Premium
Magnetosphere‐Ionosphere Coupling via Prescribed Field‐Aligned Current Simulated by the TIEGCM
Author(s) -
Maute A.,
Richmond A. D.,
Lu G.,
Knipp D. J.,
Shi Y.,
Anderson B.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: space physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2169-9402
pISSN - 2169-9380
DOI - 10.1029/2020ja028665
Subject(s) - ionosphere , thermosphere , magnetosphere , earth's magnetic field , coupling (piping) , geomagnetic storm , geophysics , storm , electric field , physics , computational physics , atmospheric sciences , convection , empirical modelling , precipitation , meteorology , magnetic field , computer science , simulation , quantum mechanics , mechanical engineering , engineering
The magnetosphere‐ionosphere (MI) coupling is crucial in modeling the thermosphere‐ionosphere (TI) response to geomagnetic activity. In general circulation models (GCMs) the MI coupling is typically realized by specifying the ion convection and auroral particle precipitation patterns from for example, empirical or assimilative models. Assimilative models, such as the Assimilative Mapping of Ionospheric Electrodynamics, have the advantage that the ion convection and auroral particle precipitation patterns are mutually consistent and based on available observations. However, assimilating a large set of diverse data requires expert knowledge and is time consuming. Empirical models, on the other hand, are convenient to use, but do not capture all the observed spatial and temporal variations. With the availability of Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment (AMPERE) data, there is an opportunity for employing field‐aligned currents (FAC) in GCMs to represent the MI coupling. In this study, we will introduce a new method which enables us to use observed FAC in GCMs and solve for the interhemispherically asymmetric electric potential distribution. We compare Thermosphere‐Ionosphere‐Electrodynamics General Circulation Model (TIEGCM) simulations of a geomagnetic storm period using the new approach and two other often‐used methods for specifying MI coupling based on empirical and assimilative high latitude electric potentials. The comparison shows general similarities of the TI storm time response and improved temporal variability of the new method compared to using empirical models, but results also illustrate substantial differences due to our uncertain knowledge about the MI coupling process.