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.     

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.     

Peculiarities of the nighttime winter foF2 increase over Irkutsk

An analysis of properties and peculiarities of the nighttime winter foF2 increases (NWI) in the East Siberia is made on data of ionospheric station Irkutsk in the periods 1958–1992 and 2002–2009 and the empirical model of the F2 layer critical frequency under the geomagnetic quiet conditions deduced from these data (model Q-F2). It is revealed, that the NWI is the stable regularity of the quiet ionosphere over Irkutsk. The amplitude of the NWI (the difference between maximum and minimum foF2 values at night hours) is the greatest in December–January and nearly the same at low and middle solar activity. It is a peculiarity of the quiet ionosphere in the East Siberia. Maximum in night foF2 under quiet geomagnetic conditions is observed mainly after midnight (02-04 LT) and is shifted to predawn hours as solar activity increases. At low solar activity the quiet ionosphere at ∼02–04 LT shows the following properties: (a) the fluctuations of foF2 and hmF2 are in the reverse correlation but this dependence is weak; (b) very strong fluctuations of foF2 (|δfoF2| > 30%) occur seldom (∼4% of events) and almost all of them are positive; an example of very strong fluctuations of foF2 up to 60% can be an extreme increase in the foF2 on 19.12.2008; (c) the very strong enhancements of foF2 in the NWI maximum can be observed at the low geomagnetic activity, they occur more often during substorms but very seldom during geomagnetic storms. Possible reasons of these properties of NWI are discussed.     

Ionospheric disturbances under low solar activity conditions

The paper is focused on ionospheric response to occasional magnetic disturbances above selected ionospheric stations located at middle latitudes of the Northern and Southern Hemisphere under extremely low solar activity conditions of 2007–2009. We analyzed changes in the F2 layer critical frequency foF2 and the F2 layer peak height hmF2 against 27-days running mean obtained for different longitudinal sectors of both hemispheres for the initial, main and recovery phases of selected magnetic disturbances. Our analysis showed that the effects on the middle latitude ionosphere of weak-to-moderate CIR-related magnetic storms, which mostly occur around solar minimum period, could be comparable with the effects of strong magnetic storms. In general, both positive and negative deviations of foF2 and hmF2 have been observed independent on season and location. However positive effects on foF2 prevailed and were more significant. Observations of stormy ionosphere also showed large departures from the climatology within storm recovery phase, which are comparable with those usually observed during the storm main phase. The IRI STORM model gave no reliable corrections of foF2 for analyzed events.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A southern hemisphere error in the IRI

I would like to call attention to the fact that the IRI computes erroneously the F2-layer semithickness parameter B₀ at southern hemisphere locations. The values of B₀, based on northern latitude observations, have a seasonal variation which must be preserved at southern latitudes.The error was found in the course of a study to develop a new ionospheric model for radio-propagation predictions. We observed at southern latitudes major discrepancies between the IRI and the Bradley-Dudeney (1973) model in relation to the F2-layer semithickness. This is estimated in the latter model as the difference between the height of maximum electron concentration (hmF2) and the ionospheric characteristic h′F,F2, the minimum observed virtual height of reflection from the F2-layer, corrected taking into account underlying ionization. The profiles for both models were drawn using the same values of foF2 and hmF2. Then, our analysis served also to test the IRI model with h′F,F2 data obtained from CCIR maps but not used as primary inputs by the IRI.     

地球磁层亚暴统计分析

利用AL和AE指数对第24个太阳活动周发生的亚暴事件进行统计分析.主要统计了关于磁层亚暴的强度,亚暴初值与恢复值的关系,亚暴持续时间,亚暴恢复相与增长相（包括膨胀相）持续时间的关系等.统计结果表明:在第24个太阳活动周中2008-2016年发生的亚暴事件大部分比较剧烈,其峰值大都在200～1200nT;初值和恢复值大都在30～100nT,并且事件占比符合正态分布;大部分亚暴都能恢复到亚暴初值60nT以内,并且差值越小,事件的占比越大.大部分亚暴的持续时间较长,在100～400min之间,其中增长相（包括膨胀相）持续时间均在120min以内,并且持续时间越长,其事件占比越小;大部分亚暴事件的恢复相持续时间在60～300min之间,并且呈现出正态分布特征.绝大多数亚暴事件的恢复相持续时间为增长相持续时间的10倍以下,其中约一半亚暴事件的恢复相持续时间为增长相持续时间的1～4倍.这说明亚暴的能量聚集速度约为能量释放速度的1～4倍.      

A new method for improving the performance of an ionospheric model developed by multi-instrument measurements based on artificial neural network

There are remarkable ionospheric discrepancies between space-borne (COSMIC) measurements and ground-based (ionosonde) observations, the discrepancies could decrease the accuracies of the ionospheric model developed by multi-source data seriously. To reduce the discrepancies between two observational systems, the peak frequency (foF2) and peak height (hmF2) derived from the COSMIC and ionosonde data are used to develop the ionospheric models by an artificial neural network (ANN) method, respectively. The averaged root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) of COSPF (COSMIC peak frequency model), COSPH (COSMIC peak height model), IONOPF (Ionosonde peak frequency model) and IONOPH (Ionosonde peak height model) are 0.58 MHz, 19.59 km, 0.92 MHz and 23.40 km, respectively. The results indicate that the discrepancies between these models are dependent on universal time, geographic latitude and seasons. The peak frequencies measured by COSMIC are generally larger than ionosonde’s observations in the nighttime or middle-latitudes with the amplitude of lower than 25%, while the averaged peak height derived from COSMIC is smaller than ionosonde’s data in the polar regions. The differences between ANN-based maps and references show that the discrepancies between two ionospheric detecting techniques are proportional to the intensity of solar radiation. Besides, a new method based on the ANN technique is proposed to reduce the discrepancies for improving ionospheric models developed by multiple measurements, the results indicate that the RMSEs of ANN models optimized by the method are 14–25% lower than the models without the application of the method. Furthermore, the ionospheric model built by the multiple measurements with the application of the method is more powerful in capturing the ionospheric dynamic physics features, such as equatorial ionization, Weddell Sea, mid-latitude summer nighttime and winter anomalies. In conclusion, the new method is significant in improving the accuracy and physical characteristics of an ionospheric model based on multi-source observations.     

Parameterized Regional Ionospheric Model and a comparison of its results with experimental data and IRI representations

We describe a Parameterized Regional Ionospheric Model (PARIM) to calculate the spatial and temporal variations of the ionospheric electron density/plasma frequency over the Brazilian sector. The ionospheric plasma frequency values as calculated from an enhanced Sheffield University Plasmasphere–Ionosphere Model (SUPIM) were used to construct the model. PARIM is a time-independent 3D regional model (altitude, longitude/local time, latitude) used to reproduce SUPIM plasma frequencies for geomagnetic quiet condition, for any day of the year and for low to moderately high solar activity. The procedure to obtain the modeled representation uses finite Fourier series so that all plasma frequency dependencies can be represented by Fourier coefficients. PARIM presents very good results, except for the F region peak height (hmF2) near the geomagnetic equator during times of occurrence of the F₃ layer. The plasma frequency calculated by IRI from E region to bottomside of the F region present latitudinal discontinuities during morning and evening times for both solar minimum and solar maximum conditions. Both the results of PARIM and the IRI for the E region peak density show excellent agreement with the observational values obtained during the conjugate point equatorial experiment (COPEX) campaign. The IRI representations significantly underestimate the foF2 and hmF2 compared to the observational results over the COPEX sites, mainly during the evening–nighttime period.     

Towards a new reference model of hmF2 for IRI

A numerical model of the peak height of the F2 layer, hmF2_top, is derived from the topside sounding database of 90,000 electron density profiles for a representative set of conditions provided by ISIS1, ISIS2, IK19 and Cosmos-1809 satellites for the period of 1969–1987. The model of regular hmF2 variations is produced in terms of local time, season, geomagnetic latitude, geodetic longitude and solar radio flux. No geomagnetic activity trends were discernible in the topside sounding data. The nighttime peak of hmF2_top evident for mid-latitudes disappears near the geomagnetic equator where a maximum of hmF2_top occurs at sunset hours when it can exceed 500 km at solar maximum. The hmF2 given by the IRI exceeds hmF2_top at the low solar activities. The hmF2_top, obtained by extrapolation of the first derivative of the topside profile to zero shows saturation similar to foF2 the greater the solar activity. The proposed model differs from hmF2 given by IRI based on M(3000)F2 to hmF2 conversion by empirical relationships in terms of foF2, foE and R12 with these quantities mapped globally by the ITU-R (former CCIR) from ground-based ionosonde data. The differences can be attributed to the different techniques of the peak height derivation, different epochs and different global distribution of the source data as well as the different mathematical functions involved in the maps and the model presentation.     

Linkage of the ionospheric peak electron density and height deduced from the topside sounding data

Topside sounding electron density profiles are analyzed to explore interrelations of the F2 layer critical frequency and the peak height for a representative set of conditions provided by ISIS1, ISIS2, IK19 and Cosmos-1809 satellites for the period of 1969–1987. The foF2 and hmF2 are delivered with exponential extrapolation of electron density profile to zero of its 1st derivative. It is shown that the linear regression exists between foF2 and hmF2 under different conditions. The linkage between the two parameters amended to the empirical model of the peak height [Gulyaeva, T.L., Bradley, P.A., Stanislawska, I., Juchnikowski, G. Towards a new reference model of hmF2 for IRI. Adv. Space Res. 42, 666–672, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2008.02.021, 2008] results in an empirical model of the both foF2 and hmF2 expressed by superposition of functions in terms of local-time, season, geodetic longitude, modified dip latitude and solar activity. For the solar activity we use a proxy Fsp index averaged from the mean solar radio flux F10.7s for the past 81 days (3 solar rotations) and F10.7 value for 1 day prior the day of observation. Impact of geomagnetic activity is not discernible with the topside sounding data due to mixed positive and negative storm-time effects. Appreciable differences have been revealed between IRI-CCIR predictions and outcome of the new model which might be attributed to the different techniques of the peak electron density and height derivation, different epochs and different global distribution of the source data as well as the different mathematical functions involved in the maps and the model presentation.     

Do we understand the inner magnetotail dynamics during substorms?

Substorm evolution of the near-Earth (|X|<15 R_E) plasma sheet has been emphasized recently because the inner tail is thought to link closely to the substorm auroral activity in the ionosphere during the early stage of substorms. In this paper, we discuss how the inner tail substorm phenomena during the late substorm growth phase and early expansion phase are accounted for by the two prevailing substorm models, namely, the near-Earth neutral line model and the current disruption model. We find that the late growth phase features are more satisfactorily accounted for by the current disruption model than by the near-Earth neutral line model. In addition, detailed observations on current disruption show evidence inconsistent with the proposed idea of dipolarization being due to plasma flow braking from reconnection in the mid-tail region, which poses a difficulty to the near-Earth neutral line model as well.     

Responses of ionospheric foF2 to geomagnetic activities in Hainan

Responses of low-latitude ionospheric critical frequency of F2 layer to geomagnetic activities in different seasons and under different levels of solar activity are investigated by analyzing the ionospheric foF2 data from DPS-4 Digisonde in Hainan Observatory during 2002–2005. The results are as follows: (1) the response of foF2 to geomagnetic activity in Hainan shows obvious diurnal variation except for the summer in low solar activity period. Generally, geomagnetic activity will cause foF2 to increase at daytime and decrease at nighttime. The intensity of response of foF2 is stronger at nighttime than that at daytime; (2) seasonal dependence of the response of foF2 to geomagnetic activity is very obvious. The negative ionospheric storm effect is the strongest in summer and the positive ionospheric storm effect is the strongest in winter; (3) the solar cycle has important effect on the response of foF2 to geomagnetic activity in Hainan. In high solar activity period, the diurnal variation of the response of foF2 is very pronounced in each season, and the strong ionospheric response can last several days. In low solar activity period, ionospheric response has very pronounced diurnal variation in winter only; (4) the local time of geomagnetic activities occurring also has important effect on the responses of foF2 in Hainan. Generally, geomagnetic activities occurred at nighttime can cause stronger and longer responses of foF2 in Hainan.     

Improvement of the real time total electron content based on the International Reference Ionosphere model

One of the methods to adapt the International Reference Ionosphere model to real time conditions is to use instantaneous values of the critical frequency of the ionosphere foF2. It is shown that there can be large discrepancies between model and experimental values of the total electron content TEC after this adaptation. Improvement can be provided by the use of an empirical model of the ionospheric slab thickness τ. This conclusion is based on analysis of contributions of various correction factors connected with foF2 and τ into discrepancies between model and experimental values of TEC.     

Stability of the seasonal variations in diurnal and semidiurnal components of mid-latitude F2 layer parameters

We report work utilizing 15-min resolution ionospheric data obtained with DPS-4 digisonde in 2003–2011 to study the seasonal variations in amplitudes and phases of the most powerful spectral components of the F2 layer critical frequency (foF2) and peak height (hmF2) fluctuations over Irkutsk (52.5°N, 104.0°E). We show that fluctuations of both parameters contain quasi-harmonic components with periods of T_n = 24/n h (n = 1–7). The number of distinct spectral peaks varies from 3 in summer to 7 in winter. Amplitude and phase characteristics of the diurnal (n = 1) and semidiurnal (n = 2) components is studied using the data sets extracted from the original data sets with band-pass filter. It has been found that the amplitudes of diurnal/semidiurnal foF2 and diurnal hmF2 components are maximum in winter and minimum in summer. Amplitudes of the diurnal components vary gradually; those of the foF2 semidiurnal one, abruptly, thus forming a narrow winter maximum in November–January. The phase (local time of maximum) of the diurnal foF2 component increases gradually by 4–6 h from winter to summer. The phase of the semidiurnal foF2 component is nearly stable in winter/summer and sharply decreases (increases) by 2–3 h near the spring (autumn) equinox. The phase of the diurnal component of hmF2 (local time of minimum) varies slightly between 1130 and 1300 LT; that of the semidiurnal one decreases (increases) by 4–6 h from January to March (from September to November). The results obtained show that the main features of seasonal variations in the diurnal and semidiurnal components of the mid-latitude F2 layer parameters recur consistently during the solar activity growth and decline phases.     

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.