JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, A10318, doi:10.

1029/2009JA014719, 2010

A global positioning system–based climatology for the total

electron content in the ionosphere
Remko Scharroo1 and Walter H. F. Smith2
Received 3 August 2009; revised 29 May 2010; accepted 9 June 2010; published 22 October 2010.
[1] The total electron content (TEC) in the ionosphere is an important factor in the
propagation of radio waves. Since 1998 the coverage global positioning system (GPS)
observations has been sufficient to monitor the TEC globally. We have used the
global ionosphere maps provided by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to devise a new
ionosphere climatology (NIC09). The climatology fits the GPS maps to 4.5 TECU,
more than twice as well as the IRI2007 climatology. The use of the global mean TEC as
the input parameter reduces scaling errors and long‐term mean errors in the model. For
climatic studies of sea level measured by satellite radar altimeters, it is necessary to
go back before 1998. During the earlier years of radar altimetry, we use TOPEX dual‐
frequency altimeter data to reconstruct the global mean TEC or use the solar radio flux
(F10.7) as a proxy. The comparison of dual‐frequency altimeter data with the GPS
maps demonstrated that about 8% of the TEC extends above 1350 km and about 14%
above 800 km. The root mean square error of the NIC09 climatology was found to be
approximately 18% of the TEC, compared to 14% for the GPS TEC maps, and 35%
for IRI2007.
Citation: Scharroo, R., and W. H. F. Smith (2010), A global positioning system–based climatology for the total electron content
in the ionosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 115, A10318, doi:10.1029/2009JA014719.

1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
[2] Geodetic receivers of the global positioning system
(GPS) signals measure phase differences on two distinct
frequencies in order to eliminate the path delay that results
from the refraction of electrically charged particles in the
ionosphere. The delay of the radio waves is proportional to
the total number of electrons per unit area (known as total
electron content or TEC) along the path between the satellite
and the receiver and is inversely proportional to the square
of radio wave frequency. Hence, the difference in path delay
on the two different frequencies can be used as a measure
for the TEC along the slant range.
[3] The creation of the NOAA Ionosphere Climatology
2009 (NIC09) was driven by the need for accurate iono-
spheric path delay information for single‐frequency alti-
meters prior to the broad availability of GPS dual‐frequency
data. Those earlier altimeter missions of the single‐frequency
era, Geosat (1985–1989), ERS‐1 (1991–1996), Poseidon
(1992–2002), and ERS‐2 (launched 1995), are highly impor-
tant for the construction of the long‐term climate record
of sea level change. For oceanographic and geophysical
applications, we are looking for a measurement accuracy at
1
Altimetrics LLC, Cornish, New Hampshire, USA.
2
NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry, Silver Spring, Maryland,
USA.
Copyright 2010 by the American Geophysical Union.
0148‐0227/10/2009JA014719
the centimeter level, while the building of the climate record
requires long‐term stability at the level of tenths of milli-
meters. Neither the Bent [Llewellyn and Bent, 1973] nor
international reference ionosphere (IRI) [e.g. Bilitza, 1990,
2001] climatologies were able to satisfy those demands
[Schreiner et al., 1997; Zhao et al., 2002].
[4] To be fair, the NIC09 climatology is not aimed at
replacing the IRI models, which provide much more infor-
mation than just the total electron content. Those models
predict density profiles of many ionospheric species, which
is far beyond the capability of the climatology discussed in
this paper.
1.2. Global Ionosphere Maps
[5] By combining near‐simultaneous measurements from
a global network of high‐quality GPS receivers to various
GPS satellites, it is possible to map electron content glob-
ally. The process of converting a multitude of TEC mea-
surements to global maps of vertical TEC is described by
Mannucci et al. [1998] and Komjathy et al. [2005]. The
vertical TEC (or simply TEC in the following) is the number
of electrons in a vertical column of unit base area, generally
expressed in TEC units (1 TECU = 1016 electrons/m2). The
TEC depends highly on solar activity, is larger near the
geomagnetic equator, and generally peaks at around 1400
local solar time.
[6] In 1998, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) started
the production of global ionosphere maps (GIM) of vertical
total electron content based on GPS slant‐range observa-
tions. Initially, a global network of nearly 100 GPS stations

A10318 1 of 16
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT A10318

Figure 1. (top) The global mean total electron content GTEC (daily values at 2000 UTC), correlates well
with (bottom) the solar radio flux value F10.7 (daily values at 2000 UTC, red dots), particularly when the latter
is smoothed with a 40 day boxcar filter (blue line). The 12 month running average of the sunspot number
Rz12 (brown) and the global ionosphere index IG12 (green) are input parameters of the IRI models.

and 27 GPS satellites contributed their data through the
International GPS (now GNSS) Service (IGS). The set of
selected GPS stations has meanwhile increased to 180,
receiving data from 32 GPS satellites. In this paper we use
the final JPL GIM product available approximately 7 days
after real time [Komjathy et al., 2005].
1.3. International Reference Ionosphere
[7] Prior to 28 August 1998, the lack of accuracy and
spotty global and temporal coverage of GPS measurements
were such that no JPL GIM maps could be reliably com-
puted. For earlier periods, altimeter data products rely on
climatological models, such as Bent or IRI, to model the
delay of the radar signal through the atmosphere. Although
the IRI model of 1995 (IRI95) [Bilitza, 1997] is probably the
most well‐known and commonly used, we chose the most
recent version (IRI2007) [Bilitza and Reinisch, 2008] for our
comparisons.
[8] The IRI models have some serious drawbacks com-
pared to the GIM maps. Naturally, climatological models,
like IRI, do not estimate TEC from any in situ data. Instead,
they base their TEC estimates on one or more related global
indices. While the TEC is prescribed as a function of time
and location, these indices are the only external input to the
model.
[9] In the case of IRI, the input parameters are monthly
values of Rz12, the 12 month running average of the sun-
spot number, and IG12, the 12 month running average of the
global ionosphere index (see Figure 1 and Perrone and De
Franceschi [1998] for a discussion of these different indices).
As a result of the yearly averaging of these two input vari-
ables, the IRI model cannot resolve the effects of variations in
solar activity at shorter time scales. Moreover, final values of
Rz12 and IG12 are only available at least 6 months after the
fact, making IRI less practical for real‐time applications.
Although it would be feasible to feed IRI2007 with monthly
indices, this was not how IRI2007 was designed. We pre-
ferred to provide our comparisons against the model without
modifications, as it would be applied by most users.
[10] In contrast to the slowly varying Rz12 and IG12
input parameters, IRI2007 also includes some dependency
on the 3 hourly geomagnetic index Kp, but this only applies
during geomagnetic storms [Coïsson et al., 2006]. Thirteen
harmonic coefficients model the variation of TEC during the
day, which is comparable with the 2 hourly update rate of
the GIM maps. Similarly, the 12 monthly sets of coefficients
are sufficient to capture the annual variations of the TEC’s
dependency on the input parameters. However, the 76 spher-
ical harmonic coefficients that model the spatial variations
provide only a far coarser spatial resolution than the GIM
maps.
1.4. Method
[11] The length of the period of JPL GIM maps, over
10 years or almost a complete solar cycle, allows us to build
a TEC climatology with the same spatial resolution as those
maps and a temporal resolution at least equal to the IRI
models. This climatology could also reproduce much higher
frequency variations in TEC, provided an input parameter
can be found that is most closely related to the TEC and
allows for variations in solar activity shorter than the 1 month
update rate of the input parameters currently used in the IRI
models. For the new climatology to be a useful addition to the
JPL GIM maps already available, that input parameter should
allow the estimation of TEC prior to 1998 as well as at least

2 of 16
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT
Figure 2. JPL GIM map of total electron content on 1 April 2000, 1100 UTC. The east‐west curves
follow geomagnetic latitude and mimic the preferential direction of the progression of the ionospheric
features westward with time.
some time into the future for which no JPL GIM maps are yet
available.
[12] Section 2 describes how the JPL GIM maps of 1998
through 2008 were used to create a climatology. Section 3
compares the climatology against the GIM maps, the IRI2007
model, and independent dual‐frequency altimeter data.
Section 4 discusses how the climatology is extended back in
time to periods prior to 1998, so it can be applied for the
improvement of the sea level time series of earlier single‐
frequency altimeters. Finally, section 5 provides some con-
cluding discussions of the results and applies the NIC09
model to some pre‐1998 test cases.
2. Building an Ionosphere Climatology
2.1. Input Parameters
[13] Recently, the global mean total electron content
(GTEC) has been identified as a sensitive indicator of solar
activity [Hocke, 2008, 2009]. The GTEC is determined as
the area weighted average of the 2 hourly JPL GIM maps and
is, apart from a scale factor, equivalent to the global electron
content (GEC) pioneered by Afraimovich et al. [2006a,
2008]. As Liu et al. [2009] point out, the advantages of GTEC
are that it is expressed in the same units as TEC, does not
require the introduction of yet another unit, and easily com-
pares to the TEC.
[14] Figure 1 shows the two main solar indices used in the
IRI models alongside GTEC. This clearly illustrates the
inability of IG12 and Rz12 to follow the sometimes rapid
variations in GTEC. The solar radio flux at 10.7 cm wave-
length F10.7, shown also in Figure 1, is measured at the
Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory near Penticton,
British Columbia, at local noon (2000 UTC) and continues
the observations made before 1996 in Ottawa, Ontario. The
measurements are represented in solar flux units (1 sfu =
10−22 m−2 Hz−1) and are normalized to a common Sun‐Earth
distance of 1 astronomical unit. As an input parameter, the
solar flux will need some filtering, since it contains excur-
3 of 16
A10318
sions that are not at all apparent in the GTEC time series. The
40 day smoothed solar flux does show enough of a correlation
with the GTEC values to further study its use later on in our
article.
[15] The most suitable input parameter for a TEC clima-
tology, however, is evidently the GTEC. This sounds like
cheating, since in order to compute the GTEC we already
have the TEC at every grid location, so why bother using a
model? In addition, how would we obtain a value for GTEC
prior to 1998 or into the future, in order to run the clima-
tological model for those periods?
[16] There are some significant advantages to using GTEC
as input parameter:
[17] 1. The GTEC is, by construction, closely related to
the TEC, making it relatively easy to model the spatial and
temporal dependence of TEC on GTEC. As is shown later, a
linear fit between the two, varying with time and location,
provides an adequate model of TEC.
[18] 2. A linear dependence of the local TEC values on
GTEC facilitates the creation of an unbiased climatology,
such that the global mean of the climatological TEC is the
same as the global mean of the measured TEC, a direct result
of the Gauss‐Markov theorem. This is certainly helpful when
studying global trends.
[19] 3. This procedure separates the problem of creating a
climatology from the selection of an appropriate proxy for
solar activity to be used as input parameter to the clima-
tology. In a later step we can select a proxy (or proxies) for
GTEC and the way they should be filtered. In fact, the
selection of the proxy can vary depending on the period and
(the quality or temporal resolution of) the available proxy.
More about that in section 4.
[20] The GTEC itself displays variations with periods
around 27 days, the rotational period of the Sun, as well as
seasonal variations. For a discussion of these features and a
comparison with GTEC derived from the IRI model, we
refer to works by Hocke [2008, 2009] and Afraimovich et al.
[2006b, 2008].
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT A10318

Figure 3. Relation between the global mean TEC and the local TEC near Greenwich, United Kingdom,
according to the JPL GIM data. (a) Individual values at 0400 UTC during the months of April, from 1999
through 2008, and the least square linear fit of the data. (b) Same as in Figure 3a, but for the months of
December, from 1998 through 2008. (c, d) Same as in Figures 3a and 3b, with values at 1400 UTC.

2.2. Global Ionosphere Maps
[21] We will use the JPL GPS ionosphere maps as “truth”
input for our ionosphere modeling. These TEC maps are
based on GPS slant range observations between the constel-
lation of GPS satellites and 100–180 GPS sites of the Inter-
national GNSS Service (IGS) and other institutes. Currently,
several institutes submit their inverse solution of the total
electron content back to the IGS. These solutions are all re-
presented in 2 hourly maps of TEC concentrated in a single
layer with a resolution of 2.5° in (geocentric) latitude and 5°
in longitude. The GPS satellites are high enough so that the
TEC maps can be considered to contain the entire electron
content in a column integrated from the Earth surface out to
infinity. A sample of such a TEC map is shown in Figure 2.
[22] We have chosen the JPL GIM maps as input for our
exercise since they resemble dual‐frequency satellite altim-
eter data slightly better than the GIM maps from institutes like
CODE (University of Bern) and UPC (Polytechnic Univer-
sity of Catalonia). The difference is in the solution strategy:
while the CODE maps are based on a truncated spherical
harmonic expansion [Schaer, 1999] and are susceptible to the
Gibbs effect, the JPL maps are created using bicubic splines
[Iijima et al., 1999], which are better able to represent the
TEC field [Scharroo, 2002]. In addition, in order to maintain
a long‐term stability of our model, the GIM models should
preferably be unbiased, but certainly not change its bias
during the course of the decade. This requirement also
excludes the CODE and UPC GIM time series, since both
suffer a jump of about 5 TECU in their bias with TOPEX
dual‐frequency measurements, in September 2001 [Scharroo,
2002] and January 2000 [Orús et al., 2003], respectively.
Global comparisons with TOPEX data during the solar
maximum of 2000 also identified the JPL GIM model to
perform the best among five GIM solutions [Feltens, 2003;
Orús et al., 2003].
[23] The JPL GIM maps start on 28 September 1998 at
0100 UTC, followed by another map every odd hour until
the end of 1 November 2002. Starting 2 November 2002
0000 UTC all GIM‐producing institutes decided to provide
their maps on even hours instead. To simplify the creation of
a climatology, all the earlier maps are interpolated to even
hours. Since the main features remain relatively stationary in
a geomagnetic reference frame tied to the position of the
Sun, they appear to move approximately west by 15° per
hour in a geocentric reference frame. The interpolation to
even hours thus improves by interpolating between points
15° west and east of the target longitude. To account for the
fact that the features follow the geomagnetic reference frame
rather than the geocentric reference frame, interpolation also
occurs between slightly adjusted geocentric latitudes, fol-
lowing the grid lines illustrated in Figure 2.
2.3. Relation Between Global and Local TEC
[24] In order to study how the global mean TEC affects the
local TEC at any point of Earth, we have taken an arbitrary
grid point in the GIM maps near Greenwich, United Kingdom
(0°E, 50°N), and plotted the local TEC as a function of global
mean TEC. In Figure 3a only the values at 0400 UTC during
the months of April are shown. The other panels of Figure 3
show the values for different months and time of day.
[25] Clearly the data groups into various clusters with a
more‐or‐less linear relationship between TEC and GTEC

4 of 16
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT A10318

Figure 4. Illustration of the five‐dimensional TEC climatology. The foreground shows the monthly and
2 hourly global grids at times of high solar activity (GTEC is 70 TECU). In the background are the solu-
tions for low solar activity (GTEC is 10 TECU).

and a different slope depending on the hour of the day and
the month of the year. The steepest slope is at 1400 UTC
(also local solar time) dropping to a minimum at 0400 UTC
(Figure 3b). The variation of the slope during the day is far
from harmonic, as it is modeled in IRI2007. The best way to
capture its variation is probably to estimate twelve 2 hourly
solutions of slope and intercept for every month and linearly
interpolate between them.
[26] The linear trends in Figure 3 do not pass through the
origin. This suggests that there is some “background” TEC
distribution that does not scale with GTEC.
[27] The GTEC‐TEC relation varies from month to
month in a much less consistent manner. During the day-
time (1400 in this example) the slope varies very little
throughout the year, yet during the night (0400 in this
example) the slope is much larger during the summer sol-
stice than during the winter solstice, owing to the elevation
of the Sun. This suggests that, similar to the IRI models,
we have to determine 12 monthly solutions of slope and
intercept for every 2 h slot in local time. Note that the intercept
also varies, meaning that the local TEC is not necessarily zero
when the GTEC is zero. In other words, the global TEC map
includes a time variant component that is not directly scalable
with GTEC.
[28] Realizing that the slope and intercept will also vary
from location to location, the climatology can thus be written
in the form,
TECð; ; m; h; tÞ ¼ að; ; m; hÞ þ bð; ; m; hÞ
GTECðtÞ; ð1Þ
where a and b are piecewise linear functions of longitude l,
latitude , month m, and hour of day h, i.e.,
m ¼ t mod 12 month
: ð2Þ
h ¼ t mod 24 h
2.4. NIC09 Climatology
[29] In section 2.3 we have seen that the TEC varies lin-
early with GTEC, and that the intercept and slope of the
linear variation depends on time of day as well as the month
of the year. Equally, these parameters depend on the loca-
tion as well. This results eventually in a five‐dimensional
climatology that can be interpolated in space, time, and
GTEC to obtain an estimate for the TEC at any location on
Earth and at any time for which we know the GTEC. The
five dimensions, illustrated in Figure 4, are as follows:
[30] 1. Longitude. The same longitude nodes as the GIM
TEC maps are used (spaced 5° apart). The 73 grid nodes in
those maps range from 180°W to 180°E, where the latter is a
copy of the former. The climatological solution at these points
is the same as well.
[31] 2. Latitude. Again, the same latitude nodes as the
GIM TEC maps are used (spaced 2.5° apart). The GIM maps
do not include the polar latitudes 90°S and 90°N. To obtain
a truly global solution, we fill in these latitudes with the
average of the solutions along the 87.5°S and 87.5°N par-
allels, respectively. We thus have 73 nodes in latitude.
[32] 3. Month. Twelve monthly vertices determine a
piecewise linear function. The year is divided into 12 equal

5 of 16
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT A10318

Figure 5. The red dots denote the TEC near Greenwich at 2000 UTC according to JPL GIM. The blue line
is the climatological fit. The residuals have RMS of 2.6 TECU. The gray region represents the model’s TEC
range for GTEC values between 10 and 70.

periods, and a grid node is placed in the middle of each period.
Each TEC observation falling in between those nodes con-
tributes to the nodes on either side of the epoch. This means
that the monthly solutions have to be solved simultaneously.
The placement of the nodes in the middle of the monthly
periods, rather than at the beginning, is not totally arbitrary;
the monthly grids used in the IRI models also refer to the
month centers. In case of IRI, however, the months are cal-
endar months, rather than the equally spaced periods in our
solution.
[33] 4. Hour. Twelve 2 hourly vertices determine another
piecewise linear function. These vertices are at even hours
UTC and coincide with the epochs of the “synchronized”
GIM TEC maps discussed in section 2.2.
[34] 5. GTEC. Two levels of GTEC are solved for, a low
level of solar activity corresponding to 10 TECU and a high
level corresponding to 70 TECU. This is equivalent to esti-
mating an offset and a slope of the linear variations discussed
above. Each TEC observation contributes proportionally to
both parameter estimates depending on the GTEC at that
moment.
[35] A weighted linear least square solution can be deter-
mined for each location and each even hour. All GIM TEC
observations at that location and hour are fitted in a manner
similar to equation (1), replacing a and b by the equivalent
expressions in terms of a GTEC at 10 and 70 TECU. In this
way at each of the 72 × 71 locations 12 independent 2 hourly
fits determined by 12 × 2 parameters are solved for. The root
mean square (RMS) fit of each of those models is stored,
resulting in 12 global maps (one per each 2 hourly period).
[36] If we were to use the original TEC maps (at mixed
odd and even hours) as input, we would have to estimate the
2 hourly, longitudinal and latitudinal dimensions simulta-
neously, leading to one set of 72 × 71 × 12 × 12 × 2 para-
meters, which would require excessive amounts of memory
and time to compute.
[37] Figure 4 illustrates the climatology by mapping, in
the foreground, 24 global TEC predictions during high solar
activity. From top to bottom the daily progression of the
Appleton anomaly along the geomagnetic equator can be
followed. From left to right the monthly solutions highlight
seasonal variations such as the increase of TEC during the
respective hemispherical summers.
2.5. Climatologies Compared to JPL GIM
[38] Figure 5 illustrates the performance of the climatol-
ogy at the point near Greenwich at 2000 UTC. The shaded
background shows how the likely range of TEC values
varies throughout the year, with the lower end marking low
solar activity (GTEC is 10 TECU) and higher end marking

Figure 6. The red dots denote the TEC near Greenwich at 2000 UTC according to JPL GIM. The blue
line represents the IRI2007 model. The residuals have RMS of 6.0 TECU.

6 of 16
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT A10318

Figure 7. Root mean square difference between the JPL GIM maps and (top) the IRI2007 model and
(bottom) our TEC climatology over the period of September 1998 to December 2008. The overall (area
weighted) RMS differences are 10.7 and 4.5 TECU, respectively.

high solar activity (GTEC is 70 TECU). Clearly, during the
winter months, TEC remains much lower than during the
summer months, even when solar activity is high. In June,
the local TEC at 2000 UTC runs roughly par with the global
mean value, while in December it does not exceed 30% of that
value.
[39] The blue line in Figure 5 indicates the climatological
TEC based on the GIM‐derived GTEC at that time and
compares well with the observed TEC (red dots). The dif-
ference is larger during high solar activity but relatively
unbiased when averaging over periods of a month or more.
The RMS difference between the climatology and the GIM
maps is about 2.6 TECU, which translates to a 0.57 cm path
delay error on Ku band altimeters.
[40] A comparison between JPL GIM and IRI2007 is
shown in Figure 6. Particularly during times of higher solar
activity, IRI2007 systematically underestimates TEC and
fails to follow major variation at time scales shorter than
1 year. The RMS difference is about 6.0 TECU, which
corresponds to 1.31 cm Ku band path delay. The mean
difference is 4.5 TECU (0.98 cm).
[41] Figure 7 shows the local RMS difference between
JPL GIM and the IRI2007 and NIC09 climatologies, respec-
tively, determined over the period of September 1998 to
December 2008. NIC09 improves upon IRI2007 particularly
along the geomagnetic equator, where RMS differences have
dropped by a factor 3. The global RMS difference dropped
from 10.7 to 4.5 TECU, equivalent to 2.33 and 0.97 cm on
Ku band range measurements. The respective global RMS
differences are plotted against time in Figure 8. While the
improvement is most striking during the period of highest
solar activity (2001–2002), it remains significant even during
periods of low solar activity. The improvement is also larger
in the Arctic than in the Antarctic, likely owing to the reduced
GPS coverage in the Southern Hemisphere.
[42] We have to realize, however, that the comparisons
between the climatological model and the GPS “observa-
tions” are not sufficient to provide a true error analysis. First
of all, the comparison is not independent, since the model was
based on the GPS data we compared against, and second the
GPS data themselves are only a gridded reflection of the true
variations of the ionosphere. For an independent analysis we

7 of 16
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT
Figure 8. Daily root mean square difference between the JPL GIM maps and the IRI2007 model (red)
and our TEC climatology (blue) as a function of time.
bring in in situ measurements of the electron content as
measured by dual‐frequency satellite altimeters.
3. Independent Verification
3.1. Dual‐Frequency Altimeter Measurements
[43] The measurement of sea level by satellite radar alti-
meters requires, among others, the correction of the range
measurement for ionospheric path delay. Operating at the
Ku band frequency of 13.6 GHz, the delay amounts to
approximately 2.18 mm for a total electron content of 1 TECU
[e.g. Schreiner et al., 1997; Chelton et al., 2001]. Given our
stringent accuracy requirements set forth in section 1.1, we
need to retrieve TEC to the level of about 5 TECU at any time
and place and require global and temporal means to reach error
levels as low as 0.05 TECU.
[44] By measuring range on two different frequencies,
dual‐frequency altimeters provide a means to directly esti-
mate the total electron content between the satellite and the
sea surface and thus correct for the path delay incurred on the
primary Ku band (13.6 GHz) range measurement. The dual‐
frequency altimeters of the TOPEX, Jason‐1, and Jason‐2
missions, all flying at approximately 1350 km altitude,
operate in the Ku band and C band (5.3 GHz). The lower
flying Envisat mission (800 km altitude) operates in the Ku
band and S band (3.2 GHz). The TEC below the altimeters is
determined from the difference between the range R at the two
frequencies f,
2 2
fKu fC;S RC;S RKu
TECalt ¼ 2 2
; ð3Þ
fKu fC;S k are the TECs below 800 and 1400 km determined by the
where k is a constant of 0.4025 m GHz2 TECU−1. In other
words, the altimeter‐derived TEC (in TECU) is 82.3 (TOPEX,
Jason) or 26.9 (Envisat) times the range difference (in m) on
the two frequencies.
[45] Three problems arise in the direct comparison between
the GPS‐derived models and the satellite altimeters:
[46] 1. The inherent noise in the altimeters necessitates the
smoothing of the altimeter‐derived TEC along track. For
this we used a 35 s (approximately 200 km) along‐track
8 of 16
A10318
boxcar filter, similar to the process suggested by Imel
[1994].
[47] 2. Since the altimeters fly at a much lower altitude
than the GPS satellites, they capture only part of the iono-
sphere. We therefore need to scale down the GPS‐derived
TEC to compare against the altimeter‐derived TEC. Despite
assumptions or assertions to the contrary [Schreiner et al.,
1997; Iijima et al., 1999; Komjathy and Born, 1999], this
needs to be done for the higher as well as the lower flying
altimeters.
[48] 3. Altimeters provide a far coarser temporal sampling
of local ionosphere phenomena than the IGS network. In
addition, Sun‐synchronous satellites sample the ionosphere
only at two distinct local solar times; in the case of Envisat
at approximately 1000 and 2200. Hence, the dual‐frequency
altimeters only provide a subsample, not a synoptic view.
3.2. Scaling the GPS‐Derived TEC to Altimeter
Altitude
[49] In order to use the GPS‐derived TEC for lower flying
altimeters (like Envisat at 800 km), it needs to be scaled
down to the lower altitude. Iijima et al. [1999] suggest the
following formula:
TECIRI95<800 km
TEC<800 km ¼ TECGIM ; ð4Þ
TECIRI95<1400 km
where TEC<800 km is the TEC below 800 km at a given time
and place, TECGIM is the GIM TEC interpolated at the same
time and location, and TECIRI95<800 km and TECIRI95<1400 km
IRI95 model. This formulation suggests that there are essen-
tially no free electrons left above 1400 km, so that no scaling
is needed for the higher flying altimeters (TOPEX, Jason‐1,
and Jason‐2). Iijima et al. [1999] explain that the rather
arbitrary altitude cutoff stems from the fact that the electron
density in IRI95 is excessively large above 1000 km, pre-
venting the TEC from actually converging with increasing
altitude.
[50] The new NeQuick topside electron model [Coïsson et al.,
2006], available in IRI2007 and applied in this study,
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT A10318

Figure 9. (top row) Comparison of TEC below GPS altitude (20,200 km; abscissa) and the TEC below
altimeter satellites (1350 km for TOPEX and Jason‐1, 800 km for Envisat; ordinate) as determined by the
IRI2007 climatology. Colors indicate the normalized data density of samples along the altimeter ground
tracks over the period October 2002 to March 2003. The solid blue line denotes the best fit linear relation
between the two TEC estimates and nearly masks the entire data spread. The dashed blue line is the 1:1
relationship. (bottom row) Comparison of the TEC interpolated from JPL GIM maps (abscissa) and the
TEC measured by dual‐frequency radar altimeters (ordinate) over the same period.

does not require such cutoff and can be safely integrated up
to the GPS satellite altitude because of its rapid decrease
in electron density above this altitude. Thus, we went on
to compare two quantities derived from IRI2007 over a
6 month period: the TEC below GPS altitude (20,200 km)
and the TEC below the altimeter satellites (800 or 1350 km).
The result (top row of Figure 9) clearly illustrates that there
is at least 6% TEC left above 1350 km and about 11% above
800 km. More strikingly, the ratio between the two quan-
tities is basically constant, seemingly independent of time,
location, and solar activity.
[51] Although the NeQuick model may not apply in the
plasmasphere, its integral converges rapidly at higher alti-
tudes. The alternative of cutting off the integration of the IRI
models at the TOPEX altitude, as suggested by Imel [1994],
clearly results in a further underestimation of TEC, for a
model that already underestimates TEC.
[52] To further this point, we also compared the TEC
measured by dual‐frequency altimeters and the GIM TEC
(Figure 9, bottom row) with very similar results. The linear
relationship between the altimeter and GIM TEC fits to
within 6 TECU, with scaling factors of 0.925 for TOPEX,
0.915 for Jason‐1, and 0.856 for Envisat. This suggests that
even a few more percent of the electron content extends
above the altimeters than the IRI2007 model indicated. The
nonzero intercepts of the linear trend identify insignificant
C band range biases and a larger S band range bias (150 mm
for Envisat, consistent with Otten et al. [2006]) compared to
the primary Ku band measurements. In the following, we
have corrected the C and S band ranges and scaled the GIM
values down by 0.925 (for TOPEX and Jason‐1) or 0.856
(for Envisat), in accordance with our findings.
3.3. Comparison Between Dual‐Frequency Altimeters,
GIM, and Climatologies
[53] In Figure 10, the dual‐frequency altimeter measure-
ments of TOPEX, Jason‐1, and Envisat are compared with
the interpolated GIM maps and the NIC09 and IRI2007
climatologies along two long passes across the Atlantic
Ocean. Although GIM does not provide a perfect match, it
follows the main features in the along‐track TEC to within
20 TECU (4.3 cm of equivalent Ku band delay), even during
the high solar activity of 2002. While NIC09 is not expected
to perform better than GIM, there are the occasional passes
for which NIC09 actually comes closer to the measurements.
The RMS error in Ku band path delay of less than 10 TECU

9 of 16
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT A10318

Figure 10. Examples of model results and measurements of TEC (left ordinate) and Ku band ionosphere
delay (right ordinate) along two long ocean‐only passes across the Atlantic. Dots indicate dual‐frequency
altimeter measurements. The model results from GIM, NIC09, and IRI2007 are shown as lines. The
numbers in the legends indicate the RMS difference between the measurements and models. (top) TOPEX
and Jason‐1, 6 March 2002 around 1500 UTC. (bottom) Envisat, 20 December 2002 around 1200 UTC.

Figure 11. Global RMS difference between the results from various models and the dual‐frequency
altimeter measurements of TOPEX and Jason‐1.

10 of 16
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT A10318

Figure 12. Comparison of the TEC measured by Jason‐1 (abscissa) and its difference with several mod-
els (ordinate): JPL GIM, NIC09, and IRI2007. Colors indicate the normalized data density over the period
October 2002 to March 2003. The solid blue lines denote the RMS difference between models and mea-
surement as a function of the measured TEC. The dashed blue lines indicate the best fitting linear error
model, by which the RMS error is proportional to the measured TEC.

(2 cm) is typical for this period (see also Figure 11) and is
acceptable for most ocean applications. IRI2007 performs
significantly worse, generally underestimating the TEC
around the equator and producing more erratic results toward
the poles.
[54] A plot of the time series of the RMS difference
between the models and altimeter measurements (Figure 11)
affirms the relative accuracy of each of the models and also
suggests that the RMS errors in the models are more or less
proportional to the TEC itself. Indeed, Figure 12 shows
that the spread of the differences between models and mea-
surements increases more or less linearly with increasing
TEC. A regression analysis demonstrates that the RMS error
of the GIM TEC (or ionospheric delay) is approximately
14%, the RMS error of the NIC09 is 18%, and the RMS error
of the IRI2007 is 35%. That means that, for periods where
the IRI2007 model is the only alternative, NIC09 potentially
reduces the error variance in the ionospheric delay by as much
as 70%.
[55] Figure 12 shows that the climatologies have a ten-
dency to underestimate higher TEC values, IRI2007 signifi-
cantly more than NIC09. This is to be expected since the
climatologies are tuned to model the more common low TEC
conditions, often at the expense of the infrequent occasions of
high TEC. And because NIC09 as a whole is unbiased, it
compensates the underestimation of high TEC conditions
with a slight overestimation at low TEC.
4. Extending the Climatology Back in Time
[56] One of the main goals of creating the NIC09 clima-
tology was to apply it to altimeter data prior to the avail-
ability of accurate global GPS data, prior to the start of the
GIM TEC maps in 1998. Our choice of GTEC as input
parameter would seem to make it impossible to do this, as
not enough GPS data are available prior to that date to
compute those values. However, we found two ways to
determine the GTEC by alternative means: inferring it from
TOPEX dual‐frequency altimeter data or filtering the solar
flux values to obtain the equivalent GTEC value.
4.1. Fit to TOPEX Measurements
[57] We recognized that while we do not have accurate
GTEC values before 1998 at hand since we do not have global
ionosphere maps, we do have TOPEX dual‐frequency altim-
eter TEC observations going back to its launch in September
1992. Unfortunately, the global coverage of TOPEX is insuf-
ficient to determine GTEC by simple averaging, certainly not
at a 2 hourly rate we are accustomed to with the GIM maps.
However, when we invert the NIC09 model, we can estimate
GTEC through a least square fit to a limited amount of TOPEX
dual‐frequency measurements. This procedure is similar in
strategy as the one proposed by Komjathy et al. [1998] to
update the IG12 input to IRI95 in order to better fit the
TOPEX TEC observations. After some experimentation, we
found that we can determine sufficiently accurate estimates
of GTEC every 2 h using a sliding 24 h window of TOPEX
measurements.
4.2. Filtering Solar Flux
[58] Before 1992, the closest global parameter we have to
the 2 hourly GTEC is the solar radio flux at 10.7 cm wave-
length F10.7, as observed in Ottawa on a daily basis since
1947. Afraimovich et al. [2006a, 2006b] also pointed at the
close similarities between these quantities, particularly in the
relative amplitude of their variations, and suggested a linear
dependence between the two. In this section, we take a dif-
ferent approach to model GTEC as a function of F10.7.
[59] First, as shown in Figure 1 and by Afraimovich et al.
[2006b], the prominent seasonal variation in GTEC is nearly
absent from the solar flux. That leads us to model GTEC
upon flux with a climatology similar to the one discussed in
section 2.3, i.e.,
0
GTECðm; tÞ ¼ cðmÞ þ dðmÞF10:7 ðtÞ; ð5Þ
where c and d are piecewise linear functions of month m
only. An attempt to include the subdaily variation in this
climatology failed since there is no systematic variation
of the GTEC during the day. Liu et al. [2009] identified a

11 of 16
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT A10318

Figure 13. Despiking the solar flux values. During geomagnetic events at the end of 2003, the (top,
green) observed solar flux increases much more than the (top, red) GTEC. After correcting the (bottom)
solar flux for large ap values and filtering, the (top, blue) adjusted solar flux and GTEC become more
linearly related.

similar linear dependency between the global mean TEC
and solar flux.
[60] Second, the measured solar flux exhibits large spikes
during geomagnetic events to which the GTEC seems
impervious, if not even negatively affected. As Figure 13
(top) shows, the solar flux rises strongly at the end of
October and at the end of November 2003, coincident with
two geomagnetic events indicated by high values of the
planetary geomagnetic index ap in the bottom frame. At the
same time the GTEC stays low, even dips, during the geo-
magnetic upsets. This kind of behavior is consistent with the
apparent saturation of GTEC versus solar flux when F10.7

Figure 14. Filtering the solar flux values: blue, running box‐car filter; green, empirical weights; red,
impulse‐ramp filter.

12 of 16
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT
Figure 15. Comparison between the GTEC inferred from three data sources at the end of 2003: JPL
GIM maps (red), TOPEX altimeter measurements (green), and solar radio flux (blue).
reaches values over 200 sfu [Liu et al., 2009]. From the
relative size of the peaks in F10.7, ap, and GTEC, over the
entire 10 year period, we established an empirical correction
factor to the solar flux that brings it closer to a linear relation
with GTEC, as presumed by the climatology. The corrected
solar flux is determined as
0
F10:7 ¼ F10:7 ð1 0:000031 ap 2 Þ; ð6Þ
where ap is the average of eight 3 hourly values during the
last 24 h preceding the flux measurement. The ap term con-
tributes to the aforementioned saturation of GTEC at high
solar activity.
[61] Even then, the GTEC proxy thus obtained exhibits
remaining excursions around geomagnetic events and rem-
nants of the 27 day solar rotation cycle not observed in the
GPS‐based values. Therefore, we decided to filter the now
despiked flux even further and adjust the filter such that
our climatological GTEC result best fitted the GPS‐based
GTEC. First, a running boxcar filter was attempted, result-
ing in one that is noncausal, running from 35 days prior to
5 days after the requested time, as shown in Figure 14. Next,
weights were estimated to all flux values during 50 days to
iteratively obtain the best fit to the GPS‐based TEC. The
results shown by the green line with circles in Figure 14
suggest an impulse‐ramp filter as drawn in red. The impulse
is tapered in order to avoid discontinuities in the filtered flux
values at 2 hourly intervals. The filter makes the GTEC
variations lag behind those in F10.7, which is consistent with
the approximately 2 day lag observed by Afraimovich et al.
[2006b, 2008] and Maruyama [2010].
[62] In summary, the resulting 2 hourly GTEC estimates
are obtained by (1) despiking the observed flux by means
of ap as in equation (6), (2) filtering (and interpolating)
the result with the impulse‐ramp filter of Figure 14, and
(3) applying the climatological coefficients of equation (5)
to obtain the estimated GTEC.
4.3. Comparing Different GTEC Solutions
[63] Figure 15 compares the three time series of GTEC
during the last 3 months of 2003. Being based on the 2 hourly
13 of 16
A10318
GIM maps, the GPS‐based GTEC has the highest temporal
resolution and the near‐global coverage of its input data
suggests it also has the highest accuracy. It is followed closely
by the TOPEX‐based time series, which represents even
the sharp excursions during the geomagnetic upsets of late
October and late November very well. Table 1 shows the
comparison between the GTEC reconstructions from the
GIM maps, the TOPEX dual‐frequency data, and the solar
flux over the period of 28 August 1998 (start of JPL GIM)
until 8 October 2005 (end of TOPEX). The errors in GTEC of
the latter two approximations are only 5% and 7% of the total
GTEC variation, resulting in the same increase in error of the
TEC estimates. This gives confidence that we can use this
time series without much degradation in the outcome as input
parameter between 1992 and 1998; Figure 11 confirms this.
4.4. Other GTEC Proxies
[64] As discussed earlier, the modeling of GTEC on solar
flux is quite difficult. All of the subdaily temporal resolution
comes from linear interpolation between daily values, and
the accuracy certainly degrades around geomagnetic events.
Nonetheless, this time series remains a very viable stand‐in
prior to the TOPEX mission and during the periods that
TOPEX data were not available (while the satellite was
switched to the single‐frequency Poseidon altimeter).
[65] Liu et al. [2009] have shown that there is an even
closer relation between F10.7 and the solar extreme ultra
violet (EUV) in the 0.1–50 nm wavelength range as mea-
sured by the Solar EUV Monitor (SEM) carried on board the
Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). However, since
those measurements start in 1996, that does not allow us to
extend GTEC back any further than the TOPEX measure-
ments do. As a proxy for EUV, the Mg II index also relates
Table 1. Comparison Between GTEC Reconstructions (28 August
1998 to 8 October 2005)
GTEC Reconstruction Mean (TECU) RMS (TECU)
JPL GIM (total signal) 31.90 33.79
TOPEX‐JPL GIM 0.19 1.61
Solar flux‐JPL GIM −0.10 2.40
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT
Table 2. ERS‐1 Crossover Difference Reduction
Crossover RMS (cm)
Satellites Period With IRI2007 With NIC09
ERS‐1/ERS‐1 Apr 1992 to Sep 1992 8.83 8.74a
ERS‐1/ERS‐1 Oct 1992 to Apr 1993 8.92 8.83b
ERS‐1/TOPEX Oct 1992 to Apr 1993 7.03 6.94b
a
NIC09 uses GTEC inferred from F10.7 and ap.
b
NIC09 uses GTEC inferred from TOPEX.
well to GTEC [Ma et al., 2009]. Most recently, Maruyama
[2010] found that the EUV output of the SOLAR2000
model [Tobiska et al., 2000] correlated well with regional
TEC observations in Japan. Particularly, the two outputs E10.7
and SEUV are promising as proxies for GTEC prediction.
[66] Another viable option to extend GTEC back in time
is to integrate the electron density profiles from the world‐
wide network of ionosondes to obtain local TEC measure-
ments and then infer the GTEC in a similar way as we have
done with TOPEX data. Ionosonde measurements have an
even more restricted altitude range, so topside modeling will
require special attention [e.g., Reinisch and Huang, 2001].
5. Applications
5.1. ERS‐1 Crossover Difference Reduction
[67] The ERS‐1 mission was launched in April 1991,
during the period of high solar activity. The first few years
of the mission are therefore a good period to test the
improvement of the ERS‐1 sea level data as a result of the
introduction of the NIC09 ionospheric corrections. For this
analysis, we use the statistics of the sea level differences at
crossing tracks of ERS‐1 with itself (single‐satellite cross-
overs) or with TOPEX (dual‐satellite crossovers). Table 2
shows that the RMS of the sea level height differences at
crossovers systematically reduces when the ionospheric cor-
rection is switched from IRI2007 to NIC09. These reductions
Figure 16. Global mean sea level time series as measured by (left) Geosat and (right) ERS‐1 and the
global mean ionosphere delay using either the IRI2007 or NIC09 climatologies.
14 of 16
A10318
suggest that the error variance in the ionospheric correction
drops by about 1 cm2, thus improving the sea level data by the
same amount.
5.2. Improving Geosat and ERS‐1 Sea Level Time
Series
[68] The Geosat single‐frequency altimeter mission oper-
ated from 1985 to 1989, although during the last year the
coverage was so much degraded that a global mean sea level
cannot be computed with sufficient accuracy. Figure 16 (left)
presents the time series of the Geosat altimetric mean sea level
as well as the mean ionosphere delay, demonstrating that
when the NIC09 climatology is applied instead of IRI2007,
some rogue excursions in the sea level time series (during
1988) disappear. As a result, the downward sea level trend in
reduced by 1.9 mm/yr.
[69] The ERS‐1 mission started during high solar activity.
Because the IRI2007 model significantly underestimates
higher TEC levels, the resulting mean sea level is far too low
(Figure 16, right). When using NIC09 instead, the sea level
time series is drastically flattened and reduces the average sea
level trend by as much as 2.5 mm/yr.
[70] A complete assessment of the reliability of the sea
level trends would require an investigation of trends in the
instrument calibration and all other geophysical corrections
that is beyond the scope of this paper. Our point is simply
that NIC09 makes improvements over IRI2007 that are sig-
nificant in the context of altimetric sea level.
5.3. Other Applications
[71] Outside the realm of satellite altimetry, the new cli-
matology can be applied to various radar sensing techniques,
in which the range or phase shift caused by ionospheric
particles plays a role. For example, in synthetic aperture
radar interferometry (InSAR) ionospheric variations from
one image to the next show up as a planar phase trend in the
resulting interferogram [e.g., Tarayre and Massonnet, 1996;
Price and Sandwell, 1998]. Although in case of mapping
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT
seismic displacements such trends can be removed by assuming
zero displacement in the far field, this technique cannot be
applied when studying large‐scale land subsidence. In the
latter case, the C band images should be corrected for phase
shifts due to ionospheric perturbations. Particularly, InSAR
campaigns of the ERS‐1 and ERS‐2 missions will greatly
benefit from this new climatology.
[72] Additionally, the NIC09 model can be used for any
application that the JPL GIM or the IRI2007 climatology is
used currently. The NIC09, however, allows forecasting based
on predicted F10.7 and can be used to study the climatological
variations of TEC, spatially and temporally, as a function of
GTEC. Moreover, NIC09 can be used as a reference, allowing
us to emphasize nonclimatological behavior of the ionosphere
during geomagnetic events, for example.
[73] To support these and any other applications, the
NIC09 model, supporting code and a daily updated time
series of the GTEC input variable, can be found at ftp://ibis.
grdl.noaa.gov/pub/remko/nic09.
6. Discussion and Conclusions
[74] The GPS data during nearly a full solar cycle allowed
for the construction of a global ionosphere climatology that
will be instrumental in the improvement of altimeter data
prior to the time GPS coverage was dense enough to provide
global coverage. Particularly, in the view of establishing
long‐term climate data records of sea level, it is essential
that the scaling of the GTEC is correct, since any general
overestimation or underestimation of the GTEC will result
in erroneous decadal signals. NIC09 has already shown to
improve sea level time series from the Geosat and ERS‐1
satellite missions, mainly by reducing the underestimation
of high TEC values prominent in IRI2007.
[75] The NIC09 climatology also provides the opportunity
to better study and understand global patterns of TEC dis-
tribution, its response to solar and geomagnetic phenomena,
and its daily and annual variations. The link made with the
solar flux also allows for the forecasting of local TEC based
on generally available solar flux predictions.
[76] Previous studies have also attempted to improve upon
existing climatologies, but with much less efficiency or with
a more limited scope. Komjathy et al. [1998] used GPS data
to upgrade the IG12 parameter that is input to the IRI
models, similar to the way we used TOPEX data to infer the
GTEC to be used as input to NIC09. However, their approach
does not extend the improvements to the period before the
GPS era, nor does it incorporate the GPS data to improve the
climatology as a whole. The great improvements we gained
are illustrated by our global fits with TOPEX data, which are
better than 3 TECU in April 1993, where Komjathy et al.
[1998] get around 8 TECU. The approach by Hernández‐
Pajares et al. [2002] is in fact similar to the construction of
most GIM maps with the addition of interpolation using
the IRI model. Again, this method does not extend the
GPS knowledge to the single‐frequency Geosat and ERS‐1
missions.
[77] Finally, it should be mentioned that the importance of
the GTEC as a measure for solar geomagnetic activity is
clearly borne out by this study, thus affirming earlier studies
by Afraimovich et al. [2006a, 2008] in that direction.
15 of 16
A10318
[78] Acknowledgments. The GPS ionosphere maps used in this
study are produced by NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (http://iono.jpl.
nasa.gov). The IRI2007 climatology and their input parameters Rz12 and
IG12 are made available by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (http://
iri.gsfc.nasa.gov). The F10.7 solar flux observed at the Dominion Radio
Astrophysical Observatory and the planetary geomagnetic index ap are pro-
vided by NOAA National Geophysical Data Center (ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.
gov/STP). The contents of this paper are solely the opinions of the authors
and do not constitute a statement of policy, decision, or position on behalf
of NOAA or the U.S. Government.
[79] Zuyin Pu thanks Attila Komjathy, Klemens Hocke, and the other
reviewers for their assistance in evaluating this paper.
References
Afraimovich, E. L., E. I. Astafyeva, and I. V. Zhivetiev (2006a), Solar
activity and global electron content, Geophys. Earth Sci., 409A(6),
921–924, doi:10.1134/S1028334X06060195.
Afraimovich, E. L., E. I. Astafyeva, A. V. Oinats, Y. V. Yasukevich, and
I. V. Zhivetiev (2006b), Global electron content and solar activity: Com-
parison with IRI modeling results, in Proceedings of IGS‐2006, Darmstadt,
8–11 May.
Afraimovich, E. L., E. I. Astafyeva, A. V. Oinats, Y. V. Yasukevich, and
I. V. Zhivetiev (2008), Global electron content: A new conception to
track solar activity, Ann. Geophys., 26, 335–344.
Bilitza, D. (1990), International Reference Ionosphere 1990, NSSDC 90‐22,
Natl. Space Sci. Data Center, Lanham, Md.
Bilitza, D. (1997), International Reference Ionosphere: Status 1995/96,
Adv. Space Res., 20(9), 1751–1754, doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(97)
00584-X.
Bilitza, D. (2001), International Reference Ionosphere 2000, Radio Sci., 36(2),
261–275, doi:10.1029/2000RS002432.
Bilitza, D., and B. W. Reinisch (2008), International Reference Ionosphere
2007: Improvements and new parameters, Adv. Space Res., 42(4), 599–609,
doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.07.048.
Chelton, D. B., J. C. Ries, B. J. Haines, L.‐L. Fu, and P. S. Callahan (2001),
Satellite altimetry, in Satellite Altimetry and Earth Sciences: A Handbook
of Techniques and Applications, edited by L.‐L. Fu and A. Cazenave,
pp. 1–131, Academic, San Diego, Calif.
Coïsson, P., S. M. Radicella, R. Leitinger, and B. Nava (2006), Topside
electron density in IRI and NeQuick: Features and limitations, Adv.
Space Res., 37(5), 937–942, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2005.09.015.
Feltens, J. (2003), The International GPS Service (IGS) ionosphere work-
ing group, Adv. Space Res., 31(3), 635–644, doi:10.1016/SO273- 1177
(03)00029-2.
Hernández‐Pajares, M., J. M. Juan, J. Sanz, and D. Bilitza (2002), Combin-
ing GPS measurements and IRI model values for space weather specifi-
cations, Adv. Space Res., 29(6), 949–958.
Hocke, K. (2008), Oscillations of global mean TEC, J. Geophys. Res., 113,
A04302, doi:10.1029/2007JA012798.
Hocke, K. (2009), Reply to comment by J. T. Emmert et al. on “Oscillations
of global mean TEC,” J. Geophys. Res., 114, A01310, doi:10.1029/
2008JA013786.
Iijima, B. A., I. L. Harris, C. M. Ho, U. J. Lindqwister, A. J. Mannucci,
X. Pi, M. J. Reyes, L. C. Sparks, and B. D. Wilson (1999), Automated
daily process for global ionospheric total electron content maps and sat-
ellite ocean altimeter ionospheric calibration based on global positioning
system data, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 61, 1205–1218, doi:10.1016/
S1364-6826(99)00067-X.
Imel, D. A. (1994), Evaluation of the TOPEX/Poseidon dual‐frequency
ionosphere correction, J. Geophys. Res., 99(C12), 24,895–24,906,
doi:10.1029/94JC01869.
Komjathy, A., and G. H. Born (1999), GPS‐based ionospheric corrections
for single frequency radar altimetry, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 61(16),
1197–1203, doi:10.1016/S1364-6826(99)00051-6.
Komjathy, A., R. B. Langley, and D. Bilitza (1998), Ingesting GPS‐derived
TEC data into the International Reference Ionosphere for single fre-
quency altimeter ionospheric delay corrections, Adv. Space Res., 22(6),
793–801.
Komjathy, A., L. C. Sparks, B. D. Wilson, and A. J. Mannucci (2005),
Automated daily processing of more than 1000 ground‐based GPS recei-
vers for studying intense ionospheric storms, Radio Sci., 40, RS6006,
doi:10.1029/2005RS003279.
Liu, L., W. Wan, B. Ning, and M.‐L. Zhang (2009), Climatology of the
mean total electron content derived from GPS global ionospheric maps,
J. Geophys. Res., 114, A06308, doi:10.1029/2009JA014244.
Llewellyn, S. K., and R. B. Bent (1973), Documentation and description of
the Bent ionospheric model, Rep. AFCRL‐TR‐73‐0657, Air Force Cam-
bridge Research Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass.
A10318 SCHARROO AND SMITH: CLIMATOLOGY FOR TOTAL ELECTRON CONTENT
Ma, L. H., Y. B. Han, and Z. Q. Yin (2009), Periodicities in global mean
TEC from GNSS observations, Earth Moon Planets, 105, 3–10,
doi:10.1007/s11038-008-9242-2.
Mannucci, A. J., B. D. Wilson, D. N. Yuan, C. H. Ho, U. J. Lindqwister,
and T. F. Runge (1998), A global mapping technique for GPS‐based io-
nospheric total electron content measurements, Radio Sci., 33(3), 565–
582, doi:10.1029/97RS02707.
Maruyama, T. (2010), Solar proxies pertaining to empirical ionospheric
total electron content models, J. Geophys. Res., 115, A04306,
doi:10.1029/2009JA014890.
Orús, R., M. Hernández‐Pajares, J. M. Juan, M. Sanz, and M. García‐
Fernández (2003), Validation of the GPS TEC maps with TOPEX data,
Adv. Space Res., 31(3), 621–627, doi:10.1016/SO273-1177(03)00026-7.
Otten, M., R. C. A. Zandbergen, and J. M. Dow (2006), Envisat altimeter
calibration and validation, in Proceedings of the Symposium on 15 Years
of Progress in Radar Altimetry, Venice, 13‐18 March 2006, Eur. Space
Agency Spec. Publ., ESA SP‐614, edited by D. Danesy, Eur. Space
Agency, Noordwijk, Netherlands.
Perrone, L., and G. De Franceschi (1998), Solar, ionospheric and geomag-
netic indices, Ann. Geofis., 41(5–6), 843–855.
Price, E. J., and D. T. Sandwell (1998), Small‐scale deformations associated
with the 1992 Landers, California, earthquake mapped by synthetic aper-
ture radar interferometry phase gradients, J. Geophys. Res., 103(B11),
27,001–27,016, doi:10.1029/98JB01821.
Reinisch, B. W., and X. Huang (2001), Deducing topside profiles and total
electron content from bottomside ionograms, Adv. Space Res., 27(1),
23–30, doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(00)00136-8.
16 of 16
A10318
Schaer, S. (1999), Mapping and predicting the Earth’s ionosphere using the
global positioning system, Ph.D. thesis, 208 pp., Astronomical Institute
of the Univ. of Bern, Switzerland.
Scharroo, R. (2002), A Decade of ERS Satellite Orbits and Altimetry, Delft
Univ. Press, Delft, Netherlands.
Schreiner, W. S., R. E. Markin, and G. H. Born (1997), Correction of single
frequency altimeter measurements for ionosphere delay, IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens., 35(2), 271–277, doi:10.1109/36.563266.
Tarayre, H., and D. Massonnet (1996), Atmospheric propagation hetero-
geneties revealed by ERS‐1 interferometry, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23(9),
989–992, doi:10.1029/96GL00622.
Tobiska, W. K., T. Woods, F. Eparvier, R. Viereck, L. Floyd, D. Bouwer,
G. Rottman, and O. R. White (2000), The SOLAR2000 empirical solar
irradiance model and forecast tool, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 62,
1233–1250, doi:10.1016/S1364-6826(00)00070-5.
Zhao, C., D. Bilitza, C. K. Shum, S. Shaer, G. Beutler, and S. Ge (2002),
Evaluation of IRI95 ionosphere model for radar altimeter applications,
Adv. Space Res., 29(6), 967–973, doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(02)00062-5.
R. Scharroo, Altimetrics LLC, 330a Parsonage Rd., Cornish, NH 03745,
USA. (remko@altimetrics.com)
W. H. F. Smith, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry, E/RA31, 1335 East‐West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA. (walter.hf.smith@noaa.gov)