F2 region maximum electron density height predictions for South American latitudes

Authors

  • R. G. Ezquer,

    1. Facultad Regional Tucumán, Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Tucumán, Argentina
    2. Laboratorio de Ionósfera, Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina
    3. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Search for more papers by this author
  • L. Scidá,

    1. Laboratorio de Ionósfera, Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina
    Search for more papers by this author
  • G. A. Mansilla,

    1. Facultad Regional Tucumán, Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Tucumán, Argentina
    2. Laboratorio de Ionósfera, Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina
    3. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Search for more papers by this author
  • M. Mosert,

    1. Facultad Regional Tucumán, Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Tucumán, Argentina
    2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
    3. Complejo Astronómico El Leoncito (CASLEO), San Juan, Argentina
    Search for more papers by this author
  • M. F. Herrera

    1. Laboratorio de Ionósfera, Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

[1] Values of the F2 region maximum electron density height (hmF2) calculated using ground ionosonde data at South American latitudes are used to check the validity of the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI) to predict this variable. With this in mind we compare hmF2 predictions given by the model when measurements of critical frequency of F2 region and propagation parameter M(3000)F2 were used as input parameter in IRI (hmF2IRI-Exp), against those obtained using the standard International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) option (hmF2IRI-CCIR). In this paper we used hmF2IRI-Exp values because hmF2 measurements were not available for the considered cases. Moreover, a comparison of the measured M(3000)F2 values with the CCIR predictions have been done. The results show that, in general, the standard predictions follow the diurnal tendency observed in the hmF2IRI-Exp values. At low latitudes the hmF2IRI-Exp values show oscillations not reproduced by the standard option. Cases with disagreements for 24 hours have been observed at high latitudes. Other cases with good agreement have been also obtained. The results suggest that, in general, the standard option of the model gives good hmF2 predictions at South American latitudes. Few cases showed deviation between 15 and 25%. As we expected, the obtained results suggest that the deviation between predicted and measured M(3000)F2 values is the main contribution for the deviation between hmF2IRI-CCIR and hmF2IRI-Exp. The comparison with the results obtained in previous work shows that the IRI performance in predicting M(3000)F2 and hmF2 is better than in predicting foF2.

Ancillary