Solar storms: harden your networks – its getting warmer.

37 comments on “Solar storms: harden your networks – its getting warmer. ”

• Comments are now closed

1. James John 1

   11 June 2010 at 9:33 am

   great article thank you.
2. infused 2

   11 June 2010 at 9:58 am

   I look forward to a hotter summer
3. really 3

   11 June 2010 at 10:08 am

   Interesting post Lynn. Those electronic manufacturers will be rubbing their hands together hoping for a rash of breakdowns and replacement purchases.

   Not sure about the last graph as the base it is using is the “Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14.0 deg-C” (1) , so while it is a good indicator for a possible temperature trend it a) is a bit of a guess because of the base uncertainty b) doesn’t show any cycles so makes it hard to determine what may or may not be happening in relation to solar flare cycles.

   (1) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
   • Draco T Bastard 3.1

     11 June 2010 at 10:26 am

     Denialism
     • really 3.1.1

       11 June 2010 at 11:31 am

       It’s a pleasant discourse so far Draco, shall we try and keep it that way?

       Thanks.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1

         11 June 2010 at 3:46 pm

         But did you read the link?
   • lprent 3.2

     11 June 2010 at 10:28 am

     It is a delta chart to show temperature differences from an arbitrary base. It obviously has to start from somewhere, and the period they have picked is where there are reasonably good global records. Also 1950 onwards is in the current long term pattern of higher Solar Maximums.

     But it doesn’t really matter what the base used from where we have good temperature records. The effect in the last 50-100 years is always the same, a fast climb in tempatures.

     If they’d used a base of around 1905 as Don Easterbrook was suggesting in my previous post, then the delta climb would have been even higher because the Solar Max was a lot lower.

     If they’d picked around 1850 when the apparent peaks were higher, we’d still be showing a fast rise.
     • really 3.2.1

       11 June 2010 at 11:26 am

       Agree. The margin for error is still reasonably high.
       • lprent 3.2.1.1

         11 June 2010 at 12:25 pm

         Sure, but the margin is pretty much on when things will happen rather than if they will happen. The science of atmospheric physics is pretty clear and unambiguous. Increasing greenhouse gases will increase the amount of energy retained as heat in our living space.

         Since the heat balance of the earth is very finely balanced, any sudden change (geologically speaking) tends to shift out of the narrow band that we’ve lived in for the last 10k years. Our civilization has a massive implicit dependency on the stability of the climate, so that isn’t good. Especially with the natural resource base stretched as far as it is into unsustainable usage because of population and expectation growth.

         The IPCC reports are very conservative scientifically because the science parts concentrate exclusively on what can be proven. I find that their worst case scenario is pretty much what I’d expect as an absolute best case (and their other two scenarios are just laughable). All of the since proven evidence since AR4 shows that, especially in the areas for positive feedback like ice cover.

         There is a high margin for error. Unfortunately it is all to the worse, and nothing to the better. Of course people who can’t follow the evidence prefer not to believe that. It’d involve hard changes…. Something that humans excel in avoiding.
         • really 3.2.1.1.1

           11 June 2010 at 1:26 pm

           Yes things are changing and yes the downsides make pretty grim reading.

           The issue that I have is not with the fact that one directional climate change is a bad thing but with the degree of reliance on things like the historical (assumed) baseline temperatures to prove that this is happening.

           Out of interest, is there a commonly accepted ‘list’ of things that could easily be done/implemented to reduce climate change?
           • lprent 3.2.1.1.1.1

             11 June 2010 at 1:54 pm

             Yeah there are a range of things from orbital mirrors to getting the oceans to suck up more CO2 to storing CO2 in empty oil wells.

             Most of them are palliatives in that they don’t have long-term stability – they depend on having the high-energy civilization to maintain them, or they simply defer the problem for a short period of time – eg the ocean ideas.

             The simplest (and easiest) is to reduce the dependence on burning fossil carbon. That is more of failure of will than a technical issue.
             • really …

               11 June 2010 at 2:01 pm

               As noted by the NZ Soccer team while in Sth Africa.
4. Bored 4

   11 June 2010 at 10:43 am

   Interesting stuff, the on the ground effects are going to be the interesting bits….

   From a weather viewpoint last spring we had a hugely windy time here in the Capital…cooler and wetter. I saw an item in November describing the El Nino event and that water temperatures mid Pacific were several degrees higher than average creating a big hot spot. In laymans terms this warmed air above it rose to be replaced by cooler air sucked in from the Southern ocean. It all seemed to come through Cook Straight giving us a crap spring.

   I would be interested to see some follow up on this like a regular report so we can track what effects actually happen, does the base information come from a regular source?
   • lprent 4.1

     11 June 2010 at 11:03 am

     Should be pretty standard data sources. I picked large chunks of this off NASA after I read a yahoo post. The sunspot data is ultimately from the collection point in Belgium. All of the data is pretty much available on the net these days. (of course there is the underlying question of the net handling the subject 🙂 )

     Hang out for wordpress 3.0 with its multi-site goodies. I want to set up a scitech.thestandard.org.nz that this type of post would be perfect for – along with my rants about iTunes – and anyone else who can write.

     Politics as a continual diet isn’t all that fulfilling 😈
     • NickS 4.1.1

       11 June 2010 at 1:16 pm

       If I haven’t got a blog up and running by then, I might have a piece on 1080 and general pest control and fluoridation stupidity, and conservation/ecology stuff that I could chuck your way for it.
       /evil grin
       • lprent 4.1.1.1

         11 June 2010 at 1:41 pm

         The delays are getting to be a bit of a pain – April, May, and now June for WordPress 3.0. But it should be soon. You’re welcome to come on as an author (because you can write) – the same relaxed rules as the political blog for authors. Since we’re not writing papers but more communicating scitech, I’d prefer pseudonymous.

         The blogs will cross-reference posts in the Community tabs on the right, because politics is science and vice-versa. Traffic and number of posts will probably be somewhat smaller than the political side.
         • NickS 4.1.1.1.1

           11 June 2010 at 6:14 pm

           Awesome and thanks, but since I’ll probably be cross-posting stuff on my own blog I’ll use my current name. Though I’ll save the more esoteric, “what the hell/my brain hurts” stuff for my one 😀
           • lprent 4.1.1.1.1.1

             11 June 2010 at 9:19 pm

             Cool. The stuff will be more science and tech overview – like the stuff that various of us have been writing. But with resource pages as well (so i can do things like put up example code).
             • NickS …

               11 June 2010 at 10:43 pm

               Neat, I just need to keep my present upswing motivation rolling then, though with the downtime due to dropping down to one course next semester and the temp-agency job-dance I should have plenty of time to pull together some good posts.

               I might try some brain storming tomorrow then and see if I can build up a bank of science topics related to present political issues, and finally get started on the 1080 thing.

               Which has been sitting on the back-burner for a year now.

               And I look forward to the iTunes rant.
     • Bored 4.1.2

       11 June 2010 at 4:40 pm

       Excellent idea, I am really interested in posting on ecology, environmental issues that raise to raise awareness, would be good as it i see a lot locally but theres a hell of a lot more to be known / seen / discusssed etc.
     • travellerev 4.1.3

       13 June 2010 at 12:12 pm

       Hi LPrent

       I’ve managed to secure the name “Subversive Foodie” and I’m working on my Diary Of a Subversive Foodie blog. I have you see, an extremely sinful hobby. Making my own fermented meats (Hams, Bacon sausages and all the Charcutery stuff you can’t get here) and cheeses (all the down and dirty un-pasteurised European style cheeses you can’t get here either) and growing my own foods etc. (I’ve stopped fermenting my own booze because it was just to good and to easy, Sigh)

       Anyway this seems to be almost subversive these day hence the name. LOL.
       • Santi 4.1.3.1

         13 June 2010 at 12:44 pm

         Do you wear a tin-foil hat while preparing all these delicacies, Dutch Einstein?
         • RedLogix 4.1.3.1.1

           13 June 2010 at 12:54 pm

           These ugly, misery gutted little noises you are dropping all over the threads don’t add much signal. Lift your game.
         • travellerev 4.1.3.1.2

           13 June 2010 at 2:31 pm

           I don’t get it Santi,

           Sometimes you actually say sensible things. So why the vile stupidity in the face of real tangible discrepancies and mis-information in and about the official story and why here when we are talking about things absolutely not related to what you call conspiracy theories?

           Could it be you’re suffering from Cognitive dissonance?
5. Oscar 5

   11 June 2010 at 12:38 pm

   Solar Maximum also coincides with the planets lining up with the black hole in the centre of our galaxy.
   No idea what effect, if any, this will have. As it is the first time these two events coincide in nearly 2000 years, there is no recorded knowledge of what happens on earth.
   Will our seasons be affected? Will the poles shift even more, knowing that the north pole is shifting rapidly from hudson bay? Who knows.
   • NickS 5.1

     11 June 2010 at 1:14 pm

     …

     There will be no effect, why? Because your dealing with very, very small levels of gravitational attraction, that only really impacts on large masses, like stars. Where as planets generally are influence by objects within far smaller interstellar distances, mainly local large bodies of mass, like local stars, and heavier objects, along with planets, dwarf planets, moons and rocks. All of which can be worked out via basic Newtonian gravitational equations for two bodies, and forecasting techniques for three + bodies.

     Also, our star orbits the central black hole, which means we come into “alignment” with it regularly. aka we would have probably seen effects within human time scales already.

     Oh yeah, people, please quit it with the 2012 nonsense already, or at least explain it to your kids/other people’s kids that it’s a load of bullshit:
     http://skepticblog.org/2010/06/08/kids-fear2012/

     And next person to spout 2012 nonsense will be cluebatted with
   • Bright Red 5.2

     11 June 2010 at 2:41 pm

     I’m pretty sure that’s not right.

     a) the planets won’t be ‘lined up’ any time soon http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar

     b) when, as must very occassionally occur, the planets are all in a line from the sun, the odds that they will be pointing towards the centre of the galaxy are (literally) astronomical. In fact, I’m not even sure the Solar plane intercepts with the Galactic plane in such a way that they could point towards the centre of the galaxy.

     c) even if it did happen the forces are minute. The effect of gravity from the Earth on us is 10 metres a second squared, the effect of the Sun is 0.0006 of that. The other planets have a combined mass about 1% of the Sun’s. And the gravitational attraction of the galaxy on us is (by my reckoning) 0.00002 of earth’s gravity on us.
6. NickS 6

   11 June 2010 at 1:26 pm

   Personally, while the biological systems may have evolved to handle the increased flux during the flip…

   bork

   Nyet, infrequent events like that only drive selection during the event, rather than in-between events, meaning that other selection pressures alter what ever traits were selected for. And even then, dealing with it might be as simple as plain old phenotypic plasticity in terms of up-regulation of protective proteins and DNA repair enzymes 😛

   /bio-geek
   • really 6.1

     11 June 2010 at 2:03 pm

     Translation, more birth defects and aborted pregnancies during these events?
     • NickS 6.1.1

       11 June 2010 at 5:40 pm

       No, your talking about a jump in background radiation that is presently thought not to be a big driver of cancer-causing mutations per studies of populations living around (well maintained) nuclear power plants*. Will it cause a statistically significant increase in background radiation that will cause an increase in mutation rates? Yeap, but as I said there’s ways of dealing with this that involve up-regulating DNA repair enzymes, and not all mutations lead to malignant cancerous cells (many genetic roads, more oft than not rather biochemically twisty), or mid-late term miscarriages and abortions due to fetal abnormalities. To put in perspective, you’re much more likely to end up with cancer via working with radiation sources or mutagenic chemicals (and not following all the safety requirements) than you are from a slight increase in background radiation.

       And on the miscarriages, from memory I don’t think we have a good idea about the early term rate of them (clinically apparent vs non-apparent or non recorded), which is the first hurdle to generally clear. However I don’t have recent stuff lurking in my memory, and wikipedia isn’t much help.

       [Edit]
       ugh, stupid wikipedians not sticking relevant info on the right page:
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Spontaneous_abortion

       So basically, our electrical stuff is more at risk from solar flares and magnetic field reversals than organic life is, unless you happen to be in an unshielded space craft/station, in which case you’re going to get more than the recommended dose.

       *What the authors failed to do was link the rates of blood cancers to viral diseases via anti-body tests + a few other controls if memory serves me right.
       • really 6.1.1.1

         11 June 2010 at 8:13 pm

         Thanks Nick. Looking forward to your posts on the scitech blog.

         Should be a good addition to the NZ blogosphere.

         Can I humbly suggest that the scitech blog does not focus predominately on Climate Change, the reason being that it is a politically charged topic and will attract nutjobs of all colours.
         • lprent 6.1.1.1.1

           11 June 2010 at 9:10 pm

           Hey I’m a programmer writing this on my brand new iPad. There is a limit on how much tech stuff I can write on a political blog. Same for the science (my first degree).

           I suspect that climate change will still be there because I am interested in the science. But it comes up here because the science is pretty well defined. The problem is political
         • NickS 6.1.1.1.2

           11 June 2010 at 11:11 pm

           Thanks Nick. Looking forward to your posts on the scitech blog.

           Should be a good addition to the NZ blogosphere.

           Thanks, I just need to try and deal with motivation fun from my (treated) depression, but that’s what my student union fees pay for with really cheap counselling sessions. I just need to avoid the usual symptom of not breaking things done and pick up on some of the writing tricks the most excellent Ed Yong uses, and less like Darren Nash as I tend to…

           Hmmn, might need to actually start using that thread again to keep myself sane while I try and get some part time work.

           Can I humbly suggest that the scitech blog does not focus predominately on Climate Change, the reason being that it is a politically charged topic and will attract nutjobs of all colours.

           It comes down to the Emissions Trading Scheme and whatever succeeds the Kyoto Treaty, and the political opposition to it from ACT*, but also National’s pathetic modifications to the ETS and seeming incapability to be bothered with climate change. An issue that should not be, in my view, allowed to slip quietly out of sight.

           On top of that, I’m of the opinion that the IPCC is being far too conservative on feed-back effects, primarily the methane being released as methane clathrates decompose, though I’m more interested in ecological feed-back effects, such as changes in vegetation patterns and animal ranges.

           *And no mention of ACT’s braindeadness on climate change is complete without posting the following link about how ACT effectively sold out their previously sensible (for ACT…) climate change policies for some political funding:
           http://deepclimate.org/2009/08/01/meet-alan-gibbs-builder-of-amphibious-humvees-and-climate-science-coalitions/
           • RedLogix 6.1.1.1.2.1

             11 June 2010 at 11:18 pm

             Thanks, I just need to try and deal with motivation fun from my (treated) depression,

             Best wishes with that. My older daughter whose just graduated from Vic (in an Earth Science) has also been hit badly by it as well. From what she says its seems a ridiculously common after-effect of completing a degree course these days.
             • NickS …

               15 June 2010 at 8:23 pm

               …And before I forget again…

               Thanks, though I’ve had this since before getting my BSc, so around 5 years, 3 years without knowing about it, and the 2 I did doing the ye olde NZ male stupidity of not getting proper help for it.

               And I hope your daughter gets through it.
7. Jenny 7

   12 June 2010 at 12:14 am

   I remember reading somewhere that a severe electromagnetic storm struck the earth in the 1890’s with enough force to seriously damage the nascent hard wired telegraph system.

   Considering that such early communications technology was by it’s nature far more robust than modern electronic based communications, and even electricity supply systems, the consequence of a an electromagnetic storm of similar strength hitting today because of our reliance on these systems would be far more damaging.
   • lprent 7.1

     12 June 2010 at 12:53 am

     Yep took out the telegraph networks. But I thought it was earlier.

     Yep 1859.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS