Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A comparison between solar plage and network properties

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that kilogauss magnetic patches in the solar network are intrinsically stronger, brighter, and surrounded by faster downflows than equally sized patches in plage.

desk verdict A careful, size-resolved comparison showing network kG patches are intrinsically different from plage patches of the same size, with the main caveat that environment-dependent inversion bias is not fully excluded. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07464 v1 pith:33CHYLIY submitted 2019-08-20 astro-ph.SR

D. Buehler , A. Lagg , M. van Noort , S.K. Solanki This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords Sun:faculaeplagesmagneticfieldsphotospherekilogausspatches2DSPINORinversionsurroundingdownflowscanopy
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 compares the kilogauss (kG) magnetic patches found in the quiet-Sun network with those in active-region plage, using six high-resolution spectropolarimetric scans of the solar disc centre inverted with the 2D SPINOR code. Its central claim is that network and plage patches differ even after matching by size: on average, network patches have about 150 G stronger magnetic fields, about 5% higher continuum brightness, and surrounding downflows about 800 m/s faster than equally sized plage patches. The paper further finds that plage canopies are about 9 degrees more horizontal than network canopies, and that the fastest downflows near large pore-containing patches can exceed 11 km/s. If these intrinsic differences hold up, they change the picture of magnetic flux concentrations as identical thin flux tubes and tie the brightness and flow properties of a patch to the convection environment around it. Most of the network–plage contrast can be explained by patch size distributions, but the size-matched residuals point to modified photospheric convection as the underlying cause.

What carries the argument

The central object is the size-matched kG patch: a connected region of pixels with $B>1$ kG at $\log\tau = -0.8$, binned by area before comparison so that network and plage patches of equal size can be compared directly. The properties themselves come from the 2D SPINOR inversion of the Fe I 6302 Å line pair, a spatially coupled inversion that assigns one model atmosphere per pixel and compensates for the telescope point-spread function, removing the need for a stray-light component. The size binning is the mechanism that isolates intrinsic differences from the differing patch size distributions of the two environments.

What would settle it

Re-observe the same network and plage regions at a spatial sampling finer than 0.1 arcsec, or run the same 2D inversion on synthetic spectra from magnetohydrodynamic simulations of network and plage, and repeat the size-matched comparison; if the 150 G, 5%, and 800 m/s differences shrink or vanish once the smallest patches are fully resolved, the reported offsets are resolution or inversion artifacts rather than intrinsic environment effects.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At $\log\tau = -0.8$, individual kilogauss patches are defined as connected pixels with fields above 1 kG and then binned by area. In every size bin, network patches have mean field strengths about 150 G higher than equally sized plage patches and continuum contrasts about 5% higher; at disc centre the typical network patch is about 10% brighter than the mean quiet Sun while the typical plage patch is about 3% darker. The one-pixel ring around each network patch hosts downflows at $\log\tau = 0$ averaging 800 m/s faster than the ring around an equally sized plage patch, and the downflow speed grows with patch area so that average maximum downflows exceed 11 km/s around the largest pore-containing plage patches. Plage canopies are on average 9 degrees more horizontal than network canopies. The paper interprets the size-matched residuals as evidence that the convective environment, not the patch size alone, sets the field strength and brightness of these small magnetic elements.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the 2D inversion recovers the true field strength, continuum intensity, and velocity of small kilogauss patches equally well in the network and in the plage, with no size- or environment-dependent bias at 0.16 arcsec sampling; the paper itself notes residual scattered light and that the smallest kG features are not completely resolved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Irradiance reconstructions that assign brightness from patch size alone will miss the ~5% environment-dependent contrast offset, so area-based models need a network/plage correction term.
  • MHD and thin-flux-tube models of small magnetic elements must reproduce stronger, brighter network patches with faster surrounding downflows at the same size, constraining convective-collapse and heating mechanisms.
  • The growth of surrounding downflow speed with patch area, up to supersonic values near pores, unifies bright points and pores on a single scaling relation for the energy available to drive photospheric and chromospheric flows.
  • The more horizontal plage canopy offers a structural reason for the different chromospheric organisation above active regions, such as the preponderance of spicules there, which can be tested against chromospheric observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to bin the existing data by local flux density rather than by network/plage label; if the size-matched offsets are caused by modified convection, they should appear within a single region type as the ambient flux density rises.
  • If the 800 m/s downflow gap persists at full resolution, the environment-dependent kinetic energy flux from downflow rings could be fed into models of p-mode absorption or spicule driving, a step the paper does not take.
  • Applying the same patch-binning recipe to spectropolarimetric data of an emerging flux region would test whether plage-like patch properties arise from flux density alone or from the presence of sunspots and pores.
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 compares kG magnetic structures in solar network and plage using six Hinode SP scans near disc centre, inverted with the 2D SPINOR code. The authors identify connected patches of kG field at log(τ) = -0.8 and compare patch size, mean field strength, continuum intensity, internal and surrounding LOS velocities, inclination, and microturbulence. The headline result is a size-matched comparison: at equal patch area, network features are on average ~150 G stronger, ~5% brighter in continuum, and surrounded by ~800 m/s faster downflows than plage features, while the overall mean field strength of kG pixels is ~1.5 kG in both. The paper concludes that most network-plage differences reflect different patch-size distributions, but that a residual intrinsic difference likely results from modified convection in flux-rich plage.

Significance. If correct, the size-matched differences overturn the classical picture that network and plage magnetic elements are intrinsically identical except for size distribution. The paper's methodology is stronger than earlier low-resolution comparisons: it uses seeing-free SP data, a spatially coupled 2D inversion with one atmosphere per pixel, and multiple cross-checks (exposure-time consistency, sub-FOV flux-density matching, comparison of noise levels). These strengths make the comparison internally consistent. The central risk is that the 2D inversion itself may introduce size- or environment-dependent biases, which the paper acknowledges but does not quantify; a synthetic MHD test would resolve this.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 (Fig. 6) and Section 4] The central claim that network and plage kG features differ intrinsically at equal patch size requires that the 2D SPINOR inversion recovers intrinsic field strength, continuum intensity, and velocity without size- or environment-dependent bias. The manuscript itself provides evidence that this condition is not fully met: Figure 6 shows an rms continuum contrast of 11.8% versus 14.4% in MHD simulations, and Section 4 states that the smallest kG features are not completely resolved. Because SPINOR is spatially coupled and the patch-selection threshold B ≥ 1 kG can behave differently in dense plage than in sparse network, the size-matched B and I differences could be generated by inversion systematics. I request a synthetic test: degrade MHD snapshots (e.g., MuRAM) to SP resolution and noise, invert with the same SPINOR setup and patch-selection pipeline, and verify that the recovered network-versus-plage differences are unbiased. This test is needed before the 150 G and 5% results can be considered robust.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figs. 16-17] The one-pixel-wide ring used to measure surrounding downflows is narrower than the SP point-spread function (0.16 arcsec pixels, diffraction limit near 0.3 arcsec). Ring and patch pixels are therefore not independent after the deconvolution inherent in 2D SPINOR. The 800 m/s network-plage offset in ring velocity at equal patch area could reflect different PSF cross-talk between isolated network features and crowded plage features. Please test robustness to ring width (e.g., 2-3 pixels) and to PSF assumptions; this bears directly on the headline downflow claim.
  3. [Section 3.1, Fig. 10; Abstract; Section 5] The manuscript gives inconsistent values for a headline quantity: the text near Figure 10 states that network fields are ~100 G stronger than plage fields for any given patch area, whereas the Abstract and Section 5 state 150 G. Additionally, the binned means in Figures 9, 10, and 16 are presented with only the error of the mean, without a significance test on the difference or sample sizes per bin. Please reconcile the numbers and add significance estimates (e.g., bootstrap confidence intervals on the differences) for the three headline quantities: 150 G, 5%, and 800 m/s.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "the modification of the convection photospheric convection" should be "the modification of photospheric convection"; the abstract also contains the grammatical error "is likely results from".
  2. [Section 5] The first sentence of the conclusion contains the typo "A more detailled inspection" for "detailed".
  3. [Table 2] The caption labels the quiet Sun columns as "QS G I", which is unclear; please expand to "quiet Sun granular" and "quiet Sun intergranular" and explain why two quiet Sun columns are needed.
  4. [Figures 5 and 7] The text references "coloured crosses" and a colour scheme that is identical to Figure 5, but the caption does not define the colour mapping; a legend or explicit description would help the reader.
  5. [Section 5] The claim that the maximum downflows exceed 11 km/s, "faster than any previously reported photospheric flow outside of a sunspot", lacks an explicit citation and should be quantified or qualified.
  6. [Figures 9 and 10] The horizontal axis is labelled "Patch size [Pixel]" in Figure 9 and "Patch area [Pixel]" in Figure 10; please use consistent terminology for patch area.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the size-matched network–plage differences are direct comparisons of inverted Hinode data, not constructions from fitted inputs or self-cited results.

full rationale

The central claims—150 G stronger fields, 5% higher continuum contrast, and 800 m/s faster surrounding downflows for similarly sized network patches—are direct, size-binned comparisons of quantities returned by the SPINOR inversion (Figures 9, 10, 16, and 17). No parameter was fitted to the network/plage labels, and no equation defining one claimed quantity in terms of the other appears in the derivation chain. The inversion uses the same three-node atmosphere for both populations; any residual bias from underresolution or scattered light is a systematic-error concern, not a construction that forces the reported offset. The paper's self-citations (e.g., van Noort 2012 for the 2D inversion and Buehler et al. 2015 for ambiguity resolution) provide methods that are applied symmetrically to plage and network data and do not encode the size-matched differences in advance. Moreover, the paper reproduces the earlier contrary result of Stenflo & Harvey (1985) when canopy fields are included, demonstrating that the analysis is not rigged to produce its headline comparison. The quoted caveat that the smallest kG features are not completely resolved identifies a plausible systematic limitation, but it is not a circular step. On this basis the paper is self-contained with respect to its stated comparison, and no specific reduction of a prediction to its inputs can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on assumptions about inversion fidelity and feature segmentation rather than on fitted parameters. No new entities are introduced. The velocity zero-point correction is the only explicit calibration choice that enters the reported flow speeds.

free parameters (1)
  • LOS velocity zero-point correction = 200 m/s
    Section 2: velocities calibrated by assuming pores have zero average velocity (200 m/s correction) or by a convective blueshift-corrected quiet Sun profile in pore-free datasets; absolute flow speeds depend on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption 2D SPINOR inversion with three log(tau) nodes and a single atmosphere per pixel retrieves intrinsic photospheric parameters at 0.16 arcsec sampling.
    Section 2; all reported B, I, v, xi values come from this inversion; paper notes residual stray light and unresolved smallest features in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Radiative transfer and atomic line data used by SPINOR/STOPRO accurately model the 6301/6302 A Fe I lines.
    Section 2; inversion quality depends on this; no independent validation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Connected pixels with B >= 1 kG at log(tau)=-0.8 define individual magnetic patches and their immediate one-pixel rings.
    Section 3.1; patch size bins and ring downflows in Figures 9-19 depend on this segmentation; multi-cored patches complicate the definition.
  • domain assumption The 180-degree ambiguity resolution method of Buehler et al. (2015) gives correct field inclinations.
    Section 2; canopy inclination comparison relies on this; method is self-cited.
  • domain assumption PLA/NET thin flux tube models and MuRAM-based MHD simulations are suitable benchmarks for the inferred temperature and field stratifications.
    Section 4; used to interpret differences but not to produce the main quantitative claims.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A comparison between solar plage and network properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/33CHYLIY

@misc{pith2026190807464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A comparison between solar plage and network properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/33CHYLIY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07464}
}
read the original abstract

We compare the properties of kG magnetic structures in the solar network and in active region plage at high spatial resolution. Our analysis used six SP scans of the solar disc centre aboard Hinode SOT and inverted the obtained spectra of the photospheric 6302 \AA line pair using the 2D SPINOR code. Photospheric magnetic field concentrations in network and plage areas are on average 1.5 kG strong with inclinations of 10-20 degrees, and have <400 m/s internal and 2-3 km/s external downflows. At the disc centre, the continuum intensity of magnetic field concentrations in the network are on average 10% brighter than the mean quiet Sun, whilst their plage counterparts are 3% darker. A more detailed analysis revealed that all sizes of individual kG patches in the network have 150 G higher field strengths on average, 5% higher continuum contrasts, and 800 m/s faster surrounding downflows than similarly sized patches in the plage. The speed of the surrounding downflows also correlates with the patch area, and patches containing pores can produce supersonic flows exceeding 11 km/s in individual pixels. Furthermore, the magnetic canopies of kG patches are on average 9 degrees more horizontal in the plage compared to the network. Most of the differences between the network and plage are due to their different patch size distributions, but the intrinsic differences between similarly sized patches is likely results from the modification of the convection photospheric convection with increasing amounts of magnetic flux.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07464 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Continuum intensity and Stokes V images of a plage re￾gion, top row, and a network region, bottom row. The red con￾tour lines encompass kG magnetic fields at log(τ) = −0.8. The Stokes V images display the signal amplitude at 6301 − 0.06 Å and have been saturated at a level of 2%. features from the network and plage data sets and measured their expansion according to the method described in Buehler et al. (2015). The… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Inversion results of typical network region similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. displays the relationship between the magnetic field strength at log(τ) = −0.8 and the normalised continuum inten￾sity for all pixels in the plage and network images excluding sunspots. The continuum intensity was determined separately for each data set using an area that approximates the quiet Sun (i.e. with B < 1 kG at log(τ) = −0.8). At each 50 G interval the continuum intensity distribution was fitted with a Gau… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histograms of continuum intensity of kG pixels. The colour scheme refers to areas of different flux density and is iden￾tical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Histograms of magnetic field strength of kG pixels at log(τ) = −0.8. The colour scheme refers to areas of different flux density and is identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Scatterplot of patch areas of kG features and their mean continuum intensity in the plage, top, and the network, bottom. The black and red solid lines indicate the plage and network mean continuum intensities respectively. The mean intensities were calculated using ten…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Correlation between mean and maximum magnetic field strength of kG features in plage areas at log(τ) = −0.8. The black dots belong to patches without pores and the solid red line repre￾sents a linear fit. The red crosses represent patches that contain pore pixels. edg…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: demonstrates that the average magnetic field in￾clination does not have a patch area dependence and there is no systematic difference between plage and network inclina￾tions. The smallest patches in the network and plage areas dis￾play the largest deviation around the…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Scatterplot of patch areas of kG features and mean in￾ternal flow speeds at log(τ) = −0.8. The black symbols refer to patches in the plage and the red symbols are from the network. The error bars indicate the error of the mean. The mean LOS ve￾locities were calculated…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Relation between kG feature size and its internal mean micro turbulent velocity. The plus, star and diamond symbols indicate the log(τ) = 0, −0.8 and −2 layers respectively. The er￾ror bars denote the error in the mean. The black symbols refer to plage and the red to …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Scatterplot of patch areas of kG features and mean flow speeds at log(τ) = 0 in a one pixel-wide ring surrounding them for features in the plage, top, and the network, bottom. The solid lines indicate mean flow speeds. The ring mean LOS velocities were calculated usin…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Relation between kG feature size and flows surrounding them. The solid black line displays the mean flow speeds in a one-pixel ring surrounding kG features at log(τ) = 0 in plage ar￾eas and the solid red line for network features. They are identical to the solid lines…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Relation between kG feature size and mean micro tur￾bulent velocity in a one pixel-wide ring surrounding them for features in the plage, black, and the network, red at log(τ) = 0. The error bars denote the error in the mean. The dashed line indi￾cates the mean microtu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A method for global inversion of multi-resolution solar data

    astro-ph.SR 2019-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A Levenberg-Marquardt based global inversion method that applies per-dataset linear degradation operators to jointly invert solar spectra at different spatial resolutions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R., Schlichenmaier, R., & S ¨utterlin, P

    Beck, C., Bellot Rubio, L. R., Schlichenmaier, R., & S ¨utterlin, P. 2007, A&A, 472, 607

    2007

  2. [2]

    E., Rouppe van der V oort, L., & L¨ofdahl, M

    Berger, T. E., Rouppe van der V oort, L., & L¨ofdahl, M. 2007, ApJ, 661, 1272

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    E., Rouppe van der V oort, L

    Berger, T. E., Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., L¨ofdahl, M. G., et al. 2004, A&A, 428, 613

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Berger, T. E. & Title, A. M. 1996, ApJ, 463, 365 12 D. Buehler, et al.: A comparison between solar plage and network properties

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    N., Keller, C

    Bernasconi, P. N., Keller, C. U., Povel, H. P., & Stenflo, J. O. 1995, A&A, 302, 533

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    A., M´arquez, I., S´anchez Almeida, J., Cabello, I., & Domingo, V

    Bonet, J. A., M´arquez, I., S´anchez Almeida, J., Cabello, I., & Domingo, V . 2008, ApJ, 687, L131

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    K., & van Noort, M

    Buehler, D., Lagg, A., Solanki, S. K., & van Noort, M. 2015, A&A, 576, A27

    2015

  8. [8]

    Buehler, D., Lagg, A., van Noort, M., & Solanki, S. K. 2016, A&A, 589, A31 B¨unte, M., Solanki, S. K., & Steiner, O. 1993, A&A, 268, 736

    work page 2016

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    2007, A&A, 474, 261

    Cameron, R., Sch¨ussler, M., V¨ogler, A., & Zakharov, V . 2007, A&A, 474, 261

    2007

  2. [10]

    2010, ApJ, 723, 440

    Cho, K.-S., Bong, S.-C., Chae, J., Kim, Y .-H., & Park, Y .-D. 2010, ApJ, 723, 440

    2010

  3. [11]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 27

    Criscuoli, S. 2013, ApJ, 778, 27

    2013

  4. [12]

    2017, ApJ, 847, 93

    Criscuoli, S., Norton, A., & Whitney, T. 2017, ApJ, 847, 93

    2017

  5. [13]

    & Uitenbroek, H

    Criscuoli, S. & Uitenbroek, H. 2014, A&A, 562, L1 da Silva Santos, J. M., de la Cruz Rodr ´ıguez, J., & Leenaarts, J. 2018, A&A, 620, A124

    2014

  6. [14]

    2008, A&A, 484, L17

    Danilovic, S., Gandorfer, A., Lagg, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 484, L17

    2008

  7. [15]

    H., & Sch¨ussler, M

    Danilovic, S., R¨ohrbein, D., Cameron, R. H., & Sch¨ussler, M. 2013, A&A, 550, A118

    2013

  8. [16]

    Defouw, R. J. 1976, ApJ, 209, 266

    1976

  9. [17]

    1984, A&A, 139, 435

    Deinzer, W., Hensler, G., Sch¨ussler, M., & Weisshaar, E. 1984, A&A, 139, 435

    1984

  10. [18]

    & Lean, J

    Foukal, P. & Lean, J. 1988, ApJ, 328, 347

    1988

  11. [19]

    Frazier, E. N. & Stenflo, J. O. 1972, Sol. Phys., 27, 330

    1972

  12. [20]

    K., Fligge, M., & Bruls, J

    Frutiger, C., Solanki, S. K., Fligge, M., & Bruls, J. H. M. J. 2000, A&A, 358, 1109

    2000

  13. [21]

    Grossmann-Doerth, U., Sch¨ussler, M., & Solanki, S. K. 1988, A&A, 206, L37

    1988

  14. [22]

    1978, A&A, 70, 537

    Holweger, H., Gehlsen, M., & Ruland, F. 1978, A&A, 70, 537

    1978

  15. [23]

    & Stenflo, J

    Howard, R. & Stenflo, J. O. 1972, Sol. Phys., 22, 402

    1972

  16. [24]

    2008, Sol

    Ichimoto, K., Lites, B., Elmore, D., et al. 2008, Sol. Phys., 249, 233

    2008

  17. [25]

    2007, A&A, 472, 911

    Ishikawa, R., Tsuneta, S., Kitakoshi, Y ., et al. 2007, A&A, 472, 911

    2007

  18. [26]

    K., Feller, A., et al

    Jafarzadeh, S., Solanki, S. K., Feller, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A116

    2013

  19. [27]

    K., Lagg, A., et al

    Jafarzadeh, S., Solanki, S. K., Lagg, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A105

    2014

  20. [28]

    2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 78

    Ji, K.-F., Xiong, J.-P., Xiang, Y .-Y ., et al. 2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 78

    2016

  21. [29]

    L., & Solanki, S

    Kahil, F., Riethm¨uller, T. L., & Solanki, S. K. 2017, ApJS, 229, 12

    2017

  22. [30]

    L., & Solanki, S

    Kahil, F., Riethm¨uller, T. L., & Solanki, S. K. 2019, A&A, 621, A78

    2019

  23. [31]

    L., Balasubramaniam, K

    Keil, S. L., Balasubramaniam, K. S., Smaldone, L. A., & Reger, B. 1999, ApJ, 510, 422

    1999

  24. [32]

    U., Stenflo, J

    Keller, C. U., Stenflo, J. O., Solanki, S. K., Tarbell, T. D., & Title, A. M. 1990, A&A, 236, 250

    1990

  25. [33]

    V ., Collados, M., Solanki, S

    Khomenko, E. V ., Collados, M., Solanki, S. K., Lagg, A., & Trujillo Bueno, J. 2003, A&A, 408, 1115 Kn¨olker, M. & Sch¨ussler, M. 1988, A&A, 202, 275

    2003

  26. [34]

    K., & Borrero, J

    Kobel, P., Solanki, S. K., & Borrero, J. M. 2011, A&A, 531, A112

    2011

  27. [35]

    K., & Borrero, J

    Kobel, P., Solanki, S. K., & Borrero, J. M. 2012, A&A, 542, A96

    2012

  28. [36]

    2007, Sol

    Kosugi, T., Matsuzaki, K., Sakao, T., et al. 2007, Sol. Phys., 243, 3

    2007

  29. [37]

    A., Solanki, S

    Krivova, N. A., Solanki, S. K., Fligge, M., & Unruh, Y . C. 2003, A&A, 399, L1

    2003

  30. [38]

    K., Riethm¨uller, T

    Lagg, A., Solanki, S. K., Riethm¨uller, T. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, L164 Langangen, Ø., Carlsson, M., Rouppe van der V oort, L., & Stein, R. F. 2007, ApJ, 655, 615

    2010

  31. [39]

    K., Topka, K

    Lawrence, J. K., Topka, K. P., & Jones, H. P. 1993, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 18911

    1993

  32. [40]

    B., Noyes, R

    Leighton, R. B., Noyes, R. W., & Simon, G. W. 1962, ApJ, 135, 474

    1962

  33. [41]

    Lites, B. W. & Ichimoto, K. 2013, Sol. Phys., 283, 601

    2013

  34. [42]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 17 Mart´ınez Pillet, V ., Lites, B

    Liu, Y ., Xiang, Y ., Erd´elyi, R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 17 Mart´ınez Pillet, V ., Lites, B. W., & Skumanich, A. 1997, ApJ, 474, 810

    2018

  35. [43]

    2008, ApJ, 677, L145

    Nagata, S., Tsuneta, S., Suematsu, Y ., et al. 2008, ApJ, 677, L145

    2008

  36. [44]

    & Scharmer, G

    Narayan, G. & Scharmer, G. B. 2010, A&A, 524, A3

    2010

  37. [45]

    K., Domingo, V ., Fligge, M., & Sanahuja, B

    Ortiz, A., Solanki, S. K., Domingo, V ., Fligge, M., & Sanahuja, B. 2002, A&A, 388, 1036

    2002

  38. [46]

    L., Rast, M

    Peck, C. L., Rast, M. P., Criscuoli, S., & Rempel, M. 2019, ApJ, 870, 89

    2019

  39. [47]

    Proctor, M. R. E. & Weiss, N. O. 1982, Reports on Progress in Physics, 45, 1317

    1982

  40. [48]

    S., Del Toro Iniesta, J

    Requerey, I. S., Del Toro Iniesta, J. C., Bellot Rubio, L. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 6

    2014

  41. [49]

    S., Del Toro Iniesta, J

    Requerey, I. S., Del Toro Iniesta, J. C., Bellot Rubio, L. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 79 Riethm¨uller, T. L. & Solanki, S. K. 2017, A&A, 598, A123 Riethm¨uller, T. L. & Solanki, S. K. 2018, arXiv e-prints Riethm¨uller, T. L., Solanki, S. K., Berdyugina, S. V ., et al. 2014, A&...

    2015

  42. [50]

    Rimmele, T. R. 2004, ApJ, 604, 906 R¨ohrbein, D., Cameron, R., & Sch¨ussler, M. 2011, A&A, 532, A140

    2004

  43. [51]

    2012, Sol

    Romano, P., Berrilli, F., Criscuoli, S., et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 280, 407 R¨uedi, I., Solanki, S. K., Livingston, W., & Stenflo, J. O. 1992, A&A, 263, 323

    2012

  44. [52]

    Schnerr, R. S. & Spruit, H. C. 2011, A&A, 532, A136 Sch¨ussler, M. 1984, A&A, 140, 453 Sch¨ussler, M. 1986, in Small Scale Magnetic Flux Concentrations in the Solar Photosphere, ed. W. Deinzer, M. Kn¨olker, & H. H. V oigt, 103

    2011

  45. [53]

    K., & V¨ogler, A

    Shelyag, S., Sch¨ussler, M., Solanki, S. K., & V¨ogler, A. 2007, A&A, 469, 731

    2007

  46. [54]

    2008, Sol

    Shimizu, T., Nagata, S., Tsuneta, S., et al. 2008, Sol. Phys., 249, 221

    2008

  47. [55]

    Solanki, S. K. 1986, A&A, 168, 311

    1986

  48. [56]

    Solanki, S. K. 1987, PhD thesis, No. 8309, ETH, Z¨urich, (1987)

    1987

  49. [57]

    Solanki, S. K. 1989, A&A, 224, 225

    1989

  50. [58]

    Solanki, S. K. 1993, Space Sci. Rev., 63, 1

    1993

  51. [59]

    Solanki, S. K. & Brigljevic, V . 1992, A&A, 262, L29

    1992

  52. [60]

    Solanki, S. K. & Roberts, B. 1992, MNRAS, 256, 13

    1992

  53. [61]

    K., R¨uedi, I

    Solanki, S. K., R¨uedi, I. K., & Livingston, W. 1992, A&A, 263, 312

    1992

  54. [62]

    Solanki, S. K. & Stenflo, J. O. 1984, A&A, 140, 185

    1984

  55. [63]

    Solanki, S. K. & Stenflo, J. O. 1985, A&A, 148, 123

    1985

  56. [64]

    Spruit, H. C. 1976, Sol. Phys., 50, 269

    1976

  57. [65]

    Spruit, H. C. 1979, Sol. Phys., 61, 363

    1979

  58. [66]

    & Hirzberger, J

    Stangl, S. & Hirzberger, J. 2005, A&A, 432, 319

    2005

  59. [67]

    Stein, R. F. & Nordlund, Å. 2006, ApJ, 642, 1246

    2006

  60. [68]

    1996, Sol

    Steiner, O., Grossmann-Doerth, U., Sch ¨ussler, M., & Kn ¨olker, M. 1996, Sol. Phys., 164, 223 Stenflo, J. O. 1973, Sol. Phys., 32, 41 Stenflo, J. O. & Harvey, J. W. 1985, Sol. Phys., 95, 99 Stenflo, J. O., Solanki, S., Harvey, J. W., & Brault, J. W. 1984, A&A, 131, 333

    1996

  61. [69]

    2008, Sol

    Suematsu, Y ., Tsuneta, S., Ichimoto, K., et al. 2008, Sol. Phys., 249, 197

    2008

  62. [70]

    M., Tarbell, T

    Title, A. M., Tarbell, T. D., Topka, K. P., et al. 1989, ApJ, 336, 475

    1989

  63. [71]

    M., Topka, K

    Title, A. M., Topka, K. P., Tarbell, T. D., et al. 1992, ApJ, 393, 782

    1992

  64. [72]

    P., Tarbell, T

    Topka, K. P., Tarbell, T. D., & Title, A. M. 1992, ApJ, 396, 351

    1992

  65. [73]

    2012, Space Sci

    Tsiropoula, G., Tziotziou, K., Kontogiannis, I., et al. 2012, Space Sci. Rev., 169, 181

    2012

  66. [74]

    2008, Sol

    Tsuneta, S., Ichimoto, K., Katsukawa, Y ., et al. 2008, Sol. Phys., 249, 167

    2008

  67. [75]

    2013, A&A, 554, A65 van Noort, M

    Utz, D., Jurˇc´ak, J., Hanslmeier, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A65 van Noort, M. 2012, A&A, 548, A5

    2013

  68. [76]

    1986, Nature, 322, 156

    Venkatakrishnan, P. 1986, Nature, 322, 156

    1986

  69. [77]

    J., & V¨ogler, A

    Vitas, N., Viticchi`e, B., Rutten, R. J., & V¨ogler, A. 2009, A&A, 499, 301 Viticchi´e, B., Del Moro, D., Criscuoli, S., & Berrilli, F. 2010, ApJ, 723, 787 V¨ogler, A., Shelyag, S., Sch¨ussler, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 429, 335 Yelles Chaouche, L., Solanki, S. K., & Sch¨ussler, M...

    2009

  70. [78]

    L., Solanki, S

    Yeo, K. L., Solanki, S. K., & Krivova, N. A. 2013, A&A, 550, A95

    2013

  71. [79]

    L., Solanki, S

    Yeo, K. L., Solanki, S. K., Norris, C. M., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 119

    2017

  72. [80]

    K., & Stenflo, J

    Zayer, I., Solanki, S. K., & Stenflo, J. O. 1989, A&A, 211, 463

    1989

  73. [81]

    O., Keller, C

    Zayer, I., Stenflo, J. O., Keller, C. U., & Solanki, S. K. 1990, A&A, 239, 356 Appendix A: Overview of the data 13 D. Buehler, et al.: A comparison between solar plage and network properties Fig. A.1. Continuum intensity images of the data sets listed in Tab 1. The shaded areas...

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.