4.2 Article

Temporal evolution of neutral, thermospheric winds and plasma response using PFISR measurements of gravity waves

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2009.01.011

关键词

Gravity waves; Neutral dynamics; Modeling; Thermosphere; Ionosphere

资金

  1. NSF [ATM-0537311, ATM-0608577]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we analyze the temporal variability of the propagation and dissipation of two southeast (SE)ward-propagating gravity waves (GWs) observed by the Poker Flat Incoherent Scatter Radar (PFISR) on 13 December 2006. We determine the GW vertical wavelengths as a function of altitude along each constant wave phase line, then extract the neutral, horizontal winds every similar to 10-12 min (one-half of a wave period) along the direction of GW propagation as a function of altitude using an accurate, dissipative GW dispersion relation and MSIS temperatures. We find that the neutral wind in the northwest (NW) direction above PFISR was composed of a slowly varying mean of similar to-150 m/s plus a slowly moving, large-scale wave with a period of 3-5 h. These winds added at z similar to 190 km, creating a large NW wind of similar to-(200-250) m/s. This wind caused these two GWs to become evanescent or nearly evanescent some of the time, although their amplitudes increased up to z similar to 210-240 km. We find that the winds accelerated in the SEward direction by similar to 100-150 m/s in 30-40 min at z similar to 190 km. We hypothesize that these accelerations are thermospheric body forces caused by the dissipation of SEward-propagating GWs excited by mountain wave breaking near the mesopause NW of PFISR. This hypothesis is supported by tropospheric winds and the consistency of the observed GW periods. Finally, we ray trace these GWs through the extracted winds, and using a simple single-ion plasma model, compare the theoretical and measured plasma responses. We find that theory agrees reasonably well with observations. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据