The fate of the Earth?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Partially crystalline materials
Next: Speciation Process: Excrement Color Skin Proven Harmful (Poverty, Crime and Disease)
From: rick++ on 3 Sep 2009 14:05 In Peter Ward's new book The Medea Hypothesis, Earth becomes unable to support photosynthesis and hence complex life once CO2 falls too low (about a quarter of current levels). Over the long run CO2 has been converted into carbonates. Carbonates contain 99.98% of Earth's carbon now. CO2 has been falling steadily in the past two billion years with the crucial threshhold in a few hundred million years. Its a fairly simple teraforming process to reverse this- just burn limestone. Lime manufacture is on of the top sources of anthrogenic CO2 after hydrocarbon burning.
From: George on 3 Sep 2009 14:29 "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4a9f5a64$1(a)news.bnb-lp.com... > mike3 wrote: >> Hi. >> >> I saw this discussion: >> http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-41880.html >> >> One poster posted: >> "Well I'm about to finish the book on that. Venus has stopped spinning >> by an internal mechanism that was feeded by chaotic resonance in its >> orbit. Consequently the planet heated up tremendously melting it >> completely. This happened one to two billion years ago. We still see >> the residual heat of that process and this has nothing to do with >> greenhouse gas effect. >> >> There are many details supporting that hypothesis, like the shaping >> and geologic frequencies of the plains indicating melting, the >> exponential declining of volcanic activity indicates strong cooling >> etc. The new paradigm rthat is currently emerging is "radiogenic heat" >> and a lot of it. But what is the source. The most likely element - >> potassium40- (40K) is also much more rare on Venus? >> >> It was the big brake." >> >> Is any of this good theory? If so, what sort of implication would it >> have for the far future of the Earth, when the Sun's luminosity >> increases to the point it begins to evaporate the oceans from the >> globe? (Note that this happens quite far in advance of the red giant >> phase.) As it seems to suggest things other than greenhouse are >> necessary to get the Venus-like environment. If melting it down is >> required to keep it so hot, not just greenhouse, then could it be that >> the Earth might instead of becoming like Venus become more like Mars >> with a depleted, thin and wispy atmosphere? Or is this bad theory? >> It's been about 5 years since this was posted, so I suppose more work >> has been done now on this subject. >> > > No, I don't think it's good theory. The Venus greenhouse was caused by a > lack of magnetic field. The lack of magnetic field was caused by Venus' > lack of rotation. Venus' lack of rotation was caused by god-knows-what. > > I don't think there is any good theory as to what caused Venus to stop > spinning, although the favourite theory seems to suggest a resonance with > Jupiter caused it. But that doesn't explain why Earth and Mars weren't > affected, but why Mercury and Venus might have been. > > Regarding Earth's greenhouse fate in the future. It's been suggested that > within 1 billion years, the Sun will be 10% hotter than it is today, > rendering habitation on Earth impossible. That ignores the fact that the > Sun was 10% cooler, 1 billion years ago too. The Earth adjusted to the > cooler Sun then, and it may very well adjust to the warmer Sun. Certain > theories suggest that lifeforms on Earth itself alter the atmosphere > enough to keep the planet habitable. > > Yousuf Khan Has tidal locking been ruled out in the case of Venus? Just curious. George
From: Pertti Koivisto on 3 Sep 2009 14:52 On 3 syys, 06:08, mike3 <mike4...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi. > > I saw this discussion:http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-41880.html > > One poster posted: > "Well I'm about to finish the book on that. Venus has stopped spinning > by an internal mechanism that was feeded by chaotic resonance in its > orbit. Consequently the planet heated up tremendously melting it > completely. This happened one to two billion years ago. We still see > the residual heat of that process and this has nothing to do with > greenhouse gas effect. > > There are many details supporting that hypothesis, like the shaping > and geologic frequencies of the plains indicating melting, the > exponential declining of volcanic activity indicates strong cooling > etc. The new paradigm rthat is currently emerging is "radiogenic heat" > and a lot of it. But what is the source. The most likely element - > potassium40- (40K) is also much more rare on Venus? > > It was the big brake." > > Is any of this good theory? If so, what sort of implication would it > have for the far future of the Earth, when the Sun's luminosity > increases to the point it begins to evaporate the oceans from the > globe? (Note that this happens quite far in advance of the red giant > phase.) As it seems to suggest things other than greenhouse are > necessary to get the Venus-like environment. If melting it down is > required to keep it so hot, not just greenhouse, then could it be that > the Earth might instead of becoming like Venus become more like Mars > with a depleted, thin and wispy atmosphere? Or is this bad theory? > It's been about 5 years since this was posted, so I suppose more work > has been done now on this subject. To thinking the future of the earth is much more difficult than the past. But certainly I predict 100 % certainty that sun sets and rise again. We can know future ! The sun shines also tomorrow ! Future can be revealed ! Astronomers collecting data from billions of stars try to think timetable of future. Will the sun become to red giant ? Perhaps but perhaps not. To know future of astronomical dimensions needs data of such numbers that astromers have no certainty. But to think how well planetary system work that we can live here is such a miracle that it needs God to explain our existence. http://users.utu.fi/pertkoiv/
From: mike3 on 3 Sep 2009 15:47 On Sep 2, 11:55 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > mike3 wrote: <snip> > No, I don't think it's good theory. The Venus greenhouse was caused by a > lack of magnetic field. The lack of magnetic field was caused by Venus' > lack of rotation. Venus' lack of rotation was caused by god-knows-what. > How does the lack of magnetic field cause greenhouse? And could loss of magnetic field also explain what happened with Mars and how Mars lost its water? > I don't think there is any good theory as to what caused Venus to stop > spinning, although the favourite theory seems to suggest a resonance > with Jupiter caused it. But that doesn't explain why Earth and Mars > weren't affected, but why Mercury and Venus might have been. > > Regarding Earth's greenhouse fate in the future. It's been suggested > that within 1 billion years, the Sun will be 10% hotter than it is > today, rendering habitation on Earth impossible. That ignores the fact > that the Sun was 10% cooler, 1 billion years ago too. The Earth adjusted > to the cooler Sun then, and it may very well adjust to the warmer Sun. > Certain theories suggest that lifeforms on Earth itself alter the > atmosphere enough to keep the planet habitable. >
From: Gordon Stangler on 3 Sep 2009 16:21
On Sep 3, 2:47 pm, mike3 <mike4...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sep 2, 11:55 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > mike3 wrote: > <snip> > > No, I don't think it's good theory. The Venus greenhouse was caused by a > > lack of magnetic field. The lack of magnetic field was caused by Venus' > > lack of rotation. Venus' lack of rotation was caused by god-knows-what. > > How does the lack of magnetic field cause greenhouse? And could > loss of magnetic field also explain what happened with Mars and how > Mars lost its water? The magnetic field helps deflect charged particles from the sun, thereby protecting the planets' tenuous supplies of hydrogen (and helium). The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water, which absorbs carbon dioxide and turns it into calcium carbonate. With Venus, there wasn't enough water to sequester enough carbon dioxide to stop the runaway greenhouse effect, whereas, with Mars, the water vanished because it boiled off when the atmosphere left Mars; since Mars did not have enough gravity to hold on to a substantial atmosphere. |