From NOAA news: NOAA Scientist Finds Clue to Predicting Solar Flares
Forecasters at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
For decades, experts have searched for signs in the sun that could lead to more accurate forecasts of solar flares — powerful blasts of energy that can supercharge Earth’s upper atmosphere and disrupt satellites and the land-based technologies on which modern societies depend. Now a scientist at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center and her colleagues have found a technique for predicting solar flares two to three days in advance with unprecedented accuracy.
The long-sought clue to prediction lies in changes in twisting magnetic fields beneath the surface of the sun in the days leading up to a flare, according to the authors. The findings will be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters next month.
“For the first time, we can tell two to three days in advance when and where a solar flare will occur and how large it will be,” said lead author Alysha Reinard, a solar physicist at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, a partnership between NOAA and the University of Colorado.
Twisting magnetic fields beneath the surface of the sun erupt into a large solar flare, as shown above.
High resolution (Credit: NSF)
The new technique is already twice as accurate as current methods, according to the authors, and that number is expected to improve as they refine their work over the next few years. With this technique, reliable watches and warnings should be possible before the next solar sunspot maximum, predicted to occur in 2013. Currently, forecasters see complex sunspot regions and issue alerts that a large flare may erupt, but the when-and-where eludes them.
Solar flares are sudden bursts of energy and light from sunspots’ magnetic fields. During a flare, photons travel at the speed of light in all directions through space, arriving at Earth’s upper atmosphere—93 million miles from the sun—in just eight minutes.
Almost instantly the photons can affect the high-orbiting satellites of the Global Positioning System, or GPS, creating timing delays and skewing positioning signals by as much as half a football field, risking high-precision agriculture, oil drilling, military and airline operations, financial transactions, navigation, disaster warnings, and other critical functions relying on GPS accuracy.
“Two or three days lead time can make the difference between safeguarding the advanced technologies we depend on every day for our livelihood and security, and the catastrophic loss of these capabilities and trillions of dollars in disrupted commerce,” said Thomas Bogdan, director of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.
Reinard and NOAA intern Justin Henthorn of Ohio University pored over detailed maps of more than 1,000 sunspot groups, called active regions. The maps were constructed from solar sound-wave data from the National Science Foundation’s Global Oscillation Network Group.
Reinard and Henthorn found the same pattern in region after region: magnetic twisting that tightened to the breaking point, burst into a large flare, and vanished. They established that the pattern could be used as a reliable tool for predicting a solar flare.
“These recurring motions of the magnetic field, playing out unseen beneath the solar surface, are the clue we’ve needed to know that a large flare is coming—and when,” said Reinard.
Rudi Komm and Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory contributed to the research.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources. Visit us on Facebook.
Note to Editors: The paper has been accepted for publication in Astrophysical Journal Letters in February: “Evidence that temporal changes in solar subsurface helicity precede active region flaring,” by Alysha Reinard, Justin Henthorn, Rudi Komm, and Frank Hill.
Leif Svalgaard (09:19:19) :
Clive E Burkland (06:22:10) :
Sunspot 1040 which was from the same region and displayed similar characteristics did not show the same dip in TSI. Is there a difference between the two regions?
When I look I see the dip as expected. Here are the numbers:
2010 1 9 2010.020272 1361.0872
2010 1 10 2010.02301 1361.0885
2010 1 11 2010.025747 1361.0084
2010 1 12 2010.028485 1360.8926 ==== 1040
2010 1 13 2010.031223 1360.8956 ==== 1040
2010 1 14 2010.033961 1360.9406
2010 1 15 2010.036699 1361.0838
2010 1 16 2010.039437 1361.2007
=======================
Thanks, but I still do not see a decline in the Jan TSI that matches the Dec decline. The value in Dec appears to be just over 1360.70, the scale makes it difficult to be precise. I was presuming the large dip in Dec was caused by 1035, but is it more likely a result of 1039?
If so the answer may be more elusive.
Clive E Burkland (16:55:04) :
Thanks, but I still do not see a decline in the Jan TSI that matches the Dec decline. The value in Dec appears to be just over 1360.70
TSI reacts from day to day on the spots. The monthly mean cannot be tied to any particular spot or active region. Here a blow-up of the past 1/4 year:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png
You can clearly see the dips in TSO correlated with each serious sunspot group. I’m a bit confused as to what your problem is. Perhaps this expanded is helpful.
Leif Svalgaard (17:42:09) :
Clive E Burkland (16:55:04) :
Here a blow-up of the past 1/4 year …
The vertical grid lines are one week apart and there is one ‘dot’ per day. In interpreting the graphs one must remember that they all are disk-totals.
tallbloke (14:16:47) :
The failed theories form the footnotes of history
No, they live one as pseudo-science and ‘alternative belief’ or just plain nuttiness.
Leif Svalgaard (17:42:09) :
Clive E Burkland (16:55:04) :
Thanks, but I still do not see a decline in the Jan TSI that matches the Dec decline. The value in Dec appears to be just over 1360.70
TSI reacts from day to day on the spots. The monthly mean cannot be tied to any particular spot or active region. Here a blow-up of the past 1/4 year:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png
You can clearly see the dips in TSO correlated with each serious sunspot group. I’m a bit confused as to what your problem is. Perhaps this expanded is helpful.
The expanded graph helps greatly, I also graphed the adjusted F10.7 flux to double check the timing against the sunspot groups. If there is no lag the sharp decline in TSI agrees with sunspot 1039. My problem is understanding why the much greater decline in TSI coincided with 1039 as compared with 1035 & 1040.
Could you please clarify Leif.
Sunspots & JEV – Collection of Graphs:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/SunspotsJEV.htm
The match/mismatch pattern appears systematic.
The various investigations used indices that threw away info, so I devised alternate indices to get an alternate view of what all the fuss was about.
I draw no conclusions about the physics.
Clive E Burkland (18:30:59) :
My problem is understanding why the much greater decline in TSI coincided with 1039 as compared with 1035 & 1040.
I’m not sure what you mean: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png
Paul Vaughan (18:46:06) :
I draw no conclusions about the physics.
Good, because there isn’t any. This is just numerology. Jupiter’s period is 11.85 years, which is a bit more than the sunspots. By adding in Venus and the Earth, you subtract a bit and get closer to 11 years.
It is a bit disingenuous to claim that you draw no conclusions about the physics. Like admitting it is just numerology…
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (18:08:24):
“. . . they live one as pseudo-science and ‘alternative belief’ or just plain nuttiness.”
Sounds like someone described in the Avatar movie as “too full” !
Did Leif overlook this movie of a flare and mass ejection that the TRACE satellite recorded from solar Active Region AR 9143 on 28 August 2000?
http://tinyurl.com/y9sobnu
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (20:27:20) :
Did Leif overlook this movie of a flare and mass ejection that the TRACE satellite recorded from solar Active Region AR 9143 on 28 August 2000?
No, but what does that show other than what everyone knows: the CME and flare is triggered from above because the loops have become too twisted and now carry too much energy, wanting to [and doing it] relax to a lower energy state.
Leif Svalgaard (19:14:31) :
I’m not sure what you mean: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Latest.png
That is one way to hide the decline, but unfortunately does not provide an answer to my question.
Clive E Burkland (20:41:35) :
That is one way to hide the decline, but unfortunately does not provide an answer to my question.
Your question is like: “how come that 6 is larger than 7 and 8?”
The dip for 1039 is smaller than the dips for 1035 and 1040. So what precisely is your question?
Clive E Burkland (20:41:35) :
That is one way to hide the decline, but unfortunately does not provide an answer to my question.
Perhaps you are missing that TSI has a rotational modulation [and we don’t know why – actually] as you can see in: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
The dips related to sunspots ride on top of the rotational modulation [RM – taking a bite out]. The 1039 region occurred near the bottom of the RM so what you might believe is the 1039 dip is the RM dip plus the 1039 dip. If you think that the total dip should be 1039 you are ignoring the RM. I am at a loss how to make it any clearer.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (20:40:59) :
“No, but what does that show other than what everyone knows: the CME and flare is triggered from above because the loops have become too twisted and now carry too much energy, wanting to [and doing it] relax to a lower energy state.”
The CME and flare are triggered from above?
Above the rigid, mountainous iron-rich structures that vent in the movie?
Did Leif forget that the camera used 171 Å filters to see emissions from iron ions, Fe (IX) and Fe (X).
Definitely too full!
That’s my opinion,
Oliver K. Manuel
Leif Svalgaard (19:32:00) “This is just numerology.”
Not at all. The calculations objectively summarize the geometry of NASA Horizons output.
Leif Svalgaard (19:32:00) “Jupiter’s period is 11.85 years, which is a bit more than the sunspots. By adding in Venus and the Earth, you subtract a bit and get closer to 11 years.”
The period has been worked out theoretically by 3 different methods (none of which are “eyeball” or “statistical”).
Leif Svalgaard (19:32:00) “It is a bit disingenuous […]”
Not at all. I draw no conclusions about the physics.
Leif Svalgaard (21:12:14) :
I am at a loss how to make it any clearer.
Considering you left out the unknown vital RM factor, it should not be hard to work out my lack of understanding. Thank for your time Dr. Svalgaard.
phlogiston (06:07:13) :
Richard Holle (00:43:11) :
“So do the peaks of flare eruption have any correlation, to the timing of the heliocentric conjunctions of the major planets..”
The idea of planets exerting an effect on the sun – such as on sunspot cycle, is a fascinating one, which has been raised on some recent threads by yourself and others. It opens up the (hypothetical) possibility of a new source of feedback. Sunspot cycles are suspected of entraining global and oceanic cycles of heat exchange. Usually there is the assumption that any interaction sun-earth can only be one way.
However if planetary orbits and their interaction can influence the sunspot cycle, for instance, then orbital periodicities of planets have the possibility to influence climate by two routes, directly by the orbital effect on the planet’s climate, and indirectly via entrainment of the sunspot cycle – which in turn influences and entrains the planet’s climate.
Is it possible that these two routes of influence of orbital periodicity could interfere with eachother, resulting in either harmonics or nonlinear quasi-chaotic behaviour (e.g. nonlinear spontaneous pattern formation)?
My reply;
link was recently sent to me by old contact:
http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/paper18.pdf
Spector (09:22:43) :
Good news! If this is true we now may have enough advance warning of a huge solar flare on the magnitude of the September 1859 Carrington Event to save our electric power distribution grid from being totally destroyed by the massive surge of induced direct current that would result from such an event. I hope we do establish a solar flare disaster alert and mitigation procedure for such events.
My reply;
There is a good possibility that the outage you refer to was caused by the near simultaneous multiple heliocentric conjunction of Earth, Mars, and Neptune, where in, the increased flux in the solar wind toward the three planets in line concentrated, or directed more of the flare through the Earth. Affecting the surge in DC homo polar generator currents through the ground buss of the grid, past the rated capacity of the network, taking it down.
This is a common occurrence in large grid outages, if you have dates for the multiple instances of record, look up the relative positions (Heliocentrically) of the Earth and other planets mainly Venus, mars, and Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune. Time limited but good tool for that here; http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
tallbloke (14:16:47) :
Patrick Davis (07:24:47) :
Predicting solar flares, I mean, as if!!!
It’s been done by NASA scientist Ching Cheh Hung with an ephemeris and a calculator. No need for Mission control type display arrays.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.121.9361&rep=rep1&type=pdf
(a) Large solar flares were forecasted to start between late June 3 and early June 5, 2007, when the
sunspot group 960 was rotated to overhead point of Mercury and Venus. They would also have been very
likely to start on June 7 or 8, 2007, when the sunspot group was rotated to the position overhead of Earth
and Jupiter.
As shown in table V, the largest solar flare (M8.9) for sunspot group 960 actually started at 5:06 a.m.
UT on June 4, within the first forecasted time period, but there was no large solar flare in the next
forecasted period (June 7 to 8). Instead, this second forecasted period was crowded with seven smaller
(C-class) flares. It appears that the decaying sunspot group could not produce a large solar flare but was
still strong enough to act with the tide to produce many smaller flares throughout this period.
(b) Based on the previous pattern, large solar flares would also have started when the sunspot group
was 28° to 32° from any of the four tide-producing planets. These happened from late on June 1 to early
on June 2, midday on June 5, midday and late on June 6, and midday on June 9.
Table V shows there were indeed solar flares in all of these time periods, when the sunspot group 960
was 28° to 32° from one or two of the four tide-producing planets. It is noted that the solar flare at
10:17 p.m. UT on June 1 happened as forecasted when the event position was 29° from Venus. However,
it was 25° from Mercury, not the forecasted 28° to 32° range. Separately, the M1.0 solar flare on June 9 is
most interesting because it happened at the time when the sunspot group had been significantly decayed
for 5 days since the last M flare, and a new M-class flare looked less and less likely. Yet it was correctly
forecasted based on the rules presented here when it started at 29° longitude from Jupiter at the start time
of the flare.
My reply;
It seems you have done the leg work, to find the connections I have been hinting at, with the magnetic fields of the solar wind’s interactions with the Earth’s atmosphere related to severe weather out breaks.
I am also noticing that there is considerable disagreement on this subject, I as a new comber to this blog was unaware of, this is good as it will help sort things out for the open minded. At least four schools of thought with slightly different logic applied, this is healthy science in action.
Leif Svalgaard (16:50:31) :
You can almost always find something within ‘range’ afterwards.
Climate science, to a tee. We predict something, everything is consistent (with ‘precise statistical meaning’), and nothing disproves. It is all within range Leif, if you could just come see the light… There is no falsified, this is not the proof you are looking for…
Richard Holle (22:51:54) ” http://www.wxresearch.org/papers/paper18.pdf “
Thanks for reminding me about that paper – looks a whole lot simpler now (months later) — they’ve left a few loose ends…
I think we need to turn over, some more still upside down pieces, to fit all of these things together, before we can throw out any “extra ones.” Can’t wait to see what this new satellite’s data, flips over for further evaluation.
Leif Svalgaard (16:50:31) :
tallbloke (14:16:47) :
[NASA scientist Ching Cheh Hung’s solar flare predictions]
Obviously NOAA does not believe that the planets do anything or are useful for prediction. And for good reason. I have never seen a forecast on the SWPC website based on this [have you?].
No, and I’ve never seen any equally successful predictions come out of the dynamo theory either. [Have you?]
Lots of ‘hindcasts’, by the believers. You can almost always find something within ‘range’ afterwards.
I know you understand the difference between a hindcast and a prediction, so why are you trying to dismiss Ching Cheh Hung’s successful predictions this way?
We already had a spate of 14 Tornadoes (preliminary data total) on the 20th January 2010, 12 more on the 21st, just as the Moon crossed the equator headed North. Which brought in warmer moist air from the gulf, and a nice tight body of more polar, dry line air mass, mid afternoon to start things off. Expect another round the (Texas) 27th -30th (Ga, Al) January the same areas.
As the moon will be maximum North on the 27th, the warm moist air it will drag with it, will clash with the cold air mass, the models are hinting at. The resultant wrap around mixing of the two, will generate a spate of severe weather, that sweeps across the SE / Gulf coast, with hail and tornadoes very possible.
To show how the other planets seem to create increases in severe weather, the Earth is having a heliocentric conjunction with Mars on the 29th January at 7:37 EST, and it would appear that this has had some effect in increasing last weeks tornado production.
What will be telling is the peak of the Mars/Earth conjunction will be two days past the lunar declinational Maximum North culmination. If this works as I expect it to, there will be a near record outbreak centered on the 29th, predicted by all indicative variables maxing together.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/100121_rpts.html
(Now where does this little packet of connected pieces, fit into the rest of the puzzle?)
Leif Svalgaard (18:08:24) :
tallbloke (14:16:47) :
The failed theories form the footnotes of history
No, they live one as pseudo-science and ‘alternative belief’ or just plain nuttiness.
As you keep telling us Leif, we have to follow the observations and successful predictions. I think there will eventually be an amalgamation of the dynamo theory and solar-planetary theory, since there are clearly worthwhile elements in both.
You can almost always find something within ‘range’ afterwards.
Ching Cheh Hung’s predictions are statistically testable. He bases them on clearly defined rules which fall within quite specific and fairly narrow ranges.:
“The appearance of the previous largest known solar flares followed a pattern, which is described in this report and again described briefly in the next paragraphs. It is hoped that this pattern can be used to forecast future large solar flares. A practical way to test this possibility is to use the observed pattern to make repeated trial forecasts in the coming months or years, and then compare the forecasts with the facts that are subsequently observed. This appendix describes the first of such trial forecasts and comparisons. Based on data from past events, when giant sunspot groups appear it is seen that the largest solar flares (X9.0 and larger)
(A) are most likely to start when these sunspot groups rotate into a region where at least one of the
four tide-producing planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, or Jupiter) is either overhead or underfoot (within 10° longitude)
(B) are also likely to start when these sunspot groups are at 28° to 32° longitude away from the overhead or underfoot points of at least one of the four tide-producing planets
(C) are least likely to occur when these sunspot groups are at 36° longitude or further away from the overhead or underfoot points of all these four planets
These three rules were good in the past, but will they hold true in the future? The first opportunity to answer this question came when the very large sunspot group 960 rotated into the east limb of the solar disk on June 1, 2007, and the precondition for the above three rules was met.”
The outcome is detailed in my earlier post: tallbloke (14:16:47) :
So, let’s discuss the valid results in scientifically definable terms.
Dr. Svalgaard: “I am at a loss how to make it any clearer”
(Self-satisfied arrogance dripping from the statement.)
Clive E Burkland (22:28:22): “Considering you [Svalgaard] left out the unknown vital RM factor, it should not be hard to work out my lack of understanding.”
Svalvaard leaving something out of his “assessment”?
Heaven for fend, oh, no, that couldn’t be!
The hardest falsehood to spot, is the one closest to the truth.
Leif Svalgaard (21:12:14) :
Perhaps you are missing that TSI has a rotational modulation [and we don’t know why – actually]
To be blunt Dr. Svalgaard you lost it right there. The level of solar knowledge is not impressive.