Huge auroral display tonight and tomorrow

Submitted by Mike Hebb

High speed particles in route- excuse the models.
An event on the Sun occurred on the 7th of June. Prompt arrival of high speed particles has already affected the atmosphere.

See video below:

Our model indicates that the shock wave will reach Earth on the 8th of June around 5pm GMT. This will be followed by a disturbance in the solar wind that should produce fairly extensive auroral displays within 24 hr after that time.

Don’t miss it.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/AuroraForecast

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Huge auroral display tonight and tomorrow

  1. Ross Sheehy says:

    Oh no. All those CO2 emissions have broken the sun.

  2. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    Not so sure about that predicted Auroral display. The thing with Coronal Mass Ejections is that if you can see them move away laterally they won’t hit the Earth. The ones we should be wary of are those we can only see projected against the Solar surface, they may hit us, and this is not one of those.

  3. James of the West says:

    hasn’t 5pm of the 8th of june GMT already passed?

  4. James of the West says:

    Ahh – but the show goes for 24 hours! :)

  5. vukcevic says:

    Some time ago I suggested that the Earth’s Northern Hemisphere magnetic field is changing under the influence of the solar magnetic field, mainly geomagnetic storms. GMF’s bifurcation in the NH’s between the Hudson Bay (loosing strength) and Central Siberia (gaining strength) areas is manifested as a drift of the magnetic pole.
    Tromso (Norway) observatory publishes daily strength of the GMF components. I’ve been recording (for an unrelated purpose) the Tromso’s data for some weeks now; the recent data shows that the vertical component (Bz), after each burst of the solar flares, is (progressively) gaining in strength.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
    This would confirm my initial assertion as outlined here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
    Despite of data evidence this may be dismissed as ‘pseudoscience’, which is fine with me, since I am interested in data not opinions.

  6. Pompous Git says:

    Bugger! It’s overcast and nothing to see. Aurorae are rather spectacular here in southern Tasmania. Time for another red neddy to drown my sorrows…

  7. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Would it not be better to have a huge aureole display night after night?

  8. DCC says:

    Not much information there. How far toward the equator should they be visible? Or is is business as usual, except more so?

  9. Ken G says:

    Darn!
    I just got back from Alaska a few days ago. Just missed this :(

  10. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2011 at 2:48 am
    Some time ago I suggested that the Earth’s Northern Hemisphere magnetic field is changing under the influence of the solar magnetic field, mainly geomagnetic storms. [...] Tromso (Norway) observatory publishes daily strength of the GMF components. I’ve been recording (for an unrelated purpose) the Tromso’s data for some weeks now; the recent data shows that the vertical component (Bz), after each burst of the solar flares, is (progressively) gaining in strength.
    Tromso BZ increases about 0.5 o/oo every year because the normal secular variation at that place, which it has been doing for the past 80 years [and more]. This has nothing to do with the Sun.

  11. James of the West says:
    June 9, 2011 at 2:35 am
    hasn’t 5pm of the 8th of june GMT already passed?
    It is hitting right now. Their model is uncertain because they don’t have the solar polar fields exactly right [it is difficult].

  12. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: June 9, 2011 at 1:42 pm
    Tromso BZ increases about 0.5 o/oo every year because the normal secular variation at that place, which it has been doing for the past 80 years [and more]. This has nothing to do with the Sun.

    My graph shows what the Tromso Bz was doing for the last 400 years, so past 80 years you quote is not a new information.
    I stated precisely that it is to do with geomagnetic disturbances, its rise is in the discrete steps coinciding with periods of more intense geomagnetic activity. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
    If it was due to the circulation within the Earth’s core, such discrete up-steps could not and would not exist.
    It is not ‘normal secular variation at that place’, but it is a synchronous change within most of the north hemisphere, with highest intensity at the high latitudes.
    You stated an opinion to what is not due; it would be far more informative to provide evidence in form of data, to show what the discrete changes are due to. A convoluted answer, for those interested in facts, would not do.
    Opinions without support of data became rampant among CCs (Climate Catastrophists) and ‘from this day forward’ as the result of such, may be justifiably ignored in any branch of science.

  13. vukcevic says:
    June 9, 2011 at 2:27 pm
    I stated precisely that it is to do with geomagnetic disturbances, its rise is in the discrete steps coinciding with periods of more intense geomagnetic activity.
    (sigh) The steps are due to geomagnetic storms that build up a ring current [which decays in several days]. The magnetic effect of the current points from North to South, which at the equator decreases the horizontal component, but at the northern pole increases the vertical component [which is positive downwards], the whole thing riding on the increasing secular variation. Since geomagnetic storms occurring near the Equinoxes have a stronger effect than during the Solstices, Z will have a semiannual variation too. There is also a seasonal variation with Z being a bit higher in the summer, due to proximity to the magnetospheric tail current due to the tilt of the Earth’s axis. All of these effects combine to give the observed data. Here is the result for the years 1931-2010 http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-11.png
    Two consecutive average years are shown. The left one is average 1931-2009, the right one 1932-2010. This way you can see the secular increase [dashed line with regression formula] with some humps riding on it. Subtracting the secular variation gives the red curve [right-hand scale], which shows the combined effect of the summer high and the semiannual humps. All this is well understood [has been for over half a century] and has nothing to do with the sun controlling the main geomagnetic field.

    Opinions without support of data
    Data without support of knowledge may safely be ignored

    may be justifiably ignored in any branch of science
    Your musings are not science.

  14. u.k.(us) says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 9, 2011 at 1:50 pm
    James of the West says:
    June 9, 2011 at 2:35 am
    hasn’t 5pm of the 8th of june GMT already passed?
    It is hitting right now. Their model is uncertain because they don’t have the solar polar fields exactly right [it is difficult].
    ======
    Difficult I understand, but rumors say it is settled :)

  15. Not Sure says:

    Only somewhat related: Voyager probes find magnetic bubbles at the edge of the Solar system:

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/heliosphere-surprise.html

  16. Not Sure says:
    June 9, 2011 at 6:31 pm
    Only somewhat related: Voyager probes find magnetic bubbles at the edge of the Solar system
    The usual hype that everybody is surprised. Voyager [at time 1:00 into the video] simply confirms our 35 year old explanation of cosmic ray modulation by cosmic rays being scattered off the turbulent, tangled magnetic fields [the 'bubbles'] where the heliospheric current sheet approaches the boundary: http://www,leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf

  17. Not Sure says:

    Dunno why you call it “hype”. You say in that paper “A final evaluation must await in situ observations with out-of-ecliptic spacecraft.” You got it and additional details to boot.

  18. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 9, 2011 at 5:44 pm
    The steps are due to geomagnetic storms that build up a ring current [which decays in several days].
    But it did not, not in several days, not even in several months, but keeps moving up the steps.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
    I do not dispute rest of your interpretation; it is helpful and makes sense.
    However, I am happy to observe and follow the data, not opinions. Deficiency in understanding events is not good enough reason for a summarily dismissal. Purpose of science is not to acquiesce but to progress; it is moved forward by questioning of the existing tenets.
    I do record (for posterity) all your Vuk-Failing.pngs, with brief comments, only 11 up to date, I expected much higher rate of the failure notification, please do go on.
    History notes independent thinking, not a subservient compliance.

  19. Not Sure says:
    June 9, 2011 at 11:08 pm
    Dunno why you call it “hype”. You say in that paper “A final evaluation must await in situ observations with out-of-ecliptic spacecraft.” You got it and additional details to boot.
    The hype is the claim that what they found is new and overthrows an old, orthodox model. It does not, it confirms it.

    vukcevic says:
    June 10, 2011 at 12:46 am
    The steps are due to geomagnetic storms that build up a ring current [which decays in several days].
    But it did not, not in several days, not even in several months, but keeps moving up the steps.

    Because the seasonal variation moves up from winter to summer on top of the secular variation that is steadily upwards.
    Purpose of science is not to acquiesce but to progress; it is moved forward by questioning of the existing tenets.
    Failing #11 is not science, and does not amount to progress. I gave you an easy-to-understand reason for what you observe.
    Deficiency in understanding events is not good enough reason for a summarily dismissal
    So, now that you understand why the data looks the way they do, you can safely dismiss your mistake.

  20. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 10, 2011 at 5:00 am
    V. Deficiency in understanding events is not good enough reason for a summarily dismissal
    S. So, now that you understand why the data looks the way they do, you can safely dismiss your mistake.

    Your theory is based on the knowledge from 1950s. Since then data show it to be deficient in the understanding of the real cause of the annual changes.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SvalgaardFails.gif

  21. vukcevic says:
    June 10, 2011 at 9:36 am
    Your theory is based on the knowledge from 1950s.
    I have explained in some detail the data that you observe. The explanation is fully in line with our theoretical understanding of today. If there are steps in that explanation you do not understand, feel free to ask and I’ll explain further.

  22. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 10, 2011 at 11:34 am
    V. Your theory is based on the knowledge from 1950s.
    S. The explanation is fully in line with our theoretical understanding of today.

    Indeed, and it is fully in line with data up to 1950, but it is not in line with data since 1950, as clearly demonstrated here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SF.htm
    dBz trend changes direction with longitude in 1950 and then again in the 1970s (btw. same as the global temperature).
    I am off to Tamino’s, where I am elaborating further on my ‘geomagnetic fantasies’, you might like to join in.

  23. vukcevic says:
    June 10, 2011 at 1:06 pm
    S. “The explanation is fully in line with our theoretical understanding of today.”
    Indeed, and it is fully in line with data up to 1950, but it is not in line with data since 1950, as clearly demonstrated here

    You demonstrate nothing of a kind.
    The Z component at a given location is the sum of several sources
    1: the crustal ore bodies [never changes]
    2: the internal field from the core [that has a secular variation]
    3: the annual field from the tail [goes through an annual cycle]
    4: the field from the ring current [depends on geomagnetic storms]
    5: the field from the auroral oval [depends on solar wind fluctuations]
    And the induced fields from time variations of all the above sources
    All of these are understood. And can be [and are] measured, and make up the combined Z field that we see. Only #2 has a secular change [it is going up at the moment at Tromsoe] and is not influenced by the Sun.

  24. Enneagram says:

    Pythagoras´insistence on teaching his theorem should be remembered, as many seem to have forgotten it: The legs of his square triangle are:Magnetism and Electricity; this is why the equation for power has the factor of 1.414 (the square root of 2, being the hypothenuse the squared sum of the two legs, each being the unity=1)
    Apparently it is more “cool” to elaborate complicated theories instead of describing the simplicity of nature.

  25. JKS says:

    Solar Radio Flux index back down to 87, I really thought it was going to stay above 100 for good. This is more fun than stat watching in pro sports, what will it do next?

  26. Enneagram says:
    June 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm
    Pythagoras´insistence on teaching his theorem should be remembered, as many seem to have forgotten it: The legs of his square triangle are:Magnetism and Electricity;
    Indeed, without knowing it Pythagoras was right: Plasma moving in magnetic fields creates the electricity that causes all the interesting, explosive effects we observe. Thanks for reminding everybody.

  27. vukcevic says:

    1. The crustal ore bodies [never changes]
    2.Secular trend is removed:
    As a scientist you are well aware if dBz = Bn-Bn-1, where n is in 1 year steps, than all secular change is removed. Since NOAA interpolates magnetic values every 5 years a small remainder contained in 5 year is defined by two relevant trend lines, this is greatly exceeded by the annual changes.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SF.htm
    Now lets take a look at (lower graph) Siberian pole (red line) compared to the sunspot number (blue line)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SF.htm
    not perfect (considering your points 3,4 & 5, all accepted) but indicative of a link.
    Sunspot number and the geomagnetic storms are slightly out of phase, so knowing that you must have a link for a Dst data file, I would like to do a further comparison.
    I do not question any of your explanations except the one that there is no possibility of a link.

  28. vukcevic says:

    SOLAR-EARTH magnetic link
    For some time now I claimed that such link exists, but this is disputed by experts. Here I present, if not definitive then at least initial step towards the proof of existence of the imprint of the solar magnetic activity on the Earth’s magnetic field.
    Of particular interest is geomagnetic minor ‘flip’ in 1970s.
    Up to that time the Hudson bay magnetic pole negative gradient was faithfully following, with minor exceptions, the solar activity with a (for the moment not explicable) 30 year delay. In 1970 this correlation changes sign.
    In addition as shown before the Siberian magnetic pole responds, with no delay, to the changes in the solar activity.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBz.htm
    This is not something which should be dismissed without serious consideration!
    Is there a plausible link to the climate change?
    For time being difficult to say.

  29. vukcevic says:
    June 11, 2011 at 12:33 am
    2.Secular trend is removed:
    As a scientist you are well aware if dBz = Bn-Bn-1, where n is in 1 year steps, than all secular change is removed.
    On the contrary, dBz is the secular change per year. This is the definition of secular variation: ‘the difference between each year and the previous one’

    you must have a link for a Dst data file, I would like to do a further comparison.
    Here is Dst for every hour since 1905 http://www.leif.org/research/Dst-Love.txt but that is probably too overwhelming, so here is Dst for each year: http://www.leif.org/research/Dst-year.txt
    The format of that file is: year, average Dst when positive, number of hours, most positive value, average Dst when negative, number of hours, most negative value, number of missing hours.
    Now, the negative mean of Dst is essentially just the Sunspot number: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-Dst.png so since -Dst adds to Z [my point 4], no wonder there is a correlation between changes in Z and SSN. This does not mean that the Sun influences the internal field, it is the external field that correlates. As I said, all this is well understood and there is no evidence for anything besides that understanding.

    I do not question any of your explanations except the one that there is no possibility of a link.
    There is always a possibility, there is just no evidence for it, and the energetics is many orders of magnitude off.

    vukcevic says:
    June 11, 2011 at 5:02 am
    This is not something which should be dismissed without serious consideration!
    Serious consideration immediately makes this extremely unlikely.

    Is there a plausible link to the climate change? For time being difficult to say.
    No, very easy to tell. There is no plausible link. There could be an implausible link, but very unlikely. The various plots you show are not evidence for any links.

  30. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 11, 2011 at 7:44 am
    …..
    Thank you for the Dst file.
    phenomena associated with this secular variation include geomagnetic jerk, westward drift and geomagnetic reversals and these are excluded by 1 year delta-sampling.

  31. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 11, 2011 at 7:44 am
    “if dBz = Bn-Bn-1, where n is in 1 year steps, than all secular change is removed. ”
    On the contrary, dBz is the secular change per year. This is the definition of secular variation: ‘the difference between each year and the previous one’

    Perhaps you are just being sloppy in choice of words. Let us say that Z increases 25 nT [better use that unit rather than o/oo or uT] every year, so that after 100 years Z will have increased 2500 nT. Your dZ is then 25 nT or just the increase per year. Now, in a sunspot maximum year there is an additional increase of -Dst = 30 nT. In a sunspot minimum year the additional increase is -Dst = 10 nT [see http://www.leif.org/research/SSS-Dst.png ], so the observed dBz is the sum of 25 and 30 = 55 for solar max and 25+10 = 35 for solar minimum year. So there is a solar cycle variation of the external current that is comparable to the secular variation. To compare with observations you should use a station that reports yearly values and not the smoothed values from NGDC. suitable Siberian stations include Norilsk, Yakutsk, Dixon, Novosibirsk, and Irkutsk.

  32. vukcevic says:
    June 11, 2011 at 5:02 am
    For some time now I claimed that such link exists, but this is disputed by experts. Here I present, if not definitive then at least initial step towards the proof of existence of the imprint of the solar magnetic activity on the Earth’s magnetic field.
    Or perhaps you are just confused as what is what. From your various posts it seems that you think the internal field is affected. There is absolutely, definitely, and without any doubt a solar magnetic activity influence on the MEASURED geomagnetic field at [or near] the surface. That is what all the geomagnetic indices are all about. I use that influence myself in reconstructing the sun’s magnetic field from geomagnetic measurements. This is not disputed by experts. The various external electric currents induce similar currents within the Earth [which we can also determine precisely], but the magnetic effects of these internal currents are much smaller than those of the external currents. Finally both the external currents and the induced current are transient only.

  33. vukcevic says:
    June 11, 2011 at 10:10 am
    phenomena associated with this secular variation include geomagnetic jerk, westward drift and geomagnetic reversals and these are excluded by 1 year delta-sampling.
    There are NO geomagnetic reversals in the data anywhere, and the westward drift is not excluded. The 1-year differences just give you the drift each year. Same for the jerks.

Comments are closed.