Fuqing Huang, H. Ruan, J. Lei, J. Zhong, X. Yue, Guozhu Li, Yiding Chen, Jianhui He, Na Li, X. Luan, C. Xiong, Xiankang Dou
{"title":"根据全球电离层探测仪和再分析数据以及 COSMIC 观测数据重组的 foF2 和 hmF2 经验模型","authors":"Fuqing Huang, H. Ruan, J. Lei, J. Zhong, X. Yue, Guozhu Li, Yiding Chen, Jianhui He, Na Li, X. Luan, C. Xiong, Xiankang Dou","doi":"10.1029/2023sw003848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The F2‐peak plasma frequency (foF2) and the height of the F2 peak (hmF2) are two of the most important parameters for any ionospheric model, as well as radio propagation studies and applications. In this study, we have developed empirical models to capture the most significant variations of foF2 and hmF2. The derived empirical models (referred to as the USTC models within this study) are specified through global ionosonde and reanalysis data based on the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) Consultative Committee on International Radio (CCIR) method and Constellation Observindg System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) observations based on the empirical orthogonal function analysis, respectively. The USTC models are validated against the IRI CCIR model prediction. The comparison results revealed that the empirical foF2 model performs better in capturing the foF2 variations than the IRI CCIR model, which can overcome the underestimation of the IRI CCIR model at low latitudes. Although the IRI CCIR model overestimation at middle latitudes is addressed by the empirical hmF2 model, the visible differences between the model predictions and ionosonde observations still exist at low latitudes, which could be attributed to the significant difference between COSMIC and ionosonde hmF2 measures.","PeriodicalId":22181,"journal":{"name":"Space Weather","volume":"436 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Empirical Models of foF2 and hmF2 Reconstituted by Global Ionosonde and Reanalysis Data and COSMIC Observations\",\"authors\":\"Fuqing Huang, H. Ruan, J. Lei, J. Zhong, X. Yue, Guozhu Li, Yiding Chen, Jianhui He, Na Li, X. Luan, C. Xiong, Xiankang Dou\",\"doi\":\"10.1029/2023sw003848\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The F2‐peak plasma frequency (foF2) and the height of the F2 peak (hmF2) are two of the most important parameters for any ionospheric model, as well as radio propagation studies and applications. In this study, we have developed empirical models to capture the most significant variations of foF2 and hmF2. The derived empirical models (referred to as the USTC models within this study) are specified through global ionosonde and reanalysis data based on the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) Consultative Committee on International Radio (CCIR) method and Constellation Observindg System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) observations based on the empirical orthogonal function analysis, respectively. The USTC models are validated against the IRI CCIR model prediction. The comparison results revealed that the empirical foF2 model performs better in capturing the foF2 variations than the IRI CCIR model, which can overcome the underestimation of the IRI CCIR model at low latitudes. Although the IRI CCIR model overestimation at middle latitudes is addressed by the empirical hmF2 model, the visible differences between the model predictions and ionosonde observations still exist at low latitudes, which could be attributed to the significant difference between COSMIC and ionosonde hmF2 measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Space Weather\",\"volume\":\"436 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Space Weather\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1029/2023sw003848\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Space Weather","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1029/2023sw003848","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
F2 峰等离子体频率(foF2)和 F2 峰高(hmF2)是任何电离层模型以及无线电传播研究和应用的两个最重要参数。在本研究中,我们开发了经验模型来捕捉 foF2 和 hmF2 的最显著变化。根据国际参考电离层(IRI)国际无线电咨询委员会(CCIR)方法和基于经验正交函数分析的气象、电离层和气候星座观测系统(COSMIC)观测数据,分别通过全球电离层和再分析数据指定了推导出的经验模型(在本研究中称为 USTC 模型)。USTC 模型与 IRI CCIR 模型预测进行了验证。对比结果表明,经验 foF2 模式在捕捉 foF2 变化方面的表现优于 IRI CCIR 模式,可以克服 IRI CCIR 模式在低纬度地区的低估问题。虽然经验 hmF2 模型解决了 IRI CCIR 模型在中纬度高估的问题,但在低纬度,模型预测和电离层观测之间仍然存在明显的差异,这可能是由于 COSMIC 和电离层 hmF2 测量之间的显著差异造成的。
Empirical Models of foF2 and hmF2 Reconstituted by Global Ionosonde and Reanalysis Data and COSMIC Observations
The F2‐peak plasma frequency (foF2) and the height of the F2 peak (hmF2) are two of the most important parameters for any ionospheric model, as well as radio propagation studies and applications. In this study, we have developed empirical models to capture the most significant variations of foF2 and hmF2. The derived empirical models (referred to as the USTC models within this study) are specified through global ionosonde and reanalysis data based on the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) Consultative Committee on International Radio (CCIR) method and Constellation Observindg System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) observations based on the empirical orthogonal function analysis, respectively. The USTC models are validated against the IRI CCIR model prediction. The comparison results revealed that the empirical foF2 model performs better in capturing the foF2 variations than the IRI CCIR model, which can overcome the underestimation of the IRI CCIR model at low latitudes. Although the IRI CCIR model overestimation at middle latitudes is addressed by the empirical hmF2 model, the visible differences between the model predictions and ionosonde observations still exist at low latitudes, which could be attributed to the significant difference between COSMIC and ionosonde hmF2 measures.