4 minutes ago, Juress said:

Thanks  Does CG mean computer-generated?

 

It might be off-topic but in case that can be helpful:

The images are real. SUVI acquires long-exposure (1s) and short-exposure (0,005s) images that are then combined (with different adjustements) to produce a high-dynamic range image (image displaying at the same time bright and faint regions) we see here https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/goes-solar-ultraviolet-imager-suvi .

The camera do not detect colors, initially all images display different levels of signal intensity expressed as levels of grey. Whereas we are used to have a color range of 1 to 256, their cameras likely have a wider range of signal intensity of 1 to 65535 (like the cameras I use when doing microscopy images). This only relates to the ability of the camera to accumulate signal before saturating, as happens during flares which is why they form this white X during X-level flares.

In order to better visualize this wide range of signal intensity (coronal holes to flares), they replace the grey by a dynamic false color, also called look-up table (LUT) which here is: black to red to yellow depending the brightness of the signal. In my case, I just convert their false colored image back to grey levels and then apply another dynamic false color that I think is either more esthetic or better display this high-dynamic range of signals, here: white to black to red to copper/gold. 

These images are the same, only the false color (LUT) changes. From left to right: What the camera detects (grey) / The LUT they apply (I guess it is red hot) / The LUT I apply (MQ-div-autumn)

I will soon take some time to dig into rawer material (https://data.ngdc.noaa.gov/platforms/solar-space-observing-satellites/goes/goes16/l2/data/suvi-l2-ci304/2024/06/17/) to increase the quality of the gifs.

Sorry for the long post

 

No apologies needed @Juress  all good. CG typically means either computer generated or computer graphics. Which I suppose all are anyway.  🤣

12 hours ago, Sunlive123 said:

lmsal video 3 days ago but the link of mp4 is updating so the video has been deleted. I dont find any archive.

That data is typically from SDO's AIA instrument; you can find its archive here. You'll probably find that the 304 Å (red) imagery is generally better for viewing filaments.

12 hours ago, Sunlive123 said:

Huge tornadoes like we can watch in this link (video of 1m43) . Its exactly what is happening in the huge filament. No answer in this press article. Mysterious. 

I guess it's a bit limited how much information can be conveyed in popsci articles, but the more formal term for a structure like the one described in that article would be "tornado prominence" (or "prominence tornado"). There's quite a bit of literature on them, and they were first described almost 150 years ago; this is a paper that was published just last year that you might find informative. Here I'll quote the two first paragraphs of the concluding section, where they note that these structures do not actually rotate despite the appearance of it, that they're not really similar to the tornadoes we know from our own atmosphere other than superficially, and that they're actually just regular filaments viewed from untypical perspectives that lead to certain deceptive projection effects:

Quote

This careful review of the publications presenting the recent observational data and theoretical models leads us to conclude that there are no sustained and coherent rotational movements in the prominence structures referred to as ‘tornadoes’. The visual impression of helical movements of prominence fine structures and the measured split red-and-blue Doppler-shift patterns can easily be explained by projection effects and the presence of oscillations and/or counter-streaming flows. This conclusion also respects the overwhelming number of measurements of horizontal prominence magnetic fields and confirms the magnetic topology that has been demonstrated to be able to support the dense prominence plasma in a stable manner. ‘Prominence tornados’ thus do not differ in any substantial way from other solar prominences. In fact, they are manifestations of the same complex solar phenomena, just observed in two specific projections. These significantly different views of the same phenomena, compounded by the presence of dynamics and simple yet profoundly distorting projection effects may sometimes play havoc with our intuitive understanding of perceived shapes and movements, understanding that was trained by evolution on solid objects that surround us. Therefore, there is no need for the distinct category of ‘tornado’ prominences.

More so, there is no need for the term ‘tornado’ when referring to prominences. This is because, when the name is used, it brings to mind the atmospheric column-like vortices of very fast sustained speeds that propagate downwards from large rotating clouds. Terrestrial tornadoes appear dark in the contrast to the bright daylight sky and surrounding clouds but the air in them is not significantly heavier than that in the tornado vicinity. The opacity of the atmospheric tornadoes is caused by the presence of dust, moisture, and debris. And, of course, there is no magnetic field to consider. These are characteristics that are unlike those of solar prominences, where the rotation is intermittent (if present at all) and the dense prominence material must be supported against the gravity. Therefore, the use of the name ‘tornado’ when referring to prominences may cause us to search for evidence supporting our mental image of atmospheric tornadoes where no such evidence is present. To justify the analogy with terrestrial tornadoes we would need to find prominences exhibiting coherent and fast rotational motions for their entire lifetimes. Only in such a case the term ‘tornado’ will not lead to confusion and unnecessary over-interpretation of observations.

 

Edited June 18, 20241 yr by Philalethes
formatting

12 hours ago, Prizma1227 said:

it sure was quite the filament, any estimation on size?

Probably about 40° - 50° in length

is any of the recent (last 2h) action earth directed?

1 hour ago, Sunlive123 said:

I dont know what is happening !  

Solar Maximum. We got hit by 7 CMES just a month ago

Felt like giving this last one a go myself:

3 hours ago, Philalethes said:

Felt like giving this last one a go myself:

@Juress I'm gonna have to give this a go soon! You two make it look easy

We are in the period of solar max (its a wide range of when it could occur). Nothing really out of the norm. 

That filament is looking mighty promising rn

10 minutes ago, Sagatha said:

That filament is looking mighty promising rn

why

Daydreaming about this filament destabilizing 

9 hours ago, MinYoongi said:

why

My wishful thinking, probably 

11 hours ago, Parabolic said:

Daydreaming about this filament destabilizing 

wouldn't there need to be an Associated CME to cause this to destabilise? or can it just do it on its own?

Just now, Prizma1227 said:

wouldn't there need to be an Associated CME to cause this to destabilise? or can it just do it on its own?

Just about anything can destabilize a filament. When the plasma is ejected it becomes the CME, but sometimes the material ends up falling back into the solar surface as a result. 

32 minutes ago, Sunlive123 said:

Something STRONG is coming !  Thats why DATA LOSS ! I dont know the way. 

A huge filament eruption ! 

https://www.sidc.be/solardemon/dimmings_details.php?science=0&dimming_id=10521&delay=80&prefix=pBDI_&small=1&aid=0&graph=1

 

 

Oh my God, would you please be so kind and stop saying such nonsense all the time? A filament is definitely not to blame for Goes' data problems and that alone doesn't fit in terms of time. You alone are currently the reason why people don't even want to register here, because they are put off by these constant sensationalist fabrications. I could block you and for me the problem would be solved, out of sight out of mind but I love this forum too much to watch people like you destroy it with sheer disinformation, conspiracy theories and half-knowledge. So many great, curious people have come here in the last few weeks to take part in discussions without this unpleasantness, why can't you do that? You seem to be very interested. It's not clear to me what your goal seems to be with the constant conspiracies and claims that don't correspond to reality at all.

Also not even sure if there would be an earth directed component to that filament erupting. Seems too southward/eastward at the moment. 

17 minutes ago, Sunlive123 said:

My observation was correct ! But dont worry for me ! Of course not all ejection in way of earth but enough for a surprise storm. 

Surprise storm?? What would be surprising about a storm that’s been forecasted for over 2 days - specifically naming the filament eruption as the source of the incoming storm??? 

Edited June 28, 20241 yr by Justanerd
Add graphic

44 minutes ago, Sunlive123 said:

FALSE ! NOAA alert only 2 days after and nobody here except Yani  answered me ! But dont worry for me ! It s just the beginning. 

Alert G1 is under estimated. The Disturbance Storm Time index predicts moderate storm conditions right now (-73nT)  

There's no agenda here, we are all just staring up at the sun hoping something happens. The G1 is a glancing blow from a filament eruption, which was no surprise to anyone when it first happened and it's looking very fairly estimated as the activity seems to be tapering off now. The time to get excited is when the forums have a big debate about whether a CME was a far side event or if it was a centre disk event.

3 hours ago, Sunlive123 said:

FALSE ! NOAA alert only 2 days after and nobody here except Yani  answered me ! But dont worry for me ! It s just the beginning. 

Alert G1 is under estimated. The Disturbance Storm Time index predicts moderate storm conditions right now (-73nT)  

Note the date and time NOAA issued the Geomagnetic storm watch - it was NO surprise and it was predicted 2 days ago - please stop with all the drama and sensationalism! Thank you!

@Sunlive123 you would do yourself ( and others) a better service by watching the interactions on this website for a few months. You would possibly learn some interesting things you didn’t realise and return better informed.  People here are very well informed on space weather predictions.  Unproven theories are even discussed under a separate running thread for those who have the ability to stand intelligent criticism.  It’s a great site in my opinion. I’ve been here for three years and still enjoy it.  Mike  Edit:  this shouldn’t be misunderstood as anything but a friendly suggestion from a fellow enthusiast who is crazy about space weather in general btw. 😇

Edited June 28, 20241 yr by hamateur 1953
Afterthoughts

A petty good filament eruption started lift off a couple hours ago accompanied with decent dimming. Helioviewer isn't working for me so I couldn't provide images. Should be around 15:00-17:00utc from lift off to coronal dimming.

19 minutes ago, Parabolic said:

A petty good filament eruption started lift off a couple hours ago accompanied with decent dimming. Helioviewer isn't working for me so I couldn't provide images. Should be around 15:00-17:00utc from lift off to coronal dimming.

Oh so it isn't only me that doesn't have access to today's Helioviewer imagery... It's stuck on 22UTC on the 28 for whatever reason.

Edited June 29, 20241 yr by chronical

It looks like we might get a glancing blow out of it from coronagraph imagery. The speed is questionable.

1 hour ago, Jesterface23 said:

It looks like we might get a glancing blow out of it from coronagraph imagery. The speed is questionable.

Pretty good looking eruption.  I'll be a little optimistic for a halfway decent impact, I feel (and to be clear, I have zero data to back this up) that we've had pretty luck recently with glancing impacts from CMEs that go "southward."  Fingers crossed I suppose!

I'll have a prediction of a possible L1 arrival during the afternoon of the 2nd to before noon on the 3rd. There might be a slight chance of G1.