Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 76 references

Stellar Magnetic Storm Induced Magnetospheric Polarity Reversals: Distinguishing between Unmagnetised and Magnetised Exoplanets

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A stellar magnetic storm flips the magnetosphere of an unmagnetised exoplanet but not of an Earth-field planet, giving a new way to detect exoplanet magnetism.

desk verdict The polarity-reversal' evidence for weakly magnetised planets is likely a magnetopause-crossing artefact at the fixed 2.8 R_p probe, not a global reconfiguration. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02886 v1 pith:23HKICXT submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Sakshi Gupta , Souvik Roy , Dibyendu Nandy This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords exoplanetmagnetospherescoronalmassejectionsmagneticpolarityreversalinducedmagnetosphere3DmagnetohydrodynamicsimulationsatmosphericlossVenusmagnetotailstellarstorms
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 claims that a single stellar coronal mass ejection (CME) can be used to distinguish whether an exoplanet has an intrinsic magnetic field. In 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulations of Earth-like planets, unmagnetised planets and planets with only one-tenth of Earth's field undergo a global polarity reversal of their magnetospheres when hit by a CME whose magnetic field opposes the ambient stellar wind. Planets with Earth-strength or stronger fields keep their magnetic polarity near the planet. The simulations also show that atmospheric mass loss depends on field orientation for magnetised planets but is nearly orientation-independent for unmagnetised planets, and that magnetotail current density drops during reversals in a way consistent with Venus observations. If correct, this gives an observable, storm-driven signature for identifying which exoplanets harbour intrinsic magnetic fields.

What carries the argument

The central object is the global polarity state of the induced magnetosphere, tracked through the z-component of the magnetic field at $2.8\,R_p$ on the dayside and through the magnetotail current density. The argument is carried by a 3D resistive MHD simulation in which an Earth-like planet (same radius, mass and dipole tilt) sits in a nominal stellar wind, is then struck by a CME modelled as a force-free helical flux rope with uniform twist and positive helicity, and is finally bathed in the original wind again. The planetary field strength is varied from zero to twice Earth's and the upstream field sequence (north or south interplanetary field followed by north or south CME field) runs through four combinations; comparing when the field at $2.8\,R_p$ flips versus when it does not isolates the field-strength threshold.

What would settle it

Rerun the same simulation suite with the flux rope helicity reversed or with a non-uniform twist profile: if the 0.1 Earth-field planet stops showing a global polarity reversal, the signature is an artefact of the idealised CME model. Alternatively, if a spacecraft at Venus or Mars records a CME-driven polarity reversal while the near-tail current density does not drop during the reversal, that would contradict the paper's proposed connection to the observed Venus heavy-ion flux behaviour.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a magnetised stellar storm (CME) imposes a polarity reversal on the induced magnetosphere of an unmagnetised or weakly magnetised planet (0 to 0.1 Earth dipole), while the intrinsic magnetosphere of a planet with an Earth-strength or stronger field remains stable near the planet. The reversal occurs when the CME's embedded magnetic field is directed opposite to the pre-existing interplanetary field that shaped the induced magnetosphere; the induced field reconnects and flips to align with the storm field. The paper reads this as direct evidence that the relative strength of the planetary field against the stellar wind field controls whether a planet's magnetospheric polarity can be toggled, and proposes this response as a new paradigm for distinguishing magnetised from unmagnetised exoplanets.

Load-bearing premise

The clean reversal threshold rests on the simulated storm being an idealised force-free flux rope with one helicity sign, one twist profile, a single field strength (38 nT) and a simple north-south rotation, so a different real-world CME geometry could shift or blur the divide between magnetised and unmagnetised planets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single well-timed observation of a stellar CME hitting an exoplanet could reveal whether the planet has an intrinsic magnetic field, without needing to resolve the planet's surface.
  • For magnetised planets, atmospheric mass loss responds strongly to the CME field's orientation; for unmagnetised planets it does not, so measured escape rates under a known storm can serve as an independent magnetism diagnostic.
  • The predicted drop in magnetotail current density during a polarity reversal offers a concrete proxy (analogous to the diminished heavy-ion flux seen at Venus) that could be searched for at unmagnetised planets in future missions.
  • The reversal regime extends up to roughly one-tenth of Earth's surface field, so the diagnostic brackets the field strengths below which a planet's magnetosphere is externally toggleable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The threshold likely depends on the ratio of upstream magnetic energy to planetary dipole energy, not just on the absolute field strengths; extrapolating to closer orbits or more active stars, an Earth-strength field could conceivably flip during an exceptionally strong storm, so the clean cutoff found here may become a probabilistic one in real data.
  • If stellar CMEs commonly have mixed or time-varying helicity, the north-south reversal criterion would smear into a statistical one, making the diagnostic useful mainly for populations of planets rather than single events.
  • The same polarity-reversal mechanism should apply to induced magnetospheres around planets other than the modelled Earth-like case, such as Mars, and could be tested against existing orbiter data from known CME passages.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents 3D resistive MHD simulations with the CESSI-STORMI module to study how stellar-wind and ICME magnetic-field orientation affect Earth-like planets with intrinsic dipole fields of 0, 0.1, 1, and 2 Earth fields. Four IMF–ICME orientation sequences are imposed while keeping the total ICME magnetic field magnitude fixed. The paper reports three main results: (i) atmospheric mass-loss rates depend on field orientation for magnetised planets but not for unmagnetised ones; (ii) unmagnetised and weakly magnetised (0.1 Earth) planets undergo global magnetic polarity reversals during oppositely directed ICMEs, while Earth-strength and stronger fields retain their polarity; and (iii) magnetotail current density drops during reversal events, consistent with Venus observations. On this basis the paper proposes that polarity-reversal behaviour can distinguish exoplanets with and without significant intrinsic magnetic fields.

Significance. If the central polarity-reversal result holds, the proposed observable distinction would be valuable for exoplanetary magnetosphere characterisation, since direct exoplanetary magnetic-field detection remains elusive. The paper's setup is a genuine forward simulation: the reversal is not imposed as an input, and the authors compare against a concrete Venus observation of diminished heavy-ion flux during polarity reversals. The systematic variation of IMF/ICME orientations while holding total field magnitude fixed is a good experimental design, as is the sweep over four planetary field strengths. The main caveat is that the threshold distinguishing 0.1 Earth from 1 Earth is currently diagnosed at a single fixed radius that may lie outside the compressed magnetopause, and the CME model and numerical setup are not varied or validated enough to support the claimed generic 'new paradigm'.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Fig. 2(b)] The Bz-at-2.8-Rp diagnostic does not by itself distinguish a global polarity reversal from a magnetopause crossing. From Table 1, the ICME dynamic pressure is (12.89/4)×(1000/400)^2 ≈ 20 times the nominal value. For Bp = 0.1 Be (surface equatorial field 3.1×10^3 nT), a pressure-balance estimate gives a subsolar standoff of roughly 1.6 Rp during the ICME and about 2.7 Rp in the nominal wind. Thus 2.8 Rp lies in the magnetosheath during the storm, and the cyan curve in Fig. 2(b) can simply be the sheath field. The paper neither reports standoff distances nor shows radial Bz profiles or field-line connectivity close to the planet for Bp = 0.1 Be. Without such evidence, the central claim that 0.1 Be planets undergo global polarity reversals while Be planets do not is not demonstrated; this is the load-bearing result of the paper.
  2. [Section 2, Fig. 1] The polarity-reversal threshold is derived from a single ICME template. The Gold-Hoyle flux rope has fixed positive helicity, radially uniform twist, B0_cme = 38 nT, and one temporal rotation profile. The 0.1 Be threshold could be specific to this choice of CME field magnitude and rotation sense: a stronger CME or opposite helicity may reverse a Be planet, and a weaker or differently twisted CME may not reverse 0.1 Be. Since the abstract and conclusions frame the result as a general 'new paradigm', the authors should either vary the flux-rope parameters (helicity sign, twist profile, B0, rotation timescale) or explicitly limit the claim to the single modelled CME class and add the corresponding caveat.
  3. [Section 3.3, Fig. 4] The paper states that the mass-loss results for Bp = Be and 2 Be are 'qualitatively similar' to the 0.1 Be case, but no curves or supporting data are shown. The mass-loss orientation dependence is one of the two principal conclusions and the one directly connected to habitability, so the verification box-size statement is not a substitute for presenting the results or making them available. Please add the omitted curves or explicitly mark this claim as provisional and not part of the paper's demonstrated results.
  4. [Section 2, grid description] No convergence or resolution tests are reported. The region [-5, 5] Rp is resolved with 40 cells, i.e. Δ ≈ 0.25 Rp. For Bp = 0.1 Be, the estimated storm-time standoff is only about 1.6 Rp, corresponding to roughly six cells, and the polarity diagnostic at 2.8 Rp is therefore in a region where the magnetopause is very under-resolved. A resolution study (e.g., doubling the near-planet grid) is needed to confirm that the 0.1 Be response is not a numerical artefact of the coarse standoff region.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (6)] The density profile is self-referential: ρ_pl is defined through ρ_atm before ρ_atm is specified. Give a base density value or rewrite the profile so that it is single-valued.
  2. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'This hevaior is expected' appears to be a typo for 'This behaviour is expected'.
  3. [Section 3.2, Fig. 3] The text refers to '1 and 2 columns' of Fig. 3(a), but the figure is arranged as panels with rows and columns; please make the navigation explicit and consistent with the caption.
  4. [Fig. 2(a)] The streamline panels show only Bp = 0 and 2 Be; a streamline panel for Bp = 0.1 Be would help support the central weak-field claim.
  5. [Section 4] The Venus comparison is qualitative; if it is meant to be a quantitative validation, Venus-like parameters should be simulated, otherwise the sentence should retain its explicitly speculative wording.
  6. [Data availability] The statement 'will be shared upon reasonable request' is weaker than the usual reproducibility standard; a permanent repository link would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a forward MHD simulation study; model provenance is self-cited but the polarity-reversal and mass-loss outcomes are not inputs.

full rationale

The central simulation results—orientation-dependent atmospheric mass loss, resistance of magnetospheric polarity to reversal as the intrinsic field strength increases, and the magnetotail current-density drop for unmagnetised planets—are emergent outputs of the CESSI-STORMI 3D MHD integrations. The code (Roy & Nandy 2023), atmospheric profile (Basak & Nandy 2021), and earlier parameter studies (Gupta et al. 2023) are same-group citations, but they supply the numerical tool and baseline setup, not the conclusions; no parameter is fitted to the target observable and no uniqueness theorem is invoked from the authors' prior work. The diagnostic choice of 2.8 R_p to read B_z is a modelling and interpretation choice that could be challenged on physical grounds (the magnetopause standoff for B_p = 0.1 B_e may lie near that radius during the ICME), but this is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction: the MHD solution at that radius is computed, not assumed. The Venus comparison is post hoc and not used to tune the model. Thus no circular step can be exhibited; the self-citation chain is real but not load-bearing, so the paper sits in the low-scoring, essentially non-circular range.

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

The central claim rests on a standard MHD framework, a deliberately simplified atmosphere, and an idealised CME model. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are choices that affect quantitative outputs, especially mass-loss rates, but the polarity-reversal threshold is robust within the model's scope.

free parameters (5)
  • Magnetic diffusivity (eta) = 1e13 cm^2/s
    Fixed value chosen for the simulation; controls reconnection rate and current density magnitude. Not fitted to data, but no sensitivity study shown.
  • Atmospheric density profile parameters (rho_pl, tanh scale) = rho_pl = 1e6 rho_atm; 9/Rp scale
    Chosen to represent a dense ionosphere; based on Basak & Nandy 2021 but ad hoc for this study. Affects mass loss rates.
  • ICME Gold-Hoyle flux rope parameters (B0_cme, twist, helicity) = B0_cme = 38 nT; radially uniform twist; positive helicity
    Field magnitude from MESSENGER/Venus Express time averages (Good & Forsyth 2016), but twist and helicity sign are chosen, and no variation is tested.
  • Probe distance for polarity measurement = 2.8 Rp
    Chosen as a location where intrinsic polarity is visible but external field may also contribute; no justification beyond this.
  • Mass-loss integration box size = 10 Rp cube (+/- 5 Rp)
    Chosen for convenience; acknowledged to be too small for strongly magnetised planets, hence results for Be and 2Be are not shown.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The resistive MHD equations with an adiabatic ideal gas (gamma=5/3) govern the star-planet interaction.
    Standard plasma physics model for global magnetospheric simulations; invoked in Section 2, Eqs. 1-5.
  • ad hoc to paper The planet's atmosphere can be represented as a static conducting plasma with a tanh density profile and hydrostatic pressure.
    The authors note this approximation may overestimate mass loss (Section 2, Eq. 6); it is introduced specifically for this modeling setup.
  • domain assumption ICMEs are adequately represented by a force-free Gold-Hoyle flux rope with positive helicity and radially uniform twist.
    A standard idealised ICME model, but the choice of helicity sign and twist is not varied; Section 2.
  • domain assumption The polarity of an induced magnetosphere is entirely determined by the external stellar wind magnetic field orientation.
    Established from Venus/Mars observations and simulations; underlies the interpretation of reversals in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption The simulated current-density drop during polarity reversal can be compared to the observed diminished heavy-ion flux at Venus (Vech et al. 2016).
    Qualitative analogy between MHD current density and ion flux; the simulation is of an Earth-like planet, not Venus (Sections 1, 3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar Magnetic Storm Induced Magnetospheric Polarity Reversals: Distinguishing between Unmagnetised and Magnetised Exoplanets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/23HKICXT

@misc{pith2026250602886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar Magnetic Storm Induced Magnetospheric Polarity Reversals: Distinguishing between Unmagnetised and Magnetised Exoplanets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/23HKICXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02886}
}
read the original abstract

Exoplanetary and planetary environments are forced by stellar activity which manifest through variable radiation, particle and magnetic fluxes, stellar winds, flares and magnetic storms known as coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Recent studies have shown that (exo)planets with intrinsic magnetic fields and magnetospheres respond differently to this stellar forcing compared to planets which lack an intrinsic magnetism; this is borne out by observations in solar system planets. However, detailed investigations to uncover the subtle ways in which stellar magnetic storms impact exoplanets are still at a nascent stage. Here we utilize 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulations to investigate the impact of stellar CMEs on Earth-like planets with different magnetic fields. Our results show that planetary atmospheric mass loss rates are dependent on the relative orientation of stellar wind and planetary magnetic fields, with significantly higher losses when the CME and planetary magnetic fields are oppositely oriented -- favoring enhanced magnetic reconnections. In contrast, for unmagnetised planets, the mass loss rate do not strongly depend on stellar magnetic field orientation. More significantly, we find that stellar CME induced polarity reversals can distinguish between planets with and without intrinsic magnetism. In unmagnetised or weakly magnetised (exo)planets, the polarity of the externally imposed magnetosphere are prone to global polarity reversals forced by stellar magnetised storms. Our analysis of the magnetotail current density dynamics during polarity reversals aligns with observations of Venus. This distinction in magnetospheric response provides a new paradigm to differentiate between (exo)planets with or without significant (intrinsic) magnetic fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Temporal evolution of the stellar magnetic field conditions used as boundary inputs in the simulations. The top panel shows the total field magnitude (|𝐵|), and the lower panels depicts the Cartesian components (𝐵𝑥, 𝐵𝑦, 𝐵𝑧) for each IMF–ICME orientation case. Shaded regions indicate the pure IMF (grey), ICME sheath (beige), and ICME flux rope (blue) phases followed by pure IMF. MNRAS 000, 1–16 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Polarity reversal in (exo)planetary magnetospheres. (a) Evolution of magnetic field streamlines, blue representing (exo)planetary magnetic field while yellow represent stellar wind magnetic field lines during planetary interaction with the stellar wind. (A) is the steady state configuration when northward stellar wind interacts with the unmagnetised planet (t = 121.6 min), (B) shows the magnetospheric configuration … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Current density magnitude evolution in the (exo)planetary magnetotail during ICME interaction. Panels show different (exo)planetary magnetic field strengths: (a) Bp = 0 (unmagnetised), (b) Bp = 0.1Be, (c) Bp = Be, and (d) Bp = 2Be. For each case, the temporal evolution is shown for various ICME magnetic field orientations. The black curve represents steady-state nominal stellar wind interaction, while other curves s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal evolution of atmospheric mass-loss rates for unmagnetised and weakly magnetised (Bp = 0.1Be) (exo)planets during stellar field interaction. Mass-loss rates are computed within a cubic volume (± 5 Rp in all directions) encompassing the planet and its atmosphere…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alvarado-Gómez, J. D. Hussain, G. A. J. Cohen, O. Drake, J. J. Garraffo, C. Grunhut, J. Gombosi, T. I. 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628988 , 594, A95

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628988 2016

  2. [2]

    Argiroffi C., et al., 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 742

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    N., et al., 1998, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] 10.1029/98gl01134 , 25, 2975–2978

    Baker D. N., et al., 1998, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] 10.1029/98gl01134 , 25, 2975–2978

    work page doi:10.1029/98gl01134 1998

  4. [4]

    M., Nandy D., 2024, @doi [Space Weather] https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003716 , 22, e2023SW003716

    Baruah Y., Roy S., Sinha S., Palmerio E., Pal S., Oliveira D. M., Nandy D., 2024, @doi [Space Weather] https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003716 , 22, e2023SW003716

    doi:10.1029/2023sw003716 2024

  5. [5]

    Basak A., Nandy D., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab225 , 502, 3569–3581

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab225 2021

  6. [6]

    S., Dulk G

    Bastian T. S., Dulk G. A., Leblanc Y., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/317864 , 545, 1058

    doi:10.1086/317864 2000

  7. [7]

    R., Drake J

    Burkhart G. R., Drake J. F., Chen J., 1990, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/JA095iA11p18833 , 95, 18833

    work page doi:10.1029/ja095ia11p18833 1990

  8. [8]

    K., McPherron R

    Burton R. K., McPherron R. L., Russell C. T., 1975, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research] 10.1029/JA080i031p04204 , 80, 4204

    doi:10.1029/ja080i031p04204 1975

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    F., 2011, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 , 8

    Chen P. F., 2011, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.12942/lrsp-2011-1 , 8

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    Cherenkov A., Bisikalo D., Fossati L., M \"o stl C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa82b2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...31C 846, 31

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Alvarado-Gómez J

    Cohen O., Garraffo C., Moschou S.-P., Drake J. J., Alvarado-Gómez J. D., Glocer A., Fraschetti F., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9637 , 897, 101

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Connerney J. E. P., et al., 2018, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] 10.1002/2018GL077312 , 45, 2590

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    B., Basak A., Nandy D., Vaidya B., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18ad , 877, 80

    Das S. B., Basak A., Nandy D., Vaidya B., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab18ad , 877, 80

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    A., et al., 2015, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065248 , 42, 8828

    DiBraccio G. A., et al., 2015, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065248 , 42, 8828

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Wei J., Fedorov A., Barabash S., Lundin R., 2012, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049883 , 39

    Dubinin E., Fraenz M., Woch J., Zhang T. L., Wei J., Fedorov A., Barabash S., Lundin R., 2012, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049883 , 39

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    G., Andersson G

    Dubinin E., Barabash S., Fedorov A., Luhmann J. G., Andersson G. E., et al., 2013, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-013-9992-1 , 175, 179

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    W., 1961, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/physrevlett.6.47 , 6, 47–48

    Dungey J. W., 1961, @doi [Physical Review Letters] 10.1103/physrevlett.6.47 , 6, 47–48

    1961 doi

  10. [18]

    Egan H., Jarvinen R., Ma Y., Brain D., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz1819 , 488, 2108

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    G., 2017, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-017-0362-8 , 212, 1453

    Futaana Y., Stenberg Wieser G., Barabash S., Luhmann J. G., 2017, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-017-0362-8 , 212, 1453

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Charbonnel, C

    Gallet, F. Charbonnel, C. Amard, L. Brun, S. Palacios, A. Mathis, S. 2017, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629034 , 597, A14

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Gold T., Hoyle F., 1960, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/120.2.89 , 120, 89

    1960 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Joselyn J

    Gonzalez W. D., Joselyn J. A., Kamide Y., Kroehl H. W., Rostoker G., Tsurutani B. T., Vasyliunas V. M., 1994, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] 10.1029/93ja02867 , 99, 5771–5792

    1994 doi

  15. [23]

    D., Tsurutani B

    Gonzalez W. D., Tsurutani B. T., Clúa de Gonzalez A. L., 1999, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1023/a:1005160129098 , 88, 529–562

    1999 doi

  16. [24]

    Good S., Forsyth R., 2016, @doi [Solar Physics] 10.1007/s11207-015-0828-3 , 291

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    T., 1993, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] 10.1029/93ja01896 , 98, 18937–18949

    Gosling J. T., 1993, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] 10.1029/93ja01896 , 98, 18937–18949

    1993 doi

  18. [26]

    Grießmeier J.-M., Zarka P., Spreeuw H., 2007, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077397 , 475, 359

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    N., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...60G 159, 60

    G \"u nther M. N., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....159...60G 159, 60

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Gupta S., Basak A., Nandy D., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd93b , 953, 70

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    G., Bourke S., Lane C., Golden A., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/590360 , 684, 644

    Hallinan G., Antonova A., Doyle J. G., Bourke S., Lane C., Golden A., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/590360 , 684, 644

    2008 doi

  22. [31]

    A., Carolan S., Villarreal D’Angelo C., Ó Fionnagáin D., 2024b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae2559 , 536, 1089

    Hazra G., Vidotto A. A., Carolan S., Villarreal D’Angelo C., Ó Fionnagáin D., 2024b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae2559 , 536, 1089

    doi

  23. [32]

    M., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/53 , 793, 53

    Hu Q., Qiu J., Dasgupta B., Khare A., Webb G. M., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/53 , 793, 53

    2014 doi

  24. [33]

    T., Saba J

    Hundhausen A., 1999, in Strong K. T., Saba J. L. R., Haisch B. M., Schmelz J. T., eds, The Many Faces of the Sun: A Summary of the Results from NASA ' s Solar Maximum Mission. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 143--200, @doi 10.1007/978-1-4612-1442-7 _ 5 , https://doi.org/10...

    1999 doi

  25. [34]

    M., Phillips R

    Jakosky B. M., Phillips R. J., 2001, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/35084160 , 412, 237

    2001 doi

  26. [35]

    L., et al., 2014, in Schmieder B., Malherbe J.-M., Wu S

    Khodachenko M. L., et al., 2014, in Schmieder B., Malherbe J.-M., Wu S. T., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 300, Nature of Prominences and their Role in Space Weather. pp 335--346, @doi 10.1017/S1743921313011174

    2014 doi

  27. [36]

    Kislyakova, K. G. et al., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833941 , 623, A131

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    F., Hawley S

    Kowalski A. F., Hawley S. L., Wisniewski J. P., Osten R. A., Hilton E. J., Holtzman J. A., Schmidt S. J., Davenport J. R. A., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/15 , 207, 15

    2013 doi

  29. [38]

    S., Gurnett D

    Kurth W. S., Gurnett D. A., Bolton S. J., 2016, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] 10.1002/2015JA021867 , 121, 4608

    2016 doi

  30. [39]

    F., Bauer S

    Lammer H., Selsis F., Ribas I., Guinan E. F., Bauer S. J., Weiss W. W., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/380815 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...598L.121L 598, L121

    2003 doi

  31. [40]

    F., Chassefi \`e re E., Johnson R

    Lammer H., Kasting J. F., Chassefi \`e re E., Johnson R. E., Kulikov Y. N., Tian F., 2008, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-008-9413-5 , 139, 399

    2008 doi

  32. [41]

    S., Gurnett D

    Lamy L., Zarka P., Cecconi B., Prangé R., Kurth W. S., Gurnett D. A., 2017, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1148033 , 318, 743

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    G., Russell C

    Luhmann J. G., Russell C. T., Zhang M., Schunk R. W., 1992, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] 10.1029/92GL01232 , 19, 1217

    1992 doi

  34. [43]

    R., Murphy T., Kaplan D

    Lynch C. R., Murphy T., Kaplan D. L., Ireland M., Bell M. E., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty2483 , 481, 5000

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    Masters A., 2012, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] 10.1029/2012JA017622 , 117, A06213

    2012 doi

  36. [45]

    L., Weygand J

    McPherron R. L., Weygand J. M., Hsu T.-S., 2008, @doi [Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2007.08.040 , 70, 303

    2008 doi

  37. [46]

    Murphy T., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu2253 , 446, 2560

    2015 doi

  38. [47]

    Nandy D., Martens P., 2007, @doi [Advances in Space Research] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2007.01.079 , 40, 891

    2007 doi

  39. [48]

    Nandy D., et al., 2023, @doi [Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2023.106081 , 248, 106081

    2023

  40. [49]

    Odert P., Leitzinger M., Hanslmeier A., Lammer H., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stx1969 , 472, 876

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    T., Southwood D

    Paschmann G., Sckopke N., Russell C. T., Southwood D. J., Zanetti L., M\"obius E., 1979, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/282243a0 , 282, 243

    1979 doi

  42. [51]

    Preusse S., Kopp A., Büchner J., Motschmann U., 2007, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2006.04.037 , 55, 589

    2007 doi

  43. [52]

    Pulkkinen T., 2007, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.12942/lrsp-2007-1 , 4

    2007 doi

  44. [53]

    Stelzer, B

    Raetz, St. Stelzer, B. 2024, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449902 , 687, A180

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    Ramstad R., Barabash S., Futaana Y., Nilsson H., Holmström M., 2018, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets] https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JE005727 , 123, 3051

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    Rodríguez-Mozos, J. M. Moya, A. 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935543 , 630, A52

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    Roy S., Nandy D., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd77c , 950, L11

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    T., 2001, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] 10.1016/S0032-0633(01)00017-4 , 49, 1005

    Russell C. T., 2001, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] 10.1016/S0032-0633(01)00017-4 , 49, 1005

    2001 doi

  49. [58]

    Russell C., Luhmann J., Strangeway R., 2006, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2006.04.025 , 54, 1482

    2006 doi

  50. [59]

    Schwenn R., 2006, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.12942/lrsp-2006-2 , 3

    2006 doi

  51. [60]

    F., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/173 , 832, 173

    Shaikhislamov I. F., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/173 , 832, 173

    2016 doi

  52. [61]

    A., Schwingenschuh K., Riedler W., Yeroshenko Y., 1991, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/91JA00439 , 96, 11235

    Slavin J. A., Schwingenschuh K., Riedler W., Yeroshenko Y., 1991, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/91JA00439 , 96, 11235

    1991 doi

  53. [62]

    Smith A. M. S., Cameron A. C., Greaves J., Jardine M., Langston G., Backer D., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14510.x , 395, 335

    2009

  54. [63]

    Sonnerup B. U. O., 1974, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977)] https://doi.org/10.1029/JA079i010p01546 , 79, 1546

    1974 doi

  55. [64]

    Trotignon J., Grard R., Skalsky A., 1993, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(93)90058-A , 41, 189

    1993 doi

  56. [65]

    D., Zarka P., Grießmeier J.-M., Vasylieva I., Lazio T

    Turner J. D., Zarka P., Grießmeier J.-M., Vasylieva I., Lazio T. J. W., Griessmeier J.-M., Others 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937201 , 645, A59

    2021 doi

  57. [66]

    Varela, J. Brun, A. S. Strugarek, A. Réville, V. Zarka, P. Pantellini, F. 2022, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141181 , 659, A10

    2022 doi

  58. [67]

    Vech D., Stenberg G., Nilsson H., Edberg N. J. T., Opitz A., Szegő K., Zhang T., Futaana Y., 2016, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021995 , 121, 3951

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    Vida K., et al., 2016, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527925 , 590

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    A., Cleary A., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa852 , 494, 2417

    Vidotto A. A., Cleary A., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa852 , 494, 2417

    2020 doi

  61. [70]

    Vignes D., et al., 2000, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL010703 , 27, 49

    2000 doi

  62. [71]

    Wang L., Huang C., Du A., Ge Y., Chen G., Fan J., Qin J., 2023, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104996 , 50, e2023GL104996

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    J., Del Genio A

    Way M. J., Del Genio A. D., 2020, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets] https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JE006276 , 125, e2019JE006276

    2020 doi

  64. [73]

    Xu S., et al., 2020, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027755 , 125, e2019JA027755

    2020 doi

  65. [74]

    Zarka P., 1998, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets] 10.1029/98JE01323 , 103, 20159

    1998 doi

  66. [75]

    Zarka P., 2007, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] 10.1016/j.pss.2006.05.045 , 55, 598

    2007 doi

  67. [76]

    Zong Q., 2022, @doi [Annales Geophysicae] 10.5194/angeo-40-121-2022 , 40, 121

    2022 doi

  68. [77]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.