Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Radioactive Particles From Huge Solar Storm Found In Greenland (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the severe-space-weather dept.

Traces of an enormous solar storm that battered the atmosphere and showered Earth in radioactive particles more than 2,500 years ago have been discovered under the Greenland ice sheet. The Guardian reports: Scientists studying ice nearly half a kilometer beneath the surface found a band of radioactive elements unleashed by a storm that struck the planet in 660BC. It was at least 10 times more powerful than any recorded by instruments set up to detect such events in the past 70 years, and as strong as the most intense known solar storm, which hit Earth in AD775. The discovery means that the worst-case scenarios used in risk planning for serious space weather events underestimate how powerful solar storms can be.

Raimund Muscheler, a professor of quaternary sciences at Lund University in Sweden, and his team analyzed two ice cores drilled from the Greenland ice sheet and found that both contained spikes in isotopes of beryllium and chlorine that date back to about 660BC. The material appears to be the radioactive remnants of a solar storm that battered the atmosphere. The scientists calculate that the storm sent at least 10 billion protons per square centimeter into the atmosphere. "A solar proton event of such magnitude occurring in modern times could result in severe disruption of satellite-based technologies, high frequency radio communication and space-based navigation systems," they write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

54 comments

  1. Nope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    No radioactive particles from huge solar storm in Federal prison. Sorry Trump traitors.

  2. Worst case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was ... as strong as the most intense known solar storm, which hit Earth in AD775.

    The discovery means that the worst-case scenarios used in risk planning for serious space weather events underestimate how powerful solar storms can be.

    If it was only as strong as an already known storm then how can it change our worst-case scenario?

    1. Re: Worst case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it appears to happen more often than previously anticipated. Risk = probability of event x damage. Probability just went up.

    2. Re:Worst case by sheramil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is currently more electronic infrastructure in place and at risk than, say, was present under the rule of King Cynewulf of Wessex.

    3. Re:Worst case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Now, don't confound things with logic.

      Obviously this solar storm was the result of anthropomorphic global warming.

    4. Re:Worst case by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Now, don't confound things with logic.

      Obviously this solar storm was the result of anthropomorphic global warming.

      Extra-Solar Alien #1 "We hit them precisely! Why isn't the high-frequency radiation-pulse death ray wiping them out!?"

      Extra-Solar Alien #2 "It's some sort of a time-dilation effect from passing through the wormhole. The pulses are now extremely long in duration and thus thinned out and weakened to ineffectiveness, plus on top of that, the frequency of the pulses have gone from being at the upper limits of our detection range to being separated by over a thousand local planetary years at the target! The only positive is that they may mistake our failed attack as a natural phenomenon and not mount a defense or a counterattack."

      Extra-Solar Alien #1 "Many of the Leader's heads will roll over this!"

      Strat :)

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re: Worst case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we knew this info even before this article was published, so what's the new insight here?

    6. Re: Worst case by Seewhatidonehere · · Score: 0

      A lot of stars like our Sun have been observed to be able to micro-nova recurrently in as little time as 10 years between these eruptions. A lot of stars have not been identified yet as recurrent nova burst stars becouse the time between these events could also take thousands of years too so we just havent yet seen the recurrent event. Our sun is no different and is naturally capable of recurrent small scale micro-nova, sending transuranic ( heavier than uranium ) elements hurtling outwards in massive unbelievable amounts. Theories based on ice core samples and glassified rock samples from the Moon claim that the Sun has a 12000 year cycle of going micro-nova. Add the current weakening of the magnetic field that protects us from the radiation and such event would easily be able to wipe out much of society as we know it existing today............

    7. Re: Worst case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a âoemicro-novaâ? Citation please? Are you talking about flare stars?

    8. Re: Worst case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what he is saying at all, they aren't talking probability or frequency here, The parent just started that 'worst case' had already been defined as equal to this event, so it would appear that patent is correct is saying that nothing here should have changed any models related to strength or intensity but yet it may change the frequency calculation.

    9. Re:Worst case by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

      OP has a firm grasp of the obvious.

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    10. Re:Worst case by jbengt · · Score: 1

      If it was only as strong as an already known storm then how can it change our worst-case scenario?

      The event of 2,610 years B.P. stands out because of its particular signature in the radionuclide data [i.e., carbon-14 (14C) data alone does not allow for an unequivocal detection of the event]. It illustrates that present efforts to find such events based solely on 14C data likely lead to an underestimated number of such potentially devastating events for our society.

    11. Re: Worst case by Seewhatidonehere · · Score: 0

      Google the goddamn thing, fuck off with citations

  3. starvation & deception #1 killers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    until that changes, piling on more & more distractions is just another greed fear ego based wmd on credit cabal sideshow?

    1. Re:starvation & deception #1 killers by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      If a solar storm knocks out all the navigation and communication satellites and fries all the radio electronics within 100 miles of the planet's surface, I think you'll find that starvation rates will spike dramatically shortly thereafter.

      Admittedly, deception will probably be unaffected.

    2. Re: starvation & deception #1 killers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Shitty smelly parasites hindu-chimps are infesting planet earth. Exterminate them.

    3. Re:starvation & deception #1 killers by sjames · · Score: 1

      If it knocks down television and broadcast radio, deception will be WAAAAAAAY down.

    4. Re:starvation & deception #1 killers by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      We always picture this worse case scenario of some sort of EMP taking us back to the 1800's. However from my experience. Where I was working, a lightning bolt struck my companies power supply, and fried some equipment up from the ground wires, which created a major outage event, we still had limited damage, we replaced a couple power supplies, replace a couple of fuses in the electronics, and needed to move some cables on a networking switch, as some modules were burned out. We lost about 4 hours worth of work, and the customers average downtime was about 2 hours. It sucked, but it was far from total system loss.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:starvation & deception #1 killers by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Sure, an isolated event is easy to recover from, especially if you have some spare parts around, and if the rest of the supply chain is still operating.

      If all the distribution transformers in the entire continent burn out, there won't be a quick fix.

    6. Re: starvation & deception #1 killers by Seewhatidonehere · · Score: 1

      Only becouse you were able to replace parts needed, but if those who create the parts are affected too, you would be in deep shit already. You simply need to broaden your thinking.

    7. Re:starvation & deception #1 killers by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      We always picture this worse case scenario of some sort of EMP taking us back to the 1800's. However from my experience. Where I was working, a lightning bolt struck my companies power supply, and fried some equipment up from the ground wires, which created a major outage event, we still had limited damage, we replaced a couple power supplies, replace a couple of fuses in the electronics, and needed to move some cables on a networking switch, as some modules were burned out. We lost about 4 hours worth of work, and the customers average downtime was about 2 hours. It sucked, but it was far from total system loss.

      You're comparing a lightning strike on a single location to a CME that would hit around half the planet at arrival. If we're lucky the power companies will be able to disconnect the critical infrastructure from the grid before it hits. And If we're even luckier, the least populated half of the planet will be facing the sun when it hits.

      Even in a scenario similar to what you described, can you imagine the shortage of all of those parts when that much stuff gets fried on half the planet? Not to mention vehicles with ECM modules getting cooked. If a section of the power grid doesn't get it's large power transformers disconnected in time, then that part of the power grid will be down for a long time. Currently it takes 6 to 24 months to get one built and installed. They're custom built, so you can't just grab a spare, or borrow them from someone. The larger ones weigh over 400 tons and can cost as much as $10 million. The majority of the large transformers in the US are over 40 years old. So it's not like they don't already have some wear on them. But what's the wait time going to be if suddenly 10 of them need to be replaced immediately? Or 50 of them?

      Even if only 1/4 of the cars are affected, can you imaging what the roads will be like if this occurred during rush hour? The highways will be shut down until all of those vehicle can be moved. Then you could end up with issues getting fuel out of the stations if there's no power. And getting fuel to the stations will be an issue. So moving food into the larger cities will become a big problem. Larger metropolitan areas will have the worst time with it. How many days can they go without water or working sewage treatment? Or without power and food? When there's a water main break or a pump goes down in a city, they have the manpower and parts in place to fix it. But if it's a city wide issue, then what's going to happen? And if the streets are clogged with cars that can't move, they'll be in the way too. You also won't be able to bring in help from other cities, as they will have the same issue too.

      Look up the Carrington Even from 1859. There was a similar CME in 2012, but we were fortunate that it didn't strike the earth. If it had occurred 9 days earlier, then the earth would have been directly in it's path. It was estimated in 2013 that such an event would have cost the US alone between $600 billion to $2.6 trillion.

    8. Re:starvation & deception #1 killers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all the distribution transformers in the entire continent burn out, there won't be a quick fix.

      Why would they do that?

      This is what fuses and circuit breakers are for. And if current ones aren't made for this case - lets improve them then! Having the power grid shut off as all the fuses in one hemisphere blow simultaneously will make it an interesting day. But then the power infrastructure survives, so it is mostly a laborious restart of every power plant and re-connecting of the grid. Might take weeks, might be expensive, but nothing like breaking everything.

    9. Re:starvation & deception #1 killers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surprisingly, many power lines around the world are not well protected against GIC (geomagnetic induced currents). These currents can result in transformer saturation which can result in precipitous drop in transformer efficiency and drastic heating, resulting in overheating and eventually explosion. Overheating of the transformers should cause circuit breakers to trip, but this is really a last line of protection, and would still result in severe stress on the transformers.

      That said, worldwide there has been an effort to strengthen protection by adding GIC protection to take power lines and transformers out of service when a serious GIC is detected. Another approach has been to connect capacitors in series with long power lines - this has the advantage of significantly increasing the current handling capacity of the lines - so this can be used to offset the (enormous) cost of the series capacitors, and engineering changes to account for the altered stability provided by the capacitors. This approach has been used in Canada because frequent GIC alarms caused too much disruption by tripping out lines to very powerful, but remote hydro power plants. Elsewhere series capacitors have been installed because zoning requirements make installing new powerlines impractical, hence the capacitors were installed for current uprating.

  4. Re: Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Mueller expedited the Uranium One deal for Russia.

    The gas chamber would good for him.

  5. Re: Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    To... strangle the trump traitors in? I mean, redundant? He's just going to hang them. Traitors hang. Trumptards hang. Thanks for the input, but lol, it's so covered.

  6. God damnit sun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Clean your toys off the yard, sun! Even the neighbours are complaining!

  7. Opposite of an uneventful trip to Mars. by kalieaire · · Score: 2

    Can you imagine being in transit for eight months on the way to Mars only to get severely toasted in the middle?

    Sounds like a crappy way to die.

    1. Re:Opposite of an uneventful trip to Mars. by quenda · · Score: 2

      Yes, the risk is well known.
      All interstellar spacecraft will have a storm shelter. Even the ISS, protected by the magnetosphere, has one.

    2. Re:Opposite of an uneventful trip to Mars. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine being in transit for eight months on the way to Mars only to get severely toasted in the middle?

      I think I'd prefer that to finding out the earth got hit while I was half way to/from Mars.

    3. Re:Opposite of an uneventful trip to Mars. by Pyramid · · Score: 2

      "I think I'd prefer that to finding out the earth got hit while I was half way to/from Mars."

      You wouldn't. It's doubtful anyone on Earth would be able to tell those en-route with most technology fried.

      --
      ~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
  8. More Where That Came From by betsuin · · Score: 2

    Well we missed a bullet in 2012 - more where that came from!

  9. Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Have always notice that my spouse has been acting strange but after a friend introduced acehackerlord@gmail.com. with their help I was able to know that he has been cheating on me. Please if you need help with any hacking services then you can contact them on acehackerlord@gmail.com. you will not regret.

    1. Re:Announcement by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      If I ever wanted a hacker I wouldn't go to someone who calls themselves ace hacker lord.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  10. Cool! by Gription · · Score: -1

    Hey! Let's make laws forcing all transportation to be converted to electric so the next coronal mass ejection that hits earth can take out all transportation when the power grid goes up in smoke!
    What civilization really needs is a single point of failure so a natural occurrence brings modern life to an end. (Or maybe a hacker can attack the grid and accomplish the same thing first!)

    Besides what is listed in the article there is the more modern CME in 1859. If that happened now it would take out all satellites in orbit and every large power grid on the planet.

    1. Re:Cool! by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      When the power grid goes out, gasoline won't save you.

    2. Re:Cool! by tsqr · · Score: 1

      When the power grid goes out, gasoline won't save you.

      Well, it might if his car doesn't have an ignition system.

    3. Re:Cool! by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Sure, the car may run for a bit, but the rest of society is still going to collapse around you. It's not going to make a difference in the end.

    4. Re: Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of sensitive electronics exist in electric cars that donâ(TM)t exist in any recent ICE cars? They all have ECUs.

    5. Re:Cool! by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Sure, the car may run for a bit, but the rest of society is still going to collapse around you. It's not going to make a difference in the end.

      Right. Oh, wait -- a gasoline powered car without an ignition system won't run at all, CME or no CME.

    6. Re: Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normal people drive diesel cars with old motors, with no computers inside them.

  11. The moon never pulls shit like that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moon never pulls shit like that. Stolen from The Onion.

  12. 10 billion protons per square centimeter by tomhath · · Score: 1

    The scientists calculate that the storm sent at least 10 billion protons per square centimeter into the atmosphere.

    That number is hard to comprehend. What would it be in Libraries of Congress per square furlong?

    1. Re:10 billion protons per square centimeter by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Tough question, but only because "Library of Congress" is an ill-defined unit of mass. If we just look at the ~32 million books in their collection, assuming they have an average mass of 0.5kg/book, we're talking 16 million kg. Meanwhile a proton masses 1.7*10^-27kg

      So: (10^10protons/cm^2) * (4.047*10^8 cm^2 / 1 furlong^2) * (1.7*10^-27kg / 1 proton) * (1 Library of Congress / 16*10^6 kg), make sure the units all cancel, and..

      425*10^-18 Libraries of Congress per square furlong.

      You're welcome. :-D

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:10 billion protons per square centimeter by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "That number is hard to comprehend. What would it be in Libraries of Congress per square furlong?"

      *Square* furlong? What are you? a Vogon?

      Look *around* you: you'll never look "square" you. Therefore, the proper measure would be "Libraries of Congress per round furlong" -Go and boil your bottoms, son of a silly person!

  13. 774-775 -- same year as that supernova by DavenH · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What a year. From a contemporary chronicle:

    A.D. 774. This year the Northumbians banished their king, Alred, from York at Easter-tide; and chose Ethelred, the son of Mull, for their lord, who reigned four winters. This year also appeared in the heavens a red crucifix, after sunset; the Mercians and the men of Kent fought at Otford; and wonderful serpents were seen in the land of the South-Saxons.

    1. Re:774-775 -- same year as that supernova by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      There is apparently debate whether that spike was caused by a solar flare or a supernova. Seems that the solar flare conclusion is popular at the moment.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    2. Re:774-775 -- same year as that supernova by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This makes me wonder if a sufficiently large coronal mass ejection could have been visible after sunset, as a complex reddish shape that someone could claim resembled a crucifix.

    3. Re:774-775 -- same year as that supernova by DavenH · · Score: 1
      That is intriguing. It would need to be truly collossal to show up visibly next to the sun.

      I don't like the theory that the "crucifix" it's aurora, as that wouldn't be periodic (to only show at the sunset, and likewise located).

      I did a search, and novae can trigger electrical storms just the same as solar flares.

  14. "more than 2,500 years ago" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Bull Shit.

    There is no way to know the age of those particles, and we already know for a fact that the earth is not older than about 4000 years. This sounds like another bullshit liberal agenda being pushed on our kids.

  15. These black swan events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will be the death of us.

  16. 660 BC by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

    It's a hell of time in the Earth social time.
    It was during this time that Zoroaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... begun it's religion in Iran.
    At the same time, in another part of the middle east, Josia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., reform the pantheon of the judaism in a monotheism using their god of war, Yahweh, as the only god in their religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
  17. What was the effect on life? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Did this storm affect people or other life and how?

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re: What was the effect on life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the Guardian article, no effect on humans at that time.

      Unsure of consequences for fauna that rely on the electromagnetic field, eg migration patterns

  18. The Meaning of Solar Storms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what you're saying is that protons are what physicists call "very, very small". Got it.