Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Updated Model Puts Earth On the Edge of the Habitable Zone

Posted by Unknown on from the living-on-the-razor's-edge dept.

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."

5 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. They must have brought down the averages by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

    by deciding to include my neighborhood.

  2. GW solution by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:GW solution by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      A few hundred well-placed nuclear bombs ought to do it.

      If the goal is a nuclear winter, sure. If you're trying to move the planet... how can I put this as succinctly as possible: If we detonated every nuke we had on one side of the planet, we'd succeed only in leaving one side of the planet uninhabitable. It wouldn't move the planet by any appreciable amount. The subsequent earthquakes would probably do more, by affecting spin. People seem to forget in orbital mechanics, to move in one direction, you have to displace an equal amount of mass x energy in the opposite direction. All a nuke would do is move the air around and leave a hole in the ground. Nothing would be ejected into space, and therefore, no movement.

      I know you're trying to be funny, but after awhile, I get tired of the "a nuke is powerful enough to do anything!" thinking. I blame Bruce Willis.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. Re:Well if a "scientist" makes a model then by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Wow by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.