Variation of hmF2 and NmF2 deduced from DPS-4 over Multan (Pakistan) and their comparisons with IRI-2012 & IRI-2016 during the deep solar minimum between cycles 23 & 24

We report the results of ionospheric measurements from DPS-4 installed at Multan (Geog coord. 30.18°N, 71.48°E, dip 47.4°). The variations in F2-layer maximum electron density NmF2 and its peak height hmF2 are studied during the deep solar minimum between cycles 23 & 24 i.e 2008–2009 with comparisons conducted with the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) versions 2012 & 2016. We find that the hmF2 observations peak around the pre-sunrise and sunrise hours depending on the month. Seasonally, the daytime variation of NmF2 is higher in the Equinox and Summer, while daytime hmF2 are slightly higher in the Equinox and Winter. High values of hmF2 around midnight are caused by an increase of upward drifts produced by meridional winds. The ionosphere over Multan, which lies at the verge of low and mid latitude, is affected by both $E\times B$ drifts and thermospheric winds as evident from mid-night peaks and near-sunrise dips in hmF2. The results of the comparison of the observed NmF2 and hmF2 for the year 2008–2009 with the IRI-2012 (both NmF2 and hmF2) and IRI-2016 (only hmF2) estimates indicate that for NmF2, IRI-2012 with Consultative Committee International Radio (CCIR) option produces values in better agreement with observed data. Whereas, for hmF2, IRI-2016 with both International Union of Radio Science (URSI) and CCIR SHU-2015 options, predicts well for nighttime hours throughout the year. However, the IRI-2012 with CCIR option produces better agreement with data during daytime hours. Furthermore, IRI-2012 with CCIR option gives better results during Equinox months, whereas, IRI-2016 with both URSI and CCIR SHU-2015 options predict well for Winter and Summer.     

Diurnal and seasonal variation of F2-layer ionospheric parameters at equatorial ionization anomaly crest region and their comparison with IRI-2001

Diurnal and seasonal variations of critical frequency of ionospheric F2-region ‘foF2’ and the height of peak density ‘hmF2’ are studied using modern digital ionosonde observations of equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA) crest region, Bhopal (23.2°N, 77.6°E, dip 18.5°N), during solar minimum period 2007. Median values of these parameters are obtained at each hour using manually scaled data during different seasons and compared with the International Reference Ionosphere-2001 model predictions. The observations suggest that on seasonal basis, the highest values of foF2 are observed during equinox months, whereas highest values of hmF2 are obtained in summer and lowest values of both foF2 and hmF2 are observed during winter. The observed median and IRI predicted values of foF2 and hmF2 are analyzed with upper and lower bound of inter-quartile range (IQR) and it is find out that the observed median values are well inside the inter-quartile range during the period of 2007. Comparison of the recorded foF2 and hmF2 values with the IRI-2001 output reveals that IRI predicted values exhibit better agreement with hmF2 as compared to foF2. In general, the IRI model predictions show some agreement with the observations during the year 2007. Therefore it is still necessary to implement improvements in order to obtain better predictions for EIA regions.     

Ionospheric variability at taiwan low latitude station: Comparison between observations and IRI-2001 model

This paper presents the observed ionospheric F-region critical frequency, foF2, and peak height, hmF2, at northern crest of equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA) area station, namely Chung-Li (24.9°N, 121.1°E, dip 35°), and to be compared with International Reference Ionosphere model (IRI-2001) predictions for the period from 1994 to 1999, corresponding to half of the 23rd solar cycle. The diurnal and seasonal variation of foF2 and hmF2 are analyzed for different solar phases, respectively. The result shows the largest discrepancies were observed during nighttime for foF2 and hmF2, respectively. The value of foF2 both CCIR and URSI selected in the IRI model produced a good agreement during the daytime and underestimated during the noon time for high solar activities. The underestimation at noon time is mainly caused by the fountain effect from equator. Further, the peak height hmF2 shows a larger variability around the midnight than daytime in the equinox and winter seasons and reserved in summer, respectively. The study shows that the monthly median values of observed hmF2 is somewhat lower than those predicated by the IRI model, at night time in all the seasons except the period of 04:00–06:00 LT and reverse at daytime in summer. In general the IRI model predictions with respect to the observed in hmF2 is much better than foF2. The percentage deviation of the observed foF2 (hmF2) values with respect to the IRI model varies from 5% to 80% (0–25%) during nighttime and 2–17% (0–20%) at daytime, respectively. In general, the model generates good results, although some improvements are still necessary to implement in order to obtain better simulations for ionospheric low-latitudes region.     

F-region ionospheric parameters observed in the equatorial and low latitude regions during medium solar activity in the Brazilian sector and comparison with the IRI-2007 model results

The ionospheric sounding observations using the Canadian Advanced Digital Ionosondes (CADIs) operational at Palmas (PAL; 10.2°S, 48.2°W; dip latitude 6.6°S; a near-equatorial station), and São José dos Campos (SJC, 23.2°S, 45.9°W; dip latitude 17.6°S; a low-latitude station located under the southern crest of the equatorial ionospheric anomaly), Brazil, are analyzed during the different seasons viz., winter (June and July 2003), spring (September and October 2003), summer (December 2003 and January 2004), and fall (March and April 2004). The period used has medium solar activity (sunspot number between 77.4 and 39.3). The seasonal mean variations (using only geomagnetically quiet days) of the ionospheric parameters foF2 (critical frequency of the F-region), hpF2 (virtual height at 0.834 foF2; considered to be close to hmF2 (peak height of the F-region)), and h’F (minimum virtual height of the F-region) are calculated and compared between PAL and SJC. The prominent differences between PAL and SJC are as follows: h’F variations show strong post-sunset enhancement at PAL during the seasons of spring, summer, and fall; hpF2 variations show pre-sunrise uplifting of the F-layer at both stations during all the seasons and the hpF2 values during the daytime are lower at SJC compared with PAL during all the seasons; the foF2 variations show mid-day bite-out at PAL during all the seasons and SJC shows strong equatorial ionospheric anomaly during summer and fall seasons. Also, the seasonal variations of the ionospheric parameters foF2 and hpF2 (with ±1 standard deviation) observed at PAL and SJC are compared with the IRI-2007 model results of foF2 and hmF2. In addition, variations of the foF2 and hpF2 observed at SJC are compared with the IRI-2001 model results of foF2 and hmF2. It should be pointed out that the ionospheric parameter hpF2 is much easier to obtain using computer program developed at UNIVAP compared with hmF2 (using POLAN program). During the daytime due to underlying ionization hpF2 estimated is higher (approximately 50 km) than the true peak height hmF2. During the nighttime hpF2 is fairly close to hmF2. The comparison between the foF2 variations observed at PAL and SJC with the IRI-2007 model results shows a fairly good agreement during all the seasons. However, the comparison between the hpF2 variations observed at PAL and SJC with the hmF2 variations with the IRI-2007 model results shows: (1) a fairly good agreement during the nighttime in all the seasons; (2) the model results do not show the pre-sunrise uplifting of the F-layer at PAL and SJC in any season; (3) the model results do not show the post-sunset uplifting of the F-layer at PAL; (4) considering that, in general, hpF2 is higher than hmF2 during the daytime by about 50 km, the model results are in good agreement at PAL and SJC during all the seasons except summer at SJC, when large discrepancies in the observed hpF2 and modeled hmF2 are observed. Also, it has been observed that, in general, hmF2 values for SJC calculated using IRI-2001 are higher than IRI-2007 during the daytime in winter, summer, and fall. However, hmF2 values for SJC calculated using IRI-2001, are lower than IRI-2007 during the nighttime in spring.     

Comparison between observed ionospheric foF2 and IRI-2001 predictions over periods of severe geomagnetic activities at Grahamstown,South Africa

The observed ionospheric F2 critical frequency (foF2) values over a South Africa mid-latitude station, Grahamstown, (geographic coordinates: 33.3°S, 26.5°E), were analysed and compared with International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) model, using the CCIR (Comite´ Consultatif International des Radio communications) and URSI (Union Radio-Scientifique Internationale) coefficients, during four geomagnetically disturbed days in the year 2000. These days are April 5, May 23, August 10 and September 15. The data were analysed for five days around the storm day. Comparisons between the IRI-2001 predicted foF2 values, using both CCIR and URSI coefficients and the observed values are shown with their root-mean-square error (RMSE) and the relative deviation module mean (rdmm) for the various storm periods. The CCIR option performed more accurately than the URSI option.     

Evaluation of the improvement of IRI-2016 over IRI-2012 at the India low-latitude region during the ascending phase of cycle 24

This paper investigated the performance of the latest International Reference Ionosphere model (IRI-2016) over that of IRI-2012 in predicting total electron content (TEC) at three different stations in the Indian region. The data used were Global Positioning System (GPS) data collected during the ascending phase of solar cycle 24 over three low-latitude stations in India namely; Bangalore (13.02°N Geographic latitude, 77.57°E Geographic longitude), Hyderabad (17.25°N Geographic latitude, 78.30°E Geographic longitude) and Surat (21.16°N Geographic latitude, 72.78°E Geographic longitude). Monthly, the seasonal and annual variability of GPS-TEC have been compared with those derived from International Reference Ionosphere IRI-2016 and IRI-2012 with two different options of topside electron density: NeQuick and IRI01-corr. It is observed that both versions of IRI (i.e., IRI-2012 and IRI-2016) predict the GPS-TEC with some deviations, the latest version of IRI (IRI-2016) predicted the TEC similar to those predicted by IRI-2012 for all the seasons at all stations except for morning hours (0500 LT to 1000?LT). This shows that the effect of the updated version is seen only during morning hours and also that there is no change in TEC values by IRI-2016 from those predicted by IRI-2012 for the rest of the time of the day in the Indian low latitude region. The semiannual variations in the daytime maximum values of TEC are clearly observed from both GPS and model-derived TEC values with two peaks around March-April and September-October months of each year. Further, the Correlation of TEC derived by IRI-2016 and IRI-2012 with EUV and F10.7 shows similar results. This shows that the solar input to the IRI-2016 is similar to IRI 2012. There is no significant difference observed in TEC, bottom-side thickness (B0) and shape (B1) parameter predictions by both the versions of the IRI model. However, a clear improvement is visible in hmF2 and NmF2 predictions by IRI-2016 to that by IRI-2012. The SHU-2015 option of the IRI-2016 gives a better prediction of NmF2 for all the months at low latitude station Ahmedabad compare to AMTB 2013.     

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.     

Midday bottomside electron density profiles during moderate solar activity and comparison with IRI-2001

Bottomside electron density (Ne-h) profiles during midday (10–14 h) are analyzed using modern digital ionosonde observations at a low-middle latitude station, New Delhi (28.6N, 77.2E, dip 42.4N), for the period from January 2003 to December 2003, pertaining to moderate solar activity (MSA). Each individual profile is normalized with respect to the peak height and density (hmF2, NmF2) of the F2-region. These profiles are compared with those obtained from the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI-2001) model. Bilitza [Bilitza, D. International Reference Ionosphere 2000. Radio Sci. 36 (2), 261–275, 2001] using both the options namely: Gulyaeva’s model [Gulyaeva, T.L. Progress in ionospheric informatics based on electron density profile analysis of ionograms. Adv. Space Res. 7 (6) 39–48, 1987] and B0 Tab. option [Bilitza, D., Radicella, S.M., Reinisch, B.W., Adeniyi, J.O., Mosert Gonzalez, M.E., Zhang, S.R., Obrou, O. New B0 and B1 models for IRI. Adv. Space Res. 25 (1), 89–95, 2000]. The study reveals that during summer and equinox, the IRI model with B0 Tab. option in general, produces better agreement with the observed median profiles, while the IRI predictions using Gulyaeva’s option, overestimate the electron density distribution at all the heights below the F2-peak. However, during winter, in general, the IRI model, using both the options, reveals shows fairly good agreement with the observations.     

Ionospheric variation at Thailand equatorial latitude station: Comparison between observations and IRI-2001 model predictions

In this paper, the F2-layer critical frequency (foF2) and peak height (hmF2) measured by the FM/CW ionosonde at Thailand equatorial latitude station, namely Chumphon (10.72°N, 99.37°E, dip 3.22) are presented. The measurement data during low solar activity from January 2004 to December 2006 are analyzed based on the diurnal, seasonal variation. The results are then compared with IRI-2001 model predictions. Our study shows that: (1) In general, both the URSI and CCIR options of the IRI model give foF2 close to the measured ones, but the CCIR option produces a smaller range of deviation than the URSI option. The agreement during daytime is generally better than during nighttime. Overestimation mostly occurs in 2004 and 2006, while underestimation is during pre-sunrise hours in June solstice in 2005. The peak foF2 around sunset is higher during March equinox and September equinox than the other seasons, with longer duration of maximum levels in March equinox than September equinox. Large coefficients of variability foF2 occur during pre-sunrise hours. Meanwhile, the best agreement between the observed foF2 and the IRI model is obtained in June solstice. (2) In general, The IRI (CCIR) model predicts the observed hmF2 well during daytime in June solstice from 2004–2006, but it overestimates during March equinox, September equinox and December solstice. For nighttime, the model overestimates hmF2 values for all seasons especially during March equinox and September equinox. However, the model underestimates hmF2 values during September equinox and for some cases during June solstice and December solstice at pre-sunrise. The agreement between the IRI model and the hmF2(M3000_OBS) is worst around noontime, post-sunset and pre-sunrise hours. All comparative studies give feedback for new improvements of CCIR and URSI IRI models.     

Comparison of ionosphere characteristic parameters obtained by ionosonde with IRI-2007 model over Southeast Asia

In this work, the foF2 and hmF2 parameters at the conjugate points near the magnetic equator of Southeast Asia are studied and compared with the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) model. Three ionosondes are installed nearly along the magnetic meridian of 100°E; one at the magnetic equator, namely Chumphon (10.72°N, 99.37°E, dip angle 3.0°N), and the other two at the magnetic conjugate points, namely Chiang Mai (18.76°N, 98.93°E, dip angle 12.7°N) and Kototabang (0.2°S, 100.30°E, dip angle 10.1°S). The monthly hourly medians of the foF2 and hmF2 parameters are calculated and compared with the predictions obtained from the IRI-2007 model from January 2004 to February 2007. Our results show that: the variations of foF2 and hmF2 predicted by the IRI-2007 model generally show the similar feature to the observed data. Both parameters generally show better agreement with the IRI predictions during daytime than during nighttime. For foF2, most of the results show that the IRI model overestimates the observed foF2 at the magnetic equator (Chumphon), underestimates at the northern crest (Chiang Mai) and is close to the measured ones at the southern crest of the EIA (Kototabang). For hmF2, the predicted hmF2 values are close to the hmF2(M3000F2_OBS) during daytime. During nighttime, the IRI model gives the underestimation at the magnetic equator and the overestimation at both EIA crests. The results are important for the future improvements of the IRI model for foF2 and hmF2 over Southeast Asia region.     

The variability and IRI2007-predictability of hmF2 over South Africa

This paper presents an investigation into the variability and predictability of the maximum height of the ionospheric F2 layer, hmF2 over the South African region. Data from three South African stations, namely Madimbo (22.4°S, 26.5°E, dip angle: −61.47°), Grahamstown (33.3°S, 26.5°E, dip angle: −64.08°) and Louisvale (28.5°S, 21.2°E, dip angle: −65.44°) were used in this study. The results indicate that hmF2 shows a larger variability around midnight than during the daytime for all seasons. Monthly median hmF2 values were used in all cases and were compared with predictions from the IRI-2007 model, using the URSI (Union Radio-Scientifique Internationale) coefficient option. The analysis covers the diurnal and seasonal hourly hmF2 values for the selected months and time sectors e.g. January, July, April and October for 2003 and 2005. The time ranges between (03h00–23h00 UT; LT = UT + 2h) representing the local sunrise, midday, sunset and midnight hours. The time covers sunrise, midday, sunrise, and midnight hours (03–06h00 UT, 07–11h00 UT, sunrise 16–18h00 UT and 22–23h00 UT; LT = UT + 2h). The dependence of the results on solar activity levels was also investigated. The IRI-2007 predictions follow fairly well the diurnal and seasonal variation patterns of the observed hmF2 values at all the stations. However, the IRI-2007 model overestimates and underestimates the hmF2 value during different months for all the solar activity periods.     

Validation of the STORM model in IRI-2001 at a high latitude station

The International Reference Ionosphere IRI-2001 model contains geomagnetic activity dependence based on an empirical storm time ionospheric correction (STORM model). An extensive validation of the STORM model for the middle latitude region has been performed. In this paper the ability of the STORM model to predict foF2 values at high latitudes is analyzed. For this, ionosonde data obtained at Base Gral. San Martin (68.1°S, 293°E) are compared with those obtained by the IRI-2001 model with or without storm correction during four geomagnetic storms that occurred in 2000 (Rz₁₂ = 117) and 2001 (Rz₁₂ = 111). The results show that predicted values with the STORM model follow the behaviour of foF2 experimental data better than without the STORM model. The relative deviation between measured and predicted foF2 reaches values of up to 24% and 43% with and without the STORM model in IRI-2001, during the main phase of the storms. In order to explain increases of electron density that occurred prior to the storm onset and also decreases of electron density observed during the first part of the recovery of the storm, possible physical mechanisms are discussed.     

A comparison of ionosonde measured foF2 and IRI-2016 predictions over China

A comparison of the ionospheric F-region critical frequency (foF2) between ionosonde measurements and IRI-2016 predictions is studied over China during the period from January 2008 to October 2016. Four stations are selected, and the latitude coverage starts at 49.4°N and ends at 23.2°N with a sequential latitude interval of about 10°, the corresponding geomagnetic latitudes are from 39.5°N to 13.2°N. The results show that the variability of the observed foF2 versus latitudes, seasons, local time and levels of solar activity could be well reproduced by IRI-2016. However, the daily lowest value of foF2 from the IRI-2016 prediction occurs earlier than that from the ionosonde. Around the sunrise, the IRI-2016 prediction shows a very sharp rise and grows much faster than the observed foF2 in every month. The foF2 difference between the two options (URSI and CCIR) in IRI-2016 increases as the F10.7 index decreases. During 2008–2009, the annual average deviations of URSI and CCIR range from ?5% to ?10% and from 5% to ?5%, respectively. Generally, the CCIR performs better than URSI during postsunset under low solar activity or in Equatorial Ionization Anomaly (EIA) region over China, while it shows no large difference in performance with URSI in other locations or for other time.     

Multi-station observation of ionospheric disturbance of March 9 2012 and comparison with IRI-model

The magnetic storm of 9 March 2012 is a single step intense storm (Dst = −143 nT) whose main phase begins around 0100 UT and lasted for almost 11 h. The increases in NmF2 recorded 33% and 67% incidence respectively during the main and the recovery phase of the storm at the stations considered. The increase in hmF2 occurred concurrently with the increase in thickness parameter B0 between 0000 and 1100 UT, and a simultaneous decrease in the shape parameter B1 for the entire mid-latitude stations. Generally, B1 responded to the storm with a decrease away from the quiet day average, and decreased simultaneously with the increase in NmF2. B0 displays higher variability magnitude during daytime than the nighttime period. The occasional differences in the response of the ionospheric parameters to the storm event are attributed to longitudinal differences. Variation in hmF2 and NmF2 is projected to change in B1, but the rationale behind this effect on B1 is still not known and therefore left open. The two IRI options over-estimate the observed values with that of URSI higher than CCIR. The over-estimation was higher during the nighttime than the daytime for NmF2 response for the mid-latitude stations and the reverse for the equatorial station. A fairer fit of the model with the observed for all parameters over Jicamarca suggests that equatorial regions are better represented on the model. Extensive study of B1 and B0 is recommended to arrive at a better performance of IRI.     

Ionospheric behavior of the F2 peak parameters foF2 and hmF2 at Hainan and comparisons with IRI model predictions

Monthly median values of foF2, hmF2 and M(3000)F2 parameters, with hourly time interval resolution for the diurnal variation, obtained with DPS-4 digisonde observations at Hainan (19.4°N, 109.0°E) are used to study the low latitude ionospheric variation behavior. The observational results are compared with the International Reference Ionospheric Model (IRI) predictions. The time period coverage of the data used for the present study is from March 2002 to February 2005. Our present study showed that: (1) In general, IRI predictions using CCIR and URSI coefficients follow well the diurnal and seasonal variation patterns of the experimental values of foF2. However, CCIR foF2 and URSI foF2 IRI predictions systematically underestimate the observed results during most time period of the day, with the percentage difference ΔfoF2 (%) values changing between about −5% and −25%, whereas for a few hours around pre-sunrise, the IRI predictions generally overestimate the observational ones with ΔfoF2 (%) sometimes reaching as large as ∼30%. The agreement between the IRI results and the observational ones is better for the year 2002 than for the other years. The best agreement between the IRI results and the observational ones is obtained in summer when using URSI coefficients, with the seasonal average values of ΔfoF2 (%) being within the limits of ±10%. (2) In general, the IRI predicted hmF2 values using CCIR M(3000)F2 option shows a poor agreement with the observational results. However, when using the measured M(3000)F2 as input, the diurnal variation pattern of hmF2 given by IRI2001 has a much better agreement with the observational one with the detailed fine structures including the pre-sunrise and post-sunset peaks reproduced reasonably well. The agreement between the IRI predicted hmF2 values using CCIR M(30,000)F2 option and the observational ones is worst for the afternoon to post-midnight hours for the high solar activity year 2002. During daytime hours the agreement between the hmF2 values obtained with CCIR M(30,000)F2 option and the observational ones is best for summer season. The discrepancy between the observational hmF2 and that obtained with CCIR M(30,000)F2 option stem from the CCIR M(3000)F2 model, which does not produce the small scale structures observed in the measured M(3000)F2.     

Cross testing of ionosphere models IRI-2001 and IRI-2007, data from satellite altimeters (Topex/Poseidon and Jason-1) and global ionosphere maps

In this study, we use a great body of statistical data covering the entire 23rd solar cycle to cross test data of satellite altimeters, Global Ionosphere Maps and the International Reference Ionosphere models, IRI-2001 and IRI-2007. It is revealed that experimental TEC values of the satellite altimeters regularly exceed the model ones by ∼3 TECU (1 TECU = 10¹⁶ m⁻²). The best possible value of difference between TECs obtained from altimeter and GIM-map data significantly differs for different laboratories: the maximum for CODG data falls on 2.5 TECU, ESAG – 3 TECU, JPLG – 0 TECU, UPCG – 2 TECU. The dependence of experimental and model data root-mean-square deviation on the F10.7 index is shown to be nearly linear. IRI-2001 and IRI-2007 relative errors are characterized by considerable 11-year and annual variations. Given the geomagnetic planetary index K_p under 7, IRI-2001 and IRI-2007 reproduce TEC in the ionosphere with an accuracy of ∼30% relative to measurement data from satellite altimeters. The amplitude of absolute error variations resulting from the difference in ionization enhancement between the model and the real ionosphere during the morning solar terminator transit is ∼5 TECU.     

An evaluation of the IRI-2007 storm time model at low latitude stations

This paper discusses the ability of the International Reference Ionosphere IRI-2007 storm time model to predict foF2 ionospheric parameter during geomagnetic storm periods. Experimental data (based on availability) from two low latitude stations: Vanimo (geographic coordinates, 2.7 °S, 141.3 °E, magnetic coordinates, 12.3 °S, 212.50 °E) and Darwin (geographic coordinates, 12.45 °S, 130.95 °E, magnetic coordinates, 22.9 °S, 202.7 °E) during nine storms that occurred in 2000 (Rz₁₂ = 119), 2001(Rz₁₂ = 111) and 2003 (Rz₁₂ = 64) are compared with those obtained by the IRI-2007 storm model. The results obtained show that the percentage deviation between the experimental and IRI predicted foF2 values during these storm periods is as high as 100% during the main and recovery phases. Based on the values of “relative deviation module mean” (RDMM) obtained (i.e. between 0.08 and 0.60), it is observed that there is a reasonable to poor agreement between measured foF2 values and the IRI-storm model prediction values during main and recovery phases of the storms under investigation. As a result, in addition to other studies that have been carried out from different sectors, more studies are required to be carried out. This will enable IRI community to improve on the present performance of the model. In general the IRI-storm model predictions follow normal trend of the foF2 measured values but does not reproduce well the measured values.     

GPS derived TEC and foF2 variability at an equatorial station and the performance of IRI-model

The ionosphere induces a time delay in transionospheric radio signals such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) signal. The Total Electron Content (TEC) is a key parameter in the mitigation of ionospheric effects on transionospheric signals. The delay in GPS signal induced by the ionosphere is proportional to TEC along the path from the GPS satellite to a receiver. The diurnal monthly and seasonal variations of ionospheric electron content were studied during the year 2010, a year of extreme solar minimum (F10.7 = 81 solar flux unit), with data from the GPS receiver and the Digisonde Portable Sounder (DPS) collocated at Ilorin (Geog. Lat. 8.50°N, Long. 4.50°E, dip −7.9°). The diurnal monthly variation shows steady increases in TEC and F2-layer critical frequency (foF2) from pre-dawn minimum to afternoon maximum and then decreases after sunset. TEC show significant seasonal variation during the daytime between 0900 and 1900 UT (LT = UT + 1 h) with a maximum during the March equinox (about 35 TECU) and minimum during the June solstice (about 24 TECU). The GPS-TEC and foF2 values reveal a weak seasonal anomaly and equinoctial asymmetry during the daytime. The variations observed find their explanations in the amount of solar radiation and neutral gas composition. The measured TEC and foF2 values were compared with last two versions of the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI-2007 and IRI-2012) model predictions using the NeQuick and CCIR (International Radio Consultative Committee) options respectively in the model. In general, the two models give foF2 close to the experimental values, whereas significant discrepancies are found in the predictions of TEC from the models especially during the daytime. The error in height dependent thickness parameter, daytime underestimation of equatorial drift and contributions of electrons from altitudes above 2000 km have been suggested as the possible causes.     

The response of African equatorial foF2 to geomagnetic storms: Comparison between observations and IRI-2007 predictions

This study examines the response of the African equatorial ionospheric foF2 to different levels of geomagnetic storms, using the foF2 hourly data for the year 1989 from Ouagadougou (12.4°N, 1.5°W, dip: 2.8°N). The study also compares the observed data for the selected storm periods with the latest IRI model (IRI-2007). The foF2 values (both observed and predicted) show typical features of daytime peak and post-midnight minimum peak. The response of the ionospheric foF2 over Ouagadougou to storms events, during the night-time and post-midnight hours indicates negative responses of the ionospheric foF2, while that of the daytime hours indicates positive responses. For the investigation on the variability of the observed foF2 with respect to IRI-2007 model, with the exception of the analysis of the 20–22, October, 1989 data, where a midday peak was also observed on the first day, this study reveals two characteristic daily foF2 variability peaks: post-midnight and evening peaks. In addition, for all the geomagnetic storms considered, the URSI and CCIR coefficients of the IRI-2007 model show reasonable correspondence with each other, except for some few discrepancies. For instance, the event of 28–30 August, 1989 shows comparatively higher variability for the URSI coefficient, and at the foF2 peak values, the event of 20–22 October, 1989 shows that the CCIR coefficient is more susceptible to foF2 variability than the URSI coefficient. This study is aimed at providing African inputs for the future improvement of the IRI model.     

Comparison of observed TEC values with IRI-2007 TEC and IRI-2007 TEC with optional foF2 measurements predictions at an equatorial region,Chumphon, Thailand

In this research, as part of working towards improving the IRI over equatorial region, the total electron content (TEC) derived from GPS measurements and IRI-2007 TEC predictions at Chumphon station (10.72°N, 99.37°E), Thailand, during 2004–2006 is analyzed. The seasonal variation of the IRI-2007 TEC predictions is compared with the TEC from the IRI-2007 TEC model with the option of the actual F2 plasma frequency (foF2) measurements as well as the TEC from the GPS and International GNSS service (IGS). The Chumphon station is located at the equatorial region and the low latitude of 3.22°N. For a declining phase of the solar cycle (2004–2006), the study shows that the IRI-2007 TEC underestimates the IRI-2007 TEC with the foF2 observation at the nighttime by about 5 TECU. The maximum differences are about 15 TECU during daytime and 5 TECU during nighttime. The overestimation is more evident at daytime than at nighttime. When compared in terms of the root-mean square error (RMSE), we find that the highest RMSE between GPS TEC and IRI 2007 TEC is 14.840 TECU at 1230 LT in 2004 and the lowest average between them is 1.318 TECU at 0630 LT in 2006. The noon bite-out phenomena are clearly seen in the IRI-2007 TEC with and without optional foF2 measurements, but not on the GPS TEC and IGS TEC. The IRI TEC with optional foF2 measurements gives the lowest RMSE values between IRI TEC predicted and TEC measurement. However, the TEC measurements (GPS TEC and IGS TEC) are more correct to use at Chumphon station.