Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Observations of umbral flashes in the resonant sunspot chromosphere

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Phase shifts show sunspot umbrae trap waves in a resonant cavity.

desk verdict Careful inversion work with a real observational map of standing vs. propagating 3-min oscillations, but the standing/propagating classification leans on an unvalidated fixed height separation between Ca II and H-alpha. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16467 v1 pith:6PEBVSKO submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.SR

T. Felipe , S. J. González Manrique , D. Martínez-Gómez , M. M. Gómez-Míguez , E. Khomenko , C. Quintero Noda , H. Socas-Navarro This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords umbralflashessunspotchromospherechromosphericresonantcavitystandingoscillationspropagatingwavestransitionregionheightCaIIspectrallinesHalphabisectors
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

This paper uses high-cadence spectroscopy of a sunspot to decide whether umbral flashes are upward-propagating shocks or signs of standing oscillations. By comparing the phase of velocity fluctuations measured from Ca II line inversions with the velocity from H alpha bisectors, it finds that in most of the umbra the low chromosphere oscillates as a standing wave, with the two signals in phase or anti-phase depending on their position relative to a velocity node. Only in regions where umbral flashes are frequent do the velocity signals show a roughly 31-second delay consistent with upward propagation. The paper concludes that a chromospheric resonant cavity sits above sunspot umbrae, produced by wave reflection at the transition region, and that the height of this reflecting layer changes dynamically as waves push it upward. This reframes umbral flashes as partly a cavity phenomenon and explains why some flashes appear downflowing at their onset.

What carries the argument

The central object is the V-V phase shift, the difference in oscillation phase between two chromospheric velocity signals thought to originate about 265 km apart in height: the velocity from inversions of Ca II 8542 Å and Ca II H averaged over the optical depth range $\log \tau = -4.6$ to $-5.3$, and the H $\alpha$ velocity from line bisectors. A phase of $0$ means the two layers sit on the same side of a velocity node of a standing wave; a phase of $\pi$ means a node lies between them; a delay of about 31 seconds means the wave is travelling upward at roughly the chromospheric sound speed. The analysis is carried by many independent inversions per observed profile, with the Ca II H core included to break the degeneracy that otherwise produces spurious downflowing solutions when only Ca II 8542 Å is inverted.

What would settle it

Measure the time-dependent height of the transition region and the formation heights of the Ca II and H alpha signals during a similar umbral flash series, and check whether the observed phase shifts and node-coincidence events track those heights. If the H alpha delay stays near 31 s while the transition region rises and falls without the phase flips predicted by a moving node, the resonant-cavity interpretation loses its main support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low umbral chromosphere hosts a resonant cavity bounded by the transition region, and that the standing-wave pattern this cavity produces is the dominant oscillatory state except where strong wave flux lifts the transition region. The evidence is a map of the V-V phase shift between two chromospheric velocity signals: one from simultaneous inversions of the Ca II 8542 Å and Ca II H lines, the other from H $\alpha$ bisectors. Phase shifts near $0$ or $\pi$ indicate standing oscillations, with a velocity node either absent or present between the two formation heights; a positive delay of about 31 seconds indicates upward propagation. The paper also reports a case where the Ca II velocity vanishes for nearly a full period while the temperature peaks, which it interprets as the Ca II response height coinciding with a velocity resonant node. Downflowing profiles appear at the onset of some umbral flashes, more often in standing-wave regions (22.8% of events) than in propagating regions (4.7%), but upflowing motion dominates the rest of the flash.

Load-bearing premise

The two velocity signals are assumed to be formed at distinct, roughly fixed atmospheric heights separated by about 265 km, with H alpha always higher, even though this separation is inferred from the measured 31 s delay using an assumed chromospheric sound speed of 8.5 km/s rather than measured directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Umbral flashes are not exclusively propagating shocks: a large class arises from standing oscillations in the chromospheric resonant cavity, which explains the observed downflows at flash onset.
  • Multi-line inversions that include the Ca II H core are required to avoid false downflowing umbral flash detections from single-line Ca II 8542 Å inversions.
  • The height of the transition region above a sunspot umbra changes on timescales of minutes, so resonant node positions move; standing-wave interpretations must be time-resolved rather than averaged over long series.
  • In the same umbra, propagating and standing waves coexist, with propagating behavior concentrated where umbral flashes are frequent and the transition region is pushed upward.
  • Chromospheric seismology of sunspot umbrae must account for a non-stationary cavity, since the relevant oscillation modes shift as the reflecting layer moves.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if the transition region height is the controlling variable, co-observing a transition-region line simultaneously with the Ca II and H alpha series should show the phase flips and node-coincidence events lining up with measured height changes.
  • Inference: the vanishing-velocity, temperature-peak event offers a way to calibrate the absolute formation height of the Ca II response, since modelling where the node sits would pin the Ca II height at that time.
  • Inference: the spatial link between umbral dots and frequent flashes suggests the extra wave flux originates in magnetoconvection; a testable prediction is that flashes preferentially ignite above umbral dots and spread outward along more inclined field lines.
  • Inference: if the standing-wave interpretation is correct, single-line inversion surveys reporting mostly downflowing umbral flashes are likely seeing an inversion degeneracy, and future surveys should adopt multi-line constraints before claiming downflowing flashes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes a 13-minute spectroscopic time series of Ca II 8542 Å, Ca II H, and Hα in a sunspot umbra acquired with the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope. The authors perform simultaneous NICOLE inversions of the two Ca II lines with 256 initial guesses per profile, derive a Ca II chromospheric velocity averaged over log τ = -4.6 to -5.3, and derive an Hα velocity from 10% line bisectors. By comparing the Fourier phase of these two velocity signals at 6.45 mHz, they classify umbral locations as supporting upward propagation, mostly in regions with frequent umbral flashes, or standing oscillations, mostly elsewhere. They interpret in-phase and anti-phase relations as evidence of a chromospheric resonant cavity bounded by the transition region, and they report statistics on downflowing umbral flashes. They conclude that the resonant cavity is confirmed and that transition-region height changes move the velocity nodes.

Significance. If the phase-based classification is valid, the paper provides an important observational constraint on sunspot chromospheric oscillations: it directly maps standing versus propagating behavior across the umbra, connects this behavior to umbral-flash frequency, and gives a quantitative census of downflowing flashes. The inversion methodology is a clear strength: 256 independent initializations per profile, explicit control of multi-line degeneracy, and a documented example where adding the Ca II H core rejects spurious downflow solutions. The velocity phase relations are measured from two independent spectral diagnostics, not manufactured by a model, and the paper's predictions, such as more downflowing flashes in standing regions and minute-scale node motion, are falsifiable. However, the central classification rests on an assumed 265 km height separation between the diagnostics, inferred from the same propagation delay it is used to interpret, and the phase differences are shown without uncertainties or quantitative thresholds. The headline 'confirmation' of a resonant cavity is therefore stronger than the evidence currently supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, §4.1] The 265 km separation between the Ca II and Hα velocity diagnostics is not an independent calibration. In Section 4.1, the 31 s delay at location A is converted to 265 km by assuming free vertical propagation at the chromospheric sound speed of 8.5 km/s; the same fixed 265 km is then used in Sections 3.5 and 4.2–4.4 to interpret phases near 0 or π as standing-wave signatures. Neither diagnostic has a response or contribution function computed: the Ca II velocity is an average over log τ = -4.6 to -5.3, and the Hα 10% bisector formation height is not calibrated in the flash-modified umbral chromosphere. During umbral flashes, the optical-depth scale and line formation heights can shift substantially. If the true separation is smaller, time-varying, or otherwise different from 265 km, the in-phase and anti-phase classifications lose their discriminating power. Please compute response-height estimates for both diagnostics in representative flash and non-flash atmospheres and show how the phase classification changes for plausible height separations.
  2. [§3.5, Figs. 2, 9, 10] The phase differences in Fig. 2 are presented without uncertainties, and the paper does not define quantitative thresholds for 'in-phase', 'anti-phase', or 'propagating'. The phase is computed from Fourier transforms of only 63 time steps, about five cycles at 6.45 mHz, and the paper itself documents non-stationarity: location C switches between in-phase and anti-phase behavior within the series (Fig. 9), and location D shows the Ca II velocity vanishing for nearly a full period (Fig. 10). A single Fourier phase over the whole series therefore averages over different oscillatory regimes, and a phase from a near-zero velocity signal is effectively undefined. Consequently, the 0.4π value at location A could be a non-stationary average rather than unambiguous evidence of propagation. I request sliding-window or wavelet phase estimates with confidence intervals, for example from the 256-inversion ensemble or a bootstrap, together with a statement of the minimum phase difference that can be distinguished given the series length and noise.
  3. [§4.4] The statement that a velocity node at the Ca II formation height 'is the only scenario that can account for these observations' is stronger than the evidence allows. A vanishing Ca II velocity together with strong Hα oscillations could also result from a temporary loss of sensitivity of the Ca II diagnostic, from cancellation due to the broad log τ averaging when the line formation changes, or from the core-reversal conditions shown in the third row of Fig. 10. Since this location is presented as key evidence for a resonant node, please compute the response or contribution functions of the Ca II velocity diagnostic at that epoch, or soften the claim to 'consistent with a velocity node'.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Fig. 4] The claim that downflowing solutions from single-line Ca II 8542 inversions are discarded when the Ca II H core is added is supported only by the single example in Fig. 4; please provide statistics on how often this degeneracy break occurs across the 44 analyzed locations.
  2. [§5.2] The rates 13/57 (22.8%) and 3/64 (4.7%) are quoted without uncertainty; please add a significance test or confidence intervals so the reader can assess whether the difference between standing and propagating flashes is robust.
  3. [§3.4] The statement that bisector levels from 5% to 50% give no significant differences is not documented; a short figure or table would make this check reproducible.
  4. [§4.3] There is a typo in Section 4.3: 'between the H α y Ca ii velocities' should read 'between the Hα and Ca ii velocities'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the V-V phase shifts are independent measurements, and the 265 km height separation is an explicitly stated interpretive assumption rather than a fitted input that constructs the standing/propagating result.

full rationale

The paper's central observable is the Fourier phase difference between two independently measured velocity signals: the multi-line NICOLE inversion velocity from Ca II 8542 Å + Ca II H, and the H-alpha 10% bisector velocity. These are not derived from the standing/propagating model, so the basic input is empirical. The 265 km height separation is derived in Section 4.1 from the 31 s delay at location A under an explicitly stated free-propagation/sound-speed assumption; it is used in Sections 3.5 and 4.2 to interpret phase relations at other locations. This is an extrapolation and a robustness concern (a smaller or variable height separation would weaken the in-phase standing classification), but it is not a circular reduction: the phase values at B, C, and D are measured, not predicted from the fit, and the standing interpretation at C/D is additionally supported by anti-phase relations and by the velocity-node signature at D (zero Ca II velocity with large H-alpha velocity and a temperature peak), which does not depend on the exact 265 km value. Self-citations (Felipe et al. 2020, 2021a) are used as context and for post-hoc comparison with numerical predictions, not as the logical foundation of the observed phase relations; the resonant-cavity claim also cites external work (Jess et al. 2020, 2021; Zhugzhda & Locans 1981). The main weaknesses—unquantified phase uncertainties, short time series, and the fixed formation-height assumption—are correctness and statistical risks, not definitional circularity. Score 2 reflects minor self-citation and an interpretive assumption chain without a by-construction reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central wave-interference claim rests on the inversion assumptions, the fixed height separation assumption, and the limited duration of the time series. The paper introduces no new entities and no fitted parameters in the usual sense; the umbral flash identification criterion (Section 3.1) is an operational threshold, and the 8.5 km/s sound speed is an input from the literature.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption NICOLE 1.5D plane-parallel NLTE inversions of the Ca II 8542 A line and Ca II H core yield reliable chromospheric velocities and temperatures.
    Section 3.3 states NICOLE assumes plane-parallel atmosphere and full angle/frequency redistribution; partial redistribution effects in Ca II H are avoided by using only the core. The entire velocity inference rests on this.
  • domain assumption The H alpha 10% bisector velocity is formed roughly 265 km above the Ca II inversion response height, and this height difference is stable enough to interpret phase shifts.
    Section 4.1 uses an assumed chromospheric sound speed (8.5 km/s from Maltby et al. 1986) to convert the 31 s delay into 265 km. The height difference is not independently measured.
  • domain assumption Oscillations at 6.45 mHz in the umbra are slow magnetoacoustic waves whose phase relations between two layers map to propagating or standing behavior.
    Section 3.5 and Section 4 introduce the V-V phase shift criterion; the standing versus propagating classification follows standard wave theory for these waves.
  • domain assumption A 13-minute time series is sufficient to estimate Fourier phases at the dominant oscillation frequency (about 5 cycles at 6.45 mHz).
    The analysis uses 63 time steps (13 min); the frequency resolution is about 1.3 mHz, so the phase at 6.45 mHz is determined from only a few cycles. This is a practical but fragile choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observations of umbral flashes in the resonant sunspot chromosphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6PEBVSKO

@misc{pith2026241116467,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observations of umbral flashes in the resonant sunspot chromosphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6PEBVSKO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16467}
}
read the original abstract

In sunspot umbrae, the core of some chromospheric lines exhibits periodic brightness enhancements known as umbral flashes. The consensus is that they are produced by the upward propagation of shock waves. This view has recently been challenged by the detection of downflowing umbral flashes and the confirmation of the existence of a resonant cavity above sunspots. We aim to determine waves' propagating or standing nature in the low umbral chromosphere and confirm or refute the existence of downflowing umbral flashes. Spectroscopic temporal series of Ca II 8542 \AA, Ca II H, and Halpha in a sunspot were acquired with the Swedish Solar Telescope. The Halpha velocity was inferred using bisectors. Simultaneous inversions of the Ca II 8542 \AA\ line and the Ca II H core were performed using the NICOLE code. The nature of the oscillations and insights into the resonant oscillatory pattern were determined by analyzing the phase shift between the velocity signals and examining the temporal evolution. Propagating waves in the low chromosphere are more common in regions with frequent umbral flashes, where the transition region is shifted upward, making resonant cavity signatures less noticeable. In contrast, areas with fewer umbral flashes show velocity fluctuations that align with standing oscillations. Evidence suggests dynamic changes in the location of velocity resonant nodes due to variations in transition region height. Downflowing profiles appear at the onset of some umbral flashes, but upflowing motion dominates during most of the flash. These downflowing flashes are more common in standing umbral flashes. We confirm the existence of a chromospheric resonant cavity above sunspot umbrae produced by wave reflections at the transition region. The oscillatory pattern depends on the transition region height, which exhibits spatial and temporal variations due to the impact of the waves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16467 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Field of view of the observations and magnetic field inferred from the inversions of the polarimetric map. Top panels: Intensity in the wing (left panel) and core (right panel) of the Ca ii 8542 Å line. The white square delimits the region where the spectropolarimetric inversions were performed. Bottom panels: line-of-sight magnetic field (left panel) and magnetic field inclination (right panel). White contours mark… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. V-V phase shift between the Ca ii and H αchromospheric veloc￾ities at the analyzed locations. The background illustrates an intensity map of the umbra and surroundings at the continuum around the Ca ii 8542 Å line. The colored dots mark the analyzed locations, with the color corresponding to the V-V phase shift at 6.45 mHz according to the upper colour bar. The contours indicate the number of umbral flash profiles a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quality of the inversion fits and number of inversions that satisfy the threshold criterion. Top panels: observed umbral flash profile (black dots), the fit obtained from an inversion whose χ 2 is near the chosen threshold (blue solid line), and the fit of the inversion with the worst χ 2 (above the threshold) that was included in the analysis (red dashed line). The left panel corresponds to the Ca ii 8542 Å line an… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of single-line inversions of the Ca ii 8542 Å and multi-line inversions of that line together with the core of the Ca ii H at a randomly chosen umbral location. Top panel: temporal evolution of the chromospheric velocity inferred from multi-line (red line) a…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average phase difference between the velocity measured in Hα at the locations analyzed in this study and the surrounding pixels within a diameter of four pixels. The results are plotted as a function of the local magnetic field inclination. The error bars indicate the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal evolution of the chromospheric fluctuations and inver￾sion results at point A from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anstee, S. D. & O’Mara, B. J. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 859

    1995

  2. [2]

    & Carlsson, M

    Bard, S. & Carlsson, M. 2010, ApJ, 722, 888

    2010

  3. [3]

    Beckers, J. M. & Tallant, P . E. 1969, Sol. Phys., 7, 351 Bjørgen, J. P ., Sukhorukov, A. V ., Leenaarts, J., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A62

    work page 1969

  4. [4]

    Bose, S., Henriques, V . M. J., Rouppe van der V oort, L., & Pere ira, T. M. D. 2019, A&A, 627, A46

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    2006, ApJ, 64 0, 1153

    Centeno, R., Collados, M., & Trujillo Bueno, J. 2006, ApJ, 64 0, 1153

    2006

  6. [6]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 18

    Chae, J., Lee, J., Cho, K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 18

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    2023, ApJ, 944, L52 de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., Löfdahl, M

    Chae, J., Lim, E.-K., Lee, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, L52 de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., Löfdahl, M. G., Sütterlin, P ., Hill berg, T., & Rouppe van der V oort, L. 2015, A&A, 573, A40 de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., Rouppe van der V oort, L., Socas-Nav arro, H., & van

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    2013, A&A, 556, A115 de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., Socas-Navarro, H., Carlsson, M., & Leenaarts, J

    Noort, M. 2013, A&A, 556, A115 de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., Socas-Navarro, H., Carlsson, M., & Leenaarts, J. 2012, A&A, 543, A34

    work page 2013

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 2

    Felipe, T. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 2

    2021

  2. [10]

    J., Milic, I

    Felipe, T., Kuckein, C., González Manrique, S. J., Milic, I. , & Sangeetha, C. R. 2020, ApJ, 900, L29

    2020

  3. [11]

    2014, ApJ, 795 , 9

    Felipe, T., Socas-Navarro, H., & Khomenko, E. 2014, ApJ, 795 , 9

    2014

  4. [12]

    2018, A&A, 6 14, A73

    Felipe, T., Socas-Navarro, H., & Przybylski, D. 2018, A&A, 6 14, A73

    2018

  5. [13]

    & Deubner, F.-L

    Fleck, B. & Deubner, F.-L. 1989, A&A, 224, 245

    1989

  6. [14]

    J., Bogdan, T

    French, R. J., Bogdan, T. J., Casini, R., de Wijn, A. G., & Judge, P . G. 2023, ApJ, 945, L27 González Manrique, S. J., Quintero Noda, C., Kuckein, C., Ru iz Cobo, B., &

    2023

  7. [15]

    2020, A&A, 634, A19

    Carlsson, M. 2020, A&A, 634, A19

    2020

  8. [16]

    1970, Sol

    Havnes, O. 1970, Sol. Phys., 13, 323

    1970

  9. [17]

    Henriques, V . M. J., Mathioudakis, M., Socas-Navarro, H., & de la Cruz Ro- dríguez, J. 2017, ApJ, 845, 102

    2017

  10. [18]

    J., Jess, D

    Houston, S. J., Jess, D. B., Asensio Ramos, A., et al. 2018, Ap J, 860, 28

    2018

  11. [19]

    J., Jess, D

    Houston, S. J., Jess, D. B., Keppens, R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892 , 49

    2020

  12. [20]

    B., Snow, B., Fleck, B., Stangalini, M., & Jafarzade h, S

    Jess, D. B., Snow, B., Fleck, B., Stangalini, M., & Jafarzade h, S. 2020, Nature Astronomy

    2020

  13. [21]

    B., Snow, B., Fleck, B., Stangalini, M., & Jafarzade h, S

    Jess, D. B., Snow, B., Fleck, B., Stangalini, M., & Jafarzade h, S. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 5

    2021

  14. [22]

    Kulander, J. L. & Je fferies, J. T. 1966, ApJ, 146, 194 Löfdahl, M. G. 2002, in Proc. SPIE, V ol. 4792, Image Reconstr uction from In- complete Data, ed. P . J. Bones, M. A. Fiddy, & R. P . Millane, 146–155 Löfdahl, M. G., Hillberg, T., de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., et al. 2021, A&...

    1966

  15. [23]

    H., Carlsson, M., et al

    Maltby, P ., Avrett, E. H., Carlsson, M., et al. 1986, ApJ, 306 , 284

    1986

  16. [24]

    Pereira, T. M. D., Leenaarts, J., De Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M ., & Uitenbroek, H. 2013, ApJ, 778, 143

    2013

  17. [25]

    R., Warner, M., Keil, S

    Rimmele, T. R., Warner, M., Keil, S. L., et al. 2020, Sol. Phys ., 295, 172 Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., Rutten, R. J., Sütterlin, P ., S loover, P . J., &

    2020

  18. [26]

    Krijger, J. M. 2003, å, 403, 277

    2003

  19. [27]

    2017, in SOLARNET IV: The Physics of the Sun from the Interior to the Outer Atmosphere, 85

    Scharmer, G. 2017, in SOLARNET IV: The Physics of the Sun from the Interior to the Outer Atmosphere, 85

    2017

  20. [28]

    Scharmer, G. B. 2006, A&A, 447, 1111

    2006

  21. [29]

    B., Bjelksjo, K., Korhonen, T

    Scharmer, G. B., Bjelksjo, K., Korhonen, T. K., Lindberg, B. , & Petterson, B. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Enginee rs (SPIE) Confer- ence Series, V ol. 4853, Innovative Telescopes and Instrume ntation for Solar Astrophysics, ed. S. L. Keil & S. V . Avakya...

    2003

  22. [30]

    B., Narayan, G., Hillberg, T., et al

    Scharmer, G. B., Narayan, G., Hillberg, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 689, L69

    2008

  23. [31]

    2015, A&A, 577, A7

    Socas-Navarro, H., de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., Asensio Ramos, A., Trujillo Bueno, J., & Ruiz Cobo, B. 2015, A&A, 577, A7

    2015

  24. [32]

    2001, ApJ, 550, 1102

    Socas-Navarro, H., Trujillo Bueno, J., & Ruiz Cobo, B. 2001, ApJ, 550, 1102

    2001

  25. [33]

    K., Steiner, O., & Uitenbroeck, H

    Solanki, S. K., Steiner, O., & Uitenbroeck, H. 1991, A&A, 250 , 220

    1991

  26. [34]

    2018, GNU parallel 2018 (Ole Tange)

    Tange, O. 2018, GNU parallel 2018 (Ole Tange)

    2018

  27. [35]

    1989, A&A, 213, 360 van Noort, M., Rouppe van der V oort, L., & Löfdahl, M

    Uitenbroek, H. 1989, A&A, 213, 360 van Noort, M., Rouppe van der V oort, L., & Löfdahl, M. G. 2005, Sol. Phys., 228, 191 V ardavas, I. M. & Cram, L. E. 1974, Sol. Phys., 38, 367

    1989

  28. [36]

    1969, Sol

    Wittmann, A. 1969, Sol. Phys., 7, 366

    1969

  29. [37]

    Zhugzhda, Y . D. 2008, Sol. Phys., 251, 501

    2008

  30. [38]

    Zhugzhda, Y . D. & Locans, V . 1981, Soviet Astronomy Letters,7, 25 Article number, page 11 of 11

    1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.