Difference between revisions of "GEM/CEDAR M3-I2 Sessions"
Vinceeccles (talk | contribs) |
Vinceeccles (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- ============ TITLE SECTION ============== --> | <!-- ============ TITLE SECTION ============== --> | ||
<h1> 2016 GEM/CEDAR JOINT MEETING -- Santa Fe, NM </h1> | <h1> 2016 GEM/CEDAR JOINT MEETING -- Santa Fe, NM </h1> | ||
− | |||
<!-- ============ CONVENORS SECTION ============== --> | <!-- ============ CONVENORS SECTION ============== --> | ||
− | |||
<h2> Co-Chairs for M3-I2 Sessions </h2> | <h2> Co-Chairs for M3-I2 Sessions </h2> | ||
− | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
[http://clasp.engin.umich.edu/people/shashaz Shasha Zho, U. of Michigan/CLaSP] | [http://clasp.engin.umich.edu/people/shashaz Shasha Zho, U. of Michigan/CLaSP] | ||
Line 13: | Line 10: | ||
[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> | ||
− | |||
<!-- ============ SESSIONS ============== --> | <!-- ============ SESSIONS ============== --> | ||
− | |||
<h2>Session 1: Monday PM1 - Status, Questions, & Opportunities<br>Magnetospheric Effects of Ionospheric Ingection</h2> | <h2>Session 1: Monday PM1 - Status, Questions, & Opportunities<br>Magnetospheric Effects of Ionospheric Ingection</h2> | ||
− | + | <br> | |
Attendence: ~45 | Attendence: ~45 | ||
− | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
Summary: | Summary: | ||
− | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
It has become apparent to the magnetospheric and inner magnetospheric | It has become apparent to the magnetospheric and inner magnetospheric | ||
Line 31: | Line 24: | ||
magnetosphere-ionosphere-thermosphere (M-I-T) coupled system. | magnetosphere-ionosphere-thermosphere (M-I-T) coupled system. | ||
This must truly be a GEM-CEDAR joint effort to address: | This must truly be a GEM-CEDAR joint effort to address: | ||
− | + | <br> | |
<li> the ionosphere boundary layer, | <li> the ionosphere boundary layer, | ||
<li> the ion energization region of the polar wind | <li> the ion energization region of the polar wind | ||
<li> the magnetospheric response to solar wind drivers and the ionospheric outflow | <li> the magnetospheric response to solar wind drivers and the ionospheric outflow | ||
<li> the feedback into the lower ionosphere-thermosphere | <li> the feedback into the lower ionosphere-thermosphere | ||
− | + | <br> | |
Invited speakers reviewed the status of current understanding and | Invited speakers reviewed the status of current understanding and | ||
modeling of the effects of ionospheric ion injections on the magnetosphere. | modeling of the effects of ionospheric ion injections on the magnetosphere. | ||
Line 43: | Line 36: | ||
for metric studies on plasma sheet, ring current, and substorm dynamics | for metric studies on plasma sheet, ring current, and substorm dynamics | ||
to direct improvements in the current Geospace General Circulation Models (GGCMs). | to direct improvements in the current Geospace General Circulation Models (GGCMs). | ||
− | + | <br> | |
− | |||
Speakers: | Speakers: | ||
− | <br> | + | <br> |
− | |||
[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] | [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] | ||
− | + | <br> | |
[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] | [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] | ||
− | + | <br> | |
Other Contributors: | Other Contributors: | ||
− | + | <br> | |
Barbara Giles (NASA/GSFC): MMS Opportunities <br> | Barbara Giles (NASA/GSFC): MMS Opportunities <br> | ||
Matina Gkioulidou (APL/JHU): Van Allen Probe Ring Current Observations<br> | Matina Gkioulidou (APL/JHU): Van Allen Probe Ring Current Observations<br> | ||
Line 60: | Line 51: | ||
Chris Mouikis (UNH): Dst storm epoch study of ion outflow<br> | Chris Mouikis (UNH): Dst storm epoch study of ion outflow<br> | ||
Lynn Kistler (UNH): Multi-satellite view of sawtooth storm morphology<br> | Lynn Kistler (UNH): Multi-satellite view of sawtooth storm morphology<br> | ||
− | |||
<h2>Session 2: Monday PM2 - Status, Questions, & Opportunities<br>Polar Wind and the Ionospheric Boundary</h2> | <h2>Session 2: Monday PM2 - Status, Questions, & Opportunities<br>Polar Wind and the Ionospheric Boundary</h2> | ||
− | + | <br> | |
Attendence: ~35 | Attendence: ~35 | ||
− | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
Summary: | Summary: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
Invited speakers reviewed the status of current understanding and modeling | Invited speakers reviewed the status of current understanding and modeling | ||
of ion upflow initiated in the ionospheric boundary. This is key for | of ion upflow initiated in the ionospheric boundary. This is key for | ||
Line 79: | Line 66: | ||
in the polar and sub-auroral regions for appropriate comparison of PW model | in the polar and sub-auroral regions for appropriate comparison of PW model | ||
results to satellite data. | results to satellite data. | ||
− | + | <br> | |
The GEM Focus Group Chairs present goals and moderated a discussion on | The GEM Focus Group Chairs present goals and moderated a discussion on | ||
the open questions of ion upflow/outflow. This effort should strive | the open questions of ion upflow/outflow. This effort should strive | ||
Line 86: | Line 73: | ||
CEDAR scientists are strongly encouraged to participate in this session | CEDAR scientists are strongly encouraged to participate in this session | ||
as a collaborative GEM-CEDAR Session on M-I-T coupling. | as a collaborative GEM-CEDAR Session on M-I-T coupling. | ||
− | + | <br> | |
[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] | [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] | ||
− | + | <br> | |
George Khazanov (NASA/GSFC): Polar Wind M-I-T Coupling: Kinetic vs Hydrodynamic</a> | George Khazanov (NASA/GSFC): Polar Wind M-I-T Coupling: Kinetic vs Hydrodynamic</a> | ||
<br> <br> | <br> <br> | ||
Other Contributors: | Other Contributors: | ||
− | + | <br> | |
Shunrong Zhang (U Mich): ISR campaign opportunities<br> | Shunrong Zhang (U Mich): ISR campaign opportunities<br> | ||
Bruce Fritz (UNH): RENU2 Sounding Rocket<br> | Bruce Fritz (UNH): RENU2 Sounding Rocket<br> | ||
Line 99: | Line 86: | ||
<h2>Session 3 & 4: Friday PM - Recap, Organize, Planning</h2> | <h2>Session 3 & 4: Friday PM - Recap, Organize, Planning</h2> | ||
− | + | <br> | |
Attendence: ~25 and ~15 | Attendence: ~25 and ~15 | ||
− | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
Summary: | Summary: | ||
− | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
Invited speaker reviewed the big picture possibilities of the | Invited speaker reviewed the big picture possibilities of the | ||
Line 114: | Line 99: | ||
<br> <br> | <br> <br> | ||
Other Contributors: | Other Contributors: | ||
− | + | <br> | |
Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Model (GPW)<br> | Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Model (GPW)<br> | ||
Naritoshi Kitamura: Model and Measurement Comparisons of Ion Outflow<br> | Naritoshi Kitamura: Model and Measurement Comparisons of Ion Outflow<br> | ||
<br> | <br> |
Revision as of 12:24, 4 August 2016
Contents
- 1 2016 GEM/CEDAR JOINT MEETING -- Santa Fe, NM
- 1.1 Co-Chairs for M3-I2 Sessions
- 1.2 Session 1: Monday PM1 - Status, Questions, & OpportunitiesMagnetospheric Effects of Ionospheric Ingection
- 1.3 Session 2: Monday PM2 - Status, Questions, & OpportunitiesPolar Wind and the Ionospheric Boundary
- 1.4 Session 3 & 4: Friday PM - Recap, Organize, Planning
2016 GEM/CEDAR JOINT MEETING -- Santa Fe, NM
Co-Chairs for M3-I2 Sessions
Shasha Zho, U. of Michigan/CLaSP
Barbara Giles, NASA/GSFC/GPL
Vince Eccles, USU/CASS
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:
Charles R. Chappell (Vanderbilt U): Changing the Paradigm! -- The Ionospheric Role in Filling the Magnetosphere with Plasma and Driving Its Dynamics
Daniel Welling (U Mich): Outflow Really Matters! -- What GLobal MHD Modeling Tells Us About Outflow and the Magnetosphere
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.
Roger Varney (SRI): Areas for Improvement in Ion Outflow Modeling
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