National power grids could overheat and air travel severely disrupted while electronic items, navigation devices and major satellites could stop working after the Sun reaches its maximum power in a few years.
Senior space agency scientists believe the Earth will be hit with unprecedented levels of magnetic energy from solar flares after the Sun wakes “from a deep slumber” sometime around 2013, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
In a new warning, Nasa said the super storm would hit like “a bolt of lightning” and could cause catastrophic consequences for the world’s health, emergency services and national security unless precautions are taken.
Scientists believe it could damage everything from emergency services’ systems, hospital equipment, banking systems and air traffic control devices, through to “everyday” items such as home computers, iPods and Sat Navs.
Due to humans’ heavy reliance on electronic devices, which are sensitive to magnetic energy, the storm could leave a multi-billion pound damage bill and “potentially devastating” problems for governments.
“We know it is coming but we don’t know how bad it is going to be,” Dr Richard Fisher, the director of Nasa’s Heliophysics division, said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.
“It will disrupt communication devices such as satellites and car navigations, air travel, the banking system, our computers, everything that is electronic. It will cause major problems for the world.
“Large areas will be without electricity power and to repair that damage will be hard as that takes time.”
@ur momisugly Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2010 at 11:21 am
“I think we have moved so far from the science that the insults are the only things left with redeeming value. Let’s see how low they can go…”
Insults are all you have ever given with any planetary theory of solar activity and climate, you seem to not to able to control youself. I do understand that it a threat to your reality map, but that is just hard cheese.
I suggest you refrain from your snidey comments, and then we do not have to see how low the insults can go.
I can accept that you may have no belief in planetary influence, that is very common in the orthodox community, but do not please go pushing your attitude around in such an insulting manner, particularly when you have not actually seen the all the evidence, to repeat, this is pure prejudice and not scientific method.
tallbloke says:
You’ve told us you want to get entertainment by seeing how low you can go with insults.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 19, 2010 at 12:01 pm
then we do not have to see how low the insults can go.
As I said, the science has gone out of it, only insults left. Keep’em coming. Good value for the money.
anna v says:
June 19, 2010 at 12:01 pm
The problem is not of one electron moving another electron electromagnetically or gravitationally . It is of whether there is enough energy in the planetary electromagnetic fields to manifest what you think you are manifesting, massive effects on the sun.
Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding between us arises Anna. It is not necessarily the case that huge amounts of energy need to pass from the planets to the sun to trigger effects on a huge energy matrix which is close to locally flip-flopping over boundary conditions anyway.
I’m not claiming that this is how it is, I’m just entertaining the possibility as one among many others.
Taking that thought a little further, maybe its not that energy has to pass from the planets to the sun at all, but the lowered solar surface temperature at the location of sunspots (the reason they appear as dark spots in contrast to their surroundings) is due to some of the energy from those locations going into the reconnecting of field lines with the magnetospheres of the planets. Which might explain the correlations Ching Che Hung found between large magnitude solar flares and the planets being overhead of their location at the time too.
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2010 at 12:20 pm
It is not necessarily the case that huge amounts of energy need to pass from the planets to the sun to trigger effects on a huge energy matrix which is close to locally flip-flopping over boundary conditions anyway.
1) because of the outwards flowing solar wind electric and magnetic energy does not [cannot] flow from the planets to the Sun.
2) the Sun is not a huge ‘energy matrix’ that is easy to disturb.
You should only consider possibilities that are energetically feasible. The argument that there are unknown forces or unknown sides of known forces at play, is not valid science without evidence.
Leif, looks like I was just in time to pre-empt your objection. 🙂
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2010 at 1:01 pm
due to some of the energy from those locations going into the reconnecting of field lines with the magnetospheres of the planets.
The sunspots are cooler because their magnetic field in the photosphere cools the plasma locally, so the cooler temperature is a consequence of the magnetic. The magnetic field in the corona and solar wind is not influence by any of this, and the reconnection with the planetary magnetospheres equally not, and there is no backward reaction. It is like firing a rifle: when the bullet hits its target, it is stopped, but that does not knock the rifleman down firing the shot.
In this age where our civilization is so dependent on science, pseudo-science is a dangerous activity as it helps lower the public’s understanding of our environment potentially leading to disastrous political decisions [E.g. Lysenkoism or AGW].
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2010 at 1:43 pm
there is no backward reaction. It is like firing a rifle: when the bullet hits its target, it is stopped, but that does not knock the rifleman down firing the shot.
If you’ve ever fired a rifle, you’ll know what ‘recoil’ is. The release of chemical energy causing an explosive expansion in the cordite pushing against the inertia of the bullet produces a back reaction which slams the butt of the rifle into the shoulder of the shooter. Thank you for finding an excellent analogy for the concept!
In this age where our civilization is so dependent on science, pseudo-science is a dangerous activity as it helps lower the public’s understanding of our environment potentially leading to disastrous political decisions [E.g. Lysenkoism or AGW].
On the contrary, Lysenkoism and AGW climatology were able to hold sway precisely because alternative views and ideas were suppressed. Long live freedom of expression and the plurality of ideas! God bless America for upholding the right to free speech! Down with despots and dictators! 😉
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Thank you for finding an excellent analogy for the concept!
You got this wrong. I was pointing out that hitting the target does not cause the recoil. It takes a true pseudo-scientist to get that wrong.
On the contrary, Lysenkoism and AGW climatology were able to hold sway precisely because alternative views and ideas were suppressed.
No, they were able to hold sway because people believed things that were not true. Spouting nonsense does nothing to advance liberty.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 19, 2010 at 2:10 pm
pseudo-scientist
tallbloke says:
June 19, 2010 at 1:57 pm
On the contrary, Lysenkoism and AGW climatology were able to hold sway precisely because alternative views and ideas were suppressed.
No, they were able to hold sway because people believed things that were not true.
Spouting nonsense does nothing to advance liberty.
Certainly not the nonsense spouted by your old collegial compadre, creative climate computating climatologist Stephen Schneider at Stanford University, I’d agree with that. He’s a specialist at getting people to believe things that aren’t true.
He is a propagandist.
anna v says:
It is of whether there is enough energy in the planetary electromagnetic fields to manifest what you think you are manifesting, massive effects on the sun.
You should make an attempt to learn about resonance. Amount of energy squad of walking soldiers put into a suspension bridge is hardly noticeable, but if they all synchronise their step, bridge will be ripped apart. Total energy in both cases is the same, except it one case is evenly distributed, in the other concentrated in pulses. The same principle applies to any system prone to oscillation, and the sun happen to be one.
We do not know exactly what happen during Maunder minimum, but the Earth suffered sever magnetic jolt, consequence of which are reverberating some 300 years later:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
An example of damped oscillation you can also see here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC3.htm
Solar scientists, by sticking to their 1950’s Parker’s ideas, are doing great disservice to search for solutions. Recent cases of Hathaway’s, Dikpati’s and others are the witness to their failures.
Correction: second link should be:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Reading most & finally last few comments: Reading DrMyhill.co.uk Not a reference to sun but to meylin sheath & fats composing. She said there were not enough mitochondria in the brain to use the energy it does so what else is consuming energy? Is this not like the question under discussion? She proposes the sheath itself consumes ATP and the disturbance of its fat levels, composition, thickness changes produce among other things, unconsciousness & disease.
Which has nothing to do with the sun receiving energy as well as giving it out, but in the bucket brigade of cellular metabolism to produce ATP, the cell also can cancel the whole thing and do exactly the opposite, which makes sense to me to see the solar system working the same way.
Given your respect, you may have considered the the fact that I was not appealing to authority. In a discussion about “influence of the planets” Ulric complains to Jean Meeus that it is “a subject you know nothing about. “.
That is a candidate for “quote of the day”.
All I am doing is pointing to Jean Meeus’ book on planetary motion, a book I have in my shelf and which I have enjoyed using as theoretical background from some of my planetary simulators. Actually, some of the diagrams of solar motion used by several of the ‘barycentic people’ here is based on this software, which again builds directly on the work of Jean Meeus.
vukcevic says:
June 19, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Correction: second link should be:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
The quote from Leif on that one cracked me up. Lol.
Leif: you’re obviously having a good time poking sticks into that big ant-hill. anna v: not so much it seems, but try to cheer up. You won’t have much effect on the astrologers, but it’s good for normal people to have reality placed in front of them. In any case, I commend you both for your perserverence. Perhaps more of us should be doing this, instead of just shaking our heads in dismay.
/dr.bill
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
June 19, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Given your respect, you may have considered the the fact that I was not appealing to authority. In a discussion about “influence of the planets” Ulric complains to Jean Meeus that it is “a subject you know nothing about. “.
I have spent many hours playing with Jan’s planetary motion equations and have utmost respect for his astronomical prowess.
Ulric is specifically talking about relating the occurences of certain planetary configurations with the temperature records, and discovering reliably repeating signals. Has Jan Meeus done that?
A simple “yes” or “no” from Jan himself would settle it without you and I needing to get into a heated debate, which I would rather avoid, because I respect your effort in creating and sharing your astronomical software too.
Cheers
Ulric Lyons says:
June 18, 2010 at 8:18 am
Fuss all you care to, it will not change the facts. This may all be too heretical for you, but who are you to comment so, on a subject you know nothing about. I can back my claims up with a wealth of evisence. There is no substance to your objection.
_______
Ulric, how rude, before we go any further on your “wealth of evisence” as you stated above, please apologize to Mr. Meeus.
( Mr. Meeus, thank you for the mathematical advancement of astronomy you provided, many of us were stuck with computers in the late 70’s but no easy way to get the equations out of the official Nautical Almanac, thank you very much. I was a young man with a small sailboat and dreams of circumnavigation, never happened but still was lots of fun learning the navigation and you sure helped. )
vukcevic says:
June 19, 2010 at 3:12 pm
anna v says:
It is of whether there is enough energy in the planetary electromagnetic fields to manifest what you think you are manifesting, massive effects on the sun.
You should make an attempt to learn about resonance. Amount of energy squad of walking soldiers put into a suspension bridge is hardly noticeable, but if they all synchronise their step, bridge will be ripped apart. Total energy in both cases is the same, except it one case is evenly distributed, in the other concentrated in pulses. The same principle applies to any system prone to oscillation, and the sun happen to be one.
Please.
Energy conservation cannot be violated, and energy budgets are easy to make.
Gravitational resonances, because of the small size of the available energy took millions, if not billions, of years to synchronize the moon to the earth.
The same would be true for any other known force.
When the available energy is small, energy budgets are enough to exclude models. Within what we call science, this is irrefutable.
Unknown forces belong to science fiction.
Ulric Lyons says:
June 19, 2010 at 8:18 am
This morning, we had a heliocentric conjunction of Earth and Ceres, accompanied by new new region 1083 (positioned directly towards the alignment), and a CME within hours of said alignment.
I am trying to keep my head down, but this statement is truly embarrassing. There are certainly many facets to planetary theory.
anna v says:
Energy conservation cannot be violated, and energy budgets are easy to make.
I did not say that it has to. You are taking a leaf out of Dr. Leif’s book. Sun has a plenty of electric and magnetic energy, it only needs a small regular pulse to nudge it into oscillation, which all electro-magnetic circuits are prone to do, it is transfer of one form of energy to the other (back and fourth) that is source of oscillation.
Here :
http://subaru.univ-lemans.fr/enseignements/physique/02/electri/rlclibre.html
( set R=300. L=2, C=3)
you can see why PF behave as they do in here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
wayne says:
June 19, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Ulric, how rude, before we go any further on your “wealth of evisence” as you stated above, please apologize to Mr. Meeus.
I doubt if Ulric will choose to present his “wealth of evidence” to people who already rejected it without hearing or seeing it because of their prejudices or over-reaching certainty about the power of their knowledge. The scientific method consists of making an examination of the observational evidence, and drawing generalised and testable inferences from it. It does not consist of making a priori judgements about what is or is not possible, no matter how good you believe your current model of reality to be.
I think I detect “Crisis Envy”…
Also reminds of folks saying “I may be broke now, but you just watch when I become rich on the lottery!”
The sun has gone quiet. It will be that way until about 2040 ( 2 different PhDs at the ICCC presented with the same time frame…) There is no giant flare coming and it’s not all going back ‘to normal’ in 2013. It’s “normal” right now, it’s just that normal includes Grand Minima (though I prefer the Gilbert and Sullivan-esque Major Minimum.. They Had a Major Minimum and Not a Solar Bit of EM!… 🙂
Then again, anyone with a brain watching the buckets of money flowing to the folks who Cry Wolf the loudest over AGW is going to start showing 3D movie clips of The Wolf From Hell!!! dressed in the colors of their school department…
So I’ll believe the doom from a solar flare right after it is shown on the satellite feeds of solar images…
E. M. Smith says:
The sun has gone quiet. It will be that way until about 2040 ( 2 different PhDs at the ICCC presented with the same time frame…)
It is hardly needed PhDs expertise to predict what the sun will be doing until 2040. Two astronomic constants and couple of COS-ine functions it is all what is required.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
(el. published Jan 2004, devised in late 2002, while the sun was blasting away, and Hathaway and Dicpati were predicting strongest cycle ever )
However, I would appreciate link to the ICCC papers (or the authors names).
Thanks
I agree we should avoid heated debates.
I think this issue is about two very different positions in the debate. Some people prefer to investigate apparent correlations without requiring physical mechanisms to explain them. Others actually require observations to be explained within the framework of science.
Observe that the second position does not exclude looking into correlations. My position has been that apparent correlations may be useful in formulating hypotheses, i.e. they are sources of inspiration for further scientific investigation. That was my starting point when looking into these matters. But when a scientific investigation fails to produce any mechanism or evidence, or even indicates the non-existense of a proposed mechanism, then my only possible conclusion is to say that, without further evidence, such hypotheses have no scientific basis.
Of course, there is a small chance that the “framework of science” could be expanded to include new mechanisms that we didn’t know about before. But as long as you can’t point to what these would be, then those apparent correlations are just correlations and nothing else.