Talk:Life on Venus

about the sentence "the chances of life are excluded totally from the surface of Venus"

I take issue with this sentence, since the corrosiveness, pressure, toxicity and radiation on the surface are all factors which we have life here on this rock which could withstand. This leaves the temperature, which I admit is a bit high for what we've seen in local life, but it would be pretty arrogant to *exclude totally* the chances of life based on the tiny little portion of knowledge of what is and what isn't possible for life that we currently possess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.27.93 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. Life is abundant at 90 bars pressure under the Earth's ocean. This pressure is not an issue for life. MartiniShaw (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. An extremophile may have evolved to withstand heat, another extremophile may resist radiation, another microbe may like low pH, another microbe may thrive under high pressure, or high salt, or extreme cold, or extreme heat, others may feed on toxic chemicals, or thrive in near dryness, etc. But when you apply or simulate the actual environment at the surface of Venus and expose any known extremophile to all these extreme chemical and environmental parameters simultaneously, none of the microorganisms is viable. In fact, their viability plunges to near zero when applying any two or three of the parameters mentioned. In other words, scientists must consider all chemical and physical environment conditions simultaneously. One must understand the fact that any given extremophile can pull one trick or two, but it cannot defy all of the biochemical and physical challenges of that environment at once. Not without utilizing a hypothetical "alternative biochemistry" not based on carbon and water. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I was stating that the pressure of 90 bars is not an issue for life. The pressure of the surface of Venus should somehow be removed from the parameters stopping the viability of life. I don't dispute any of the other environmental factors you mention. Cheers. MartiniShaw (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The article has room for improvement, but I reiterate that the complete set of environmental factors has to be considered simultaneously, and that arbitrarily removing any specific parameter(s) is simply not a realistic option. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As an analogy, consider a hamster -perfectly adapted to living under 1 atm pressure. Release it in the Arctic, which is also at 1 atm. He will die, and under the same 1 atm pressure. Why? You would not expect the hamster to survive there even if the pressure is viable, right? the same applies to extremophiles. You have to consider all the environmental factors at play, not just the ones the organism can handle. Now, take your aquatic example extremophile that thrives at the bottom of the sea at high pressure, and place it on the surface of Venus: it may withstand the pressure for a few seconds, but will be dissolved immediately by the high temperature, bone-dry condition, extreme acidity, to name just a few factors. This principle applies to all other known extremophiles. No matter how good they are at their specific extreme trick, one cannot reasonably expect them to survive a myriad of new lethal environmental factors that they never had the previous necessity to evolve into. Knowing the factors they can handle is just as essential as the factors they cannot handle.Rowan Forest (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• For another opinion, see this Youtube video. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Venera 13

Information about "proposed" proof life of life on Venus is already in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera_13#Suggested_photographic_evidence_of_life Kortoso (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If that fringe speculation by one man was debunked years ago by the mission scientists, then there is even less need to transcribe it here. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely: [1] [2] - 178.215.111.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Life in the past.

This article only discusses whether life on Venus is possible at this moment. Given that the atmosphere on Venus 4 billion years ago was much more like Earth's is today, could this article include some discussion about the possibility/plausibility of life in the past?77.167.231.99 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd add info about that, but it'd need to be referenced and I hate how long it takes to fill out a reference tag :Þ Suffice to say, yes, Venus's deuterium concentration is 150x (some sources say upwards of 240x) higher than Earth, indicating a massive loss of water to space (Mars is only 5-7x). It wasn't always this dry. -- Rei (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. That's a big "given". Cheers. MartiniShaw (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't get it

There's no evidence of life on Venus, no evidence of any conditions that might support life. You might as well speculate about life on the Sun. Kortoso (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in Wikipedia, any monkey with a keyboard can create an "article"; and it takes a lot of effort to go through the red tape in order to delete it. This is one of such cases. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. The same could be said about our articles Ghost, Spirit, God etc. We have lots of articles about speculations, illusions, and delusions. If sufficient notable researchers spend sufficient time and effort on speculating, researching, and publishing about life on the Sun, then we'll have an article Life on the Sun before you can say "I really don't get it" - DVdm (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a fair bit of evidence actually. I suggest we merge some of the material from Atmosphere of Venus #Possibility of Life into this article.

It's undoubtedly notable with lots of articles about the possibility. Here is an article in New Scientist [1] and in NASA's Astrobiology magazine [2] and [3], and there are numerous papers about it in the scientific literature. The idea is that life on early Venus when it probably had oceans like Earth could have migrated into the cloud tops. The cloud tops are very habitable apart from the acid and the UV light, with the main ingredients life needs, continuous cloud cover which is also a source of water (in the acid), takes 200 days for a 1.1 micron particle to fall from the clouds, which is more than enough time for several generations even of rather slow growing microbes, to reproduce and form spores, and the atmosphere superrotates with a "day" of four Earth days so photosynthetic life is possible there. The acid is not impossible for life, we have acidophiles on Earth that are close to being able to tolerate it, and they could protect from UV light with a coating of S8, a suggestion by Dirk Schulze-Makuch

The astrobiologist who is most enthusiastic about the idea is Dirk Schulze-Makuch. The main evidence in its favour are

• Dark streaks that absorb UV radiation, of unknown composition
• Detection of non spherical particles which are the right size for microbes
• Atmosphere out of equilibrium at the cloud tops with H2S and SO2 present together, also free oxygen and hydrogen
• Detection of Carbonyl Sulfide (OCS) which on Earth would be unambiguous detection of life but there are inorganic processes that possibly could create it in the Venus clouds

Robert Walker (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Well now we found phosphine which could be an indicator of life, so I guess that's good

Azpineapple (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well now we did not find phosphine which could be an indicator of life, so I guess that's good (:

LordParsifal (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible additions - life beneath the surface of Venus and meteorites from Venus on the Moon

There's also the suggestion of life beneath the Venusian surface in high pressure subsurface habitats with supercritical water [4]

Then - I think it would make sense to have a separate section on life on early Venus. Cockell's paper "Life on Venus" [5] could be a good starting point for it.

There's also the possibility of finding meteorites from early Venus on the Moon. We don't get them any more because its atmosphere is so dense, but if early Venus was like early Earth and early Mars then probably there are many meteorites from Venus on the Moon and some may contain traces of early Venus life - this possibility is mentioned on page 10 of this article which gives further cites to the idea [6]

Robert Walker (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Another suggested addition - Mode 3 particle controversy

This is a controversy about the "mode 3" large asymmetrical particles. Some scientists suggested they may be a result of miscalibration of the equipment, with the conclusion: ,

"This allows a simple understanding of the source of all the cloud particles, but at the cost of disbelieving some of the measurements."

For details of the controversy see section 4.2 of this paper. [7]

I think this controversy is clearly notable and should be mentioned. It is relevant as the non spherical particles is one of the three main lines of evidence suggesting the possibility of life in the Venus clouds (the other two being the chemical imbalance especially with the presence of OCS and the unexpected UV absorption which some think may be result of photosynthetic activity). Robert Walker (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life on Venus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304051810/http://www.maik.ru/contents/solsys/solsys1_12v46cont.htm to http://www.maik.ru/contents/solsys/solsys1_12v46cont.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct adjective Venerian

The correct adjective is not Venusian but Venerian. There's no need to address me or to use huggle. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Both are correct, but Venusian seems the modern and most used term. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is it used? --212.186.7.98 (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The etymologically prior term is Venerean, from the Latin venereus, but that would be pedantic. Venusian is modern English. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Aw yeah, thanks for correcting me. It's Venerean. --212.186.7.98 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

If there is life as a result of contamination from Earth, might it be a Venerial disease? Jonathunder (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Signs of Life found on Venus

https://archive.is/L7MT1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.195.138.216 (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Simply put, a gas that shouldn’t be there, and on Earth is considered a conclusive biosignature: phosphine, a very stinky gas. As far as scientists know, there are only two ways to produce it, either artificially in a lab, or by certain kinds of microbes that live in oxygen-free environments. Since it is rather unlikely there any alien labs on Venus, that leaves microbes. The researchers made the detection using the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) in Hawaii, and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) observatory in Chile. Researchers from MIT had previously published studies showing that if phosphine was to ever be found on another rocky planet, it would be a sure sign of life there. Hence why this discovery is so provocative. But before announcing this tantalizing evidence, the researchers, of course, wanted to try to rule out other explanations. They considered and tested many various scenarios where this gas might be produced without life, but as they acknowledge, they came up empty. Clara Sousa-Silva at MIT, whose career specialty is studying phosphine, said in a statement:

It’s very hard to prove a negative. Now, astronomers will think of all the ways to justify phosphine without life, and I welcome that. Please do, because we are at the end of our possibilities to show abiotic processes that can make phosphine. Finding phosphine on Venus was an unexpected bonus! The discovery raises many questions, such as how any organisms could survive. On Earth, some microbes can cope with up to about 5% of acid in their environment, but the clouds of Venus are almost entirely made of acid

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.195.138.216 (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

To be clear they have not found life on Venus, they (may have) found phosphine. That's a very important distinction we will need to be clear on. The interpretation of that finding I'm sure will be the subject of a lot of debate. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW - Related very initial news references - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI to everyone-please wait to edit the article with this until the official announcement as you will then be able to cite the scientific paper instead of random YouTube videos. Hollywood43ar (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If interested - Watch related *Live News* from the "Royal Astronomical Society" at 11am/et/usa, Monday, 14 September 2020 at => https://astronomynow.com/2020/09/14/watch-todays-major-announcement-from-the-royal-astronomical-society/ - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Link to the RAS News Press video (starts at 10:30 of 69:51; 14 September 2020) is at the following => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1u-jlf_Olo - also - related NYT ref - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

ALSO - References related to similar studies by MIT researchers - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Content describing actual existence of life on Venus versus speculation

There is some content that could perhaps offer a better explanation regarding the actual existence of life on Venus. While although it indicates a recent scientific discovery for proof that there may be life, there is no direct answer or explanation to say that this discovery does not exactly clarify that there is in fact life on Venus. The recent discovery regarding the atmosphere could instead be summarized to state precisely this does not show evidence for life but remains a mystery of the actual existence of microorganisms within the atmosphere of Venus. I feel as if a more direct approach to this would help any onlooker understand the situation and what the new scientific discovery means. SuperCisco (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything there about proof. It just says that a biosignature gas, phosphine, has no known ways to produce it abiotically on terrestrial planets. Because the only known ways to produce this gas are from living organisms, a detectable quantity of it suggests there may be life, but doesn't prove it. There may be other, undiscovered mechanisms to produce this gas. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Please update with: "Hypothetical life cycle of the Venusian microorganisms"

Please add information on the study to the article.

I intended to upload its figure 1, but it's currently licensed incompatibly.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Prototyperspective - Please read this article WP:DIY. FOARP (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Trivia

Surely given Wikipedia's policies there should not be a section entitled trivia. In terms of content I think the information might be included in the article, but this section needs a better title if it is kept. Dunarc (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible source for ALMA restarting

https://alma-telescope.jp/en/news/restart-202103

©Geni (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)