Space Physics and Aeronomy, Ionosphere Dynamics and Applications. Группа авторов
Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Space Physics and Aeronomy, Ionosphere Dynamics and Applications - Группа авторов страница 21

СКАЧАТЬ the assumption of chemical equilibrium. As a result, the time step in GITM is 2–4 s. The model uses the same magnetospheric drivers as CTIPe and TIEGCM, viz. high‐latitude electric fields and energetic particle precipitation.

      As described in section 1.2 (energy entering the IT system), the primary coupling to magnetospheric energy input is via the empirical models of the high‐latitude electric field provided by the W05 or Cosgrove14 models, or an inversion of assimilated high‐latitude data from the AMIE model. More rarely, MHD models such as the Block‐Adaptive‐Tree‐Solarwind‐Roe‐Upwind‐Scheme (BATS‐R‐US) (Powell et. al., 1999), Open Geospace General Circulation Model (OpenGGCM) (Raeder et al., 1998), or Lyon‐Fedder‐Mobarry (LFM) model (Lyon et al., 2004) can be coupled directly to the IT models (CTIPe, TIEGCM, GITM, or others), which removes the need for separate high‐latitude electric field specification.

      Rastaetter et al. (2016) carried out a comprehensive comparison of a number of empirical and physics‐based models for 6 events selected for the GEM‐CEDAR modeling challenges. The goal of the challenge was specification of Poynting flux. DMSP F15 observations were provided for validation purposes. The models used in the comparison included:

      1 Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF) (Toth et al., 2005, 2012), which couples BATS‐R‐US to the Rice Convection Model (Wolf et al., 1982; Toffoletto et al., 2003), which, in turn, is coupled to the Ridley Ionosphere model (Ridley et al., 2004);

      2 OpenGGCM coupled to the Coupled Thermosphere Ionosphere Model (CTIM) (Fuller‐Rowell et al., 1996), an earlier version of CTIPe (Two versions of OpenGGCM with different resolution were part of the study);

      3 Coupled Magnetosphere Ionosphere Thermosphere (CMIT) model (Wang et al., 2004; Wiltberger et al., 2004), which couples the LFM magnetosphere model to TIEGCM and the MIX ionosphere solver and coupler (Merkin & Lyon, 2010) (CMIT (LGM‐TIEGCM‐MIX) and LFM‐MIX were run as separate models);

      4 TIEGCM with W05 providing high‐latitude electric fields;

      5 CTIPe with W05 for high‐latitude electric fields;

      6 W05, three versions run with solar wind input provided by different models;

      7 Cosgrove14, two versions run with solar wind input provided by different models.

Schematic illustrations of summary of integrated values over auroral passes for event 1, on 29–30 October 2003: (a)–(d) Physics based and (e)–(h) empirical models. (a)–(c) Scores for physics-based models.

      (figure and caption based on Fig. 6 by Rastaetter et al., 2016. Reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons).

Schematic illustrations of summary of integrated values over auroral passes for event 6, on 9–12 July 2005: (a)–(d) Physics-based models and (e)–(h) empirical models with Dst and AL at (d) and (h). Results are in the same format as Figure 1.6.

      (figure and caption based on Fig. 11 by Rastaetter et al. (2016).Reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons).

      The study showed that for each model tested, there was a large spread in yield in the six events. Overall, the physics‐based models predicted Poynting flux that could be larger or smaller than the observed values, while the empirical models tended to underpredict the EM power. There was little consistency in the range of predictions across the events. The skill scores for all the models tested for all six events are shown in Table 3 of the paper (not shown here).

      Apart from the generally wide spread in model results, the fluctuations in measured Poynting flux are not captured in any of the models (see Fig. 1.8, panels (a) and (e)). This is also apparent in the plots of the timing errors shown as DT in panels (c) and (g) in both figures.