Scientists: Strong solar storm heading to Earth (Update)

September 10, 2014 by Seth Borenstein
The Sun by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly of NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory. Credit: NASA

A strong solar flare is blasting its way to Earth, but the worst of its power looks like it will barely skim above the planet and not cause many problems.

It has been several years since Earth has had a solar storm of this size coming from sunspots smack in the middle of the sun, said Tom Berger, director of the Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado. The flare on the sun barely hits the "extreme" on forecasters' scale, but with its worst effects missing Earth it is only looking "potentially strong" at most when it arrives at Earth as a solar storm, he said.

New calculations from satellite data show that the worst of the energetic particles streaming from the sun likely will go north or above Earth this time, Berger said late Wednesday.

So while the power grid may see fluctuations because the storm will cause changes in Earth's magnetic field, it won't knock power systems off line, Berger said. It may cause slight disturbances in satellites and radio transmissions but nothing major.

"We're not scared of this one," Berger said.

The storm is moving medium fast, about 2.5 million mph (4.02 million kph), meaning the soonest it could arrive is early Friday. But it could be later, Berger said.

Solar storms occur often, especially during peaks in the solar cycle, and don't directly harm people.

"There's been a giant magnetic explosion on the sun," Berger said. "Because it's pointed right at us, we'll at least catch some of the cloud" of highly energized and magnetized plasma that can disrupt Earth's magnetic sphere, which sometimes leads to temporary power grid problems.

On the plus side, sun flares expand the colorful northern lights so people farther south can see them. But don't expect them too far south, Berger said.

Explore further: Forecasters: New solar flare won't cause problems

More information: Space Weather Prediction Center: www.swpc.noaa.gov/index.html

Related Stories

SDO spots a summer solar flare

July 8, 2014

The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare, peaking at 12:20 p.m. EDT on July 8, 2014, and NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory captured images of the event. Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation. Harmful radiation from ...

NASA's SDO sees sun emit a mid-level solar flare

October 24, 2013

The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare that peaked at 8:30 pm EDT on Oct. 23, 2013. Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation. Harmful radiation from a flare cannot pass through Earth's atmosphere to physically affect ...

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

NASA instruments image fireball over Bering Sea

March 22, 2019

On Dec. 18, 2018, a large "fireball—the term used for exceptionally bright meteors that are visible over a wide area—exploded about 16 miles (26 kilometers) above the Bering Sea. The explosion unleashed an estimated 173 ...

39 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2014
Flares like this cause geomagnetic storms which can knock some power grids offline temporarily. They also can damage satellites and disrupt radio transmissions.


In addition to that, and the aurora of course, it can also induce all sorts of other events. Such as extreme weather, geologic phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic activity) as well as a number of other natural disasters.

https://www.youtu...E0p9kx5o

https://docs.goog...lAc/edit
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (17) Sep 11, 2014
Flares like this cause geomagnetic storms which can knock some power grids offline temporarily. They also can damage satellites and disrupt radio transmissions.


In addition to that, and the aurora of course, it can also induce all sorts of other events. Such as extreme weather, geologic phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic activity) as well as a number of other natural disasters.

https://www.youtu...E0p9kx5o


BULLSHIT!
DeliriousNeuron
1.3 / 5 (16) Sep 11, 2014
Peer reviewed paper? You mean mainstream physicists reviewing another physicists paper? LOL! Oh yea. They use hot gas, gravity and dark matter/energy when writing/reviewing papers. Like thats working. Even NASA is opening up to parts of the eu theory.
If you'd take the time to read a little instead of trolling forums, you just might learn something new and capable of contributing to new ideas.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2014
I just wanna know when it's gonna get here and I need to duck...
Urgelt
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 11, 2014
cantdrive wrote, "In addition to that, and the aurora of course, it can also induce all sorts of other events. Such as extreme weather, geologic phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic activity) as well as a number of other natural disasters."

Such as the destruction of reason in cranks, no doubt.

Too bad tin foil hats went out of style. They provide total protection from CME-induced loss of rationality, and as a bonus, they keep the NSA from monitoring your alpha waves and stealing your always-absolutely-certain, no-room-for-doubt, only-fools-would-dare-disagree, evidence-free ideas.
Scroofinator
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 11, 2014
Well considering Earth's Magnetosphere is weakening rapidly, and is weaker now then ever previously observed, I'd say that cantdrive's claim holds some viability. With more magnetic flux permeating down to Earth, we might see some effects of this flare. If I'm not mistaken, the Earth's crust isn't non-magnetic.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if Iceland's volcanoes go crazy
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (8) Sep 11, 2014
Feel free to explain how anything I said isn't rooted in accepted science, then you can try to make the typical baseless claims.

Until then, your nothing but a mainstream troll
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 11, 2014
Way to completely side step my question their/there/they're, your/you're quite adept at being completely useless.

The onus is on the original poster to provide evidence of geomagnetic storms or aurorae having an effect on


Right, which is why I said "I guess we'll just have to wait and see if Iceland's volcanoes go crazy". Since we haven't observed these circumstances before, I laid out a prediction. Isn't that how science is supposed to work?

DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2014
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (8) Sep 11, 2014
Peer reviewed paper? You mean mainstream physicists reviewing another physicists paper?
That's one of the ways science works. Uncomfortable with this? - then join a relevant University department, and try to change things from the inside. Good luck with that...
Even NASA is opening up to parts of the eu theory.
Links please...
If you'd take the time to read a little instead of trolling forums
I'm a physicist, commenting in a physics forum. Last time I looked, that wasn't called trolling...


See above for your links.
If your not trolling, please quit with the crap comments.
You mainstream guys always fall back on peer reviewed bs. I honestly think, if you would read up a bit, things will make sense with the eu theory.
DeliriousNeuron
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 11, 2014
Can u honestly say gravity is the driving force here?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H9DN3ODUY-4

Guys...I'm not saying the eu theory is the holy grail of physics.
It has its place though. I've been an amateur astronomer for over 30 years. This lead me to astrophysics. After the countless articles and papers I've read over the years, I was always left with more questions. The eu theory helps fill in the those gaps.

DeliriousNeuron
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 11, 2014
Do you really think gravity is driving these?
http://images.sci...arge.jpg

Has anyone seen this nasa experiment? Fascinating!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qHrBhgwq__Q

Scroofinator
1 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2014
In what way does that constitute a prediction?

By giving an event to observe. Saying "watch this" means something is expected to happen, hence a prediction.

You still haven't even attempted to tell me how anything in my first post is inaccurate. Do you wear a hat that says "Keep on Trollin"?
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2014
You're confusing expectation with prediction. Different animals.


However you want to slice it up dude, I don't care. Nitpicking about grammar isn't science.

Nonetheless, you still avoid my simple challenge. It's ok, you can't refute it, so you try to change topics, another typical trolling strategy.

I predict another FSC off topic reply...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2014
the Earth's crust is remarkably varied in it's makeup and in it's local magnetic characteristics. During my time in England, I would hike in the hills there, and there's one particular hill I know of where navigating by compass in the frequent mists there is basically impossible, due to the strong local magnetic field of the hill itself. A few miles down the road, things return to normal.

You should try to exercise more care in making statements of a "scientific" nature, but maybe you're already at the limits of what you're capable of...

FSC, As an artist, I know my limit - and theoretical math is one of them...:-)
However, many of the people who read this site are not as well prepared to delve into that aspect as you (as well as numerous others here) might be.
That said, this is more of a "lay" site. Subsequently, many readers (and commenters) exercise their imagination as a substitute for their lack of specialized training.
This does not mean dumb, however...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2014
However, EU is not a science: it's pseudo-science and the big problem is that it touts itself as a full-blown science, and a lot of people are naturally drawn into it's oh-so-simple explanations for what is actually really very complex stuff. To call EU a science is to perpetuate a fallacy.

I don't believe in an electrically driven universe, but I do believe it exhibits some electrical properties. (I'm a magnetics guy)
Wanna split it down the middle and call it a "concept in progress"?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2014
@Whydening_Gyre:
I don't believe in an electrically driven universe, but I do believe it exhibits some electrical properties. (I'm a magnetics guy)
Electromagnetism and electromagnetic theory lie at the very heart of all chemistry, the electromagnetic spectrum from radio waves through to x-rays, and hence sun/starlight, vision, radio comms, microwave ovens, astronomy, etc. How could the Universe NOT exhibit "some electrical properties"?


I was too brief in my comment. I believe many magnetic properties exhibit themselves as electricity. Which then turns around and adds to the magnetic properties.
Don't aske for more detail, I'm just an artist and don't see the detail as much as the bigger picture...:-)
yep
2 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2014
Haters gonna hate.
http://wlym.com/a...IJFE.pdf
No Fate you need to look at the magnetic configuration in the pinch. You will recognize it from the primer field videos.
FSC it will not do you any good to look because you already know everything. Good luck with your magic Big Bang black hole fantasy, I will continue to believe in the laboratory science and the ability to scale.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
Try scaling a duck to stellar proportions and see how long it quacks.


That's the typical strawman, what's being scaled is the physical properties of matter. And you don't have any argument which shows it isn't possible other than, "nuh uh". The scalability of plasmas has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt from the lab up to magnetospheric level, proven with in situ data. It has also been proposed to parameters of a much larger scale;
http://www.plasma...phys.htm

Being you are proposing the physics to be different, it's up to you to provide the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims.

I understand why you choose to believe what you believe, your entire career and knowledge base would be meaningless if the physics of the Plasma Universe were to be accepted. Nobody wants to accept they're obsolete and they've wasted decades on snipe hunts.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
As for Herbig Haro objects (jets with knots in them), they are plasma phenomena which can be recreated in the lab w/o the need for gravity;
https://www.llnl....ice.html

You will claim it's accomplished by Jean's Instability but you have exactly ZERO laboratory evidence, your only evidence is accomplished by playing computer games with GIGO simulations.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2014
@Fate, WG
I know you prefer the magical explanation of magnetism, but without movement there is no magnetism. That movement is the electricity which creates the magnetism, whether it's spin or flow it is electricity.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2014
The magnets on my refrigerator door ain't goin' nowhere...


The spin of those pesky electrons is the current (movement), unless of course you'd prefer to rely on magic as fate an WG cling to...
yep
1 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2014
"Finally, "hate" is a word which I would never stoop to use in a public forum, since it says so much about the person who uses it..... "
But on the same page you will use moronic, incompetent, oafs, and hapless trolls. what does that say?

"We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are."

Something to think about next time you accuse someone of a "hyper-inflated ego and sense of self-righteousness and -importance."
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
@yep
When you advocate for an expanding world by accretion and then link to a source that flatly denies the earth is gaining mass, you're incompetent. When cantdrive advocates for the the earth gaining mass and provides a link that says no such thing, he's incompetent.

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
yep
1 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2014
When you play reindeer games trying to "trap" someone in your own delusions and projecting your way of thinking on them then you're needing to get some help.
Good luck with that!
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2014
When you play reindeer games trying to "trap" someone in your own delusions and projecting your way of thinking on them then you're needing to get some help.
Good luck with that!


You believe in an expanding earth without any empirical evidence of how that happens and you call me delusional?
yep
1 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2014
http://www.annals...951/5383
Learn to read instead of continuing to make a fool out of yourself.
From the conclusion " Our investigations show the earth is expanding"
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2014
http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/view/4951/5383
Learn to read instead of continuing to make a fool out of yourself.
From the conclusion " Our investigations show the earth is expanding"


"Indeed, here we can indicate that our space-gravimetric
observations do not support the mass growth hypothesis"

From your link.
yep
1 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2014
But other observations do and they conclude with math for three different scenarios.
Read the whole paper mkay.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
But other observations do and they conclude with math for three different scenarios.
Read the whole paper mkay.

See my reply at http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2014
...That movement is the electricity which creates the magnetism, whether it's spin or flow it is electricity.

Nope. Other way around...
Magnetism causes the motion/spin, which generates the electricity (which can then play a part in increasing the magnetism, which increases the motion/spin, which then generates more electricity... and so on and so on...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2014
Read the pdf on "earth expansion".
Lousy plot, but loaded with info.
Inasmuch as we are constantly bombarded with this, that, or the other thing, Accretion appears the most obvious explanation...
That said however, never say never...
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2014
Read the pdf on "earth expansion".
Lousy plot, but loaded with info.
Inasmuch as we are constantly bombarded with this, that, or the other thing, Accretion appears the most obvious explanation...
That said however, never say never...


I need to find the exact figures, but assuming the rate of meteoric dust has remained constant at 40,000 metric tones a year(the most widely quoted) during the eons of earths existence that only amounts to 0.000003% of earth's mass. Not going to get much inflation with that.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2014
Magnetism causes the motion/spin, which generates the electricity


The motion of charges IS electricity. Just as LaPoint and No Fate can't grasp the basics, so too do you not grasp simple terms. Electricity (moving charges) creates magnetic fields and electrical energy, these are basic facts which have been known by science for almost 200 years now. Stick to you artwork, you can make that conform to your beliefs unlike reality.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2014
What's this??? Magnetism without moving charges...say it aint so.

Well, not quite. From your link;

Instead, it affects another property of electrons that forms the basis of magnetism and is referred to as 'spin'.


What did I claim? Let's see...

That movement is the electricity which creates the magnetism, whether it's spin or flow it is electricity.


Last I checked, spin is movement and without it there is no magnetism.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2014
Magnetism causes the motion/spin, which generates the electricity


The motion of charges IS electricity. Just as LaPoint and No Fate can't grasp the basics, so too do you not grasp simple terms. Electricity (moving charges) creates magnetic fields and electrical energy, these are basic facts which have been known by science for almost 200 years now. Stick to you artwork, you can make that conform to your beliefs unlike reality.

I don't believe in beliefs. Just observations.
Electricity does not occur until you have matter in a synchronized motion. Magnetics are the primary source of that motion.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2014
Your position that electrons are composed of electricity as opposed to energy is based on what?

Well, the fundamental basics of physics developed over 100 years ago. Electrons are matter, charged matter, the movement of such matter in a circuit constitutes "electricity" which is measured in coulombs. Electromagnetism is "energy", which is measured in joules.

In a plasma chamber without a magnetic field, the SA particles are all moving (charges in motion)...yet no current, no alignment, just an opaque glowing soup.

The glow indicates there is a current, although diffuse, homogeneous, and without a large enough voltage drop to create a more dynamic interaction. Add a voltage drop, dust, and charged bodies, like reality, and all sorts of fun stuff will happen.

How do you explain that when everything you base your science on dictates they HAVE to produce a magnetic field and self align?

The electrodynamic properties of charged matter in an inhomogeneous universe will naturally create the conditions needed for inducing electric currents and their resulting EM fields. Look up Langmuir.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2014
Electricity does not occur until you have matter in a synchronized motion.


It's not synchronized motion, the technical term is a complete circuit. Without a complete circuit magnetism collapses. This is readily observed in many systems, such as circuits on the sun. When the solar filament (circuit) in video below is broken, the magnetic (and electric) field containing the matter and energy in the filament collapses and releases all of the energy and charged matter in an explosive manner.

http://rt.com/new...deo-307/

Without the circuit, no magnetic field to hold it all together.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2014
Circles still, round and round in circles...

Obviously this is a futile exercise when things such as this are claimed;

all stable SA particles are charged matter/energy


glow doesn't indicate current


until it interacts with energy


for energy to produce an external field there always has to be a charge imbalance.


Once and for all, "electricity" is NOT "energy". This is a proven fact, they are measured with different non-interchangeable values, electricity is measured in coulombs, energy in joules.

But if what you believe was correct you wouldn't have to "add" anything for plasma to do what you claim it can.


That's your claim, not mine. The EU requires all of which we observe in reality, charge differential in non-homogeneous plasmas is what we observe.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.