Extended metric validation of a semi-physical Space Weather Modeling Framework conductance model on field-aligned current estimations

被引:0
作者
Hathaway, Erika Y. [1 ]
Mukhopadhyay, Agnit [1 ]
Liemohn, Michael W. [1 ]
Keebler, Timothy [1 ]
Anderson, Brian J. [2 ]
Vines, Sarah K. [2 ]
Barnes, Robin J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Michigan, Dept Climate & Space Sci & Engn, Ann Arbor, MI 48103 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Appl Phys Lab, Laurel, MD USA
来源
FRONTIERS IN ASTRONOMY AND SPACE SCIENCES | 2024年 / 11卷
关键词
model validation; Space Weather Modeling Framework; space weather; auroral conductance; field-aligned currents; ionosphere electrodynamics; aurora; space weather prediction; COMMUNITY-WIDE VALIDATION; MAGNETOSPHERE; PREDICTIONS; TRANSITION;
D O I
10.3389/fspas.2024.1354615
中图分类号
P1 [天文学];
学科分类号
0704 ;
摘要
In this study, a detailed metric survey on the "Galaxy 15" (April 2010) space weather event is conducted to validate MAGNetosphere-Ionosphere-Thermosphere (MAGNIT), a semi-physical auroral ionospheric conductance model characterizing four precipitation sources, against AMPERE measurements via field-aligned current (FAC) characteristics. As part of this study, the comparative performance of three ionosphere electrodynamic specifications involving auroral conductance models, MAGNIT, Ridley Legacy Model (RLM) (empirical), and Conductance Model for Extreme Events (CMEE) (empirical), within the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF), is demonstrated. Overall, MAGNIT exhibits marginally improved predictions; root mean square error values in upward and downward FACs of MAGNIT predictions compared to AMPERE data are smaller than those of CMEE and Ridley Ionosphere Model (RIM) by similar to 12.7% and similar to 6.24% before the storm, similar to 4.52% and similar to 2.13% better during the main phase, similar to 1.98% and similar to 1.27% worse during the second minimum, and better by similar to 1.84% and similar to 1.49% by the beginning of the recovery, respectively. In all three model configurations, the dusk and night magnetic local time (MLT) sectors over-predict throughout the storm, while the day and dawn MLT sectors under-predict in response to interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) conditions. In addition to accuracy and bias, similar results and conclusions are drawn from additional metrics, including in the categories of correlation, precision, extremes, and skill, and recommendations are made for the best-performing model configuration in each metric category. Visual data-model comparisons conducted by studying the FAC location and latitude/MLT spread throughout various phases of the storm suggest that the spatial extent of the FACs is captured relatively well in the night-side auroral oval, unlike in the day-side oval. The spread in latitude of the FACs matches that in the previous literature on other model performances. This information on auroral precipitation sources and their weight on FACs, along with metrics from model-data comparisons, can be used to modify MAGNIT settings to optimize SWMF model performance.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 43 条
  • [1] Birkeland current system key parameters derived from Iridium observations: Method and initial validation results
    Anderson, BJ
    Takahashi, K
    Kamei, T
    Waters, CL
    Toth, BA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, 2002, 107 (A6)
  • [2] Sensing global Birkeland currents with Iridium® engineering magnetometer data
    Anderson, BJ
    Takahashi, K
    Toth, BA
    [J]. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2000, 27 (24) : 4045 - 4048
  • [3] Iridium Communications Satellite Constellation Data for Study of Earth's Magnetic Field
    Anderson, Brian J.
    Angappan, Regupathi
    Barik, Ankit
    Vines, Sarah K.
    Stanley, Sabine
    Bernasconi, Pietro N.
    Korth, Haje
    Barnes, Robin J.
    [J]. GEOCHEMISTRY GEOPHYSICS GEOSYSTEMS, 2021, 22 (08)
  • [4] Comparison of predictive estimates of high-latitude electrodynamics with observations of global-scale Birkeland currents
    Anderson, Brian J.
    Korth, Haje
    Welling, Daniel T.
    Merkin, Viacheslav G.
    Wiltberger, Michael J.
    Raeder, Joachim
    Barnes, Robin J.
    Waters, Colin L.
    Pulkkinen, Antti A.
    Rastaetter, Lutz
    [J]. SPACE WEATHER-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS, 2017, 15 (02): : 352 - 373
  • [5] Boris J.P., 1970, PHYSICALLY MOTIVATED
  • [6] Coupling of a global MHD code and an inner magnetospheric model:: Initial results -: art. no. A12219
    De Zeeuw, DL
    Sazykin, S
    Wolf, RA
    Gombosi, TI
    Ridley, AJ
    Tóth, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, 2004, 109 (A12)
  • [7] A Third Generation Field-Aligned Current Model
    Edwards, Thom R.
    Weimer, D. R.
    Olsen, Nils
    Luehr, Hermann
    Tobiska, W. K.
    Anderson, B. J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, 2020, 125 (01)
  • [8] Community-wide validation of geospace model local K-index predictions to support model transition to operations
    Glocer, A.
    Rastatter, L.
    Kuznetsova, M.
    Pulkkinen, A.
    Singer, H. J.
    Balch, C.
    Weimer, D.
    Welling, D.
    Wiltberger, M.
    Raeder, J.
    Weigel, R. S.
    McCollough, J.
    Wing, S.
    [J]. SPACE WEATHER-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS, 2016, 14 (07): : 469 - 480
  • [9] TIME-DEPENDENT MODELING OF FIELD-ALIGNED CURRENT-GENERATED ION TRANSIENTS IN THE POLAR WIND
    GOMBOSI, TI
    NAGY, AF
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, 1989, 94 (A1): : 359 - 369
  • [10] SWMF Global Magnetosphere Simulations of January 2005: Geomagnetic Indices and Cross-Polar Cap Potential
    Haiducek, John D.
    Welling, Daniel T.
    Ganushkina, Natalia Y.
    Morley, Steven K.
    Ozturk, Dogacan Su
    [J]. SPACE WEATHER-THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS, 2017, 15 (12): : 1567 - 1587