Magnetosphere‐ionosphere mapping at Jupiter: Quantifying the effects of using different internal field models. Issue 4 (13th April 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vogt, Marissa F.; Bunce, Emma J.; Kivelson, Margaret G.; Khurana, Krishan K.; Walker, Raymond J.; Radioti, Aikaterini; Bonfond, Bertrand; Grodent, Denis
• Is Part Of: Journal of geophysical research. Volume 120:Issue 4(2015:Apr.)
• Page Start: 2584
• Page End: 2599
• Publication Date: 2015-04-13
• Subjects: Magnetospheric physics -- Periodicals; Space environment -- Periodicals; Cosmic physics -- Periodicals; Planets -- Atmospheres -- Periodicals; Heliosphere (Astrophysics) -- Periodicals; Geophysics -- Periodicals; 523.01
• DOI: 10.1002/2014JA020729
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2169-9380

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="jgra51685-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <p>The lack of global field models accurate beyond the inner magnetosphere (<30 <italic>R<sub>J</sub></italic>) makes it difficult to relate Jupiter's polar auroral features to magnetospheric source regions. We recently developed a model that maps Jupiter's equatorial magnetosphere to the ionosphere using a flux equivalence calculation that requires equal flux at the equatorial and ionospheric ends of flux tubes. This approach is more accurate than tracing field lines in a global field model but only if it is based on an accurate model of Jupiter's internal field. At present there are three widely used internal field models—Voyager Io Pioneer 4 (VIP4), the Grodent Anomaly Model (GAM), and VIP Anomaly Longitude (VIPAL). The purpose of this study is to quantify how the choice of an internal field model affects the mapping of various auroral features using the flux equivalence calculation. We find that different internal field models can shift the ionospheric mapping of points in the equatorial plane by several degrees and shift the magnetospheric mapping to the equator by ~30 <italic>R<sub>J</sub></italic> radially and by less than 1 h in local time. These shifts are consistent with differences in how well each model maps the Ganymede footprint, underscoring the need for more accurate Jovian internal field models. We discuss differences in the mapping of specific auroral features and the size and location of the open/closed field line boundary. Understanding these differences is important for the continued analysis of Hubble Space Telescope images and in planning for Juno's arrival at Jupiter in 2016.</p> </abstract>