It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
andr3w68
reply to post by lostbook
Correct! Extremeophiles have been found living on the ocean floor around volcanic vents. These areas experience similar conditions to Venus (extreme temps, acidic conditions).
But where liquid water is possible.
Phage
reply to post by eriktheawful
But where liquid water is possible.
"Habitable zone" is a bit of a moving target.
Mars would be at the extreme end of Sol's habitable zone...unless it was larger and had a magnetosphere and had a CO2 (or methane) rich atmosphere.
Venus would be at the other end. But give it a thinner atmosphere rich in nitrogen...
Then there's moons...
We should be looking for all possible life, even if we would not expect to see it, or immediately recognise it.
TrueBrit
reply to post by wildespace
Given the pathetically small sample size of life that we can examine, when compared with the scale of the entire universe, it is somewhat ridiculous to assume that water is necessary, or even desirable for all forms of life. People use the term, life as we know it, to skirt around the possibilities presented by totally unheard of kinds of life. That is not acceptable as a way forward.
We should be looking for all possible life, even if we would not expect to see it, or immediately recognise it.
Any contiguous living system is called an organism. Organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.
Okay, let me quote myself.
It's [[sic]CO2] ability to help trap heat is well known and not a "theory".
So 800-900° temperatures have been shown to be caused by greenhouse gas effect through CO2? Do you have a link? What’s the difference between “pretty well known” and a theory?
The reason Venus is so hot isn't a "theory", it's pretty well known.
Maybe you missed the part about the possibility of life up in the Venusian clouds. It’s not my idea by the way.
So yes, even with these extreme life forms we have here on Earth, none of them would survive on the surface of Venus.
In fact, roughly 50 to 65 kilometers (30-40 miles) above the surface of Venus, conditions are quite hospitable. Both temperature and pressure are similar to those on Earth. Water vapor and even scarce amounts of free oxygen can be found there.
Astrobiological studies of Venus are, by nature, highly speculative. The notion sounds audacious but, from what we know of Earth life, it’s certainly not implausible.
I understand this and liquid water is thought to be responsible for life to exist.
BTW - the Circumstellar Habitable Zone aka Goldilocks Zone, aka Green Zone is the distance a planetary body with enough atmosphere is from a star for liquid water to exist.
Astronomers have detected that the atmosphere of Venus consists of 0.002% water vapor. Compare that to the Earth’s atmosphere, which contains 0.40% water vapor.
NASA.gov
Data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft have revealed Saturn's moon Titan likely harbors a layer of liquid water under its ice shell.
Cassini's detection of large tides on Titan leads to the almost inescapable conclusion that there is a hidden ocean at depth,
I don’t think we have been looking for ET life for very long outside of radio astronomy. At least it hasn’t been exhaustive. NASA hasn’t devoted much time for the exploration of possible life elsewhere. Mission priorities have the search for life way down on the list if it’s there at all. I believe that this has recently changed though.
Neither does the exhaustive search elsewhere. I'll call it an "old theory" when they discover life elsewhere in the Solar System..
This appears like more speculation. I suppose it’s rational to assume that life should develop here and move then adapt seeing how we haven’t discovered it anywhere else. I just don’t think we should take this as fact. BTY I believe you spelled “extremophiles” correctly and I got it wrong.
As far as "extremophiles" (spelling?), all species any where on earth can be said to have moved to the extreme zone and adapted to it.
Less likely but not impossible. Doesn’t the current theory for how life started here have an early Earth as an extreme environment? How did life establish itself on Earth?
To actually form in an extreme environment is a lot less likely. Especially in an extreme environment such as any other planet or moon in the Solar System.
I agree with you but I feel I should also point out that water is a wonderful solvent with seemingly miraculous properties.
it is somewhat ridiculous to assume that water is necessary, or even desirable for all forms of life.
I think we should start with what we know and work out from there. Is life possible on Titan, for example, in a methane environment at temperatures around −179.2 °C?
People use the term, life as we know it, to skirt around the possibilities presented by totally unheard of kinds of life. That is not acceptable as a way forward.
You want to prove your point through Wiki articles? If you could be so kind and link to the pertaining sources for me I would appreciate it. I understand greenhouse effect but this does not answer my question.
Here, take a read: Greenhouse Effect, especially scroll down to the bottom of the wiki to all the papers and articles used as resources.
There is CO2 and there is heat. Prove the one causes the other to this extreme. We are talking about a rise in temperature of several hundreds of degrees. Can you prove that the greenhouse effect causes such high temperatures?
In 1940, Rupert Wildt theorized that the large amount of CO2 in Venus atmosphere would trap heat, and, as it turned out much later with the probes we sent, he was right.
So.
The possibility of microbes in the upper atmosphere of Venus is not the same as conditions on it's surface.
The statement I made was possible life in the upper atmosphere of Venus not on the surface. At any rate I don’t think life could exist on the surface yet that doesn’t mean life does not exist on the planet, i.e. upper atmosphere.
Microbes in that part of the atmosphere would not be "extreme" life as was talked about earlier in this thread.
So you agree then? The term ‘goldilocks zone’ is bogus.
Liquid water can exist beyond the Goldilocks Zone,
It doesn’t matter. For one, liquid water is thought to exist under the ice, which is outside the goldilocks zone, and there are microbes found on Earth that live in ice.
That does not change the fact that on their surface: liquid water can not exist because they are outside the sun's CHZ.
I feel your using Wiki again for your source information. The term goldilocks zone, which has now become circumstellar habitable zone (CHZ), originally described an area in our solar system where life was thought to be confined to because of the distance from the Sun. This has since been proven incorrect. The term is still misleading even with this new apparent upgrade found on Wiki.
[CHZ] is a zone around any star in which the temperatures would allow for liquid water to exist upon the surface of a planet with the correct atmospheric conditions. Every star has that zone.
What does “Habitable” mean in CHZ?
You are taking what the CHZ is WAY out of context. It does NOT mean: This is the zone in which life can be.
Less likely but not impossible. Doesn’t the current theory for how life started here have an early Earth as an extreme environment? How did life establish itself on Earth?
if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
No, just post a link here. I’ll read it, I promise.
Would you like for me to instead physically drag you to a library and use the reference books there?
Yes I know, I use Wiki all the time. Just remember that anyone can change the information on that site at any time. It is monitored yet bad info can still be found on Wiki. The key is to look at the sources and go there for your information.
The online wikipedia is a reference tool to be used to locate and understand information, with the sources cited for that information.
It’s not about believing or not and I think herein lies the problem. I have not seen anything that answers my question on Wiki or anywhere else. I am claiming that this information does not exist and I thought you might have found something to the contrary.
If you wish to not believe those published sources, that is on you.
That may be true but to what extent?
In the Solar System, Mars, Venus, and the moon Titan also exhibit greenhouse effects;
That’s it!
A runaway greenhouse effect involving carbon dioxide and water vapor is thought to have occurred on Venus.[40]
Bad link I guess.
Not found.
Again this is for the planet Earth not Venus.
Carbon Dioxide was first theorized to be a green house gas as far back as 1824 by Joseph Fourier. Arguments for and increasing evidence for the theory to be true was given in 1827 and 1838 by Claude Pouillet.
You can’t just increase the values from an Earth model and expect to get an inclined linear result for Venus. Other variables or unknown reactions could throw the results off. Even so has this been done yet? The question still remains. Are Venus’ high temperatures due to a runaway greenhouse effect?
Venus has an atmosphere that is 96% CO2 as compared to Earth's 1%. On top of that, it has 92 more times the atmosphere as our Earth (read that as: it has a LOT more gas than Earth does).
When did I decide that? Geez, I’ll have to tell myself when I make these kinds of decisions. Where is this online documentation source? Can you link to even one “published paper”? How about a link to just some good old information? Wiki’s claim that it is “thought to have occurred” is not it.
Since you have decided that you will not accept an online source of documentation, then there really is little point in my posting links to published papers, on a subject that is taught in high school science.
Now you’re just being obtuse. This isn’t even the question. I know what greenhouse gasses are.
The only thing I can suggest then, is that you head down to your local library and look up the composition of carbon dioxide, and find all the references of papers published by scientist since the early 1800's, going from theory to experimental proof in the 1940's and 1950's showing beyond a doubt that CO2 is indeed a green house gas,
How much heat would be trapped? You don’t know do you? Could there be another reason for these observed high temperatures? This question certainly pertains to the OP on the question of possible Venusian volcanoes.
and coupled with significant quanities of it (IE Venus) that you do indeed get a very large positive feedback system that traps heat.
andr3w68
reply to post by lostbook
Correct! Extremeophiles have been found living on the ocean floor around volcanic vents. These areas experience similar conditions to Venus (extreme temps, acidic conditions).
What the science says...
Venus very likely underwent a runaway or ‘moist’ greenhouse phase earlier in its history, and today is kept hot by a dense CO2 atmosphere.
Climate Myth...
Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Venus is not hot because of a runaway greenhouse.