> It's very odd they would assume a typo in the writing but not an error in their calculations or possibly no correlation whatsoever.
They didn't assume a typo, they concluded that a typo makes the most sense if the story is true.
The facts:
- The original story (as published) claims the event occurred on 18 October 1841 on a line that didn't exist at that time (not until 1846).
- The original story was specific about the train (a 10:05 express train) and the month and day (18 October)
- On 18 October 1848 there was an express train with that time and there was a recorded geomagnetic storm
Under the assumption the story is true, given the details that do line up and the one detail that can't line up with anything, a typographical error where one number was changed makes a lot of sense.
EDIT: @khat, if you read this, it seems you've somehow become shadowbanned. Both your comment here and your earlier comment from today are [dead]. This means admin moderation or auto-moderation was involved, these weren't [flagged][dead] which would have indicated users flagged it to death. Nothing in either looks like a reason to get shadowbanned so you may want to reach out to the mods (there's a contact link at the bottom of most pages).
> Were a similarly intense geomagnetic storm to occur today, it would likely seriously damage the electrical power grid, causing widespread outages and blackouts, as well as disrupting satellite communications.
Is this really true? I’m suspicious for a few reasons:
1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
2. While there is a lot more dependence on electrical connections, there’s also many more sources of disturbance now. So I suspect some of the failure modes are tested by “normal” human activity
3. EMI is a known risk, in my previous job we actively tested and built for it. I suppose if the limits are inappropriately set , or if this sort of testing isn’t wide spread, it could still be an issue.
4. As long as there’s a neutral line, i think any common mode should be rejected, in which case this should be fine?
Not sure that I can speak to everything, but I did take a course specifically on space weather + its impacts on Earth and have some context I can maybe share. For your first point, you are correct it is a national security concern. There are standards already in place that aim to address/mitigate potential disruptions from solar storms/ space weather, but the concern is/would be if these standards are sufficient for an extreme event like Carrington or this 1840s example. From a national security perspective, it's also not a risk that comes from an adversary, it's not something Russia/China/Iran/[insert country] can do to us, it's just an environmental consideration, and could happen to anyone (and if any one country is effected in a significant want, it's likely that others would be facing some consequences of the storm as well - especially w.r.t. satellites). From a strategy perspective, it's similar to if an earthquake destroyed the 3 gorges dam - it's obviously a risk but it's categorized a bit differently. It's more about how quickly can you re-establish normal operations rather than how do you fully prevent it. Obviously mitigation is part of that, but it changes where it gets prioritized.
And to segue into your later points, the reason it's unknown if the current standards would be sufficient is because these sort of events, and how they interact with a continent-sized electrical/ transmission systems (the grid), is a pretty complex problem. It's also one that we can't exactly test in a lab or controlled environment beforehand with a super high degree of confidence given the scale that the phenomenon takes place at (the whole planet). EMI testing that occurs for most tech products today isn't super focussed on the currents induced by a solar storm, which are low frequency/quasi-DC/much less predictable (the effects vary geographically and in time-scales/patterns that "typical" EMI/EMC does not).
Some googling lead me to a NOAA doc that says GIC's "quasi-DC ... currents flow through transmission lines and enter/exit the power grid through grounded transformer neutrals" which to me reads that simply having a neutral line isn't sufficient, but I'm not an EE and could be misunderstanding what you're saying and what this doc is speaking to.
The good news is that events like this are relatively rare, confined (generally) to certain parts of the 11-year solar cycle.
> From a national security perspective, it's also not a risk that comes from an adversary, it's not something Russia/China/Iran/[insert country] can do to us...
That's a valid point. I guess in my mind an EMP is an act of aggression that has viable ways of being stopped (as opposed to mitigated) whereas a solar storm is agnostic to anything happening on Earth. Even if the mechanism is similar, they are different problems with different solutions.
I believe the US already tracks (or attempts to track) anything resembling a missile headed our way, and there are systems that can take these down before they detonate and cause problems. You can't exactly "stop" a solar flare from hitting Earth. Additionally, we can also use diplomacy to create the conditions where China (or anyone else) won't want to EMP us (or at least won't benefit from doing it, even if they do want to), but we can't do that with the Sun.
And that's where my point on prioritization comes into play. We're more likely to invest in technology like Israel's Iron Dome to prevent an EMP from another nation than we would a full scale re-build of the grid to mitigate what amounts to an act of God from the sun.
If an enemy nation wanted to conduct an EMP attack, they wouldn't need to do it with an ICBM that we'd be able to identify as such. Getting an object into LEO would not, on its own, stand out, and would provide an avenue for attack (or the threat of an attack) that would not be detectable in the same way as an ICBM launch.
Of course, the harm to their own systems would be substantial as well given that it would have a huge impact on satellites in orbit, not just systems on the ground.
> 1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
If only the world worked this way. Until something happens, a lot of potential problems remain potential problems rather than getting remedied. Especially when it'll be expensive to fix.
We've experienced nothing like Carrington-event scale after that happened. Luckily so, I think.
Then there are things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyake_event which we have located several traces of in geological records. They are at least a magnitude stronger than anything which Carrington carried. And statistically long overdue.
If one of these happened today, that would be a really interesting experience.
Here are some of the risks that are currently unfeasible to mitigate:
G5:
> Widespread voltage control problems and protective system problems can occur, some grid systems may experience complete collapse or blackouts. Transformers may experience damage.
S5:
> Satellites may be rendered useless, memory impacts can cause loss of control, may cause serious noise in image data, star-trackers may be unable to locate sources; permanent damage to solar panels possible.
---
One extremely unlucky solar event can set us back for years, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to prepare for it long term. Our best predictive models give us a couple of days notice.
In a sense, we're more prepared for an asteroid collision (not by much) than a solar event.
> 4. As long as there’s a neutral line, i think any common mode should be rejected, in which case this should be fine?
The (grounded) neutral conductor actually completes the circuit, a wye/star transformer has a grounded neutral and the primary and secondary neutral terminals are bonded. The return path is ground and all of the transformers are linked together via the grounded neutral.
Apparently this can be mitigated by wiring a capacitor into the grounded neutral path of a wye transformer.
I’m not an EE, just an electrical PM who knows enough to be dangerous :)
>1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
You live on Earth correct :) just joking.
Just look at what has been done for Climate Change, we knew for 50, probably 70 years what fossil fuels are doing to Earth. Plus a good estimate was know when Climate Change would affect the Earth. Here we are heading to +3.5C, probably 4C.
Since when a Carrington type event will happen is unknown, do you really think we would prepare for it ? That would cost real money, maybe taking wealth from the super rich.
khat's comment is dead, but replying to it here:
> It's very odd they would assume a typo in the writing but not an error in their calculations or possibly no correlation whatsoever.
They didn't assume a typo, they concluded that a typo makes the most sense if the story is true.
The facts:
- The original story (as published) claims the event occurred on 18 October 1841 on a line that didn't exist at that time (not until 1846).
- The original story was specific about the train (a 10:05 express train) and the month and day (18 October)
- On 18 October 1848 there was an express train with that time and there was a recorded geomagnetic storm
Under the assumption the story is true, given the details that do line up and the one detail that can't line up with anything, a typographical error where one number was changed makes a lot of sense.
EDIT: @khat, if you read this, it seems you've somehow become shadowbanned. Both your comment here and your earlier comment from today are [dead]. This means admin moderation or auto-moderation was involved, these weren't [flagged][dead] which would have indicated users flagged it to death. Nothing in either looks like a reason to get shadowbanned so you may want to reach out to the mods (there's a contact link at the bottom of most pages).
> Were a similarly intense geomagnetic storm to occur today, it would likely seriously damage the electrical power grid, causing widespread outages and blackouts, as well as disrupting satellite communications.
Is this really true? I’m suspicious for a few reasons:
1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
2. While there is a lot more dependence on electrical connections, there’s also many more sources of disturbance now. So I suspect some of the failure modes are tested by “normal” human activity
3. EMI is a known risk, in my previous job we actively tested and built for it. I suppose if the limits are inappropriately set , or if this sort of testing isn’t wide spread, it could still be an issue.
4. As long as there’s a neutral line, i think any common mode should be rejected, in which case this should be fine?
> 1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
You can’t prepare for everything, and even if you could remedy it, there are loads of more likely disaster scenarios that would get higher priority.
> If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
I dunno... things happen that expose these risks and lead times for replacement equipment can push out to 2-3 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_County_substation_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2026/09/02/u-s-bulk-power-equipm...
Not sure that I can speak to everything, but I did take a course specifically on space weather + its impacts on Earth and have some context I can maybe share. For your first point, you are correct it is a national security concern. There are standards already in place that aim to address/mitigate potential disruptions from solar storms/ space weather, but the concern is/would be if these standards are sufficient for an extreme event like Carrington or this 1840s example. From a national security perspective, it's also not a risk that comes from an adversary, it's not something Russia/China/Iran/[insert country] can do to us, it's just an environmental consideration, and could happen to anyone (and if any one country is effected in a significant want, it's likely that others would be facing some consequences of the storm as well - especially w.r.t. satellites). From a strategy perspective, it's similar to if an earthquake destroyed the 3 gorges dam - it's obviously a risk but it's categorized a bit differently. It's more about how quickly can you re-establish normal operations rather than how do you fully prevent it. Obviously mitigation is part of that, but it changes where it gets prioritized.
And to segue into your later points, the reason it's unknown if the current standards would be sufficient is because these sort of events, and how they interact with a continent-sized electrical/ transmission systems (the grid), is a pretty complex problem. It's also one that we can't exactly test in a lab or controlled environment beforehand with a super high degree of confidence given the scale that the phenomenon takes place at (the whole planet). EMI testing that occurs for most tech products today isn't super focussed on the currents induced by a solar storm, which are low frequency/quasi-DC/much less predictable (the effects vary geographically and in time-scales/patterns that "typical" EMI/EMC does not).
Some googling lead me to a NOAA doc that says GIC's "quasi-DC ... currents flow through transmission lines and enter/exit the power grid through grounded transformer neutrals" which to me reads that simply having a neutral line isn't sufficient, but I'm not an EE and could be misunderstanding what you're saying and what this doc is speaking to.
The good news is that events like this are relatively rare, confined (generally) to certain parts of the 11-year solar cycle.
> From a national security perspective, it's also not a risk that comes from an adversary, it's not something Russia/China/Iran/[insert country] can do to us...
Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse
https://jsis.washington.edu/news/chinas-high-altitude-electr...
That's a valid point. I guess in my mind an EMP is an act of aggression that has viable ways of being stopped (as opposed to mitigated) whereas a solar storm is agnostic to anything happening on Earth. Even if the mechanism is similar, they are different problems with different solutions.
I believe the US already tracks (or attempts to track) anything resembling a missile headed our way, and there are systems that can take these down before they detonate and cause problems. You can't exactly "stop" a solar flare from hitting Earth. Additionally, we can also use diplomacy to create the conditions where China (or anyone else) won't want to EMP us (or at least won't benefit from doing it, even if they do want to), but we can't do that with the Sun.
And that's where my point on prioritization comes into play. We're more likely to invest in technology like Israel's Iron Dome to prevent an EMP from another nation than we would a full scale re-build of the grid to mitigate what amounts to an act of God from the sun.
If an enemy nation wanted to conduct an EMP attack, they wouldn't need to do it with an ICBM that we'd be able to identify as such. Getting an object into LEO would not, on its own, stand out, and would provide an avenue for attack (or the threat of an attack) that would not be detectable in the same way as an ICBM launch.
Of course, the harm to their own systems would be substantial as well given that it would have a huge impact on satellites in orbit, not just systems on the ground.
> 1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
If only the world worked this way. Until something happens, a lot of potential problems remain potential problems rather than getting remedied. Especially when it'll be expensive to fix.
>1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
It was known in the early 2000s and they've been working on it for decades. Presumably things are better now.
We've experienced nothing like Carrington-event scale after that happened. Luckily so, I think.
Then there are things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyake_event which we have located several traces of in geological records. They are at least a magnitude stronger than anything which Carrington carried. And statistically long overdue.
If one of these happened today, that would be a really interesting experience.
https://www.spaceweather.gov/noaa-scales-explanation
Here are some of the risks that are currently unfeasible to mitigate:
G5:
> Widespread voltage control problems and protective system problems can occur, some grid systems may experience complete collapse or blackouts. Transformers may experience damage.
S5:
> Satellites may be rendered useless, memory impacts can cause loss of control, may cause serious noise in image data, star-trackers may be unable to locate sources; permanent damage to solar panels possible.
---
One extremely unlucky solar event can set us back for years, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to prepare for it long term. Our best predictive models give us a couple of days notice.
In a sense, we're more prepared for an asteroid collision (not by much) than a solar event.
> 4. As long as there’s a neutral line, i think any common mode should be rejected, in which case this should be fine?
The (grounded) neutral conductor actually completes the circuit, a wye/star transformer has a grounded neutral and the primary and secondary neutral terminals are bonded. The return path is ground and all of the transformers are linked together via the grounded neutral.
Apparently this can be mitigated by wiring a capacitor into the grounded neutral path of a wye transformer.
I’m not an EE, just an electrical PM who knows enough to be dangerous :)
Hydro Quebec was very strongly hit, primarily due to its long power line runs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm
Supposedly, they've hardened things, lots of info on what they've done here:
https://news.hydroquebec.com/news/press-releases/all-quebec/...
I have zero idea of 1989 vs the event in 1840 though.
>1. If it were true, I expect it would be a national security concern, and quickly remedied
You live on Earth correct :) just joking.
Just look at what has been done for Climate Change, we knew for 50, probably 70 years what fossil fuels are doing to Earth. Plus a good estimate was know when Climate Change would affect the Earth. Here we are heading to +3.5C, probably 4C.
Since when a Carrington type event will happen is unknown, do you really think we would prepare for it ? That would cost real money, maybe taking wealth from the super rich.
and no AI was used!
btw if a enemy of the US was to explode a nuclear weapon high enough in the atmosphere over the continental US to overcome the curvature of the earth
ala a targeted "starfish prime" event
it would take out virtually every power transformer on every pole
exhausting all replacements for years
no specialized EMP needed and no direct strike needed
not sure what would happen to homes hardwired with solar
oh it would also take out every satellite in orbit as they would pass through the new artificial allen belt
doubt China would do this, however Putin could get desperate enough if he starts to lose his war entirely
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
* https://www.science.org/content/article/us-tests-ways-sweep-...