Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 90 references

Comparative analysis of two episodes of strongly geoeffective CME events in November and December 2023

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The November 2023 geomagnetic storm was deepened by a solar sector boundary crossing, not just by coronal mass ejections; the same pattern, more weakly, reappeared in the December storm.

desk verdict A transparent two-episode CME case study whose SBC-amplification claim is plausible but rests on an ambiguous discontinuity identification and non-independent model fits. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14295 v1 pith:RGY54YCZ submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

M. Temmer , M. Dumbovic , K. Martinic , G.M. Cappello , A.K. Remeshan , F.Matkovic , D.Milosic , F.Koller
show 3 more authors
J.Calogovic R.Susino M.Romoli
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords coronalmassejectionssolarwindgeomagneticstormsectorboundarycrossingheliosphericcurrentsheetDstindexstableauroralredarcsdrag-basedmodel
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 why two near-identical solar eruption episodes in late 2023 produced very different geomagnetic storms, with the November 4-5 storm reaching Dst -163 nT and producing stable auroral red arcs while the December 1-2 storm reached only -108 nT. The authors argue that in both cases a sector boundary crossing (SBC) of the heliospheric current sheet sat between or inside the arriving CME structures, and that the magnetic structures associated with the SBC contributed significantly to the deepest Dst drops. If true, storm intensity depends not only on the CMEs themselves but on where they encounter the heliospheric current sheet, which matters for space-weather forecasting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sector boundary crossing (SBC), the polarity transition across the wavy heliospheric current sheet, identified in OMNI 1-minute data by a strong drop in total magnetic field, a change in Bx and By polarity, and a density and plasma-beta spike. Around these crossings the paper identifies 'ripples' -- short-term, few-hour mesoscale variations in the total magnetic field separated by abrupt orientation changes, accompanied by strong temperature and density fluctuations -- and argues these structures, together with the compressed heliospheric plasma sheet, produced the strongest negative Bz and hence the deepest Dst drops. Supporting machinery includes GCS 3D reconstruction for CME geometry and speed, the 3D drag-based model for propagation and CME-CME interaction, the CHIP parameter for coronal-hole deflection, and a PFSS-based magnetic connectivity tool that places the eruption sites next to a highly tilted heliospheric current sheet.

What would settle it

Run a magnetospheric ring-current model or a global MHD simulation on the measured November 5 solar wind with the SBC-adjacent structures removed while keeping the shocks; if the modeled Dst still reaches about -163 nT in three steps, the SBC modulation claim is not needed. Conversely, a clean prediction is that a storm driven by an identical CME pair without an intervening SBC would produce a smaller, two-step Dst drop without the deepest third step and without SAR arcs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In both events the in-situ data show two CME-related shocks arriving close together with a sector boundary crossing between them (November) or a shock from one CME running inside the magnetic ejecta of another near an SBC (December), and in both cases the Dst index dropped in multiple steps whose deepest phases coincided with SBC-adjacent magnetic structures rather than with the CME ejecta alone. The paper attributes the first of the three November Dst drops to a compressed heliospheric plasma sheet with strong negative Bz, and the later drops to shock-sheath fluctuations combined with SBC-related magnetic field configurations. It reports mesoscale 'ripples' in the magnetic field with correlated or anti-correlated component profiles and strong density and temperature fluctuations that follow each SBC, and uses GCS reconstruction plus 3D DBM to link individual CMEs to the arrival times. The conclusion is that, besides interacting CME structures, SBC-related magnetic structures modulated the geomagnetic impact and most likely contributed to the stronger November storm and its SAR arcs.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that sector boundary crossings amplified the storms rests on matching SBC-related structures in time with the Dst drops; the paper has no quantitative decomposition of the Dst index, and it concedes that the first November shock is only tentatively linked to CME1.3, so if the SBC attributions are wrong or the Dst drops were dominated by the CME fields alone, the central conclusion would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Forecasters should treat the heliospheric current sheet's tilt and the timing of sector boundary crossings as controls on storm severity, not just CME speed and magnetic field orientation.
  • A CME that would cause a moderate storm can produce a severe one if its shock sheath and a sector boundary arrive close together, as in November 2023.
  • Three-step Dst drops plus stable auroral red arcs are a plausible observable signature of SBC-modulated CME impacts.
  • Mesoscale magnetic-field ripples with density and temperature fluctuations after an SBC could serve as an in-situ marker for identifying such events.
  • The highly tilted north-south HCS near the eruption sites likely compressed and deflected the CME structures, adding to the impact.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the SBC mechanism is general, re-analysis of past strong storms with Dst minima near sector boundary crossings should show similar ripple signatures and multi-step Dst drops; that is a testable prediction beyond this paper.
  • The paper's logic implies that the orientation of the heliospheric current sheet should be added as an input to operational CME impact models, since it may act as an obstacle that compresses and rotates CME magnetic fields.
  • The same mechanism might explain why 'copycat' eruptions a solar rotation apart produce different geoeffectiveness: the HCS configuration has changed in the meantime even if the source regions are similar.
  • A quantitative check would be to compute the Dst contribution from the SBC-adjacent interval using existing empirical Dst models, something the paper does not do.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a comparative case study of two episodes of solar eruptions in late 2023, one on October 31-November 3 (rotation #1) and one on November 27-28 (rotation #2), separated by a full solar rotation and involving partly the same active regions near a coronal hole. Using GCS reconstructions from multiple white-light viewpoints, including Metis, the authors derive CME geometry, speed, and direction, and use these as input for a 3D drag-based model (3D DBM) to connect remote-sensing observations to in-situ measurements. The two episodes are related to geomagnetic storms on November 4-5, 2023 (Dst -163 nT, SAR arcs) and December 1-2, 2023 (Dst -108 nT). The central conclusion is that, besides interacting CME structures, magnetic structures associated with sector boundary crossings (SBC) contributed to the stronger geomagnetic impact and the production of SAR arcs in the November event. The paper identifies two closely spaced CME shocks separated by an SBC, a short-duration flux-rope-like structure with Bz = -28 nT, and magnetic-field ripples following the SBC; for rotation #2 it identifies a shock from CME2.4+5 propagating inside the magnetic ejecta of CME2.2, again combined with an SBC.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would strengthen the case that SBC-related structures and a highly tilted HCS can modulate the geoeffectiveness of compound CME events, which is a useful and under-represented perspective in space-weather research. The study has clear strengths: it combines multi-viewpoint GCS reconstructions, Metis and STEREO-A data, CHIP-based coronal hole influence estimates, and a careful in-situ interpretation of both events, including the two-episode comparison. The paper also documents its own assumptions and limitations in unusual detail, such as the tweaking of GCS parameters and the simplified interaction treatment. However, the main causal conclusion currently rests on an SBC identification that the authors themselves describe as ambiguous, and on a Dst attribution that is not quantitatively decomposed. The significance is therefore conditional: the paper is a valuable observational case study, but its headline claim is not yet fully supported by the evidence as presented.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2 / Figure A.7] The identification of the SBC between the two shocks on November 5 is not robust. The text concedes that 'The HCS signatures (plasma density, total magnetic field) associated with the SBC are not fully clear and could also be interpreted as deflection patterns in the interplanetary magnetic field caused by the CME shocks, likely corresponding to the flank crossings of CME1.3 and CME1.4.' Because this SBC is the observational anchor for the claim that SBC-related structures amplified the November storm, the paper needs a stronger discriminator. Please provide a falsifiable criterion or additional evidence, such as solar-wind electron pitch-angle distributions, plasma composition, or a predicted HCS crossing time from coronal magnetic-field mapping, to distinguish a genuine SBC from shock-induced field deflections. Without this, the central conclusion is not distinguished from the null hypothesis that the two CME shocks and their sheaths alone produced the observed Dst steps.
  2. [Appendix A.3 / Section 3.1] The 3D DBM 'predictions' for CME1.4 are not independent tests of the CME-Earth connection. Appendix A.3 states that the GCS results for CME1.4 were 'tweaked ... such to come from a glancing blow to a flank hit,' and that 'we are able to find a set of parameters within the GCS errors that produce the observed signatures in-situ.' This means that the arrival-time and flank-hit results for CME1.4 are obtained by construction within the model's error bars. The paper should explicitly label these runs as backward-fitting exercises, not predictions, and should state what would change in the interpretation if the nominal GCS solution (a glancing blow) were used instead.
  3. [Section 3.2 / Dst attribution] The three-step Dst drop for rotation #1 is attributed to (i) a high-density streamer-belt region, (ii) the shock-sheath of CME1.3 plus the SBC region, and (iii) a short-duration low-beta structure with Bz = -28 nT followed by ripples. No quantitative decomposition of the Dst index is provided that separates the SBC contribution from the contributions of the CME shock-sheath magnetic fields and the flux-rope-like structure. Given that both CMEs carry strong negative Bz, temporal coincidence with the SBC is insufficient to establish that the SBC was a major contributor. Moreover, in rotation #2 the SBC is embedded inside the ME of CME2.2, so the two-episode comparison does not isolate the SBC effect. Please provide a quantitative Dst-model-based decomposition (e.g., using a Burton-type equation that separates the response to V and Bz) or substantially soften the causal wording in the abstract and conclusions.
  4. [Section 3.3 / interaction run] The 3D DBM interaction run for CME2.2 and CME2.4+5 uses a gamma value lowered 'almost by a factor of two' and an enhanced solar wind speed, and the resulting modeled shock arrival is 6-15.5 h later than observed. The paper acknowledges this as a simplified approach, but the result is subsequently used to support the interpretation that the two CMEs arrived as a 'combined entity.' Please quantify how much of the arrival-time delay depends on the gamma reduction versus the enhanced solar wind speed, and present the interaction scenario explicitly as a hypothesis rather than a model-derived result, or provide a sensitivity analysis over the plausible parameter range.
  5. [Section 4 / ripples] The paper lists four candidate mechanisms for the ripples, only one of which involves the HCS or sector boundary: (i) CME-solar-wind interaction, (ii) shock-wave compression regions, (iii) magnetic reconnection between the CME and the HCS, and (iv) mesoscale density structures in the slow solar wind. Since the ripples are cited as a common feature following the SBC and as part of the evidence for SBC-related modulation, the authors need to state what discriminates among these four mechanisms in the present data, or explicitly downgrade the ripples from supporting evidence to an unexplained temporal correlation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1 / references] The reference to 'Dumbovic et al., 2024, to be submitted' appears twice; please update it if a preprint or published version is now available.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The acronyms 'HB' and 'HD' are used in the figure but not expanded in the caption; please define them at first use (e.g., heliospheric plasma sheet and high-density structure).
  3. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'To conclude, we can attribute the three-step drop in Dst to ...' is a conclusion placed in the Results section; consider moving it to the Discussion to keep observations and interpretation separate.
  4. [Table A.1 / notation] The table header uses 'Hp303' while the text describes 'Hp30'; please correct the notation to a single consistent form.
  5. [Figure A.6 / Table A.1] Figure A.6 states that no strong constraint can be placed on the tilt of CME2.4+5, yet Table A.1 lists a tilt value of -35 degrees; please clarify whether that value is a best-fit estimate with a large uncertainty, and state whether the tilt error should be treated as asymmetric.
  6. [Section 4] The comparison 'This value roughly corresponds in rotation #1 to the first Dst drop of -54 nT' is not self-evident, because the 55 nT difference between the Dst minima of the two events is not obviously the same physical quantity as the first step of one event; please clarify the logic or remove the comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

3D DBM arrival-time estimates are post-hoc tuned to reproduce the observed in-situ signatures, so the CME-to-shock attribution supporting the Dst-step decomposition is partly circular; the SBC-modulation claim itself retains independent in-situ evidence.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A.3, Table A.1 footnote; Sections 3.2-3.3]
    "As input for the 3D DBM runs we use the results from GCS for CME2.2 and CME2.4 +5 and tweaked the results from GCS for CME1.4 such to come from a glancing blow to a flank hit. The optimum values for the interaction events produces an arrival which is roughly 10 hours later than observed. We are able to find a set of parameters within the GCS errors that produce the observed signatures in-situ."

    The 3D DBM arrival times and hit/miss classifications in Table 1 are used to connect in-situ shocks and magnetic structures to specific CMEs, but the input GCS parameters were adjusted post hoc until the model reproduced the observed in-situ signatures. The CME1.4 'flank hit' was manufactured by tweaking latitude and tilt within the GCS errors, and the CME2.2/CME2.4+5 interaction run was obtained by lowering gamma and enhancing solar wind speed. Consequently, the agreement between modeled and measured arrival times is enforced by construction rather than constituting an independent test.

full rationale

The central claim that SBC-related magnetic structures most likely contributed to the stronger November geomagnetic impact and SAR arcs is not itself derived from the 3D DBM; it rests on direct in-situ observations: the sector boundary crossing between two shocks, the short-duration low-beta structure with Bz = -28 nT, the ripples after the SBC, and the two-episode comparison with the December event. Those elements are independent of the modeling. However, the paper's use of 3D DBM is circular in a narrower sense: Appendix A.3 explicitly states that parameters were tweaked within GCS errors to reproduce the observed in-situ signatures, and the CME1.4 geometry was adjusted from a glancing blow to a flank hit. The resulting arrival times and hit/miss classifications are therefore fitted outputs presented as model results, not independent predictions. This weakens the CME-to-in-situ attributions that underpin the detailed Dst-step decomposition, particularly the tentative identification of the first November shock with CME1.3. The November SBC identification is also flagged as ambiguous in Section 3.2, where the HCS signatures 'could also be interpreted as deflection patterns in the interplanetary magnetic field caused by the CME shocks'; this is a correctness risk rather than a circularity, because it concerns classification of observed data rather than an input-output equivalence. Overall, the central SBC-modulation claim retains independent observational content, but the modeling chain that links shocks to specific CMEs is partly circular due to post-hoc fitting.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on model assumptions (GCS flux rope fits, DBM propagation, simplified CME-CME merging, PFSS HCS location) and on a small number of tuned parameters. The 3D DBM is unpublished and cited as 'to be submitted'; its interaction runs required ad hoc reductions of the drag parameter and enhanced solar wind to produce an encounter. The paper is transparent about these simplifications, but they mean the arrival-time results are fitted, not independent predictions.

free parameters (5)
  • CME1.4 GCS latitude and tilt adjusted for flank hit = latitude = 25°, tilt = -35°
    Appendix A.3: nominal GCS gave a glancing blow; the paper states the GCS results were 'tweaked' within errors to produce a flank hit and an arrival time.
  • Gamma reduction for CME2.4+5 in interaction run = factor ~2 lower gamma
    Section 3.3: 'we lower the γ value almost by a factor of two and enhance the solar wind speed' to make the CME2.2/CME2.4+5 interaction happen; exact value not specified.
  • Enhanced solar wind speed in interaction run = not specified
    Section 3.3: used to force earlier interaction; no numeric value provided.
  • Density ratio classes in 3D DBM = 2 (slow), 4 (intermediate), 6 (fast)
    Appendix B: typical ENLIL values adopted by CME speed class, not measured for these events; they enter gamma computation.
  • Gamma parameters for individual 3D DBM runs = 0.25, 0.34, 0.19 (x1e-7 km^-1)
    Table A.1: computed via Cargill (2004)/Vrsnak et al. (2014) from CME radius and assumed density ratio; these feed the arrival time results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption GCS forward-model fits to white-light images give the true 3D structure and speed of each CME.
    Used in Section 2 to define source parameters; errors taken from Verbeke et al. 2023, but the model assumes a flux-rope geometry.
  • domain assumption The drag-based model (DBM) with a 2D cone geometry in both equatorial and meridional planes adequately describes CME propagation to 1 AU.
    Section 2.1 and Appendix B; the paper acknowledges 'this is a simplified approach' for CME-CME interaction.
  • domain assumption CME-CME interaction in 3D DBM can be modeled as trailing-front/leading-front merging with conserved momentum and mass, with mass ratio estimated by the observer.
    Appendix B: 'the front of the trailing CME first interacts with the back of the leading CME... this approach offers a simple and fast way'; mass ratio is 'estimated roughly by the observer.'
  • domain assumption PFSS extrapolation from ADAPT magnetograms at 3 Rs accurately locates the HCS near the Sun.
    Section 3.4: used to claim the HCS was highly tilted and that CME source regions were near it.
  • domain assumption The shock arrival time 10 hours before the CME1.4 flux rope is estimated from a typical shock-sheath duration.
    Section 3.2: based on the statistical Russell & Mulligan (2002) result, not on this event's data.
  • domain assumption The provisional Dst index and the public SBC list used to identify sector boundary crossings are reliable.
    Section 3.1 and 3.2: Dst is provisional; SBCs are taken from Leif Svalgaard's list.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparative analysis of two episodes of strongly geoeffective CME events in November and December 2023." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RGY54YCZ

@misc{pith2026250114295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparative analysis of two episodes of strongly geoeffective CME events in November and December 2023},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RGY54YCZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14295}
}
read the original abstract

In autumn 2023, a series of closely timed eruptive events were observed remotely and measured in situ. We studied analogous solar events, where several CMEs were launched partly from the same (active) regions near a CH. These events occurred in two episodes, separated by a full solar rotation, covering October 31-November 3 and November 27-28, 2023. Both episodes are linked to strong geomagnetic storms on November 4-5 and December 1-2, 2023. We aim to understand the complexity of these events and how the global magnetic field, solar wind conditions, and structural interactions relate to the observed geomagnetic effects. Using the GCS 3D reconstruction method, we derived each CME's motion direction and speed. These results were input into the DBM with enhanced latitudinal information (3D DBM), aiding in connecting in-situ measurements with solar surface structures for integrated interpretation. The first episode caused SAR arcs, with a three-step Dst index drop to -163 nT on November 5, 2023. Two CME-related shocks arrived close in time, separated by a SBC, followed by a short-duration flux rope-like structure. The second episode saw auroral lights and a two-step Dst index drop to -108 nT on December 1, 2023. A shock from one CME interacted with the magnetic structure of a preceding CME, again combined with an SBC. A clear flux rope structure from the shock-producing CME was detected. Both events showed distinct magnetic field 'ripples' and fluctuations in density and temperature following the SBC. This study compares two episodes of multiple eruptive events in November and December 2023. Interacting CME structures and SBC-related magnetic modulations contributed to the stronger geomagnetic impacts, particularly in the November 4-5, 2023 event. The highly tilted heliospheric current sheet may have further influenced the CMEs' impact at Earth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14295 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. General overview of the CME occurrence and CHs for the two episodes, rotation #1 (left panel) and rotation #2 (right panel), overlaid on AIA 193Å images. Given are CH locations with their center of mass (CM) and apex distances to the active regions (AR) from which the CMEs were launched (more details are given in Section 2.1). For each CME the 3D speed information is given as derived from a linear fit to sequential … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. For rotation #1 we show on the example of CME1.2 the CME structure from different perspectives (LASCO C2, COR2 and Metis) and GCS reconstruction for the CME at a 3D height of 5.4Rs. Bottom right panel: from different time steps the height-time and speed are derived using a linear fit (given in the legend). nates S18/W30-34. In LASCO C2 the CME front appeared first 2023-11-02 23:12 UT at PA 260–280°. Though the CME i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: For rotation #2 we show on the example of CME2.3 the CME structure from different perspectives (LASCO C2, COR2 and Metis) and GCS reconstruction for the CME at a 3D height of 13.0Rs. Bottom right panel: from different time steps the height-time and speed are derived us…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: OMNI in-situ measurements and geomagnetic indices for each rotation (the x-axis shows time in UT). From top to bottom: magnetic field/vector components, density+temperature, plasma￾β+speed, Dst+Hp30. We mark a high plasma-β structure heliospheric plasma sheet (HB), hig…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Location of the HCS and respective CME source regions (yellow circles) overlaid on SDO/AIA 193Å synoptic images. The HCS location is derived by the Magnetic Connectivity Tool on the basis of a PFSS (Riley et al. 2006) extrapolation for a surface height of 3Rs. The resu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2020, , 642, A10

    Antonucci , E., Romoli , M., Andretta , V., et al. 2020, , 642, A10

    2020

  4. [4]

    & Pizzo, V

    Arge, C. & Pizzo, V. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research, 105, 10465

    2000

  5. [5]

    B., Szabo , A., Lepping , R

    Berdichevsky , D. B., Szabo , A., Lepping , R. P., Vi \ n as , A. F., & Mariani , F. 2000, , 105, 27289

    2000

  6. [6]

    A., & Bogdan , T

    Bothmer , V., Daglis , I. A., & Bogdan , T. J. 2007, Physics Today, 60, 59

    2007

  7. [7]

    E., Howard , R

    Brueckner , G. E., Howard , R. A., Koomen , M. J., et al. 1995, , 162, 357

    1995

  8. [8]

    2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 1425

    Burlaga , L., Berdichevsky , D., Gopalswamy , N., Lepping , R., & Zurbuchen , T. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 1425

    2003

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    F., Plunkett , S

    Burlaga , L. F., Plunkett , S. P., & St. Cyr , O. C. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1266

    2002

  2. [10]

    F., Scudder , J

    Burlaga , L. F., Scudder , J. D., Klein , L. W., & Isenberg , P. A. 1990, , 95, 2229

    1990

  3. [11]

    M., Temmer , M., Vourlidas , A., et al

    Cappello , G. M., Temmer , M., Vourlidas , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.14682

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cargill , P. J. 2004, 221, 135

    2004

  5. [13]

    Cliver , E. W. & Svalgaard , L. 2004, , 224, 407

    2004

  6. [14]

    Cole , K. D. 1965, , 70, 1689

    1965

  7. [15]

    R., Gibson, S

    Cranmer, S. R., Gibson, S. E., & Riley, P. 2017, Space Science Reviews, 212, 1345

    2017

  8. [16]

    Crooker , N. U. 2000, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 62, 1071

    2000

  9. [17]

    U., Huang , C

    Crooker , N. U., Huang , C. L., Lamassa , S. M., et al. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 109, A03107

    2004

  10. [18]

    2023, , 676, A45

    De Leo , Y., Burtovoi , A., Teriaca , L., et al. 2023, , 676, A45

    2023

  11. [19]

    M., Temmer , M., & Podladchikova , T

    Dissauer , K., Veronig , A. M., Temmer , M., & Podladchikova , T. 2019, , 874, 123

    2019

  12. [20]

    2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8 [ [arXiv] 2103.14292 ]

    Dumbovi \' c , M., C alogovi \' c , J., Martini \' c , K., et al. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8 [ [arXiv] 2103.14292 ]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    2015, , 290, 579

    Dumbovi \'c , M., Devos , A., Vr s nak , B., et al. 2015, , 290, 579

    2015

  14. [22]

    2019, , 880, 18

    Dumbovi \'c , M., Guo , J., Temmer , M., et al. 2019, , 880, 18

    2019

  15. [23]

    M., Podladchikova , T., et al

    Dumbovi \'c , M., Veronig , A. M., Podladchikova , T., et al. 2021, , 652, A159

    2021

  16. [24]

    & Gonzalez , W

    Echer , E. & Gonzalez , W. D. 2004, , 31, L09808

    2004

  17. [25]

    D., Tsurutani , B

    Echer , E., Gonzalez , W. D., Tsurutani , B. T., & Gonzalez , A. L. C. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 113, A05221

    2008

  18. [26]

    Fenrich , F. R. & Luhmann , J. G. 1998, , 25, 2999

    1998

  19. [27]

    2020, Experimental Astronomy, 49, 239

    Fineschi , S., Naletto , G., Romoli , M., et al. 2020, Experimental Astronomy, 49, 239

    2020

  20. [28]

    2023, , 672, A168

    Geyer , P., Dumbovi \'c , M., Temmer , M., et al. 2023, , 672, A168

    2023

  21. [29]

    2024, Solar Physics, 299, 9

    Gil , A., Asvestari , E., Mishev , A., Larsen , N., & Usoskin , I. 2024, Solar Physics, 299, 9

    2024

  22. [30]

    2009, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 114, A00A22

    Gopalswamy , N., M \"a kel \"a , P., Xie , H., Akiyama , S., & Yashiro , S. 2009, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 114, A00A22

    2009

  23. [31]

    L., Howard , R

    Gopalswamy , N., Yashiro , S., Kaiser , M. L., Howard , R. A., & Bougeret , J. L. 2001, , 548, L91

    2001

  24. [32]

    F., et al

    Guo , J., Dumbovi \'c , M., Wimmer-Schweingruber , R. F., et al. 2018, Space Weather, 16, 1156

    2018

  25. [33]

    T., & Lakhina , G

    Hajra , R., Tsurutani , B. T., & Lakhina , G. S. 2020, , 899, 3

    2020

  26. [34]

    G., Jer c i \'c , V., Temmer , M., et al

    Heinemann , S. G., Jer c i \'c , V., Temmer , M., et al. 2020, , 638, A68

    2020

  27. [35]

    G., Temmer, M., Farrugia, C

    Heinemann, S. G., Temmer, M., Farrugia, C. J., et al. 2019, Solar Physics, 294, 1

    2019

  28. [36]

    G., Temmer , M., Heinemann , N., et al

    Heinemann , S. G., Temmer , M., Heinemann , N., et al. 2019, , 294, 144

    2019

  29. [37]

    M., Scherrer , P

    Henning , H. M., Scherrer , P. H., & Hoeksema , J. T. 1985, , 90, 11055

    1985

  30. [38]

    T., Wilcox , J

    Hoeksema , J. T., Wilcox , J. M., & Scherrer , P. H. 1983, , 88, 9910

    1983

  31. [39]

    A., Moses , J

    Howard , R. A., Moses , J. D., Vourlidas , A., et al. 2008, , 136, 67

    2008

  32. [40]

    Isavnin , A., Vourlidas , A., & Kilpua , E. K. J. 2014, , 289, 2141

    2014

  33. [41]

    L., Kucera , T

    Kaiser , M. L., Kucera , T. A., Davila , J. M., et al. 2008, , 136, 5

    2008

  34. [42]

    Kay , C., Opher , M., & Evans , R. M. 2015, , 805, 168

    2015

  35. [43]

    King, J. H. & Papitashvili, N. E. 2020, OMNI 1-min Data Set

    2020

  36. [44]

    Kozyra , J. U. & Liemohn , M. W. 2003, , 109, 105

    2003

  37. [45]

    2020, , 894, L19

    Lavraud , B., Fargette , N., R \'e ville , V., et al. 2020, , 894, L19

    2020

  38. [46]

    R., Title , A

    Lemen , J. R., Title , A. M., Akin , D. J., et al. 2012, , 275, 17

    2012

  39. [47]

    P., Szabo , A., Peredo , M., & Hoeksema , J

    Lepping , R. P., Szabo , A., Peredo , M., & Hoeksema , J. T. 1996, , 23, 1199

    1996

  40. [48]

    J., Smith , C

    Lugaz , N., Farrugia , C. J., Smith , C. W., & Paulson , K. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 2409

    2015

  41. [49]

    J., Winslow , R

    Lugaz , N., Farrugia , C. J., Winslow , R. M., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 10,861

    2016

  42. [50]

    B., I., & Gombosi , T

    Lugaz , N., Manchester , W. B., I., & Gombosi , T. I. 2005, , 634, 651

    2005

  43. [51]

    Lugaz, N., Temmer, M., Wang, Y., & Farrugia, C. J. 2017, Solar Physics, 292 [ [arXiv] 1612.02398 ]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    2013, , 284, 59

    M \"a kel \"a , P., Gopalswamy , N., Xie , H., et al. 2013, , 284, 59

    2013

  45. [53]

    Manchester , W., Kilpua , E. K. J., Liu , Y. D., et al. 2017, , 212, 1159

    2017

  46. [54]

    J., Angold , N., Elliott , H

    McComas , D. J., Angold , N., Elliott , H. A., et al. 2013, , 779, 2

    2013

  47. [55]

    M \"u ller , D., St. Cyr , O. C., Zouganelis , I., et al. 2020, , 642, A1

    2020

  48. [56]

    J., Chakraborty , N., Turner , H., et al

    Owens , M. J., Chakraborty , N., Turner , H., et al. 2022, , 297, 83

    2022

  49. [57]

    Palmerio , E., Kilpua , E. K. J., M \"o stl , C., et al. 2018, Space Weather, 16, 442

    2018

  50. [58]

    & Vourlidas , A

    Patsourakos , S. & Vourlidas , A. 2012, , 281, 187

    2012

  51. [59]

    D., Thompson , B

    Pesnell , W. D., Thompson , B. J., & Chamberlin , P. C. 2012, , 275, 3

    2012

  52. [60]

    2021, Frontiers in Physics, 8, 654

    Pit n a , A., S afr \'a nkov \'a , J., N e me c ek , Z., D urovcov \'a , T., & Kis , A. 2021, Frontiers in Physics, 8, 654

    2021

  53. [61]

    A., Miki \'c , Z., et al

    Riley , P., Linker , J. A., Miki \'c , Z., et al. 2006, , 653, 1510

    2006

  54. [62]

    M., Braga , C

    Romeo , O. M., Braga , C. R., Badman , S. T., et al. 2023, , 954, 168

    2023

  55. [63]

    P., Pinto , R

    Rouillard , A. P., Pinto , R. F., Vourlidas , A., et al. 2020, , 642, A2

    2020

  56. [64]

    Russell , C. T. & Mulligan , T. 2002, , 50, 527

    2002

  57. [65]

    H., Schou , J., Bush , R

    Scherrer , P. H., Schou , J., Bush , R. I., et al. 2012, , 275, 207

    2012

  58. [66]

    2020, Space Weather, 18, e02246

    Scolini , C., Chan \'e , E., Pomoell , J., Rodriguez , L., & Poedts , S. 2020, Space Weather, 18, e02246

    2020

  59. [67]

    R., Wang , Y

    Sheeley , N. R., Wang , Y. M., Hawley , S. H., et al. 1997, , 484, 472

    1997

  60. [68]

    Smith , E. J. 2001, , 106, 15819

    2001

  61. [69]

    A., Nikolic, L., Hofmeister, S

    Temmer, M., Reiss, M. A., Nikolic, L., Hofmeister, S. J., & Veronig, A. M. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 1

    2017

  62. [70]

    G., et al

    Temmer , M., Scolini , C., Richardson , I. G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.04851

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    2012, , 749, 57

    Temmer , M., Vr s nak , B., Rollett , T., et al. 2012, , 749, 57

    2012

  64. [72]

    2011, 194, 33

    Thernisien , A. 2011, 194, 33

    2011

  65. [73]

    F., Morrill, J

    Thernisien, A. F., Morrill, J. S., Howard, R. A., & Wang, D. 2006, Solar Physics, 233, 155

    2006

  66. [74]

    T., Zank , G

    Tsurutani , B. T., Zank , G. P., Sterken , V. J., et al. 2023, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 51, 1595

    2023

  67. [75]

    E., Baker , D

    Turner , N. E., Baker , D. N., Pulkkinen , T. I., et al. 2001, , 106, 19149

    2001

  68. [76]

    L., Kay , K., et al

    Verbeke , C., Mays , M. L., Kay , K., et al. 2023

    2023

  69. [77]

    M., DeForest , C

    Viall , N. M., DeForest , C. E., & Kepko , L. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 139

    2021

  70. [78]

    2011, , 733, L23

    Vourlidas , A., Colaninno , R., Nieves-Chinchilla , T., & Stenborg , G. 2011, , 733, L23

    2011

  71. [79]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 213, 21

    Vr s nak, B., Temmer, M., Z ic, T., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 213, 21

    2014

  72. [80]

    2013, Solar Physics, 285, 295

    Vr s nak, B., Z ic, T., Vrbanec, D., et al. 2013, Solar Physics, 285, 295

    2013

  73. [81]

    Vr s nak , B., Temmer , M., & Veronig , A. M. 2007, , 240, 315

    2007

  74. [82]

    M., Lugaz , N., Schwadron , N

    Winslow , R. M., Lugaz , N., Schwadron , N. A., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 6092

    2016

  75. [83]

    M., Scolini , C., Lugaz , N., & Galvin , A

    Winslow , R. M., Scolini , C., Lugaz , N., & Galvin , A. B. 2021, , 916, 40

    2021

  76. [84]

    J., Burton , M

    Winterhalter , D., Smith , E. J., Burton , M. E., Murphy , N., & McComas , D. J. 1994, , 99, 6667

    1994

  77. [85]

    P., et al

    Wu , C.-C., Liou , K., Lepping , R. P., et al. 2017, , 292, 109

    2017

  78. [86]

    2022, Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2022GL098860, e2022GL098860 2022GL098860

    Yamazaki, Y., Matzka, J., Stolle, C., et al. 2022, Geophysical Research Letters, 49, e2022GL098860, e2022GL098860 2022GL098860

    2022

  79. [87]

    2024, Space Weather, 22, e2023SW003497, e2023SW003497 2023SW003497

    Yordanova, E., Temmer, M., Dumbović, M., et al. 2024, Space Weather, 22, e2023SW003497, e2023SW003497 2023SW003497

    2024

  80. [88]

    B., Wang , H., Goode , P

    Yurchyshyn , V. B., Wang , H., Goode , P. R., & Deng , Y. 2001, , 563, 381

    2001

  81. [89]

    2021, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 8, 56

    Zhang , J., Temmer , M., Gopalswamy , N., et al. 2021, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 8, 56

    2021

  82. [90]

    2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A06107

    Zhao , X., Feng , X., & Wu , C.-C. 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 112, A06107

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.