Validation of Ionospheric Models at Mid‐ and High‐Latitudes: Climatological Performance of WACCM‐X (SD) and TIE‐GCM in foF2

Modeling the high‐latitude ionosphere‐thermosphere system is imperative to understanding the impacts of space weather on modern technology, such as communications and navigation systems. At low‐ and mid‐latitudes, physics‐based and empirical models are well‐developed and capture the variability of the ionosphere to a good degree of accuracy. At high‐latitudes, however, the complex chemistry and dynamics due to interactions with the solar wind and magnetosphere, added to a lack of observations, presents challenges to such models. In this study we evaluate the climatological performance of the Thermosphere‐Ionosphere‐Electrodynamics General Circulation Model (TIE‐GCM), the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model with thermosphere and ionosphere extensions (WACCM‐X), and the Empirical Canadian High Arctic Ionospheric Model (E‐CHAIM) for the period 1950–2022. Model outputs are compared to observational foF2 data from the high‐latitude Resolute Bay ionosonde and the mid‐latitude Chilton ionosonde to assess the limitations of models in reproducing the variability of the high‐latitude ionosphere. We find that TIE‐GCM and WACCM‐X exhibit strong winter anomaly behavior at all times of day at high‐latitude, which is not seen in observational data, making overestimates in foF2 of up to 6.15 and 8.65 MHz respectively. An equinoctial asymmetry is also present at both mid‐ and high‐latitudes, with differences in observational foF2 of up to 2.92 and 2.38 MHz between March and September, respectively. We further find that including lower atmospheric forcing within physics‐based models improves representation of ionospheric variability during the summertime but can cause further overestimations and winter anomaly behavior during the winter.