More solar images at the WUWT Solar Reference Page
From the: University of Colorado at Boulder
Space weather disrupts communications, threatens other technologies
A powerful solar flare has ushered in the largest space weather storm in at least four years and has already disrupted some ground communications on Earth, said University of Colorado Boulder Professor Daniel Baker, an internationally known space weather expert.
Classified as a Class X flare, the Feb. 15 event also spewed billions of tons of charged particles toward Earth in what are called coronal mass ejections and ignited a geomagnetic storm in Earth’s magnetic field, said Baker, director of CU-Boulder’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics. Such powerful ejections can cause a variety of socioeconomic and safety issues ranging from the disruption of airline navigation systems and power grids to the safety of airline crews and astronauts.
“The sun is coming back to life,” said Baker, who chaired a 2008 National Research Council committee that produced a report titled “Severe Space Weather Events — Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts.” For the past several years the sun has been in its most quiescent state since early in the 20th century, said Baker.
From a scientific standpoint a class X event — the most powerful kind of solar flare — is exciting, said Baker, also a CU-Boulder professor in the astrophysical and planetary sciences department. “But as a society, we can’t afford to let our guard down when operating spacecraft in the near-Earth environment.”
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, several more coronal mass ejections may reach Earth’s atmosphere in the next day or two.
“Human dependence on technology makes society more susceptible to the effects of space weather,” Baker said. “But scientists and engineers have made great strides in recent decades regarding this phenomenon.
“We understand much more about what is happening and can build more robust systems to withstand the effects,” Baker said. “It will be interesting to see how well our technological systems will withstand the rigors of space weather as the sun gets back to higher activity levels.”
Baker also spearheaded a 2006 NRC report titled “Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision for Space.” The report considered the effects of space weather events on human explorers venturing beyond low-Earth orbit. The National Research Council is a federal organization created by the National Academy of Sciences.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Treebeard is right! The sun can still ‘fall off the ramp’! When will these people learn to stop making unsupported predictions.
tallbloke says:
February 19, 2011 at 12:38 am
Any idea whether this is temporary or a real ramp-up?
The sun is a messy place. Weak cycle often have large swings in activity. Classical example: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14.png
Updating my activity count chart: http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png shows that SC24 is right on track.
In pondering how Warmista might branch out and start hyping the need for research dollars to study a “chaotic Sun,” it seems to me that their only tactic would be to claim that they can predict the next CME and give us time to prepare. This puts them in the same business as religions that predict the end of the world (or the world as we know it). One cannot predict that the world ending CME will occur in, say, 200 years because no one will do anything in the short run, except the usual crazies. One cannot predict that it will occur in 10 years because the result would be panic at the thought that hardening of the infrastructure cannot be accomplished in 10 years. Maybe the difficulty of cracking this little nut is why Warmista shy away from Sun studies. By contrast, AGW caused by human consumption of carbon fuels can be packaged as slow descent into inevitable Hell that is annoying now but will consume the grand kiddies, assuming somebody has some. Also, the AGW line means that humans are evil and at war with life on Earth. Nah, the Sun can never compete with that. The Warmista will not start hyping a “chaotic Sun.”
How sad that civilization has been so transformed. Today, science misused for hype can cause panic of such a degree that it can disrupt civilization. Imagine what would happen if everyone in the First World started abandoning cities and looking for subsistence farms.
H.R. says:
February 19, 2011 at 7:17 am
Having read the article and comments, I’m confused. Do we “duck and cover” for this one or not?
Just enjoy the show. This time the averse effects were minor.
Somewhat OT, but what do you think about the correlation between solar cycle length and NH land air temperatures (SCL 12221 filtered, 11-year running average of T), as shown in report by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) for example?
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Solar%20Cycle%20-%20Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf
I think the correlation is striking! Are there some new data and analysis?
I mean not from the Team.
Hmm, that divergence (decline) after the mid 70s…
Is the consensus theory that AGW started in mid 70s?
Short solar cycle -> WARM
Long solar cycle -> COLD
It’s as simple as that. More RPM, more power.
Edim says:
February 19, 2011 at 8:36 am
what do you think about the correlation between solar cycle length and NH land air temperatures
When you look at it [without the dubious filtering] there is no such correlation:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
Leif, are you member of the Team?
Just joking.
If I may enter into the record one more item I encountered in travels on the subj of EMP, this bit of testimony from STANLEY J. JAKUBIAK, DEPUTY CHIEF OF THE COMMAND CENTER’S DIVISION, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF regarding experience with COTS (Commercial, off the shelf) equipment (equipment not designed to be hardened to EMP) and its survivability to EMPl, from:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has280010.000/has280010_0.HTM
Emphasis (bolding) is mine.
.
Edim says:
February 19, 2011 at 8:53 am
Leif, are you member of the Team? Just joking.
One shouldn’t combat the bad science of the Team with even worse science…
_Jim @ur momisugly February 19, 2011 at 4:50 am says:
“ES says February 18, 2011 at 11:21 pm :
Solar Cycle 24 says there was a R2 Radio Blackout, which …
Is that prognostication or verification, like an account of the trouble encountered (lost comms, a circuit that continually failed with multiple re-trys; a syslog with time stamps, etc.) …”
I am sure there was lost comms, which is not unusual with HF and an active sun. In 1988/1989 if was an almost daily occurance to have comm problems during parts of the day. HF and CB can be fickle. Often you can not get comms in a short distance but can pickup someone thousands of miles away. I had a quick look at the CB sites and they have had problems also.
The provice of Quebec had a nine hour power blackout in 1989:
http://www.hydroquebec.com/learning/notions-de-base/tempete-mars-1989.html
Leif, what is the difference between theirs and your analysis? I will look into it tonight, but on the first sight, SCL raw data is different, not only filtering.
Also, that HADCRU temp is a bit on the warm side, 40’s were for sure not ~0,4 degrees warmer than 90s, IMO.
“One shouldn’t combat the bad science of the Team with even worse science…”
Absolutely agree. Like I said I will look into it, but it seems there is some good correlation, according to fig. 2 of that F-C and L report. SC 23 was longer than SC 22, SC 24 looks like it will be very long. Cold times ahead.
Edim says:
February 19, 2011 at 9:11 am
Leif, what is the difference between theirs and your analysis? I will look into it tonight, but on the first sight, SCL raw data is different
Anybody can calculate the SCL and you might get slightly different results [of the order of a tenth of a year] depending on how you define minimum and maximum. These small differences don’t matter, of course. for the temperatures, nobody agrees on the precise values, but again it matters not much.
Leif Svalgaard says on February 19, 2011 at 9:05 am:
Edim says:
February 19, 2011 at 8:53 am
Leif, are you member of the Team? Just joking.
One shouldn’t combat the bad science of the Team with even worse science…
****************************************
Indeed!
It saddens me that some people (not you, edim, you made clear you were joking!) seem to regard science mostly as a weapon to clobber The Team and/or cAGW proponents with, or vice versa.
I hope they find their way back to the enjoyment experienced by good and excellent science.
For a general description of the first solar flare ever observed, see for example:
Other Discoveries from Carrington’s Flare
Regarding the danger of the present activity, I’m with Leif, just enjoy the show. Somebody switched on the Sun again and the spectacle is marvelous. And just think that Cycle XXIII (the one before) was extremely active. During the week from 27 OCT to 4 NOV 2003 we have had many X, and uncountable number of M class flares. In fact the Solar Corona at Soft-X Ray had a C class level background (as usual in astronomy there is no logic in classification: from weaker to stronger A, B, C, M and X). On 4 NOV, the most intense flare of the satellite era saturated the GOES Soft X-rays telescopes and produced a strong CME (since it was a limb event, the CME went off the Earth). We survived to all of that, electric systems, banking, even GPS and communication satellites…
Does anybody has a reference about the present consequences of an 1859 flare-like? I only saw an interview to Michio Kaku in a TV Show. I’m a little bit skeptic.
Solar Cycle 24 has a long way to go to the top. Given how weak this cycle has been, this recent flare-up is extraordinary, but there will be many more in the coming months and years during this cycle.
BTW, it is interesting, though not connected, that the current Global Sea ice extent is the lowest it has been since the last time we had an X-class flare.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 19, 2011 at 9:29 am
“…but again it matters not much.”
Well obviously it matters very much.
Wouldn’t you say that correlation between SCL (filtered) and NH temp as in fig. 2 in F-C & L (1991) is striking?
Even unfiltered SCL show correlation.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 19, 2011 at 7:58 am
tallbloke says:
February 19, 2011 at 12:38 am
Any idea whether this is temporary or a real ramp-up?
The sun is a messy place. Weak cycle often have large swings in activity. Classical example: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14.png
————————————————————–
Another classic example, SC9: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl9.html
Edim says:
February 19, 2011 at 10:02 am
Wouldn’t you say that correlation between SCL (filtered) and NH temp as in fig. 2 in F-C & L (1991) is striking?
With a flawed analysis you can at times create striking things.
Even unfiltered SCL show correlation.
Here is an unfiltered version:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
Note that in 1750-1800 it was cold.
Leif,
OK, you think their analysis is flawed, but I am not convinced.
Your graphs have SCL from 0 to 16 (18) years. They have different scale and values are in reverse order, because the alleged correlation between SCL and temperature is negative. Hmm…
I think there is something to it. In fact, I am very surprised, because I always thought that factors influencing climate changes are many (I still think that). Seeing one single factor (SCL) correlating so well with the temperature is remarkable.
“Here is an unfiltered version:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Lengths%20and%20Temperatures.png
Note that in 1750-1800 it was cold.”
Hmm… Solar cycle 17 years long!
I am not sure what you are trying to say, the alleged correlation is negative (long cycles, cold climate).
Even in your unfiltered version there is negative correlation until mid 70s.
After that, the official temperature records are overestimated (UHI and confirmation/selection bias mostly), IMO.
@Leif
Thank you. The solar gang doesn’t put out much in the way of WAGTD stuff. The article had some alarming statements, but from comments and my own experience, nothing much was happening.
Edim says:
February 19, 2011 at 10:51 am
Seeing one single factor (SCL) correlating so well with the temperature is remarkable.
What is remarkable is that you have been taken in by that.
Let me try again to do a correct analysis:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
The second plot shows [pink circles] that there is no correlation [R^2=0.03]. Now, if one thinks hat the long-term trend is obscuring the correlation, then one can remove the trend [green curve in 1st plot]. The correlation is till not significant [R^2=0.20]. If you choose to believe that R^2 of 0.2 is significant [some people are desperate enough to do that], then the correlation is slightly positive, i.e. long cycles are warmer. But, I realize that you may be lost cause: once people are fixed in their [open] mind, no arguments carry any weight.
Edim says:
February 19, 2011 at 11:09 am
I am not sure what you are trying to say, the alleged correlation is negative (long cycles, cold climate).
I’m pointing out that the cycles in the 18th century were about the same lengths ans recent cycles, yet the temperatures were grossly different.