Full Article

Ann. Geophys., 33, 129–135, 2015
www.ann-geophys.net/33/129/2015/
doi:10.5194/angeo-33-129-2015
© Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
Three-dimensional morphology of equatorial plasma bubbles
deduced from measurements onboard CHAMP
J. Park1,* , H. Lühr1 , and M. Noja2
1 GFZ,
German Research Center for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany
Telematics, Berlin, Germany
* now at: Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, Daejeon, South Korea
2 Tomtom
Correspondence to: J. Park ([email protected])
Received: 3 November 2014 – Revised: 23 December 2014 – Accepted: 5 January 2015 – Published: 28 January 2015
Abstract. Total electron content (TEC) between Low-EarthOrbit (LEO) satellites and the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellites can be used to constrain the
three-dimensional morphology of equatorial plasma bubbles
(EPBs). In this study we investigate TEC measured onboard
the Challenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP) from 2001
to 2005. We only use TEC data obtained when CHAMP
passed through EPBs: that is, when in situ plasma density
measurements at CHAMP altitude also show EPB signatures. The observed TEC gradient along the CHAMP track is
strongest when the corresponding GNSS satellite is located
equatorward and westward of CHAMP with elevation angles
of about 40–60◦ . These elevation and azimuth angles are in
agreement with the angles expected from the morphology of
the plasma depletion shell proposed by Kil et al. (2009).
Keywords. Ionosphere (ionospheric irregularities)
1
Introduction
Equatorial plasma bubbles (EPBs) are a well-known phenomenon in the low-latitude nighttime ionospheric F region.
This phenomenon is characterized by precipitous depletion
of plasma density. EPBs manifest themselves as backscatter plumes in range–time–intensity plots of coherent scatter
radars (e.g. Hysell and Woodman, 1997), airglow depletions
in the 630.0 nm all-sky camera images (e.g. Kim et al., 2002;
Chapagain et al., 2012), and scintillations in electromagnetic
waves from the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)
satellites (e.g. Straus et al., 2003; Nishioka et al., 2011).
EPBs can reach altitudes of about 2000 km (e.g. Kelley et al.,
2003; Mendillo et al., 2005), and their latitudinal extent can
be ±20◦ from the equator around solar maxima (e.g. Kelley
et al., 2003, Fig. 1).
When projected on the horizontal plane, EPBs are known
to exhibit inverted-C structures if they are observed from
above: i.e. more poleward parts of an EPB are located further westward (e.g. Kelley et al., 2003). On the vertical plane
aligned with the dip equator, EPBs manifest themselves as
structures whose higher-altitude part is located further westward (e.g. Zalesak et al., 1982; Hysell et al., 2009; Hei et al.,
2014). By combining these two facts (i.e. inverted-C on the
horizontal plane and westward tilt on the equatorial/vertical
plane) and the field-aligned nature of EPBs (e.g. Sultan,
1996), Kil et al. (2009) suggested that the three-dimensional
(3-D) morphology of EPBs has a shell-like structure. According to their model: (1) the highest-altitude point of the
shell structure is located westward/equatorward of any other
points on the shell, and (2) shell cross-sections perpendicular to the ambient B field exhibit elongation towards westward/outward (outward = toward higher L shell) or eastward/inward directions. Park et al. (2009) supported this suggestion using the anisotropic perturbation of the magnetic
field around EPBs. As ambient ionospheric currents make
a detour along EPB surfaces (due to low conductivity inside EPBs), the resultant current loops are expected to generate magnetic field deflections in space pointing along the
EPB surface. In Park et al. (2009) the average magnetic
field deflection in the plane perpendicular to the ambient
B field exhibits elongation towards a westward/outward or
eastward/inward direction, which is as expected from the
morphology of the plasma depletion shell proposed by Kil
et al. (2009). The 3-D shell structure was also demonstrated
Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.
130
J. Park et al.: EPB in TEC
ture, mainly due to the lack of 3-D observation capability.
This is why we need more observational evidence for the
shell structure.
Low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites often carry dualfrequency GNSS receivers. From the LEO-GNSS communication data in dual frequencies, we can deduce total electron
content (TEC), which is defined as plasma density integrated
along the line-of-sight (LOS) between the LEO and GNSS
satellites. These LEO-TEC data have been a useful building block in ionospheric studies (e.g. Mannucci et al., 2005;
Jakowski et al., 2007). However, only a few studies (e.g. Noja
et al., 2013) made use of LEO-TEC data for plasma irregularity detection in the ionosphere. Traditional plasma density probes, such as Langmuir Probes or ion traps, can only
provide scalar values of plasma density. Although LEO-TEC
data also give (integrated) plasma density, they can provide
one more important information, the LOS direction. Making
use of this directional information, we can impose further
constraints on EPB geometry. For example, LEO-TEC data
may answer the following question: as a LEO satellite passes
through an EPB, which LOS direction sees the strongest TEC
fluctuation (i.e. eastward, westward, poleward, or equatorward)? This question is schematically illustrated in the cartoons of Fig. 1. Note that LEO satellites move much faster
than GNSS satellites. From Fig. 1 we expect that the TEC
gradient along the LEO-satellite track should be largest when
the LOS and the EPB surfaces are nearly parallel (Fig. 1a).
When LOS and EPB are nearly perpendicular (Fig. 1b), small
TEC gradients are expected. Therefore, if observed TEC gradient exhibits certain anisotropy (or directional preference)
around EPBs, the LOS corresponding to the maximum TEC
gradient can give a hint about the 3-D structure of EPBs. In
the following sections we pursue the answer to these questions.
2
Figure 1. Schematic illustrations of the relationship between TEC
fluctuation level and LOS direction between LEO and GNSS satellites: (a) the LOS and the EPB surfaces are nearly parallel, and
(b) they are nearly perpendicular.
in first-principle simulations by Huba et al. (2009) and Retterer (2010).
As we have seen in the preceding paragraph, the shell
structure proposed by Kil et al. (2009) can explain a number of observational properties of EPBs, such as anisotropic
plume structures in coherent scatter radar data, projected
inverted-C structures on the horizontal plane, and directional
preferences of magnetic field deflections. Up to now, however, no observation could decisively verify the shell strucAnn. Geophys., 33, 129–135, 2015
Instruments and data processing methods
Challenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP) was launched
in July 2000 into a near-circular polar orbit, whose inclination angle is ∼ 87.3◦ , and the altitude was about 450 km
right after launch. A planar Langmuir probe (PLP) onboard CHAMP measured plasma density every 15 s. A dualfrequency GNSS receiver conducted GNSS observations every 10 s, from which we can estimate TEC between CHAMP
and GNSS satellites. No TEC is estimated when the elevation angle of a GNSS satellite is smaller than 24◦ . In this
study we focus on the period from 2001 to 2005, when EPB
activity was higher than during later years of the CHAMP
mission (e.g. Xiong et al., 2010).
Figure 2 illustrates our data processing method. From top
to bottom the panels present: (a) vertical TEC, (b) magnetic latitude (MLAT) of CHAMP, (c) elevation angle of
the GNSS satellite as seen from CHAMP, (d) azimuth angle of the GNSS satellite as seen from CHAMP (counted
www.ann-geophys.net/33/129/2015/
J. Park et al.: EPB in TEC
from geomagnetic north, positive westward), (e) TEC fluctuation level, (f) plasma density measured by the CHAMP/PLP,
and (g) plasma density fluctuation level. The “vertical” TEC
in panel a is calculated by multiplying slant TEC (between
CHAMP and the GNSS satellite) with the mapping function
given by Eq. (9) of Noja et al. (2013). The TEC fluctuation
level (panel e) is defined as 3-point moving standard deviation of the vertical TEC after linear detrending. The mapping function and linear detrending are used to mitigate the
influence of elevation angle on the TEC standard deviation.
The plasma density fluctuation level (panel g) is calculated
by subtracting large-scale variations, which are estimated by
a Savitzky–Golay filter, from the CHAMP/PLP data and taking the absolute magnitude. The cutoff length scale of this
high-pass filter is about 350 km, which is a compromise between the scale length used by Stolle et al. (2006) (230 km)
and that of Xiong et al. (2010) (550 km). In the bottom panel
the blue horizontal dashed line represents our EPB threshold
(30 000 cm−3 ), which is also a compromise between the upper (50 000 cm−3 ) and lower (20 000 cm−3 ) thresholds used
by Xiong et al. (2010). When the plasma density fluctuation level exceeds this threshold, CHAMP is deemed to encounter an EPB. Then, all the TEC data points within ±60 s
(marked by black squares in panel e) are bin-averaged according to the elevation angle (panel c) and azimuth angle
(panel d). The bins are rectangular in a cylindrical coordinate system whose azimuth and radius represent the GNSS
azimuth and co-elevation angles (= 90◦ -elevation angle), respectively. The bin size is 2◦ by 2◦ in the cylindrical coordinate system.
3
Statistical results
Polar plots in Fig. 3 show TEC fluctuation levels as a function
of (co-)elevation and azimuth angles of GNSS satellites as
seen from CHAMP. We have used nighttime CHAMP observations from 2001 to 2005 for Fig. 3. Note that only the TEC
values obtained near in situ EPB encounters (judged by the
CHAMP/PLP data fluctuations as shown in Fig. 2) are used.
Figure 3a–c represent from top to bottom low-latitude Northern Hemisphere (between +5 and +25◦ N), equatorial region (between −10 and +10◦ N), and low-latitude Southern
Hemisphere (between −25 and −5◦ N), respectively. In each
frame the distribution of TEC fluctuation level is given versus
the azimuth and co-elevation angles of GNSS satellites. The
co-elevation angle of GNSS satellites is represented by radius from the origin. Concentric circles are overplotted every
20◦ in co-elevation angles: i.e. the centre point represents 90◦
in elevation angle, and the inner-most (outer-most) concentric circle represents 70◦ (10◦ ) in elevation angle. The positive (negative) Y direction is towards the north (south). The
colour represents bin-averaged TEC fluctuation level. Note
that a two-dimensional 5-by-5 median filter has been applied
to obtain Fig. 3.
www.ann-geophys.net/33/129/2015/
131
Figure 2. Illustrations of our data processing method: (a) TEC data,
(b) magnetic latitude (MLAT) of CHAMP, (c) elevation angle of
the GNSS satellite as seen from CHAMP, (d) azimuth angle of
the GNSS satellite as seen from CHAMP (counted from geomagnetic north, positive angles are westward), (e) TEC fluctuation level,
(f) plasma density measured by the CHAMP/PLP and (g) plasma
density fluctuation level.
From Fig. 3a and c we can see that the TEC fluctuation level is strongest when the GNSS satellites are equatorward and westward of CHAMP. From Fig. 3b (equatorial
region) TEC fluctuation level is lower than in Fig. 3a and c
(low-latitude regions). Nevertheless, Fig. 3b also shows that
the TEC fluctuation level is strongest when GNSS satellites
are located westward of CHAMP. The elevation angle corresponding to maximum TEC fluctuation level is approximately 40–60◦ . In Fig. 3 the azimuth angles corresponding
to the maximum TEC fluctuation levels are within 0–90◦ in
the Southern Hemisphere and within 90–180◦ in the Northern Hemisphere.
4
Discussion
In this section we will check whether the anisotropy of TEC
fluctuation level (Fig. 3) can be explained by the 3-D shell
structure of EPBs proposed by Kil et al. (2009). Both upleg
Ann. Geophys., 33, 129–135, 2015
132
Figure 3. Polar plots showing TEC fluctuation level as a function of co-elevation and azimuth angles of GNSS satellites as seen
from CHAMP: (a) northern low-latitude region (between +5 and
+25◦ N), (b) equatorial region (between −10 and +10◦ N) and
(c) southern low-latitude region (between −25 and −5◦ N). Note
that only the TEC values are used which were obtained near in situ
EPB encounters (judged by the CHAMP/PLP data fluctuation as
shown in Fig. 2).
Ann. Geophys., 33, 129–135, 2015
J. Park et al.: EPB in TEC
(CHAMP flying northbound) and downleg (southbound) data
are intermingled within each frame of Fig. 3. Therefore, the
patterns in Fig. 3 cannot reflect multipath noise of instrument
origin, which is fixed in the spacecraft coordinate system.
As alluded to in the Introduction, the TEC fluctuation level
is expected to be higher when LOS between CHAMP and
GNSS satellites is parallel to EPB surfaces than when it is
perpendicular.
Figure 4 is a schematic illustration of an EPB shell structure, which is a bird-eye’s view seen from the northeast toward the equator. The EPB shell structure originally suggested by Kil et al. (2009) has curved surfaces. However, Kil
et al. (2009, Fig. 1d) and Kelley et al. (2003, Fig. 1) seem
to suggest that the curvature of the shell structure is not so
large. Supported by this fact, we approximate the northern
surface of the EPB shell structure with a quasi-flat triangle,
as shown in Fig. 4.
In Fig. 4a we expect maximum TEC fluctuation levels
when the LOS passes through the apex point of the EPB
shell structure (i.e. the highest-altitude point of the EPB
shell). The reason is as follows. As already seen in Fig. 1,
TEC fluctuation level becomes higher as the LOS becomes
more parallel (or tangent) to EPB surfaces. When CHAMP
is within an EPB we may draw, however, an infinite number of tangent lines to the EPB surface: e.g. both Fig. 4a
and b satisfy the tangent condition although their GNSS
satellite locations are different from each other. Among all
these tangent LOS directions, the one containing the longest
path inside the EPB should see the deepest TEC depletion, which naturally leads to largest along-track gradient of
CHAMP/TEC. Although a tangent LOS with very low elevation angle (Fig. 4b) may have the longest path inside the
EPB surface, no CHAMP/TEC data are used from elevation
angles below 24◦ . Considering this elevation angle limit, the
longest path inside the EPB surface is expected for the tangent LOS passing through the apex point of the EPB shell
(Fig. 4a). Hence, TEC fluctuation levels measured along the
LEO satellite track are expected to maximize for this specific tangent LOS (passing through the apex point of the EPB
shell). The elevation and azimuth angle of this specific tangent LOS (orange arrow in Fig. 4a) can be calculated in terms
of the apex height of the shell structure, structure tilt angle on
the equatorial plane, and the LEO satellite latitude/altitude
near the EPB encounter. First, the zonal extent of the shell
structure (a + b in Fig. 4a) can be expressed as
apex
a+b =
hEPB − hLEO
,
tanθtilt
(1)
apex
where hEPB is the apex height of the shell structure (i.e. the
highest altitude the shell can reach at the dip equator), hLEO
is the altitude of the LEO satellite (CHAMP) and θtilt is the
average westward tilt angle of the EPB structure within the
equatorial (vertical) plane. Then, the deflection angle of the
inverted-C structure within the horizontal plane (αinverted-C )
can be expressed as
www.ann-geophys.net/33/129/2015/
J. Park et al.: EPB in TEC
133
apex
apex
LEO (h
− hLEO lEPB
h
EPB − hLEO )
(4)
b = (a + b) − a = EPB
−
apex
tanθtilt
lEPB × tanθtilt
apex
=
hEPB − hLEO
l LEO
1 − EPB
apex ,
tanθtilt
lEPB
c=
LEO
b2 + lEPB
2
(5)
2
apex
hEPB − hLEO
tanθtilt
=
1−
LEO
lEPB
apex
lEPB
2
2
LEO ,
+ lEPB
Finally, the elevation (θelevation ) and azimuth (φazimuth ) angle of the LOS penetrating through the shell structure apex
are
apex
hEPB − hLEO
c
−1
θelevation = tan
(6)



= tan−1 

Figure 4. Schematic illustration of the EPB shell structure, in a birdeye’s view seen from northeast toward the equator: (a) the elevation
angle of the GNSS satellite is large, and the LOS between LEO
and GNSS satellites passes through the apex point of the EPB shell
structure, and (b) the elevation angle of the GNSS satellite is small,
and the LOS between LEO and GNSS satellites is nearly horizontal
and along the inverted-C signature.
apex
hEPB − hLEO
apex
(
LEO
lEPB
hEPB −hLEO 2
LEO 2
2
tanθtilt ) (1 − l apex ) + (lEPB )
EPB
b
φazimuth = π − tan−1
(7)
LEO
lEPB


= π − tan−1 
apex

,

LEO
lEPB
hEPB −hLEO
tanθtilt (1 − l apex ) 
EPB

LEO
lEPB

apex
= π − tan−1
apex
αinverted-C = tan−1
apex
lEPB
apex
hEPB − hLEO
× tanθtilt ,
(2)
apex
where lEPB corresponds to the field-aligned mapping of the
apex
EPB shell apex onto the LEO satellite altitude (hLEO ). lEPB
can also be considered as the longest horizontal distance between the shell and the dip equator at the LEO satellite altitude (hLEO ). We assume that the LEO satellite encounters an
LEO . Then, the dimensions,
EPB at a latitudinal position of lEPB
a, b, and c in Fig. 4a can be estimated by
a=
=
LEO
lEPB
=
tanαinverted-C
LEO
lEPB
apex
lEPB
apex
hEPB −hLEO
× tanθtilt
LEO (hapex − h
lEPB
LEO )
EPB
,
apex
lEPB × tanθtilt
www.ann-geophys.net/33/129/2015/
(3)
hEPB − hLEO 1
1
( LEO − apex ) ,
tanθtilt
lEPB
lEPB
apex
Note that lEPB and hEPB in the equations are not independent because they represent magnetically conjugate points. If
RE is the Earth’s radius and β is magnetic latitude at the LEO
satellite altitude, the two parameters are related as follows
(e.g. Lühr and Xiong, 2010; Xiong and Lühr, 2013, Eq. 3):
apex
RE + hLEO
RE + hLEO
− RE =
− RE
2
cos β
1 − sin2 β
RE + hLEO
≈
− RE
apex
lEPB
2
1 − ( RE +h
)
LEO
hEPB =
=
(8)
(RE + hLEO )3
apex − RE ,
(RE + hLEO )2 − (lEPB )2
Hence, the elevation (θelevation ) and azimuth (φazimuth ) angles in Eqs. (6)–(7) are functions of only four independent
apex
parameters: the apex height of the shell structure (hEPB ), the
shell’s tilt angle within the equatorial plane (θtilt ), and the
Ann. Geophys., 33, 129–135, 2015
134
LEO ) around the
LEO satellite altitude (hLEO ) and latitude (lEPB
EPB encounter.
By assuming reasonable values for the four independent
variables, we can estimate the elevation and azimuth angles
for the maximum TEC fluctuation level. The apex height of
apex
the EPB shell structure (hEPB ) is assumed to be 2000 km, as
Mendillo et al. (2005) stated that this value can be easily attained by EPBs. The latitudinal position of maximum EPB
occurrence at CHAMP altitude (hLEO
EPB ≈ 400 km) is about
10◦ (about 1000 km from the equator) (Xiong et al., 2010,
Fig. 9). Also, the westward tilt angle of the shell structure
within the equatorial (vertical) plane is assumed to be 50◦
(Park et al., 2009, Fig. 4). From these assumed values, we can
calculate the elevation and azimuth angles of GNSS satellites
when the LOS passes through the apex point of the EPB shell
structure. The resultant elevation and azimuth angles are +50
and +138◦ (from geomagnetic north, positive westward), respectively. This pair of values, calculated with representative
values of EPB parameters, corresponds approximately to the
regions of strong TEC fluctuation shown in Fig. 3a.
This calculation result does not sensitively depend on the
four assumed parameters related to the EPB properties: i.e.
apex
the apex height of the shell structure (hEPB ), the shell’s tilt
angle within the equatorial plane (θtilt ), and LEO satellite alLEO ) at the EPB encounter. We
titude (hLEO ) and latitude (lEPB
have calculated the elevation and azimuth angles for all possible combinations of the four independent parameters over
apex
a wide range: hEPB (500–3000 km, every 500 km), θtilt (30–
LEO
60◦ , every 10◦ ), hLEO (300–500 km, every 10 km), and lEPB
apex
apex
LEO
(50 km–lEPB , every 10 km). Note that lEPB ≤ lEPB because
we only use the CHAMP data near EPB encounters. The
mean and standard deviation of the resultant elevation angles are 40 ± 11◦ . The mean and standard deviation of the
resultant azimuth angles are 147 ± 28◦ . These calculation results are in qualitative agreement with the observed angles
for the maximum TEC fluctuation in Fig. 3 (elevation angle
is approximately 40–60◦ ; approximate centre azimuth angle
is 130◦ ).
5
Summary and conclusion
From TEC and plasma density observations onboard
CHAMP from 2001 to 2005, we have investigated the dependence of the TEC fluctuation level on azimuth and elevation angles of GNSS satellites as seen from CHAMP. We
have only used TEC data points obtained when the in situ
plasma density at CHAMP altitude exhibits EPB signatures.
Our main conclusions can be summarized by the following
points:
1. When CHAMP passes through EPBs, the largest TEC
fluctuations are observed when LOS points to the westward/equatorward direction: at azimuth angles of 90–
Ann. Geophys., 33, 129–135, 2015
J. Park et al.: EPB in TEC
180◦ (0–90◦ ) from geomagnetic north in the Northern
(Southern) Hemisphere.
2. When CHAMP passes through EPBs, largest TEC fluctuations occur for elevation angles around 40–60◦ .
3. The anisotropic distributions of TEC fluctuations (in
terms of the elevation and azimuth angles) uniquely
confirm the 3-D shell structure of EPBs suggested by
Kil et al. (2009).
Acknowledgements. The authors gratefully acknowledge valuable
discussions with C. Xiong. The CHAMP mission was sponsored by
the Space Agency of the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) through
funds of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology,
following a decision of the German Federal Parliament (grant
code 50EE0944). J. Park was partially supported by the “Planetary
system research for space exploration” project, the basic research
funding from KASI, and the Air Force Research Laboratory, under
agreement number FA2386-14-1-4004.
The service charges for this open access publication
have been covered by a Research Centre of the
Helmholtz Association.
Topical Editor H. Kil thanks two anonymous referees for
their help in evaluating this paper.
References
Chapagain, N. P., Taylor, M. J., Makela, J. J., and Duly, T. M.: Equatorial plasma bubble zonal velocity using 630.0 nm airglow observations and plasma drift modeling over Ascension Island, J.
Geophys. Res., 117, A06316, doi:10.1029/2012JA017750, 2012.
Hei, M. A., Bernhardt, P. A., Siefring, C. L., Wilkens, M. R., Huba,
J. D., Krall, J. F., Valladares, C. E., Heelis, R. A., Hairston, M. R.,
Coley, W. R., Chau, J. L., and De La Jara, C.: Radio-tomographic
images of postmidnight equatorial plasma depletions, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 41, 13–19, doi:10.1002/2013GL056112, 2014.
Huba, J. D., Ossakow, S. L., Joyce, G., Krall, J., and England, S. L.: Three-dimensional equatorial spread F modeling:
Zonal neutral wind effects, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19106,
doi:10.1029/2009GL040284, 2009.
Hysell, D. L. and Woodman, R. F.: Imaging coherent backscatter
radar observations of topside equatorial spread F, Radio Sci., 32,
2309–2320, doi:10.1029/97RS01802, 1997.
Hysell, D. L., Hedden, R. B., Chau, J. L., Galindo, F. R., Roddy, P.
A., and Pfaff, R. F.: Comparing F region ionospheric irregularity
observations from C/NOFS and Jicamarca, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
36, L00C01, doi:10.1029/2009GL038983, 2009.
Jakowski, N., Wilken, V., and Mayer, C.: Space weather monitoring by GPS measurements on board CHAMP, Space Weather, 5,
S08006, doi:10.1029/2006SW000271, 2007.
Kelley, M. C., Makela, J. J., Paxton, L. J., Kamalabadi, F., Comberiate, J. M., and Kil, H.: The first coordinated ground- and spacebased optical observations of equatorial plasma bubbles, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1766, doi:10.1029/2003GL017301, 2003.
www.ann-geophys.net/33/129/2015/
J. Park et al.: EPB in TEC
Kil, H., Heelis, R. A., Paxton, L. J., and Oh, S.-J.: Formation of a
plasma depletion shell in the equatorial ionosphere, J. Geophys.
Res., 114, A11302, doi:10.1029/2009JA014369, 2009.
Kim, Y. H., Hong, S. S., and Weinberg, J. L.: Equatorial spread F
found in 5577 Å and 6300 Å airglow observations from Hawaii,
J. Geophys. Res., 107, 1264, doi:10.1029/2001JA009232, 2002.
Lühr, H. and Xiong, C.: IRI-2007 model overestimates electron density during the 23/24 solar minimum, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37,
L23101, doi:10.1029/2010GL045430, 2010.
Mannucci, A. J., Tsurutani, B. T., Iijima, B. A., Komjathy, A., Saito,
A., Gonzalez, W. D., Guarnieri, F. L., Kozyra, J. U., and Skoug,
R.: Dayside global ionospheric response to the major interplanetary events of 29–30 October 2003 “Halloween Storms”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L12S02, doi:10.1029/2004GL021467, 2005.
Mendillo, M., Zesta, E., Shodhan, S., Sultan, P. J., Doe, R., Sahai,
Y., and Baumgardner, J.: Observations and modeling of the coupled latitude-altitude patterns of equatorial plasma depletions, J.
Geophys. Res., 110, A09303, doi:10.1029/2005JA011157, 2005.
Nishioka, M., Basu, Su., Basu, S., Valladares, C. E., Sheehan, R. E.,
Roddy, P. A., and Groves, K. M.: C/NOFS satellite observations
of equatorial ionospheric plasma structures supported by multiple ground-based diagnostics in October 2008, J. Geophys. Res.,
116, A10323, doi:10.1029/2011JA016446, 2011.
Noja, M., Stolle, C., Park, J., and Lühr, H.: Long-term analysis of
ionospheric polar patches based on CHAMP TEC data, Radio
Sci., 48, 289–301, doi:10.1002/rds.20033, 2013.
Park, J., Lühr, H., Stolle, C., Rother, M., Min, K. W., and Michaelis,
I.: The characteristics of field-aligned currents associated with
equatorial plasma bubbles as observed by the CHAMP satellite,
Ann. Geophys., 27, 2685–2697, doi:10.5194/angeo-27-26852009, 2009.
www.ann-geophys.net/33/129/2015/
135
Retterer, J. M.: Forecasting low-latitude radio scintillation with 3D ionospheric plume models: 1. Plume model, J. Geophys. Res.,
115, A03306, doi:10.1029/2008JA013839, 2010.
Stolle, C., Lühr, H., Rother, M., and Balasis, G.: Magnetic signatures of equatorial spread F as observed by the CHAMP satellite, J. Geophys. Res., 111, A02304, doi:10.1029/2005JA011184,
2006.
Straus, P. R., Anderson, P. C., and Danaher, J. E.: GPS occultation
sensor observations of ionospheric scintillation, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 30, 1436, doi:10.1029/2002GL016503, 2003.
Sultan, P. J.: Linear theory and modeling of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability leading to the occurrence of equatorial spread F, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 26875–26891, doi:10.1029/96JA00682, 1996.
Xiong, C. and Lühr, H.: Nonmigrating tidal signatures in the
magnitude and the inter-hemispheric asymmetry of the equatorial ionization anomaly, Ann. Geophys., 31, 1115–1130,
doi:10.5194/angeo-31-1115-2013, 2013.
Xiong, C., Park, J., Lühr, H., Stolle, C., and Ma, S. Y.: Comparing plasma bubble occurrence rates at CHAMP and GRACE altitudes during high and low solar activity, Ann. Geophys., 28,
1647–1658, doi:10.5194/angeo-28-1647-2010, 2010.
Zalesak, S. T., Ossakow, S. L., and Chaturvedi, P. K.: Nonlinear equatorial spread F: The effect of neutral winds and background Pedersen conductivity, J. Geophys. Res., 87, 151–166,
doi:10.1029/JA087iA01p00151, 1982.
Ann. Geophys., 33, 129–135, 2015