Validation of Ionospheric Specifications During Geomagnetic Storms: TEC and foF2 During the 2013 March Storm Event

Abstract

To address challenges of assessing space weather modeling capabilities, the Community Coordinated Modeling Center is leading a newly established International Forum for Space Weather Modeling Capabilities Assessment. This paper presents preliminary results of validation of modeled foF2 (F 2 layer critical frequency) and TEC (total electron content) during the first selected 2013 March storm event (17 March 2013). In this study, we used eight ionospheric models ranging from empirical to physics-based, coupled ionosphere-thermosphere and data assimilation models. The quantities we considered are TEC and foF2 changes and percentage changes compared to quiet time background, and the maximum and minimum percentage changes. In addition, we considered normalized percentage changes of TEC. We compared the modeled quantities with ground-based observations of vertical Global Navigation Satellite System TEC (provided by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Haystack Observatory) and foF2 data (provided by Global Ionospheric Radio Observatory) at the 12 locations selected in middle latitudes of the American and European-African longitude sectors. To quantitatively evaluate the models' performance, we calculated skill scores including correlation coefficient, root-mean square error (RMSE), ratio of the modeled to observed maximum percentage changes (yield), and timing error. Our study indicates that average RMSEs of foF2 range from about 1 MHz to 1.5 MHz. The average RMSEs of TEC are between~5 and~10 TECU (1 TEC Unit = 10 16 el/m 2 ). dfoF2[%] RMSEs are between 15% and 25%, which is smaller than RMSE of dTEC[%] ranging from 30% to 60%. The performance of the models varies with the location and metrics considered.To address the needs and challenge of assessment of our current knowledge about space weather effects on IT system and current state of IT modeling capabilities, the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC) has been supporting community-wide model validation projects, including Coupling, Energetics and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions (CEDAR) and Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM)-CEDAR modeling challenges. The CCMC initiated the CEDAR electrodynamics thermosphere ionosphere challenge in 2009 focusing on the evaluation of basic IT system parameters modeled, such as electron and neutral densities, the ionospheric F 2 layer peak electron density (NmF2) and peak height (hmF2), and vertical drift (Shim Key Points: • foF2/TEC and foF2/TEC changes during a storm predicted by eight ionosphere models were compared with GIRO foF2 and GPS TEC measurements • Skill scores (e.g., correlation coefficient, RMSE, yield, and timing error) were calculated • Model performance strongly depends on the quantities considered, the type of metrics used, and the location considered Supporting Information: • Supporting Information S1 Correspondence to: J. S. Shim, jasoon.shim@nasa.gov Citation: Shim, J. S., Tsagouri, I., Goncharenko, L., Rastaetter, L., Kuznetsova, M., Bilitza, D., et al. (2018). Validation of ionospheric specifications du...

Assessment of Current Capabilities in Modeling the Ionospheric Climatology for Space Weather Applications: foF2 and hmF2

“…First, it may support the operations that are based on long‐term ionospheric forecasting (e.g., long‐term planning purposes for HF communication/broadcasting applications). In addition, it was found to be crucial for the fair evaluation of the modeling capabilities in predicting the short‐term impact of space weather on the near‐Earth's space environment (e.g., Burns et al, ; Shim et al, ). Finally, it supports the effective assessment of prediction abilities with respect to emerging trends in I/T climatology (e.g., long‐term trends and different variability in different solar cycles) that may be considered as key drivers for the development of new and/or updated models.…”

Thermosphere‐Ionosphere Modeling With Forecastable Inputs: Case Study of the June 2012 High‐Speed Stream Geomagnetic Storm

“…Moreover, Zhu et al (2017) shows that a better low and middle latitude electrodynamic solver for GITM would improve the modeled zonal electric field and thus the EIA morphology. On a side note, discrepancies between simulated EIAs from various models, GITM and TIE-GCM included, have been shown by Fang et al (2014) for a geomagnetically quiet day and by Shim et al (2018) for a geomagnetic storm. Both studies attribute the cause of the discrepancies to the different lower boundary forcings and electric fields in different models.…”

The International Community Coordinated Modeling Center Space Weather Modeling Capabilities Assessment: Overview of Ionosphere/Thermosphere Activities

“…below the G1 level of minor geomagnetic disturbance activity), it needs to be noted that the selection of geomagnetic quiet periods as well as the definition of quiet times can be challenging and generally depends on the time constants of the phenomena under consideration. For example, Shim et al () used as a quiet time reference a 30‐day median value at a given time where the 30 days consist of 15 days before and 15 days after a storm. Kalafatoglu Eyigüler et al (), on the other hand, determined the quiet time interval by inspecting the Challenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP) neutral density variations on the day preceding the geomagnetic storm.…”

“…Shim et al () assessed how well the ionospheric models predict storm time f o F 2 and TEC by considering quantities, such as TEC and f o F 2 changes and percentage changes compared to quiet time background, at 12 selected midlatitude locations in the American and European‐African longitude sectors. They found that the performance of the model varies with locations, even within a localized region like Europe, as well as with the metrics considered.…”