Associating ground magnetometer observations with current or voltage generators. Issue 7 (4th July 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hartinger, M. D.; Xu, Z.; Clauer, C. R.; Yu, Y.; Weimer, D. R.; Kim, H.; Pilipenko, V.; Welling, D. T.; Behlke, R.; Willer, A. N.
• Is Part Of: Journal of geophysical research. Volume 122:Issue 7(2017)
• Page Start: 7130
• Page End: 7141
• Publication Date: 2017-07-04
• Subjects: ground magnetometer -- TCV -- sudden commencement -- current generator -- voltage generator -- magnetosphere‐ionosphere coupling; Magnetospheric physics -- Periodicals; Space environment -- Periodicals; Cosmic physics -- Periodicals; Planets -- Atmospheres -- Periodicals; Heliosphere (Astrophysics) -- Periodicals; Geophysics -- Periodicals; 523.01
• DOI: 10.1002/2017JA024140
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2169-9380

Abstract

Abstract: A circuit analogy for magnetosphere‐ionosphere current systems has two extremes for drivers of ionospheric currents: ionospheric electric fields/voltages constant while current/conductivity vary—the "voltage generator"—and current constant while electric field/conductivity vary—the "current generator." Statistical studies of ground magnetometer observations associated with dayside Transient High Latitude Current Systems (THLCS) driven by similar mechanisms find contradictory results using this paradigm: some studies associate THLCS with voltage generators, others with current generators. We argue that most of this contradiction arises from two assumptions used to interpret ground magnetometer observations: (1) measurements made at fixed position relative to the THLCS field‐aligned current and (2) negligible auroral precipitation contributions to ionospheric conductivity. We use observations and simulations to illustrate how these two assumptions substantially alter expectations for magnetic perturbations associated with either a current or a voltage generator. Our results demonstrate that before interpreting ground magnetometer observations of THLCS in the context of current/voltage generators, the location of a ground magnetometer station relative to the THLCS field‐aligned current and the location of any auroral zone conductivity enhancements need to be taken into account. Key Points: Conductivity and location assumptions used to interpret ground magnetic perturbations yield conflicting results High‐latitude currents associated with voltage generators may instead be associated with current generators, and vice versa Without better constraints on conductivity/station location relative to currents, conflicts will not be resolved