May is Starting Things Early with Signifigant Solar Flares

From Spaceweather.com (front page right now)

Actually, May did begin with a solar flare--on the farside of the sun. An active region located behind the sun's eastern limb erupted during the early hours of May 1st, hurling a plume of red-hot debris into space: Coronagraph images from NASA's twin STEREO probes confirm that a CME emerged from the blast site. Earth was not in the line of fire.

Next week, however, we might be as the sun's rotation turns the active region toward our planet.

Eyes open...

reply to post by Aqualung2012


CMEs and flares are often associated with each other but not always. While there was a CME from the farside of the Sun, it's speculative that there was a flare. No instrumentation to confirm (or deny) it. Because coronographs obscure the actual disk of the Sun, they cannot be used to observe flares.

But, as usual, spaceweather continues with its somewhat sensationalistic announcements.

reply to post by Phage


Which is more troublesome to earth; a CME or a flare? Also, doesn't it take a flare to cause a CME?

And, are you saying spaceweather.com is incorrect in stating that there was a solar flare May 1st?

Originally posted by Phage

But, as usual, spaceweather continues with its somewhat sensationalistic announcements.

If it stirs interest while remaining factual, what is the harm?

reply to post by Aqualung2012

Flares only affect radio communications and satellites (potentially, depending upon their intensity) because of their effects on the ionosphere. CMEs also affect communications and satellites but can also (in severe cases) cause problems with electrical grids and other systems which involve long electrical conducting materials (like pipelines).

Flares and CMEs are often, but not always, associated with each other. But it is not so much a matter of cause and effect as both being created by the same cause. A sort of "short circuit" in the magnetic fields of a sunspot region.

reply to post by Phage


Ah, well put thank you.

Then, it would be safe to say that a "Carrington-like" event would necessarily involve a massive CME, not merely a flare?

reply to post by Aqualung2012

If it stirs interest while remaining factual, what is the harm?

I just don't like sensationalism much. Rather than imparting information it tends to focus attention on a single aspect of a complex subject...concentrating on the "look out!" slant. And, as in this case, confuses the issue. No solar flare was observed on the farside.

reply to post by Aqualung2012

Then, it would be safe to say that a "Carrington-like" event would necessarily involve a massive CME, not merely a flare?

Yes. And that CME would have to be Earth directed.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aqualung2012

 

Then, it would be safe to say that a "Carrington-like" event would necessarily involve a massive CME, not merely a flare?

Yes.

How then, is it sensational for Spaceweather.com to claim a flare if that's not as risky as that which they HAD detected?

Originally posted by Phage

I just don't like sensationalism much. Rather than imparting information it tends to focus attention on a single aspect of a complex subject...concentrating on the "look out!" slant. And, as in this case, confuses the issue. No solar flare was observed on the farside.

I agree with you to an extent. However, the "shock" factor lies largely on the observer, and after all... things need SOME fleshing out: otherwise we'd be looking at nothing but pure data in nondescript letters and numbers.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aqualung2012

 

Then, it would be safe to say that a "Carrington-like" event would necessarily involve a massive CME, not merely a flare?

Yes. And that CME would have to be Earth directed.

edit on 5/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

But of course, which is where this bit of data comes in to play:

Two sunspots (AR1730 and AR1731) have 'delta-class' magnetic fields that harbor energy for strong eruptions. NOAA forecasters put the odds of an M-class solar flare today at 40%.

Have you access to any further information to support or detract from the possibility of these two sunspots being within the "line of fire" within the next few days?

reply to post by Aqualung2012

With Beta-Gamma-Delta configurations both have a fair chance of producing significant activity. 1730 will soon be "out of range" but 1731 will have us in its sights for a while longer.


www.swpc.noaa.gov...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Aqualung2012

 

With Beta-Gamma-Delta configurations both have a fair chance of producing significant activity. 1730 will soon be "out of range" but 1731 will have us in its sights for a while longer.


www.swpc.noaa.gov...

edit on 5/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

That's what I'm talking about right there! Good ATSing.... (Granted this is more of a conversation, and less of an argument than most other threads I've seen).


Alright, sounds interesting. Now... back to the futility of watching out for solar flares/CMEs? (At least in the civilian sector.)


...actually, serious question: In the linked image, what is up with that vertical spike over 1731? Is that a typical readout glitch? Can't recall any past examples.