GEM-CEDAR Challenge
Challenge home  |   Submission Instruction  |   Selected events  |  Selected parameters  |  Presentations  |  GEM-CEDAR metrics suite  |  CCMC home

CEDAR-GEM Modeling Challenge: Call for Participation

Conveners: , Ja Soon Shim, Barbara Emery, , Delores Knipp, Naomi Maruyama, Tim Fuller-Rowell, Tim Guild, Jan Sojka

Both CEDAR and GEM communities have recognized that due to the maturity and increasing complexity of state-of-the-art space weather models, there is a great need for a systematic and quantitative evaluation of different modeling approaches. During the last two years both GEM and CEDAR communities addressed this need by organizing and implementing comprehensive, community-wide efforts to test model predictions against observations. In the summer of 2008 the GEM GGCM Metrics and Validation Focus Group initiated a series of metrics studies (aka GGCM Modeling Challenge) focusing on the inner magnetospheric dynamics and ground magnetic field perturbations. A year later the CEDAR community initiated the IT modeling challenge called CEDAR Electrodynamics Thermosphere Ionosphere (ETI) Challenge. The goal of the two Challenges is to evaluate the current state of the space physics modeling capability, to facilitate interaction between research and operation communities in developing metrics for space weather models, to address the differences between various modeling approaches, to track model improvements over time, to facilitate collaboration among modelers, data providers and research communities, and provide feedback for further model improvement.

The Community Coordinating Modeling Center (CCMC) is supporting both Challenges and maintaining a web site with interactive access to model output archive and observational data used for metrics studies. In anticipation of the joint GEM-CEDAR Workshop five time intervals were included in lists of events addresses by both GEM and CEDAR Modeling Challenges:

E.2006.348: 2006/12/14 (doy 348) 12:00 UT - 12/16 00:00 UT
  2006/12/13 (doy 347) 00:00 UT - 12/16 00:00 UT - for global electron density study (TEC, NmF2 and HmF2)
E.2001.243: 2001/08/31 (doy 243) 00:00 UT - 09/01 00:00 UT
E.2005.243: 2005/08/31 (doy 243) 10:00 UT - 09/01 12:00 UT
E.2005.135: 2005/05/15 (doy 135) 00:00 UT - 05/16 00:00 UT
E.2005.190: 2005/07/09 (doy 190) 00:00 UT - 07/12 00:00 UT
E.2003.302: 2003/10/29 (doy 302) 06:00 UT - 10/30 06:00 UT (optional)
E.2010.095: 2010/04/05 (doy 095) 00:00 UT - 2010/04/06 00:00 UT
E.2011.217: 2011/08/05 (doy 217) 09:00 UT - 2011/08/06 09:00 UT

Through collaboration between CEDAR and GEM Communities, by analyzing simulation results for ionosphere/thermosphere and magnetosphere models for the same set of events, we can analyze the effects of the geospace environment on the ionosphere. Many of the magnetospheric models are coupled to ionosphere-thermosphere models, so that the metrics can be conducted for both coupled and uncoupled simulations on both models.

Modelers are invited to submit simulation results for the 5 events listed above before the Workshop through the interactive submission interface at CCMC website.

Submissions of coupled magnetosphere-ionosphere models are especially encouraged. To study the effect of different drivers ionosphere/thermosphere modelers are requested to perform series of simulations for each event with different models for ionosphere potential pattern: 1) Weimer; 2) AMIE; 3) Global magnetosphere models. Please contact Aaron Ridley or Masha Kuznetsova if you need assistance to get ionospheric potentials from AMIE and/or global magnetosphere models.

List of physical parameters to be used for metrics studies:

Ionosphere/Thermosphere models or coupled model components:
Global Electron Density (newly added):
       TEC from ground-based GPS in eight 5° geographic longitude sectors
       NmF2 from COSMIC in eight 5° geographic longitude sectors
       hmF2 from COSMIC in eight 5° geographic longitude sectors
Vertical and horizontal drifts at Jicamarca (VperpN and VperpE)
Neutral density at CHAMP orbit (Nden)
Electron density at CHAMP orbit (Eden)
NmF2 from LEO satellites (CHAMP and COSMIC) and ISRs
HmF2 from LEO satellites (CHAMP and COSMIC) and ISRs
Temperature Tn obtained by Fabry-Perot Spectrometer at 250 km (Arrival height, Antarctica; Resolute Bay, Canada)
Neutral winds obtained by Fabry-Perot Spectrometer at 250 km (Arrival height, Antarctica; Resolute Bay, Canada)
Ne at 300 km (Millstone Hill, Sondrestrom, EISCAT, Svalbard ISRs).
Te at 300 km (Millstone Hill, Sondrestrom, EISCAT, Svalbard ISRs).
Ti at 300 km (Millstone Hill, Sondrestrom, EISCAT, Svalbard ISRs).
Ion vertical velocity at Sonderstrom ISR

Geospace models or coupled model components:
Magnetic field at geosynchronous orbit
Ground magnetic perturbations
DST index
Auroral oval position (high latitude boundary)
Auroral oval position (low latitude boundary)
        Notes on how auroral boundaries are defined from observations (prepared by Y. Zheng).

Parameters along DMSP tracks
Poynting flux (Joule heating) into ionosphere along DMSP tracks
Plasma Velocity (Vx - along track, Vy cross track, Vz - vertical)

Additional time series in support of simulations results analysis
Cross polar cap potential (northern and southern hemisphere)
Joule heating (or Poynting flux) integrated over each hemisphere in GW.

Tentative agenda, suggested topics for discussions, and call for ideas/viewpoint presentations and participation in discussions:

  1. Review of the first round of GEM and CEDAR Challenges results. Simulations results, observational data and reports on metrics studies for the first round of Challenges are available at the CCMC website. Comments and discussions are welcomed. Results of the first round of Challenges will be used as a benchmark for further studies.
    • Introduction (M. Kuznetsova)
    • Overview of the CETI Challenge results (J-S. Shim)
    • GEM Dst Challange results (L. Rastaetter, D. Welling)
    • Discussion
  2. Effects of IT/geospace models coupling on metrics results.
    • Comparison of different approaches to introducing geomagnetic activity effects into ionosphere models (A. Ridley, N. Maruyama)
    • Poynting flux into the ionosphere (D. Knipp, L. Rastaetter)
    • Role of ion outflows from the ionosphere to the magnetosphere.
    • Discussion
  3. Challenges of the model-data comparison and how to address them
    • How to define the equatorward boundary of the auroral oval from simulations (Y. Zheng)
    • What metrics to apply and how to calculate skill score for global (e.g., 2D time dependent) observational data. TEC metrics studies planning.(B. Emery, L. Goncharenko)
    • Methods of data preparation.
    • Uncertainty analysis of model outputs (R. Schunk).
    • Metrics selection for geospace model evaluation. Lessons learned. Threshold-based metrics (A. Pulkkinen)
    • Discussion
  4. Climatology projects (B. Emery, T. Guild).
  5. General discussion on GEM-CEDAR Modeling Challenges. Planning of future activities
Please contact conveners if you are interested to present your viewpoint (no more than 3 slides) on topics listed above, and/or would like to suggest additional topics for discussion.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Air Force Materiel Command Air Force Office of Scientific Research Air Force Research Laboratory Air Force Weather Agency NOAA Space Environment Center National Science Foundation Office of Naval Research

Curator: Ms. Anna Chulaki | NASA Official: Dr. Maria Kuznetsova | Privacy, Security Notices