Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 33 references

Ionospheric Response to the May 11, 2024, Geomagnetic Superstorm over Ecuador

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A G5 storm cut the ionosphere above Galapagos by about 30 TEC units, this paper reports.

desk verdict Single-station TEC drop during May 2024 storm is plausible but not established; the processing description is internally contradictory and the result is not validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04503 v1 pith:AZ5U2B5R submitted 2025-02-06 physics.space-ph

E. D. López , H. Barbier , W. Carvajal , L. Guamán This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-ph
keywords geomagneticstormtotalelectroncontentGPSTECequatorialionizationanomalynegativeionosphericspaceweatherGalapagosMay2024G5
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 examines what the May 10-13, 2024 G5 geomagnetic storm did to the ionosphere above Galapagos, Ecuador, using vertical total electron content (TEC, the column density of free electrons that delays GPS signals) from a single GPS satellite at a station below the equatorial ionization anomaly. It reports that during the storm's main phase, TEC dropped by nearly 30 TEC units, a negative response that runs against the usual storm-time increase expected at this latitude; after the storm, TEC climbed back gradually. The authors attribute the depletion to rapid recombination, storm-driven plasma instabilities, and disruption of the equatorial ionization anomaly, and they connect it to extreme storm conditions: the Dst index (a measure of magnetic-field depression) reached -410 nT and Kp reached 9. The result matters because it is a local, station-level record of extreme space weather depleting the ionosphere where GPS and satellite communication signals are particularly vulnerable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the single-PRN vertical TEC curve: slant TEC from GPS code and carrier data is mapped to vertical TEC with a standard elevation-dependent mapping function at a 400 km shell height, then high-pass filtered and compared with a 10-day average of the same PRN. That baseline-subtracted, filtered VTEC carries the reported 30-TEC-unit storm signal; the Dst and Kp indices and the local magnetometer provide storm-time context rather than an independent ionospheric measurement.

What would settle it

Recompute the May 10-13, 2024 window for every GPS satellite tracked by the Galapagos receiver at elevation angles above 40 degrees, and also for a nearby second equatorial receiver. If the roughly 30 TEC-unit drop does not appear consistently across satellites and receivers, or if an identical processing of a quiet 10-day window produces a similar dip, the reported storm-time depletion is an artifact rather than a physical response.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the extreme storm produced a pronounced negative ionospheric storm at Galapagos: vertical TEC fell roughly 30 TEC units during the main phase on May 10-11, 2024, and then increased gradually during recovery. The evidence is a single-PRN (satellite-identifying code) vertical TEC time series from the Galapagos GPS receiver, high-pass filtered and referenced to the same satellite's 10-day pre-storm average, aligned in time with Dst, Kp, and local magnetic-field records. The paper interprets the depletion as enhanced recombination and plasma instabilities near the equatorial ionization anomaly, with the equatorial fountain and the equatorial electrojet (the daytime current system along the magnetic equator) as the coupling path.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that one GPS satellite's high-pass-filtered vertical TEC, compared with its own 10-day pre-storm average, isolates storm-driven ionospheric change rather than satellite bias, multipath, or filtering artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the drop is real, the ionosphere above this equatorial station lost roughly 30 TEC units at storm peak, enough to shift GPS signal delays noticeably and to degrade single-frequency positioning in the region.
  • Negative storm effects can dominate the equatorial response even under extreme forcing, so forecast models that assume storm-time TEC increases near the equator would need adjustment.
  • The gradual recovery implies the equatorial ionosphere takes days to restore electron density, which extends the window of risk for satellite communication and navigation.
  • The alignment of the TEC decrease with Dst -410 nT and Kp 9 supports using geomagnetic indices as early warnings for ionospheric degradation at low latitudes.
  • Real-time VTEC monitoring at a station below the equatorial ionization anomaly crest can capture storm-time depletion that global TEC maps might smooth out.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test this, but an independent check would repeat the processing for every satellite above the elevation mask and for a nearby second receiver; if the roughly 30 TEC-unit drop appears in all, the signal is geophysical rather than a satellite-bias or multipath artifact.
  • The proposed mechanism carries a companion prediction the paper does not follow up: the same storm should produce GPS scintillation or ionosonde F-region height disturbances at Galapagos, not just TEC depletion.
  • If the cited dynamic expansion and merging of the equatorial ionization anomaly applied to this storm, the strongest depletion may have been displaced from Galapagos; a latitudinal receiver chain would reveal whether the anomaly was suppressed or pushed away.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a case study of the G5 geomagnetic storm of 10-13 May 2024 using GPS vertical total electron content (VTEC) from a single pseudorandom noise (PRN) satellite observed at the Galapagos station GLPS, together with a 10-day pre-storm background average of the same PRN and the Dst and Kp indices. The central claim is that VTEC decreased by approximately 30 TECU during the storm main phase and then gradually recovered, and this decrease is attributed to enhanced recombination, plasma instabilities, and disruption of the equatorial ionization anomaly. The paper argues that this negative response contrasts with typical storm behavior at equatorial latitudes and highlights the need for real-time space-weather monitoring.

Significance. If the central claim were quantitatively established, a roughly 30 TECU negative storm-time response at an equatorial station below the EIA crest during the extreme May 2024 storm would be a useful addition to the rapidly growing literature on this event. The paper addresses an important, well-observed space-weather event and uses publicly available CDDIS GNSS data. Its main quantitative claim is falsifiable and, if supported by multi-satellite and multi-station evidence, would be of interest to the space-physics community. However, in the present form the evidence is not sufficient: the single-PRN processing is not justified, the filter description is self-contradictory, the background reference is not shown to be local-time matched, no uncertainty quantification is provided, and the central figures are missing. The paper therefore currently does not establish its headline result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] The filtering description is internally contradictory and load-bearing. Section 2 states that a "high-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 0.00001 days" was applied, and then immediately says this "effectively isolated the lower-frequency components." A high-pass filter by definition removes low-frequency components, so it is unclear whether the authors applied a high-pass or a low-pass filter. If the filter was truly high-pass, the multi-day storm-scale depression would be largely removed and the reported 30 TECU drop would be uninterpretable; if it was actually low-pass, the apparent drop could be a smoothed diurnal-cycle artifact rather than a geophysical signal. The authors must specify the exact filter type, order, and implementation, and demonstrate that the reported storm-time decrease survives the filtering procedure.
  2. [Section 2 and Section 3] The entire quantitative claim rests on VTEC from one PRN satellite and its 10-day pre-storm average, but no justification is given for selecting that PRN, and no cross-check against other PRNs at GLPS, nearby stations, or global ionospheric maps is provided. The background average is not stated to be local-time matched; a single PRN's VTEC varies diurnally by tens of TECU, so a storm-day-minus-background difference can reflect a shift in the satellite's local-time sampling or elevation geometry rather than a storm-driven ionospheric change. In addition, no error bars, standard deviations, or statistical tests are reported for the claimed 30 TECU decrease. The authors should show the multi-PRN spread, use a local-time-matched quiet-time reference, and quantify the uncertainty before attributing the decrease to recombination and plasma instabilities.
  3. [Section 4] The Results section asserts "a strong correlation between the CME data and both the Dst and Kp indices," but no CME observations, correlation coefficients, scatter plots, or statistical significance tests are presented anywhere in the manuscript. Because Dst and Kp are measures of the geomagnetic storm itself, their behavior cannot serve as an independent confirmation that a CME caused the TEC changes; at most this is a restatement of the storm's occurrence. The authors should either provide the actual CME data and a quantitative correlation analysis, or remove this unsupported claim.
  4. [Figures 1-3] The paper's central evidence cannot be inspected: only captions for Figures 1, 2, and 3 appear in the submitted manuscript, with no images. The reported 30 TECU decrease, the Dst/Kp time series, and the magnetic field components are all said to be shown in these figures, yet the reader cannot verify any of these statements. The figures must be included, and their captions should identify the PRN used, the filtering parameters, and the epochs considered, so that the main claim can be checked.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The Abstract gives the station coordinates as geographic latitude 0.1807° S and longitude 78.4678° W, but this longitude corresponds to Quito, not the Galapagos; the GLPS coordinates given in the Introduction are near 90° W. Please make the coordinates consistent and correct.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] The bias terms are introduced as "(P1 - P2) + (∆bs - ∆br)" but the text then defines bR and bS; the subscript notation should be made consistent.
  3. [Section 2] The phrase "a high-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 0.00001 days" uses an inconsistent unit for frequency; a cutoff frequency should be expressed in cycles per day or equivalent units, not in days.
  4. [Section 3 and Section 5] The Dst minimum is reported as -410 nT in Section 3 but as -400 nT in the Conclusions; these numbers should be reconciled.
  5. [Section 2] The manuscript never identifies which PRN was used for the VTEC analysis; the PRN number should be stated explicitly for reproducibility.
  6. [Data Availability] The Data Availability statement says the derived VTEC data are not publicly available, which conflicts with the generally public nature of the GNSS data and makes the central analysis harder to reproduce; making the processing code and derived time series available would strengthen the paper.
  7. [References] The citation "B. S. Arora, J. Morgan et al., 2015 & references therein" appears in Section 2 but no corresponding entry is listed in the reference list; please add the reference or correct the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central TEC decrease is read directly from observations against a pre-storm baseline, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forcing the result.

full rationale

The paper's core claim is that VTEC over Galapagos dropped by roughly 30 TECU during the May 10-11, 2024, geomagnetic storm main phase and then recovered. This claim is derived by comparing storm-time VTEC from a single GPS PRN with the ten-day pre-storm average of the same PRN's VTEC, described in the Abstract and Section 2. The subtraction is an observational differencing operation, not a fitted model whose parameters were tuned to the storm epoch. The storm-time decrease is therefore not equivalent by construction to any input assumption. The cited mechanism explanations, such as enhanced recombination or plasma instabilities, are post-hoc physical attributions, not derivations that presuppose the conclusion. The asserted 'strong correlation between CME data and Dst/Kp indices' is an auxiliary empirical statement, and Dst/Kp are independent geomagnetic indices rather than definitions of the TEC response. Although the processing description contains an internal contradiction about high-pass versus low-pass filtering and lacks cross-validation, those are correctness and robustness concerns, not circularity. No load-bearing step is justified solely by a self-citation; the reference list contains no obvious self-citations by these authors. Thus the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs, and the paper warrants a non-circular finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted model and no new entities, so the ledger is modest. The central claim depends on hand-chosen processing parameters (shell height, elevation cutoff, filter cutoff, 10-day baseline) and on three untested domain assumptions: representativeness of a single PRN, validity of the baseline, and storm causality. These choices determine the magnitude and sign of the reported TEC change, so they are load-bearing.

free parameters (3)
  • High-pass filter cutoff = 0.00001 days (stated; units ambiguous)
    Applied to VTEC to eliminate high-frequency noise; the cutoff value is chosen by hand and shapes the smoothed TEC trend from which the 30 TECU decrease is read (Section 2).
  • Background averaging window = 10 days
    The quiet-time reference is formed from the 10 days before the storm; a different window changes the computed TEC deviation (Abstract; Section 2).
  • Ionospheric shell height H = 400 km
    Used in the VTEC mapping function (Equation 3); a standard modeling choice from prior literature, but changing H changes the absolute VTEC values.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The dual-frequency GPS STEC equation and the mapping function (Equations 1-3) are valid.
    Invoked in Section 2; these are accepted ionospheric GNSS formulas from cited literature.
  • domain assumption A single-PRN vertical TEC time series represents the regional ionospheric response.
    The entire analysis uses one pseudorandom noise code without cross-validation against other satellites or stations (Abstract; Section 2).
  • domain assumption The 10-day pre-storm average is a reliable quiet-time baseline.
    Background TEC is computed this way in Section 2; storm precursors or data gaps in the baseline would bias the inferred deviation.
  • domain assumption The observed TEC decrease is caused by storm-driven recombination and plasma instabilities rather than processing artifacts.
    Section 4 attributes the decrease to these mechanisms without a mechanism test or alternative-driver analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ionospheric Response to the May 11, 2024, Geomagnetic Superstorm over Ecuador." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZ5U2B5R

@misc{pith2026250204503,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ionospheric Response to the May 11, 2024, Geomagnetic Superstorm over Ecuador},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZ5U2B5R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04503}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates the impact of the G5 geomagnetic storm on Total Electron Content (TEC) derived from the Global Positioning System (GPS) in Gal\'apagos, Ecuador (geographic latitude 0.1807{\deg} S, longitude 78.4678{\deg} W) during May 10-13, 2024. Using vertical TEC (VTEC) data from a single pseudorandom noise (PRN) code, along with the average VTEC from the same PRN collected over the ten days before the storm, referred to as background TEC, to analyze the variations in TEC. Our findings indicate that during the main phase of the storm on May 10-11, 2024, TEC experienced a notable decrease, which contrasts with the typical responses observed in previous storms. This decrease can be attributed to rapid recombination processes and potential plasma instabilities triggered by the storm. In the recovery phase following the main storm, a gradual increase in TEC was observed, illustrating the complex dynamics of the ionosphere in response to geomagnetic disturbances. This study underscores the variability in TEC responses during geomagnetic storms. It highlights the importance of real-time monitoring to improve our understanding of the implications for satellite communication and navigation systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04503 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Variation of Total Electron Content (TEC), Dst and Kp indexes, during the main phase of the may 2024, G5 storm The analysis reveals a strong correlation between the CME (Coronal Mass Ejec￾tion) data and both the Dst and Kp indices, as illustrated in the accompanying graphs. This correlation suggests that the CME had a substantial impact on terrestrial geomag￾netic indices, consistent with previous studies highlighti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. May, 2024 G5 storm, horizontal magnetic field component value this low signifies an exceptionally severe geomagnetic storm, known to weaken Earth’s magnetic field due to intense solar activity, such as flares or CMEs (Kamide et al., 1998). Geomagnetic storms of this magnitude pose serious risks to satellite operations, poten￾tially disrupting or damaging satellite systems and communications. Moreover, intense geomag… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. May, 2024 G5 storm, magnetic field components equatorial ionization anomaly (EIA) during the storm, caused by disturbance electric fields and atmospheric winds, likely contributed to the TEC reduction, particularly in the crest regions (Batista et al., 2011). Furthermore, the storm caused a significant reduction in the Earth’s magnetic field strength, commonly referred to as ”Dst depression.” This decrease is primar… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    aa2024 APACrefauthors Aa, E. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Dynamic Expansion and Merging of the Equatorial Ionization Anomaly During the 10–11 May 2024 Super Geomagnetic Storm Dynamic expansion and merging of the equatorial ionization anomaly during the 10–11 may 2024 super geomagnetic storm . Remote Sensing 16 22 4290 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3390/rs16224290 APACrefDOI

    work page doi:10.3390/rs16224290 2024

  2. [2]

    APACrefauthors \ 2005

    abdu2005 APACrefauthors Abdu, M A. APACrefauthors \ 2005 . Equatorial ionosphere–thermosphere system: Electrodynamics and irregularities Equatorial ionosphere–thermosphere system: Electrodynamics and irregularities . Advances in Space Research 35 5 771--787 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1016/j.asr.2005.03.150 APACrefDOI

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2005.03.150 2005

  3. [3]

    balan2018 APACrefauthors Balan, N. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2018 . A brief review of equatorial ionization anomaly and ionospheric irregularities A brief review of equatorial ionization anomaly and ionospheric irregularities . Earth and Planetary Physics 2 4 257--275 . APACrefDOI doi:10.26464/epp2018025 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.26464/epp2018025 2018

  4. [4]

    batista2011 APACrefauthors Batista, I S. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2011 . Equatorial Ionization Anomaly: The Role of Thermospheric Winds and the Effects of the Geomagnetic Field Secular Variation Equatorial ionization anomaly: The role of thermospheric winds and the effects of the geomagnetic field secular variation . Aeronomy of the Earth's Atmosphere and Ion...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0326-1_23 2011

  5. [5]

    \ Nagaraja, K

    chaithra2024 APACrefauthors Chaithra, P. \ Nagaraja, K. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Ionospheric TEC variations during an intense geomagnetic storm on 11 May 2024 Ionospheric tec variations during an intense geomagnetic storm on 11 may 2024 . Research Square Preprint . APACrefDOI doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4691095/v1 APACrefDOI

    work page doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4691095/v1 2024

  6. [6]

    chen2024 APACrefauthors Chen, P. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2024 . A new method for global ionospheric real-time modeling integrating ionospheric VTEC short-term forecast results A new method for global ionospheric real-time modeling integrating ionospheric vtec short-term forecast results . Journal of Geodesy 98 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1007/s00190-024-01911-9 APACrefDOI

    work page doi:10.1007/s00190-024-01911-9 2024

  7. [7]

    ciraolo2007 APACrefauthors Ciraolo, L. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2007 . Calibration errors on experimental slant total electron content (TEC) determined with GPS Calibration errors on experimental slant total electron content (tec) determined with gps . Journal of Geodesy 81 2 111--120 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1007/s00190-006-0093-1 APACrefDOI

    work page doi:10.1007/s00190-006-0093-1 2007

  8. [8]

    daglis1999 APACrefauthors Daglis, I A. \ . APACrefauthors \ 1999 . The terrestrial ring current: Origin, formation, and decay The terrestrial ring current: Origin, formation, and decay . Reviews of Geophysics 37 4 407--438 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/1999RG900009 APACrefDOI

    work page doi:10.1029/1999rg900009 1999

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    fuller-rowell2008 APACrefauthors Fuller-Rowell, T J. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2008 . Storm-Time Response of the Thermosphere–Ionosphere System Storm-time response of the thermosphere–ionosphere system . Aeronomy of the Earth's Atmosphere and Ionosphere Aeronomy of the earth's atmo...

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    APACrefauthors \ 2001

    gps2001 APACrefauthors GPS.gov. APACrefauthors \ 2001 . 2001 SPS Performance Standard. 2001 sps performance standard. Retrieved from https://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2001-SPS-performance-standard.pdf

    2001

  3. [12]

    , Juan, J M

    hernandezpajares2002 APACrefauthors Hernández-Pajares, M. , Juan, J M. , Sanz, J. \ Colombo, O L. APACrefauthors \ 2002 . Improving the real-time ionospheric determination from GPS sites at very long distances over the equator Improving the real-time ionospheric determination ...

    2002 doi

  4. [13]

    kamide1998 APACrefauthors Kamide, Y. \ . APACrefauthors \ 1998 . Current understanding of magnetic storms: Storm-substorm relationships Current understanding of magnetic storms: Storm-substorm relationships . Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 103 A8 17705--17728 ....

    1998 doi

  5. [14]

    kwak2024 APACrefauthors Kwak, Y S. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Observational Overview of the May 2024 G5-Level Geomagnetic Storm: From Solar Eruptions to Terrestrial Consequences Observational overview of the may 2024 g5-level geomagnetic storm: From solar eruptions to terrest...

    2024 doi

  6. [15]

    lanzerotti2001 APACrefauthors Lanzerotti, L J. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2001 . Space Weather Effects on Communications Space weather effects on communications . Springer . APACrefDOI doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0983-6_12 APACrefDOI

    2001 doi

  7. [16]

    , Radicella, S M

    leitinger2008 APACrefauthors Leitinger, R. , Radicella, S M. \ Nava, B. APACrefauthors \ 2008 . Electron density models for assessment studies—New developments Electron density models for assessment studies—new developments . Space Weather 6 9 S09001 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/2...

    2008 doi

  8. [17]

    , Liu, X

    li2024 APACrefauthors Li, H. , Liu, X. \ Wang, C. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . How Solar Wind Controls the Recovery Phase Morphology of Intense Magnetic Storms How solar wind controls the recovery phase morphology of intense magnetic storms . Journal of Geophysical Research: Space ...

    2024 doi

  9. [18]

    APACrefauthors \ 2021

    lin2021 APACrefauthors Lin, J W. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Geomagnetic storm related to disturbance storm time indices Geomagnetic storm related to disturbance storm time indices . European Journal of Environment and Earth Sciences 2 6 199--204 . APACrefDOI doi:10.24018/ejgeo.20...

    2021 doi

  10. [19]

    luo2023 APACrefauthors Luo, H. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Prediction of global ionospheric total electron content (TEC) based on SAM-ConvLSTM model Prediction of global ionospheric total electron content (tec) based on sam-convlstm model . Space Weather 21 12 e2023SW003707 . ...

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    matzka2021 APACrefauthors Matzka, J. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2021 . The Geomagnetic Kp Index and Derived Indices of Geomagnetic Activity The geomagnetic kp index and derived indices of geomagnetic activity . Space Weather 19 5 e2020SW002641 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1029/2020SW002641 A...

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    \ Enge, P

    misra2006 APACrefauthors Misra, P. \ Enge, P. APACrefauthors \ 2006 . Global Positioning System: Signals, Measurements, and Performance Global positioning system: Signals, measurements, and performance . Ganga-Jamuna Press

    2006

  13. [22]

    \ Fah, C S

    nagarajoo2013 APACrefauthors Nagarajoo, K. \ Fah, C S. APACrefauthors \ 2013 July . Significant of Earth's magnetic field and ionospheric horizontal gradient to GPS signals Significant of earth's magnetic field and ionospheric horizontal gradient to gps signals . 2013 IEEE Int...

    2013

  14. [23]

    APACrefauthors \ 2002

    pirjola2002 APACrefauthors Pirjola, R. APACrefauthors \ 2002 . Review on the calculation of surface electric and magnetic fields and geomagnetically induced currents in ground-based technological systems Review on the calculation of surface electric and magnetic fields and geo...

    2002 doi

  15. [24]

    , Teukolsky, S A

    press1992 APACrefauthors Press, W H. , Teukolsky, S A. , Vetterling, W T. \ Flannery, B P. APACrefauthors \ 1992 . Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing Numerical recipes in c: The art of scientific computing . Cambridge University Press

    1992

  16. [25]

    pulkkinen2017 APACrefauthors Pulkkinen, A. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2017 . Geomagnetic Storms and Their Impacts on the U.S. Power Grid Geomagnetic storms and their impacts on the u.s. power grid . Space Weather 15 6 713--725 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1002/2016SW001501 APACrefDOI

    2017 doi

  17. [26]

    ratovsky2020 APACrefauthors Ratovsky, K G. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Statistical Analysis of the Ionospheric Response to Geomagnetic Storms Based on the Data from Global Ionospheric Maps Statistical analysis of the ionospheric response to geomagnetic storms based on the data...

    2020 doi

  18. [27]

    , Klimenko, M V

    shagimuratov2024 APACrefauthors Shagimuratov, I I. , Klimenko, M V. , Efishov, I I. , Filatov, M V. \ Yakimova, G A. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Features of the November 7, 2022 Geomagnetic Storm Development in the Ionospheric Total Electron Content Observations Features of the no...

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    shen2022 APACrefauthors Shen, F. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Propagation characteristics of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in the corona and interplanetary space Propagation characteristics of coronal mass ejections (cmes) in the corona and interplanetary space . Reviews of Mod...

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    simi2013 APACrefauthors Simi, K G. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2013 . Ionospheric response to a geomagnetic storm during November 8–10, 2004 Ionospheric response to a geomagnetic storm during november 8–10, 2004 . Earth, Planets and Space 65 4 343--350 . APACrefDOI doi:10.5047/eps.20...

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    sun2024 APACrefauthors Sun, X. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Statistical Analysis of the Correlation between Geomagnetic Storm Intensity and Solar Wind Parameters from 1996 to 2023 Statistical analysis of the correlation between geomagnetic storm intensity and solar wind paramet...

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    tahir2024 APACrefauthors Tahir, A. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Multi-Instrument Observation of the Ionospheric Irregularities and Disturbances during the 23–24 March 2023 Geomagnetic Storm Multi-instrument observation of the ionospheric irregularities and disturbances during t...

    2024 doi

  23. [32]

    \ Maute, A

    yamazaki2017 APACrefauthors Yamazaki, Y. \ Maute, A. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . Sq and EEJ—A Review on the Daily Variation of the Geomagnetic Field Caused by Ionospheric Dynamo Currents Sq and eej—a review on the daily variation of the geomagnetic field caused by ionospheric dyna...

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    apacite url apacite =6pt Acknowledgments. 6pt 1sp \@dates Received \@recvdate\@empty\@rcvaccrule \@recvdate \@revisedate\@empty ; revised \@revisedate; \@accptdate\@empty \@revisedate\@empty; accepted \@accptdate \@pubdate\@empty. ; published \@pubdate. -2pt \@authaddrs @list\...

    2001

  25. [34]

    gc" journal option for G-Cubed Nov 3, 2003 M Kelly, fixed noindent in subsubsubsection titles and for all sections in rog option Oct 2, 2003 M Kelly, added

    \@ifstar \@figbox \@figbox \@figbox#1#2#3 to !#1! #3 [#1][c] !#2!#3 \@tempdima#2 \@tempdima by2 \@tempdima by- \@tempdima by- \@height\@tempdima\@depth\@tempdima\@width @ to @ #3 Bib ??? ??? ??? =0 =0 = @figure=0 @table=0 #1 --#1 -24pt -2ex #1 0= #1 to 0 #1 I NDEX T ERMS: #1 #...

    2009 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.