-26 January 2013 event
# Yi-Jiun Su (challenge event) -RBSP/MagEIS observations: Local electron acceleration in the inner radiation belt?

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

1. Hyunju Connor “Thermospheric heating in the high-latitude dayside regions after the sudden enhancement of solar wind dynamic pressure: OpenGGCM-CTIM results”

2. Denny Oliveira <dennymauricio@gmail.com> “Impact angle control of IP shock geoeffectiveness: results of simulations and observations"

3. Michael Hartinger “The effect of northern-southern hemisphere conductivity asymmetries on ground magnetic responses during a large solar wind transient”

4. Christina Chu “Hot Flow Anomalies at the Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures”

==== [FG] (Joint) Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere + Metrics and Validation ====

''Chairs: Masha Kuznetsova (CCMC), Lutz Rastaetter (CCMC), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection),

The Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) satellites were recently launched to measure the electron dissipation region during magnetic reconnection. NASA's Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC), a repository of codes and models with runs-on-request, is pursuing support of MMS science, including the implementation of particle-in-cell simulations to their portfolio. This session will include a discussion of what capabilities members of the community (modelers and observers alike) would like from CCMC for MMS science.

==== [Special] TDAS demo ====

== Thursday, June 18 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''SWMI tutorial''' by ''Robert Fear'' -- Flux transfer events: Looking ahead to MMS
* '''Student-invited tutorial''' by ''Barbara Giles'' -- Engage in NASA's newest flagship to understand the fundamental process of magnetic reconnection -- Magnetospheric Multiscale

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Analysis of Extreme Events”

Surja Sharma: overview talk

Jeff Love: Dst statistics

Slava Merkin: ionospheric turbulence

Allison Jaynes: seed populations of relativistic electrons

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Challenge work in progress, OCB work especially welcome
*Speakers including Peter Porazik 'Modification of the loss cone for energetic particles', Raluca Ilie "mapping isotropic boundaries to the tail", Phil Valek "TWINS/RBSP comparison on Nov 14., 2012 storm, Liz MacDonald "OCB scenario Nov 14 2012", Alexa Halford "BARREL OCB observations," Chu Xiangning "" and more

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Topics include overlap with TIMI (role of entropy bubbles in the inner magnetosphere), as well as other topics relevant to both focus groups.

Presenters: <presentation titles omitted>

# Mike Wiltberger
# Mike Henderson(LANL)
# George Khazanov (GSFC)
# Sheng-Hsien (Sean) Chen (GSFC)
# Matina Gkioulidou (JHU/APL)
# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Xueling Shi (VTech)
# Jian Yang (Rice U.)
# Bing Yang (U. Calgary)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Geospace Systems Science + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Joe Borovsky (Systems), Bill Lotko (Systems), Vadim Uritsky (Systems), Juan Valdivia (Systems), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene setting talks
:1. Binzheng Zhang
:2. Colin Komar

Contributed talks
:1. Misha Sitnov - tearing stability criterion'
:2. Bill Lotko - effects of auroral (low-altitude) field-aligned potential drops on nightside reconnection and energy flow in MI coupling

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*The final session, surveying progress and the path forward!
*Ideas to consider: EOS or review article, new focus group (and topics?), upcoming BARREL-SWEDEN campaign

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Drew Turner, (Aerospace)

2. Sasha Ukhorskiy, (JHU/APL), “Proton Acceleration at Injection Fronts in the Inner Magnetosphere”

3. Chih-Ping Wang, (UCLA)

4. Christine Gabrielse, (UCLA)

5. Larry Lyons (UCLA)

6. Jian Yang, (Rice)

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Systems-Science Tools, Methodologies, and Results”

Jacob Bortnik: Machine learning

Misha Balikhin: New model

Konstantin Gamayunov: System-based approach to EMIC waves

Delores Knipp: Estimating uncertainty in DMSP Poynting

Lutz Rastatter: Modeling joule heat in the ionosphere

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

:1. Colby Haggerty, heating during reconnection
:2. Shan Wang - Electron heating during magnetotail reconnection: deriving the heating coefficient and effects of unloading
:3. Liang Wang - Integrating a multi-fluid moment code into OpenGGCM
:4. Rick Wilder, moving X-line in cusp
:5. Paul Cassak, asymmetric reconnection with flow shear
:6. Jason Shuster, the microphysics of how electrons are energized by the reconnection process
:7. Yi-Hsin Liu, Orientation of x-line in asymmetric reconnection

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Jodie Barker Ream (UCLA), “Pi2 propagation in global MHD simulations”

2. Aaron Schutza, (Rice), "Thin filament simulations"

3. Roxanne Katus, (Univ. Michigan), “Magnetospheric ion temperature derived from TWINS flux data”

4. John Wygant, (Univ. Minnesota)

5. Zhengwei Cheng, (UNH), , “A case study of the particle carriers of field-aligned currents in the magnetotail during a substorm: Cluster observation.”

6. Jiang Liu (UCLA), “Asymmetric FACs of dipolarizing flux bundles and how they form the substorm current wedge”

== Friday, June 19 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MIC tutorial''' by ''Stein Haaland'' -- Cold ion outflow from the polar cap

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Behavior of the Geospace System”

Jonathan Krall: SAMI3 simulations of M-I-T coupling

Wen Li: solar wind and the radiation belts

Vania Jordanova: multiple connections in the magnetosphere in the SHIELDS project

Joe Borovsky: behavior modes from global correlation analysis

Audience Discussion

2015 Summer Workshop

2015-06-15T22:43:14Z

Sazykin: /* [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection */

'''June 14-19 2015'''

'''Viceroy Hotels, Resorts & Residences, Snowmass, Colorado'''

Below is a ''fluid'' list of speakers provided by the GEM Workshop Coordinator and Focus Groups. The information here serves as a rough guide for those who wish to know the most updated session plans. Due to the nature of the GEM Workshop, Focus Groups may continue to revise their agenda as needed.

All other information about the 2015 Summer Workshop can be found at the [http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gem/index.html GEM Meeting Coordinator Website].

== Monday, June 15 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MPS tutorial''' by ''Toshi Nishimura'' -- Fast flow channels in the magnetotail and auroral oval: Reconnection, substorm and beyond
* '''GSM tutorial''' by ''Alex Glocer'' -- Global modeling of the space environment system

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Tail Environment and Dynamics at Lunar Distances ====

* Hui Zhang: Transient phenomena at tail Bow shock and magnetopause
* Sheng-Hsien Chen: K-H at the magnetopause and waves at LLBL
* Denny Oliveria: Tail response to interplanetary shocks
* Tim Stubbs (presented by David Sibeck): Mid-tail structure
* Rob Fear: Magnetotail structure associated with transpolar arcs
* Peter Chi: Ion cyclotron waves at the Moon and their connection to the plasma sheet and the lunar exosphere
* Ivan Vasko:Geotail observations in mid and distant tail
* Andrei Runov: Reconnection in the mid-tail
* John Lyon: LFM simulation of bubble formation in mid-tail during growth phase
* Joe Borovsky: The role of mid-tail in Geospace Systems Science

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models'''

* Bob Schunk: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 1 (15 min)
* Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 2 (15 min)
* Abdallah Barakat: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 3 (15 min)
* Dan Welling: Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models (20 min)
* Katie Garcia-Sage: MFLFM Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Simulation Results (20 min)
* Bill Lotko: Overview of Recent LFM Modeling and Thoughts for the Future (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Larry Lyons: Review--Hybrid scenario
*Mike Henderson: Review--Inside-out scenario
*Larry Kepko: Review--Outside-in scenario
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Yukinaga Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Phil Pritchett: Comments from modeler
*Joachim Birn: Comments from modeler
*Misha Sitnov: Comments from modeler
*Mostafa El-Alaoui: Comments from modeler
*Walk-ins welcome.

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 1 (Mon, 01:30-03:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Radiation Belt (RB) observations and modeling results”

''Chairs: Weichao Tu and Steve Morley''

:1. Mary Hudson: Recent simulation of the 'St Patrick's Day storm'
:2. Alexander Drozdov: The VERB code modeling of the St. Patrick’s day Storm
:3. Dan Baker: Impenetrable Barrier during March 17 2015 storm
:4. Allison Jaynes: Fast diffusion of ultra-relativistic electrons: 17 March 2015 storm event
:5. Thiago Brito: Simulations on Radiation Belt Electron Precipitation Response to ULF Waves
:6. Drew Turner: Storm-time analysis of RB
:7. Xinlin Li: Deep Injections of 10s – 100s of keV electrons (RBSP observations)
:8. Jay Albert: Modeling “peculiar” pitch angle distributions with MS waves

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models Compared to Observations'''

* Dan Welling: Merged Ionos-Magnetosphere Models for GEM Storms (15 min)
* Lynn Kistler: Cluster Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Joe Borovsky: LANL Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Stein Haaland: The Estimation of Cold Plasma Outflow During Storms (20 min)
* Discussion

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Robert McPherron: Point Processes: Association of Lists
*Nadine Kalmoni: Auroral dispersion relation
*Kyle Murphy: tools and methods
*Eric Donovan: Circle grams

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 2 (Mon, 03:30-05:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Various magnetospheric wave characteristics and their global distribution required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Wen Li and Jay Albert''

:1. Ashar Ali: Radial Diffusion Coefficients Using E and B Field Data from the Van Allen Probes
:2. Seth Claudepierre: Advertisement for the GEM ULF Wave Challenge
:3. Xinlin Li: Relation between ULF and radial diffusion of RB electrons
:4. Lauren Blum: The relationship between EMIC waves and radiation belt electron precipitation
:5. Wen Li: Global distribution of chorus wave intensity using the statistical model and POES technique
:6. Jay Albert: Nonlinear wave-particle interaction
:7. Qianli Ma: Evaluation of electron scattering due to typical magnetosonic waves using analytical formula
:8. Lunjin Chen: The effect of bounce resonance with magnetosonic waves on the radiation belt electrons
:9. Oleksiy Agapitov: Storm-induced energization and losses of radiation belt electrons: Effects of wave obliquity

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Inter-Model Comparison for GEM Storm Periods and New Measurements'''

* Continued Discussion of Merged Models and Measurements Comparison
* Naritoshi Kitamura: Ion Outflow Topics (20 min)
* Roger Varney: Hysteresis Effects in Coupled MFLFM-IPWM Models (15 min)
* Barbara Giles: Initial Plasma Measurements from MMS (20 min)
* Jonathan Krall: Ion Fluxes Into and Out of a Model Plasmasphere During Storm and Plasmasphere Refilling During Quiet Time (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Vassilis Angelopoulos: HSO
*FG learders: Future planning

== Tuesday, June 16 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Weichao Tu'' -- Quantitative Modeling of Radiation Belt Dynamics: Overview and Challenges
* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Seth Claudepierre'' -- Van Allen Probes: Where We've Been and Where We're Going

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 3 (Tue, 10:30-12:15 PM, Salon 2):''' “Seed populations, plasma density, and magnetic field configuration required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Jay Albert and Weichao Tu''

:1. Natalia Ganushkina: Low energy electrons in the inner magnetosphere
:2. Mick Denton: An empirical model of electron and ion fluxes derived from observations at geosynchronous orbit
:3. Alex Boyd: Quantifying the Radiation Belt Seed Population During the Van Allen Probes Era
:4. Jian Yang: RCM-E simulation of energetic electron injections during an idealized storm
:5. Oleksiy Agapitov: Time Domain Structures: generation mechanisms and effects for electrons
:6. Xiangrong Fu: Double layers associated with electron/ion acoustic waves
:7. James McCollough: DSX is still happening
:8. Alex Crew: New results from FIREBIRD II
:9. Quintin Schiller: A novel technique to apply electron lifetimes to radial diffusion models

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''General Discussion of Modeling and Observations and Focus Group Planning'''

* Yuri Omelchenko: Global Multiscale Magnetospheric Simulations: HYPERS (15 min)
* John Wygant: The Powering of Highly Efficient Poynting Flux-Driven Wind Using Polar Spacecraft Measurements (15 min)
* Bruce Fritz: Ion Upflow Dependence on Ionospheric Density and Solar Photoionization (15 min)
* Bill Peterson: A New Look at DE-1 Escaping Ion Observations at Non-Storm Times (10 min) -- Accompanying poster by Kristina Lu

==== [FG] (Joint) Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms + Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Shin Ohtani - Morphological mapping based on the stability of the magnetotail
*Emma Spanswick - Riometer injection
*Elizabeth Roy - Open-closed boundary
*Jiang Liu - Current wedge structuring
*Chao Yue - 3-D magnetic field modeling
*Chu Xiangning "how does flux transport and pileup change mapping during substorms? "

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 4 (Tue, 01:30-03:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “RB "dropout" and "buildup" challenges and Planning for future activities”

''Chairs: Steve Morley and Wen Li''

General short presentations (01:30-02:15 PM)

:1. Yuri Shprits: Recent results of the reanalysis
:2. Brian Kress: Observations and modeling of rebuilding during storms
:3. Zhao Li: 3D test-particle simulation of the 17-18 March, 2013 CME-shock driven storm
:4. Shri Kanekal and Dan Baker: Electron bursts during 17 March 2015 storm

"Dropout" and "Buildup" Challenges (02:15-03:00 PM)
:5. Drew Turner: Candidate “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:6. QARBM FG leaders: Discussion of “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:7. Open discussions and plan for future FG activities

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

The two SIMIC sessions on Tuesday afternoon will focus mainly on the chosen events: 2013-03-17 and 2012-11-01 storms

A tentative list of presenters:
<Presentation titles omitted>

# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Lyons/Nishimura/Gallardo (UCLA)
# Bea Gallardo (UCLA)
# Rick Wilder (LASP)
# Margaret Chen (Aerospace)
# Gang Lu (NCAR)
# Jonathan Krall (NRL)
# Lois Smith (Michigan)
# Peter Chi (UCLA)
# Alex Glocer for Mei-Ching Fok (NASA)
# Mike Liemohn and Roxanne Katus (Michigan)
# Yiqun Yu and Vania Jordanova (LANL)
# Elizabeth MacDonald (GSFC)
# Bob Lysak (Univ. Minnesota)
# Mike Schulz
# James Weygand (UCLA)
# Phil Valek (SwRI)
# Doug Cramer (UNH)
# Brian Anderson (JHU/APL)

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Vassilis Angelopoulos (TIMI), Pontus Brandt (TIMI), John Lyon (TIMI), Frank Toffoletto (TIMI), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene Setting talks
:1. Joachim Birn
:2. Jim Drake

Contributed talks
:1. Slava Merkin - magnetotail stability in the presence of B_z minimum
:2. Misha Sitnov - new class of equilibria taking into account dipole field and B_z hump
:3. Misha Sitnov - temperature increase at dipolarization fronts
:4. Haoming Liang (w/Ashour-Abdalla and Walker) - oxygen effects on dipolarization fronts
:5. Ying Zou - imager observations of PBI triggering by polar cap structures
:6. Toshi Nishimura - MHD simulation of nightside localized reconnection triggering by lobe flow channels
:7. Yu Lin - global hybrid simulation of the storm-time magnetotail and reconnection flux ropes
:8. Phil Pritchett - instability of current sheets with a localized accumulation of magnetic flux
:9. Phil Pritchett - structure of reconnection flow jets
:10. Joo Hwang (by David Sibeck) - recent MMS observations of dipolarization fronts

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling + Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
'''Session 5 (Tue, 03:30-05:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Joint session with “Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions” FG”

''Chairs: Jichun Zhang and Weichao Tu

:1. Wen Li: Quantitative simulation of radiation belt electron dynamics using 3D diffusion code
:2. Yuri Shprits: Combined Convective and Diffusive Simulation: VERB-4D Results
:3. Xiangrong Fu: Modeling EMIC wave generation from ring current ions
:4. Anthony Saikin: The geomagnetic condition dependence of the spatial distributions of EMIC waves observed by the Van Allen Probes
:5. Jacob Bortnik: Generation of chorus waves in a lab plasma
:6. Xin An: Linear excitation of whistler waves
:7. Shuo Wu: Hybrid Code Simulations of Whistler Waves in Compressed Dipole Field
:8. Chih-ping Wang: Multi-point observation of ULF waves

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Continuing the [http://gem.epss.ucla.edu/mediawikiwiki/index.php/2015_Summer_Workshop#.5BFG.5D_Storm-time_Inner_Magnetosphere-Ionosphere_Convection SIMIC session at 1330-1500].

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Time Lags in Solar Wind-Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Interactions”

speakers will include

Mick Denton: mass transport

Bob McPherron: physical interpretation of time lags

Roger Varney: ionospheric outflow

Shin Ohtani: circuit timescales

Bob Clauer: ionospheric convection

Audience Discussion

== Wednesday, June 17 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''Agency report''' by ''Vladimir Papitashvili'' -- Introduction
* '''Agency report''' by ''Janet Kozyra'' -- NSF GEM Program
* '''Agency report''' by ''Howard Singer'' -- NOAA Agency Report
* ''Bill Lotko'' -- Overview of NSF AGS Portfolio Review and Discussion

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "wave-particle interactions"

June 17, Wednesday 10:30-12:15pm

# Mark Engebretson (Challenge event) - Van Allen probes, NOAA, and ground observations of an intense Pc 1 wave event extending 12 hours in MLT and its resulting depletion of the outer radiation belt
# Justin Lee (Challenge event) - Discussion of Wave-Particle Interactions during the 18-22 Feb 2014 Storm
# Michael Hartinger -The effect of azimuthal wave number on ULF wave-particle interactions
# Chen Zhou - Excitation of Dayside Chorus Waves due to Magnetic Field Line Compression in Response to Interplanetary Shocks
# Homayon Aryan - The distribution of plasmaspheric Hiss and Chorus waves in the inner magnetosphere as functions of geomagnetic activity and solar wind parameters
# Robert Allen - Statistical study of EMIC waves observed by Cluster
# Konstantin Gamayunov - Multiscale nature of electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave development in Earth’s magnetosphere
# Vania Jordanova - RAM-SCB simulations of plasma wave dynamics
# Adam Kellerman - Forecasting the Earth’s radiation environment with GREEP and VERB: a synthesis of empirical- and physics-based modeling across multiple energies and spatial regions

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Foreshock Phenomena

1. Zixu Liu "THEMIS observations of tangential discontinuity-driven foreshock bubbles"

2. Nick Omidi (presented by Jean Berchem) “Impacts of SHFAs on the Magnetosheath & Magnetopause”

3. Hui Zhang "Evolution of HFAs: Cluster Observations"

4. Olga Gutynska “Density enhancements in the magnetosheath: comparison with simulations”

5. Narges Ahmadi “Effects of Electron Anisotropy in Mirror Instability Evolution in the Magnetosheath”

6. David Sibeck “The Solar wind Magnetosphere Ionosphere Link Explorer (SMILE) Mission”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #1: Magnetopause crossing challenge and additional M&V contributions'''

* Lutz Rastaetter: Overview and initial results from the Magnetopause Crossing Challenge
* Mike Wiltberger: Magnetopause dynamics during the March 17th, 2013 event
* Rob Redmon: The future of GOES: Magnetic field and particle observation and modeling to determine magnetopause crossings
* Mike Liemohn: Assessment of the CCMC Experimental Real-time SWMF-Geospace Results
* Dan Welling: Model skill as a function of solar wind driving.
* Ilja Honkonen: Data / Model comparisons with GUMICS

''' M&V Wrap up: Recent highlights and future plans for Metrics & Validation at GEM'''
* Howard Singer dicussion lead

==== [Special] HSO coordination ====
''Discussions on science and campaigns for the upcoming HSO satellite-ground coordination.''
*Vassilis Angelopoulos (Intro, an overview and THEMIS-MMS coordination, THEMIS plans)
*Toshi Nishimura (a PPT on coordination: times, geometry, tentative assets)
*Marilia Samara (on MMS and ground based?)
*Brian Anderson (AMPERE)
*Eric Donovan (TREx)
*Stephen Mende (AGOs)
*Jo Baker (SuperDARN)
*Yukinaga Miyashita (ERG)
*Naritoshi Kitamura (Geotail)
*Sasha Ukhorsky (Van Allen Probes)
*Marc Lessard (WAIS)
*Peter Chi (ULTIMA)
*Drew Turner, Seth Claudepierre, Jacob Bortnik, Mike Hartinger, Shin Ohtani, Jimmy Raeder, Wen Li, Bill Lotko, Rick Chappell, Liz McDonald, Frank Toffoletto, Paul Cassak (Science comments)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "plasma-field coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 1:30-3:00pm

# Lois Smith - Plasmaspheric Suprathermal Heating from Cyclotron Resonance with Equatorial Noise
# Raluca Ilie - Calculating the Inductive electric fields in the terrestrial magnetosphere
# Samuel Califf - Van Allen Probes observations of SAPS during the 28 June 2013 geomagnetic storm
# Hong Zhao - The evolution of ring current ion energy density and energy content during geomagnetic storms based on Van Allen Probes measurements
# Jichun Zhang - “Trunk-like” heavy ion structures observed by the Van Allen Probes
# Cristian Ferradas - Ion nose spectral structures observed by the Van Allen Probes

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Magnetopause Phenomena

1. Hyunju Connor “Thermospheric heating in the high-latitude dayside regions after the sudden enhancement of solar wind dynamic pressure: OpenGGCM-CTIM results”

2. Denny Oliveira <dennymauricio@gmail.com> “Impact angle control of IP shock geoeffectiveness: results of simulations and observations"

3. Michael Hartinger “The global structure and time evolution of dayside magnetopause surface eigenmodes”

4. Brian Walsh “KH waves at the dayside magnetopause”

5. Chih-Ping Wang “The hot electron enhancement in mid-tail magnetosheath and its dawn-dusk asymmetry”

6. Sun-Hee Lee (Presented by Hui Zhang) “Cold dense plasma observed at the Dayside Magnetopause and their dependence on solar wind and geomagnetic conditions”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #2: ULF Wave Challenge'''

* Seth Claudepierre: ULF Wave Challenge overview and addressable science questions
* Ian Mann: Preliminary challenge time periods based on ground magnetometers
* Peter Chi: Global distribution of ULF power from ULTIMA, and in-situ observations of poloidal waves
* Lutz Rastaetter: Newly developed CCMC analysis tools supporting the ULF Challenge, and initial results
* Colin Komar: ULF power in the BATSRUS model and resonance conditions with electrons
* Scot Elkington: Mode structure calculations
* Seth Claudepierre: a few walk on slides
* Ashar Ali: From Van Allen Probes E & B measurements to radial diffusion coefficients.
* Slava Merkin: ULF waves in the LFM.
* Chih-Ping Wang: Observations (RBSP, THEMIS, Geotail) and simulations (LFM) of a 2-hour ULF wave interval.

==== [Special] SPEDAS Software ====

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
*Topic: "magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 3:30-5:00pm

# Dan Welling - Relationship between ionospheric outflow and the ring current
# George Khazanov - Superthermal Electrons Magnetosphere – Ionosphere Coupling in the Regions of Diffuse Aurora
# Megan Gillies - Investigating pulsating aurora at low electron energies
# Ryan Mcgranaghan - Modes of high-latitude conductance variability derived from DMSP F6-F8 and F16-F18 energetic electron precipitation observations: Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis
# Alexa Halford (challenge event) - BARREL Observations of long period precipitation on Jan 26th 2013
# Jichun Zhang (challenge event) - EMIC waves and associated relativistic electron precipitation on 25-26 January 2013
# Yiqun Yu (challenge event) - Modeling ionospheric electron precipitation due to wave particle interactions in the ring current during the 25-26 January 2013 event
# Yi-Jiun Su (challenge event) -RBSP/MagEIS observations: Local electron acceleration in the inner radiation belt?

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Ground Signatures

1. Michael Hartinger “The effect of northern-southern hemisphere conductivity asymmetries on ground magnetic responses during a large solar wind transient”

2. Christina Chu “Hot Flow Anomalies at the Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures”

==== [FG] (Joint) Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere + Metrics and Validation ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection), Tim Guild (Metrics), Masha Kuznetsova (Metrics), Lutz Rastaetter (Metrics), Aaron Ridley (Metrics), Howard Singer (Metrics)

:1. Discussion of finding the electron diffusion region (with MMS)
:2. Discussion of PIC simulations into CCMC
:3. Liang Wang - Integrating a multi-fluid moment code into OpenGGCM

==== [Special] TDAS demo ====

== Thursday, June 18 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''SWMI tutorial''' by ''Robert Fear'' -- Flux transfer events: Looking ahead to MMS
* '''Student-invited tutorial''' by ''Barbara Giles'' -- Engage in NASA's newest flagship to understand the fundamental process of magnetic reconnection -- Magnetospheric Multiscale

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Analysis of Extreme Events”

Surja Sharma: overview talk

Jeff Love: Dst statistics

Slava Merkin: ionospheric turbulence

Allison Jaynes: seed populations of relativistic electrons

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Challenge work in progress, OCB work especially welcome
*Speakers including Peter Porazik 'Modification of the loss cone for energetic particles', Raluca Ilie "mapping isotropic boundaries to the tail", Phil Valek "TWINS/RBSP comparison on Nov 14., 2012 storm, Liz MacDonald "OCB scenario Nov 14 2012", Alexa Halford "BARREL OCB observations," Chu Xiangning "" and more

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Topics include overlap with TIMI (role of entropy bubbles in the inner magnetosphere), as well as other topics relevant to both focus groups.

Presenters: <presentation titles omitted>

# Mike Wiltberger
# Mike Henderson(LANL)
# George Khazanov (GSFC)
# Sheng-Hsien (Sean) Chen (GSFC)
# Matina Gkioulidou (JHU/APL)
# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Xueling Shi (VTech)
# Jian Yang (Rice U.)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Geospace Systems Science + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Joe Borovsky (Systems), Bill Lotko (Systems), Vadim Uritsky (Systems), Juan Valdivia (Systems), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene setting talks
:1. Binzheng Zhang
:2. Colin Komar

Contributed talks
:1. Misha Sitnov - tearing stability criterion'
:2. Bill Lotko - effects of auroral (low-altitude) field-aligned potential drops on nightside reconnection and energy flow in MI coupling

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*The final session, surveying progress and the path forward!
*Ideas to consider: EOS or review article, new focus group (and topics?), upcoming BARREL-SWEDEN campaign

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Drew Turner, (Aerospace)

2. Sasha Ukhorskiy, (JHU/APL), “Proton Acceleration at Injection Fronts in the Inner Magnetosphere”

3. Chih-Ping Wang, (UCLA)

4. Christine Gabrielse, (UCLA)

5. Larry Lyons (UCLA)

6. Jian Yang, (Rice)

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Systems-Science Tools, Methodologies, and Results”

Jacob Bortnik: Machine learning

Konstantin Gamayunov: System-based approach to EMIC waves

Delores Knipp: Estimating uncertainty in DMSP Poynting

Lutz Rastatter: Modeling joule heat in the ionosphere

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

:1. Colby Haggerty, heating during reconnection
:2. Shan Wang - Electron heating during magnetotail reconnection: deriving the heating coefficient and effects of unloading
:3. Rick Wilder, moving X-line in cusp
:4. Paul Cassak, asymmetric reconnection with flow shear
:5. Jason Shuster, the microphysics of how electrons are energized by the reconnection process
:6. Yi-Hsin Liu, Orientation of x-line in asymmetric reconnection

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Jodie Barker Ream (UCLA), “Pi2 propagation in global MHD simulations”

2. Aaron Schutza, (Rice), "Thin filament simulations"

3. Roxanne Katus, (Univ. Michigan), “Magnetospheric ion temperature derived from TWINS flux data”

4. John Wygant, (Univ. Minnesota)

5. Zhengwei Cheng, (UNH), , “A case study of the particle carriers of field-aligned currents in the magnetotail during a substorm: Cluster observation.”

6. Jiang Liu (UCLA), “Asymmetric FACs of dipolarizing flux bundles and how they form the substorm current wedge”

== Friday, June 19 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MIC tutorial''' by ''Stein Haaland'' -- Cold ion outflow from the polar cap

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Behavior of the Geospace System”

Jonathan Krall: SAMI3 simulations of M-I-T coupling

Wen Li: solar wind and the radiation belts

Vania Jordanova: multiple connections in the magnetosphere in the SHIELDS project

Joe Borovsky: behavior modes from global correlation analysis

Audience Discussion

2015 Summer Workshop

2015-06-15T06:50:28Z

Sazykin: /* [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection */

'''June 14-19 2015'''

'''Viceroy Hotels, Resorts & Residences, Snowmass, Colorado'''

Below is a ''fluid'' list of speakers provided by the GEM Workshop Coordinator and Focus Groups. The information here serves as a rough guide for those who wish to know the most updated session plans. Due to the nature of the GEM Workshop, Focus Groups may continue to revise their agenda as needed.

All other information about the 2015 Summer Workshop can be found at the [http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gem/index.html GEM Meeting Coordinator Website].

== Monday, June 15 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MPS tutorial''' by ''Toshi Nishimura'' -- Fast flow channels in the magnetotail and auroral oval: Reconnection, substorm and beyond
* '''GSM tutorial''' by ''Alex Glocer'' -- Global modeling of the space environment system

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Tail Environment and Dynamics at Lunar Distances ====

* Hui Zhang: Transient phenomena at tail Bow shock and magnetopause
* Sheng-Hsien Chen: K-H at the magnetopause and waves at LLBL
* Denny Oliveria: Tail response to interplanetary shocks
* Tim Stubbs (presented by David Sibeck): Mid-tail structure
* Rob Fear: Magnetotail structure associated with transpolar arcs
* Peter Chi: Ion cyclotron waves at the Moon and their connection to the plasma sheet and the lunar exosphere
* Ivan Vasko:Geotail observations in mid and distant tail
* Andrei Runov: Reconnection in the mid-tail
* John Lyon: LFM simulation of bubble formation in mid-tail during growth phase
* Joe Borovsky: The role of mid-tail in Geospace Systems Science

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models'''

* Bob Schunk: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 1 (15 min)
* Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 2 (15 min)
* Abdallah Barakat: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 3 (15 min)
* Dan Welling: Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models (20 min)
* Katie Garcia-Sage: MFLFM Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Simulation Results (20 min)
* Bill Lotko: Overview of Recent LFM Modeling and Thoughts for the Future (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Larry Lyons: Review--Hybrid scenario
*Mike Henderson: Review--Inside-out scenario
*Larry Kepko: Review--Outside-in scenario
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Yukinaga Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Phil Pritchett: Comments from modeler
*Joachim Birn: Comments from modeler
*Misha Sitnov: Comments from modeler
*Mostafa El-Alaoui: Comments from modeler
*Walk-ins welcome.

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 1 (Mon, 01:30-03:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Radiation Belt (RB) observations and modeling results”

''Chairs: Weichao Tu and Steve Morley''

:1. Mary Hudson: Recent simulation of the 'St Patrick's Day storm'
:2. Alexander Drozdov: The VERB code modeling of the St. Patrick’s day Storm
:3. Dan Baker: Impenetrable Barrier during March 17 2015 storm
:4. Allison Jaynes: Fast diffusion of ultra-relativistic electrons: 17 March 2015 storm event
:5. Thiago Brito: Simulations on Radiation Belt Electron Precipitation Response to ULF Waves
:6. Drew Turner: Storm-time analysis of RB
:7. Xinlin Li: Deep Injections of 10s – 100s of keV electrons (RBSP observations)
:8. Jay Albert: Modeling “peculiar” pitch angle distributions with MS waves

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models Compared to Observations'''

* Dan Welling: Merged Ionos-Magnetosphere Models for GEM Storms (15 min)
* Lynn Kistler: Cluster Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Joe Borovsky: LANL Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Stein Haaland: The Estimation of Cold Plasma Outflow During Storms (20 min)
* Discussion

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Robert McPherron: Point Processes: Association of Lists
*Nadine Kalmoni: Auroral dispersion relation
*Kyle Murphy: tools and methods
*Eric Donovan: Circle grams

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 2 (Mon, 03:30-05:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Various magnetospheric wave characteristics and their global distribution required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Wen Li and Jay Albert''

:1. Ashar Ali: Radial Diffusion Coefficients Using E and B Field Data from the Van Allen Probes
:2. Seth Claudepierre: Advertisement for the GEM ULF Wave Challenge
:3. Xinlin Li: Relation between ULF and radial diffusion of RB electrons
:4. Lauren Blum: The relationship between EMIC waves and radiation belt electron precipitation
:5. Wen Li: Global distribution of chorus wave intensity using the statistical model and POES technique
:6. Jay Albert: Nonlinear wave-particle interaction
:7. Qianli Ma: Evaluation of electron scattering due to typical magnetosonic waves using analytical formula
:8. Lunjin Chen: The effect of bounce resonance with magnetosonic waves on the radiation belt electrons
:9. Oleksiy Agapitov: Storm-induced energization and losses of radiation belt electrons: Effects of wave obliquity

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Inter-Model Comparison for GEM Storm Periods and New Measurements'''

* Continued Discussion of Merged Models and Measurements Comparison
* Naritoshi Kitamura: Ion Outflow Topics (20 min)
* Roger Varney: Hysteresis Effects in Coupled MFLFM-IPWM Models (15 min)
* Barbara Giles: Initial Plasma Measurements from MMS (20 min)
* Jonathan Krall: Ion Fluxes Into and Out of a Model Plasmasphere During Storm and Plasmasphere Refilling During Quiet Time (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Vassilis Angelopoulos: HSO
*FG learders: Future planning

== Tuesday, June 16 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Weichao Tu'' -- Quantitative Modeling of Radiation Belt Dynamics: Overview and Challenges
* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Seth Claudepierre'' -- Van Allen Probes: Where We've Been and Where We're Going

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 3 (Tue, 10:30-12:15 PM, Salon 2):''' “Seed populations, plasma density, and magnetic field configuration required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Jay Albert and Weichao Tu''

:1. Natalia Ganushkina: Low energy electrons in the inner magnetosphere
:2. Mick Denton: An empirical model of electron and ion fluxes derived from observations at geosynchronous orbit
:3. Alex Boyd: Quantifying the Radiation Belt Seed Population During the Van Allen Probes Era
:4. Jian Yang: RCM-E simulation of energetic electron injections during an idealized storm
:5. Oleksiy Agapitov: Time Domain Structures: generation mechanisms and effects for electrons
:6. Xiangrong Fu: Double layers associated with electron/ion acoustic waves
:7. James McCollough: DSX is still happening
:8. Alex Crew: New results from FIREBIRD II
:9. Quintin Schiller: A novel technique to apply electron lifetimes to radial diffusion models

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''General Discussion of Modeling and Observations and Focus Group Planning'''

* Yuri Omelchenko: Global Multiscale Magnetospheric Simulations: HYPERS (15 min)
* John Wygant: The Powering of Highly Efficient Poynting Flux-Driven Wind Using Polar Spacecraft Measurements (15 min)
* Bruce Fritz: Ion Upflow Dependence on Ionospheric Density and Solar Photoionization (15 min)
* Bill Peterson: A New Look at DE-1 Escaping Ion Observations at Non-Storm Times (10 min) -- Accompanying poster by Kristina Lu

==== [FG] (Joint) Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms + Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Shin Ohtani - Morphological mapping based on the stability of the magnetotail
*Emma Spanswick - Riometer injection
*Elizabeth Roy - Open-closed boundary
*Jiang Liu - Current wedge structuring
*Chao Yue - 3-D magnetic field modeling

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 4 (Tue, 01:30-03:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “RB "dropout" and "buildup" challenges and Planning for future activities”

''Chairs: Steve Morley and Wen Li''

General short presentations (01:30-02:15 PM)

:1. Yuri Shprits: Recent results of the reanalysis
:2. Brian Kress: Observations and modeling of rebuilding during storms
:3. Zhao Li: 3D test-particle simulation of the 17-18 March, 2013 CME-shock driven storm
:4. Shri Kanekal and Dan Baker: Electron bursts during 17 March 2015 storm

"Dropout" and "Buildup" Challenges (02:15-03:00 PM)
:5. Drew Turner: Candidate “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:6. QARBM FG leaders: Discussion of “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:7. Open discussions and plan for future FG activities

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

The two SIMIC sessions on Tuesday afternoon will focus mainly on the chosen events: 2013-03-17 and 2012-11-01 storms

A tentative list of presenters:
<Presentation titles omitted>

# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Lyons/Nishimura/Gallardo (UCLA)
# Bea Gallardo (UCLA)
# Rick Wilder (LASP)
# Margaret Chen (Aerospace)
# Gang Lu (NCAR)
# Jonathan Krall (NRL)
# Lois Smith (Michigan)
# Peter Chi (UCLA)
# Alex Glocer for Mei-Ching Fok (NASA)
# Mike Liemohn and Roxanne Katus (Michigan)
# Yiqun Yu and Vania Jordanova (LANL)
# Elizabeth MacDonald (GSFC)
# Bob Lysak (Univ. Minnesota)
# Mike Schulz
# James Weygand (UCLA)
# Phil Valek (SwRI)
# Doug Cramer (UNH)
# Brian Anderson (JHU/APL)

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Vassilis Angelopoulos (TIMI), Pontus Brandt (TIMI), John Lyon (TIMI), Frank Toffoletto (TIMI), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene Setting talks
:1. Joachim Birn
:2. Jim Drake

Contributed talks
:1. Slava Merkin - magnetotail stability in the presence of B_z minimum
:2. Misha Sitnov - new class of equilibria taking into account dipole field and B_z hump
:3. Misha Sitnov - temperature increase at dipolarization fronts
:4. Haoming Liang (w/Ashour-Abdalla and Walker) - oxygen effects on dipolarization fronts
:5. Ying Zou - imager observations of PBI triggering by polar cap structures
:6. Toshi Nishimura - MHD simulation of nightside localized reconnection triggering by lobe flow channels
:7. Yu Lin - global hybrid simulation of the storm-time magnetotail and reconnection flux ropes
:8. Phil Pritchett - instability of current sheets with a localized accumulation of magnetic flux
:9. Phil Pritchett - structure of reconnection flow jets
:10. Joo Hwang (by David Sibeck) - recent MMS observations of dipolarization fronts

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling + Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
'''Session 5 (Tue, 03:30-05:00 PM, Salon 2):''' “Joint session with “Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions” FG”

''Chairs: Jichun Zhang and Weichao Tu

:1. Wen Li: Quantitative simulation of radiation belt electron dynamics using 3D diffusion code
:2. Yuri Shprits: Combined Convective and Diffusive Simulation: VERB-4D Results
:3. Xiangrong Fu: Modeling EMIC wave generation from ring current ions
:4. Anthony Saikin: The geomagnetic condition dependence of the spatial distributions of EMIC waves observed by the Van Allen Probes
:5. Jacob Bortnik: Generation of chorus waves in a lab plasma
:6. Xin An: Linear excitation of whistler waves
:7. Shuo Wu: Hybrid Code Simulations of Whistler Waves in Compressed Dipole Field
:8. Chih-ping Wang: Multi-point observation of ULF waves

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Continuing the [http://gem.epss.ucla.edu/mediawikiwiki/index.php/2015_Summer_Workshop#.5BFG.5D_Storm-time_Inner_Magnetosphere-Ionosphere_Convection SIMIC session at 1330-1500].

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Time Lags in Solar Wind-Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Interactions”

speakers will include

Mick Denton: mass transport

Bob McPherron: physical interpretation of time lags

Roger Varney: ionospheric outflow

Shin Ohtani: circuit timescales

Bob Clauer: ionospheric convection

Audience Discussion

== Wednesday, June 17 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''Agency report''' by ''Vladimir Papitashvili'' -- Introduction
* '''Agency report''' by ''Janet Kozyra'' -- NSF GEM Program
* '''Agency report''' by ''Howard Singer'' -- NOAA Agency Report
* ''Bill Lotko'' -- Overview of NSF AGS Portfolio Review and Discussion

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "wave-particle interactions"

June 17, Wednesday 10:30-12:15pm

# Mark Engebretson (Challenge event) - Van Allen probes, NOAA, and ground observations of an intense Pc 1 wave event extending 12 hours in MLT and its resulting depletion of the outer radiation belt
# Justin Lee (Challenge event) - Discussion of Wave-Particle Interactions during the 18-22 Feb 2014 Storm
# Michael Hartinger -The effect of azimuthal wave number on ULF wave-particle interactions
# Chen Zhou - Excitation of Dayside Chorus Waves due to Magnetic Field Line Compression in Response to Interplanetary Shocks
# Homayon Aryan - The distribution of plasmaspheric Hiss and Chorus waves in the inner magnetosphere as functions of geomagnetic activity and solar wind parameters
# Robert Allen - Statistical study of EMIC waves observed by Cluster
# Konstantin Gamayunov - Multiscale nature of electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave development in Earth’s magnetosphere
# Vania Jordanova - RAM-SCB simulations of plasma wave dynamics
# Adam Kellerman - Forecasting the Earth’s radiation environment with GREEP and VERB: a synthesis of empirical- and physics-based modeling across multiple energies and spatial regions

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Foreshock Phenomena

1. Zixu Liu "THEMIS observations of tangential discontinuity-driven foreshock bubbles"

2. Nick Omidi (presented by Jean Berchem) “Impacts of SHFAs on the Magnetosheath & Magnetopause”

3. Hui Zhang "Evolution of HFAs: Cluster Observations"

4. Olga Gutynska “Density enhancements in the magnetosheath: comparison with simulations”

5. Narges Ahmadi “Effects of Electron Anisotropy in Mirror Instability Evolution in the Magnetosheath”

6. David Sibeck “The Solar wind Magnetosphere Ionosphere Link Explorer (SMILE) Mission”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #1: Magnetopause crossing challenge and additional M&V contributions'''

* Lutz Rastaetter: Overview and initial results from the Magnetopause Crossing Challenge
* Mike Wiltberger: Magnetopause dynamics during the March 17th, 2013 event
* Rob Redmon: The future of GOES: Magnetic field and particle observation and modeling to determine magnetopause crossings
* Mike Liemohn: Assessment of the CCMC Experimental Real-time SWMF-Geospace Results
* Dan Welling: Model skill as a function of solar wind driving.
* Ilja Honkonen: Data / Model comparisons with GUMICS

''' M&V Wrap up: Recent highlights and future plans for Metrics & Validation at GEM'''
* Howard Singer dicussion lead

==== [Special] HSO coordination ====
''Discussions on science and campaigns for the upcoming HSO satellite-ground coordination.''
*Vassilis Angelopoulos (Intro, an overview and THEMIS-MMS coordination, THEMIS plans)
*Toshi Nishimura (a PPT on coordination: times, geometry, tentative assets)
*Marilia Samara (on MMS and ground based?)
*Brian Anderson (AMPERE)
*Eric Donovan (TREx)
*Stephen Mende (AGOs)
*Jo Baker (SuperDARN)
*Yukinaga Miyashita (ERG)
*Naritoshi Kitamura (Geotail)
*Sasha Ukhorsky (Van Allen Probes)
*Marc Lessard (WAIS)
*Peter Chi (ULTIMA)
*Drew Turner, Seth Claudepierre, Jacob Bortnik, Mike Hartinger, Shin Ohtani, Jimmy Raeder, Wen Li, Bill Lotko, Rick Chappell, Liz McDonald, Frank Toffoletto, Paul Cassak (Science comments)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "plasma-field coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 1:30-3:00pm

# Lois Smith - Plasmaspheric Suprathermal Heating from Cyclotron Resonance with Equatorial Noise
# Raluca Ilie - Calculating the Inductive electric fields in the terrestrial magnetosphere
# Samuel Califf - Van Allen Probes observations of SAPS during the 28 June 2013 geomagnetic storm
# Hong Zhao - The evolution of ring current ion energy density and energy content during geomagnetic storms based on Van Allen Probes measurements
# Jichun Zhang - “Trunk-like” heavy ion structures observed by the Van Allen Probes
# Cristian Ferradas - Ion nose spectral structures observed by the Van Allen Probes

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Magnetopause Phenomena

1. Hyunju Connor “Thermospheric heating in the high-latitude dayside regions after the sudden enhancement of solar wind dynamic pressure: OpenGGCM-CTIM results”

2. Denny Oliveira <dennymauricio@gmail.com> “Impact angle control of IP shock geoeffectiveness: results of simulations and observations"

3. Michael Hartinger “The global structure and time evolution of dayside magnetopause surface eigenmodes”

4. Brian Walsh “KH waves at the dayside magnetopause”

5. Chih-Ping Wang “The hot electron enhancement in mid-tail magnetosheath and its dawn-dusk asymmetry”

6. Sun-Hee Lee (Presented by Hui Zhang) “Cold dense plasma observed at the Dayside Magnetopause and their dependence on solar wind and geomagnetic conditions”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #2: ULF Wave Challenge'''

* Seth Claudepierre: ULF Wave Challenge overview and addressable science questions
* Ian Mann: Preliminary challenge time periods based on ground magnetometers
* Peter Chi: Global distribution of ULF power from ULTIMA, and in-situ observations of poloidal waves
* Lutz Rastaetter: Newly developed CCMC analysis tools supporting the ULF Challenge, and initial results
* Colin Komar: ULF power in the BATSRUS model and resonance conditions with electrons
* Scot Elkington: Mode structure calculations
* Seth Claudepierre: a few walk on slides
* Ashar Ali: From Van Allen Probes E & B measurements to radial diffusion coefficients.
* Slava Merkin: ULF waves in the LFM.
* Chih-Ping Wang: Observations (RBSP, THEMIS, Geotail) and simulations (LFM) of a 2-hour ULF wave interval.

==== [Special] SPEDAS Software ====

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
*Topic: "magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 3:30-5:00pm

# Dan Welling - Relationship between ionospheric outflow and the ring current
# George Khazanov - Superthermal Electrons Magnetosphere – Ionosphere Coupling in the Regions of Diffuse Aurora
# Megan Gillies - Investigating pulsating aurora at low electron energies
# Ryan Mcgranaghan - Modes of high-latitude conductance variability derived from DMSP F6-F8 and F16-F18 energetic electron precipitation observations: Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis
# Alexa Halford (challenge event) - BARREL Observations of long period precipitation on Jan 26th 2013
# Jichun Zhang (challenge event) - EMIC waves and associated relativistic electron precipitation on 25-26 January 2013
# Yiqun Yu (challenge event) - Modeling ionospheric electron precipitation due to wave particle interactions in the ring current during the 25-26 January 2013 event
# Yi-Jiun Su (challenge event) -RBSP/MagEIS observations: Local electron acceleration in the inner radiation belt?

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Ground Signatures

1. Michael Hartinger “The effect of northern-southern hemisphere conductivity asymmetries on ground magnetic responses during a large solar wind transient”

2. Christina Chu “Hot Flow Anomalies at the Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures”

==== [FG] (Joint) Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere + Metrics and Validation ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection), Tim Guild (Metrics), Masha Kuznetsova (Metrics), Lutz Rastaetter (Metrics), Aaron Ridley (Metrics), Howard Singer (Metrics)

:1. Discussion of finding the electron diffusion region (with MMS)
:2. Discussion of PIC simulations into CCMC
:3. Liang Wang - Integrating a multi-fluid moment code into OpenGGCM

==== [Special] TDAS demo ====

== Thursday, June 18 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''SWMI tutorial''' by ''Robert Fear'' -- Flux transfer events: Looking ahead to MMS
* '''Student-invited tutorial''' by ''Barbara Giles'' -- Engage in NASA's newest flagship to understand the fundamental process of magnetic reconnection -- Magnetospheric Multiscale

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Analysis of Extreme Events”

Surja Sharma: overview talk

Jeff Love: Dst statistics

Slava Merkin: ionospheric turbulence

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Topics include overlap with TIMI (role of entropy bubbles in the inner magnetosphere), as well as other topics relevant to both focus groups.

Presenters: <presentation titles omitted>

# Mike Wiltberger
# Mike Henderson(LANL)
# George Khazanov (GSFC)
# Natalia Ganushkina and Stepan Dubyagin
# Sheng-Hsien (Sean) Chen (GSFC)
# Matina Gkioulidou (JHU/APL)
# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Xueling Shi (VTech)
# Jian Yang (Rice U.)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Geospace Systems Science + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Joe Borovsky (Systems), Bill Lotko (Systems), Vadim Uritsky (Systems), Juan Valdivia (Systems), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene setting talks
:1. Binzheng Zhang
:2. Colin Komar

Contributed talks
:1. Misha Sitnov - tearing stability criterion'
:2. Bill Lotko - effects of auroral (low-altitude) field-aligned potential drops on nightside reconnection and energy flow in MI coupling

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Drew Turner, (Aerospace)

2. Sasha Ukhorskiy, (JHU/APL), “Proton Acceleration at Injection Fronts in the Inner Magnetosphere”

3. Chih-Ping Wang, (UCLA)

4. Christine Gabrielse, (UCLA)

5. Larry Lyons (UCLA)

6. Jian Yang, (Rice)

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Systems-Science Tools, Methodologies, and Results”

Jacob Bortnik: Machine learning

Konstantin Gamayunov: System-based approach to EMIC waves

Delores Knipp: Estimating uncertainty in DMSP Poynting

Lutz Rastatter: Modeling joule heat in the ionosphere

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

:1. Colby Haggerty, heating during reconnection
:2. Shan Wang - Electron heating during magnetotail reconnection: deriving the heating coefficient and effects of unloading
:3. Rick Wilder, moving X-line in cusp
:4. Paul Cassak, asymmetric reconnection with flow shear
:5. Jason Shuster, the microphysics of how electrons are energized by the reconnection process
:6. Yi-Hsin Liu, Orientation of x-line in asymmetric reconnection

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Jodie Barker Ream (UCLA), “Pi2 propagation in global MHD simulations”

2. Aaron Schutza, (Rice), "Thin filament simulations"

3. Roxanne Katus, (Univ. Michigan), “Magnetospheric ion temperature derived from TWINS flux data”

4. John Wygant, (Univ. Minnesota)

5. Zhengwei Cheng, (UNH), , “A case study of the particle carriers of field-aligned currents in the magnetotail during a substorm: Cluster observation.”

== Friday, June 19 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MIC tutorial''' by ''Stein Haaland'' -- Cold ion outflow from the polar cap

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Behavior of the Geospace System”

Jonathan Krall: SAMI3 simulations of M-I-T coupling

Wen Li: solar wind and the radiation belts

Vania Jordanova: multiple connections in the magnetosphere in the SHIELDS project

Joe Borovsky: behavior modes from global correlation analysis

Audience Discussion

2015 Summer Workshop

2015-06-13T06:36:43Z

Sazykin: /* [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection */

'''June 14-19 2015'''

'''Viceroy Hotels, Resorts & Residences, Snowmass, Colorado'''

Below is a ''fluid'' list of speakers provided by the GEM Workshop Coordinator and Focus Groups. The information here serves as a rough guide for those who wish to know the most updated session plans. Due to the nature of the GEM Workshop, Focus Groups may continue to revise their agenda as needed.

All other information about the 2015 Summer Workshop can be found at the [http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gem/index.html GEM Meeting Coordinator Website].

== Monday, June 15 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MPS tutorial''' by ''Toshi Nishimura'' -- Fast flow channels in the magnetotail and auroral oval: Reconnection, substorm and beyond
* '''GSM tutorial''' by ''Alex Glocer'' -- Global modeling of the space environment system

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Tail Environment and Dynamics at Lunar Distances ====

* Hui Zhang: Transient phenomena at tail Bow shock and magnetopause
* Sheng-Hsien Chen: K-H at the magnetopause and waves at LLBL
* Denny Oliveria: Tail response to interplanetary shocks
* Tim Stubbs (presented by David Sibeck): Mid-tail structure
* Rob Fear: Magnetotail structure associated with transpolar arcs
* Peter Chi: Ion cyclotron waves at the Moon and their connection to the plasma sheet and the lunar exosphere
* Ivan Vasko:Geotail observations in mid and distant tail
* Andrei Runov: Reconnection in the mid-tail
* John Lyon: LFM simulation of bubble formation in mid-tail during growth phase
* Joe Borovsky: The role of mid-tail in Geospace Systems Science

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models'''

* Bob Schunk: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 1 (15 min)
* Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 2 (15 min)
* Abdallah Barakat: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 3 (15 min)
* Dan Welling: Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models (20 min)
* Katie Garcia-Sage: MFLFM Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Simulation Results (20 min)
* Bill Lotko: Overview of Recent LFM Modeling and Thoughts for the Future (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Larry Lyons: Review--Hybrid scenario
*Mike Henderson: Review--Inside-out scenario
*Larry Kepko: Review--Outside-in scenario
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Yukinaga Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Phil Pritchett: Comments from modeler
*Joachim Birn: Comments from modeler
*Misha Sitnov: Comments from modeler
*Mostafa El-Alaoui: Comments from modeler
*Walk-ins welcome.

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 1 (Mon, 01:30-03:00 PM):''' “Radiation Belt (RB) observations and modeling results”

''Chairs: Weichao Tu and Steve Morley''

:1. Mary Hudson: Recent simulation of the 'St Patrick's Day storm'
:2. Alexander Drozdov: The VERB code modeling of the St. Patrick’s day Storm
:3. Dan Baker: Impenetrable Barrier during March 17 2015 storm
:4. Allison Jaynes: Fast diffusion of ultra-relativistic electrons: 17 March 2015 storm event
:5. Thiago Brito: Simulations on Radiation Belt Electron Precipitation Response to ULF Waves
:6. Drew Turner: Storm-time analysis of RB
:7. Xinlin Li: Deep Injections of 10s – 100s of keV electrons (RBSP observations)
:8. Jay Albert: Modeling “peculiar” pitch angle distributions with MS waves

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models Compared to Observations'''

* Dan Welling: Merged Ionos-Magnetosphere Models for GEM Storms (15 min)
* Lynn Kistler: Cluster Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Joe Borovsky: LANL Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Stein Haaland: The Estimation of Cold Plasma Outflow During Storms (20 min)
* Discussion

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Robert McPherron: Point Processes: Association of Lists
*Nadine Kalmoni: Auroral dispersion relation
*Kyle Murphy: tools and methods
*Eric Donovan: Circle grams

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 2 (Mon, 03:30-05:00 PM):''' “Various magnetospheric wave characteristics and their global distribution required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Wen Li and Jay Albert''

:1. Ashar Ali: Radial Diffusion Coefficients Using E and B Field Data from the Van Allen Probes
:2. Seth Claudepierre: Advertisement for the GEM ULF Wave Challenge
:3. Xinlin Li: Relation between ULF and radial diffusion of RB electrons
:4. Lauren Blum: The relationship between EMIC waves and radiation belt electron precipitation
:5. Wen Li: Global distribution of chorus wave intensity using the statistical model and POES technique
:6. Jay Albert: Nonlinear wave-particle interaction
:7. Qianli Ma: Evaluation of electron scattering due to typical magnetosonic waves using analytical formula
:8. Lunjin Chen: The effect of bounce resonance with magnetosonic waves on the radiation belt electrons
:9. Oleksiy Agapitov: Storm-induced energization and losses of radiation belt electrons: Effects of wave obliquity

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Inter-Model Comparison for GEM Storm Periods and New Measurements'''

* Continued Discussion of Merged Models and Measurements Comparison
* Naritoshi Kitamura: Ion Outflow Topics (20 min)
* Roger Varney: Hysteresis Effects in Coupled MFLFM-IPWM Models (15 min)
* Barbara Giles: Initial Plasma Measurements from MMS (20 min)
* Jonathan Krall: Ion Fluxes Into and Out of a Model Plasmasphere During Storm and Plasmasphere Refilling During Quiet Time (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Vassilis Angelopoulos: HSO
*FG learders: Future planning

== Tuesday, June 16 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Weichao Tu'' -- title
* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Seth Claudepierre'' -- Van Allen Probes: Where We've Been and Where We're Going

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 3 (Tue, 10:30-12:15 PM):''' “Seed populations, plasma density, and magnetic field configuration required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Jay Albert and Weichao Tu''

:1. Natalia Ganushkina: Low energy electrons in the inner magnetosphere
:2. Mick Denton: An empirical model of electron and ion fluxes derived from observations at geosynchronous orbit
:3. Alex Boyd: Quantifying the Radiation Belt Seed Population During the Van Allen Probes Era
:4. Jian Yang: RCM-E simulation of energetic electron injections during an idealized storm
:5. Oleksiy Agapitov: Time Domain Structures: generation mechanisms and effects for electrons
:6. Xiangrong Fu: Double layers associated with electron/ion acoustic waves
:7. James McCollough: DSX is still happening
:8. Alex Crew: New results from FIREBIRD II
:9. Quintin Schiller: A novel technique to apply electron lifetimes to radial diffusion models

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''General Discussion of Modeling and Observations and Focus Group Planning'''

* Yuri Omelchenko: Global Multiscale Magnetospheric Simulations: HYPERS (15 min)
* John Wygant: The Powering of Highly Efficient Poynting Flux-Driven Wind Using Polar Spacecraft Measurements (15 min)
* Bruce Fritz: Ion Upflow Dependence on Ionospheric Density and Solar Photoionization (15 min)
* Bill Peterson: A New Look at DE-1 Escaping Ion Observations at Non-Storm Times (10 min) -- Accompanying poster by Kristina Lu

==== [FG] (Joint) Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms + Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Shin Ohtani - Morphological mapping based on the stability of the magnetotail
*Emma Spanswick - Riometer injection
*Elizabeth Roy - Open-closed boundary
*Jiang Liu - Current wedge structuring
*Chao Yue - 3-D magnetic field modeling

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 4 (Tue, 01:30-03:00 PM):''' “RB "dropout" and "buildup" challenges and Planning for future activities”

''Chairs: Steve Morley and Wen Li''

General short presentations (01:30-02:15 PM)

:1. Yuri Shprits: Recent results of the reanalysis
:2. Brian Kress: Observations and modeling of rebuilding during storms
:3. Zhao Li: 3D test-particle simulation of the 17-18 March, 2013 CME-shock driven storm
:4. Shri Kanekal and Dan Baker: Electron bursts during 17 March 2015 storm

"Dropout" and "Buildup" Challenges (02:15-03:00 PM)
:5. Drew Turner: Candidate “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:6. QARBM FG leaders: Discussion of “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:7. Open discussions and plan for future FG activities

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

The two SIMIC sessions on Tuesday afternoon will focus mainly on the chosen events: 2013-03-17 and 2012-11-01 storms

A tentative list of presenters:
<Presentation titles omitted>

# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Lyons/Nishimura/Gallardo (UCLA)
# Bea Gallardo (UCLA)
# Rick Wilder (LASP)
# Margaret Chen (Aerospace)
# Gang Lu (NCAR)
# Jonathan Krall (NRL)
# Lois Smith (Michigan)
# Peter Chi (UCLA)
# Alex Glocer for Mei-Ching Fok (NASA)
# Mike Liemohn and Roxanne Katus (Michigan)
# Yiqun Yu and Vania Jordanova (LANL)
# Elizabeth MacDonald (GSFC)
# Bob Lysak (Univ. Minnesota)
# Mike Schulz
# James Weygand (UCLA)
# Phil Valek (SwRI)
# Doug Cramer (UNH)
# Brian Anderson (JHU/APL)

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Vassilis Angelopoulos (TIMI), Pontus Brandt (TIMI), John Lyon (TIMI), Frank Toffoletto (TIMI), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene Setting talks
:1. Joachim Birn
:2. Jim Drake

Contributed talks
:1. Slava Merkin - magnetotail stability in the presence of B_z minimum
:2. Misha Sitnov - new class of equilibria taking into account dipole field and B_z hump
:3. Misha Sitnov - temperature increase at dipolarization fronts
:4. Haoming Liang (w/Ashour-Abdalla and Walker) - oxygen effects on dipolarization fronts
:5. Ying Zou - imager observations of PBI triggering by polar cap structures
:6. Toshi Nishimura - MHD simulation of nightside localized reconnection triggering by lobe flow channels
:7. Yu Lin - global hybrid simulation of the storm-time magnetotail and reconnection flux ropes
:8. Phil Pritchett - instability of current sheets with a localized accumulation of magnetic flux
:9.Phil Pritchett - structure of reconnection flow jets

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling + Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
'''Session 5 (Tue, 03:30-05:00 PM):''' “Joint session with “Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions” FG”

''Chairs: Jichun Zhang and Weichao Tu

:1. Wen Li: Quantitative simulation of radiation belt electron dynamics using 3D diffusion code
:2. Yuri Shprits: Combined Convective and Diffusive Simulation: VERB-4D Results
:3. Xiangrong Fu: Modeling EMIC wave generation from ring current ions
:4. Anthony Saikin: The geomagnetic condition dependence of the spatial distributions of EMIC waves observed by the Van Allen Probes
:5. Jacob Bortnik: Generation of chorus waves in a lab plasma
:6. Xin An: Linear excitation of whistler waves
:7. Shuo Wu: Hybrid Code Simulations of Whistler Waves in Compressed Dipole Field
:8. Chih-ping Wang: Multi-point observation of ULF waves

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Continuing the [http://gem.epss.ucla.edu/mediawikiwiki/index.php/2015_Summer_Workshop#.5BFG.5D_Storm-time_Inner_Magnetosphere-Ionosphere_Convection SIMIC session at 1330-1500].

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Time Lags in Solar Wind-Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Interactions”

speakers will include

Mick Denton: mass transport

Bob McPherron: physical interpretation of time lags

Roger Varney: ionospheric outflow

Shin Ohtani: circuit timescales

Bob Clauer: ionospheric convection

Audience Discussion

== Wednesday, June 17 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''Agency report''' by ''Vladimir Papitashvili'' -- Introduction
* '''Agency report''' by ''Janet Kozyra'' -- NSF GEM Program
* '''Agency report''' by ''Howard Singer'' -- NOAA Agency Report
* ''Bill Lotko'' -- Overview of NSF AGS Portfolio Review and Discussion

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "wave-particle interactions"

June 17, Wednesday 10:30-12:15pm

# Mark Engebretson (Challenge event) - Van Allen probes, NOAA, and ground observations of an intense Pc 1 wave event extending 12 hours in MLT and its resulting depletion of the outer radiation belt
# Justin Lee (Challenge event) - Discussion of Wave-Particle Interactions during the 18-22 Feb 2014 Storm
# Michael Hartinger -The effect of azimuthal wave number on ULF wave-particle interactions
# Chen Zhou - Excitation of Dayside Chorus Waves due to Magnetic Field Line Compression in Response to Interplanetary Shocks
# Homayon Aryan - The distribution of plasmaspheric Hiss and Chorus waves in the inner magnetosphere as functions of geomagnetic activity and solar wind parameters
# Robert Allen - Statistical study of EMIC waves observed by Cluster
# Konstantin Gamayunov - Multiscale nature of electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave development in Earth’s magnetosphere
# Vania Jordanova - RAM-SCB simulations of plasma wave dynamics
# Adam Kellerman - Forecasting the Earth’s radiation environment with GREEP and VERB: a synthesis of empirical- and physics-based modeling across multiple energies and spatial regions

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Foreshock Phenomena

1. Zixu Liu "THEMIS observations of tangential discontinuity-driven foreshock bubbles"

2. Nick Omidi (presented by Jean Berchem) “Impacts of SHFAs on the Magnetosheath & Magnetopause”

3. Hui Zhang "Evolution of HFAs: Cluster Observations"

4. Olga Gutynska “Density enhancements in the magnetosheath: comparison with simulations”

5. Narges Ahmadi “Effects of Electron Anisotropy in Mirror Instability Evolution in the Magnetosheath”

6. David Sibeck “The Solar wind Magnetosphere Ionosphere Link Explorer (SMILE) Mission”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #1: Magnetopause crossing challenge and additional M&V contributions'''

* Lutz Rastaetter: Overview and initial results from the Magnetopause Crossing Challenge
* Mike Wiltberger: Magnetopause dynamics during the March 17th, 2013 event
* Rob Redmon: The future of GOES: Magnetic field and particle observation and modeling to determine magnetopause crossings
* Mike Liemohn: Assessment of the CCMC Experimental Real-time SWMF-Geospace Results
* Dan Welling: Model skill as a function of solar wind driving.
* Ilja Honkonen: Data / Model comparisons with GUMICS

''' M&V Wrap up: Recent highlights and future plans for Metrics & Validation at GEM'''
* Howard Singer dicussion lead

==== [Special] HSO coordination ====
''Discussions on science and campaigns for the upcoming HSO satellite-ground coordination.''
*Vassilis Angelopoulos (Intro, an overview and THEMIS-MMS coordination, THEMIS plans)
*Toshi Nishimura (a PPT on coordination: times, geometry, tentative assets)
*Marilia Samara (on MMS and ground based?)
*Brian Anderson (AMPERE)
*Eric Donovan (TREx)
*Stephen Mende (AGOs)
*Jo Baker (SuperDARN)
*Yukinaga Miyashita (ERG)
*Naritoshi Kitamura (Geotail)
*Sasha Ukhorsky (Van Allen Probes)
*Marc Lessard (WAIS)
*Peter Chi (ULTIMA)
*Drew Turner, Seth Claudepierre, Jacob Bortnik, Mike Hartinger, Shin Ohtani, Jimmy Raeder, Wen Li, Bill Lotko, Rick Chappell, Liz McDonald, Frank Toffoletto, Paul Cassak (Science comments)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "plasma-field coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 1:30-3:00pm

# Lois Smith - Plasmaspheric Suprathermal Heating from Cyclotron Resonance with Equatorial Noise
# Raluca Ilie - Calculating the Inductive electric fields in the terrestrial magnetosphere
# Samuel Califf - Van Allen Probes observations of SAPS during the 28 June 2013 geomagnetic storm
# Hong Zhao - The evolution of ring current ion energy density and energy content during geomagnetic storms based on Van Allen Probes measurements
# Jichun Zhang - “Trunk-like” heavy ion structures observed by the Van Allen Probes
# Cristian Ferradas - Ion nose spectral structures observed by the Van Allen Probes

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Magnetopause Phenomena

1. Hyunju Connor “Thermospheric heating in the high-latitude dayside regions after the sudden enhancement of solar wind dynamic pressure: OpenGGCM-CTIM results”

2. Denny Oliveira <dennymauricio@gmail.com> “Impact angle control of IP shock geoeffectiveness: results of simulations and observations"

3. Michael Hartinger “The global structure and time evolution of dayside magnetopause surface eigenmodes”

4. Chih-Ping Wang “The hot electron enhancement in mid-tail magnetosheath and its dawn-dusk asymmetry”

5. Sun-Hee Lee (Presented by Hui Zhang) “Cold dense plasma observed at the Dayside Magnetopause and their dependence on solar wind and geomagnetic conditions”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #2: ULF Wave Challenge'''

* Seth Claudepierre: ULF Wave Challenge overview and addressable science questions
* Ian Mann: Preliminary challenge time periods based on ground magnetometers
* Peter Chi: Global distribution of ULF power from ULTIMA, and in-situ observations of poloidal waves
* Lutz Rastaetter: Newly developed CCMC analysis tools supporting the ULF Challenge, and initial results
* Colin Komar: ULF power in the BATSRUS model and resonance conditions with electrons
* Scot Elkington: Mode structure calculations
* Seth Claudepierre: a few walk on slides
* Ashar Ali: From Van Allen Probes E & B measurements to radial diffusion coefficients.
* Slava Merkin: ULF waves in the LFM.
* Chih-Ping Wang: Observations (RBSP, THEMIS, Geotail) and simulations (LFM) of a 2-hour ULF wave interval.

==== [Special] SPEDAS Software ====

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
*Topic: "magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 3:30-5:00pm

# Dan Welling - Relationship between ionospheric outflow and the ring current
# George Khazanov - Superthermal Electrons Magnetosphere – Ionosphere Coupling in the Regions of Diffuse Aurora
# Megan Gillies - Investigating pulsating aurora at low electron energies
# Ryan Mcgranaghan - Modes of high-latitude conductance variability derived from DMSP F6-F8 and F16-F18 energetic electron precipitation observations: Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis
# Alexa Halford (challenge event) - BARREL Observations of long period precipitation on Jan 26th 2013
# Jichun Zhang (challenge event) - EMIC waves and associated relativistic electron precipitation on 25-26 January 2013
# Yiqun Yu (challenge event) - Modeling ionospheric electron precipitation due to wave particle interactions in the ring current during the 25-26 January 2013 event
# Yi-Jiun Su (challenge event) -RBSP/MagEIS observations: Local electron acceleration in the inner radiation belt?

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Ground Signatures

1. Michael Hartinger “The effect of northern-southern hemisphere conductivity asymmetries on ground magnetic responses during a large solar wind transient”

2. Christina Chu “Hot Flow Anomalies at the Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures”

==== [FG] (Joint) Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere + Metrics and Validation ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection), Tim Guild (Metrics), Masha Kuznetsova (Metrics), Lutz Rastaetter (Metrics), Aaron Ridley (Metrics), Howard Singer (Metrics)

:1. Discussion of finding the electron diffusion region (with MMS)
:2. Discussion of PIC simulations into CCMC
:3. Liang Wang - Integrating a multi-fluid moment code into OpenGGCM

==== [Special] TDAS demo ====

== Thursday, June 18 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''SWMI tutorial''' by ''Robert Fear'' -- Flux transfer events: Looking ahead to MMS
* '''Student-invited tutorial''' by ''Barbara Giles'' -- title

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Analysis of Extreme Events”

Surja Sharma: overview talk

Jeff Love: Dst statistics

Slava Merkin: ionospheric turbulence

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Topics include overlap with TIMI (role of entropy bubbles in the inner magnetosphere), as well as other topics relevant to both focus groups.

Presenters: <presentation titles omitted>

# Mike Wiltberger
# Mike Henderson(LANL)
# George Khazanov (GSFC)
# Natalia Ganushkina and Stepan Dubyagin
# Sheng-Hsien (Sean) Chen (GSFC)
# Bob Schunk (USU)
# Matina Gkioulidou (JHU/APL)
# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Xueling Shi (VTech)
# Jian Yang (Rice U.)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Geospace Systems Science + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Joe Borovsky (Systems), Bill Lotko (Systems), Vadim Uritsky (Systems), Juan Valdivia (Systems), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene setting talks
:1. Binzheng Zhang
:2. Colin Komar

Contributed talks
:1. Misha Sitnov - tearing stability criterion'
:2. Bill Lotko - effects of auroral (low-altitude) field-aligned potential drops on nightside reconnection and energy flow in MI coupling

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Drew Turner, (Aerospace)

2. Sasha Ukhorskiy, (JHU/APL), “Proton Acceleration at Injection Fronts in the Inner Magnetosphere”

3. Chih-Ping Wang, (UCLA)

4. Christine Gabrielse, (UCLA)

5. Larry Lyons (UCLA)

6. Jian Yang, (Rice)

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Systems-Science Tools, Methodologies, and Results”

Jacob Bortnik: Machine learning

Konstantin Gamayunov: System-based approach to EMIC waves

Delores Knipp: Estimating uncertainty in DMSP Poynting

Lutz Rastatter: Modeling joule heat in the ionosphere

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

:1. Colby Haggerty, heating during reconnection
:2. Shan Wang - Electron heating during magnetotail reconnection: deriving the heating coefficient and effects of unloading
:3. Rick Wilder, moving X-line in cusp
:4. Paul Cassak, asymmetric reconnection with flow shear

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Jodie Barker Ream (UCLA), “Pi2 propagation in global MHD simulations”

2. Aaron Schutza, (Rice), "Thin filament simulations"

3. Roxanne Katus, (Univ. Michigan), “Magnetospheric ion temperature derived from TWINS flux data”

4. John Wygant, (Univ. Minnesota)

5. Zhengwei Cheng, (UNH), , “A case study of the particle carriers of field-aligned currents in the magnetotail during a substorm: Cluster observation.”

== Friday, June 19 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MIC tutorial''' by ''Stein Haaland'' -- Cold ion outflow from the polar cap

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Behavior of the Geospace System”

Jonathan Krall: SAMI3 simulations of M-I-T coupling

Wen Li: solar wind and the radiation belts

Vania Jordanova: multiple connections in the magnetosphere in the SHIELDS project

Joe Borovsky: behavior modes from global correlation analysis

Audience Discussion

2015 Summer Workshop

2015-06-13T06:32:31Z

Sazykin: /* [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection */

'''June 14-19 2015'''

'''Viceroy Hotels, Resorts & Residences, Snowmass, Colorado'''

Below is a ''fluid'' list of speakers provided by the GEM Workshop Coordinator and Focus Groups. The information here serves as a rough guide for those who wish to know the most updated session plans. Due to the nature of the GEM Workshop, Focus Groups may continue to revise their agenda as needed.

All other information about the 2015 Summer Workshop can be found at the [http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gem/index.html GEM Meeting Coordinator Website].

== Monday, June 15 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MPS tutorial''' by ''Toshi Nishimura'' -- Fast flow channels in the magnetotail and auroral oval: Reconnection, substorm and beyond
* '''GSM tutorial''' by ''Alex Glocer'' -- Global modeling of the space environment system

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Tail Environment and Dynamics at Lunar Distances ====

* Hui Zhang: Transient phenomena at tail Bow shock and magnetopause
* Sheng-Hsien Chen: K-H at the magnetopause and waves at LLBL
* Denny Oliveria: Tail response to interplanetary shocks
* Tim Stubbs (presented by David Sibeck): Mid-tail structure
* Rob Fear: Magnetotail structure associated with transpolar arcs
* Peter Chi: Ion cyclotron waves at the Moon and their connection to the plasma sheet and the lunar exosphere
* Ivan Vasko:Geotail observations in mid and distant tail
* Andrei Runov: Reconnection in the mid-tail
* John Lyon: LFM simulation of bubble formation in mid-tail during growth phase
* Joe Borovsky: The role of mid-tail in Geospace Systems Science

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models'''

* Bob Schunk: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 1 (15 min)
* Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 2 (15 min)
* Abdallah Barakat: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 3 (15 min)
* Dan Welling: Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models (20 min)
* Katie Garcia-Sage: MFLFM Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Simulation Results (20 min)
* Bill Lotko: Overview of Recent LFM Modeling and Thoughts for the Future (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Larry Lyons: Review--Hybrid scenario
*Mike Henderson: Review--Inside-out scenario
*Larry Kepko: Review--Outside-in scenario
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Yukinaga Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Phil Pritchett: Comments from modeler
*Joachim Birn: Comments from modeler
*Misha Sitnov: Comments from modeler
*Mostafa El-Alaoui: Comments from modeler
*Walk-ins welcome.

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 1 (Mon, 01:30-03:00 PM):''' “Radiation Belt (RB) observations and modeling results”

''Chairs: Weichao Tu and Steve Morley''

:1. Mary Hudson: Recent simulation of the 'St Patrick's Day storm'
:2. Alexander Drozdov: The VERB code modeling of the St. Patrick’s day Storm
:3. Dan Baker: Impenetrable Barrier during March 17 2015 storm
:4. Allison Jaynes: Fast diffusion of ultra-relativistic electrons: 17 March 2015 storm event
:5. Thiago Brito: Simulations on Radiation Belt Electron Precipitation Response to ULF Waves
:6. Drew Turner: Storm-time analysis of RB
:7. Xinlin Li: Deep Injections of 10s – 100s of keV electrons (RBSP observations)
:8. Jay Albert: Modeling “peculiar” pitch angle distributions with MS waves

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models Compared to Observations'''

* Dan Welling: Merged Ionos-Magnetosphere Models for GEM Storms (15 min)
* Lynn Kistler: Cluster Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Joe Borovsky: LANL Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Stein Haaland: The Estimation of Cold Plasma Outflow During Storms (20 min)
* Discussion

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Robert McPherron: Point Processes: Association of Lists
*Nadine Kalmoni: Auroral dispersion relation
*Kyle Murphy: tools and methods
*Eric Donovan: Circle grams

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 2 (Mon, 03:30-05:00 PM):''' “Various magnetospheric wave characteristics and their global distribution required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Wen Li and Jay Albert''

:1. Ashar Ali: Radial Diffusion Coefficients Using E and B Field Data from the Van Allen Probes
:2. Seth Claudepierre: Advertisement for the GEM ULF Wave Challenge
:3. Xinlin Li: Relation between ULF and radial diffusion of RB electrons
:4. Lauren Blum: The relationship between EMIC waves and radiation belt electron precipitation
:5. Wen Li: Global distribution of chorus wave intensity using the statistical model and POES technique
:6. Jay Albert: Nonlinear wave-particle interaction
:7. Qianli Ma: Evaluation of electron scattering due to typical magnetosonic waves using analytical formula
:8. Lunjin Chen: The effect of bounce resonance with magnetosonic waves on the radiation belt electrons
:9. Oleksiy Agapitov: Storm-induced energization and losses of radiation belt electrons: Effects of wave obliquity

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Inter-Model Comparison for GEM Storm Periods and New Measurements'''

* Continued Discussion of Merged Models and Measurements Comparison
* Naritoshi Kitamura: Ion Outflow Topics (20 min)
* Roger Varney: Hysteresis Effects in Coupled MFLFM-IPWM Models (15 min)
* Barbara Giles: Initial Plasma Measurements from MMS (20 min)
* Jonathan Krall: Ion Fluxes Into and Out of a Model Plasmasphere During Storm and Plasmasphere Refilling During Quiet Time (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Vassilis Angelopoulos: HSO
*FG learders: Future planning

== Tuesday, June 16 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Weichao Tu'' -- title
* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Seth Claudepierre'' -- Van Allen Probes: Where We've Been and Where We're Going

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 3 (Tue, 10:30-12:15 PM):''' “Seed populations, plasma density, and magnetic field configuration required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Jay Albert and Weichao Tu''

:1. Natalia Ganushkina: Low energy electrons in the inner magnetosphere
:2. Mick Denton: An empirical model of electron and ion fluxes derived from observations at geosynchronous orbit
:3. Alex Boyd: Quantifying the Radiation Belt Seed Population During the Van Allen Probes Era
:4. Jian Yang: RCM-E simulation of energetic electron injections during an idealized storm
:5. Oleksiy Agapitov: Time Domain Structures: generation mechanisms and effects for electrons
:6. Xiangrong Fu: Double layers associated with electron/ion acoustic waves
:7. James McCollough: DSX is still happening
:8. Alex Crew: New results from FIREBIRD II
:9. Quintin Schiller: A novel technique to apply electron lifetimes to radial diffusion models

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''General Discussion of Modeling and Observations and Focus Group Planning'''

* Yuri Omelchenko: Global Multiscale Magnetospheric Simulations: HYPERS (15 min)
* John Wygant: The Powering of Highly Efficient Poynting Flux-Driven Wind Using Polar Spacecraft Measurements (15 min)
* Bruce Fritz: Ion Upflow Dependence on Ionospheric Density and Solar Photoionization (15 min)
* Bill Peterson: A New Look at DE-1 Escaping Ion Observations at Non-Storm Times (10 min) -- Accompanying poster by Kristina Lu

==== [FG] (Joint) Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms + Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Shin Ohtani - Morphological mapping based on the stability of the magnetotail
*Emma Spanswick - Riometer injection
*Elizabeth Roy - Open-closed boundary
*Jiang Liu - Current wedge structuring
*Chao Yue - 3-D magnetic field modeling

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 4 (Tue, 01:30-03:00 PM):''' “RB "dropout" and "buildup" challenges and Planning for future activities”

''Chairs: Steve Morley and Wen Li''

General short presentations (01:30-02:15 PM)

:1. Yuri Shprits: Recent results of the reanalysis
:2. Brian Kress: Observations and modeling of rebuilding during storms
:3. Zhao Li: 3D test-particle simulation of the 17-18 March, 2013 CME-shock driven storm
:4. Shri Kanekal and Dan Baker: Electron bursts during 17 March 2015 storm

"Dropout" and "Buildup" Challenges (02:15-03:00 PM)
:5. Drew Turner: Candidate “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:6. QARBM FG leaders: Discussion of “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:7. Open discussions and plan for future FG activities

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

The two SIMIC sessions on Tuesday afternoon will focus mainly on the chosen events: 2013-03-17 and 2012-11-01 storms

A tentative list of presenters:
<Presentation titles omitted>

# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Lyons/Nishimura/Gallardo (UCLA)
# Rick Wilder (LASP)
# Margaret Chen (Aerospace)
# Gang Lu (NCAR)
# Jonathan Krall (NRL)
# Lois Smith (Michigan)
# Peter Chi (UCLA)
# Alex Glocer for Mei-Ching Fok (NASA)
# Mike Liemohn and Roxanne Katus (Michigan)
# Yiqun Yu and Vania Jordanova (LANL)
# Elizabeth MacDonald (GSFC)
# Bob Lysak (Univ. Minnesota)
# Mike Schulz
# James Weygand (UCLA)
# Phil Valek (SwRI)
# Doug Cramer (UNH)
# Brian Anderson (JHU/APL)

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Vassilis Angelopoulos (TIMI), Pontus Brandt (TIMI), John Lyon (TIMI), Frank Toffoletto (TIMI), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene Setting talks
:1. Joachim Birn
:2. Jim Drake

Contributed talks
:1. Slava Merkin - magnetotail stability in the presence of B_z minimum
:2. Misha Sitnov - new class of equilibria taking into account dipole field and B_z hump
:3. Misha Sitnov - temperature increase at dipolarization fronts
:4. Haoming Liang (w/Ashour-Abdalla and Walker) - oxygen effects on dipolarization fronts
:5. Ying Zou - imager observations of PBI triggering by polar cap structures
:6. Toshi Nishimura - MHD simulation of nightside localized reconnection triggering by lobe flow channels
:7. Yu Lin - global hybrid simulation of the storm-time magnetotail and reconnection flux ropes
:8. Phil Pritchett - instability of current sheets with a localized accumulation of magnetic flux
:9.Phil Pritchett - structure of reconnection flow jets

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling + Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
'''Session 5 (Tue, 03:30-05:00 PM):''' “Joint session with “Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions” FG”

''Chairs: Jichun Zhang and Weichao Tu

:1. Wen Li: Quantitative simulation of radiation belt electron dynamics using 3D diffusion code
:2. Yuri Shprits: Combined Convective and Diffusive Simulation: VERB-4D Results
:3. Xiangrong Fu: Modeling EMIC wave generation from ring current ions
:4. Anthony Saikin: The geomagnetic condition dependence of the spatial distributions of EMIC waves observed by the Van Allen Probes
:5. Jacob Bortnik: Generation of chorus waves in a lab plasma
:6. Xin An: Linear excitation of whistler waves
:7. Shuo Wu: Hybrid Code Simulations of Whistler Waves in Compressed Dipole Field
:8. Chih-ping Wang: Multi-point observation of ULF waves

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Continuing the [http://gem.epss.ucla.edu/mediawikiwiki/index.php/2015_Summer_Workshop#.5BFG.5D_Storm-time_Inner_Magnetosphere-Ionosphere_Convection SIMIC session at 1330-1500].

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Time Lags in Solar Wind-Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Interactions”

speakers will include

Mick Denton: mass transport

Bob McPherron: physical interpretation of time lags

Roger Varney: ionospheric outflow

Shin Ohtani: circuit timescales

Bob Clauer: ionospheric convection

Audience Discussion

== Wednesday, June 17 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''Agency report''' by ''Vladimir Papitashvili'' -- Introduction
* '''Agency report''' by ''Janet Kozyra'' -- NSF GEM Program
* '''Agency report''' by ''Howard Singer'' -- NOAA Agency Report
* ''Bill Lotko'' -- Overview of NSF AGS Portfolio Review and Discussion

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "wave-particle interactions"

June 17, Wednesday 10:30-12:15pm

# Mark Engebretson (Challenge event) - Van Allen probes, NOAA, and ground observations of an intense Pc 1 wave event extending 12 hours in MLT and its resulting depletion of the outer radiation belt
# Justin Lee (Challenge event) - Discussion of Wave-Particle Interactions during the 18-22 Feb 2014 Storm
# Michael Hartinger -The effect of azimuthal wave number on ULF wave-particle interactions
# Chen Zhou - Excitation of Dayside Chorus Waves due to Magnetic Field Line Compression in Response to Interplanetary Shocks
# Homayon Aryan - The distribution of plasmaspheric Hiss and Chorus waves in the inner magnetosphere as functions of geomagnetic activity and solar wind parameters
# Robert Allen - Statistical study of EMIC waves observed by Cluster
# Konstantin Gamayunov - Multiscale nature of electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave development in Earth’s magnetosphere
# Vania Jordanova - RAM-SCB simulations of plasma wave dynamics
# Adam Kellerman - Forecasting the Earth’s radiation environment with GREEP and VERB: a synthesis of empirical- and physics-based modeling across multiple energies and spatial regions

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Foreshock Phenomena

1. Zixu Liu "THEMIS observations of tangential discontinuity-driven foreshock bubbles"

2. Nick Omidi (presented by Jean Berchem) “Impacts of SHFAs on the Magnetosheath & Magnetopause”

3. Hui Zhang "Evolution of HFAs: Cluster Observations"

4. Olga Gutynska “Density enhancements in the magnetosheath: comparison with simulations”

5. Narges Ahmadi “Effects of Electron Anisotropy in Mirror Instability Evolution in the Magnetosheath”

6. David Sibeck “The Solar wind Magnetosphere Ionosphere Link Explorer (SMILE) Mission”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #1: Magnetopause crossing challenge and additional M&V contributions'''

* Lutz Rastaetter: Overview and initial results from the Magnetopause Crossing Challenge
* Mike Wiltberger: Magnetopause dynamics during the March 17th, 2013 event
* Rob Redmon: The future of GOES: Magnetic field and particle observation and modeling to determine magnetopause crossings
* Mike Liemohn: Assessment of the CCMC Experimental Real-time SWMF-Geospace Results
* Dan Welling: Model skill as a function of solar wind driving.
* Ilja Honkonen: Data / Model comparisons with GUMICS

''' M&V Wrap up: Recent highlights and future plans for Metrics & Validation at GEM'''
* Howard Singer dicussion lead

==== [Special] HSO coordination ====
''Discussions on science and campaigns for the upcoming HSO satellite-ground coordination.''
*Vassilis Angelopoulos (Intro, an overview and THEMIS-MMS coordination, THEMIS plans)
*Toshi Nishimura (a PPT on coordination: times, geometry, tentative assets)
*Marilia Samara (on MMS and ground based?)
*Brian Anderson (AMPERE)
*Eric Donovan (TREx)
*Stephen Mende (AGOs)
*Jo Baker (SuperDARN)
*Yukinaga Miyashita (ERG)
*Naritoshi Kitamura (Geotail)
*Sasha Ukhorsky (Van Allen Probes)
*Marc Lessard (WAIS)
*Peter Chi (ULTIMA)
*Drew Turner, Seth Claudepierre, Jacob Bortnik, Mike Hartinger, Shin Ohtani, Jimmy Raeder, Wen Li, Bill Lotko, Rick Chappell, Liz McDonald, Frank Toffoletto, Paul Cassak (Science comments)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "plasma-field coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 1:30-3:00pm

# Lois Smith - Plasmaspheric Suprathermal Heating from Cyclotron Resonance with Equatorial Noise
# Raluca Ilie - Calculating the Inductive electric fields in the terrestrial magnetosphere
# Samuel Califf - Van Allen Probes observations of SAPS during the 28 June 2013 geomagnetic storm
# Hong Zhao - The evolution of ring current ion energy density and energy content during geomagnetic storms based on Van Allen Probes measurements
# Jichun Zhang - “Trunk-like” heavy ion structures observed by the Van Allen Probes
# Cristian Ferradas - Ion nose spectral structures observed by the Van Allen Probes

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Magnetopause Phenomena

1. Hyunju Connor “Thermospheric heating in the high-latitude dayside regions after the sudden enhancement of solar wind dynamic pressure: OpenGGCM-CTIM results”

2. Denny Oliveira <dennymauricio@gmail.com> “Impact angle control of IP shock geoeffectiveness: results of simulations and observations"

3. Michael Hartinger “The global structure and time evolution of dayside magnetopause surface eigenmodes”

4. Chih-Ping Wang “The hot electron enhancement in mid-tail magnetosheath and its dawn-dusk asymmetry”

5. Sun-Hee Lee (Presented by Hui Zhang) “Cold dense plasma observed at the Dayside Magnetopause and their dependence on solar wind and geomagnetic conditions”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #2: ULF Wave Challenge'''

* Seth Claudepierre: ULF Wave Challenge overview and addressable science questions
* Ian Mann: Preliminary challenge time periods based on ground magnetometers
* Peter Chi: Global distribution of ULF power from ULTIMA, and in-situ observations of poloidal waves
* Lutz Rastaetter: Newly developed CCMC analysis tools supporting the ULF Challenge, and initial results
* Colin Komar: ULF power in the BATSRUS model and resonance conditions with electrons
* Scot Elkington: Mode structure calculations
* Seth Claudepierre: a few walk on slides
* Ashar Ali: From Van Allen Probes E & B measurements to radial diffusion coefficients.
* Slava Merkin: ULF waves in the LFM.
* Chih-Ping Wang: Observations (RBSP, THEMIS, Geotail) and simulations (LFM) of a 2-hour ULF wave interval.

==== [Special] SPEDAS Software ====

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
*Topic: "magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 3:30-5:00pm

# Dan Welling - Relationship between ionospheric outflow and the ring current
# George Khazanov - Superthermal Electrons Magnetosphere – Ionosphere Coupling in the Regions of Diffuse Aurora
# Megan Gillies - Investigating pulsating aurora at low electron energies
# Ryan Mcgranaghan - Modes of high-latitude conductance variability derived from DMSP F6-F8 and F16-F18 energetic electron precipitation observations: Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis
# Alexa Halford (challenge event) - BARREL Observations of long period precipitation on Jan 26th 2013
# Jichun Zhang (challenge event) - EMIC waves and associated relativistic electron precipitation on 25-26 January 2013
# Yiqun Yu (challenge event) - Modeling ionospheric electron precipitation due to wave particle interactions in the ring current during the 25-26 January 2013 event
# Yi-Jiun Su (challenge event) -RBSP/MagEIS observations: Local electron acceleration in the inner radiation belt?

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Ground Signatures

1. Michael Hartinger “The effect of northern-southern hemisphere conductivity asymmetries on ground magnetic responses during a large solar wind transient”

2. Christina Chu “Hot Flow Anomalies at the Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures”

==== [FG] (Joint) Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere + Metrics and Validation ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection), Tim Guild (Metrics), Masha Kuznetsova (Metrics), Lutz Rastaetter (Metrics), Aaron Ridley (Metrics), Howard Singer (Metrics)

:1. Discussion of finding the electron diffusion region (with MMS)
:2. Discussion of PIC simulations into CCMC
:3. Liang Wang - Integrating a multi-fluid moment code into OpenGGCM

==== [Special] TDAS demo ====

== Thursday, June 18 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''SWMI tutorial''' by ''Robert Fear'' -- Flux transfer events: Looking ahead to MMS
* '''Student-invited tutorial''' by ''Barbara Giles'' -- title

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Analysis of Extreme Events”

Surja Sharma: overview talk

Jeff Love: Dst statistics

Slava Merkin: ionospheric turbulence

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Topics include overlap with TIMI (role of entropy bubbles in the inner magnetosphere), as well as other topics relevant to both focus groups.

Presenters: <presentation titles omitted>

# Mike Wiltberger
# Mike Henderson(LANL)
# George Khazanov (GSFC)
# Natalia Ganushkina and Stepan Dubyagin
# Sheng-Hsien (Sean) Chen (GSFC)
# Bob Schunk (USU)
# Matina Gkioulidou (JHU/APL)
# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Xueling Shi (VTech)
# Jian Yang (Rice U.)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Geospace Systems Science + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Joe Borovsky (Systems), Bill Lotko (Systems), Vadim Uritsky (Systems), Juan Valdivia (Systems), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene setting talks
:1. Binzheng Zhang
:2. Colin Komar

Contributed talks
:1. Misha Sitnov - tearing stability criterion'
:2. Bill Lotko - effects of auroral (low-altitude) field-aligned potential drops on nightside reconnection and energy flow in MI coupling

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Drew Turner, (Aerospace)

2. Sasha Ukhorskiy, (JHU/APL), “Proton Acceleration at Injection Fronts in the Inner Magnetosphere”

3. Chih-Ping Wang, (UCLA)

4. Christine Gabrielse, (UCLA)

5. Larry Lyons (UCLA)

6. Jian Yang, (Rice)

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Systems-Science Tools, Methodologies, and Results”

Jacob Bortnik: Machine learning

Konstantin Gamayunov: System-based approach to EMIC waves

Delores Knipp: Estimating uncertainty in DMSP Poynting

Lutz Rastatter: Modeling joule heat in the ionosphere

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

:1. Colby Haggerty, heating during reconnection
:2. Shan Wang - Electron heating during magnetotail reconnection: deriving the heating coefficient and effects of unloading
:3. Rick Wilder, moving X-line in cusp
:4. Paul Cassak, asymmetric reconnection with flow shear

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Jodie Barker Ream (UCLA), “Pi2 propagation in global MHD simulations”

2. Aaron Schutza, (Rice), "Thin filament simulations"

3. Roxanne Katus, (Univ. Michigan), “Magnetospheric ion temperature derived from TWINS flux data”

4. John Wygant, (Univ. Minnesota)

5. Zhengwei Cheng, (UNH), , “A case study of the particle carriers of field-aligned currents in the magnetotail during a substorm: Cluster observation.”

== Friday, June 19 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MIC tutorial''' by ''Stein Haaland'' -- Cold ion outflow from the polar cap

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Behavior of the Geospace System”

Jonathan Krall: SAMI3 simulations of M-I-T coupling

Wen Li: solar wind and the radiation belts

Vania Jordanova: multiple connections in the magnetosphere in the SHIELDS project

Joe Borovsky: behavior modes from global correlation analysis

Audience Discussion

2015 Summer Workshop

2015-06-13T06:28:52Z

Sazykin: /* [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection */

'''June 14-19 2015'''

'''Viceroy Hotels, Resorts & Residences, Snowmass, Colorado'''

Below is a ''fluid'' list of speakers provided by the GEM Workshop Coordinator and Focus Groups. The information here serves as a rough guide for those who wish to know the most updated session plans. Due to the nature of the GEM Workshop, Focus Groups may continue to revise their agenda as needed.

All other information about the 2015 Summer Workshop can be found at the [http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gem/index.html GEM Meeting Coordinator Website].

== Monday, June 15 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MPS tutorial''' by ''Toshi Nishimura'' -- Fast flow channels in the magnetotail and auroral oval: Reconnection, substorm and beyond
* '''GSM tutorial''' by ''Alex Glocer'' -- Global modeling of the space environment system

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Tail Environment and Dynamics at Lunar Distances ====

* Hui Zhang: Transient phenomena at tail Bow shock and magnetopause
* Sheng-Hsien Chen: K-H at the magnetopause and waves at LLBL
* Denny Oliveria: Tail response to interplanetary shocks
* Tim Stubbs (presented by David Sibeck): Mid-tail structure
* Rob Fear: Magnetotail structure associated with transpolar arcs
* Peter Chi: Ion cyclotron waves at the Moon and their connection to the plasma sheet and the lunar exosphere
* Ivan Vasko:Geotail observations in mid and distant tail
* Andrei Runov: Reconnection in the mid-tail
* John Lyon: LFM simulation of bubble formation in mid-tail during growth phase
* Joe Borovsky: The role of mid-tail in Geospace Systems Science

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models'''

* Bob Schunk: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 1 (15 min)
* Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 2 (15 min)
* Abdallah Barakat: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 3 (15 min)
* Dan Welling: Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models (20 min)
* Katie Garcia-Sage: MFLFM Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Simulation Results (20 min)
* Bill Lotko: Overview of Recent LFM Modeling and Thoughts for the Future (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Larry Lyons: Review--Hybrid scenario
*Mike Henderson: Review--Inside-out scenario
*Larry Kepko: Review--Outside-in scenario
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Yukinaga Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Phil Pritchett: Comments from modeler
*Joachim Birn: Comments from modeler
*Misha Sitnov: Comments from modeler
*Mostafa El-Alaoui: Comments from modeler
*Walk-ins welcome.

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 1 (Mon, 01:30-03:00 PM):''' “Radiation Belt (RB) observations and modeling results”

''Chairs: Weichao Tu and Steve Morley''

:1. Mary Hudson: Recent simulation of the 'St Patrick's Day storm'
:2. Alexander Drozdov: The VERB code modeling of the St. Patrick’s day Storm
:3. Dan Baker: Impenetrable Barrier during March 17 2015 storm
:4. Allison Jaynes: Fast diffusion of ultra-relativistic electrons: 17 March 2015 storm event
:5. Thiago Brito: Simulations on Radiation Belt Electron Precipitation Response to ULF Waves
:6. Drew Turner: Storm-time analysis of RB
:7. Xinlin Li: Deep Injections of 10s – 100s of keV electrons (RBSP observations)
:8. Jay Albert: Modeling “peculiar” pitch angle distributions with MS waves

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models Compared to Observations'''

* Dan Welling: Merged Ionos-Magnetosphere Models for GEM Storms (15 min)
* Lynn Kistler: Cluster Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Joe Borovsky: LANL Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Stein Haaland: The Estimation of Cold Plasma Outflow During Storms (20 min)
* Discussion

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Robert McPherron: Point Processes: Association of Lists
*Nadine Kalmoni: Auroral dispersion relation
*Kyle Murphy: tools and methods
*Eric Donovan: Circle grams

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 2 (Mon, 03:30-05:00 PM):''' “Various magnetospheric wave characteristics and their global distribution required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Wen Li and Jay Albert''

:1. Ashar Ali: Radial Diffusion Coefficients Using E and B Field Data from the Van Allen Probes
:2. Seth Claudepierre: Advertisement for the GEM ULF Wave Challenge
:3. Xinlin Li: Relation between ULF and radial diffusion of RB electrons
:4. Lauren Blum: The relationship between EMIC waves and radiation belt electron precipitation
:5. Wen Li: Global distribution of chorus wave intensity using the statistical model and POES technique
:6. Jay Albert: Nonlinear wave-particle interaction
:7. Qianli Ma: Evaluation of electron scattering due to typical magnetosonic waves using analytical formula
:8. Lunjin Chen: The effect of bounce resonance with magnetosonic waves on the radiation belt electrons
:9. Oleksiy Agapitov: Storm-induced energization and losses of radiation belt electrons: Effects of wave obliquity

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Inter-Model Comparison for GEM Storm Periods and New Measurements'''

* Continued Discussion of Merged Models and Measurements Comparison
* Naritoshi Kitamura: Ion Outflow Topics (20 min)
* Roger Varney: Hysteresis Effects in Coupled MFLFM-IPWM Models (15 min)
* Barbara Giles: Initial Plasma Measurements from MMS (20 min)
* Jonathan Krall: Ion Fluxes Into and Out of a Model Plasmasphere During Storm and Plasmasphere Refilling During Quiet Time (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Vassilis Angelopoulos: HSO
*FG learders: Future planning

== Tuesday, June 16 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Weichao Tu'' -- title
* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Seth Claudepierre'' -- Van Allen Probes: Where We've Been and Where We're Going

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 3 (Tue, 10:30-12:15 PM):''' “Seed populations, plasma density, and magnetic field configuration required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Jay Albert and Weichao Tu''

:1. Natalia Ganushkina: Low energy electrons in the inner magnetosphere
:2. Mick Denton: An empirical model of electron and ion fluxes derived from observations at geosynchronous orbit
:3. Alex Boyd: Quantifying the Radiation Belt Seed Population During the Van Allen Probes Era
:4. Jian Yang: RCM-E simulation of energetic electron injections during an idealized storm
:5. Oleksiy Agapitov: Time Domain Structures: generation mechanisms and effects for electrons
:6. Xiangrong Fu: Double layers associated with electron/ion acoustic waves
:7. James McCollough: DSX is still happening
:8. Alex Crew: New results from FIREBIRD II
:9. Quintin Schiller: A novel technique to apply electron lifetimes to radial diffusion models

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''General Discussion of Modeling and Observations and Focus Group Planning'''

* Yuri Omelchenko: Global Multiscale Magnetospheric Simulations: HYPERS (15 min)
* John Wygant: The Powering of Highly Efficient Poynting Flux-Driven Wind Using Polar Spacecraft Measurements (15 min)
* Bruce Fritz: Ion Upflow Dependence on Ionospheric Density and Solar Photoionization (15 min)
* Bill Peterson: A New Look at DE-1 Escaping Ion Observations at Non-Storm Times (10 min) -- Accompanying poster by Kristina Lu

==== [FG] (Joint) Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms + Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Shin Ohtani - Morphological mapping based on the stability of the magnetotail
*Emma Spanswick - Riometer injection
*Elizabeth Roy - Open-closed boundary
*Jiang Liu - Current wedge structuring
*Chao Yue - 3-D magnetic field modeling

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 4 (Tue, 01:30-03:00 PM):''' “RB "dropout" and "buildup" challenges and Planning for future activities”

''Chairs: Steve Morley and Wen Li''

General short presentations (01:30-02:15 PM)

:1. Yuri Shprits: Recent results of the reanalysis
:2. Brian Kress: Observations and modeling of rebuilding during storms
:3. Zhao Li: 3D test-particle simulation of the 17-18 March, 2013 CME-shock driven storm
:4. Shri Kanekal and Dan Baker: Electron bursts during 17 March 2015 storm

"Dropout" and "Buildup" Challenges (02:15-03:00 PM)
:5. Drew Turner: Candidate “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:6. QARBM FG leaders: Discussion of “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:7. Open discussions and plan for future FG activities

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

The two SIMIC sessions on Tuesday afternoon will focus mainly on the chosen events: 2013-03-17 and 2012-11-01 storms

A tentative list of presenters:
<Presentation titles omitted>

# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Lyons/Nishimura/Gallardo (UCLA)
# Rick Wilder (LASP)
# Margaret Chen (Aerospace)
# Gang Lu (NCAR)
# Jonathan Krall (NRL)
# Lois Smith (Michigan)
# Peter Chi (UCLA)
# Alex Glocer for Mei-Ching Fok (NASA)
# Mike Liemohn and Roxanne Katus (Michigan)
# Yiqun Yu and Vania Jordanova (LANL)
# Elizabeth MacDonald (GSFC)
# Bob Lysak (Univ. Minnesota)
# Mike Schulz
# James Weygand (UCLA)
# Jerry Goldstein (SwRI)
# Doug Cramer (UNH)
# Dave Sibeck (GSFC)
# Brian Anderson (JHU/APL)

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Vassilis Angelopoulos (TIMI), Pontus Brandt (TIMI), John Lyon (TIMI), Frank Toffoletto (TIMI), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene Setting talks
:1. Joachim Birn
:2. Jim Drake

Contributed talks
:1. Slava Merkin - magnetotail stability in the presence of B_z minimum
:2. Misha Sitnov - new class of equilibria taking into account dipole field and B_z hump
:3. Misha Sitnov - temperature increase at dipolarization fronts
:4. Haoming Liang (w/Ashour-Abdalla and Walker) - oxygen effects on dipolarization fronts
:5. Ying Zou - imager observations of PBI triggering by polar cap structures
:6. Toshi Nishimura - MHD simulation of nightside localized reconnection triggering by lobe flow channels
:7. Yu Lin - global hybrid simulation of the storm-time magnetotail and reconnection flux ropes
:8. Phil Pritchett - instability of current sheets with a localized accumulation of magnetic flux
:9.Phil Pritchett - structure of reconnection flow jets

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling + Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
'''Session 5 (Tue, 03:30-05:00 PM):''' “Joint session with “Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions” FG”

''Chairs: Jichun Zhang and Weichao Tu

:1. Wen Li: Quantitative simulation of radiation belt electron dynamics using 3D diffusion code
:2. Yuri Shprits: Combined Convective and Diffusive Simulation: VERB-4D Results
:3. Xiangrong Fu: Modeling EMIC wave generation from ring current ions
:4. Anthony Saikin: The geomagnetic condition dependence of the spatial distributions of EMIC waves observed by the Van Allen Probes
:5. Jacob Bortnik: Generation of chorus waves in a lab plasma
:6. Xin An: Linear excitation of whistler waves
:7. Shuo Wu: Hybrid Code Simulations of Whistler Waves in Compressed Dipole Field
:8. Chih-ping Wang: Multi-point observation of ULF waves

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Continuing the [http://gem.epss.ucla.edu/mediawikiwiki/index.php/2015_Summer_Workshop#.5BFG.5D_Storm-time_Inner_Magnetosphere-Ionosphere_Convection SIMIC session at 1330-1500].

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Time Lags in Solar Wind-Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Interactions”

speakers will include

Mick Denton: mass transport

Bob McPherron: physical interpretation of time lags

Roger Varney: ionospheric outflow

Shin Ohtani: circuit timescales

Bob Clauer: ionospheric convection

Audience Discussion

== Wednesday, June 17 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''Agency report''' by ''Vladimir Papitashvili'' -- Introduction
* '''Agency report''' by ''Janet Kozyra'' -- NSF GEM Program
* '''Agency report''' by ''Howard Singer'' -- NOAA Agency Report
* ''Bill Lotko'' -- Overview of NSF AGS Portfolio Review and Discussion

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "wave-particle interactions"

June 17, Wednesday 10:30-12:15pm

# Mark Engebretson (Challenge event) - Van Allen probes, NOAA, and ground observations of an intense Pc 1 wave event extending 12 hours in MLT and its resulting depletion of the outer radiation belt
# Justin Lee (Challenge event) - Discussion of Wave-Particle Interactions during the 18-22 Feb 2014 Storm
# Michael Hartinger -The effect of azimuthal wave number on ULF wave-particle interactions
# Chen Zhou - Excitation of Dayside Chorus Waves due to Magnetic Field Line Compression in Response to Interplanetary Shocks
# Homayon Aryan - The distribution of plasmaspheric Hiss and Chorus waves in the inner magnetosphere as functions of geomagnetic activity and solar wind parameters
# Robert Allen - Statistical study of EMIC waves observed by Cluster
# Konstantin Gamayunov - Multiscale nature of electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave development in Earth’s magnetosphere
# Vania Jordanova - RAM-SCB simulations of plasma wave dynamics
# Adam Kellerman - Forecasting the Earth’s radiation environment with GREEP and VERB: a synthesis of empirical- and physics-based modeling across multiple energies and spatial regions

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Foreshock Phenomena

1. Zixu Liu "THEMIS observations of tangential discontinuity-driven foreshock bubbles"

2. Nick Omidi (presented by Jean Berchem) “Impacts of SHFAs on the Magnetosheath & Magnetopause”

3. Hui Zhang "Evolution of HFAs: Cluster Observations"

4. Olga Gutynska “Density enhancements in the magnetosheath: comparison with simulations”

5. Narges Ahmadi “Effects of Electron Anisotropy in Mirror Instability Evolution in the Magnetosheath”

6. David Sibeck “The Solar wind Magnetosphere Ionosphere Link Explorer (SMILE) Mission”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #1: Magnetopause crossing challenge and additional M&V contributions'''

* Lutz Rastaetter: Overview and initial results from the Magnetopause Crossing Challenge
* Mike Wiltberger: Magnetopause dynamics during the March 17th, 2013 event
* Rob Redmon: The future of GOES: Magnetic field and particle observation and modeling to determine magnetopause crossings
* Mike Liemohn: Assessment of the CCMC Experimental Real-time SWMF-Geospace Results
* Dan Welling: Model skill as a function of solar wind driving.
* Ilja Honkonen: Data / Model comparisons with GUMICS

''' M&V Wrap up: Recent highlights and future plans for Metrics & Validation at GEM'''
* Howard Singer dicussion lead

==== [Special] HSO coordination ====
''Discussions on science and campaigns for the upcoming HSO satellite-ground coordination.''
*Vassilis Angelopoulos (Intro, an overview and THEMIS-MMS coordination, THEMIS plans)
*Toshi Nishimura (a PPT on coordination: times, geometry, tentative assets)
*Marilia Samara (on MMS and ground based?)
*Brian Anderson (AMPERE)
*Eric Donovan (TREx)
*Stephen Mende (AGOs)
*Jo Baker (SuperDARN)
*Yukinaga Miyashita (ERG)
*Naritoshi Kitamura (Geotail)
*Sasha Ukhorsky (Van Allen Probes)
*Marc Lessard (WAIS)
*Peter Chi (ULTIMA)
*Drew Turner, Seth Claudepierre, Jacob Bortnik, Mike Hartinger, Shin Ohtani, Jimmy Raeder, Wen Li, Bill Lotko, Rick Chappell, Liz McDonald, Frank Toffoletto, Paul Cassak (Science comments)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "plasma-field coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 1:30-3:00pm

# Lois Smith - Plasmaspheric Suprathermal Heating from Cyclotron Resonance with Equatorial Noise
# Raluca Ilie - Calculating the Inductive electric fields in the terrestrial magnetosphere
# Samuel Califf - Van Allen Probes observations of SAPS during the 28 June 2013 geomagnetic storm
# Hong Zhao - The evolution of ring current ion energy density and energy content during geomagnetic storms based on Van Allen Probes measurements
# Jichun Zhang - “Trunk-like” heavy ion structures observed by the Van Allen Probes
# Cristian Ferradas - Ion nose spectral structures observed by the Van Allen Probes

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Magnetopause Phenomena

1. Hyunju Connor “Thermospheric heating in the high-latitude dayside regions after the sudden enhancement of solar wind dynamic pressure: OpenGGCM-CTIM results”

2. Denny Oliveira <dennymauricio@gmail.com> “Impact angle control of IP shock geoeffectiveness: results of simulations and observations"

3. Michael Hartinger “The global structure and time evolution of dayside magnetopause surface eigenmodes”

4. Chih-Ping Wang “The hot electron enhancement in mid-tail magnetosheath and its dawn-dusk asymmetry”

5. Sun-Hee Lee (Presented by Hui Zhang) “Cold dense plasma observed at the Dayside Magnetopause and their dependence on solar wind and geomagnetic conditions”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #2: ULF Wave Challenge'''

* Seth Claudepierre: ULF Wave Challenge overview and addressable science questions
* Ian Mann: Preliminary challenge time periods based on ground magnetometers
* Peter Chi: Global distribution of ULF power from ULTIMA, and in-situ observations of poloidal waves
* Lutz Rastaetter: Newly developed CCMC analysis tools supporting the ULF Challenge, and initial results
* Colin Komar: ULF power in the BATSRUS model and resonance conditions with electrons
* Scot Elkington: Mode structure calculations
* Seth Claudepierre: a few walk on slides
* Ashar Ali: From Van Allen Probes E & B measurements to radial diffusion coefficients.
* Slava Merkin: ULF waves in the LFM.
* Chih-Ping Wang: Observations (RBSP, THEMIS, Geotail) and simulations (LFM) of a 2-hour ULF wave interval.

==== [Special] SPEDAS Software ====

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
*Topic: "magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 3:30-5:00pm

# Dan Welling - Relationship between ionospheric outflow and the ring current
# George Khazanov - Superthermal Electrons Magnetosphere – Ionosphere Coupling in the Regions of Diffuse Aurora
# Megan Gillies - Investigating pulsating aurora at low electron energies
# Ryan Mcgranaghan - Modes of high-latitude conductance variability derived from DMSP F6-F8 and F16-F18 energetic electron precipitation observations: Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis
# Alexa Halford (challenge event) - BARREL Observations of long period precipitation on Jan 26th 2013
# Jichun Zhang (challenge event) - EMIC waves and associated relativistic electron precipitation on 25-26 January 2013
# Yiqun Yu (challenge event) - Modeling ionospheric electron precipitation due to wave particle interactions in the ring current during the 25-26 January 2013 event
# Yi-Jiun Su (challenge event) -RBSP/MagEIS observations: Local electron acceleration in the inner radiation belt?

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Ground Signatures

1. Michael Hartinger “The effect of northern-southern hemisphere conductivity asymmetries on ground magnetic responses during a large solar wind transient”

2. Christina Chu “Hot Flow Anomalies at the Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures”

==== [FG] (Joint) Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere + Metrics and Validation ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection), Tim Guild (Metrics), Masha Kuznetsova (Metrics), Lutz Rastaetter (Metrics), Aaron Ridley (Metrics), Howard Singer (Metrics)

:1. Discussion of finding the electron diffusion region (with MMS)
:2. Discussion of PIC simulations into CCMC
:3. Liang Wang - Integrating a multi-fluid moment code into OpenGGCM

==== [Special] TDAS demo ====

== Thursday, June 18 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''SWMI tutorial''' by ''Robert Fear'' -- Flux transfer events: Looking ahead to MMS
* '''Student-invited tutorial''' by ''Barbara Giles'' -- title

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Analysis of Extreme Events”

Surja Sharma: overview talk

Jeff Love: Dst statistics

Slava Merkin: ionospheric turbulence

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Topics include overlap with TIMI (role of entropy bubbles in the inner magnetosphere), as well as other topics relevant to both focus groups.

Presenters: <presentation titles omitted>

# Mike Wiltberger
# Mike Henderson(LANL)
# George Khazanov (GSFC)
# Natalia Ganushkina and Stepan Dubyagin
# Sheng-Hsien (Sean) Chen (GSFC)
# Bob Schunk (USU)
# Matina Gkioulidou (JHU/APL)
# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Xueling Shi (VTech)
# Jian Yang (Rice U.)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Geospace Systems Science + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Joe Borovsky (Systems), Bill Lotko (Systems), Vadim Uritsky (Systems), Juan Valdivia (Systems), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene setting talks
:1. Binzheng Zhang
:2. Colin Komar

Contributed talks
:1. Misha Sitnov - tearing stability criterion'
:2. Bill Lotko - effects of auroral (low-altitude) field-aligned potential drops on nightside reconnection and energy flow in MI coupling

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Drew Turner, (Aerospace)

2. Sasha Ukhorskiy, (JHU/APL), “Proton Acceleration at Injection Fronts in the Inner Magnetosphere”

3. Chih-Ping Wang, (UCLA)

4. Christine Gabrielse, (UCLA)

5. Larry Lyons (UCLA)

6. Jian Yang, (Rice)

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Systems-Science Tools, Methodologies, and Results”

Jacob Bortnik: Machine learning

Konstantin Gamayunov: System-based approach to EMIC waves

Delores Knipp: Estimating uncertainty in DMSP Poynting

Lutz Rastatter: Modeling joule heat in the ionosphere

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

:1. Colby Haggerty, heating during reconnection
:2. Shan Wang - Electron heating during magnetotail reconnection: deriving the heating coefficient and effects of unloading
:3. Rick Wilder, moving X-line in cusp
:4. Paul Cassak, asymmetric reconnection with flow shear

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Jodie Barker Ream (UCLA), “Pi2 propagation in global MHD simulations”

2. Aaron Schutza, (Rice), "Thin filament simulations"

3. Roxanne Katus, (Univ. Michigan), “Magnetospheric ion temperature derived from TWINS flux data”

4. John Wygant, (Univ. Minnesota)

5. Zhengwei Cheng, (UNH), , “A case study of the particle carriers of field-aligned currents in the magnetotail during a substorm: Cluster observation.”

== Friday, June 19 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MIC tutorial''' by ''Stein Haaland'' -- Cold ion outflow from the polar cap

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Behavior of the Geospace System”

Jonathan Krall: SAMI3 simulations of M-I-T coupling

Wen Li: solar wind and the radiation belts

Vania Jordanova: multiple connections in the magnetosphere in the SHIELDS project

Joe Borovsky: behavior modes from global correlation analysis

Audience Discussion

2015 Summer Workshop

2015-06-13T06:25:44Z

Sazykin: /* [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection */

'''June 14-19 2015'''

'''Viceroy Hotels, Resorts & Residences, Snowmass, Colorado'''

Below is a ''fluid'' list of speakers provided by the GEM Workshop Coordinator and Focus Groups. The information here serves as a rough guide for those who wish to know the most updated session plans. Due to the nature of the GEM Workshop, Focus Groups may continue to revise their agenda as needed.

All other information about the 2015 Summer Workshop can be found at the [http://www.cpe.vt.edu/gem/index.html GEM Meeting Coordinator Website].

== Monday, June 15 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MPS tutorial''' by ''Toshi Nishimura'' -- Fast flow channels in the magnetotail and auroral oval: Reconnection, substorm and beyond
* '''GSM tutorial''' by ''Alex Glocer'' -- Global modeling of the space environment system

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Tail Environment and Dynamics at Lunar Distances ====

* Hui Zhang: Transient phenomena at tail Bow shock and magnetopause
* Sheng-Hsien Chen: K-H at the magnetopause and waves at LLBL
* Denny Oliveria: Tail response to interplanetary shocks
* Tim Stubbs (presented by David Sibeck): Mid-tail structure
* Rob Fear: Magnetotail structure associated with transpolar arcs
* Peter Chi: Ion cyclotron waves at the Moon and their connection to the plasma sheet and the lunar exosphere
* Ivan Vasko:Geotail observations in mid and distant tail
* Andrei Runov: Reconnection in the mid-tail
* John Lyon: LFM simulation of bubble formation in mid-tail during growth phase
* Joe Borovsky: The role of mid-tail in Geospace Systems Science

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models'''

* Bob Schunk: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 1 (15 min)
* Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 2 (15 min)
* Abdallah Barakat: Generalized Polar Wind Models of GEM Storms, 3 (15 min)
* Dan Welling: Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models (20 min)
* Katie Garcia-Sage: MFLFM Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Simulation Results (20 min)
* Bill Lotko: Overview of Recent LFM Modeling and Thoughts for the Future (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Larry Lyons: Review--Hybrid scenario
*Mike Henderson: Review--Inside-out scenario
*Larry Kepko: Review--Outside-in scenario
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Yukinaga Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Phil Pritchett: Comments from modeler
*Joachim Birn: Comments from modeler
*Misha Sitnov: Comments from modeler
*Mostafa El-Alaoui: Comments from modeler
*Walk-ins welcome.

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 1 (Mon, 01:30-03:00 PM):''' “Radiation Belt (RB) observations and modeling results”

''Chairs: Weichao Tu and Steve Morley''

:1. Mary Hudson: Recent simulation of the 'St Patrick's Day storm'
:2. Alexander Drozdov: The VERB code modeling of the St. Patrick’s day Storm
:3. Dan Baker: Impenetrable Barrier during March 17 2015 storm
:4. Allison Jaynes: Fast diffusion of ultra-relativistic electrons: 17 March 2015 storm event
:5. Thiago Brito: Simulations on Radiation Belt Electron Precipitation Response to ULF Waves
:6. Drew Turner: Storm-time analysis of RB
:7. Xinlin Li: Deep Injections of 10s – 100s of keV electrons (RBSP observations)
:8. Jay Albert: Modeling “peculiar” pitch angle distributions with MS waves

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Merged Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Models Compared to Observations'''

* Dan Welling: Merged Ionos-Magnetosphere Models for GEM Storms (15 min)
* Lynn Kistler: Cluster Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Joe Borovsky: LANL Measurement/Model Comparisons During GEM Storms (20 min)
* Stein Haaland: The Estimation of Cold Plasma Outflow During Storms (20 min)
* Discussion

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Robert McPherron: Point Processes: Association of Lists
*Nadine Kalmoni: Auroral dispersion relation
*Kyle Murphy: tools and methods
*Eric Donovan: Circle grams

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 2 (Mon, 03:30-05:00 PM):''' “Various magnetospheric wave characteristics and their global distribution required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Wen Li and Jay Albert''

:1. Ashar Ali: Radial Diffusion Coefficients Using E and B Field Data from the Van Allen Probes
:2. Seth Claudepierre: Advertisement for the GEM ULF Wave Challenge
:3. Xinlin Li: Relation between ULF and radial diffusion of RB electrons
:4. Lauren Blum: The relationship between EMIC waves and radiation belt electron precipitation
:5. Wen Li: Global distribution of chorus wave intensity using the statistical model and POES technique
:6. Jay Albert: Nonlinear wave-particle interaction
:7. Qianli Ma: Evaluation of electron scattering due to typical magnetosonic waves using analytical formula
:8. Lunjin Chen: The effect of bounce resonance with magnetosonic waves on the radiation belt electrons
:9. Oleksiy Agapitov: Storm-induced energization and losses of radiation belt electrons: Effects of wave obliquity

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''Inter-Model Comparison for GEM Storm Periods and New Measurements'''

* Continued Discussion of Merged Models and Measurements Comparison
* Naritoshi Kitamura: Ion Outflow Topics (20 min)
* Roger Varney: Hysteresis Effects in Coupled MFLFM-IPWM Models (15 min)
* Barbara Giles: Initial Plasma Measurements from MMS (20 min)
* Jonathan Krall: Ion Fluxes Into and Out of a Model Plasmasphere During Storm and Plasmasphere Refilling During Quiet Time (20 min)

==== [FG] Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms ====
*Ohtani/Motoba: Event presentation
*Miyashita: Event presentation
*Murphy/Mann/Rae: Event presentation
*Nishimura/Lyons: Event presentation
*Vassilis Angelopoulos: HSO
*FG learders: Future planning

== Tuesday, June 16 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Weichao Tu'' -- title
* '''IMAG tutorial''' by ''Seth Claudepierre'' -- Van Allen Probes: Where We've Been and Where We're Going

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 3 (Tue, 10:30-12:15 PM):''' “Seed populations, plasma density, and magnetic field configuration required in RB modeling”

''Chairs: Jay Albert and Weichao Tu''

:1. Natalia Ganushkina: Low energy electrons in the inner magnetosphere
:2. Mick Denton: An empirical model of electron and ion fluxes derived from observations at geosynchronous orbit
:3. Alex Boyd: Quantifying the Radiation Belt Seed Population During the Van Allen Probes Era
:4. Jian Yang: RCM-E simulation of energetic electron injections during an idealized storm
:5. Oleksiy Agapitov: Time Domain Structures: generation mechanisms and effects for electrons
:6. Xiangrong Fu: Double layers associated with electron/ion acoustic waves
:7. James McCollough: DSX is still happening
:8. Alex Crew: New results from FIREBIRD II
:9. Quintin Schiller: A novel technique to apply electron lifetimes to radial diffusion models

==== [FG] The Ionospheric Source of Magnetospheric Plasma--Measuring, Modeling and Merging into the GEM GGCM ====

'''General Discussion of Modeling and Observations and Focus Group Planning'''

* Yuri Omelchenko: Global Multiscale Magnetospheric Simulations: HYPERS (15 min)
* John Wygant: The Powering of Highly Efficient Poynting Flux-Driven Wind Using Polar Spacecraft Measurements (15 min)
* Bruce Fritz: Ion Upflow Dependence on Ionospheric Density and Solar Photoionization (15 min)
* Bill Peterson: A New Look at DE-1 Escaping Ion Observations at Non-Storm Times (10 min) -- Accompanying poster by Kristina Lu

==== [FG] (Joint) Testing Proposed Links between Mesoscale Auroral and Polar Cap Dynamics and Substorms + Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====
*Shin Ohtani - Morphological mapping based on the stability of the magnetotail
*Emma Spanswick - Riometer injection
*Elizabeth Roy - Open-closed boundary
*Jiang Liu - Current wedge structuring
*Chao Yue - 3-D magnetic field modeling

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling ====
'''Session 4 (Tue, 01:30-03:00 PM):''' “RB "dropout" and "buildup" challenges and Planning for future activities”

''Chairs: Steve Morley and Wen Li''

General short presentations (01:30-02:15 PM)

:1. Yuri Shprits: Recent results of the reanalysis
:2. Brian Kress: Observations and modeling of rebuilding during storms
:3. Zhao Li: 3D test-particle simulation of the 17-18 March, 2013 CME-shock driven storm
:4. Shri Kanekal and Dan Baker: Electron bursts during 17 March 2015 storm

"Dropout" and "Buildup" Challenges (02:15-03:00 PM)
:5. Drew Turner: Candidate “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:6. QARBM FG leaders: Discussion of “Dropout” and “Buildup” challenge events
:7. Open discussions and plan for future FG activities

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

The two SIMIC sessions on Tuesday afternoon will focus mainly on the chosen events: 2013-03-17 and 2012-11-01 storms

A tentative list of presenters:
<Presentation titles omitted>

# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Lyons/Nishimura/Gallardo (UCLA)
# Rick Wilder (LASP)
# Margaret Chen (Aerospace)
# Gang Lu (NCAR)
# Jonathan Krall (NRL)
# Lois Smith (Michigan)
# Peter Chi (UCLA)
# Alex Glocer for Mei-Ching Fok (NASA)
# Mike Liemohn and Roxanne Katus (Michigan)
# Yiqun Yu and Vania Jordanova (LANL)
# Elizabeth MacDonald (GSFC)
# Bob Lysak (Univ. Minnesota)
# Mike Schulz
# James Weygand (UCLA)
# Jerry Goldstein (SwRI)
# Jimmy Raeder (UNH)
# Dave Sibeck (GSFC)
# Brian Anderson (JHU/APL)

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Vassilis Angelopoulos (TIMI), Pontus Brandt (TIMI), John Lyon (TIMI), Frank Toffoletto (TIMI), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene Setting talks
:1. Joachim Birn
:2. Jim Drake

Contributed talks
:1. Slava Merkin - magnetotail stability in the presence of B_z minimum
:2. Misha Sitnov - new class of equilibria taking into account dipole field and B_z hump
:3. Misha Sitnov - temperature increase at dipolarization fronts
:4. Haoming Liang (w/Ashour-Abdalla and Walker) - oxygen effects on dipolarization fronts
:5. Ying Zou - imager observations of PBI triggering by polar cap structures
:6. Toshi Nishimura - MHD simulation of nightside localized reconnection triggering by lobe flow channels
:7. Yu Lin - global hybrid simulation of the storm-time magnetotail and reconnection flux ropes
:8. Phil Pritchett - instability of current sheets with a localized accumulation of magnetic flux
:9.Phil Pritchett - structure of reconnection flow jets

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Quantitative Assessment of Radiation Belt Modeling + Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
'''Session 5 (Tue, 03:30-05:00 PM):''' “Joint session with “Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions” FG”

''Chairs: Jichun Zhang and Weichao Tu

:1. Wen Li: Quantitative simulation of radiation belt electron dynamics using 3D diffusion code
:2. Yuri Shprits: Combined Convective and Diffusive Simulation: VERB-4D Results
:3. Xiangrong Fu: Modeling EMIC wave generation from ring current ions
:4. Anthony Saikin: The geomagnetic condition dependence of the spatial distributions of EMIC waves observed by the Van Allen Probes
:5. Jacob Bortnik: Generation of chorus waves in a lab plasma
:6. Xin An: Linear excitation of whistler waves
:7. Shuo Wu: Hybrid Code Simulations of Whistler Waves in Compressed Dipole Field
:8. Chih-ping Wang: Multi-point observation of ULF waves

==== [FG] Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Continuing the [http://gem.epss.ucla.edu/mediawikiwiki/index.php/2015_Summer_Workshop#.5BFG.5D_Storm-time_Inner_Magnetosphere-Ionosphere_Convection SIMIC session at 1330-1500].

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Time Lags in Solar Wind-Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Interactions”

speakers will include

Mick Denton: mass transport

Bob McPherron: physical interpretation of time lags

Roger Varney: ionospheric outflow

Shin Ohtani: circuit timescales

Bob Clauer: ionospheric convection

Audience Discussion

== Wednesday, June 17 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''Agency report''' by ''Vladimir Papitashvili'' -- Introduction
* '''Agency report''' by ''Janet Kozyra'' -- NSF GEM Program
* '''Agency report''' by ''Howard Singer'' -- NOAA Agency Report
* ''Bill Lotko'' -- Overview of NSF AGS Portfolio Review and Discussion

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "wave-particle interactions"

June 17, Wednesday 10:30-12:15pm

# Mark Engebretson (Challenge event) - Van Allen probes, NOAA, and ground observations of an intense Pc 1 wave event extending 12 hours in MLT and its resulting depletion of the outer radiation belt
# Justin Lee (Challenge event) - Discussion of Wave-Particle Interactions during the 18-22 Feb 2014 Storm
# Michael Hartinger -The effect of azimuthal wave number on ULF wave-particle interactions
# Chen Zhou - Excitation of Dayside Chorus Waves due to Magnetic Field Line Compression in Response to Interplanetary Shocks
# Homayon Aryan - The distribution of plasmaspheric Hiss and Chorus waves in the inner magnetosphere as functions of geomagnetic activity and solar wind parameters
# Robert Allen - Statistical study of EMIC waves observed by Cluster
# Konstantin Gamayunov - Multiscale nature of electromagnetic ion cyclotron wave development in Earth’s magnetosphere
# Vania Jordanova - RAM-SCB simulations of plasma wave dynamics
# Adam Kellerman - Forecasting the Earth’s radiation environment with GREEP and VERB: a synthesis of empirical- and physics-based modeling across multiple energies and spatial regions

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Foreshock Phenomena

1. Zixu Liu "THEMIS observations of tangential discontinuity-driven foreshock bubbles"

2. Nick Omidi (presented by Jean Berchem) “Impacts of SHFAs on the Magnetosheath & Magnetopause”

3. Hui Zhang "Evolution of HFAs: Cluster Observations"

4. Olga Gutynska “Density enhancements in the magnetosheath: comparison with simulations”

5. Narges Ahmadi “Effects of Electron Anisotropy in Mirror Instability Evolution in the Magnetosheath”

6. David Sibeck “The Solar wind Magnetosphere Ionosphere Link Explorer (SMILE) Mission”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #1: Magnetopause crossing challenge and additional M&V contributions'''

* Lutz Rastaetter: Overview and initial results from the Magnetopause Crossing Challenge
* Mike Wiltberger: Magnetopause dynamics during the March 17th, 2013 event
* Rob Redmon: The future of GOES: Magnetic field and particle observation and modeling to determine magnetopause crossings
* Mike Liemohn: Assessment of the CCMC Experimental Real-time SWMF-Geospace Results
* Dan Welling: Model skill as a function of solar wind driving.
* Ilja Honkonen: Data / Model comparisons with GUMICS

''' M&V Wrap up: Recent highlights and future plans for Metrics & Validation at GEM'''
* Howard Singer dicussion lead

==== [Special] HSO coordination ====
''Discussions on science and campaigns for the upcoming HSO satellite-ground coordination.''
*Vassilis Angelopoulos (Intro, an overview and THEMIS-MMS coordination, THEMIS plans)
*Toshi Nishimura (a PPT on coordination: times, geometry, tentative assets)
*Marilia Samara (on MMS and ground based?)
*Brian Anderson (AMPERE)
*Eric Donovan (TREx)
*Stephen Mende (AGOs)
*Jo Baker (SuperDARN)
*Yukinaga Miyashita (ERG)
*Naritoshi Kitamura (Geotail)
*Sasha Ukhorsky (Van Allen Probes)
*Marc Lessard (WAIS)
*Peter Chi (ULTIMA)
*Drew Turner, Seth Claudepierre, Jacob Bortnik, Mike Hartinger, Shin Ohtani, Jimmy Raeder, Wen Li, Bill Lotko, Rick Chappell, Liz McDonald, Frank Toffoletto, Paul Cassak (Science comments)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
* Topic: "plasma-field coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 1:30-3:00pm

# Lois Smith - Plasmaspheric Suprathermal Heating from Cyclotron Resonance with Equatorial Noise
# Raluca Ilie - Calculating the Inductive electric fields in the terrestrial magnetosphere
# Samuel Califf - Van Allen Probes observations of SAPS during the 28 June 2013 geomagnetic storm
# Hong Zhao - The evolution of ring current ion energy density and energy content during geomagnetic storms based on Van Allen Probes measurements
# Jichun Zhang - “Trunk-like” heavy ion structures observed by the Van Allen Probes
# Cristian Ferradas - Ion nose spectral structures observed by the Van Allen Probes

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Magnetopause Phenomena

1. Hyunju Connor “Thermospheric heating in the high-latitude dayside regions after the sudden enhancement of solar wind dynamic pressure: OpenGGCM-CTIM results”

2. Denny Oliveira <dennymauricio@gmail.com> “Impact angle control of IP shock geoeffectiveness: results of simulations and observations"

3. Michael Hartinger “The global structure and time evolution of dayside magnetopause surface eigenmodes”

4. Chih-Ping Wang “The hot electron enhancement in mid-tail magnetosheath and its dawn-dusk asymmetry”

5. Sun-Hee Lee (Presented by Hui Zhang) “Cold dense plasma observed at the Dayside Magnetopause and their dependence on solar wind and geomagnetic conditions”

==== [FG] Metrics and Validation ====
'''Session #2: ULF Wave Challenge'''

* Seth Claudepierre: ULF Wave Challenge overview and addressable science questions
* Ian Mann: Preliminary challenge time periods based on ground magnetometers
* Peter Chi: Global distribution of ULF power from ULTIMA, and in-situ observations of poloidal waves
* Lutz Rastaetter: Newly developed CCMC analysis tools supporting the ULF Challenge, and initial results
* Colin Komar: ULF power in the BATSRUS model and resonance conditions with electrons
* Scot Elkington: Mode structure calculations
* Seth Claudepierre: a few walk on slides
* Ashar Ali: From Van Allen Probes E & B measurements to radial diffusion coefficients.
* Slava Merkin: ULF waves in the LFM.
* Chih-Ping Wang: Observations (RBSP, THEMIS, Geotail) and simulations (LFM) of a 2-hour ULF wave interval.

==== [Special] SPEDAS Software ====

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Inner Magnetosphere Cross-Energy/Population Interactions ====
*Topic: "magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling"

June 17 Wednesday 3:30-5:00pm

# Dan Welling - Relationship between ionospheric outflow and the ring current
# George Khazanov - Superthermal Electrons Magnetosphere – Ionosphere Coupling in the Regions of Diffuse Aurora
# Megan Gillies - Investigating pulsating aurora at low electron energies
# Ryan Mcgranaghan - Modes of high-latitude conductance variability derived from DMSP F6-F8 and F16-F18 energetic electron precipitation observations: Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis
# Alexa Halford (challenge event) - BARREL Observations of long period precipitation on Jan 26th 2013
# Jichun Zhang (challenge event) - EMIC waves and associated relativistic electron precipitation on 25-26 January 2013
# Yiqun Yu (challenge event) - Modeling ionospheric electron precipitation due to wave particle interactions in the ring current during the 25-26 January 2013 event
# Yi-Jiun Su (challenge event) -RBSP/MagEIS observations: Local electron acceleration in the inner radiation belt?

==== [FG] Transient Phenomena at the Magnetopause and Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures ====

Topic: Ground Signatures

1. Michael Hartinger “The effect of northern-southern hemisphere conductivity asymmetries on ground magnetic responses during a large solar wind transient”

2. Christina Chu “Hot Flow Anomalies at the Bow Shock and Their Ground Signatures”

==== [FG] (Joint) Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere + Metrics and Validation ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection), Tim Guild (Metrics), Masha Kuznetsova (Metrics), Lutz Rastaetter (Metrics), Aaron Ridley (Metrics), Howard Singer (Metrics)

:1. Discussion of finding the electron diffusion region (with MMS)
:2. Discussion of PIC simulations into CCMC
:3. Liang Wang - Integrating a multi-fluid moment code into OpenGGCM

==== [Special] TDAS demo ====

== Thursday, June 18 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''SWMI tutorial''' by ''Robert Fear'' -- Flux transfer events: Looking ahead to MMS
* '''Student-invited tutorial''' by ''Barbara Giles'' -- title

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Analysis of Extreme Events”

Surja Sharma: overview talk

Jeff Love: Dst statistics

Slava Merkin: ionospheric turbulence

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====

==== [FG] (Joint) Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions + Storm-time Inner Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Convection ====

Topics include overlap with TIMI (role of entropy bubbles in the inner magnetosphere), as well as other topics relevant to both focus groups.

Presenters: <presentation titles omitted>

# Mike Wiltberger
# Mike Henderson(LANL)
# George Khazanov (GSFC)
# Natalia Ganushkina and Stepan Dubyagin
# Sheng-Hsien (Sean) Chen (GSFC)
# Bob Schunk (USU)
# Matina Gkioulidou (JHU/APL)
# Shin Ohtani (JHU/APL)
# Xueling Shi (VTech)
# Jian Yang (Rice U.)

=== 1330-1500: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] (Joint) Geospace Systems Science + Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Joe Borovsky (Systems), Bill Lotko (Systems), Vadim Uritsky (Systems), Juan Valdivia (Systems), Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

Scene setting talks
:1. Binzheng Zhang
:2. Colin Komar

Contributed talks
:1. Misha Sitnov - tearing stability criterion'
:2. Bill Lotko - effects of auroral (low-altitude) field-aligned potential drops on nightside reconnection and energy flow in MI coupling

==== [FG] Scientific Magnetic Mapping & Techniques ====

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Drew Turner, (Aerospace)

2. Sasha Ukhorskiy, (JHU/APL), “Proton Acceleration at Injection Fronts in the Inner Magnetosphere”

3. Chih-Ping Wang, (UCLA)

4. Christine Gabrielse, (UCLA)

5. Larry Lyons (UCLA)

6. Jian Yang, (Rice)

=== 1530-1700: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Systems-Science Tools, Methodologies, and Results”

Jacob Bortnik: Machine learning

Konstantin Gamayunov: System-based approach to EMIC waves

Delores Knipp: Estimating uncertainty in DMSP Poynting

Lutz Rastatter: Modeling joule heat in the ionosphere

Audience Discussion

==== [FG] Magnetic Reconnection in the Magnetosphere ====

''Chairs: Paul Cassak (Reconnection), Yi-Hsin Liu (Reconnection), Andrei Runov (Reconnection), Brian Walsh (Reconnection)

:1. Colby Haggerty, heating during reconnection
:2. Shan Wang - Electron heating during magnetotail reconnection: deriving the heating coefficient and effects of unloading
:3. Rick Wilder, moving X-line in cusp
:4. Paul Cassak, asymmetric reconnection with flow shear

==== [FG] Tail-Inner Magnetosphere Interactions ====
1. Jodie Barker Ream (UCLA), “Pi2 propagation in global MHD simulations”

2. Aaron Schutza, (Rice), "Thin filament simulations"

3. Roxanne Katus, (Univ. Michigan), “Magnetospheric ion temperature derived from TWINS flux data”

4. John Wygant, (Univ. Minnesota)

5. Zhengwei Cheng, (UNH), , “A case study of the particle carriers of field-aligned currents in the magnetotail during a substorm: Cluster observation.”

== Friday, June 19 ==

=== 0815-1000: Plenary Session ===

* '''MIC tutorial''' by ''Stein Haaland'' -- Cold ion outflow from the polar cap

=== 1030-1215: Splinter Sessions ===

==== [FG] Geospace Systems Science ====

“Behavior of the Geospace System”

Jonathan Krall: SAMI3 simulations of M-I-T coupling

Wen Li: solar wind and the radiation belts

Vania Jordanova: multiple connections in the magnetosphere in the SHIELDS project

Joe Borovsky: behavior modes from global correlation analysis

Audience Discussion

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2009-12-24T00:02:23Z

Sazykin: /* Original proposal to the GEM steering committee */

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group Overview ==
This focus group aims to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-
Earth (< 10 RE) magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere.
It broadens our understanding of inner magnetosphere plasma transport and includes the self-consistent coupling between plasma and electric and magnetic fields.
It also focuses on quantifying the effect of plasma sheet source populations on the evolution of the inner magnetosphere.

=== Scientific Motivation ===
Currently there are gaps, in both modeling and observations, in our knowledge of
both the fields and the plasma sheet boundary dependence. From a modeling point of view, a gap exists between self-consistent but physically oversimplified models and models that treat plasma correctly but not the fields. Existing global MHD models include self-consistent fields, but the MHD formalism cannot adequately describe the inner magnetosphere (closer than 10 RE), because it does not include gradient and curvature drifts. On the other hand, existing kinetic models (e.g. RAM, RCM, CRCM) treat plasma transport, acceleration and losses more or less realistically but
do not properly account for the effect of the plasma on the fields. Observationally, the fields are also rather poorly described. While empirical models have been constructed that statistically describe B-fields and convective E-fields, they hardly do so for specific events; moreover, no model exists for the inductive E-fields. Finally, the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere depends both on the physics mechanisms involved, but also on the plasma sheet inputs. No clear study of the relative importance of the two exists.
'''In summary, to further our knowledge of the inner magnetosphere we need better specification of the electric and magnetic fields, as well as of the driving plasma sheet properties. From a modeling point of view, it is desirable to have a kinetic approach that includes all relevant species (ions and electrons), self-consistent three-dimensional magnetic, convective and induced electric fields, as well as loss mechanisms.'''

=== Goals ===
This focus group will include both modeling and observational components that will improve the knowledge and specification of the inner magnetosphere electric and magnetic fields, their interaction with the plasma, as well as their dependence on the plasma sheet populations; a main deliverable will be the development of a realistic inner magnetosphere GGCM module, consistent with the main goal of the GEM program.

=== Potential Research Topics ===
#Effect of the 3D self-consistent feedback between plasma and magnetic field on the inner magnetosphere particle transport and acceleration during various activity such as storms and substorms.
#Specification (observational and modeling) of the convective E-field during storms, Region-2 field aligned currents, coupling to ionosphere and shielding.
#Magnitude and location of the inductive E-fields arising from time-varying B-fields, through both modeling and observations (e.g. conjugate measurements – in situ plus ionospheric).
#Effect of plasma sheet density, temperature and local time distribution on the large-scale morphology of the ring current ions and electrons in the inner magnetosphere.
#Parameterization and relative importance of various loss processes during active times, including extreme disturbances.
#Influence of inner magnetosphere fields on radiation belt particles; adiabatic effect; radial diffusion - what part, if any, of ULF wave diffusion is captured by time changing model fields?
#Coupling of inner magnetosphere models with outer MHD models; which is driving which.

=== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ===
Full text of the proposal to the GEM steering committee that led to creation of the focus group can be found here:
[http://spacibm.rice.edu/~gem_challenge/GEM_FGProp-2006-NearEarth.pdf PDF proposal]

== GEM Workshop meeting reports ==

=== June 2007 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere Focus Group held three breakout sessions at the 2007 GEM, on Wednesday, June 20.

'''Session 1. The topic of this session was the influence of plasma sheet properties on the ring current.'''

''Benoit Lavraud'' showed that a cold, dense plasma sheet leads to enhanced ring current. Comparing RAM simulation results for the proton ring current with idealized boundary conditions of cold vs. hot plasma sheet (with the same energy density), he found that cold plasma sheet can penetrate much closer to Earth (due to its reduced
gradient-B drift). He also presented observations of the cold dense plasma sheet (CDPS), which show 2 distinct populations at midnight and dawn. The source and degree of participation of the dawn population to the ring current are questions that need to be answered in the future.

''Chih-Ping Wang'' analyzed the dependence of plasma sheet properties, during northward IMF, on solar wind (SW) density, velocity and IMF Bz, using Geotail, ACE and Wind data. The data was separated into 8 bins, corresponding to low/high value combinations of the 3 driving parameters. The parameter combination of high SW density, high IMF Bz and low velocity was found to lead to a cold plasma sheet with highest density and lowest temperature. On the other hand, a low SW density, low Bz and high velocity result in a hot and tenuous plasma sheet (lowest density, but highest temperature).

''Margaret Chen'' used Wang’s two extreme plasma sheet conditions (cold/dense and hot/tenuous) from Geotail data as boundary conditions for her magnetically self-consistent ring current model. First, she traced ions with the Magnetospheric Specification Model (MSM) from Geotail orbit to geosynchronous, and then used the values there as boundary conditions. She found that the cold/dense plasma sheet leads
to much stronger ring current. She concluded that accurate ring current modeling requires realistic modeling of pre-storm plasma sheet.

''Colby Lemon'' addressed the question of how the fast initial recovery of a storm may be affected by plasma sheet density and convection strength. He showed 6 simulations performed with the RCM-E model, with different plasma sheet densities and polar cap potential drops. The results show that lower plasma sheet densities lead to faster recovery, with the fastest recovery resulting when plasma sheet density is lowest while convection is still strong.

''Vahe Peroomian'' looked at ion access and energization by tracing particles in the fields of a global MHD storm simulation. Oxygen ions were launched from the ionosphere, with protons launched in the solar wind. While direct entry (through the plasma sheet) into the ring current was found to occur, Vahe found that ion transport from the distant tail to inner magnetosphere can be also indirect, with particles moving along
dynamic field lines and ending up much closer to Earth after mirroring, thus bypassing the plasma sheet.

''Liz MacDonald'' studied the influence of ion composition at geo. orbit on the ring current. By performing RAM simulations with various H+/O+ boundary composition ratios, she obtained very different ring current pressure, showing that ion composition plays a very significant role in the ring current. She then described the upcoming oxygen monitoring capability at geosynchronous that will be on LANL satellites, through the
Advanced Miniaturized Plasma Spectrometer (AMPS), which will measure H+, O+, He++ and
e-.

''Jichun Zhang'' presented an RCM study of depleted entropy channels (bubbles) injected into the inner magnetosphere. The bubbles are imposed by reducing the PV^gamma content. He found that bubbles lead to higher plasma energy density. In particular, the electric field is increased inside depleted channels, which injects fresh particles more effectively. The violation of adiabaticity (which presumably causes the bubbles) pushes the ring current farther inward and seems to be a key element in storm physics.

''Yongliang Zhang'' discussed the ring current aurora (RCA) – a new terminology for aurora emissions due to precipitating particles from the ring current. He showed that global FUV imagers provide insight into the RCA because they image proton precipitation. As observations of RCA provide information on loss processes in the RC,
he concluded that global auroras should be used in validating magnetospheric models.

''Pontus Brandt'' showed a study performed with Shin Ohtani on global circulation of oxygen ions. ENA observations show strong energization of RC O+ ions during substorms,
with protons less energized. CRCM simulations of a substorm coupled with test particle ions successfully reproduce the oxygen ion energization, with the take-home message being that oxygen ions make the ring current stronger.

'''Session 2: The topic of the second session was the self-consistent interaction between plasma and electric and magnetic fields in the inner magnetosphere.'''

''Sorin Zaharia'' described the inner magnetosphere model that is developed at LANL based on his 3D magnetic field solver and Vania Jordanova’s RAM code. Recently,
the code has been extended to ~10 Re in the tail, with the outer plasma boundary condition there taken from observational profiles. Sorin showed that taking into account the effect of plasma on the B-field leads to very different results than if
a dipole field is used. When the self-consistent simulation of a moderate storm is compared with the one using a dipole B-field, it was found that there are significant deviations of the field from dipolar even at L=4-5, lower plasma pressure, and noticeable variability in radial profiles.

''Mike Liemohn'' addressed the question of small scale E-field structuring in the inner
magnetosphere that he finds in his ring current simulations. Mike showed a simulation of the April 22, 2001 storm, in which plasma pressure becomes structured – at the same time, small structuring is seen in the computed E-field. According to Mike’s analysis, ENA images in the tens of keV energy range would not be sufficient for the IMAGE HENA instrument to resolve the structuring. Mike challenged the audience to identify data that could be used to prove or disprove his model results.

''Vania Jordanova'' showed RAM simulations with different B-fields (dipole, empirical Tsyganenko, and self-consistent computed with the Zaharia solver) also for the 22 April 2001 storm. Vania found that results differ significantly for the different field models. In general, the empirical T04S field yields the largest gradient/curvature
drift velocities. In the storm main phase, proton fluxes are smallest with T04S and total ring current density is reduced compared to the dipole case. The self-consistent B-field yields intermediate results. With non-dipolar B-fields, localized pressure peaks appear. Also, with the self-consistent B-field, strong EMIC waves are
predicted at larger L.

''Mark Engebretson'' presented EMIC wave observations, bringing up the question of why
ground-based signatures of EMIC waves are not observed in the plasmapause region during the main/early recovery phase, but are in the late recovery phase. Mark showed conjunction ground based/spacecraft data (with two spacecraft, one at 4500 km altitude and the other one at geo) at L=4.5 for one storm. In the main phase, the data shows EMIC wave activity out in the magnetosphere but waves are not observed on the ground or at 4500 km. This might suggest that the waves are absorbed well above the ionosphere or
are not emitted in the direction of the ground.

''Frank Toffoletto'' showed RCM-E simulations of an idealized substorm growth phase. After running the model for ~4 hrs, the pressure and magnetic fields consistently display oscillatory structure, which could be physical instabilities. An eigenmode analysis of the RCM-E configuration with Chris Crabtree’s code finds a tail region between 10 and 15 Re to be ballooning unstable when the field is very stretched. While
RCM-E cannot model the instability evolution, this result may indicate that adiabaticity is violated in the unstable region. Reducing the adiabatic invariant in an ad-hoc manner on the RCM-E boundary leads to B-field dipolarization and injection of a noticeable ring current.

''Hiroshi Matsui'' presented an empirical model of the convection E-field in the inner
magnetosphere based on Cluster E-field measurements and DE-2/radar data. The model
convection patterns were organized by the interplanetary E-field. Qualitatively, the
empirical patterns are similar to those computed with models such as RCM. However, standard deviations are comparable to E-field absolute values, indicating significant variability of the field; this could be due to mesoscale structuring or induction E-fields.

''Pamela Puhl-Quinn'' described her recent work on analyzing simultaneous electric field
observations of sub-auroral ion drift (SAID) events using magnetospheric (Cluster) and
ionospheric (DMSP) E-field data. She showed one case study that showed quite good
agreement of Cluster and DMSP observations.

'''Session 3: The final session started as a continuation of the self-consistent interaction discussion.'''

''Mike Schulz'' gave some theoretical remarks on self-consistent interaction between plasma, electric and magnetic fields. He remarked that analytical formulations (e.g. the Dungey model) are useful for simulating realistic features. He warned against looking for causality in Maxwell’s equations, i.e. what is driving what. One can only say with regard to Maxwell’s equations that the right hand side equals the left
hand side.

''Jerry Goldstein'' presented an electric field model constructed from an externally driven electric field model (Volland-Stern) plus an internal SAPS model. By tracing particles in this combined model, with either observations or a plasmapause model for initialization, he obtained remarkably good correlation with MPA data of plume location.

''Tim Guild'' showed the effects of self-consistency in electric and magnetic fields on the plasma sheet control of ring current. For the study he used RCM, which has self-consistent electric fields, but did not include the charge exchange. He analyzed a moderate storm and found that adding magnetic self-consistency lowers the effect of
plasma sheet density on the ring current energy (the self-consistency in the E-field alone was already lowering it from a linear to a square root dependence on the PS density).

''Yukitoshi Nishimura'' presented storm-time large scale electric fields obtained from 7 years of Akebono observations. The largest fields are found at dawn and dusk. He also used the field to calculate empirical convection potentials. A twocell convection pattern is clearly observed. He further traced ions in the obtained empirical fields
and found significant energization.

''Jo Baker'' discussed SuperDARN measurements and implications for convection. He also
performed a test of equipotentiality of the magnetic field lines, by analyzing conjugate
SuperDARN and Cluster EDI measurements. While he found a fairly good correlation, there
was also large variance, which points out to nonequipotentiality (possible reasons for it being induced electric fields and field-aligned potential drops).

''Yihua Zheng'' looked at the influence of electric fields on the coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. She showed simulations with the CRCM model, with and without trough (low density plasma region) conditions. With trough conditions, the applied low Pedersen conductance in the trough leads to large amplitude flows (subauroral polarization streams, or SAPS) that resemble observations. She concluded that ionospheric changes affect the ring current through electromagnetic coupling.

''Sasha Ukhorskyi'' looked at radiation belt radial transport due to magnetopause compression from solar wind dynamic pressure variations. He used empirical B-field models and calculated the induced E-fields that are consistent with the Bfield
time dependence. He then analyzed the ULF waves from solar wind pressure spectral
fluctuations.

''Jimmy Raeder'' presented work done with W. Li on the formation of super-dense plasma sheet. In an OpenGGCM simulation, he showed that after northward IMF, southward IMF turning compresses the cold dense plasma on high latitude field lines, which is subsequently pushed toward the Earth by near-tail reconnection and forms the super dense plasma sheet near geo. orbit (MHD results compatible with MPA observations).

The second half of the session was a community discussion about the future direction of the focus group. Several people mentioned the familiar GEM concept of “Community Challenge” – it would be interesting to have in the near future (1-2 years) a challenge study whereby the models would all run an idealized event, so as to compare the results.
For the next GEM, two possible breakout session topics emerged: 1). Study the effect of
the added model features on model output, in order to find out which are crucial for inner magnetosphere physics modeling; quantify the relative effect of plasma sheet boundary properties, B and E self-consistency, anisotropy, losses in models; how are the new physics features verified by / improve consistency with observations? 2). Continuous improvement in empirical specification: better empirical plasma sheet models (including activity binning and ion composition), empirical E-field and plasmasphere models. These would also be the topics of a Mini-GEM session the focus group will be organizing in San Francisco the Sunday before the 2007 Fall AGU.

=== June 2008 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

=== June 2009 GEM meeting report ===

The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions at the 2009 GEM Summer Workshop in Snowmass, CO. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The sessions, held on Wednesday, June 24, featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts selected for the present phase of the focus group, as well as results from the recently initiated Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge.

'''1. Observations/empirical models'''

Short presentations addressed the following topics:
* Empirical electric field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH Inner Magnetosphere Electric Field (IMEF) model based on Cluster data (P. Puhl-Quinn), now being extended to include extreme periods; CLUSTER study of Poynting flux associated with the convection E-field (Y. Nishimura); induced E-fields were shown to be very important for inner magnetosphere particle transport (Gang Lu).
* Empirical magnetic field model TS07D (M. Sitnov); dramatic increase in spatial and temporal resolutions; model is now available on APL website; model shows that in some events the storm-time magnetosphere can be dominated by the tail current).
* During storms with low Mach number solar wind, the dayside B-field can be reduced instead of compressed (due to external Region-1 type currents near the open-closed boundary; Joe Borovsky)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt, presentation by M. Sitnov – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* First results from the TWINS mission (J. Goldstein, M.-C. Fok); stereo ion inversion leads to improved accuracy; validation vs. THEMIS data.
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN; 8 new mid-latitude radars coming online in the next 4 years, providing more spatial coverage for model-data comparisons.)
* Pc4, Pc5 wave observations (THEMIS data); correlation with solar wind (Liu et al.)

'''2. Physics-based numerical Models'''

Presentations discussed the following issues:
* The recent extension of the magnetofriction code to anisotropic equilibria (for future use e.g. in CRCM); the issue of mirror/firehose instabilities - F. Toffoletto
* CRCM model runs vs. TWINS observations (M.-C. Fok); while ENA (and 12 keV fluxes) peak at post-midnight, the ion pressure peak is still at pre-midnight local times
* The correlation between plasma sheet local time peak density and ring current pressure peak location vanishes when a self-consistent E-field formulation is used (Yihua Zheng, CRCM).
* Effect of models used to drive ring current formation (Vania Jordanova, RAM/RAM-SCB); the self-consistent B-field moves anisotropic regions farther from Earth; N. Ganushkina/M. Liemohn: Dst calculation with the DPS formula vs. Biot-Savart for non-dipole field leads to different results
* 1-way coupling of RAM-SCB with the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF) shows strong ring current and Region-2 currents in RAM-SCB, and good agreement w/ Iridium observations (S. Zaharia)
* Inner magnetosphere physics – Hall MHD not sufficient to produce ring current (Dan Welling, BATS-R-US Hall MHD vs. vanilla MHD)

'''3. Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge'''

One session was devoted to presentation of results from the recently initiated Near Earth Magnetosphere Modeling Challenge. The challenge has brought together researchers from all major inner magnetosphere modeling groups: RAM-SCB (V. Jordanova, S. Zaharia, LANL), HEIDI (M. Liemohn, Michigan), RCM (S. Sazykin, Rice), RCM-E (S. Sazykin, Rice; C. Lemon, Aerospace), CRCM (N. Buzulukova, GSFC; Y. Zheng, JHU/APL), M. Chen’s model (Aerospace), IMPTAM (N. Ganushkina, FMI). The first step in the Challenge, Phase 0, involved an idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). Phase 0 results were discussed; the total energy (or, equivalently, Dst) values from the different models were found to be close enough (within max. 10% of one another) considering the model differences (e.g. anisotropic vs. isotropic), so Phase 0 is about to be concluded. The results have been posted on a dedicated Challenge website: http://spacibm.rice.edu/~gem_challenge/ A mailing list for the Challenge has been established as well.

The remainder of the session involved a community discussion ironing out details about the next stage in the Challenge (Phase 1). Phase 1 will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized storm, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features in the models. An updated table with the idealized storm parameters will soon be published on the Challenge website.

Some preliminary results from Phase 1 were shown by M. Liemohn (work of N. Ganushkina, IMPTAM) and S. Zaharia (RAM-SCB). The focus group plans to have a session at Mini GEM 2009 where more extended Phase 1 results will be discussed; then, Phase 1 will be wrapped up at Summer GEM Workshop 2010.

The last stage of the Challenge will be Phase 2 (one or a suite of real event simulations), in which both modelers and data analysts will be involved. The focus group is investigating the possibility of a joint effort with GGCM Metrics Modeling Challenge at this stage.

== GEM Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge ==

Starting in 2008, the focus group will have a "challenge" project that is aimed at cross-validating multiple ring current and convection numerical inner magnetospheric models, arriving at a common GGCM-style inner magnetospheric module that will employ both first-principle models and empirical data-based components, and eventually applying the models to the science questions listed in the focus group description.

Based on comments and discussions, the organizers of the focus group drafted a plan for the challenge. The most current version of the document can be found [[:Image:Near_Earth_magnetosphere_challenge_draft.pdf|here]]

[http://spacibm.rice.edu/~gem_challenge The Challenge Web page] has been set up for collecting results of the challenge. There is also a dedicated mailing list for exchanging information ([http://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/gem-near-earth-l Mailing List Web page], which also holds mailing list archives).

More details to be added following the mini-GEM workshop session in December 2008.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2009-12-24T00:01:41Z

Sazykin: /* June 2009 GEM meeting report */

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group Overview ==
This focus group aims to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-
Earth (< 10 RE) magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere.
It broadens our understanding of inner magnetosphere plasma transport and includes the self-consistent coupling between plasma and electric and magnetic fields.
It also focuses on quantifying the effect of plasma sheet source populations on the evolution of the inner magnetosphere.

=== Scientific Motivation ===
Currently there are gaps, in both modeling and observations, in our knowledge of
both the fields and the plasma sheet boundary dependence. From a modeling point of view, a gap exists between self-consistent but physically oversimplified models and models that treat plasma correctly but not the fields. Existing global MHD models include self-consistent fields, but the MHD formalism cannot adequately describe the inner magnetosphere (closer than 10 RE), because it does not include gradient and curvature drifts. On the other hand, existing kinetic models (e.g. RAM, RCM, CRCM) treat plasma transport, acceleration and losses more or less realistically but
do not properly account for the effect of the plasma on the fields. Observationally, the fields are also rather poorly described. While empirical models have been constructed that statistically describe B-fields and convective E-fields, they hardly do so for specific events; moreover, no model exists for the inductive E-fields. Finally, the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere depends both on the physics mechanisms involved, but also on the plasma sheet inputs. No clear study of the relative importance of the two exists.
'''In summary, to further our knowledge of the inner magnetosphere we need better specification of the electric and magnetic fields, as well as of the driving plasma sheet properties. From a modeling point of view, it is desirable to have a kinetic approach that includes all relevant species (ions and electrons), self-consistent three-dimensional magnetic, convective and induced electric fields, as well as loss mechanisms.'''

=== Goals ===
This focus group will include both modeling and observational components that will improve the knowledge and specification of the inner magnetosphere electric and magnetic fields, their interaction with the plasma, as well as their dependence on the plasma sheet populations; a main deliverable will be the development of a realistic inner magnetosphere GGCM module, consistent with the main goal of the GEM program.

=== Potential Research Topics ===
#Effect of the 3D self-consistent feedback between plasma and magnetic field on the inner magnetosphere particle transport and acceleration during various activity such as storms and substorms.
#Specification (observational and modeling) of the convective E-field during storms, Region-2 field aligned currents, coupling to ionosphere and shielding.
#Magnitude and location of the inductive E-fields arising from time-varying B-fields, through both modeling and observations (e.g. conjugate measurements – in situ plus ionospheric).
#Effect of plasma sheet density, temperature and local time distribution on the large-scale morphology of the ring current ions and electrons in the inner magnetosphere.
#Parameterization and relative importance of various loss processes during active times, including extreme disturbances.
#Influence of inner magnetosphere fields on radiation belt particles; adiabatic effect; radial diffusion - what part, if any, of ULF wave diffusion is captured by time changing model fields?
#Coupling of inner magnetosphere models with outer MHD models; which is driving which.

=== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ===
Full text of the proposal to the GEM steering committee that led to creation of the focus group can be found here:
[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/GEM_FGProp-2006-NearEarth.pdf PDF proposal]

== GEM Workshop meeting reports ==

=== June 2007 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere Focus Group held three breakout sessions at the 2007 GEM, on Wednesday, June 20.

'''Session 1. The topic of this session was the influence of plasma sheet properties on the ring current.'''

''Benoit Lavraud'' showed that a cold, dense plasma sheet leads to enhanced ring current. Comparing RAM simulation results for the proton ring current with idealized boundary conditions of cold vs. hot plasma sheet (with the same energy density), he found that cold plasma sheet can penetrate much closer to Earth (due to its reduced
gradient-B drift). He also presented observations of the cold dense plasma sheet (CDPS), which show 2 distinct populations at midnight and dawn. The source and degree of participation of the dawn population to the ring current are questions that need to be answered in the future.

''Chih-Ping Wang'' analyzed the dependence of plasma sheet properties, during northward IMF, on solar wind (SW) density, velocity and IMF Bz, using Geotail, ACE and Wind data. The data was separated into 8 bins, corresponding to low/high value combinations of the 3 driving parameters. The parameter combination of high SW density, high IMF Bz and low velocity was found to lead to a cold plasma sheet with highest density and lowest temperature. On the other hand, a low SW density, low Bz and high velocity result in a hot and tenuous plasma sheet (lowest density, but highest temperature).

''Margaret Chen'' used Wang’s two extreme plasma sheet conditions (cold/dense and hot/tenuous) from Geotail data as boundary conditions for her magnetically self-consistent ring current model. First, she traced ions with the Magnetospheric Specification Model (MSM) from Geotail orbit to geosynchronous, and then used the values there as boundary conditions. She found that the cold/dense plasma sheet leads
to much stronger ring current. She concluded that accurate ring current modeling requires realistic modeling of pre-storm plasma sheet.

''Colby Lemon'' addressed the question of how the fast initial recovery of a storm may be affected by plasma sheet density and convection strength. He showed 6 simulations performed with the RCM-E model, with different plasma sheet densities and polar cap potential drops. The results show that lower plasma sheet densities lead to faster recovery, with the fastest recovery resulting when plasma sheet density is lowest while convection is still strong.

''Vahe Peroomian'' looked at ion access and energization by tracing particles in the fields of a global MHD storm simulation. Oxygen ions were launched from the ionosphere, with protons launched in the solar wind. While direct entry (through the plasma sheet) into the ring current was found to occur, Vahe found that ion transport from the distant tail to inner magnetosphere can be also indirect, with particles moving along
dynamic field lines and ending up much closer to Earth after mirroring, thus bypassing the plasma sheet.

''Liz MacDonald'' studied the influence of ion composition at geo. orbit on the ring current. By performing RAM simulations with various H+/O+ boundary composition ratios, she obtained very different ring current pressure, showing that ion composition plays a very significant role in the ring current. She then described the upcoming oxygen monitoring capability at geosynchronous that will be on LANL satellites, through the
Advanced Miniaturized Plasma Spectrometer (AMPS), which will measure H+, O+, He++ and
e-.

''Jichun Zhang'' presented an RCM study of depleted entropy channels (bubbles) injected into the inner magnetosphere. The bubbles are imposed by reducing the PV^gamma content. He found that bubbles lead to higher plasma energy density. In particular, the electric field is increased inside depleted channels, which injects fresh particles more effectively. The violation of adiabaticity (which presumably causes the bubbles) pushes the ring current farther inward and seems to be a key element in storm physics.

''Yongliang Zhang'' discussed the ring current aurora (RCA) – a new terminology for aurora emissions due to precipitating particles from the ring current. He showed that global FUV imagers provide insight into the RCA because they image proton precipitation. As observations of RCA provide information on loss processes in the RC,
he concluded that global auroras should be used in validating magnetospheric models.

''Pontus Brandt'' showed a study performed with Shin Ohtani on global circulation of oxygen ions. ENA observations show strong energization of RC O+ ions during substorms,
with protons less energized. CRCM simulations of a substorm coupled with test particle ions successfully reproduce the oxygen ion energization, with the take-home message being that oxygen ions make the ring current stronger.

'''Session 2: The topic of the second session was the self-consistent interaction between plasma and electric and magnetic fields in the inner magnetosphere.'''

''Sorin Zaharia'' described the inner magnetosphere model that is developed at LANL based on his 3D magnetic field solver and Vania Jordanova’s RAM code. Recently,
the code has been extended to ~10 Re in the tail, with the outer plasma boundary condition there taken from observational profiles. Sorin showed that taking into account the effect of plasma on the B-field leads to very different results than if
a dipole field is used. When the self-consistent simulation of a moderate storm is compared with the one using a dipole B-field, it was found that there are significant deviations of the field from dipolar even at L=4-5, lower plasma pressure, and noticeable variability in radial profiles.

''Mike Liemohn'' addressed the question of small scale E-field structuring in the inner
magnetosphere that he finds in his ring current simulations. Mike showed a simulation of the April 22, 2001 storm, in which plasma pressure becomes structured – at the same time, small structuring is seen in the computed E-field. According to Mike’s analysis, ENA images in the tens of keV energy range would not be sufficient for the IMAGE HENA instrument to resolve the structuring. Mike challenged the audience to identify data that could be used to prove or disprove his model results.

''Vania Jordanova'' showed RAM simulations with different B-fields (dipole, empirical Tsyganenko, and self-consistent computed with the Zaharia solver) also for the 22 April 2001 storm. Vania found that results differ significantly for the different field models. In general, the empirical T04S field yields the largest gradient/curvature
drift velocities. In the storm main phase, proton fluxes are smallest with T04S and total ring current density is reduced compared to the dipole case. The self-consistent B-field yields intermediate results. With non-dipolar B-fields, localized pressure peaks appear. Also, with the self-consistent B-field, strong EMIC waves are
predicted at larger L.

''Mark Engebretson'' presented EMIC wave observations, bringing up the question of why
ground-based signatures of EMIC waves are not observed in the plasmapause region during the main/early recovery phase, but are in the late recovery phase. Mark showed conjunction ground based/spacecraft data (with two spacecraft, one at 4500 km altitude and the other one at geo) at L=4.5 for one storm. In the main phase, the data shows EMIC wave activity out in the magnetosphere but waves are not observed on the ground or at 4500 km. This might suggest that the waves are absorbed well above the ionosphere or
are not emitted in the direction of the ground.

''Frank Toffoletto'' showed RCM-E simulations of an idealized substorm growth phase. After running the model for ~4 hrs, the pressure and magnetic fields consistently display oscillatory structure, which could be physical instabilities. An eigenmode analysis of the RCM-E configuration with Chris Crabtree’s code finds a tail region between 10 and 15 Re to be ballooning unstable when the field is very stretched. While
RCM-E cannot model the instability evolution, this result may indicate that adiabaticity is violated in the unstable region. Reducing the adiabatic invariant in an ad-hoc manner on the RCM-E boundary leads to B-field dipolarization and injection of a noticeable ring current.

''Hiroshi Matsui'' presented an empirical model of the convection E-field in the inner
magnetosphere based on Cluster E-field measurements and DE-2/radar data. The model
convection patterns were organized by the interplanetary E-field. Qualitatively, the
empirical patterns are similar to those computed with models such as RCM. However, standard deviations are comparable to E-field absolute values, indicating significant variability of the field; this could be due to mesoscale structuring or induction E-fields.

''Pamela Puhl-Quinn'' described her recent work on analyzing simultaneous electric field
observations of sub-auroral ion drift (SAID) events using magnetospheric (Cluster) and
ionospheric (DMSP) E-field data. She showed one case study that showed quite good
agreement of Cluster and DMSP observations.

'''Session 3: The final session started as a continuation of the self-consistent interaction discussion.'''

''Mike Schulz'' gave some theoretical remarks on self-consistent interaction between plasma, electric and magnetic fields. He remarked that analytical formulations (e.g. the Dungey model) are useful for simulating realistic features. He warned against looking for causality in Maxwell’s equations, i.e. what is driving what. One can only say with regard to Maxwell’s equations that the right hand side equals the left
hand side.

''Jerry Goldstein'' presented an electric field model constructed from an externally driven electric field model (Volland-Stern) plus an internal SAPS model. By tracing particles in this combined model, with either observations or a plasmapause model for initialization, he obtained remarkably good correlation with MPA data of plume location.

''Tim Guild'' showed the effects of self-consistency in electric and magnetic fields on the plasma sheet control of ring current. For the study he used RCM, which has self-consistent electric fields, but did not include the charge exchange. He analyzed a moderate storm and found that adding magnetic self-consistency lowers the effect of
plasma sheet density on the ring current energy (the self-consistency in the E-field alone was already lowering it from a linear to a square root dependence on the PS density).

''Yukitoshi Nishimura'' presented storm-time large scale electric fields obtained from 7 years of Akebono observations. The largest fields are found at dawn and dusk. He also used the field to calculate empirical convection potentials. A twocell convection pattern is clearly observed. He further traced ions in the obtained empirical fields
and found significant energization.

''Jo Baker'' discussed SuperDARN measurements and implications for convection. He also
performed a test of equipotentiality of the magnetic field lines, by analyzing conjugate
SuperDARN and Cluster EDI measurements. While he found a fairly good correlation, there
was also large variance, which points out to nonequipotentiality (possible reasons for it being induced electric fields and field-aligned potential drops).

''Yihua Zheng'' looked at the influence of electric fields on the coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. She showed simulations with the CRCM model, with and without trough (low density plasma region) conditions. With trough conditions, the applied low Pedersen conductance in the trough leads to large amplitude flows (subauroral polarization streams, or SAPS) that resemble observations. She concluded that ionospheric changes affect the ring current through electromagnetic coupling.

''Sasha Ukhorskyi'' looked at radiation belt radial transport due to magnetopause compression from solar wind dynamic pressure variations. He used empirical B-field models and calculated the induced E-fields that are consistent with the Bfield
time dependence. He then analyzed the ULF waves from solar wind pressure spectral
fluctuations.

''Jimmy Raeder'' presented work done with W. Li on the formation of super-dense plasma sheet. In an OpenGGCM simulation, he showed that after northward IMF, southward IMF turning compresses the cold dense plasma on high latitude field lines, which is subsequently pushed toward the Earth by near-tail reconnection and forms the super dense plasma sheet near geo. orbit (MHD results compatible with MPA observations).

The second half of the session was a community discussion about the future direction of the focus group. Several people mentioned the familiar GEM concept of “Community Challenge” – it would be interesting to have in the near future (1-2 years) a challenge study whereby the models would all run an idealized event, so as to compare the results.
For the next GEM, two possible breakout session topics emerged: 1). Study the effect of
the added model features on model output, in order to find out which are crucial for inner magnetosphere physics modeling; quantify the relative effect of plasma sheet boundary properties, B and E self-consistency, anisotropy, losses in models; how are the new physics features verified by / improve consistency with observations? 2). Continuous improvement in empirical specification: better empirical plasma sheet models (including activity binning and ion composition), empirical E-field and plasmasphere models. These would also be the topics of a Mini-GEM session the focus group will be organizing in San Francisco the Sunday before the 2007 Fall AGU.

=== June 2008 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

=== June 2009 GEM meeting report ===

The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions at the 2009 GEM Summer Workshop in Snowmass, CO. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The sessions, held on Wednesday, June 24, featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts selected for the present phase of the focus group, as well as results from the recently initiated Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge.

'''1. Observations/empirical models'''

Short presentations addressed the following topics:
* Empirical electric field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH Inner Magnetosphere Electric Field (IMEF) model based on Cluster data (P. Puhl-Quinn), now being extended to include extreme periods; CLUSTER study of Poynting flux associated with the convection E-field (Y. Nishimura); induced E-fields were shown to be very important for inner magnetosphere particle transport (Gang Lu).
* Empirical magnetic field model TS07D (M. Sitnov); dramatic increase in spatial and temporal resolutions; model is now available on APL website; model shows that in some events the storm-time magnetosphere can be dominated by the tail current).
* During storms with low Mach number solar wind, the dayside B-field can be reduced instead of compressed (due to external Region-1 type currents near the open-closed boundary; Joe Borovsky)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt, presentation by M. Sitnov – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* First results from the TWINS mission (J. Goldstein, M.-C. Fok); stereo ion inversion leads to improved accuracy; validation vs. THEMIS data.
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN; 8 new mid-latitude radars coming online in the next 4 years, providing more spatial coverage for model-data comparisons.)
* Pc4, Pc5 wave observations (THEMIS data); correlation with solar wind (Liu et al.)

'''2. Physics-based numerical Models'''

Presentations discussed the following issues:
* The recent extension of the magnetofriction code to anisotropic equilibria (for future use e.g. in CRCM); the issue of mirror/firehose instabilities - F. Toffoletto
* CRCM model runs vs. TWINS observations (M.-C. Fok); while ENA (and 12 keV fluxes) peak at post-midnight, the ion pressure peak is still at pre-midnight local times
* The correlation between plasma sheet local time peak density and ring current pressure peak location vanishes when a self-consistent E-field formulation is used (Yihua Zheng, CRCM).
* Effect of models used to drive ring current formation (Vania Jordanova, RAM/RAM-SCB); the self-consistent B-field moves anisotropic regions farther from Earth; N. Ganushkina/M. Liemohn: Dst calculation with the DPS formula vs. Biot-Savart for non-dipole field leads to different results
* 1-way coupling of RAM-SCB with the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF) shows strong ring current and Region-2 currents in RAM-SCB, and good agreement w/ Iridium observations (S. Zaharia)
* Inner magnetosphere physics – Hall MHD not sufficient to produce ring current (Dan Welling, BATS-R-US Hall MHD vs. vanilla MHD)

'''3. Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge'''

One session was devoted to presentation of results from the recently initiated Near Earth Magnetosphere Modeling Challenge. The challenge has brought together researchers from all major inner magnetosphere modeling groups: RAM-SCB (V. Jordanova, S. Zaharia, LANL), HEIDI (M. Liemohn, Michigan), RCM (S. Sazykin, Rice), RCM-E (S. Sazykin, Rice; C. Lemon, Aerospace), CRCM (N. Buzulukova, GSFC; Y. Zheng, JHU/APL), M. Chen’s model (Aerospace), IMPTAM (N. Ganushkina, FMI). The first step in the Challenge, Phase 0, involved an idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). Phase 0 results were discussed; the total energy (or, equivalently, Dst) values from the different models were found to be close enough (within max. 10% of one another) considering the model differences (e.g. anisotropic vs. isotropic), so Phase 0 is about to be concluded. The results have been posted on a dedicated Challenge website: http://spacibm.rice.edu/~gem_challenge/ A mailing list for the Challenge has been established as well.

The remainder of the session involved a community discussion ironing out details about the next stage in the Challenge (Phase 1). Phase 1 will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized storm, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features in the models. An updated table with the idealized storm parameters will soon be published on the Challenge website.

Some preliminary results from Phase 1 were shown by M. Liemohn (work of N. Ganushkina, IMPTAM) and S. Zaharia (RAM-SCB). The focus group plans to have a session at Mini GEM 2009 where more extended Phase 1 results will be discussed; then, Phase 1 will be wrapped up at Summer GEM Workshop 2010.

The last stage of the Challenge will be Phase 2 (one or a suite of real event simulations), in which both modelers and data analysts will be involved. The focus group is investigating the possibility of a joint effort with GGCM Metrics Modeling Challenge at this stage.

== GEM Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge ==

Starting in 2008, the focus group will have a "challenge" project that is aimed at cross-validating multiple ring current and convection numerical inner magnetospheric models, arriving at a common GGCM-style inner magnetospheric module that will employ both first-principle models and empirical data-based components, and eventually applying the models to the science questions listed in the focus group description.

Based on comments and discussions, the organizers of the focus group drafted a plan for the challenge. The most current version of the document can be found [[:Image:Near_Earth_magnetosphere_challenge_draft.pdf|here]]

[http://spacibm.rice.edu/~gem_challenge The Challenge Web page] has been set up for collecting results of the challenge. There is also a dedicated mailing list for exchanging information ([http://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/gem-near-earth-l Mailing List Web page], which also holds mailing list archives).

More details to be added following the mini-GEM workshop session in December 2008.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2009-12-24T00:00:35Z

Sazykin: /* GEM Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge */

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group Overview ==
This focus group aims to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-
Earth (< 10 RE) magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere.
It broadens our understanding of inner magnetosphere plasma transport and includes the self-consistent coupling between plasma and electric and magnetic fields.
It also focuses on quantifying the effect of plasma sheet source populations on the evolution of the inner magnetosphere.

=== Scientific Motivation ===
Currently there are gaps, in both modeling and observations, in our knowledge of
both the fields and the plasma sheet boundary dependence. From a modeling point of view, a gap exists between self-consistent but physically oversimplified models and models that treat plasma correctly but not the fields. Existing global MHD models include self-consistent fields, but the MHD formalism cannot adequately describe the inner magnetosphere (closer than 10 RE), because it does not include gradient and curvature drifts. On the other hand, existing kinetic models (e.g. RAM, RCM, CRCM) treat plasma transport, acceleration and losses more or less realistically but
do not properly account for the effect of the plasma on the fields. Observationally, the fields are also rather poorly described. While empirical models have been constructed that statistically describe B-fields and convective E-fields, they hardly do so for specific events; moreover, no model exists for the inductive E-fields. Finally, the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere depends both on the physics mechanisms involved, but also on the plasma sheet inputs. No clear study of the relative importance of the two exists.
'''In summary, to further our knowledge of the inner magnetosphere we need better specification of the electric and magnetic fields, as well as of the driving plasma sheet properties. From a modeling point of view, it is desirable to have a kinetic approach that includes all relevant species (ions and electrons), self-consistent three-dimensional magnetic, convective and induced electric fields, as well as loss mechanisms.'''

=== Goals ===
This focus group will include both modeling and observational components that will improve the knowledge and specification of the inner magnetosphere electric and magnetic fields, their interaction with the plasma, as well as their dependence on the plasma sheet populations; a main deliverable will be the development of a realistic inner magnetosphere GGCM module, consistent with the main goal of the GEM program.

=== Potential Research Topics ===
#Effect of the 3D self-consistent feedback between plasma and magnetic field on the inner magnetosphere particle transport and acceleration during various activity such as storms and substorms.
#Specification (observational and modeling) of the convective E-field during storms, Region-2 field aligned currents, coupling to ionosphere and shielding.
#Magnitude and location of the inductive E-fields arising from time-varying B-fields, through both modeling and observations (e.g. conjugate measurements – in situ plus ionospheric).
#Effect of plasma sheet density, temperature and local time distribution on the large-scale morphology of the ring current ions and electrons in the inner magnetosphere.
#Parameterization and relative importance of various loss processes during active times, including extreme disturbances.
#Influence of inner magnetosphere fields on radiation belt particles; adiabatic effect; radial diffusion - what part, if any, of ULF wave diffusion is captured by time changing model fields?
#Coupling of inner magnetosphere models with outer MHD models; which is driving which.

=== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ===
Full text of the proposal to the GEM steering committee that led to creation of the focus group can be found here:
[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/GEM_FGProp-2006-NearEarth.pdf PDF proposal]

== GEM Workshop meeting reports ==

=== June 2007 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere Focus Group held three breakout sessions at the 2007 GEM, on Wednesday, June 20.

'''Session 1. The topic of this session was the influence of plasma sheet properties on the ring current.'''

''Benoit Lavraud'' showed that a cold, dense plasma sheet leads to enhanced ring current. Comparing RAM simulation results for the proton ring current with idealized boundary conditions of cold vs. hot plasma sheet (with the same energy density), he found that cold plasma sheet can penetrate much closer to Earth (due to its reduced
gradient-B drift). He also presented observations of the cold dense plasma sheet (CDPS), which show 2 distinct populations at midnight and dawn. The source and degree of participation of the dawn population to the ring current are questions that need to be answered in the future.

''Chih-Ping Wang'' analyzed the dependence of plasma sheet properties, during northward IMF, on solar wind (SW) density, velocity and IMF Bz, using Geotail, ACE and Wind data. The data was separated into 8 bins, corresponding to low/high value combinations of the 3 driving parameters. The parameter combination of high SW density, high IMF Bz and low velocity was found to lead to a cold plasma sheet with highest density and lowest temperature. On the other hand, a low SW density, low Bz and high velocity result in a hot and tenuous plasma sheet (lowest density, but highest temperature).

''Margaret Chen'' used Wang’s two extreme plasma sheet conditions (cold/dense and hot/tenuous) from Geotail data as boundary conditions for her magnetically self-consistent ring current model. First, she traced ions with the Magnetospheric Specification Model (MSM) from Geotail orbit to geosynchronous, and then used the values there as boundary conditions. She found that the cold/dense plasma sheet leads
to much stronger ring current. She concluded that accurate ring current modeling requires realistic modeling of pre-storm plasma sheet.

''Colby Lemon'' addressed the question of how the fast initial recovery of a storm may be affected by plasma sheet density and convection strength. He showed 6 simulations performed with the RCM-E model, with different plasma sheet densities and polar cap potential drops. The results show that lower plasma sheet densities lead to faster recovery, with the fastest recovery resulting when plasma sheet density is lowest while convection is still strong.

''Vahe Peroomian'' looked at ion access and energization by tracing particles in the fields of a global MHD storm simulation. Oxygen ions were launched from the ionosphere, with protons launched in the solar wind. While direct entry (through the plasma sheet) into the ring current was found to occur, Vahe found that ion transport from the distant tail to inner magnetosphere can be also indirect, with particles moving along
dynamic field lines and ending up much closer to Earth after mirroring, thus bypassing the plasma sheet.

''Liz MacDonald'' studied the influence of ion composition at geo. orbit on the ring current. By performing RAM simulations with various H+/O+ boundary composition ratios, she obtained very different ring current pressure, showing that ion composition plays a very significant role in the ring current. She then described the upcoming oxygen monitoring capability at geosynchronous that will be on LANL satellites, through the
Advanced Miniaturized Plasma Spectrometer (AMPS), which will measure H+, O+, He++ and
e-.

''Jichun Zhang'' presented an RCM study of depleted entropy channels (bubbles) injected into the inner magnetosphere. The bubbles are imposed by reducing the PV^gamma content. He found that bubbles lead to higher plasma energy density. In particular, the electric field is increased inside depleted channels, which injects fresh particles more effectively. The violation of adiabaticity (which presumably causes the bubbles) pushes the ring current farther inward and seems to be a key element in storm physics.

''Yongliang Zhang'' discussed the ring current aurora (RCA) – a new terminology for aurora emissions due to precipitating particles from the ring current. He showed that global FUV imagers provide insight into the RCA because they image proton precipitation. As observations of RCA provide information on loss processes in the RC,
he concluded that global auroras should be used in validating magnetospheric models.

''Pontus Brandt'' showed a study performed with Shin Ohtani on global circulation of oxygen ions. ENA observations show strong energization of RC O+ ions during substorms,
with protons less energized. CRCM simulations of a substorm coupled with test particle ions successfully reproduce the oxygen ion energization, with the take-home message being that oxygen ions make the ring current stronger.

'''Session 2: The topic of the second session was the self-consistent interaction between plasma and electric and magnetic fields in the inner magnetosphere.'''

''Sorin Zaharia'' described the inner magnetosphere model that is developed at LANL based on his 3D magnetic field solver and Vania Jordanova’s RAM code. Recently,
the code has been extended to ~10 Re in the tail, with the outer plasma boundary condition there taken from observational profiles. Sorin showed that taking into account the effect of plasma on the B-field leads to very different results than if
a dipole field is used. When the self-consistent simulation of a moderate storm is compared with the one using a dipole B-field, it was found that there are significant deviations of the field from dipolar even at L=4-5, lower plasma pressure, and noticeable variability in radial profiles.

''Mike Liemohn'' addressed the question of small scale E-field structuring in the inner
magnetosphere that he finds in his ring current simulations. Mike showed a simulation of the April 22, 2001 storm, in which plasma pressure becomes structured – at the same time, small structuring is seen in the computed E-field. According to Mike’s analysis, ENA images in the tens of keV energy range would not be sufficient for the IMAGE HENA instrument to resolve the structuring. Mike challenged the audience to identify data that could be used to prove or disprove his model results.

''Vania Jordanova'' showed RAM simulations with different B-fields (dipole, empirical Tsyganenko, and self-consistent computed with the Zaharia solver) also for the 22 April 2001 storm. Vania found that results differ significantly for the different field models. In general, the empirical T04S field yields the largest gradient/curvature
drift velocities. In the storm main phase, proton fluxes are smallest with T04S and total ring current density is reduced compared to the dipole case. The self-consistent B-field yields intermediate results. With non-dipolar B-fields, localized pressure peaks appear. Also, with the self-consistent B-field, strong EMIC waves are
predicted at larger L.

''Mark Engebretson'' presented EMIC wave observations, bringing up the question of why
ground-based signatures of EMIC waves are not observed in the plasmapause region during the main/early recovery phase, but are in the late recovery phase. Mark showed conjunction ground based/spacecraft data (with two spacecraft, one at 4500 km altitude and the other one at geo) at L=4.5 for one storm. In the main phase, the data shows EMIC wave activity out in the magnetosphere but waves are not observed on the ground or at 4500 km. This might suggest that the waves are absorbed well above the ionosphere or
are not emitted in the direction of the ground.

''Frank Toffoletto'' showed RCM-E simulations of an idealized substorm growth phase. After running the model for ~4 hrs, the pressure and magnetic fields consistently display oscillatory structure, which could be physical instabilities. An eigenmode analysis of the RCM-E configuration with Chris Crabtree’s code finds a tail region between 10 and 15 Re to be ballooning unstable when the field is very stretched. While
RCM-E cannot model the instability evolution, this result may indicate that adiabaticity is violated in the unstable region. Reducing the adiabatic invariant in an ad-hoc manner on the RCM-E boundary leads to B-field dipolarization and injection of a noticeable ring current.

''Hiroshi Matsui'' presented an empirical model of the convection E-field in the inner
magnetosphere based on Cluster E-field measurements and DE-2/radar data. The model
convection patterns were organized by the interplanetary E-field. Qualitatively, the
empirical patterns are similar to those computed with models such as RCM. However, standard deviations are comparable to E-field absolute values, indicating significant variability of the field; this could be due to mesoscale structuring or induction E-fields.

''Pamela Puhl-Quinn'' described her recent work on analyzing simultaneous electric field
observations of sub-auroral ion drift (SAID) events using magnetospheric (Cluster) and
ionospheric (DMSP) E-field data. She showed one case study that showed quite good
agreement of Cluster and DMSP observations.

'''Session 3: The final session started as a continuation of the self-consistent interaction discussion.'''

''Mike Schulz'' gave some theoretical remarks on self-consistent interaction between plasma, electric and magnetic fields. He remarked that analytical formulations (e.g. the Dungey model) are useful for simulating realistic features. He warned against looking for causality in Maxwell’s equations, i.e. what is driving what. One can only say with regard to Maxwell’s equations that the right hand side equals the left
hand side.

''Jerry Goldstein'' presented an electric field model constructed from an externally driven electric field model (Volland-Stern) plus an internal SAPS model. By tracing particles in this combined model, with either observations or a plasmapause model for initialization, he obtained remarkably good correlation with MPA data of plume location.

''Tim Guild'' showed the effects of self-consistency in electric and magnetic fields on the plasma sheet control of ring current. For the study he used RCM, which has self-consistent electric fields, but did not include the charge exchange. He analyzed a moderate storm and found that adding magnetic self-consistency lowers the effect of
plasma sheet density on the ring current energy (the self-consistency in the E-field alone was already lowering it from a linear to a square root dependence on the PS density).

''Yukitoshi Nishimura'' presented storm-time large scale electric fields obtained from 7 years of Akebono observations. The largest fields are found at dawn and dusk. He also used the field to calculate empirical convection potentials. A twocell convection pattern is clearly observed. He further traced ions in the obtained empirical fields
and found significant energization.

''Jo Baker'' discussed SuperDARN measurements and implications for convection. He also
performed a test of equipotentiality of the magnetic field lines, by analyzing conjugate
SuperDARN and Cluster EDI measurements. While he found a fairly good correlation, there
was also large variance, which points out to nonequipotentiality (possible reasons for it being induced electric fields and field-aligned potential drops).

''Yihua Zheng'' looked at the influence of electric fields on the coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. She showed simulations with the CRCM model, with and without trough (low density plasma region) conditions. With trough conditions, the applied low Pedersen conductance in the trough leads to large amplitude flows (subauroral polarization streams, or SAPS) that resemble observations. She concluded that ionospheric changes affect the ring current through electromagnetic coupling.

''Sasha Ukhorskyi'' looked at radiation belt radial transport due to magnetopause compression from solar wind dynamic pressure variations. He used empirical B-field models and calculated the induced E-fields that are consistent with the Bfield
time dependence. He then analyzed the ULF waves from solar wind pressure spectral
fluctuations.

''Jimmy Raeder'' presented work done with W. Li on the formation of super-dense plasma sheet. In an OpenGGCM simulation, he showed that after northward IMF, southward IMF turning compresses the cold dense plasma on high latitude field lines, which is subsequently pushed toward the Earth by near-tail reconnection and forms the super dense plasma sheet near geo. orbit (MHD results compatible with MPA observations).

The second half of the session was a community discussion about the future direction of the focus group. Several people mentioned the familiar GEM concept of “Community Challenge” – it would be interesting to have in the near future (1-2 years) a challenge study whereby the models would all run an idealized event, so as to compare the results.
For the next GEM, two possible breakout session topics emerged: 1). Study the effect of
the added model features on model output, in order to find out which are crucial for inner magnetosphere physics modeling; quantify the relative effect of plasma sheet boundary properties, B and E self-consistency, anisotropy, losses in models; how are the new physics features verified by / improve consistency with observations? 2). Continuous improvement in empirical specification: better empirical plasma sheet models (including activity binning and ion composition), empirical E-field and plasmasphere models. These would also be the topics of a Mini-GEM session the focus group will be organizing in San Francisco the Sunday before the 2007 Fall AGU.

=== June 2008 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

=== June 2009 GEM meeting report ===

The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions at the 2009 GEM Summer Workshop in Snowmass, CO. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The sessions, held on Wednesday, June 24, featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts selected for the present phase of the focus group, as well as results from the recently initiated Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge.

'''1. Observations/empirical models'''

Short presentations addressed the following topics:
* Empirical electric field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH Inner Magnetosphere Electric Field (IMEF) model based on Cluster data (P. Puhl-Quinn), now being extended to include extreme periods; CLUSTER study of Poynting flux associated with the convection E-field (Y. Nishimura); induced E-fields were shown to be very important for inner magnetosphere particle transport (Gang Lu).
* Empirical magnetic field model TS07D (M. Sitnov); dramatic increase in spatial and temporal resolutions; model is now available on APL website; model shows that in some events the storm-time magnetosphere can be dominated by the tail current).
* During storms with low Mach number solar wind, the dayside B-field can be reduced instead of compressed (due to external Region-1 type currents near the open-closed boundary; Joe Borovsky)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt, presentation by M. Sitnov – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* First results from the TWINS mission (J. Goldstein, M.-C. Fok); stereo ion inversion leads to improved accuracy; validation vs. THEMIS data.
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN; 8 new mid-latitude radars coming online in the next 4 years, providing more spatial coverage for model-data comparisons.)
* Pc4, Pc5 wave observations (THEMIS data); correlation with solar wind (Liu et al.)

'''2. Physics-based numerical Models'''

Presentations discussed the following issues:
* The recent extension of the magnetofriction code to anisotropic equilibria (for future use e.g. in CRCM); the issue of mirror/firehose instabilities - F. Toffoletto
* CRCM model runs vs. TWINS observations (M.-C. Fok); while ENA (and 12 keV fluxes) peak at post-midnight, the ion pressure peak is still at pre-midnight local times
* The correlation between plasma sheet local time peak density and ring current pressure peak location vanishes when a self-consistent E-field formulation is used (Yihua Zheng, CRCM).
* Effect of models used to drive ring current formation (Vania Jordanova, RAM/RAM-SCB); the self-consistent B-field moves anisotropic regions farther from Earth; N. Ganushkina/M. Liemohn: Dst calculation with the DPS formula vs. Biot-Savart for non-dipole field leads to different results
* 1-way coupling of RAM-SCB with the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF) shows strong ring current and Region-2 currents in RAM-SCB, and good agreement w/ Iridium observations (S. Zaharia)
* Inner magnetosphere physics – Hall MHD not sufficient to produce ring current (Dan Welling, BATS-R-US Hall MHD vs. vanilla MHD)

'''3. Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge'''

One session was devoted to presentation of results from the recently initiated Near Earth Magnetosphere Modeling Challenge. The challenge has brought together researchers from all major inner magnetosphere modeling groups: RAM-SCB (V. Jordanova, S. Zaharia, LANL), HEIDI (M. Liemohn, Michigan), RCM (S. Sazykin, Rice), RCM-E (S. Sazykin, Rice; C. Lemon, Aerospace), CRCM (N. Buzulukova, GSFC; Y. Zheng, JHU/APL), M. Chen’s model (Aerospace), IMPTAM (N. Ganushkina, FMI). The first step in the Challenge, Phase 0, involved an idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). Phase 0 results were discussed; the total energy (or, equivalently, Dst) values from the different models were found to be close enough (within max. 10% of one another) considering the model differences (e.g. anisotropic vs. isotropic), so Phase 0 is about to be concluded. The results have been posted on a dedicated Challenge website: http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/challenge/ A mailing list for the Challenge has been established as well.

The remainder of the session involved a community discussion ironing out details about the next stage in the Challenge (Phase 1). Phase 1 will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized storm, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features in the models. An updated table with the idealized storm parameters will soon be published on the Challenge website.

Some preliminary results from Phase 1 were shown by M. Liemohn (work of N. Ganushkina, IMPTAM) and S. Zaharia (RAM-SCB). The focus group plans to have a session at Mini GEM 2009 where more extended Phase 1 results will be discussed; then, Phase 1 will be wrapped up at Summer GEM Workshop 2010.

The last stage of the Challenge will be Phase 2 (one or a suite of real event simulations), in which both modelers and data analysts will be involved. The focus group is investigating the possibility of a joint effort with GGCM Metrics Modeling Challenge at this stage.

== GEM Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge ==

Starting in 2008, the focus group will have a "challenge" project that is aimed at cross-validating multiple ring current and convection numerical inner magnetospheric models, arriving at a common GGCM-style inner magnetospheric module that will employ both first-principle models and empirical data-based components, and eventually applying the models to the science questions listed in the focus group description.

Based on comments and discussions, the organizers of the focus group drafted a plan for the challenge. The most current version of the document can be found [[:Image:Near_Earth_magnetosphere_challenge_draft.pdf|here]]

[http://spacibm.rice.edu/~gem_challenge The Challenge Web page] has been set up for collecting results of the challenge. There is also a dedicated mailing list for exchanging information ([http://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/gem-near-earth-l Mailing List Web page], which also holds mailing list archives).

More details to be added following the mini-GEM workshop session in December 2008.

File:Near Earth magnetosphere challenge draft.pdf

2008-12-11T22:11:14Z

Sazykin: uploaded a new version of "Image:Near Earth magnetosphere challenge draft.pdf"

File:Near Earth magnetosphere challenge draft.pdf

2008-12-11T21:43:07Z

Sazykin: uploaded a new version of "Image:Near Earth magnetosphere challenge draft.pdf"

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-12-05T17:28:50Z

Sazykin: /* GEM Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge */

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group Overview ==
This focus group aims to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-
Earth (< 10 RE) magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere.
It broadens our understanding of inner magnetosphere plasma transport and includes the self-consistent coupling between plasma and electric and magnetic fields.
It also focuses on quantifying the effect of plasma sheet source populations on the evolution of the inner magnetosphere.

=== Scientific Motivation ===
Currently there are gaps, in both modeling and observations, in our knowledge of
both the fields and the plasma sheet boundary dependence. From a modeling point of view, a gap exists between self-consistent but physically oversimplified models and models that treat plasma correctly but not the fields. Existing global MHD models include self-consistent fields, but the MHD formalism cannot adequately describe the inner magnetosphere (closer than 10 RE), because it does not include gradient and curvature drifts. On the other hand, existing kinetic models (e.g. RAM, RCM, CRCM) treat plasma transport, acceleration and losses more or less realistically but
do not properly account for the effect of the plasma on the fields. Observationally, the fields are also rather poorly described. While empirical models have been constructed that statistically describe B-fields and convective E-fields, they hardly do so for specific events; moreover, no model exists for the inductive E-fields. Finally, the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere depends both on the physics mechanisms involved, but also on the plasma sheet inputs. No clear study of the relative importance of the two exists.
'''In summary, to further our knowledge of the inner magnetosphere we need better specification of the electric and magnetic fields, as well as of the driving plasma sheet properties. From a modeling point of view, it is desirable to have a kinetic approach that includes all relevant species (ions and electrons), self-consistent three-dimensional magnetic, convective and induced electric fields, as well as loss mechanisms.'''

=== Goals ===
This focus group will include both modeling and observational components that will improve the knowledge and specification of the inner magnetosphere electric and magnetic fields, their interaction with the plasma, as well as their dependence on the plasma sheet populations; a main deliverable will be the development of a realistic inner magnetosphere GGCM module, consistent with the main goal of the GEM program.

=== Potential Research Topics ===
#Effect of the 3D self-consistent feedback between plasma and magnetic field on the inner magnetosphere particle transport and acceleration during various activity such as storms and substorms.
#Specification (observational and modeling) of the convective E-field during storms, Region-2 field aligned currents, coupling to ionosphere and shielding.
#Magnitude and location of the inductive E-fields arising from time-varying B-fields, through both modeling and observations (e.g. conjugate measurements – in situ plus ionospheric).
#Effect of plasma sheet density, temperature and local time distribution on the large-scale morphology of the ring current ions and electrons in the inner magnetosphere.
#Parameterization and relative importance of various loss processes during active times, including extreme disturbances.
#Influence of inner magnetosphere fields on radiation belt particles; adiabatic effect; radial diffusion - what part, if any, of ULF wave diffusion is captured by time changing model fields?
#Coupling of inner magnetosphere models with outer MHD models; which is driving which.

=== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ===
Full text of the proposal to the GEM steering committee that led to creation of the focus group can be found here:
[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/GEM_FGProp-2006-NearEarth.pdf PDF proposal]

== GEM Workshop meeting reports ==

=== June 2007 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere Focus Group held three breakout sessions at the 2007 GEM, on Wednesday, June 20.

'''Session 1. The topic of this session was the influence of plasma sheet properties on the ring current.'''

''Benoit Lavraud'' showed that a cold, dense plasma sheet leads to enhanced ring current. Comparing RAM simulation results for the proton ring current with idealized boundary conditions of cold vs. hot plasma sheet (with the same energy density), he found that cold plasma sheet can penetrate much closer to Earth (due to its reduced
gradient-B drift). He also presented observations of the cold dense plasma sheet (CDPS), which show 2 distinct populations at midnight and dawn. The source and degree of participation of the dawn population to the ring current are questions that need to be answered in the future.

''Chih-Ping Wang'' analyzed the dependence of plasma sheet properties, during northward IMF, on solar wind (SW) density, velocity and IMF Bz, using Geotail, ACE and Wind data. The data was separated into 8 bins, corresponding to low/high value combinations of the 3 driving parameters. The parameter combination of high SW density, high IMF Bz and low velocity was found to lead to a cold plasma sheet with highest density and lowest temperature. On the other hand, a low SW density, low Bz and high velocity result in a hot and tenuous plasma sheet (lowest density, but highest temperature).

''Margaret Chen'' used Wang’s two extreme plasma sheet conditions (cold/dense and hot/tenuous) from Geotail data as boundary conditions for her magnetically self-consistent ring current model. First, she traced ions with the Magnetospheric Specification Model (MSM) from Geotail orbit to geosynchronous, and then used the values there as boundary conditions. She found that the cold/dense plasma sheet leads
to much stronger ring current. She concluded that accurate ring current modeling requires realistic modeling of pre-storm plasma sheet.

''Colby Lemon'' addressed the question of how the fast initial recovery of a storm may be affected by plasma sheet density and convection strength. He showed 6 simulations performed with the RCM-E model, with different plasma sheet densities and polar cap potential drops. The results show that lower plasma sheet densities lead to faster recovery, with the fastest recovery resulting when plasma sheet density is lowest while convection is still strong.

''Vahe Peroomian'' looked at ion access and energization by tracing particles in the fields of a global MHD storm simulation. Oxygen ions were launched from the ionosphere, with protons launched in the solar wind. While direct entry (through the plasma sheet) into the ring current was found to occur, Vahe found that ion transport from the distant tail to inner magnetosphere can be also indirect, with particles moving along
dynamic field lines and ending up much closer to Earth after mirroring, thus bypassing the plasma sheet.

''Liz MacDonald'' studied the influence of ion composition at geo. orbit on the ring current. By performing RAM simulations with various H+/O+ boundary composition ratios, she obtained very different ring current pressure, showing that ion composition plays a very significant role in the ring current. She then described the upcoming oxygen monitoring capability at geosynchronous that will be on LANL satellites, through the
Advanced Miniaturized Plasma Spectrometer (AMPS), which will measure H+, O+, He++ and
e-.

''Jichun Zhang'' presented an RCM study of depleted entropy channels (bubbles) injected into the inner magnetosphere. The bubbles are imposed by reducing the PV^gamma content. He found that bubbles lead to higher plasma energy density. In particular, the electric field is increased inside depleted channels, which injects fresh particles more effectively. The violation of adiabaticity (which presumably causes the bubbles) pushes the ring current farther inward and seems to be a key element in storm physics.

''Yongliang Zhang'' discussed the ring current aurora (RCA) – a new terminology for aurora emissions due to precipitating particles from the ring current. He showed that global FUV imagers provide insight into the RCA because they image proton precipitation. As observations of RCA provide information on loss processes in the RC,
he concluded that global auroras should be used in validating magnetospheric models.

''Pontus Brandt'' showed a study performed with Shin Ohtani on global circulation of oxygen ions. ENA observations show strong energization of RC O+ ions during substorms,
with protons less energized. CRCM simulations of a substorm coupled with test particle ions successfully reproduce the oxygen ion energization, with the take-home message being that oxygen ions make the ring current stronger.

'''Session 2: The topic of the second session was the self-consistent interaction between plasma and electric and magnetic fields in the inner magnetosphere.'''

''Sorin Zaharia'' described the inner magnetosphere model that is developed at LANL based on his 3D magnetic field solver and Vania Jordanova’s RAM code. Recently,
the code has been extended to ~10 Re in the tail, with the outer plasma boundary condition there taken from observational profiles. Sorin showed that taking into account the effect of plasma on the B-field leads to very different results than if
a dipole field is used. When the self-consistent simulation of a moderate storm is compared with the one using a dipole B-field, it was found that there are significant deviations of the field from dipolar even at L=4-5, lower plasma pressure, and noticeable variability in radial profiles.

''Mike Liemohn'' addressed the question of small scale E-field structuring in the inner
magnetosphere that he finds in his ring current simulations. Mike showed a simulation of the April 22, 2001 storm, in which plasma pressure becomes structured – at the same time, small structuring is seen in the computed E-field. According to Mike’s analysis, ENA images in the tens of keV energy range would not be sufficient for the IMAGE HENA instrument to resolve the structuring. Mike challenged the audience to identify data that could be used to prove or disprove his model results.

''Vania Jordanova'' showed RAM simulations with different B-fields (dipole, empirical Tsyganenko, and self-consistent computed with the Zaharia solver) also for the 22 April 2001 storm. Vania found that results differ significantly for the different field models. In general, the empirical T04S field yields the largest gradient/curvature
drift velocities. In the storm main phase, proton fluxes are smallest with T04S and total ring current density is reduced compared to the dipole case. The self-consistent B-field yields intermediate results. With non-dipolar B-fields, localized pressure peaks appear. Also, with the self-consistent B-field, strong EMIC waves are
predicted at larger L.

''Mark Engebretson'' presented EMIC wave observations, bringing up the question of why
ground-based signatures of EMIC waves are not observed in the plasmapause region during the main/early recovery phase, but are in the late recovery phase. Mark showed conjunction ground based/spacecraft data (with two spacecraft, one at 4500 km altitude and the other one at geo) at L=4.5 for one storm. In the main phase, the data shows EMIC wave activity out in the magnetosphere but waves are not observed on the ground or at 4500 km. This might suggest that the waves are absorbed well above the ionosphere or
are not emitted in the direction of the ground.

''Frank Toffoletto'' showed RCM-E simulations of an idealized substorm growth phase. After running the model for ~4 hrs, the pressure and magnetic fields consistently display oscillatory structure, which could be physical instabilities. An eigenmode analysis of the RCM-E configuration with Chris Crabtree’s code finds a tail region between 10 and 15 Re to be ballooning unstable when the field is very stretched. While
RCM-E cannot model the instability evolution, this result may indicate that adiabaticity is violated in the unstable region. Reducing the adiabatic invariant in an ad-hoc manner on the RCM-E boundary leads to B-field dipolarization and injection of a noticeable ring current.

''Hiroshi Matsui'' presented an empirical model of the convection E-field in the inner
magnetosphere based on Cluster E-field measurements and DE-2/radar data. The model
convection patterns were organized by the interplanetary E-field. Qualitatively, the
empirical patterns are similar to those computed with models such as RCM. However, standard deviations are comparable to E-field absolute values, indicating significant variability of the field; this could be due to mesoscale structuring or induction E-fields.

''Pamela Puhl-Quinn'' described her recent work on analyzing simultaneous electric field
observations of sub-auroral ion drift (SAID) events using magnetospheric (Cluster) and
ionospheric (DMSP) E-field data. She showed one case study that showed quite good
agreement of Cluster and DMSP observations.

'''Session 3: The final session started as a continuation of the self-consistent interaction discussion.'''

''Mike Schulz'' gave some theoretical remarks on self-consistent interaction between plasma, electric and magnetic fields. He remarked that analytical formulations (e.g. the Dungey model) are useful for simulating realistic features. He warned against looking for causality in Maxwell’s equations, i.e. what is driving what. One can only say with regard to Maxwell’s equations that the right hand side equals the left
hand side.

''Jerry Goldstein'' presented an electric field model constructed from an externally driven electric field model (Volland-Stern) plus an internal SAPS model. By tracing particles in this combined model, with either observations or a plasmapause model for initialization, he obtained remarkably good correlation with MPA data of plume location.

''Tim Guild'' showed the effects of self-consistency in electric and magnetic fields on the plasma sheet control of ring current. For the study he used RCM, which has self-consistent electric fields, but did not include the charge exchange. He analyzed a moderate storm and found that adding magnetic self-consistency lowers the effect of
plasma sheet density on the ring current energy (the self-consistency in the E-field alone was already lowering it from a linear to a square root dependence on the PS density).

''Yukitoshi Nishimura'' presented storm-time large scale electric fields obtained from 7 years of Akebono observations. The largest fields are found at dawn and dusk. He also used the field to calculate empirical convection potentials. A twocell convection pattern is clearly observed. He further traced ions in the obtained empirical fields
and found significant energization.

''Jo Baker'' discussed SuperDARN measurements and implications for convection. He also
performed a test of equipotentiality of the magnetic field lines, by analyzing conjugate
SuperDARN and Cluster EDI measurements. While he found a fairly good correlation, there
was also large variance, which points out to nonequipotentiality (possible reasons for it being induced electric fields and field-aligned potential drops).

''Yihua Zheng'' looked at the influence of electric fields on the coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. She showed simulations with the CRCM model, with and without trough (low density plasma region) conditions. With trough conditions, the applied low Pedersen conductance in the trough leads to large amplitude flows (subauroral polarization streams, or SAPS) that resemble observations. She concluded that ionospheric changes affect the ring current through electromagnetic coupling.

''Sasha Ukhorskyi'' looked at radiation belt radial transport due to magnetopause compression from solar wind dynamic pressure variations. He used empirical B-field models and calculated the induced E-fields that are consistent with the Bfield
time dependence. He then analyzed the ULF waves from solar wind pressure spectral
fluctuations.

''Jimmy Raeder'' presented work done with W. Li on the formation of super-dense plasma sheet. In an OpenGGCM simulation, he showed that after northward IMF, southward IMF turning compresses the cold dense plasma on high latitude field lines, which is subsequently pushed toward the Earth by near-tail reconnection and forms the super dense plasma sheet near geo. orbit (MHD results compatible with MPA observations).

The second half of the session was a community discussion about the future direction of the focus group. Several people mentioned the familiar GEM concept of “Community Challenge” – it would be interesting to have in the near future (1-2 years) a challenge study whereby the models would all run an idealized event, so as to compare the results.
For the next GEM, two possible breakout session topics emerged: 1). Study the effect of
the added model features on model output, in order to find out which are crucial for inner magnetosphere physics modeling; quantify the relative effect of plasma sheet boundary properties, B and E self-consistency, anisotropy, losses in models; how are the new physics features verified by / improve consistency with observations? 2). Continuous improvement in empirical specification: better empirical plasma sheet models (including activity binning and ion composition), empirical E-field and plasmasphere models. These would also be the topics of a Mini-GEM session the focus group will be organizing in San Francisco the Sunday before the 2007 Fall AGU.

=== June 2008 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

== GEM Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge ==

Starting in 2008, the focus group will have a "challenge" project that is aimed at cross-validating multiple ring current and convection numerical inner magnetospheric models, arriving at a common GGCM-style inner magnetospheric module that will employ both first-principle models and empirical data-based components, and eventually applying the models to the science questions listed in the focus group description.

Based on comments and discussions, the organizers of the focus group drafted a plan for the challenge. The most current version of the document can be found [[:Image:Near_Earth_magnetosphere_challenge_draft.pdf|here]]

[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/challenge The Challenge Web page] has been set up for collecting results of the challenge. There is also a dedicated mailing list for exchanging information ([http://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/gem-near-earth-l Mailing List Web page], which also holds mailing list archives).

More details to be added following the mini-GEM workshop session in December 2008.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-12-05T17:20:23Z

Sazykin: /* GEM Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge */

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group Overview ==
This focus group aims to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-
Earth (< 10 RE) magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere.
It broadens our understanding of inner magnetosphere plasma transport and includes the self-consistent coupling between plasma and electric and magnetic fields.
It also focuses on quantifying the effect of plasma sheet source populations on the evolution of the inner magnetosphere.

=== Scientific Motivation ===
Currently there are gaps, in both modeling and observations, in our knowledge of
both the fields and the plasma sheet boundary dependence. From a modeling point of view, a gap exists between self-consistent but physically oversimplified models and models that treat plasma correctly but not the fields. Existing global MHD models include self-consistent fields, but the MHD formalism cannot adequately describe the inner magnetosphere (closer than 10 RE), because it does not include gradient and curvature drifts. On the other hand, existing kinetic models (e.g. RAM, RCM, CRCM) treat plasma transport, acceleration and losses more or less realistically but
do not properly account for the effect of the plasma on the fields. Observationally, the fields are also rather poorly described. While empirical models have been constructed that statistically describe B-fields and convective E-fields, they hardly do so for specific events; moreover, no model exists for the inductive E-fields. Finally, the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere depends both on the physics mechanisms involved, but also on the plasma sheet inputs. No clear study of the relative importance of the two exists.
'''In summary, to further our knowledge of the inner magnetosphere we need better specification of the electric and magnetic fields, as well as of the driving plasma sheet properties. From a modeling point of view, it is desirable to have a kinetic approach that includes all relevant species (ions and electrons), self-consistent three-dimensional magnetic, convective and induced electric fields, as well as loss mechanisms.'''

=== Goals ===
This focus group will include both modeling and observational components that will improve the knowledge and specification of the inner magnetosphere electric and magnetic fields, their interaction with the plasma, as well as their dependence on the plasma sheet populations; a main deliverable will be the development of a realistic inner magnetosphere GGCM module, consistent with the main goal of the GEM program.

=== Potential Research Topics ===
#Effect of the 3D self-consistent feedback between plasma and magnetic field on the inner magnetosphere particle transport and acceleration during various activity such as storms and substorms.
#Specification (observational and modeling) of the convective E-field during storms, Region-2 field aligned currents, coupling to ionosphere and shielding.
#Magnitude and location of the inductive E-fields arising from time-varying B-fields, through both modeling and observations (e.g. conjugate measurements – in situ plus ionospheric).
#Effect of plasma sheet density, temperature and local time distribution on the large-scale morphology of the ring current ions and electrons in the inner magnetosphere.
#Parameterization and relative importance of various loss processes during active times, including extreme disturbances.
#Influence of inner magnetosphere fields on radiation belt particles; adiabatic effect; radial diffusion - what part, if any, of ULF wave diffusion is captured by time changing model fields?
#Coupling of inner magnetosphere models with outer MHD models; which is driving which.

=== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ===
Full text of the proposal to the GEM steering committee that led to creation of the focus group can be found here:
[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/GEM_FGProp-2006-NearEarth.pdf PDF proposal]

== GEM Workshop meeting reports ==

=== June 2007 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere Focus Group held three breakout sessions at the 2007 GEM, on Wednesday, June 20.

'''Session 1. The topic of this session was the influence of plasma sheet properties on the ring current.'''

''Benoit Lavraud'' showed that a cold, dense plasma sheet leads to enhanced ring current. Comparing RAM simulation results for the proton ring current with idealized boundary conditions of cold vs. hot plasma sheet (with the same energy density), he found that cold plasma sheet can penetrate much closer to Earth (due to its reduced
gradient-B drift). He also presented observations of the cold dense plasma sheet (CDPS), which show 2 distinct populations at midnight and dawn. The source and degree of participation of the dawn population to the ring current are questions that need to be answered in the future.

''Chih-Ping Wang'' analyzed the dependence of plasma sheet properties, during northward IMF, on solar wind (SW) density, velocity and IMF Bz, using Geotail, ACE and Wind data. The data was separated into 8 bins, corresponding to low/high value combinations of the 3 driving parameters. The parameter combination of high SW density, high IMF Bz and low velocity was found to lead to a cold plasma sheet with highest density and lowest temperature. On the other hand, a low SW density, low Bz and high velocity result in a hot and tenuous plasma sheet (lowest density, but highest temperature).

''Margaret Chen'' used Wang’s two extreme plasma sheet conditions (cold/dense and hot/tenuous) from Geotail data as boundary conditions for her magnetically self-consistent ring current model. First, she traced ions with the Magnetospheric Specification Model (MSM) from Geotail orbit to geosynchronous, and then used the values there as boundary conditions. She found that the cold/dense plasma sheet leads
to much stronger ring current. She concluded that accurate ring current modeling requires realistic modeling of pre-storm plasma sheet.

''Colby Lemon'' addressed the question of how the fast initial recovery of a storm may be affected by plasma sheet density and convection strength. He showed 6 simulations performed with the RCM-E model, with different plasma sheet densities and polar cap potential drops. The results show that lower plasma sheet densities lead to faster recovery, with the fastest recovery resulting when plasma sheet density is lowest while convection is still strong.

''Vahe Peroomian'' looked at ion access and energization by tracing particles in the fields of a global MHD storm simulation. Oxygen ions were launched from the ionosphere, with protons launched in the solar wind. While direct entry (through the plasma sheet) into the ring current was found to occur, Vahe found that ion transport from the distant tail to inner magnetosphere can be also indirect, with particles moving along
dynamic field lines and ending up much closer to Earth after mirroring, thus bypassing the plasma sheet.

''Liz MacDonald'' studied the influence of ion composition at geo. orbit on the ring current. By performing RAM simulations with various H+/O+ boundary composition ratios, she obtained very different ring current pressure, showing that ion composition plays a very significant role in the ring current. She then described the upcoming oxygen monitoring capability at geosynchronous that will be on LANL satellites, through the
Advanced Miniaturized Plasma Spectrometer (AMPS), which will measure H+, O+, He++ and
e-.

''Jichun Zhang'' presented an RCM study of depleted entropy channels (bubbles) injected into the inner magnetosphere. The bubbles are imposed by reducing the PV^gamma content. He found that bubbles lead to higher plasma energy density. In particular, the electric field is increased inside depleted channels, which injects fresh particles more effectively. The violation of adiabaticity (which presumably causes the bubbles) pushes the ring current farther inward and seems to be a key element in storm physics.

''Yongliang Zhang'' discussed the ring current aurora (RCA) – a new terminology for aurora emissions due to precipitating particles from the ring current. He showed that global FUV imagers provide insight into the RCA because they image proton precipitation. As observations of RCA provide information on loss processes in the RC,
he concluded that global auroras should be used in validating magnetospheric models.

''Pontus Brandt'' showed a study performed with Shin Ohtani on global circulation of oxygen ions. ENA observations show strong energization of RC O+ ions during substorms,
with protons less energized. CRCM simulations of a substorm coupled with test particle ions successfully reproduce the oxygen ion energization, with the take-home message being that oxygen ions make the ring current stronger.

'''Session 2: The topic of the second session was the self-consistent interaction between plasma and electric and magnetic fields in the inner magnetosphere.'''

''Sorin Zaharia'' described the inner magnetosphere model that is developed at LANL based on his 3D magnetic field solver and Vania Jordanova’s RAM code. Recently,
the code has been extended to ~10 Re in the tail, with the outer plasma boundary condition there taken from observational profiles. Sorin showed that taking into account the effect of plasma on the B-field leads to very different results than if
a dipole field is used. When the self-consistent simulation of a moderate storm is compared with the one using a dipole B-field, it was found that there are significant deviations of the field from dipolar even at L=4-5, lower plasma pressure, and noticeable variability in radial profiles.

''Mike Liemohn'' addressed the question of small scale E-field structuring in the inner
magnetosphere that he finds in his ring current simulations. Mike showed a simulation of the April 22, 2001 storm, in which plasma pressure becomes structured – at the same time, small structuring is seen in the computed E-field. According to Mike’s analysis, ENA images in the tens of keV energy range would not be sufficient for the IMAGE HENA instrument to resolve the structuring. Mike challenged the audience to identify data that could be used to prove or disprove his model results.

''Vania Jordanova'' showed RAM simulations with different B-fields (dipole, empirical Tsyganenko, and self-consistent computed with the Zaharia solver) also for the 22 April 2001 storm. Vania found that results differ significantly for the different field models. In general, the empirical T04S field yields the largest gradient/curvature
drift velocities. In the storm main phase, proton fluxes are smallest with T04S and total ring current density is reduced compared to the dipole case. The self-consistent B-field yields intermediate results. With non-dipolar B-fields, localized pressure peaks appear. Also, with the self-consistent B-field, strong EMIC waves are
predicted at larger L.

''Mark Engebretson'' presented EMIC wave observations, bringing up the question of why
ground-based signatures of EMIC waves are not observed in the plasmapause region during the main/early recovery phase, but are in the late recovery phase. Mark showed conjunction ground based/spacecraft data (with two spacecraft, one at 4500 km altitude and the other one at geo) at L=4.5 for one storm. In the main phase, the data shows EMIC wave activity out in the magnetosphere but waves are not observed on the ground or at 4500 km. This might suggest that the waves are absorbed well above the ionosphere or
are not emitted in the direction of the ground.

''Frank Toffoletto'' showed RCM-E simulations of an idealized substorm growth phase. After running the model for ~4 hrs, the pressure and magnetic fields consistently display oscillatory structure, which could be physical instabilities. An eigenmode analysis of the RCM-E configuration with Chris Crabtree’s code finds a tail region between 10 and 15 Re to be ballooning unstable when the field is very stretched. While
RCM-E cannot model the instability evolution, this result may indicate that adiabaticity is violated in the unstable region. Reducing the adiabatic invariant in an ad-hoc manner on the RCM-E boundary leads to B-field dipolarization and injection of a noticeable ring current.

''Hiroshi Matsui'' presented an empirical model of the convection E-field in the inner
magnetosphere based on Cluster E-field measurements and DE-2/radar data. The model
convection patterns were organized by the interplanetary E-field. Qualitatively, the
empirical patterns are similar to those computed with models such as RCM. However, standard deviations are comparable to E-field absolute values, indicating significant variability of the field; this could be due to mesoscale structuring or induction E-fields.

''Pamela Puhl-Quinn'' described her recent work on analyzing simultaneous electric field
observations of sub-auroral ion drift (SAID) events using magnetospheric (Cluster) and
ionospheric (DMSP) E-field data. She showed one case study that showed quite good
agreement of Cluster and DMSP observations.

'''Session 3: The final session started as a continuation of the self-consistent interaction discussion.'''

''Mike Schulz'' gave some theoretical remarks on self-consistent interaction between plasma, electric and magnetic fields. He remarked that analytical formulations (e.g. the Dungey model) are useful for simulating realistic features. He warned against looking for causality in Maxwell’s equations, i.e. what is driving what. One can only say with regard to Maxwell’s equations that the right hand side equals the left
hand side.

''Jerry Goldstein'' presented an electric field model constructed from an externally driven electric field model (Volland-Stern) plus an internal SAPS model. By tracing particles in this combined model, with either observations or a plasmapause model for initialization, he obtained remarkably good correlation with MPA data of plume location.

''Tim Guild'' showed the effects of self-consistency in electric and magnetic fields on the plasma sheet control of ring current. For the study he used RCM, which has self-consistent electric fields, but did not include the charge exchange. He analyzed a moderate storm and found that adding magnetic self-consistency lowers the effect of
plasma sheet density on the ring current energy (the self-consistency in the E-field alone was already lowering it from a linear to a square root dependence on the PS density).

''Yukitoshi Nishimura'' presented storm-time large scale electric fields obtained from 7 years of Akebono observations. The largest fields are found at dawn and dusk. He also used the field to calculate empirical convection potentials. A twocell convection pattern is clearly observed. He further traced ions in the obtained empirical fields
and found significant energization.

''Jo Baker'' discussed SuperDARN measurements and implications for convection. He also
performed a test of equipotentiality of the magnetic field lines, by analyzing conjugate
SuperDARN and Cluster EDI measurements. While he found a fairly good correlation, there
was also large variance, which points out to nonequipotentiality (possible reasons for it being induced electric fields and field-aligned potential drops).

''Yihua Zheng'' looked at the influence of electric fields on the coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. She showed simulations with the CRCM model, with and without trough (low density plasma region) conditions. With trough conditions, the applied low Pedersen conductance in the trough leads to large amplitude flows (subauroral polarization streams, or SAPS) that resemble observations. She concluded that ionospheric changes affect the ring current through electromagnetic coupling.

''Sasha Ukhorskyi'' looked at radiation belt radial transport due to magnetopause compression from solar wind dynamic pressure variations. He used empirical B-field models and calculated the induced E-fields that are consistent with the Bfield
time dependence. He then analyzed the ULF waves from solar wind pressure spectral
fluctuations.

''Jimmy Raeder'' presented work done with W. Li on the formation of super-dense plasma sheet. In an OpenGGCM simulation, he showed that after northward IMF, southward IMF turning compresses the cold dense plasma on high latitude field lines, which is subsequently pushed toward the Earth by near-tail reconnection and forms the super dense plasma sheet near geo. orbit (MHD results compatible with MPA observations).

The second half of the session was a community discussion about the future direction of the focus group. Several people mentioned the familiar GEM concept of “Community Challenge” – it would be interesting to have in the near future (1-2 years) a challenge study whereby the models would all run an idealized event, so as to compare the results.
For the next GEM, two possible breakout session topics emerged: 1). Study the effect of
the added model features on model output, in order to find out which are crucial for inner magnetosphere physics modeling; quantify the relative effect of plasma sheet boundary properties, B and E self-consistency, anisotropy, losses in models; how are the new physics features verified by / improve consistency with observations? 2). Continuous improvement in empirical specification: better empirical plasma sheet models (including activity binning and ion composition), empirical E-field and plasmasphere models. These would also be the topics of a Mini-GEM session the focus group will be organizing in San Francisco the Sunday before the 2007 Fall AGU.

=== June 2008 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

== GEM Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge ==

Starting in 2008, the focus group will have a "challenge" project that is aimed at cross-validating multiple ring current and convection numerical inner magnetospheric models, arriving at a common GGCM-style inner magnetospheric module that will employ both first-principle models and empirical data-based components, and eventually applying the models to the science questions listed in the focus group description.

Based on comments and discussions, the organizers of the focus group drafted a plan for the challenge. The most current version of the document can be found [[Image:Example.jpg]]

[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/challenge The Challenge Web page] has been set up for collecting results of the challenge. There is also a dedicated mailing list for exchanging information ([http://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/gem-near-earth-l Mailing List Web page], which also holds mailing list archives).

More details to be added following the mini-GEM workshop session in December 2008.

File:Near Earth magnetosphere challenge draft.pdf

2008-12-05T17:19:56Z

Sazykin:

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-12-05T17:15:54Z

Sazykin:

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group Overview ==
This focus group aims to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-
Earth (< 10 RE) magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere.
It broadens our understanding of inner magnetosphere plasma transport and includes the self-consistent coupling between plasma and electric and magnetic fields.
It also focuses on quantifying the effect of plasma sheet source populations on the evolution of the inner magnetosphere.

=== Scientific Motivation ===
Currently there are gaps, in both modeling and observations, in our knowledge of
both the fields and the plasma sheet boundary dependence. From a modeling point of view, a gap exists between self-consistent but physically oversimplified models and models that treat plasma correctly but not the fields. Existing global MHD models include self-consistent fields, but the MHD formalism cannot adequately describe the inner magnetosphere (closer than 10 RE), because it does not include gradient and curvature drifts. On the other hand, existing kinetic models (e.g. RAM, RCM, CRCM) treat plasma transport, acceleration and losses more or less realistically but
do not properly account for the effect of the plasma on the fields. Observationally, the fields are also rather poorly described. While empirical models have been constructed that statistically describe B-fields and convective E-fields, they hardly do so for specific events; moreover, no model exists for the inductive E-fields. Finally, the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere depends both on the physics mechanisms involved, but also on the plasma sheet inputs. No clear study of the relative importance of the two exists.
'''In summary, to further our knowledge of the inner magnetosphere we need better specification of the electric and magnetic fields, as well as of the driving plasma sheet properties. From a modeling point of view, it is desirable to have a kinetic approach that includes all relevant species (ions and electrons), self-consistent three-dimensional magnetic, convective and induced electric fields, as well as loss mechanisms.'''

=== Goals ===
This focus group will include both modeling and observational components that will improve the knowledge and specification of the inner magnetosphere electric and magnetic fields, their interaction with the plasma, as well as their dependence on the plasma sheet populations; a main deliverable will be the development of a realistic inner magnetosphere GGCM module, consistent with the main goal of the GEM program.

=== Potential Research Topics ===
#Effect of the 3D self-consistent feedback between plasma and magnetic field on the inner magnetosphere particle transport and acceleration during various activity such as storms and substorms.
#Specification (observational and modeling) of the convective E-field during storms, Region-2 field aligned currents, coupling to ionosphere and shielding.
#Magnitude and location of the inductive E-fields arising from time-varying B-fields, through both modeling and observations (e.g. conjugate measurements – in situ plus ionospheric).
#Effect of plasma sheet density, temperature and local time distribution on the large-scale morphology of the ring current ions and electrons in the inner magnetosphere.
#Parameterization and relative importance of various loss processes during active times, including extreme disturbances.
#Influence of inner magnetosphere fields on radiation belt particles; adiabatic effect; radial diffusion - what part, if any, of ULF wave diffusion is captured by time changing model fields?
#Coupling of inner magnetosphere models with outer MHD models; which is driving which.

=== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ===
Full text of the proposal to the GEM steering committee that led to creation of the focus group can be found here:
[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/GEM_FGProp-2006-NearEarth.pdf PDF proposal]

== GEM Workshop meeting reports ==

=== June 2007 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere Focus Group held three breakout sessions at the 2007 GEM, on Wednesday, June 20.

'''Session 1. The topic of this session was the influence of plasma sheet properties on the ring current.'''

''Benoit Lavraud'' showed that a cold, dense plasma sheet leads to enhanced ring current. Comparing RAM simulation results for the proton ring current with idealized boundary conditions of cold vs. hot plasma sheet (with the same energy density), he found that cold plasma sheet can penetrate much closer to Earth (due to its reduced
gradient-B drift). He also presented observations of the cold dense plasma sheet (CDPS), which show 2 distinct populations at midnight and dawn. The source and degree of participation of the dawn population to the ring current are questions that need to be answered in the future.

''Chih-Ping Wang'' analyzed the dependence of plasma sheet properties, during northward IMF, on solar wind (SW) density, velocity and IMF Bz, using Geotail, ACE and Wind data. The data was separated into 8 bins, corresponding to low/high value combinations of the 3 driving parameters. The parameter combination of high SW density, high IMF Bz and low velocity was found to lead to a cold plasma sheet with highest density and lowest temperature. On the other hand, a low SW density, low Bz and high velocity result in a hot and tenuous plasma sheet (lowest density, but highest temperature).

''Margaret Chen'' used Wang’s two extreme plasma sheet conditions (cold/dense and hot/tenuous) from Geotail data as boundary conditions for her magnetically self-consistent ring current model. First, she traced ions with the Magnetospheric Specification Model (MSM) from Geotail orbit to geosynchronous, and then used the values there as boundary conditions. She found that the cold/dense plasma sheet leads
to much stronger ring current. She concluded that accurate ring current modeling requires realistic modeling of pre-storm plasma sheet.

''Colby Lemon'' addressed the question of how the fast initial recovery of a storm may be affected by plasma sheet density and convection strength. He showed 6 simulations performed with the RCM-E model, with different plasma sheet densities and polar cap potential drops. The results show that lower plasma sheet densities lead to faster recovery, with the fastest recovery resulting when plasma sheet density is lowest while convection is still strong.

''Vahe Peroomian'' looked at ion access and energization by tracing particles in the fields of a global MHD storm simulation. Oxygen ions were launched from the ionosphere, with protons launched in the solar wind. While direct entry (through the plasma sheet) into the ring current was found to occur, Vahe found that ion transport from the distant tail to inner magnetosphere can be also indirect, with particles moving along
dynamic field lines and ending up much closer to Earth after mirroring, thus bypassing the plasma sheet.

''Liz MacDonald'' studied the influence of ion composition at geo. orbit on the ring current. By performing RAM simulations with various H+/O+ boundary composition ratios, she obtained very different ring current pressure, showing that ion composition plays a very significant role in the ring current. She then described the upcoming oxygen monitoring capability at geosynchronous that will be on LANL satellites, through the
Advanced Miniaturized Plasma Spectrometer (AMPS), which will measure H+, O+, He++ and
e-.

''Jichun Zhang'' presented an RCM study of depleted entropy channels (bubbles) injected into the inner magnetosphere. The bubbles are imposed by reducing the PV^gamma content. He found that bubbles lead to higher plasma energy density. In particular, the electric field is increased inside depleted channels, which injects fresh particles more effectively. The violation of adiabaticity (which presumably causes the bubbles) pushes the ring current farther inward and seems to be a key element in storm physics.

''Yongliang Zhang'' discussed the ring current aurora (RCA) – a new terminology for aurora emissions due to precipitating particles from the ring current. He showed that global FUV imagers provide insight into the RCA because they image proton precipitation. As observations of RCA provide information on loss processes in the RC,
he concluded that global auroras should be used in validating magnetospheric models.

''Pontus Brandt'' showed a study performed with Shin Ohtani on global circulation of oxygen ions. ENA observations show strong energization of RC O+ ions during substorms,
with protons less energized. CRCM simulations of a substorm coupled with test particle ions successfully reproduce the oxygen ion energization, with the take-home message being that oxygen ions make the ring current stronger.

'''Session 2: The topic of the second session was the self-consistent interaction between plasma and electric and magnetic fields in the inner magnetosphere.'''

''Sorin Zaharia'' described the inner magnetosphere model that is developed at LANL based on his 3D magnetic field solver and Vania Jordanova’s RAM code. Recently,
the code has been extended to ~10 Re in the tail, with the outer plasma boundary condition there taken from observational profiles. Sorin showed that taking into account the effect of plasma on the B-field leads to very different results than if
a dipole field is used. When the self-consistent simulation of a moderate storm is compared with the one using a dipole B-field, it was found that there are significant deviations of the field from dipolar even at L=4-5, lower plasma pressure, and noticeable variability in radial profiles.

''Mike Liemohn'' addressed the question of small scale E-field structuring in the inner
magnetosphere that he finds in his ring current simulations. Mike showed a simulation of the April 22, 2001 storm, in which plasma pressure becomes structured – at the same time, small structuring is seen in the computed E-field. According to Mike’s analysis, ENA images in the tens of keV energy range would not be sufficient for the IMAGE HENA instrument to resolve the structuring. Mike challenged the audience to identify data that could be used to prove or disprove his model results.

''Vania Jordanova'' showed RAM simulations with different B-fields (dipole, empirical Tsyganenko, and self-consistent computed with the Zaharia solver) also for the 22 April 2001 storm. Vania found that results differ significantly for the different field models. In general, the empirical T04S field yields the largest gradient/curvature
drift velocities. In the storm main phase, proton fluxes are smallest with T04S and total ring current density is reduced compared to the dipole case. The self-consistent B-field yields intermediate results. With non-dipolar B-fields, localized pressure peaks appear. Also, with the self-consistent B-field, strong EMIC waves are
predicted at larger L.

''Mark Engebretson'' presented EMIC wave observations, bringing up the question of why
ground-based signatures of EMIC waves are not observed in the plasmapause region during the main/early recovery phase, but are in the late recovery phase. Mark showed conjunction ground based/spacecraft data (with two spacecraft, one at 4500 km altitude and the other one at geo) at L=4.5 for one storm. In the main phase, the data shows EMIC wave activity out in the magnetosphere but waves are not observed on the ground or at 4500 km. This might suggest that the waves are absorbed well above the ionosphere or
are not emitted in the direction of the ground.

''Frank Toffoletto'' showed RCM-E simulations of an idealized substorm growth phase. After running the model for ~4 hrs, the pressure and magnetic fields consistently display oscillatory structure, which could be physical instabilities. An eigenmode analysis of the RCM-E configuration with Chris Crabtree’s code finds a tail region between 10 and 15 Re to be ballooning unstable when the field is very stretched. While
RCM-E cannot model the instability evolution, this result may indicate that adiabaticity is violated in the unstable region. Reducing the adiabatic invariant in an ad-hoc manner on the RCM-E boundary leads to B-field dipolarization and injection of a noticeable ring current.

''Hiroshi Matsui'' presented an empirical model of the convection E-field in the inner
magnetosphere based on Cluster E-field measurements and DE-2/radar data. The model
convection patterns were organized by the interplanetary E-field. Qualitatively, the
empirical patterns are similar to those computed with models such as RCM. However, standard deviations are comparable to E-field absolute values, indicating significant variability of the field; this could be due to mesoscale structuring or induction E-fields.

''Pamela Puhl-Quinn'' described her recent work on analyzing simultaneous electric field
observations of sub-auroral ion drift (SAID) events using magnetospheric (Cluster) and
ionospheric (DMSP) E-field data. She showed one case study that showed quite good
agreement of Cluster and DMSP observations.

'''Session 3: The final session started as a continuation of the self-consistent interaction discussion.'''

''Mike Schulz'' gave some theoretical remarks on self-consistent interaction between plasma, electric and magnetic fields. He remarked that analytical formulations (e.g. the Dungey model) are useful for simulating realistic features. He warned against looking for causality in Maxwell’s equations, i.e. what is driving what. One can only say with regard to Maxwell’s equations that the right hand side equals the left
hand side.

''Jerry Goldstein'' presented an electric field model constructed from an externally driven electric field model (Volland-Stern) plus an internal SAPS model. By tracing particles in this combined model, with either observations or a plasmapause model for initialization, he obtained remarkably good correlation with MPA data of plume location.

''Tim Guild'' showed the effects of self-consistency in electric and magnetic fields on the plasma sheet control of ring current. For the study he used RCM, which has self-consistent electric fields, but did not include the charge exchange. He analyzed a moderate storm and found that adding magnetic self-consistency lowers the effect of
plasma sheet density on the ring current energy (the self-consistency in the E-field alone was already lowering it from a linear to a square root dependence on the PS density).

''Yukitoshi Nishimura'' presented storm-time large scale electric fields obtained from 7 years of Akebono observations. The largest fields are found at dawn and dusk. He also used the field to calculate empirical convection potentials. A twocell convection pattern is clearly observed. He further traced ions in the obtained empirical fields
and found significant energization.

''Jo Baker'' discussed SuperDARN measurements and implications for convection. He also
performed a test of equipotentiality of the magnetic field lines, by analyzing conjugate
SuperDARN and Cluster EDI measurements. While he found a fairly good correlation, there
was also large variance, which points out to nonequipotentiality (possible reasons for it being induced electric fields and field-aligned potential drops).

''Yihua Zheng'' looked at the influence of electric fields on the coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. She showed simulations with the CRCM model, with and without trough (low density plasma region) conditions. With trough conditions, the applied low Pedersen conductance in the trough leads to large amplitude flows (subauroral polarization streams, or SAPS) that resemble observations. She concluded that ionospheric changes affect the ring current through electromagnetic coupling.

''Sasha Ukhorskyi'' looked at radiation belt radial transport due to magnetopause compression from solar wind dynamic pressure variations. He used empirical B-field models and calculated the induced E-fields that are consistent with the Bfield
time dependence. He then analyzed the ULF waves from solar wind pressure spectral
fluctuations.

''Jimmy Raeder'' presented work done with W. Li on the formation of super-dense plasma sheet. In an OpenGGCM simulation, he showed that after northward IMF, southward IMF turning compresses the cold dense plasma on high latitude field lines, which is subsequently pushed toward the Earth by near-tail reconnection and forms the super dense plasma sheet near geo. orbit (MHD results compatible with MPA observations).

The second half of the session was a community discussion about the future direction of the focus group. Several people mentioned the familiar GEM concept of “Community Challenge” – it would be interesting to have in the near future (1-2 years) a challenge study whereby the models would all run an idealized event, so as to compare the results.
For the next GEM, two possible breakout session topics emerged: 1). Study the effect of
the added model features on model output, in order to find out which are crucial for inner magnetosphere physics modeling; quantify the relative effect of plasma sheet boundary properties, B and E self-consistency, anisotropy, losses in models; how are the new physics features verified by / improve consistency with observations? 2). Continuous improvement in empirical specification: better empirical plasma sheet models (including activity binning and ion composition), empirical E-field and plasmasphere models. These would also be the topics of a Mini-GEM session the focus group will be organizing in San Francisco the Sunday before the 2007 Fall AGU.

=== June 2008 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

== GEM Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge ==

Starting in 2008, the focus group will have a "challenge" project that is aimed at cross-validating multiple ring current and convection numerical inner magnetospheric models, arriving at a common GGCM-style inner magnetospheric module that will employ both first-principle models and empirical data-based components, and eventually applying the models to the science questions listed in the focus group description.

Based on comments and discussions, the organizers of the focus group drafted a plan for the challenge. The most current version of the document can be found [[Media:Example.ogg]].

[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/challenge The Challenge Web page] has been set up for collecting results of the challenge. There is also a dedicated mailing list for exchanging information ([http://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/gem-near-earth-l Mailing List Web page], which also holds mailing list archives).

More details to be added following the mini-GEM workshop session in December 2008.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-12-05T17:12:32Z

Sazykin:

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group Overview ==
This focus group aims to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-
Earth (< 10 RE) magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere.
It broadens our understanding of inner magnetosphere plasma transport and includes the self-consistent coupling between plasma and electric and magnetic fields.
It also focuses on quantifying the effect of plasma sheet source populations on the evolution of the inner magnetosphere.

=== Scientific Motivation ===
Currently there are gaps, in both modeling and observations, in our knowledge of
both the fields and the plasma sheet boundary dependence. From a modeling point of view, a gap exists between self-consistent but physically oversimplified models and models that treat plasma correctly but not the fields. Existing global MHD models include self-consistent fields, but the MHD formalism cannot adequately describe the inner magnetosphere (closer than 10 RE), because it does not include gradient and curvature drifts. On the other hand, existing kinetic models (e.g. RAM, RCM, CRCM) treat plasma transport, acceleration and losses more or less realistically but
do not properly account for the effect of the plasma on the fields. Observationally, the fields are also rather poorly described. While empirical models have been constructed that statistically describe B-fields and convective E-fields, they hardly do so for specific events; moreover, no model exists for the inductive E-fields. Finally, the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere depends both on the physics mechanisms involved, but also on the plasma sheet inputs. No clear study of the relative importance of the two exists.
'''In summary, to further our knowledge of the inner magnetosphere we need better specification of the electric and magnetic fields, as well as of the driving plasma sheet properties. From a modeling point of view, it is desirable to have a kinetic approach that includes all relevant species (ions and electrons), self-consistent three-dimensional magnetic, convective and induced electric fields, as well as loss mechanisms.'''

=== Goals ===
This focus group will include both modeling and observational components that will improve the knowledge and specification of the inner magnetosphere electric and magnetic fields, their interaction with the plasma, as well as their dependence on the plasma sheet populations; a main deliverable will be the development of a realistic inner magnetosphere GGCM module, consistent with the main goal of the GEM program.

=== Potential Research Topics ===
#Effect of the 3D self-consistent feedback between plasma and magnetic field on the inner magnetosphere particle transport and acceleration during various activity such as storms and substorms.
#Specification (observational and modeling) of the convective E-field during storms, Region-2 field aligned currents, coupling to ionosphere and shielding.
#Magnitude and location of the inductive E-fields arising from time-varying B-fields, through both modeling and observations (e.g. conjugate measurements – in situ plus ionospheric).
#Effect of plasma sheet density, temperature and local time distribution on the large-scale morphology of the ring current ions and electrons in the inner magnetosphere.
#Parameterization and relative importance of various loss processes during active times, including extreme disturbances.
#Influence of inner magnetosphere fields on radiation belt particles; adiabatic effect; radial diffusion - what part, if any, of ULF wave diffusion is captured by time changing model fields?
#Coupling of inner magnetosphere models with outer MHD models; which is driving which.

=== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ===
Full text of the proposal to the GEM steering committee that led to creation of the focus group can be found here:
[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/GEM_FGProp-2006-NearEarth.pdf PDF proposal]

== GEM Workshop meeting reports ==

=== June 2007 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere Focus Group held three breakout sessions at the 2007 GEM, on Wednesday, June 20.

'''Session 1. The topic of this session was the influence of plasma sheet properties on the ring current.'''

''Benoit Lavraud'' showed that a cold, dense plasma sheet leads to enhanced ring current. Comparing RAM simulation results for the proton ring current with idealized boundary conditions of cold vs. hot plasma sheet (with the same energy density), he found that cold plasma sheet can penetrate much closer to Earth (due to its reduced
gradient-B drift). He also presented observations of the cold dense plasma sheet (CDPS), which show 2 distinct populations at midnight and dawn. The source and degree of participation of the dawn population to the ring current are questions that need to be answered in the future.

''Chih-Ping Wang'' analyzed the dependence of plasma sheet properties, during northward IMF, on solar wind (SW) density, velocity and IMF Bz, using Geotail, ACE and Wind data. The data was separated into 8 bins, corresponding to low/high value combinations of the 3 driving parameters. The parameter combination of high SW density, high IMF Bz and low velocity was found to lead to a cold plasma sheet with highest density and lowest temperature. On the other hand, a low SW density, low Bz and high velocity result in a hot and tenuous plasma sheet (lowest density, but highest temperature).

''Margaret Chen'' used Wang’s two extreme plasma sheet conditions (cold/dense and hot/tenuous) from Geotail data as boundary conditions for her magnetically self-consistent ring current model. First, she traced ions with the Magnetospheric Specification Model (MSM) from Geotail orbit to geosynchronous, and then used the values there as boundary conditions. She found that the cold/dense plasma sheet leads
to much stronger ring current. She concluded that accurate ring current modeling requires realistic modeling of pre-storm plasma sheet.

''Colby Lemon'' addressed the question of how the fast initial recovery of a storm may be affected by plasma sheet density and convection strength. He showed 6 simulations performed with the RCM-E model, with different plasma sheet densities and polar cap potential drops. The results show that lower plasma sheet densities lead to faster recovery, with the fastest recovery resulting when plasma sheet density is lowest while convection is still strong.

''Vahe Peroomian'' looked at ion access and energization by tracing particles in the fields of a global MHD storm simulation. Oxygen ions were launched from the ionosphere, with protons launched in the solar wind. While direct entry (through the plasma sheet) into the ring current was found to occur, Vahe found that ion transport from the distant tail to inner magnetosphere can be also indirect, with particles moving along
dynamic field lines and ending up much closer to Earth after mirroring, thus bypassing the plasma sheet.

''Liz MacDonald'' studied the influence of ion composition at geo. orbit on the ring current. By performing RAM simulations with various H+/O+ boundary composition ratios, she obtained very different ring current pressure, showing that ion composition plays a very significant role in the ring current. She then described the upcoming oxygen monitoring capability at geosynchronous that will be on LANL satellites, through the
Advanced Miniaturized Plasma Spectrometer (AMPS), which will measure H+, O+, He++ and
e-.

''Jichun Zhang'' presented an RCM study of depleted entropy channels (bubbles) injected into the inner magnetosphere. The bubbles are imposed by reducing the PV^gamma content. He found that bubbles lead to higher plasma energy density. In particular, the electric field is increased inside depleted channels, which injects fresh particles more effectively. The violation of adiabaticity (which presumably causes the bubbles) pushes the ring current farther inward and seems to be a key element in storm physics.

''Yongliang Zhang'' discussed the ring current aurora (RCA) – a new terminology for aurora emissions due to precipitating particles from the ring current. He showed that global FUV imagers provide insight into the RCA because they image proton precipitation. As observations of RCA provide information on loss processes in the RC,
he concluded that global auroras should be used in validating magnetospheric models.

''Pontus Brandt'' showed a study performed with Shin Ohtani on global circulation of oxygen ions. ENA observations show strong energization of RC O+ ions during substorms,
with protons less energized. CRCM simulations of a substorm coupled with test particle ions successfully reproduce the oxygen ion energization, with the take-home message being that oxygen ions make the ring current stronger.

'''Session 2: The topic of the second session was the self-consistent interaction between plasma and electric and magnetic fields in the inner magnetosphere.'''

''Sorin Zaharia'' described the inner magnetosphere model that is developed at LANL based on his 3D magnetic field solver and Vania Jordanova’s RAM code. Recently,
the code has been extended to ~10 Re in the tail, with the outer plasma boundary condition there taken from observational profiles. Sorin showed that taking into account the effect of plasma on the B-field leads to very different results than if
a dipole field is used. When the self-consistent simulation of a moderate storm is compared with the one using a dipole B-field, it was found that there are significant deviations of the field from dipolar even at L=4-5, lower plasma pressure, and noticeable variability in radial profiles.

''Mike Liemohn'' addressed the question of small scale E-field structuring in the inner
magnetosphere that he finds in his ring current simulations. Mike showed a simulation of the April 22, 2001 storm, in which plasma pressure becomes structured – at the same time, small structuring is seen in the computed E-field. According to Mike’s analysis, ENA images in the tens of keV energy range would not be sufficient for the IMAGE HENA instrument to resolve the structuring. Mike challenged the audience to identify data that could be used to prove or disprove his model results.

''Vania Jordanova'' showed RAM simulations with different B-fields (dipole, empirical Tsyganenko, and self-consistent computed with the Zaharia solver) also for the 22 April 2001 storm. Vania found that results differ significantly for the different field models. In general, the empirical T04S field yields the largest gradient/curvature
drift velocities. In the storm main phase, proton fluxes are smallest with T04S and total ring current density is reduced compared to the dipole case. The self-consistent B-field yields intermediate results. With non-dipolar B-fields, localized pressure peaks appear. Also, with the self-consistent B-field, strong EMIC waves are
predicted at larger L.

''Mark Engebretson'' presented EMIC wave observations, bringing up the question of why
ground-based signatures of EMIC waves are not observed in the plasmapause region during the main/early recovery phase, but are in the late recovery phase. Mark showed conjunction ground based/spacecraft data (with two spacecraft, one at 4500 km altitude and the other one at geo) at L=4.5 for one storm. In the main phase, the data shows EMIC wave activity out in the magnetosphere but waves are not observed on the ground or at 4500 km. This might suggest that the waves are absorbed well above the ionosphere or
are not emitted in the direction of the ground.

''Frank Toffoletto'' showed RCM-E simulations of an idealized substorm growth phase. After running the model for ~4 hrs, the pressure and magnetic fields consistently display oscillatory structure, which could be physical instabilities. An eigenmode analysis of the RCM-E configuration with Chris Crabtree’s code finds a tail region between 10 and 15 Re to be ballooning unstable when the field is very stretched. While
RCM-E cannot model the instability evolution, this result may indicate that adiabaticity is violated in the unstable region. Reducing the adiabatic invariant in an ad-hoc manner on the RCM-E boundary leads to B-field dipolarization and injection of a noticeable ring current.

''Hiroshi Matsui'' presented an empirical model of the convection E-field in the inner
magnetosphere based on Cluster E-field measurements and DE-2/radar data. The model
convection patterns were organized by the interplanetary E-field. Qualitatively, the
empirical patterns are similar to those computed with models such as RCM. However, standard deviations are comparable to E-field absolute values, indicating significant variability of the field; this could be due to mesoscale structuring or induction E-fields.

''Pamela Puhl-Quinn'' described her recent work on analyzing simultaneous electric field
observations of sub-auroral ion drift (SAID) events using magnetospheric (Cluster) and
ionospheric (DMSP) E-field data. She showed one case study that showed quite good
agreement of Cluster and DMSP observations.

'''Session 3: The final session started as a continuation of the self-consistent interaction discussion.'''

''Mike Schulz'' gave some theoretical remarks on self-consistent interaction between plasma, electric and magnetic fields. He remarked that analytical formulations (e.g. the Dungey model) are useful for simulating realistic features. He warned against looking for causality in Maxwell’s equations, i.e. what is driving what. One can only say with regard to Maxwell’s equations that the right hand side equals the left
hand side.

''Jerry Goldstein'' presented an electric field model constructed from an externally driven electric field model (Volland-Stern) plus an internal SAPS model. By tracing particles in this combined model, with either observations or a plasmapause model for initialization, he obtained remarkably good correlation with MPA data of plume location.

''Tim Guild'' showed the effects of self-consistency in electric and magnetic fields on the plasma sheet control of ring current. For the study he used RCM, which has self-consistent electric fields, but did not include the charge exchange. He analyzed a moderate storm and found that adding magnetic self-consistency lowers the effect of
plasma sheet density on the ring current energy (the self-consistency in the E-field alone was already lowering it from a linear to a square root dependence on the PS density).

''Yukitoshi Nishimura'' presented storm-time large scale electric fields obtained from 7 years of Akebono observations. The largest fields are found at dawn and dusk. He also used the field to calculate empirical convection potentials. A twocell convection pattern is clearly observed. He further traced ions in the obtained empirical fields
and found significant energization.

''Jo Baker'' discussed SuperDARN measurements and implications for convection. He also
performed a test of equipotentiality of the magnetic field lines, by analyzing conjugate
SuperDARN and Cluster EDI measurements. While he found a fairly good correlation, there
was also large variance, which points out to nonequipotentiality (possible reasons for it being induced electric fields and field-aligned potential drops).

''Yihua Zheng'' looked at the influence of electric fields on the coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. She showed simulations with the CRCM model, with and without trough (low density plasma region) conditions. With trough conditions, the applied low Pedersen conductance in the trough leads to large amplitude flows (subauroral polarization streams, or SAPS) that resemble observations. She concluded that ionospheric changes affect the ring current through electromagnetic coupling.

''Sasha Ukhorskyi'' looked at radiation belt radial transport due to magnetopause compression from solar wind dynamic pressure variations. He used empirical B-field models and calculated the induced E-fields that are consistent with the Bfield
time dependence. He then analyzed the ULF waves from solar wind pressure spectral
fluctuations.

''Jimmy Raeder'' presented work done with W. Li on the formation of super-dense plasma sheet. In an OpenGGCM simulation, he showed that after northward IMF, southward IMF turning compresses the cold dense plasma on high latitude field lines, which is subsequently pushed toward the Earth by near-tail reconnection and forms the super dense plasma sheet near geo. orbit (MHD results compatible with MPA observations).

The second half of the session was a community discussion about the future direction of the focus group. Several people mentioned the familiar GEM concept of “Community Challenge” – it would be interesting to have in the near future (1-2 years) a challenge study whereby the models would all run an idealized event, so as to compare the results.
For the next GEM, two possible breakout session topics emerged: 1). Study the effect of
the added model features on model output, in order to find out which are crucial for inner magnetosphere physics modeling; quantify the relative effect of plasma sheet boundary properties, B and E self-consistency, anisotropy, losses in models; how are the new physics features verified by / improve consistency with observations? 2). Continuous improvement in empirical specification: better empirical plasma sheet models (including activity binning and ion composition), empirical E-field and plasmasphere models. These would also be the topics of a Mini-GEM session the focus group will be organizing in San Francisco the Sunday before the 2007 Fall AGU.

=== June 2008 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

== GEM Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge ==

Starting in 2008, the focus group will have a "challenge" project that is aimed at cross-validating multiple ring current and convection numerical inner magnetospheric models, arriving at a common GGCM-style inner magnetospheric module that will employ both first-principle models and empirical data-based components, and eventually applying the models to the science questions listed in the focus group description.

Based on comments and discussions, the organizers of the focus group drafted a plan for the challenge. The most current version of the document can be found [[Media:Example.ogg]].

The Challenge Web page has been set up for collecting results of the challenge. There is also a dedicated mailing list for exchanging information (Mailing List Web page, which also holds mailing list archives).

More details to be added following the mini-GEM workshop session in December 2008.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T11:19:53Z

Sazykin:

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group Overview ==
This focus group aims to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-
Earth (< 10 RE) magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere.
It broadens our understanding of inner magnetosphere plasma transport and includes the self-consistent coupling between plasma and electric and magnetic fields.
It also focuses on quantifying the effect of plasma sheet source populations on the evolution of the inner magnetosphere.

=== Scientific Motivation ===
Currently there are gaps, in both modeling and observations, in our knowledge of
both the fields and the plasma sheet boundary dependence. From a modeling point of view, a gap exists between self-consistent but physically oversimplified models and models that treat plasma correctly but not the fields. Existing global MHD models include self-consistent fields, but the MHD formalism cannot adequately describe the inner magnetosphere (closer than 10 RE), because it does not include gradient and curvature drifts. On the other hand, existing kinetic models (e.g. RAM, RCM, CRCM) treat plasma transport, acceleration and losses more or less realistically but
do not properly account for the effect of the plasma on the fields. Observationally, the fields are also rather poorly described. While empirical models have been constructed that statistically describe B-fields and convective E-fields, they hardly do so for specific events; moreover, no model exists for the inductive E-fields. Finally, the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere depends both on the physics mechanisms involved, but also on the plasma sheet inputs. No clear study of the relative importance of the two exists.
'''In summary, to further our knowledge of the inner magnetosphere we need better specification of the electric and magnetic fields, as well as of the driving plasma sheet properties. From a modeling point of view, it is desirable to have a kinetic approach that includes all relevant species (ions and electrons), self-consistent three-dimensional magnetic, convective and induced electric fields, as well as loss mechanisms.'''

=== Goals ===
This focus group will include both modeling and observational components that will improve the knowledge and specification of the inner magnetosphere electric and magnetic fields, their interaction with the plasma, as well as their dependence on the plasma sheet populations; a main deliverable will be the development of a realistic inner magnetosphere GGCM module, consistent with the main goal of the GEM program.

=== Potential Research Topics ===
#Effect of the 3D self-consistent feedback between plasma and magnetic field on the inner magnetosphere particle transport and acceleration during various activity such as storms and substorms.
#Specification (observational and modeling) of the convective E-field during storms, Region-2 field aligned currents, coupling to ionosphere and shielding.
#Magnitude and location of the inductive E-fields arising from time-varying B-fields, through both modeling and observations (e.g. conjugate measurements – in situ plus ionospheric).
#Effect of plasma sheet density, temperature and local time distribution on the large-scale morphology of the ring current ions and electrons in the inner magnetosphere.
#Parameterization and relative importance of various loss processes during active times, including extreme disturbances.
#Influence of inner magnetosphere fields on radiation belt particles; adiabatic effect; radial diffusion - what part, if any, of ULF wave diffusion is captured by time changing model fields?
#Coupling of inner magnetosphere models with outer MHD models; which is driving which.

=== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ===
Full text of the proposal to the GEM steering committee that led to creation of the focus group can be found here:
[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/GEM_FGProp-2006-NearEarth.pdf PDF proposal]

== GEM Workshop meeting reports ==

=== June 2007 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere Focus Group held three breakout sessions at the 2007 GEM, on Wednesday, June 20.

'''Session 1. The topic of this session was the influence of plasma sheet properties on the ring current.'''

''Benoit Lavraud'' showed that a cold, dense plasma sheet leads to enhanced ring current. Comparing RAM simulation results for the proton ring current with idealized boundary conditions of cold vs. hot plasma sheet (with the same energy density), he found that cold plasma sheet can penetrate much closer to Earth (due to its reduced
gradient-B drift). He also presented observations of the cold dense plasma sheet (CDPS), which show 2 distinct populations at midnight and dawn. The source and degree of participation of the dawn population to the ring current are questions that need to be answered in the future.

''Chih-Ping Wang'' analyzed the dependence of plasma sheet properties, during northward IMF, on solar wind (SW) density, velocity and IMF Bz, using Geotail, ACE and Wind data. The data was separated into 8 bins, corresponding to low/high value combinations of the 3 driving parameters. The parameter combination of high SW density, high IMF Bz and low velocity was found to lead to a cold plasma sheet with highest density and lowest temperature. On the other hand, a low SW density, low Bz and high velocity result in a hot and tenuous plasma sheet (lowest density, but highest temperature).

''Margaret Chen'' used Wang’s two extreme plasma sheet conditions (cold/dense and hot/tenuous) from Geotail data as boundary conditions for her magnetically self-consistent ring current model. First, she traced ions with the Magnetospheric Specification Model (MSM) from Geotail orbit to geosynchronous, and then used the values there as boundary conditions. She found that the cold/dense plasma sheet leads
to much stronger ring current. She concluded that accurate ring current modeling requires realistic modeling of pre-storm plasma sheet.

''Colby Lemon'' addressed the question of how the fast initial recovery of a storm may be affected by plasma sheet density and convection strength. He showed 6 simulations performed with the RCM-E model, with different plasma sheet densities and polar cap potential drops. The results show that lower plasma sheet densities lead to faster recovery, with the fastest recovery resulting when plasma sheet density is lowest while convection is still strong.

''Vahe Peroomian'' looked at ion access and energization by tracing particles in the fields of a global MHD storm simulation. Oxygen ions were launched from the ionosphere, with protons launched in the solar wind. While direct entry (through the plasma sheet) into the ring current was found to occur, Vahe found that ion transport from the distant tail to inner magnetosphere can be also indirect, with particles moving along
dynamic field lines and ending up much closer to Earth after mirroring, thus bypassing the plasma sheet.

''Liz MacDonald'' studied the influence of ion composition at geo. orbit on the ring current. By performing RAM simulations with various H+/O+ boundary composition ratios, she obtained very different ring current pressure, showing that ion composition plays a very significant role in the ring current. She then described the upcoming oxygen monitoring capability at geosynchronous that will be on LANL satellites, through the
Advanced Miniaturized Plasma Spectrometer (AMPS), which will measure H+, O+, He++ and
e-.

''Jichun Zhang'' presented an RCM study of depleted entropy channels (bubbles) injected into the inner magnetosphere. The bubbles are imposed by reducing the PV^gamma content. He found that bubbles lead to higher plasma energy density. In particular, the electric field is increased inside depleted channels, which injects fresh particles more effectively. The violation of adiabaticity (which presumably causes the bubbles) pushes the ring current farther inward and seems to be a key element in storm physics.

''Yongliang Zhang'' discussed the ring current aurora (RCA) – a new terminology for aurora emissions due to precipitating particles from the ring current. He showed that global FUV imagers provide insight into the RCA because they image proton precipitation. As observations of RCA provide information on loss processes in the RC,
he concluded that global auroras should be used in validating magnetospheric models.

''Pontus Brandt'' showed a study performed with Shin Ohtani on global circulation of oxygen ions. ENA observations show strong energization of RC O+ ions during substorms,
with protons less energized. CRCM simulations of a substorm coupled with test particle ions successfully reproduce the oxygen ion energization, with the take-home message being that oxygen ions make the ring current stronger.

'''Session 2: The topic of the second session was the self-consistent interaction between plasma and electric and magnetic fields in the inner magnetosphere.'''

''Sorin Zaharia'' described the inner magnetosphere model that is developed at LANL based on his 3D magnetic field solver and Vania Jordanova’s RAM code. Recently,
the code has been extended to ~10 Re in the tail, with the outer plasma boundary condition there taken from observational profiles. Sorin showed that taking into account the effect of plasma on the B-field leads to very different results than if
a dipole field is used. When the self-consistent simulation of a moderate storm is compared with the one using a dipole B-field, it was found that there are significant deviations of the field from dipolar even at L=4-5, lower plasma pressure, and noticeable variability in radial profiles.

''Mike Liemohn'' addressed the question of small scale E-field structuring in the inner
magnetosphere that he finds in his ring current simulations. Mike showed a simulation of the April 22, 2001 storm, in which plasma pressure becomes structured – at the same time, small structuring is seen in the computed E-field. According to Mike’s analysis, ENA images in the tens of keV energy range would not be sufficient for the IMAGE HENA instrument to resolve the structuring. Mike challenged the audience to identify data that could be used to prove or disprove his model results.

''Vania Jordanova'' showed RAM simulations with different B-fields (dipole, empirical Tsyganenko, and self-consistent computed with the Zaharia solver) also for the 22 April 2001 storm. Vania found that results differ significantly for the different field models. In general, the empirical T04S field yields the largest gradient/curvature
drift velocities. In the storm main phase, proton fluxes are smallest with T04S and total ring current density is reduced compared to the dipole case. The self-consistent B-field yields intermediate results. With non-dipolar B-fields, localized pressure peaks appear. Also, with the self-consistent B-field, strong EMIC waves are
predicted at larger L.

''Mark Engebretson'' presented EMIC wave observations, bringing up the question of why
ground-based signatures of EMIC waves are not observed in the plasmapause region during the main/early recovery phase, but are in the late recovery phase. Mark showed conjunction ground based/spacecraft data (with two spacecraft, one at 4500 km altitude and the other one at geo) at L=4.5 for one storm. In the main phase, the data shows EMIC wave activity out in the magnetosphere but waves are not observed on the ground or at 4500 km. This might suggest that the waves are absorbed well above the ionosphere or
are not emitted in the direction of the ground.

''Frank Toffoletto'' showed RCM-E simulations of an idealized substorm growth phase. After running the model for ~4 hrs, the pressure and magnetic fields consistently display oscillatory structure, which could be physical instabilities. An eigenmode analysis of the RCM-E configuration with Chris Crabtree’s code finds a tail region between 10 and 15 Re to be ballooning unstable when the field is very stretched. While
RCM-E cannot model the instability evolution, this result may indicate that adiabaticity is violated in the unstable region. Reducing the adiabatic invariant in an ad-hoc manner on the RCM-E boundary leads to B-field dipolarization and injection of a noticeable ring current.

''Hiroshi Matsui'' presented an empirical model of the convection E-field in the inner
magnetosphere based on Cluster E-field measurements and DE-2/radar data. The model
convection patterns were organized by the interplanetary E-field. Qualitatively, the
empirical patterns are similar to those computed with models such as RCM. However, standard deviations are comparable to E-field absolute values, indicating significant variability of the field; this could be due to mesoscale structuring or induction E-fields.

''Pamela Puhl-Quinn'' described her recent work on analyzing simultaneous electric field
observations of sub-auroral ion drift (SAID) events using magnetospheric (Cluster) and
ionospheric (DMSP) E-field data. She showed one case study that showed quite good
agreement of Cluster and DMSP observations.

'''Session 3: The final session started as a continuation of the self-consistent interaction discussion.'''

''Mike Schulz'' gave some theoretical remarks on self-consistent interaction between plasma, electric and magnetic fields. He remarked that analytical formulations (e.g. the Dungey model) are useful for simulating realistic features. He warned against looking for causality in Maxwell’s equations, i.e. what is driving what. One can only say with regard to Maxwell’s equations that the right hand side equals the left
hand side.

''Jerry Goldstein'' presented an electric field model constructed from an externally driven electric field model (Volland-Stern) plus an internal SAPS model. By tracing particles in this combined model, with either observations or a plasmapause model for initialization, he obtained remarkably good correlation with MPA data of plume location.

''Tim Guild'' showed the effects of self-consistency in electric and magnetic fields on the plasma sheet control of ring current. For the study he used RCM, which has self-consistent electric fields, but did not include the charge exchange. He analyzed a moderate storm and found that adding magnetic self-consistency lowers the effect of
plasma sheet density on the ring current energy (the self-consistency in the E-field alone was already lowering it from a linear to a square root dependence on the PS density).

''Yukitoshi Nishimura'' presented storm-time large scale electric fields obtained from 7 years of Akebono observations. The largest fields are found at dawn and dusk. He also used the field to calculate empirical convection potentials. A twocell convection pattern is clearly observed. He further traced ions in the obtained empirical fields
and found significant energization.

''Jo Baker'' discussed SuperDARN measurements and implications for convection. He also
performed a test of equipotentiality of the magnetic field lines, by analyzing conjugate
SuperDARN and Cluster EDI measurements. While he found a fairly good correlation, there
was also large variance, which points out to nonequipotentiality (possible reasons for it being induced electric fields and field-aligned potential drops).

''Yihua Zheng'' looked at the influence of electric fields on the coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. She showed simulations with the CRCM model, with and without trough (low density plasma region) conditions. With trough conditions, the applied low Pedersen conductance in the trough leads to large amplitude flows (subauroral polarization streams, or SAPS) that resemble observations. She concluded that ionospheric changes affect the ring current through electromagnetic coupling.

''Sasha Ukhorskyi'' looked at radiation belt radial transport due to magnetopause compression from solar wind dynamic pressure variations. He used empirical B-field models and calculated the induced E-fields that are consistent with the Bfield
time dependence. He then analyzed the ULF waves from solar wind pressure spectral
fluctuations.

''Jimmy Raeder'' presented work done with W. Li on the formation of super-dense plasma sheet. In an OpenGGCM simulation, he showed that after northward IMF, southward IMF turning compresses the cold dense plasma on high latitude field lines, which is subsequently pushed toward the Earth by near-tail reconnection and forms the super dense plasma sheet near geo. orbit (MHD results compatible with MPA observations).

The second half of the session was a community discussion about the future direction of the focus group. Several people mentioned the familiar GEM concept of “Community Challenge” – it would be interesting to have in the near future (1-2 years) a challenge study whereby the models would all run an idealized event, so as to compare the results.
For the next GEM, two possible breakout session topics emerged: 1). Study the effect of
the added model features on model output, in order to find out which are crucial for inner magnetosphere physics modeling; quantify the relative effect of plasma sheet boundary properties, B and E self-consistency, anisotropy, losses in models; how are the new physics features verified by / improve consistency with observations? 2). Continuous improvement in empirical specification: better empirical plasma sheet models (including activity binning and ion composition), empirical E-field and plasmasphere models. These would also be the topics of a Mini-GEM session the focus group will be organizing in San Francisco the Sunday before the 2007 Fall AGU.

=== June 2008 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

== GEM Near-Earth Magnetosphere Challenge ==
Coming soon.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T11:17:14Z

Sazykin:

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group Overview ==
This focus group aims to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-
Earth (< 10 RE) magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere.
It broadens our understanding of inner magnetosphere plasma transport and includes the self-consistent coupling between plasma and electric and magnetic fields.
It also focuses on quantifying the effect of plasma sheet source populations on the evolution of the inner magnetosphere.

=== Scientific Motivation ===
Currently there are gaps, in both modeling and observations, in our knowledge of
both the fields and the plasma sheet boundary dependence. From a modeling point of view, a gap exists between self-consistent but physically oversimplified models and models that treat plasma correctly but not the fields. Existing global MHD models include self-consistent fields, but the MHD formalism cannot adequately describe the inner magnetosphere (closer than 10 RE), because it does not include gradient and curvature drifts. On the other hand, existing kinetic models (e.g. RAM, RCM, CRCM) treat plasma transport, acceleration and losses more or less realistically but
do not properly account for the effect of the plasma on the fields. Observationally, the fields are also rather poorly described. While empirical models have been constructed that statistically describe B-fields and convective E-fields, they hardly do so for specific events; moreover, no model exists for the inductive E-fields. Finally, the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere depends both on the physics mechanisms involved, but also on the plasma sheet inputs. No clear study of the relative importance of the two exists.
'''In summary, to further our knowledge of the inner magnetosphere we need better specification of the electric and magnetic fields, as well as of the driving plasma sheet properties. From a modeling point of view, it is desirable to have a kinetic approach that includes all relevant species (ions and electrons), self-consistent three-dimensional magnetic, convective and induced electric fields, as well as loss mechanisms.'''

=== Goals ===
This focus group will include both modeling and observational components that will improve the knowledge and specification of the inner magnetosphere electric and magnetic fields, their interaction with the plasma, as well as their dependence on the plasma sheet populations; a main deliverable will be the development of a realistic inner magnetosphere GGCM module, consistent with the main goal of the GEM program.

=== Potential Research Topics ===
#Effect of the 3D self-consistent feedback between plasma and magnetic field on the inner magnetosphere particle transport and acceleration during various activity such as storms and substorms.
#Specification (observational and modeling) of the convective E-field during storms, Region-2 field aligned currents, coupling to ionosphere and shielding.
#Magnitude and location of the inductive E-fields arising from time-varying B-fields, through both modeling and observations (e.g. conjugate measurements – in situ plus ionospheric).
#Effect of plasma sheet density, temperature and local time distribution on the large-scale morphology of the ring current ions and electrons in the inner magnetosphere.
#Parameterization and relative importance of various loss processes during active times, including extreme disturbances.
#Influence of inner magnetosphere fields on radiation belt particles; adiabatic effect; radial diffusion - what part, if any, of ULF wave diffusion is captured by time changing model fields?
#Coupling of inner magnetosphere models with outer MHD models; which is driving which.

=== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ===
Full text of the proposal to the GEM steering committee that led to creation of the focus group can be found here:
[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/GEM_FGProp-2006-NearEarth.pdf PDF proposal]

== GEM Workshop meeting reports ==

=== June 2007 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere Focus Group held three breakout sessions at the 2007 GEM, on Wednesday, June 20.

'''Session 1. The topic of this session was the influence of plasma sheet properties on the ring current.'''

''Benoit Lavraud'' showed that a cold, dense plasma sheet leads to enhanced ring current. Comparing RAM simulation results for the proton ring current with idealized boundary conditions of cold vs. hot plasma sheet (with the same energy density), he found that cold plasma sheet can penetrate much closer to Earth (due to its reduced
gradient-B drift). He also presented observations of the cold dense plasma sheet (CDPS), which show 2 distinct populations at midnight and dawn. The source and degree of participation of the dawn population to the ring current are questions that need to be answered in the future.

''Chih-Ping Wang'' analyzed the dependence of plasma sheet properties, during northward IMF, on solar wind (SW) density, velocity and IMF Bz, using Geotail, ACE and Wind data. The data was separated into 8 bins, corresponding to low/high value combinations of the 3 driving parameters. The parameter combination of high SW density, high IMF Bz and low velocity was found to lead to a cold plasma sheet with highest density and lowest temperature. On the other hand, a low SW density, low Bz and high velocity result in a hot and tenuous plasma sheet (lowest density, but highest temperature).

''Margaret Chen'' used Wang’s two extreme plasma sheet conditions (cold/dense and hot/tenuous) from Geotail data as boundary conditions for her magnetically self-consistent ring current model. First, she traced ions with the Magnetospheric Specification Model (MSM) from Geotail orbit to geosynchronous, and then used the values there as boundary conditions. She found that the cold/dense plasma sheet leads
to much stronger ring current. She concluded that accurate ring current modeling requires realistic modeling of pre-storm plasma sheet.

''Colby Lemon'' addressed the question of how the fast initial recovery of a storm may be affected by plasma sheet density and convection strength. He showed 6 simulations performed with the RCM-E model, with different plasma sheet densities and polar cap potential drops. The results show that lower plasma sheet densities lead to faster recovery, with the fastest recovery resulting when plasma sheet density is lowest while convection is still strong.

''Vahe Peroomian'' looked at ion access and energization by tracing particles in the fields of a global MHD storm simulation. Oxygen ions were launched from the ionosphere, with protons launched in the solar wind. While direct entry (through the plasma sheet) into the ring current was found to occur, Vahe found that ion transport from the distant tail to inner magnetosphere can be also indirect, with particles moving along
dynamic field lines and ending up much closer to Earth after mirroring, thus bypassing the plasma sheet.

''Liz MacDonald'' studied the influence of ion composition at geo. orbit on the ring current. By performing RAM simulations with various H+/O+ boundary composition ratios, she obtained very different ring current pressure, showing that ion composition plays a very significant role in the ring current. She then described the upcoming oxygen monitoring capability at geosynchronous that will be on LANL satellites, through the
Advanced Miniaturized Plasma Spectrometer (AMPS), which will measure H+, O+, He++ and
e-.

''Jichun Zhang'' presented an RCM study of depleted entropy channels (bubbles) injected into the inner magnetosphere. The bubbles are imposed by reducing the PV^gamma content. He found that bubbles lead to higher plasma energy density. In particular, the electric field is increased inside depleted channels, which injects fresh particles more effectively. The violation of adiabaticity (which presumably causes the bubbles) pushes the ring current farther inward and seems to be a key element in storm physics.

''Yongliang Zhang'' discussed the ring current aurora (RCA) – a new terminology for aurora emissions due to precipitating particles from the ring current. He showed that global FUV imagers provide insight into the RCA because they image proton precipitation. As observations of RCA provide information on loss processes in the RC,
he concluded that global auroras should be used in validating magnetospheric models.

''Pontus Brandt'' showed a study performed with Shin Ohtani on global circulation of oxygen ions. ENA observations show strong energization of RC O+ ions during substorms,
with protons less energized. CRCM simulations of a substorm coupled with test particle ions successfully reproduce the oxygen ion energization, with the take-home message being that oxygen ions make the ring current stronger.

'''Session 2: The topic of the second session was the self-consistent interaction between plasma and electric and magnetic fields in the inner magnetosphere.'''

''Sorin Zaharia'' described the inner magnetosphere model that is developed at LANL based on his 3D magnetic field solver and Vania Jordanova’s RAM code. Recently,
the code has been extended to ~10 Re in the tail, with the outer plasma boundary condition there taken from observational profiles. Sorin showed that taking into account the effect of plasma on the B-field leads to very different results than if
a dipole field is used. When the self-consistent simulation of a moderate storm is compared with the one using a dipole B-field, it was found that there are significant deviations of the field from dipolar even at L=4-5, lower plasma pressure, and noticeable variability in radial profiles.

''Mike Liemohn'' addressed the question of small scale E-field structuring in the inner
magnetosphere that he finds in his ring current simulations. Mike showed a simulation of the April 22, 2001 storm, in which plasma pressure becomes structured – at the same time, small structuring is seen in the computed E-field. According to Mike’s analysis, ENA images in the tens of keV energy range would not be sufficient for the IMAGE HENA instrument to resolve the structuring. Mike challenged the audience to identify data that could be used to prove or disprove his model results.

''Vania Jordanova'' showed RAM simulations with different B-fields (dipole, empirical Tsyganenko, and self-consistent computed with the Zaharia solver) also for the 22 April 2001 storm. Vania found that results differ significantly for the different field models. In general, the empirical T04S field yields the largest gradient/curvature
drift velocities. In the storm main phase, proton fluxes are smallest with T04S and total ring current density is reduced compared to the dipole case. The self-consistent B-field yields intermediate results. With non-dipolar B-fields, localized pressure peaks appear. Also, with the self-consistent B-field, strong EMIC waves are
predicted at larger L.

''Mark Engebretson'' presented EMIC wave observations, bringing up the question of why
ground-based signatures of EMIC waves are not observed in the plasmapause region during the main/early recovery phase, but are in the late recovery phase. Mark showed conjunction ground based/spacecraft data (with two spacecraft, one at 4500 km altitude and the other one at geo) at L=4.5 for one storm. In the main phase, the data shows EMIC wave activity out in the magnetosphere but waves are not observed on the ground or at 4500 km. This might suggest that the waves are absorbed well above the ionosphere or
are not emitted in the direction of the ground.

''Frank Toffoletto'' showed RCM-E simulations of an idealized substorm growth phase. After running the model for ~4 hrs, the pressure and magnetic fields consistently display oscillatory structure, which could be physical instabilities. An eigenmode analysis of the RCM-E configuration with Chris Crabtree’s code finds a tail region between 10 and 15 Re to be ballooning unstable when the field is very stretched. While
RCM-E cannot model the instability evolution, this result may indicate that adiabaticity is violated in the unstable region. Reducing the adiabatic invariant in an ad-hoc manner on the RCM-E boundary leads to B-field dipolarization and injection of a noticeable ring current.

''Hiroshi Matsui'' presented an empirical model of the convection E-field in the inner
magnetosphere based on Cluster E-field measurements and DE-2/radar data. The model
convection patterns were organized by the interplanetary E-field. Qualitatively, the
empirical patterns are similar to those computed with models such as RCM. However, standard deviations are comparable to E-field absolute values, indicating significant variability of the field; this could be due to mesoscale structuring or induction E-fields.

''Pamela Puhl-Quinn'' described her recent work on analyzing simultaneous electric field
observations of sub-auroral ion drift (SAID) events using magnetospheric (Cluster) and
ionospheric (DMSP) E-field data. She showed one case study that showed quite good
agreement of Cluster and DMSP observations.

'''Session 3: The final session started as a continuation of the self-consistent interaction discussion.'''

''Mike Schulz'' gave some theoretical remarks on self-consistent interaction between plasma, electric and magnetic fields. He remarked that analytical formulations (e.g. the Dungey model) are useful for simulating realistic features. He warned against looking for causality in Maxwell’s equations, i.e. what is driving what. One can only say with regard to Maxwell’s equations that the right hand side equals the left
hand side.

''Jerry Goldstein'' presented an electric field model constructed from an externally driven electric field model (Volland-Stern) plus an internal SAPS model. By tracing particles in this combined model, with either observations or a plasmapause model for initialization, he obtained remarkably good correlation with MPA data of plume location.

''Tim Guild'' showed the effects of self-consistency in electric and magnetic fields on the plasma sheet control of ring current. For the study he used RCM, which has self-consistent electric fields, but did not include the charge exchange. He analyzed a moderate storm and found that adding magnetic self-consistency lowers the effect of
plasma sheet density on the ring current energy (the self-consistency in the E-field alone was already lowering it from a linear to a square root dependence on the PS density).

''Yukitoshi Nishimura'' presented storm-time large scale electric fields obtained from 7 years of Akebono observations. The largest fields are found at dawn and dusk. He also used the field to calculate empirical convection potentials. A twocell convection pattern is clearly observed. He further traced ions in the obtained empirical fields
and found significant energization.

''Jo Baker'' discussed SuperDARN measurements and implications for convection. He also
performed a test of equipotentiality of the magnetic field lines, by analyzing conjugate
SuperDARN and Cluster EDI measurements. While he found a fairly good correlation, there
was also large variance, which points out to nonequipotentiality (possible reasons for it being induced electric fields and field-aligned potential drops).

''Yihua Zheng'' looked at the influence of electric fields on the coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. She showed simulations with the CRCM model, with and without trough (low density plasma region) conditions. With trough conditions, the applied low Pedersen conductance in the trough leads to large amplitude flows (subauroral polarization streams, or SAPS) that resemble observations. She concluded that ionospheric changes affect the ring current through electromagnetic coupling.

''Sasha Ukhorskyi'' looked at radiation belt radial transport due to magnetopause compression from solar wind dynamic pressure variations. He used empirical B-field models and calculated the induced E-fields that are consistent with the Bfield
time dependence. He then analyzed the ULF waves from solar wind pressure spectral
fluctuations.

''Jimmy Raeder'' presented work done with W. Li on the formation of super-dense plasma sheet. In an OpenGGCM simulation, he showed that after northward IMF, southward IMF turning compresses the cold dense plasma on high latitude field lines, which is subsequently pushed toward the Earth by near-tail reconnection and forms the super dense plasma sheet near geo. orbit (MHD results compatible with MPA observations).

The second half of the session was a community discussion about the future direction of the focus group. Several people mentioned the familiar GEM concept of “Community Challenge” – it would be interesting to have in the near future (1-2 years) a challenge study whereby the models would all run an idealized event, so as to compare the results.
For the next GEM, two possible breakout session topics emerged: 1). Study the effect of
the added model features on model output, in order to find out which are crucial for inner magnetosphere physics modeling; quantify the relative effect of plasma sheet boundary properties, B and E self-consistency, anisotropy, losses in models; how are the new physics features verified by / improve consistency with observations? 2). Continuous improvement in empirical specification: better empirical plasma sheet models (including activity binning and ion composition), empirical E-field and plasmasphere models. These would also be the topics of a Mini-GEM session the focus group will be organizing in San Francisco the Sunday before the 2007 Fall AGU.

=== June 2008 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T09:44:16Z

Sazykin: /* June 2007 GEM meeting report */

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group Overview ==
This focus group aims to improve physical knowledge and modeling of the near-
Earth (< 10 RE) magnetosphere and its coupling with the outer magnetosphere.
It broadens our understanding of inner magnetosphere plasma transport and includes the self-consistent coupling between plasma and electric and magnetic fields.
It also focuses on quantifying the effect of plasma sheet source populations on the evolution of the inner magnetosphere.

=== Scientific Motivation ===
Currently there are gaps, in both modeling and observations, in our knowledge of
both the fields and the plasma sheet boundary dependence. From a modeling point of view, a gap exists between self-consistent but physically oversimplified models and models that treat plasma correctly but not the fields. Existing global MHD models include self-consistent fields, but the MHD formalism cannot adequately describe the inner magnetosphere (closer than 10 RE), because it does not include gradient and curvature drifts. On the other hand, existing kinetic models (e.g. RAM, RCM, CRCM) treat plasma transport, acceleration and losses more or less realistically but
do not properly account for the effect of the plasma on the fields. Observationally, the fields are also rather poorly described. While empirical models have been constructed that statistically describe B-fields and convective E-fields, they hardly do so for specific events; moreover, no model exists for the inductive E-fields. Finally, the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere depends both on the physics mechanisms involved, but also on the plasma sheet inputs. No clear study of the relative importance of the two exists.
'''In summary, to further our knowledge of the inner magnetosphere we need better specification of the electric and magnetic fields, as well as of the driving plasma sheet properties. From a modeling point of view, it is desirable to have a kinetic approach that includes all relevant species (ions and electrons), self-consistent three-dimensional magnetic, convective and induced electric fields, as well as loss mechanisms.'''

=== Goals ===
This focus group will include both modeling and observational components that will improve the knowledge and specification of the inner magnetosphere electric and magnetic fields, their interaction with the plasma, as well as their dependence on the plasma sheet populations; a main deliverable will be the development of a realistic inner magnetosphere GGCM module, consistent with the main goal of the GEM program.

=== Potential Research Topics ===
#Effect of the 3D self-consistent feedback between plasma and magnetic field on the inner magnetosphere particle transport and acceleration during various activity such as storms and substorms.
#Specification (observational and modeling) of the convective E-field during storms, Region-2 field aligned currents, coupling to ionosphere and shielding.
#Magnitude and location of the inductive E-fields arising from time-varying B-fields, through both modeling and observations (e.g. conjugate measurements – in situ plus ionospheric).
#Effect of plasma sheet density, temperature and local time distribution on the large-scale morphology of the ring current ions and electrons in the inner magnetosphere.
#Parameterization and relative importance of various loss processes during active times, including extreme disturbances.
#Influence of inner magnetosphere fields on radiation belt particles; adiabatic effect; radial diffusion - what part, if any, of ULF wave diffusion is captured by time changing model fields?
#Coupling of inner magnetosphere models with outer MHD models; which is driving which.

=== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ===
Full text of the proposal to the GEM steering committee that led to creation of the focus group can be found here:
[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/GEM_FGProp-2006-NearEarth.pdf PDF proposal]

== GEM Workshop meeting reports ==

=== June 2007 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere Focus Group held three breakout sessions at the 2007 GEM, on Wednesday, June 20.

'''Session 1. The topic of this session was the influence of plasma sheet properties on the ring current.'''

''Benoit Lavraud'' showed that a cold, dense plasma sheet leads to enhanced ring current. Comparing RAM simulation results for the proton ring current with idealized boundary conditions of cold vs. hot plasma sheet (with the same energy density), he found that cold plasma sheet can penetrate much closer to Earth (due to its reduced
gradient-B drift). He also presented observations of the cold dense plasma sheet (CDPS), which show 2 distinct populations at midnight and dawn. The source and degree of participation of the dawn population to the ring current are questions that need to be answered in the future.

''Chih-Ping Wang'' analyzed the dependence of plasma sheet properties, during northward IMF, on solar wind (SW) density, velocity and IMF Bz, using Geotail, ACE and Wind data. The data was separated into 8 bins, corresponding to low/high value combinations of the 3 driving parameters. The parameter combination of high SW density, high IMF Bz and low velocity was found to lead to a cold plasma sheet with highest density and lowest temperature. On the other hand, a low SW density, low Bz and high velocity result in a hot and tenuous plasma sheet (lowest density, but highest temperature).

''Margaret Chen'' used Wang’s two extreme plasma sheet conditions (cold/dense and hot/tenuous) from Geotail data as boundary conditions for her magnetically self-consistent ring current model. First, she traced ions with the Magnetospheric Specification Model (MSM) from Geotail orbit to geosynchronous, and then used the values there as boundary conditions. She found that the cold/dense plasma sheet leads
to much stronger ring current. She concluded that accurate ring current modeling requires realistic modeling of pre-storm plasma sheet.

''Colby Lemon'' addressed the question of how the fast initial recovery of a storm may be affected by plasma sheet density and convection strength. He showed 6 simulations performed with the RCM-E model, with different plasma sheet densities and polar cap potential drops. The results show that lower plasma sheet densities lead to faster recovery, with the fastest recovery resulting when plasma sheet density is lowest while convection is still strong.

''Vahe Peroomian'' looked at ion access and energization by tracing particles in the fields of a global MHD storm simulation. Oxygen ions were launched from the ionosphere, with protons launched in the solar wind. While direct entry (through the plasma sheet) into the ring current was found to occur, Vahe found that ion transport from the distant tail to inner magnetosphere can be also indirect, with particles moving along
dynamic field lines and ending up much closer to Earth after mirroring, thus bypassing the plasma sheet.

''Liz MacDonald'' studied the influence of ion composition at geo. orbit on the ring current. By performing RAM simulations with various H+/O+ boundary composition ratios, she obtained very different ring current pressure, showing that ion composition plays a very significant role in the ring current. She then described the upcoming oxygen monitoring capability at geosynchronous that will be on LANL satellites, through the
Advanced Miniaturized Plasma Spectrometer (AMPS), which will measure H+, O+, He++ and
e-.

''Jichun Zhang'' presented an RCM study of depleted entropy channels (bubbles) injected into the inner magnetosphere. The bubbles are imposed by reducing the PV^gamma content. He found that bubbles lead to higher plasma energy density. In particular, the electric field is increased inside depleted channels, which injects fresh particles more effectively. The violation of adiabaticity (which presumably causes the bubbles) pushes the ring current farther inward and seems to be a key element in storm physics.

''Yongliang Zhang'' discussed the ring current aurora (RCA) – a new terminology for aurora emissions due to precipitating particles from the ring current. He showed that global FUV imagers provide insight into the RCA because they image proton precipitation. As observations of RCA provide information on loss processes in the RC,
he concluded that global auroras should be used in validating magnetospheric models.

''Pontus Brandt'' showed a study performed with Shin Ohtani on global circulation of oxygen ions. ENA observations show strong energization of RC O+ ions during substorms,
with protons less energized. CRCM simulations of a substorm coupled with test particle ions successfully reproduce the oxygen ion energization, with the take-home message being that oxygen ions make the ring current stronger.

'''Session 2: The topic of the second session was the self-consistent interaction between plasma and electric and magnetic fields in the inner magnetosphere.'''

''Sorin Zaharia'' described the inner magnetosphere model that is developed at LANL based on his 3D magnetic field solver and Vania Jordanova’s RAM code. Recently,
the code has been extended to ~10 Re in the tail, with the outer plasma boundary condition there taken from observational profiles. Sorin showed that taking into account the effect of plasma on the B-field leads to very different results than if
a dipole field is used. When the self-consistent simulation of a moderate storm is compared with the one using a dipole B-field, it was found that there are significant deviations of the field from dipolar even at L=4-5, lower plasma pressure, and noticeable variability in radial profiles.

''Mike Liemohn'' addressed the question of small scale E-field structuring in the inner
magnetosphere that he finds in his ring current simulations. Mike showed a simulation of the April 22, 2001 storm, in which plasma pressure becomes structured – at the same time, small structuring is seen in the computed E-field. According to Mike’s analysis, ENA images in the tens of keV energy range would not be sufficient for the IMAGE HENA instrument to resolve the structuring. Mike challenged the audience to identify data that could be used to prove or disprove his model results.

''Vania Jordanova'' showed RAM simulations with different B-fields (dipole, empirical Tsyganenko, and self-consistent computed with the Zaharia solver) also for the 22 April 2001 storm. Vania found that results differ significantly for the different field models. In general, the empirical T04S field yields the largest gradient/curvature
drift velocities. In the storm main phase, proton fluxes are smallest with T04S and total ring current density is reduced compared to the dipole case. The self-consistent B-field yields intermediate results. With non-dipolar B-fields, localized pressure peaks appear. Also, with the self-consistent B-field, strong EMIC waves are
predicted at larger L.

''Mark Engebretson'' presented EMIC wave observations, bringing up the question of why
ground-based signatures of EMIC waves are not observed in the plasmapause region during the main/early recovery phase, but are in the late recovery phase. Mark showed conjunction ground based/spacecraft data (with two spacecraft, one at 4500 km altitude and the other one at geo) at L=4.5 for one storm. In the main phase, the data shows EMIC wave activity out in the magnetosphere but waves are not observed on the ground or at 4500 km. This might suggest that the waves are absorbed well above the ionosphere or
are not emitted in the direction of the ground.

''Frank Toffoletto'' showed RCM-E simulations of an idealized substorm growth phase. After running the model for ~4 hrs, the pressure and magnetic fields consistently display oscillatory structure, which could be physical instabilities. An eigenmode analysis of the RCM-E configuration with Chris Crabtree’s code finds a tail region between 10 and 15 Re to be ballooning unstable when the field is very stretched. While
RCM-E cannot model the instability evolution, this result may indicate that adiabaticity is violated in the unstable region. Reducing the adiabatic invariant in an ad-hoc manner on the RCM-E boundary leads to B-field dipolarization and injection of a noticeable ring current.

''Hiroshi Matsui'' presented an empirical model of the convection E-field in the inner
magnetosphere based on Cluster E-field measurements and DE-2/radar data. The model
convection patterns were organized by the interplanetary E-field. Qualitatively, the
empirical patterns are similar to those computed with models such as RCM. However, standard deviations are comparable to E-field absolute values, indicating significant variability of the field; this could be due to mesoscale structuring or induction E-fields.

''Pamela Puhl-Quinn'' described her recent work on analyzing simultaneous electric field
observations of sub-auroral ion drift (SAID) events using magnetospheric (Cluster) and
ionospheric (DMSP) E-field data. She showed one case study that showed quite good
agreement of Cluster and DMSP observations.

'''Session 3: The final session started as a continuation of the self-consistent interaction discussion.'''

''Mike Schulz'' gave some theoretical remarks on self-consistent interaction between plasma, electric and magnetic fields. He remarked that analytical formulations (e.g. the Dungey model) are useful for simulating realistic features. He warned against looking for causality in Maxwell’s equations, i.e. what is driving what. One can only say with regard to Maxwell’s equations that the right hand side equals the left
hand side.

''Jerry Goldstein'' presented an electric field model constructed from an externally driven electric field model (Volland-Stern) plus an internal SAPS model. By tracing particles in this combined model, with either observations or a plasmapause model for initialization, he obtained remarkably good correlation with MPA data of plume location.

''Tim Guild'' showed the effects of self-consistency in electric and magnetic fields on the plasma sheet control of ring current. For the study he used RCM, which has self-consistent electric fields, but did not include the charge exchange. He analyzed a moderate storm and found that adding magnetic self-consistency lowers the effect of
plasma sheet density on the ring current energy (the self-consistency in the E-field alone was already lowering it from a linear to a square root dependence on the PS density).

''Yukitoshi Nishimura'' presented storm-time large scale electric fields obtained from 7 years of Akebono observations. The largest fields are found at dawn and dusk. He also used the field to calculate empirical convection potentials. A twocell convection pattern is clearly observed. He further traced ions in the obtained empirical fields
and found significant energization.

''Jo Baker'' discussed SuperDARN measurements and implications for convection. He also
performed a test of equipotentiality of the magnetic field lines, by analyzing conjugate
SuperDARN and Cluster EDI measurements. While he found a fairly good correlation, there
was also large variance, which points out to nonequipotentiality (possible reasons for it being induced electric fields and field-aligned potential drops).

''Yihua Zheng'' looked at the influence of electric fields on the coupling between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. She showed simulations with the CRCM model, with and without trough (low density plasma region) conditions. With trough conditions, the applied low Pedersen conductance in the trough leads to large amplitude flows (subauroral polarization streams, or SAPS) that resemble observations. She concluded that ionospheric changes affect the ring current
through electromagnetic coupling.
Sasha Ukhorskyi looked at radiation belt radial
transport due to magnetopause compression
from solar wind dynamic pressure variations. He
used empirical B-field models and calculated the
induced E-fields that are consistent with the Bfield
time dependence. He then analyzed the
ULF waves from solar wind pressure spectral
fluctuations.
Jimmy Raeder presented work done with W. Li
on the formation of super-dense plasma sheet. In
an OpenGGCM simulation, he showed that after
northward IMF, southward IMF turning
compresses the cold dense plasma on high
latitude field lines, which is subsequently
pushed toward the Earth by near-tail
reconnection and forms the super dense plasma
sheet near geo. orbit (MHD results compatible
with MPA observations).
The second half of the session was a community
discussion about the future direction of the focus
group. Several people mentioned the familiar
GEM concept of “Community Challenge” – it
would be interesting to have in the near future
(1-2 years) a challenge study whereby the
models would all run an idealized event, so as to
compare the results.
For the next GEM, two possible breakout
session topics emerged: 1). Study the effect of
the added model features on model output, in
order to find out which are crucial for inner
magnetosphere physics modeling; quantify the
relative effect of plasma sheet boundary
properties, B and E self-consistency, anisotropy,
losses in models; how are the new physics
features verified by / improve consistency with
observations? 2). Continuous improvement in
empirical specification: better empirical plasma
sheet models (including activity binning and ion
composition), empirical E-field and
plasmasphere models. These would also be the

=== June 2008 GEM meeting report ===
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T09:15:20Z

Sazykin:

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T09:12:18Z

Sazykin: /* Scientific Motivation */

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T09:09:32Z

Sazykin:

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T09:08:12Z

Sazykin:

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T09:07:02Z

Sazykin: /* Group description and goals */

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T08:53:21Z

Sazykin: /* Original proposal to the GEM steering committee */

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group description and goals ==

== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ==
Full text of the proposal to the GEM steering committee that led to creation of the focus group can be found here:
[http://rcm.rice.edu/~sazykin/GEM/GEM_FGProp-2006-NearEarth.pdf PDF proposal]

== June 2007 GEM meeting report ==

== June 2008 GEM meeting report ==
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T07:37:01Z

Sazykin:

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== Group description and goals ==

== Original proposal to the GEM steering committee ==

== June 2007 GEM meeting report ==

== June 2008 GEM meeting report ==
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T07:33:41Z

Sazykin:

__TOC__
'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

Original proposal to the GEM steering committee
== June 2007 GEM meeting report ==

== June 2008 GEM meeting report ==
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T07:18:39Z

Sazykin:

'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

Original proposal to the GEM steering committee
== June 2007 GEM meeting report ==

== June 2008 GEM meeting report ==
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-30T06:52:06Z

Sazykin:

'''Co-chairs:
*Sorin Zaharia (szaharia [at] lanl.gov)
*Stan Sazykin (sazykin [at] rice.edu) and
*Benoit Lavraud (Benoit.Lavraud [at] cesr.fr)'''

== June 2008 GEM meeting report ==
The Near Earth Magnetosphere focus group held 3 breakout sessions in its 2nd year of activity at the 2008 GEM Summer Workshop in Zermatt, UT. The main goal of the focus group is to improve physical knowledge and modeling of near-Earth magnetosphere and its coupling with outer magnetosphere. The focus group is coordinated by Sorin Zaharia, Stan Sazykin and Benoit Lavraud.

The three focus group sessions, held on Tuesday and Wednesday (06/24-25) were well attended and featured short presentations and discussions of progress on the two main research fronts the focus group has concentrated to achieve its goals:

1. Data-based/empirical models - short presentations described both continuing progress on empirical modeling (such as the UNH IMEF E-field model), as well as a significant number of new research efforts on this front, from new magnetic field to plasma pressure models; below is a synopsis of the main topics discussed:
* Empirical plasma sheet specification – either for use in models (C. Lemon, a plasma sheet property database for geosynchronous orbit) or validating model results, e.g. observational verification of ring current injection from the plasma sheet (C.-P. Wang, Themis observations)
* Empirical E-field specification: overview of improvements in the UNH IMEF model based on Cluster data - the model is now publicly available (H. Matsui, P. Puhl-Quinn); its first use in a physics-based ring current model (V. Jordanova, RAM); dichotomy between convective electric field dependence on IMF southward turning in the plasma sheet vs. earthward of it (Y. Nishimura)
* Empirical B-field: M. Sitnov, new dynamical model (with a dramatic increase in spatial resolution); J. Zhang, T89GS - model constrained by spacecraft observations that satisfies force balance near spacecraft; R. Denton – adjusting TS05 model to better fit GOES observations; N. Ganushkina - event-oriented B-field model – modification of Tsyganenko model (good for studying detailed magnetic field variations for a specific event, time period, or magnetospheric region)
* Empirical plasma pressure model of the inner magnetosphere (P. Brandt – obtained by combining in-situ with global ENA observations)
* Radar observations of ionospheric convection (L. Lyons, Poker Flats AMISR; J. Baker, mid-latitude SuperDARN); qualitatively similar features observed in model results (Lyons, RCM)

2. The second research area, physics-based modeling, tackled mostly the coupling between different elements in the models (plasma, electric and magnetic fields); highlights from the presentations include:
* Modeling many events with simple setup (model works better for one storm type, i.e. sheath-driven storms, suggesting different storm drivers lead to more or less complex inner magnetosphere physics) (M. Liemohn, HEIDI - Michigan RAM)
* Ballooning instability in RCM-E; continued driving, simulating a growth phase, pushes the magnetosphere toward both MHD and fast MHD unstable states (F. Toffoletto)
* Substorm simulations: with RCM-E (J. Yang, using Geotail data to set up boundary; results consistent with observations); with a “bubble” imposed (RCM with new T89GS force-balanced model - J. Zhang; injection of bubble leads to higher pressure in the near-Earth magnetosphere)
* Wave studies: analytical pitch-angle diffusion - three lowest eigenvalues for the pitch-angle diffusion coefficient (M. Schulz; results could be used in ring current models); connection theory/observations - whistler modes (derived from LANL plasma observations + linear theory; enhanced growth rates found in the recovery phase; E. MacDonald)
* Effect of plasma boundary on RC injection (cold dense plasma more geoeffective; local time boundary distribution also very important - B. Lavraud, RAM; in simulations with self-consistent E-field, higher plasma sheet pressure causes quicker shielding of the penetration E-field - M. Gkioulidou, RCM)
* 1-way coupling of RAM with self-consistent B-field with SWMF (using SWMF pressure on RAM boundary) reconfirms previous results that cold, dense plasma sheet –a common feature in MHD models – is more “geoeffective,” i.e. leads to higher inner magnetosphere plasma pressure) (S. Zaharia)

The second half of the 3rd breakout session was devoted to a community discussion in which a future modeling challenge relevant to Focus Group goals emerged. The challenge will entail several near-Earth/inner magnetosphere models simulating, with same (or equivalent) input, both an idealized and a real event (geomagnetic storm). The challenge will bring together researchers from all major near-Earth magnetosphere modeling groups : RAM-SC B (LANL); HEIDI (Michigan RAM), RCM, RCM-E, CRCM, M. Chen’s model. The challenge will involve 3 stages: 1). Idealized event, with simple inputs/physics (with the goal of setting a baseline for all models). The second and third stage will involve full-physics modeling of an idealized and real event, respectively (thus the 3rd stage will involve both modelers and data analysts). More details about the challenge/model setup will be communicated to the community via e-mail and the new Focus Group Wiki. It is expected that the first stage be completed by and results presented at the 2008 GEM Mini-workshop (Sunday before AGU Meeting) in December, where the focus group plans to have a session. The 2009 Summer Workshop will then see initial results from the simulation of an idealized event with full model capabilities, with the goal of finding out the relative role of different physics features (e.g. plasma/fields self-consistency) present in the models.

FG8. Near Earth Magnetosphere: plasma, fields, and coupling

2008-07-09T21:18:41Z

Sazykin: New page: == '''Near-Earth Magnetosphere: Plasma, Fields, and Coupling''' ==

== '''Near-Earth Magnetosphere: Plasma, Fields, and Coupling''' ==