Ionosphere and Thermosphere Coupling at Mid‐ and Subauroral Latitudes

Zhang, Shun‐Rong

doi:10.1002/9781119815617.ch15

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 149 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is worth noting that the MSNA is different from the WSA due to the presence of long‐lasting sunshine over the Weddell Sea region (Horvath & Essex, 2003) and the lack of direct long‐lasting sunlight regarding the MSNA. Zhang (2021) reviewed some of those physical mechanisms that commonly underlie the development of MSNA and WSA. Both observations and simulations suggest that the combined effects of neutral winds and the geomagnetic field configuration play a critical role in nighttime density enhancement (Chen et al., 2011, 2016; Eccles & Burge, 1973; He et al., 2009; Jee et al., 2009; Karpachev et al., 2011; H. Liu et al., 2010; Ren et al., 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ionospheric Topside Diffusive Flux and the Formation of Summer Nighttime Ionospheric Electron Density Enhancement Over Millstone Hill

Cai

Yue

Wang

et al. 2022

Geophysical Research Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ionospheric F-region electron density (N e ) is greatly enhanced after sunset at mid-latitudes in all seasons with a maximum occurrence probability in the winter, especially at solar minimum (Farelo et al., 2002;Luan et al., 2008; Mikhailov et al., 2000a Mikhailov et al., , 2000b. There is a special phenomenon wherein the enhanced nighttime N e can reach the diurnal maximum, which is opposite to the expectation from the photochemistry-based Chapman theory and is most prominent in the local summer (He et al., 2009;Jee et al., 2009). This was initially named the Weddell Sea Anomaly (WSA) and was first identified near the Weddell Sea region in the Southern Hemisphere in the 1950s (Bellchambers & Piggott, 1958) but later confirmed to occur over a larger area of

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ionospheric Topside Diffusive Flux and the Formation of Summer Nighttime Ionospheric Electron Density Enhancement Over Millstone Hill

Cai

Yue

Wang

et al. 2022

Geophysical Research Letters

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Response of the Thermosphere‐Ionosphere System to an X‐Class Solar Flare: 30 March 2022 Case Study

Sarp,

Yiğit,

Kilcik

2024

Space Weather

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The response of the thermosphere ionosphere system to an X1.3 class solar flare is studied using observations of the total electron content (TEC) and the Global Ionosphere Thermosphere Model (GITM) simulations. The solar flare erupted from the active region AR12975 on 30 March 2022. Owing to the absence of accompanying severe geomagnetic activity, it was possible to isolate the effects of the flare on the upper atmosphere. TEC data are processed for Continental USA (CONUS), employing filtering and binning techniques to create 2D variation maps. The spectral content of the TEC variations is analyzed using a wavelet coherence method. The immediate response of the solar flare exhibited broad similarities, while notable differences were observed during the recovery period between the East and West sides of the CONUS. GITM is used to explore the East–West asymmetry of the key T‐I parameters. Simulation results reveal that the coinciding interplanetary magnetic field southward turning had a greater influence on these parameters compared to the solar flare, while their nonlinear interaction introduced complex variations. Additional investigation reveals gravity wave damping also contributes to the asymmetric solar flare response.

show abstract

Comparing IRI-2020 modeled hmF2 and ionosonde measured hmF2 variabilities during the geomagnetically disturbed period of solar cycle 24 over Grahamstown, in South Africa

Sylivanus,

SULUNGU

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ionosphere's electron density, particularly the height of the F2 layer's peak electron density (hmF2), is critical for radio wave propagation and satellite communication. Accurate prediction of hmF2 is crucial, especially during geomagnetic disturbances, which can significantly affect ionospheric behavior. This study compared hmF2 values predicted by the ionospheric IRI model with real measurements from ionosondes during geomagnetic storms. We assessed discrepancies between modeled and observed hmF2 values across three distinct geomagnetic storm events, 22–25 October 2009, 26–29 August 2014, and 18–22 February 2014. We categorized geomagnetic disturbances using the Ap and Dst indices. Results indicated that while both SHU-2015 and AMTB-2013 models show varying degrees of accuracy, the SHU-2015 model generally outperforms AMTB-2013 in predicting hmF2, with lower root mean square errors and percentage deviations. The study highlights the need for ongoing model refinement and improved real-time data integration to enhance predictive accuracy during geomagnetic disturbances.

show abstract

Ionosphere and Thermosphere Coupling at Mid‐ and Subauroral Latitudes

Cited by 3 publications

References 149 publications

Ionospheric Topside Diffusive Flux and the Formation of Summer Nighttime Ionospheric Electron Density Enhancement Over Millstone Hill

Ionospheric Topside Diffusive Flux and the Formation of Summer Nighttime Ionospheric Electron Density Enhancement Over Millstone Hill

Response of the Thermosphere‐Ionosphere System to an X‐Class Solar Flare: 30 March 2022 Case Study

Comparing IRI-2020 modeled hmF2 and ionosonde measured hmF2 variabilities during the geomagnetically disturbed period of solar cycle 24 over Grahamstown, in South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About