Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Characteristics of a Gradual Filament Eruption and Subsequent CME Propagation in Relation to a Strong Geomagnetic Storm

T0 review · 3 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 A slow, quiet-region CME caused the third-strongest geomagnetic storm of solar cycle 24 because solar wind compression strengthened its field and rotation turned it southward.

desk verdict A solid Sun-to-Earth case study of a slow CME's geoeffectiveness that deserves refereeing; the arrival prediction is genuine, but the compression-enhancement mechanism is asserted rather than demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11100 v1 pith:AIDNCD2D submitted 2019-08-29 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Chong Chen , Ying D. Liu , Rui Wang , Xiaowei Zhao , Huidong Hu , Bei Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords coronalmassejectionfilamenteruptionfluxroperotationgeomagneticstormsolarwindcompressionGrad-Shafranovreconstructionheliosphericcurrentsheetmagneticcloud
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

This paper sets out to explain why the 2018 August 26 geomagnetic storm (Dst minimum −174 nT) was so strong despite being driven by a slow coronal mass ejection from a gradual eruption of a large quiet-region filament. The central claim is that the CME became geoeffective through two later effects: the magnetic field inside it was enhanced to 19.1 nT by compression in a region between slow and fast solar wind, and the flux rope rotated so that its largely axial field pointed southward at Earth. The authors reconstruct the eruption site, the CME's Sun-to-Earth kinematics, and the flux-rope structure at 1 AU, and they find that the rotation tended to align the flux-rope axis with the local heliospheric current sheet. If the claim is right, a slow CME that would normally be space-weather benign can produce an intense storm, and accurate storm forecasting needs to track flux-rope orientation and ambient solar-wind structure, not just CME speed.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a chain of observations and reconstructions, but the central mechanism is the combination of two effects: compression of the CME's internal field by a slow-stream/fast-stream interface, and rotation of the flux-rope axis into alignment with the local heliospheric current sheet. The named tools include the decay index of the coronal field (with critical value n≈1.2) used to locate the eruption trigger, the graduated cylindrical shell (GCS) model for the CME's three-dimensional geometry near the Sun, the harmonic mean (HM) approximation for converting STEREO A elongation angles into Sun-to-Earth distances, and the Grad-Shafranov (GS) reconstruction of the magnetic cloud at Wind. What ties them together is the comparison of flux-rope tilt angles from GCS, heliospheric current-sheet maps, and GS reconstruction: the changes in tilt are interpreted as rotations that orient the rope's axial field southward at Earth.

What would settle it

A direct test would be a slow quiet-region CME with the same source-region configuration that travels without being bracketed by slow and fast streams: if its internal field is also near 19 nT, the compression leg is unnecessary. Alternatively, an MHD simulation that removes the fast-stream compression but keeps the same eruption should predict a much smaller or absent southward field and no Dst decrease near −174 nT.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By combining PFSS coronal-field extrapolations, EUV observations, GCS modeling, STEREO A heliospheric imaging, and Wind in-situ measurements with Grad-Shafranov reconstruction, the paper argues that the 2018 August 20 filament eruption produced a left-handed flux rope whose axis rotated in the low corona and again in interplanetary space, each time toward alignment with the local heliospheric current sheet. At 1 AU the CME was bracketed by slow solar wind ahead and fast solar wind behind, placing it inside a compression region that raised the magnetic field inside the magnetic cloud to 19.1 nT with a peak southward component of −16.4 nT. The Grad-Shafranov reconstruction shows a flux rope inclined about −51° to the ecliptic, which explains the prolonged southward field. The paper's conclusion is that the unexpectedly intense storm was caused mainly by this enhanced field and by the southward orientation acquired through flux-rope rotation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 19.1 nT magnetic field measured inside the magnetic cloud at 1 AU is an enhancement produced by compression between slow and fast solar wind, rather than the CME's intrinsic field strength.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A slow CME can produce a major geomagnetic storm if it is overtaken by fast solar wind while its flux rope rotates to a southward orientation.
  • Arrival-time and speed predictions for slow CMEs from heliospheric imagers can still be accurate (here within about one hour), even when geoeffectiveness is governed by structure rather than speed.
  • The decay-index distribution in quiet-region filaments can identify the part of a filament that first loses stability, even in a very gradual eruption.
  • If rotation toward the local heliospheric current sheet is common, then the orientation of the current sheet at 1 AU contains predictive information about the likely southward or northward component of an arriving ICME.
  • Storm strength in this event was controlled by internal magnetic field magnitude and orientation, not by CME speed or by the presence of a shock.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A polarity test follows implicitly from the alignment picture: a rope of opposite chirality meeting the same current sheet might rotate northward instead of southward; checking this would separate rotation-alignment from intrinsic CME properties.
  • The compression-enhancement leg could be quantified with a one-dimensional MHD model of the stream interaction, which the paper does not attempts; such a model would isolate how much of the 19.1 nT is compression versus the rope's original field.
  • The same event suggests a testable forecasting recipe: monitor whether a CME's trajectory crosses the heliospheric current sheet and whether a fast stream is following, then use the predicted southward component to issue storm alerts.
  • An expanded statistical sample of slow CMEs in compression regions would show whether the Dst −174 nT class of storms requires both legs (compression plus southward rotation) or can be produced by either alone.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a case study of the 2018 August 20 gradual filament eruption and the subsequent slow CME that produced a strong geomagnetic storm on August 26. The authors combine remote-sensing observations from SDO, STEREO, and SOHO with in situ Wind measurements to characterize the eruption, CME kinematics, and the magnetic cloud at 1 AU. They use a graduated cylindrical shell (GCS) model to derive near-Sun orientation and kinematics, a harmonic-mean approximation to extrapolate the Sun-to-Earth propagation and predict the arrival time, and a Grad-Shafranov reconstruction to determine the flux-rope structure at 1 AU. The main claims are that the eruption occurred in regions of low critical decay index, the flux rope rotated in the corona and interplanetary space to align with the heliospheric current sheet, the CME was compressed between slow and fast solar wind streams which enhanced its magnetic field, and this enhanced field combined with a southward orientation caused the intense storm.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a plausible mechanism by which a slow, quiet-region CME can become geoeffective: compression in a solar wind stream interaction region and rotation of the flux rope toward a southward orientation. The paper has genuine strengths: the arrival time and speed predictions (15:21 UT on August 25 versus the observed magnetic-cloud boundary at 14:10 UT; ~370 km/s versus ~400 km/s) are made before comparison with in situ data and match well. The near-Sun GCS orientation and the 1 AU Grad-Shafranov orientation are derived from independent data sets, so the main fits are not circular. However, the compression-enhancement claim is asserted without a quantitative baseline, and the rotation conclusion is partially undermined by the paper's own admission that the near-Sun rotation direction is undetermined. These are load-bearing issues for the central mechanism proposed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph 2; abstract conclusion (3)] The statement that 'The magnetic field inside the CME must have been enhanced because the CME is inside a compression region between slow and fast solar winds' is not supported by any quantitative baseline. The paper does not provide an estimate of the expected magnetic field strength in the absence of compression (e.g., from the near-Sun GCS size and flux-rope expansion) nor a comparison with the distribution of peak field strengths in slow, uncompressed magnetic clouds at 1 AU. Since conclusion (4) attributes the storm mainly to this enhanced field, the claim is load-bearing and currently unfalsifiable. Please provide a quantitative baseline or substantially soften the claim.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph 3 and Figure 6] The paper states explicitly that 'We can not determine the direction and amount of the rotation' of the flux rope in the corona, yet conclusion (2) asserts that the axis rotated in the corona and tended to align with the heliospheric current sheet. The alignment is inferred from comparing the GCS tilt with the HCS orientation after a translation along the same longitude; without knowledge of the rotation direction, this alignment could be coincidental. This limitation should be reflected in the conclusions, or additional constraints on the rotation direction (e.g., from filament chirality) should be provided to support the claim.
  3. [Section 4, paragraph 3 and Figure 9] The Grad-Shafranov reconstruction yields a flux-rope orientation (elevation -51 degrees, azimuth 299 degrees) that is very different from the GCS tilt, and the paper uses this difference to conclude that the rope rotated in interplanetary space. However, no uncertainties are reported for either the GS orientation or the GCS tilt angle. Without error estimates, the significance of the orientation difference is unclear, and the rotation claim may be overstated. Please include a sensitivity analysis or uncertainty estimates for both orientations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, paragraph 1] The word 'lunched' appears to be a typo for 'launched'.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption does not define what the contours represent; please specify that they indicate critical height in Mm for the decay index n = 1.2.
  3. [Section 4, paragraph 1 and Figure 8] The expected proton temperature from Lopez (1987) is mentioned in the text but the formula is not given; consider adding it to the figure caption for clarity.
  4. [Figure 10 caption] Section 4 references a 'diamond symbol' in Figure 10, but the figure caption does not describe it; please add a description.
  5. [Section 3, paragraph 2] The choice of the harmonic-mean approximation is justified by reference to Liu et al. (2013), but a brief statement of the uncertainty in the arrival-time prediction due to this geometry assumption would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: arrival and speed are genuine predictions, GCS and GS orientations are derived from independent data sets, and the compression-enhancement claim, while under-supported, is an interpretation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's only explicit prediction is the CME arrival time and speed, made before the in situ comparison: 'We use a linear extrapolation of the distances after 17 R⊙ to predict the CME arrival time at the Earth, which is about 15:21 UT on August 25.' This prediction is then compared with the observed MC leading boundary at 14:10 UT and the measured speed of about 400 km/s; nothing in the prediction is fitted to Wind data. The near-Sun CME orientation comes from GCS fits to STEREO A/COR2 and SOHO/LASCO coronagraph images, while the 1 AU orientation comes from the GS reconstruction of Wind measurements; because these two orientation estimates use independent data, the inferred interplanetary rotation is a comparison rather than a tautology. The storm attribution uses the directly measured Bz = -16.4 nT and Dst = -174 nT, and the GS axis is not used to manufacture those measurements. The statement that 'The magnetic field inside the CME must have been enhanced because the CME is inside a compression region between slow and fast solar winds' is an asserted mechanism without a quantitative baseline, and is therefore a scientific weakness, but it is not circular: the 19.1 nT field is measured, not defined as the output of the compression argument. The paper also explicitly admits the relevant limitation in Section 3 ('We can not determine the direction and amount of the rotation, because the GCS model does not give the direction of the axial magnetic field of the CME flux rope'), which shows the rotation interpretation is not forced by construction. The mild local consistency that the same GS reconstruction selects the MC interval and yields the axis orientation does not rise to circularity, because the interval is independently characterized by the standard MC signatures and the southward field is directly measured. Self-citations to Liu et al. (2016), He et al. (2018), and Hu et al. (2016) provide context and similar cases, but the central derivation does not reduce to them, so no circular step meets the evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Four fitted or hand-chosen parameters and six modeling assumptions support the central claims; no new physical entities are introduced. The parameter choices are standard in the field, but the rotation and compression conclusions depend on them without full uncertainty quantification.

free parameters (4)
  • GCS model flux-rope parameters (longitude, latitude, tilt, aspect ratio, half-angle, height) = longitude W13°, latitude N6°, tilt ~10°, height 4.4 to 16.2 R⊙
    Fitted visually to running-difference coronagraph images from STEREO A/COR2 and SOHO/LASCO; these values underpin the propagation-direction and rotation claims in Section 3.
  • Harmonic mean fixed radial direction = W13° (from GCS)
    The HM inversion assumes a fixed radial propagation direction and uses the GCS longitude as input to convert the time-elongation track into kinematics in Section 3.
  • Grad-Shafranov flux-rope axis orientation = elevation -51°, azimuth 299°
    Obtained by fitting the 2.5D Grad-Shafranov model to Wind magnetic field data over the interval 14:10 UT Aug 25 to 09:09 UT Aug 26; used to conclude the southward orientation at 1 AU in Section 4.
  • Critical decay index threshold = n = 1.2
    Chosen from the [1.1, 1.3] range of Démoulin and Aulanier (2010) to compute critical heights in Section 2; claim (1) about low critical heights depends on this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption PFSS extrapolation approximates the coronal magnetic field and the heliospheric current sheet near the source region.
    Used to map critical heights and field topology in Section 2 and Figure 1; PFSS is a standard but simplified potential-field model.
  • domain assumption Torus instability is triggered when the decay index reaches a critical value near 1.2, and the critical height from that criterion indicates eruption onset.
    Basis for interpreting low critical heights in Section 2; relies on Kliem and Török (2006) and Démoulin and Aulanier (2010).
  • domain assumption The CME can be represented as a self-similarly expanding graduated cylindrical shell in the GCS model.
    Used for GCS fitting in Section 3; a standard forward-model assumption for coronagraph images.
  • domain assumption In the harmonic mean approximation the CME is a spherical front attached to the Sun and moving along a fixed radial direction.
    Used to convert the time-elongation track to kinematics in Section 3, following Lugaz et al. (2009).
  • domain assumption The in situ flux rope is a 2.5D coherent structure in magnetohydrostatic equilibrium amenable to Grad-Shafranov reconstruction.
    The GS reconstruction in Section 4 assumes this structure; it determines the axis orientation used in the storm explanation.
  • ad hoc to paper The CME propagation direction does not change much beyond 17 R⊙, so the Carrington longitude at 1 AU can be estimated from the GCS longitude.
    Explicitly stated in Section 4 before comparing the flux-rope orientation with the heliospheric current sheet map; the paper simultaneously argues for rotation, so this fixed-direction assumption is not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characteristics of a Gradual Filament Eruption and Subsequent CME Propagation in Relation to a Strong Geomagnetic Storm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AIDNCD2D

@misc{pith2026190811100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characteristics of a Gradual Filament Eruption and Subsequent CME Propagation in Relation to a Strong Geomagnetic Storm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AIDNCD2D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11100}
}
read the original abstract

An unexpected strong geomagnetic storm occurred on 2018 August 26, which was caused by a slow coronal mass ejection (CME) from a gradual eruption of a large quiet-region filament. We investigate the eruption and propagation characteristics of this CME in relation to the strong geomagnetic storm with remote sensing and in situ observations. Coronal magnetic fields around the filament are extrapolated and compared with EUV observations. We determine the propagation direction and tilt angle of the CME flux rope near the Sun using a graduated cylindrical shell (GCS) model and the Sun-to-Earth kinematics of the CME with wide-angle imaging observations from STEREO A. We reconstruct the flux-rope structure using a Grad-Shafranov technique based on the in situ measurements at the Earth and compare it with those from solar observations and the GCS results. Our conclusions are as follows: (1) the eruption of the filament was unusually slow and occurred in the regions with relatively low critical heights of the coronal field decay index; (2) the axis of the CME flux rope rotated in the corona as well as in interplanetary space, which tended to be aligned with the local heliospheric current sheet; (3) the CME was bracketed between slow and fast solar winds, which enhanced the magnetic field inside the CME at 1 AU; (4) the geomagnetic storm was caused by the enhanced magnetic field and a southward orientation of the flux rope at 1 AU from the rotation of the flux rope.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aly, J. J. 1990, Computer Physics Communications, 59, 13

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    K., DeVore, C

    Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, ApJ, 510, 485

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    1981, JGR, 86, 6673

    Burlaga, L., Sittler, E., Mariani, F., & Schwenn, R. 1981, JGR, 86, 6673

    work page 1981

  4. [4]

    A., Harrison, R

    Davies, J. A., Harrison, R. A., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2009, GeoRL, 36, L02102 de Toma, G., Holzer, T. E., Burkepile, J. T., &

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Gilbert, H. R. 2005, ApJ, 621, 1109 D´ emoulin, P., & Aulanier, G. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1388

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Domingo, V., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, SoPh, 162, 1

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Gonzalez, A. L. C. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A05221

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    T., & Guarnieri, F

    Echer, E., Tsurutani, B. T., & Guarnieri, F. L. 2009, Advances in Space Research, 44, 615

    work page 2009

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Feynman, J., & Martin, S. F. 1995, JGR, 100, 3355

    1995

  2. [10]

    G., & Isenberg, P

    Forbes, T. G., & Isenberg, P. A. 1991, ApJ, 373, 294

    1991

  3. [11]

    Hundhausen, A. J. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 537, 503

    2000

  4. [12]

    D., Joselyn, J

    Gonzalez, W. D., Joselyn, J. A., Kamide, Y., et al. 1994, JGR, 99, 5771

    1994

  5. [13]

    P., et al

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

    2000

  6. [14]

    2003, ApJ, 586, 562

    Gopalswamy, N., Shimojo, M., Lu, W., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, 562

    2003

  7. [15]

    L., Howard, R

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Kaiser, M. L., Howard, R. A., & Bougeret, J.-L. 2001, ApJL, 548, L91

    2001

  8. [16]

    Driel-Gesztelyi, L., & Attrill, G. D. R. 2007, SoPh, 246, 365

    2007

  9. [17]

    Hau, L.-N., & Sonnerup, B. U. ¨O. 1999, JGR, 104, 6899

    1999

  10. [18]

    D., Hu, H., Wang, R., & Zhao, X

    He, W., Liu, Y. D., Hu, H., Wang, R., & Zhao, X. 2018, ApJ, 860, 78

    2018

  11. [19]

    Hori, K., & Culhane, J. L. 2002, in Multi-Wavelength Observations of Coronal Structure and Dynamics, ed. P. C. H. Martens & D. Cauffman, Vol. 10, 305

    2002

  12. [20]

    A., Moses, J

    Howard, R. A., Moses, J. D., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 67

    2008

  13. [21]

    D., Wang, R., M¨ ostl, C., & Yang, Z

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

    2016

  14. [22]

    D., Wang, R., et al

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

    2017

  15. [23]

    Hu, Q., & Sonnerup, B. U. ¨O. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1142

    2002

  16. [24]

    L., Kucera, T

    Kaiser, M. L., Kucera, T. A., Davila, J. M., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 5

    2008

  17. [25]

    2015, GeoRL, 42, 5155

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

    2015

  18. [26]

    Kay, C., Opher, M., & Evans, R. M. 2015, ApJ, 805, 168

    2015

  19. [27]

    Kilpua, E. K. J., Pomoell, J., Vourlidas, A., et al. 2009, Annales Geophysicae, 27, 4491

    2009

  20. [28]

    2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 255002

    Kliem, B., & T¨ or¨ ok, T. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 255002

    2006

  21. [29]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17

    2012

  22. [30]

    G., M¨ uller-Mellin, R., et al

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

    2008

  23. [31]

    A., Liu, Y

    Liu, Y. A., Liu, Y. D., Hu, H., Wang, R., & Zhao, X. 2018, ApJ, 854, 126

    2018

  24. [32]

    D., Hu, H., Wang, C., et al

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

    2016

  25. [33]

    D., Hu, H., Wang, R., et al

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

    2015

  26. [34]

    D., Luhmann, J

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

    2013

  27. [35]

    D., Luhmann, J

    Liu, Y. D., Luhmann, J. G., Kajdiˇ c, P., et al. 2014, Nature Communications, 5, 3481

    2014

  28. [36]

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

    1987

  29. [37]

    J., Davies, J

    Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., Davies, J. A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 68

    2012

  30. [38]

    J., Winslow, R

    Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., Winslow, R. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, 75

    2017

  31. [39]

    Lugaz, N., Vourlidas, A., & Roussev, I. I. 2009, Annales Geophysicae, 27, 3479

    2009

  32. [40]

    J., Li, Y., Thernisien, A

    Lynch, B. J., Li, Y., Thernisien, A. F. R., et al. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 115, A07106

    2010

  33. [41]

    M., Hundhausen, A

    MacQueen, R. M., Hundhausen, A. J., & Conover, C. W. 1986, JGR, 91, 31

    1986

  34. [42]

    Manchester, W., Kilpua, E. K. J., Liu, Y. D., et al. 2017, SSRv, 212, 1159

    2017

  35. [43]

    2015, SoPh, 290, 1371

    Marubashi, K., Akiyama, S., Yashiro, S., et al. 2015, SoPh, 290, 1371

    2015

  36. [44]

    T., & Mannucci, A

    Meng, X., Tsurutani, B. T., & Mannucci, A. J. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124, 3926 M¨ ostl, C., Farrugia, C. J., Miklenic, C., et al. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 114, A04102

    2019

  37. [45]

    H., Gosling, J

    Munro, R. H., Gosling, J. T., Hildner, E., et al. 1979, Solar Physics, 61, 201

    1979

  38. [46]

    R., Hood, A

    Priest, E. R., Hood, A. W., & Anzer, U. 1989, ApJ, 344, 1010

    1989

  39. [47]

    P., Lavraud, B., Sheeley, N

    Rouillard, A. P., Lavraud, B., Sheeley, N. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1385

    2010

  40. [48]

    M., Anderson, B

    Rust, D. M., Anderson, B. J., Andrews, M. D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 621, 524

    2005

  41. [49]

    H., Bush, R

    Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 229

    2012

  42. [50]

    R., Herbst, A

    Sheeley, Jr., N. R., Herbst, A. D., Palatchi, C. A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 853

    2008

  43. [51]

    C., Harra, L

    Sterling, A. C., Harra, L. K., & Moore, R. L. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1359

    2007

  44. [52]

    C., & Hudson, H

    Sterling, A. C., & Hudson, H. S. 1997, ApJL, 491, L55

    1997

  45. [53]

    T., Gonzalez, W

    Tang, F., Tsurutani, B. T., Gonzalez, W. D., Akasofu, S. I., & Smith, E. J. 1989, JGR, 94, 3535

    1989

  46. [54]

    Thernisien, A., Vourlidas, A., & Howard, R. A. 2009, SoPh, 256, 111

    2009

  47. [55]

    Thernisien, A. F. R., Howard, R. A., & Vourlidas, A. 2006, ApJ, 652, 763 T¨ or¨ ok, T., Kliem, B., & Titov, V. S. 2004, A&A, 413, L27

    2006

  48. [56]

    T., Gonzalez, W

    Tsurutani, B. T., Gonzalez, W. D., Tang, F., Akasofu, S. I., & Smith, E. J. 1988, JGR, 93, 8519 24 Chen et al

    1988

  49. [57]

    P., & Bothmer, V

    Lepping, R. P., & Bothmer, V. 2004, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 66, 147

    2004

  50. [58]

    T., Lakhina, G

    Tsurutani, B. T., Lakhina, G. S., Verkhoglyadova, O. P., et al. 2011, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 73, 5

    2011

  51. [59]

    2016, ApJ, 828, 12

    Vemareddy, P., M¨ ostl, C., Amerstorfer, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 12

    2016

  52. [60]

    2011, ApJ, 733, L23

    Stenborg, G. 2011, ApJ, 733, L23

    2011

  53. [61]

    D., Dai, X., et al

    Wang, R., Liu, Y. D., Dai, X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 80

    2015

  54. [62]

    Xie, H., St. Cyr, O. C., Gopalswamy, N., et al. 2009, SoPh, 259, 143

    2009

  55. [63]

    2008, ApJL, 675, L49

    Yurchyshyn, V. 2008, ApJL, 675, L49

    2008

  56. [64]

    P., Lynch, B

    Yurchyshyn, V., Hu, Q., Lepping, R. P., Lynch, B. J., & Krall, J. 2007, Advances in Space Research, 40, 1821

    2007

  57. [65]

    D., Hu, H., & Wang, R

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

    2017

Pith tools

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