CEDAR‐GEM Challenge for Systematic Assessment of Ionosphere/Thermosphere Models in Predicting TEC During the 2006 December Storm Event. Issue 10 (5th October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Shim, J. S.; Rastätter, L.; Kuznetsova, M.; Bilitza, D.; Codrescu, M.; Coster, A. J.; Emery, B. A.; Fedrizzi, M.; Förster, M.; Fuller‐Rowell, T. J.; Gardner, L. C.; Goncharenko, L.; Huba, J.; McDonald, S. E.; Mannucci, A. J.; Namgaladze, A. A.; Pi, X.; Prokhorov, B. E.; Ridley, A. J.; Scherliess, L.; Schunk, R. W.; Sojka, J. J.; Zhu, L.
• Is Part Of: Space weather. Volume 15:Issue 10(2017:Oct.)
• Page Start: 1238
• Page End: 1256
• Publication Date: 2017-10-05
• Subjects: quantitative assessment of prediction capability of ionosphere/thermosphere models -- TEC prediction during the 2006 December Storm Event -- CEDAR‐GEM challenge; Space environment -- Periodicals; 551.509992
• DOI: 10.1002/2017SW001649
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1542-7390

Abstract

Abstract: In order to assess current modeling capability of reproducing storm impacts on total electron content (TEC), we considered quantities such as TEC, TEC changes compared to quiet time values, and the maximum value of the TEC and TEC changes during a storm. We compared the quantities obtained from ionospheric models against ground‐based GPS TEC measurements during the 2006 AGU storm event (14–15 December 2006) in the selected eight longitude sectors. We used 15 simulations obtained from eight ionospheric models, including empirical, physics‐based, coupled ionosphere‐thermosphere, and data assimilation models. To quantitatively evaluate performance of the models in TEC prediction during the storm, we calculated skill scores such as RMS error, Normalized RMS error (NRMSE), ratio of the modeled to observed maximum increase (Yield), and the difference between the modeled peak time and observed peak time. Furthermore, to investigate latitudinal dependence of the performance of the models, the skill scores were calculated for five latitude regions. Our study shows that RMSE of TEC and TEC changes of the model simulations range from about 3 TECU (total electron content unit, 1 TECU = 10 16 el m −2 ) (in high latitudes) to about 13 TECU (in low latitudes), which is larger than latitudinal average GPS TEC error of about 2 TECU. Most model simulations predict TEC better than TEC changes in terms of NRMSE and the difference in peak time, while the opposite holds true in terms of Yield. Model performance strongly depends on the quantities considered, the type of metrics used, and the latitude considered. Key Points: TEC and TEC changes during a storm predicted by ionosphere models were compared with ground‐based GPS TEC measurements Skill scores (e.g., RMSE, NRMSE, and Yields) were calculated for five latitude regions in the selected eight longitude sectors Model performance strongly depends on the quantities considered, the type of metrics used, and the latitude considered