Ionosphere‐thermosphere energy budgets for the ICME storms of March 2013 and 2015 estimated with GITM and observational proxies. Issue 9 (2nd September 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Verkhoglyadova, O. P.; Meng, X.; Mannucci, A. J.; Mlynczak, M. G.; Hunt, L. A.; Lu, G.
• Is Part Of: Space weather. Volume 15:Issue 9(2017:Sep.)
• Page Start: 1102
• Page End: 1124
• Publication Date: 2017-09-02
• Subjects: ionosphere -- thermosphere -- energy budget -- space weather -- forecasting -- modeling; Space environment -- Periodicals; 551.509992
• DOI: 10.1002/2017SW001650
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1542-7390

Abstract

Abstract: The ionosphere‐thermosphere (IT) energy partitioning for the interplanetary coronal mass ejection (ICME) storms of 16–19 March 2013 and 2015 is estimated with the Global Ionosphere‐Thermosphere Model (GITM), empirical models and proxies derived from in situ measurements. We focus on auroral heating, Joule heating, and thermospheric cooling. Solar wind data, F 10.7, OVATION Prime model and the Weimer 2005 model are used to drive GITM from above. Thermospheric nitric oxide and carbon dioxide cooling emission powers and fluxes are estimated from TIMED/SABER measurements. Assimilative mapping of ionospheric electrodynamics (AMIE) estimations of hemispheric power and Joule heating are presented, based on data from global magnetometers, the AMPERE magnetic field data, SSUSI auroral images, and the SuperDARN radar network. Modeled Joule heating and auroral heating of the IT system are mostly controlled by external driving in the March 2013 and 2015 storms, while NO cooling persists into the storm recovery phase. The total heating in the model is about 1000 GW to 3000 GW. Additionally, we intercompare contributions in selected energy channels for five coronal mass ejection‐type storms modeled with GITM. Modeled auroral heating shows reasonable agreement with AMIE hemispheric power and is higher than other observational proxies. Joule heating and infrared cooling are likely underestimated in GITM. We discuss challenges and discrepancies in estimating and global modeling of the IT energy partitioning, especially Joule heating, during geomagnetic storms. Key Points: This study evaluates current capabilities for estimating IT energy budget during two CME storms Total GITM auroral heating shows reasonable agreement with the hemispheric power, infrared cooling is underestimated Different definitions and estimates of Joule heating result in a major uncertainty in the total budget estimations Plain Language Summary: Energy budget is an important characteristic of the ionosphere‐thermosphere system. We utilize Global Ionosphere‐Thermosphere Model runs for two strong recent geomagnetic storms, March 2013 and March 2015. In the paper we intercompare and evaluate different available sources for estimation of energy terms, including global modeling, empirical models, and direct satellite measurements. We discuss challenges and discrepancies in estimating and global modeling of the ionosphere‐thermosphere energy partitioning, especially Joule heating, during geomagnetic storms. Understanding energy budget and improving its estimates are important for the space weather forecasting efforts.