Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Solar Surface Magnetic Field Simulation from 2010 to 2024 and Anomalous Southern Poleward Flux Transport in Cycle 24

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A surface flux transport simulation using observed active regions reproduces the Sun's dipole and polar reversals from 2010 to 2024 without radial diffusion.

desk verdict Solid SFT simulation with a useful new anomaly analysis; the 'limited impact' claim about radial diffusion is tuned, not tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01416 v1 pith:V2Q6UGAL submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.SR

Ruihui Wang , Jie Jiang , Yukun Luo This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords surfacefluxtransportmodelsolarcycle24axialdipolestrengthpolarfieldreversalactiveregionemergencepolewardmagneticbutterflydiagramlongitudes
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

Surface flux transport (SFT) simulations usually need an extra radial diffusion term or cycle-dependent meridional flow changes to match the observed polar field. This paper argues neither is required when the source is a careful assimilation of observed active regions: a continuous 2010-2024 run reproduces the solar axial dipole, polar-field reversal timing, and magnetic butterfly diagram in good agreement with SDO/HMI observations. The paper then uses the same simulation to explain an anomaly of cycle 24: in the southern hemisphere, following-polarity poleward surges were confined to 2011-2016, and after 2016 leading-polarity flux dominated the poleward transport. It attributes that reversal to intermittent active-region emergence, with a burst in September 2013-February 2015 carrying 46% of southern unsigned flux, followed by long gaps that let leading-polarity flux spread over latitude before later active regions cancel it. If correct, the result narrows what solar dynamo and prediction models need to add beyond observed flux emergence.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the surface flux transport (SFT) equation, which combines advection by differential rotation and a meridional flow with supergranular diffusion, and whose source term is built by assimilating observed active regions from the ARISE database rather than idealized bipolar magnetic regions. The key diagnostic is the axial dipole strength contributed by each active region, computed in initial and final forms ($D_i$ and $D_f$), which lets the authors trace which emergences drive which poleward surges. The argumentative mechanism for the anomaly is temporal intermittency: concentrated emergence produces strong following-polarity surges, while long gaps between emergences give leading-polarity flux time to spread in latitude and reach the poles before cancellation, making it visible in the butterfly diagram.

What would settle it

Rerun the same assimilation but replace the observed southern-hemisphere emergence times after 2016 with uniformly spaced synthetic active regions of identical flux, tilt, and longitude, and check whether the leading-polarity poleward migration disappears; if it persists, emergence timing alone is not the mechanism. A second check would be to rerun with a different published meridional flow profile and see whether matching HMI then requires radial diffusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the ARISE database of active regions detected from SDO/HMI synoptic magnetograms, the authors feed each observed region into the surface flux transport equation at its central-meridian passage time, with constant diffusivity ($\eta=340\ \mathrm{km}^2\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$), constant peak meridional flow speed ($u_0=13\ \mathrm{m\,s}^{-1}$), the van Ballegooijen flow profile, and no radial diffusion term. Starting from the CR 2097 magnetogram, the run through CR 2290 reproduces the HMI axial dipole strength with correlation coefficient $r=0.98$ around 2014-2015, the timing of the cycle 24 and cycle 25 polar reversals, the main poleward surges, and the activity belts in the butterfly diagram. The paper claims this good agreement shows that radial diffusion and cyclic meridional flow variations have limited impact on multi-cycle surface field evolution when the source is well represented. For the southern hemisphere in cycle 24, it finds that the dominant negative (following-polarity) surges occur only during 2011-2016, and the 2014-2016 surge S3 is driven by active regions emerging in Carrington Rotations 2141-2160, which contribute 46% of southern unsigned flux and roughly 1 G of axial dipole, nearly the whole net southern contribution. After 2016, positive (leading-polarity) flux migrations dominate even though most active regions obey Joy's and Hale's laws; the paper attributes this to long intervals between emergences, which allow leading-polarity flux to migrate poleward across a wide latitude range before being canceled by later following-polarity flux.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions stand on the assumption that the ARISE database captures essentially all flux emergence that matters and that the chosen constant transport parameters (340 km²/s diffusivity and 13 m/s meridional flow with the van Ballegooijen profile) are representative; if a reasonable alternative flow profile, or missed far-side or complex active regions, would force a radial diffusion term or cycle-dependent flow to match HMI, the paper's central claims about radial diffusion and about emergence timing would no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cycle 24 and early cycle 25 surface field evolution, including polar reversals, can be reproduced with constant transport parameters; models do not need radial diffusion or cyclic meridional flow speed to explain the observed axial dipole.
  • The 2014-2016 southern polar reversal is driven mainly by active regions emerging in Carrington Rotations 2141-2160, which contribute about 1 G to the axial dipole, nearly the entire net contribution from all southern active regions of cycle 24.
  • The post-2016 dominance of leading-polarity poleward flux in the southern hemisphere is not evidence of anti-Hale or anti-Joy active regions; normal active regions with long emergence gaps can produce it.
  • The temporal interval between active-region emergences is a first-order factor in poleward flux transport and should be taken into account when interpreting butterfly diagrams and predicting polar fields.
  • Removing repeated and not-fully-emerged active-region detections yields a source reliable enough for multi-cycle simulation, so source quality matters as much as transport-parameter choices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that cycle-prediction schemes built on polar-field proxies could be improved by monitoring the temporal clustering of active-region emergence, since the simulation shows that gaps in emergence, not just total flux or tilt, control which polarity reaches the pole.
  • The same intermittency mechanism should be testable in earlier cycles: if other cycles show clumped emergence followed by quiet gaps, their butterfly diagrams should show the same leading-polarity dominance, and this could be checked directly in the publicly available database.
  • The paper's argument that radial diffusion is unnecessary applies to the surface field and axial dipole on a 14-year window; it does not address the deep solar interior or longer-cycle memory, where transport terms beyond surface advection and diffusion may still matter.
  • Because the paper itself notes that dipole and butterfly agreement cannot uniquely fix source versus transport parameters, a natural next test is to compare simulated and observed full-surface magnetic power spectra or field distributions, which would separate the effect of source completeness from flow choices.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a continuous surface flux transport (SFT) simulation of the solar surface magnetic field from 2010 to 2024 by assimilating observed active regions (ARs) from the authors' ARISE database into a standard SFT model. The simulation is compared with SDO/HMI synoptic magnetograms, and the authors report good agreement in the axial dipole strength (correlation r=0.98), polar field reversal timing, and the magnetic butterfly diagram, including poleward surges. Based on the success of the simulation without radial diffusion or cyclic meridional flow variations, the paper concludes that these processes have limited impact on multi-cycle surface field evolution. The paper further analyzes anomalous southern-hemisphere poleward flux transport in cycle 24, attributing the post-2016 leading-polarity dominated migrations to intermittent AR emergence and long emergence intervals rather than to anti-Hale or anti-Joy ARs.

Significance. If the claims are fully substantiated, the paper would provide a valuable continuous simulation product spanning two solar cycles, a public database and code, and a plausible explanation for a poorly understood feature of cycle 24. The anomaly analysis, linking active longitudes and emergence timing to the southern flux pattern, is of interest to the SFT and dynamo communities. The open availability of the ARISE database and code is a clear strength. However, the headline inference about the limited impact of radial diffusion and cyclic flow variations is not yet secured, because it rests on a single hand-tuned parameter set and is partly contradicted by the paper's own admission that dipole and butterfly comparisons cannot independently constrain the source or transport parameters.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §2.1; §4] The conclusion that 'these results are achieved without incorporating radial diffusion or cyclic variations in meridional flow speed, suggesting their limited impact' is not supported by the evidence presented. In §2.1 the diffusivity η=340 km²/s and meridional flow speed u0=13 m/s are adopted 'after trials' against the same HMI observations used for validation. A successful fit with one tuned parameter set shows consistency, not that omitted terms are unimportant; a radial diffusion term B/τ or a cycle-dependent flow speed could be partially absorbed by the chosen η and u0. The paper itself states in §4 that 'axial dipole strength and visual agreement with butterfly diagrams alone may not be sufficient to independently constrain the source or the transport parameters,' which applies directly to this claim. To support the limited-impact claim, the authors should either soften it or perform controlled sensitivity experiments (e.g., adding radial diffusion, varying the flow profile or amplitude, and re-fitting to observations).
  2. [§2.2; §3.1] The source term is constructed from HMI synoptic magnetograms, and the validation is performed against the same HMI observations. The paper admits in §3.1 that the activity belts closely match 'as expected' because the ARs are directly assimilated from those maps. The dipole correlation (r=0.98) is not fully independent evidence either, since the source term directly influences the dipole evolution. The circularity does not invalidate the simulation, but it weakens the claim that the agreement validates the model and the ARISE database. Cross-validation against an independent dataset (e.g., Wilcox Solar Observatory polar fields) or a holdout test (e.g., excluding a portion of the cycle from the source and checking the prediction) would substantially strengthen the reproduction claim.
  3. [§3.2.3] The proposed mechanism for the post-2016 dominance of leading-polarity poleward flux in the southern hemisphere is that long intervals between AR emergences allow leading-polarity flux to spread over a broad latitude range before cancellation. While plausible and consistent with the examples shown in Figures 6 and 8, this mechanism is not directly tested. The paper does not run a controlled experiment, e.g., imposing the northern-hemisphere emergence pattern on the southern hemisphere or a synthetic continuous-emergence scenario, to show that the long intervals are the cause rather than merely a correlated factor. A quantitative test would make the attribution convincing.
  4. [§4; §2.2] The conclusion about the anomalous southern flux transport depends on the completeness of the ARISE database for the southern hemisphere during cycle 24. The paper acknowledges known limitations in the database, including low temporal resolution of synoptic maps, absence of far-side ARs, and difficulties detecting new flux within activity complexes (§4). If a significant number of southern ARs after 2016 were missed, the deduced dominance of leading-polarity flux could be an artifact of incomplete source data. The authors should estimate the possible impact of missed ARs on the polar field and the surge patterns, or at least explicitly bound the uncertainty in the key quantities (e.g., the 46% flux fraction and the net dipole contribution).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] The header contains a typographical error: 'T able 1' should read 'Table 1'.
  2. [Keywords] The keywords line lacks a space after the colon: 'Keywords:Solar physics' should be 'Keywords: Solar physics'.
  3. [General] The paper references 'Luo et al. (2025, in preparation)' for numerical details of the spectral code. Since the code is central to reproducibility, the authors should provide either a fuller description in the current paper or a public repository link for the code, in addition to the ARISE database.
  4. [Figure 1] The correlation coefficient r=0.98 is reported without a confidence interval or significance level; given the serial correlation of the dipole time series, a simple Pearson correlation may be misleading.
  5. [§3.1] The discussion of the northern polar field reversal discrepancy is qualitative. A quantitative statement (e.g., the difference in reversal dates between simulation and HMI, and a comparison with WSO reversal timings) would clarify the significance of this discrepancy.
  6. [§2.1] The meridional flow formula is presented as an unnumbered equation; numbering it (e.g., as Eq. 2) would make subsequent references to the profile clearer.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The headline 'limited impact' claim rests on hand-tuned transport parameters, and the activity-belt agreement is by construction; the polar-field result itself retains independent content.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (paragraph after Figure 2)]
    "Since we directly assimilate detected ARs from HMI maps into our simulation, the activity belts closely match observations, as expected."

    The simulation's source term is the ARISE database, whose ARs are detected from the same SDO/HMI synoptic magnetograms used as the validation target. The paper explicitly says the activity-belt match is 'as expected': the injected source already contains the observed AR pattern, so agreement of the activity belts in the butterfly diagram is imposed by construction rather than derived from the transport physics. This does not invalidate the polar-field/surge comparisons, but it makes the butterfly-diagram agreement a consistency check on the injection, not an independent confirmation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1 and Abstract]
    "After trials, we adopt a supergranular diffusivity of η=340 km2/s and a meridional flow speed of u0=13 m/s in this study. ... Notably, these results are achieved without incorporating radial diffusion or cyclic variations in meridional flow speed, suggesting their limited impact."

    The model parameters η=340 km2/s and u0=13 m/s are selected 'after trials' on the 2010-2024 simulation period, and the abstract's central inference is that because the tuned simulation matches HMI without radial diffusion or cyclic meridional-flow variation, those processes have limited impact. The agreement is therefore the selection criterion for the parameters, not an out-of-sample test of the omitted physics. Radial diffusion (B/τ) or a cycle-dependent flow variation could be partially absorbed by the hand-chosen η and u0, so the 'limited impact' statement is an interpretation of one tuned run rather than a demonstrated result from a controlled comparison.

full rationale

The paper contains substantial non-circular content: the S3-AR surge analysis, the active-longitude structure (200-260°, 80-100°), and the explanation of post-2016 leading-polarity migrations in terms of intermittent emergence are genuine model-based experiments with observable signatures. The dipole-strength and polar-reversal comparisons are not purely forced by construction because transport is required to advect and diffuse the injected flux to the poles. However, two elements undercut full independence. First, the same HMI magnetograms both define the ARISE source and provide the validation dipole/butterfly; the paper concedes the activity-belt match is 'as expected.' Second, the transport parameters are tuned ('after trials') to the very interval used for validation, while the abstract presents the resulting agreement as evidence that radial diffusion and cyclic flow variations have limited impact. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 4 that 'axial dipole strength and visual agreement with butterfly diagrams alone may not be sufficient to independently constrain the source or the transport parameters,' which is exactly the limitation that applies to the 'limited impact' inference. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found; the ARISE database citations are supported by public data and external flux comparisons. Overall, the central physical mechanism (intermittent emergence) is not circular, but the headline claim about omitted physics is a fitted interpretation, giving a moderate circularity score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation rests on several hand-tuned transport and detection parameters and on the assumption that HMI-derived ARs capture the true source. No new physical entities are introduced; the ARISE database is observational, not an invented entity.

free parameters (7)
  • supergranular diffusivity eta = 340 km^2/s
    Adopted 'after trials' (Section 2.1) to match the observed dipole and butterfly; not independently constrained in this paper.
  • peak meridional flow speed u0 = 13 m/s
    Chosen 'after trials' (Section 2.1); the central conclusion that radial diffusion is unnecessary depends on this choice.
  • repeat-AR removal threshold Tr1 = 0.85
    Set by trial and error (Section 2.2) to exclude repeated decaying ARs; affects the source database.
  • non-fully-emerged AR removal threshold Tr2 = 1
    Set by trial and error (Section 2.2) to exclude ARs still emerging; affects the source database.
  • AR flux balance ratio cut = 0.5 < r < 2
    Stricter balance criterion near map boundaries (Section 2.2); affects which ARs are assimilated.
  • active longitude significance threshold = mean + 1 sigma
    Used to define active longitudes in Section 3.2.2 and Figure 7; a post-hoc threshold.
  • axial dipole importance cut = 0.01 G
    ARs with |Di| or |Df| below this are ignored (Section 3.2); could omit relevant small contributions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The surface flux transport equation (Eq. 1) is an adequate description of large-scale surface magnetic field evolution.
    The paper builds entirely on the SFT model without testing its validity (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Differential rotation profile of Snodgrass (1983) and meridional flow profile of van Ballegooijen et al. (1998) are valid for 2010-2024.
    Adopted as fixed inputs (Section 2.1); no sensitivity study is performed.
  • domain assumption HMI synoptic magnetograms accurately represent the surface field used for both AR detection and validation.
    The source and validation data are both HMI (Sections 2.2 and 3.1); polar field calibration issues are acknowledged for the north.
  • domain assumption The repeat-AR and non-fully-emerged AR detection filters do not remove genuine new flux or leave spurious flux.
    Thresholds Tr1 and Tr2 are set by trial and error (Section 2.2); if incorrect, the source term is biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solar Surface Magnetic Field Simulation from 2010 to 2024 and Anomalous Southern Poleward Flux Transport in Cycle 24." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V2Q6UGAL

@misc{pith2026250601416,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solar Surface Magnetic Field Simulation from 2010 to 2024 and Anomalous Southern Poleward Flux Transport in Cycle 24},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V2Q6UGAL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01416}
}
read the original abstract

The solar surface magnetic field is fundamental for modeling the coronal magnetic field, studying the solar dynamo, and predicting solar cycle strength. We perform a continuous simulation of the surface magnetic field from 2010 to 2024, covering solar cycle 24 and the ongoing cycle 25, using the surface flux transport model with assimilated observed active regions (ARs) as the source. The simulation reproduces the evolution of the axial dipole strength, polar field reversal timing, and magnetic butterfly diagram in good agreement with SDO/HMI observations. Notably, these results are achieved without incorporating radial diffusion or cyclic variations in meridional flow speed, suggesting their limited impact. Poleward surges of the following polarity typically dominate throughout the cycle, but in the southern hemisphere during cycle 24, they are limited to a short period from 2011 to 2016. This anomalous pattern arises from intermittent AR emergence, with about 46% of total unsigned flux contributed by ARs emerging during Carrington Rotations 2141-2160 (September 2013 - February 2015). These ARs show a strong active longitude at Carrington longitudes 200-260 degree and a weaker one at 80-100 degree. After 2016, poleward migrations of leading-polarity flux become dominant, despite most ARs following Joy's and Hale's laws. This reversal is likely due to prolonged intervals between AR emergences, which allow leading-polarity flux to distribute across a broad latitude range before cancellation by subsequent ARs. These findings highlight the importance of the temporal interval of AR emergence in driving the flux transport pattern.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01416 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of axial dipole strength obtained from the SFT simulation and from HMI synoptic magne￾tograms over the period 2010-2024. The horizontal dash– dotted line indicates the zero baseline. Using the HMI synoptic magnetogram of CR 2097 as the initial condition, we simulate the evolution of the solar surface magnetic field from CR 2097 to CR 2290 (May 2010-November 2024). To validate the simulation, we compare ou… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of magnetic butterfly diagrams from 2010 to 2024: HMI synoptic magnetogram observations (top) and SFT simulation results (bottom). HMI data are interpolated to match the simulation spatial resolution. Our simulation also successfully reproduces the ma￾jor flux migrations from the activity belts to the poles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of latitude-averaged magnetic fields (30◦ -50◦ ): HMI observations vs. SFT simulations. The top and bottom panels correspond to the northern and south￾ern hemispheres, respectively. The vertical dash-dotted line marks the onset of cycle 25, and the horizontal dashed line indicates the zero baseline. Key surges during cycle 24 are annotated. of dipole strength or polar fields, but their simulations are lim… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal evolution of unsigned AR flux (2010-2024). From top: total flux, northern hemisphere flux, and southern hemisphere flux. Red lines indicate 9-CR smoothed values. Dashed lines indicate the typical value (0.5 × 1023 Mx) of AR flux in the northern hemisphere. To …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Magnetic butterfly diagrams overplotted with AR initial axial dipole strength (top) and final axial dipole strength (bottom). Only ARs with axial dipole strength exceeding 0.01 G are displayed. Circle size is proportional to the value, and color indicates polarity (ora…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time-latitude evolution of simulated magnetic fields from ARs that emerged in the southern hemisphere during CRs 2141-2160. ARs are sourced from the ARISE database (R. Wang et al. 2025) and detected from the HMI synoptic magnetograms. simulate their evolution. Our simu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Longitude distribution of the S3-ARs parame￾ters: initial axial dipole strength (Di, top), final axial dipole strength (Df , middle), and unsigned flux (bottom). The dash-dotted line in each panel marks the critical threshold defined as the mean value plus one standard…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The three major ARs in the southern hemisphere from 2016 to 2020 with initial axial dipole strength Di > 0.01 G. From left to right: AR 2177-3 (NOAA 12546), AR 2180-2 (NOAA 12576), and AR 2182-1 (NOAA 12599), where the numeric labels (e.g., 2177-3) refer to identifiers…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abramenko, V. I. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3698, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2404

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2404 2021

  2. [2]

    V., & Usoskin, I

    Berdyugina, S. V., & Usoskin, I. G. 2003, A&A, 405, 1121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030748 12W ang, Jiang, &Luo

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030748 2003

  3. [3]

    2018, Nature Communications, 9, 5209, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07690-0

    Bhowmik, P., & Nandy, D. 2018, Nature Communications, 9, 5209, doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07690-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07690-0 2018

  4. [4]

    H., Jiang, J., Schmitt, D., & Sch¨ ussler, M

    Cameron, R. H., Jiang, J., Schmitt, D., & Sch¨ ussler, M. 2010, ApJ, 719, 264, doi: 10.1088/0004- 637X/719/1/26410.48550/arXiv.1006.3061

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    L., Dikpati, M., et al

    Dash, S., DeRosa, M. L., Dikpati, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 288, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7eac

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7eac 2024

  6. [6]

    K., Krivova, N

    Dasi-Espuig, M., Solanki, S. K., Krivova, N. A., Cameron, R., & Pe˜ nuela, T. 2010, A&A, 518, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014301

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014301 2010

  7. [7]

    Harvey, K. L. 1993, PhD thesis, -

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    Howard, R., & Labonte, B. J. 1981, SoPh, 74, 131, doi: 10.1007/BF00151283

    doi:10.1007/bf00151283 1981

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2020, ApJ, 900, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa4b

    Jiang, J. 2020, ApJ, 900, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaa4b

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    H., Schmitt, D., & Sch¨ ussler, M

    Jiang, J., Cameron, R. H., Schmitt, D., & Sch¨ ussler, M. 2011, A&A, 528, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016167

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    H., & Sch¨ ussler, M

    Jiang, J., Cameron, R. H., & Sch¨ ussler, M. 2014a, ApJ, 791, 5, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/5

    doi

  4. [12]

    H., & Sch¨ ussler, M

    Jiang, J., Cameron, R. H., & Sch¨ ussler, M. 2015, ApJL, 808, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L28

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Jiang, J., Chatterjee, P., & Choudhuri, A. R. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1527, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12267.x

    2007

  6. [14]

    H., Cameron, R

    Jiang, J., Hathaway, D. H., Cameron, R. H., et al. 2014b, SSRv, 186, 491, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0083-1

    doi

  7. [15]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf64a

    Jiang, J., Song, Q., Wang, J.-X., & Baranyi, T. 2019, ApJ, 871, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf64a

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, A&A, 653, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141215

    Jiao, Q., Jiang, J., & Wang, Z.-F. 2021, A&A, 653, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141215

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Leighton, R. B. 1964, ApJ, 140, 1547, doi: 10.1086/148058

    1964 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/133

    Lemerle, A., & Charbonneau, P. 2017, ApJ, 834, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/133

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    2015, ApJ, 810, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004- 637X/810/1/7810.48550/arXiv.1511.08548

    Lemerle, A., Charbonneau, P., & Carignan-Dugas, A. 2015, ApJ, 810, 78, doi: 10.1088/0004- 637X/810/1/7810.48550/arXiv.1511.08548

    2015

  12. [20]

    2016, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 2, 3, doi: 10.12737/16356

    Mordvinov, A., Pevtsov, A., Bertello, L., & Petri, G. 2016, Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 2, 3, doi: 10.12737/16356

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    V., Karak, B

    Mordvinov, A. V., Karak, B. B., Banerjee, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1331, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3528

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41116-020-0022-z

    Petrovay, K. 2020, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 17, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41116-020-0022-z

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Petrovay, K., Nagy, M., & Yeates, A. R. 2020, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, 10, 50, doi: 10.1051/swsc/2020050

    2020

  16. [24]

    H., Bogart, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Bogart, R. S., Bush, R. I., et al. 1995, SoPh, 162, 129, doi: 10.1007/BF00733429

    1995 doi

  17. [25]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, SoPh, 275, 207, doi: 10.1007/s11207-011-9834-2

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    J., De Rosa, M

    Schrijver, C. J., De Rosa, M. L., & Title, A. M. 2002, ApJ, 577, 1006, doi: 10.1086/342247

    2002 doi

  19. [27]

    Snodgrass, H. B. 1983, ApJ, 270, 288, doi: 10.1086/161121

    1983 doi

  20. [28]

    K., Wenzler, T., & Schmitt, D

    Solanki, S. K., Wenzler, T., & Schmitt, D. 2008, A&A, 483, 623, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054282

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.04265, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1801.04265

    Sun, X. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.04265, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1801.04265

    2018 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    T., Liu, Y., & Zhao, J

    Sun, X., Hoeksema, J. T., Liu, Y., & Zhao, J. 2015, ApJ, 798, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/114

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, A&A, 660, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142572

    Talafha, M., Nagy, M., Lemerle, A., & Petrovay, K. 2022, A&A, 660, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142572

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Ugarte-Urra, I., Warren, H

    Upton, L. A., Ugarte-Urra, I., Warren, H. P., & Hathaway, D. H. 2024, ApJ, 968, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad40a5 van Ballegooijen, A. A., Cartledge, N. P., & Priest, E. R. 1998, ApJ, 501, 866, doi: 10.1086/305823

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Virtanen, I. O. I., Virtanen, I. I., Pevtsov, A. A., Yeates, A., & Mursula, K. 2017, A&A, 604, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730415

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    1955, Ergebnisse und Probleme der Sonnenforschung

    Waldmeier, M. 1955, Ergebnisse und Probleme der Sonnenforschung

    1955

  27. [35]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acef1b

    Wang, R., Jiang, J., & Luo, Y. 2023, ApJS, 268, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acef1b

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b5f

    Wang, R., Jiang, J., & Luo, Y. 2024, ApJ, 971, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b5f

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2025,, v3.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15076075

    Wang, R., Jiang, J., & Luo, Y. 2025,, v3.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15076075

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    Wang, Y. M. 2017, SSRv, 210, 351, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0257-0

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Lean, J., & Sheeley, Jr., N

    Wang, Y. M., Lean, J., & Sheeley, Jr., N. R. 2002, ApJL, 577, L53, doi: 10.1086/344196

    2002 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Nash, A

    Wang, Y. M., Nash, A. G., & Sheeley, Jr., N. R. 1989, ApJ, 347, 529, doi: 10.1086/168143

    1989 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Robbrecht, E., & Sheeley, N

    Wang, Y. M., Robbrecht, E., & Sheeley, N. R., J. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1372, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1372

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    M., & Sheeley, N

    Wang, Y. M., & Sheeley, N. R., J. 1991, ApJ, 375, 761, doi: 10.1086/170240

    1991 doi

  35. [43]

    2021, A&A, 650, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140407

    Wang, Z.-F., Jiang, J., & Wang, J.-X. 2021, A&A, 650, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140407

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6185

    Wang, Z.-F., Jiang, J., & Wang, J.-X. 2022, ApJ, 930, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6185

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    2020, ApJ, 904, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc1e

    Wang, Z.-F., Jiang, J., Zhang, J., & Wang, J.-X. 2020, ApJ, 904, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc1e

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    R., & Mu˜ noz-Jaramillo, A

    Whitbread, T., Yeates, A. R., & Mu˜ noz-Jaramillo, A. 2018, ApJ, 863, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad17e

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Petrie, G. J. D. 2017, A&A, 607, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730689

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    G., Cameron, R

    Yang, D., Heinemann, S. G., Cameron, R. H., & Gizon, L. 2024, SoPh, 299, 161, doi: 10.1007/s11207-024-02405-9 Simulation of the Solar Surface Magnetic Field from 2010 to 202413

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, ApJ, 970, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61e2

    Yang, S., Jiang, J., Wang, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61e2

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Yeates, A. R. 2020, SoPh, 295, 119, doi: 10.1007/s11207-020-01688-y

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Baker, D., & van Driel-Gesztelyi, L

    Yeates, A. R., Baker, D., & van Driel-Gesztelyi, L. 2015, SoPh, 290, 3189, doi: 10.1007/s11207-015-0660-9

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Bertello, L., Pevtsov, A

    Yeates, A. R., Bertello, L., Pevtsov, A. A., & Pevtsov, A. A. 2025, ApJ, 978, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad99d0

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    2023, SSRv, 219, 31, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00978-8

    Wang, Y.-M. 2023, SSRv, 219, 31, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00978-8

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Mackay, D

    Yeates, A. R., Mackay, D. H., & van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2007, SoPh, 245, 87, doi: 10.1007/s11207-007-9013-7

    2007 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 2032, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1604

    Zhukova, A. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2032, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1604

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.