Probability estimation of a catastrophic Carrington−like geomagnetic storm: Re−evaluated in new light of upcoming Maunder Minimum and recent decreases in geomagnetic field, after recent studies came to conflicting conclusions; Proposed solutions for citizens and lawmakers

Abstract [Abstract is written mainly for fellow-scientists/researchers; Summary is more 'broad'.]

In September 1859, the famous “Carrington Event” occurred (with estimated Dst readings of −850 nT to −900 nT), the largest recorded solar geomagnetic event since accurate records were made, causing widespread failures to contemporary telegraph systems and producing brilliant polar aurorae. In July 2012, a solar storm of much greater strength almost hit earth, narrowly missing because we'd moved about nine (9) days [about 2.46% of earth's 365¼−day orbit] from its trajectory[70], with a peak Dst value of −1,182 nT, as reported by Space Weather[31]. As a result, astronomers & scientists worldwide began calculating the probability estimation of another catastrophic Carrington−like geomagnetic event, since current technology (communications, GPS, power grids, satellites, etc.) are much more vulnerable to a severe solar storms than in the past when the only 'electronics' available were long−wire telegraphs—before even the telephone had been invented. Prior published research gave widely varying probability estimations of another such event. Moreover, prior research did not take into account the upcoming Maunder Minimum or acceleration in the geomagnetic pole movement, and the acceleration in the collapse of earth's protective magnetic field; nor, did they account for “lesser” magnetic storms which were very destructive, in their own right, causing many failures of communications and the power grid in various parts of the world. Historically, earth's magnetic north pole has wandered at a rate of about 0–15 km/year, but beginning in 1990, it accelerated to its current velocity of about 60 km/year[64][65][66], which affects compasses, GPS, & other navigation. Moreover, the last time earth's protective magnetic field dropped by 30%, it needed fully 3,000 years[56], but, at the rapid rate it's decreasing now, it's projected to need only about 338.5 or 363.2 years (or 364.3 years or 333.9583 years), to drop by another 30%, depending of which set of data is used. While the data aren't in complete agreement, they're all very close, and suggest that a “geomagnetic flip,” with concurrent field collapse to almost zero strength, is imminent. This is relevant because the weaker earth's protective magnetic field gets, the less it protects earth from severe geomagnetic storms. We review solar/geomagnetic data of all storms from the Carrington Event until present and estimate the probability of another similar catastrophic solar storm in the next decade: Prior prominent research of another Carrington Event are, at one extreme, Riley's estimates of about 12% probability[50], and Moriña's estimates[40] about 1.17% (taking the average of “0.46% and 1.88%,” from his research paper). We find an 8.57% chance of another Carrington−class solar storm in the next decade. While we may overestimate the probabilities of another similar storm, the dangers posed to modern−day technology (much more vulnerable to geomagnetic solar storms or EMP detonations) suggest that it's better to use cautious & conservative estimates—especially given new unknowns and variables, such as the impending geomagnetic flip and concomitant collapse of earth's protective magnetic field—which, of course, make us even more vulnerable to a “direct hit.” I stand by my estimate as it's methods are sound, with results between both extremes in the reported literature—and put forth proposed solutions for lawmakers and citizens.

Plain Language Summary [Written for 'broad' audience: Lawmakers, press, scientists, citizens]

There have been several recent severe geomagnetic storms which caused severe disruption to telecommunications and electrical grids, HF (high−frequency) radio communications, and Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation: The infamous solar storm of March 1989 inflicted major damage to Quebec, Canada's power grid, causing a 9−hour blackout when transformers were overloaded and failed, leaving more than 6 million Canadians without power, and crashing computer hard−drives later that year (August 1989), resulting in halted trading in the Toronto stock market. In fact, astronauts aboard the space shuttle Atlantis, during this solar storm, in October 1989, “reported

burning in their eyes, a reaction of their retinas to the solar particles,” according to the book “Storms From The Sun.”[7][23]

Another solar storm hit Canada, as well as the northeast United States, in August 2003, causing wide−spread blackouts, this time jamming the short−wave radio frequencies used by commercial pilots, prompting contemporary observers to speculate that the Kremlin was jamming radio signals. “In space, some satellites actually tumbled out of control for several hours,” NASA said. Malmö also suffered wide−spread failure of their power grids later that year (October and November 2003) in what was dubbed the “Halloween solar storm” of 2003: The SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) satellite even failed temporarily, and the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) was also damaged by this solar storm.[20][27][28][51]

More recently, the “Solar Storm of 2012,” a Carrington−class solar storm, widely−believed to be even larger than the largest recorded solar storm in recorded history, almost made a “direct hit” on earth, narrowly missing only because earth had moved about nine (9) days in solar orbit from its trajectory.[70] As a result, researchers across the globe began calculating statistical probabilities of a “direct hit” of another catastrophic Carrington−class solar storm. Prior published research came up with widely varying estimates, prompting this researcher to revisit the subject anew.

I will address three (3) aspects of the dangers of solar storms: (1) I will present the dangers and threats of catastrophic damage to electrical and communications systems; (2) I will attempt to assess the probabilities of estimation of a catastrophic event; and, lastly, (3) I will offer proposed solutions for both citizens and lawmakers. My findings suggest that prior research over−estimated the probabilities of another catastrophic storm, but that subsequent research under−estimated, and suggest that the actual probabilities of a possible “global blackout” to be in−between both extremes. As a result, citizens are advised to “prepare,” and lawmakers must “harden the grid.” Furthermore, prior research did not take into account (or discuss) the fact that even “lesser” storms have been documented to have produced widespread damage to the communications and electrical grid, as documented above, which is misleading, because even “lesser” events have had inflicted very great damage, with heavy repair costs impacting the economy, including one instance when the Canadian stock market was shutdown. Lastly, prior research did not account for the upcoming Maunder Minimum and recent decreases in earth's protective geomagnetic field, both of which have an effect on any solar geomagnetic events—not to mention the increased acceleration of the movement of the geomagnetic poles, which affect compasses, GPS, and other navigation. Even if this researcher over-estimates the probability of another catastrophic event, given the dire consequences of documented damage that would be done, it's best to have a cautious and conservative estimate—especially given new unknowns and variables, such as the impending geomagnetic flip & concomitant collapse of earth's protective magnetic field—which, of course, make us even more vulnerable to a “direct hit.”

1. Introduction [PART I. Threats / dangers posed by Solar Events]

The well−known “Carrington Event” (also known as “The Solar Storm of 1859”), occurring on September 1–2, 1859, was a very powerful geomagnetic storm during solar cycle 10 (1855–1867), and one of the largest recorded geomagnetic storms (as recorded by ground−based magnetometers). The storm produced some of the brightest and most amazing displays of The Northern Lights (Aurora Borealis) and The Southern Lights (Aurora Australis) around the world, so bright, in fact, that many people reported being able to read a newspaper, at night, by the brilliant “Polar Lights,” even as far south as the northeastern United States.[1][2]

More−importantly, however, this “Carrington−class” solar storm, widely−believed to be the most powerful solar storm of modern times, only had a “Dst” (disturbance–storm time) measurement of about −850 to −900 nT (nanoTelsas), and even the very powerful “Quebec Storm of 1989” (which knocked about 6 million people into a blackout) registered only about −589 nT. (The Dst measurement is an index calculated from magnetometer readings around the equator, and, basically, it measures how hard Earth's magnetic field shakes when a solar storm hits: The more negative Dst, the more powerful the solar storm. Scientists were able to get accurate measurements on July 2012 super−storm because, although it angled away from Earth, nonetheless, it made a “direct hit” on the solar observation satellite, STEREO−A, which is especially “hardened” to withstand extreme magnetic disturbances.[31])

However, what frightens this researcher is the fact that “Solar Storm of 2012,” had it actually hit earth (it missed us, very narrowly), would have had a Dst−reading of up to −1,200 nT, making it much worse than even the infamous Carrington Event.[71] (It had a peak Dst value of −1,182 nT, as reported by Space Weather[31]) Historians recall that the Carrington Event, which produced brilliant auroral displays, and also wrought havoc with telegraph systems, induced such fierce magnetic flux into telegraph pylons that they sparked violently, even giving some telegraph operators electric shocks.

The only thing that saved the planet from wide−spread economic catastrophe was the fact that most of the electrical equipment in 1859 was very basic. (Telephones were not even invented until 1876.) Thus, the geomagnetic storm did not have any sensitive “targets” to damage. In modern times, however, with all of the sensitive electronics, GPS, telecommunications, power grids, cellular phone towers, and communications & military satellites, even something as “small” as the −589 nT “Quebec Storm of 1989” was able to do wide−spread damage. In fact, a declassified report shows that a strong solar storm in 1972 may have led to the detonation of mines[18] during the Vietnam War: Many of the “destructor mines” were designed to explode if they sensed changes in magnetic fields associated with moving ships—due to the large metallic content in the target ships, and the solar storms were apparently strong enough to disturb the earth's magnetic field, sufficient to trigger the more−than 4,000 sea mines which mysteriously went off with no other obvious cause. Besides random Solar Storms (which I've shown to be very capable of sudden damage to “The Grid”–critically important for providing power to Police, Fire, Ambulance, Hospitals, gas stations, supermarkets—even 911 & GPS), rogue nations with nuclear capabilities are also able to detonate an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse), a burst of electromagnetic radiation created by a nuclear explosion, which would have basically the same effect in the local area where it's detonated—potentially knocking out all electrical equipment.[68]

In part I, here, I have (hopefully) shown the grave dangers and threats of catastrophic damage to electrical and communications systems posed by solar storms and EMP's. In part II, below, I will address the key part of my new findings: a new (and, hopefully, more accurate) assessment the statistical probabilities of estimation of a catastrophic event, and, then, in part III, below, I will offer proposed solutions for both citizens and lawmakers. While the 11−year solar cycle is well−known, I do not see any scientific research of probability estimates that take into account the upcoming Maunder Minimum, or the recent (and accelerating) decreases in the strength of earth's geomagnetic field or the “rapidly moving” geomagnetic poles: Scientists have long known that earth's magnetosphere protects against lethal cosmic radiation.

2. Materials & Methods [PART I. Threats/dangers posed...(continued)]

For part I, here (1. Introduction, 2. Materials & Methods, 3. Results listed in Table 1, and 4. References cited throughout this paper, along with Table 2., a copy/paste of selected data from other peer−reviewed research along these lines), I merely gleaned the published peer−reviewed scientific research papers and credible news reports of solar storms and the dangers they pose. For part III, below, I propose practical solutions for both citizens and lawmakers: What can citizens do to protect themselves in the event of a “Failure of the Grid?” What can lawmakers (City, County, State, Federal, & International lawmakers—but particularly Federal lawmakers in America & other countries) do to prepare for such an inevitable event, and protect key critical infrastructure? However, for Part II, my key findings on the estimations of probability of another catastrophic solar storm, I will do something “different” than my esteemed colleagues (who published widely−varying estimates of whether we would face another Carrington−class event in the upcoming decade or so): I “cheated” by going directly to the published reports of such events, beginning with the Carrington Event (when our recording methods were sufficient to get accurate measurements on the geomagnetic strength of the storms—a key requirement for classifying “how strong” a storm must be to do catastrophic damage), and itemising them individually. Then, by doing a direct division of quantity of catastrophic storms, divided by elapsed time, I directly derive the average number of storms in a given time−period. While this does not take into account the fact that solar flares, CME's (Coronal Mass Ejections), and catastrophic solar storms are greater during the peak of each 11−year “Solar Cycle,” it will, nonetheless, give readers a rough estimate of long−term probabilities. Then, once this “baseline” is established, we can hope to make a more precise and accurate estimation of the probabilities, when considering additional factors, particularly the 11−year solar cycle, and the new, and frankly frightening, trend of the rapidly−decreasing geomagnetic field, which is associated with (happening at the same time as) the accelerating velocity of the movement of the geomagnetic poles: Many GPS navigational and satellite systems depend on the geomagnetic north and south poles, and these become increasingly inaccurate when the poles move, another threat to “The Grid.” Also, as previously mentioned, the earth's magnetosphere protects against cosmic radiation from all sources—including CME's and solar flares from earth's sun—which pose an ever−increasing threat as earth's magnetosphere starts to collapse, as we head towards another “geomagnetic reversal”—that is, when Earth's magnetic poles start to flip again, as they have done many times in the history of our planet. EDITOR'S NOTE: When quoting papers, my use of double brackets [] indicates a line−break, omitted for the sake of space.

3. Results (with Tables, Figures, Graphs, photos, etc.) [PART I. Threats/dangers posed...(continued)

Image 6. Aurora Borealis, at night: The Northern Lights[80]

4. References cited in this paper [PART I. Threats/dangers posed...(continued)]

[1] “A Perfect Solar Superstorm: The 1859 Carrington Event: The solar storm that hit Earth last Thursday delivered only a glancing blow, but in 1859 the planet wasn’t so lucky.,” by Christopher Klein, HISTORY,

14 March 2012, Updated: 22 August 2018,

LINK: https://www.History.com/news/a−perfect−solar−superstorm−the−1859−carrington−event

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “In cities across America, people stood in the streets and gazed up at the heavenly pyrotechnics. In Boston, some even caught up on their reading, taking advantage of the celestial fire to peruse the local newspapers.”

[2] “What If the Biggest Solar Storm on Record Happened Today?: Repeat of 1859 Carrington Event would devastate modern world, experts say.,” by Richard A. Lovett, National Geographic, 04 March 2011,

LINK: https://www.NationalGeographic.com/news/2011/3/110302−solar−flares−sun−storms−earth−danger−carrington−event−science

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “The flares were so powerful that "people in the northeastern U.S. could read newspaper print just from the light of the aurora," Daniel Baker, of the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, said at a geophysics meeting last December.”

[3] “Here's What Would Happen if a Solar Storm Wiped Out Technology as We Know It,” by Peter Dockrill, Science Alert, 21 June 2018, LINK: https://www.ScienceAlert.com/here−s−what−would−happen−if−solar−storm−wiped−out−technology−geomagnetic−carrington−event−coronal−mass−ejection

[4] “150 Years Ago: The Worst Solar Storm Ever,” by Robert Roy Britt, SPACE.com, 02 September 2009, LINK: https://www.Space.com/7224−150−years−worst−solar−storm.html

[5] “What Was The Carrington Event?,” by Fraser Cain, UNIVERSE TODAY, 17 January 2017,

LINK: https://www.UniverseToday.com/132890/what−was−the−carrington−event

LINK: https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=uAuyv9TCThI

[6] “A Super Solar Flare,” NASA SCIENCE, 06 May 2008,

LINK: https://Science.Nasa.gov/science−news/science−at−nasa/2008/06may_carringtonflare

[7] “A massive solar storm could wipe out almost all of our modern technology — and we'd have just hours to prepare,” by Rafi Letzter, BUSINESS INSIDER, 06 September 2016,

LINK: https://www.BusinessInsider.com/massive−1859−solar−storm−telegraph−scientists−2016−9

[8] “The Electric Storm of November 1882,” by Jeffrey J. Love, Space Weather, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 37−46, January 2018, DOI: 10.1002/2017SW001795, Bibcode: 2018SpWea..16...37L,

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SpWea..16...37L

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SpWea..16...37L/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1002%2F2017SW001795

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017SW001795

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017SW001795

[9] “On the Intensity of the Magnetic Superstorm of September 1909,” by Love, Jeffrey J.; Hayakawa, Hisashi; Cliver, Edward W., Space Weather, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp. 37−45, January 2019, DOI: 10.1029/2018SW002079 Bibcode: 2019SpWea..17...37L,

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SpWea..17...37L

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SpWea..17...37L/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1029%2F2018SW002079

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018SW002079

[10] “Low−latitude auroras: the magnetic storm of 14−15 May 1921,” by Silverman, S. M.; Cliver, E. W., Journal of Atmospheric and Solar−Terrestrial Physics, Volume 63, Issue 5, p. 523−535, March 2001, DOI: 10.1016/S1364−6826(00)00174−7, Bibcode: 2001JASTP..63..523S,

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JASTP..63..523S

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JASTP..63..523S/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS1364−6826%2800%2900174−7

LINK: https://www.ScienceDirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682600001747?via%3Dihub

[11] “Aurora Borealis Startles Europe; People Flee in Fear, Call Firemen,” THE NEW YORK TIMES,

26 January 1938. p. 25, LINK: https://archive.is/F7WqI

LINK: https://archive.is/F7WqI/f14f5906c0c01e515df2ed70c723d92e68c552bc.jpg

LINK: http://www.DefendingTheBride.com/ss/day/1938h74.jpg

[12] “A Large Sunspot,” Nature, volume 141, page 156, 22 January 1938,

LINK: https://www.Nature.com/articles/141156b0

[13] “The Geomagnetic Blitz of September 1941,” by Jeffrey J. Love and Pierdavide Coïsson,

Earth & Space Science News, 15 September 2016, LINK: https://doi.org/10.1029%2F2016EO059319

LINK: https://eos.org/features/the−geomagnetic−blitz−of−september−1941

[14] “Solar Cosmic Rays of February, 1956 and Their Propagation through Interplanetary Space,” by Meyer, P.; Parker, E. N.; Simpson, J. A., Physical Review, vol. 104, Issue 3, pp. 768−783, November 1956, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.104.768, Bibcode: 1956PhRv..104..768M,

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956PhRv..104..768M

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956PhRv..104..768M/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRev.104.768

LINK: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.104.768

[15] “Solar cosmic rays during the extremely high ground level enhancement on 23 February 1956,” by A. Belov, E. Eroshenko, H. Mavromichalaki, C. Plainaki, and V. Yanke, Annales Geophysicae, 23, 2281–2291, 2005 [SRef−ID: 1432−0576/ag/2005−23−2281], 15 September 2005, DOI: 10.5194/angeo−23−2281−2005 Bibcode: 2005AnGeo..23.2281B,

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AnGeo..23.2281B

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AnGeo..23.2281B/abstract

LINK: https://www.ann−geophys.net/23/2281/2005/angeo−23−2281−2005.pdf

LINK: https://doi.org/10.5194%2Fangeo−23−2281−2005

LINK: https://www.ann−geophys.net/23/2281/2005/

[16] “Ionospheric Weather During Five Extreme Geomagnetic Superstorms Since IGY Deduced With the Instantaneous Global Maps GIM−foF2,” by Stanislawska, Iwona; Gulyaeva, Tamara L.; Grynyshyna−Poliuga, Oksana; Pustovalova, Ljubov V., Space Weather, Volume 16, Issue 12, pp. 2068−2078, December 2018, DOI: 10.1029/2018SW001945 Bibcode: 2018SpWea..16.2068S,

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SpWea..16.2068S

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018SpWea..16.2068S/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1029%2F2018SW001945

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018SW001945

[17] “The May 1967 great storm and radio disruption event: Extreme space weather and extraordinary responses,” by Knipp, D. J.; Ramsay, A. C.; Beard, E. D.; Boright, A. L.; Cade, W. B.; Hewins, I. M.; McFadden, R. H.; Denig, W. F.; Kilcommons, L. M.; Shea, M. A.; Smart, D. F., Space Weather, Volume 14, Issue 9, pp. 614−633, September 2016, DOI: 10.1002/2016SW001423 Bibcode: 2016SpWea..14..614K,

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SpWea..14..614K

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016SpWea..14..614K/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1002%2F2016SW001423

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016SW001423

[18] “On the Little−Known Consequences of the 4 August 1972 Ultra−Fast Coronal Mass Ejecta: Facts, Commentary, and Call to Action,” by Delores J. Knipp, Brian J. Fraser , M. A. Shea, D. F. Smart, Space Weather, Volume 16, Issue 11, November 2018, Pages 1635−1643, DOI: 10.1029%2F2018SW002024,

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1029%2F2018SW002024

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018SW002024

[19] “BIGGEST SOLAR X−RAY FLARE ON RECORD – X20,” SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory), 19 September 2019 − Mission Day: 8693 − DOY: 262, Press contacts: Dr. Paal Brekke, pbrekke@esa.nascom.nasa.gov; Tel: 301−286−6903, Dr. Bernhard Fleck, bfleck@esa.nascom.nasa.gov ; Tel: 301−286−4098, Dr. Joe Gurman, gurman@eitv.nascom.nasa.gov ; Tel : 301−286−4767

LINK: https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/X17

[20] “7 times solar storms have affected Earth,” by Matt Liddy, ABC NEWS, 01 April 2015,

LINK: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014−09−12/how−solar−storms−affect−earth/5740454

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “Communications networks around the globe were affected, prompting speculation the Kremlin was jamming radio signals, while short−wave radio frequencies used by commercial pilots also suffered fadeouts.”

[21] “Solar storms halt stock market as computers crash,” by Leigh Dayton,

NewScientist, 09 September 1989, LINK:

https://NewScientist.com/article/mg12316812−400−solar−storms−halt−stock−market−as−computers−crash

[22] “Solar flare impacts microchips, August 16, 1989,” by Suzanne Deffree, EDN Network, 16 August 2019, LINK: https://www.EDN.com/electronics−blogs/edn−moments/4394205/Solar−flare−impacts−microchips−−August−16−−1989

[23] “Storms from the Sun: The Emerging Science of Space Weather,” by Michael J. Carlowicz, Ramon E. Lopez, Publisher: Joseph Henry Press, 2002 − Science − 234 pages (as listed in Google Books), or 256 pages (as listed in Amazon), ISBN−10: 0309076420; ISBN−13: 978−0309076425,

LINK: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=RJO_IsMDiccC&q=1882#v=onepage&q=1989&f=false

LINK: https://www.Amazon.com/Storms−Sun−Emerging−Science−Weather/dp/0309076420

[24] “Midlatitude postsunset plasma bubbles observed over Europe during intense storms in April 2000 and 2001,” by Katamzi−Joseph, Zama Thobeka; Habarulema, John Bosco; Hernández−Pajares, Manuel;

Space Weather, Volume 15, Issue 9, pp. 1177−1190;

DOI: 10.1002/2017SW001674, Bibcode: 2017SpWea..15.1177K,

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SpWea..15.1177K

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017SpWea..15.1177K/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1002%2F2017SW001674

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017SW001674

LINK: https://hdl.handle.net/2117%2F115052

LINK: https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/115052

[25] “SOLAR FLARE BIGGEST SINCE '89 − THE EVENT WAS FOLLOWED BY A BLAST OF MILLIONS OF RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES, WHICH WILL BE SEEN AS NORTHERN LIGHTS ON EARTH TONIGHT,” by Frank D. Roylance, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, CA), Page: A12, Section: news (431 Words), 15 July 2000, LINK: https://InfoEeb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document−view?p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/1064A3E55B815DA8&f=basic

[26] “The effect of the July 14, 2000 “Bastille Day” solar flare event on >70 MeV galactic cosmic rays observed at V1 and V2 in the distant heliosphere,” by W. R. Webber F. B. McDonald J. A. Lockwood B. Heikkila, Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp. 1377–1380, 21 May 2002, DOI:10.1029/2002GL014729, LINK: https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL014729

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002GL014729

[27] “Service Assessment: Intense Space Weather Storms October 19 – November 07, 2003,” by Christopher Balch Team Leader (Lead Space Weather Forecaster, NOAA; Space Environment Center (SEC), Boulder, Colorado), Bill Murtagh (Lead Author, Space Weather Forecaster, NOAA Space; Environment Center, Boulder, Colorado), et. al., NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD), Technical Memorandum, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 2004,

LINK: https://www.Weather.gov/media/publications/assessments/SWstorms_assessment.pdf

LINK: https://Repository.Library.NOAA.gov/view/noaa/6995

[28] “HALLOWEEN SPACE WEATHER STORMS OF 2003,” by LCDR Michael Weaver (NOAA editor)

William Murtagh (editor), Christopher Balch, et. al., NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Space Environment Center, Boulder, Colorado), NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR SEC−88, June 2004, LINK:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110728172705/http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/Services/HalloweenStorms_assessment.pdf

LINK: ftp://ftp.Library.NOAA.gov/noaa_documents.lib/OAR/OAR_SEC/TM_OAR_SEC/TM_OAR_SEC_88.pdf

[29] “Modeling polar region atmospheric ionization induced by the giant solar storm on 20 January 2005,” by Mitthumsiri, W.; Seripienlert, A.; Tortermpun, U.; Mangeard, P. −S.; Sáiz, A.; Ruffolo, D.; Macatangay, R., Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Volume 122, Issue 8, pp. 7946−7955, August 2017, DOI: 10.1002/2017JA024125, Bibcode: 2017JGRA..122.7946M,

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JGRA..122.7946M

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017JGRA..122.7946M/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1002%2F2017JA024125

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JA024125

[30] “Giant Ground Level Enhancement of Relativistic Solar Protons on 2005 January 20. I. Spaceship Earth Observations,” by Bieber, J. W.; Clem, J.; Evenson, P.; Pyle, R.; Sáiz, A.; Ruffolo, D., The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 771, Issue 2, article id. 92, 13 pp. (2013), July 2013 DOI: 10.1088/0004−637X/771/2/92, Bibcode: 2013ApJ...771...92B,

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771...92B

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...771...92B/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0004−637X%2F771%2F2%2F92

LINK: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004−637X/771/2/92

[31] “A major solar eruptive event in July 2012: Defining extreme space weather scenarios,” by Baker, D. N.; Li, X.; Pulkkinen, A.; Ngwira, C. M.; Mays, M. L.; Galvin, A. B.; Simunac, K. D. C., Space Weather, Volume 11, Issue 10, pp. 585−591, October 2013 DOI: 10.1002/swe.20097 Bibcode: 2013SpWea..11..585B, LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013SpWea..11..585B

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013SpWea..11..585B/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fswe.20097

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/swe.20097

[32] “Simulation of the 23 July 2012 extreme space weather event: What if this extremely rare CME was Earth directed?,” by Ngwira, Chigomezyo M.; Pulkkinen, Antti; Leila Mays, M.; Kuznetsova, Maria M.; Galvin, A. B.; Simunac, Kristin; Baker, Daniel N.; Li, Xinlin; Zheng, Yihua; Glocer, Alex, Space Weather, Volume 11, Issue 12, pp. 671−679, December 2013,

DOI: 10.1002/2013SW000990, Bibcode: 2013SpWea..11..671N,

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013SpWea..11..671N

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013SpWea..11..671N/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1002%2F2013SW000990

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013SW000990

[33] “Observations of an extreme storm in interplanetary space caused by successive coronal mass ejections,” by Ying D. Liu, Janet G. Luhmann, Primož Kajdič, Emilia K. J. Kilpua, Noé Lugaz, Nariaki V. Nitta, Christian Möstl, Benoit Lavraud, Stuart D. Bale, Charles J. Farrugia, Antoinette B. Galvin, Nature Communications, Volume 5, id. 3481 (2014), 23 May 2014, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4481, Cite as: arXiv:1405.6088 [physics.space−ph], (or arXiv:1405.6088v1 [physics.space−ph] for this version),

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014NatCo...5.3481L

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014NatCo...5.3481L/abstract

LINK: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6088

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014NatCo...5E3481L

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fncomms4481

LINK: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4481

[34] “Carrington−class CME Narrowly Misses Earth,” by Dr. Tony Phillips, NASA SCIENCE,

02 May 2014, LINK: https://Science.NASA.gov/science−news/science−at−nasa/2014/02may_superstorm

[35] “Near Miss: The Solar Superstorm of July 2012,” by Dr. Tony Phillips, NASA SCIENCE,

23 July 2014, LINK: https://Science.NASA.gov/science−news/science−at−nasa/2014/23jul_superstorm

[36] “The 1859 Solar−Terrestrial Disturbance And the Current Limits of Extreme Space Weather Activity,” by Cliver, E.W.; Svalgaard, L., Solar Physics, Volume 224, Issue 1−2, pp. 407−422, 08 October 2004, DOI: 10.1007/s11207−005−4980−z, Bibcode: 2004SoPh..224..407C,

LINK: http://www.leif.org/research/1859%20Storm%20−%20Extreme%20Space%20Weather.pdf

LINK: https://www.leif.org/research/1859%20Storm%20−%20Extreme%20Space%20Weather.pdf

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004SoPh..224..407C

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004SoPh..224..407C/abstract

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11207−005−4980−z

LINK: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11207−005−4980−z

EDITOR'S NOTE: “TABLE V” of Cliver's paper, here, e.g., “The 25 largest geomagnetic storms based on the Aa∗m index, 1868–1998.,” lists about 25 storms, a few of which may be missing above, so I'm using Cliver's data to supplement my own research.

[“Abstract. It is generally appreciated that the September 1859 solar–terrestrial disturbance, the first

recognized space weather event, was exceptionally large. How large and how exceptional? To answer

these questions, we compiled rank order lists of the various measures of solar−induced disturbance for

events from 1859 to the present. The parameters considered included: magnetic crochet amplitude,

solar energetic proton fluence (McCracken et al., 2001a), Sun–Earth disturbance transit time, geomagnetic

storm intensity, and low−latitude auroral extent. While the 1859 event has close rivals or superiors

in each of the above categories of space weather activity, it is the only documented event of the last

~150 years that appears at or near the top of all of the lists. Taken together, the top−ranking events in

each of the disturbance categories comprise a set of benchmarks for extreme space weather activity.”]

[37] “The 1859 space weather event revisited: limits of extreme activity,” by Edward W. Cliver and William F. Dietrich, Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, Volume 3, Article Number: A31, 21 October 2013, DOI: 10.1051/swsc/2013053, LINK: https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2013053

LINK: https://www.swsc−journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2013/01/swsc130015/swsc130015.html

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “The solar flare on 1 September 1859 and its associated geomagnetic storm remain the standard for an extreme solar−terrestrial event. The most recent estimates of the flare soft X−ray (SXR) peak intensity and Dst magnetic storm index for this event are: SXR class = X45 (±5) (vs. X35 (±5) for the 4 November 2003 flare) and minimum Dst = −900 (+50, −150) nT (vs. −825 to −900 nT for the great storm of May 1921).”

[38] “Interplanetary conditions leading to superintense geomagnetic storms (Dst ≤ −250 nT) during solar cycle 23,” by E. Echer, W.D. Gonzalez, B.T. Tsurutani, Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 6, 15 February 2008, DOI: 10.1029/2007GL031755, LINK: https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031755

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2007GL031755

LINK: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL031755

[39] “Probability of catastrophic geomagnetic storm lower than estimated,” ScienceDaily, March 12, 2019, LINK: https://www.ScienceDaily.com/releases/2019/03/190312103717.htm

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “It is estimated that the Dst index associated with the Carrington Event had a value of approximately −850 nT.”

[40] “Probability estimation of a Carrington−like geomagnetic storm,” by David Moriña, Isabel Serra, Pedro Puig & Álvaro Corral, Scientific Reports, volume 9, Article number: 2393, 20 February 2019, DOI: 10.1038/s41598−019−38918−8, LINK: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598−019−38918−8

LINK: https://www.Nature.com/articles/s41598−019−38918−8

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “The Carrington event is the largest known example of geomagnetic storm, occurred by the end of August and early September 1859 and is associated to a minimum Dst under −850−nT.”

[41] “Extreme space weather: impacts on engineered systems and infrastructure,” © Royal Academy of Engineering [small quote used under Fair Use], ISBN 1−903496−95−0, February 2013, Published by:

Royal Academy of Engineering, Prince Philip House, 3 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5DG,

LINK: https://www.raeng.org.uk/spaceweather

LINK: https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/space−weather−full−report

LINK: http://www.ProteccionCivil.org/catalogo/naturales/climaespacial/jt_clima_espacial_2013/presentaciones/p42.pdf

LINK: https://web.Archive.org/web/20130210183311/http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/space_weather_full_report_final.pdf

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “Another significant event was the geomagnetic storm of 8−9 February 1986, which saw Dst drop to −301 nT. This event is significant because of its timing very close to sunspot minimum, which nominally occurred in September 1986, but which would have been in March 1986 if the February storm had not occurred. This storm shows that extreme events can occur at any phase of the solar cycle and it is unwise to focus mitigation efforts only around solar maximum.” (pp.17—18)

[42] “Repercussions of Solar High Energy Protons on Ozone Layer during Super Storms,” by Asheesh Bhargawa, M. Yakub, and A. K. Singh, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics,

Volume 19, Number 1, 22 December 2017; accepted 07 June 2018,

LINK: http://www.raa−journal.org/docs/papers_accepted/2017−0267.pdf

LINK: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674−4527/19/1/2/pdf

LINK: https://www.ResearchGate.net/publication/326345647_Repercussions_of_Solar_High_Energy_Protons_on_Ozone_Layer_during_Super_Storms

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “We have plotted all seven storm events together in Figure 1. The first case of super storm was recorded on February 09, 1986 and was associated with a number of solar flares of low intensities occurred. The peak of the storm was observed at 01:00 UT on February 09. By chance this storm was the largest recorded storm, since 1960 and the eighth largest since 1932 (Allen 1986). Two other factors made this storm particularly unusual (i) it occurred near the minimum of the Sun’s activity cycle; and (ii) it was apparently caused by flares that could be described as moderate to large. The initial phase of this storm was started on 06 Feb at 21:00 UT and continued till Feb 07 till 07:00 UT and the main phase occurred with its minimum value (Dst index −307 nT) on Feb 09 at 01:00 UT, then it reached to its recovery phase and this phase continued till Feb 13 at 23:00 UT.”

[43] “How good is the relationship of solar and interplanetary plasma parameters with geomagnetic storms?,” by R.P. Kane, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, A02213, 25 February 2005, DOI:10.1029/2004JA010799,

LINK: http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JA010799

LINK: https://agupubs.OnlineLibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JA010799

LINK: https://www.ResearchGate.net/publication/41388470_How_good_is_the_relationship_of_solar_and_interplanetary_plasma_parameters_with_geomagnetic_storms

Selected Data from Table 1:

Date: Dst, −nT:

13.03.1989 589

20.10.1989 268

17.11.1989 266

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “There were two giant events in recent times (Halloween events A: 29 October 2003, Dst −401 nT, and B: 20 November 2003, Dst −472 nT, marked in Figure 1 as solid big circles) and the earlier largest event of 13 March 1989 (Dst −589 nT).”

[44] “Anomalous geomagnetic storm of 21–22 January 2005: A storm main phase during northward IMFs,” by A.M. Du, B.T. Tsurutani, W. Sun, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 28 October 2008 DOI: 10.1029/2008JA013284, LINK: https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013284

LINK: https://agupubs.OnlineLibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JA013284

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “The major (minimum Dst = −105 nT) magnetic storm which occurred on 21–22 January 2005 is highly anomalous because the storm main phase (identified by the SYM−H indices) developed during northward interplanetary magnetic fields (IMFs). We believe this to be the first event of its type to be reported in the literature.”

[45] Halo CME‏ [Twitter account: @halocme ] “Solar physicist (alum UtkyAst),” 19 July 2017

Link: https://pic.twitter.com/cpbmn2ro0q

Link: https://Twitter.com/halocme/status/887825185373421568

Link: https://Twitter.com/halocme/status/887825185373421568/photo/1

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “Summary of the consequences of the Bastille Day (14 July) eruption, which also produced a M2.4 solar flare. Min Dst −69 nT, Max Kp 6.0 (G2).pic.twitter.com/cpbmn2ro0q”

[46] “Estimating the solar wind conditions during an extreme geomagnetic storm: a case study of the event that occurred on March 13–14, 1989,” by Tsutomu Nagatsuma, Ryuho Kataoka, & Manabu Kunitake, Earth, Planets and Space, volume 67, Article number: 78, 27 May 2015,

DOI: org/10.1186/s40623−015−0249−4, LINK: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623−015−0249−4

LINK: https://Earth−Planets−Space.SpringerOpen.com/articles/10.1186/s40623−015−0249−4

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “Previous studies have suggested that solar flares of modest intensity and duration can produce severe geomagnetic storms. In the case of the solar sources of the Bastille geomagnetic storm that occurred on July 15–17, 2000, with a Dst minimum of −301 nT, the duration of the solar flare was 40 min (Andrews 2001). In case of the solar sources of the Halloween geomagnetic storm that occurred November 20–21, 2003, with a Dst minimum of −422 nT, three long−durational event (LDE) flares with intensities less than M5.0 were reported (e.g., Gopalswamy et al. 2005). This demonstrates that a strong geoeffective solar wind driver can be produced from a solar flare modest of intensity and duration.”

[47] “SUN−TO−EARTH MHD SIMULATION OF THE 14 JULY 2000 “BASTILLE DAY” ERUPTION,” by Tibor Török, Cooper Downs, Jon A. Linker, R. Lionello, Viacheslav S. Titov, Zoran Mikić, Pete Riley, Ronald M. Caplan, and Janvier Wijaya, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 856, Number 1, 20 March 2019, Published online: 27 March 2018, DOI: 10.3847/1538−4357/aab36d,

LINK: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5882495/

LINK: https://dx.doi.org/10.3847%2F1538−4357%2Faab36d

LINK: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538−4357/aab36d

LINK: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538−4357/aab36d/pdf

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “The Bastille Day eruption occurred on 14 July 2000 in active region (AR) NOAA 9077. It was one of the largest events during the solar cycle 23. The eruption has been extensively studied, and many articles have been published, including a special volume of Solar Physics (2001, Vol. 204, Issue 1–2)...The MC [magnetic cloud], carrying a strong southward magnetic field component (“negative Bz”), produced a very strong geomagnetic storm with a minimum geomagnetic storm index, Dst, lower than −300 nT (Lepping et al. 2001).”

[48] “The Bastille day Magnetic Clouds and Upstream Shocks: Near−Earth Interplanetary Observations,”

by R.P. Lepping, D.B. Berdichevsky, L.F. Burlaga, A.J. Lazarus, J. Kasper, M.D. Desch, C.−C. Wu, D.V. Reames, H.J. Singer, C.W. Smith, K.L. Ackerson, Solar Physics, December 2001, Volume 204, Issue 1–2, pp 285–303, DOI: org/10.1023/A:1014264327855,

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014264327855

LINK: https://Link.Springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1014264327855

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “The energetic charged particle, interplanetary magnetic field, and plasma characteristics of the `Bastille Day' shock and ejecta/magnetic cloud events at 1 AU occurring over the days 14–16 July 2000 are described...Overall this dramatic series of interplanetary events caused a large multi−phase magnetic storm with min Dst lower than −300 nT.”

[49] “1 in 8 Chance of Catastrophic Solar Megastorm by 2020,” by Adam Mann, WIRED,

29 February 2012, LINK: https://www.Wired.com/2012/02/massive−solar−flare

[50] “On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather,” by Pete Riley, Space Weather, 10(2):2012, 02 February 2012, DOI: 10.1029/2011SW000734,

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1029/2011SW000734

LINK: https://www.ResearchGate.net/publication/258723347_On_the_probability_of_occurrence_of_extreme_space_weather

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “By virtue of their rarity, extreme space weather events, such as the Carrington event of 1859, are difficult to study, their rates of occurrence are difficult to estimate, and prediction of a specific future event is virtually impossible. Additionally, events may be extreme relative to one parameter but normal relative to others. In this study, we analyze several measures of the severity of space weather events (flare intensity, coronal mass ejection speeds, Dst, and >30 MeV proton fluences as inferred from nitrate records) to estimate the probability of occurrence of extreme events. By showing that the frequency of occurrence scales as an inverse power of the severity of the event, and assuming that this relationship holds at higher magnitudes, we are able to estimate the probability that an event larger than some criteria will occur within a certain interval of time in the future. For example, the probability of another Carrington event (based on Dst < −850 nT) occurring within the next decade is ~12%. We also identify and address several limitations with this approach. In particular, we assume time stationarity, and thus, the effects of long−term space climate change are not considered. While this technique cannot be used to predict specific events, it may ultimately be useful for probabilistic forecasting.”

[51] “The Day the Sun Brought Darkness,” by Dr. Sten Odenwald, NASA Astronomer, NASA,

March 13, 2009, Last Updated: Aug. 7, 2017 (Editor: Holly Zell),

LINK: https://www.NASA.gov/topics/earth/features/sun_darkness.html

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “On March 13, 1989 the entire province of Quebec, Canada suffered an electrical power blackout. Hundreds of blackouts occur in some part of North America every year. The Quebec Blackout was different, because this one was caused by a solar storm! [] On Friday March 10, 1989 astronomers witnessed a powerful explosion on the sun. Within minutes, tangled magnetic forces on the sun had released a billion−ton cloud of gas. It was like the energy of thousands of nuclear bombs exploding at the same time. The storm cloud rushed out from the sun, straight towards Earth, at a million miles an hour. The solar flare that accompanied the outburst immediately caused short−wave radio interference, including the jamming of radio signals from Radio Free Europe into Russia. It was thought that the signals had been jammed by the Kremlin, but it was only the sun acting up!”

[52] “The Maunder Minimum and Climate Change: Have Historical Records Aided Current Research?,” by John E. Beckman, and Terence J. Mahoney, (Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, E−38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain) Astronomical Society of the Pacific, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 153 (Library and Information Services in Astronomy III, Editors: U. Grothkopf, H. Andernach, S. Stevens−Rayburn, and M. Gomez, Electronic Editor: H. E. Payne), Date: 1998,

LINK: http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj.html

[53] “Are We Headed Towards Another Deep Solar Minimum?,” by David Dickinson,

UNIVERSE TODAY: Space and astronomy news, 22 May 2018,

LINK: https://www.UniverseToday.com/139189/are−we−headed−towards−another−deep−solar−minimum

[54] “Is the Sun heading for another Maunder Minimum? − Precursors of the grand solar minima,” by

Miyahara, H.; Kitazawa, K.; Nagaya, K.; Yokoyama, Y.; Matsuzaki, H.; Masuda, K.; Nakamura, T.; Muraki, Y., Journal of Cosmology, vol. 8, p. 1970−1982, June 2010, Bibliographic Code: 2010JCos....8.1970M,

LINK: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JCos....8.1970M

LINK: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JCos....8.1970M

[55] “Is Earth's Magnetic Field Flipping Soon?,” by Elizabeth Howell, SPACE.com, 30 January 2019,

LINK: https://www.Space.com/43173−earth−magnetic−field−flips−when.html

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “Earth's north magnetic pole is so out of whack that scientists need to update the global magnetic−field model they released only four years ago. Could that be a sign that the magnetic pole will flip soon? [] The World Magnetic Model (WMM) — the name of the updated representation of the magnetic field of Earth — is expected to be released no earlier than Jan. 30. That's about two weeks later than planned, with the delay due to the government shutdown, according to a report in Nature. [] The magnetic pole is moving erratically out of the Canadian Arctic and toward Siberia so unpredictably that it took scientists by surprise. That 2015 update was supposed to remain valid until 2020, Arnaud Chulliat, a geomagnetist at the University of Colorado Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information, told Nature.”

[56] “Earth's magnetic poles could start to flip. What happens then?,” by Jonathan O'callaghan,

PHYS.ORG, 07 December 2018, LINK: https://Phys.org/news/2018−12−earth−magnetic−poles−flip.html

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “As Earth's magnetic shield fails, so do its satellites. First, our communications satellites in the highest orbits go down. Next, astronauts in low−Earth orbit can no longer phone home. And finally, cosmic rays start to bombard every human on Earth. [] This is a possibility that we may start to face not in the next million years, not in the next thousand, but in the next hundred. If Earth's magnetic field were to decay significantly, it could collapse altogether and flip polarity – changing magnetic north to south and vice versa. The consequences of this process could be dire for our planet. [] Most worryingly, we may be headed right for this scenario. [] 'The geomagnetic field has been decaying for the last 3,000 years,' said Dr. Nicolas Thouveny from the European Centre for Research and Teaching of Environmental Geosciences (CEREGE) in Aix−en−Provence, France. 'If it continues to fall down at this rate, in less than one millennium we will be in a critical (period).'...'The geomagnetic field has been losing 30 percent of its intensity in the last 3,000 years,' said Dr. Thouveny. 'From this value, we predict it will drop to near zero in a few centuries or a millennia.'...'This is a region where we see that satellites consistently (experience) electronic failures,' said Prof. Finlay. 'And we don't understand where this weak field region is coming from, what's producing it, and how it might change in the future.' [] Scientists first noticed the SAA [the “South Atlantic Anomaly”] in the 1950s, and since then it has decreased in strength by a further 6%, as well as moving closer to the west.'”(Comments in bracket to define “SAA”; not in original)

[57] “Why Space Radiation Matters,” Page Editor: Kelli Mars, NASA Official: Brian Dunbar,

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), Page Last Updated: June 11, 2018,

LINK: https://www.NASA.gov/analogs/nsrl/why−space−radiation−matters

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “Outside the protective cocoon of the Earth’s atmosphere is a universe full of radiation – it is all around us...Space radiation is made up of three kinds of radiation: particles trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field; particles shot into space during solar flares (solar particle events); and galactic cosmic rays, which are high−energy protons and heavy ions from outside our solar system. All of these kinds of space radiation represent ionizing radiation...Beyond Low Earth Orbit, space radiation may place astronauts at significant risk for radiation sickness, and increased lifetime risk for cancer, central nervous system effects, and degenerative diseases. Research studies of exposure in various doses and strengths of radiation provide strong evidence that cancer and degenerative diseases are to be expected from exposures to galactic cosmic rays (GCR) or solar particle events (SPE)...In addition to a protective atmosphere, we are also lucky that Earth has a magnetic field. It shields us from the full effects of the solar wind and GCR. Without this protection, Earth’s biosphere might not exist as it does today, or would at least be limited to the subsurface.”

[58] “Is it true that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing? What's the effect?,” SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 05 October 1998,

LINK: https://www.ScientificAmerican.com/article/is−it−true−that−the−stren

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “The Earth's magnetic field is constantly changing, and the way which it changes also changes. When describing the magnetic field of the Earth we must specify both the direction and the intensity of the field...At most places there has been a general decrease in the strength over the past century, typically ten percent or so.”

[59] “Magnetic north just changed. Here's what that means.,” by Maya Wei−Haas,

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, 04 February 2019,

LINK: https://www.NationalGeographic.com/science/2019/02/magnetic−north−update−navigation−maps

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “Magnetic north has never sat still. In the last hundred years or so, the direction in which our compasses steadfastly point has lumbered ever northward, driven by Earth's churning liquid outer core some 1,800 miles beneath the surface. Yet in recent years, scientists noticed something unusual: Magnetic north's routine plod has shifted into high gear, sending it galloping across the Northern Hemisphere—and no one can entirely explain why. [] The changes have been so large that scientists began working on an emergency update for the World Magnetic Model, the mathematical system that lays the foundations for navigation, from cell phones and ships to commercial airlines...“We know that the pole now is moving faster than it has for decades, but how often does that happen in the long historical record?” inquires Geoff Reeves, a space scientist at Los Alamos National Lab. [] “We don't have any idea. What we know is what it's doing now is different, and that's always exciting scientifically.””

[60] “Earth’s Magnetic North Pole Moving Towards Siberia,” 21stCenturyWire.com, 11 January 2019, LINK: https://21stCenturyWire.com/2019/01/11/earths−magnetic−north−pole−moving−towards−siberia

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “The north magnetic pole sped across the International Date Line last year at a rate of 55 km per year, more than three times as fast as it moved before the mid−1990s. Now located in the Eastern Hemisphere, it’s moving away from Canada and approaching Siberia.”

[61] “Earth's Magnetic Pole Is Wandering, Lurching Toward Siberia,” by Laura Geggel, LiveScience,

14 January 2019, LINK: https://www.LiveScience.com/64486−earth−magnetic−pole−moving.html

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “News of the magnetic north's meanderings isn't exactly new. Researchers figured out in the 1800s that magnetic north tended to drift. Then, in the mid−1990s, it began moving faster, from just over 9 miles (15 kilometers) a year to about 34 miles (55 km) annually, Nature reported. In 2018, magnetic north skipped over the International Date Line and entered the Eastern Hemisphere.”

[62] “What would happen if the magnetic field of the Earth suddenly changed?,” NASA,

LINK: https://image.gsfc.NASA.gov/poetry/ask/q279.html

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “If the magnetic field of the Earth suddenly changed, and this DOES happen naturally every 250,000 years or so, the consequences would be fascinating. For life, we can see from the fossil record that the past field changes had no significant effect on living organisms. This is most curious because the field reversal ( North magnetic pole shifting to antarctica and the South magnetic pole shifting to the arctic region in the Northern Hemisphere) one might expect the field to go to zero strength for a century or so. This would let cosmic rays freely penetrate to the Earth's surface and cause mutations. This seems not to have had much effect in the past, so we probably don't really know what is going on during these field reversals. There have been a dozen of them over the last few million years, documented in the rock which has emerged and solidified along the mid−Atlantic Ridge where continental plates are slowly separating. These epochs form parallel bands all long the ridge where the rock has stored a fossilized image of the local orientation of the Earth's magnetic field for the last few million years.” [Emphasis added in bold for clarity, not in original.]

[63] “Earth’s Magnetic Field Could Take Longer to Flip Than Previously Thought: New research suggests a polarity reversal of the planet takes about 22,000 years, significantly longer than former estimates,”

by Emily Toomey, SMITHSONIAN.COM aka the Smithsonian Institution, 07 August 2019, LINK:

https://www.SmithsonianMag.com/science−nature/earths−magnetic−field−could−take−longer−flip−previously−thought−180972843

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: ““When the [magnetic] field is weak, which is during reversals, the main dipole field collapses to something on the order of ten percent of its normal strength,” Singer says. This collapse could spell trouble for life on Earth, since the magnetic field stabilizes ozone molecules, shielding the planet from ultraviolet radiation.”(Emphasis added in bold and underline for clarity, not in original.)

[64] “Tug−of−war drives magnetic north sprint,”EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY, 15 May 2019, LINK: https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Tug−of−war_drives_magnetic_north_sprint

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “Between 1990 and 2005 magnetic north accelerated from its historic speed of 0–15 km a year, to its present speed of 50–60 km a year. In late October 2017, it crossed the international date line, passing within 390 km of the geographic pole, and is now heading south.” [Emphasis in bold−faced underline for clarity; not in original]

[65] “The whole atmosphere response to changes in the Earth's magnetic field from 1900 to 2000: An example of “top−down” vertical coupling,” by Ingrid Cnossen, Hanli Liu, Hua Lu, American Geophysical Union, 27 June 2016, DOI: 10.1002/2016JD024890, LINK: https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD024890

LINK: https://agupubs.OnlineLibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JD024890

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “The northern magnetic pole motion has even been speeding up since the 1970s to a speed of 40–60−km/yr [Newitt et al., 2002; Olsen and Mandea, 2007]. At the same time, the magnetic dipole moment has been decreasing by about 5–7% per century since 1840 [Gubbins et al., 2006; Mandea and Purucker, 2005]. The strongest changes in the Earth's magnetic field over the past few centuries have taken place over South America and the southern Atlantic Ocean, approximately corresponding to the South Atlantic Anomaly region.”[Emphasis in bold−faced underline for clarity; not in original]

[66] “MAGNETIC NORTH POLE IS MOVING AT AN ACCELERATED RATE,”

Magazine of Engineering Dyna, “Official Organ of Science and Technology of the Federation of Spansih [sic] Associations for Industrial Engineers,” 01 April 2019, [Editor's Note: “Spansih” in original, misspelled, and probably meant to say: “Spanish.”]

LINK: https://www.DynaPubli.com/news−4/the−magnetic−north−pole−is−moving−at−an−accelerated−rate

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “The movement of the earth's north magnetic pole, the reference to which the compasses point, is well known and controlled, at least since it was fixed by Ross in 1831. Every five years its exact position is determined and the trajectory model is checked, the last time being in 2015. [] The year of its first determination was in the arctic islands off the north coast of Canada and since then it has moved slowly and oscillatingly, but for most of the 20th century, it has followed a path towards the north pole at a speed of around 10 km/year. [] From 1990 onwards things changed significantly, with a determined northern trajectory being detected, which would take it to the coasts of Siberia and a considerable increase in its speed up to 50 or 60 km/year at present.” [Emphasis in bold−faced underline for clarity; not in original]

[67] “Magnetic north is shifting fast. What’ll happen to the northern lights?: As magnetic north shifts increasingly away from the geologic north pole – towards Siberia – studies suggest the northern lights could move with it.,” Posted by EarthSky Voices in EARTH, May 22, 2019,

LINK: https://EarthSky.org/earth/magnetic−north−pole−shift−northern−lights

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “Our planetary magnetic field has many advantages. For over 2,000 years, travellers have been able to use it to navigate across the globe. Some animals even seem to be able to find their way thanks to the magnetic field. But, more importantly than that, our geomagnetic field helps protect all life on Earth.”

[68] “Scientists Are Zapping Fake Electrical Grids to Help Us Survive an EMP Attack,” by Jennifer Walter, Discover Magazine, 08 August 2019,

LINK: http://blogs.DiscoverMagazine.com/crux/2019/08/08/emp−electromagnetic−pulse−attack−electrical−grid−solar−flare

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “Surprise! Your Power is Out [] It wasn’t a coincidence that 36 strings of streetlights suddenly went dead in Honolulu on July 9, 1962. That same day, the United States tested Starfish Prime, a nuclear bomb detonated above the Pacific Ocean that sent out high−altitude electromagnetic pulses – or HEMPs, as they’re known – and accidentally took Honolulu’s power out with it. [] The bomb test was part of Operation Fishbowl, the United States’ Cold War−era program to develop high−altitude nuclear weapons that could detonate above the atmosphere and emit high radiation to compromise electronics on the ground. And even though the test site was about 900 miles from Honolulu, the blast was strong enough to be seen from the island and take out a transmission station.” (Bold face in original; not edited except by use of brackets to indicate paragraph breaks)

[69] “Trump Acts on Critical Infrastructure Resiliency Against EMP Threats,”

by Sonal Patel, POWER, 26 March 2019,

LINK: https://www.PowerMag.com/trump−acts−on−critical−infrastructure−resiliency−against−emp−threats

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “President Trump has signed an executive order (EO) to boost coordination for and national resilience against electromagnetic pulse (EMP) threats—both from nuclear warfare and natural events like solar superstorms. The action suggests new federal mandates to protect critical infrastructure against EMP events and attacks may be on the horizon...Industry and academia have warned for years—and the DHS has internally recognized that—EMP events, and especially high−altitude EMP (HEMP) events resulting from detonation of a nuclear device, could severely damage critical electrical infrastructure...If the E3 pulse is high enough and long enough, it can result in grid collapse and potentially damage transformers, experts warn. [] Solar weather events of sufficient intensity can cause E3−type electromagnetic impacts. In 1989, for example, a geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) caused a regional grid collapse within 92 seconds in the Hydro−Quebec power system that left six million customers without power for up to nine hours. The threat of GMDs has been played up with good reason: Space weather researchers currently estimate a 6% to 12% chance that a Carrington−class storm—a solar storm comparable in size to the largest on record—is likely to hit the earth within the next 10 years.”

[70] “Powerful solar storm narrowly missed Earth in 2012,” by Scott Sutherland, Meteorologist/Science Writer, The Weather Network, 02 May 2014, LINK:

https://www.TheWeatherNetwork.com/news/articles/powerful−solar−storm−narrowly−missed−earth−in−2012/26473

Small “Fair Use” Quote: “The current 'K−index' used to rate solar flares wasn't in use then, but studies have estimated the strength of the Carrington super flare at somewhere around X40 or higher, which is well off the maximum practical end of the scale (which only goes up to X9.9). [] However, as it turns out, it doesn't take one of these scale−shattering solar flares to produce this kind of powerful CME, and this means that we could be at a higher risk from solar flares than we previously thought...Given that this CME missed us by roughly 9 days, the use of the word 'narrowly' when describing how close it came to us may seem a bit excessive. However, when you look at those 9 days compared to the length of our year (the time it takes Earth to travel once around the Sun), the distance between us and the CME was only about 3 per cent of our orbital path. That's a pretty narrow miss.”

COMMENT: Actually, 9 days divided by 365¼ days is only 2.46%, rounded to 3 significant figures.

[71] “Time to be afraid − preparing for the next big solar storm: Kemp,” by John Kemp, REUTERS, 25 July 2014, LINK: https://www.Reuters.com/article/us−electricity−solarstorms−kemp/time−to−be−afraid−preparing−for−the−next−big−solar−storm−kemp−idUSKBN0FU20Q20140725

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “What frightened the solar scientists was that the July 2012 storm would have had a Dst index of up to −1,200 nT if it had struck Earth, making it much worse than the Carrington Event.”

[72] “Variations in the geomagnetic dipole moment over the last 12 000 years,” by S. Yang, H. Odah, J. Shaw, Geophysical Journal International, Volume 140, Issue 1, January 2000, Pages 158–162,

01 January 2000, DOI: 10.1046/j.1365−246x.2000.00011.x,

LINK: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365−246x.2000.00011.x

LINK: https://Academic.oup.com/gji/article/140/1/158/707986

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “To a first approximation, the magnetic field of the Earth is dipolar. The magnetic moment and orientation of the dipole are known to have changed with time from palaeomagnetic and archaeomagnetic measurements. An analysis of archaeointensity results (McElhinny & Senanayake 1982) has shown that the Earth’s dipole moment was twice the present−day value 2000 years ago, whilst between 5000 and 6000 years ago it was much weaker. Over the past 15 years, many new archaeointensity results have been published.” [Emphasis added in underline and bold for clarity; not in original]

[73] “The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young,” by Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International, March 1998; updated August 2014,

LINK: https://Creation.com/the−earths−magnetic−field−evidence−that−the−earth−is−young

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “...archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today,” [Emphasis added in underline bold for clarity; not in original], citing R.T. Merrill and M.W. McElhinney [sic: Misspelled. Is actually spelled: “McElhinny,” without the trailing 'e'], The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Academic Press, London, pp. 101–106, 1983, one later edition of this book which is linked at: https://www.Amazon.com/Magnetic−Field−Earth−Paleomagnetism−International/dp/B01F82CVW4

and cited as: “The Magnetic Field of the Earth: Paleomagnetism, the Core, and the Deep Mantle (International Geophysics Series),” by Ronald T. Merrill (1996−09−03) Hardcover (ASIN: B01F82CVW4)

by Ronald T. Merrill; Michael W. McElhinny; Phillip L. McFadden (Author),

and another edition [Publisher: Academic Press; 1st edition (August 14, 1998)] linked here:

LINK: https://www.Amazon.com/Magnetic−Field−Earth−Paleomagnetism−International/dp/012491246X

and cited as: “The Magnetic Field of the Earth, Volume 63: Paleomagnetism, the Core, and the Deep Mantle (International Geophysics),” 1st Edition (ISBN−13: 978−0124912465; ISBN−10: 012491246X),

by Ronald T. Merrill (Author), Michael W. McElhinny (Editor), Phillip L. McFadden (Editor)

[74] “The Erosion of Continents as a Creationist Clock,” by Kevin Mellem, Department of Earth Sciences, University of South Dakota, Honors Seminar (UHON 390), Fall 2005,

LINK: http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/magnetic_field.html

Small 'Fair Use' Quote: “[Dr. Thomas] Barnes used the data of McDonald and Gunst to plot an exponential curve and, by extrapolating the observed data backward into time using his exponential decay equation, Barnes claimed that the magnetic field was approximately 40 percent stronger in 1000 A.D. than it is today (Sarfati 1998).” [Comments added in basket to clarify Dr. Barnes's first and last name; Emphasis added in underline and bold for clarity; not in original]

[75] Image 1., Photo of Earth's sun, titled: “He II (304 Å)” ; Taken at 19:19 UT, 28 February 2000,as depicted in the NSSDCA Photo Gallery (the “NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive,” NASA's archive for space science mission data), and released into the public domain. Original image reduced to 30% resolution to squeeze it into this paper—and used for illustration purposes only. Author/curator: Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II ; NSSDCA, Mail Code 690.1, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, PHONE: +1−301−286−1187, Email: Ed.Bell@nasa.gov, NASA Official: Dr. David R. Williams , Version 2.5, 10 December 2012, Source URL for image: https://NSSDC.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/solar/eit_sl_304.jpg

Article URL for image: https://nssdc.gsfc.NASA.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery−solar.html

Copyright statement from NASA: “NSSDCA Photo Gallery: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) [] Can I use the images from NSSDCA's Photo Gallery or do I need to obtain permission from somebody first? [] Unless otherwise noted, the images presented on NSSDCA's Photo Gallery are in the public domain. As such, they may be used for any purpose. NSSDCA does ask, however, that you acknowledge NASA and the NSSDCA as the supplier of the data. In addition, where the source of the image (by project or as a specific person) is credited in the text, you should also acknowledge that, too. [] In addition, NASA further requires that NASA images cannot be used to imply endorsement by NASA.”

LINK: https://NSSDC.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery−faq.html#use

[76] Image 2., The sun hits earth's protective magnetic field with a CME (coronal mass ejection), and/or a solar flare; artist's rendition, from “The Impact of Flares,” NASA, NASA Official: Gordon Holman; Web Curator: Kim Tolbert; no known copyright, and assumed to be released into the public domain, as shown for other official governmental work, and cited in reference [75], above. If there is a copyright, then this author claims “Fair Use” for academic research, criticism, and commentary of copyrighted works. Image used for illustration purposes only, in this paper. Unaltered original image—and used for illustration purposes only.

Image LINK: https://hesperia.gsfc.NASA.gov/rhessi3/pics/NASAsunEarthConnection.jpg

Article LINK: https://hesperia.gsfc.NASA.gov/rhessi3/mission/science/the−impact−of−flares/index.html

[77] Image 3., GRAPH: The Maunder Minimum, a time in history, from 1645—1715, when sunspots were

very rare, and where solar events (CME's, solar flares, solar storms, etc.) were at a low ebb, from “SDO Science,” NASA, NASA Official: Dean Pesnell; Webmaster: Kevin Addison; no known copyright, and assumed to be released into the public domain, as shown for other official governmental work, and cited in reference [75], above. If there is a copyright, then this author claims “Fair Use” for academic research, criticism, and commentary of copyrighted works. Image used for illustration purposes only, in this paper. Original image reduced to 65% resolution to squeeze it into this paper—and used for illustration purposes only.

Image LINK: https://sdo.gsfc.NASA.gov/assets/img/site/sunspot_web.png

Article LINK: https://sdo.gsfc.NASA.gov/mission/science.php

[78] Image 4., Earth's protective geomagnetic field during normal activity, between pole flips / reversals (depicted on the left), and during geomagnetic reversals (depicted on the right).from “Reversing the Geomagnetic Field,” by Aaron Gronstal (SOURCE: International Journal of Astrobiology), published by NASA, NASA Official: Mary A. Voytek; Last Updated: September 26, 2019; no known copyright, and assumed to be released into the public domain, as shown for other official governmental work, and cited in reference [75], above. If there is a copyright, then this author claims “Fair Use” for academic research, criticism, and commentary of copyrighted works. Image used for illustration purposes only, in this paper. Unaltered original image—and used for illustration purposes only; IMAGE CREDIT: NASA.

Image LINK: https://astrobiology.NASA.gov/uploads/filer_public_thumbnails/filer_public/50/29/50294d28−1475−4a84−a6e2−b9238fbb33cb/54559main_comparison1_strip.gif__1240x510_q85_subject_location−109%2C115_subsampling−2.jpg

Article LINK: https://astrobiology.NASA.gov/news/reversing−the−geomagnetic−field

Source LINK: https://www.Cambridge.org/core/journals/international−journal−of−astrobiology/article/div−classtitledoes−the−planetary−dynamo−go−cycling−on−re−examining−the−evidence−for−cycles−in−magnetic−reversal−ratediv/D76239E251882C4BCADFDEC81B0BBC40

[79] Image 5., from “The Aurora!,” NASA, A NASA/IMAGE Resource in space science education; an image of the Aurora Borealis, the Northern Lights, and published by NASA, at the links below; no known copyright, and assumed to be released into the public domain, as shown for other official governmental work, and cited in reference [75], above. If there is a copyright, then this author claims “Fair Use” for academic research, criticism, and commentary of copyrighted works. Image used for illustration purposes only, in this paper. Unaltered original image—and used for illustration purposes only; IMAGE CREDIT: Jan Curtis, 2571 NW 3rd Terrace, Gresham, OR 97030, Email: JanCurtis.nl@gmail.com

Image LINK: https://image.gsfc.NASA.gov/poetry/educator/curtis1.jpg

Article Link: https://image.gsfc.NASA.gov/poetry/educator/Aurora79.html

Author Page LINK: http://climate.gi.Alaska.edu/Curtis/curtis.html

[80] Image 6., from “The Aurora!,” NASA, A NASA/IMAGE Resource in space science education; an image of the Aurora Borealis, the Northern Lights, and published by NASA, at the links below; no known copyright, and assumed to be released into the public domain, as shown for other official governmental work, and cited in reference [75], above. If there is a copyright, then this author claims “Fair Use” for academic research, criticism, and commentary of copyrighted works. Image used for illustration purposes only, in this paper. Unaltered original image—and used for illustration purposes only; IMAGE CREDIT: Dick Hutchinson; Image LINK: https://image.gsfc.NASA.gov/poetry/educator/hutch3.jpg

Article Link: https://image.gsfc.NASA.gov/poetry/educator/Aurora79.html

[81] Image 7., Photograph of Earth: View of the Eastern Pacific Ocean (just off the coast of South America) from Galileo, as depicted in the NSSDCA Photo Gallery (the “NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive,” NASA's archive for space science mission data), and released into the public domain. Original image reduced to 30% resolution to squeeze it into this paper—and used for illustration purposes only. Author/curator: Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II ; NSSDCA, Mail Code 690.1, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, PHONE: +1−301−286−1187, Email: Ed.Bell@nasa.gov, NASA/GSFC Security and Privacy Statement, NASA Official: Dr. David R. Williams, Version 3.5, 09 September 2003

Source URL for image: https://nssdc.gsfc.NASA.gov/image/planetary/earth/gal_east−pacific.jpg

Article URL for image: https://nssdc.gsfc.NASA.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery−earth.html

Copyright statement from NASA: “NSSDCA Photo Gallery: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) [] Can I use the images from NSSDCA's Photo Gallery or do I need to obtain permission from somebody first? [] Unless otherwise noted, the images presented on NSSDCA's Photo Gallery are in the public domain. As such, they may be used for any purpose. NSSDCA does ask, however, that you acknowledge NASA and the NSSDCA as the supplier of the data. In addition, where the source of the image (by project or as a specific person) is credited in the text, you should also acknowledge that, too. [] In addition, NASA further requires that NASA images cannot be used to imply endorsement by NASA.”

LINK: https://NSSDC.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery−faq.html#use

[82] Image 8., Photo of one of the Voyager spacecraft, NASA's Mariner series,as depicted in the NSSDCA Photo Gallery (the “NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive,” NASA's archive for space science mission data), and released into the public domain. Original image reduced to 65% resolution to squeeze it into this paper—and used for illustration purposes only. Author/Curator: Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II, Mail Code 690.1, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, PHONE: +1−301−286−1187, Email:

Ed.Bell@NASA.gov, NASA Official: Dr. David R. Williams, Version 2.5, Last Updated: 26 November 2018, Source URL for image:

https://nssdc.gsfc.NASA.gov/image/spacecraft/voyager.jpg

Article URL for image: https://nssdc.gsfc.NASA.gov/planetary/voyager.html

Copyright statement from NASA: “NSSDCA Photo Gallery: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) [] Can I use the images from NSSDCA's Photo Gallery or do I need to obtain permission from somebody first? [] Unless otherwise noted, the images presented on NSSDCA's Photo Gallery are in the public domain. As such, they may be used for any purpose. NSSDCA does ask, however, that you acknowledge NASA and the NSSDCA as the supplier of the data. In addition, where the source of the image (by project or as a specific person) is credited in the text, you should also acknowledge that, too. [] In addition, NASA further requires that NASA images cannot be used to imply endorsement by NASA.”

LINK: https://NSSDC.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery−faq.html#use

[83] Image 9., a “Linear Regression” graph created by this researcher (Gordon Wayne Watts), using Graph, Version 4.3, Build 384 (Copyright Ivan Johansen, 2007, Email: Graph@Padowan.dk ; Website: http://www.Padowan.dk), with trendlines representing both an Exponential trendline and selected orders of power of Polynomial trendlines. DATA used for this graph are the five (5) data points taken from Table 4. of this paper, and using “49%” for the 5^th and last data point, where a choice is given. This graph is shown twice in this paper: Once as an “8½−x−11” portrait−view compliant image, embedded within this paper, and with “cutoff” artifacts of the image manually corrected, and with the formula legend arbitrarily enlarged for viewing convenience; and, again, as and “11−x−8½” landscape−view compliant image, as a separate PDF file, attached to the bottom of this paper, and manually appended using “PDF Split and Merge basic,” Version 2.2.4., Console version: 2.4.3e Developed by: Andrea Vacondio Build date: 25−Jun−2014 Java home: C:\Program Files\Java\jre6 Java version: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment 1.6.0_16−b01 Max memory: 254Mb Configuration file: C:\Program Files\PDF Split And Merge Basic\pdfsam−config.xml Website: http://www.PdfSam.org

[84] Image 10., a “Linear Regression” graph created by this researcher (Gordon Wayne Watts), using Graph, Version 4.3, Build 384 (Copyright Ivan Johansen, 2007, Email: Graph@Padowan.dk ; Website: http://www.Padowan.dk), with trendlines representing both an Exponential trendline and selected orders of power of Polynomial trendlines. DATA used for this graph are the five (5) data points s taken from Table 4. of this paper, and using “5%” for the 5^th and last data point, where a choice is given. This graph is shown twice in this paper: Once as an “8½−x−11” portrait−view compliant image, embedded within this paper, and with “cutoff” artifacts of the image manually corrected, and with the formula legend arbitrarily enlarged for viewing convenience; and, again, as and “11−x−8½” landscape−view compliant image, as a separate PDF file, attached to the bottom of this paper, and manually appended using “PDF Split and Merge basic,” Version 2.2.4., Console version: 2.4.3e Developed by: Andrea Vacondio Build date: 25−Jun−2014 Java home: C:\Program Files\Java\jre6 Java version: Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment 1.6.0_16−b01 Max memory: 254Mb Configuration file: C:\Program Files\PDF Split And Merge Basic\pdfsam−config.xml Website: http://www.PdfSam.org

I
mage 7. Photograph of Earth: View of the Eastern Pacific

Ocean (just off the coast of South America) from Galileo[81]

6. Discussion: [PART II: My key findings – discussion]

In this section, I will attempt to assess the probabilities of estimation of a catastrophic event. Initially, it is appropriate to see where prior research has taken us here. First off, Riley[49][50] estimated the probability of another Carrington−class storm to be “occurring within the next decade is ~12%,” using the Power Law, and went on to explain it thus: “A final tool that will be useful for our analysis relies on the average time to the next event to compute a probability of occurrence. For Bernoulli distributions, that is, independent events that either happen or do not, with a constant probability of occurrence, it can be shown that the probability of occurrence is given by

P(x) = [1/(1+τ)],

where τ is the average time to the event. Thus, an event that occurs once every 100 years would have a probability, P = 1/(1 + 100/10) = 0.09, or 9% of occurring during the next decade.”[50] Looking at his formula, and comparing it with his example (in the text of his paper), it is clear that Riley didn't quite state the formula correctly: He accidentally used a denominator of (1+τ), that is, (1+A), e.g., “one plus the average time to event,” and not accounting for the time−span under consideration—a decade here. But, ignoring Riley's typo, and correcting his formula, rather, it should be stated as follows:

P(x) = [1/(1+ A/t)], where:

P(x) = Probability of the event;

A = Average time to event; and,

t = time−span under consideration for probability of occurrence.

Analysis of the Riley exponential formula

That said, it's also clear that his formula is exponential in nature, and (more−importantly) it seems “sound” on both the extremes and the “center” of the curve—let's use 100−years as the “average” time between Carrington Event's in this example:

(1) Set “t = 1 year,” and we get P(x) = [1/(1 + A/t)] = [1/(1 + 100/1)] = 1/101 = 0.099= 0.99% (to 3 significant figures, when considering the final percent value), which seems reasonable, because the odds of a once−in−a−lifetime event are quite low for just the next year.

(2) Set “t = 1,000 years,” and we get P(x) = [1/(1 + A/t)] = [1/(1+ 100/1,000)] = 1/(1 + 0.1) = 0.909= 90.9% (to 3 significant figures, when considering the final percent value), which seems reasonable, because the odds of any event are quite high when looking at a very long time−frame.

(3) Set “t = 100 year,” and we get P(x) = [1/(1 + A/t)] = [1/(1 + 100/100)] = 1/(1 + 1) = 0.5 = 50.0% (to 3 significant figures, when considering the final percent value), which seems reasonable, because the odds of a once−in−a−lifetime event are probably about 50% when considering the entire “life−time” of, say, a person who lives to be a hundred years old. If we assume that Riley obtained 12% for his final figure for the next decade, then we can solve for the time−frame he assumed, using P(x) = [1/(1 + A/t)]

0.12 = [1 / (A / 10)] – rearranging this, we get:

0.12 * (A / 10) = 1.00 – rearranging this, we get:

0.12*A / 10 = 1.00 – multiplying out, we get:

0.012*A = 1.00 – and, solving for A, we get:

A = 1.00 / 0.012 (in years, of course) = 83.33 years. Not sure how he derived 83.3 years, but considering that Riley's paper was written in 2012, and the Carrington Event was in 1859, we have a time−lapse of 153 years, and two such “Carrington−class” events, both the namesake event in 1859, and then the “Solar Super Storm of 2012,” which prompted all the attention from scientists. Assuming he estimated 2 such events every 153 years, this would mean an “average” time of 76.5 years between events, close to my 83.33 derivation.

Using 76.5 as my baseline average, P(x) = [1/(1 + A/t)] = [1/(1 + 76.5/10.0)] = [1 / (1 + 7.65)] = 11.561% to five significant figures, almost the 12% figure stated in the paper, and a 1−in−8.65 chance (close to the news article's interpretation in WIRED magazine.[49] In fact, Riley also had stated: “Additionally, since the event occurred only ~150 years ago, it is a constant reminder that a similar event could reoccur any day.”[50] Using 150−years as my average time between events, with an average time of once every 75−years, we get a P(x) = [ 1 / (1 + 75/10) ] = 11.76% chance. That seems right because the “average time to event” is half of either extreme: “Zero−time” and the average time to “next” event, since, on average, you would be in “the middle” of such a time−line.

However, Moriña[40], using a “counting process with Weibull inter−occurrence times in order to estimate the probability of extreme geomagnetic events,” came up with a much lower figure in a more−recent paper, which finds that: “the probability of occurrence on the next decade of an extreme event of a magnitude comparable or larger than the well−known Carrington event of 1859 is explored, and estimated to be between 0.46% and 1.88% (with a 95% confidence), a much lower value than those reported in the existing literature.”(Bold face for clarity; not in original)[40] What are Weibull−based statistical analyses, you might ask? Moriña helps us by explaining that: “the scale parameter of the inter−occurrence time [in other words, the time between geomagnetic storms of a given intensity] distribution grows exponentially with the absolute value of the intensity threshold defining the storm, whereas the shape parameter keeps rather constant.”(My comments in brackets to clarify; not in original)[40] In other words, he is saying that a storm twice as powerful does not necessarily have “half” the chance of occurrence, but rather, less, because there's an exponential element to the probabilities. Thus, the data on smaller, more−recent, geomagnetic storms might lead researchers to underestimate the average time to a given storm of a larger magnitude, or, put another way, to overestimate the probabilities of occurrence.

So, Riley estimates about 12% probability[50], and Moriña estimates[40] about 1.17% (taking the average of “0.46% and 1.88%,” from his research paper). These results are very much in disagreement, opening the door to confusion, prompting this researcher to “look further.”

While statistics is an interesting avenue to pursue in analyzing data, this paper will not follow Moriña's path, but, rather, do something much more concrete: We will look at actual storms in recent decades, and make assumptions based on a direct time−averaging method so see “how often” storms of a given magnitude occur, that is, the average time between geomagnetic storms of known magnitude and danger levels. To obtain a “baseline” for 'which' storms to count, we look mainly as the published news media of damage associated with a given storm, but also make inferences based on the Dst values of the storms. With that model, here are my findings:

My data lists forty−six (46) verified storms from 1859 to 2012. (There may have been more that were overlooked due to the human limitations of this researcher, so this is a “low” estimate.) In every single entry, above, there was either wide−spread damage and interference, or at least the inference that it was possible, when looking at the Dst readings of storms which garnered lesser levels of press coverage. While not all of the storms were grave threats, nonetheless, all 46 of the geomagnetic storms I list in my research are documented to have the potential for wide−spread damage to the power grid, telecommunications, and such.

This researcher can't find any more recent severe geomagnetic events, in published news media reports, since the 2012 super storm, and will infer that we are at a low level of geomagnetic disturbance at this time. As such, the “time span” in question will use from late 1859 to late 2019 as the base time period, i.e., 160 years. With 160 years and 46 dangerous storms, we can safely infer that the “average time” between is a little bit less than 3 and−a−half years. (160 years / 46 events = 3.478 years/event, to 4 significant figures.)

While my standards for what constitutes a “dangerous” storm are slightly lower than the extreme case, it is clear from looking at the published news reports of each of the 46 events that each one either did, or could very easily, cause significant damage to the electrical and communications grid.

In this manner, the extreme geomagnetic events are not unlike solar eclipses, category−5 hurricanes, volcanoes, and large−magnitude earthquakes: They are happening all the time around the world – example: A solar eclipse over the ocean, where there are no observers, or an earthquake in an uninhabited region, a “submarine volcano” (underwater), which is not always in plain sight, or a “fish storm,” a hurricane or tropical storm, with a trajectory towards the open Atlantic, which poses no threat to land.

But, unlike the hurricanes (which pose the same threat in the technology era, as they have in past centuries), the geomagnetic storms in modern times pose a far larger threat than in decades past: We now have very sensitive GPS, satellites, and power & communications grids—and, by extension, a nation's economy and social stability are impacted when (not if, but when) we get hit with “the big one.” When past geomagnetic storms hit, we did not have such delicate integrated circuitry, computers, and electrical & communications infrastructure, which is particularly susceptible to damage. But, as many recent geomagnetic events have shown us, the threat is real, interfering with aircraft communications[20], several times tempting us to go to war with the Soviet Union[20][51] (or other nations), when, in fact, they were not the ones disrupting communications, even setting off underwater sea−mines.[18] I estimated above an average of only 3.478 years between severe geomagnetic storms, which implies a very high probability of such a storm in the next decade:

P(x) = [1/(1+ A/t)] = [ 1 / (1 + 3.478/10) ] = 0.7419 = about a 75% chance of such an event within the next decade. But recalling that only some of the geomagnetic events in my table are documented to have actually done damage, it would only be fair to recalculate this probability:

DATA, from Table 1., above: Number of storms with documented damage to the grid: 14

(List of storms from my table: 1,2,3,4,6,10,24,25,28,29,30,35,40,41) – From 1859 to 2019 is 160 years, and that means that there's an average of about 11.43 years between storms. Re−calculating yields this result:

P(x) = [1/(1+ A/t)] = [ 1 / (1 + 11.43/10) ] = 0.4667 = about a 47% chance of such an event with the next decade.

That estimate is much higher than either of the previously reported estimates, but each of these events (except the “Near Miss of 2012”) were smaller, less−destructive Solar Geomagnetic storms than the “Carrington Event,” itself –and are, as such, expected to happen more often.

But I stand by my estimate because each – and every one – of the fourteen (14) named storms on my table, above, are documented to have caused widespread damage to the grid (or, in few cases, threatened the lives of our astronauts—and caused them major discomfort in the interim). Moreover, even those events listed on my table which don't have any record of having caused damage are in most, or all, are documented to have been very powerful by several metrics: Dst (Disturbance−storm time) measurements, GLE (ground level enhancement) measurements, size & strength of CME's (coronal mass ejections), and brilliance of polar

lights, as well as how far south the “Northern lights” are said to have been seen, as well as size, strength, and/or quantity of solar flares, even for solar storms with “weak” Dst readings.

So, while my calculated probability is for a storm of “less than” the original Carrington Event, nonetheless, each of the 14 examples on my table are documented to have done actual and tangible damage, even if not on a “planet−wide” scale in every case. Thus, the threats posed are probably greater than previously reported because previous researchers overlooked events that knocked out only some (but not all) of the planet's power or communications grids. With threatening geomagnetic events occurring, on average, every 11 or 12 years, we now turn to other factors to consider when weighing estimation of probabilities.

The July 2012 “Superstorm,” narrowly missed earth by only about nine (9) days [about 2.46% of earth's 365¼−day orbit] from its trajectory[70], with a peak Dst value of −1,182 nT, as reported by Space Weather[31], or even a peak Dst value of −1,200 nT, as reported by REUTERS[71], thus with such a catastrophic sized storm, a “near miss” of only 2.46% of earth's orbit certainly qualifies as a near miss, and I shall assign this a “½” value of an event: It nearly took out the planet, from top−to−bottom.

In this last probability calculation, I will assume that the “Near Miss of 2012” counts for a “half” of an event, and the actual Carringtom Event counts as “1” event. Thus, I derive an average of 1.5 Carrington−Class Events every 160 years, and come up with this final result: An event occurs—on average—every 106.67 years:

P(x) = [1/(1+ A/t)] = [ 1 / (1 + 106.666667/10) ] = 0.0857143 or about 8.57% rounded to 3 significant figures.

My findings of an 8.57% chance of another Carrington Event are indeed between the Riley estimates of about 12% probability[50], and Moriña's estimates[40] about 1.17% (taking the average of “0.46% and 1.88%,” from his research paper). I stand by my estimate as it's methods are sound and its results are between both extremes in the reported literature.

CAVEATS:

My probability estimation, here, is probably low for several reasons: First, due to human limitations, I can not review all the solar geomagnetic events in the peer−reviewed scientific literature—meaning there were certainly some data points I overlooked when calculating the probabilities of another catastrophic event. Secondly, the upcoming Maunder Minimum is not a certain event. (And, even during solar 'minimums', there have been notably strong solar geomagnetic events), so even given a 'low', there is no guarantee of safety.) Thirdly, we have not even accounted for the accelerating collapse (decreases in strength) of earth's protective magnetic field—which protect earth from severe solar geomagnetic events. Bonus fourth factor: While the upcoming “magnetic flip,” in and of itself, does not place earth in any more jeopardy or danger for severe geomagnetic storms (other than determining which areas of earth have the strongest magnetic protection, based on the vectorial direction of the magnetic field, which protects most at the equator where magnetic flux is perpendicular to solar rays—and not parallel, as is with the field at the north and south poles), the moving magnetic north and south poles make GPS and other navigation less accurate. And, when the field inevitably collapses (as it has many times in earth's past history), there will be no reliable magnetic north for reference by GPS, compasses, or other geomagnetically−referenced navigation. Bonus fifth factor: Even if my estimation is low, the damage done by such a severe event is catastrophic, and it is good to err on the safe side. Given that both the geomagnetic field collapse and the pole “flip” are accelerating at unprecedented rates, caution is in order, and prediction of future field strength is anyone's guess.

Below, I will address additional factors of importance.

7. The upcoming “Maunder Minimum”: [PART II: Key findings – continued]

The “Maunder Minimum” is a time period from 1645 to 1715 in which sunspots became exceedingly rare.[52] Without going into details, it is thought that we might be entering another “minimum” solar period.[53] A quick glance at the graph posted on the Universe Today article[53] is clear: Solar cycles 22, 23, and 24 get progressively smaller. In fact, Miyahara goes on to conclude that “The solar cycle is likely to show characteristic precursory features leading up to intervals of sunspot absence, and which can be differentiated by events of different durations.”[54] But the research is still not clear, and thus we can not depend on a new “Maunder Minimum” in the near future to protect us from any severe geomagnetic events.

8. The 11−year solar cycle: [PART II: Key findings – continued]

It is also a known quantity that sunspots (and related solar events: solar flares, CME's – coronal mass ejections, and sever geomagnetic storms, like the 46 storms in my main table, above) increase during a “solar maximum,” the peak of the approximately 11−year solar cycle. But, is this any guarantee of protection from a severe geomagnetic storm during a minimum? The Geomagnetic Storm of 8−9 February 1986; had a peak Dst value of −301 nT, as reported by the Royal Academy of Engineering[41]; and, it had a peak Dst value of −307 nT, as reported by the Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics[42], very powerful by any measure: “By chance this storm was the largest recorded storm, since 1960 and the eighth largest since 1932 (Allen 1986).”[42] However, it occurred at almost the very minimum of the 11−year solar cycle, as reported by the Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics: “Two other factors made this storm particularly unusual (i) it occurred near the minimum of the Sun’s activity cycle; and (ii) it was apparently caused by flares that could be described as moderate to large.”[42] This unusual occurrence prompted the Royal Academy of Engineering to caution us that: “This storm shows that extreme events can occur at any phase of the solar cycle and it is unwise to focus mitigation efforts only around solar maximum.” (pp.17—18){small quote used under Fair Use}[41] So, even assuming we enter a new “Maunder Minimum,” and then go on to enter the “bottom” of that solar cycle, there is no guarantee of safety of the grid: Dangerous solar flares can happen at any time.

9a. The collapsing geomagnetic field (and upcoming pole reversal)

[PART II: Key findings – continued]

It is a well−known fact that earth's magnetic poles are moving, and, at the same time, the strength of our geomagnetic field has been steadily weakening. These two phenomena are related because when there is a “magnetic field” flip (like has happened many times in earth's past), compasses will point to, basically, the opposite direction. SPACE.com reports that “Earth's north magnetic pole is so out of whack that scientists need to update the global magnetic−field model they released only four years ago. Could that be a sign that the magnetic pole will flip soon?”[55] PHYS.ORG warns us that “'This is a region where we see that satellites consistently (experience) electronic failures,' said Prof. Finlay,”[56] a problem we're now facing because earth's magnetic field is what shields us from harmful cosmic rays, solar flares, and the like: “As Earth's magnetic shield fails, so do its satellites. First, our communications satellites in the highest orbits go down. Next, astronauts in low−Earth orbit can no longer phone home. And finally, cosmic rays start to bombard every human on Earth.”[56] In fact, NASA reports that “Earth has a magnetic field. It shields us from the full effects of the solar wind and GCR,” referring to galactic cosmic rays.[57] This trend is relevant, not only because earth's magnetic field protects sensitive electronic equipment, but also because is protects us, humans: “Beyond Low Earth Orbit, space radiation may place astronauts at significant risk for radiation sickness, and increased lifetime risk for cancer, central nervous system effects, and degenerative diseases.”[57]

So, without going into any graphic analysis, it suffices to say that any threats posed by solar flares and catastrophic geomagnetic solar storms will, increasingly, pose more of a threat as Earth's magnetic field continues to weaken. Worse yet, the December 2018 paper by PHYS.org goes on to report[56] that: “Scientists first noticed the SAA [the “South Atlantic Anomaly”] in the 1950s, and since then it has decreased in strength by a further 6%, as well as moving closer to the west.'”(Comments in bracket to define “SAA”; not in original) The problem here?

While this 6% decrease only refers to the South Atlantic Anomaly region, if the velocity of decrease holds true for the entire geomagnetic field, then 2018 (the date of the article) minus 1955 (the midpoint of the 1950's) implies a 63−year period is needed for every 6% decrease, that is, a reduction to 0.94 for each period. The next 63−year period would, then, be expected to be only 88.36% of the strength in 1955. Moreover, if our previous loss of 30% took 3,000 years[56], then we are accelerating our descent: Notice that it only takes six periods of 63 years to get the same loss at this rate: (0.94)^6 = 0.689869781056, or 69% (to 2 significant figures), a loss of 31% in only six 63−year periods, or 378 years, much faster than our previous 30% loss—which took 3,000 years.[56]

Does the SAA trend suggest what happens planet−wide? SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN gives us a clue: “At most places there has been a general decrease in the strength over the past century, typically ten percent or so.”[58] Is this similar to the velocity of decrease reported by PHYS.org data, above? ANSWER: Using logarithms (math not shown here, but figures in this paragraph to 7 significant figures), it is seen that we need only 5.764406 “periods” of 63 years (per PHYS.org) or 3.385281 “periods” of a century (per SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN) to get a 30% loss. Let's check our math, first, to be sure:

(0.94)^ 5.764406 = 0.70 or about 70%. [So, 5.764406 periods of 63 years each is 363.157578 years.], SAA

(0.90)^ 3.385281 = 0.70 or about 70%. [So, 3.385281 periods of 100 years is 338.5281 years.], planet−wide

In fact, the SAA estimate I made from PHYS.org was not even as fast as the “planet−wide” estimate from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, achieving the same 30% loss (e.g., down to 70% field strength) in about 338.5 years, even faster than the approximately 363−year estimate merely looking at the South Atlantic Anomaly region. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC also reports that earth's magnetic “pole now is moving faster than it has for decades.”[59] This is significant for 2 reasons: First, the rapid movement of the magnetic field also disrupt communications and navigation: “The changes have been so large that scientists began working on an emergency update for the World Magnetic Model, the mathematical system that lays the foundations for navigation, from cell phones and ships to commercial airlines,”[59] but more−importantly, as we've seen, the rapid movement of the magnetic north and south poles is associated with the collapsing (decreasing) protective geomagnetic field: When there's a “pole flip,” both phenomena occur together. But, just how fast is this pole−flip and field collapse accelerating? In a report this year, 21stCenturyWire.com reports that “The north magnetic pole sped across the International Date Line last year at a rate of 55 km per year, more than three times as fast as it moved before the mid−1990s. Now located in the Eastern Hemisphere, it’s moving away from Canada and approaching Siberia.”[60]

It is known that earth's circumference is about 24,901 miles, or about 40,075 km, meaning the distance between north and south poles is about 20,037.5 km.

Why is that significant? At a rate of 55 km/year, the poles would need only about 364.3 years to “flip,” that is, have the geomagnetic north pole go to the opposite end of earth. Let's do the math, just to be sure:

[20,037.5 km/year] divided by [55 km] = about 364.3 years to 4 significant figures.

The 55 km/year figure quoted by 21stCentrutyWire.com seems accurate: An article, just this year, from LiveScience gives the same figure: “News of the magnetic north's meanderings isn't exactly new. Researchers figured out in the 1800s that magnetic north tended to drift. Then, in the mid−1990s, it began moving faster, from just over 9 miles (15 kilometers) a year to about 34 miles (55 km) annually, Nature reported. In 2018, magnetic north skipped over the International Date Line and entered the Eastern Hemisphere.”[61] In fact, the American Geophysical Union reported, in a 2016 paper, a rate as high as 60 km per year[65], an this 60 km/year figure is backed up by an April 2019 paper by Magazine of Engineering Dyna[66] and a paper as recent as mid−May 2019 published by the EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY[64]. Using this newer updated data finds this result:

[20,037.5 km/year] divided by [60 km] = about 333.9583 years to 7 significant figures, which is even less than the 338.5281−year calculation, above.

The velocity accelerated to almost four (4) times its prior rate. Moreover, as stated above, the last 30% drop took 3,000 years, and this time, it looks to need only about 338.5 or 363.2 years (or even just 333.9583 years). So, both phenomena are quickly accelerating. If we encounter a pole−flip, the velocity of the magnetic pole movement may accelerate even faster, and earth's protective geomagnetic field may start to collapse at an even faster rate, and it may drop to close to zero, leaving us vulnerable to dangerous cosmic rays and solar flares. In fact, earth's protective magnetic field serves several purposes:

• Navigation by humans (using compasses, and now GPS)

• Navigation by animals who can sense earth's magnetic field

• Protection from both solar flares and cosmic rays

“Our planetary magnetic field has many advantages. For over 2,000 years, travellers have been able to use it to navigate across the globe. Some animals even seem to be able to find their way thanks to the magnetic field. But, more importantly than that, our geomagnetic field helps protect all life on Earth.”(Small 'Fair Use' quote from EARTH)[67]

A NASA paper suggests it may drop to zero: “If the magnetic field of the Earth suddenly changed...one might expect the field to go to zero strength for a century or so.”[62] The Smithsonian Institution quotes one scientist with a similar figure: ““When the [magnetic] field is weak, which is during reversals, the main dipole field collapses to something on the order of ten percent of its normal strength,” Singer says. This collapse could spell trouble for life on Earth, since the magnetic field stabilizes ozone molecules, shielding the planet from ultraviolet radiation.”(Emphasis added in bold and underline for clarity, not in original.)[63]

9b. The upcoming pole reversal predicts a collapsing geomagnetic field [PART II: Key findings – continued]