Advertisement

Space Science Reviews

, Volume 212, Issue 3–4, pp 1315–1344 | Cite as

Space Weather Effects Produced by the Ring Current Particles

  • Natalia GanushkinaEmail author
  • Allison Jaynes
  • Michael Liemohn
Open Access
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. The Scientific Foundation of Space Weather

Abstract

One of the definitions of space weather describes it as the time-varying space environment that may be hazardous to technological systems in space and/or on the ground and/or endanger human health or life. The ring current has its contributions to space weather effects, both in terms of particles, ions and electrons, which constitute it, and magnetic and electric fields produced and modified by it at the ground and in space. We address the main aspects of the space weather effects from the ring current starting with brief review of ring current discovery and physical processes and the Dst-index and predictions of the ring current and storm occurrence based on it. Special attention is paid to the effects on satellites produced by the ring current electrons. The ring current is responsible for several processes in the other inner magnetosphere populations, such as the plasmasphere and radiation belts which is also described. Finally, we discuss the ring current influence on the ionosphere and the generation of geomagnetically induced currents (GIC).

Keywords

Inner Earth’s magnetosphere Ring current Space weather 

1 Introduction

The concept of space weather includes the effects imposed by the time-varying space environment which may be hazardous to technological systems in space and/or on the ground and/or endanger human health or life. One of the important regions where these variations of space environment matter in the Sun-Earth system is the inner Earth’s magnetosphere. There a lot of satellites fly and there even rather quiet times are full of dynamical processes. The ring current is one of the populations in the inner magnetosphere consisting of ions and electrons with energies of a few to hundreds of keV. The ring current energies are rather far from the ultra-relativistic energies of “killer electrons” which are especially hazardous and can penetrate even the most protected satellites in space or from the MeV and GeV energies of solar energetic particles and galactic cosmic rays which can come very close to the Earth. At the same time, the ring current has rather significant influence in terms of space weather effects.

The ring current has several distinct contributions to the space weather effects, both in terms of particles, ions and electrons, which constitute it, and magnetic and electric fields produced and modified by it at the ground and in space. Ring current is a significant contributor to the Dst-index which, in its turn, can be used as an indicator, a measure and a predictor of geomagnetic storms. Ring current keV electrons are responsible for surface charging effects on satellites. The ring current dynamics including electric and magnetic field distortions due to this dynamics is tightly related to the radiation belts and plasmasphere populations in the inner magnetosphere. The storm-time ring current has several space weather effects on the ionosphere and thermosphere via influencing on the rearranging of the ionospheric density and heating the thermosphere. The ring current contributes to the Geomagnetically Induced Currents (GIC) effects via its role in the generation of Region 2 field-aligned currents.

There have been numerous reviews on the ring current formation, dynamics and decay and reviews on space weather. While reviews of space weather effects have examined the influence of the ring current, none of them specifically focused on the ring current as a source of space weather effects. The present review addresses the space weather effects from the ring current particles compiled into a single place and avoids repetitions of the general ring current physics. The goal of this review is to stress the importance of the ring current being an inner magnetosphere population with rather moderate energies as compared to the high energy electrons and protons present in the Earth’s magnetosphere. The specifics of the ring current particles can result in the space weather effects which are rather extreme without the occurrence of the extreme geomagnetic conditions. Even a presence of a moderate storm is not necessary for significant surface charging event to happen, for example.

This review is an output of “The Scientific Foundation of Space Weather” Workshop which was held during 27 June–1 July 2016 at the International Space Science Institute, Bern, Switzerland. In the following Sect. 2, we start with a very brief review of ring current discovery and physical processes. The Dst-index, the role of the ring current in producing it and predictions of the ring current and storm occurrence based on the Dst-index are presented in Sect. 3. Section 4, the heart of the review, details the space weather effects of the ring current. This begins with the effects on satellites produced by the ring current electrons (Sect. 4.1). The processes in other inner magnetosphere populations, such as the plasmasphere and radiation belts controlled by the ring current, are described in Sect. 4.2. Then, in Sect. 4.3, we discuss the ring current influence on the ionosphere and generation of geomagnetically induced currents (GIC). Finally, the ring current space weather effects are summarized in Sect. 5.

2 Ring Current in the Earth’s Magnetosphere: Brief Review

The ring current is one of the oldest concepts in magnetospheric physics (see the historical review by Egeland and Burke 2012). A current flowing around the Earth was first introduced by Störmer (1907) and supported by Schmidt (1917). Chapman and Ferraro (1931, 1941) used a ring current concept for the model of a geomagnetic storm. The ring current can be described in a simplified way as a toroidal shaped electric current, flowing westward around the Earth with variable density at geocentric distances between 2 and 9 \(R_{E}\). Note that we use “ring current” here with a broad definition that includes any inner magnetospheric westward or eastward current that is either symmetric or not in local time. In fact, the symmetric ring current is often dominated by the partial ring current during magnetic storms (e.g., Takahashi et al. 1990; Liemohn et al. 2001b; Mitchell et al. 2001). Ring current consists of ions and electrons with energies covering the range from about 1 to 400 keV. The main ion species are H+, O+, and He+ (see the recent review by Kronberg et al. 2014, where the observations and modeling of ion circulation and effects in the ring current dynamics were presented, and references therein). The intensity of quiet time ring current is about \(\sim1\mbox{--}5~\mbox{nA}/\mbox{m}^{2}\) (Lui and Hamilton 1992), which can be as large as \(50~\mbox{nA}/\mbox{m}^{2}\) during storm times (e.g., Vallat et al. 2005), although there is some debate about this (Liemohn et al. 2016). Although, the early measurements of the ring current particles were made onboard OGO 3 (e.g., Frank 1967), Explorer 45 (e.g., Smith and Hoffman 1974) and CRRES missions (e.g., Grande et al. 1997; Friedel and Korth 1997), the first mission, which clarified the detailed picture of the ring current energy and composition was the AMPTE mission of the late 1980s (e.g., Lui et al. 1987; Lui and Hamilton 1992; De Michelis et al. 1997). Extensive observations of the ring current were done by the most recent Van Allen Probes mission (e.g., Yu et al. 2014; Zhao et al. 2015; Gkioulidou et al. 2016; Kistler et al. 2016; Shi et al. 2016; Menz et al. 2017).

Inner magnetosphere current density can be measured in several ways. They include (1) direct measurements of ion and electron current densities, (2) particle measurements which can provide the plasma pressure and the current itself can be estimated from it, (3) multi-point magnetic field measurements and computing the current density from the curl of magnetic field, (4) remote sensing of energetic neutral atoms (ENAs) emitted from the ring current (for more detailed description of these methods, see the recent reviews by Ganushkina et al. (2015b) and Lühr et al. (2017) and references therein and the commentary by Dunlop et al. 2016).

Two main sources for the ring current particles are the terrestrial ionosphere and the solar wind. Particles from both of them populates the plasma sheet, therefore, it is an important source of the ring current (see the reviews by Ebihara and Ejiri 2003; Daglis 2001, 2006; Kronberg et al. 2014; Ebihara 2016 and references therein). Plasma sheet particles move inward when acted upon by time-varying electromagnetic fields. There are still open questions regarding this process, especially, for storm times, such as, whether substorm-associated magnetic field variations and the associated (inductive) electric fields are necessary for the buildup of the ring current energy density. While there are arguments that large-scale convection alone can account for the ring current increase, other studies have concluded that energization of ring current particles to energies over 100 keV requires smaller-scale, time-varying electric fields (see one of the earliest studies on this subject by Kim et al. 1979 and more recent reviews by Daglis and Kozyra 2002; Ebihara and Ejiri 2003; Kozyra and Liemohn 2003; Ganushkina 2005; Ebihara and Miyoshi 2011; Bourdarie et al. 2016; Ebihara 2016 and references therein).

The concept of the partial ring current and its closure to the ionosphere was suggested by Alfvén in 1950’s. One of the earliest observational evidences were given based on OGO 3 measurements (Frank 1970). The magnetosphere is essentially asymmetric, compressed by the solar wind dynamic pressure on the dayside, and stretched by the tail current on the night-side. Plasma pressure distribution during disturbed times (storm times) becomes highly asymmetric due to plasma transport and injection from the night-side plasma sheet to the inner magnetosphere. The resulting plasma distribution presents a gradient in the azimuthal direction resulting in the spatial asymmetry of the ring current. The remnant of the perpendicular current must flow along a field line to complete a closure of the current (see the reviews by Ebihara and Ejiri 2003; Kozyra and Liemohn 2003; Ebihara and Miyoshi 2011; Ganushkina et al. 2015b).

Figure 1 presents an illustration on the storm time ring current dynamics. It demonstrates the distribution of the inner magnetosphere current density in the equatorial plane modeled with the Tsyganenko T02 global magnetospheric magnetic field model (Tsyganenko 2002a,b) during the storm event on July 22, 2009. The current densities of the inner magnetosphere current were computed from the curl of the model magnetic field using the Ampère’s law with Maxwell’s extension. Before the storm at 00 UT when Dst was 2 nT (Fig. 1a), a relatively symmetric ring current can be seen at distances inside 5 \(R_{E}\) and the near-Earth part of the tail current is present at distances of 10–15 \(R_{E}\). The Dst becomes negative (\(-27~\mbox{nT}\)) at 04 UT and the ring current intensifies with the storm development (Fig. 1b) and becomes asymmetric with its peak shifted duskward at the storm maximum with \(\mbox{Dst}=-80~\mbox{nT}\) (Fig. 1c) at 06 UT. The July 22, 2009 event was a moderate storm. The increased tail current is also evident, although with lower current densities. During the storm recovery phase at 08 UT (\(\mbox{Dst}=-69~\mbox{nT}\)), the ring current density decreases (Fig. 1d), but remains asymmetric. There was a second Dst-index drop to about \(-75~\mbox{nT}\) at 0915 UT which can be clearly seen as a new intensification of the ring current (Fig. 1e). The July 22, 2009 storm had a long recovery phase, therefore, close to the end of the day at 18 UT when Dst was \(-57~\mbox{nT}\) (Fig. 1f), the ring current symmetrized but it was still not fully symmetric and its current density decreased but not to the non-disturbed level. This is rather typical storm-time evolution of the ring current.
Fig. 1

Evolution of the inner magnetosphere current density in the equatorial plane computed from the curl of the magnetic field modeled with the Tsyganenko T02 global magnetospheric magnetic field model (Tsyganenko 2002a,b) during the storm event on July 22, 2009

Ring current ions are lost due to several loss mechanisms (for a recent comprehensive review, see Ebihara and Miyoshi 2011). Charge-exchange between energetic ring current ions and neutral exospheric hydrogen is thought to act as a dominant loss. Through this process, energetic ions colliding with neutral exospheric gas may acquire an electron from the cold neutral atom and become neutralized. Convection outflow occurs when a particle intersects the magnetopause, flows away along magnetosheath magnetic field lines and is lost from the ring current region. In the magnetosphere, the ring current particles experience Coulomb interaction with the thermal plasma in the plasmasphere. They transfer energy to the plasmaspheric plasma due to collisions (Coulomb drag) and some of them are also scattered into the loss cone (their pitch angle changes so that they can be lost in the atmosphere). Although classical collisional processes provide the dominant loss process for ring current ions, two classes of plasma waves are able to interact with ring current ions, namely, electromagnetic ion cyclotron (EMIC) waves and magnetosonic waves. This wave-particle interaction results in the pitch angle scattering which contributes to ion loss, especially during the main phase of a storm. For ring current electrons, charge-exchange is not a loss process. The main losses are Coulomb interactions, convection outflow and wave-particle interactions which are most important. Ring current electrons interact mainly with chorus waves observed outside the plasmasphere and hiss waves inside the plasmasphere.

This section gave a brief introduction to the ring current and the major physical processes controlling it. For additional details of ring current structure, dynamics and physics, please see the numerous reviews cited above.

3 Dst-Index as a Storm Indicator, Measure and Predictor

It has long been known that the horizontal component, \(H\), of the geomagnetic field is depressed during periods of great magnetic disturbances and that the recovery to its average level is gradual. In 1741 Celsius observed a large magnetic disturbance in Uppsala, Sweden, and Graham observed the same in London, England, simultaneously. These large magnetic field disturbances were called “magnetic storms”, and were shown to be non-local. Gauss and Weber founded a network of ground-based magnetic observatories expanded by the British and Russians. It was soon found that magnetic storms are worldwide phenomena. Much later, Akasofu and Chapman (1961), Kamide and Fukushima (1971), Kamide (1974) concluded that the near-equatorial ground disturbance of the magnetic field is a measure of the ring current. Sugiura (1964) and Iyemori (1990) used the averaged magnetic field depression observed at low latitudes to derive the Dst-index.

If the ring current and the Dst-index are directly related and the Dst-index serves as an indicator of a storm activity going on in the magnetosphere, the Dst-index can also serve as a predictor of a future storm occurrence. Therefore, it is useful to predict the Dst-index itself. The ability to predict storm occurrence by predicting of the Dst-index can greatly facilitate the prediction of many storm-related space weather effects. The Dst-index is computed from the observations of the ground-based magnetic field. To be able to achieve the goal of Dst-index prediction, models are necessary and these models need to be in the form of operational tools which can be further developed into forecasting tools.

There are several approaches for modeling the Dst-index. One of them is to use models which provide the magnetic field everywhere in the Earth’s magnetosphere and on the ground. These models include the semi-empirical models based on the large amount of magnetic field data with specific representations of current systems in them, like the Tsyganenko models (see the review by Tsyganenko 2013 and http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/~tsyganenko/modeling.html). The most recent model version (Tsyganenko and Andreeva 2015) is intended to forecast the magnetospheric magnetic field using an optimal solar wind coupling function. A very different approach is to use the large volume of magnetic field data for reproducing the detailed structure of the magnetosphere as was done within the TS07 model (Tsyganenko and Sitnov 2007). This approach is somewhat similar to the modelling of the internal geomagnetic field with higher-order harmonics in the scalar potential expansion and it is based on extensible high-resolution expansions for the field of the equatorial current sheet. Early models of the magnetospheric magnetic field used such a method (for example, Mead and Fairfield 1975). Most recently, Andreeva and Tsyganenko (2016) and Tsyganenko and Andreeva (2016) also developed a model without a priori assumptions about the geometry of the magnetic field sources by splitting the model magnetic field into the toroidal and poloidal parts and then expanding each part into a weighted sum of radial basis functions. The Dst-index from these magnetic field models can be computed following the same procedure as for the real Dst-index using the magnetic field modeled at the locations of real Dst low-latitude stations at the Earth’s surface as it is done at the World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto, Japan (http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dstdir/dst2/onDstindex.html).

Global magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) models provide the magnetic field in the magnetosphere and on the ground and they are also used to compute the Dst-index. The detailed analysis of several MHD models’ performance to calculate the Dst-index was presented in the study of Rastätter et al. (2013) which resulted from the 2008–2009 Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM) challenge defined at the 2008 GEM workshop. Two quiet and two disturbed events were selected for modeling. The three-dimensional MHD models of the magnetosphere coupled to an ionosphere electrodynamics solver evaluated were (1) the Space Weather Modeling Framework (SWMF) (Tóth et al. 2005, 2012), (2) the Open Geospace General Circulation Model (OpenGGCM) (Raeder et al. 2001), and (3) the Coupled Magnetosphere-Ionosphere-Thermosphere (CMIT) model, also referred to by the magnetospheric Lyon-Fedder-Mobarry (LFM) component (Lyon et al. 2004; Wiltberger et al. 2004). The contributions from the magnetospheric and ionospheric currents were taken into account in the Biot-Savart’s integration for the approximation of the Dst-index by the North-South component of the perturbation magnetic field \(\delta B _{Z}\) (in SM coordinates) at the Earth’s center location (for details, see Rastätter et al. 2013). Another challenge was focused on the reproducing the magnetic field variations at the ground-based stations (Pulkkinen et al. 2010, 2011, 2013; Rastätter et al. 2014). As a result of these challenges, the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) added the SWMF to the operational forecasting tools. The real-time Dst-index together with the observed one is displayed at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/geospace-global-geomagnetic-activity-plot. None of the other models are operational at present.

Another type of tools is particle, or kinetic, models (brief descriptions of the existing ring current models are give below in Sect. 4.1). From kinetic models, the Dst-index is very often obtained using the Dessler-Parker-Sckopke (DPS) relationship (Dessler and Parker 1959; Sckopke 1966). The DPS relation connects the total energy in the ring current and the change in the ground magnetic field strength. This perturbation can be considered as a rough equivalent to the Dst-index if it is assumed (Carovillano and Siscoe 1973) that it is close to the perturbation averaged around the equator of the Earth. The DPS relation was used in numerous studies for Dst-index estimates from modeling and observations and related ring current dynamics (e.g., Greenspan and Hamilton 2000; Ebihara and Ejiri 2000; Fok et al. 2001b; Jordanova et al. 2012; Ganushkina et al. 2012; Katus et al. 2015; Zhao et al. 2015). However, the Dst-index contains contributions from many other sources than the azimuthally symmetric ring current and their contributions can be significant or even largest during disturbed conditions. The suggested magnetospheric sources include (1) magnetopause currents, (2) cross-tail current, (3) partial ring current, and even (4) substorm current wedge (see the review by Maltsev 2004 and references therein) and also studies by Friedrich et al. (1999), Munsami (2000), Ohtani et al. (2001), Liemohn et al. (2001a,b), Liemohn (2003), Ganushkina et al. (2004, 2010), Kalegaev et al. (2005). The magnetic field measured on the ground contains contributions from all current systems and there is no other way to separate them but to use magnetospheric models. The 2008–2009 GEM Dst challenge (Rastätter et al. 2013), in addition to MHD models, included two kinetic ring current models, Ring Current-Atmosphere Interactions Model with Self-Consistent Magnetic Field (RAM-SCB) (Jordanova et al. 2010; Yu et al. 2011) and the Rice Convection Model (RCM) (Toffoletto et al. 2003). The Dst-index from these models was estimated by the DPS relation.

In addition to the DPS relation, the Biot-Savart’s law is used to calculate the magnetic disturbance parallel to the Earth’s dipole at the center of the earth induced by the azimuthal current component given by the modeled magnetospheric currents within the modeling region. Calculating the model Dst-index by the Biot-Savart’s law instead of the DPS relation in nondipolar magnetic field gives larger and more realistic values, since, for example, the effect from the near-Earth tail current is included by the presence of the stretched magnetic field lines (e.g., Liemohn 2003; Ganushkina et al. 2012; Jordanova et al. 2012). None of the kinetic models with the Dst-index as an output is operational and run online in real-time. The main challenge for predicting of the Dst-index and, subsequently, storm occurrence and strength is the absence of reliable predictions of Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) and solar wind parameters, days in advance. These parameters are the main drivers of global empirical and MHD magnetospheric models and kinetic magnetospheric models.

There is also a very different way to predict the Dst-index which does not include any magnetospheric modeling. Different kinds of empirical relations were obtained for the solar wind parameters and the Dst-index. One of the earliest is the relation between changes in Dst-index and the rate of ring current injection as a function of a delayed and filtered solar wind electric field and solar wind dynamic pressure derived by Burton et al. (1975). Following Burton et al. (1975), further corrections and improvements using general relation between the energy balance for the ring current given as the rate of energy input into the ring current and the decay time and DPS relation were done in later studies (e.g., Murayama 1986; Gonzalez et al. 1994; Thomsen et al. 1998; Klimas et al. 1998; Fenrich and Luhmann 1998; O’Brien and McPherron 2000; Wang et al. 2003). The model of this type which is run online in real time is the Dst forecast model by Temerin and Li (2006) at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP, USA) (http://lasp.colorado.edu/space_weather/dsttemerin/dsttemerin.html). The Dst-index is calculated as a sum of several terms (Temerin and Li 2002, 2006). The first three terms are similar that their driver terms depend strongly on a negative IMF \(B_{Z}\)-component. They differ from each other by their decay terms. The next term is the pressure term which is proportional to the square root of the solar wind dynamic pressure and it is usually assumed to represent the magnetopause currents. The direct IMF \(B_{Z}\) term depends on the angle of the dipole with respect to the solar wind velocity. The last term in the offset term which does not depend on the IMF and solar wind parameters and can compensate for a portion of the secular and annual variation in the Dst index.

Other techniques for Dst-index predictions include the usage of neural networks, with delayed inputs, with feed-back connections (e.g., Lundstedt and Wintoft 1994; Lundstedt et al. 2001; Watanabe et al. 2002; Pallocchia et al. 2006; Bala and Reiff 2012; Dolenko et al. 2014; Lu et al. 2016). Bala and Reiff (2012) use the solar wind-magnetosphere coupling function, the Boyle index (Boyle et al. 1997), which is an empirical approximation for the polar cap potential dependent on solar wind parameters, as basis functions to train an artificial neural network to predict the Dst-index. These predictions are shown in real time at http://mms.rice.edu/realtime/forecast.html as 1, 3, and 6 hours ahead. Another operational model is the Lund Dst model (Lundstedt et al. 2001, 2002) run at the Swedish Institute of Space Physics (IRF-Lund, Sweden) at http://www.irfl.lu.se/rwc/dst/. This model is also based on a recurrent neural network that has been optimized to be as small as possible without degrading the accuracy and it is driven by the hourly averages of the IMF \(B_{Z}\)-component, solar wind number density and velocity. A similar approach is used for the Dst-index predictions (Dolenko et al. 2014) available at the Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics Moscow State University (SINP MSU, Russia) at http://swx.sinp.msu.ru/models/dst.php?gcm=1.

Yet another method includes the models based on linear moving average (MA) filters or linear auto-regressive moving average (ARMA) filters, or similar (Vassiliadis et al. 1999) and the nonlinear auto-regressive moving average model with exogenous inputs (NARMAX) applied to Dst-index (Boynton et al. 2011a; Beharrell and Honary 2016). For example, the NARMAX algorithm (Leontaritis and Billings 1985a,b) is an advanced system identification technique, similar to neural networks, which can be applied for linear and non-linear systems with physically interpretable parameters. Boaghe et al. (2001) applied the NARMAX algorithm and derived a model for the Dst-index using \(v Bs\) with v as the solar wind velocity and Bs as the southward IMF component as the input. Boynton et al. (2011a) developed a model for the Dst-index using NARMAX with a different coupling function according to Boynton et al. (2011b) as an input. The advantage of this type of models is that the output of the model at a specific time can be represented by rather simple polynomial function of the previous values of inputs, outputs, and error terms (Beharrell and Honary 2016). At present, these types of models are in great demand, since they can give exact (though perhaps not always accurate) values at some time moments in a future.

Ji et al. (2012) compared the outputs from six Dst-index forecast models during intense geomagnetic storms, namely, Burton et al. (1975), Fenrich and Luhmann (1998), O’Brien and McPherron (2000), Wang et al. (2003), Temerin and Li (2006), and Boynton et al. (2011a) models. They found that the Temerin and Li (2006) model gives most reasonable results. The 2008–2009 GEM Dst challenge (Rastätter et al. 2013) also included Burton-type representations (Burton et al. 1975; Murayama 1986), NARMAX model (Boynton et al. 2011a), and Rice Dst model (Bala and Reiff 2012). All of the models showed very reasonable results, NARMAX model (Boynton et al. 2011a) was specifically mentioned.

This brief over-review of Dst prediction methods is indented to give readers an understanding of the various types of models in existence and, in particular, those running online and in real time. These models can be used as an estimate of ring current intensity and, therefore, the severity of the possible space weather effects of the ring current, which will now be discussed.

4 Space Weather Effects Related to the Ring Current

4.1 Ring Current Electrons and Effects on Satellites

Electrons with energies less than 100 keV are one of the important constituents of the ring current. Their contribution has been studied starting from the early observations of the ring current. Based on the analysis of the low-energy (<50 keV) electron and proton fluxes onboard the OGO 3 satellite, Frank (1967) showed that the electron component may provide about 25% of the ring current energy during storm times. Liu et al. (2005) analyzed Explorer 45 electron data for energies from 1 to 200 keV and found the electron contribution of about 7.5% during quiet time and about 19% during storm time. Contribution of electrons to the ring current energy content based on the recent Van Allen Probes measurements was estimated to be about 10% of the ions during storm main phase (e.g., Zhao et al. 2016).

The electron fluxes at these keV energies vary significantly with the current activity on the scale of minutes or even shorter. They can be responsible for surface charging effects which is a serious risk for satellites (e.g., Garrett 1981; Lanzerotti et al. 1998; Koons et al. 1999; Whipple 1981; Davis et al. 2008). The electrons with energies of 10’s of keV do not penetrate deep into the satellite materials but stay near the surface. Secondary electrons are generated due to the interactions between the surface materials and both the incident plasma and the solar UV. The satellite’s surface materials will be charged in order to have the zero net current between the surfaces and the plasma. Therefore, the surface will have nonzero voltages. Usually, the sunlit areas of the satellite’s surface are positive and the shadowed areas are negative. For the conducting surfaces, the potential of the surface is uniform for reaching the equilibrium for zero net current. For insulating materials, this equilibrium can be only on several points on the surface.

Electrons have higher speeds, so they constitute the main source of initial plasma current to a satellite. The currents of photo and secondary electrons from a surface are often higher than the plasma electron current to it. If the average electron energy in the surrounding plasma is larger than 1 keV, the regions of a satellite in shadows will be charged negative to significant potentials (several kilovolts). In the dense plasma also the sunlit regions of a satellite can charge to significant levels. Secondary and photoelectron currents are different for different materials. Therefore, there is a wide range of surface potentials. The differences in potential between adjacent materials can cause the local electrical stress resulting in vacuum arcs. Surface materials can also discharge into space or to structure ground. The resulting electrostatic discharge (ESD) currents can electromagnetically couple into electronic circuits and subsystems, causing damage.

Typically, most satellite anomalies due to surface charging at geostationary orbit occur at night and early dawn (e.g., Fennell et al. 2001; Gubby and Evans 2002; O’Brien 2009). During substorms, a hot plasma is injected from the magnetotail into the nightside inner regions. They perform the gradient and curvature drifts towards dawn. These newly injected electrons can cause significant changes in the satellite charging levels.

When an anomaly occurs, the radiation environment may be more extreme than that given by the specification models used for design. However, data may not be available at the location of the satellite to fully determine the cause of the anomaly. Therefore, there is a need for physical models with the correct dynamical behavior that can be used to reconstruct the radiation environment. To determine the impact of an extreme space weather event on satellites, we need to define the space radiation environment for different orbits. This can be done by using a combination of physical models and in-situ observations.

Significant surface charging events can happen during rather undisturbed conditions, like small, isolated substorms (e.g., Ganushkina et al. 2013; Matéo-Vélez et al. 2016). Occurrence of a storm, even a moderate one, can be not directly related to the occurrence of the surface charging. The electron flux at the keV energies is largely determined by convective (Korth et al. 1999; Friedel et al. 2001; Thomsen et al. 2002; Elkington et al. 2004; Miyoshi et al. 2006; Kurita et al. 2011; Jordanova et al. 2016) and substorm-associated (Vakulin et al. 1988; Grafodatskiy et al. 1987; Degtyarev et al. 1990; Fok et al. 2001a; Khazanov et al. 2004; Kozelova et al. 2006; Ganushkina et al. 2013; Yu et al. 2014; Turner et al. 2015) electric fields. Since it varies on short time scales, it is not possible to average the keV electron fluxes over an orbit/day/hour as it can be done for higher energies, like MeVs. This makes the modeling of keV electron flux variations very challenging.

When modeling using physics-based models (kinetic models for the ring current), it is necessary to follow keV electrons in large-scale, time-varying magnetic and electric fields. Even though there exist several models, the correct models for these fields are extremely hard to develop. Electrons in the inner regions come from the plasma sheet where specification of a realistic boundary conditions is very nontrivial. The question of how to introduce losses for low energy electrons is still open. Here, the issue about the importance of other waves, apart from chorus and hiss, in the pitch angle scattering resulting from wave-particle interactions is still unclear. Finally, the most important factor in the electron dynamics is substorms which play a significant role in keV electron transport and energy increase. Their proper modeling has not been done yet.

Fluxes of low-energy electrons have been modeled in several studies as a part of ring current simulations. One of the widely used inner magnetosphere models is the ring current-atmosphere interactions model (RAM) (Jordanova et al. 1996) mentioned above in Sect. 3. Jordanova and Miyoshi (2005), Miyoshi et al. (2006), and, more recently, Jordanova et al. (2014) extended the RAM model to relativistic energies and electrons investigating the effect of magnetospheric convection and radial diffusion during the October 2001 geomagnetic storm and later for October 2012 storm (Jordanova et al. 2016). This model is part of the SHIELDS project of Los Alamos National Laboratory (http://www.lanl.gov/projects/shields/index.php).

Chen et al. (2006) performed magnetically self-consistent ring current simulations during the 19 October 1998 storm calculating the ion and electron transport in the equatorial plane using the kinetic proton and electron drift-loss model (Chen et al. 1994) coupled to the force-balanced representation of the magnetic field intensity (Chen et al. 2005).

Another widely used inner magnetosphere model is the Rice Convection Model (RCM), also mentioned above in Sect. 3, which describes plasma electrodynamics in the inner and middle magnetosphere and its coupling to the ionosphere (see the review by Toffoletto et al. 2003 and references therein). The Rice Convection Model Equilibrium (RCM-E) (Lemon et al. 2004) combines the drift physics computing the bounce-averaged relativistic drifts of isotropic electrons and ions with a model of equilibrium magnetic field in a force balance with the RCM-computed pressures. In addition to magnetic self-consistency, the particle transport is also self-consistent with the electric field. This model was used for the assessing of the different electron loss models for the model’s ability to reproduce the observed electron fluxes of 1.2 keV to 925 keV measured by LANL 1994-084 satellite during the large 10 August 2000 magnetic storm (Chen et al. 2015).

These studies were focused on the application to specific events. The models are not run online in real time. Taking into account the space weather effects requires models run in near real time, when no changes can be made and the models are supposed to perform reasonably well for wide range of geomagnetic conditions, not just for specific storm events.

The model which is run online at the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC) (http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.php) in near real time is Fok Ring Current Model (FRC). This is a bounce-averaged kinetic model which calculates the temporal and spatial variation of the phase space density of ring current species, including electrons in the energy range of 1–300 keV (Fok and Moore 1997; Fok et al. 1999, 2001b). The model inputs are the solar wind driven outputs of the global MHD modeling provided in near real time by the Space Weather Modeling Framework (Tóth et al. 2005, 2012). 3D magnetic fields, as well as equatorial plasma density and temperature are obtained from the global magnetosphere SWMF GM/BATSRUS model (Powell et al. 1999; De Zeeuw et al. 2000) and 2D ionospheric height-integrated potentials are given by the ionospheric electrodynamics SWMF IE/RIM model (Ridley et al. 2001, 2004). Equatorial plasma density and temperature are used to set the boundary conditions in the plasma sheet for electrons, which move inward in the provided magnetic and computed from the ionospheric potentials electric fields. The model output given as the electron fluxes as functions of time, energy and pitch angle for different keV energy ranges in the equatorial plane is presented. At the same time, no real time comparison with the observations is shown.

A variation of the FRC model is the Comprehensive Inner-Magnetosphere Ionosphere (CIMI) model which also calculates the temporal and spatial variation of the phase space density of electrons in the energy range of 1–4000 keV (Fok et al. 2011, 2014). Instead of MHD-related inputs, this model has different inputs based on empirical models. For 3D magnetic fields, it employs Tsyganenko magnetospheric magnetic field T96 (Tsyganenko 1995) and T04 (Tsyganenko and Sitnov 2005) models. Weimer (2005) representation for ionospheric electric potentials at the model’s poleward boundary at 70.3° magnetic latitude is used to set up the electric field. The initial distribution for electrons is set according to the empirical model of AE8 (Vette 1991). Boundary conditions in the plasma sheet are specified by the empirical plasma sheet models (Ebihara and Ejiri 2000; Borovsky et al. 1998; Tsyganenko and Mukai 2003). This model also provides the equatorial electron fluxes as functions of time, energy and pitch angle but it is not run in real time with no comparison with the observations.

The model which runs online in real time and which outputs are directly compared to the real time observations for low energy (\(< 200\) keV) electrons is Inner Magnetosphere Particle Transport and Acceleration model (IMPTAM) (Ganushkina et al. 2013, 2014, 2015a). IMPTAM operates online (imptam.fmi.fi) under the completed FP7 SPACECAST and SPACESTORM projects (http://fp7-spacecast.eu, http://www.spacestorm.eu/) funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme and under the on-going H2020 PROGRESS project (https://ssg.group.shef.ac.uk/progress2/html/) funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. Its mirror site is also at the Center for Space Environment Modeling (CSEM) at the University of Michigan (http://csem.engin.umich.edu/tools/imptam). The driving parameters are determined by the models used in IMPTAM. The T96 model (Tsyganenko 1995) is used for the external magnetic field and the Boyle et al. (1997) polar cap potential mapped to the magnetosphere is used for the electric field. The model boundary is set at 10 \(R_{E}\) as a kappa electron distribution function with parameters given by the Tsyganenko and Mukai (2003) empirical model with necessary scaling for electrons. The solar wind and IMF parameters which drive the IMPTAM are solar wind density \(N_{SW}\), dynamics pressure \(P_{SW}\), velocity \(V_{SW}\), IMF \(B_{Y}\), \(B_{Z}\), and total IMF strength. The model provides the low energy electron flux at all L-shells and at all satellite orbits, when necessary. Real time geostationary GOES 13 or GOES 15 (whenever which available) MAGED data on electron fluxes at three energies (40, 75, and 150 keV) are used for comparison and validation of IMPTAM running online (Ganushkina et al. 2015a). IMPTAM provides nowcast of keV electrons comparable to the observations.

A purely empirical model for ion flux and electron flux in the energy range ∼1 eV to ∼40 keV at geosynchronous orbit (GEO) was developed by Denton et al. (2015, 2016, 2017) based on a total of 82 satellite-years of observations from the Magnetospheric Plasma Analyzer instruments on Los Alamos National Laboratory satellites (http://gemelli.spacescience.org/mdenton/). The model provides the electron flux values at any energy and local time for given values of the 3-hour Kp-index or solar wind electric field (\(-vB_{z}\)). The Kp version of the model also provides flux values for given values of the daily F10.7 index. The limited number of driving parameters makes this model not suitable for fast variations of keV electrons. Even though the model is called empirical, no equations are provided which can be easily used to relate electron flux at a specific energy with the driving parameters.

A very different approach is used in the SNB3GEO models (Balikhin et al. 2011; Boynton et al. 2015, 2016) based on Multi-Input Single-Output (MISO) Nonlinear AutoRegressive Moving Average with eXogenous inputs (NARMAX) methodologies (Leontaritis and Billings 1985a,b). In the applied system identification approach, models are automatically deduced from input-output data by the system identification algorithms. NARMAX is capable of modeling nonlinear dynamics within the system and can provide a simple polynomial function with intuitive understanding of how the inputs change the output. The model is run online in real time at the University of Sheffield Space Weather Website (http://www.ssg.group.shef.ac.uk/USSW/UOSSW.html) and under the H2020 PROGRESS project (https://ssg.group.shef.ac.uk/progress2/html/index.phtml) funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. The model inputs are the solar wind velocity, density and pressure, the fraction of time that the IMF was southward, the IMF contribution of a solar wind-magnetosphere coupling function following Boynton et al. (2011b) and the Dst-index. The model output is the fluxes for 30–50 keV, 50–100 keV, 100–200 keV, 200–350 keV and 350–600 keV directly compared to the GOES MAGED observations at geostationary orbit. This model also contains a forecast. For low energy electrons, it is not possible to forecast one day ahead because the same day variations in the solar wind affect the current low energy electron flux. Boynton et al. (2016) calculated the past 24 hour averages for each hour and, therefore, the input time lags in the algorithm were shifted hourly, not daily. It is stated that the model provides accurate forecasts with prediction efficiencies ranging between 66.9% and 82.3%. At the same time, smaller-scale variations are not forecasted but they constitute the most important factor when trying to estimate the surface charging effects from keV electron variations.

None of the models has explicit representation for substorms which are a crucial factor in the transport and acceleration of keV electrons. There have been several studies aimed at the modeling of electron injections as they are well-known signatures of a substorm in the near-Earth space (Li et al. 1998; Zaharia et al. 2000; Sarris et al. 2002; Gabrielse et al. 2012, 2014, 2016; Ganushkina et al. 2013, 2014). These models give relatively good agreement with the observed dispersionless electron injections at geostationary orbit during specific events (Ingraham et al. 2001; Fok et al. 2001a; Li et al. 2003; Mithaiwala and Horton 2005; Liu et al. 2009). The substorm-associated electromagnetic fields are very complex and their proper representation is still missing from the modeling efforts for keV electrons in the inner magnetosphere. No technique is implemented yet to include substorm influence on modeled fluxes in real time.

Ring current electrons in the keV energy range represent a real threat to equatorially orbiting spacecraft. In the midnight-to-dawn sector, fresh injections can intensify the low-energy electron fluxes and cause surface charging, sometimes with detrimental effects. Several models exist which nowcast or forecast these electrons, providing at least some level of awareness about this population. The critical influence of substorms on the near-Earth keV electrons, however, has not yet been fully implemented into a real time and online prediction tool.

4.2 Ring Current and Inner Magnetosphere Populations

4.2.1 Ring Current and Radiation Belts

The ring current is often thought of as a lower-energy part of the outer radiation belt that surrounds Earth in a toroidal shape. However, these are really two distinct populations with very different dynamics and responses to solar wind forcing (e.g. Schulz and Lanzerotti 1974; Liemohn 2006; Reeves et al. 2016). Naturally, there does exist a coupling between the two energy regimes, as they overlap in spatial extent most of the time. In fact, a very significant influence of the ring current on radiation belt losses during the main and recovery phases of geomagnetic storms (e.g. Ukhorskiy et al. 2015).

The first effect is related to the diamagnetic consequences of a partial ring current that develops during storms. Inflation of the near-Earth magnetic field due to ring current changes (e.g. Parker and Stewart 1967; Tsyganenko et al. 2003; Ganushkina et al. 2010) alters the drift paths of the relativistic electrons in the radiation belts, causing the adiabatic “Dst effect” (e.g. Kim and Chan 1997), which can become a real loss of particles at the magnetopause (e.g. West et al. 1972; Hudson et al. 1998; Ukhorskiy et al. 2006). This process has been identified as contributing rapid loss for up to 90% of the pre-existing population of both radiation belt electrons (100’s keV to multi-MeV) energies and energetic ring current protons (100’s keV to >1 MeV) (Turner et al. 2014).

The second effect is due to pitch angle scattering of relativistic electrons via wave-particle interactions. The notable mode here is electromagnetic ion-cyclotron (EMIC) waves, since these waves are able to very efficiently interact with high-energy radiation belt electrons (Summers et al. 1998; Meredith et al. 2003), and are driven by unstable ring current proton distributions (Anderson and Hamilton 1993). The anisotropy required for EMIC wave growth is fueled by ring current proton injections, which are convected inward to the inner magnetosphere during intervals of enhanced storm and substorm activity (e.g. Young et al. 1981; Jordanova et al. 2001). Recent simulations combined with the data from the Van Allen Probes (Mauk et al. 2013), the mission specifically designed for radiation belts, have demonstrated the dramatic effect on >1 MeV electron pitch angle distributions that EMIC waves can have (see, for example, Usanova et al. 2014). While this study did not find a clear way for EMIC waves to produce a full dropout of the core electron population, the flux levels were reduced substantially at lower pitch angles, indicating significant precipitation. Electron precipitation can have impacts on human society at the ground level, as well as terrestrial weather and climate systems (e.g. Rodger et al. 2010). Cutting edge models need to incorporate radiation belt losses from both of these effects: loss to the outer boundary of the magnetosphere via magnetopause shadowing and loss from atmospheric precipitation due to EMIC wave scattering.

Radiation belt enhancement and acceleration events are likewise tied to ring current dynamics. Local acceleration can provide significant acceleration of electron populations in the heart of the outer belt. The process is generated by VLF whistler-mode chorus waves, which grow as a result of a temperature anisotropy in few-10s keV electrons (Helliwell 1967) likely caused by substorm injections (Tsurutani and Smith 1974; Meredith et al. 2001). This anisotropic population of ring current energy electrons is often called the “seed” population, wherein the source of the free energy for chorus wave growth is available. Chorus waves interact with “seed” electrons at energies of 10’s to 100’s of keV through cyclotron resonance and can accelerate electrons to very high energies (Kennel and Petschek 1966; Kennel and Thorne 1967; Li et al. 2008, 2012; Thorne 2010). Whistler-mode chorus plays a critical role in accelerating ring current electrons to relativistic energies in the outer belt (Horne et al. 2005; Green 2006; Chen et al. 2007), including to “killer” electron energies that can have disastrous space weather consequences to sensitive systems (Baker 2001; Fennell et al. 2001).

4.2.2 Ring Current and Plasmasphere

The ring current overlaps the cold, dense plasmasphere surrounding Earth, with the center peak of the ring current typically co-located with the plasmapause boundary (Kozyra et al. 1997; Burch et al. 2001). The ring current can effect the shape of the plasmasphere (e.g. Goldstein et al. 2003; Liemohn et al. 2004; Gallagher et al. 2005), and the location of the plasmapause boundary, thereby sculpting the energy-dependent radiation belts and influencing electron precipitation to the atmosphere and locations of enhanced spacecraft charging.

Enhanced convection during geomagnetically active times leads to erosion of the plasmasphere such that the boundary contracts throughout local times (e.g. Nishida 1966), although a high-density plume can form on the duskside of Earth (e.g. Brice 1967; Carpenter 1970; Spasojević et al. 2003). Drainage plumes may also form, allowing direct transport of plasmaspheric particles to the outer magnetosphere (Grebowsky 1970; Chen and Wolf 1972; Rasmussen et al. 1993; Goldstein et al. 2004). Additionally, sub-auroral polarization streams (SAPS) can contribute to the erosion of the plasmasphere on very fast timescales (Gonzales et al. 1978; Burke et al. 1998; Foster and Vo 2002; Califf et al. 2016). During storm time, ring current injections influence the near-Earth electric field (Jaggi and Wolf 1973; Fok et al. 2001a) to the extent that the ionospheric convection pattern is affected which has space weather effects on human technologies such as GPS signal processing (Yeh et al. 1991; Foster et al. 2002).

The variation of plasmaspheric dynamics contribute to distinct consequences that effect the ring current population. First is the myriad roles of wave-particle interactions. When the plasmasphere begins to refill after a period of erosion to low radial distances, the outward expansion of the sharp density boundary once it overlaps the inner edge of the ring current can trigger lower hybrid wave growth (Roth and Hudson 1992). These waves can then accelerate low-energy ring current ions. Another effect is the growth of whistler-mode chorus waves much closer to Earth during an eroded plasmasphere, which will both scatter and accelerate a range of ring current electrons and ions. One more effect is the growth of EMIC waves in plasmaspheric plumes (Posch et al. 2010), which are triggered by ring current proton anisotropies. The existence of a high-density plume can encourage EMIC wave growth, which can contribute to losses of the “killer electrons” at ultra-relativistic energies (Horne and Thorne 1998). Finally, VLF hiss waves, which exist inside the dense plasmasphere, can produce a slow and steady loss of ring current electrons and protons (Thorne et al. 1973; Kozyra et al. 1994).

The position of many of these wave-particle interactions depends on the dynamics of the plasmasphere and plasmapause boundary. The location of the plasmasphere therefore effects where in space, and on the ground, many space weather consequences of the ring current are localized. Modeling of the plasmasphere, ring current, and associated plasma waves are essential for comprehensively defining the space weather environment.

4.3 Ring Current and Ionosphere and Below

The ring current not only influences the near-Earth magnetosphere with space weather consequences, but also alters the ionosphere and thermosphere. This is done through closure of the partial ring current and the generation of strong ionospheric flows. Inner magnetospheric plasma populations are often highly asymmetric in local time during active times, which creates localized pressure peaks and corresponding field aligned currents (FACs) at the two ends of the pressure crescent (Wolf 1970; Fok et al. 2001b; Liemohn et al. 2001a). These region 2 FACs become current source and sink regions in the ionosphere, where horizontal currents flow to close the circuit. The resulting horizontal electric fields in the ionosphere can be drastically different than the “standard” closure of the region 1 FACs, especially near the equatorward edge of the auroral zone and at subauroral latitudes. They are often poleward electric fields associated with a strong westward (sunward) flow in the midlatitude ionosphere. These flows have dramatic consequences for ionospheric density and thermospheric density, temperature, and composition.

4.3.1 Ring Current and Ionosphere and Thermosphere

The closure of the ring current FACs through the ionosphere create subauroral polarization streams (SAPS). The term SAPS was first coined by Foster and Burke (2002) to classify the evening-sector increase in electric field equatorward of the electron precipitation boundary. Because the plasma sheet ions drift closer to the Earth in this sector, region 2 FACs enter the ionosphere at a latitude without much ionization from the precipitation of keV-energy electrons. Foster and Vo (2002) and Erickson et al. (2011) presented statistical analyses of these electric fields and ionospheric flows, showing a clear dependence of SAPS intensity and spatial extent with geomagnetic activity. Ridley and Liemohn (2002) showed that they were directly linked to the partial ring current localized pressure peak, and other observations and numerical modeling has confirmed and further quantified this relationship (e.g. Garner et al. 2004; Mishin and Burke 2005; Liemohn et al. 2005; Yu et al. 2015; Yuan et al. 2016; Califf et al. 2016). SAPS are relatively stable during storms, being a persistent feature across the evening sector that can last for many hours (e.g. Huang and Foster 2007) as the hot ions in the inner magnetosphere slowly drift through near-Earth space. However, SAPS also occur during less active times, including isolated substorms (e.g. Karlsson et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2008).

These strong flows greatly perturb the storm-time ionospheric density configuration at midlatitudes. Pintér et al. (2006) showed that SAPS cause significant density depletion in the fast-flow channel. However, just equatorward of the peak of the flow channel, the higher densities from lower latitudes can become entrained in the westward flows, creating storm enhanced density (SED) plumes, which are anomalously high ionospheric electron densities on the dayside at mid-to-high latitudes during storms (e.g. Kelley et al. 2004; Heelis and Coley 2007). Yin et al. (2004) showed that SAPS created a SED over the USA during the 15 July 2000 storm, influencing Global Positioning System (GPS) communications. In fact, total electron content (TEC) maps created from GPS signal processing has been extensively used to quantify the timing and intensity of SEDs (e.g. Bust et al. 2007; Wen et al. 2007; Yizengaw et al. 2007; Basu et al. 2008; Coster and Skone 2009). SEDs have been shown to extend right through the dayside auroral zone into the polar cap, becoming tongues of ionization and, if breaking off, polar cap patches (e.g. Horvath and Lovell 2009, 2015). Interestingly, Sojka et al. (2004) and David et al. (2011) showed that SEDs might actually be a locally produced phenomenon, with the horizontal SAPS flows driving ExB drift in slant paths, suppressing recombination and allowing a new, higher equilibrium density at these locations. Schunk et al. (2012) assessed their online ionospheric prediction model, the Global Assimilation of Ionospheric Measurements (GAIM) model, especially for the low and midlatitude regions. They concluded that a significant part of the error of the results was due to uncertain magnetospheric inputs to the code. It is clear that the ionosphere is greatly perturbed by the electric fields related to the closure of the partial ring current with effects at all local times and across a range of latitudes.

The neutral upper atmosphere is also affected by these strong subauroral electric fields. Wang et al. (2011) conducted a statistical study of the influence of SAPS on the thermosphere, finding a 10% increase in density within the flow channel, presumably from heating. This was further explained with numerical modeling by Wang et al. (2012), who found that SAPS cause increases in global thermospheric temperature, but this effect takes days to fully develop. They also found that SAPS drive large thermospheric zonal winds due to ion-neutral drag. The heating also caused compositional changes to the thermosphere, with upwelling of molecular-rich atmosphere and downwelling of atomic-oxygen-rich gas elsewhere. Mishin et al. (2012) found that SAPS can create atmospheric gravity waves near 300 km altitude, presumably related to this localized thermospheric density and temperature enhancement.

A final example is Codrescu et al. (2012), who examined real time simulations of the Coupled Thermosphere-Ionosphere Plasmasphere-Electrodynamics model, CTIPe, who compared upper atmospheric neutral mass density results against CHAMP observations. They found that the total amplitude of the perturbations was well captured but the timing was not, indicating that nonlinear feedback in the system, such as that from the ring current, could be crucial in accurately predicting thermospheric space weather effects.

Note that SAPS have been related to the faster, narrower channels of flow known as polarization jets (Galperin et al. 1974) or sub-auroral ion drifts (SAIDs) (Anderson et al. 1993). SAPS, however, are broader in latitude and lower in intensity than these sharp spikes in electric field and ionospheric flow. One hypothesis for the relationship between these phenomena is the localized intensification of the SAPS field as increased temperature enhances the ionospheric recombination rate and lowers the conductivity in the SAPS channel (Wolf et al. 2007).

4.3.2 Ring Current and GICs

Geomagnetically induced currents (GIC) (Pirjola 2000; Boteler 2001) can disrupt normal transmission system operations triggering voltage collapse or damage transformers (e.g. Kappenman et al. 1997; Molinski 2002; Wik et al. 2009). The magnitude of GIC flowing in the high-voltage power transmission networks is determined by the horizontal geoelectric field (e.g. Pirjola 2002, 2013). The induced geoelectric field on the ground is mainly controlled by currents in the magnetosphere and ionosphere, and by the conductivity of the Earth (e.g. Pirjola 2000, 2002; Ngwira et al. 2013).

The large-scale electric currents in the ionosphere are coupled to the magnetosphere through field-aligned currents (FACs). The Region 1 currents that reside on open field lines are driven by the solar wind, which acts as a generator (Siscoe et al. 1991) by dayside reconnection. On closed field lines, their formation can be due to processes taking place in either the boundary layer (Lotko et al. 1987) or in the plasma sheet (e.g. Antonova and Ganushkina 1997; Toffoletto et al. 2001).

The Region 2 currents flow at lower latitudes and can be mapped to the ring current region. They are produced by the pressure gradient dynamics in the inner magnetosphere (Vasyliunas 1970; Birmingham 1992; Heinemann 1990; Heinemann and Pontius 1991). Thus, the ring current dynamics contributes to the GIC effects via its role in the generation of Region 2 FACs. Numerous other studies have examined the connection between conductance and the ring current (e.g. Fok et al. 2001b; Jordanova 2003; Sazykin et al. 2002; Khazanov et al. 2003; Ebihara et al. 2004; Liemohn et al. 2005), showing that the partial ring current closure can strongly perturb the inner magnetospheric electric fields.

GICs with large amplitudes are of primary concern for high-latitudes but, at the same time, the GICs were recently observed at the magnetically mid- and low-latitudes during storm times (e.g. Kappenman 2003; Trivedi et al. 2007; Marshall et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2015; Barbosa et al. 2015; Watari 2015). The presence of the enhanced ring current during storms may be directly related to the GIC generation at these latitudes. The exact connection between the storm-time ring current and these subauroral GICs, however, has yet to be fully understood.

The geoelectric field can be computed in different ways but it is necessary to have the ground-based geomagnetic field obtained either from observations (Viljanen et al. 2006; Pulkkinen et al. 2012; Ngwira et al. 2013) or from the first-principles-based MHD modeling of the magnetosphere-ionosphere system as surface variations of magnetic field at the ground-based stations (Pulkkinen et al. 2013; Glocer et al. 2016) and a representative ground conductivity structure (Pirjola 2002). The ring current physics needs to be properly modeled for the geoelectric field calculations, especially during extreme space weather events.

5 Summary

The space weather effects from the ring current particles with keV energy range cannot be considered as highly obvious as those from the “killer” electrons or from the solar energetic protons with energies of tens of MeVs but they are nevertheless quite significant. Figure 2 summarized the space weather effects that can be produced by the ring current. One of the definitions of space weather includes the time-varying conditions in the space environment that may be hazardous to technological systems on the ground. Ring current has a direct influence on the Dst-index which is computed from the ground-based magnetic field observations and which is an indicator of a storm activity. Electrons with energies less than 100 keV are one of the important constituents of the ring current. The electron fluxes at these keV energies vary significantly with the current activity on the scale of minutes or even shorter. The keV electrons do not penetrate deep into the satellite materials but stay near the surface. They can be responsible for surface charging effects which is a serious risk for satellites.
Fig. 2

Space weather effects due to ring current

Ring current dynamics are tied to both radiation belt losses and enhancements by affecting the efficiency of magnetopause shadowing and driving various wave-particle interactions. These consequences can be dramatic and impulsive, thereby altering the higher-energy space weather environment suddenly. With the addition of the overlapping plasmasphere, the picture is complicated further. Effective space weather models need to account for the myriad interacting density regimes and particle populations that are related to ring current changes.

The storm-time ring current has several detrimental space weather effects on the ionosphere and thermosphere. The partial ring current closes through the ionosphere, which leads to the SAPS phenomenon of strong westward flows at mid-latitudes. This rearranges the ionospheric density, creating SED plumes across the dayside middle and high latitude regions, extending even over the polar caps. These density enhancements adversely affect GPS signals, resulting in location errors of 50–100 meters during large events. Furthermore, the thermosphere is heated by the SAPS flows, leading to chemistry changes, and thermospheric winds ramp up to match the ionospheric flows during prolonged SAPS intervals.

The ring current contributes to the Geomagnetically Induced Currents effects via its role in the generation of Region 2 FACs. The magnitude of GIC is determined by the horizontal geoelectric field which is mainly controlled by currents in the magnetosphere and ionosphere, and by the conductivity of the Earth. The large-scale electric currents in the ionosphere are coupled to the magnetosphere through field-aligned currents (FACs). The Region 2 currents which can be mapped to the ring current region are generated by the pressure gradient dynamics in the inner magnetosphere.

The dynamics of the ring current is a preeminent factor in space weather forecasting, thereby of critical importance to the health and safety of our spacecraft systems. The ring current does not interact independently and alone, it is tied to the greater system.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the International Space Science Institute (ISSI) in Bern, Switzerland, for the support of the workshop “The Scientific Foundation of Space Weather”. N. Ganushkina thanks the ISSI for the support of the international teams on “Analysis of Cluster Inner Magnetosphere Campaign Data, in Application the Dynamics of Waves and Wave-Particle Interaction within the Outer Radiation Belt” and “Ring Current Modeling: Uncommon Assumptions and Common Misconceptions.” The research of N. Ganushkina leading to these results was partly funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement No. 606716 SPACESTORM. The research of N. Ganushkina and M. Liemohn leading to these results was partly funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 637302 PROGRESS. Support for M. Liemohn and N. Ganushkina at Michigan was provided by research grants from NASA (NNX14AF34G, NNX14AC02G, and NNX17AB87G) and NSF (AGS-1414517). The work of A. Jaynes was supported by RBSP-ECT funding provided by JHU/APL contract 967399 under NASA’s Prime contract NAS5-01072.

References

  1. S.-I. Akasofu, S. Chapman, The ring current, geomagnetic disturbance, and the Van Allen radiation belt. J. Geophys. Res. 66, 1321–1350 (1961) ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. B.J. Anderson, D.C. Hamilton, Electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves stimulated by modest magnetospheric compressions. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 11 (1993). doi: 10.1029/93JA00605 Google Scholar
  3. P.C. Anderson, W.B. Hanson, R.A. Heelis, J.D. Craven, D.N. Baker, L.A. Frank, A proposed production model of rapid subauroral ion drifts and their relationship to substorm evolution. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 6069–6078 (1993). doi: 10.1029/92JA01975 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. V.A. Andreeva, N.A. Tsyganenko, Reconstructing the magnetosphere from data using radial basis functions. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 2249–2263 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2015JA022242 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. E.E. Antonova, N.Yu. Ganushkina, Azimuthal hot plasma pressure gradients and dawn-dusk electric field formation. J. Atmos. Terr. Phys. 59, 1343–1354 (1997) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D.N. Baker, Satellite anomalies due to space storms, in Space Storms and Space Weather Hazards, ed. by I.A. Daglis (2001), p. 285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Bala, P. Reiff, Improvements in short-term forecasting of geomagnetic activity. Space Weather 10, S06001 (2012). doi: 10.1029/2012SW000779 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. M.A. Balikhin, R.J. Boynton, S.N. Walker, J.E. Borovsky, S.A. Billings, H.L. Wei, Using the NARMAX approach to model the evolution of energetic electrons fluxes at geostationary orbit. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38(18), L18105 (2011) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. C. Barbosa, L. Alves, R. Caraballo, G.A. Hartmann, A.R.R. Papa, R.J. Pirjola, Analysis of geomagnetically induced currents at a low-latitude region over the solar cycles 23 and 24: Comparison between measurements and calculations. J. Space Weather Space Clim. 5, A35 (2015). doi: 10.1051/swsc/2015036 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Su. Basu, S. Basu, J.J. Makela, E. MacKenzie, P. Doherty, J.W. Wright, F. Rich, M.J. Keskinen, R.E. Sheehan, A.J. Coster, Large magnetic storm-induced nighttime ionospheric flows at midlatitudes and their impacts on GPS-based navigation systems. J. Geophys. Res. 113, A00A06 (2008). doi: 10.1029/2008JA013076 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. M.J. Beharrell, F. Honary, Decoding solar wind-magnetosphere coupling. Space Weather 14, 724–741 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2016SW001467 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. T.J. Birmingham, Birkeland currents in an anisotropic, magnetostatic plasma. J. Geophys. Res. 97(A4), 3907–3917 (1992). doi: 10.1029/91JA03029 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. O.M. Boaghe, M.A. Balikhin, S.A. Billings, H. Alleyne, Identification of nonlinear processes in the magnetospheric dynamics and forecasting of Dst index. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 30047–30066 (2001). doi: 10.1029/2000JA900162 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. J.E. Borovsky, M.F. Thomsen, R.C. Elphic, T.E. Cayton, D.J. McComas, The transport of plasma sheet material from the distant tail to geosynchronous orbit. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 20297–20331 (1998) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D.H. Boteler, Space weather effects on power systems, in Space Weather, ed. by D. Song, H.J. Singer, G.L. Siscoe. AGU Geophysical Monograph, vol. 125 (2001), pp. 347–352 Google Scholar
  16. S. Bourdarie, V.K. Jordanova, M. Liemohn, T.P. O’Brien, Modeling the energetic particles of the inner magnetosphere, in Waves, Particles, and Storms in Geospace: A Complex Interplay, ed. by G. Balasis, I.A. Daglis, I.R. Mann (Oxford Scholarship, London, 2016). doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198705246.003.0006 Google Scholar
  17. C. Boyle, P. Reiff, M. Hairston, Empirical polar cap potentials. J. Geophys. Res. 102(A1), 111–125 (1997) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. R.J. Boynton, M.A. Balikhin, S.A. Billings, A.S. Sharma, O.A. Amariutei, Data derived NARMAX Dst model. Ann. Geophys. 29, 965–971 (2011a) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. R.J. Boynton, M.A. Balikhin, S.A. Billings, H.L. Wei, N. Ganushkina, Using the NARMAX OLS-ERR algorithm to obtain the most influential coupling functions that affect the evolution of the magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 116(A5), A05218 (2011b) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. R.J. Boynton, M.A. Balikhin, S.A. Billings, Online NARMAX model for electron fluxes at GEO. Ann. Geophys. 33(3), 405–411 (2015) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. R.J. Boynton, M.A. Balikhin, D.G. Sibeck, S.N. Walker, S.A. Billings, N. Ganushkina, Electron flux models for different energies at geostationary orbit. Space Weather 14, 846–860 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2016SW001506 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. N.M. Brice, Bulk motion of the magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 72, 5193 (1967) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. J.L. Burch, D.G. Mitchell, B.R. Sandel, P.C. Brandt, M. Wuest, Global dynamics of the plasmasphere and ring current during magnetic storms. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1159–1162 (2001). doi: 10.1029/2000GL012413 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. W.J. Burke, N.C. Maynard, M.P. Hagan, R.A. Wolf, G.R. Wilson, L.C. Gentile, M.S. Gussenhoven, C.Y. Huang, T.W. Garner, F.J. Rich, Electrodynamics of the inner magnetosphere observed in the dusk sector by CRESS and DMSP during the magnetic storm of June 4–6, 1991. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 29399–29418 (1998) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. R.K. Burton, R.L. McPherron, C.T. Russell, An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst. J. Geophys. Res. 80, 4204–4214 (1975) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. G.S. Bust, G. Crowley, T.W. Garner, T.L. Gaussiran, R.W. Meggs, C.N. Mitchell, P.S.J. Spencer, P. Yin, B. Zapfe, Four-dimensional GPS imaging of space weather storms. Space Weather 5, 2 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. S. Califf, X. Li, R.A. Wolf, H. Zhao, A.N. Jaynes, F.D. Wilder, D.M. Malaspina, R. Redmon, Large-amplitude electric fields in the inner magnetosphere: Van Allen Probes observations of subauroral polarization streams. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 5294–5306 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2015JA022252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. R.L. Carovillano, G.L. Siscoe, Energy and momentum theorems in magnetospheric processes. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 11, 289–353 (1973) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. D.L. Carpenter, Whistler evidence of dynamic behavior of the duskside bulge in the plasmasphere. J. Geophys. Res. 75, 3837 (1970) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. S. Chapman, V.C.A. Ferraro, A new theory of magnetic storms. Terr. Magn. 36, 77–78 (1931) zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. S. Chapman, V.C.A. Ferraro, The geomagnetic ring-current: Its radial stability. Terr. Magn. 46, 1–6 (1941) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. A.J. Chen, R.A. Wolf, Effects on the plasmasphere of a time-varying convection electric field. Planet. Space Sci. 20, 483 (1972) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. M.W. Chen, L.R. Lyons, M. Schulz, Simulations of phase space distributions of storm time proton ring current. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 5745 (1994) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. M.W. Chen, M. Schulz, S. Liu et al., Simulated stormtime ring-current magnetic field produced by ions and electrons, in Inner Magnetosphere Interactions: New Perspective from Imaging, ed. by J. Burch, M. Schulz, H. Spence. Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 159 (Am. Geophys. Union, Washington, 2005), pp. 237–250. doi: 10.1029/GM159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. M.W. Chen, S. Liu, M. Schulz, J.L. Roeder, L.R. Lyons, Magnetically self-consistent ring current simulations during the 19 October 1998 storm. J. Geophys. Res. 111, A11S15 (2006). doi: 10.1029/2006JA011620 ADSGoogle Scholar
  36. Y. Chen, G.D. Reeves, R.H.W. Friedel, The energization of relativistic electrons in the outer Van Allen radiation belt. Nat. Phys. 3, 614–617 (2007). doi: 10.1038/nphys655 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. M.W. Chen, C.L. Lemon, K. Orlova, Y. Shprits, J. Hecht, R.L. Walterscheid, Comparison of simulated and observed trapped and precipitating electron fluxes during a magnetic storm. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 8302–8311 (2015). doi: 10.1002/2015GL065737 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. M.V. Codrescu, C. Negrea, M. Fedrizzi, T.J. Fuller-Rowell, A. Dobin, N. Jakowsky, H. Khalsa, T. Matsuo, N. Maruyama, A real-time run of the Coupled Thermosphere Ionosphere Plasmasphere Electrodynamics (CTIPe) model. Space Weather 10, S02001 (2012). doi: 10.1029/2011SW000736 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. A. Coster, S. Skone, Monitoring storm-enhanced density using IGS reference station data. J. Geod. 83(3–4), 345 (2009) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. I.A. Daglis, The storm-time ring current. Space Sci. Rev. 98, 343–363 (2001) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. I.A. Daglis, Ring current dynamics. Space Sci. Rev. 124, 183–202 (2006). doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-9104-z ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. I.A. Daglis, J.U. Kozyra, Outstanding issues of ring current dynamics. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 64, 253–264 (2002) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. M. David, J.J. Sojka, R.W. Schunk, M.W. Liemohn, A.J. Coster, Dayside mid-latitude ionospheric response to storm-time electric fields. J. Geophys. Res. 116, A12302 (2011). doi: 10.1029/2011JA016988 ADSGoogle Scholar
  44. V.A. Davis, M.J. Mandell, M.F. Thomsen, Representation of the measured geosynchronous plasma environment in spacecraft charging calculations. J. Geophys. Res. 113, A10204 (2008). doi: 10.1029/2008JA013116 ADSGoogle Scholar
  45. P. De Michelis, I.A. Daglis, G. Consolini, Average terrestrial ring current derived from AMPTE/CCE-CHEM measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 14103–14111 (1997) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. D.L. De Zeeuw, T.I. Gombosi, C.P.T. Groth, K.G. Powell, Q.F. Stout, An adaptive MHD method for global space weather simulations. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 28(6), 1956–1965 (2000). doi: 10.1109/27.902224 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. V.I. Degtyarev, G.V. Popov, S.S. Sheshukov, Modelling the dynamics of fluxes of electrons with energies 30–300 keV in geostationary orbit. Geomagn. Aeron. 30, 866–868 (1990) ADSGoogle Scholar
  48. M.H. Denton, M.F. Thomsen, V.K. Jordanova, M.G. Henderson, J.E. Borovsky, J.S. Denton, D. Pitchford, D.P. Hartley, An empirical model of electron and ion fluxes derived from observations at geosynchronous orbit. Space Weather 13, 233–249 (2015). doi: 10.1002/2015SW001168 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. M.H. Denton, M.G. Henderson, V.K. Jordanova, M.F. Thomsen, J.E. Borovsky, J. Woodroffe, D.P. Hartley, D. Pitchford, An improved empirical model of electron and ion fluxes at geosynchronous orbit based on upstream solar wind conditions. Space Weather 14, 511–523 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2016SW001409 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. M.H. Denton, G.D. Reeves, B.A. Larsen, R.H.W. Friedel, M.F. Thomsen, P.A. Fernandes, R.M. Skoug, H.O. Funsten, L.K. Sarno-Smith, On the origin of low-energy electrons in the inner magnetosphere: Fluxes and pitch-angle distributions. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 122, 1789–1802 (2017). doi: 10.1002/2016JA023648 ADSGoogle Scholar
  51. A.J. Dessler, E.N. Parker, Hydromagnetic theory of geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 64, 2239 (1959) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. S.A. Dolenko, I.N. Myagkova, V.R. Shiroky, I.G. Persiantsev, Objective discrimination of geomagnetic disturbances and prediction of Dst index by artificial neural networks, in Proceedings of the 10th Intl. Conf. Problems of Geocosmos (2014), pp. 270–275 Google Scholar
  53. M.W. Dunlop, S. Haaland, P.C. Escoubet, X.-C. Dong, Commentary on accessing 3-D currents in space: Experiences from cluster. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 7881–7886 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2016JA022668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Y. Ebihara, Chapter 9: Ring current, in Space Weather Fundamentals, ed. by G.V. Khazanov (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2016) Google Scholar
  55. Y. Ebihara, M. Ejiri, Simulation study on fundamental properties of the storm-time ring current. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 15843 (2000) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Y. Ebihara, M. Ejiri, Numerical simulation of the ring current: Review. Space Sci. Rev. 105, 377–452 (2003). doi: 10.1023/A:1023905607888 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Y. Ebihara, Y. Miyoshi, Dynamic inner magnetosphere: A tutorial and recent advances, in The Dynamic Magnetosphere, ed. by W. Liu, M. Fujimoto (Springer, Berlin, 2011). doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0501-2 Google Scholar
  58. Y. Ebihara, M.-C. Fok, R.A. Wolf, T.J. Immel, T.E. Moore, Influence of ionospheric conductivity on the ring current. J. Geophys. Res. 109, A08205 (2004). doi: 10.1029/2003JA010351 ADSGoogle Scholar
  59. A. Egeland, W.J. Burke, The ring current: A short biography. Hist. Geo- Space Sci. 3, 131–142 (2012) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. S.R. Elkington, M. Wiltberger, A.A. Chan, D.N. Baker, Physical models of the geospace radiation environment. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 66, 1371–1387 (2004) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. P.J. Erickson, F. Beroz, M.Z. Miskin, Statistical characterization of the American sector subauroral polarization stream using incoherent scatter radar. J. Geophys. Res. 116, A00J21 (2011). doi: 10.1029/2010JA015738 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. J.F. Fennell, H.C. Koons, J.L. Roeder, J.B. Blake, Spacecraft charging: Observations and relationship to satellite anomalies, in Proceedings of 7th Spacecraft Charging Technology Conference, vol. 476 (European Space Agency, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 2001), pp. 279–285 Google Scholar
  63. F.R. Fenrich, J.G. Luhmann, Geomagnetic response to magnetic clouds of different polarity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 2999–3002 (1998) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. M.-C. Fok, T.E. Moore, Ring current modeling in a realistic magnetic field configuration. Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 1775–1778 (1997) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. M.-C. Fok, T.E. Moore, D.C. Delcourt, Modeling of inner plasma sheet and ring current during substorms. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 14557–14569 (1999) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. M.-C. Fok, T.E. Moore, W.N. Spjeldvik, Rapid enhancement of radiation belt electron fluxes due to substorm dipolarization of the geomagnetic field. J. Geophys. Res. 106(A3), 3873–3882 (2001a). doi: 10.1029/2000JA000150 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. M.-C. Fok, R.A. Wolf, R.W. Spiro, T.E. Moore, Comprehensive computational model of the Earth’s ring current. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 8417–8424 (2001b) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. M.-C. Fok, A. Glocer, Q. Zheng, R.B. Horne, N.P. Meredith, J.M. Albert, T. Nagai, Recent developments in the radiation belt environment model. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 73, 1435–1443 (2011) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. M.-C. Fok, N.Y. Buzulukova, S.-H. Chen, A. Glocer, T. Nagai, P. Valek, J.D. Perez, The comprehensive inner magnetosphere-ionosphere model. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 119, 7522–7540 (2014). doi: 10.1002/2014JA020239 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. J.C. Foster, W.J. Burke, SAPS: A new categorization of subauroral electric fields. Eos Trans. AGU 83(36), 393 (2002) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. J.C. Foster, H.B. Vo, Average characteristics and activity dependence of the subauroral polarization stream. J. Geophys. Res. 107(A12), 1475 (2002). doi: 10.1029/2002JA009409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. J.C. Foster, P.J. Erickson, A.J. Coster, J. Goldstein, F.J. Rich, Ionospheric signatures of plasmaspheric tails. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 1623 (2002). doi: 10.1029/2002GL015067 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. L.A. Frank, Several observations of low-energy protons and electrons in the Earth’s magnetosphere with OGO 3. J. Geophys. Res. 72, 1905–1916 (1967) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. L.A. Frank, Direct detection of asymmetric increases of extraterrestrial ‘Ring Current’ proton intensities in the outer radiation zone. J. Geophys. Res. 75, 1263–1268 (1970) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. R.H.W. Friedel, A. Korth, Review of CRRES ring current observations. Adv. Space Res. 20, 311–320 (1997). doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(97)00673-X ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. R.H.W. Friedel, H. Korth, M.G. Henderson, M.E. Thomsen, J.D. Scudder, Plasma sheet access to the inner magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 5845–5858 (2001) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. E. Friedrich, G. Rostoker, M.G. Connors, R.L. McPherron, Influence of the substorm current wedge on the Dst index. J. Geophys. Res. 104(A3), 4567–4575 (1999). doi: 10.1029/1998JA900096 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. C. Gabrielse, V. Angelopoulos, A. Runov, D.L. Turner, The effects of transient, localized electric fields on equatorial electron acceleration and transport toward the inner magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 117, A10213 (2012). doi: 10.1029/2012JA017873 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. C. Gabrielse, V. Angelopoulos, A. Runov, D.L. Turner, Statistical characteristics of particle injections throughout the equatorial magnetotail. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 119, 2512–2535 (2014). doi: 10.1002/2013JA019638 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. C. Gabrielse, C. Harris, V. Angelopoulos, A. Artemyev, A. Runov, The role of localized inductive electric fields in electron injections around dipolarizing flux bundles. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 9560–9585 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2016JA023061 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. D.L. Gallagher, M.L. Adrian, M.W. Liemohn, The origin and evolution of deep plasmaspheric notches. J. Geophys. Res. 110, A09201 (2005). doi: 10.1029/2004JA010906 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Y. Galperin, V.N. Ponomarev, A.G. Zosimova, Plasma convection in the polar ionosphere. Ann. Geophys. 30, 1–7 (1974) Google Scholar
  83. N.Yu. Ganushkina, Drivers of the inner magnetosphere, in The Inner Magnetosphere: Physics and Modeling, ed. by T.I. Pulkkinen, N.A. Tsyganenko, R.H.W. Friedel. Geophysical Monograph Series, vol. 155 (Am. Geophys. Union, Washington, 2005), pp. 135–145. doi: 10.1029/155GM16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. N.Y. Ganushkina, T.I. Pulkkinen, M.V. Kubyshkina, H.J. Singer, C.T. Russell, Long-term evolution of magnetospheric current systems during storms. Ann. Geophys. 22, 1317–1334 (2004) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. N.Y. Ganushkina, M. Liemohn, M. Kubyshkina, R. Ilie, H. Singer, Distortions of the magnetic field by storm-time current systems in Earth’s magnetosphere. Ann. Geophys. 28, 123–140 (2010) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. N.Yu. Ganushkina, M.W. Liemohn, T.I. Pulkkinen, Storm-time ring current: Model-dependent results. Ann. Geophys. 30, 177–202 (2012) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. N.Y. Ganushkina, O. Amariutei, Y.Y. Shpritz, M. Liemohn, Transport of the plasma sheet electrons to the geostationary distances. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 82–98 (2013). doi: 10.1029/2012JA017923 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. N.Y. Ganushkina, M. Liemohn, O. Amariutei, D. Pitchford, Low energy electrons (5–50 keV) in the inner magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 246–259 (2014). doi: 10.1002/2013JA019304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. N.Y. Ganushkina, O.A. Amariutei, D. Welling, D. Heynderickx, Nowcast model for low-energy electrons in the inner magnetosphere. Space Weather 13, 16–34 (2015a). doi: 10.1002/2014SW001098 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. N.Y. Ganushkina, M.W. Liemohn, S. Dubyagin et al., Defining and resolving current systems in geospace. Ann. Geophys. 33, 1369–1402 (2015b). doi: 10.5194/angeo-33-1369-2015 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. T.W. Garner, R.A. Wolf, R.W. Spiro, W.J. Burke, B.G. Fejer, S. Sazykin, J.L. Roeder, M.R. Hairston, Magnetospheric electric fields and plasma sheet injection to low L-shells during the 4–5 June 1991 magnetic storm: Comparison between the rice convection model and observations. J. Geophys. Res. 109, A02214 (2004). doi: 10.1029/2003JA010208 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. H.B. Garrett, The charging of spacecraft surfaces. Rev. Geophys. 19(4), 577 (1981). doi: 10.1029/RG019i004p00577 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. M. Gkioulidou, A.Y. Ukhorskiy, D.G. Mitchell, L.J. Lanzerotti, Storm time dynamics of ring current protons: Implications for the long-term energy budget in the inner magnetosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 4736–4744 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2016GL068013 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. A. Glocer et al., Community-wide validation of geospace model local K-index predictions to support model transition to operations. Space Weather 14, 469–480 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2016SW001387 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. J. Goldstein, B.R. Sandel, M.R. Hairston, P.H. Reiff, Control of plasmaspheric dynamics by both convection and sub-auroral polarization stream. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30(24), 2243 (2003). doi: 10.1029/2003GL018390 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. J. Goldstein, B.R. Sandel, M.F. Thomsen, M. Spasojevic, P.H. Reiff, Simultaneous remote sensing and in situ observations of plasmaspheric drainage plumes. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 109, A03202 (2004). doi: 10.1029/2003JA010281 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. C.A. Gonzales, M.C. Kelley, L.A. Carpenter, R.H. Holzworth, Evidence for a magnetospheric effect on mid-latitude electric fields. J. Geophys. Res. 83, 4397–4399 (1978) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. W.D. Gonzalez, J.A. Joselyn, Y. Kamide, H.W. Kroehl, G. Rostoker, B.T. Tsurutani, V.M. Vasyliunas, What is a geomagnetic storm? J. Geophys. Res. 99, 5771–5792 (1994) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. O.S. Grafodatskiy, V.I. Degtyarev, A.G. Kozlov, V.I. Lazarev, O.I. Platonov, G.V. Popov, M.V. Teltsov, Relationship between characteristics of low-energy electrons and geomagnetic disturbance in geostationary orbit. Geomagn. Aeron. 27, 494–496 (1987) ADSGoogle Scholar
  100. M. Grande, C.H. Perry, A. Hall, J. Fennell, B. Wilken, Survey of ring current composition during magnetic storms. Adv. Space Res. 20, 321–326 (1997). doi: 10.1016/S0273-1177(97)00675-3 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. J.M. Grebowsky, Model study of plasmapause motion. J. Geophys. Res. 75, 4329 (1970) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. J.C. Green, Using electron phase space density signatures to identify the electromagnetic waves responsible for accelerating relativistic electrons in Earth’s magnetosphere, in Magnetospheric ULF Waves: Synthesis and New Directions, ed. by K. Takahashi, P.J. Chi, R.E. Denton, R.L. Lysak. Washington DC American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series, vol. 169 (2006), p. 225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. M.E. Greenspan, D.C. Hamilton, A test of the Dessler-Parker-Sckopke relation during magnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 5419–5430 (2000) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. R. Gubby, E. Evans, Space environment effects and satellite design. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 64(16), 1723–1733 (2002) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. R.A. Heelis, W.R. Coley, Variations in the low- and middle-latitude topside ion concentration observed by DMSP during superstorm events. J. Geophys. Res. 112, A08310 (2007). doi: 10.1029/2007JA012326 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. M. Heinemann, Representations of currents and magnetic fields in anisotropic magnetohydrostatic plasma. J. Geophys. Res. 95, 7789–7797 (1990) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. M. Heinemann, D.H. Pontius, Representation of currents and magnetic fields in anisotropic magnetohydrostatic plasma. 2. General theory and examples. J. Geophys. Res. 96, 17609–17626 (1991) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. R.A. Helliwell, A theory of discrete VLF emissions from the magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 72, 4773–4790 (1967). doi: 10.1029/JZ072i019p04773 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. R.B. Horne, R.M. Thorne, Potential waves for relativistic electron scattering and stochastic acceleration during magnetic storms. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 3011–3014 (1998). doi: 10.1029/98GL01002 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. R.B. Horne, R.M. Thorne, Y.Y. Shprits, N.P. Meredith, S.A. Glauert, A.J. Smith, S.G. Kanekal, D.N. Baker, M.J. Engebretson, J.L. Posch, M. Spasojevic, U.S. Inan, J.S. Pickett, P.M.E. Decreau, Wave acceleration of electrons in the Van Allen radiation belts. Nature 437, 227–230 (2005). doi: 10.1038/nature03939 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. I. Horvath, B.C. Lovell, Storm-enhanced plasma density features, daytime polar cap plasma enhancements, and their underlying plasma flows investigated during superstorms. J. Geophys. Res. 114, A11304 (2009). doi: 10.1029/2009JA014465 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. I. Horvath, B.C. Lovell, Investigating storm-enhanced density and polar tongue of ionization development during the 22 October 1999 great storm. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 120, 1428–1444 (2015). doi: 10.1002/2014JA020598 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. C.-S. Huang, J.C. Foster, Correlation of the subauroral polarization streams (SAPS) with the Dst index during severe magnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 112, A11302 (2007). doi: 10.1029/2007JA012584 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. M.K. Hudson, V.A. Marchenko, I. Roth, M. Temerin, J.B. Blake, M.S. Gussenhoven, Radiation belt formation during storm sudden commencements and loss during main phase. Adv. Space Res. 21(4), 597–607 (1998) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. J.C. Ingraham, T.E. Cayton, R.D. Belian, R.A. Christensen, R.H.W. Friedel, M.M. Meier, G.D. Reeves, M. Tuszewski, Substorm injection of relativistic electrons to geosynchronous orbit during the great magnetic storm of March 24, 1991. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 25759–25776 (2001) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. T. Iyemori, Storm-time magnetospheric currents inferred from mid-latitude geomagnetic field variations. J. Geomagn. Geoelectr. 42, 1249–1265 (1990) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. R.K. Jaggi, R.A. Wolf, Self-consistent calculation of the motion of a sheet of ions in the magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 78, 2852 (1973). doi: 10.1029/JA078i016p02852 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. E.-Y. Ji, Y.-J. Moon, N. Gopalswamy, D.-H. Lee, Comparison of Dst forecast models for intense geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 117, A03209 (2012). doi: 10.1029/2011JA016872 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. V.K. Jordanova, New insights on geomagnetic storms from model simulations using multi-spacecraft data. Space Sci. Rev. 107, 157–165 (2003) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. V.K. Jordanova, Y.S. Miyoshi, Relativistic model of ring current and radiation belt ions and electrons: Initial results. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L14104 (2005). doi: 10.1029/2005GL023020 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. V.K. Jordanova, L.M. Kistler, J.U. Kozyra, G.V. Khazanov, A.F. Nagy, Collisional losses of ring current ions. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 111 (1996) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. V.K. Jordanova, L.M. Kistler, C.J. Farrugia, R.B. Torbert, Effects of inner magnetospheric convection on ring current dynamics: March 10–12, 1998. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 29705–29720 (2001) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. V.K. Jordanova, S. Zaharia, D.T. Welling, Comparative study of ring current development using empirical, dipolar, and self-consistent magnetic field simulations. J. Geophys. Res. 115, A00J11 (2010). doi: 10.1029/2010JA015671 ADSGoogle Scholar
  124. V.K. Jordanova, D.T. Welling, S.G. Zaharia, L. Chen, R.M. Thorne, Modeling ring current ion and electron dynamics and plasma instabilities during a high-speed stream driven storm. J. Geophys. Res. 117, A00L08 (2012). doi: 10.1029/2011JA017433 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. V.K. Jordanova, Y. Yu, J.T. Niehof, R.M. Skoug, G.D. Reeves, C.A. Kletzing, J.F. Fennell, H.E. Spence, Simulations of inner magnetosphere dynamics with an expanded RAM-SCB model and comparisons with Van Allen Probes observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2687–2694 (2014). doi: 10.1002/2014GL059533 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. V.K. Jordanova, W. Tu, Y. Chen, S.K. Morley, A.-D. Panaitescu, G.D. Reeves, C.A. Kletzing, RAM-SCB simulations of electron transport and plasma wave scattering during the October 2012 “double-dip” storm. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 8712–8727 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2016JA022470 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. V.V. Kalegaev, N.Y. Ganushkina, T.I. Pulkkinen, M.V. Kubyshkina, H.J. Singer, C.T. Russell, Relation between the ring current and the tail current during magnetic storms. Ann. Geophys. 23, 523–533 (2005) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Y. Kamide, Association of DP and DR fields with the interplanetary magnetic field variation. J. Geophys. Res. 79, 49–55 (1974). doi: 10.1029/JA079i001p00049 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Y. Kamide, N. Fukushima, Analysis of magnetic storms with DR indices for equatorial ring-current field. Radio Sci. 6, 277–278 (1971). doi: 10.1029/RS006i002p00277 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. J.G. Kappenman, Storm sudden commencement events and the associated geomagnetically induced current risks to ground-based systems at low-latitude and midlatitude locations. Space Weather 1, 1016 (2003). doi: 10.1029/2003SW000009 ADSGoogle Scholar
  131. J.G. Kappenman, L.J. Zanetti, W.A. Radasky, Geomagnetic storms can threaten electric power grid. Earth Space 9(7), 9–11 (1997) Google Scholar
  132. T. Karlsson, G.T. Marklund, L.G. Blomberg, A. Mälkki, Subauroral electric fields observed by the Freja satellite: A statistical study. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 4327–4341 (1998). doi: 10.1029/97JA00333 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. R.M. Katus, M.W. Liemohn, E.L. Ionides, R. Ilie, D. Welling, L.K. Sarno-Smith, Statistical analysis of the geomagnetic response to different solar wind drivers and the dependence on storm intensity. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 120, 310–327 (2015). doi: 10.1002/2014JA020712 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. M.C. Kelley, M.N. Vlasov, J.C. Foster, A.J. Coster, A quantitative explanation for the phenomenon known as storm-enhanced density. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L19809 (2004). doi: 10.1029/2004GL020875 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. C.F. Kennel, H.E. Petschek, Limit on stably trapped particle fluxes. J. Geophys. Res. 71, 1 (1966) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. C.F. Kennel, R.M. Thorne, Unstable growth of unducted whistlers propagating at an angle to the geomagnetic field. J. Geophys. Res. 72(3), 871–878 (1967). doi: 10.1029/JZ072i003p00871 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. G.V. Khazanov, T.S. Newman, M.W. Liemohn, M.-C. Fok, R.W. Spiro, Self-consistent magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling: Theoretical studies. J. Geophys. Res. 107(A3), 1122 (2003). doi: 10.1029/2002JA009624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. G.V. Khazanov, M.W. Liemohn, T.S. Newman, M.-C. Fok, A.J. Ridley, Magnetospheric convection electric field dynamics and stormtime particle energization: Case study of the magnetic storm of 4 May 1998. Ann. Geophys. 22, 497 (2004) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. H.-J. Kim, A.A. Chan, Fully adiabatic changes in storm time relativistic electron fluxes. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 22107 (1997) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. J.S. Kim, D.A. Graham, C.S. Wang, Inductive electric fields in the ionosphere-magnetosphere system. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 17, 2049–2056 (1979) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. L.M. Kistler et al., The source of O+ in the storm time ring current. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 5333–5349 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2015JA022204 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. A.J. Klimas, D. Vassiliadis, D.N. Baker, Dst index prediction using data-derived analogues of the magnetospheric dynamics. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 20435–20447 (1998) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. H.C. Koons, J.E. Mazur, R.S. Selesnick, J.B. Blake, J.F. Fennell, J.L. Roeder, P.C. Anderson, The impact of the space environment on space systems. Aerospace Rep. TR-99 (1670)-1, Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA (1999) Google Scholar
  144. H. Korth, M.F. Thomsen, J.E. Borovsky, D.J. McComas, Plasma sheet access to geosynchronous orbit. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 25047–25061 (1999) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. T.V. Kozelova, L.L. Lazutin, B.V. Kozelov, N. Meredith, M.A. Danielides, Alternating bursts of low energy ions and electrons near the substorm onset. Ann. Geophys. 24, 1957–1968 (2006) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. J.U. Kozyra, M.W. Liemohn, Ring current energy input and decay. Space Sci. Rev. 109, 105–131 (2003) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. J.U. Kozyra, C.E. Rasmussen, R.H. Miller, L.R. Lyons, Interaction of ring current and radiation belt protons with ducted plasmaspheric hiss. 1: Diffusion coefficients and timescales. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 4069–4084 (1994). doi: 10.1029/93JA01532 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. J.U. Kozyra, A.F. Nagy, D.W. Slater, High-altitude energy source(s) for stable auroral red arcs. Rev. Geophys. 35(2), 155–190 (1997). doi: 10.1029/96RG03194 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. E.A. Kronberg, M. Ashour-Abdalla, I. Dandouras et al., Circulation of heavy ions and their dynamical effects in the magnetosphere: Recent observations and models. Space Sci. Rev. 184, 173–235 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0104-0 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. S. Kurita, Y. Miyoshi, F. Tsuchiya, Y. Nishimura, T. Hori, Y. Miyashita, T. Takada, A. Morioka, V. Angelopoulos, J.P. McFadden, H.U. Auster, J.M. Albert, V. Jordanova, H. Misawa, Transport and loss of the inner plasma sheet electrons: THEMIS observations. J. Geophys. Res. 116, A03201 (2011). doi: 10.1029/2010JA015975 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. L.J. Lanzerotti, K. LaFleur, C.G. Maclennan, D.W. Maurer, Geosynchronous spacecraft charging in January 1997. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25(15), 2967–2970 (1998) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. C. Lemon, R. Wolf, T.W. Hill, S. Sazykin, Magnetic storm ring current injection modeled with the rice convection model and a self-consistent magnetic field. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L21801 (2004). doi: 10.1029/2004GL020914 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. I.J. Leontaritis, S.A. Billings, Input-output parametric models for non-linear systems part i: Deterministic non-linear systems. Int. J. Control 41(2), 303–328 (1985a) zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. I.J. Leontaritis, S.A. Billings, Input-output parametric models for non-linear systems part ii: Stochastic nonlinear systems. Int. J. Control 41(2), 329–344 (1985b) zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. X. Li, D.N. Baker, M. Temerin et al., Simulation of dispersionless injections and drift echoes of energetic electrons associated with substorms. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 3763–3766 (1998) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. X. Li, T.E. Sarris, D.N. Baker, W.K. Peterson, H.J. Singer, Simulation of energetic particle injections associated with a substorm on August 27, 2001. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1004 (2003). doi: 10.1029/2002GL015967 ADSGoogle Scholar
  157. W. Li, R.M. Thorne, N.P. Meredith, R.B. Horne, J. Bortnik, Y.Y. Shprits, B. Ni, Evaluation of whistler-mode chorus amplification during an injection event observed on CRRES. J. Geophys. Res. 113, A09210 (2008). doi: 10.1029/2008JA013129 ADSGoogle Scholar
  158. W. Li, R. Thorne, J. Bortnik, R. McPherron, Y. Nishimura, V. Angelopoulos, I.G. Richardson, Evolution of chorus waves and their source electrons during storms driven by corotating interaction regions. J. Geophys. Res. 117, A08209 (2012). doi: 10.1029/2012JA017797 ADSGoogle Scholar
  159. M.W. Liemohn, Yet another caveat to using the Dessler-Parker-Sckopke relation. J. Geophys. Res. 108(A6), 1251 (2003). doi: 10.1029/2003JA009839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. M.W. Liemohn, Introduction to the special section on “Results of the national science foundation geospace environment modeling inner magnetosphere/storms assessment challenge”. J. Geophys. Res. 111, A11S01 (2006). doi: 10.1029/2006JA011970 ADSGoogle Scholar
  161. M.W. Liemohn, J.U. Kozyra, C.R. Clauer, A.J. Ridley, Computational analysis of the near-Earth magnetospheric current system. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 29531 (2001a) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. M.W. Liemohn, J.U. Kozyra, M.F. Thomsen et al., Dominant role of the asymmetric ring current in producing the stormtime Dst. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 10883–10904 (2001b) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. M.W. Liemohn, A.J. Ridley, D.L. Gallagher, D.M. Ober, J.U. Kozyra, Dependence of plasmaspheric morphology on the electric field description during the recovery phase of the April 17, 2002 magnetic storm. J. Geophys. Res. 109(A3), A03209 (2004). doi: 10.1029/2003JA010304 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. M.W. Liemohn, A.J. Ridley, P.C. Brandt, D.L. Gallagher, J.U. Kozyra, D.G. Mitchell, E.C. Roelof, R. DeMajistre, Parametric analysis of nightside conductance effects on inner magnetospheric dynamics for the 17 April 2002 storm. J. Geophys. Res. 110, A12S22 (2005). doi: 10.1029/2005JA011109 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. M.W. Liemohn, N.Y. Ganushkina, R. Ilie, D.T. Welling, Challenges associated with near-Earth nightside current. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 6763–6768 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2016JA022948 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. S. Liu, M.W. Chen, J.L. Roeder, L.R. Lyons, M. Schulz, Relative contribution of electrons to the stormtime total ring current energy content. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L03110 (2005). doi: 10.1029/2004GL021672 ADSGoogle Scholar
  167. W.L. Liu, X. Li, T. Sarris, C. Cully, R. Ergun, V. Angelopoulos, D. Larson, A. Keiling, K.H. Glassmeier, H.U. Auster, Observation and modeling of the injection observed by THEMIS and LANL satellites during the 23 March 2007 substorm event. J. Geophys. Res. 114, A00C18 (2009). doi: 10.1029/2008JA013498 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. W. Lotko, B.U. Sonnerup, R.L. Lysak, Nonsteady boundary layer flow including ionospheric drag and parallel electric fields. J. Geophys. Res. 92(A8), 8635–8648 (1987). doi: 10.1029/JA092iA08p08635 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. J.Y. Lu, Y.X. Peng, M. Wang, S.J. Gu, M.X. Zhao, Support vector machine combined with distance correlation learning for Dst forecasting during intense geomagnetic storms. Planet. Space Sci. 120, 48–55 (2016) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. H. Lühr, C. Xiong, N. Olsen, G. Le, Near-Earth magnetic field effects of large-scale magnetospheric currents. Space Sci. Rev. 206, 521–545 (2017). doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0267-y ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. A.T.Y. Lui, D.C. Hamilton, Radial profiles of quiet time magnetospheric parameters. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 19325–19332 (1992) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. A.T.Y. Lui, R.W. McEntire, S.M. Krimigis, Evolution of the ring current during two geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 92, 7459–7470 (1987) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. H. Lundstedt, P. Wintoft, Prediction of geomagnetic storms from solar wind data with the use of a neural network. Ann. Geophys. 12, 19–24 (1994) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. H. Lundstedt, H. Gleisner, P. Wintoft, Operational forecasts of the geomagnetic Dst index. Geophys. Res. Lett. 106(A6), 1–4 (2001) Google Scholar
  175. H. Lundstedt, H. Gleisner, P. Wintoft, Operational forecasts of the geomagnetic Dst index. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 2181 (2002). doi: 10.1029/2002GL016151 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. J.G. Lyon, J.A. Fedder, C.M. Mobarry, The Lyon-Fedder-Mobarry (LFM) global MHD magnetospheric simulation code. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 66, 1333–1350 (2004). doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2004.03.020 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Y.P. Maltsev, Points of controversy in the study of magnetic storms. Space Sci. Rev. 110, 227–277 (2004) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. R.A. Marshall, M. Dalzell, C.L. Waters, P. Goldthorpe, E.A. Smith, Geomagnetically induced currents in the New Zealand power network. Space Weather 10, S08003 (2012). doi: 10.1029/2012SW000806 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. J.-C. Matéo-Vélez, A. Sicard-Piet, D. Lazaro, V. Inguimbert, P. Sarrailh, S. Hess, V. Maget, D. Payan, Severe geostationary environments: Numerical estimation of spacecraft surface charging from flight data. J. Spacecr. Rockets 53(2), 304–316 (2016). doi: 10.2514/1.A33376 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. B.H. Mauk, N.J. Fox, S.G. Kanekal, R.L. Kessel, D.G. Sibeck, A. Ukhorskiy, Science objectives and rationale for the radiation belt storm probes mission. Space Sci. Rev. 179, 3–27 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9908-y ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. G.D. Mead, D.H. Fairfield, A quantitative magnetospheric model derived from spacecraft magnetometer data. J. Geophys. Res. 80, 523–534 (1975) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. A.M. Menz, L.M. Kistler, C.G. Mouikis, H.E. Spence, R.M. Skoug, H.O. Funsten, B.A. Larsen, D.G. Mitchell, M. Gkioulidou, The role of convection in the buildup of the ring current pressure during the 17 March 2013 storm. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 122, 475–492 (2017). doi: 10.1002/2016JA023358 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. N.P. Meredith, R.B. Horne, R.R. Anderson, Substorm dependence of chorus amplitudes: Implications for the acceleration of electrons to relativistic energies. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 13165–13178 (2001) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. N.P. Meredith, R.M. Thorne, R.B. Horne, D. Summers, B.J. Fraser, R.R. Anderson, Statistical analysis of relativistic electron energies for cyclotron resonance with EMIC waves observed on CRRES. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 108, 1250 (2003). doi: 10.1029/2002JA009700 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. E.V. Mishin, W.J. Burke, Stormtime coupling of the ring current, plasmasphere, and topside ionosphere: Electromagnetic and plasma disturbances. J. Geophys. Res. 110, A07209 (2005). doi: 10.1029/2005JA011021 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. E. Mishin, E. Sutton, G. Milikh, I. Galkin, C. Roth, M. Förster, F2-region atmospheric gravity waves due to high-power HF heating and subauroral polarization streams. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L11101 (2012). doi: 10.1029/2012GL052004 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. D.G. Mitchell, K.C. Hsieh, C.C. Curtis, D.C. Hamilton, H.D. Voss, E.C. Roelof, P. C:son Brandt, Imaging two geomagnetic storms in energetic neutral atoms. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1151–1154 (2001) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. M.J. Mithaiwala, W. Horton, Substorm injections produce sufficient electron energization to account for MeV flux enhancements following some storms. J. Geophys. Res. 110, A07224 (2005). doi: 10.1029/2004JA010511 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Y.S. Miyoshi, V.K. Jordanova, A. Morioka, M.F. Thomsen, G.D. Reeves, D.S. Evans, J.C. Green, Observations and modeling of energetic electron dynamics during the October 2001 storm. J. Geophys. Res. 111, A11S02 (2006). doi: 10.1029/2005JA011351 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. T.S. Molinski, Why utilities respect geomagnetically induced currents. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 64(16), 1765–1778 (2002) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. V. Munsami, Determination of the effects of substorms on the storm-time ring current using neural networks. J. Geophys. Res. 105(A12), 27833–27840 (2000). doi: 10.1029/2000JA000041 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. T. Murayama, Coupling function between the solar wind and the Dst index, in Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Coupling, ed. by Y. Kamide, J.A. Slavin (Terra Scientific Publishing Co., Tokyo, 1986), p. 119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. C.M. Ngwira, A. Pulkkinen, F.D. Wilder, G. Crowley, Extended study of extreme geoelectric field event scenarios for geomagnetically induced current applications. Space Weather 11, 121–131 (2013). doi: 10.1002/swe.20021 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. A. Nishida, Formation of plasmapause, or magnetospheric plasma knee, by the combined action of magnetospheric convection and plasma escape from the tail. J. Geophys. Res. 71, 5669 (1966) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. T.P. O’Brien, SEAES-GEO: A spacecraft environmental anomalies expert system for geosynchronous orbit. Space Weather 7, S09003 (2009). doi: 10.1029/2009SW000473 ADSGoogle Scholar
  196. T.P. O’Brien, R.L. McPherron, Forecasting the ring current Dst in real time. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 62, 1295–1299 (2000) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. S. Ohtani, M. Nos, G. Rostoker, H. Singer, A.T.Y. Lui, M. Nakamura, Storm-substorm relationship: Contribution of the tail current to Dst. J. Geophys. Res. 106(A10), 21199–21209 (2001). doi: 10.1029/2000JA000400 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. G. Pallocchia, E. Amata, G. Consolini, M.F. Marcucci, I. Bertello, Geomagnetic Dst index forecast based on IMF data only. Ann. Geophys. 24, 989–999 (2006) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. E.N. Parker, H.A. Stewart, Nonlinear inflation of a magnetic dipole. J. Geophys. Res. 72, 5287 (1967) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. B. Pintér, S.D. Thom, R. Balthazor, H. Vo, G.J. Bailey, Modeling subauroral polarization streams equatorward of the plasmapause footprints. J. Geophys. Res. 111, A10306 (2006). doi: 10.1029/2005JA011457 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. R. Pirjola, Geomagnetically induced currents during magnetic storms. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 28(6), 1867–1873 (2000) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. R. Pirjola, Review on the calculation of the surface electric and magnetic fields and geomagnetically induced currents in ground based technological systems. Surv. Geophys. 23, 71–90 (2002) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. R. Pirjola, Practical model applicable to investigating the coast effect on the geoelectric field in connection with studies of geomagnetically induced currents. Adv. Appl. Phys. 1(1), 9–28 (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. J.L. Posch, M.J. Engebretson, M.T. Murphy, M.H. Denton, M.R. Lessard, R.B. Horne, Probing the relationship between electromagnetic ion cyclotron waves and plasmaspheric plumes near geosynchronous orbit. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 115, A11205 (2010). doi: 10.1029/2010JA015446 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. K. Powell, P. Roe, T. Linde, A solution-adaptive upwind scheme for ideal magnetohydrodynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 154, 284–309 (1999). doi: 10.1006/jcph.1999.6299 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. A. Pulkkinen, L. Rastätter, M. Kuznetsova, M. Hesse, A. Ridley, J. Raeder, H.J. Singer, A. Chulaki, Systematic evaluation of ground and geostationary magnetic field predictions generated by global magnetohydrodynamic models. J. Geophys. Res. 115, A03206 (2010). doi: 10.1029/2009JA014537 ADSGoogle Scholar
  207. A. Pulkkinen, M. Kuznetsova, A. Ridley et al., Geospace environment modeling 2008–2009 challenge: Ground magnetic field perturbations. Space Weather 9, S02004 (2011). doi: 10.1029/2010SW000600 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. A. Pulkkinen, E. Bernabeu, J. Eichner, C. Beggan, A.W.P. Thomson, Generation of 100-year geomagnetically induced current scenarios. Space Weather 10, S04003 (2012). doi: 10.1029/2011SW000750 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. A. Pulkkinen, L. Rastätter, M. Kuznetsova et al., Community-wide validation of geospace model ground magnetic field perturbation predictions to support model transition to operations. Space Weather 11, 369–385 (2013). doi: 10.1002/swe.20056 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. J. Raeder, R.L. McPherron, L.A. Frank, S. Kokubun, G. Lu, T. Mukai, W.R. Paterson, J.B. Sigwarth, H.J. Singer, J.A. Slavin, Global simulation of the geospace environment modeling substorm challenge event. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 381–395 (2001). doi: 10.1029/2000JA000605 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. C.E. Rasmussen, S.M. Guiter, S.G. Thomas, A two-dimensional model of the plasmasphere: Refilling time constants. Planet. Space Sci. 41, 35 (1993) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. L. Rastätter, M.M. Kuznetsova, A. Glocer et al., Geospace environment modeling 2008–2009 challenge: Dst index. Space Weather 11, 187–205 (2013). doi: 10.1002/swe.20036 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. L. Rastätter, G. Tóth, M.M. Kuznetsova, A.A. Pulkkinen, CalcDeltaB: An efficient postprocessing tool to calculate ground-level magnetic perturbations from global magnetosphere simulations. Space Weather 12, 553–565 (2014). doi: 10.1002/2014SW001083 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. G.D. Reeves, R.H.W. Friedel, B.A. Larsen, R.M. Skoug, H.O. Funsten, S.G. Claudepierre, J.F. Fennell, D.L. Turner, M.H. Denton, H.E. Spence, J.B. Blake, D.N. Baker, Energy-dependent dynamics of keV to MeV electrons in the inner zone, outer zone, and slot regions. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 397–412 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2015JA021569 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. A.J. Ridley, M.W. Liemohn, A model-derived description of the penetration electric field. J. Geophys. Res. 107(A8), 1151 (2002). doi: 10.1029/2001JA00051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. A.J. Ridley, D.L. De Zeeuw, T.I. Gombosi, K.G. Powell, Using steady state MHD results to predict the global state of the magnetosphere-ionosphere system. J. Geophys. Res. 106(A12), 30067 (2001). doi: 10.1029/2000JA002233 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. A.J. Ridley, T.I. Gombosi, D.L. De Zeeuw, Ionospheric control of the magnetosphere: Conductance. Ann. Geophys. 22, 567 (2004) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. C.J. Rodger, M.A. Clilverd, A. Seppala, N.R. Thomson, R.J. Gamble, M. Parrot, J.-A. Sauvaud, T. Ulich, Radiation belt electron precipitation due to geomagnetic storms: Significance to middle atmosphere ozone chemistry. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 115, A11320 (2010). doi: 10.1029/2010JA015599 ADSGoogle Scholar
  219. I. Roth, M.K. Hudson, Wave-particle interaction at the plasmasphere-ring current interface. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, 829–832 (1992). doi: 10.1109/27.199535 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. T.E. Sarris, X. Li, N. Tsaggas, N. Paschalidis, Modeling energetic particle injections in dynamic pulse fields with varying propagation speeds. J. Geophys. Res. 107, 1033 (2002). doi: 10.1029/2001JA900166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  221. S. Sazykin, R.A. Wolf, R.W. Spiro, T.I. Gombosi, D.L. De Zeeuw, M.F. Thomsen, Interchange instability in the inner magnetosphere associated with geosynchronous particle flux decreases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29(10), 88-1–88-4 (2002). doi: 10.1029/2001GL014416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. A. Schmidt, Erdmagnetismus, in Enzyklopeadie der Mathem. Wiss., VI (1917), pp. 265–396 Google Scholar
  223. M. Schulz, L. Lanzerotti, Particle Diffusion in the Radiation Belts (Springer, New York, 1974) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. R.W. Schunk, L. Gardner, L. Scherliess, L. Zhu, Problems associated with uncertain parameters and missing physics for long-term ionosphere-thermosphere forecasting. Radio Sci. 47, RS0L23 (2012). doi: 10.1029/2011RS004911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. N. Sckopke, A general relation between the energy of trapped particles and the disturbance field near the Earth. J. Geophys. Res. 71, 3125–3130 (1966) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. R. Shi, D. Summers, B. Ni, J.W. Manweiler, D.G. Mitchell, L.J. Lanzerotti, A statistical study of proton pitch angle distributions measured by the radiation belt storm probes ion composition experiment. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 5233–5249 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2015JA022140 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  227. G.L. Siscoe, W. Lotko, B.U. Sonnerup, A. High-Latitude, Low-latitude boundary layer model of the convection current system. J. Geophys. Res. 96(A3), 3487–3495 (1991). doi: 10.1029/90JA02362 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. P.H. Smith, R.A. Hoffman, Direct observations in the dusk hours of the characteristics of the storm time ring current particles during the beginning of magnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 79, 966–971 (1974) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. J.J. Sojka, M. David, R.W. Schunk, J.C. Foster, H.B. Vo, A modeling study of the F region response to SAPS. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 66, 415–423 (2004). doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2003.11.003 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. M. Spasojević, J. Goldstein, D.L. Carpenter, U.S. Inan, B.R. Sandel, M.B. Moldwin, B.W. Reinisch, Global response of the plasmasphere to a geomagnetic disturbance. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 108, 1340 (2003). doi: 10.1029/2003JA009987 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. C. Störmer, Sur les trajectories des corpuscles electrises dans l’espace sous l’action du magnetisme terrestre avec application aux aurores boreales. Arch. Sci. Phys. Nat. 24, 317–364 (1907) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  232. M. Sugiura, Hourly values of the equatorial Dst for IGY, in Annals of the International Geophysical Year, vol. 35 (Pergamon, Oxford, Tarrytown, 1964), pp. 945–948 Google Scholar
  233. D. Summers, R.M. Thorne, F. Xiao, Relativistic theory of wave-particle resonant diffusion with application to electron acceleration in the magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 103(A9), 20487–20500 (1998). doi: 10.1029/98JA01740 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  234. S. Takahashi, T. Iyemori, M. Takeda, A simulation of the storm-time ring current. Planet. Space Sci. 38, 1133–1141 (1990) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. M. Temerin, X. Li, A new model for the prediction of Dst on the basis of the solar wind. J. Geophys. Res. 107, 1472 (2002). doi: 10.1029/2001JA007532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. M. Temerin, X. Li, Dst model for 1995–2002. J. Geophys. Res. 111, A04221 (2006) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  237. M.F. Thomsen, J.E. Borovsky, D.J. McComas, M.R. Collier, Variability of the ring current source population. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 3481–3484 (1998) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  238. M.F. Thomsen, H. Korth, R.C. Elphic, Upper cutoff energy of the electron plasma sheet as a measure of magnetospheric convection strength. J. Geophys. Res. 107, 1331 (2002). doi: 10.1029/2001JA000148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  239. R.M. Thorne, Radiation belt dynamics: The importance of wave-particle interactions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L22107 (2010). doi: 10.1029/2010GL044990 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. R.M. Thorne, E.J. Smith, R.K. Burton, R.E. Holzer, Plasmaspheric hiss. J. Geophys. Res. 78, 1581–1596 (1973). doi: 10.1029/JA078i010p01581 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  241. F.R. Toffoletto, R.W. Spiro, R.A. Wolf, J. Birn, M. Hesse, Modeling inner magnetospheric electrodynamics, in Space Weather, ed. by P. Song, H.J. Singer, G.L. Siscoe (Am. Geophys. Union, Washington, 2001). doi: 10.1029/GM125p0265 Google Scholar
  242. F. Toffoletto, S. Sazykin, R. Spiro, R. Wolf, Inner magnetospheric modeling with the rice convection model. Space Sci. Rev. 107, 175–196 (2003) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  243. G. Tóth, I.V. Sokolov, T.I. Gombosi et al., Space weather modeling framework: A new tool for the space science community. J. Geophys. Res. 110(A12), A12226 (2005). doi: 10.1029/2005JA011126 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  244. G. Tóth, B. van der Holst, I.V. Sokolov et al., Adaptive numerical algorithms in space weather modeling. J. Comput. Phys. 231(3), 870–903 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.02.006 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  245. N.B. Trivedi et al., Geomagnetically induced currents in an electric power transmission system at low latitudes in Brazil: A case study. Space Weather 5, S04004 (2007). doi: 10.1029/2006SW000282 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  246. B.T. Tsurutani, E.J. Smith, Postmidnight chorus: A substorm phenomenon. J. Geophys. Res. 79, 118–127 (1974). doi: 10.1029/JA079i001p00118 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  247. N.A. Tsyganenko, Modeling the Earth’s magnetospheric magnetic field confined within a realistic magnetopause. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 5599–5612 (1995) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  248. N.A. Tsyganenko, A model of the near magnetosphere with a dawn-dusk asymmetry 1. Mathematical structure. J. Geophys. Res. 107, 12-1–12-15 (2002a). doi: 10.1029/2001JA000219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  249. N.A. Tsyganenko, A model of the near magnetosphere with a dawn-dusk asymmetry 2. Parameterization and fitting to observations. J. Geophys. Res. 107, 10-1–10-17 (2002b). doi: 10.1029/2001JA000220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  250. N.A. Tsyganenko, Data-based modelling of the Earth’s dynamic magnetosphere: A review. Ann. Geophys. 31, 1745–1772 (2013). doi: 10.5194/angeo-31-1745-2013 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  251. N.A. Tsyganenko, V.A. Andreeva, A forecasting model of the magnetosphere driven by an optimal solar wind coupling function. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 120, 8401–8425 (2015). doi: 10.1002/2015JA021641 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  252. N.A. Tsyganenko, V.A. Andreeva, An empirical RBF model of the magnetosphere parameterized by interplanetary and ground-based drivers. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 10786–10802 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2016JA023217 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  253. N.A. Tsyganenko, T. Mukai, Tail plasma sheet models derived from Geotail particle data. J. Geophys. Res. 108(A3), 1136 (2003). doi: 10.1029/2002JA009707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  254. N.A. Tsyganenko, M.I. Sitnov, Modeling the dynamics of the inner magnetosphere during strong geomagnetic storms. J. Geophys. Res. 110, A03208 (2005). doi: 10.1029/2004JA010798 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  255. N.A. Tsyganenko, M.I. Sitnov, Magnetospheric configurations from a high-resolution data-based magnetic field model. J. Geophys. Res. 112, A06225 (2007). doi: 10.1029/2007JA012260 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  256. N.A. Tsyganenko, H.J. Singer, J.C. Kasper, Storm-time distortion of the inner magnetosphere: How severe can it get? J. Geophys. Res. 108(A5), 1209 (2003). doi: 10.1029/2002JA009808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  257. D.L. Turner, V. Angelopoulos, S.K. Morley, M.G. Henderson, G.D. Reeves, W. Li, D.N. Baker, C.-L. Huang, A. Boyd, H.E. Spence, S.G. Claudepierre, J.B. Blake, J.V. Rodriguez, On the cause and extent of outer radiation belt losses during the 30 September 2012 dropout event. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 119, 1530–1540 (2014). doi: 10.1002/2013JA019446 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  258. D.L. Turner, S.G. Claudepierre, J.F. Fennell et al., Energetic electron injections deep into the inner magnetosphere associated with substorm activity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 2079–2087 (2015). doi: 10.1002/2015GL063225 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  259. A.Y. Ukhorskiy, B.J. Anderson, P.C. Brandt, N.A. Tsyganenko, Storm time evolution of the outer radiation belt: Transport and losses. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 111, A11S03 (2006). doi: 10.1029/2006JA011690 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  260. A.Y. Ukhorskiy, M.I. Sitnov, R.M. Millan, B.T. Kress, J.F. Fennell, S.G. Claudepierre, R.J. Barnes, Global storm time depletion of the outer electron belt. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 120, 2543–2556 (2015). doi: 10.1002/2014JA020645 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  261. M.E. Usanova, A. Drozdov, K. Orlova, I.R. Mann, Y. Shprits, M.T. Robertson, D.L. Turner, D.K. Milling, A. Kale, D.N. Baker, S.A. Thaller, G.D. Reeves, H.E. Spence, C. Kletzing, J. Wygant, Effect of EMIC waves on relativistic and ultra-relativistic electron populations: Ground-based and Van Allen Probes observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 1375–1381 (2014). doi: 10.1002/2013GL059024 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  262. I.I. Vakulin, O.S. Grafodatskii, V.I. Degtiarev, V.I. Dovgii, G.A. Zherebtsov, The radiation environment of the geostationary orbit for magnetically quiet conditions according to data from the Raduga communication satellites. Space Res. 26, 120–126 (1988) Google Scholar
  263. C. Vallat, I. Dandouras, M. Dunlop, A. Balogh, E. Lucek, G.K. Parks, M. Wilber, E.C. Roelof, G. Chanteur, H. Reme, First current density measurements in the ring current region using simultaneous multi-spacecraft CLUSTER-FGM data. Ann. Geophys. 23, 1849–1865 (2005). doi: 10.5194/angeo-23-1849-2005 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  264. D. Vassiliadis, A.J. Klimas, J.A. Valdivia, D.N. Baker, The Dst geomagnetic response as function of storm phase and amplitude and the solar wind electric field. J. Geophys. Res. 104(A11), 24957–24976 (1999) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  265. V.M. Vasyliunas, Mathematical models of magnetospheric convection and its coupling to the ionosphere, in Particles and Fields in the Magnetosphere, ed. by B.M. McCormac (D. Reidel, New York, 1970) Google Scholar
  266. J.I. Vette, The AE-8 trapped electron model environment, National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC), World Data Center A for Rockets and Satellites (WDC-A-RS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center (1991) Google Scholar
  267. A. Viljanen, A. Pulkkinen, R. Pirjola, K. Pajunpää, P. Posio, A. Koistinen, Recordings of geomagnetically induced currents and a nowcasting service of the Finnish natural gas pipeline. Space Weather 4, S10004 (2006). doi: 10.1029/2006SW000234 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  268. C.B. Wang, J.K. Chao, C.H. Lin, Influence of the solar wind dynamic pressure on the decay and injection of the ring current. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 1341 (2003). doi: 10.1029/2003JA009851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  269. H. Wang, A.J. Ridley, H. Lühr, M.W. Liemohn, S.Y. Ma, Statistical study of the subauroral polarization stream: Its dependence on the cross–polar cap potential and subauroral conductance. J. Geophys. Res. 113, A12311 (2008). doi: 10.1029/2008JA013529 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  270. H. Wang, H. Lühr, K. Häusler, P. Ritter, Effect of subauroral polarization streams on the thermosphere: A statistical study. J. Geophys. Res. 116, A03312 (2011). doi: 10.1029/2010JA016236 ADSGoogle Scholar
  271. W. Wang, E.R. Talaat, A.G. Burns, B. Emery, S. Hsieh, J. Lei, J. Xu, Thermosphere and ionosphere response to subauroral polarization streams (SAPS): Model simulations. J. Geophys. Res. 117, A07301 (2012). doi: 10.1029/2012JA017656 ADSGoogle Scholar
  272. S. Watanabe, E. Sagawa, K. Ohtaka, H. Shimazu, Prediction of the Dst index from solar wind parameters by a neural network method. Earth Planets Space 54, 1263–1275 (2002) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  273. S. Watari, Estimation of geomagnetically induced currents based on the measurement data of a transformer in a Japanese power network and geoelectric field observations. Earth Planets Space 67, 77 (2015). doi: 10.1186/s40623-015-0253-8 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  274. D.R. Weimer, Improved ionospheric electrodynamic models and application to calculating Joule heating rates. J. Geophys. Res. 110(A5), A05306 (2005). doi: 10.1029/2004JA010884 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  275. D. Wen, Y. Yuan, J. Ou, X. Huo, K. Zhang, Ionospheric temporal and spatial variations during the 18 August 2003 storm over China. Earth Planets Space 59(4), 313 (2007) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  276. H.I. West, R.M. Buck, J.R. Walton, Shadowing of electron azimuthal-drift motions near the noon magnetopause. Nat. Phys. Sci. 240, 6–7 (1972). doi: 10.1038/physci240006a0 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  277. E.C. Whipple, Potentials of surfaces in space. Rep. Prog. Phys. 44, 1197 (1981). doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/44/11/002 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  278. M. Wik, R. Pirjola, H. Lundstedt, A. Viljanen, P. Wintoft, A. Pulkkinen, Space weather events in July 1982 and October 2003 and the effects of geomagnetically induced currents on Swedish technical systems. Ann. Geophys. 27, 1775–1787 (2009) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  279. M. Wiltberger, W. Wang, A.G. Burns, S.C. Solomon, J.G. Lyon, C.C. Goodrich, Initial results from the coupled magnetosphere ionosphere thermosphere model: Magnetospheric and ionospheric responses. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 66, 1411–1423 (2004). doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2004.03.026 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  280. R.A. Wolf, Effects of ionospheric conductivity on convective flow of plasma in the magnetosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 75(25), 4677–4698 (1970) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  281. R.A. Wolf, R.W. Spiro, S. Sazykin, F.R. Toffoletto, How the Earth’s inner magnetosphere works: An evolving picture. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 69, 288–302 (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2006.07.026 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  282. H.-C. Yeh, J.C. Foster, F.J. Rich, W. Swider, Storm time electric field penetration observed at mid-latitude. J. Geophys. Res. 96, 5707–5721 (1991). doi: 10.1029/90JA02751 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  283. P. Yin, C.N. Mitchell, P.S.J. Spencer, J.C. Foster, Ionospheric electron concentration imaging using GPS over the USA during the storm of July 2000. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L12806 (2004). doi: 10.1029/2004GL019899 ADSGoogle Scholar
  284. E. Yizengaw, M.B. Moldwin, P.L. Dyson, E.A. Essex, Using tomography of GPS TEC to routinely determine ionospheric average electron density profiles. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 69(3), 314 (2007) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  285. D.T. Young, S. Perraut, A. Roux, C. de Villedary, R. Gendrin, A. Korth, G. Kremser, D. Jones, Wave-particle interactions near VHe1 observed on GEOS 1 and 2, 1, propagation of ion cyclotron waves in He1-rich plasma. J. Geophys. Res. 86, 6755 (1981) ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  286. Y. Yu, V. Jordanova, S. Zaharia, J. Koller, J. Zhang, L.M. Kistler, Validation study of the magnetically self-consistent inner magnetosphere model RAM-SCB. J. Geophys. Res. 117, A03222 (2011). doi: 10.1029/2011JA017321 ADSGoogle Scholar
  287. Y. Yu, V. Jordanova, D. Welling, B. Larsen, S.G. Claudepierre, C. Kletzing, The role of ring current particle injections: Global simulations and Van Allen Probes observations during 17 March 2013 storm. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 1126–1132 (2014). doi: 10.1002/2014GL059322 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  288. Y. Yu, V. Jordanova, S. Zou, R. Heelis, M. Ruohoniemi, J. Wygant, Modeling subauroral polarization streams during the 17 March 2013 storm. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 120, 1738–1750 (2015). doi: 10.1002/2014JA020371 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  289. Z. Yuan, Y. Xiong, Z. Qiao, H. Li, S. Huang, D. Wang, X. Deng, T. Raita, J. Wang, A subauroral polarization stream driven by field-aligned currents associated with precipitating energetic ions caused by EMIC waves: A case study. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 1696–1705 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2015JA021804 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  290. S. Zaharia, C.Z. Cheng, J.R. Johnson, Particle transport and energization associated with substorms. J. Geophys. Res. 105(A8), 18741–18752 (2000). doi: 10.1029/1999JA000407 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  291. J.J. Zhang, C. Wang, T.R. Sun, C.M. Liu, K.R. Wang, GIC due to storm sudden commencement in low-latitude high-voltage power network in China: Observation and simulation. Space Weather 13, 643–655 (2015). doi: 10.1002/2015SW001263 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  292. H. Zhao, X. Li, D.N. Baker et al., The evolution of ring current ion energy density and energy content during geomagnetic storms based on Van Allen Probes measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 120, 7493–7511 (2015). doi: 10.1002/2015JA021533 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  293. H. Zhao, X. Li, D.N. Baker et al., Ring current electron dynamics during geomagnetic storms based on the Van Allen Probes measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 3333–3346 (2016). doi: 10.1002/2016JA022358 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnish Meteorological InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space PhysicsUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations