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.     

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.