Live data from Hacker News

The future lifespan of Earth’s oxygenated atmosphere

nature.com

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: The future lifespan of Earth’s oxygenated atmosphere

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plants require a certain temperature range to live (and also replenish CO2 slower than digging up and burning the carbon). And the sun directly is not very effective at producing oxygen. No discovered planet or exoplanet has an oxygen concentration like the Earth’s because it takes photosynthesis to be so extremely far from chemical equilibrium. UV dissociation just isn’t enough to get several psi of oxygen.

That is the sort of explanation I expected, but when I read the article, it presents a different causal sequence, in which photosynthesizing plants become ineffective, not because of increasing temperatures, but because of decreasing atmospheric CO2, as a result of its photodissociation. [1] As presented in the news article, there is no explanation for why the apparently still-abundant oxygen does not react with, for…

Oh, I see. Yeah, well my understanding of this is Earth as a self-balancing system:

The Sun gets brighter over time. Plants (over tens of thousands of years) absorb enough CO2 to keep the temperature from rising too much. But eventually the Sun is so bright that in order to keep the temperature in the right range, plants would have to absorb so much CO2 that there wouldn’t be enough for effective photosynthesis so that eventually in the future this negative feedback mechanism would no longer be able to compensate for the increased brightness of the Sun and so the temperatures would rise, perhaps eventually killing off enough plants to allow CO2 to start to be released and then you get runaway greenhouse effect like Venus.

That is all ignoring humans, of course.

EDIT: actually, it may make more sense to see the feedback coming from the other side of the temperature range: plants will keep absorbing as much CO2 as they can until temperatures drop (think ice ages) and photosynthesis slows. Volcanic emissions (and also occasional natural emissions of fossil carbon) keep a certain amount of CO2 being added which is then kept in equilibrium by plants. As the Sun warms, it takes a lower and lower amount of CO2 to get to ice ages that slow photosynthesis. The Sun over the ages increases in brightness until eventually CO2 levels can’t drop any more without slowing photosynthesis to a stop, so you stop getting ice ages and then eventually the temperatures get so high that photosynthesis is limited by die-off from high temperatures, removing the negative feedback mechanism of photosynthesis and you get runaway greenhouse effect.

That’s why pre-industrial CO2 levels were so low. Primates developed and later intelligent humans developed during the last few million and few hundred thousand years, when CO2 levels have been at their lowest levels ever in our planet’s history (and it shows that we evolved under low CO2 conditions, since human mental processing becomes somewhat less effective at even moderate CO2 levels like 800-1000ppm). Plants (unlike human brains) actually like higher CO2 levels and so they do function as an effective negative feedback mechanism as long you don’t outrun their photosynthesis capability and as long as you don’t kill them off with higher temperatures.

Re: The future lifespan of Earth’s oxygenated atmosphere

#52
post #47
post #20

As I understand it the sun has another 4.5 billion or so years of life remaining but the earth has only another billion years or so of being habitable. That's interesting. Complex life first appeared on earth about 2.5 billion years or so ago and has 1 billion more years to go for a total span of 3.5 billion years. In earth's projected 9 billion year lifespan it will only have been habitable for 3.5 billion years, or…

Is there enough selective pressure to keep human-style intelligence in the gene pool for another billion years? Look at the abundance of species on Earth, and only one species has a space program. Is there enough selective pressure for other species to eventually evolve advanced intelligence (considering how much of it that crows and dolphins have) or is it just an accident that humans have it, and it may not stay in…

That's a fascinating question! First, it raises the idea that human intelligence may actually decrease over time, especially as we offload our thinking to machines. It's hard to tell whether that will increase or decrease our intelligence or leave it roughly the same. I have a hunch, and it's just a hunch, that our intelligence will increase over time.

With regards to dolphins and crows - wow! What a find animals like that would be on another planet! Quite intelligent - but not technologically advanced. You raise an interesting question: assuming a planet has evolved life having the intelligence of a crow or dolphin, what's the probability that planet will evolve a technologically advanced life form? How likely is it earth is the only planet to have evolved such a life form?

Re: The future lifespan of Earth’s oxygenated atmosphere

#53

Earth will not host complex plants in 600 million years. So that’s also a problem - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

Thanks for the link, these really long term timelines always trigger a perspective shift for me.

Re: The future lifespan of Earth’s oxygenated atmosphere

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the sort of explanation I expected, but when I read the article, it presents a different causal sequence, in which photosynthesizing plants become ineffective, not because of increasing temperatures, but because of decreasing atmospheric CO2, as a result of its photodissociation. [1] As presented in the news article, there is no explanation for why the apparently still-abundant oxygen does not react with, for…

Oh, I see. Yeah, well my understanding of this is Earth as a self-balancing system: The Sun gets brighter over time. Plants (over tens of thousands of years) absorb enough CO2 to keep the temperature from rising too much. But eventually the Sun is so bright that in order to keep the temperature in the right range, plants would have to absorb so much CO2 that there wouldn’t be enough for effective photosynthesis so th…

That is in line with what I thought was the scientific consensus too, but when I read the abstract (I should have done that first!) I see it saying "Our results suggest that the planetary carbonate–silicate cycle will tend to lead to terminally CO2-limited biospheres and rapid atmospheric deoxygenation", where I assume the carbonate-silicate cycle is the reactions between CO2 and rocks/soil, and if so, then this model seems to be suggesting that this will come into play before a runaway greenhouse scenario.

Re: The future lifespan of Earth’s oxygenated atmosphere

#55
post #47
post #20

As I understand it the sun has another 4.5 billion or so years of life remaining but the earth has only another billion years or so of being habitable. That's interesting. Complex life first appeared on earth about 2.5 billion years or so ago and has 1 billion more years to go for a total span of 3.5 billion years. In earth's projected 9 billion year lifespan it will only have been habitable for 3.5 billion years, or…

Is there enough selective pressure to keep human-style intelligence in the gene pool for another billion years? Look at the abundance of species on Earth, and only one species has a space program. Is there enough selective pressure for other species to eventually evolve advanced intelligence (considering how much of it that crows and dolphins have) or is it just an accident that humans have it, and it may not stay in…

That question is definitely unknowable in advance, because our intelligence level leads to radical changes in the environment in which we exist.

If we really, really, cared, we could set up a momentum exchange between Earth and Jupiter mediated by an asteroid, moving Earth further out and Jupiter (slightly) further in, chasing the outward drift of the Sol habitable zone: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102126

Also, we could (in principle, not saying we will or we should) engage in selective breeding or genetic engineering of ourselves; and while mind-uploading is currently SciFi, it’s in the category of “we recon this is eventually possible” rather than “convenient plot device”.

Re: The future lifespan of Earth’s oxygenated atmosphere

#58
post #55
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there enough selective pressure to keep human-style intelligence in the gene pool for another billion years? Look at the abundance of species on Earth, and only one species has a space program. Is there enough selective pressure for other species to eventually evolve advanced intelligence (considering how much of it that crows and dolphins have) or is it just an accident that humans have it, and it may not stay in…

That question is definitely unknowable in advance, because our intelligence level leads to radical changes in the environment in which we exist. If we really, really , cared, we could set up a momentum exchange between Earth and Jupiter mediated by an asteroid, moving Earth further out and Jupiter (slightly) further in, chasing the outward drift of the Sol habitable zone: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102126 Also,…

If you want to expand semi human traits to other planets (anywhere) you will need genetic engineering. Full stop. The idea that humans can be transplanted as-is does not hold given the results on the home planet.

Re: The future lifespan of Earth’s oxygenated atmosphere

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see. Yeah, well my understanding of this is Earth as a self-balancing system: The Sun gets brighter over time. Plants (over tens of thousands of years) absorb enough CO2 to keep the temperature from rising too much. But eventually the Sun is so bright that in order to keep the temperature in the right range, plants would have to absorb so much CO2 that there wouldn’t be enough for effective photosynthesis so th…

That is in line with what I thought was the scientific consensus too, but when I read the abstract (I should have done that first!) I see it saying "Our results suggest that the planetary carbonate–silicate cycle will tend to lead to terminally CO2-limited biospheres and rapid atmospheric deoxygenation", where I assume the carbonate-silicate cycle is the reactions between CO2 and rocks/soil, and if so, then this mode…

In that case, I think they’re saying that both CO2 and O2 will be absorbed over time by minerals (as well as CO2 being absorbed by plants), and once CO2 levels drop too much, photosynthesis stops (or slows), which means oxygen stops (or slows) being replenished as well, so oxidization of minerals will also lead to a reduction in oxygen levels.

(And less volcanic activity over time also means less CO2 being added back to the atmosphere, so the chemical weathering process that absorbs both CO2 and O2 into minerals will no longer have an active counterbalancing force from volcanoes.)

Re: The future lifespan of Earth’s oxygenated atmosphere

#60
post #7

I can't see the paper [1]. But the code is here: https://github.com/kazumi-ozaki/lifespan/blob/master/main.f9... It does not give me great confidence in the modeling. Perhaps the paper goes into great detail about the formulas used in the code, and explains those variables and naming choices (those not in the Constants file with comments), or the fitting coefficients. Of course, I really wonder how the complexity of…

Complexity from Simplicity

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/822.full

Post reply on HN