Model interpretation of the ionospheric F-region electron density structures observed by ground-based satellite tomography at sub-auroral and auroral latitudes in Russia in January–May 1999
A satellite tomographic campaign was carried out in Russia during January–May 1999. The receiver chain consisted of four sites extending from the north of Karelia to the north of the Kola Peninsula. The F-region electron density measurements were performed during the main seasons (the winter, equino...
| Published in: | Annales Geophysicae |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2003
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-21-1005-2003 https://doaj.org/article/2048957ef73e46ada27d1865260785e5 |
| Summary: | A satellite tomographic campaign was carried out in Russia during January–May 1999. The receiver chain consisted of four sites extending from the north of Karelia to the north of the Kola Peninsula. The F-region electron density measurements were performed during the main seasons (the winter, equinox and summer), and the data contained typical levels of solar activity (F 10.7 varied from 100 to 200). The magnetic activity was quite low ( Kp = 2 - 3). The Upper Atmosphere Model (UAM), the theoretical model of the Earth’s atmosphere, as well as two known empirical ionospheric models, IRI-95 and RIM-88, have been applied to compare with experimental data. The tomographic images were interpreted by using simulation results obtained by the models which were also compared to one another. The analysis shows the following: (a) all three models show the best agreement with the tomography data at the height 300 km (near hm F2) in comparison with the heights below and above hm F2 (200 and 400 km); (b) all three models systematically underestimate the electron density values in comparison with the tomography data at the height 200 km and overestimate them at the height 400 km; (c) for all investigated events the N e (UAM) values are closest to N e (tomo) in 399 of 1125 examined data points (36%), N e (RIM-88) values are closest to N e (tomo) in 510 cases (45%) and N e (IRI-95) values are closest to N e (tomo) in 216 cases (19%). For the only day-time events, the N e (UAM) values are closest to N e (tomo) in 274 of 624 data points (44%), whereas N e (RIM-88) day-time values are closest to N e (tomo) in 221 cases (36%) and closest to N e (IRI-95) values in 129 cases (20%). It means that for all events RIM-88 has the best agreement with the tomography measured electron densities, whereas UAM has the best agreement with the daytime tomography measured electron densities, and IRI-95 has the worst agreement for both daytime and all events; (d) simulated UAM daytime values of electron density near the F2-layer maximum agree with ... |
|---|