1: %                                                                 aa.dem

2: % AA vers. 6.1, LaTeX class for Astronomy & Astrophysics

3: % demonstration file

4: %                                                 (c) Springer-Verlag HD

5: %                                                revised by EDP Sciences

6: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

7: 

8: \documentclass[letter]{aa}

9: \usepackage{graphicx}

10: \usepackage{natbib}

11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

12: \usepackage{txfonts}

13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

14: %

15: \begin{document}

16: %

17:    \title{The properties of penumbral microjets inclination}

18: 

19:    \author{J. Jur\v{c}\'{a}k

20:           \inst{1,2}

21:           \and

22:           Y. Katsukawa\inst{1}}

23: 

24:    \institute{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa,

25: Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan

26:         \and

27:         Astronomical Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Fricova

28: 298, 25165 Ond\v{r}ejov, Czech Republic}

29: 

30:    \date{Received September 15, 1996; accepted March 16, 1997}

31: 

32: % \abstract{}{}{}{}{}

33: % 5 {} token are mandatory

34: 

35:   \abstract

36:   % context heading (optional)

37:   % {} leave it empty if necessary

38:    {}

39:   % aims heading (mandatory)

40:    {We investigate the dependence of penumbral microjets inclination on the

41:    position within penumbra.}

42:   % methods heading (mandatory)

43:    {The high cadence observations taken on 10 November 2006 with the Hinode satellite

44:    through the \ion{Ca}{ii}~H and G--band filters were analysed to determine the inclination of

45:    penumbral microjets. The results were then compared with the inclination of the magnetic field determined

46:    through the inversion of the spectropolarimetric observations of the same

47:    region.}

48:   % results heading (mandatory)

49:    {The penumbral microjet inclination is increasing towards the outer edge of the penumbra.

50:    The results suggest that the penumbral microjet follows

51:    the opening magnetic field lines of a vertical flux tube that creates the sunspot.}

52:   % conclusions heading (optional), leave it empty if necessary

53:    {}

54: 

55:    \keywords{ Sun: sunspots --

56:               Sun: chromosphere  --

57:               Sun: photosphere  --

58:               Sun: magnetic fields }

59: 

60:    \maketitle

61: %

62: %________________________________________________________________

63: 

64: \section{Introduction}

65: 

66: \citet[][hereafter Paper~I]{Katsukawa:2007} reported on the existence of small

67: jet-like features that are observed at penumbral chromospheric layers. The

68: authors used the term penumbral microjets (PJ) and this nomenclature is also

69: used in this Letter. These new penumbral phenomena were found using the

70: observations taken with the Hinode satellite through the broadband

71: \ion{Ca}{ii}~H filter.

72: 

73: As summarised in Paper~I, the PJs are highly transient events with lifetimes up

74: to two minutes and lengths of a few thousand kilometres. The width of PJs is

75: around 400~km for the largest ones where the smallest events are at the

76: resolution limit of the observations. It can be expected that there are even

77: smaller undetected penumbral microjets.

78: 

79: As explained in Paper~I, the three-dimensional configuration of the PJs can be

80: estimated from the different visibilities of these events depending on the

81: position on the solar disc. The intensity of microjets is comparable to the

82: intensity of underlaying penumbral filaments, and the PJs can hardly be

83: identified on observations taken close to the disc centre (if the

84: running-difference or the high-pass filter are not applied). It implies that

85: the azimuthal orientation of PJs is the same as for penumbral filaments, i.e.,

86: radial. In the case of observations taken farther from the disc centre, the

87: microjets become visible due to the difference in their inclination compared to

88: the inclination of penumbral filaments that are nearly horizontal. In Paper~I

89: the authors estimated the inclinations (angle between the local normal line and

90: the microjet) to be mostly between 40$^\circ$ and 60$^\circ$.

91: 

92: Although the observations with a cadence of four seconds can be achieved (with

93: a limited field of view and only for a short time), the observations of

94: penumbra with a 20~sec cadence are currently the best available measurements

95: that can be used to study the properties of PJs. Taking the lifetimes of PJs

96: into account, the available high-cadence observations are not fast enough to

97: study the photospheric counterparts of the PJs onsets because the original

98: formation area can become dark in 20~seconds. As already pointed out in

99: Paper~I, there are some indications that the PJs are related to the penumbral

100: bright grains observed in the photosphere. However, this topic is not discussed

101: in this Letter and we concentrate on a detailed analysis of the penumbral

102: microjets inclination and its dependence on the position within the penumbra.

103: The results are then compared with the inclination of the photospheric magnetic

104: field.

105: 

106: \section{Observations and data reduction}

107: 

108: We analysed the same data set as in Paper~I. These measurements were taken on

109: 10 November 2006, and they cover a part of the sunspot in AR10923, which was

110: located at that time at heliocentric coordinates of 6$^\circ$~S and

111: 50$^\circ$~E. Although there are some other observations of sunspots taken with

112: a 30~sec cadence far from the disc centre, they are either short in time or the

113: penumbra is of small size so the statistical sample of detected PJs is too

114: small for the purpose of our study.

115: 

116: \begin{figure}[!b]

117:   \centering

118:   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{0333fig1.eps}

119:   \caption{The G--band image of the analysed area (a), where the lines mark

120:   the position of umbral/penumbral and penumbral/quiet sun boundary and the arrow

121:   points to the disc centre. The map of continuum intensity of the whole sunspot

122:   in AR10923 was reconstructed from the SP raster scan (b); see the text for details.}

123:   \label{overview}

124: \end{figure}

125: 

126: \begin{figure*}[!t]

127:   \centering

128:   \includegraphics[width=0.84\linewidth]{0333fig2.eps}

129:   \caption{The \ion{Ca}{ii}~H (a), G--band (b), and \ion{Ca}{ii}~H running-difference (c) images

130:   of the analysed area. The red crosses mark the identified onsets of PJs, the

131:   blue arrows indicate their orientation, and the orange arrows point in the

132:   direction of penumbral filaments. The blue lines show the inner and outer

133:   edges of the penumbra (solid) and the position of PJs (dashed). The resulting values of LRF

134:   inclinations are shown in the (c) image.}

135:   \label{jets}

136: \end{figure*}

137: 

138: The data were taken using the Solar Optical Telescope

139: \citep[SOT,][]{Tsuneta:2008} onboard Hinode satellite \citep{Kosugi:2007}. The

140: measurements are unaffected by atmospheric seeing, and the spatial resolution

141: reaches the diffraction limit of the 50~cm telescope, i.e., 0.2$``$ (150~km)

142: for the filtergram (FG) data and 0.32$``$ for spectropolarimetric (SP) data.

143: 

144: The analysed FG data were obtained through two broadband filters, the

145: \ion{Ca}{ii}~H (centred at 396.9~nm with bandwidth of 0.3~nm) and G--band

146: filter (centred at 430.5~nm with bandwidth of 0.8~nm). The observations took

147: place between 12:15 and 13:59 UT and are composed of 209 consecutive images.

148: The data were calibrated with standard routines available under Hinode

149: Solarsoft. The images in the sequence were aligned to compensate for the drift

150: of the correlation tracker. The G--band and \ion{Ca}{ii}~H images were

151: carefully aligned. Figure~\ref{overview}a shows the first G--band image of the

152: sequence with the estimated position of the umbral/penumbral and

153: penumbral/quiet sun boundary.

154: 

155: To determine the orientation of the magnetic field, we used the data observed

156: by the Hinode SP. The measurements were taken in so-called normal mode; the

157: width of the slit is equivalent to 0.16$``$ and comparable to the scanning

158: step; the exposure time for one slit position is 4.8~s and results in a noise

159: level of 10$^{-3} I_c$. More detailed information about this SP observation

160: mode and the reduction of SP data can be found in \citet{Jurcak:2007}. The

161: necessary calibration of wavelengths and the normalisation of the observed

162: Stokes profiles to the continuum intensity of the Harvard Smithsonian reference

163: atmosphere is also described there. Figure~\ref{overview}b shows part of the

164: continuum intensity map reconstructed from the SP raster scan of AR10923. The

165: framed part of the penumbra roughly corresponds to the area observed with FG.

166: The raster scan of the marked region was taken between 16:25 and 16:40~UT,

167: approximately 3~hours later than FG measurements.

168: 

169: \section{Estimation of position and inclination}

170: 

171: The alignment between FG and SP data cannot be done precisely since the

172: penumbra was slowly growing in the meantime between the observations. The

173: alignment of the inner and outer penumbral boundaries in FG and SP data is

174: sufficient for the purpose of our study since we do not take the azimuthal

175: positions into account and the possible inaccuracies in the estimated radial

176: positions would not affect the results.

177: 

178: The penumbral boundaries are approximately fitted by concentric arcs as shown

179: in Fig.~\ref{overview}a for FG data and in Fig.~\ref{overview}b for SP data.

180: The position of PJ in the penumbra is given by the radius of an arc that

181: crosses the detected onset of the microjet as shown in Fig.~\ref{jets}b.

182: 

183: \subsection{Penumbral microjet inclination}

184: 

185: To compute the inclination angle of the PJs, we first manually determined the

186: orientation of the microjet either directly from \ion{Ca}{ii}~H data or using

187: running-difference images. Figures~\ref{jets}a and~\ref{jets}c show examples of

188: four PJs. The orientations of penumbral filaments are determined from G--band

189: images, Fig.~\ref{jets}b. Knowing the heliocentric angle and the orientation of

190: the symmetry line (that connects the disc centre and the microjet onset

191: position) for each analysed PJ, we can use the following equation

192: \citep[][]{Muller:2002}

193: \begin{equation}

194: \phi=\arctan\left(  \frac{\sin \gamma' \sin \phi'}{\cos \gamma' \sin \theta +

195: \sin \gamma' \cos \phi' \cos \theta} \right), \label{eq}

196: \end{equation}

197: where $\theta$ is the heliocentric angle, $\phi$ the azimuth angle in

198: line-of-sight (LOS) frame, and $\phi'$ and $\gamma'$ represent the azimuth and

199: inclination in the local reference frame (LRF) that is defined by the local

200: normal line (\textit{z} axis) and the orientation of the symmetry line

201: (\textit{x} axis).

202: 

203: Our final goal is to determine the LRF inclination of the PJ ($\gamma'_{PJ}$).

204: From the observations we know the heliocentric angle ($\theta$, around

205: 51$^\circ$) and the LOS azimuths of microjet ($\phi_{PJ}$, the angle between

206: the symmetry line and the PJ) and filament ($\phi_{F}$, the angle between the

207: symmetry line and the penumbral filament). As shown in Paper~I, we can suppose

208: that the azimuthal orientation of the PJs is the same as for the penumbral

209: filaments in the LRF ($\phi'_{PJ}=\phi'_{F}$).

210: 

211: To determine the $\phi'_{F}$ and thus also $\phi'_{PJ}$, we need to estimate

212: the elevation angle of the penumbral filaments. They are not exactly horizontal

213: since the Wilson depression must be compensated for in the penumbra. The exact

214: value of the filaments elevation angle is unknown. We estimate it to be

215: 5$^\circ$ with respect to the local horizontal line. This value corresponds to

216: the difference found between the filament orientation and the magnetic field

217: azimuth \citep{Lites:1990a, cwp:2001} that can be caused by the elevation of

218: penumbral filaments, although there are other possible scenarios for this

219: difference.

220: 

221: The assumption of a 5$^\circ$ elevation angle gives us the inclination of

222: penumbral filament in LRF ($\gamma'_F$) as 85$^\circ$. Thus, we know $\theta$,

223: $\gamma'_F$, and $\phi_{F}$, and Eq.~\ref{eq} can be used to derive the LRF

224: azimuth value $\phi'_{F}$ that also represents the LRF azimuth of the PJ

225: ($\phi'_{PJ}$). Knowing $\theta$, $\phi'_{PJ}$, and $\phi_{PJ}$, Eq.~\ref{eq}

226: can be used again to derive the value of $\gamma'_{PJ}$ that represents the

227: inclination of the microjet in the LRF. In Fig.~\ref{jets}c the derived values

228: are shown for each of the four depicted jets.

229: 

230: We estimate the error of individually determined inclination values to be up to

231: 10$^\circ$. This uncertainty comes from the manual estimation of the PJ and

232: filament orientation and becomes even greater in the outer penumbra where the

233: filament direction could be difficult to estimate from G--band images, and the

234: microjets are less apparent in \ion{Ca}{ii}~H data due to the increased

235: intensity of underlying material. Another source of uncertainty is the

236: incorrect estimation of the onset of PJs. This might result in selecting the

237: wrong filament in the G--band image.

238: 

239: The unknown value of the penumbral filament elevation, and its possible

240: dependence on position within the penumbra causes a further increase in the

241: error. We estimate this error to be in the order of a few degrees. No strong

242: dependence of this value on the position within the penumbra is expected, as

243: the absolute values of the elevation angle are expected to be small. Therefore,

244: the change in PJs inclinations across the penumbra is not significantly

245: influenced.

246: 

247: \begin{figure}[!t]

248:   \centering

249:   \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{0333fig3.eps}

250:   \caption{The plot shows the dependence of microjet inclination on the

251:   position within the penumbra. The 209 detected PJs are represented by $\times$

252:   symbols. The dashed line is a third-order polynomial fit of the observed

253:   distribution of microjet inclination through the penumbra, where the dotted

254:   lines are the alternatives obtained for different values of penumbral

255:   filament elevation; 0$^\circ$ and 8$^\circ$ for the lower and upper dotted

256:   line, respectively. The solid line shows the inclination of magnetic field

257:   at high photospheric layers. The position of umbra/penumbra and penumbra/quiet

258:   sun boundary are taken as 0 and 1, respectively.}

259:   \label{plot}

260: \end{figure}

261: 

262: \subsection{Magnetic field inclination}

263: \label{mfi}

264: 

265: The Stokes profiles observed at pixels in the marked area in

266: Fig.~\ref{overview}b are inverted using the SIR code \citep[Stokes Inversion

267: based on Response functions;][]{Cobo:1992}. Taking the high spatial resolution

268: of the Hinode SP measurements into account, we use only a one-component

269: atmospheric model. However, given the observed asymmetries of Stokes profiles,

270: we allow for the changes in plasma parameters with height in the atmosphere.

271: 

272: The derived values of magnetic field inclination and azimuth are evaluated with

273: respect to the LOS. After the transformation to the LRF, we determine the

274: single value of magnetic field inclination at each pixel. As the PJs take place

275: in the chromosphere, we want to determine the magnetic field inclination at the

276: highest possible layers of photosphere. According to \citet{cabrera:2005}, the

277: observed pair of iron lines is the most sensitive to plasma parameters in the

278: range of optical depths between $\log (\tau)=-1$ and $-2$. As the height in the

279: atmosphere increases with decreasing $\log (\tau)$, we use the average value of

280: inclination from the range of $\log (\tau)= \langle-1.5,-2\rangle$. Azimuthal

281: averages over pixels with the same position in the penumbra are computed to

282: obtain a curve that shows the magnetic field inclination as a function of the

283: radial distance in the penumbra.

284: 

285: The obtained curve (solid line in Fig.~\ref{plot}) is comparable in absolute values to the

286: inclinations of the so-called background component of the penumbral atmosphere

287: obtained from two-component inversions \citep{Bellot:2004, Borrero:2006}. The

288: concept of two-components comes from the uncombed model of penumbral atmosphere

289: \citep{Solanki:1993,vmp:2000}, where the background component has a stronger

290: and more vertical magnetic field compared to the second component and

291: represents the properties of a vertical flux tube that creates the sunspot. The

292: obtained similarity between the inclination values at higher photospheric

293: layers and the background component inclination confirms that the horizontal

294: fields presented in the penumbra are restricted to the lower part of the

295: line-forming region \citep{Bellot:2006, Jurcak:2007}. Our findings can be also

296: understood in terms of the cusp model introduced by \citet{Scharmer:2006} where

297: the horizontal fields are restricted to the lowest photosphere, and the

298: magnetic field at the higher layers is also that of the vertical flux tube.

299: 

300: \section{Comparison of inclination}

301: 

302: In Fig.~\ref{plot}, the inclination of 209 individual PJs identified at various

303: positions within the penumbra ($\times$ symbols) are shown and the mean

304: behaviour of PJs inclination (dashed line) is compared with the radial

305: variation of the magnetic field inclination (solid line). It appears that there

306: is an almost constant difference between the mean inclination of chromospheric

307: PJs and the magnetic field in the photosphere, the former one being more

308: horizontal by about 10$^\circ$, that is, if we take the 5$^\circ$ elevation

309: angle of penumbral filaments into account. Even if we suppose that the

310: filaments are exactly horizontal (lower dotted line), the PJs are still more

311: inclined than the magnetic field in the photosphere.

312: 

313: If we assume that these values of magnetic field inclination describe the

314: orientation of the field lines of an vertical flux tube that creates the

315: sunspot, then there is an apparent explanation for the more horizontal

316: direction of PJs. Such a vertical flux tube has to be opening with height due

317: to the pressure balance. If we follow one specific magnetic field line then

318: this becomes more horizontal with height in the atmosphere. This can explain

319: the relation and also the observed difference between the chromospheric

320: microjets and the photospheric magnetic field. A microjet following an opening

321: magnetic field line would appear more horizontal than this same field line at

322: photospheric layers.

323: 

324: These assumptions also imply that the PJs would become more horizontal with

325: height; i.e., the observed microjets should not be straight but instead bend

326: towards the horizontal direction. There are only a few observed cases of PJs in

327: the analysed data set that appear to be curved. We suppose that the rarity of

328: curved PJs is mainly caused by the shortness of these events and by the

329: projection effect to the LOS frame.

330: 

331: Figure~\ref{curved} shows the running-difference image of a microjet (bright

332: area, detected onset is at lower left part of the image) that appears to be

333: bending towards the horizontal line with height in the atmosphere. A simplified

334: sketch of a microjet is plotted in the upper left corner of Fig.~\ref{curved}.

335: There is a small change of PJ orientation between the faint part (initial

336: phase, fitted by the dashed blue line) and the bright part (later phase, fitted

337: by the solid blue line). In the case of the observed PJ, the angle between

338: these lines is 7$^\circ$ in the LOS frame and corresponds to the difference of

339: 9$^\circ$ in the LRF. This value is comparable to the average difference

340: between the dashed and solid lines in Fig.~\ref{plot}; i.e., the initial

341: inclination of this microjet is close to the magnetic field inclination at

342: higher photospheric layers. From the simplified sketch it is also apparent,

343: that the sooner the PJ is identified, the closer its inclination to the

344: magnetic field inclination obtained at higher photospheric layers will be.

345: 

346: \begin{figure}[!t]

347:   \centering

348:   \includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{0333fig4.eps}

349:   \caption{The magnified running-difference image of one of the microjet that

350:   is slightly curved. The solid blue line is the linear fit of the brightest area of

351:   the microjet and the dashed blue line represent the initial orientation of the microjet.

352:   The intensity contours, drawn at an offset of -0.8$``$ along the y-axis are shown

353:   to emphasise the curvature of the PJ. A sketch of a penumbral microjet is

354:   shown in the upper left corner. The dashed and solid blue lines represent the orientation

355:   in the initial and later phase, respectively. The sketched PJ follows the opening field line marked

356:   by the solid black line and the dashed black line shows its inclination at

357:   higher photospheric layers.}

358:   \label{curved}

359: \end{figure}

360: 

361: The results shown in Fig.~\ref{plot} also imply that the field is becoming more

362: horizontal with height along the local normal line anywhere in the penumbra.

363: This does not agree with a simple conception of an opening flux tube that

364: would result in approximately constant inclination values along the local

365: normal line. Constant inclination with height was also found by

366: \citet{Orozco:2005}, who used the inversion of spectral lines to determine the

367: magnetic field orientation in photosphere and chromosphere. However, the

368: authors assume that the magnetic field inclination is constant with height in

369: the photosphere. Thus, the obtained photospheric inclinations might by

370: influenced by the horizontal component of the magnetic field and are indeed

371: higher than those obtained in this analysis or from the two-component

372: inversions. The magnetic field inclinations at the chromospheric layers found

373: by \citet{Orozco:2005} are comparable to the PJ inclinations reported in this

374: Letter.

375: 

376: \section{Conclusions}

377: 

378: We identified 209 penumbral microjets in almost two-hour long observations of

379: the penumbra in AR10923 using the \ion{Ca}{ii}~H images taken with 30~s

380: cadence. In combination with simultaneous G--band observations, the

381: inclinations of these microjets (angle between the PJ and local normal line)

382: are determined along with their approximate position in the penumbra. The

383: results show a clear increase in the PJ inclination toward the outer penumbral

384: edge. We find on average inclinations around 35$^\circ$ at the umbra/penumbra

385: boundary and 70$^\circ$ at the penumbra/quiet sun boundary.

386: 

387: The found radial variation in the PJ inclination resembles the change in

388: magnetic field inclination at higher photospheric layers across the penumbra.

389: We find the difference of 10$^\circ$ between the inclinations of magnetic field

390: lines and penumbral microjets, with the former more vertical. This difference

391: can be explained easily if we suppose that the PJs follow the magnetic field

392: lines that are opening with height. There are a few observed PJs that show the

393: change in inclination with height in the atmosphere and support this

394: hypothesis.

395: 

396: The observed difference also implies that on average we detect the PJs at

397: higher atmospheric layers and only rarely at the initial stage when the PJs

398: inclination angles should be close to (or same as) the magnetic field

399: inclination at higher photospheric layers. The scatter of individually

400: determined values of PJs inclination in Fig.~\ref{plot} can be influenced by

401: the different time spans between the onset and the determination of the PJs

402: inclination.

403: 

404: Although our results cannot clarify the mechanism responsible for the formation

405: of the PJs, they imply that the PJs are guided by magnetic field lines that are

406: fanning out with height. Higher cadence observations of \ion{Ca}{ii}~H and

407: G--band filtergrams and simultaneous SP measurements are needed to study this

408: problem in detail.

409: 

410: \begin{acknowledgements} We thank Luis Bellot Rubio and Rolf Schlichenmaier for

411: helpful suggestions and comments. This work was enabled thanks to the funding

412: provided by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Financial support

413: from GA AS CR IAA30030808 is gratefully acknowledged. Hinode is a Japanese

414: mission developed and launched by ISAS/JAXA, with NAOJ as domestic partner and

415: NASA and STFC (UK) as international partners. It is operated by these agencies

416: in cooperation with ESA and NSC (Norway). The computations were partly carried

417: out at the NAOJ Hinode Science Center, which is supported by the Grant-in-Aid

418: for Creative Scientic Research The Basic Study of Space Weather Prediction from

419: MEXT, Japan (Head Investigator: K. Shibata), generous donations from Sun

420: Microsystems, and NAOJ internal funding.

421: \end{acknowledgements}

422: 

423: \begin{thebibliography}{16}

424: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

425: 

426: \bibitem[{{Bellot Rubio} {et~al.}(2004){Bellot Rubio}, {Balthasar}, \&

427:   {Collados}}]{Bellot:2004}

428: {Bellot Rubio}, L.~R., {Balthasar}, H., \& {Collados}, M. 2004, A\&A, 427, 319

429: 

430: \bibitem[{{Bellot Rubio} {et~al.}(2006){Bellot Rubio}, {Schlichenmaier}, \&

431:   {Tritschler}}]{Bellot:2006}

432: {Bellot Rubio}, L.~R., {Schlichenmaier}, R., \& {Tritschler}, A. 2006, A\&A,

433:   453, 1117

434: 

435: \bibitem[{{Borrero} {et~al.}(2006){Borrero}, {Solanki}, {Lagg},

436:   {Socas-Navarro}, \& {Lites}}]{Borrero:2006}

437: {Borrero}, J.~M., {Solanki}, S.~K., {Lagg}, A., {Socas-Navarro}, H., \&

438:   {Lites}, B. 2006, A\&A, 450, 383

439: 

440: \bibitem[{{Cabrera Solana} {et~al.}(2005){Cabrera Solana}, {Bellot Rubio}, \&

441:   {del Toro Iniesta}}]{cabrera:2005}

442: {Cabrera Solana}, D., {Bellot Rubio}, L.~R., \& {del Toro Iniesta}, J.~C. 2005,

443:   \aap, 439, 687

444: 

445: \bibitem[{{Jur{\v c}{\'a}k} {et~al.}(2007){Jur{\v c}{\'a}k}, {Bellot Rubio},

446:   {Ichimoto}, {Katsukawa}, {Lites}, {Nagata}, {Shimizu}, {Suematsu}, {Tarbell},

447:   {Title}, \& {Tsuneta}}]{Jurcak:2007}

448: {Jur{\v c}{\'a}k}, J., {Bellot Rubio}, L., {Ichimoto}, K., {et~al.} 2007,

449:   \pasj, 59, 601

450: 

451: \bibitem[{{Katsukawa} {et~al.}(2007){Katsukawa}, {Berger}, {Ichimoto}, {Lites},

452:   {Nagata}, {Shimizu}, {Shine}, {Suematsu}, {Tarbell}, {Title}, \&

453:   {Tsuneta}}]{Katsukawa:2007}

454: {Katsukawa}, Y., {Berger}, T.~E., {Ichimoto}, K., {et~al.} 2007, Science, 318,

455:   1594

456: 

457: \bibitem[{{Kosugi} {et~al.}(2007){Kosugi}, {Matsuzaki}, {Sakao}, {Shimizu},

458:   {Sone}, {Tachikawa}, {Hashimoto}, {Minesugi}, {Ohnishi}, {Yamada}, {Tsuneta},

459:   {Hara}, {Ichimoto}, {Suematsu}, {Shimojo}, {Watanabe}, {Shimada}, {Davis},

460:   {Hill}, {Owens}, {Title}, {Culhane}, {Harra}, {Doschek}, \&

461:   {Golub}}]{Kosugi:2007}

462: {Kosugi}, T., {Matsuzaki}, K., {Sakao}, T., {et~al.} 2007, \solphys, 243, 3

463: 

464: \bibitem[{{Lites} \& {Skumanich}(1990)}]{Lites:1990a}

465: {Lites}, B.~W. \& {Skumanich}, A. 1990, \apj, 348, 747

466: 

467: \bibitem[{{Mart{\'{\i}}nez Pillet}(2000)}]{vmp:2000}

468: {Mart{\'{\i}}nez Pillet}, V. 2000, A\&A, 361, 734

469: 

470: \bibitem[{{M{\"u}ller} {et~al.}(2002){M{\"u}ller}, {Schlichenmaier}, {Steiner},

471:   \& {Stix}}]{Muller:2002}

472: {M{\"u}ller}, D.~A.~N., {Schlichenmaier}, R., {Steiner}, O., \& {Stix}, M.

473:   2002, \aap, 393, 305

474: 

475: \bibitem[{{Orozco Suarez} {et~al.}(2005){Orozco Suarez}, {Lagg}, \&

476:   {Solanki}}]{Orozco:2005}

477: {Orozco Suarez}, D., {Lagg}, A., \& {Solanki}, S.~K. 2005, in ESA Special

478:   Publication, Vol. 596, Chromospheric and Coronal Magnetic Fields, ed. D.~E.

479:   {Innes}, A.~{Lagg}, \& S.~A. {Solanki}

480: 

481: \bibitem[{{Ruiz Cobo} \& {del Toro Iniesta}(1992)}]{Cobo:1992}

482: {Ruiz Cobo}, B. \& {del Toro Iniesta}, J.~C. 1992, ApJ, 398, 375

483: 

484: \bibitem[{{Scharmer} \& {Spruit}(2006)}]{Scharmer:2006}

485: {Scharmer}, G.~B. \& {Spruit}, H.~C. 2006, A\&A, 460, 605

486: 

487: \bibitem[{{Solanki} \& {Montavon}(1993)}]{Solanki:1993}

488: {Solanki}, S.~K. \& {Montavon}, C.~A.~P. 1993, A\&A, 275, 283

489: 

490: \bibitem[{{Tsuneta} {et~al.}(2008){Tsuneta}, {Ichimoto}, {Katsukawa}, {Nagata},

491:   {Otsubo}, {Shimizu}, {Suematsu}, {Nakagiri}, {Noguchi}, {Tarbell}, {Title},

492:   {Shine}, {Rosenberg}, {Hoffmann}, {Jurcevich}, {Kushner}, {Levay}, {Lites},

493:   {Elmore}, {Matsushita}, {Kawaguchi}, {Saito}, {Mikami}, {Hill}, \&

494:   {Owens}}]{Tsuneta:2008}

495: {Tsuneta}, S., {Ichimoto}, K., {Katsukawa}, Y., {et~al.} 2008, \solphys, 249,

496:   167

497: 

498: \bibitem[{{Westendorp Plaza} {et~al.}(2001){Westendorp Plaza}, {del Toro

499:   Iniesta}, {Ruiz Cobo}, {Pillet}, {Lites}, \& {Skumanich}}]{cwp:2001}

500: {Westendorp Plaza}, C., {del Toro Iniesta}, J.~C., {Ruiz Cobo}, B., {et~al.}

501:   2001, ApJ, 547, 1130

502: 

503: \end{thebibliography}

504: 

505: \end{document}

506: