|
|
 |
|
|
Ann. Geophys., 18, 766-781, 2000
www.ann-geophys.net/18/766/2000/
© European Geosciences Union 2000
Quantitative modeling of the ionospheric response to geomagnetic activity
T. J. Fuller-Rowell1, M. C. Codrescu1, and P. Wilkinson2
1NOAA, Space Environment Center and CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80303, USA
2Ionospheric Prediction Service, Sydney, Australia
Correspondence to: T. J. Fuller-Rowell
e-mail: tjfr@sec.noaa.gov
Abstract. A physical model of the coupled thermosphere
and ionosphere has been used to determine the accuracy of model predictions of
the ionospheric response to geomagnetic activity, and assess our understanding
of the physical processes. The physical model is driven by empirical
descriptions of the high-latitude electric field and auroral precipitation, as
measures of the strength of the magnetospheric sources of energy and momentum to
the upper atmosphere. Both sources are keyed to the time-dependent TIROS/NOAA
auroral power index. The output of the model is the departure of the ionospheric
F region from the normal climatological mean. A 50-day interval towards the end
of 1997 has been simulated with the model for two cases. The first simulation
uses only the electric fields and auroral forcing from the empirical models, and
the second has an additional source of random electric field variability. In
both cases, output from the physical model is compared with F-region data from
ionosonde stations. Quantitative model/data comparisons have been performed to
move beyond the conventional "visual" scientific assessment, in order
to determine the value of the predictions for operational use. For this study,
the ionosphere at two ionosonde stations has been studied in depth, one each
from the northern and southern mid-latitudes. The model clearly captures the
seasonal dependence in the ionospheric response to geomagnetic activity at
mid-latitude, reproducing the tendency for decreased ion density in the summer
hemisphere and increased densities in winter. In contrast to the
"visual" success of the model, the detailed quantitative comparisons,
which are necessary for space weather applications, are less impressive. The
accuracy, or value, of the model has been quantified by evaluating the daily
standard deviation, the root-mean-square error, and the correlation coefficient
between the data and model predictions. The modeled quiet-time variability, or
standard deviation, and the increases during geomagnetic activity, agree well
with the data in winter, but is low in summer. The RMS error of the physical
model is about the same as the IRI empirical model during quiet times. During
the storm events the RMS error of the model improves on IRI, but there are
occasionally false-alarms. Using unsmoothed data over the full interval, the
correlation coefficients between the model and data are low, between 0.3 and
0.4. Isolating the storm intervals increases the correlation to between 0.43 and
0.56, and by smoothing the data the values increases up to 0.65. The study
illustrates the substantial difference between scientific success and a
demonstration of value for space weather applications.
Key words: Ionosphere (ionospheric disturbances;
mid-latitude ionosphere; modeling and forecasting)
Full Article in PDF (1205 KB) |
|
|
