4 ms·

I previously did research forecasting solar storms. original comment: Highly unlikely, they compare it to the Carrington storm of 1859, which didn't destroy an

I previously did research forecasting solar storms. original comment: Highly unlikely, they compare it to the Carrington storm of 1859, which didn't destroy any life (or even life as we know it), so even if it were more powerful, it probably wouldn't have destroyed all life. It may have interfered with a lot of satellites and communications systems though. edit: Any damage from a Carrington level event would likely have been localized and temporary. For life as we know it to be destroyed, it would be irrecoverable or permanent, which is why I am arguing against the statement "life as we know it would be destroyed." Many satellites are exposed to the open solar wind all the time, and ones in low Earth orbit, though shielded to some degree by the magnetosphere are designed to deal with large solar flares either by baffling sensitive instruments or shutting down temporarily (some may even change their orbit).

meowface 12y ago
The phrasing is "life as we know it", which is much less severe than actual life. Though I imagine hospitals and other medical facilities might encounter serious issues, including inpatient deaths, were such a big solar storm to occur.
- codezero 12y ago
  I still don't think this is accurate. I say this as someone who used to study solar physics and worked with people on the STEREO team. We've seen lots of powerful solar events strike the Earth and so far, even the ones that have struck in times of modern technology have only caused localized issues, and those localized issues were usually a result of some level of poor design.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > Carrington storm of 1859 Isn't this storm supposed to have set telegraph wires on fire? Why would the magnetic field involved here not do the same to our electric grid? Wouldn't most transformers be overloaded / damaged by the additional electricity induced on the grid? Or is this less likely to happen everywhere? It's been a while since I studied electro-magnetism, but IIRC a magnetic field induced a current orthogonal to it's direction. Does this mean that not all transmission lines would be equally affected?
    - codezero 12y ago
      The telegraph network back then had very poor shielding as did other electic components. We've come a long way in 150 years. When there are ice storms in North Carolina where I grew up transformers would explode by the dozen each night but this didn't keep the power off for more than a few days. I doubt a flare would destroy transformers wholesale but even if it did we'd probably not be too bad off for long.
- vacri 12y ago
  The phrase 'life as we know it' usually means "humanlike intellects made of meat", not 'comfortable Western lifestyle'.
  - Karellen 12y ago
    I read it[0] as compared to "life, but not as we know it", meaning alien life, and therefore thought it meant all carbon-based, DNA-powered life of the type found on Earth would be destroyed. (Except for the damn cockroaches, obviously.) [0] Edit: The HN story title has changed, and was originally "A solar storm nearly destroyed life as we know it two years ago"
300bps 12y ago
Destroyed life as we know it means that it would've broken satellites and the power grid. It does not mean that there would've been a direct loss of life from it. Just that our lives without GPS and power would've been radically different than today with those things.
- codezero 12y ago
  I understand, I'll edit to make myself clear.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
eli 12y ago
National Academy of Science predicted a Carrington-level storm would inflict $1 to $2 trillion in damages to infrastructure and take four to ten years to recover from. I don't know what "life as we know it" means, but it would be a significant disaster.
- codezero 12y ago
  I imagine that would be an extreme upper bound. But yes, it would cause damage, economically and possibly damage communications. We'd recover and I don't think it will take 10 years. We're continually reducing the costs of launches which is a huge factor in the monetary damages (potentially relaunch all communication satellites). We'd be out billions of dollars in spy satellites too so maybe we'd triage on what we decide is important to launch after such an event.
  - pyre 12y ago
    One significant detail that has been mentioned in these discussions has been the provisioning of new transformers. Apparently power companies don't keep a huge backup supply of them, and they take a lot to build. If every transformer in a metropolitan area exploded all at once, then we'd be in quite the pickle. Add that up with every transformer on a single hemisphere exploding at once, and it becomes a little more grim.
- eli 12y ago
  Here's the report: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507 (it was funded by NASA)

meowface 12y ago

The phrasing is "life as we know it", which is much less severe than actual life. Though I imagine hospitals and other medical facilities might encounter serious issues, including inpatient deaths, were such a big solar storm to occur.

codezero 12y ago
I still don't think this is accurate. I say this as someone who used to study solar physics and worked with people on the STEREO team. We've seen lots of powerful solar events strike the Earth and so far, even the ones that have struck in times of modern technology have only caused localized issues, and those localized issues were usually a result of some level of poor design.
- pyre 12y ago
  > Carrington storm of 1859 Isn't this storm supposed to have set telegraph wires on fire? Why would the magnetic field involved here not do the same to our electric grid? Wouldn't most transformers be overloaded / damaged by the additional electricity induced on the grid? Or is this less likely to happen everywhere? It's been a while since I studied electro-magnetism, but IIRC a magnetic field induced a current orthogonal to it's direction. Does this mean that not all transmission lines would be equally affected?
  - codezero 12y ago
    The telegraph network back then had very poor shielding as did other electic components. We've come a long way in 150 years. When there are ice storms in North Carolina where I grew up transformers would explode by the dozen each night but this didn't keep the power off for more than a few days. I doubt a flare would destroy transformers wholesale but even if it did we'd probably not be too bad off for long.
vacri 12y ago
The phrase 'life as we know it' usually means "humanlike intellects made of meat", not 'comfortable Western lifestyle'.
- Karellen 12y ago
  I read it[0] as compared to "life, but not as we know it", meaning alien life, and therefore thought it meant all carbon-based, DNA-powered life of the type found on Earth would be destroyed. (Except for the damn cockroaches, obviously.) [0] Edit: The HN story title has changed, and was originally "A solar storm nearly destroyed life as we know it two years ago"

300bps 12y ago

Destroyed life as we know it means that it would've broken satellites and the power grid. It does not mean that there would've been a direct loss of life from it. Just that our lives without GPS and power would've been radically different than today with those things.

codezero 12y ago
I understand, I'll edit to make myself clear.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

eli 12y ago

National Academy of Science predicted a Carrington-level storm would inflict $1 to $2 trillion in damages to infrastructure and take four to ten years to recover from. I don't know what "life as we know it" means, but it would be a significant disaster.

codezero 12y ago
I imagine that would be an extreme upper bound. But yes, it would cause damage, economically and possibly damage communications. We'd recover and I don't think it will take 10 years. We're continually reducing the costs of launches which is a huge factor in the monetary damages (potentially relaunch all communication satellites). We'd be out billions of dollars in spy satellites too so maybe we'd triage on what we decide is important to launch after such an event.
- pyre 12y ago
  One significant detail that has been mentioned in these discussions has been the provisioning of new transformers. Apparently power companies don't keep a huge backup supply of them, and they take a lot to build. If every transformer in a metropolitan area exploded all at once, then we'd be in quite the pickle. Add that up with every transformer on a single hemisphere exploding at once, and it becomes a little more grim.
eli 12y ago
Here's the report: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12507 (it was funded by NASA)