ECLAT D600.1 Report and “Lessons Learned” from the 1St ECLAT Scientific Workshop October 22 – 24, FMI, Helsinki, Finland Hermann Opgenoorth, IRF

ECLAT D600.1

ECLAT D600.1 Report and “Lessons Learned” from the 1st ECLAT Scientific Workshop October 22 – 24, FMI, Helsinki, Finland Hermann Opgenoorth, IRF

The workshop was the first in a sequence of four topically organised ECLAT workshops and it was dedicated to initiate the scientific quality control of the delivered ECLAT data products, in particular the reliability of Cluster footprint mapping using various models during various level of magnetospheric activities, including substorms and localised field aligned currents. The workshop was attended by 30 persons, stemming mainly from the teams of the participating ECLAT partners, CAA and ESA staff, and members of the ECLAT Advisory Board. The program/agenda of the workshop can be found in a separate appendix. All presentations during the workshop have been placed in a dedicated workshop folder on the Internet.

In the following we will summarise the discussions under the various agenda items and point out “Lessons Learned” and decisions for “Action Items” for the next ECLAT workshop.

Workshop Introductory Talks

Steve Milan opened the workshop with a general introduction to the ECLAT project.

Rumi Nakamura and Pete Boakes gave a status update on the OEAW region identification product and event finding activities. • The defined and characterised regions are: Lobe, boundary region, outer plasma sheet, inner plasma sheet, the neutral sheet and the plasma sheet boundary layer. • In addition to the identification of such boundaries there will be event lists addressing in particular dynamic features like wavy current sheet, depolarization events and occurrences of thin current sheets and large FACs. • In the following discussion the issue of a difference between OPS (being a region dominated by currents) and PSBL (being dominated by flows) was raised and discussed. It was deferred to closer inspection by working groups in their activities for report back to ECLAT at the next workshop.

Steve Milan gave an overview of the SuperDARN data products. • A common grid has now been developed for SuperDARN and MIRACLE data sets (to be used even for the IMAGE dataset). • A first publication (Grocott et al., 2012), and several ongoing papers have already emerged from this activity.

Harri Laakso reported on the Cluster Active Archive (CAA) status. • CAA has presently 1400 registered users compared to 240 official Cluster scientists. The Cluster Final Archive (CFA) is now being developed, with a full transfer from CAA to CFA by early to mid 2013. CFA will then become the sole user interface. • ECLAT data can now be found for restricted access at: http://caa.estec.esa.int/caa_stage_search/search.xml • Whenever ECLAT decides so, the data may be released to a wider community.

Hermann Opgenoorth · 1

ECLAT D600.1

Olaf Amm reported on the various MIRACLE data analysis tools, which have been further developed and optimised for use by both MIRACLE (densest network) and THEMIS (widest network). • The next step in MIRACLE development is MIRACLE-3D, which could be optimised by more magnetometers in central Scandinavia, particularly Sweden, and a new bi- static radar system (TBC).

Minna Palmroth gave a general introduction to the GUMICS code, high-lighting advantages of GUMICS over other models, e.g. including a realistic ionosphere and its coupling to the magnetosphere. The planned Work Packages and consequent submissions to CAA were presented. • GUMICS provides global MHD simulations with realistic assumptions for ionosphere- magnetosphere coupling. • A parallel version of GUMICS is coming soon.

Workshop Session 1 (second day of workshop)

In contrast to the first day, which consisted of mainly overview presentations, this day was dedicated to more result-based discussions of present and future ECLAT products.

Initial ECLAT results were reported, for instance:

Steve Milan presented a new method of using spherical harmonic coefficients in quantitative analysis, further interpretation and characterisation of SuperDARN flow patterns.

Mark Lester illustrated how SuperDARN data could be used to monitor the variability of the equator-ward edge of the ionospheric convection (the Heppner-Maynard boundary), the main auroral latitude and solar cycle variations in size of convection patterns.

Gabor Facsko discussed footprint mapping with GUMICS, and presented some initial results from the GUMICS library runs and first test runs in preparations of the ECLAT full year run project. A long discussion evolved about the exact form and format (e.g., coordinate system, colour code, etc) of the GUMICS ECLAT-CAA products, which the workshop decided to return to in a later session (see for the results of this discussion and consequent decisions below).

Nikolai Tsyganenko discussed the different magnetospheric models from St Petersburg State University. • A new model containing a more refined modular structure is under construction and a beta-version is planned for the first quarter of 2013. • In particular the present work concentrates on: a) The IMF control of the boundary shape, and not only solar wind pressure b) The flexibility of the inclusion of an equatorial current sheet c) Dipole tilt effects d) Increase in the validity region of the model e) Inclusion of a partial ring current f) Field aligned currents

A question was raised in the discussion whether or not it would be possible to provide a user guide of the various relative benefits of the models, i.e. to advise potential users which

Hermann Opgenoorth · 2

ECLAT D600.1

model to use for what purpose. For the next workshop the group from St Petersburg were asked to give a presentation to that end. Another question concerned the possibility to predetermine the open flux in the model, but it appears to be necessary to assimilate such a new model result via multiple model adaptations to data.

Alexander Nikolaev showed ECLAT results of footprint mapping for the models TS05 and T96. Results are located at: • http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/~tsyganenko/TS05_data_and_stuff • FTP area: http://geo.phys.spbu.ru

Marina Kubyshkina showed examples of mapping the Cluster and GOES via various “Tsyganenko”- codes to the ionosphere • T96, TS05 and AM02 (Adaptive Model) were compared for two spacecraft (Cluster and GOES) • The mapping accuracy was around 1 degree or better for most models, with a higher error for Cluster at higher activity level (3 deg) • However, generally there was no clear correlation between overall mapping accuracy and activity level • The mapping accuracy decreased with radial distance for most cases. • It might not be possible to derive a definite “accuracy map”, as there are too many parameters feeding into the observed uncertainties.

Nevertheless, it was proposed by Harri Laakso that one should include the list of identified uncertainties as an ancillary information document to the CAA deliverables. In addition, Steve Milan pointed out that not only latitudinal error, but also MLT shift must be considered in the derived mapping uncertainties.

Hermann Opgenoorth presented two example studies (Zivkovic et al., 2012, Cully et al., 2013) of meaningful and exact mapping of field aligned currents in the vicinity of the dayside magnetospheric cusp between CHAMP and Cluster, and ground-based deep tail data- coordination in the case of substorm onset reconnection, respectively.

Alexander Nikolaev gave a talk on the testing of an updated substorm current wedge model (SCW2L), where wire type SCW model parameters and R1/R2 current sheets can be added to a model, using dipolarisation amplitudes determined by actual Themis and GOES data. It was found that double current loops systems might become necessary to reproduce the observed magnetic field changes, and suggestions for future Cluster based studies are now required for further validation of the model.

Hermann Opgenoorth proposed three potential event studies for field line mapping tests during different levels of substorm activity, all of them located overhead or close to the MIRACLE ground based network, with the footprint of Cluster (and in one case even CHAMP) at a region of central substorm activity. His event examples were: • 20.04.2002 late afternoon sector 1700-2100 UT– Growth phase and westward travelling surge, originating from substorm onset to the east of MIRACLE • 08.09.2002 midnight sector 2000-2200 UT – Overhead substorm onset • 04.09.2005 midnight sector 2000-2200 UT– 2nd Substorm intensification at higher latitudes over Svalbard

Workshop session 2

Hermann Opgenoorth · 3

ECLAT D600.1

Gabor Facsko gave a more detailed review concerning the development and distribution of the ECLAT GUMICS static run library. It was found a.o. that the GUMICS runs were not stable for some chosen parameter-values of exactly 0, and that therefore some minute deviations had to be introduced to stabilise the calculations and avoiding zero-divisions. The results of the library runs can now be found under • http://hwa.fmi.fi • eclat.fmi.fi/dev/login2.php (requires username and passwd)

Evgenij Gordeev showed a test of the GUMICS-4 against empirical data, pointing out several critical facts: • Different dynamics of the real magnetosphere during the same SW conditions, as the real magnetosphere often has a memory of previous solar wind conditions, while models start from the present value as chosen by the user. • Lobe magnetic field: Gumics < 20% than empirical (Fairfield Jones) • Magnetotail radius: 10% less than Shue model • Plasma sheet pressure: ~OK (agrees in average but with large scatter) • Plasma sheet geometry: typically very good agreement • Cross polar cap potential: GUMICS typically lower value and much wider distribution • Less magnetic flux in GUMICS magnetotail (especially for southward IMF) • In summary: Generally GUMICS-4 satisfactorily simulates the magnetospheric system (in a statistical sense) In the following discussion proposals were made to include the coefficient method of Grocott et al., for a more quantitative assessment of the GUMICS results concerning convection. A general finding is that GUMICS appears to perform better in “real data” simulations than for these “synthetic” library runs, where fixed values were chosen.

Lisa Juusola discussed opportunities to use ECLAT products together with ten years CHAMP statistics, from 26.7. 2000 to 25.8. 2010, covering altitude ranges from 450 km in 2000 to 350 km in 2010. A shown in previous example studies Cluster/ CHAMP/MIRACLE studies can be used for field line mapping tests, but also CHAMP data on its own can give input to the model parameter space.

Max van der Kamp presented his work on Sq magnetic field characteristics, which due to their importance for the derivation of MIRACLE magnetometer baselines for ECLAT can be considered an ECALT spin-off product. • The Sq variations showed a dependence on seasonal variation, solar activity and latitude. • Polar Sq values (magn. lat > 70%) are more irregular. • The resulting daily baselines are part of the ECLAT dataset and have been delivered to the CAA.

Viktor Sergeev discussed the use of isotropic boundaries for mapping accuracy estimates. • This boundary typically aligns with the pre-breakup arc and is thus of principle importance for substorm onset location. • Tail current sheet IB’s are now tested using adaptive modelling. • The NOAA DMSP database with 10 crossings per nightside hour is now being implemented in the new software product. Following a question, it was pointed out that Cluster was most often located poleward of the IB, but that mapping in the entire magnetosphere was targeted in this study, and not particularly the mapping of Cluster footprints alone.

Hermann Opgenoorth · 4

ECLAT D600.1

Maria Shukthina showed open magnetic flux calculations based on magnetotail observations inside 15 Re, which is considered to be an important parameter which is typically only available from SuperDARN radars and global imaging. Recent results have come from the AMPERE projects determination of FAC flow pattern. As Cluster is mainly located inside 15 Re , it is, however, difficult to derive flux data from Cluster itself.

Kristi Kauristie presented an overview of the MIRACLE ECLAT data products such as equivalent current vectors and related quicklook plots. In addition, she discussed the uncertainty of the Cluster footprint evaluation on the basis of MIRACLE data; • The difference between T96 and TS05 footprints were larger in solar active years, and increased with ionospheric (and field-aligned) currents. • Furthermore, it was found that the annual orbital evolution of Cluster affects the statistical findings on the mapping error.

Workshop Topical Discussions

Topic 1 – FACs and their potential impact on footprint mapping results (Chaired by Hermann Opgenoorth)

It was proposed to study how good the mapping is under different conditions, e.g. in a more general sense and during certain well-defined events (like current wedge, FAC sheet distribution etc). In this context a study could be done on e.g. which substorm phase leads to which kind of mapping problems (resulting in a substorm superimposed epoch picture with resulting mapping accuracy) and that for that purpose a list of interesting substorm events should be put together. The study output would then be an overall mapping error map based on event studies. This could then lead to further meso-scale studies in the substorm realm. Marina Kubyshkina and Viktor Sergeev will circulate their list of around 2000 events.

Another question was raised whether or not the difference between the various models could act as a first proxy of general accuracy estimates.

It was furthermore suggested to compare the Cluster footprints from the T96 and TS05 models with boundary identifications, and one could even involve already existing GUMICS event runs for such purposes.

As an illustration Steve Milan showed an example (based on work by Lasse Clausen) of Birkeland current systems from AMPERE and SuperDARN • Fitting R1/R2 current systems • Superposed epoch analysis of R1/R2 currents during Themis substorms There obviously exists good SuperDARN data for a similar event on Dec 20, 2010. Clearly there are hemispheric similarities and differences in the FAC pattern, and for the purpose of such superimposed epoch studies the central meridian and extent for each substorm current wedge must be determined, to avoid smearing out the signatures in latitude, longitude and time.

Hermann Opgenoorth · 5

ECLAT D600.1

Topic 2 – Boundary identification (Chaired by Rumi Nakamura)

The feasibility and necessity of providing C4 region data after 2002/2003 was discussed. Further questions regarded sheath entry during storms (-50 Dst). Regarding extreme/unusual regions OEAW had identified: • OPS @ large Bx (beta > 1) • IPS with low beta (beta < 1) • Cold dense PS / cold tenuous PS • High plasma density lobe (remark, is there an association to transpolar arcs?) • NSR without IPS data points It was discussed whether it would be useful to create a thin current sheet crossing database. In particular it would be interesting to see whether all thin current sheets are indeed associated with strong cross tail currents. Cross-referencing this list with a list of substorm onsets could allow conclusions on thin current sheets being substorm precursors.

Furthermore, it was suggested to identify even all quiet-time boundary crossings, i.e. when only one crossing of a boundary takes place (= Cluster crosses the boundary and not vice versa). In addition, certain ”strange events” could be flagged as interesting to study further, for example very strong, or very weak, currents or regions that are found outside the median distribution (extreme flapping, extreme compression etc). Even non-substorm, e.g., convention bay-type of activity could be considered in such a list.

In this context the question occurred how two bands of auroral activity (equatorward and poleward) would look like in the tail.

Topic 3 – Magnetospheric open magnetic flux content Discussion lead by Steve Milan (ULEIC), Maria Shukhtina (SPSU), Pete Boakes (OEAW), and Minna Palmroth (FMI)

The proportion of the Earth’s magnetic dipole that is open to the solar wind, interlinked with the interplanetary magnetic field, is a key measure of magnetospheric state and dynamics. Changes in the open flux content are a direct measure of the rates of magnetopause and magnetotail magnetic reconnection. The open flux is referred to as the polar cap flux, FPC.

1. Comparing estimates of open flux content There are two methods of estimating the open flux of the magnetosphere: 1) observations of the size of the dim polar cap encircled by the bright auroral oval in global auroral imagery from the IMAGE spacecraft (a technique used by ULEIC); 2) estimating the cross-sectional area of the magnetotail lobe, determined from upstream observations of the solar wind ram pressure, combined with in situ measurements of the lobe magnetic field strength (a technique developed by SPSU). The two methods have not been comprehensively tested before, so this was a major discussion topic for the workshop. Prior to the workshop, Maria Shukhtina and Steve Milan identified two intervals of data (2001-10-09 and 2001-09-20) where both estimates of FPC were possible. The results presented at the workshop showed very encouraging correspondences in the time-variation between the two methods, but with an offset, such that the lobe estimate was larger than the polar cap estimate. This was discussed in terms of an uncertainty in the plasma sheet contribution to the tail flux. Further intervals for study are to be estimated: Steve Milan is to determine from Pete Boake’s boundary/region dataset when Cluster is in the lobe, and

Hermann Opgenoorth · 6

ECLAT D600.1

when IMAGE data are simultaneously available. Maria Skukhtina will then make lobe estimates of FPC to compare with polar cap estimates.

2. Mapping the open/closed field line boundary A related question is the mapping of magnetospheric boundaries, specifically the boundary between the lobe and the plasma sheet (determined by OEAW), into the ionosphere to compare with local observations of the location of the open/closed field line boundary (OCB), that is, the poleward edge of the auroral oval (determined by ULEIC). Steve Milan is to map Pete Boake’s PSBL boundary identifications to the ionosphere using the SPSU Cluster footprint tracings to determine the comparison with the poleward edge of the oval. Statistical maps of boundary locations to be produced in the first instance.

3. Comparison with GUMICS The open flux content of the magnetosphere and shape of the OCB are ideal parameters to compare with GUMICS simulations of the magnetospheric response to upstream interplanetary conditions (lead by FMI). The 2001-09-20 interval used in section 1. was identified as suitable for modelling with GUMICS to compare with the observations. The interval 2002-09-08, 20:00-21:30 UT, already published by Victor Sergeev, has been modelled using GUMICS, so would be a suitable interval for study. The interval 2002-03-20 was also identified as suitable for a GUMICS/IMAGE comparison.

In the final discussion Arnaud Masson pointed out the need of having Cluster footprints indicated in all ECLAT CAA products. It is also noted that the PC-boundary identification will necessarily have a considerable overlap with the OEWC boundary catalogue, and even impact on field-aligned current locations. Thus cross-referencing of all lists will in the end become necessary.

Topic 4 – GUMICS products and evaluation (Mark Lester / Minna Palmroth)

The discussion under this topic mainly concerned the appearance of the final GUMICS quicklook plots to be delivered by FMI to CAA.

Arnaud Masson said for a start that with the advent of the Cluster Final Archive (as compared to the Cluster Active Archive) there was certain reluctance within ESA to include model data in the final archive, as models have a tendency to improve with time, while data usually is final. Thus, possibly output from dedicated model runs should possibly stay in FMI, but become accessible through CAA.

In more detail referring to the proposed GUMICS QL plots Mark Lester and other participants suggested to make the format of the plots similar to the data they are going to be compared with, e.g., MIRACLE, SuperDARN. It might also be good to show where MIRACLE is on the resulting GUMICS plots from the year run or other real event data. Also, Cluster footprints should be included in all polar view QL-plots.

Suggestions were given from the floor for the formats and colour scales to be used for all GUMICS plots to facilitate comparisons between events. In conclusion of a long discussion the following list concerning quick-look plots resulted:

Hermann Opgenoorth · 7

ECLAT D600.1

Magnetosphere PARAMETER FORM Pressure Colour code Density Colour code Magnetic field Line Velocity Vector Beta Colour code

Views from three planes: x=-10, y=0 and z=0

Polar projections of the data in northern and southern hemisphere with a lower latitude cut off of 60 degrees.

Ionosphere PARAMETER FORM Electrostatic potential Contour Hall conductivity Colour code (rainbow) Pedersen conductivity Colour code (rainbow) Field aligned + horizontal currents Colour code (red/blue) Precipitation power Colour code (rainbow) Open/closed boundaries Line

Plenary Workshop Wrap-up Session

It was decided that the OEAW group of Graz should have their list of events ready before March 2013, so that they can be used for the April workshop.

Kirsti Kauristie suggests that the next WS would particularly include combined MIRACLE + SuperDARN (IMAGE) datasets and that studies with several datasets combined should be carried out until then. Steve Milan (and all other participants) agree that most of the initial work needs to be done ahead of the workshop and that smaller subgroup meetings might be good to have before the next workshop. Proposals for such ad-hoc smaller topical working groups should be forwarded to Hermann Opgenoorth, and the present travel budget should be investigated for the potential option of supporting small scale working meetings between the main workshops.

END OF FORMAL WORKSHOP REPORT

Hermann Opgenoorth · 8

ECLAT D600.1

October 25, Morning Session

ECLAT Advisory Board Meeting

Harri informed the ECLAT Board and Advisory Board on how to use the CAA/CFA and gave ideas on how to best organise the data. • Information that does not change with time, i.e., constants, belongs in dataset caveat or in the header. • There is also a possibility to deliver extra information in the documentation section. • All datasets should have a User guide that describes the data and give examples on how to use it. • The datasets can also include an ICD, which describes the headers. It is very good to have, but not necessary. • If the deliverables exceed 1 TB – talk to Arnaud (Now 250 GB is available on server, with a 50 GB pipeline).

Regarding the website, all groups need to provide information to put on the web. Such things as outreach, popular material, links to CAA, list of publications, list of talks, reports and presentations from international conferences should all be put on the website. In addition, a concise monthly report from Steve should be added to such individual items.

The presentations given at the 1st ECLAT workshop have been put on a restricted website.

Feedback from the advisory board (see also written comments)

Johnny Rae thought the workshop had been very useful and interesting. He suggested that the talks about event studies should have been more detailed, but appreciates that most of the work will have to be done between this and the second workshop, as planned in the original works packages. The 1st workshop was only a kick-off for the event study activity. Other interesting topics raised: What boundaries are found under what conditions? What to do if models do not agree?

Frederic Pitout suggested that more cooperation with other experts of similar or related FP7 projects, as well as between other project teams, should take place. When possible, the project outcome should be combined with and linked to other projects.

Kathryn McWilliams pointed out that while some things and topics are self evident to the group of ECLAT board and team members (e.g. webpage), this is not the case for the advisors. Further, she pointed out the importance of not all advisors being insiders, in the project and required some more basic background information ahead of and during future workshops.

Other questions raised: • How can ECLAT best sell itself and its products to the potential users? • When is the right time to advertise ECLAT and open the CAA database subset? • Should there be a stage area for testing data – for selected “beta” users?

Hermann Opgenoorth · 9

ECLAT D600.1

• Could an ECLAT day(s) be added to the next Cluster workshop? (19-23 September, Tromsö 2013 – too early?)

Decisions made: • The next workshop will be advertised to people outside the direct ECLAT project. • The group is aiming for a special science session at EGU 2014 • An ECLAT dedicated session or day at the next Cluster workshop will be investigated

Olaf Amm again requested the compilation of a map of mapping-uncertainties and suggested that more interchange could take place between groups providing individual ECLAT products, e.g., plot boundaries on top of equivalent current maps. He also suggested to put datasets together in detailed example studies, and that smaller group meetings with actual work being done, should be useful between the large workshops. Johnny Rae volunteered to give suggestions on how to form the groups.

Hermann Opgenoorth discussed the overall outcome of the project and suggested that not only examples on how to use the data should be an output, of this activity but also, and maybe even more so the opportunities to publish scientific papers for the team members and wider community. He also raised the question on whether EISCAT should be included in some of th event studies. (In the Advisory group Kjellmar Öksavik, Arnaud Masson and Frederic Pitout are persons with EISCAT background or EISCAT related research interests). EISCAT data will be accessible through the AMDA (Automated Multi Dataset Analysis) data- center in Toulouse, and can when necessary be used for ECLAT related studies without the need for duplicating the EISCAT dataset in CAA/CFA.

Frederic Pitout added that it would be useful to be able to run certain models online, with user-defined input, whenever possible.

It was generally agreed that any research paper emerging out of ECLAT activities should acknowledge ECLAT, Cluster (ESA), and the EU FP7 program.

Hermann Opgenoorth · 10

ECLAT D600.1

Written input from ECLAT Board and Advisory Board members after the Workshop:

1.) Johnny Rae, University of Alberta FP7 mandate to improve the exploitability of already existing European space physics datasets ECLAT will provide value-added data-products into the CAA. ECLAT covers the 2000- 2001/2010 time period, and comes out of the formalisation of the Cluster Ground-Based Working Group (GBWG). Workshop Questions and Points: 1) Magnetospheric regions and boundaries (OEAW) Suggest perhaps redefining some of the criteria that are used at the moment. Specific examples are: i) Taking a look at the criteria used to distinguish magnetotail phenomena ii) Why is wave activity defined according to BxGSM. iii) Considering computing vperpX as a product for flow speeds towards the earth? (flow velocity perpendicular to B, but not along the field – important distinction when the fields are so stretched in the magnetotail) iv) Clarifying terminology used. Is there a semantics difference between the PSBL and outer plasmasheet, or is it physical? v) Using the curlometer has implicit assumptions – aren’t the current densities derived a strong function of satellite separation? Shouldn’t that be parameterised in some way? 2) Magnetic field mapping (SPSU) i) Amm suggested: A parametric study of the accuracy of the magnetic field mapping ii) We assume that there is no parallel electric fields so that we can actually map the field lines from Cluster to the ground? 3) Ionospheric conditions, including equivalent currents (FMI) i) Spherical Elementary Current System. Baselines are not an issue for the ground magnetometers, Kirsti will discuss. I am not sure we ever got back to this issue, and why baselining of ground magnetometers is not an issue. It would be good if someone could answer that for me, since I don’t have a record for why that is true ii) No waves are seen using CHAMP FAC –MIRACLE zonal current comparisons, even during substorms. Is this true? 4) Large-scale magnetospheric state (Leic) i) Useful to use the Heppner-Maynard boundary as another proxy for magnetospheric state. One of the very useful constraints on physical boundaries that Cluster may see ii) According to notes, the HMB on the nighside may be fitted with data from the dayside - how accurate is this? iii) Compare the location of the HMB to the inner edge of the outer radiation belts, and potentially the location of the plasmapause. Potentially very useful! How about using Cluster electric field or spacecraft potential to monitor the location of the plasmapause and comparing it with the HMB? 5) Physics-based modelling (FMI)

Hermann Opgenoorth · 11

ECLAT D600.1

i) Suggested a number of details of the summary plots to be worked out. How do we determine how good the mapping is from GUMICS and for that matter SPSU tools? 6) Validation, science, networking, outreach (IRF) i) Suggested two-three intervals to compare with. Cluster and CHAMP for example. True ii) Suggested working groups: Tail flux with IMAGE, Influennce of FACs on mapping, Modelling products and evaluation, global configuration of the magnetotail

Suggestions: • That the Advisory Board get a copy of the relevant parts of the ECLAT proposal • A short user guide on which Tsyganenko model to use in which regime – which Tsyganenko model to use for what application. • Update the website

Workshop Summary I thought that the workshop was productive, informative and an excellent one. There was a lot of discussion. There was a lot of information exchange, and a lot of high quality research and tools available to ECLAT. My primary concern is that there was no consensus as to what happens next, and how the accurate mapping of Cluster to the ground is to be achieved. This was an opportunity to set specific targets and specific goals and identify specific case studies that could be tackled as a group with the extensive set of tools that are available to ECLAT. For example, IRF presented several case studies that could be useful in the group environment for mapping purposes. However, these case studies (or others) were not followed through upon, and that – I strongly believe – is a missed opportunity. I would encourage the members of ECLAT to identify potential collaborations at the earliest possible opportunity. For example:

In summary, the workshop was extremely productive and should continue to be extremely productive. I would strongly encourage the ECLAT team to work closely with each other to identify the case studies that are required for the mapping studies as soon as possible and very much before the next meeting. Perhaps the start is to identify whether the case studies presented by IRF are optimal for the group to study. If not, then I would suggest that OEAW identify a list of events that clear boundaries are seen in Cluster data and then circulate to the wider group to identify which ones are suitable for the rest of the datasets required.

Under quiet solar wind conditions where the mapping should be the best. Potentially under dayside conditions first where mapping should be the best too. OEAW: Use Cluster to determine Location of plasmapause, location of PSBL Leic: User SuperDARN to determine: Location of HMB (presumed to be the plasmapause) Leic: Use IMAGE FUV to determine OCB SPSU: Use SPSU tools to map between in-situ and ground for both of these locations FMI: Use GUMICS to map between in-situ and ground for both of these locations How accurate are the models in predicting these boundaries? FMI: Equivalent currents – electrojets relative to the OCB, and FACs perhaps relative to electron auroral measurements

Hermann Opgenoorth · 12

ECLAT D600.1

2 Kathryn McWilliams

As I understand it, the goals of the ECLAT team are, essentially, to quantify the accuracy of magnetic field mapping, specifically with the aim of improving the exploitability of existing European data sets (Cluster, and ground-based stations in the European sector).

I was impressed with the amount of work that has already been accomplished by the various diverse teams, and the efforts by the team members came together very well at the ECLAT meeting.

One thing that does concern me is that the group refers to "mapping errors," which implies that there is a definitive magnetic field model that is "correct." Rather than "errors" the team is estimating mapping differences or possibly even uncertainty. The group has identified that specific boundaries are to be used to test the mapping, and these should go a long way to providing a "correct" mapping, if there are both space and ground signatures that can be compared. If not, then the team can only estimate differences between methods.

One specific idea that the team mentioned, and which I think is essential, is to produce maps of reliability based on physical parameters of the system. For example, statistics from the Cluster spacecraft separation, which varies with time, will produce variations in FAC accuracy over time. Another example is the reliability of the various magnetospheric field models in various regions. Simple convenient summaries of these uncertainties will certainly help the user interpret the data.

3 Frederic Pitout

As some of the other persons invited to join the ECLAT advisory board, I kind of discovered the project and it took me some time to really understand what ECLAT was about and the products the team is planning to deliver to ESA. By the way, I support the suggestion of having on line the basic ECLAT documents for information purposes. Once the project understood, it was easier for me to concentrate on the discussions.

The workshop itself was very interesting and I appreciated the good balance between technical and scientific discussions. Indeed, I think it’s essential to address both fields in order to demonstrate the usefulness of the project and the possibilities offered by the products to be delivered. I’m convinced that the work and the efforts of the team will be very valuable for the whole community.

Among all the points discussed, a few of them particularly drew my attention. These are detailed thereafter.

Magnetospheric modelling with GUMICS

This aspect of the project is quite novel I think and deserve particular attention. To model a full year of magnetospheric configuration, and consequently a year of Cluster data will be a great achievement. Still, I can’t help thinking that it won’t be enough. It is obviously out of question to model ten or more years of magnetospheric activity. Besides, one should bear in mind that all the simulations will be regularly obsolete due to the successive improvements of the code and will have to be regenerated regularly. Therefore, I would favour the

Hermann Opgenoorth · 13

ECLAT D600.1

possibility to run GUMICS interactively instead of building a static pile of simulation outputs. Maybe links with the IMPEx EU-funded project could be made.

Field-line projection and satellite footprints

The team plans to provide Cluster projected orbit on polar plot which is always useful. However, the tests performed by several team members show significant deviations depending on the model of geomagnetic field used. Choosing one model - and if so, on what basis? - is a disturbing problem. I would recommend the team not too develop something too rigid. Ideally, the user could choose the model to be used and generate plots accordingly but that would assume an interactive system. Otherwise, it should be clearly stated what model(s) is (are) used and why.

Identification of magnetospheric boundaries

A method of identifying night side magnetospheric boundaries was presented. The naming of those boundaries and the way they are defined did not seem to be unanimously supported by the audience. Again, my fear is that defining layers once and for all may lead to something not flexible enough and whose usefulness may be limited. The user should have at least access to the digital data so he/she has the possibility of defining his/her own layers with his/her own criteria. Alternatively, something more interactive should be thought of.

Statistical approach

Adrian Grocott (Leicester U.) leads an ISSI team on statistical analysis of, among other instruments, Cluster data. They have developed a method to project satellite data into the ionosphere so that they can be compared with SuperDARN data for instance. I think this kind of product could find its place in ECLAT.

From CAA to CFA

At the conclusion of the workshop, it was not clear at all to me what the ECLAT products would become once the Cluster archive goes to ESAC. This point should be properly discussed with ESA and clarified. It would not make much sense to spend time and money for something that would not be durable.

To summarise, my main recommendations for the team would be: - to aim for a flexible toolbox instead of something written in the stone that will inevitably lack flexibility. - to encourage links and exchanges with other relevant working groups and projects (IMPEx, ISSI teams, etc.) - to clarify the future of ECLAT within the Cluster Final Archive.

4 Kjelmar Öksavik

I missed the first two days of the meeting, so my report only deals with events beginning on 24 October 2012. The presentations that I witnessed mostly dealt with modelling efforts, in particular regarding the GUMICS model. The team appears to have a strong focus on developing advanced data products that unifies empirical data with results from model runs. These data products will be made easily accessible to a broad scientific community. The

Hermann Opgenoorth · 14

ECLAT D600.1

project team consists of a group having impressive expertise across a wide area of space physics. The group appears to have well-defined goals and work very well together.

My biggest criticism so far is that the project team may have been a bit too focused on their internal tasks leading up to the first meeting. Less attention appears to have been made towards providing information about the project to outsiders (including the advisory board). For example, the project webpage was not up to date; information about the project, key milestones, work packages, and team members was missing. A quick revision of the webpage is strongly recommended! This can easily be done by extracting key information, or alternatively by posting some selected pages, from the original proposal.

Otherwise, I think the project team is doing an excellent job, and I encourage them to keep up the good work!

5 Kirsti Kauristie

Assessment of the mapping accuracy was the main topic of the WS, but the session was also the first opportunity to show some results of our data processing work for Equivalent current products (EqC, WPs 310 and 320). The presentations given by Olaf Amm and me introduced the new data products and discussed the opportunities to use them in mesoscale MI-coupling studies. Max van de Kamp introduced the method which he has used to determine the baseline curves in EqC processing and demonstrated how the baseline data can be used to derive new information about Sq-variations at auroral latitudes.

Unfortunately, due to some other commitments, I missed the presentations of the second WS days. The WS was anyway very useful for our work to finalize the WP 310 work. From the Advisory Board (Olaf Amm) we got some valuable guidance about the uncertainties which missing stations can cause in our data products. The configuration which we use for the elementary current system pole locations may have varying performance depending on the locations of the missing stations. Olaf Amm told us that he can provide some estimates of such errors. The plan is to include these error estimates to the forthcoming review article on ECLAT data products.

The discussions with IRF scientists (Karin Ågren and Hermann Opgenoorth) and ESA representatives (Harri Laakso and Arnaud Masson) about the Cluster Active Archive data formats have provided useful guidance for our work after the WS. It appeared that our first trial of the output file generation has not used the structures provided by the CEH and CEF templates in an optimal way: Some of the information were missing (the lists of missing stations) while some information (e.g. EqC grid specification) was unnecessarily repeated for each time step. These mistakes have now been fixed in collaboration with IRFU and the evaluation of the data format used to provide the baseline curve information should be conducted in near future.

The topic of ECLAT WS2 (“Meso-scale science”) will be in the first “ordeal” for the data products of WPs 310 and 320. Some plans (selection and pre-analysis of some good test cases) for the forthcoming gatherings were done already in the hands-on data sessions of WS1. We foresee to do also some statistical studies with combined MIRACLE, SuperDARN, and IMAGE data products in collaboration with ULEIC.

Hermann Opgenoorth · 15

ECLAT D600.1

6 Minna Palmroth

Personal impressions: It was good that even though CAA had some reservations of the modeling, the science advisory group had a clear view on what to do with the modeling results. It was also very valuable to hear their view on our products.

7 Rumi Nakamura

MEMO: on 2012/10/22-26 for IWF relevant activities

1) IWF Workpackages

*210: EVENT LIST 3 types of event list to be prepared by next workshop (1) Wavy current sheet crossing, (2) Dipolarization, (3) Large-gradient events (Thin current sheet or Strong field aligned current events Example file header for CAA to be completed by the end of the year *220: REGION IDENTIFICATION ASCII daily files available. One more update for specifying night-side magnetosheath interval in UR (undefined region) Next version will be both daily file for ECLAT team + entire-mission file for CAA ingestion To be completed by the end of the year.

2) Discussions on specific/strange events on global magnetospheric configuration

Following types of conditions was suggested to be taken into account: *theta aurora events *Quiet crossings *SMC period *High-dens lobe *High current density event

3) On next workshops a) Second ECLAT workshop (Graz) Preliminary plan. More details to be planned with SM &HO Sun. 14. April Buisiness Mon-Wed. 15-17. April. Wshop ECLAT scientist + Invitation only b) Meso-scale subgroup working meeting (RN, OA consult with SM, HO) Informal meeting, directly discussing the events Suggested period: Thr-Fri. 18-19. April, after workshop in Graz (cost-effective option)

4) IWF Planned collaborations in ECLAT team Polar-cap Flux-comparison events, substorm oxygen outflow Region/FAC mapping to ionosphere Current sheet crossing events

Hermann Opgenoorth · 16

ECLAT D600.1

Meso-scale activity event

8 Victor Sergeev

1st scientific workshop in Helsinki was an important point in ECLAT project, a turning point from basically data-set(s)-oriented efforts in its first part, toward basically the assessing and validation of existing global data sets, and their potential improvement to better characterise the state of the global system and its components (although a lot of new important data sets has to be added at the second stage also).

The project may play a very special role in the latter context by combining expertize and work-power of different groups in organized manner during extended period of time of the project (which is rarely possible in the community in the other way). This was only tentatively planned in the project and our task now is a more detailed planning of this challenging activity, which, I think, has to be completed by the time (and during) the Graz workshop. Helsinki workshop has done the first steps in this direction, with nominating and launching a few working groups. I expect important activity should also include an organized activity in between the workshops.

Particularly I would suggest (1) to circulate once per 2month a brief message informing on the WG progress, and (2) fully use the web-site opportunities for data exchange.

Planned actions/papers(lead person) to be significantly advanced (or completed) before next (Graz) workshop: - Comparison between nearly conjugate tail/ionosphere boundary observations (PS/PCB, isotropy boundaries) with mapping predicted by the models (i.e. mapping accuracy study) – a big effort based initially on the adaptive modeling data set (Graz/SPSU and other groups) - Paper on justification/testing of 2-loop SCW model (Sergeev,..); - Simulation of magnetic field line deformations due to SCW system of different intensities (Nikolaev,..); - Comparison of ionospheric FAC pattern with SCW parameters derived from midlatitude and GEO observations (March 17,2010 event, together with ISSI SCW team, Amm, Nakamura, Sergeev, Lester,..) - Hermann events – need to be summarized and circulated to discuss which steps are realistic to do, to address the FAC-related distortions.. ((other planned activities have to be added))

SPSU-created a data set of adaptive modeling events (based on magnetic observations from Cluster and other magnetospheric spacecraft) consisted of two dozens events in 2005-2009. This data-set can be a nucleus for a number of different activities and for benchmarking different methods/products. Quite directly it should be used for: - quality asessment of different magnetospheric models in magnetotail; - develop/test new methods of model quality control (isotropy boundaries etc); - assessment/testing of new generation magnetospheric model by N. Tsyganenko.

Status of adaptive modeling data set: It was generally agreed at the workshop, that adaptive modeling (AM) data set is basically considered as important working instrument for the project, which (both data and quicklook) is publicly available at the SPSU/ECLAT page.

Hermann Opgenoorth · 17

ECLAT D600.1

In view of CAA policy to archive only data and essentially data-based products, and because of fuzzy structure of data files of AM data set, CAA does not support its inclusion as regular auxiliary data set. However potentially CAA can keep it among the documents if necessary, this has to be discussed further keeping in mind the translation of main archive to CFA.

Hermann Opgenoorth · 18