how close to the sun would the earth need to be to

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Stiganator

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 2001
2,492
3
81
maybe 5km, the world is pretty big... but if like half of the arctic ice cap cracked and displaced water, It would be very very bad times.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,425
14,829
146
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Mars is colder and further away than Earth, but its oceans boiled away.

Remember, both heat and pressure factor into the boiling point. You can boil cold water by lowering the pressure.

Yep, strip the atmosphere off the planet, (maybe a close encounter with an asteroid?) and all water would quickly boil off into space. Of course, nearly all lifeforms on the planet would as well, since we're mostly water ourselves...if the oxygen deprivation didn't kill us, the vacuum would. Which one would kill you first? Would we suffocate from lack of oxygen before our blood boiled in our veins? (remember Total Recall?)
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
2
0
I think it was on NOVA or some other science show, they ran a computer model on what would happen if the Earth were to be moved slightly closer to the Sun and basically it became a clone of Venus.
 

Hyperion042

Member
Mar 23, 2003
53
0
0
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
I think it was on NOVA or some other science show, they ran a computer model on what would happen if the Earth were to be moved slightly closer to the Sun and basically it became a clone of Venus.


Those models also tell us that leaving it where it is makes it into a clone of Venus. :p

It is a pretty complex question - as more water evaporates, cloud cover and albedo will similarly increase, reducing the amount of heat trapped by the earth. Increased efficiency of carbon burnoff (forest fires et al) would increase CO2 levels, as would release of stored CO2 in the oceans, thereby trapping what heat gets through the newly thickened cloud layer. All told, though, the release of water would reduce solar absorption. I'd say it'd take at least a twofold increase in solar magnitude to get significant burnoff of the ocean, but that's something of a guess.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: Stiganator
When a big enough section of ice caps melted it would destroy all humans. I would guess the tsunami would be about 10km tall across all of earth. look at the ones that happen in bays in Alaska---> 500m tall.


Wow, you really believe that?? lmao!!!

Also, for the "between here and venus" people: Mercury is closer to the sun than venus. Venus has the hotter surface temperature. What's in the atmosphere plays a huge role.
 

Stiganator

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 2001
2,492
3
81
What were you trying to point out? Alaska has recorded tsunamis of that magnitude before, due to enclosed bays and large landslides. Additionally, a number of people have noted that Venus has a higher surface temp. If the mass of the arctic ice cap fractured in two and displaced an equivalent amount of water, you would definitely notice it.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
I realize they've had localized tsunamis measuring in the hundreds of meters. But, I'm still laughing at the 10km prediction... That's roughly a half mile taller than Mt. Everest.
 

clamum

Lifer
Feb 13, 2003
26,256
406
126
I don't think you could extrapolate what happens from a localized tsunami in Alaska to what would happen across the planet. 10km? LOL
 

dxkj

Lifer
Feb 17, 2001
11,772
2
81
Originally posted by: DrPizza
I realize they've had localized tsunamis measuring in the hundreds of meters. But, I'm still laughing at the 10km prediction... That's roughly a half mile taller than Mt. Everest.

10km..... some people.... maybe the ice cap would make a splash big enough to cause the tsunami to reach escape velocity and we would have a vapor canopy again and all live to be 1000 years old
 

ahurtt

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2001
4,283
0
0
Originally posted by: pontifex
Originally posted by: E equals MC2
Dude, the ocean doesn't even need to boil.

If the earth's temperature as a whole even went up 5 degrees, we'd be some serious shiit beyond man's control. Global flooding due to ice caps melting, all ecosystems are completely thrown off the scale, hundreds of thousands of species would go to extinct from 5 degrees alone.

no, i very specifically need the oceans to boil and evaporate. i really don't care much about what else happens, but boiling and evaporating is essential.

actually, if you can think of another way to make water all over the world disappear completely, let me know. the boiling seas thing seems to be the most logical way i can think of it happening, even though its not very logical to begin with, but i'm willing to hear all options.

Let's think about something else here. . .Earths atmosphere is only capable of absorbing so much humidity before it becomes completely saturated and it begins to rain. Is there enough atmosphere to hold all the water from all the oceans if they really did become hot enough to boil away?

 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: pontifex
Originally posted by: E equals MC2
Dude, the ocean doesn't even need to boil.

If the earth's temperature as a whole even went up 5 degrees, we'd be some serious shiit beyond man's control. Global flooding due to ice caps melting, all ecosystems are completely thrown off the scale, hundreds of thousands of species would go to extinct from 5 degrees alone.

no, i very specifically need the oceans to boil and evaporate. i really don't care much about what else happens, but boiling and evaporating is essential.

actually, if you can think of another way to make water all over the world disappear completely, let me know. the boiling seas thing seems to be the most logical way i can think of it happening, even though its not very logical to begin with, but i'm willing to hear all options.


Boy, this is way out of my profession, but:

1) I have some questions about the whole 'boiling & evaporation thing". Seems to me that the boiling/evap would serve to cool the water. The additional evap water in the atmosphere may tend to cool the Earth by blocking out sunlight. As that part of Earth rotated away from the Sun, there would be massive cooling & rain etc.

2) I tend to think the most effective means of eventually causing all the water on Earth to disappear would be if the core solidified. This would "kill" the magnetic field around the Earth. Without the magnetic field (and no more volcanic eruptions etc) we would lose the atmosphere, and all the water etc.

I can't remember which B- grade science fiction movie I got this stuff from ;)

Fern
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
Yeah I didn't figure out the aphelion distance it had to be for the avg. surface temp to be 100C on page 2.
 

geecee

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2003
2,383
43
91
Originally posted by: Fern

[stuff deleted]

2) I tend to think the most effective means of eventually causing all the water on Earth to disappear would be if the core solidified. This would "kill" the magnetic field around the Earth. Without the magnetic field (and no more volcanic eruptions etc) we would lose the atmosphere, and all the water etc.

I can't remember which B- grade science fiction movie I got this stuff from ;)

Fern
The Core? :)
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: geecee
Originally posted by: Fern

[stuff deleted]

2) I tend to think the most effective means of eventually causing all the water on Earth to disappear would be if the core solidified. This would "kill" the magnetic field around the Earth. Without the magnetic field (and no more volcanic eruptions etc) we would lose the atmosphere, and all the water etc.

I can't remember which B- grade science fiction movie I got this stuff from ;)

Fern
The Core? :)


Yep, that's the one :)
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Originally posted by: Stiganator
maybe 5km, the world is pretty big... but if like half of the arctic ice cap cracked and displaced water, It would be very very bad times.

I hope you meant Antarctic. Since the Artic Icecap is floating its melting will have little effect on sea level.

I do not quite understand how the earth came to move closer to the sun. If it had formed at that distance, the atmosphere, the oceans and life as we know would never have formed. Therefore, you have to move it to get the scenario you are proposing. Have you considered the effects moving the earth would have on life?

Perhaps a better question to ask would be "how much must the solar constant increase to boil the oceans."

I do not think you would have to raise the surface temperature to 100C to evaporate the oceans. It may well be that long before the entire ocean is heated to boiling point it would have long been dried out due to evaporation.

The process of going from our givens which are heat gain from the sun and heat loss to space to a temperature is not easy. The models simple enough to solve may well be over simplified and yield useless solutions.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: RossGr
Originally posted by: Stiganator
maybe 5km, the world is pretty big... but if like half of the arctic ice cap cracked and displaced water, It would be very very bad times.

I hope you meant Antarctic. Since the Artic Icecap is floating its melting will have little effect on sea level.

I do not quite understand how the earth came to move closer to the sun. If it had formed at that distance, the atmosphere, the oceans and life as we know would never have formed. Therefore, you have to move it to get the scenario you are proposing. Have you considered the effects moving the earth would have on life?

Perhaps a better question to ask would be "how much must the solar constant increase to boil the oceans."

I do not think you would have to raise the surface temperature to 100C to evaporate the oceans. It may well be that long before the entire ocean is heated to boiling point it would have long been dried out due to evaporation.

The process of going from our givens which are heat gain from the sun and heat loss to space to a temperature is not easy. The models simple enough to solve may well be over simplified and yield useless solutions.


The polar ice over the arctic ocean would have zero effect, but IIRC, the Greenland ice mass is enough to raise the level of the ocean by 15 or 20 feet (or something like that)
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Originally posted by: Fern

Boy, this is way out of my profession, but:

1) I have some questions about the whole 'boiling & evaporation thing". Seems to me that the boiling/evap would serve to cool the water. The additional evap water in the atmosphere may tend to cool the Earth by blocking out sunlight. As that part of Earth rotated away from the Sun, there would be massive cooling & rain etc.

2) I tend to think the most effective means of eventually causing all the water on Earth to disappear would be if the core solidified. This would "kill" the magnetic field around the Earth. Without the magnetic field (and no more volcanic eruptions etc) we would lose the atmosphere, and all the water etc.

I can't remember which B- grade science fiction movie I got this stuff from ;)

Fern
The magnetic field thing is a bother to me though, because Venus lacks a magnetic field, is closer to the sun, and has a denser atmosphere than Earth. Mars has a very thin atmosphere, and also has no uniform magnetic field.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern
[
2) I tend to think the most effective means of eventually causing all the water on Earth to disappear would be if the core solidified. This would "kill" the magnetic field around the Earth. Without the magnetic field (and no more volcanic eruptions etc) we would lose the atmosphere, and all the water etc.

What does the magnetic field have to do with holding an atmosphere?
 

LeadMagnet

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,348
0
0
Wait 5 billion years you'll find out.

When the sun's burns up all the hydrogen in it's core, and begins burning heavier elements it will become much hotter. Gravity will loose the battle to fusion and the sun will become a red giant, expanding to consume Mercury, Venus, and Earth's orbits.

As the glowing ember we once call home plows through the outer solar material, it's orbital energy will disipate and the planet will spiral into the core of the sun. Then the sun will colapes into a brown dwarf, dieing a slow death. Without the solar energy to keep them warm the outer plants will cool an freeze, after having been cooked by the sun's red giant phase.
 

Hyperion042

Member
Mar 23, 2003
53
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Boy, this is way out of my profession, but:

1) I have some questions about the whole 'boiling & evaporation thing". Seems to me that the boiling/evap would serve to cool the water. The additional evap water in the atmosphere may tend to cool the Earth by blocking out sunlight. As that part of Earth rotated away from the Sun, there would be massive cooling & rain etc.

2) I tend to think the most effective means of eventually causing all the water on Earth to disappear would be if the core solidified. This would "kill" the magnetic field around the Earth. Without the magnetic field (and no more volcanic eruptions etc) we would lose the atmosphere, and all the water etc.

I can't remember which B- grade science fiction movie I got this stuff from ;)

Fern

Pretty sure freezing the core would just kill the magnetic field, and pretty sure that the effects of this, while unpredictable, would not amount to a catastropic world destroying event. Best case, all the migratory birds in the world die off and we lose all our auroras. Worst case, weather patterns alter due to the gross reduction in incoming solar winds. Also it's somewhat unlikely that volcanic activity would be eliminated... Eruption patterns might change, but freezing the core would likely not annihilate the mantle's geothermal activity.