4.2 Article

Anti-sunward high-speed jets in the subsolar magnetosheath

期刊

ANNALES GEOPHYSICAE
卷 31, 期 10, 页码 1877-1889

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/angeo-31-1877-2013

关键词

Magnetospheric Physics; Magnetosheath; Solar wind-magnetosphere interactions

资金

  1. NASA [NAS5-02099]
  2. German Ministry for Economy and Technology
  3. German Center for Aviation and Space (DLR) [50 OC 0302]
  4. UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
  5. STFC [ST/K001051/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/K001051/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using 2008-2011 data from the five Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS) spacecraft in Earth's subsolar magnetosheath, we study high-speed jets identified as intervals when the anti-sunward component of the dynamic pressure in the subsolar magnetosheath exceeds half of its upstream solar wind value. Based on our comprehensive data set of 2859 highspeed jets, we obtain the following statistical results on jet properties and favorable conditions: high-speed jets occur predominantly downstream of the quasi-parallel bow shock, i.e., when interplanetary magnetic field cone angles are low. Apart from that, jet occurrence is only very weakly dependent (if at all) on other upstream conditions or solar wind variability. Typical durations and recurrence times of high-speed jets are on the order of tens of seconds and a few minutes, respectively. Relative to the ambient magnetosheath, high-speed jets exhibit higher speed, density and magnetic field intensity, but lower and more isotropic temperatures. They are almost always super-Alfvenic, often even super-magnetosonic, and typically feature 6.5 times as much dynamic pressure and twice as much total pressure in anti-sunward direction as the surrounding plasma does. Consequently, they are likely to have significant effects on the magnetosphere and ionosphere if they impinge on the magnetopause.

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

4.2
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