[KC] Final liminality & Planet interaction

After a question asked by @Morgana_Tsukiyo, my team decided to implement a “planet’s surface” simulation to our Celestial Simulation (CS).

Predicting Surface changes is not a simple task, so please bear in mind that this simulator is not supposed to do this kind of work. While I trust my programming team enough for it to be coherent, it’s not the main goal of it and therefore, errors can occur.

Before anything, let’s define the simulation’s context:

An system with a single, average yellow main sequence star; 8 planets (barren; [storm; temperate; barren]; gas; gas; plasma; gas); A standard mass Energy Ratio of 0,5; no external forces relevant near the system.

[ ] marking the habitable zone.

First, let us see the difference between a drop in the star’ surface temperature and a drop in luminosity alone. While both can seem similar, the second one can let most radiations pass unaltered. I must add that both can happen without the mass, density or size of the star being altered.

We are focusing on the 3rd planet, being the only temperate of the system, it’s the one of most relevance for the case of Vale. In theory, there should be a difference of a few degree between the two.

Here below are the condensed graphs of the average surface temperature on a 3 years basis.

The first scenario, a drop in the star’ surface temperature, produces a drop of 1.6°C per month on average while the second, in luminosity, see a drop of 1.3°C per month on average. Of course, locally, the effects may take a few more weeks to settle, but in the end, the world’s biomes will be destroyed. The only “relief” I find is that it will take months before the current installations won’t be enough to protect the population.

  • drop in surface temperature

  • drop in luminosity

Other observations:

A storm planet is actually “safer” :

  • Because of the dense atmosphere, the temperature take a lot longer to drop (0.6°C /month)

  • note that on around 8% of the simulations, the storm planet became a plasma one. It’s probably a question of the planet being in a powerful stream of radiation, “igniting” the plasma reaction.

Finally, note that the further away we are from the sun, the less important the change in T°C is important. It’s of course because the sun, even in it’s normal state, already have low impact on the planets’ climate.


Of course, if you have questions, please feel free to ask. I can look at the various data I can extract and analyse for you?

Thank you for the time to explain the model that shows to profound transformation of the planets as we know it.

We have cities underwater, shall we prevail in this new hostile environment? Let us see what happens.

And what evidence do you have that the current installations are sufficient to house and feed the entire planet’s population in a complete climate-controlled environment with sufficient power generation?

The planets of vale being colonized since a long time, it’s only logical that the current installation can house the population for at least temperatures going towards the 0°C.
Otherwise the planet would see a huge death rate each winter.

For the food I cannot say, planetary logistics are way out of my domain and I don’t pretend to know what is the actual situation down here.

I think the psychological aspects will be a major problem before the cold.

1 Like

That’s not actually true. The average surface temperature of Vale II, for example, is 306 kelvin. That’s actually the same average temperature as Matar. And while the northern steppes certainly have adequate housing for cold-weather periods, housing in tropical areas… really isn’t set up to retain heat at all.

Vale IV, at 291K avg temp, probably also ranges from cold upper lattitudes to warm tropical and equatorial biomes. I don’t think the assumption of ‘the housing is sufficient to keep the whole planet’s population warm’ is at all a safe one, no. Especially since more people tend to want to live in warmer climates than want to stay in colder ones.

Nor is the agricultural base needed for a planet of billions something that’s going to be housed indoors. Why would you? That would immediately cut you off from pollenators, air circulation, solar energy for photosynthesis, rain… and what would the benefit be, under normal, non-hostile-invasion-turning-off-the-sun conditions be?

Without a lot more information, and a lot more detail to it, I don’t think we should be making any rosy assumptions here. If your working assumptions are worst-case, then any error just means things are better than expected, as opposed to people feeling reasonably secure to bide their time, only to find out the ‘experts’ were egregiously optimistic in their modeling.

This debate is sterile, we simply don’t know what the reality on the ground is.

I did those simulations to see things for the long term, I cannot change what is happening on the ground, despise contributing to the aid relief of the populations of vale, we don’t even know if the resources reach the intended destination.

I do what I can to understand what is happening, not to give hope or fears.
I act on what I can act upon.

but to answer your question : it is a worst case scenario based on what we suppose about the triglavians.
That they are here to stay.
If so, then the T° is the lesser problem of more urgent ones, again, it would take MONTHS before the T° become dangerously low, unless the population of vale lives in very low tech buildings

If not, then the contact with the planet after their departure will help alleviate the conditions.

Regarding the last part of your comment, I do warn that my simulations are not to be taken as is. I am no climatologist. I trust my scientists to be competent tho.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.