Remote Sensing (Feb 2023)

Performance and Consistency of Final Global Ionospheric Maps from Different IGS Analysis Centers

  • Wei Li,
  • Keke Wang,
  • Kaitian Yuan

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15041010
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 15, no. 4
p. 1010

Abstract

Read online

Ionospheric delay is one of the most problematic errors in satellite-based positioning data processing. The Global Ionospheric Map (GIM), which is publicly available daily in various analysis centers, is thus vitally important for positioning users. There are variations in the accuracy and consistency of GIMs issued by Ionosphere Associate Analysis Centers (IAACs) due to the differences in ionospheric modeling methods and selected tracking stations. In this study on the International GNSS Service’s (IGS) final GIM, the ionospheric total electron content (TEC) (from 243 global navigation satellite system (GNSS) monitoring stations around the world) and the ionospheric TEC (from the Jason-3 altimeter satellite) are selected as reference. By using these three references, we evaluate the performance and consistency of final GIM products from seven IGS IAACs, including the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the Center for Orbit Determination in Europe (CODE), Natural Resources Canada (EMR), the European Space Agency (ESA), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), and Wuhan University (WHU) in the mid-solar activity year (2022) and the low-solar activity year (2020). Firstly, the comparison with the IGS final GIM shows that the consistency of each GIMs is basically the same, with the mean value ranging from −0.3 TECu (total electron content unit) to 1.4 TECu. Secondly, the validation with Jason-3 altimeter satellite shows that the accuracy of several GIMs is almost the same, except for the JPL with the worst accuracy and an overall mean deviation (BIAS) between 2 and 6 TECu. Thirdly, the comparison with VTEC extracted from GNSS monitor stations shows that the CAS has the best accuracy in different latitude bands with a root mean square (RMS) of about 2.2–4.7 TECu. In addition, it is found that the accuracy in areas with more stations for ionospheric modelling is better than those with less stations in different latitude bands; meanwhile, the accuracy is closely related to the modeling methods of different GIMs.

Keywords