.. the rest of the world need not concern themselves.

What the rest of the world does is of their own concern.

As an Extra class ham radio licensee I can confirm that solar activity can indeed wreck havoc on communications especially our more advanced forms of communications that our countries infrastructure and military is so dependent on.

We need to pay serious attention to solar activity, unless of course you don't mind being stranded aboard a jumbo jet in the middle of the ocean when it losses GPS and all ground communications. Or how about being in the flight path of one of our advanced Predator UAV's loaded with enough Hellfire's to eradicate a small town when the military loosing control of it.

And those are only two examples I came up with off the top of my head. I'm sure their are 1000's more just as devastating.

Great Now the Local weather forecasters will have another reason to alert me

wind dry rain snow cold Now solar storms andWeather channel will come out with 'Solar Storm chasers ' a nother waste of cable Sat TV can't wait It could happen the day after tomorrow

lol dtown...

We don't need to worry anyways. The article stated it would not happen until 2013. That's a entire year after the world is going to end anyways. Do these people not watch movies?

While I do recognize that these solar storms can disrupt communications and power grids, I think the scientists are being a little alarmist in hopes of securing more funding to study the problem. An example of the exaggeration is when they start talking about a solar storm having impacts to the power grid that would cause power outages lasting months or years.

If some of these were harmed, there could be power outages for days, weeks, months, or even, in the case of severe damage, years, experts warned.

The problem of solar storms has been known for many years and many of the critical communications satellites are shielded to protect them from damage. They go into a safe mode when a problem is detected and can be rebooted once the danger has passed. The military's critical systems are all shielded to protect them from the EMP generated by a nuclear blast so the effects of a solar flare or storm would likely only last for the duration of the event itself. And for Blaze's comment on UAVs. I would not be too worried. The UAVs would go into a safe parking orbit if they lost ground communications and some are even programmed to return to their base and land if communications are out for too long. In addition, the missiles they carry are of very little concern so long as they have not been armed.

Solar storms are something we must be concerned about but the effects of a storm would likely be short lived, on the order of days to maybe a week or two. It is just being alarmist on the part of these scientists to start talking about damage having effects lasting months to years.

And for Blaze's comment on UAVs. I would not be too worried. The UAVs would go into a safe parking orbit if they lost ground communications and some are even programmed to return to their base and land if communications are out for too long. In addition, the missiles they carry are of very little concern so long as they have not been armed.

Thats assuming the on board computers do not fail which is a very good probability in a serious event. While critical components are shielded these are light aircraft and the shielding is minimal. The amount of shielding required to protect the computers from a serious event would be physically impossible to implement.

As far as the on board weaponry the real concern is them falling into the wrong hands when the aircraft goes down. The likelihood of an airborne UAV such as the Predator surviving an event serious enough to disrupt the power grid is highly improbable. Just like the A330 if the on board computers fail the thing is falling out of the sky like a rock. Did I happen to mention that one of my sons is a West Point graduate.

Preventive maintenance has never been part of our gov't pysche. Catastrophe must happen first.

Wait a minute, these aren't some of the same scientists as the ones involved in the global warming data manipulation scandal are they? I thought they all went off some place to hide. But, nope now a new "threat" to justify UN or US funding! The one thing they apparently did learn from climate change is a good con job usually works for a while at least, so be the first one in and then the first one out.

The flare happened on Feb.14th. Not to worry, the Sun was just sending a little Valentine our way.

Only the U.S. need worry, the solar flares have a laser painted on Lady Gaga's forehead. The rest of the world is safe from the solar sniper.

Scientists are becoming like the little boy who cried wolf, and I am afraid that every time I hear another "dire warning" coming from the so-called scientific community, I immediately think, "another ploy for more funding". Scientists have overplayed the dire warning card to the point where there seems to be no way to discern a "real" threat from a "made up to get more money" threat.

I don't know what they are advocating we do to prepare, but I have a strong suspicion it has something to do with channeling lots of taxpayer money to this same scientific community for more research.

The rest of the world doesn't need to be concerned cause they will do just fine without their electronics and stuff. On the other hand the U.S. without iPods and not being able to watch Jersey Shore, OMG, run for cover!

(for those of you that don't get sarcasm, yes, it is sarcasm)

the point is,the rest of the world does take things like this seriously and doesnt need to be reminded to be smart,you have to prod the people with the intelligence of approximately one peanut as this guy knows.

The planet can handle it, Earth has a magnetosphere to absorb electron particles.

But I wouldn't be blaming billions of years of evolution, for a fraction of time that some people have become dependent on technologies that are vulnerable to power surges.

blaze - you are wrong about the shielding. The systems on the UAVs are well shielded against this type of interference. It is highly unlikely that the onboard computers on a UAV would fail as a result of interference from a solar storm or flare. You show your lack of knowledge when you start talking about the shielding as if it would be extremely heavy. Having worked EMP shielding issues, I can tell you that weight is not a big issue and not as complex as you seem to think. As far as the weapons falling into enemy hands, that is extremely unlikely to happen. There are many fail safes incorporated up to and including a self destruct capability to prevent any of the critical technology components from falling into enemy hands in any condition that would allow them to use or reverse engineer them. You obviously know very little about aircraft systems design if you think interference from a solar storm or flare would take down a modern commercial airliner.

The fact that one of your sons is a West Point graduate does not impress me and does not mean he knows a single thing about the technology in UAVs. I am also an academy grad (I prefer not to say which one in this forum) and spent a good deal of my career working on military C4ISR systems design and implementation.

and some are even programmed to return to their base and land if communications are out for too long. In addition, the missiles they carry are of very little concern so long as they have not been armed.

Provided they can receive the GPS satellite signal during the disruption. Having worked with avionics installation I know it's extremely easy to render GPS unusable. You are dealing with a pseudo-random noise signal being extrapolated out of the noise floor, and it doesn't take much interference to make that go away.

The thing isn't going to fall out of the sky, but it will lose GPS navigation for the duration of the signal loss. Backup autonomous navigation methods will be necessary unless you're feeding it navigation data through a more local link.

JS in SD

"It is just being alarmist on the part of these scientists to start talking about damage having effects lasting months to years."

Do you usually just glance at the surface of something before you mockingly declare that those who have studied it are completely wrong?

The reason that they say months to years is because if the event were that serious it effects would not be localized. The number of repairs and replacements worldwide would overwhelm the system. Those timeframes are not just snatched from the aether.

We don't need to worry anyways. The article stated it would not happen until 2013.

No, the article stated that the cycle would reach its maximum in 2013. The storms can happen at any time, just with less frequency.

@cheapster

Great Now the Local weather forecasters will have another reason to alert mewind dry rain snow cold Now solar storms andWeather channel will come out with 'Solar Storm chasers

Just can't wait to see Jim Cantore in a space suit!!

"This cooperation has to be put in place before a disaster hits."

I hope FEMA gets the message before we all loose are cell phones. I have nothing but respect for how FEMA can mange a disaster (LOL)

As an Urban Planner we got large grants in early 2000's for "Hazard Mitigation Plans." We had to do them for every town - every town got ONE copy and although we put ridiculous requests in (such as Hovercraft (for police) to go across snow in New England - FEMA approved all our plans, I have to say, we didn't have a solar flare plan in place at all.

This is a true story - I'd love to say it's a joke, but it's not.

Great Now the Local weather forecasters will have another reason to alert mewind dry rain snow cold Now solar storms andWeather channel will come out with 'Solar Storm chasers

Obviously you are scientific speaking way behind the times. Ham radio operators as well as astronomers and other intellectually advanced groups have had access to solar weather conditions for decades. I personally check them every morning. If the sun spot activity is high I grab my telescope along with my SolarMax 90 H-Alpha solar filter and have a look.

Years ago they would broadcast the solar index numbers on ham radio via Morris code, Now we have web pages. Come on man get with the times and educate yourself a bit :)

http://www.spaceweather.com/

Sorry, Jeff - no, they don't. Case in point - 2010 tied for warmest year on record, and we had ZERO flares; the Sun has been far quieter than average for the past 3 years.

Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)

These solar flares are the root cause of Global Warming. Just pull the history of flare cycles and they match the temperature rise

Holy crap! how do supposedly educated people fall for this crap. I guess P. T. Barnum was right when he said "There's a sucker born every minute" And it looks like Billionaire Koch brothers funded anti-Global warming campaign has found every single one of them.

The Koch brothers - are they astronomers? ;-)

More seriously - would they FUND astronomers?

Now your just making the NTS people mad! They will respond... with very boring responses.

More seriously - would they FUND astronomers?

Sure if you were willing to sell your soul an denounce man made global warming while blaming the earths warming on some crazy astronomical phenomenon.

I've read some pretty crazy theories coming from the Koch brothers funded anti-global warming whackers.

One of my favorites is that the earths axis has tilted several degrees and that government scientist are covering it up.

Yeah right ;) Only a moron could believe they couldn't hide something like that from the millions of amateur astronomers who nightly point their telescopes to the heavens. I don't know about you, but last time I checked alpha and beta orionis where right were they belonged. I'm sure if the earth had shifted a few degrees I might have noticed it :) Hmm whats the field of view of 3572mm, focal ratio telescope and a 31mm Nagler Eyepiece ??

By the way I love astronomy. I'm not great at it, but its fun. The worst part is now that I can afford it I can't see worth a sh!t. So now I'm looking at moving away from the visual stuff.

Back when I was younger I could barely afford the hobby. In fact at one time I had to sell my trusty C8 all my eyepieces and my car just to keep the doors open on my restaurant. Now that I older and finally have nice vacation homes in Greece and Hawaii with dark skies at both locations along with some nice equipment such as my Takahashi Mewlon-300 and its beautiful EM-500 mount I cant see worth a s!tt Oh well such is life. I guess I'm going to have to start seriously looking at some of the high end video systems.

That explains the drool on my pillow the earth tilted a little more thanks I thought I had a serious Medical Problem "OH HONEY"

Sure if you were willing to sell your soul an denounce man made global warming while blaming the earths warming on some crazy astronomical phenomenon.

Where do I sign?

Seriously, that's where people who claim that "scientists are just doing this for the money" miss their point. If I was in this for the money, I'd be doing something else, or at least, working for someone else.

Selling the C8 - a hard day. I worked in restaurants while in college; it's nights and weekends and summers, and works well with the class schedule. I even earned my sous chef's certification (better than doing dishes!).

I still have kitchen rush nightmares.... It's a hard business. Are you still in the restaurant biz?

Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)

Blaze,

P.T. Barnum NEVER said that. It was banker David Hannum, referring to people who would pay to see Barnum's fake 'Cardiff Giant' instead of his own fake 'Cardiff Giant'.

Climate change isn't something we can solve without completely destroying our standard of living. The planet simply cannot absorb and replinish the damage done by 6.5 billion people. The population was only 4.5 billion in 1980. Population is the root of all the problems on this planet, but there is no acceptable way to "fix" that. Mother Nature will fix that Herself, though. She always wins.

Oil has increased the carrying capacity of the planet far beyond what it would otherwise be. Climate change is earth's way of rebalancing itself. I imagine over the next twenty-five to fifty years several billion people will die off as oil production declines because huge farms are not possible without oil. Many, if not most, pesticides and fertilizers are petroleum based. Tractors and other machinery need diesel. And, distributing that food to 6.5 billion people requires massive amounts of energy that come mostly from oil. Nothing can replace oil. Nothing can maintin this population for more than another few decades.

Once the planet gets the human population back down to a more historic, sustainable level of 1 billion +/- 500 million, it will be able to again absorb and replenish the damage we do. Then our numbers will rise again and fall again as is the natural order of things, unless we face an extinction level event and just completely die off; in that case, evolution would startup again and take a new path towards dinosaurs, humans, or something we cannot even begin to imagine. The planet was here long before human beings and will be here long after. Humanity is merely an anamoly in the timeline of space and time. There's nothing we can seriously do to offset climate change; any real expert who has no political agenda will tell you that the damage has already been done.

Just enjoy living in the Oil Age and shut up about climate change. If you live in a rich country, then you won the natural selection lottery; just enjoy it. If you don't, then sucks to be you. No one really cares, at least not enough to really do anything meaningful about it. Especially not this guy. In fact, I'm going to go idle my BMW SUV in the driveway just despite all of the liberal idiots.

Climate change is just science and End Times prophecy lining up. Coincidence? Don't really care. Live fast and die young is my motto, anyway.

Very nice thoughts, and interesting also.

Jeff they don't call it global warming anymore, the correct words are climate change as it seems to be getting colder in some places. This was a very smart move, as this crowd of alarmist recognized getting into your wallet by calling it global warming while everyone is freezing was a poor choice of words.

Has anyone checked the bottom of the mine to see if the water is boiling yet? And can we get a GPS locator bracelet on Woody Harrelson please? Cause the moment he heads to Yellowstone, I'm buying flood insurance.

Michael (Astronony.FM)..... If you were in it for the money you'd probably be working for the Koch brothers and saying anything they wanted you to say to increase their profits. :)

AnonymousIncognito...... I hate to differ, but I don't think living in rich countries would increase one's survival chances. It may actually make them worse. More money means better weapons. Better weapons means more efficient killing methods and greater loss of life. The breakdown in social order would be much more prevalent in areas of the globe where there are large city/urban populations. Most people who live in the rural areas are already able to produce enough food for themselves and family, even without the use of man-made fertilize. (Manure?) Most people who live in Rural areas also become much more proficient with the use of fire arms, due to the fact that they have livestock to protect and land on which to hunt/practice.

Myself I live on a farm, grow my own fruit/nuts/vegetables/berries and if needed can produce ALL of my own meat/protein products. (Take the Amish for instance, they don't use cars and trucks or oil, yet they eat well and survive.) I have underground springs for water sources. And if need be, can even produce my own electricity by using water powered generators in the fast flowing creek on my property. There are always windmills that can be constructed, Solar water heating is not a problem either.

So you see, it's not a matter of money as much as it is the means and knowledge of HOW to survive. While the Amish might be an easy target for marauders who only know how to plunder for food, a lot of rural people would be much more like me. I guess you could say, an Amish person with attitude and an arsenal.

I wouldn't recommend trying to kill Amish and take their food or women. they are armed and WILL defend themselves. And they do not need automativc weapons, one shot/one kill. Bullets cost money!

@ForWhatItsWorth-2708556

Wasn't talking about survival. Was talking about living it up and enjoying our wealth while we can. Was talking about enjoying the modern world and modern conveniences that can only exist because of oil. Everything is going to fall apart soon enough, but at least we got a taste of the amazing standard of living created by oil.

I have no desire to live in a world where all I have to look forward to is working on a farm all day. Mere survival is not for me.

Quality of life versus quanitity. I prefer quality. However, I do own a gun and know how to use it.

The American Dollar will be worth no more than the paper on which it is printed within two years. Spend 'em while they're worth something.

Some recommend gold, silver, canned goods, bottled water... I recommend doing it Charlie Sheen style - buy a briefcase full of coaine and then throw a massive party as it all comes crumbling down. America has been very good to my family and me; I intend to go down with Her.

At least President Reagan didn't have to be here to see this.

Blaze # 2.2- Are we supposed to fall for Gores crap. The man is a manipulator and opportunist. Everything he's done so far has been a set up for him to line his pockets. I know people that have driven by his house, and they tell me that it's lit up like Las Vegas. How's that for your energy conservationist. I saw his movie, and though it was entertaining it was slanted too far in one direction. Anyone that is familiar with scientific data would know that it can be tweeked for a particular response. He has managed to convince the public that only his data is correct, discounting and discrediting data from the same scientists that were educated along side with his. He discredits them because they're not on his payroll. I do not dispute that we are experiencing climate change, but I do dispute Gore's fear tactics. What are Carbon Tax Credits anyway? Is it an actual document, or is it vapor? What actual value do they have, and who owns them that they can be issued? Those credits are a total scam to bilk more money out of people that don't have it to begin with. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank. BTW, I do not believe that solar flares are the root cause of global warming, but they must be a contributing factor. We haven't been on earth long enough to fully understand what is happening, and to subscribe to theories wholeheartedly is down right foolish. Just recently someone discovered after a solar flare that the decay time of atomic particles did not follow the rules of physics as we know them. I suppose we can chalk that up to Gore's global warming also.

blaze (2.2),

Just for the sake of trivia and correcting an oft-misquoted line, PT Barnum never said "There's a sucker born every minute." His competitor did.

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

Just for the sake of trivia and correcting an oft-misquoted line, PT Barnum never said "There's a sucker born every minute." His competitor did.

True thats is one claim, Unfortunately there is also quite a bit of conjecture over who originally said it. At this point there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that supports any single claim :)

To further complicate the matter is the fact that con men had a similar saying in the the 1940's that went something like this. "There's a mark born every second" So it's really hard to say who actually said it first. The bottom line is the quote became famous as a result of P.T. Barnum so whether he was actually the first to say or not is kind of immaterial :)

Thank You !!!! Found my laugh for the day. Good statement !!!

LOL

I do have one amendment: Unless it affects Facebook (negatively) people won't care...

Hiya Rocky!

...and what happened to our lives the last time it happened and the time before that etc?

It last happened about 150 years ago:

...telegraph systems worldwide went haywire. Spark discharges shocked telegraph operators and set the telegraph paper on fire. Even when telegraphers disconnected the batteries powering the lines, aurora-induced electric currents in the wires still allowed messages to be transmitted.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare/

That was in a pre-electronic society. The concern is that when another of these "Carrington Event" class solar events happens, that our current tech will fry. Computers, telephones, power, and the systems that depend on those technologies like cars, water supply, etc etc.

Carrington flares are fairly rare, once every couple of centuries or so. (But they are unpredictable.) So, our preparation should be similar to what we do to protect ourselves from major earthquakes. LA may get the "Big One" tomorrow, or 100 years from now; so it's prudent to include that fact in your planning and building, and to get ready.

It's not a matter of hysteria - it's simply being prepared.

How much of your work in the Air Force was a matter of playing the odds, to be prepared for the bad stuff that might happen?

We don't ignore earthquakes, and just hope and pray that they will never happen. But, we don't build every garden shed to take a direct bomb hit, either. Know the potential risk, and take steps to keep that risk manageable.

Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)

The 1958 event, if it occurred today, would completely destroy our electronic and communications infrastructure. We dodged the bullet then because we were still in the vacuum tube age.

More hysteria from "The Experts"! I spent 20 years in the radar and communications bizz in the Air Force. This is pretty normal stuff. Yes, it can "screw" with electronic things, but it always has and what happened to our lives the last time it happened and the time before

There is a bit of truth to your claim. What you are forgetting is that the discreet components in the equipment you were using is much more immune, While modern high density integrated circuits are extremely vulnerable. It doesn't take much to zap an IC with a million transistors in it on the other hand it takes a hell of a lot to zap a discreet transistor.

Thats why in my back yard I several all band old ham radio transceiver that are built entirely from discreet components buried 4 feet down in a led pig. If the sh!t ever hits the fan and assuming I survive I'll be one of the few people left with world wide communications capability and since they are built using discreet components I can easily field repair them myself with simple tools.

Blaze - I almost cried reading your post. I am at the verge of a nervous breakdown reading all the uninformed @!$%# posted by hundreds of thousands of know nothings on this freaking site....on subjects ranging from global finance to weather science to space exploration to US politics....

The amount of noise being emitted by people whose lack of knowledge of any particular topic is matched only by their zeal to make themselves heard is simply astounding.

But you. ...finally ....someone talking some sense in this circus ..sigh ...

Blaze, who are you going to talk to?

Dr. NO, he will be talking to other people like me that see the potential for an event like this to happen.

You can sit in the dark while we communicate and organise. Choice is yours.

@Dr No

To other ham operators that have a cold war mentality. They were prepared for EMP from an atmospheric burst and so tend to keep equipment protected and offline. The more hard core tend to keep old tube stuff alive and running as the front end is less likely to get burnt out by this stuff. Though that crowd is aging and the usual attrition is shrinking their numbers.

ARES/RACES are the programs to look into for further information.

Michael (Astronomy.FM) Thank you for your well put post.

I said close to the same on a vine 4 or 5 days ago, only to have some uninformed nit wit calling the idea of paying attention to NASA studies "panic".

The idea is to be informed and there by suppress panic and be prepared to address this sort of solar storm.

Indeed, the strength of the Solar Max that hit in the mid 1800's would cause 100's of billions of dollars in damages to our electronic world today. Plus put most flight controllers in the dark.

Those who think being aware is being "Panicky" are naive !

Thanks One View! I pay a lot of attention to NASA studies, but then, I don't get out much... ;-)

Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)

@ MrIndia

I am at the verge of a nervous breakdown reading all the uninformed @!$%# posted by hundreds of thousands of know nothings on this freaking site....

Sir, may I recommend a practice I call "Newsvine Triage". Much like emergency room triage, this method helps sort the posts into those that are beyond help ("black tag"), and the others who are worth interacting with.

Yes, the noise to signal ratio is pretty bad on much of the Newsvine. Deal with what interests you, and black tag the rest.

Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)

Sage advice Michael ...I will try .. :-)

If we just knew when the highest electromagnetic flares would happen - we could run our credit cards sky-high and then wave them in the sun (and hope the cc company's satellite goes down as well).

If nothing else it's a good excuse to party like it's 1999. I would not want to live to see the chaos that would ensue. Unfortunately, I will probably live for another 50 years or so slaving away for my boss and dying of some form of painful cancer. Whether or not I lived or died, the solar flare would be my savior. So, I guess the issue is moot. Party on Wayne, Party on Garth!

Well, if it's strong enough to kill all the cellphones, there won't be too many people driving unless their cars are about 30 years old or older.

Well, that's one way to pay for your panels....

Pissed, You don't mean MAPS do you? Youch!

That too. But the main reason is that such massive bursts of electro-magnetic radiation has the potential to completely disrupt the working of the microchip which can literally bring down an airliner.

That too. But the main reason is that such massive bursts of electro-magnetic radiation has the potential to completely disrupt the working of the microchip which can literally bring down an airliner.

Especially if its something like an Airbus A330 which is completely fly-by-wire. If it's computer gets zapped its going to drop out of the air like a rock.

Wheee -- Spat!

I believe Michael is correct. Check the FAA websites. I can found no documented evidence of aircraft problems other than GPS loss, and radio interference associated with these events. That's not to say that a random particle couldn't take down a flight computer. Still with redundancies and shielding, the chances are pretty slim.

That's not to say that an extraordinary event couldn't occur at much higher energy levels than we have a history to support. Realistically, we really don't have a very big measured data sample when you consider astrological time. The Carrington event that occurred 160 years ago would appear to be much higher level than anything we have seen since. Whether or not that magnitude of event would destroy every piece of electronics is really an unknown, because when that occurred it was only recorded based on it's visual evidence. It's really only in the last decade or so that we have actually measured these events with satellite based equipment.

It's reasonable to assume that X-level events can cause some serious disruptions to power grids, radio communications, satellite outages and such, but these at what are at expected "normal" high levels, which would not be devastating. The question is that what we consider "normal" for high level events, may be just small in comparison to what could be possible. We don't really know for example, that the Carrington event was 10 times X-level threshold or 1000 times that.

It seems like there is evidence to suggest that Carrington "level" events may occur every couple hundred years or so based on observed aurora phenomena. Again, it's important to remember that these historical events are really not quantified in any measurable way. For all we know these aurora noted events may have actually varied amongst each other by many orders of magnitude. 160 years ago, the electrical/electronic infrastructure didn't exist much beyond telegraph and very clearly, we know that was impacted.

We may have some idea of what the "damage threshold" is, but we really have no idea of the probability of greatly exceeding that threshold. We have some experience with power grid interruptions and most of that history suggested tripping off power lines related to induced surges. However, very high surges could potentially cause much more damage. There are limitations as to what level of current that grid equipment can interrupt. If this equipment fails, the damage quickly gets much more severe. If nationwide we suffered a 20% failure rate of switching equipment and power transformers, the effects would last for many months. Replacing this stuff is much more significant than swapping out some burned out light bulbs. Most of this is long lead time, built to order equipment and there isn't a large reserve of spares sitting around.

The likelihood of a few planes dropping out of the sky is pretty slim and tragic as it would be, its effects would be relatively small in comparison to major grid failure. If we got to a level of event that most electronics were destroyed, not having a cellphone would be the least of our problems. Life as we know it would be changed instantly. Recovery wouldn't be in terms of months but more like decades. Without electronics, virtually everything stops and you can't just quickly go out and make more because it takes those electronics to make them. The trouble is that we really don't know the likelihood of such an event.

I'm not sure that you can really prepare for such an event so as to limit its destruction. But you can make preparations that would aid in the recovery. You do this by planning some minimum level of infrastructure required for recovery and you store, protect and stage those necessary assets in reserve. If you can't restore some minimum level of power and transportation within a relatively short period of time, people will start dying in large numbers. That in turn just magnifies the crisis, as quickly disease will become a real issue for those who do survive. Another serious issue is having an adequate level of knowledge and skills needed to rebuild. We do not have enough people with these technical skills to pull off such an effort.

These scientists are warning of the possibility and just how devastating it could be. Not so everyone is in a panic, but so the necessary resources are available for recovery. This is what we need to prepare for. As individuals, there's really little we can do other than having some non-perishable food and water in reserve to buy some time. Without a doubt, those in rural areas who know how to live off the land and less advanced, non-industrialized, agrarian societies will actually be much better off, at least for a while. It won't be long before others realize that their limited resources and capabilities, will become extremely valuable for sustaining existence.

heck the FAA websites. I can found no documented evidence of aircraft problems other than GPS loss, and radio interference associated with these events.

Not yet but you will be soon enough.

You might want to do some in depth research into the Air France Flight 447 crash. Evidence has surfaced that indicates the crash was a result of an in flight computer failure that resulted from flying into a large storm. This is a Fly-By-wire aircraft once the computer fails the game is all over.

Just before the crash the computer was sending home via satellite a cascade of computer system failures.

Great thread y'all. 1NewDay - a most excellent post.

Not all airline computers are the same either - for instance, all American planes have a computer chip that allows for someone on the ground to be able to do a cock-pit take-over (literally control the plane). Germany, for example, buys US Boeing planes, but says "hell-no" to the US in charge of the cock-pit, Lufthansa planes have a different on board computer (despite being a Boeing plane) - the Germans literally rip out all the controls and do them over - so good luck with all the "across the Atlantic" goodwill working together.

Blaze,

I saw the NOVA. It wasn't a "computer failure", all three pitot tubes iced over. The computer shut itself off of auto control. With no airspeed indication, at night, the pilots didn't take appropriate action quickly enough. Whether or not a planehas a computer, it uses pitot tubes to measure airspeed. With out airspeed indication in such a large plane, there's little room for error. Airspeed is critical in one of these big birds and a bit too fast or a bit to slow can create a stall condition. No lift, gravity wins. If you saw the NOVA, you should have noted that they could have sucessfully recovered if the followed the right procedures. They also noted that Airbus has seen problems with the pitot tubes before and in many of those instances, pilots didn't follow the procedures regarding airspeed, but managed to keep the planes aloft.

In reality, it appears that over reliance on computers may have contributed to not being skilled at properly reacting to a major problem manually. I've spent many years closely involved in designing and implementing automation in a variety of processes. You work very hard to get it virtually flawless. The problem is that when it's very, very good, the operator monitoring the process has virtually no experience in controlling the process manually. I've seen it many times. Usually, much like AF 447, some little sensor fails requiring manual intervention and the person who needs to do that isn't adequately practiced at it.

Frankly excessive automation of aircraft scares me for this exact reason much more so than a computer failure. Also, don't confuse "fly by wire" as necessarily meaning fly by computer. All this means is that the actuators are electrically controlled rather than mechanically. The flight controls don't move a cable, linkage or hydraulic valve, they're basically a form of electrical switch or input device. You must go fly by wire first in order to go fly by computer. I'm not up on the Airbus 330, but I'm willing to bet that all the actuators will still function with the computers down. It's a big plane with a lot of bells and whistles, but I'm certain it can fly manually, just not as easily. And of course you loose a lot of nice little features.

Now if you're talking about an F-117 or to some extent an F-35, having no computer is a big issue, as the aircraft are aerodynamically unstable. Without a computer making constant ultra fast changes, they won't fly very well. I'm not sure, but I believe the F-35 can still be flown manually, but it would probably be pretty hairy. The F-117, maybe not, because it's about as aerodynamic as a brick.

If you didn't see the NOVA just recently out on AF 447, look for it. It was well done. I think they nailed it. I suspect you can probably watch it on line at PBS.org.

I saw the NOVA. It wasn't a "computer failure", all three pitot tubes iced over

First of all the NOVA program clearly stated that what they were claiming was strictly theory based on speculation and that any number of other scenarios could have caused the crash. Speculative theory is not the same as scientific theory and is hardly conclusive.

Furthermore they had no access to the actual aircraft or data all they had to go on was pictures. The icing scenario is a remote possibility but highly improbable as far to many very unusual phenomenon needs to take place simultaneously.

I know the show was put together to look as though the claims they were making where fact but read the fine print first. If you read the fine print you will realize that what Nova did was take one or two facts and build a story around it.

All the producers of NOVA know for sure is that the computer codes indicate a failure to read data from the 3 pilot tubes. Whether or not the sensors actually failed is speculation at best and there is the very distinct possibility that the computer itself failed and was generating erroneous error codes.

Fractional freezing is an almost unheard of phenomenon and losing just one pilot tubes to Fractional freezing would be an absolutely unprecedented event in aviation history let alone losing all three simultaneously. Statistically speaking a computer failure in the airspeed sensor algorithms is much much more probable.

NOVA is also speculating that the computer actually returned control to the pilots. Assuming that the computer itself was failing then there is no reason whatsoever to beleave that the error codes being generated where accurate.

While speculation on fractional freezing makes for an entertaining and thought provoking show it's hardly conclusive. In fact statistically speaking its highly improbable. The chances of a complete computer failure resulting from static discharge or St. Elmos Fire is on the order of several magnitude more probable. By the way heres a video of St. Elmos as seen from the cockpit of in a A319.

In reality, it appears that over reliance on computers may have contributed to not being skilled at properly reacting to a major problem manually

I agree, did you read my previous post

I'm not up on the Airbus 330, but I'm willing to bet that all the actuators will still function with the computers down

I'm not an expert by any means but I am a member of several aviation forums and have conversed with Airbus mechanics and from those conversations its my understanding that the Airbus design is completely Fly-By-Wire and that all commands are executed through the computer and no direct control is possible.

This means the Airbus design is not like Boeing aircraft which uses a computer assisted system. In otherworld the controls are electrically connected to the actual flight control hydraulics and the computer at the same time. If the computer fails the pilots still have direct control of the flight surfaces and they can over ride the computer at anytime by exerting more pressure on the yoke.

Anyhow I enjoyed reading your post. I will admit that Fractional freezing of the pilot tubes is an entertaining theory and no matter how remote it is still a possibility that should be closely examined.

NOVA had the ACARS data that was made public. The BBC did a similar investigation and aired a report mid last year with similar conclusions. I'm not sure, but suspect that the BBC probably made contributions to the NOVA report.

The issues with pitot tubes was known by Airbus and multiple incidents had occurred in A320s. Airbus issued an AD to replace the tubes in 2007. Additional airspeed issues also occurred on A330s and A340s using Thales tubes. Most of these had clear correlations to icing related failure, some temporary only lasting a few minutes. A few A330 experienced nearly exact failures with the auto pilot shutting down because of tube problems. Since AF 447, Airbus issued further ADs and about 3 months after the FAA issued its own directive regarding replacing the Thales pitots with Goodrich models on Airbus craft. Their investigation clearly indicated susceptibility of icing on the Thales tube and the Goodrich design was found to be much superior. As I understand it, the heaters on the Goodrich tubes are larger and of more efficient design.

Some speculation has been leveled at ADIRUs and a Boeing 777 incident was thought to be related, however, the ADIRUs on the Boeing and AF 447 were of different manufacture. ADIRUs are essentially computer modules which take in the airspeed measurements from the pitots along with other flight parameters. Most large commercial craft have triple redundancy in these, however the complexity of how they fault, interpret data and switch control, varies widely by application.

It should also be understood that because the ACARs messages continued, it is unlikely that there was some major computer failure. Essentially the flight control "computer" is actually many individual computer systems networked mainly through a backplane in racks. Each system has is own computer module and many of these have multiple redundancies. The ADIRUs are one example and I can assure you that they themselves do not directly operate the flight control systems. They collect and analyze data and feed it to higher supervisory computers.

Air France tried to downplay the tubes issue as it suggested some liability. In their defense, the Airbus AD only recommended replacement and also indicated the issue was more related to planes on long haul routes facing weather conditions similar to what AF 447 faced. However, Air France ordered the replacement of the tubes shortly after the the AF 447 incident. Additionally, about 3 months later the FAA issued its own directive to replace the Thales tubes with Goodrich models. Their testing indicated that the Thales tubes were susceptible to icing issue, while the Goodrich was much superior in design. As I understand it, among other design differences, the heater is larger and more efficient in the Goodrich design.

I checked with a colleague who pointed me to this interesting link on Airbus flight control hierarchy.

www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

He suggested that there is a bit of a misunderstanding that Airbus systems are totally computer reliant, however, they are very computer dependent and designed to override what it determines as inappropriate pilot error input. He contends that the minimalist structural design of some Airbus craft are the main reason why. He claims that if the craft was flown by pilot input only, structural failure in multiple flight control surfaces is highly probable. If you follow the logic in the link, it suggests that what I stated was indeed correct, however, in practice it would take a very high skill level to maintain flight. It would also suggest that as long as at least portions of the computer systems are functional, the plane would be battling the pilot for control. It suggests that to some degree your statement is also somewhat accurate as in an emergency situation where time is critical, it's unlikely that a pilot could wrestle control away from the computer. And even if he could, he would need a high skill level to keep the craft aloft. That's unlikely because his experience with the particular craft would be mainly "going along for the ride".

Structural issue and flight control hierarchy with Airbus designs are concerns among some technical people within some air carriers. However, most of the decision making executives don't have a clue about these things. I understand this completely and have experienced very similar issues with top leadership who have little or no engineering knowledge. Money talks much louder than some geeky engineers.

That said, I think you are mis-applying the term "fractional freezing". That is not what's happening here. The phenomena involved is supercooling. In order for ice crystals to form it takes "seed" crystal formation which occurs around some non-water element as well as appropriate temperature and pressure. If the water molecules are very clean and pure, their temperature can drop well below freezing while still remaining liquid. This is rare in the atmosphere, however it has been observed many times when conditions are right. The highest likelihood is mid-ocean where the air is generally cleaner and vertical air currents are stronger because of ocean temperatures.

You can actually demonstrate this yourself with a bottle of really good purified water. You can take it to temperatures a couple degrees or so below freezing. Additionally you can cause it to flash freeze often by an impact which will jar a few bubbles an create seed points for crystallization to start.

As it relates to this incident, there are supercooled water droplets suspended in the atmosphere. They may exist while nearby, but not touching, ice crystals exist. When the plane, flying through the atmosphere, hits these liquid molecules, they instantly freeze on the surface. This phenomena is only fairly recently been discovered. It is possible that some "normal" wing icing is related to this. Generally it has been thought to be mainly temperature dependent, which is probably the case at lower altitudes where temperatures are not as cold. At high altitudes where temperatures are much colder it has been assumed that any water would be frozen, however, under the right conditions, supercooled liquid water can exist.

I would not claim to be an expert either, but as an electrical engineer with a very strong physics background and many years of experience in computer automated control, (and former pilot), I can tell you that the NOVA's theory is very much more sound than a random computer failure associated with electromagnetic anomalies. As I stated earlier, that's not to rule out completely the possibility of a very high energy event, of previously unobserved magnitude, causing an airborne computer failure. I think the preponderance of evidence suggests pitot tube icing in the case of AF 447. Looking at historical satellite X-ray, particle and geomagnetic data, which are directly related to solar events, there is nothing unusual witihin the AF 447 incident time frame. You can find this historical data on NOAA's space weather website.

Sorry if I sound like I'm being critical of your theory, but these are topics which I have a fairly decent knowledge base of and have extensively researched. But I'll be the first to admit, that doesn't make me an expert, although more knowledge than most in this realm. Most of the information is readily available, however it takes knowing what you're looking for and being able to find it. Science, physics, engineering and aviation are among my passions and have been for most of my life. I find it encouraging when others take an interest in these things, which is rare these days. But I also know that it takes good engineering discipline and analysis to draw meaningful conclusions. And, however good an effort you do, it's never really possible to be completely sure.

Thanks for the very informative post. your comment is covers quite a bit and I don't have time to address everything I would like to but I would like to make a few observations.

Looking at historical satellite X-ray, particle and geomagnetic data,

Again this is more speculation, The aircraft was not being actively tracked by ground radar or satellite position (GPS) The fact is they have no idea if it actually encountered areas where scientist are claiming Fractional Freezing conditions could have occurred. Furthermore this whole fractional freezing theory is a slipper slope and I'll explain why later.

Fractional Freezing is such a rare phenomenon that as far as I'm aware its only been demonstrated in the laboratory. Actually anyone can demonstrated it as long as they can somehow get their hands on Ultra pure water, Unfortunately most people don't have access to clean rooms and laboratory grade vacuum distillation equipment nor do they have access to freezers capable of minus -60F. Furthermore as far as I know no one has ever proven that it can actually occur outside the laboratory. Nova's whole theory is based entirely upon fractional freezing quickly overwhelming the powerful pilot tube heaters.

Furthermore if Fractional freezing was actually involved then why would it be limited to only the pilot tubes? I'm also a member of several aviation forums and have been following quite a few threads where the people involved are either aviation mechanics, pilots or people directly involved with the development of various commercial aircraft. The general consensus is that if Fractional freezing did actually occur at a level sufficient enough to freeze the pilot tubes then theres no reason whatsoever to beleave that the fractional freezing would not have overwhelmed the entire aircraft. Remember the movie "The Day After Tomorrow"

Therefore actually admitting that a phenomenon such as fractional freezing did occur naturally and in sufficient mass to take down a heavy aircraft is something climate change deniers might want to avoid speculating on. It would be a clear indicator of unprecedented severe atmospheric anomalies that could easily be attributed to global climate change. Don't take that comment personally, I'm just making a general observation and its not necessarily directed at you.

If in fact Air France flight 447 went down as a result of Fractional Freezing then the passengers aboard that aircraft might very well go down in history as the first victims of climate change.

As for the NOAA day, I looked at all the parameters on the specific day of the incident and both a long time preceding and following. I'm quite confident there was nothing unusual. Don't forget too, this happened at night, about 02:10 UTC, which means that airspace was in the dark, not in line with the sun.

If you do a little more research, there's far too much evidence pointing at pitot tube failure. Here's the ADs issued by the FAA and the EASA.

ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2009_0195.pdf/AD_2009-0195_1

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/00cdbb6b9156663886257626004b68bc/$FILE/2009-18-08.pdf

Here's another interesting link with a professionally prepared collection of AF 447 background, including the ACARs data and meanings and interpretations. I believe you'll find it to be pretty credible information from industry professionals and not just discussion board chatter.

avherald.com/h?article=41a81ef1/0022&opt=0

Now as to "fractional freezing". Again you are mis-applying the term. Fractional freezing has to do with mixed liquids and the use of controlled freezing. The classic example is alcohol and water. Conceptually you could freeze the water while keeping the alcohol liquid. It is basically similar to distillation just using cold vs. heat. It is used in purification and concentration of certain liquids, but it isn't 100% effective just as in using distillation isn't 100% effective. The reasons it isn't complete has primarily to do with chemistry vs. physics or thermodynamics. Chemistry isn't a strong suit, so I'm afraid I can't explain it any better than that. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the icing theory.

Nucleation is the key to thermodynamic phase change. This is how an ice crystal starts to form. Typically ice crystals form in the atmosphere at a nucleation site which is most often a dust particle. There is supposedly a very simple experiment to prove this. You take a snowflake and let it melt on a perfectly clean glass microscope slide. In the middle of the little puddle will be a very small particle. I have never tried this but I understand that it works. Now, if you accept that nucleation is necessary to start normal freezing, this is why "pure" very clean water can stay liquid below freezing, yet could very quickly, almost instantly, freeze once a nucleation site is available. This liquid water below freezing temperature is supercooled. This is what NOVA was talking about. However, that is not to rule out the possibility that a large column of very warm moist air in storm conditions, can quickly rise to very high altitudes where the temperature is normally much colder. If that column of moist air is actually still above freezing, as soon as it contacts the very cold surface of an aircraft that was just in 40 degree below zero temperatures, it's pretty obvious what will happen. I believe this scenario is exactly what the test data related to the icing tendencies reflects.

Either scenario I just described could explain sudden icing of the pitot tubes. (remember, these have very small ports which can easily become blocked or partially blocked resulting in erroneous readings.) My guess is that what actually occurred could be something between the two. Theoretically, pure water can be supercooled down to around -40 F. The moist air was probably well below freezing, but probably warmer than the "normal" temperature at cruise altitude outside the storm. Supercooled water below freezing at altitude is a well known phenomena and potential problem for flight. Here is a 15 year old FAA advisory on icing. It's pretty interesting and take particular note of a section called SLD conditions. This is very real, in the real world and not just the lab. Generally, it is thought that the normal air temperatures would be too cold at 35,000 feet, (NOAA data says probably close to 40 below in the vicinity), but we don't really know what it was in the storm and we aren't sure of their altitude after Brazil lost tracking some 20 minutes or more before the ACARs started transmitting. Also, as to icing over the whole aircraft? Small surfaces are actually the first place freezing usually starts. Could very well have been that there ice all over though, and it just would have made flying it that much harder and more susceptible to stalling. Unfortunately, there would be no evidence to find later if it did ice over.

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2091-51A/$FILE/AC91-51A.pdf

As I said before, we never really know for sure, but I think everything points one way with no real outliers that can't easily be explained. I believe all the appropriate agencies involved are relatively sure based on their actions. I can understand France's BEA not wanting to draw any official conclusions for a lot of potential liability issues. They don't have the flight recorders so it's pretty easy to say it's inconclusive. I am curious as to where you got "fractional freezing" from. I am certain NOVA never used the term. Did you read that being discussed somewhere or is it just a case of using the term incorrectly, which is fine? Sometimes terminology gets pretty geeky and gets misused.

I am curious as to where you got "fractional freezing"

True fractional freezing is not the same thing as fractional distillation even though lately the terms seems to be used interchangeably.

I had seen fractional freezing demonstrated years ago. I really haven't heard much about it until flight 447

As far as flight 447 I reviewed the NOVA program after it had been disused on several aviation forums. It was NOVA that based their entire theory on the basis of atmospheric fractional freezing.

Your not going to find a lot of information on the Internet on Fractional freezing as it is unheard of in nature and as far as I'm aware it has only been demonstrated in the laboratory using ultra pure vacuum distilled water. Other then being an interesting phenomenon it really doesn't seem to serve a purpose that I know of thats why there isn't a lot of information available about it.

In order for fractional freezing to take place you need ultra pure water that has been cooled far below freezing. The colder the water the more violent the reaction. The water needs to be ultra pure and the only way I am aware of to accomplish this is to use a laboratory grade vacuum distiller in a high level clean room.

Ultra pure water like this won't freeze, It will remain liquid even at extremely low temperatures The water can be made to freeze instantaneously my simply introducing a tiny amount of contaminates. I've seen a gallon of this ultra pure water violently freeze in less then a second by merely touching a Pyrex wand with your fingers and then touch the water with the stick.

In the demonstration I witnessed they touched the contaminated stick to the gallon of water at which point the gallon of water violently froze solid in less then a second or so breaking the beaker it was in. I guess you can have touched the water with your finger but considering it had been chilled far below freezing that might not have been wise.

The NOVA program even demonstrated this phenomenon. Its NOVAs claim that the aircraft flew into a storm where ultra pure atmospheric moisture was present and when the moisture contacted the pilot tubes it instantly froze because of the contaminates on the tube. The sheer amount of ice that formed as a result of Fractional freezing overwhelmed the pilot tube heaters and is what NOVA claims took out all three Pilot tubes simultaneously.

Other then in fiction such as the movie "The Day After tomorrow" No one has ever suggested that fractional freezing could naturally occur. The whole problem with this theory no one has ever demonstrated or has proven that water can achieve the necessary purity in nature for fractional freezing to take place.

If it wasn't fractional freezing then it would have been normal everyday icing that took out all three pilot tubes. If that the case then Airbus and the pilot tube manufactures are looking at serious liability.

Blaze,

Look, I've been very open to your views, but you are dead wrong about "fractional freezing". And no, it was never mentioned in NOVA, I just replayed it specifically listening for that. Pretty sure, but thought just maybe I missed something. Not there.

The phenomena of "supercooling", which is what NOVA was proposing, is very real, and it happens all the time. The FAA document I linked to from 15 years ago speaks about it. Look at that and the other links I have provided. I have personally seen it at 14,000 feet in air temperature just below zero and in less clean air just off the coast. It was for a very short period, but I am quite certain in can and does happen. Clearly liquid rain drops turning immediately to ice on contact. You don't need to take my word for it, do some research, but don't look for "fractional freezing", because that is not what it's called. Keep in mind too that NOVA's analysis doesn't really "hinge" on this, but suggests it as potentially part of the explanation.

As I suggested, in the case of AF 447, it is entirely plausible that the supercooling they likely encountered, did not necessarily need to be at the most extreme end of the spectrum. NOAA data from that exact time showed temps at about -40F in the area at their last known altitude, considerably warmer than what would normally be expected. Large storms such as they encountered draw in huge amounts of warm, moist air from the surface. It is entirely plausible that updraft much warmer than -40F were occurring within the storm system. That would just increase the likelihood of this occurring. We don't know for sure and nothing you have suggested comes even close to refuting the theory presented by NOVA and others, I might add.

If you do some research on the Thales probes in question, you will find that more than 100 reported instances occurred in less than two years. Some of these lasted only briefly and did not involve all 3 probes. Almost all these were attributed to icing. The EASA and the FAA tests clearly indicated an issue with these probes. Can we say for absolute certainty that was what happened with AF 447? No we can't, but it is very highly probable.

Look, I think it's great that you are interested in this stuff and want to learn more, however, in order to do that, you need to look fairly at everything. Your insistence in clinging to the term "fractional freezing" is just evidence that you are at least somewhat close minded. You need to get past that. Mis-applying a term which probably less than 1% of the public ever heard of doesn't make you stupid, it only means you made a simple, understandable mistake. If you knew everything, there'd be no point in learning. Don't let your ego get in the way of good analysis. Being tenacious, makes a good analytical engineer, but it can sometimes be blinding too. I've been there.

As to your last statement. Now you are getting it. Just understand that "normal" icing can and does involve supercooled water. Read the FAA icing advisory I linked to. I assure you it will be educational. Keep in mind that France has the "final say" as to the cause. The BEA is the French counterpart to the aviation section of the NTSB. Keep in mind to that France has a huge stake in Aibus. Thales is a French company. Air France is a French company. The French government still holds a very large percentage of ownership in the company.I'm not trying to say that politics could influence the BEA, I don't know enough about it to draw conclusions. I do know though that France and the EU for that matter have a whole lot riding on Airbus. France has a lot riding on Air France. I think a cover-up would be pretty difficult and I don't see that happening, but I think there are strong motivations for hesitancy in assigning any blame. I've personally had some dealings with a couple French companies and all I can say is that if people think American business is arrogant, they "ain't seen nothing!" Of course, that's just opinion, not real evidence.

Interesting tidbit. Air France and Airbus just about a week ago announced a contract with Woods Hole to conduct search efforts for AF 447's black boxes. Hope they find them and more conclusive data becomes available.

You are absolutely obsessed with "teabaggers." I swear I havent seen you go one article without mentioning them. I think you need to get over it man and give it a rest. It gets old.

Hey AZ, lighten up on Toasty. He get 5 bucks every time he posts that crap.

Toasty is very good at making his opinions known, and is one of the few that are bluntly honest around here. If he gets under your skin then you probably deserve to be annoyed.

Deserve to be annoyed? An article about space storms and he mentions "teabaggers?" Not only is that sort of an offensive term to use, this article has absolutely nothing to with politics, much less "teabaggers." Its an obsession!

Geez man, calm down. It's just a word. You guys called yourselves teabaggers first, remember? Back before a young person told you what "teabagging" means. You guys walked RIGHT into it, man. It's too funny to let go.

You guys? I never did. Its just that you cant seem to read an article on solar storms without blabbing out something about teabaggers.

Like I said, just watch. I PROMISE you, even if it's a few years down the road, when any government attempt to protect us from these solar storms threatens to interfere with the Koch brothers' profit, this article will be called a hoax. 100%, reliable as the tide, sure as the sun will rise. I guarantee it. Guaran-@!$%#ing-tee it.

Lol....can you imagine the withdrawl symptoms of people in this crackberry addicted society? I hope we still remember morris code.

Morris code? Will we be communicating by encoding messages into Morris dances?

Dominator- There would probably be fewer traffic accidents.

You people who post on this vine ...i sometime wonder how ignorant people can be in such a rich powerful country ...You are so opinionated ....do you guys ever pause to think before just blabbing off at first opportunity ? While you are rambling off about cell phones did it even once occur to you what would happen to our defenses... global finance...shipping...ait travel .....hospitals....etc everything that depends upon the microchip when a solar storm wipes out the chip ? You ever contemplate the mini armageddon resulting from an event that would bring the electronic age to stand still ?

All this money being spent on the study of this phenomenon and ways to protect from it is all money well spent. But i guess you tea-baggers are too ignorant to worry about anything beyond your oxens and tractors.

What complete whinny know nothing nincom-bloody-poops !

What complete whinny know nothing nincom-bloody-poops !

Thanks for the laugh, I would vote that up twice if I could.

Wait a minute Blaze, I want to know more about all those "oxens and tractors".

Must be from Punjab.

It would be easier to get excited about solar storms, but they were saying pretty much the same thing 30 years ago...but nothing much happened.

Cassandra - A lot has changed. From our relative dependence on things electronics to the actual design of the chips themselves. Scroll up and Read Blaze's excellent post explaining the difference between discreet elements and modern day microchips.

Look all i am saying is that it is okay to be skeptical of the experts. They are not always right. But this wholesale right wing radio talk show led movement i am seeing in this country against meritocracy, against knowledge, against experts, against scientist, against everything that they say or advice is dangerous and self defeating.

In other words, If you don't know anything about electronics or solar radiations, it would hurt nobody and nothing if you choose to keep your mouth shut and not opine on the issue. Even better - do not even bother about saying YAY or NAY to other people who might be opining on the issue.

But this wholesale right wing radio talk show led movement i am seeing in this country against meritocracy, against knowledge, ...

You're absolutely right. The right wing is against meritocracy and education because they can't afford to have people think for themselves. It would put them out of a job.

the end of the world is supposed to happen december 21, 2012. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch that the Big One solar flare would hit a couple weeks before 2013. that's how they coincide

Pardon my ignorance, what's this about 21 ounces leaving the body when you die? i've never heard of that.

paranoia serves no one...

Mlrndia.......Ignoring the obvious is dangerous to everyone.

Mrindia is right. Not every warning of future problems is an attempt to garner money for self-serving interests. But, that doesn't seem to be the mentality in this country lately. If Newsvine had been around in 1941, and on December 6 someone had warned of a Japanese attack, this crowd would've labeled them alarmist and looking out for their bottom line.

Barry - Apparently the election of a negro to the white house has unhinged a whole section of the population that was barely holding on to its collective wit through all the changes of last 50 years ....no more - they say ...they gotta have their country back ..whatever that may mean.

The entire political climate and discourse in America today has become ridiculous.

Mrindia ... I think you're right about that. In my opinion, Jimmy Carter was far more liberal and less effective than Obama, yet the Republicans of that time were still capable of rational discourse. Some people can't deal with change.

With our lack of math and science skills (as a country), I hope we have a land-line to India to help the US Gov't do the solar flare math (not joking).

Black Kettle- Your fears are unfounded. The top brains in any given field - well most of the top brains in most of the fields - are still in the US. Our education system is such that it produces a lot of horses but not enough mules. We go to places like India or Philippines to get the mules - not the horses. :-)

This is not to say that the declining levels of math and science proficiency in the US is not a big problem. It certainly is.

We hear a lot about how our education system is failing the children but i think the blame lies equally with the parents and the society is general. For example, where I live, we have lots of educational institutions like Kumon and Mathnasium. They are quite affordable too -

1. $100 a month at Kumon buys you two 30 minute sessions per week with the instructor and weekly worksheets to complete and return.

2. $140 a month at Mathnasium buys you one hour long session per week plus 2 additional hours (total 0f 6) with a tutor.

Every time I go there I mostly see American-Indian or American-Asian kids there. Why ? What are the other kids doing ? Why are they not taking these courses and working to improve there math and science skills ?

Ya, and don't forget about NASA too. President Obama is the anti-JFK. Can't we get a national Democratic leader again that has faith and beleives in America?

Ah....hey Mac.....haven't you heard? One of the planks in the democrat party platform is, "thou shalt not have faith in or believe in America".

The real question is... When it happens, how do we make money off of it? Maybe solar insurance? Then pass a bill saying it's mandatory and charge you up the ass for it. THEN, ( here's the best part ) try to collect and they tell you " loophole " you get nothing...

@Mike D

Solar Flare Credit Default Swaps traded outside of SEC regulation and so intertwined in the system that their sudden payment demand brings down the economy in the "Econolypse of 2013". Thanks for the really good idea to fund the next Wall Street bubble economy!

Can't we get a national Democratic leader again that has faith and beleives in America?

I agree we need one of those. We also need Republican leaders who actually comprehend science and have a vision of the future.

One of the planks in the democrat party platform is, "thou shalt not have faith in or believe in America".

And the Republican party platform is "thou shalt not invest in America. If the infrastructure was good enough for Theodore Roosevelt, its good enough for us."

Don't worry Barry, the DEMOs and REpugs are playing us Good Cop/Bad Cop. They're smart enough to know they are destroying the country on purpose for the Trans NAtional BANKSTERS so they can create their Global New World Order!

You know those Republicans in Congress will dismiss this as more elitists crying wolf, (those darn scientists and their pesky facts about....science). If it's not in the bible or requires them to shoot at it, it mustn't be very important.

Not having an education is a very dangerous thing.

Believing anything al gore says is even more dangerous.

I found about a dozen youtube videos of Gore being grilled on Capitol Hill. The SOB cannot answer a straight question and uses up valuable time evading them. Google Gore global warming and his contemptible face pops up.

Check out this video:

http://powerpointparadise.com/blog/2011/01/world-chemtrail-awareness-day-%E2%80%93-january-22-2011/

Click on the middle animated video to the immediate right titled Global Warming Panic Explained. It's a hoot!

P.S. It's not about chemtrails.

ummm how about believing everything that Beck says ?

I have watched one Beck program, and that was one too many, I don't listen to the fat man either. In fact I don't listen to any political wind bags. Gore is a profiteering wind bag himself. Is it any wonder why 30,000 scientists have filed a law suit against him. Is it any wonder why a British Judge banned his movie from the public school system, and later allowed only it to be shown with a disclaimer. The movie was found to have nine untruths in it that Gore refuses to correct. The sad reality is that his piece of crap film is shown in the American public school system, which is nothing more than propaganda justifying his financial interest. Gore and his cronies are the best examples of conspicuous consumption, and the worst examples of energy conservations. In short, Al Gore is a hypocrite.

Virgil, given the standard of honesty to which hold Mr. Gore's movie, you may wish to correct your post.

There is not a lawsuit with 30,000 scientists suing Al Gore. That story is a myth, and is of dubious origins. One may imagine that it was planted as a smear campaign against Mr. Gore.

The British High Court had this to say about An Inconvenient Truth:

a) There are nine points made in the movie that go beyond scientific consensus. When showing the movie in British schools students must be informed of those nine points. (Note that the High Court did not say that those points were wrong - only that they were not yet proven and should not be presented as fact. They may, or may not, be proven in the future.)

b) The Judge's of the High court did find that An Inconvenient Truth is "broadly accurate" and "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact."

I am not a movie critic, so I shall not pass judgment on whether or not the movie is a "piece of crap film" (to use your phrase.). I am, however, a scientist, and I take a great deal of interest in getting the facts correct.

Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)

Michael- I will stipulate that your points have merit, but do you believe in Gore's assertion that only his scientists are correct? I'm not a scientist, but I do have a technical and engineering background. Like I said way way above, data can be manipulated for a desired response, and the lack of data makes his data more suspect. Even if his claims are not deliberate lies I have to consider that some of them are a clear case of subterfuge. He does stand to gain from this carbon tax nonsense, and he has admitted so on the Hill. He still stands by his claim that there is a world consensus of the scientific community that concerns global warming, when clearly there is not. That statement in it self is a bare faced lie. I'll give him this, as a politician he knows how to work the system, and he is in the process of working this country over.

Hiya Virgil!

Gore is the messenger, self-chosen for the role. He is not the message. Far too many confuse dismissing Gore for dismissing the science.

I'm a planetary astronomer. I'm not a climate scientist, but I can hang with them without getting too lost (if they speak slowly and use small words).

It is my professional evaluation that there is, indeed, an overwhelming consensus in the science community that global warming is real, and that it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. I have no direct connection to the science, I have nothing to gain by holding that position, my grants and employment are in no way impacted by funding for climate science, and I am a Republican who has never voted for Gore (and never would).

Every National Academy of Science on Earth agrees with the above. Every Nobel Laureate scientist agrees with the above, as does the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the American Association of State Climatologists, the American Geological Institute, the American Institute of Professional Geologists, and on and on. Those whacky liberals at the Pentagon - The Joint Chiefs of Staff, are very concerned with how global warming will impact global security (starting with nuclear-armed Pakistan, and working out from there). Major Swiss insurance corporations, the benchmark of conservative planning, are now making their plans for the coming impacts of global warming.

The first scientific paper showing the efficacy of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was published in 1896, by Svante August Arrhenius. (Arrhenius later earned the Nobel Prize in Chemistry). This is 115 year-old science.

Virgil, I am either lying to you, or I am terribly misinformed about the quality of the science, or my evaluation is correct. I have nothing to gain by lying to you, so I hope that you would discard that possibility. If you will grant me my sincere belief, then either I'm wrong, or we've got a major world-class problem to deal with.

Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)

The first scientific paper showing the efficacy of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was published in 1896, by Svante August Arrhenius. (Arrhenius later earned the Nobel Prize in Chemistry). This is 115 year-old science.

Excellent point. Global warming science is nothing new and very few people realize that it dates back to the early 1800. Unfortunately every time I bring it up its dismissed as liberal bull@!$%#

Anyhow for anyone interested heres a link detailing the time line of scientific discoveries leading up to what now is called Global Warming. Its from the American institute of Physics.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

Michael- Thanks for the post and not chewing my head off. As I am not an Ostrich, I accept that the earth is going through climate changes. My bone of contention is Gore's presentation, and the fact that he has a financial stake in the matter. I have watched numerous videos not so much contradicting Gore's position, but questioning his data. Does that make sense? These are highly respected scientists also, so how can only Gore's scientists be right and the others wrong? That is my beef. They all can't be bought off by the Republican party can they?

Contrary to what you might think about my posts above, I don't buy into speculation. I know there are always two side to an issue, as in the topic of this seed for example. I still consider Gore a hypocrite, and I wish it were scientists themselves that were trying to get the message across, not a manipulative politician. Gore's greatest asset is not his knowledge of the subject, but the bank role it takes to sway opinions one way or the other. BTW, I am a conservative, not a Republican, and if you haven't guess by now, I don't trust politicians. Thumbs up on your posts.

Thanks Virgil.

Consider that someone started the lie that there are 30,000 scientists suing Gore.

Again, I'm not defending Gore, but far too many of those who oppose dealing with global warming spend their energy, not in the science, but in demonizing Gore.

They have made Gore the issue.

I do not give a rat's patootie about Gore's house, jets, beach houses, or personal coal mine under his property. None of that has any impact on the validity of the SCIENCE.

And yet, that is where the debate is - that Al Gore is evil.

Why won't organizations who do not agree that global warming is real and human-caused deal with the science? My concern that they do so because they feel that they lack facts, and so choose to fight with personal attacks and obfuscation. Their strategy is, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullroar."

The science question is no longer "if", it's "how bad" is it going to be, and "when".

Now, however, the problem is in the court of our wise leaders.... We're screwed.

Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)

Blaze, I'm trying to come up with something witty about The American Institute of Physics being a radical long-hair group, but I'm coming up dry.

Nice link, tho - thanks!

Cheers! ~Michael (AFM*Radio / Astronomy.FM)

Blaze, I'm trying to come up with something witty about The American Institute of Physics being a radical long-hair group, but I'm coming up dry.

Hey I grew my hair long simply so I could fit the stereo type and screw with uptight people:) It's fun, I'm an old man who was blessed with nice hair, must be the Greek in me. I love to screw with the tea bagger, Limbaugh types when they come into one of my restaurants.

Now picture this I'm not a young man but I do have a nice long gray pony tail that when braided hangs down below my waist. Yes it pisses my wife off that I can grow my hair longer then her).

Anyways all my locations have full bars and sometimes I hang out and relax and play dice with the customers as they wait for their table. This is usually after I have been busy busing tables and washing dishes, so I am still wearing an apron. Did I mention that I started out 50 years ago as a dishwasher. Anyhow I still like to wash dishes as its good exercise and it shows my employees that I don't mind getting my hands dirty when we are busy.

Okay back to the story, When I do this I look forward to running into Rush and Savage fans. I'll proceed to get them all whipped into a mouth foaming frenzy when like clock work they will pop a fuse and go off into a childish tirade about me being some long haired liberal failure living off the tax payer? At this point they are usually becoming pretty loud and obnoxious, so to calm them down I buy them another drink while my bartender enlightens them to the fact that he doesn't really appreciate obnoxious costumers raising their voices to the person who signs their paycheck. Now while they are picking their jaw up off the floor I'll usually rub a bit of salt into the wound by waving over my matradee and instructing him to see to it that my new friend enjoy a nice dinner on the house. Hey its the least I can do for getting them all riled up. Yeah with drinks, it usually end up costing me a couple of hundred, but hey its worth it.

There was only one instance where one gentleman became so hostile that the door man and a few of the valet attendants had to step in to calm him down. Unfortunately he wasn't easy to calm down so we had to involve a few of our men in blue. I kind of felt sorry for the guy so I paid his bail. Unfortunately he had become argumentative with the officers so there was nothing I could do about those charges. I just don't understand why some people feel the need become hostile when they can't prove their point.

It sounds like if I had worked for you back in the day I wouldn't have left restaurants.

Yes they can do quite a few things about it. From avoiding areas most affected by the radiation to shielding the equipment to even building radiation resistant microchips - a lot of things can be done and are being done to ensure that critical defense, finance and communication systems are best protected during such a solar storm.

What is wrong with you people ? Citizens having a healthy dose of skepticism is great for a democracy. But what the F is up with all this mass paranoia and uninformed opinions from talk show hosts masquerading as expert knowledge ? WTF is going on in this country ? Some mass movement to stupid ?

I'm beginning to think that the movie "Idiocracy" was frighteningly accurate. There are a lot of people, including many of the talk show hosts who are afraid of smart people and what they tell them. New problems are going to crop up as the way we live evolves. Gas prices and oil changes were a nonissue for people who rode in covered wagons. There are people working to solve the new problems as they develop, but it does take time, brain power and financing to make it happen.

Some mass movement to stupid ?

Are you surprised? Half the country idolizes "Joe the plumber" and believes that an Ivy League degree is practically the same thing as being branded with a "666" on the forehead.

Some mass movement to stupid ?

You hit the nail on the head there! No one will care until the can't watch TV anymore and have to cook a microwave meal over a real fire (ruining their best Teflon).

I don't own a cell phone either, but i imagine that how many they've killed (i'm assuming you're referring to car accidents and such--people texting and not paying attention) balances with how many they've saved (again car accidents and such--being able to call 911 on a highway and not having to walk however many miles to a payphone). funny how this universe works...

Are you saying that people may be no longer be able to shout into their cell phones and make the whole world listen to their conversations. I like that.

Alot of you people are SO ridiculously ignorant! ALWAYS having to put politics, money or investments in every thing!!! Just remember, you will be affected too and I hope your asses are the first to fry if anybody's will.