How high are chances of a major CME?

[Newbie]

7 hours ago, Bedreamon said:

I mean... it's certainly possible, but I'm not exactly sure how possible percentage-wise. The Wikipedia page on coronal mass ejections has links to a scientific study from 2012 saying 12% per decade and another paper from 2019 made using Weibull distribution saying 0.46% to 1.88%. As for who's right, that's anybody's guess in my opinion.

Hello Bedreamon,

I wrote this a few months ago wrt DST, a measure of the strength of solar storms. It deals with the lowest possible limit for DST, it was a reply to a question on the forum. In it I referred to the two strongest Solar Storms in recent history: Carrington 1859 and Halloween 2003 and how the Earth's magnetic field etc reacts. No one will ever truly know how strong Carrington was because the measurement of such storms has only recently become possible. Even now researchers interpret the data differently and come up with various conclusions. 

I have read where people say that we are overdue for a Carrington type event, yet a similar occurred 19 years ago. The Sun is  unpredictable. I am not surprised by the wide ranging probabilities. Thanks for posting the figures.

 

'Concerning the limit of -2500 nT for dst I have read that this is likely a theoretical figure.

Early research classified the Carrington storms as being around ~ -1700 nT but later investigations have them at around ~ -800 nT, others may have read lower estimates, of course the exact figure may never be known. To compare, the Halloween storms have been listed as -500 nT but I have read lower figures for those as well ~ -700 - 800 nT. It all depends on the modelling and the math. Most large solar storms have been studied. 

Further I have read of at least two things that come into play during a solar storm which determine how negative the dst becomes.

The ring current, which is an electric current carried by charged particles trapped in the Earth's magnetosphere (which overflow from the Van Allen belt)

The cross polar cap potential difference. Ionospheric electric potential in the polar region mostly generated through the interaction between the solar wind and the magnetosphere. It is this polar cap potential difference which results in ionospheric plasma flow by which (under extreme and unlikely conditions) may become saturated due to the overabundance of solar wind particles. It may be this that is the limiting aspect of dst.

During a solar storm the ring current expands, the effect of this is to suppress the Earth's magnetic field. The more negative the dst, the more the magnetic field is weakened allowing solar material to enter in. When the storm subsides the magnetic field bounces back again.

Research in the area of Sun - Earth interaction is ongoing, far from complete and not fully understood.'

N.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Philalethes]

On 8/14/2022 at 8:10 PM, Archmonoth said:

I don't think so, first off it wouldn't be global, since only 1 side would be exposed. 

Equating the magnetic sphere decrease to possible catastrophe takes a few steps to get there. The decrease is within "normal" limits, and nothing to be concerned with. 

 

Some of the changes are due to the hysteresis of magnetic fields, since they wander and change over time. Again, variance in the field isn't a sign of imminent collapse. 

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field | Science Mission Directorate (nasa.gov)

You can hypothetically say anything about an unknown cosmic event. This is not a grounded perspective (pun intended).

Again, following the hypothetical can lead anywhere you want. What if there was a war, and a flood, and an earthquake, and famine! Imagine the catastrophe. There is no limit to the hypothetical, so each step gets further from a grounded perspective. 

 

Of course everything could positive feedback loop into oblivion, but a CME, even if Earth directed would only cripple (in the short term) 1 side of the Earth. 

There are power lines, infrastructure and such replaced and upgraded all the time. 

That's exactly what has happens when flares cause outages, or storms, or floods, or earthquakes, or war, or fires. People migrate, rebuild, and replace. 

 

First of all, the notion that the resulting geomagnetic storms only affect one side is rather naive and simplistic. Secondly, if the grid were to be rendered non-operational on one side of the planet, the effects would most definitely be felt globally. Few other types of natural disasters work in that manner, they tend to be more localized (but there are of course exceptions, such as e.g. huge volcano eruptions blanketing the entire planet and leading to global volcanic winters).

As for your claim that I'm "equating the magnetic sphere decrease to possible catastrophe", that seems as excessive as the other poster who was talking about people being "obsessively worried"; I am simply pointing out that it's a measurable trend that, if continues, does make Earth more susceptible to influence from space weather. Nowhere did I ever claim anything remotely like "variance in the field being a sign of imminent collapse" at all. That being said, some of your assertions here are equally speculative as those worrying, but on the side of dismissal instead; fact is that we don't really know whether or not the decrease is "within normal limits" or if it really is just "variance in the field", there's a definite possibility that the field will continue to decrease that shouldn't simply be hand-waved away, but at least considered. I agree that attempting to extrapolate data back in geological time beyond what we've actively measured directly is useful, but I personally tend to put more weight on the empirical data than the models.

It's also rather unfounded of you to say that I'm engaging in wild speculation about what the consequences of such an event could be, because as I mentioned previously in the thread, we already know how it can potentially affect the grid not just from accounts of e.g. the Carrington Event, but from more recent events too and the effects larger storms can have.

Other than that, yes, I believe thinking a little about the other scenarios you mention is also very useful. What indeed if a famine occurred, or a war, or a flood? For some people, these are naturally more distant possibilities than for others, but history has no shortage of wars and famines that end up affecting people who thought it could never happen to them.

As for replacing parts of the grid, I was quite explicit that this is indeed something we do, but my point was rather that if enough of the grid were to be rendered non-functional, it could pose severe problems to the capabilities to restore it. Think about it in terms of e.g. the capacity of mitochondria to produce their own antioxidants to prevent the oxidative stress from generating energy; as long as their capacity to do this works well, they can remain intact relatively well, but if they end up taking too much damage, then this capacity itself lessens, which means that additional damage can't be prevented as efficiently, causing a destructive spiral that leads to their destruction. That is not some hypothetical, but a well-known and measurable physiological observation that is particularly associated with accumulative damage with age. Systems ideally have a lot of redundancy built into them, but many of the systems humans have built and rely on are noticeably less based on this principle than most biological systems, and more susceptible to interruption.

[Archmonoth]

15 hours ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

First of all, the notion that the resulting geomagnetic storms only affect one side is rather naive and simplistic. Secondly, if the grid were to be rendered non-operational on one side of the planet, the effects would most definitely be felt globally. Few other types of natural disasters work in that manner, they tend to be more localized (but there are of course exceptions, such as e.g. huge volcano eruptions blanketing the entire planet and leading to global volcanic winters).

I don't doubt global systems would be impacted, but the radio/electrical blackout from a flare/CME is based on what side is facing the Sun. I was trying to express the limit of the disaster, not the entire impact. 

15 hours ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

As for your claim that I'm "equating the magnetic sphere decrease to possible catastrophe", that seems as excessive as the other poster who was talking about people being "obsessively worried"; I am simply pointing out that it's a measurable trend that, if continues, does make Earth more susceptible to influence from space weather.

Sure, and that's a "step" required to a more volatile condition, which is where the catastrophe imagination goes. I was trying to head off the idea by showing that the field wanders and moves, and those conditions don't exist yet. 

15 hours ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

Nowhere did I ever claim anything remotely like "variance in the field being a sign of imminent collapse" at all. That being said, some of your assertions here are equally speculative as those worrying, but on the side of dismissal instead; fact is that we don't really know whether or not the decrease is "within normal limits" or if it really is just "variance in the field", there's a definite possibility that the field will continue to decrease that shouldn't simply be hand-waved away, but at least considered. I agree that attempting to extrapolate data back in geological time beyond what we've actively measured directly is useful, but I personally tend to put more weight on the empirical data than the models.

I provided a link for why it was within a "normal" range as detailed by experts. I wasn't speculating. Here is a quote from the NASA link:

"Probably not. As remarkable as these changes sound, "they're mild compared to what Earth's magnetic field has done in the past," says University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier."

 

I digress, I was trying to point to what experts are saying, and that the decline in the magnetic field is not a reason for concern. However, you are correct, and we don't know ultimately, and there is plenty of room for speculation about what could happen. 

15 hours ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

It's also rather unfounded of you to say that I'm engaging in wild speculation about what the consequences of such an event could be, because as I mentioned previously in the thread, we already know how it can potentially affect the grid not just from accounts of e.g. the Carrington Event, but from more recent events too and the effects larger storms can have.

Well, I was considering the speculation about the magnetic field decrease as part of your narrative, my apologies. I misunderstood that you weren't phrasing the decline of the magnetic sphere as part of your possible conditions for the Carrington-like event, but it seemed that way to me. 

[David Silver]

@Andrey Myes, you were correct. A filament lifted off and along with some other rapid fire flares plus strong solar wind, we have a forecast of G1 to G3 as a result. 
 

And all alarmism aside, Heliobiology is a scientific discipline that pertains to space weather that folks here might want to pay attention to beyond aurora-hunting. It is 100-year old science, with the first dedicated research lab in 1968, many NASA studies, and accelerating progress in the past 20 years.

Space particles are passing through your body as you read this sentence.

Edited August 17, 2022 by David Silver