Response of ionospheric convection to changes in the interplanetary magnetic field: Lessons from a MHD simulation

Characteristics of magnetospheric and high-latitude ionospheric convection pattern responses to abrupt changes in the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) orientation have been investigated using an MHD model with a step function reversal of IMF polarity (positive to negative By) in otherwise steady solar wind conditions. By examining model outputs at 1 min intervals, we have tracked the evolution of the IMF polarity reversal through the magnetosphere, with particular attention to changes in the ionosphere and at the magnetopause. For discussion, times are referenced relative to the time of first contact (t = 0) of the IMF reversal with the subsolar nose of the magnetopause at ∼ 10.5 R E . The linear change in large-scale ionospheric convection pattern begins at t = 8 min, reproducing the difference pattern results of Ridley et al. [1997, 1998]. Field-aligned current difference patterns, similarly derived, show an initial two-cell pattern earlier, at t = 4 min. The current difference two-cell pattern grows slowly at first, then faster as the potential pattern begins to change. The first magnetic response to the impact of the abrupt IMF transition at the magnetopause nose is to reverse the tilt of the last-closed field lines and of the first-open field lines. This change in tilt occurs within the boundary layer before merging of IMF with closed magnetospheric field lines starts. In the case of steady state IMF By, IMF field lines undergo merging or changing partners with other IMF field lines, as they approach the nose and tilt in response to currents. When the By reversal approaches the magnetopause nose, IMF field lines from behind the reversal overtake and merge with those in front of the reversal, thus puncturing the reversal front and uncoupling the layer of solar wind plasma in the reversal zone from the magnetosphere. The uncoupled layer propagates tailward entirely within the magnetosheath. Merging of closed magnetospheric field lines with the new polarity IMF begins at t = 3 min and starts to affect local currents near the cusp 1 min later. While merging starts early and controls the addition of open flux to the polar cap, large-scale convection pattern changes are tied to the currents, which are controlled in the boundary layers. The resulting convection pattern is an amalgamation of these diverse responses. These results support the conclusion of Maynard et al. [2001b], that the small convection cell is driven from the opposite hemisphere in By-dominated situations.

[1]  T. Potemra,et al.  The amplitude distribution of field-aligned currents at northern high latitudes observed by TRIAD. Interim report , 1975 .

[2]  R. Greenwald,et al.  The response of high‐latitude convection to a sudden southward IMF turning , 1998 .

[3]  T. Potemra,et al.  Field‐aligned currents in the dayside cusp observed by Triad , 1976 .

[4]  D. Weimer,et al.  An improved model of ionospheric electric potentials including substorm perturbations and application to the Geospace Environment Modeling November 24, 1996, event , 2001 .

[5]  Nancy U. Crooker,et al.  Dayside merging and cusp geometry , 1979 .

[6]  G. Siscoe,et al.  Observation of the magnetospheric “sash” and its implications relative to solar‐wind/magnetospheric coupling: A multisatellite event analysis , 2001 .

[7]  R. Greenwald,et al.  Simultaneous conjugate observations of dynamic variations in high‐latitude dayside convection due to changes in IMF By , 1990 .

[8]  P. Reiff,et al.  IMF By-dependent plasma flow and Birkeland currents in the dayside magnetosphere: 2. A global model for northward and southward IMF , 1985 .

[9]  R. Lundin,et al.  IMF By dependence of region 1 Birkeland currents near noon , 1988 .

[10]  J. Slavin,et al.  Characterization of the IMF By ‐dependent field‐aligned currents in the cleft region based on DE 2 observations , 1993 .

[11]  W. J. Burke,et al.  Driving dayside convection with northward IMF: Observations by a sounding rocket launched from Svalbard , 2000 .

[12]  F. Mozer,et al.  Comparison of S3-3 polar cap potential drops with the interplanetary magnetic field and models of magnetopause reconnection , 1983 .

[13]  C. Clauer,et al.  High‐latitude dayside electric fields and currents during strong northward interplanetary magnetic field: Observations and model simulation , 1988 .

[14]  J. Lyon,et al.  MHD model merging with IMF By : Lobe cells, sunward polar cap convection, and overdraped lobes , 1998 .

[15]  M. Freeman,et al.  Dayside ionospheric convection changes in response to long‐period interplanetary Magnetic field oscillations: Determination of the ionospheric phase velocity , 1992 .

[16]  E. W. Hones,et al.  Structure of the low‐latitude boundary layer , 1980 .

[17]  G. Siscoe,et al.  Deflected magnetosheath flow at the high‐latitude magnetopause , 2000 .

[18]  N. Maynard,et al.  Empirical high‐latitude electric field models , 1987 .

[19]  Arthur D. Richmond,et al.  Mapping electrodynamic features of the high-latitude ionosphere from localized observations: technique , 1988 .

[20]  J. Heppner Polar‐cap electric field distributions related to the interplanetary magnetic field direction , 1972 .

[21]  R. Heelis,et al.  Response time of the polar ionospheric convection pattern to changes in the north-south direction of the IMF. Scientific report No. 1 , 1995 .

[22]  T. Hill,et al.  A nonsingular model of the open magnetosphere , 1993 .

[23]  B. Sonnerup Theory of the low-latitude boundary layer , 1980 .

[24]  G. Siscoe,et al.  Global role of E|| in magnetopause reconnection : An explicit demonstration , 2001 .

[25]  M. Lockwood,et al.  Ionospheric convection response to slow , strong variations in a northward interplanetary magnetic field : A case study , 2022 .

[26]  R. Greenwald,et al.  A possible explanation for rapid, large‐scale ionospheric responses to southward turnings of the IMF , 1999 .

[27]  G. Siscoe,et al.  The Magnetospheric Sash and the Cross‐Tail S , 1998 .

[28]  D. Weimer,et al.  Models of high‐latitude electric potentials derived with a least error fit of spherical harmonic coefficients , 1995 .

[29]  M. Mendillo,et al.  Measurement of the magnetotail reconnection rate , 1996 .

[30]  A. Ridley,et al.  Ionospheric convection during nonsteady interplanetary magnetic field conditions , 1997 .

[31]  W. J. Burke,et al.  Polar observations of convection with northward interplanetary magnetic field at dayside high latitudes , 1998 .

[32]  W. J. Burke,et al.  Observations of simultaneous effects of merging in both hemispheres , 2001 .

[33]  W. J. Burke,et al.  Magnetospheric boundary dynamics: DE 1 and DE 2 observations near the magnetopause and cusp , 1991 .

[34]  G. Siscoe,et al.  Polar cap inflation and deflation , 1985 .

[35]  K. Hain The partial donor cell method , 1978 .

[36]  D. Klumpar,et al.  Birkeland currents and charged particles in the high-latitude prenoon region: A new interpretation , 1988 .

[37]  Aaron J. Ridley,et al.  A statistical study of the ionospheric convection response to changing interplanetary magnetic field conditions using the assimilative mapping of ionospheric electrodynamics technique , 1999 .

[38]  J. Birn,et al.  General magnetic reconnection, parallel electric fields, and helicity , 1988 .

[39]  T. Iijima Field-aligned currents in geospace : Substance and significance , 2013 .

[40]  Mike Lockwood,et al.  Excitation and decay of solar-wind driven flows in the magnetosphere-ionosphere system , 1992 .