Comparison of magnetotail magnetic flux estimates based on global auroral images and simultaneous solar wind—magnetotail measurements; ; et al in Journal of Atmospheric & Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010), 72 We compared simultaneous magnetotail magnetic flux F estimates, (1) based on in situ spacecraft measurements in the tail and solar wind (F[SUB]T[/SUB]) with (2) the polar cap magnetic flux, estimated from ... [more ▼] We compared simultaneous magnetotail magnetic flux F estimates, (1) based on in situ spacecraft measurements in the tail and solar wind (F[SUB]T[/SUB]) with (2) the polar cap magnetic flux, estimated from global auroral images (using proton-induced or electron-induced emissions, F[SUB]p[/SUB] or F[SUB]e[/SUB], respectively). Simultaneous F[SUB]p[/SUB] and F[SUB]e[/SUB] estimates gave the correlation coefficient CC=0.74, indicating that these measures are not absolutely precise. Regression analysis of F[SUB]T[/SUB] versus F[SUB]e[/SUB] and F[SUB]p[/SUB] gave CC values 0.73 and 0.50, correspondingly. F[SUB]T[/SUB] values, containing closed magnetic flux, are systematically higher than F[SUB]p[/SUB] and F[SUB]e[/SUB] by 20-30%. Motivated by diverse results, published by different groups, we reanalyzed the F dependence on the dayside merging electric field E[SUB]m[/SUB] for different dynamical states. The linear regression F(E[SUB]m[/SUB]) for substorm onsets shows a large slope ˜0.07-0.12GWb/(mV/m) for all F[SUB]p[/SUB], F[SUB]e[/SUB] and F[SUB]T[/SUB], confirming the loading-unloading substorm scheme. For SMC intervals this slope is only 0.03 GWb/(mV/m). [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 12 (3 ULg) |
||