Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Supercomputer Models Sun's Corona Dynamics

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the waiting-for-the-vogons dept.

105

gihan_ripper writes "Researchers from San Diego are using supercomputers to accurately predict the shape of the Sun's corona, based on magnetic field data from the photosphere. It is hoped that this model will enable us to predict Coronal Mass Ejections. When CMEs reach the Earth, they produce geomagnetic storms and can wreak havoc with communcations, GPS, and power networks. In the decade or so, the researchers hope to be able to predict CME collisions with the Earth and determine their impact."

cancel ×

105 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Awesome! (4, Funny)

Monkeys!!! (831558) | more than 8 years ago | (#15610925)

I just hope the next advancement is getting the Earth to dodge the CME. :)

Re:Awesome! (4, Informative)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 8 years ago | (#15610945)

HAARP [wikipedia.org] is working in it right now. It might take some time though because they are one series of earthquakes and a rather large lightning strike behind this year. Not to mention the alien request to study us "sans atmosphere", but thats due after christmas.

Global warming? (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15610987)

Well then, I guess the first step to stop global warming is to shut these puppies down.
The HAARP IRI is an ionospheric heater, one of many around the world. It is comparable in function and power to most of them.

CAN IT MODEL THE EXTENSIVE TEARING OF TACOS ANUS? (1)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15610972)

That would be impressive.

Re:Awesome! (3, Funny)

x2A (858210) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611023)

Why bother when we can LAUNCH NUKES at the incoming CMEs!!!

Quickly, ready the missiles!

Re:Awesome! (2, Informative)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611039)

That's like launching a nuke into a Category 5 hurricane.

Actually the scale is more like launching a big firework.

No worry, though, Earth's magnetic field is a pretty good shield.

Re:Awesome! (1, Interesting)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611714)

It's funny you should say that. I would think that a sizeable nuclear detonation (at the right time and place) would cause a pressure wave powerful enough to disrupt the dynamo that is the low pressure center of a hurricane, and dissipate it. I dunno, any meteorologists in the crowd? Just how sensitive is a hurricane to disruptions of that magnitude? Do we even have a vaguest notion?

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15611806)

Do you happen to live near a hurricane zone? Perhaps you could offer to set one off at the right moment ;)

Re:Awesome! (4, Informative)

Leebert (1694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611937)

I would think that a sizeable nuclear detonation (at the right time and place) would cause a pressure wave powerful enough to disrupt the dynamo that is the low pressure center of a hurricane, and dissipate it.


No. See: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html [noaa.gov]

Clean Nukes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15613203)

Assuming that you can develope a nuke that is otherwise harmless to the environment. i.e. no residual radiations, fallouts and nuclear winters.

What about providing a grounding path of some kind to short circuit the energy?

Re:Clean Nukes? (1)

Tony-A (29931) | more than 8 years ago | (#15614376)

What about providing a grounding path of some kind to short circuit the energy?

Not a chance. Something about conservation of energy.
Now if somehow you could get something in the middle of it to convert the energy to a "useful" form, you could probably do something. A big enough wind farm in the middle of a hurricane -- lots of energy. Temperature difference between surface and deep waters -- lots of energy.

If you know exactly what you are doing, it should be possible to make stuff happen in one place rather than another -- maybe like a lot of little storms rather than one huge storm. I suspect we are nowhere near the level of knowledge required.

Re:Awesome! (2, Insightful)

JerkBoB (7130) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612006)

I would think that a sizeable nuclear detonation (at the right time and place) would cause a pressure wave powerful enough to disrupt the dynamo that is the low pressure center of a hurricane, and dissipate it. I dunno, any meteorologists in the crowd? Just how sensitive is a hurricane to disruptions of that magnitude? Do we even have a vaguest notion?

The NOAA [noaa.gov] might.

On top of not working, it'd just spew nuclear fallout everywhere. That's silly.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612587)

On top of not working, it'd just spew nuclear fallout everywhere. That's silly.

I didn't think it was a good (tm) idea (LOL!); I was just curious if it was a basically feasible idea for the immediate goal of destroying the hurricane. Apparently I'm not the only one who's thought of this twisted plan, though (I though not. On second thought, It's too damn obvious.) BTW, thanks for the link.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15612358)

What are you, an evil supervillain? Nuking the center of a hurricane wouldn't disrupt it, it would just produce a radioactive hurricane.

Re:Awesome! (1)

jcgf (688310) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612841)

fire ze missiles!

but i'm le tired...

ok, have a nap, then fire ze missiles!!!

Re:Awesome! [The Boomerang] (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15611175)

It can't be more worrying that this ... http://tinyurl.com/sxelz [tinyurl.com]

Re:Awesome! (1)

bepe86 (945139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611236)

I don't understand the scientists, how hard can that be? Let's just build a 30ft thick roof of lead in the atmosphere, and we get rid of all that dangerous electromagnetic radiation... wait, nevermind...

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15611340)

Good God that is cool. I feel like such a schmuck sometimes building ecommerce sites when there are projects like that going ahead.

Re:Awesome! (2, Funny)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611393)

No, you see... When it gets sufficiently advanced, the earth won't _need_ to dodge the CME.

Cool. A day off of work! (3, Funny)

Skidge (316075) | more than 8 years ago | (#15610938)

In the decade or so, the researchers hope to be able to predict CME collisions with the Earth and determine their impact.

Hopefully that means in the future we'll get CME days off from work, since havok-wreaking on communcations, GPS, and power networks would severly limit my productivity.

Re:Cool. A day off of work! (1)

s31523 (926314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611918)

Funny, but it may be true someday! If a CME is bad enough being outside may just kill you! We may even have CME shelters one day that are shielding and evacuation to the shelter might be called for. I mean, who knows, with the rate we are hosing up our environment we may damage the earths natural protections against this stuff, or just get a real whopper of a CME that the earth can't handle.

Re:Cool. A day off of work! (3, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611963)

I already get Sun days off.

Re:Cool. A day off of work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15614853)

I already get Sun days off.


It doesn't count when you work for Microsoft, and they're trying to keep their employees unaware of their upstream tech providers.

Sounds like trying to predict the weather (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 8 years ago | (#15610944)

Just looking at this superficially, it seems unlikely that we will ever accurately predict these events. Chaos has already doomed weather forcasters, who will never be able to predict the formation, maximum strength, or path of a tropical storm well in advance (well, unless they placed sensors on ever single particle on Earth, and then placed sensors on those sensors). The same is probably true of solar events.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (5, Insightful)

kozumik (946298) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611104)

> it seems unlikely that we will ever accurately predict these events. Chaos has already doomed weather forcasters

Let me guess, you heard a butterfly can cause a hurricaine due to chaos theory right? :rolleyes

It depends what you mean by "accurately" I guess. If you mean predictions with high probability several days in advance, yes that's doable. As you may recall we're already predicting hurricaine formation and movement days to a week or more in advance now, with a decent level of accuracy, and getting better all the time.

Global forcasting is already able to predict micro-climate changes months and even years in advance on a resolution of only several miles due to shifting weather patterns on a global/continential scale.

If weather was truly chaotic, i.e. if the total of all buterflys and other tiny variables made for completly unpredictable weather, then such predictions wouldn't be possible. Obviously the weather is not as chaotic as many HS professors have cliamed in that famous example. For that matter we wouldn't likely see big stable spots on Venus or have predictble trade winds here on earth, or all sorts of other fairly predictable features.

From monitoring the globe via satellite for things like ocean temps, and with many sensors for wind speed, forecasters construct fluid dynamic simulations which make it possible to predict smaller and smaller weather patterns further into the future, with increasing accuracy, butterflys or no.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (2, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611151)

"Let me guess, you heard a butterfly can cause a hurricaine due to chaos theory right? :rolleyes"

No, I've read a couple books on chaos, and did experiments with chaotic pendulums and water drop formation back in undergrad senior physics lab. The equations underlying weather prevent one from ever accurately predicting the condition in a specific location the further you go into the future, and that "distance" into the future is not going to increase as our technology increases. It's going to remain short.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (4, Insightful)

kozumik (946298) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611203)

Sorry, but you're over estimating the chaotic qualities of weather based on some outdated thinking. Yes it's true weather is too chaotic to ever be completly deterministic and there is a limited horizon on forcasting. We're not ever likly to predict individual rainshowers months or years in advance for example.

However, it will be possible to predict large weather patterns long in advance, years and even decades. For averages over longer periods of time they're already making predictions by running simulations on a global resolution of only several miles.

Medium scale weather events like hurricaines can be predicted days in advance now becasue it's not that chaotic, it relies on large events like global weather fronts, ocean temps, etc which allow prediction to a high degree of accuracy now. And yes, better methods and increased comuatational power are making those predictions more accurate, earlier.

You should actually read papers on what's being done on climate modeling by going to some of the relevant sites. Operating on classroom theory of chaos generalized to weather isn't exactly useful.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (3, Insightful)

mrcaseyj (902945) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611487)

We are having some confusion here about what constitutes accurate or inaccurate prediction. It would be nice if we could predict which STATE a hurricane will hit. I'm not sure about the current state of the art, but it seems that currently they can only do this reliably about two maybe three days ahead. I doubt they will ever be able to predict a hurricane path say, ten days ahead, because the weather is chaotic enough that it is sensitive to small changes like butterflies and forrest fires, which simply can't be predicted.

Forcasts that go years ahead are subject to an even more huge array of uncertainties. A species of algae may evolve a one percent more efficient metabolism thus changing the influence of the ocean. A human inventor may develop a more popular diesel car engine. We may find out that Saudi Arabia has been grossly exaggerating their oil reserves. A volcanic eruption can throw things out of whack for quite a while. Forecasts that go years in advance can barely be considered "predictions" at all. Rough estimate would be a generous description.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (2, Insightful)

indifferent children (842621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611750)

Yes it's true weather is too chaotic to ever be completly deterministic

Unless you believe that Thor, Zeus, and friends are meddling in our weather, it is completely deterministic. The fact that we cannot measure enough of the inputs to the system to make long-range predictions, does not mean that it is not a deterministic system created and controlled by causation.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 8 years ago | (#15615314)

the best models we have of our universe have indeterminism; probabilities not certainties. Your views are those of the 17th, 18th and 19th century physicists.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (1)

indifferent children (842621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15621132)

I assume that the indeterminism that you are talking about is the result of quantum effects, and not just insane-complexity-treated-as-randomness. However, at the macro level these quantum effects can be treated as static, since for large enough samples, they will average out to 0.5 (assuming range of zero to one). For instance, an average human brain contains approx. 456 trillion trillion atoms. For that many tests of randomness, the results will cancel out, and can pretty much be discounted. Scale that number up to the volume of the atmosphere (for weather systems), and the coin will come up heads "exactly" 50% of the time.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (1)

kozumik (946298) | more than 8 years ago | (#15619028)

I meant deterministic in the sense of what we're able to predict, obviously. Whether the entire universe is deterministic or whether free will even exists are philisophical and spiritual qustions outside the scope of this converstaion.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (1)

indifferent children (842621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15621178)

Okay, but in the future I recommend the use of the "unpredictable" rather than "nondeterministic". Though even with "unpredictable", we have to wonder wether you mean "We do not have the means to measure the inputs, and the models to allow us to predict...", or do you mean, "Regardless of any advances in technology and expenditure of extreme effort, it will never be possible to predict..." Noting that the latter still does not mean that the system under discussion is not deterministic. These distinctions can be applied to human thought processes, and your reference to Free Will and spirituality comes into play. But discussions of choatic, but not conscious, systems such as weather don't touch on the Free Will issue. They could bump into some meddling-god(s) issue(s).

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (1)

kozumik (946298) | more than 8 years ago | (#15624638)

:rolleyes

I think your understanding of the terminology is rather superficial. Your introducing the philisopical dimension of the word into the discussion was a silly attempt to say something smart sounding.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (1)

kozumik (946298) | more than 8 years ago | (#15624955)

> But discussions of choatic, but not conscious, systems such as weather don't touch on the Free Will issue.

Btw, that's also a rather silly and superficial distinction in regards to life on earth and the weather. If you want to be a weenie (which you seem to desire greatly) you could argue our free will and interaction with the universe makes everything non-deterministic or conversely the universe is deterministic and therefore no free will.

> or do you mean, "Regardless of any advances in technology and expenditure of extreme effort, it will never be possible to predict..."

That is also a silly infinitive assertion to make if you're trying to be perfectly correct.

Another silly person mentioned chaos and Feynman inappropriately in context of weather and modern forcasting which has improved exponentially since Feynman's era. The term "chaotic" isn't very meaningful these days because it's a blanket term for logarithmic increase in complexity, but lacking useful quantification. Under such simplistic definitions many systems are both chaotic and very much predictable.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612460)

There was nothing incorrect in my reply. While we may be able to predict that hurricanes will be stronger in a future season, we can't say where/when the early stages of a hurricane or tropical storm will appear, and thus we won't be able to predict the number of hurricanes.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (1, Informative)

dickko (610386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611224)

"The equations underlying weather prevent one from ever accurately..."

Um, there are no equations underlying weather. There are equations that model weather patterns, however (I presume that's what you meant...). These current models are limited by, for example, available processing power. New technologies allow for alternative models, which may be more accurate at making predictions about future weather patterns. So to say that "It's going to remain short" is a bit short-sighted.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (3, Insightful)

mrcaseyj (902945) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611176)

Good point about trade winds and such. But while some weather features are long term predictable to some degree, I think for the most part weather really is quite chaotic. I doubt forcasts more than a couple days will ever be very precise. If you can't appreciate the large influence of a small butterfly on a partially chaotic system, then consider the forest fire. It will probably always be impossible to predict where someone will throw down their cigarette and start a forest fire. After a day or two a forest fire will have effects that will significantly alter the weather around the world, thus making precise prediction impossible because you never know what the inputs to the system are going to be.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (2, Insightful)

amorsen (7485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611434)

If weather was truly chaotic, i.e. if the total of all buterflys and other tiny variables made for completly unpredictable weather, then such predictions wouldn't be possible.

The weather is a chaotic system in the mathematical sense of the word. That doesn't mean it's impossible to predict anything about the system. A coffee cup you pour milk into forms a chaotic system. The average temperature of the cup over time is easily predictable.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (1)

fredrik70 (161208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611990)

>If weather was truly chaotic, i.e. if the total of all buterflys and other tiny variables made for
>completly unpredictable weather, then such predictions wouldn't be possible.

That would be random weather, not chaotic weather, which is a quite different beast.

Hurricane forecasts (1)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612609)

As you may recall we're already predicting hurricaine formation and movement days to a week or more in advance now, with a decent level of accuracy, and getting better all the time.

Really? How quickly we forget ...The National Hurricane Center was saying this about Katrina on August 25, 2005

This forecast is rather difficult since one of the more reliable models...the GFS...shows that the cyclone barely touches the East Coast of Florida before moving northward....while the outstanding GFDL moves Katrina south of due west across extreme South Florida and the Keys as a very intense hurricane.
..barely touches the East Cost of Florida? Moves Northward? When the competing forecasts were made, there was no way to know which one would turn out to be correct. Notice there's absolutely no mention of New Orleans which happened three days later.

Richard Feynman had this to say about forecasting:

Speaking more precisely, given an arbitrary accuracy, no matter how precise, one can find a time long enough that we cannot make predictions valid for that long a time. Now the point is that this length of time is not very large... It turns out that in only a very, very tiny time we lose all our information...We can no longer predict what is going to happen!"
Feynman may be "outdated" but I think he was right.

Re:Hurricane forecasts (1)

kozumik (946298) | more than 8 years ago | (#15619078)

Feynman's methods are totally outdated, as are his assumptions. He was in old age before the dawn of modern computing and since his death the field of simulating weather and fluid dynamics has been completly reinvented.

Re:Sounds like trying to predict the weather (1)

dankelley (573611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15617088)

Since some sensible things are being said on this thread, and since there is evidently a lack of uniformity about the meanings of words, I am tempted to propose something a bit un-slashdotty -- provide literature citations. Resolving issues such as this, which partly hinge on the precise meanings of words (even the word "precise" itself) is something for which the conventional literature is rather effective.

Incredible videos (5, Interesting)

caryw (131578) | more than 8 years ago | (#15610951)

CME's produce some incredible video when they hit our sun-pointed satellites. If you haven't seen them I highly recommend checking out NASA's "Best Of SOHO Movies" for a better idea of what these things are capable of.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/bestofsoho/Movies/m ovies2.html [nasa.gov]
--
Northern Virginia? Forums and Arrest/Ticket Database [fairfaxunderground.com] . Seeking additions to the (new) wiki [fairfaxunderground.com]

Re:Incredible videos (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611537)

Best of Soho, eh?
This is is the /. we like.

Re:Incredible videos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15611850)

Solar pyhsics is not my field, hence I have found it rather staggering to read some of the recent advances. Earlier this year, I bought "The Sun" by Jay M. Pasachoff ("The Complete Idiot's Guide To" Series). The TRACE telescope in space observes the sun using different filters. Some of these are in the extreme ultraviolet, including a 195 Angstrom filter that observes Iron (Fe) that has lost 11 of its 26 electrons, an event that occurs at 1,500,00 degrees C. Rather than the sun just being one giant bar magnet, it also has smaller regions of polarity. From these polarized regions, ionized gas loops out hundreds of thousands of km into space. Here is an article I found that simulates the current prevailing theory "that active regions on the solar surface originate from strong toroidal magnetic fields generated by the solar dynamo mechanism at the thin tachocline layer at the base of the solar convection zone." http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrs p-2004-1/ [livingreviews.org] whose author looks kinda cute: http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/about/Staff/yfan/ [ucar.edu]

Hmm.... (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612249)

Supercomputer Models, Mass Ejections......I think these videos are off topic.

Now really! This is ridoculous... (2, Funny)

PixelPirate (984935) | more than 8 years ago | (#15610971)

...this is clearly a computer that should have come from Sun Microsystems! Honestly, the nerve!

Re:Now really! This is ridoculous... (0, Offtopic)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611053)

You win Slashdot's "best new spelling of "ridiculous" award.'

Re:Now really! This is ridoculous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15611139)

/me seconds parent's vote

TheStonepedo

Java? (3, Funny)

StarkRG (888216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15610976)

Ok, fine, fine, it'll enable them to predict things coming out of Sun, but will it tell us if Java will ever be open source?

Yes (1)

jpardey (569633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611245)

When the ice caps melt, when there is no power/water/internet, when there is no visible light, just heat, and when the corpses lie in the streets, they will release the source code so we can all have a good laugh.

The designer (0, Offtopic)

XanC (644172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611002)

Dr Reyga [memory-alpha.org] is finally getting his due...

For a moment... (2, Funny)

Clueless Nick (883532) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611009)

...I read the headline as "Supermodel Computes Sun's Corona Dynamics". Blame it on hectic Tuesday. But we would love to see the day, won't we?

-clueless

Re:For a moment... (1)

polansky (197040) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611062)

You're not the only one who read the headline wrong. That almost made my day.

Re:For a moment... (1)

TadZimas (921646) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611320)

All I have to say is, I'd like to compute HER corona dynamics, if you catch my drift.
*wink wink wink wink wink innuendo rush*

Re:For a moment... (1)

Ana10g (966013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612135)

Okay, I need more coffee. I couldn't see the difference and had to re-read your statement 7 or 8 times. Sheesh.

collision avoidance (1, Offtopic)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611012)

The next thing they plan to do is build gigantic 'strafe' keys on either side of the planet.

After that it's a rocket jump control to avoid incoming asteroids. I beleive that's going on belgium.

Re:collision avoidance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15612815)

Why do gamers insist on misusing the word strafe [google.com] ? Are all you people really that illiterate?

I love it when you talk that way... (0, Offtopic)

djupedal (584558) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611038)

Mass.....ejections....ahhhh ----- Oh, wait - e-J-E....-ctions - damn, and here I thought we had dutifully wandered back onto the subject of female ejaculations & I've got a paper due on just that very pertinent topic by tomorrow this time and.... urrggg nevermindddddd::::::

What is it, something along the lines of 8+ minutes for CME effects to flood our area post clip...? Not much time for adjustments if the predict fails.

Re:I love it when you talk that way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15611206)

At least you RTF Title right, I read it as "Supermodel Computes Sun's Corona Dynamics" and started thinking that THAT paper would be read with interest by the mathmatical community; and, damn those babes sometime ARE smarter than they look :)

Need more caffine before reading /. in the morning.

What we could do even we could predict it? (1)

mk_is_here (912747) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611051)

Currently seems we could do nothing to work against it. Maybe we could assign a evacuate procedure to the satillites to move to the night side of the Earth to hide from CMEs in future?

Re:What we could do even we could predict it? (4, Informative)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611083)

The satellites which would be severely affected by CMEs are most probably located at geo-synchronous orbit. To bring one closer to Earth, you will have to (1) move it closer to the Earth, and then (2) you also have to slow it down because, as it gets closer to Earth with its angular momentum still conserved (imagine the ice-skater's spinning with and without the arms stretched), the satellite would undergo a faster revolution around the Earth. If you don't slow it down, it'll sling back out to a higher orbit.

Many GPS satellites are orbiting in low-Earth orbits. Those are protected by Earth's magnetic field (most of the time) and will be fine against a regular CME.

Re:What we could do even we could predict it? (2, Funny)

helioquake (841463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611096)

pardon me about redundant remarks...shhhh, "to bring it closer, you have to bring it closer...".

That's it. I'm going to sleep.

Here's why prediction is useful (4, Informative)

gihan_ripper (785510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611234)

The benefit in knowing collision dates is that we'll be able to partially protect our assets from the storm. For example, power companies can issue a planned outage, taking their transformers off-line for a brief period during the storm in order to prevent a longer outage caused by damage.

This is like our desire to know how the (terrestrial) weather is going to behave, even though we can't influence it. Advance warning helps us to prepare for adverse weather.

Re:Here's why prediction is useful (2, Informative)

GapingHeadwound (985265) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611965)

CME prediction *may* also be useful to virology. The frequencies of CMEs vary with sunspot cycle (~11 year period). Moreover, solar radiation has biological impact as well and sunspot cycles (and thus, CMEs) have been strongly corelated with flu epidemics and pandemics: 1918 Spanish Flu, 1957-58 Asian Flu, etc.

The idea is as straightforward as radiation inducing viral mutation. We are currently at the low point in the cycle. The current, highly pathogenic H5N1 (a subtype/mutation of the Influenza A virus) and SARS both coincided with most recent peak in sunspot activity (mid 1998-2003).

If we are on the brink of a pandemic as several virologists suggest, there is a good likelihood that predicting CMEs could help in anticipating viral mutation vectors. A stockpile of engineered viral subtypes and mutations could thus be used to engineer vaccines preventatively. Every little bit helps, right?

So CME prediction may be useful if you assume that interfering with pandemics is a Good Thing. It might not be... who am I to judge? All the same, I'm looking to survive the next pandemic. I'd rather not die from drowning in my own fluids or other some such fun.

Then again, if the flu Came From Outer Space! [space.com] then I suppose the usefulness of CME prediction remains with telecoms and power companies.

Re:What we could do even we could predict it? (2, Informative)

s31523 (926314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611909)

I doubt even moving satellites would do anything, since large CME effect things on the earths surface.. If we could accurately predict a strong CME, here are some things that could be done, derived from Geomagnetic storm [wikipedia.org] definition:

1.) Send NOTAM's to pilots that Navgiation systems will be shutdown or disrupted during time X through time Y. Advise on an alternate navigation procedure.

2.) Get the astronauts out of space; The increased radiation might kill them.

3.) Figure out (another simulation) what will happen in the ionosphere so that better GPS and or WAAS corrections can be made

4.) Reduce power output on electrical grids, since CME can induce current; Remember the big power outage in 1989?

5.) Shutdown pipeline and anything like that; the CME can induce current in the pipes and cause bad flowrates to be sent to computers controlling things and that might be bad.

I imagine the hardest part... (2, Funny)

artifex2004 (766107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611079)

was modelling the bubbles that form on the lemon slice after it's pushed into the bottle.



(hackwrench, this should have been your comment)

Re:I imagine the hardest part... (2, Funny)

HisMother (413313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612185)

That's a lime slice, dude.

Supercomputer Models Sun's Corona Dynamics? (1)

Zx-man (759966) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611191)

I bet they use Intel CPUs!

Re:Supercomputer Models Sun's Corona Dynamics? (1)

symbeon (240420) | more than 8 years ago | (#15614302)

And run windows . . .

Just ask Hactar (2, Informative)

bananaendian (928499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611200)

Researchers from San Diego are using supercomputers to accurately predict the shape of the Sun's corona.

In other news researchers are using supercomputers to accurately predict the weather, earthquakes and the stockmarket.

We already have a perfectly good satellite based early warning system for predicting Space Weather [noaa.gov] . Trouble is the damn thing keeps knocking them out. I think we should skip this trivial phase of technology and move directly to space weather control. I reckon all we need is to turn up the volume in HAARP [wikipedia.org] or hire these guys [goldendome.org] .

Space weather prediction from space... (2, Informative)

Dr. Zowie (109983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612298)

The problem is that NOAA doesn't actually own the main satellites that it is using -- ACE (for solar wind sampling) and SOHO (for solar imaging) are both NASA satellites that are intended for research. SOHO and ACE deliver real-time data on an as-available basis. They don't have the same level of reliability and systems redundancy that a weather satellite would have.

Perhaps more importantly, both ACE and SOHO are aging (SOHO is nearly 11 years old, compared to its original 2-year mission) and there is no currently planned mission to replace the space-weather-relevant instruments (the coronagraph [wikipedia.org] on SOHO and the solar wind [wikipedia.org] samplers on ACE) when those instruments ultimately fail. (the Solar Dynamics Observatory [wikipedia.org] has surface imaging but no coronagraph).

Coronal Mass Ejections (4, Funny)

this great guy (922511) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611209)

Are we talking about the corona or Corona ? Because ejections of the second one are disgusting.

Re:Coronal Mass Ejections (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15611244)

i thought Sun bought the mexican beer company and was now planning on dumping them

Re:Coronal Mass Ejections (1)

the dark hero (971268) | more than 8 years ago | (#15613167)

Not if you use lime!

Corona is always better with lime!

Model Improvement how? (2, Insightful)

Stevecrox (962208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611613)

The article its interesting but doesn't really have any facts about how they improved the model. I can see the obvious advantages you'd be able to calculate when a CME is going to be strong enough to effect power systems and when it might be a good idea to move satalities into a temporary lower orbit. But some more details on the how would have been nice.

An argument for coffee in the morning... (1)

colinbrash (938368) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611730)

Supermodel Computes Sun's Corona Dynamics

last peace of my contraption (1)

necromcr (836137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611738)

Finally they invented predicting solar flares! Now I can finish my circular Star-Travel that goes in the future or past when solar flare occures!

What OS are they using? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15611896)

My guess - Solaris!

yowie (1)

fan777 (932195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611915)

that's some super-hot models

Oooooh... I thought that was a new product (1)

ellem (147712) | more than 8 years ago | (#15611960)

I thought I was seeing some new marketing from Sun Microsystems.

Slashdot needs... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Custard (587661) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612001)

...fewer articles about "Supercomputer Models Sun's Corona Dynamics"

and more articles about "Dynamic Super Models Drinking Coronas"

NOT Supermodels (1)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612060)

Crap... I read the title as Supermodel Computes Sun's Dynamic Corona and thought it had to do with a beer commercial starring women in bathing suits.

There goes my dyslexia again.

Is this really useful? (1)

ianlee74 (982977) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612063)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see how this helps mankind? Do we really think we're going to shield the Earth from these solar storms? Should we? If the concern is really with the danger to electronics, then shouldn't we spending the time and money on enhancing electronic shielding instead? Or is this part of a military agenda so that attacks can be coordinated with a nuclear storm so that the enemy is disoriented while we are shielded... I love science but I'm not an advocate of science without a purpose (or at least not until all of our current problems are solved). Someone please enlighten me.

Re:Is this really useful? (4, Insightful)

Ana10g (966013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612184)

I won't get into any examples, as I'm not qualified to make such predictions (though I'm sure some here are). That being said, researching for the sake of research produces useful results. Strictly researching "science with a purpose" could have prevented a good portion of our current discoveries. We don't know what our results will bring us, and that's the best part. We can apply this information where ever it fits, and use it to further understand our problems, which might lead to more "Science with a purpose" as you put it. All science is valuable, purposeful or not.

Re:Is this really useful? (1)

ianlee74 (982977) | more than 8 years ago | (#15615249)

I don't mean to sound totally against non-applied sciences, but to me this has gone beyond the science and has now created a tool based around the science. The inventors must have had some purpose for this tool when they decided to create it. I just think that the author did a poor job of researching the technology by not stating what it's possible uses might be.

Re:Is this really useful? (1)

Drakai (828042) | more than 8 years ago | (#15615509)

I seem to recall some mention during the last major solar event that if the event had been predicted several power management strategies could be put into effect to mitigate or minimize the outage. It the difference of reducing output briefly vs. re-initializes a massive system after an outage.

Magnets! (1)

quantum bit (225091) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612211)

I say we use the power from the geomagnetic storms to power a time loop machine. I want to be king of Groundhog Day!

heh, movie (1)

Spookticus (985296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612245)

sounds like a movie plot to me. We will be able to predict the corona but then some criminal predicts a massive one that takes out a lot of communications and then steals some stuff.

MODELS?!!? (2, Funny)

LordPhantom (763327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15612506)

andCorona?!? I almost got excited there, until I saw "supercomputer".

And the big deal is...? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15613018)

In the decade or so, the researchers hope to be able to predict CME collisions with the Earth and determine their impact.

So we see them coming sooner than if just waiting for visual confirmation that it happened. It's not like we can do much about it with this extra warning time, is there?

Firefox plugin (1)

leighklotz (192300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15615808)

You can monitor solar activity from Firefox with the Propfire [n0hr.com] plugin.
It puts a tasteful text-based solar flux / A / K index display in the lower right corner.

If only (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 8 years ago | (#15616131)

Darn. At first I thought this thing was "Super Models Compute Corona's Sun Dynamics" which would, of course, have looked a lot like the gasoline fight from Zoolander, but with less clothing and without as much of a fireball.

I think I speak for all of us... (1)

VanWEric (700062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15617693)

Unfortunately, I think I speak for all of us when I say I misread that as "Supermodel Computes Sun's Corona Dynamics".

Worse, it stirred my heart.

I need a girl...

Is it just me or... (1)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 8 years ago | (#15618134)

Does It is hoped that this model will enable us to predict Coronal Mass Ejections look like it has more than one meaning?

KOOL! (1)

obnoxiousbastard (239578) | more than 8 years ago | (#15618473)

Why can't I get a job that interesting!?

The biggest challenge I had this month was either a dead network card or a psycotic printer.

I need a new job.

Super Model computers? (1)

dacaldar (614951) | more than 8 years ago | (#15627839)

Anyone else do a double-take after skimming the subject line? :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>