Search for: All records

The impact of regional-scale neutral atmospheric waves has been demonstrated to have profound effects on the ionosphere, but the circumstances under which they generate ionospheric disturbances and seed plasma instabilities are not well understood. Neutral atmospheric waves vary from infrasonic waves of <20 Hz to gravity waves with periods on the order of 10 min, for simplicity, hereafter they are combined under the common term Acoustic and Gravity Waves (AGWs). There are other longer period waves like planetary waves from the lower and middle atmosphere, whose effects are important globally, but they are not considered here. The most ubiquitous and frequently observed impact of AGWs on the ionosphere are Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances (TIDs), but AGWs also affect the global ionosphere/thermosphere circulation and can trigger ionospheric instabilities (e.g., Perkins, Equatorial Spread F). The purpose of this white paper is to outline additional studies and observations that are required in the coming decade to improve our understanding of the impact of AGWs on the ionosphere. 

The accurate determination of auroral precipitation in global models has remained a daunting and rather inexplicable obstacle. Understanding the calculation and balance of multiple sources that constitute the aurora, and their eventual conversion into ionospheric electrical conductance, is critical for improved prediction of space weather events. In this study, we present a semi‐physical global modeling approach that characterizes contributions by four types of precipitation—monoenergetic, broadband, electron, and ion diffuse—to ionospheric electrodynamics. The model uses a combination of adiabatic kinetic theory and loss parameters derived from historical energy flux patterns to estimate auroral precipitation from magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) quantities. It then converts them into ionospheric conductance that is used to compute the ionospheric feedback to the magnetosphere. The model has been employed to simulate the 5–7 April 2010Galaxy15space weather event. Comparison of auroral fluxes show good agreement with observational data sets like NOAA‐DMSP and OVATION Prime. The study shows a dominant contribution by electron diffuse precipitation, accounting for ∼74% of the auroral energy flux. However, contributions by monoenergetic and broadband sources dominate during times of active upstream solar conditions, providing for up to 61% of the total hemispheric power. The study also finds a greater role played by broadband precipitation in ionospheric electrodynamics which accounts for ∼31% of the Pedersen conductance.

 

We use the Geospace Environment Model of Ion‐Neutral Interactions (GEMINI) to create three‐dimensional, time‐dependent simulations of auroral ionospheric parameters in the localized, several 100 km region surrounding auroral arcs observed during a winter 2017 sounding rocket campaign, resolving three‐dimensional features of fine‐scale (km) flow structures in the vicinity of an auroral arc. The three‐dimensional calculations of GEMINI allow (with sufficient driving data) auroral current closure to be investigated without idealizing assumptions of sheet‐like structures or height integrated ionospheres. Datamaps for two nearly sheet‐like arcs are reconstructed from replications of the Isinglass sounding rocket campaign data, and combined with camera‐based particle inversions into a set of driving inputs to run the 3D time‐dependent model. Comparisons of model results to radar density profiles and to in situ magnetometry observations are presented. Slices of volumetric current, flow, and conductance structures from model outputs are used to interpret closure currents in an auroral arc region, and are compared to original in situ measurements for verification. The predominant source of return current region field aligned current closure for these slow time variation events is seen to be from the conductance gradients, including the Hall. The importance of theversusterms in the determination of the current structure provides a more complicated picture than a previous GEMINI study, which relied predominantly on the divergence of the electric field to determine current structure. Sensitivity of data‐driven model results to details of replication and reconstruction processes are discussed, with improvements outlined for future work.