On the Nature and Genesis of EUV Waves: A Synthesis of Observations from SOHO, STEREO, SDO, and Hinode (Invited Review)

Patsourakos, S.; Vourlidas, A.

doi:10.1007/s11207-012-9988-6

Cited by 121 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 129 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With corresponding to a 90°circular segment with an outer radius of 300 Mm and an inner radius of 100 M), flow = 30 km s -1 , and col = 1.5 × 10 −4 g cm −2 (according to the VAL-C model of Vernazza et al, 1981 when the affected height range is assumed to go down to the level where the Hα line core is formed), an energy of wave = 4 × 10 29 erg is found. This is consistent with the estimate of Patsourakos and Vourlidas (2012) bearing in mind that Moreton waves are associated with particularly strong events.…”

Section: Energeticssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…For typical wave parameters, Patsourakos and Vourlidas (2012) deduced an energy of 10 29 erg, which is several orders of magnitude higher than the previous estimates.…”

Section: Energeticscontrasting

confidence: 66%

“…Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the wave from the CME flank because it is very close or very faint, thus the actual wave will be overlooked, and the CME flank will be mis-identified as the wave (cf. Patsourakos and Vourlidas, 2012). On the other hand, the CME that Warmuth (2010) found to lie in front of the Moreton wave could only be measured down to a height of about 100 Mm.…”

Section: Coronal Mass Ejections (Cmes)mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The main contenders are the MHD wave/shock model (see Sections 2.2 and 6.1) and different magnetic reconfiguration models (Sections 2.3 and 6.2), as well as various combinations of these scenarios (Section 6.3). For more reviews on the topic of large-scale coronal waves, see Warmuth (2007); Wills-Davey and Attrill (2009) ;Gallagher and Long (2011);Zhukov (2011);Warmuth (2011); Patsourakos and Vourlidas (2012); Liu and Ofman (2014). The recently discovered phenomena of small-scale EUV waves (Innes et al, 2009;…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patsourakos and Vourlidas (2012) have proposed a more comprehensive approach by considering the kinetic energy flux, radiative and conductive losses. The kinetic energy flux is given by…”

Section: Energeticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Large-scale Globally Propagating Coronal Waves

Warmuth

2015

Living Rev. Sol. Phys.

163

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large-scale, globally propagating wave-like disturbances have been observed in the solar chromosphere and by inference in the corona since the 1960s. However, detailed analysis of these phenomena has only been conducted since the late 1990s. This was prompted by the availability of high-cadence coronal imaging data from numerous spaced-based instruments, which routinely show spectacular globally propagating bright fronts. Coronal waves, as these perturbations are usually referred to, have now been observed in a wide range of spectral channels, yielding a wealth of information. Many findings have supported the "classical" interpretation of the disturbances: fast-mode MHD waves or shocks that are propagating in the solar corona. However, observations that seemed inconsistent with this picture have stimulated the development of alternative models in which "pseudo waves" are generated by magnetic reconfiguration in the framework of an expanding coronal mass ejection. This has resulted in a vigorous debate on the physical nature of these disturbances. This review focuses on demonstrating how the numerous observational findings of the last one and a half decades can be used to constrain our models of large-scale coronal waves, and how a coherent physical understanding of these disturbances is finally emerging. Article RevisionsLiving Reviews supports two ways of keeping its articles up-to-date:Fast-track revision. A fast-track revision provides the author with the opportunity to add short notices of current research results, trends and developments, or important publications to the article. A fast-track revision is refereed by the responsible subject editor. If an article has undergone a fast-track revision, a summary of changes will be listed here.Major update. A major update will include substantial changes and additions and is subject to full external refereeing. It is published with a new publication number.For detailed documentation of an article's evolution, please refer to the history document of the article's online version at http://dx

show abstract

Section: Energeticssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…For typical wave parameters, Patsourakos and Vourlidas (2012) deduced an energy of 10 29 erg, which is several orders of magnitude higher than the previous estimates.…”

Section: Energeticscontrasting

confidence: 66%

Section: Coronal Mass Ejections (Cmes)mentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patsourakos and Vourlidas (2012) have proposed a more comprehensive approach by considering the kinetic energy flux, radiative and conductive losses. The kinetic energy flux is given by…”

Section: Energeticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Large-scale Globally Propagating Coronal Waves

Warmuth

2015

Living Rev. Sol. Phys.

163

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of the coronal mass ejection shock acceleration of three widespread SEP events during solar cycle 24

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied three solar energetic particle (SEP) events observed on 14 August 2010, 3 November 2011, and 5 March 2013 by Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) A, B, and near‐Earth (L1) spacecraft with a longitudinal distribution of particles >90°. Using a forward modeling method combined with extreme ultraviolet and white‐light images, we determined the angular extent of the shock, the time and location (cobpoint) of the shock intersection with the magnetic field line connecting to each spacecraft, and compute the shock speed at the cobpoint of each spacecraft. We then examine whether the observations of SEPs at each spacecraft were accelerated and injected by the spatially extended shocks or whether another mechanism such as cross‐field transport is required for an alternative explanation. Our analyses results indicate that the SEPs observed at the three spacecraft on 3 November, STEREO B (STB) and L1 on 14 August, and the 5 March SEP event at STEREO A (STA) can be explained by the direct shock acceleration. This is consistent with the observed significant anisotropies, short time delays between particle release times and magnetic connection times, and sharp rises in the SEP time profiles. Cross‐field diffusion is the likely cause for the 14 August SEP event observed by STA and the 5 March SEPs observed by STB and L1 spacecraft, as particle observations featured weak electron aniotropies and slow rising intensity profiles. Otherwise, the wide longitudinal spread of these SEP increases would require an existence of a circumsolar shock, which may not be a correct assumption in the corona and heliosphere.

show abstract

Global Coronal Waves

Chen¹

2016

Geophysical Monograph Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the Nature and Genesis of EUV Waves: A Synthesis of Observations from SOHO, STEREO, SDO, and Hinode (Invited Review)

Cited by 121 publications

References 129 publications

Large-scale Globally Propagating Coronal Waves

Large-scale Globally Propagating Coronal Waves

Comparison of the coronal mass ejection shock acceleration of three widespread SEP events during solar cycle 24

Global Coronal Waves

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About