ADVERTISEMENT

Severe Vulnerability to Solar EMP hit

22*43*51

HB Legend
Nov 23, 2008
16,430
4,299
113
A former CIA director and former executive director of the EMP Task Force are charging that the Obama administration is failing to protect America from a potential power grid-crippling solar storm, choosing instead to conduct more studies on a potential disaster that could kill 90 percent of the population.

The article by former CIA director R. James Woolsey and former EMP Task Force executive director Peter Pry begins by applauding President Obama for being the first administration “to recognize that our high-tech electronic civilization” is vulnerable to solar storms and for warning the public that a rare “once-in-a-century geomagnetic superstorm” could destroy the power grid. Similar storms hit Earth in 1859 and 1921 but haven’t hit since.

But Woolsey and Pry said that the National Space Weather Action Plan – unveiled by an Obama-approved commission in October – does nothing. Woolsey served under President Clinton.

“It is only 38 pages long, and is not really a plan,” Woolsey and Pry wrote at NationalReview.com. “It is a plan to develop a plan to protect the nation from space weather.”

“The ‘action’ in the ‘Action Plan’ is to do numerous studies before taking any real action that would protect the national power grid,” they wrote. “Federal scientific and research bureaucracies, such as NASA and NOAA, make their living by doing studies.”

There have been, the men wrote, “enough studies”

Failing to protect the grid isn’t insignificant. The Congressional EMP Commission, on which Pry served, estimated that if the power grid was down for a full year, 90 percent of the population would die from starvation and lack of medical care, Woolsey and Pry wrote. The grid could be down for an extended period of time because many parts of the grid are custom made, taking months to manufacturer and replace.

“Seven years ago, in 2008, the Congressional EMP Commission spent nearly a decade developing a plan to protect the national electric grid and other critical infrastructure from ‘all hazards’ — including nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, solar storms, and other threats. The National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have also done excellent studies on the threat to the nation from solar storms,” Woolsey and Pry wrote.

They continued, “The White House owes the American people not more studies, but concrete actions to protect the grid — now.”

The National Space Weather Action plan, the men charged, relies “too heavily on public-private partnerships with the electric utilities.”

“Big government trusting big business to protect us against space weather is where ‘crony capitalism’ could get millions of Americans killed,” they wrote.

The two men added that they wish Obama would give the “kind of priority to space weather and grid protection that he has lavished on climate change.”

The power grid nearly was taken down in 2012, when the sun experienced an extreme solar storm and emitted a coronal mass ejection (CME) that narrowly missed Earth, NASA and other scientists reported.

“I have come away from our recent studies more convinced than ever that Earth and its inhabitants were incredibly fortunate that the 2012 eruption happened when it did,” the University of Colorado’s Daniel Baker said 2013. “If the eruption had occurred only one week earlier, Earth would have been in the line of fire.”

http://www.offthegridnews.com/curre...oads-chilling-warning-about-obama-power-grid/
 
A former CIA director and former executive director of the EMP Task Force are charging that the Obama administration is failing to protect America from a potential power grid-crippling solar storm, choosing instead to conduct more studies on a potential disaster that could kill 90 percent of the population.

The article by former CIA director R. James Woolsey and former EMP Task Force executive director Peter Pry begins by applauding President Obama for being the first administration “to recognize that our high-tech electronic civilization” is vulnerable to solar storms and for warning the public that a rare “once-in-a-century geomagnetic superstorm” could destroy the power grid. Similar storms hit Earth in 1859 and 1921 but haven’t hit since.

But Woolsey and Pry said that the National Space Weather Action Plan – unveiled by an Obama-approved commission in October – does nothing. Woolsey served under President Clinton.

“It is only 38 pages long, and is not really a plan,” Woolsey and Pry wrote at NationalReview.com. “It is a plan to develop a plan to protect the nation from space weather.”

“The ‘action’ in the ‘Action Plan’ is to do numerous studies before taking any real action that would protect the national power grid,” they wrote. “Federal scientific and research bureaucracies, such as NASA and NOAA, make their living by doing studies.”

There have been, the men wrote, “enough studies”

Failing to protect the grid isn’t insignificant. The Congressional EMP Commission, on which Pry served, estimated that if the power grid was down for a full year, 90 percent of the population would die from starvation and lack of medical care, Woolsey and Pry wrote. The grid could be down for an extended period of time because many parts of the grid are custom made, taking months to manufacturer and replace.

“Seven years ago, in 2008, the Congressional EMP Commission spent nearly a decade developing a plan to protect the national electric grid and other critical infrastructure from ‘all hazards’ — including nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, solar storms, and other threats. The National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have also done excellent studies on the threat to the nation from solar storms,” Woolsey and Pry wrote.

They continued, “The White House owes the American people not more studies, but concrete actions to protect the grid — now.”

The National Space Weather Action plan, the men charged, relies “too heavily on public-private partnerships with the electric utilities.”

“Big government trusting big business to protect us against space weather is where ‘crony capitalism’ could get millions of Americans killed,” they wrote.

The two men added that they wish Obama would give the “kind of priority to space weather and grid protection that he has lavished on climate change.”

The power grid nearly was taken down in 2012, when the sun experienced an extreme solar storm and emitted a coronal mass ejection (CME) that narrowly missed Earth, NASA and other scientists reported.

“I have come away from our recent studies more convinced than ever that Earth and its inhabitants were incredibly fortunate that the 2012 eruption happened when it did,” the University of Colorado’s Daniel Baker said 2013. “If the eruption had occurred only one week earlier, Earth would have been in the line of fire.”

http://www.offthegridnews.com/curre...oads-chilling-warning-about-obama-power-grid/

But let's devote all our attention to global average temperatures rising by one degree over the next 100 years.

Freaking climate change retards....
 
  • Like
Reactions: timinatoria
A former CIA director and former executive director of the EMP Task Force are charging that the Obama administration is failing to protect America from a potential power grid-crippling solar storm, choosing instead to conduct more studies on a potential disaster that could kill 90 percent of the population.

The article by former CIA director R. James Woolsey and former EMP Task Force executive director Peter Pry begins by applauding President Obama for being the first administration “to recognize that our high-tech electronic civilization” is vulnerable to solar storms and for warning the public that a rare “once-in-a-century geomagnetic superstorm” could destroy the power grid. Similar storms hit Earth in 1859 and 1921 but haven’t hit since.

But Woolsey and Pry said that the National Space Weather Action Plan – unveiled by an Obama-approved commission in October – does nothing. Woolsey served under President Clinton.

“It is only 38 pages long, and is not really a plan,” Woolsey and Pry wrote at NationalReview.com. “It is a plan to develop a plan to protect the nation from space weather.”

“The ‘action’ in the ‘Action Plan’ is to do numerous studies before taking any real action that would protect the national power grid,” they wrote. “Federal scientific and research bureaucracies, such as NASA and NOAA, make their living by doing studies.”

There have been, the men wrote, “enough studies”

Failing to protect the grid isn’t insignificant. The Congressional EMP Commission, on which Pry served, estimated that if the power grid was down for a full year, 90 percent of the population would die from starvation and lack of medical care, Woolsey and Pry wrote. The grid could be down for an extended period of time because many parts of the grid are custom made, taking months to manufacturer and replace.

“Seven years ago, in 2008, the Congressional EMP Commission spent nearly a decade developing a plan to protect the national electric grid and other critical infrastructure from ‘all hazards’ — including nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, solar storms, and other threats. The National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have also done excellent studies on the threat to the nation from solar storms,” Woolsey and Pry wrote.

They continued, “The White House owes the American people not more studies, but concrete actions to protect the grid — now.”

The National Space Weather Action plan, the men charged, relies “too heavily on public-private partnerships with the electric utilities.”

“Big government trusting big business to protect us against space weather is where ‘crony capitalism’ could get millions of Americans killed,” they wrote.

The two men added that they wish Obama would give the “kind of priority to space weather and grid protection that he has lavished on climate change.”

The power grid nearly was taken down in 2012, when the sun experienced an extreme solar storm and emitted a coronal mass ejection (CME) that narrowly missed Earth, NASA and other scientists reported.

“I have come away from our recent studies more convinced than ever that Earth and its inhabitants were incredibly fortunate that the 2012 eruption happened when it did,” the University of Colorado’s Daniel Baker said 2013. “If the eruption had occurred only one week earlier, Earth would have been in the line of fire.”

http://www.offthegridnews.com/curre...oads-chilling-warning-about-obama-power-grid/

Actually, this would achieve the goals of climate change. Hard Core climate change people actually do want 90% of earths population gone.
 
But let's devote all our attention to global average temperatures rising by one degree over the next 100 years.

Freaking climate change retards....
Don't be stupid. The people who have been warning about climate change are often the same people who have been concerned about this issue. In other words, people who follow science and don't deny it.

Not only are these not either-or concerns, in some ways it makes sense to tackle them together. We need to significantly upgrade our grid both to make it cleaner and to deal with general deterioration of the infrastructure. We also need to harden the grid to deal with this issue.

It makes sense to tackle both together.

You realize that doing either will require increased revenues and growing the government, right? So while my side of the aisle will support it, yours won't.

The only thing surprising about this is that they turned it political - blaming it on Obama and disparaging NASA and NOAA. Hard to take them much more seriously than we take you.
 
Don't be stupid. The people who have been warning about climate change are often the same people who have been concerned about this issue. In other words, people who follow science and don't deny it.

Not only are these not either-or concerns, in some ways it makes sense to tackle them together. We need to significantly upgrade our grid both to make it cleaner and to deal with general deterioration of the infrastructure. We also need to harden the grid to deal with this issue.

It makes sense to tackle both together.

You realize that doing either will require increased revenues and growing the government, right? So while my side of the aisle will support it, yours won't.

The only thing surprising about this is that they turned it political - blaming it on Obama and disparaging NASA and NOAA. Hard to take them much more seriously than we take you.

Yawn. Wake me with there's a EMP conference in Paris crawling with world leaders.
 
90% of population would die if we lost electricity for a year?

I will take the under on that.
I'm inclined to agree. Especially since the typical disaster scenario of this type doesn't kill the grid around the world. Mid-winter and early morning in New Zealand vs mid-summer and early morning in NY, for example.

A lot depends on how fast we can get back on line. Farmers can still grow crops but the harvesting and processing and shipping will be hit. Cities without TV can be endured. But what about the impact on water treatment? And so on.
 
[QUOTE="What Would Jesus Do?, post: 1557938, member: 11668"Especially since the typical disaster scenario of this type doesn't kill the grid around the world. Mid-winter and early morning in New Zealand vs mid-summer and early morning in NY, for example.[/QUOTE]

I may not understand this correctly, but in the past I've read that we'd have a bit of lead time on such a solar storm and could (in theory) shut a lot of things down in advance of the strike. That assumes proper channels of communication are in place and that things "work" in real time vs a test environment.

But if I understand what you mean by the above, the only way the United States' electrical grid could be knocked out is if it happened during the day in the northern hemisphere summer season?
 
I may not understand this correctly, but in the past I've read that we'd have a bit of lead time on such a solar storm and could (in theory) shut a lot of things down in advance of the strike. That assumes proper channels of communication are in place and that things "work" in real time vs a test environment.

But if I understand what you mean by the above, the only way the United States' electrical grid could be knocked out is if it happened during the day in the northern hemisphere summer season?
That's my understanding. The whole earth would be affected by the magnetic shield being temporarily overwhelmed, but the main damage is done to the regions in the direct path.

I'm sure one of our posters will jump in if that's wrong.

There are also polarity issues that have apparently saved us in the past. I don't quite grasp those dynamics.
 
I'm inclined to agree. Especially since the typical disaster scenario of this type doesn't kill the grid around the world. Mid-winter and early morning in New Zealand vs mid-summer and early morning in NY, for example.

A lot depends on how fast we can get back on line. Farmers can still grow crops but the harvesting and processing and shipping will be hit. Cities without TV can be endured. But what about the impact on water treatment? And so on.
Urban areas would be a mess...food spoiling without refrigeration, no access to fresh food from farms, crime ect...

Rural areas less so...many folks in rural communities own portable generators, have access to fresh food from farms ect.

In this scenario urban areas would turn into nightmares and rural areas would be better able to cope...

Hope we don't find out.
 
Urban areas would be a mess...food spoiling without refrigeration, no access to fresh food from farms, crime ect...

Rural areas less so...many folks in rural communities own portable generators, have access to fresh food from farms ect.

In this scenario urban areas would turn into nightmares and rural areas would be better able to cope...

Hope we don't find out.

Generators will work in the short term, but if the gas stations can't get back on line, that's the end of that. We routinely fill up a bunch of five gallon containers when a hurricane is threatening, enough to power the generator for about a week, but after that it's game over. And we're not going to get much of a warning in this EMP scenario.
 
Urban areas would be a mess...food spoiling without refrigeration, no access to fresh food from farms, crime ect...

Rural areas less so...many folks in rural communities own portable generators, have access to fresh food from farms ect.

In this scenario urban areas would turn into nightmares and rural areas would be better able to cope...

Hope we don't find out.
Yep. That's how I picture it.

BTW, if anyone likes this sort of post-apocalyptic story, I recommend SM Stirling's Dies the Fire. If you are into audiobooks, the reader is very good. Great story to listen to while driving or working out.
 
Generators will work in the short term, but if the gas stations can't get back on line, that's the end of that. We routinely fill up a bunch of five gallon containers when a hurricane is threatening, enough to power the generator for about a week, but after that it's game over. And we're not going to get much of a warning in this EMP scenario.
Generators might not work. Most newer ones have computer chips, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
This country would be effed after a week without electricity.Food riots,looting,clubbing baby seals,stealing grandma's wheelchair.It will get ugly real quick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk and Awe
This country would be effed after a week without electricity.Food riots,looting,clubbing baby seals,stealing grandma's wheelchair.It will get ugly real quick.

It would take decades to overcome an EMP.

Even after power was restored, all industry would have to come back on-line to replace everything in your home, Public works/services, business etc. that was fried.

Any vehicle built past ~1990 would be undrivable. And the components to make them run would be fried on the shelf of your local NAPA auto and every parts dealer in the country.
 
That's my understanding. The whole earth would be affected by the magnetic shield being temporarily overwhelmed, but the main damage is done to the regions in the direct path.

I'm sure one of our posters will jump in if that's wrong.

There are also polarity issues that have apparently saved us in the past. I don't quite grasp those dynamics.

So is it possible that the U.S. could be in the dark, and Russia & China functioning just fine? Or if we go down, chances are, they go as well?
 
So is it possible that the U.S. could be in the dark, and Russia & China functioning just fine? Or if we go down, chances are, they go as well?

Hard to say with a solar EMT.

You can be more exact detonating a nuclear device in the atmosphere over your enemy.
 
Hard to say with a solar EMT.

You can be more exact detonating a nuclear device in the atmosphere over your enemy.

So imagine if we suffered the worst case scenario, and they were up and running just fine.
 
Fortunately I'm a well armed liberal.

I'm no bleeding heart,but I am armed.Seriously,this country would descend into chaos in rapid order.Just think about no access to ebt and snap cards for the poors.Or getting cash from an atm.Grocery stores and supermarkets will be cleaned out with in a day.

This is one subject that scares the crap out of me.If I can't have a hot shower everyday I'm gonna get stabby real quick.
 
It would take decades to overcome an EMP.

Even after power was restored, all industry would have to come back on-line to replace everything in your home, Public works/services, business etc. that was fried.

Any vehicle built past ~1990 would be undrivable. And the components to make them run would be fried on the shelf of your local NAPA auto and every parts dealer in the country.


I agree.Everyone should have at least a few months of some type of food and water stocked up.This country will be over if this ever happens.
 
So imagine if we suffered the worst case scenario, and they were up and running just fine.


That is when you are glad the United States has more guns than people. If you actually believe they would invade, which I don't.

I assume the nuclear powered subs would be fine which means the United States could probably still nuke the entire earth to ashes a couple of times over.
 
That is when you are glad the United States has more guns than people. If you actually believe they would invade, which I don't.

I assume the nuclear powered subs would be fine which means the United States could probably still nuke the entire earth to ashes a couple of times over.
Interesting thought that subs could be OK. How deep?
 
90% of population would die if we lost electricity for a year?

I will take the under on that.

I don't know about that at all. Winter weather would cause severe issues as few have the resources to make it through the weather. The main issue would be the food and water supply. Think of your town without running water at the 90 day point? Where will people get water to eat, bathe and cook? How will people get food if there are no grocery stores selling food because of a lack of logistics, payment systems and production. A year without hospitals. 90% might be high but it would be close.
 
So....when our scientists tell GOP Congressmen that EMPs and solar flares could cause potentially catastrophic effects and are a threat to our energy infrastructure, and we should spend trillions upgrading those systems, we believe them....

But when the same scientists tell GOP Congressmen that continued CO2 emissions and human driven climate change is a threat to our energy infrastructure and climate, and we need to invest trillions to wean ourselves off fossil fuels to avoid potentially catastrophic effects, we call it a 'hoax'...

Got it.:confused:
 
But when the same scientists tell GOP Congressmen that continued CO2 emissions and human driven climate change is a threat to our energy infrastructure and climate, and we need to invest trillions to wean ourselves off fossil fuels to avoid potentially catastrophic effects, we call it a 'hoax'...

Got it.:confused:

In your first example, the United States can invest money to help the United States if a worst case scenario occurs.

In your second example, the United States can try to do something but it won't make much of a difference if other countries don't play along, so we'd just be at a competitive disadvantage. Plus, while I personally do believe there is climate change, I'm not sure what we can really do about it that's not already happening. Millions of cars are going to be electric within 10 years in the USA alone. China is trying to grow its EV and PHEV cars at 65% per annum for the next 5 years. Solar power and battery technology is catching on rapidly as well. The free market works.
 
most people understand that the climate is changing. I have no clue if we are causing it, and neither do the scientists. we are looking at a century's worth of data for a planet that's 5 billion years old.
 
In your first example, the United States can invest money to help the United States if a worst case scenario occurs.

In your second example, the United States can try to do something but it won't make much of a difference if other countries don't play along, so we'd just be at a competitive disadvantage. Plus, while I personally do believe there is climate change, I'm not sure what we can really do about it that's not already happening. Millions of cars are going to be electric within 10 years in the USA alone. China is trying to grow its EV and PHEV cars at 65% per annum for the next 5 years. Solar power and battery technology is catching on rapidly as well. The free market works.
My point was the level of science denial, not the issue itself.
 
In your first example, the United States can invest money to help the United States if a worst case scenario occurs.

In your second example, the United States can try to do something but it won't make much of a difference if other countries don't play along, so we'd just be at a competitive disadvantage. Plus, while I personally do believe there is climate change, I'm not sure what we can really do about it that's not already happening. Millions of cars are going to be electric within 10 years in the USA alone. China is trying to grow its EV and PHEV cars at 65% per annum for the next 5 years. Solar power and battery technology is catching on rapidly as well. The free market works.
The ironies abound in this comment.

Do you really think the progress we are making is due to the free market? SMH.

Do you understand that the "we won't do it if others won't" is the argument the rest of the world aims at us. We are the ones who pulled out of Kyoto. We are the ones who have sabotaged every climate conference. We are the reason why the promises made this year are not binding.

It was a great relief to the deniers and the ignorant folks who have been spouting this meme when China finally overtook the US on total CO2 emissions (although we still far outweigh them on a per-capita basis and, of course, on our total contribution to the problem throughout history). But just because China is now worse than we are on a country-to-country basis doesn't change the fact that we - the leaders of the free world - can't pass a climate change agreement through our own Congress.

And that's absolutely the responsibility of those on your side of the aisle.
 
In your first example, the United States can invest money to help the United States if a worst case scenario occurs.

In your second example, the United States can try to do something but it won't make much of a difference if other countries don't play along, so we'd just be at a competitive disadvantage. Plus, while I personally do believe there is climate change, I'm not sure what we can really do about it that's not already happening. Millions of cars are going to be electric within 10 years in the USA alone. China is trying to grow its EV and PHEV cars at 65% per annum for the next 5 years. Solar power and battery technology is catching on rapidly as well. The free market works.


Even if everybody plays nice it's not going to make any difference. We could cut emission to zero tomorrow (impossible) and even then there is NO guarantee that average temperatures will stop rising.
 
Even if everybody plays nice it's not going to make any difference. We could cut emission to zero tomorrow (impossible) and even then there is NO guarantee that average temperatures will stop rising.
You seem to be shifting gears a little. I hope so.

But tell me, Mr Frog, would you rather be sitting a a pot of water that gets slowly a bit too warm, or a pot of water that gets too hot at a quicker pace?

Yes, the CO2 we've already added to the environment will continue to warm the planet even if we stop adding more. But temp increases should slow and peak at a lower, safer level as the corrective effect of the declining CO2 concentration eventually overcomes the baked-in increases.
 
You seem to be shifting gears a little. I hope so.

But tell me, Mr Frog, would you rather be sitting a a pot of water that gets slowly a bit too warm, or a pot of water that gets too hot at a quicker pace?

Yes, the CO2 we've already added to the environment will continue to warm the planet even if we stop adding more. But temp increases should slow and peak at a lower, safer level as the corrective effect of the declining CO2 concentration eventually overcomes the baked-in increases.

Pure speculation. No one can say that's what will happen. For all we know, the tipping point has already been reached, methane gas will erupt from the frozen tundra, and that's the end of that.

Better to go greener in an orderly fashion that doesn't disrupt economies and focus more on adaptation (something we as a species are really good at) rather than hoping emissions reductions will do anything. Because at the end of the day, scientists can only hope reducing emissions will do anything.
 
China's reduction in CO2 emissions in just four months totals the entire greenhouse gases emitted by the UK over the same period

If the decrease continues for the remainder of the year it would be the largest reduction in emissions by any single country

China has dramatically cut its carbon dioxide emissions since the beginning of the year, with its reduction equalling the UK’s total emissions for the same period.

The huge decline in China’s emissions can be attributed to the country’s falling coal consumption, which decreased last year for the first time this century.

Greenpeace/Energydesk China analysis found China’s coal use dropped by 8 per cent and its CO2 emissions dipped by 5 per cent in the first four months of the year, compared to the same period in 2014, and the decline is accelerating.

As part of a reform of the sector, China has ordered more than 1,000 coal mines to close and coal output is down 7.4 per cent year on year.

The news comes just months before the crucial UN Paris Summit, which aims to reach a global agreement on climate change.
 
China's reduction in CO2 emissions in just four months totals the entire greenhouse gases emitted by the UK over the same period

If the decrease continues for the remainder of the year it would be the largest reduction in emissions by any single country

China has dramatically cut its carbon dioxide emissions since the beginning of the year, with its reduction equalling the UK’s total emissions for the same period.

The huge decline in China’s emissions can be attributed to the country’s falling coal consumption, which decreased last year for the first time this century.

Greenpeace/Energydesk China analysis found China’s coal use dropped by 8 per cent and its CO2 emissions dipped by 5 per cent in the first four months of the year, compared to the same period in 2014, and the decline is accelerating.

As part of a reform of the sector, China has ordered more than 1,000 coal mines to close and coal output is down 7.4 per cent year on year.

The news comes just months before the crucial UN Paris Summit, which aims to reach a global agreement on climate change.


Uh, you know their economy went into the dumpster in August, don't you?

Reduced economic activity = reduced fossil fuel emissions
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT