search

NOAA-SWPC / IPE

Ionosphere Plasmasphere Electrodynamics Model
GNU General Public License v3.0
6 stars 10 forks source link

IPE responses to the 2003 Nov Storm #2

Closed twfang closed 4 years ago

twfang commented 4 years ago

This issue is to document the WAM-IPE responses to 2003 Nov storm.

  1. WAM-IPE needs to be run for fix drivers for a few days to reach steady-state for November condition
  2. WAM-IPE then will be run using time-varying drivers for the period.
twfang commented 4 years ago

In order to prepare IPE initial condition for the storm run. A 4-day run with fixed drivers (F10.7=130 and Kp=4) and empirical E field in Nov has been carried out. Below shows the results of the 1st and 4th day run.

2003/11/18 TEC_1118_fixdrivers

Steady-state result in the 4th day TEC_1121_fixdrivers

There seems to have several unrealistic boundaries in IPE for the quiet-time run. I will use the last IPE output for the 2003 storm run.

@IonospherePlasmasphereElectrodynamics If you have old IPE run for Nov/Dec condition, it would be great to do a comparison.

naomimaruyama commented 4 years ago

@twfang

Thank you very much for the plots. I got confused. Was 2003/11/21 supposed to be the recovery phase of the storm (the main phase was 11/20) and are those boundaries the response to the storm ?

As for the validation of Nov/Dec, you might be interested to start with fig 1 of this paper for Dec Solstice in 2012 although the plot shows NmF2.

I do not have any runs for November. I am going to run the Nov 2003 event with the old version of IPE.

twfang commented 4 years ago

This is a quiet run using fixed drivers, just for preparing Nov condition for IPE. No storm conditions have been applied yet.

twfang commented 4 years ago

Could you give me the values of those NmF2 from the paper, if you still have them?

twfang commented 4 years ago

Just to document where we are for the run. IPE failed at the first day with the odd initial condition I generated, which was supposed to be the steady-state result).

20031118 TEC_1118_timeobs

20031119 TEC_1119_timeobs

20031120 TEC_1120_timeobs

20031121 TEC_1121_timeobs

I also did a test run without using the new IPE initial condition, the run seems to be more stable with much lower TEC but the Nans did eventually show up on Nov 20.

naomimaruyama commented 4 years ago

@Tsu-Wei Fang twfang@hao.ucar.edu

Could you give me the values of those NmF2 from the paper, if you still

have them?

I am really sorry for the delay. you requested the nmf2 values. Yang Yi made the figure, so he has the original data. I can check with him if he still has the data. Also I can check his old archive on HPSS as well. Thanks. Naomi

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:05 PM twfang notifications@github.com wrote:

Could you give me the values of those NmF2 from the paper, if you still have them?

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NOAA-SWPC/WAM-IPE/issues/359?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADIZZYSYXOCABPQ5WX4HQE3QSSNMDA5CNFSM4JKOHTG2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEDOEPCI#issuecomment-551307145, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADIZZYWDO7AAYBQ3ZJO4KVTQSSNMDANCNFSM4JKOHTGQ .

--

Naomi Maruyama CIRES, Univ. of Colorado Boulder NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center phone: +1 303.497.4857 <%28303%29%20497-4857> email: naomi.maruyama@noaa.gov