Estimating foF2 from GPS TEC over Islamabad and Darwin using NeQuick2 during 2011–2014

Atiq, Muhammad; Ameen, Muhammad Ayyaz; Sadiq, Naeem; Khursheed, Haqqa; Ali, Muneeza Salman; Yu, Xiongdong; Ameer, Afsheen

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2020.12.003

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the MAPE metric results and the pairwise comparisons are examined, it is seen that there are values that can be expressed well. In this respect, the results are consistent with [16]. The RMSE value is a measure of the errors of the predictive model.…”

Section: Analysis Results For Ankara Stationsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…It also provides the TEC values in a beam path between the satellite and the GPS for the given latitude and longitude value. For all these values, it also includes the number of sunspots and the F10.7 solar flux values [16][17][18]. There are many models that evaluate the performance of any given model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the statistical metric results given in Table5are examined, it is seen that during the storm, both metrics (RMSE and MAPE) and KLD values are higher than the pre and post storm times. In addition, the fact that MAPE values are less than 20 in these processes shows that the NeQuick 2 model is a good model for this storm process[16,21]. It is possible to express the IRI Plas TEC model as a good model, since the metrics and KLD values are quite small and the MAPE values are less than 20.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

2015 Yılında Meydana Gelen Üç Şiddetli Jeomanyetik Fırtına Süresince Deneysel İyonosferik Modellerin Karşılaştırılması

Sağır

ERBAY²

2022

Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The geomagnetic field acts as both the shield and the electron density regulator for the ionosphere. The effect of the geomagnetic field on the ionosphere can be examined separately for the geomagnetically quiet and disturbed days. In the current study, the performance of the ionospheric models was evaluated for three different severe geomagnetic storms periods during the year of 2015, which was in the beginning of the descending phase of the 24th solar cycle. These three storms occurred during 17-18 March, 22-23 June and 20-21 December of year 2015 in which first one expressed as St. Patrick's Day geomagnetic storm. The relationship between Total Electron Content (TEC) was measured by Global Positioning System (GPS) and evaluated with NeQuick 2, IRI 2016, IRI Plas (without any input- “IRI Plas”) and IRI Plas TEC (with TEC input- “IRI Plas TEC”) global models at three Turkey IGS station namely Ankara (39.57 N, 32.53 E), Istanbul (40.58 N, 29.05 E) and Erzurum (40.39 N, 40.42 E) investigated. The comparison was made separately for pre-storm, during storm and post-storm by using the Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) metrics and symmetric Kullback-Leibler Distance (KLD) methods. Among the empirical models, IRI Plas TEC is generally present to be better results than other models for all storm processes. It can be stated that IRI 2016 is better in the storm return phase compared to other phases of the storm.