Accessibility navigation


Contrasting the responses of three different ground-based instruments to energetic electron precipitation

Rodger, C. J., Clilverd, M. A., Kavanagh, A. J., Watt, C. E. J., Verronen, P. T. and Raita, T. (2012) Contrasting the responses of three different ground-based instruments to energetic electron precipitation. Radio Science, 47 (2). RS2021. ISSN 1944–799x

[img]
Preview
Text - Published Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.

1MB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.1029/2011RS004971

Abstract/Summary

In order to make best use of the opportunities provided by space missions such as the Radiation Belt Storm Probes, we determine the response of complementary subionospheric radiowave propagation measurements (VLF), riometer absorption measurements (CNA), and GPS-produced total electron content (vTEC) to different energetic electron precipitation (EEP). We model the relative sensitivity and responses of these instruments to idealised monoenergetic beams of precipitating electrons, and more realistic EEP spectra chosen to represent radiation belts and substorm precipitation. In the monoenergetic beam case, we find riometers are more sensitive to the same EEP event occurring during the day than during the night, while subionospheric VLF shows the opposite relationship, and the change in vTEC is independent. In general, the subionospheric VLF measurements are much more sensitive than the other two techniques for EEP over 200 keV, responding to flux magnitudes two-three orders of magnitude smaller than detectable by a riometer. Detectable TEC changes only occur for extreme monoenergetic fluxes. For the radiation belt EEP case, clearly detectable subionospheric VLF responses are produced by daytime fluxes that are ~10 times lower than required for riometers, while nighttime fluxes can be 10,000 times lower. Riometers are likely to respond only to radiation belt fluxes during the largest EEP events and vTEC is unlikely to be significantly disturbed by radiation belt EEP. For the substorm EEP case both the riometer absorption and the subionospheric VLF technique respond significantly, as does the change in vTEC, which is likely to be detectable at ~3-4 TECu.

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:No Reading authors. Back catalogue items
Faculty of Science > School of Mathematical, Physical and Computational Sciences > Department of Meteorology
ID Code:32802
Uncontrolled Keywords:ionosphere; remote sensing; substorms
Publisher:American Geophysical Union

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation