Table of Contents
- 2020 VGEM Report: ULF Wave Modeling, Effects, and Applications Focus Group
- 2020 VGEM Report: System Understanding of Radiation Belt Particle Dynamics through Multi-Spacecraft and Ground-Based Observations and Modeling FG
- 2020 VGEM Report: Self-Consistent Inner Magnetospheric Modeling (SCIMM) Focus Group
- 2020 VGEM Student Post-Workshop Survey & Report Update
- AGU 2020 - Coffee with COFFIES
- Call for Community Input to LWS Focused Science Topics
- Center for Geospace Storms (CGS): Workshop and Website
- JOB OPENING: Postdoctoral Research Scientist in Experimental Plasma Physics
|
|
1. Summer 2020 VGEM Report: ULF Wave Modeling, Effects, and Applications Focus Group
From: Michael Hartinger (mhartinger at spacescience.org)
The ULF wave modeling, effects, and applications (UMEA) focus group had two sessions at the 2020 Virtual GEM workshop: (1) discussion of the 27 May 2017 CME storm challenge event and short research highlights, (2) ULF wave research highlights from early career scientists. Most presentations are linked on the wiki page: https://bit.ly/33SJ1GI
Session 1, Challenge event and research highlights: UMEA welcomes its newest co-chair, Xueling Shi from Virginia Tech, who chaired the session. Mike Hartinger provided FG updates and an overview of the 27-28 May 2017 storm. This was followed by a more detailed overview by Simone di Matteo who presented the results from Pezzopane et al 2019, including the global evolution of mass density during the storm. Bob McPherron focused on global observations of compressional/radially polarized ULF waves in the Pc4-5 range that were likely internally driven yet had a surprisingly large MLT extent. Boyi Wang examined a large Pc5 modulation of ionospheric electron densities using PFISR observations and compared with satellite observations. Lutz Rastaetter updated on the idealized ULF wave modeling challenge, including efforts to use similar grid resolutions across different codes. Research highlights: Mark Engebretson showed that extreme high-latitude magnetic perturbation events aren’t necessarily tied directly to substorms, Jinxing Li examined the properties and potential sources of micro-injections using MMS observations, and Xiaojia Zhang used THEMIS observations to show that ULF wave power decreases with distance from the magnetopause and this affects the modulation of VLF waves.
Session 2, research highlights from early career scientists: Rachel Rice used MMS observations of KH vortices to understand the spatial scale(s) at which heating occurs. Dong Lin compared simulated ULF wave properties in GAMERA and LFM when using the same driving conditions and discussed next steps in using GAMERA for ULF wave simulations. Boyi Wang showed that HFAs compress the magnetopause, in turn driving ULF waves and leading to drift-bounce resonances. Jayashree Bulusu examined ground-based magnetometer observations of Pi2 waves, finding that non-storm time Pi2 waves have frequencies that depend on plasmasphere conditions. Changzhi Zhai showed coordinated GOES satellite, SuperDARN, and TEC observations of high m-number Pc4-5 waves, with no ground magnetic signature. Simone Di Matteo showed how the adaptive multitaper method can be used for ULF wave analysis, including the identification of power peaks. Yixin Hao used the time-of-flight method to identify a localized drift resonant interaction. Mohammad Barani discussed observations and theory related to ULF wave m-numbers, including detectability thresholds and impacts on radial diffusion.
|
|
|
2. 2020 VGEM Report: System Understanding of Radiation Belt Particle Dynamics through Multi-Spacecraft and Ground-Based Observations and Modeling FG
From: Zhao Hong (hong.zhao at lasp.colorado.edu)
At the 2020 VGEM workshop, the focus group (FG), System Understanding of Radiation Belt Particle Dynamics through Multi-Spacecraft and Ground-Based Observations and Modeling, had two sessions, one featuring a panel discussion on the role of mesoscale processes in radiation belt dynamics and one focusing on the general contribution presentations. Both sessions were well attended and filled with discussions. Most presentation slides from the 2020 VGEM workshop can be found at the google drive:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Oc_bqnDBrMB4YtJC9o9yh29WKlo1gcCz?usp=sharing
Session 1: Panel Discussion: The Role of Mesoscale Processes in the Radiation Belt Dynamics
Panelists: Kareem Sorathia, Oleksiy Agapitov, David Malaspina, Chris Crabtree, Drew Turner, and Xin An
In this session, a panel discussion on the role of mesoscale processes in the radiation belt dynamics was conducted. With over 110 participants, six panelists briefly presented their slides on their understanding and open questions on the mesoscale processes, and fruitful discussions have been conducted after their presentations. Kareem Sorathia gave a scene-setting presentation on introducing the mesoscale processes in the inner magnetosphere and discussing the mesoscale processes vs. kinetic processes. The important role of modeling in fully understanding the mesoscale processes is also discussed. Then, David Malaspina depicted the basic pictures and new understandings of mesoscale processes associated with particle flows, wave generation, and wave-particle interactions. Questions such as the relation of waves collocated with the injection structures and how to estimate the energy flowing to the particle acceleration through mesoscale processes have been raised for discussion. Chris Crabtree briefly introduced the studies on the mesoscale processes in the radiation belts at NRL. Specifically, he discussed the role of dipolarization fronts and nonlinear processes on particle acceleration. The experiment, SMART, which is expected to test the electrostatic to electromagnetic nonlinear processes in the near-Earth space environment, was also introduced. Oleksiy Agapitov focused on the comparison of quasilinear and nonlinear processes, as well as the supporting evidence from observations and the implications of the two. He suggested that, though the quasilinear theory overall fits well with the observations, nonlinear processes still play a vital role in radiation belt dynamics and could significantly affect the particle dynamics – the question is mostly on when and how. Drew Turner, focusing on the particle injections, discussed the sources of radiation belt electrons and the role of mesoscale injections in populating the radiation belts. Event studies using data from the Van Allen Probes and MMS suggested more than sufficient source for >500 keV radiation belt electrons in the plasmasheet; however, the question then comes to why very few >300 keV electron injections have been observed by the Van Allen Probes in the radiation belt region. Lastly, Xin An talked about the waves and structures around the injection fronts and focused on the observations and roles of TDSs and KAWs. Questions have been raised about how KAWs generated around the injection fronts and what are the relative contributions from these different mechanisms to the electron precipitation. The panel discussion concluded the critical role of mesoscale processes in many aspects of radiation belt studies and pointed out the future directions on exploring and quantifying the role of mesoscale processes in radiation belt dynamics.
The second part of this session consisted of three general contribution talks. Due to the high demand, all general contribution talks have been restricted to 5 minutes each. Jaya Joseph presented a case study on when the impenetrable barrier is breached using data from POES. She showed that the impenetrable barrier indeed had been breached over the past decades, and the puncture of the outer belt boundary is complicated and cannot be predicted by a single parameter alone. Rachael Filwett focused on the solar protons in the inner magnetosphere and their connection to radiation belt dynamics using data from the Van Allen Probes. Several event studies have been shown during solar proton events, and the enhanced solar proton access to the inner magnetosphere during storm times is discussed though the underlying physical mechanisms are still under investigation. Sungjun Noh talked about the upper limit of proton anisotropy in the inner magnetosphere and its relation to the EMIC waves. Combining the theoretical approach and observations from the Van Allen Probes, he concluded that the proton anisotropy usually has a clear upper bound regardless of the location, geomagnetic condition, and even the existence of the EMIC wave.
Session 2: General Contribution Presentations
In the second session for this FG, we had a large number of contributed talks. These were focused on a number of different topics, spanning new techniques in modeling efforts to data analysis combining wave and particle observations from a number of different instruments.
Luisa Capannolo, Zach Beever, Mike Shumko, Murong Qin, Arlo Johnson, and Riley Troyer all presented on the precipitation of energetic particles into Earth’s atmosphere utilizing a variety of different measurement platforms including the FIREBIRD-II and AC6 CubeSats, as well as ground-based platforms including ISR and all-sky imagers. These studies included investigations of the energy spectrum, spatial extent, and scattering mechanisms driving the electron precipitation. There were also presentations examining the properties and effects of various wave modes in the inner magnetosphere. Wen Li presented on lightning-generated whistlers, Qianli Ma on the effects of the whistler-mode chorus and hiss on electron pitch angle distributions, Sasha Drosdov on the role of hiss, chorus, and EMIC waves on multi-MeV electron dynamics, and Homayan Aryan on chorus and hiss wave models. These talks explored both the detailed properties as well as the large scale impacts and combined effects of various wave modes. Finally, some modeling updates and long-term radiation belt observations were presented. Alex Boyd presented a new data product for the whole Van Allen Probes mission, combining electron fluxes from 3 instruments, and Anthony Saikin made an effort to reconstruct the radiation belts across solar cycles 17-24 (1933-2017). Modeling talks included an application of machine learning for modeling of medium energy (120-600 keV) electrons in Earth’s outer radiation belt, by Artem Smirnov, and application of information theory for radiation belt electron PSD, by Simon Wing. Scot Elkington provided an update on MHD modeling efforts utilizing event-specific diffusion coefficients, and Sasha Drozdov (representing Yuri Shprits) presented a community-wide effort for the radiation belt model/forecast validation organized by International Space Weather Action Teams. Together these talks highlighted the range of radiation belt related studies ongoing in the community and the benefits of multipoint measurements for both modeling and data analysis studies to address open questions in the field.
|
|
|
3. 2020 VGEM Report: Self-Consistent Inner Magnetospheric Modeling (SCIMM) Focus Group
From: Cristian Ferradas, Chao Yue, Qianli Ma, and Jacob Bortnik (cristian.ferradasalva at nasa.gov)
Session 1: Ring Current Dynamics
Our focus group activities opened up at VGEM 2020 with a session focusing on the ring current dynamics from both observational and modeling perspectives. The session consisted of two scene-setting talks followed by a discussion about the open questions in the physics of the ring current and inner magnetosphere, and three contributed talks. For our first scene-setting talk, Vania Jordanova discussed key aspects of self-consistent ring current modeling. Remaining challenges, like a better knowledge of the ion composition at the boundary of inner magnetospheric models and the implementation of self-consistent wave-particle interactions, were highlighted. Matina Gkioulidou, in charge of our second scene-setting talk, discussed key observations to guide self-consistent modeling. One needed observation that was mentioned was measurements of particle precipitation which are key to determine the ionospheric feedback to the inner magnetosphere. Following the scene-setting talks, the discussion with our speakers was centered around key questions that our focus group should aim to answer and ideas for activities in the coming years. One important conclusion from this discussion was that statistical studies of observed parameters are needed in order to get a broader picture of the statistical behavior of the inner magnetosphere and its coupling with the global magnetosphere and also to compare these results with models as a means to evaluate our current models. For our first contributed talk, Shanshan Bao discussed ring current modeling as part of a coupled magnetosphere-ionosphere- thermosphere (MIT) system. The newly developed fully two-way coupled MIT system mini- Multiscale Atmosphere-Geospace Environment (MAGE) model was presented. The next talk was given by Yiqun Yu and she discussed simulation results of the role of field line curvature (FLC) scattering in ring current ion losses. It was shown that the FLC scattering process mainly takes place on the nightside, it occurs over a wider region for oxygen ions, and precipitating ions in the tens of keV energy range can be a dominant energy source in the evening sector, thus showing that it cannot be neglected by models. Humberto Godinez gave our last contributed talk and presented on ring current estimation using Ring current Atmosphere interactions Model with Self Consistent magnetic field (B) (RAM-SCB) and Van Allen Probes data with ensemble Kalman filter data assimilation. This talk posed the question of what other data sets might be of use for assimilation for ring current models.
Session 2: Wave-Particle Interactions
Session 2 focused on the modeling and observational studies of wave-particle interactions in the space environment of ring current. This session was started with two invited scene-setting talks. Richard Denton presented an overview of self-consistent modeling of wave-particle interactions in the ring current, and Lunjin Chen presented a review of the recent modeling efforts on the electron microbursts driven by chorus. This was followed by a panel discussion about our focus group activities, and seven contributed talks covering the source of plasma waves and their effects on particles. Longzhi Gan presented the formation of electron butterfly distributions due to nonlinear interaction with chorus. The next two talks addressed the roles of cold plasma. Chao Yue presented how the electron density modulates the plasma waves and ring current ions, and Xiangning Chu presented the acceleration of cold ions and electrons near the plasmapause. Related to the topic of particle heating, Jinxin Li talked about the parallel electron acceleration by hiss in the outer plasmasphere. Sapna Shekhar gave a talk about the ring current ion nose spectra observed by TWINS, and a talk about the observation of atmospheric relativistic electron loss from the radiation belt. Finally, following the topic of wave-induced particle loss, Shreedevi Porunakatu Radhakrishna presented the ion precipitation from the inner magnetosphere by EMIC waves.
|
|
|
4. 2020 VGEM Student Post-Workshop Survey & Report Update
From: Agnit Mukhopadhyay, Mei-Yun Lin (agnitm at umich.edu)
We would like to share some updates from the Post-Workshop survey that was shared with the student community for feedback and advice. The survey is still active as of today: 47 participants have filled out the survey and we would request students reading this message who have not filled in this survey to fill out the survey and let us know of their feedback (please find the link in the following).
The summary of the survey could be found in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_tueZ91VEXxStHF3qYBYDqurIvwwDK2pxeh206ysH20/edit?usp=sharing This report is a live document, in that data from further student participation would be periodically incorporated until December 2020. This data would be further discussed and deliberated upon during the Student Townhall meeting(s) during the first week of AGU 2020 for future directions and changes. The post-workshop survey may be found here for your kind perusal - https://forms.gle/v4tp5YTVgNvrCAaP7 (These links are also accessible through the GEM Student Webpage on GEM Wiki)
Hope everyone is staying healthy and doing well. Please contact the GEM Student Representatives Agnit Mukhopadhyay (agnitm at umich.edu) and Mei-Yun Lin (mylin2 at illinois.edu), if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. We look forward to hearing from you.
|
|
|
5. AGU 2020 - Coffee with COFFIES
From: The COFFIES Center Effectiveness Team (bluansing at berkeley.edu)
Calling all undergraduates, graduate students, and postdocs attending AGU in 2020! You are cordially invited to join COFFIES researchers, educators, and other leaders for an informal, wide-ranging discussion on current and future solar physics research topics, as well as the many possible education and career paths in this field.
As one of nine NASA-funded Heliophysics Phase I DRIVE Science Centers (DSCs), COFFIES (Consequences of Fields and Flows in the Interior and Exterior of the Sun) is working to establish a multi-institution DSC to develop the most reliable data driven physical model of solar activity possible.
To stay up-to-date on this session, including the exact date and time, and for more information, please fill out the interest form at bit.ly/coffies and we'll be in touch!
|
|
|
6. Call for Community Input to LWS Focused Science Topics
From: Anthea J Coster, Sabrina Savage (costera at mit.edu)
Call for Community Input to LWS Focused Science Topics
Release Date: Oct 5, 2020
Due Date: Oct 23, 2020
From: Anthea Coster (ajc at haystack.mit.edu) and Sabrina Savage (sabrina.savage at nasa.gov)
The 2020 executive committee of the NASA Living with a Star (LWS) Program Analysis Group (LPAG) has completed the development of the next round of input for the LWS Focused Science Topics (FSTs) for ROSES 2021and beyond. We are asking the Heliophysics community to provide final input on these crafted FSTs by Oct 23, 2020. No new FST topics will be accepted, however the current FSTs may be expanded, enhanced, or modified as needed. Comments are welcome and will become part of the final record.
Enter comments on the new FSTs by using the following link (on or before Oct 23, 2020):
http://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/communityinput/DraftTopicsForComments/2021/
We greatly look forward to your final input on these FSTs and to continuing on the path of innovation and scientific exploration in the LWS program.
LPAG Executive Committee Members: Sabrina Savage (Co-Chair), Anthea Coster (Co-Chair), Joe Borovsky, Richard Collins, Seebany Datta-Barua, Chuanfei Dong, Heather Elliott, Matina Gkioulidou, Fan Guo, Angelos Vourlidas, Brian Walsh, Shasha Zou,
LPAG Ex Officio Members: Jeff Morrill, Lika Guhathakurta, Simon Plunkett, Shing Fung
Key Resources:
LPAG, https://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/lpag
The current LWS SSA descriptions are provided here:
https://lwstrt.gsfc.nasa.gov/strategic-science-areas-ssas
|
|
|
7. Center for Geospace Storms (CGS): Workshop and Website
From: Slava Merkin (slava.merkin at jhuapl.edu)
Dear colleagues,
The webpage for the first CGS Workshop to be held virtually on 9-10 November 2020 has been set up:
cgs.jhuapl.edu/workshop
Please, feel free to explore the agenda and register. Slack and Zoom links will be sent to the list of registered participants as we get closer to the meeting dates.
We are also glad to let the community know about the CGS website that just went live:
cgs.jhuapl.edu
Feel free to explore, leave feedback and come back often for new content!
|
|
|
8. JOB OPENING: Postdoctoral Research Scientist in Experimental Plasma Physics
From: Seth Dorfman (sethd at SpaceScience.org)
The Space Science Institute (SSI) invites applications for a Postdoctoral Research Scientist to be based in Los Angeles, CA. The selected candidate will take a leading role in experiments aimed at understanding the Alfvén wave interactions thought to be at the heart of solar wind turbulence. This includes the unexpected generation of residual energy – excess energy in the magnetic fluctuations compared to the velocity fluctuations.
The goal of the project is to create strong, non-linear Alfvén wave interactions in the lab for the first time and characterize the residual energy and non-linear modes generated. The postdoctoral scientist will be responsible for conducting experiments on the Large Plasma Device at UCLA, analyzing both experimental results and existing hybrid particle-in-cell simulations of the experiment, and preparing results for publication. The selected candidate will work with SSI Research Scientist Dr. Seth Dorfman, who will be responsible for overseeing the project. The postdoctoral scientist will also have the opportunity to work with remote collaborators Dr. Christopher Chen (solar wind observations), Dr. Luca Franci (hybrid simulations), and Dr. Stanislav Boldyrev (theory). Results will have broad potential implications for the physics governing solar wind and other magnetized astrophysical turbulence.
Knowledge/Education: A Ph.D. in plasma physics or related fields is required prior to the start date of the position. Applicants should demonstrate the potential to publish research results in peer-reviewed high-quality journals, good communication skills, and the ability to work independently. No prior experience with the Large Plasma Device or hybrid simulation analysis is expected, but applicants should demonstrate skills that show they will be able to learn these tools quickly. Experience with laboratory plasma experiments or space plasma physics is considered an advantage.
This is a full-time position with benefits. The appointment is expected to start in December 2020, although the exact start date is flexible. Please submit an application by October 18th, 2020 to ensure full consideration.
Contact Dr. Seth Dorfman (www.spacescience.org/bio.php?emp=SDORFMAN) with questions or to submit your CV for a preliminary evaluation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
