the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Apparent vertical ionospheric drift: A Comparative Assessment of Digisonde and Ionogram-Based Methods
Abstract. Reliable estimation of vertical plasma drift in the ionosphere is crucial for interpreting ionospheric dynamics and enhancing the accuracy of space weather models. This study provides a comparative assessment of direct Digisonde Drift Measurements (DDM) and indirect ionogram-based methods using parameters such as hmF2, h′F2, h′(3.5 MHz), and h′(0.8foF2). Two high cadence measurement campaigns were conducted at the mid-latitude observatory in Pruhonice, Czech Republic, during different phases of the solar cycle. The analysis focuses on evaluating measurement consistency, temporal coherence, and the influence of sampling step and averaging strategy on drift estimation. While DDM yields stable and robust results even at one-minute resolution, ionogram-derived methods are strongly affected by measurement uncertainty and ambiguity in virtual height interpretation – particularly at short time scales. However, at night, all methods converge when a 15-minute time interval is consistently applied both as the computation step and for subsequent smoothing. Under these conditions, coherent wave-like features in the vertical drift are reliably captured. The study outlines the strengths and limitations of each technique and provides recommendations for optimizing temporal resolution in ionospheric drift measurements, supporting improved methodology for future observational campaigns and model validation.
- Preprint
(1054 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Jun 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1811', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jun 2025
reply
The scientific value and methodological rigor of the manuscript are questionable in its current form. The study relies on only two days of observational data to evaluate several methods for estimating vertical plasma drift, comparing them to a Doppler-based method that appears relatively more reliable. For any objective reader their results, shown, for example, in Figs. 5 and 6, is proof that indirect methods cannot be used for any serious science: they produce mostly false or highly distorted signatures of wave activity, both day and night. This conclusion would be even more obvious if the authors used more decisive comparison technique (see below). The authors currently avoid strong critical commentary on the performance of the tested methods, as well as on the Digisonde technique itself, which risks legitimizing approaches that may be unsuitable for serious scientific application.
A more rigorous comparison framework is necessary. First, regarding data volume: it is not sufficient to base conclusions on two isolated daily campaigns when working with a high-frequency sounding system capable of continuous autonomous operation. Such a limited dataset renders the study vulnerable to event-specific anomalies and does not support general conclusions. Second, the DDM method is based on least-squares fits and therefore not just offers more physically grounded and statistically supported results but also provides per-measurement error estimates. This is a valuable benchmark that should be used more proactively in the comparison. The analysis could be strengthened if the authors include error bars for the DDM-derived values shown as black dots in Figs. 5 and 6. These error bars (appropriately adjusted when smoothing is applied) would allow readers to better assess the reliability of DDM itself and to identify deviations in the other methods that fall outside acceptable uncertainty bounds.
In conclusion, while the manuscript may serve a purpose in highlighting deficiencies in certain vertical drift estimation methods, it must undergo significant methodological revision and adopt a more candid interpretation of its results before being considered for publication. Specifically, the scope of the data must be expanded, and the analysis must incorporate uncertainty quantification and a more critical evaluation of the tested methods.
A few specific technical and editorial comments follow below.
L. 69-70: Digisondes can detect specific reflection points and measure Doppler shifts at those points, enabling full vector drift estimations.
It’s worth mentioning here that Digisonde requires dedicated, non-ionogram, fixed-frequency mode of operation for their drift measurements, thus causing loss of all information the ionogram mode can provide.
L.101: Such a data set allows accurate estimation of the drift velocity vector (Reinisch et al., 1998).
The scientific objectivity requires to mention here that this technique was developed, implemented and published four years earlier in [Wright and Pitteway, 1994, https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9169(94)90157-0].
L. 203: Standard ionogram measurement takes typically several minutes.
The authors probably mean typical ionogram cadence.
Section 4.2: When the authors speak of smoothing, is it the time series of a parameter itself (hmF2, h′F2, h′(3.5 MHz), or h′(0.8foF2)) smoothed before calculating the time derivative, or is it the time derivative calculated based on two adjacent values of those parameters smoothed? Have the authors tried both approaches? Is there a difference? Just for clarity, not that I expect critical improvement from any of these approaches.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1811-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
83 | 7 | 6 | 96 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 83
- PDF: 7
- XML: 6
- Total: 96
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1