GEM/CEDAR M3-I2 Sessions

From GEMwiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

2016 GEM/CEDAR JOINT MEETING -- Santa Fe, NM

Co-Chairs for M3-I2 Sessions

Shasha Zou, U. of Michigan/CLaSP
Barbara Giles, NASA/GSFC/GPL
Vince Eccles, USU/CASS

Session 1: Monday PM1 - Status, Questions, & Opportunities
Magnetospheric Effects of Ionospheric Injection

Attendence: ~45
Summary:
It has become apparent to the magnetospheric and inner magnetospheric modeling community that model results are dramatically altered by the presence and placement of ionospheric ions throughout the magnetosphere. Both quiet time and storm time ionospheric upflow and outflow must be correctly established to advance a better understanding of the magnetosphere-ionosphere-thermosphere (M-I-T) coupled system. This must truly be a GEM-CEDAR joint effort to address:

  • the ionosphere boundary layer,
  • the ion energization region of the polar wind
  • the magnetospheric response to solar wind drivers and the ionospheric outflow
  • the feedback into the lower ionosphere-thermosphere

    Invited speakers reviewed the status of current understanding and modeling of the effects of ionospheric ion injections on the magnetosphere. The GEM Focus Group Chairs presented goals-overview of plans and moderate a discussion on new in situ observational opportunities for metric studies on plasma sheet, ring current, and substorm dynamics to direct improvements in the current Geospace General Circulation Models (GGCMs).

    Speakers:
    Charles R. Chappell (Vanderbilt U): Changing the Paradigm! -- The Ionospheric Role in Filling the Magnetosphere with Plasma and Driving Its Dynamics
    Daniel Welling (U Mich): Outflow Really Matters! -- What GLobal MHD Modeling Tells Us About Outflow and the Magnetosphere

    Other Contributors:
    Barbara Giles (NASA/GSFC): MMS Opportunities
    Matina Gkioulidou (APL/JHU): Van Allen Probe Ring Current Observations
    Naritoshi Kitamura (ISAS/JAXA): MMS FPI Observations
    Jonathan Krall (NRL): Plasmapause in the SAMI3 model
    Chris Mouikis (UNH): Dst storm epoch study of ion outflow
    Lynn Kistler (UNH): Multi-satellite view of sawtooth storm morphology

    Session 2: Monday PM2 - Status, Questions, & Opportunities
    Polar Wind and the Ionospheric Boundary

    Attendence: ~35
    Summary:
    Invited speakers reviewed the status of current understanding and modeling of ion upflow initiated in the ionospheric boundary. This is key for proper M-I-T coupling. There are many open questions on ion energization for the ionospheric polar wind that the community still must address. To address this question properly, the spatial and temporal variations of the ionospheric boundary (below 600km) must be defined accurately in the polar and sub-auroral regions for appropriate comparison of PW model results to satellite data.

    The GEM Focus Group Chairs present goals and moderated a discussion on the open questions of ion upflow/outflow. This effort should strive to marshal new in situ and ground-based observational abilities with current modeling capabilities to addressing these open issues. CEDAR scientists are strongly encouraged to participate in this session as a collaborative GEM-CEDAR Session on M-I-T coupling.

    Speakers:
    Roger Varney (SRI): Areas for Improvement in Ion Outflow Modeling
    George Khazanov (NASA/GSFC): Polar Wind M-I-T Coupling: Kinetic vs Hydrodynamic</a>

    Other Contributors:
    Shunrong Zhang (MIT Haystack): ISR campaign opportunities
    Bruce Fritz (UNH): RENU2 Sounding Rocket
    Douglas Rowland (NASA/GSFC): VISIONS Sounding Rocket
    W. K. (Bill) Peterson (LASP): ePoP Status



    Session 3 & 4: Friday PM - Recap, Organize, Planning


    Attendence: ~25 and ~15
    Summary:
    Invited speaker reviewed the big picture possibilities of the Focus Area for advancing community capabilities and GGCMs. The Chairs summarized results of the previous two breakout sessions and moderated a discussion on issues to address:

    Speakers:
    Robert Strangely (UCLA): What are the Questions of Ion Injection and Magnetospheric Response
    Naritoshi Kitamura (ISAS/JAXA): Comparison between GPW and Akabono data

    Other Contributors:
    Vince Eccles: Generalized Polar Wind Model (GPW)

    Open Floor


  • Personal tools