Could An Artificial 'Storm Wall' Shield Us From The Devastating Repercussions Of A Solar Superstorm ?

 

      Solar eruption leading to solar storm that knocks out power grids

 Chris Mims, writing in a Weekend WSJ article ('A Plan To Shield Earth From Solar Storms', p. C2) begins with this future flight of fancy:

"It’s the year 2040, and the Big One—a civilization-smashing solar storm of a scale not seen since the 19th century—is on a collision course with Earth. Far out in space, where geostationary satellites orbit, a half-dozen school-bus-size satellites crack open and start dumping barium, lithium or sodium. Within minutes, sunlight transforms this material into an ionized gas shield that slows the oncoming massive blob of plasma. Down on Earth, a would -be global catastrophe potentially knocking out all electric grids-  is reduced to a nighttime display of aurora."

This provokes the question of what exactly Mims is writing about. Well, he (and others) envisage a "Storm Wall" to prevent such a mammoth CME (coronal mass ejection hurling us back into an electronic Stone Age). Translation: No working cell phones, no TV, no computers, no radios and no GPS.

The fancied project - not yet a reality- goes by the name 'StormWall'' and was "conceived by a trio of scientists: Daniel Welling, a space physics specialist at the University of Michigan, Brian Walsh, an associate professor of engineering at Boston University, and Allison Jaynes, a space physics professor at the University of Iowa.

Walsh and Welling are the co-authors and co-designers of the proposal, which - let's be clear - is still years in the future (assuming the money is available to complete it). According to Welling, quoted in the Mims' piece:

"Even in the best case scenario, just the research would require at least five more years."

Oh yeah, and "even if its costs $100 billion, that price tag is only one tenth of the amount tech companies are projected to spend on building AI infrastructure next year alone."

But as I see it, the more serious problem - which may prevent even partial funding - is that Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' passed last year - has already blown past the debt doors by $5 trillion.  So, the chance of passing a $100 b space project are more like slim and none. Which is a pity, given from what Mims spells out in his WSJ article it could work.  

To reduce it to its ultimate simplicity one can think of an "airbag for the magnetosphere."  According to co-designer Dan Welling: 

"You can think of it as an air bag. It would be deployed only when all other measures have been deemed insufficient. And like an air bag for your car, deployment is a one-time thing.  After all, if you use it in your car the entire steering column has to be replaced and the insurance company will declare your car totaled."

Of course, this 'one off' aspect is another reason I doubt there will be any budget allocations for it. I mean a one time project for $100 billion?  Certainly not with any Reepo congress in place, and I suspect a Dem congress would give pause as well, given they will likely be in 'clean up; mode after the Goopers leave so much debt in their wake.

But again, this would be a pity given "the idea of StormWall is to help boost the magnetospheric defenses when bad stuff heads toward us."

Reviewing the function and nature of the magnetosphere we can refer to the artist illustration below:

Here, a CME from the Sun is headed toward Earth, with billions of charged particles en route. But most will get deflected by the magnetosphere (greenish field lines). A portion of the incoming particles are channeled to the Earth's poles and show up as the aurora when the solar wind is especially active.

StormWall would enhance the magnetospheric field, but the major expense would be in assembling at least 830,000 pounds (415 tons) of ionizable material (lithium, barium or sodium) to be launched to an altitude of 22,000 miles above the Earth's surface. Thus one would have a geosynchronous orbit. In this case, the altitude is critical given it's at the height the injected ionized material would be able to follow the 'natural highways' in space, according to the project designers. Obviously, to get this job done would require the most powerful rockets available. 

Currently many launches would be needed to put that much material into the desired orbit. In truth, a mega-rocket like Space X's Starship would likely be needed to effect a single transfer of 415 tons into a 22,000 mile orbit. But I doubt Musk would endorse it.

Why all the expense and effort? To avoid the next massive disruptive event especially given the extent humans now depend on things like smart phones, computer and AI.  The last truly disruptive even was in March, 1989 when the Quebec power grid was knocked out for 9 hours. Large direct currents arising from a red aurora at the time, triggered by a solar storm, were believed to be the immediate cause.

Then in 2012, a solar 'superstorm' more powerful than any in the past 150 years, narrowly missed Earth. i.e.

Monster Plasma "Blob" Headed for Earth: Is This the End?

But let's be clear that predicting a space weather event - say a massive CME erupting from the solar meridian - is not the same as correctly forecasting its effects on one particular part of a hodge-podge terrestrial power grid.  In other words, you can't hold space physicists responsible for failing to forecast that field line currents generated - say like in the 1989 event- will have a similar impact now. 

In the case of CMEs, a quantitative forecast  strategy would revolve around obtaining the rate of increase of the poloidal magnetic flux   (Φp) associated with a specific flux rope (e.g. that shows kink or other instability) e.g.

dΦp(t )/dt

Then, for a predictive basis one would require the related function be adjusted for each potential CME (dependent on its current heliographic location) that best fits the total observed data. This function would normally be given in terms of the electromotive force associated with the active region so that:

E(t ) ≡ −(1/c)dΦp(t )/dt

Where the preceding would constitute a forecast from the theory for each CME trajectory.  According to Ian Cohen, head of solar and space physics at the Johns Hopkins APL, 

"The challenge is that experts can't predict space weather the way they can predict weather on Earth. We don't have as many sensors in space, and the processes that trigger solar storms and make them devastatingly potent, are more complicated."

One only hope the challenges can be met, but time is not on our side, nor is the degree of human insight, critical thinking and support for science - having taken a massive hit since last January. If Mr. Mims's' fantasy rescue from electronic doom is to be averted using StormWall, we'll need a succession of fortuitous breaks before 2040.

See Also:

http://www.spaceweather.com/

And:

Coronal Mass Ejections In The Context Of Collisionless Shocks 

And:

• A Threat To U.S. Power Grids? Solar X-Ray Flares ...

       And:

    Will Trump Allow Space Weather Prediction Initiatives To Proceed?

     And:

     The Northern Colorado Aurora - And Why Space Physicists Were Less Obsessed With Appearance Than Effects 

            And:

        

         Space Weather Forecasting Advances - Thanks To Ham Radio And Station WWV 

         And:

            Is The U.S. Power Grid Truly Unsustainable Without Fossil Fuels, Nuclear Energy?

Solution To Elementary Astrophysics Problem

 Problem: For a uniform sphere with a polytropic index n = 0 with uniform density, show that:

 V = -6/5 (GM²/R). 

Take the potential energy to be:

W=  3/ (n – 5) (GM²/ R )

Solution:

We may simplify using n = 0 to get:

W=  3/ (0 – 5) (GM²/ R ) = -3/5 (GM²/ R ),

And we have already shown that: V = 2W,  i.e. from  July 6 post,

Therefore: V = 2W  = 2 [-3/5 (GM²/ R )] = -6/5 (GM²/ R) 

Unreal - Another Pro-Natalist Buffoon Thinks We Need More Than 1 Billion Americans

 

                  Isaac Asimov warns of overpopulation in 1976 Barbados lecture

Who are these clueless, detached from reality buffoons, who ceaselessly advocate for  increasing the human population beyond the Earth's support capacity?

This latest buffoon's name is Lyman Stone:   director of the Pronatalism Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies and he now joins another low IQ buffoon - Matthew Yglesias. A grade Z moron who scribbled in a New York magazine piece  ('One Billion Americans') ,  several years ago that the U.S. is "virtually empty" and could easily hold three times as many people (i.e. a billion at least)

Meanwhile, we now have Stoner Stone  the director of research for the oxymoronic consulting firm "Demographic Intelligence"- who tries to make an analogous case for a billion Americans.   According to this overeducated Bozo writing in the NY Times Saturday (The Population Bust Is Coming Sooner Than Anyone Is Prepared For)

"In 1775, a year before the Declaration of Independence was signed, a Harvard professor named Edward Wigglesworth did the math on American population growth and could barely contain his excitement. He had found that the colonists were doubling their numbers every 25 years, mostly through births, and at that pace he projected that by the close of the 20th century there would be “ONE THOUSAND TWO-HUNDRED AND EIGHTY MILLIONS” of us (his capitalization, not mine). A billion Americans, and then some.

Sadly, there are only about 340 million of us today. We should be asking not just why we so badly undershot Wigglesworth’s hopes, but also whether we are about to start counting down instead of up."

Sadly? What are you a certified moron? We 0ught to be thankful there are only 340 m of us today, given millions can't even get a first home, and there isn't the land or resources already to support them. (And AI data centers sucking up ever more of both.) Newsflash, in Wigglesworth's era there were more than ample resources to support that population - of 2.4 million. So this benighted Harvard prof could be somewhat forgiven for letting the paucity of populace in relation to available resources go to his head.  Naturally, the colonists would be 'doubling their numbers' because they also grasped the margin existed to double them without consequence. (Until they began invading native tribes' lands)

Having made his preposterous analogy he goes on to try to show where we - in the current overpopulated world (and nation) - fall short:

"If America’s population does decline, it will strain our entitlements system, damage the economy, reduce innovation and entrepreneurship, and cause serious labor shortages. But the majority point of view — held by major institutions like the Census Bureau, the United Nations and the Social Security trustees — is that the United States probably won’t face population decline until the 2080s, or even beyond 2100.

That forecast is far too optimistic. The more accurate projection, which I outlined in a recent report for my organization, the Institute for Family Studies, sees the American population beginning to shrink in the 2050s. It is a forecast so grim it could upend American budgeting and, thus, American politics."

Look, it doesn't matter what the UN, Census Bureau or Social Security projects or whether "over-optimistic" or not. Because there are already far too many people for the resources that can sustain them - namely water!  Here in the American West the whole Colorado River is drying up thanks to relentless heat and prolonged drought. Vegas is in dire straits literally begging for water from states that have more. Here in Colorado they are already talking about 'toilet to tap' alternatives for when the crunch comes.   Then there is San Diego County which depends on ocean desalination. Even so, it is only able to meet 10 percent of the region's demand but at great cost. Meanwhile, short sighted fools use up what precious water we have on AI data centers, bitcoin 'factories' and fracking.

Know what will "upend American politics"?  Not having enough water to drink in an increasingly hot country, or enough food to eat because the dearth of water for crops makes them impossible to grow or sustain. Upend budgeting? That has already been upended because we are consuming more than we have, what the planet has! The limits of our resources are best  illustrated  in the concept of Earth overshoot, as embodied in the graphic below which shows humans are currently consuming the equivalent resources of 1.6 EARTHS per year, e.g.

The interpretation of the graph (upward) is straightforward. By June, 2030 TWO full Earths - that is, the resources therein - will be needed to support the then population. Already we are at 1.6 Earths. Every year Global Footprint Network raises awareness about global ecological overshoot with its Earth Overshoot Day campaign. Earth Overshoot Day, calculated annually by the Global Footprint Network is the day on the calendar when humanity has used up the resources that it takes the planet the full year to regenerate.  

What is all of this telling us?  Easy!  We do not NEED (and Earth can't support) any more people on this planet! Or...in the US of A.

Our illustrious 'populace popularizer' continues with more twaddle:

"Wigglesworth saw exponential growth as the mark of a heroic country. For the first century of our country’s life together, we stayed on that trajectory. Then we spent the last 150 years proving him too optimistic. "

Correction: The last 150 years we proved him not REALISTIC enough. Not realistic enough to factor in resource availability to population growth. Wigglesworth in 1775 could afford to entertain exponential growth because for a limited time - there was enough sustainable margin for it. That no longer exists. That margin is gone as in vamanosed.

He adds, again oblivious to facts:

"The question for our country’s 250th birthday is how many more birthdays we want it to have, both for its babies and as a country."

The answer to the question inheres within the answer Isaac Asimov (see top) gave for the planet's carrying capacity.  Asimov defined carrying capacity thusly: 

(Usable land resources, water + food + fuel) / (individual food, fuel + water)

If the numerator is    11.4 x 10 ⁹  hectares of usable aggregate equivalent land-water resource base and if 4 hectares is the ideal "mean individual requirement" over a lifetime (e.g. to meet all basic needs and have a few private luxuries) that means:

CC = (11.4 x 10 ⁹   hectares) / 4 hectares/person  »  2.85  billion

That is a figure we are now on the verge of surpassing by a factor of four.   

As for the U.S. carrying capacity this can be estimated given the current global population is » 8.3 billion (for simplicity). Then:

U.S. (x)/ 340 m  =  2.85 b/ 8.3 b = 0.34

U.S. (x) =  340 m (0.34) =  115.6 m

So the U.S. given Asimov's carrying capacity computations should have no more than 115.6 million people.

A useful metaphor that Asimov used to illustrate carrying capacity has since become known as "the bathroom metaphor" and it works to get people to understand the debilitating, disastrous effects of too many people in a space with limited resources. 

As Asimov noted, if two people live in an apartment, and it comes with two bathrooms, they have a comfortable life. Either one can use the bathroom anytime he or she wants and can remain in there as long as they desire, even reading while doing business.

One can say, that for the purpose of "Bathroom freedom" - 2 is the carrying capacity for a two -person apartment. Now, let there be twenty people occupying the same apartment, and what happens? Bathroom freedom evaporates. Visits now must be regulated by the clock, and no one may stay in for too long. Indeed, a timetable likely has to be set up for each person's bathroom use. (Don't laugh too hard at the improbability of this example, since we now know of numerous cases where immigrants have been found crammed into such conditions - but usually in a house)

The point is, that the liberating (and convenient) use of a bathroom which held for two persons, no longer applies with twenty, and probably evaporated by the time there were five or six occupants of the apartment. (And we won't even go into where each - unrelated- person sleeps, if there are only two bedrooms).

Stone then cites two “ two major pieces of wishful thinking" that he thinks  would not solve the problem:

1- More immigration to compensate. Which he claims won't work. 

2- Women are merely delaying having children rather than forgoing it entirely.

No.1 fails because, according to Stone:

“birthrates are collapsing across the entire planet, not just here at home. The supply of would-be migrants will shrink as more countries run out of young people”

No. 2 fails because;

"Research shows that delays in childbearing are usually not made up, and, anyway, estimates that take deferred childbearing into account have fallen by just as much as the headline fertility rate.”

What is this Bozo’s solution?

“It will take serious money aimed at the people doing the work of raising the next generation of Americans, an end to the marriage penalties woven through our tax and welfare codes, a surge in building family-size houses on par with the one during the last baby boom, and a culture that treats children as a future worth having rather than a lifestyle expense. Those are big asks, but they are things Americans can achieve if they set their mind to it.”

Justifying the question: What planet is he living on? Not this one! Because this 'pronatalist' hasn't the foggiest notion about the planet's inherent support limits. Among the most critical is the access to fresh, potable water.  Look for example at Capetown, S. Africa, narrowly avoiding "Day Zero" in 2018 but at the cost of 40 percent of the country's water intensive crops.  Without freshwater resources, the whole 'enchilada' goes south, from crops to public health.  It's a no brainer, given we are seeing the exhaustion of stores of fresh water globally. 

One notable ‘State of the World’ report (2000, pp. 46-47), warned that the ever increasing water deficits will likely spark “water wars".  Even now, 1 billion-plus  people live in water-stressed conditions, meaning that renewable water supplies have dropped below 1,700 cubic meters per capita, a critical survival threshold. As observed (p. 47):

“When a country’s renewable water supplies drop below 1,700 cubic meters per capita (what some analysts call the water stress level) it becomes difficult for the country to mobilize enough water to satisfy all the food, household, and industrial needs of its population.”

Where is the additional water going to come from to support Stone's hyper GENEROUS population fairy tale? Desalination plants for his additional billions? Who is going to pay for them?

One NY Times commenter, as I expected, mustered a rejoinder to this bunkum that is well worth repeating:

"The carrying capacity of planet earth has been calculated at 500 million to 2 billion, total. If we conserve resources carefully, avoid contaminating and degrading our environment, and preserve, permanently, massive undisturbed natural areas of the continents and oceans.

This sustainable threshold was passed in the early 1970's. And in the meantime we have despoiled the entire planet. Which only a coordinated global effort of humanity to restrain and actively undo our abuses can undo. Or several ten's of thousands of years, or possibly hundreds of thousands of years, without the presence of humans, for Gaia to heal herself. The only sustainable solution is a steady state economy. All opinions to the contrary are theistic cornucopian fantasies. Those alive today may or may not see this eventuality. It can certainly be seen on the horizon, one only needs to look. No matter how much one believes it is not so, how much one believes that someone will come down and and save us before it's too late, we cannot change the laws of physics or bend the laws of thermodynamics. Every bit of objective science we have tells us that we are bound to and by the environment we live in. It us up to us to save ourselves. Mathematics, physics, environmental science, and human physiology, tells us that anything more or less that 2.1 children per family is unsustainable. This is an unavoidable truth. I think Malthus is more instructive."

That merits a read and re-read, not the fatuous fabulism this pronatalist moron has pumped out.

See Also:

Prof. Albert Bartlett Skewers The Trope That "The Total Global Population Is A Meaningless Number"

And:

WSJ's McGurn Bids Us Consider Another Econ 'Genius' Advocating Overpopulation. No Thanks!

And:

Delirious Economist Argues "America Would be Happier With More People" - Don't Buy It!

And:

WSJ Editors Boff It Again On Paul Ehrlich 'Losing A Bet' On Overpopulation

D.E. Littlewood's Elegant Introduction To Non-Commutative Algebras (Pt. 2)

 Continuing on from  D.E. Littlewood's Chapter XIII, (p. 101, Algebras) in his monograph  The Skeleton Key Of Mathematics'  we learn the existence of a non-commutative algebra in higher than 3 dimensions.   Enter Grassmann algebra, also known as Exterior algebra, an algebraic system created by 19th-century mathematician Hermann Grassmann. It concerns vector products but is applicable to any number of dimensions whereas quaternions (Part 1) are confined to 3 dimensions.

It also extends vector algebra to include geometric objects like directed planes and volumes. Its fundamental feature is the exterior product, which is anti-symmetric, meaning reversing the order of the terms flips the sign, e.g.

e _ij  =  - e _ji

As Littlewood notes (p. 103):

"In Grassman's space analysis a vector with components:

x _1,  x _2,......  x _n

is associated with:

e ₁x ₁  +  e ₂  x _2,.....+     e _n x _n

where the quantities:

_e 1,  e _2,......  e _n

Satisfy the following:

     e _i ²    =   0,    e _ij  =  - e _ji

In other words, displays the anti-symmetric feature. (e _ij  =  - e _ji  )

In three dimensions a vector would be of the form:

ae ₁  + be _2  +  ce ₃

An element of area would take the form:

ae ₂  e ₃   + be₃ e_1  +  ce₁ e ₂

And would thus be distinguishable from the vector with which it would be identified in quaternions. An element of volume would have the single component: k e₁ e ₂  e ₃

For:

 e₁ e ₂  e ₃  =  e₂ e ₃  e ₁   =   e ₃  e ₁  e₂ =  -  e₁ e ₃ e ₂    = - e ₂   e₁ e ₃

=   -  e ₃  e₂  e ₁

The algebra immediately yields the formula for the area of a triangle as half of the product of the two sides.  Or for the formula of a tetrahedron as one-sixth of the product of three concurrent edges.

Littlewood goes on (p. 104) to make a number of key distinctions to the previous algebra (for quaternions):

- With quaternion algebra there are no factors of zero, i.e. =xy =  0 

IFF  x= 0 or y = 0

- In Grassman algebra some power of every element is equal to zero.

- The square of a vector is zero but the square of every element of the algebra is not zero, i.e.

( e₁ e ₂    +   e₃ e ₄ ) ²  =   2 e₁ e ₂ e₃ e ₄

Addendum note:

In Grassman algebra the fundamental volume element V  is represented by the wedge product of three basis vectors, i.e.:  

 e₁ e ₂   e ₃  

Where   is the symbol for the wedge product. (But not used in Littlewood's text.)

Suggested Problems for budding mathematicians:

1) Consider the parallelopipped  below spanned by the vectors u, v and w in 3-space.

Find the volume of this solid given that:

u = (1, 1, 3)

v = (1, 2, -1)

w = (1, 4, 1)

2)Show how the Grassman algebra formula for a single component of volume element  k e₁ e ₂  e ₃  can be used to find the volume of a tetrahedron.

Find that volume for this tetrahedron, given the concurrent vectors are:

a = (3, 0, 0)

b = (1, 4, 0)

c = (2, 1, 5)

See Also:

Fundamentals of Grassmann Algebra

BIS ('Bank of all Central Banks') Connects Dots To Show Proximity Of Global Financial Crash Linked To AI Boom

 

Amidst increasing signs of unchecked AI debt and a mounting bubble, the 'banker of banks' has now weighed in ('An AI Bust's Effects n Global Economy Detailed', WSJ, July 1, p. B12).  That bank of banks would be the Bank of International Settlements or BIS.  According to the WSJ piece:

 "If you're anxious about the AI-impending bubble and its global economic risks maybe don't read the latest annual report from  the Bank of International Settlements. The report released on Monday, lays out in unsettling detail how an artificial intelligence bust could throw the global financial system into disorder.

It comes from an institution that has a good track record of predicting problems, including the 2008 financial crisis." 

 So what has the BIS so concerned?  Basically, the ongoing, excessive investment in AI infrastructure from the tech company moguls - to the tune of hundreds of billions. (Open AI plans to spend $600 billion more on AI infrastructure by 2030 despite generating only $2b/ month in revenue - according to WSJ, July 7, p. A14)

Given that up to now the products are not measuring up to the outlays a pullback in financing (and with it lower stock prices) will ensue.   In many ways this is reminiscent of the overselling of the notorious investment trusts in the 1920s - especially with the bankers lending money to those who couldn't afford them to buy them. Hence, a whole vast house of cards was created mostly using money the average person didn't have. A bubble was the result, and a very unstable one. As Andrew Ross Sorkin put it in a May, 60 Minutes interview:

"In good times if stock went  up, it was free money. In bad times, you're on the hook in a very bad way."

As the WSJ article goes on to point out:  

"There's nothing especially new about those concerns, but the BIS connects some other dots. For example, drawing lines between an AI bust and the unusually vulnerable state of consumers, governments and the global economy. U.S. households are significantly more exposed to stocks than in the past couple of decades, both relative to their wealth and their income."

Hence, any significant AI bubble bursting - especially if based on debt, could crater that paper wealth as well as real income. Apart from which those still rising (and already overpriced) U.S. stock prices during this AI boom could risk a major global erosion of wealth in the event of a U.S. tech-focused bust.

The further bad news is that these overspending tech companies are only the "tip of the iceberg", in the take of the BIS.  Basically, if the tech honchos slow the pace of their inordinate capital spending it will spell contractions across a wide front.  Specifically, construction contractors (building the AI data centers) with relatively weak balance sheets, would feel the pain quickly.  This among other financial dominoes, all ready to fall.

The fact that - as in 1929 - debt has come to increasingly fuel investments (in this case for AI), means that there exists an even greater potential for destruction. Why? The BIS notes that government budgets in advanced economies are stretched as it is (especially with Trump's Iran war and reckless tariffs) which means any capacity to reinvigorate these economies via spending is severely limited.   As the WSJ piece points out:

 "Persistent elevated inflation and geopolitical uncertainty  caused by the Iran war make it trickier to find a good response to disruption. These warnings are worth listening to because of where they come from."

Again, reminding readers the same BIS  - a 'Swiss-based consortium for global central banks" - was instrumental in giving advance warning about the 2008 credit collapse.  This was put out in a paper entitled 'Prime or Not so Prime':

Prime or not so prime? An exploration of US housing finance in the new century - BIS Quarterly Review, part 6, March 2006

Which detailed the risks posed by the securitization of subprime loans in the U.S. housing markets. The warning turned out to be prescient and let's just say the BIS could be prescient again in its AI bust warning.

See Also:

‘GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRASH’: Central Bank Issues DIRE WARNING About NEW GREAT DEPRESSION!! |

• And:

• A.I.-Bubble Angst Spills Into Bond Market - What It Means..
• And:
• A Brief History Of Bear Markets For (Primarily) Younger Investors

      And:

       A Sobering Comment From Andrew Ross Sorkin On 60 Minutes: "A Crash Is Coming": What's Behind It?