debated (Urban et al., 2016). Inclusion of kinetic processes within MHD or GCM codes is still in its infancy, although initial results are intriguing (Chen et al., 2017; Tóth et al., 2017). Many of these ideas have yet to be included in models of IT energy input and compared with observations.
1.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Entry of energy in the IT system has been studied at length by analysis of observations and by development of a comprehensive suite of models. Overall, the deposition and dissipation of energy can be represented fairly well if climatological results or large‐scale averages in space and time are required. If more accurate specification and forecast of the IT response is required, the problem of energy input and dissipation needs to be reinvestigated. Currently, the auroral zones are the only high‐latitude region for which energy deposition is captured, and only under relatively steady conditions. At polar and subauroral latitudes, where energy input can be sporadic, the empirical models based on smoothed averages do not specify energy well.
Physics‐based models, which depend on high‐latitude electric field specification, suffer from the lack of high resolution in current electric field models. An assessment of current empirical, physics‐based GCMs and MHD coupled models shows that for the events studied, model energy input does not show good agreement with observations. As energy input is central to model predictions of energy dissipation into heating of ions and neutrals, it is not altogether surprising that observations of ion and neutral perturbations during magnetic storms do not agree with models in which the auroral zone is assumed to be the primary locus of Joule heating (Shim et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2016, 2017b).
A number of innovative approaches in modeling and data analysis have been proposed, which may benefit the goal of more accurate specification and forecast of magnetospheric energy input and dissipation in the IT system.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (LRIR 18RVCOR127).
REFERENCES
1 Ahn, B.‐H., Akasofu, S.‐I., & Kamide, Y. (1983b). The joule heat production rate and the particle energy injection rate as a function of the geomagnetic indices AE and AL. Journal of Geophysical Research, 88, A8, 6275–6287.
2 Ahn, B. ‐H., Robinson, M. R., Kamide, Y., & Akasofu, S.‐I. (1983a). Electric conductivities, electric fields and auroral particle energy injection rate in the auroral ionosphere and their empirical relations to the horizontal magnetic disturbances. Planet. Space Sci. 31, 6, 641–653.
3 Akbari, H., Goodwin, L. V., Swoboda, J., St.‐Maurice, J.‐P., & Semeter, J. L. (2017). Extreme plasma convection and frictional heating of the ionosphere: ISR observations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 7581– 7598. doi:10.1002/2017JA023916
4 Anderson, J., Hoar, T., Raeder, K., Liu, H., Collins, N., Torn, R., & Avellano, A., (2009). The DataAssimilation Research Testbed: A Community Facility. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, 1283– 1296, http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2618.1
5 Araki, T., Schlegel, K., & Lühr, H. (1989). Geomagnetic effects of the Hall and Pedersen current flowing in the auroral ionosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 94, A12, 17185–17199.
6 Axford, W. I. (1969). Magnetospheric convection. Reviews of Geophysics., 7, 1, 421–459.
7 Axford, W. I., & Hines, C. O., A unifying theory of high‐latitude geophysical phenomena and geomagnetic storms. Canadian Journal of Physics, 39, 1433–1464.
8 Banks, P. M. (1977). Observations of joule and particle heating in the auroral zone. Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 39, 179–193.
9 Banks, P. M., Foster, J. C., & Doupnik, J. R. (1981). Chatanika radar observations relating to the latitudinal and local time variations of Joule heating. Journal of Geophysical Research, 86, A8, 6869–6878.
10 Brekke, A. (1976). Electric fields, Joule and particle heating in the high latitude thermosphere. Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 38, 887–895.
11 Bust, G. S., Garner, T. W., & Gaussiran, T. L., II (2004). Ionospheric Data Assimilation ThreeDimensional (IDA3D): A global, multi‐sensor, electron density specification algorithm. Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, A11312. doi:10.1029/2003JA010234
12 Chaston, C. C., et al. (2005). Energy deposition by Alfvén waves into the dayside auroral oval: Cluster and FAST observations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, A02211. doi:10.1029/2004JA010483
13 Chen, Y., et al. (2017). Global three‐dimensional simulation of Earth’s dayside reconnection using a two‐way coupled magnetohydrodynamics with embedded particle‐in‐cell model: Initial results. Journal of Geophysical Research, 122, 10,318– 10,335. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024186
14 Codrescu, M. V., Fuller‐Rowell, T. J., & Foster, J. C. (1995). On the importance of E‐field variability for Joule heating in the high‐latitude thermosphere. Geophysical Research Letters., 22, 2393– 2396.
15 Codrescu, M. V., Fuller‐Rowell, T. J., Foster, J. C., Holt, J. M.,, & Cariglia, S. J. (2000). Journal of Geophysical Research. doi:10.1029/1999JA900463
16 Codrescu, M. V., Negrea, C., Fedrizzi, M., Fuller‐Rowell, T. J., Dobin, A., Jakowsky, N., Khalsa, H., et al. (2012). A real‐time run of the coupled thermosphere ionosphere plasmasphere electrodynamics (CTIPe) model. Space Weather, 10, S02001. doi:10.1029/2011SW000736
17 Cole, K. D. (1962). Joule heating of the upper atmosphere. Aus. J. Phys., 15, 223.
18 Cosgrove, R. B., & Codrescu, M. (2009). Electric field variability and model uncertainty: A classification of source terms in estimating the squared electric field from an electric field model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, A06301. doi:10.1029/2008JA013929
19 Cosgrove, R. B., Bahcivan, H., Chen, S., Strangeway, R. J., Ortega, J., Alhassan, M., Xu, Y., et al. (2014). Empirical model of Poynting flux derived from FAST data and a cusp signature. Journal of Geophysical Research, 119, 411– 430. doi:10.1002/2013JA019105.
20 Coumans, V., Gerard, J. C., Hubert, B., Meurant, M., & Mende, S. B. (2004). Global auroral conductance distribution due to electron and proton precipitation from IMAGE‐FUV observations. Annals of Geophysics, 22, 1595–1611.
21 Cousins, E. D. P., Matsuo, T., & Richmond, A. D. (2015). Mapping high‐latitude ionospheric electrodynamics with SuperDARN and AMPERE. Journal of Geophysical Research, 120, 5854–5870. doi:10. 1002/2014JA020463
22 Dickinson, R. E., Ridley, E. C., & Roble, R. G. (1981). A three dimensional general circulation model of the thermosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 86, 1499–1512.
23 Dickinson, R. E., Ridley, E. C., & Roble, R. G (1984). Thermospheric general circulation with coupled dynamics and composition. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 41, 205–219.
24 Dods, J., Chapman, S. C., & Gjerloev, J. W. (2015). Network analysis of geomagnetic substorms using the SuperMAG database of ground‐based magnetometer stations. Journal of Geophysical Research, 120, 7774– 7784. doi:10.1002/2015JA021456
25 Dods, J., Chapman, S. C., & Gjerloev, J. W. (2017). Characterizing the ionospheric current pattern response to southward and northward IMF turnings with dynamical SuperMAG correlation networks. Journal of Geophysical Research, 122, 1883– 1902. doi:10.1002/2016JA023686
26 Dungey, J. W., Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones. Physical Review Letters, 6, 2, 47–48.
27 Frank, L. A., & Ackerson, K. L. (1971). Observations of charged particle precipitation into the auroral zone. Journal of Geophysical Research, 76, 3612–3643. doi:10.1029/JA076i016p03612
28 Fuller‐Rowell, T., Rees, D., Quegan, S., Moffett, R. J., Codrescu, M. V., & Millward,