Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu...
by ladberg on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:15AM
(#24774008)
If it makes you feel any better it's pretty much impossible to make Earth less habitable than anywhere else in a few light years, so I wouldn't worry about missing out on a space-paradise!
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu...
by TeMPOraL on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:22AM
(#24774054)
Modern economy: hold my beer and watch the exponent.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu...
by larkeith on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:53AM
(#24774243)
Throw enough nukes around and Europa might start to look a pleasant alternative.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu...
by saagarjha on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @04:46AM
(#24774520)
At that point Kessler syndrome will be the least of our problems.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu...
by ars on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @11:13AM
(#24777421)
Every nuke on earth would not do that. The Earth is really big, and even a nuke would not affect a large portion of it.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu...
by baq on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @04:45AM
(#24774515)
well if we continue growing energy consumption 1% yoy, we boil off oceans in 400 years
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu...
by gus_massa on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @06:17AM
(#24775029)
DO you have a source for this? I cant't find something for 2400, but from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... the prediction of the IPCC for 2300 is an increase of 3.0 to 12.6 °C that is really bad but by far not enough to start boiling the oceans.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu...
by baq on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @07:33AM
(#24775408)
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
i heartily recommend the whole series. i made a mistake in the post before - the post assumes 2.3% yoy.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu...
by srtjstjsj on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @08:37AM
(#24775795)
The article shows that 2.3% is an extreme upper bonnet because humanity has already lost its need of ability to generate 2.3% more growth per year. It's another case of people looking at a logistic graph and pretending it's exponential
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu...
by baq on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @11:16AM
(#24777462)
that's the underlying theme of the series - it shows that exponential growth of economy is tied to exponential growth of energy consumption and it's something economists can't quite wrap their heads around.