Slashdot Mirror
Updated Model Puts Earth On the Edge of the Habitable Zone
cylonlover writes with news of an update to the model used for calculating the habitable zone around stars shifting things out a bit. From the article: "Researchers at Penn state have developed a new method for calculating the habitable zone (original paper, PDF) around stars. The computer model based on new greenhouse gas databases provides a tool to better estimate which extrasolar planets with sufficient atmospheric pressure might be able to maintain liquid water on their surface. The new model indicates that some of the nearly 300 possible Earth-like planets previously identified might be too close to their stars to to be habitable. It also places the Solar System's habitable zone between 0.99 AU (92 million mi, 148 million km) and 1.70 AU (158 million mi, 254 million km) from the Sun. Since the Earth orbits the Sun at an average distance of one AU, this puts us at the very edge of the habitable zone."
by deciding to include my neighborhood.
This then suggests a simple fix for global warming - we just need to move Earth into a slightly higher orbit. A few hundred well-placed nuclear bombs ought to do it.
They adjust the "habitable zone" for each star already.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Personally I would much have our global climate be what it is rather than have 40 degree oceans if we were further from the Sun.
call me FOSS im the boss with the sauce and the source
I smell a new political platform to run on, this orbit is just too damn high!
TFS already indicates that the change affects where the Solar System's habital zone is calculated to be; even without looking at TFA it is clear that the "habitable zone" is star-specific.
...time for some terraforming?
It also means Mars is just within the newly-defined habitable zone
You're right, we shouldn't build models based on math. We shouldn't even try to understand the universe using such abstract tools. We should rely on thought experiments and push models around in sand. We can dress in togas and burn heretics.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The whole "Earth is fine-tuned for life" stuff has been debunked for ages (but still circulates thanks to creationists), but it's pretty amazing to consider our planet could be more than 1.5 times as far out as it is now, and still remain habitable.
Also, note that the Earth's perihelion places us at 0.983AU. If these numbers are correct, our orbit actually leaves the habitable zone for a brief period every year.
Every month or so astronomers find something that, according to their knowledge, should not exist.
I bet they'll soon find a planet outside this new defined zone that has liquid water on its surface.
This is interesting, since all the scientific data I've seen says that ultimately, Venus is far better than Mars as a target for Terraforming, yet this research is claiming that Venus is far outside the habitable zone, while Mars is smack in the middle of it.
Mars simply lacks two things: (1) the ability to generate a good strong magnetic field (too small, and no molten iron core), so it gets constantly bombarded with far more solar radiation than terrestrial life can stand outdoors, and (b) its much smaller mass and lack of magnetic field make is impossible for Mars to hold an atmosphere that's much more than it has now. So the result is that, while Mars superficially seems a better place for life now, there's no good way for us to transplant onto Mars without having to either live underground or under thick domes.
Venus, on the other hand, already generates a good magnetic field, and has no problem holding a significant atmosphere. It's just too hot and toxic. But a couple thousand tons of bacteria into the upper atmosphere will solve that problem, so Venus is actually the best candidate to turn into an Earth-like place.
I guess we'll have to look for two criteria: (1) which planets are most likely to have Earth-like indigenous life on them, and (2) which planets are best suited to be terraformed for occupation by us.
Like I said, interesting...
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Surely you all know the habitable zone is exactly 20ft wide? Someone told me once, so I believed them
Umm... they are. Most granting agencies require scientists to do this.
Also, what exactly are you suggesting here? Big oil companies paid the scientists to place the earth at the hot edge of the habitable zone so that people would get more scared of it getting hotter? Or is this the "big solar" conspiracy theory again?
Well, given a thousand years or so we could probably dump enough asteroid material on it to bring the mass up. By then, we should have enough fusion tech to scarf hydrogen from Jupiter, fuse some of it up to oxygen, fuse more up to nitrogen, and combine the rest with some of the oxygen for water. Then seed with microbes, algae, etc; that ought to take another few hundred years. But after all that, sure, Mars ought to be nice.
And by the time that's done with we could probably set up a Nivenesque drive system on Neptune and use it to pull Venus out to the habitable zone and get started on it. :)
Wait, so he should have kept his work secret until he had the One Perfect Model?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
As the authors explain "Testing these predictions quantitatively using 3-D climate models should be a fruitful topic for future research." i.e. they need to keep paying mortgages, car loans,... next few years. The model is so embarrassingly inadequate, that considering how much room for fudging one has with toy models, they still barely managed to get Earth to come inside the "habitable zone."
I also wonder how will politicians translate this 1-D toy model into a story in which we are somehow responsible for the Earth's distance from Sun and need to pay them for it.
Damned right! Ron Paul 2016!
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Thanks for the clarification
He should not have published anything until his model matched up in some meaningful way with known facts about climate history. Obviously the lack of accounting for such a massive element is what probably is leading to this ridiculous idea that we're somehow almost too hot to support life, which is why we've had dozens of ice ages, including some which arguably devolved into 'snowball earth' scenarios where the virtually the whole planet was frozen. If your model doesn't fit major facts, it sucks, and it should be completely retooled at a minimum, or even discarded, because models that don't fit facts are nothing but incomplete masturbations.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Simulation of being just a bit further away from the Sun sounds like it would effect what happened in the Maunder Minimum, with reduced Solar output where millions of people starved to death in Europe alone.
Mars had liquid water at some point and is outside the habitable zone, for some definitions of habitable zone. So it is entirely possible that planets with liquid water can exist outside the habitable zone. The real issue is with stability. An interesting take on this is to consider the flux of radiation from the Sun hitting the Earth. For a disk the size of the Earth, one can calculate the distance where water freezes and where water boils as a rough estimate of a "zone" of sorts. When looked at in this way, the Earth is at a point just barely above freezing. That we have the climate that we do beyond that near freezing point is due entirely to greenhouse effects.
I would think there would be more empathy for a collaborative approach around here. What he is doing is the open-source equivalent of putting an early alpha up on GitHub. Hell, he even offers up the source code.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Hmm, not in my definition of "few hundred". The calculation is actually easy to make:
The earth is about 1,5E11 m away from the Sun, let's say that 1% is the variation that we want, so we get it to 1,515E11 m. So the difference in energy that we need is GMm(1/R1-1/R2) \approx 5E31 J; quite a lot.
The best (or worst, depending on your point of view) nuke we ever exploded is the Tsar Bomba, which was 57 megatons or better 2,4E17 J.
So if we managed to use this energy with 100% efficiency (which we obviously can't) to move the Earth, we would need 10^14 nukes. Well, guess we're stuck here.
entropy happens
It seems he's saying that the Earth is almost too close to the Sun to sustain life, so I have to ask... are we talking about the same Earth here? You know, the one that's had dozens of ice ages?
If we can get a small asteroid to gradually move a bigger asteroid around the solar system in a controlled orbit, then we could make such asteroid steal momentum from Jupiter or Saturn bit by bit to put Earth's orbit out a bit more. It would take several thousands of years, though. It's within our current technology because we just to use smaller objects to move & control progressively bigger objects by leveraging the big planets. It's somewhat similar to how we used Jupiter's gravity to speed up the New Horizons probe.
Table-ized A.I.
You also have to take into consideration that the Sun is getting hotter, estimates are that it has got at least 25% hotter over the course of the life of the Earth. This is due to the ratio of helium to hydrogen changing causing the Sun to become more dense and therefore burn hotter. Estimates are that in as little as 500 million years the Earth will have its oceans boil and we'll become much more similar to Venus.
Then there are variations in the Earths orbit, variations in the layout of the continents as well as life itself. Photosynthesis surely lead to climate change and when those first forests grew without much to help them decompose there was massive amounts of carbon sequestration.
One of the lucky coincidences of Earth is that it has been inhabitable over most of its existence.
Another thing to consider is that the galaxy itself has habitable zone(s). Many stars have orbits that take them close to the core where radiation is much higher and the chances of a close enough encounter with another star to perturb planets orbit is much likelier. Same can be said about areas of the galaxy where massive star formation is happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Wasn't Earth stuck in frozen-ice-ball phase about a billion years ago? If we were a little further out, we may still be stuck in that phase even today.
Maybe the habitable zone varies over time depending on the planet's conditions and chemical makeup.
Table-ized A.I.
It seems he's saying that the Earth is almost too close to the Sun to sustain life, so I have to ask... are we talking about the same Earth here? You know, the one that's had dozens of ice ages?
There is more to being habital than simply being in the habital zone.
Nah, fission on Mars to split Fe to O2/N2. And we'd probably need to pull it into the asteroid belt to get all the asteroids to it, and we'd need nearly the entire belt to get it a noticeable gain in mass.
And I'd use the Niven drive to push all the gas giants together. See how star-like the result is. Then move that gas super-giant towards earth, and set Earth, Mars, Venus, and all the Jovian moons around, crashing Europa into Mars for the mass/water, and then using the Niven drive to move the small star-cluster into intergalactic space, if there ever is an issue with our Sun. (may have to do the Europa/Mars thing first, so as to not destroy Europa with the planet combining)
Learn to love Alaska
Clouds not only affect sunlight on the day side of the planet but also also radiative heat transfer from the surface on both the day and night sides. Ever notice how much warmer it can be on a cloudy night than on a clear night? Current research indicates that clouds overall probably have a slightly positive effect on global warming but much research still needs to be done.
So clouds have an effect but greenhouse gases still dominate the equations. That affects the accuracy of model he uses but it's likely not an order of magnitude off and so is useful as a starting point to further refine the science.
This binary thinking that something has to be 100% right or it's completely wrong is not how science works.
All scientific papers should be published with a full list of all grant money sources received over the past 24 months.
They are. (In medical research at least, don't know about astrophysics.)
And different times. Suns get hotter, planets internally cooler over time. Orbits of planets move in and out.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Is it so much to ask him to include a variable that is clearly important to the point of rendering his model absolutely worthless if not included?
I guess it is, when leaving out said variable leaves the reader with the impression that just a wee tiny bit of warming will push the earth over the edge into becoming totally uninhabitable.
Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by a wide margin. It just doesn't persist there very long, and people can't seem to understand the concept of an "equilibrium", especially a changing one.
So if we managed to use this energy with 100% efficiency (which we obviously can't) to move the Earth, we would need 10^14 nukes.
Sounds pretty good, only four nukes!
Better use five. From Orbit. Just to be sure.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
if you move the moon away from the earth it would have less effect
Well obvious answer then, move it closer for an even stronger effect!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While I didn't mention water vapor except generically in greenhouse gases I agree with what you said.
However if get the feeling you may be conflating clouds and water vapor. Sorry if I'm wrong. They certainly are related since a cloud's existence depends on water vapor but the greenhouse effects of clouds and water vapor are quite different.
Sorry but I have to say the word is habitable. Habital sounds like something I do as a result of a habit.
With all the fluctuations over 4B years, how then have we remained in the zone to maintain life?
I'm not aware of large fluctuations of earth's orbit in that past 4B years.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
While everyone debates how many nukes it would take to adjust earth's orbit, I decided to see if our current solar distance under the new guidelines was actually a problem. I fired up Celestia and although I'm not sure what kind of factors it takes in to effect at both a macro and micro level, I figured it would give a decent representation of our solar orbit trends for the next 10 millennium at least.
It looks like around Jul 16, 2013 we're at our farthest solar orbit of around 1.0164au and around December 31, 2013 we're out our closest solar orbit at around 0.98333au. Fast forward 11970 years and around June 30, 13983 we are at our furthest solar orbit of around 1.0151au and around December 30, 13983 we're at our closest solar orbit of around .98390au. And if you advance even further to over a million years in Celestia we're still looking at solar distances right around the same range.
Sure, the close range may mean that we're too close to the sun by only 0.00667au and our saving grace is that it won't stay at .98333au all year round, but somebody may want to inform the researchers that we are outside of their range and the earth appears to be quite habitable. And for the rest of you, let's not try to solve a problem that doesn't exist and won't exist for a very, very, VERY long time.
it will be revealed that earth (terra, aka sol 3) is NOT a planet, it is a habitoid.
They are taking greenhouse effect into account? If it goes further this way, by 2050 habitable zone for Earth will be between 1.10 and 2.05 AU, because of amount of CO2 we pump to atmosphere. And this will give us a clear conscience - it is not our fault for making Earth inhabitable, it is just in wrong place in orbit for our pollution needs.
I wonder if our ancestors, barely surviving ice ages, would also agree that 0.99AU is way too close to Sun...
Well, given a thousand years or so we could probably dump enough asteroid material on it to bring the mass up.
Not sure where you'd get all that asteroid material from, as if you dumped the entire mass of the asteroid belt on Mars you'd only increase its mass by 0.5%.
The Kuipler belt is much more massive, maybe 10% the mass of Earth, but that's mainly frozen ices rather than rock.
Interesting. The orbit of Mars is at 1.38-1.67 au, which is at the other end of the habitable zone. So our solar system actually has two planets in the habitable zone!
Stellar evolution of sun like stars suggests our Sun was ca. 20% dimmer 4 billion years ago, and early opinions were the Sun was too dim and the Earth too cold for liquid water. In the 1970s, Carl Sagan proposed an Ammonia rich atmosphere that produced an efficient Greenhouse effect, but later work on the redox state of the Mantle indicated out gassed volatiles produced a hydrogen rich (mildly reducing atmosphere) that did not easily produce a strong greenhouse. Despite this later research, looking at stable isotopes, suggested the early earth was quite warm ~50 to 60 degrees Celsius. The reappraisal of the Habitable Zone may help dispel the "Faint Young Sun Paradox".
That last one won't affect where the habitalbe zone is , only if a planet is inside or outside of the zone.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Venus and Mars were always in the habitable zone, although this new definition excludes the former. But that only means that it's not physically impossible for liquid water to exist on them. We have good evidence that Mars had liquid water, but it has disappeared since then. To get liquid water on Mars, we would first have to replace its lost atmosphere, and for that atmosphere to remain, we would have to give it a magnetic field, which is pretty much impossible for the foreseeable future.
So we want the clouds there in the daytime but not at night. (And yes it can make a big difference in the nightime temperature, especially if there is snow on the ground (and no wind)
We should abolish daylight saving too
What do they mean would happen if the earth moved 1% closer to the sun then? Everything burst into flames, the oceans evaporate and the moon falls down unto our head?
It seems to me that they are trying to form fit the equations to put earth on the extreme border.
Or they're playing buzzword bingo and decide to use the worst apocalyptic CO2 forcing knife-edge-balanced runaway GW scenarios which sets the world on fire if solar influx is just slightly elevated.
He mentions, right in the executive summary of the paper, that the model does not include cloud cover. He then describes his research in detail and even offers a download of the Fortran source code along with some sample datasets. I'm not sure how much more wide-open the author could be. You could pick up where he left off, add cloud cover, and bam - "instant" thesis.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
TFS already indicates that the change affects where the Solar System's habital zone is calculated to be
Earth *was* calculated to be at the inner edge of the habitable zone even before this study.
Ezekiel 23:20
I thought the idea to terraform venus was to provide a solar shade to cool it down. Why not do the same thing for the earth, build a pair of solar plants in space that also act as a shade. Then we should build two and make the earth had some really cool looking sunglasses, to cool it down.
Mars may be in the habitable zone, but it's not a habitable type planet.
Habitable Planet = Habitable Type Planet (mass/atmosphere/shields) + Habitable Zone (temperature/energy input).
They may have overlooked an important factor. It would not be the first time. Carl Sagan went overboard with is "nuclear winter" scenario based on 1-D atmospheric profiles, land-only model 20 years ago. Later 2-D mixed land/ocean models were more moderate.
yeah, I had misremembered the estimated mass of the asteroids. Oh well. We could still do the atmosphere thing, but with 0.38 gravities at the surface, I'm not sure how long the air would stay on Mars. May be better to just go straight to the Venus plan.
Way too close. I call gerrymandering.
#o#
O Moo.
Yes, but submitted by "cylonlover"? Shouldn't trust him.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
As OneAhead pointed out the funding information you seek is available, just not all in one place. Why would you expect anyone to compile it all and hand it to you on a silver platter? Maybe you should do everyone a favor and start compiling it yourself. The National Science Foundation is a good place to start. Every research institution probably has a web page trumpeting grants their scientists have received.
The rest of your post is just political claptrap that has nothing to do with climate science.
Not quite, rather everything would slowly get warmer, and life would start to die out.
A problem with this calculation, however... It puts Mars in the habitable zone. If Mars had sufficient atmosphere, would it be warm enough to support life?
And, I seriously doubt Earth is at the edge, given that we have had a lot of ice ages (and in fact, are still in one, even if it's not a glacial maxima). Given the ages stars can achieve, and that their temperature profiles change over time, it is probably better to say that the habitable zone changes over time, and having a 'static' habitable zone simply based on the star's current energy output, is not a terribly sane concept.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Since the Earth orbits the Sun at an average distance of one AU, this puts us at the very edge of the habitable zone.
Take that aliens, out planet has the edge!!!!!
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
Pretty much as soon as astronomy developed to the stage that we could seriously model and attempt to understand the atmospheres of other planets - specifically Mars and Venus - it has been pretty obvious that the inner boundary of the Sun's "habitable zone" (itself not a clearly defined concept, at that time) lays somewhere between the Earth's orbit and Venus' orbit.
(I should, strictly, add that the above statement applies to the the current orbits of Earth, Venus and Mars ; during the same period of astronomical research it has become clear that the orbits may be chaotic and subject to change on epochal timescales (giga-years).)
Whether Mars is in the Sun's "habitable zone" or not is a bit of a moot point. The big problem with Mars' habitability isn't it's location, but it's size. It's too small ; it cooled too quickly ; it's mantle stopped overturning to release volatiles to the surface and it's core has become too viscous to produce a significant magnetic field, allowing the atmosphere to be eroded by UV radiation from the sun. A bigger planet in Mars' orbit may have had a significantly different outcome. But there's not enough material in the inner solar system to make a bigger planet there, so it's going to remain a thought experiment.
I expect that somewhere in this thread there will be people talking about terraforming Mars. Not going to happen. It's not worth the effort.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"