Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Evolution of Earth's Magnetosphere During the Solar Main Sequence

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 As the Sun spun down, Earth's magnetopause standoff distance grew from about 2.3 Earth radii in a fast-rotating young Sun to 9.4 Earth radii today, following a broken power law in rotation rate; at the most extreme early rotation, no bow…

desk verdict Solid, honest MHD mapping of Earth's magnetospheric evolution, but the no-shock early Sun claim is a knife-edge extrapolation that should be softened. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03537 v2 pith:UP4KJODM submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph

S. Carolan (1) , A. A. Vidotto (1) , C. Loesch (2) , P. Coogan (1) ((1) Trinity College Dublin , (2) IESB/Brazil) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords Earth'smagnetospheresolarwindevolutionstellarrotationmagnetopausestandoffdistancebowshockmagnetohydrodynamicsyoungSunmainsequence
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 asks how Earth's magnetic shield changed over the Sun's main-sequence lifetime by feeding evolving stellar-wind models into 3D magnetohydrodynamic simulations of the magnetosphere. It claims that the magnetopause standoff distance $r_M$ shrank as solar rotation $\Omega$ increased, following a broken power law: $r_M \propto \Omega^{-0.27}$ for $\Omega \ge 1.4\,\Omega_{\odot}$ (early ages) and $r_M \propto \Omega^{-2.04}$ for $\Omega < 1.4\,\Omega_{\odot}$ (older ages). It further claims that if the early Sun rotated at about $50\,\Omega_{\odot}$, the solar wind at 1 au would be submagnetosonic, so Earth would have had no bow shock; at $30\,\Omega_{\odot}$ only a weak shock would form. A sympathetic reader should care because the size and openness of the magnetosphere regulates how much stellar wind reaches the atmosphere, linking solar spin-down to atmospheric escape and habitability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetopause standoff distance $r_M$, located in the simulations by the balance of magnetic and thermal pressure on the subsolar line, together with the wind's magnetosonic Mach number $M = u_{sw}^r/\sqrt{v_A^2+c_s^2}$, which sets whether a bow shock exists. The argument is carried by a coupled simulation chain: 1.5D polytropic Weber-Davis wind models use empirical scalings for base temperature (a broken power law breaking at $1.4\,\Omega_{\odot}$), density, and magnetic field with rotation, and the resulting wind properties at 1 au are injected into a 3D ideal MHD magnetosphere model with fixed present-day Earth parameters. The piecewise $r_M(\Omega)$ law is therefore not a magnetospheric effect but a direct consequence of the temperature-rotation scaling; the no-shock result at $50\,\Omega_{\odot}$ depends on the adopted magnetic field-rotation relation staying unsaturated at high rotation.

What would settle it

Concrete test: measure coronal temperatures, wind speeds, and magnetic fields of solar-analogue stars across the rotation range $0.8$-$50\,\Omega_{\odot}$. If the temperature-rotation relation has no break near $1.4\,\Omega_{\odot}$, the predicted $\Omega^{-0.27}/\Omega^{-2.04}$ break in Earth's magnetopause would not occur, and if a $50\,\Omega_{\odot}$ analogue is found to drive a supermagnetosonic wind (Mach $>1$) at 1 au, the no-bow-shock scenario is falsified directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that Earth's magnetosphere, simulated with a constant present-day dipole, responds to the evolving young Sun with a monotonic expansion: $r_M$ grows from about $2.3\,R_p$ at $50\,\Omega_{\odot}$ to $15.9\,R_p$ at $0.8\,\Omega_{\odot}$, with a present-day value of $9.4\,R_p$. The expansion is not a smooth single power law; it follows $r_M \propto \Omega^{-2.04}$ below $1.4\,\Omega_{\odot}$ and $r_M \propto \Omega^{-0.27}$ above it, the break being inherited from a piecewise empirical relation between coronal base temperature and rotation. Along the subsolar line, the bow shock standoff distance is linearly tied to the magnetopause, $r_{BS} = 1.275\,r_M$, for strong-shock models ($\Omega \le 10\,\Omega_{\odot}$), so the magnetosheath thickens in proportion to the magnetosphere. In the speculative fast-rotator scenarios, the wind's magnetosonic Mach number falls to $1.5$ at $30\,\Omega_{\odot}$ and $0.99$ at $50\,\Omega_{\odot}$, producing a weak shock or none at all while the magnetosphere, though compressed to $2.3\,R_p$, still survives.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the adopted piecewise scaling of coronal base temperature with rotation rate, with its break at $1.4\,\Omega_{\odot}$, is accurate; if it is not, the quoted $\Omega^{-0.27}$ and $\Omega^{-2.04}$ exponents and the position of the break change, and the no-bow-shock result also requires the magnetic-field scaling to remain unsaturated at high rotation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For most of solar main-sequence evolution ($\Omega \le 10\,\Omega_{\odot}$), Earth had a strong bow shock and a magnetosheath thickness proportional to $r_M$, so the whole dayside interaction region scaled with the magnetopause distance.
  • If the early Sun was a fast rotator ($10$-$50\,\Omega_{\odot}$), the young Earth's magnetosphere was much smaller (down to $2.3\,R_p$) and the fractional area of open field lines was larger, implying that stellar-wind inflow, rather than plasma collection, dominated atmospheric effects at early ages.
  • As the Sun continues to spin down below $1.4\,\Omega_{\odot}$, the steep $\Omega^{-2.04}$ scaling predicts a substantially larger future magnetosphere than today's.
  • The absence of a bow shock at $50\,\Omega_{\odot}$ would mean that the young Earth could have been directly exposed to submagnetosonic solar wind plasma, changing the plasma entry routes even though the magnetic shield was not crushed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the empirical temperature-rotation break at $1.4\,\Omega_{\odot}$ is real, it should show up as a corresponding break in astrospheric Ly$\alpha$ mass-loss or X-ray temperature surveys of solar analogues; looking for that break would test whether the two-exponent magnetopause law is universal or Sun-specific.
  • Because the no-shock prediction rests on the magnetic field-rotation relation remaining unsaturated, a detection of wind saturation in fast rotators (for example, from spin-down torques flattening at high $\Omega$) would remove the bow-shock-free regime without changing the low-rotation results.
  • The same simulation chain could be applied to exoplanets: planets around fast-rotating young stars may harbour magnetospheres with no detectable bow shock, which would affect how their winds and magnetic fields are inferred from transit and radio observations.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper couples 1.5D Weber-Davis stellar-wind models, calibrated to empirical rotation-dependent base temperature, density, and magnetic-field relations, with 3D SWMF MHD simulations of Earth's magnetosphere, in order to follow the dayside magnetopause standoff distance and bow shock over the solar main sequence for rotation rates from 0.8 to 50 Omega_sun. The principal results are that the standoff distance is a decreasing broken power law of Omega, with exponent -2.04 below 1.4 Omega_sun and -0.27 above, that the subsolar magnetosheath thickness scales linearly with standoff distance for the strong-shock cases, and that in the extreme assumed 50 Omega_sun wind the flow is submagnetosonic (M=0.99), so no bow shock forms. The paper explicitly attributes the break at 1.4 Omega_sun to the adopted piecewise temperature relation and flags the neglect of wind saturation at high rotation rates.

Significance. If upheld, this is a useful quantitative scenario for the evolution of the paleo-Earth magnetosphere and for how stellar spin-down affects wind-planet coupling more generally. The methods are standard but carefully used: the resolution is tested, the pressure-balance identification of the magnetopause and bow shock is cross-checked against density and velocity profiles and Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions, and the present-day standoff distance of 9.4 R_p reproduces observed values. The paper is also transparent about age-rotation degeneracies and provides fitting formulas for the wind quantities in Appendix A. The main caveat is that the two headline claims, namely the broken scaling exponents and the absence of a bow shock at 50 Omega_sun, are directly inherited from empirically fitted input scalings and are therefore only as robust as those input relations; the paper does not currently quantify that sensitivity.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (1) and (13)] The conclusion that no bow shock could be present at 50 Omega_sun rests on a magnetosonic Mach number of M=0.99, i.e., within one percent of the shock threshold. This value is produced by the unsaturated wind model, and the paper itself states in Section 2 (footnote 1) and Section 6 that saturation is required to explain the spin-down of fast rotators and that the model over-predicts angular-momentum loss above roughly 10 Omega_sun. Since the magnetic field enters M through v_A and is described by the empirical power law in Eq. (3), a modest change in B within the observational scatter, or a saturated B-Omega relation, can move M above unity and restore a bow shock in the 50 Omega_sun case; the 30 Omega_sun case is similarly marginal. Please provide a sensitivity test of M (and of the resulting magnetospheric state) to the scatter in Eqs. (1)-(3) and to a saturated magnetic-field scaling, or alternatively reformulate the abstract claim as a property of this specific unsaturated model rather than a general prediction.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (1) and (13)] The broken power-law exponents for the standoff distance are fits to simulation outputs whose input base temperature T0 is itself a broken power law at 1.4 Omega_sun. The paper is honest that the break is inherited from the empirical temperature relation, but the quantitative exponents -2.04 and -0.27 are still presented without uncertainties. Because these exponents are the central quantitative result, please show how they change when the normalizations and slopes of Eqs. (1)-(3) are varied within their observational scatter, and state which parts of the scaling, if any, are robust. Without such a test, the reader cannot distinguish an empirical interpolation from a physical scaling law.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The values in the Psi column are inconsistent with the definition Psi = arctan(B_phi^sw / B_r^sw) given in Section 2; for example, the 10 Omega_sun row has B_phi^sw / B_r^sw approximately 3.8, corresponding to about 75 degrees, not the tabulated 15 degrees. Either the column lists the complementary angle or the radial and azimuthal columns are mislabeled; please correct this.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2)] The units written for n0 are [g/cm3], but the text describes a base number density and the numerical value (10^8 times a dimensionless factor) is in cm^-3. Please correct the unit label.
  3. [Section 3, Figure 3] The grid is described as a 'cubic grid of length 32 R_p', but the stated range x = [-44, 20] R_p has length 64 R_p. Please reconcile the coordinate range with the stated box size.
  4. [Section 5, Figure 14] For the 30 and 50 Omega_sun cases, the standoff distance is identified from the j_phi magnetopause current because the pressure-balance method is not usable. Please add some additional validation of this diagnostic, such as a magnetic-field-line connectivity map or a stagnation-point check, since the claim that the magnetosphere is not completely crushed at 50 Omega_sun depends on this identification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnetopause scaling and the no-shock case are forward-model outputs from disclosed empirical inputs, not inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

This paper is a forward-modeling study: it takes observationally calibrated scalings for stellar wind base temperature, density, and magnetic field (Eqs. 1-3) as inputs to a 1.5D Weber-Davis wind model, then uses the resulting 1-au wind properties as boundary conditions for 3D MHD magnetosphere simulations. The headline piecewise magnetopause scaling (Eq. 13) and the M=0.99 no-shock case at 50 Omega_sun are outputs of those simulations, not parameters fitted to the target quantities. The 1.4 Omega_sun break in r_M is inherited from the adopted piecewise T0(Omega) relation, but the paper states this explicitly: the abstract says "This break is a result of the empirical properties adopted for the solar wind evolution," and Section 4.1 says "This is due to how the base temperature of the winds is specified in Section 2, which is given by a piecewise function about 1.4 Omega_sun." It is therefore a disclosed consequence of an input, not a disguised derivation. The power-law exponents in Eq. 13 are fits to r_M values produced by the coupled simulations, which is standard summarization of model output rather than circular prediction. The self-citations (O'Fionnagain & Vidotto 2018 for T0; Vidotto et al. 2014 for B) are empirical relations based on X-ray observations and magnetic maps, externally falsifiable, and therefore constitute genuine evidence rather than load-bearing self-citation. The acknowledged neglect of wind saturation above roughly 10 Omega_sun (Section 2 and Section 6) makes the 50 Omega_sun no-shock conclusion fragile, but fragility is a robustness and correctness concern, not circularity. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its own input by construction.

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

The central quantitative results depend on empirical rotation scalings for wind base properties (Eqs. 1-3) that are adopted from prior work and not re-derived here, plus stated modeling simplifications (constant Earth dipole, aligned axes, no wind saturation). The break in the headline magnetopause scaling is a direct consequence of the piecewise temperature relation.

free parameters (6)
  • T0 base temperature normalization (Omega < 1.4 Omega_sun) = 1.5e6 K, exponent 1.2
    Eq. (1), lower-rotation branch of the empirical temperature-rotation relation; directly sets the break in the magnetopause scaling.
  • T0 base temperature normalization (Omega >= 1.4 Omega_sun) = 1.98e6 K, exponent 0.37
    Eq. (1), higher-rotation branch; controls wind temperature and Mach number at fast rotation.
  • Break rotation Omega_break = 1.4 Omega_sun
    Location of the break in the adopted T0 relation; the rM power-law break in Eq. (13) occurs at the same value.
  • n0 base density normalization = 1e8 (Omega/Omega_sun)^0.6 g/cm3
    Eq. (2), from Ivanova & Taam 2003; sets wind density and ram pressure.
  • B_r,0 base magnetic field normalization = 1.29 (Omega/Omega_sun)^1.32 G
    Eq. (3), from Vidotto et al. 2014; sets Alfven speed and Mach number, critical for the no-shock result at 50 Omega_sun.
  • Polytropic index alpha = 1.05
    Section 2 adopts alpha = 1.05, making the wind nearly isothermal; affects the wind temperature profile.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 1.5D Weber-Davis polytropic wind model with polytropic index alpha = 1.05 and no energy equation adequately describes the solar wind acceleration and magnetic field structure out to 1 au.
    Section 2 states p_sw proportional to rho_sw^alpha with alpha = 1.05 and that no energy equation is solved; the wind structure depends on this approximation.
  • domain assumption The base temperature, density, and radial magnetic field of the wind follow the empirical rotation scalings in Eqs. (1)-(3).
    Section 2.1 adopts T0, n0, and B_r,0 from O'Fionnagain & Vidotto 2018, Ivanova & Taam 2003, and Vidotto et al. 2014; the magnetopause scaling inherits the break from Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption The 1 au wind properties from the 1.5D model can be used as spatially uniform inflow boundary conditions for the 3D magnetosphere simulation.
    Section 3 injects the wind at 20 Rp with tabulated local values; the real solar wind has spatial structure, sector structure, and variability.
  • domain assumption Earth's dipole moment is constant over the main sequence and the magnetic axis is aligned with the rotation axis.
    Section 3 and 4 use current B0 = -0.3 G and align the axes; Tarduno et al. 2010 is cited for a possibly weaker early field, but the authors adopt constant strength.
  • ad hoc to paper Stellar wind mass-loss rate and magnetic field do not saturate at high rotation rates.
    Section 2.3 explicitly states saturation is not included; saturation would break the angular momentum loss scaling and likely change the Mach numbers of the 30 and 50 Omega_sun models.
  • standard math The ideal MHD equations with adiabatic index gamma = 5/3 describe the magnetosphere and bow shock.
    Section 3, Eqs. (7)-(11); standard plasma physics assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Evolution of Earth's Magnetosphere During the Solar Main Sequence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UP4KJODM

@misc{pith2026190803537,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Evolution of Earth's Magnetosphere During the Solar Main Sequence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UP4KJODM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03537}
}
read the original abstract

As a star spins-down during the main sequence, its wind properties are affected. In this work, we investigate how the Earth's magnetosphere has responded to the change in the solar wind. Earth's magnetosphere is simulated using 3D magnetohydrodynamic models that incorporate the evolving local properties of the solar wind. The solar wind, on the other hand, is modelled in 1.5D for a range of rotation rates Omega from 50 to 0.8 times the present-day solar rotation (Omega_sun). Our solar wind model uses empirical values for magnetic field strengths, base temperature and density, which are derived from observations of solar-like stars. We find that for rotation rates ~10 Omega_sun, Earth's magnetosphere was substantially smaller than it is today, exhibiting a strong bow shock. As the sun spins down, the magnetopause standoff distance varies with Omega^{-0.27} for higher rotation rates (early ages, > 1.4 Omega_sun), and with Omega^{-2.04} for lower rotation rates (older ages, < 1.4 Omega_sun). This break is a result of the empirical properties adopted for the solar wind evolution. We also see a linear relationship between magnetopause distance and the thickness of the shock on the subsolar line for the majority of the evolution (< 10 Omega_sun). It is possible that a young fast rotating Sun would have had rotation rates as high as 30 to 50 Omega_sun. In these speculative scenarios, at 30 Omega_sun, a weak shock would have been formed, but for 50 Omega_sun, we find that no bow shock could be present around Earth's magnetosphere. This implies that with the Sun continuing to spin down, a strong shock would have developed around our planet, and remained for most of the duration of the solar main sequence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03537 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stellar wind local velocity, density, magnetic field and temperature at 1au, and mass and angular momentum loss rate profiles for stellar rotation rates from 0.8 Ω to 50 Ω . Fits are shown in black and red (when an azimuthal component is shown in the same panel). The fitting parameters are in Tables A1 and A2. The crosses mark the results of a particular model and are also listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The evolution of stellar rotation rate (Ω) from Gallet & Bouvier (2013), for a 1− M star. The blue solid line tracks the evolution of a fast rotating solar like star, while the dashed red line tracks the slow rotator. The black points mark the values of Ω adopted in our simulations. The fast and slow models give a well constrained age for the . 2.0 Ω models. For higher rotation rates, ages are more uncertain. For ex… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The X axis points towards the star and the Z axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: As u sw r u sw φ the wind is mainly radial at 1 au. This ori￾entation yields a solar wind which enters our domain through the day-side of the box seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The refinement grid used in our models. A maximum resolution of 1/32 Rp is used within a radius of 5 Rp, which slowly decreases outwards by a factor of 2 at each step as seen above. The arrows visualize the injection of the stellar wind into this domain. usw ϕ usw r Bs…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of how the stellar winds are oriented in our grid. The black circle represents the Earth, while the yellow represents the Sun. The magnetic and velocity vectors are drawn in the inertial frame of the star. The blue vectors show the stellar coordinate syste…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Earth’s magnetosphere for different values of stellar rotation from 0.8 Ω to 10 Ω . For each model the density distribution in the X-Z plane is shown as a contour. The streamtracers show the magnetic field lines, illustrating the magnetospheres in our models. plotted a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The variation of thermal, magnetic and ram pressures on the day side of the planet towards the star for the 1.2 Ω and 10 Ω models. The grey vertical dotted lines mark the points where thermal-magnetic and thermal-ram pressure balances occur, which represent the magneto…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The variation of velocity magnitude and density to￾wards the star in the 1.2 Ω model. These are normalized for comparison. This verifies the pressure balance method for estab￾lishing the standoff distance and magnetosheath thickness from our models, as we see the ram-t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The obtained bow shock distance (standoff distance + magnetosheath thickness) vs each magnetosphere standoff dis￾tance. We see the results from our models follow closely Equation 15 for a strong shock M 1. where γ = 5/3 is the adiabatic index. In a strong shock this r…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Variation of density on the dayside of the planet, towards the star (X axis) for different values of stellar rotation Ω. This shows the relative change of density through each of our models, as well as illustrating the Rankine-Hugoniot shock con￾ditions followed in ou…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The variation velocity, current and B-field components along the x axis towards the star, for the 1.2 Ω and 10.0 Ω model. The grey vertical lines again mark the point where magnetic-thermal (left) and ram-thermal (right) pressures are balanced. The red dot-dashed line…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Earth’s magnetosphere in the wind of a very fast rotating young Sun. In the 30 Ω model (left) we see a weaker shock than those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The current components along the subsolar line in the 30 Ω (left) and 50 Ω (right) models. The positive jφ component is the magnetopause current, which is a current system flowing around the magnetosphere. The positive jθ marks the position of the bow shock, and is ge…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Self-Consistent 3D Hydrodynamic Model for Helium Transit Signatures in Evaporating Hot Jupiters

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 3D hydrodynamic model with self-consistent hydrogen-helium chemistry shows stellar winds compress escaping hot-Jupiter atmospheres and suppress the 1083 nm helium triplet signal, while a young star's strong XUV flux...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    N., Stassun K

    Aarnio A. N., Stassun K. G., Hughes W. J., McGregor S. L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-010-9672-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011SoPh..268..195A 268, 195

    doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9672-7 2011

  2. [2]

    C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/27 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730...27A 730, 27

    Adams F. C., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/27 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730...27A 730, 27

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/1/27 2011

  3. [3]

    S., Glocer A., Gronoff G., H \'e brard E., Danchi W., 2016, @doi [Nature Geoscience] 10.1038/ngeo2719 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NatGe...9..452A 9, 452

    Airapetian V. S., Glocer A., Gronoff G., H \'e brard E., Danchi W., 2016, @doi [Nature Geoscience] 10.1038/ngeo2719 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NatGe...9..452A 9, 452

    doi:10.1038/ngeo2719 2016

  4. [4]

    D., Drake J

    Alvarado-G \'o mez J. D., Drake J. J., Cohen O., Moschou S. P., Garraffo C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb7f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862...93A 862, 93

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacb7f 2018

  5. [5]

    Bagenal F., 2013, Planetary Magnetospheres . p. 251, @doi 10.1007/978-94-007-5606-9_6

    doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5606-9_6 2013

  6. [6]

    A., 2013, Physics of Collisionless Shocks: Space Plasma Shock Waves

    Balogh A., Treumann R. A., 2013, Physics of Collisionless Shocks: Space Plasma Shock Waves . ISSI Scientific Report Series, Springer, New York, http://cds.cern.ch/record/1517899

    work page arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586..464B 586, 464

    Barnes S. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586..464B 586, 464

    doi:10.1086/367639 2003

  8. [8]

    G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A..63B 602, A63

    Beck P. G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A..63B 602, A63

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629820 2017

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Bharati Das S., Basak A., Nandy D., Vaidya B., 2018, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv181207767B

    2018

  2. [10]

    G., Tarduno J

    Blackman E. G., Tarduno J. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2640 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5146B 481, 5146

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Poppenhaeger K., Watson C

    Booth R. S., Poppenhaeger K., Watson C. A., Silva Aguirre V., Wolk S. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1630 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.1012B 471, 1012

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Leblanc F., Luhmann J

    Brain D. A., Leblanc F., Luhmann J. G., Moore T. E., Tian F., 2013, Planetary Magnetic Fields and Climate Evolution . pp 487--501, @doi 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816530595-ch20

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Chapman S., Ferraro V. C. A., 1931, @doi [Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity (Journal of Geophysical Research)] 10.1029/TE036i002p00077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1931TeMAE..36...77C 36, 77

    1931 doi

  6. [14]

    E., 2004, Physics of Solar System Plasmas

    Cravens T. E., 2004, Physics of Solar System Plasmas

    2004

  7. [15]

    J., Cohen O., Yashiro S., Gopalswamy N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/170 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..170D 764, 170

    Drake J. J., Cohen O., Yashiro S., Gopalswamy N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/170 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764..170D 764, 170

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    Egan H., Jarvinen R., Brain D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz788 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.1283E 486, 1283

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Gallet F., Bouvier J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    I., 2004, Physics of the Space Environment

    Gombosi T. I., 2004, Physics of the Space Environment

    2004

  11. [19]

    Holzwarth V., Jardine M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066486 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...463...11H 463, 11

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    E., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379192 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599..516I 599, 516

    Ivanova N., Taam R. E., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379192 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599..516I 599, 516

    2003 doi

  13. [21]

    Jardine M., Collier Cameron A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2872 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.2853J 482, 2853

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    G., 2016, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1002/2015JA021950 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JGRA..121.1413J 121, 1413

    Jia X., Kivelson M. G., 2016, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1002/2015JA021950 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JGRA..121.1413J 121, 1413

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Gombosi T

    Jia X., Slavin J. A., Gombosi T. I., Daldorff L. K. S., Toth G., Holst B., 2015, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1002/2015JA021143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JGRA..120.4763J 120, 4763

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    P., G \"u del M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425283 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    Johnstone C. P., G \"u del M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425283 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    u del M., L \

    Johnstone C. P., G \"u del M., L \"u ftinger T., Toth G., Brott I., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425300 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    doi

  18. [26]

    u del M., Brott I., L \

    Johnstone C. P., G \"u del M., Brott I., L \"u ftinger T., 2015b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...577A..28J 577, A28

    doi

  19. [27]

    u ftinger T., Kislyakova K. G., Lammer H., G \

    Johnstone C. P., Khodachenko M. L., L \"u ftinger T., Kislyakova K. G., Lammer H., G \"u del M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935279 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624L..10J 624, L10

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    P., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...343..251K 343, 251

    Keppens R., Goedbloed J. P., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...343..251K 343, 251

    1999

  21. [29]

    L., Shaikhislamov I

    Khodachenko M. L., Shaikhislamov I. F., Lammer H., Prokopov P. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/50 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...813...50K 813, 50

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    N., Lammer H., Lichtenegger H

    Kulikov Y. N., Lammer H., Lichtenegger H. I. M., Penz T., Breuer D., Spohn T., Lundin R., Biernat H. K., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-007-9192-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007SSRv..129..207K 129, 207

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    Lammer H., et al., 2011, @doi [Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere] 10.1007/s11084-012-9264-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011OLEB...41..503L 41, 503

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    Lammer H., et al., 2012, @doi [Earth, Planets, and Space] 10.5047/eps.2011.04.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012EP&S...64..179L 64, 179

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    T., Nagy A

    Ma Y., Russell C. T., Nagy A. F., Toth G., Dong C., Bougher S. W., 2013, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.P13C..05M pp P13C--05

    2013

  26. [34]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1002/2015GL065218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015GeoRL..42.9113M 42, 9113

    Ma Y. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1002/2015GL065218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015GeoRL..42.9113M 42, 9113

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    P., MacGregor K

    Matt S. P., MacGregor K. B., Pinsonneault M. H., Greene T. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...754L..26M 754, L26

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Brun A

    Matt S. P., Brun A. S., Baraffe I., Bouvier J., Chabrier G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/799/2/L23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...799L..23M 799, L23

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    E., Horwitz J

    Moore T. E., Horwitz J. L., 2007, @doi [Reviews of Geophysics] 10.1029/2005RG000194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007RvGeo..45.3002M 45, RG3002

    2007 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Pulkkinen A

    Ngwira C. M., Pulkkinen A. A., 2014, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AGUFMSM31A4166N pp SM31A--4166

    2014

  31. [39]

    \'O Fionnag \'a in D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483..873O 483, 873

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty394 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.2465O 476, 2465

    O'Fionnag \'a in D., Vidotto A. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty394 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.2465O 476, 2465

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    E., Adams F

    Owen J. E., Adams F. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1684 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.3761O 444, 3761

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    Pizzolato N., Maggio A., Micela G., Sciortino S., Ventura P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    2003 doi

  35. [43]

    W., Kopp R

    Pneuman G. W., Kopp R. A., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00145940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971SoPh...18..258P 18, 258

    1971 doi

  36. [44]

    J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaebb , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856...53P 856, 53

    Pognan Q., Garraffo C., Cohen O., Drake J. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaebb , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856...53P 856, 53

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Strugarek A., Brun A

    R \'e ville V., Folsom C. P., Strugarek A., Brun A. S., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/145 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...832..145R 832, 145

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    F., G \"u del M., Audard M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427977 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622..680R 622, 680

    Ribas I., Guinan E. F., G \"u del M., Audard M., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/427977 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622..680R 622, 680

    2005 doi

  39. [47]

    J., De Zeeuw D

    Ridley A. J., De Zeeuw D. L., Gombosi T. I., Powell K. G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2000JA002233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JGR...10630067R 106, 30067

    2001 doi

  40. [48]

    Sakai S., Seki K., Terada N., Shinagawa H., Tanaka T., Ebihara Y., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2018GL079972 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018GeoRL..45.9336S 45, 9336

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    M., Airapetian V., Petro N

    Saxena P., Killen R. M., Airapetian V., Petro N. E., Curran N. M., Mandell A. M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab18fb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876L..16S 876, L16

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Petit P., Marsden S

    See V., Jardine M., Vidotto A. A., Petit P., Marsden S. C., Jeffers S. V., do Nascimento J. D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...570A..99S 570, A99

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    Skumanich A., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151310 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...171..565S 171, 565

    1972 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Summers A

    Spreiter J. R., Summers A. L., Alksne A. Y., 1966, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(66)90124-3 , 14, 223

    1966 doi

  45. [53]

    G., Cohen O., Drake J

    Sterenborg M. G., Cohen O., Drake J. J., Gombosi T. I., 2011, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2010JA016036 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JGRA..116.1217S 116, A01217

    2011 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Russell C

    Strangeway R. J., Russell C. T., Luhmann J. G., Moore T. E., Foster J. C., Barabash S. V., Nilsson H., 2010, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMSM33B1893S

    2010

  47. [55]

    A., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1183445 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327.1238T 327, 1238

    Tarduno J. A., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1183445 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327.1238T 327, 1238

    2010 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Blackman E

    Tarduno J. A., Blackman E. G., Mamajek E. E., 2014, @doi [Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors] 10.1016/j.pepi.2014.05.007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PEPI..233...68T 233, 68

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    N., Lammer H., Lichtenegger H

    Terada N., Kulikov Y. N., Lammer H., Lichtenegger H. I. M., Tanaka T., Shinagawa H., Zhang T., 2009a, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2008.0250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AsBio...9...55T 9, 55

    2008

  50. [58]

    Terada N., Shinagawa H., Tanaka T., Murawski K., Terada K., 2009b, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2008JA013937 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009JGRA..114.9208T 114, A09208

    doi

  51. [59]

    T \'o th G., 1996, Astrophysical Letters and Communications, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApL

    1996

  52. [60]

    T \'o th G., et al., 2005, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2005JA011126 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JGRA..11012226T 110, A12226

    2005 doi

  53. [61]

    B., Arras P., Li Z.-Y., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/152 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728..152T 728, 152

    Trammell G. B., Arras P., Li Z.-Y., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/152 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728..152T 728, 152

    2011 doi

  54. [62]

    Vidotto A., 2013, @doi [Astronomy and Geophysics] 10.1093/astrogeo/ats038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&G....54a1.25V 54, 1.25

    2013 doi

  55. [63]

    A., 2018, Stellar Coronal and Wind Models: Impact on Exoplanets

    Vidotto A. A., 2018, Stellar Coronal and Wind Models: Impact on Exoplanets . p. 26, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_26

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    A., Donati J

    Vidotto A. A., Donati J. F., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A..39V 602, A39

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

    A., Opher M., Jatenco-Pereira V., Gombosi T

    Vidotto A. A., Opher M., Jatenco-Pereira V., Gombosi T. I., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/1734 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...703.1734V 703, 1734

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    A., Jardine M., Morin J., Donati J

    Vidotto A. A., Jardine M., Morin J., Donati J. F., Lang P., Russell A. J. B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...557A..67V 557, A67

    2013 doi

  59. [67]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu728 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2361V 441, 2361

    Vidotto A. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu728 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2361V 441, 2361

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455L..52V 455, L52

    Vidotto A. A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slv147 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455L..52V 455, L52

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    H., Gombosi T

    Vogt J., Zieger B., Stadelmann A., Glassmeier K. H., Gombosi T. I., Hansen K. C., Ridley A. J., 2004, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2003JA010273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JGRA..10912221V 109, A12221

    2004 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Davis Jr

    Weber E. J., Davis Jr. L., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149138 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...148..217W 148, 217

    1967 doi

  63. [71]

    E., M \"u ller H.-R., Zank G

    Wood B. E., M \"u ller H.-R., Zank G. P., Linsky J. L., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...574..412W 574, 412

    2002 doi

  64. [72]

    E., M \"u ller H

    Wood B. E., M \"u ller H. R., Zank G. P., Linsky J. L., Redfield S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432716 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628L.143W 628, L143

    2005 doi

  65. [73]

    E., M \"u ller H.-R., Redfield S., Edelman E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781L..33W 781, L33

    Wood B. E., M \"u ller H.-R., Redfield S., Edelman E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...781L..33W 781, L33

    2014 doi

  66. [75]

    I., Bustamante S., Cuartas P

    Zuluaga J. I., Bustamante S., Cuartas P. A., Hoyos J. H., 2013b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...770...23Z 770, 23

    doi

  67. [76]

    L., Ceillier T., Metcalfe T

    van Saders J. L., Ceillier T., Metcalfe T. S., Silva Aguirre V., Pinsonneault M. H., Garc \' a R. A., Mathur S., Davies G. R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature16168 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.529..181V 529, 181

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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