The Solar Dynamics Observatory satellite captured this image yesterday. A massive filament on the Sun erupted in a stunning display as seen here in the videos below.
The giant solar eruption created a long filament of magnetic plasma, which extended an astounding 435,000 miles (700,000 kilometers). This is nearly twice the distance between the Earth and the moon, which is about 238,857 miles (384,403 kilometers)
The location of the eruption and the magnetic field configuration and direction of the eruption suggest the impact of the event on the Earth will be limited. Watch the videos below to see it happen:
Here’s a second video, showing closer detail:
From YouTube: A very long solar filament that had been snaking around the Sun erupted today (Dec. 6, 2010) with a flourish. NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) caught the action in dramatic detail in extreme ultraviolet light of Helium. It had been almost a million km long ((about half a solar radius) and a prominent feature on the Sun visible over two weeks ago before it rotated out of view. Filaments are elongated clouds of cooler gases suspended above the Sun by magnetic forces. They are rather unstable and often break away from the Sun. Note: the edge of the moon can be glimpsed at 0300 UT during a brief lunar transit.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WOW , just WOW
Amazing realtime photos, NASA has spent a few dollars well on solar research sats after all.
Takes a “Robust” platform to take that kind of abuse.
Their next project should be to leave Hansen in prison where he belongs.
IMHO and as always snip if you need to, Mod.
[d]
while f10.7 flux and AP both remain relatively FLAT
the discrepancy between 10.7/AP and ssn looks to both falsify L&P, and Svalgaard’s claim that they are undercounting sunspots
i respect all those mentioned above and their work, it just looks like they are probably wrong, or at least not exactly right, in this case 😉
This was not a solar flare, nor was it a CME; it was a collapsed filament. Filaments apparently occur most during solar minimum. Notice that this huge, enormous, preposterous eruption only rated a B1 in solar x-ray irradiance? Has anybody looked a solar irradiance lately? It is flat-lined. This is hardly the same type of activity we saw in the 90s.
The magnetic activity of the Sun is considerably reduced, must likely because the dynamo that drives the Sun is experiencing a once in over 6000 years lull. The solar barycenter has been transiting the solar surface for a decade, and it is still at the solar surface. Lulls have occurred in the past 6000 years, but not for the duration this lull is taking. And it is only going to get quieter in the next few years.
peterhodges-…………….checked the link
“I love the smell of napalm and computer models burning in the morning”
In my case another long, cold night on the north coast of Canada.
🙂
[d]
“When did we fall so much in love with computer simulations?”
I am not a Scientist or anything credible, but I would guess that “we” fell in love with simulations back in the 60’s and 70’s (when I was using them to justify buying computer hardware) when “we” discovered that unlike observations, we could make simulations prove anything we wanted to prove.
here is what i mean by relatively flat
http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
R. Gates says:
December 7, 2010 at 4:19 pm
This is the second such very long filament the sun has produced in the last 6 months or so. I’d be curious to know if this kind of long filament production is normal or very rare?
This is very common.
I can’t stop
Sol vomited after another man tried to marry his wife.
(I can’t leave it, I know, MOD)
[d]
peterhodges says:
December 7, 2010 at 5:33 pm
the discrepancy between 10.7/AP and ssn looks to both falsify L&P, and Svalgaard’s claim that they are undercounting sunspots
You have to do a proper analysis, like shown in slides 15 and 16 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-2.pdf
The L&P graph was just updated a week ago:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Place a tiny piece of the Sun on my finger my beloved and leave the rather dull diamond snug in its mountain. I would rather have the Sun.
peterhodges says:
December 7, 2010 at 5:55 pm
here is what i mean by relatively flat
http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
Yes, that is what a small coming cycle looks like. The number of active regions [numbered by NOAA] per month is shown here: http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
The dashed curve for SC24 is the predicted run, so far, so good.
leif
um, thanks ahead of time for your patience if you can explain the L&P plots…i don’t see anything relating strength and intensity of the magnetic field to invisible sunspots.
my understanding was that
1)ssn and 10.7 follow historically the same rough curve
2)if L&P thesis was ‘correct’ then ssn curve should start to run lower than 10.7 curve.
and the opposite is happening. which is why i also wonder if you assertion of undercounting ssn is correct – if you were correct then the curves should also begin to converge
if all they are saying is that ssn should go down with magnetic strength, does that really mean anything… if all the other indicators (10.7, tsi, etc) also track the same?
peterhodges says:
December 7, 2010 at 7:20 pm
1)ssn and 10.7 follow historically the same rough curve
Yes and no. The units and numbers are different. But is is possible to construct a formula that empirically converts one to the other. See Figure 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf that shows the SSN as a function of F10.7. The blue symbols show the historical data 1951-1988. Since 1996 that formula no longer works: see the red symbols all falling below the blue. One can omit the Japanese data and only use the Canadian F10.7 values with the same result. [Note that both the directors of the Japanese and and of the Canadian observatory are co-authors of this paper and agree on combining the data to minimize systematic errors]. So, the sunspot number since about 1990 is running to low compared with what it ‘should’ have been for a given value of the solar flux. This is vividly shown on the next slide.
2)if L&P thesis was ‘correct’ then ssn curve should start to run lower than 10.7 curve .
So the SSN curve is running below what we expected it to be.
The L&P effect [slide 10 and an up-to-date version here http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png ] is that the average magnetic field strength also seems to have gone down the past 15 years. As the field goes down, it cools the sunspot less and the spots are getting warmer [thus radiating more] and their contrast to the surrounding photosphere is getting weaker, making the spots more difficult to see. When the field strength falls below 1500 or so Gauss, the spots have such low contrast that they are effectively invisible [at least with the small telescopes that are used for the sunspot count] or at least much harder to see, leading to the observer missing many of the smallest spots. The largest spots will always be visible [so there will always be some LARGE spots – during the Maunder Minimum all the spots seen were large spots as far as we (or I) know]. The SSN number is mainly determined by the number of small spots [there are more of those than of large spots]. Here is the observation on 24th Dec. 1957: ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/1957/dr571224.jpg
This is most spotted sun ever observed. In 2003, the L&P effect was beginning to take effect and there were even more smaller spots than large ones: ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/2003/dr031029.jpg
If L&P are correct [and everything so far suggests that – but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so we need to wait and see until everybody is convinced] even these small spots will disappear and we may be left with only large spots [but few of them] like now: http://www.spaceweather.com/images2010/08dec10/hmi200.gif
This is all very exciting.
Enneagram says:
December 7, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Filaments of the Earth: Elves and sprites
Not at all. These are completely different physical phenomena and have nothing in common with solar filaments.
the videos are dated August 2010. Can’t be yesterday’s flare.
janama says:
December 7, 2010 at 8:37 pm
the videos are dated August 2010. Can’t be yesterday’s flare.
8th of December = 2010-12-08, not 12th of August
sweet. thanks for the clarification leif!
if i inderstand your explanation, i was not looking at a long enough ‘picture’ to see the ssn/10.7 convergence, and the ssn drop is not so dramatic because single larger spots keep the ssn ‘high’ in absence of many smaller spots. a straight ‘spot’ count might show a more dramatic drop in #.
so i guess everyone awaits the descent below 1500Gauss
peterhodges says:
December 7, 2010 at 9:59 pm
because single larger spots keep the ssn ‘high’ in absence of many smaller spots
Not quite. A large spot and a small spot should count the same [namely as ONE spot]. There is, however, a problem, namely that the Locarno station which is used as the international reference station unfortunately does count a large spot 5 times, i.e. gives it 5 times the weight of a small spot. This skews the spot count and makes it a bit higher than it should be. This method was introduced by Waldmeier in 1945 and makes all sunspot numbers since then about 20% to high, see: http://www.leif.org/research/SIDC-Seminar-14Sept.pdf
For the L&P effect, this ‘error’ does not alter the conclusion materially.
I’m absolutely disgusted by Anthony Watts’ censorship of a competing scientific hypothesis.
And I say this as someone who took an electric universe supporter to task a couple months back and, frankly, ridiculed him (a comment which was allowed to stand, by the way).
I may have been too hasty. While I still think that some of the ideas of the ideas are exceedingly unlikely, the idea that the universe itself may be a lot more pervaded with plasma and electricity than first thought and that the Sun traversing different regions of our galaxy may cause fluctuations — through some process or other — of the Sun’s luminosity, Sunspot frequency, coronal mass ejection events, or other behaviour is not so outlandish as to be beyond consideration and discussion.
But not here. This blog — to my severe disappointment after years of reading and commenting — silences alternative scientific viewpoints.
If Anthony Watts or others had criticisms of plasma physicists’ (and their wilder cousins, the electric universe blokes’), ideas I’d be more than happy to listen to it them with rapt attention. Their criticisms might even mirror my own that I made here a couple months ago.
However, Anthony, you are acting in the same manner as you have shown that the mainstream climate science community acts.
REPLY: Be as disgusted as you wish, but there are certain topics that I have simply learned from experience not to discuss here. There are other forums to discuss UFO’s, chemtrails, 9/11 truth, HAARP weather modification, astrology, electric universe, and iron sun to name a few. These topics invariably turn ugly. I also don’t discuss religious, faith healing, or atheistic issues, such as you’ll find permeating blogs like Pharyngula, again because of the ugliness demonstrated to occur when such discussions erupt. Therefore I choose not to discuss these topics here and it it is my perogative to do so in my own house with guests. My issue is to keep the peace, and to keep this blog manageable. I do this for my own interest. I’m not a paid blogger like Joe Romm or DeSmog Blog, or RC. I run this blog while juggling a daily radio weather forecast job, a business with employees, and a family with young children. I don’t have the luxury of trying to manage a wild west show or Godwin’s Law outbreaks also. If you are unhappy with how I conduct my own household, you know where the door is. However, I’ll point out that this strategy has worked pretty well, and for the most part has helped WUWT maintain a readership unmatched by any other climate related blogs. – Anthony
I wish I could go back and correct the typographical errors in my last post, but I stand by my point.
Note: My response to Anthony’s reply is below.
—
I mean we only discovered the sodium ion trail of the moon a little over a decade ago, recent NASA space probes to comets have shown behaviour that was completely unpredicted by NASA that seems to show comets look a lot more like rocky asteroids than “dirty balls of dust and ice” and what’s more, that they may well be electrically charged, and here is Electric Universe booster ret. Professor of Electrical Engineering Don Scott invited to speak at NASA Goddard this year — in 2010.
I’m not someone who has blind allegiance to NASA Goddard by any means, but if — after their surprising comet test results like Deep Impact 2 and the huge unexpected flash that preceded the copper impactor from reaching the surface — if for no other reason than that — they are willing to open their mind to a new idea from a previously unlikely source, why can’t we?
We don’t have to open our minds so much that our brains fall out, but is their some scientific advantage to a completely closed mind I’m missing?
We don’t come close to understanding all there is to know about the solar system, plasma, comets, or — for that matter, the Sun (why for example is the center of a Sunspot cooler than the edge and why is the Sun’s surface 6,000 K in temperature, but the corona between 1 and 3 million?).
The astrophysicist who developed the nuclear powered model of the Sun — Sir Arthur Eddington — himself said the competing theory was that the Sun drew its energy not from an internal nuclear furnace, but from the surrounding ether, the galaxy, by some unknown process.
Well, I don’t know who was right. I certainly thought Eddington was right. But if even the great man himself can name the alternative hypothesis in his books and writings, we can’t here?
On a thread discussion a magnetic plasma flare from the Sun?
—
I typed the above before reading your reply to my last comment.
My point is this isn’t like HARP or 9/11 truth or chemtrails.
You don’t know why the Sun has flares. You have no realistic idea why there are Sunspots. You — and no person on Earth — has proven why the Corona is so much hotter than the surface of the Sun, if the interior is really where all the heat has been generated. There are ideas about this, but the math doesn’t show them as adequate so the best scientists can do is combine the theories and say we’ll figure it out eventually.
Scientists are constantly discovering new plasma processes in space, and in our solar system.
Now I personally think that some of the electric universe claims are nuts (the mythology based ones). But, plasma physics isn’t nuts. Your post is about plasma physics.
Even the experts don’t know what the hell is going on with the Sun, not really.
And you and I both know that the Sun is hella important for the climate. As both you, I, and Monckton for that matter are aware, if the Sun’s luminosity varies much, that explains in great measure why the Earth seems to have alternatively heated up, and frozen over, several times repeatedly.
If NASA Goddard has no problem keeping an open mind and inviting the author of The Electric Sky to speak this very year, why can you not match NASA Goddard in terms of open-mindedness?
REPLY: Because my experience has shown me that when I do open such discussions, they turn ugly, and I have a lot of moderation work and responses to individual gripes on my hands, like I’m doing right now. My issue is with poor behaviors by some who push theories at any cost, not the issue being discussed.
Case in point. Dr. Oliver K. Manuel (iron sun guy) used to post here regularly. However he got in the habit of carpet bombing threads with links back to his own blog factoids, just to provoke discussions. It was off topic, boorish, and incessant. I asked him to stop, several times. Finally I had to ban him. Geoff Sharp and barycentrism met a similar fate, but he learned to behave and not abuse his posting privileges, and so you see him here again.
I can’t be everything to every person. I have to choose, right now I choose sleep as it is 12:26AM – Anthony
Sorry about the excess bolding at the end. I meant to close that tag off after “Your post” and not bold the last 3 pars.
REPLY: Fixed, Anthony
Thanks for repairing my broken bold tag. And have a good sleep.
“Case in point. Dr. Oliver K. Manuel (iron sun guy) used to post here regularly. However he got in the habit of carpet bombing threads with links back to his own blog factoids, just to provoke discussions. It was off topic, boorish, and incessant.”
I do understand that, Anthony. Alternative theories of any stripe can attract a certain element.
It’s unfortunate, however, that an alternative theory that may prove to be entirely relevant (possibly the key factor) to climate change is not allowed to be discussed.
There are scientists like Anthony Perrat, a graduate student of Nobel prize in physics winner, Hannes Alfven (for magnetohydynamics: Tom Clancy fans, see the caterpillar drive in the Red October) … who dislike the electric universe stuff as much as you do because of their reliance on mythology to pose very unlikely scenarios.
But still, he believes — and I am coming to believe — that astrophysicists have developed a great understanding of the mechanics of gravity, but are sorely lacking in understanding solar/galactic plasma (and possibly electricity to generate the magnetic fields).
All of that is relevant to the Sun and the Sun is directly relevant to Earth’s climate.
Pleasant dreams!
Pleasant dreams and, for what it’s worth, my disappointment was in direct measure to how much I value your site.
I simply hope that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. While I don’t believe mythology has much of a place in astrophysics, plasma (and possibly electricity, which would generate the magnetic fields we keep discovering) does. The Sun’s corona and flares, at least, being largely charged plasma, that varies in intensity and heat output (and magnetism, for that matter, also important), this seems relevant to a climate blog.
Sleep well.
Christoph Dollis says:
December 8, 2010 at 12:13 am
..The astrophysicist who developed the nuclear powered model of the Sun — Sir Arthur Eddington — himself said the competing theory was that the Sun drew its energy not from an internal nuclear furnace, but from the surrounding ether, the galaxy, by some unknown process..
~
This is great, “from the surrounding ether, the galaxy, by some unknown process,” or yet unseen process.
Vuks, might soon be landing an instellar cloudlett on a Maunder and Oort min, that would totally be icing on the cake. Then to see the flux tube distribution, and eat that cake too. woo woo Frisch team making comments like interstellar medium shaping this helisopheric spaceship. Oh no its plasma and electric dbl layers running the show. lol