Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Origin of Coronal Extreme Ultraviolet Shockwaves without a Coronal Mass Ejection Event

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coronal EUV shock waves without a CME are slower and powered by flares that are more impulsive but less energetic, pointing to a distinct launch mechanism.

desk verdict Useful comparative statistics on CME-less coronal waves, but the eye-balled CME classification is the weak joint and the 'different mechanism' conclusion overreaches the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.20078 v3 pith:E7SCPLYO submitted 2026-01-27 astro-ph.SR

Robert Bush , John Stefan , Alexander Kosovichev This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords coronalEUVwaveslarge-scalepropagatingfronts(LCPFs)massejectionssolarflaresvolumeemissionmeasuresoftX-raydiagnosticssunquakesMoreton-Ramsey
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

Coronal shock waves seen in extreme-ultraviolet images come in two populations, and this paper tries to show the difference is physical rather than accidental. Cross-referencing a catalog of large-scale coronal propagating fronts with coronagraph and soft X-ray data, the authors split 171 fronts (2010–2013) into CME-associated and CME-free groups. They find CME-free fronts travel slower (median 504 km/s versus 699 km/s) and their flares are more impulsive but less energetic, with a roughly tenfold lower peak volume emission measure. The conclusion, if it holds, is that CME-less coronal waves are launched by flare-accelerated particles rather than by a CME-driven shock, giving observers a quantitative marker to separate the two channels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LCPF (large-scale coronal propagating front), defined as an EUV ripple spanning about 45 degrees or more and propagating at least 200 Mm from the flare site in AIA 171/193 Å running-difference movies. The argument is carried by three instruments of analysis: visual CME association (AIA plus LASCO movies, a 90-minute matching window, and an 'inconclusive' category); four GOES soft X-ray timing and flux quantities used as proxies for magnetic energy release rate; and the standard GOES channel-ratio inversion (0.5–4 Å / 1–8 Å) that turns measured fluxes into flare temperature and volume emission measure. The emission measure is the key discriminator, because it en

What would settle it

Re-classify all 171 events twice: once with an automated CME detector and once with matching windows of 30 and 180 minutes, then recompute the median speeds and emission measures. If the about 504 vs 699 km/s speed gap and the roughly tenfold emission-measure gap shrink below the reported 1-sigma uncertainties or change ordering, the central claim is falsified; if the medians are insensitive, the paper's interpretation survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that coronal EUV fronts without a CME form a distinct physical population. Using GOES soft X-ray light curves, it shows CME-less coronal-wave flares have shorter impulsive phases and characteristic energy release times than CME-related flares (e.g., median 19 min versus 29 min), yet lower peak flux and lower maximum time derivative; and the volume emission measure, a proxy for hot plasma amount, separates the groups cleanly: median 6.7×10^48 cm^-3 for isolated fronts versus 6.9×10^49 cm^-3 for CME-related fronts under coronal abundances. The authors interpret this as evidence that CME-less LCPFs are driven by a process distinct from EIT-wave/CME scenarios — plaus

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison rests on subjective visual classification of whether each wave front had a CME, with a hand-picked 90-minute matching window and an 'inconclusive' bucket; a biased sort would make the speed and emission-measure differences artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the separation is real, CME-free coronal waves can be identified statistically from speed alone (concentrated near 300–700 km/s) and from emission measure below about 10^49 cm^-3, without needing a confident coronagraph detection.
  • The weak correlations between front speed and CME mass/speed (Spearman 0.02–0.07) suggest CME properties do not control the fastest fronts; speed is more tied to flare emission measure (Spearman about 0.42) than to temperature (about 0.26).
  • The similarity in impulsiveness between isolated-wave flares and sunquake flares supports co-excitation by flare-accelerated particles, but the much lower energy of isolated-wave flares constrains how much particle energy is needed to launch a coronal front.
  • If flare-accelerated particles drive CME-less fronts, type III radio bursts, signatures of escaping electron beams, should preferentially accompany this population; the authors suggest radio imaging as a follow-up.
  • A larger sample with LCPF speeds measured beyond 2013 would test whether the speed gap and its log-normal shape persist over more of Solar Cycle 24.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence the paper leaves implicit: the roughly tenfold emission-measure gap is large enough to serve as a practical selection cut for 'isolated wave' samples in future statistical flare studies, independent of subjective CME judgment.
  • A blinded reclassification using an automated coronagraph detection algorithm, scanning matching windows from 30 to 180 minutes, would either confirm or erode the speed and emission-measure separation; this is the cleanest test of whether the dichotomous interpretation is an artifact of visual sorting.
  • The correlation structure, speed versus emission measure being stronger than speed versus temperature, hints that a front's propagation is governed mostly by the amount of dense plasma available to be swept up or heated, not by peak thermal energy — a testable prediction for MHD models of wave-front propagation.
  • If the particle-beam interpretation is right, microwave and hard X-ray imaging of the flare impulsive phase should show a spatial correspondence between beam footpoints and the earliest LCPF front segments; that would connect this statistical result to a physical mechanism.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares solar large-scale coronal propagating fronts (LCPFs) with and without associated coronal mass ejections (CMEs), using the Nitta et al. (2013) LCPF catalog for 2010–2013, the LASCO CME catalog, and GOES soft X-ray data. The authors visually classify 171 LCPFs into CME-associated, CME-less, and inconclusive groups. They report that CME-less coronal waves propagate more slowly (median 504±19 km/s) than CME-associated waves (median 699±28 km/s), and that flares powering CME-less waves are more impulsive but less energetic than CME-related flares. They also report a factor-of-ten difference in volume emission measure (coronal abundance medians 6.7×10^48 vs 69×10^48 cm^-3), which they interpret as evidence that CME-less coronal waves are generated by a mechanism distinct from CME/EIT-wave scenarios, possibly related to flare-accelerated particles.

Significance. If the reported contrasts are robust, the paper would provide useful observational constraints on coronal wave excitation mechanisms, particularly for the poorly understood CME-less events. The topic is relevant to Solar Physics, and the analysis makes use of publicly available catalogs and standard GOES inversion methods. Strengths include the explicit use of the Nitta et al. (2013) speed measurements, log-normal fitting with propagated uncertainties, and a clear statement of data availability. However, the central claims rest on a subjective CME classification that is not validated against an independent or objective CME detector, and the paper does not report any two-sample significance tests. The monotonic speed ordering across the no-CME/inconclusive/CME categories is suggestive of a detection-threshold effect, and the emission-measure contrast may partly reflect the known correlation between CME presence and flare size. With additional validation and statistical testing, the conclusions could be made much stronger.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Table 1] The CME/no-CME split is based on visual inspection of AIA and LASCO movies plus a 90-minute matching window, with no blinding or independent validation. The monotonic median speed ordering (no-CME 504 km/s, inconclusive 572 km/s, CME 699 km/s) is exactly what a detection-threshold effect would produce if slow or faint CMEs are missed. Please provide an independent check (e.g., STEREO/COR1 data, an automated CME catalog with completeness limits, or a blinded second observer) and report classification completeness as a function of CME speed/mass. Without this, the speed contrast, the paper's primary quantitative result, cannot be separated from a selection artifact.
  2. [§3, Tables 1–9] The paper relies on non-overlapping medians with propagated log-normal fit uncertainties, but no two-sample significance tests are reported. Several claims of 'significantly' higher or lower values are not backed by formal tests; for example, the isolated vs no-wave characteristic energy-release times in Table 3 have intervals that are close, and the max-derivative comparison in Table 4 has substantial overlap. Please provide Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Mann–Whitney, or bootstrap tests for each population pair, together with effect sizes and sample sizes, before drawing conclusions about distinct distributions.
  3. [§3, Tables 5–7] The volume emission measure is derived from the GOES SXR flux and temperature, and Table 5 shows that CME-related flares have much higher GOES class/flux. The factor-of-ten EM difference (Tables 6–7) may therefore largely reflect flare size rather than a distinct wave-generation mechanism. Please control for GOES class or peak flux (e.g., matched samples, EM normalized by SXR flux, or regression) to show that the EM contrast is not simply a byproduct of the CME-related flares being larger events.
  4. [§2.1, §3 (Figure 3)] The comparison between CME-less coronal-wave flares and sunquake flares uses different time ranges (sunquakes 2011–2017 vs LCPF flares 2010–2022) and different selection criteria (all 114 cataloged sunquakes, including candidates). This could bias the distributions compared in Figure 3 and Table 2. Please restrict to overlapping epochs/class ranges or explicitly discuss how the differing selection affects the comparison, since the sunquake connection is a core motivation for the study.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typographical issues: 'T able' instead of 'Table' appears repeatedly; the Data Availability section has a duplicated phrase; 'Pythonsunpypackage' lacks spaces.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] The caption labels panels incorrectly: it says '(a1) and (a2) ... and (a2) and (b2) corresponding to coronal abundance.' The second pair should be (b1) and (b2). The text in §3 similarly refers to '(a2) and (b2)' when describing coronal-abundance panels; please correct.
  3. [References] The reference to Gopalswamy et al. (2024) contains a garbled author name ('Micha/suppress lek') that should be fixed.
  4. [§2.3.1/Table 3] The characteristic energy-release time is defined in the text as max(f/(df/dt)), but Table 3 labels it as '[df1-8/dt/f]^{-1}', which is the inverse. Please make the notation consistent.
  5. [§2.3.2, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is written with a denominator G_i that appears to cancel with the same factor in the numerator; this is likely meant to be the wavelength-averaged transfer function in a normalization sense. Please clarify the notation so that the definition of B_i is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: speed and emission-measure comparisons come from external catalogs and standard GOES inversions; self-citations are motivational and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims are not obtained by fitting a parameter and then predicting the same quantity. Coronal-wave speeds come from the external Nitta et al. (2013) catalog; the CME/no-CME split is made by visual inspection of AIA/LASCO movies (Section 2.2); GOES temperatures and emission measures come from standard Thomas, Starr, and Crannell (1985) and White, Thomas, and Schwartz (2005) inversions (Section 2.3.2). The median speeds, impulsive-phase durations, and emission measures are descriptive statistics of independently measured quantities, not outputs that reduce to their inputs by construction. The only in-house elements are the sunquake catalog of Sharykin and Kosovichev (2020) and the motivating simulation of Stefan and Kosovichev (2025, under review), both with overlapping authorship. These are used as comparison data and motivation, respectively; the paper's central contrast between CME-less and CME-associated LCPFs would stand even if the simulation were ignored, and the sunquake catalog is an empirical dataset rather than a theorem invoked to force a result. The skeptical concern that the visual CME classification is detectability-biased—median speeds increase monotonically across the no/maybe/yes bins and no two-sample significance tests are reported—is a validity/selection-bias issue, not a circularity reduction: the classification is not defined by the measured speed, and the speeds are not fitted from the classification. No equation in the paper equates a predicted quantity to its own input, and no uniqueness result is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper itself states that its results are 'not conclusive in answering the exact mechanism,' consistent with an observational comparison rather than a derivation of the conclusion from its assumptions. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited; the score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis is purely observational, reusing existing catalogs and standard inversion methods. It introduces no new physical entities. The main load-bearing choices are the CME-association window, the flare-class threshold, and the accuracy of external catalogs and standard inversion assumptions.

free parameters (2)
  • CME association time window = 90 minutes
    Events within 90 minutes of a LASCO CME are initially tagged as CME-associated; this hand-chosen threshold affects population membership (Section 2.2).
  • Minimum GOES flare class = C1.0
    Only flares ≥ C1.0 from 2010–2022 are included; this selection affects the 'no sunquake or coronal wave' baseline (Section 2.3.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GOES SXR temperature and emission measure inversion assumes an isothermal plasma with specified abundances
    Section 2.3.2; follows Thomas et al. (1985) and White et al. (2005); derived T and EM depend on CHIANTI spectral models and abundance assumptions (photospheric vs coronal).
  • domain assumption The LCPF speeds from Nitta et al. (2013) are accurate as published
    Section 2.1; the paper uses the 2010–2013 TD-derived speeds without re-deriving them.
  • domain assumption The LASCO CME catalog's manual identifications are correct
    Section 2.1; CME presence and properties are taken from the CDAW catalog without independent verification.
  • domain assumption The sunquake catalog from Sharykin & Kosovichev (2020) correctly identifies sunquakes
    Section 2.1; used to separate sunquake flares from non-sunquake populations.
  • domain assumption LCPF speeds are log-normally distributed
    Section 3; the log-normal fit (following Aoki et al. 2004; Verbeeck et al. 2019) is a statistical model choice; deviations could affect median comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Origin of Coronal Extreme Ultraviolet Shockwaves without a Coronal Mass Ejection Event." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7SCPLYO

@misc{pith2026260120078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Origin of Coronal Extreme Ultraviolet Shockwaves without a Coronal Mass Ejection Event},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7SCPLYO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.20078}
}
read the original abstract

A leading theory of sunquake generation involves flare-accelerated particles depositing energy into the photosphere. Simulations of sunquake excitation suggest co-excitation with wavefronts propagating in the corona, similar to large-scale coronal propagating fronts (LCPFs), and also generate Moreton-Ramsey waves in the chromosphere. To investigate observational evidence for the particle-driven mechanism in LCPFs, we compare populations of events associated with and without coronal mass ejections (CMEs). CMEs are known to generate coronal shock waves also observed in EUV emission. We employ visual inspection of flare events that generate LCPFs using Atmospheric Imaging Assembly (AIA) and Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) coronagraph images to find that the large-scale coronal waves associated with CMEs propagate noticeably faster. Then we examine standalone flare events (those that generate coronal waves without CMEs), using soft X-ray (SXR) data from the GOES satellite and focusing on characteristics related to magnetic energy release rate. This reveals that such standalone or confined flares differ from sunquake flares: they are less impulsive and energetic than sunquake flares. However, they are more impulsive but less energetic than LCPF-associated flares with a CME. In particular, coronal waves accompanied by CMEs exhibit significantly higher volume emission measures, suggesting a different generation mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A histogram showing 171 EUV wave events (2010-2013) from the Nitta LCPF AIA movie catalog that were cross-referenced with the LASCO CME Catalog and observed for the presence of a CME using a combination of AIA and coronagraph data in 193 angstroms. The y-axis gives the total number of EUV events in the catalog and the x-axis highlights EUV wave speeds. The distribution in red includes EUV wave events that were not f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) is a scatter plot of CME mass versus coronal wave speeds, and (b) is CME linear speed versus coronal wave speeds. The data on the x-axis was obtained via the LASCO CME catalog, while the y-axis are the 2010-2013 dates from Nitta et. al 2013. maximum values of the SXR flux time derivative, signifying powerful, energetic flares that rapidly release energy.. However, there are some slight differences from the distr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. These four histograms compare certain flares of C1.0 or greater from 2010-2022, with the dotted line being the median for distribution. The red highlights flares that were associated with sunquakes as outlined in Sharykin and Kosovichev (2020), while those in blue are coronal wave flares (without a CME or filament eruption) recorded in Nitta et al. (2013). (a) is the impulsive phase duration, (b) is the characterist… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Those in blue are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Those in blue are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms of emission measure + flare temperature, with (a1) and (a2) corre￾sponding to photospheric abundance, and (a2) and (b2) corresponding to coronal abundance, using code inspired by calculations from White, Thomas, and Schwartz (2005). Note that sunquake-active…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a1) and (b1) are scatter plots of emission measure versus coronal wave speeds, corresponding to photospheric and coronal abundances respectively. (a2) and (b2) are flare temperatures versus coronal wave speeds corresponding to photospheric and coronal abun￾dances resp…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , Kowalski , A.F

    barticle Allred , J.C. , Kowalski , A.F. , Carlsson , M. : 2015 , A Unified Computational Model for Solar and Stellar Flares . 809 , 104 . https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/104 . 2015ApJ...809..104A . barticle

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/104 2015

  2. [2]

    The Log-normal Distributions of Physical Quantities of Flare associated Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs), and Flare/CME Model of Gamma-ray Bursts

    botherref Aoki , S.I. , Yashiro , S. , Shibata , K. : 2004, The Log-normal Distributions of Physical Quantities of Flare associated Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs), and Flare/CME Model of Gamma-ray Bursts . arXiv e-prints, astro. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0401352 . 2004astro.ph..1352A . botherref

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0401352 2004

  3. [3]

    , Caspi , A

    bchapter Aschwanden , M.J. , Caspi , A. , Cohen , C.M.S. , Holman , G. , Jing , J. , Kretzschmar , M. , Kontar , E.P. , McTiernan , J.M. , Mewaldt , R.A. , O'Flannagain , A. , Richardson , I.G. , Ryan , D. , Warren , H.P. , Xu , Y. : 2019 , Global Energetics of Solar Flares and Coronal Mass Ejections . In: Journal of Physics Conference Series , Journal of...

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1332/1/012002 2019

  4. [4]

    , Erd \'e lyi , R

    barticle Ballai , I. , Erd \'e lyi , R. , Pint \'e r , B. : 2005 , On the Nature of Coronal EIT Waves . 633 , L145 . https://doi.org/10.1086/498447 . 2005ApJ...633L.145B . barticle

    doi:10.1086/498447 2005

  5. [5]

    , Myers , D.C

    barticle Biesecker , D.A. , Myers , D.C. , Thompson , B.J. , Hammer , D.M. , Vourlidas , A. : 2002 , Solar Phenomena Associated with ``EIT Waves'' . 569 , 1009 . https://doi.org/10.1086/339402 . 2002ApJ...569.1009B . barticle

    doi:10.1086/339402 2002

  6. [6]

    , Speich , D

    bchapter Bornmann , P.L. , Speich , D. , Hirman , J. , Matheson , L. , Grubb , R. , Garcia , H. , Viereck , R. : 1996 , GOES x-ray sensor and its use in predicting solar-terrestrial disturbances . In: Washwell , E.R. (ed.) GOES-8 and Beyond , Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series 2812 , 291 . https://doi.org/10.1117/1...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.254076 1996

  7. [7]

    , Howard , R.A

    barticle Brueckner , G.E. , Howard , R.A. , Koomen , M.J. , Korendyke , C.M. , Michels , D.J. , Moses , J.D. , Socker , D.G. , Dere , K.P. , Lamy , P.L. , Llebaria , A. , Bout , M.V. , Schwenn , R. , Simnett , G.M. , Bedford , D.K. , Eyles , C.J. : 1995 , The Large Angle Spectroscopic Coronagraph (LASCO) . 162 , 357 . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00733434 . ...

    doi:10.1007/bf00733434 1995

  8. [8]

    : 2006 , The Relation between EIT Waves and Solar Flares

    barticle Chen , P.F. : 2006 , The Relation between EIT Waves and Solar Flares . 641 , L153 . https://doi.org/10.1086/503868 . 2006ApJ...641L.153C . barticle

    doi:10.1086/503868 2006

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    , Laurenza , M

    barticle Cliver , E.W. , Laurenza , M. , Storini , M. , Thompson , B.J. : 2005 , On the Origins of Solar EIT Waves . 631 , 604 . https://doi.org/10.1086/432250 . 2005ApJ...631..604C . barticle

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    , Shimizu , K

    bbook Crow , E.L. , Shimizu , K. : 1988 , Lognormal Distributions: Theory and Applications , Dekker , New York . bbook

    1988

  3. [11]

    , Fleck , B

    barticle Domingo , V. , Fleck , B. , Poland , A.I. : 1995 , SOHO: The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory . 72 , 81 . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00768758 . 1995SSRv...72...81D . barticle

    1995 doi

  4. [12]

    , Warren , H.P

    barticle Doschek , G.A. , Warren , H.P. , Harra , L.K. , Culhane , J.L. , Watanabe , T. , Hara , H. : 2018 , Photospheric and Coronal Abundances in an X8.3 Class Limb Flare . 853 , 178 . https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4f5 . 2018ApJ...853..178D . barticle

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    , Doschek , G.A

    barticle Feldman , U. , Doschek , G.A. , Behring , W.E. , Phillips , K.J.H. : 1996 , Electron Temperature, Emission Measure, and X-Ray Flux in A2 to X2 X-Ray Class Solar Flares . 460 , 1034 . https://doi.org/10.1086/177030 . 1996ApJ...460.1034F . barticle

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    , Handy , B.N

    barticle Freeland , S.L. , Handy , B.N. : 1998 , Data Analysis with the SolarSoft System . 182 , 497 . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005038224881 . 1998SoPh..182..497F . barticle

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    : 1994 , Temperature and Emission Measure from Goes Soft X-Ray Measurements

    barticle Garcia , H.A. : 1994 , Temperature and Emission Measure from Goes Soft X-Ray Measurements . 154 , 275 . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00681100 . 1994SoPh..154..275G . barticle

    1994 doi

  8. [16]

    , Chen , B

    barticle Gary , D.E. , Chen , B. , Dennis , B.R. , Fleishman , G.D. , Hurford , G.J. , Krucker , S. , McTiernan , J.M. , Nita , G.M. , Shih , A.Y. , White , S.M. , Yu , S. : 2018 , Microwave and Hard X-Ray Observations of the 2017 September 10 Solar Limb Flare . 863 , 83 . htt...

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    , Micha ek , G

    botherref Gopalswamy , N. , Micha ek , G. , Yashiro , S. , M \"a kel \"a , P. , Akiyama , S. , Xie , H. , Vourlidas , A. : 2024, The SOHO LASCO CME Catalog -- Version 2 . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04165. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.04165 . 2024arXiv240704165G . botherref

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    , Zharkova , V.V

    barticle Kosovichev , A.G. , Zharkova , V.V. : 1998 , X-ray flare sparks quake inside Sun . 393 , 317 . https://doi.org/10.1038/30629 . 1998Natur.393..317K . barticle

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    , Feldman , U

    barticle Landi , E. , Feldman , U. , Dere , K.P. : 2002 , CHIANTI-An Atomic Database for Emission Lines. V. Comparison with an Isothermal Spectrum Observed with SUMER . 139 , 281 . https://doi.org/10.1086/337949 . 2002ApJS..139..281L . barticle

    2002 doi

  12. [20]

    , Landini , M

    barticle Landi , E. , Landini , M. , Dere , K.P. , Young , P.R. , Mason , H.E. : 1999 , CHIANTI - an atomic database for emission lines. III. Continuum radiation and extension of the ion database . 135 , 339 . https://doi.org/10.1051/aas:1999449 . 1999A&AS..135..339L . barticle

    1999 doi

  13. [21]

    , Title , A.M

    barticle Lemen , J.R. , Title , A.M. , Akin , D.J. , Boerner , P.F. , Chou , C. , Drake , J.F. , Duncan , D.W. , Edwards , C.G. , Friedlaender , F.M. , Heyman , G.F. , Hurlburt , N.E. , Katz , N.L. , Kushner , G.D. , Levay , M. , Lindgren , R.W. , Mathur , D.P. , McFeaters , E...

    2012

  14. [22]

    , Braun , D.C

    barticle Lindsey , C. , Braun , D.C. : 2000 , Basic Principles of Solar Acoustic Holography - (Invited Review) . 192 , 261 . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005227200911 . 2000SoPh..192..261L . barticle

    2000 doi

  15. [23]

    : 2009 , Non-linear Least-squares Fitting in IDL with MPFIT

    bchapter Markwardt , C.B. : 2009 , Non-linear Least-squares Fitting in IDL with MPFIT . In: Bohlender , D.A. , Durand , D. , Dowler , P. (eds.) Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVIII , Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series 411 , 251 . https://doi...

    2009 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    , Mazzitelli , G

    barticle Mazzotta , P. , Mazzitelli , G. , Colafrancesco , S. , Vittorio , N. : 1998 , Ionization balance for optically thin plasmas: Rate coefficients for all atoms and ions of the elements H to NI . 133 , 403 . https://doi.org/10.1051/aas:1998330 . 1998A&AS..133..403M . barticle

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

    , Ramsey , H.E

    barticle Moreton , G.E. , Ramsey , H.E. : 1960 , Recent Observations of Dynamical Phenomena Associated with Solar Flares . 72 , 357 . https://doi.org/10.1086/127549 . 1960PASP...72..357M . barticle

    1960 doi

  18. [26]

    , Clette , F

    barticle Moses , D. , Clette , F. , Delaboudini \`e re , J.-P. , Artzner , G.E. , Bougnet , M. , Brunaud , J. , Carabetian , C. , Gabriel , A.H. , Hochedez , J.F. , Millier , F. , Song , X.Y. , Au , B. , Dere , K.P. , Howard , R.A. , Kreplin , R. , Michels , D.J. , Defise , J....

    1997

  19. [27]

    , Schrijver , C.J

    barticle Nitta , N.V. , Schrijver , C.J. , Title , A.M. , Liu , W. : 2013 , Large-scale Coronal Propagating Fronts in Solar Eruptions as Observed by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly on Board the Solar Dynamics Observatory an Ensemble Study . 776 , 58 . https://doi.org/10.1088/...

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    , Liu , W

    barticle Nitta , N.V. , Liu , W. , Gopalswamy , N. , Yashiro , S. : 2014 , The Relation Between Large-Scale Coronal Propagating Fronts and Type II Radio Bursts . 289 , 4589 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-014-0602-y . 2014SoPh..289.4589N . barticle

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    , Vourlidas , A

    barticle Patsourakos , S. , Vourlidas , A. : 2009 , ``Extreme Ultraviolet Waves'' are Waves: First Quadrature Observations of an Extreme Ultraviolet Wave from STEREO . 700 , L182 . https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L182 . 2009ApJ...700L.182P . barticle

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    , Ratcliffe , H

    barticle Reid , H.A.S. , Ratcliffe , H. : 2014 , A review of solar type III radio bursts . Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 14 , 773 . https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/14/7/003 . barticle

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    , Stefan , J.T

    barticle Sadykov , V.M. , Stefan , J.T. , Kosovichev , A.G. , Stejko , A.M. , Kowalski , A.F. , Allred , J.C. , Kerr , G.S. : 2024 , Can Proton Beam Heating Flare Models Explain Sunquakes? 960 , 80 . https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cf3 . 2024ApJ...960...80S . barticle

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    , Schou , J

    barticle Scherrer , P.H. , Schou , J. , Bush , R.I. , Kosovichev , A.G. , Bogart , R.S. , Hoeksema , J.T. , Liu , Y. , Duvall , T.L. , Zhao , J. , Title , A.M. , Schrijver , C.J. , Tarbell , T.D. , Tomczyk , S. : 2012 , The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) Investigation ...

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    , Kosovichev , A.G

    barticle Sharykin , I.N. , Kosovichev , A.G. : 2020 , Sunquakes of Solar Cycle 24 . 895 , 76 . https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab88d1 . 2020ApJ...895...76S . barticle

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    , Kosovichev , A.G

    barticle Stefan , J.T. , Kosovichev , A.G. : 2020 , Estimation of Key Sunquake Parameters through Hydrodynamic Modeling and Cross-correlation Analysis . 895 , 65 . https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab88ae . 2020ApJ...895...65S . barticle

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    , Kosovichev , A

    botherref Stefan , J. , Kosovichev , A. : 2025, An Acoustic Model for Sunquakes Unifying the Solar Interior and Atmosphere . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.06848. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.06848 . 2025arXiv250906848S . botherref

    2025 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    , Chen , F

    barticle Tan , B. , Chen , F. , Zhang , Y. , Tan , C. , Huang , J. , Yan , Y. : 2023 , Drifting quasi-periodic pulsations of solar microwave bursts and their physical origin . Advances in Space Research 71 , 684 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.10.054 . barticle

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    , Bobra , M.G

    barticle The SunPy Community , Barnes , W.T. , Bobra , M.G. , Christe , S.D. , Freij , N. , Hayes , L.A. , Ireland , J. , Mumford , S. , Perez-Suarez , D. , Ryan , D.F. , Shih , A.Y. , Chanda , P. , Glogowski , K. , Hewett , R. , Hughitt , V.K. , Hill , A. , Hiware , K. , Ingl...

    2020

  30. [38]

    , Starr , R

    barticle Thomas , R.J. , Starr , R. , Crannell , C.J. : 1985 , Expressions to Determine Temperatures and Emission Measures for Solar X-Ray Events from Goes Measurements . 95 , 323 . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00152409 . 1985SoPh...95..323T . barticle

    1985 doi

  31. [39]

    , Plunkett , S.P

    barticle Thompson , B.J. , Plunkett , S.P. , Gurman , J.B. , Newmark , J.S. , St. Cyr , O.C. , Michels , D.J. : 1998 , SOHO/EIT observations of an Earth-directed coronal mass ejection on May 12, 1997 . 25 , 2465 . https://doi.org/10.1029/98GL50429 . 1998GeoRL..25.2465T . barticle

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    : 1968 , Propagation of Hydromagnetic Disturbances in the Solar Corona and Moreton's Wave Phenomenon

    barticle Uchida , Y. : 1968 , Propagation of Hydromagnetic Disturbances in the Solar Corona and Moreton's Wave Phenomenon . 4 , 30 . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00146996 . 1968SoPh....4...30U . barticle

    1968 doi

  33. [41]

    , Kraaikamp , E

    barticle Verbeeck , C. , Kraaikamp , E. , Ryan , D.F. , Podladchikova , O. : 2019 , Solar Flare Distributions: Lognormal Instead of Power Law? 884 , 50 . https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab3425 . 2019ApJ...884...50V . barticle

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    , Warmuth , A

    barticle Vr s nak , B. , Warmuth , A. , Temmer , M. , Veronig , A. , Magdaleni \'c , J. , Hillaris , A. , Karlick \'y , M. : 2006 , Multi-wavelength study of coronal waves associated with the CME-flare event of 3 November 2003 . 448 , 739 . https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20...

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    , Vr s nak , B

    barticle Warmuth , A. , Vr s nak , B. , Aurass , H. , Hanslmeier , A. : 2001 , Evolution of Two EIT/H Moreton Waves . 560 , L105 . https://doi.org/10.1086/324055 . 2001ApJ...560L.105W . barticle

    2001 doi

  36. [44]

    , Vr s nak , B

    barticle Warmuth , A. , Vr s nak , B. , Magdaleni \'c , J. , Hanslmeier , A. , Otruba , W. : 2004 , A multiwavelength study of solar flare waves. I. Observations and basic properties . 418 , 1101 . https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20034332 . 2004A&A...418.1101W . barticle

    2004 doi

  37. [45]

    , Thomas , R.J

    barticle White , S.M. , Thomas , R.J. , Schwartz , R.A. : 2005 , Updated Expressions for Determining Temperatures and Emission Measures from Goes Soft X-Ray Measurements . 227 , 231 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11207-005-2445-z . 2005SoPh..227..231W . barticle

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.