4.7 Article

Effect of EMIC waves on relativistic and ultrarelativistic electron populations: Ground- based and Van Allen Probes observations

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 41, 期 5, 页码 1375-1381

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2013GL059024

关键词

EMIC waves; relativistic electrons; ultra-relativistic electrons; Van Allen Probes; pitch-angle diffusion; loss

资金

  1. MAARBLE (Monitoring, Analyzing and Assessing Radiation Belt Loss and Energization) consortium
  2. Canadian Space Agency
  3. Canadian NSERC
  4. NASA [NAS5-02099, NNX12AJ55G]
  5. MAARBLE project
  6. NASA Living with a Star Jack Eddy Postdoctoral Fellowship Program
  7. NASA [NNX12AJ55G, 43398] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the effect of electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves on the loss and pitch angle scattering of relativistic and ultrarelativistic electrons during the recovery phase of a moderate geomagnetic storm on 11 October 2012. The EMIC wave activity was observed in situ on the Van Allen Probes and conjugately on the ground across the Canadian Array for Real-time Investigations of Magnetic Activity throughout an extended 18 h interval. However, neither enhanced precipitation of >0.7MeV electrons nor reductions in Van Allen Probe 90 degrees pitch angle ultrarelativistic electron flux were observed. Computed radiation belt electron pitch angle diffusion rates demonstrate that rapid pitch angle diffusion is confined to low pitch angles and cannot reach 90 degrees. For the first time, from both observational and modeling perspectives, we show evidence of EMIC waves triggering ultrarelativistic (similar to 2-8MeV) electron loss but which is confined to pitch angles below around 45 degrees and not affecting the core distribution. Key Points EMIC wave activity is not associated with precipitation of MeV electrons EMIC waves do not deplete the ultra-relativistic belt down to 90 degrees EMIC waves cause loss of low pitch angle electrons with energies similar to 2-8 MeV

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

4.7
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