Space storm alert: 90 seconds from catastrophe

[xnomad]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but it's an interesting read.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90-seconds-from-catastrophe.html?page=2

[jjjnettie]

Scarey stuff alright.

[astroron]

A good post:) ,It really gets one thinking:scared:

[kinetic]

Interesting post.
Another thread that I found linked on the same page:
Pictures from space with a cheap camera

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16805-student-project-captures-images-of-earth-from-space.html

Great pictures!

Steve

[Enchilada]

Sorry. Absolutely the one biggest lot of codswallop I've read in sometime. :mad:
Errors!! Worse there are more than a dozen errors in the article scanning through it. In the last few years New Scientist has gone a bit down-hill with more and more non-scientific speculation... so much for the scientific method. :confuse2:
This is not science, it is basically media hype not focussing on the facts but simple scare-mongering.
I will be definitely seeking out the original article, because it is certainly a cry for solar funding before the next solar maxima. What is more interesting, is nothing is said of the flares or the sun - only what the speculated effects on something that may or may not happen. (Pity there were few electrical devices around the the 1850s to measure it.)
The Carrington Event in August 1859 was certainly dramatic, which was very well described in "Kings of the Sun" by Dave Sorbel (2007) - well worth the read.
(Read the comments after the article to see my view is here supports some agreement.)
Mostly utter nonsense! :mad2:

[Stuart78]

Lol they do tend to go overboard, i mean if it's gonna happen it's gonna happen not much we can do about it so why do they constantly blow up a big hype about it, it would prob do the world good we rely on technology to much, people in future won't know how to grow there own food or fend for themselves, nor make there own clothes
cos china make all our clothes for us and the rest, might be a wake up call, if it even happens at all..

[Ric]

It does tend to get one thinking though.

If it's only 50% correct then it is still a lot of problems tht could be caused.

Cheers

[xnomad]

Regardless, I think it's still an interesting article. It paints a picture on how reliant we are on a functioning electrical grid. Of course these situations are often highly theoretical and media articles will often portray the absolute worst case scenario.

One has to take articles like this with a pinch of salt however, some of these risks are real even if highly unlikely. The same goes for all other major disasters, from super volcanoes to meteorites impacting. It may not be an entire country but a large city would certainly suffer if the grid was down for more than a few days.

I'm honestly not disputing your views but I'm very interested in hearing your reason as to why a scenario like this (perhaps to a much lesser extent) isn't possible. I read most of the comments on the NS page but didn't see any real counter arguments. There were only comments about fear mongering but these were not backed up with evidence.

I'd be surprised if the National Academy of Science, which was formed specifically to advice the USA on science, engineering and medicine, would publish their findings if a threat didn't exist.

[Jen]

:eyepop::eyepop:

[Enchilada]

The real issue is the time for disaster to strike. If light travels between us and the Earth at 8 minutes, then according to this article it takes 8 minutes to reach us. However, for a reaction with the magnetic field (magnetosphere) of the Earth, you need ions / plasma to cause the auroral magnetic storm NOT light. However, the stupendous numbers of ionised particles thrown from the sun actually take 24 to 36 hours to cross the gulf between the Earth and the Sun (travelling well below the speed of light.) For this main reason, spacecraft like SOHO have been placed in orbit to give us warning of significant flares (punching through the coronal holes) and any such storms heading out way. We can easily see the events erupting for the sun, and from the emission (especially in X-ray), we can tell if the size of the punch such an event would cause on the Earth's magnetosphere. (See all the Solar current images in various wavelengths at the NASA site. http://umbra.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/latest.html (An observer could see the event as a rare "white flare", and based on the number of observatories throughout the world looking and imaging the sun, someone would absolutely see it. I.e. It can't be cloudy everywhere! The NOAA Site shows a list of the observatories) http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/solar_sites.html)

If you don't believe me, just visit your local friendly Australian 'Ionospheric Prediction Service (IPS) ( http://www.ips.gov.au )
Getting information on the Sun, visit this site during the day for up-to-date images in H-alpha and Visible (images usually shown in daylight hours)
(At the time of this post, a recent NOAA H-alpha image is at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/today2.html You can even see the X-Ray flux)
If such events were a drastic as this article claims, there is not 8 minutes but 24 to 36 hours to react. You can even read the 3 day solar and geophysical activity forecast at http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast.html
That omission, among with a few serious other clangers, does not augur much faith in a non-peer review report - regardless who it is!
As I said, I will read the original paper (if available), and if it is like some science media reports of late (like this one), I trust it like I'd trust a kleptomaniac with the keys to my own house.
It maybe true that there would be a significant effect on the Earth's electronic devices - that can't be denied. But with 24 hours notice, the threat to the grid and them would be solved if you just switched them off. Power station have had breakdowns and power surges / outages in the past, especially with eastern seaboard of North America and Canada during auroral storms.
The truth is the effect of such a violent space storm is somewhere in between the doomsday scenario presented here and what we have already experienced.
In the end and article that professes science but does not back it up with science (I.e. Flares and energy of such bursts) is not to be trusted.
I am really interested to read the publish document before I'd take it as gospel.
Cheers.
(Thanks you for very much responding so reasonably. It is rare occurrence seen on the Net. I also appreciate pointing this article out to all of us.)

[Enchilada]

The problem is you are dealing with a middleman broad-based science reporters, who usual aims can sometimes not be necessarily the facts but selling magazines. (sensationalism)
A true classic example appearing from the science media was in "Universe Today" on an article on planetary nebula. What was reported and what the original paper said was two different things. Even the media reporter quoting one of the paper's authors made mistakes - including the author at the press conference, who dumbed it down so the press release mostly avoided what the paper was about! I.e. This really good recent example was in ; 'Universe Today' 12th March 2009 "Stars at Milky Way Core 'Exhale' Carbon, Oxygen" by Anne Minard http://www.universetoday.com/2009/03/12/stars-at-milky-way-core-exhale-carbon-oxygen/
Read the article and the responses and you'll get the drift. (Another alternative article appear of ScienceDaily, which fixed some of the problems highlight in the Universe Today article "Galactic Dust Bunnies Found To Contain Carbon After All" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090316143831.htm (It still has some problems, but is much better.)

In the end, don't totally believe the press. Magazines like S&T tend to be more genuine in their views. If it was such a drama, you would be better off to wait and see what this more factual magazine says before losing any sleep at night. Editor Greg Bryant in the Australian Version of S&T, at least in my experience reading it, would never make such grandiose wild claims in his reportage!

Note: You might recognise the respondent S.B. Crumb!

[xnomad]

Wow, some good information there Enchilada. Thanks for taking the time to write your reply.



No worries. I'm not well read in this field so I can't take a side and argue. I am genuinely interested in what anyone has to say on these matters. That's why I love online forums where I can read other people's input and discuss it with them. ;)

[casstony]

Of all the possible threats to our way of life, the most pressing near term one I see is a repeat of the Great depression and it's possible consequences - high unemployment, social unrest, delayed action on global warming. Most people don't realise how close the U.S. authorities are to failing in their attempts to re-inflate their economy. Their solution involves borrowing money from overseas to support insolvent banks which are supposed to lend money to over-indebted, scared consumers. It might work but probably wont IMO.

Apologies for the OT post, but if you want something to worry about near term, this is it.

[Enchilada]

Since post comments on this linked article. I have read many portions of the original book made available on-line. Indeed, the overall picture compared to the New Scientist article confirms that sensationalism has just (yet again) over ridden the actual science.

Well in the documentation published by the National Academies Press "Severe Space Weather Events - Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts Workshop Report" (2008) presented in the article by John G. Kappenman, Metatech Corporation; "The Vulnerability of the U.S. Electric Power Grid to Severe Space Weather events, and Future Outlook" (Note he is a representative of a corporation, whose company has a vested interest in the power supply in North America)
For example; http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507&page=107

"Much good work is being done to develop better means of characterizing and forecasting the threat environments so that power system operator situational awareness of this important threat is better communicated. In terms of the entire grid itself, remedial measures to reduce GIC levels are needed and cost-effective. The installation of supplemental transformer neutral ground resistors to reduce GIC flows is relatively inexpensive, has low engineering trade-offs, and can produce 60-70 percent reductions of GIC levels for storms of all sizes."

Why didn't the original article just say this or paraphrase this?
Additionally the energetic size of the events are just as important. Magnetic field strength is more often expressed in terms of teslas, frequently as the unit nT (nanoteslas) per minute.

A typical day on the particles from sun disturbing the Earth's magnetosphere measures between 0.1 and 2 nT/min. Damaging storms can be in the order of 480 nt/min, though the spikes or surges during such even may cause some problems with the grid. Some of the largest observed were in 1972, where 2000 nT/min was achieve three times - though the electric infrastructure in the U.S.Ag. survived easily. The probable highest field reached 5000 nT/min in May 1921, but few measures are available to confirm this as the technology to measure these fields wasn't around. (This latter event was ten times larger than another experienced in North America 13-14 March 1989, which has caused minor damage to the grid. (A highlighted event through out the book.) It is implied the largest possible field is around 10,000 nT/min.

Also not mentioned directly in the New Scientist article is;

"In Quebec on March 13, 1989, a large solar magnetic impulse caused a voltage depression that could not be mitigated by automatic voltage compensation equipment. The failure of the compensation equipment resulted in a voltage collapse in the province in an event that took only 90 seconds to propagate."

This is the actual source of the 90-seconds in the article. It is interesting to note the fault was more likely due to procedures or the operators of system not reacting quick enough.

Apparently, according to Frank Kosa "Space Weather Impacts on the Electrical Power System" pg.108-109, the;

"Grid operators have access to space weather forecasts, monitor voltages and ground currents in real time, and have mitigating procedures in place."

The reason for the modern failure is;

"The evolution of open access on the transmission system has fostered the transport of large amounts of energy across the power system in order to maximize the economic benefit of delivering the lowest-cost energy to areas of demand. The magnitude of power transfers has grown, and the risk is that the increased level of transfers, coupled with multiple equipment failures, could aggravate the impacts of a storm event."

But the most revealing statement of the failures of 1989 event (highlighting that the operators didn't react quick enough) was;

"It was over an hour before the system operators realized that the cause of the electrical system failure was a geomagnetic storm of K9 intensity, which resulted in a significant amount of GICs."

So in the end, this is a matter of public policy and monitoring / adapting the grid.

( Those interested in the real 'doomsday' impacts and risks, you can read this yourself at; http:/www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507&page=109. )

Finally, the velocity of these varies significantly. To highlight how much time we have is not 8 minutes at all, but is;

"Dividing the mean distance between Earth and the Sun by the 17.5-hour propagation time yields a speed of approximately 2,300 kilometers per second, making the CME of September 1, 1859, the second fastest CME (Coronal Mass Ejection] on record."

In the end, the effects on Australia are not as significant, due to the low magnetic latitudes of the Continent. However, the South Islands of New Zealand and Tasmania might have problem during very severe storms.

** Strongly Recommend those interested in this subject read the great perspective in the Introduction (pg.6-12);

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507&page=6

NOTE: The 'quality' clues to poor by all scientific writers in technical articles, is they seem to deal in absolutes and those who speak in terms of probability or likelihood. I.e. In sensational statements like;

"All <whatever> show <something>"

where the correct view is that;

"What is most likely, the majority of <whatever> show <something>."

Critical examinations should be the goal of every reader - especially in the physical sciences.

Again Kappenman says;
"These assessments indicate that severe geomagnetic storms pose the risk for long-term outages to major portions of the North American grid. While a severe storm is a low-probability event, it has the potential for long-duration catastrophic impacts to the power grid and its affected users. The impacts could persist for multiple years with a potential for significant societal impacts and with economic costs that could be measurable in the several trillion dollars per year range."

This kind of language is missing from the New Scientist article.

[Enchilada]

In the previous post there is a reference to GIC, but I didn't explain what GIC's were. In is an acronym for Geomagnetically Induced Current (GIC) This is a measure of the flow of ions in the magnetosphere, generating the current producing the aurorae and the energy disrupting the transformers etc. in the electric grid.
This will help greatly in the specific explanation in the previous post below.

Cheers,
Encha

[Enchilada]

I found in Science Daily three articles that might be of interest to those fascinated with this subject.
1) The Day The Sun Brought Darkness
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090316144521.htm
(Talks about the Quebec electrical power blackout.)

2)NASA Scientists Dives Into Perfect Space Storm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031027061940.htm
(Talks on the 1859 Storm)

3) Sun Unleashes Record Superflare, Earth Dodges Solar Bullet
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010404081121.htm
(Discusses the largest flare in the last 25 years. The X20 event was seen in 2001 at last solar maximum) Also see images at; http://www.noao.edu/outreach/press/pr01/mp.html - the 1.1Mb image is extraordinary! 22 times the diameter of the Earth!

[Enchilada]

Another thought relating to this article.

If there were another dramatically energetic event like the one on the 1850's, then the chances could be fairly high that all computers might also be fried like a burnt piece of toast.

Would a serge protector be sufficient to stop the frying?

If there was mostly copper wiring, then switching off the computer would save the circuitry. If it had sufficient iron in the computer you'd have no change.

Q. How much iron is actually in the computer circuitry? :help:

[ZL4PLM]

I read the article with interest and while somewhat sensationalised the basic fact is that during the 89 storm huge portions of the canadian national grid were literally burnt out.

The GIC can read many 100,000 of amps and the induced current literally burns out transformers, switches and relay equipment. The pictures from 89 were horrific with building sized transformers literally burnt out.

The damage done in 89 was nasty .. "but" ... these undulating currents take hours ... its not like EMP from a nuclear detonation ... so thats rather sensational!

What did happen in Quebec, sweden and N USA was power grid cascade failures where a dominoe effect ripples across the grids as power failures overload the next transformer already suffering down stream which then trips or fails in the same way.

The fact is that no matter what the power companies try they have 1000`s of km of wire up in the that induces overloads - the same for pipelines too - they do have protective planning and equipment to short the currents but the 89 event literally swamped them.

These are not usual events though and have happened many times in history as far back as 1859 when telegraph wires of the first communications networks were damaged. What is now the worry is the more technologically advanced we become the more we place ourselfs at risk. in 89 the internet hardly existed ... the next solar max we may not be quite so lucky with the billions of dollars of hardware that route our telecoms around the globe!

I should also add that it takes around 18 hours for the first waves of the CME to make it to earth and some hours for these currents to build up - the lights dont go off 90 secs after the CME occurs!

And its not only ground based power systems they worry about, numerous satellites were destroyed in the event and similar events have caused much damage over the years.

damage comes from both destruction of the silicion junctions in the chips (memory is partic affected) causing component failure but also "bit flipping" where transistor junction states flip from 0 to 1 or v-v, this can cause software failures and system failures hence the worry about nuclear power stations (or in fact any computer controlled facilities)

particle charges also build on and between the space frame and can short arc to the internal structure also causing failures of the satellite.

So I agree that the article is somewhat sensationalised but has a lot of fact behind it ... 90secs not from the CME event but 18 hours after and maybe 90 secs AFTER the grid starts tripping .... in a country that suffers -40c in the middle of a bad winter this could be nasty !

South Island NZ is alittle more mid lat so although would probably see the aurora Im not sure that it would suffer the same destruction given the much smaller distances of power cables ie 100,s of km not 1000s

btw you might as well hang garlic over your pc as hang it off a surge protector, the particles would need strong shielding hence why the ISS /skylab crews hid in a lead lined room! The surge protector may help if the power spikes as it drops off ... !

On an interesting side note I was at sea on a submarine in 89 ... the warning of navigation disruptions came early but I saw as much as 15 degree compass swings as the CME charged through .. now think with the reliance on GPS that we didnt have then......!!!! Radio blackouts also disrupted DECCA and LORAN systems too ... back then it was back to good old dead reckoning !

:-)

I would not be so quick to pooh pooh the article .. while some what sensational journalism the impact on power and satellites, navigation and comms systems might trigger something much more than loss of power for a couple hours .. and the economic damage these companies had to face were huge .. in the current climate that may not help either!!!

rgds

Simon ZL4PLM

[Enchilada]

Simon ZL4PLM
Thanks for the extensive reply. I do agree that the damage could be quite bad, but it is as I said, the truth is somewhere between in what this article says. Based on the unbelievable currents that can develop, the original book on the proceeding talks more about some preventative measures. (Though the alarmist arguments are hard to assess because commercial interested of the corporations backing the moves. Though wanting to do this at a time with the economic crises and climate change, well...)
Thank you for your submarine story, certainly a chilling example of the navigational consequences of such events. It reminded me of some of the stories of similar blackouts in WWII!
The other point that the New Scientist article should really present to the facts towards a serious topic. Sensationalism like this just promotes contempt - especially as what was said by the geophysicists was more to do with improving infrastructure and protecting the grid.

Thank you for bring some balance to the topic being discussed here.

Cheers

Note: I bought a half kilo bag of garlic the other day.... Thanks for that advise! :lol:

[ZL4PLM]

ohh sure .. its rather sensationalised .. and not quite the doomsday scenario claimed! lol!!

load dumping .. well they did try in canada ... as all power stations have this capability .. starting and stopping a 50mW turbine isnt instant!! but as I remember the damage was the extreme current induced in the transformer cores causing internal damage to core etc. App some of these things take 12 months or more to build! ie not stock items.

Id be more worried as companies are pressured further into cost cutting .. seeing how the impact of power loss in the sydney CBD caused so much fun :) Might only take a little event to cause some fun!

I hope you invested in the lead underpants along with the garlic.

;)

rgds

Simon

[Enchilada]

Heavy man!
:lol: