Search for: All records

Magnetopause location is an important prediction of numerical simulations of the magnetosphere, yet the models can err, either under-predicting or over-predicting the motion of the boundary. This study compares results from two of the most widely used magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) models, the Lyon–Fedder–Mobarry (LFM) model and the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF), to data from the GOES 13 and 15 satellites during the geomagnetic storm on 22 June 2015, and to THEMIS A, D, and E during a quiet period on 31 January 2013. The models not only reproduce the magnetopause crossings of the spacecraft during the storm, but they also predict spurious magnetopause motion after the crossings seen in the GOES data. We investigate the possible causes of the over-predictions during the storm and find the following. First, using different ionospheric conductance models does not significantly alter predictions of the magnetopause location. Second, coupling the Rice Convection Model (RCM) to the MHD codes improves the SWMF magnetopause predictions more than it does for the LFM predictions. Third, the SWMF produces a stronger ring current than LFM, both with and without the RCM and regardless of the LFM spatial resolution. During the non-storm event, LFM predicts the THEMIS magnetopause crossings due to the southward interplanetary magnetic field better than the SWMF. Additionally, increasing the LFM spatial grid resolution improves the THEMIS predictions, while increasing the SWMF grid resolutions does not. 

Abstract During intense geomagnetic storms, the magnetopause can move in as far as geosynchronous orbit, leaving the satellites in that orbit out in the magnetosheath. Spacecraft operators turn to numerical models to predict the response of the magnetopause to solar wind conditions, but the predictions of the models are not always accurate. This study investigates four storms with a magnetopause crossing by at least one GOES satellite, using four magnetohydrodynamic models at NASA's Community Coordinated Modeling Center to simulate the events, and analyzes the results to investigate the reasons for errors in the predictions. Two main reasons can explain most of the erroneous predictions. First, the solar wind input to the simulations often contains features measured near the L1 point that did not eventually arrive at Earth; incorrect predictions during such periods are due to the solar wind input rather than to the models themselves. Second, while the models do well when the primary driver of magnetopause motion is a variation in the solar wind density, they tend to overpredict or underpredict the integrated Birkeland currents and their effects during times of strong negative interplanetary magnetic field (IMF)B_z, leading to poorer prediction capability. Coupling the MHD codes to a ring current model, when such a coupling is available, generally will improve the predictions but will not always entirely correct them. More work is needed to fully characterize the response of each code under strong southward IMF conditions as it relates to prediction of magnetopause location.