the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An empirical model of high-latitude ionospheric conductances based on EISCAT observations
Abstract. Conductances are key properties of the ionospheric electrodynamics and the difficulty of measuring them directly is a significant limitation to the usefulness of many analysis techniques. We have utilized all available field-aligned observations from the EISCAT incoherent scatter ultra-high frequency (UHF) radar since 2001 and from the 42 m EISCAT Svalbard Radar (ESR) since 1998 to develop a new empirical model for estimating the high-latitude ionospheric Hall and Pedersen conductances. The solar radiation component of the model is parametrized with the solar zenith angle and the F10.7 index, and the auroral precipitation component is parametrized with the magnetic local time and the divergence-free part of the horizontal ionospheric current density, which is obtained from ground-based magnetic field observations. We have also derived a new technique based on spherical elementary current systems that can be used to solve for the ionospheric potential electric field and field-aligned current density from known ionospheric conductances and ground-based magnetic field observations, taking into account induction in the ionosphere and in the ground. The new empirical conductance model and solver were applied to IMAGE magnetometer network observations. Comparison of the results with Swarm satellite observations showed reasonable agreement in the electric field profile and direction of the field-aligned current, but in the post-midnight sector the amplitudes tended to be weaker than those observed by Swarm. The combination of the new conductance model and analysis technique allows estimating the key properties of ionospheric electrodynamics from ground-based magnetic field observations.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Annales Geophysicae.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(11938 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(55 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2394', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Jun 2025
This paper presents a thorough and mathematically rigorous analysis of the relation between ground magnetic perturbations and ionospheric conductances measured by the EISCAT radars. The statistics are carefully performed, and the separation of the equivalent currents into divergence-free and curl-free parts is a significant improvement over prior similar studies.
There are several drawbacks to the model that should be addressed in more detail in the discussion section as noted in the attached annotated file. Nevertheless, the model described here can be very useful for the study of individual events localized over suitably spaced ground magnetometers.
Overall, this paper represents a significant contribution that will facilitate future studies and improved insights on auroral electrodynamic processes. I consider the paper publishable after the comments in the attached file are addressed.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Liisa Juusola, 28 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2394', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jul 2025
The paper introduced a new empirical model which can predict conductance based on divergence-free part of the horizontal current density. They built the model using EISCAT observations. They further introduced a method to further solve the field-aligned currents and potential. They validated the model against other empirical models and SWARM observations. Even though the validation result is not perfect, the method itself is novel. If more details about the methodology can be added, I will suggest publishing it.
Minor suggestions:
Section 3.2: More introduction to AMPS and SWIPE in the first paragraph would be helpful. For example, what is the input and output of these models. For example, is E_DF assumed to be zero in AMPS?
Introduce the name of the model at the beginning. Usage of AMPS-EISCAT is a bit confusing.
Font size in Figure 11 and 12 is too small. How are the internal and external E_DF separated?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2394-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Liisa Juusola, 28 Aug 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2394', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Jun 2025
This paper presents a thorough and mathematically rigorous analysis of the relation between ground magnetic perturbations and ionospheric conductances measured by the EISCAT radars. The statistics are carefully performed, and the separation of the equivalent currents into divergence-free and curl-free parts is a significant improvement over prior similar studies.
There are several drawbacks to the model that should be addressed in more detail in the discussion section as noted in the attached annotated file. Nevertheless, the model described here can be very useful for the study of individual events localized over suitably spaced ground magnetometers.
Overall, this paper represents a significant contribution that will facilitate future studies and improved insights on auroral electrodynamic processes. I consider the paper publishable after the comments in the attached file are addressed.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Liisa Juusola, 28 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2394', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Jul 2025
The paper introduced a new empirical model which can predict conductance based on divergence-free part of the horizontal current density. They built the model using EISCAT observations. They further introduced a method to further solve the field-aligned currents and potential. They validated the model against other empirical models and SWARM observations. Even though the validation result is not perfect, the method itself is novel. If more details about the methodology can be added, I will suggest publishing it.
Minor suggestions:
Section 3.2: More introduction to AMPS and SWIPE in the first paragraph would be helpful. For example, what is the input and output of these models. For example, is E_DF assumed to be zero in AMPS?
Introduce the name of the model at the beginning. Usage of AMPS-EISCAT is a bit confusing.
Font size in Figure 11 and 12 is too small. How are the internal and external E_DF separated?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2394-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Liisa Juusola, 28 Aug 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,356 | 70 | 15 | 1,441 | 20 | 59 | 73 |
- HTML: 1,356
- PDF: 70
- XML: 15
- Total: 1,441
- Supplement: 20
- BibTeX: 59
- EndNote: 73
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1