On the Saturation (or Not) of Geomagnetic Indices

Most geomagnetic indices are associated with processes internal to the magnetosphere-ionosphere system: convection, magnetosphere-ionosphere current systems, particle pressure, ULF wave activity, etc. The saturation (or not) of various geomagnetic indices under various solar-wind driver functions (a.k.a. coupling functions) is explored by examining plots of the various indices as functions of the various driver functions. In comparing an index with a driver function, “saturation” of the index means that the trend of stronger geomagnetic activity with stronger driving weakens in going from mid-range driving to very strong driving. Issues explored are 1) whether the nature of the index matters (i.e., what the index measures and how the index measures it), 2) the relation of index saturation to cross-polar-cap potential saturation, and 3) the role of the choice of the solar-wind driver function. It is found that different geomagnetic indices exhibit different amounts of saturation. For example the SuperMAG auroral-electrojet indices SME, SML, and SMU saturate much less than do the auroral-electrojet indices AE, AL, and AU. Additionally it is found that different driver functions cause an index to show different degrees of saturation. Dividing a solar-wind driver function by the theoretical cross-polar-cap-potential correction (1+Q) often compensates for the saturation of an index, even though that index is associated with internal magnetospheric processes whereas Q is derived for solar-wind processes. There are composite geomagnetic indices E(1) that show no saturation when matched to their composite solar-wind driver functions S(1). When applied to other geomagnetic indices, the composite S(1) driver functions tend to compensate for index saturation at strong driving, but they also tend to introduce a nonlinearity at weak driving.

Global Magnetohydrodynamic Simulations: Performance Quantification of Magnetopause Distances and Convection Potential Predictions

The performance of three global magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) models in estimating the Earth's magnetopause location and ionospheric cross polar cap potential (CPCP) have been presented. Using the Community Coordinated Modeling Center's Run-on-Request system and extensive database on results of various magnetospheric scenarios simulated for a variety of solar weather patterns, the aforementioned model predictions have been compared with magnetopause standoff distance estimations obtained from six empirical models, and with cross polar cap potential estimations obtained from the Assimilative Mapping of Ionospheric Electrodynamics (AMIE) Model and the Super Dual Auroral Radar Network (SuperDARN) observations. We have considered a range of events spanning different space weather activity to analyze the performance of these models. Using a fit performance metric analysis for each event, the models' reproducibility of magnetopause standoff distances and CPCP against empirically-predicted observations were quantified, and salient features that govern the performance characteristics of the modeled magnetospheric and ionospheric quantities were identified. Results indicate mixed outcomes for different models during different events, with almost all models underperforming during the extreme-most events. The quantification also indicates a tendency to underpredict magnetopause distances in the absence of an inner magnetospheric model, and an inclination toward over predicting CPCP values under general conditions.