Comments on “Long-Term Variations of Exospheric Temperature Inferred From foF1 Observations

A Comparison to ISR T i Trend Estimates” by Perrone and Mikhailov

Shun Rong Zhang, John M. Holt, Philip J. Erickson, Larisa Petrovna Goncharenko

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Perrone and Mikhailov (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024193) and Mikhailov et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA023909) have recently examined thermospheric and ionospheric long-term trends using a data set of four thermospheric parameters (T ex , [O], [N 2 ], and [O 2 ]) and solar EUV flux. These data were derived from one single ionospheric parameter, foF1, using a nonlinear fitting procedure involving a photochemical model for the F1 peak. The F1 peak is assumed at the transition height h t with the linear recombination for atomic oxygen ions being equal to the quadratic recombination for molecular ions. This procedure has a number of obvious problems that are not addressed or not sufficiently justified. The potentially large ambiguities and biases in derived parameters make them unsuitable for precise quantitative ionospheric and thermospheric long-term trend studies. Furthermore, we assert that Perrone and Mikhailov (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024193) conclusions regarding incoherent scatter radar (ISR) ion temperature analysis for long-term trend studies are incorrect and in particular are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the incoherent scatter radar measurement process. Large ISR data sets remain a consistent and statistically robust method for determining long term secular plasma temperature trends.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4467-4473
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics
Volume123
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 1 2018

Fingerprint

incoherent scatter radar
radar
Radar
Ions
ionospherics
ions
trends
recombination
ion
estimates
Radar measurement
temperature
solar flux
Temperature
radar measurement
radar data
plasma temperature
ion temperature
oxygen ions
molecular ions

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Geophysics
  • Forestry
  • Oceanography
  • Aquatic Science
  • Ecology
  • Water Science and Technology
  • Soil Science
  • Geochemistry and Petrology
  • Earth-Surface Processes
  • Atmospheric Science
  • Space and Planetary Science
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Palaeontology

Cite this

Comments on “Long-Term Variations of Exospheric Temperature Inferred From foF1 Observations : A Comparison to ISR T i Trend Estimates” by Perrone and Mikhailov. / Zhang, Shun Rong; Holt, John M.; Erickson, Philip J.; Goncharenko, Larisa Petrovna.

In: Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 123, No. 5, 01.05.2018, p. 4467-4473.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

@article{a4b66cde00704131a125d0e9ef2c2d9f,
title = "Comments on “Long-Term Variations of Exospheric Temperature Inferred From foF1 Observations: A Comparison to ISR T i Trend Estimates” by Perrone and Mikhailov",
abstract = "Perrone and Mikhailov (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024193) and Mikhailov et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA023909) have recently examined thermospheric and ionospheric long-term trends using a data set of four thermospheric parameters (T ex , [O], [N 2 ], and [O 2 ]) and solar EUV flux. These data were derived from one single ionospheric parameter, foF1, using a nonlinear fitting procedure involving a photochemical model for the F1 peak. The F1 peak is assumed at the transition height h t with the linear recombination for atomic oxygen ions being equal to the quadratic recombination for molecular ions. This procedure has a number of obvious problems that are not addressed or not sufficiently justified. The potentially large ambiguities and biases in derived parameters make them unsuitable for precise quantitative ionospheric and thermospheric long-term trend studies. Furthermore, we assert that Perrone and Mikhailov (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024193) conclusions regarding incoherent scatter radar (ISR) ion temperature analysis for long-term trend studies are incorrect and in particular are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the incoherent scatter radar measurement process. Large ISR data sets remain a consistent and statistically robust method for determining long term secular plasma temperature trends.",
author = "Zhang, {Shun Rong} and Holt, {John M.} and Erickson, {Philip J.} and Goncharenko, {Larisa Petrovna}",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1029/2017JA024948",
language = "English",
volume = "123",
pages = "4467--4473",
journal = "Journal of Geophysical Research",
issn = "0148-0227",
publisher = "American Geophysical Union",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comments on “Long-Term Variations of Exospheric Temperature Inferred From foF1 Observations

T2 - A Comparison to ISR T i Trend Estimates” by Perrone and Mikhailov

AU - Zhang, Shun Rong

AU - Holt, John M.

AU - Erickson, Philip J.

AU - Goncharenko, Larisa Petrovna

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - Perrone and Mikhailov (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024193) and Mikhailov et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA023909) have recently examined thermospheric and ionospheric long-term trends using a data set of four thermospheric parameters (T ex , [O], [N 2 ], and [O 2 ]) and solar EUV flux. These data were derived from one single ionospheric parameter, foF1, using a nonlinear fitting procedure involving a photochemical model for the F1 peak. The F1 peak is assumed at the transition height h t with the linear recombination for atomic oxygen ions being equal to the quadratic recombination for molecular ions. This procedure has a number of obvious problems that are not addressed or not sufficiently justified. The potentially large ambiguities and biases in derived parameters make them unsuitable for precise quantitative ionospheric and thermospheric long-term trend studies. Furthermore, we assert that Perrone and Mikhailov (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024193) conclusions regarding incoherent scatter radar (ISR) ion temperature analysis for long-term trend studies are incorrect and in particular are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the incoherent scatter radar measurement process. Large ISR data sets remain a consistent and statistically robust method for determining long term secular plasma temperature trends.

AB - Perrone and Mikhailov (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024193) and Mikhailov et al. (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA023909) have recently examined thermospheric and ionospheric long-term trends using a data set of four thermospheric parameters (T ex , [O], [N 2 ], and [O 2 ]) and solar EUV flux. These data were derived from one single ionospheric parameter, foF1, using a nonlinear fitting procedure involving a photochemical model for the F1 peak. The F1 peak is assumed at the transition height h t with the linear recombination for atomic oxygen ions being equal to the quadratic recombination for molecular ions. This procedure has a number of obvious problems that are not addressed or not sufficiently justified. The potentially large ambiguities and biases in derived parameters make them unsuitable for precise quantitative ionospheric and thermospheric long-term trend studies. Furthermore, we assert that Perrone and Mikhailov (2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024193) conclusions regarding incoherent scatter radar (ISR) ion temperature analysis for long-term trend studies are incorrect and in particular are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the incoherent scatter radar measurement process. Large ISR data sets remain a consistent and statistically robust method for determining long term secular plasma temperature trends.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047614673&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047614673&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1029/2017JA024948

DO - 10.1029/2017JA024948

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 123

SP - 4467

EP - 4473

JO - Journal of Geophysical Research

JF - Journal of Geophysical Research

SN - 0148-0227

IS - 5

ER -