Study of the thermospheric and ionospheric response to the 2009 sudden stratospheric warming using TIME‐GCM and GSM TIP models: First results

Abstract

This paper presents a study of mesosphere and low thermosphere influence on ionospheric disturbances during 2009 major sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event. This period was characterized by extremely low solar and geomagnetic activity. The study was performed using two first principal models: thermosphere-ionosphere-mesosphere electrodynamics general circulation model (TIME-GCM) and global self-consistent model of thermosphere, ionosphere, and protonosphere (GSM TIP). The stratospheric anomalies during SSW event were modeled by specifying the temperature and density perturbations at the lower boundary of the TIME-GCM (30 km altitude) according to data from European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. Then TIME-GCM output at 80 km was used as lower boundary conditions for driving GSM TIP model runs. We compare models' results with ground-based ionospheric data at low latitudes obtained by GPS receivers in the American longitudinal sector. GSM TIP simulation predicts the occurrence of the quasi-wave vertical structure in neutral temperature disturbances at 80-200 km altitude, and the positive and negative disturbances in total electron content at low latitude during the 2009 SSW event. According to our model results the formation mechanisms of the low-latitude ionospheric response are the disturbances in the n(O)/n(N 2) ratio and thermospheric wind. The change in zonal electric field is key mechanism driving the ionospheric response at low latitudes, but our model results do not completely reproduce the variability in zonal electric fields (vertical plasma drift) at low latitudes. Although importance of PW in generating ionospheric disturbances during SSW is suggested in early studies [Goncharenko et al., 2010a, 2010b; Pedatella and Forbes, 2010; Fejer et al., 2011], exact mechanisms are a subject of active research due to a variety and complexity of interactions of planetary waves with tides, gravity waves, and mean flow. Several mechanisms can modify thermospheric tides and through E region dynamo generate KLIMENKO ET AL.

Total electron content disturbances during minor sudden stratospheric warming, over the Brazilian region: A case study during January 2012

“…However, now we have learned that the SSW also plays an important role on the equatorial, low‐latitude, and midlatitude day‐to‐day ionospheric variability. The effects of SSW on ionosphere have been studied by many authors, using different observational techniques and model simulation [ Bessarab et al ., ; Chau et al ., , , ; Fagundes et al ., ; Fang et al ., ; Fejer et al ., , ; Goncharenko and Zhang , ; Goncharenko et al ., , ; L. Goncharenko et al , ; L. P. Goncharenko et al , ; Klimenko et al ., ; Korenkov et al ., ; Korenkova et al ., ; Liu et al ., ; Olson et al ., ; Pancheva and Mukhtarov , ; Pedatella et al ., , ; Sripathi and Bhattacharyya , ; Sumod et al ., ; Upadhayaya and Mahajan , ; Vineeth et al ., ; Xiong et al ., ]. According to Fagundes et al .…”

Variation of Small‐Scale Gravity Wave Activity in the Ionosphere During the Major Sudden Stratospheric Warming Event of 2009

“…It was devoid of any major geomagnetic disturbance which could help interpret the effects due to internal sources. Second, the 2009 SSW event has been studied extensively (Azeem et al, ; Chau et al, ; Conde & Nicolls, ; Fagundes et al, ; Fang et al, ; Forbes & Zhang, ; Fuller‐Rowell, Akmaev, et al, ; Fuller‐Rowell, Wang, et al ; Goncharenko, Coster, et al, ; Goncharenko, Chau, et al, ; He et al, ; Klimenko et al, ; Korenkov et al, ; Lin et al, ; Liu et al, , ; McDonald et al, ; Oyama et al, ; Patra et al, ; Pedatella et al, ), which gives us an advantage to use it as an ideal testbed. However, we must emphasize that none of the studies focused on small‐scale GWs.…”

Multimodel comparison of the ionosphere variability during the 2009 sudden stratosphere warming

“…Owing to the spatial and temporal sampling constraints of observations, numerical simulations of SSWs are an essential tool for developing a comprehensive understanding of the middle and upper atmosphere response to SSWs. Various aspects of the upper atmosphere variability during SSWs have therefore been investigated using both idealized and realistic simulations [Liu and Roble, 2002;Fuller-Rowell et al, 2010;Liu et al, 2011;Wang et al, 2011;Jin et al, 2012;Korenkov et al, 2012;Fang et al, 2012Fang et al, , 2014aPedatella et al, 2012Pedatella et al, , 2014aMaute et al, 2014;Klimenko et al, 2015a;Pedatella and Maute, 2015;Klimenko et al, 2016]. However, in order to derive conclusions from the simulations, it is important to have confidence in the simulation results and understand any potential shortcomings.…”