Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Photoelectrons as a Tool to Evaluate Spectral and Temporal Variations of Solar EUV Irradiance Models W.K. Peterson 1, J.M. Fontenla 1, T.N. Woods 1, P.G.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Photoelectrons as a Tool to Evaluate Spectral and Temporal Variations of Solar EUV Irradiance Models W.K. Peterson 1, J.M. Fontenla 1, T.N. Woods 1, P.G."— Presentation transcript:

1 Photoelectrons as a Tool to Evaluate Spectral and Temporal Variations of Solar EUV Irradiance Models W.K. Peterson 1, J.M. Fontenla 1, T.N. Woods 1, P.G. Richards 2, S.C. Solomon 3, H.P. Warren 4, W.K. Tobiska 5, and P.C. Chamberlin 6 1 LASP/CU, 2 George Mason, 3 NCAR/HAO, 4 NRL, 5 Utah State, 6 NASA/GSFC Peterson, MURI, October 2003

2 Outline Our method to compare photoelectron energy observations and irradiance models Comparisons of photoelectron energy spectra with those predicted with two photoelectron production codes driven by the SPRM predictive model, and the FISM, HEUVAC, S2000, and NRL irradiance models Conclusions: –Surprisingly the empirical HEUVAC (EUVAC extended to 1 nm) model produces photoelectron spectra that match the observations on daily and solar rotation period time scales. –The SRPM prediction model matches the data as well or better than any of the data or index driven models. –The physics based NRLEUV model does the poorest job of capturing the variation of energetic photoelectrons on a solar rotation time scale. Peterson, MURI, October 2003

3 Uncertainties in solar Irradiances create uncertainties in thermospheric models Altitude-wavelength dependence of energy deposition from solar irradiance in units of Log 10 (Wm -4 ) From Solomon and Qian 2005 Solar minimum conditions Color Bar: Log 10 (Wm -4 ) Peterson, MURI, October 2003

4 Photoelectron Observations FAST observations available from January 1, 1997 to April 30, 2009 ePOP observations available in late 2011 Peterson, MURI, October 2003

5 Model Data Comparison Average of 56 one- minute average spectra obtained for SZA < 90 o Two PE production codes Seven Solar irradiance models Peterson, MURI, October 2003

6 Transformation to Equivalent Wavelength Use a constant15 eV ionization potential Peterson, MURI, October 2003

7 Relative Difference Observation - Model / Model as a Function of the Wavelength Equivalent of the Photoelectron Energy S/N inadequate below ~3 nm (> 385 eV) Above ~16 nm differences are less than +/- 50% Above ~30 nm slight differences in PE’s predicted from the GLOW and FLIP models. Both the GLOW and FLIP codes show TIMDED/SEE irradiances systematically low below about 15 nm Peterson, MURI, October 2003 * GLOW/HEUVAC best agrees with observations

8 FAST Observations from August 31 to September Observed Photoelectron flux vs. Energy (eV) Vs. Equivalent Wavelength (nm) F 10.7 KPKP D ST Each line in the color spectrogram panels shows a daily average photoelectron energy spectra with the flux given by the color bars on the right. Peterson, MURI, October 2003 F 10.7 APAP

9 Differences between Observations and Model PE Energy Spectra over a Solar Rotation HEUVAC SPRM- Rome FISM S2000 NRLEUV Photoelectron energy spectra produced using the empirical HEUVAC model agree best with Observations. The SPRM predictive model does as well as the TIMED/SEE based FISM model Peterson, MURI, October 2003 SPRM- MLSO

10 Observation-Model Differences -2 FISM produces good agreement except for underestimating the PE fluxes between 5 and 15 nm S2000 produces low fluxes below 15 nm and relatively good agreement above 15 nm. NRLEUV systematically underestimates the photoelectron flux below 15 nm RED: Model >200% Low GREEN: Model = Observations BLACK: No data Peterson, MURI, October 2003 HEUVAC SPRM- Rome FISM S2000 NRLEUV SPRM- MLSO

11 Solar Irradiance Models Differ at Many Wavelengths HEUVAC Model Color Bar is Irradiance in w/m 2 Relative Differences are (Model - HEUVAC) / HEUVAC HEUVA C FISM S2000 NRLEUV RED: Model >400% than HEUVAC Green: Model = HEUVAC Irradiance models are qualitatively different above and below ~27 nm Peterson, MURI, October 2003 SPRM- Rome SPRM- MLSO F 10.7

12 Irradiance Power above and below 27 nm HEUVAC FISM S2000 NRLEUV Lowest: NRLEUV Highest: HEUVAC/S2000 Lowest: HEUVAC/NRL Highest: SPRM SPRM-Rome SPRM-MLSO Peterson, MURI, October 2003 Photoelectron spectra produced using HEUVAC agree best with data

13 Irradiance Spectral Models HEUVAC model has by design has broad spectral structure (~1eV) above 27 nm To first order all models agree about the spectral shape below 27 nm The most significant differences between irradiance models are in the relative power above and below 27 nm. HEUVAC FISM S2000 NRLEUV SPRM-Rome SPRM-MLSO Peterson, MURI, October 2003

14 Conclusions Surprisingly the empirical HEUVAC (EUVAC extended to 1 nm) model produces photoelectron spectra that best match the observations on daily and solar rotation period time scales. Fontenla’s SRPM prediction model matches the photoelectron data as well or better than any of the other data or index driven models investigated. The physics based NRLEUV model does the poorest job of capturing the variation of energetic photoelectrons on a solar rotation time scale. We need SDO/EVE observations to fully understand the temporal and spectral variations of solar irradiance.We need SDO/EVE observations to fully understand the temporal and spectral variations of solar irradiance. Peterson, COSPAR, 2010, C


Download ppt "Photoelectrons as a Tool to Evaluate Spectral and Temporal Variations of Solar EUV Irradiance Models W.K. Peterson 1, J.M. Fontenla 1, T.N. Woods 1, P.G."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google