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
  • [31] Raeder J., 2008, Space Sci. Rev, V27, DOI [10.10207/s11214-008-9421-5, DOI 10.10207/S11214-008-9421-5]
  • [32] Ionospheric control of the magnetosphere: conductance
    Ridley, AJ
    Gombosi, TI
    DeZeeuw, DL
    [J]. ANNALES GEOPHYSICAE, 2004, 22 (02) : 567 - 584
  • [33] Determining field-aligned currents with the Swarm constellation mission
    Ritter, Patricia
    Luehr, Hermann
    Rauberg, Jan
    [J]. EARTH PLANETS AND SPACE, 2013, 65 (11): : 1285 - 1294
  • [34] GLOBAL NATURE OF FIELD-ALIGNED CURRENTS AND THEIR RELATION TO AURORAL PHENOMENA
    SAFLEKOS, NA
    SHEEHAN, RE
    CAROVILLANO, RL
    [J]. REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS, 1982, 20 (03) : 709 - 734
  • [35] Substorm growth and expansion onset as observed with ideal ground-spacecraft THEMIS coverage
    Sergeev, V.
    Angelopoulos, V.
    Kubyshkina, M.
    Donovan, E.
    Zhou, X. -Z.
    Runov, A.
    Singer, H.
    McFadden, J.
    Nakamura, R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, 2011, 116
  • [36] Inner magnetospheric modeling with the rice convection model
    Toffoletto, F
    Sazykin, S
    Spiro, R
    Wolf, R
    [J]. SPACE SCIENCE REVIEWS, 2003, 107 (1-2) : 175 - 196
  • [37] Space Weather Modeling Framework:: A new tool for the space science community -: art. no. A12226
    Tóth, G
    Sokolov, IV
    Gombosi, TI
    Chesney, DR
    Clauer, CR
    De Zeeuw, DL
    Hansen, KC
    Kane, KJ
    Manchester, WB
    Oehmke, RC
    Powell, KG
    Ridley, AJ
    Roussev, II
    Stout, QF
    Volberg, O
    Wolf, RA
    Sazykin, S
    Chan, A
    Yu, B
    Kóta, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, 2005, 110 (A12)
  • [38] Adaptive numerical algorithms in space weather modeling
    Toth, Gabor
    van der Holst, Bart
    Sokolov, Igor V.
    De Zeeuw, Darren L.
    Gombosi, Tamas I.
    Fang, Fang
    Manchester, Ward B.
    Meng, Xing
    Najib, Dalal
    Powell, Kenneth G.
    Stout, Quentin F.
    Glocer, Alex
    Ma, Ying-Juan
    Opher, Merav
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS, 2012, 231 (03) : 870 - 903
  • [39] Field-aligned current systems in the magnetospheric ground state
    Watanabe, M
    Iijima, T
    Nakagawa, M
    Potemra, TA
    Zanetti, LJ
    Ohtani, S
    Newell, PT
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS, 1998, 103 (A4): : 6853 - 6869
  • [40] Waters C.L., 2020, Ionospheric multi-spacecraft analysis tools: Approaches for deriving ionospheric parameters, P141, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-26732-2_7