Articles | Volume 23, issue 5
Ann. Geophys., 23, 1555–1563, 2005

Special issue: Atmospheric studies by optical methods

Ann. Geophys., 23, 1555–1563, 2005

  27 Jul 2005

27 Jul 2005

Comparison between CNA and energetic electron precipitation: simultaneous observation by Poker Flat Imaging Riometer and NOAA satellite

Y.-M. Tanaka1, M. Ishii1, Y. Murayama1, M. Kubota1, H. Mori1, M.-Y. Yamamoto2, A. Kadokura3, D. Lummerzheim4, J. Desrochers4, and D. S. Evans5 Y.-M. Tanaka et al.
  • 1National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Japan
  • 2Kochi University of Technology, Japan
  • 3National Institute of Polar Research, Japan
  • 4Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA
  • 5NOAA Space Environment Center, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Abstract. The cosmic noise absorption (CNA) is compared with the precipitating electron flux for 19 events observed in the morning sector, using the high-resolution data obtained during the conjugate observations with the imaging riometer at Poker Flat Research Range (PFRR; 65.11° N, 147.42° W), Alaska, and the low-altitude satellite, NOAA 12. We estimate the CNA, using the precipitating electron flux measured by NOAA 12, based on a theoretical model assuming an isotropic pitch angle distribution, and quantitatively compare them with the observed CNA. Focusing on the eight events with a range of variation larger than 0.4dB, three events show high correlation between the observed and estimated CNA (correlation coefficient (r0)>0.7) and five events show low correlation (r0<0.5). The estimated CNA is often smaller than the observed CNA (72% of all data for 19 events), which appears to be the main reason for the low-correlation events. We examine the assumption of isotropic pitch angle distribution by using the trapped electron flux measured at 80° zenith angle. It is shown that the CNA estimated from the trapped electron flux, assuming an isotropic pitch angle distribution, is highly correlated with the observed CNA and is often overestimated (87% of all data). The underestimate (overestimate) of CNA derived from the precipitating (trapped) electron flux can be interpreted in terms of the anisotropic pitch angle distribution similar to the loss cone distribution. These results indicate that the CNA observed with the riometer may be quantitatively explained with a model based on energetic electron precipitation, provided that the pitch angle distribution and the loss cone angle of the electrons are taken into account.

Keywords. Energetic particles, precipitating – Energetic particles, trapped – Ionosphere-magnetosphere interactions