[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah, the habitable zone of the sun moves.
We are meanwhile on the edge of that zone, soon to leave it, and over time the sun will evaporate earth and later the sun will be a red giant and engulfe the earth.

But no need for doom thinking here
We can move the earth to higher orbits and follow the habitable zone
and before the sun becomes a red giant we can relocate the earth to another solar system with a sun that lives longer because it is smaller.

Moving the earth by the same "collision-gravitational pull" technique used to shoot our interstellar satellites into deep space with Jupiter.
For the earth we can use meteors for that https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/jun/10/globalwarming.climatechange
the nicety of this method is that we can finetune to the optimal location in the habitable zone also taking in account climate changes.

Travelling as a nomad planet to another solar system will take a long time, but because it will take tens of billions of years before our molten core cools down we only have to dig in.

"The main factor slowing down the cooling is radioactive decay of long living atoms, namely Uranium-238, Uranium-235, Thorium-232, and Potassium-40, with half-lives of roughly 4.47 billion years, 704 million years, 14.1 billion years, and 1.28 billion years, respectively. From the half-lives of these isotopes and a comparison with the age of Earth, you can see that internal heat production via radioactive decay will likely persist at near current levels for quite some time to come. Verhoogen gives 5000 K as the core temperature now, and a 250 K cooling since the formation of the Solar System, 4.5 billion years ago. If it really does cool at that rate (55 degrees per billion years), it would take something like 91 billion years to cool to 0 Kelvin"

Moving the Earth is just about impossible.

It would be much easier, cheaper and faster to deploy sunshades to block as much light as needed to keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. Even artificial alterations to the climate (terraforming to maintain the current equilibrium as the natural equilibrium shifts) would be far easier than moving the planet.

 

[Lexicus]

It would be much easier, cheaper and faster to deploy sunshades to block as much light as needed to keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. Even artificial alterations to the climate (terraforming to maintain the current equilibrium as the natural equilibrium shifts) would be far easier than moving the planet.

Like, two dozen orders of magnitude easier.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Easily.

Plus by default you'd begin screwing up the orbits of all the other planets so you'd end up having to adjust them all over time.

 

[Lexicus]

Did you ever read that Things of Interest piece, How To Destroy the Earth? Great read.

 

[Hrothbern]

@Lexicus , @hobbsyoyo ,

Did you two read the link ?

here some text of trhat link that answers your comments, as if they knew it:

"'The technology is not at all far-fetched,' said Dr Greg Laughlin, of the Nasa Ames Research Center in California. 'It involves the same techniques that people now suggest could be used to deflect asteroids or comets heading towards Earth. We don't need raw power to move Earth, we just require delicacy of planning and manoeuvring.'
The plan put forward by Dr Laughlin, and his colleagues Don Korycansky and Fred Adams, involves carefully directing a comet or asteroid so that it sweeps close past our planet and transfers some of its gravitational energy to Earth.
'Earth's orbital speed would increase as a result and we would move to a higher orbit away from the Sun,' Laughlin said.
Engineers would then direct their comet so that it passed close to Jupiter or Saturn, where the reverse process would occur. It would pick up energy from one of these giant planets. Later its orbit would bring it back to Earth, and the process would be repeated."

In the long run, to prevent big meteorite collisions, we need to be able to handle meteorites anyway. Controlling that and using it, is the opposite of endangering the earth.

 

[Lexicus]

That's actually pretty interesting. But then wouldn't you need, like, millions of years to actually move the Earth enough to change the climate significantly?

 

[Cutlass]

@Lexicus , @hobbsyoyo ,

Did you two read the link ?

here some text of trhat link that answers your comments, as if they knew it:

"'The technology is not at all far-fetched,' said Dr Greg Laughlin, of the Nasa Ames Research Center in California. 'It involves the same techniques that people now suggest could be used to deflect asteroids or comets heading towards Earth. We don't need raw power to move Earth, we just require delicacy of planning and manoeuvring.'
The plan put forward by Dr Laughlin, and his colleagues Don Korycansky and Fred Adams, involves carefully directing a comet or asteroid so that it sweeps close past our planet and transfers some of its gravitational energy to Earth.
'Earth's orbital speed would increase as a result and we would move to a higher orbit away from the Sun,' Laughlin said.
Engineers would then direct their comet so that it passed close to Jupiter or Saturn, where the reverse process would occur. It would pick up energy from one of these giant planets. Later its orbit would bring it back to Earth, and the process would be repeated."

In the long run, to prevent big meteorite collisions, we need to be able to handle meteorites anyway. Controlling that and using it, is the opposite of endangering the earth.

That would take a hell of a lot more effort and energy than just putting a billion umbrellas into orbit.

 

[Hrothbern]

That's actually pretty interesting. But then wouldn't you need, like, millions of years to actually move the Earth enough to change the climate significantly?

IF we do not screw up our climate by human made effects, and do not have to move the Earth fast to compensate our human made temperature increase, we "only" have to follow the edge of the habitable zone.
From the graphs, when we want to keep our Earth in our current position on the inner edge of the habitable zone we have roughly 1.0 billion years time to move outward to an orbit in the middle of the Venus and Mars orbit.
That would mean a new Earth orbit with a roughly 20% bigger radius, needing 20% more potential Energy and it would mean an orbital velocity of roughly 8% slower (16% less kinetic energy). Our year would have roughly 490 days.
So to your question: yes it will take millions of years, but that is then also probable what we will aim for.

IF we lose control on our climate we have to move outward faster or apply local climate engineering actions.
I am very reluctant on those local climate engineering actions until we have a very thorough understanding of the whole climate model. That could take easily a century or more.

I dig into it.
Both Kepler as Newton would calculate it easily with pen and paper, but I see what I can find from NASA.

 

[Borachio]

But if it would take millions of years, what else would also change in that time?

There's all sorts of possibilities. Mankind could well have moved on evolutionarily speaking. As could other species.

 

[Hrothbern]

But if it would take millions of years, what else would also change in that time?
There's all sorts of possibilities. Mankind could well have moved on evolutionarily speaking. As could other species.

yeah
What millions of years will mean for mankind is kind of incomprehensible (to me).
State control could become excessive by electronics and by genetic engineering. We seem to have discovered the switches in our brain that regulate alpha-male behaviour and our predator/killer behaviour. With local laser light you can switch them on and off. The President, CEO or general switching his alpha on before adressing the crowd with their alpha switched off. The killer switch used for soldiers.

This is a nice video cut from the "first, still silent epic sci-fi movie Metropolis (1926), with music from Zager & Evans (1969, In the year 2025).

 

[Cutlass]

North Atlantic cod stocks.

 

[Yeekim]

That's pretty interesting.

Spoiler :

Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map
Analysis of WVS data made by political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel asserts that there are two major dimensions of cross cultural variation in the world:

1. Traditional values versus Secular-rational values and
2. Survival values versus Self-expression values. The global cultural map (below) shows how scores of societies are located on these two dimensions. Moving upward on this map reflects the shift from Traditional values to Secular-rational and moving rightward reflects the shift from Survival values to Self–expression values.

Traditional values emphasize the importance of religion, parent-child ties, deference to authority and traditional family values. People who embrace these values also reject divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide. These societies have high levels of national pride and a nationalistic outlook.

Secular-rational values have the opposite preferences to the traditional values. These societies place less emphasis on religion, traditional family values and authority. Divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide are seen as relatively acceptable. (Suicide is not necessarily more common.)

Survival values place emphasis on economic and physical security. It is linked with a relatively ethnocentric outlook and low levels of trust and tolerance.

Self-expression values give high priority to environmental protection, growing tolerance of foreigners, gays and lesbians and gender equality, and rising demands for participation in decision-making in economic and political life.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Greece is in catholic Europe? Nice that Fyromania is still in orthodox, though, despite funky graphic.

 

[Yeekim]

At least it's now settled once and for all that Poland is, in fact, in Latin America.

 

[Hrothbern]

If you put Trump and Pence on this graph, they are far away from the US dot

 

[W|M]

At least it's now settled once and for all that Poland is, in fact, in Latin America.

No, the border is slightly distorted there, it's meant to be within African-Islamic since it's in North Africa

 

[JohannaK]

I love how Cyprus is in South Asia. Also how Survival Values are describes as basically equivalent to Traditional values: "ethnocentrism" and "nationalistic outlook" sound like suspiciously similar things.

Then somehow the US has more Self-Expression than Spain or France with its nativist quasi-reactionary conservatism? This graph is garbage.

 

[Traitorfish]

^Greece is in catholic Europe? Nice that Fyromania is still in orthodox, though, despite funky graphic.

Well, apparently neither Estonia nor England are Protestant, while Germany and Switzerland are entirely Protestant; Japan is Confucian but Vietnam isn't; and Cyprus is in South Asia while Malta is in Latin America. Catholic Greece isn't much of a stretch by comparison.

 

[W|M]

Northern Ireland, as well as the rest of Ireland, should also be Catholic, and Albania and Bosnia should be African

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, apparently neither Estonia nor England are Protestant, while Germany and Switzerland are entirely Protestant; Japan is Confucian but Vietnam isn't; and Cyprus is in South Asia while Malta is in Latin America. Catholic Greece isn't much of a stretch by comparison.

It would be if you'd count the last farcical union of the churches, which still didn't help save Constantinople