Premium
The Empirical Canadian High Arctic Ionospheric Model (E‐CHAIM): N m F 2 and h m F 2
Author(s) -
Themens David R.,
Jayachandran P. T.,
Galkin Ivan,
Hall Chris
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: space physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2169-9402
pISSN - 2169-9380
DOI - 10.1002/2017ja024398
Subject(s) - ionosonde , ionosphere , quiet , international reference ionosphere , equinox , geomagnetic storm , ionogram , physics , radio occultation , empirical modelling , geodesy , meteorology , earth's magnetic field , atmospheric sciences , electron density , geology , geophysics , tec , total electron content , electron , computer science , quantum mechanics , magnetic field , programming language
We present here the Empirical Canadian High Arctic Ionospheric Model (E‐CHAIM) quiet N m F 2 , perturbation N m F 2 , and quiet h m F 2 models. These models provide peak ionospheric characteristics for a domain above 50°N geomagnetic latitude. Model fitting is undertaken using all available ionosonde and radio occultation electron density data, constituting a data set of over 28 million observations. A comprehensive validation of the model is undertaken, and performance is compared to that of the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI). In the case of the quiet N m F 2 model, the E‐CHAIM model provides a systematic improvement over the IRI Union Radio Scientifique Internationale maps. At all stations within the polar cap, we see drastic RMS error improvements over the IRI by up to 1.3 MHz in critical frequency (up to 60% in N m F 2 ). These improvements occur primarily during equinox periods and at low solar activities, decreasing somewhat as one tends to lower latitudes. Qualitatively, the E‐CHAIM is capable of representing auroral enhancements in N m F 2 , as well as the location and extent of the main ionospheric trough, not reproduced by the IRI. The included N m F 2 storm model demonstrates improvements over the IRI by up to 35% and over the quiet time E‐CHAIM model by up to 30%. In terms of h m F 2 , over the validation periods used in this study, we found overall RMS errors of ~13 km for E‐CHAIM, with IRI2007 overall h m F 2 errors ranging between 16 km and 22 km. The E‐CHAIM performs comparably to or slightly better than the IRI within the polar cap; however, significant improvements are found within the auroral oval.