4.3 Article

The nonlinear response of the polar cap potential under southward IMF: A statistical view

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2011JA016924

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [ANT-0839858, ATM-0728538, ATM-0849031, ATM-0703335, ATM-0637791]
  2. NASA [NNG05GE25G, NNX07AT186]
  3. national funding agency of Canada
  4. national funding agency of France
  5. national funding agency of Japan
  6. national funding agency of United Kingdom
  7. national funding agency of United States
  8. STFC [PP/E007929/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. Science and Technology Facilities Council [PP/E007929/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Directorate For Geosciences
  11. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [0946900] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  12. Division Of Polar Programs
  13. Directorate For Geosciences [0839858] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the results of an investigation into the effect of solar wind properties on the saturation of the polar cap potential (CPCP) during periods of strongly southward IMF. We use propagated solar wind data to search for periods between 1998 and 2007 when the interplanetary electric field is stable for more than 50 min and placed further conditions on the availability of SuperDARN and DMSP velocity data. CPCP values are calculated from these data sets and various fits of the polar cap potential to the interplanetary electric field (IEF) are compared. It is found that the trend is nonlinear, with a square root function fitting better than a straight line, and that the CPCP does not appear to exhibit asymptotic behavior. The nonlinearity of the CPCP is then correlated with various interplanetary parameters to test the various models of polar cap potential saturation. It is also found that the deviation of the CPCP from a linear fit has statistically significant correlation with solar wind Alfvenic Mach number and no significant correlation with solar wind dynamic pressure.

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