Reference : Comparison of magnetotail magnetic flux estimates based on global auroral images and ...
Scientific journals : Article
Physical, chemical, mathematical & earth Sciences : Physics
Physical, chemical, mathematical & earth Sciences : Earth sciences & physical geography
Physical, chemical, mathematical & earth Sciences : Space science, astronomy & astrophysics
http://hdl.handle.net/2268/86567
Comparison of magnetotail magnetic flux estimates based on global auroral images and simultaneous solar wind—magnetotail measurements
English
Shukhtina, M. A. [St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia]
Sergeev, V. A. [St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia]
Dejong, A. D. [Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA]
Hubert, Benoît mailto [Laboratory for Planetary and Atmospheric Physics, University of Liege, Liege, Belgium]
1-Nov-2010
Journal of Atmospheric & Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science
72
1282-1291
Yes (verified by ORBi)
International
1364-6826
[en] 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).
Researchers ; Professionals ; Students
http://hdl.handle.net/2268/86567
10.1016/j.jastp.2010.09.013
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JASTP..72.1282S

File(s) associated to this reference

Fulltext file(s):

FileCommentaryVersionSizeAccess
Restricted access
Shukhtina_JASTP_2010.pdfPublisher postprint944 kBRequest copy

Bookmark and Share SFX Query

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.