From NASA Mid-level Solar Flare Erupts from the Sun May 8, 2014
The bright light on the left side of the sun shows an M5.2-class solar flare in progress on May 8, 2014.This image, captured by NASA’s SDO, shows light with a 131 Angstrom wavelength, which highlights the extremely hot material in a solar flare and is typically colorized in teal. Image Credit: NASA/SDO› View full disk image
The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare, peaking at 6:07 a.m. EDT on May 8, 2014, and NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, or SDO, captured images of it.
Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation. Harmful radiation from a flare cannot pass through Earth’s atmosphere to physically affect humans on the ground, however — when intense enough — they can disturb the atmosphere in the layer where GPS and communications signals travel.
To see how this event may impact Earth, please visit NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center at http://spaceweather.gov, the U.S. government’s official source for space weather forecasts, alerts, watches and warnings.
This flare is classified as an M5.2-class flare. M class flares are on the order of a tenth as strong as the most intense flares, the X-class flares.
===============================================================
From NOAA’s SWPC, metrics for April are in.
Sunspots are right about where the predictive line suggests.
Ditto for radio flux
And, the Ap magnetic index continues to bump along the bottom as it has done since the regime shift in October 2005, indicating a sluggish solar dynamo:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
vukcevic says:
May 9, 2014 at 3:04 pm
You say that Willis E convincingly concludes “No solar magnetic cycle is evident in the climate data”, when was this do you have a link?
I know a moving average in regional minimum temperature has a similar shape as a moving average trend in sunspot numbers with a approximately a four month lag between an influence solar activity and temperature.
Look at this graph I produced in 2012. It clearly showed the direction winter temperatures were heading, In fact, during the winter of 2012-2013 I was able to suggest to a local farmer about this trend with a similar graph, what happened was the area was heavily hit with over 20ft of snow and farmers lost 10’s of thousands of livestock.
http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/oxford-average-november-sunspot-number-and-march-minimum-temperature-1865-2012.gif
the reason people are driving less.
Supposedly communications (the ‘net) is making a contribution to that.
Mike McMillan @ur momisugly May 9, 2014 at 11:38 am
Twin peaks again.
Yes, I believe that is a symptom of the North and South magnetic field development being pout of phase.
Folks,
chuck is hijacking the thread. Don’t feed the troll. Instead, chuck the troll.
In case Leif shows up ….
What’s up with Livingston & Penn’s sunspot intensity and magnetic field plots? It looks like they’ve leveled off and may be reversing.
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
Firstly, I did not claim that the specifics of my example apply to me personally.
Secondly, anyone buying a vehicle solely on consideration of gas mileage is committing economic suicide. Let’s say I own a 10 year old Saturn. Yes, this example IS from my life. It gets about 20 miles to the gallon. It’s all paid for by now, and I drive 20,000 miles per year. My only real variable costs are gasoline and oil changes based on miles driven per year. My gas costs are about $3,500 per year, based on gas at $3.50/gal, 20,000 mpy, 20 mpg. If my gas costs were to double, now at $7,000 per year, should I simply buy a more efficient vehicle? How efficient? Well, to lower my costs to $3,500, I’d need something with 40mpg rating. REAL 40 mpg, cause that’s the REAL mpg for the Saturn. To make economic sense, that new vehicle, for all costs, can’t run me more than about $292 per month. So if gas went to $7.00/gal, this WOULD make sense. If it goes up another 50 cents? Not so much.
You’re right. My bad.
D.J. Hawkins
“Let’s say I own a 10 year old Saturn.
” and I drive 20,000 miles per year.”
You’ve neglected to include how much you are spending for maintenance on a vehicle with 200,000 miles.
Ed Scott says:
May 9, 2014 at 12:00 pm
“However, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis cannot be confirmed or challenged by experiments of any sort..”
——————————————-
Good news Ed, you are completely wrong!
The global warming hoax can be utterly disproved through simple empirical experiments. I have built and run them. So can you.
At the foundation of this inane hoax are several empirically testable claims each of which destroys the hypothesis of a net radiative GHE on our ocean planet.
A. Climastrologist claim that incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.
False – Empirical experiment shows that incident LWIR slows the cooling rate of most materials but not at the surface of liquid water where phase change is occurring.
B. Climastrologists claim that without DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling, the oceans would be at -18C.
False – Without evaporative cooling our oceans would super heat in the manner of an evaporation constrained solar pond. Temperatures would hit 80C or beyond regardless of DWLWIR.
C. Climastrologists claim that the oceans act as a “near blackbody”.
False – Water absorbs UV/SW at depth and has a slow rate of non-radiative return to the surface. Our oceans act as a “selective coating” not a blackbody.
D. Climastrologists claim that the emissivity of water is ~1.
False – The cavity effect and environmental reflection mean 0.97 is a good emissivity setting for measuring water temp using IR thermometers, but this figure is far higher than the actual emissivity of water that should be used to determine radiative cooling rate of water.
Essentially the climastrologists have claimed that excepting pressure, the net effect of our atmosphere over the oceans is warming of the oceans. This is utterly inane.
On our ocean planet the basics of climate are very simple –
The sun heats our oceans.
The atmosphere cools our oceans.
Radiative gases cool our atmosphere.
The Sun has been very active for the last few days with huge, beautiful prominences. I missed the big M-class flare this morning but was able to get this hydrogen-alpha shot a few hours later showing prominences all around the limb.
http://www.pbase.com/dsnope/image/155571532
From chuck on May 9, 2014 at 3:59 pm:
Congo rats, you can Google too! I saw similar listings. But you listed Grainger. No one buys from Grainger if they can avoid it, they might have virtually everything industrial and commercial but you pay 2 to 3 times as much to support their warehousing. Why not mention a normal appliance part dealer?
“Guides” is plural. Where are the rest? Also, while I’m comfortable fixing my fuel oil furnaces, the troubleshooting and cleaning mentioned is best left to professionals due to the explosion hazard. That and the gas settling in low spots resulting in basements becoming asphyxiation death traps. Stumble down the steps in the middle of the night wondering why the heating’s off, you might not make it back.
Automatic ignition is many decades old, used in oil furnaces, and for that it’s 100% continuous ignition. It’s hardly “latest and greatest.”
Piezoelectric manual ignition would also work for a stove, and do so cheaply, without needing an electricity source. You wouldn’t even need a cluster of igniter buttons, as igniters are already build into control knobs of heating appliances.
Besides, it’s an essential component of Green Economics that long term savings will exceed short term costs, therefore the switch is logical. Are you allergic to reason?
@Dave Snope
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/09/solar-cycle-update-m-class-flare-little-change-in-metrics-solar-dynamo-still-slumping/#comment-1632581
You posted the following link
http://www.pbase.com/dsnope/image/155571532
Excellent! Thank you.
aaaaaand….. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 9, 2014 at 5:26 pm
You are correct re Grainger prices, but that’s OK. It’s the immediate availability of everything under the sun but the part YOU need that annoys me. I called earlier this week to get push-to-connect fittings… except the size I needed wouldn’t come in until the next day. Ran out to a local Parker Fittings dealer and had the fittings on an up-and-running machine within an hour. (Your Grainger mileage may vary.)
Dont trust feynman on experts.
Has anyone asked where the idea of the double peak for this solar-cycle originated and how it was predicted years in advance?
Steven Mosher says:
May 9, 2014 at 5:56 pm
“Don’t trust Feynman on experts.”
Haha!
Since DJ and Chuck have hijacked the thread… Guess what happens when you make fuel too expensive. People aren’t stupid, they will revert to wood. Now figure that into your little scheme and know that Im laughing at you for thinking you are saving anything.
From chuck on May 9, 2014 at 4:58 pm:
At 10 yrs and that much mileage, you can drop the collision (aka comprehensive) insurance, as a year of payments can exceed the vehicle’s worth. As a refugee from the junk yard, if a big maintenance item does pop up like needing a new engine, instead you collect a few hundred bucks when you scrap the car and look for the next one.
Also when you buy cheap used, you could also afford cash and avoid loan interest, saving more.
You can save thousands this way over driving new over the years, even over just one year, no matter how “green” and “economical” is the proposed shiny replacement.
The Suns activity is still very week for this cycle compared to the last hundred years or so, it’s nothing special, although I will point out recent data tampering of the temperature record and the systematic cooling of the past, warming the present and modeling a warmer future. If successive solar cycles are to become weaker and temperatures begin trending down in reality, everyone should note that this idea is based on astronomy and various Ideas and well researched thoughts on astronomical relationships between our planet and its interaction with its surrounding environment within a system of planets interacting with a star.
Thanks on the sun shape stuff.
lsvalgaard says:
May 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm
Quoted >”energy discharge equivalent to a 6 magnitude earthquake, every few minutes.”
No, every few hours, so two orders of magnitude less.
================================================
Leif, so how much techtonic influence could an X class event have from a direct vector?
Jean Parisot says:
May 9, 2014 at 7:05 pm
“Thanks on the sun shape stuff.”
What shape did you think the sun was?
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
“if a big maintenance item does pop up like needing a new engine, instead you collect a few hundred bucks when you scrap the car and look for the next one.”
Love the people that scrap a car because it needs a new battery or a set of new tyres.
…
Thanks, now I know who owned my previous vehicle.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 9, 2014 at 6:33 pm
“At 10 yrs and that much mileage, you can drop the collision (aka comprehensive) ”
Nope, collision is not the same as comprehensive. I dropped collision on my older car but kept the comprehensive because it covers damage caused by weather, i.e falling limbs during wind events.
I am very sad that “chuck” got to hijack this thread. I come here for science, and disputes thereof, very interesting disputes, debates, disagreements, agreements, with data as background, not political opinion. Please, ignore the “chuck” comments, do not give “chuck” your time; let the first responder take care of “the problem” and let it go. Otherwise, WUWT becomes like all other “opinion” websites one does not care to read.
[Note: “pyromancer76” is “beckleybud” and “H Grouse”. He is the same sockpuppet. Banned multiple times. ~mod.]
ossqss says:
May 9, 2014 at 7:11 pm
Leif, so how much techtonic influence could an X class event have from a direct vector?
No. solar flares have no direct or indirect effect on tectonic processes.