Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Conditioning of the solar corona due to large flares

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the type of a major solar flare—confined or eruptive—can be predicted from the preflare coronal magnetic state, and demonstrates a joint criterion that is correct for 94.6% of a 37-event sample.

desk verdict Large, carefully done NLFF energy/helicity survey of 231 flares; the descriptive results are solid, but the headline >90% prediction is in-sample and the combined decision rule is ambiguous, so that claim needs out-of-sample validation or an honest downgrade. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05116 v2 pith:HWKQDWS3 submitted 2025-01-09 astro-ph.SR

Julia K. Thalmann , Manu Gupta , Astrid M. Veronig , Yang Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarflarescoronalmassejectionsmagnetichelicityforce-freeextrapolationtorusinstabilityflarepredictioncycle24activeregions
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 argues that whether a major solar flare stays confined or erupts as a coronal mass ejection can be predicted from the corona's preflare state, by combining two measures: the relative magnetic helicity of the current-carrying field and the critical height for torus instability. Using nonlinear force-free field models of 36 active regions around 231 flares of solar cycle 24, the authors find that the joint criterion (helicity ratio at least 0.1 or flux-normalized helicity at least 2.5e-3, plus critical height below 40 megameters) identifies the flare type correctly in 94.6% of 37 major flares. The paper also shows that in the 24 hours before a flare, free magnetic energy tracks the unsigned flux for confined flares, whereas for eruptive flares it tracks the helicity of the current-carrying field. After eruptive X-class flares, energy and helicity budgets require more than 12 hours to return to preflare levels, which may explain why eruptive X-flares rarely repeat within a few hours.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on optimization-based nonlinear force-free (NLFF) magnetic field models built from HMI vector magnetograms, which yield the total magnetic energy $E$, potential energy $E_0$, free energy $E_F$, and the gauge-invariant relative helicity $H_V$ with its decomposition into a volume-threading part $H_{PJ}$ and a current-carrying part $H_J$. The paper then constructs intensive proxies: the free-to-potential energy ratio $E_F/E_0$, the helicity ratio $|H_J|/|H_V|$, and the flux-normalized helicity $|H_J|/\tilde{\phi}^2$, together with the critical height for torus instability $h_{\rm crit}$ derived from the decay index of the strapping field. Superposed epoch analysis aligns the preflare and postflare time series, and dynamic time warping quantifies the similarity of the time evolution of different physical quantities. The predictive rule is the joint threshold combination of $h_{\rm crit}$ with one of the helicity measures.

What would settle it

Take a held-out set of major flares not used to set the thresholds, compute the same NLFF-based helicity proxies and $h_{\rm crit}$ with the same pipeline, and count how often the rule ($h_{\rm crit}<40$ Mm and ($|H_J|/|H_V|\geq0.1$ or $|H_J|/\tilde{\phi}^2\geq2.5\times10^{-3}$)) predicts the observed confined or eruptive outcome; if the accuracy drops well below 90%, the reported generalization is in doubt.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the corona is 'conditioned' differently before confined and eruptive flares, measurable through global nonpotentiality and local stability, and that this conditioning can be used to forecast the outcome. On the basis of 231 flares of GOES class M1 and above, modelled with nonlinear force-free extrapolations, the paper shows that the critical height for torus instability below 40 megameters, combined with either a helicity ratio $|H_J|/|H_V| \geq 0.1$ or a flux-normalized helicity $|H_J|/\tilde{\phi}^2 \geq 2.5\times10^{-3}$, predicts the flare type in 94.6% of the 37-event major-flare subsample. The paper also establishes that total preflare energy and helicity budgets alone do not distinguish flare type: the budgets are similar or even larger before confined flares, while the relative measures do segregate, and the time evolution of free energy relative to flux versus helicity differs by flare type. Postflare, the budgets return to preflare levels within roughly 6 to 12 hours after eruptive M-class flares but take longer after eruptive X-class flares.

Load-bearing premise

The success rate is measured on the same 37 flares from which the thresholds were read off, and for most of those flares the critical height comes from a previous study by the same group, so the 94.6% figure assumes that in-sample thresholds will keep working on flares the model has not seen.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the joint criterion generalizes, flare-type forecasts for major flares could shift from relying on total energy or helicity budgets to relative helicity measures plus the critical height from the strapping field.
  • The result implies that helicity-free confined flares and helicity-rich eruptive flares have observationally distinct preflare coronal states, which can be sensed from photospheric magnetograms alone.
  • The approximately 12-hour replenishment time after eruptive X-class flares implies a physical lower bound on the cadence of repeated eruptive X-class flaring from the same active region.
  • The finding that the free energy tracks unsigned flux before confined flares but current-carrying helicity before eruptive flares suggests that driving mechanisms (flux emergence versus shearing/twisting) may differ systematically between the two flare types.
  • The success rate of 94.6% is conditional on the same thresholds being applied to unseen events; operational use would require demonstrating the rule on independent data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the thresholds were chosen from the same sample on which success is then measured, the 94.6% figure is likely an upper bound; a cross-validated or genuinely out-of-sample test would give a more realistic operational accuracy.
  • The disagreement with an earlier study about whether $|H_J|/|H_V|$ or $|H_J|/\tilde{\phi}^2$ is the better predictor might be resolved by standardizing NLFF model qualification metrics such as the solenoidal energy ratio $E_{\rm div}/E$ across research groups.
  • The postflare replenishment time of more than 12 hours after eruptive X-class flares could be tested against flare-CME catalogs: if the interpretation is right, pairs of eruptive X-class flares from the same active region separated by less than a few hours should be extremely rare.
  • The dynamic time warping similarity result could be turned into a near-real-time precursor indicator: tracking whether $E_F$ follows $\phi_m$ or $|H_J|$ in the hours before a flare may indicate whether an imminent flare is likely to be confined or eruptive.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper models the coronal magnetic field around 231 large (GOES M1 and above) solar flares of solar cycle 24 using nonlinear force-free field extrapolations from HMI vector magnetograms, and from these models computes free magnetic energy and relative helicity budgets together with derived intensive measures. The authors apply superposed epoch analysis and dynamic time warping to characterize the preflare evolution of these quantities, examine flare-related changes and postflare replenishment, and analyze immediate preflare conditions. The central predictive claim is that combining the critical height for torus instability (hcrit < 40 Mm) with a helicity nonpotentiality criterion (|HJ|/|HV| >= 0.1 or |HJ|/phi^2 >= 2.5e-3) predicts whether a major flare is confined or eruptive in 94.6% of the 37 events in sample S_CBetal.

Significance. The assembled dataset is a substantial resource: 231 flares with NLFF model quality metrics explicitly reported (Ediv/E <= 0.08, theta_J, C_erg), and the use of dynamic time warping to compare the preflare time evolution of different coronal quantities is novel in this context. The superposed epoch results on the long-term persistence of preflare nonpotentiality and on postflare replenishment times are interesting and methodologically sound. However, the headline prediction claim, a greater-than-90% success rate for flare-type discrimination, is not yet supported because the thresholds are derived from and evaluated on the same event population, and the combined decision rule is not uniquely specified. With out-of-sample validation, or an explicit reframing as in-sample descriptive statistics, the paper could be a valuable contribution to the statistical study of coronal energy and helicity budgets.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sects. 3.1.1 and 3.2] The critical values EF/E0 = 0.16, |HJ|/|HV| = 0.1, and |HJ|/phi^2 = 2.5e-3 are defined in Sect. 3.1.1 from the superposed epoch distributions of a 37-event subset and are then used in Sect. 3.2 to compute success rates on the overlapping samples S_major and S_CBetal. No cross-validation, held-out set, or posterior predictive check is reported, so the >90% success rate is an in-sample classification result, not an out-of-sample prediction. The abstract and conclusions present the figure as a predictive capability; please either provide out-of-sample validation (for example leave-one-out cross-validation or a training/test split) or explicitly label the result as in-sample and temper the predictive wording.
  2. [Sect. 3.2, hcrit paragraph] The logical form of the combined decision rule is ambiguous. The phrase 'requiring a preflare value of hcrit < 40 Mm as an additional criterion to |HJ|/|HV| >= 0.1 or |HJ|/phi^2 = 2.5e-3' is consistent with both an AND rule (eruptive iff hcrit < 40 AND a helicity criterion holds) and an OR rule (eruptive iff hcrit < 40 OR a helicity criterion holds). The joint distribution of hcrit and the helicity measures is not tabulated, so the reader cannot reproduce the reported 94.6% figure. Please specify the exact rule (e.g., 'eruptive iff hcrit < 40 Mm AND (|HJ|/|HV| >= 0.1 OR |HJ|/phi^2 >= 2.5e-3)') and provide the 2x2 contingency table for the combined classifier.
  3. [Sect. 3.2, quadrant analysis] The quadrant counts are internally inconsistent. The text reports 22, 0, 25, and 3 events in Q1 through Q4, so Q1+Q2 = 22 and Q1+Q4 = 25, yet the following sentences refer to 'the 21 events with |HJ|/phi^2 above the critical value' and 'the 24 events where EF/E0 exceeds the critical value'. The quoted precisions of 95.5% and 96% correspond to 21/22 and 24/25, respectively, so the denominators are misstated. Please correct these counts and ensure all success-rate computations in this section are numerically consistent.
  4. [Sect. 3.2, hcrit threshold and subset] The hcrit values are taken from Baumgartner et al. (2018), a prior study with overlapping authorship, and the 40 Mm cutoff appears to be selected from the distribution of the 37 events in S_CBetal ('The corresponding distribution of preflare values suggests a stronger segregation...'). The paper does not state whether the 40 Mm threshold is physically motivated, pre-registered, or data-driven, and it does not discuss whether the 37-event subset is representative of the 50-event S_major sample. Because the central claim rests on this subset and threshold, please clarify the provenance of the hcrit threshold and the selection criteria for the subset.
  5. [Sect. 3.1, sample definition] The sample definition is contradictory. The text states that requiring a 12-hour preflare window free of major flares leaves 45 events (15 confined, 30 eruptive) and that 'we chose the former of the two here', but Sect. 3.1.1 defines S_SEA as 37 events (11 confined, 26 eruptive). The mismatch between 45 and 37 is not explained, and it affects the reported superposed epoch and DTW analyses in Figs. 5-7 and Table 1. Please clarify the exact sample composition used for those analyses.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 3.2] The text refers to 'all 232 flares' while the abstract and Table 2 list 231 flares; please correct this inconsistency.
  2. [Table 2] The note for S_X1+ reads 'X-class flares (GOES Xlass M1 or larger)'; this appears to be a typo and should be 'GOES class X1 or larger' or similar.
  3. [Sect. 3.1.1] The values EF/E0 = 0.16, |HJ|/|HV| = 0.1, and |HJ|/phi^2 = 2.5e-3 are introduced as 'typical values' and later used as exact cutoffs; please state how these specific numerical values were determined and whether the approximate symbol is intended as a true threshold.
  4. [Notation] The paper uses both |HJ|/phi^2 and |HJ|/tilde-phi^2 notation for the same quantity; please unify the notation for readability.
  5. [Sect. 3.3] In the definitions of eta_EF and eta_HV, one-hour averages are taken 'prior to t = (t0 - 10 min)' and 'one hour after the nominal GOES end time'; please specify whether t0 is the GOES start time and motivate the 10-minute offset.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 94.6% flare-type 'prediction' is an in-sample classification under thresholds read from the same events, with the key hcrit input imported from a self-cited prior study.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 3.1.1 (critical values) and Sect. 3.2 / Table 2 / Fig. 9 (success rates)]
    "Typical values characterizing the corona prior to eruptive flares appear as EF/E0 ≳ 0.16, |HJ|/|HV| ≳ 0.1, and |HJ|/ϕ̃2 ≳ 2.5×10−3 (see horizontal dotted lines the respective panels for reference). ... These values seem to segregate most suitable the mean and median values of the given distributions during the major-flare less 24-hour preflare period and will be referred to as 'critical values' hereafter."

    The thresholds EF/E0 = 0.16, |HJ|/|HV| = 0.1, and |HJ|/ϕ̃2 = 2.5×10−3 are read off the superposed-epoch distributions of the same flares that are later counted as 'correctly predicted' in Table 2 and Fig. 9. No held-out set or cross-validation is reported. The claimed success rates (70%, 68%, and the improvement to 94.6%) are therefore training-set classification rates under thresholds selected from these very events, not out-of-sample predictions. The 'prediction' is partly an artifact of in-sample threshold selection.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sect. 3.2, Fig. 9c]
    "For further analysis we extract the values of hcrit from the statistical analysis of Baumgartner et al. (2018), which covers 37 of the major flares of our sample S major. ... More precisely, out of the 37 flares of sample S CBetal, 28 are associated to hcrit < 40 Mm, out of which 92.9% were eruptive."

    The hcrit values and the 40 Mm threshold are imported from Baumgartner et al. (2018), a paper co-authored by the present first and third authors (Thalmann and Veronig). The same 37-event sample S_CBetal is then used to quote the combined 94.6% success rate. Thus the crucial stability input is neither independently recomputed in this paper nor an out-of-sample benchmark; the predictive claim inherits the self-cited prior study's classifications for the same events, making the self-citation load-bearing for the central claim.

full rationale

Most of the paper's content — the NLFF modeling, helicity computations, superposed epoch analysis, dynamic time warping, and postflare replenishment times — is independent and not circular. However, the headline claim that the flare type 'can be predicted correctly in more than 90%' rests on thresholds that are selected from the same event sample on which the success rate is then measured. The critical values in Sect. 3.1.1 are explicitly derived as the values that 'seem to segregate most suitable' the superposed-epoch distributions of the analyzed flares, and Sect. 3.2 evaluates those thresholds on the immediate preflare values of the same sample. In addition, the hcrit values and the 40 Mm cut are taken from a self-cited prior study by two of the present authors, and the 94.6% figure is computed on the same 37 events covered by that study. These features make the quantitative prediction claim partially in-sample and self-referential, though not equivalent to the inputs by definition. A score of 6 reflects partial circularity: the central prediction rate is not an independent, out-of-sample validation, while the surrounding physical analysis retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The ledger is dominated by thresholds chosen from the same dataset (three helicity and energy ratio critical values) and by the modeling assumptions of NLFF extrapolation and helicity computation, which are standard but carry systematic uncertainties.

free parameters (4)
  • Critical threshold EF/E0 = 0.16
    Defined from the superposed epoch data of the same sample in Sect. 3.1.1 and then applied to classify the same events in Sect. 3.2.
  • Critical threshold |HJ|/|HV| = 0.1
    Defined from the superposed epoch data of the same sample in Sect. 3.1.1 and then applied to classify the same events in Sect. 3.2.
  • Critical threshold |HJ|/phi^2 = 2.5e-3
    Defined from the superposed epoch data of the same sample in Sect. 3.1.1 and then applied to classify the same events in Sect. 3.2.
  • Critical height hcrit threshold = 40 Mm
    Taken from Baumgartner et al. (2018), a self-cited prior study, and used for classification of the 37-event subset; not independently derived here.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The coronal magnetic field is force-free, so NLFF extrapolations represent the actual corona.
    Invoked in Sect. 2.2; standard assumption for solar coronal modeling but not directly verified by observation.
  • domain assumption Computed relative helicity HV and HJ are gauge-invariant and numerical quality thresholds (Ediv/E <= 0.08, theta_J) ensure reliability.
    Sect. 2.2, relying on Valori et al. (2016) and Thalmann et al. (2019a).
  • domain assumption Dynamic time warping cumulative cost measures similarity of time evolution meaningfully for normalized profiles.
    Sect. 2.4; the normalization and warping choices affect the resulting similarity measures.
  • domain assumption Superposed epoch analysis of events with no major flares within the preflare window yields representative preflare behavior.
    Sect. 2.3 and 3.1; event selection and window choices shape the averaged profiles.
  • domain assumption Flare and CME association from the LASCO CME catalog and EUV dimming is accurate.
    Sect. 2.1; misclassification of confined versus eruptive would affect all subsequent statistics.
  • domain assumption hcrit values from Baumgartner et al. (2018) apply to the 37 flares in sample S_CBetal.
    Sect. 3.2; the values are reused from a prior study by the same group without re-derivation here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conditioning of the solar corona due to large flares." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HWKQDWS3

@misc{pith2026250105116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conditioning of the solar corona due to large flares},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HWKQDWS3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05116}
}
read the original abstract

We aim to better characterize the conditions of the solar corona, especially with respect to the occurrence of confined and eruptive flares. In this work, we model the coronal evolution around 231 large flares observed during solar cycle 24. Using Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager vector magnetic field data around each event, we employed nonlinear force-free field extrapolations to approximate the coronal energy and helicity budgets of the solar source regions. A superposed epoch analysis and dynamical time warping applied to the time series of selected photospheric and coronal quantities were used to pin down the characteristics of the pre- and postflare time evolution, as well as to assess flare-related changes. During the 24 hours leading up to a major flare, the total magnetic energy and unsigned magnetic flux were seen to evolve closely with respect to each other, irrespective of the flare type. Prior to confined flares, the free energy evolves in a way that exhibits more of a similarity with the unsigned flux than the helicity of the current-carrying field, while the opposite trend is seen prior to eruptive flares. Furthermore, the flare type can be predicted correctly in more than 90\% of major flares when combining measures of the active regions nonpotentiality and local stability. The coronal energy and helicity budgets return to preflare levels within approximately six to 12 hours after eruptive major M-class flares, while the impact of eruptive X-flares lasts considerably longer. Finally, the postflare replenishment times of more than 12 hours after eruptive X-class flares may serve as a partial explanation for the rare observation of eruptive X-class flares within a time frame of a few hours.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05116 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time evolution of selected quantities during the disk passage of NOAA 11158. From top to bottom: the total helicity (HV), helicity of the current-carrying field (HJ), helicity ratio (|HJ |/|HV|), and the energy correlation (Cerg) of the pair (A,∇ × B). (Dis-)Qualifying values are indicated by (empty) filled black squares. The black curve represents a fitting to the qualifying values onto a uniform (12-min) time cade… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Correlation analysis for the 24 hours leading up to the flare SOL2011-02-13T17:28M6.6. The normalized event epochs of the un￾signed helicity of the current-carrying field (|HJ |) and the free magnetic energy (EF) are shown in the vertically and horizontally oriented line profile, respectively. The accumulated cost matrix is shown color-coded. The white dotted line represents the optimal (warping) path. Article numbe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of coronal quantities during disk passage of NOAA 12673. (a) Free magnetic energy (EF) and (b) total helicity (HV). The black line represents a fitting to the values computed from qualifying NLFF models (squares) onto a uniform time cadence (12-minutes).…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overall long-term preflare time evolution of selected coronal quantities deduced from superposed epoch analysis. Median values were computed separately for the subsets of confined (blue) and eruptive (red) flares. Covered is the time period from −48 hours to +6 hours a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean hourly variations (one-hour time gradient) in the overall preflare time evolution. Numbers in brackets indicate the ratio of confined to eruptive flares within the tested sample (S SEA). Mean values for confined (blue) and eruptive (red) flares, computed from the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative cost of pairs of variables (Ccum; shown as bullets), computed for the normalized preflare time profiles during the 24 hours leading to the flares of sample S SEA (flare ID is shown along of the x-axis and associated to specific flare events in the last colum…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Preflare values of selected measures for 231 flares. Numbers in brackets indicate the ratio of confined to eruptive flares within the tested sample S M1+. (a) Unsigned helicity of the current-carrying field vs. unsigned total helicity. The dotted line marks the |HJ |/|…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Preflare values of selected measures. (a) Flux-normalized helic￾ity of the current-carrying field vs. free energy ratio, and (b) helicity ratio vs. free energy ratio, for the event sample S major. (c) Critical height for torus instability vs. helicity and (d) normalize…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Preflare values of selected photospheric and coronal measures for 48 flares of sample S major. (a) Helicity of the current-carrying field vs. mean characteristic twist parameter, αtotal and (b) near-PIL mag￾netic flux measure, log(R), value vs. total magnetic flux, lo…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histograms of mean relative flare-related changes to the (a) free magnetic energy (ηEF ) and (b) total helicity (ηHV ) for the sample S major. Numbers in brackets indicate the ratio of confined to eruptive flares within the tested sample. Flares for which a helicity r…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: GOES 1–8 Åpeak flux (FSXR) as function of the mean flare￾related changes for 220 flares of sample S M1+. The horizontal dashed lines indicate a SXR flux of 5 × 10−5 W m−2 , i.e., GOES class M5. Num￾bers in brackets indicate the ratio of confined to eruptive flares wit…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Average time evolution of selected quantities computed from the normalized (with respect to the respective preflare maximum values) superposed epoch data of event sample S X1+ (only X-class flares; left column) and for large M-class flares (GOES class M5 to M9; right …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Current Helicity in Response to Coronal Mass Ejections

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Photospheric current helicity shows a pre-eruption decrease and post-eruption increase in an MHD model and in 58% and 92% of 50 observed eruptive flares, respectively.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

231 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    SOL2011-02-13T17:28M6.6 S20E04 11158 E b,c 18:36 (359; 17:53/16:10) 373 + ID 5 in Fig. 7

  2. [2]

    SOL2011-02-14T17:26M2.2 S20W04 2 11158 E (h) 18:24 (HALO; 17:18/17:08) 326 +

  3. [3]

    SOL2011-02-15T01:44X2.2 S20W10 11158 E a,b,c 02:24 (HALO; 01:49/02:04) 669 + ID 6 in Fig. 7

  4. [4]

    SOL2011-02-16T01:32M1.0 S20W24 2 11158 C × × −

  5. [5]

    SOL2011-02-16T07:35M1.1 S20W30 11158 C c × × −

  6. [6]

    SOL2011-02-16T14:19M1.6 S20W32 11158 E, C c × × +

  7. [7]

    SOL2011-03-07T13:45M1.7 N11E27 11166 E c 14:48 (354; 14:06/14:15) 689 +

  8. [8]

    SOL2011-03-09T10:35M1.7 N11W01 11166 E c 12:12 (238; 11:04/10:19) 315 +

Show all 231 references
  1. [9]

    SOL2011-03-09T13:17M1.7 N09W06 11166 C c × × −

  2. [10]

    SOL2011-03-09T23:13X1.5 N08W09 11166 C a,b,c × × − ID 7 in Fig. 7

  3. [11]

    SOL2011-03-10T22:34M1.1 N08W25 2 11166 C × × −

  4. [12]

    SOL2011-07-30T02:04M9.3 N14E35 11261 C b × × − ID 8 in Fig. 7

  5. [13]

    SOL2011-08-02T05:19M1.4 N16W08 11261 E c 06:36 (288; 05:57/06:12) 712 +

  6. [14]

    SOL2011-08-03T03:08M1.1 N17W24 11261 C c × × −

  7. [15]

    SOL2011-08-03T13:17M6.0 N16W30 11261 E b,c 14:00 (HALO; 13:06/13:22) 610 + ID 9 in Fig. 7

  8. [16]

    SOL2011-08-04T03:41M9.3 N19W36 11261 E b,c 04:12 (HALO; 03:39/03:47) 1315 +

  9. [17]

    SOL2011-09-06T01:35M5.3 N14W07 11283 E b,c 02:14 (HALO; 02:00/01:04) 782 + ID 10 in Fig. 7

  10. [18]

    SOL2011-09-06T22:12X2.1 N14W18 11283 E a,b,c 23:05 (HALO; 21:58/21:55) 575 +

  11. [19]

    SOL2011-09-07T22:32X1.8 N14W28 11283 E a,b,c 23:05 (290; 22:34/22:35) 792 + ID 11 in Fig. 7

  12. [20]

    SOL2011-09-08T15:32M6.7 N14W40 11283 E b , Cc 16:36 (317; 15:11/13:47) 214 +

  13. [21]

    SOL2011-09-25T15:26M3.7 N16E43 11302 E c 16:00 (107; 15:07/15:23) 676 +

  14. [22]

    SOL2011-09-25T16:51M2.2 N12E41 2 11302 C × × −

  15. [23]

    SOL2011-09-26T05:06M4.0 N13E34 11302 C × × −

  16. [24]

    SOL2011-09-26T14:37M2.6 N14E30 11302 E c 15:12 (86; 14:03/13:19) 240 +

  17. [25]

    SOL2011-09-30T18:55M1.0 N08E06 11305 E c 20:00 (77; 19:13/18:05) 337 +

  18. [26]

    SOL2011-10-01T08:56M1.2 N10W06 11305 E c 09:36 (317; 08:36/08:45) 448 +

  19. [27]

    SOL2011-10-02T00:37M3.9 N09W12 11305 E c 02:00 (167; 00:42/00:40) 259 +

  20. [28]

    SOL2011-11-05T20:31M1.8 N21E34 11339 C c × × −

  21. [29]

    SOL2011-11-06T00:46M1.2 N21E35 11339 C c × × −

  22. [30]

    SOL2011-11-06T06:14M1.4 N21E31 11339 C c × × −

  23. [31]

    SOL2012-03-06T00:22M1.3 N16E41 11429 C c × × −

  24. [32]

    SOL2012-03-06T01:36M1.2 N17E41 11429 C c × × −

  25. [33]

    SOL2012-03-06T04:01M1.0 N16E39 11429 E, C c 04:48 (32; 05:01/03:49) 536 +

  26. [34]

    SOL2012-03-06T07:52M1.0 N17E41 11429 E c 08:12 (34; 07:45/07:38) 599 +

  27. [35]

    SOL2012-03-06T12:23M2.1 N18E36 11429 C c × × −

  28. [36]

    SOL2012-03-06T21:04M1.3 N16E30 2 11429 C × × −

  29. [37]

    SOL2012-03-06T22:49M1.0 N17E35 11429 C c × × −

  30. [38]

    SOL2012-03-07T00:02X5.4 N17E31 11429 E a,b,c 00:24 (HALO; 00:16/00:18) 2684 + ID 12 in Fig. 7

  31. [39]

    SOL2012-03-07T01:05X1.3 N17E20 11429 E a,b,c 01:30 (HALO; 00:56/01:04) 1825 +

  32. [40]

    SOL2012-03-09T03:22M6.3 N15W03 11429 E b,c 04:26 (HALO; 03:43/03:50) 950 + ID 13 in Fig. 7

  33. [41]

    SOL2012-03-10T17:15M8.4 N17W24 11429 E b 18:00 (HALO; 17:35/17:37) 1296 + ID 14 in Fig. 7

  34. [42]

    SOL2012-05-09T12:21M4.7 N13E31 11476 C c × × −

  35. [43]

    SOL2012-05-09T14:02M1.8 N06E22 11476 C c × × −

  36. [44]

    SOL2012-05-09T21:01M4.1 N11E25 11476 E c × × +

  37. [45]

    SOL2012-05-10T04:11M5.7 N13E22 11476 C c × × − ID 15 in Fig. 7

  38. [46]

    SOL2012-05-10T20:20M1.7 N10E12 11476 C c × × −

  39. [47]

    SOL2012-06-30T12:48M1.0 N17E21 11513 C × × −

  40. [48]

    SOL2012-06-30T18:26M1.6 N17E20 11513 E 18:48 (68; 17:38 /17:03) 247 +

  41. [49]

    SOL2012-07-01T19:11M2.8 N14E04 11513 C × × −

  42. [50]

    SOL2012-07-02T00:26M1.1 N15E01 11513 C × × −

  43. [51]

    SOL2012-07-04T16:33M1.8 N14W34 11513 E 17:24 (HALO; 16:50 /16:57) 662 +

  44. [52]

    SOL2012-07-02T10:34M5.6 S17E01 11515 E b,c 11:24 (174; 09:56/10:22) 313 + ID 16 in Fig. 7

  45. [53]

    SOL2012-07-02T19:59M3.8 S17W01 11515 E c 20:24 (185; 19:14/19:51) 527 +

  46. [54]

    SOL2012-07-02T23:49M2.0 S16W02 11515 E c +00:48 (195; +00:34/23:12) 400 +

  47. [55]

    SOL2012-07-04T04:28M2.3 S17W18 11515 E c 05:12 (209; 04:27/04:00) 381 −

  48. [56]

    SOL2012-07-04T09:47M5.3 S20W18 11515 C, E c × × − ID 17 in Fig. 7

  49. [57]

    SOL2012-07-04T12:07M2.3 S16W18 11515 E c 12:48 (203; 11:14/11:50) 290 +

  50. [58]

    SOL2012-07-04T14:35M1.3 S18W18 11515 C; E c × × −

  51. [59]

    SOL2012-07-04T22:03M4.6 S16W23 11515 E c 22:36 (195; 21:38/21:57) 556 +

  52. [60]

    SOL2012-07-04T23:47M1.3 S16W21 11515 C c × × −

  53. [61]

    SOL2012-07-05T01:05M2.4 S18W26 11515 C c × × −

  54. [62]

    SOL2012-07-05T02:35M2.2 S17W23 11515 C c × × ×

  55. [63]

    SOL2012-07-05T03:25M4.7 S17W23 11515 C c × × −

  56. [64]

    SOL2012-07-05T06:49M1.1 S18W39 11515 E c 08:00 (320; 06:59/06:34) 329 +

  57. [65]

    SOL2012-07-05T10:44M1.8 S19W30 11515 C c × × −

  58. [66]

    SOL2012-07-05T11:39M6.1 S22W32 11515 C c × × − ID 18 in Fig. 7

  59. [67]

    SOL2012-07-05T13:05M1.2 S16W43 11515 E c 13:24 (219; 12:50/12:48) 741 +

  60. [68]

    SOL2012-07-05T20:09M1.6 S17W35 11515 C; E c × × −

  61. [69]

    SOL2012-07-06T01:37M2.9 S18W41 11515 C c × × −

  62. [70]

    SOL2012-07-06T02:44M1.0 S17W40 11515 E c 03:12 (228; 02:24/02:44) 1059 ×

  63. [71]

    SOL2012-07-09T23:03M1.1 S15E43 11520 C c × × −

  64. [72]

    SOL2012-07-10T04:58M1.7 S17E33 11520 C c × × −

  65. [73]

    SOL2012-07-10T06:05M2.0 S17E30 11520 C c × × −

  66. [74]

    SOL2012-07-12T15:37X1.4 S15W01 11520 E a,b,c 16:24 (228; 15:56/16:02) 843 − ID 19 in Fig. 7

  67. [75]

    SOL2012-11-20T19:21M1.6 N07E15 11618 E c × × +

  68. [76]

    SOL2012-11-21T06:45M1.4 N06E10 11618 E c 08:37 (63; 08:03/07:35) 410 +

  69. [77]

    SOL2012-11-21T15:10M3.5 N08E14 11618 E c 16:00 (HALO; 14:55/15:13) 529

  70. [78]

    SOL2013-04-11T06:55M6.5 N09E12 11719 E c 07:24 (HALO; 06:50/06:55) 861 + ID 20 in Fig. 7

  71. [79]

    SOL2013-05-17T08:43M3.2 N10E35 11748 E c 09:12 (HALO; 08:46/08:47) 1345 +

  72. [80]

    SOL2013-10-13T00:12M1.7 S22E17 11865 E c 01:25 (146; 00:33/00:42) 478 +

  73. [81]

    SOL2013-10-15T08:26M1.8 S22W13 11865 E c 09:36 (196; 08:08/08:38) 223 +

  74. [82]

    Thalmann et al.: Conditioning of the solar corona due to large flares Table A1

    SOL2013-10-22T00:14M1.0 N06E17 11875 C c × × − Article number, page 20 of 22 J.K. Thalmann et al.: Conditioning of the solar corona due to large flares Table A1. Continued. No. Flare identifier Flare NOAA Flare CME-properties 3 EUV Comments (start time) position 1 number1 type...

  75. [83]

    SOL2013-10-22T14:49M1.0 N07E07 11875 E, C c 15:24 (82; 14:32/14:46) 351 −

  76. [84]

    SOL2013-10-22T21:15M4.2 N04W01 11875 E c 21:48 (278; 21:09/21:14) 589 +

  77. [85]

    SOL2013-10-23T20:41M2.7 N07W04 11875 C c × × −

  78. [86]

    SOL2013-10-23T23:33M1.4 N07W07 11875 C c × × −

  79. [87]

    SOL2013-10-23T23:58M3.1 N08W11 11875 C c × × −

  80. [88]

    SOL2013-10-24T09:59M2.5 N06W14 11875 C c × × −

  81. [89]

    SOL2013-10-24T10:30M3.5 N06W12 11875 C × × −

  82. [90]

    SOL2013-11-05T22:07X3.3 S12E44 11890 E c 22:26 (160; 21:36/21:48) 562 + ID 21 in Fig. 7

  83. [91]

    SOL2013-11-06T13:39M3.8 S11E36 11890 E c 14:24 (147; 13:23/13:40) 347 +

  84. [92]

    SOL2013-11-07T03:34M2.3 S14E28 11890 E c 04:24 (177; 03:37/03:46) 373 +

  85. [93]

    SOL2013-11-07T14:15M2.4 S13E23 11890 E c 15:12 (HALO; 14:00/14:12) 411 +

  86. [94]

    SOL2013-11-08T04:20X1.1 S12E13 11890 E a,b,c 03:24 (HALO; 03:23/02:34) 497 + ID 22 in Fig. 7

  87. [95]

    SOL2013-11-10T05:08X1.1 S14W13 11890 E a,b,c 05:36 (220; 04:55/05:15) 682 + ID 23 in Fig. 7

  88. [96]

    SOL2013-12-29T07:49M3.1 S16W01 11936 C, E c × × −

  89. [97]

    SOL2013-12-31T21:45M6.4 S15W36 11936 E c 22:36 (237; 12:25/12:01) 271 + ID 24 in Fig. 7

  90. [98]

    SOL2014-01-31T15:32M1.1 N09E36 11968 E c 16:24 (8; 15:34/15:52) 462 +

  91. [99]

    SOL2014-02-02T06:24M2.6 N12E18 11968 E c 06:48 (94; 05:32/05:29) 230 +

  92. [100]

    SOL2014-02-02T14:01M1.3 N12E18 11968 E c × × +

  93. [101]

    SOL2014-02-02T16:24M1.0 N10E05 11968 C c × × −

  94. [102]

    SOL2014-02-01T01:19M1.0 S11E26 11967 C c × × −

  95. [103]

    SOL2014-02-01T07:14M3.0 S11E23 11967 C c × × −

  96. [104]

    SOL2014-02-02T07:17M2.2 S10E14 11967 C c × × −

  97. [105]

    SOL2014-02-02T09:24M4.4 S11E13 11967 C c × × −

  98. [106]

    SOL2014-02-02T18:05M3.1 S13E05 11967 C c × × −

  99. [107]

    SOL2014-02-02T21:24M1.3 S13E05 11967 C c 23:48 (120; 22:22/22:35) 199 −

  100. [108]

    SOL2014-02-04T01:16M3.8 S13W14 11967 C c × × −

  101. [109]

    SOL2014-02-04T03:57M5.2 S14W06 11967 C c × × − ID 25 in Fig. 7

  102. [110]

    SOL2014-02-04T09:38M1.4 S13W12 11967 C c × × −

  103. [111]

    SOL2014-02-04T15:25M1.5 S12W12 11967 E c 16:36 (250; 15:30/15:40) 368 +

  104. [112]

    SOL2014-02-11T03:22M1.7 S12E17 11974 E c × × +

  105. [113]

    SOL2014-02-11T16:34M1.8 S13E12 11974 E c × × +

  106. [114]

    SOL2014-02-12T03:52M3.7 S12W02 11974 E c × × +

  107. [115]

    SOL2014-02-12T06:54M2.3 S12E01 11974 E c 08:12 (136; 08:59/06:59) 274 −

  108. [116]

    SOL2014-02-13T01:32M1.8 S12W12 11974 C c × × −

  109. [117]

    SOL2014-02-13T02:41M1.0 S12W12 11974 E c × × −

  110. [118]

    SOL2014-02-13T05:49M1.7 S12W12 11974 C c × × −

  111. [119]

    SOL2014-02-13T08:05M1.0 S12W13 11974 C c × × −

  112. [120]

    SOL2014-02-13T15:45M1.4 S12W29 11974 E c 16:36 (205; 15:31/15:57) 502 −

  113. [121]

    SOL2014-02-14T02:40M2.3 S12W25 11974 E c × × +

  114. [122]

    SOL2014-02-14T12:29M1.6 S15W36 11974 E c × × +

  115. [123]

    SOL2014-02-14T13:21M1.1 S12W30 11974 C c × × −

  116. [124]

    SOL2014-02-14T16:33M1.0 S12W32 11974 E c 17:24 (252; 16:24/16:21) 283 +

  117. [125]

    SOL2014-03-28T19:04M2.0 N11W21 12017 E c × ×

  118. [126]

    SOL2014-03-28T23:44M2.6 N10W22 12017 E c 23:48 (325; 22:55/23:06) 514 +

  119. [127]

    SOL2014-03-29T17:35X1.0 N10W32 12017 E a,b,c 18:12 (HALO; 17:12/17:27) 528 + ID 1 in Fig. 7

  120. [128]

    SOL2014-03-30T11:48M2.1 N08W43 12017 E c 12:14 (291; 11:28/11:37) 487 +

  121. [129]

    SOL2014-04-18T12:31M7.3 S20W34 12036 E c 13:25 (HALO; 12:43/12:38) 1203 + ID 2 in Fig. 7

  122. [130]

    SOL2014-06-13T07:49M2.6 S18E40 12087 E c 08:24 (127; 07:17/07:33) 370 +

  123. [131]

    SOL2014-06-15T23:50M1.0 S22E07 12087 E c +01:00 (228; +00:03/23:50) 347 +

  124. [132]

    SOL2014-09-08T23:12M4.6 N14E31 12158 E 00:06 (HALO; 23:45 /23:49) 920 +

  125. [133]

    SOL2014-09-10T17:21X1.6 N11E05 12158 E 18:00 (HALO; 17:27 /17:37) 1267 + ID 26 in Fig. 7

  126. [134]

    SOL2014-10-20T16:00M4.5 S14E37 12192 C c × × −

  127. [135]

    SOL2014-10-20T18:55M1.4 S13E43 12192 C c × × −

  128. [136]

    SOL2014-10-20T19:53M1.7 S13E43 12192 C c × × −

  129. [137]

    SOL2014-10-20T22:43M1.2 S14E36 12192 C c × × −

  130. [138]

    SOL2014-10-21T13:35M1.2 S14E35 2 12192 C × × −

  131. [139]

    SOL2014-10-22T01:06M8.7 S12E21 12192 C b,c × × − ID 27 in Fig. 7

  132. [140]

    SOL2014-10-22T05:11M2.7 S14E19 12192 C c × × −

  133. [141]

    SOL2014-10-22T14:02X1.6 S14E13 12192 C a,b,c × × −

  134. [142]

    SOL2014-10-23T09:44M1.1 S16E03 12192 C c × × −

  135. [143]

    SOL2014-10-24T07:37M4.0 S19W06 12192 E c 08:00 (215; 07:28/07:40) 677 +

  136. [144]

    SOL2014-10-24T21:07X3.1 S22W21 12192 C a,b,c × × − ID 28 in Fig. 7

  137. [145]

    SOL2014-10-25T16:55X1.0 S10W22 12192 C a,b,c × × −

  138. [146]

    SOL2014-10-26T10:04X2.0 S14W37 12192 C a,b,c × × −

  139. [147]

    SOL2014-10-26T17:08M1.0 S16W36 12192 C c × × −

  140. [148]

    SOL2014-10-26T18:07M4.2 S16W34 12192 C c × × −

  141. [149]

    SOL2014-10-26T18:43M1.9 S16W38 12192 C c × × −

  142. [150]

    SOL2014-10-26T19:59M2.4 S16W40 12192 C c × × −

  143. [151]

    SOL2014-10-27T00:06M7.1 S14W44 12192 C c × × −

  144. [152]

    SOL2014-10-27T01:44M1.0 S13W45 12192 C c × × −

  145. [153]

    SOL2014-11-07T16:53X1.6 N17E40 12205 E a,b,c 17:12 (79; 16:28/16:49) 469 +

  146. [154]

    SOL2014-11-09T15:24M2.3 N18E14 12205 E c 16:24 (307; 15:36/14:57) 388 +

  147. [155]

    SOL2014-12-01T06:26M1.8 S21E17 12222 C c × × −

  148. [156]

    SOL2014-12-04T08:00M1.3 S24W27 12222 C c × × −

  149. [157]

    SOL2014-12-04T18:05M6.1 S20W31 12222 C b × × − ID 29 in Fig. 7

  150. [158]

    SOL2014-12-04T19:38M1.3 S20W32 12222 C c × × −

  151. [159]

    SOL2014-12-05T11:33M1.5 S19W37 12222 C c × × −

  152. [160]

    SOL2014-12-14T19:25M1.6 S19E44 12242 E c 19:48 (126; 19:05/19:10) 626 +

  153. [161]

    SOL2014-12-17T00:57M1.5 S25E10 12242 C c × × +

  154. [162]

    SOL2014-12-17T04:25M8.7 S18E08 12242 E b,c 05:00 (HALO; 04:01/04:06) 587 + ID 3 in Fig. 7

  155. [163]

    SOL2014-12-19T09:31M1.3 S19W27 12242 C c × × +

  156. [164]

    SOL2014-12-20T00:11X1.8 S19W29 12242 E b,c 01:25 (216; 00:13/00:25) 830 + ID 4 in Fig. 7

  157. [165]

    main Table A1

    SOL2014-12-17T01:41M1.1 S11E33 12241 E c 02:00 (107; 01:36/01:22) 869 + Article number, page 21 of 22 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main Table A1. Continued. No. Flare identifier Flare NOAA Flare CME-properties 3 EUV Comments (start time) position 1 number1 type tfirst,C2 (PA; t0...

  158. [166]

    SOL2014-12-17T18:54M1.4 S10E24 12241 C c × × −

  159. [167]

    SOL2014-12-18T21:41M6.9 S15E08 12241 E c +01:04 (HALO; 22:02/22:48) 1195 + ID 30 in Fig. 7

  160. [168]

    SOL2014-12-21T11:24M1.0 S11W21 12241 E c 12:12 (HALO; 11:34/11:41) 669 +

  161. [169]

    SOL2015-01-26T16:46M1.1 S10E25 12268 C c × × −

  162. [170]

    SOL2015-01-28T04:21M1.4 S09E09 12268 C c 06:36 (110; 05:35/04:49) 321 −

  163. [171]

    SOL2015-01-29T11:32M2.1 S12W06 12268 C c × × −

  164. [172]

    SOL2015-01-30T00:32M2.0 S10W17 12268 C c × × −

  165. [173]

    SOL2015-01-30T05:29M1.7 S10W17 12268 C c × × −

  166. [174]

    SOL2015-03-10T03:19M5.1 S15E39 12297 E b 03:36 (HALO; 03:01/03:11) 1040 +

  167. [175]

    SOL2015-03-10T23:46M2.9 S16E28 12297 E c +00:24 (81; 23:48/23:51) 702 +

  168. [176]

    SOL2015-03-11T07:10M1.8 S16E26 2 12297 C × × −

  169. [177]

    SOL2015-03-11T07:51M2.6 S15E23 2 12297 C × × −

  170. [178]

    SOL2015-03-11T16:11X2.1 S12E22 12297 E c , Cb 17:00 (73; 14:48/16:02) 240 + ID 31 in Fig. 7

  171. [179]

    SOL2015-03-11T18:37M1.0 S16E18 12297 C; E c × × −

  172. [180]

    SOL2015-03-12T04:41M3.2 S16E14 12297 C, E c × × −

  173. [181]

    SOL2015-03-12T11:38M1.6 S16E14 12297 C c × × −

  174. [182]

    SOL2015-03-12T12:09M1.4 S16E06 12297 E, C c × × +

  175. [183]

    SOL2015-03-12T13:50M4.2 S15E06 12297 C c × × −

  176. [184]

    SOL2015-03-12T21:44M2.7 S16E04 12297 E, C c × × +

  177. [185]

    SOL2015-03-13T03:47M1.2 S17E03 2 12297 C × × −

  178. [186]

    SOL2015-03-13T05:49M1.8 S14W02 2 12297 C × × −

  179. [187]

    SOL2015-03-14T04:23M1.3 S17W13 12297 C c × × −

  180. [188]

    SOL2015-03-15T09:36M1.0 S17W25 12297 C c × × −

  181. [189]

    SOL2015-06-20T06:28M1.0 N13E27 12371 E b,c 07:36 (120; 06:51/07:04) 435 +

  182. [190]

    SOL2015-06-21T01:02M2.0 N12E13 12371 E b,c × × +

  183. [191]

    SOL2015-06-21T02:06M2.6 N13E14 12371 E b,c 02:36 (HALO; 02:15/02:10) 1366 +

  184. [192]

    SOL2015-06-22T17:39M6.5 N13W06 12371 E b,c 18:36 (HALO; 17:58/18:06) 1209 + ID 32 in Fig. 7

  185. [193]

    SOL2015-06-25T08:02M7.9 N12W40 12371 E b,c 08:36 (HALO; 08:17/08:21) 1627 + ID 33 in Fig. 7

  186. [194]

    SOL2015-08-21T01:56M1.2 S16E39 12403 C c × × −

  187. [195]

    SOL2015-08-21T09:34M1.4 S17E26 12403 E c 10:12 (131; 09:19/09:05) 555 +

  188. [196]

    SOL2015-08-21T19:10M1.1 S12E26 12403 E c × × −

  189. [197]

    SOL2015-08-22T06:39M1.2 S14E23 12403 E c 07:12 (HALO; 06:18/06:35) 547 +

  190. [198]

    SOL2015-08-22T13:17M2.2 S15E19 12403 C × × −

  191. [199]

    SOL2015-08-22T21:19M3.5 S15E15 12403 C c × × −

  192. [200]

    SOL2015-08-24T07:26M5.6 S14E00 12403 E b,c 08:48 (251; 07:30/07:45) 272 − ID 34 in Fig. 7

  193. [201]

    SOL2015-08-24T17:40M1.0 S15W04 12403 C c × × −

  194. [202]

    SOL2015-09-27T10:20M1.9 S20W03 12422 C c × × −

  195. [203]

    SOL2015-09-27T20:54M1.0 S21W16 12422 C c × × −

  196. [204]

    SOL2015-09-28T07:27M1.1 S22W20 12422 C c × × −

  197. [205]

    SOL2015-09-28T13:01M1.1 S20W16 12422 C c × × −

  198. [206]

    SOL2015-09-28T14:53M7.6 S20W28 12422 C b,c × × − ID 35 in Fig. 7

  199. [207]

    SOL2015-09-29T03:41M1.1 S20W36 12422 C c × × −

  200. [208]

    SOL2015-09-29T05:05M2.9 S21W37 12422 C c × × −

  201. [209]

    SOL2015-09-29T05:53M1.0 S20W30 12422 C c × × −

  202. [210]

    SOL2015-09-29T06:39M1.4 S12W34 12422 C c × × −

  203. [211]

    SOL2015-09-29T11:09M1.6 S21W27 12422 C c × × −

  204. [212]

    SOL2017-09-04T05:36M1.2 S10W04 12673 C, E c 07:00 (356; 05:21/06:00) 188 −

  205. [213]

    SOL2017-09-04T15:11M1.5 S10W08 12673 C c × × −

  206. [214]

    SOL2017-09-04T18:05M1.0 S07W11 12673 E c 19:00 (233; 18:35/18:11) 597 +

  207. [215]

    SOL2017-09-04T18:46M1.7 S09W11 12673 E c 19:00 (233; 18:35/18:11) 597 +

  208. [216]

    SOL2017-09-04T19:59M1.5 S10W11 12673 C c × × −

  209. [217]

    SOL2017-09-04T20:28M5.5 S10W11 12673 E c 20:36 (HALO; 20:21/20:14) 418 + ID 36 in Fig. 7

  210. [218]

    SOL2017-09-04T22:10M2.1 S09W12 12673 E c × × −

  211. [219]

    SOL2017-09-05T01:03M4.2 S09W14 12673 C c × × −

  212. [220]

    SOL2017-09-05T03:42M1.0 S09W15 12673 C c × × −

  213. [221]

    SOL2017-09-05T04:33M3.2 S11W18 12673 C c × × −

  214. [222]

    SOL2017-09-05T17:37M2.3 S10W23 12673 E c 17:36 (216; 17:15/17:10) 474 −

  215. [223]

    SOL2017-09-06T08:57X2.2 S08W32 12673 C c × × − ID 37 in Fig. 7

  216. [224]

    SOL2017-09-06T11:53X9.3 S09W34 12673 E c 12:24 (HALO; 12:01/12:01) 1571 +

  217. [225]

    SOL2017-09-06T15:51M2.5 S08W36 12673 E c × × −

  218. [226]

    SOL2017-09-06T19:21M1.4 S08W38 12673 C c × × −

  219. [227]

    SOL2017-09-06T23:33M1.2 S08W40 12673 C c × × −

  220. [228]

    SOL2017-09-07T04:59M2.4 S07W45 2 12673 C × × −

  221. [229]

    SOL2017-09-07T09:49M1.4 S08W47 2 12673 C × × −

  222. [230]

    SOL2017-09-07T10:11M7.3 S07W462 12673 E 10:24 (254; 09:44 /09:52) 470 +

  223. [231]

    C", or eruptive

    SOL2017-09-07T14:20X1.3 S11W492 12673 E 15:12 (254; 13:52 /14:31) 433 − Notes. Flare-AR associations have been established using the (1) SolarSoft Latest Events and/or the (2) Hinode flare catalog (explicitly indicated). Major flares (GOES class M5 or larger) are highlighted b...

    2016

Pith tools

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