Evaluation of Total Electron Content Prediction Using Three Ionosphere‐Thermosphere Models. Issue 9 (21st September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Verkhoglyadova, O.; Meng, X.; Mannucci, A. J.; Shim, J.‐S.; McGranaghan, R.
• Is Part Of: Space weather. Volume 18:Issue 9(2020)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2020-09-21
• Subjects: space weather -- ionosphere -- prediction -- modeling -- geomagnetic storms; Space environment -- Periodicals; 551.509992
• DOI: 10.1029/2020SW002452
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1542-7390

Abstract

Abstract: Prediction of ionospheric state is a critical space weather problem. We expand on our previous research of medium‐range ionospheric forecasts and present new results on evaluating prediction capabilities of three physics‐based ionosphere‐thermosphere models (Thermosphere Ionosphere Electrodynamics General Circulation Model, TIE‐GCM; Coupled Thermosphere Ionosphere Plasmasphere Electrodynamics Model, CTIPe; and Global Ionosphere Thermosphere Model, GITM). The focus of our study is understanding how current modeling approaches may predict the global ionosphere for geomagnetic storms (as studied through 35 storms during 2000–2016). Prediction approach uses physics‐based modeling without any manual model adjustment, quality control, or selection of the results. Our goal is to understand to what extent current physics‐based modeling can be used in total electron content (TEC) prediction and explore uncertainties of these prediction efforts with multiday lead times. The ionosphere‐thermosphere model runs are driven by actual interplanetary conditions, whether those data come from real‐time measurements or predicted values themselves. These model runs were performed by the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC). Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)‐produced global ionospheric maps (GIMs) were used to validate model TEC estimates. We utilize the True Skill Statistic (TSS) metric for the TEC prediction evaluation, noting that this is but one metric to assess predictive skill and that complete evaluations require combinations of such metrics. The meanings of contingency table elements for the prediction performance are analyzed in the context of ionosphere modeling. Prediction success is between about 0.2 and 0.5 for weak ionospheric disturbances and decreases for strong disturbances. We evaluate the prediction of TEC decreases and increases. Our results indicate that physics‐based modeling during storms shows promise in TEC prediction with multiday lead time. Key Points: Physics‐based predictions of the total ionospheric content are evaluated for 35 storms Prediction success is estimated below 0.5 and is with line with other geospace model predictions Physics‐based modeling shows promise in TEC prediction with multiday lead time It is important to evaluate all elements of the contingency matrix and to understand the role of each element in evaluation metrics