Large sunspot Group AR1520, seen below just right of center, was pointed directly at Earth when the flare occurred.
The GOES Xray Flux spike hit X 1.4, just barely an X-class:
From Spaceweather.com
Big sunspot AR1520 unleashed an X1.4-class solar flare on July 12th at 1653 UT. Because this sunspot is directly facing Earth, everything about the blast was geoeffective. For one thing, it hurled a coronal mass ejection (CME) directly toward our planet. According to a forecast track prepared by analysts at the Goddard Space Weather Lab, the CME will hit Earth on July 14th around 10:20 UT (+/- 7 hours) and could spark strong geomagnetic storms.
The explosion also strobed Earth with a pulse of extreme UV radiation, shown here in a movie recorded by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory:
The UV pulse partially ionized Earth’s upper atmosphere, disturbing the normal propagation of radio signals around the planet. Monitoring stations in Norway, Ireland and Italy recorded the sudden ionospheric disturbance.
Finally, solar protons accelerated by the blast are swarming around Earth. The radiation storm, in progress, ranks “S1” on NOAA space weather scales, which means it poses no serious threat to satellites or astronauts. This could change if the storm continues to intensify. Stay tuned.
Piers Corbyn (@Piers_Corbyn) says:
July 13, 2012 at 7:27 pm
This situation of extreme earth facing events on the Sun (significant active Regions /Coronal Holes) … was predicted by WeatherAction in forecasts issued end June
Since the Sun is rotating and large active regions live for longer than one rotation, it is no big feat to ‘forecast’ a recurrence of the region 27 days later:
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20120711.JPG and
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20120614.JPG
sorry if posted twice. WUWT was not responding…
Piers Corbyn (@Piers_Corbyn) says:
July 13, 2012 at 7:27 pm
“This situation of extreme earth facing events on the Sun (significant active Regions /Coronal Holes) just preceding extreme weather events”
There are always an extreme weather event somewhere on the planet so this is an open ended forecast.
Jim Arndt
An explanation of how a Solar Flare would effect the Earth’s magnetic and electrical fields can be deduced from here, which uses standard electric, electronic, and plasma engineering science.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/01/17/essential-guide-to-the-eu-chapter-8/
Thanks for your notes, Leif.
Incidentally, this solar cycle 25 seems to be late, and its amplitude seem to be the weakest in centuries.
How much did that effect reduce TSI (total solal irradiance) as expressed in W/m^2 on planet Earth over the past decade, and how much is that reduction compared to the increase in GHG radiative forcing over the same period ?
So what happened? Are we all going to die or what?
Jim Arndt says:
July 13, 2012 at 8:42 pm
http://research.aerology.com/severe-weather/derecho-storm-seen-from-space/
Is an example of the use of the lunar declinational patterns to see the short term effects of solar flares and CME on the usual global circulation patterns driven by the moon alone.
Piers Corbyn (@ur momisuglyPiers_Corbyn) says:
July 13, 2012 at 7:27 pm
If you want a copy of all of my tabled raw data, the program for deriving the csv files, and the software to plot the maps, for all four past analog cycles, and the composite that gets posted on my site just let me know. info@ur momisugly or richard@ur momisugly
Piers,
Since Leif just showed that variations in TSI from solar flares are hardly measurable, why (physical reason please) do you think solar flares affect the weather at all, let alone cause ‘extreme weather events’ ?
Julian Braggins says:
July 14, 2012 at 12:38 am
An explanation of how a Solar Flare would effect the Earth’s magnetic and electrical fields can be deduced from here, which uses standard electric, electronic, and plasma engineering science.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/01/17/essential-guide-to-the-eu-chapter-8/
That is no explanation at all. An explanation means giving numbers: how large is the effect given the input. EU can’t give you those numbers because their ‘explanation’ is no explanation. If you want a real explanation [which we have known for half a century you can find it here: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
The appendix shows how to calculate the size of the effect.
Rob Dekker says:
July 14, 2012 at 1:09 am
Thanks for your notes, Leif.
Incidentally, this solar cycle 25 seems to be late, and its amplitude seem to be the weakest in centuries.
You probably mean cycle 24. Number 25 is still about ten years away.
How much did that effect reduce TSI (total solal irradiance) as expressed in W/m^2 on planet Earth over the past decade, and how much is that reduction compared to the increase in GHG radiative forcing over the same period ?
The changes in TSI are very small, of the order of 1 W/m^2. About GHG you can find estimates in many places [do some searching yourself]
Julian Braggins says:
July 14, 2012 at 12:38 am
An explanation of how a Solar Flare would effect the Earth’s magnetic and electrical fields can be deduced from here…
Your link contains this interesting statement [which BTW is almost correct, except ‘ionosphere’ should be ‘magnetosphere’]:
“Any ions and electrons in the vicinity, for example, in the ionosphere, will therefore acquire velocities perpendicular to both B and g under the combined influence of gravity and the magnetic field. Because the velocities of ions and electrons are in opposite directions, this is equivalent to a current flowing in a ring around the equatorial plane.”
So, the current is created from the magnetic field and gravity according to EU theory.
Leif, doesn’t the plasma ejecta cloud rotate and twist during its transit here? As so, wouldn’t that tend to render the original magnetic configuration less relevant?
solarlux says:
July 14, 2012 at 7:28 am
doesn’t the plasma ejecta cloud rotate and twist during its transit here? As so, wouldn’t that tend to render the original magnetic configuration less relevant?
There is some twisting, but since the cloud is still connected back via its magnetic field most of the original configuration is intact. Here is more on CMEs: http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2011-1&page=articlesu11.html
Thanks, that is helpful. So in cases where the leading edge arrives with exactly opposite the expected magnetic polarity … is that mainly due to a difficulty in inferring the cloud configuration from the alignment of the originating active area? Or is it due to inferring incorrectly *what* precise area produced the CME?
solarlux says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:17 am
So in cases where the leading edge arrives with exactly opposite the expected magnetic polarity … is that mainly due to a difficulty in inferring the cloud configuration from the alignment of the originating active area? Or is it due to inferring incorrectly *what* precise area produced the CME?
Both, but usually the expected polarity is also what arrives. E.g. for this CME, it has arrived, the leading has northward pointing flux as I predicted from eyeballed magnetograms of the sun, and, as expected, the resulting ‘storm’ is very minor [so far…]
It definitely seems like a tricky science. The largest geomagnetic storm of SC23 originated from CMEs associated with < M5 flare(s) with a max wind speed of 730 km/s. It seems to be all about the magnetic configuration.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/current/si/links/2004GL021639.pdf
So no bow shock with this current one incoming?
Ah… never mind, here it comes.
The leading edge of the ion flux coming into Minnesota and also Newfoundland NOW watch as this sweeps South/East to see if the increased rainfall follows the past derocheo pattern?
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ovens/loops/wxloop.cgi?wv_east_enhanced+50+-update+3600
Slow connection warning 68 meg bit loop of the the past 50 1/2 hour satellite images, so you can see the changes from yesterday.
Leif said :
Thanks Leif. That 1 W/m^2 spread out over the Earth’s surface would be a reduction of 0.25 W/m^2, right ?
For doubling of CO2 (280 ppm->560 ppm) generally 3.7 W/m^2 in GHG forcing is calculated. So, in first order approximation, the 2ppm/year we add in CO2 would cause 0.13 W/m^2 forcing over the past decade.
So would it be fair to say that reduction in solar activity (TSI) over the past decade probably reduced radiative forcing, even when increase in CO2 would be accounted for ?
I’m sorry Leif. 3.7 W/m^2 / 280 ppm = 0.013, so our 2 ppm CO2 should have caused 0.26 W/m^2 increase in forcing.
Which appears to be at the same order of magnitude as the reduction in TSI over the same period.
Does that sound right, or did TSI go back up to the peak levels of previous solar cycles ?
Rob Dekker says:
July 15, 2012 at 2:07 am
did TSI go back up to the peak levels of previous solar cycles ?
The 1 W/m^2 variation is cyclic. So TSI does indeed return to about the same peak value, except that the peak value depends on the sunspot number. It is not so that the solar cycle average is 1 W/m^2 lower, only the peak value. Slice 25 of http://www.leif.org/research/What-is-Wrong-with-GSN.pdf shows [the red curve] what I think the variation of TSI has been the last 400 years.
Leif, you and I know that relativity ties the electric and magnetic force into one thing. Why do you always go against your very own theory to exclude the electric force? Do you not believe in relativity?
Steven says:
July 15, 2012 at 7:42 am
relativity ties the electric and magnetic force into one thing.
Nothing to do with relativity. Maxwell’s equations unify the electric and magnetic force. This is consistent with special relativity, is all. The Electric forces are not excluded. Every explosive effect occurring in a plasma is due to the short circuiting of electric currents, which in turn are generated by moving the conducting plasma across a magnetic field. No magnetic field, no current.
Leif, I actually read your paper and i see energy of the system mentioned numerous times. What is this energy Leif?
Leif Svalgaard says: No magnetic field, no current.
That’s what you keep parroting. But why was the neutron deduced it was not a fundamental particle because it apparently had a magnetic moment and was neutral? It could not be reconciled with known laws that the particle could possess a magnetic moment and be neutral, It was later discovered that it was composed of quarks, charged particles that by their spin and interaction with one another that the magnetic moment of the neutron was made possible.
E=mc^2 demands that a particle completely at rest, not moving in your magnetic field, possess charge, contrary to everything you have been saying.
[snip – off topic, submit to the correct thread please ~mod]