![Aurora_Map_N[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/aurora_map_n1.png?quality=75)
From NASA: Spaceweather: As expected, a CME hit Earth’s magnetic field on Jan. 9th (around 20:00 UTC or 3 p.m. EST). Although the initial impact was weaker than expected, geomagnetic storms could still develop as Earth passes through the CME’s wake. NOAA forecasters are sticking by their prediction of a G3-class event on Jan. 9-10, which means high-latitude sky watchers should remain alert for auroras.
From the New Jersey Institute of Technology
With instruments in space and on earth, NJIT solar experts monitor the massive solar storm
The first powerful “X-class” solar flare of 2014, in association with another solar phenomenon, a giant cloud of solar particles known as a coronal mass ejection (CME), erupted from the sun on Tuesday, sending radiation and particles speeding toward Earth and disrupting operations on the ground.
NASA reported on Wednesday that Orbital Sciences Corp., a commercial spaceflight company on a cargo delivery mission to the International Space Station, had called off its rocket launch that day from the agency’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia because of the unusually high levels of radiation.
“This was a huge event, with the CME now classified as an R-type for its rarity, with an estimated speed much higher than we have recently seen because of the massive release of energy,” commented Andrew Gerrard, an NJIT professor of physics and deputy director of the university’s Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research. “Eruptions of this magnitude can cause circulation changes in the upper atmosphere, communications disruptions in space and on the ground, and other potential electrical anomalies. We can lose track of space craft, whose orbits can be disrupted by these in these events. It’s like driving through molasses.”
NJIT is continuing to measure the solar explosion’s impact from space with its instruments on the Van Allen Probes, NASA space craft that travel through the inner magnetosphere, and on the ground through instruments like those in the NATION Fabry-Perot systems in North America, which measure thermospheric winds and temperatures, and in systems across the Antarctic plateau that measure geomagnetic variability.
“This is a beautiful opportunity to look at how this material from the sun is injected into the radiation belts, inner magnetosphere, and upper atmosphere,” Gerrard said. “We may not see anything like this for another decade.”
NJIT’s Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research also operates the university’s Big Bear Solar Observatory (BBSO) in California, which is home to the world’s most powerful ground-based telescope dedicated to solar research. NJIT professors at BBSO in Big Bear have obtained new and remarkably detailed photos of the Sun with the New Solar Telescope (NST).
The flare, a giant burst of radiation designated as X-class for the most intense flares, is centered over a giant sunspot AR1944 located at the center of the sun. By Wednesday, the solar radiation storm had intensified to an S3 or strong event, while the coronal mass ejection was forecast to set off G3 (Strong) Geomagnetic Storm activity through January 9 and 10, NASA said.
Solar flares and coronal mass ejections regularly send bursts of charged particles and high energy radiation in Earth’s direction at nearly the speed of light. Upon reaching our atmosphere within minutes, solar radiation can destroy the electronic systems in satellites used in telecommunications, weather forecasting and GPS systems, among other services, as well as devices on the ground, such as transformers.
In 1989, for example, a solar storm brought down the Hydro-Quebec grid within minutes, blacking out the entire province as well as parts of the Northern United States for several hours.
Related:
X class solar flare ejection may hit Earth with solar storm
Jim G says:
January 10, 2014 at 8:55 am
Hey Leif, is there any hard evidence that a solar flare has ever caused any significant extinction event?
Our data does not stretch far enough back in time to tell, but from the energetics of it I would say “no”. Before the advent of our technological infrastructure [around 1840] solar flares did not have any environmental effects apart from brilliant auroral displays and temporary disorientation of migrating birds.
@ur momisugly Jim G
Hi. What’s a wing nut (outside its usual definition)? Is it a popular search term result that drowns out the more nuanced subject matter you are looking for? If so, I commiserate with you and shall adopt this word to describe my future frustrated search attempts.
The HXIS instrument obtained images over small areas of the sun within six energy bands from 3.5 to 30 keV (3.5 to 0.4Å). The central part of the images had a spatial resolution of 8 arc-seconds. The normal time resolution was about 8 seconds but some flare observations were obtained with 1.5 second time intervals. HXIS observations showed that energetic X-rays are emitted from the footpoints of the magnetic loops seen in solar flares. HXIS showed that large coronal loops with temperatures up to 10 million degrees Kelvin are probably always present in the corona. HXIS also found that X-rays are often seen from widely separated point prior to the onset of a coronal mass ejection .
Seems POES is not reporting correctly on the Energetic Electron Fluxes…
Implications anyone???
Energetic electron precipitation characteristics observed from Antarctica during a flux dropout event
http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/space/Auto_AARDDVARK_MS_2013.pdf
Mark A. Clilverd1,*, Neil Cobbett1, Craig J. Rodger2,
James B. Brundell2, Michael H. Denton3, David P. Hartley3,
Juan V. Rodriguez4,5, Donald Danskin6, Tero Raita7,
Emma L. Spanswick8
Article first published online: 5 NOV 2013
…”””Combining the ground-based data with low and geosynchronous orbiting satellite observations on 27 February 2012, different driving mechanisms were observed for three precipitation events with clear signatures in phase space density and electron anisotropy. Comparison between flux measurements made by Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) in low Earth orbit and by the Antarctic instrumentation provides evidence of different cases of weak and strong diffusion into the bounce loss cone, helping to understand the physical mechanisms controlling the precipitation of energetic electrons into the atmosphere. Strong diffusion events occurred as the 30 keV flux than was reported by POES, more consistent with strong diffusion conditions…”””
Seems that parts of this Abstract will not copy paste today.. so type them myself aaarghh..
Energetic electron precipitation characteristics observed from Antarctica during a flux dropout event
“”One event appeared to have a factor of about 10 to 100 times more flux than was reported by POES, consistent with weak diffusion into the bounce loss cone. Two events had a factor of about 3 to 10 times more .30 keV flux than was reported by Poes, more consistent with strong diffusion conditions.””
Apparently, there is an issue between POES and ground based observations for electron precipitation.
Energetic particle injection, acceleration, and loss during
the geomagnetic disturbances which upset Galaxy 15
http://plasmon.elte.hu/publication/1.scientific-papers/2012JA018175.pdf
Mark A. Clilverd,1 Craig J. Rodger,2 Donald Danskin,3 Maria E. Usanova,4 Tero Raita,5
Thomas Ulich,5 and Emma L. Spanswick6
published 11 December 2012.
page 14 summary
…”””Although the POES blc >100 keV fluxes increased by a factor of 40 during the
event, the calculated fluxes on the basis of the groundbased observations
were a factor of 30 times larger again.
This is consistent with the idea that some adjustment needs to be made to the POES blc
fluxes to take into account the orientation of the telescope to the blc,
and the nonisotropic distribution of electrons within the blc. The observations
suggest that the chorus-wave event produced energetic
electron precipitation via a weak diffusion process…”””
Yes there is an issue, and we are working on this under reporting of electron precipitation..
Tuesday, 10 September, 2013
Comparison between POES energetic electron precipitation observations and riometer absorptions; implications for determining true precipitation fluxes
Craig J. Rodger
Department of Physics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Andrew J. Kavanagh and Mark A. Clilverd
British Antarctic Survey (NERC), Cambridge, United Kingdom
Steve R. Marple
Department of Physics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom
…”””Abstract. Energetic Electron Precipitation (EEP) impacts the chemistry of the middle atmosphere with growing evidence that it couples to surface temperatures at high latitudes. To better understand this link it is essential to have realistic observations to properly characterise precipitation and which can be incorporated into chemistry-climate models. The Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) detectors measure precipitating particles but only integral fluxes and only in a fraction of the bounce loss cone.
Ground based riometers respond to precipitation from the whole bounce loss cone; they measure the cosmic radio noise absorption (CNA); a qualitative proxy with scant direct information on the energy-flux of EEP. POES observations should have a direct relationship with ΔCNA and comparing the two will clarify their utility in studies of atmospheric change.
We determined ionospheric changes produced by the EEP measured by the POES spacecraft in ~250 overpasses of an imaging riometer in northern Finland. The ΔCNA modeled from the POES data is
10-15 times less than the observed ΔCNA when the >30 keV flux is reported as <10 6 cm-2sec-1sr-1. Above this level there is relatively good agreement between the space-based and ground-based measurements. The discrepancy occurs mostly during periods of low geomagnetic activity and we contend that weak
diffusion is dominating the pitch angle scattering into the bounce loss cone at these times. A correction to the calculation using measurements of the trapped flux improves the discrepancy considerably and provides further support to our hypothesis that weak diffusion leads to underestimates of the EEP…"""