BY JASON SAMENOW July 23 at 3:48 pm

How a solar storm two years ago nearly

caused a catastrophe on Earth
On July 23, 2012, the sun unleashed two massive clouds of plasma that barely missed a
catastrophic encounter with the Earths atmosphere. These plasma clouds, known as
coronal mass ejections (CMEs), comprised a solar storm thought to be the most
powerful in at least 150 years.
If it had hit, we would still be picking up the pieces, physicist Daniel Baker of the
University of Colorado tells NASA.
Via NASA: This movie shows a coronal mass ejection (CME) on the sun from July 22, 2012 at 10:00 p.m. EDT until
2 a.m. on July 23 as captured by NASAs Solar Terrestrial RElations Observatory-Ahead (STEREO-A). Because
CME captured by NASA July 23, 2012 (NASA)
Enlarge & Animate
Weather
Underground Radar
DC Webcam
Radar
1
2
3
4
5
Israel calls Brazil a
'diplomatic dwarf' - and
then brings up World Cup...
The drug that could imperil
Medicaid
My son has been suspended five
times. He’s 3.
#westillcoming: The real
story behind the viral
wedding photo and its 'un...
I blamed my wife for our
messy house, I was wrong
for many reasons
Most Read
trending articles
After leveling Iraq's Tomb of Jonah, the
Islamic State could ...
Coming Distractions: Trailer for The
Death Of Superman Lives:...
Israel and Hamas agree to a 12-hour
cease-fire
At a glance Go to CWG's Full Forecast
About Meet the Gang Contact Weather Wall Forecasts Archives
Capi tal Weather Gang
The inside scoop on weather in the D.C. area and beyond
Traffi c
Sign In My Account SUBSCRIBE: Home Delivery Digital Gif t Subscriptions
PostTV Politics Opinions Local Sports National World Business Tech Lifestyle Entertainment Jobs More
the CME headed in STEREO-As direction, it appears like a giant halo around the sun. NOTE: This video loops 3
times. Credit: NASA/STEREO
Fortunately, the blast site of the CMEs was not directed at Earth. Had this event
occurred a week earlier when the point of eruption was Earth-facing, a potentially
disastrous outcome would have unfolded.
I have come away from our recent studies more convinced than ever that Earth and its
inhabitants were incredibly fortunate that the 2012 eruption happened when it did,
Baker tells NASA. If the eruption had occurred only one week earlier, Earth would
have been in the line of fire.
Video overview of July 23, 2012 solar storm
A CME double whammy of this potency striking Earth would likely cripple satellite
communications and could severely damage the power grid. NASA offers this sobering
assessment:
Advertisement
Analysts believe that a direct hit could cause widespread power blackouts,
disabling everything that plugs into a wall socket. Most people wouldnt even be
able to flush their toilet because urban water supplies largely rely on electric pumps.
. . .
According to a study by the National Academy of Sciences, the total economic impact
could exceed $2 trillion or 20 times greater than the costs of a Hurricane Katrina.
Multi-ton transformers damaged by such a storm might take years to repair.
CWGs Steve Tracton put it this way in his frightening overview of the risks of a severe
solar storm: The consequences could be devastating for commerce, transportation,
agriculture and food stocks, fuel and water supplies, human health and medical facilities,
national security, and daily life in general.
Solar physicists compare the 2012 storm to the so-called Carrington solar storm of
September 1859, named after English astronomer Richard Carrington who documented
July 26
F |
C
D.C. Area Almanac
National Dulles BWI
Avg. Hi: 88 88 87
Avg. Lo: 71 66 67
Rec Hi: 103 (1930) 98 (2012) 101 (1940)
Rec Lo: 54 (1920) 50 (1976) 55 (1976)
Sunrise: 6:04 a.m. 6:05 a.m. 6:02 a.m.
Sunset: 8:24 p.m. 8:26 p.m. 8:24 p.m.
Sponsored Links
Pimsleur
Discover how you can speak any language in
just 10 short days. Pimsleur!
www.pimsleurapproach.com
Millions Rattled By Website
Anyone can access public records & see what
some may be hiding. Search now!
www.backgroundalert.com
Buy a link here
66 88
SAT
PRECIP: 30%
74 88
SUN
PRECIP: 60%
71 86
MON
PRECIP: 40%
64 78
TUE
57 81
WED
59 84
THU
At a glance
Forecast by National Weather Service
73.0 F
(22.8 C)
Weather: Mostly Cloudy
Wind: South at 6.9 MPH
Dew Point: 64.9 F
Pressure: 1016.3 mb
Dulles Airport BWI Airport
Right now Go to CWG's Weather Wall
Last Updated on Jul 26 2014, 1:52 am EDT
National Airport
15
Number of
90-degree days
year-to-date
More info >>
Heat tracker
Yearly average: 36
Record most: 67 (1980,2010)
Record fewest: 7 (1886,1905)
Last year: 35
Jason Samenow is the Capital Weather Gang's chief meteorologist and serves as the
Washington Post's Weather Editor. He earned BA and MS degrees in atmospheric science from
the University of Virginia and University of Wisconsin-Madison.
881 Comments
Discussion Policy
the event.
In my view the July 2012 storm was in all respects at least as strong as the 1859
Carrington event, Baker tells NASA. The only difference is, it missed.
During the Carrington event, the northern lights were seen as far south as Cuba and
Hawaii according to historical accounts. The solar eruption caused global telegraph
lines to spark, setting fire to some telegraph offices, NASA notes.
NASA says the July 2012 storm was particularly intense because a CME had traveled
along the same path just days before the July 23 double whammy clearing the way for
maximum effect, like a snowplow.
This double-CME traveled through a region of space that had been cleared out by yet
another CME four days earlier, NASA says. As a result, the storm clouds were not
decelerated as much as usual by their transit through the interplanetary medium.
NASAs online article about the science of this solar storm is well-worth the read.
Perhaps the scariest finding reported in the article is this: There is a 12 percent chance
of a Carrington-type event on Earth in the next 10 years according to Pete Riley of
Predictive Science Inc.
Initially, I was quite surprised that the odds were so high, but the statistics appear to
be correct, Riley tells NASA. It is a sobering figure.
Its even more sobering when considering the conclusion of Steve Tractons 2013
article: Are we ready yet for potentially disastrous impacts of space weather? Tractons
answer: an unequivocal, if not surprising, no!
Conversation Live
You must be signed in to comment. Sign In or Register
1
And a little research finds there's a chance of even greater 'cosmic ray events' coming from outside our galaxy.
Thanks to the InterNet, I may never be able to sleep again...
8:58 AM GMT+0200
JoeStrange
Like Reply
1
Bring it on! It would do us good in the long term to get hit by a massive CME. The bigger the better. We need some
serious restructuring on this planet. The majority of humans need to experience pain and suffering before they
even consider changing their ways.
6:24 AM GMT+0200
Erik Jacobsen
Like Reply
8:35 AM GMT+0200
1
Lets start with you.
cubanbob
Like Reply
2:24 AM GMT+0200
david mike
All Comments
Newest First
1
On the other handIn March of the same year (2012), the Earth took a direct hit from an X-5 CME which could
have caused serious problems. (X-class is the category for measuring the largest solar flares; it has nine sub-
divisions.) During the 3-day event, the Earths thermosphere was hit with 26 trillion watts of energy per hour.
However, as NASA stated, the CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere repelled 95% of the energy back into space.
Afterwards, NASA concluded that CO2 helps cool the Earthnot warm it. http://science.nasa.gov/science-
news/science-at-na... http://www.principia-scientific.org/new-discovery-...
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_... http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/05/23/global-war...
Are you wondering why you never heard this? You should.
Like Reply
2:58 AM GMT+0200
2
As I said the first time you posted this, you misunderstood the papers. CO2 does not have any effect in
reflecting x-rays, and it certainly does not cool the Earth.

CO2 blocks some light coming from the Sun from reaching the surface, but at the same time it blocks some
light being emitted from the surface from reaching space. Since the Sun is hot, it radiates mostly in the visible
range. Since the Earth is the temperature it is, it radiates more in the infrared. The net effect of more CO2 is to
keep more heat in the Earth system.
jayc1
Like Reply
8:59 AM GMT+0200
Wrong...
JoeStrange
Like
The ionosphere protects earth from solar flares by greatly attenuating their intensity. For a complete overview I
recommend reading this Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_flare
12:30 AM GMT+0200
w8sdz
Like Reply
2:50 AM GMT+0200
While CMEs are often related to solar flares, they are different phenomena. A flare is a peak in intensity of light,
often energetic light such as x-rays. A CME is an ejection of particles from the Sun, ionized atoms. It also is a
disturbed region of magnetic field. A flare often occurs at the time a CME is launched. Flares of course travel at
the speed of light, reaching Earth in 8 minutes. A CME may travel at a range of speeds, but takes on the order
of a few hours to reach Earth orbit.

The cloud of particles travels out from the Sun, generally in the plane of the Solar system. When it encounters
the magnetic field of a planet, it disturbs that field. Disturbances of the field can induce large voltages in long
conductors. The high-energy ions also are a type of radiation that can cause damage.

The atmosphere protects us from most radiation (not just the ionosphere), but in a large event, some
penetrates to ground level, particularly at the poles. What the ionosphere protects us from best is ultraviolet
light. The Sun puts out a lot of ultraviolet light even when relatively quiet. That is why the ozone (a component of
the ionosphere) hole is a problem, and until we listened to the scientists and did something about it, it looked
like it was becoming a much bigger problem.

jayc1
Like Reply
2
If you take the position as I do that there are so many significant life-threatening issues and potential events,
where would the science-minded and objective folks place this risk in order of priorities? Just off the top of my
head we have the already imminent (in the southwest and parts of Africa, and looming in other parts of the world)
drought and water supply problems, seriously aging infrastructure in western countries (all types -- transportation,
utilities, etc.); aging demographics with resultant impacts on abilities of societies to care both for themselves and
the next generations; multiple medical problems involving cancer, plagues, AIDS, etc; clean-up of legacy pollution
problems (probably China's greatest problem); energy and power generation for the increasing electricity
demands of the future, and forecast or predicted long term effects of increased CO2. Any and all of these arguably
require more investment than advanced western let alone all societies can afford. Prioritizing everything means
assessing relative risk going forward and assessing the severity of an event that, despite being low probability,
can have catastrophic consequences. Where do folks believe this need resides within the long and undoubtedly
incomplete list I put forth?
7/25/2014 10:58 PM GMT+0200
Illinoistim
Like Reply
7/25/2014 11:29 PM GMT+0200
1
You are right, it is difficult to assess risks for all the possible and very different types of events. This one,
however, is pretty clearly something that we can and should do more to address. That is because the cost of
doing something that would protect pretty well against a fairly likely, and very expensive event is not very high.
In the meantime, there are lots of smaller events for which we can prevent all damage with the same
precautions. Otherwise those small events would cost us something.

This one is a lot like earthquakes in risk assessment. Small ones happen frequently, large ones more rarely,
and very large ones will happen sometime in a century or so. When a large CME hits, however, the risks will
be on a much larger geographic scale, practically global, than an earthquake.

I think we can justify at least as much effort spent on CME preparedness as on earthquake preparedness. But
I think it fortunately won't actually cost as much as we do spend on earthquakes. Numbers thrown around
range from a few billion to a few hundreds of billions. Cost estimates can quickly get very technical, and I only
know about what I have heard from experts in talks. Papers published on the subject probable include the
keywords "space weather" and "risk assessment", if you want to search.

There are people who spend all their time assessing various risks; many of them work for insurers. Their
perspective is a little different from the average citizen, of course. Some problems we already have, and
spending is about cleaning them up. Some are about gradual things where something catastrophic will
happen without some expense, such as deterioration of bridges, for those the calculation is pretty
straightforward. Some, like this, are events that will occur, but are unlikely in any given year or so, and we don't
know how big a big one will be and when. Those are the hardest to cost. In addition, the knowledge about
these events is spread across many fields.
jayc1
Like Reply
9:01 AM GMT+0200
1
Global warming is actually the result of the heat generated by me never getting laid. Please help...
JoeStrange
Like Reply
CME's causing massive ion storms in our upper atmosphere are beautiful wondrous things I have seen as far
south as Louisville, Ky. Thankfully, high velocity ions entering a magnetic field turn so we do not get them on us in
full force. Plasma however is a different story when it gets as far as Earth. Everything that works because of a
computer can die easily, and all telecom works are computer based. All automobiles are computer based too. All
electricity supply is computer based now. If a really big one hits, we have nothing we do not provide for ourselves
through hard manual labor. No trucks haul groceries to stores. You walk or ride a bike to get around. If you have
food to cook it's over a wood fire. You may have shelter where you are, but no water in the pipes, no electricity in
the walls, and no heat or AC. And the most important is no sanitation. Only the hunters and farmers eat.
7/25/2014 8:37 PM GMT+0200
Mr. H.
Like Reply
7/25/2014 8:54 PM GMT+0200
1
Yes, aurorae are beautiful. You are generally correct. I point out, however, that plasma is actually the same as
high velocity ions. It is subject to magnetic fields. So whatever vulnerabilities there are, radiation as well as
voltage spikes, increase toward the magnetic poles.

Spacecraft orbiting at lower latitude are less vulnerable, though not invulnerable. Power grids in Canada are
more vulnerable than those in Mexico, though the high degree of interconnection even across national borders
may introduce vulnerability.
jayc1
Like Reply
Coronal mass ejection is very similar to an EMP. There was a Congressional study in the last decade (and the
report is available to be read/downloaded); but, little has been done - outside of some military hardening of their
facilities. We can give billions away to other countries, but can't harden out own electric grid? WHY? What will
happen if we lose most of or the entire electrical grid? Is everyone aware of the damage done to the electrical sub-
station in San Jose a couple of years ago? It almost took down the western grid.
7/25/2014 8:16 PM GMT+0200 [Edited]
dmounts
Like Reply
7/25/2014 8:27 PM GMT+0200
Government has many priorities. Dan Baker's research, and this article, are steps to modifying the priorities a
jayc1
little. While I think that the danger of CMEs is much more important than the emphasis it has received would
indicate, I would not say that it should supersede, for example, all foreign aid, which is also given for various
important reasons. Fortunately, we are wealthy and can do a lot of things at once.

In fact some efforts are being made, although only at the glacial pace that most infrastructure improvements
have in the present political environment. Dan's research, for example, like almost all science research, is
government funded.
Like Reply
7/25/2014 8:39 PM GMT+0200 [Edited]
1
Some experts have said that for $1-2B, we could harden the nat'l grid. My point was that is for about what
we send to just ONE country in ONE year, we can get basic protection. If we don't protect ourselves, how
will be able to help any other countries that are not sufficiently protected. And compared to the
consequences (which I agree are realistic expectations) you pointed out, it is a small investment for
significant returns.
dmounts
Like
7/25/2014 8:47 PM GMT+0200
I think that estimate is low, based on my reading. But as pointed out at length by my creepy stalker, I am an
expert on CMEs, not on electrical engineering. As a space physicist, I can give information about how big
and how often events are expected. Politicians and engineers have to work out how much to spend on
what preparation.
jayc1
Like
7/25/2014 9:54 PM GMT+0200
How much do you think we need? Provide some links if handy.
Curious about solar storm
Like
View More Replies
7/25/2014 10:08 PM GMT+0200
CME is essentially an EMP.
ovocop
Like Reply
7/25/2014 10:08 PM GMT+0200
Jayc1, I just wanted to say I've appreciated your posts on this over the past couple of days. Newspapers these
days are woefully understaffed on science issues, so any experts chipping in to add to the discussion are
helpful. Thanks.
B2O2
Like Reply
3:00 AM GMT+0200
I appreciate your saying so.
jayc1
Like
2
it's not a matter of if, but when.
7/25/2014 7:48 PM GMT+0200
ignatius ibsage
Like Reply
Repost
7/25/2014 7:32 PM GMT+0200 [Edited]
tcu93
Like Reply
We need Jack Bauer.

Now.

We're running out if time.
7/25/2014 7:32 PM GMT+0200
tcu93
Like Reply
If there ever is an end of humans it will be a result of something like this...or a plague.

And not much we can do about either.
7/25/2014 7:21 PM GMT+0200
MadMan0433
Like Reply
7/25/2014 7:27 PM GMT+0200
3
In both of those cases we can do, and are doing, a great deal about it. We can't stop it, but we can take many
relatively low-cost steps to avoid and mitigate damage.

We can't do anything about some things, or at least not in the foreseeable future, such as a very large meteor
strike. We may not be able to do very much about human stupidity and cupidity either, but we can try (not
calling you stupid). Fortunately a very large meteor strike is very unlikely in any human time frame. Some
smaller strikes will happen, as they have already. Stupidity is inevitable, but at least it is somewhat self-
limiting.
jayc1
Like Reply
7/25/2014 7:53 PM GMT+0200 [Edited]
2
Thanks for all of your input Doc. I just came back to this article after posting some basic objective
questions yesterday when there were only 20-30 posts. Well over 800 posts now!!

I agree with you that if there are inexpensive emergency procedures that could be planned which might
prevent hundreds of millions of dollars of expense later, and hundreds of thousands of lives, why not
make some plans?

Like you I am clueless as to why some folks choose to be antagonistic rather than prudent. Isn't the
definition of being conservative to reduce risk?
johnnyboy4
Like
7/25/2014 10:18 PM GMT+0200
It's a good question, johnnyboy4, about why some are so antagonistic. I suspect they are right wingers, for
whom *anything* the government does when the "wrong" party is in the White House is an anathema to
them. It's childish, self-destructive, and downright psychotic, but they have convinced themselves and each
other that it's somehow their "patriotic duty" to trash our civilization just as much as they can manage to.

Today's "conservatives" are anything but, yes. They are betting they know more than scientists do, and the
stakes are just the well being of civilization. That is the very opposite of conservative in my book.
B2O2
Like
7/25/2014 7:48 PM GMT+0200
or more likely, an asteroid strike.
ignatius ibsage
Like Reply
If it happens every 150 years who cares? It is like worrying about meteorites, they are very rare events and you
can't stop them, it's much less investment to just clean it up afterwards if and when it happens.
7/25/2014 7:17 PM GMT+0200
gsboy286
Like Reply
7/25/2014 7:20 PM GMT+0200
jayc1
1
That is true for the size of meteorites that occur on the order of once in 150 years. It is not true for the size of
CMEs that hit the Earth on the order of once in 150 years. The cost of preparation will be much less than the
cost of cleaning up afterwards.
Like Reply
7/25/2014 7:25 PM GMT+0200
I don't know where you get your figures about the cost of hardening our grid from but note that what just
happened did not happen to us, because it was not pointed at us. You might have to reach back
thousands of years for that to have happened, I don't know. When was the last major meteor event,
Tunguska in 1908? In an isolated area that describes about 99.9% of the earth's surface. How would you
take measures against that? You don't, because you can't and even if you could you have to ask whether it
is worth it.
I think things like hacking and use of electro-magnetic-pulse weapons are a much greater risk to our grid.
gsboy286
Like
7/25/2014 7:33 PM GMT+0200
2
No, the Carrington event 150 years ago, mentioned in the article, would have been a major problem for our
current systems. We have had damage from smaller events.

I am not saying that a meteor strike cannot be a disaster, but a civilization-ending size strike is not likely in
any given year. Even the recent Russian event would have been worse over a more densely populated
area. A very large CME, on the other hand, which can cause a huge amount of damage, is more frequent.
That is what looking at the 2012 event shows, something about the character and frequency of such large
events.

Measures taken to protect against a CME would have some effect against EMP attacks, if that is what you
worry about. On the other hand, some of the CME defense would require more remote and automated
control of systems, which might enhance vulnerability to hacking. Fortunately, we are aware of that
problem, and can work on and maintain some protections.
jayc1
Like
7/25/2014 7:37 PM GMT+0200
1
Because the last time it happened was 150 years ago.
johnnyboy4
Like Reply
7/25/2014 7:42 PM GMT+0200
1
And whether or not one occurred recently or long ago, the probability that one will occur next week is still
significant enough to worry about.
jayc1
Like
7/25/2014 7:46 PM GMT+0200
I love the example in the NASA article of a solar event affecting a grid: 1989 Hyrdo Quebec, a sub-standard grid
at a northern latitude with extremely long runs, no monitoring capability, and low trip voltages. The grid was
back up and fully functional in 9 hours, and since then the deficiencies have been corrected.

It is indeed a shame that jayc1 can't stick to his area of expertise! It is also interesting to note that, while highly
published, he is "currently seeking employment" according to his page here:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jay_Cummings2/... Sorry to wax "Ad Hominem" on you, Dr. Cummings, but
your alarmist cries for our need to research this and do something about it seems to be self-serving.

And do stop it with the "unplug the appliances" bit. Appliances weren't damaged in droves during the outage of
Hydro Quebec in 1989; they merely sat idle for 9 hours and resumed working when the grid came back up!
Joe Dick
Like Reply
7/25/2014 8:10 PM GMT+0200
That was an example of what a much smaller event can do. It was not a worldwide disaster, but it cost
money. It is prudent to spend a relatively small amount of money now to avert a very, very large cost when a
large event does hit. Hydro Quebec agrees, that is why they put measures in place to protect against
events, unfortunately after they had already suffered some damage.

The only way to know if measures are adequate to protect against events that are likely to occur is to study
how large events get, and how frequently they happen. The study mentioned in the article shows that they
jayc1
2
how large events get, and how frequently they happen. The study mentioned in the article shows that they
can get much larger than the 1989 event, and that they occur often enough to worry about.

I can't rival you in creepiness, but I contend that your stated qualifications in this subject area, in
Aeronautical Engineering, are inferior to my own in Solar Particle Physics.
Like
7/25/2014 8:43 PM GMT+0200
Appliances would probably be fine, except that more and more basic items include microelectronics,
which are often vulnerable to even rather small fluctuations. A lot of expensive stuff should at least be on
surge protectors, to protect against thunderstorms if nothing else.

But a large CME could produce voltage spikes at the plug that are larger than experienced in such storms,
except maybe for nearby lightning strikes (a very nearby lightning strike can fry even non-electronic stuff;
that however is not a disaster except for a few people). Ordinary hardware-store surge suppressors might
not be sufficient if the local power connections don't have safeguards. Better than nothing though.

I repeat, however, the most costly vulnerabilities are to the nationwide power grid and satellites. But
fortunately, solutions to the vulnerabilities can be implemented throughout. There will always be some
local vulnerabilities, but those we should probably just plan to repair afterward.
jayc1
Like
View More Replies
1
Could have, The ski is falling, the ski is falling, said chicken samenow, could have,should have, must be a lib,
7/25/2014 6:27 PM GMT+0200
cliffe
Like Reply
7/25/2014 7:02 PM GMT+0200
1
It would seem that all scientists and engineers are liberals, and all business and law practitioners are
conservative. Let's hope the conservatives are smart enough to dig us out of the environmental hole the
liberals have dug for us. Maybe a decrease in taxes for the top 1%? And an end to government regulations.
ZZZMM
Like Reply
7/25/2014 10:24 PM GMT+0200
Here's a better idea. Let's just end "government regulations" where they pertain to the well being of
"conservatives" (I put that in quotes because the modern breed of this type of vermin is anything but
conservative by the dictionary definition, and by your posts). I look forward to watching you all drink coal-
industry polluted West Virginia water, take quack medical cures and get killed in accidents in vehicles
which corporations just made however they wanted to, knowing there were no consequences. All because
you thought the EPA, FDA and NTSB and other "big bad gubmint" agencies were such superfluous liberal
nuisance.

Hate to be wishing you all ill like this (I really do), but I'm increasingly convinced that letting you all self-
exterminate through your spectacular ignorance and arrogance might be the best thing for all involved.
B2O2
Like
2
As all Republicans and FOX News know, President Obama was responsible for this event. He is, after all, soft on
solar flares. A John McCain or Ted Cruz would never let the sun mess with the earth.
7/25/2014 6:25 PM GMT+0200
trp
Like Reply
7/25/2014 6:27 PM GMT+0200
Why is it Dems have to be so stupid?
HeardItAllBefore1
Like Reply
7/25/2014 7:12 PM GMT+0200
Take your comment to someone who has passed eighth grade English and have them explain it to you.
gsboy286
More
Like
7/25/2014 7:30 PM GMT+0200
John Kerry was actually for solar flares before he was against them.
tcu93
Like Reply
7/25/2014 10:27 PM GMT+0200
No no no trp. The CME was caused by Obamacare. Bill O'Reilly and company are fast at work preparing their
convoluted explanation for how the sun decided to throw it out because... something something Benghazi
Obamacare.
B2O2
Like Reply
1
God help us if Al Gore gets wind of this. We will be inundated with heart wrenching photos of sun burned Polar
Bears. Al of course wil offer to save the bears by selling you solar flare credits.
7/25/2014 6:12 PM GMT+0200
bluesdoc70
Like Reply
The Washington Post
SUBSCRIBE
PostTV Politics Opinions Local Sports National World Business Tech Lifesty le Entertainment Jobs
Mor e way s t o get us Cont act Us
About Us
WPBrandConnect Capital
Business
Capitol Deal Express
Fashion Washington Find&Save
Washington Post
Master Class
Parade
Magazine
El Tiempo Latino Washington
Post Wine Club
Par t ner s
Home delivery
Digital Subscription
Gif t Subscription
Mobile & Apps
Newsletter & Alerts
Washington Post Live
Reprints & Permissions
Post Store
Photo Store
e-Replica
Archive
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Help & Contact Inf o
Reader Representative
Digital Advertising
Newspaper Advertising
News Service & Syndicate
In the community
Careers
PostPoints
Newspaper in Education
Digital Publishing Guidelines
washingtonpost.com
1996-2014 The Washington Post Terms of Service Privacy Policy Submissions and Discussion Policy RSS Terms of Service
Ad Choices