Jump to content

X-flares from sc24 tied?


Go to solution Solved by Marcel de Bont,

Recommended Posts

Based on SolarHam, today we had the "And with this now being the 49th X-Flare of the current solar cycle, we have tied the X-Flare total from the previous solar cycle 24". 

I was wondering how accurate this statement is. 

Going on swl's 'Top 50 solar flares'  page and checking on sc24, I can see at least 50 X flares, the 50th largest one being X1.42. So it is definitely not 49. To my mind, it is impossible that the next largest one in an 11 year period (the 51st largest one) was smaller than X. There must have been at least a few flares between X1 and X1.42. Also on the same page but this time looking about sc25, I can see 50 X class flares, 50th one being X1 (makes sense) but still not 49 like SolarHam  mentios. Also the latest flare is not yet recorded on this page so it's at least 51. 

Is there a source where we can see the numbers of M and X flares from each cycle so we can compare? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html

Disable the C and M flares in the yearly solar flare graph there.

I haven't added them up but we are for sure not tied with SC24 yet.

I think SolarHam forgot that the flux measurements were adjusted from the old GOES satellites to the new one's. High level M flares during the previous cycle are X-class now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to talk to Solarham about this, but sadly got mocked by him and his community. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Marcel de Bont said:

 

I think SolarHam forgot that the flux measurements were adjusted from the old GOES satellites to the new one's. High level M flares during the previous cycle are X-class now.

This is true, as in the Tweet i shared above.He presents the flare classes with the values that were first reported. But it is certainly misleading to include outdated data in a comparison and highlight the extreme discrepancies without informing readers why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MinYoongi said:

I tried to talk to Solarham about this, but sadly got mocked by him and his community. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Marcel de Bont said:

https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html

Disable the C and M flares in the yearly solar flare graph there.

I haven't added them up but we are for sure not tied with SC24 yet.

I think SolarHam forgot that the flux measurements were adjusted from the old GOES satellites to the new one's. High level M flares during the previous cycle are X-class now.

So there won't be any adjustments for sc25 accordingly? If there are, it might be more fair to use the initial measurements so that we compare similar things. If not, then the comparison he does is not correct at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minuten geleden, MinYoongi zei:

I tried to talk to Solarham about this, but sadly got mocked by him and his community. 

I am sorry to hear that.

Happy to see Ryan French trying to educate people on this. It is an easy mistake to make.

It was a massive undertaking but our archive and data is as accurate as they get. All the old flares and X-ray fluxes are adjusted and without bragging I can say it is the best place for historical data anyone can find. I am sure we are not even close to reaching the amount of X-flares of SC24.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Solution
1 minuut geleden, Sotiris Konstantis zei:

So there won't be any adjustments for sc25 accordingly? If there are, it might be more fair to use the initial measurements so that we compare similar things. If not, then the comparison he does is not correct at all.

There is no need to adjust anything for SC25. The data you and we get from GOES is the new benchmark. All of the data prior to SC25 had to be adjusted which is what we did and some people seem to not have done or forgotten to take into account.

1 minuut geleden, Misaka zei:

SC24: 76 X-Flares

SC25: 51 X-Flares

No, we haven't overtaken the last cycle yet.

Thanks Misaka. We can always count on you!

More info on our adjustments.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Looking at the chart here 

image.png.4545e8dd83b7d19d45c8f31b9035a55c.png

SC25 (so far)

X: 49

M: 840

 

 

SC24

X: 76

M: 1138

 

 

SC23

X: 180

M: 2918

 

Most active years since 1997:

X: 

2001 (34) 

2001 and 2024 (27)

M: 

2001 (498)

2002 (388)

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Marcel de Bont said:

There is no need to adjust anything for SC25. The data you and we get from GOES is the new benchmark. All of the data prior to SC25 had to be adjusted which is what we did and some people seem to not have done or forgotten to take into account.

Yes it seems to be a very easy mistake to make.

Thanks for clearing this up in my mind.

Edited by Sotiris Konstantis
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Marcel de Bont said:

I am sorry to hear that.

Happy to see Ryan French trying to educate people on this. It is an easy mistake to make.

It was a massive undertaking but our archive and data is as accurate as they get. All the old flares and X-ray fluxes are adjusted and without bragging I can say it is the best place for historical data anyone can find. I am sure we are not even close to reaching the amount of X-flares of SC24.

The number of X FLARE is not really Relevant ! I m not a solar physicist but its not the number that must be taken into account ! More the time of x flare, the direction , eruptive or not. Only one strong X flare has the power of 20-50 small x flares.

What they analyse in ICE CAP is more relavant !  The scientists examined ice from two core samples taken from Greenland. They noted a spike of radioactive beryllium-10 and chlorine-36 about 2,610 years ago. "Carrington event" is not so strong ! 

NB / my english is bad sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have fully appreciation for all the work that went into adjusting the measurements here, IMO it is very unfortunate that when adjusting the data, the original measurements were completely deleted, not even leaving them in f.e. a separate column for quick location with some note that they are measurements as GOES originally measured them. Many valuable publications on the web will not do this either, which creates unnecessary confusion and difficulty in various types of comparisons and broadly understood research. But that's just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

While I have fully appreciation for all the work that went into adjusting the measurements here, IMO it is very unfortunate that when adjusting the data, the original measurements were completely deleted, not even leaving them in f.e. a separate column for quick location with some note that they are measurements as GOES originally measured them. Many valuable publications on the web will not do this either, which creates unnecessary confusion and difficulty in various types of comparisons and broadly understood research. But that's just my opinion.

I get what you are saying. The truth is that we don't have a standard when it comes to the instrument calibration on the satellites. This means that the next generation of satellites might need adjustment as well. It would be nice to have a database of the values before the adjustment for sure but it will take up database space.

I don't know what the best approach is. I just wished there were a standard 😕 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Misaka said:

SC24: 76 X-Flares

SC25: 51 X-Flares

No, we haven't overtaken the last cycle yet.

Did you count this out year by year, or is there a summary of that data somewhere?

1 hour ago, Mangue123 said:

The number of X FLARE is not really Relevant ! I m not a solar physicist but its not the number that must be taken into account ! More the time of x flare, the direction , eruptive or not. Only one strong X flare has the power of 20-50 small x flares.

The number of X-flares in and of itself is definitely something that is valuable to consider, as it will be an indication of how strong the cycle is overall. Generally speaking, cycles that have more X-flares in total will also have more very strong X-flares and more CMEs directed towards us. It's essentially one of many different proxies of Solar activity.

54 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

While I have fully appreciation for all the work that went into adjusting the measurements here, IMO it is very unfortunate that when adjusting the data, the original measurements were completely deleted, not even leaving them in f.e. a separate column for quick location with some note that they are measurements as GOES originally measured them. Many valuable publications on the web will not do this either, which creates unnecessary confusion and difficulty in various types of comparisons and broadly understood research. But that's just my opinion.

Those values were not how they were actually measured by the satellite itself, it was the measured values that had been applied a correction to because it was thought to be necessary, but now it's been found that the measurements were actually very accurate all along and in agreement with contemporary measurements. In other words, it was not so much adjusting measured values, but removing erroneous adjustments. What you're seeing now is in agreement with the actual measured values of the satellites themselves. You can read about this here:

Quote

History and Background on the XRS “Correction Factor”:

For decades, the Space Weather Prediction Center has been adjusting the GOES XRS data downward by about 30%. There was a shift in the XRS data that occurred with the launch of GOES 8 in 1994. To maintain continuity with early XRS data, the GOES 8 XRS data (and all subsequent XRS data) were scaled downward by a pair of correction factors to match the GOES 7 and earlier data. The Space Weather Prediction Center is removing these correction factors from the GOES 16 XRS data and all subsequent XRS data from GOES satellites.

The GOES 16-17 XRS were calibrated at the NIST calibration facility and there is confidence in the values provided by the new GOES. These calibrated data confirm that the correction factors make the XRS data less accurate. The actual XRS measurements on GOES 16 agree very well with the uncorrected XRS values from earlier satellites.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I just realized that out of the 49 X class flares this cycle, the 20 (more than 40%) were during May 2024. In the last 30 days, we've had 21 X class flares!

During the last 27 years, we've had 305 X class flares (adjusted number). 21 of them were in the last 30 days. That's 6.88% of the total solar flares since 1997 in just one month (0.3% of the period from 1997 to today!) 

Of course all that is mainly thanks to AR3664 & AR3697 which is responsible for 14 out of the 21 flares, but even if we take these regions out we still have 7 X class flares in the last 30 days!

Edited by Sotiris Konstantis
  • Cool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Philalethes said:

Those values were not how they were actually measured by the satellite itself, it was the measured values that had been applied a correction to because it was thought to be necessary, but now it's been found that the measurements were actually very accurate all along and in agreement with contemporary measurements. In other words, it was not so much adjusting measured values, but removing erroneous adjustments. What you're seeing now is in agreement with the actual measured values of the satellites themselves. You can read about this here:

 

It seems so, but that's all until it is possible to specify earlier observations even more precisely. In x years it may turn out that what we currently have as the correct data will again require correction. I understand and accept this, but it doesn't change the fact that removing all the original data of earlier measured flares will cause (this is already happening and not only among laymen) confusion, multiply discrepancies in what is available on the Internet and a kind of alienation of this database in comparison to 99.99% of publications available online, including scientific ones, which will certainly not be updated because over the years there has simply been too much of it.

1 hour ago, arjemma said:

I get what you are saying. The truth is that we don't have a standard when it comes to the instrument calibration on the satellites. This means that the next generation of satellites might need adjustment as well. It would be nice to have a database of the values before the adjustment for sure but it will take up database space.

I don't know what the best approach is. I just wished there were a standard 😕 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

It seems so, but that's all until it is possible to specify earlier observations even more precisely. In x years it may turn out that what we currently have as the correct data will again require correction.

The problem with that reasoning is that the calibration process can't be improved upon indefinitely, it reaches a limit, and the current calibration methods are already approximating that limit. It's true that we might improve the accuracy some more, but it's never going to be anywhere close to by that much. The problem here was that the data from GOES-8 on was adjusted down to match previous measurements, when instead they should have adjusted the previous measurements up (as we did now) to match the better newer measurements. Turns out that even contemporary calibration processes already are so accurate that the actual measurements from GOES-8 and onward were all in extremely close agreement with what we measure today.

11 minutes ago, AndrewB said:

I understand and accept this, but it doesn't change the fact that removing all the original data of earlier measured flares will cause (this is already happening and not only among laymen) confusion, multiply discrepancies in what is available on the Internet and a kind of alienation of this database in comparison to 99.99% of publications available online, including scientific ones, which will certainly not be updated because over the years there has simply been too much of it.

I understand your objection and agree with the general sentiment, but it bears noting again that that data was not the actual measurements, that data had already been (erroneously) adjusted for the above reasons. I do agree that it would be a decent idea to provide a note on the corrected values about them having been erroneously adjusted in the past, and maybe even the pre-correction value (although that's something people can also easily check themselves provided the fact that such a correction was made), so that people referencing such older publications as you mention (which I have indeed come across myself, and I do indeed find myself having to state what's pre- and post-correction for the sake of clarity) can get an explicit explanation for the divergence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Philalethes said:

Did you count this out year by year, or is there a summary of that data somewhere?

I counted it year by year.

  • Cool 1
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.