This ‘Large and Unstable' Sunspot Just Slammed Earth With Its Strongest Flare Yet
Scientists predict another solar eruption may take place today.
An Earth-facing sunspot region has been raging with massive eruptions of hot gas that have caused disruptions to our communications systems—and there's still more to come.
On Tuesday at 5:49 p.m. ET, sunspot region 4114 released an X.12 class solar flare that caused a radio blackout over the Pacific Ocean, including Hawaii, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Space Weather Prediction Center. This was the strongest flare released by this specific sunspot thus far. That said, this magnetically active region resulted in multiple eruptions over the past few days and is predicted to fling another one our way today.
A sunspot is a dark, cooler area that appears like a smudged dot on the Sun. It forms when strong magnetic activity slows down the flow of hot gas from the star's interior to its surface. A byproduct of the Sun's complex magnetic field, sunspots occur more often during the solar maximum. The Sun goes through an 11-year cycle, marked by an ebb and flow of solar activity. During solar maximum, which officially kicked off in October 2024, the Sun erupts with more flares, coronal mass ejections, and magnetic storms. When all that activity is on the side of the Sun that's facing Earth, it's bad news for us.
Sunspot region 4114 is a feisty one. Earlier this week, the sunspot released multiple M-class solar flares in less than 24 hours, according to spaceweather.com. 'Sunspot 4114 is large and unstable, with a 'delta-class' magnetic field that harbors energy for strong explosions,' the solar tracking website wrote. The strongest flare erupted on June 15 as an M8.46 class, causing a shortwave radio blackout over North America with loss of signal at frequencies below 20 Megahertz.
Solar flares are categorized by their strength, starting at B-class, which are the weakest, all the way up to the strongest, the X-class. An M-class solar flare comes right before the X-class. The solar flare responsible for the geomagnetic storm that took place between May 10 to 12,2024 was classified as X1.1, just a tiny bit stronger than the latest flare produced by sunspot region 4114.
The sunspot's previous flares also unleashed a coronal mass ejection (CME), eruptions of solar material ejected from the Sun that can cause geomagnetic disturbances on Earth. Tuesday's flare, however, was not accompanied by a CME. Instead, it was an intense flash of electromagnetic energy that caused ionization in Earth's upper atmosphere, resulting in the radio blackout.
The active sunspot region, which is still facing Earth, is predicted to release another solar flare on Wednesday, according to spaceweather.com. As the Sun rotates on its axis, the sunspot will become hidden from our view and Earth will be in the clear. There is a chance, however, that the sunspot remains active until it reappears in view again, unleashing more solar rage our way.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What is feast and famine? New dieting approach found to be effective for weight loss
The so-called feast and famine approach to dieting, which involves fasting on alternate days, may help shave off the pounds better than other intermittent fasting and calorie-restricted diets, according to a new study. A new review of the increasingly popular method, which involves a 24-hour fast on alternate days, suggests the approach may have greater benefits when it comes to weight loss; however, scientists have called for more work to confirm the findings. Other intermittent fasting approaches to dieting have also grown in popularity, including time restricted eating, where people only eat for a certain number of hours in the day; the 16:8 diet involving a 16-hour fasting period followed by an eight-hour eating; and whole day fasting, which includes the 5:2 diet involving five days of eating and two days of fasting periods. Researchers from Scotland, the US, Canada and Germany examined data from 99 studies involving more than 6,500 people to compare fasting methods to continuous energy restriction diets by looking at all of the available evidence. People involved in the studies had an average body mass index (BMI) of 31, and almost nine in 10 (89 per cent) had pre-existing health conditions. The research team found that both intermittent fasting diets and calorie-restricted diets led to weight loss. However, compared with continuous energy restriction, alternate day fasting was the only strategy to show benefit in body weight reduction, with people on this diet losing 1.29kg more, according to the study, which has been published in The BMJ. The authors said that alternate-day fasting showed a 'trivial' reduction in body weight compared with both time-restricted eating and whole-day fasting 'Minor differences were noted between some intermittent fasting diets and continuous energy restriction, with some benefit for an alternate day fasting strategy with weight loss in shorter duration trials,' the authors wrote. 'All intermittent fasting strategies and continuous energy restriction diets showed a reduction in body weight when compared with an ad-libitum diet 'Of three intermittent fasting diets (ie, alternate day fasting, time restricted eating, and whole day fasting), alternate day fasting showed benefit in body weight reduction compared with continuous energy restriction.' Around 29 per cent of adults in the UK are obese. Later this month, GPs in England will be allowed to prescribe Mounjaro, also known as tirzepatide, for the first time. Patients previously needed to access the drugs through a special weight loss service.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Dupilumab Linked to Higher Psoriasis Risk in AD
Treating atopic dermatitis (AD) with dupilumab vs other systemic agents increased the risk of developing psoriasis over 3 years, a cohort study found. METHODOLOGY: Addressing postmarketing reports of psoriasis in patients treated with dupilumab for AD, researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of 214,430 adults with AD from the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network, with a 3-year follow-up. Analyses were completed on October 19, 2024. The study compared 9860 adults newly prescribed dupilumab vs 9860 prescribed other systemic agents, which were corticosteroids, methotrexate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, or mycophenolate mofetil. The mean age in both groups was about 45 years; about 55% were women; about half were White, 18% were Black, and 10% were Asian. The primary outcome measure was incident psoriasis, and the secondary outcome was psoriatic arthritis (PsA). TAKEAWAY: Over 3 years, 2.0% of patients on dupilumab developed psoriasis vs 1.1% of those taking other systemic agents ( P < .001). < .001). Psoriasis risk was significantly higher in patients on dupilumab (hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.25-1.99). The number needed to harm (NNH) for psoriasis was 94 for dupilumab vs the other systemic agents. Psoriasis risk was also higher in patients on dupilumab who were older than 60 years (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.22-2.58), men (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.08-2.22), women (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.19-2.24), and White (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.05-1.93). At 3 years, PsA incidence with dupilumab vs other systemic agents was similar (0.20% vs 0.13%; P = .53). The risk was not statistically significant (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.75-5.18). IN PRACTICE: The study found an increased relative risk for psoriasis among those treated with dupilumab, the study authors wrote, adding that an estimated NNH of 94 reflected the limited clinical relevance of the absolute risk, and 'risk should be weighed against dupilumab's proven efficacy in treating AD.' They noted that the rate of psoriasis was in the range of psoriasis prevalence in general AD populations, suggesting that 'dupilumab may act more as a trigger rather than a decisive factor in promoting psoriatic eruption in patients with AD.' SOURCE: The study was led by Teng-Li Lin, MD, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation in Chiayi, Taiwan. It was published online on June 18 in JAMA Dermatology . LIMITATIONS: Limitations included the observational design, possible misclassification bias in outcome reporting, and absence of information on AD severity, physician specialties, photodocumentation, and treatment response. Because the database only supported time-fixed medication exposure analyses, data on dosage, duration, and adherence were unavailable. DISCLOSURES: The research received support from the National Science Technology Council and Taichung Veterans General Hospital, both in Taiwan. The authors had no competing interests.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Can You Choose an A.I. Model That Harms the Planet Less?
From uninvited results at the top of your search engine queries to offering to write your emails and helping students do homework, generative A.I. is quickly becoming part of daily life as tech giants race to develop the most advanced models and attract users. All those prompts come with an environmental cost: A report last year from the Energy Department found A.I. could help increase the portion of the nation's electricity supply consumed by data centers from 4.4 percent to 12 percent by 2028. To meet this demand, some power plants are expected to burn more coal and natural gas. And some chatbots are linked to more greenhouse gas emissions than others. A study published Thursday in the journal Frontiers in Communication analyzed different generative A.I. chatbots' capabilities and the planet-warming emissions generated from running them. Researchers found that chatbots with bigger 'brains' used exponentially more energy and also answered questions more accurately — up until a point. 'We don't always need the biggest, most heavily trained model, to answer simple questions. Smaller models are also capable of doing specific things well,' said Maximilian Dauner, a Ph.D. student at the Munich University of Applied Sciences and lead author of the paper. 'The goal should be to pick the right model for the right task.' The study evaluated 14 large language models, a common form of generative A.I. often referred to by the acronym LLMs, by asking each a set of 500 multiple choice and 500 free response questions across five different subjects. Mr. Dauner then measured the energy used to run each model and converted the results into carbon dioxide equivalents based on global most of the models tested, questions in logic-based subjects, like abstract algebra, produced the longest answers — which likely means they used more energy to generate compared with fact-based subjects, like history, Mr. Dauner said. A.I. chatbots that show their step-by-step reasoning while responding tend to use far more energy per question than chatbots that don't. The five reasoning models tested in the study did not answer questions much more accurately than the nine other studied models. The model that emitted the most, DeepSeek-R1, offered answers of comparable accuracy to those that generated a fourth of the amount of emissions. Source: Dauner and Socher, 2025 Note: A.I. models answered 500 free-response questions By Harry Stevens/The New York Times Grams of CO2 emitted per answer Source: Dauner and Socher, 2025 Note: A.I. models answered 100 free-response questions in each category By Harry Stevens/The New York Times Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
