Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

The source of the 2017 cosmic ray half-year modulation event

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the half-year 2017 depression in galactic cosmic ray proton flux was produced by a sequence of solar wind interaction regions and coronal mass ejections, with four CMEs from one unusually active magnetic source doing…

desk verdict A plausible catalog-based explanation of the 2017 GCR depression, but the largest per-event decrease sits on a data gap and needs an explicit recomputation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14907 v1 pith:UM2ARY7V submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HEphysics.space-ph

O.P.M. Aslam , D. MacTaggart , R. Battiston , M.S. Potgieter , M.D. Ngobeni This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HEphysics.space-ph
keywords galacticcosmicrayssolarmodulationForbushdecreasecoronalmassejectionco-rotatinginteractionregionstreamactiveregionsAMS-02
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

The paper asks why the galactic cosmic ray proton flux measured by AMS-02 fell by about 17 percent over the second half of 2017, a depression lasting nearly half a year, far longer than any individual Forbush decrease. It argues that the drop was not a “minicycle” of the global solar magnetic field, but the accumulated effect of stream interaction regions and coronal mass ejections, with the four largest drops produced by CMEs from a single unusually active magnetic source that survived five Carrington rotations. The claim matters because it shows that a long cosmic ray modulation event near solar minimum can be built sequentially from ordinary solar eruptions, and it pins the event to specific active regions that could be monitored.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an event-by-event catalogue table (Table 1) that lists the arrival times at 1 AU of Carrington rotations, stream interaction regions, co-rotating interaction regions and coronal mass ejections during June to December 2017, with flare strength and active-region origin for each CME. The table is matched visually to the daily AMS-02 proton flux (Figure 6) and to Oulu neutron monitor data (Figure 7), so that each measured decrease is assigned to a listed structure. A second piece of machinery is the rigidity-resolved analysis: for the two strongest periods, the percentage decrease follows a power law in rigidity up to about 30 GV and then flattens, which is the paper's diagnostic that the modulation is solar rather than extra-heliospheric.

What would settle it

Check the in-situ spacecraft data at 1 AU for the times of the four largest flux drops: if there are no corresponding ICME shocks and magnetic ejecta, or if a heliospheric transport simulation including only the catalogued CIRs and SIRs reproduces the half-year depression without the four CMEs, the central claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the half-year depression observed in AMS-02 galactic proton flux in the second half of 2017, which initially resembled a very long Forbush decrease, was caused by a combination of co-rotating interaction regions, stream interaction regions and coronal mass ejections, and was substantially enhanced by four strong CMEs from the same magnetic source. That source, labeled AR12665, AR12673 and AR12685 on different rotations, persisted for five Carrington rotations and produced the most active flaring of Solar Cycle 24, including the X9.3 flare of September 2017. Although there were minicycle-like rises in the heliospheric magnetic field magnitude and changes in the heliospheric current sheet tilt before the depression, the authors conclude that the depression itself cannot be attributed to a 1974-style minicycle because enhanced eruptive activity was co-temporal with it. The solar origin is supported by the rigidity dependence of the depression, which is strong below roughly 30 GV and weak above it.

Load-bearing premise

Each measured drop in proton flux is attributed to a catalogued CME, SIR, or CIR solely by aligning arrival times with dips in the flux time series by eye, with no transport model or statistical test to rule out coincidence or unlisted modulators.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 2017 event should be counted as a solar-activity event, not a recurrence of the 1974 minicycle, so comparisons of solar-cycle minima should treat it differently.
  • Long, half-year cosmic ray depressions near solar minimum can be produced by a sequence of CMEs and interaction regions from a persistent active region, without requiring a global dynamo change.
  • Tracking a magnetic source as it crosses the disk over multiple rotations, as AR12665, AR12673 and AR12685 did, could provide early warning for similar prolonged cosmic ray depressions.
  • Because the depression opposes the general rise of proton flux toward solar minimum, the same activity at another phase of the cycle would be less visible in the flux record.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A control experiment the paper does not run: remove the four strong CMEs from a transport simulation and ask how much of the half-year depression remains; the paper's claim predicts a much weaker and shorter dip from CIRs and SIRs alone.
  • The same matching method could be applied to AMS-02 helium, electron and positron fluxes for 2017 to test whether charge-sign dependent modulation supports the CME/IR attribution.
  • The paper's closing remark implies that a broader notion of “minicycle” may still be needed to explain why the Sun produced its most active region of the cycle near minimum; that would connect the event to dynamo studies rather than purely to weather-like eruptions.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the cause of the half-year depressions observed in AMS-02 galactic cosmic ray proton fluxes during the second half of 2017. It compares two hypotheses: (1) a 'minicycle' produced by a global change in the solar magnetic field, of the type argued for the 1974 event, and (2) a combined effect of coronal mass ejections (CMEs), stream interaction regions (SIRs), and corotating interaction regions (CIRs). The authors first establish a solar origin from the rigidity dependence of the depression, then argue that minicycle-like signatures before the event are not accompanied by the absence of eruptive activity required by the 1974 definition. Using catalogued CME, SIR, and CIR arrival times, together with daily AMS-02 proton fluxes in low-rigidity bins and Oulu neutron monitor data, they attribute the depression to a sequence of recurrent CMEs and interaction regions, and conclude that the four largest impacts came from CMEs that all originated from a single persistent, unusually active magnetic source that they identify as AR12665, AR12673, and AR12685 in successive rotations.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper resolves an important puzzle: the 2017 event is shown not to be a 1974-style minicycle but a sustained sequence of solar eruptive activity, with a single active complex as the dominant driver. The analysis is valuable because it brings together publicly available catalogues (Richardson & Cane, HELIO4CAST, STEREO, SolarMonitor) and independent datasets (AMS-02 and neutron monitors), and it makes a falsifiable claim about the role of a recurring active region. The paper does not rely on a fitted transport model, and the rigidity-dependent power-law forms in Figure 8 are presented as descriptive rather than as fitted parameters, which limits the risk of circularity. The main weaknesses are quantitative: several % decreases in Table 1 are read off by eye without uncertainties, and the largest attributed impact overlaps a known AMS-02 data gap. These issues, while locally fixable, currently weaken the quantitative support for the central claim that the depression was 'enhanced substantially' by the four identified CMEs.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Table 1 and Figure 6 caption] The 24.4% decrease attributed to the X9.3 CME (07-09 to 10-09 September, in the 1.0-1.16 GV bin) overlaps the 09-15 September data gap that the Figure 6 caption states exists for daily AMS-02 measurements below the 2.97-3.29 GV bin. The paper does not explain how this value was computed across the gap (e.g., by using the last pre-gap point, interpolation, or a higher rigidity bin). Since this event is one of the four CMEs identified as having the largest impacts, the quantitative attribution is load-bearing. Please state the exact method used and provide an uncertainty estimate, or replace the value with one derived from a rigidity bin that is not affected by the gap.
  2. [§3.2, Table 1 and §3.3, Figure 8] The % decreases in Table 1 are read from the daily flux by eye and are presented without uncertainties or significance tests, and the M5.5 CME (06-08 September) is listed with no % decrease, which makes the event-by-event decomposition in the same period ambiguous. A reproducible definition of the % decrease (e.g., baseline level minus local minimum, with a stated time window) and error bars from the AMS-02 flux uncertainties are needed so that the reader can judge whether the claimed effects exceed ordinary daily variability or overlap with adjacent SIR/CIR effects.
  3. [§3.2 and §4] The central conclusion that AR12665, AR12673, and AR12685 are manifestations of 'the same magnetic source' persisting for five Carrington rotations is asserted on the basis of labels and locations, but no quantitative tracking is provided (e.g., Carrington longitudes, magnetic-flux emergence histories, or coronal-hole connectivity). Because the uniqueness of this source is the paper's most distinctive claim, please present the supporting evidence in a table or figure; otherwise the statement that all four CMEs share a single source is an unsupported inference.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The name is 'Bartels rotation', not 'Bartel rotation'; please correct this typo that appears in the abstract and body.
  2. [§3.1] In the sentence 'Carringtion rotations as the markers of CIR impact', 'Carringtion' should be 'Carrington'.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'co-rotating/stream interactions regions' should be 'co-rotating/stream interaction regions' (singular 'interaction').
  4. [§2.1, Figure 4 discussion] The sentence 'Further corroboration be found in Figure 4 (b)' is missing 'can'; it should read 'Further corroboration can be found in Figure 4 (b)'.
  5. [Figure 8] The power-law fits in panels (b) and (d) are useful as indicators of trends, but they are shown without uncertainties or goodness-of-fit statistics; please state that they are descriptive fits only, or add a brief caption note.
  6. [§3.2, Table 1 header] The LaTeX artifact 'T able 1' should be corrected to 'Table 1'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the causal argument is built from external solar-wind and flare catalogues plus independent AMS-02 and neutron-monitor data, not from fitted parameters re-predicted as results.

full rationale

The paper does not fit a parameter to the AMS-02 flux and then re-predict the same flux; the % decreases in Table 1 are descriptive estimates read from Figure 6 for events whose arrival times are taken from independent catalogues (Richardson & Cane, HELIO4CAST, WIND/DREAMS, STEREO, Wilcox Solar Observatory, SolarMonitor). The minicycle hypothesis is tested against external B and HCS tilt data and rejected because co-temporal CME activity cannot be excluded, not because of a self-citation. The use of Carrington rotations as markers of CIR impact is an explicit observational convention, not an equation that makes the causal conclusion true by construction. The power-law fits in Figure 8 are descriptive trend indicators and are not used to predict the depression. Citations to the authors' own prior work appear only in forward-looking modelling plans and a cross-checking tool, so they are not load-bearing. The main weaknesses—the 09-15 September 2017 data gap overlapping the X9.3 CME interval and the absence of statistical significance tests for individual % decreases—are evidential or correctness concerns, not circularity. No derivation step reduces to its own input by definition or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the completeness of the catalogues, the visual matching of flux declines to structures, and the inferred identity of three active region labels as one source. The only fitted numbers are descriptive power laws for the rigidity dependence, which do not enter the causal conclusion.

free parameters (1)
  • Power-law fit coefficients for % decrease versus rigidity = amplitudes 30.14, 7.14, 36.99, 9.22; exponents -0.86, -0.47, -0.76, -0.59
    Fitted in Figure 8 to describe the rigidity dependence of individual CIR and CME decreases; used only for visualization and not in the central causal argument.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Least-squares power-law fitting is appropriate for the rigidity-dependence trends in Figure 8.
    Used as a descriptive statistical tool; no formal derivation is claimed.
  • domain assumption The public catalogues of CMEs, SIRs and CIRs are complete and accurate for the June to December 2017 period.
    Table 1 is compiled from multiple online catalogues; a missing or misidentified event would change the attribution.
  • domain assumption Each decline in the daily AMS-02 proton flux can be attributed to the nearest catalogued interplanetary structure.
    Section 3.2 assigns decreases to events by visual inspection of Figure 6; no statistical test or transport model is provided.
  • domain assumption The weakening of the depression above approximately 30 GV indicates a solar/heliospheric origin.
    Section 2 uses this rigidity dependence, following Potgieter (2017), to exclude an extra-heliospheric source.
  • domain assumption Active region labels AR12665, AR12673 and AR12685 correspond to the same persistent magnetic source over five solar rotations.
    The identity is inferred from similar heliographic locations and the temporal succession of labels; no direct magnetic connectivity or flux-transport analysis is shown.
invented entities (1)
  • Single persistent magnetic source behind AR12665, AR12673 and AR12685
    purpose: Explains why the four strongest CMEs of the period came from one region over five rotations
    The paper infers this identity from similar heliographic positions and the sequence of active region labels; no independent magnetic connectivity data or simulation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The source of the 2017 cosmic ray half-year modulation event." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UM2ARY7V

@misc{pith2026241214907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The source of the 2017 cosmic ray half-year modulation event},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UM2ARY7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14907}
}
read the original abstract

In 2017, as the solar cycle approached solar minimum, an unusually long and large depression was observed in galactic cosmic ray (GCR) protons, detected with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS-02), lasting for the second half of that year. The depression, as seen in the Bartel rotation-averaged proton flux, has the form of a Forbush decrease (FD). Despite this resemblance, however, the cause of the observed depression does not have such a simple explanation as FDs, due to coronal mass ejections (CMEs), typically last for a few days at 1 AU rather than half a year. In this work, we seek the cause of the observed depression and investigate two main possibilities. First, we consider a mini-cycle - a temporary change in the solar dynamo that changes the behavior of the global solar magnetic field and, by this, the modulation of GCRs. Secondly, we investigate the behavior of solar activity, both CMEs and co-rotating/stream interactions regions (C/SIRs), during this period. Our findings show that, although there is some evidence for mini-cycle behavior prior to the depression, the depression is ultimately due to a combination of recurrent CMEs, SIRs and CIRs. A particular characteristic of the depression is that the largest impacts that help to create and maintain it are due to four CMEs from the same, highly active, magnetic source that persists for several solar rotations. This active magnetic source is unusual given the closeness of the solar cycle to solar minimum, which also helps to make the depression more evident.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14907 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Bartel rotations-averaged galactic proton flux variation over the rigidity 1.0 -1.16 GV from 01 December 2014 (BR2474) to 29 October 2019 (BR2540), reported by Aguilar et al. (2021). Bottom: Same resolution neutron monitor counts recorded by Oulu neutron monitor for the same time period. Left scale shows the flux or NM counts, and the right scale indicates the normalized flux or counts with respect to BR2508. l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Daily galactic proton observations measured by AMS-02 for the 13 April 2017 - 03 February 2018 (BR 2506 - 2516) as reported by Aguilar et al. (2021), over (a) the first five rigidity bins, 1.0 - 1.16 GV, 1.16 - 1.33 GV, 1.33 - 1.51 GV, 1.51 - 1.71 GV & 1.71 - 1.92 GV, and (b) the last five rigidity bins 16.60 - 22.80 GV, 22.80 - 33.50 GV, 33.50 - 48.50 GV, 48.50 - 69.70 GV & 69.70 -100.0 GV. The shading indicates th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Normalized BR-averaged GCR proton flux variation from BR2506 to BR2516 over the rigidity bins 1.0 -1.16 GV to 69.7-100.0 GV. Flux is normalized with respect to the BR2508. (b) The % decrease in flux at BR2512 with respect to BR2508 over rigidity bins up to 100.0GV. consistent signature for low rigidities is lost at higher rigidities. This result is also conveyed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time variation over a BR resolution of, top: IMF strength (blue) & HCS tilt angle (orange), middle: sunspot numbers (blue) & 10.7cm solar radio flux (orange) and bottom: GCR proton flux in the rigidity bin 1.0-1.16 GV, for 26 December 2016 to 03 February 2018 period. b…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Idealized representations of GCR proton flux, approaching solar minimum, over two Carrington rotations, with the nth dashed line marking the start of Carrington rotation C(n). (a) shows the expected behaviour due only to CIRs. (b) shows the expected behaviour due to a …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AMS-02 reported daily resolution GCR protons from 20 June to 05 December, 2017 at 1.0 - 1.16 GV (upper panel) and 2.97 - 3.29 GV (lower panel). The left scale is proton flux and right scale is normalized flux with respect to 06 June, 2017. The vertical blue lines indic…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Oulu NM data covering the impact of the two strongest flares during the depression. Other features from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Daily GCR proton flux reported by Aguilar et al. (2021), normalized with respect to 06 June, 2017, over the whole reported rigidity range 1.0 - 100.0 GV, (a) for 20 June - 01 August, 2017 including CR2192 and (c) 14 August - 25 September, 2017 including CR2194. Note th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    A., Ambrosi , G., et al

    Aguilar , M., Cavasonza , L. A., Ambrosi , G., et al. 2021, , 127, 271102

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    2022, , 128, 231102

    ---. 2022, , 128, 231102

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    2023 a , , 130, 161001

    ---. 2023 a , , 130, 161001

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    2023 b , , 131, 151002

    Aguilar , M., Ambrosi , G., Anderson , H., et al. 2023 b , , 131, 151002

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    2023, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 2, 398

    Alielden , K., MacTaggart , D., Ming , Q., Prior , C., & Raphaldini , B. 2023, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 2, 398

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Aslam , O. P. M., Bisschoff , D., Ngobeni , M. D., et al. 2021, , 909, 215

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Aslam , O. P. M., Potgieter , M. S., Luo , X., & Ngobeni , M. D. 2023, , 953, 101

    work page 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    2008, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 588, 227

    Battiston , R. 2008, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 588, 227

    2008

  2. [10]

    F., McDonald , F

    Burlaga , L. F., McDonald , F. B., & Ness , N. F. 1993, , 98, 1

    1993

  3. [11]

    2011, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 105, 234

    Busse , F., & Simitev , R. 2011, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, 105, 234

    2011

  4. [12]

    Cane , H. V. 2000, , 93, 55

    2000

  5. [13]

    V., & Richardson , I

    Cane , H. V., & Richardson , I. G. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 108, 1156

    2003

  6. [14]

    2016, , 291, 2419

    Chi , Y., Shen , C., Wang , Y., et al. 2016, , 291, 2419

    2016

  7. [15]

    W., Droege , W., & Mueller-Mellin , R

    Cliver , E. W., Droege , W., & Mueller-Mellin , R. 1993, , 98, 15231

    1993

  8. [16]

    W., Richardson , I

    Cliver , E. W., Richardson , I. G., & Ling , A. G. 2013, , 176, 3

    2013

  9. [17]

    2022, , 658, A187

    Dumbovi \'c , M., Vr s nak , B., Temmer , M., Heber , B., & K \"u hl , P. 2022, , 658, A187

    2022

  10. [18]

    2020, , 295, 104

    Dumbovi \'c , M., Vr s nak , B., Guo , J., et al. 2020, , 295, 104

    2020

  11. [19]

    Forbush , S. E. 1937, Physical Review, 51, 1108

    1937

  12. [20]

    T., Moon , Y

    Gallagher , P. T., Moon , Y. J., & Wang , H. 2002, , 209, 171

    2002

  13. [21]

    M., & Simpson , J

    Garcia-Munoz , M., Mason , G. M., & Simpson , J. A. 1977, , 213, 263

    1977

  14. [22]

    T., & Pizzo , V

    Gosling , J. T., & Pizzo , V. J. 1999, , 89, 21

    1999

  15. [23]

    2024, Adv

    Guo , J., Wang , B., Whitman , K., et al. 2024, Adv. Space Res., inpress

    2024

  16. [24]

    T., Liu , Y., Hayashi , K., et al

    Hoeksema , J. T., Liu , Y., Hayashi , K., et al. 2014, , 289, 3483

    2014

  17. [25]

    J., Zhang , J., Li , T., Yang , S

    Hou , Y. J., Zhang , J., Li , T., Yang , S. H., & Li , X. H. 2018, , 619, A100

    2018

  18. [26]

    K., Luhmann , J

    Jian , L. K., Luhmann , J. G., Russell , C. T., & Galvin , A. B. 2019, , 294, 31

    2019

  19. [27]

    K., Russell , C

    Jian , L. K., Russell , C. T., Luhmann , J. G., & Galvin , A. B. 2018, , 855, 114

    2018

  20. [28]

    2017, , 837, 37

    Kopp , A., Wiengarten , T., Fichtner , H., et al. 2017, , 837, 37

    2017

  21. [29]

    H., Li , C., Chen , F., et al

    Lei , W. H., Li , C., Chen , F., et al. 2020, , 494, 975

    2020

  22. [30]

    S., Zhang , M., & Shen , F

    Luo , X., Potgieter , M. S., Zhang , M., & Shen , F. 2024, , 961, 21

    2024

  23. [31]

    2020, , 899, 90

    Luo , X., Zhang , M., Feng , X., et al. 2020, , 899, 90

    2020

  24. [32]

    A., Boezio , M., et al

    Modzelewska , R., Bazilevskaya , G. A., Boezio , M., et al. 2020, , 904, 3

    2020

  25. [33]

    J., Bailey , R

    M \"o stl , C., Weiss , A. J., Bailey , R. L., et al. 2020, , 903, 92

    2020

  26. [34]

    D., Aslam , O

    Ngobeni , M. D., Aslam , O. P. M., Bisschoff , D., et al. 2020, , 365, 182

    2020

  27. [35]

    Potgieter , M. S. 2013, , 176, 165

    2013

  28. [36]

    2017, Advances in Space Research, 60, 848

    ---. 2017, Advances in Space Research, 60, 848

    2017

  29. [37]

    S., Aslam , O

    Potgieter , M. S., Aslam , O. P. M., Bisschoff , D., & Ngobeni , D. 2021, Physics, 3, 1190

    2021

  30. [38]

    S., Vos , E

    Potgieter , M. S., Vos , E. E., Boezio , M., et al. 2014, , 289, 391

    2014

  31. [39]

    A., et al

    Raphaldini , B., Dikpati , M., Norton , A. A., et al. 2023, , 958, 175

    2023

  32. [40]

    G., & Cane , H

    Richardson , I. G., & Cane , H. V. 2010, , 264, 189

    2010

  33. [41]

    2024, , doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449836

    Romaneehsen , L., Heber , B., & Marquardt , J. 2024, , doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449836

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Simpson , J. A. 2000, , 93, 11

    2000

  35. [43]

    C., Frandsen , A

    Stone , E. C., Frandsen , A. M., Mewaldt , R. A., et al. 1998, , 86, 1

    1998

  36. [44]

    D., & Potgieter , M

    Strauss , R. D., & Potgieter , M. S. 2014, Adv. Space Res., 53, 1015

    2014

  37. [45]

    2013, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 243, 12

    Ting , S. 2013, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 243, 12

    2013

  38. [46]

    T., Gonzalez , W

    Tsurutani , B. T., Gonzalez , W. D., Gonzalez , A. L. C., et al. 1995, , 100, 21717

    1995

  39. [47]

    Usoskin , I. G. 2023, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 20, 2

    2023

  40. [48]

    Wibberenz , G., & Cane , H. V. 2000, , 105, 18,315

    2000

  41. [49]

    Wibberenz , G., Ferreira , S. E. S., Potgieter , M. S., & Cane , H. V. 2001, , 97, 373

    2001

Pith tools

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