This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coronal mass ejection article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Coronal mass ejection was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 August 2010. | ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() | The contents of the Magnetic cloud page were merged into Coronal mass ejection on 6 June 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Under section "Impact on Earth", the last paragraph starts with "Humans at high altitudes, as in airplanes or space stations, risk exposure to relatively intense cosmic rays." Cosmic rays are largely from outside the solar system. So why does it mention cosmic rays here? There's one article online that claims that solar flares might reduce cosmic ray exposure of astronauts through a Forbush effect. (see http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/07oct_afraid/). But otherwise the wiki article states no relationship between cosmic rays and CMEs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.96.71 ( talk) 02:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted back to the old one, as it's much better and clearer to make out the CME's in.
This sentence moved from the article needs expert attention: The polarization of water molecules and the amount of deuterium within the atmosphere is dependent of the intesity (believe it or not).
Could it be saying that a CME affects Earth's upper atmosphere such that lighter hydrogen atoms are selectively lost leading to more deuterium remaining in water which in turn affects their average polarization? - Wikianon 09:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Should a CME be defined as being observed by a coronagraph? If LASCO or STEREO is down, is there no CMEs? I think, "sometimes (or usually) observed by coronagraphs" should be a corrected definition of the first sentence USferdinand 02:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Where is size? Or temperature? Common folks would be interested in that sort of things.
Would be nice to mention actual biggest recorded CME with sources and parameters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.144.95.66 ( talk) 11:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
Where did "The average mass is 1.6×10^12 kg" come from? According to one of the references ( http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/cme.html), "[e]ach CME releases up to 100 billion kg". That would indicate a general upper bound of 10^11 kg. -- bcwhite ( talk) 11:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that it was a solar flare that caused SG-1 to travel back in time to 1969, and John Sheppard approx. 40,000 years into the future, not a coronal mass ejection as stated in the article. Also, previously not mentioned is the episode "2010" (where Colonel O'Neill sent a note back in time using a solar flare (from 2010) that warned the present day [read: 2000] SGC of the Aschen, and to stay away from them at all costs) [Disclaimer: I am a self-described Stargate nerd.] - AnubisAscended ( talk) 02:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right. In the SG-1 episodes 1969 and 2010, a solar flare allowed time travel into the past, and in the Atlantis episode: The Last Man Standing it allowed time travel to the future. While CMEs caused totally different problems. 24.33.243.152 ( talk) 22:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
There is mention of a coronal mass ejection in the 3rd season of Stargate Atlantis ("Echoes", specifically) where the native marine life warns the Atlantis Expedition of an impending coronal mass ejection. AnubisAscended ( talk) 03:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the difference? Isn't a CME just a big solar flare? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.203.60 ( talk) 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I added an external link. It looks like some other process than magnetic reconnection was involved. I added an inline citation at Cluster mission but alas this is not free to read (except abstract). I wonder if this should be mentioned in the CME impact section, or is it too early and speculative? Puzl bustr ( talk) 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It is here. Note that on the TRACE pictures site it says: "The TRACE images may be used without restrictions in publications of any kind. We appreciate an acknowledgement indicating that the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer, TRACE, is a mission of the Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research, and part of the NASA Small Explorer program.". Thus these pictures are usable by wikipedia. They also have a lovely picture of a coronal arcade here (the Bastille Day fireworks). Puzl bustr ( talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I see somebody has added a section about the August 2010 'flare'. This is in fact a pretty minor thing, only magnitude C3.2, so the effects when it hits earth today will be also pretty minor. Perhaps some small aurora and associated propagation on the radio bands but most people will be unaware of it. Unfortunately the media has picked this up and blown it out of all proportion, and WP is not immune having linked this article from the main page. Flares are rated on a logarithmic scale much as earthquakes are. Only the higher M class and X class flares are likely to cause major disturbance and risk of damage to power networks etc. Since not one of the other countless flares of this magnitude has its own section I suggest the section is deleted - and we will know by the end of this week whether it has done anything to be put into the category of 'major solar flares'.... Dsergeant ( talk) 06:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(this is a lengthy comment ... and I'm not coming back ; therefore , I don't mind if the 'page keepers' delete it , or reduce it to a brief summary , if they like ; just consider what I have proposed , and do as you prefer) .
submitted : 8pm 08/04/2010 , by mmw220 by yahoo company .com (any account I may have had here under that user name is now inaccessible , as I don't recall my wiki password) .
significant Historical events : solar disturbances
some events (like the August 2010 event) are unremarkable except for possibly allowing people to view the aurora at lower (populated) latitudes ; others had 'serious' consequences .
at least one of these , is already named and discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm (which indirectly refers to a storm of 1921 ...)
but there are some , such as the Jan 2005 flare , which produced particle 'radiation' travelling at half the speed of light , endangering astronauts circling the earth , that may also deserve mention .
People who keep this page updated should consider developing
a 'major flares' or 'remarkable solar disturbances' page ,
or section within an existing page , to collect and explain
(or link to existing pages that explain issues and effects of)
the more significant events , and provide the perspective
that an encyclopedic resource is specifically designed for .
Some of these events are on 'their own' pages , and might
better be consolidated as link#sub-head items on 1 page .
The problem is complicated by the interrelation of CME's solar flares , and geomagnetic storms , each of which has it's own separate page . An event may be interesting only in one of these contexts , or in some other way , but your readers won't get historical perspective on these physical processes unless notable events are collected together .
here are just a few dates from the Washington Post , hardly the most complete source for this branch of science , and wikipedia itself (organized going backwards) :
2006, 2005, 2003, 2000,, 1989,, 1960,, 1921,, 1859,, (more at recent dates because better scientific understanding and measurement gear was available ?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/07/AR2007040700916.html
Intense Solar Flare Worries Scientists ; Sunday, April 8, 2007 (refers to an event in Dec , 2006)
The Dec. 6 solar flare spawned an intense burst of radio wave radiation, including some at the same frequencies used by GPS hardware ... "This radio event was 10 to 20 times bigger than anything we had measured before, or thought would reach Earth from the sun," said William Murtagh of the NOAA ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/29/AR2005052900829.html
Science Notebook ... Solar Flare Confounds Scientists ; Monday, May 30, 2005
on Jan. 20, the most intense burst of solar radiation in 50 years sped to Earth after an enormous solar flare. The radiation reached Earth in 15 minutes -- much faster than the two or more hours normally required, researchers said last week.
[ that's half the speed of light , or 360 million mph , not the 'usual' ~1 million mph ... for particle radiation ! ]
(OK , but that means there was an even larger one in 1955 - or was that 1960 ... see below)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37614-2004Jul8.html
Storms Race From Sun To Brink Of System (refers to the 'Halloween storms' of Oct 2003) ; Spacecraft Report Effects to Scientists ; Friday, July 9, 2004
Eight months after storms exploded from the sun's surface at 5 million mph, the spectacular blast wave is still traveling to the edge of the solar system, scientists said yesterday.
The Halloween storms began Oct. 22 when solar flares began exploding from sunspots, emitting enormous surges of energy and radiation as billions of tons of charged particles deluged the solar system.
On Oct. 28, a solar flare triggered two "coronal mass ejections" that headed for Earth at 5 million mph.
"These were enormous explosions," said Eric R. Christian, chief of NASA's solar physics division, but they were topped by a Nov. 4 surge, the most intense solar flare ever recorded. "In a short time, all these explosions combined to form an amazing blast wave."
Reference article :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11417-2003Oct24.html
Solar Storm Could Hinder Satellite, Cell Phone Signals ; Friday, October 24, 2003
The disturbance was expected to produce a geomagnetic storm rated G3. A G5 storm is the strongest.
following item occurred (June 7, 2000) nearly at the same time (July 14, 2000) as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastille_Day_event
the biggest solar radiation event since 1989.[3] The proton event was four times more intense than any previously recorded since the launches of SOHO in 1995 and ACE in 1997.[1] The flare was followed by a full-halo coronal mass ejection.[1]
just a month earlier , we have ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20000607/aponline130228_000.htm
Major Solar Storm Detected ; Wednesday, June 7, 2000; 1:02 p.m. EDT
In 1989, a severe solar storm knocked out power stations serving Canada and the northeastern states, as well as an electrical transformer in New Jersey. Since then, power grid and satellite operators have taken steps to protect their systems.
This item is already at wikipedia ... as mentioned , but not well-linked or discussed .
wikipedia also refers elsewhere to the 'grand-daddy' event in modern history which seems to be ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859 The most powerful flare of the last 500 years was the first flare to be observed, and occurred in September 1859: it was ... from August 28 until September 2, 1859 ... numerous sunspots
less severe storms have occurred in 1921 and 1960, when widespread radio disruption was reported
(those 2 storms are not quantified or ranked for comparison with other events ... Actually most of the events need to have their features quantified)
I'm sure someone who studies these physical processes
knows of more 'interesting' events in the last 150 years ,
or in earlier times , before the science was developed . —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.168.0.107 (
talk)
00:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I changed the "(European time)" after the UTC listings to "(approximately the same as Greenwich Mean Time)". This is more accurate, especially since Anglophone nations in Europe consider "European time" to be an hour or two ahead of UTC/GMT. Brammers ( talk/ c) 11:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
If the CME is happening between wednesday and thursday why does it say we should be watching for the auroras between tuesday and wednesday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.203.60 ( talk) 19:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
From the introduction: "Near solar maxima the Sun produces about 3 CMEs every day, whereas near solar minima there is about 1 CME every 5 days." (Supported by NASA reference)
In physical properties: "The frequency of ejections depends on the phase of the solar cycle: from about one every other day near the solar minimum to 5–6 per day near the solar maximum. These values are also lower limits because ejections propagating away from Earth (backside CMEs) can usually not be detected by coronagraphs." Unsupported statement.
The numbers do not match... I've inserted a Citation needed, but someone should clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marius EE ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I found numbers matching the NASA numbers in my astrophysics book: I updated the Physical Properties section with new numbers and citation. Marius EE ( talk) 23:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
...would Wikipedia be destroyed? Should we keep a copy of Wikipedia deep underground or some such thing? Chrisrus ( talk) 04:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The last sentence of this section needs clarification:
1) What would "result", the protection? That doesn't make sense.
2) This says the energy absorbed is not reduced, then says something about changes in absorption.
Obviously it's a poorly constructed sentence, but I don't understand the intended meaning enough to fix it. Autumn Wind ( talk) 17:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coronal mass ejection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to discuss any films/tv/books which mention, or imply, a CME event or fictional catastrophe, and debunk whatever falsities and confirm any correct opinions of said event/catastrophe. For example, some people are saying that a CME is the unnamed causal catastrophe agent in the film How it ends. I know nothing of this topic, but would be interesting to know. -- Tallard ( talk) 20:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Recently, JRPG reverted my recent removal of material concerning coronal magnetic structures: [1]. I don't have much emotion about this, but, to me, this material looks like simple promo. I say this because some of it is obvious, yes, "Coronal mass ejections are associated with enormous changes and disturbances in the coronal magnetic field". That is, after all, mainstream thinking, not new. Then, the material introduces a new and unconventional terminology: "coronal mass eruptions", which I don't think is much to brag about. And, finally, all that is cited is a bunch of recent conference abstracts. These are not typical reviewed nor typically even cited. Anyway, with substantial revision, maybe some of this could reasonably be in this article. I suppose. But I'm not going to revise it. I also won't remove it if JRPG wants it (or if someone else does). Too many things to do. Attic Salt ( talk) 14:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The EM is mentioned, but not described. Please flesh this out a bit. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 06:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The article Solar particle event confusingly refers instead to "solar proton event" (SPE) in the text. Although there are differences in terminology, the SPE article seems to duplicate the CME one. The Carrington event is described as a CME, but this article descibes it as an SPE. As the SPE article largely duplicates this one and it is almost wholly unreferenced, I suggest changing Solar particle event to a redirect to this article.
Multiradionuclide evidence for an extreme solar proton event around 2,610 B.P. is of interest both as a more ancient record of a SPE, and as referring to the 774 event as an SPE. Both appear to be ancient CMEs which are not covered in this article. This article states "We find evidence that a mass ejection event is a necessary condition for the occurrence of a prompt proton event." Is anyone expert enough to sort out the confusion in the terminology? Dudley Miles ( talk) 19:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
21:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)CMEs and SPEs are different phenomena, though related. As noted above, flares (these are associated with CMEs) are a possible source of SPEs, but SPEs can also be generated by a CME as it traverses interplanetary space -- the shock front of the CME accelerates protons and can, thus, be a substantial source of SPEs. Thanks, Attic Salt ( talk) 21:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
References
Does anyone think this article could benefit from the addition of an image/GIF/video of an erupting CME seen with a white-light coronagraph? The article itself even mentions that "[t]hey are usually observed with a white-light coronagraph." It would also give an opportunity to show the structure of a CME (i.e., the core, cavity, and leading-edge). There are many good examples in the available LASCO data such as the event in the two example GIFs I have provided on the right. (The rightmost image is a running-difference version of the leftmost.) CoronalMassAffection ( talk) 05:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am proposing that the article coronal cloud by merged with coronal mass ejection. As the former article puts it, "[a] coronal cloud is the cloud of hot plasma gas surrounding a coronal mass ejection" and, in my opinion, an entire article does not need to be dedicated to a single component of a CME. This is also ignoring the fact that I have never heard the term coronal cloud being used in that sense. And I don't believe I am alone in that. In the single cited source that contains the phrase "coronal cloud", it is in reference to a type of prominence... a type of prominence which is shown to appear 1 to 2 days after a CME. In addition to this, the first section makes absolutely no sense and is in no way supported by the cited sources. The rest of the article then goes on to provide identical information to that provided here and in list of solar storms. CoronalMassAffection ( talk) 08:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
References
|
This link isn't working:
Morring, Frank, Jr. (14 January 2013). "Major Solar Event Could Devastate Power Grid". Aviation Week & Space Technology. 2605:A601:A6D6:1:78C1:43A1:1020:311D ( talk) 12:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
HOW THE CORONAL MASS EJECTION HAPPENS? PLEASE EXPLAIN Ramkumar swarnkar soni ( talk) 05:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
In Coronal mass ejection#Cause, it is stated that, without CMEs removing helicity from the corona, "the twists would renew themselves continuously each solar cycle and eventually rip the Sun apart." I think the weight given to this info is WP:UNDUE if it really just amounts to speculation and is not supported by any other source. Nonetheless, I have refrained from outright removing it since the one source provided is from Lucie Green, an WP:RS. I would appreciate any insight here. CoronalMassAffection ( talk) 22:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
At present, the article feels all over the place, and I think a more coherent layout is warranted given its status as a vital astronomy article. Something like the following seems more appropriate:
I have intentionally left out an "Associated phenomena" section, as I believe it would be best to integrate this information into the other sections (e.g., flares, eruptive prominences, and sigmoids in the "Origin and initiation" section; EUV waves, Forbush decrease, and radio emission in the "Propagation" section). CoronalMassAffection ( talk) 21:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)