Premium
Effects of electrojet turbulence on a magnetosphere‐ionosphere simulation of a geomagnetic storm
Author(s) -
Wiltberger M.,
Merkin V.,
Zhang B.,
Toffoletto F.,
Oppenheim M.,
Wang W.,
Lyon J. G.,
Liu J.,
Dimant Y.,
Sitnov M. I.,
Stephens G. K.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: space physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2169-9402
pISSN - 2169-9380
DOI - 10.1002/2016ja023700
Subject(s) - ionosphere , magnetosphere , physics , electrojet , geophysics , substorm , earth's magnetic field , geomagnetic storm , solar wind , atmospheric sciences , langmuir turbulence , computational physics , ionospheric dynamo region , magnetic field , plasma , plasma oscillation , quantum mechanics
Ionospheric conductance plays an important role in regulating the response of the magnetosphere‐ionosphere system to solar wind driving. Typically, models of magnetosphere‐ionosphere coupling include changes to ionospheric conductance driven by extreme ultraviolet ionization and electron precipitation. This paper shows that effects driven by the Farley‐Buneman instability can also create significant enhancements in the ionospheric conductance, with substantial impacts on geospace. We have implemented a method of including electrojet turbulence (ET) effects into the ionospheric conductance model utilized within geospace simulations. Our particular implementation is tested with simulations of the Lyon‐Fedder‐Mobarry global magnetosphere model coupled with the Rice Convection Model of the inner magnetosphere. We examine the impact of including ET‐modified conductances in a case study of the geomagnetic storm of 17 March 2013. Simulations with ET show a 13% reduction in the cross polar cap potential at the beginning of the storm and up to 20% increases in the Pedersen and Hall conductance. These simulation results show better agreement with Defense Meteorological Satellite Program observations, including capturing features of subauroral polarization streams. The field‐aligned current (FAC) patterns show little differences during the peak of storm and agree well with Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment (AMPERE) reconstructions. Typically, the simulated FAC densities are stronger and at slightly higher latitudes than shown by AMPERE. The inner magnetospheric pressures derived from Tsyganenko‐Sitnov empirical magnetic field model show that the inclusion of the ET effects increases the peak pressure and brings the results into better agreement with the empirical model.