Search for: All records

Abstract Following the auroral substorm onset, the active aurora undergoes expansion, which can vary in spatial and temporal extent. The spatiotemporal development of the expansion phase active aurora is controlled by new auroral intensifications that often follow the initial onset. Using seven examples, we investigate the nature of these new auroral intensifications and address a question: are they new auroral onsets, that is, “successive onsets” or poleward‐boundary intensifications (PBIs) and ensuing auroral streamers? We observed events that included both types of auroral features—successive onsets and PBIs—and their combinations. For multiple‐onset substorms, successive onsets may occur eastward, westward, and poleward of the initial onset, resulting in a diverse range of expansion phase spatial extent and durations. Single‐onset substorms show only one auroral onset, but their spatiotemporal development can resemble that of multiple‐onset substorms. However, the additional activations are mainly PBIs and subsequent streamers. In some cases, PBIs undergo explosion, leading to a rapid poleward and azimuthal expansion of the aurora, resembling the auroral substorm onset. A prolonged sequence of PBIs and its longitudinal extension can contribute significantly to the spatiotemporal development of substorms expansion phase. Results suggest that post‐onset flow channels drive the spatiotemporal development of the substorm expansion phase by (a) triggering successive onsets and (b) inducing bursts of PBIs and their prolonged sequence. We speculate that post‐onset flow channels likely originate from the polar cap, but more evaluation is required. Our findings highlight the significance of examining imager data before solely relying on magnetometers to identify substorm onsets. 

Flow channels can extend across the polar cap from the dayside to the nightside auroral oval, where they lead to localized reconnection and auroral oval disturbances. Such flow channels can persist within the polar cap >1½ hours, can move azimuthally with direction controlled by IMF By, and may affect time and location of auroral oval disturbances. We have followed a polar cap arc as it moved duskward from Canada to Alaska for ∼2 h while connected to the oval. Two-dimensional ionospheric flows show an adjacent flow channel that moved westward with the arc and was a distinct feature of polar cap convection that locally impinged upon the outer boundary of the auroral oval. The flow channel’s interaction with the oval appears to have triggered two separate substorms during its trip across western Canada and Alaska, controlling the onset location and contributing to subsequent development of substorm activity within the oval. The first substorm (over Canada) occurred during approximately equatorward polar cap flow, whereas the second substorm (over Alaska) occurred as the polar cap arc and flow channel bent strongly azimuthally and appeared to “lay down” along the poleward boundary. The oval became unusually thin, leading to near contact between the polar cap arc and the brightening onset auroral arc within the oval. These observations illustrate the crucial role of polar cap flow channels in the time, location, and duration of space weather activity, and the importance of the duration and azimuthal motion of flow channels within the nightside polar cap. 

This paper reviews key properties and major unsolved problems about Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement (STEVE) and the picket fence. We first introduce the basic characteristics of STEVE and historical observations of STEVE-like emissions, particularly the case on 11 September 1891. Then, we discuss major open questions about STEVE: 1) Why does STEVE preferentially occur in equinoxes? 2) How do the solar wind and storm/substorm conditions control STEVE? 3) Why is STEVE rare, despite that STEVE does not seem to require extreme driving conditions? 4) What are the multi-scale structures of STEVE? 5) What mechanisms determine the properties of the picket fence? 6) What are the chemistry and emission mechanisms of STEVE? 7) What are the impacts of STEVE on the ionosphere−thermosphere system? Also, 8) what is the relation between STEVE, stable auroral red (SAR) arcs, and the subauroral proton aurora? These issues largely concern how STEVE is created as a unique mode of response of the subauroral magnetosphere−ionosphere−thermosphere coupling system. STEVE, SAR arcs, and proton auroras, the three major types of subauroral emissions, require energetic particle injections to the pre-midnight inner magnetosphere and interaction with cold plasma. However, it is not understood why they occur at different times and why they can co-exist and transition from one to another. Strong electron injections into the pre-midnight sector are suggested to be important for driving intense subauroral ion drifts (SAID). A system-level understanding of how the magnetosphere creates distinct injection features, drives subauroral flows, and disturbs the thermosphere to create optical emissions is required to address the key questions about STEVE. The ionosphere−thermosphere modeling that considers the extreme velocity and heating should be conducted to answer what chemical and dynamical processes occur and how much the STEVE luminosity can be explained. Citizen scientist photographs and scientific instruments reveal the evolution of fine-scale structures of STEVE and their connection to the picket fence. Photographs also show the undulation of STEVE and the localized picket fence. High-resolution observations are required to resolve fine-scale structures of STEVE and the picket fence, and such observations are important to understand underlying processes in the ionosphere and thermosphere. 

Dynamic mesoscale flow structures move across the open field line regions of the polar caps and then enter the nightside plasma sheet where they can cause important space weather disturbances, such as streamers, substorms, and omega bands. The polar cap structures have long durations (apparently at least ∼1½ to 2 h), but their connections to disturbances have received little attention. Hence, it will be important to uncover what causes these flow enhancement channels, how they map to the magnetospheric and magnetosheath structures, and what controls their propagation across the polar cap and their dynamic effects after reaching the nightside auroral oval. The examples presented here use 630-nm auroral and radar observations and indicate that the motion of flow channels could be critical for determining when and where a particular disturbance within the nightside auroral oval will be triggered, and this could be included for full understanding of flow channel connections to disturbances. Also, it is important to determine how polar cap flow channels lead to flow channels within the auroral oval, i.e., the plasma sheet, and determine the conditions along nightside oval/plasma sheet field lines that interact with an incoming polar cap flow channel to cause a particular disturbance. It will also be interesting to consider the generality of geomagnetic disturbances being related to connections with incoming polar cap flow channels, including the location, time, and type of disturbances, and whether the duration and expansion of disturbances are related to flow channel duration and to multiple flow channels. 

An important question that is being increasingly studied across subdisciplines of Heliophysics is “how do mesoscale phenomena contribute to the global response of the system?” This review paper focuses on this question within two specific but interlinked regions in Near-Earth space: the magnetotail’s transition region to the inner magnetosphere and the ionosphere. There is a concerted effort within the Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM) community to understand the degree to which mesoscale transport in the magnetotail contributes to the global dynamics of magnetic flux transport and dipolarization, particle transport and injections contributing to the storm-time ring current development, and the substorm current wedge. Because the magnetosphere-ionosphere is a tightly coupled system, it is also important to understand how mesoscale transport in the magnetotail impacts auroral precipitation and the global ionospheric system response. Groups within the Coupling, Energetics and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions Program (CEDAR) community have also been studying how the ionosphere-thermosphere responds to these mesoscale drivers. These specific open questions are part of a larger need to better characterize and quantify mesoscale “messengers” or “conduits” of information—magnetic flux, particle flux, current, and energy—which are key to understanding the global system. After reviewing recent progress and open questions, we suggest datasets that, if developed in the future, will help answer these questions. 

Recent attention has been given to mesoscale phenomena across geospace (∼10 s km to 500 km in the ionosphere or ∼0.5 R E to several R E in the magnetosphere), as their contributions to the system global response are important yet remain uncharacterized mostly due to limitations in data resolution and coverage as well as in computational power. As data and models improve, it becomes increasingly valuable to advance understanding of the role of mesoscale phenomena contributions—specifically, in magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling. This paper describes a new method that utilizes the 2D array of Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) white-light all-sky-imagers (ASI), in conjunction with meridian scanning photometers, to estimate the auroral scale sizes of intense precipitating energy fluxes and the associated Hall conductances. As an example of the technique, we investigated the role of precipitated energy flux and average energy on mesoscales as contrasted to large-scales for two back-to-back substorms, finding that mesoscale aurora contributes up to ∼80% (∼60%) of the total energy flux immediately after onset during the early expansion phase of the first (second) substorm, and continues to contribute ∼30–55% throughout the remainder of the substorm. The average energy estimated from the ASI mosaic field of view also peaked during the initial expansion phase. Using the measured energy flux and tables produced from the Boltzmann Three Constituent (B3C) auroral transport code (Strickland et al., 1976; 1993), we also estimated the 2D Hall conductance and compared it to Poker Flat Incoherent Scatter Radar conductance values, finding good agreement for both discrete and diffuse aurora.