Analysis of Ionospheric VTEC Retrieved from Multi-Instrument Observations
-
Published:2024-06-09
Issue:6
Volume:15
Page:697
-
ISSN:2073-4433
-
Container-title:Atmosphere
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Atmosphere
Author:
Oztan Gurkan1ORCID, Duman Huseyin2ORCID, Alcay Salih3, Ogutcu Sermet3, Ozdemir Behlul Numan4ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Department of Land Registry and Cadastre, Bor Vocational School, Nigde Omer Halisdemir University, Nigde 51700, Türkiye 2. Department of Geomatics Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas 58140, Türkiye 3. Department of Geomatics Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya 42090, Türkiye 4. Department of Geomatics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Science, Konya Technical University, Konya 42250, Türkiye
Abstract
This study examines the Vertical Total Electron Content (VTEC) estimation performance of multi-instruments on a global scale during different ionospheric conditions. For this purpose, GNSS-based VTEC data from Global Ionosphere Maps (GIMs), COSMIC (F7/C2)—Feng–Yun 3C (FY3C) radio occultation (RO) VTEC, SWARM–VTEC, and JASON–VTEC were utilized. VTEC assessments were conducted on three distinct days: geomagnetic active (17 March 2015), solar active (22 December 2021), and quiet (11 December 2021). The VTEC values of COSMIC/FY3C RO, SWARM, and JASON were compared with data retrieved from GIMs. According to the results, COSMIC RO–VTEC is more consistent with GIM–VTEC on a quiet day (the mean of the differences is 4.38 TECU), while the mean of FY3C RO–GIM differences is 7.33 TECU on a geomagnetic active day. The range of VTEC differences between JASON and GIM is relatively smaller on a quiet day, and the mean of differences on active/quiet days is less than 6 TECU. Besides the daily comparison, long-term results (1 January–31 December 2015) were also analyzed by considering active and quiet periods. Results show that Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values of COSMIC RO, FY3C RO, SWARM, and JASON are 5.02 TECU, 6.81 TECU, 16.25 TECU, and 5.53 TECU for the quiet period, and 5.21 TECU, 7.07 TECU, 17.48 TECU, and 5.90 TECU for the active period, respectively. The accuracy of each data source was affected by solar/geomagnetic activities. The deviation of SWARM–VTEC is relatively greater. The main reason for the significant differences in SWARM–GIM results is the atmospheric measurement range of SWARM satellites (460 km–20,200 km (SWARM A, C) and 520 km–20,200 km (SWARM B), which do not contain a significant part of the ionosphere in terms of VTEC estimation.
Reference45 articles.
1. López-Urias, C., Vazquez-Becerra, G.E., Nayak, K., and López-Montes, R. (2023). Analysis of ionospheric disturbances during x-class solar flares (2021–2022) using GNSS data and wavelet analysis. Remote Sens., 15. 2. Traveling ionospheric disturbances in the vicinity of storm-enhanced density at midlatitudes;Zhang;J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.,2022 3. Essien, P., Figueiredo, C.A.O.B., Takahashi, H., Wrasse, C.M., Barros, D., Klutse, N.A.B., Lomotey, S.O., Ayorinde, T.T., Gobbi, D., and Bilibio, A.V. (2021). Long-Term study on medium-scale traveling ionospheric disturbances observed over the South American Equatorial Region. Atmosphere, 12. 4. Atabati, A., Alizadeh, M., Schuh, H., and Tsai, L.-C. (2021). Ionospheric scintillation prediction on S4 and ROTI parameters using artificial neural network and genetic algorithm. Remote Sens., 13. 5. Feng, J., Yuan, Y., Zhang, T., Zhang, Z., and Meng, D. (2023). Analysis of ionospheric anomalies before the Tonga volcanic eruption on 15 January 2022. Remote Sens., 15.
|
|