Comparison between manual scaling and Autoscala automatic scaling applied to Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory ionograms
This paper presents a comparison between standard ionospheric parameters manually and automatically scaled from ionograms recorded at the high-latitude Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (SGO, ionosonde SO166, 64.1° geomagnetic latitude), located in the vicinity of the auroral oval. The study is base...
Published in: | Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2016
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-5-53-2016 https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00013753 https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00013709/gi-5-53-2016.pdf https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/5/53/2016/gi-5-53-2016.pdf |
_version_ | 1821711267999514624 |
---|---|
author | Enell, Carl-Fredrik Kozlovsky, Alexander Turunen, Tauno Ulich, Thomas Välitalo, Sirkku Scotto, Carlo Pezzopane, Michael |
author_facet | Enell, Carl-Fredrik Kozlovsky, Alexander Turunen, Tauno Ulich, Thomas Välitalo, Sirkku Scotto, Carlo Pezzopane, Michael |
author_sort | Enell, Carl-Fredrik |
collection | Niedersächsisches Online-Archiv NOA |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 53 |
container_title | Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems |
container_volume | 5 |
description | This paper presents a comparison between standard ionospheric parameters manually and automatically scaled from ionograms recorded at the high-latitude Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (SGO, ionosonde SO166, 64.1° geomagnetic latitude), located in the vicinity of the auroral oval. The study is based on 2610 ionograms recorded during the period June–December 2013. The automatic scaling was made by means of the Autoscala software. A few typical examples are shown to outline the method, and statistics are presented regarding the differences between manually and automatically scaled values of F2, F1, E and sporadic E (Es) layer parameters. We draw the conclusions that: 1. The F2 parameters scaled by Autoscala, foF2 and M(3000)F2, are reliable. 2. F1 is identified by Autoscala in significantly fewer cases (about 50 %) than in the manual routine, but if identified the values of foF1 are reliable. 3. Autoscala frequently (30 % of the cases) detects an E layer when the manual scaling process does not. When identified by both methods, the Autoscala E-layer parameters are close to those manually scaled, foE agreeing to within 0.4 MHz. 4. Es and parameters of Es identified by Autoscala are in many cases different from those of the manual scaling. Scaling of Es at auroral latitudes is often a difficult task. |
format | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
genre | Sodankylä |
genre_facet | Sodankylä |
geographic | Sodankylä |
geographic_facet | Sodankylä |
id | ftnonlinearchiv:oai:noa.gwlb.de:cop_mods_00013753 |
institution | Open Polar |
language | English |
long_lat | ENVELOPE(26.600,26.600,67.417,67.417) |
op_collection_id | ftnonlinearchiv |
op_container_end_page | 64 |
op_doi | https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-5-53-2016 |
op_relation | Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems -- Geosci. Instrum. Meth. Data Syst. -- http://www.geoscientific-instrumentation-methods-and-data-systems.net/home.html -- http://www.bibliothek.uni-regensburg.de/ezeit/?2690575 -- 2193-0864 https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-5-53-2016 https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00013753 https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00013709/gi-5-53-2016.pdf https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/5/53/2016/gi-5-53-2016.pdf |
op_rights | uneingeschränkt info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Copernicus Publications |
record_format | openpolar |
spelling | ftnonlinearchiv:oai:noa.gwlb.de:cop_mods_00013753 2025-01-17T00:48:21+00:00 Comparison between manual scaling and Autoscala automatic scaling applied to Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory ionograms Enell, Carl-Fredrik Kozlovsky, Alexander Turunen, Tauno Ulich, Thomas Välitalo, Sirkku Scotto, Carlo Pezzopane, Michael 2016-03 electronic https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-5-53-2016 https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00013753 https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00013709/gi-5-53-2016.pdf https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/5/53/2016/gi-5-53-2016.pdf eng eng Copernicus Publications Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems -- Geosci. Instrum. Meth. Data Syst. -- http://www.geoscientific-instrumentation-methods-and-data-systems.net/home.html -- http://www.bibliothek.uni-regensburg.de/ezeit/?2690575 -- 2193-0864 https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-5-53-2016 https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00013753 https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00013709/gi-5-53-2016.pdf https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/5/53/2016/gi-5-53-2016.pdf uneingeschränkt info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess article Verlagsveröffentlichung article Text doc-type:article 2016 ftnonlinearchiv https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-5-53-2016 2022-02-08T22:55:28Z This paper presents a comparison between standard ionospheric parameters manually and automatically scaled from ionograms recorded at the high-latitude Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (SGO, ionosonde SO166, 64.1° geomagnetic latitude), located in the vicinity of the auroral oval. The study is based on 2610 ionograms recorded during the period June–December 2013. The automatic scaling was made by means of the Autoscala software. A few typical examples are shown to outline the method, and statistics are presented regarding the differences between manually and automatically scaled values of F2, F1, E and sporadic E (Es) layer parameters. We draw the conclusions that: 1. The F2 parameters scaled by Autoscala, foF2 and M(3000)F2, are reliable. 2. F1 is identified by Autoscala in significantly fewer cases (about 50 %) than in the manual routine, but if identified the values of foF1 are reliable. 3. Autoscala frequently (30 % of the cases) detects an E layer when the manual scaling process does not. When identified by both methods, the Autoscala E-layer parameters are close to those manually scaled, foE agreeing to within 0.4 MHz. 4. Es and parameters of Es identified by Autoscala are in many cases different from those of the manual scaling. Scaling of Es at auroral latitudes is often a difficult task. Article in Journal/Newspaper Sodankylä Niedersächsisches Online-Archiv NOA Sodankylä ENVELOPE(26.600,26.600,67.417,67.417) Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems 5 1 53 64 |
spellingShingle | article Verlagsveröffentlichung Enell, Carl-Fredrik Kozlovsky, Alexander Turunen, Tauno Ulich, Thomas Välitalo, Sirkku Scotto, Carlo Pezzopane, Michael Comparison between manual scaling and Autoscala automatic scaling applied to Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory ionograms |
title | Comparison between manual scaling and Autoscala automatic scaling applied to Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory ionograms |
title_full | Comparison between manual scaling and Autoscala automatic scaling applied to Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory ionograms |
title_fullStr | Comparison between manual scaling and Autoscala automatic scaling applied to Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory ionograms |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison between manual scaling and Autoscala automatic scaling applied to Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory ionograms |
title_short | Comparison between manual scaling and Autoscala automatic scaling applied to Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory ionograms |
title_sort | comparison between manual scaling and autoscala automatic scaling applied to sodankylä geophysical observatory ionograms |
topic | article Verlagsveröffentlichung |
topic_facet | article Verlagsveröffentlichung |
url | https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-5-53-2016 https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00013753 https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00013709/gi-5-53-2016.pdf https://gi.copernicus.org/articles/5/53/2016/gi-5-53-2016.pdf |