4.6 Article

The EUV spectrum of the Sun: Irradiances during 1998-2014

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 584, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526804

关键词

techniques: spectroscopic; Sun: corona

资金

  1. European Commission [313188]
  2. UK STFC via the consolidated grant of the DAMTP astrophysics group at the University of Cambridge
  3. Italian Space Agency (ASI) through ASI-INAF [I/013/12/0]
  4. STCE
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/J001570/1, PP/E004857/2, ST/L000636/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. STFC [PP/D002907/1, ST/H000429/1, PP/E004857/2, ST/L000636/1, ST/J001570/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present calibrated EUV spectral irradiances obtained from observations with the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Coronal Diagnostics Spectrometer (CDS) Normal Incidence Spectrometer (NIS) during the 1998-2014 period, which spans the cycle 23 maximum and minimum and the cycle 24 maximum. We revise the corrections for the burn-in of the strong lines and our previous long-term calibration of the NIS. We find no indications of further overall degradation of the instrument responsivities after 2010. We compare the CDS irradiances with those obtained by the prototype and flight instruments aboard the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) Extreme ultraviolet Variability Experiment (EVE) and the Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics Dynamics (TIMED) Solar EUV Experiment (SEE) EUV Grating Spectrograph (EGS). We find overall excellent agreement (to within a relative 10-20%) with the EVE data (especially during 2010-2012), but point out inconsistencies in some of the prototype and flight EVE irradiances. There is overall agreement with some of the TIMED SEE EGS data. We confirm the small variations in the irradiances of low-temperature lines (except the helium lines) and show that the irradiances in the hot (2-3 MK) lines are significantly lower for the cycle 24 maximum compared to the previous one.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据