Physics of auroral phenomena : proceedings of the 33rd Annual seminar, Apatity, 02 - 05 March, 2010 / [ed.: A.G. Yahnin, A. A. Mochalov]. - Апатиты : Издательство Кольского научного центра РАН, 2011. - 206 с. : ил.

“Physics o f Auroral Phenomena”, Proc. XXXIIIAnnual Seminar, Apatity, pp. 29 - 32, 2011 © Kola Science Centre, Russian Academy of Science, 2011 Polar Geophysical Institute BEHAVIOR OF IONOSPHERIC PARAMETERS AT MID-LATITUDE STATIONS DURING SEQUENCE OF GEOMAGNETIC STORMS ON SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2005 M.V. K lim enko1’2, and V.V. K limenko2 1. Kaliningrad State Technical University, Kaliningrad, Russia 2. West Department o f N.V. Pushkov IZMIRAN, Kaliningrad, Russia, e-mail: vvk_48@mail.ru Abstract. In the given research, it is presented the numerical calculation results of ionospheric parameters during geomagnetic storm sequence on September 9-14, 2005. The calculations were carried out with use o f the Global Self-consistent Model of the Thermosphere, Ionosphere and Protonosphere (GSM TIP), developed in WD IZMIRAN. The potential difference through polar caps (PDPC) and field-aligned currents of the second region (FAC2) were set as function of /f£-index with one-minute time resolution. Thus, the time delay of the FAC2 variations relatively to the PDPC variations was considered. In model calculations, we considered the effects of solar flares, which took place during the considered period. Besides, we realized the empirical model of particle precipitation in the model GSM TIP. The obtained calculation results were analyzed and were compared with Table 1. Separate intervals for the set of FAC2 Onset Termination Conditions 09:00 UT 09.09 14:01 UT 09.09 quiet 14:01 UT 09.09 16:00 UT 09.09 SSC 16:00 UT 09.09 18:00 UT 09.09 main phase 18:00 UT 09.09 06:00 UT 10.09 recovery phase 06:00 UT 10.09 13:00 UT 10.09 SSC 13:00 UT 10.09 20:00 UT 10.09 main phase 20:00 UT 10.09 01:14 UT 11.09 recovery phase 01:14 UT 11.09 05:00 UT 11.09 SSC 05:00 UT 11.09 11:00 UT 11.09 main phase 11:00 UT 11.09 24:00 UT 14.09 recovery phase Introduction In the previous researches (Klimenko and Klimenko, 2009; Klimenko et al., 2010) we have presented the results of model calculations of the ionospheric parameters behavior during geomagnetic storm sequence on September 9-14, 2005. These calculations were carried out with use of the Global Self-consistent Model of the Thermosphere, Ionosphere and Protonosphere (GSM TIP) developed in West Department of IZMIRAN. Model GSM TIP was described in details in (Namgaladze et al., 1988) and its modification regarding calculations of electric field in (Klimenko et al., 2006). In those model calculations a potential difference through polar caps (PDPC), auroral particle precipitations (PP) and field-aligned currents of the second region (FAC2) were set as function of Л^-index o f geomagnetic activity. The PDPC was set according to (Feshchenko, Maltsev, 2003), the PP fluxes and energy according to the basic morphological features of particle precipitations during storms (Hardy and Gussenhoven, 1985) and FAC2 according to the morphological representations (Iijima and Potemra, 1976, Kikuchi et al., 2008). Thus, FAC2 changed with half-hour delay relatively to the changes of Ajo-index and PDPC, which occurred in phase. It was carried out a large number of numerical experiments with the various setting o f input parameters (Klimenko and Klimenko, 2009). The comparison of model calculation results of the different ionospheric parameters with experimental data o f ionosondes and incoherent scatter radars above mid-latitude stations reveals the satisfactory agreement. However, we obtained some distinctions of calculation results and experimental data. The reasons of these distinctions are the following: a) the use of 3-hour A/>-index at modeling of temporal dependence of input parameters; b) the dipole approach of geomagnetic field; c) the absence in model calculations the effects of solar flares, which took place during the considered period. At the given stage o f our model development, the use of real geomagnetic field is a very difficultly solvable problem. 14.09 09.09 10.09 11.09 12.09 13.09 Fig. 1. The behavior of input parameters (potential drop through polar caps and amplitude and latitudinal shift of the field-aligned currents of the second region) setting in the model. 29