Cited by 235Solar and Space Plasma DynamicsAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaGamma-ray bursts and supernovae

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The AD775 cosmic event revisited: the Sun is to blame

Open access
Usoskin, I. G., Kromer, B., Ludlow, F., Beer, J., Friedrich, M., Kovaltsov, G. A., Solanki, S. K., Wacker, L.·2013·Astronomy & Astrophysics

Abstract

Aims. Miyake et al. (2012, Nature, 486, 240, henceforth M12) recently reported, based on 14C data, an extreme cosmic event in about AD775. Using a simple model, M12 claimed that the event was too strong to be caused by a solar flare within the standard theory. This implied a new paradigm of either an impossibly strong solar flare or a very strong cosmic ray event of unknown origin that occurred around AD775. However, as we show, the strength of the event was significantly overestimated by M12. Several subsequent works have attempted to find a possible exotic source for such an event, including a giant cometary impact upon the Sun or a gamma-ray burst, but they are all based on incorrect estimates by M12. We revisit this event with analysis of new datasets and consistent theoretical modelling.

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 · 10.1051/0004-6361/201321080

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Whole-process intra-laboratory replicates are available for only ca. 3% of dated tree-ring samples, almost 60% of which were undertaken by UCIAMS-, although inter-laboratory replicates are available for another ca. 3%.

    “Whole-process intralaboratory replicates are available for only ca. 3% of dated tree-ring samples, almost 60% of which were undertaken by UCIAMS- (set 8), although inter-laboratory replicates are available for another ca. 3% (Usoskin et al. 2013; Bayliss et al. 2020 in this issue; A. Sookdeo, personal communication; Pearson et al. 2020 in this issue; Friedrich et al. 2020 in this issue).”

    From The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP) (2020) · cites this paper as Usoskin et al. 2013

    Section 2, “14 C in German oak,” reports annual oak samples measured independently at laboratories in Mannheim and Zurich, supporting this paper as an example of inter-laboratory measurements. It does not report the claimed 3% frequencies, whole-process intralaboratory replicates, or the 60% UCIAMS share. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Link, 1962, Geofysikální Sborník, 173, 297
  2. Mac Airt, S., & Mac Niocaill, G., eds. 1983, The Annals of Ulster (to A.D. 1131) (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies)
  3. Swanton, M. 2000, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (London: Phoenix Press)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Usoskin, I. G., Kromer, B., Ludlow, F., Beer, J., Friedrich, M., Kovaltsov, G. A., Solanki, S. K., & Wacker, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Oulu (FI)
  • Curt Engelhorn Centre Archaeometry (DE)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (CH)
  • University of Hohenheim (DE)
  • Ioffe Institute (RU)
  • Kyung Hee University (KR)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
Venue
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Publisher
EDP Sciences
Published
2013-03-18
Volume
552
Pages
L3
ISSN
  • 0004-6361 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0746
OpenAlex
W2135968554
Cited by
235
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 6
FWCI
12.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics (publishedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DORA Eawag (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Academy of Finland
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Solar and Space Plasma Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Astrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Gamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Keywords
solar flares, cosmic ray events, carbon-14, solar activity, gamma-ray bursts, cometary impacts

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