The magnetic origin of the mystery of rare H$\alpha$ Moreton waves

Chuan Li; P. F. Chen; Ruisheng Zheng; Xiangliang Kong; Yao Chen; Y.W. Ni; Ze Zhong

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 13 references

The magnetic origin of the mystery of rare H$\alpha$ Moreton waves

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Moreton waves are generated only when the erupting magnetic structure is inclined or asymmetric: in 66 flare events, 80.3% occurred at active-region edges and each wave ran down the steepest gradient of horizontal fast-mode speed.

desk verdict Large sample and a clean directional rule, but the causal claim about inclined eruptions rests on a two-event test and an unvalidated proxy. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19984 v1 pith:5JRH7BX5 submitted 2024-12-28 astro-ph.SR physics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

Ze Zhong , Yao Chen , Y.W. Ni , P. F. Chen , Ruisheng Zheng , Xiangliang Kong , Chuan Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SRphysics.plasm-phphysics.space-ph

keywords SolarcoronalwaveschromosphereactivitymagneticfieldsMoretonfast-modemagnetoacousticnon-radialeruptionsH-alphaobservations

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

Moreton waves, the rare chromospheric footprints of coronal shock waves, have long been a mystery because coronal fast-mode waves are common while their H-alpha counterparts are seldom seen. This paper argues that the missing ingredient is magnetic geometry: an eruption must be inclined or asymmetric to push the shock downward into the dense chromosphere. In a sample of 66 M- and X-class flare events observed by GONG and CHASE from 2010 to 2023, more than 80% of the Moreton waves occurred at the edge of an active region, where the overlying magnetic field is lopsided. Reconstructing the coronal field and computing wave speeds shows each wave propagated along the direction in which the horizontal fast-mode magnetoacoustic speed decreases fastest. The conclusion is that radial eruptions, even X-class ones, rarely produce Moreton waves, which would explain both their low detection rate and why some X-class flares with coronal mass ejections lack them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the distribution of the horizontal fast-mode magnetoacoustic speed in the low corona, computed from a potential-field extrapolation of photospheric vector magnetograms combined with a stratified temperature-density atmosphere. The direction in which this speed decreases fastest is the direction the Moreton wave takes, and the inclined open-field wall or the lopsided overlying loops are what create that directional gradient. This machinery converts a qualitative statement about eruption tilt into a quantitative, checkable prediction of wave propagation direction.

What would settle it

A single well-observed counterexample would overturn the requirement: an M- or X-class flare at the center of a symmetric bipolar active region, with a measured near-radial eruption (for instance from SDO and STEREO views showing tilt below roughly 20 degrees), that still produces a clear H-alpha Moreton wave in GONG or CHASE data. The prediction could also be tested by measuring true three-dimensional eruption trajectories for a larger sample; if a substantial fraction of Moreton wave events turn out to be radial when viewed from multiple perspectives, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that H-alpha Moreton waves are produced not by the flare's strength or the CME alone, but by the inclination of the erupting magnetic structure, which channels the coronal fast-mode shock toward the chromosphere. Analyzing 66 Moreton wave events associated with M- and X-class flares, the authors find that 80.3% of the events occur at the edge of the source active region, and that two magnetic configurations—open fields acting as a wall, and large-scale loops standing on one side—bias the eruption sideways. For all events, the pre-eruption magnetic field reconstructed from photospheric vector magnetograms is inclined or asymmetric, and the observed wave propagation direction coincides with the direction of the fastest decrease of the horizontal fast-mode magnetoacoustic speed computed from the extrapolated field and a stratified atmospheric model. The paper contrasts these with two X-class radial eruptions that produced coronal EUV waves but no observable Moreton wave, supporting the claim that a non-radial eruption is a prerequisite.

Load-bearing premise

For 64 of the 66 events the eruption inclination is not directly observed but inferred from a potential-field extrapolation of the photospheric magnetogram; if that reconstructed field does not match the true pre-eruption coronal geometry, the link between inclined eruptions and Moreton waves is not actually established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Radial eruptions, even X-class ones with fast halo CMEs, are unlikely to produce observable H-alpha Moreton waves because their wave energy stays in the corona.
The propagation direction of a Moreton wave can be predicted from a vector magnetogram and an atmospheric model by finding the steepest gradient of the horizontal fast-mode speed.
The large deficit of Moreton waves relative to coronal EUV waves is expected if only the roughly quarter of filament eruptions that are non-radial have the required geometry.
X-class flares accompanied by CMEs but without Moreton waves are not anomalous; symmetric overlying fields simply lack the inclined configuration needed to push a shock into the chromosphere.

Reading between the lines

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

Because 64 of the 66 inclinations are inferred from potential-field extrapolation rather than measured in three dimensions, a natural test is to rerun the same analysis with nonlinear force-free field extrapolations or data-driven MHD simulations; if the inferred tilt direction changes substantially for many events, the statistical link would weaken.
The steepest-gradient rule implies that the wave's bearing is set by the pre-eruption background field, so an observed Moreton wave direction could serve as a remote diagnostic of eruption deflection when multi-spacecraft views are unavailable.
A prospective survey that monitors active-region edges with high-cadence H-alpha data could catch far more Moreton waves than the historical sample, since edge location plus flux imbalance would predict where waves are likely.
Applying the same fast-mode speed gradient calculation to EUV fast-mode waves that lack Moreton counterparts could test whether the missing chromospheric imprint is purely geometric or also requires local density and field conditions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear [Colleague],

This paper has the largest compiled sample of Moreton wave events to date (66) and proposes a clean rule: the wave goes along the direction in which the horizontal fast-mode speed drops fastest, computed from a potential-field extrapolation and a stratified atmosphere. For the two events where they test it quantitatively (2011 Oct 1 and 2011 Feb 14), it works. That is genuinely new, and the way they assemble the sample, with GONG and CHASE data and careful ribbon mapping, looks solid.

The soft spot is the gap between that rule and the paper's larger claim, that inclined or asymmetric magnetic configurations are crucial for producing Moreton waves at all. They measure the eruption inclination for only two of the 66 events. For the other 64 they infer inclination from the extrapolated field and the flare location on the AR edge. That inference may be right, but it is not validated, and they admit as much in Sec. 4.2. The directional rule is tested for only two events; for the rest they assert propagation toward weaker field without a quantitative comparison. And there is no control sample of M/X flares without Moreton waves, so the 80.3% edge fraction is hard to interpret. For instance, it may be that flares at AR edges are systematically more likely to produce any large-scale wave, or that detection is easier there. The 2017 Sep 10 radial-eruption control is at the limb, where H-alpha detection is unreliable, which weakens the other side of the argument.

That said, the paper is honest about its limitations, and the limitation list is not buried. The directional rule is falsifiable and well posed; this is the kind of paper that will get cited for the sample and the rule even if the causal claim is later revised. The potential-field reconstruction is a reasonable first cut, and the occasional NLFFF comparison helps.

My take: it's a conditional accept at best. A serious referee should ask for a control sample of non-Moreton flares matched by class and location, a full-sample quantitative test of the fast-mode gradient rule (even if approximate), and a more careful treatment of the two radial controls. The central claim, as stated, is supported but not nailed. Worth sending out, not desk-rejecting.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 66 Hα Moreton wave events from 2010–2023 using GONG and CHASE data, classifies them into three groups based on flare-ribbon location on HMI magnetograms, finds that 80.3% occur at active-region edges, reconstructs potential-field extrapolations to infer inclined or asymmetric magnetic configurations, and for two events computes fast-mode speed maps showing that the Moreton wave propagates in the direction of the fastest decrease of the horizontal fast-mode speed. The authors argue that inclined or non-radial eruptions are crucial for generating Moreton waves, which would explain their rarity, and they present two X-class radial eruptions that did not produce observable Moreton waves as supporting examples.

Significance. If established, the result would provide a physically interpretable explanation for the low occurrence rate of Moreton waves and connect observed wave propagation directions to the coronal magnetic structure. Strengths of the paper include the largest compiled sample of Hα Moreton waves in the SDO era, a clear three-group classification, a complete event table, fixed a priori atmospheric parameters in Eq. (1), and two well-documented case studies with quantitative fast-mode speed analysis and animations. The central claim, however, is currently underdetermined: the quantitative direction rule is applied to only two events, the inferred inclination for the remaining events rests on an unvalidated potential-field proxy, and the AR-edge fraction is not compared with a control population. The paper is therefore a valuable but not yet conclusive contribution.

major comments (5)

[Sec. 3.1, Table 1] The 80.3% edge fraction (53/66) is presented as evidence for the importance of edge/inclined configurations, but there is no control sample of M/X flares without Moreton waves in 2010–2023. Without knowing the edge fraction among all M/X flares (or among EUV wave events), the observed fraction cannot be distinguished from the general flare population or from selection/detection biases. Please add such a control sample or explicitly limit the claim to a descriptive statistic.
[Sec. 3.3, Fig. 7] The quantitative rule that Moreton waves propagate along the direction of the fastest decrease of the horizontal fast-mode speed is demonstrated for only two events (2011 October 1 and 2011 February 14). For the remaining 64 events the text asserts propagation 'toward weaker magnetic field' without computing or testing the fast-mode speed gradient. Therefore the sample of 66 does not test the proposed mechanism; it tests only two case studies plus a qualitative association. Please either apply the gradient calculation to a substantially larger subset or rephrase the claim as a two-event demonstration.
[Sec. 4.2] The paper states that inclination angles are directly determined for only two events (2021 May 22 and 2011 August 4) and that for the other 64 events 'their eruption directions cannot be exactly determined.' The inference that the remaining events have inclined magnetic configurations relies on potential-field extrapolations and AR-edge location. This proxy is not validated: the potential-field model omits non-potential currents that can dominate the pre-eruption geometry. The comparison with NLFFF in Sec. 3.2 is only qualitative and is not applied to the full sample. Please provide a quantitative validation, or restrict the central claim to the subset with direct or data-driven evidence of inclination.
[Sec. 3.2, Group III] For the 13 Group-III events the flare ribbons are near the active-region center and the magnetograms 'have no unified characteristics.' The explanation via asymmetric flux-rope footpoints is demonstrated for only two events (2011 August 4 and 2014 September 11). The statement in Sec. 4 that 'the magnetic configurations of all 66 events have inclined or asymmetric structures' is therefore not supported for the remaining 11 Group-III events. Please either analyze those events individually or weaken the summary claim.
[Sec. 4.1, Fig. 8] The two radial-eruption controls are anecdotal, and one is problematic: the 2012 July 12 event is not demonstrated to be strictly radial beyond the absence of obvious deflection, and the 2017 September 10 event is a limb eruption for which H-alpha detection of a chromospheric wave is severely hampered by line-of-sight and projection effects. Thus the claim that radial eruptions, even X-class ones, do not generate Moreton waves is not robustly established by these two examples. A disk-center radial eruption with contemporaneous H-alpha coverage would be needed to support the claim.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (1)] The atmospheric parameters (Tch = 8000 K, Tco = 2.5 MK, htr = 5 Mm, wtr = 0.5 Mm) are fixed without a sensitivity analysis; please report how robust the predicted gradient direction is to these choices.
[Sec. 2] The event-selection criterion 'visible in 3 consecutive frames' is stated, but completeness and inter-operator reproducibility are not discussed; the different cadences of GONG (60 s) and CHASE (73 s) may bias the sample toward longer-lived waves.
[Sec. 3.3] In Fig. 7 the red arrow is described only in the caption; please add a sentence in the text explaining how the direction of fastest decrease of the horizontal fast-mode speed is computed numerically from the speed map.
[Sec. 4.2] 'Base on the above analyses' should be 'Based on the above analyses.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 80.3% edge statistic and the two-event fast-mode gradient comparison are forward tests computed from magnetograms and a fixed atmospheric model, not fitted to the observed wave directions; the only mild concern is minor reliance on the authors' own prior simulations for a subgroup.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The fast-mode speed map in Section 3.3 is built from a potential-field extrapolation of HMI magnetograms plus an a priori stratified atmosphere (Eq. 1 with fixed Tch, Tco, htr, wtr) and hydrostatic density; no parameter is fitted to the observed Moreton wave propagation direction. The comparison for the 2011 October 1 and 2011 February 14 events is a genuine forward test, not a reduction of the prediction to its input. The 80.3% edge statistic is a direct classification of flare-ribbon location on magnetograms, and the observed wave propagation direction is measured independently from Halpha data, so the classification is not defined in terms of the conclusion it supports. The paper is transparent about the main limitation: for 64 of 66 events the eruption inclination cannot be exactly determined and is inferred from potential-field extrapolation and AR-edge location (Section 4.2), and the quantitative gradient rule is demonstrated for only two events. That is under-testing or incomplete validation, not circularity. The only mildly self-referential element is that the explanation for Group III events invokes the authors' own earlier data-driven simulation of the 2011 August 4 flare (Zhong et al. 2023) and the earlier Zheng et al. (2023) study of inclined eruptions. These prior works are not machine-checked or independently reproduced here, but they are used to support a minority subgroup (13 events) and are not the load-bearing step for the main statistical result or for the two-event fast-mode gradient test. No uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in by citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation were found. Accordingly, the paper merits a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It does rely on several chosen atmospheric parameters and modeling assumptions that directly affect the computed fast-mode speed gradient. The central statistical claim depends on a subjective classification of flare ribbon position relative to the active region edge.

free parameters (6)

Chromospheric temperature Tch = 8000 K
Chosen by hand in the atmospheric model (Eq. 1); affects the sound speed and therefore the fast-mode speed map.
Coronal temperature Tco = 2.5 MK
Chosen by hand as the coronal temperature in Eq. 1; affects the density scale height and fast-mode speed.
Transition region height htr = 5 Mm
Chosen by hand in Eq. 1 to place the transition region.
Transition region thickness wtr = 0.5 Mm
Chosen by hand in Eq. 1 to set the sharpness of the temperature rise.
Bottom-corona evaluation height = Not specified
The height at which the horizontal fast-mode speed is evaluated is not quantified; it is chosen from rendered figures, affecting the gradient direction.
Source region center = Not specified
The red sphere origin in Figure 7 is placed visually in the eruptive region; the fast-mode speed gradient direction depends on this origin.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Moreton waves are the chromospheric signature of a coronal fast-mode MHD shock sweeping the chromosphere (Uchida 1968).
This is the interpretive framework for why the fast-mode speed map should predict the wave direction.
domain assumption The background coronal magnetic field is approximated by a potential-field extrapolation (Chiu & Hilton 1977) or NLFFF (Wiegelmann 2004).
The reconstructed fields seed the speed map; non-potential currents in the pre-eruption structure may not be captured.
domain assumption The solar atmosphere is in hydrostatic equilibrium with the prescribed temperature profile (Eq. 1).
Density, and hence Alfven and sound speeds, are derived from this equilibrium.
ad hoc to paper The direction of fastest decrease of the horizontal fast-mode speed is the propagation direction of the Moreton wave.
This is the paper's new interpretive rule, only tested on two events.
domain assumption Flare ribbon location and photospheric flux asymmetry are valid proxies for an inclined pre-eruption configuration.
For 64 of 66 events the eruption inclination is not directly observed; it is inferred from magnetograms.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The magnetic origin of the mystery of rare H$\alpha$ Moreton waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5JRH7BX5

@misc{pith2026241219984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The magnetic origin of the mystery of rare H$\alpha$ Moreton waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5JRH7BX5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19984}
}

abstract

Over the past three decades, a lot of coronal fast-mode waves were detected by space missions, but their counterparts in the chromosphere, called the Moreton waves, were rarely captured. How this happens remains a mystery. Here, to shed light on this problem, we investigate the photospheric vector magnetograms of the Moreton wave events associated with M- and X-class solar flares in 2010--2023. The H$\alpha$ data are taken with the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) and the Chinese H$\alpha$ Solar Explorer (CHASE). Our statistical results show that more than 80\% of the events occur at the edge of active regions and propagate non-radially due to asymmetric magnetic fields above the flares. According to the reconstructed magnetic field and atmospheric model, Moreton waves propagate in the direction along which the horizontal fast-mode wave speed drops the fastest. The result supports that the inclined magnetic configuration of the eruption is crucial to generate Moreton waves, even for X-class flares. It may explain the low occurrence rate of Moreton waves and why some X-class flares accompanied with coronal mass ejections (CMEs) do not generate Moreton waves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19984 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Propagation of the Moreton wave monitored by GONG and the coronal wave observed by AIA. (a) Full overview of the flare occurred at 17:20:54 UT on 2011 February 14. (b–e) The sequence of Hα images from 17:26:54 to 17:29:54 UT with a zoomed-in view of the region corresponding to the green dotted box in panel (a). Cyan crosses depict the front of the Moreton wave. (f–i) Evolution of the Moreton wave with Hα running-dif… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Evolution of the Moreton wave observed by CHASE and the coronal wave detected by AIA. (a) Full overview of the Moreton wave occurred at 08:52:11 UT on 2023 May 11. (b–e) The sequence of images in the Hα line center from 08:52:11 to 08:55:45 UT with a zoomed-in view of the region corresponding to the green dotted box in panel (a). Cyan crosses depict the front of the Moreton wave. (f–i) Propagation of the Moreton wav… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Group–I of HMI line-of-sight photospheric magnetograms (grayscale) includes 24 Moreton wave events. All magnetograms display one (e.g. panel (a)) or multiple (e.g. panel (d)) main magnetic polarities in the center of the active region, with opposite polarities in the periphery. The newly brightened flare ribbons are superimposed on the magnetogram, with the time lapse given by the rainbow color bar. Flare ribbons o… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Two main types of the magnetic configuration that generate Moreton waves: open fields and magnetic loops. (a) Running-difference GONG Hα image of the Moreton wave occurred on 2011 October 1. Yellow plus signs depict the arc-shaped wave front. Cyan and red contours show…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Two groups of the magnetic configuration that generate Moreton waves. (a) Moreton wave event occurred on 2011 October 1 with a side view along the direction of the wave propagation. Magnetic field lines are colored by the temperature. Orange, yellow and green contours …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Two X-class flares that did not produce observable Moreton waves occurred on 2012 July 12 ((a)–(c)), and 2017 September 10 ((d)–(f)), respectively. (a) Running-difference image of AIA 193 ˚A at 16:25 UT. The cyan dots depict the EUV wave front. (b) AIA 304 ˚A running-d…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

G., Priyatikanto, R., Yus’an, U., & Puspitaningrum, E

Admiranto, A. G., Priyatikanto, R., Yus’an, U., & Puspitaningrum, E. 2015, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1677, The 5th International Conference on Mathematics and Natural Sciences (AIP), 050014, doi: 10.1063/1.4930675 Alissandrakis, C. E. 1981, A&A, 100, 197 Asai, A., Ishii, T. T., Isobe, H., et al. 2012, ApJL, 745, L18, doi: 10...

work page arXiv 2015
[2]

4a) Y 02 2011/03/12 M1.3 11166 N07W35 04:33 04:43 04:48 II (Fig

List of 66 Moreton wave events No Date Class 1 NOAA AR Location 2 Start time Peak time End time 3 Group (label)4 edge 5 References 6 01 2011/02/14 M2.2 11158 S20W04 17:20 17:26 17:32 II (Fig. 4a) Y 02 2011/03/12 M1.3 11166 N07W35 04:33 04:43 04:48 II (Fig. 4b) Y 03 2011/06/07 M2.5 11226 S22W53 06:16 06:30 06:41 III (Fig. 5a) N 04 2011/08/04 M9.3 11261 N16...

work page 2012
[3]

(a) Full overview of the flare occurred at 17:20:54 UT on 2011 February

Propagation of the Moreton wave monitored by GONG and the coronal wave observed by AIA. (a) Full overview of the flare occurred at 17:20:54 UT on 2011 February

work page 2011
[4]

(a) Full overview of the Moreton wave occurred at 08:52:11 UT on 2023 May

Evolution of the Moreton wave observed by CHASE and the coronal wave detected by AIA. (a) Full overview of the Moreton wave occurred at 08:52:11 UT on 2023 May

work page 2023
[6]

All mag- netograms display one (e.g

Group–I of HMI line-of-sight photospheric magnetograms (grayscale) includes 24 Moreton wave events. All mag- netograms display one (e.g. panel (a)) or multiple (e.g. panel (d)) main magnetic polarities in the center of the active region, with opposite polarities in the periphery. The newly brightened flare ribbons are superimposed on the magnetogram, with...

work page 2011
[7]

All magnetograms show one (e.g

Similar to Figure 3 but for Group–II containing 29 Moreton wave events. All magnetograms show one (e.g. panel (b)) or two (e.g. panel (a)) pairs of main magnetic polarities in the center of the active region. 16 Zhong et al. 650 700 750 800 −450 −400 −350 −300 −250 7−Jun−2011 400 450 500 550 600 100 150 200 250 300 4−Aug−2011 700 750 800 850 900 150 200 2...

work page 2011
[8]

(a) Running-difference GONG Hα image of the Moreton wave occurred on 2011 October

Two main types of the magnetic configuration that generate Moreton waves: open fields and magnetic loops. (a) Running-difference GONG Hα image of the Moreton wave occurred on 2011 October

work page 2011
[9]

Cyan and red contours show the HMI line-of-sight magnetic field with ± 200 G

Yellow plus signs depict the arc-shaped wave front. Cyan and red contours show the HMI line-of-sight magnetic field with ± 200 G. (b) The magnetogram includes a weaker positive polarity P1 in the south and a stronger negative polarity N1 in the north. Flare ribbons are superimposed on the magnetogram with the time in minutes from 09:40 UT indicated by the...

work page 2011

Show all 13 references

[11]

Cyan crosses depict the front of the Moreton wave

(b–e) The sequence of images in the H α line center from 08:52:11 to 08:55:45 UT with a zoomed-in view of the region corresponding to the green dotted box in panel (a). Cyan crosses depict the front of the Moreton wave. (f–i) Propagation of the Moreton wave with H α dopplergra...

2011
[12]

(a) Moreton wave event occurred on 2011 October 1 with a side view along the direction of the wave propagation

Two groups of the magnetic configuration that generate Moreton waves. (a) Moreton wave event occurred on 2011 October 1 with a side view along the direction of the wave propagation. Magnetic field lines are colored by the temperature. Orange, yellow and green contours represen...

2011
[13]

(An animation of this figure is available. Top row shows the evolution of the Moreton wave occurred on 2011 October 1st from 09:40 UT to 09:54 UT under inclined open fields while the bottom row shows the evolution of the Moreton wave occurred on 2011 February 14th from 17:20 U...

2011
[14]

18 Zhong et al

The magnetic field lines in panel (h) are inclined toward the northward ( y-axis). 18 Zhong et al. (a) (b) (c) (d)14−Feb−2011 17:20 UT 1−Oct−2011 09:40 UT 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Temperature (MK) 0.008 0.8 1.0 1.2 Speed (× 1000 km s−1 ) Figure

2011
[15]

(a) Running-difference image of AIA 193 ˚A at 16:25 UT

Two X-class flares that did not produce observable Moreton waves occurred on 2012 July 12 ((a)–(c)), and 2017 September 10 ((d)–(f)), respectively. (a) Running-difference image of AIA 193 ˚A at 16:25 UT. The cyan dots depict the EUV wave front. (b) AIA 304 ˚A running-differenc...

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

G., Priyatikanto, R., Yus’an, U., & Puspitaningrum, E

Admiranto, A. G., Priyatikanto, R., Yus’an, U., & Puspitaningrum, E. 2015, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1677, The 5th International Conference on Mathematics and Natural Sciences (AIP), 050014, doi: 10.1063/1.4930675 Alissandrakis, C. E. 1981, A&A, 100, 197 Asai, A., Ishii, T. T., Isobe, H., et al. 2012, ApJL, 745, L18, doi: 10...

work page arXiv 2015

[2] [2]

4a) Y 02 2011/03/12 M1.3 11166 N07W35 04:33 04:43 04:48 II (Fig

List of 66 Moreton wave events No Date Class 1 NOAA AR Location 2 Start time Peak time End time 3 Group (label)4 edge 5 References 6 01 2011/02/14 M2.2 11158 S20W04 17:20 17:26 17:32 II (Fig. 4a) Y 02 2011/03/12 M1.3 11166 N07W35 04:33 04:43 04:48 II (Fig. 4b) Y 03 2011/06/07 M2.5 11226 S22W53 06:16 06:30 06:41 III (Fig. 5a) N 04 2011/08/04 M9.3 11261 N16...

work page 2012

[3] [3]

(a) Full overview of the flare occurred at 17:20:54 UT on 2011 February

Propagation of the Moreton wave monitored by GONG and the coronal wave observed by AIA. (a) Full overview of the flare occurred at 17:20:54 UT on 2011 February

work page 2011

[4] [4]

(a) Full overview of the Moreton wave occurred at 08:52:11 UT on 2023 May

Evolution of the Moreton wave observed by CHASE and the coronal wave detected by AIA. (a) Full overview of the Moreton wave occurred at 08:52:11 UT on 2023 May

work page 2023

[5] [6]

All mag- netograms display one (e.g

Group–I of HMI line-of-sight photospheric magnetograms (grayscale) includes 24 Moreton wave events. All mag- netograms display one (e.g. panel (a)) or multiple (e.g. panel (d)) main magnetic polarities in the center of the active region, with opposite polarities in the periphery. The newly brightened flare ribbons are superimposed on the magnetogram, with...

work page 2011

[6] [7]

All magnetograms show one (e.g

Similar to Figure 3 but for Group–II containing 29 Moreton wave events. All magnetograms show one (e.g. panel (b)) or two (e.g. panel (a)) pairs of main magnetic polarities in the center of the active region. 16 Zhong et al. 650 700 750 800 −450 −400 −350 −300 −250 7−Jun−2011 400 450 500 550 600 100 150 200 250 300 4−Aug−2011 700 750 800 850 900 150 200 2...

work page 2011

[7] [8]

(a) Running-difference GONG Hα image of the Moreton wave occurred on 2011 October

Two main types of the magnetic configuration that generate Moreton waves: open fields and magnetic loops. (a) Running-difference GONG Hα image of the Moreton wave occurred on 2011 October

work page 2011

[8] [9]

Cyan and red contours show the HMI line-of-sight magnetic field with ± 200 G

Yellow plus signs depict the arc-shaped wave front. Cyan and red contours show the HMI line-of-sight magnetic field with ± 200 G. (b) The magnetogram includes a weaker positive polarity P1 in the south and a stronger negative polarity N1 in the north. Flare ribbons are superimposed on the magnetogram with the time in minutes from 09:40 UT indicated by the...

work page 2011