Mesospheric ionization rates due to Medium Energy Electron Precipitation – an overview

Quantifying the ionization rates due to medium energy electron (MEE) precipitation into the mesosphere has long been an outstanding question. It is the key to understand the total effect of particle precipitation on the atmosphere. The first MEE ionization rate was provided by the Atmospheric Ionization Module Osnabrück (AIMOS) in 2009. It applies electron measurements by the 0^o electron detector on the MEPED instrument on board the NOAA/POES satellites together with geomagnetic indices. Since then several other efforts to estimate the MEE precipitation and associated ionization rates has been made taking account e.g. of cross contamination by low-energy protons; Full Range Energy Electron Spectra (FRES) and ISSI-19. Recently, a parameterization based on the same electron data, scaled by the geomagnetic index Ap, has been included in the solar-driven particle forcing in the recommendation for Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6). Another parameterization aiming to resolve substorm activity applies the SML index, AISstorm. Further, three different methods to construct the total bounce loss cone fluxes based on both MEPED detectors has been suggested by the University of Colorado, University of Oulo, and the University of Bergen. In total, the space physics community offers a wide range of mesospheric ionization rates to be used in studies of the subsequent chemical-dynamical impact of the atmosphere, which are all based on the MEPED electron measurement.

Here we present a review of eight different estimates of energetic electron fluxes and the ionization rates during an event in April 2010. The objective of this comparison is to understand the potential uncertainty related to the MEE energy input in order to assess its subsequent impact on the atmosphere. We find that although the different parameterizations agree well in terms of the temporal variability, they differ by orders of magnitude in ionization strength both during geomagnetic quiet and disturbed periods and show some inconsistency in terms of latitudinal coverage.