Validation of the STORM model used in IRI with ionosonde data

Amarante, G. Miró; Santamaría, Marta; Alazo, K.; Radicella, S. M.

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.072

Cited by 22 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For TEC it would be important to also include the storm effect on the topside profile (scale height) and to a lesser extend the storm effect on the bottomside profile. In addition, IRI storm model has been proven effective only for negative storms and it does not provide update of foF2 values in the low latitude regions (Araujo-Pradere et al, 2003;Araujo-Pradere and Fuller-Rowell, 2002;Miró Amarante et al, 2007) …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A morphological study of GPS-TEC data at Agra and their comparison with the IRI model

Chauhan¹,

Singh²

2010

Advances in Space Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A morphological study of GPS-TEC data at Agra and their comparison with the IRI model

Chauhan¹,

Singh²

2010

Advances in Space Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…With the input of user‐defined location, date and time, the IRI model provides ionospheric parameters (http://irimodel.org). The IRI model is an empirical and deterministic model developed with an accomplished collaborative effort as given in studies such as (Amarante et al, ; Araujo‐Pradere et al, ; Bilitza, ; Bilitza & Reinisch, ; Bilitza, ; Galkin et al, ; Maltseva et al, ; Oyeyemi & McKinnell, ; Wilkinson, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to incorporate the effects of geomagnetic disturbances into the trend structure of IRI, “F peak storm” model was developed by (Codrescu et al, ; Fuller‐Rowell et al, ). The STORM model has been validated over measurement data (Amarante et al, ; Araujo‐Pradere et al, , ). The user can turn this option “ON” or “OFF.” The default value in IRI‐2016 is ON.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of IRI‐2016 F2 Layer Model Parameters with Ionosonde Measurements

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) is the international standard ionospheric climatic model. Since the original formation of the international task force in 1970s, the IRI model has been continuously improved by ingesting developments in research in ionosphere. The most current version, namely, IRI‐2016, is offered with International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) and International Union of Radio Science (URSI) model choices with “STORM” option for the F2 layer critical plasma frequency (foF2) and BSE‐1979, AMTB‐2013, and SHU‐2015 options for maximum ionization height, hmF2. Since these two parameters are the determining values for the other model outputs, the evaluation of the options offered by IRI‐2016 is critical for various applications. In this study, all foF2 and hmF2 model options offered online at http://irimodel.org are computed for winter and summer solstice and equinox seasons of 2011 and 2015 at the locations of all available ionosondes and for all measurement intervals. The ionosondes are grouped into northern and southern midlatitude, northern and southern high‐latitude and equatorial regions. Individual, regional and global model output foF2 and hmF2 values are compared with those of ionosondes in both root‐mean‐square (RMS) and normalized RMS (NRMS) senses. For foF2, “STORM ON” can be used any time and in any region. Equatorial and high‐latitude regions have larger RMS values due to the sparse ionosondes. In northern midlatitude and high‐latitude regions URSI, in all other regions CCIR is the better option. For hmF2, SHU‐2015 and BSE‐1979 options provide a better fit for all regions, seasons, and years.

show abstract

“…This has been demonstrated in many studies (Mansilla et al, 2004;Miro Amarante et al, 2007;Buresova et al, 2010;Klimenko et al, 2012b;Pezzopane et al, 2013;Pietrella, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 64%