How much structural damage could humanity cause to the Earth?

[Gagundathar]

The previously linked website is filled with amusing writing, but this is notable in my opinion:

It is our duty to inform you that as of 7:35:05am UTC on September 10, 2008, the Earth has been destroyed.

The destruction of Earth was first reported by Mr Jonathan Barber of Wisconsin, United States, who spotted that his home-made seismic Earth Detector had ceased to give readings at around 8:00am (2am local time). Several other amateur geocide spotters noticed this at the same time but Mr. Barber was the first to place a telephone call to the IEDAB’s Geocide Hotline (+44 115 09Ω 4127, ask for Other Dave) at which point IEDAB officials performed an emergency check of their own instrumentation and verified Mr. Barber’s report, as well as fixing the exact time of geocide.

Evidence is still being collated, but preliminary results suggest that the Earth was destroyed pre-emptively by scientists at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, before the commencement of their experiments to locate the Higgs Boson, as a precautionary measure to ensure that the experiment itself could not result in the destruction of the Earth.

“IEDAB’s Geocide Hotline” Man oh man, I wish I could write things this funny. But, it is still early here so maybe I will… later.

[AaronX]

@YamatoTwinkie

Back-of-envelope calculations:

Worldwide Nuclear arsenal: 5000 megatons of TNT = 2.092 x 10^19 J

Escape velocity from earth= 11200 m/s

KE=0.5mv^2

mass removed = 2 * 2.092 x 10^19 / 11200^2 = 1.6 x 10^11 kg =
.000000000027% of earth’s mass.

This assumes all energy from each explosion is converted directly to kinetic energy, and 100% of the energy is directed away from the surface of the earth.

This is an overestimate, because to conserve momentum you have to accelerate the earth in the opposite direction, using some of that energy.

[Machine_Elf]

@AaronX

This is an overestimate, because to conserve momentum you have to accelerate the earth in the opposite direction, using some of that energy.

If matter is ejected simultaneously in all directions, then the earth maintains its pre-existing momentum/energy level, and all of the energy of the bombs is contained in the ejected matter.

You weren’t seriously thinking of blowing up all those bombs in one single spot, were you? Because that would be a terrible waste.

@tdn

Does that include the topsoil on top of the oceans, or just from dry land?

Yes, it includes the topsoil on top of the oceans, assuming a very broad interpretation of the word “topsoil.”

[kanicbird]

For mass removal from the surface, release mass amounts of supergreenhouse gasses, hopefully something stronger then CO2, also CFC’s to take down the ozone layer. Let the earth heat up which should get it to offgas much of the atmosphere into space. Perhaps solar mirrors could help with that also. This may also have water leave as well.

This may leave a state where there are frequent sever storms, new surface water patterns, reducing ocean levels which would cause some of the lithosphere to shift and crumble. Perhaps the loss of water from the oceans may cause enough pressure on the continental plates to get them to shift, which would be a form of ‘structural damage’.

[Klostertal]

What would happen if we stuffed all known nuclear weapons into the bottom of the TauTona Mine in South Africa (2.4 miles deep) and exploded them all at once? For argument’s sake let’s assume Bruce Willis is incapacitated.

[Moe]

Not directly related to the question in the OP, but as a point of reference regarding the nuclear option, according to Cecil:

Estimates of the total world nuclear arsenal vary, but a reasonable guess is a combined yield from all nuclear weapons of 5,000 megatons. Even assuming we could pump all the blast energy into the ice and not have any of it leak away, it’d still be less than a hundredth of what we need [to melt the polar ice caps]

.

That should put into perspective how insignificant the damage potential is to the Earth from the world’s nuclear arsenal.

[Machine_Elf]

@Klostertal

What would happen if we stuffed all known nuclear weapons into the bottom of the TauTona Mine in South Africa (2.4 miles deep) and exploded them all at once? For argument’s sake let’s assume Bruce Willis is incapacitated.

this page gives a formula for estimating the size of the bomb cavity as a function of bomb yield:

R = 55 * Y[sup]1/3[/sup]

Where:
Y = bomb yield, measured in kilotons
R = resulting cavity radius, measured in feet

YamatoTwinkie says the wordwide arsenal is at 5000 megatons, or 5 million kilotons. The equation gives a cavity radius of 9400 feet, i.e. a little less than two miles. Relative to the size of that cavity, the remaining half-mile of overburden doesn’t seem like much; there’s a good chance it would collapse or be blown skyward, leaving a four-mile-deep hole.

Cool.

[AaronX]

@Machine_Elf

If matter is ejected simultaneously in all directions, then the earth maintains its pre-existing momentum/energy level, and all of the energy of the bombs is contained in the ejected matter.

Is it, now? This is an interesting question. Consider a single bomb on the surface of the Earth. Say it launches mass m at speed v. Now, if it’s a single bomb, v is reduced because some energy is used to move the Earth.
Would detonating a second bomb at the same time on the other side of the Earth affect v? How? Expanding gases push against the Earth, which doesn’t move this time, so they bounce off and push on the ejected mass instead? Will they be able to catch up to the mass? Seems they’d just be impacted in the Earth.