Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: CME story: "90 seconds from catastrophe"

  1. #1 CME story: "90 seconds from catastrophe" 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    It could be here or in the Astronomy section, but since it's about space effects on earth--here goes.
    --

    Space storm alert: 90 seconds from catastrophe

    IT IS midnight on 22 September 2012 and the skies above Manhattan are filled with a flickering curtain of colourful light. Few New Yorkers have seen the aurora this far south but their fascination is short-lived. Within a few seconds, electric bulbs dim and flicker, then become unusually bright for a fleeting moment. Then all the lights in the state go out. Within 90 seconds, the entire eastern half of the US is without power.

    A year later and millions of Americans are dead and the nation's infrastructure lies in tatters. The World Bank declares America a developing nation. Europe, Scandinavia, China and Japan are also struggling to recover from the same fateful event - a violent storm, 150 million kilometres away on the surface of the sun.

    It sounds ridiculous. Surely the sun couldn't create so profound a disaster on Earth. Yet an extraordinary report funded by NASA and issued by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in January this year claims it could do just that....


    If flung towards the Earth, the plasma ball will accelerate as it travels through space and its intense magnetic field will soon interact with the planet's magnetic field, the magnetosphere. Depending on the relative orientation of the two fields, several things can happen. If the fields are oriented in the same direction, they slip round one another. In the worst case scenario, though, when the field of a particularly energetic CME opposes the Earth's field, things get much more dramatic. "The Earth can't cope with the plasma," says James Green, head of NASA's planetary division. "The CME just opens up the magnetosphere like a can-opener, and matter squirts in."...

    The next solar maximum is expected in 2012.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true
    --

    I have read the report yet and hope it lays out probabilities of the event.
    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=12507&page=R1

    One would hope if this is more than a remote probability that it would at least get due consideration when planning improvements to our electrical grids.

    ---edited after a concern was raise about too much content possibly crossing into copywright infringement. Enjoy---


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Relax, Lynx_Fox, your report is just another NASA funding scheme to frighten the American sheeple so they will continue funding the waning Climate Warming boondoggle of James Hansen of NASA.

    As follows from the Canadian press....

    __________________________________________________ ____________

    James Hansen, head of NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), and Andrew Weaver, lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports, made statements clearly designed to frighten people.

    Both men are politically active in climate change and at the forefront of the attempt to convince the world that CO2 is a problem. Their remarks are intended to scare people by threatening impending doom – nothing new - except there is increasing urgency and fear because their message is failing. As Andrew Weaver summarized, ”All those fossil fuel emissions need to be eliminated. And we must do so quickly if we are to have any chance of stabilizing the climate and maintaining human civilization as we know it.”

    Hansen increases urgency for action claiming we are on the verge of a tipping point, defined as follows. “Tipping points can occur during climate change when the climate reaches a state such that strong amplifying feedbacks are activated by only moderate additional warming.”

    We’re reaching a tipping point, but it’s not the one Hansen anticipates. We’re close to the point where the public and politicians realize they have been totally deceived about the nature and cause of climate change. Even before a shift to concern about the economy polls showed a growing shift in public opinion.

    Weaver is also troubled by his own definition of dramatic change occurring. He wrote in a March 24 article, in the Vancouver Sun, “There are many depressing things about being a climate scientist these days. The emerging data is going from bad to worse and the political leadership is still acting as if we have all the time in the world to deal with global warming.”

    Yes, it’s depressing but because people are not fooled any more and politicians are not acting as Weaver expects. And yes, emerging data is going from bad to worse, but only because it shows CO2 is not causing warming.

    Other remarks by both men indicate their fear. For example, Hansen said, “The democratic process doesn’t seem to be working.”

    It’s a bizarre comment from a civil servant prior to his apparently breaking US law (the Hatch Act) again by participating in a public protest at the headquarters of E.ON, a power firm in Coventry, England. The push for elimination of CO2 emissions is failing because, despite his histrionics, democracy is working.

    A few days later in the Vancouver Sun article ironically titled “’Environmentalists’ are abandoning science,” Weaver wrote, “The scientific community has a very solid understanding of what is causing global warming: It is overwhelmingly because of the combustion of fossil fuels. Thus, the solution to the problem is as simple as it is daunting: The elimination of fossil fuel use in our economies.”

    Weaver claims he and his IPCC colleagues “have been as a clear as we know how about the science and the measures needed.” This is simply not the case. Their rules mean they only look at human causes of climate change. They produce a political summary for policymakers then used to make sure the science report agrees with the summary. (Canada Free Press)

    More important, the entire claim of human caused CO2 global warming is based on computer models that simply can’t work.

    It’s not surprising Hansen and Weaver are computer modelers; they have the most invested in these claims and the most to lose professionally and politically. I watched over the years as computer modelers took over and dominated climate science, particularly through the IPCC. But as Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton, said in the May 1999 issue of the American Physical Society and still valid today, “They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.” However, “If we persevere patiently with observing the real world and improving the models, the time will come when we are able both to understand and to predict. Until then, we must continue to warn the politicians and the public: don’t believe the numbers just because they come out of a supercomputer.”

    Or as Pierre Gallois put it, “If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it,” but more and more people are criticizing it.

    Why have two prominent scientists made such unsupportable sensationalist comments? Simple – they’re losing control of their ability to achieve their political objectives. Here is a list of events raising their fears.


    Even the lowest computer model temperature projections have overestimated the reality. They failed to project the cooling that has occurred since 2000.
    That cooling occurred as CO2 levels rose in complete contradiction to IPCC assumptions.


    Scientists doing proper science yet derogatively labeled skeptics by Hansen and Weaver have consistently shown the fallacy in the assumptions and methods of the IPCC.

    The Kyoto Accord has failed and attempts to find a replacement are failing.
    Proponents of the claims of human induced global warming, such as Al Gore, have lost credibility by making money from the sale of carbon credits.
    Increasingly illogical statements, such as the claim that current cooling is due to warming, raise doubts even if you don’t understand the science.
    More and more politicians, such as Northern Ireland’s Sammy Watson and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus are speaking out against global warming claims.
    The real cost of reducing CO2 emissions and the inadequacies of alternative fuels are emerging.


    The public does not see warming as a concern. A Pew Center poll of January 22, 2009 showed it 20th on a list of 20 top priorities. On March 25, 2009 the Gallup Poll reported, “Global warming is clearly the environmental issue of least concern to Americans. In fact, global warming is the only issue for which more Americans say they have little to no concern than say they have a great deal of concern.”
    The growing lack of commitment of the Obama government who they believed would implement their policies. Hansen notes, “he was growing “concerned” over the stance taken by the new US administration on global warming.”


    Instead of accepting that their science and proposed actions are wrong they blame the people. Hansen’s comment that democracy isn’t working means it is not doing what he wants. Weaver’s remark that, “The public debate is becoming a caricature” is an arrogant insult and sadly typical of my experience with too many of the climate modelers. The people whose fears and lack of knowledge they exploited and who they thought were too stupid to understand are using democracy to stop the fraud. Hansen and Weaver’s comments disclose their fears as Hoffer predicted.

    What Hoffer predicted...

    You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. - Eric Hoffer


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Why spam the thread? We've got plenty of threads on climate already, or you can start a new one.

    The posted article isn't about climate change and Hanson wasn't any part of the committee which put together the report. You can confirm if you check "the Biographies of Committee Members and Staff" in the 2nd link I provided.

    This article and report is about effects of coronal mass ejections on our high-tech nation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Calm down. Lynx_Fox, the common denominator is that both "sun plasma attacks" and "imminent sea risings" are ascientific aspects of NASA.

    Doom is money! But you seem smart, Lynx. Why are you angry?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    If you want to have a go at Lynx Fox, try plagiarism. Posting an entire, or most of an entire article, is normally frowned upon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    It may be copyright infringement but it isn't plagiarism.

    Interesting in any case.

    One would hope if this is more than a remote probability that it would at least get due consideration when planning improvements to our electrical grids.
    In moving to a "smart grid" is it possible we are making ourselves even more vulnerable, with more gadgets to be affected and fewer humans trained to fix broken gadgets?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury

    In moving to a "smart grid" is it possible we are making ourselves even more vulnerable, with more gadgets to be affected and fewer humans trained to fix broken gadgets?
    Good point. It also seems building some preventative measures into such a grid from the start would be cheaper than trying to design and install it after the fact. One would think a quick way to contain damage from this type of events or a terrorist attack would be a good idea and might even have features in common.
    --

    Sometimes I think we need a reminder of what NASA and other scientific agencies are supposed to for us:

    NASA Mission Statement

    * To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.
    * To advance human exploration, use, and development of space.
    * To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies.


    NASA Vision

    * NASA is an investment in America's future. As explorers, pioneers, and innovators, we boldly expand frontiers in air and space to inspire and serve America and to benefit the quality of life on Earth.

    If that science points to something uncomfortable, such as CMEs, they have a mission as well as a moral responsibility to report the science nevertheless. In this case, we have several examples of CMEs that were large enough to knock out big parts of the electrical grid and one massive one in our nation's history that would knock us a crippling blow if it were to happen now. NAS and NASA are doing exactly what tax payers fund them to do. I can't image them IDing a such a risk and not reporting their findings while the nation acts like lemmings waiting in ignorance for the next death blow from the heavens. If they need a few hundred million to nail down the risk and possibly save us trillions not to mention lots of misery than so be it--the cost benifit analysis will still be in our favor. Why shoot the messager?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    as for the practice of quoting complete articles, i know the forum guidelines don't say anything about it (rather to my surprise), but i seem to remember that Ophiolite has told other members off when it happened in the past

    my opinion on the subject : keep it sensible
    lift out the passages that are most relevant in your quote, provide a link to the full article and, more important than anything else, let us know what your thoughts on the subject are, preferably in greater length than the passage you've quoted

    [edit]
    turns out there is actually an entry in the guidelines about lengthy quotes :
    "4(g.2) Posts containing large amounts of copied content are discouraged. A small (quoted!) paragraph, with a link to the original source is preferred. "
    [/edit]
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •