Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Catalogs of solar wind types and their role in solar-terrestrial physics

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A published list of the drivers of 149 magnetic storms disagrees with one reference catalog in 19.5% of events and with another in about 28% of its CME-related events, so using it uncorrected invites false conclusions.

desk verdict Probably correct counts, but 'incorrect' is overreach: the audit assumes the Dst-minimum type is the driver, and two of the authors' own examples show the disputed structure ended before the minimum. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10894 v1 pith:OTJCPZWZ submitted 2024-12-14 physics.space-ph

Irina G. Lodkina , Yuri I. Yermolaev , Alexander A. Khokhlachev This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.space-ph
keywords solarwindtypesinterplanetarydriversmagneticstormsICMECIRsheathDstindexcycle24
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 tests a recently published list of the solar wind structures that drove 149 moderate and strong magnetic storms from 2009 to 2019. It compares each storm's assigned driver against two established catalogs: one that distinguishes seven large-scale solar wind types, and one that tracks interplanetary coronal mass ejections. The comparison shows that about one storm in five is assigned a different driver in the tested list, and that nearly a third of the events labeled as CME-related are absent from the CME catalog. The authors conclude that studies using the untested list without correction may draw false conclusions about how the magnetosphere responds to different solar wind types.

What carries the argument

The comparison rests on the physical signatures that distinguish compression regions from CME bodies. In a sheath or corotating interaction region (CIR), the velocity, density, temperature, plasma beta, and kinetic and thermal pressures rise together; in an ICME body (ejecta or magnetic cloud) these parameters fall. The paper reads the reference catalog's type at the time of each storm's Dst minimum and compares it with the type assigned by the tested list. The other load-bearing element is the reference catalog's coverage of CIRs, which the CME-only catalog lacks, and the distinction between an ICME body and the sheath ahead of it.

What would settle it

A reanalysis that assigns each storm's driver from the onset of the main phase, rather than the Dst minimum, and then recomputes the disagreement rates would show whether the 19–28% discrepancy shrinks or disappears; for the two storms whose CIRs ended 50 and 17 hours before the minimum, this reassignment would directly change the count.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the identification of interplanetary driver types in the published list under examination is unreliable. Of the 149 storms it covers, 29 receive a different driver type in the reference catalog, a disagreement rate of 19.5%; among the 81 events labeled as CME or sheath, 23 do not appear in the CME catalog, a rate of about 28%. The paper argues that these discrepancies are large enough that using the unadjusted list in solar-terrestrial studies can lead to false conclusions, and it recommends that the scientific community adopt reference catalogs for interplanetary event classification.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the correct solar wind type for a storm is the one present at the exact moment of the Dst minimum, rather than the earlier structure that initiated the storm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any study that adopts the tested list without re-checking inherits a roughly 20% driver-mislabeling rate for Solar Cycle 24 storms.
  • The 28% absence rate for events labeled as CME or sheath means that studies relying on the tested list may mix true CME regions with non-CME solar wind in their storm samples.
  • The discrepancy between the tested list and the two reference catalogs is larger than the roughly 13% disagreement between the two reference catalogs themselves, marking the tested list as the outlier.
  • A practical consequence is that the paper's recommendation to use reference catalogs accepted by the community would, if followed, raise the comparability of solar-terrestrial studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The default to the Dst minimum as the assignment time means the disagreement rates are likely upper bounds; a rule that credits the structure that initiated the storm would probably pull at least the two CIR-ended-early cases back into agreement.
  • Studies that use the tested list to separate CME-driven from CIR-driven storms inherit a labeling noise floor near 20%, so any reported CME-CIR difference smaller than about that threshold may be an artifact of mislabeling rather than a physical effect.
  • The same three-way comparison could be applied to other event lists built from automated CME-arrival criteria, giving a quick quality score before such lists are used in downstream statistics.
  • A stronger test would re-run one published storm-response study using only the events on which the two reference catalogs agree, and check whether the paper's conclusions change.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares the interplanetary driver identifications for 149 moderate and strong geomagnetic storms (Dst ≤ −50 nT, 2009–2019) in the list of Qiu et al. with two reference data sets: the Yermolaev et al. catalog of large-scale solar wind types and the Richardson and Cane ICME catalog. It reports that 29 of 149 events (19.5%) are labeled differently in the Yermolaev et al. catalog, and that 23 of 81 events marked as ICME or Sheath in Qiu et al. are absent from the Richardson and Cane catalog (~28%). The paper concludes that some events in Qiu et al. were identified incorrectly, that using the list can lead to false conclusions in solar–terrestrial studies, and that the community should adopt reference catalogs for solar wind type identification.

Significance. If the main claim were established, the paper would serve a useful cautionary role for users of the Qiu et al. list. The discrepancy statistics are simple, reproducible from public catalogs, and the five figures support the specific reclassifications shown. However, the central claim that the Qiu et al. identifications are 'incorrect' is not supported by the evidence presented: the paper treats agreement with the authors' own catalog as ground truth, and its own examples show that part of the discrepancy is a timing-convention artifact rather than an identification error. The significance is therefore moderate; a revised version that reframes the results as inter-catalog disagreement and validates driver association against independent physical criteria would be more convincing.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, §3.2, Table 1] The paper's leap from 'disagreement' to 'incorrect identification' depends on the unstated rule that the solar wind type at the exact time of the Dst minimum is the storm's driver. The paper's own examples 137 and 149 contradict this rule: the CIR ended 50 h and 17 h, respectively, before the Dst minimum, yet the paper counts these as Qiu et al. errors because the Yermolaev et al. catalog says SW at the minimum. Without an independent definition of 'driver' tied to the storm's main-phase onset or energy input, the 19.5% and 28% figures are comparisons of two labeling conventions, not a demonstration that Qiu et al.'s identifications are false. The authors should either adopt an explicit, physically motivated association rule or present the numbers only as inter-catalog agreement rates.
  2. [§3.2, event 58 (Fig. 3)] The text admits that whether the shock wave preceding the Ejecta is associated with the Ejecta 'requires additional research and is beyond the scope of this article.' This directly undermines the claim that Qiu et al.'s Sheath label for event 58 is incorrect: if the association is ambiguous, the discrepancy cannot be counted as an identification error. The same caveat applies to other events where a compression region is adjacent to an ICME boundary, such as events 39, 45, 63, and 135.
  3. [§1, §4] The paper treats the Yermolaev et al. catalog as reference truth without independent validation. The paper itself notes that the Yermolaev et al. and Richardson and Cane catalogs differ by about 13% (Section 3.1 and conclusion 3). Unless the Yermolaev et al. catalog is validated against independent ground truth (for example, in situ plasma and magnetic-field signatures or solar source associations), the conclusion that Qiu et al. made errors, rather than that the catalogs merely disagree, is circular.
  4. [§3.1, comparison with Richardson and Cane] The 28% figure (23 of 81 events) counts events labeled ICME or Sheath by Qiu et al. that are absent from the Richardson and Cane catalog. Because Richardson and Cane is an ICME-only catalog with a composite definition that includes sheath, absence may reflect different catalog coverage or definitions rather than a Qiu et al. error. The paper does not check whether the 23 events would qualify as ICMEs under Richardson and Cane criteria; it simply assumes that Qiu et al.'s label obliges their presence. This needs a case-by-case examination or a clear statement that the figure represents a coverage difference rather than an error rate.
  5. [§2, §3.1] The identification methodology is described only qualitatively; no quantitative thresholds or algorithmic rules are given for assigning a storm to a solar wind type. The paper criticizes Qiu et al. for not providing reproducible criteria, but the comparison presented here relies on the authors' catalog labels without demonstrating their accuracy in this interval. At a minimum, the paper should state how boundary intervals are chosen and how events that straddle two types are handled, since the reported percentages are sensitive to these choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Typographical errors] There are numerous typos and formatting issues: 'CB CIR' in Section 3.2, 'Ермолаев' in Table 1 column header, 'c Dst' in Fig. 5 caption, and '1x10' appears without exponent superscripts in several figure panels. The Fig. 1 caption says 'August 27 to March 3, 2017' but should read 'August 27 to September 3, 2017.'
  2. [Table 1, column 6] The meaning of the sixth column (Yermolaev et al. vs. Richardson and Cane comparison after 'coarsening' to a two-class nomenclature) is unclear from the table alone. The note explaining this should appear before the table or in the caption, and the column should explicitly state whether '+' means agreement or simply presence in both catalogs.
  3. [Uncertainty estimates] The percentages 19.5% and ~28% are quoted without uncertainty. Given 29/149 and 23/81, the binomial standard errors are about 3.2% and 5.0%, respectively; the authors should report such uncertainties so that readers can judge whether the differences are significant.
  4. [References and URLs] Reference [31] appears with an incomplete URL in one place ('http://www iki.rssi.ru/pub/omni/catalog/'), and the access dates for the catalogs are not given. The reference list also does not include the Qiu et al. paper's DOI consistently; check all bibliographic entries.
  5. [Section 3.2] The phrase '55 events out of 149 in the list of Qiu et al are marked by the authors as type CB CIR' should read 'CIR,' and the count of 10 Yermolaev et al. differences from this subset should be itemized consistently with Table 1 (events 11, 16, 109, 115, 134, 66, 89, 143, 137, 149).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's disagreement rates are direct cross-tabulations of three independent catalogs, and its central claim does not reduce to its own definitions or fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's headline figures (19.5% disagreement with Yermolaev et al. and ~28% of Qiu et al.'s ICME/Sheath events absent from Richardson and Cane) are obtained by comparing three pre-existing, independently constructed event identifications. No parameter is fitted from the data and no prediction is derived from an input that already contains the answer. The use of the authors' own catalog as the primary reference is a methodological choice, but the comparison against Richardson and Cane provides an external benchmark, so the central claim does not rest solely on self-citation. The paper's treatment of events 137 and 149, where the CIR ended 50 and 17 hours before the Dst minimum and the authors classify the interval as SW, raises a legitimate question about whether driver association should be anchored to the storm onset rather than the Dst minimum. That is a scientific assumption that may affect the interpretation of the disagreement rates, but it is not a circular reduction: the matched and mismatched labels are what they are regardless of which association convention is preferred. The recommendation to use community-accepted reference catalogs is an opinion supported by the catalog comparison and cannot be characterized as a self-definitional derivation. Overall, the paper is a comparison study with no fitted input being renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation chain, so no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, no invented entities, and no new physical constants. Its central result depends on two external classification catalogs and on the assumption that solar wind type can be read from plasma and magnetic field signatures.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Yermolaev et al. IKI RAS catalog correctly identifies large-scale solar wind types.
    Used as the primary reference in the comparison (Section 3.1); the paper provides no independent validation of this catalog beyond its own prior papers.
  • domain assumption The Richardson and Cane catalog correctly identifies ICME events.
    Used as a secondary reference for ICME and sheath events (Section 2); it does not include CIR, so its coverage is partial.
  • domain assumption Solar wind type can be inferred from time series of plasma beta, temperature, density, speed, and magnetic field using the threshold-free visual method of refs. [31,35,36].
    Methodology in Section 2; the reliability of this inference for distinguishing CIR, sheath, and ICME is assumed and referenced to the authors' earlier work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Catalogs of solar wind types and their role in solar-terrestrial physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OTJCPZWZ

@misc{pith2026241210894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Catalogs of solar wind types and their role in solar-terrestrial physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OTJCPZWZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10894}
}
read the original abstract

The response of the magnetosphere to interplanetary drivers depends on their type. The reliability of their identification affects the conclusions of the analysis of connections between the solar wind and the magnetosphere. In this work, we analyze the list of moderate and strong geomagnetic storms and their interplanetary sources for the period 2009 - 2019, presented in the work of Qiu et al. It is shown that some of the events in this list were identified incorrectly, and their interpretation differs in ~20% of cases from our catalog by Yermolaev et al. (http://www.iki.rssi.ru/pub/omni/) for types of solar wind Sheath, ICME and CIR, and in ~28% of cases from the Richardson and Cane catalog for ICME. Using the unadjusted list of Qiu et al. may lead to incorrect identification of interplanetary drivers of magnetic storms and erroneous conclusions. It is recommended to use the classification of interplanetary events from catalogs of events accepted by the scientific community as reference ones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10894 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as fig. 1 Event 58 of the list by Qiu et al with a minimum of MS at 10.VII.2013 22.00 with Dst = –56 nT according to the catalog of Yermolaev et al. falls within the Ejecta interval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    What Solar–Terrestrial Link Researchers Should Know a bout Interplanetary Drivers

    Yermolaev Y.I., Lodkina I.G., Dremukhina L.A., Yermolaev M.Y., Khokhlachev A.A. What Solar–Terrestrial Link Researchers Should Know a bout Interplanetary Drivers. 21 //Universe 2021, 7, 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe7050138

    work page doi:10.3390/universe7050138 2021

  2. [30]

    Yermolaev, Yu.I., Lodkina, I.G., Nikolaeva, N.S., et al., Some problems of identifying types of large -scale solar wind and their role in the physics of the magnetosphere // Cosmic Res., 2017, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 178–189

    work page 2017

  3. [1]

    Plasma heliogeophysics

    Zelenyi L.M., Veselovsky I.S. Plasma heliogeophysics. Moscow. М.: Fiz-matlite, 2008. Т. 1. 672 с.; Т. 2. 560 с

    work page 2008

  4. [2]

    Modern achievements in plasma heliogeophysics

    Zelenyi L.M., Petrukovich A.A., Veselovsky I.S. Modern achievements in plasma heliogeophysics. Moscow. М.: IKI RAN, 2016. — 672 с. — ISBN 978-5-00015-011-5

    work page 2016

  5. [3]

    Interplanetary Magnetic Field and the Auroral Zones // Phys

    Dungey J.W. Interplanetary Magnetic Field and the Auroral Zones // Phys. Rev. Lett. 1961, 6, 47–48

    work page 1961

  6. [4]

    Cahill L.J

    Fairfield D.H. Cahill L.J. The transition region magnetic field and polar magnetic disturbances // J. Geophys. Res. 1966, 71, 155–169

    work page 1966

  7. [5]

    Rostoker G., Falthammar C. -G. Relationship between changes in the interpla netary magnetic field and variations in the magnetic field at the Earth’s surface // J. Geophys. Res. 1967, 72, 5853–5863

    work page 1967

  8. [6]

    On the cause of magnetic storms // J

    Russell C.T., McPherron R.L., Burton R.K. On the cause of magnetic storms // J. Geophys. Res. 1974, 79, 1105–1109

    work page 1974

Show all 38 references
  1. [7]

    An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst // J

    Burton R.K., McP herron R.L., Russell C.T. An empirical relationship between interplanetary conditions and Dst // J. Geophys. Res. 1975, 80, 4204–4214

    1975

  2. [8]

    The interplanetary Causes of Magnetic Storms: A Review

    Tsurutani B.T., Gonzalez W.D. The interplanetary Causes of Magnetic Storms: A Review. In Magnetic Storms; Mon S., Tsuruta ni B.T., Gonzalez W.D., Kamide Y., Eds.; // American Geophysical Union Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; Volume 98, p. 77

    1997

  3. [9]

    Interplaneta ry origin of geomagnetic storms // Space Sci

    Gonzalez W.D., Tsurutani B.T., Clua de Gonzalez A.L. Interplaneta ry origin of geomagnetic storms // Space Sci. Rev. 1999, 88, 529–562

    1999

  4. [10]

    Statistical studies of geomagnetic storm dependencies on solar and i nterplanetary events: A review // Planet

    Yermolaev Y.I., Yermolaev M.Y., Zastenker G.N., Zelenyi L.M., Petrukovich A.A., Sauvaud J.A. Statistical studies of geomagnetic storm dependencies on solar and i nterplanetary events: A review // Planet. Space Sci. 2005, 53, 189–196

    2005

  5. [11]

    Solar and Interplanetary Sources of Geomagnetic Storms: Space Weather Aspects // Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 2010, Vol

    Yermolaev Y.I., an d Yermolaev M.Y. Solar and Interplanetary Sources of Geomagnetic Storms: Space Weather Aspects // Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 2010, Vol. 46, No. 7, pp. 799–819. 2010

    2010

  6. [12]

    Space weather: The solar perspective // Living Rev

    Temmer M. Space weather: The solar perspective // Living Rev. Sol. Phys. 2021, 18, 4

    2021

  7. [13]

    An investigation of the relationship between the magnetic storm Dst indexes and different types of solar wind streams // Ann

    Eselevich V.G., Fainshtein V.G. An investigation of the relationship between the magnetic storm Dst indexes and different types of solar wind streams // Ann. Geophys. 1993, 11, 678–684

    1993

  8. [14]

    Variability of magnetospheric storms driven by different solar wind perturbations // J

    Huttunen K.E.J., Koskinen H.E.J., Schwenn, R. Variability of magnetospheric storms driven by different solar wind perturbations // J. Geophys. Res. 2002, 107

    2002

  9. [15]

    Differences between CME -driven storms and CIR -driven storms // J

    Borovsky J.E., Denton M.H. Differences between CME -driven storms and CIR -driven storms // J. Geophys. Res. 2006, 111

    2006

  10. [16]

    Differences in geomagnetic storms driven by magnetic clouds and ICME sheath regions // Geophys

    Pulkkinen T.I., Partamies N., Huttun en K.E.J., Reeves G.D., Koskinen H.E.J. Differences in geomagnetic storms driven by magnetic clouds and ICME sheath regions // Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007, 34, L02105

    2007

  11. [17]

    Relative occurrence rate and geoeffectiveness of large-scale types of the solar wind // Cosm

    Yermolaev Y.I., Nikolaeva N.S., Lodkina I.G., Yermolaev M.Y. Relative occurrence rate and geoeffectiveness of large-scale types of the solar wind // Cosm. Res. 2010a, 48, 1–30

  12. [18]

    Specific interplanetary conditions for CIR - induced, Sheath -induced, and ICME -induced geomagnetic storms obt ained by d ouble superposed epoch analysis // Ann

    Yermolaev Y.I., Nikolaeva N.S., Lodkina I.G., Yermolaev M.Y. Specific interplanetary conditions for CIR - induced, Sheath -induced, and ICME -induced geomagnetic storms obt ained by d ouble superposed epoch analysis // Ann. Geophys. 2010b, 28, 2177–2186

  13. [19]

    Geoeffectiveness and efficiency of CIR, sheath, and ICME in generation of magnetic storms // J

    Yermolaev Y.I., Nikolaeva N.S., Lodkina I.G., Yermolaev M.Y. Geoeffectiveness and efficiency of CIR, sheath, and ICME in generation of magnetic storms // J. Geophys. Res. 2012, 117, A00L007

    2012

  14. [20]

    Predicted dependence of the cross polar cap potential saturation o n the type of solar wind stream // Adv

    Nikolaeva N., Yermolaev Y., Lodkina I. Predicted dependence of the cross polar cap potential saturation o n the type of solar wind stream // Adv. Space Res. 2015, 56, 1366–1373. 11

    2015

  15. [21]

    SolarWind Stream s of Different Ty pes and High -Latitude Substorms // Geomagn

    Despirak I.V., Lyubchich A.A., Kleimenova N.G. SolarWind Stream s of Different Ty pes and High -Latitude Substorms // Geomagn. Aeron. 2019, 59, 1–6

    2019

  16. [22]

    Dynamics of Interplanetary Parameters and Geomagnetic Indices during Magnetic Storms Induced by Different Types of Solar Wind // Geomagn

    Dremukhina L.A., Yermolaev Y.I., Lodkina I.G. Dynamics of Interplanetary Parameters and Geomagnetic Indices during Magnetic Storms Induced by Different Types of Solar Wind // Geomagn. Aeron. 2019, 59, 639–650

    2019

  17. [24]

    and Papitashvili N.E

    King J.H. and Papitashvili N.E. Solar wind spatial scales in and comparisons of hourly wind and ACE plasma and magnetic field data // J. Geophys. Res., 2004, vol. 110, no. A2, A02209. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010804

    2004 doi

  18. [25]

    Geomagnetic storms over the last solar cycle: A superposed epoch analysis // J

    Hutchinson J.A., Wright D.M., Milan S.E. Geomagnetic storms over the last solar cycle: A superposed epoch analysis // J. Geophys. Res. 2011. V. 116. A09211. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JA016463

    2011 doi

  19. [26]

    Pandya M., Veenadhar B., Ebihara Y. et al. Variation of Radiation belt electron flux during CME and CIR driven geomagnetic storms: Van Allen Probes observations // JGR Space Physics. 2019. DOI:10.1029/2019JA026771

    2019 doi

  20. [27]

    K., Jaynes A

    Shen X.-C., Hudson M. K., Jaynes A. et al. Statistical study of the storm time radiation belt evolution during Van Allen Probes era: CME - versus CIR-driven storms. // J. Geophys. Res. Space Physics. 2017. V. 1 22. Р. 8327–8339. doi:10.1002/2017JA024100

    2017 doi

  21. [28]

    Characteristics of CME - and CIR-driven ion upflows in the polar ionosphere // JGR Space Physics

    Ogawa Y., Seki K., Keika K., Ebihara Y. Characteristics of CME - and CIR-driven ion upflows in the polar ionosphere // JGR Space Physics. 2019. V. 124. P. 3637– 3649]

    2019

  22. [29]

    and Miyoshi Y

    Kataoka R. and Miyoshi Y. Flux enhancement of radiation belt electrons during geomagnetic storms driven by coronal mass ejections and corotating interaction regions // Space Weather, 2006, vol. 4, S09004. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005SW000211

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    I., Nikolaeva N.S., Lodkina I.G., Yermolaev M.Y

    Yermolaev Yu. I., Nikolaeva N.S., Lodkina I.G., Yermolaev M.Y. Catalog of Large -Scale Solar Wind Phenomena during 1976-2000 // Cosm. Res. 2009, 47, 81–94

    1976

  24. [32]

    The interplanetary origins of geomagnetic storm with Dstmin ≤ 50nT dur ing solar cycle 24 (2009 –2019) // Advances in Space Research, 2022

    Qiu S., Zhang Z., Yousof H., Soon W., Jia M., Tang W., Dou,X. The interplanetary origins of geomagnetic storm with Dstmin ≤ 50nT dur ing solar cycle 24 (2009 –2019) // Advances in Space Research, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.06.025

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    Wang Z., Pan B., Miao P

    Shen C., Y. Wang Z., Pan B., Miao P. Ye, and S. Wang (2014). Full -halo coronal mass ejections: Arrival at the Earth // J. Geophys. Res. Space Physics, 119, 5107–5116, doi:10.1002/2014JA020001

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Near -Earth Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections During// Solar Cycle 23 (1996 – 2009): Catal og and Summary of Properties // Sol

    Richardson, I.G., Cane, H.V. Near -Earth Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections During// Solar Cycle 23 (1996 – 2009): Catal og and Summary of Properties // Sol. Phys., 2010. Vol. 264: 189, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-010-9568-6

    1996 doi

  27. [35]

    Comparisons of C IR vs

    Yermolaev, Y.I., Lodkina, I.G., Nikolaeva, N.S., and Yermolaev, M.Y., Dynamics of large -scale solar-wind streams obtained by the double superposed epoch analysis: 2. Comparisons of C IR vs. Sheath and MC vs. Ejecta // Sol. Phys., 2016, vol. 292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207...

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    Dynamics of large -scale solar wind streams obtained by the d ouble superposed epoch analysis // J

    Yermolaev Y.I., Lodkina I.G., Nikolaeva N.S., and Yermolaev, M.Y. Dynamics of large -scale solar wind streams obtained by the d ouble superposed epoch analysis // J. Geophys. Res.: Space Phys., 2015, vol. 120, no. 9, pp. 7094–7106. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021274

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Modeling the time behavior of th e Dst index during the main phase of magnetic storms generated by various types of solar wind // Adv

    Nikolaeva N., Yermolaev Y., Lodkina I. Modeling the time behavior of th e Dst index during the main phase of magnetic storms generated by various types of solar wind // Adv. Space Res. 2013, 6, 401 –412. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0010952513060038

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    -“means a match or non-match of the event ICME). 6- column – catalog event match Yermolaev et al . and catalog Richardson and Cane. Since the catalog R were previously “coarsened

    Seki K., Keika K., Ebihara Y. Characteristics of CME - and CIR-driven ion upflows in the polar ionosphere // JGR Space Physics, 2019, Vol. 124, P. 3637-3649, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025870 12 8/27/17 8/28/17 8/29/17 8/30/17 8/31/17 9/1/17 9/2/17 9/3/17 Month/Day/Year -10...

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.