Comparison of quiet-time ionospheric total electron content from the IRI-2016 model and from gridded and station-level GPS observations

Mengistu Tsidu, Gizaw; Melaku Zegeye, Mulugeta

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-725-2020

Articles | Volume 38, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-725-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-38-725-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 38, issue 3

Regular paper

|

16 Jun 2020

Regular paper |

| 16 Jun 2020

Comparison of quiet-time ionospheric total electron content from the IRI-2016 model and from gridded and station-level GPS observations

Gizaw Mengistu Tsidu and Mulugeta Melaku Zegeye

Download

Final revised paper (published on 16 Jun 2020)
Preprint (discussion started on 26 Mar 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of the paper', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 May 2019
- AC1: 'Authors’ response to interactive comment on “Comparison of quite time ionospheric total electron content from IRI-2016 model and GPS observations” by anonymous reviewers', Gizaw Mengistu Tsidu, 10 Oct 2019
RC2: 'Review of the article Comparison of quite time ionospheric total electron content from IRI-2016 model and GPS observations', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jul 2019
- AC1: 'Authors’ response to interactive comment on “Comparison of quite time ionospheric total electron content from IRI-2016 model and GPS observations” by anonymous reviewers', Gizaw Mengistu Tsidu, 10 Oct 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (17 Oct 2019) by Dalia Buresova

AR by Lorena Grabowski on behalf of the Authors (12 Dec 2019) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (23 Jan 2020) by Dalia Buresova

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (23 Feb 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (16 Apr 2020)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (21 Apr 2020) by Dalia Buresova

Dear Authors,

Me and both referees appreciated the work you did when improving the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions. It’s my pleasure to inform you that after the revision, the submission’s status has changed from "major revision" to "minor revision". Please, consider carefully the additional minor comments and suggestions of the referees added below. After you’ll send us the revised version, including your response, I’ll read the manuscript again. I believe that this will be a last step for the manuscript to be recommended for publication.
Kindest regards

Yours sincerely
D. Buresova

One of the referees asked me to convey the following message:
"They (the authors) have done really good study. To prove the failure of the model does not help improve future releases. The physical mechanism or mechanisms controlling the conditions of the model shortcomings are not stated in the article clearly. I strongly recommend to reduce the parameters under study to the solar zenith angle and magnetic local time as well. It can really help in significant improvement of IRI model."

The second referee is also sending you some comments:

In the manuscript, the authors evaluate the IRI performance comprehensively by using GPS TEC data, and the results are convincing. Moreover, the manuscript is well organized, so I think it is suitable for publication after making minor corrections. Minor comments:
1. For the abbreviation “EIA” in the abstract, full name should be given when appearing for the first time.
2. In Section 2.2.1, when explaining why using the Pearson correlation analysis, the author mentions “Several studies have shown that TEC data for a limited number of days fulfills both of these conditions.", I think it is better to add some relevant references.
3. Page 9 line 10 and Equation (13): replace POD with QPOD?.
4. In the Results and Discussions part, the arrangement of some pictures is unreasonable, which makes it inconvenient to read. For example, Figures 2-4 are mainly mentioned in Section 3.1.1, but the author puts them at the end of Section 3.1.2. While Figures 5 and 6, mentioned in Section 3.1.2, are put in Section 3.1.3. I hope the author will review and organize them in a clear way.

Hide

AR by Gizaw Mengistu Tsidu on behalf of the Authors (10 May 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (14 May 2020) by Dalia Buresova

Short summary

The performance of the IRI-2016 model in simulating GPS-TEC is assessed based on various statistical tools during two distinct solar activity periods. In particular, the categorical metrics used in the study to assess the performance of the empirical and climatological IRI-2016 model at the margins of the TEC distribution reveal remarkable model skill in simulating the observed tails of the TEC distribution, which is much better than accurately simulating the observed climatology as designed.