CEDAR Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge for systematic assessment of ionosphere/thermosphere models: NmF2, hmF2, and vertical drift using ground‐based observations

Objective quantification of model performance based on metrics helps us evaluate the current state of space physics modeling capability, address differences among various modeling approaches, and track model improvements over time. The Coupling, Energetics, and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions (CEDAR...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Space Weather
Main Authors: Shim, J. S., Kuznetsova, M., Rastätter, L., Hesse, M., Bilitza, D., Butala, M., Codrescu, M., Emery, B., Foster, B., Fuller-Rowell, T., Huba, J., Mannucci, A. J., Pi, X., Ridley, A., Scherliess, L., Schunk, R. W., Stephens, P., Thompson, D. C., Zhu, L., Anderson, D., Chau Chong Shing, Jorge Luis, Sojka, J. J., Rideout, B.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: American Geophysical Union 2011
Subjects:
IPY
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12816/2007
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000727
id ftinstgpperu:oai:repositorio.igp.gob.pe:20.500.12816/2007
record_format openpolar
spelling ftinstgpperu:oai:repositorio.igp.gob.pe:20.500.12816/2007 2023-07-30T04:04:30+02:00 CEDAR Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge for systematic assessment of ionosphere/thermosphere models: NmF2, hmF2, and vertical drift using ground‐based observations Shim, J. S. Kuznetsova, M. Rastätter, L. Hesse, M. Bilitza, D. Butala, M. Codrescu, M. Emery, B. Foster, B. Fuller-Rowell, T. Huba, J. Mannucci, A. J. Pi, X. Ridley, A. Scherliess, L. Schunk, R. W. Stephens, P. Thompson, D. C. Zhu, L. Anderson, D. Chau Chong Shing, Jorge Luis Sojka, J. J. Rideout, B. 2011-12-31 application/pdf https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12816/2007 https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000727 eng eng American Geophysical Union urn:issn:1542-7390 Shim, J. S., Kuznetsova, M., Rastätter, L., Hesse, M., Bilitza, D., Butala, M., . Rideout, B. (2011). CEDAR Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge for systematic assessment of ionosphere/thermosphere models 1: NmF2, hmF2, and vertical drift using ground‐based observations.==$Space Weather, 9$==(12), S12003. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000727 index-oti2018 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12816/2007 Space Weather https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000727 info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess Ionosphere Model validation Thermosphere http://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#1.05.01 info:eu-repo/semantics/article 2011 ftinstgpperu https://doi.org/20.500.12816/200710.1029/2011SW000727 2023-07-17T16:50:31Z Objective quantification of model performance based on metrics helps us evaluate the current state of space physics modeling capability, address differences among various modeling approaches, and track model improvements over time. The Coupling, Energetics, and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions (CEDAR) Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge was initiated in 2009 to assess accuracy of various ionosphere/thermosphere models in reproducing ionosphere and thermosphere parameters. A total of nine events and five physical parameters were selected to compare between model outputs and observations. The nine events included two strong and one moderate geomagnetic storm events from GEM Challenge events and three moderate storms and three quiet periods from the first half of the International Polar Year (IPY) campaign, which lasted for 2 years, from March 2007 to March 2009. The five physical parameters selected were NmF2 and hmF2 from ISRs and LEO satellites such as CHAMP and COSMIC, vertical drifts at Jicamarca, and electron and neutral densities along the track of the CHAMP satellite. For this study, four different metrics and up to 10 models were used. In this paper, we focus on preliminary results of the study using ground‐based measurements, which include NmF2 and hmF2 from Incoherent Scatter Radars (ISRs), and vertical drifts at Jicamarca. The results show that the model performance strongly depends on the type of metrics used, and thus no model is ranked top for all used metrics. The analysis further indicates that performance of the model also varies with latitude and geomagnetic activity level. Por pares Article in Journal/Newspaper International Polar Year IPY Repositorio Geofísico Naciona del Perú Space Weather 9 12 n/a n/a
institution Open Polar
collection Repositorio Geofísico Naciona del Perú
op_collection_id ftinstgpperu
language English
topic Ionosphere
Model validation
Thermosphere
http://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#1.05.01
spellingShingle Ionosphere
Model validation
Thermosphere
http://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#1.05.01
Shim, J. S.
Kuznetsova, M.
Rastätter, L.
Hesse, M.
Bilitza, D.
Butala, M.
Codrescu, M.
Emery, B.
Foster, B.
Fuller-Rowell, T.
Huba, J.
Mannucci, A. J.
Pi, X.
Ridley, A.
Scherliess, L.
Schunk, R. W.
Stephens, P.
Thompson, D. C.
Zhu, L.
Anderson, D.
Chau Chong Shing, Jorge Luis
Sojka, J. J.
Rideout, B.
CEDAR Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge for systematic assessment of ionosphere/thermosphere models: NmF2, hmF2, and vertical drift using ground‐based observations
topic_facet Ionosphere
Model validation
Thermosphere
http://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#1.05.01
description Objective quantification of model performance based on metrics helps us evaluate the current state of space physics modeling capability, address differences among various modeling approaches, and track model improvements over time. The Coupling, Energetics, and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions (CEDAR) Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge was initiated in 2009 to assess accuracy of various ionosphere/thermosphere models in reproducing ionosphere and thermosphere parameters. A total of nine events and five physical parameters were selected to compare between model outputs and observations. The nine events included two strong and one moderate geomagnetic storm events from GEM Challenge events and three moderate storms and three quiet periods from the first half of the International Polar Year (IPY) campaign, which lasted for 2 years, from March 2007 to March 2009. The five physical parameters selected were NmF2 and hmF2 from ISRs and LEO satellites such as CHAMP and COSMIC, vertical drifts at Jicamarca, and electron and neutral densities along the track of the CHAMP satellite. For this study, four different metrics and up to 10 models were used. In this paper, we focus on preliminary results of the study using ground‐based measurements, which include NmF2 and hmF2 from Incoherent Scatter Radars (ISRs), and vertical drifts at Jicamarca. The results show that the model performance strongly depends on the type of metrics used, and thus no model is ranked top for all used metrics. The analysis further indicates that performance of the model also varies with latitude and geomagnetic activity level. Por pares
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Shim, J. S.
Kuznetsova, M.
Rastätter, L.
Hesse, M.
Bilitza, D.
Butala, M.
Codrescu, M.
Emery, B.
Foster, B.
Fuller-Rowell, T.
Huba, J.
Mannucci, A. J.
Pi, X.
Ridley, A.
Scherliess, L.
Schunk, R. W.
Stephens, P.
Thompson, D. C.
Zhu, L.
Anderson, D.
Chau Chong Shing, Jorge Luis
Sojka, J. J.
Rideout, B.
author_facet Shim, J. S.
Kuznetsova, M.
Rastätter, L.
Hesse, M.
Bilitza, D.
Butala, M.
Codrescu, M.
Emery, B.
Foster, B.
Fuller-Rowell, T.
Huba, J.
Mannucci, A. J.
Pi, X.
Ridley, A.
Scherliess, L.
Schunk, R. W.
Stephens, P.
Thompson, D. C.
Zhu, L.
Anderson, D.
Chau Chong Shing, Jorge Luis
Sojka, J. J.
Rideout, B.
author_sort Shim, J. S.
title CEDAR Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge for systematic assessment of ionosphere/thermosphere models: NmF2, hmF2, and vertical drift using ground‐based observations
title_short CEDAR Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge for systematic assessment of ionosphere/thermosphere models: NmF2, hmF2, and vertical drift using ground‐based observations
title_full CEDAR Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge for systematic assessment of ionosphere/thermosphere models: NmF2, hmF2, and vertical drift using ground‐based observations
title_fullStr CEDAR Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge for systematic assessment of ionosphere/thermosphere models: NmF2, hmF2, and vertical drift using ground‐based observations
title_full_unstemmed CEDAR Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge for systematic assessment of ionosphere/thermosphere models: NmF2, hmF2, and vertical drift using ground‐based observations
title_sort cedar electrodynamics thermosphere ionosphere (eti) challenge for systematic assessment of ionosphere/thermosphere models: nmf2, hmf2, and vertical drift using ground‐based observations
publisher American Geophysical Union
publishDate 2011
url https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12816/2007
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000727
genre International Polar Year
IPY
genre_facet International Polar Year
IPY
op_relation urn:issn:1542-7390
Shim, J. S., Kuznetsova, M., Rastätter, L., Hesse, M., Bilitza, D., Butala, M., . Rideout, B. (2011). CEDAR Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge for systematic assessment of ionosphere/thermosphere models 1: NmF2, hmF2, and vertical drift using ground‐based observations.==$Space Weather, 9$==(12), S12003. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000727
index-oti2018
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12816/2007
Space Weather
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000727
op_rights info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
op_doi https://doi.org/20.500.12816/200710.1029/2011SW000727
container_title Space Weather
container_volume 9
container_issue 12
container_start_page n/a
op_container_end_page n/a
_version_ 1772815998358913024