2014•Journal of Geophysical Research Space PhysicsOpen access

Contribution from different current systems to SYM and ASY midlatitude indices

S. Dubyagin, Natalia Ganushkina, Marina V. Kubyshkina, M. W. Liemohn

Open full text 37 citations

Abstract

Abstract Using empirical magnetospheric models, we study the relative contribution from different current systems to the SYM and ASY midlatitude indices. It was found that the models can reproduce ground‐based midlatitude indices with correlation coefficients between the model and real indices being ∼0.8–0.9 for SYM‐H and ∼0.6–0.8 and ∼0.5–0.7 for ASY‐H and ASY‐D, respectively. The good agreement between the indices computed using magnetospheric models and real ones indicates that purely ionospheric current systems, on average, give modest contribution to these indices. The superposed epoch analysis of the indices computed using the models shows that, nominally, the cross‐tail current gives the dominant contribution to SYM‐H index during the main phase. However, it should be remembered that the model region 2, partial ring current, and cross‐tail current systems are not spatially demarcated (the systems are overlapped in the vicinity of geostationary orbit). For this reason, this result should be taken with a precaution. The relative contribution from symmetric ring current to SYM‐H starts to increase a bit prior or just after SYM‐H minimum and attains its maximum during recovery phase. The ASY‐H and ASY‐D indices are controlled by interplay between three current systems which close via the ionosphere. The region 1 FAC gives the largest contribution to ASY‐H and ASY‐D indices during the main phase, though, region 2 FAC and partial ring current contributions are also prominent. In addition, we discuss the application of these results to resolving the long‐debated inconsistencies of the substorm‐controlled geomagnetic storm scenario.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract Using empirical magnetospheric models, we study the relative contribution from different current systems to the SYM and ASY midlatitude indices. It was found that the models can reproduce ground‐based midlatitude indices with correlation coefficients between the model and real indices being ∼0.8–0.9 for SYM‐H and ∼0.6–0.8 and ∼0.5–0.7 for ASY‐H and ASY‐D, respectively. The good agreement between the indices computed using magnetospheric models and real ones indicates that purely ionospheric current systems, on average, give modest contribution to these indices. The superposed epoch analysis of the indices computed using the models shows that, nominally, the cross‐tail current gives the dominant contribution to SYM‐H index during the main phase. However, it should be remembered that the model region 2, partial ring current, and cross‐tail current systems are not spatially demarcated (the systems are overlapped in the vicinity of geostationary orbit). For this reason, this result should be taken with a precaution. The relative contribution from symmetric ring current to SYM‐H starts to increase a bit prior or just after SYM‐H minimum and attains its maximum during recovery phase. The ASY‐H and ASY‐D indices are controlled by interplay between three current systems which close via the ionosphere. The region 1 FAC gives the largest contribution to ASY‐H and ASY‐D indices during the main phase, though, region 2 FAC and partial ring current contributions are also prominent. In addition, we discuss the application of these results to resolving the long‐debated inconsistencies of the substorm‐controlled geomagnetic storm scenario.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 37 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract Using empirical magnetospheric models, we study the relative contribution from different current systems to the SYM and ASY midlatitude indices. It was found that the models can reproduce ground‐based midlatitude indices with correlation coefficients between the model and real indices being ∼0.8–0.9 for SYM‐H and ∼0.6–0.8 and ∼0.5–0.7 for ASY‐H and ASY‐D, respectively. The good agreement between the indices computed using magnetospheric models and real ones indicates that purely ionospheric current systems, on average, give modest contribution to these indices. The superposed epoch analysis of the indices computed using the models shows that, nominally, the cross‐tail current gives the dominant contribution to SYM‐H index during the main phase. However, it should be remembered that the model region 2, partial ring current, and cross‐tail current systems are not spatially demarcated (the systems are overlapped in the vicinity of geostationary orbit). For this reason, this result should be taken with a precaution. The relative contribution from symmetric ring current to SYM‐H starts to increase a bit prior or just after SYM‐H minimum and attains its maximum during recovery phase. The ASY‐H and ASY‐D indices are controlled by interplay between three current systems which close via the ionosphere. The region 1 FAC gives the largest contribution to ASY‐H and ASY‐D indices during the main phase, though, region 2 FAC and partial ring current contributions are also prominent. In addition, we discuss the application of these results to resolving the long‐debated inconsistencies of the substorm‐controlled geomagnetic storm scenario.

Key concepts: Middle latitudes, Current (fluid), Ring current, Ionosphere, Physics, Geostationary orbit, Phase (matter), Orbit (dynamics)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Contribution from different current systems to SYM and ASY midlatitude indices — Research Paper | ScholarLens