Solar Cycle 24=Less Sunspots but Higher Risk of Solar Flare Damage

What is the significance of this prediction, assuming it holds true? Sunspots are a source of eruptive phenomena such as solar flares. Energetic coronal mass ejections are also related to the occurence of solar flares. And coronal mass ejections can produce hazardous space weather conditions to spacecraft, aircraft and power grids. One would think that a lower sunspot number would be good news for these industries. Overall average space weather effects may indeed be a bit milder. But these industries are more adversely affected by the few extreme solar outbursts that occur during the solar cycle than they are during the less volatile "average" conditions observed during the solar cycle. Svalgaard et al. are quick to point out that some of the most intense space weather storms have occurred during solar cycles having low sunspot numbers. For example, two of the eight most intense geomagnetic storms during the last ~150 years occurred during solar cycle 14, while three of the five strongest energetic proton events at greater than 30 MeV since 1859 occurred during solar cycle 13 when the peak sunspot number plateaued at only 88.

www.spacew.com...

Today they announce that our solar cycle 24 is mirroring cycle 14 which was at the turn of 1900. Which is low sunspot activity but higher output of the CME when they do go "boom" or whatever noise they make when they explode. Add in the factor of probably the most important aspect of what they are announcing is that our current system of classification of C-Class, M-Class, and X-Class flares are to the same measuring effect but ( Im assuming due to our decresed magnetosphere protection) basically a good M-Class flare directed toward us is like a X-Class flare now.

So if a X-class flare hits us now...it could be unmeasurably harder on us than if it hit us 20 years ago...and even then it would shut us down.

They are predicting around 60 sunspots for this cycle...versus around 500 for cycle 23. Big difference.

reply to post by Reconer


Article is written in 2005...

huh?

This made me feel safe, warm and snuggly at this moment. Thank you

reply to post by Chadwickus


The artical was written in 2005 but has nothing to do with the anouncement today...did you read what I posted? It was to explain the relationship of cycle 14 to our current cycle. It has to do with the fact that 2 of the biggest CME's on record were in cycle 14 the cycle that our current Cycle 24 is mirroring right now.

That was just a quick reference.

Today they announce that our solar cycle 24 is mirroring cycle 14 which was at the turn of 1900. Which is low sunspot activity but higher output of the CME when they do go "boom" or whatever noise they make when they explode. Add in the factor of probably the most important aspect of what they are announcing is that our current system of classification of C-Class, M-Class, and X-Class flares are to the same measuring effect but ( Im assuming due to our decresed magnetosphere protection) basically a good M-Class flare directed toward us is like a X-Class flare now.

Where does this "decreased magnetosphere protection" claim come from? I don't understand why a C, M, or X class flare would have more of an effect now than it 20 years ago. I guess I will have to wait 2 hours.

reply to post by Heartisblack


Could make you cold too as this cycle is demonstrating such a decrese in sunspot activity like cycle 14 that we could be in for a major drop in sunspot activity for the coming cycles ahead...meaning another mini iceage. Doom and gloom for the global warmers.

reply to post by kalunom



www.sievert-system.org...

Heliosphere is what protects us...if its protection is down like they have been saying...it means no shield to protect us from cosmic radiation weather from the sun or not. But the topic is on the sun and how its flares can and will be more damaging now more than ever since our heliosphere is down.

Due to the magnetic poles decreasing in power (almost as if they were powering down enough to flip...good or bad doesnt matter) it is decreasing our protection from the sun and other solar radiation.

"New data has revealed that the heliosphere, the protective shield of energy that surrounds our solar system, has weakened by 25 per cent over the past decade and is now at it lowest level since the space race began 50 years ago.

Scientists are baffled at what could be causing the barrier to shrink in this way and are to launch mission to study the heliosphere.

The Interstellar Boundary Explorer, or IBEX, will be launched from an aircraft on Sunday on a Pegasus rocket into an orbit 150,000 miles above the Earth where it will "listen" for the shock wave that forms as our solar system meets the interstellar radiation. "

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Nasa and others have been saying this for years. But today the officially annouce it

reply to post by kalunom

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Helosphere and or Magnetosphere is down more than 25 % in the past decade. Today they are explaining the current sun cycle and how it is going to affect us.

Originally posted by Reconer
reply to post by Heartisblack

 

Could make you cold too as this cycle is demonstrating such a decrese in sunspot activity like cycle 14 that we could be in for a major drop in sunspot activity for the coming cycles ahead...meaning another mini iceage. Doom and gloom for the global warmers.

You don't think I know this fact !? Don't make me laugh, heard it too many times before.
I'll need a thicker coat.

Looks like we have a new plagiarist here..

Solar cycle 23 Had a sunspot number of 120.8, not 500. No recorded cycle has had a sunspot number of 500.

CMEs and solar flares are not the same thing. Solar flares are rated by the amount of x-ray radiation emitted. CMEs are not rated. Solar flares have no effect on Earth's surface. CMEs cause geomagnetic storms. Saying "a good M-Class flare directed toward us is like a X-Class flare now" is nonsensical.

We were "hit" by an X-class flare in February.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by smartbuddy


Please explain...because plagiarism is representing thoughts, ideas, etc from another "authors" work as my own. I just posted a thread of one of the biggest parts of what they are annoucing today? You have an issue with that?

reply to post by Reconer


the post content is taken frm a 2005 glp thread i cant post the the link here as the mods will remove it... the thread title is "The Next Solar Maximum the Smallest in 100 Years?" u can google and find it , u need to use ex tags to content taken frm other site......

reply to post by Phage

www.swpc.noaa.gov... ...there were around 170 sunspots in 2001 alone..so I think you have an average count number...looks like there were definately around 500 to me.

And as far as solar flares vs CME's...im just an average hardworking professional that that does not have all the answers or I would be making more money than I currently do bro. I know now I suppose.

It wasnt a direct hit from that X-Class flare BTW...I followed that pretty close if Im not mistaken

reply to post by smartbuddy


People who have been paying attention have definately noticed this as I have. Regardless I am just relaying information on an "insider" on C2C last night on what they are about to annouce here pretty soon. Are you going to throw a fit at the scientists for annoucing something because some GLP content from 2005? Dude I wasnt even on here then so what. Wow...a little nit picky.

reply to post by Reconer

The sunspot number is a calculation of the number of sunspots appearing at a given time. It is not the total number of sunspots which occur during cycle. A sunspot prediction is for the peak sunspot number, the most sunspots to occur at any one time during the cycle.

Solar cycle 13 had a sunspot number of about 90. That does not mean there were 90 sunspots through the whole cycle. Solar cycle 22 was one of the most active ever, with a peak sunspot number of 158.5, it had far more than 158 sunspots through the cycle. You cannot compare the total with the peak. The prediction for cycle 24 is for the peak sunspot number, not the total number of sunspots.

We were hit directly by the X2.2 flare. We are "hit" directly by every solar flare which occurs on our side of the Sun. We were also hit directly by the CME associated with the flare but the CME was very weak. We are not hit by every CME. As I said, a flare and a CME are not the same thing.

Originally posted by Reconer
reply to post by smartbuddy

 

People who have been paying attention have definately noticed this as I have. Regardless I am just relaying information on an "insider" on C2C last night on what they are about to annouce here pretty soon. Are you going to throw a fit at the scientists for annoucing something because some GLP content from 2005? Dude I wasnt even on here then so what. Wow...a little nit picky.

This so called announcement which this thread is talking about seems to be viral B.S. The announcement has been supposedly going on for the last 17 minutes. Yet there's no live-feed, press release, not even the American Astronomical Society website says anything about it.

reply to post by PontiacWarrior

The announcement is scheduled for 1700 GMT. It's not that time yet.
Why would you expect a live feed of a solar physics conference?

Am I not accounting daylight savings time? 1700GMT is 12pm EST right?

this thread is quiet close to this one of mine..

Solar Maximum with Minimum Sun Spot Activity = 1859 Event?