It is often assumed that on average, polar ionospheric electrodynamics in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are mirror symmetric or antisymmetric with respect to the interplanetary magnetic field B y component and the dipole tilt angle ψ . For example, one might assume that the average Birkeland current density j at magnetic latitude λ is equal to the current density at magnetic latitude − λ if the signs of B y and ψ are reversed and all other parameters are equal: j ( λ , B y , ψ , … ) = j (− λ , − B y , − ψ , … ). This is a convenient assumption for empirical models, since it effectively doubles the amount of information that a measurement made in one hemisphere contains. In this study we use the Average Magnetic field and Polar current System (AMPS) model to quantify to what extent the assumption holds for Birkeland and ionospheric currents. The AMPS model is an empirical model based on Swarm and CHAMP magnetic field measurements, with no constraints on hemispheric symmetries, and with differences in main magnetic field geometry as well as biases in data point distributions in magnetic coordinates accounted for. We show that when averaged over IMF clock angle orientation, the total ionospheric divergence-free current in each hemisphere largely satisfies the mirror symmetry assumption. The same is true for the total Birkeland current in each hemisphere except during local winter, during which the Northern Hemisphere tends to dominate. We show that this local winter asymmetry is consistent with the average winter hemispheric asymmetry in total precipitating electron current derived from Fast Auroral SnapshoT (FAST) satellite observations. We attribute this and other more subtle deviations from symmetry to differences in sunlight distribution in magnetic coordinates, as well as magnetic field strength and its influence on ionospheric conductivity. Important departures from mirror symmetry also arise for some IMF clock angle orientations, particularly those for which IMF B z > 0, as suggested by other recent studies.
more »
« less
The effect of F10.7 on interhemispheric differences in ionospheric current during solstices
We investigate the differences in the electrojet and Birkeland current systems during summer and winter solstice and the effect of F10.7. The difference in solar illumination of the polar ionosphere during the winter versus summer solstice results in significantly higher conductivity in the summer polar ionosphere. As expected, the currents are larger during the summer than during the winter. The rela- tionship between the electrojets and the Birkeland current systems is essentially constant across seasons, as expected if the ionospheric electrojets close the Birkeland currents. The magnitude of F10.7 is an indicator of the level of solar-generated ionospheric conductance, therefore, one would expect larger ionospheric currents during periods of larger F10.7. This holds true for the summer solstice periods, however, the opposite trend is observed during the winter solstice periods. We provide an explanation for this finding based on the con- trol of the dayside merging rate by the magnetosheath flow pattern.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10333074
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Advances in space research
- ISSN:
- 0273-1177
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Abstract We report one of the first comprehensive ground‐based investigations of energy transfer rates in the E‐region ionosphere compared relative to geomagnetic activity, seasonal effects, and solar activity level using nearly continuously sampled data collected with the Poker Flat Incoherent Scatter Radar (PFISR) between 2010 and 2019. We quantified the integrated electromagnetic (EM) energy transfer rate and the integrated Joule heating rate in the E‐region between 90 and 130 km, which includes the contribution from the neutral winds. We find that (a) the median Joule heating rate and EM energy transfer rate in the evening sector are larger in the winter versus the summer and have similar magnitudes in the spring and fall for the same solar activity and geomagnetic conditions. (b) The seasonal dependence of the energy transfer rates is closely associated with the seasonal variations of the electric fields. Our analysis shows that the larger EM energy transfer and Joule heating rates in disturbed conditions in the winter versus the summer are associated with the combined effects of both the electric field and Pedersen conductance with the electric field playing a dominant role. Given that the Pedersen conductance in the evening sector is closely related to the particle precipitation and field aligned currents in the auroral region, this study provides complementary ionospheric evidence of the winter‐summer asymmetry of the intensity and density of field‐aligned currents (e.g., Ohtani et al., 2009,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009ja014115 ). (c) The geomagnetic activity level has the most significant impact on the magnitude of the energy transfer rates, followed by seasonal variations, and last the solar activity level. -
more » « less
Abstract We have taken a key step in evaluating the importance of ionospheric outflows relative to electrodynamic coupling in the thermosphere’s impact on geospace dynamics. We isolated the thermosphere’s material influence and suppressed electrodynamic feedback in whole geospace simulations by imposing a time‐constant ionospheric conductance in the ionospheric Ohm’s law in a coupled model that combines the multifluid Lyon‐Fedder‐Mobarry magnetosphere model with the Thermosphere Ionosphere Electrodynamic General Circulation Model and the Ionosphere Polar Wind Model that includes both polar wind and transversely accelerated ion species. Numerical experiments were conducted for different thermospheric states parameterized by F10.7 for interplanetary driving representative of the stream interaction region that swept past Earth on March 27, 2003. We demonstrate that thermosphere through its regulation of ionospheric outflows influences magnetosphere‐ionosphere (MI) convection and the ion composition, symmetries, x‐line perimeter and magnetic merging of the magnetosphere. Feedback to the ionosphere‐thermosphere from evolving MI convection, and Alfvénic Poynting fluxes and soft (∼few 100 eV) electron precipitation originating in the magnetosphere, in turn, modify the evolving O+outflow properties. The simulation results identify a variety of observed magnetospheric features that are attributable directly to the thermosphere’s material influence: Asymmetries in O+outflow fluxes and velocities in the pre/postnoon low‐altitude magnetosphere, dawn/duskside lobes and pre/postmidnight plasmasheet; O+distribution of the plasmasheet; magnetic x‐line location and reconnection rate along it. O+outflows during solar maximum conditions (high F10.7) tend to counteract the plasmasheet’s pre/postmidnight asymmetries caused by the night‐to‐day gradient in ionospheric Hall conductance.
-
more » « less
Abstracts In this work, the Thermosphere‐Ionosphere‐Electrodynamics General Circulation Model is used to investigate the responses of ionospheric electrodynamic processes to the solar flares at the flare peaks and the underlying physical mechanisms on September 6 and 10, 2017. Simulations show that solar flares increased global daytime currents and reduced the eastward electric fields during the daytime from the equator to middle latitudes. Furthermore, westward equatorial electric fields and equatorial counter electrojets occurred in the early morning. At the flare peak, these electrodynamic responses are predominantly related to the enhanced E‐region conductivity by flares, as the responses of neutral winds and F‐region conductivity to flares are negligible. Specifically, the Cowling conductance enhancement is not the major process causing the reduction of zonal electric fields. This electric field reduction is primarily associated with the decrease of the ratio between the field line‐integrated wind‐driven currents and the conductance. The flare‐induced conductivity enhancement is larger but the background wind speed is smaller in the E‐region than in the F‐region, as a result, the increase of total integrated wind‐driven currents is less than the conductance enhancement.
-
On the bow shock in front of Earth’s magnetosphere flows a current due to the curl of the interplanetary magnetic field across the shock. The closure of this current remains uncertain; it is unknown whether the bow shock current closes with the Chapman-Ferraro current system on the magnetopause, along magnetic field lines into the ionosphere, through the magnetosheath, or some combination thereof. We present simultaneous observations from Magnetosphere Multiscale (MMS), AMPERE, and Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) during a period of strong B y , weakly negative B z , and very small B x . This IMF orientation should lead to a bow shock current flowing mostly south to north on the shock. AMPERE shows a current poleward of the Region 1 and Region 2 Birkeland currents flowing into the northern polar cap and out of the south, the correct polarity for bow shock current to be closing along open field lines. A southern Defense Meteorological Satellite Program F18 flyover confirms that this current is poleward of the convection reversal boundary. Additionally, we investigate the bow shock current closure for the above-mentioned solar wind conditions using an MHD simulation of the event. We compare the magnitude of the modeled bow shock current due to the IMF B y component to the magnitude of the modeled high-latitude current that corresponds to the real current observed in AMPERE and by Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. In the simulation, the current poleward of the Region 1 currents is about 37% as large as the bow shock I z in the northern ionosphere and 60% in the south. We conclude that the evidence points to at least a partial closure of the bow shock current through the ionosphere.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.02.006
