Multi-station observation of ionospheric disturbance of March 9 2012 and comparison with IRI-model

• Published in: Advances in space research 2013-08, Vol.52 (4), p.604-613
• Main Authors: Adebesin, B.O., Ikubanni, S.O., Adebiyi, S.J., Joshua, B.W.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Daytime; Displays; Equatorial regions; hmF2; Ionospheric disturbances; Magnetic disturbance; Mathematical models; Mid-latitude; Night; NmF2; Shape parameter; Stations; Storms; Thickness parameter
• ISSN: 0273-1177; 1879-1948
• DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2013.05.002

•F2-layer response to the storm of March 9 was investigated.•Both the quiet and disturbed periods responses using hmF2, NmF2, B0 and B1 parameters were used for the study.•The observed responses in all parameters used were compared with IRI-07 model.•B0 and B1 responses deviates away from the results obtained for hmF2 and NmF2. The magnetic storm of 9 March 2012 is a single step intense storm (Dst=−143nT) whose main phase begins around 0100UT and lasted for almost 11h. The increases in NmF2 recorded 33% and 67% incidence respectively during the main and the recovery phase of the storm at the stations considered. The increase in hmF2 occurred concurrently with the increase in thickness parameter B0 between 0000 and 1100UT, and a simultaneous decrease in the shape parameter B1 for the entire mid-latitude stations. Generally, B1 responded to the storm with a decrease away from the quiet day average, and decreased simultaneously with the increase in NmF2. B0 displays higher variability magnitude during daytime than the nighttime period. The occasional differences in the response of the ionospheric parameters to the storm event are attributed to longitudinal differences. Variation in hmF2 and NmF2 is projected to change in B1, but the rationale behind this effect on B1 is still not known and therefore left open. The two IRI options over-estimate the observed values with that of URSI higher than CCIR. The over-estimation was higher during the nighttime than the daytime for NmF2 response for the mid-latitude stations and the reverse for the equatorial station. A fairer fit of the model with the observed for all parameters over Jicamarca suggests that equatorial regions are better represented on the model. Extensive study of B1 and B0 is recommended to arrive at a better performance of IRI.