Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 48 references

Magnetic properties of orphan penumbrae

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Penumbral filaments can form without an umbra: 80 isolated patches show the same internal flow and magnetic structure as sunspot penumbrae.

desk verdict First statistical census of 80 orphan penumbrae with formation rates, but the headline uniformity claim is supported mainly by visual scatter-plot inspection rather than quantitative comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08117 v1 pith:JAIIQEN2 submitted 2025-07-10 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

J.S. Castellanos Durán , B. Löptien , A. Korpi-Lagg , S.K. Solanki , M. van Noort This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords orphanpenumbraesunspotpenumbralfilamentsmagneticfieldinclinationsolaractiveregionsspectropolarimetryEvershedflowpolarityinversionline
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 tries to establish that orphan penumbrae — patches of penumbra-like filaments with no attached umbra — are a genuine, reproducible class of solar magnetic structure. From spectropolarimetric inversions of 80 isolated cases, it argues that the filaments inside them are highly uniform from one orphan penumbra to the next and closely match the filaments inside sunspot penumbrae in their flows and magnetic-field pattern. It also identifies two roughly equal formation channels: a piece of a sunspot penumbra breaking away, and fresh magnetic flux emerging near the polarity inversion line of an active region. If true, this narrows what penumbral structure actually needs: not a dark umbra or interlaced spine fields, but a strongly inclined magnetic field. A fair reader would care because it tells solar physicists which boundary conditions are essential for penumbral filaments to form.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the penumbral filaments themselves, but because orphan penumbrae lack the bright/dark spine contrast that allows individual filaments to be traced in sunspots, the analysis works through statistical scatter diagrams: line-of-sight velocity versus line-of-sight magnetic field, and magnetic field strength versus continuum intensity, for each orphan penumbra compared with a sunspot penumbra. These diagrams locate the head, body, and tail signatures of the filaments as distinct clusters of pixels. A second mechanism is temporal tracking with full-disk continuum and magnetogram sequences, which assigns each orphan penumbra to a formation channel by watching either a penumbral patch detach from a sunspot or new flux emerge and organize into filaments. This combination — statistical comparison of unresolved filament ensembles plus time-resolved morphology — carries the argument that filament properties are uniform and that the formation paths are distinct.

What would settle it

Take the same archive of spectropolarimetric scans and continuum images, run an automated detection of isolated penumbral-filament patches with an explicit selection function, and compare the resulting sample's filament scatter plots and formation-channel fractions with the 80 manually identified cases. If the automated sample does not reproduce the tight clustering of filament properties and the near-equal split between sunspot separation and flux emergence, the conclusion that inclined fields alone suffice would lose support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that penumbral filaments, with their characteristic head-body-tail organization — upflows carrying one polarity at one end, near-horizontal field and flow along the middle, downflows of opposite polarity at the far end — occur in isolated magnetic patches with no connection to an umbra, and do so with about the same internal properties across 80 such patches. The sample shows a broad range of patch shapes and both single-polarity and bipolar configurations, yet the filament signatures cluster tightly. The paper also establishes that orphan penumbrae form through two mechanisms of nearly equal frequency in the observed sample — separation from a sunspot penumbra and emergence of new flux near the polarity inversion line — and that they decay filament by filament, leaving a magnetic flux concentration plus an overlying canopy field that outlasts the visible patch. The conclusion drawn is that a strongly inclined magnetic field suffices for penumbral filament formation, so the boundary conditions that allow penumbrae are wider than the setting inside a sunspot.

Load-bearing premise

The 80 orphan penumbrae were selected by eye from continuum images with the criterion that they be isolated and unconnected, with no quantitative selection function, no inter-observer check, and no published list of the chosen objects, so the statistical claims stand on that subjective classification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A sunspot umbra and interlaced spine fields are not prerequisites for penumbral filament structure; a strongly inclined magnetic field is sufficient.
  • Orphan penumbrae arise about equally often by a patch of a sunspot penumbra separating off and by fresh magnetic flux emerging near the polarity inversion line, so both channels belong in any complete model of penumbra formation.
  • The absence of spines in orphan penumbrae follows from the absence of a bordering umbra, tying spine formation to the umbra rather than to the underlying filament mechanism.
  • Decay proceeds filament by filament from deeper layers upward, leaving an upper-photospheric canopy field after the visible orphan penumbra has disappeared.
  • Counter-Evershed flows appear within orphan penumbrae, giving a clean setting in which to test the physical conditions that reverse the ordinary Evershed flow in penumbral filaments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical experiment suggested by this result: a magnetoconvection simulation with a strong inclined magnetic field and no umbra should spontaneously produce filamentation like that seen in orphan penumbrae; the paper does not run that test.
  • The finding that filaments are uniform across formation channels predicts that automated, selection-function-corrected searches of the same archive will recover the same uniformity and a similar near-equal split between separation and emergence; that census is not performed here.
  • If the canopy field is a cause rather than a consequence of filamentation, co-temporal photospheric and chromospheric magnetometry during the formation of an orphan penumbra should show the overlying inclined field appearing before the filaments do; the chromospheric images used in the paper are snapshots only.
  • The anomalously bright filaments in orphan penumbrae, if they scale with patch size as the paper suggests, imply a continuous size–brightness relation extending from sunspot penumbrae down to these small patches, which could be checked against larger and smaller samples.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents a statistical analysis of 80 orphan penumbrae (OPUs) identified manually in the MODEST catalogue of Hinode/SP spectropolarimetric inversions. The authors compare the photospheric properties of OPU filaments with those of a sunspot penumbra using scatter plots of line-of-sight velocity versus longitudinal magnetic field and of field strength versus continuum intensity. They identify two main formation mechanisms (separation from a sunspot penumbra and emergence of new flux near the polarity inversion line) from HMI time-series and describe the decay of one OPU as representative. They also report the presence of chromospheric fibrils above OPUs using Hinode H-alpha images. The main conclusion is that OPU filaments are remarkably uniform across different OPUs and resemble sunspot penumbral filaments, implying that a broad range of magnetic boundary conditions can produce penumbral structure.

Significance. If the uniformity claim holds, the paper provides the first statistical demonstration that penumbral filamentation can arise without an umbra or spines, which is a meaningful constraint on models of penumbral formation and magnetoconvection. The use of a well-characterized inversion catalogue and the identification of 80 OPUs is a substantial advance over earlier single-object studies, and the relative frequencies of the two formation mechanisms (26 vs. 24 of 57 captured formations) are a useful quantitative result. However, the central uniformity claim is currently supported only by visual inspection of a few examples, and the H-alpha result is not quantified, so the significance of the paper is presently limited by the evidence presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 2, and Abstract] The central claim that the properties of the OPU filaments are remarkably uniform between different OPUs, resembling those in sunspot penumbrae, is not quantitatively established. Figure 2 shows scatter plots for only four OPUs, and the resemblance to the sunspot penumbra is assessed by eye using kernel-density contours. No distributional metrics or significance tests are provided for the full sample of 80 OPUs, although the paper itself notes in Section 3 that individual filaments cannot be resolved in the fast-mode data, making these scatter plots the sole evidence. Please provide a quantitative comparison across the full sample, for example by computing within each OPU the distributions of B, inclination, v_LOS, and I_c and comparing them statistically between OPUs and against the sunspot penumbra (e.g., KS tests or variance ratios).
  2. [Section 6 and Abstract] The abstract states that 'We observe chromospheric fibrils above almost all OPUs in Hinode H-alpha', but only 25 OPUs have H-alpha data (Section 6) and no count or fraction is given. Moreover, the manuscript acknowledges that the broadband H-alpha images mix photospheric and chromospheric signals and that the classification of these features as chromospheric is ambiguous, particularly within OPUs. This ambiguity is a serious caveat for the claim that the OPU magnetic field extends to the chromosphere. Please provide a quantified detection rate (e.g., fibrils seen in X of 25 OPUs) and explicitly address how the photospheric contamination was handled, or soften the abstract's claim accordingly.
  3. [Section 3] The sample of 80 OPUs is selected by manual visual inspection of continuum images, with the only stated criterion being that the features are 'isolated and not connected to any other structures'. No list of the identified OPUs is provided, no inter-observer reproducibility check is reported, and no quantitative definition (e.g., in terms of field inclination or continuum contrast) is used. As the statistical claims of the paper rest on this sample, please provide a table or an online catalogue of the OPUs (AR number, date, coordinates) and, if possible, a more objective selection definition or a reproducibility assessment.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2] The phrase 'Feiline pair' should be 'Fe I line pair' (or 'Fe line pair'), and the degree sign in '180◦' is misformatted.
  2. [Section 3] The phrase 'the central meridional' should be 'the central meridian'.
  3. [Section 4] The text contains a typo: 'continuun images' should be 'continuum images'. In the same paragraph, 'in a lapse of ten hours' is awkward; consider 'over a period of ten hours'.
  4. [Figure 1 caption] In the caption, 'covering using the full FOV' should be 'covering the full FOV', and 'Row 2 to 6' should be 'Rows 2 to 6'.
  5. [Sections 6 and 7] The term 'counter Evershed flows' is used without definition; please define it at its first occurrence (e.g., in Section 3 where reversed flows are introduced).
  6. [Abstract and Section 1] The string 'typicallyΩ–shaped' is missing a space before the Omega symbol; the same issue appears in the abstract and in the main text.
  7. [Figure 2] The description of the kernel-density contours would benefit from stating the bandwidth or smoothing parameter used in the 2D kernel density estimate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the study is an empirical statistical survey whose conclusions rest on direct spectropolarimetric, HMI, and Halpha observations, not on a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation in the sense of a model or fitting procedure. It manually identifies 80 OPUs in continuum images, inverts SOT-SP data with the SPINOR code, and compares observed scatter distributions between OPU pixels and a sunspot penumbra. The central uniformity claim is asserted from inspection of Fig. 2 rather than derived from equations; under-inference (only four OPUs shown, visual comparison, no significance tests) is a correctness or robustness issue, not circularity. The OPU selection criterion ('isolated and not connected to any other structures') and the defining resemblance to penumbrae do not fix the measured magnetic-field, flow, or brightness distributions, and the paper in fact reports differences (brighter filaments, absence of spines, single row of filaments). MODEST and earlier OPU papers by the same group are used as data and prior measurements; none is invoked as an unverified uniqueness constraint or to forbid alternatives. Therefore no step reduces by construction to its input, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The paper contributes no free parameters and no invented entities. Its claims rest on standard inversion assumptions (LTE, 3-node optical depth grid), on the representativeness of one sunspot penumbra as a baseline, and on the interpretation of Hα fibrils as magnetic field continuations. The most consequential assumption is the manual, subjective definition of an OPU, which is not captured as a formal rule.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The SPINOR inversions in the MODEST catalogue recover the relevant photospheric magnetic field and flow structure at the three fitted optical depths.
    Section 2: all conclusions use inversion products assuming LTE and nodes at logτ = 0, -0.8, -2.0; systematic errors in the inversions would propagate into the field geometry and flow comparisons.
  • domain assumption A single sunspot penumbra (AR 10933) is representative of sunspot penumbrae for the comparison in Figs. 1 and 2.
    Section 3: OPU filament properties are compared against this one penumbra; penumbral brightness and field properties are known to depend on spot size, so a single baseline may not generalize.
  • domain assumption Hα fibrils observed by Hinode/SOT-FG trace the chromospheric continuation of the OPU magnetic field.
    Section 6: the fibril geometry is interpreted as the field extending to the chromosphere; the authors acknowledge broadband Hα mixes photospheric and chromospheric signals, leaving this inference ambiguous.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic properties of orphan penumbrae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JAIIQEN2

@misc{pith2026250708117,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic properties of orphan penumbrae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JAIIQEN2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08117}
}
abstract

Orphan penumbrae (OPU) are features resembling sunspot penumbrae, but are not connected to an umbra. Here we compare OPUs and sunspot penumbrae, including their filaments. We also identify and describe the main mechanisms for the formation of OPUs and we characterise their decay process. Our study is based on spectropolarimetric inversions of active regions observed with the Hinode spectropolarimeter. We manually identified 80 individual OPUs, allowing us to study them statistically. In addition, we analysed the time-evolution of selected OPUs using data provided by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager. Orphan penumbrae display a broad range of shapes, associated with typically $\Omega$-shaped magnetic field configurations, where opposite polarity fields predominate at the two ends of the OPU. In addition, the properties of the OPU filaments are remarkably uniform between different OPUs, resembling the ones in sunspot penumbrae. Most OPUs form by either a patch of a penumbra separating from a sunspot, or by new magnetic flux emerging close to the polarity inversion line of an active region. We observe chromospheric fibrils above almost all OPUs in Hinode H$\alpha$ images, indicating that a part of the magnetic field of the OPUs extends to the chromosphere. Our results show that OPU filaments can form given a broad range of boundary conditions for the magnetic field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08117 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Observables of selected OPUs. The four columns on the left show different examples of OPUs. The rightmost column shows the penumbra of a sunspot for comparison (AR 10933 observed on 6 January 2007). The top row shows continuum intensity maps (Ic) covering using the full FOV of the Hinode/SOT-SP scan. The rows below cover a smaller FOV of 32′′ × 32′′ centred on the individual OPUs (or sunspot penumbra in the rightmos… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scatter plots between different observables for various OPUs and comparison with the penumbra of a sunspot. Top: scatter plot between vLOS and BLOS. Bottom: B vs. Ic . The different colours correspond to the individual OPUs shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time-series showing the formation of an OPU in AR 11158. The individual columns show the observables of the OPU at different times, from 1:00 UT to 7:30 UT on 16 February 2011. From top to bottom: Ic , B, BLOS, γ, and vLOS, i.e. the same quantities in the same order as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time-series showing the formation of an OPU in AR 11967. The individual columns show the observables of the OPU at different times, from 10:00 UT on 4 February 2014 to 1:10 UT on 5 February 2014. From top to bottom: Ic , B, BLOS, γ, and vLOS. All panels have a FOV of 3…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time-series showing the decay of an OPU in AR 11967. The individual columns show the observables of the OPU at different times, from 19:00 UT on 4 February 2014 to 10:40 UT on 5 February 2014. From top to bottom: Ic , B, BLOS, γ, and vLOS. All panels have a FOV of 22′′…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time-series of the magnetic field of the OPU in AR 11967 (the one shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top row: Maps of the continuum intensity (left) and of the Hα line core intensity (right) of AR 11339 on 6 November 2011 obtained by Hinode/SOT-FG. The red contour highlights the position of an OPU. The horizontal line indicates a length of 20′′ and the arrow points to…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Buehler, D., Lagg, A., van Noort, M., & Solanki, S. K. 2016, A&A, 589, A31 Castellanos Durán, J. S. 2022, PhD thesis, University of Göttingen Castellanos Durán, J. S., Korpi-Lagg, A., & Solanki, S. K. 2023, ApJ, 952, 162 Castellanos Durán, J. S., Lagg, A., & Solanki, S. K. 2021, A&A, 651, L1 Castellanos Durán, J. S., Milanovic, N., Korpi-Lagg, A., et al. ...

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    1909, MNRAS, 69, 454

    Evershed, J. 1909, MNRAS, 69, 454

    1909

  3. [3]

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

    Frutiger, C., Solanki, S. K., Fligge, M., & Bruls, J. H. M. J. 2000, A&A, 358, 1109 García-Rivas, M., Jurˇcák, J., Bello González, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A112

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Giovanelli, R. G. 1980, Sol. Phys., 68, 49

    work page 1980

  5. [5]

    Giovanelli, R. G. & Jones, H. P. 1982, Sol. Phys., 79, 267

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    L., Zuccarello, F., & Romano, P

    Guglielmino, S. L., Zuccarello, F., & Romano, P. 2014, ApJ, 786, L22

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    & Harvey, J

    Harvey, K. & Harvey, J. 1973, Sol. Phys., 28, 61

    work page 1973

  8. [8]

    2008, Sol

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

    work page 2008

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Jafarzadeh, S., Schiavo, L. A. C. A., Fedun, V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A2

    2024

  2. [10]

    2011, ApJ, 734, L18 Jurˇcák, J

    Joshi, J., Pietarila, A., Hirzberger, J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 734, L18 Jurˇcák, J. 2011, A&A, 531, A118 Jurˇcák, J., Bello González, N., Schlichenmaier, R., & Rezaei, R. 2017, A&A, 597, A60 Jurˇcák, J., Bellot Rubio, L. R., & Sobotka, M. 2014, A&A, 564, A91 Jurˇcák, J., Schmassm...

    2011

  3. [11]

    L., Balasubramaniam, K

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

    1999

  4. [12]

    K., et al

    Korpi-Lagg, A., Gandorfer, A., Solanki, S. K., et al. 2025, Sol. Phys., 300, 75

    2025

  5. [13]

    2007, Sol

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

    2007

  6. [14]

    Leka, K. D. & Skumanich, A. 1998, ApJ, 507, 454

    1998

  7. [15]

    2013, ApJ, 769, L18

    Lim, E.-K., Yurchyshyn, V ., Goode, P., & Cho, K.-S. 2013, ApJ, 769, L18

    2013

  8. [16]

    J., et al

    Lindner, P., Kuckein, C., González Manrique, S. J., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A64

    2023

  9. [17]

    W., Akin, D

    Lites, B. W., Akin, D. L., Card, G., et al. 2013, Sol. Phys., 283, 579

    2013

  10. [18]

    W., Elmore, D

    Lites, B. W., Elmore, D. F., Seagraves, P., & Skumanich, A. P. 1993, ApJ, 418, 928 Löptien, B., Lagg, A., van Noort, M., & Solanki, S. K. 2020, A&A, 639, A106 Löptien, B., Lagg, A., van Noort, M., & Solanki, S. K. 2021, A&A, 655, A61

    1993

  11. [19]

    K., Martínez Pillet, V ., Solanki, S

    Mathew, S. K., Martínez Pillet, V ., Solanki, S. K., & Krivova, N. A. 2007, A&A, 465, 291

    2007

  12. [20]

    L., Zuccarello, F., & Solanki, S

    Murabito, M., Romano, P., Guglielmino, S. L., Zuccarello, F., & Solanki, S. K. 2016, ApJ, 825, 75

    2016

  13. [21]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 23

    Peng, Y ., Fei, Y ., Xiang, N.-b., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 23

    2024

  14. [22]

    D., Thompson, B

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

    2012

  15. [23]

    H., Danilovic, S., & Solanki, S

    Pietarila, A., Cameron, R. H., Danilovic, S., & Solanki, S. K. 2011, ApJ, 729, 136

    2011

  16. [24]

    & Cheung, M

    Rempel, M. & Cheung, M. C. M. 2014, ApJ, 785, 90

    2014

  17. [25]

    2009, ApJ, 691, 640

    Rempel, M., Schüssler, M., & Knölker, M. 2009, ApJ, 691, 640

    2009

  18. [26]

    L., et al

    Romano, P., Frasca, D., Guglielmino, S. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, L3

    2013

  19. [27]

    L., Cristaldi, A., et al

    Romano, P., Guglielmino, S. L., Cristaldi, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 10

    2014

  20. [28]

    L., Zuccarello, F., & Falco, M

    Romano, P., Murabito, M., Guglielmino, S. L., Zuccarello, F., & Falco, M. 2020, ApJ, 899, 129

    2020

  21. [29]

    B., Henriques, V

    Scharmer, G. B., Henriques, V . M. J., Kiselman, D., & de la Cruz Rodríguez, J. 2011, Science, 333, 316

    2011

  22. [30]

    B., Nordlund, Å., & Heinemann, T

    Scharmer, G. B., Nordlund, Å., & Heinemann, T. 2008, ApJ, 677, L149

    2008

  23. [31]

    H., Bush, R

    Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, Sol. Phys., 275, 229

    2012

  24. [32]

    Sheeley, Jr., N. R. 1972, Sol. Phys., 25, 98

    1972

  25. [33]

    2012, ApJ, 747, L18

    Shimizu, T., Ichimoto, K., & Suematsu, Y . 2012, ApJ, 747, L18

    2012

  26. [34]

    K., van Noort, M., & Jurˇcák, J

    Siu-Tapia, A., Lagg, A., Solanki, S. K., van Noort, M., & Jurˇcák, J. 2017, A&A, 607, A36

    2017

  27. [35]

    L., Rempel, M., Lagg, A., & Solanki, S

    Siu-Tapia, A. L., Rempel, M., Lagg, A., & Solanki, S. K. 2018, ApJ, 852, 66

    2018

  28. [36]

    Solanki, S. K. 1987, PhD thesis, ETH, Zürich

    1987

  29. [37]

    K., Finsterle, W., Rüedi, I., & Livingston, W

    Solanki, S. K., Finsterle, W., Rüedi, I., & Livingston, W. 1999, A&A, 347, L27

    1999

  30. [38]

    Solanki, S. K. & Montavon, C. A. P. 1993, A&A, 275, 283

    1993

  31. [39]

    K., Montavon, C

    Solanki, S. K., Montavon, C. A. P., & Livingston, W. 1994, A&A, 283, 221

    1994

  32. [40]

    K., Rüedi, I., & Livingston, W

    Solanki, S. K., Rüedi, I., & Livingston, W. 1992, A&A, 263, 339

    1992

  33. [41]

    & Bello González, N

    Strecker, H. & Bello González, N. 2018, A&A, 620, A122

    2018

  34. [42]

    M., Frank, Z

    Title, A. M., Frank, Z. A., Shine, R. A., et al. 1993, ApJ, 403, 780

    1993

  35. [43]

    K., van Noort, M., Lagg, A., & Solanki, S

    Tiwari, S. K., van Noort, M., Lagg, A., & Solanki, S. K. 2013, A&A, 557, A25

    2013

  36. [44]

    2008, Sol

    Tsuneta, S., Ichimoto, K., Katsukawa, Y ., et al. 2008, Sol. Phys., 249, 167 van Noort, M. 2012, A&A, 548, A5 van Noort, M., Bischoff, J., Kramer, A., Solanki, S. K., & Kiselman, D. 2022, A&A, 668, A149 van Noort, M., Lagg, A., Tiwari, S. K., & Solanki, S. K. 2013, A&A, 557, A...

    2008

  37. [45]

    2024, A&A, 690, A3 Westendorp Plaza, C., del Toro Iniesta, J

    Verma, M. 2024, A&A, 690, A3 Westendorp Plaza, C., del Toro Iniesta, J. C., Ruiz Cobo, B., et al. 1997, Nature, 389, 47

    2024

  38. [46]

    L., Solanki, S

    Zakharov, V ., Hirzberger, J., Riethmüller, T. L., Solanki, S. K., & Kobel, P. 2008, A&A, 488, L17

    2008

  39. [47]

    & Wang, H

    Zirin, H. & Wang, H. 1991, Advances in Space Research, 11, 225

    1991

  40. [48]

    L., & Romano, P

    Zuccarello, F., Guglielmino, S. L., & Romano, P. 2014, ApJ, 787, 57 Article number, page 11 of 11

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.