Difference between revisions of "Storm"

From gem
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
  
  
Ground-based:
+
- Space-based:
  
- Magnetometers
+
* AMPERE currents
  
- Incoherent Scatter Radar Ne, Te, Ti profiles
+
* DMSP j/4 electron precipitation & cross-track drifts
  
- SuperDARN line-of-sight
+
* MMS
  
- TEC
+
* Van Allen Probes
  
 +
* Other satellites as available (Geotail, ...)
  
Space-based:
 
  
- AMPERE currents
+
- Ground-based:
  
- DMSP j/4 electron precipitation & cross-track drifts
+
* Magnetometers
  
- MMS
+
* Incoherent Scatter Radar Ne, Te, Ti profiles
  
- Van Allen Probes
+
* SuperDARN line-of-sight
 
 
- Other satellites as available (Geotail, ...)
 
  
 +
* TEC
  
  
Line 46: Line 45:
  
  
N/S high-latitude ionosphere fields:
+
-Magnetosphere:
  
* Topside ion upflow
+
* MMS predictions
  
* Ionospheric convection potential
 
  
* Electron precipitation
+
-Inner Magnetosphere:
  
- Vertical TEC Structuring
+
* Calculated Dst and Ring Current
  
- Temperature structure
+
* 2D Ne, [O+], [H+], [He+] densities in equatorial plane
  
- Penetration electric fields
+
* Van Allen Probe predictions of HOPE instrument
  
  
N/S Polar Wind fields:
+
- N/S high-latitude ionosphere fields:
  
* 2D Ion outflow flux at 2.5 Re
+
* Topside ion upflow
  
* 2D Ion N, V, T at 2.5 Re
+
* Ionospheric convection potential
  
 +
* Electron precipitation
  
Inner Magnetosphere:
+
* Vertical TEC Structuring
  
* Calculated Dst and Ring Current
+
* Temperature structure
  
* 2D Ne, [O+], [H+], [He+] densities in equatorial plane
+
* Penetration electric fields
  
* Van Allen Probe predictions of HOPE instrument
 
  
 +
- N/S Polar Wind fields:
  
Magnetosphere:
+
* 2D Ion outflow flux at 2.5 Re
  
* MMS predictions
+
* 2D Ion N, V, T at 2.5 Re

Latest revision as of 11:39, 24 February 2017

M3-I2 Community Storm Study #1


Storm #1: 2016 Mar 4-9 (64-68) KDst = -98, Kp=6.3, F10.7=96, F107A=90

We propose modeling and measuring the two quiet days prior to the storm (4,5), the day of the storm main phase (6), and two recovery days (7,8).

The choice of this storm is based on the excellent measurement support of ground-based instrumentation and the reasonable support of magnetospheric satellites (MMS, Van Allen Probes). I choosing these two recent storms to encourage other validation focus groups within NSF-GEM and NSF-CEDAR communities to join in these model-measurement studies. This invitation includes magnetosphere, inner magnetosphere, ring current, polar wind outflow, high-latitude ionosphere & electrodynamics, and the full coupled system.




The M3-I2 focus group leaders are committed to helping the GEM/CEDAR community in the collection of reduced data sets including ground-based and space-based data sets:


- Space-based:

  • AMPERE currents
  • DMSP j/4 electron precipitation & cross-track drifts
  • MMS
  • Van Allen Probes
  • Other satellites as available (Geotail, ...)


- Ground-based:

  • Magnetometers
  • Incoherent Scatter Radar Ne, Te, Ti profiles
  • SuperDARN line-of-sight
  • TEC




The M3-I2 focus group leaders are also committed to helping the GEM/CEDAR community in the merging of models and sharing of results. We anticipate several nominal output fields but are open to new suggestions of important shared fields and benchmark results.


-Magnetosphere:

  • MMS predictions


-Inner Magnetosphere:

  • Calculated Dst and Ring Current
  • 2D Ne, [O+], [H+], [He+] densities in equatorial plane
  • Van Allen Probe predictions of HOPE instrument


- N/S high-latitude ionosphere fields:

  • Topside ion upflow
  • Ionospheric convection potential
  • Electron precipitation
  • Vertical TEC Structuring
  • Temperature structure
  • Penetration electric fields


- N/S Polar Wind fields:

  • 2D Ion outflow flux at 2.5 Re
  • 2D Ion N, V, T at 2.5 Re