4.3 Article

On the relationship between relativistic electron flux and solar wind velocity: Paulikas and Blake revisited

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2010JA015735

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dynamic Radiation Environment Assimilation Model (DREAM) project at Los Alamos National Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thirty years ago Paulikas and Blake (1979) showed a remarkable correlation between geosynchronous relativistic electron fluxes and solar wind speed (Vsw). This seminal result has been a foundation of radiation belt studies, space weather forecasting, and current understanding of solar wind radiation belt coupling. We have repeated their analysis with a considerably longer-running data set (1989-2010) from the Los Alamos National Laboratory energetic particle instruments with several surprising results. Rather than the roughly linear correlation between Vsw and log (flux), our results show a triangle-shaped distribution in which fluxes have a distinct velocity-dependent lower limit but a velocity-independent upper limit. The highest-electron fluxes can occur for any value of Vsw with no indication of a Vsw threshold. We also find a distinct solar cycle dependence with the triangle-shaped distribution evident in 2 declining phase years dominated by high-speed streams but essentially no correlation in 2 solar maximum years. For time periods that do show a triangle-shaped distribution we consider whether it can be explained by scatter due to other parameters. We examine the role of time dependence and time lag in producing the observed distribution. We also look at the same statistical relationship but at energies << 1 MeV. We conclude that the relationship between radiation belt electron fluxes and solar wind velocity is substantially more complex than suggested by previous statistical studies. We find that there are important ways in which the conventional wisdom stating that high-velocity wind drives high-MeV electron fluxes is, in general, either misleading or unsupported.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据