4.6 Article

Reanalysis of radiation belt electron phase space density using various boundary conditions and loss models

Journal

ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH
Volume 48, Issue 8, Pages 1327-1334

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2011.07.001

Keywords

Data assimilation; Magnetosphere; Outer radiation belt

Funding

  1. Lab Research Fee Grant [09-LR-04-200 116720-SHPY]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Data assimilation is becoming an increasingly important tool for understanding the near Earth hazardous radiation environments. Reanalysis of the radiation belts can be used to identify the electron acceleration mechanism and distinguish local acceleration from radial diffusion. However, for any practical applications we need to determine how reliable is reanalysis, and how significant is the dependence of the results on the assumptions of the code and choice of boundary conditions. We present the sensitivity of reanalysis of the radiation belt electron phase space density (PSD) to the assumed location of the outer boundary, using the VERB code and a Kalman filter. We analyze the sensitivity of reanalysis to changes in the electron-loss throughout the domain, and the sensitivity to the assumed boundary condition and its effect on the innovation vector. All the simulations presented in this study for all assumed loss models and boundary conditions, show that peaks in the phase space density of relativistic electrons build up between 4.5 and 6 R-E during relativistic electron flux enhancements in the outer radiation belt. This clearly shows that peaks build up in the heart of the electron radiation belt independent of the assumptions in the model, and that local acceleration is operating there. The work here is also an important step toward performing reanalysis using observations from current and future missions. (C) 2011 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available