WAM Validation: Intense storm 20031120

[ZhuxiaoLi66]

Mariangle, Adam, Martin, Tim and I are putting efforts on a WAM case validation on the very intense 20031120 storm. It is a much more intense storm than 2015 St. Patrick one (see Adam's plot about the input parameters). WAM has done the simulation very smoothly and the data are processing, it will be interesting to see the response of WAM, especially several recently updates, to this storm.

[ZhuxiaoLi66]

F10.7, Kp, GW (capped at 300 as Mariangel said), Bt, Angle, Vel, Bz, Density

[ZhuxiaoLi66]

Here is the direct number density comparison between CHAMP and WAM output, plot by Martin.

The following is the number density comparison between GRACE and WAM for 2015 St. Patrick storm.

[ZhuxiaoLi66]

The temp. and number density on Nov.20 and Nov.21 are show in the following plot. Briefly to say that the temp. (250km) are a little bit higher than 2015 St. Patric day storm with the VBz factor constrain.

[ZhuxiaoLi66]

The accumulate O_N2 based on WAM output during the storm Nov.20-21 is not as large as GUVI data. Will double check the calculation and running configuration again later.

[ZhuxiaoLi66]

[ZhuxiaoLi66]

A new experiment with the fixed F107 value (=107) in the WAM storm run has been done. It is aiming to test the influence of the sharply increased F107 during the 20031120 storm period on the bias of WAM number density from the satellite observation during both quite and intense storm time. The results indicates that F107 doesn't contribute much and our VBz saturation factor on Jourle Heating calculation works well on the more intense 20031120 storm case.

[ZhuxiaoLi66]

Champ validation on the Original WAM run (normalized by the Nov.18 data)

Champ Valiedation on the WAM storm run with the Fixed F107 (=107.) (normalized by the Nov.18 data).