English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Comment on paper: Gopalswamy, N., S. Yashiro, and S. Akiyama (2007),Geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections, J. Geophys. Res., 112, A06112,doi:10.1029/2006JA012149  Gopalswamy et al. [2007] studied the geoeffectiveness of halo coronal massejections (CMEs) on the basis of solar observations during 1996-2005 and foundthat the geoeffectiveness of 229 frontside halo CMEs was 71%. Recently forobservations of 305 frontside halo CMEs during 1997-2003 the geoeffectivenesswas found to be 40% [Kim et al., 2005]. Complex analysis of both solar andinterplanetary measurements showed that the geoeffectiveness of frontside haloCMEs is likely to be about 50% [Yermolaev et al., 2005; Yermolaev andYermolaev, 2006]. Gopalswamy et al. [2007] did not discuss possible causes ofthis difference and were limited only to the general words: "The reason for theconflicting results (geoeffectiveness of CMEs ranging from 35% to more than80%) may be attributed to the different definition of halo CMEs andgeoeffectiveness." So, here we shall present our point of view on highgeoeffectivenees of CME obtained in paper by Gopalswamy et al. [2007].

Comment on "Geoeffectiveness of halo coronal mass ejections" by N. Gopalswamy, S. Yashiro, and S. Akiyama