Diurnal variation of B parameters over Havana at low and high solar activity

Lazo, B.; Savio, Siomel; Alazo, K.; Calzadilla, A.; Ojeda, Arian

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2006.05.030

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During past decades, several probing techniques, such as incoherent scatter radars (ISR), ground-based ionosonde/digisonde and in situ rocket measurements as well as modeling practices have been performed at different parts of the globe for exploring the bottomside ionosphere profile and studying the discrepancies between the IRI submodels as well as from other alternative estimation methods (Adeniyi et al, 2008;Alazo-Cuartas & Radicella, 2017;Altadill et al, 2009;Bello et al, 2017;Bilitza et al, 2014;Chen et al, 2006;Chuo et al, 2011;Gulyaeva, 1987;Jamjareegulgarn et al, 2017;Kalita & Bhuyan, 2017;Lazo et al, 2007;Lei et al, 2004;McKinnell et al, 2009;Panda & Haralambous, 2017;Sethi & Mahajan, 2002;Venkatesh et al, 2014;Venkatesh & Fagundes, 2016;Zhang et al, 2008). However, these techniques are limited both spatially and temporally; hence, less research has been conducted so far to assess the longitudinal variation of bottomside parameters and their corresponding estimation from models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Longitudinal Behavior of IRI Bottomside Profile Parameters From FORMOSAT‐3/COSMIC Ionospheric Occultations

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bottomside thickness and shape (B0 and B1) are the critical key elements for depicting a realistic electron density profile in the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) model. We investigated their longitudinal variability using a large database of FORMOSAT‐3/COSMIC (Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate) electron density profiles covering the period 2006–2015 from which these parameters are derived using a simple analytic Chapman least squares fitting. The parameters are then compared with the IRI‐2012 submodels, that is, Bil‐2000, Gul‐1987, and ABT‐2009 during different seasons and solar activity. Besides apparent adherence of B0 to the equatorial region, the opposite occurrence pattern of maximum B0 to that of NmF2 is realized, manifesting semiannual distribution and hemispheric asymmetry. Unlike NmF2, the presence of single anomaly crest in B0 in all seasons except March equinox and their leading local time stamps are among the key observations. In spite of regular representation of IRI submodels during equinox, the performance of Gul‐1987 seems to be inferior during solstice with respect to geomagnetic field and equatorial electrodynamics, thereby depicting an erroneous distribution of B0. The striking wave‐like feature in B0 longitudinal variability is also revealed indicating its possible connection with the nonmigrating diurnal/semidiurnal tides. Moreover, the solar activity effect on B0 appears to be relatively higher over the Asian and Pacific longitudes (60–150°E). Although speculations are made over B1 variability, its complete longitudinal characteristics are indistinguishable in our results, except the subordinate magnitude as compared to IRI estimations. The important findings from this study may reinforce the understanding of bottomside variability and future improvements in IRI.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Longitudinal Behavior of IRI Bottomside Profile Parameters From FORMOSAT‐3/COSMIC Ionospheric Occultations

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several previous studies have investigated the variability of ionospheric bottomside profile parameters, such as those by Ramanamurty and Rawer (1972), Reinisch and Huang (1996), Radicella (1998), de Gonzales (1996), Bilitza et al (2000), Sethi and Mahajan (2002), , Batista and Abdu (2004), Lazo et al (2004), Lei et al (2004), Zhang et al (2004), Chen et al (2006), Lee and Reinisch (2006), Lazo et al (2007), Blanch et al (2007), Adeniyi et al (2008), McKinnell et al (2009), Altadill et al (2009), Sethi et al (2009), andOladipo et al (2011). These studies have found that B0 shows appreciable diurnal, seasonal, and solar activity variations, which depend on the location of the observation station, whereas B1 exhibits little seasonal change.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations of ionospheric profile parameters during solar maximum and comparison with IRI-2007 over Chung-Li, Taiwan

Chuo

2012

Ann. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper studies the seasonal changes in the diurnal variation of ionospheric bottomside slab thickness (B0), based on observations during high solar activities at the equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA) area station of ChungLi (121.1 • E, 24.9 • N), Taiwan. The data examined in this investigation are derived from ionograms recorded at ChungLi in 1999, and are compared with International Reference Ionosphere (IRI-2007) model values. In our data set B0 shows largest values and biggest changes during the daytime (06:00-12:00 LT) particularly in the summer. Moreover, the diurnal variation of B0 shows an abnormal peak during the pre-sunrise period, especially in the winter. The variation in the F-peak height (hmF2) is related to a thermospheric wind traveling toward the equator, which also enhances B0 during the pre-sunrise period. The results of the comparison with the IRI model show that B0 is overestimated, in both the B0-table and the Gulyaeva option, after noon LT in the equinox (B0-table and Gulyaeva average values for the overestimation are 11 and 47 km, respectively) and summer (B0-table and Gulyaeva average values for the overestimation are 23 and 71 km, respectively) periods. Furthermore, the modeled values are underestimated at approximately 31 and 14 km for the table and Gulyaeva option during the daytime in the winter, respectively. The F2-layer maximum electron density (NmF2) data show reasonably favorable agreement with the model for a high correlation coefficient of approximately 0.97, with the major difference observed at approximately noon in the equinox and winter seasons. Regarding the hmF2 data, the model shows agreement with the observed values, and the largest discrepancy (average value is 39 km) was observed in the summer and the smallest (average value is 11 km) in the equinox season. This paper provides a comprehensive discussion on the relationship among B0, the NmF2 and the hmF2 for geomagnetic storm events.

show abstract

Variability of the bottomside B0 and B1 parameters of ionospheric electron density profile over Cyprus and comparison with IRI-2012 model

Panda

Haralambous

2017

Advances in Space Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diurnal variation of B parameters over Havana at low and high solar activity

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

Global Longitudinal Behavior of IRI Bottomside Profile Parameters From FORMOSAT‐3/COSMIC Ionospheric Occultations

Global Longitudinal Behavior of IRI Bottomside Profile Parameters From FORMOSAT‐3/COSMIC Ionospheric Occultations

Variations of ionospheric profile parameters during solar maximum and comparison with IRI-2007 over Chung-Li, Taiwan

Variability of the bottomside B0 and B1 parameters of ionospheric electron density profile over Cyprus and comparison with IRI-2012 model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About