RefBan

Referral Banners

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Should we terraform Venus first?

October 11th, 2012Top Story

Should we terraform Venus first?

By George Dvorsky

Should we terraform Venus first?As a future terraforming species, we take it for granted that Mars will be our first megaproject. But while transforming the Red Planet into something more hospitable for life seems the most logical — if not easiest — first step towards colonizing the solar system, it may actually make more sense to tackle our sister planet first. Because some scientists warn of a runaway greenhouse effect here on Earth, it may be prudent for us to terraform Venus first — a planet that has already undergone a carbon dioxide-induced apocalypse. And by doing so, we may learn how to prevent or reverse a similar catastrophe here on Earth.

Runaway greenhouse

One of the more frightening scenarios presented by climate scientists is the problem of a runaway greenhouse effect.

Should we terraform Venus first? Should carbon emissions continue to increase at the current rate, they warn, we may hit a critical tipping point after which a positive feedback loop will be created between the surface of the Earth and the increasingly thick and opaque atmosphere above it. Hypothetically, the effect would instigate a rapid and progressively escalating rise in temperature that would eventually result in the extermination of all life on the planet and the evaporation of the oceans.

No one knows for sure if this will be the ultimate climax of human-caused global warming, but it's a possibility that clearly needs to be taken seriously. It's a genuine existential risk.

And disturbingly, there is precedent for this right here in our solar system. Scientists are quite certain that Venus went through a runaway greenhouse effect when it was young and when it still had oceans. In those early days, and as the sun got brighter, Venus's oceans began to boil and evaporate into the atmosphere, where it eventually leaked out into space. Today, and as a consequence, Venus has an absolutely massive amount of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, the result of poor carbon recycling (which is facilitated by the presence of liquid water).

A veritable hell

As a result, Venus has essentially turned into hell. It features an average temperature of 467°C (872°F) — a temperature that's hot enough to melt lead. And its thick layer of carbon dioxide (CO2) bears down on the planet at a level 90 times greater than what we experience here on Earth.

Should we terraform Venus first? To say that Venus has a lot of CO2 in its atmosphere would be a gross understatement. Over 96% of its atmosphere consists of CO2, which it displays prominently through its thick layer of clouds that float 50-70 km above the surface. Above that, is has clouds and mist that are comprised of concentrated sulphuric acid and gaseous sulfur dioxide (which is derived from the sulphuric acid).

Making matters worse, Venus gets about twice the sunlight than Earth, and it features a day that's 224 Earth days long (making its day longer than its year). Oh, and it doesn't have a magnetosphere to protect it against solar radiation.

After considering all this, it's fairly safe to suggest that the terraforming of Venus would pose a set of problems far greater than what would await us on Mars. But that isn't necessarily a valid reason to terraform Mars first. As already noted, the insights we would glean from a Venus terraforming project could serve us well given our climate change problems here on Earth. It's even fair to say that the simple exercise of thinking about it — the brainstorming of ideas — may help us deal with — and even acknowledge — our current climate crisis.

But Venus poses other advantages as well. It's closer than Mars, making it easier and quicker to travel back and forth. And like the Earth, it resides within the solar system's habitable zone. We also know it can hold an atmosphere (obviously), and it has nearly the same mass and size as Earth. Mars, on the other hand, is considerably smaller, and would pose serious health risks to humans (reduced muscle mass and bone density) on account of its low gravity.

Getting rid of the CO2

Should we decide to terraform Venus, or any planet for that matter, we need to accept the fact that a project of that magnitude would take a considerable amount of time. It would be a long term, generational project that would have to be rolled out over a series of phases. Thankfully, a number of visionareis have given us a head start in thinking about how we could do this.

The first step, it's fairly obvious to say, is that we'll need to get rid of the excess CO2.

Should we terraform Venus first? Fifty years ago, Carl Sagan suggested that we use atmospheric-based GMO algae to convert the CO2 into something more benign or useful. It's not the greatest idea in the world, but give him credit — he was the first person to seriously suggest that we terraform Venus.

More recently, NASA engineer James Oberg proposed that all the CO2 could be blown out into space. Writing in his 1981 book, New Earths, he wrote:

If we wish to remove 98% of the mass of the Venusian atmosphere in a reasonable time, say, 100 years, we must haul up a mass 10 quintillion tons, or 300,000 tons per second. Compare that to the flow along the Amazon river...10,000 tons per second. The largest machines built which handle flowing water...handle 400 tons per second.

Or look at it from an energy requirement: hauling the mass of gas 100 km high, and then accelerating it by 20 km per second requires about 1025 ergs over a 100-year period. That's all the sunlight falling over the same period on an area of 10,000 square km assuming 100% efficiency...Throw in a factor of 10 for engineering reality, and the air scoopers must have an area of...three times the total area of Venus.

And in the 1990s, Paul Birch proposed a plan that would see Venus flooded with over 4x1019 kg of hydrogen. This would cause a reaction with the CO2, which would in turn produce graphite and water — a lot of water. His estimates predicted that about 80% of the surface area of Venus would eventually be covered in water (compared to Earth's 70%).

Other plans describe the capture of carbonates, direct liquefaction and sequestration, advanced nanotechnology, a megascale quicklime process, or a combination of some or all of these.

Temperature, rotation, and the magnetosphere

Once the CO2 problem is resolved, the next phases of Venus's transformation would likely involve addressing ongoing temperature problems, irregular planetary rotation, and the lack of a magnetosphere.

It's safe to assume that, by virtue of the elimination of the excess CO2, the temperature would start to get more reasonable. But it's still likely that Venus would experience temperatures much greater than what life can withstand.

Meteorologist Paul Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, suggested a number of years ago that it would be possible to artificially release massive quantities of sulfur dioxide at an altitude of 20 kilometers in order to cool down surface temperatures and offset the growing greenhouse effect. This would be similar to the effect of volcanic eruption here on Earth.

Another possible solution proposed by Birch would be to place space-based mirrors at the lagrange point between Venus and the sun. Angled correctly, the mirrors would reflect the excess sunlight away from the planet, while simultaneously serving as solar power generators.

Should we terraform Venus first? Alternately, the reflectors could be placed in the atmosphere or on the surface of Venus. Nanotechnology expert J. Storrs Hall has devised a weather machine for Earth that could essentially perform this task. There's no reason to believe that such a system couldn't also work for Venus. And given the planet's proximity to the sun, along with its agonizingly slow rotation, a long term technological solution will likely be mandatory.

And indeed, we might also want to readjust the spin of Venus to give it a rate more comparable to Earth's. Now this would truly be an epic task, requiring an absolutely tremendous amount of energy. In all likelihood, the only way to do it would be to introduce large celestial bodies around Venus in order to accelerate its rotation up from once every 224 Earth days. And in fact, it might just be simpler to arrange a series of massive mirrors to redirect sunlight to the dark side of the planet.

Finally, there's the problem of the magnetosphere — a complete deal breaker for the onset of life. It's possible that the slow rotation of Venus is to blame for this. Perhaps future technologists will devise a plan to create a virtual magnetosphere — one that can shield the planet from solar radiation and devastating solar storms.

A valuable thought experiment

It's clear that the terraforming of Venus will be hard. We may never get it to the point where life will be able to flourish — but it will be interesting to see the extent to which we could make it habitable for human occupation, along with synthetic life that could live under harsh conditions.

Perhaps the first step in the process, aside from taking the possibility seriously and conjuring novel ways to fix the planet, would be to create simulations of all these proposals to determine which ones would work best.

Moreover, these simulations would compliment similar models of what might happen to Earth given a similar set of circumstances. The quest to make Venus habitable for life, it would seem, just might ensure that Earth can continue to do the same.

Images: 1:NASA | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5: J. Storrs Hall

Number of comments

How to Spot Truth in the Sea of Lies, Rumors, and Myths on the Internet

October 11th, 2012Top Story

How to Spot Truth in the Sea of Lies, Rumors, and Myths on the Internet

By Thorin Klosowski

How to Spot Truth in the Sea of Lies, Rumors, and Myths on the InternetThe internet is full of crap. For every piece of reputable information you'll find countless rumors, misinformation, and downright falsehoods. Separating truth from fiction is equal parts a mental battle and diligent research. Here's how to make sure you never get duped.

As long as words are hitting the page, news and facts are filtered through someone. Sometimes this is a ludicrous rumor that somehow morphs into a fact, or even just a small tip that doesn't work at all. Filtering out the junk from the facts is hard, but it's not impossible.

Why You Shouldn't Trust Your Brain to Spot Truth

How to Spot Truth in the Sea of Lies, Rumors, and Myths on the InternetBefore we start filtering through all the junk, we need to quickly talk about how and why misinformation travels quickly. A number of reasons for this exist, but two are more prevalent than others. First off, we have belief perseverance, which Scientific America describes like so:

[B]elief perseverance: maintaining your original opinions in the face of overwhelming data that contradicts your beliefs. Everyone does it, but we are especially vulnerable when invalidated beliefs form a key part of how we narrate our lives. Researchers have found that stereotypes, religious faiths and even our self-concept are especially vulnerable to belief perseverance.

Essentially, once an idea becomes a "fact" in our head, we have a hard time believing that the opposite is true when it's disproven. This is how myths and rumors gain steam.

Belief perserverance also plays well with cognitive bias: flaws in judgement where we make statistical or attribution errors based on patterns. These biases include confirmation bias, where we tend to ignore information we don't agree with, and the bandwagon effect, where we tend to go along with what other members of a group are doing.

Essentially, both make spotting misinformation difficult because we believe just about anything if we want it to be true. The only fix is to acknowledge that you do this. Once you do, it's time to start digging for truly reliable information. Photo by Alex Gaylon.

How to Figure Out If Misinformation Is True

Misinformation is everywhere, and although it's tough to find the truth, it's not impossible. Everything ranging from falsified classic quotes to fake experts permeate within our culture.

Prime Your Brain with a Simple Question: "How Do You Know What You Know?"

How to Spot Truth in the Sea of Lies, Rumors, and Myths on the InternetAs we mentioned above, our brains aren't as skeptical of information as they should be. Sometimes you have to force it a little to find the real facts. Author Scott Berkun suggests you start this by asking yourself a question:

The first detection tool is a question: How do you know what you know?
Throw this phrase down when someone force feeds you an idea, an argument, a reference to a study or over-confidently suggests a course of action. People so rarely have their claims challenged, that asking someone to explain how they know sheds light on whatever ignorance they're hiding.

Obviously you don't always have direct access to someone making a claim, but asking yourself that question ("How do they know what they know?") will bring out the skepticism that leads you through the rest of the process.

Follow the Source List and Find the Context for Claims

How to Spot Truth in the Sea of Lies, Rumors, and Myths on the InternetPeople interpret information differently. Since news often travels through several sources before it lands in front of you, it's easy for the truth to get lost in the shuffle. This is why following a news story to its original source is important.

Most sites (ours included) have a source list, or a link back to an original story. This is always worth following if something sounds fishy. It's also good to raise your skeptics flag when a site doesn't have a source.

Question/answer sites like Quora and Yahoo Answers often pop up first in search results, but that doesn't mean the responder is always a verified expert. Even if a piece of advice or tip from one of these sites sounds legit, it's still worth searching a little deeper before you try anything. If a tipster is really trustworthy, they'll post a link to a source—this is a good place to start. Again, Berkun's question, "How do you know what you know?" is incredibly handy here. If you find a piece of advice online in a forum or question/answer site, search again for the answer by itself to check the validity.

Interviews are also especially deceptive for a number of reasons. First off, quotes might be taken out of context (or made up entirely). The only real recourse is to track down the interview subject (Twitter is often handy for this) and see if the interview subject mentioned anything. Secondly, it's always good to check out experts when they're interviewed in a post. Any good publication will give you their job description, but if something sounds off in an interview it doesn't hurt to search for their name to see other interviews they've done or articles they've written.

Learn to Ask the Right Questions

How to Spot Truth in the Sea of Lies, Rumors, and Myths on the InternetSometimes getting to the truth requires you to ask a few questions. If something seems off, whether it's a piece of advice, a fact, or something that sounds too good to be true, ask yourself the following questions:

  • Is it safe to try this? Whether it's a cleaning tip or dieting advice, the first thing you want to ask yourself is if it's safe to try on your own. You'll find all types of well-meaning advice on forums and question/answer sites, but that doesn't mean they're good. A tip or advice might work for one person, but might be horrible for everyone else. It's always good to try new things, just make sure it's not going to harm your health.
  • Is the statement coming from a reputable source? Even reputable sources mess up sometimes, but chances are if you've heard of a publication and they source their information well, you're on track for finding the truth. Take all the iPad Mini rumors as an example. The Wall Street Journal says its coming any day because "some compent suppliers to Apple in Asia say they have recieved orders." Coming from the Wall Street Journal, this sounds great, but who's their source? Who are these component manufacturers? We're not saying an iPad Mini isn't coming—but it's important to notice when a detail is missing.
  • Does the person writing this have anything to gain from their statement? Everyone lies a little, but if that person gains something from their lie then it's worth paying close attention to. Whether it's a press kit, someone selling you on their book, their "true" story, or an advertisement, ask yourself if they have something to gain. If they do, the chances for falsehood are increased.

The key here is to ask a question if a statement sounds false. It doesn't matter exactly what the question is, as long as you're asking a question. Photo by Alexander Henning Drachmann.

Put More Viewpoints in Front of You

How to Spot Truth in the Sea of Lies, Rumors, and Myths on the InternetIt's best not to leave your skepticism up to your brain on its own. Chances are any major news story (or piece of information) is reported at a lot of different places, and getting those views in front of you can help you fact check information quickly.

To do this, we like the News360 Periscope extension because it instantly shows you different points of view on the story you're reading. This makes it so you can quickly see a highlight of what other people are saying and make a judgement call without doing a lot of work.

We also like the Unsourced extension for Chrome. Unsourced puts a warning label on news stories that are essentially reprints of press releases, links you directly to research sources, and pops up a labels when statistics are used. It only works in a handful of places, but it's still handy to keep around.

Check Dubious Claims Against Trusted Sources

How to Spot Truth in the Sea of Lies, Rumors, and Myths on the InternetYou can't leave everything up to your intuition, which is why plenty of fact checking websites exist. While even these are bound to get things wrong sometimes, they're still a helpful resource when you're deciphering the truth from all the myths, rumors, and lies. Here are a few good places to start.

  • Politicfact: Politifact is all about testing the validity of statements by politicians, and in their ads. Right now it's focused mostly on the presidential election (which you can prime your own BS detection skills for), but Politifact typically does a reasonable job of covering the news all year long.
  • FactCheck: FactCheck digs into the claims, speeches, and numbers behind political campaigns. If something sounds fishy when you hear it, they're a good place to check.
  • Snopes: Snopes is best suited for testing the validity of myths and urban legends. It does a good job with it, and provides plenty of resources to back up their claims when possible.
  • Truth or Fiction: Truth or Fiction might look like it's stuck in the 90s, but the site still track the truthfullness of all those ridiculous email forwards you get from your family. Spoiler alert: most forwards aren't based on evidence.

Of course, you should remain suspicious even of fact checking sites, but they're a good resource when you're trying to solve the validity of a political quote, or you just want the truth on a juicy urban legend. While you're at it, don't forget to check out our guides to finding reliable medical information and our tips to determine if a scientific statement is true.

Title image remixed from villainecrevette (Shutterstock).

Number of comments

Behold: The Transparent Wii U

October 11th, 2012Top Story

Behold: The Transparent Wii U

By Jason Schreier

Behold: The Transparent Wii U We don't think Nintendo will actually sell this transparent version of the Wii U, shown off during a recent Iwata Asks interview that picked apart and delved into the upcoming console.

That's too bad. It's pretty sweet. Remember the transparent Game Boy? The transparent N64 controller? Nintendo used to be so much more transparent.

Number of comments