Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

High-resolution observational analysis of flare ribbon fine structures

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Periodic blobs in a solar flare ribbon are presented as the observable signature of current-sheet tearing.

desk verdict Real observational material, but the tearing-periodicity conclusion is oversold for five blobs in one frame. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18233 v1 pith:HNBAAD76 submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.SR

Jonas Thoen Faber , Reetika Joshi , Luc Rouppe van der Voort , Sven Wedemeyer , Lyndsay Fletcher , Guillaume Aulanier , Daniel Nóbrega-Siverio This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarflaresflareribbonschromosphericfinestructuremagneticreconnectioncurrentsheettearingHβspectroscopyhigh-resolutionimagingkernels
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 reports that the eastern ribbon of a GOES C2.4 solar flare is not a smooth bright arc but a chain of compact chromospheric blobs. Using the Hβ line 0.8 Å into the red wing, the authors measure blob widths of 140–200 km and near-equal separations of 330–550 km, and they interpret this spatial periodicity as the chromospheric imprint of fragmented reconnection in a coronal current sheet. The claim matters because it would connect observable ribbon fine structure to tearing-mode instability in the current sheet, a link previously supported mainly by analytical models. The paper presents the result as the highest-resolution evidence of flare ribbon fine structure to date.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the Hβ line, sampled at 0.8 Å into the red wing with a 7 s cadence and a pixel size of 0.0379 arcsec, which resolves the blobs as 140–200 km features spanning multiple pixels. A space-time diagram built from an artificial slit along the ribbon's long axis tracks the features and gives an apparent propagation speed of about 11 km s⁻¹, while the near-equal 330–550 km spacing is the measured quantity that connects the observations to tearing-mode theory. The comparison of red-wing profiles across Hβ and Ca ii 8542 Å, with Doppler shifts of 25–40 km s⁻¹ and about 20 km s⁻¹ respectively, maps the vertical gradient of the downflow and ties the blob emission to chromospheric condensation.

What would settle it

Re-observe a C-class flare with an Hβ spectral-imaging cadence of about 2–3 s under stable seeing (Fried parameter above 20 cm). If the near-equal 330–550 km blob spacing does not reappear across successive scans or in a second event, while the overall ribbon still brightens, the tearing interpretation would fail; if the same spacing reforms repeatedly, it is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the periodic chain of bright blobs seen in Hβ inside the eastern flare ribbon is a direct observational signature of current-sheet tearing during magnetic reconnection. The blobs are almost circular, spatially resolved structures 140–200 km wide and 330–550 km apart, with red-shifted Hβ emission peaks at an estimated 25–40 km s⁻¹ and a red-wing component near +20 km s⁻¹ in Ca ii 8542 Å. Their near-uniform spacing and their appearance and dispersal within less than the 7 s cadence lead the authors to attribute them to bursty, fragmented reconnection in the coronal current sheet, consistent with analytical predictions that tearing produces periodic fine structure in ribbons. Quasi-equidistant brightenings in Si iv 1400 Å at the same location support the link through the transition region.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the bright blobs are real chromospheric structures with the stated sizes and spacings, rather than transient artifacts of variable seeing or of the image-restoration process.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 330–550 km spacing becomes an observational constraint on the wavelength of the tearing instability in the flare current sheet, a quantity previously accessible only through models.
  • Flare ribbon fine structure can be used as a remote diagnostic of reconnection fragmentation, not only as a record of chromospheric heating.
  • The differing red shifts in Hβ (25–40 km s⁻¹) and Ca ii 8542 Å (about 20 km s⁻¹) imply downflows that slow between the two formation heights, constraining models of chromospheric condensation.
  • Blob lifetimes below the 7 s cadence imply that standard lower-cadence flare observations miss the dominant fine-scale dynamics of ribbons.
  • The same periodic pattern should appear in Hβ observations of other flares if the tearing interpretation is correct.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The blob pattern is reported from a single timestep (08:07:09 UT), so a decisive extension would be a dedicated high-cadence Hβ campaign with stable seeing; the tearing interpretation predicts repeated re-formation of the same spacing across scans, not a one-off arrangement.
  • If blob spacing scales with current-sheet properties, comparing spacings across flares of different GOES class could turn ribbon periodicity into a quantitative probe of reconnection physics.
  • Because its shorter wavelength gives a smaller diffraction limit for the same aperture, Hβ may be systematically better than Hα for resolving flare ribbon fine structure, which would motivate routine Hβ imaging-spectroscopy programs.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents high-resolution observations of a GOES C2.4 flare (SOL2022-06-26T08:12) obtained with SST/CRISP and SST/CHROMIS, complemented by IRIS and SDO/AIA. The authors identify chromospheric bright blobs in the eastern flare ribbon in Ca ii 8542 Å, Hα, and Hβ, measure blob widths of 140–200 km and inter-blob separations of 330–550 km in Hβ, and find red-wing asymmetries in the spectra at blob locations. The central claim is that the near-periodic spacing of the blobs, seen in a single CHROMIS timestep at 08:07:09 UT, is evidence of fragmented reconnection associated with current-sheet tearing, following the analytical model of Wyper & Pontin (2021). The paper also documents the global flare morphology, a QSL-like magnetic topology, and a space-time diagram suggesting apparent blob motions of ~11 km s⁻¹.

Significance. If the periodicity claim is established, this would be a notable observational result: it would provide the highest-resolution evidence to date of flare-ribbon fine structure linked to current-sheet tearing, and the Hβ observations from CHROMIS (0.0379"/pixel, 7 s cadence) are genuinely novel. The multi-wavelength comparison (Ca ii, Hα, Hβ, Si iv) and the spatially resolved spectral profiles add value beyond the periodicity claim. However, the load-bearing evidence for tearing is currently weak: the periodicity rests on five blobs in a single timestep, with a wide separation range (330–550 km) and no statistical test against a random-spacing null hypothesis. The comparison to Wyper & Pontin (2021) is qualitative and does not provide a quantitative predicted scale. The strengths of the paper are the observational data and the honest discussion of their limitations; the interpretation is not yet supported to the level claimed in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.1, Fig. 5b] The central claim of near-periodic blob spacing (330–550 km) rests on five blobs detected in a single CHROMIS timestep at 08:07:09 UT. The text itself states that adjacent scans show a drastic reconfiguration and that a 7 s cadence does not sufficiently resolve the time evolution. No statistical test is provided to show that the four inter-blob separations are distinguishable from a random placement along the ribbon, and no error budget is given for the FWHM/centroid measurements. Since the tearing-mode inference depends directly on the existence of a periodic pattern, this is a load-bearing gap. Please add a quantitative test (e.g., comparison of observed separations to a null distribution from random blob positions, with uncertainties propagated from the centroid measurement) and report the result. If the periodicity cannot be validated statistically, the conclusion should be softened accordingly.
  2. [§4, Wyper & Pontin (2021) comparison] The connection between the observed blobs and current-sheet tearing is made qualitatively: the paper states that the periodicity 'seems to be of a similar nature' to the analytical model, but no predicted spacing, scaling, or dependence on current-sheet parameters is compared with the observed 330–550 km scale. This leaves the tearing interpretation underdetermined relative to other mechanisms that could produce aligned chromospheric brightenings (e.g., beam-driven heating in a braided field or shock structuring). Please either make the comparison quantitative—if the model yields a predicted range or scaling, test it against the observations—or present the tearing interpretation explicitly as one of several plausible explanations rather than as a supported conclusion.
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 4] The automated FWHM method detected only four blobs in Ca ii 8542 Å, and the fifth blob (e) was added manually based on its visibility in other channels. In the Hβ analysis all five blobs are reported as detected by the FWHM method, but the manual inclusion in Ca ii may still bias the perception of spatial regularity, and the text does not report whether the Hβ detection of blob (e) was independent of the prior identification. Please report the detection thresholds and the sensitivity of the periodicity result to inclusion or exclusion of blob (e), and clarify whether the Hβ detection was made blind with respect to the Ca ii result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4] The statement 'The widths of the blobs extend over multiple CHROMIS pixels, as fixed at 0′′.0379' is awkward; it should read 'with a pixel size of 0′′.0379' or 'which is fixed at 0′′.0379'.
  2. [§3.1] There is a typo: 'Ellermab bombs' should be 'Ellerman bombs'.
  3. [§1] The phrase 'release energies up 10 32 erg' is missing a word; it should be 'up to 10^32 erg'.
  4. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption says 'The pixel locations are marked in panel 5f', but the green and magenta dots appear to be defined in Fig. 5b (the timestep with detected blobs). Please correct the panel reference.
  5. [§3.3.1] The text uses 'Positive dν corresponds to red-shifts' without defining the symbol dν; it would be clearer to write 'positive wavelength shift' or 'positive velocity shift' consistently with the figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the blob measurements are direct observations, and the tearing interpretation is anchored to an external model rather than to a fitted or self-cited result.

full rationale

This is an observational study with no free parameters, no inversion, and no fitted quantity later renamed as a prediction. Blob widths and separation distances are measured directly from CRISP/CHROMIS images via a FWHM-based detection method and centre-of-mass positions; the reported 330–550 km spacing is a measurement, not an output of a model controlled by the authors. The physical interpretation (periodicity caused by fragmented reconnection / current-sheet tearing) is based on a qualitative comparison with the independent analytical model of Wyper & Pontin (2021), and not on a result that the present paper itself derives from its own assumptions. Self-citations to prior QSL and 3D flare work by the same group (e.g., Aulanier et al. 2012; Joshi et al. 2024) appear only as contextual references and do not carry the load of the central conclusion. The only mild self-referential flavour is that the Ca ii features were first described as 'near equidistant' when defining the blobs, but the quantitative periodicity range in Hβ comes from a separate FWHM detection, so the conclusion does not reduce to the selection criterion by construction. Concerns about the small number of blobs and the absence of a statistical test of periodicity are legitimate evidence-strength limitations, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurements depend on analysis choices (FWHM baseline, slit width) and on the standard flare model, but introduce no new physical entities or fitted parameters beyond these choices. The main assumptions are the chromospheric formation of the observed lines and the magnetic connectivity between the ribbon and a coronal current sheet.

free parameters (3)
  • FWHM baseline level = median intensity of the field of view
    Blob boundaries are defined as full width at half maximum with the maximum pixel intensity and the FOV median as reference levels. This choice directly sets the reported widths (140-200 km).
  • Artificial slit width = 0.8 arcsec
    The width used for the space-time diagram, chosen to cover the fine-scale features; the maximum-intensity search within this width defines the effective slit and influences the measured apparent velocity.
  • Space-time slope selection = five slopes, apparent velocity 11 km/s
    The slopes are drawn by eye in the space-time diagram to estimate the apparent velocity; no automated fitting or uncertainty is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CSHKP standard flare model: chromospheric ribbons are the footpoints of energy released by coronal magnetic reconnection.
    The interpretation that blob spacing reflects current sheet tearing assumes the standard flare model and a magnetic connection from the ribbon to a coronal current sheet (Sect. 1, Sect. 4).
  • domain assumption The H-beta, Ca II 8542, and H-alpha lines are formed in the chromosphere and their red wing asymmetries can be interpreted as Doppler shifts of plasma motion.
    Sect. 3.3 interprets red wing enhancements as downflows; the paper acknowledges H-alpha red asymmetries can also result from absorption effects (Kuridze et al. 2015), but uses H-beta peak shifts to argue for Doppler motions.
  • domain assumption MOMFBD image restoration does not introduce spurious blob-like structures.
    The analysis relies on seeing-corrected images; the paper states fast-evolving flare structures minimally affect restoration because the wideband channel dominates, but this is not quantitatively verified (Sect. 2.4).
  • domain assumption The near-equally spaced blob positions are a meaningful periodic pattern rather than a random arrangement.
    Five blobs in a single timestep are used to infer periodicity; no statistical test is applied to rule out random clumping (Sect. 3.2.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-resolution observational analysis of flare ribbon fine structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNBAAD76

@misc{pith2026241118233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-resolution observational analysis of flare ribbon fine structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNBAAD76}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18233}
}
read the original abstract

Context. Since the mechanism of energy release from solar flares is still not fully understood, the study of fine-scale features developing during flares becomes important for progressing towards a consistent picture of the essential physical mechanisms. Aims. We aim to probe the fine structures in flare ribbons at the chromospheric level using high-resolution observations with imaging and spectral techniques. Methods. We present a GOES C2.4 class solar flare observed with the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope (SST), the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS), and the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA). The high-resolution SST observations offer spectroscopic data in the H-alpha, Ca II 8542 {\AA}, and H-beta lines, which we use to analyse the flare ribbon. Results. Within the eastern flare ribbon, chromospheric bright blobs were detected and analysed in Ca II 8542 {\AA}, H-alpha, and H-beta wavelengths. A comparison of blobs in H-beta observations and Si IV 1400 {\AA} has also been performed. These blobs are observed as almost circular structures having widths from 140 km-200 km. The intensity profiles of the blobs show a red wing asymmetry. Conclusions. From the high spatial and temporal resolution H-beta observations, we conclude that the periodicity of the blobs in the flare ribbon, which are near-equally spaced in the range 330-550 km, is likely due to fragmented reconnection processes within a flare current sheet. This supports the theory of a direct link between fine-structure flare ribbons and current sheet tearing. We believe our observations represent the highest resolution evidence of fine-structure flare ribbons to date.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Context images of NOAA AR 13040 on June 26, 2022, at 07:40 UT in different AIA channels. The GOES X-ray plot is super￾imposed in the lower left corner in panel (a), where the red dot represents the time of the AIA images. The cyan rectangle in panel (c) marks the FOV shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The impulsive phase of the GOES C2.4 flare 5 min before the peak time. The larger FOV in the first row shows the global view of the flaring region in AIA and HMI observations. The pointing FOV of CRISP is overplotted in panels (a)–(c) as cyan rectangles. The magnetic field from HMI is shown as contours at ±200 G in panels (a) and (b), where green (blue) indicates positive (negative) polarity. Panel (d) and (e) show … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flare ribbon observation in different channels at 08:07 UT. Top row: (a) AIA 304 Å, (b) AIA 193 Å and (c) AIA 171 Å channels. Second row: (d) line-of-sight magnetic field from Fe i 6173 Å line saturated at ±500 G, (e) Ca ii 8542 Å core and (f) Hα core from CRISP. Bottom row: Si iv 1400 Å SJI, Mg ii k 2796 Å SJI and Mg ii h 2832 Å SJI from the IRIS telescope. White arrows in panels (a), (e) and (g) point to the locat… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fine-scale features in the straight part of the eastern ribbon as outlined by the cyan rectangle in Fig. 3e. Upper row: CRISP im￾ages in the Ca ii 8542 Å and Hα red wings. Bottom row: Colour maps computed by sub￾tracting the wing intensities at the spectral posi￾tions …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The eastern ribbon during the impulsive phase. Panel (a) shows the full ribbon in Hβ core and the red rectangle outlines the region that is shown at a larger magnification in panels (b)–(f). Panel (b) shows an image in Hβ +0.8 Å where the blobs are evident and panel (c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Space-time diagram of the detected blobs from the Hβ + 0.8 Å channel during the impulsive phase. Panel (a) shows a FOV focused on the blobs. The FOV is presented as a red rectangle in Fig. 5a. The space-time diagram in panel (b) is drawn from an artificial slit along t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectral profiles in the Ca ii 8542 Å channel along the flare ribbon. The upper row shows profiles from blob locations in green and the bottom row shows profiles from regions between the blobs in magenta. Positive (negative) dν corresponds to red-shifts (blueshifts). E…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hβ profiles obtained from blob and between blob locations. The pixel locations are marked in panel 5f with corresponding colours and labels. The left vertical black line shows the line core position and the right vertical line is at +0.8 Å, which has been used for the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Kowalski, A

    Allred, J. C., Kowalski, A. F., & Carlsson, M. 2015, ApJ, 809, 104

    2015

  2. [2]

    2002, ApJ, 578, L91

    Asai, A., Masuda, S., Yokoyama, T., et al. 2002, ApJ, 578, L91

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    2012, A&A, 543, A110

    Aulanier, G., Janvier, M., & Schmieder, B. 2012, A&A, 543, A110

    2012

  4. [4]

    2022, A&A, 659, A186

    Bakke, H., Carlsson, M., Rouppe van der V oort, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A186

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Benz, A. O. 2008, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 5, 1

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    R., Longcope, D

    Brannon, S. R., Longcope, D. W., & Qiu, J. 2015, ApJ, 810, 4

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    C., Penn, M

    Canfield, R. C., Penn, M. J., Wulser, J.-P., & Kiplinger, A. L. 1990, ApJ, 363, 318

    1990

  8. [8]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 36

    Capparelli, V ., Zuccarello, F., Romano, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 36

    work page 2017

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    & Stein, R

    Carlsson, M. & Stein, R. F. 1992, ApJ, 397, L59

    1992

  2. [10]

    1964, in NASA Special Publication, V ol

    Carmichael, H. 1964, in NASA Special Publication, V ol. 50, 451

    1964

  3. [11]

    Carrington, R. C. 1859, MNRAS, 20, 13 Corchado Albelo, M. F., Kazachenko, M. D., & Lynch, B. J. 2024, ApJ, 965, 16 de la Cruz Rodríguez, J. 2019, A&A, 631, A153 de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., Löfdahl, M. G., Sütterlin, P., Hillberg, T., & Rouppe van der V oort, L. 2015, A&A, 573, A...

    2024

  4. [12]

    G., Mandrini, C

    Demoulin, P., Bagala, L. G., Mandrini, C. H., Henoux, J. C., & Rovira, M. G. 1997, A&A, 325, 305

    1997

  5. [13]

    C., Priest, E

    Demoulin, P., Henoux, J. C., Priest, E. R., & Mandrini, C. H. 1996, A&A, 308, 643 Démoulin, P., Priest, E. R., & Lonie, D. P. 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 7631

    1996

  6. [14]

    2020, Sol

    Devi, P., Joshi, B., Chandra, R., et al. 2020, Sol. Phys., 295, 75

    2020

  7. [15]

    2017, Nature Communications, 8, 15905 Dudík, J., Polito, V ., Janvier, M., et al

    Druett, M., Scullion, E., Zharkova, V ., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 15905 Dudík, J., Polito, V ., Janvier, M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 41

    2017

  8. [16]

    L., Criscuoli, S., & Romano, P

    Ferrente, F., Zuccarello, F., Guglielmino, S. L., Criscuoli, S., & Romano, P. 2023, ApJ, 954, 185

    2023

  9. [17]

    R., Hudson, H

    Fletcher, L., Dennis, B. R., Hudson, H. S., et al. 2011, Space Sci. Rev., 159, 19 García-Rivas, M., Kašparová, J., Berlicki, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A254

    2011

  10. [18]

    1974, Sol

    Hirayama, T. 1974, Sol. Phys., 34, 323

    1974

  11. [19]

    Hudson, H. S. 2011, Space Sci. Rev., 158, 5

    2011

  12. [20]

    & Kurokawa, H

    Ichimoto, K. & Kurokawa, H. 1984, Sol. Phys., 93, 105

    1984

  13. [21]

    Isenberg, P. A. & Forbes, T. G. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1453

    2007

  14. [22]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 60

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., Bommier, V ., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 60

    2014

  15. [23]

    2013, A&A, 555, A77

    Janvier, M., Aulanier, G., Pariat, E., & Démoulin, P. 2013, A&A, 555, A77

    2013

  16. [24]

    2016, A&A, 591, A141

    Janvier, M., Savcheva, A., Pariat, E., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A141

    2016

  17. [25]

    2024, A&A, 687, A172

    Joshi, R., Aulanier, G., Radcliffe, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A172

    2024

  18. [26]

    2021, A&A, 645, A80

    Joshi, R., Schmieder, B., Tei, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A80

    2021

  19. [27]

    S., Allred, J

    Kerr, G. S., Allred, J. C., & Polito, V . 2020, ApJ, 900, 18

    2020

  20. [28]

    2012, ApJ, 748, 138

    Kleint, L. 2012, ApJ, 748, 138

    2012

  21. [29]

    Kopp, R. A. & Pneuman, G. W. 1976, Sol. Phys., 50, 85

    1976

  22. [30]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 120

    Kuridze, D., Mathioudakis, M., Heinzel, P., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, 120

    2020

  23. [31]

    Kuridze, D., Mathioudakis, M., Simões, P. J. A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 813, 125

    2015

  24. [32]

    1986, in The Lower Atmosphere of Solar Flares, ed

    Kurokawa, H. 1986, in The Lower Atmosphere of Solar Flares, ed. D. F. Neidig & M. E. Machado, 51–58

    1986

  25. [33]

    R., Title, A

    Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 17

    2012

  26. [34]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 7 Löfdahl, M

    Li, D., Li, C., Qiu, Y ., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 7 Löfdahl, M. G., Hillberg, T., de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A68 Lörinˇcík, J., Dudík, J., & Polito, V . 2022, ApJ, 934, 80

    2023

  27. [35]

    Masson, S., Pariat, E., Aulanier, G., & Schrijver, C. J. 2009, ApJ, 700, 559

    2009

  28. [36]

    Millar, D. C. L., Fletcher, L., & Joshi, J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5916

    2024

  29. [37]

    Parker, E. N. 1963, ApJS, 8, 177

    1963

  30. [38]

    D., Thompson, B

    Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 3

    2012

  31. [39]

    Pietrow, A. G. M., Druett, M. K., & Singh, V . 2024, A&A, 685, A137

    2024

  32. [40]

    Priest, E. R. & Forbes, T. G. 2002, A&A Rev., 10, 313

    2002

  33. [41]

    E., & Wang, H

    Qiu, J., Lee, J., Gary, D. E., & Wang, H. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1335 Rouppe van der V oort, L. H. M., De Pontieu, B., Carlsson, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A146

    2002

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    B., Bjelksjo, K., Korhonen, T

    Scharmer, G. B., Bjelksjo, K., Korhonen, T. K., Lindberg, B., & Petterson, B. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Confer- ence Series, V ol. 4853, Innovative Telescopes and Instrumentation for Solar Astrophysics, ed. S. L. Keil & S. V . Avakyan, 341–350

    2003

  36. [44]

    B., Löfdahl, M

    Scharmer, G. B., Löfdahl, M. G., Sliepen, G., & de la Cruz Rodríguez, J. 2019, A&A, 626, A55

    2019

  37. [45]

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

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

    2008

  38. [46]

    B., Sliepen, G., Sinquin, J

    Scharmer, G. B., Sliepen, G., Sinquin, J. C., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A32

    2024

  39. [47]

    H., Schou, J., Bush, R

    Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 207

    2012

  40. [48]

    Sharykin, I. N. & Kosovichev, A. G. 2014, ApJ, 788, L18

    2014

  41. [49]

    Sturrock, P. A. 1966, Nature, 211, 695

    1966

  42. [50]

    Titov, V . S. 2007, ApJ, 660, 863

    2007

  43. [51]

    S., Hornig, G., & Démoulin, P

    Titov, V . S., Hornig, G., & Démoulin, P. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 107, 1164

    2002

  44. [52]

    & Wang, H

    Toriumi, S. & Wang, H. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 3 Van Noort, M., Rouppe Van Der V oort, L., & Löfdahl, M. G. 2005, Sol. Phys., 228, 191

    2019

  45. [53]

    F., DeV ore, C

    Wyper, P. F., DeV ore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3679

    2019

  46. [54]

    Wyper, P. F. & Pontin, D. I. 2021, ApJ, 920, 102

    2021

  47. [55]

    J., de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., Calvo, F., & Morosin, R

    Yadav, R., Díaz Baso, C. J., de la Cruz Rodríguez, J., Calvo, F., & Morosin, R. 2021, A&A, 649, A106

    2021

  48. [56]

    P., Chandra, R., Schmieder, B., Aulanier, G., & Joshi, R

    Zuccarello, F. P., Chandra, R., Schmieder, B., Aulanier, G., & Joshi, R. 2017, A&A, 601, A26 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2017

Pith tools

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