Earth survived near-miss from 2012 solar storm: NASA

Jul 25, 2014
Handout photo released by Nasa Earth Observatory on June 7, 2011 and taken from Nasa's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) shows the Sun unleashing a solar flare, radiation storm and a coronal mass ejection

Back in 2012, the Sun erupted with a powerful solar storm that just missed the Earth but was big enough to "knock modern civilization back to the 18th century," NASA said.

The extreme space weather that tore through Earth's orbit on July 23, 2012, was the most powerful in 150 years, according to a statement posted on the US space agency website Wednesday.

However, few Earthlings had any idea what was going on.

"If the eruption had occurred only one week earlier, Earth would have been in the line of fire," said Daniel Baker, professor of atmospheric and space physics at the University of Colorado.

Instead the storm cloud hit the STEREO-A spacecraft, a solar observatory that is "almost ideally equipped to measure the parameters of such an event," NASA said.

Scientists have analyzed the treasure trove of data it collected and concluded that it would have been comparable to the largest known space storm in 1859, known as the Carrington event.

It also would have been twice as bad as the 1989 solar storm that knocked out power across Quebec, scientists said.

"I have come away from our recent studies more convinced than ever that Earth and its inhabitants were incredibly fortunate that the 2012 eruption happened when it did," said Baker.

The National Academy of Sciences has said the economic impact of a storm like the one in 1859 could cost the modern economy more than two trillion dollars and cause damage that might take years to repair.

Experts say can cause widespread power blackouts, disabling everything from radio to GPS communications to water supplies—most of which rely on electric pumps.

They begin with an explosion on the Sun's surface, known as a solar flare, sending X-rays and extreme UV radiation toward Earth at light speed.

Hours later, energetic particles follow and these electrons and protons can electrify satellites and damage their electronics.

Next are the , billion-ton clouds of magnetized plasma that take a day or more to cross the Sun-Earth divide.

These are often deflected by Earth's magnetic shield, but a direct hit could be devastating.

There is a 12 percent chance of a super solar storm the size of the Carrington event hitting Earth in the next 10 years, according to physicist Pete Riley, who published a paper in the journal Space Weather earlier this year on the topic.

His research was based on an analysis of solar storm records going back 50 years.

"Initially, I was quite surprised that the odds were so high, but the statistics appear to be correct," said Riley.

"It is a sobering figure."

Explore further: Carrington-class CME narrowly misses Earth

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Carrington-class CME narrowly misses Earth

May 05, 2014

Last month (April 8-11), scientists, government officials, emergency planners and others converged on Boulder, Colorado, for NOAA's Space Weather Workshop—an annual gathering to discuss the perils and probabilities ...

SDO spots a summer solar flare

Jul 08, 2014

The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare, peaking at 12:20 p.m. EDT on July 8, 2014, and NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory captured images of the event. Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation. Harmful ...

Scientists illuminate cause of sun's 'perfect storm'

Mar 18, 2014

In a paper published today in Nature Communications, an international team of scientists, including three from the University of New Hampshire's Space Science Center, uncovers the origin and cause of an ...

Recommended for you

SDO captures images of two mid-level flares

7 hours ago

The sun emitted a mid-level flare on Dec. 18, 2014, at 4:58 p.m. EST. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, which watches the sun constantly, captured an image of the event. Solar flares are powerful bursts ...

Why is Venus so horrible?

13 hours ago

Venus sucks. Seriously, it's the worst. The global temperature is as hot as an oven, the atmospheric pressure is 90 times Earth, and it rains sulfuric acid. Every part of the surface of Venus would kill you ...

Image: Christmas wrapping the Sentinel-3A antenna

16 hours ago

The moment a team of technicians, gowned like hospital surgeons, wraps the Sentinel-3A radar altimeter in multilayer insulation to protect it from the temperature extremes found in Earth orbit.

Video: Flying over Becquerel

16 hours ago

This latest release from the camera on ESA's Mars Express is a simulated flight over the Becquerel crater, showing large-scale deposits of sedimentary material.

Spinning up a dust devil on Mars

17 hours ago

Spinning up a dust devil in the thin air of Mars requires a stronger updraft than is needed to create a similar vortex on Earth, according to research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

User comments : 39

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BSD
2 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2014
And there is nothing, that anyone could do about it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (14) Jul 25, 2014
Not on short notice. It is possible to harden systems against such events. As always it's a cost/benefit issue. Do we accept the (very) occasional blackout or do we invest in significantly more expensive infrastructure?

As always: as long as nothing has happened we'll build stuff as cheaply as possible. When we get hit by somthing like this that attitude might change. But before that? I don't see any campaign falling on anything but deaf ears (much like most asteroid impact prevention campaigns, anti-nuclear campaigns, campaigns to act on climate change, etc., etc. )

Humans are stupid that way.
Ryan1981
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2014
It seems the Mayan's were slightly off with their calculations :P I wonder what is meant by "devastating" in this respect?
axemaster
4.9 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
It seems the Mayan's were slightly off with their calculations :P I wonder what is meant by "devastating" in this respect?

"Devastating" means most electric grids throughout the world knocked out (physically destroyed), anything connected to the grid without excellent protection knocked out (almost everything), all satellites in orbit knocked out. The primary mechanism for damage is extremely high voltages being induced in power lines - power lines are long enough to act as antennas that pick up the intense EM energy of the solar storm. The voltages would likely be high enough to simply go through most protective equipment.

They aren't exaggerating when they say the recovery could take years. The amount of broken equipment would be staggering, far beyond our capacity to replace quickly. We wouldn't have cars (no gas available), hospitals would be in trouble, no internet, no phones, food distribution problems - you name it.
zorro6204
3 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2014
Okay, one in ten over the next ten years is . . . sobering indeed. And our government is doing what about this? Bickering.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2014
. Do we accept the (very) occasional blackout or do we invest in significantly more expensive infrastructure?


Correction; do we accept the (very, very) occasional collapse of infrastructure back to roughly the late 1800s or invest in very modest upgrades to our infrastructure.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (13) Jul 25, 2014
You can do the math on that one by answering the following question:

- who gets credit and who gets blamed if stuff is hardened and no outage happens?

As you can easily see: Anyone who is for an upgrade in infrastructure will only get blamed (for 'wasting' tax money) and will never get any credit...since patently no outage happened.

Couple that with a 2 year attention span of any politician (anything that is done in the first few years of a term doens't matter at all). as opposed to the decade or two it would take to actually effect such an upgarde...and you can pretty much imagine what's gonna happen: nothing.
zoljah
1 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2014
it would have hit if it was not for the humans causing other dramatic events putting earth out of the line, math is not everything at such a low stage - still awesome
axemaster
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2014
Couple that with a 2 year attention span of any politician (anything that is done in the first few years of a term doens't matter at all). as opposed to the decade or two it would take to actually effect such an upgarde...and you can pretty much imagine what's gonna happen: nothing.


For once I disagree with you. I'd be willing to bet that the power grid in the USA is going to be revamped pretty soon at the federal level (within 20 years), and when it is, hopefully the scientists and engineers will make sure all the new stuff is capable of handling, or at least surviving one of these solar events.

Plus, you have to remember that the DOD is aware of this - and the national grid is very much a matter of national security. The DOD isn't stupid, whatever else you might think of them.
RealScience
3 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2014
And there is nothing, that anyone could do about it.

Sure there is, with even a few hours warning (which our current sun-watching spacecraft should give us, although one of the craft is may expire soon which would leave us partially vulnerable).

If a massive eruption is on track to hit use, we just have to shut down the long-distance power grids BEFORE the storm hits. Hospitals and other critical infrastructure generally have backup power, and short lines within a building would be essentially unaffected.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2014
And there is nothing, that anyone could do about it.

Sure there is, with even a few hours warning (which our current sun-watching spacecraft should give us, although one of the craft is may expire soon which would leave us partially vulnerable).

If a massive eruption is on track to hit use, we just have to shut down the long-distance power grids BEFORE the storm hits. Hospitals and other critical infrastructure generally have backup power, and short lines within a building would be essentially unaffected.


Reread axemasters comment.
DonGateley
5 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2014
Is there something about the next 10 years that makes a catastrophic event so much more probable than it's been during past 10 year intervals?

If you have to go back 155 years to find an event as strong as the Carrington why is the probability of that 12% in the next ten years?
hangman04
not rated yet Jul 26, 2014
"There is a 12 percent chance of a super solar storm the size of the Carrington event hitting Earth in the next 10 years, according to physicist Pete Riley, who published a paper in the journal Space Weather earlier this year on the topic."

Ok... this is weird. Meaning that out of 100 storms of this magnitude, 12 will be directed to Earth ? I am having a bit of hard time understanding their statistics.... And even so what is the frequency of such a storm per year lets say ?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2014
is going to be revamped pretty soon at the federal level (within 20 years), and when it is, hopefully the scientists and engineers will make sure all the new stuff is capable of handling, or at least surviving one of these solar events.

We're in teh middle of the Energiewende (have been for roughly 10 years now). Even germany isn't capable of revamping ist energy grid to fit the needs (and there's not a second spent on thinking about hardening it).

This is not because there's no clear need to do it, but because the providers don't want to (and fight it with every legal means possible - and some illegal ones like buying politicians outright. They're not even trying to hide that).
It'd just costs to them - no profit involved. Not gonna happen.

Now map that onto a debate where the consumer doesn't even benefit (ostensibly) from the change of the current state. I don't see it happening until we get a big outage and have to pump serious money into immediate repairs.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2014
It seems the Mayan's were slightly off with their calculations :P I wonder what is meant by "devastating" in this respect?


They aren't exaggerating when they say the recovery could take years. The amount of broken equipment would be staggering, far beyond our capacity to replace quickly. We wouldn't have cars (no gas available), hospitals would be in trouble, no internet, no phones, food distribution problems - you name it.


axemaster: Great points that you make; but, there are those who would rather waste time, resources and energy trying to deal with a nonexistent problem, anthropogenic global warming, than to put the same effort into trying to mitigate something that has happened, will happen again and can be minimized if the plan is put in place to do so.

"Imagine large cities without power for a week, a month, or a year," Baker said. "The losses could be $1 to $2 trillion, and the effects could be felt for years."
[…]One solution is to rebuild the aging power grid to be less vulnerable to solar disruptions.
http://news.natio...science/

This happened without the influence of the sun:
(July 31, 2012) "On Tuesday, India suffered the largest electrical blackout in history, affecting an area encompassing about 670 million people, or roughly 10 percent of the world's population."
This is even more interesting regarding this incident:
"India's power sector has long been considered a potentially crippling hindrance to the country's economic prospects. Part of the problem is access; more than 300 million people in India still have no electricity."
http://www.nytime...nted=all

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 26, 2014
Plus, you have to remember that the DOD is aware of this
@axemaster
1st- disregard jd above, he is trying to pick a fight about global warming when he can't even differentiate between weather and climate

onto my curiosity...
What would be the difference between a buried power infrastructure (like German power lines in Rheinland-Pfaltz) vs a wire suspension distribution like the US power system?

Also: how hard will it really be to safety this equipment and build in a means to protect it?

lastly: would a shutdown of equipment spare it the burnout?
We're in teh middle of the Energiewende
@antialias_physorg
In Rheinland-Pfaltz and most of Bavaria that I saw, the power lines were buried... is it the same in your neck of the woods?
How does this affect the system there? (I know it raises initial costs... but there is less upkeep as well)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2014
In Rheinland-Pfaltz and most of Bavaria that I saw, the power lines were buried...

Not everywhere (I'm in Bavaria). Costs of putting cables below ground are 2-3 times that of putting them on pylons. The energy losses in underground cables also seem to be somewhat higher..Upkeep is higher, as
- you always have to do costly digging operations when something fails
- the time to effect repairs takes longer

It also trades sets of danges.: Overhead powerlines are pretty immune from earthquake and serious floods - both of which are real dangers to buried cables. (on the other hand burying is better with regard to lightning and storms)

I do prefer buried cable over overhead powerlines but that can only happen in relatively rich/densely populated regions. Getting the rights to lay underground cables is also a bit more tricky than stringing overhead powerlines (where you just need the right to put up pylons, but no legal hassle for the area in between).
RealScience
4.2 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2014
Reread axemasters comment.


@Vietvet - Axemaster's first comment is a good description of what would happen if the such an event happened with the electricity grid IN OPERATION.

However if the grid is SHUT DOWN prior to the CME reaching earth, damage to the grid will be much less.
The longest lines and the highest voltage lines are the most sensitive, so a local grid the size of a hospital would be relatively unaffected.
This has even been written about in the news - New York Times, New Scientist, etc., as well as in power industry reports.

Even satellites would be somewhat protected if shut down in advance, although a direct hit from a Carrington-sized event would probably still damage a lot of them.

It would be a bad thing in any case, but not the total disaster that it would be if the grid is up when such a CME hits, and the big transformers (for which there are few spares) are blown. So I stand by my comment that there IS something to do: shut the grid down in advance.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2014
Distributed power generation is the best solution to potential outages from terrorism to geomagnetic storms.:
http://www.engine...ion.aspx
jdswallow
1.3 / 5 (6) Jul 27, 2014
In Rheinland-Pfaltz and most of Bavaria that I saw, the power lines were buried...

Not everywhere (I'm in Bavaria). Costs of putting cables below ground are 2-3 times that of putting them on pylons. The energy losses in underground cables also seem to be somewhat higher..Upkeep is higher, as


It also trades sets of danges.: Overhead powerlines are pretty immune from earthquake and serious floods - both of which are real dangers to buried cables. (on the other hand burying is better with regard to lightning and storms)

I do prefer buried cable over overhead powerlines but that can only happen in relatively rich/densely populated regions.


If the distribution electrical lines on the East Coast been buried like many are in Europe, the power outage from the category 2 hurricane, Sandy, whose destruction was intensified by the fact that it struck when a full moon made high tides 20 percent higher than normal and amplified the storm surge. Warnings can come early enough regarding solar activity to allow grids to shut down and perhaps save some of the transformers from destruction that could take up to years to replace. There are mainly two countries capable of building some of these transformers, Korea and Germany, and that is a sad fact.

Some remember when "The March 1989 geomagnetic storm was a severe geomagnetic storm that caused the collapse of Hydro-Québec's electricity transmission system. It occurred during solar cycle 22." which means if it happened before it will happen again and if a Carrington event occurred, no one will be talking about a trace gas, CO2, while wondering when the power will come back and they sure will not worry about it being produced by coal.

axemaster
5 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
I would agree with antialias with respect to buried cables being more expensive/higher upkeep. Additionally, I'm fairly sure that burying them wouldn't confer any protection from the very long wavelength EM waves from a solar storm.

@RealScience
I'm not so sure that the grid could be sufficiently shut down to give good protection. Consider - any length of wire longer than say 1 kilometer will act as an antenna. Now, say we disconnect the grid at all of the switching stations. There will still be numerous ground loops throughout the grid capable of causing serious damage. In fact, I would bet that cutting the lines at the switching stations would have only minimal benefits. It would be far better to cut it at every branching point, including all access points for houses. Maybe this will be an application for internet-connected power meters?

For people's reference - if you have 2 houses on the same power wire, both grounded locally, they will form a ground loop.
Dr_toad
Jul 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
axemaster
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 27, 2014
Also, @jdswallow
I'm glad you see solar storms as a concern. However, please don't set it against global warming. Global warming is very real, and I'm pretty young so I can expect to see it well within my lifetime. It's very distressing when people march around proclaiming that it's a conspiracy etc, because their influence translates directly into pain and suffering that people will experience in the future.

You're fundamentally no different from:
- anti-vaccers putting whole communities at risk
- people killing aid workers in Africa
- deluded people blowing up marketplaces in the Middle East

You're no different because you're operating on an irrational basis. You should not have beliefs, you should have knowledge. And if you must have beliefs, they should come from knowledge, and not the other way around.

This is why it takes 4-8 years for people to become scientists - the actual information learned is modest, the change in thinking is much more strenuous.
jdswallow
1.3 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2014


Is that monstrosity supposed to be a sentence?

Dr_toad; I thank you for demonstrating the limits of your ability to understand the written word.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (7) Jul 27, 2014
This is why it takes 4-8 years for people to become scientists - the actual information learned is modest, the change in thinking is much more strenuous.

axemaster or any of the other alarmist on here needs to provide us with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth's climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall's 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity's CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why this experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that affect the earth's climate. If they cannot provide a verifiable, repeatable, empirical experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.

It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on.

Until you do that axemaster, do not imagine that you have the latitude to lecture me on anything.

jdswallow
1 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2014
[q

@RealScience
I'm not so sure that the grid could be sufficiently shut down to give good protection. Consider - any length of wire longer than say 1 kilometer will act as an antenna. Now, say we disconnect the grid at all of the switching stations. There will still be numerous ground loops throughout the grid capable of causing serious damage. In fact, I would bet that cutting the lines at the switching stations would have only minimal benefits. It would be far better to cut it at every branching point, including all access points for houses. Maybe this will be an application for internet-connected power meters?

For people's reference - if you have 2 houses on the same power wire, both grounded locally, they will form a ground loop.

axemaster: Basically all your post does is to demonstrate that you have no answers to this question because you do not even know what the main problems are; it is not the transmission cables.

"A 2008 report by the National Academy of Sciences warns that if such a storm occurred today, we could experience widespread power blackouts with permanent damage to many key transformers.
[…]This actually happened in Quebec on March 13, 1989, when a geomagnetic storm much less severe than the Carrington Event knocked out power across the entire province for more than nine hours. The storm damaged transformers in Quebec, New Jersey, and Great Britain, and caused more than 200 power anomalies across the USA from the eastern seaboard to the Pacific Northwest. A similar series of "Halloween storms" in October 2003 triggered a regional blackout in southern Sweden and may have damaged transformers in South Africa.
[…]A large-scale blackout could last a long time, mainly due to transformer damage… "these multi-ton apparatus cannot be repaired in the field, and if damaged in this manner they need to be replaced with new units which have lead times of 12 months or more."

http://science.na...rshield/

Please not this key word that you naively seem to unaware of: TRANSFORMERS.

RealScience
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2014
I'm not so sure that the grid could be sufficiently shut down to give good protection. Consider - any length of wire longer than say 1 kilometer will act as an antenna.


@axemaster:
Line length and line resistance are both important, and high-voltage long-distance lines generally have lower resistance (per km) as well as being longer.
So high-voltage lines are more vulnerable - a 200 km segment of 500kV line gets around 6x the induced current of a 200 km 230 kV line, for example.

After a few hundred km the line resistance dominates the total resistance and the current levels off, but for short lines other resistances (such as the transformer itself) dominate and the current is quite low and thus doesn't cook the transformer, so a 1 km lines get almost no current induced.
I recommend https://www.iea.l...7242.pdf
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2014
When I read articles like these, questions occur to me. So rather than guessing or thinking you yahoos have something substantial to offer, I like to look things up.

"Solar Shield--Protecting the North American Power Grid
"That is why a node-by-node forecast of geomagnetic currents is potentially so valuable. During extreme storms, engineers could safeguard the most endangered transformers by disconnecting them from the grid. That itself could cause a blackout, but only temporarily. Transformers protected in this way would be available again for normal operations when the storm is over." Etc.
http://science.na...rshield/

-People here who do anything more than post quotes from experts, are being irresponsible. People who bait them by asking questions they can easily answer for themselves by doing a little research, are being irresponsible.

Does this leave much for yahoos to discuss? No thank Sauron.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2014
hopefully the scientists and engineers will make sure all the new stuff is capable of handling, or at least surviving one of these solar events.


It's not a technical issue.
It's a political and economic issue.
Individuals can pursue this on their own by moving off grid and hardening their homes.

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2014
Realscience;

I fully admit I may be misinformed about this, but it's my strong impression that turning off the grid would make absolutely no difference in this situation. It's the Compton electrons coming down on us that will induce a current in virtually all electronic equipment (whether it's turned on or off). Equipment with circuits smaller than the wavelength (virtually all modern electronics) would short.

Anyway the jist of what I read was that since the currents are induced by the free electrons "knocked lose" as they interact with the storm high above the Earth, and these "rain down" on us causing havoc with anything capable of carrying an electric current.

My understanding could be very wrong though.
RealScience
5 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2014

-People here who do anything more than post quotes from experts, are being irresponsible.


I'm curious, Ghost - then why did you give my comment a '1' when it not only summarizes expert opinion but includes a link to the source just as your comment does? (Furthermore my comment AGREES with your comment on the technical points.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2014
I'm curious, Ghost - then why did you give my comment a '1'
Did you ad lib the bulk of your post like you were an expert or did you copy/paste it? Why ad lib when you can copy/paste? Which is more honest and informative?

"A monster blast of geomagnetic particles from the sun could destroy 300 or more of the 2,100 high-voltage transformers that are the backbone of the U.S. electric grid, according to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Even a few hundred destroyed transformers could disable the entire interconnected system."

"...replacements for transformers might not be available for a year or more, and the cost of damage in the first year after a storm could be as high as $2 trillion."

"Backup generators for hospitals, the military and other critical facilities would be vulnerable if they depended on diesel or natural gas, which also rely on pipelines for resupply."
http://mobile.reu...irpc=932
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2014
Case in point:
I fully admit I may be misinformed about this, but it's my strong impression that turning off the grid would make absolutely no difference in this situation
Not only misinformed but incapable of self-informing.

"However, the kind of long-duration outage that might happen in the case of a massive solar storm would have more profound and costly effects.

"A report by the NAS estimated that about 365 high-voltage transformers in the continental United States are at risk of failure or permanent damage requiring replacement in the event of a solar superstorm."

"In a worst-case scenario, commerce would almost instantly cease, he said, noting he was speaking for himself and not the U.S. government. Water and fuel, which depend on electric pumps, would stop flowing in most cities within hours, modern communications would end and mechanized transport would stall."
RealScience
5 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2014
Did you ad lib the bulk of your post like you were an expert or did you copy/paste it? Why ad lib when you can copy/paste? Which is more honest and informative?


@Otto - I do have some industrial knowledge of long-distance transmission infrastructure, and although not I have not worked specifically on hardening it against GICs, I have paid attention to papers on that for a decade or so.

So my first general comments to BSD and vietvet were made from memory. However axemaster specifically commented to me about 1 km line lengths, and although I knew that shorter lines were less affected I had paid less attention to anything that short. I therefore confirmed my understanding by reading several articles. Having done this homework, I summarized the results in a few sentences of simple English and then provided a link to the most relevant paper.

Like you, I like to look things up. I often quote from the articles, but in this case a summary was shorter and clerarer.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2014
So, I'm morbidly curious too Otto. Why is it you think I was misinformed and am incapable of learning (which is what most people call "self-informing")?
Modernmystic
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2014
-People here who do anything more than post quotes from experts, are being irresponsible. People who bait them by asking questions they can easily answer for themselves by doing a little research, are being irresponsible.


Actually it's your opinion that people who do or don't do the above according to how you think they should be is irresponsible. Thanks for sharing that opinion...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2014
People here who do anything more than post quotes from experts,

physorg does nothing more than post quotes from 'experts'.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2014
People here who do anything more than post quotes from experts,

physorg does nothing more than post quotes from 'experts'.
No, they post written articles provided by reporters. Unlike quote-mining anti societal do nothings such as yourself.
jdswallow
1 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2014
When I read articles like these, questions occur to me. So rather than guessing or thinking you yahoos have something substantial to offer, I like to look things up.

Does this leave much for yahoos to discuss? No thank Sauron.


TheGhostofOtto1923: I agree with you and that is why I posted the same link that you reference on
Jul 27, 2014. Tolkien didn't say this but it is true none the less; "Most people think they are thinking when all they are doing is rearranging their prejudices." William James

You can find more information on this here:
"What If the Biggest Solar Storm on Record Happened Today?
Repeat of 1859 Carrington Event would devastate modern world, experts say"
http://news.natio...science/
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2014
Why is it you think I was misinformed
No I said you were uninformed. mm says
turning off the grid would make absolutely no difference
... when the reality would be

"In a worst-case scenario, commerce would almost instantly cease... Water and fuel, which depend on electric pumps, would stop flowing in most cities within hours, modern communications would end and mechanized transport would stall."
No, they post written articles provided by reporters
NO they reprint official press releases prepared and issued by the institutions where the work is done. How long you been coming here mm? And you didnt know this?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.