Published in

European Geosciences Union, Annales Geophysicae, 11(33), p. 1369-1402, 2015

DOI: 10.5194/angeo-33-1369-2015

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Defining and resolving current systems in geospace

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

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

Abstract

Electric currents flowing through near-Earth space ($\textit{R}$ $≤$12 $\mathit{R}_{E}$) can support a highly distorted magnetic field topology, changing particle drift paths and therefore having a nonlinear feedback on the currents themselves. A number of current systems exist in the magnetosphere, most commonly defined as (1) the dayside magnetopause Chapman-Ferraro currents, (2) the Birkeland field-aligned currents with high latitude "region 1" and lower-latitude "region 2" currents connected to the partial ring current, (3) the magnetotail currents, and (4) the symmetric ring current. In the near-Earth nightside region, however, several of these current systems flow in close proximity to each other. Moreover, the existence of other temporal current systems, such as the substorm current wedge or "banana" current, has been reported. It is very difficult to identify a local measurement as belonging to a specific system. Such identification is important, however, because how the current closes and how these loops change in space and time governs the magnetic topology of the magnetosphere and therefore controls the physical processes of geospace. Furthermore, many methods exist for identifying the regions of near-Earth space carrying each type of current. This study presents a robust collection of these definitions of current systems in geospace, particularly in the near-Earth nightside magnetosphere, as viewed from a variety of observational and computational analysis techniques. The influence of definitional choice on the resulting interpretation of physical processes governing geospace dynamics is presented and discussed.