Ring Current Investigations: The Quest for Space Weather Prediction

Ring Current Investigations

The Quest for Space Weather Prediction

Edited by

Vania K. Jordanova

Raluca Ilie

Margaret W. Chen

Contents

Cover

Title page

Copyright

Contributors

Preface

Chapter 1: Introduction and historical background

Abstract

1.1. Historical overview

1.2. Relation to solar wind drivers

1.3. Space weather effects

1.4. Book content

Acknowledgments

Chapter 2: Observations and measurement techniques

Abstract

2.1. Early ring-current measurements

2.2. Ring current composition and the source of the ring current

2.3. Imaging the ring current

2.4. Multispacecraft measurements and recent results

2.5. Summary

Chapter 3: Theoretical description

Abstract

3.1. Motivation

3.2. Single particle motion in electromagnetic fields

3.3. Adiabatic invariants

3.4. Statistical description: elements of kinetic theory

3.5. Motion in a nonuniform magnetic field

3.6. Bounce averaged drifts

3.7. Losses

3.8. Conclusions

Appendix A. Equatorial gyro-frequency

Appendix B. Equatorial gyro-radius

Appendix C. Bounce period

Chapter 4: Modeling techniques

Abstract

4.1. Introduction

4.2. Empirical models

4.3. Theoretical models

4.4. Discussion and summary

Acknowledgments

Chapter 5: Ring current development

Abstract

5.1. Introduction

5.2. Ring current sources

5.3. Ring current particle transport: convective and diffusive

5.4. Effect of plasma sheet variations on ring current intensity

5.5. Effects of magnetic self-consistency

5.6. Model-data comparisons of ring current development

5.7. Challenges for future understanding of ring current development

Acknowledgments

Chapter 6: Ring current decay

Abstract

6.1. Introduction

6.2. Charge exchange

6.3. Coulomb collisions

6.4. Precipitation losses

6.5. Magnetopause losses

6.6. Discussion and conclusions

Acknowledgments

Chapter 7: Cross-regional coupling

Abstract

7.1. Roles of ring current in magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling

7.2. Magnetic effects of the ring current

7.3. Ring current velocity anisotropy and plasma wave growths

7.4. Electric coupling between the ring current and ionosphere

7.5. Ring current moderation with the ionospheric conductivity

7.6. Final remark

Acknowledgment

Chapter 8: Space weather effects and prediction

Abstract

8.1. Effects of space weather

8.2. Spacecraft charging and electrostatic discharges

8.3. Geomagnetically induced currents

8.4. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Chapter 9: Comparative planetary ring currents

Abstract

9.1. Comparing planetary magnetospheres

9.2. How does a rotationally driven magnetosphere operate?

9.3. Comparing ring current populations

9.4. Ring current population dynamics and sources

9.5. Ring current population losses

9.6. Uranus (and Neptune)

9.7. Discussion

9.8. Appendix

Appendix 1: Frequently Used Abbreviations

Appendix 2: Useful Websites and Download Links

Appendix 3: Illustrative Movies and Other Materials

Index

Copyright

Elsevier

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-815571-4

For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice Janco

Acquisitions Editor: Marisa LaFleur

Editorial Project Manager: Sara Valentino

Production Project Manager: Joy Christel Neumarin

Designer: Christian J. Bilbow

Typeset by Thomson Digital

Contributors

Margaret W. Chen,     The Aerospace Corporation, Space Sciences Application Laboratory, Los Angeles, CA, United States

Mei-Ching Fok,     Geospace Physics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States

Raluca Ilie,     University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, United States

Vania K. Jordanova,     Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space Science and Applications, Los Alamos, NM, United States

Lynn M. Kistler

University of New Hampshire, Space Science Center and Physics Department, Durham, NH, United States

Nagoya University, Institute for Space Earth Environmental Research, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan

Barry H. Mauk,     The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD, United States

James L. Roeder,     The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, United States

Frank Toffoletto,     Rice University, Physics and Astronomy Department, Houston, TX, United States

Preface

The inner regions of the Earth’s space environment, or the inner magnetosphere, are composed of several distinct plasma populations that could be differentiated by their specific temperature or density (e.g., plasmasphere, ring current, radiation belts, and plasma sheet). These inner magnetospheric plasma populations interact with each other and with the outer magnetosphere and ionosphere through a variety of physical processes leading to particle injections, acceleration, and loss. Abrupt changes of several orders of magnitude can occur in the particle distributions, and the most dramatic variations, related to the development of large geomagnetic storms, are linked to harmful space weather effects. As society becomes more and more dependent on sophisticated technologies operating both in space and on the ground, the need to provide a timely and reliable forecast of the space environment increases. Despite years of ground-based, global imaging, and in situ satellite observations, as well as numerical modeling studies, accurate space weather forecasts remain a big challenge, due to the complexity of the highly dynamic near-Earth region.

This book is motivated by the growing interest in space weather prediction. It provides in-depth coverage of the dynamics of energetic particles forming the ring current populations, the main signature of a geomagnetic storm, using observations, theory, and numerical modeling. The development of the Earth’s ring current depends strongly on the plasma sheet source population and the magnitude of electromagnetic fields, which control particles’ injection, depth of penetration, and trapping. Its decay is dictated by losses due to collisions with neutral and charged particles, wave-particle interactions, flow out to the dayside magnetopause, and particle precipitation into the atmosphere. With ring current observations at other strongly magnetized planets of the solar system, such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, similarities and differences to the ring current system at Earth have been discovered. This book provides a comprehensive review of important advances in ring current research from recent publications and stimulating discussions at the International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland, the American Geophysical Union Fall Meetings, and the National Science Foundation/Geospace Environment Modeling Workshops. It contains nine highly coordinated chapters that have been independently refereed, and an Appendix with useful links to illustrative video clips, public data, and open-source code downloads. The book material also reviews relevant concepts in basic plasma physics theory, electromagnetism, and kinetic theory, in the context of ring current development and decay. The book is intended to serve as a comprehensive reference to researchers, professors and students interested in understanding the underlying physical mechanisms of geomagnetic storms and in simulating their effects.

Vania K. Jordanova

Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM

Raluca Ilie

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL

Margaret W. Chen

The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, CA

Chapter 1

Introduction and historical background

Vania K. Jordanovaa

Raluca Ilieb

Margaret W. Chenc

a    Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space Science and Applications, Los Alamos, NM, United States

b    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, United States

c    The Aerospace Corporation, Space Sciences Application Laboratory, Los Angeles, CA, United States

Abstract

The largest variations in the plasma and fields that comprise the inner regions of the Earth’s space environment, or the magnetosphere, occur during geomagnetic storms and are related to the intensification of the ring current, the magnetically trapped charged particles that partially or fully encircle the Earth inside of ∼7 Earth radii. This chapter provides a historical introduction to the ring current and geomagnetic storms that have been investigated for more than 100 years. An overview of the relationship of the ring current to solar wind drivers and the development and decay of the ring current, in terms of the Sun-Earth connection is presented. Major space weather effects triggered by geomagnetic storms are briefly summarized. These effects intensify during extreme events, like the largest recorded geomagnetic storm that occurred in September 1859, known as the Carrington Event. Less severe storms have occurred since then, still causing many disruptions.

Keywords

near-Earth space environment

geomagnetic storms

current systems

solar wind-magnetosphere interactions

space weather

1.1. Historical overview

The defining characteristic feature of a geomagnetic storm that is observed in the magnetograms of near-equatorial ground-based stations is the decrease of the horizontal component of the Earth’s magnetic field and its subsequent recovery. Hourly values of the average global variation of this component, measured at low-latitude observatories (Fig. 1.1A), are used to specify the intensity of the geomagnetic storm and are referred to as the Dst index (Sugiura, 1964). This index has been compiled by the World Data Center for Geomagnetism in Kyoto, Japan, since 1964. Usually, the largest magnetic storms are preceded by a sudden impulse called storm sudden commencement (SSC), signaling the arrival of an interplanetary shock structure. The main phase of the geomagnetic storm is associated with the enhancement of the ring current due to particle energization and trapping, while the recovery phase is associated with its decay due to various loss processes. Another index available since 1932 from the Institute of Geophysics in Gottingen, and later from the GFZ Helmholtz Centre in Potsdam, Germany, and used to classify the geomagnetic activity on a global scale is the Kp index, a number between 0 and 9 indicating the level of disturbance in a given 3-hour interval of the universal day. A detailed description of various geomagnetic indices and their use is given by Mayaud (1980).

Figure 1.1   (A) Hourly Dst values during the geomagnetic storm of July 9 1966 based on ground-based data from Honolulu, Tucson, San Juan, Guam and Surlari magnetometers. (B) Directional intensities of protons with energies between 31 and 49 keV as a function of radial distance, during the July 9, 1966 geomagnetic storm. Source: From Frank (1967).

Time variations in the Earth’s magnetic field were reported for the first time around 1635, in a book entitled A discourse mathematical on the variation of the magneticall needle: Together with its admirable diminution lately discovered by Henry Gellibrand, professor of Astronomy at the Gresham College (Gellibrand, 1635). However, it was not until 1847, when Carl Friedrich Gauss, together with Wilhelm Weber, established the first magnetic observatory in Gottingen, Germany, and measurements of the terrestrial magnetic field in various regions of the Earth were made possible. Gauss’ method of measuring the horizontal component of the terrestrial magnetic field has provided the mathematical foundation in assessing the geomagnetic disturbances on the ground. Ground disturbances were reported to have various periodicities: from diurnal, first discovered in London in 1722 by George Graham (a clockmaker also interested in astronomy and geomagnetism), to secular; however, some irregular disturbances were also reported and remained unexplained until 1912, when Carl Stormer interpreted them as a consequence of the formation of a donut-shape equatorial ring of electrons, moving on closed field lines in a region between 30,000 and 10,000,000 km (Stormer, 1912). This is the first time the existence of a ring current is hypothesized.

It was not until 1967, when ring current particles were first detected by instruments onboard the OGO 3 spacecraft (Frank, 1967); Fig. 1.1B shows the first measurements of ring current proton fluxes during the geomagnetic storm of July 9, 1966. Numerous studies followed, that focused on the detection and estimation of ring current characteristic properties (Hoffman and Cahill, 1968; Konradi et al., 1973; Longanecker and Hoffman, 1973; Cahill, 1973; Williams and Lyons, 1974; Berko et al., 1975).

In 1951, observations of precipitating energetic neutral hydrogen into the upper atmosphere during auroral substorms were linked to the existence of energetic neutral atoms (ENAs) by Meinel (1951), and were discovered to contribute to the ring current decay (Fite et al., 1958; Dessler and Parker, 1959; Stuart, 1959) by means of charge exchange between protons and neutral atmospheric hydrogen atoms. These discoveries led to the first global image of the ring current, based on measurements of actual energetic neutral atom fluxes (Roelof, 1987) from the ISEE-1 spacecraft.

Besides the ring current, which is of major interest to this book, other magnetospheric current systems are the tail, field-aligned, and magnetopause currents (Fig. 1.2). The relative contribution of each of these currents to Dst is not well established and was estimated by different authors as being minor (Burton et al., 1975; O’Brien and McPherron, 2000; Turner et al., 2000), major (Alexeev et al., 1996), or storm-dependent (e.g., Ganushkina et al., 2004).

Figure 1.2   Schematic illustration of Earth’s magnetosphere, showing the major distinct regions and electric current systems. Source: From Pollock et al. (2003).

1.2. Relation to solar wind drivers

Satellite observations have shown that our planet Earth is immersed into the continuous flow of plasma from the Sun called the solar wind, traveling on average at about 400 km/s, with a particle density of ∼10 cm–3, and carrying a magnetic field of about 5 nT. The bulk of this flow is diverted around the planet by the strong intrinsic magnetic field of the Earth, forming a tear-drop shaped magnetic cavity known as the magnetosphere (Fig. 1.2). This cavity is populated by thermal plasma and energetic charged particles whose motion is governed by the surrounding electric and magnetic fields. At near-Earth distances, low-energy (electronvolt, eV) plasma corotates with the Earth and forms the plasmasphere (Carpenter and Anderson, 1992), populated by outflow from the ionosphere. Particles at relativistic (MeV) energies get trapped on closed geomagnetic field lines thereby forming the radiation belts, whose source is still the subject of intensive research (Mauk et al., 2013). The intermediate-energy (keV) charged particles that are injected from the plasma sheet, and for which the electric and magnetic drifts are of comparable importance, form the ring current (Fig. 1.3). The strength of the ring current is commonly used as a measure of geomagnetic storm intensity through the Dst index. The ring current is centered at the magnetic equatorial plane, with an outer boundary located where the magnetic field is no longer able to maintain closed particle orbits around the Earth (stable trapping), and an inner boundary determined by the dense atmosphere. For typical ring current energies from ∼1 keV to 300 keV, the inner magnetosphere region under consideration thus extends between ∼2 and 8 Earth radii (RE) (Schulz and Lanzerotti, 1974).

Figure 1.3   Adiabatic flow pattern (solid arrows) of magnetospheric protons (E ∼10 − 200 keV) in the equatorial plane. Dashed curves represent boundaries of plasma sheet and plasmasphere. Source: From Schulz and Lanzerotti (1974).

Gonzalez et al. (1994) suggested a definition of a geomagnetic storm as an interval of time when a sufficiently intense and long-lasting interplanetary convection electric field leads, through a substantial energization in the magnetosphere-ionosphere system, to an intensified ring current strong enough to exceed some key threshold of the quantifying storm time Dst index. Furthermore, from all observed Dst values during 1976–1986, approximately 1% were more negative than −100 nT and were classified as great (intense) storms, approximately 7% were between −50 nT and −100 nT and were classified as moderate storms, and Dst values between −30 nT and −50 nT, which occurred less than 20% of the time, were classified as weak storms. The main process coupling the solar wind momentum and energy to the magnetosphere and driving magnetospheric energization and geomagnetic storms is thought to be reconnection of the interplanetary and Earth’s magnetic fields at the low-latitude dayside magnetopause (Dungey, 1961) as shown in Fig. 1.4. The passage at Earth of solar wind plasma carrying a strong and persistent southward-oriented interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) causes an intensification of the large-scale electric field across the magnetotail (Fig. 1.2). As a result, the earthward flow of ions and electrons inside the magnetosphere increases, the ring current grows significantly, and the Dst index decreases rapidly; a geomagnetic storm occurs. Kamide et al. (1998) thus found that for more than 50% of intense geomagnetic storms, the main phase undergoes a two-step growth in the ring current that could be associated with the arrival of double-structured southward IMF at the magnetosphere. During intense geomagnetic storms the efficiency of energy transfer through large-scale magnetopause reconnection was estimated on the basis of various coupling functions to ∼10% (Gonzalez et al., 1989). Wave motions produced by viscous interaction between the solar wind plasma and the magnetospheric plasma (Axford and Hines, 1961) seemed to have a minor contribution, and were estimated to be ∼1% efficient during intense northward IMF (Tsurutani et al., 1992).

Figure 1.4   Schematic of the solar-interplanetary-magnetosphere coupling during solar maximum years, during which a coronal mass ejection is the most important solar source for interplanetary and magnetospheric disturbances. Source: From Gonzalez et al. (1994).

Because of the variety of phenomena occurring on the Sun, solar wind conditions are not constant but may change abruptly with time, and so does the energy input to the magnetosphere. Most important is the 11 year solar cycle which results from the periodic reversal of that part of the Sun’s internal magnetic field that impacts the interplanetary environment, with solar maximum and solar minimum phases greatly influencing the conditions within Earth’s magnetosphere. The overall geomagnetic activity also has a seasonal variability with maxima at the equinoxes (Russell and McPherron, 1973), and tends to become enhanced during the descending phase of the solar cycle, near solar minimum (Legrand and Simon, 1991). Intense storms (peak Dst <−100 nT) however tend to show two peaks within the solar cycle, one slightly ahead of solar maximum and the other one 2–3 years after solar maximum (Gonzalez et al., 1990). Within one year of solar minimum the occurrence rate of intense storms is the smallest. In contrast, there is much less solar cycle dependence for the moderate and weak storms (−75 nT < Dst < −35 nT) and the ratio of the number of storms occurring during solar maximum to the ones occurring during solar minimum is less than 2:1 (Tsurutani et al., 2006).

There are two main solar origins of intense IMF that can typically drive geomagnetic storms: (1) the intrinsic field and plasma associated with explosive phenomena occurring within the Sun’s upper atmosphere (the solar corona), called coronal mass ejections (CMEs), or (2) the shocked and compressed field and plasma associated with the collision of a high-speed stream with the preceding slower solar wind, called corotating interaction regions (CIRs). Fig. 1.4 shows the major features of solar-interplanetary-magnetosphere coupling driven by a CME, which is the most important source during solar maximum conditions. The directed mechanical energy from the flow of the solar wind is transformed into magnetic energy stored in the magnetotail, followed by its dissipation into the plasma sheet, auroral particles, ring current, and Joule heating of the ionosphere, the largest consumer from these being the storm time ring current. CME-driven storms are usually stronger and with well-defined SSC. Their recovery phases typically last for a few days and have a distinctive two-phase decay, a rapid early phase followed by a second phase with slower decay (Fig. 1.5 top). During solar minimum the interplanetary medium is dominated by long-lasting high-speed streams associated with open magnetic field regions of the Sun’s surface called polar coronal holes which corotate with the Sun’s (∼27-day rotation rate) (Timothy et al., 1975). These streams interact with the upstream low-velocity and high-density heliospheric current sheet plasma forming CIRs. Typically, the IMF directionality within CIRs is highly variable and can cause recurring moderate to weak storms with gradual initial phase and highly irregular main phase profile and long-lasting recovery phase. The southward components of large-amplitude magnetohydrodynamic waves, called Alfvén waves, within the CIRs can drive chains of consecutive substorms and auroral activity named high-intensity long-duration continuous AE activity (HILDCAA), which often occur during the storm recovery phase and can last 10 days or more (Tsurutani et al., 1995). Fig. 1.5 (bottom) shows a summary of a magnetic storm profile caused by a CIR, which is contrasted to a magnetic storm profile caused by a CME (Fig. 1.5 top), and highlights significant differences between the two storms in terms of strength and duration due to their different interplanetary drivers.

Figure 1.5   Schematics of magnetic storms generated by (top) CMEs and by (bottom) CIRs. Although the profiles of these two different magnetic storms are qualitatively similar, the physical causes, and characteristics of the various storm phases are different. After Tsurutani et al. (2006).

1.3. Space weather effects

It is important to understand the physical processes of magnetic storms not only from scientific curiosity perspective, but also from a practical need since magnetic storms through space weather effects have potentially significant societal impact. Intense geomagnetic storms may have severe effects and can even destroy satellite-based technologies (broadcast TV/Radio, GPS, cell phones, internet, commercial/military/national security assets). For example, the recovery of Galaxy 15, a $250 million telecommunication satellite in geosynchronous orbit (GEO), which failed to operate in 2010 due to a space storm, costs about $3.5 million (Selding, 2010). There are various reasons for the failure of satellite subsystems or even the total failure of a spacecraft. Some of these are space weather events related to the space environment, other hazards are collisions with natural or man-made space debris. Crucial for anomaly resolution is the ability to reliably distinguish between these modes of failure. The quest for low-cost access to space and the introduction of all-electric propulsion satellites raises new questions regarding the threat of adverse space weather and the importance of additional radiation protection (Horne and Pitchford, 2015). The forecast of severe events would allow communication and operation centers to take protective actions and reduce the risk of satellite anomalies (Cannon, 2013).

Energetic particle fluxes that intensify in the inner magnetosphere during storm time could damage satellites in several important ways, therefore understanding the physical processes that control their dynamics, as discussed in this book, is important. On one hand, low to medium (keV) energy electrons may cause surface charging by depositing non-uniformly their charge in spacecraft surfaces; the resulting differential charging may drive discharges which can damage electronics (Thomsen et al., 2013). On the other hand, high-energy (above ∼1 MeV) particles may cause single-event-upsets and deep-dielectric charging. Highly energetic protons (> tens of MeV) found in the inner radiation belts or accelerated at interplanetary shocks are known to produce single-event upsets in satellite electronics. Enhanced fluxes of high-energy electrons (>1 MeV) may cause deep-dielectric charging as particles penetrate the surface and accumulate within internal dielectrics; the subsequent breakdown of this charging can lead to component failures (Wrenn et al., 2002).

In addition, ground-based technologies such as electric power grids, pipelines, and high-voltage transmission lines are affected by space weather. The greatest recorded geomagnetic storm (called the Carrington Event) occurred in 1859 and caused failures of telegraph systems and ignition of fires in telegraph offices across Europe and N. America (Lovett, 2011). Fig. 1.6 shows excerpts from The Electric Telegraph (Prescott, 1875), which quoted Mr. O. S. Wood, Superintendent of the Canadian telegraph lines: I never, in my experience of fifteen years in the working of telegraph lines, witnessed anything like the extraordinary effect of the aurora borealis, between Quebec and Father’s Point, last night, … so completely were the wires under the influence of the aurora borealis, that it was found utterly impossible to communicate between the telegraph stations, and the line was closed for the night. Observations made at Philadelphia, communicated by H. Emmons Thayer, Telegraph Superintendent mentioned, There was an intensity of current which gave a severe shock when testing, giving a reversed current, neutralizing our batteries, and destroying magnetism.

Figure 1.6   Excerpts from History, Theory, and Practice of the Electric Telegraph. Source: From Prescott (1875).

Storms in modern times have also produced hazardous effects like large ground-level magnetic field perturbations and geomagnetically induced currents (GICs). In March 1989 the Quebec Hydro’s power transmission system collapsed in <90 seconds due to GICs produced by a large storm and caused a blackout that left 6 million people without power for 9 hours (Bolduc, 2002). It has been estimated that through disruption of power grids, communications, and satellite operations, severe geomagnetic storms may cause damage costing $1–$2 trillion during the first year alone and taking years for recovery (National Research Council, 2008).

Of central interest to space science is thus understanding the response at Earth of the Sun’s varying energy output, and the prediction of geomagnetic activity that could have negative impact on technological systems and may pose serious health hazards. The National Space Weather Strategy and Action Plan (NSWSAP, 2019) released by the Space Weather Operations, Research, and Mitigation Working Group (SWORM) in March 2019 explicitly calls out activities to enhance preparedness and mitigation efforts against severe space weather events. The development of predictive models and the forecast of hazardous space weather events (Horne et al., 2013; Jordanova et al., 2018) is challenging, since the Sun-Earth system is strongly coupled. In the inner magnetosphere for example, the injected keV ions and electrons provide the energy source for the generation of various plasma waves (Jordanova et al., 2012) which transfer the energy back to the particles. These waves can accelerate electrons to high energies making them killer electrons that damage spacecraft, or can precipitate them into the Earth’s atmosphere producing the spectacular aurora. More studies are needed to evaluate the state-of-the-art model performance in reproducing the cross-energy/population interactions in the inner magnetosphere and to develop standardized metrics for model validation (Liemohn et al., 2018). Challenges also remain in taking full advantage of the rapidly growing database of satellite observations and of numerical techniques such as machine learning and data assimilation to mature physics-based models (Yu et al., 2019).

1.4. Book content

This book provides an overview of our present knowledge from observations and theory of the main mechanisms that operate in the inner magnetosphere, as an important reference for the development of reliable models for space weather prediction. Many characteristics of the ring current have emerged from in situ as well as global magnetospheric observations over the past decades. However, the physics that governs the behavior of Earth’s ring current, its buildup, decay, and coupling to surrounding plasma populations, is still an area of active research, and the authors of this book also aspire to help guide ongoing and future research. To help researchers advance their knowledge of such fundamental physical processes, the book compares the physics of the ring current system at Earth with ring currents at other strongly magnetized planets in the solar system, specifically Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These other systems provide significant tests of our understanding. This book also presents a brief description of existing state-of-the-art numerical models and their capabilities to nowcast and forecast important space weather effects. Useful links to websites for data and model downloads, as well as video clips that illustrate features of ring current and geomagnetic storm dynamics are given in the Appendix.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Barry Mauk for valuable comments on the manuscript. Work at Los Alamos was conducted under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy (Contract No. 89233218CNA000001), with partial support from the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program (LDRD), and NASA grants 80HQTR19T0023 and 80HQTR19T0058. Work at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was performed with financial support from NASA under grant 3004631577, NSF ICER Award No.1664078, and AFOSR YIP Award AF FA 9550-18-1-0195, and NSF CAREER Award No. 1945573. Work at The Aerospace Corporation was funded by NASA grant NNX16AG72G, NSF grant AGS 1602862, and the Aerospace Technical Investment Program.

References

Alexeev II, Belenkaya ES, Kalegaev VV, Feldstein YI, Grafe A. Magnetic storms and magnetotail currents. J. Geophys. Res. 1996;101:7737.

Axford WI, Hines CO. A unifying theory of high-latitude geophysical phenomena and geomagnetic storms. Can J. Phys. 1961;39:1433.

Berko FW, Cahill LJ, Fritz TA. Protons as prime contributors to storm time ring current. J. Geophys. Res. 1975;80(25):3549–3552. doi: 10.1029/JA080i025p03549.

Bolduc L. GIC observations and studies of the Hydro-Quebec power system. J. Atm. Terr. Sol. Phys. 2002;64:1793–1802.

Burton RK, McPherron RL, Russell CT. An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst. J. Geophys. Res. 1975;80:4204.

Cahill LJ. Magnetic storm inflation in the evening sector. J. Geophys. Res. 1973;78(2):4724–4730. doi: 10.1029/JA078i022p04724.

Cannon PS. Extreme space weather: a report published by the UK royal academy of engineering. Space Weather. 2013;11:138–139. doi: 10.1002/swe.20032.

Carpenter DL, Anderson RR. An ISEE/whistler model of equatorial electron density in the magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 1992;97(A2):1097–1108. doi: 10.1029/91JA01548.

Dessler AJ, Parker EN. Hydromagnetic theory of geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 1959;64:2239–2252. doi: 10.1029/JZ064i012p02239.

Dungey JW. Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1961;6:47.

Fite WL, Brackman TR, Snow WR. Charge transfer in proton-hydrogen atom collisions. Phys. Rev. 1958;112:1161. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.112.1161.

Frank LA. On the extraterrestrial ring current during geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 1967;72(15):3753–3767. doi: 10.1029/JZ072i015p03753.

Ganushkina NY, Pulkkinen TI, Kubyshkina MV, Singer HJ, Russell CT. Long-term evolution of magnetospheric current systems during storms. Ann. Geophys. 2004;22:1317–1334.

Gellibrand H. A Discourse Mathematical on the Variation of the Magneticall Needle: Together with its Admirable Diminution Lately Discovered. London: Printed by William Iones; 1635.

Gonzalez WD, Tsurutani BT, Gonzalez ALC, Smith EJ, Tang F, Akasofu S-I. Solar wind-magnetosphere coupling during intense magnetic storms (1978-1979). J. Geophys. Res. 1989;94:8835.

Gonzalez WD, Gonzalez ALC, Tsurutani BT. Dual-peak solar cycle distribution of intense geomagnetic storms. Planet. Space Sci. 1990;38:181.

Gonzalez WD, Joselyn JA, Kamide Y, Kroehl HW, Rostoker G, Tsurutani BT, Vasyliunas VM. What is a geomagnetic storm? J. Geophys. Res. 1994;99:5771.

Hoffman RA, Cahill LJ. Ring current particle distributions derived from ring current magnetic field measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 1968;73(2):6711–6722. doi: 10.1029/JA073i021p06711.

Horne RB, Glauert SA, Meredith NP, Boscher D, Maget V, Heynderickx D, Pitchford D. Space weather impacts on satellites and forecasting the Earth’s electron radiation belts with SPACECAST. Space Weather. 2013;11:1–18. doi: 10.1002/swe.20023.

Horne RB, Pitchford D. Space weather concerns for all-electric propulsion satellites. Space Weather. 2015;13:1. doi: 10.1002/2015SW001198.

Jordanova VK, Welling DT, Zaharia SG, Chen L, Thorne RM. Modeling ring current ion and electron dynamics and plasma instabilities during a high-speed stream driven storm. J. Geophys. Res. 2012;117:A00L08. doi: 10.1029/2011JA017433.

Jordanova VK, et al. Specification of the near-Earth space environment with SHIELDS. J. Atm. Sol. -Terr. Phys. 2018;177:148–159: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2017.11.006.

Kamide Y, et al. Two-step development of geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 1998;103:6917.

Konradi A, Williams DJ, Fritz TA. Energy spectra and pitch angle distributions of storm-time and substorm injected protons. J. Geophys. Res. 1973;78(2):4739–4744. doi: 10.1029/JA078i022p04739.

Legrand JP, Simon PA. A two-component solar cycle. Solar Phys. 1991;131:187.

Liemohn MW, McCollough JP, Jordanova VK, Ngwira CM, Morley SK, Cid C, et al. Model evaluation guidelines for geomagnetic index predictions. Space Weather. 2018;16:2079–2102: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018SW002067.

Longanecker GW, Hoffman RA. S3-A spacecraft and experiment description. J. Geophys. Res. 1973;78(22):4711–4717. doi: 10.1029/JA078i022p04711.

Lovett, R.A., 2011. What if the biggest solar storm on record happened today? National Geographic News, Available from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110302-solar-flares-sun-storms-earth-danger-carrington-event-science/.

Mauk BH, Fox NJ, Kanekal SG, Kessel RL, Sibeck DG, Ukhorskiy A. Science objectives and rationale for the radiation belt storm probes mission. Space Sci. Rev. 2013;179:3–27. doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9908-y.

Mayaud, P.N., 1980. Derivation, Meaning, and Use of Geomagnetic Indices, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 22, AGU, Washington D.C.

Meinel AB. Doppler-shifted auroral hydrogen emission. Ap. J. 1951;113:50–54. doi: 10.1086/145375.

National Research Council. (2008). Severe space weather events: Understanding societal and economic impacts: A workshop report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12507.

National Space Weather Strategy and Action Plan (NSWSAP), Product of the Space Weather Operations, Research, and Mitigation (SWORM) Working Group, published by Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), March 2019. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/National-Space-Weather-Strategy-and-Action-Plan-2019.pdf.

O’Brien TP, McPherron RL. An empirical phase space analysis of ring current dynamics: solar wind control of injection and decay. J. Geophys. Res. 2000;105:7707.

Pollock C, et al. The role and contributions of energetic neutral atom (ENA) imaging in magnetospheric substorm research. Space Sci. Rev. 2003;109:155–182: 10.1023/B:SPAC. 0000007518.93331.d5.

Prescott, G.B. (1875). History, Theory, and Practice of the Electric Telegraph. United States, Available from: https://books.google.com/books?id=blVHAAAAYAAJ.

Roelof EC. Energetic neutral atom image of a storm-time ring current. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1987;14:652–655. doi: 10.1029/GL014i006p00652.

Russell CT, McPherron RL. Semiannual variation of geomagnetic activity. J. Geophys. Res. 1973;78:92.

Schulz M, Lanzerotti LJ. Particle Diffusion in the Radiation Belts. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1974.

Selding, P.B., 2010. Orbital’s Revenue Hits Record High but Earnings Fall, Space News.

Stormer C. Sur les trajectoires des corpuscules electrises dans l’espace sous l’action du magnetisme terrestre, avec application aux aurores boreales. Radium (Paris). 1912;9(11):395–399. doi: 10.1051/radium:01912009011039501.

Stuart GW. Satellite-measured radiation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1959;2:417: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.2.417.

Sugiura M, Hourly values of equatorial Dst for the IGY. Annual International Geophysical Year, 35. New York: Pergamon; 1964:9.

Thomsen MF, Henderson MG, Jordanova VK. Statistical properties of the surface-charging environment at geosynchronous orbit. Space Weather. 2013;11:237–244. doi: 10.1002/swe.20049.

Timothy AF, Krieger AS, Vaiana GS. The structure and evolution of coronal holes. Sol. Phys. 1975;42:135.

Tsurutani BT, Gonzalez WD, Tang F, Lee YT, Okada M. Reply to L. J. Lanzerotti: Solar wind ram pressure corrections and an estimation of the efficiency of viscous interaction. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1992;19:1993.

Tsurutani BT, Gonzalez WD, Gonzalez ALC, Tang F, Arballo JK, Okada M. Interplanetary origin of geomagnetic activity in the declining phase of the solar cycle. J. Geophys. Res. 1995;100(21):717.

Tsurutani BT, et al. Corotating solar wind streams and recurrent geomagnetic activity: a review. J. Geophys. Res. 2006;111:A07S01: doi: 10.1029/2005JA011273.

Turner NE, Baker DN, Pulkkinen TI, McPherron RL. Evaluation of the tail current contribution to Dst. J. Geophys. Res. 2000;105:5431.

Yu Y, Liemohn MW, Jordanova VK, Lemon C, Zhang J. Recent advancements and remaining challenges associated with inner magnetosphere cross-energy/population interactions (IMCEPI). J. Geophys. Res. 2019;124:886–897: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA026282.

Williams DJ, Lyons LR. Further aspects of the proton ring current interaction with the plasmapause: Main and recovery phases. J. Geophys. Res. 1974;79(31):4791–4798. doi: 10.1029/JA079i031p04791.

Wrenn GL, Rodgers DJ, Ryden KA. A solar cycle of spacecraft anomalies due to internal charging. Ann. Geophys. 2002;20:953–956.

Chapter 2

Observations and measurement techniques

Lynn M. Kistler

University of New Hampshire, Space Science Center and Physics Department, Durham, NH, United States

Nagoya University, Institute for Space