Calibration of IRI–ITU-R peak density and height over the oceans with topside sounding data

Accuracy of IRI electron density profile depends on the F2 layer peak density and height converted by empirical formulae from the critical frequency and M3000F2 factor provided by the ITU-R (former CCIR). The CCIR/ITU-R maps generated from ground-based ionosonde measurements suffer from model assumptions, in particular, over the oceans where relatively few measurements are available due to a scarcity of ground-based ionosondes. In the present study a grid-point calibration of IRI/ITU-R maps for the foF2 and hmF2 over the oceans is proposed using modeling results based on the topside true-height profiles provided by ISIS1, ISIS2, IK-19 and Cosmos-1809 satellites for the period of 1969–1987. Topside soundings results are compared with IRI and the Russian standard model of ionosphere, SMI, and grouped to provide an empirical calibration coefficient to the peak density and height generated from ITU-R maps. The grid-point calibration coefficients maps are produced in terms of the solar activity, geodetic latitude and longitude, universal time and season allowing update of IRI–ITU-R predictions of the F2 layer peak parameters.     

Modelling bottom and topside electron density and TEC with profile data from topside ionograms

The paper describes the technique that has been implemented to model the electron density distribution above and below the F2 peak making use of only the profiles obtained from the INTERCOSMOS-19 topside ionograms. Each single profile from the satellite height to the ionosphere peak has been fitted by a semi-Epstein layer function of the type used in the DGR model with shape factor variable with altitude. The topside above the satellite height has been extrapolated to match given values of plasmaspheric electron densities to obtain the full topside profile. The bottomside electron density has been calculated by using the maximum electron density and its altitude estimated from the topside ionogram as input for a modified version of the DGR derived profiler that uses model values for the foF1 and foE layers of the ionosphere. Total electron content has also been calculated. Longitudinal cross sections of vertical profiles from latitudes 50° N to 50° S latitude are shown for low and high geomagnetic activity. These cross sections indicate the equatorial anomaly effect and the changes of the shape of low latitude topside ionosphere during geomagnetic active periods. These results and the potentiality of the technique are discussed.     

Examining the use of the NeQuick bottomside and topside parameterizations at high latitudes

An examination of the high latitude performance of the bottomside and topside F-layer parameterizations of the NeQuick electron density model is presented using measurements from high latitude ionosonde and Incoherent Scatter Radar (ISR) facilities.For the bottomside, we present a comparison between modeled and measured B2Bot thickness parameter. In this comparison, it is seen that the use of the NeQuick parameterization at high latitudes results in significantly underestimated bottomside thicknesses, regularly exceeding 50%. We show that these errors can be attributed to two main issues in the NeQuick parameterization:(1) through the relationship relating foF2 and M3000F2 to the maximum derivative of F2 electron density, which is used to derive the bottomside thickness, and (2) through a fundamental inability of a constant thickness parameter, semi-Epstein shape function to fit the curvature of the high latitude F-region electron density profile.For the topside, a comparison is undertaken between the NeQuick topside thickness parameterization, using measured and CCIR-modeled ionospheric parameters, and that derived from fitting the NeQuick topside function to Incoherent Scatter Radar-measured topside electron density profiles. Through this comparison, we show that using CCIR-derived foF2 and M3000F2, used in both the NeQuick and IRI, results in significantly underestimated topside thickness during summer periods, overestimated thickness during winter periods, and an overall tendency to underestimate diurnal, seasonal, and solar cycle variability. These issues see no improvement through the use of measured foF2 and M(3000)F2 values. Such measured parameters result in a tendency for the parametrization to produce a declining trend in topside thickness with increasing solar activity, to produce damped seasonal variations, and to produce significantly overestimated topside thickness during winter periods.     

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.     

NeQuick 2 and IRI Plas VTEC predictions for low latitude and South American sector

Using vertical total electron content (VTEC) measurements obtained from GPS satellite signals the capability of the NeQuick 2 and IRI Plas models to predict VTEC over the low latitude and South American sector is analyzed. In the present work both models were used to calculate VTEC up to the height of GPS satellites. Also, comparisons between the performance of IRI Plas and IRI 2007 have been done. The data correspond to June solstice and September equinox 1999 (high solar activity) and they were obtained at nine stations. The considered latitude range extends from 18.4°N to ?64.7°N and the longitude ranges from 281.3°E to 295.9°E in the South American sector. The greatest discrepancies among model predictions and the measured VTEC are obtained at low latitudes stations placed in the equatorial anomaly region. Underestimations as strong as 40?TECU [1?TECU?=?10¹⁶?m^?2] can be observed at BOGT station for September equinox, when NeQuick2 model is used. The obtained results also show that: (a) for June solstice, in general the performance of IRI Plas for low latitude stations is better than that of NeQuick2 and, vice versa, for highest latitudes the performance of NeQuick2 is better than that of IRI Plas. For the stations TUCU and SANT both models have good performance; (b) for September equinox the performances of the models do not follow a clearly defined pattern as in the other season. However, it can be seen that for the region placed between the Northern peak and the valley of the equatorial anomaly, in general, the performance of IRI Plas is better than that of NeQuick2 for hours of maximum ionization. From TUCU to the South, the best TEC predictions are given by NeQuick2.The source of the observed deviations of the models has been explored in terms of CCIR foF2 determination in the available ionosonde stations in the region. Discrepancies can be also related to an unrealistic shape of the vertical electron density profile and or an erroneous prediction of the plasmaspheric contribution to the vertical total electron content. Moreover, the results of this study could be suggesting that in the case of NeQuick, the underestimation trend could be due to the lack of a proper plasmaspheric model in its topside representation. In contrast, the plasmaspheric model included in IRI, leads to clear overestimations of GPS derived TEC.     

Adaptation of the bottomside electron density profile of the IRI model to data of topside radiosounding

A method is proposed for reconstructing the electron density profiles N(h) of the IRI model from ionograms of topside satellite sounding of the ionosphere. An ionograms feature is the presence of traces of signal reflection from the Earth's surface. The profile reconstruction is carried out in two stages. At the first stage, the N(h) –profile is calculated from the lower boundary of the ionosphere to the satellite height (total profile) by the method presented in this paper using the ionogram. In this case, the monotonic profile of the topside ionosphere is calculated by the classical method. The profile of the inner ionosphere is represented by analytical functions, the parameters of which are calculated by optimization methods using traces of signal reflection, both from the topside ionosphere and from the Earth. At the second stage, the profile calculated from the ionogram is used to obtain the key parameters: the height of the maximum hmF2 of the F2 layer, the critical frequency foF2, the values of B0 and B1, which determine the profile shape in the F region in the IRI model. The input of key parameters, time of observation, and coordinates of sounding into the IRI model allows obtaining the IRI-profile corrected to real experimental conditions. The results of using the data of the ISIS-2 satellite show that the profiles calculated from the ionograms and the IRI profiles corrected from them are close to each other in the inner ionosphere and can differ significantly in the topside ionosphere. This indicates the possibility of obtaining a profile in the inner ionosphere close to the real distribution, which can significantly expand the information database useful for the IRTAM (IRI Realmax Assimilative Modeling) model. The calculated profiles can be used independently for local ionospheric research.     

A new global F2 peak electron density model for the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI)

A new neural network (NN) based global empirical model for the F2 peak electron density (NmF2) has been developed using extended temporal and spatial geophysical relevant inputs. Measured ground based ionosonde data, from 84 global stations, spanning the period 1995 to 2005 and, for a few stations from 1976 to 1986, obtained from various resources of the World Data Centre (WDC) archives (Space Physics Interactive Data Resource SPIDR, the Digital Ionogram Database, DIDBase, and IPS Radio and Space Services) have been used for training a NN. The training data set includes all periods of quiet and disturbed magnetic activity. A comprehensive comparison for all conditions (e.g., magnetic storms, levels of solar activity, season, different regions of latitudes, etc.) between foF2 value predictions using the NN based model and International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) model (including both the International Union of Radio Science (URSI) and International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) coefficients) with observed values was investigated. The root-mean-square (RMS) error differences for a few selected stations are presented in this paper. The results of the foF2 NN model presented in this work successfully demonstrate that this new model can be used as a replacement option for the URSI and CCIR maps within the IRI model for the purpose of F2 peak electron density predictions.     

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 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.     

Comparing TOPEX TEC measurements with IRI predictions

TEC values obtained from TOPEX satellite were compared with the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) 2001 model estimates. The present work also shows results of the IRI model with the option of a new topside electron density distribution (NeQuick model). TOPEX TEC measurements, which include years of high and middle to low solar activity (2000 and 2004), were analyzed by binning the region covered by the satellite (±66°) every five degrees of modip. In general, there is good agreement between IRI predictions and Topex measurements. Cases with large disagreements are observed at low and high latitudes during high solar activity. Comparing the model predictions using the default IRI2001 model and the NeQuick topside option show that the default IRI 2001 version represents the observed data in a more realistic way, but appears to be less reliable at high and low latitudes in some cases.     

Monthly mean foF2 model for an African low-latitude station and comparison with IRI

We have employed the hourly values of the ionospheric F-region critical frequency (foF2) obtained from Ouagadougou ionosonde, Burkina Faso (geographic coordinates 12° N, 1.8° W) during the interval of 1985–1995 (solar cycle 22) and solar radio flux of 10 cm wavelength (F10.7) to develop a local model (LM) for the African low-latitude station. The model was developed from regression analysis method, using the two-segmented regression analysis. We validated LM with foF2 data from Korhogo observatory, Cote d’Ivorie (geographical coordinates 9.3° N, 5.4° W). LM as well as the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) agrees well with observations. LM gave some improvement on the IRI-predicted foF2 values at the sunrise (06 LT) at all solar flux levels and in all seasons except June solstice. The performance of the models at the representing the salient features of the equatorial foF2 was presented. Considering daytime and nighttime performances, LM and IRI are comparable in low solar activity (LSA), LM performed better than IRI in moderate solar activity (MSA), while IRI performed better than LM in high solar activity (HSA). CCIR has a root mean square error (r.m.s.e), which is only 0.10 MHz lower than that of LM while LM has r.m.s.e, which is about 0.05 MHz lower than that of URSI. In general, our result shows that performance of IRI, especially the CCIR option of the IRI, is quite comparable with the LM. The improved performance of IRI is a reflection of the numerous contributions of ionospheric physicists in the African region, larger volume of data for the IRI and the diversity of data sources, as well as the successes of the IRI task force activities.     

Validate the IRI2007 model by the COSMIC slant TEC data during the extremely solar minimum of 2008

During 2008, the solar activity is extremely low. The satellite observations show that the ionospheric height and electron density is much lower than the predictions by the international reference ionosphere (IRI) model. In this paper, we compared the slant total electron content (TEC) observed by the COSMIC satellites during 2008 with the IRI model results. It is found that the IRI model with IRI2001 and IRI2001 Cor. topside options will always overestimate the electron density in both lower and higher altitudes. But the rest two topside options (NeQuick, and TTS) tend to overestimate the electron density in the F layer and underestimate it in the topside altitudes. The switch altitude between overestimation and underestimation and the latitude-local time distribution of the model deviation depend on the topside option. The current investigation might be useful for the model improvement as well as data assimilation work based on the IRI model and the LEO TEC data.     

Global validation of IRI TEC for high and medium solar activity conditions

The IRI model offers a choice of options for the computation of the electron density profile and electron content (TEC). Recently new options for the topside electron density profile have been developed, which have a strong impact on TEC. Therefore it is important to test massively the IRI and the new options with experimental data. A large number of permanent stations record dual frequency GPS data from which it is possible to obtain TEC values. Thirty-one worldwide distributed stations have been selected to investigate the capabilities of the IRI to reproduce experimental TEC. Data for years 2000 (high solar activity) and 2004 (medium solar activity) have been analyzed computing modeled values with the IRI-2001 and the IRI-2007-NeQuick topside options. It is found that IRI-2007-NeQuick option generally improves the estimate of the slant TEC, especially in the case of high latitudes stations during high solar activity.     

Equatorial anomaly according to the Interkosmos-19 data and IRI model: A comparison

The comparison of the IRI model with the foF2 distribution in the equatorial anomaly region obtained by topside sounding onboard the Interkosmos-19 satellite has been carried out. The global distribution of foF2 in terms of LT-maps was constructed by averaging Intercosmos-19 data for summer, winter, and equinox. These maps, in fact, represent an empirical model of the equatorial anomaly for high solar activity F10.7 ~ 200. The comparison is carried out for the latitudinal foF2 profiles in the characteristic longitudinal sectors of 30, 90, 210, 270, and 330°, as well as for the longitudinal variations in foF2 over the equator. The largest difference between the models (up to 60%) for any season was found in the Pacific longitudinal sector of 210°, where there are a few ground-based sounding stations. Considerable discrepancies, however, are sometimes observed in the longitudinal sectors, where there are many ground-based stations, for example, in the European or Indian sector. The discrepancies reach their maximum at 00 LT, since a decay of the equatorial anomaly begins before midnight in the IRI model and after midnight according to the Interkosmos-19 data. The discrepancies are also large in the morning at 06 LT, since in the IRI model, the foF2 growth begins long before sunrise. In the longitudinal variations in foF2 over the equator at noon, according to the satellite data, four harmonics are distinguished in the June solstice and at the equinox, and three harmonics in the December solstice, while in the IRI model only two and one harmonics respectively are revealed. In diurnal variations in foF2 and, accordingly, in the equatorial anomaly intensity, the IRI model does not adequately reproduce even the main, evening extremum.     

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.     

Evaluation of the IRI-2007 model options for the topside electron density

The International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) 2007 provides two new options for the topside electron density profile: (a) a correction of the IRI-2001 model, and (b) the NeQuick topside formula. We use the large volume of Alouette 1, 2 and ISIS 1, 2 topside sounder data to evaluate these two new options with special emphasis on the uppermost topside where IRI-2001 showed the largest discrepancies. We will also study the accurate representation of profiles in the equatorial anomaly region where the profile function has to accommodate two latitudinal maxima (crests) at lower altitudes but only a single maximum (at the equator) higher up. In addition to IRI-2001 and the two new IRI-2007 options we also include the Intercosmos-based topside model of Triskova, Truhlik, and Smilauer [Triskova, L., Truhlik, V., Smilauer, J. An empirical topside electron density model for calculation of absolute ion densities in IRI. Adv. Space Res. 37 (5), 928–934, 2006] (TTS model) in our analysis. We find that overall IRI-2007-NeQ gives the best results but IRI-2007-corrected provides a more realistic representation of the altitudinal–latitudinal structure in the equatorial anomaly region. The applicability of the TTS model is limited by the fact that it is not normalized to the F2 peak density and height.     

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.     

On the use of NeQuick topside option in IRI-2007

The latest version of IRI includes various options for the computation of the topside electron density profile. One of the possible choices is based on NeQuick model. Its inclusion in IRI has been made transferring all the formulations used in NeQuick model. In details, an Epstein layer function is used to describe the electron density profile and the topside shape is controlled by an empirical parameter, connected to the NeQuick F2 bottomside thickness parameter, B2bot. It is computed also in this IRI topside option in order to maintain self-consistency with its original formulation. This paper analyses the possibility of using the IRI bottomside parameters for this option and its impact on the profile and TEC. The case of experimental peak values given as input is also analysed.     

On the relative abundance of helium ions in the topside ionosphere

Based on data from satellite INTERCOSMOS-BULGARIA-1300, the latitudinal distribution of oxygen and helium ions in the topside ionosphere is discussed for night-time equinox at high solar activity. A comparison with the corresponding IRI-79 distribution is made. The vertical IRI ion composition profile is checked with measurements made with VERTICAL-10 rocket. Some recommendations are made in order to improve the IRI-modelling of the ion composition in the topside ionosphere.