International Reference Ionosphere Model Predictions Research Articles

An Improved Ionosonde‐Based Parameter to Assess Sporadic E Layer Intensities: A Simple Idea and an Algorithm

AbstractIn the long era of sporadic E layer (Es) ionosonde research, the ordinary wave critical frequency foEs is used as a measure of Es layer occurrence and intensity. This practice, however, undermines that sporadic E layers are in fact metal ion layers, whereas foEs relates inherently to the sum of both the layer metal and the regular E region plasma densities. This means that foEs acts as an overestimate of Es intensity, a fact that somehow has been overlooked and escaped attention. To deal with this deficiency, an algorithm is introduced which combines the ionosonde‐measured foEs and virtual height h'Es parameters with International Reference Ionosphere model predictions of E region electron densities, to arrive at a new critical frequency which depends on sporadic E metal plasma density only; therefore, it represents an unbiased estimate of Es layer intensity. The extensive use of foEs in numerous sporadic E studies must have introduced errors in various results in relation with the Es variability in the time, frequency, and space domains. It is therefore important that this new parameter, notated as foμEs, is now adopted and used instead of foEs in the evaluation of sporadic E. The same methodology applies also for the sporadic E blanketing critical frequency fbEs, which at times is taken as an alternative estimate of Es intensity; similarly, a new parameter, notated as fbμEs, should be used instead of fbEs.

Impacts of solar activity on performance of the IRI-2012 model predictions from low to mid latitudes

This study investigates the impacts of solar activity on the performance of the latest release of International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) model version 2012 (IRI-2012) predictions during the ascending phase of solar activity from 2009 to 2013. The study is based on the data of total electron content (TEC) retrieved from the Global Positioning System (GPS) at Singapore (NTUS) (geographic latitude 01.34°N, longitude 103.67°E, geomagnetic latitude 8.4°S), Thailand (CUSV) (geographic latitude 13.73°N, longitude 100.54°E, geomagnetic latitude 3.96°N), China (KUNM) (geographic latitude 25.02°N, longitude 102.79°E, geomagnetic latitude 15.15°N), Mongolia (ULAB) (geographic latitude 47.67°N, longitude 107.05°E, geomagnetic latitude 37.73°S), and Russia (IRKM) (geographic latitude 52.21°N, 104.31°E, geomagnetic latitude 42.28°S). The GPS-TEC has been compared with the IRI-2012 model TEC for three different options, namely, IRI-NeQ, IRI01-corr, and IRI-2001, for topside Ne over all the above five stations lying at different latitudes from equatorial-equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA) to mid-latitude regions but at around the same longitude line (104° ± 3°E). The study showed that the IRI model predictions for different topside options are different and significant in low-latitude region but insignificant in mid-latitude regions (except during winter season of high solar activity year 2012). During the period from 2009 to 2013, upon moving from low to high solar activity, the prediction nature (overestimation/underestimation) of IRI-2012 model changes significantly at EIA station KUNM of low-latitude region. The discrepancy in IRI-2012 model TEC as compared to GPS-TEC in low-latitude region is found to be larger and significant than in mid-latitude region (Mongolia and Russia). The discrepancy in the IRI-2012 model TEC with IRI-2001 topside is found to be maximum at equatorial station CUSV (RMSD 99%) during the solar minimum year 2009 and decreases moving towards high solar activity year. This suggests that significant improvements to the IRI-2012 model (hmF2 model) are required particularly in the equatorial regions taking the impacts of solar minimum year into account.

The quiet nighttime low-latitude ionosphere as observed by TIMED/GUVI

In this paper, we examine the nighttime ionosphere climatology structure in the low latitude region and discrepancies between Global Ultraviolet Imager (GUVI) observations and the IRI model predictions using (1) the magnetic zonal mean of electron number density as a function of altitude and magnetic latitude, (2) vertical electron density profiles at various levels of F10.7 index, (3) nighttime descent and magnitude decrease of the ionosphere, (4) point-to-point comparisons of F-peak height (hmF2) and density (NmF2), and (5) the magnetic longitudinal variations of hmF2 and NmF2. The data collected from the Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere, Energetics, and Dynamics (TIMED) mission since its launch in December 2001 have provided great opportunities for many scientific investigations of the ionosphere. In this analysis, we investigate the climatology of the nighttime low-latitude ionosphere under low geomagnetic activity (kp⩽4) using the electron density profiles inferred from the airglow measurements obtained by the GUVI aboard the TIMED spacecraft and compared with the results obtained from IRI (International Reference Ionosphere) model-2001. The observed climatology is an essential tool for further understanding the electrodynamics in the low-latitude region and improving the model’s prediction capability. The time range of the GUVI data used in this study is from 2002 (day 053) to 2006 (day 304), and the IRI model predictions were produced at every GUVI location. The ionosphere observed is generally of greater density than what IRI predicts throughout the night for all four seasons for low and moderate solar activity while the model over-predicts the electron density near the F-region peak at high solar activity before midnight. Observations show that the height of the F-region peak has a steep descent from dusk to midnight and near midnight the height of layer is insensitive to solar conditions, significantly different than what is predicted by IRI. Longitudinal features shown in GUVI data are present in the low-latitude ionosphere after sunset and continue through to midnight after which the low-latitude ionosphere is largely zonally symmetric.

Measurements and IRI model predictions during the recent solar minimum

Cycle 23 was exceptional in that it lasted almost two years longer than its predecessors and in that it ended in an extended minimum period that proved all predictions wrong. Comparisons of the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) with CHAMP and GRACE in-situ measurements of electron density during the minimum have revealed significant discrepancies at 400–500km altitude (Lühr and Xiong, 2010). Our study investigates the causes for these discrepancies with the help of ionosonde and Planar Langmuir Probe (PLP) data from the Communications/Navigation Outage Forecasting System (C/NOFS) satellite. Our C/NOFS comparisons confirm the earlier CHAMP and GRACE results. But the ionosonde measurements of the F-peak plasma frequency (foF2) show generally good agreement throughout the whole solar cycle. At mid-latitude stations yearly averages of the data-model difference are within 10% and at low latitudes stations within 20%. The 60–70% differences found at 400–500km altitude are not seen at the F peak. We will discuss how these seemingly contradicting results from the ionosonde and insitu data-model comparisons can be explained and which parameters need to be corrected in the IRI model.

Comparison of ionospheric F2 peak parameters foF2 and hmF2 with IRI2001 at Hainan

Monthly median values of foF2, hmF2 and M(3000)F2 parameters, with quarter-hourly time interval resolution for the diurnal variation, obtained with DPS4 digisonde at Hainan (19.5°N, 109.1°E; Geomagnetic coordinates: 178.95°E, 8.1°N) are used to investigate the low-latitude ionospheric variations and comparisons with the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) model predictions. The data used for the present study covers the period from February 2002 to April 2007, which is characterized by a wide range of solar activity, ranging from high solar activity (2002) to low solar activity (2007). The results show that (1) Generally, IRI predictions follow well the diurnal and seasonal variation patterns of the experimental values of foF2, especially in the summer of 2002. However, there are systematic deviation between experimental values and IRI predictions with either CCIR or URSI coefficients. Generally IRI model greatly underestimate the values of foF2 from about noon to sunrise of next day, especially in the afternoon, and slightly overestimate them from sunrise to about noon. It seems that there are bigger deviations between IRI Model predictions and the experimental observations for the moderate solar activity. (2) Generally the IRI-predicted hmF2 values using CCIR M(3000)F2 option shows a poor agreement with the experimental results, but there is a relatively good agreement in summer at low solar activity. The deviation between the IRI-predicted hmF2 using CCIR M(3000)F2 and observed hmF2 is bigger from noon to sunset and around sunrise especially at high solar activity. The occurrence time of hmF2 peak (about 1200 LT) of the IRI model predictions is earlier than that of observations (around 1500 LT). The agreement between the IRI hmF2 obtained with the measured M(3000)F2 and the observed hmF2 is very good except that IRI overestimates slightly hmF2 in the daytime in summer at high solar activity and underestimates it in the nighttime with lower values near sunrise at low solar activity.