Unexpected passing object could help wipe out Earth
A recent study published in the journal Icarus indicates that passing field stars could cause more instability in our solar system than previously believed.
Astronomers Nathan Kaib and Sean Raymond conducted thousands of computer simulations, identifying passing stars as the most probable trigger for future orbital changes over the next four billion years.
The research suggests that the risk of instability for Jupiter could increase by 50 to 80 percent due to these gravitational interactions.
The study also found an approximate 0.3 percent chance that Mars could be lost through collision or ejection, and a 0.2 percent probability of Earth being involved in a planetary collision or ejected.
Despite these findings, which show a higher risk for Earth than previous research, one of the study's authors, Nathan Kaib, stated that these extreme outcomes are still not probable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Summer solstice 2025: When is it and what does it mean?
For some it marks a celebration at dawn. For others, it is the start of summer and the promise of warmer days to summer solstice is the longest day of the year, meaning the day with the most hours of year, the summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere falls on Saturday, 21 with parts of the UK already experiencing their first heatwave of the year it's likely to be a warm one. Why does the date change? The solstice always occurs between June 20 and 22, and during a leap year, it typically falls on June exact date shifts slightly each year because the calendar year doesn't perfectly match the time it takes for the Earth to orbit the fact, the Earth takes nearly a quarter of a day longer to complete its orbit each year than our calendar accounts discrepancy is why we add a leap day every four years—to keep the calendar aligned with Earth's orbit Why does the amount of sunlight vary? Our planet does not spin on a perfectly vertical axis — it is tilt causes the amount of sunlight that reaches different regions of Earth to change throughout the year as it orbits the half the year, the northern half of the Earth is tilted toward the Sun. On the summer solstice, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted most directly toward the Sun, and the Sun appears directly overhead at the Tropic of this tilt, we would still experience weather, but not distinct seasons, as the amount of daylight would remain nearly constant throughout the word solstice comes from the Latin words sol (sun) and sistere (to stand still), referring to the apparent pause in the Sun's movement across the sky. How much daylight will there be? Due to the tilt of the Earth, the period of daylight will be longer at higher this time, Norway, Finland, Greenland, Alaska and other polar regions experience 'midnight sun'. And across the Arctic Circle, down to a latitude of 23.5 degrees from the North Pole (matching the tilt of the Earth), the Sun does not set at it may be the longest day but it is not the latest sunset or the earliest sunrise. The earliest sunrises happen before the summer solstice, and the latest sunsets happen after. Check sunrise and sunset times where you are on the BBC Weather app and website. Is this the start of summer? Meteorologically, we are nearly a month into summer. Astronomically, however, the solstice marks the beginning of most people refer to the first day of summer, they mean astronomical summer—the summer contrast, meteorologists define summer in the Northern Hemisphere as beginning on June 1 and ending on August seasons are divided into four three-month periods, which makes it easier to compare seasonal statistics. Will this be the warmest summer solstice on record? Some parts of the UK are already experiencing their first heatwave of the year and forecasters expect temperatures to peak at around 33C on it is unlikely to be the highest temperature experienced on the day of the summer solstice. That record was set in 2017 at Heathrow Airport when 34.5C was while the summer solstice is the day with the most sunlight, the UK's weather becomes hotter later in the summer, when more heat has accumulated in the air and the ground.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Want to plant trees to offset fossil fuels? You'd need all of North and Central America, study finds
Planting trees has plenty of benefits, but this popular carbon-removal method alone can't possibly counteract the planet-warming emissions caused by the world's largest fossil-fuel companies. To do that, trees would have to cover the entire land mass of North and Central America, according to a study out Thursday. Many respected climate scientists and institutions say removing carbon emissions — not just reducing them — is essential to tackling climate change. And trees remove carbon simply by "breathing." But crunching the numbers, researchers found that the trees' collective ability to remove carbon through photosynthesis can't stand up to the potential emissions from the fossil fuel reserves of the 200 largest oil, gas and coal fuel companies — there's not enough available land on Earth to feasibly accomplish that. And even if there were, if those 200 companies had to pay for planting all those trees, it would cost $10.8 trillion, more than their entire combined market valuation of $7.01 trillion. The researchers also determined that the companies would be in the red if they were responsible for the social costs of the carbon in their reserves, which scientists compute around $185 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. 'The general public maybe understand offsetting to be a sort of magic eraser, and that's just not where we're at,' said Nina Friggens, a research fellow at the University of Exeter who co-authored the paper published in Communications Earth & Environment, a Nature Portfolio journal. Carbon offsetting essentially means investing in tree planting or other environmental projects to attempt to compensate for carbon emissions. Trees are one of the cheapest ways to do this because they naturally suck up planet-warming carbon. Fossil fuel corporations, along with other companies and institutions, have promoted tree-planting as key part of carbon offset programs in recent years. For example, TotalEnergies, a global energy company, said in a statement that it is 'investing heavily in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nature-based solutions (NBS) projects.' To do their calculations, the researchers looked at the 200 largest holders of fossil fuel reserves — the fuel that companies promise shareholders they can extract in the future — and calculated how much carbon dioxide would be released if this fuel is burned. The researchers also focused solely on tree planting because the expense and technological development needed for other forms of carbon capture are still mostly cost-prohibitive. Forestry expert Éliane Ubalijoro, who was not involved with the research, called the study 'elegant.' It 'gives people a sense of proportion around carbon,' said Ubalijoro, CEO of CIFOR-ICRAF, an international forestry research center. But she cautioned against oversimplifying the equation by looking only at carbon capture, noting that tree planting done right can foster food security and biodiversity and protect communities from natural disasters. The paper effectively makes the point that it's financially impossible to offset enough carbon to compensate for future fossil fuel burning, said Daphne Yin, director of land policy at Carbon180, where her team advocates for U.S. policy support for land-based carbon removal. And the idea that companies would ever be required to account for the downstream emissions from the fossil fuel they extract is a 'fantasy,' she said. The idea of planting trees is appealing to the public and to politicians because it's tangible — people can literally see the carbon being incorporated into branches and leaves as a tree grows, Friggens said. But she says other methods shouldn't be overlooked — microbes underground store carbon too, but they can't be seen. And it's a physically and mathematically inescapable fact, illustrated in part by this study, that there's no getting around it — we have to stop emitting carbon, said Jonathan Foley, the executive director of Project Drawdown, who also was not part of the study. Carbon emissions are like an overflowing bathtub, he says: Before you start cleaning up, you have to turn off the water. 'Trees are the sponges and the mops we use to clean up the mess," he said. "But if the taps are still running and the water's pouring out over the edges of your bathtub, destroying your bathroom and your home, maybe you've got to learn to turn off the taps too.' ___ Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Just three years to limit global warming to 1.5C, top scientists warn
More than 60 of the world's leading climate scientists said in a new report that countries are continuing to burn record amounts of fossil fuels while felling carbon-rich forests – leaving the international goal in peril, the BBC reports. The report said that the global 'carbon budget' – the amount of CO2 that can be emitted to give a 50% chance of keeping warming limited to 1.5C – had shrunk. In 2020, scientists estimated that humanity could emit 500 billion more tonnes of CO2 for a 50% chance of breaching the limit. READ MORE: US government 'raises concerns' over plans for Chinese factory in Scotland This has now plunged to 130 billion. If emissions remain at their current rate – around 40 billion per year – that gives roughly three years before the 'carbon budget' is spent. The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015 by nearly 200 countries, set a target of limiting warming to 1.5C above temperatures set in the late 1800s before global industrialisation. It is generally agreed to be a target measured over a 20-year average, so that even while 2024 was more than 1.5C hotter than pre-industrial temperatures, this does not constitute a breach. The current rate of global warming is 0.27C per decade, which is much faster than at any point in the Earth's history. If this keeps up, the planet will breach the 1.5C target by 2030. Professor Piers Forster, lead author of the report and director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds, told the BBC: 'Things are all moving in the wrong direction. 'We're seeing some unprecedented changes and we're also seeing the heating of the Earth and sea-level rise accelerating as well.' There are hopes that CO2 can be sucked out of the atmosphere in a bid to reverse global warming, however scientists caution against seeing this as a solution. Joeri Rogelj, professor of climate science and policy at Imperial College London, said: 'For larger exceedance [of 1.5C], it becomes less likely that removals [of CO2] will perfectly reverse the warming caused by today's emissions." READ MORE: Plans submitted to remove 34 turbines from Highland wind farm The report found that the Earth's 'energy imbalance' – the rate at which extra heat accumulates in the climate system – is increasing. Over the last decade or so, this rate of heating is more than doubled since the 1970s and 1980s and is 25% than in the 2000s and 2010s. Dr Matthew Palmer of the UK Met Office said this was a 'very worrying number' over a short period of time. Much of this extra heat – around 90% – is absorbed by the oceans, wrecking havoc on marine life and raising sea levels because ice melts. While the warnings from the report are stark, its authors said that the rate of emissions increases appears to be slowing as new clean tech is being used.
