Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Quantifying the Propagation of Fast Coronal Mass Ejections from the Sun to Interplanetary Space Combining Remote Sensing and Multi-Point in-situ Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Seven fast CME-driven shocks complete their major deceleration before reaching Earth's orbit.

desk verdict Useful multi-event compilation of fast CME shock propagation Sun-to-Ulysses, but the beyond-1 au gradual-deceleration conclusion leans on unproven shock identities and correlations that are partly baked into the model. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04450 v1 pith:3DVCLJIF submitted 2019-08-13 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Xiaowei Zhao , Ying D. Liu , Huidong Hu , Rui Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords coronalmassejectionsinterplanetaryshocksCMEdecelerationUlyssestypeIIradioburstssolarwindspaceweatherMHDmodeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of magnetized plasma from the Sun, and the shocks they drive can disturb space weather all the way past Earth. This paper examines seven fast CMEs from solar cycle 23 that were observed by coronagraphs, tracked by interplanetary type II radio bursts, and measured in situ at both the Earth and Ulysses, and it argues that in every case the shock's major deceleration was completed before 1 au, followed by gradual deceleration beyond Earth. The evidence is assembled into a simple analytical model with no free parameters, and the resulting Sun-to-Ulysses height-time profile is roughly consistent with all available data. If the result holds, a fast shock's long-range propagation can be captured by three measured quantities: its speed near the Sun, its speed at 1 au, and its Sun-Earth transit time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is an analytical, no-free-parameter model of shock propagation. It assumes the shock starts with initial speed $v_0$, decelerates at constant rate $a$ for time $t_a$, and then moves at constant speed $v_s$; combining $v_0$, $v_s$, and the transit time fixes $a$, $t_a$, and the cessation distance $r_a=(v_0+v_s)t_a/2$. The Leblanc density model converts the model's distances into radio frequencies to check against type II burst drift, a 1D MHD model propagates near-Earth solar wind data outward to test the same shock at Ulysses, and the graduated cylindrical shell model supplies the near-Sun speed and direction.

What would settle it

Take the next fast CME observed at both L1 and a well-separated outer-heliosphere spacecraft, and check the predicted arrival time from the analytical model against the observed arrival while confirming the two shocks are the same structure using energetic particle signatures or magnetic field orientation. A systematic discrepancy beyond the model's stated uncertainties, or identification of a different event at Ulysses in any of the seven cases, would overturn the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a propagation pattern for fast CME-driven shocks. Each event is reduced to three measured quantities: the shock speed near the Sun from a graduated cylindrical shell fit, the shock speed at 1 au from in-situ data, and the Sun-Earth transit time. From these inputs the model derives a constant deceleration lasting a time $t_a$ and ending at a distance $r_a$, followed by motion at roughly constant speed or with gradual deceleration. Across the seven events the deceleration cessation distance lies between 0.28 and 0.60 au, so the rapid braking is over before the shock reaches Earth. The paper reads the agreement of the same profile with type II radio burst drift inside 1 au, with MHD model output, and with Ulysses arrival times beyond 1 au as verification that the simple model captures real behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on identifying the shock seen at Ulysses as the same structure as the shock seen at Earth, based mainly on similar transit speeds even though Ulysses was up to roughly 138 degrees of longitude away; if that pairing is wrong for any event, the inferred gradual deceleration beyond 1 au loses its observational support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A fast shock's arrival farther out can be predicted from just its near-Sun speed, its 1 au speed, and its Sun-Earth transit time.
  • The rapid-deceleration phase ends between 0.28 and 0.60 au for the seven events studied, so major braking is a Sun-to-sub-1-au phenomenon.
  • Faster CMEs decelerate more strongly and for a shorter time inside 1 au, with linear correlation coefficients near 0.79 and -0.91 respectively.
  • Southward sheath fields, rather than the ejecta itself, drove several of the associated geomagnetic storms, and shock-ejecta interaction can intensify them, as in the severe 2001 November 4 storm.
  • A three-input kinematic profile can describe the Sun-to-Ulysses transit of fast shocks using data that are already available in real time at L1.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same three-input profile scales to the outer heliosphere, shocks observed near Voyager distances should arrive slightly later than a constant-speed extrapolation from 1 au would predict; checking this is a direct test the paper does not carry out.
  • The Earth-Ulysses pairing is the load-bearing link beyond 1 au; independent confirmation through energetic particle signatures or magnetic field orientation at both spacecraft would make the gradual-deceleration conclusion much harder to doubt.
  • Because the sample contains only fast CMEs, the claimed correlations between initial speed, deceleration, and deceleration time should be tested on slower events and on events observed by more than one outer-heliosphere spacecraft.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a kinematic analysis of 7 fast CME-driven shocks observed in solar cycle 23, combining SOHO/LASCO coronagraph data via GCS forward modeling, Wind/WAVES type II radio bursts, in-situ solar wind measurements at L1 (Wind/ACE/Genesis) and Ulysses, a simple analytical propagation model with three input parameters, and a 1D MHD model. For each event the authors derive the near-Sun speed v0, the shock speed and transit time at Earth (vs, ts), and the shock speed at Ulysses, then use the analytical model to obtain the deceleration a, deceleration duration ta, and deceleration cessation distance ra within 1 au. They report that all 7 shocks decelerated strongly before reaching 1 au and then continued with gradual deceleration beyond 1 au, with cessation distances ranging from 0.28 to 0.60 au. They also report correlations among the kinematic parameters and discuss the geomagnetic consequences of several events, including a shock–ejecta interaction that enhanced southward fields.

Significance. If the claims are accepted, the paper adds a small multi-event sample supporting the picture that fast CME-driven shocks complete most of their Sun–Earth deceleration within roughly 0.3–0.6 au and continue to slow gradually beyond 1 au, and it demonstrates a simple analytical model as a useful forecasting tool. The Sun-to-Earth part of the evidence is strong: for every event, the near-Sun GCS speed (1200–2600 km/s) exceeds the in-situ speed at L1 (560–1040 km/s), and the type II drift curves broadly match the model after per-event adjustment of the 1-au density scale n0. The paper also makes a transparent comparison with a 1D MHD model and is honest about several limitations, notably the possible alternative CME for the 1997 November 4 event and the substituted ICME leading edge for 2005 May 13. The beyond-1 au conclusion and the statistical correlations, however, are weakened by the issues detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 and Section 2.3] The correlations in Figure 22 are presented as empirical findings, but several are mathematical consequences of the analytical model's definitions. In Section 2.3, ta = 2(ds - vs*ts)/(v0 - vs), a = (vs - v0)/ta, and ra = (v0 + vs)*ta/2 are deterministic functions of the three inputs v0, vs, and ts. Consequently, the near-perfect anti-correlation between a and ta (r = -0.91) is essentially a restatement of ta = (vs - v0)/a, not an independent physical relationship. The abstract's claim that "the faster the CME, the larger the deceleration, and the shorter the deceleration time period" is therefore partly a property of the model, not an independent empirical trend. The authors should either compute the correlations using independently measured quantities (e.g., deceleration fits to type II drift without n0 tuning) or explicitly state that the correlations are algebraic consequences of the model. This issue is load-bearing for the statistical conclusions in Section 4 and the abstract.
  2. [Section 3.1, Section 3.6, Table 1] The identification of the Ulysses shock as the same CME-driven shock observed at Earth is not securely established for at least two of the seven events, which undermines the "all 7" claim of gradual deceleration beyond 1 au. In Section 3.1 the authors note for 1997 November 4 that a later CME from the same active region could have reached Ulysses and "cannot be completely excluded"; in Section 3.6 they state for 2005 May 13 that "the CME-driven shock missed Ulysses, and the ICME leading edge has been used as a substitute." Including these events in the statement that each shock "thereafter propagated with a gradual deceleration" is not supported by the presented evidence. Moreover, Ulysses was separated from Earth by up to 138 degrees in longitude (Table 1), so a lower speed at Ulysses could reflect the flank of the shock rather than temporal deceleration. The authors should either exclude these two events from the beyond-1 au conclusion or provide stronger evidence for the association (e.g., compositional signatures, multi-spacecraft timing consistency, or modeling that accounts for the shock's non-radial structure).
  3. [Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 5] The analytical model is repeatedly described as having "no free parameters," but the validation against the type II radio bursts uses a per-event adjusted value of n0, the nominal 1-au density in the Leblanc model. Because n0 is tuned to make the model's frequency-time profile match the observations, the type II drift does not provide an independent verification of the model; it merely shows that a density scaling can reconcile the two. The statement in Section 5 that the model is "verified" by agreement with the type II bursts is therefore overstated. The authors should report the n0 values used for each event and discuss how sensitive the conclusions are to the density-model scaling, or else clearly separate the model's three input parameters from the validation step's tuning parameter.
  4. [Sections 3.1–3.4 and 2.4] The MHD model is presented as an independent check of the Earth–Ulysses connection, but its predicted shock arrival times at Ulysses differ from the observed times by 21–39 hours (e.g., 39 hr early for 1997 November 4, 37 hr early for 2000 June 6, and 26 hr early for 2001 April 2). For the 2001 April 2 event, 26 hours is more than half of the roughly 46-hour Earth-to-Ulysses transit time, which the paper itself classifies as "a larger uncertainty compared with other cases." These discrepancies, attributed to large longitudinal/latitudinal separations, are large enough that the MHD comparison does not convincingly confirm that the same shock was observed at both locations. The claim in Section 2.4 that the MHD model "can also be used to evaluate the analytical model beyond 1 au" is thus not strongly supported by the presented results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.7] There is a typographical error: "analyitcal model" should be "analytical model."
  2. [Table 1 and Section 3.2] The note to Table 1 states that the Ulysses latitude and longitude are given relative to Earth when the CME erupted, but Section 3.2 gives the Ulysses position "when the shock arrived there" (e.g., S58.4). The authors should specify which epoch is used consistently throughout the paper and in the table.
  3. [Figure 22] The correlation coefficients are reported without p-values or confidence intervals. With only 7 events, the statistical significance is low, and the reader cannot assess the strength of the relations shown in panels (c), (d), (e), and (f); the paper should either add significance measures or temper the language about these correlations.
  4. [Section 4] The statement that Figure 22(f) shows "no obvious correlation" would be better phrased as "not statistically significant at this sample size," since with N=7 the absence of a visible trend is expected even if a weak relationship exists.
  5. [Section 2.2] The type II frequency-to-distance conversion depends on the Leblanc density model and the chosen n0 values. For reproducibility, the authors should list the n0 values used for each event in a table or in the text, rather than only in the figures.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Sun-to-1 au 'verification' and several Figure 22 correlations are partly built into the model's defining equations and the per-event tuning of the type II density scale; the beyond-1 au claim still rests on independent (though uncertain) Ulysses comparisons.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3 (Analytical Model) and Section 4, Figure 22(b),(d)]
    "Combining these known parameters, we can derive key parameters of CME/shock propagation inside 1 au, including the time for deceleration ta = 2 (ds − vsts) / (v0 − vs), where ds is the distance of Wind/ACE from the Sun, the deceleration a = ( vs − v0) /ta, and the deceleration cessation distance ra = ( v0 + vs) ta/2. … Figure 22(b) shows the shock deceleration versus the time period of shock deceleration for the 7 events. The correlation coefficient is about −0.91, which indicates that a CME/shock with a larger deceleration tends to have a shorter deceleration time period from the Sun to 1 au."

    The reported correlation between a and ta is largely a mathematical consequence of the defining equation a = (vs − v0)/ta. For the seven events, the speed drop (vs − v0) is similar in sign and magnitude, so any larger |a| mechanically corresponds to a shorter ta; the paper presents this algebraic relation as an empirical kinematic tendency. Likewise, ra is defined as (v0 + vs)ta/2, so the ra–ta correlation in Figure 22(d) is also partly definitional rather than an independent finding. The data do not independently establish these tendencies; they inherit the model's algebraic structure.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (and analogous per-event statements), type II radio verification]
    "We adjust n0 (the nominal 1-au electron density in the Leblanc model) in order to match the frequency drift of the harmonic type II bands. A value of n0 = 20 cm−3 yields a frequency-time profile that is consistent with the observed radio spectrum."

    The claimed agreement between the analytical height-time profile and the type II radio drift is obtained by tuning the density scale n0 to match those same type II bands for each event. With this per-event free scaling, the converted frequency-time curve is forced into the observed band, so the 'verification' against radio data is not an independent test. The paper's caveat that the derived kinematics are independent of the density model is correct, but it does not remove the circularity of using the same type II data both to set the conversion and to validate the profile.

full rationale

The paper's central physical conclusion—that each shock decelerated strongly inside 1 au and then continued with gradual deceleration beyond 1 au—is based primarily on comparing measured shock speeds near the Sun, at Earth, and at Ulysses, which are observational inputs rather than outputs of a fitted model. That portion is not circular: the model itself is explicitly restated in Section 2.3, so citing Liu et al. (2017) for it is not load-bearing, and the Ulysses arrival provides an independent check of the constant-speed extension, assuming the Earth-Ulysses shock association is correct (which is an observational assumption and a correctness risk, not a definitional circularity). However, two parts of the paper's validation are partly circular. First, the Figure 22 correlations between derived quantities such as a and ta, and ra and ta, are hard-wired into the model's defining equations; presenting them as empirical tendencies overstates their evidential value. Second, the type II radio 'verification' is weakened by tuning n0 per event to match the very same type II bands, making the radio agreement a consistency check with a fitted scaling rather than a prediction. These issues do not invalidate the multi-point speed comparisons, but they reduce the force of the claim that the analytical model is independently verified by all the data.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the analytical model's kinematic assumptions, the GCS-derived initial speed, the shock speed and transit time at Earth, and the association of the Earth and Ulysses shocks. No new physical entities are introduced. The radio verification depends on a per-event tuned density scale.

free parameters (2)
  • n0 (Leblanc density model nominal 1-au density) = 20, 16, 20, 18 cm^-3 for the four detailed events
    Adjusted per event to align the analytical height-time profile with the observed type II harmonic band (Sections 3.1 to 3.4). The kinematic parameters do not depend on n0, but the claimed verification of the profile against radio data does.
  • GCS forward-model parameters = six per event (longitude, latitude, tilt, half angle, aspect ratio, distance), some held fixed
    The near-Sun speed v0, which drives the analytical model, comes from a linear fit to GCS distances. The GCS fitting is subjective and the paper acknowledges single-spacecraft uncertainties (Sections 2.1 and 3.1).
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The shock starts at r0 = 0 with t0 set to the mid-time between flare start and flare maximum.
    Introduced in Section 2.3. The choice of t0 shifts the height-time curve, and r0 = 0 is a simplification. These affect the derived deceleration parameters through the measured transit time ts.
  • domain assumption The shock propagates with constant deceleration for a time ta and then with constant speed vs beyond 1 au.
    This is the analytical model of Liu et al. (2017), Section 2.3. The conclusion that deceleration ceases before 1 au is built into the form of the model, though the computed cessation distances (0.28 to 0.60 au) are not directly imposed.
  • domain assumption The CME leading edge speed from GCS approximates the shock speed near the Sun.
    Section 3.1 states: 'It is used as an approximation of the shock speed, since the shock is very close to the CME leading front near the Sun.' If the shock separated from the CME, v0 would be wrong and all derived parameters shift.
  • domain assumption The shock observed at Ulysses is the same structure as the shock observed at Earth.
    Inferred from similar transit and in-situ speeds (Sections 3.1 to 3.4). The paper notes large longitudinal separations and, for 1997 Nov 4, a later CME that might also have reached Ulysses. If misidentified, the beyond-1-au conclusions fail.
  • domain assumption The Leblanc electron density model, with adjusted n0, converts type II frequencies to distances for comparison.
    Sections 2.2 and 3.1. The density model is external, but the per-event tuning of n0 makes the radio comparison semi-empirical rather than a closed-form prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying the Propagation of Fast Coronal Mass Ejections from the Sun to Interplanetary Space Combining Remote Sensing and Multi-Point in-situ Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DVCLJIF

@misc{pith2026190804450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying the Propagation of Fast Coronal Mass Ejections from the Sun to Interplanetary Space Combining Remote Sensing and Multi-Point in-situ Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DVCLJIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04450}
}
read the original abstract

In order to have a comprehensive view of the propagation and evolution of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) from the Sun to deep interplanetary space beyond 1 au, we carry out a kinematic analysis of 7 CMEs in solar cycle 23. The events are required to have coordinated coronagraph observations, interplanetary type II radio bursts, and multi-point in-situ measurements at the Earth and Ulysses. A graduated cylindrical shell model, an analytical model without free parameters and a magnetohydrodynamic model are used to derive CME kinematics near the Sun, to quantify the CME/shock propagation in the Sun-Earth space, and to connect in-situ signatures at the Earth and Ulysses, respectively. We find that each of the 7 CME-driven shocks experienced a major deceleration before reaching 1 au and thereafter propagated with a gradual deceleration from the Earth to larger distances. The resulting CME/shock propagation profile for each case is roughly consistent with all the data, which verifies the usefulness of the simple analytical model for CME/shock propagation in the heliosphere. The statistical analysis of CME kinematics indicates a tendency that the faster the CME, the larger the deceleration, and the shorter the deceleration time period within 1 au. For several of these events, the associated geomagnetic storms were mainly caused by the southward magnetic fields in the sheath region. In particular, the interaction between a CME-driven shock and a preceding ejecta significantly enhanced the preexisting southward magnetic fields and gave rise to a severe complex geomagnetic storm.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Behannon, K

    Burlaga, L. F., Behannon, K. W., & Klein, L. W. 1987, JGR, 92, 5725

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    S., Barraclough, B

    Burnett, D. S., Barraclough, B. L., Bennett, R., et al. 2003, SSRv, 105, 509

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    V., Sheeley, Jr., N

    Cane, H. V., Sheeley, Jr., N. R., & Howard, R. A. 1987, JGR, 92, 9869

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    D., Biesecker, D

    Cash, M. D., Biesecker, D. A., Pizzo, V., et al. 2015, SpW ea, 1 3, 611, 2015SW001232

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    D., Liu, Y., & Poomvises, W

    Cheng, X., Zhang, J., Ding, M. D., Liu, Y., & Poomvises, W. 2013, ApJ, 763, 43

    2013

  6. [6]

    M., & Fomichev, V

    Chertok, I. M., & Fomichev, V. V. 1976, Planet. Space Sci., 24 , 459

    work page 1976

  7. [7]

    Cremades, H., Iglesias, F. A., St. Cyr, O. C., et al. 2015, SoP h, 290, 2455

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    2007, JGRA, 112, A09101

    Du, D., W ang, C., & Hu, Q. 2007, JGRA, 112, A09101

    work page 2007

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    A., Leblanc, Y., & Bougeret, J.-L

    Dulk, G. A., Leblanc, Y., & Bougeret, J.-L. 1999, GeoRL, 26, 2331

    1999

  2. [10]

    O., Gosling, J

    Funsten, H. O., Gosling, J. T., Riley, P., et al. 1999, JGR, 10 4, 6679

    1999

  3. [11]

    R., Barnes, A., Mihalov, J

    Gazis, P. R., Barnes, A., Mihalov, J. D., & Lazarus, A. J. 1994 , JGR, 99, 6561

    1994

  4. [12]

    P., et al

    Gopalswamy, N., Lara, A., Lepping, R. P., et al. 2000, GeoRL, 27, 145

    2000

  5. [13]

    2009, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 114 , A00A22

    Gopalswamy, N., M¨ akel¨ a, P., Xie, H., Akiyama, S., & Yashiro, S. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 114 , A00A22

    2009

  6. [14]

    Gosling, J. T. 1993, Physics of Fluids B, 5, 2638

    1993

  7. [15]

    D., W ang, R., M¨ ostl, C., & Yang, Z

    Hu, H., Liu, Y. D., W ang, R., M¨ ostl, C., & Yang, Z. 2016, ApJ, 829, 97

    2016

  8. [16]

    D., W ang, R., et al

    Hu, H., Liu, Y. D., W ang, R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 840, 76

    2017

  9. [17]

    2015, GeoRL, 42, 5155

    Kataoka, R., Shiota, D., Kilpua, E., & Keika, K. 2015, GeoRL, 42, 5155

    2015

  10. [18]

    Kilpua, E., Koskinen, H. E. J., & Pulkkinen, T. I. 2017, Livin g Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 5

    2017

  11. [19]

    A., & Bougeret, J.-L

    Leblanc, Y., Dulk, G. A., & Bougeret, J.-L. 1998, SoPh, 183, 1 65

    1998

  12. [20]

    M., Luhmann, J

    Lindsay, G. M., Luhmann, J. G., Russell, C. T., & Gosling, J. T . 1999, JGR, 104, 12515

    1999

  13. [21]

    D., & Belcher, J

    Liu, Y., Richardson, J. D., & Belcher, J. W. 2005, Planet. Space Sci., 53, 3

    2005

  14. [22]

    G., et al

    Liu, Y., Thernisien, A., Luhmann, J. G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722 , 1762

    2010

  15. [23]

    G., M¨ uller-Mellin, R., et al

    Liu, Y., Luhmann, J. G., M¨ uller-Mellin, R., et al. 2008, ApJ , 689, 563

    2008

  16. [24]

    D., Hu, H., W ang, C., et al

    Liu, Y. D., Hu, H., W ang, C., et al. 2016, ApJS, 222, 23

    2016

  17. [25]

    D., Hu, H., W ang, R., et al

    Liu, Y. D., Hu, H., W ang, R., et al. 2015, ApJL, 809, L34

    2015

  18. [26]

    D., Luhmann, J

    Liu, Y. D., Luhmann, J. G., Lugaz, N., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 45

    2013

  19. [27]

    D., Zhao, X., & Zhu, B

    Liu, Y. D., Zhao, X., & Zhu, B. 2017, ApJ, 849, 112

    2017

  20. [28]

    D., Zhu, B., & Zhao, X

    Liu, Y. D., Zhu, B., & Zhao, X. 2019, ApJ, 871, 8

    2019

  21. [29]

    D., Luhmann, J

    Liu, Y. D., Luhmann, J. G., M¨ ostl, C., et al. 2012, ApJL, 746, L15

    2012

  22. [30]

    Lopez, R. E. 1987, JGR, 92, 11189

    1987

  23. [31]

    J., Davies, J

    Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., Davies, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 75 9, 68

    2012

  24. [32]

    Lugaz, N., Temmer, M., W ang, Y., & Farrugia, C. J. 2017, SoPh, 292, 64

    2017

  25. [33]

    A., & Gallagher, P

    Maloney, S. A., & Gallagher, P. T. 2010, ApJL, 724, L127

    2010

  26. [34]

    Manoharan, P. K. 2006, SoPh, 235, 345

    2006

  27. [35]

    2015, SoPh, 29 0, 527

    Mishra, W., Srivastava, N., & Chakrabarty, D. 2015, SoPh, 29 0, 527

    2015

  28. [36]

    J., & Melrose, D

    Nelson, G. J., & Melrose, D. B. 1985, Type II bursts., ed. D. J. McLean & N. R. Labrum, 333–359

    1985

  29. [37]

    J., Jackson, B

    Reiner, M. J., Jackson, B. V., W ebb, D. F., et al. 2005, Journa l of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A09S14

    2005

  30. [38]

    J., Kaiser, M

    Reiner, M. J., Kaiser, M. L., & Bougeret, J.-L. 2007, ApJ, 663 , 1369

    2007

  31. [39]

    B., Gosling, J

    Reisenfeld, D. B., Gosling, J. T., Forsyth, R. J., Riley, P., & St. Cyr, O. C. 2003, GeoRL, 30, 8031

    2003

  32. [40]

    Richardson, I. G. 2014, SoPh, 289, 3843

    2014

  33. [41]

    G., & Cane, H

    Richardson, I. G., & Cane, H. V. 2004, JGRA, 109, A09104

    2004

  34. [42]

    D., Paularena, K

    Richardson, J. D., Paularena, K. I., W ang, C., & Burlaga, L. F . 2002, JGRA, 107, 1041

    2002

  35. [43]

    D., Liu, Y., W ang, C., et al

    Richardson, J. D., Liu, Y., W ang, C., et al. 2006, GeoRL, 33, L23107

    2006

  36. [44]

    N., Cid, C., et al

    Rodriguez, L., Zhukov, A. N., Cid, C., et al. 2009, Space W eather, 7, S06003

    2009

  37. [45]

    R., W alters, J

    Sheeley, N. R., W alters, J. H., W ang, Y. M., & Howard, R. A. 1999, JGR, 104, 24739

    1999

  38. [46]

    Tappin, S. J. 2006, SoPh, 233, 233

    2006

  39. [47]

    Temmer, M., & Nitta, N. V. 2015, SoPh, 290, 919

    2015

  40. [48]

    Veronig, A. M. 2017, ApJ, 835, 141

    2017

  41. [49]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 5 7

    Temmer, M., Vrˇ snak, B., Rollett, T., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 5 7

    2012

  42. [50]

    Thernisien, A., Vourlidas, A., & Howard, R. A. 2009, SoPh, 25 6, 111

    2009

  43. [51]

    Thernisien, A. F. R., Howard, R. A., & Vourlidas, A. 2006, ApJ , 652, 763

    2006

  44. [52]

    T., & Gonzalez, W

    Tsurutani, B. T., & Gonzalez, W. D. 1997, W ashington DC American Geophysical Union Geophysical Monograph Series, 98, 77

    1997

  45. [53]

    T., Gonzalez, W

    Tsurutani, B. T., Gonzalez, W. D., Tang, F., & Lee, Y. T. 1992, GeoRL, 19, 73 W ang, C., Richardson, J. D., & Gosling, J. T. 2000, JGR, 105, 2337 W ang, C., Richardson, J. D., & Paularena, K. I. 2001, JGR, 106 , 13007 W oo, R., Armstrong, J. W., Sheeley, Jr., N. R., et al. 198...

    1992

  46. [54]

    D., Hu, H., & W ang, R

    Zhao, X., Liu, Y. D., Hu, H., & W ang, R. 2017, ApJ, 837, 4

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.