Jump to content

Could Cycle 25 be categorized as "historical"?


Carrington45X

Recommended Posts

With all the recent extreme solar activity, it seems that Cycle 25 is nigh-exponentially more productive than predicted at its start. So, with that in mind, could Cycle 25 be considered a historical high in solar activity since the storms of 2003? Could Cycle 25 increase in productivity? What are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Carrington45X said:

With all the recent extreme solar activity, it seems that Cycle 25 is nigh-exponentially more productive than predicted at its start. So, with that in mind, could Cycle 25 be considered a historical high in solar activity since the storms of 2003? Could Cycle 25 increase in productivity? What are your thoughts?

You can go back and view past solar cycles and compare them along side each other. That being said, SC25 has been pretty average so far. Maybe even slightly below average.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minuten geleden, Carrington45X zei:

 

With all the recent extreme solar activity

 

Recent activity wasn’t extreme, just normal solar activity for the years around solar activity. Extreme solar activity would by X10+ solar flare which we haven’t seen in last period.

look on our solar cycle progression page where you can find some nice graphs and be able to compare solar cycles. This cycle is just a more normal one, still lower than SC23 (modern max)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Carrington45X said:

With all the recent extreme solar activity, it seems that Cycle 25 is nigh-exponentially more productive than predicted at its start. So, with that in mind, could Cycle 25 be considered a historical high in solar activity since the storms of 2003? Could Cycle 25 increase in productivity? What are your thoughts?

Still a bit under SC 23, which is only 2 cycles previous. 

 

Averages tend to obscure singular events. This last X flare/CME and the Aurora was historic to me. I doubt the Aurora will come to my back porch again, especially while cooking steamed hams. 

Edited by Archmonoth
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Carrington45X said:

With all the recent extreme solar activity, it seems that Cycle 25 is nigh-exponentially more productive than predicted at its start. So, with that in mind, could Cycle 25 be considered a historical high in solar activity since the storms of 2003? Could Cycle 25 increase in productivity? What are your thoughts?

I mean considering the last solar storm this big was in 2003 I would consider it historic, also due to the fact minor x class flares were able to cause such a event verses the x15 - x20 that caused the 2003 Halloween storms. 

Edited by Tylerjt1005
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, WhereingtonEvent said:

While the intensity of the solar cycles may not have been historically unprecedented, the widespread visibility and accessibility of the aurora could still make it a historic event. 

it is not historic, to be honest. i accept your optimism but -412 dst is not something historical + it didn't cause any issues with electricity etc

Edited by tniickck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2024 at 1:32 PM, Sam Warfel said:

This was a decently strong storm from some pretty darn minor X-flares.  I wouldn't really catalog either as "historic."  Honestly, the only reason it feels historic (strongest in 20 years) is because SC24 was so weak and did not produce a G5-level storm.  So really, this is normal, and the "historic" part is how weak SC24 was.

For reference, SC23 had 13 days with G5-level storming.

I really hope SC25 has more to give...

5 hours ago, danderson400 said:

The thing about it is that if that CME had been a day or two later, then no G5.

So it was a case of "right place, right time"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2024 at 1:32 PM, Sam Warfel said:

This was a decently strong storm from some pretty darn minor X-flares.  I wouldn't really catalog either as "historic."  Honestly, the only reason it feels historic (strongest in 20 years) is because SC24 was so weak and did not produce a G5-level storm.  So really, this is normal, and the "historic" part is how weak SC24 was.

For reference, SC23 had 13 days with G5-level storming.

There was the July 2012 CME that could've been a G5 storm, but it missed so I dunno if that counts.

Granted, there's been papers saying it would've been as potentially destructive as 1859, so maybe it missing was good? 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked @Philalethessummary above. There is a funny irony here that engineers these days are much more aware of.  During brief ground current inductions safety systems have tripped. These brief events are actually what has caused prior issues with power grids in the past.  Typically they “ ride it out” when possible, rather than relying entirely on the automatic shutdown processes inherent with earlier evolving technology. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2024 at 9:08 PM, Bedreamon said:

There was the July 2012 CME that could've been a G5 storm, but it missed so I dunno if that counts.

Granted, there's been papers saying it would've been as potentially destructive as 1859, so maybe it missing was good?

Where can I find those papers? I’m interested in reading them 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, KoalaCombatSystems said:

Where can I find those papers? I’m interested in reading them 

There's a thread where there was some discussion of the 2012 CME here, would probably be a better place to discuss it. There's some information there already, but I know of some papers that I've come across about it that I could share there if you'd like. I wouldn't use words like "destructive" though, that's almost invariably a lot more speculative and judgmental than looking more objectively at the data. It was certainly a really powerful CME though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have followed along with this forum and site for over a year now, as a total newbie to anything to do with space. I do find it easier to read through old forum threads than ask what are (probably) my very obvious amateur questions. I’ve learned so much from reading everything on here. Just want to say how amazing and informative and patient with us newbies all the regulars and experts are, so thanks a lot! 🫡👏🏻 (and thanks for answering this threads question too!). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2024 at 9:05 AM, Vancanneyt Sander said:

Recent activity wasn’t extreme, just normal solar activity for the years around solar activity. Extreme solar activity would by X10+ solar flare which we haven’t seen in last period.

 

It looks like we had a pretty significant flare after the sunspot turned to the other side. Check out the CME that the far side sunspot sent out the other day and tell me that it wasn’t X10+
 

I’m just interested in whether it has more to give when it turns back around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jake said:

It looks like we had a pretty significant flare after the sunspot turned to the other side. Check out the CME that the far side sunspot sent out the other day and tell me that it wasn’t X10+
 

I’m just interested in whether it has more to give when it turns back around. 

We discussed that CME and flare a bit in the 3664 topic if you're interested (probably better to continue any discussion about it there). SolO's STIX instrument measured it at a probable X12, but it's not necessarily entirely accurate for very strong flares, and has a fairly large margin of error, so it's not unthinkable that it might actually have been smaller than X10.

It should be noted that Sander wrote that quite a few days before that CME, and it did look like it was calming down a bit at that point. Even now there hasn't been much to see after that one, so it's hard to say.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historic geomagnetic storm ≠ historic solar cycle

As others have pointed out, SC25 only seems significant because SC24 wasn't. (SC24 could even be considered historical for how inactive it was)

As has also been pointed out, our recent G5 solar storm really isn't all that historical either. It's always hard to consider cycles or events normal when they only tend to occur every 11 years, especially when the previous cycle was such an under-performer. Factor in how our technology to observe and record has made such huge advances in those time frames and it's understandable how people can feel like this is all new and unprecedented but it really isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.