Comparison of FORMOSAT‐3/COSMIC radio occultation measurements with radio tomography

Thampi, Smitha V.; Yamamoto, M.; Lin, Charles; Liu, Huixin

doi:10.1029/2010rs004431

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wen et al (2007) [13] investigated the temporal and spatial variations in IED during a magnetic storm. Thampi et al (2011) [14] investigated the correlations between the electron density enhancements and equatorial ionospheric anomaly (EIA) as well as summer nighttime anomaly. Chen et al (2016) [15] analyzed medium-scale traveling ionospheric disturbances (MSTIDs) and Nesterov et al (2017) [16] proposed some ionospheric perturbation indexes based on tomography results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Voxel-Based Computerized Ionospheric Tomography with GNSS Ground Receivers

Wan

2021

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ionized by solar radiation, the ionosphere causes a phase rotation or time delay to trans-ionospheric radio waves. Reconstruction of ionospheric electron density profiles with global navigation satellite system (GNSS) observations has become an indispensable technique for various purposes ranging from space physics studies to radio applications. This paper conducts a comprehensive review on the development of voxel-based computerized ionospheric tomography (CIT) in the last 30 years. A brief introduction is given in chronological order starting from the first report of CIT with simulation to the newly proposed voxel-based algorithms for ionospheric event analysis. The statement of the tomographic geometry and voxel models are outlined with the ill-posed and ill-conditioned nature of CIT addressed. With the additional information from other instrumental observations or initial models supplemented to make the coefficient matrix less ill-conditioned, equation constructions are categorized into constraints, virtual data assimilation and multi-source observation fusion. Then, the paper classifies and assesses the voxel-based CIT algorithms of the algebraic method, statistical approach and artificial neural networks for equation solving or electron density estimation. The advantages and limitations of the algorithms are also pointed out. Moreover, the paper illustrates the representative height profiles and two-dimensional images of ionospheric electron densities from CIT. Ionospheric disturbances studied with CIT are presented. It also demonstrates how the CIT benefits ionospheric correction and ionospheric monitoring. Finally, some suggestions are provided for further research about voxel-based CIT.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure14. Tomographic images of an ionospheric trough from 0800 to 0900 UT along a geomagnetic longitude of 31 • E (from[88]).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Voxel-Based Computerized Ionospheric Tomography with GNSS Ground Receivers

Wan

2021

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It takes about 94.6 min to complete a circular orbit, thus about 15 orbits per day. The revisiting period of CSES is 5 d, which means the satellite will nearly repeat the orbits after 5 d. At present, the observation range of the CSES satellite is mainly between −65 and +65 • of geographic latitudes (Wang et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Validation of the COSMIC electron density measurements has been performed in numerous studies using different measurements, such as the cross-validation of the retrieved profiles from nearby spacecraft in the same COSMIC mission (Schreiner et al, 2007), comparison with ground-based ionosondes and ISRs (Cherniak and Zakharenkova, 2014;Chu et al, 2010;Chuo et al, 2011;Habarulema et al, 2014;Kelley et al, 2009;Krankowski et al, 2011;Lei et al, 2007;McNamara and Thompson, 2015), comparison with the in situ electron density measurements (Lai et al, 2013;Pedatella et al, 2015;Yue et al, 2011), comparison with radio tomography data using a space climatology phenomenon (Thampi et al, 2011), comparison with the ionospheric model International Reference Ionosphere (IRI; Lei et al, 2007;Wu et al, 2015;Yang et al, 2009), and so on. As COSMIC RO data have been extensively validated and widely accepted for application, COSMIC RO data are used to validate the in situ plasma density observations from the Swarm constellation (Lomidze et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of CSES ionospheric RO data with COSMIC measurements

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. CSES (China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite) is a newly launched electric-magnetic satellite in China. A GNSS occultation receiver (GOR) is installed on the satellite to retrieve electron density related parameters. In order to validate the radio occultation (RO) data from the GOR on board CSES, a comparison between CSES RO and the co-located COSMIC RO data is conducted to check the consistency and reliability of the CSES RO data using measurements from 12 February 2018 to 31 March 2019. CSES RO peak values (NmF2), peak heights (hmF2), and electron density profiles (EPDs) are compared with corresponding COSMIC measurements in this study. The results show that (1) NmF2 between CSES and COSMIC is in extremely good agreement, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9898. The near-zero bias between the two sets is 0.005363×105 cm−3 with a RMSE of 0.3638×105 cm−3, and the relative bias is 1.97 % with a relative RMSE of 16.17 %, which are in accordance with previous studies according to error propagation rules. (2) hmF2 between the two missions is also in very good agreement with a correlation coefficient of 0.9385; the mean difference between the two sets is 0.59 km with a RMSE of 12.28 km, which is within the error limits of previous studies. (3) Co-located EDPs between the two sets are generally in good agreement, but with a better agreement for data above 200 km than those below this altitude. Data at the peak height ranges show the best agreement, and then data above the peak regions; data below the peak regions, especially at the altitude of about the E layer, show relatively large fluctuations. It is concluded that CSES RO data are in good agreement with COSMIC measurements, and the CSES RO data are applicable for most ionosphere-related studies considering the wide acceptance and application of COSMIC RO measurements. However, particular attention should be paid to EDP data below peak regions in application as data at the bottom side of the profiles are less reliable than that at the peak and topside regions.

show abstract

F region electron density profile inversion from backscatter ionogram based on international reference ionosphere

Zhu

Zhou

Zhang

et al. 2015

Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of FORMOSAT‐3/COSMIC radio occultation measurements with radio tomography

Cited by 3 publications

References 44 publications

A Review of Voxel-Based Computerized Ionospheric Tomography with GNSS Ground Receivers

A Review of Voxel-Based Computerized Ionospheric Tomography with GNSS Ground Receivers

Comparison of CSES ionospheric RO data with COSMIC measurements

F region electron density profile inversion from backscatter ionogram based on international reference ionosphere

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About