Modelling F2-layer seasonal trends and day-to-day variability driven by coupling with the lower atmosphere

This paper presents results from the TIME-GCM-CCM3 thermosphere–ionosphere–lower atmosphere flux-coupled model, and investigates how well the model simulates known F2-layer day/night and seasonal behaviour and patterns of day-to-day variability at seven ionosonde stations. Of the many possible contributors to F2-layer variability, the present work includes only the influence of ‘meteorological’ disturbances transmitted from lower levels in the atmosphere, solar and geomagnetic conditions being held at constant levels throughout a model year.In comparison to ionosonde data, TIME-GCM-CCM3 models the peak electron density (NmF2) quite well, except for overemphasizing the daytime summer/winter anomaly in both hemispheres and seriously underestimating night NmF2 in summer. The peak height hmF2 is satisfactorily modelled by day, except that the model does not reproduce its observed semiannual variation. Nighttime values of hmF2 are much too low, thus causing low model values of night NmF2. Comparison of the variations of NmF2 and the neutral [O/N₂] ratio supports the idea that both annual and semiannual variations of F2-layer electron density are largely caused by changes of neutral composition, which in turn are driven by the global thermospheric circulation.Finally, the paper describes and discusses the characteristics of the F2-layer response to the imposed ‘meteorological’ disturbances. The ionospheric response is evaluated as the standard deviations of five ionospheric parameters for each station within 11-day blocks of data. At any one station, the patterns of variability show some coherence between different parameters, such as peak electron density and the neutral atomic/molecular ratio. Coherence between stations is found only between the closest pairs, some 2500 km apart, which is presumably related to the scale size of the ‘meteorological’ disturbances. The F2-layer day-to-day variability appears to be related more to variations in winds than to variations of thermospheric composition.     

Day-by-day modelling of the ionospheric F2-layer for year 2002

The thermosphere–ionosphere–mesosphere-electrodynamics general circulation model (TIME-GCM) has been run for the year 2002. Its version 1.2 features include day-by-day input of solar irradiance, geomagnetic energy input parameterized by the 3-h Kp index, and global lower boundary conditions from the National Centres for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) data. In addition, it includes tidal forcing from the global-scale wave model (GSWM) and parameterized gravity waves from below. The computed day-by-day values of noon peak electron density NmF2 agree well with ionosonde data for five northern sites and two southern mid-latitude sites, and closely follow the day-by-day modelled concentration ratio of atomic oxygen to molecular nitrogen. Seasonal and hemispheric patterns appear in the model with some, though not full, success. The model's day-to-day patterns show an impressive degree of variability, with simulations of total variability both above and below those observed.     

The equatorial and low-latitude ionosphere within the context of global modeling

The thermosphere–ionosphere–mesosphere-electrodynamics coupled model TIME-GCM, coupled to NCEP lower atmosphere data, is used to simulate the noontime ionospheric peak electron density NmF2 at low latitudes for year 2002. Model output are compared with observations a three ionosonde stations: Jicamarca, Ascension Island and Darwin, stations at geomagnetic latitudes of 3°S, 10°S and 22°S, respectively. The modeled electron density at the peak of the F2-layer (NmF2) matches the general trend of the data fairly well at noon throughout the year. The shapes of the diurnal curves of NmF2 vs. local time are not well produced in the model, and particularly so at the two stations away from the geomagnetic equator. At all sites the day-to-day variability of NmF2, assessed using the percent standard deviation about the monthly mean, is about twice the modeled variability. Possible sources of this shortfall in the model may be due to the under-representation of coupling from below and/or from auroral sources.