References of "Shukhtina, M. A"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailComparison of magnetotail magnetic flux estimates based on global auroral images and simultaneous solar wind—magnetotail measurements
Shukhtina, M. A.; Sergeev, V. A.; Dejong, A. D. 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: 17 (3 ULg)