Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

A Correlation in the Waiting-time Distributions of Solar Flares

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In two isolated active regions, the time after a solar flare correlates with the flare's magnitude, while the time before it does not.

desk verdict A nice exploratory hint with an honest caveat, but the saturation correlation is not established; GOES obscuration alone can produce it. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08749 v2 pith:JFK43FIO submitted 2019-08-23 astro-ph.SR

Hugh S. Hudson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarflareswaiting-timedistributionsGOESsoftX-raybuild-upandreleasemagneticenergystoragerelaxationoscillatoractiveregionsflarestatistics
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

The paper claims that in two isolated solar active regions, the longer the wait after a flare, the larger the next flare tends to be, while the wait before a flare shows no such relationship. This 'saturation' ordering is what a build-up-and-release process predicts if a reservoir of coronal magnetic free energy fills toward a threshold and releases only part of its content when triggered. Earlier searches for a waiting-time/magnitude correlation had come up empty, so a real effect would supply the first observational support for the standard view that flares draw on slowly stored magnetic energy. The author also flags a competing bias: bright flare backgrounds can hide weak events in the GOES catalog, which could create the correlation artificially, and the result rests on the completeness of that event list.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the distinction between two orderings of the waiting-time/magnitude relationship: the 'reset' limit, where an event empties the stored energy and the time before the event should correlate with its size, and the 'saturation' limit, where a fixed non-zero threshold triggers a partial release and the time after the event carries the correlation. The paper builds a one-parameter toy model of a relaxation oscillator with random triggering to illustrate these alternatives, then tests the data with Pearson correlation coefficients and power-law fits of the form $W \propto (\Delta t)^\alpha$, with $W$ the GOES peak flux and $\Delta t$ the waiting time after the flare. The 'saturation' ordering is the machinery that carries the argument: it produces strong correlations in the two selected intervals and several individual days, and the 'reset' ordering does not.

What would settle it

Recompute the interval-size correlations from the primary, background-subtracted GOES 1–8 Å time series with a fixed detection threshold for the same two active regions and dates; if the saturation correlation disappears while the reset correlation remains null, the claim is refuted. A cleaner check is to compare the same intervals against an independent hard X-ray flare list, which is far less affected by soft X-ray background obscuration and should reproduce the saturation correlation if it is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is an 'after' correlation in GOES soft X-ray flare waiting times: in the chosen intervals, the peak flux of a flare is strongly correlated with the waiting time until the next flare, with Pearson coefficients of about 0.78 for the 6 December 2006 sequence in AR 10930 and 0.93 for the 8–9 July 1996 sequence in AR 7978, while the 'before' (reset) correlations are not significant. The paper interprets this as the signature of a build-up-and-release mechanism in which a slowly growing store of magnetic free energy releases a fraction of itself when a threshold is reached, rather than being fully emptied. The full multi-day AR 10930 series shows no correlation (r = 0.06 ± 0.48), and the effect appears only intermittently on individual days, which the author reads as noise or a slowly varying driver masking the correlation on longer time scales. Because the same GOES database has a systematic obscuration bias, the paper treats the correlation as preliminary and proposes several ways to test it further.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the GOES event list being complete and unbiased enough that the saturation correlation is not manufactured by the obscuration bias the paper itself identifies, in which weak flares are missed against the bright background following large events; it also depends on the two selected intervals and the day-by-day choices being representative rather than post-hoc picks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If real, the saturation correlation is the first observational evidence that a build-up-and-release process operates in solar flares, supporting the consensus view that coronal magnetic energy storage lies behind flare energy release.
  • The ordering selects among BUR variants: because the correlation appears after the flare and not before, a flare does not empty the reservoir but releases a fraction when a threshold is reached.
  • The intermittency of the correlation, strong on some days but absent in the full month-long series, implies the effect operates on roughly day-long time scales and can be masked by a slowly varying energy input.
  • If the correlation holds, the waiting time after a flare carries information about the stored free energy level, which could improve statistical forecasts of the next flare magnitude from catalog data alone.
  • The result challenges avalanche-style models that predict no waiting-time/magnitude correlation, pushing them to account for a threshold-like saturation process.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to search for the same 'after' correlation in stellar superflare waiting times or other repeating transient catalogs; if the mechanism is generic, the slope $\alpha \approx 1$ should reappear there.
  • Because only selected intervals and individual days show the effect, a testable extension is to bin the AR 10930 data by background level or photospheric flux emergence; if the correlation strength tracks those drivers, the obscuration explanation weakens and the physical BUR interpretation strengthens.
  • A formal stochastic model of a reservoir forced by random input with a fixed release threshold would predict the waiting-time distribution conditional on the preceding flare size; comparing that prediction with Table 1's day-by-day slopes would test the one-parameter toy model without new observations.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims to have found observational evidence for a 'saturation' build-up-and-release (BUR) process in solar flares: in two isolated active regions (NOAA 7978 and 10930), the waiting time after a flare correlates with the GOES soft X-ray peak flux of that flare, while the waiting time before a flare does not. The analysis uses the tabulated NOAA GOES event list, computes Pearson correlations for individual days or selected intervals, and reports several strongly positive 'after' correlations. The paper acknowledges that the GOES catalog suffers from under-reporting of weak flares during elevated background ('obscuration') and that no correction was applied, and it finds no correlation in the full AR 10930 time series.

Significance. If the claimed correlation were robust, it would be the first direct observational support for a BUR mechanism in flares, and the identification of the 'saturation' rather than 'reset' ordering would constrain theoretical models. The paper's strengths are the use of two well-isolated active regions, the clear presentation of the toy model (Figure 4), and the explicit discussion of catalog limitations and proposed follow-up observations. However, the current evidence is not convincing because of uncorrected catalog bias, post-hoc selection of intervals, and implausibly small quoted uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figures 5-6 and Table 1] The quoted uncertainties on the Pearson correlation coefficients are not physically plausible. For the 18-point sample of 6 December 2006, the standard error of r=0.779 under the usual normal approximation is (1-r^2)/sqrt(N) ≈ 0.09, not 0.0002 as reported. Similarly, Table 1 lists δRs=0.01 for r=0.61 with N=18, about an order of magnitude smaller than the normal-approximation value of ≈0.15. The significance statements throughout the paper therefore need to be recomputed with a correct estimator (e.g., Fisher z-transform or bootstrap), and all quoted uncertainties should be updated accordingly.
  2. [Sections 2 and 4] The 'obscuration' effect is acknowledged but never corrected. During the elevated GOES background after X-class flares, weak events are systematically missed, so the measured waiting time after a large flare is inflated. This produces precisely the saturation correlation claimed. The observation that the strongest daily correlations in AR 10930 occur on days with X-class flares (Table 1, Figure 8) and that the full 123-event series shows r=0.06±0.48 (Section 3) is consistent with the bias dominating the signal. The paper needs a quantitative treatment, e.g., analysis of the primary GOES light curves with a background model and injected synthetic flares to estimate detection completeness as a function of background level.
  3. [Section 3, Figures 5-8 and Table 1] The correlation is established only in post-hoc selected intervals: one 12-hour interval for AR 7978 (Figure 6) and the best days among an 11-day scan for AR 10930 (Figures 7-8, Table 1). Given that 22 correlation coefficients were computed (11 days times two orderings) plus the 12-hour window, the probability of finding a few nominally significant coefficients by chance is non-negligible, and the paper does not apply any multiple-testing correction. A robust claim requires either a pre-specified analysis plan or a global statistic (e.g., a permutation test over the full time series) rather than reporting the best-selected windows.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, lower panel of Figure 7] The fitting method for the power-law slope α is not described; state whether the fit is in log-log space, how the uncertainties are obtained, and whether the slopes are consistent with α=1.
  2. [Section 6] There is an incomplete citation in the bulleted list of further work: 'e.g., ?' should be replaced with a proper reference for homologous flare sequences.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'relase' (Section 4), 'Theoreticawork' (Section 6), and 'results from' in the abstract; a careful proofread is needed.
  4. [Figure 1] The caption says 'File magnetograms'; please clarify the instrument and wavelength (e.g., full-disk HMI or MDI magnetograms) and acknowledge the data source properly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical correlation test against external GOES data, and the author's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a measured correlation between GOES peak flux and waiting time in two isolated active regions. The data are external (NOAA/SolarSoft GOES event list), and the analysis computes Pearson correlations directly from the tabulated event times and fluxes. The toy model in Figure 4 is explicitly illustrative ('We construct a toy model with these alternative features... Figure 4 illustrates the two alternatives schematically'), and no parameters are fitted to the GOES data, so the observed correlations are not 'predictions' recovered from a fit. The two orderings ('reset' before, 'saturation' after) are both tested, and the paper reports that the saturation ordering correlates while the reset ordering does not; that asymmetry is an empirical outcome, not a definitional tautology. The author's own prior work is cited as motivation (Hudson et al. 1998 suggested the saturation possibility), and the Acknowledgment notes the study 'follows on from preliminary work,' but the confirmation rests on the new GOES measurements, not on that citation. The 'obscuration' effect that could mimic the correlation is openly discussed as a systematic data-selection issue ('no background corrections, and no correction made for the obscuration effect'), which is a correctness risk rather than a circularity: the paper does not define the correlation in terms of the bias, nor does it rename a fitted input as a prediction. There is no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, no ansatz smuggled in by citation, and no known result merely renamed. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted or exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no new physical entities. It relies on standard solar flare theory (coronal magnetic energy storage), a proxy relation between GOES peak flux and flare energy, the isolation and completeness of two active-region event lists, and the validity of the toy model interpretation. The key unverified premise is catalog completeness under variable GOES sensitivity.

free parameters (2)
  • toy model power-law slope = -1.75
    Chosen for the illustrative toy model in Figure 4 to mimic observed flare magnitude distributions; not fitted to the waiting-time data, so not load-bearing for the central claim.
  • fitted slope alpha in day-by-day W vs Delta t fits = around 1
    The slope of log GOES peak flux vs log after-wait for individual days (Figure 7, lower panel). The paper treats it as a hint and does not base the central claim on its precise value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GOES soft X-ray peak flux is a usable proxy for flare energy release
    Stated in Section 2; the paper notes it has unknown variance and systematic bias, but relies on it for all magnitude measures.
  • domain assumption The two active regions, NOAA 7978 and NOAA 10930, are isolated and are the sources of all GOES flares during the studied intervals
    Stated in Section 2; for NOAA 10930 the isolation is credited to a personal communication from M. Georgoulis.
  • domain assumption The NOAA GOES event list is complete enough that missed weak events do not generate the observed correlation
    The paper relies solely on the tabulated NOAA event list (Section 2) and later acknowledges that GOES sensitivity loss for weak events (obscuration) competes with the correlation (Section 5), but does not correct for it.
  • domain assumption Flare energy release follows a build-up and release (BUR) scenario based on coronal magnetic free energy
    Used to interpret the correlation; the paper states this is the consensus view but notes earlier studies did not confirm it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Correlation in the Waiting-time Distributions of Solar Flares." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JFK43FIO

@misc{pith2026190808749,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Correlation in the Waiting-time Distributions of Solar Flares},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JFK43FIO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08749}
}
read the original abstract

In isolated solar active regions, we find that the waiting times between flares correlate with flare magnitudes as determined by the GOES soft X-ray fluxes. A "build-up and release" scenario (BUR) for magnetic energy storage in the solar corona suggests the existence of such a relationship, relating the slowly varying subphotospheric energy sources to the sudden coronal energy releases of flares and CMEs. Substantial amounts of research effort had not previously found any obvious observational evidence for such a BUR process. This has posed a puzzle since coronal magnetic energy storage represents the consensus view of the basic flare mechanism. We have revisited the GOES soft X-ray flare statistics for any evidence of correlations, using two isolated active regions, and have found significant evidence for a "saturation" correlation. Rather than a "reset" form of this relaxation, in which the time \textit{before} a flare correlates with its magnitude, the "saturation" relationship results in the time \textit{after} the flare showing the correlation. The observed correlation competes with the effect of reduced GOES sensitivity, in which weaker events can be under-reported systematically. This complicates the observed correlation, and we discuss several approaches to remedy this.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08749 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The GOES soft X-ray time history for NOAA active region 7978, July 1996. The diamonds show the listed GOES peak fluxes for flares, all from AR 7978, and a close study reveals some book-keeping errors that inevitably confuse the time-series analysis. Note also the large dynamic range of the soft X-ray flux, which necessitates the usual log scaling here. The diamonds show the times and peak fluxes obtained from the NO… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The GOES soft X-ray time history for NOAA active region 10930, December 2006, in the same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Toy models for two alternative patterns for an interval-size relationship implying a Build-Up/Release (BUR) scenario (Hudson et al. 1998). In the “reset” case (left) the parameter builds up gradually to a randomly specified time, and then resets to zero. In this case t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: “saturation” and “reset” correlations for the flare sequence SOL2006-12-06T01 through SOL2006-12-06T23 in NOAA AR 10930. The “saturation” ordering (left panel) shows a strong correlation, whereas the “reset” ordering shows none: Pearson correlation coefficients are 0.7…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Upper, Pearson correlation coefficients for both “saturation” (solid) and “reset” (dotted) correlations for flares on individual days in the disk passage of the isolated region AR 10930. In some cases the small uncertainties in the “saturation’ correlations make the ra…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The five individual days with the strongest correlation coefficients in the GOES time history of AR 10930 (boldface in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-014-0054-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SSRv..198...47A 198, 47

    Aschwanden M. J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-014-0054-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SSRv..198...47A 198, 47

    doi:10.1007/s11214-014-0054-6 2016

  2. [2]

    A., 1994, PhD thesis, University of New Hampshire

    Biesecker D. A., 1994, PhD thesis, University of New Hampshire

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    A., Ryan J

    Biesecker D. A., Ryan J. M., Fishman G. J., 1994, in Ryan J., Vestrand W. T., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 294, High-Energy Solar Phenomena - a New Era of Spacecraft Measurements. pp 183--186, @doi 10.1063/1.45188

    work page doi:10.1063/1.45188 1994

  4. [4]

    J., Chen J., Garren D

    Cargill P. J., Chen J., Garren D. A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173863 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...423..854C 423, 854

    work page doi:10.1086/173863 1994

  5. [5]

    Crosby N., Vilmer N., Lund N., Sunyaev R., 1998, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    G., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/71 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...759...71E 759, 71

    Emslie A. G., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/71 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...759...71E 759, 71

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/71 2012

  7. [7]

    Energy Balance in Avalanche Models for Solar Flares

    Farhang N., Wheatland M. S., Safari H., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190900195F p. arXiv:1909.00195

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    J., Meegan C

    Fishman G. J., Meegan C. A., Wilson R. B., Paciesas W. S., Pendleton G. N., 1992, in NASA Conference Publication. pp 26--34

    work page 1992

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    L., Handy B

    Freeland S. L., Handy B. N., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1005038224881 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998SoPh..182..497F 182, 497

    1998 doi

  2. [10]

    Gaizauskas V., Svestka Z., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00167354 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987SoPh..114..389G 114, 389

    1987 doi

  3. [11]

    K., Titov V

    Georgoulis M. K., Titov V. S., Miki \'c Z., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/61 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...761...61G 761, 61

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Ginoux J.-M., Letellier C., 2012, @doi [Chaos] 10.1063/1.3670008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Chaos..22b3120G 22, 023120

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    S., 2007, in Heinzel P., Dorotovi c I., Rutten R

    Hudson H. S., 2007, in Heinzel P., Dorotovi c I., Rutten R. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 368, The Physics of Chromospheric Plasmas. p. 365 ( @eprint arXiv 0704.0823 )

    2007 arXiv

  6. [14]

    S., Labonte B

    Hudson H. S., Labonte B. J., Sterling A. C., Watanabe T., 1998, in Watanabe T., Kosugi T., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 229, Observational Plasma Astrophysics: Five Years of Yohkoh and Beyond. p. 237

    1998

  7. [15]

    Hudson H., Fletcher L., McTiernan J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-013-0384-7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SoPh..289.1341H 289, 1341

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    W., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA087iA05p03439 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982JGR....87.3439K 87, 3439

    Kahler S. W., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1029/JA087iA05p03439 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982JGR....87.3439K 87, 3439

    1982 doi

  9. [17]

    L., Zaitsev V

    Khodachenko M. L., Zaitsev V. V., Kislyakov A. G., Stepanov A. V., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-009-9538-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009SSRv..149...83K 149, 83

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    G., Zharkova V

    Kosovichev A. G., Zharkova V. V., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1038/30629 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998Natur.393..317K 393, 317

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    Kubo Y., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-008-9135-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008SoPh..248...85K 248, 85

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Dennis B

    Kucera T. A., Dennis B. R., Schwartz R. A., Shaw D., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...475..338K 475, 338

    1997 doi

  13. [21]

    Lewin W. H. G., et al., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/182188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...207L..95L 207, L95

    1976 doi

  14. [22]

    W., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00153836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996SoPh..169...91L 169, 91

    Longcope D. W., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00153836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996SoPh..169...91L 169, 91

    1996 doi

  15. [23]

    T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175885 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...447..416L 447, 416

    Lu E. T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175885 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...447..416L 447, 416

    1995 doi

  16. [24]

    T., Hamilton R

    Lu E. T., Hamilton R. J., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186180 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...380L..89L 380, L89

    1991 doi

  17. [25]

    Lund N., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00651391 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981Ap&SS..75..145L 75, 145

    1981 doi

  18. [26]

    Melatos A., Howitt G., Fulgenzi W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad228 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863..196M 863, 196

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    B., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176228 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...451..391M 451, 391

    Melrose D. B., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176228 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...451..391M 451, 391

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    B., 2017, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1002/2017JA024035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JGRA..122.7963M 122, 7963

    Melrose D. B., 2017, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1002/2017JA024035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JGRA..122.7963M 122, 7963

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/L11 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693L..11M 693, L11

    Mewaldt R. A., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/L11 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693L..11M 693, L11

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    E., Wang Q

    Middleditch J., Marshall F. E., Wang Q. D., Gotthelf E. V., Zhang W., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508736 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...652.1531M 652, 1531

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    W., Parnell C

    Reid J., Hood A. W., Parnell C. E., Browning P. K., Cargill P. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A..84R 615, A84

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    S., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156227 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...222.1104R 222, 1104

    Rosner R., Vaiana G. S., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156227 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...222.1104R 222, 1104

    1978 doi

  25. [33]

    M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1029/94GL00003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994GeoRL..21..241R 21, 241

    Rust D. M., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1029/94GL00003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994GeoRL..21..241R 21, 241

    1994 doi

  26. [34]

    Shimizu T., 1995, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASJ...47..251S 47, 251

    1995

  27. [35]

    T., Liu Y., Wiegelmann T., Hayashi K., Chen Q., Thalmann J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/77 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748...77S 748, 77

    Sun X., Hoeksema J. T., Liu Y., Wiegelmann T., Hayashi K., Chen Q., Thalmann J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/77 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...748...77S 748, 77

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-009-9387-9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009SoPh..258..141T 258, 141

    Tranquille C., Hurley K., Hudson H. S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-009-9387-9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009SoPh..258..141T 258, 141

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    Wang H., Ewell M. W. J., Zirin H., Ai G., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173901 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...424..436W 424, 436

    1994 doi

  30. [38]

    S., 2000a, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1005240712931 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000SoPh..191..381W 191, 381

    Wheatland M. S., 2000a, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1005240712931 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000SoPh..191..381W 191, 381

    doi

  31. [39]

    S., 2000b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312739 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536L.109W 536, L109

    Wheatland M. S., 2000b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312739 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536L.109W 536, L109

    doi

  32. [40]

    S., 2001, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001SoPh..203...87W 203, 87

    Wheatland M. S., 2001, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001SoPh..203...87W 203, 87

    2001

  33. [41]

    S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1324 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1324W 710, 1324

    Wheatland M. S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1324 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1324W 710, 1324

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Thomas R

    White S. M., Thomas R. J., Schwartz R. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-005-2445-z , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SoPh..227..231W 227, 231

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    V., Stepanov A

    Zaitsev V. V., Stepanov A. V., Urpo S., Pohjolainen S., 1998, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A

    1998

  36. [44]

    van der Pol B., van der Mark J., 1927, @doi [ ] 10.1038/120363a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1927Natur.120..363V 120, 363

    1927 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.