Journal cover Journal topic
Annales Geophysicae An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

IF value: 1.490
IF1.490
IF 5-year value: 1.445
IF 5-year
1.445
CiteScore value: 2.9
CiteScore
2.9
SNIP value: 0.789
SNIP0.789
IPP value: 1.48
IPP1.48
SJR value: 0.74
SJR0.74
Scimago H <br class='widget-line-break'>index value: 88
Scimago H
index
88
h5-index value: 21
h5-index21
Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2019-110
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-2019-110
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

  19 Aug 2019

19 Aug 2019

Review status
A revised version of this preprint is currently under review for the journal ANGEO.

Auroral ionospheric E region parameters obtained from satellite-based far ultraviolet and ground-based ionosonde observations: Effects of proton precipitation

Harold K. Knight Harold K. Knight
  • Computational Physics, Inc., Springfield, VA, 22151, USA

Abstract. Coincident auroral far ultraviolet (FUV) and ground-based ionosonde observations are compared for the purpose of determining whether auroral FUV remote sensing algorithms that assume pure electron precipitation are biased in the presence of proton precipitation. Auroral particle transport and optical emission models, such as the Boltzmann 3-Constituent (B3C) model, predict that maximum E region electron density (NmE) values derived from auroral Lyman-Birge-Hopfield (LBH) emission assuming electron precipitation will be biased high by up to ~ 20 % for pure proton aurora, while comparisons between LBH radiances and radiances derived from in situ particle flux observations (i.e., Knight et al., 2008, 2012) indicate that the bias associated with proton aurora should be much larger. Surprisingly, in the comparisons with ionosonde observations described here, no bias associated with proton aurora is found in FUV-derived auroral NmE, which means that auroral FUV remote sensing methods for NmE are more accurate in the presence of proton precipitation than was suggested in the aforementioned earlier works. Possible explanations for the discrepancy with the earlier results are discussed.

Harold K. Knight

Interactive discussion

Status: final response (author comments only)
Status: final response (author comments only)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Login for Authors/Topical Editors] [Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Harold K. Knight

Harold K. Knight

Viewed

Total article views: 352 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
248 92 12 352 23 25
  • HTML: 248
  • PDF: 92
  • XML: 12
  • Total: 352
  • BibTeX: 23
  • EndNote: 25
Views and downloads (calculated since 19 Aug 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 19 Aug 2019)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 285 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 285 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved

No saved metrics found.

Discussed

No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 22 Oct 2020
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
Comparisons were made of ground-based ionosonde (a type of radar) observations of the ionosphere and satellite-based observations of auroral far-ultraviolet emissions to determine whether a remote sensing algorithm for determining auroral ionospheric electron densities from far-ultraviolet emissions was biased by the presence of proton precipitation, and it was found that there was no such bias.
Comparisons were made of ground-based ionosonde (a type of radar) observations of the ionosphere...
Citation