Simulations of Van Allen Probes Plasmaspheric Electron Density Observations. Issue 11 (28th November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: De Pascuale, S.; Jordanova, V. K.; Goldstein, J.; Kletzing, C. A.; Kurth, W. S.; Thaller, S. A.; Wygant, J. R.
• Is Part Of: Journal of geophysical research. Volume 123:Issue 11(2018)
• Page Start: 9453
• Page End: 9475
• Publication Date: 2018-11-28
• Subjects: plasmasphere -- simulation -- observations -- Van Allen Probes -- RBSP -- convection; Magnetospheric physics -- Periodicals; Space environment -- Periodicals; Cosmic physics -- Periodicals; Planets -- Atmospheres -- Periodicals; Heliosphere (Astrophysics) -- Periodicals; Geophysics -- Periodicals; 523.01
• DOI: 10.1029/2018JA025776
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2169-9380

Abstract

Abstract: We simulate equatorial plasmaspheric electron densities using a physics‐based model (Cold PLasma, CPL; used in the ring current‐atmosphere interactions model) of the source and loss processes of refilling and erosion driven by empirical inputs. The performance of CPL is evaluated against in situ measurements by the Van Allen Probes (Radiation Belt Storm Probes) for two events: the 31 May to 5 June and 15 to 20 January 2013 geomagnetic storms observed in the premidnight and postmidnight magnetic local time (MLT) sectors, respectively. Overall, CPL reproduces the radial extent of the plasmasphere to within a mean absolute difference of | Δ L avg | = 0 . 5 ± 0 . 1 L. The model electric field responsible for E × B convection and the parameterization of geomagnetic conditions (under the Kp‐index and solar wind properties) implemented by CPL did not account for localized enhancements in the duskward electric field during increased activity. Rather, it was found to be largely dependent on the measure of the quiet time background. This property indicates that the agreement between these simulations and observations does not account for the complete set of physical processes during extreme (strong or weak) geomagnetic conditions impacting the plasmasphere. Nevertheless, at the presented resolution of the model CPL does provide good agreement in reproducing Radiation Belt Storm Probes observations of plasmaspheric density and plasmapause location. Key Points: Simulations of premidnight and postmidnight plasmapause encounters achieve agreement with RBSP observations to within 0.5 L absolute error Solar wind parameterization of convection produces at least 0.5 L deeper erosion at onset of activity than the Kp‐index parameterization Solar wind parameterization of convection produces at least 0.5 L larger plasmasphere during recovery than the Kp‐index parameterization