Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Elsevier, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 10-11(71), p. 1145-1156

DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2008.06.007

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Radiation belt electron flux variability during three CIR-driven geomagnetic storms

Journal article published in 2009 by M. M. Lam, R. B. Horne, N. P. Meredith ORCID, S. A. Glauert
This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Postprint: archiving forbidden
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Coronal holes produce high speed solar wind streams (HSS) that subsequently interact with the slower downstream solar wind forming co-rotating interaction regions (CIRs). The CIR/HSS combination drives geomagnetic storms that have a weak to moderate signature in Dst. We simulate the behavior of relativistic (976 keV) electrons in the outer radiation belt and the slot region (2[less-than-or-equals, slant]L[less-than-or-equals, slant]7) during three CIR-driven storms associated with three consecutive rotations of a coronal hole that occurred just after solar maximum during June-August 1991. We use a 1d radial diffusion model (RADICAL) with losses due to pitch-angle scattering by plasmaspheric hiss. The losses are expressed through the electron lifetime calculated using the PADIE code driven by a global Kp-dependent model of plasmaspheric hiss intensity and fpe/fce. The outer boundary condition is time and energy-dependent and derived from observations. The model reproduces the observed flux at L=5 to within about a factor of 3 suggesting that flux levels are well-described by radial diffusion to and from the outer boundary. At L=3.5 and 4, the model overestimates the flux decay rates. This results in the observed flux exceeding the model flux, by up to a factor of 5 at L=4 and by up to a factor of 8 at L=3.5, by the end of the recovery phase. Comparison with model results from a geomagnetically quieter interval suggest that the underestimation in flux may be due to the lack of representation of local wave acceleration in the model.