Category: Uncategorized

Climate Models Wipe Out Life in Trappist-1 Solar System!!!

Climate Models Wipe Out Life in Trappist-1 Solar System!!!

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Guest post by David Middleton

They must have used the RCP 8.5 Death Star…

Trappist1

The announcement of the Trappist-1 system in February, with seven rocky planets orbiting an ultracool dwarf star, sent ripples of excitement through astrobiologists everywhere.

At least three of the planets looked like they were within the star’s “habitable zone” – the region in which water will remain liquid. On that level, at least, the trio seemed like very good candidates for hosting life.

Now, however, 3D climate modelling is dampening expectations, suggesting that at most only one of Trappist-1’s satellites could support life.

The modelling has been completed by Eric Wolf from the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, Boulder. In doing so, he made the assumption that the seven planets are – or had once been – ocean-covered, with atmospheres comprising nitrogen, carbon-dioxide and water vapour. Orbital and geophysical properties were derived or deduced from collected data.

When Wolf ran the numbers, the results were rather depressing.

“Model results indicate that the inner three planets presently reside interior to the inner edge of the traditional liquid water habitable zone,” he writes in a paper lodged on pre-print site arxiv.

“Thus if water ever existed on the inner planets, they would have undergone a runaway greenhouse and lost their water to space, leaving them dry today.”

The outer three planets, he adds, “fall beyond the maximum CO2 greenhouse outer edge of the habitable zone” and will have entered a lifeless snowball state.

Thus, only the middle planet remains a candidate for hosting life. It could maintain “at least some habitable surface”, Wolf notes, depending on the atmospheric nitrogen levels. If the planet is, in fact, covered in ocean, then “near present day Earth surface temperatures can be maintained”.

[…]

Cosmos

Don’t get me wrong, I find the entire field of exoplanetary science and the Kepler mission to be really cool.  The application of a remote sensing method to detect and even describe likely planetary bodies in other solar systems is just about the coolest science on this planet… But, are they really “discovering” exoplanets?  It seems to me that this would be analogous to oil companies booking reserves on the basis of high-quality seismic hydrocarbon indicators, without ever drilling them.

Clearly, there are a series of anomalies in the Trappist-1 system which could very well be planets in the habitable zone… But, isn’t this an case of jumping the gun?

NEWS & TECHNOLOGY 1 March 2017

How we’re already seeking life on TRAPPIST-1’s rocky planets

By Leah Crane and Joshua Sokol

WE ARE already taking the first steps toward learning if there could be life on TRAPPIST-1’s newly discovered planets – and what that life might look like.

Last week, a team led by Michaël Gillon at Belgium’s University of Liege announced that TRAPPIST-1, a small, faint star some 40 light years away, has four more rocky planets to join the three we already knew about.

All are less than 20 per cent bigger than Earth, and all orbit well within the distance at which Mercury circles our sun. Despite this closeness, the planets may be candidates to search for life. That’s because TRAPPIST-1 is much smaller and dimmer than the sun, so three of the planets may be cool enough to host liquid water on the surface, putting them in the habitable zone

(see diagram)

.

[…]

Without even actually seeing the Trappist-1 system, it appears that the exoplanetary scientists discovered extraterrestrial life capable of a

rudimentary form of space travel

, only to have that life wiped out by climate models… Cue the guy from the Hindenburg broadcast…

As usual, any and all sarcasm was purely intentional.

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

March 21, 2017 at 10:05AM

Scince is making killer (tasting) tomatoes again

Scince is making killer (tasting) tomatoes again

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

From the “Day of the Killer Tomatoes” department comes this curious story from the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY about food science and making tomatoes great again…at least the store bought ones. Why are so many supermarket tomatoes tasteless and rock hard? In the 1990s, breeders developed a tomato that produces less of the hormone ethylene, so […]

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

March 21, 2017 at 10:00AM

The Problem With Climate Catastrophising

The Problem With Climate Catastrophising

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

The case for keeping calm.

Climate change may or may not bear responsibility for the flood on last night’s news, but without question it has created a flood of despair. Climate researchers and activists, according to a 2015 Esquire feature, “When the End of Human Civilization is Your Day Job,” suffer from depression and PTSD-like symptoms. In a poll on his Twitter feed, meteorologist and writer Eric Holthaus found that nearly half of 416 respondents felt “emotionally overwhelmed, at least occasionally, because of news about climate change.”

For just such feelings, a Salt Lake City support group provides “a safe space for confronting” what it calls “climate grief.”

Panicked thoughts often turn to the next generation. “Does Climate Change Make It Immoral to Have Kids?” pondered columnist Dave Bry in The Guardian in 2016. “[I] think about my son,” he wrote, “growing up in a gray, dying world—walking towards Kansas on potholed highways.” Over the summer, National Public Radio tackled the same topic in “Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?” an interview with Travis Rieder, a philosopher at Johns Hopkins University, who offers “a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.” And Holthaus himself once responded to a worrying scientific report by announcing that he would never fly again and might also get a vasectomy.

Such attitudes have not evolved in isolation. They are the most intense manifestations of the same mindset that produces regular headlines about “saving the planet” and a level of obsession with reducing carbon footprints that is otherwise reserved for reducing waistlines. Former U.S. President Barack Obama finds climate change “terrifying” and considers it “a potential existential threat.” He declared in his 2015 State of the Union address that “no challenge—no challenge—poses a greater threat to future generations.” In another speech offering “a glimpse of our children’s fate,” he described “Submerged countries. Abandoned cities. Fields that no longer grow. Political disruptions that trigger new conflict, and even more floods of desperate peoples.” Meanwhile, during a presidential debate among the Democratic candidates, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders warned that “the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable.” At the Vatican in 2015, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio shared his belief that current policy will “hasten the destruction of the earth.”

And yet, such catastrophizing is not justified by the science or economics of climate change. The well-established scientific consensus that human activity is causing the climate to change does not extend to judgments about severity. The most comprehensive and often-cited efforts to synthesize the disparate range of projections—for instance, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Obama administration’s estimate of the “Social Cost of Carbon”—consistently project real but manageable costs over the century to come. To be sure, more speculative worst-case scenarios abound. But humanity has no shortage of worst cases about which people succeed in remaining far calmer: from a global pandemic to financial collapse to any number of military crises.

What, then, explains the prevalence of climate catastrophism?

Full post

 

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

March 21, 2017 at 08:32AM

Obama’s wind farm rule kills hundreds of eagles, lead bullets don’t

Obama’s wind farm rule kills hundreds of eagles, lead bullets don’t

via Climate Change Dispatch
http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

Greens are blaming President Donald Trump for overturning a rule prohibiting the use of lead bullets on national wildlife reserves that some biologists blame for eagle deaths. But before he left office, President Obama issued 30-year permits allowing the wind industry to legally kill thousands of eagles without penalty. Still, 30 doctors and scientists sent […]

via Climate Change Dispatch http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

March 21, 2017 at 08:18AM