Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 99 references

Interaction of Trappist-1 exoplanets with coronal mass ejections: Joule heating, Poynting fluxes and the role of magnetic fields

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One-hour CMEs deposit $10^3$–$10^4$ TW into Trappist-1e's ionosphere, exceeding XUV input by 1–2 orders, while interior heating is 1–20 TW.

desk verdict A solid MHD advance on CME–planet energy deposition, but the headline ionospheric Joule heating numbers need an energy-consistency check and clearer qualification before they become citable. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15243 v1 pith:BZ6W6FTS submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Filip Elekes , Joachim Saur , Alexander Grayver This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords star-planetinteractionscoronalmassejectionsJouleheatingMHDsimulationsTrappist-1exoplanetatmospheresplanetarymagneticfieldsspaceweather
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 whether coronal mass ejections from the M-dwarf Trappist-1 heat the interiors and ionospheres of its rocky planets, and whether a planetary magnetic field shields the planet or makes things worse. Using time-dependent MHD simulations of two CME types hitting Trappist-1b and e, it finds that the ionosphere is the main energy sink: a single one-hour CME deposits $10^3$–$10^4$ TW of Joule heat into the modeled O$_2$ atmosphere of Trappist-1e, exceeding the XUV power received from the star by one to two orders of magnitude. Interior induction heating is far smaller, at 1–20 TW per event. The simulations also show that the inward magnetospheric Poynting flux scales as $B_p^3$, so a stronger intrinsic magnetic field increases rather than decreases the absorbed electromagnetic energy. These results matter because they put CME-driven Joule heating, not just XUV radiation, into the budget that decides whether close-in planets around active M dwarfs keep their atmospheres.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a time-dependent single-fluid ideal MHD model of the CME–planet interaction joined to two post-processing steps. Each CME enters as either a density pulse, carrying only mechanical energy, or a Gold–Hoyle flux rope, a force-free twisted magnetic cylinder; the magnetosphere is compressed by the CME ram pressure, launching field-aligned Alfvén waves. Surface magnetic field variability is decomposed into spherical-harmonic Gauss coefficients and fed into an induction code that computes interior Joule heating, while ionospheric Joule heating is computed from the Pedersen conductivity $\sigma_P = n_i e^2/m_i \cdot \nu_c/(\nu_c^2+\omega_g^2)$ acting on the convective electric field $E=-v\times B$. The central mechanism is magnetospheric compression, which converts CME mechanical energy into inward Poynting flux $S_\parallel = \delta B^2 v_A/\mu_0$; this compression-generated flux, not flux-rope reconnection, dominates surface magnetic variability and produces the $B_p^3$ scaling.

What would settle it

Observe a Trappist-1 superflare with coronal dimming in X-ray or H-$\alpha$, or with Doppler-shifted absorption in line profiles, and measure the associated CME's mass, speed, and magnetic energy at $E_{\mathrm{bol}}=10^{31}$ erg to test Eqs. 9, 10, and 15. If the real ejecta carry an order of magnitude less kinetic or magnetic energy than the scalings predict, the $10^3$–$10^4$ TW ionospheric heating rates fall below the XUV power and the paper's headline result fails; if the ejecta match the scalings, the heating rates stand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

CMEs with a one-hour duration transfer most of their incident electromagnetic energy to the upper atmosphere rather than the deep interior, and planetary magnetic fields act as amplifiers in that transfer. For Trappist-1e with a thin O$_2$ atmosphere, ionospheric Joule heating during one CME reaches $10^3$–$10^4$ TW, while the dayside XUV power is on the order of $10^2$ TW, making the CME the dominant transient energy source by 1–2 orders of magnitude. The same event produces about 1 TW of interior induction heating on Trappist-1e and about 20 TW on the closer Trappist-1b. The time-averaged inward Poynting flux above the surface follows $S^-_{\mathrm{in}} \propto B_p^3$ for field strengths of 0.05–0.21 G, which the authors read as a reduction of electromagnetic shielding by stronger intrinsic fields, while ionospheric Joule heating itself decreases with $B_p$. Annual averages fold in CME occurrence rates to give about 10 TW for Trappist-1b and 1 TW for Trappist-1e, near the lower end of earlier estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute heating numbers are set by solar flare–CME scaling laws that translate bolometric flare energy into CME mass, velocity, and magnetic helicity; the paper itself labels these rough estimates and notes that M-dwarf CMEs may be suppressed by strong large-scale stellar fields, so the dissipation rates are upper limits. If real Trappist-1 CMEs carry less mass, move more slowly, or are less magnetized than those scalings predict, the magnitudes fall even though the $B_p^3$ trend may survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single one-hour CME deposits $10^3$–$10^4$ TW in Trappist-1e's ionosphere, so CME-driven Joule heating can drive atmospheric inflation and escape much faster than XUV-driven photochemistry alone.
  • Annual interior heating from CMEs is about 10 TW for Trappist-1b and 1 TW for Trappist-1e, which places CME induction near the low end of earlier estimates and well below tidal heating.
  • Planetary magnetic fields do not electromagnetically shield the surface from CMEs: inward Poynting flux grows as $B_p^3$, so more strongly magnetized planets absorb more CME energy over the 0.05–0.21 G range studied.
  • Magnetospheric compression, rather than flux-rope reconnection, is the main source of surface magnetic variability, so mechanically dominated density-pulse CMEs matter at least as much as magnetized flux-rope CMEs.
  • Even the steady stellar wind produces on the order of $10^2$ TW of ionospheric Joule heating, comparable to XUV input, making upper-atmosphere Joule heating a permanent term in the energy budget.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test fields above 0.21 G, but the $B_p^3$ growth must eventually saturate when the magnetopause is pushed far enough that compression weakens; finding that breakpoint would show where planetary fields switch from antenna to shield.
  • A testable consequence is enhanced atmospheric escape a few hours after a flare: time-resolved transit spectroscopy of oxygen or hydrogen lines during or just after Trappist-1 flares could look for the ionospheric heating reported here.
  • Because an MHD treatment yields interior heating about two orders below earlier electromagnetic-only estimates, earlier suggestions that CME induction drives volcanism or magma oceans on Trappist-1 planets should be revisited with the weaker source.
  • The same compression mechanism should operate at other close-in planets around active M dwarfs, so the ionosphere, not the deep interior, is the expected CME energy sink on those worlds.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a series of three-dimensional single-fluid ideal MHD simulations of the interaction of stellar CMEs with the rocky exoplanets Trappist-1b and Trappist-1e. The CMEs are modeled as either density pulses (mechanical energy) or Gold–Hoyle flux ropes (magnetic plus mechanical energy), with parameters derived from solar flare–CME scaling laws for a bolometric flare energy of 10^31 erg, plus additional runs from 10^29 to 10^33 erg. The authors compute interior induction Joule heating with the post-processing spherical-harmonic scheme of Grayver et al. (2022) and ionospheric Joule heating with a Pedersen conductivity model applied to the simulated convective electric field. Their principal results are that (1) magnetospheric compression dominates surface magnetic variability; (2) single-event interior dissipation is about 20 TW for Trappist-1b and 1 TW for Trappist-1e, with annual averages on the order of 10 and 1 TW; (3) inward magnetospheric Poynting fluxes scale approximately as B_p^3, so stronger planetary magnetic fields do not shield the surface electromagnetically; and (4) ionospheric Joule heating reaches 10^3–10^4 TW during a 1-hour CME, exceeding the dayside XUV input by one to two orders of magnitude. The paper's stated uncertainties (Sect. 2.5) frame the results as upper limits.

Significance. The paper is a substantial step beyond earlier estimates that used scaled geomagnetic data (Grayver et al. 2022) or simplified induction calculations, because it couples a time-dependent MHD treatment of the CME–magnetosphere interaction to both interior and ionospheric dissipation diagnostics. If its quantitative claims survive scrutiny, the paper provides important constraints on the energy budgets of close-in terrestrial exoplanets and highlights that ionospheric Joule heating, not interior induction, may be the dominant electromagnetic dissipation channel during CME events. The explicit reporting of the dependence of the results on solar scaling laws and on the unconstrained CME rate fraction f is good practice, and the simulations are described in sufficient detail to be reproducible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (20)] The headline value of 10^3–10^4 TW rests on computing q = σ_P E^2 with the ideal-MHD convective electric field E = −v×B. The simulation's energy equation already contains a collisional neutral-drag sink (the −ν_n ρ v^2 term in Eq. 3), so the authors should demonstrate that Q_J,ion agrees with that independent estimate of the energy removed from the plasma. The standard Pedersen formula is valid when the plasma is magnetized (ω_g ≫ ν); for the adopted O+ parameters at B_p = 0.05 G one has ω_g ≈ 30 s^−1 versus ν ≈ 1 s^−1, so the two estimates should agree within a factor of about two, but the paper never shows this check. A short comparison of the volume-integrated q_J,ion with the integrated neutral-drag power should be added, along with a statement of the regime of validity.
  2. [Sec. 4.1.2, Fig. 14] The claim that inward Poynting fluxes scale as B_p^3 is supported by fits over only B_p = 0.05–0.21 G, a factor of four in field strength. The caption states that cases with 'Bp < 0.5 G' were excluded, which is inconsistent with the plotted lower bound and with the text's stated threshold (Bp < 0.05 G). Please correct the threshold and report the fit range, the fit statistic, and the uncertainty on the exponent; with such a narrow range the cubic scaling is not tightly constrained, and the abstract should phrase the result as an approximate scaling within the studied parameter space.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Table 4] The annual heating rates for Trappist-1b are obtained by scaling the Trappist-1e fits rather than by running the full MHD suite for Trappist-1b, as disclosed only in the table note. Because the abstract quotes these annual values without qualification, the main text should state explicitly that the Tr-1b annual estimates are extrapolations, and should estimate the uncertainty introduced by the assumed functional form. The same caveat applies to the dependence on the CME event fraction f from Grayver et al. (2022), which appears in Eq. (28) and Table 3.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.1 and Table 1] The description of the z-axis differs between the text ('perpendicular to the orbital plane and parallel to the planetary dipole') and the table note ('The z-axis is parallel to the orbital plane and planetary magnetic moment'); these should be reconciled.
  2. [Sec. 3.3] The text states 'We only consider magnetic fields ≥ 0.05 G' yet reports and plots results for Bp = 0.0 G; clarify the exclusion criterion and its effect on the integration volume.
  3. [Table 2] Clarify whether the listed ρcme is the total CME density or the Gaussian enhancement qmax in Eq. (11); as written, the Tr-1e value (1.88×10^8 m^-3) is smaller than the background stellar wind density (5.79×10^9 m^-3), which is confusing.
  4. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption states 'Yellow data points correspond to Trappist-1e, purple to Trappist-1e'; the second item should presumably read 'purple to Trappist-1b'.
  5. [Eq. (16)] The notation ln[1+T^2R^2]^2 is ambiguous; use \ln^2(1+T^2R^2) or add brackets.
  6. [Sec. 2.3] The sentence 'The proposed low density of Trappist-1e may indeed indicate a substantial amount of H2O present within its mantle and crust' is grammatically unclear; the intended causal relation should be rephrased.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward MHD simulation with external empirical inputs; self-citations to Grayver et al. (2022) are used as published independent machinery, not as circular justification.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative results are generated by time-dependent ideal MHD simulations (PLUTO) driven by external inputs: stellar wind parameters from Dong et al. (2018), flare-CME scaling laws from Aarnio et al. (2012), Kay et al. (2019), Patsourakos & Georgoulis (2017) and Dasso et al. (2006), and flare frequency distributions from Howard et al. (2023) and Seli et al. (2021). Interior Joule heating is obtained by post-processing the simulated surface magnetic field variability through the induction model of Grayver et al. (2022), which is published prior work with stated assumptions and independent numerical machinery; it is used as a method, not as a premise that presupposes the conclusions. The ionospheric Joule heating (Eq. 20) is a standard diagnostic sigma_P E^2 computed from simulated ion density, velocity, and magnetic field; nothing in that definition forces the reported 10^3-10^4 TW values, which are simulation outputs rather than fitted inputs. The B_p^3 scaling is explicitly presented as a fit to the simulated Poynting fluxes (Sect. 4.1.2: 'We now fit S_in^- with respect to B_p'), so it is a characterization of simulation output, not a prediction reverse-engineered from inputs. The paper itself flags in Sect. 2.5 that the CME parameters are 'merely rough estimates' and that 'dissipation rates derived in this work are likely upper limits'; this is acknowledged forward-model uncertainty, not circular reasoning. The only arguably self-referential element is the use of the CME event fraction f from Grayver et al. (2022) in Eq. 28, but this is a published externally accessible estimate applied as an input with propagated uncertainties, and the central claims (ionospheric heating magnitude and B_p^3 trend) do not reduce to that citation. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The results rest on a tall stack of auxiliary assumptions: solar-calibrated CME scaling laws, a single stellar wind model, a homogeneous constant-conductivity interior, a synthetic O2 atmosphere, and a guessed night-side ionization floor. The authors disclose most of these in Sect. 2.3 and 2.5. Because the headline numbers are computed within this stack, they should be read as conditional model outputs, not direct measurements.

free parameters (12)
  • CME mass scaling (Eq. 9) = M_CME = 2.7 (Ebol/100)^0.63 g
    Solar-calibrated relation from Aarnio et al. 2012; maps flare energy to CME mass.
  • CME velocity scaling (Eq. 10) = v_CME = 660 log M_CME - 9475 km/s
    Solar-calibrated from Kay et al. 2019; sets kinetic energy and event length.
  • Flux rope helicity scaling (Eq. 15) = log Hm = 53.4 - 0.0524(log Ebol)^0.653 exp(97.45/log Ebol)
    From Patsourakos & Georgoulis 2017; sets FR magnetic field via Eq. 16.
  • Stellar wind parameters (Table 1) = psw, nsw, vsw, Bsw for Tr-1b/e
    Dong et al. 2018 maximum-pressure wind; other models give different conditions.
  • CME event duration = 1 hour
    Computational choice; Appendix C shows weak sensitivity for 1-3 h.
  • Interior conductivity sigma = 0.01 S/m
    Earth-like asthenosphere value (Naif et al. 2021); heating peaks near 1e-4 S/m (Fig. 8).
  • O2 atmosphere base density = n_O2,0 = 8e6 cm^-3
    Set to saturate plasma-neutral interaction (Sect. 2.3).
  • Atmosphere scale height H = 0.06 Rp
    Chosen for numerical resolution (Sect. 2.3).
  • Photo-ionization rate beta_ph = 6.43e-5 s^-1
    Calibrated to Bourrier et al. 2017 O mass-loss rate (Appendix A).
  • Night-side ionization floor = 0.1 beta_ph
    Guessed electron-impact ionization proxy (Sect. 2.3).
  • CME-planet intersection fraction f = 0.084 (+0.061/-0.045)
    From Grayver et al. 2022; multiplies flare rates to CME impact rates.
  • Flux rope twist, turns and length = n=10, l=2.6L
    Chosen for visible helical structure; l between 2L and pi*L (Sect. 2.4.2).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Single-fluid ideal MHD equations (Eqs. 1-4) describe the interaction.
    Standard plasma model; no kinetic or multi-fluid effects.
  • domain assumption Solar flare-CME scaling laws (Eqs. 9, 10, 15, 16) apply to Trappist-1.
    The paper flags these as rough estimates (Sect. 2.5).
  • domain assumption Stellar wind of Dong et al. 2018 (max pressure) is representative.
    Alternative wind models give sub-Alfvenic conditions and different speeds (Sect. 2.2).
  • domain assumption Homogeneous interior conductivity and one-way induction coupling.
    Induced fields do not feed back to the MHD domain (Sect. 3.2).
  • domain assumption Static neutral atmosphere with production/loss/collision terms only.
    The neutral gas is not dynamically evolved (Sect. 2.3).
  • domain assumption Dipole planetary field, insulating boundary at the surface.
    Implemented via Duling et al. 2014 method (Sect. 2.3).
  • domain assumption One-hour CME duration is representative.
    Tests with 1-3 h durations change QJ by less than a factor of 2 (Appendix C).
  • ad hoc to paper Night-side minimum ionization is 0.1 beta_ph.
    Called a guess in Sect. 2.3; affects ionospheric heating rates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interaction of Trappist-1 exoplanets with coronal mass ejections: Joule heating, Poynting fluxes and the role of magnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZ6W6FTS

@misc{pith2026250615243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interaction of Trappist-1 exoplanets with coronal mass ejections: Joule heating, Poynting fluxes and the role of magnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZ6W6FTS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15243}
}
abstract

Flares and associated Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are energetic stellar phenomena that shape the space weather around planets. Close-in exoplanets orbiting active cool stars are likely exposed to extreme space weather whose effects on the planets are not understood well enough. The terrestrial Trappist-1 exoplanets are excellent targets to study the impact of CMEs on close-in planets and their atmospheres. We study the role of planetary magnetic fields in shielding the planet from external forcing. We expand on recent studies of CME-induced Joule heating of planetary interiors and atmospheres by including a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) model of the interaction. We study the interaction of CMEs with Tr-1b & e using MHD simulations. We consider magnetic flux rope and density pulse CMEs. We calculate induction heating in the planetary interior and ionospheric Joule heating for various intrinsic magnetic field strengths and CME energies. Magnetospheric compression is the main driver of magnetic variability. Planetary magnetic fields enhance induction heating in the interior although the effect is weaker with flux rope CMEs. Single event dissipation rates with 1-hour CMEs amount to 20 TW and 1 TW for Trappist-1b and e, respectively. Taking CME occurrence rates into account, annual average heating rates are ~10 TW (b) and ~1 TW (e), which are placed near the lower end of previous estimates. Within the range of studied planetary magnetic field strengths $B_p$, magnetospheric Poynting fluxes scale with $B_p^3$. Thus, stronger magnetic fields increase CME energy absorption. Ionospheric Joule heating rates amount to $10^{3-4}$ TW and decrease for stronger magnetic fields $B_p$. These heating rates exceed the average stellar XUV input by 1-2 orders of magnitude and might severely impact atmospheric erosion. In a steady state stellar wind ionospheric Joule heating amounts to ~$10^2$ TW.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15243 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Basic structure of the modeled CMEs. The values are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density pulse (DP) model results. XZ-plane cross sections centered at Trappist-1e (see Sect. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as 2, but for the for the Flux Rope (FR) model. Because of a slightly enhanced CME size due to the FR magnetic pressure the CME shock crossing occurs approximately 30 s later compared to the DP case. Article number, page 8 of 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A schematic of the post-processing pipeline to calculate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the external Gauss coefficient (Eq. 18) during one CME as function of time (minutes) for planetary magnetic field strength Bp = 0 (top), 0.03 (upper middle), 0.07 (lower middle) and 0.21 G (bottom). The left column shows DP, right column FR model results. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Joule heating averaged within 1-hour CME events in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Heating rates at Bp = 0.11 G for Trappist-1e as a function of the electric conductivity σ in S/m. The brown vertical line indicates the homogeneous model conductivity adopted in this study. gation through the heliosphere and therefore the energy density decreases accor…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ionospheric Joule heating rates (Eq. 20) averaged within 1 hour CME events for Trappist-1e as a function of planetary mag￾netic field Bp. Density pulse (DP) and flux rope (FR) model re￾sults are denoted by circles and triangles, respectively. The day￾side XUV power rec…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Maps of time-averaged magnetic variability, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: This sketch illustrates the generation of background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The open-closed field line boundary (red lines) plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Time series of S − in in W (top), ϵS (middle) and ϵT (bottom) for Trappist-1e DP (left) and FR (right) simulations as function of time during the CME event. Horizontal dashed and dotted lines indicate maximum and initial values. The transfer functions ϵS and ϵT are de…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Time-averaged inward Poynting fluxes S − in in Watts as function of planetary magnetic field flux density Bp in G. DP results are left, FR results are right. The top row shows Trappist-1b and the bottom row Trappist-1e. Black triangles denote S − in. Purple downward t…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Time-averaged interior heating rates as a function of CME-associated flare energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    N., Matt , S

    Aarnio , A. N., Matt , S. P., & Stassun , K. G. 2012, , 760, 9

    2012

  4. [4]

    L., et al

    Agol , E., Dorn , C., Grimm , S. L., et al. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 1

    2021

  5. [5]

    S., Barnes , R., Cohen , O., et al

    Airapetian , V. S., Barnes , R., Cohen , O., et al. 2020, International Journal of Astrobiology, 19, 136

    2020

  6. [6]

    Life Beyond the Solar System: Space Weather and Its Impact on Habitable Worlds

    Airapetian , V. S., Danchi , W. C., Dong , C. F., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.07333

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    S., Glocer , A., Khazanov , G

    Airapetian , V. S., Glocer , A., Khazanov , G. V., et al. 2017, , 836, L3

    2017

  8. [8]

    D., Drake , J

    Alvarado-G \'o mez , J. D., Drake , J. J., Cohen , O., Moschou , S. P., & Garraffo , C. 2018, , 862, 93

    2018

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    C., Dobos , V., & Kiss , L

    Barr , A. C., Dobos , V., & Kiss , L. L. 2018, , 613, A37

    2018

  2. [10]

    & Treumann , R

    Baumjohann , W. & Treumann , R. A. 2012, Basic space plasma physics (Imperial College Press)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Birky , J., Barnes , R., & Fleming , D. P. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 122

    2021

  4. [12]

    N., Tobie , G., et al

    Bolmont , E., Breton , S. N., Tobie , G., et al. 2020, , 644, A165

    2020

  5. [13]

    2017, , 154, 121

    Bourrier , V., de Wit , J., Bolmont , E., et al. 2017, , 154, 121

    2017

  6. [14]

    2006, , 447, 727

    Chan \'e , E., van der Holst , B., Jacobs , C., Poedts , S., & Kimpe , D. 2006, , 447, 727

    2006

  7. [15]

    Q., Chen , P

    Chen , A. Q., Chen , P. F., & Fang , C. 2006, , 456, 1153

    2006

  8. [16]

    Chen , P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1

    2011

  9. [17]

    B., Yee , J.-H., Bishop , R

    Christensen , A. B., Yee , J.-H., Bishop , R. L., et al. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 117, A04315

    2012

  10. [18]

    2024, , 962, 157

    Cohen , O., Glocer , A., Garraffo , C., et al. 2024, , 962, 157

    2024

  11. [19]

    2017, , 292, 5

    Compagnino , A., Romano , P., & Zuccarello , F. 2017, , 292, 5

    2017

  12. [20]

    H., D \'e moulin , P., & Luoni , M

    Dasso , S., Mandrini , C. H., D \'e moulin , P., & Luoni , M. L. 2006, , 455, 349

    2006

  13. [21]

    G., Perry , J

    Davies , A. G., Perry , J. E., Williams , D. A., & Nelson , D. M. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 94

    2024

  14. [22]

    R., Lewis , N

    de Wit , J., Wakeford , H. R., Lewis , N. K., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 214

    2018

  15. [23]

    2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645

    Dedner , A., Kemm , F., Kr \"o ner , D., et al. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 175, 645

    2002

  16. [24]

    2016, , 291, 531

    D \'e moulin , P., Janvier , M., & Dasso , S. 2016, , 291, 531

    2016

  17. [25]

    T., Zhang , H., Davies , E

    Desai , R. T., Zhang , H., Davies , E. E., et al. 2020, , 295, 130

    2020

  18. [26]

    C., & Kiss , L

    Dobos , V., Barr , A. C., & Kiss , L. L. 2019, , 624, A2

    2019

  19. [27]

    2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115, 260

    Dong , C., Jin , M., Lingam , M., et al. 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 115, 260

    2018

  20. [28]

    2020, , 640, A112

    Ducrot , E., Gillon , M., Delrez , L., et al. 2020, , 640, A112

    2020

  21. [29]

    2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 119, 4412

    Duling , S., Saur , J., & Wicht , J. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 119, 4412

    2014

  22. [30]

    & Saur , J

    Elekes , F. & Saur , J. 2023, , 671, A133

    2023

  23. [31]

    P., Barnes , R., Luger , R., & VanderPlas , J

    Fleming , D. P., Barnes , R., Luger , R., & VanderPlas , J. T. 2020, , 891, 155

    2020

  24. [32]

    2023, , 672, A77

    Garc \' a Mu \ n oz , A. 2023, , 672, A77

    2023

  25. [33]

    J., Cohen , O., Alvarado-G \'o mez , J

    Garraffo , C., Drake , J. J., Cohen , O., Alvarado-G \'o mez , J. D., & Moschou , S. P. 2017, , 843, L33

    2017

  26. [34]

    Gillon , M., Triaud , A. H. M. J., Demory , B.-O., et al. 2017, , 542, 456

    2017

  27. [35]

    L., Howard , W

    Glazier , A. L., Howard , W. S., Corbett , H., et al. 2020, , 900, 27

    2020

  28. [36]

    2019, , 625, A12

    Godolt , M., Tosi , N., Stracke , B., et al. 2019, , 625, A12

    2019

  29. [37]

    & Hoyle , F

    Gold , T. & Hoyle , F. 1960, , 120, 89

    1960

  30. [38]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 106

    Gopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., & Akiyama, S. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 106

    2015

  31. [39]

    J., Saur , J., Dorn , C., & Morris , B

    Grayver , A., Bower , D. J., Saur , J., Dorn , C., & Morris , B. M. 2022, , 941, L7

    2022

  32. [40]

    P., Bell , T

    Greene , T. P., Bell , T. J., Ducrot , E., et al. 2023, , 618, 39

    2023

  33. [41]

    N., Zhan , Z., Seager , S., et al

    G \"u nther , M. N., Zhan , Z., Seager , S., et al. 2020, , 159, 60

    2020

  34. [42]

    & Spohn , T

    H \"o ning , D. & Spohn , T. 2023, Astrobiology, 23, 372

    2023

  35. [43]

    2019, , 627, A48

    H \"o ning , D., Tosi , N., & Spohn , T. 2019, , 627, A48

    2019

  36. [44]

    2019, , 632, A89

    Hosteaux , S., Chan \'e , E., & Poedts , S. 2019, , 632, A89

    2019

  37. [45]

    S., Kowalski , A

    Howard , W. S., Kowalski , A. F., Flagg , L., et al. 2023, , 959, 64

    2023

  38. [46]

    J., et al

    Ilin , E., Poppenhaeger , K., Schmidt , S. J., et al. 2021, , 507, 1723

    2021

  39. [47]

    T., Luhmann , J

    Jian , L., Russell , C. T., Luhmann , J. G., & Skoug , R. M. 2006, , 239, 393

    2006

  40. [48]

    P., G \"u del , M., Lammer , H., & Kislyakova , K

    Johnstone , C. P., G \"u del , M., Lammer , H., & Kislyakova , K. G. 2018, , 617, A107

    2018

  41. [49]

    S., L \"u ftinger , T., & Kochukhov , O

    Kay , C., Airapetian , V. S., L \"u ftinger , T., & Kochukhov , O. 2019, , 886, L37

    2019

  42. [50]

    2009, , 142, 73

    Keiling , A. 2009, , 142, 73

    2009

  43. [51]

    & Noack , L

    Kislyakova , K. & Noack , L. 2020, , 636, L10

    2020

  44. [52]

    G., Fossati , L., Johnstone , C

    Kislyakova , K. G., Fossati , L., Johnstone , C. P., et al. 2018, , 858, 105

    2018

  45. [53]

    G., Noack , L., Johnstone , C

    Kislyakova , K. G., Noack , L., Johnstone , C. P., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 878

    2017

  46. [54]

    2021, , 162, 82

    Krishnamurthy , V., Hirano , T., Stef \'a nsson , G., et al. 2021, , 162, 82

    2021

  47. [55]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L39

    Krissansen-Totton, J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 951, L39

    2023

  48. [56]

    & Fortney , J

    Krissansen-Totton , J. & Fortney , J. J. 2022, , 933, 115

    2022

  49. [57]

    Krissansen-Totton , J., Wogan , N., Thompson , M., & Fortney , J. J. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 8374

    2024

  50. [58]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 932, 62

    Lin, J., Wang, F., Deng, L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 932, 62

    2022

  51. [59]

    P., Meadows , V

    Lincowski , A. P., Meadows , V. S., Zieba , S., et al. 2023, , 955, L7

    2023

  52. [60]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129

    Luger , R., Sestovic , M., Kruse , E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129

    2017

  53. [61]

    2007, in JENAM-2007, ``Our Non-Stable Universe'', 96--96

    Mignone , A., Bodo , G., Massaglia , S., et al. 2007, in JENAM-2007, ``Our Non-Stable Universe'', 96--96

    2007

  54. [62]

    2010, Journal of Computational Physics, 229, 5896

    Mignone , A., Tzeferacos , P., & Bodo , G. 2010, Journal of Computational Physics, 229, 5896

    2010

  55. [63]

    J., Cohen , O., et al

    Moschou , S.-P., Drake , J. J., Cohen , O., et al. 2019, , 877, 105

    2019

  56. [64]

    S., Egbert , G., & Pommier , A

    Naif , S., Selway , K., Murphy , B. S., Egbert , G., & Pommier , A. 2021, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 313, 106661

    2021

  57. [65]

    J., Burchill , J

    Park , J., L \"u hr , H., Knudsen , D. J., Burchill , J. K., & Kwak , Y.-S. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 122, 2345

    2017

  58. [66]

    & Georgoulis , M

    Patsourakos , S. & Georgoulis , M. K. 2017, , 292, 89

    2017

  59. [67]

    R., Gizis , J

    Paudel , R. R., Gizis , J. E., Mullan , D. J., et al. 2018, , 858, 55

    2018

  60. [68]

    Payne, R. C. & Kaltenegger, L. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 530, L13

    2024

  61. [69]

    J., Cassen , P., & Reynolds , R

    Peale , S. J., Cassen , P., & Reynolds , R. T. 1979, Science, 203, 892

    1979

  62. [70]

    Roettenbacher , R. M. & Kane , S. R. 2017, , 851, 77

    2017

  63. [71]

    M., & Simon , S

    Saur , J., Grambusch , T., Duling , S., Neubauer , F. M., & Simon , S. 2013, , 552, A119

    2013

  64. [72]

    2018, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 123, 9560

    Saur , J., Janser , S., Schreiner , A., et al. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 123, 9560

    2018

  65. [73]

    2021, , 655, A75

    Saur , J., Willmes , C., Fischer , C., et al. 2021, , 655, A75

    2021

  66. [74]

    N., & Poedts , S

    Scolini , C., Dasso , S., Rodriguez , L., Zhukov , A. N., & Poedts , S. 2021, , 649, A69

    2021

  67. [75]

    2021, , 650, A138

    Seli , B., Vida , K., Mo \'o r , A., P \'a l , A., & Ol \'a h , K. 2021, , 650, A138

    2021

  68. [76]

    & Magara , T

    Shibata , K. & Magara , T. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 6

    2011

  69. [77]

    Q., Zhang , J., Cheng , X., et al

    Song , H. Q., Zhang , J., Cheng , X., et al. 2020, , 901, L21

    2020

  70. [78]

    & Saur , J

    Strack , D. & Saur , J. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 129, 2024JA033235

    2024

  71. [79]

    M., Evensberget , D., & Vidotto , A

    Strickert , K. M., Evensberget , D., & Vidotto , A. A. 2024, , 533, 1156

    2024

  72. [80]

    S., & Paul , A

    Strugarek , A., Garc \' a Mu \ n oz , A., Brun , A. S., & Paul , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14072

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    A., Segura , A., Meadows , V., Hawley , S., & Davenport , J

    Tilley , M. A., Segura , A., Meadows , V., Hawley , S., & Davenport , J. 2019, Astrobiology, 19, 64

    2019

  74. [82]

    2017, , 605, A71

    Tosi , N., Godolt , M., Stracke , B., et al. 2017, , 605, A71

    2017

  75. [83]

    2020, , 638, A41

    Turbet , M., Bolmont , E., Ehrenreich , D., et al. 2020, , 638, A41

    2020

  76. [84]

    D., Zarka , P., Grie meier , J.-M., et al

    Turner , J. D., Zarka , P., Grie meier , J.-M., et al. 2021, , 645, A59

    2021

  77. [85]

    H., Henning, W

    Tyler, R. H., Henning, W. G., & Hamilton, C. W. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 218, 22

    2015

  78. [86]

    K., & Raouafi , N.-E

    Tziotziou , K., Georgoulis , M. K., & Raouafi , N.-E. 2012, , 759, L4

    2012

  79. [87]

    T., Foley , B

    Unterborn , C. T., Foley , B. J., Desch , S. J., et al. 2022, , 930, L6

    2022

  80. [88]

    2024, , 683, A153

    Van Looveren , G., G \"u del , M., Boro Saikia , S., & Kislyakova , K. 2024, , 683, A153

    2024

  81. [89]

    Vasyli \= u nas , V. M. & Song , P. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 110, A02301

    2005

  82. [90]

    M., Odert , P., Leitzinger , M., et al

    Veronig , A. M., Odert , P., Leitzinger , M., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 697

    2021

  83. [91]

    2017, , 841, 124

    Vida , K., K o v \'a ri , Z., P \'a l , A., Ol \'a h , K., & Kriskovics , L. 2017, , 841, 124

    2017

  84. [92]

    Walls , F. L. & Dunn , G. H. 1974, , 79, 1911

    1974

  85. [93]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 9316

    Wang , Y., Zhuang , B., Hu , Q., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 121, 9316

    2016

  86. [94]

    J., Louden , T., Bourrier , V., Ehrenreich , D., & Gillon , M

    Wheatley , P. J., Louden , T., Bourrier , V., Ehrenreich , D., & Gillon , M. 2017, , 465, L74

    2017

  87. [95]

    J., Froning , C

    Wilson , D. J., Froning , C. S., Duvvuri , G. M., et al. 2021, , 911, 18

    2021

  88. [96]

    2023, , 669, A15

    Yang , Z., Zhang , L., Meng , G., et al. 2023, , 669, A15

    2023

  89. [97]

    & Gopalswamy , N

    Yashiro , S. & Gopalswamy , N. 2009, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 257, Universal Heliophysical Processes, ed. N. Gopalswamy & D. F. Webb , 233--243

    2009

  90. [98]

    2012, NRIAG Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics, 1, 172

    Youssef , M. 2012, NRIAG Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics, 1, 172

    2012

  91. [99]

    2023, , 620, 746

    Zieba , S., Kreidberg , L., Ducrot , E., et al. 2023, , 620, 746

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.