1 hour ago, tniickck said:

a bit off-topic question, but is the current maximum of solar flare measurement still X17? or newer GOES satellites have better equipment? 

That's definitely an interesting question. I'm not sure myself, but looking at the data sheet for the EXIS instrument that does the X-ray measurements for GOES-18, it says the dynamic range is from 10^(-9) to 10^(-3) W/m^2, which is the equivalent of from below A-class (a tenth the strength of A1) up to X10, so that's a bit odd considering that stronger than X10 have been measured, but maybe other satellites are used for those measurements, or maybe its capabilities go a bit beyond what is listed, I'm really not sure.

1 hour ago, tniickck said:

a bit off-topic question, but is the current maximum of solar flare measurement still X17? or newer GOES satellites have better equipment? 

Heh, was already getting the reprocessed data. GOES 10 and GOES 12 has the 2003/10/28 flare as 26.3X and 24.6X respectively. The flare on the 29th is 15.5X/14.4X and the November 4th flare maxes out the sensors and flat lines at 26.3X/24.9X.

Still hearing a lot about the impending solar maximum and it's possible effects on both the internet and power grids. And this upcoming storm isn't alleviating things in the slightest. Now I'm back to square one, and I hate it.

13 minutes ago, Orilander said:

Still hearing a lot about the impending solar maximum and it's possible effects on both the internet and power grids. And this upcoming storm isn't alleviating things in the slightest. Now I'm back to square one, and I hate it.

What upcoming storm are you talking about? 

16 minutes ago, Orilander said:

Still hearing a lot about the impending solar maximum and it's possible effects on both the internet and power grids. And this upcoming storm isn't alleviating things in the slightest. Now I'm back to square one, and I hate it.

The geomagnetic field is likely to reach active levels on 23 Nov and
unsettled levels on 24 Nov as CH HSS effects wane. Active conditions are
likely again on 25 Nov due to the anticipated influence of the CME that
left the Sun on 22 Nov. 

 

from noaa, 2h ago. I posted about a CME but its nothing special, not strong, not even aimed at earth so what are you talking about? 

24 minutes ago, Orilander said:

Still hearing a lot about the impending solar maximum and it's possible effects on both the internet and power grids. And this upcoming storm isn't alleviating things in the slightest. Now I'm back to square one, and I hate it.

The topic will end up coming up about every 11 years. We've taken some major impacts from CMEs in recent cycles and look at where we are today. As each cycle comes and goes we become more and more prepared for the next.

At this point it should be better to enjoy the geomagnetic storms, if you are able to see the aurora, than to fear them.

.........

15 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

What upcoming storm are you talking about?

Then, yeah on that. Currently there are no remotely big events incoming besides a quiet launching filament or flare eruption near the south-central disk not too long ago where the CME may or may not reach Earth at this point (to be determined).

8 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

The topic will end up coming up about every 11 years. We've taken some major impacts from CMEs in recent cycles and look at where we are today. As each cycle comes and goes we become more and more prepared for the next.

Then why do I keep seeing articles where the scientists interviewed keep saying that we aren't prepared for a Cartington-like event? Or how each and every storm as we get close to the maximum is "the one that could end it all"? Other than the obvious, I don't get why they keep posting such nonsense, especially since they'd be among the biggest parties affected by such an event?

 

8 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

Then, yeah on that. Currently there are no remotely big events incoming besides a quiet launching filament or flare eruption near the south-central disk not too long ago where the CME may or may not reach Earth at this point (to be determined).

Again, I refer to the "storm" they keep hyping up to happen in either 2024/25. As well as the one going on that @MinYoongi brought up. As that also has these "news" sources claiming it'll damage both power grids and human minds alike.

46 minutes ago, Orilander said:

why do I keep seeing articles

This has been answered already. It's the same reason why you primarily see destruction and devastation on the news: fearmongerers intentionally trying to stoke anxiety and fear into people for clout and views. In the beginning it was more interesting than anything to see how you vacillated between anxiety and then talking as if you knew everything was alright when you got it explained to you, but now it's just getting annoying. In fact, don't you see the contradiction between trying to call it nonsense as you just did and simultaneously expressing all this anxiety and fear? If you know it's nonsense, why do you care about it at all, let alone are afraid of it? Just ignore it and shove it completely out of your life, and stick to the scientific facts. If you want some scientifically sound knowledge about the potential impact of superstorms, go read about e.g. the ones in 1972, 1989, and 2003, and the impacts they had, there's literally tons and tons of well-grounded papers on these, so I really don't get why you keep reading cheap pop-sci news articles instead.

3 hours ago, Orilander said:

Then why do I keep seeing articles where the scientists interviewed keep saying that we aren't prepared for a Cartington-like event? 

 

Again, I refer to the "storm" they keep hyping up to happen in either 2024/25. As well as the one going on that @MinYoongi brought up. As that also has these "news" sources claiming it'll damage both power grids and human minds alike.

1. Because of funding. Spaceweather research is severly underfunded and we can always do more to prepare better for severe events so of course they will try to get more funding, but we've already came a HUGE way like others said. i can only emphasize what philaletes and jesterface already pointed out.

 

2. You cannot predict "the storm" years in advance. you just cant. you cant even properly predict the spaceweather for days or hours in advance. you've been explained and told multiple times now, i really suggest you stop consuming that cookoo type of media.. The CME is posted is not even earth directed and might not even arrive at earth and if it does it will be a weak glancing impact.. theres not much i could add to what philaletes said anymore.

3 hours ago, Orilander said:

and human minds alike.

If they aren't talking about stress there, the people writing the articles needs to see a doctor.

 

There would be several factors that would come into play just to get an extreme geomagnetic storm. We'd need a CME launched from a sunspot region to likely have a travel time to earth in less than 24 hours like the two 2003 Halloween solar storms. Just getting a CME to do that would be rare. CMEs can be massive, but we would need to likely need to take a hit from around the center of it. Another factor is the IMF Bz direction, so if it isn't negative at the right time we won't get the full potential out of the CME.

We do have good coronagraph imagery with SOHO, so extreme CMEs won't go undetected now a days. We'll just need another extreme geomagnetic event again, then maybe the messed up articles will change.

spaceweather.com wrote a text on their website that caused many media outlets to create fearmongering articles that there is a sunspot cluster that can potentially damage the power grid and internet connections on earth. After one article was created other media outlets followed. It caused mass hysteria which has continued the last couple of days.

In Sweden one of our biggest news papers made a 1 minute long video explaining how this cluster has the most magnetic complex regions there is and that it's a huge threat. They also credited spaceweather.com. This is so frustrating and when you have such a big website like spaceweather.com you have a responsibility to not do fear mongering like this. I have stopped following that website because of this, cause this isn't the first time they have done this.

What's important to do when things like this happen is to fact check what they are saying. For example the Swedish news outlet said that the sunspots had the most complex magnetic compositions there is but you can easily check if that's true by checking the magnetic classifications. Here on SWL sunspot regions you can see that there isn't even a sunspot with a delta spot at the moment. So that was a lie. 

It's really sad that a big website like spaceweather.com is contributing to this.

We are good, and we will continue to be good.

Edited November 23, 20231 yr by arjemma

47 minutes ago, arjemma said:

spaceweather.com wrote a text on their website that caused many media outlets to create fearmongering articles that there is a sunspot cluster that can potentially damage the power grid and internet connections on earth. After one article was created other media outlets followed. It caused mass hysteria which has continued the last couple of days. 

same. russian (and worldwide) media moment

and also this. ridiculous and annoying at the same time (posted at one of the most popular Telegram media in post-soviet countries) 

2 hours ago, arjemma said:

spaceweather.com wrote a text on their website that caused many media outlets to create fearmongering articles that there is a sunspot cluster that can potentially damage the power grid and internet connections on earth. After one article was created other media outlets followed. It caused mass hysteria which has continued the last couple of days.

In Sweden one of our biggest news papers made a 1 minute long video explaining how this cluster has the most magnetic complex regions there is and that it's a huge threat. They also credited spaceweather.com. This is so frustrating and when you have such a big website like spaceweather.com you have a responsibility to not do fear mongering like this. I have stopped following that website because of this, cause this isn't the first time they have done this.

What's important to do when things like this happen is to fact check what they are saying. For example the Swedish news outlet said that the sunspots had the most complex magnetic compositions there is but you can easily check if that's true by checking the magnetic classifications. Here on SWL sunspot regions you can see that there isn't even a sunspot with a delta spot at the moment. So that was a lie. 

It's really sad that a big website like spaceweather.com is contributing to this.

We are good, and we will continue to be good.

I’ve heard Dr Tony Phillips is a good guy.  Even bad stuff can get by good people at times.  Just saying… unfortunately true. I won’t say more on it as I am not from your country and it’s just a general observation @arjemma I like this site too, obviously haha.  Regards. Mike/Hagrid 

2 hours ago, arjemma said:

I have stopped following that website because of this, cause this isn't the first time they have done this.

 

Exactly. This is sadly normal for the page by now and not the first time. It's extremely frustrating because german media jumped on the hypetrain too. @Orilander I suggest you go follow the most experienced and best (factual) solar physicists there are on twitter. there are also a bunch of forecasters, experienced people and people who do it as a hobby like in this forum. You cant always trust even local or bigger news outlets, last time there was a somewhat stronger geomagnetic strong solar storm the biggest german news outlet, which is usually heavily into the science path literally wrote "The impact caused a solar storm on earth". no joke. i also remember spaceweather.com fearmongering 2-3 times in the last 1-2 years so i refrain from using them.

32 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

I’ve heard Dr Tony Phillips is a good guy.  Even bad stuff can get by good people at times.  Just saying… unfortunately true. 

I heard contrary. He's (especially since he went down the occasional fearmongering rabbithole) not that popular in the community anymore.

47 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

"The impact caused a solar storm on earth".

I just hate it when an impact causes a second sun to fusionally ignite here on Earth and trigger a stellar storm within our atmosphere, makes for a really bad day...

Edited November 23, 20231 yr by Philalethes

It seems to me that there is the general notion in this thread, that the hype in the press is related to a lack of expertise or professionalism.

However, arguably the exact opposite is true.

It is fair to say that there is a general consensus, that catastrophic effects on power grids and modern electronics world-wide are possible, albeit  such extreme solar events are rather unlikely. The only point of contention being, how remote the chance really is, that they will occur in the foreseeable future.

If you think back of other catastrophic topics, such as the Y2K bug or impending nuclear attacks, one has to be mindful of the fact that it is only logical to treat greater risks with greater attention, and to prioritize the worst case in action over the scenarios most likely to occur. Pessimism is then mandatory in such cases.

Thus even if we "of course" didn't experience nuclear doom for decades, and even if the Y2K bug only affected 0.01% of computer systems, next to none of them being really of critical nature, it made perfect sense to hype in the press about the topic to raise awareness, which is the primary force driving political action. And it made perfect sense to think of the scenario as if all of the systems affected were in fact critical. While relying on a scenario by probability alone would have been quite foolish and unprofessional.

i just wanted to say im really proud of all the answers and info + help against anxiety/fearmongering. I love our small community alot.

Not wanting to take any side at all, I would like to point out the unfortunate fact, that the vast majority of scientists these days need to fight for their funding, which unfortunately they can do best by fearmongering, because that is what the politicians in charge of their funding will respond to.
As much as we wish it to be different, unless we can educate the masses, this is how it is going to be. Here at SWL the majority of people here in the forum is doing exactly that, and I'm very grateful for that. I've learned so much and on occasion I have even been able to share some of that and calm people down, simply by explaining what we know about space weather.

There  have been discussions circulating about a well-known website, and concerns have been raised regarding fear mongering. It's crucial to recognise that in many instances, what might appear as fear mongering is, in fact, a candid reporting of the information at hand.

Spaceweather, as we are all too well aware is an unpredictable beast.(I speak figuratively of course)

In my opinion the website in question has provided a wealth of information over the years and I believe it strives to present facts transparently, even when these facts might be unsettling but also in a way that engages its audience. Rather than dismissing it as fear mongering, let's consider that it can add to our overall understanding of  the subject of Spaceweather as do others websites including this one.

Moreover, it's worth noting that individuals often add their own perspectives when discussing this information, further influencing the narrative. Engaging with the content with an open mind allows us to discern between genuine reporting and personal interpretations. This nuanced approach ensures that we are well-informed and equipped to navigate the complexities of the issues being presented.

May our discussions be characterised by a commitment to understanding, a shared pursuit of truth, and the recognition that diverse perspectives contribute to a richer discourse.

N.

Edited November 24, 20231 yr by Newbie

Nothing to add to that.  

20 hours ago, arjemma said:

spaceweather.com wrote a text on their website that caused many media outlets to create fearmongering articles that there is a sunspot cluster that can potentially damage the power grid and internet connections on earth. After one article was created other media outlets followed. It caused mass hysteria which has continued the last couple of days.

In Sweden one of our biggest news papers made a 1 minute long video explaining how this cluster has the most magnetic complex regions there is and that it's a huge threat. They also credited spaceweather.com. This is so frustrating and when you have such a big website like spaceweather.com you have a responsibility to not do fear mongering like this. I have stopped following that website because of this, cause this isn't the first time they have done this.

What's important to do when things like this happen is to fact check what they are saying. For example the Swedish news outlet said that the sunspots had the most complex magnetic compositions there is but you can easily check if that's true by checking the magnetic classifications. Here on SWL sunspot regions you can see that there isn't even a sunspot with a delta spot at the moment. So that was a lie. 

It's really sad that a big website like spaceweather.com is contributing to this.

We are good, and we will continue to be good.

Honestly, that's kind of sad to think that Spaceweather has gone down the road another site with a similar name has (You know which, so I won't namedrop); But I'd argue it's even sadder that a site that I normally don't have issues with is being brutalized by the tabloids and ill-informed local media outlets like this too. So it's a double-edged sword in this scenario, and clearly shows that almost everyone's to blame for this even if one party arguably isn't as guilty as the other.

Sorry to say @MinYoongi, but I'm not much of a Twitter guy. Never have been, and certainly not with Mr. Muskrat in charge screwing up everything more than it already was. I mostly come by this site instead, as it's one of the few places that actually talks and shares data with little in the way of questionable tactics, minus the odd occasion here or there.

@Jesterface23 Nah, it was this article about how such storms could effect the forestry industry, and at the end, there was a bit about how it affected the human psyche like fatigue and blurred vision. I'm sure if it was something like the Daily Express or a YouTuber, they'd play it up further as something lethal; which iirc, I've seen some places and people do by citing the possible radiation concerns and the "upcoming pole shift" (one of the few things I can say I'm not that worried about, given how many people are contradicting the details of it or its progress as is).

As for everyone else, especially towards @Philalethes, my apologies for my constant flip-flopping. Anxiety's a bitch and a half, and there's times where it decides, out of the blue, to come in and take control. Not excusing my behavior here, but when you're being constantly pushed and pulled by people telling you what's going on - not just with solar activity, I get worked up just as, if not more, about Asteroids too - it gets taxing. And there's times where I know the information in front of me is obviously bunk, and just as many times where the worry comes back in full force and makes me wonder what to believe. Hence the whole worry about the whole thing because of how often I hear contradictory accounts all around; and one of the recent instances was spurred by a friend offsite sharing such an article. I won't lie and say I'm happy about this (I'm not), but it's just how it goes.

At this point, it'd be easier to have a full-on break from the internet for a few days. Once again, I'm sorry for wasting your time more than I should've.

Edited November 24, 20231 yr by Orilander

It's not a thread I really want to dredge up, but if we're going to discuss potential dangers to the grid, it's best to do it somewhere more appropriate than the other thread. There are also a fair amount of informative replies about it in this thread already. 

7 minutes ago, WhereingtonEvent said:

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u33/finalBoulderPresentation042611 (1).pdf
 

NOAA disagrees with your assessment of the situation.

That's over a decade old though, if I'm not mistaken. Take a look at e.g. what an electrical engineer has to say when answering a related question ~2 years ago here:

Quote

The big risk are the large power transformers. If GIC (Geomagnetically Induced Currents) get into these large units that can take between 18-24 months to build and install, they can quickly saturate the cores and literally melt the cores.

I live in a region that is susceptible to GIC and our grid operator has installed monitoring and control equipment to detect if the transformers are being affected and trip them off line before damage occurs. We also have a few units that have a special control scheme that will switch in capacitors into the transformer neutral to block the (DC) GIC.

We started adding these measures over 10 years ago and our entire fleet are covered now.

There are also replies voicing the same concerns as you too, but it's a fairly well-known fact that the largest worry by far is preventing permanent transformer damage, and that this is actually fairly easy to prevent by monitoring it and taking it offline for the duration of the storm. To my knowledge this is becoming more and more prevalent as part of regulation, and power companies face quite harsh measures if they don't comply. It would mean short-term power loss, but also getting everything back in working order as soon as the storm has passed. And this is all even for the very strongest of the strongest events. The same person also concludes a different reply where they address some other related facts:

Quote

Our monitoring systems have a dedicated sensor on the transformer neutral to ground connection - it's a Rogowski coil with a DC-10 kHz range. This generates an analog value that is sent to the dispatchers, with an alarm threshold. We also monitor the individual harmonics on the transformer via the transformer digital differential relay, which reports 2nd, 4th and 5th harmonics. These values are also sent along to dispatch as supporting information to the GIC neutral sensor. Of course, dispatch also has a solar alert system covering the region.

In select stations, we also have a GIC Protection scheme.

Remember that the transformer is the single largest / most expensive component in a substation. There are so many variables in power system design that units of this size (200-500+MVA) are not off the shelf items. The big 500 MVA units we have take about 3 weeks from offloading on site to energization for assembly, oil filling, commissioning to initial energization. That is, of course if there are no problems, and there are always problems. There are a small number of US based manufacturers of units this size, so overseas transportation from Europe or Asia is common.

I suppose one thing you should really remember with this last part in mind is that power companies are, like most entities, individual or collective, self-interested. Even if hypothetically they don't care about you (which isn't really ultimately true either for the most part), they'd still want to preserve their most expensive equipment for their own sake.

Personally I think you are overestimating the risk and underestimating the amount of preventative measures being taken.

15 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

It's not a thread I really want to dredge up, but if we're going to discuss potential dangers to the grid, it's best to do it somewhere more appropriate than the other thread. There are also a fair amount of informative replies about it in this thread already. 

That's over a decade old though, if I'm not mistaken. Take a look at e.g. what an electrical engineer has to say when answering a related question ~2 years ago here:

There are also replies voicing the same concerns as you too, but it's a fairly well-known fact that the largest worry by far is preventing permanent transformer damage, and that this is actually fairly easy to prevent by monitoring it and taking it offline for the duration of the storm. To my knowledge this is becoming more and more prevalent as part of regulation, and power companies face quite harsh measures if they don't comply. It would mean short-term power loss, but also getting everything back in working order as soon as the storm has passed. And this is all even for the very strongest of the strongest events. The same person also concludes a different reply where they address some other related facts:

I suppose one thing you should really remember with this last part in mind is that power companies are, like most entities, individual or collective, self-interested. Even if hypothetically they don't care about you (which isn't really ultimately true either for the most part), they'd still want to preserve their most expensive equipment for their own sake.

Personally I think you are overestimating the risk and underestimating the amount of preventative measures being taken.

Very well said, philaletes. 

 

 

what i wonder, why did they warn stronger than in 2005? i think we had the bastille event there, but this is the first G4 Warning since 2005? or am i missing something?

5 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

Very well said, philaletes. 

what i wonder, why did they warn stronger than in 2005? i think we had the bastille event there, but this is the first G4 Warning since 2005? or am i missing something?

Where are you referring to? I don't see any mention of 2005 in any part of what I quoted, nor in the thread or the link I replied to (or the link in the quote for that matter).

1 minute ago, Philalethes said:

Where are you referring to? I don't see any mention of 2005 in any part of what I quoted, nor in the thread or the link I replied to (or the link in the quote for that matter).

 

im sorry, i did not provide enough context to what i was asking.

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.

 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.

But we don't need to worry about a G4, right?  Only a massive G5, right?  I really wish the expanded it to G7 scale.