Talk:Geomagnetic storm

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Geomagnetic storm article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A New Theory of Magnetic Storms was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 December 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Geomagnetic storm. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Astronomy: Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Space Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Space weather task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Definitions of storm ratings are missing - G1, G2, G3, G4

I came here to find if G1 is a big or small geomagnetic storm. The ratings system is missing, and seems like it should be added. 172.10.237.153 (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Superstorm 2003?

I've seen mention of a Halloween 2003 Superstorm on a couple of sites (like http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/science/timescale.php). Would that bear mentioning in this article? And is there anyone more knowledgeable than myself who would like to add it? Jedikaiti (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a twist

That schematic needs some axial tilt. That's one reason I didn't use it. And it is polite to include a source URL in the Image page...and practical in case someone eventually makes a robot check for updated images. (SEWilco 08:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Some shematics have an axial tilt, but one might ask whether or not this is really important for the level of discussion included here. Furthermore, although the axis of the dipole is, in fact, tilted with respect to the Earth's rotational axis, its depiction in a diagram assumes a certain visual perspective, one where the tilt is actually visible in a two-dimensional plane.

The schematic was taken for the USGS Geomagnetism Program website at http://geomag.usgs.gov and was produced originally by Mitazeijaa.love

GPS scintillation

This vanished from the page overnight. If it was intentional, could there be some discussion here first please? I replaced the text, but did not revert the page as Shaddack had already made a large number of improvements to the page.

GPS signals are affected when solar activity causes sudden variations in the density of the ionosphere, causing the GPS signals to scintillate. The scintillation of satellite signals during ionospheric disturbances is studied at HAARP during ionospheric modification experiments. It has also been studied at the National Science Foundation equatorial ionospheric observation facility in Jicamarca, Peru.

John Elder 3 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

This has since been re-added. -- Beland (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments

Well writen article! Info D 15:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geomagnetic Storm of 2006

We are just beginning to see effects from the solar storm caused by sunspot 930 (see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236520,00.html), and likely this will even be strong enough to cause the northern lights to be visible in the Northern Continental United States. Perhaps this storm is worth mentioning in addition to the storm of 1989. Of course, it's just a little early to add it, but anyone reading this after it occurrs, see if it is newsworthy enough to be mentioned. I would add it myself, but I will more than likely forget :D Bourgeoisdude 20:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is newsworthy then that news will remind plenty of people about this article. Sunspot 930 has been in the news enough already that I'm sure several people reading this have been aware of 930 for days. If something significant happens the article will be udpated. Unless it knocks out the servers, in which case the city herald will tell us the news. (SEWilco 06:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge

I've proposed a merge with Magnetospheric convection and magnetic storms. They appear to be covering the same topic. -- Whpq 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a significant difference between these? i.e: Can they occur seperately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nex Iuguolo (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merge has since been implemented. -- Beland (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Magnetic pigeons ?

"Pigeons and other migratory animals, such as dolphins and whales, have internal biological compasses composed of the mineral magnetite wrapped in bundles of nerve cells." Can anyone provide a good source for this statement? It sounds far-fetched to me, and not really borne out by the info on the Homing pigeon article. --Kiwi137 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoreception —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.197.220.188 (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GIC

I moved this from Geomagnetically induced currents, if any of it is not yet included in this article, it probably should:

Here we discuss the ground effects of space weather, but we note that space weather also impacts other technologies, for example, those associated with airlines, Earth-orbiting satellites, GPS, radio communication systems, and unmanned space missions. Astronaut health during space weather events, for example during extended stays on the International Space Station, and on any future Moon and Mars missions, continues to be a prime consideration for national and international space agencies.

Cheers! Tazmaniacs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazmaniacs (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theory

I found this page lacks a proper explanation of the evolution of a magnetic storm. I appreciate that it might be contested theory, but, even in the absence of consensus, can anyone provide an explanation? Warrickball (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

FTA: "Computers are not usually viewed as scientific instruments..." which I thought was hilarious when taken out of context. Of course, in context it's referring to sensor-type "instruments" such as found on a satellite. Could someone rewrite this in a less confusing way? 4.242.147.121 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -- Beland (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-year blackout due to geomagnetic storm?

This seems implausible--wouldn't a storm, even a large one, just trip protection devices and take the grid down for a while until it could be black started? The only source is a review of a TV movie, which seems too many levels removed from real fact to be the only support for this statement. Dbrunner (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, these are fictional scenarios which claim to be based in science, not actual scientific predictions. I removed the claim. -- Beland (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "fictional" is the best way to describe these scnearios. "Speculative," definitely. "Hypothetical," definitely. "Alarmist," possibly. Note that the NASA-funded National Academy of Sciences report on risks posed by space weather contains some pretty frightening language: potential for large-scale blackouts...potential for permanent damage that could lead to extraordinarily long restoration times....potential for long-duration catastrophic impacts to the power grid and its users....[T]he effects on these interdependent infrastructures could persist for multiple years.... So it's not only the writers of made-for-TV movies who are talking about the potential for multi-year disruptions of infrastructure. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely alarmist reports from the NASA-NAS crowd. But PJM, which runs the electrical grid that had problems last time, has prepared for the next one. The big problem last time was that they didn't have sensing for DC currents between grounded transformers induced by geomagnetic fields which were pushing transformers into partial saturation. Now they do. There are measures to take when this happens. ("Salem 1 and 2 units will reduce to 80% power and Hope Creek to 85% power if ... Transformer neutral DC currents in excess of 5 amperes") [1][2] --John Nagle (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some previous move issue

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Request is not within policy. As noted, this is the common name for the phenomenon. We do not add extra words to common titles to clarify what a subject, known commonly by a certain title, is, except in the case of disambiguation, and that is concerned with avoiding confusion where other subjects are also known by the same title and results in a parenthetical clarifier when needed, rather than changing the actual name of the topic. Defining what a subject means is a function of the article content. By the way, Google hits, rather than being meaningless, can be an excellent metric to determine common names and whether a subject is the primary topic. This is as compared other purposes such as determining notability of a topic, where any raw search results must be carefully analyzed as to the reliability of the sources found.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Geomagnetic storm → Geomagnetic solar storm — Geomagnetic storms always occur in suns ? As such, the solar should be added in the header to clearify this. User:91.176.221.91 09:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this move actually controversial for any reason?
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I am not aware of such scientific term as "geomagnetic solar storm". All geomagnetic storms are processes that occur in the magnetosphere of Earth. Ruslik_Zero 10:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I don't really have a strong opinion on this either way, but I think that the IP might have a point. The Earth doesn't cause these storms, the Sun does. Yes, they do occur in the Earth's magnetosphere, but that's incidental to the fact that we all live here. The solar wind certainly does affect more then just Earth.
—

V = I * R

(talk) 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "Geomagnetic storm" is the standard term, not "Geomagnetic solar storm" ("Geomagnetic storm" gets about 20 times the number of google hits as "Geomagnetic solar storm", for example). It's not really true to say they "always occur in suns", they are a feature of the interaction between the Earth's magnetic field and the solar wind. Djr32 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right but... the Sun is a required component. The solar wind comes from the Sun, not the Earth. (Aside from that, for Wikipedia Google hit counts are meaningless measures).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pipelines

I don't think the comment regarding increased corrosion rates is correct. Some sources suggest the corrosion rate is not affected that much. If there are no objections, I'll edit accordingly and add sources.Apau98 (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for risk for undersea cables broken?

The highlighted link leads to an error... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.184.52 (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again????

The Pipelines section of the article says Once again, pipeline managers thus receive space weather alerts and warnings to allow them to implement defensive measures. Is it necessary? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Introduction and Definition Sections

I made a major modification to the introduction section and added a definition section to improve the accuracy of this article. The rest of the article is unchanged but I can see several parts that need improvement. In particular, the Interactions with planetary processes section is quite incomplete. I think the Geomagnetic storm effects section could be shortened because much of the material is covered by other Wikipedia articles. Richfj (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed

Text and/or other creative content from A New Theory of Magnetic Storms was copied or moved into Geomagnetic storm with this edit on 6 November 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

113 days to reach earth ?!?

Hello. Plasma from solar flare travels at about 800 km/s, and reaches earth in about 2 days. Please check and correct. I'm French, I will not edit an english page. I already corrected the french page. Thank you. (Flevavasseur (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Who's "Odenwald"?

"Odenwald suggests that a geomagnetic storm on the scale of the solar storm of 1859 today would cause billions of dollars of damage to satellites, ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Geomagnetic_storm&oldid=676768855#Disruption_of_electrical_systems ---178.199.97.81 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus statement in article

This seems totally bogus: "Since long powerlines (such as the ones coming from the mains electricity grid) gather and convey a huge amount of electric power from the solar storms, it is very likely that any connected domestic equipment that is connected to it will be damaged during a powerful solar storm. (citation needed)". Serious induction problems from geomagnetic storms may occur on lines hundreds of kilometers long. Residential drop lines from the distribution transformer are hundreds of meters, not long enough for this effect. Removed entire section, which was cited to a home improvement blog and Reddit. John Nagle (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unit Conversion Errors

There are a couple of places where the magnetic field strength units are in error, such as this statement:

"During quiet times, Dst is between +20 and -20 nano-Tesla (nT). IN CGS, this is between +2 and -2 megagauss."

Since 1 Tesla equates to 10,000 Gauss, +20 and -20 nano-Tesla would not be in the megagauss range.

Similar errors occur later in the article.

129.42.208.179 (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Dave[reply]

I undid the edits that introduced these values. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geomagnetic storm. 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geomagnetic storm. 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geomagnetic storm. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325191721/http://www.economics.noaa.gov/?goal=commerce to http://www.economics.noaa.gov/?goal=commerce&file=events%2Fspace%2F

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GeoStorm

I wonder how a GeoStorm starts off. 2600:6C63:517F:90A2:D8E:7BC9:6155:8E0E (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation

Everything seems equally represented, and the information remains relevant throughout. Wikipedia does state that some extra citations may be necessary, but it is difficult to point where. ~~~~ Mitchelchik (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All statements apart from those in the lead should be referenced. Most are, but there are quite a few which are not. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error

"The Carrington Event was mild compared with very rare extreme geomagnetic storms called Miyake events, which cause spikes in radioactive carbon-14 in tree rings."

"Miyake events" aren't a "geomagnetic storms". CanalRetro (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does say Several space weather phenomena tend to be associated with or are caused by a geomagnetic storm. These include solar energetic particle (SEP) events... a Miyake event is a SEP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CanalRetro @Kvng Major SEP events and geomagnetic storms are both usually caused by CMEs and thus often associated with one another; however, an SEP event can occur without a geomagnetic storm and vice versa, and one is not caused by the other. Therefore, I really think that this comparison between the geomagnetic-component of the Carrington event and the (as far as we know) purely SEP-induced Miyake events is misleading and should be removed. I will remove it shortly and reword the sentence @Kvng is quoting for clarity. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]