Geospace Environment Modeling 2008–2009 Challenge: Ground magnetic field perturbations

Abstract

1] Acquiring quantitative metrics-based knowledge about the performance of various space physics modeling approaches is central for the space weather community. Quantification of the performance helps the users of the modeling products to better understand the capabilities of the models and to choose the approach that best suits their specific needs. Further, metrics-based analyses are important for addressing the differences between various modeling approaches and for measuring and guiding the progress in the field. In this paper, the metrics-based results of the ground magnetic field perturbation part of the Geospace Environment Modeling 2008-2009 Challenge are reported. Predictions made by 14 different models, including an ensemble model, are compared to geomagnetic observatory recordings from 12 different northern hemispheric locations. Five different metrics are used to quantify the model performances for four storm events. It is shown that the ranking of the models is strongly dependent on the type of metric used to evaluate the model performance. None of the models rank near or at the top systematically for all used metrics. Consequently, one cannot pick the absolute "winner": the choice for the best model depends on the characteristics of the signal one is interested in. Model performances vary also from event to event. This is particularly clear for root-mean-square difference and utility metric-based analyses. Further, analyses indicate that for some of the models, increasing the global magnetohydrodynamic model spatial resolution and the inclusion of the ring current dynamics improve the models' capability to generate more realistic ground magnetic field fluctuations.

Space Weather Effects Produced by the Ring Current Particles

“…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 δB Z (in SM coordinates) at the Earth's center location (for details, see . Another challenge was focused on the reproducing the magnetic field variations at the ground-based stations (Pulkkinen et al 2010(Pulkkinen et al , 2011Rastätter 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 impact on global magnetohydrodynamic simulations from varying initialisation methods: results from GUMICS-4

“…Several studies have focused on assessing the performance of the models through comparisons of the simulation results with in situ or remote observations of dynamic events or plasma processes (Birn et al, 2001;Pulkkinen et al, 2011;Honkonen et al, 2013). Recent comprehensive studies (Juusola et al, 2014;Gordeev et al, 2015) statistically quantify the strengths and weaknesses of each of the models, while they could not identify any of the codes as clearly superior to the others.…”

Feature‐based validation of the Lyon‐Fedder‐Mobarry magnetohydrodynamical model

“…Raeder and McPherron [] examined the structure of the substorm current wedge within the OpenGGCM framework. Validation studies conducted by the Community Coordinated Modeling Center compared the model's ability to reproduce geosynchronous magnetic field observations [ Rastaetter et al , ], the D s t index [ Rastaetter et al , ], and ground magnetic field perturbations [ Pulkkinen et al , , ]. Additionally, the LFM model has been a subject of statistical calibration and emulation based on approximated features [ Kleiber et al , , ; Heaton et al , ].…”