Talk:Coronal mass ejection

message: 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)
thread_title: Relationship to Cosmic Rays?

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll have a look at this page. I'm a solar physicist. Had fun creating the coronal loops page, so I'll see what I can do here -- iano (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect of CME? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of information 

message: 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)
replies: text: Look at it this way, if the sun was a volcano, a solar flare would light up your house from the bright display and you could sweep the ash off your roof later. A CME is like when the volcano landed on your house, making it difficult to find your broom. Or if it was a BBQ, a solar flare is where everyone is coughing because there is too much smoke all around the yard coming from the BBQ, and a CME is where some twit managed to pour enough fuel into the BBQ for it to run to the bottom of the BBQ prior to full ignition, and the BBQ lands all around the yard, from where it produces some smoke naturally. Like that. Obviously, neither this article or the solar flare article explain the difference well enough if editors are asking these questions. Penyulap talk 04:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Stargate Atlantis

message: 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)
thread_title:  CME impact observed by Cluster 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Post-eruption arcade piccy 

message: (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)
replies: text: I commend you for providing this concise and orderly presentation which will surely make it into one or more of the articles you mention, including the present one. __meco (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthy comment 

message: 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)
replies: text:  There are very few "Anglophone nations" in Europe.  Perhaps you would like to name them.  Careful with this one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.149 (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time zones 

message: 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)
thread_title: Watching August 2010 CME? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Frequency of ejections 

message: ...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)
replies: text: Readers want to know - are you medicated?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.46.194 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

text: haha!--Tallard (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readers of this article want to know... 

message: The last sentence of this section needs clarification:
::"The energy absorbed by astronauts is not reduced by a typical spacecraft shield design and, if any protection is provided, it would result from changes in the microscopic inhomogeneity of the energy absorption events."
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)
thread_title:  Impact on Earth 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205194952/http://csem.engin.umich.edu/csem/publications/ManchesterApJ_2005.pdf to http://csem.engin.umich.edu/CSEM/Publications/ManchesterApJ_2005.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  An "in popular media" section 

message: Recently,  reverted my recent removal of material concerning coronal magnetic structures:. 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)
thread_title:  Some promo stuff about "eruptions" 

message: The EM is mentioned, but not described. Please flesh this out a bit. HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description section needs more detail 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, definitely! Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . CoronalMassAffection (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  White-light coronagraph media? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Support, provided that  is willing to undertaker the work of carrying through the merger. Coronal mass ejection gets 22,600 hits on Google Scholar. None of the references for Coronal cloud have the words in their title and it only 136 hits on Google Scholar. This is possibly enough for a section in the Coronal mass ejection article, but not for a separate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As an additional note, Coronal cloud doesn't actually have any (correct/supported by sources) information that isn't already present in Coronal mass ejection and List of solar storms (and articles linked therein) meaning that this merger won't require that any changes be made to Coronal mass ejection. Additionally, because Coronal cloud's title is referring to coronal cloud prominences (cf. channel prominences), it would make more sense to have Coronal cloud redirect to Solar prominence rather than to the actual destination of the merger. (And to clarify, the reason why I proposed a merger with the CME article rather than the prominence article was based on the CME-related content of Coronal cloud, not its prominence-related title.) CoronalMassAffection (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *If the coronal cloud article does not have any information to merge, then you are not proposing a merger. I suggest that you close this discussion and be wp:bold. Change coronal cloud to a redirect, adding a note on the talk page explaining the reasons. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help! CoronalMassAffection (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have deleted it. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading dead link 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: HOW THE CORONAL MASS EJECTION HAPPENS? PLEASE EXPLAIN Ramkumar swarnkar soni (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How the coronal mass ejection happens? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I am not sure whether there is any guidance on this point, but reliable sources often disagree, and we should reflect the consensus. If other sources dispute Green's vew, then we could give each side (naming the authors inline), but no one even comments I would delete. Giving her view without any caveat would be misleading. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rip the Sun apart 

message: 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:
# Lead
# Physical description
## Origin and initiation (i.e., cause, trigger mechanisms, frequency/solar cycle, composition)
## Propagation (i.e., post-eruption dynamics, acceleration, propagation through the corona and interplanetary space)
# Impact on Earth
# History
# Stellar CMEs
# See also, References, etc.
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)
thread_title:  Article layout