Bigger things to worry about than global warming: Scientists say a destructive solar blast narrowly missed Earth in 2012

Video follows of the July 23rd, 2012 Coronal Mass Ejection, said to be the fastest ever

From UC BERKELEY — Earth dodged a huge magnetic bullet from the sun on July 23, 2012.

According to University of California, Berkeley, and Chinese researchers, a rapid succession of coronal mass ejections — the most intense eruptions on the sun — sent a pulse of magnetized plasma barreling into space and through Earth’s orbit. Had the eruption come nine days earlier, when the ignition spot on the solar surface was aimed at Earth, it would have hit the planet, potentially wreaking havoc with the electrical grid, disabling satellites and GPS, and disrupting our increasingly electronic lives.

This movie shows a coronal mass ejection (CME) on the sun from July 22, 2012, at 10:00 p.m. EDT until 2 a.m. on July 23 as captured by NASA’s Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory-Ahead (STEREO A). Because the CME headed in STEREO A’s direction, it appears like a giant halo around the sun. NOTE: This video loops 3 times.

The solar bursts would have enveloped Earth in magnetic fireworks matching the largest magnetic storm ever reported on Earth, the so-called Carrington event of 1859. The dominant mode of communication at that time, the telegraph system, was knocked out across the United States, literally shocking telegraph operators. Meanwhile, the Northern Lights lit up the night sky as far south as Hawaii.

In a paper appearing today (Tuesday, March 18) in the journal Nature Communications, former UC Berkeley postdoctoral fellow and research physicist Ying D. Liu, now a professor at China’s State Key Laboratory of Space Weather, UC Berkeley research physicist Janet G. Luhmann and their colleagues report their analysis of the magnetic storm, which was detected by NASA’s STEREO A spacecraft.

“Had it hit Earth, it probably would have been like the big one in 1859, but the effect today, with our modern technologies, would have been tremendous,” said Luhmann, who is part of the STEREO (Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory) team and based at UC Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory.

A study last year estimated that the cost of a solar storm like the Carrington Event could reach $2.6 trillion worldwide. A considerably smaller event on March 13, 1989, led to the collapse of Canada’s Hydro-Quebec power grid and a resulting loss of electricity to six million people for up to nine hours.

“An extreme space weather storm — a solar superstorm — is a low-probability, high-consequence event that poses severe threats to critical infrastructures of the modern society,” warned Liu, who is with the National Space Science Center of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. “The cost of an extreme space weather event, if it hits Earth, could reach trillions of dollars with a potential recovery time of 4-10 years. Therefore, it is paramount to the security and economic interest of the modern society to understand solar superstorms.”

Fast-moving magnetic storm

Based on their analysis of the 2012 event, Liu, Luhmann and their STEREO colleagues concluded that a huge outburst on the sun on July 22 propelled a magnetic cloud through the solar wind at a peak speed of more than 2,000 kilometers per second, four times the typical speed of a magnetic storm. It tore through Earth’s orbit but, luckily, Earth and the other planets were on the other side of the sun at the time. Any planets in the line of sight would have suffered severe magnetic storms as the magnetic field of the outburst tangled with the planets’ own magnetic fields. The sun rotates every 25 days at the equator, so nine days earlier the ignition spot of the coronal mass ejections was pointed directly at Earth.

The researchers determined that the huge outburst resulted from at least two nearly simultaneous coronal mass ejections (CMEs), which typically release energies equivalent to that of about a billion hydrogen bombs. The speed with which the magnetic cloud plowed through the solar wind was so high, they concluded, because another mass ejection four days earlier had cleared the path of material that would have slowed it down.

“The authors believe this extreme event was due to the interaction of two CMEs separated by only 10 to 15 minutes,” said Joe Gurman, the project scientist for STEREO at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

One reason the event was potentially so dangerous, aside from its high speed, is that it produced a very long-duration, southward-oriented magnetic field, Luhmann said. This orientation drives the largest magnetic storms when they hit Earth because the southward field merges violently with Earth’s northward field in a process called reconnection. Storms that normally might dump their energy only at the poles instead dump it into the radiation belts, ionosphere and upper atmosphere and create auroras down to the tropics.

Coronal mass ejection

“These gnarly, twisty ropes of magnetic field from coronal mass ejections come blasting from the sun through the ambient solar system, piling up material in front of them, and when this double whammy hits Earth, it skews the Earth’s magnetic field to odd directions, dumping energy all around the planet,” she said.

Detecting solar blasts

“People keep saying that these are rare natural hazards, but they are happening in the solar system even though we don’t always see them,” she added. “It’s like with earthquakes — it is hard to impress upon people the importance of preparing unless you suffer a magnitude 9 earthquake.”

All this activity would have been missed if STEREO A — the STEREO spacecraft ahead of us in Earth’s orbit and the twin to STEREO B, which trails in our orbit — had not been there to record the blast.

The goal of STEREO and other satellites probing the magnetic fields of the sun and Earth is to understand how and why the sun sends out these large solar storms and to be able to predict them during the sun’s 11-year solar cycle. This event was particularly unusual because it happened during a very calm solar period.

“Observations of solar superstorms have been extremely lacking and limited, and our current understanding of solar superstorms is very poor,” Liu said. “Questions fundamental to solar physics and space weather, such as how extreme events form and evolve and how severe it can be at the Earth, are not addressed because of the extreme lack of observations.”

The work was supported by NASA. Other coauthors of the paper are Stuart D. Bale, director of UC Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory and professor of physics; Primož Kajdič and Benoit Lavraud of the Université de Toulouse; Emilia K. J. Kilpua of the University of Helsinki; Noé Lugaz, Charles J. Farrugia and Antoinette B. Galvin of the University of New Hampshire; Nariaki V. Nitta of Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory; Christian Möstl of the University of Graz and the Austria Space Research Institute of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

============================================================

Observations of an extreme storm in interplanetary space caused by successive coronal mass ejections

doi:10.1038/ncomms4481  Liu et al.

Space weather refers to dynamic conditions on the Sun and in the space environment of the Earth, which are often driven by solar eruptions and their subsequent interplanetary disturbances. It has been unclear how an extreme space weather storm forms and how severe it can be. Here we report and investigate an extreme event with multi-point remote-sensing and in situ observations. The formation of the extreme storm showed striking novel features. We suggest that the in-transit interaction between two closely launched coronal mass ejections resulted in the extreme enhancement of the ejecta magnetic field observed near 1 AU at STEREO A. The fast transit to STEREO A (in only 18.6 h), or the unusually weak deceleration of the event, was caused by the preconditioning of the upstream solar wind by an earlier solar eruption. These results provide a new view crucial to solar physics and space weather as to how an extreme space weather event can arise from a combination of solar eruptions.

4 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

71 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 22, 2014 8:44 pm

DirkH on March 22 at 8:21 pm
Okay, got it. No further questions.
Carry on.

Patrick
March 23, 2014 1:52 am

“Stephan Fuelling says:
March 22, 2014 at 1:49 pm
We have to replace the old, inherently unstable uranium power plants as soon as possible.”
Say what? Tell that to the French who derive ~80% of all their power needs from nuclear. Unless their Govn’t and MSM are extremely good at hiding issues with their “unstable uranium” power plants I’ve not heard nor read of many, if at all any, serious issues with nuclear power in France in decades. It’s exactly this fear you display that prevents us from embracing nuclear power.

March 23, 2014 4:01 am

And now this! How many times do I have to tell you? We’re doomed.

Doug Huffman
March 23, 2014 5:10 am

Patrick says: March 23, 2014 at 1:52 am “Unless their Govn’t and MSM are extremely good at hiding issues with their “unstable uranium” power plants I’ve not heard nor read of many, if at all any, serious issues with nuclear power in France in decades. It’s exactly this fear you display that prevents us from embracing nuclear power.
Once truthfulness is presumed, one needn’t go so far afield as France’s laudable experience. By 2013 the United States Navy had accumulated 6400 reactor-years of safe operation of HEU reactors.

Doug Huffman
March 23, 2014 5:24 am

I went on to look for comparisons of France’s accident experience with the USN NNPP. France has had accidents. The USN NNPP claims to have never had an accident.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/45608main_NNBE_Progress_Report2_7-15-03.pdf

Twobob
March 23, 2014 6:26 am

So much Comment on how this 1989
Electrical storm effected Canada and north America.
How did it not effect Great Britain the same way?
Looking at the dispersion affects of the field.
Looks like GB had it as bad if not worse.
Follow the money ?

John Innes
March 23, 2014 9:47 am

I don’t understand what is meant when it says that the “outburst tangled with the planets’ own magnetic fields”. Isn’t the field simply the vector sum of the field of the planet and the field from the external source?
And what, pray, is a “magnetic cloud”? Cloud of exactly what?

Herald
March 23, 2014 10:55 am

Let’s not overstate it, back in the telegraph days the infrastructure was all overhead, now, particularly in cities like New York, it’s underground. Electricity networks now have mechanisms to discharge overvoltages from lightning, and you think the much lower intensity magnetic interference is going to overwhelm defences that can deal with lightning bolts?
Its really not the local grid within your city thats the problem so much as the relatively long distance high voltage lines that interconnect the city with distant power plants. (Distant to protect the city from combustion fumes and/or Nuclear Meltdown depending on you source). Now you are stretching a conductor (the wires) “tens of miles” to “hundreds of miles” through an existing magnet field (the earths), and moving it (the earth rotates, and the wires rotate with it), and interconnecting them in “Big” transformers at the city which atempting to stabllize/load balance the grid load/demand. It’s difficult enough under norman circumstances, throw in a huge surge in inductance due to magnetic/electrical disruptions that outside of the equipments design specs, and there is plenty of room for “snap crackle pop”. One of the problems with the big transformers that there are not a lot of them, demand is low (read built to order, not on spec), and keeping spares around for something that big/expensive is not cheap. The grid within New York may be fine/underground, but if there is no power being delivered to New York, the city is still going to be dark… (Political will, we could spend $ to harden the equpment, and have spares sitting around, but the payback (Coronal hit) may not be for generations, better to focus $ on something that will help me get through the next mid-term elections…).

Carla
March 23, 2014 12:02 pm

John Innes says:
March 23, 2014 at 9:47 am
..And what, pray, is a “magnetic cloud”? Cloud of exactly what?
——————————————————————————–
For an oversimplified reply..
Check out some images of magnetic clouds, huge twisted up magnetic flux tubes with plasma trailing..travelling into interplanetary space at speeds upwards of 2500 km/s..interacting with a sum what stationary magnetic field..prolly would tangle and otherwise make a mess of a planets magnetic field.
Center image on this is is is very cool.. not your average vortex..
http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2002_01_04/4Jan_tri_big.jpg

cadet31
March 23, 2014 12:58 pm

II’m sorry, Carla, I’m no clearer. What is a “magnetic flux tube”? Is it a field, or a substance? I cann understand plasma, and that it would travel at such a speed. I take it that magnetic fields would propagate at the speed of light? Or are we talking about the magnetic field that a charged particle creates when it moves and its moving charge constitutes a current?
John Innes

Carla
March 23, 2014 1:39 pm

What do we know about the changing locations and angles of the cusp region of Earth’s magnetosphere over lower amplitude solar cycles?
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2001/02/Motion_of_the_polar_cusp
Wondering how ionospheric convection changes at the poles over time affect location and strength of the polar vortex. The movie at the following link depicts ionospheric convection occurring over a 6 year period for IMF N. and S. but also shows how the convection location varies.
http://sci.esa.int/cluster/41479-cluster-observes-convection-cells/
Cluster Observes Convection Cells
Date: 22 October 2007
Copyright: Haaland, S.E. et al.
Evolution of the potential map over the north polar cap, showing the pattern of convection cells. The maps are based on six years of Cluster EDI data and show the variation of the potential in the ionosphere at 400 km altitude as a function of the orientation of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). The potential strength is colour coded and the maximum and minimum values, as well as the total potential difference, are stated at the top. The orientation of the IMF is indicated at top right with the yellow cone (45° wide).
A larger version (19.5 Mb) of this sequence is available under “Video Download” on the right-hand side of this page.
Still images for south and north of Interplanetary Magnetic Field IMF and the formation of convection cells.
http://sci.esa.int/cluster/41471-convection-cell-pattern-southward-imf/
Date: 22 October 2007
This potential map shows the plasma convection cells pattern in the Earth’s ionosphere for southward directed interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). It is derived from a statistical study based on six years of Cluster EDI measurements.
For strongly southward IMF there is the familiar two-cell convection pattern.
http://sci.esa.int/cluster/41472-convection-cell-pattern-northward-imf/
This potential map shows the plasma convection cells pattern in the Earth’s ionosphere for northward directed interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). It is derived from a statistical study based on six years of Cluster EDI measurements.
For northward IMF, the large scale average convection is weak. On the dayside (top half), two more cells appear at high magnetic latitudes (centred at ~83°) in addition to the characteristic two-cell pattern.

Carla
March 23, 2014 2:39 pm

cadet31 says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:58 pm
—————————————–
First image, beginning stages flux tube formation, field lines becoming twisted and tangled..
http://plus.maths.org/content/sites/plus.maths.org/files/articles/2010/magnetic/trace.png
Second image, the formation of a flux tube..
http://plus.maths.org/content/sites/plus.maths.org/files/articles/2010/magnetic/tube.png
And for the explanation;
Magnetic tangles
by Anthony Yeates
http://plus.maths.org/content/magnetic-tangles

Carla
March 23, 2014 5:15 pm

Hopefully one day this ionospheric convection maps animation will be refined enough to use on WUWT’s geomagnetic reference page. Season by season and solar cycle by solar cycle variation.
http://sci.esa.int/cluster/41479-cluster-observes-convection-cells/
Cluster Observes Convection Cells
Geomagnetic field differences for the Northern and Southern hemispheres could help provide information as to the reasons why the North pole ‘was’ on a melt down and the Southern pole was not over the period of medium high consecutive solar cycles.
Differences of the Plasma Drift and Upper Thermospheric Wind Behaviour in the Northern and Southern Polar Regions due to the Geomagnetic Field Asymmetry
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFMSA31A1970F
Foerster, M.; Cnossen, I.; Haaland, S.
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2013, abstract #SA31A-1970
..The offset is presently considerable larger (factor ~2) in the Southern Hemisphere compared to the Northern, which has substantial implications for the coupled magnetosphere-ionosphere-thermosphere system under the influence of external drivers. Recent observations have shown that the ionospheric/thermospheric response to solar wind and IMF dependent processes in the magnetosphere can be very dissimilar in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. We present statistical studies of both the high-latitude ionospheric convection and the upper thermospheric circulation patterns obtained from almost a decade of measurements starting in 2001 of the electron drift instrument (EDI) on board the Cluster satellites and an accelerometer on board the CHAMP spacecraft, respectively. Using the Coupled Magnetosphere-Ionosphere-Thermosphere (CMIT) model, on the other hand, we simulated a 20-day spring equinox interval of low solar activity with both symmetric dipole and realistic (IGRF) geomagnetic field configurations to prove the importance of the hemispheric differences for the plasma and neutral wind dynamics. The survey of both the numerical simulation and the statistical observation results show some prominent asymmetries between the two hemispheres, which are likely due to the different geographic-geomagnetic offset, or even due to different patterns of geomagnetic flux densities. Plasma drift differences can partly be attributed to differing ionospheric conductivities. ..

Carla
March 23, 2014 5:51 pm

With “mid-latitude flywheel,” in the title.. I couldn’t resist sharing it..
More on ionospheric and upper atmosphere couplings..
Mid latitude fly wheel: a connection from the inner magnetosphere to lower thermosphere
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFMSA31A1962M
Maruyama, N.; Nishimura, Y.; Lyons, L. R.; Maute, A. I.; Richmond, A. D.; Fuller-Rowell, T. J.
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2013, abstract #SA31A-1962
In the classical fly wheel process at high latitude, the inertia of the neutral particles accelerated by coupling with the convecting ions can help maintain global scale magnetospheric-ionospheric convection, even when the magnetospheric dynamo source of the electric field is suddenly weakened. In the mid latitude, the Sub Auroral Polarization Stream (SAPS) generates fast plasma flows, and the process serves to connect from the inner magnetosphere all the way down to the lower thermosphere. During a main phase of a storm, the strong westward plasma flow associated with SAPS accelerates neutral wind, resulting in alteration of the disturbance dynamo electric field and subsequent ionospheric dynamics during storm. …

Carla
March 23, 2014 6:07 pm

Changes in latitude of Earth’s open flux, smaller polar open flux cap.
Solar Cycle variations in Earth’s open flux content measured by the SuperDARN radar network
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013EPSC….8..772I
Imber, S. M.; Milan, S. E.; Lester, M.
European Planetary Science Congress 2013, held 8-13 September in London, UK. Online at: http://meetings.copernicus.org/epsc2013, id.EPSC2013-772
We present a long term study, from 1996 – 2012, of the latitude of the Heppner-Maynard Boundary (HMB) determined using the northern hemisphere SuperDARN radars. The HMB represents the equatorward extent of ionospheric convection and is here used as a proxy for the amount of open flux in the polar cap. The mean HMB latitude (measured at midnight) is found to be at 64 degrees during the entire period, with secondary peaks at lower latitudes during the solar maximum of 2003, and at higher latitudes during the recent extreme solar minimum of 2008-2011. We associate these large scale statistical variations in open flux content with solar cycle variations in the solar wind parameters leading to changes in the intensity of the coupling between the solar wind and the magnetosphere.

Carla
March 23, 2014 6:25 pm

And the latitude of the polar cap extent peaked at, “68° magnetic latitude during the period 2008–2011.”
Solar cycle variations in polar cap area measured by the superDARN radars
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgra.50509/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
S. M. Imber*, S. E. Milan and M. Lester
4 OCT 2013
…yearly distribution of HMB latitudes is single peaked at 64° magnetic latitude for the majority of the 17 year interval. During 2003, the envelope of the distribution shifts to lower latitudes and a second peak in the distribution is observed at 61°. The solar wind-magnetosphere coupling function derived by Milan et al. (2012) suggests that the solar wind driving during this year was significantly higher than during the rest of the 17 year interval. In contrast, during the period 2008–2011, HMB distribution shifts to higher latitudes, and a second peak in the distribution is again observed, this time at 68° magnetic latitude. This time interval corresponds to a period of extremely low solar wind driving during the recent extreme solar minimum. This is the first long-term study of the polar cap area and the results demonstrate that there is a close relationship between the solar activity cycle and the area of the polar cap on a large-scale, statistical basis.

Chris
March 23, 2014 8:00 pm

We’re hoping there aren’t CME’s that are 10 to 100 times more powerful than the Carrington Event, in which case no amount of preparation is going to help.
http://www.plasmauniverse.info/downloads/PerattAntiquityZ.pdf

Carla
March 23, 2014 8:33 pm

This article couples IMF By to polar vortex strength..
Dependence of the high-latitude lower thermospheric wind vertical vorticity and horizontal divergence on the interplanetary magnetic field
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JA019589/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Y.-S. Kwak1,* and A. D. Richmond2
25 FEB 2014
… (2) The effects of the IMF on the ion drag forcing are seen down to around 106 km altitude. (3) The continual forcing of magnetic zonal mean By-dependent vertical vorticity by ion drag can lead to strong polar vortices…
Thank you and good night

Freezing in Wisconsin
March 24, 2014 12:48 pm

Would the hardening to help minimize the damage from a CME also help minimize the effect of an EMP event?

Tiburon
March 26, 2014 7:21 pm

Yes, suppose so. Faraday cages, large and small, for critical hardware at home. About the Grid I dunno. Apparently they’ve designed or “can” design with applied research, really really fast ‘switches’ (vacuum switches?) that might be sufficient to direct induced currents away from where they might do harm.