Could humans survive on earth without the sun?

Without the sun, the steam would instantly turn into ice at the earth's surface.

 

What about all the bunker complexes that govts and corp elite have built? They wont help you or I, but theres massive infrastructure already in place to allow some to survive.

 

In theory, yes, using the heat of the earth's interior, which varies at different depths and thus could be a supply of power. However, it would be a massive undertaking for anything but a tiny number of people. The first main challenges are 1.) maintaining enough oxygen and 2.) food - both requiring plants. There are life forms that can live without light - ie off the heat of the earth. Potentially those could be evolved to be both a food source and oxygen source. If not, the amount of plant life to both create oxygen and food would be enormous.

More realistically, would be usage of nuclear power, though the cooling network would have to be massively large.

Finally, there is the social factor and the complexity of what human life really requires, plus establishing a viable eco-system. Creating a workable eco-system and a workable social system might not be possible. Every experiment of having a group of people in a biosphere - even though seemingly perfectly set up - above ground or below ground - rapidly has failed on both fronts. The eco-systems fail. Life is far more inter-dependent from the micro-scale upward than can be calculated. Second, the people go nuts, literally can't stand it.

There are other real challenges underground, such as radiation, heat, flooding, earth movement. For example, the atmosphere would likely vanish away, exposing the earth to massive levels of radiation - meaning having to go deep. But the deeper you go, the hotter it gets. Ventilation would be complex and very energy demanding, nothing that unlike with mines now you couldn't use surface air for cooling.

The psychological factors - too easy to just dismiss in theoretical discussion - are the REAL problem of trying to establish a permanent human presence on Mars - or underground on earth. MAYBE they can figure out the challenges of oxygen, food, viable perpetual eco-system, heat, radiation and other technical aspects. However, this still leaves the psychological factor, which may be insurmountable. The society could rapidly become "Lord of the Flies" or the fate of Pitcairn Island, ie rapidly becoming a violent dystopia.

Pitcairn Island is a revealing social study. Rapidly it became murderous and sadistic. All but one of the men murdered. The women sadistically abused. The survivors, most children, latched onto the first religious missionary to come along, with strict religious codes creating social order. There is a compelling case to be made that it was "religion" that allowed humans to gather in complex urban social structures - religion always at the center of the city. The religion - whatever it was - established a universal set of laws, a universal commonality, and an authority that at least in part transcended the violent and sadistic side of human nature. Even if brutal, the religion was the unifying factor and a factor of restraint - ie a higher law than just individual desires.

So my response is that with virtually unlimited financial resources to build such an underground world it certainly is theoretically possible in technological terms, but likely is not possible in terms of overall reality. Even if all those challenges were met, it would likely rapidly become such a brutal and horrific society that no one would want to live in it even if they didn't just all kill each other off.

 

I suppose a few could survive if they could get deep enough and get the necessary technology deep enough quick enough.

But how long could the human psyche withstand not seeing a sunrise or sunset?

And would the iceball above eventually be a heatsink that steals even deep heat away?

 

All built in the past were retired quickly. Basically they are just complex bomb shelters for short term survival usage. They are not designed for perpetual living. Rather, they have a stockpile of food good for months or years. There is no indication any have been built to be perpetually self perpetuating. Rather, they are designed to allow surviving a nuclear attack allowing underground living at the most for a few months. I have never read any hint that any are designed to be self perpetuating in terms of food supply or a self perpetuating self-generated oxygen supply, though atomic power could provide it via underground water and electrolysis.

 

I agree to those challenges being massive and likely unsolvable.

 

Are they deep enough to counteract the well below freezing temps that would come about soon after the sun dying?

 

Given that you dont have to go very deep to find a constant temperature, I would expect so. The sun has little effect underground compared to the energy conducting through the mantle and crust from the molten core

 

All life on the surface and in the oceans would die. And there'd be no oxygen.

 

No...if the cold and dark didn't kill us we would kill each other.

 

The problem is that of the various ways the sun could vanish, all be catastrophic in nature - the Earth would probably vanish with it. So I would say no.

 

Good point.

 

But you would have to get there first only the diamond mines of South Africa might be deep enough or inside an active volcano (not too active lols!). Fritz Liebers short story "A pail full of air" describes someone surviving after a cataclysm where the sun vanishes. The biggest problem. All the air has frozen and it is the nitrogen at the top

 

I hadnt thot of O2. That would be an issue. In theory, if we can generate power we can make O2, either chemically or by growing plants. But keeping it concentrated to where we live would require a sealed environment, or SCBAs.

 

If the project began now, it would likely take a hundred years. Germans could probably pull it off.

 

What sun in the night?

I know it may be confusing for so many.

I will try again.

Please take your mind off the vision of the reality given by IPCC, NASA and 184 academies of sciences.

The Earth is not flat; it is more like a globe:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj74anrhq3YAhWB4iYKHZTzDz8QjRwIBw&url=https://www.flipkart.com/thunderfit-original-globe-table-top-political-world/p/itmeqsgdst64ycbd&psig=AOvVaw0Y3C_endNb-RGOA4_6WzjR&ust=1514562421741781

And it is not standstill, it is revolving.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.learner.org/jnorth/images/graphics/mclass/jr/Day2/Day_Sol_Eq21_RevolvingEarth.gif&imgrefurl=https://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/mclass/jr/DayYear/TimeDay_TG.html&docid=zItx3mU9kNBJuM&tbnid=OtlLqKruMfTraM:&vet=10ahUKEwiE_ozFh63YAhVF5CYKHQ0IB4EQMwhAKAIwAg..i&w=600&h=600&bih=759&biw=1536&q=earth globe day night spinning&ved=0ahUKEwiE_ozFh63YAhVF5CYKHQ0IB4EQMwhAKAIwAg&iact=mrc&uact=8#h=600&imgdii=5h8LCVHvjyEy2M:&vet=10ahUKEwiE_ozFh63YAhVF5CYKHQ0IB4EQMwhAKAIwAg..i&w=600

See?

At any moment a part of it comes under the sun to get heat from the sun AND AT THE SAME MOMENT an exactly equal part goes away from the sun to give the same amount of heat away to the universe.

See?

You cannot calculate energy budget of the earth counting only heat incoming from the sun and not counting exactly the same amount of heat coming out from the earth at the same time.

I know it is very, very difficult, but try to get this concept that the earth, as any other planet, is not only warming by the sun but also is cooled by the infinite universe AT THE SAME TIME, no matter what is atmosphere if any.

(If the amount of coming out was even slightly (.001F per a year) less than coming in, the Earth would have warmed to 1000F over the last million years.

Obviously such a suggestion is a total absurd as everything else which comes from IPCC, NASA, NAS and 213 academies of science.)

I don’t know how to make it more simple, but let me know if there is still a confusion.


If anything the energy of the sun is trapped in biosphere of the earth to create and maintain life (along with CO2 and other essential to life components).

But the involved process are not to be described by natural sciences, they are supernatural.

 

It would unless there was something acting like a mirror or a greenhouse in the atmosphere of the planet that stopped some of that heat radiating back into space

 

`
`
Having no sun would be catastrophic for our solar system. The suns mass (in a manner of speaking) keep all the planets revolving around it. The suns mass is roughly 70% hydrogen and 28% helium. If that were to burn itself off, it would lose that mass and all celestial hell would break lose including planets, moons and asteroids left to freely wander in a chaotic fashion. If you weren't dead, you'd soon wish you were.
`

 

That is my girl.

This time you researched and tried to explain instead of spewing parrot phrases Cosmo style.

Those little arrows on your picture are called vectors.

You can add and subtract them.

Following laws of nature the total sum of all the vectors representing heat exchange between a hotter body and a colder body in a natural process always must result in a vector pointing to the colder body.

If your result is different you made a mistake.

That is the most fundamental law of the universe - heat cannot be trapped, stopped, reflected back, but it always flows from a hotter body to a colder body in a spontaneous process.



So, for the last million years in the equation

The Sun ------------->The Earth-------------> The Cosmos

Where the sun is source of heat at temperature T1

The Earth – is work body at temperature T2

The Cosmos is heat sink at temperature T3

the T2 was not changing.

If it was changing even slightly – by .001F a year, the T2 would change 1000F.

Such suggestion is a total absurd.



Now if you change the Earth atmosphere to 100% CO2 the energy balance will not change even slightly.

If it could change then:

The Sun------>The Earth-->The Cosmos

↓

Energy Trapped​

You would create a heat pump with no extra energy input, a free energy machine, a perpetual mobile.




You would take the box from Mythbusters, fill it with 100% CO2, put it outside and in 24 hours would have free energy.

No fossil fuels, no wind turbines would be needed anymore.

Imagine how rich you and I would be.

Unfortunately the French Academy of Sciences stopped considering perpetual mobile in, I believe, 1851.

100% of those who ever practiced Thermodynamics (science of energy transformation and transfer) know that; they represent .1% of all scientists.

So, unless you and I join 99.9% of scientists in their quest of cheating, deceiving and promoting obscurantism we will remain poor money wise.

Otherwise we still can be rich



What do you think?

 

That is by far the worst corruption of scientific understanding I have seen in a very long time. It is one of those rare instances where one sincerely hopes it is a joke because the alternative is simply too insulting.

 

#5:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-climate-change.521738/page-8#post-1068464869


Since you have not submitted a single objection, have not addressed a single line I stand all correct

and you go straight to your #7:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-climate-change.521738/page-8#post-1068464869

 

ITA.

I have a saying. " the dumb is too deep to plumb"
Mind you this could also be a case of "a little knowledge is dangerous" which most assume means ignorance is better but in fact speaks to posts like the above where an incomplete knowledge has led to arsing up the entire thing

 

I'm telling you...there really something to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

You are a mystery woman.

Not sure what are you trying to say and how it is related to any statement I made.

I will try.





Am I getting any close to you?