Engineering topics

Wiltberger, M.

Publications and source records attributed to Wiltberger, M..

7 records

NASA NTRS2017

The Substorm Cycle as Reproduced by Global MHD Models

Recently, Gordeev et al. (2015) suggested a method to test global MHD models against statistical empirical data. They showed that four community-available global MHD models supported by the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC) produce a reasonable agreement with reality for those key parameters (the magnetospheric size, magnetic field, and pressure) that are directly related to the large-scale equilibria in the outer magnetosphere. Based on the same set of simulation runs, here we investigate how the models reproduce the global loading-unloading cycle. We found that in terms of global magnetic flux transport, three examined CCMC models display systematically different response to idealized2 h north then 2 h south interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) Bz variation. The LFM model shows a depressed return convection and high loading rate during the growth phase as well as enhanced return convection and high unloading rate during the expansion phase, with the amount of loaded unloaded magnetotail flux and the growth phase duration being the closest to their observed empirical values during isolated substorms. Two other models exhibit drastically different behavior. In the BATS-R-US model the plasma sheet convection shows a smooth transition to the steady convection regime after the IMF southward turning. In the Open GGCM a weak plasma sheet convection has comparable intensities during both the growth phase and the following slow unloading phase. We also demonstrate potential technical problem in the publicly available simulations which is related to post processing interpolation and could affect the accuracy of magnetic field tracing and of other related procedures.

Gordeev, E.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Community-Wide Validation of Geospace Model Local K-Index Predictions to Support Model Transition to Operations

We present the latest result of a community-wide space weather model validation effort coordinated among the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC), NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC), model developers, and the broader science community. Validation of geospace models is a critical activity for both building confidence in the science results produced by the models and in assessing the suitability of the models for transition to operations. Indeed, a primary motivation of this work is supporting NOAA/SWPCs effort to select a model or models to be transitioned into operations. Our validation efforts focus on the ability of the models to reproduce a regional index of geomagnetic disturbance, the local K-index. Our analysis includes six events representing a range of geomagnetic activity conditions and six geomagnetic observatories representing midlatitude and high-latitude locations. Contingency tables, skill scores, and distribution metrics are used for the quantitative analysis of model performance. We consider model performance on an event-by-event basis, aggregated over events, at specific station locations, and separated into high-latitude and midlatitude domains. A summary of results is presented in this report, and an online tool for detailed analysis is available at the CCMC.

Glocer, A.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Community-wide Validation of Geospace Model Ground Magnetic Field Perturbation Predictions to Support Model Transition to Operations

In this paper we continue the community-wide rigorous modern space weather model validation efforts carried out within GEM, CEDAR and SHINE programs. In this particular effort, in coordination among the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC), NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC), modelers, and science community, we focus on studying the models' capability to reproduce observed ground magnetic field fluctuations, which are closely related to geomagnetically induced current phenomenon. One of the primary motivations of the work is to support NOAA SWPC in their selection of the next numerical model that will be transitioned into operations. Six geomagnetic events and 12 geomagnetic observatories were selected for validation.While modeled and observed magnetic field time series are available for all 12 stations, the primary metrics analysis is based on six stations that were selected to represent the high-latitude and mid-latitude locations. Events-based analysis and the corresponding contingency tables were built for each event and each station. The elements in the contingency table were then used to calculate Probability of Detection (POD), Probability of False Detection (POFD) and Heidke Skill Score (HSS) for rigorous quantification of the models' performance. In this paper the summary results of the metrics analyses are reported in terms of POD, POFD and HSS. More detailed analyses can be carried out using the event by event contingency tables provided as an online appendix. An online interface built at CCMC and described in the supporting information is also available for more detailed time series analyses.

MAGNETIC↗

NASA NTRS2013

On the Performance of Global Magnetohydrodynamic Models in the Earth's Magnetosphere

We study the performance of four magnetohydrodynamic models (BATS-R-US, GUMICS, LFM, Open GGCM) in the Earths magnetosphere. Using the Community Coordinated Modeling Centers Run-on-Request system, we compare model predictions with magnetic field measurements of the Cluster, Geotail and Wind spacecraft during a multiple substorm event. We also compare model cross polar cap potential results to those obtained from the Super Dual Auroral Radar Network(SuperDARN) and the model magnetopause standoff distances to an empirical magnetopause model. The correlation coefficient (CC) and prediction efficiency (PE) metrics are used to objectively evaluate model performance quantitatively. For all four models, the best performance outside geosynchronous orbit is found on the dayside. Generally, the performance of models decreases steadily down stream from the Earth. On the dayside most CCs are above 0.5 with CCs for Bx and Bz close to 0.9 for three out of four models. In the magnetotail at a distance of about -130 Earth radii from Earth, the prediction efficiency of all models is below that of using an average value for the prediction with the exception of Bz. Bx is most often best predicted and correlated both on the dayside and the nightside close to the Earth whereas in the far tail the CC and PE for Bz are substantially higher than other components in all models. We also find that increasing the resolution or coupling an additional physics module does notautomatically increase the model performance in the magnetosphere.

geomagnetic tail↗

NASA NTRS2011

2008 GEM Modeling Challenge: Metrics Study of the Dst Index in Physics-Based Magnetosphere and Ring Current Models and in Statistical and Analytic Specifications

In this paper the metrics-based results of the Dst part of the 2008-2009 GEM Metrics Challenge are reported. The Metrics Challenge asked modelers to submit results for 4 geomagnetic storm events and 5 different types of observations that can be modeled by statistical or climatological or physics-based (e.g. MHD) models of the magnetosphere-ionosphere system. We present the results of over 25 model settings that were run at the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC) and at the institutions of various modelers for these events. To measure the performance of each of the models against the observations we use comparisons of one-hour averaged model data with the Dst index issued by the World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto, Japan, and direct comparison of one-minute model data with the one-minute Dst index calculated by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS).

Rastaetter, L.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Geospace Environment Modeling 2008-2009 Challenge: Ground Magnetic Field Perturbations

Acquiring quantitative metrics!based knowledge about the performance of various space physics modeling approaches is central for the space weather community. Quantification of the performance helps the users of the modeling products to better understand the capabilities of the models and to choose the approach that best suits their specific needs. Further, metrics!based analyses are important for addressing the differences between various modeling approaches and for measuring and guiding the progress in the field. In this paper, the metrics!based results of the ground magnetic field perturbation part of the Geospace Environment Modeling 2008 2009 Challenge are reported. Predictions made by 14 different models, including an ensemble model, are compared to geomagnetic observatory recordings from 12 different northern hemispheric locations. Five different metrics are used to quantify the model performances for four storm events. It is shown that the ranking of the models is strongly dependent on the type of metric used to evaluate the model performance. None of the models rank near or at the top systematically for all used metrics. Consequently, one cannot pick the absolute winner : the choice for the best model depends on the characteristics of the signal one is interested in. Model performances vary also from event to event. This is particularly clear for root!mean!square difference and utility metric!based analyses. Further, analyses indicate that for some of the models, increasing the global magnetohydrodynamic model spatial resolution and the inclusion of the ring current dynamics improve the models capability to generate more realistic ground magnetic field fluctuations.

Pulkkinen, A.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Magnetic Flux Circulation During Dawn-Dusk Oriented Interplanetary Magnetic Field

Magnetic flux circulation is a primary mode of energy transfer from the solar wind into the ionosphere and inner magnetosphere. For southward interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), magnetic flux circulation is described by the Dungey cycle (dayside merging, night side reconnection, and magnetospheric convection), and both the ionosphere and inner magnetosphere receive energy. For dawn-dusk oriented IMF, magnetic flux circulation is not well understood, and the inner magnetosphere does not receive energy. Several models have been suggested for possible reconnection patterns; the general pattern is: dayside merging; reconnection on the dayside or along the dawn/dusk regions; and, return flow on dayside only. These models are consistent with the lack of energy in the inner magnetosphere. We will present evidence that the Dungey cycle does not explain the energy transfer during dawn-dusk oriented IMF. We will also present evidence of how magnetic flux does circulate during dawn-dusk oriented IMF, specifically how the magnetic flux reconnects and circulates back.

Mitchell, E. J.↗