Cargando…

A Test of Energetic Particle Precipitation Models Using Simultaneous Incoherent Scatter Radar and Van Allen Probes Observations

Quantification of energetic electron precipitation caused by wave‐particle interactions is fundamentally important to understand the cycle of particle energization and loss of the radiation belts. One important way to determine how well the wave‐particle interaction models predict losses through pit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanchez, Ennio R., Ma, Qianli, Xu, Wei, Marshall, Robert A., Bortnik, Jacob, Reyes, Pablo, Varney, Roger, Kaeppler, Stephen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9539972/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36247327
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2021JA030179
_version_ 1784803608694358016
author Sanchez, Ennio R.
Ma, Qianli
Xu, Wei
Marshall, Robert A.
Bortnik, Jacob
Reyes, Pablo
Varney, Roger
Kaeppler, Stephen
author_facet Sanchez, Ennio R.
Ma, Qianli
Xu, Wei
Marshall, Robert A.
Bortnik, Jacob
Reyes, Pablo
Varney, Roger
Kaeppler, Stephen
author_sort Sanchez, Ennio R.
collection PubMed
description Quantification of energetic electron precipitation caused by wave‐particle interactions is fundamentally important to understand the cycle of particle energization and loss of the radiation belts. One important way to determine how well the wave‐particle interaction models predict losses through pitch‐angle scattering into the atmospheric loss cone is the direct comparison between the ionization altitude profiles expected in the atmosphere due to the precipitating fluxes and the ionization profiles actually measured with incoherent scatter radars. This paper reports such a comparison using a forward propagation of loss‐cone electron fluxes, calculated with the electron pitch angle diffusion model applied to Van Allen Probes measurements, coupled with the Boulder Electron Radiation to Ionization model, which propagates the fluxes into the atmosphere. The density profiles measured with the Poker Flat Incoherent Scatter Radar operating in modes especially designed to optimize measurements in the D‐region, show multiple instances of close quantitative agreement with predicted density profiles from precipitation of electrons caused by wave‐particle interactions in the inner magnetosphere, alternated with intervals with large differences between observations and predictions. Several‐minute long intervals of close prediction‐observation approximation in the 65–93 km altitude range indicate that the whistler wave‐electron interactions models are realistic and produce precipitation fluxes of electrons with energies between 10 keV and >100 keV that are consistent with observations. The alternation of close model‐data agreement and poor agreement intervals indicates that the regions causing energetic electron precipitation are highly spatially localized.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9539972
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95399722022-10-14 A Test of Energetic Particle Precipitation Models Using Simultaneous Incoherent Scatter Radar and Van Allen Probes Observations Sanchez, Ennio R. Ma, Qianli Xu, Wei Marshall, Robert A. Bortnik, Jacob Reyes, Pablo Varney, Roger Kaeppler, Stephen J Geophys Res Space Phys Research Article Quantification of energetic electron precipitation caused by wave‐particle interactions is fundamentally important to understand the cycle of particle energization and loss of the radiation belts. One important way to determine how well the wave‐particle interaction models predict losses through pitch‐angle scattering into the atmospheric loss cone is the direct comparison between the ionization altitude profiles expected in the atmosphere due to the precipitating fluxes and the ionization profiles actually measured with incoherent scatter radars. This paper reports such a comparison using a forward propagation of loss‐cone electron fluxes, calculated with the electron pitch angle diffusion model applied to Van Allen Probes measurements, coupled with the Boulder Electron Radiation to Ionization model, which propagates the fluxes into the atmosphere. The density profiles measured with the Poker Flat Incoherent Scatter Radar operating in modes especially designed to optimize measurements in the D‐region, show multiple instances of close quantitative agreement with predicted density profiles from precipitation of electrons caused by wave‐particle interactions in the inner magnetosphere, alternated with intervals with large differences between observations and predictions. Several‐minute long intervals of close prediction‐observation approximation in the 65–93 km altitude range indicate that the whistler wave‐electron interactions models are realistic and produce precipitation fluxes of electrons with energies between 10 keV and >100 keV that are consistent with observations. The alternation of close model‐data agreement and poor agreement intervals indicates that the regions causing energetic electron precipitation are highly spatially localized. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-08-10 2022-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9539972/ /pubmed/36247327 http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2021JA030179 Text en ©2022. The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sanchez, Ennio R.
Ma, Qianli
Xu, Wei
Marshall, Robert A.
Bortnik, Jacob
Reyes, Pablo
Varney, Roger
Kaeppler, Stephen
A Test of Energetic Particle Precipitation Models Using Simultaneous Incoherent Scatter Radar and Van Allen Probes Observations
title A Test of Energetic Particle Precipitation Models Using Simultaneous Incoherent Scatter Radar and Van Allen Probes Observations
title_full A Test of Energetic Particle Precipitation Models Using Simultaneous Incoherent Scatter Radar and Van Allen Probes Observations
title_fullStr A Test of Energetic Particle Precipitation Models Using Simultaneous Incoherent Scatter Radar and Van Allen Probes Observations
title_full_unstemmed A Test of Energetic Particle Precipitation Models Using Simultaneous Incoherent Scatter Radar and Van Allen Probes Observations
title_short A Test of Energetic Particle Precipitation Models Using Simultaneous Incoherent Scatter Radar and Van Allen Probes Observations
title_sort test of energetic particle precipitation models using simultaneous incoherent scatter radar and van allen probes observations
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9539972/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36247327
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2021JA030179
work_keys_str_mv AT sanchezennior atestofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT maqianli atestofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT xuwei atestofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT marshallroberta atestofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT bortnikjacob atestofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT reyespablo atestofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT varneyroger atestofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT kaepplerstephen atestofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT sanchezennior testofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT maqianli testofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT xuwei testofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT marshallroberta testofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT bortnikjacob testofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT reyespablo testofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT varneyroger testofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations
AT kaepplerstephen testofenergeticparticleprecipitationmodelsusingsimultaneousincoherentscatterradarandvanallenprobesobservations