Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 52 references

A faint, nearly undetectable coronal mass ejection—not the brighter candidate eruptions—drove the intense geomagnetic storm of March 23–24, 2023.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 18:10 UTC pith:ZZROW7VN

load-bearing objection Useful stealth-CME storm case with rare three-spacecraft sampling, but the radial-evolution numbers are undermined by internal timing and interval inconsistencies. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2509.10090 v1 pith:ZZROW7VN submitted 2025-09-12 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

An intense geomagnetic storm originated from stealth Coronal Mass Ejection: remote and in situ observations by near radially aligned spacecraft

P. Vemareddy , K. Selva Bharathi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords stealth CMEgeomagnetic stormmagnetic cloudradial alignmentsolar windflux ropefilament eruptionspace weather
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper identifies a weak coronal mass ejection (CME) that erupted on March 19, 2023 from a longitudinal filament channel near the center of the solar disk, with no detectable low-coronal signatures, as the cause of an intense geomagnetic storm on March 23–24. Using a rare near-radial alignment of Solar Orbiter, STEREO-A, and WIND, the authors track the same magnetic cloud at 0.5 AU, 0.97 AU, and 1 AU, documenting its expansion, decay of magnetic field, and rotation of its axis. They show that the storm’s two SYM-H peaks correspond to the cloud’s southward field and a density enhancement in the cloud’s tail. A sympathetic reader would take away that weak 'stealth' CMEs can be geoeffective and that multi-point radial observations can capture ICME evolution.

Core claim

The discovery is that the intense geomagnetic storm of March 23–24, 2023, was caused by a weak stealth CME that erupted from a longitudinal filament channel near disk center, and that this ICME was observed by three radially-aligned spacecraft, revealing a magnetic cloud that expanded from 0.08 AU to 0.18 AU, whose average magnetic field fell as R_H^{-1.97} (SolO–STA) and R_H^{-1.53} (SolO–WIND), and whose axis rotated from –69 degrees to –25 degrees to –34 degrees in inclination. The storm’s main phase peaked at SYM-H = –169 nT, followed by a nearly equal second peak (–170 nT) driven by enhanced density in the cloud’s tail. The paper argues that the southward B_z plus density enhancement to

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnetic cloud (MC) flux rope of the ICME, identified by low proton beta, low temperature, smooth field rotation, and right-handed helicity at all three spacecraft. The three-spacecraft radial alignment (SolO at 0.5 AU, STEREO-A at 0.966 AU, WIND at L1) is the mechanism that lets the authors measure radial evolution in size, field strength, expansion speed, and axis orientation from the same structure. Coronal observations of the source filament channel and the GCS flux-rope fit anchor the identification.

Load-bearing premise

The three spacecraft all encountered the same coherent magnetic cloud, so that differences among their measurements can be interpreted as the radial evolution of a single structure; if they sampled distinct parts of an inhomogeneous ejecta, the expansion, rotation, and decay conclusions would not follow.

What would settle it

Compare the ionic charge-state composition (e.g., Fe charge states or He/O abundance ratios) of the magnetic cloud intervals at SolO, STEREO-A, and WIND; if they differ beyond measurement error, the three spacecraft did not sample the same plasma structure, and the inferred radial evolution is not valid.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Weak, stealth CMEs with southward B_z can produce G4-class geomagnetic storms, so forecasting must account for eruptions lacking flare signatures.
  • The magnetic cloud expanded from 0.08 AU at SolO to 0.18 AU at STA, with expansion speed falling from 111 km/s to roughly half at STA and WIND.
  • Average magnetic field strength declined with heliocentric distance as R^{-1.97} (SolO–STA) and R^{-1.53} (SolO–WIND); peak field declined as R^{-2.1} and R^{-1.7}.
  • The 21-hour delay between STEREO-A and WIND ICME arrivals matches the expected co-rotation time for their 12-degree longitudinal separation.
  • A density enhancement in the MC's trailing part produced the storm's second SYM-H peak, indicating that density, not only B_z, matters for geoeffectiveness.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If confirmed, the paper's method can be extended to other multi-spacecraft radial alignments (e.g., Parker Solar Probe and BepiColombo) to test whether stealth CME flux ropes maintain coherence across the inner heliosphere or fragment.
  • The B-field decay steeper than R^{-1} suggests either flux-rope expansion, reconnection erosion, or a non-axial sampling effect; comparing with MHD simulations of flux-rope propagation could separate these.
  • The density enhancement in the MC tail could be a compression signature from the trailing high-speed solar wind; if so, solar wind monitors might use pre-ICME stream structure to anticipate double-peaked storms.
  • The paper's identification relies on the absence of other halo CME sources; a decisive test would be comparing the magnetic cloud's plasma composition at all three spacecraft to confirm a common origin.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper attributes the intense geomagnetic storm of 23–24 March 2023 (SYM-H ≈ −169/−170 nT; Dst ≈ −163 nT) to a faint, 'stealth' CME observed on 19 March 2023, associated with the eruption of a trans-equatorial longitudinal filament channel near disk center. The analysis combines SDO/STEREO/SOHO EUV and coronagraph data, STEREO-A heliospheric imaging, and in situ magnetic-field and plasma measurements at SolO (0.5 AU), STEREO-A (0.966 AU), and WIND (L1). From these data the paper derives ICME expansion, a magnetic-field decay with heliocentric distance (B_peak ∝ R_H^−2.1 and R_H^−1.7; B_av ∝ R_H^−1.97 and R_H^−1.53), flux-rope axis rotation (from −69° to −25°/−34°), and a two-peak storm morphology attributed to southward Bz followed by a trailing density enhancement. The storm-driving interpretation is checked against three empirical Dst/SYM-H models.

Significance. If the same-ICME interpretation is correct, the event is a valuable demonstration that stealth CMEs can be geoeffective and that near-radial multi-spacecraft alignments can constrain ICME evolution. The paper has clear strengths: the multi-instrument source-region analysis, the J-map heliospheric tracking, the use of three nearly aligned spacecraft, and the explicit comparison with three empirical Dst models. However, the headline radial-evolution results rest on a same-structure premise that is asserted rather than validated, and several quantitative inconsistencies (STA–WIND arrival delay, WIND MC interval, expansion speed) currently prevent the paper from delivering its central claim at the advertised confidence. The event itself is worth reporting, but the quantitative conclusions need substantial tightening.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5, Table 1, Fig. 8] The text states that the ICME meets STA at 22/21:20 UT and WIND at 23/07:30 UT and that 'A time difference of 21 hours is clearly evident.' The listed times differ by 10 h 10 min. The 21 h value is repeated in the abstract and is used to support the co-rotation estimate (14.5°/day × 12° ≈ 20 h). If the actual delay is ~10 h, the co-rotation argument and the arrival-time consistency story need to be revised. Please correct the numbers and recompute or remove the solar-rotation attribution.
  2. [§2, Table 1, Fig. 1 caption] The WIND MC interval is not uniquely defined: Table 1 and §2 give 23/18:00–24/07:30 UT, while the Fig. 1 caption says 23/18:00–24/17:30 UT. The WIND expansion speed is quoted as 25 km/s in §2 but as 40 km/s in Table 1 and 41.0 km/s in §5. Since the MC interval determines mean B, radial size, and expansion speed, these inconsistencies must be resolved before the WIND-based power-law results can be assessed.
  3. [§5, power-law fits] The exponents B_peak ∝ R_H^−2.1 (SolO–STA) and R_H^−1.7 (SolO–WIND), and B_av ∝ R_H^−1.97 and R_H^−1.53, are each based on two measurements only, with no error bars and no propagation of the hand-selected MC boundary choices. Given the uncertain WIND interval noted above, the differences between exponents may reflect interval selection rather than physical decay. Please provide uncertainties and a sensitivity test to boundary choices, and explicitly state the two-point limitation, or downgrade these scalings to qualitative.
  4. [§5, same-ICME premise] The paper states (Sec. 5) that comparable component variations indicate 'the same ICME structure' passed the three spacecraft. However, the MC type is ESW at SolO/STA but SWN at WIND, the Bz behavior is opposite at STA versus WIND, and the MVA axis orientations differ by tens of degrees. These differences could arise from different impact parameters or from sampling separate/inhomogeneous ejecta. Since the radial-size growth, expansion-speed decrease, B decay, and axis rotation are all interpreted as evolution of a single flux rope, the same-structure assumption is load-bearing. The paper should validate it explicitly (e.g., MVA eigenvector ratios, cross-correlation of field components, or a heliospheric propagation comparison) or reframe the multi-spacecraft comparison as sampling different regions of a structured ICME rather than as radial evolution of one coherent MC.
  5. [§3, §6] The causal linkage between the 19 March stealth CME and the storm driver is inferred from timing and morphological consistency, with no low-coronal eruption clearly observed and the authors explicitly 'speculate' about the reconnection process in Sec. 3. This is acceptable for a stealth-CME case study, but the wording in the abstract ('identified as the cause') is stronger than the evidence supports. A quantitative comparison of the in situ flux-rope orientation/helicity with the filament-channel orientation would materially strengthen the connection; otherwise the causal language should be tempered.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract uses 'SYM-H' with an odd rendering ('SY M− H') and mixes Dst (−163 nT) with SYM-H (−169/−170 nT) without defining the relation. Please state that Dst and SYM-H are used as complementary indices.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption describes 'purple dashed vertical line' for ICME arrival and 'blue vertical lines' for MC interval, while the corresponding text in Sec. 2 says the MC interval is 23/18:00 to 24/07:30; the caption's end time of 24/17:30 appears to be a typo. Check all such visual references.
  3. [§5] The approximation of RTN to GSE components (Bx → −BR, By → −BT, Bz → BN) is potentially confusing and can affect derived angles. Please state the coordinate transformation more rigorously or use the native RTN angles where appropriate.
  4. [§3] The GCS fit parameters (latitude −37°, tilt −80°, height 7.5 R⊙) are presented without uncertainties or a description of how unique the fit is. Since the stealth CME is faint, a short note on fit sensitivity would be useful.
  5. [References] The references for Bothmer & Schwenn 1998a and 1998b are identical; please verify the distinct bibliographic entries. Also fix the 'CDA W CME catalog' typo in Sec. 3.
  6. [§5] The definition of Vexp is given as Vleading − vtrailing, but the text then says a linear fit to velocity is used and the slope is taken as Vexp. Please clarify which method is used; the factor of 2 between these definitions matters for the expansion-speed comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's conclusions are observational fits and consistency checks, not outputs of fitted inputs; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the solar-source identification (Sec. 3) rests on EUV/coronagraph signatures, GCS fitting, and an independent external study (Teng et al. 2024); heliospheric kinematics (Sec. 4) come from J-map height-time fits to white-light observations; in situ ICME characterization (Secs. 2 and 5) uses standard MVA and linear fits to measured plasma/magnetic-field time series; the radial scaling laws (B_peak ∝ R_H^-2.1 and B_av ∝ R_H^-1.97 / R_H^-1.53) are two-point power-law descriptions of measured peak/mean magnetic fields rather than predictions forced by fitted constants; and the storm-driver attribution (Sec. 6, Fig. 10) is benchmarked against published empirical Dst models (Burton, O'Brien-McPherron, Wang), not fit to the event. The self-citations (e.g., Vemareddy et al. 2012, 2017, 2022; Vemareddy 2024) appear only as background or a minor empirical remark and do not carry the central claim. The premise that SolO, STA, and WIND encountered the same ICME is an inference from comparable field-component variability; even if that premise is fragile, it is a validity/robustness risk, not a circular reduction. The paper's internal inconsistencies—such as the quoted '21-hour' STA-WIND delay versus the listed times implying ~10 h, and the differing WIND MC intervals in Table 1 versus Figure 1—are arithmetic or consistency errors, not demonstrations that a conclusion is equivalent to its input. No circular step is established.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central numbers derive from hand-selected MC intervals and two-point fits, which are the main free parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • MC interval boundaries = SolO 21/13:30-19:30 UT, STA 23/02:30-17:00 UT, WIND 23/18:00-24/07:30 UT
    Velocities, radial sizes, expansion speeds, mean field strengths and power-law exponents all depend on these visually selected boundaries.
  • GCS model parameters = lat -37 deg, tilt -80 deg, height 7.5 R_sun at 23:00 UT on Mar 19
    Chosen to match white-light morphology; supports CME halo identification but not the in-situ storm connection.
  • Magnetic field decay exponents = -1.97 (SolO-STA), -1.53 (SolO-WIND)
    Computed from two-point fits; treated as results, but they are fitted slopes with no error bars.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption MVA eigenvector for intermediate variance gives MC axis orientation.
    Standard technique; invoked in Sec. 5.
  • domain assumption The same ICME flux rope is encountered at SolO, STA and WIND.
    Needed for interpreting cross-spacecraft differences as radial evolution; argued from similar field/plasma signatures, but not independently proven.
  • domain assumption Empirical Dst models (Burton, O'Brien/McPherron, Wang) are valid predictors of SYM-H from solar wind parameters.
    Used in Sec. 6/Fig. 10 to support the role of density enhancement.
  • domain assumption Solar wind drag accelerates slow CMEs.
    Invoked in Sec. 4 to interpret observed acceleration.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15321 in / 9914 out tokens · 96774 ms · 2026-08-04T18:10:20.754221+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An intense geomagnetic storm originated from stealth Coronal Mass Ejection: remote and $in situ$ observations by near radially aligned spacecraft." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZROW7VN

@misc{pith2026250910090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An intense geomagnetic storm originated from stealth Coronal Mass Ejection: remote and $in situ$ observations by near radially aligned spacecraft},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZROW7VN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10090}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We investigate the solar origin and heliospheric evolution of an intense geomagnetic storm that occurred on March 23-24, 2023. Despite multiple candidate CMEs observed between March 19-21, a weak CME detected on March 19 at 18:00 UT was identified as the cause, originating from the eruption of a longitudinal-filament channel near center of the sun. The channel underwent a smooth transition to eruption phase without detectable low coronal signatures. Wide-angle heliospheric imaging revealed asymmetric expansion and acceleration by solar wind drag, achieving an average CME velocity of $\approx$640 km/s. The radial evolution of the interplanetary coronal mass ejection (ICME) was analyzed by three spacecraft in close radial alignment. Arrival times and propagation speeds were consistent across spacecraft, with a 21 hour delay between STEREO-A and WIND attributed to solar rotation and longitudinal separation. The ICME exhibits magnetic cloud (MC) signatures characterized by right-handed helicity, enhanced density at all three spacecraft. The MC underwent expansion (radial-size increases from 0.08AU at SolO to 0.18AU at STEREO-A), decrease in magnetic field strength with distance; $B_{av}\propto R_H^{-1.97}$ (SolO-STA) and $B_{av}\propto R_H^{-1.53}$ (SolO-WIND). The MC axis is inclined with the ecliptic at $-69^o$ at SolO, $-25^o$ at STA and $-34^o$ at WIND, indicating rotation during heliospheric transit. Importantly, the storm's main phase leads to a peak intensity ($SYM-H=-169$nT) occurring at 24/02:40UT followed by a second peak ($SYM-H=-170$nT) at 24/05:20UT due to density enhancement towards MC's tail. The study emphasizes the significant geoeffectiveness of weak, stealth CMEs with southward Bz and density enhancements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10090 by K. Selva Bharathi, P. Vemareddy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An intense geomagnetic storm during March 23-24, 2023 and the in situ observations (a) The Bz and BT ot components of the magnetic field observed by WIND spacecraft. (b) The velocity and the proton density of the ICME. The purple dashed vertical line indicates the ICME arrival time (23/07:30 UT), and the blue vertical lines represent the MC interval (23/18:00 - 24/17:30 UT). (c) The proton density and prot… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The locations of the different spacecraft on 21 March 2023 00:00 UT used in the study. SO (pink) is the Solar Orbiter in its flyby orbit. A (red) and B (blue) refer to STEREO-A and STEREO-B. PSP (orange) near the sun is the Parker Solar Probe in its orbit with the Earth (green) at 1 AU distance from the sun. And the sun (yellow) at [0,0] coordinates. ton density, proton β and temperature compared to its pr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Running difference images of coronagraph observations from SOHO/LASCO and STA/COR2. The southern part of the CME from the eruption of the longitudinal filament channel is visible with a bright LE and the core. GCS fit (green wired ) to the CME morphology is overlaid. in LASCO/C2. Before subtraction, the images are cor￾rected for solar rotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Source region observations of the CME (a) Image of the sun at 19/15:30 UT in AIA 193 ˚A channel. Rectangular box encapsulates the source region containing a long trans-equatorial filament channel and a separate S-shaped filament that are being erupted at a later time. b) Sun in AIA 211 ˚A wavelength. The coronal hole, along with the filaments, is referred with the arrows. c) HMI magnetogram showing the mag… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CME propagation from the low corona into the heliosphere. Panels show the combined images prepared from running difference images of STA/COR2, STA/HI1, and STA/HI2. The yellow dotted arrows point to the CME’s leading edge at different epochs during March 20-21. White-dashed arrow indicates slit position to construct J-map. Due to the low separation angle (12o ) of STA with the sun-earth line, these images … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) The time-elongation map (J-map). The blue-dotted curve along the bright streak represent traces of the CME trajectory. (b) The height-time plot derived from the J-map. The “+” symbols are the plotted points from the J-map. The dotted curve is the second-order polynomial fit. The vertical dotted lines refer to in situ arrival ICME at SolO (21/09:20UT), STA (22/21:20 UT), and WIND (23/07:30 UT), respecti… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Magnetic and plasma measurements at the SolO situated at a radial distance of 0.5 AU and the STA located at 0.966 AU from the Sun. The panels show, from top to bottom, the total magnetic field; the X, Y, Z, components of the magnetic field in GSE coordinates; the longitude and latitude of the magnetic field angle; the proton density, and β; and the temperature and velocity. The orange vertical dashed line … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of solar wind measurements at STA (blue) and WIND (red). The MC interval is marked with vertical dotted lines. a significant resemblance between the Bx component and the other magnetic field components observed by both spacecraft. In STA, the Bz component becomes more negative from the leading to trailing edge, while in WIND measurements exhibit an opposite behavior, possibly due to the spacecra… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The solar wind velocity during the MC inter￾val was observed at three different heliocentric distances by SolO, STA, and WIND spacecraft. The red straight line is a linear fit, and the derived expansion speeds are annotated in each panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Solar wind dynamic pressure (top), electric field (middle), and observed Dst index (bottom) as a function of time. Estimated Dst index with the models by R. K. Burton et al. (1975), T. P. O’Brien & R. L. McPherron (2000) and C. B. Wang et al. (2003) are overplotted. sity of SYM-H=-169 nT occurring at 24/02:40 UT. The role of density enhancement is clearly indicated by the second peak of SYM-H=-170 nT at 2… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 103

    Alzate, N., & Morgan, H. 2017, ApJ, 840, 103

    2017

  2. [2]

    Roldugin, A. V. 2024, Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Physics, 88, 359, doi: 10.1134/S1062873823705524

    work page doi:10.1134/s1062873823705524 2024

  3. [3]

    K., Chakrabarty, D., Janardhan, P., et al

    Bisoi, S. K., Chakrabarty, D., Janardhan, P., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 3882, doi: 10.1002/2015JA022185

    work page doi:10.1002/2015ja022185 2016

  4. [5]

    1998b, Annales Geophysicae, 16, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x

    Bothmer, V., & Schwenn, R. 1998b, Annales Geophysicae, 16, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x

    doi:10.1007/s00585-997-0001-x

  5. [6]

    E., Howard, R

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

    doi:10.1007/bf00733434 1995

  6. [7]

    K., McPherron, R

    Burton, R. K., McPherron, R. L., & Russell, C. T. 1975, J. Geophys. Res., 80, 4204, doi: 10.1029/JA080i031p04204

    doi:10.1029/ja080i031p04204 1975

  7. [8]

    C., Hudson, H

    Canfield, R. C., Hudson, H. S., & McKenzie, D. E. 1999, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 627, doi: 10.1029/1999GL900105

    doi:10.1029/1999gl900105 1999

  8. [9]

    Cargill, P. J. 2004, SoPh, 221, 135, doi: 10.1023/B:SOLA.0000033366.10725.a2

    arXiv 2004

  9. [10]

    D., et al

    Cheng, X., Zhang, J., Ding, M. D., et al. 2013, ApJL, 769, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/769/2/L25

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/769/2/l25 2013

  10. [11]

    E., Forsyth, R

    Davies, E. E., Forsyth, R. J., Good, S. W., & Kilpua, E. K. J. 2020, SoPh, 295, 157, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01714-z

    doi:10.1007/s11207-020-01714-z 2020

  11. [12]

    E., M¨ ostl, C., Owens, M

    Davies, E. E., M¨ ostl, C., Owens, M. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040113

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040113 2021

  12. [13]

    R., & Luhmann, J

    Fenrich, F. R., & Luhmann, J. G. 1998, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2999, doi: 10.1029/98GL51180

    work page doi:10.1029/98gl51180 1998

  13. [14]

    B., Kistler, L

    Galvin, A. B., Kistler, L. M., Popecki, M. A., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 437, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9296-x

    doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9296-x 2008

  14. [15]

    1983, in NASA Conference Publication, Vol

    Goldstein, H. 1983, in NASA Conference Publication, Vol. 228, NASA Conference Publication, ed. M. Neugebauer, 0.731

    1983

  15. [16]

    1994, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 99, 5771, doi: 10.1029/93JA02867

    Gonzalez, Joselyn, J.-A., Kamide, Y., et al. 1994, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 99, 5771, doi: 10.1029/93JA02867

    doi:10.1029/93ja02867 1994

  16. [17]

    D., Tsurutani, B

    Gonzalez, W. D., Tsurutani, B. T., & Cl´ ua de Gonzalez, A. L. 1999, Space Science Reviews, 88, 529

    1999

  17. [18]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, Vol

    Gopalswamy, N. 2011, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, Vol. 2, Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, 241–258

    2011

  18. [19]

    2003, ApJ, 586, 562, doi: 10.1086/367614

    Gopalswamy, N., Shimojo, M., Lu, W., et al. 2003, ApJ, 586, 562, doi: 10.1086/367614

    work page doi:10.1086/367614 2003

  19. [20]

    2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 127, e30404, doi: 10.1029/2022JA030404

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Akiyama, S., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 127, e30404, doi: 10.1029/2022JA030404

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ja030404 2022

  20. [21]

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Krucker, S., & Howard, R. A. 2005, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 226, Coronal and Stellar Mass Ejections, ed. K. Dere, J. Wang, & Y. Yan, 367–373, doi: 10.1017/S1743921305000876

    work page doi:10.1017/s1743921305000876 2005

  21. [22]

    T., McComas, D

    Gosling, J. T., McComas, D. J., Phillips, J. L., & Bame, S. J. 1991, J. Geophys. Res., 96, 7831, doi: 10.1029/91JA00316

    work page doi:10.1029/91ja00316 1991

  22. [23]

    S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al

    Horbury, T. S., O’Brien, H., Carrasco Blazquez, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937257

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937257 2020

  23. [24]

    Koomen, M. J. 1982, ApJL, 263, L101, doi: 10.1086/183932

    doi:10.1086/183932 1982

  24. [25]

    L., Kucera, T

    Kaiser, M. L., Kucera, T. A., Davila, J. M., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 5, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0

    doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9277-0 2008

  25. [26]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., & et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 17, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8

    doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9776-8 2012

  26. [27]

    P., Ac˜ una, M

    Lepping, R. P., Ac˜ una, M. H., Burlaga, L. F., et al. 1995, SSRv, 71, 207, doi: 10.1007/BF00751330

    doi:10.1007/bf00751330 1995

  27. [28]

    M., Zhuang, B., et al

    Lugaz, N., Salman, T. M., Zhuang, B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac602f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac602f 2022

  28. [29]

    G., Curtis, D

    Luhmann, J. G., Curtis, D. W., Schroeder, P., et al. 2008, SSRv, 136, 117, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9170-x M¨ ostl, C., Weiss, A. J., Reiss, M. A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 924, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac42d0

    doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9170-x 2008

  29. [30]

    T., & Luhmann, J

    Mulligan, T., Russell, C. T., & Luhmann, J. G. 1998, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2959, doi: 10.1029/98GL01302

    doi:10.1029/98gl01302 1998

  30. [31]

    V., & Mulligan, T

    Nitta, N. V., & Mulligan, T. 2017, SoPh, 292, 125, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1147-7 16 Vemareddy and Selva Bharathi

    doi:10.1007/s11207-017-1147-7 2017

  31. [32]

    V., Mulligan, T., Kilpua, E

    Nitta, N. V., Mulligan, T., Kilpua, E. K. J., et al. 2021, SSRv, 217, 82, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00857-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00857-0 2021

  32. [33]

    2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 129, e2023JA032145, doi: 10.1029/2023JA032145 O’Brien, T

    Nykiel, G., Ferreira, A., G¨ unzkofer, F., et al. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 129, e2023JA032145, doi: 10.1029/2023JA032145 O’Brien, T. P., & McPherron, R. L. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 7707, doi: 10.1029/1998JA000437

    work page doi:10.1029/2023ja032145 2024

  33. [34]

    W., Chornay, D

    Ogilvie, K. W., Chornay, D. J., Fritzenreiter, R. J., et al. 1995, SSRv, 71, 55, doi: 10.1007/BF00751326 O’Kane, J., Green, L. M., Davies, E. E., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140622

    doi:10.1007/bf00751326 1995

  34. [35]

    J., Skelton, A., Horne, R

    Oughton, E. J., Skelton, A., Horne, R. B., Thomson, A. W. P., & Gaunt, C. T. 2017, Space Weather, 15, 65, doi: 10.1002/2016SW001491

    doi:10.1002/2016sw001491 2017

  35. [36]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, SoPh, 275, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3

    doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3 2012

  36. [37]

    A., Panasenco, O., & Martin, S

    Pevtsov, A. A., Panasenco, O., & Martin, S. F. 2012, Solar Flare Magnetic Fields and Plasmas, 185

    2012

  37. [38]

    G., & Cane, H

    Richardson, I. G., & Cane, H. V. 2010, SoPh, 264, 189, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9568-6

    doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9568-6 2010

  38. [39]

    2009, ApJ, 701, 283, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/283

    Robbrecht, E., Patsourakos, S., & Vourlidas, A. 2009, ApJ, 701, 283, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/283

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/1/283 2009

  39. [40]

    Sonnerup, B. U. O., & Cahill, Jr., L. J. 1967, J. Geophys. Res., 72, 171, doi: 10.1029/JZ072i001p00171

    doi:10.1029/jz072i001p00171 1967

  40. [41]

    2024, Nature Communications, 15, 9198, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53538-1

    Teng, W., Su, Y., Ji, H., & Zhang, Q. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 9198, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53538-1

    doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53538-1 2024

  41. [42]

    Thernisien, A., Vourlidas, A., & Howard, R. A. 2009, SoPh, 256, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11207-009-9346-5

    doi:10.1007/s11207-009-9346-5 2009

  42. [43]

    Doddamani, V. H. 2019, ApJ, 874, 182, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0a06

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0a06 2019

  43. [44]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 199

    Vemareddy, P. 2024, ApJ, 961, 199

    2024

  44. [45]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4dfe

    Vemareddy, P., D´ emoulin, P., Sasikumar Raja, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4dfe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4dfe 2022

  45. [46]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9020

    Vemareddy, P., Gopalswamy, N., & Ravindra, B. 2017, ApJ, 850, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9020

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9020 2017

  46. [47]

    Vemareddy, P., & Ibrahim, M. S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 1774

    2024

  47. [48]

    A., & Ambastha, A

    Vemareddy, P., Maurya, R. A., & Ambastha, A. 2012, SoPh, 277, 337, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9903-6

    doi:10.1007/s11207-011-9903-6 2012

  48. [49]

    2014, ApJ, 797, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/80

    Vemareddy, P., & Zhang, J. 2014, ApJ, 797, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/80

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/80 2014

  49. [50]

    B., Chao, J

    Wang, C. B., Chao, J. K., & Lin, C. H. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 1341, doi: 10.1029/2003JA009851

    work page doi:10.1029/2003ja009851 2003

  50. [51]

    F., & Hundhausen, A

    Webb, D. F., & Hundhausen, A. J. 1987, SoPh, 108, 383, doi: 10.1007/BF00214170

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00214170 1987

  51. [52]

    Yashiro, S., Gopalswamy, N., Michalek, G., St. Cyr, O. C., & et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, 7105, doi: 10.1029/2003JA010282

    doi:10.1029/2003ja010282 2004

  52. [53]

    G., Webb, D

    Zhang, J., Richardson, I. G., Webb, D. F., et al. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A10102, doi: 10.1029/2007JA012321

    doi:10.1029/2007ja012321 2007