What effects would happen if a sunspot formed/ended up in a CH HSS, if anything (other than the obvious of enhanced CME speed potential, i assume)

On 11/1/2024 at 3:25 PM, Solarflare said:

When a filament erupts from the sun and makes a CME does the sun get a bit smaller 

I sense familiar usernames...XD

2 hours ago, Mantis said:

What effects would happen if a sunspot formed/ended up in a CH HSS, if anything (other than the obvious of enhanced CME speed potential, i assume)

Like an actual sunspot in the middle of a coronal hole? Nothing, because that will never happen. Sunspots can’t form inside of a CH there can be activity inside, like faint flashes that appear to be sunspots but those are not sunspots. A CH is exactly how it sounds. A hole down to the suns corona where there is no magnetic connection to anything. That’s why they form. Sunspots are a completely different phenomenon and develop in the sun’s surface or close to it.  Filament is the most outer part. Forgot exactly how the layers go off the top of my head.

Edited November 14, 2024Nov 14 by JacupV

3 hours ago, Mantis said:

What effects would happen if a sunspot formed/ended up in a CH HSS, if anything (other than the obvious of enhanced CME speed potential, i assume)

We did have this weird thing that looked like a sea anemone within a CH a few years ago though.  Developed or maybe was an artifact, I dunno.  However it persisted for some time.  Looked creepy. 

Edited November 15, 2024Nov 15 by hamateur 1953
Left out CH

Ok, I will ask something stupid (obvious) (after being promoted to a rookie, LOL). I assume the NE of the US is in a better position to see the auroras than, for example, the same latitude in Europe or Asia because the geomagnetic pole (defined by the dipole model) "tilts towards" the NE of the US. Thus, Boston, for example, is in a better position than, e. g., Seattle or Vancouver despite these two cities having a higher latitude. Correct or baloney?

Dunno about Europe but you nailed Seattle cold. It’s also cold and wet but that doesn’t have anything to do with space weather.  I think @libmar96 was working on a map of geography vs magnetic relationships awhile back btw.  

Edited November 15, 2024Nov 15 by hamateur 1953

4 hours ago, JacupV said:

Like an actual sunspot in the middle of a coronal hole? Nothing, because that will never happen. Sunspots can’t form inside of a CH there can be activity inside, like faint flashes that appear to be sunspots but those are not sunspots. A CH is exactly how it sounds. A hole down to the suns corona where there is no magnetic connection to anything. That’s why they form. Sunspots are a completely different phenomenon and develop in the sun’s surface or close to it.  Filament is the most outer part. Forgot exactly how the layers go off the top of my head.

I was gonna say "(if thats even possible)" at the end, but i assumed it had to be. Well thats interesting.

5 hours ago, JessicaF said:

Ok, I will ask something stupid (obvious) (after being promoted to a rookie, LOL). I assume the NE of the US is in a better position to see the auroras than, for example, the same latitude in Europe or Asia because the geomagnetic pole (defined by the dipole model) "tilts towards" the NE of the US. Thus, Boston, for example, is in a better position than, e. g., Seattle or Vancouver despite these two cities having a higher latitude. Correct or baloney?

Yep, very much correct, it's primarily the geomagnetic latitude which matters when it comes to the aurora; there is even some additional unevenness to the field in terms of what's called the "quasi-dipole latitude", since the field is more complex than a perfect dipole, but that's not as significant.

7 hours ago, JessicaF said:

Ok, I will ask something stupid (obvious) (after being promoted to a rookie, LOL). I assume the NE of the US is in a better position to see the auroras than, for example, the same latitude in Europe or Asia because the geomagnetic pole (defined by the dipole model) "tilts towards" the NE of the US. Thus, Boston, for example, is in a better position than, e. g., Seattle or Vancouver despite these two cities having a higher latitude. Correct or baloney?

I was also going to mention Ovation a program easily found that runs based on Kp predictions about one hour in advance if memory serves me right   It really shows the pronounced dive towards equatorial regions present in our midwest. 

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/aurora-30-minute-forecast

Edited November 15, 2024Nov 15 by hamateur 1953

Why does no one seem to know what that bright yellow flame on the top left side of the Sun, which has been growing and glowing for over 5 days now, is?

 

I would have thought that it's kind of weird to have a continuous spume of plasma or whatever coming out of one region of the Sun for a whole week, myself, but then I am quite new at all this 😋

Edited November 15, 2024Nov 15 by Stella

36 minutes ago, Stella said:

Why does no one seem to know what that bright yellow flame on the top left side of the Sun, which has been growing and glowing for over 5 days now, is?

 

I would have thought that it's kind of weird to have a continuous spume of plasma or whatever coming out of one region of the Sun for a whole week, myself, but then I am quite new at all this 😋

It’s basically just solar maximum being solar maximum. Go back and watch the SOHO and you can watch it originate. Believe it was a filament lift off earlier this week. Now it’s just a “bright” region. Looks very active but it’s actually kinda not. LASCO picks up on visible light so just because it’s that bright doesn’t exactly mean anything. 

Obscure question:

Is SWL dashboard(s) obtaining the Bt/Bz numbers by pulling the json files from the NOAA products directory?

20 hours ago, JacupV said:

It’s basically just solar maximum being solar maximum. Go back and watch the SOHO and you can watch it originate. Believe it was a filament lift off earlier this week. Now it’s just a “bright” region. Looks very active but it’s actually kinda not. LASCO picks up on visible light so just because it’s that bright doesn’t exactly mean anything. 

Yes I've been watching it since it appeared on I believe Sunday? Other bright zones got much brighter or dimmer but this one is almost static. But seems to keep brightening. I guess I just wondered if there was a term for that and how it's classified, whatever is going on up there!

Interesting question, what is the strongest proton storm a filament eruption has caused ? 

17 hours ago, Stella said:

Yes I've been watching it since it appeared on I believe Sunday? Other bright zones got much brighter or dimmer but this one is almost static. But seems to keep brightening. I guess I just wondered if there was a term for that and how it's classified, whatever is going on up there!

Assuming that it is coincidental with this spray that has been going on (?) for some time.  Solar Ham has a great picture of it up.  Although we also are now beginning to see other activities in the north, perhaps closer to the latitude region you’re viewing.  All in all good news on the horizon imho.  Time will tell. 

https://solarham.com/

Hi all,

I know that the correlation between Solar Activity and Global Warming is not confirmet by the Science, but I want to better understand. Please don't think I don't trust in science, I'm true enthusiast of physics and quantum theory.

Yesterday I found the content like this (Wikipedia - yes, I know it's not the best source to read about serious matters, but still some source). I'm quoting: "Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using carbon-14 and beryllium-10 isotope ratios. The level of solar activity beginning in the 1940s is exceptional – the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period). The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years. Almost all earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode."

When I'm looking on SWL charts showing historical cycles from the very beinning (1749)I don't see any notable increasing beginned in 1940s, but in the same Wikipedia article I see also a chart shows "Solar Activity Events" and this chart shows huge increase in Century XX. (Images added to the post)

I understand that "Solar Activity Events" means CMEs, filaments eruptions ect., not sunspots numbers/amount. I also understand the correlation beetween susnpots numbers/amount and Solar Activity Events exist, but many sunspots still does not a guarantee of CME or filament eruption directed Earth.

Seemingly, there is a correlation beetween Solar Activity Events and Global Warming. Something like boiling water in a pot. Some time is needed to transfer energy from the torch to the water. Water does not start boiling immediately after increasing the power, but if we increase the power even a little bit for a long time the water will slowly become warmer.

When I comapare the Average Global Temperature and Solar Activity in SC24 I notice that in this time period Global Warming slowed down. SC24 was not very active for us - people living on the Earth right now - but maybe was still very active when we compare to the historical data (12 000 years). 

It's a little bit difficult for me to write about so advanced things in foreign language, but I hope all of you know what I mean

Summary: Does the correlation beetween Solar Activity Events (especially directed Earth) and Global Warming could really exist?

Have a nice weekend guys and gals and I wish you X Flare!

 

12 hours ago, Przemysław said:

Hi all,

I know that the correlation between Solar Activity and Global Warming is not confirmet by the Science, but I want to better understand. Please don't think I don't trust in science, I'm true enthusiast of physics and quantum theory.

Yesterday I found the content like this (Wikipedia - yes, I know it's not the best source to read about serious matters, but still some source). I'm quoting: "Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using carbon-14 and beryllium-10 isotope ratios. The level of solar activity beginning in the 1940s is exceptional – the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period). The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years. Almost all earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode."

When I'm looking on SWL charts showing historical cycles from the very beinning (1749)I don't see any notable increasing beginned in 1940s, but in the same Wikipedia article I see also a chart shows "Solar Activity Events" and this chart shows huge increase in Century XX. (Images added to the post)

I understand that "Solar Activity Events" means CMEs, filaments eruptions ect., not sunspots numbers/amount. I also understand the correlation beetween susnpots numbers/amount and Solar Activity Events exist, but many sunspots still does not a guarantee of CME or filament eruption directed Earth.

Seemingly, there is a correlation beetween Solar Activity Events and Global Warming. Something like boiling water in a pot. Some time is needed to transfer energy from the torch to the water. Water does not start boiling immediately after increasing the power, but if we increase the power even a little bit for a long time the water will slowly become warmer.

When I comapare the Average Global Temperature and Solar Activity in SC24 I notice that in this time period Global Warming slowed down. SC24 was not very active for us - people living on the Earth right now - but maybe was still very active when we compare to the historical data (12 000 years). 

It's a little bit difficult for me to write about so advanced things in foreign language, but I hope all of you know what I mean

Summary: Does the correlation beetween Solar Activity Events (especially directed Earth) and Global Warming could really exist?

Have a nice weekend guys and gals and I wish you X Flare!

 

First and foremost I'd be very wary of such long-term reconstructions, at least until they've gone through the same scientific scrutiny as e.g. long-term temperature and carbon dioxide records have.

That being said, if we do accept it for the sake of hypothesis, the authors of the papers cited there also mention that the activity is "unique" only since a bit over 1000 years ago (as also evidenced by the plot you show); as they write here:

Quote

We conclude that the high level of solar activity since the 1940s is unique since the year 850.

Also, it seems a bit strange to me that they'd simply say "since the 1940s", because it's a fairly well established fact that activity has been going down for most of that time since it had a big peak with SC19 around 1960. I haven't looked too closely at their method, but since they're basing it on isotopes it's plausible that the spike they're seeing is from that period of high activity, not from the more recent weaker cycles.

As such, and also when looking more closely into the causes of global warming, it becomes quite clear that solar activity isn't the cause at all. In fact, we can clearly observe how the two diverge quite strongly over roughly the time period in question:

In an article about their findings that was also cited, the aforementioned authors also explicitly state as much:

Quote

Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

Given the current quite advanced state of scientific investigations into global warming and climate change, this sentiment is certainly reflected in our knowledge of the kinds of radiative forcings required to significantly change global temperatures over time, and the changes in Solar activity just aren't close to being enough in that regard.

In fact, the orbital forcing from the Milankovitch cycles that cause the interglacial cycles is itself much stronger than the forcing from Solar variability. This can be readily seen from long-term temperature records, because global temperatures were still rising up until the Holocene Climatic Optimum (HCO) ~6500 years ago, when the sunspot activity in the reconstruction was going down quite significantly; and likewise global temperatures stabilized and started to very slowly decline after that HCO peak despite the sunspot reconstruction showing a significant increase for ~4000 years after that.

Your analogy to the boiling pot isn't entirely wrong, but the heat applied would be analogous to the net forcing from all sources, and the orbital forcing is stronger than any forcing from Solar variability, which is why we observe such a regular interglacial cycle that corresponds to the known Milankovitch cycles; based on natural factors alone, the heat would actually be turning down rather than up.

All in all it's certainly an interesting reconstruction, and it'd definitely be a lucky break for space weather enthusiasts and aurora hunters if we'd happen to live during a period of above average Solar activity, but just how exceptional it is is something to be investigated further, and it having anything to do with the current extremely rapid rate of global warming is not really plausible.

Edited November 23, 2024Nov 23 by Philalethes
verbal variety

15 hours ago, Przemysław said:

Hi all,

I know that the correlation between Solar Activity and Global Warming is not confirmet by the Science, but I want to better understand. Please don't think I don't trust in science, I'm true enthusiast of physics and quantum theory.

Yesterday I found the content like this (Wikipedia - yes, I know it's not the best source to read about serious matters, but still some source). I'm quoting: "Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using carbon-14 and beryllium-10 isotope ratios. The level of solar activity beginning in the 1940s is exceptional – the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period). The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years. Almost all earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode."

When I'm looking on SWL charts showing historical cycles from the very beinning (1749)I don't see any notable increasing beginned in 1940s, but in the same Wikipedia article I see also a chart shows "Solar Activity Events" and this chart shows huge increase in Century XX. (Images added to the post)

I understand that "Solar Activity Events" means CMEs, filaments eruptions ect., not sunspots numbers/amount. I also understand the correlation beetween susnpots numbers/amount and Solar Activity Events exist, but many sunspots still does not a guarantee of CME or filament eruption directed Earth.

Seemingly, there is a correlation beetween Solar Activity Events and Global Warming. Something like boiling water in a pot. Some time is needed to transfer energy from the torch to the water. Water does not start boiling immediately after increasing the power, but if we increase the power even a little bit for a long time the water will slowly become warmer.

When I comapare the Average Global Temperature and Solar Activity in SC24 I notice that in this time period Global Warming slowed down. SC24 was not very active for us - people living on the Earth right now - but maybe was still very active when we compare to the historical data (12 000 years). 

It's a little bit difficult for me to write about so advanced things in foreign language, but I hope all of you know what I mean

Summary: Does the correlation beetween Solar Activity Events (especially directed Earth) and Global Warming could really exist?

Have a nice weekend guys and gals and I wish you X Flare!

 

that spike at 9000 BC is peak😍

Does anybody know why SDO is currently down or if it is even down?

7 hours ago, Luca Remenji said:

Does anybody know why SDO is currently down or if it is even down?

I *think* I saw someone mention that the University that handles the data has the problem, not SDO itself. So we can't get data until it's resolved.

7 uren geleden, Luca Remenji zei:

Does anybody know why SDO is currently down or if it is even down?

Yes.

JSOC has a very big issue with servers and lab due to a huge water leakage.

They don't know anything yet about when getting back online, or how long this immense impact will effect the community.

💜

On 11/2/2024 at 5:42 AM, libmar96 said:

I'll ask here, because I can't find a proper answer anywhere. What's the X-ray saturation limit for working GOES satellites? Can the current technology (GOES 16, 18, 19) precisely measure >X20 flares, what couldn't be done in SC23?

"The new XRS B2 design is expected to be able to measure up to about X120 flare level before saturation." From here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024JA032925

I hope we get an X100+ to test it out 😎

hmmm looks like there is some conflicting information out there. From another paper: "The XRS readouts on the GOES-R (GOES-16 through GOES-18) satellites have a broader dynamic range than those on the earlier satellites, and so will not experience saturation events as easily. For instance, the XRS-B channel on GOES-16 will only saturate for an ≥X500 flare (at which point there are other things to worry about!)"

The first paper that stated a limit around X120 was specifically about the GOES XRS instrument, so I will trust that one more. At least until we get a super flare to determine the true saturation point.

My "obscure/stupid" question:

I have been studying a phenomenon that needs an explanation but I have not seen any.

When a sunspot region has become active, beautiful plasma loops emerge. If the energy continues to rise, eventually a (hopefully) flare erupts nearby!

I have many questions about these plasma loops, but I have selected one.  Why are the loops always perfectly regular arches?  If I place some magnets on the floor of my room (I have done this experiment) such that the field lines create a smooth arc, and I then carry another magnet into this field, the original arc is disrupted and no longer describes an arc, but now a "wiggle".  By my analysis, the result is always the mathematical sum of the combined magnetic fields at each point along the field line.  The "surface" of the sun has powerful magnetic fields, and different regions of magnetism interact.  It seems to me that you should be able to see permutations in the arch of a loop.  The fact that the loops remain regular in shape as the fields swirl around implies that there is "pressure" from the inside of the loop, "inflating" it, as if it is a balloon.  This would have to always be greater than the random interactions of the loop with its surroundings.  Is this a reasonable way to think about it?

Howard