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.
From D.J. Hawkins on May 9, 2014 at 4:16 pm:
Had the old well pump at my parent’s house go out just before winter some years back, as circumstances went a new well was drilled. The driller didn’t have the construction equipment for digging the trench in frozen ground, I ended up ferrying water jugs until the spring.
After moving in there, a few years back I had to put up a new chimney, and the domestic hot water coil is in the furnace. Took me a few weeks. The water pressure tank died, and the old steel fittings wouldn’t budge. Replaced and redone in plastic.
You were lucky you still had municipal water and didn’t need power for it, and doubly-lucky you still had gas. Hot showers are nice. But a pot of water heated on the backyard grill will also get you clean.
If you’re not going tankless to have hot water in an emergency, consider how close you were to having the point made moot. And really plan to have water in an emergency and a means of heating it.
Robert of Ottawa says:
May 9, 2014 at 4:22 pm
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.”
Nothing is out of phase, the process has slowed, prolonging the sun spot cycle and perhaps longer periods of inactivity are the result during solar minimums.
From Tom in Florida on May 9, 2014 at 7:39 pm:
Yes, I am wrong, you are right. I’ve just never had anything worth having either for, and IIRC the agents speak of “comprehensive-collision” as a combined product.
It’s also made me a better driver, with a good incentive to not hit anything!
Vukcevic says:
When reconnection occurs a strong current is induced in polar regions with energy discharge equivalent to a 6 magnitude earthquake, every few minutes. Some scientists think that such events affect polar stratosphere in number of ways. I would even go further and suggest that it contributes to splitting of the polar vortex, so very much in vogue with meteorologists this winter.
From my observation, it is exactly the opposite. When the sun is “strong” polar vortex accelerates.
Remember what Richard Feynman said about “the infallibility of experts.”
———
put 10 experts in a room and your will get 20 different opinions on the future.
EM is the only way energy comes in or goes out.
============
this is a naive view of climate. the slightest change in the deep ocean mixing rate is all it takes to change hot-house earth into ice-cube earth and vice versa.
For all intents and purposes the oceans are a limitless sink and source when viewed in the scale of human lifetimes and surface temperatures. The transport mechanism is not EM, it is convection and conduction.
The ocean deep is as remote from the surface as it outer space. Perhaps more so. More people have been in space for much longer than have ever visited the ocean deep.
Sparks says @ur momisugly 8.39pm:
No. solar flares have no direct or indirect effect on tectonic processes.
I thought that CME resulting from flares do change electrical currents in our soils and rocks. Geologists are still not sure if those changes have an effect on tectonic plates and therefore earthquakes. but on a number of web sites there are people that do post changes in electrical currents, (Boulder Co and a place in Northern Norway and also the U of Alaska and the Alaska Volcanic people. (I believe SolarHam does this as well) I could be wrong
lsvalgaard says:
May 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm
……
Thanks for your comment, not that I expected you to agree, I am out for 99% consensus.
Sparks says:
May 9, 2014 at 4:17 pm
when was this do you have a link?
I wrote : “even if “.. , which I think, it means that he hasn’t .at least not as yet, ergo no link, and I wouldn’t expect one as you can see here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-June-spec.htm
ren says:
May 9, 2014 at 11:23 pm
From my observation, it is exactly the opposite. When the sun is “strong” polar vortex accelerates.
Hi ren
You may misunderstood what is suggested.
Splitting of the polar vortex it is indeed due to increased vorticity.
Intensity of an individual CME or a solar flair is not related to a ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ sun; powerful flares also occur during solar minimum, which I presume you would consider to be a ‘weak’ sun.
After a CME’s field reconnection, volume of gyrating protons enter magnetosphere ending in polar regions, strongly ionising stratosphere. Due to magnetic bifurcation of the MF in the N. Hemisphere, the ionised polar vortex will be under influence of the MF configuration, eventually breaking up into two sections, mirroring image of the MF. Here is the NASA’s animation:
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
Steven Mosher says:
May 9, 2014 at 5:56 pm
Dont trust feynman on experts.
Feynman was correct in his views in that much of what passes for climate science is more akin to social non science:
However, we do not have to take Feynman’s word – as Ronald Reagan said “trust but verify”
There are an number of studies that confirm the lack of expertise of experts:
“In a study on expert opinion, University of Pennsylvania professor Philip Tetlock, whose ground-breaking 2005 book (Expert Political Judgment: How Good is It? How Can We Know?) analyzed 27,450 predictions from a variety of experts and found they were no more accurate than random guesses or, as he put it, “a dart-throwing chimpanzee”.
and, in his book “Future Babble, Why expert predictions are next to worthless and you can do better,” the author Dan Gardner leaves no doubts over his conclusion.
The basis of sound forecasting based on expert advice has been set out in a long term study by Professor Scott Armstrong, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania is author of the book “Principles of Forecasting” His views about climate change … Armstrong found that the IPCC in forecasting future global warming violated most of the established forecasting rules leading to large errors in their model output – as has been shown in the lack of skill of their GCMs!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703326204575616983641995488.html
http://www.theclimatebet.com/
Effects of the global warming alarm: A forecasting project using the structured analogies method
http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/AGW%20analogies66JSA.pdf
In this study, his group found 26 analogous situations to the current global warming situation where politicians acted on the advice of claimed experts. They found that in 23 of these cases the result was harmful, with three cases showing no benefit or harm.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/research_to_date_forecasting.pdf
Of particular interest is his testimony to Congress:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/Report%20for%20Congressional%20hearing-R14%20%282%29%20armstrong%20update.pdf
In this respect a pertinent view on advice taken by politicians in relation to the opposing views and uncertainties in climate science is that of William Walldegrave a former UK Minister of Science who sets out both sides in a succinct set of rules:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/3/advice-to-a-science-minister.html
“The most vital thing is that politicians should understand the provisional nature of scientific conclusions, and should probe the consequences of a scientific U-turn. My hero in this connection is Donald Thompson, who was a Minister in the then Department of Agriculture in 1989. He understood that scientific conclusions are not set in stone, and asked, ‘What if science changes its mind about the transmissible nature of BSE?’
Like CACW, BSE was claimed by scientists at the time to be potentially catastrophic requiring drastic action, yet later after great economic cost, the alarm proved to be misplaced
More directly there have been many false alarms linked to the environment, for example: A history of scientific alarms -Dr Kesten Green lists the 20 most unscientific scares.
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1964/a-history-of-scientific-alarms
and these:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/
pyromancer76 says:
May 9, 2014 at 7:53 pm
I am very sad that “chuck” got to hijack this thread
Well said!! I thought moderators were supposed to remove that sort of inane drivel from WUWT
Us see decrease the neutron after the explosion of X11 straight in the Earth on 28.10.2003.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=28&startmonth=10&startyear=2003&starttime=00%3A00&endday=10&endmonth=11&endyear=2003&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
lsvalgaard says:
May 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm
………………
Vukcevic: Coronal mas ejection takes place, this carries much stronger magnetic field, up to 2% of the Earth;s field at poles.
Svalgaard: No,more like 0.1%
………………
Well, let’s see.
Strength of the Earth’s magnetic total field at the (“north”) magnetic pole on 30/10/203 was 57959.03nT
Magnetic storm was recorded at Tromso, where the field was considerably less i.e. 52786.58 nT, with the magnetogram shown here.
http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Comps=dhz&tint=1day&block=0&day=30&mnt=10&year=2003&site=tro2a
Peak of the Vertical field (somewhat lower than for the total field) was 2800 nT
The corresponding percentages are:
For the North Pole: (2800 x 100)/ 57959 = 4.83 or 4.8%
For Tromso itself: (2800 x 100)/ 52786 = 5.30 or 5.3%
Note that for the total field percentages would be somewhat higher.
As we can see, a powerful geomagnetic storm could be nearly 5% of the Earths Field at the magnetic pole, way, way, way above 0.1% (50x more) of what you quote.
Of course, not all geomagnetic storms were as strong as the one above, but again that one was not the strongest either, the reason why I used figure even less than half of the calculated percentage, i.e. at 2%.
chuck says:
May 9, 2014 at 1:52 pm
Using less and using none are two different approaches.
=================
less than what? Less than you used yesterday? Less than Al Gore? Less than a bushman in Africa? Less than what?
How do you measure less? If it is less than yesterday, then every day you must use less until you are effectively using none, which you call absurd. the logical conclusion of your recommendation is what you call absurd.
There was an X-class flare back on March 29th:
http://www.space.com/25814-monster-solar-flare-best-observed-video.html
Oh yeah, and an incredibly detailed view of the sun’s disk w/high-latitude magnetic activity:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140506.html
March 29, 2014 it was the X1.0 flare.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=20&startmonth=03&startyear=2014&starttime=00%3A00&endday=10&endmonth=04&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Climate debate aside, how unbelievably cool is SDO?
Sex on stilts. You know it 😉
Everyone (and every penguin) likes real science….
http://weknowmemes.com/2014/02/yes-i-would-like-to-science-please/
Beng remind yourself this:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1028soho.html
Oh the flares, the flares!
The flares were never this bad in the past as I remember – at least nobody talked about them so much. Now its worse than we thoiught! What could be causing this unprecidented increase in deadly solar flares??
Us of course – I’ve looked into it and the science is clear.
It’s all of those damn solar panels that everyone is putting up. You see, the photons from the sun hitting those solar panels create electricity that creates entwined, telecommunicating magnetic and electrical fields that reach all the way back to the sun and crete direct energy conduits through which the sun attempts to communicate with its progeny.
Our profiglate use of these instruments of destruction will inevitably lead to a powerful connection being set up and the sun itself coming to visit the earth through a powerful flare that will wipe out all of mankind and establish a permanent current flow between the earth and the sun, making earth the first man-made star.
But there is time to save ourselves if we act decisively now – we must all vow and pressure our governments to legislate that nothing will be used for human energy production except that which comes from the bowels of the earth itself, just the way the creator intended it.
I’ve written to Obama’s science advisor, who I am assured is up on all the latest scientific fads, and eagerly await his reply and will report in the space forthwith.
/sarc on Saturday morning
This is a list of 50 strongest flares.
http://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/top-50-solar-flares
Leif,
Or anyone who knows:
Would a solar flare of this class be visible in visible light through my 8″ SCT ( I have proper visible light filtering and have taken many eclipse, both partial and annular, photos and a transit photo with it)? If so, how long would any visible effects be visible? How about stronger flares?
Thanks,
Jim G
However, after the super-X20 flare of April 2, 2001 occurred short strong growth neutrons. Only then solar protons have a sufficient energy to overcome the magnetic field to get to the bottom of the stratosphere.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=30&startmonth=03&startyear=2001&starttime=00%3A00&endday=10&endmonth=05&endyear=2001&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Therefore, the lower stratosphere and troposphere ionizes the GCR and photons. Whereby the photons play a greater role on the equator and the poles GCR. Weaker so. solar dynamo produces changes in ozone at the equator (less UV), and GCR more ionizes ozone at the poles.
vuk says:
May 10, 2014 at 2:52 am
As we can see, a powerful geomagnetic storm could be nearly 5% of the Earths Field at the magnetic pole, way, way, way above 0.1% (50x more) of what you quote.
You get this wrong because you do not understand how this works. The magnetic field in a very strong CME can be about 50 nT [1/1000 of the Earth’s at the surface]. The energy in a CME can be fed into the Earth’s magnetosphere over several hours and suddenly released. The release creates an electric current. The magnetic field of that current depends on the distance to the current and has in theory no upper limit [just make the distance small enough]. At the surface the magnetic effect can indeed be several thousand nT, but that has nothing to do with the CME [as you put it] “carries much stronger magnetic field”.
In general when you find that what you claim is at variance with what I try to teach you, it simply means that have misunderstood something and have holes in your understanding.
Jim G says:
May 10, 2014 at 8:58 am
Would a solar flare of this class be visible in visible light through my 8″ SCT
Yes, but you have to catch in during the few minutes the flare takes to play out.
lsvalgaard says:
May 10, 2014 at 12:48 pm
I wrote:
… powerful geomagnetic storm could be nearly 5% of the Earths Field at the magnetic pole
What you say is fine, but it was clear I was not quoting CME’s magnetic field strength, which is something else.
Even if a very powerful CME only glances the magnetosphere, effect would be minor.
We have a Consensus.