1. Figure 3. Equinox plots (left) over the longitude of Pasadena, CA and (right) over the East coast of North America and West coast of South America. Figure 2. Solstice plots (left) over the longitude of Pasadena, CA and (right) over the East coast of North America and West coast of South America. Table1. A chart of the models for comparison showing what type of model, the chemistry involved in the model, the spatial coverage of the model, the major physics mentioned and the output one can get from each model. Figure 1. Examples of (left) World-wide GPS receiver network, (center) a global ionosphere model (GITM) and (right) flux tube model output (SAMI2). Table1. A chart of the models for comparison showing what type of model, the chemistry involved in the model, the spatial coverage of the model, the major physics mentioned and the output one can get from each model. Figure 1. Examples of (left) World-wide GPS receiver network, (center) a global ionosphere model (GITM) and (right) flux tube model output (SAMI2). Abstract It is expected that ionospheric and plasmaspheric models should work best during geomagnetic quiet time and that active times would be the difficult part of modeling the space environment. Irregularities in the solar cycle are differences in the physics of the system. For this study, several ionospheric and plasmaspheric models have been compared during the extreme solar minimum of cycle 23/24. Synthetic total electron content (TEC) was calculated by integrating the models’ electron density in altitude. This synthetic TEC has then be compared with the TEC derived from ground-based Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements to show which modeling techniques properly replicate data during this extreme quiet time. Results show that few models predict well the ionosphere and plasmasphere during this most recent solar minimum. Abstract It is expected that ionospheric and plasmaspheric models should work best during geomagnetic quiet time and that active times would be the difficult part of modeling the space environment. Irregularities in the solar cycle are differences in the physics of the system. For this study, several ionospheric and plasmaspheric models have been compared during the extreme solar minimum of cycle 23/24. Synthetic total electron content (TEC) was calculated by integrating the models’ electron density in altitude. This synthetic TEC has then be compared with the TEC derived from ground-based Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements to show which modeling techniques properly replicate data during this extreme quiet time. Results show that few models predict well the ionosphere and plasmasphere during this most recent solar minimum. Synthetic Total Electron Content Comparisons During the Extreme Solar Minimum of Cycle 23/24 J. A. Feldt a, M. B. Moldwin a and A. Mannucci b (a) Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Michigan 2455 Hayward St., Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (jfeldt@umich.edu and mmoldwin@umich.edu) (b) Ionospheric Measurement, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA Future Work Perform a deeper investigate of the differences and similarities of the models. Globalize FLIP and get all files needed to run up to 2010 Extend GITM to the topside ionosphere and plasmasphere (with Global FLIP) Resources D. Bilitza and Reinisch, B. (2008) J. Adv. Space Res. Fuller-Rowell, T., E. et al. (2006) Radio Sci. Huba, J.D., G. Joyce and J.A. Fedder (2000) J. Geophys. Res. Ober, D.M. (1997) The University of Alabama in Huntsville Richards, P. G., and D. G. Torr (1985) J. Geophys. Res. Ridley, A.J., Y. Deng, and G. Toth (2006) J. Atmos Solar-Terr. Phys. Wang, C., G. Hajj, X. Pi, I.G Rosen, and B. Wilson (2004) Radio Sci. Webb, P.A. and Essex, E.A. (2004) J. Atmos Solar-Terr. Phys. Acknowledgements Julie Feldt is supported by a NASA Graduate Student Research Program (GSRP) Fellowship with JPL and the Rackham Merit Fellowship. She would like to thank Patrick Sibanda, David Galvan and Shasha Zou for their help. Future Work Perform a deeper investigate of the differences and similarities of the models. Globalize FLIP and get all files needed to run up to 2010 Extend GITM to the topside ionosphere and plasmasphere (with Global FLIP) Resources D. Bilitza and Reinisch, B. (2008) J. Adv. Space Res. Fuller-Rowell, T., E. et al. (2006) Radio Sci. Huba, J.D., G. Joyce and J.A. Fedder (2000) J. Geophys. Res. Ober, D.M. (1997) The University of Alabama in Huntsville Richards, P. G., and D. G. Torr (1985) J. Geophys. Res. Ridley, A.J., Y. Deng, and G. Toth (2006) J. Atmos Solar-Terr. Phys. Wang, C., G. Hajj, X. Pi, I.G Rosen, and B. Wilson (2004) Radio Sci. Webb, P.A. and Essex, E.A. (2004) J. Atmos Solar-Terr. Phys. Acknowledgements Julie Feldt is supported by a NASA Graduate Student Research Program (GSRP) Fellowship with JPL and the Rackham Merit Fellowship. She would like to thank Patrick Sibanda, David Galvan and Shasha Zou for their help. Figure 4. Density profiles over Millstone Hill ISR of all model with coverage. Conclusions All models poorly model F peaks during an extreme solar minimum Purely plasmasphere models display a low role in the TEC values by being ~ 10% of the ionospheric model values. There are differences in the physics included in each model, which need to be recognized and model-model comparisons are needed. Conclusions All models poorly model F peaks during an extreme solar minimum Purely plasmasphere models display a low role in the TEC values by being ~ 10% of the ionospheric model values. There are differences in the physics included in each model, which need to be recognized and model-model comparisons are needed.