@Article{BravoBatiSouzFopp:2017:EqIoRe,
author = "Bravo, M. A. and Batista, Inez Staciarini and Souza, Jonas
Rodrigues de and Foppiano, A. J.",
affiliation = "{Universidad de Santiago de Chile} and {Instituto Nacional de
Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE)} and {Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas
Espaciais (INPE)} and {Universidad de Concepci{\'o}n}",
title = "Equatorial ionospheric response to different estimated disturbed
electric fields as investigated using SUPIM-INPE",
journal = "Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics",
year = "2017",
volume = "122",
pages = "10511--10527",
note = "{Setores de Atividade: Pesquisa e desenvolvimento
cient{\'{\i}}fico.}",
keywords = "Campos Eletricos, Tempestades Magneticas, Ionosfera Equatorial.",
abstract = "Good ionospheric modeling is important to understand anomalous
effects, mainly during geomagnetic storm events. Ionospheric
electric fields, thermospheric winds, and neutral composition are
affected at different degrees, depending on the intensity of the
magnetic disturbance which, in turns, affects the electron density
distribution at all latitudes. The most important disturbed
parameter for the equatorial ionosphere is the electric field,
which is responsible for the equatorial ionization anomaly. Here
various electric field measurements and models are analyzed: (1)
measured by the Jicamarca incoherent scatter radar (ISR), (2) from
Jicamarca Unattended Long-Term studies of the Ionosphere and
Atmosphere (JULIA) radar, (3) deduced from magnetometers, (4)
calculated from the time variations of the F layer height (dh0
F/dt), and (5) deduced from interplanetary electric field
determinations. The response of ionospheric parameters foF2 and
hmF2 to the electric fields simulated using the Sheffield
University Plasmasphere Ionosphere Model version available at
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais is compared with
observations for two locations, during the geomagnetic storm
events of 1718 April 2002 and 710 November 2004. Results are found
to be consistent with the observations in such a way that a
hierarchy among the different types of drifts used can be
established. When no ISR measurements are available, the drifts
deduced from magnetometers or measured by the JULIA are best when
including the contribution derived from dh0 F/dt for the 1824 LT
time interval. However, when none of these drifts are available,
drifts inferred from the interplanetary electric field seem to be
a good alternative for some purposes.",
doi = "10.1002/2017JA024265",
url = "http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024265",
issn = "2169-9402",
label = "lattes: 4091433441104332 2 BravoBatiSouzFopp:2017:EqIoRe",
language = "en",
targetfile = "bravo_equatorial.pdf",
url = "https://doi.org/ 10.1002/2017JA024265",
urlaccessdate = "20 set. 2024"
}