Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Forecast of solar activity based on mean-field dynamo model and neural network

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A nonlinear mean-field dynamo model corrected by a NARX neural network predicts the smoothed sunspot number up to 18 months ahead with small, stable errors.

desk verdict A useful extension of the authors' hybrid dynamo+NN forecasting pipeline, with genuine real-time output since 2021, but the headline error comparison mixes evaluation windows and no ablation against the NN alone, so the central claim of 'joint use' advantage is not yet nailed down. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10380 v1 pith:P7KRFBYA submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Nathan Kleeorin , Kirill Kuzanyan , Nikolai Safiullin , Igor Rogachevskii , Vladimir Obridko , Sergey Porshnev , Rodion Stepanov This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph PACS 96.60.Qr95.30.Qd
keywords solardynamomean-fieldNEMPIsunspotnumberpredictionneuralnetworkforecastNARXcycle25magnetichelicity
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

Solar activity can be forecast usefully on horizons of one to eighteen months by combining a nonlinear mean-field dynamo model with a neural-network correction, despite the chaotic component in the solar magnetic cycle. The paper reports root-mean-square errors of about 1.24 smoothed sunspot units at one month, rising to about 7.03 units at eighteen months, in a real-time test from November 2017 to October 2024. The dynamo supplies the long-term magnetic memory that a purely statistical forecast lacks; the neural network corrects the model with current observations. The authors argue this is quantitative evidence that short-range solar activity prediction is stable and can be put to practical use.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stage conversion of dynamo-generated magnetic field into a forecastable sunspot index. First, a nonlinear axisymmetric $\alpha\Omega$ dynamo (Eqs. 1-2) with dynamic nonlinearity from small-scale magnetic helicity (Eq. 9) produces the large-scale toroidal and poloidal fields. Second, a budget equation for the surface density of sunspot number (Eqs. 11-12) models sunspot formation via NEMPI: production occurs only where the mean field exceeds a critical value $B_{\rm cr}$, with rate $I(t,\theta)=|\gamma_{\rm inst}|\,|B-B_{\rm cr}|\,\Theta(B-B_{\rm cr})$, and decay has field-dependent timescale $\tau_s(B)=\tau_*\exp(C_s\,\partial B/\partial t)$. The resulting model sunspot series and four lagged observed values form the input vector of a two-layer recurrent NARX network, a nonlinear autoregressive network with exogenous inputs, whose output is the corrected forecast. Equations (11)-(12) are what turn dynamo physics into a sunspot-number forecast; the neural network's role is to align that physical forecast with current observations.

What would settle it

A controlled ablation would settle it: retrain the NARX network with the same observed inputs but with the dynamo model output replaced by a phase-randomized surrogate with the same smoothness, and compare forecast errors on the same 2017-2024 window. If errors do not worsen substantially, the dynamo output carries no independent physical signal. A second check is to compare against a persistence forecast that simply holds the current smoothed value; the 1-month error of 1.24 must beat that baseline to support the claim of genuine skill.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the 13-month smoothed sunspot number can be stably predicted up to 1.5 years ahead by a hybrid that feeds the output of a nonlinear mean-field $\alpha\Omega$ dynamo, together with four recent observed values, into a NARX neural network. The dynamo solves equations for the toroidal and poloidal mean fields with algebraic and magnetic-helicity nonlinearities; a post-processing budget equation based on NEMPI converts the mean field into a model sunspot series. The network is trained on cycles 20-21, validated on cycle 22, and then applied with monthly corrections by current observations. In the reported test interval the forecast error remains small and grows only mildly with horizon, and the paper compares favorably with McNish-Lincoln, standard, and combined methods. The authors conclude that despite a strong chaotic component, short-range solar activity can be well predicted by the joint use of the physics-based model and the neural network.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast stands on the assumption that the mapping from mean magnetic field to sunspot number, through the NEMPI threshold $B_{\rm cr}=265\,$G and decay coefficient $C_s=5.47\times 10^{-4}$, is a faithful representation of real sunspot formation; these constants are calibrated to reproduce observed cycle heights rather than derived from first principles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operational forecasts of the smoothed sunspot number can be issued monthly at horizons up to 18 months, with errors growing only from about 1.2 to 7 smoothed sunspot units over that range.
  • The method gives a concrete counterexample to the position that mean-field dynamo output cannot be used for solar cycle prediction: the model supplies cycle-scale memory while the network supplies observation-based correction.
  • The same architecture can be applied to other solar activity indices that have a smooth monthly index and a physics-based model output, such as facular area or radio flux.
  • The forecast confidence intervals can be extended to 6, 12, and 18 months with stably small error, which the authors identify as an advantage over methods that degrade quickly at longer horizons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: The reported errors are on a heavily smoothed 13-month running mean, so adjacent monthly targets are highly autocorrelated; a persistence baseline that simply holds the last observed value should be added to Table 1 before the 1-month skill is interpreted as model skill rather than smoothness of the target.
  • Editorial extension: An ablation replacing the dynamo output with a smooth surrogate (for example a sinusoid or phase-randomized noise) would quantify how much of the forecast skill comes from the physics as opposed to the network's own extrapolation of the observed series.
  • Editorial extension: Because $B_{\rm cr}$ and $C_s$ are calibrated to cycle heights 20-24, the cleanest out-of-sample test is the current Cycle 25 maximum; if the error on the descending phase remains below about 10 units, the calibration generalizes.
  • Editorial extension: The same hybrid structure could be ported to other magnetically active stars where a mean-field dynamo model and a smooth activity index such as photometric spot coverage exist, turning the method into a general stellar activity forecaster.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 proposes a hybrid method for short-term solar activity forecasting that combines a nonlinear mean-field αΩ dynamo model, a NEMPI-based post-processing step for sunspot number production, and a two-layer NARX neural network used as a correction scheme. The network input vector w in Eq. (13) contains four prior observed smoothed SSN values and four dynamo-model output values. The authors report forecast RMS errors over horizons of 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, claiming errors of 1.24–7.03 in smoothed sunspot units over Nov 2017–Oct 2024 for the NARX with corrections, and compare these with several standard methods. They also show one-month forecast tracks, mention real-time forecasts since 2021 with results on a public GitHub repository, and argue that the joint use of the physical model and the neural network yields stable predictive skill despite the chaotic component of solar activity.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a practically valuable contribution: it would demonstrate that a physically motivated dynamo/NEMPI model can stabilize neural-network short-term forecasts and provide a transparent, reproducible forecasting pipeline. The paper’s strengths include a public repository with real-time forecast results, a physically grounded NEMPI-based mapping from mean magnetic field to sunspot number, explicit discussion of non-stationarity and of the difficulty of immediate verification, and a clearly stated method for extending the forecast horizon. However, the quantitative case for the headline claim is currently not established because the comparison table mixes evaluation intervals, the calibration of the physical output overlaps the evaluation window, and no ablation isolates the contribution of the dynamo block from the autoregressive use of the observed series.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 and its footnote] The headline comparison is not valid as presented. The NARX-with-corrections row is computed over Nov 2017–Oct 2024, whereas the M&L, SM, and CM rows are taken from Podladchikova & Van der Linden (2012) over Sept 1997–May 2010. These intervals cover different solar cycle phases and activity levels, and the paper itself notes that the statistical properties of the process are not stationary. The lower RMS values in the NARX row may therefore reflect easier forecast conditions rather than method superiority. The 'NARX without corrections' row is not footnoted with the asterisk, so it appears to be evaluated over the 1997–2010 interval as well; comparing it with the 2017–2024 NARX row does not isolate the effect of corrections. Please recompute all methods on the same evaluation interval, or restrict the comparison to matched intervals.
  2. [§4, Eq. (13), and §5] The central claim that the dynamo/NEMPI block contributes predictive skill is unsupported because no ablation removes the dynamo input. The input vector w already contains four observed values W_obs; a NARX using only those entries is a standard nonlinear autoregressive predictor. The paper compares 'NARX with corrections' against 'NARX without corrections' (the latter being the raw dynamo output, apparently on a different interval), but it does not compare against an NN that uses observations alone with the same architecture. Section 5 asserts that a neural network without the mean-field solution provides reasonable agreement for only a few years, but no experiment is reported. Please train and evaluate the same architecture with the W_model entries removed or set to zero on the same 2017–2024 interval; this ablation is necessary to support the joint-use claim.
  3. [§3 and §1] The physical-model and post-processing parameters are selected to fit observed sunspot data, and the evaluation window overlaps the calibration data. Section 3 states that the parameter choice, including Bcr = 265 G and Cs = 5.47 × 10^-4, 'has been made as providing the best fit ... for solar cycles 20-24,' and §1 says the parameters are selected by comparing with solar sunspot data since 1750. The Table 1 evaluation interval begins in Nov 2017, inside Cycle 24, so the errors over the first part of the window are partly in-sample for the calibrated dynamo output. This does not invalidate the real-time component reported since 2021, but it means the quoted error statistics cannot be read as purely out-of-sample. Please report errors separately for the pre-2021 and post-2021 portions, or recalibrate on cycles up to 19 only and evaluate on cycles 20–25.
  4. [Table 1 and Fig. 4] No uncertainty quantification is provided for the reported RMS errors, and the confidence intervals in Fig. 4 are not defined. The differences between methods (e.g., 1.24 vs 3.1 at 1 month) are presented without error bars, significance tests, or a description of how the forecast confidence intervals are constructed. Given the acknowledged chaotic component and the short non-stationary series, the 'almost stably small' claim requires at least bootstrap or Monte Carlo intervals around each RMS value, and a definition of the plotted intervals in Fig. 4.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4] The phrase 'based on epignose' is unclear; please clarify what is meant (likely 'epochs' or 'early stopping'?).
  2. [Table 1] Please state explicitly that the RMS values are in units of smoothed sunspot number and specify whether the forecast targets are the 13-month running mean or the monthly values.
  3. [Fig. 4] The shaded 'forecast confidence intervals' are not described in the caption or the text; please define their construction and coverage probability.
  4. [§3, Eqs. (11)–(12)] The values of Φ_s and τ_* are not given explicitly (only τ_* γ_inst ~ 10 is stated); please list all numerical constants used in the post-processing so the W_model series is reproducible.
  5. [Throughout] The GitHub repository should be referenced with a version or commit identifier and a description of which files generate Table 1, to support reproducibility of the claimed forecast errors.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partially circular: the dynamo post-processing parameters are fit to cycles 20-24, and the headline evaluation window starts inside cycle 24, so part of the reported forecast skill is in-sample fit; the 2021-2024 segment remains genuinely out-of-sample.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eqs. (11)-(12) and parameter choice; Table 1 note]
    "τs(B) = τ∗ exp(Cs ∂B/∂t) with Cs = 5.47 × 10−4 ... This particular choice of model and post-processing parameters has been made as providing the best fit of model time series W to the observational data of solar sunspot number v.2.0 for solar cycles 20-24 ... the line marked ∗ which corresponds to the interval from Nov 2017 to October 2024"

    The constants Bcr=265 G and Cs are calibrated so that the post-processed dynamo series W matches observed sunspot numbers for cycles 20-24. The headline NARX evaluation window begins in November 2017, i.e., during cycle 24 (which ends in December 2019). Hence the W_model values entering Eq. (13) for roughly 2017-2019 are fit outputs, not independent forecasts, and the RMSE reported for the whole 2017-2024 window credits calibration for part of its apparent skill. The 2021-2024 segment is out-of-sample, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The paper is not circular by construction in its main architecture: the dynamo equations (1)-(9) are solved forward, Eq. (11) converts mean-field output to a sunspot-number proxy, and the NARX network (13) is trained on cycles 20-21. The use of prior author work for the NEMPI mechanism is backed by independent DNS citations and is not a uniqueness theorem, so self-citation is not load-bearing. The central quantitative claim, however, is partially circular because the post-processing constants in Eqs. (11)-(12) were chosen by fitting W to observed SSN for cycles 20-24, while the tabulated NARX evaluation interval starts in Nov 2017, inside cycle 24. Thus part of the reported forecast error covers data used for calibration, mixing in-sample fit with genuine prediction. The 2021-2024 portion is genuinely out-of-sample, giving the hybrid independent content. Additionally, the paper asserts that a neural network without the dynamo fails after a few years but reports no ablation, so the claimed advantage of joint use is asserted rather than demonstrated; this is an evidence gap, not itself circularity. Overall the derivation chain is independent in its core physics but the headline forecast-skill statistic is partly contaminated by in-sample calibration.

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

The pipeline depends on a heavily calibrated physical model: the dynamo parameters, NEMPI threshold, decay coefficient, and post-processing weights are all selected by fitting the model sunspot series to observed cycles 20-24, and the NN weights are fit to cycles 20-21. The Table 1 comparison implicitly assumes that forecast error statistics from 1997-2010 are comparable to 2017-2024. No new entities are invented; all physical ingredients are imported from prior mean-field dynamo and NEMPI work.

free parameters (6)
  • Dynamo model parameter set (D, sigma_rho, kappa_T, R_alpha, T, S1, S2, mu, xi) = D=-8450, sigma_rho=3, kappa_T=0.1, R_alpha=2, T=6.3, S1=0.051, S2=0.95, mu=3, xi=0.3
    Chosen as best fit of model W to observed sunspot cycles 20-24 in Section 3; no independent first-principles derivation is provided.
  • NEMPI threshold Bcr = 265 G
    Selected so computed cycle heights match observations in Fig. 2; enters Eq. (12) as the production threshold.
  • Sunspot decay coefficient Cs = 5.47e-4
    Used in tau_s(B)=tau_* exp(Cs dB/dt); the value is given without independent derivation and is effectively calibrated to sunspot lifetimes.
  • Dipole reflection coefficients = 0.5 and 0.05
    Post-processing amplification of the global dipole field in Section 3; hand-chosen coefficients.
  • tau_* gamma_inst ratio = ~10
    Sets the sunspot decay timescale in Eq. (11); stated as a scaling relation rather than a derived value.
  • NARX network weights (K1, K2, c1, c2) = not published
    Trained by Bayesian regularization on cycles 20-21; values are not provided in the paper, so the forecast cannot be reproduced from text alone.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The no-r mean-field alpha-Omega dynamo equations (1)-(2) with turbulent diffusion and quenching functions adequately describe large-scale solar magnetic field evolution.
    The entire model output used as NN input rests on this closure; it is invoked in Section 3, Eqs. (1)-(2).
  • domain assumption Sunspot number is determined by NEMPI through Eqs. (11)-(12): production I(t,theta)=|gamma_inst||B-Bcr| Theta(B-Bcr) and decay tau_s(B)=tau_* exp(Cs dB/dt).
    This mapping from mean field to sunspot count is assumed without independent derivation in Section 3; Bcr and Cs are fitted.
  • domain assumption The NEMPI growth rate and critical field in Appendix A, Eqs. (A1)-(A2), apply to the solar convective zone.
    Used to compute gamma_inst in Eq. (12); imported from prior mean-field theory.
  • domain assumption The relationship learned by the NARX network on cycles 20-21, with cycle 22 for validation, transfers to later cycles.
    The NN is trained on 1964-1986 data and applied to 2017-2024; no nonstationarity correction is modeled.
  • standard math The 13-month running average sunspot number v2.0 from SILSO is a valid ground truth for forecast error.
    Used as target and input; no error bars on the observations are propagated into the forecast errors.
  • ad hoc to paper Forecast error statistics from Sept 1997-May 2010 are representative of error statistics in Nov 2017-Oct 2024, allowing cross-method comparison.
    Table 1 compares NARX on the latter interval with other methods on the former interval; this assumes comparability despite acknowledged nonstationarity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Forecast of solar activity based on mean-field dynamo model and neural network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7KRFBYA

@misc{pith2026241110380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Forecast of solar activity based on mean-field dynamo model and neural network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7KRFBYA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10380}
}
abstract

We discuss a prediction of the solar activity on a short time-scale applying the method based on a combination of a nonlinear mean-field dynamo model and the artificial neural network. The artificial neural network which serves as a correction scheme for the forecast, uses the currently available observational data (e.g., the 13 month running average of the observed solar sunspot numbers) and the dynamo model output. The nonlinear mean-field $\alpha\,\Omega$ dynamo produces the large-scale magnetic flux which is redistributed by negative effective magnetic pressure instability (NEMPI) producing sunspots and active regions. The nonlinear mean-field dynamo model includes algebraic nonlinearity (caused by the feedback of the growing magnetic field on the plasma motion) and dynamic nonlinearities (related to the dynamics of the magnetic helicity of small-scale magnetic field). We compare the forecast errors with a horizon of 1, 6, 12 and 18 months, for different forecast methods, with the same corrections on the current monthly observations. Our forecast is in good agreement with the observed solar activity, the forecast error is almost stably small over short-medium ranges of forecasting windows. Despite a strong level of chaotic component in the solar magnetic activity we present quantitative evidence that the solar activity on a short range can be stably well predicted, by the joint use of the physically based model with the neural network. This result may have an immediate practical implementation for predictions of various phenomena of solar activity and other astrophysical processes, so may be of interest to a broad community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10380 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The butterfly diagram of the solar sunspot number variation rate 2π sin θ I(t, θ) obtained using the dynamo model (colour) and the real monthly observational data (black). Based on the ideas of NEMPI, we derive a budget equation for the surface density of the solar sunspot number (Kleeorin et al. 2016; Safiullin et al. 2018): ∂W˜ ∂t = I(t, θ) − W˜ τs(B) , (11) which includes the rate of production of the surface den… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The height of solar cycles computed with various threshold values Bcr required for the excitation of NEMPI, where the black line corresponds to the real monthly observational data and the solid magenta line corresponds to Bcr = 265 G. (Kleeorin et al. 2016, 2020, 2023; Safiullin et al. 2018), where the mechanism of the sunspot formation by NEMPI have been taken into account. In addition, the parameter µ = 3 correspo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The one-month forecast of the solar activity (red line) compared with the observed solar sunspot numbers running average over 13 months (blue line) and the test sample forecast (black line). 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 0 50 100 150 200 250 Monthly sunspot numbers Smoothed sunspot numbers Forecast R Forecast confidence intervals year R [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of forecasting the solar activity obtained by our approach. the observed solar sunspot numbers running average over 13 months and the test sample forecast are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2001, SoPh, 199, 421

    Badalyan, O., Obridko, V., & S´ ykora, J. 2001, SoPh, 199, 421

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    2023, SSRv, 219

    Bhowmik, P., Jiang, J., Upton, L., Lemerle, A., & Nandy, D. 2023, SSRv, 219

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    2018, Nat

    Bhowmik, P., & Nandy, D. 2018, Nat. Commun., 9, 5209

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    B., & Kumar, P

    Biswas, A., Karak, B. B., & Kumar, P. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 3994

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    G., & Field, G

    Blackman, E. G., & Field, G. 2000, ApJ, 534, 984, doi: 10.1086/308767

    doi:10.1086/308767 2000

  6. [6]

    2011, ApJ, 740, L50, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L50

    Rogachevskii, I. 2011, ApJ, 740, L50, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L50

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/l50 2011

  7. [7]

    2016, New J

    Brandenburg, A., Rogachevskii, I., & Kleeorin, N. 2016, New J. Phys., 18, 125011, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/aa513e

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa513e 2016

  8. [8]

    2005, Phys

    Brandenburg, A., & Subramanian, K. 2005, Phys. Rep, 417, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.005

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.06.005 2005

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    2007, ApJ, 661, 128, doi: 10.1086/516628

    Bushby, P., & Tobias, S. 2007, ApJ, 661, 128, doi: 10.1086/516628

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    2007a, PhRvL, 98, 131103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.131103 —

    Choudhuri, A., Chatterjee, P., & Jiang, J. 2007a, PhRvL, 98, 131103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.131103 —. 2007b, PhRvL, 98, 131103 De Jager, C., & Duhau, S. 2009, J. Atmosph. and Sol.-Terr. Phys., 71, 239, doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2008.11.006

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    2006, Geophys

    Dikpati, M., de Toma, G., & Gilman, P. 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L05102

    2006

  4. [12]

    2006, ApJ, 649, 498, doi: 10.1086/506314

    Dikpati, M., & Gilman, P. 2006, ApJ, 649, 498, doi: 10.1086/506314

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    2000, SoPh, 195, 209

    Dmitrieva, I., Kuzanyan, K., & Obridko, V. 2000, SoPh, 195, 209

    2000

  6. [14]

    1999, ApJ, 513, 638, doi: 10.1086/306877

    Field, G., Blackman, E., & Chou, H. 1999, ApJ, 513, 638, doi: 10.1086/306877

    1999 doi

  7. [15]

    Frisch, U., Pouquet, A., Leorat, I., & Mazure, A. 1975, J. Fluid Mech., 68, 769

    1975

  8. [16]

    2023, ApJ, 943, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca808

    Gopalakrishnan, K., & Subramanian, K. 2023, ApJ, 943, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca808

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Guo, W., Jiang, J., & Wang, J. X. 2021, SoPh, 296

    2021

  10. [18]

    X., Jiao, Q

    Jiang, J., Wang, J. X., Jiao, Q. R., & Cao, J. B. 2018, ApJ, 863, 159

    2018

  11. [19]

    Jiang, J., Zhanga, Z., & Petrovay, K. 2023, J. Atmosph. and Sol.-Terr. Phys., 243

    2023

  12. [20]

    2007, SoPh, 246, 487, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9050-2

    Kane, R. 2007, SoPh, 246, 487, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9050-2

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    2011, in Lecture Notes in

    Kitiashvili, I., & Kosovichev, A. 2011, in Lecture Notes in

    2011

  14. [22]

    832 (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg), 121, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19928-8 3

    Physics, Vol. 832 (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg), 121, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19928-8 3

    doi

  15. [23]

    Kitiashvili, I. N. 2016, ApJ, 831, 15, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/15

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    N., & Kosovichev, A

    Kitiashvili, I. N., & Kosovichev, A. G. 2008, ApJ, 688, L49

    2008

  17. [25]

    2003, A&A, 409, 1097, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031126

    Kleeorin, N., Kuzanyan, K., Moss, D., et al. 2003, A&A, 409, 1097, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031126

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    1996, A&A, 307, 293 12

    Kleeorin, N., Mond, M., & Rogachevskii, I. 1996, A&A, 307, 293 12

    1996

  19. [27]

    2000, A&A, 361, L5, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0205266 —

    Kleeorin, N., Moss, D., Rogachevskii, I., & Sokoloff, D. 2000, A&A, 361, L5, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0205266 —. 2002, A&A, 387, 453, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020383

    2000 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    1994, Phys

    Kleeorin, N., & Rogachevskii, I. 1994, Phys. Rev. E., 50, 2716, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.50.2716 —. 1999, Phys. Rev. E, 59, 6724, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.59.6724 —. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5437, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2141

    1994 doi

  21. [29]

    1989, Sov

    Kleeorin, N., Rogachevskii, I., & Ruzmaikin, A. 1989, Sov. Astron. Lett., 15, 274 —. 1990, Sov. Phys. JETP, 70, 878

    1989

  22. [30]

    1995, A&A, 297, 159

    Kleeorin, N., Rogachevskii, I., & Ruzmaikin, A. 1995, A&A, 297, 159

    1995

  23. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 1601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2708

    Kleeorin, N., Rogachevskii, I., Safiullin, N., Gershberg, R ., & Porshnev, S. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2708

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    1982, Magnetohydrodynamics, 18, 116

    Kleeorin, N., & Ruzmaikin, A. 1982, Magnetohydrodynamics, 18, 116

    1982

  25. [33]

    M., et al

    Kleeorin, N., Safiullin, N., Kuzanyan, K. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 238, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1047

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 3960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1267

    Kleeorin, Y., Safiullin, N., Kleeorin, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1267

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    1980, Mean-Field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory (Oxford: Pergamon)

    Krause, F., & R¨ adler, K.-H. 1980, Mean-Field Magnetohydrodynamics and Dynamo Theory (Oxford: Pergamon)

    1980

  28. [36]

    Kumar, P., Biswas, A., & Karak, B. B. 2022, MNRAS, 513, L112

    2022

  29. [37]

    2019, SoPh, 294, 82

    Labonville, F., Charbonneau, P., & Lemerle, A. 2019, SoPh, 294, 82

    2019

  30. [38]

    1949, EOS, 30, 673, doi: 10.1029/TR030i005p00673

    McNish, A., & Lincoln, J. 1949, EOS, 30, 673, doi: 10.1029/TR030i005p00673

    1949 doi

  31. [39]

    D., G´ omez, D

    Mininni, P. D., G´ omez, D. O., & Mindlin, G. B. 2002, PhRvL, 89 Moffatt, H. K. 1978, Magnetic Field Generation in Electrically Conducting Fluids (New York: Cambridge University Press) Moffatt, H. K., & Dormy, E. 2019, Self-Exciting Fluid Dynamos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    2002

  32. [40]

    1995, SoPh, 156, 179

    Obridko, V. 1995, SoPh, 156, 179

    1995

  33. [41]

    2008, SoPh, 248, 191, doi: 10.1007/s11207-008-9138-3

    Obridko, V., & Shelting, B. 2008, SoPh, 248, 191, doi: 10.1007/s11207-008-9138-3

    2008 doi

  34. [42]

    N., & Shelting, B

    Obridko, V. N., & Shelting, B. D. 2009, Astron. Lett., 35, 247

    2009

  35. [43]

    1966, Soln

    Ohl, A. 1966, Soln. Dann., 84 —. 1968, Probl. of Arctic and Antarctic, 137 —. 1976, Soln. Dann., 73

    1966

  36. [44]

    1979, Solar-Terrestrial Predictions Proc., R.E Donnelly (ed.), Boulder, U.S.A., 2, 246

    Ohl, A., & Ohl, G. 1979, Solar-Terrestrial Predictions Proc., R.E Donnelly (ed.), Boulder, U.S.A., 2, 246

    1979

  37. [45]

    1979, Cosmical Magnetic Fields (Oxford: Clarendon)

    Parker, E. 1979, Cosmical Magnetic Fields (Oxford: Clarendon)

    1979

  38. [46]

    Pesnell, W. D. 2012, SoPh, 281, 507, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-9997-5

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    I., & Vasiljeva, I

    Pishkalo, M. I., & Vasiljeva, I. E. 2023, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 39, 225

    2023

  40. [48]

    2012, SoPh, 277, 397, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9899-y

    Podladchikova, T., & Van der Linden, R. 2012, SoPh, 277, 397, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9899-y

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    Pouquet, A., Frisch, U., & Leorat, J. 1976, J. Fluid Mech., 77, 321, doi: 10.1017/S0022112076002140

    1976 doi

  42. [50]

    2021, Introduction to Turbulent Transpor t of Particles, Temperature and Magnetic Fields (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    Rogachevskii, I. 2021, Introduction to Turbulent Transpor t of Particles, Temperature and Magnetic Fields (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    2021

  43. [51]

    2000, Phys

    Rogachevskii, I., & Kleeorin, N. 2000, Phys. Rev. E, 61, 5202, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.61.5202 —. 2004, Phys. Rev. E, 70, 046310, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.046310 —. 2007, Phys. Rev. E, 76, 056307, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.76.056307 Safiullin, N., Kleeorin, N., Porshnev, S., Rogachev...

    2000 doi

  44. [52]

    Ruzmaikin, A. 2018, J. Plasma Phys., 84, 735840306, doi: 10.1017/S0022377818000600

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    2009, SoPh, 260, 465

    Tlatov, A. 2009, SoPh, 260, 465

    2009

  46. [54]

    Tlatov, A. G. 2015, Advances in Space Research, 55, 851, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2014.06.024

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    Upton, L., & Hathaway, D. 2023, J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys., 128

    2023

  48. [56]

    A., & Hathaway, D

    Upton, L. A., & Hathaway, D. H. 2018, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 8091

    2018

  49. [57]

    Usoskin, I. G. 2017, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 14, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41116-017-0006-9

    2017 doi

  50. [58]

    2016, ˚ a, 589, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525880

    Rogachevskii, I. 2016, ˚ a, 589, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525880

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    R., Brandenburg, A., Kleeorin, N., & Rogachevskii, I

    Warnecke, J., Losada, I. R., Brandenburg, A., Kleeorin, N., & Rogachevskii, I. 2013, ApJ, 777, L37, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/2/L37

    2013 doi

  52. [60]

    B., Ruzmaikin, A

    Zeldovich, Y. B., Ruzmaikin, A. A., & Sokoloff, D. D. 1983, Magnetic Fields in Astrophysics (New York: Gordon and Breach)

    1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.