4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Data Selection Model Parameterization Results: Statistics, Lithospheric Field, Core Field Perspective.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

4 th Swarm DQW – Magnetic Session 23 Dec 2014Potsdam (D) ELM – “EXTENDED” LESUR MODEL OF DISTURBANCE CHARACTERISATION AND VFM CALIBRATION Lars Tøffner-Clausen,

Advertisements

The day-to-day longitudinal variability of the global ionospheric density distribution: Preliminary results E.E. Pacheco and E. Yizengaw Institute for.

No. 1 Characteristics of field-aligned currents derived from the Swarm constellation Hermann Lühr, Jaeheung Park, Jan Rauberg, Ingo Michaelis, Guram Kervalishvili.

Repeat station crustal biases and accuracy determined from regional field models M. Korte, E. Thébault* and M. Mandea, GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam (*now.

Geomagnetism (I).

Pacific Secular Variation A result of hot lower mantle David Gubbins School of Earth Sciences University of Leeds.

DEFINITION, CALCULATION, AND PROPERTIES OF THE Dst INDEX R.L. McPherron Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics University of California Los Angeles.

Coestimating models of the large-scale internal, external, and corresponding induced Hermean magnetic fields Michael Purucker and Terence Sabaka Raytheon.

Separating internal geomagnetic secular variation and long-term magnetospheric field variations Monika Korte Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ.

The European geomagnetic secular variation and acceleration over the last four decades Mioara MANDEA Giuliana Verbanac, Monika Korte Helmholtz-Zentrum.

Spatial distribution of the auroral precipitation zones during storms connected with magnetic clouds O.I. Yagodkina 1, I.V. Despirak 1, V. Guineva 2 1.

C. Papadimitriou 1,2,G. Balasis 1, I. A. Daglis 2,1 R. Haagmans 3 1 Institute for Astronomy, Astrophysics, Space Applications and Remote Sensing, National.

State Key Laboratory of Space Weather An inter-hemisphere asymmetry of the cusp region against the geomagnetic dipole tilt Jiankui Shi Center for Space.

Observations of Open and Closed Magnetic Field Lines at Mars: Implications for the Upper Atmosphere D.A. Brain, D.L. Mitchell, R. Lillis, R. Lin UC Berkeley.

Geomagnetic field Inclination

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D On Calibrating the Magnetometry Package Data Nils Olsen, DTU Space.

J. Ebbing & N. Holzrichter – University of Kiel Johannes Bouman – DGFI Munich Ronny Stolz – IPHT Jena SPP Dynamic EarthPotsdam, 03/04 July 2014 Swarm &

V. M. Sorokin, V.M. Chmyrev, A. K. Yaschenko and M. Hayakawa Strong DC electric field formation in the ionosphere over typhoon and earthquake regions V.

Physical Approach to the ASM-VFM residual investigation National Space Institute, DTU 3. December 2014.

ESA Presentation | P. Vogel | Potsdam | 02/12/2014 | Slide 1 ESA UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use SWARM QWG Overview of ASM, VFM and STR instruments status.

Swarm Data Processing and First Scientific Results

Comparison of Field-Aligned Currents calculated by single spacecraft and dual spacecraft methods. Yulia V. Bogdanova, Malcolm W. Dunlop RAL Space, STFC,

| 9:30 am | IUGG | page 1/25Manoj et al, Evidence for short.... Evidence for short correlation lengths of the noon- time equatorial electrojet.

MTR, swarm E2E study, Nov 11, 2003, DSRI Copenhagen, nio #1 7-Sep-15 swarm End-To-End Mission Performance Study Mid Term Review The swarm E2E Consortium.

Study of an Improved Comprehensive Magnetic Field Inversion Analysis for Swarm PM1, E2Eplus Study Work performed by Nils Olsen, Terence J. Sabaka, Luis.

Kick off meeting, swarm E2E study, nio #1 8-Sep-15 Development Approach Task 1: Industrial Module –to be used by industry for their system simulation –Output:

Magnetospheric ULF wave activity monitoring based on the ULF-index OLGA KOZYREVA and N. Kleimenova Institute of the Earth Physics, RAS.

“ Combining Ocean Velocity Observations and Altimeter Data for OGCM Verification ” Peter Niiler Scripps Institution of Oceanography with original material.

Secular variation in Germany from repeat station data and a recent global field model Monika Korte and Vincent Lesur Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, German Research.

New Unifying Procedure for PC index calculations. P. Stauning Danish Meteorological Institute ( + 45

© NERC All rights reserved UK Repeat Station Report T J G Shanahan and S Macmillan June 2009 MagNetE Workshop Helsinki, Finland.

Final Presentation, Swarm E2E study, June 18, 2004, ESTEC, nio #1 1-Nov-15 Swarm End-To-End Mission Performance Study Final Presentation The Swarm E2E.

MAGNETOSPHERIC RESPONSE TO COMPLEX INTERPLANETARY DRIVING DURING SOLAR MINIMUM: MULTI-POINT INVESTIGATION R. Koleva, A. Bochev Space and Solar Terrestrial.

Large electric fields near the nightside plasmapause observed by the Polar spacecraft K.-H. Kim 1, F. Mozer 2, and D.-H. Lee 1 1 Department of Astronomy.

Introducing POMME Potsdam Magnetic Model of the Earth Star camera calibration Ring current field Static and annually varying external fields Internal field.

Swarm ASM-VFM meeting 9-10 Apr 2015ESTEC (NL) Ideas for improving the disturbance model or Welcome to the Null-Space! Nils Olsen, Lars Tøffner-Clausen,

Wavelet Based Estimation of the Hurst Exponent for the Horizontal Geomagnetic Field at MAGDAS Equatorial Stations G. Gopir1,2,*, N. S. A. Hamid1,2, N.

Gravimetry Geodesy Rotation

1 Simulation for power overhead and cavity field estimation Shin Michizono (KEK) Performance (rf power and max. cavity MV/m 24 cav. operation.

5/18/2994G21D-04 Spring AGU Realization of a Stable North America Reference Frame Thomas Herring Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary, Sciences,

NASA NAG Structure and Dynamics of the Near Earth Large-Scale Electric Field During Major Geomagnetic Storms P-I John R. Wygant Assoc. Professor.

Study on the Impact of Combined Magnetic and Electric Field Analysis and of Ocean Circulation Effects on Swarm Mission Performance by S. Vennerstrom, E.

Lesson 2: Earth’s Interior. Clues to Earth’s Interior – What’s below Earth’s surface? – Temperature and Pressure Increase with Depth – Using Earthquake.

Study of an Improved Comprehensive Magnetic Field Inversion Analysis for Swarm MTR, E2Eplus Study Work performed by Nils Olsen, Terence J. Sabaka, Luis.

ABSTRACT Disturbances in the magnetosphere caused by the input of energy from the solar wind enhance the magnetospheric currents and it carries a variation.

Earth’s Dynamic Magnetic Field: The State of the Art Comprehensive Model Terence J. Sabaka Geodynamics Branch NASA/GSFC with special thanks to Nils Olsen.

STSE Tides to Sense Earth, MTR 25 January 2016DTU, Lyngby/DK REPORT ON WP2X00: TIDAL SIGNAL RECOVERY USING THE COMPREHENSIVE INVERSION (CI) RESULTS FROM.

Magnetic Fields. Magnetic Field of a bar magnet I. Field of a bar magnet The forces of repulsion and attraction in bar magnets are due to the magnetic.

5 th Swarm Data Quality Workshop 7 – 10 September 2015IPG Paris/F About ESL Level 2 Processing and Data Products Some Selected Science Results Plasma depletion.

5 th Swarm Data Quality Workshop 7 – 10 September 2015IPG Paris/F PRELIMINARY NEW VERSION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE INVERSION (CI) LEVEL-2 PRODUCTS Terence.

IUGG 2015 Prague 25 June 2015IUGG-4186 SCARF: Level 2 Data Products and Processing Some Selected Science Results Plasma depletion seen in different parameters.

QWG Sept 20-22, Jundong Huang Indiana University 1 DØ Quarkonium Production at DØ Jundong Huang Indiana University Quarkonium Workshop FermiLab September.

© NERC All rights reserved A case for look-up tables for magnetic field error Susan Macmillan ISCWSA error sub-committee meeting 19 March, London.

Quality indicators for Swarm FAC products and their statistical behavior Maosheng He 1, Joachim Vogt 1, Adrian Blagau 1,2 (1) Jacobs University Bremen.

Magnetic Measurement Expert Group10-11 March 2016Warsaw / PL MAGNETOMETER – STAR-IMAGER ALIGNMENT: APPARENT EULER ANGLE VARIATION DUE TO MAGNETOSPHERIC.

Summary of Session 2M Swarm 5th Data Quality Workshop

What is the magnetic potential of a dipole?

The 3rd Swarm Science Meeting, June 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark

Magnetic Splinter Meeting

Summary of Swarm L2 and swarm science The Swarm Team

Rapid core field variations just before Swarm

Summary of part of L2 session

swarm End-To-End Mission Performance Study Working meeting on Task 2

Effects of Dipole Tilt Angle on Geomagnetic Activities

New "quite time" concept: application to Champ lithospheric field modelling Nils Olsen, Jesper Gjerløv & Co.

Linear Regression.

First Validation of Level 2 Cat-2 products: EEF

Swarm Magnetic Package Calibrations Way Forward

In flight calibration of the experimental ASM vector mode on board the Swarm satellites Thomas Jager, François Bertrand, Viviane Cattin & Jean-Michel.

Session 5: Higher level products (Internal)

Presentation transcript:

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Data Selection Model Parameterization Results: Statistics, Lithospheric Field, Core Field Perspective …

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Vector and scalar data: selection criteria similar to CHAOS-4 nightside data (sun at least 10  below horizon) |d RC/dt | < 2 nT/hr vector data (in instrument frame) from non-polar regions (< 55 QD latitude) if Kp < 2 o scalar data from polar regions if E m < 0.8 mV/m “Gradient” (horizontal difference) data: only scalar, no vector gradient Inclusion of periods of higher geomagnetic activity (Kp ±10  QD latitude) data Data Selection

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Data Distribution

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D  Static (crustal) field up to degree n = 70  Linear time dependence (secular variation) for n = 1 – 13  Large-scale magnetospheric field (similar to CHAOS-4 parameterization)  Co-estimation of instrument alignment parameters (Euler angles) in bins of 10 days Model Parameterization

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Model Residual Statistics

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Crustal Field

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Normalized coefficient difference

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Crustal Field Map SIFM – MF7 Backus-effect signature in high degree (n > 60) terms B r at surface, n =

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Secular Variation

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Secular Variation Map B r at Core Mantle Boundary, n =

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Scalar residuals vs. latitude

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Conclusions Inclusion of gradient data improves crustal field and secular variation Use of data during higher magnetic activity and from dayside (14%  46% of all data) crustal field mainly improved by EW gradient data secular variation mainly improved by NS gradient data Scalar difference SW-A – SW-C: Mean: -120 pT rms: 280 pT

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D Inter-satellite calibration of SW-C How to calibrate VFM(C) without ASM(C) ? Mapping of F : SW-A  SW-C F ASM (A) subtract F model (A), add F model (C) … … to obtain an estimate of F’ (C) use this value to calibrate VFM(C) all data:  = 0.55 nT nightside non polar:  = 0.28 nT Comparison F ASM (A  C) – F ASM (C) dayside nightside

4 th Swarm QWG Meeting 2 – 5 December 2014GFZ Potsdam/D SIFM without ASM(C) Inter-satellite calibration of VFM(C) using ASM(A) SIFM-type model from F VFM (C), without ASM(C)