Abstract

We study the performance of four magnetohydrodynamic models (BATS‐R‐US, GUMICS, LFM, OpenGGCM) in the Earth's magnetosphere. Using the Community Coordinated Modeling Center's 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 downstream 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 not automatically increase the model performance in the magnetosphere.

Highlights

  • [1] We study the performance of four magnetohydrodynamic models (BATS-R-US, GUMICS, LFM, OpenGGCM) in the Earth’s magnetosphere

  • [4] The Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM) 2008– 2009 challenge represents the largest effort to date to validate global MHD models against observations using various objective metrics

  • The global MHD models BATS-R-US (Block Adaptive Tree Solar-wind Roe Upwind Scheme), GUMICS-4 (Grand Unified MagnetosphereIonosphere Coupling Simulation), LFM (Lyon-FedderMobarry), and OpenGGCM (Open General Geospace Circulation Model) are given identical solar wind input, and the results are compared to the magnetic field measurements of Cluster 1 [Balogh et al, 1997] within the magnetosheath, Geotail [Kokubun et al, 1994] in the near tail, Wind [Lepping et al, 1995] in the far tail, and the cross polar cap potential (CPCP) obtained from SuperDARN [Chisham et al, 2007]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

[2] The growing interest in space weather forecasting from both government and industry is increasing the need for space weather model development. Pulkkinen et al [2011] quantified the performance of three global MHD models and two empirical models in reproducing observations of ground magnetic field during four geospace storm events. The global MHD models BATS-R-US (Block Adaptive Tree Solar-wind Roe Upwind Scheme), GUMICS-4 (Grand Unified MagnetosphereIonosphere Coupling Simulation), LFM (Lyon-FedderMobarry), and OpenGGCM (Open General Geospace Circulation Model) are given identical solar wind input, and the results are compared to the magnetic field measurements of Cluster 1 [Balogh et al, 1997] within the magnetosheath, Geotail [Kokubun et al, 1994] in the near tail, Wind [Lepping et al, 1995] in the far tail, and the cross polar cap potential (CPCP) obtained from SuperDARN [Chisham et al, 2007]. Cluster is flying towards dusk side ecliptic plane, Geotail is advancing outward from the dawn side flank, and Wind is almost stationary in the far tail

Results
Discussion
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call