Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 496

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Properties of coronal mass ejections: SOHO LASCO observations from January 1996 to June 1998

St. Cyr, O. C., Howard, R. A., Sheeley, N. R., Plunkett, S. P., Michels, D. J., Paswaters, S. E., Koomen, M. J., Simnett, G. M., Thompson, B. J., Gurman, J. B., Schwenn, R., Webb, D. F., Hildner, E., Lamy, P. L.·2000·Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics

Abstract

We report the properties of all the 841 coronal mass ejections (CMEs) observed by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Large Angle Spectroscopic Coronagraph (LASCO) C2 and C3 white‐light coronagraphs from January 1996 through June 1998, and we compare those properties to previous observations by other similar instruments. Both the CME rate and the distribution of apparent locations of CMEs varied during this period as expected based on previous solar cycles. The distribution of apparent speeds and the fraction of CMEs showing acceleration were also in agreement with earlier reports. The pointing stability provided by an L‐1 orbit and the use of CCD detectors have resulted in superior brightness sensitivity for LASCO over earlier coronagraphs; however, we have not detected a significant population of fainter (i.e., low mass) CMEs. The general shape of the distribution of apparent sizes for LASCO CMEs is similar to those of earlier reports, but the average (median) apparent size of 72° (50°) is significantly larger. The larger average apparent size is predominantly the result of the detection of a population of partial and complete halo CMEs, at least some of which appear to be events with a significant longitudinal component directed along the Sun‐Earth line, either toward or away from the Earth. Using full disk solar images obtained by the Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT) on SOHO, we found that 40 out of 92 of these events might have been directed toward the Earth, and we compared the timing of those with the Kp geomagnetic storm index in the days following the CME. Although the “false alarm” rate was high, we found that 15 out of 21 (71%) of the Kp ≥ 6 storms could be accounted for as SOHO LASCO/EIT frontside halo CMEs. If we eliminate three Kp storms that occurred following LASCO/EIT data gaps, then the possible association rate was 15 out of 18 (83%).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/1999ja000381

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 496

Metadata

Authors
St. Cyr, O. C., Howard, R. A., Sheeley, N. R., Plunkett, S. P., Michels, D. J., Paswaters, S. E., Koomen, M. J., Simnett, G. M., Thompson, B. J., Gurman, J. B., Schwenn, R., Webb, D. F., Hildner, E., & Lamy, P. L.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics
Published
2000-08
Volume
105
Issue
A8
Pages
18169-18185
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1986214388
Cited by
496
References
0
FWCI
24.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Properties of coronal mass ejections: SOHO LASCO observations from January 1996 to June 1998. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/1999ja000381
The paper
St. Cyr, O. C., Howard, R. A., Sheeley, N. R., Plunkett, S. P., Michels, D. J., Paswaters, S. E., Koomen, M. J., Simnett, G. M., Thompson, B. J., Gurman, J. B., Schwenn, R., Webb, D. F., Hildner, E., & Lamy, P. L. (2000). Properties of coronal mass ejections: SOHO LASCO observations from January 1996 to June 1998. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999ja000381

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.