Quiet-condition hmF2, NmF2, and B0 variations at Jicamarca and comparison with IRI-2001during solar maximum

Abstract

We use the measurements of the Jicamarca digisonde to examine the variations in F2 layer peak electron density (NmF2), its height (hmF2), and the F2 layer thickness parameter (B0) near the dip equator. The hourly ionograms during geomagnetic quiet-conditions for a 12-month period close to the maximum solar activity, April 1999–March 2000, are used to calculate the monthly averages of these parameters, for each month. The averages are compared with the International Reference Ionosphere (IRI)-2001 model values. The results show that the higher hmF2 values during daytime, associated with the upward velocity, are mainly responsible for the greater values of NmF2 and B0; while the nighttime lower hmF2, related to the downward velocity, are responsible for the smaller NmF2 and B0. For daytime, hmF2 and NmF2 are correlated with the solar activity in the equinoctial and summer months. The hmF2 and B0 peaks at sunset with an associated sharp decrease in NmF2 are presented in the equinoctial and summer months, but not in the winter months. Comparison of the measured hmF2 values with the International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR) maps used in IRI-2001 (IRI-CCIR) reveals an IRI overestimate in hmF2 during daytime. The most significant discrepancy is that the IRI-CCIR does not model the post-sunset peak in hmF2. For the NmF2 comparison, the values obtained from both the CCIR and URSI maps are generally close to the observed values. For the B0 comparison, the highest discrepancy between the observation and the Gulyaeva option (IRI-Gulyaeva) is the location of the annual maximum for the daytime values, also the winter daytime predictions are too low. Additionally, the significant negative difference between the observation and the B0-table option (IRI-B0-table) provides a slightly better prediction, except for 0400–1000 LT when the model significantly overestimates. The post-sunset peak in B0 at some months is predicted by neither the IRI-Gulyaeva nor the IRI-B0-table options.