Solar cycle is more powerful and surprising than predicted | Hacker News Reader

Solar cycle is more powerful and surprising than predicted

theconversation.com

57 points_cnhi68 comments

Scott McIntosh predicted it: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.15263

"Our method predicts that SC25 could be among the strongest sunspot cycles ever observed, and that it will almost certainly be stronger than present SC24 (sunspot number of 116) and most likely stronger than the previous SC23 (sunspot number of 180). This is in stark contrast to the consensus of the SC25PP, sunspot number maximum between 95 and 130, i.e., similar to that of SC24. Indeed, as can be seen in Fig. 4b, if our prediction for the 2020 terminator time is correct, such a low value would be a severe outlier with respect to the observed behavior of previous sunspot cycles. Such a low value could only be reconciled with the previously observed sunspot cycles if the next terminator event is delayed by more than two years from our predicted value, which would extend the present low activity levels to an extraordinary length. We note also that the relationship developed herein would have correctly predicted the low amplitude of SC24 (from a terminators separation of 12.825 years) following the 2011 terminator—three years after the 2006 NOAA/NASA Solar Cycle Prediction Panel delivered their consensus prediction (Pesnell, 2008). Finally, the arrival of the SC24 terminator will permit higher fidelity on the forecast presented."

We know so little about the Sun’s weather. Take the Maunder Minimum, a period spanning at least three solar cycles where there were three orders of magnitude fewer sunspots observed[0]. Imagine the effect if the standard cycle we knew increased by as much...!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

Even though I"m working on the climate, I'm still quite worried about a Carrington event making it all de facto irrelevant. The way modern society works, a single such event would likely kill the majority of the world's population.

I'm curious why you think it would kill most people? Are you thinking exploding batteries and wire induced fires? Societal unrest from the grid being down??

I think the explosions and fires would cause negligible deaths. The thing I’m worried about is starvation. If the grid goes down on large parts of the world for more than a few days, the cascading effect would probably mean most people just starve to death within a month. We have extremely fragile food creation and distribution systems.

Pretty much everyone would survive the immediate event (except those in a plane or on a ventilator).

The problem is the consequences of frying of the electrical grid, satellites and terrestrial telecom networks, vehicles, probably datacenters, even possibly some personal electronics like glucose pumps.

Subsistance farmers would probably be OK. But most of them also depend on external supply chains like fertilisers, clean water, etc. Nobody else is an island, and that's quote no longer just applies to social ties: we depend on a web of relationships for everything: food, fuel, everything. Most (90+%?) of the global population will starve within a few weeks, even before disease gets them.

That's why survivalists and "bunker" types always seem crazy to me: unless they're the unibomber they plan for a fixed horizon for the "bad times".

Vehicles, data centers, and electronics would be untouched. Solar storm induces currents in long conductors like electrical grid and internet cables. Internet cables being problem is a new thing; I'm sort of surprised since I would expect water and earth to protect them. The big danger is that it will destroy a lot of transformers and those are hard to replace.

My impression is that it is relatively easy to protect the electrical grid by grounding everything.

Also, Carrington event is predictable once the flare happens. The electrical grid can be shut down, and shouldn't be damaged much when shut down. Doing the cold start would be a challenge. As would be making the decision to shut down the grid.

I don't get why you think people would starve to death though. Wouldn't this be something that last like a couple of days? There might be some long tail food shortages, but I would think obviously food distribution is going to be prioritised. At the same time, if you think people starving to death is a viable issue why do you think bunker types are crazy? It seems like this is exactly the type of thing the bunk would be suited for in that you typically store a year or two worth of food in it.

If the grid goes down how long does it take to step it up again? If transformers have been destroyed? They take years to make. How can a replacement transformer be built with no power?

How will you charge your car or pump fuel into it? How will the refineries make fuel?

And as for the bunkers: if civilization is destroyed, once your supplies are exhausted you emerge to…? There aren’t any grocery stores.

Most estimates put repairing the grid if all the transformers in America blew at once at around 24 months. significantly longer than a few days. Could you survive without gas stations, cell phones, computers, grocery stores, and a freezer or fridge or oven or washer and dryer etc -- for two whole years?

WHy would we need the entire grid to be back up to not starve though. Obviously we would prioritize things and critical infrastructure would be first. What would actually be damaged though. WOuld an individual generator, batteries, actual appliances? Is it just transformers on the grid. Are the wires still good. Also would it hit the entire world, or just the side that was facing the sun at the peak or something?

a Carrington event would take roughly 2 to 3 years to get power back on assuming best case scenario.

What do you think happens when there's no electric freezers for food storage, shipment, etc. No credit or debit cards. all digital money will basically be erased or locked on a hard drive that can't be accessed until the grid goes back up.

All factories cease production, I don't think diabetics stand a chance, and many others with debilitating diseases.

Hospitals will be working without electricity, without patient records, without power saws to saw through bone more efficiently, without lights except candles, without most medicines, and without a supply chain.

Essentially what a doctor can fit in a bag and carry and has zero electric components will still be useable. So scalpels, and other surgical tools, tongue depressor, blood pressure cuff, stethoscope, etc. People who wear glasses better hope they don't need a new prescription or break their glasses as there will be no solution.

To me the scariest fact is that every frozen and refrigerated food item in the world will spoil within 3 days. The only food remaining will be things like cereal, wheat, rice, canned goods etc, of course competition to get the last of the food will make the fight over toilet paper seem like the great emu was vs WW2.

Military arsenals requiring electronic targeting may go down too, all stocks basically go to zero, instability in markets and govts will be global.

Charismatic leaders might become war lords and take over large territories that were big, strong nations before the event.

If you had no warning of the event, you wouldn't even know for a week or two what happened. you can't look it up on the Internet. there's no tv or radio for you to get updates on the situation or warnings/alarms.

I think I heard estimates that said about 2.4 billion out of 8b, will be all that remain after 3 years. In other words 2/3rds of mankind will be gone.

In the middle ages people relied on goods from nearby farmers markets or grew it themselves. There wasn't a global supply chain, so life would carry on as normal. We'd literally be sent back to the middle ages..

etc etc etc...

To me, this is the most realistic comment in this entire thread. I've thought a lot about this and it's what I've settled on, for the most part.

That we aren't trying to prevent this, in a substantial way, is shocking to me.

yeah, I've given a lot of thought to all the scenarios that could happen. It's amazing how dependent we all are on a system of jugglers basically a few balls fall and it triggers a runaway domino effect.

Btw, I really enjoyed Lucifer's Hammer (1977, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle) as it explored the issues we are discussing. The source of that story was a meteor and not a solar flare, but the effect is the same.

don't know about it killing a majority of the world's population, but this isn't a black swan event; it's probablistic.

> We find that on average there is a 4% (28%) chance of at least one great (severe) storm per year and a 0.7% chance of a Carrington class storm per year... [0]

So, have we (humanity) done anything to mitigate the impact of this?

[0] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201...

Correlation was recently discovered between solar cycles and earthquakes. Volcanism correlates to earthquakes, but I don't believe it goes in both directions. Ergo, the solar cycles should not affect global warming. But that's not what we are now observing. Very interesting news.

"is more [...] surprising than predicted"

What would it mean for it to be less surprising than predicted?

Fascinating solar cycle revelations! The Sun's heightened activity defies predictions, reminding us of the universe's enduring mysteries. Science at its finest

Solar cycle is to hotter sun like climate change is to global warming. Not a perfect analogy, but helps with the gist.

Worth noting that, according to NASA:

Do scientists think that changes in solar irradiance due to the 11-year solar cycle could be strong enough to cause the current change being measured in Earth's climate?

    In a word, no.

    Scientists agree that the solar cycle and its associated short-term changes in irradiance cannot be the main force driving the changes in Earth's climate we are currently seeing.

    For one thing, the Sun's energy output only changes by up to 0.15% over the course of the cycle, less than what would be needed to force the change in climate that we see.

    Also, scientists have not been able to find convincing evidence that the 11-yr cycle is mirrored in any aspects of the climate beyond the stratosphere – such as surface temperature, rainfall or wind patterns.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-new...

The cycle is a regular small flucuation in total energy with relatively little change in the part of the spectrum that comes all the way through the atmosphere to heat up the land and water .. ibcreasing insulation trapping that heat has been the driver of climate change here.

If you read the linked article or any related science article the focus is on the geomagnetic surges caused by the changes in the suns field.

> scientists

Using that as a term to imply consensus is bad science communication and just fuels climate change denial.

> Scientists agree

Meh. They have also found the solar cycle less surprising for some time.

I can't wait for Quanta Magazine's interpretation of this... Surely we're all doomed, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com