NASA: 2012 'space Katrina' may cripple U.S. for months

From _http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85819

WND SCIENCENETDAILY
NASA: 2012 'space Katrina' may cripple U.S. for months
Damages could be trillions from solar 'perfect storm'
Posted: January 10, 2009
6:42 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A recently released NASA report warns that the U.S. has forgotten the power of the sun, creating a technological society susceptible like never before to massive infrastructure damage from solar storms.

The study, carried out for NASA by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, doesn't predict some new solar or environmental disaster. Instead, it studies the effects of the sun's normal, cyclical behavior upon modern technology.

See for yourself how and why power interests are setting off the false alarm of man-made climate change to suit their own agenda in the DVD "Global Warming or Global Governance?"

Professor Daniel Baker is director of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado and chaired the panel that prepared the report.

"Whether it is terrestrial catastrophes or extreme space weather incidents," writes Baker in a statement released with the report, "the results can be devastating to modern societies that depend in a myriad of ways on advanced technological systems."

According to the report, the U.S. has grown so dependent on modern technologies without respect of what the sun can and has done, that it's risking major communications, finance, transportation, government and even emergency services meltdowns.

And if one of the sun's periodic, catastrophic storms hits the earth the way Hurricane Katrina hit the U.S. coastline, the report estimates that damages from the "space weather Katrina" could top $1 or $2 trillion.


The sun is currently near minimum on its 11-year activity cycle, the report explains, but is expected to produce solar storms that will increase in intensity and frequency as it approaches peak activity levels in 2012.

The NASA report warns that if the sun's activity over the next few years flares to the level of the May 1921 "superstorm" or the so-called Carrington event of 1859, a "perfect storm" that Space.com called "the most powerful onslaught of solar energy in recorded history," the U.S. may not be equipped to handle the damages.

"The impacts of severe space weather events," the report states, "can go beyond disruption of existing technical systems and lead to short-term, as well as to long-term collateral socioeconomic disruptions."

The report listed possible cascading effects of a major solar storm as "disruption of the transportation, communication, banking and finance systems, and government services; the breakdown of the distribution of potable water owing to pump failure, and the loss of perishable foods and medications because of a lack of refrigeration."

In addition, the researchers warn, "Emergency services would be strained, and command and control might be lost."

Solar storm history

The impact of the solar storms is widely, and even recently, recorded.

In March 1989, a geomagnetic storm took down the power grid over much of Quebec, leaving millions of Canadians without power for hours.

In January 1994, the NASA report records, Canada's $290 million Anik E2 telecommunications satellite was knocked out by a solar storm, and it took six months and $50-70 million to get it back in operation.

One of the most dangerous contributors to solar storms is a coronal mass ejection, an expanding cloud of charged particles belched from the sun and sailing through space at supersonic speeds. According to a video on Space.com, a CME impacted the earth in 1998, knocking a communications satellite out of space to crash in the middle of the U.S. and disrupting nearly every pager signal in the country.

Coronal mass ejections hit the earth relatively routinely. But in 1859, a CME of extreme intensity, exceptionally high speed and magnetic fields opposite the earth's blasted the planet. The resulting "perfect storm" temporarily doubled the light of the sun, caused colorful aurora – normally only visible in the polar regions – to be seen as far south as Hawaii and shorted out telegraph wires, starting fires across the U.S. and Europe.

In 1859, however, the telegraph was only 15 years old. There was no satellite or television technology, no power grids, no automated teller machines and no global positioning systems helping direct traffic on land, air and sea.

"A contemporary repetition of the [1859] event," the NASA report concludes, "would cause significantly more extensive (and possibly catastrophic) social and economic disruptions."

What can be done

Some technologies, particularly those based on satellites such as global positioning systems, have been combating solar storms and the occasional CME for years, working on backup solutions and bypass plans.

The report further mentions technological solutions to many of the possible consequences of a major solar storm, but warns that more work needs to be done to implement safeguards against another storm like those seen in 1921 and 1859.

"A catastrophic failure of commercial and government infrastructure in space and on the ground can be mitigated through raising public awareness, improving vulnerable infrastructure and developing advanced forecasting capabilities," the report states. "Without preventive actions or plans, the trend of increased dependency on modern space-weather sensitive assets could make society more vulnerable in the future."

Richard Fisher, head of NASA's heliophysics division added that more research is also needed.

"To mitigate possible public safety issues," Fisher said, "it is vital that we better understand extreme space weather events caused by the sun's activity."

One would think this protections would have been part of the ongoing military efforts to protect from EMP.
 
But what if we are in a Maunder Minimum type period which, as it happens, seems far more likely due to the fact that the Sun is unnaturally quiet just now and it's supposed to be much more active?
 
Well, with respect, I haven't seen anything that says the sun is supposed to be much more active. But I should caveat by saying that while I haven't done extensive research on this topic, I have put a few hours into it and have seen quite a few graphs of the so-called 11 year sunspot cycles and they seem to indicate that we actually should be in a low part of the cycle and starting to swing back up.

However, to be honest, I'm not instinctively inclined to believe much in the way of predictive models based on short term data, but intellectually they still draw some of my attention :) I also get pretty disheartened at the time it takes to try to see through a lot of the gov't F.U.D. posted in support of agendas rather than just giving the facts and supporting research.

I would like to read up on the other info that supposes the sun should be much more active, and also if there is some research or something that points to the possible condition of another Maunder Minimum. Could you give me a pointer here?

I did some cursory searching to find updated sunspot activity graphs and the following 2 links have some decent info:

_http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
_http://sidc.oma.be/news/106/welcome.html


-= sidetrack =-
I've gotta post this weird synchonicity! You recall jusdenny's very interesting thread about the comet of the holocene -- well it caught my interest because I'm very familiar with the area (I was born there). And I mentioned in that thread that a lot of NASA/gov't/military stuff went on 40 miles north in Huntsville.

Well, I couldn't remember where I had heard the term Maunder Minimum and I couldn't recall what it was when you mentioned it, so I did some searching to learn and this led to the organic searching of seeing what the latest sunspot graphs showed. I googled "sunspot activity" and the FIRST link that showed in the list was NASA/Marshall Solar Physics. Stuff like this sometimes just makes my head spin around hehe.
-= end of sidetrack =-
 
Check out this site for sunspot data:
_http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsunspotnumber.html

Specifically this table form:
_ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY

Check out this graph over a few decades:
_http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfmms.html

But the graph is a bit deceptive since it makes u think that this is normal but it's kinda not. I took the data and put it into a spreadsheet, then I got the total number of sunspots each year, and also the monthly average for each year.

Here's my spreadsheet with the data:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pRCU-GILWR0PrDyEwd3aBCQ

I sorted it by Sum. Notice that 2008 is the 7th year on record with least sunspots. And that's most likely because sunspots were not so rigorously or accurately observed in the 19th century, as most of the other years above it are 1800's or early 1900's.

Here is the same spreadsheet sorted by year:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pRCU-GILWR0NIkAN4Y5eQPw

*Edit: 2008 is actually 4th lowest on record for sunspot count. 1810 has no data, and 1811 and 1823 apparently have only partial data (unless all those 0's means there actually wasn't a single sunspot in those months). I imagine it would be much harder to have an accurate sunspot count without video-monitoring. Who can stare at the sun all day every day? So I think the lack of data most likely doesn't mean there actually were no sunspots.
 
SAO said:
But the graph is a bit deceptive since it makes u think that this is normal but it's kinda not. I took the data and put it into a spreadsheet, then I got the total number of sunspots each year, and also the monthly average for each year.

Hey SAO, thanks for the links. I looked at them and the data in your spreadsheets but I'm not grokking where "it's kinda not" normal? By that I mean it is low, but not the lowest and it doesn't seem significantly lower than other lows. If it stays low longer than those valleys show in the graphs that depict periodic activity then it would seem more suspicious to me. What are you seeing that I'm missing? :)
 
Some additional sites for reference:

Sites with good articles on Global Cooling, sunspotlessness, etc:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=sunspot

http://icecap.us/index.php
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/search-results/be61027a2daff868b2a32e1c4ccf90a8/

http://www.iceagenow.com/
http://www.iceagenow.com/Sunspots_and_global_cooling.htm

Solar sites:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SWN/index.html
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/stp.html
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
http://www.solarmonitor.org/
http://gong.nso.edu/
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/beacon/beacon_secchi.shtml
 
MrGullible said:
Hey SAO, thanks for the links. I looked at them and the data in your spreadsheets but I'm not grokking where "it's kinda not" normal? By that I mean it is low, but not the lowest and it doesn't seem significantly lower than other lows. If it stays low longer than those valleys show in the graphs that depict periodic activity then it would seem more suspicious to me. What are you seeing that I'm missing? :)
iceagenow is a good site to review articles, also check out this one:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/164199-Livingston-and-Penn-paper-Sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015-

and just search for sunspots on sott for lots more. I think it's important to notice that there are cycles within cycles. So the significance of 2008 being almost lowest on record is that it corresponds to all the other data that shows that it's not a fluke, that we're on a rapid downward trend now in a bigger sunspot cycle. It appears we're entering another Maunder Minimum, and that, at least according to historical data, probably means an ice age.
 
Thanks Xman and SAO for all the links and info. I can understand some of where this alternate idea comes from. I also found the following link to be very helpful and thorough (not that I understood all of it hehe):

_http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm
 
Back
Top Bottom