I don't understand the most fears. What are you really afraid of? The power shortage? We (in Germany) have massive thunderstorms, flooding, heavy winds, snow chaos... And yes, the power could be gone. But is this a reason to be scared of? 

Everyone should have some candles and some lights, food and water in stock, that has nothing to do with the sun. 

The government uses cell broadcast to warn the people if something unexpected gonna be to happen. 

Critical infrastructure has emergency power. 

What I mean is that we all will survive a G4, G5 and bad weather and a snow storm... 

We will not get fried. Promise! 

. 

13 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

so, since they have not had this watch in effect since 2005, some people are saying this is gonna be carington level, or very bad, dangerous etc.

Probably refers to something associated with one of the top ones here. Not sure exactly, but it can't be the Bastille Day event, since that was in 2000.

In any case, people using that to say it's anything like the Carrington event at this point would obviously be completely delusional, not just because of the relatively much smaller flares involved here and the relatively much slower CMEs, but also because of the fact that the Carrington event as a superstorm is in a category of its own at G5 (and for something that historic it's almost even tempting to classify it as G5+ or something like that, heh, but G5 is already extreme enough). There's a big gulf between G4 and G5.

20 minutes ago, Franklin said:

One engineer at one company does not make a consensus nor a sign that all is good.

Interpreting what I posted as that is not reasonable, because not only are they themselves talking about how that practice extends beyond just them even within that company, but also how it's getting applied more and more to more companies as part of regulation.

22 minutes ago, Franklin said:

I know private companies are not going to want to invest a ton of money into something that most likely will never happen

But the problem is precisely that geomagnetic storms do happen regularly, every single Solar cycle, even in the weaker ones. Not as strong ones as the Carrington event, but the way to protect against it is the same. In 1989 a big part of Canada's grid went down for several hours, and in 2003 part of the grid went down in Sweden for an hour or so. The damage during these and other smaller events has been documented very well for current and future consideration both by private companies and by regulators; not only do the private companies themselves prefer not to have the most expensive and central part of their equipment be destroyed beyond repair, but when it comes to power companies it's not an easy task to avoid complying with regulation, at least not on the engineering end. It's not even necessarily that expensive to monitor, and probably way cheaper than a lot of other types of insurance that such companies have arranged for.

30 minutes ago, Franklin said:

But we don't need to worry about a G4, right?  Only a massive G5, right?

Yes, that much is true to my knowledge. I don't think a G4 has ever taken down any grid for any amount of time, but if anyone knows of any counterexamples I'd be glad to hear them.

1 hour ago, Franklin said:

 One engineer at one company does not make a consensus nor a sign that all is good.  On top of that, I hear that the protect comes from electronic sensors that send signals to other equipment and monitors that can shut things down.  That is a lot to go wrong there.  I know private companies are not going to want to invest a ton of money into something that most likely will never happen, but I would like to believe they have it under control considering 90% of the population's lives depends on it.  I however doubt it.

There are a lot of studies and papers written about this subject. What the engineer said that @Philalethes quoted is generally what the engineering community have as a conclusion. I do understand that it is hard to wrap your head around this, especially if you have been fed with fear mongering from random armchair scientists on Youtube. I suggest that you read papers and studies by yourself and then form your own opinion.

There are different alarm systems in countries around the world. There are of course developing countries in the world that doesn't have good alarms and protection. These countries are at greater risk than for example countries like Sweden that already have been through power outages caused my geomagnetic storms.

Companies for sure think about money and they will do everything they can do get as little damage as possible to their equipment. Thinking logically and economically companies are more likely to spend money on preventive equipment than money to replace all equipment that get's damaged if they didn't have the protective equipment. Preventive measures is far cheaper than replacing whole systems. Also many new electrical equipment already have alarm systems for GIC built in nowadays from what I have heard from the electrician community. Sweden for example learnt their lesson in 2003 and Canada learnt theirs in 1989. Of course there will be power grids that will be damaged but there is a very low chance that the whole world's power grid will be wiped out.

It's really sad that armchair "scientists" like Ben Davidson has gotten such a huge following and that he has such a big impact among people who are easily scared. Sadly many of these people are also religious and believes in things like "the rapture" and things like that. People like Ben will use that to his advantage and therefore get more views and with that more money. Youtube actually pays really well if you have a lot of views and followers like he does.

So to sum it up:

Spend some time to read papers, studies and meta studies on GIC's and form your own opinion. I also recommend that you go to some government websites and read how each country is prepared.

For example here is MSB's (The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency) information about solar storms (you will have to translate it): https://www.msb.se/sv/amnesomraden/skydd-mot-olyckor-och-farliga-amnen/naturolyckor-och-klimat/solstormar/

Here is a summary from a conference they had on extreme space weather back in 2012 (in english): https://www.msb.se/siteassets/dokument/publikationer/english-publications/conference-proceedings---international-round-table-on-extreme-space-weather.pdf

So educate yourself and you will be less scared, I hope it helps 😊

Edited May 9, 20241 yr by arjemma

46 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

Probably refers to something associated with one of the top ones here. Not sure exactly, but it can't be the Bastille Day event, since that was in 2000.

In any case, people using that to say it's anything like the Carrington event at this point would obviously be completely delusional, not just because of the relatively much smaller flares involved here and the relatively much slower CMEs, but also because of the fact that the Carrington event as a superstorm is in a category of its own at G5 (and for something that historic it's almost even tempting to classify it as G5+ or something like that, heh, but G5 is already extreme enough). There's a big gulf between G4 and G5.

Interpreting what I posted as that is not reasonable, because not only are they themselves talking about how that practice extends beyond just them even within that company, but also how it's getting applied more and more to more companies as part of regulation.

But the problem is precisely that geomagnetic storms do happen regularly, every single Solar cycle, even in the weaker ones. Not as strong ones as the Carrington event, but the way to protect against it is the same. In 1989 a big part of Canada's grid went down for several hours, and in 2003 part of the grid went down in Sweden for an hour or so. The damage during these and other smaller events has been documented very well for current and future consideration both by private companies and by regulators; not only do the private companies themselves prefer not to have the most expensive and central part of their equipment be destroyed beyond repair, but when it comes to power companies it's not an easy task to avoid complying with regulation, at least not on the engineering end. It's not even necessarily that expensive to monitor, and probably way cheaper than a lot of other types of insurance that such companies have arranged for.

Yes, that much is true to my knowledge. I don't think a G4 has ever taken down any grid for any amount of time, but if anyone knows of any counterexamples I'd be glad to hear them.

I think the issue with this upcoming storm is that we are talking about multiple cmes combining together rather than a single CME, and not only that, all the cmes are earth directed, so will have a direct impact, that, plus NOAA calling this event unusual, makes it seem like the combined impact of these CMEs will cause the storm to reach g5 and beyond, killing all technology 

1 minute ago, Fishaxolotl said:

I think the issue with this upcoming storm is that we are talking about multiple cmes combining together rather than a single CME, and not only that, all the cmes are earth directed, so will have a direct impact, that, plus NOAA calling this event unusual, makes it seem like the combined impact of these CMEs will cause the storm to reach g5 and beyond, killing all technology 

So when they call this an unusual event that makes you immediately think it will kill all technology? 

Just now, mozy said:

So when they call this an unusual event that makes you immediately think it will kill all technology? 

It seems to raise the possibility, that, and the fact that we are being hit by 4 CMEs at once. I think a couple of weeks ago, one CME caused a G4, so now we have 4 or even 5 which increases the possibility of this being the kill shot event

3 minutes ago, mozy said:

So when they call this an unusual event that makes you immediately think it will kill all technology? 

They indeed worded it a bit weird. I dont think Fishaxolotl means harm like some other persons in another thread that follow SO.  

What do you think about the mentioning of "Unusual Event" ? 

 

Was glad to see that Vancanneyt posted that link to the video about those Halloween storms.  I watched it some time ago and found it most enlightening.

There was a crusty old newsman who often said "follow the money".  These fearmongers are spreading their bilge for the sake of more money in their pockets.  I'm far from even knowledgeable about space weather but spent most of a career in engineering.  It didn't take long to separate the blow hards from those who really knew what they were talking about!  I can assure those who follow these fearmongers that the folks on this site do know what they are talking about!  I've learned a lot in the past couple of years.  With what little knowledge I do have of space weather I have found most of these articles on these sites laughable.  Even I know more than they do which ain't much.  

Soooo.  Stop worrying and try to learn the real facts

2 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

They indeed worded it a bit weird. I dont think Fishaxolotl means harm like some other persons in another thread that follow SO.  

What do you think about the mentioning of "Unusual Event" ? 

 

2nd bullet point in NOAAs teitter post regarding the G4 warning, states that the multiple CMEs bring launched is unusual

1 minute ago, MinYoongi said:

They indeed worded it a bit weird. I dont think Fishaxolotl means harm like some other persons in another thread that follow SO.  

What do you think about the mentioning of "Unusual Event" ? 

 

 What I think? Exactly what they stated, it is unusual in the sense that we often don't have sunspots that shoot out earth directed CME's so shortly after each other, not unusual in that it's something serious that needs to cause fear, but others seem to take it that way sadly.

I am not concerned with Sweden or any other country.  Concerned only about US.  I know it takes a long time to replace broken transformers.  In 2008 we had a hurricane hit Galveston.  The low lying areas had blown transformers due to a 15+ foot storm surge.  I was without power for 2 months.  That was just one small area.  Imagine if transformers went out all over the country?

 

And to answer the guy in Sweden that does understand why: it's not that we, as a species can't live without power, its that society now is all built around a very efficient system that is dependent on power, the internet, transportation,  computers and communication.  If any one of these goes down in America cities for more than 3 days and the people can't see a return to normal, all ___ breaks out.  With over 400 million guns and trillions of rounds of ammo, that is not good.

6 minutes ago, Franklin said:

 With over 400 million guns and trillions of rounds of ammo, that is not good.

 

And to put that into perspective,  it is more guns and ammo than all the armies of the world combined and if things broke out, it would make all wars of history combined seem like child's play.

16 minutes ago, Fishaxolotl said:

I think the issue with this upcoming storm is that we are talking about multiple cmes combining together rather than a single CME, and not only that, all the cmes are earth directed, so will have a direct impact, that, plus NOAA calling this event unusual, makes it seem like the combined impact of these CMEs will cause the storm to reach g5 and beyond, killing all technology 

I suggest your look up papers on the Halloween storms of 2003. During those storms there were back to back CME's as well but the CME's were faster and some more of a direct hit than those we are anticipating now. Multiple CME's in a row is usually happening once per solar maximum so it isn't that unusual per say.

SpaceWeatherLive has a great Youtube video about the 2003 event: https://youtu.be/hABmdvKReNo?si=n8vffO8cCaGt9lEy

Please watch SWL's video that I linked, check the data from 2003 in the archive and then compare it to the solar eruptions and CME's we have on the way to earth now. Please don't let sensationalists get to your head. The storms 2003 did not kill technology. NOAA has NOT "made it seem" that these CME's will reach G5 and beyond or killing technology. Where have you read that, in what article?

Are you scared? If you are scared and it is affecting you mentally, then I would suggest you contact someone to talk about your feelings. We will be fine, we have had far stronger CME's heading for earth before.

 

4 minutes ago, arjemma said:

I suggest your look up papers on the Halloween storms of 2003. During those storms there were back to back CME's as well but the CME's were faster and some more of a direct hit than those we are anticipating now. Multiple CME's in a row is usually happening once per solar maximum so it isn't that unusual per say.

SpaceWeatherLive has a great Youtube video about the 2003 event: https://youtu.be/hABmdvKReNo?si=n8vffO8cCaGt9lEy

Please watch SWL's video that I linked, check the data from 2003 in the archive and then compare it to the solar eruptions and CME's we have on the way to earth now. Please don't let sensationalists get to your head. The storms 2003 did not kill technology. NOAA has NOT "made it seem" that these CME's will reach G5 and beyond or killing technology. Where have you read that, in what article?

Are you scared? If you are scared and it is affecting you mentally, then I would suggest you contact someone to talk about your feelings. We will be fine, we have had far stronger CME's heading for earth before.

 

Thanks, perhaps I should have taken the statement as meaning that back to back cmes are less so a cause for concern and moreso an event that does not happen very often. 

The g5 and beyond was mostly just me overthinking or speculating. 

 

Maybe I should look at the Halloween solar storms again since that is a decent enough reference point. thank you 🙂

 

 

2 minutes ago, Fishaxolotl said:

Thanks, perhaps I should have taken the statement as meaning that back to back cmes are less so a cause for concern and moreso an event that does not happen very often. 

The g5 and beyond was mostly just me overthinking or speculating. 

 

Maybe I should look at the Halloween solar storms again since that is a decent enough reference point. thank you 🙂

 

 

I completely understand that it was easy to interpret the wrong way, no worries. NOAA isn't choosing their wording well enough sometimes. It will be interesting to see what happens now in the coming days.

Yes do look at the data from the Halloween storms. The archive here at SWL is really good and you can go back and look at all the parameters as it happened. Also in NOAA's archive you can see images from LASCO and SDO from the events. 

My DM's are always open in case you want to vent or rant about this. Social media nowadays has been flooded with people who spread fear about things like this and sometimes it's hard to sort out good information from bad. It just gets harder and harder so I totally understand that it can cause fear. Completely understandable and it isn't the viewers fault. The best thing one can do is to educate themselves so one can sort out the good from the bad.

But the 2003 storms were 2 G5 storms and this is 4 G4?  That is not the same thing.

3 minutes ago, Franklin said:

But the 2003 storms were 2 G5 storms and this is 4 G4?  That is not the same thing.

These are 4-5 CME's that combined could cause a G4 storm. 

It doesn't mean that every CME will give us a G4.

This is seriously nothing compared to what we've seen before and we'll be just fine, we had two different G4 storms just last year but most people don't know about that because there wasn't such hype/fearmonger (forecasted/beforehand) about it everywhere.

On 9/29/2023 at 9:02 AM, Orilander said:

The problem though, is that many of these sources are predicting it'll be bigger than the Carrington or the 2003 event. That's their major sticking point. They (the news sources, tabloids, Reddit doomers and "Science" YouTubers alike) say we're due for another one this cycle that could easily top either past event. And I'm just wondering what the consensus on that is on this site.

 

Many of these folks also say the event is predicted to happen after the solar max too, which is somewhat concerning.

Late reply, but I did find an old study from 2004 that said the Carrington event was at least an X10 sized flare based on the white light emission. This is outside of stuff I'm proficient in, so I'll just post the screenshot (If mods allow me to)

Edited May 10, 20241 yr by Stephen Traynor
Clarification. Changed "around an X10 sized flare" to "at least an X10 sized flare".

2 hours ago, Stephen Traynor said:

Late reply, but I did find an old study from 2004 that said the Carrington event was at least an X10 sized flare based on the white light emission. This is outside of stuff I'm proficient in, so I'll just post the screenshot (If mods allow me to)

 

And they cut off their comparison to all flares or storms before 2003, they didn't include the Halloween storms of 2003, the likely X45 flares we saw.  The Carrington Event was probably even larger than those X45s.......

4 hours ago, Stephen Traynor said:

Late reply, but I did find an old study from 2004 that said the Carrington event was at least an X10 sized flare based on the white light emission. This is outside of stuff I'm proficient in, so I'll just post the screenshot (If mods allow me to)

The problem is that at that time there was no way to measure it. None of us could have personally observed it. So, based on the recorded descriptions, people try to assign some values as we know them today. This will never be reliable.  But as far as you can see, real experts are always more sober in their descriptions than like hunters. That in itself has its informative value.

12 minutes ago, Wolf star said:

The problem is that at that time there was no way to measure it. None of us could have personally observed it. So, based on the recorded descriptions, people try to assign some values as we know them today. This will never be reliable.  But as far as you can see, real experts are always more sober in their descriptions than like hunters. That in itself has its informative value.

Yeah. We can guess-timate what it may have been, but we'll never know exactly what it was.

I saw people earlier in the topic talking about the big 2003 solar flares, and I was like "huh, I wonder how that compared to the Carrington event.", went googling and found that study. I thought it might be useful for some people if they stumble across this in future.

Def. interesting. thank you guys.

While we didn't had X-ray sensors during the Carrington event, we did have measurements of the geomagnetic field.

You might find this paper interesting:
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2015/01/swsc140015/swsc140015.html
 

According to which, the 2003 storms could have been comparable to the Carrington event.

5 hours ago, Stephen Traynor said:

Late reply, but I did find an old study from 2004 that said the Carrington event was at least an X10 sized flare based on the white light emission. This is outside of stuff I'm proficient in, so I'll just post the screenshot (If mods allow me to)

One of the most used estimates for the Carrington flare is the one quoted and cited here, which after recalibration would be X64 (the X45 estimate was under the previously used values). There's also a more recent estimate from last year using Carrington's own description to conclude that it was on the order of X80, but this also has its own pitfalls. In any case it was certainly extremely strong.

9 hours ago, Franklin said:

But the 2003 storms were 2 G5 storms and this is 4 G4?  That is not the same thing.

No you can't compare storms like that. There were more than 2 CME's launched at earth during the Halloween storming 2003. There were CME's from M-class flares that some people forget. We had a kp index of 8+ to 9 during three days (29, 30 and 31st October). You can't say that there were 2 G5 CME's, instead there was G5 storming (or close to G5) during 3 days as a combined effect from all the CME's that hit earth during those days.

Like @mozy said we have a G4 warning right now which means that the storms combined can cause G4 storming. We have no idea yet what CME will be the strongest or how they will behave. 

You are right that this is not the same thing, this scenario is most likely weaker than in 2003.

6 minutes ago, arjemma said:

No you can't compare storms like that. There were more than 2 CME's launched at earth during the Halloween storming 2003. There were CME's from M-class flares that some people forget. We had a kp index of 8+ to 9 during three days (29, 30 and 31st October). You can't say that there were 2 G5 CME's, instead there was G5 storming (or close to G5) during 3 days as a combined effect from all the CME's that hit earth during those days.

Like @mozy said we have a G4 warning right now which means that the storms combined can cause G4 storming. We have no idea yet what CME will be the strongest or how they will behave. 

You are right that this is not the same thing, this scenario is most likely weaker than in 2003.

Right, we've also seen situations in the past where combined CME's actually ruined the chances for auroras due to the way they were interacting with each other, we just don't know beforehand how things will pan out ^^

Edited May 10, 20241 yr by mozy