4 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

 

Oh yeah, just saw that; didn't expect SolO to update so quickly. It's estimated at X9 indeed:

 

35 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

I think there's fairly good agreement about it today. The X40 (X28 pre-correction) estimate was just the very initial one due to the saturation of the sensor at X24 (X17 pre-correction). To circumvent that there was not that much later made investigations into the ionospheric response and how it affects other measurements that were made at the time, pinning it down to the current estimate of X64 (X45 pre-correction, like the commonly cited estimate for the Carrington flare) in this paper that was published only half a year after it happened, with a reasonable and not too wide range of X57-X71 (X40-X50 pre-correction).

I think they should have used the lower end of the estimate starting with the fact it was a white-light flare. I would think we could at least gauge the absolute minimum by comparing the other white-light flares. Only problem with that is we've only observed a handful of those.

2 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

Oh yeah, just saw that; didn't expect SolO to update so quickly. It's estimated at X9 indeed:

 

I dont quite understand the mentioned confidence range, can you maybe explain that to me incase you have a bit knowledge about it? Thus said, do you agree on X9?

1 hour ago, Philalethes said:

I'm not that skeptical, as I've read a fair amount of papers making independent estimates and arriving at very similar conclusions. Naturally there'd be a margin to that estimate, but I think X15-X150 is way too wide based on certain known facts about the observations and measurements; I think something closer to X40-X100 would be a much more appropriate range.

I do agree that we can't know for sure, but I don't think it's foolish to try making a reasonable estimate. It is of course also possible for very strong CMEs to be associated with relatively weak flares, like e.g. how the 2012 CME that missed us originated from a fairly low-flux flare in comparison, but certain aspects of the Carrington flare don't really fit that, such as e.g. Carrington's own observation of the white light emission (which was put more weight on in e.g. this paper, using it to estimate the flare at a strength of X80, albeit with a range of X46–X126).

I don't know maybe X15 is not possible, but using Carrington's description of the flare to estimate the x-ray flux seems like it would be extremely imprecise, even more than the stated range would imply. Even if you assume all flares of a given x-ray level look very similar in white light, which I am not sure is the case, we don't have any quantitative data about the flare's white light brightness just a simple description.

I have also seen the Carrington flare estimated by the magnetic crochet it produced. This is probably the least shitty way to try to estimate the flare strength, but when I looked into this it still seems like there would be a large uncertainty. Looking at the crochet of the Nov 4 2003 flare there is a substantial difference between different magnetometers in the western US, the chochet even appears to peak at slightly different times. These magnetometers are all in locations where flare occurred in the middle of the day.

@Philalethes Wait a second, you're telling me that we can estimate the Carrington flare x-ray level with much more precision than solar orbiter can estimate x-ray levels?

To be fair it seems crazy that solar orbiter's confidence intervals are so wide. You would think the x-ray bands that it observes would be well correlated to the GOES band. Is there a problem with the instrument or something?

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by Aten

You know who was on some podcast talking about how the recent cme’s in no should have caused us to have a g5 storm. And of course he attributes this to the weakening magnetic field. I don’t see how that could be the case if our magnetic field has only weakened by ~10% in 200 years. But idk too much about it. He probably doesn’t either but he acts like he knows what he’s talking about. If he’s lying about this crap then he should face some kind of consequence lol. This amount of fear mongering is insane if it’s not real.

1 hour ago, Aten said:

I don't know maybe X15 is not possible, but using Carrington's description of the flare to estimate the x-ray flux seems like it would be extremely imprecise, even more than the stated range would imply.

Well, I just mentioned that paper in passing as an example of using his own description, but I think it's impressive that they arrive at similar estimates as others have from that and certain reasonable assumptions. There are others as well; this one is a very nice summary of a consideration of several aspects of the event, focusing on the magnetic crochets you mention, where they arrive at an estimate of  X60 (X42 pre-correction), and according to them no less than X21 (X15 pre-correction) based on what looks like a very inclusive confidence interval from the plot (the pink dotted line). It was this that was used for the commonly cited X64 estimate, since it also states that it would've been X68 (X48 pre-correction) from a different observatory (presumably the original paper elected to "play it safe" and chose the smaller one of the two).

1 hour ago, Aten said:

Wait a second, you're telling me that we can estimate the Carrington flare x-ray level with much more precision than solar orbiter can estimate x-ray levels?

I don't think so. From the above it was in a 2013 paper by Cliver et al. where they used the original estimates of X60 and X68 to estimate X64, but the range of ±7 seems to have just been to have something to use in comparing it to other flares, I don't get the impression from reading that paper that it was calculated in a statistically sound way. But the range for the 2003 flare seems much more sound, as the measurements that were used for that were a lot more accurate.

1 hour ago, Aten said:

To be fair it seems crazy that solar orbiter's confidence intervals are so wide. You would think the x-ray bands that it observes would be well correlated to the GOES band. Is there a problem with the instrument or something?

I don't think there is any problem; for weaker flares the interval is a lot narrower, but calibrating for stronger flares is probably harder due to needing more such flares to occur at the same time as we observe them with GOES, as well as the fact that there's an attenuator that is inserted when the strongest flares occur. This was briefly discussed here.

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by Philalethes
typo

I guess the fact we have gone way off the rails in this topic doesn’t much matter anymore because 3664 is now officially history…

1 hour ago, MinYoongi said:

I dont quite understand the mentioned confidence range, can you maybe explain that to me incase you have a bit knowledge about it? Thus said, do you agree on X9?

See the above where I touch on it a little. From that other post it's clear that it's not necessarily entirely accurate in that range, since it estimated an X6.3 as an X10, but I can't recall the exact position of it at that point. On the other hand, it made a much better estimate of the X8.8 (but maybe it was partially occulted and actually exaggerated, heh). It would stand to reason that it's calibrated better now than before with the additional data, but I don't really know the ins and outs of that process.

2 minutes ago, Justanerd said:

I guess the fact we have gone way off the rails in this topic doesn’t much matter anymore because 3664 is now officially history…

Heh, yeah, I guess this isn't the topic for the above discussion at all. As you say it doesn't matter much now, but I guess it's better to discuss in some other thread. Pretty sure there are plenty of threads for discussion of historic events at this point.

33 minutes ago, Members only said:

You know who was on some podcast talking about how the recent cme’s in no should have caused us to have a g5 storm. And of course he attributes this to the weakening magnetic field. I don’t see how that could be the case if our magnetic field has only weakened by ~10% in 200 years. But idk too much about it. He probably doesn’t either but he acts like he knows what he’s talking about. If he’s lying about this crap then he should face some kind of consequence lol. This amount of fear mongering is insane if it’s not real.

People like that sadly get around because they attract views despite not being scientists. It's sad, but we gotta ignore them as best as we can.

2 hours ago, Philalethes said:

how the 2012 CME that missed us originated from a fairly low-flux flare in comparison

How strong was that flare? I don't think I have seen an estimate.

Sorry for derailing the thread 😇

16 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

See the above where I touch on it a little. From that other post it's clear that it's not necessarily entirely accurate in that range, since it estimated an X6.3 as an X10, but I can't recall the exact position of it at that point. On the other hand, it made a much better estimate of the X8.8 (but maybe it was partially occulted and actually exaggerated, heh). It would stand to reason that it's calibrated better now than before with the additional data, but I don't really know the ins and outs of that process.

Heh, yeah, I guess this isn't the topic for the above discussion at all. As you say it doesn't matter much now, but I guess it's better to discuss in some other thread. Pretty sure there are plenty of threads for discussion of historic events at this point.

Thank you 

5 hours ago, coinpeace said:

This. I saw Bill Nye on Fox News the other night and he was fear mongering and it was clear he either wasn't well versed or up to date on his info. (Not that he's ever actually been much of a real scientist anyways) The grid has come a long way in shielding against these storms in the last decade alone. Not to mention the "We were 9 days away from being hit" articles about a 2012 cme. Well a carrington rotation is around 27 days and by my math that's about 120° so... you can't miss by a much bigger margin. 

 

Fear mongering is too profitable in an age where clicks make revenue

Unfortunately Bill Nye knows little or nothing about solar activity. I am ashamed that he is from Seattle tbh. Edit. He was a regular on our local show “ almost live” and does have a pretty good knowledge of chemistry IMO.  I feel out of my element here too! If I am he probably is also.  Mike

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by hamateur 1953
Backgrounds

7 hours ago, cgrant26 said:

Hard to tell with this spot. If you recall, it was pretty unremarkable until it got about a quarter of the way across the disk and then it took over for 3663 which had been the X-flare producer before it. As 3663 approached the limb it kind of faded out. 3664 on the other hand did the opposite and seems to be heating up even more as it goes to the far side so it's anybody's guess what it will do. It already set a new record for the most x class flares from a single region so anything is possible.

 

7 hours ago, arjemma said:

What do you base that analysis on?

Some regions survive several rotations. Also there wasn't just one delta, this region had several delta spots. Delta spots come and go but if the region has enough magnetic complexity and stays active there is a good chance that delta spots will continue to pop up. It's very likely that several delta spots is still present in 3664 judging from the activity last two days.

I'm very curious on what data you are using to calculate that this region is likely to decay and not produce more delta spots on the farside.

Sidenote:
Solarham is using JSOC for the farside map, GONG is believed to be a little more accurate. Both of them are just estimates though and NOT facts.

 

5 hours ago, hamateur 1953 said:

For a bit of history as I have done some digging into large sunspot longevity. Mcmath 11976 was tracked for at least four, possibly five revolutions back in 1972. It really kicked out some cool stuff our way!  Edit:. @Philalethes made a very good point I thought in another thread.  As long as the region keeps receiving energy upwelling ( paraphrasing) from the solar dynamics it should continue to produce.  

 

 

The conclusion I come to is that we will have to wait to see what happens once it appears in our vision again, but it is not impossible for 3664 to continue giving us fun (with another name 😅) Thanks for providing data, I definitely think there is hope!!  Fingers crossed..

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by Ester89

1 hour ago, hamateur 1953 said:

Unfortunately Bill Nye knows little or nothing about solar activity. I am ashamed that he is from Seattle tbh. 

I don't recall him ever talking about space weather, and yet... they had him on? Probably to boost ratings and garner attention with a well-known name.

8 hours ago, danderson400 said:

Según lo que vi en Solarham, parece que la mancha del delta no es tan grande.

 

 

delta rarely lasts one rotation, so rest assured, we may see it very differently when we see it again

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by Isatsuki San

22 minutes ago, Bedreamon said:

I don't recall him ever talking about space weather, and yet... they had him on? Probably to boost ratings and garner attention with a well-known name.

Because he's a celebrity talking head, not because he actually knows anything. Plus he was probably a lot cheaper than Neil deGrasse Tyson.

it has just erupted again

8 hours ago, coinpeace said:

This. I saw Bill Nye on Fox News the other night and he was fear mongering and it was clear he either wasn't well versed or up to date on his info. (Not that he's ever actually been much of a real scientist anyways) The grid has come a long way in shielding against these storms in the last decade alone. Not to mention the "We were 9 days away from being hit" articles about a 2012 cme. Well a carrington rotation is around 27 days and by my math that's about 120° so... you can't miss by a much bigger margin. 

 

Fear mongering is too profitable in an age where clicks make revenue

Noooo Bill! he's never been the same since dancing with the stars... If Magic School Bus joins in too I'm going to have to question pretty much my entire scientific elementary school education

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by StargazingHippy

"Shear" Joy!
So, I can vaguely recall a number of posts regarding AR3664 that focused on the shear that was being generated in this area.  If I remember correctly, the context was mostly about results of that shearing and perhaps a couple very good illustrations of the integrated complexity.  However, I don't recollect conclusive explanations as to why shear was generated or if related periods of time that the dynamics were expected to last.  Are there clear physics that can predict shear generation and domination and is it common for an area to continue to exhibit those forces over a period of weeks?  Apologies if this has been explained previously... but I've got a feeling that these forces have been significantly contributing to the repeated X flaring we have witnessed and am a bit curious.

8 minutes ago, Pegasus51 said:

"Shear" Joy!
So, I can vaguely recall a number of posts regarding AR3664 that focused on the shear that was being generated in this area.  If I remember correctly, the context was mostly about results of that shearing and perhaps a couple very good illustrations of the integrated complexity.  However, I don't recollect conclusive explanations as to why shear was generated or if related periods of time that the dynamics were expected to last.  Are there clear physics that can predict shear generation and domination and is it common for an area to continue to exhibit those forces over a period of weeks?  Apologies if this has been explained previously... but I've got a feeling that these forces have been significantly contributing to the repeated X flaring we have witnessed and am a bit curious.

Here is a link for a study on shear and reconnection 🙂

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/acebeb

2 hours ago, Parabolic said:

Here is a link for a study on shear and reconnection 🙂

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/acebeb

Thanks... will attempt to circumvent their cookie insertion demand.  Looked interesting during my brief glimpse. best to you

Quick copy and notebook paste worked this last time... will read and digest.  thanks Parabolic!

Just grabbed their collisional shearing article as well

3 minutes ago, danderson400 said:

I'm still kind of nervous that this region will come back and give us a killshot.

Well, do us a favor and stop posting about it here over and over again, especially not using that nonsensical terminology that we all know where originates. We've already addressed it countless times already, so you're not really serving any purpose by repeating it again and again. Instead, reread all the hundreds of posts people have written to address such concerns in this and other threads over the last week.

The region shot another CME on the farside of the Sun. Let's see how many there will be on the farside

4 minutes ago, Misaka said:

The region shot another CME on the farside of the Sun. Let's see how many there will be on the farside

the 18UTC one?

1 hour ago, MinYoongi said:

the 18UTC one?

Note: CME seen to the W in STEREO COR2A, not yet observed in SOHO LASCO due to a lengthy planned data gap that will end at 2024-05-17T02:10Z. The source is far-sided around the west limb, and very likely old AR 3664, estimated to be located around W120 at this time. Best observed as fieldline movement and an EUV wave starting around 2024-05-16T13:34Z in SDO AIA 171/193/211 and GOES SUVI 284.