Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Sensitivity of low-degree solar p modes to active and ephemeral regions: frequency shifts back to the Maunder Minimum

T0 review · 1 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 The Sun's p-mode frequencies are at least three times less sensitive to ephemeral-region magnetic fields than to active-region fields.

desk verdict Solid analysis with a real statistical caveat: overlapping BiSON windows likely inflate the precision of the headline confidence bound. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08755 v1 pith:Q4TNCUAC submitted 2019-08-23 astro-ph.SR

William J. Chaplin , Rachel Howe , Sarbani Basu , Yvonne Elsworth , Timothy W. Milbourne , Raphaëlle D. Haywood , Guy R. Davies , Steven J. Hale
show 2 more authors
Andrea Miglio Eddie Ross
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarp-modeshelioseismologymagneticactivityactiveregionsephemeralfrequencyshiftsasteroseismologyMaunderminimum
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

Using 37 years of low-degree solar oscillation frequencies together with magnetic flux estimates from solar magnetograms (solar magnetic maps), the paper separates the Sun's near-surface field into strong active-region flux and weak ephemeral-region flux. Fitting the frequency shifts to a two-component linear model yields a relative sensitivity $\alpha=0.11\pm0.09$, meaning the p-mode frequencies are at least three times less sensitive to ephemeral-region flux than to active-region flux at 95% confidence. Because ephemeral flux dominates what little field remains at cycle minima, the implied quiet-Sun frequency offset is about $0.1\,\mu$Hz or less across recent minima. That offset is negligible compared with the "surface term"—the mismatch between observed and model solar frequencies from imperfect near-surface modeling—so a cycle-minimum Sun should look magnetically quiet to asteroseismology, with the same likely holding for similar Sun-like stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-parameter linear regression model $$\delta\nu(t) = c_0 + c_1\left[F_{\rm AR}(t) + \$\alpha$\,\frac{F_{\rm ER}(t)}{\$\beta$}\right],$$ where $F_{\rm AR}$ and $F_{\rm ER}$ are area-weighted unsigned magnetic fluxes per Carrington rotation, divided into strong (active-region) and weak (ephemeral-region) components by a 15 G threshold on 5-degree patches, and $\beta$ is the assumed fraction of the true ephemeral flux captured by the magnetograms (taken as 0.4). The fit over 37 years of mean frequency shifts from 28 low-degree modes yields the relative sensitivity $\alpha$, and the same coefficients are then applied to literature reconstructions of solar flux back to the Maunder minimum.

What would settle it

A direct test is the comparison of the two adjacent minima: the cycle 22/23 and 23/24 minima had similar active-region flux but a difference of roughly $30\times10^{14}\,\mathrm{Wb}$ in ephemeral flux, so equal sensitivity to both components would predict a frequency offset of about $0.08\,\mu$Hz. The paper finds no such offset; a clean detection of that offset would overturn the conclusion. A second check is to re-fit the model on data subdivided by mode, cycle phase, or magnetogram threshold and see whether $\alpha$ stays near 0.11 rather than moving systematically.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the relative sensitivity of low-degree p-mode frequencies to the weak-field ephemeral-region component is small: fitting the linear model to 37 years of data gives $\alpha = 0.11 \pm 0.09$, so the frequencies are at least three times less sensitive to ephemeral-region flux than to active-region flux at 95% confidence. The same fit implies that cycle-to-cycle frequency swings are dominated by the active-region flux, while the residual offset at cycle minima—set mainly by ephemeral flux—has been about $\approx 0.1\,\mu$Hz or less across recent minima. The paper concludes that near-surface magnetic activity at cycle minimum produces a frequency offset that is negligible compared with the surface term, so the Sun at minimum should behave like a magnetically quiet star, and the same should hold for Sun-like stars of comparable activity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the average frequency shift is fully captured by a linear combination of the two flux measures with one fixed sensitivity ratio, so any dependence of that ratio on mode, cycle phase, spatial distribution, or weak flux missed by the magnetograms would not bias the fitted value of $\alpha$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The swing in p-mode frequencies from cycle minimum to maximum is controlled predominantly by changes in active-region flux, not by ephemeral-region flux.
  • At cycle minima over the last few cycles, the mean frequency offset from a magnetically quiet Sun has been about $0.1\,\mu$Hz or less—roughly a third or less of the total cycle swing.
  • At cycle minimum, near-surface magnetic activity contributes negligibly to the frequency offset compared with the surface term, so the Sun at minimum should approximate a magnetically quiet star.
  • Extending the fitted sensitivities to reconstructed fluxes back to the end of the Maunder minimum, the predicted offsets and cycle swings shrink toward zero as the ephemeral flux vanishes.
  • For other Sun-like stars with similar activity, cycle-minimum activity-induced frequency shifts should likewise be small relative to model-frequency mismatches, simplifying asteroseismic modeling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension: stars whose magnetic activity is dominated by weak, dispersed fields rather than concentrated active regions should show much smaller p-mode frequency shifts per unit of activity proxy; multi-year asteroseismic observations of Sun-like stars could test this ratio directly.
  • The paper's logic also implies a calibration strategy: adopt cycle-minimum frequencies as the quiet-star reference and assign the remaining offset to the surface term, which is a more principled anchor than mixing activity levels when comparing observed and model frequencies.
  • The Maunder-minimum extrapolation rests on the model's assumption that ephemeral flux is seeded by active-region emergence, so the predicted zero offset at the end of the Maunder minimum is tied to that seeding rule; an independent model of weak-field emergence during grand minima could leave a small residual shift even then.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses 37 years of BiSON low-degree p-mode frequency shifts together with WSO and HMI magnetograms to separate the frequency response to active-region (AR) and ephemeral-region (ER) magnetic flux. They fit the linear model of Eq. (1): δν = c0 + c1 [F_AR + α (F_ER/β)], finding α = 0.11 ± 0.09 (stat) ± 0.02 (sys), and conclude that p-mode frequencies are at least three times less sensitive to ER than to AR flux at 95% confidence. Using the Vieira & Solanki (2010) flux reconstruction, they estimate that frequency shifts at cycle minima have been ≤0.1 μHz over recent minima and tend to zero at the Maunder Minimum, implying activity-related shifts are negligible compared with the surface term for Sun-like stars.

Significance. If the result holds, it gives a direct empirical constraint on the relative sensitivity of low-degree p modes to weak versus strong near-surface magnetic fields, with direct implications for interpreting activity-cycle frequency shifts in the Sun and in other Sun-like stars. The paper includes several strengths: an independent HMI cross-check of the flux separation, a systematic uncertainty on the β correction, and artificial-data recovery tests. The headline confidence statement, however, depends on an error treatment that needs to be justified.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3, Eq. (1)] The quoted statistical error α = 0.11 ± 0.09 appears to treat the individual BiSON mean shifts as independent, but these shifts are computed from 1-year timeseries offset by 3 months, so consecutive points share 9 months of data and the residuals are strongly autocorrelated. The paper does not report a correction for this serial correlation (e.g., a Newey-West/HAC estimator, a block bootstrap, or an explicit overlap covariance). With autocorrelation ρ ≈ 0.75, the effective number of independent samples is roughly N(1−ρ)/(1+ρ) ≈ 21 instead of ~150, inflating the standard error by a factor of about 2.6. In that case the one-sided 95% upper bound on α becomes approximately 0.11 + 1.645 × (0.09 × 2.6) ≈ 0.49, which no longer supports the abstract's claim that the p modes are 'at least three times less sensitive (at 95% confidence).' The point estimate remains suggestive, but a robust-errors analysis (or a covariance matrix that accounts for the overlap) is required to support the central confidence statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3] The artificial-data recovery tests are mentioned but not described; please provide a brief description of the setup (number of realizations, injected α values) and the recovery statistics, or a reference to a companion paper.
  2. [§4 and Fig. 3] The grey error envelope is said to capture both parameter and open-flux uncertainties, but the relative contributions are not quantified; please state them.
  3. [Abstract and §4] The phrase 'at least three times less sensitive (at 95% confidence)' should explicitly state whether this is a one-sided or two-sided confidence bound; the current wording is ambiguous.
  4. [References] The reference to 'Haywood et al (in prep)' is too vague for a published paper; please update it, if possible, or give details on how to obtain the companion analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: the central sensitivity parameter is a regression fit to independent BiSON and magnetogram data, and the Maunder Minimum extrapolation uses external flux reconstructions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity, alpha, is defined by Eq. (1) and estimated by a multiple linear regression of observed mean p-mode frequency shifts (BiSON) on measured active-region and ephemeral-region fluxes (WSO/HMI). This is an empirical fit, not a derivation of a prediction from an input that already contains the answer. The abstract's confidence statement is a statistical claim about the fitted alpha; although the overlapping 1-year/3-month time series may inflate the effective sample size (a correctness risk rather than a circularity), the fit itself is not self-referential. The 'predictions' of cycle-minimum offsets and historical shifts back to the Maunder Minimum evaluate the fitted Eq. (1) at input fluxes from the published Vieira & Solanki (2010) reconstruction, which is external to this paper and not derived from the fitted alpha. The in-sample nature of the cycle-minimum estimates means they are not out-of-sample tests, but the paper does not use those estimates to justify alpha; it presents them as implications of the fit. Prior self-citations (Howe et al. 2017; Hale et al. 2016; Milbourne et al. 2019) supply data and calibration methods, not an unverified uniqueness theorem or a forced choice of ansatz; the linear model is stated as an explicit assumption in the text. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so no circularity is found.

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

The paper is an observational calibration; it introduces no new physical entities. Its central result depends on a small set of fitted parameters (α, c1, c0) and on modeling assumptions about the linear flux-response and the flux calibration. All are stated explicitly, and the most important ones are tested or argued to be conservative.

free parameters (5)
  • α (relative sensitivity of p-mode frequencies to ER vs AR flux) = 0.11 ± 0.09 (stat) ± 0.02 (sys)
    Central result of the paper, obtained by multiple linear regression of BiSON frequency shifts on WSO AR and ER flux time series (Eq. 1, Section 3).
  • c1 (frequency shift per unit AR flux) = 7.9 ± 0.7 nHz per 10^14 Wb
    Slope of the linear regression; converts AR flux to frequency shift.
  • c0 (zero-flux frequency offset) = not reported numerically
    Intercept of the regression model; absorbs constant offsets.
  • β (fraction of ER flux captured by magnetograms) = 0.4 (assumed)
    Taken from literature (Krivova & Solanki 2004; Vieira & Solanki 2010); not fitted here. Affects inferred ER flux and hence α, but conclusions are robust to its uncertainty.
  • AR/ER flux threshold = 15 G
    Selected after testing 10-30 G to match Harvey (1994) and Tapping et al. (2007); a data-processing choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Frequency shifts are a linear function of the AR and ER magnetic flux (Eq. 1, Section 2).
    Stated explicitly: 'we make the reasonable assumption that use of a linear dependence is valid'. The authors note a quadratic dependence would make the ER contribution even smaller.
  • domain assumption Total magnetic fluxes in the AR and ER components determine the frequency shifts of the low-degree modes.
    Assumes no other time-varying process (e.g., deeper magnetic field) contributes significantly to the observed shifts; the paper notes deeper field could matter but is not included.
  • domain assumption WSO magnetograms thresholded at 15 G and corrected with β=0.4 provide reliable AR and ER flux time series.
    Flux estimates are central to the regression; cross-checked with HMI for cycle 24, and threshold tested over 10-30 G.
  • domain assumption The Vieira & Solanki (2010) model reconstructions give faithful AR, ER, and open flux over the past 300 years.
    The Maunder-Minimum frequency-shift reconstruction is computed from these fluxes; the authors state the estimates rest on the fidelity of the model predictions.
  • domain assumption A single relative sensitivity α applies to the mean frequency shift of all 28 low-degree modes.
    The regression uses the mean shift over l=0-2 modes; any mode-dependence of α is averaged over.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity of low-degree solar p modes to active and ephemeral regions: frequency shifts back to the Maunder Minimum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4TNCUAC

@misc{pith2026190808755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity of low-degree solar p modes to active and ephemeral regions: frequency shifts back to the Maunder Minimum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4TNCUAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08755}
}
abstract

We explore the sensitivity of the frequencies of low-degree solar p-modes to near-surface magnetic flux on different spatial scales and strengths, specifically to active regions with strong magnetic fields and ephemeral regions with weak magnetic fields. We also use model reconstructions from the literature to calculate average frequency offsets back to the end of the Maunder minimum. We find that the p-mode frequencies are at least three times less sensitive (at 95% confidence) to the ephemeral-region field than they are to the active-region field. Frequency shifts between activity cycle minima and maxima are controlled predominantly by the change of active region flux. Frequency shifts at cycle minima (with respect to a magnetically quiet Sun) are determined largely by the ephemeral flux, and are estimated to have been $0.1\,\rm \mu Hz$ or less over the last few minima. We conclude that at epochs of cycle minimum, frequency shifts due to near-surface magnetic activity are negligible compared to the offsets between observed and model frequencies that arise from inaccurate modelling of the near-surface layers (the so-called surface term). The implication is that this will be the case for other Sun-like stars with similar activity, which has implications for asteroseismic modelling of stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08755 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: Measured AR (black dashed line) and ER (black dot-dashed line) fluxes, and total measured flux (black solid line). The grey dot-dashed line shows the inferred total ER flux, i.e., having taken into account that not all the ER flux is captured by the observations. The inferred total flux (the sum of the measured AR and inferred ER) is shown in solid grey. Also shown are the numbers of each activity cycle. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Measured/inferred fluxes (from the magnetograms) [in black] and model predictions of the fluxes (from Vieira & Solanki 2010) [in grey]. The AR fluxes are plotted with dashed lines, the ER fluxes with dot-dashed lines, and the total fluxes with solid lines. The model prediction includes an explicit contribution from open flux, shown here by the dotted grey line. 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year 0 20 40 60 Flux… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left-panel: Vieira & Solanki (2010) prediction of the AR, ER and open flux over the last 300 years. Right-hand panel: predicted absolute frequency shift implied by use of Equation 1, with the ER and AR fluxes in the top panel used as inputs with the coefficients fixed to the above-mentioned best-fitting values. The error envelope captures uncertainties on the best-fitting model parameters, and uncertainty over how t… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., Hildner E., Pizzo V

    Arge C. N., Hildner E., Pizzo V. J., Harvey J. W., 2002, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2001JA000503 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002JGRA..107.1319A 107, 1319

    doi:10.1029/2001ja000503 2002

  2. [2]

    H., Gizon L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...568A.123B 568, A123

    Ball W. H., Gizon L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424325 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...568A.123B 568, A123

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424325 2014

  3. [3]

    M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-017-1068-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SoPh..292...67B 292, 67

    Broomhall A. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-017-1068-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SoPh..292...67B 292, 67

    work page doi:10.1007/s11207-017-1068-5 2017

  4. [4]

    Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 1986, Seismology of the Sun and Other Stars . p. 145

    work page 1986

  5. [5]

    Duvall Jr. T. L., Wilcox J. M., Svalgaard L., Scherrer P. H., McIntosh P. S., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00150874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977SoPh...55...63D 55, 63

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00150874 1977

  6. [6]

    A., Goode P

    Dziembowski W. A., Goode P. R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/429712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...625..548D 625, 548

    work page doi:10.1086/429712 2005

  7. [7]

    R., McLeod C

    Elsworth Y., Howe R., Isaak G. R., McLeod C. P., New R., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1038/345322a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.345..322E 345, 322

    doi:10.1038/345322a0 1990

  8. [8]

    K., Unruh Y

    Fligge M., Solanki S. K., Unruh Y. C., 2000, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A\

    work page 2000

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    A., Mathur S., Salabert D., Ballot J., R \'e gulo C., Metcalfe T

    Garc \' a R. A., Mathur S., Salabert D., Ballot J., R \'e gulo C., Metcalfe T. S., Baglin A., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1191064 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...329.1032G 329, 1032

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    O., 1990, Comments on Helioseismic Inference

    Gough D. O., 1990, Comments on Helioseismic Inference . p. 283, @doi 10.1007/3-540-53091-6

    1990 doi

  3. [11]

    O., Thompson M

    Gough D. O., Thompson M. J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/242.1.25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990MNRAS.242...25G 242, 25

    1990 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Howe R., Chaplin W

    Hale S. J., Howe R., Chaplin W. J., Davies G. R., Elsworth Y. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-015-0810-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SoPh..291....1H 291, 1

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    L., 1994, in Rutten R

    Harvey K. L., 1994, in Rutten R. J., Schrijver C. J., eds, NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C Vol. 433, NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C. p. 347

    1994

  6. [14]

    Harvey K., 2000, Solar Active Regions: Ephemeral . p. 2275, @doi 10.1888/0333750888/2275

    2000 doi

  7. [15]

    D., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw187 , 457, 3637

    Haywood R. D., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw187 , 457, 3637

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Chaplin W

    Howe R., Davies G. R., Chaplin W. J., Elsworth Y., Basu S., Hale S. J., Ball W. H., Komm R. W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1318 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1935H 470, 1935

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Kiefer R., Roth M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3f7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854...74K 854, 74

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Kiefer R., Schad A., Davies G., Roth M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...598A..77K 598, A77

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591667 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683L.175K 683, L175

    Kjeldsen H., Bedding T. R., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/591667 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683L.175K 683, L175

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Solanki S

    Krivova N. A., Solanki S. K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...417.1125K 417, 1125

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Balmaceda L., Solanki S

    Krivova N. A., Balmaceda L., Solanki S. K., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066725 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Woodard M

    Libbrecht K. G., Woodard M. F., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1038/345779a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990Natur.345..779L 345, 779

    1990 doi

  15. [23]

    Meunier N., Lagrange A.-M., Desort M., 2010, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014199 , 519, A66

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    W., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab064a , 874, 107

    Milbourne T. W., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab064a , 874, 107

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    T., Tovar G., Foreman-Mackey D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9e00 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851..116M 851, 116

    Montet B. T., Tovar G., Foreman-Mackey D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9e00 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851..116M 851, 116

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    L., Regulo C., Roca Cortes T., 1989, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&A...224..253P 224, 253

    Palle P. L., Regulo C., Roca Cortes T., 1989, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&A...224..253P 224, 253

    1989

  19. [27]

    D., Thompson B

    Pesnell W. D., Thompson B. J., Chamberlin P. C., 2012, @doi [Solar Physics] 10.1007/s11207-011-9841-3 , 275, 3

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Lockwood G

    Radick R. R., Lockwood G. W., Henry G. W., Hall J. C., Pevtsov A. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaae3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...75R 855, 75

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Salabert D., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Santos A. R. G., Cunha M. S., Avelino P. P., Chaplin W. J., Campante T. L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1348 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461..224S 461, 224

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Santos A. R. G., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aac9b6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..237...17S 237, 17

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Schou J., et al., 2012, @doi [Solar Physics] 10.1007/s11207-011-9842-2 , 275, 229

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    K., Sch \"u ssler M., Fligge M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...383..706S 383, 706

    Solanki S. K., Sch \"u ssler M., Fligge M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011790 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...383..706S 383, 706

    2002 doi

  26. [34]

    F., Boteler D., Charbonneau P., Crouch A., Manson A., Paquette H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-007-9047-x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007SoPh..246..309T 246, 309

    Tapping K. F., Boteler D., Charbonneau P., Crouch A., Manson A., Paquette H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-007-9047-x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007SoPh..246..309T 246, 309

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    Vieira L. E. A., Solanki S. K., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913276 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    F., Noyes R

    Woodard M. F., Noyes R. W., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1038/318449a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985Natur.318..449W 318, 449

    1985 doi

  29. [37]

    F., Kuhn J

    Woodard M. F., Kuhn J. R., Murray N., Libbrecht K. G., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186056 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...373L..81W 373, L81

    1991 doi

  30. [38]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

  31. [39]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded nlinproc natbib The nlinproc class already includes natbib cod...

  32. [40]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  33. [41]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

    1900

Pith tools

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