Search for: All records

Abstract High‐latitude ionospheric convection is a useful diagnostic of solar wind‐magnetosphere interactions and nightside activity in the magnetotail. For decades, the high‐latitude convection pattern has been mapped using the Super Dual Auroral Radar Network (SuperDARN), a distribution of ground‐based radars which are capable of measuring line‐of‐sight (l‐o‐s) ionospheric flows. From the l‐o‐s measurements an estimate of the global convection can be obtained. As the SuperDARN coverage is not truly global, it is necessary to constrain the maps when the map fitting is performed. The lower latitude boundary of the convection, known as the Heppner‐Maynard boundary (HMB), provides one such constraint. In the standard SuperDARN fitting, the HMB location is determined directly from the data, but data gaps can make this challenging. In this study we evaluate if the HMB placement can be improved using data from the Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment (AMPERE), in particular for active time periods when the HMB moves to latitudes below . We find that the boundary as defined by SuperDARN and AMPERE are not always co‐located. SuperDARN performs better when the AMPERE currents are very weak (e.g., during non‐active times) and AMPERE can provide a boundary when there is no SuperDARN scatter. Using three geomagnetic storm events, we show that there is agreement between the SuperDARN and AMPERE boundaries but the SuperDARN‐derived convection boundary mostly lies equatorward of the AMPERE‐derived boundary. We find that disagreements primarily arise due to geometrical factors and a time lag in expansions and contractions of the patterns. 

Abstract The expansion phase of auroral substorms is characterized by the formation of an auroral bulge, and it is generally considered that a single bulge forms following each substorm onset. However, we find that occasionally two auroral intensifications takes place close in time but apart in space leading to the formation of double auroral bulges, which later merge into one large bulge. We report three such events. In those events the westward auroral electrojet intensified in each auroral bulge, and geosynchronous magnetic field dipolarized in the same sector. It appears that two substorms took place simultaneously, and each substorm was accompanied by the formation of its own substorm current wedge system. This finding strongly suggests that the initiation of auroral substorms is a local process, and there is no global reference frame for their development. For example, ideas such as (i) the auroralbreakup takes place in the vicinity of the Harang reversal and (ii) the westward traveling surge maps to the interface between the plasma sheet and low‐latitude boundary layer, do not necessarily hold for every substorm. Even if those ideas may be suggestive of causal magnetospheric processes, the reference structures themselves are probably not essential. It is also found that despite the formation of two distinct auroral bulges, the overall magnetosphere‐ionosphere current system is represented by one globally coherent system, and we suggest that its structure is determined by the relative intensities and locations of the two substorm current wedges that correspond to the individual auroral bulges.