4.5 Article

Statistical behavior of the longitudinal variations of daytime electron density in the topside ionosphere at middle latitudes

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SPACE PHYSICS
卷 121, 期 11, 页码 11560-11573

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2016JA023029

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41204107, 41304047]
  2. NSF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electron density in the topside ionosphere has significant variations with latitude, longitude, altitude, local time, season, and solar cycle. This paper focuses on the global and seasonal features of longitudinal structures of daytime topside electron density (Ne) at middle latitudes and their possible causes. We used in situ Ne measured by DEMETER and F-2 layer peak height (h(m)F(2)) and peak density (NmF2) from COSMIC. The longitudinal variations of the daytime topside Ne show a wave number 2-type structure in the Northern Hemisphere, whereas those in the Southern Hemisphere are dominated by a wave number 1 structure and are much larger than those in the Northern Hemisphere. The patterns around December solstice (DS) in the Northern Hemisphere (winter) are different from other seasons, whereas the patterns in the Southern Hemisphere are similar in each season. Around March equinox (ME), June solstice (JS), and September equinox (SE) in the Northern Hemisphere and around ME, SE, and DS in the Southern Hemisphere, the longitudinal variations of topside Ne have similar patterns to h(m)F(2). Around JS in the Southern Hemisphere (winter), the topside Ne has similar patterns to NmF2 and h(m)F(2) does not change much with longitude. Thus, the topside variations may be explained intuitively in terms of h(m)F(2) and NmF2. This approach works reasonably well in most of the situations except in the northern winter in the topside not too far from the F-2 peak. In this sense, understanding variations in h(m)F(2) and NmF2 becomes an important and relevant subject for this topside ionospheric study.

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

4.5
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