NASA finds possible habitable planet.

[Woozie]

Three times the mass, three times the gravity, right?

Edit: I'm an idiot. Ignore everything I said prior to this edit

It's probably the same average density, meaning it has three times the volume, meaning it's radius increases by a factor of 3^(1/3) while it's mass increases by a factor of 3. So looking at the ratio m/r^2, we get 3m/(3^(1/3)*r)^2 = m/r^2*(3/3^2/3)=(earths gravity)*(the cubed root of three). So the gravity would be stronger. It would 144% the strength of Earths gravity if it was three times bigger with the same average density.

[Woozie]

well yeah, the point isn't that the planet is going to die

But our planet is going to die. It's just a matter of time. It's inevitable. You were right in your first post. This planet is screwed, eventually.

[notorious bum]

In related news, 22% of the world's plants are going extinct. That can't be good.

[Atreides]

we have a bunch of problems in terms of the environment, all equally or more dire than that one-- soil degradation, deforestation, fresh water reserves, sea level, fish extinctions. Global warming was only the tip of the iceberg. The earth is a pretty bad way, even if we were to stop using electricty and reduce our population by oh... about 5 billion we'd still have enormous problems lol

The truly horrifying thing is that we know that we're fucked, we know that we needed to make changes 10+ years ago but we all have a massive case of denial, as our levels of growth and consumption only ever increase, and show no signs of stopping for the foreseeable future.

[Silenka]

Mass extinctions are normal, I think something like 15 species go extinct every minute? (The numbers are fuzzy and I can't seem to find an exact number atm). It's not out of the ordinary for this planet - 99.9% of all species are estimated to have gone extinct since the beginning of life on Earth. Sure humans are driving some to extinction faster than they would normally go due to pollution and habitat destruction, but it was going to happen eventually, we're just speeding the process along >.>

[Marootsoobutsu]

Nobody's going to want to move to a fresh new planet if they have to go back to the old west days, foraging and fending for themselves, building their own shelters and not having a structured government or law to protect them.

Did you seriously just say the Idaho Militia crazies don't exist?

[Rhinox]

Hey guys Lets mine asteroids and live in space. I hear living in zero G cures internet autism.

[Kaylia]

Mass extinctions are normal, I think something like 15 species go extinct every minute? (The numbers are fuzzy and I can't seem to find an exact number atm). It's not out of the ordinary for this planet - 99.9% of all species are estimated to have gone extinct since the beginning of life on Earth. Sure humans are driving some to extinction faster than they would normally go due to pollution and habitat destruction, but it was going to happen eventually, we're just speeding the process along >.>

I believe you're missing the point here. Sure, species are dying all the time, but by destroying the environment, it also prevent new species from being born. Before us, these species would simply be replaced by something new, but now there is a big gap left.

There is one more thing you need to consider as well. It's definitively to kill the life on a planet completely by increasing its temperature. Life brought a certain equilibrium, but if we go beyond certain point, it won't be possible to turn back. I'm not worried about this since we are still far away, but you could do backward terraforming,

[Silenka]

It was kind of an "internet answer", I wasn't being totally serious with that last line lol. Obviously there are some horrible things going on that we can't reverse anymore.
Personally I'm all for The Earth + Plastic, which is the inevitable direction we are heading (hi garbage patch the size of Texas in the Pacific)

[Atreides]

I believe you're missing the point here. Sure, species are dying all the time, but by destroying the environment, it also prevent new species from being born. Before us, these species would simply be replaced by something new, but now there is a big gap left.

There is one more thing you need to consider as well. It's definitively to kill the life on a planet completely by increasing its temperature. Life brought a certain equilibrium, but if we go beyond certain point, it won't be possible to turn back. I'm not worried about this since we are still far away, but you could do backward terraforming,

Really? I mean reading articles about the environment, it really leads you to believe that it's not as far away as everyone seems to think it is. It seems unlikely to me that the environement (at the very least the forests/oceans and all the species that live there) can take much more than a decade or two of our current level of consumption, but I'm not really sure what the real numbers are.

[Rhyis.]

Hey guys Lets mine asteroids and live in space. I hear living in zero G cures internet autism.

Oh you.

[notorious bum]

I think there's was push to reach a certain carbon cap had a specific timeline that we have(like 10 years tops) to reach it before it becomes impossible to reverse the damage. This ties in with global warming beliefs, but it made alot of since, regardless if you think its man-made, pollution is a fuckin problem for everyone.

edit: found it! http://www.target300.org/1introduction.html

[Khamsin]

*wonders why people would go through all the work of climbing OUT of one gravity well, to go sit at the bottom of another*

It's like being a caveman, discovering how to survive outside in the wide open spaces of the world, so you can immediately scurry over to another cave.

It's like being a caveman in a hot insurvivable desert, discovering how to protect oneself from the blistering heat and skin cancer, so you can immediately scurry over to the cool, comfortable shelter of another cave.

Just because we can survive in space, doesn't make it an ideal place to reside. Even with perfect shielding against cosmic radiation and other dangers, and artificial gravity, I'm sure people would still find it more comfortable and feasible to live on a planet with a natural survivable environment. Also, you can't really breed and expand on a space station, without constantly building new modules or other stations to accommodate the ever increasing population. And one malfunction in your artificial environment could kill everyone on board.

[notorious bum]

It's like being a caveman in a hot insurvivable desert, discovering how to protect oneself from the blistering heat and skin cancer, so you can immediately scurry over to the cool, comfortable shelter of another cave.

Just because we can survive in space, doesn't make it an ideal place to reside. Even with perfect shielding against cosmic radiation and other dangers, and artificial gravity, I'm sure people would still find it more comfortable and feasible to live on a planet with a natural survivable environment. Also, you can't really breed and expand on a space station, without constantly building new modules or other stations to accommodate the ever increasing population. And one malfunction in your artificial environment could kill everyone on board.

This encourages me to start watching the Star Trek ds9 series that I just downloaded and forgot about. Loved that show as a kid, but rarely got to watch it. I want to be frozen and brought back to life when we finally build space stations that don't suck.

[Plow]

yeah, I think the idea of a planet covered in barren rock and vast, lifeless oceans seems a lot less likely than a planet teeming with at least microscopic life

we better hope it has trees though, how else are we going to be able to waste reams upon reams of copy paper once we're done chopping down all of our own forests in a few years?

Well if it has the basic needs of life there is a good chance there is life there. I guess the question would be when life started evolution on the planet. But based on how it works i doubt the life on that planet would be anything like ours. That could be a good thing or bad lol.

What? Why?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Earth has been a "planet covered in barren rock and vast, lifeless oceans" for at least a billion or 2 years during its existence.

The likelihood of other life in infinity is uh... high... (derp) obviously, but to say "oh we found another planet that could probably have liquid water, therefore it probably has life" is a little overanxious, I'd say.

Also, it's tidally locked to its sun, so yeah, the life there would be extremely different than life on earth, if there is any.

[chiyio]

From what I read the tidal lock makes life more likely, since it's a much more stable environment. Life on earth already seems pretty "different". I mean, we can only communicate effectively with a single species (our own). I doubt life elsewhere is going to be much weirder.

[Kaylia]

Really? I mean reading articles about the environment, it really leads you to believe that it's not as far away as everyone seems to think it is. It seems unlikely to me that the environement (at the very least the forests/oceans and all the species that live there) can take much more than a decade or two of our current level of consumption, but I'm not really sure what the real numbers are.

Well, to "break" the planet completely forever would be hard. To kill enough biodiversity to harm it badly is probably quite doable on a short term.

[Silenka]

Well, to "break" the planet completely forever would be hard.

With nuclear weapons it isn't!

[Max™]

Let's play a guessing game about how bad a 2~ Celsius increase will be!

Using the included color coded biome chart.

See if you can guess which of these is the hottest period of the Holocene interglacial!
1.:

Spoiler: show

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-co...n_change_2.jpghttp://www.astrobio.net/albums/album03/abr.jpg

2.:

Spoiler: show

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-co...hangejpg1.jpeghttp://www.astrobio.net/albums/album03/abr.jpg

Spoiler: show

#2 is the present day, #1 is the holocene optimum, roughly 8~6 thousand years ago, when it was at least as warm as the "dire scenario" presented in the IPCC reports.

Here's the last glacial maximum, for comparison:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-co...ange_3jpg.jpeg

Apparently there were grasslands in the sahara when it was a couple of degrees hotter than it is today, those same spots are barren now, what a twist!

[Silenka]

Brings us back to the big debate: are humans influencing the climate by ruining it with chemicals and deforestation or is the Earth just going through one of its many fluctuating climate phases? While we do have a lot of past climate data to work with, we don't have a lot with humans involved in the mix since industry is such a recent development (and it DOES impact the earth in a hugely negative way; mining,drilling,dumping/burying chemicals,removing trees,littering non-biodegradables,shrinking habitats,depleting the lower ozone,the list goes on). Either a lot of people are worrying for basically nothing or the environmental alarmists are right and the day our planet is irrevocably damaged will sneak right up on us in the not too distant future. I think it's better to be safe and keep the planet clean anyway, which honestly SHOULD make the whole debate moot, except we can't seem to get away from fossil fuels and outdated industrial practices.