Validation of Ionospheric Modeled TEC in the Equatorial Ionosphere During the 2013 March and 2021 November Geomagnetic Storms
Abstract This paper presents the validation of modeled total electron content (TEC) from 14 ionospheric models, including empirical, physics‐based, and data assimilation (DA) models, hosted by the NASA/NSF Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC), NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center, and NASA J...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-06-01
|
| Series: | Space Weather |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003480 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841536462522155008 |
|---|---|
| author | Min‐Yang Chou Jia Yue Jack Wang J. D. Huba Mostafa El Alaoui Maria M. Kuznetsova Lutz Rastätter Ja Soon Shim Tzu‐Wei Fang Xing Meng Dominic Fuller‐Rowell John M. Retterer |
| author_facet | Min‐Yang Chou Jia Yue Jack Wang J. D. Huba Mostafa El Alaoui Maria M. Kuznetsova Lutz Rastätter Ja Soon Shim Tzu‐Wei Fang Xing Meng Dominic Fuller‐Rowell John M. Retterer |
| author_sort | Min‐Yang Chou |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract This paper presents the validation of modeled total electron content (TEC) from 14 ionospheric models, including empirical, physics‐based, and data assimilation (DA) models, hosted by the NASA/NSF Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC), NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center, and NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). This study aims to assess the current progress and capability of the CCMC‐hosted ionospheric models in capturing the storm time ionosphere during the low and moderate solar flux years. We focus on the low‐latitude ionosphere (i.e., ±40° in magnetic latitude) and compare the modeled TEC with the Madrigal TEC during the 2013 March and 2021 November storms. Multiple metrics are used to quantitatively assess the models' accuracy, precision, association, bias, and capability in capturing the TEC changes in response to the storms. The skill score based on the metric scores is further proposed to evaluate the overall performance of ionospheric models against the reference model (International Reference Ionosphere 2016; IRI‐2016). The results indicate that the DA model GLObal Total Electron Content and JPL Global Ionospheric Map models show good performance in modeling the TEC and reasonably reflect the storm time TEC changes spatially and temporally. The empirical models IRI‐2016 and 2020 show relatively good performance compared with the physics‐based models regarding the model‐data comparison; however, it is difficult to characterize the TEC changes caused by storms. The physics‐based models can simulate the storm effect in spatial and temporal TEC variations better than the empirical model. The performance of ionospheric models in capturing the storm time TEC anomaly is presented and discussed. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-19769f65f48a4e328d3dd403f66c7523 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1542-7390 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2023-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Space Weather |
| spelling | doaj-art-19769f65f48a4e328d3dd403f66c75232025-01-14T16:27:02ZengWileySpace Weather1542-73902023-06-01216n/an/a10.1029/2023SW003480Validation of Ionospheric Modeled TEC in the Equatorial Ionosphere During the 2013 March and 2021 November Geomagnetic StormsMin‐Yang Chou0Jia Yue1Jack Wang2J. D. Huba3Mostafa El Alaoui4Maria M. Kuznetsova5Lutz Rastätter6Ja Soon Shim7Tzu‐Wei Fang8Xing Meng9Dominic Fuller‐Rowell10John M. Retterer11NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Community Coordinated Modeling Center Greenbelt MD USANASA Goddard Space Flight Center Community Coordinated Modeling Center Greenbelt MD USANASA Goddard Space Flight Center Community Coordinated Modeling Center Greenbelt MD USASyntek Technologies Fairfax VA USANASA Goddard Space Flight Center Community Coordinated Modeling Center Greenbelt MD USANASA Goddard Space Flight Center Community Coordinated Modeling Center Greenbelt MD USANASA Goddard Space Flight Center Community Coordinated Modeling Center Greenbelt MD USADepartment of Atmospheric Sciences Yonsei University Seoul South KoreaNOAA Space Weather Prediction Center Boulder CO USAJet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA USANOAA Space Weather Prediction Center Boulder CO USAInstitute for Scientific Research Boston College Chestnut Hill MA USAAbstract This paper presents the validation of modeled total electron content (TEC) from 14 ionospheric models, including empirical, physics‐based, and data assimilation (DA) models, hosted by the NASA/NSF Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC), NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center, and NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). This study aims to assess the current progress and capability of the CCMC‐hosted ionospheric models in capturing the storm time ionosphere during the low and moderate solar flux years. We focus on the low‐latitude ionosphere (i.e., ±40° in magnetic latitude) and compare the modeled TEC with the Madrigal TEC during the 2013 March and 2021 November storms. Multiple metrics are used to quantitatively assess the models' accuracy, precision, association, bias, and capability in capturing the TEC changes in response to the storms. The skill score based on the metric scores is further proposed to evaluate the overall performance of ionospheric models against the reference model (International Reference Ionosphere 2016; IRI‐2016). The results indicate that the DA model GLObal Total Electron Content and JPL Global Ionospheric Map models show good performance in modeling the TEC and reasonably reflect the storm time TEC changes spatially and temporally. The empirical models IRI‐2016 and 2020 show relatively good performance compared with the physics‐based models regarding the model‐data comparison; however, it is difficult to characterize the TEC changes caused by storms. The physics‐based models can simulate the storm effect in spatial and temporal TEC variations better than the empirical model. The performance of ionospheric models in capturing the storm time TEC anomaly is presented and discussed.https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003480ionospherenumerical modelsTECgeomagnetic stormvalidation |
| spellingShingle | Min‐Yang Chou Jia Yue Jack Wang J. D. Huba Mostafa El Alaoui Maria M. Kuznetsova Lutz Rastätter Ja Soon Shim Tzu‐Wei Fang Xing Meng Dominic Fuller‐Rowell John M. Retterer Validation of Ionospheric Modeled TEC in the Equatorial Ionosphere During the 2013 March and 2021 November Geomagnetic Storms Space Weather ionosphere numerical models TEC geomagnetic storm validation |
| title | Validation of Ionospheric Modeled TEC in the Equatorial Ionosphere During the 2013 March and 2021 November Geomagnetic Storms |
| title_full | Validation of Ionospheric Modeled TEC in the Equatorial Ionosphere During the 2013 March and 2021 November Geomagnetic Storms |
| title_fullStr | Validation of Ionospheric Modeled TEC in the Equatorial Ionosphere During the 2013 March and 2021 November Geomagnetic Storms |
| title_full_unstemmed | Validation of Ionospheric Modeled TEC in the Equatorial Ionosphere During the 2013 March and 2021 November Geomagnetic Storms |
| title_short | Validation of Ionospheric Modeled TEC in the Equatorial Ionosphere During the 2013 March and 2021 November Geomagnetic Storms |
| title_sort | validation of ionospheric modeled tec in the equatorial ionosphere during the 2013 march and 2021 november geomagnetic storms |
| topic | ionosphere numerical models TEC geomagnetic storm validation |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003480 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT minyangchou validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms AT jiayue validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms AT jackwang validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms AT jdhuba validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms AT mostafaelalaoui validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms AT mariamkuznetsova validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms AT lutzrastatter validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms AT jasoonshim validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms AT tzuweifang validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms AT xingmeng validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms AT dominicfullerrowell validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms AT johnmretterer validationofionosphericmodeledtecintheequatorialionosphereduringthe2013marchand2021novembergeomagneticstorms |