From Spaceweather.com with apologies to Linus and Charles Schulz
The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) is tracking an enormous magnetic filament on the sun. It stretches more than one million kilometers from end to end, which makes it an easy target for backyard solar telescopes. For the seventh day in a row, an enormous magnetic filament is hanging suspended above the surface of the sun’s southern hemisphere. The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has a great view. How long can it last? Solar filaments are unpredictable. If this one collapses and hits the stellar surface, the impact could produce a powerful Hyder flare.
The most recent SOHO image is here
Hyder Flares: from Australian IPS 1. What is a Hyder flare?
Flares are intense brightenings that occur in the solar chromosphere. Flares are generally observed from Earth using narrow band filters, typically with a bandwidth of less than 0.1 nm, and often centred on the Hydrogen-Alpha wavelength of 656.3 nm. (Flares also have counterparts, that is, sudden outbursts, in the radio and X-ray spectrum).
Most flares occur around active regions associated with sunspot groups. However, occasionally a flare (sudden brightening) is observed well away from an active region or sunspot group. These flares are invariably associated with the sudden disappearance of a large (thick, long, ‘bushy’) dark solar filament, and are termed Hyder flares.
2. Why are Hyder flares so named?
Max Waldmeier wrote a paper in 1938 which described the phenomenon of suddenly disappearing filaments (disparition brusque), and mentioned that these can be associated with flare-like brightenings, but it was left to Charles Hyder to postulate the first comprehensive mechanism for the such flares.
Following on work from his doctoral thesis with the University of Colorado in Boulder (1964), Hyder published two papers in the second volume of the journal Solar Physics (1967) in which the mechanism by which Hyder flares might occur was discussed in detail. Hyder was then on the staff of the (US) Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories at the Sacramento Peak Observatory in New Mexico.
It was these papers in Solar Physics by which Hyder’s name became associated with the flares in question, even though he was by no means the first to observe them.
3. What are the characteristics of Hyder flares?
As previously mentioned, the name Hyder flare is given to a flare that occurs away from an active region or sunspot group and that is associated with the sudden disappearance of a dark filament. The appearance of these flares can range from a string of bright knots on one or both sides of the filament (or rather, the position previously occupied by the filament, sometimes called the filament channel), to a single or double ribbon flare. The ribbons are parallel to the filament channel. If only one ribbon is present, it will lie to one side of the channel, whereas if two parallel ribbons occur, one ribbon will lie on one side of the filament channel, and the other ribbon will lie on the opposite side.
One interesting characteristic of Hyder flares is that they usually develop or rise to maximum brightness much more slowly than do the more common flares associated with active regions. The larger Hyder flares may take 30 to 60 minutes to rise to a peak intensity, and then they may last for several hours. Although they may attain a large area, they usually have a relatively low intensity. Thus, classifications for a large Hyder flare may read 2F, 2N or possibly even 3F. This contrasts to an active region flare in which 3F is very rare. An active region flare that attains sufficient area to put it into the importance class 3, will invariably have either a Normal or more usually a Brilliant brightness classification.
X-ray flares and radio (microwave) bursts associated with the optical Hyder flare, are also generally long lived phenomenon and are classified as the gradual rise and fall type of event (in contrast to the impulsive and complex events associated with large active region flares).
Generally Hyder flares are not associated with energetic particle emission or geomagnetic storms (implying that they may not be associated with a coronal mass ejection). However, this is not always the case, as a large halo CME observed by the LASCO solar coronagraph on board the SOHO spacecraft was most definitely associated with a Hyder flare (2N/M1) observed on 12 September 2000. This same complex also appeared to have produced energetic protons at geosynchronous orbit with energies in excess of 100 MeV, and in substantial numbers at energies of 10 MeV. It is believed that the sudden storm commencement observed at 0450UT 15 September, and the subsequent minor geomagnetic storm was produced by this particular CME.
4. What produces Hyder flares?
Hyder’s explanation of the flare type now named after him depended on the observational evidence that (1) often the flare was a parallel ribbon flare with one ribbon each side of the filament channel, and (2) that geomagnetic storms were not associated with these flares. This led to the speculation that the filamentary material was not ejected far into the corona, but in fact fell back to the chromosphere producing the flare.
Stable or quiescent filaments are believed to lie in and along a magnetic trough. It is thought that the sudden disappearance of such a filament is due to a reconfiguration of the field. In essence, the magnetic trough becomes a magnetic ridge (the bottom of the trough elevating in a period of tens of minutes to become the peak of the ridge). In this process, the filamentary material (cooler gas) is thought to be accelerated into the corona. Hyder’s explanation is that, in the case of the Hyder flare, some or even most of the filament material, instead of suffering acceleration and ejection, falls down the sides of the magnetic ridge and interacts with the lower chromospheric material producing the flare. If the infall process is symmetrical, then the double parallel ribbon flare will result, if asymmetrical, then only one ribbon results. If the infall is sporadic, or the material insufficient, then only bright knots of flare are produced. Hyder did calculations to show that the kinetic energy of the infalling material should be sufficient to provide the required flare energy release observed.
Of late, the Hyder mechanism has come into question. Some people (notably Zirin) have questioned whether infall occurs, stating that the magnetic reconfiguration must always produce ejection. The respective roles of flares and CME’s in solar active processes has also been hotly debated, and this has implications for the exact mechanism of Hyder flares. We certainly have enough observational evidence to show that Hyder flares can be associated with both CME’s and energetic particle production. For the moment, the question of Hyder flare production mechanism appears unresolved, and will probably be sidelined until the more significant (and undoubtedly related) issue of CME – flare production mechanism is sorted out.
The bottom line is that at this stage in solar physics we do not really know what produces a flare nor what produces a CME. There are competing theories, but all tend to have deficiencies with respect to matching the observational evidence. We certainly believe that they all depend on the reconfiguration of magnetic fields as their primary energy source, but in the final analysis, we really only believe this because we can conceive of no other solar energy source of sufficient magnitude.
Leif Svalgaard (14:06:03) :
A flow of plasma does NOT create a magnetic field.
I apologize for the ‘Freudian’ slip.
Leif Svalgaard (14:06:03) :
“A flow of plasma does NOT create a magnetic field.”
Um no? Ions carry electric charges and have spin, and a flow of them should behave just like a flow of electrons in a conductor, generating a cylindrical field around the flow stream. Is there a reason why they wouldn’t behave the same?
James F. Evans (13:45:37) :
But really it’s just a naked display of hostility.
Which it in fact is. As it should be. Your pseudo-science must be opposed, not because of disagreements, but because it is dangerous anti-science. Disagreement is the life-blood of science, but only when the issues are understood and valid arguments or data are presented, otherwise it is dangerous ‘relativism’ [any opinion is a good as any other even if based on ignorance or fulled by agendas]. So, yes, I’m hostile, and with reason.
mikelorrey (14:12:35) :
“A flow of plasma does NOT create a magnetic field.”
Um no? Ions carry electric charges and have spin, and a flow of them should behave just like a flow of electrons in a conductor, generating a cylindrical field around the flow stream. Is there a reason why they wouldn’t behave the same?
The plasma consists of equal number of negative and positive charges so is not an electric current, that is the reason.
Leif Svalgaard
2010/02/25 at 2:17pm
“The plasma consists of equal number of negative and positive charges so is not an electric current, that is the reason.”
What would make an equal number of negative and positive charges flow in the same direction along a magnetic line of force? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Positive ions should flow in one direction and negative ones should flow in the opposite, either way, they’d both generate a field that would reinforce the other due to the opposing directions.
mikelorrey (14:25:54) :
“The plasma consists of equal number of negative and positive charges so is not an electric current, that is the reason.”
What would make an equal number of negative and positive charges flow in the same direction along a magnetic line of force?
It depends on the ratio between the kinetic energy of the plasma and the energy in the magnetic field. In the Sun and its lower atmosphere, the kinetic energy is much larger than the magnetic energy so the movement of the plasma rather than the magnetic field determines where it goes. Suppose within the plasma you tried to push the electron out ahead of the ions [making them go in opposite directions], then an enormous electric field would build up that would oppose the separation of the two opposite charges [they attract each other], so the net result is that they move together and no current flows.
DirkH:
Commenting on the idea that I expressed: Is it true that physicists have ignored convection (and conduction which hardly rates) and latent heat removal (which the article ignores)? ”
Said:
First, in any well-established scientific field with 1,000s, 10,000s of participants you will always have a few “brave” souls who will have a theory that goes against the vast majority.
Occasionally they overturn or significantly modify the theory. Mostly that’s not the case, even though their ideas usually get published.
Of course any new theory or attempt to overturn an established theory needs to be examined, but it would be wrong to conclude that because someone somewhere published something in a journal that this means the old theory is dead.
Second, many, most probably, “climate scientists” are physicists. The many developments and improvements of the theories of:
– spectral absorption
– blackbody radiation
– radiative-convective atmospheric equilibrium
– atmospheric boundary layer physics
– development and effect of clouds
– aerosols interaction in the atmosphere
All came from physicists.
Third, it’s wonderful to see skeptics. I am one myself. But being skeptical means questioning our own ideas.
Perhaps, in the light of this new theory, you would take a look at the simplified presentation of an old established theory: CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas and add some comments?
“scienceofdoom (14:43:41) :
[…]
Second, many, most probably, “climate scientists” are physicists. ”
Care to name some names?
Svalgaard (14:14:32) : “[Yes, I was hostile] As it should be. Your pseudo-science must be opposed, not because of disagreements, but because it is dangerous anti-science.”
Dr. Svalgaard, you’re way off base.
I’ve provided peer-reviewed published scientific papers to support my opinions — really, all I’ve been doing is simply reporting the scientists’ assessments as stated in their own papers. Also, I’ve reported well known and accepted scientific principles, i.e., Maxwell’s equations stand for the reciprical physical relationship of electric fields and magnetic fields, as formulated & verified by empirical observation & measurement. Or, when a flow of plasma runs perpendicular through a magnetic field, an electric field and electric currents are generated.
In many cases, the scientists have better qualifications in the subject than you do.
In example, Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, of Los Alamos National Laboratory: Professional biography:
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/peratt.html
There are other scientists as well, such as Per Carlqvist, Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, and Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize winner in physics, and a number of others.
Your beef is with the scientists, themselves, I’m just the messenger conveying their ideas. So, if you are calling anybody anti-science and dangerous, you are calling other scientists anti-science and dangerous.
Is Anthony L. Peratt anti-science and dangerous? Have you contacted Los Alamos National laboratory to convey your concerns about Dr. Peratt?
Time after time, you defend the status quo model or if another scientist challenges the view-point you hold, then that scientist is full of “hype” or worse, like when NASA recently stated in an SDO press release that the long held idea of a “solar constant” was wrong, you called it “hype”. In fact, look up “solar constant” on the internet and you get a whole list of items discussing “solar constant”. Many of your prior comments on this website defend the idea of constant TSI, thus, sunspot activity does not matter.
Dr. Svalgaard, your approach is dogmatic, with mostly the science is “settled” attitude — in fact, you take that position regarding this very post, not withstanding the statements of the scientists, themselves, studying this very issue. I’m sorry, but not exploring the possibilities because one has already settled on a dogma is anti-science and a type of willful ignorance.
Dr. Svalgaard, you are the one guilty of the very thing you accuse me of.
Calling me anti-science when all I’m doing is reporting the peer-reviewed published work of scientists is wrong.
Thanks Leif!
I really enjoy your brain.
Does anyone know what these objects could be? They started appearing on SOHO images on 18th January. NASA has since removed & edited images that contain the objects. Some of the spherical objects are the size of earth.
Thanks to Everyone for making this site special & for daring to place truth over consensus.
Truth is the new black!
X
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ19IE8iQto
Fascinating structure to these ‘compression artifacts’
Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas are physcists, James Hansen is also a physicist.
Second, many, most probably, “climate scientists” are physicists. ”
Care to name some names?
I’ll dig some out later. First, what do you think they studied? “Climate science” is quite a new major..
Lief, I am not sure how you wish to categorize me nor why my comments would be threatening enough to the “real science” that I deserved such a demeaning response. However I can see that you have lumped me in with others with whom you disagree. I have read theories that claim a more electric theoretical framework. I don’t buy the whole picture, but some of their interpretations I find interesting and fill certain voids. That Alfven could speculate on the electrical nature suggests that such thinking is not just the domain of a few fringe nuts. Alfven’s model even had the filament positioned as we have now observed so I wondered what other might know about Alfven. Has Alfven fallen from his Nobel heights, and is now deemed to also be a “nut” by modern physicists?
In my reply to you, I repeated the fact that I asked about when filaments are observed, not to say you ignored the question, but to illustrate that I entered the thread seeking more information, not claiming to know anything more. You did indeed answer half of my questions, which I appreciated. I am still curious about correlation with the overall strength of solar magnetic field.
My speculations seem innocent enough if for no other reason than the fact that my elementary understanding of physics treats electromagnetism as one force in which a magnetic field surrounds and arises due to an electric current or is the result of a changing electric field. And mainstream explanations that refer only to magnetism always seem like only half of an explanation. When you say “Rapid changes of the magnetic field in the surroundings of the filament can upset the balance” I simply ask what causes the magnetic fields to change? Changes in plasma flow? Why does the magnetic fields create the filaments where they do?
I hear the ideas of electric fields dismissed, as you have done in a recent reply, based on the notion that in plasmas the negatives and positives will be attracted to each other and neutralize the field. You said “plasma consists of equal number of negative and positive charges so is not an electric current”. I am then confused because such explanations that only use magnetism, seem to remove the electric from “electromagnetic” . Such explanations also imply there can not be separation of charges in space plasmas. But that contradicts my understanding of the Van Allen belts in which it is observed that the outer belt is mostly negative electrons and the inner bet is mostly positive ions. Doesn’t that create an electric field?
I have no problem with being wrong about any of this. Nor do I have a problem that there may be a few lunatics that ask the same questions making strange bedfellows. I am just trying on various concepts to see how they fit. But I am angered to think that I would be attacked as a “nut” for speculating about what has in part, a legitimate basis in the laws of physics and known observations. The intensity of your reaction makes me wonder if there is a culture within mainstream astro/solar physics that has decided to only speak in terms of magnetism as a gate-keeping mechanism to keep out the fringe proponents of a more electric view. Sweeping personal attacks do nothing to help my understanding nor that of others, and certainly doesn’t make this blog look any more scientific.
Dogma is dangerously seductive. And anti-science.
James Evans statement above sounds like the voice of integrity. It should be addressed by you scientific dudes, I think.
Are you guys scared about the Sun? Or of each other?
Jim Steele, this may help in your question about Sun’s magnetosphere ~ during the past 2 months, the sun has lit up twice and I don’t think it’s a glitch:
http://soho.esac.esa.int/data/LATEST/current_eit_304.gif
There is something very un-scientific happening to the Sun (and plasma) and the electric universe theory may lead to an explanation. But then you guys know what you are talking about and I’m just a babe-in-toyland absolutely amazed at what is happening with the Sun. If it helps, there is hole ~ a huge gaping hole at the top, or north pole of the Sun.
Jim Steele (16:33:15) :
Jim, you are right to wonder if there is some kind of bias and prejudice against a full electromagnetic view of the Universe in some quarters of the astronomical community.
Because as Dr. Svalgaard makes quite clear there is such a bias.
But they have a three-fold problem: One, magnetic fields are ubiquitous in the Universe at every scale; two, electromagnetism is a fundamental physical force, as expressed in Maxwell’s equations, not just magnetism; and, three, the status quo, in astronomy, denies that electromagnetism plays a fundamental role in the Universe.
So, Dr. Svalgaard and others are in the uncomfortable position of denying that a fundamental force, electromagnetism, plays a fundamental role in the Universe, and it gets more uncomfortable because the fundamental force, Dr. Svalgaard and others subscribe to, gravity, is 39 orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism, and in situ observation & measurement and remote full electromagnetic wave spectrum observation & measurement (telescopes, both Earth based on space based) have detected evidence of electromagnetic processes and structures, both in the solar system (aurora) and in distant space large structures (galaxies and star formation).
The scientific evidence is substantial, but it contradicts almost all of their models based solely on the fundamental force of gravity.
That’s why they refuse to discuss anything beyond magnetism — even though it is only half of the fundamental force of electromagnetism.
Yes, in Dr. Svalgaard’s view, it’s dangerous to discuss “electromagnetism”.
Because where would their gravity “only” model be then?
Leif
“The usual suspects rear their heads. I guess as a community we can tolerate and smile at the nuts in our midst as they provide much needed entertainment”
& this comment is justified in the name of scientific integrity?
Isn’t this the same paradigm used to marginalise, ridicule & suppress dissent in the recent Climategate CONSPIRACY?
conspiracy
1. Noun – A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot.
2. Noun – A concurence or general tendency, as of circumstances, to one event, as if by agreement.
3. Noun – An agreement, manifesting itself in words or deeds, by which two or more persons confederate to do an unlawful act, or to use unlawful to do an act which is lawful; confederacy.
Calling people ‘nuts’ for asking questions is not acceptable & I value the comments & questions from all people.
It was the ‘nuts’ who realised the difference between truth & consensus!
This kind of dogmatic & rigid mindset is unscientific & it’s had it’s day.
Please behave with courteousy & respect towards others here.
Pamela Gray (22:37:41) : “There is no diamond I would choose over having a piece of the Sun on my finger. What a marvelous thing.”
Since the solar system is thought to have condensed from supernova remnants, technically anything one puts on one’s finger is a piece of a star.
Lovely line, BTW, and just in time for…er…next Valentine’s Day. 🙂
There’s a nice little movie on spaceweather.com, see link below (Thanks, Anthony, this is a nice change of pace!):
“Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) images bracket the eruption between 0719 UT and 1919 UT on Feb. 24th. The event did not produce a bright solar flare, as sometimes happens when filaments erupt, but there was a coronal mass ejection (CME). SOHO coronagraphs observed at least one and possibly as many as three clouds billowing away from the sun: movie. If any of this material is heading for Earth–a big unknown!–it would arrive on Feb. 27th or 28th. Arctic sky watchers should be alert for auroras on those dates.”
http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2010/25feb10/c2_cme_anim.gif?PHPSESSID=c256tv93d25dvql7stghfo1r51
James F. Evans (17:22:05) :
..force, electromagnetism, plays a fundamental role in the Universe, and it gets more uncomfortable because the fundamental force, Dr. Svalgaard and others subscribe to, gravity, is 39 orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism, and in situ observation & measurement and remote full electromagnetic wave spectrum observation & measurement (telescopes, both Earth based on space based) have detected evidence of electromagnetic processes and structures, both in the solar system (aurora) and in distant space large structures (galaxies and star formation).
The scientific evidence is substantial, but it contradicts almost all of their models based solely on the fundamental force of gravity.
That’s why they refuse to discuss anything beyond magnetism — even though it is only half of the fundamental force of electromagnetism.
Yes, in Dr. Svalgaard’s view, it’s dangerous to discuss “electromagnetism”.
Because where would their gravity “only” model be then?
Wish you boys would play nice together.
Another question about filaments. Is the magnetic polarity always the same, say south at the equator and north towards the poles, or does it vary randomly or does the polarity alternate each cycle along with the alternation of sunspot polarity?
And 1 more, do filaments always align as seen here, assuming also a mirror image in the northern hemisphere. Or do they ever align parallel to the equator?
Gary Hladik (17:33:35) quotes Pamela Gray (22:37:41) : “There is no diamond I would choose over having a piece of the Sun on my finger. What a marvelous thing.”
Gary adds: “Since the solar system is thought to have condensed from supernova remnants, technically anything one puts on one’s finger is a piece of a star.”
– – – – – – – – –
Our Sun is a remnant of the supernova that exploded 5,000,000,000 years (5 Gyr) ago and produced the solar system in this manner [European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pp. 345-348 http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717%5D:
http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm
Every atom in you and me was supernova debris 5 Gyr ago.
The Great Fact today is this:
We each consist of about 100,000,000,000,000 living cells and each cell consists of about 100,000,000,000,000 atoms.
The cells reproduce and die off over our lifetime.
The atoms exchange with atoms in food, water, and air over the lifetime of each cell.
So what are you and I?
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
And this thread, yet again, confirms that old adage:
For those who might be interested.. it is slightly off topic, but I was dragged in that direction by others – New Theory Proves AGW Wrong!
Which you can see at http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/26/new-theory-proves-agw-wrong/
Oliver,
I’m more of a fan of the God’s Debris theory of matter creation. If you’ve got some free time you can get in PDF format here: http://nowscape.com/godsdebris.pdf
Of course there’s also the school of thought that all water molecules have existed since the earth was formed, hence whenever you take a drink of cool refreshing water chances are you’re drinking at least a few molecules of dinosaur pee
Where was I? Oh yeah… sometimes it’s best not to think about things too broadly