Earths Distance To The Sun.

[Scarraway]

Question: If we burn millions of tons of fossil fuel daily, is the earth getting lighter allowing the suns gravity to draw us closer thereby causing global warming? Does anyone keep a check on this distance as years go by?

[A-wal]

Does anyone keep a check on this distance as years go by?

I would think so.

 

Turning solids into gas would have no effect on the mass of the planet unless the gas were escaping the atmosphere.

 

We take on tons of mass every day through mini asteroids being captured. Not sure how much we loose through gas escaping.

[Scarraway]

Thanks A-wal

[Turtle]

Question: If we burn millions of tons of fossil fuel daily, is the earth getting lighter allowing the suns gravity to draw us closer thereby causing global warming? Does anyone keep a check on this distance as years go by?

First, the Sun's irradience is well accounted for in Earth's heat budget and the mathematical climate models. The warming/climate change that is topical these days is not due to any variance in the irradiance.

 

Second, the Earth is actually slowly moving away from the Sun due to 2 different effects. SLOWLY is the key operative term! Read here: >> Is the distance from the Earth to the Sun changing? (Advanced) @ Ask an Astronomer/Cornell University

[Scarraway]

Thanks Turtle.that is very small indeed.

[CraigD]

In addition to what A-Wal noted about burned stuff not reducing Earth’s mass (the main gases released by burning, CO₂ and H₂O, don’t rise high in the atmosphere, so unlike light gasses like hydrogen and helium, don’t much escape into space), and Turtle’s reference explaining that the Earth is actually, very slowly, getting further from the Sun, it’s important to understand that even if the Earth were suddenly much less massive, its orbit wouldn’t change, because an orbit depends mainly on the mass of the primary body (big one at the center), nor the orbiting one. If this were not the case, the ISS’s orbit would change every time something was added to it.

 

In the long run, more important than the Sun’s slow loss of mass as it fuses hydrogen, allowing the Earth’s to get slowly further away from it, is that as the Sun ages, it grows slowly brighter, about 1% every 100,000,000 years. In about 1,000,000,000 years, this will result in the Earth being too hot for plants (no more natural life). In about 2,000,000,000 years, it will be too hot for liquid surface water (no more oceans). In about 5,000,000,000 years, the Sun will become a red giant, growing ‘til it’s bigger than Earth’s orbit (no more Earth). (see here for more)

[A-wal]

Yea I should have pointed out that all objects fall at the same rate but wasn't entirely sure if the loss of mass would cause a loss of inertia so that the orbit decreaces.

 

Either way, a loss of mass on the Earth would shorten the distance between us slightly because the Earth's gravitational influence on the sun would be reduced. I said slightly. ;)

[fahrquad]

Earth's orbit is not perfectly circular and the distance to the sun varies with its position in its orbit.  The sun is slowly increasing in its output as it ages, but at 4.5 billion years old, it is only about middle-aged.  Earth has been much hotter and much colder during its life, and our current climate is relatively temperate (see "Little Ice Age").  The average temperature was much colder between 1200 and 1800 AD.  The current carbon dioxide level is 400 ppm, but it was 4000 ppm during an ice age about 460 million years ago, so I do not believe there is a direct correlation.  If you look at the second chart, our carbon dioxide level and temperature level are about the lowest they have been in 600 million years.  When a carbon dioxide alarmist tells you the sky is falling, ask yourself what they are selling (Al Gore).

 

 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

 

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2014/06/20/how-do-co2-levels-relate-to-ice-ages-and-sea-level/

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/world-passes-400-ppm-threshold-permanently-20738

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

[fahrquad]

Question: If we burn millions of tons of fossil fuel daily, is the earth getting lighter allowing the suns gravity to draw us closer thereby causing global warming? Does anyone keep a check on this distance as years go by?

 

I would point out that the amount of carbon dioxide is the same now as it was 600 million years ago so the weight of the planet is unchanged (with the exception of interstellar dust, meteorites, and asteroids).  No new carbon dioxide has been produced in a closed system.  Its form has just changed in part from sequestered carbon dioxide in the form of fossil fuels and carbonate deposits to atmospheric carbon dioxide.  Keep in mind that plants absorb carbon dioxide, although some carbon may be released again in the form of methane gas by decomposition.  The proliferation of renewable energy sources will eventually reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the level plants can absorb and we can reach a point of equilibrium.  

Edited January 9, 2017 by fahrquad

[fahrquad]

Renewable energy in the form of solar panels has become far less expensive, with cheaper fabrication costs, tax credits, and utility company credits.  Renewable energy lessens the demand on the utility companies which saves them on fuel and the cost of building new generating facilities.

[fahrquad]

A 9 watt LED light puts out about as much light as a 23 watt CFL or a 75 watt incandescent light. My utility company is currently giving away 15 LED lights and a low flow shower head  for free.  They were giving away 15 CFL lights for free about 6 years ago.  I am still working on that box of CFL's, but have ordered the LED's.  I already have 3 LED's (2 in the table lamps that are on 24/7 and 1 in the side porch light) and I like them better.

[DrKrettin]

I would point out that the amount of carbon dioxide is the same now as it was 600 million years ago so the weight of the planet is unchanged (with the exception of interstellar dust, meteorites, and asteroids).  

 

Shall we say mass and not weight? I can't decide whether this is being pedantic, but I don't think so.

[CraigD]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

This is a good article (as is its intermediate version), but it’s not one that supports the claim that atmospheric CO₂ was around 4000+ ppm during periods where there was a lot of ice around 450,000,000 years ago. It refutes this claim, arguing that GEOCARB model used to provide CO2 concentration for this period did not provide sufficiently fine time resolution, and that improved models that do show that CO₂ fell below 3000 ppm during these glaciations, from highs of 5600, which, combined with the period’s geography and lower (about 5%) solar irradiance, allowed the short icy periods shown in the geological record, as shown in this graph

 

The original source of the “climate myth” rebutted on this skepticalscience pate is this paper by the Lavoisier Group, an Australian group formed by Australian politicians, businesspeople and engineers specifically to argue that global warming doesn’t exist, or that it is not affected by human activity, or that it is too economically costly to avoid. Given their stated goals, I recommend caution in reading papers by this and similar groups. Indeed,

ask yourself what they are selling

, because in most cases, they are selling products and services that stand to lose business if governments enact laws intended to reduce global warming.

 

While there are companies that stand to gain business if governments enact such laws (such as Chinese wind turbine maker Goldwind, Demark’s Vestas, and the US’s GE), I don’t believe they put as much effort into promoting science supporting such laws, because the academic scientific community already is.

 

I think the best approach to understanding climate, and the impact that humans can have on it is to study and try to understand the basic science of it. Unfortunately, it’s complicated, and relies heavily on computer modeling, so is harder for people inexperienced in these areas than many kinds of science. IMHO, climate science makes rocket science look easy by comparison.

 

I would point out that the amount of carbon dioxide is the same now as it was 600 million years ago so the weight of the planet is unchanged (with the exception of interstellar dust, meteorites, and asteroids). No new carbon dioxide has been produced in a closed system.

Because Earth nearly is a closed system, the amount of the elements carbon, oxygen and others in and on Earth has changed very little over time, but the amount of compounds of them and other elements like CO₂, O₂, H₂O, CH₄, H₂CO₃ and SiO₂, have changed dramatically.

 

We mustn’t confuse elements and compounds!