Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Global Solar Magnetic-field and Interplanetary Scintillations During the Past Four Solar Cycles

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the Sun's global coronal magnetic field, not just its polar fields, declined 11.3–22.2% from the mid-1990s to 2018, with the solar-wind scintillation index falling 23.6% in step.

desk verdict PFSS-coronal decline is a real extension, but the KP-SOLIS magnetograph transition is an unaddressed confounder that could explain the entire result. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09134 v2 pith:HGDQ5KBS submitted 2019-08-24 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

K. Sasikumar Raja , P. Janardhan , Susanta Kumar Bisoi , Madhusudan Ingale , Prasad Subramanian , K. Fujiki , Milan Maksimovic This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarmagneticfieldcoronalPFSSextrapolationinterplanetaryscintillationcycledeclinewindturbulencesunspotnumberMaunderminimum
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the Sun's overall coronal magnetic field, not only the polar fields, has been declining since the mid-1990s, and that solar-wind turbulence has declined in lockstep. Using four decades of synoptic magnetograms extrapolated into the corona, it reports that the field at 2.5 and 10 solar radii fell by roughly 11–22% between the mid-1990s and 2018. The normalized interplanetary scintillation index, measured from 27 radio sources, dropped 23.6% over the same period. If correct, the result matters because it links large-scale solar magnetism to solar-wind turbulence and supports the idea that the Sun is entering a prolonged low-activity state.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the potential-field source-surface (PFSS) extrapolation, a model that assumes a current-free corona and extrapolates measured photospheric magnetograms outward to a source surface at 2.5 solar radii, then radially to 10 solar radii. The magnetograms come from two instruments covering 1975–2018, and the extrapolated fields are averaged over latitude bands. The other key object is the normalized interplanetary scintillation index, $m$, which is corrected for heliocentric distance and finite source size using theoretical Marians curves and a near-point radio source, so that year-to-year changes reflect genuine solar-wind turbulence rather than observing geometry.

What would settle it

Compare the two magnetograph datasets over the overlapping Carrington rotations around 2003.66; if NSO/SOLIS systematically reads lower than NSO/KP on the same photospheric regions, then part or all of the claimed 11–22% decline could be instrumental rather than solar.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the Sun's global magnetic field at the photosphere, at 2.5 solar radii, and at 10 solar radii has been monotonically declining since the mid-1990s across all latitude bands, from equatorial to polar. The reported decrease is 11.3–22.2% between the mid-1990s and 2018, and this decline is separate from the 5–10% solar-cycle oscillation seen in photospheric fields. In phase with the declining fields, the normalized scintillation index fell by 23.6%, and the peak sunspot number from Solar Cycle 21 to Cycle 24 declined by about 50%. The paper concludes that the global magnetic field is controlling the turbulence characteristics in the solar corona and solar wind.

Load-bearing premise

The time series crosses an instrument change in 2003, from NSO/KP to NSO/SOLIS magnetograms, and the paper treats their field strengths as directly comparable without a cross-calibration, so a systematic offset between the two instruments could create a spurious decline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the global coronal field keeps declining, Solar Cycle 25 is likely to be another weak cycle, consistent with predictions of a Maunder-like minimum.
  • The normalized scintillation index $m$ can serve as a proxy for the strength of the global coronal field, allowing IPS monitoring to track field changes even when magnetogram instruments change.
  • The absence of a solar-cycle oscillation in the extrapolated coronal fields implies that sunspot-related variability is largely confined to the photosphere, while the inner-heliospheric field decline is secular.
  • The decline is not limited to polar caps, so the entire large-scale solar magnetic field, not just the polar field, is participating in the long-term weakening.
  • The relationship between the declining field and $m$ suggests that solar-wind turbulence levels will continue to fall if the field continues to weaken.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not cross-calibrate the NSO/KP and NSO/SOLIS magnetograms; a systematic offset between these two instruments across their 2003 boundary could account for part of the reported 11–22% decline, so an overlap comparison would test the trend's reality.
  • If the decline is real, reduced solar-wind turbulence should also weaken the scattering of energetic particles, which could lead to measurable changes in cosmic-ray modulation during solar minima.
  • Applying the same PFSS pipeline to independent magnetogram datasets from other observatories would show whether the monotonic decline is a solar feature or an artifact of a single instrument series.
  • A sensitivity analysis varying the assumed point-source calibrator and Marians curve fits would reveal whether the 23.6% drop in $m$ is robust to the normalization choices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines NSO/KP and NSO/SOLIS synoptic magnetograms (1975–2018) with PFSS extrapolations to compute latitude-averaged unsigned magnetic fields at the photosphere, 2.5 R_sun, and 10 R_sun, and compares these with the normalized interplanetary scintillation index m from ISEE observations (1983–2017). The central claim is that the global coronal magnetic field has declined by 11.3–22.2% since the mid-1990s at 2.5 and 10 R_sun, and that m declined by 23.6% in phase with this decline, supporting the idea that the Sun is entering a prolonged quiet state.

Significance. If the result holds, it extends the previously reported polar-field decline to the global coronal field and links it to a measurable solar-wind turbulence parameter, which is relevant for solar-cycle prediction and for understanding the Sun's long-term magnetic evolution. The PFSS extrapolations are an independent analysis that does not simply reuse the target conclusion as an input, and the IPS normalization procedure is documented in enough detail to be checked. The main value is the multi-decade baseline and the attempt to connect photospheric, coronal, and solar-wind observables over four cycles.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Table 1, Figures 3–4] The claimed 11.3–22.2% decline spans an instrument transition without any cross-calibration. The time series uses NSO/KP magnetograms through CR2006 (2003.66) and NSO/SOLIS thereafter, and Table 1 compares KP-era annual means (1992–1997) with a SOLIS-era value (2018). Because the PFSS model is linear in the photospheric boundary condition, any multiplicative scale offset between KP and SOLIS would propagate directly into the extrapolated fields at 2.5 and 10 R_sun. The manuscript provides no overlap regression, no comparison against an independent calibrated proxy, and no citation to a study establishing the comparability of the two instruments. This is load-bearing because the 'before' and 'after' epochs are entirely on different instruments.
  2. [§3.1–3.2, Table 1] The magnetic-field measurements have no uncertainties. Figures 3 and 4 show annual-mean curves without error bars, and Table 1 lists epoch means and percentage decrements without any estimate of statistical or systematic error. Given that the reported declines are only 11–22%, the absence of error bars makes it impossible to assess whether the changes are significant relative to intrinsic solar variability or to instrumental noise. The manuscript should provide at least the standard deviation of the Carrington-rotation values within each epoch, or a formal trend fit with confidence intervals.
  3. [§4, Table 1, column 3] The decline onset epoch ('Year from when the beginning of significant decline') is selected by eye, and it differs across latitude bins and heights (1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997). This makes the percentage decrements in column 7 partly dependent on an arbitrary choice of baseline. A quantitative trend test (e.g., linear or piecewise fit with a changepoint, or a simple correlation with time over a fixed window) is needed to support the claim of a monotonic decline since the mid-1990s and to define the baseline consistently.
  4. [§3.3, Figure 5] The statement in §3.3 that error bars for m are 'measured separately for the years 1983–2008 and 2009–2017' is problematic because it pre-conditions the analysis on a post-2008 drop, which is part of the claimed decline. This can make the reported 23.6% decrease appear more significant than a uniform error treatment would allow. The authors should justify this choice with a homogeneity test or use a single error model with a break only if statistically supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption spells 'magenta' as 'majenta' in two places.
  2. [§2.2] The phrase 'The current four station network provide the more robust estimates' has a subject-verb agreement error and should read 'provides'.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (3)–(4)] The notation ΔS and ⟨S⟩ is used without explicitly stating that these are time-averaged quantities over the observing bandwidth; a brief clarification would help readers unfamiliar with IPS practice.
  4. [References] The Schatten et al. 1969a and 1969b entries appear to refer to the same paper and the same pages; the authors should check whether one citation is meant to be different (e.g., Schatten et al. 1969, Solar Physics 6, 442).
  5. [§5, last paragraph] The sentence beginning 'It would be interesting to further examine the relationship' could be trimmed or moved to the introduction, as it is more of a forward-looking remark than a conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the PFSS coronal-field decline and the IPS m decline are independent measurement/model chains, with self-citations supplying context rather than load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain has two independent legs. First, the coronal magnetic-field decline is computed by applying the standard PFSS model to NSO/KP and NSO/SOLIS synoptic magnetograms; the percentages in Table 1 are direct ratios of annual/Carrington-rotation averaged field values at the photosphere, 2.5 R_sun, and 10 R_sun, not quantities fitted to the IPS results. Second, the normalized scintillation index m is measured from ISEE IPS data and corrected for heliocentric distance and source size using Marians curves; the 23.6% decline is a direct comparison of annual averages of the measured and normalized data. The claimed phase relationship is an observed correlation, not a derivation of either quantity from the other. The self-citations (Janardhan et al. 2011, 2015; Bisoi et al. 2014) provide the normalization convention and earlier context, but the present m values are re-measured from the IPS observations and the PFSS extrapolation does not assume the target decline. The KP-to-SOLIS magnetogram transition is a possible source of systematic error because no cross-calibration is shown, but that is an observational calibration concern rather than a circular reduction: no equation in the paper makes the coronal decline equal to a fitted or definitionally imposed input. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The analysis rests on standard modeling assumptions (PFSS, Marians curves) and on the inter-calibration of magnetograms across the 2003 instrument change.

free parameters (2)
  • Decline onset epoch per latitude bin = 1992, 1994, 1996, or 1997 depending on bin (Table 1)
    The year marking the start of the declining trend is chosen by visual inspection in Figures 3-4; the reported percent decrements depend directly on this choice.
  • Latitude bin boundaries = 0-45, 46-78, 78-90, 0-78 degrees
    The bin edges are selected by the authors; the magnitude of the decline varies with binning, as seen in Table 1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The solar corona is current-free (potential field) between photosphere and source surface, as assumed by PFSS.
    The entire extrapolation to 2.5 and 10 R_sun depends on this assumption, stated in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Magnetic field lines are radial beyond 2.5 R_sun, justifying extrapolation to 10 R_sun.
    Section 3.1: 'Beyond this distance, in general, the magnetic-fields are radial and therefore, we extrapolated further to 10 R_sun.'
  • domain assumption Marians curves correctly describe the heliocentric-distance and source-size dependence of scintillation, and source 1148-001 is a perfect point source.
    Section 3.3: normalization of m removes distance and source-size dependence using these curves; if the model is wrong, the normalized m trend is biased.
  • domain assumption NSO/KP and NSO/SOLIS synoptic magnetograms are inter-calibrated, i.e., a given field strength produces the same measured value in both instruments.
    Section 2.1 uses NSO/KP to 2003.66 and SOLIS after; the long-term decline is measured across this transition with no cross-calibration analysis.
  • domain assumption The selected 27 IPS sources form an unbiased sample over 1983-2017.
    Section 3.3 selects sources with at least 400 observations; selection effects could affect the annual m averages.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global Solar Magnetic-field and Interplanetary Scintillations During the Past Four Solar Cycles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HGDQ5KBS

@misc{pith2026190809134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global Solar Magnetic-field and Interplanetary Scintillations During the Past Four Solar Cycles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HGDQ5KBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09134}
}
abstract

The extended minimum of Solar Cycle 23, the extremely quiet solar-wind conditions prevailing, and the mini-maximum of Solar Cycle 24 drew global attention and many authors have since attempted to predict the amplitude of the upcoming Solar Cycle 25, which is predicted to be the third successive weak cycle; it is a unique opportunity to probe the Sun during such quiet periods. Earlier work has established a steady decline, over two decades, in solar photospheric fields at latitudes above $45^{\circ}$ and a similar decline in solar-wind micro-turbulence levels as measured by interplanetary scintillation (IPS) observations. However, the relation between the photospheric magnetic fields and those in the low corona/solar-wind are not straightforward. Therefore, in the present article, we have used potential-field source-surface (PFSS) extrapolations to deduce global magnetic-fields using synoptic magnetograms observed with National Solar Observatory (NSO), Kitt Peak, USA (NSO/KP) and Solar Optical Long-term Investigation of the Sun (NSO/SOLIS) instruments during 1975-2018. Furthermore, we have measured the normalized scintillation index [m] using the IPS observations carried out at the Institute of Space Earth Environment Research (ISEE), Japan during 1983-2017. From these observations, we have found that, since the mid-1990s, the magnetic-field over different latitudes at 2.5 $\rm R_{\odot}$ and 10 $\rm R_{\odot}$(extrapolated using PFSS method) has decreased by $\approx 11.3-22.2 \%$. In phase with the declining magnetic-fields, the quantity m also declined by $\approx 23.6 \%$. These observations emphasize the inter-relationship between the global magnetic-field and various turbulence parameters in the solar corona and solar wind.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09134 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The upper (a and b) and lower (c and d) panels represents the PFSS extrapolated magnetic￾fields derived from the full disk magnetograms observed on 2011 August 9 (solar minimum) and 2004 July 18 (solar maximum) respectively. The left (a and c) and right (b and d) panels show the extrapolated magnetic-fields from 1.5 – 2.5 R⊙ and 5 – 10 R⊙ respectively. The gray colored disk at the center is the magnetogram observed … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The synoptic magnetogram (upper panel) was observed during the CR2114 using NSO/SOLIS instrument at the wavelength 630.150 nm. The upper panel shows the distribution of observed photospheric magnetic-fields. The middle and lower panels are the extrapolated synoptic magnetograms (of the one in the upper panel) to the source surface 2.5 and 10 R⊙ respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Variation of magnetic-field with the solar cycle. The left (a, c, e) and right columns (b, d, f) show the average of Region-A and poloidal fields respectively. In each panel the triangles pointing upward and triangles pointing downward indicate the northern and southern hemispheric fields. The circle in black indicate the average of both northern and southern hemispheric fields. The gray solid line shows the monthly… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Variation of magnetic-field with the solar cycle. The left (a, c, e) and right columns (b, d, f) show the toroidal and mid-latitude fields respectively. In each panel the triangles pointing upward and triangles pointing downward indicate the northern and southern hemis…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variation of the normalized scintillation index [m] over different years is shown. The blue circles indicate the annually averaged m for different sources. The red circles indicate the annual average of the all sources observed in that year. The fit to the red circles …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., & Newkirk, G

    Altschuler, M. D., & Newkirk, G. 1969, SoPh, 9, 131, doi: 10.1007/BF00145734

    doi:10.1007/bf00145734 1969

  2. [2]

    A., & Kaufman, J

    Ananthakrishnan, S., Coles, W. A., & Kaufman, J. J. 1980, J. Geophys. Res., 85, 6025, doi: 10.1029/JA085iA11p06025 14 Sasikumar Raja et al

    work page doi:10.1029/ja085ia11p06025 1980

  3. [3]

    1987, A&A, 178, 263

    Arnaud, J., & Newkirk, Jr., G. 1987, A&A, 178, 263

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    Asai, K., Kojima, M., Tokumaru, M., et al. 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 1991, doi: 10.1029/97JA02750

    doi:10.1029/97ja02750 1998

  5. [5]

    Bird, M. K. 1981, in Solar Wind 4, ed. H. Rosenbauer, 78

    work page 1981

  6. [6]

    Bird, M. K. 1982, SSRv, 33, 99, doi: 10.1007/BF00213250

    doi:10.1007/bf00213250 1982

  7. [7]

    K., Janardhan, P., Ingale, M., et al

    Bisoi, S. K., Janardhan, P., Ingale, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 795, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/69

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/795/1/69 2014

  8. [8]

    M., Muschietti, L., & Goldman, M

    Celnikier, L. M., Muschietti, L., & Goldman, M. V. 1987, A&A, 181, 138

    work page 1987

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Cliver, E. W. 2015, Revisiting the Sunspot Number, ed. A. Balogh, H. Hudson, K. Petrovay, & R. von Steiger, 35

    2015

  2. [10]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    L., & Handy, B

    Freeland, S. L., & Handy, B. N. 1998, SoPh, 182, 497, doi: 10.1023/A:1005038224881

    1998 doi

  4. [12]

    Hale, G. E. 1908, ApJ, 28, 315, doi: 10.1086/141602

    1908 doi

  5. [13]

    Harvey, J. W. 1969, PhD thesis, Univ. Colorado, Boulder

    1969

  6. [14]

    F., & Wills, D

    Hewish, A., Scott, P. F., & Wills, D. 1964, Nature, 203, 1214, doi: 10.1038/2031214a0

    1964 doi

  7. [15]

    Hoeksema, J. T. 1984, PhD thesis, Stanford Univ., CA

    1984

  8. [16]

    Janardhan, P., & Alurkar, S. K. 1993, A&A, 269, 119

    1993

  9. [17]

    1996, SoPh, 166, 379, doi: 10.1007/BF00149405

    Ananthakrishnan, S., et al. 1996, SoPh, 166, 379, doi: 10.1007/BF00149405

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    2011, Geophys

    Tokumaru, M., & Fujiki, K. 2011, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L20108, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049227

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    K., Ananthakrishnan, S., et al

    Janardhan, P., Bisoi, S. K., Ananthakrishnan, S., et al. 2015, J. Geophys. Res., 120, 5306, doi: 10.1002/2015JA021123

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    K., & Gosain, S

    Janardhan, P., Bisoi, S. K., & Gosain, S. 2010, SoPh, 267, 267, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9653-x

    2010 doi

  13. [21]

    K., & Rout, D

    Janardhan, P., Fujiki, K., Ingale, M., Bisoi, S. K., & Rout, D. 2018, A&A, 618, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832981

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    1990, SSRv, 53, 173, doi: 10.1007/BF00212754

    Kojima, M., & Kakinuma, T. 1990, SSRv, 53, 173, doi: 10.1007/BF00212754

    1990 doi

  15. [23]

    J., & Tomczyk, S

    Lin, H., Penn, M. J., & Tomczyk, S. 2000, ApJL, 541, L83, doi: 10.1086/312900

    2000 doi

  16. [24]

    E., & Freeman, J

    Lopez, R. E., & Freeman, J. W. 1986, J. Geophys. Res., 91, 1701, doi: 10.1029/JA091iA02p01701

    1986 doi

  17. [25]

    H., & van Ballegooijen, A

    Mackay, D. H., & van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2006, ApJ, 641, 577, doi: 10.1086/500425

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    Manoharan, P. K. 2010, SoPh, 265, 137, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9593-5

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    1975, Radio Science, 10, 115, doi: 10.1029/RS010i001p00115

    Marians, M. 1975, Radio Science, 10, 115, doi: 10.1029/RS010i001p00115

    1975 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Barraclough, B

    McComas, D. J., Barraclough, B. L., Funsten, H. O., et al. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10419, doi: 10.1029/1999JA000383

    2000 doi

  21. [29]

    Mickey, D. L. 1973, ApJL, 181, L19, doi: 10.1086/181175

    1973 doi

  22. [30]

    D., & Schatten, K

    Pesnell, W. D., & Schatten, K. H. 2018, SoPh, 293, 112, doi: 10.1007/s11207-018-1330-5

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    W., & Smartt, R

    Querfeld, C. W., & Smartt, R. N. 1984, SoPh, 91, 299, doi: 10.1007/BF00146301

    1984 doi

  24. [32]

    Ramesh, R., Kathiravan, C., & Sastry, C. V. 2010, ApJ, 711, 1029, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/711/2/1029 Sasikumar Raja, K., Ingale, M., Ramesh, R., et al. 2016, J. Geophys. Res., 121, 11, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023254 Sasikumar Raja, K., & Ramesh, R. 2013, ApJ, 775, 38, doi: 10.1088/0...

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    Kathiravan, C., & Wang, T. J. 2014, ApJ, 796, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/56 Sasikumar Raja, K., Subramanian, P., Ingale, M., & Ramesh, R. 2019, ApJ, 872, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafd33 Sasikumar Raja, K., Subramanian, P., Ramesh, R., Vourlidas, A., & Ingale, M. 2017, ...

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Sastry, C. V. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1934, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1934

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    H., Wilcox, J

    Schatten, K. H., Wilcox, J. M., & Ness, N. F. 1969a, SoPh, 6, 442, doi: 10.1007/BF00146478 —. 1969b, SoPh, 6, 442, doi: 10.1007/BF00146478

    doi

  28. [36]

    J., & De Rosa, M

    Schrijver, C. J., & De Rosa, M. L. 2003, SoPh, 212, 165, doi: 10.1023/A:1022908504100

    2003 doi

  29. [37]

    J., & Title, A

    Schrijver, C. J., & Title, A. M. 2003, ApJL, 597, L165, doi: 10.1086/379870

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    T., Levy, G

    Stelzried, C. T., Levy, G. S., Sato, T., et al. 1970, SoPh, 14, 440, doi: 10.1007/BF00221330 Global Solar Magnetic-field and Interplanetary Scintilla tions 15

    1970 doi

  31. [39]

    Tokumaru, M., Kojima, M., & Fujiki, K. 2010, J. Geophys. Res., 115, A04102, doi: 10.1029/2009JA014628 van Ballegooijen, A. A., Priest, E. R., & Mackay, D. H. 2000, ApJ, 539, 983, doi: 10.1086/309265

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Ananthakrishnan, S., Swarup, G., Pynzar, A

    Venugopal, V. R., Ananthakrishnan, S., Swarup, G., Pynzar, A. V., & Udaltsov, V. A. 1985, MNRAS, 215, 685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/215.4.685

    1985 doi

  33. [41]

    Wang, Y.-M., & Sheeley, Jr., N. R. 1992, ApJ, 392, 310, doi: 10.1086/171430

    1992 doi

  34. [42]

    Zhao, X., & Hoeksema, J. T. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 19, doi: 10.1029/94JA02266

    1995 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.