Slashdot Mirror


Was Earth a Migratory Planet?

astroengine writes "Why our planet isn't a "snowball Earth" — a dilemma called the 'faint young sun paradox' — has foxed solar and planetary scientists for decades. Since the Earth's formation, a planet covered in ice should have stifled any kind of greenhouse effect, preventing our atmosphere from warming up and maintaining water in a liquid state. Now, David Minton of Purdue University has come up with a novel solution that, by his own admission, straddles science fact and fiction. Perhaps Earth evolved closer to the Sun and through some gravitational effect, it was pushed to a higher orbit as the Sun grew hotter. But watch out, if this is true, planetary chaos awaits."

42 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. On the upside though by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this is the case, and the "chaos" that awaits is us migrating into a higher orbit, then whoopee, there goes us having to worry about the greenhouse effect... Oh wait... this isn't just another excuse not to curb our burning of fossil fuels is it?

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    1. Re:On the upside though by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      So is O2. It takes life and sunlight to constantly replenish the element back into our atmosphere. Otherwise it will just be bound up in oxidation with something else. Most of it already has been with iron. Excess O2 did not start accumulating until about 1.7 billion years ago.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:On the upside though by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, dihydrogen monoxide is perfectly safe as long as you process it with grain, yeast, a bit of hops, and the correct amount of time... it was in fact this process that saved the world!
      http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-beer-saved-the-world/

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    3. Re:On the upside though by busyqth · · Score: 5, Funny

      It won't run out because oil is being constantly created in the earth's mantle, just like blood is continuously manufactured by marrow.
      Both Mantle and Marrow start with 'M'.
      Think about it.

    4. Re:On the upside though by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      "It makes such a leap that if it wasn't for beer, civilized society would of never been created, but the impossibility of knowing that is really never mentioned. "

      Agreed, it's preposterous.

      Everyone knows that civilized society came about when Whiskey and Gin was invented. And yes I count a good brandy in there as well.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:On the upside though by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      "We won't curb our fossil fuel use any way... there's no viable alternative"

      That is a completely full of ridiculousness statement.

      There is no viable alternative, By what measure, that there is already 80,000 stations selling hydrogen on every street corner for $1.22 a gallon? That you dont already have your home covered in solar?

      Fools make such statements. Solar is a highly viable alternative to home energy, Even as far north as Copper harbor, MI there are off the grid homes and even state buildings that have a 5KW solar install that works even on cloudy days (that is easy to do BTW) As for cars, electric storage is coming about, and if you paid for it you could have one built that will go 300 miles on a single charge. bio-diesel, switchgrass, there are a ton of other sources of fuel for use in an Internal Combustion engine if you MUST stick with that old outdated technology.

      Will it do 0-60 in 2.4 seconds and take up 3 lanes of traffic and carry 80 people? No, the canyonero gigantor truck people will have to suffer. Will it make a small 4 seater? yes it will. Even a small 4 seater 4X4 truck if you really need one because you live miles away from roads. The technology is there already, it's just most amercians are too stupid to understand it. They think they NEED 300HP and to carry 7 passengers + 40 cu FT of cargo all the time.

      You dont. Just like you dont need to have 60 light bulbs in your home burning with 120Watts of light in each of them. Be realistic and suddenly alternatives start popping up everywhere.

      Hell you can run a internal Combustion engine off of WOOD! Google it for some education.

      Will it require americans to stop being idiots and actually learn things about daily life? yes. And if that is what you are talking about, people being required to have a solid basic education about most everything like they did in the 1800's, then that is a good thing.

      none of the caravans crossing the United states, waited for AAA to change their wagon wheel.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:On the upside though by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Funny

      How many billions of years are you planning to live?

      Ideally as many as I can.

      I of course plan to get fashionably mad into my second billion, but the recover after a bit of time in some choice facility. By that time though, I should have enough money to pay for absolutely anything, I deposited six dollars into a compound interest savings plan a week ago Tuesday.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:On the upside though by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would make perfect sense that as the sun loses mass the planets drift further away, but the problem is that the size of the sun is driven not only by the mass, but the available fuel driving the fusion reaction inside it. The radius of the sun is maintained by the amount of energy being released in its core through fusion which pushes against the force of gravity pulling the sun together. Certain elements fuse releasing a lot of energy, others fuse releasing only a little energy - yet others fuse and take in energy from their surroundings. The tipping point is Fe (Iron), anything lighter releases energy when it is fused, anything heavier absorbs energy. While sun has converted about 100 earth masses into energy over the 4.5 billion years it has been here, it is still fusing mainly Hydrogen (lots of energy output), meaning that by the time it reaches red giant phase in about another 5.5 billion years, it will have used up a bit over another 100. The problem is that it has around 330,000 times as much as the Earth. It is losing mass through fusion, but not nearly enough to increase the orbital radius of the planets by the time it reaches the red giant phase.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    8. Re:On the upside though by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also

      the sun gets about 1% brighter every million

      is wrong. The sun is getting brighter at the rate of 10% every billion years.

      Short and Long scales aside, a billion years is at minimum 1,000 million (or a million million if you use the long scale) - both of which are orders of magnitue different to what you claim.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    9. Re:On the upside though by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

      This was one of the most horrible events in Earths history, causing mass death and killing off nearly all life on this planet.

      Let's bow for a minute of silent prayer to all the anaerobic victims of the Great Oxygenation Event

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:On the upside though by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 3, Funny
      "Both Mantle and Marrow start with 'M'."

      Let's see - the Mantle is a hard shell around a liquid core. Marrow is a rich edible substance scraped from inside bones that has a solid or semi-solid consistency but softens when heated (cooked)...

      I just had a horrifying thought - excuse me, I need to check the ingredients list on my bag of "M&M's" again...

  2. Earth is migratory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Earth is migratory

    In fact, Earth received a Blue-green card as early as 3.5 billion years ago after passing a solar naturalization test.

  3. Funny pages by paiute · · Score: 3, Funny

    "And then a miracle occurs" makes a good punchline but lousy science.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Funny pages by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It makes for fantastic science if you then go on to investigate and describe the miracle. "Oh, wow! How did that happen?"

  4. Conclusions... by busyqth · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is the consensus of 99% of climatologists that the earth isn't a snowball and therefore it is a fact that the earth has slowly moved into a higher orbit at exactly the same rate that the sun has warmed so as to maintain a climate on earth appropriate for life. The more we fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gases and thus heat the earth, the further the earth will move away from the sun so as to maintain an optimum climate. These "inconvenient truths" prove that there is an intelligent designer of the universe.

    Q.E.D.

    1. Re:Conclusions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is the consensus of 99% of climatologists that the earth isn't a snowball and therefore it is a fact that the earth has slowly moved into a higher orbit at exactly the same rate that the sun has warmed so as to maintain a climate on earth appropriate for life. The more we fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gases and thus heat the earth, the further the earth will move away from the sun so as to maintain an optimum climate. These "inconvenient truths" prove that there is an intelligent designer of the universe.

      Q.E.D.

      Dude, if you can get a creationist to accept enough science to admit that anthropogenic global warming is real, that miracle itself is enough to prove the existence of God.

    2. Re:Conclusions... by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the game of interstellar billiards quite unusual things can happens to planets over time. Slowly moving to higher orbits is not one of them. Interacting with other high gravity masses is, whether it's a object passing through the solar system upon it's own intergalactic trajectory causing a direct change or that object impacting other high gravity masses and causing an indirect change or usual orbits of high gravity masses within a system.

      For decades science has avoided catastrophic based planetary orbits, it makes for messy science but over millions of years in a much more interactive galaxy and universe than originally thought, much to the fear of us tiny rock in space dwellers, catastrophic orbital patterns are all too common.

      Catastrophic orbits of course imply major life extinguishing impacts, that's were the catastrophe part comes in and of course that's why science doesn't like to think about them too much.

      Although it allows the hypothesis of much simpler and more logically planetary development models and those planets out of sequence being treated as just the result of catastrophic interactions, it leaves those scientist with such a gut wrenching sense of impermanence that emotion over rules logic and far more stable convoluted models are preferred.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Conclusions... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps you should re-read the canon.

      Book Secondi 3:12

      Lo, for the baking of the divine meal
      Let it be done that the goliath meatball[1]
      Be moved upon the table[2]
      At such distance that the woodfire oven[3]
      Provides a strong heat source to allow for the Maillard reaction
      To properly crustify the goliath meatball
      And then let it be moved
      To a sufficient distance, where it may
      Yet leave the inside full of tenderness
      Like the twin meatballs upon the bosom of a mother
      His Noodly Appendage shall make such adjustments
      Necessary to make it so.

      Ramen

      [1] the goliath meatball being our planet.
      [2] the table, sometimes mistranslated as "the firmament", is of course, the fabric of spacetime
      [3] there is some disagreement among scholars about this translation, but we know from context that this is the sun

      Clearly, from analysis of scripture, we can determine that the Master of the Heavenly Forkful moves or planet into a lower or higher orbit to ensure that it cooks properly.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Conclusions... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These "inconvenient truths" prove that there is an intelligent designer of the universe.

      Of course they do. But who is the intelligent designer? There are quite a few candidates so far. And there's also Me. I'll give you 73 virgins in paradise and point to point fiber. In return, you just have to donate a small portion of your savings to My Bank Account.

      You have hit the nail on the head. Religion is a carrot & stick approach to behavior modification, with the clever twist that they want real behavior modification in the here-and-now so your imaginary soul will get the imaginary carrot instead of the imaginary stick in your imaginary afterlife.

      And when we scoff, they offer up Pascal's wager, which is like a stock broker asking you to give real money for stock in an imaginary company - think how rich you'll be if it turns out that the company actually exists!

      Or, since the emphasis is usually on the stick rather than the carrot, it's like a protection racket that asks you for real money to prevent some imaginary thugs from burning down your imaginary soul's imaginary restaurant in your imaginary afterlife.

      Sweet scam. If my current gig doesn't work out, I'm going to start a religion.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  5. Wouldn't a giant impact change its orbit? by Brad1138 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Kind of like this...

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  6. Well, yeah... by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Up until it found it was having humans. Then it had to settle down.

  7. Fairly stupid response by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    A substance that, when introduced into or absorbed by a living organism, causes death or injury, esp. one that kills by rapid action.

    *breaths in*

    That was just a bunch of CO2 I sucked in right there.

    Even your argument that "everything is a poison in large quantities" is stupid, because it's not the CO2 harming you if you go in the garage and turn on the car - it's the fact you are not getting oxygen. The CO2 itself did not hurt you.

    Plants also disagree with you. When you've made a plant frown how much lower can you go?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Fairly stupid response by Dialecticus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even your argument that "everything is a poison in large quantities" is stupid, because it's not the CO2 harming you if you go in the garage and turn on the car - it's the fact you are not getting oxygen. The CO2 itself did not hurt you.

      Actually, it's not CO2 nor lack of oxygen that kills in this situation, but rather CO. As I understand it, hemoglobin bonds preferentially to CO over O2. Once a red blood cell has absorbed CO, it doesn't want to let go even when exposed to O2. This means that one can effectively suffocate even when there's plenty of O2 available to breathe.

      This is why CO is sometimes used on meat. It keeps the meat bright red and healthy-looking so it will look nice on display in the grocery store. Without it, I think meat would tend more toward purple.

    2. Re:Fairly stupid response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not true. It's not merely displacement of oxygen that can harm you; CO2 also drives blood pH down and results in acidosis.

      Related: The increased acidification of the oceans due to CO2 is one of those things that's often overlooked when people start talking about CO2 emissions and Global Warming and all that.

    3. Re:Fairly stupid response by Algae_94 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That doesn't change the fact that the CO is what kills you. As a poster further down mentioned, hemoglobin preferentially and strongly bonds to CO over oxygen causing your blood to not be able to transport oxygen leading to your death. It is extremely common to have CO2 in your lungs, as that is what we breathe out.

    4. Re:Fairly stupid response by rujholla · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you mean the neutralization of the ocean as the water is going from slightly basic to slightly less basic. It isn't acidification until you cross neutral.

    5. Re:Fairly stupid response by rossdee · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought the prevailing opinion was that basic was bad, (all those gotos) so removing some of the basic (and replacing it with something more structured) , would be good

    6. Re:Fairly stupid response by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It isn't acidification until you cross neutral.

      Sure it is, just like water going from hot steam to slightly less hot steam is still "cooling". It's all just based on concentration of H+, with "neutral" being a given concentration in pure water. "Acidification" just means that concentration is increasing.

    7. Re:Fairly stupid response by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      So cyanide is not a poison?

      Not in small enough quantities. Cyanide(s) have been used in the treatment of certain cancers, tuberculosis and even leprosy.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:Fairly stupid response by evanism · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its all a matter of procedure really.

      Afterall, there are so many objects in the C.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    9. Re:Fairly stupid response by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, CO will kill you, CO2 just prevents you from living.

      CO2 is toxic but only in very high concentration. And in general you will suffer from suffocation rather than "classic" poisoning. CO2 was the cause of many deaths in mining and wineries where the heavy gas could accumulate in closed low placed areas (like mine shafts and wine cellars), with people discovering too late that they're getting dizzy and fell unconscious from a lack of O2. Mainly, though, the death is due to blood being saturated by CO2, meaning that the CO2 produced by the body cannot be transported out.

      CO is a completely different beast, and actually toxic in the classic sense. It prevents O2 from being transported into the cells by bonding to the same receptors that usually carry O2, which makes it a LOT more dangerous. If you want a bad analogy, think of it as the difference of you not getting any food compared to you not being able to flush your toilet. While the latter sure is unpleasant, you can usually survive it much longer.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Fairly stupid response by sFurbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      CO2(g) + H2O(l) -> H2CO3(aq)
      H2CO3(aq) -> H+(aq) + HCO3-(aq)

  8. It's not that novel by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, unless he's trying to be punny. Migratory planets were proposed by Immanuel Velikovsky in, among other things, his 1950 book "Worlds in Collision". His ideas were picked up by James P Hogan for his "Giants" series and other books. (James P Hogan was notable for adapting crazy theories into interesting books in his early years, but then digressing later in life to the point where he never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like.)

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:It's not that novel by spacemandave · · Score: 4, Informative

      This work bears only a superficial resemblance to the ideas of Velikovsky (and I'm being generous here).

  9. The Inside Scoop by spacemandave · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ah, so here's the deal. I'm the person that this article is talking about (David Minton, professor at Purdue University). I've been reading Slashdot for a fair number of years now, though it took me a long time to sign up and comment for the first time (I've always been a lurker at heart). Because I have a soft spot for all you basement dwellers (I kid!), I'm going to give you a bit of behind the scenes regarding this article, which kind of took me by surprise, actually. This is a bit long, so TL;DR: Science sometimes happens during panicked last minute coding sessions in hotel rooms prior to delivering invited talks that were procrastinated about.

    So about five years ago my graduate school advisor and I wrote what was my very first peer-reviewed paper, which was on the subject of the Faint Young Sun Paradox. The paradox goes something like this: The early Sun was fainter than it is today, so all things being equal the Earth should have spend the first half of its life frozen over. Geologists tell us it wasn't, so something wasn't equal. What was it? We investigated the idea that the Sun may have been slightly more massive (something like 2-7% more massive), and that it had to lose most of that excess mass over a few billion years, which is at odds with measurements of mass loss of Sun-like stars. So we published it, and I went on to do other things in grad school, mostly involving trying to figure out the early impact bombardment history of the solar system, which we think may have been influenced by an early period of migration of the gas giant planets.

    Fast forward to a few months ago, and a fellow at the Space Telescope Science Institute (the place they run the Hubble from) contacted me to ask if I'd like to give a talk about my old mass-losing Sun paper at a workshop that was planned to bring together astrophysicists, geologists, climate scientists, and planetary dynamicists to talk about the Faint Young Sun problem. They wanted me to also talk about planet migration and how that might fit in to the problem. Sure, why not? Revisiting the problem would be fun! The thing is, I've just started a new faculty job, and part of my job is helping get a new planetary science group built up at Purdue, so I've been extremely busy. And, well, I procrastinated. Big time. There was always some pressing thing to do that took time away from getting ready for the workshop. So the next thing I know, it's a few days before the meeting and I still haven't really thought about the faint Sun in about five years. So I dust off my old files, start futzing around with a talk, and the next thing I know I'm on a plane to Baltimore.

    Late the night before the workshop is about to start, I'm racking my brain trying to come up with something new to say. You see, I've been thinking about early solar system history, and planet formation. Migration is a big deal in those early days. It's easy to get planets to move around in young solar systems. But the Faint Young Sun problem is a problem for the Earth's mid-life, not it's adolescence. Then I remembered a paper I really liked that came out a couple of years ago by Jaques Laskar and Mickaël Gastineau. They showed that our own solar system could potentially destabilize after a few billion years of seeming-stability due to Mercury's proximity to a chaotic region. It's described briefly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System#Laskar_.26_Gastineau

    What if something like that had happened *already?* So I futzed around with an N-body gravitational dynamics code remotely from my hotel room, in my pajamas, playing around with plausible initial solar systems where Earth stared just a tad closer to the Sun, but close enough to solve the problem of being frozen over, and Venus started out as two separate planets and then went unstable after many billions of years, scattering Earth to its present location in the process. And, when I checke

    1. Re:The Inside Scoop by IonOtter · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slashdot needs a moderation code for Awesome.

      Thank you, sir!

      --
      [End Of Line]
    2. Re:The Inside Scoop by spacemandave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      During the Archean, the time period relavant to this study, tidal heating was not terribly important. The larger internal heat from radioactive decay was higher, yet still dwarfed by the energy input from the Sun in setting the surface temperature of the Earth.

    3. Re:The Inside Scoop by spacemandave · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hi, good questions. The time period relevant to this is the Archean. The interior of the Earth was warmer back in the Archean than it is now, and there may have been more volcanic activity, but it's difficult to know what style of tectonics was operating at the surface. Very few rocks survive from that time period. Now one proposed solution to the Faint Young Sun problem was just that there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere. The subject of a few talks at this workshop a couple weeks ago was constraining the abundance of atmospheric CO2 from looking at the chemistry of the few rocks we have from that epoch. There were some presentation suggesting that the atmosphere contained no more than about 20x the present abundance of CO2, but you may need more like 100-1000x in order to completely solve the problem. So people have suggested things like more CH4, NH3, and also that perhaps the Earth was somewhat darker due to different styles of cloud-making and fewer continental land masses (oceans are quite dark), meaning that the surface did not reflect back as much radiation as it does now. All of these ideas are being actively debated.

      Now as to the question of meteor bombardment: that was the topic of the last 1/3 of my talk at the workshop, but was not mentioned in TFA. I am on a paper coming out in a couple of weeks that is showing that the so-called Late Heavy Bombardment persisted on the Earth all throughout the Archean, rather than ending abruptly at the end of the Hadean, as was thought from looking at lunar samples. The bombardment rate, while much higher than present-day, was not so high as to likely have had any major direct effect on the climate over geologically interesting timescales (say an impact creating a 1000 km wide basin occurring every 200-500 million year during the Archean). However, there may have been indirect effects of impact bombardment that have yet to be explored, and we find that it is an interesting coincidence that bombardment rate pretty much drops off completely by the early Proterozoic, just as Earth began to show signs of having some oxygen in the atmosphere, and the first real evidence for any kind of major glaciation events (the Huronian snowball). Could somewhat elevated impact bombardment rate be a controlling factor in the warm and anoxic Archean? I don't know the answer to that, but were studying it.

  10. Man Stabbed. Death Caused By Anemia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your post is neither less stupid than the GP nor informative.

    Re: Sucking
    It was also just a bunch of CO2 you blew out.

    Re: Your ridiculous claims.
    *Everything* that kills you works by disrupting something your body needs to do to live. You might as well say paralyzing venoms don't kill you, it's the lack of oxygen because your lungs aren't working. Does that mean venom isn't poison? No.

    Re: Car scenario
    The CO2 in your scenario doesn't kill you. The CO does that. CO2 CAN kill you, though. Maybe you've heard of hypercapnia. (Note the URL, too.)

    Re: Plants
    Just because something is not poison to ONE organism does not mean it is not a poison.

  11. Re:What about the Theia impact theory? by Brad1138 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was pulled into a larger orbit by swallows. Swallows.

    African or European?

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  12. I am quite skeptical about this by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the amazing consequences of the Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser theorem (KAM) is that the Earth orbit is stable, despite the influence of Jupiter. Stable in this context means that the orbit perturbations caused by Jupiter and the other planets don't cause the Earth orbit to move too close or too far from the Sun, causing dramatic changes of temperature.
    Chaos theory when gravitation is involved is not so chaotic as one could expect: the KAM theorem tells us that multi-body systems governed by gravitation law have intrinsic stability regions.

    1. Re:I am quite skeptical about this by spacemandave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is not Earth's stability, it's Mercury's. Mercury is close to a so-called secular resonance, and it's eccentricity varies more chaotically than Earth or Venus. So yes, Earth would remain bounded indefinitely as long as Mercury never attains a high enough eccentricity that it begins crossing into Venus's orbit. Once close encounters take place with Mercury, the whole inner solar system can rapidly destabilize.