Talk:Solar flare

message: There is an ellipsis, represented by 3 dots ... , between 'Optical observations' and 'Radio observations' in the Observations/History section. 86.53.56.45 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Ellipsis in history section

message: I'm by no means an expert on this but is this even a real unit of temperature? It sounds made up and Google doesn't seem to know what it is. Even if it is, wouldn't it be better to always use the SI unit?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.44.35 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Jails of Monkeys?!?

message: I don't think there should be an image of a CME on the solar flares page, there is already enough confusion between these two phenomenen, when they are distinct events whcih are not directly related with each other. Any thoughs welcome.
13/02/2007
 I totally agree. I think Coronal Mass Ejection, Solar Flare and Solar Energetic Particles should be better distinguished.USferdinand 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unhappy

message: Remember to make sure you are indeed going to the last good version; the categories and interwiki links got lost in the shuffle from around 1 March 2006. I'll get around to this unless someone else wants to first. --Christopherlin 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting vandalism

message: Does anyone have a site that lists major sun events like flares etc ? It would be helpful to include...
From http://sec.noaa.gov/sxi/latest.html on there are lists reachable for all minor and major events in the past <insert large number> years.
I am surprised that there is not more info on the 1 September 1859 solar flare, which apparently was one
of the most powerful in recorded history. It is a prominent historical event; I also noticed that there 
is spare mention of it on the "sun spot" page either. Dru007 02:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed 

message: Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of doomsday scenarios]]

message: Nasa says the power of a solar flare is equivalent to a billion megaton nuclear bombs, not a million as the original article stated.
http://news.com.com/NASA+launches+twin+robots+to+map+the+sun/2100-11397_3-6129678.html?tag=nefd.top
The largest flares apparently involve an energy of about 1026 Joules. Since a Megaton is roughly 4×1015 Joules, the largest flares involve about 25 billion Megatons of energy. By the way, this is energy, not power. References available.
This raises another question, more general and important for any substantial expansion/rewrite of this article (which it does need - who has time?), and possibly others. Who is the intended reader? Should he or she be spoken to in Joules or Megatons or coal-fired power stations? Some Wikipedia articles on Maths subjects, for example, are accessible to few people. This one should presumably be accessible to most people, but should it also be useful to people who know something already? Views would be helpful.
BodachMor 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power 

message: I recently did a paper on Gamma Rays for my Physics class.  Gamma Rays are emited during solar flares. 
What if a flare oringinating from the Sun emited a Gamma Ray burst?  What if a nearby star, such as in the Andromeda Galaxy, was the origin of such a burst?  I know about the catastophe that would result from such a cosmic incident, but how likely is something like this?  In 2012, Solar Flare activity is supposed to reach a peak.  Could a burst happen as a result of this? 
Please awnser!!!  Thanks!!!
Is the first sentence right? What is the energy equivalent of a solar flare? I am not an expert, but it looks awfully high. I thought is was equivalent to millions of hydrogen bombs, not billions of nuclear bombs -- can someone check this?
The phrase Gamma_ray_burst refers to a particular sort of cosmic event, apparently producing most of its energy in the form of gamma-rays and apparently - so the Compton Observatory showed us in the early 1990's - at extragalactic distances and thus unspeakably luminous to be detectable at all. Solar flares emit gamma-rays but this doesn't mean we should call them Gamma-ray bursts and thus confuse them with something much further away and of a completely different physical nature. Flare gamma-rays are absorbed harmlessly by Earth's atmosphere. Don't lose any sleep over them! BodachMor 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I think you are thinking of just Gamma Rays. The Sun is always producing gamma rays from the proton-proton chain. Gamma Ray bursts only occur when a massive star collapses on itself and creates a black hole. The energy from that black hole creates a gamma ray burst. IF ONLY THAT HITS US, then we are doomed. The sun can do bad things, but do not want to mention them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmu1992 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Current models predict a GRB apprx. 600 or more light years away is no longer a lethal event if the Earth was in it's path. I'm sure as time goes on that figure will be reduced yet again, as the science improves.50.111.7.77 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamma Ray Burst?!?!?!?!?! 

message: After seeing a news article about it, i created the article for Moreton wave, a wave caused by a solar flare, if anybody would like to see it and expand it. Thanks --AW 22:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Moreton wave]] 

message: the information on wikipedia is far less compared to google of dictionary.com. u think they should put the latest news on solar flares and update it now and then and make it more colorful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.249.16.74 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 15 December 2006  (UTC)
"Dr. Hans Zarkov, speaking from the International Solar Center in Zurich, Switzerland, predicts an above average solar flare production for 2007. He forecasts seven Categories M, five Zs, and four Bs. He recommends that the world be prepared to go underground for four hours during the worst of these storms....." Something like that, maybe?   :)Student7 20:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary.com 

message: Big enough solar flares can also cause power blackouts too. In northern areas like Canada, they have had blackouts because of solar flares.64.136.27.201 23:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For future readers, IP is likely thinking of a coronal mass ejection, not a solar flare. The former can cause geomagnetic storms which in some cases result in blackouts (e.g., March 1989 geomagnetic storm). The electromagnetic radiation from solar flares cannot cause blackouts. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar flares can also cause blackouts, right? 

message: The article says the energy of a solar flare is equivalent of billion megatons. Of what? TNT? And the source is? This site says they are equivalent "only" to a million megatons of TNT. That's 1000 times less. ---Majestic- 09:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy equivalent? 

message: Isn't the picture at the top of the page a Solar Prominence rather than a Solar Flare?
:Yes, it is, a better picture should be put there instead. I've been meaning to give a clean-up to the article for some time, but I never got around to do it... as soon as I find some time I'll try and do it. Definitely the introduction should be improved a lot. Gringo.ch 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the picture with one really showing a solar flare.Gringo.ch 12:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture at the top of the page 

message: Does a "Solar Flare" only refer to flares on the Sun itself, or can it refer to a flare on any star? The article seems to imply that it does refer to any star, but in that case the word "solar" is odd. 72.236.6.82 (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology question 

message: Should'nt this topic mention the largest flare ever recorded, known as the 1859 Carrington Super Flare, named after scientist Richard Carrington who recorded this event,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.137.68 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1859 Carrington super flare 

message: Some jokester put references to nachos and cheese in the "Classification" paragraph.  Can someone please fix this?  Also, until the hoopla for the "2012" movie is over, you may want to put this page until the semi-protected status.
Mtminchi08 (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Unless I missed it, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the increase in spectral line emissions, particularly H-alpha, that accompany solar flares. Should this be included? 212.84.101.12 (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention magnetic reconnection model and increase in spectral line emissions? 

message: I think this image, added to the article yesterday, is a solar prominence eruption as mentioned at http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/firstlight/ . Is it also correct to describe it as a flare? --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SDO image? 

message: Should SDO be added to the satellite list? Looks like one of its mission targets is to observe solar flares. --88.130.193.98 (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add SDO satellite 

message: The Classification section currently says "Each class has a peak flux ten times greater than the preceding one, with X class flares having a peak flux of order 10−4 W/m2. Within a class there is a linear scale from 1 to 9, so an X2 flare is twice as powerful as an X1 flare, and is four times more powerful than an M8 flare."
Is this correct?  If I understand correctly, then an X1 is ten times greater than an M1, and an M5 is five times greater than an M1, so the X1 is twice as powerful as the M5.  Thus the X2 should be four times more powerful than the M5, not the M8.  Or am I misunderstanding the scales? Peristarkawan (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased to know that I' not alone wondering about the sentence....I went to the discussion page exactly for this reason. Strangely Wikiblame says the sentence has been there since 09:54, 14 March 2009. although I read "powerful than an M5 flare." and not M8 as you reported.--Dia^ (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

text: "an X2 flare is ... four times more powerful than an M5 flare" is a correct sentence. Ruslik_Zero 08:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentence had been removed, so have restored as above. - Rod57 (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification math 

message: I propose merging Flare spray into Solar Flare. The information on Flare spray is small enough to fit on this article and is talking about a Solar Flare.  JC Rules! (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Sun - August 1, 2010.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 21, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-05-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 20:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Sun - August 1, 2010.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: How many M and X class flares do we see (per annum) at the peak and trough of the solar cycle ? -  Rod57 (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many M and X class flares 

message: I am removing the statement "these are not visible from Earth's surface" in the first paragraph. It's not at all clear what "these" refers to, but solar flares definitely are visible from Earth's surface - Carrington and Hodgson's 1859 observations were clearly not made from a spacecraft. Plenty of information about solar flares and how they are observed from ground-based observatories here.
HairyDan (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy 

message: Throughout Wikipedia and elsewhere the term prominence is used. And I know that the word "protuberance" in general applies to many things ("things that protrude from something else", see here), like for example there are occipital protuberances, mental protuberances etc.
But maybe should we create a redirect page (i.e. "Solar protuberance" redirecting to "Solar prominence" article)? Because Google search for Solar protuberance shows this article as the first/topmost result. Further, there is even an entry Solar protuberances on Free Online Dictionary. Also, searching Wikipedia for solar protuberance does in fact return some results. --Wayfarer (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominence vs. protuberance 

message: The line "A solar flare on January 20, 2005 released the highest concentration of protons ever directly measured,[11] taking only 15 minutes after observation to reach Earth, indicating a velocity of approximately one-third light speed, giving astronauts as little as 15 minutes to reach shelter." has an incorrect assumption which is not validated by any article cited. The part "indicating a velocity of approximately one-third light speed" is provably false: Light from the Sun takes an average of 8 minutes to get to Earth, so a 15 minute journey from the Sun would be almost 1/2 the speed of light. Regardless, neither statement is reported as fact by a cited source, and therefore no assumption of the speed of the particles should be part of this Wikipedia article. I am removing that portion for the stated reasons.
GeoffMossburg (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hazards: Solar flare of January 20, 2005 

message: The reference for the classification of the solar flares (atm ref. 7) "Principal Regularities in the Distribution of Major Earthquakes Relative to Solar and Lunar Tides and Other Cosmic Forces" has actually no information about this classification in it, if I haven't completely overseen it.  
The Space Weather page http://spaceweather.com/glossary/flareclasses.html may be a better source here, although it does not have the mentioned A class.
HappySka (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for Classification 

message: Headline: Sun unleashes monster solar flare, biggest of 2014.
* http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/25/sun-unleashes-monster-solar-flare-biggest-2014/?intcmp=features
Interesting; fascinating; important to know. — IMO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sun solar flares and public understanding 

message: Can anyone provide a reference for the term "Z class" and its definition?  I've never seen it before.  If it is as defined in the table, then there have already been many observed, and the comment about the 1859 event being X40 is irrelevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.79.118 (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Z class flare? 

message: "A solar flare on January 20, 2005 released the highest concentration of protons ever directly measured,[10] giving astronauts as little as 15 minutes to reach shelter."
: This suggests that a solar flare's effects cannot be felt on Earth until about 15 minutes later, although light take 8 1/2 minutes. Can someone clarify this for the article please? Kortoso (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Solar flares actually do not travel at the speed of light-the particles travel at sub-light speed.Joshualouie711 (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, particles travel at speeds less than light, though some are relativistic. They tend to follow interplanetary magnetic field lines, and these are not straight lines, so their passage from the Sun to the Earth (if they are on a field line connecting the two), can take something greater than the 7.5 minutes (or whatever it is) it takes light to make the straight line journey. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time delay? 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Magnificent CME Erupts on the Sun - August 31.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 6, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-09-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Magnificent CME Erupts on the Sun - August 31.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: 6*10^25 joules is not equal to 160 billion megatons of TNT. The comparison is off by an order of magnitude.
This needs to be fixed and which ever of the values if incorrect needs to be changed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11cookeaw1 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit error in opening paragraph. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Solar flare. 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/20050518081349/http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/ to http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050518081349/http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/ to http://www.solarphysics.kva.se/
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) 17:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Solar flare. 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  tag to http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jepsjmo/cd-rom/2002cd-rom/pdf/e021/e021-005_e.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004055728/http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=695 to http://gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=695
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) 06:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Flares have long been observed from stars other than the Sun (see flare stars) but we have no stand-alone article on xxx, xxx being flares or chromospheres or coronas or transition regions or any of the magnetically-linked atmospheric phenomena, in other stars ... the links to these phenomena are all to the "Solar xxx" articles.  This hampers a badly-needed overhaul of stellar atmosphere which should at least mention these things more generally; as well as missing these subjects in their own right.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSVulturis (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stellar flares 

message: In the Classification section there seems to be a mix-up of distances. It says:
"as measured by the GOES spacecraft at the Sun-Earth distance from the Sun of 2.7×1017 km."
But the Sun-Earth distance is:  
Mean distance from Earth = 1 AU ≈ 1.496×108 km
It seems that someone used the:  
Mean distance from Milky Way core	≈ 2.7×1017 km ≈ 29,000 light-years
The two values differ by a 109 factor. Rps (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong distance in "Classification" ? 

message: Is the list of flare-observing telescopes really necessary here? I think it all should be moved to Solar telescope, however, I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this before I move them. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has raised any objections, I have moved the info that was previously in the list to List of solar telescopes, Talk:List of solar telescopes, and to their respective articles if the info was not already there. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of telescopes 

message: Hi all. I have removed all four videos present in the article due to concerns over whether or not they conform to the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2, specifically about seizures and physical reactions. The videos in question are:
* File:The Best Observed X-class Flare.ogv (see onward from 0:35)
* File:X-class flare Aug. 9, 2011.ogv
* File:NASA's Fermi Detects the Highest-Energy Light from a Solar Flare.ogv (see clip starting at 0:50)
* File:AR1515 Releases X1.1 Class Flare.ogv
These flashes are produced as a result of SDO/AIA's automatic exposure-control algorithm, which avoids overexposure during flares by alternating between long and short exposures (noted in, for example, Schrijver et al 2011). Displaying successive photos that were taken with different exposure times in the form of a video (as is done in the aforementioned files) will produce flashes, which is both a potential hazard and misleading to the viewer as to the nature of flares. I believe the former concern falls under WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold, which requires the following.
:"Web pages do not contain anything that flashes more than three times in any one second period, or the flash is below the general flash and red flash thresholds."
Therefore, I have WP:BOLD removed the videos from the article and given my justification here, as it was too lengthy for the edit summary. Perhaps I am overreacting, but I think it is better to be safe than sorry when handling something like this.
Going forward, this flashing can be eliminated by normalizing by exposure time, and I hope to get to uploading some of these in the future. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flashes in flare videos 

message: " at all wavelengths, from radio waves to gamma rays "
Which is it? all wavelengths or from radio waves to gamma rays? If it IS all wavelengths, the flare couldn't have a wavelength larger than the sun.
sorry if this is pedantic, I'm genuinely confused. proud advocate of pirate speak wikipedia (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "at all wavelengths" is too ambiguous and have removed it (dif). CoronalMassAffection (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wavelengths