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.”
Spector says: June 23, 2010 at 9:51 pm
I sometimes wonder if there might be far stronger solar-flare events possible; perhaps capable of reversing the magnetic field of the Earth itself.
There is a similarity to in trend (reversed) of the GMF and the intensity of solar activity.
In recorded history the Earth’s MF was strongest during the Maunder minimum.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-GMF.gif
GMF’s vertical component is about 1000x stronger (tens micro Tesla) than the one induced by the solar activity (tens nano Tesla) .
tallbloke says: June 23, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I guess the term magnetic pole (singular) is a misnomer for a more complex situation.
Here is what ‘dichotomy’ GMF North looks like.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MNP.htm
Spector wonders if there have been stronger intrusions capable of raising the nitrate levels? Most certainly! Paul LaViolette first drew attention to the nitrate record in his book ‘Earth under Fire’. As a specialist in ice-core analysis, he was primarily interested in cosmic dust incursions – there were major events in the later part of and at the end of the last ice-age – indeed, the evidence points to major solar events as a potential cause for the abrupt ending of the ice-age. The nitrate record is interesting – though Paul used some filtering to get the signal – one could clearly see a peak 5000 years ago, and much higher peaks about 13,000 year ago. That 5k peak was much more powerful than the Carrington event – I would say, on the nitrate evidence that events 10x to 100x greater have happened – but whether there is a ca 5000 year cycle (as ancient Mayan astronomers warned) is not clear.
These ice-core events could indicate either a very weak geomagnetic/solar protection and hence incursion of cosmic rays/cometary material, or a galactic ‘wave’ event that compresses the magnetosphere and exposes the Earth to cosmic radiation.
Leif: I was taking the diagrams from the paper you highlighted that showed a reversal of the field lines below the heliospheric current sheet – and assumed that would create a reverse flow of electrons. The two hemispheres of the interplanetary field have opposite polarity – does this not allow for a reverse current?
Further question: does the solar wind carry a voltage? If so, how does the voltage vary – are there ‘shocks’, and how does it impact the geo-electrical system? I ask because there is some evidence that during solar maximum the aerosol loading is lower and thus clear skies are more transparent and let more short-wave radiation through to the oceans (70% of the surface) and hence warm up the planet (80% of land temperature variability is due to heat transfer from the oceans). I notice that during Svensmark’s experiments, he used a voltage shock to clear the aerosols in the chamber ready for the next experiment. Just a thought.
Leif: here is the extract that I was basing the assumption of a current into the sun – from the paper of Smith, Tsurutani and Rosenburg – I will try and get the diagram to ciopy over as well – ah, no luck! Its a nice diagram – maybe someone else can cut and paste it in?
Observations of the Interplanetary Sector Structure
up to Heliographic Latitudes of 16 ø’
Pioneer 11
EDWARD J. SMITH AND BRUCE T. TSURUTANI
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California 91103
RONALD L. ROSENBERG
Institute of Geophysicsa nd Planetary Physics,U niversityo f California, Los Angeles,C alifornia 90024
‘The direction of magnitude of the magnetic field above and
below the current sheet allows the flow lines of the equatorial
current to be deduced [Alfvdn, 1977]. Since the interplanetary
field is spiraled adjacent to the current sheet, the sheet current
is orthogonal to the direction of the local magnetic field and
hence has both radial and azimuthal components:
The foregoing equations assume that the fields are antiparallel
on the two sides of the current sheet, although observations
typically show some deviation from 180 ø of the angle between
the two field directions [Smith, 1972].
Near the sun the current is principally azimuthal much like a
ring current. However, as the interplanetary field wraps up to
form the Archimedes spiral, the direction of flow in the current
sheet must become progressively more radial. Beyond a few
AU the current flow is essentially radial and, during this phase
of the solar cycle, is away from the sun. The total current
flowing outward from the sun, L, may be computed from the
linear current density……….. Evidently, the flow is away from the
sun during one-half solar cycle of 11 years and then is inward
from the next half cycle.’
The simple-minded rational for thinking that a deep solar minimum might increase the probability of a major solar flare is the assumption that sun-spots may act as relief-valves for internal solar energy and when some mechanism stops this process, that pent-up energy may all be released in a sudden violent storm — much like the boil-over explosion we sometimes experience on removing a pot of super-heated fluid from the microwave oven.
Geoff Sharp says:
June 23, 2010 at 8:55 pm
I noticed you didn’t comment on the SIDC/NOAA difference on April 21,22. The record speaks for itself and your “as “I have explained repeatedly ” comments now looking suspect as my comments are proven by observations.
Jeez, this is just more of the same. There was a real spot then that NOAA missed. E.g. Locarno:
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2010/loc-d20100421.JPG
http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2010/loc-d20100422.JPG
Or MDI 04/21,19:04 and 04/22,00:42
The activity was duly reflected in F10.7:
4/18: 75.3; 0
4/19: 76.1; 0
4/20: 76.4; 0
4/21: 76.9; 7 <=== here
4/22: 76.9; 7 <=== here
4/23: 75.8; 0
4/24: 75.0; 0
The spot was also registered here:
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2010,04,05
NOAA might be faulted for not reporting the spot. Wolfer would/could have seen it.
Your own studies suggest the current counting methods are at least 22% higher than Wolfer’s count.
Please use ‘method’ with more precision. The ‘method’ has not changed in ~130 years. The Waldmeier discontinuity of ~20% comes about because Waldmeier continued to use k = 0.6 while for him a value 20% less would be appropriate to be comparable with Wolfer. To compare apples with apples, the first step is to increase all SSNs before 1945 by 20% [this includes Wolf’s, of course].
I believe the current high ratio of specks is further increasing the sunspot count compared with how Wolf reconstructed the Dalton Minimum cycles.
The current SSN is too low as I have pointed out repeatedly. Since Wolf calibrated his Wolf Number by comparing with the geomagnetic daily variation,the actual counts he used are irrelevant [in addition, there were so few observations that he often interpolated [i.e. made up] across data gaps. Wolf’s numbers before 1849 simply follow the amplitude of the geomagnetic diurnal variation GDV, regardless of what solar activity actually was. Now, later research has shown that GDV is a VERY good proxy for F10.7 and hence solar activity, so Wolf’s numbers do reflect some real aspect of solar activity too.
So by setting a benchmark that isolates specks and incorporating the current SIDC values (that make the grade) the Layman’s Count is the closest measure to compare with Wolf’s reconstruction of SC5&6.
Actually ‘no’, as the reconstruction is just tied to GDV [and even counts of aurorae]. Slide 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf shows that cycle 5&6 were comparable to SC14 [and we think to SC24 as SC24 looks to be comparable to SC14]
On slide 5 of the same talk you can see the continuous adjustments that Wolf made to the observed sunspot counts to make them fit the GDV. So again: the early Wolf numbers are just rescaled geomagnetic data, which is not a problem for the value of solar activity because of the relationship shown on slide 11.
Spector says:
June 23, 2010 at 9:51 pm
I sometimes wonder if there might be far stronger solar-flare events possible; perhaps capable of reversing the magnetic field of the Earth itself. But, as far as I know, no real evidence of any solar storm of that magnitude has ever been found.
And a solar storm would not be able to reverse the Earth’s field no matter how strong.
tallbloke says:
I wonder if something bigger than the average asteroid hitting the sun would precipitate a big flare or CME? Leif?
The operate word is ‘big’. A flare or CME originates because magnetic energy stored in the corona [and twisted – increased – by movements of plasma in the photosphere] is suddenly released. This release could come about by something hitting the Sun [more likely a comet than an asteroid – comets hit the sun all the time, e.g. http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/SolarCorona/large/las023_prev.jpg ], but the energy required is large [too large].
In any event, the energy released can be no bigger than the pent up energy already there, so the impactor is not where the energy comes from.
Vuk etc. says:
June 24, 2010 at 1:37 am
In recorded history the Earth’s MF was strongest during the Maunder minimum.
Is specious because the high-quality geomagnetic data just happens to begin around 1600. The MF was strongest about 2500 years ago and has been decreasing ever since.
Peter Taylor says:
June 24, 2010 at 4:41 am
Further question: does the solar wind carry a voltage?
Short answer: No. But one should be a bit cautious with ‘voltage’, because an electric field depends on the observer’s reference. So, seen from the Earth that does not move with the solar wind there is an electric field, but seen from something moving with the wind there is no electric field. Seen from a [very fast moving] comet [or spacecraft] moving with respect to the solar wind, there will be an electric field of a different magnitude.
EDWARD J. SMITH … “Near the sun the current is principally azimuthal much like a ring current.”
This is the point you are missing: the current flows around the Sun, not into or out of the Sun.
Vuk etc. says:
June 24, 2010 at 1:37 am
In recorded history the Earth’s MF was strongest during the Maunder minimum.
Is specious because the high-quality geomagnetic data just happens to begin around 1600. The MF was strongest about 2500 years ago and has been decreasing ever since.
Vuk the Earth’s magnetic field was strongest 2000 years ago, you better believe it !
http://www.rae.org/reversal.gif
Vuk etc. says:
June 24, 2010 at 1:37 am
In recorded history the Earth’s MF was strongest during the Maunder minimum.
Vuk etc. says:
June 24, 2010 at 11:18 am
http://www.rae.org/reversal.gif
Sigh…, here is the history of the MF for the past several thousand years:
http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg
There are newer and [slightly] better determinations, but they all show the same thing:
The Maunder Minimum time was just a point on the steady decline the past couple of thousand years. Here is a modern determination [Constable and Korte are the foremost experts on this topic]: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2007GC001881.pdf
We have been over this before: it would be useful for you not to spread disinformation on this blog.
@Peter Taylor says:
June 24, 2010 at 4:41 am
“– but whether there is a ca 5000 year cycle (as ancient Mayan astronomers warned) is not clear.”
The 1872000 day Long Count, is based on visible bodies only. Every 43rd conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn returns the pair to the same star (Hamlets Mill) at 312000 days. This also integrates Mars synodic periods (400,033), and attemps to with Eclipse years (900.11). 312000×6 = 1872000. The 144000 (x13) division is a Jupiter count. It is also 359×45 Mercury synodic periods.
As the Long count started on a climatic boundry, it is most likely that they were trying to plot the next Heinrich event (4627yr periodicity), knowing that the cold dry climate was the greatest threat to their survival. If they had been able to have integrated the orbital periods of Uranus and Neptune into their calculations, they might have not over shot the LIA by nearly 500yrs. My analysis is that they were practising weather/climate astrology, I would find it very hard to believe they were forecasting solar storms 1000`s of years in advance.
RE: Sunspot Numbers:
On my private sunspot analyses, I have been using 90-day or 365-day moving averages of the official counts. I regard these values to be indicative of the most probable number of sunspots that might have been seen at any given time. I have matched the sparse 17th century data to the more regular 18th century data for best match in the overlap period. Just for reference, here is a sample of my reconstructed sunspot values for the latter Maunder Minimum period using a nominal 365-day moving average of interpolated data. My estimated peak values for this period are as follows:
On my signed square-root SS numbers, all odd cycles have a positive value.
@Spector says:
June 24, 2010 at 10:51 pm
SC1 1750 is odd, it would then follow that 1739 is even, and 1727 is odd etc.
Ulric Lyons says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 25, 2010 at 3:57 am
@Spector says:
June 24, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Ooops SC1 is 1761, you were correct, excuse me.
Leif – okay, so it flows back into a ring current – that doesn’t mean there is no possibility of ‘communication’ (transfer of information) – I presume the ring current goes quite close to the photosphere/corona. I am not arguing that this could provide a source for mechanisms that would trip CMEs – just aiming to get my understanding of the physical cosmos up to date! Many thanks for your patience!
Ulrich:
Would not the ancient Mayans have had other means of investigation – they had a long evolution of shamanic work with entheogens that would extend vision and allow human consciousness to enter the timeless dimension and retrieve information. These visions more likely came before any attempts to calculate time via calendars.
Where do you get a nearly 5000 year periodicity of Heinrich events from?
RE: my post of June 24, 2010 at 10:51 pm
My statement “most probable number of sunspots” should be corrected to read “most probable sunspot number” as this table is intended to be merged with data reported by modern methods.
Peter Taylor says:
June 25, 2010 at 8:25 am
that doesn’t mean there is no possibility of ‘communication’ (transfer of information) – I presume the ring current goes quite close to the photosphere/corona.
Transfer of information is not the issue, transfer of energy is (and the current comes from the Sun in the first place, so is just coming back home). Starlight transfers information into your eyes, but not much energy.
The ring current is not close, many solar radii away from the corona.
Bottom line: The solar wind [magnetic field, currents, particles, the works] is flowing away from the Sun at supersonic speed.
@Peter Taylor says:
June 25, 2010 at 8:31 am
Being born in the Caul [ http://www.caulbearer.org/ ], I have 20+yrs of experience of `seeing` what weather is like for the year ahead, pointing out the rainiest and windiest weeks with uncanny accuracy (witnesses available for you). My Mother used to always pick the sunniest 2 weeks for our holidays, my Father (a rocket scientist) used to call her a witch!
My theory as to how people can do this, is that we inherit memories of weather and climate patterns, and some people can access this record as seemingly easily as we note creatures and plants etc. do in nature, and appear to `know` in advance what changes in the weather are coming.
You could say that it is actually engaging in `the string of time` rather than entering a `timeless dimension`. For me though, I can only look ahead like this for one year, so I decided to investigate a scientific aproach that could extend the look ahead, and be somewhat more precise.
And if you think about it, you need a calendar first, otherwise you have nothing timewise to refer any future moment to (eg. how many Moons/Years ahead etc.)
“Where do you get a nearly 5000 year periodicity of Heinrich events from?”
4627.33yrs, from the astronomical return of the planets responsible for causing the largest changes in solar activity. 3 of these periods map back from the LIA to the Older Dryas. Check it out as a climatic return period at a variety of points in this record: http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/holobib.html
Such a look back from the present, would give a climatic analogue at around 2610BC, at the end of `Maximum 12`.
Ulric.
isn’t this supposed “sun reaching maximum power in a few years” really just the 11 year solar cycle?
don’t we go thru this every 22 years or so? and isn’t this the 2nd or 3rd time we’ll go thru this since we’ve had things like electricity, satellites, and cooqs with mass media outlets?
i think it was 1859 when we had one of the worst solar storms like this in recorded history, and it managed to slow down the all mighty telegraph for a few days.
so if we haven’t managed to make our electric devices, satellites, and essentials for modern life as we know it more fail safe than the telegraphs of 2 centuries ago, then i hope it takes all of it out, to teach us a lesson.
other than that, I’m calling bullshit, and issuing my own warning….
If we continue to listen to ppl like this, and the glenn becks of the world, we will always live in fear of the next big sky falling event. used to be the religious fanatics would just say “one day we will all die horrible deaths” we would be weary, then go on about our lives, and get shit accomplished. now-a-days, they’re giving us exact dates, and as human nature is, causing many of us to run around, like the proverbial headless yard bird, doing nothing but fretting about what’s not really about to happen. These situations are always overblown, over stressed, over emphasized, over inflated, and when looked at in retrospect, quite hilarious. remember Y2K? we were supposed to cease existing, all because our computers wouldn’t know what year it was… supposedly cyber space was going to revert us back to 1900, which would some how kill us all.
There’s always some Quack saying he knows exactly when the end of days will be.
All of which have been mysteriously wrong. with real events like katrina, the tsunami, devastating earth quakes, and Sarah Palin, all happening without prediction, warning, or adequate safety measures being put into place. Presumably because we’re wiring our ball caps with tin foil to prevent our TomToms and Garmins from failing during the most disastrous, extreme, life threatening, holocaust inducing solar storm in the history of of the past 11 years.
Why can’t there ever be a disaster that kills the stupid, and the weak minded? Then the rest of us could get on with life, and stop living on their clock.