Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 75 references

The effect of poloidal magnetic field and helicity injection on a breakout CME

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The growth rate of absolute net current helicity, not its magnitude, determines whether a sheared solar arcade erupts as a CME.

desk verdict A solid 2.5D breakout CME parameter study whose ANCH-growth-rate claim overreaches a single-run design; the poloidal-field suppression result is the more defensible new piece. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13835 v1 pith:KMPCB3ON submitted 2025-08-19 astro-ph.SR

Nitin Vashishtha , Vaibhav Pant , Dana-Camelia Talpeanu , Dipankar Banerjee , Shantanu Rastogi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords coronalmassejectionbreakoutmodelmagnetohydrodynamicscurrenthelicityabsolutenetsolarcycle24poloidalmagneticfieldfluxropeeruption
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 uses 2.5-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations of the solar corona to ask what controls whether a sheared magnetic arcade erupts as a coronal mass ejection. Working within the breakout model, the authors vary two things: the strength of the background poloidal (global dipole) magnetic field and the amount of helicity injected by shearing the base of a central arcade. They find that increasing the background dipole field by less than five percent is enough to suppress flux-rope formation and eruption, and that the same shearing mechanism produces failed, single, or multiple eruptions depending on the shear speed. Their central claim is that the growth rate of the absolute net current helicity in the arcade, not just its magnitude, is the quantity that separates eruptive from non-eruptive cases. If this carries over to observations, tracking how fast a region's net current helicity is rising could be a practical eruption precursor, and weaker global solar magnetic fields would naturally produce more weak CMEs, as was seen in Solar Cycle 24.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is breakout reconnection in a multipolar quadrupole-like arcade: shear flow at the base of the middle arcade builds the azimuthal magnetic field and magnetic pressure; the expanding arcade flattens the overlying X-point, reconnection removes the restraining field, and a flux rope can escape. The diagnostic that carries the argument is the absolute net current helicity, the magnitude of the volume-integrated $\mathbf{B}\cdot\mathbf{J}$ over the arcade region, and in particular its time derivative before the first breakout. The background dipole field is the control parameter that sets the height and connectivity of the arcade, turning a less-than-five-percent field increase into a qualitative change in eruption outcome.

What would settle it

Take one of the three shear speeds, for example 36.2 km/s, and rerun the 2.5D breakout simulation at twice and four times the adaptive-mesh refinement resolution; if the eruption classification flips or the ordering of ANCH slopes (multiple greater than single greater than failed) changes, the central claim that ANCH growth rate controls eruption likelihood is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the breakout CME outcome is set by the balance between helicity injection at the base and the confinement supplied by the background poloidal magnetic field. In simulations with a polar field of 2.2 G, the sheared central arcade forms a flux rope and erupts; at 2.3 G the arcade rises but no flux rope forms; at 2.4–2.5 G even the rise is suppressed, despite a configuration that is otherwise unchanged. With the polar field fixed at 2.2 G, maximum shear speeds of 35.8, 36.2, and 38.8 km s$^{-1}$ yield a failed eruption, a single eruption, and multiple eruptions. Computing the absolute net current helicity $\mathrm{ANCH} = |\sum_i \int \mathbf{B}\cdot\mathbf{J}\,dV|$ across the arcade, the authors find that the slope of ANCH up to the first breakout reconnection orders the three cases: 0.645 (multiple), 0.498 (single), 0.412 (failed) in simulation units. In the multiple-eruption case, the second eruption is preceded by a steeper second rise (0.801), so the rate of increase, not the peak value, is the discriminator. The authors conclude that the ANCH growth rate is the crucial factor determining the likelihood of eruption.

Load-bearing premise

The magnetic reconnection in the simulation is numerical in origin, tied to the grid spacing rather than to a physical resistivity model, so the tiny shear-speed thresholds that define the eruption regimes could shift with resolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In an active region, a time series of absolute net current helicity should separate eruptive from non-eruptive cases by slope rather than by instantaneous value, giving a possible space-weather precursor.
  • Reducing the background poloidal field strength by a few percent makes eruptions easier at the same shear input, consistent with the observed excess of weak CMEs in Solar Cycle 24 under a weakened global magnetic field.
  • All breakout CMEs in the investigated domain are slow CMEs, below about 220 km/s, suggesting the mechanism is naturally a source of weak, slow CMEs rather than fast ones.
  • The same physical mechanism can produce failed, single, or multiple eruptions under shear-speed differences of only a few km/s, so predicting an eruption requires more than knowing the magnetic configuration at one instant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the paper leaves implicit that observational predictors built on SHARP magnetograms should use the time derivative of absolute net current helicity, for example a 6 to 24 hour slope, instead of the snapshot value; this is a direct testable extension.
  • Inference: because the regime boundaries sit on shear-speed differences of 0.4 to 2.6 km/s and depend on grid resolution, higher-resolution or three-dimensional simulations will likely shift the exact threshold speeds even if the slope ordering survives.
  • Inference: if ANCH growth rate is the controlling factor, then helicity injection history, not just total injected helicity, should enter flare and CME forecasting; an active region that gains helicity quickly should be weighted more heavily than one that gains it slowly.
  • Inference: connecting this to Solar Cycle 24, the paper's mechanism suggests the weak-CME excess is physical rather than purely a detection-cadence artifact; a direct observational check would compare ANCH slopes from magnetograms in Cycle 24 and Cycle 23 active regions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents 2.5D MHD simulations of breakout CMEs using MPI-AMRVAC. The setup combines a background dipole field with a triple-arcade quadrupolar configuration; after relaxation, a time-dependent shear flow is imposed at the base of the central arcade. Varying the maximum shear velocity (35.8, 36.2, and 38.8 km/s) yields three outcomes: failed eruption, single eruption, and multiple eruptions. The authors also vary the polar background field strength from 2.2 G to 2.5 G and report that stronger poloidal fields suppress eruptions. Tracking global magnetic parameters (excess magnetic energy, total unsigned current helicity, and absolute net current helicity), they conclude that the growth rate of absolute net current helicity (ANCH) is the crucial factor determining eruption likelihood, and they connect this to the excess of weak CMEs in Solar Cycle 24.

Significance. If established, the ANCH-slope criterion would be a practically valuable forecasting precursor, since ANCH-like quantities are available from SHARP photospheric magnetograms. The poloidal-field result is also physically interesting and offers a plausible mechanism for the Solar Cycle 24 weak-CME excess through reduced background field strength. The numerical setup follows established practice (breakout model, AMR, GLM divergence control), and the supplementary movies are a useful resource. However, the central causal claim is not yet supported: the evidence rests on three single runs in which the proposed predictor is controlled by the same input parameter (shear amplitude), and the eruption thresholds are admitted to be resolution dependent. The paper is a worthwhile exploratory study, but the abstract overstates what the simulations demonstrate.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 9, Eq. (8)] The ANCH-slope criterion is collinear with the input shear amplitude. The three scenarios are generated by changing only v0 in Eq. (8) (35.8, 36.2, and 38.8 km/s), and the reported ANCH slopes (0.412, 0.498, and 0.645 in simulation units) increase monotonically with v0. Any monotone diagnostic of injected helicity, such as the slope of magnetic energy or TUCH, would order the three cases in the same way, so the design does not separate the proposed predictor from the control parameter. To support the causal claim, the authors should vary other physical parameters (e.g., background field, heating, or arcade geometry) at fixed v0, or include runs with overlapping ANCH slopes and different outcomes, and compare the discriminative power of ANCH slope against energy slope and TUCH slope in a quantitative analysis.
  2. [Section 2, final paragraph; §3.2] The eruption thresholds are resolution dependent. The manuscript states that increasing resolution lowers the maximum shearing velocity needed to initiate an eruption, yet the three regime boundaries are separated by only 0.4-2.6 km/s. No convergence study is provided, so the quoted thresholds of 35.8, 36.2, and 38.8 km/s, and hence the associated ANCH slope thresholds, may shift with grid resolution. Without a resolution study, the quantitative slope values in Fig. 9 cannot be distinguished from numerical artifacts. This is a load-bearing issue because the central claim depends on these threshold separations.
  3. [Section 4, Eqs. (9)-(11)] The forecast link to observations is not established. The simulated ANCH is a coronal volume integral of B·J (Eq. 11), while SHARP ANCH is a photospheric surface quantity. No mapping, unit conversion, or comparison of time evolution between the two is supplied, and the reported slopes are given only in unspecified simulation units. The paper should either provide a forward model connecting the simulated volume quantity to the observable photospheric quantity, or explicitly limit the claim to a qualitative diagnostic hypothesis rather than a ready-to-use forecasting metric.
  4. [§3.1, Fig. 2] The poloidal-field result is presented mainly through field-line snapshots and qualitative statements. Quantitative eruption metrics for the four Bpol values, such as flux-rope height, velocity, magnetic energy, or helicity budgets, are not reported, and each case is a single run. Since increasing Bpol changes the equilibrium field connectivity (Fig. 1), the claim that a marginal (<5%) change in dipole strength controls eruption likelihood needs quantitative support and a sensitivity check. A quantitative comparison, for example of the maximum central-arcade height or the time of flux-rope formation against Bpol, would make the conclusion much more robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 6] The text reports velocities for three CMEs in the multiple-eruptions case, but the figure caption and legend appear to show only two curves (first and second CMEs). Please clarify the correspondence and label all curves consistently.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (8)] The definition of t0 is confusing: it is first described as the steady-state time (~200 h) and then reset to zero. Please state explicitly that Eq. (8) is evaluated after the reset and remove the ambiguity.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract says the ANCH growth rate 'determines the likelihood' of CME eruptions, while Section 4 says it 'can serve as the most effective indicator.' These are different strengths of claim; please harmonize them and avoid causal wording unless the additional simulations recommended above are performed.
  4. [Page 1 footnote] The footnote '* Released on March, 1st, 2021' appears to be a leftover from an earlier version and should be removed or updated.
  5. [Author block] The first author name appears as 'Nitin V ashishtha' with a missing space or title; please check the author block for formatting errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ANCH-slope diagnostic is computed from simulated fields, not fitted to, or defined in terms of, the eruption outcome.

full rationale

The paper is a simulation study rather than a fitting exercise. Section 2 prescribes the input shear via Eq. (8) with amplitude v0 and then integrates the MHD equations; the helicity diagnostics Hc, TUCH, and ANCH are defined in Eqs. (9)-(11) as volume integrals over B and J. These are outputs of the simulation, not control parameters, and they are not regressed onto the eruption class. The monotonic ordering of the reported ANCH slopes (0.412, 0.498, 0.645) with v0 (35.8, 36.2, 38.8 km/s) is a physical consequence of increased helicity injection, but no equation in the paper defines the ANCH slope as v0 or as the eruption outcome, so the relationship is not tautological. The conclusion that ANCH growth rate is a useful indicator is an interpretation of the simulated data; its limitations (one varied parameter, three runs, and resolution-dependent thresholds acknowledged in Section 2) concern causal identifiability and numerical robustness, not circularity. The only self-citations, to Talpeanu et al. (2020, 2022), are used for a boundary-condition form and for a similar prior setup, and they are not load-bearing for the central ANCH claim. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or reduction chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation's central claims depend on hand-chosen input fields (polar dipole strength, arcade amplitude, shear velocity) and on the assumption that grid-scale numerical dissipation reproduces the reconnection physics. The ANCH growth-rate predictor is a diagnostic readout of those same inputs, so the ledger is dominated by setup choices.

free parameters (6)
  • Background dipole field strength at poles (Bpol) = 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 G (varied across four runs)
    Set by hand as an input; the first central claim (stronger poloidal field suppresses eruptions) rests on this parameter scan.
  • Maximum shear velocity v_phi,max = 35.8, 36.2, 38.8 km/s for failed, single, multiple eruptions
    Control parameter that sets helicity injection; the second central claim (ANCH growth rate is crucial) is a direct consequence of these inputs.
  • Arcade vector potential amplitude A0 = -0.73 G R_sun^5
    Taken from van der Holst et al. 2007; sets the strength of the multipolar arcade.
  • Arcade half-width Delta_a = 28.64 deg
    Geometry of the quadrupolar arcade, adopted from van der Holst et al. 2007.
  • Shear latitude half-width Delta_b = 8.59 deg
    Latitude range over which shear is applied; chosen ad hoc, affects the injected helicity profile.
  • Heating amplitude q0 and target temperatures T0 = q0=1e6 erg/g/s/K; T0=1.5e6 K (equator), 2.63e6 K (pole)
    Empirical heating term from prior solar wind models; not fitted here but part of the background state.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The breakout model of CME initiation (Antiochos et al. 1999) is assumed.
    The entire simulation setup is built to realize this model; conclusions apply only to breakout-type CMEs.
  • domain assumption Axisymmetry (2.5D) captures the essential eruption dynamics.
    Real CMEs are three-dimensional; axisymmetry restricts flux-rope kinking and non-axisymmetric reconnection.
  • ad hoc to paper Numerical resistivity provides the reconnection needed for breakout and flare reconnection.
    The paper states reconnection occurs due to numerical resistivity and that thresholds depend on grid resolution; no convergence study is provided.
  • domain assumption The empirical volumetric heating model produces a realistic bimodal solar wind background.
    Heating term from Groth et al. 2000 and Manchester IV et al. 2004 is adopted without validation here.
  • domain assumption Global current helicity parameters (TUCH, ANCH) are reliable proxies for CME eruptivity.
    The paper's main diagnostic conclusion depends on this mapping, which is asserted from the simulation output rather than derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The effect of poloidal magnetic field and helicity injection on a breakout CME." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KMPCB3ON

@misc{pith2026250813835,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The effect of poloidal magnetic field and helicity injection on a breakout CME},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KMPCB3ON}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13835}
}
read the original abstract

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs), as crucial drivers of space weather, necessitate a comprehensive understanding of their initiation and evolution in the solar corona, in order to better predict their propagation. Solar Cycle 24 exhibited lower sunspot numbers compared to Solar Cycle 23, along with a decrease in the heliospheric magnetic pressure. Consequently, a higher frequency of weak CMEs was observed during Solar Cycle 24. Forecasting CMEs is vital, and various methods, primarily involving the study of the global magnetic parameters using datasets like Space-weather Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager Active Region Patches (SHARP), have been employed in earlier works. In this study, we perform numerical simulations of CMEs within a magnetohydrodynamics framework using Message Passing Interface - Adaptive Mesh Refinement Versatile Advection Code (MPI-AMRVAC) in 2.5 dimensions. By employing the breakout model for CME initiation, we introduce a multipolar magnetic field configuration within a background bipolar magnetic field, inducing shear to trigger the CME eruption. Our investigation focuses on understanding the impact of the background global magnetic field on CME eruptions. Furthermore, we analyze the evolution of various global magnetic parameters in distinct scenarios (failed eruption, single eruption, multiple eruptions) resulting from varying amounts of helicity injection in the form of shear at the base of the magnetic arcade system. Our findings reveal that an increase in the strength of the background poloidal magnetic field constrains CME eruptions. Furthermore, we establish that the growth rate of absolute net current helicity is the crucial factor that determines the likelihood of CME eruptions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13835 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Selected magnetic field lines tracing in the central and northern arcade for different values of background poloidal magnetic field at the poles at the steady state. poloidal magnetic field strength not only restrains the eruption but also hinders the formation of the flux rope. Upon further increasing the poloidal field strength to 2.5 G at the poles, we observe a reduction in the maximum height achieved by the cen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Selected magnetic field lines tracing and simulated radial component of magnetic field maps (G) at different times (t) after shearing starts, for different polar magnetic field strengths (Bpol) ing speeds increase with height in the solar atmosphere (Athay et al. 1982; Malherbe et al. 1983; Athay et al. 1985; Chae et al. 2000; Manchester 2007). Specifically, they escalate from ∼ 5 km s−1 in the chromosphere to 20 km… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation snapshots depicting selected magnetic field line traces (black lines) and density in log scale (colour scale). These panels represent the failed eruption case, and at the following times from the start of shear: (a) at t = 14.68 h (b) at t = 15.46 h. A movie of temporal evolution of the corresponding density is available as supplementary material 1. (a) (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as Figs. 3 and 4, but for the multiple eruptions case. In (b), (c), (f), and (g), the top right corner displays a zoomed-in view of the area marked with a red box. A movie of temporal evolution of the corresponding density is available as supplementary material 3 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Velocity-time profiles of CMEs in various erup￾tion scenarios. The green curve illustrates the velocity of the centre of the flux rope of the CME in the single eruption case. The blue and orange curves depict the velocity-time profiles of the centre of the flux rope as…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temporal evolution of total unsigned current he￾licity for three scenarios (blue, yellow, and red for failed, single, and multiple eruptions, respectively). The blue, yel￾low and red vertical lines represent the flux rope formation time for the failed, single and multi…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Aly, J

    Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Aly, J. J., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. 2003a, The Astrophysical Journal, 585, 1073, doi: 10.1086/345501 —. 2003b, The Astrophysical Journal, 595, 1231, doi: 10.1086/377444

    doi:10.1086/345501

  2. [2]

    Antiochos, S. K. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 502, L181, doi: 10.1086/311507

    doi:10.1086/311507 1998

  3. [3]

    K., DeVore, C

    Antiochos, S. K., DeVore, C. R., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 510, 485, doi: 10.1086/306563

    doi:10.1086/306563 1999

  4. [4]

    G., Gurman, J

    Athay, R. G., Gurman, J. B., Shine, R. A., & Henze, W. 1982, ApJ, 261, 684, doi: 10.1086/160379

    work page doi:10.1086/160379 1982

  5. [5]

    G., Jones, H

    Athay, R. G., Jones, H. P., & Zirin, H. 1985, ApJ, 288, 363, doi: 10.1086/162799

    work page doi:10.1086/162799 1985

  6. [6]

    2012, Solar Physics, 281, 223, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-9999-3

    Poedts, S. 2012, Solar Physics, 281, 223, doi: 10.1007/s11207-012-9999-3

    doi:10.1007/s11207-012-9999-3 2012

  7. [7]

    Bobra, M., & Couvidat, S. P. 2014, in AGU Fall Meeting

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    2014, SH21A–4092

    Abstracts, Vol. 2014, SH21A–4092

    work page 2014

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    G., Sun, X., Hoeksema, J

    Bobra, M. G., Sun, X., Hoeksema, J. T., et al. 2014, SoPh, 289, 3549, doi: 10.1007/s11207-014-0529-3

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Howard, R

    Brueckner, G. E., Howard, R. A., Koomen, M. J., et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 357, doi: 10.1007/BF00733434

    1995 doi

  3. [11]

    1964, in NASA Special Publication, Vol

    Carmichael, H. 1964, in NASA Special Publication, Vol. 50, 451

    1964

  4. [12]

    R., & Wilhelm, K

    Chae, J., Wang, H., Qiu, J., Goode, P. R., & Wilhelm, K. 2000, ACTIVE REGION LOOPS OBSERVED WITH SUMER ON BOARD THE SOL AR AND HEL IOSPHERIC OBSERV AT ORY Chan´ e, E., Holst, B. V. D., Jacobs, C., Poedts, S., &

    2000

  5. [13]

    2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 447, 727, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053802 Chan´ e, E., Poedts, S., & Holst, B

    Kimpe, D. 2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 447, 727, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053802 Chan´ e, E., Poedts, S., & Holst, B. V. D. 2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 492, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811022

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 27499, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/96JA02644

    Chen, J. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 27499, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/96JA02644

    1996 doi

  7. [15]

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

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    Dedner, A., Kemm, F., Kr¨ oner, D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645, doi: 10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    2002

  9. [17]

    Domingo, V., Fleck, B., & Poland, A. I. 1995, SoPh, 162, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00733425

    1995 doi

  10. [18]

    G., & Isenberg, P

    Forbes, T. G., & Isenberg, P. A. 1991, ApJ, 373, 294, doi: 10.1086/170051

    1991 doi

  11. [19]

    E., & Low, B

    Gibson, S. E., & Low, B. C. 1998, ApJ, 493, 460, doi: 10.1086/305107

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    2004, A Global Picture of CMEs in the Inner Heliosphere (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 201–251, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-2831-1 8

    Gopalswamy, N. 2004, A Global Picture of CMEs in the Inner Heliosphere (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 201–251, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-2831-1 8

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol

    Gopalswamy, N., Akiyama, S., Yashiro, S., & M¨ akel¨ a, P. 2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, Vol. 19, Magnetic Coupling between the Interior and Atmosphere of the Sun, 289–307, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02859-5 24

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    2020, in Effect of the Weakened Heliosphere in Solar Cycle 24 on the Properties of Coronal Mass Ejections, Vol

    Gopalswamy, N., Akiyama, S., Yashiro, S., et al. 2020, in Effect of the Weakened Heliosphere in Solar Cycle 24 on the Properties of Coronal Mass Ejections, Vol. 1620 (IOP Publishing Ltd), doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1620/1/012005

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2014, Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 2673, doi: 10.1002/2014GL059858

    Gopalswamy, N., Akiyama, S., Yashiro, S., et al. 2014, Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 2673, doi: 10.1002/2014GL059858

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 303

    Gopalswamy, N., Miki´ c, Z., Maia, D., et al. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 303

    2006

  17. [25]

    2015, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 804, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L23

    Gopalswamy, N., Xie, H., Akiyama, S., et al. 2015, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 804, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L23

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    2005, in 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC29), Volume 1, Vol

    Gopalswamy, N., Xie, H., Yashiro, S., & Usoskin, I. 2005, in 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC29), Volume 1, Vol. 1, 169

    2005

  19. [27]

    Gosling, J. T. 1993, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 98, 18937, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/93JA01896 Grigor’ev, V. M., Ermakova, L. V., & Khlystova, A. I. 2007, Astronomy Letters, 33, 766, doi: 10.1134/S1063773707110072

    1993 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Zeeuw, D

    Groth, C. P., Zeeuw, D. L. D., Gombosi, T. I., & Powell, K. G. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 105, 25053, doi: 10.1029/2000ja900093

    2000 doi

  21. [29]

    2017, Space Weather, 2399-2891 (IOP Publishing), doi: 10.1088/978-0-7503-1372-8

    Hapgood, M. 2017, Space Weather, 2399-2891 (IOP Publishing), doi: 10.1088/978-0-7503-1372-8

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Hess, P., & Colaninno, R. C. 2017, ApJ, 836, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5b85

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    1974, SoPh, 34, 323, doi: 10.1007/BF00153671

    Hirayama, T. 1974, SoPh, 34, 323, doi: 10.1007/BF00153671

    1974 doi

  24. [32]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 620, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832976

    Hosteaux, S., Chan´ e, E., Decraemer, B., Talpeanu, D.-C., & Poedts, S. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 620, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832976

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 632, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935894

    Hosteaux, S., Chan´ e, E., & Poedts, S. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 632, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935894

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    1986, in The Sun and the Heliosphere in Three Dimensions: Proceedings of the XIXth ESLAB Symposium, held in Les Diablerets, Switzerland, 4–6 June 1985, Springer, 107–111 14

    Howard, R., Sheeley, N., Michels, D., & Koomen, M. 1986, in The Sun and the Heliosphere in Three Dimensions: Proceedings of the XIXth ESLAB Symposium, held in Les Diablerets, Switzerland, 4–6 June 1985, Springer, 107–111 14

    1986

  27. [35]

    J., Sawyer, C

    Hundhausen, A. J., Sawyer, C. B., House, L., Illing, R. M. E., & Wagner, W. J. 1984, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 89, 2639, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JA089iA05p02639

    1984 doi

  28. [36]

    Jacobs, C., Poedts, S., Holst, B. V. D., & Chan´ e, E. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 430, 1099, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041676

    2005 doi

  29. [37]

    H., & Sch¨ ussler, M

    Jiang, J., Cameron, R. H., & Sch¨ ussler, M. 2015, ApJL, 808, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L28

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    T., Antiochos, S

    Karpen, J. T., Antiochos, S. K., & Devore, C. R. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 760, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/1/81

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    A., & Pneuman, G

    Kopp, R. A., & Pneuman, G. W. 1976, SoPh, 50, 85, doi: 10.1007/BF00206193

    1976 doi

  32. [40]

    2000, ApJ, 539, 964, doi: 10.1086/309256

    Krall, J., Chen, J., & Santoro, R. 2000, ApJ, 539, 964, doi: 10.1086/309256

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 917, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1a15

    Li, T., Chen, A., Hou, Y., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 917, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1a15

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Lin, J., & Forbes, T. G. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 105, 2375, doi: 10.1029/1999ja900477

    2000 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 662, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142868

    Liokati, E., Nindos, A., & Liu, Y. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 662, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142868

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    T., Valori, G., et al

    Liu, Y., Welsch, B. T., Valori, G., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca3a6

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    G., Petrie, G., & Riley, P

    Luhmann, J. G., Petrie, G., & Riley, P. 2013, Journal of Advanced Research, 4, 221, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2012.08.008

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Schmieder, B., Ribes, E., & Mein, P

    Malherbe, J. M., Schmieder, B., Ribes, E., & Mein, P. 1983, A&A, 119, 197

    1983

  39. [47]

    2007, SOLAR ATMOSPHERIC DYNAMIC COUPLING DUE TO SHEAR MOTIONS DRIVEN BY THE LORENTZ FORCE Manchester IV, W

    Manchester, W. 2007, SOLAR ATMOSPHERIC DYNAMIC COUPLING DUE TO SHEAR MOTIONS DRIVEN BY THE LORENTZ FORCE Manchester IV, W. B., Gombosi, T. I., Roussev, I., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010150

    2007 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Angold, N., Elliott, H

    McComas, D. J., Angold, N., Elliott, H. A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/2

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    2019, ApJ, 880, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab26a7

    Michalek, G., Gopalswamy, N., & Yashiro, S. 2019, ApJ, 880, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab26a7

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    C., & Schnack, D

    Mikic, Z., Barnes, D. C., & Schnack, D. D. 1988, ApJ, 328, 830, doi: 10.1086/166341

    1988 doi

  43. [51]

    Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. A. 1994, ApJ, 430, 898, doi: 10.1086/174460

    1994 doi

  44. [52]

    2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 649, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140384 Mu˜ noz-Jaramillo, A., Sheeley, N

    Moraitis, K., Patsourakos, S., & Nindos, A. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 649, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140384 Mu˜ noz-Jaramillo, A., Sheeley, N. R., Zhang, J., & DeLuca, E. E. 2012, ApJ, 753, 146, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/146

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    J., & Forsyth, R

    Owens, M. J., & Forsyth, R. J. 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 5, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2013-5

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    E., Valori, G., et al

    Pariat, E., Leake, J. E., Valori, G., et al. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 601, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630043

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    Petrie, G. J. D. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 162, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/162

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    Petrie, G. J. D. 2015, ApJ, 812, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/74

    2015 doi

  49. [57]

    2023, SoPh, 298, 96, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02187-6

    Raju, H., & Das, S. 2023, SoPh, 298, 96, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02187-6

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    I., Forbes, T

    Roussev, I. I., Forbes, T. G., Gombosi, T. I., et al. 2003, ApJL, 588, L45, doi: 10.1086/375442

    2003 doi

  51. [59]

    I., Sokolov, I

    Roussev, I. I., Sokolov, I. V., Forbes, T. G., et al. 2004, ApJL, 605, L73, doi: 10.1086/392504

    2004 doi

  52. [60]

    T., Luhmann, J

    Russell, C. T., Luhmann, J. G., & Jian, L. K. 2010, Reviews of Geophysics, 48, RG2004, doi: 10.1029/2009RG000316

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    Schrijver, C. J. 2015, Socio-Economic Hazards and Impacts of Space Weather: The Important Range between Mild and Extreme, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, doi: 10.1002/2015SW001252

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    J., & Higgins, P

    Schrijver, C. J., & Higgins, P. A. 2015, Solar Physics, 290, 2943, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0785-x

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7955

    Sinha, S., Gupta, O., Singh, V., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7955

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    J., & Balogh, A

    Smith, E. J., & Balogh, A. 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L22103, doi: 10.1029/2008GL035345 St. Cyr, O., Burkepile, J., Hundhausen, A., & Lecinski, A. 1999, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 104, 12493

    2008 doi

  57. [65]

    A., & Coppi, B

    Sturrock, P. A., & Coppi, B. 1966, ApJ, 143, 3, doi: 10.1086/148472

    1966 doi

  58. [66]

    C., Poedts, S., D’Huys, E., & Mierla, M

    Talpeanu, D. C., Poedts, S., D’Huys, E., & Mierla, M. 2022, A&A, 658, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141977

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    2020, A&A, 637, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037477

    Talpeanu, D.-C., Chan´ e, E., Poedts, S., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037477

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    2019, Flare-productive active regions, Springer, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7 van Ballegooijen, A

    Toriumi, S., & Wang, H. 2019, Flare-productive active regions, Springer, doi: 10.1007/s41116-019-0019-7 van Ballegooijen, A. A., & Martens, P. C. H. 1989, ApJ, 343, 971, doi: 10.1086/167766 van der Holst, B., Jacobs, C., & Poedts, S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 671, L77, ...

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    M., & Colaninno, R

    Wang, Y. M., & Colaninno, R. 2014, ApJL, 784, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/784/2/L27

    2014 doi

  62. [70]

    F., & Howard, T

    Webb, D. F., & Howard, T. A. 2012, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 9, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrsp-2012-3 15

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    T., Guo, W

    Wu, S. T., Guo, W. P., & Dryer, M. 1997, SoPh, 170, 265, doi: 10.1023/A:1004954816406

    1997 doi

  64. [72]

    2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010282

    Yashiro, S., Gopalswamy, N., Michalek, G., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010282

    2004 doi

  65. [73]

    2001, Formation of current helicity and emerging magnetic flux in solar active regions

    Zhang, H. 2001, Formation of current helicity and emerging magnetic flux in solar active regions. https: //academic.oup.com/mnras/article/326/1/57/1027683

    2001

  66. [74]

    P., Meliani, Z., & Poedts, S

    Zuccarello, F. P., Meliani, Z., & Poedts, S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/117

    2012 doi

  67. [75]

    P., Pariat, E., Valori, G., & Linan, L

    Zuccarello, F. P., Pariat, E., Valori, G., & Linan, L. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacdfc

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.