modeling particle precipitation in the earth’s atmosphere · 2013-11-22 · modeling particle...

Modeling Particle Precipitation in the Earth’sAtmosphere

and how precise it is10th European Space Weather Week, Antwerpen

Jan Maik Wissing

Department of Physicse-mail: [email protected]

November 21, 2013

Motivation

[Jackman et al., 2001]

Why are we interested inprecipitating particles?

Impacts:ionizationchemical processeselectric conductivity

Measurement of1 input (needs in-situ

particlemeasurements)

2 effects (TEC: radars,GPS or limp-sounding:MIPAS)

Jan Maik Wissing (University of Osnabruck) Modeling Particle Precipitation November 21, 2013 2 / 20

Outline

Outline1 How do particle precipitation models work?2 How precise are these models?

satellite datamodel assumptions

How does an ionization model work?

Scheme

@@R

optional

?

1 5 10 50 100 500

1

10

100

1000

104

proton energy @MeVD

part

icle

flux

@Hm2 s

srM

eVL-

1 D

spectrum fit northern polar cap: 2006 doy 305 16 -18 h

Power Law

Maxwell

kind of fit function

@@R

?

pitch angle assumption

��

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS IN MODELING ATMOSPHERICIONIZATION BY PRECIPITATING PARTICLES

WHICH PARTS OF IONIZATION MODELS AFFECTED BY UNCERTAINTIES? AND HOW MUCH?

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS INMODELING ATMOSPHERIC IONIZATIONBY PRECIPITATING PARTICLESJAN MAIK WISSING AND MAY-BRITT KALLENRODE

MOTIVATIONWe model atmospheric ionization by parti-cles because they impact chemical processesand change the electric conductivity.But are ionization models reliable? Whichassumtions are used and are they realistic?Which parts of the ionization modeling stillneed improvements?

IONIZATION MODEL SCHEME

R

optional?

1 5 10 50 100 500

1

10

100

1000

104

proton energy @MeVD

parti

cle

flux

@Hm2 s

srM

eVL-

1 D


Power Law

Maxwell


R

?pitch angle assumption

An ionization model consists of twobranches, left side: particle measurementand spectrum fit, and right side: simulationof ionization by single particles and theassumtion of a pitch angle distribution.Estimated errors will now be discussed.

DETECTOR DEGENERATIONImpinging particles cause structure defects,that effectively shift in the channel’s energythresholds to higher energies.

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

2

4

6

8

10

12

N15N16�N17N18

2

4

6

8

10

12

Α factor Henergy shift in detector thresholdsL

ratio

corr

ecte

d�unc

orre

cted

flux

Α factors for for mid 2011 from Asikainen et al. 2012Detector degeneration in mep0P1 channels

Γ=-1

Γ=-2

Γ=-3

Γ=-4

steepness ofthe spectra

PARTICLE DATADifferent satellites = different ionization

10 20 50 100 200 500

1000

50001´104

5´1041´105

5´1051´106

proton energy @MeVD

parti

cle

flux

@Hm2 s

srM

eVL-

1 D

spectrum fit northern polar cap: 2003 doy 303 8-10 h

GOES 11 : 3

GOES 10 : 3

satellite : number of fits

107 108 109

104

103

102

101

100

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4

16

31

49

66

81

94

108

144

233

ionization rate @m-3s-1D

pres

sure

@PaD

altit

ude

appr

ox.@k

mD

ionization northern polar cap: 2006 doy 303 8-10 h

GOES 11 : 3

GOES 10 : 3

range : number of fits

Measurements may differ because of

• initial characteristics (construction)• degradation, crosstalk• local flux variations

REFERENCES

[Asikainen et al.] Asikainen,T. , K. Mursula , V. Ma-liniemi, Correction of detector noise and recalibration ofNOAA/MEPED energetic proton fluxes, JGR 2012, inpress

[Yando et al.] K. Yando, R.M. Millan, J.C. Green andD.S. Evans, A Monte Carlo simulation of the NOAA POESMedium Energy Proton and Electron Detector instrument,JGR, 116, A10231, 2011

[AIMOS] Atmospheric Ionization ModuleOSnabrück

CROSSTALK (POES MEPED)Contributions by out of view particles:<10% in the isotropic case. However, above2 MeV the telescopes become increasinglysusceptible to out-of-field electrons. Andflux is not necessarily isotropic (e.g. radia-tion belts).

Crosstalk by different particle energiesProton detectors:

our simulation results by comparison with known char-acteristics of the MEPED instrument response, we concludethat the generally excellent agreement validates the modelgeometries and simulation physics.

4.1. Proton Telescope Response

[28] Figure 3 illustrates energy deposition by protons (red,orange) and electrons (blue) as a function of incidentenergy. In the range of 20 to 4900 keV, protons exhibit aneffectively linear mapping between energy incident and totalenergy deposited. This linearity corresponds to completeabsorption of the incident particle in the detector silicon.Qualitatively, this behavior approaches the ideal of a one‐to‐one mapping between incident energy and energydeposited desirable in a particle detector. Above ∼4.9 MeV,it is found that protons may penetrate the first detector(“D1”; deposits mapped in red) to deposit energy in thesecond detector (“D2”; deposits mapped in orange). Toenergies of 7 MeV, however, the sum of these depositsremains linear. Above this energy, protons pass throughboth front and back detectors and are not stopped; suchprotons do not deposit the entirety of their energy, and theirmapping is not linear.

[29] It is apparent that electrons (blue) show a morecomplicated behavior. For energies ≥500 keV, their pres-ence becomes increasingly obvious, yet electrons do notexhibit the linear energy deposition characteristic of protons.An electron’s tendency to undergo range straggling meansthat it will typically deposit only a fraction of its total energyin a thin detector. This fraction of energy will in general beinconsistent, and characterization must be done on the basisof averages. Thus quantifying the true extent of electroncontamination in the proton telescope is done throughgeometric factor, as previously introduced in Section 3.4.[30] The concept is illustrated for the proton telescope in

Figure 4: shown in Figure 4a are two stepwise functionswhich correspond to the total number of simulated hits(events depositing energy in detector silicon) per energy bin.Bins may be of arbitrary fixed width, and herein correspondto one‐quarter minor tick interval (e.g., 36 bins per ordermagnitude). The “Counts (n)” scale (at far right) is equivalentto geometric factor when properly normalized, and a measureof the 95% confidence interval is superposed on each stepfunction. These functions represent the “raw” response of theproton instrument to protons (at G ∼ 10−2 cm2 sr) and elec-trons (with G rising from 10−5 cm2 sr). In Figures 4b and 4c,the proton and electron responses receive treatment by energy

Figure 4. Geometric factor in the MEPED proton telescope for simulated protons and electrons.(a) Stepwise functions corresponding to the instrument’s raw geometric factor (all hits), before applicationof energy level logic. Per‐channel geometric factor for incident (b) protons and (c) electrons; channels P1through P6 in color.

YANDO ET AL.: TECHNIQUE A10231A10231

6 of 13

1

• original detector condition: negligible crosstalk• degraded detector: significant energy shift as already shown

Electron detectors:

level logic, and are broken into the 6 channels of proton dataP1–P6. The nominal 10−2 cm2 sr geometric factor of theproton telescope is overlaid for reference (dashed line). Notethat the sum of these six per‐channel responses need not equalthe instrument’s raw response–events depositing less than21.4 keV in the front detector (corresponding to the firstenergy threshold) are excluded from consideration by thelogic circuitry and do not appear in any of the instrument’s sixcount channels.[31] Considering the proton response (Figure 4b), one

observes clean and well‐defined channel separation, witheach channel closely corresponding to its nominal energyrange. The geometric factor is near the expected 0.01 cm2 srthroughout the interval 30 keV–10 MeV. In contrast, theelectron response (Figure 4c) exhibits significant overlapbetween the six energy channels. An electron of givenenergy may fall into any of several channels, and we say theresponse demonstrates “competition” between the channels.[32] The P4 and P5 energy channels appear uncontaminated

by incident electrons, with the P4 channel recording few hits inthe energies considered, and the P5 channel recording none atall. The P1, P2, P3, and P6 energy channels, in contrast, eachdisplay some sensitivity to incident electron fluxes. As can beseen from both the raw electron response in Figure 4a and its

per‐channel equivalent in Figure 4c, the proton telescopeexhibits only a slight sensitivity (<10% of the proton response)to electrons of energy≤450 keV,which is a feature attributed tothe effectiveness of the cross‐aperture magnetic field insweeping aside electrons at these energies. The effectiveness ofthis broom magnet decreases with increasing electron energy,and parity with the proton response is reached near 1MeV. Forintermediate energies, it is the case that electrons have reducedaccess to the instrument.[33] Below 100 keV, any electron hits are recorded in the

P1 energy channel. For 150–500 keV, the bulk of thiselectron contamination is confined to the P2 energy channel.Above 500 keV, incident electrons are found in the P6, P2,P3 and P1 channels with increasing probability, such thatthe P6 channel eventually comes to record the majority ofelectron hits. The P3 channel fails to ever capture a pluralityof the total count.[34] Total admittance in all channels reaches G ∼ 10−3 cm2

sr near 460 keV and G ∼ 10−2 cm2 sr by 1400 keV, and thetelescope’s P6 channel exhibits a sensitivity ofG ∼ 1.9 × 10−3

cm2 sr at 800 keV, and G ∼ 0.009 cm2 sr near 2000 keV.Thus anomalously high particle counts in the P6 channel(relative to the P4 and P5 energy channels) suggest contam-

Figure 5. Geometric factor in the MEPED electron telescope for simulated protons and electrons.(a) Stepwise functions corresponding to the instrument’s raw geometric factor (all hits), before applicationof energy level logic. Per‐channel geometric factor for incident (b) protons and (c) electrons; channels E1through E3 in color.


7 of 13

1

• no significant crosstalk is known so far

Crosstalk by different particle speciesProton detectors affected by electrons:

our simulation results by comparison with known char-acteristics of the MEPED instrument response, we concludethat the generally excellent agreement validates the modelgeometries and simulation physics.

4.1. Proton Telescope Response

[28] Figure 3 illustrates energy deposition by protons (red,orange) and electrons (blue) as a function of incidentenergy. In the range of 20 to 4900 keV, protons exhibit aneffectively linear mapping between energy incident and totalenergy deposited. This linearity corresponds to completeabsorption of the incident particle in the detector silicon.Qualitatively, this behavior approaches the ideal of a one‐to‐one mapping between incident energy and energydeposited desirable in a particle detector. Above ∼4.9 MeV,it is found that protons may penetrate the first detector(“D1”; deposits mapped in red) to deposit energy in thesecond detector (“D2”; deposits mapped in orange). Toenergies of 7 MeV, however, the sum of these depositsremains linear. Above this energy, protons pass throughboth front and back detectors and are not stopped; suchprotons do not deposit the entirety of their energy, and theirmapping is not linear.

[29] It is apparent that electrons (blue) show a morecomplicated behavior. For energies ≥500 keV, their pres-ence becomes increasingly obvious, yet electrons do notexhibit the linear energy deposition characteristic of protons.An electron’s tendency to undergo range straggling meansthat it will typically deposit only a fraction of its total energyin a thin detector. This fraction of energy will in general beinconsistent, and characterization must be done on the basisof averages. Thus quantifying the true extent of electroncontamination in the proton telescope is done throughgeometric factor, as previously introduced in Section 3.4.[30] The concept is illustrated for the proton telescope in

Figure 4: shown in Figure 4a are two stepwise functionswhich correspond to the total number of simulated hits(events depositing energy in detector silicon) per energy bin.Bins may be of arbitrary fixed width, and herein correspondto one‐quarter minor tick interval (e.g., 36 bins per ordermagnitude). The “Counts (n)” scale (at far right) is equivalentto geometric factor when properly normalized, and a measureof the 95% confidence interval is superposed on each stepfunction. These functions represent the “raw” response of theproton instrument to protons (at G ∼ 10−2 cm2 sr) and elec-trons (with G rising from 10−5 cm2 sr). In Figures 4b and 4c,the proton and electron responses receive treatment by energy

Figure 4. Geometric factor in the MEPED proton telescope for simulated protons and electrons.(a) Stepwise functions corresponding to the instrument’s raw geometric factor (all hits), before applicationof energy level logic. Per‐channel geometric factor for incident (b) protons and (c) electrons; channels P1through P6 in color.


6 of 13

1

• close to no contamination (P4 and P5)• potentially contaminated (P1,P2 and P3)• channels that can be used as reliable indicator for high-energy electron fluxes

(P6)

Electron detectors affected by protons:










7 of 13

1

• contamination is confined to protons of energies 200–2700keV

(Figures from [Yando et al.])

DIFFERENT ENERGY RANGE

0.01 1 100

1

100

104

106

108

1010

proton energy @MeVD

parti

cle

flux

@Hm2 s

srM

eVL-

1 D


800keV-500MeV : 2

80keV-500MeV : 3

150eV-500MeV : 5


104 106 108

104

102

100

10-2

10-4

16

31

49

66

81

94

108

144

233


pres

sure

@PaD

altit

ude

appr

ox.@k

mD

ionization northern polar cap: 2006 doy 344 14 -16 h

< 0.08 MeV

< 0.8 MeV

800keV-500MeV : 2

80keV-500MeV : 3

150eV-500MeV : 5


Same quality of fit but still significant varia-tions just because of the energy range.

Nov

–Dez

2006

800keV-500MeV:2 vs. ext. r.

80keV-500MeV:3 vs. ext. r.720 profiles, Nov-Dec 2006

1.000.50 2.000.30 1.500.7020

40

60

80

100

ratio of ionization rates: range�Hextended rangeL

altit

ude

@kmD

ionization depending on model specific energy range

25

50

75

90

100

amou

ntof

com

paris

ons

arou

ndm

edia

n@%

D

FIXED/VARIABLE INTERSECT.

1 5 10 50 100 500

1

10

100

1000

104

105

106

proton energy @MeVD

parti

cle

flux

@Hm2 s

srM

eVL-

1 D


fixed : 3

variable : 3

intersections : number of fits

104 106 108

104

102

100

10-2

10-4

16

31

49

66

81

94

108

144

233


pres

sure

@PaD

altit

ude

appr

ox.@k

mD


< 0.8 MeV

fixed : 3

variable : 3

intersections : number of fits

Nov

–Dez

2006

720 profiles, day 305 to 364, 2006

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 2

20

40

60

80

ratio of ionization rates: fixed�variable positions of intersections

altit

ude

@kmD

ionization depending on type of intersections

25

50

75

90

100

amou

ntof

com

paris

ons

arou

ndm

edia

n@%

D

kind of in-tersectionmatters

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONSreason maximum expected error possible improvements

parti

clem

easu

rem

ents

degeneration, energy shift depending on age and steepness of spectra up to 1000% correction e.g. [Asikainen et al.], or newer satellitedegeneration, noise effects up to 1300% (NOAA-12, including energy shift) correction e.g. [Asikainen et al.], or newer satellitecrosstalk by out-of-field contrib. 10% contribution by out-of-view particles [Yando et al.] not neededcrosstalk by different energies apart from degradation: negligible not neededcrosstalk by different species depending on channel, partly severe different detector setup or coincidence correction neededsatellite selection up to 300% proved - more possible, (but >90% are within a

range of ±50%)-

spec

trum

fit

quality of fit (number of functions) orders of magnitude limited by channels and theoryselection of energy range ±20% (in the center of the range significantly less) -fixed or variable intersections up to 60% use variable intersectionsfit function 30%, 70% at end of energy range theory suggestes power-law

ioni

zatio

nsim

ulat

ion atmospheric conditions few % without tropopause not needed

kind of deposition algorithm some % not neededstatistics in e.g. Monte-Carlo <5% not neededtransformation to ion pair prod. <10% not needed

rem

aini

ngpr

oblem

s non-isotropic pitch angle distrib. -40% to +60% needs new detector setupSAA ? -regional resolution strongly depending on model, but without regional resolution

is not betterlimited: a) temporal resolution vs. spatial resolution, b) moresatellites needed

PITCH ANGLEThe pitch angle distribution is not mea-sured regularly. Most common assumptionis isotropic. What happens if this assump-tion is wrong?

• Ionization will be shifted in altitude.• Particle measurement not reliable due

to contamination by out-of-view parti-cles.

0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 5.0010.00

105

110

120

140

170

200

250

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

energy deposition @eV�Hm particleLD

altit

ude

@kmD

pres

sure

@PaD

monoenergetic proton incident: 141 keV

max 0°Hclose to verticalL

max 90°Hbig pitch anglesL

isotropic

QUALITY OF FITThe amount of fit functions per magnitudedefines quality of fit.

0.01 1 100

100

104

106

108

1010

1012

proton energy @MeVD

parti

cle

flux

@Hm2 s

srM

eVL-

1 D

spectrum fit northern polar cap: 2006 doy 342 4-6h

150eV-500MeV : 1

150eV-500MeV : 3

150eV-500MeV : 5


107 108 109

104

103

102

101

100

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4

16

31

49

66

81

94

108

144

233


pres

sure

@PaD

altit

ude

appr

ox.@k

mD

ionization northern polar cap: 2006 doy 342 4-6h

150eV-500MeV : 1

150eV-500MeV : 3

150eV-500MeV : 5


PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS

• degeneration, energy shift• degeneration, noise effects• crosstalk by out-of-field contributions• crosstalk by different energies• crosstalk by different species• satellite selection

REMAINING PROBLEMS

• non-isotropic pitch angle distribution• SAA• regional resolution

SPECTRUM FIT

• quality of fit (number of functions)• selection of energy range• fixed or variable intersections• kind of fit function

MODELING IONIZATION

• atmospheric conditions• kind of deposition algorithm• statistics in e.g. Monte-Carlo• transformation to ion pair production

Particle measurements

Particle measurements


Detector degeneration - energy shift

Reasonimpinging particlescause structuredefects

Effect

shifts channel’senergy thresholds tohigher energies

1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

2

4

6

8

10

12

N15N16�N17N18

2

4

6

8

10

12

Α factor Henergy shift in detector thresholdsL

rati

oco

rrec

ted

�un

corr

ecte

dfl

ux

Α factors for for mid 2011 from Asikainen et al. 2012Detector degeneration in mep0P1 channels

Γ=-1

Γ=-2

Γ=-3

Γ=-4

steepness ofthe spectra

SolutionUsing new satellites or applying correction factors[Asikainen et al., 2012] may improve data.

Crosstalk

e.g. in MEPED electron detectors [Yando et al., 2011]

Electron sensitivity:










7 of 13

1Sensitivity for proton contamination:










7 of 13

1

contamination is confined to protons of energies 200–2700keV

Particle measurements Crosstalk

Effect of crosstalk on quite day ionization profile (electrons)

mep0e3

104 106 108 1010

104

102

100

10-2

10-4

0

16

31

49

66

81

94

108

144

233

444

ionisation rate @m-3s-1D

Pre

ssu

re@Pa

D

alti

tud

eap

pro

x.@km

D

proton and electron HdashedL ionization at geomagn. pole

quiet timeAIMOS v1.1

275:2h

270:2h

265:2h

250:2h

time

SOHO EPHIN

104 106 108 1010

104

102

100

10-2

10-4

0

16

31

49

66

81

94

108

144

233

444


Pre

ssu

re@Pa

D

alti

tud

eap

pro

x.@km

D


quiet timeAIMOS v1.3

275:2h

270:2h

265:2h

250:2h

time

SolutionProbably solved/improved by new correction algorithms. [Janet Green]


Variation among (same) satellites

306 307 308 309 310 311

day of year

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

flux@i

onsHc

m2

ssr

MeVL-

1D GOES10 vs. GOES11 HdashedL

p+ 40-80

p+ 15-40

p+ 9-15

p+ 4-9

Α 21-60

Α 10-21

Α 4-10

energy @MeVD

measurements may differ because of

different initial characteristics (construction)degradation, crosstalklocal flux variations

Variation among satellites

672 profiles, day 280 to 335, 2003

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.420

30

40

50

60

70

80

ratio of ionization rates: GOES10�GOES11

altit

ude

@kmD

ionization depending on satellite

10-3 10-2 10-1 1 101 102 10320

30

40

50

60

70

80

25

50

75

90

100

amou

ntof

com

paris

ons

arou

ndm

edia

n@%

D

SolutionNone

Spectrum fit

Spectrum fit

1 5 10 50 100 500

1

10

100

1000

104

proton energy @MeVD

part

icle

flux

@Hm2 s

srM

eVL-

1 D


Power Law

Maxwell



Quality of fit (number of functions)

0.01 1 100

100

104

106

108

1010

1012

proton energy @MeVD

part

icle

flux

@Hm2 s

srM

eVL-

1 D

spectrum fit northern polar cap: 2006 doy 342 4-6h

150eV-500MeV : 1

150eV-500MeV : 3

150eV-500MeV : 5


107 108 109

104

103

102

101

100

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4

16

31

49

66

81

94

108

144

233

ionization rate @m-3s-1Dpr

essu

re@P

aD

altit

ude

appr

ox.@

kmD

ionization northern polar cap: 2006 doy 342 4-6h

150eV-500MeV : 1

150eV-500MeV : 3

150eV-500MeV : 5


Different energy range of the model

History

1970 1980 1990 2000

1

100

104

106

108

year

ener

gyra

nge

ofm

odel

Halls

peci

esL@

eVD

Berger

Hardy

Callis

JackmanSchröter

Wissing

Different energy range of the model

0.01 1 100

1

100

104

106

108

1010

proton energy @MeVD

part

icle

flux

@Hm2 s

srM

eVL-

1 D


800keV-500MeV : 2

80keV-500MeV : 3

150eV-500MeV : 5


104 106 108

104

102

100

10-2

10-4

16

31

49

66

81

94

108

144

233


pres

sure

@PaD

altit

ude

appr

ox.@

kmD


< 0.08 MeV

< 0.8 MeV

800keV-500MeV : 2

80keV-500MeV : 3

150eV-500MeV : 5


The ratio of magnitudes in energy range divided by the number of fitfunction here is the same.

Different energy range - results for Nov–Dec 2006

800keV-500MeV:2 vs. ext. r.

80keV-500MeV:3 vs. ext. r.720 profiles, Nov-Dec 2006

1.000.50 2.000.30 1.500.7020

40

60

80

100

ratio of ionization rates: range�Hextended rangeL

altit

ude

@kmD

ionization depending on model specific energy range

25

50

75

90

100

amou

ntof

com

paris

ons

arou

ndm

edia

n@%

D

SolutionNone

Summary of the uncertainties in modeling particleprecipitation

reason maximum expected error possible improvements

degeneration, energy shift depending on age and steepness ofspectra up to 1000%

correction e.g. [Asikainen et al., 2012],or newer satellite

degeneration, noise effects up to 1300% (NOAA-12, including en-ergy shift)

correction e.g. [Asikainen et al., 2012],or newer satellite

crosstalk by out-of-field contrib. 10% contribution by out-of-view parti-cles [Yando et al., 2011]

not needed

crosstalk by different energies apart from degradation: negligible not neededcrosstalk by different species depending on channel, partly severe different detector setup or coincidence

correction neededsatellite selection up to 300% proved - more possi-

ble, (but >90% are within a range of±50%)

-

quality of fit (number of functions) orders of magnitude limited by channels and theoryselection of energy range ±20% (in the center of the range sig-

nificantly less)-

fixed or variable intersections up to 60% use variable intersectionsfit function 30%, 70% at end of energy range theory suggestes power-law

atmospheric conditions few % without tropopause not neededkind of deposition algorithm some % not neededstatistics in e.g. Monte-Carlo <5% not neededtransformation to ion pair prod. <10% not needed

non-isotropic pitch angle distrib. -40% to +60% needs new detector setupSAA ? proton crosstalk in e-channels may be

correctedregional resolution strongly depending on model, but with-

out regional resolution is not betterlimited: a) temporal resolution vs.spatial resolution, b) more satellitesneeded

Regarding these uncertainties, should particle precipitationmodels be used?

AIMOS

HAMMONIA

electron density

IS radar observation

electron density

ionization rate ��

��

fit to theoretical model

��ks +3

1312 EISCAT profilesOct 2003 – April 2004event & quiet

Yes!

[Wissing et al., 2011]

10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100

electron density: Hsimulation without particle ionizationL�measurement

100

120

140

160

180

200

altitude@kmD

dependence on local time

25

50

75

amountofcomparisonsaroundmedian@%D

local day: 6h-18h

177 profiles

local night: 18h-6h

135 profiles

10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100

electron density: Hsimulation including particle ionizationL�measurement

100

120

140

160

180

200

altitude@kmD

dependence on local time

25

50

75

amountofcomparisonsaroundmedian@%D

local day: 6h-18h

177 profiles

local night: 18h-6h

135 profiles

1

Outlook: AIMOS Update v1.7

removed proton contamination

work in MLT rather than LT

reduced impact of spikes

improved spatial resolution inmain precipitation regions

current status: verification againstAARDDVARK

http://aimos.physik.uos.de

104 106 108 1010


104

102

100

10-2

10-4

Pre

ssu

re@P

aD

0

16

31

49

66

81

94

108

144

233

444

altitu

de

ap

pro

x.@k

mD


October Event 2003AIMOS v1.1

302:12h

302:4h

301:12h

301:10h

time

[Wissing and Kallenrode, 2009]

[Wissing et al., 2010]

Agostinelli, S. et al., GEANT4-a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instr. Meth. 506, p. 250–303, 2003

Asikainen,T. , K. Mursula , V. Maliniemi, Correction of detector noise and recalibration of NOAA/MEPED energetic protonfluxes, submitted 2012 to JGR

Berger, M.J., S.M. Seltzer and K. Maeda, Energy deposition by auroral electrons in the atmosphere, J. Atm. Solar-Terr.Phys. 32, p. 1015–1045, 1970

Callis, L.B., Odd nitrogen formed by energetic electron precipitation as calculated from TIROS data, Geophys. Res.Letters, vol 24, No 24, p. 3237–3240, 1997

Callis, L.B., M. Natarajan, D. S. Evans and J. D, Lambeth, Solar atmospheric coupling by electrons (SOLACE) 1. Effects ofthe May 12, 1997 solar event on the middle atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res. 103, p. 28 405–28 419, 1998

Callis, L.B. and J. D, Lambeth, NOy formed by precipitating electron events in 1991 and 1992: Descent into thestratosphere as observed by ISAMS, Geophys. Res. Let., Vol. 25, No. 11, p. 1875–1878, 1998.

Fang, X., M.W. Liemohn, J.U. Kozyra, D.S. Evans, A.D. DeJong and B.A. Emery, Global 30-240 keV proton precipitation inthe 17-18 April 2002 geomagnetic storms: 1. Patterns, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A05301, doi:10.1029/2006JA011867, 2007

Funke, B., A. Baumgaertner, M. Calisto, T. Egorova, C.H. Jackman, J. Kieser, A. Krivolutsky, M. Lpez-Puertas, D.R. Marsh,T. Reddmann, E. Rozanov, S.-M. Salmi, M. Sinnhuber, G. P. Stiller, P. T. Verronen, S. Versick, T. von Clarmann, T. Y.Vyushkova, N. Wieters and J. M. Wissing, Composition changes after the ”Halloween” solar proton event: the High-EnergyParticle Precipitation in the Atmosphere (HEPPA) model versus MIPAS data inter-comparison study, AtmosphericChemistry and Physics, 11, p. 9089-9139, acp-2010-1001, 2011

Hardy, D.A., M.S. Gussenhoven and D. Brautigam, A statistical model of the auroral ion precipitation, J. Geophys. Res.,94, p. 370, 1989

Jackman, C.H., R.D. McPeters, G.J. Labow, E.L. Fleming, C.J. Praderas and J.M. Russell, Northern hemisphereatmospheric effects due to the July 2000 Solar Proton Event, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28(15), p. 2883–2886, 2001

Jackman, C.H., M.T. DeLand, G.J. Labow, E.L. Fleming, D.K. Weisenstein, M.K.W. Ko, M. Sinnhuber, and J.M. Russell,Neutral atmospheric influences of the solar proton events in October–November 2003, J. Geophys. Res., 110, A09S27,doi:10.1029/2004JA010888, 2005a

Roble, R.G. and E.C. Ridley, An auroral model for the NCAR thermospheric general circulation model (TGCM), Ann.Geophys., 5A, p. 369–382, 1987

Schroter J., B. Heber, F. Steinhilber and M.-B. Kallenrode, Energetic particles in the atmosphere: a Monte Carlo approach,Adv. Space Res. 37, (8), p. 1597–1601, 2006.

Wissing, J.M., J.P. Bornebusch and M.-B. Kallenrode Adv. Space Res. 41, p. 1274–1278, 2008

Wissing, J.M. and M.-B. Kallenrode, Atmospheric Ionization Module OSnabruck (AIMOS) 1: A 3-D model to determineatmospheric ionization by energetic charged particles from different populations, J. Geophys. Res., 114, A06104,doi:10.1029/2008JA013884, 2009

Wissing, J.M., M.-B. Kallenrode, N. Wieters, H. Winkler and M. Sinnhuber, Atmospheric Ionization Module Osnabruck(AIMOS): 2. Total particle inventory in the October/November 2003 event and ozone, J. Geophys. Res., 115, A02308,doi:10.1029/2009JA014419, 2010

Wissing, J.M., M.-B. Kallenrode, J. Kieser, H. Schmidt, M.T. Rietveld, A. Strømme and P.J. Erickson, AtmosphericIonization Module OSnabruck (AIMOS) 3: Comparison of electron density simulations by AIMOS/HAMMONIA andincoherent scatter radar measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 116, A08305, doi:10.1029/2010JA01630, 2011

K. Yando, R.M. Millan, J.C. Green and D.S. Evans: A Monte Carlo simulation of the NOAA POES Medium Energy Protonand Electron Detector instrument, JGR, vol. 116, A10231, doi:10.1029/2011JA015571, 2011

modeling particle precipitation in the earth’s atmosphere · 2013-11-22 · modeling particle...

Documents