Geomagnetic Solar Storms and EMP Sunday, Aug 29 2010
risks 5:02 pm
I wish to qualify my statement in the previous post where I wrote, ” I currently think that EMP attack is the second greatest risk we face, right behind a genetically engineered superplague.”
What I should really say is that I think that any electromagnetic event that wrecks havoc on electronics is the second greatest risk, and that includes geomagnetic storms as well as EMP. I don’t want the particularly vivid risk of EMP attack to distract attention from the fundamental point that the most critical nodes in our power grids simply need to be more protected.
EMP attack is controversial. The experts are divided. Scientists can agree, however, that a solar maximum is on the way for 2013, and it could rival the Carrington Event of 1858 in its intensity.
The Space Review has an article that argues that EMP attack is unlikely while geomagnetic storms are the real threat.
Geomagnetic storms do sound more credible as a danger. 2013 (not 2012!) could be a rough year.
I think the threat of a big solar storm is much greater than an EMP attack. Part of the problem with the right-wing scaremongering about EMP is that it is being used to argue for more missile defence spending, not hardened infrastructure.
Unfortunately, there is little to no chance that the US will do anything about it until something bad happens, since government investing in infrastructure is not a popular idea with the ruling oligarchy. Not that any government is going to take something as wacky-sounding as “solar storms” seriously enough.
Apparently the latest thinking is that the next solar maximum is actually set to be quieter than usual.
Not “the latest thinking”, so much as the latest article in the popular media. :) You’re thinking about the Australia reaction. Interesting that they dissent, but the vast consensus I’ve seen is that the storm is likely to be a big one. I’m not a space scientist, so heck if I know, but I’ll read any articles on the topic with interest.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation out there about both types of threats, including this horribly-written article:
http://tinyurl.com/39fzvl5
We are absolutely exposed in this area, but combine the 2013 solar maximum with all the bullshit about 2012 and you’re going to see a lot of knee-jerk idiocy.
What’s so horrible about that article?
Well first, I don’t have a problem with the premise and I’m not questioning the risk of a solar super-storm. In fact, I agree with you that’s it’s probably the biggest natural threat we face.
The problem I have with the article (like I have with a lot of media reports) is largely semantic and stylistic – but I think that lazy writing in a science story does a lot of damage in the public perception area. The title of the article is vague and alarmist to begin with. I mean, what exactly does “force of 100m bombs” even mean? That part is quoted as if somebody in authority said it, but it’s actually a mis-quote of the author’s own words. Later they just say “most experts” but they don’t attribute it to anyone specific, and in any case, it’s a really vague and silly measurement. A single H-bomb can vary in power by an order of magnitude, so saying something has “the power of 100m H-bombs” is silly. It’s a poor attempt to explain to all those dumb masses just how powerful a CME can be, but it still doesn’t give anything like a usable frame of reference.
Then there’s this statement, which doesn’t even make sense on any level: “They claim satellites will be aged by 50 years, rendering GPS even more useless than ever.” Where do they get this information? I work in the satellite industry, and I don’t know how to “age” a satellite 50 years, when most satellites have a usage life of about 10 years. A flare will either knock them out, or it won’t. Additionally “more useless than ever” implies that GPS is currently already “useless”, which it isn’t.
Look, I’m hyper-sensitive to mainstream news articles oversimplifying or misrepresenting scientific subjects. To me, though, this article just reads like somebody ripped it off the wire service and peppered it with a bunch of “quotes” from “experts” to make it sound authoritative.
Thanks Arnie, I was curious what you meant. Using H-bomb-equivalents as a measure of powerful things is totally standard. I’ve been reading statements with that unit of measurement for my whole life.
Yeah, the satellite thing doesn’t make much sense. I think the idea is that they would get the average of 50 years of radiation in a short time period..? It’s probably based on something an expert actually said, paraphrased oddly.
So, aside from the H-bomb thing, the only qualm I see is the satellite statement. Given the length of the article, that’s not a bad ratio for a news article.
2013, thats a far prediction to predict, they have trouble predicting a 7 day forcast
howdy. enjoying your website. I tried subscribing to ur RSS feed and it didn’t. Just informing you! have a nice day! :)