Is anyone concerned about this? (low latitude aurora)

[kota]

Low latitude aurora was observed in the following years (to 1859) 

- 1859 (Carrington Event)

- 1882 (Feb. 4th) 

- 1903 (Oct. 31st Halloween Storm Kp9)

- 1921 (May 14th Kp8, 13 degrees)

- 1972 (Aug. 4-7, Kp9)

 

 

- 1998 (Nov. 6-10, Kp7)

- 1991 (Jun. 4-6, Kp8)

- 2003 (Oct. 28-30 Halloween Storms Kp9)

- 2001 (Mar. 24, kp7)

 

I made the indention here because all of a sudden we are seeing a ramp up in these storms reaching low latitude levels. Just this year, we had 5 low latitude aurora observations with only a small number of these events resulting from x class events. 

This isn't normal to me, is it normal to ya'll? Is this something to be concerned about with this uptick in low latitude observations?  Thanks. 

[Vancanneyt Sander]

3 minuten geleden, kota zei:

Just this year, we had 5 low latitude aurora observations

None resulted in a Kp9/G5 storm like the other examples you’ve mentioned… 

the 5 times in 2023 where mostly in middle latitude locations with only once on low latitude locations and only photographic not visually.

all of this is nothing unusual and normal in the years around solar max. If you compare it with SC23 it’s very normal. 

[Sam Warfel]

9 minutes ago, kota said:

1998 (Nov. 6-10, Kp7)

9 minutes ago, kota said:

2001 (Mar. 24, kp7)

KP7? Hardly worth noting. Happens all the time during the maximum of the Sun’s 11 year cycle. Just this spring we had two KP8s. 

9 minutes ago, kota said:

Just this year, we had 5 low latitude aurora observations with only a small number of these events resulting from x class events. 

That’s cause we are approaching the peak of the sun’s 11-year activity cycle, likely in 2024. So the increased activity is perfectly normal, and happens every 11 years. Nothing surprising. 

9 minutes ago, kota said:

This isn't normal to me, is it normal to ya'll? Is this something to be concerned about with this uptick in low latitude observations?  Thanks. 

So yes, it’s normal. And no, it’s not something to be concerned about. We’ll see more of this strong activity as we pass max, maybe even a G5 (KP9) event. Hopefully some lovey aurora! And our power grids and satellites will weather it just fine, as they were designed to do and have done in the past. 

Edited January 1 by Sam Warfel

[tniickck]

there is absolutely no reasons to be concerned about aurora until it harms power grids

[M42Sparks]

Douglass Adams line "we demand well defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" blended with "I much rather be Happy than right" definitely apply. Our reality will only become apparent when we have full understanding of human purpose. It is doubful if even then we can. Enjoy the wonders along the way to enlightenment.

[libmar96]

Well, this is a bit subjective, just like the KP-index in general. Low latitude is just a rough and short description to inform about a possible aurora to reach Mediterranean Sea, Mexico or Japan. Take Budapest for example, the SWL site suggests KP 9+ is required, but what does that exactly mean, what should be visible?

• It's only photographic in Budapest? Recent aurorae shown that K7 is enough.
• It's visible to naked eye in Budapest? April 2023 (G4) and November 2023 (G3) are examples.
• The pillars can reach zenith in Budapest? I agree, somewhat KP 9+ is required.

Time's changing, technology gets better and there's greater awareness of aurora coming on mid and low latitude skies. We simply don't skip any chance today, hundreds of chasers are ready in my country (Poland) when it's just G1, because K4 is often enough while official maps suggest KP 6-8 is for Poland. But 20 years ago it was all about luck and rare knowledge that ACE exists to monitor Bz or wind speed indicators. Nobody monitored, because people didn't know and didn't have good cameras as we have today.

Here are all dates when Bz level reached at least once -30 or below, in a DD/MM/YYYY format. Basically in all these cases a photographic aurora was present what truly means "low latitude". As I remember in nearly all cases Bz was low long enough to trigger aurora getting further south. This is just a brief list where to start searching for best views in last 26 years in ACE/DSCOVR data. Roughtly, -30 is photographic, -40 is visible to naked eye, -50 is overhead.

4/5/1998 (-37.03)
22/10/1999 (-31.49)
6/4/2000 (-32.76)
24/5/2000 (-30.70)
15/7/2000 (-59.27)
17/9/2000 (-35.34)
31/3/2001 (-46.86)
11/4/2001 (-36.61)
6/11/2001 (-78.17)
24/11/2001 (-49.29)
17/4/2002 (-31.18)
23/5/2002 (-41.37)
29/5/2003 (-33.32)
26/7/2003 (-31.99)
29/10/2003 (-53.85)
30/10/2003 (-35.50)
20/11/2003 (-52.80)
7/11/2004 (-50.19)
9/11/2004 (-32.81)
15/5/2005 (-45.89)
24/8/2005 (-55.55)
26/9/2011 (-31.01)
22/6/2015 (-39.42)
7/9/2017 (-32.99)
24/4/2023 (-33.32)

There have been a lot of such moments in SC23, but those weren't greatly monitored. Nowdays, Bz -30 seems extreme, but official G5 was counted only some cases that got -40 or deeper (!). That means, if you see Bz getting -25, you may think of G5 coming shortly, but G5 is still far from that. G4 is very stretched, as poor G4 (but not G3) may show aurora down to Hungary, but great G4 (but not G5) may reach Greece. KP 8- and KP 8+ only slightly helps, as KP isn't K index.

But it isn't generally stated if we talk about photographic or visual. When one says about G5, I talk about a photographic aurora that reaches northern Africa, not a visual aurora that reaches Rome. Individual stuff.

Usually, the Bz level reach KP levels based on list below:

• K4 = -8 to -10 (official counts may be KP3-G1)
• K5 = -10 to -15 (official counts may be KP4-G2)
• K6 = -15 to -20 (official counts may be G1-G3)
• K7 = -20 to -25 (official counts may be G2-G4)
• K8 = -25 to -40 (official count may be G3; KP9 is less expected)
• K9 = -40 and lower (SWL archive shown that official count may be G4 if Bz doesn't reach -50)

Interesting fact is, you mentioned about March 2001 that isn't in list above. I think that date was incorrect, because Bz didn't reach -10 or below at all.

I'm hoping for a repetition of Bz -40 for aurora to see if modern cameras can catch in Canary Islands, what I expect from archive data. Not even -50, but I give chances for -40.

What's the conclusion? To see if a low latitude aurora could be present, seek for indicators rather than official KP values. This what you listed are just best displays of aurora that are visually seen above your head in latitudes not like Paris or Vienna, but rather Rome or Bucharest. All dates above should give a good start. If SC25 becomes active as SC23, you may have several low latitude aurora in year.

[kota]

13 hours ago, Sam Warfel said:

KP7? Hardly worth noting. Happens all the time during the maximum of the Sun’s 11 year cycle. Just this spring we had two KP8s. 

That’s cause we are approaching the peak of the sun’s 11-year activity cycle, likely in 2024. So the increased activity is perfectly normal, and happens every 11 years. Nothing surprising. 

So yes, it’s normal. And no, it’s not something to be concerned about. We’ll see more of this strong activity as we pass max, maybe even a G5 (KP9) event. Hopefully some lovey aurora! And our power grids and satellites will weather it just fine, as they were designed to do and have done in the past. 

Thanks for that clarification. I'm coming from the Suspicious Observer's community and the author brought up that point. I am curious though, what are your thoughts on our magnetosphere weakening? Ben Davidson brings up the point that as we see a weakening, these solar event's impact on the earth will be leveraged arguing that these 5 LLO events just this year are the result of weaker magnetosphere allowing our global energy grid to become imperiled. Does this sound accurate? I apologize for my lack of understanding in geophysics. 

36 minutes ago, libmar96 said:

Well, this is a bit subjective, just like the KP-index in general. Low latitude is just a rough and short description to inform about a possible aurora to reach Mediterranean Sea, Mexico or Japan. Take Budapest for example, the SWL site suggests KP 9+ is required, but what does that exactly mean, what should be visible?

• It's only photographic in Budapest? Recent aurorae shown that K7 is enough.
• It's visible to naked eye in Budapest? April 2023 (G4) and November 2023 (G3) are examples.
• The pillars can reach zenith in Budapest? I agree, somewhat KP 9+ is required.

Time's changing, technology gets better and there's greater awareness of aurora coming on mid and low latitude skies. We simply don't skip any chance today, hundreds of chasers are ready in my country (Poland) when it's just G1, because K4 is often enough while official maps suggest KP 6-8 is for Poland. But 20 years ago it was all about luck and rare knowledge that ACE exists to monitor Bz or wind speed indicators. Nobody monitored, because people didn't know and didn't have good cameras as we have today.

Here are all dates when Bz level reached at least once -30 or below, in a DD/MM/YYYY format. Basically in all these cases a photographic aurora was present what truly means "low latitude". As I remember in nearly all cases Bz was low long enough to trigger aurora getting further south. This is just a brief list where to start searching for best views in last 26 years in ACE/DSCOVR data. Roughtly, -30 is photographic, -40 is visible to naked eye, -50 is overhead.

4/5/1998 (-37.03)
22/10/1999 (-31.49)
6/4/2000 (-32.76)
24/5/2000 (-30.70)
15/7/2000 (-59.27)
17/9/2000 (-35.34)
31/3/2001 (-46.86)
11/4/2001 (-36.61)
6/11/2001 (-78.17)
24/11/2001 (-49.29)
17/4/2002 (-31.18)
23/5/2002 (-41.37)
29/5/2003 (-33.32)
26/7/2003 (-31.99)
29/10/2003 (-53.85)
30/10/2003 (-35.50)
20/11/2003 (-52.80)
7/11/2004 (-50.19)
9/11/2004 (-32.81)
15/5/2005 (-45.89)
24/8/2005 (-55.55)
26/9/2011 (-31.01)
22/6/2015 (-39.42)
7/9/2017 (-32.99)
24/4/2023 (-33.32)

There have been a lot of such moments in SC23, but those weren't greatly monitored. Nowdays, Bz -30 seems extreme, but official G5 was counted only some cases that got -40 or deeper (!). That means, if you see Bz getting -25, you may think of G5 coming shortly, but G5 is still far from that. G4 is very stretched, as poor G4 (but not G3) may show aurora down to Hungary, but great G4 (but not G5) may reach Greece. KP 8- and KP 8+ only slightly helps, as KP isn't K index.

But it isn't generally stated if we talk about photographic or visual. When one says about G5, I talk about a photographic aurora that reaches northern Africa, not a visual aurora that reaches Rome. Individual stuff.

Usually, the Bz level reach KP levels based on list below:

• K4 = -8 to -10 (official counts may be KP3-G1)
• K5 = -10 to -15 (official counts may be KP4-G2)
• K6 = -15 to -20 (official counts may be G1-G3)
• K7 = -20 to -25 (official counts may be G2-G4)
• K8 = -25 to -40 (official count may be G3; KP9 is less expected)
• K9 = -40 and lower (SWL archive shown that official count may be G4 if Bz doesn't reach -50)

Interesting fact is, you mentioned about March 2001 that isn't in list above. I think that date was incorrect, because Bz didn't reach -10 or below at all.

I'm hoping for a repetition of Bz -40 for aurora to see if modern cameras can catch in Canary Islands, what I expect from archive data. Not even -50, but I give chances for -40.

What's the conclusion? To see if a low latitude aurora could be present, seek for indicators rather than official KP values. This what you listed are just best displays of aurora that are visually seen above your head in latitudes not like Paris or Vienna, but rather Rome or Bucharest. All dates above should give a good start. If SC25 becomes active as SC23, you may have several low latitude aurora in year.

Very fascinating information. Thank you for setting that foundation. Yes my data seems skewed. I sourced it from this (timestamp included): 

 

So it seems that i observed incorrect data - apologies for that. 

With that being said, is it more likely then not for us to have a stronger solar cycle for SC25 over SC23? I know it's hard to say either way, i mean even NOAA underestimated this new cycle - but what are your thoughts? 

[Solar_Marcel]

7 hours ago, tniickck said:

there is absolutely no reasons to be concerned about aurora until it harms power grids

Which is,  i think, very unlikely until we surpass even the strongest storm we had (lets say Directly hit by X100 flare and very very strong southwards IMF etc.) so worst worst case scenario. but i think the odds for that is unimaginable low so no needs to worry. our grids are mostly designed to withstand such events

[tniickck]

3 hours ago, libmar96 said:

•  

• K4 = -8 to -10 (official counts may be KP3-G1)
• K5 = -10 to -15 (official counts may be KP4-G2)
• K6 = -15 to -20 (official counts may be G1-G3)
• K7 = -20 to -25 (official counts may be G2-G4)
• K8 = -25 to -40 (official count may be G3; KP9 is less expected)
• K9 = -40 and lower (SWL archive shown that official count may be G4 if Bz doesn't reach -50) 

it is not as easy as you think. solar wind speed plays a significant role in G5 storm. for example the aforementioned event on 6th Nov 2001 with bz reaching nearly -80 was only G4 because the solar wind speed was about 700-800 km/s which is not enough for G5 storm

[libmar96]

1 hour ago, tniickck said:

it is not as easy as you think. solar wind speed plays a significant role in G5 storm. for example the aforementioned event on 6th Nov 2001 with bz reaching nearly -80 was only G4 because the solar wind speed was about 700-800 km/s which is not enough for G5 storm

Thanks! That's a very important information in my search how to calculate K-index based on indicators instead of DST. I use wind speed to calculate as well, but I have no data "how good the aurora is" with speeds above 800 km/s, because there weren't any recently. Severe G4-G5 storms were just too long ago to say if 900 km/s and Bz -40 better than 1100 km/s and Bz -55 etc; there's insufficent data, so I gave it as a rough estimate.

Edited January 1 by libmar96

[arjemma]

The thing is that we haven't studied aurora for that long and people haven't been as aware of it as they are now. Aurora can be seen in good cameras in low latitudes rather often during solar maximum and it has probably almost always been that way. The difference is that they didn't have good cameras like this before and therefore probably missed it. With modern satellites and measurements we have seen that big eruptions and big CMEs are rather common during solar maximum. So to answer your questions, YES this is normal and YES it has most likely been like this for a very long time, we just haven't seen it before the way we can see it now.

@kota Ben Davidson is known in the community for doing fearmongering and he has no idea at all on how space weather works. He is continually misunderstanding things and is putting out videos that doesn't have anything to do about reality. I suggest you stop watching his videos cause he have no idea what he is talking about. It's so sad that there are so many people that follow him and that thinks that everything he says is based on real science and facts.

Geological excavations from earlier pole shifts show that it haven't significantly affected earth. 

Edited January 1 by arjemma
Added information about Ben.

[Philalethes]

7 hours ago, kota said:

I'm coming from the Suspicious Observer's community

My best advice to you: stop watching that channel immediately and start looking for more scientifically sound data and reasonable people. What Ben says reflects reality less and less with every passing day as he tries to shoehorn anything he can find into his increasingly ridiculous models while dismissing everything else (which is the vast majority). I will admit that I have watched it in the past myself, but always with some heaping tablespoons of salt, and eventually extremely infrequently just to see how far down the rabbit hole he's gone since the last time.

7 hours ago, kota said:

I am curious though, what are your thoughts on our magnetosphere weakening?

This has actually been discussed in a few threads recently; here's a post I wrote on it not long ago (that entire thread is probably a good starter for people coming from the constant fearmongering of people like Ben), but there are probably a lot more around too, I don't doubt that there are a lot of old threads discussing the matter as well.

7 hours ago, kota said:

as we see a weakening, these solar event's impact on the earth will be leveraged

As arjemma points out above, more observations recently is very likely to have everything to do with better technology and more people paying attention, and virtually nothing to do with changes in the geomagnetic field strength; here's another post I wrote in a different thread (that thread is also a good starting point for dispelling myths commonly promulgated by fearmongerers) which shows the changes over the past few centuries, and as you can see the changes we're talking about over just a few decades are minuscule, and certainly nothing that would have led to drastic changes in aurora visibility over such a short span of time relatively speaking.

7 hours ago, kota said:

Does this sound accurate? I apologize for my lack of understanding in geophysics.

As explained above, it's not accurate at all.

And there's absolutely nothing to apologize for, we're all here to learn; but the first thing to do is to develop better source criticism, because if your alarm bells don't go off when you listen to swindling charlatans like Ben I suspect that your intellectual immune system might be a bit compromised, let alone if you don't take some time to actually research his claims, especially some of the more fantastical and downright ridiculous ones, from a more skeptical and critical perspective, i.e. trying actively to disprove it as is the backbone of the scientific method itself.

Asking about it here is of course a great step forward, as people here from my experience are a lot better at separating fact from fiction than most people who got into space weather from watching channels like Ben's, but ultimately nothings beats the ability to look up scientific articles yourself and really investigate matters on your own (which also makes for better discussion if brought here anyway).

Once you develop better source criticism it's much easier for you to distinguish good scientific sources that present an objective view from people engaging in fearmongering for clout and views, and thus a lot easier for you to gain a good grasp of actual geophysical facts. Geoscience is an extremely interesting field, and quite vast in extent (after all, it's the study of our entire planet as a whole), so I hope for your own sake that it's something you'll retain an interest in, and that perhaps you'll find it even more interesting once you start to see past the narrow-minded and unscientific approach of people like Ben.

Edited January 1 by Philalethes
typo