skip to main content
10.1145/3278161.3278172acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesictrsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Use of TEC to determine foF2: differences and similarities at high and low latitudes

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The total electron content TEC finds wide application in various scientific and technological areas. One of applications is the use of TEC to obtain critical frequencies foF2 of the ionosphere. The most studied is the situation in middle latitudes. High and low latitudes are considered as problematic zones. In the present work, the situation in high and low latitudes is investigated, including at comparison with results in middle latitudes. Possibility of the TEC use to obtain foF2 is connected with their high correlation however in details this correlation was not investigated. In the present work, on an example of three stations of the American zone (Thule, Millstone Hill, Puerto Rico), latitudinal section of the northern hemisphere on a meridian 75°W it is shown, that: 1) correlation coefficients p(TEC, foF2) between foF2 and TEC lay in a range 0.7-1.0 in a seasonal course and 0.6-0.85 in a daily course with the least values for the station Thule. 2. The most clear seasonal dependence is related to that in the winter (January, December) correlation is worse, in an equinox (March, September) is better. 3. There is a tendency to higher correlation and smaller scatter of values in years of high solar activity, than in low activity. 4. Correlation coefficients ρ(δTEC, δfoF2) of deviations between δTEC and δfoF2 lay in the same range, as coefficients for magnitudes, and not strongly worsen during the disturbed periods, the least values here are at the station Puerto Rico. Estimation of a dependence ρ(δTEC, δfoF2) from indexes Kp and Dst and its approximations by a polynomial with degree n has shown, that: 1) degree of polynomial approximation and the best index of correlation depend on latitude (for high-latitude stations the greatest correlation is observed with index Kp, for middle - and low-latitude stations correlation with Dst can prevail). 2. Degree and the best index of correlation depend on a season (the greatest correlation is observed in winter months for high-latitude stations and in the summer for low-latitude stations). 3. Degree n=3 is insufficient for approximation, often degree of reliability R^2 for n=4-6 exceeds reliability for n=3 twice. 4. Reliability degree can exceed the level 0.5 testifying strong dependence and possibility of the forecast of parameters. As a whole, differences between high and low latitudes consist in a difference of coefficients of correlation, similarities - in possibility of the TEC use to obtain foF2 practically at all latitudes, i.e., details of behavior of TEC can differ, but the main result is identical: the use of TEC allows to improve conformity of the calculated values of foF2 to experimental data in 1.5-2.5 times. Residual deviations do not exceed 10 %.

References

  1. Goodman, J.M. 2005. Operational communication systems and relationships to the ionosphere and space weather. Adv. Space Res. 36 (2005), 2241--2252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bilitza, D., Altadill, D., Zhang, Y., Mertens, C., Truhlik, V., Richards, P., McKinnell, L.-A., Reinisch, B. 2014. The International Reference Ionosphere 2012 - a model of international collaboration. J. Space Weather Space Clim., 4, A07 (2014), 12pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bilitza, D., Altadill, D., Truhlik, V., Shubin, V., Galkin, I., Reinisch, B, Huang X. 2017. International Reference Ionosphere 2016: From ionospheric climate to real-time weather predictions, Space Weather, 15, 418--429.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Athieno, R., Jayachandran, P.T., Themens, D.R., Danskin, D.W. 2015. Comparison of observed and predicted MUF(3000)F2 in the Polar cap region. Radio Sci., 50, 509--517.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. D'Angelo, G., Piersanti, M., Alfonsi, L., Spogli, L., Clausen, L.B.N, Coco, I., Li, G., Baiqi N. 2018. The response of high latitude ionosphere to the 2015 St. Patrick's day storm from in situ and ground based observations. Adv. Space Res.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Blagoveshchensky, D.V., Maltseva, O.A., Anishin, M.M., Sergeeva, M.A., Rogov D.D. 2016. Impact of the magnetic superstorm on March 17-19, 2015 on subpolar HF radio paths: Experiment and modeling. Adv. Space Res., 58, 835--846.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Romero-Hernandez, E., Gonzalez-Esparza, J.A., Rodriguez-Martinez, M.A. et al. et al. 2017. Study of ionospheric disturbances over Mexico associated with transient space weather events. Adv. Space Res., 60, 1838--1849.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Sergeeva, M.A., Maltseva, O.A., Gonzalez-Esparza, J.A., De la Luz, V., Corona-Romero, P. 2017. Features of TEC behaviour over the low-latitude North-American region during the period of medium solar activity. Adv. Space Res., 60(8), 1594--1605.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Sergeeva, M.A., Maltseva, O.A., Gonzalez-Esparza, J.-A. et al. 2018. TEC behavior over the Mexican region. Annals of Geophysics, 61(1), GM104, 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Yang, N., Le, H., Liu, L., Zhang, R. 2018. Statistical behavior of the longitudinal variations of the evening topside mid-latitude trough position in both northern and southern hemispheres. J. Geophys. Res. Space Physics, 123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Stankov, S.M., Jakowski, N. 2006. Indexing the local ionospheric response to magnetic activity by using total electron content measurements. Acta Geod. Geoph. Hung., 41(1), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Gulyaeva, T.L., Stanislawska, I. 2008. Derivation of a planetary ionospheric storm index. Ann. Geophys. 26, 2645--2648. DOI=www.ann-geophys.net/26/315/2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Maltseva, O. 2017. Verification of ionospheric models from TEC measurements and satellites. Sixth International Conference on Telecommunications and Remote Sensing, Delft, The Netherlands, 6-7 November 2017. Proceedings of ICTRS 2017. 54--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Chen, C.-H., Lin, C., Chen, W.-H., Matsuo, T. 2017. Modeling the ionospheric prereversal enhancement by using coupled thermosphere-ionosphere data assimilation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 1652--1659.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Ivanov, I.I. 2017. Ionospheric monitoring in the arctic at reverse transionospheric sounding, Radiation and Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves (RSEMW), 26-30 June 2017, Divnomorskoe, Russia. 118 -- 120. DOI=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8103582/.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Alfonsi, L., Gabriella, P., Spogli, L. et al. 2018. Analysis of the Regional Ionosphere at Low Latitudes in Support of the Biomass ESA Mission. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 08391754, 1--13. 0196--2892 © 2018 IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Gulyaeva, T.L., Arikan, F., Hernandez-Pajares, M., Stanislawska I. 2013. GIM-TEC adaptive ionospheric weather assessment and forecast system. J. Atm. Solar-Terr. Phys., 102, 329--340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kovalev, D.S., Tertyshnikov, A.V., Chukin, V.V., Glukhov, Y.V. 2016. Experiments on ionospheric research on board of the arctic floating university. Scholarly notes; 41, 156--164. DOI=http://www.rshu.ru/university/notes/archive/issue41/uz41-156-164.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ICTRS '18: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Telecommunications and Remote Sensing
    October 2018
    91 pages
    ISBN:9781450365802
    DOI:10.1145/3278161
    • General Chairs:
    • Marijn Janssen,
    • Boris Shishkov,
    • Program Chairs:
    • Andon Lazarov,
    • Dimitris Mitrakos

    Copyright © 2018 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 8 October 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate7of15submissions,47%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader