National power grids could overheat and air travel severely disrupted while electronic items, navigation devices and major satellites could stop working after the Sun reaches its maximum power in a few years.
Senior space agency scientists believe the Earth will be hit with unprecedented levels of magnetic energy from solar flares after the Sun wakes “from a deep slumber” sometime around 2013, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
In a new warning, Nasa said the super storm would hit like “a bolt of lightning” and could cause catastrophic consequences for the world’s health, emergency services and national security unless precautions are taken.
Scientists believe it could damage everything from emergency services’ systems, hospital equipment, banking systems and air traffic control devices, through to “everyday” items such as home computers, iPods and Sat Navs.
Due to humans’ heavy reliance on electronic devices, which are sensitive to magnetic energy, the storm could leave a multi-billion pound damage bill and “potentially devastating” problems for governments.
“We know it is coming but we don’t know how bad it is going to be,” Dr Richard Fisher, the director of Nasa’s Heliophysics division, said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.
“It will disrupt communication devices such as satellites and car navigations, air travel, the banking system, our computers, everything that is electronic. It will cause major problems for the world.
“Large areas will be without electricity power and to repair that damage will be hard as that takes time.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 22, 2010 at 11:08 pm
The observations at Locarno helped:
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2010/loc-d20100425.JPG
Three groups with 4 spots give SSN = 34.
The question is, why did NOAA miss it? The answer is the 8 hour time difference during which the groups just died.
Its not looking good, perhaps digging a bigger hole. 4 micro specks that need to be blown up many times to be observed on the screen that only last a few hours gets a count of 34? I noticed you mentioned “groups” the magnetogram is suggesting one group, how did they arrive at 3? The latest spot 1082 has multiple spots/specks with multiple pos/neg areas but still is considered 1 group. Watts up with that?
Perhaps SOHO being down that day had some influence, I would have loved to measure that day.
GONG image:
http://gong2.nso.edu/dailyimages/img/jpg/iqa/201004/tdiqa100425/tdiqa100425t0844.jpg
GONG magnetogram:
http://gong2.nso.edu/dailyimages/img/jpg/bqa/201004/tdbqa100425/tdbqa100425t0844.jpg
GONG magnetogram for 1082:
http://gong2.nso.edu/dailyimages/img/jpg/bqa/201006/tdbqa100621/tdbqa100621t0704.jpg
What’s your opinion on the April 21,22 count, SIDC 7,7 NOAA 0,0. I can’t see a timing reason involved here?(perhaps for 1 day but not both) The single 1 pixel speck lasted over 24 hours?
Doing this everyday you notice a trend change, earlier in the year it was NOAA counting the micro specks and SIDC ignoring them, some of it might be down to timing but the SIDC appearing to be counting smaller specks recently. The 24 hour Layman’s rule making good sense, do you know what Wolf used as a threshold…area perhaps?
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 23, 2010 at 12:02 am
tallbloke says:
June 22, 2010 at 11:55 pm
I just want a consistent dataset.
This is what we are working hard to give you. And you call that ‘misleading the public’.
It needs a sign on hanging it at the moment saying “under reconstruction”
anna v says:
June 19, 2010 at 7:59 am
“….Knowledge is the inside of the circle, and we increase it and the radius grows. The larger the radius the greater the periphery of our contact with the unknown.
He was talking of Socrates: I know one thing, that I know nothing.
Nevertheless, the conquest within the circle, what we now know is not thrown out as the radius of our known science increases. It may be reinterpreted, reformulated in new formalisms, but it is a conquest in the exploration that is not lost….”
__________________________________________________________
Very well put. Scientists do know their field of expertise very well, but some times this very knowledge is a hindrance to the gaining of new knowledge. In industry I have seen many cases where a layman was dismissed by the scientists because he was not trained, however the layman’s observations were factual and the key to solving the problem.
Never ever throw out data – there may be a gem in all the dross. I gained the reputation of being a wiz at solving industrial problems, not because I am smart but because I was willing to listen to anyone no matter what their education level was.
@richard Holle says:
June 23, 2010 at 1:26 am
Ah Richard, glad to see you are on topic! My local friend Peter Taylor, has suggested the configuration of August 15/16th being a risk for a solar storm, partly because of Pluto being on the same line as Mercury/Venus. Personally I would be more concerned with the fact that Ceres is on this line, having noted how very sensetive the Sun is to Ceres when it is in syzygy with other inner planets on a regular basis (its bang on the Earth/Mercury line 28.08.1859).
The larger storms tend to happen when the inner/outer planet configuration is in a `hot` position, mid August is rather cold, so I am more concerned about event possibilities later in the Autumn, re. November 1st and December 28th (study the inner planets on these dates, Mercury and Venus are opposite Ceres on the 28th Dec.)
tallbloke says:
June 23, 2010 at 12:09 am
By the way Leif, how are the ‘secular’ changes in the Earth’s magnetism adjusted for in the aa and Ap records?
They are not. There are two schools of thought about this, like with F10.7. If you want an index that measures an effect, then aa should not be corrected for secular change and F10.7 should not be corrected for distance. If you consider the index to be a proxy for its cause, then it should be corrected. Both views are valid. For F10.7 we solve the problem by giving two values: observed and adjusted. For aa [and similar] we should do the same. But there is a problem, namely that we don’t know [or can’t agree] how to adjust. The fundamental question is: if the Earth’s magnetic decreases [as it is doing right now], does that decrease or increase geomagnetic activity?
Now, the size of the magnetosphere depends on the strength of the Earth’s field: the weaker, the smaller is the magnetosphere. Here are two arguments with opposite conclusions:
1) geomagnetic activity is thought to be caused by reconnection of the Earth’s field with the Sun’s field. The smaller the magnetosphere, the smaller the reconnection electric field will be, leading to smaller geomagnetic activity [aa should be adjusted up to be compatible with older values]
2) a smaller magnetosphere is more under ‘stress’ from the solar wind and is more easily disturbed, leading to larger geomagnetic activity [also we will be closer to the currents so their disturbing magnetic effect will be larger], so aa should be adjusted down to be compatible with older values.
We can’t decide between the two, so we don’t know which way to adjust, hence we don’t adjust. [but we should].
There is a similar question: we know that aa is smaller at the solstices [and at certain times of the UT day] because of geometrical effects related to generation of geomagnetic activity. Should we correct for this? In section 3.2 [paragraph 17] of http://www.leif.org/research/2007JA012437.pdf we discuss this and argue for removal of this known artifact, if the purpose of the index is to be a proxy for the solar wind and not for how the Earth happens to be oriented.
You see: your simple question opens up a large can of worms. Very important ones. The issues are not yet resolved.
Richard Holle says:
June 23, 2010 at 1:26 am
Leif, have your opinions changed from the above bold viewpoint of Hathaway?
No, Hathaway is quite correct. And nothing ‘bold’ about it. This is just factual.
Is it possible that the upcoming heliocentric conjunctions or Neptune, Uranus, and Jupiter, will trigger a strong flare on the 21st or 22nd of September 2010
No, and even if there were some planetary influence, the planets move so slowly that whatever forces one would invoke [apart from astrological ones] would be almost the same for many weeks around any line-up, that pinning it down to a specific day [or hour and minute] would not be possible.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 23, 2010 at 2:29 am
magnetogram is suggesting one group, how did they arrive at 3?
Wolf and Wolfer couldn’t know that and since the sunspot number is carefully kept technology-independent [using the same kind of small telescopes and NOT invoking modern technology], we must put ourselves in their shoes and judge as they would have.
What’s your opinion on the April 21,22 count, SIDC 7,7 NOAA 0,0. I can’t see a timing reason involved here? do you know what Wolf used as a threshold…area perhaps?
Nobody knows and that is why we have abandoned Wolf’d method and [like Wolfer] count everything we can see [with a telescope the same size as theirs]
A big difference is that Wolf/Wolfer only observed once a day [the correct method giving an unbiased sampling] instead of adding up observations from many observatories through the day. So if at noon [say that was their preferred time] the sun had one spot, but at 2 o’clock there were 4 spots, then the sunspot number for the day should still be only 11 and not 14.
Its not looking good, perhaps digging a bigger hole
There is no hole to begin with. If we want to preserve the sunspot number [as I think we should] we should continue to observe it as Wolfer did. Both NOAA and SIDC try to do this. E.g. none of them use SOHO or magnetograms or huge telescopes. We [and scientists of the future] can ten try to interpret the venerable index in light of current [and future] knowledge.
Wolfer’s .6K factor is to blame along with modern technology.
The 0.6 is a red herring and doesn’t matter, like it doesn’t matter if you measure in km or in miles [as long as you know which]. Modern technology is not used by NOAA or SIDC. One can argue that the Layman’s count is disqualified then, if modern technology is to blame.
tallbloke says:
June 23, 2010 at 3:06 am
It needs a sign on hanging it at the moment saying “under reconstruction”
It has such a sign [e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/CAWSES%20-%20Sunspots.pdf ]. Trouble is that some people ignore signs, especially if they don’t want any reconstruction [or ‘butchering’ as you called it] disturbing their worldview or pet theories.
Gail Combs says:
June 23, 2010 at 3:51 am
Never ever throw out data
Astronomers keep their data forever. Some data to be used thousands of years from know.
wayne says:
June 19, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Ulric Lyons says:
June 18, 2010 at 8:18 am
Ulric, how rude, please apologize to Mr. Meeus.
_______________________________________
I was not rude in the slightest, quite the contrary, Meeus called my work nonsense, very rude in my estimation, but I am wise enough to see where these type of comments are going to be coming from, and far too focussed on my work to be really bothered. I can`t see either of you proving me wrong, so as they say, `watch this space!`.
Rocket Science: June 23, 2010 at 5:23 am
(re Pluto, Ceres, etc)
Yesterday I found the BBQ on my deck tipped over. I chalked it up to the dog trying to get off his leash, but my neighbour had another theory. It seems that just as the BBQ tipped, he saw three squirrels in the back yard, stock still for a moment, in a perfectly straight line, with their tails pointing like arrows precisely away from the deck. As soon as the BBQ flipped, they broke formation and nothing else fell over. And there I was blaming the clumsy St. Bernard (again) when it was obviously a squirrel conjunction causing it all. Silly me.
/dr.bill
Spector notes that the probability of a Carrington event might be as high as 1:10 (90% chance of it NOT happening). And that we might be concerned the plumbing would fail and we’d need to build outside toilets!
I have been trying to find my copy of the National Academy of Sciences report on the possibility of another Carrington even – made at the end of 2008, and there followed some Congressional briefings – I am sure Google would retrieve them for you and show just how serious this issue needs to be taken. The NAS experts opined that it could take 3-4 years to restore the grid – on a global level. And some experts think that optimistic.
We engineer very hazardous industrial plant (nuclear and chemical) not to fail at 1:10,000 per year.
Obviously, a solar megaflare is a natural and fairly regular if not exactly predictable event – yet we have engineered the whole of civilisation to be dependent on it not happening. Perhaps that’s why so many are in denial of its potential dramatic consequences. Water pumping systems would fail – no water in the taps. No fuel in the gas stations. No communications – radio, TV, press. No food on the supermarket shelves after three days! Roads blocked by failed computer chips in petrol injection engines? People dependent on local food and water?
The NAS report and discussion in Congress do not make light of this situation. There has been no real public discussion – a couple of press articles. Everyone remembers the ‘Millennium Bug’ that never happened.
So far we are still in the realm of science and engineering – as Einstein would have put it – the kind of thinking that got us into this mess.
If we begin to consider planetary alignments and correlations (which Leif assures us are very poor) to flares or solar minima/maxima – we are still in the realm of science, not pseudoscience (as long as people really listen to each other and try to confirm or repeat the analyses) – for example, with Landscheidt’s claims of prediction for flares or of the role of the gas giants in solar minima. Here we are in the realm of statistics.
If the correlations are strong enough, this should act as a stimulus for scientists to look for causal mechanims – and hence explore the subtle energies of electromagnetism, the heliospheric current sheet, polarities, etc., but without too much prejudice of what they think they know about the forces required. As I understand it, the forces that generate the photosphere are not fully understood, nor what accelerates the solar wind. I just learned something new from the papers Leif directed us to – in that there IS a back-current into the sun! Now, I am quite willing to accept that Leif knows better than I that this is not enough to power the photosphere – as Hannes Alfven once hypothesised (and he was a Nobel Laureate) – and that modern physicists are right to dismiss that thesis – but I also don’t have complete faith, because that would only come from my being able to actually understand the physics at their level! So I keep an open mind that Leif might be wrong.
I have no idea what forces might be exerted upon the sun’s complex magnetosphere by incoming electromagnetic signals carried by whatever ‘fields’ – and I guess Leif is pretty sure there are no such forces – but the effort to discern them would depend on the strength of the correlations found. I don’t think this is yet pseudoscience – unless some people talk as if it is already proven one way or another.
Then we have a realm further out from ‘modern’ science – let us call it ‘older’ science where synchonicities are studied and respected – the main one being aspects of human consciousness – astrology. This only drops into pseudoscience when astrologers naively talk of planets ‘affecting’ human behaviour. As the astrologer Denis Elwell wrote in the ‘Cosmic Loom’ – they don’t – they simply dance to the same cosmic tune.
The reason I am concerned about this summer’s alignments is that Pluto squares Uranus, Jupiter and Saturn in Cardinal signs – that is about as dynamic a symbol for earth-shaking changes in cosnciousness as I have seen.
In terms of my own thinking – I assume that human consciousness is not confined to the human brain – which I see more as a receiver (like a radio) – consciousness is actually galactic (astrologers map human consciousness by its galactic coordinates at the first breath in time and space). The stars, Zodiac, planets, etc are simply cyphers for the interplay of consciousness.
I for ojne will be happy to get through this year with no such disturbance – but I am prepared – with food and water supplies, a old diesel back-up 4×4 landrover, CB radio, and instructions for my extended family such that we can get sufficiently upwind of our local nuke – which I surmise has less than a month’s diesel back-up for its cooling systems.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 23, 2010 at 2:29 am
do you know what Wolf used as a threshold…area perhaps?
A threshold is a bad idea and should not be used. This is why every observer has adopted Wolfer’s method. The Layman’s use of a threshold is a bad idea, too. Sunspots are just the upper end of a continuous distribution of magnetic flux. Since the magnetic flux is the important element, it does not make sense to cut off the lower end of the distribution [at an arbitrary threshold]. It would be like constructing a temperature record and omitting all the low temperatures.
BTW, Wolf used two telescopes. Because there are often clouds and the sun may only peek through at random times during a day, Wolf did not want to be chained to his main telescope all day long. so he also carried a much smaller portable ‘pocket’ telescope at all times so he could take advantage of an occasional break in the clouds. He applied a K-factor of 1.5 for counts made with the pocket-telescope and K-factor of 1.0 for the main telescope. That main telescope still exists and is still being used [by a still-living assistant of Waldmeier] to continue the old Zurich series. See Figure 1.2 in http://www.leif.org/EOS/Friedli2005.pdf .
Peter Taylor says:
June 23, 2010 at 7:02 am
I just learned something new from the papers Leif directed us to – in that there IS a back-current into the sun!
I think you misinterpret that. Perhaps tell me where it says so.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 23, 2010 at 5:55 am
tallbloke says:
June 23, 2010 at 12:09 am
By the way Leif, how are the ‘secular’ changes in the Earth’s magnetism adjusted for in the aa and Ap records?
They are not. … For F10.7 we solve the problem by giving two values: observed and adjusted. For aa [and similar] we should do the same. But there is a problem, namely that we don’t know [or can’t agree] how to adjust.
Interesting. I was reading a Nature article the other day by an expert on geomagnetism and changes in LOD. He says they are related. I know they are too, because I’ve compared several series. The rate oof change of the north pole declination relates to Earth’s spin rate.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/north-pole-position-shifts/
Going back to what Vuk was saying about your angle compensation factor for the Sun’s polar fields, is there perhaps some similar relationship between solar poles axis angle and the spin rates of the solar surface layers?
tallbloke says:
June 23, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Geomagnetism and changes in LOD. He says they are related. I know they are too, because I’ve compared several series.
They are related, but not in the simple way you suggest [try the south pole too]. The Earth’s field comes from its molten outer core [with small and FIXED additions from ore in the crust] which BTW is as liquid and fluid as water. The dynamo in the outer core is rather irregular depending on convection currents that are sandwiched between two corrugated solid boundaries [the bottom of the mantle and the top of the inner solid core]. These corrugations make for a disturbed and uneven convection with a resulting magnetic field that is very irregular. We describe a magnetic field as a superposition of multipoles [a spherical harmonics expansion – see my explanation (for the Sun – but it is the same for the Earth) here: http://www.leif.org/research/Calculation%20of%20Spherical%20Harmonics.pdf – warning: somewhat technical]
The bottom line is that the higher the ‘degree’ of the harmonic is [the number of bumps] the faster does the magnetic field of those decrease with distance. So with increasing distance we lose the bumps with the result that the field at the surface [far from the core] becomes almost dipolar. Convection currents mean moving material within the Earth resulting in small changes of the inertia. As the angular moment is constant, those changes show up in changes of the LOD.
Going back to what Vuk was saying about your angle compensation factor for the Sun’s polar fields
I don’t know what that is, enlighten me.
is there perhaps some similar relationship between solar poles axis angle and the spin rates of the solar surface layers?
No, not that we can measure or that has any effect [otherwise we could measure it 🙂 albeit indirectly]. And it is not ‘similar’. The dynamos are quite different, and the angular change in declination is related to the so-called ‘westward’ drift of the main field caused by dragging of frozen-in field lines. This has been known for centuries. At London, f.ex. the endpoint of the magnetic field vector rotates in about 600 years. For more see: http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html and http://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2261/12423/1/ji0465004.pdf
Hmm, plenty of homework there.
Thanks Leif
tallbloke says: June 23, 2010 at 12:41 pm
…………….
In 2001, the North Magnetic Pole was determined by the Geological Survey of Canada to lie near Ellesmere Island in northern Canada at 81°18′N 110°48′W (wikipedia)
These are magnetic pole components as calculated by NOAA for 2001
23/06/2001— Decl— Incl— Horiz— East— North— Vert— Total
81N 110W— 18.595— 80.864— 9508.1— 3031.9— 9011.8— 59125.2— 59884.8
60.5N 98W— 4.191— 82.599— 7749.7— 566.4— 7729— 59660— 60161.2
66N 106E— -2.522— 81.816— 8744.3 -384.7— 8735.9— 60801.1— 61426.7
One would be forgiven to conclude that the magnetic pole is found where either the Total or Vertical component (as by far strongest) or both are strongest. In such a case it should be found in the Central Siberia.
Alternatively, since there are two peaks, have hardly moved in last hundred years, but the Canadian has been loosing its strength on account of the Siberian,
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC21.htm
so scientists in their wisdom decided that pole should be somewhere in between.
The highest point of a mountain is not somewhere in a valley between its two peaks.
Revision could be useful.
Thanks Vuk. I guess the term magnetic pole (singular) is a misnomer for a more complex situation.
“Trouble is that some people ignore signs, especially if they don’t want any reconstruction [or ‘butchering’ as you called it] disturbing their worldview or pet theories.”
Who said that?
@Dale Rainwater.bill says:
June 23, 2010 at 6:33 am
“silly me”
1 out of ten, you could have said a Poli, it`s much shaggier than a St Bernard.
For anyone interested in the functions that can be used to represent magnetic fields (and many other functions of Mathematical Physics), here is a good place to start: Mathematical Physics by Dr James B. Calvert, University of Denver.
There is a section on Spherical Harmonics (14th entry on the list) which gives a concise overview of the topic, with diagrams showing the shapes involved. The diagrams are of nodal surfaces (like 3-d drumhead patterns), and one can see fairly intuitively which ones might be the main choices for use in an expansion. For the gravitational field of the Earth, for example, only two harmonics are needed in order to capture the biggest effects, including the flattening at the poles. The extension to magnetic fields follows the same kind of logic.
/dr.bill
RE: Rocket Science (June 22, 2010 at 5:42 pm) “Spector says: … ‘based on reported geologic evidence there have been typically two such events per millennium’ How is that done?”
According to the Wikipedia article on this subject, ice-cores evidence shows that events of similar intensity recur at an average rate of approximately once per 500 years. Less severe major storms have occurred in 1921 and 1960. I have not been able to find evidence of a study confirming this 500-year value by extended statistical analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
According to a NASA article, energetic particles striking the Earth’s atmosphere during these events create a spike of nitrates that shows up in the ice-core data. They report that the Carrington event appears to have the largest spike found in 500 years, nearly twice the size of the next largest event.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/
Damn! I was hoping for at least a 3. You’re a hard room, Ulric. ☹
/dr.bill
@richard Holle says:
June 23, 2010 at 1:26 am
It is great to see that you have had the courage to think outside of the box on mechanisms, and consider electromagnetic connections rather than barycenter/solar tidal. Hence you have some very interesting observations to do with Mars, that the other schools of thought have overlooked.
Vuk etc. says:
June 23, 2010 at 2:24 pm
One would be forgiven to conclude that the magnetic pole is found where either the Total or Vertical component (as by far strongest) or both are strongest. […] Revision could be useful.
What could be useful is some understanding of the true nature of the Earth’s magnetic field. The field is not really a dipole, but a complicated set of multipoles, so have many magnetic poles [like the sun which can have thousands]. The field as generated in the liquid outer core is very irregular. As the strength of the higher multipoles fall off very rapidly with distance, at a large distance [e.g. at the surface from the field] the dipole becomes dominant, but still has to be superposed on the crustal fields, resulting in the complicated asymmetric pattern that is observed.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 23, 2010 at 3:23 pm
“Trouble is that some people ignore signs, especially if they don’t want any reconstruction [or ‘butchering’ as you called it] disturbing their worldview or pet theories.”
Who said that?
I did.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 23, 2010 at 5:55 am
I noticed you didn’t comment on the SIDC/NOAA difference on April 21,22. The record speaks for itself and your “as “I have explained repeatedly ” comments now looking suspect as my comments are proven by observations.
The Layman’s Count is only designed to compare this cycle and maybe the next to SC5 & SC6 and probably wont be needed for another 200 years after that. Your own studies suggest the current counting methods are at least 22% higher than Wolfer’s count. I believe the current high ratio of specks is further increasing the sunspot count compared with how Wolf reconstructed the Dalton Minimum cycles.
So by setting a benchmark that isolates specks and incorporating the current SIDC values (that make the grade) the Layman’s Count is the closest measure to compare with Wolf’s reconstruction of SC5&6.
I just read that one of the factors that made the Carrington Event solar flare so effective was that it had a reverse south-north magnetic polarity so that it was sucked into the Earth by opposite field attraction rather than being pushed away by like field repulsion.
I sometimes wonder if there might be far stronger solar-flare events possible; perhaps capable of reversing the magnetic field of the Earth itself. But, as far as I know, no real evidence of any solar storm of that magnitude has ever been found.
Spector says:
June 23, 2010 at 9:51 pm
I sometimes wonder if there might be far stronger solar-flare events possible; perhaps capable of reversing the magnetic field of the Earth itself. But, as far as I know, no real evidence of any solar storm of that magnitude has ever been found.
That’s reassuring. I wonder if something bigger than the average asteroid hitting the sun would precipitate a big flare or CME? Leif?