What worries me is this sunspot comes back and it does a big CME and it affects the grid. i hope it decays more on farside.

47 minutes ago, Sotiris Konstantis said:

СоларХэм упомянул, что это 12-я рентгеновская вспышка в этом регионе, в то время как в архиве она должна быть 11-й. Кто бы мог подумать, что наступит день, когда мы сбились со счета Иксам.

Eh, dear friend, will there be anything else ahead, we are just entering the "turbulence zone" (figuratively speaking), the next six months (or rather 8 months) will be the middle of this solar cycle. Mark my words, that's how it will be. Have a nice "flight" to all of us, dear friends! Your stewardess Maitreya. ✈️🙏

Based on what i saw on solarham, it looks like the delta spot isn't as big.

 

 

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by danderson400

2 minutes ago, danderson400 said:

Based on what i saw on solarham, it looks like the delta spot isn't as big.

 

 

I don’t think you’re looking at the right thing. We cannot see the region anymore. We can get it’s X-rays measured because it’s still nearby. But there’s no telling (besides flaring) how many and how big deltas are.

40 minutes ago, danderson400 said:

What worries me is this sunspot comes back and it does a big CME and it affects the grid. i hope it decays more on farside.

No need to worry. 

My advice to you is to block any social media account that is talking about a tech or grid collapse. We are okay, and we will be okay.

I really hope that this region stays this active and come back giving us more aurora. Sadly it was cloudy here on May 10 so I missed the aurroa 

4 minutes ago, danderson400 said:

You can see the sunspot here and that it's stilling decaying, the delta spot has shrunk a bit.

 

Farside Watch (SolarHam)

We can't know that for certainty. We actually have no idea how the delta's has been holding up the last days because of foreshortening. Since we still had several X-flares I'm sure the deltas are still holding. The farside map is just a prognosis/guess and not fact. So no, we don't know if the deltas (or region overall) has been decaying or not. As soon as there is foreshortening it's hard to do an accurate estimate of the magnetic complexity of a region.

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by arjemma

How I wish this region had been facing the earth since yesterday. It's not likely to stay that way until it faces us again, is it?

4 minutes ago, Ester89 said:

How I wish this region had been facing the earth since yesterday. It's not likely to stay that way until it faces us again, is it?

It likely won't be this active in 13 days. The delta will likely be gone by that point, and maybe no as much active.

9 minutes ago, Ester89 said:

How I wish this region had been facing the earth since yesterday. It's not likely to stay that way until it faces us again, is it?

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.

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by cgrant26

2 minutes 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.

But on the other hand, that means it maybe not be as active when it comes back to the solar disk.

13 minutes ago, danderson400 said:

It likely won't be this active in 13 days. The delta will likely be gone by that point, and maybe no as much active.

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.

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by arjemma
Sidenote added

Just my hunch i guess.

14 hours ago, Philalethes said:

The most commonly cited estimated for the Carrington flare that produced the CME is X64 in current terms. A CME of that caliber must be very fast and dense (the Carrington event CME is estimated at an average transit speed of ~2400 km/s).

The X8 flare would not be in the category as the Carrington flare, no?

Hello, technically not new to SWL as I've been watching activity on the site for more than 3 years. But the recent storm and subsequent aurora prompted to finally join in the forums. It's a rare opportunity to witness such a thing when you're ability to visit the more northern reaches of the world is limited. From my observations though this is a friendly and knowledgeable community and I look forward to being a more active part of it

1 hour 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.

Remember, even though 3664 on the other hand did the opposite and seems to be heating up even more, remember that sunspots can lose more area on the farside, as more flaring can (and it has happened before) weaken a sunspot. it can't flare every day, so that where i'm kind of worried about a another G5 event (although i doubt it would be a Carrington type CME).

2 hours ago, danderson400 said:

What worries me is this sunspot comes back and it does a big CME and it affects the grid. i hope it decays more on farside.

take some medicine and block social media accounts that are fearmongers

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by tniickck

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.  

2 hours ago, Ester89 said:

How I wish this region had been facing the earth since yesterday. It's not likely to stay that way until it faces us again, is it?

 

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by hamateur 1953
Afterthoughts

2 minutes ago, tniickck said:

take some medicine and block social media accounts that are fearmongers

How many times i've seen fearmongers say that this CME is the big one when 9 times out of 10 it's wrong? I remember 2371 in the last cycle, and the x8 in 2017, caused me to block those folks for  weeks on end thinking it's the big one. I'll make sure it's not as big in 13 days then do that.

11 minuten geleden, danderson400 zei:

How many times i've seen fearmongers say that this CME is the big one when 9 times out of 10 it's wrong? I remember 2371 in the last cycle, and the x8 in 2017, caused me to block those folks for  weeks on end thinking it's the big one. I'll make sure it's not as big in 13 days then do that.

You mean 10 out of 10 times. Friend, we just had the first G5 geomagnetic storm since 2003 and one of the strongest storms in modern history. What more evidence do you need that nothing serious is going to happen. Don't watch or follow unreliable sources and enjoy life.

27 minutes ago, Marcel de Bont said:

 Какие еще доказательства того, что ничего серьезного не произойдет, вам нужны. Не смотрите и не следуйте ненадежным источникам и наслаждайтесь жизнью.

And when our ship "Titanic" = planet Earth "sinks" into the solar plasma, light a cigar and take a sip of whiskey from a glass. Amen, dear friend. (this is a joke)🙏

47 minutes ago, Marcel de Bont said:

You mean 10 out of 10 times. Friend, we just had the first G5 geomagnetic storm since 2003 and one of the strongest storms in modern history. What more evidence do you need that nothing serious is going to happen. Don't watch or follow unreliable sources and enjoy life.

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

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by coinpeace

4 hours ago, danderson400 said:

What worries me is this sunspot comes back and it does a big CME and it affects the grid. i hope it decays more on farside.

Bro exactly different mind lmao. I hope we get hit sooooo hard.

16 hours ago, Philalethes said:

The most commonly cited estimated for the Carrington flare that produced the CME is X64 in current terms. A CME of that caliber must be very fast and dense (the Carrington event CME is estimated at an average transit speed of ~2400 km/s).

I am very skeptical of estimates of the x-ray flux of the Carrington event flare. There is a pretty wide range of estimates for the strength of the Nov 4 2003 flare, I think I have seen X25 to X45. If we can't accurately determine the strength of the strongest flares in the 21st century it seems foolish to try to estimate 19th century flares. Obviously the Carrington flare was very strong, but it is hard to say anything beyond that. Was it X15 or X150? Who knows.

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by Aten

27 minutes ago, coinpeace said:

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

So very, very true. I blocked replies on Twitter and filtered my feed for a reason.

Also, I've always wondered where the 9 days statistics comes from in regards to the July 2012 CME. 🤔

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by Bedreamon

Edit. A different spot this time

Edited May 15, 20241 yr by cgrant26

2 minutes ago, Aten said:

I am very skeptical of estimates of the x-ray flux of the Carrington event flare.

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).

8 minutes ago, Aten said:

There is a pretty wide range of estimates for the strength of the Nov 4 2003 flare, I think I have seen X25 to X45.

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).

6 hours ago, Philalethes said:

In this case we observed it at X8.8 from our side too though, so it's probably reasonably accurate, maybe even very slightly underestimating it.

But the point about the margin is true, people definitely shouldn't look at the upper bound and think "yep, that must have been an X20!"