Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Solar Activity Report for 6/8/02

Expand Messages
  • b1blancer_29501
    The CME mentioned in the report from 6/6 imppacted Earth s magnetosphere earlier today, but it pretty much turned out to be a non-event. It did kick up the
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 8, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The CME mentioned in the report from 6/6 imppacted Earth's
      magnetosphere earlier today, but it pretty much turned out to be a
      non-event. It did kick up the solar wind speed, but it had little
      geomagnetic effect other than to briefly elevate the K index to the
      active category. In general, things are quiet this evening. Coronal
      hole generated solar wind gusts could begin arriving tommorow, which
      could again cause some active geomagnetic conditions, although at this
      time there is no aurora watch in effect. There are several sunspot
      groups visible this evening, but none look as if they have any real
      flare-generating potential.

      The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

      NOAA sunspot number : 181
      SFI : 155
      A index : 13
      K index : 3

      Solar wind speed : 430.2 km/sec
      Solar wind density : 7.3 protons/cc
      Solar wind pressure : 2.3 nPa

      IMF : 6.6 nt
      IMF Orientation : 1.1 nT North

      Conditions for the last 24 hours :
      No space weather storms were observed for the past 24 hours.

      Forecast for the next 24 hours :
      No space weather storms are expected for the next 24 hours.

      Solar activity forecast :
      Solar activity is expected to be low. Region 9987 is the most likely
      source of flares.

      Geomagnetic activity forecast :
      The geomagnetic field is expected to be unsettled to active becoming
      quiet to unsettled by 09 June.

      Recent significant solar flare activity :
      None
    • pawnfart
      No TS right away for the E. GOM because this CME at best just caused an E Pac storm and as a result increased shear near Jamaca even as the SOI is no longer
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 8, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        No TS right away for the E. GOM because this CME at best just caused
        an E Pac storm and as a result increased shear near Jamaca even as
        the SOI is no longer negitive:

        http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/MIATCPEP2.html

        Go here to see the second storm, Boris.

        http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/2002/index.html

        Note its monsoonal features and course north of the first E. Pac
        storm. I think of this like back EMF, for you EEs out there.

        ++++++++++


        http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html

        Take a look please at 3/4/97 anomaly chart compared and contrasted
        with the new one out for 6/7. It is worth the time. This is only a
        few months before a 500 year El Nino. Ocean temperatures in general
        were colder then. Why? Because the flaring cycle had just bottomed
        out and Mt. Pinatubo had released huge SOx emissions into the air,
        dropping phase change temperatures of cirrus clouds. Then the flaring
        was increasing with the solar cycle and the SOx was washing out of
        the air, and actually became part of the sulfur reducing ocean
        biosphere.

        The flaring distributed cirrus clouds without respect to ocean
        currents, and some of this resulted in storms near equatorial
        Americas, and Gaia feedback electrical insulation, and fingers of
        warm anomalies, within those few months, were extending from the
        equatorial American coasts.

        So how did the Southern Oceans respond by SSTs (Sea Surface Temps)
        then? Around the Southern Ocean, with a colder ocean the induction
        against cirrus, as the circumpolar moves west to east, was not as
        good--so cirrus heated up the Southern Ocean and SSTs became,
        counterintuitively, warm anomaly. Furthermore, it was cold in the
        oceans in general so that no state sized glaciers were braking off--
        also resulting in warm anomalies. And the sun was starting to kick it
        with the flaring and biological material from SOx added to the ocean
        was responding as well.

        Compare to the anomalies today--they are cold anomaly and state sized
        bergs have been breaking off. What gives? Warmer oceans. That means,
        electrically, induction will be strong and because this particular
        current, the circumpolar, is west to east, it means cold anomalies.
        It has been cold anomaly there for MONTHS. There, some of the
        strongest sustained winds on earth occur, making it an almost
        certainty that with these warm oceans the Southern Ocean will
        continue to have cold surface ocean temps. These cold SSTs move
        around the gyre in the Southern Pacific and bring a much greater
        probability of La Nina. Indeed, historically FOUR MONTHS before El
        Nino the Southern Ocean is warm anomaly.

        The additional electrical feature that I am going to compare and
        contrast between now and 3/4/97 is also not intuitive. That is,
        during the spring of 1997 when rains did visit the equatorial
        American Pacific shoreline and Gaia feedback those fingers of warm
        anomalies you see, there was a triangle of cold SSTs mid-Pacific.
        What is interesting about that? Well, when those cold anomalies moved
        in the normal gyre movements (La Nada) soon those cold anomalies
        where in the W. Pac. And they have a very peculiar impact
        electrically. When they move over the gyres where the Coriolis turn
        brings a directional change from east to west (enhancement) to west
        to east (cirrus decreases), cold oceans bring WARM SSTS downflow!
        Hence, as the gyre moved these cold anomalies, probably traced back
        to low flaring and Mt Pinatubo (and/or other cyclic aspects), to the
        W. Pacific they became makers of downflow warm anomalies--right into
        the path of a budding potential El Nino. When you combined this with
        what was occurring in the Southern Oceans, as well as the biosphere
        along the equatrial coast--along, I might add, with the November 1997
        diversion of the Yangtze, which would have further cooled the W. Pac,
        ya got the bomb!

        In marked contrast, today we have a very warm ocean in general. We
        have a Southern Ocean, in contrast, with predictibly cold anomaly
        SSTs and melting glacial ice there. This is constantly churning cold
        anomalies into the gyres to be moved to the Eastern tropical Pacific.
        The Yangtze is starting to recover and SSTs in the W. Pac are VERY
        warm. That brings stronger induction patterns gyred around in the
        Pacific, west to east, against cirrus, and further brings cold
        anomalies. Further, while there are these short periods of warm
        anomalies and rain associated with the flaring we have had, 2003 is
        well to the down slope of flaring and Gaia has a tendency to rain
        itself out.

        In short, there is NO chance of El Nino this winter. None.
      • fredwx
        From the Autralian Meteorolgy site: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#current They are saying ... if we only consider the SOI and search the data base for
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 9, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          From the Autralian Meteorolgy site:
          http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#current

          They are saying ..."if we only consider the SOI and search the data
          base for years with similar trends to the current year, 7 of the best
          10 matches were El Niño years and 3 weren't.".....

          I wonder which 3 years they are talking about? It would be
          interesting to compare them to the current situation.




          --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
          > No TS right away for the E. GOM because this CME at best just
          caused
          > an E Pac storm and as a result increased shear near Jamaca even as
          > the SOI is no longer negitive:
          >
          > http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/MIATCPEP2.html
          >
          > Go here to see the second storm, Boris.
          >
          > http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/2002/index.html
          >
          > Note its monsoonal features and course north of the first E. Pac
          > storm. I think of this like back EMF, for you EEs out there.
          >
          > ++++++++++
          >
          >
          > http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
          >
          > Take a look please at 3/4/97 anomaly chart compared and contrasted
          > with the new one out for 6/7. It is worth the time. This is only a
          > few months before a 500 year El Nino. Ocean temperatures in general
          > were colder then. Why? Because the flaring cycle had just bottomed
          > out and Mt. Pinatubo had released huge SOx emissions into the air,
          > dropping phase change temperatures of cirrus clouds. Then the
          flaring
          > was increasing with the solar cycle and the SOx was washing out of
          > the air, and actually became part of the sulfur reducing ocean
          > biosphere.
          >
          > The flaring distributed cirrus clouds without respect to ocean
          > currents, and some of this resulted in storms near equatorial
          > Americas, and Gaia feedback electrical insulation, and fingers of
          > warm anomalies, within those few months, were extending from the
          > equatorial American coasts.
          >
          > So how did the Southern Oceans respond by SSTs (Sea Surface Temps)
          > then? Around the Southern Ocean, with a colder ocean the induction
          > against cirrus, as the circumpolar moves west to east, was not as
          > good--so cirrus heated up the Southern Ocean and SSTs became,
          > counterintuitively, warm anomaly. Furthermore, it was cold in the
          > oceans in general so that no state sized glaciers were braking off--
          > also resulting in warm anomalies. And the sun was starting to kick
          it
          > with the flaring and biological material from SOx added to the
          ocean
          > was responding as well.
          >
          > Compare to the anomalies today--they are cold anomaly and state
          sized
          > bergs have been breaking off. What gives? Warmer oceans. That
          means,
          > electrically, induction will be strong and because this particular
          > current, the circumpolar, is west to east, it means cold anomalies.
          > It has been cold anomaly there for MONTHS. There, some of the
          > strongest sustained winds on earth occur, making it an almost
          > certainty that with these warm oceans the Southern Ocean will
          > continue to have cold surface ocean temps. These cold SSTs move
          > around the gyre in the Southern Pacific and bring a much greater
          > probability of La Nina. Indeed, historically FOUR MONTHS before El
          > Nino the Southern Ocean is warm anomaly.
          >
          > The additional electrical feature that I am going to compare and
          > contrast between now and 3/4/97 is also not intuitive. That is,
          > during the spring of 1997 when rains did visit the equatorial
          > American Pacific shoreline and Gaia feedback those fingers of warm
          > anomalies you see, there was a triangle of cold SSTs mid-Pacific.
          > What is interesting about that? Well, when those cold anomalies
          moved
          > in the normal gyre movements (La Nada) soon those cold anomalies
          > where in the W. Pac. And they have a very peculiar impact
          > electrically. When they move over the gyres where the Coriolis turn
          > brings a directional change from east to west (enhancement) to west
          > to east (cirrus decreases), cold oceans bring WARM SSTS downflow!
          > Hence, as the gyre moved these cold anomalies, probably traced back
          > to low flaring and Mt Pinatubo (and/or other cyclic aspects), to
          the
          > W. Pacific they became makers of downflow warm anomalies--right
          into
          > the path of a budding potential El Nino. When you combined this
          with
          > what was occurring in the Southern Oceans, as well as the biosphere
          > along the equatrial coast--along, I might add, with the November
          1997
          > diversion of the Yangtze, which would have further cooled the W.
          Pac,
          > ya got the bomb!
          >
          > In marked contrast, today we have a very warm ocean in general. We
          > have a Southern Ocean, in contrast, with predictibly cold anomaly
          > SSTs and melting glacial ice there. This is constantly churning
          cold
          > anomalies into the gyres to be moved to the Eastern tropical
          Pacific.
          > The Yangtze is starting to recover and SSTs in the W. Pac are VERY
          > warm. That brings stronger induction patterns gyred around in the
          > Pacific, west to east, against cirrus, and further brings cold
          > anomalies. Further, while there are these short periods of warm
          > anomalies and rain associated with the flaring we have had, 2003 is
          > well to the down slope of flaring and Gaia has a tendency to rain
          > itself out.
          >
          > In short, there is NO chance of El Nino this winter. None.
        • pawnfart
          Yes but the SST anomalies from the sats only starts mid 96. There is only one ENSO in that. ... best
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 9, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Yes but the SST anomalies from the sats only starts mid 96. There is
            only one ENSO in that.


            --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., fredwx <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > From the Autralian Meteorolgy site:
            > http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#current
            >
            > They are saying ..."if we only consider the SOI and search the data
            > base for years with similar trends to the current year, 7 of the
            best
            > 10 matches were El Niño years and 3 weren't.".....
            >
            > I wonder which 3 years they are talking about? It would be
            > interesting to compare them to the current situation.
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.