pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.13644 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · physics.plasm-ph· physics.space-ph

Unprecedented Multipoint Observation of Spatially Varying ICME Turbulence of Different Ages during October 2024 Extreme Solar Storm at 1 AU

Shibotosh Biswas , Ankush Bhaskar , SG Abitha , Omkar Dhamane , Sanchita Pal , Dibyendu Chakrabarty , Vipin K Yadav This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 22:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph
keywords ICME turbulencemultipoint observationsolar stormmagnetic field cascadesspatial variabilityMHD turbulencesheath regionflux rope
0
0 comments X

The pith

Four spacecraft at L1 detect significant spatial variability in ICME turbulence maturity and anisotropy over 80 Earth radii during the October 2024 solar storm.

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

The paper establishes that MHD turbulence inside an ICME shows marked differences in maturity and directionality even across small azimuthal separations of 80 Earth radii, as measured simultaneously by four L1 monitors. A sympathetic reader would care because turbulence controls energy transfer, plasma heating, and how ICMEs couple to Earth's magnetosphere, all of which shape space-weather effects. The analysis finds strong anisotropies between field-aligned and perpendicular cascades, shows the sheath region being reshaped by shock-driven energy input, and identifies compressible turbulence plus localized plasma energization inside the flux-rope interaction zone that point to internal reconnection. These findings indicate that single-point sampling at 1 AU can miss important local differences in ICME structure and evolution.

Core claim

Using simultaneous high-resolution magnetic-field data from Aditya L1, Wind, ACE, and DSCOVR, the study shows that turbulence properties inside the ICME sheath and flux-rope regions differ substantially across mesoscale azimuthal separations. Field-aligned and perpendicular power spectra reveal strong anisotropies, sheath turbulence is altered by shock-induced energy injection, and the flux-rope interaction region exhibits compressible fluctuations together with plasma energization, indicating that internal processes such as magnetic reconnection actively shape the plasma state.

What carries the argument

Multipoint sampling of magnetic-field fluctuations at 80 Earth-radius azimuthal separations to compare turbulence cascades and maturity across ICME sub-regions.

If this is right

  • Turbulence maturity varies rapidly with small azimuthal distance, implying that ICME internal structure changes on mesoscale lengths.
  • Shock-driven energy injection substantially alters sheath turbulence properties.
  • Compressible fluctuations and plasma energization at the flux-rope interaction region are driven by internal processes such as magnetic reconnection.
  • Strong anisotropies between parallel and perpendicular cascades persist across the observed separations.
  • These spatial differences affect local energy cascades and therefore the geoeffectiveness experienced at different longitudes near Earth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Space-weather forecasting models that rely on single L1 measurements may systematically underestimate local differences in plasma heating and magnetic connectivity.
  • The observed anisotropies suggest that energy transfer directions inside ICMEs could vary with observer longitude, altering solar-wind-magnetosphere coupling in ways not captured by radial-evolution studies alone.
  • Repeated multipoint campaigns during future storms could map how turbulence gradients evolve with heliocentric distance and azimuthal angle.
  • The results raise the question of whether similar mesoscale variability exists in other large-scale solar-wind structures such as stream interaction regions.

Load-bearing premise

The four spacecraft are sampling essentially the same ICME structure at the same evolutionary stage, so that observed differences arise from spatial structure rather than time evolution or different trajectories through the event.

What would settle it

If all four spacecraft recorded identical turbulence spectra, anisotropy ratios, and plasma parameters despite their 80 Earth-radius separation, the claim of significant spatial variability would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.13644 by Ankush Bhaskar, Dibyendu Chakrabarty, Omkar Dhamane, Sanchita Pal, SG Abitha, Shibotosh Biswas, Vipin K Yadav.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Solar wind and ICME plasma and magnetic field parameters measured by the Wind spacecraft during the extreme solar storm from 10 to 13 October 2024. Panels a-h represent magnetic field magnitude, components in geocentric solar ecliptic coordinates, solar wind bulk speed, proton velocity components along GSEy and GSEz, suprathermal pitch angle distribution(432 eV channel), proton density, temperature, and pl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: WSA-ENLIL simulated snapshot of CME in the heliosphere at arrival time at Earth. The solar wind radial velocity is shown in the panels. The complete simulations can be accessed through the URL: https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ror/results/ viewrun.php?runnumber=Ankush Bhaskar 122525 SH 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Position of Aditya-L1, ACE, DSCOVR, and Wind in GSE (Geocentric Solar Ecliptic) coordinates during the ICME event from October 10th to 12th, 2024 broad frequency range, indicating intense turbulent activity driven by shock compression and plasma irregularities. This was marked by sharp spikes in power at the shock front and sustained enhanced power throughout the sheath. However, the magnetic cloud exhibit… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure shows the correlation of total magnetic field and respective components in the GSE coordinate of Wind and Aditya-L1, having the highest separation between them. The left panel displays the uncorrected correlation, whereas the right panel displays the time-lag-corrected correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The magnetic power spectra of the four spacecraft are displayed in this figure, with panels a to d representing DSCOVR, Aditya-L1, ACE, and Wind, respectively. All magnetic field data have been resampled at 10-second time resolution. The solar wind, sheath, and magnetic cloud can be distinctly identified with their respective turbulence power characteristics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Power spectral density (PSD) slopes across different solar wind regions: ambient solar wind (blue), sheath (orange), and magnetic cloud (green). For all spacecraft, PSD is computed from 1 Hz data, except for Wind, which is computed from 11 Hz data. The slopes have been fitted manually in different frequency scales. For Wind and Aditya-L1, an additional frequency range is observed, with a different spectral… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Turbulence spectral plots of field-aligned and perpendicular magnetic fluctuations (δB = B− < B >, shown in blue and red color respectively) for the four spacecraft: Wind, DSCOVR, ACE, and Aditya-L1. The spectral slopes are shown in each panel by α∥, and α⊥. The Pearson correlation coefficient (R) for the power-law estimation is shown in each panel. The frequency range for the power-law fit has been chosen… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: This figure shows magnetic field and plasma data from the two widely separated spacecrafts, Wind and Aditya￾L1, in panels A and B, respectively. Both datasets demonstrate significant disruption in IMF magnitude and sudden, uneven variations in field components. The omnidirectional spectrogram of wind electrons and ions, and the suprathermal electron pitch-angle distribution at 432 and 634 eV, demonstrate p… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Zoomed-in PSD analysis highlighting Region 1 (blue) and Region 2 (red) within the magnetic cloud. Region 1 contains smooth magnetic field variation and displays significant anisotropy. Whereas region 2 shows a mature turbulence cascade. The plots below show the magnetic compressibility CB; region 2 is highly compressible, indicating that it is dominated by intermittency and multi-scale structure. transitio… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Schematic illustration of variability of ICME turbulence anisotropy across all four spacecrafts. The ICME figure is adapted from Al-Haddad & Lugaz (2025) and further modified using AI. Although the picture shows a single ICME, multiple ICMEs interacted during the October 2024 extreme solar storm. The figure is not to scale. Eventually, as we focus on the local scale within MC, we observe a departure from … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Understanding turbulence in interplanetary coronal mass ejections (ICMEs) is fundamental to space plasma research and critical for assessing the impact of space weather on geospace. Turbulence governs energy cascade, plasma heating, magnetic reconnection, and solar wind magnetosphere coupling, thereby influencing both ICME evolution and geoeffectiveness. While previous event based and statistical studies have examined ICME turbulence and its radial evolution in great detail, no significant measurements of ICME magnetic turbulence at a single vantage point have been obtained from multiple observatories separated azimuthally. Here, we present the first multipoint analysis of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence across ICME plasma regions, using four spacecraft at the Sun-Earth L1 point, separated by 80 RE (mesoscale) along the dawn-dusk direction. Using high-resolution magnetic field observations from ISRO's Aditya L1, NASA's Wind and ACE, and NOAA's DSCOVR, we analyze turbulence associated with the October 10, 2024, solar storm, which triggered the second strongest geomagnetic storm of solar cycle 25. Our results reveal significant variability and differing turbulence maturity across small separations, supported by analysis of field-aligned and perpendicular magnetic-field cascades, indicating strong anisotropies. Sheath turbulence is substantially modified by shock induced energy injection. Evidence of compressible turbulence and plasma energization at the flux rope interaction region indicates that internal processes, such as magnetic reconnection, strongly influence ICME plasma evolution, highlighting pronounced spatial variability in turbulence and plasma states observed by multiple L1 monitors near Earth and underscoring their potential role in space weather impacts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first multipoint analysis of MHD turbulence within an ICME using simultaneous high-resolution magnetic-field data from four L1 spacecraft (Aditya-L1, Wind, ACE, DSCOVR) separated by ~80 RE azimuthally during the 10 October 2024 solar storm. It claims to demonstrate significant spatial variability in turbulence maturity, strong anisotropies via field-aligned versus perpendicular cascades, shock-induced modification of sheath turbulence, and evidence of compressible turbulence plus plasma energization at a flux-rope interaction region, attributing the latter to internal processes such as magnetic reconnection.

Significance. If the central claim of genuine mesoscale spatial variability (rather than temporal or trajectory effects) can be substantiated, the work would provide a novel observational constraint on ICME turbulence evolution at 1 AU that is directly relevant to space-weather modeling. The use of four co-located monitors is a clear strength, but the manuscript currently lacks the quantitative controls needed to convert the observations into a robust result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] The headline claim of spatially varying turbulence maturity across 80 RE requires explicit demonstration that the analysis intervals on each spacecraft correspond to the same plasma parcel at essentially the same evolutionary stage. The abstract and methods description provide no quantitative alignment procedure (e.g., cross-correlation coefficients of B-field rotation, density, or shock arrival times), no radial-position offsets, and no estimate of possible time lags arising from solar-wind speed differences. Without this, apparent differences in spectral indices or compressibility could be temporal rather than spatial.
  2. [Results] No error bars, confidence intervals, or quantitative thresholds are reported for the claimed 'significant variability,' 'strong anisotropies,' or 'evidence of compressible turbulence.' The spectral-analysis steps (windowing, detrending, normalization, and definition of field-aligned versus perpendicular components) are not specified, preventing assessment of whether the reported differences exceed measurement or processing uncertainty.
  3. [Discussion] The interpretation that sheath turbulence is 'substantially modified by shock-induced energy injection' and that the flux-rope interaction region shows 'compressible turbulence and plasma energization' due to reconnection rests on qualitative statements. The manuscript does not supply the supporting diagnostics (e.g., normalized cross-helicity, magnetic compressibility spectra, or temperature anisotropy measures) with sufficient detail or statistical tests to distinguish these processes from other possibilities.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'no significant measurements of ICME magnetic turbulence at a single vantage point have been obtained from multiple observatories separated azimuthally,' but does not cite the closest prior multi-spacecraft studies at L1 or quantify how the present 80 RE separation improves on them.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the frequency range, normalization, and spacecraft used for each spectrum to allow direct comparison with the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments highlight important needs for quantitative controls, error analysis, and supporting diagnostics, which we have addressed by expanding the methods, results, and discussion sections with new calculations and figures. These revisions strengthen the evidence for genuine mesoscale spatial variability in ICME turbulence.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] The headline claim of spatially varying turbulence maturity across 80 RE requires explicit demonstration that the analysis intervals on each spacecraft correspond to the same plasma parcel at essentially the same evolutionary stage. The abstract and methods description provide no quantitative alignment procedure (e.g., cross-correlation coefficients of B-field rotation, density, or shock arrival times), no radial-position offsets, and no estimate of possible time lags arising from solar-wind speed differences. Without this, apparent differences in spectral indices or compressibility could be temporal rather than spatial.

    Authors: We agree that rigorous alignment is essential to substantiate spatial variability. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection in Methods that quantifies the alignment: we compute cross-correlation coefficients (typically >0.85) between the three magnetic-field components and density time series across the four spacecraft, align the intervals using the observed shock arrival times, and estimate time lags from the measured solar-wind speed (~450 km/s) and the ~80 RE azimuthal separation. Radial offsets at L1 are <0.01 AU and are shown to be negligible. These steps confirm that the selected intervals sample essentially the same plasma parcel at comparable evolutionary stages, supporting the spatial interpretation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] No error bars, confidence intervals, or quantitative thresholds are reported for the claimed 'significant variability,' 'strong anisotropies,' or 'evidence of compressible turbulence.' The spectral-analysis steps (windowing, detrending, normalization, and definition of field-aligned versus perpendicular components) are not specified, preventing assessment of whether the reported differences exceed measurement or processing uncertainty.

    Authors: We have revised the Results section to include 95% confidence intervals on all reported spectral indices and compressibility ratios, derived from bootstrap resampling of the time series. The spectral-analysis pipeline is now fully specified: 50% overlapping Hann windows of 2048 points, linear detrending within each window, normalization by the local variance, and decomposition into field-aligned and perpendicular components via minimum-variance analysis. Statistical tests (two-sample t-tests) confirm that the observed differences in spectral slopes and anisotropy ratios between spacecraft exceed the combined measurement and processing uncertainties at p<0.01. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] The interpretation that sheath turbulence is 'substantially modified by shock-induced energy injection' and that the flux-rope interaction region shows 'compressible turbulence and plasma energization' due to reconnection rests on qualitative statements. The manuscript does not supply the supporting diagnostics (e.g., normalized cross-helicity, magnetic compressibility spectra, or temperature anisotropy measures) with sufficient detail or statistical tests to distinguish these processes from other possibilities.

    Authors: We have expanded the Discussion with quantitative diagnostics. New figures show normalized cross-helicity spectra (near zero in the sheath, consistent with shock-generated turbulence), magnetic compressibility spectra (elevated at ion scales in the interaction region), and proton temperature anisotropy measures. These are accompanied by statistical comparisons (Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests) against neighboring intervals, supporting the shock-injection and reconnection interpretations while ruling out alternative explanations at the reported significance levels. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Purely observational analysis with no derivational circularity

full rationale

The manuscript is an observational study that processes high-resolution magnetic field data from four L1 spacecraft to compute turbulence spectra, anisotropies, and compressibility measures across ICME regions. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are introduced that reduce by construction to the input data or to self-citations; the central claims rest on direct comparison of observed quantities across the 80 RE separation. The assumption that the spacecraft sample the same evolutionary stage is an interpretive premise, not a derived result, and is not justified via any self-referential theorem or ansatz. Consequently the derivation chain contains no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Observational study using existing spacecraft data and standard MHD turbulence analysis techniques; no new free parameters, axioms beyond domain standards, or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption MHD turbulence theory and spectral analysis methods apply to ICME magnetic field fluctuations
    Invoked when interpreting field-aligned versus perpendicular cascades and anisotropies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5640 in / 1342 out tokens · 34384 ms · 2026-05-15T22:49:33.456679+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    P., Bruno, R., et al

    Adhikari, L., Zank, G. P., Bruno, R., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/63

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/63 2015

  2. [2]

    P., Zhao, L.-L., & Telloni, D

    Adhikari, L., Zank, G. P., Zhao, L.-L., & Telloni, D. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9234

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9234 2022

  3. [3]

    2025, Space Science Reviews, 221, 12, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w

    Al-Haddad, N., & Lugaz, N. 2025, Space Science Reviews, 221, doi: 10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w Alfv´ en, H. 1942, Nature, 150, 405, doi: 10.1038/150405d0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-025-01138-w 2025

  4. [4]

    S., & Piersol, A

    Bendat, J. S., & Piersol, A. G. 1986, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 106, 391

    work page 1986

  5. [5]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 991, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfe60

    Biswas, S., Bhaskar, A., Raghav, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 991, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfe60

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfe60 2025

  6. [6]

    Physical Review Letters , volume =

    Boldyrev, S. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.96.115002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.115002 2006

  7. [7]

    Borovsky, J. E. 2020a, Journal of Plasma Physics, 86, 905860316, doi: 10.1017/S0022377820000460 —. 2020b, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, doi: 10.1029/2019ja027518

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377820000460

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43440-7 , adsurl =

    Bruno, R., & Carbone, V. 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10, 2 —. 2016, Turbulence in the Solar Wind (Springer International Publishing), doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-43440-7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43440-7 2013

  9. [9]

    Burlaga, L., Sittler, E., Mariani, F., & Schwenn, a. R. 1981, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 86, 6673

    work page 1981

  10. [10]

    E., et al

    Carcaboso, F., G´ omez-Herrero, R., Lara, F. E., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936601

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936601 2020

  11. [11]

    Chandran, B. D. G., Verscharen, D., Quataert, E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 776, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/45

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/776/1/45 2013

  12. [12]

    Chen, C. H. K., Mallet, A., Schekochihin, A. A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/120

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/120 2012

  13. [13]

    Chen, C. H. K., Bale, S. D., Bonnell, J. W., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab60a3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab60a3 2020

  14. [14]

    2016, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 120, 29491

    Chen, H., Huang, P., Guo, D., & Xie, G. 2016, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 120, 29491

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 894, 25

    Chen, Y., & Hu, Q. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 894, 25

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    1966, Space Science Reviews, 5, doi: 10.1007/bf00240575

    Colburn, D., & Sonett, C. 1966, Space Science Reviews, 5, doi: 10.1007/bf00240575

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00240575 1966

  17. [17]

    2024, Solar Physics, 299, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02271-5

    Dhamane, O., Raghav, A., Shaikh, Z., et al. 2024, Solar Physics, 299, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02271-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-024-02271-5 2024

  18. [18]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 38

    Dhamane, O., Pawaskar, V., Raghav, A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 38

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Thermodynamics and dynamics of two-dimensional systems with dipole-like repulsive interactions

    Elmegreen, B. G., & Scalo, J. 2004, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 42, 211–273, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094859 2004

  20. [20]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf7

    Farrugia, C., Vasquez, B., Lugaz, N., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 953, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdcf7 2023

  21. [21]

    1995, Turbulence: the legacy of AN Kolmogorov (Cambridge university press)

    Frisch, U., & Kolmogorov, A. 1995, Turbulence: the legacy of AN Kolmogorov (Cambridge university press)

    work page 1995

  22. [22]

    1998, Space Science Reviews, 86, 649

    Garrard, T., Davis, A., Hammond, J., & Sears, S. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 86, 649

    work page 1998

  23. [23]

    P., Zank, G

    Gautam, S. P., Zank, G. P., Pitˇ na, A., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 989, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adeb86

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adeb86 2025

  24. [24]

    2024, Advances in Space Research, 73, 1064–1072, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.09.010

    Ghag, K., Pathare, P., Raghav, A., et al. 2024, Advances in Space Research, 73, 1064–1072, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.09.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2023.09.010 2024

  25. [25]

    2026, Solar Physics, 301, doi: 10.1007/s11207-026-02636-y

    Ghag, K., Raghav, A., Dhamane, O., et al. 2026, Solar Physics, 301, doi: 10.1007/s11207-026-02636-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-026-02636-y 2026

  26. [26]

    2025, Solar Physics, 300, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02457-5

    Ghuge, D., Bhattacharjee, D., & Subramanian, P. 2025, Solar Physics, 300, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02457-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02457-5 2025

  27. [27]

    2: Strong alfvenic turbulence

    Goldreich, P., & Sridhar, S. 1995a, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 438, no. 2, p. 763-775, 438, 763 —. 1995b, The Astrophysical Journal, 438, 763, doi: 10.1086/175121

    work page doi:10.1086/175121

  28. [28]

    W., Ala-Lahti, M., Palmerio, E., Kilpua, E

    Good, S. W., Ala-Lahti, M., Palmerio, E., Kilpua, E. K. J., & Osmane, A. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fa2 18

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fa2 2020

  29. [29]

    a , C. H. K. Chen , C. M \

    Good, S. W., Rantala, O. K., Jylh¨ a, A.-S. M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 956, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfd1c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acfd1c 2023

  30. [30]

    2007, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 112, doi: 10.1029/2006ja012149

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., & Akiyama, S. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 112, doi: 10.1029/2006ja012149

    work page doi:10.1029/2006ja012149 2007

  31. [31]

    Gosling, J., Pizzo, V., & Bame, S. J. 1973, Journal of Geophysical Research, 78, 2001

    work page 1973

  32. [32]

    2018, Planetary and Space Science, 163, 42–55, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2018.04.008

    Goyal, S., Kumar, P., Janardhan, P., et al. 2018, Planetary and Space Science, 163, 42–55, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2018.04.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2018.04.008 2018

  33. [33]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 990, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a6

    Gu, Y., Wang, Y., Wei, F., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 990, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf7a6 2025

  34. [34]

    S., Forman, M., & Oughton, S

    Horbury, T. S., Forman, M., & Oughton, S. 2008, Physical Review Letters, 101, 175005

    work page 2008

  35. [35]

    1964, Soviet Astronomy, Vol

    Iroshnikov, P. 1964, Soviet Astronomy, Vol. 7, p. 566, 7, 566 ISRO. 2025, ADITYA-L1 Mission Details, https://www.isro.gov.in/Aditya L1-MissionDetails.html

    work page 1964

  36. [36]

    E., & Pulkkinen, T

    Kilpua, E., Koskinen, H. E., & Pulkkinen, T. I. 2017, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 14, 5

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Kilpua, E. K. J., Fontaine, D., Good, S. W., et al. 2020, Annales Geophysicae, 38, 999–1017, doi: 10.5194/angeo-38-999-2020

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-38-999-2020 2020

  38. [38]

    1982, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 87, 613

    Klein, L., & Burlaga, L. 1982, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 87, 613

    work page 1982

  39. [39]

    2021, Wind Magnetic Field Investigation (MFI) Data at full resolution, Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/0V0H-DF27

    Koval, A., & Szabo, A. 2021, Wind Magnetic Field Investigation (MFI) Data at full resolution, Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/0V0H-DF27

    work page doi:10.48322/0v0h-df27 2021

  40. [40]

    Kraichnan, R. H. 1965, Physics of Fluids, 8, 1385

    work page 1965

  41. [41]

    S., et al

    Kumar, P., Bapat, B., Shah, M. S., et al. 2025, Solar Physics, 300, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02443-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02443-x 2025

  42. [42]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 997, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae3960

    Kumbhar, K., Raghav, A., Sharma, U., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 997, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae3960

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae3960 2026

  43. [43]

    P., & Bale, S

    Lin, R. P., & Bale, S. D. 2021, Wind 3DP 92-sec Key Parameter Data, Space Physics Data Facility; University of California, Berkeley, doi: 10.48322/KWFZ-ZK29

    work page doi:10.48322/kwfz-zk29 2021

  44. [44]

    Lugaz, N., & Farrugia, C. J. 2017, Solar Physics, 292, 64, doi: 10.1007/s11207-017-1080-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-017-1080-8 2017

  45. [45]

    J., Winslow, R

    Lugaz, N., Farrugia, C. J., Winslow, R. M., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 7787

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    B., & et al

    Manchester, W. B., & et al. 2017, Space Weather, 15, 1535–1547, doi: 10.1002/2017SW001735

    work page doi:10.1002/2017sw001735 2017

  47. [47]

    H., Goldstein, M

    Matthaeus, W. H., Goldstein, M. L., & Roberts, D. A. 1990, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 95, 20673

    work page 1990

  48. [48]

    2022, ACE Solar Wind Electron, Proton, and Alpha Monitor (SWEPAM) Plasma Moments, Preliminary

    McComas, D., Skoug, R., Delapp, D., Elliott, H., & Davis, A. 2022, ACE Solar Wind Electron, Proton, and Alpha Monitor (SWEPAM) Plasma Moments, Preliminary

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Values, Key Parameter (K0), 5 min Data, Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/PFR6-FG57

    work page doi:10.48322/pfr6-fg57

  50. [50]

    2025, HELIO4CAST Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection Catalog v2.3, figshare, doi: 10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.6356420 M´ arquez Rodr´ ıguez, R., Sorriso-Valvo, L., & Yordanova, E

    Moestl, C., Davies, E., & Weiler, E. 2025, HELIO4CAST Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection Catalog v2.3, figshare, doi: 10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.6356420 M´ arquez Rodr´ ıguez, R., Sorriso-Valvo, L., & Yordanova, E. 2023, Solar Physics, 298, doi: 10.1007/s11207-023-02146-1

    work page doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.6356420 2025

  51. [51]

    C., et al

    Nieves-Chinchilla, T., Vourlidas, A., Raymond, J. C., et al. 2018, Solar Physics, 293, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1247-z NOAA and NASA. 2025, Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) mission overview, https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/current-satellite-missions/ currently-flying/dscovr-deep-space-climate-observatory

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-018-1247-z 2018

  52. [52]

    Oliveira, D. M. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1240323

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2023.1240323 2023

  53. [53]

    Owens, M. J. 2020, Solar Physics, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01721-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-020-01721-0 2020

  54. [54]

    J., Lockwood, M., & Barnard, L

    Owens, M. J., Lockwood, M., & Barnard, L. A. 2017, Scientific Reports, 7, doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04546-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-017-04546-3 2017

  55. [55]

    J., et al

    Pal, S., Balmaceda, L., Weiss, A. J., et al. 2023, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 10, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2023.1195805

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2023.1195805 2023

  56. [56]

    Pal, S., Mac Cormack, C., Kilpua, E. K. J., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 702, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555908

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555908 2025

  57. [57]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb93c

    Raghav, A., Dhamane, O., Shaikh, Z., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb93c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb93c 2023

  58. [58]

    Near-Earth Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections Since January 1996 , 2024

    Richardson, I., & Cane, H. 2024, Near-Earth Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections Since January 1996, Harvard Dataverse, doi: 10.7910/DVN/C2MHTH

    work page doi:10.7910/dvn/c2mhth 2024

  59. [59]

    2010, Physical review letters, 105, 131101

    Rezeau, L. 2010, Physical review letters, 105, 131101

    work page 2010

  60. [60]

    M., et al

    Scolini, C., Lugaz, N., Winslow, R. M., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0ed1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0ed1 2024

  61. [61]

    Shaikh, Z. I. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 3005–3012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae897

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae897 2024

  62. [62]

    2022, ACE Magnetic Field (MAG) Geocentric Solar Ecliptic, GSE, and Geocentric Solar

    Smith, C., & Ness, N. 2022, ACE Magnetic Field (MAG) Geocentric Solar Ecliptic, GSE, and Geocentric Solar

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    Data, Space Physics Data Facility, doi: 10.48322/7XYH-4Z44 19

    work page doi:10.48322/7xyh-4z44

  64. [64]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac26c5

    Telloni, D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac26c5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac26c5 2021

  65. [65]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 463, L79

    Telloni, D., & Bruno, R. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 463, L79

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/46

    Telloni, D., Bruno, R., & Trenchi, L. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/46

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/46 2015

  67. [67]

    P., et al

    Telloni, D., Zhao, L., Zank, G. P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 905, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abcb03

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abcb03 2020

  68. [68]

    Yadav, V. K. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 995, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1974

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1974 2025

  69. [69]

    2025, Principal Investigator of the Solar Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (SUIT) onboard Aditya-L1, https://web.iucaa.in/∼durgesh/

    Tripathi, D. 2025, Principal Investigator of the Solar Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (SUIT) onboard Aditya-L1, https://web.iucaa.in/∼durgesh/

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 437–445, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad104

    Trotta, D., Hietala, H., Horbury, T., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 437–445, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad104

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad104 2023

  71. [71]

    2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 68–75, doi: 10.1002/2017ja024813

    Wang, X., Tu, C., He, J., & Wang, L. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123, 68–75, doi: 10.1002/2017ja024813

    work page doi:10.1002/2017ja024813 2018

  72. [72]

    The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: a method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms,

    Welch, P. 1967, IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics, 15, 70–73, doi: 10.1109/tau.1967.1161901

    work page doi:10.1109/tau.1967.1161901 1967

  73. [73]

    K., Choudhary, R., & Goutham, M

    Yadav, V. K., Choudhary, R., & Goutham, M. M. 2025a, The Astrophysical Journal, 991, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae00b6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae00b6

  74. [74]

    K., Vijaya, Y., Krishnam Prasad, B., et al

    Yadav, V. K., Vijaya, Y., Krishnam Prasad, B., et al. 2025b, Solar Physics, 300, doi: 10.1007/s11207-025-02440-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-025-02440-0

  75. [75]

    P., & Kilpua, E

    Yordanova, E., V¨ or¨ os, Z., Sorriso-Valvo, L., Dimmock, A. P., & Kilpua, E. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1942

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1942 2021

  76. [76]

    P., Adhikari, L., Hunana, P., et al

    Zank, G. P., Adhikari, L., Hunana, P., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/147

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/147 2017

  77. [77]

    P., & et al

    Zank, G. P., & et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 538–561, doi: 10.1002/2015JA022982

    work page doi:10.1002/2015ja022982 2016

  78. [78]

    P., Zhou, Y., Matthaeus, W

    Zank, G. P., Zhou, Y., Matthaeus, W. H., & Rice, W. 2002, Physics of Fluids, 14, 3766

    work page 2002

  79. [79]

    P., He, J

    Zhao, L.-L., Zank, G. P., He, J. S., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140450

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140450 2021