4.3 Article

Evidence of multiple reconnection lines at the magnetopause from cusp observations

Journal

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2011JA017080

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NASA [NNX08AF35G, NNX09AM72G, NNX11AJ09G, NNG05GE15G]
  2. NSF [AGS-1007449]
  3. NASA [113609, NNX11AJ09G, 143946, NNX09AM72G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER
  4. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [1007449] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent global hybrid simulations investigated the formation of flux transfer events (FTEs) and their convection and interaction with the cusp. Based on these simulations, we have analyzed several Polar cusp crossings in the Northern Hemisphere to search for the signature of such FTEs in the energy distribution of downward precipitating ions: precipitating ion beams at different energies parallel to the ambient magnetic field and overlapping in time. Overlapping ion distributions in the cusp are usually attributed to a combination of variable ion acceleration during the magnetopause crossing together with the time-of-flight effect from the entry point to the observing satellite. Most step up ion cusp structures (steps in the ion energy dispersions) only overlap for the populations with large pitch angles and not for the parallel streaming populations. Such cusp structures are the signatures predicted by the pulsed reconnection model, where the reconnection rate at the magnetopause decreased to zero, physically separating convecting flux tubes and their parallel streaming ions. However, several Polar cusp events discussed in this study also show an energy overlap for parallel-streaming precipitating ions. This condition might be caused by reopening an already reconnected field line, forming a magnetic island (flux rope) at the magnetopause similar to that reported in global MHD and Hybrid simulations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available