Prompt Penetration Electric Field Validation #24
Comments
|
The following plots are electron density (sum of all ions) at 350 km. 20130316 (Default) 20130316 (2nd setting) 20130317 (Default) 20130317 (2nd setting) It seems like with the 2nd setting, the daytime drift might be smaller. The nighttime drifts seem to increase and last to a later time. We need to look at the drift values to confirm that. |
|
Thanks Tzu-Wei,
Is there one or two values for each run? Could you explain a little more
what 15-30 and 30-35 mean.
Thanks,
Tim
…On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 9:32 AM twfang ***@***.***> wrote:
We need to validate the boundary between the high latitude electric field
and the dynamo solver. The default setting for crit is (15-30 degrees). A
2nd setting with (30-35 degrees) is also tested. Once IO component is
included in the latest version, we need to look at the electric field
directly.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5BFODLTQSRYDRVTBKILCDRLHYZXANCNFSM4MCL7MRQ>
.
|
|
These two values are used to define which potential to take. They are colatitudes. So 15-30 means 75 degree and 60 degree. The solver will use only empirical potential > 75 deg, only dynamo potential < 60 deg, and a combination of them between 60-75 mag lat. |
|
At which latitude is the Weimer or Heelis potential taken from to apply to
the dynamo solver, in each case ?
Is it just one latitude or two that are applied.
…On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:05 PM twfang ***@***.***> wrote:
These two values are used to define which potential to take. They are
colatitudes. So 15-30 means 75 degree and 60 degree. The solver will use
only empirical potential > 75 deg, only dynamo potential < 60 deg, and a
combination of them between 60-75 mag lat.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5BFODNIGMADLNPJP6PY33RLIKVNANCNFSM4MCL7MRQ>
.
|
|
The Default setting use Weimer/Heelis above 75 degree while 2nd setting use Weimer/Heelis above 60 degree. |
|
A comparison of WAM-IPE results (Weimer 2005 at high latitudes) with the empirical electric field from Manoj's model. WAM-IPE values seem to a little larger but the fluctuations look great!
|
|
Showing here are the lastest results from WAM-IPE v1.0 with 5 min time step. Two settings for crit1/crit 2 used are
20150316 (default) 20150316 (setting 2) 20150317 (default) 20150317 (setting 2) Overall, with larger crit1/crit2 in the model, the penetration effect is significantly reduced. This also reduces the TEC during the quite time period. |
|
I also add the electric field from setting 2 to show the comparison with WAM-IPE v1.0 and Manoj's model. You can see with different crit1/crit2, the model (black line) shows a much smaller electric field that is more comparable with the empirical model.
|
|
The document that described Barbara Emery's dynamic boundary can be found in Naomi's drive folder. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-k7cywYbphMWUI2SmxHYXdFVlk?usp=sharing I have looked into the code in the TIEGCM. Below are some notes from Barbara that I would like to document it. I have looked into TIEGCM a while ago and will look into this issue again. colath.F shows crit1=theta0+5deg, and crit2=crit1+15deg It is harder to calculate theta0 from Weimer 2001, since Weimer simplified |
|
There are limited data from JRO. No ISR data is available at these days, only daytime JULIA data.
No error bar is included in the plot, but they are about a couple of m/s for each point. I don't think the dataset is too reliable for comparing with drifts. |
|
Yes, not very useful, and very weak dayside upward drifts.
…On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 10:16 AM twfang ***@***.***> wrote:
There are limited data from JRO. No ISR data is available at these days,
only daytime JULIA data.
[image: PPEF_Julia_data]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22968399/89804960-1eafcd00-daf2-11ea-8b4d-945f083d3a43.png>
No error bar is included in the plot, but they are about a couple of m/s
for each point. I don't think the dataset is too reliable for comparing
with drifts.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5BFOGCC4SJLYEZJDT5LHLSAAMNTANCNFSM4MCL7MRQ>
.
|
|
Using the Heelis model at high latitudes and combines with different crit1/crit2 settings, here are the results compared to Manoj's empirical model similar to what has been shown above.
Looks like through changing the settings for crit1/crit2, we can largely reduce the electric field at most times. It also seems to capture some of the fluctuations shown in Manoj's model (red). The changes in the electric field are a little more complex during the main phase of the storm. We need to explore to see if we can have the cross-tail potential to adopt the temporal variation of the solar wind parameters. Some TEC comparisons for 2015/03/17 are also shown below. Heelis + 1st setting (crit1=15, crit2=30) Heelis + 2nd setting (crit1=30, crit2=35) |
|
Rather than the polar cap potential, there are empirical relationships
between Kp and solar wind velocity and IMF that would put back in the time
dependence in Heelis. . e.g,
https://doi.org/10.1002/swe.20053
Then extract the polar cap boundary from Heelis to define theta0 and crit
and crit2 as in the Solomon ppt
…On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 1:53 PM twfang ***@***.***> wrote:
Using the Heelis model at high latitudes and combines with different
crit1/crit2 settings, here are the results compared to Manoj's empirical
model similar to what has been shown above.
[image: heelis_JRO_crit]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22968399/90817610-520d0b80-e2eb-11ea-9774-60dc387e69cd.png>
Looks like through changing the settings for crit1/crit2, we can largely
reduce the electric field at most times. It also seems to capture some of
the fluctuations shown in Manoj's model (red). The changes in the electric
field are a little more complex during the main phase of the storm. We need
to explore to see if we can have the cross-tail potential to adopt the
temporal variation of the solar wind parameters.
Some TEC comparisons for 2015/03/17 are also shown below.
Heelis + 1st setting (crit1=15, crit2=30)
[image: TEC_20150317_crit_15_30]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22968399/90818834-600f5c00-e2ec-11ea-8988-09b75af7d614.png>
Heelis + 2nd setting (crit1=30, crit2=35)
[image: TEC_20150317_crit_30_35]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22968399/90818887-71f0ff00-e2ec-11ea-9bd5-98a8ad9b55d7.png>
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5BFOFKO7QEZ4FE5A2YBELSBV5KZANCNFSM4MCL7MRQ>
.
|
|
Should we go with equation 1 in this paper, just take what IPE sees as solar wind parameters at each time step? Not exactly sure what the authors provided in the end. |
|
Yes.
Do you also have the theta0 from Heelis model for the polar cap boundary?
Then use the Solomon numbers, like you had before for crit1 and crit2
[image: image.png]
…On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:06 PM twfang ***@***.***> wrote:
Should we go with equation 1 in this paper, just take what IPE sees as
solar wind parameters at each time step? Not exactly sure what the authors
provided in the end.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5BFOB7YBAYMXPZBCORBVLSB3ARHANCNFSM4MCL7MRQ>
.
|
|
Yes, then what I will do is to use solar wind parameters to calculate Kp, Kp then be used to calculate ctpoten. I will let you know how theta0 looks like throughout the 2015 event. |
|
We might want to check the Kp value calculated by the function looks
sensible by looking at a plot of the timeseries through the March storm.
We might need to make sure is stays in bounds expected by the Heelis model
for ctpoten as well (0 to 9).
…On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:55 PM twfang ***@***.***> wrote:
Yes, then what I will do is to use solar wind parameters to calculate Kp,
Kp then be used to calculate ctpoten.
theta0 is then defined by (-3.80+8.48*(ctpoten**0.1875))*dtr. The value
will be used to modify crit1/crit2.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5BFOHOPZ5VDM23HGBKRNDSB3UMVANCNFSM4MCL7MRQ>
.
|
|
Yes, we shall check out the Kp values first. I will keep you posted. |
|
How are you using ctpoten?
Isn't Heelis driven by Kp?
…On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 4:15 PM twfang ***@***.***> wrote:
Yes, we shall check out the Kp values first. I will keep you posted.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5BFOFCU7TMWE4D4RM4M4TSB3WZLANCNFSM4MCL7MRQ>
.
|
|
ctpoten= 15.+15.fkp+0.8fkp**2 I think this came from TIEGCM |
|
Using the Newell equ. defined in this paper (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/swe.20053), we are able to obtain Kp from the time-varying solar wind parameters. In the lastest setting, kp then is used to define ctpoten. ctpoten is used to determine theta0 in heelis, which is the convection reversal boundary. We do not constrain Kp to be limited to 9 since the algorithm is providing reasonable ctpoten.
The current method seems to provide reasonable PPEFs. After checking the SED feature and other TEC plots, the branch (heelis) will be ready to be merged into develop. |
|
A different method that provides ctpoten using solar wind parameters was also carried out based on the paper https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/96JA01742.
The results are very similar to the previous method. So, we decided to go with the Kp method at this point. |
|
Using the same model structure (heelis model, kp using time-varying solar wind parameters), the 2003 storm is carried out. The PPEF seems to be huge, compared to the empirical model. However, it is not clear if the data is available in the empirical model to provide meaningful results. Below are some results at Jicamarca during the event.
The drift velocity is shown here. Large upward and downward drifts go to 200 m/s.
TEC maps on 11/20 during the peak storm. TEC goes up to 400 TECu at where the SED feature presents.
Not sure if we have anything to valid with, perhaps MIT TEC? The good thing is the model went thought the run without any problem. |
|
This looks good.
Yes, we have MIT TEC values to compare and there are several other studies.
The vertical plasma drift does seem a bit high and too long duration. That
might be the lack of shielding with the method we are using.
However the very large TEC in the SED feature is very localized and could
have easily been missed in observations, and it is not unlike the values
observed in the Mannucci study in the Oct storm of the same year.
…On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 1:06 PM twfang ***@***.***> wrote:
Using the same model structure (heelis model, kp using time-varying solar
wind parameters), the 2003 storm is carried out. The PPEF seems to be huge,
compared to the empirical model. However, it is not clear if the data is
available in the empirical model to provide meaningful results. Below are
some results at Jicamarca during the event.
[image: ppef_jro_2003]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22968399/93252801-331b6100-f753-11ea-903d-62aac38fd38d.png>
The drift velocity is shown here. Large upward and downward drifts go to
200 m/s.
[image: dft_at_JRO]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22968399/93252838-3e6e8c80-f753-11ea-9897-db38c8c8f521.png>
TEC maps on 11/20 during the peak storm. TEC goes up to 400 TECu at where
the SED feature presents.
[image: TEC_1120]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22968399/93253416-0f0c4f80-f754-11ea-8e7e-0cd349bac1d5.png>
Not sure if we have anything to valid with, perhaps MIT TEC? The good
thing is the model went thought the run without any problem.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5BFOCETJRF5ZRIXKHN5ALSF63JPANCNFSM4MCL7MRQ>
.
|
|
If you have the SED results from the 2015 and 2003 storms, could you please post them here? Also, do you have a plot from MIT TEC for 2003? Let's all put them here together. Thank you! |
|
Some validation for 2015 and 2003 using the new Kp and the Heelis provided by Tim. |
|
Results from the lastest and the most promising method: Using Heelis at high-latitudes, but drive heelis with cross-polar cap potential (CPCP) from Weimer result at each timestep. The crit1 is theta0+5 degree and crit2 is theta0+20. TEC on 11/20/2003 CPCP from Weimer used in the run The electric field at JRO compared to PPEF empirical model on 11/19 and 11/20. I will test out the 2015 storm. |
|
Looks much better.
Do you have the netcdf?
…On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 11:15 AM twfang ***@***.***> wrote:
Results from the lastest and the most promising method: Using Heelis at
high-latitudes, but drive heelis with cross-polar cap potential (CPCP) from
Weimer result at each timestep. The crit1 is theta0+5 degree and crit2 is
theta0+20.
TEC on 11/20/2003
[image: Screen Shot 2020-10-16 at 10 55 35 AM]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22968399/96288433-a7d6fa80-0fa0-11eb-9207-3f90982df428.png>
CPCP from Weimer used in the run
[image: Screen Shot 2020-10-16 at 10 57 48 AM]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22968399/96288486-bf15e800-0fa0-11eb-9b6a-83bdbe7f3e5e.png>
The electric field at JRO compared to PPEF empirical model on 11/19 and
11/20.
[image: Screen Shot 2020-10-16 at 11 10 22 AM]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22968399/96288566-d7860280-0fa0-11eb-9117-56492122c665.png>
I will test out the 2015 storm.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5BFOHZTJRTFHVUYVRR6L3SLB5TTANCNFSM4MCL7MRQ>
.
|
|
The netcdf files from this run can be found in the link below. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Hb9YIkSAe9C-oqkRHg3XZRpNTNjVzWOM?usp=sharing |
|
Thanks I'll take a look.
…On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 2:43 PM twfang ***@***.***> wrote:
The netcdf files from this run can be found in the link below.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Hb9YIkSAe9C-oqkRHg3XZRpNTNjVzWOM?usp=sharing
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#24 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH5BFOEVGHMTIDHGFLWX2JTSLCV6BANCNFSM4MCL7MRQ>
.
|
|
Same setting (using Weimer CPCP to drive Heelis) for 2015 storm case. TEC on 2015/03/17 Electric field compared to the empirical model I think this is good. The penetration effect seems to be reasonable. Compare to the results back in Aug, the values are not too much overestimated. Files can be accessed in my google drive folder |
|
We now are waiting for the DMSP validation from Mariangle and Tim. If the results look good, we will merge the branch into the operational version. |
We need to validate the boundary between the high latitude electric field and the dynamo solver. The default setting for crit is (15-30 degrees). A 2nd setting with (30-35 degrees) is also tested. Once IO component is included in the latest version, we need to look at the electric field directly.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: