4.5 Article

Observations of ionospheric convection from the Wallops SuperDARN radar at middle latitudes

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2006JA011982

关键词

-

资金

  1. STFC [PP/E007929/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Science and Technology Facilities Council [PP/E007929/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During geomagnetic storms the ability of the Super Dual Auroral Radar Network ( SuperDARN) to measure ionospheric convection becomes limited when the radars suffer from absorption and the auroral disturbance expands equatorward of the radar sites. To overcome these shortcomings, it was decided to construct a SuperDARN radar at middle latitudes on the grounds of the NASA Wallops Flight Facility. This paper presents the first comprehensive analysis of Doppler measurements from the Wallops radar, which commenced operations in May 2005. Wallops measurements are compared with the Goose Bay radar during the onset of a geomagnetic storm on 31 August 2005: Goose Bay measured the onset of geomagnetic activity at high latitude while Wallops monitored the expansion of convection to middle latitudes. Average convection patterns binned by the Kp geomagnetic index are also presented. During weak-moderate geomagnetic activity ( Kp <= 3) the Wallops radar observes ionospheric irregularities between 50 degrees and 60 degrees magnetic latitude drifting westward across much of the nightside. When these measurements are incorporated into the calculation of an average SuperDARN convection pattern, the streamlines of polar cap outflow on the nightside become kinked in a manner reminiscent of the Harang discontinuity. This morphology arises quite naturally when the two-cell convection at high latitudes merges with the prevailing westward convection at middle latitudes. During increased geomagnetic activity ( Kp >= 3), Wallops is able to measure the expansion of auroral electric fields to middle latitudes and the average SuperDARN cross-polar cap potential is increased by 25%.

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

4.5
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