Survival on earth during red giant phase

[newtonian]

Dragon04 -Thank you.<br /><br />1. Yes, reflectivity will not be a major help during full fledged red giant phase. It will, however, be of help during early stages where radiation increase will be lower.<br /><br />It would also be of help now during global warming.<br /><br />I will check your link later - thank you for it.<br /><br />Yes, no doubt will invent various improved materials for insulation - and, again, this search and inventiveness is useful now.<br /><br />You may be correct on earth's orbit - I need some links on that for analysis! {Of course, I trust Divine intervention will be involved - see Revelation 21:3,4 - specifically: "the tent of God will be with mankind - symbolic tent but may have some literal application.)<br /><br />Is the sun expected to become hotter in a half-billion years? Can you link to that model?<br /><br />That would be good as it then would be gradual over billions of years - more time to implement and improve technology.

 

[newtonian]

alkalin - Excellent idea - it would be easier to direct smaller icy bodies, like comets, than a brown dwarf.<br /><br />What would be the required mass, speed, trajectory for an effective mixing of some surface layers with core layers for increased hydrogen availability for solar hydrogen fusion?<br /><br />Ideas we consider wacko may be good - compare ion drive, space elevator, etc.<br /><br />What effects do the relatively small comet impacts have on the sun in recent past? I suspect not much considering the Shoemaker-Levi impact on Jupiter.

 

[newtonian]

unlearningthemistakes - Permanent clouding is helpful for reflectivity, but only now in mild global warming. Venus shows the negative effect of the greenhouse effect with increased solar radiation.<br /><br />I do believe, however, than Venus has cold atmospheric layers.<br /><br />OK, Mercury ice - I wlll let someone else post on that - but I suspect lack of atmosphere and rotation rate are involved.<br /><br />I do propose atmospheric change to reduce the greenhouse effect will be helpful. Water is a greenhouse gas - if I remember correctly - but clouds mitigate that - earth really is wonderfully fine tuned!<br /><br />We should not let it change much - certainly we should protect the oceans from evaporating - though solar distillation to fresh water under insulating glass is certainly a good thing!<br /><br />Interestingly, glass is somewhat reflective - at certain angles it is highly reflective.<br /><br />There are many forms of glass!<br /><br />What is the highest temperature heat resistant glass can withstand?

 

[newtonian]

spayss - I agree on the unlikely collision scenario during Andromeda merger. It will make for good astronomy viewing though!<br /><br />There is usually an increase in new star creation during galactic mergers.<br /><br />Changing orbits would certainly merit more study!

 

[newtonian]

rfoshaug - Well, I believe only in micro-evolution, not macro-evoluiton. <br /><br />That will be no problem on this thread, since it will simply mean we wil consider different portions of this thread to be science fiction!<br /><br />I, for one, like science fiction.<br /><br />But, in fact, there are limits to genetic variation whereby extinction occurs. Breeding experiments show variation - but there are limits to this.<br /><br />Intelligent creation is another matter of course. Since I believe we were created in God's image, we should be able to create, by genetic engineering, traits that would help us survive.<br /><br />I suspect that is how God created life.<br /><br />What can man do in comparison?<br /><br />Consider:<br /><br />(Genesis 11:6) . . .: “Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all, and this is what they start to do. Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them. . .<br /><br />The problem is, as it was, man is at disunity not just in language and not just from each other - we also destroying the earth and incurring our Creator's wrath. <br /><br />I prefer to avoid that discussion on this thread.<br /><br />Rather, I prefer on this thread to consider what really is attainable by man - virtually nothing, I believe, is unattainable for us given enough time.

 

[alkalin]

You mention that recent comets hitting the sun may not have had much of an impact. There is a reason the sun has been warming up recently. Could it just be???<br /><br />Some further wacko ideas along these lines: We may be seeing red giants occur near us simply because there were no planets or that the planets did not harbor intelligent life. We can expect to find ways of at least delaying the sun’s phase of red giant. Getting into the detail of where would we find all the necessary ice might be at the moment problematic. But there might in the future be an even more obvious way to do this. Future astronomy might answer this. <br /><br />I do not have sufficient star theory under my belt to answer most of the questions you pose adequately, nor do I want to try right now.<br /><br />My personal concern is the near term where we can make some improvement now so that our offspring will have a chance to live here and pass this place on that can hopefully be improved even more by their offspring. We could make a difference in this area. But it means we need to study very rigorously global warming and other ecosystem concerns so that when we try to do something about it our efforts will make improvement to the planet. Right now I think we are failing miserably because this issue is a hot potato politically. It very much needs to be put back in science.<br /><br />So could we in theory and Biblically occupy this planet forever? I think so. But what do I know? But as I’ve hinted, we need to try hard. Are we that kind of people yet???<br /><br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

alkalin - OK, ice is H2O - is it the hydrogen that you are considering as effecting the sun, or the temperature of the ice?<br /><br />I was considering neither but rather the potential for causing mixing of solar outer layer hydrogen with core layers.<br /><br />Has the sun been warming up recently?<br /><br />I thought it was simply atmospheric changes causing global warming. For example, the destruction of the ozone layer is likely causing heating of the surface and cooling in the ozone layer zone - since more solar radiation is reaching the surface and less is being absorbed in the ozone zone area.<br /><br />And, of course, the more publicized effect of CO2 increase causing a stronger greenhouse effect.<br /><br />I might add that I remember reading a scientific paper predicting doom for the earth due to heating of surface carbonates causing CO2 increase causing earth to become like Venus.<br /><br />Note above I submit we could harness this and make sure the CO2 goes from carbonate to carbon containing biomass (e.g. plant formed carbohydrates to decay hydrocarbons, etc.).

 

[alkalin]

It’s like putting a log in the fire. First the log puts a dent in the fires output because the log is cold. So it needs to warm up and then its fuel becomes available to make the fire more intense. Ice of course has hydrogen for the nuclear processes in the sun. But when it first enters the sun, the sun will undergo a little cooling of the penetration point. But with the great heat an icy comet would encounter, it is quickly converted to plasma as hydrogen and oxygen. Go from there.<br /><br />You’ve asked about global warming. At the risk of deportation to another thread, I offer the following: Since about the seventies the sun’s heat output was measured and has shown a slow increase. Earth and Mars seem to benefit in heat increase. (The politically inclined consider it a disaster) <br /><br />Even sun spot activity indicates that the sun has been increasing its output for the last two hundred years at least. I cannot say that comets are responsible, but there are fluctuations in the earth’s climate for some reason. There are many ideas out there that may in fact be totally wrong.<br />

 

[nexium]

Hi Newtonian: Your new soft sell approach may be more effective. I am amazed at your many good ideas. Earth will be turning slower in a few billion years, but you are correct, effective insulation will allow disposal of waste heat just before sun rise.<br />I'm not good at calculating probability, but lets assume that most of the collisions that can occur have occured and there are 100 trillion objects, more massive than Jupiter, equally divided between the coliding galaxies. There will be at least one trillion misses by one light year or less. Except for very massive bodies, very little perturbing will occur, but for the 100 billion that miss by 1/10th light year, even a brown dwarf mass will perturb significantly = 1% orbit change may be typical. Ten billion near misses at less than 1% of a light year = 100 billion kilometers, might average a 10% orbit change. A few near misses will change orbits radically. There will be perhaps one or no collisions from the direct passage, but we have all of eternity for the new orbits to perturb more orbits resulting in collisions long after the galaxies have separated. Neil

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">It's lots easier and energy efficient simply to leave. <br /></font><br /><br />I tend to agree. <br /><br />I also agree that the point is moot, because humanity will be long gone by the time the sun goes into this phase.<br /><br />

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow"> I think you would prefer considering human intervention rather than Divine intervention </font><br /><br />Absolutely<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Please see the Scientific American article on "When Star's collide</font><br /><br />I'll take a look at that article when I get a chance.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> might not be beyond human capability to fine tune the course of a brown dwarf in Andromeda or Milky Way for a fine tuned course and trajectory for solar rejuvenation. </font><br /><br />I'm gonna go with Steve on this one. It would take a great deal more energy exenditure to partake in such an edeavor. It would be far easier and more economical, to simply leave. Besides, why would you make such an expenditure on our sun considering all your doing is just buying a little more time? The fate of the sun is it's eventual death, a death that will occur long before the death of the Universe.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">On whether life was fine tuned by earth or earth was fine tuned for life - that is really irrelevant for this thread. The point is that earth is fine tuned for life.</font><br /><br />For this thread yes, I suppose it is irrelevenant. The point is that life arose from conditions available. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">I would be glad to discuss that difference in belief with you on another thread. </font><br /><br />Thank you for your offer, however I just feel it would be a lesson in futility. Neither one of us are going to budge on our positions.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[dragon04]

The short answer, Newtonian is no. The Sun is not heating up. But rather it's growing more luminous on a daily basis, albeit a tiny amount on less than epochal scales.<br /><br />Global warming is a combination of phenomena. Yes, greenhouse gases are on the rise. But perhaps more detrimental is that as the polar ice caps melt, more water vapor is introduced into the atmosphere and the Earth's albedo (thus it's reflective capabilities) is decreasing. A double whammy, if you will.<br /><br />As far as the Earth becoming like Venus goes, we have that wonderful 24 hour rotational feature going for us. At least <b>our</b> atmosphere is alternately heated and cooled on a 12 hour basis.<br /><br />I've read some stuff on global warming relative to CO2, but one thing I've never seen taken into consideration is that as sub polar and polar areas thaw, reforestation would occur. More trees to process CO2 in other words.<br /><br />Rampant deforestation, however, could tip the scales and negate any beneficial effects of polar reforestation, I'd think.<br /><br />Without doubt, CO2 emissions can magnify the greenhouse effect. But 90 million years ago, sub arctic latitudes were sub tropical ones. Earth was a much warmer place. But to temper that statement, there were a lot more trees then, too, I would have to imagine.<br /><br />As far as comets plunging into the sun to enhance its mass, I'd have to discount that idea, and I'll tell you why. It's all about scale.<br /><br />Relative to the Sun, no comet we know of has anything remotely approaching significant mass. There's a million degree buffer zone between the surface of the Sun and any incoming comet.<br /><br />I'd have to guess that not only would any comet be vaporized essentially instantly but that the momentum of individual Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms would be negated before they could add to the Sun's mass.<br /><br />Sorry to digress, but I saw some comments that interested me, and I don't often get to pipe in with pertinent information. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[nexium]

Hi dragon: Why would more helium in the core of the sun 50 million years ago cause the luminosity of the photosphere of the sun to increase unless the Sun has heated up? Perhaps that is not what you intended to imply. I typed 50 million years as some think that is how long it takes energy to get from the core to the photosphere.<br />I agree, it takes about a billion comets to increase the mass of the sun by one percent. The million degree buffer zone of the Sun is at less than one millibarr, so only a small amount of the comet nucleus is vaporized before the comet reaches the 5700 degrees k photosphere. Does the solar wind increase when a comet falls into the Sun? Does the Sun produce a CME = coronal mass ejection following each comet impact? If not, I assume most of the comet mass remains in the Sun's photosphere, long term, as plasma.<br />Significant portions of a brown dwarf star would likely enter the core of the Sun if they collided at 50 kilometers per second or more. A Neptune mass gas giant planet however would have to impact at much higher speed to penetrate into the core of the Sun, I think. Neil

 

[jatslo]

I believe that the Earth's orbit will shift; not sure if that means, that were going to get wasted though.

 

[newtonian]

mooware - The problem is you (and I) are not doing the math.<br /><br />Just saying it would take too much energy is just words, not math.<br /><br />A very slight change in a specific brown dwarf candidate may be all that is needed.<br /><br />Remember, this sllight change would be magnified over billions of years!<br /><br />Of course, for all we know, we could already be in a fine tuned orbit - we simply cannot observe brown dwarfs from that distance to compute trajectories and details of impact - so we need better observational technology first - of course!<br /><br />However, earth is a spaceship, in effect, far superior to anything in our solar system as to what we would need to survive.<br /><br />I'm not saying we should not leave - I am saying we should stay - i.e. some can stay and some can leave obviously.<br /><br />Now, 4 or 10 billion years from now we could better decide which is the wiser course.<br /><br />There is certainly no harm in planning ahead.<br /><br />On discussing fine tuning - either of life or of the universe or both - we do not have to budge from our postitionsto learn from each other - and to understand why we believe differently - i.e. such a discussion is not a waste of time if we learn things or grasp how to view things differently.<br /><br />But this would be a tangent on this thread.<br /><br />I am certainly open to discuss these things on another thread.

 

[alokmohan]

When sun becomes red giant it swells enormously.Earth may be gulped up .When sun starts contracting ,then we get roasted earth.

 

[alokmohan]

When sun becomes red giant it swells enormously.Earth may be gulped up .When sun starts contracting ,then we get roasted earth.

 

[newtonian]

stevehw33 - Why do you believe humans will not be on earth in 4 billion years????<br /><br />Note that the sun as a red giant would not actually be heating on its surface- it will be expanding, not heating.<br /><br />From "The World of Science," 1991, Andromeda Oxford, Ltd., Volume 8, pp. 30,31 - <br /><br />Main sequence stars of one solar mass (e.g. our sun) heat up until reaching about 6,000 Kelvins on the surface (on average, of course). <br /><br />Then they cool to about 3,000 Kelvins during the expansion phase towards becoming a red giant. <br /><br />It is during the contraction phase AFTER red giant phase that one solar mass stars heat up gradually to 50,000 Kelvins (or so). <br /><br />And then the much smaller sun will gradually cool as a white dwarf.<br /><br />That is the standard model, btw.<br /><br />Contraction phase goes from maximum red giant phase through the current size and down to white dwarf size.<br /><br />My question on this - Will we simply be heated to close to 3,000 Kelvins (daytime, not night) or will there be effects that change this - notably magnetic (electric) effects which heat the solar corona?<br /><br />Or will earth's magnetic field and Van Allen radiation belts deflect most of this energy?<br /><br />On my models, how hot can glass survive - i.e. heat resistant glass.<br /><br />What materials can remain solid at 3,000 Kelvins?<br /><br />Is there a simple way to harness the electricity from our sun during red giant phase?<br /><br />What would the predicted temperature be at earth's poles without human intervention during their respective winters? <br /><br />BTW - I am well aware of how small we are compared with the sun.<br /><br />I do not propose fighting nature - we will surely lose doing that.<br /><br />I propose living with it - using it in an environmentally favorable way.<br /><br />We will obviously not have any energy shortage during red giant phase.<br /><br />The question is - will we use this vast source of energy for good things or be burned

 

[alokmohan]

Too big a question paper.I am afraid I cant pass.

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan - double trouble!<br /><br />Actually, some models have earth merely heating to 900 degrees F! <br /><br />That would be much easier to handle.<br /><br />Remember, I suggest using a number of methods in concert:<br /><br />Here are some, including new ones I just dreamt up (while half awake):<br /><br />1. Use the heat to smelt ores and use the materials constructed to make multiple insulated levels - the highest level the hottest.<br /><br />2. Store heat chemically in chemicals that can later be used to heat earth during white dwarf phase.<br /><br />3. No problem cooking food - no need for fuel for this - we could have red giant burgers (veggie burgers).<br /><br />Seriously, ovens could be on the highest level.<br /><br />Along with all manufacturing processes requiring heat. No need for coal fired furnaces!<br /><br />4. Steam turbines for vast amounts of electricity. These could be dual purpose - also desalinating ocean water in the process and providing vast amounts of fresh water for multiple underground agricultural levels.<br /><br />The vast amount of electricity can, of course, be used for air conditioning.<br /><br />5. Heat exterior surfaces at night so they are hotter than the surroundings - thus causing raditational cooling or dispensing of heat into space.<br /><br />5. Insulate Antarctic and Greenland ice for emergency cooling during unusually hot period.<br /><br />6. Construct canyons in Antartica and Greenland in the 10,000 foot thick ice by heating and procuding fresh water. Mulitilevel occupation of these canyons would have freezers for food storage on the ice side, and tropical greenhouses on the usually shaded air facing sides. <br /><br />These could be open air during the respective winters at whatever elevation has the proper air temperature.<br /><br />7. Utililize high elevation cooling - constructing on mountains like Everest many miles high added elevation multilevel occupation.<br /><br />8. Insulate arctic permafrost and use to cool surface a

 

[newtonian]

Sorry.<br /><br />Here's one more idea and then I sleep:<br /><br />Use red giant enegy input to create long half-life radioactive isotopes of elements for later use for nuclear energy during white dwarf phase.<br /><br />Oh, one more idea:<br /><br />Use red giant energy to create matter - vast amount of energy are necessary to create matter.<br /><br />Which reminds me of the scientific basis for Isaac Newton's interest in alchemy - transforming elements.<br /><br />This would normally be impractical because of the energy required - but we will have a vast input of energy!

 

[silylene old]

When the sun is red giant, the earth will heat up - a lot.<br /><br />The atmosphere will heat, the oceans will evaporate, and the crust will begin to warm up, from the surface inwards. The heat will penetrate deep.....miles, dozens of miles, to the mantle. Nothing can stop this heat pulse from diffusing downwards.<br /><br />The hot atmosphere will extend, and this combined with the closer sun and increased solar activity will cause the gases to become ionized and stripped away. Earth will lose its atmosphere, rather quickly.<br /><br />Reflective clouds, insulating blankets, living at the poles, living in deep caves, etc are irrelevant and a fool's folly. The entire earth's surface and crust will inevitably heat up to 500C or more. There is simply no way to shed the heat on a global scale (and that's what is required).<br /><br />Life will cease. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[newtonian]

sillylene - Did you read my posts?<br /><br />How much heat is required to process ores in earth's crust, for example? Is red giant heat hot enough for this?<br /><br />Note I proposed surface furnaces for ore processing.<br /><br />Your scenario dismisses my scenarios as a fools folly.<br /><br />You fail to address them in a scientific manner.<br /><br />There are many things that were dismissed as fool's folly centuries ago which science is now accomplishing.<br /><br />Of course, you are correct if the models you are relying on are correct and if we just simply sit back and do nothing. <br /><br />However, I will use your 500C model for future post ideas.<br /><br />Do you know how this compares with required temperatures for ore processing - notablty aluminum?<br /><br />I believe aluminum alloys will be very important for multilevel structures. - note I did not propose mere caves but rather carefully constructed structures with thousands of levels.<br /><br />How much heat will be required to process all the Aluminum in earth's crust? Will red giant heat be enough (for long enough) to process all of earth's aluminum?<br /><br />Remember, heat can be converted into energy which can then be converted into all sorts of energy storage.<br /><br />It may not be necessary to reflect any of the solar energy received on earth - we may be able to use all of it to convert earth's chemistry and temperature for future use in white dwarf stage.<br /><br />You are referring to radiating (transfering) heat from earth's surface to miles deep.<br /><br />On that we agree.<br /><br />Where we disagree is on how we allow this to happen - I propose we use it in many, many wise ways.<br /><br />We won't need to go deep into earth to utilize geothermal energy - we will have plenty of energy available right on the surface!<br /><br />Note where we disagree - I do not believe it will be required to shed the heat - rather to store it in various ways including chemically.<br /><br />There are many chemical reactions

 

[newtonian]

silyene - How much energy is needed to convert all of the CO2 now locked up in earth's cabonates into carbon (vaious compounds produced by plants) and oxygen?<br /><br />Can heat be used to remove oxygen from oxidized minerals?<br /><br />I wlll research the mass of earth's carbonates so someone can calculate this - Brittanica published the estimates, in petagrams, some years ago.

 

[newtonian]

silylene - How much electricity can be produced using efficient steam turbines by converting 99% of earth's oceans into steam?<br /><br />I propose producing distilled water as a waste product by circulating the steam through ovens for cooking (and manufacturing) and then bedrock and then for laundry and showers for trillions of people in thousands of levels.