Difference between revisions of "GEM/CEDAR M3-I2 Sessions"
Vinceeccles (talk | contribs) |
Vinceeccles (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
# <h1> Merged Modeling & Measurement of Ionospheric Plasma Injection into the Magnetosphere (M3I2) and Its Effects:<br> Plasma Sheet, Ring Current, and Substorm Dynamics </h1> | # <h1> Merged Modeling & Measurement of Ionospheric Plasma Injection into the Magnetosphere (M3I2) and Its Effects:<br> Plasma Sheet, Ring Current, and Substorm Dynamics </h1> | ||
| − | <!-- ============ | + | <!-- ============ CONVENORS SECTION ============== --> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
Co-Chairs: | Co-Chairs: | ||
| Line 18: | Line 13: | ||
[http://cass.usu.edu/htm/faculty-staff-students/research-scientists?memberID=10190 Vince Eccles, USU/CASS] | [http://cass.usu.edu/htm/faculty-staff-students/research-scientists?memberID=10190 Vince Eccles, USU/CASS] | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| − | |||
<!-- ============ RIGHT COLUMN (CONTENT) ============== --> | <!-- ============ RIGHT COLUMN (CONTENT) ============== --> | ||
Revision as of 12:14, 4 August 2016
Contents
- 1 Merged Modeling & Measurement of Ionospheric Plasma Injection into the Magnetosphere (M3I2) and Its Effects: Plasma Sheet, Ring Current, and Substorm Dynamics
- 2 M3-I2: GEM/CEDAR JOINT MEETING 2016 -- Santa Fe, NM
Merged Modeling & Measurement of Ionospheric Plasma Injection into the Magnetosphere (M3I2) and Its Effects:
Plasma Sheet, Ring Current, and Substorm Dynamics
Co-Chairs:
Shasha Zho, U. of Michigan/CLaSP
Barbara Giles, NASA/GSFC/GPL
Vince Eccles, USU/CASS
M3-I2: GEM/CEDAR JOINT MEETING 2016 -- Santa Fe, NM
Session 1: Monday PM1 - Status, Questions, & Opportunities
Magnetospheric Effects of Ionospheric Ingection
Attendence: ~45
Summary:
It has become apparent to the magnetospheric and inner magnetospheric
modeling community that model results are dramatically altered by the
presence and placement of ionospheric ions throughout the magnetosphere.
Both quiet time and storm time ionospheric upflow and outflow must be
correctly established to advance a better understanding of the
magnetosphere-ionosphere-thermosphere (M-I-T) coupled system.
This must truly be a GEM-CEDAR joint effort to address:
Invited speakers reviewed the status of current understanding and modeling of the effects of ionospheric ion injections on the magnetosphere. The GEM Focus Group Chairs presented goals-overview of plans and moderate a discussion on new in situ observational opportunities for metric studies on plasma sheet, ring current, and substorm dynamics to direct improvements in the current Geospace General Circulation Models (GGCMs).
Speakers:
<a href="http://sw04.spaceweather.usu.edu/~eccles/M3I2/2016_GEMCEDAR/Ion_Outflow_Overview_Rick_Chappell_GEMCEDAR2016.pdf"> Charles R. Chappell (Vanderbilt U): Changing the Paradigm! -- The Ionospheric Role in Filling the Magnetosphere with Plasma and Driving Its Dynamics</a>
<a href="http://sw04.spaceweather.usu.edu/~eccles/M3I2/2016_GEMCEDAR/Ion_Outflow_MHD_Effects_Daniel_Welling_GEMCEDAR2016.pdf"> Daniel Welling (U Mich): Outflow Really Matters! -- What GLobal MHD Modeling Tells Us About Outflow and the Magnetosphere</a>
Other Contributors:
Barbara Giles (NASA/GSFC): MMS Opportunities
Matina Gkioulidou (APL/JHU): Van Allen Probe Ring Current Observations
Naritoshi Kitamura (ISAS/JAXA): MMS FPI Observations
Jonathan Krall (NRL): Plasmapause in the SAMI3 model
Chris Mouikis (UNH): Dst storm epoch study of ion outflow
Lynn Kistler (UNH): Multi-satellite view of sawtooth storm morphology
Session 2: Monday PM2 - Status, Questions, & Opportunities
Polar Wind and the Ionospheric Boundary
Attendence: ~35
Summary:
Invited speakers reviewed the status of current understanding and modeling
of ion upflow initiated in the ionospheric boundary. This is key for
proper M-I-T coupling. There are many open questions on ion energization
for the ionospheric polar wind that the community still must address.
To address this question properly, the spatial and temporal variations
of the ionospheric boundary (below 600km) must be defined accurately
in the polar and sub-auroral regions for appropriate comparison of PW model
results to satellite data.
The GEM Focus Group Chairs present goals and moderated a discussion on
the open questions of ion upflow/outflow. This effort should strive
to marshal new in situ and ground-based observational abilities with
current modeling capabilities to addressing these open issues.
CEDAR scientists are strongly encouraged to participate in this session
as a collaborative GEM-CEDAR Session on M-I-T coupling.
<a href="http://sw04.spaceweather.usu.edu/~eccles/M3I2/2016_GEMCEDAR/Ion_Outflow_Modeling_Roger_Varney_GEMCEDAR2016.pdf">
Roger Varney (SRI): Areas for Improvement in Ion Outflow Modeling</a>
George Khazanov (NASA/GSFC): Polar Wind M-I-T Coupling: Kinetic vs Hydrodynamic</a>
Other Contributors:
Shunrong Zhang (U Mich): ISR campaign opportunities
Bruce Fritz (UNH): RENU2 Sounding Rocket
Douglas Rowland (NASA/GSFC): VISIONS Sounding Rocket
W. K. (Bill) Peterson (LASP): ePoP Status
Session 3 & 4: Friday PM - Recap, Organize, Planning
Attendence: ~25 and ~15
Summary:
Invited speaker reviewed the big picture possibilities of the
Focus Area for advancing community capabilities and GGCMs.
The Chairs summarized results of the previous two breakout sessions and
moderated a discussion on issues to address:
Robert Strangeway: What are the Questions of Ion Injection and Magnetospheric Response
Other Contributors:
Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Model (GPW)
Naritoshi Kitamura: Model and Measurement Comparisons of Ion Outflow
