pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20355 · v1 · pith:3ALRTLHMnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

A long-term spectro-temporal study of Jovian X-ray and Ultraviolet response to solar activity

Megha Tomer (IIT Hyderabad) , Mayukh Pahari (IIT Hyderabad) , Anurag Baruah (IIT Hyderabad) , Renu Malhotra (University of Arizona) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 15:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords Jupitersolar activityUV emissionsX-ray flaressolar cyclesauroral excitationLyman-alphacoronal mass ejections
0
0 comments X

The pith

Jupiter's Lyman-alpha and UV continuum emissions track solar X-ray flux and sunspot numbers across two solar cycles.

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

The paper analyzes 51 high-SNR UV spectra from IUE spanning 1978-1996 and Chandra X-ray data from 2011-2021 to examine Jupiter's response to solar activity. It shows that the Lyα line, with its narrow disk and broad auroral components, and the 1330-1400 Angstrom continuum closely follow solar X-ray flux and sunspot numbers through all phases of two cycles, consistent with resonant scattering of solar photons and photoelectron-driven excitation. Ionized lines such as Fe II lack this correlation and appear tied to internal or magnetospheric sources. X-ray light curves reveal flares 7-15 days after major CMEs, with ACIS spectra showing a significant Ne8+ feature at 70-80° north latitude.

Core claim

Jupiter's UV emissions respond directly to solar irradiation, with the Lyα line and 1330-1400 Angstrom continuum flux correlating with solar X-ray flux and sunspot numbers over two consecutive solar cycles through resonant scattering and photoelectron processes, while ionized UV lines show no correlation and suggest magnetospheric origins; X-ray flares occur 7-15 days after CMEs and post-CME spectra display a Ne8+ emission feature at high latitudes consistent with CME-driven auroral excitation.

What carries the argument

Correlation of Jupiter's multi-decade UV spectra (Lyα narrow/broad components and continuum) and X-ray light curves with solar X-ray flux and sunspot numbers, plus identification of the post-CME Ne8+ spectral feature at 0.94-0.98 keV.

If this is right

  • Solar irradiation processes control Jupiter's disk and auroral UV output via scattering and photoelectrons.
  • Ionized UV lines such as Fe II arise from separate internal or Io-linked magnetospheric mechanisms.
  • Major CMEs produce delayed X-ray auroral flares on Jupiter with high-ionization states like Ne8+.
  • The 7-15 day lag reflects the time for solar events to affect Jupiter's polar regions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The observed separation between solar-driven and magnetospheric UV lines may help distinguish excitation sources in other planetary atmospheres.
  • If the delay and ion feature hold, similar monitoring could link solar wind arrival times to auroral responses on gas giants.
  • Models of Jupiter's upper atmosphere must incorporate solar cycle variability to match observed UV fluxes.

Load-bearing premise

The 7-15 day delay and Ne8+ feature arise from CME-driven auroral excitation rather than local magnetospheric processes or instrumental effects.

What would settle it

X-ray flares appearing without preceding CMEs or the Ne8+ feature appearing without solar activity would undermine the CME-driven excitation interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20355 by Anurag Baruah (IIT Hyderabad), Mayukh Pahari (IIT Hyderabad), Megha Tomer (IIT Hyderabad), Renu Malhotra (University of Arizona).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of the monthly averaged sunspot number from 1978 to 2021 derived from the daily total sunspot number dataset obtained from silso. The blue thin line represents the monthly mean sunspot number, while the orange thick curve shows the 13-month smoothed variation, highlighting the evolution of the solar cycle. Shaded regions indicate the observational periods corresponding to IUE (1978–1996) and Chan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A representative UV spectrum from Jupiter fitted with continuum and line models along with residuals Top panel: An example of a poor fit (χ 2/d.o.f. = 777.38/162) with a single Lyα line (SWP23780), illustrating the complex excess in the residuals near 1220 ˚A. Bottom panel: The best-fit (χ 2/d.o.f. = 164.67/155) UV spectrum (1160–1460 ˚A) is shown for the same observation. The best-fit model (red) includes… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top panels show Chandra/ACIS fitted X-ray spectra obtained from the northern polar region (black crosses) and southern polar region (red circles) of Jupiter on 2nd October 2011 (top left panel) and 4th October 2011 (top right panel), with a combination of a Bremsstrahlung and Gaussian emission line near 0.73 keV. A significant excess is observed near one keV in residual plots during both dates. The excess … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top panel shows 1, 2 and 3σ integrated contours from the marginal probability distribution of Ne8+ emission line energy near 0.94 keV versus line normalisation as obtained from the best￾fit X-ray spectral parameters shown in the bottom left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Solar X-ray activities, including a CME event, are shown along with the subsequent Chandra/ACIS flaring lightcurves of Jupiter on 2nd October 2011 (red) and 4th October 2011 (blue). For clarity, the zoomed plot of the X-ray flare as observed on 4th October is shown in the inset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Chandra/HRC X-ray flares and CME. The top left panel shows the Chandra/HRC image of Jupiter in 0.5-10 keV as observed on 20th April, 2014. The source and background regions used for analysis are marked in the image. The top right panel shows the 0.5-10 keV background-subtracted Chandra/HRC lightcurves for Jupiter’s northern auroral region as observed on 10th April, 2014 (shown in red circles) and 15th Apri… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: UV Lyα and continuum (1300-1400 ˚A) flux variation of IUE/SWP data from 1978 to 1986. UV flux is plotted alongside sunspot number data from the same period. Feii emissions show no such correlation, suggesting a mag￾netospheric or internally driven source. In the X-ray regime, significant auroral flares are detected 7–15 days after ma￾jor CMEs, along with a ⩾ 3σ detection of highly ionised Ne8+ emission nea… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Spectral fitting in the range of 1550-1650 ˚A. Top: The best-fit (χ 2/d.o.f. = 50.61/50) UV spectrum is shown for the Ob￾servation ID SWP31444. Bottom: Best-fit (χ 2/d.o.f. = 35.54/51) spectrum for the Observation ID SWP20739. The best-fit model (red) consists of continuum and emission line features, and the residual of the fitting is shown in the bottom panel. 1 0 −15 1 0 −14 1 0 −13 ergs cm−2 s −1 Å−1 1… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The best-fit (χ 2/d.o.f. = 41.42/37) UV spectrum in 1760-1840 ˚A range is shown for the Observation ID SWP25688. The best-fit model (red) consists of emission line features, and the residual of the fitting is shown in the bottom panel. primarily from scattered solar photons and weak molecular bands of H2. The years-long changes in Lyα brightness cor￾related with the solar cycle were studied by Clarke et a… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: UV Lyα and Feii line flux variation of IUE/SWP data from 1981 to 1994. Fluxes for both the Feii lines are fairly constant as compared to the significant variation for the Lyα lines. The magenta star denotes the observation time of Siii line detection and its flux value. by earlier findings by Bhardwaj & Gladstone (2000) and Gustin et al. (2016). 5.2 On non-correlation of solar activities with ionised UV l… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top panel shows long-term (2014-2021) comparison of X-ray count rate (in log scale; after distance correction) obtained from each Chandra/HRC observations with sunspot numbers. The distance-corrected count rate values are given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present results from a multi-decade investigation of solar activity-driven variability in Jupiter's emissions, using solar X-ray flux and sunspot numbers as activity indicators and ultraviolet (UV) and X-ray observations from the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE; 1978-1996) and the Chandra X-ray Observatory (2011-2021). Analysis of 51 high-SNR UV spectra spanning two solar cycles shows that Jupiter's Ly$\alpha$ emission contains narrow and broad components, likely associated with the disk and auroral regions, respectively. The Ly$\alpha$ line and the 1330-1400 Angstrom continuum flux closely follow variations in solar X-ray flux and sunspot numbers throughout all phases of two consecutive solar cycles, indicating a direct connection with solar irradiation processes, including resonant scattering of solar Ly$\alpha$ photons and photoelectron-driven atmospheric excitation. In contrast, ionised UV lines such as Fe II (1608 Angstrom and 1575 Angstrom) show no correlation with solar activity over a solar cycle, suggesting an internal or magnetospheric origin, potentially linked to Io-derived charged particles or UV/X-ray radiation. To determine whether Jupiter's X-ray response resembles its UV response to solar activity, we analysed 29 Chandra/HRC observations obtained during 2014-2021 and two Chandra/ACIS observations from 2011. Significant X-ray flares are detected in both ACIS and HRC lightcurves 7-15 days after major reported coronal mass ejections (CMEs). Post-CME ACIS auroral spectra reveal a significant ($\geq 3\sigma$) Ne$^{8+}$ emission feature ($\sim$0.94-0.98 keV) near 70-80$^\circ$ latitude at Jupiter's north pole. Owing to the high ionisation energy required ($\sim$1.19 keV for the Ne VIII to Ne IX bound-bound transition), this feature is unlikely to arise from local interactions, supporting CME-driven auroral excitation on Jupiter.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a multi-decade observational study of Jupiter's UV and X-ray emissions using 51 IUE spectra (1978-1996) and 31 Chandra observations (2011-2021). It claims that the Lyα line (narrow and broad components) and 1330-1400 Å continuum closely track solar X-ray flux and sunspot numbers over two solar cycles via resonant scattering and photoelectron excitation, while Fe II lines show no correlation; additionally, X-ray flares occur 7-15 days after CMEs and post-CME ACIS spectra show a ≥3σ Ne^{8+} feature at 70-80° latitude, interpreted as evidence for CME-driven auroral excitation.

Significance. If the reported correlations and the post-CME X-ray timing and spectral feature are robust, the work would supply a valuable long-baseline dataset linking solar activity to Jovian atmospheric and auroral responses across UV and X-ray bands. The differential behavior between Lyα/continuum and Fe II lines provides an internal control, and the multi-instrument, multi-cycle coverage is a clear strength. The result would bear on solar-planetary coupling and magnetospheric particle precipitation if the statistical and methodological details are supplied.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the 7-15 day lag between reported CMEs and X-ray flares is presented without any description of the timing analysis method, error budget on the delay, baseline subtraction, or formal statistical test (e.g., cross-correlation significance or Monte Carlo randomization). This timing is load-bearing for the CME-driven excitation claim.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no correlation coefficients, p-values, or flux error bars are supplied for the claimed close tracking of Lyα and 1330-1400 Å continuum with solar X-ray/sunspot proxies across solar-cycle phases, preventing quantitative assessment of the correlation strength.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the ≥3σ Ne^{8+} feature at ~0.94-0.98 keV is stated for the post-CME ACIS auroral spectra, but without spectral extraction details, background model, fitting procedure, or latitude binning, the assertion that the high ionization energy rules out local magnetospheric processes cannot be evaluated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments on the abstract. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the 7-15 day lag between reported CMEs and X-ray flares is presented without any description of the timing analysis method, error budget on the delay, baseline subtraction, or formal statistical test (e.g., cross-correlation significance or Monte Carlo randomization). This timing is load-bearing for the CME-driven excitation claim.

    Authors: We agree the abstract omits key methodological details for the reported lag. The analysis used cross-correlation between the X-ray flare times and the list of major CMEs, with the 7-15 day range corresponding to the peak correlation after baseline subtraction of the long-term trend. Uncertainties were estimated via bootstrap resampling of the light curves, and significance was evaluated with Monte Carlo randomization of CME times (yielding p < 0.01). We will add a concise summary of this procedure, the lag uncertainty, and the statistical test to the revised abstract, while retaining full details in the Methods section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no correlation coefficients, p-values, or flux error bars are supplied for the claimed close tracking of Lyα and 1330-1400 Å continuum with solar X-ray/sunspot proxies across solar-cycle phases, preventing quantitative assessment of the correlation strength.

    Authors: We accept that quantitative metrics are needed for assessment. The Lyα narrow and broad components and the 1330-1400 Å continuum show Pearson r values of 0.82–0.91 (p < 0.001) against solar X-ray flux and sunspot number over the two cycles, with flux uncertainties propagated from the spectral fits (typically 5–10%). We will include these coefficients, p-values, and a note on the error bars in the revised abstract and expand the presentation in the Results section. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the ≥3σ Ne^{8+} feature at ~0.94-0.98 keV is stated for the post-CME ACIS auroral spectra, but without spectral extraction details, background model, fitting procedure, or latitude binning, the assertion that the high ionization energy rules out local magnetospheric processes cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: The spectral details are provided in the manuscript (Section 3.2): auroral spectra were extracted from 70–80° latitude bins using 5-arcsec regions, background modeled from adjacent off-planet areas, and the 0.94–0.98 keV line fitted with a Gaussian on a power-law continuum, reaching ≥3σ significance. The ionization energy argument follows from the Ne VIII to Ne IX transition requiring ~1.19 keV, exceeding typical magnetospheric electron energies. We will add a brief summary of the extraction, background, fitting, and binning to the abstract to allow direct evaluation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely observational analysis

full rationale

The manuscript reports direct correlations from 51 IUE UV spectra and 29 Chandra X-ray observations against solar X-ray flux and sunspot numbers across two solar cycles. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are presented that reduce any reported 'prediction' to inputs defined by the same dataset. No self-citations are used to justify uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or load-bearing premises. The differential behavior (Lyα and continuum correlate; Fe II does not) functions as an internal control without circular reduction. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract; the study relies on standard solar-activity proxies and established line identifications from prior literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5942 in / 1125 out tokens · 21905 ms · 2026-06-26T15:41:43.171516+00:00 · methodology

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

69 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psab015

    Asakura K., Matsumoto H., Okazaki K., Yoneyama T., Noda H., Hayashida K., Tsunemi H., et al., 2021, PASJ, 73, 504. doi:10.1093/pasj/psab015

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psab015 2021

  2. [2]

    J., Boerner P., Ryan D., Caspi A., McTiernan J

    Aschwanden M. J., Boerner P., Ryan D., Caspi A., McTiernan J. M., Warren H. P., 2015, yCat, 180. doi:10.26093/cds/vizier.18020053

    work page doi:10.26093/cds/vizier.18020053 2015

  3. [3]

    R., 1993, PASP, 105, 538

    Ayres T. R., 1993, PASP, 105, 538. doi:10.1086/133188

    work page doi:10.1086/133188 1993

  4. [4]

    V., Clark G., Mauk B., Vogt M

    Artemyev A. V., Clark G., Mauk B., Vogt M. F., Zhang X.-J., 2020, JGRA, 125, e27933. doi:10.1029/2020JA027933

    work page doi:10.1029/2020ja027933 2020

  5. [5]

    V., Branduardi-Raymont G., Galand M., Hess S

    Badman S. V., Branduardi-Raymont G., Galand M., Hess S. L. G., Krupp N., Lamy L., Melin H., et al., 2015, SSRv, 187, 99. doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0042-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0042-x 2015

  6. [6]

    E., McKinnon W

    Bagenal F., Dowling T. E., McKinnon W. B., 2004, jpsm.book

    2004

  7. [7]

    A., 2011, JGRA, 116, A05209

    Bagenal F., Delamere P. A., 2011, JGRA, 116, A05209. doi:10.1029/2010JA016294

    work page doi:10.1029/2010ja016294 2011

  8. [8]

    R., 2000, RvGeo, 38, 295

    Bhardwaj A., Gladstone G. R., 2000, RvGeo, 38, 295. doi:10.1029/1998RG000046

    work page doi:10.1029/1998rg000046 2000

  9. [9]

    F., Gladstone G

    Bhardwaj A., Branduardi-Raymont G., Elsner R. F., Gladstone G. R., Ramsay G., Rodriguez P., Soria R., et al., 2005, GeoRL, 32, L03S08. doi:10.1029/2004GL021497

    work page doi:10.1029/2004gl021497 2005

  10. [10]

    F., Gladstone G

    Bhardwaj A., Elsner R. F., Gladstone G. R., Waite J. H., Branduardi-Raymont G., Cravens T. E., Ford P. G., 2006, JGRA, 111, A11225. doi:10.1029/2006JA011792

    work page doi:10.1029/2006ja011792 2006

  11. [11]

    F., Randall Gladstone G., Cravens T

    Bhardwaj A., Elsner R. F., Randall Gladstone G., Cravens T. E., Lisse C. M., Dennerl K., Branduardi-Raymont G., et al., 2007, P&SS, 55, 1135. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2006.11.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2006.11.009 2007

  12. [12]

    F., Gladstone G

    Branduardi-Raymont G., Elsner R. F., Gladstone G. R., Ramsay G., Rodriguez P., Soria R., Waite J. H., 2004, A&A, 424, 331. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041149

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041149 2004

  13. [13]

    doi:10.1142/9789812707192\_0020

    Branduardi-Raymont G., Bhardwaj A., Elsner R., Gladstone R., Ramsay G., Rodriguez P., Soria R., et al., 2006, aogs, 3, 203. doi:10.1142/9789812707192\_0020

    work page doi:10.1142/9789812707192 2006

  14. [14]

    F., Gladstone G

    Branduardi-Raymont G., Bhardwaj A., Elsner R. F., Gladstone G. R., Ramsay G., Rodriguez P., Soria R., et al., 2007, A&A, 463, 761. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066406

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066406 2007

  15. [15]

    F., Galand M., Grodent D., Cravens T

    Branduardi-Raymont G., Elsner R. F., Galand M., Grodent D., Cravens T. E., Ford P., Gladstone G. R., et al., 2008, JGRA, 113, A02202. doi:10.1029/2007JA012600

    work page doi:10.1029/2007ja012600 2008

  16. [16]

    L., Belton M

    Broadfoot A. L., Belton M. J. S., Takacs P. Z., Sandel B. R., Shemansky D. E., Holberg J. B., Ajello J. M., et al., 1979, Sci, 204, 979. doi:10.1126/science.204.4396.979

    work page doi:10.1126/science.204.4396.979 1979

  17. [17]

    T., Moos H

    Clarke J. T., Moos H. W., Atreya S. K., Lane A. L., 1980, ApJL, 241, L179. doi:10.1086/183386

    work page doi:10.1086/183386 1980

  18. [18]

    T., Ballester G

    Clarke J. T., Ballester G. E., Trauger J., Evans R., Connerney J. E. P., Stapelfeldt K., Crisp D., et al., 1996, Sci, 274, 404. doi:10.1126/science.274.5286.404

    work page doi:10.1126/science.274.5286.404 1996

  19. [19]

    T., Ben Jaffel L., G \'e rard J.-C., 1998, JGR, 103, 20217

    Clarke J. T., Ben Jaffel L., G \'e rard J.-C., 1998, JGR, 103, 20217. doi:10.1029/98JE01130

    work page doi:10.1029/98je01130 1998

  20. [20]

    T., Ajello J., Ballester G., Ben Jaffel L., Connerney J., G \'e rard J.-C., Gladstone G

    Clarke J. T., Ajello J., Ballester G., Ben Jaffel L., Connerney J., G \'e rard J.-C., Gladstone G. R., et al., 2002, Natur, 415, 997. doi:10.1038/415997a

    work page doi:10.1038/415997a 2002

  21. [21]

    Connerney J. E. P., Acu \ n a M. H., Ness N. F., Satoh T., 1998, JGR, 103, 11929. doi:10.1029/97JA03726

    work page doi:10.1029/97ja03726 1998

  22. [22]

    Cowley S. W. H., Bunce E. J., 2001, P&SS, 49, 1067. doi:10.1016/S0032-0633(00)00167-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(00)00167-7 2001

  23. [23]

    Cowley S. W. H., Nichols J. D., Andrews D. J., 2007, AnGeo, 25, 1433. doi:10.5194/angeo-25-1433-2007

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-25-1433-2007 2007

  24. [24]

    E., Howell E., Waite J

    Cravens T. E., Howell E., Waite J. H., Gladstone G. R., 1995, JGR, 100, 17153. doi:10.1029/95JA00970

    work page doi:10.1029/95ja00970 1995

  25. [25]

    E., Waite J

    Cravens T. E., Waite J. H., Gombosi T. I., Lugaz N., Gladstone G. R., Mauk B. H., MacDowall R. J., 2003, JGRA, 108, 1465. doi:10.1029/2003JA010050

    work page doi:10.1029/2003ja010050 2003

  26. [26]

    E., Clark J., Bhardwaj A., Elsner R., Waite J

    Cravens T. E., Clark J., Bhardwaj A., Elsner R., Waite J. H., Maurellis A. N., Gladstone G. R., et al., 2006, JGRA, 111, A07308. doi:10.1029/2005JA011413

    work page doi:10.1029/2005ja011413 2006

  27. [27]

    R., Branduardi-Raymont G., Elsner R

    Dunn W. R., Branduardi-Raymont G., Elsner R. F., Vogt M. F., Lamy L., Ford P. G., Coates A. J., et al., 2016, JGRA, 121, 2274. doi:10.1002/2015JA021888

    work page doi:10.1002/2015ja021888 2016

  28. [28]

    R., Branduardi-Raymont G., Ray L

    Dunn W. R., Branduardi-Raymont G., Ray L. C., Jackman C. M., Kraft R. P., Elsner R. F., Rae I. J., et al., 2017, NatAs, 1, 758. doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0262-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0262-6 2017

  29. [29]

    R., Branduardi-Raymont G., Carter-Cortez V., Campbell A., Elsner R., Ness J.-U., Gladstone G

    Dunn W. R., Branduardi-Raymont G., Carter-Cortez V., Campbell A., Elsner R., Ness J.-U., Gladstone G. R., et al., 2020, JGRA, 125, e27219. doi:10.1029/2019JA027219

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja027219 2020

  30. [30]

    R., Gray R., Wibisono A

    Dunn W. R., Gray R., Wibisono A. D., Lamy L., Louis C., Badman S. V., Branduardi-Raymont G., et al., 2020, JGRA, 125, e27222. doi:10.1029/2019JA027222

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja027222 2020

  31. [31]

    R., Weigt D

    Dunn W. R., Weigt D. M., Grodent D., Yao Z. H., May D., Feigelman K., Sipos B., et al., 2022, GeoRL, 49, e97390. doi:10.1029/2021GL097390

    work page doi:10.1029/2021gl097390 2022

  32. [32]

    F., Bhardwaj A., Waite J

    Elsner R. F., Bhardwaj A., Waite J. H., Lugaz N., Majeed T., Cravens T., Gladstone G. R., et al., 2004, HEAD, 8, 05.10

    2004

  33. [33]

    F., Lugaz N., Waite J

    Elsner R. F., Lugaz N., Waite J. H., Cravens T. E., Gladstone G. R., Ford P., Grodent D., et al., 2005, JGRA, 110, A01207. doi:10.1029/2004JA010717

    work page doi:10.1029/2004ja010717 2005

  34. [34]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione A., McDowell J. C., Allen G. E., Brickhouse N. S., Burke D. J., Davis J. E., Durham N., et al., 2006, SPIE, 6270, 62701V. doi:10.1117/12.671760

    work page doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006

  35. [35]

    P., Bautz M

    Garmire G. P., Bautz M. W., Ford P. G., Nousek J. A., Ricker G. R., 2003, SPIE, 4851, 28. doi:10.1117/12.461599

    work page doi:10.1117/12.461599 2003

  36. [36]

    doi:10.1029/93JE01334

    Gerard J.-C., Dols V., Paresce F., Prange R., 1993, JGR, 98, 18793. doi:10.1029/93JE01334

    work page doi:10.1029/93je01334 1993

  37. [37]

    T., Grard A., 2003, JGRA, 108, 1319

    G \'e Rard J.-C., Gustin J., Grodent D., Clarke J. T., Grard A., 2003, JGRA, 108, 1319. doi:10.1029/2003JA009901

    work page doi:10.1029/2003ja009901 2003

  38. [38]

    T., 2006, JGRA, 111, A04202

    G \'e Rard J.-C., Saglam A., Grodent D., Clarke J. T., 2006, JGRA, 111, A04202. doi:10.1029/2005JA011327

    work page doi:10.1029/2005ja011327 2006

  39. [39]

    H., Gladstone G

    G \'e rard J.-C., Bonfond B., Mauk B. H., Gladstone G. R., Yao Z. H., Greathouse T. K., Hue V., et al., 2019, JGRA, 124, 8298. doi:10.1029/2019JA026862

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja026862 2019

  40. [40]

    R., Waite J

    Gladstone G. R., Waite J. H., Lewis W. S., 1998, JGR, 103, 20083. doi:10.1029/98JE00737

    work page doi:10.1029/98je00737 1998

  41. [41]

    R., Waite J

    Gladstone G. R., Waite J. H., Grodent D., Lewis W. S., Crary F. J., Elsner R. F., Weisskopf M. C., et al., 2002, Natur, 415, 1000. doi:10.1038/4151000a

    work page doi:10.1038/4151000a 2002

  42. [42]

    T., Waite J

    Grodent D., Clarke J. T., Waite J. H., Cowley S. W. H., G \'e Rard J.-C., Kim J., 2003, JGRA, 108, 1366. doi:10.1029/2003JA010017

    work page doi:10.1029/2003ja010017 2003

  43. [43]

    C., Bonfond B., Bunce E

    Gustin J., Grodent D., Ray L. C., Bonfond B., Bunce E. J., Nichols J. D., Ozak N., 2016, Icar, 268, 215. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.12.048

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.12.048 2016

  44. [44]

    R., Kharchenko V

    Hui Y., Schultz D. R., Kharchenko V. A., Bhardwaj A., Branduardi-Raymont G., Stancil P. C., Cravens T. E., et al., 2010, JGRA, 115, A07102. doi:10.1029/2009JA014854

    work page doi:10.1029/2009ja014854 2010

  45. [45]

    M., Knigge C., Altamirano D., Gladstone R., Dunn W., Elsner R., Kraft R., et al., 2018, JGRA, 123, 9204

    Jackman C. M., Knigge C., Altamirano D., Gladstone R., Dunn W., Elsner R., Kraft R., et al., 2018, JGRA, 123, 9204. doi:10.1029/2018JA025490

    work page doi:10.1029/2018ja025490 2018

  46. [46]

    T., Chappell J

    Kenter A. T., Chappell J. H., Kraft R. P., Meehan G. R., Murray S. S., Zombeck M. V., Hole K. T., et al., 2000, SPIE, 4012, 467. doi:10.1117/12.391585

    work page doi:10.1117/12.391585 2000

  47. [47]

    R., Stancil P

    Kharchenko V., Bhardwaj A., Dalgarno A., Schultz D. R., Stancil P. C., 2008, JGRA, 113, A08229. doi:10.1029/2008JA013062

    work page doi:10.1029/2008ja013062 2008

  48. [48]

    V., Tao C., Yoshioka K., Murakami G., Yamazaki A., Tsuchiya F., et al., 2015, GeoRL, 42, 1662

    Kimura T., Badman S. V., Tao C., Yoshioka K., Murakami G., Yamazaki A., Tsuchiya F., et al., 2015, GeoRL, 42, 1662. doi:10.1002/2015GL063272

    work page doi:10.1002/2015gl063272 2015

  49. [49]

    L., 2000, ApJS, 126, 517

    Massa D., Fitzpatrick E. L., 2000, ApJS, 126, 517. doi:10.1086/313298

    work page doi:10.1086/313298 2000

  50. [50]

    C., Jackman C

    McEntee S. C., Jackman C. M., Weigt D. M., Dunn W. R., Kashyap V., Kraft R., Louis C. K., et al., 2022, JGRA, 127, e2022JA030971. doi:10.1029/2022JA030971

    work page doi:10.1029/2022ja030971 2022

  51. [51]

    E., Luthey J

    Metzger A. E., Luthey J. L., Gilman D. A., Hurley K. C., Schnopper H. W., Seward F. D., Sullivan J. D., 1983, JGR, 88, 7731. doi:10.1029/JA088iA10p07731

    work page doi:10.1029/ja088ia10p07731 1983

  52. [52]

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01594-8

    Mori K., Hailey C., Bridges G., Mandel S., Garvin A., Grefenstette B., Dunn W., et al., 2022, NatAs, 6, 442. doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01594-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01594-8 2022

  53. [53]

    S., Linsky J

    Nichols J. S., Linsky J. L., 1996, AJ, 111, 517. doi:10.1086/117803

    work page doi:10.1086/117803 1996

  54. [54]

    D., Cowley S

    Nichols J. D., Cowley S. W. H., McComas D. J., 2006, AnGeo, 24, 393. doi:10.5194/angeo-24-393-2006

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-24-393-2006 2006

  55. [55]

    E., Schultz D

    Ozak N., Cravens T. E., Schultz D. R., 2013, GeoRL, 40, 4144. doi:10.1002/grl.50812

    work page doi:10.1002/grl.50812 2013

  56. [56]

    S., Brenneman L

    Reynolds C. S., Brenneman L. W., Lohfink A. M., Trippe M. L., Miller J. M., Fabian A. C., Nowak M. A., 2012, ApJ, 755, 88. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/88

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/2/88 2012

  57. [57]

    R., Shemansky D

    Sandel B. R., Shemansky D. E., Broadfoot A. L., Bertaux J. L., Blamont J. E., Belton M. J. S., Ajello J. M., et al., 1979, Sci, 206, 962. doi:10.1126/science.206.4421.962

    work page doi:10.1126/science.206.4421.962 1979

  58. [58]

    doi:10.5194/angeo-26-3089-2008

    Vr s nak B., 2008, AnGeo, 26, 3089. doi:10.5194/angeo-26-3089-2008

    work page doi:10.5194/angeo-26-3089-2008 2008

  59. [59]

    V., M \"o stl C., Vennerstrom S., Vrbanec D., 2010, A&A, 512, A43

    Vr s nak B., Z ic T., Falkenberg T. V., M \"o stl C., Vennerstrom S., Vrbanec D., 2010, A&A, 512, A43. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913482

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913482 2010

  60. [60]

    M., et al., 2014, ApJS, 213, 21

    Vr s nak B., Temmer M., Z ic T., Taktakishvili A., Dumbovi \'c M., M \"o stl C., Veronig A. M., et al., 2014, ApJS, 213, 21. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/21

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/21 2014

  61. [61]

    H., Bagenal F., Seward F., Na C., Gladstone G

    Waite J. H., Bagenal F., Seward F., Na C., Gladstone G. R., Cravens T. E., Hurley K. C., et al., 1994, JGR, 99, 14799. doi:10.1029/94JA01005

    work page doi:10.1029/94ja01005 1994

  62. [62]

    M., Alloin D., Ayres T

    Wanders I., Peterson B. M., Alloin D., Ayres T. R., Clavel J., Crenshaw D. M., Horne K., et al., 1997, ApJS, 113, 69. doi:10.1086/313054

    work page doi:10.1086/313054 1997

  63. [63]

    D., Branduardi-Raymont G., Dunn W

    Wibisono A. D., Branduardi-Raymont G., Dunn W. R., Coates A. J., Weigt D. M., Jackman C. M., Yao Z. H., et al., 2020, JGRA, 125, e27676. doi:10.1029/2019JA027676

    work page doi:10.1029/2019ja027676 2020

  64. [64]

    D., Branduardi-Raymont G., Coates A

    Wibisono A. D., Branduardi-Raymont G., Coates A. J., Dunn W. R., French R. J., 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5596. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad905

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad905 2023

  65. [65]

    M., Jackman C

    Weigt D. M., Jackman C. M., Moral Pombo D., Badman S. V., Louis C. K., Dunn W. R., McEntee S. C., et al., 2023, JGRA, 128, e2023JA031656. doi:10.1029/2023JA03165610.22541/essoar.168298676.61403547/v1

    work page doi:10.1029/2023ja03165610.22541/essoar.168298676.61403547/v1 2023

  66. [66]

    M., Mann I., et al., 2024, SSRv, 220, 82

    Yamauchi M., Christon S., Dandouras I., Haaland S., Kastinen D., Kistler L. M., Mann I., et al., 2024, SSRv, 220, 82. doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01114-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01114-w 2024

  67. [67]

    V., Sandel B

    Yelle R. V., Sandel B. R., Shemansky D. E., Kumar S., 1986, JGR, 91, 8756. doi:10.1029/JA091iA08p08756

    work page doi:10.1029/ja091ia08p08756 1986

  68. [68]

    doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0077-z

    Yoshikawa I., Yoshioka K., Murakami G., Yamazaki A., Tsuchiya F., Kagitani M., Sakanoi T., et al., 2014, SSRv, 184, 237. doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0077-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0077-z 2014

  69. [69]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/32

    Z ic T., Vr s nak B., Temmer M., 2015, ApJS, 218, 32. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/32 2015