Would moving Earth around solve the rise in global temperature problem? [duplicate]











up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1













This question already has an answer here:




  • Increasing Earth's orbital radius to stop global warming

    4 answers




Without worrying about the other issues of global warming like rise in CO$_2$ level, hole in ozone..etc, lets assume that we're facing with rise of global temperature. And assume there's an efficient way to make earth's orbit wider or shorter around the sun.



Now, would it solve the problem if we move the earth farther away from sun, just enough to keep the global temperature constant, as it gets heated by global warming?










share|improve this question









New contributor




balajisoundar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











marked as duplicate by kingledion, Dubukay, James K, RonJohn, user535733 Nov 25 at 22:52


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.











  • 3




    I think changing the world's climate by changing its orbit qualifies as world building
    – chasly from UK
    Nov 25 at 15:08






  • 2




    Moving earth has a significant energy cost. Putting some reflective device on orbit is magnitudes less costly (and easily reversible and tunable compared to moving a planet back and forth).
    – Uriel
    Nov 25 at 16:34






  • 2




    (a) Despite popular political claims, global warming is incredibly complex and cannot be "fixed" with a one-variable band-aid. (b) The ozone hole is healing. (c) While moving the planet may cool it, without understanding all the global warming variables, it may only be a temporary fix at best. (d) "How can I move a planet?" is a question already asked and answered on this site.
    – JBH
    Nov 25 at 18:17






  • 2




    Only if it's a week longer, and that extra time is declared Robot Party Week by Earth President Richard Nixon's Head.
    – RonJohn
    Nov 25 at 22:27















up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1













This question already has an answer here:




  • Increasing Earth's orbital radius to stop global warming

    4 answers




Without worrying about the other issues of global warming like rise in CO$_2$ level, hole in ozone..etc, lets assume that we're facing with rise of global temperature. And assume there's an efficient way to make earth's orbit wider or shorter around the sun.



Now, would it solve the problem if we move the earth farther away from sun, just enough to keep the global temperature constant, as it gets heated by global warming?










share|improve this question









New contributor




balajisoundar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











marked as duplicate by kingledion, Dubukay, James K, RonJohn, user535733 Nov 25 at 22:52


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.











  • 3




    I think changing the world's climate by changing its orbit qualifies as world building
    – chasly from UK
    Nov 25 at 15:08






  • 2




    Moving earth has a significant energy cost. Putting some reflective device on orbit is magnitudes less costly (and easily reversible and tunable compared to moving a planet back and forth).
    – Uriel
    Nov 25 at 16:34






  • 2




    (a) Despite popular political claims, global warming is incredibly complex and cannot be "fixed" with a one-variable band-aid. (b) The ozone hole is healing. (c) While moving the planet may cool it, without understanding all the global warming variables, it may only be a temporary fix at best. (d) "How can I move a planet?" is a question already asked and answered on this site.
    – JBH
    Nov 25 at 18:17






  • 2




    Only if it's a week longer, and that extra time is declared Robot Party Week by Earth President Richard Nixon's Head.
    – RonJohn
    Nov 25 at 22:27













up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1






1






This question already has an answer here:




  • Increasing Earth's orbital radius to stop global warming

    4 answers




Without worrying about the other issues of global warming like rise in CO$_2$ level, hole in ozone..etc, lets assume that we're facing with rise of global temperature. And assume there's an efficient way to make earth's orbit wider or shorter around the sun.



Now, would it solve the problem if we move the earth farther away from sun, just enough to keep the global temperature constant, as it gets heated by global warming?










share|improve this question









New contributor




balajisoundar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












This question already has an answer here:




  • Increasing Earth's orbital radius to stop global warming

    4 answers




Without worrying about the other issues of global warming like rise in CO$_2$ level, hole in ozone..etc, lets assume that we're facing with rise of global temperature. And assume there's an efficient way to make earth's orbit wider or shorter around the sun.



Now, would it solve the problem if we move the earth farther away from sun, just enough to keep the global temperature constant, as it gets heated by global warming?





This question already has an answer here:




  • Increasing Earth's orbital radius to stop global warming

    4 answers








climate climate-change






share|improve this question









New contributor




balajisoundar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




balajisoundar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 25 at 22:26









RonJohn

14.7k13168




14.7k13168






New contributor




balajisoundar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Nov 25 at 15:01









balajisoundar

1083




1083




New contributor




balajisoundar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





balajisoundar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






balajisoundar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




marked as duplicate by kingledion, Dubukay, James K, RonJohn, user535733 Nov 25 at 22:52


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by kingledion, Dubukay, James K, RonJohn, user535733 Nov 25 at 22:52


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 3




    I think changing the world's climate by changing its orbit qualifies as world building
    – chasly from UK
    Nov 25 at 15:08






  • 2




    Moving earth has a significant energy cost. Putting some reflective device on orbit is magnitudes less costly (and easily reversible and tunable compared to moving a planet back and forth).
    – Uriel
    Nov 25 at 16:34






  • 2




    (a) Despite popular political claims, global warming is incredibly complex and cannot be "fixed" with a one-variable band-aid. (b) The ozone hole is healing. (c) While moving the planet may cool it, without understanding all the global warming variables, it may only be a temporary fix at best. (d) "How can I move a planet?" is a question already asked and answered on this site.
    – JBH
    Nov 25 at 18:17






  • 2




    Only if it's a week longer, and that extra time is declared Robot Party Week by Earth President Richard Nixon's Head.
    – RonJohn
    Nov 25 at 22:27














  • 3




    I think changing the world's climate by changing its orbit qualifies as world building
    – chasly from UK
    Nov 25 at 15:08






  • 2




    Moving earth has a significant energy cost. Putting some reflective device on orbit is magnitudes less costly (and easily reversible and tunable compared to moving a planet back and forth).
    – Uriel
    Nov 25 at 16:34






  • 2




    (a) Despite popular political claims, global warming is incredibly complex and cannot be "fixed" with a one-variable band-aid. (b) The ozone hole is healing. (c) While moving the planet may cool it, without understanding all the global warming variables, it may only be a temporary fix at best. (d) "How can I move a planet?" is a question already asked and answered on this site.
    – JBH
    Nov 25 at 18:17






  • 2




    Only if it's a week longer, and that extra time is declared Robot Party Week by Earth President Richard Nixon's Head.
    – RonJohn
    Nov 25 at 22:27








3




3




I think changing the world's climate by changing its orbit qualifies as world building
– chasly from UK
Nov 25 at 15:08




I think changing the world's climate by changing its orbit qualifies as world building
– chasly from UK
Nov 25 at 15:08




2




2




Moving earth has a significant energy cost. Putting some reflective device on orbit is magnitudes less costly (and easily reversible and tunable compared to moving a planet back and forth).
– Uriel
Nov 25 at 16:34




Moving earth has a significant energy cost. Putting some reflective device on orbit is magnitudes less costly (and easily reversible and tunable compared to moving a planet back and forth).
– Uriel
Nov 25 at 16:34




2




2




(a) Despite popular political claims, global warming is incredibly complex and cannot be "fixed" with a one-variable band-aid. (b) The ozone hole is healing. (c) While moving the planet may cool it, without understanding all the global warming variables, it may only be a temporary fix at best. (d) "How can I move a planet?" is a question already asked and answered on this site.
– JBH
Nov 25 at 18:17




(a) Despite popular political claims, global warming is incredibly complex and cannot be "fixed" with a one-variable band-aid. (b) The ozone hole is healing. (c) While moving the planet may cool it, without understanding all the global warming variables, it may only be a temporary fix at best. (d) "How can I move a planet?" is a question already asked and answered on this site.
– JBH
Nov 25 at 18:17




2




2




Only if it's a week longer, and that extra time is declared Robot Party Week by Earth President Richard Nixon's Head.
– RonJohn
Nov 25 at 22:27




Only if it's a week longer, and that extra time is declared Robot Party Week by Earth President Richard Nixon's Head.
– RonJohn
Nov 25 at 22:27










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote



accepted










Beware of unintended consequences!



You would have to move it quite a long way. Remember that the difference between winter and summer is due to the tilt of the Earth's axis more than its proximity to the Sun.



Doing so would change the length of a year and could disrupt a lot of living organisms' life-cycles.




For years biologists have wondered why cicadas emerge from their
underground habitats after a prime number (7, 13 or 17) of years.



http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/11/27/421251.htm




Moving the moon at the same time and still keeping it in orbit would be tricky as well. We need the Moon for the tides and for the reproduction of many creatures. Actually the differentiation between spring and neap tides would diminish because the Sun would have less gravitational effect.




A spring tide—popularly known as a "King Tide"—refers to the
'springing forth' of the tide during new and full moon. A neap
tide—seven days after a spring tide—refers to a period of moderate
tides when the sun and moon are at right angles to each other.



https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/springtide.html





How Moonlight Sets Nature’s Rhythms



https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-moonlight-sets-nature-rhythms-180963778/




Another problem is that the next ice-age might be hastened enormously. Our existing system is not stable in the long-term even when we exclude the excesses of humanity.



There are many factors to take into account and hence the high likelihood of unintended consequences. Even the best simulation would likely miss some of these and the movement would have to be calculated carefully and subject to numerous periodic adjustments until things settled down.




Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the
Earth's movements on its climate over thousands of years... variations
in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit
resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the
Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic
patterns on Earth.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles







share|improve this answer






























    up vote
    8
    down vote













    Clearly if you had the capability to move a planet without actually destroying its surface, something as trivial as fixing its atmospheric chemistry would be no problem at all.




    And assume there's an efficient way to make earth's orbit wider are shorter around the sun




    No matter how efficient it is, there are certain energy requirements that can't be avoided.



    The mass of the Earth is about $6times 10^{24},kg$ whereas the mass of Earth's tiny atmosphere is just $5times 10^{18},kg$. That's less than a millionth the mass of Earth.



    And this of course ignores the complication of moving the Moon with Earth without catastrophic consequences for Earth, as mentioned by "chasly from UK".



    The effective temperature formula can be used to make a rough estimate of the change in orbital radius required to make a one degree change in temperature. The formula gets us :



    $$frac {T_1} { T_2} = sqrt { frac {R_2}{R_1} } $$



    or :



    $$R_2 = R_1 left( frac {T_1} {T_2} right)^2$$



    So a change of $1^text{o} K$ from $T_1=252^text{o}K$ (Earth's effective temperature ignoring the effect of atmosphere) to $T_2=251^text{o}K$ gives us a radius $R_2=1.008AU$. So a small change of "just" eight thousandths of an AU.



    So how much energy is required to move the orbit that much ? Well we'll approximate that with the change in kinetic energy of Earth (ignoring the Moon).



    Orbital speed is, to a good approximation :



    $$v = sqrt {frac {GM_s} R}$$



    where $M_s$ is the Sun's mass.



    Kinetic energy is given by :



    $$E=frac 1 2 m_e v^2 = frac 1 2 m_e frac {GM_s} R$$



    So the change in kinetic energy is :



    $$Delta E = frac 1 2 GM_sm_e left( frac 1 {R_1} - frac 1 {R_2} right) approx 2.1times 10^{31}J$$



    The energy required to remove Earth's atmosphere and replace it entirely with a new one would be of the order of twice the potential energy of the atmosphere. A rough estimate of that is :



    $$Delta E_A approx 2frac {GM_Am_e} {r_e} approx 6.3times 10^{26} J$$



    So (not surprisingly) moving the old atmosphere out and moving the new one in takes about three ten thousandths of the energy that changing orbit does.



    And of course you don't really have to completely replace the entire atmosphere, just do what, on this scale, is a little fine tuning to the chemistry.






    share|improve this answer






























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Depending which specific consequences of warming you don't like, it may be cheaper and more feasible to move the Moon.



      Let's say sea-level rise is the main danger you want to mitigate: The trouble with that in most parts of the world isn't the rise in mean sea level, it's the higher high-tide peaks. Moving the Moon out would reduce the magnitude of its tidal effect, as well as the period length. Sea level could rise by several feet but tidal peak heights could still be reduced.



      As others mentioned, now you've got a whole world's worth of side effects and potential unintended consequences to consider. Is there any plausible way to imagine tidal reduction as a driver of additional effects which would have the tendency to cool rather than warm the globe? Biosphere impacts would be severe - it's easy to imagine the harm but maybe it would enable some mechanism which could result in the level of carbon-sinking needed to mitigate the warming and possibly introduce a powerful homeostatic regulating effect. Trading off massive species loss and biosphere disruption today for many, many millenia of engineered equilibrium.






      share|improve this answer




























        up vote
        1
        down vote













        I think so. Sadly, I am not able to deliver any good equations for that but as it would be colder further away from the sun, it would certainly be possible to cool down the average temperature. However, there are some other complications:
        The solar system is a chaotic environment that is naturally unstable. If you zipped the earth from one place to another in one moment, this might change the orbits of some asteroids etc, increasing the risk for earth to be hit by such. Of course, this risk would still be fairly low.






        share|improve this answer





















        • "change the orbits of some asteroids" - I think the Moon would be a much bigger problem! ;-)
          – chasly from UK
          Nov 25 at 16:18


















        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        5
        down vote



        accepted










        Beware of unintended consequences!



        You would have to move it quite a long way. Remember that the difference between winter and summer is due to the tilt of the Earth's axis more than its proximity to the Sun.



        Doing so would change the length of a year and could disrupt a lot of living organisms' life-cycles.




        For years biologists have wondered why cicadas emerge from their
        underground habitats after a prime number (7, 13 or 17) of years.



        http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/11/27/421251.htm




        Moving the moon at the same time and still keeping it in orbit would be tricky as well. We need the Moon for the tides and for the reproduction of many creatures. Actually the differentiation between spring and neap tides would diminish because the Sun would have less gravitational effect.




        A spring tide—popularly known as a "King Tide"—refers to the
        'springing forth' of the tide during new and full moon. A neap
        tide—seven days after a spring tide—refers to a period of moderate
        tides when the sun and moon are at right angles to each other.



        https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/springtide.html





        How Moonlight Sets Nature’s Rhythms



        https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-moonlight-sets-nature-rhythms-180963778/




        Another problem is that the next ice-age might be hastened enormously. Our existing system is not stable in the long-term even when we exclude the excesses of humanity.



        There are many factors to take into account and hence the high likelihood of unintended consequences. Even the best simulation would likely miss some of these and the movement would have to be calculated carefully and subject to numerous periodic adjustments until things settled down.




        Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the
        Earth's movements on its climate over thousands of years... variations
        in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit
        resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the
        Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic
        patterns on Earth.



        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles







        share|improve this answer



























          up vote
          5
          down vote



          accepted










          Beware of unintended consequences!



          You would have to move it quite a long way. Remember that the difference between winter and summer is due to the tilt of the Earth's axis more than its proximity to the Sun.



          Doing so would change the length of a year and could disrupt a lot of living organisms' life-cycles.




          For years biologists have wondered why cicadas emerge from their
          underground habitats after a prime number (7, 13 or 17) of years.



          http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/11/27/421251.htm




          Moving the moon at the same time and still keeping it in orbit would be tricky as well. We need the Moon for the tides and for the reproduction of many creatures. Actually the differentiation between spring and neap tides would diminish because the Sun would have less gravitational effect.




          A spring tide—popularly known as a "King Tide"—refers to the
          'springing forth' of the tide during new and full moon. A neap
          tide—seven days after a spring tide—refers to a period of moderate
          tides when the sun and moon are at right angles to each other.



          https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/springtide.html





          How Moonlight Sets Nature’s Rhythms



          https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-moonlight-sets-nature-rhythms-180963778/




          Another problem is that the next ice-age might be hastened enormously. Our existing system is not stable in the long-term even when we exclude the excesses of humanity.



          There are many factors to take into account and hence the high likelihood of unintended consequences. Even the best simulation would likely miss some of these and the movement would have to be calculated carefully and subject to numerous periodic adjustments until things settled down.




          Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the
          Earth's movements on its climate over thousands of years... variations
          in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit
          resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the
          Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic
          patterns on Earth.



          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles







          share|improve this answer

























            up vote
            5
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            5
            down vote



            accepted






            Beware of unintended consequences!



            You would have to move it quite a long way. Remember that the difference between winter and summer is due to the tilt of the Earth's axis more than its proximity to the Sun.



            Doing so would change the length of a year and could disrupt a lot of living organisms' life-cycles.




            For years biologists have wondered why cicadas emerge from their
            underground habitats after a prime number (7, 13 or 17) of years.



            http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/11/27/421251.htm




            Moving the moon at the same time and still keeping it in orbit would be tricky as well. We need the Moon for the tides and for the reproduction of many creatures. Actually the differentiation between spring and neap tides would diminish because the Sun would have less gravitational effect.




            A spring tide—popularly known as a "King Tide"—refers to the
            'springing forth' of the tide during new and full moon. A neap
            tide—seven days after a spring tide—refers to a period of moderate
            tides when the sun and moon are at right angles to each other.



            https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/springtide.html





            How Moonlight Sets Nature’s Rhythms



            https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-moonlight-sets-nature-rhythms-180963778/




            Another problem is that the next ice-age might be hastened enormously. Our existing system is not stable in the long-term even when we exclude the excesses of humanity.



            There are many factors to take into account and hence the high likelihood of unintended consequences. Even the best simulation would likely miss some of these and the movement would have to be calculated carefully and subject to numerous periodic adjustments until things settled down.




            Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the
            Earth's movements on its climate over thousands of years... variations
            in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit
            resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the
            Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic
            patterns on Earth.



            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles







            share|improve this answer














            Beware of unintended consequences!



            You would have to move it quite a long way. Remember that the difference between winter and summer is due to the tilt of the Earth's axis more than its proximity to the Sun.



            Doing so would change the length of a year and could disrupt a lot of living organisms' life-cycles.




            For years biologists have wondered why cicadas emerge from their
            underground habitats after a prime number (7, 13 or 17) of years.



            http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/11/27/421251.htm




            Moving the moon at the same time and still keeping it in orbit would be tricky as well. We need the Moon for the tides and for the reproduction of many creatures. Actually the differentiation between spring and neap tides would diminish because the Sun would have less gravitational effect.




            A spring tide—popularly known as a "King Tide"—refers to the
            'springing forth' of the tide during new and full moon. A neap
            tide—seven days after a spring tide—refers to a period of moderate
            tides when the sun and moon are at right angles to each other.



            https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/springtide.html





            How Moonlight Sets Nature’s Rhythms



            https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-moonlight-sets-nature-rhythms-180963778/




            Another problem is that the next ice-age might be hastened enormously. Our existing system is not stable in the long-term even when we exclude the excesses of humanity.



            There are many factors to take into account and hence the high likelihood of unintended consequences. Even the best simulation would likely miss some of these and the movement would have to be calculated carefully and subject to numerous periodic adjustments until things settled down.




            Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the
            Earth's movements on its climate over thousands of years... variations
            in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit
            resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the
            Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic
            patterns on Earth.



            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles








            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Nov 25 at 16:42

























            answered Nov 25 at 15:46









            chasly from UK

            8,43434085




            8,43434085






















                up vote
                8
                down vote













                Clearly if you had the capability to move a planet without actually destroying its surface, something as trivial as fixing its atmospheric chemistry would be no problem at all.




                And assume there's an efficient way to make earth's orbit wider are shorter around the sun




                No matter how efficient it is, there are certain energy requirements that can't be avoided.



                The mass of the Earth is about $6times 10^{24},kg$ whereas the mass of Earth's tiny atmosphere is just $5times 10^{18},kg$. That's less than a millionth the mass of Earth.



                And this of course ignores the complication of moving the Moon with Earth without catastrophic consequences for Earth, as mentioned by "chasly from UK".



                The effective temperature formula can be used to make a rough estimate of the change in orbital radius required to make a one degree change in temperature. The formula gets us :



                $$frac {T_1} { T_2} = sqrt { frac {R_2}{R_1} } $$



                or :



                $$R_2 = R_1 left( frac {T_1} {T_2} right)^2$$



                So a change of $1^text{o} K$ from $T_1=252^text{o}K$ (Earth's effective temperature ignoring the effect of atmosphere) to $T_2=251^text{o}K$ gives us a radius $R_2=1.008AU$. So a small change of "just" eight thousandths of an AU.



                So how much energy is required to move the orbit that much ? Well we'll approximate that with the change in kinetic energy of Earth (ignoring the Moon).



                Orbital speed is, to a good approximation :



                $$v = sqrt {frac {GM_s} R}$$



                where $M_s$ is the Sun's mass.



                Kinetic energy is given by :



                $$E=frac 1 2 m_e v^2 = frac 1 2 m_e frac {GM_s} R$$



                So the change in kinetic energy is :



                $$Delta E = frac 1 2 GM_sm_e left( frac 1 {R_1} - frac 1 {R_2} right) approx 2.1times 10^{31}J$$



                The energy required to remove Earth's atmosphere and replace it entirely with a new one would be of the order of twice the potential energy of the atmosphere. A rough estimate of that is :



                $$Delta E_A approx 2frac {GM_Am_e} {r_e} approx 6.3times 10^{26} J$$



                So (not surprisingly) moving the old atmosphere out and moving the new one in takes about three ten thousandths of the energy that changing orbit does.



                And of course you don't really have to completely replace the entire atmosphere, just do what, on this scale, is a little fine tuning to the chemistry.






                share|improve this answer



























                  up vote
                  8
                  down vote













                  Clearly if you had the capability to move a planet without actually destroying its surface, something as trivial as fixing its atmospheric chemistry would be no problem at all.




                  And assume there's an efficient way to make earth's orbit wider are shorter around the sun




                  No matter how efficient it is, there are certain energy requirements that can't be avoided.



                  The mass of the Earth is about $6times 10^{24},kg$ whereas the mass of Earth's tiny atmosphere is just $5times 10^{18},kg$. That's less than a millionth the mass of Earth.



                  And this of course ignores the complication of moving the Moon with Earth without catastrophic consequences for Earth, as mentioned by "chasly from UK".



                  The effective temperature formula can be used to make a rough estimate of the change in orbital radius required to make a one degree change in temperature. The formula gets us :



                  $$frac {T_1} { T_2} = sqrt { frac {R_2}{R_1} } $$



                  or :



                  $$R_2 = R_1 left( frac {T_1} {T_2} right)^2$$



                  So a change of $1^text{o} K$ from $T_1=252^text{o}K$ (Earth's effective temperature ignoring the effect of atmosphere) to $T_2=251^text{o}K$ gives us a radius $R_2=1.008AU$. So a small change of "just" eight thousandths of an AU.



                  So how much energy is required to move the orbit that much ? Well we'll approximate that with the change in kinetic energy of Earth (ignoring the Moon).



                  Orbital speed is, to a good approximation :



                  $$v = sqrt {frac {GM_s} R}$$



                  where $M_s$ is the Sun's mass.



                  Kinetic energy is given by :



                  $$E=frac 1 2 m_e v^2 = frac 1 2 m_e frac {GM_s} R$$



                  So the change in kinetic energy is :



                  $$Delta E = frac 1 2 GM_sm_e left( frac 1 {R_1} - frac 1 {R_2} right) approx 2.1times 10^{31}J$$



                  The energy required to remove Earth's atmosphere and replace it entirely with a new one would be of the order of twice the potential energy of the atmosphere. A rough estimate of that is :



                  $$Delta E_A approx 2frac {GM_Am_e} {r_e} approx 6.3times 10^{26} J$$



                  So (not surprisingly) moving the old atmosphere out and moving the new one in takes about three ten thousandths of the energy that changing orbit does.



                  And of course you don't really have to completely replace the entire atmosphere, just do what, on this scale, is a little fine tuning to the chemistry.






                  share|improve this answer

























                    up vote
                    8
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    8
                    down vote









                    Clearly if you had the capability to move a planet without actually destroying its surface, something as trivial as fixing its atmospheric chemistry would be no problem at all.




                    And assume there's an efficient way to make earth's orbit wider are shorter around the sun




                    No matter how efficient it is, there are certain energy requirements that can't be avoided.



                    The mass of the Earth is about $6times 10^{24},kg$ whereas the mass of Earth's tiny atmosphere is just $5times 10^{18},kg$. That's less than a millionth the mass of Earth.



                    And this of course ignores the complication of moving the Moon with Earth without catastrophic consequences for Earth, as mentioned by "chasly from UK".



                    The effective temperature formula can be used to make a rough estimate of the change in orbital radius required to make a one degree change in temperature. The formula gets us :



                    $$frac {T_1} { T_2} = sqrt { frac {R_2}{R_1} } $$



                    or :



                    $$R_2 = R_1 left( frac {T_1} {T_2} right)^2$$



                    So a change of $1^text{o} K$ from $T_1=252^text{o}K$ (Earth's effective temperature ignoring the effect of atmosphere) to $T_2=251^text{o}K$ gives us a radius $R_2=1.008AU$. So a small change of "just" eight thousandths of an AU.



                    So how much energy is required to move the orbit that much ? Well we'll approximate that with the change in kinetic energy of Earth (ignoring the Moon).



                    Orbital speed is, to a good approximation :



                    $$v = sqrt {frac {GM_s} R}$$



                    where $M_s$ is the Sun's mass.



                    Kinetic energy is given by :



                    $$E=frac 1 2 m_e v^2 = frac 1 2 m_e frac {GM_s} R$$



                    So the change in kinetic energy is :



                    $$Delta E = frac 1 2 GM_sm_e left( frac 1 {R_1} - frac 1 {R_2} right) approx 2.1times 10^{31}J$$



                    The energy required to remove Earth's atmosphere and replace it entirely with a new one would be of the order of twice the potential energy of the atmosphere. A rough estimate of that is :



                    $$Delta E_A approx 2frac {GM_Am_e} {r_e} approx 6.3times 10^{26} J$$



                    So (not surprisingly) moving the old atmosphere out and moving the new one in takes about three ten thousandths of the energy that changing orbit does.



                    And of course you don't really have to completely replace the entire atmosphere, just do what, on this scale, is a little fine tuning to the chemistry.






                    share|improve this answer














                    Clearly if you had the capability to move a planet without actually destroying its surface, something as trivial as fixing its atmospheric chemistry would be no problem at all.




                    And assume there's an efficient way to make earth's orbit wider are shorter around the sun




                    No matter how efficient it is, there are certain energy requirements that can't be avoided.



                    The mass of the Earth is about $6times 10^{24},kg$ whereas the mass of Earth's tiny atmosphere is just $5times 10^{18},kg$. That's less than a millionth the mass of Earth.



                    And this of course ignores the complication of moving the Moon with Earth without catastrophic consequences for Earth, as mentioned by "chasly from UK".



                    The effective temperature formula can be used to make a rough estimate of the change in orbital radius required to make a one degree change in temperature. The formula gets us :



                    $$frac {T_1} { T_2} = sqrt { frac {R_2}{R_1} } $$



                    or :



                    $$R_2 = R_1 left( frac {T_1} {T_2} right)^2$$



                    So a change of $1^text{o} K$ from $T_1=252^text{o}K$ (Earth's effective temperature ignoring the effect of atmosphere) to $T_2=251^text{o}K$ gives us a radius $R_2=1.008AU$. So a small change of "just" eight thousandths of an AU.



                    So how much energy is required to move the orbit that much ? Well we'll approximate that with the change in kinetic energy of Earth (ignoring the Moon).



                    Orbital speed is, to a good approximation :



                    $$v = sqrt {frac {GM_s} R}$$



                    where $M_s$ is the Sun's mass.



                    Kinetic energy is given by :



                    $$E=frac 1 2 m_e v^2 = frac 1 2 m_e frac {GM_s} R$$



                    So the change in kinetic energy is :



                    $$Delta E = frac 1 2 GM_sm_e left( frac 1 {R_1} - frac 1 {R_2} right) approx 2.1times 10^{31}J$$



                    The energy required to remove Earth's atmosphere and replace it entirely with a new one would be of the order of twice the potential energy of the atmosphere. A rough estimate of that is :



                    $$Delta E_A approx 2frac {GM_Am_e} {r_e} approx 6.3times 10^{26} J$$



                    So (not surprisingly) moving the old atmosphere out and moving the new one in takes about three ten thousandths of the energy that changing orbit does.



                    And of course you don't really have to completely replace the entire atmosphere, just do what, on this scale, is a little fine tuning to the chemistry.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited Nov 25 at 18:11

























                    answered Nov 25 at 16:25









                    StephenG

                    12k61748




                    12k61748






















                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote













                        Depending which specific consequences of warming you don't like, it may be cheaper and more feasible to move the Moon.



                        Let's say sea-level rise is the main danger you want to mitigate: The trouble with that in most parts of the world isn't the rise in mean sea level, it's the higher high-tide peaks. Moving the Moon out would reduce the magnitude of its tidal effect, as well as the period length. Sea level could rise by several feet but tidal peak heights could still be reduced.



                        As others mentioned, now you've got a whole world's worth of side effects and potential unintended consequences to consider. Is there any plausible way to imagine tidal reduction as a driver of additional effects which would have the tendency to cool rather than warm the globe? Biosphere impacts would be severe - it's easy to imagine the harm but maybe it would enable some mechanism which could result in the level of carbon-sinking needed to mitigate the warming and possibly introduce a powerful homeostatic regulating effect. Trading off massive species loss and biosphere disruption today for many, many millenia of engineered equilibrium.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote













                          Depending which specific consequences of warming you don't like, it may be cheaper and more feasible to move the Moon.



                          Let's say sea-level rise is the main danger you want to mitigate: The trouble with that in most parts of the world isn't the rise in mean sea level, it's the higher high-tide peaks. Moving the Moon out would reduce the magnitude of its tidal effect, as well as the period length. Sea level could rise by several feet but tidal peak heights could still be reduced.



                          As others mentioned, now you've got a whole world's worth of side effects and potential unintended consequences to consider. Is there any plausible way to imagine tidal reduction as a driver of additional effects which would have the tendency to cool rather than warm the globe? Biosphere impacts would be severe - it's easy to imagine the harm but maybe it would enable some mechanism which could result in the level of carbon-sinking needed to mitigate the warming and possibly introduce a powerful homeostatic regulating effect. Trading off massive species loss and biosphere disruption today for many, many millenia of engineered equilibrium.






                          share|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote









                            Depending which specific consequences of warming you don't like, it may be cheaper and more feasible to move the Moon.



                            Let's say sea-level rise is the main danger you want to mitigate: The trouble with that in most parts of the world isn't the rise in mean sea level, it's the higher high-tide peaks. Moving the Moon out would reduce the magnitude of its tidal effect, as well as the period length. Sea level could rise by several feet but tidal peak heights could still be reduced.



                            As others mentioned, now you've got a whole world's worth of side effects and potential unintended consequences to consider. Is there any plausible way to imagine tidal reduction as a driver of additional effects which would have the tendency to cool rather than warm the globe? Biosphere impacts would be severe - it's easy to imagine the harm but maybe it would enable some mechanism which could result in the level of carbon-sinking needed to mitigate the warming and possibly introduce a powerful homeostatic regulating effect. Trading off massive species loss and biosphere disruption today for many, many millenia of engineered equilibrium.






                            share|improve this answer












                            Depending which specific consequences of warming you don't like, it may be cheaper and more feasible to move the Moon.



                            Let's say sea-level rise is the main danger you want to mitigate: The trouble with that in most parts of the world isn't the rise in mean sea level, it's the higher high-tide peaks. Moving the Moon out would reduce the magnitude of its tidal effect, as well as the period length. Sea level could rise by several feet but tidal peak heights could still be reduced.



                            As others mentioned, now you've got a whole world's worth of side effects and potential unintended consequences to consider. Is there any plausible way to imagine tidal reduction as a driver of additional effects which would have the tendency to cool rather than warm the globe? Biosphere impacts would be severe - it's easy to imagine the harm but maybe it would enable some mechanism which could result in the level of carbon-sinking needed to mitigate the warming and possibly introduce a powerful homeostatic regulating effect. Trading off massive species loss and biosphere disruption today for many, many millenia of engineered equilibrium.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Nov 25 at 20:48









                            Beanluc

                            20214




                            20214






















                                up vote
                                1
                                down vote













                                I think so. Sadly, I am not able to deliver any good equations for that but as it would be colder further away from the sun, it would certainly be possible to cool down the average temperature. However, there are some other complications:
                                The solar system is a chaotic environment that is naturally unstable. If you zipped the earth from one place to another in one moment, this might change the orbits of some asteroids etc, increasing the risk for earth to be hit by such. Of course, this risk would still be fairly low.






                                share|improve this answer





















                                • "change the orbits of some asteroids" - I think the Moon would be a much bigger problem! ;-)
                                  – chasly from UK
                                  Nov 25 at 16:18















                                up vote
                                1
                                down vote













                                I think so. Sadly, I am not able to deliver any good equations for that but as it would be colder further away from the sun, it would certainly be possible to cool down the average temperature. However, there are some other complications:
                                The solar system is a chaotic environment that is naturally unstable. If you zipped the earth from one place to another in one moment, this might change the orbits of some asteroids etc, increasing the risk for earth to be hit by such. Of course, this risk would still be fairly low.






                                share|improve this answer





















                                • "change the orbits of some asteroids" - I think the Moon would be a much bigger problem! ;-)
                                  – chasly from UK
                                  Nov 25 at 16:18













                                up vote
                                1
                                down vote










                                up vote
                                1
                                down vote









                                I think so. Sadly, I am not able to deliver any good equations for that but as it would be colder further away from the sun, it would certainly be possible to cool down the average temperature. However, there are some other complications:
                                The solar system is a chaotic environment that is naturally unstable. If you zipped the earth from one place to another in one moment, this might change the orbits of some asteroids etc, increasing the risk for earth to be hit by such. Of course, this risk would still be fairly low.






                                share|improve this answer












                                I think so. Sadly, I am not able to deliver any good equations for that but as it would be colder further away from the sun, it would certainly be possible to cool down the average temperature. However, there are some other complications:
                                The solar system is a chaotic environment that is naturally unstable. If you zipped the earth from one place to another in one moment, this might change the orbits of some asteroids etc, increasing the risk for earth to be hit by such. Of course, this risk would still be fairly low.







                                share|improve this answer












                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer










                                answered Nov 25 at 15:38









                                Böller

                                1084




                                1084












                                • "change the orbits of some asteroids" - I think the Moon would be a much bigger problem! ;-)
                                  – chasly from UK
                                  Nov 25 at 16:18


















                                • "change the orbits of some asteroids" - I think the Moon would be a much bigger problem! ;-)
                                  – chasly from UK
                                  Nov 25 at 16:18
















                                "change the orbits of some asteroids" - I think the Moon would be a much bigger problem! ;-)
                                – chasly from UK
                                Nov 25 at 16:18




                                "change the orbits of some asteroids" - I think the Moon would be a much bigger problem! ;-)
                                – chasly from UK
                                Nov 25 at 16:18



                                Popular posts from this blog

                                AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

                                How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

                                QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater