Continents May Be A Feature of Super-Earths

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Continents May Be A Key Feature of Super-Earths

Huge Earth-like planets that have both continents and oceans may be better at harboring extraterrestrial life than those that are water-only worlds. A new study gives hope for the possibility that many super-Earth planets orbiting distant stars have exposed continents rather than just water-covered surfaces.

Super-Earths likely have more stable climates as compared to water-worlds, and therefore larger habitable zones where alien life could thrive. In the new study, researchers used the Earth as a starting point for modeling how super-Earths might store their water on the surface and deep underground within the mantle. The work is detailed in a preprint paper titled “Water Cycling Between Ocean and Mantle: Super-Earths Need Not Be Waterworlds” that was published in the January issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

Read more...

[The Id3al Experience]

"Super-Earths likely have more stable climates as compared to water-worlds, and therefore larger habitable zones where alien life could thrive"

But didnt life start in water to begin with? Thus even water planets should still be the same chance of life?

May be for intelligent life you need land more air thus bigger brain? Or am I missing something?

Edited April 16, 2014 by The Id3al Experience

[Waspie_Dwarf]

But didnt life start in water to begin with?

That is the current hypothesis.

May be for intelligent life you need land more air thus bigger brain? Or am I missing something?

It's not to do with intelligence.

For the foreseeable future the only way we will be able to detect life on far off exoplanets is by the composition of the atmosphere. If the life is confined to the oceans then there may not be the atmospheric changes we need to confirm it's existence.

Water worlds could be teeming with life but we wouldn't know about it.

[The Id3al Experience]

That is the current hypothesis.

It's not to do with intelligence.

For the foreseeable future the only way we will be able to detect life on far off exoplanets is by the composition of the atmosphere. If the life is confined to the oceans then there may not be the atmospheric changes we need to confirm it's existence.

Water worlds could be teeming with life but we wouldn't know about it.

Oh I see, thanks for that wapsie

But isnt that actually cutting down our chances by only looking for atomsphere in outer planets? From the Aritcle "Huge Earth-like planets that have both continents and oceans may be better at harboring extraterrestrial life than those that are water-only worlds"

Its saying it will be better at harboring life? Or is the context meant to be better for us to detect life on other planets?

Cheers in Advance

[spacecowboy342]

"Super-Earths likely have more stable climates as compared to water-worlds, and therefore larger habitable zones where alien life could thrive"

But didnt life start in water to begin with? Thus even water planets should still be the same chance of life?

May be for intelligent life you need land more air thus bigger brain? Or am I missing something?

I don't know this for a certainty but I think human intelligence didn't take that last leap until our ancestors started using fire to cook their meat thus releasing the calories from meat with less digestive effort. Big brains require a lot of energy. This probably isn't going to happen on a water world.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

But isnt that actually cutting down our chances by only looking for atomsphere in outer planets?

It's not a matter of cutting down our chances, it's the fact that with our technology we can only look at atmosphere's. We don't currently have a choice.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Big brains require a lot of energy. This probably isn't going to happen on a water world.

Dolphins!!!

There is a difference between intelligence and technological capability. Technological species seem unlikely on a water world, that does not exclude intelligence.

[Frank Merton]

The problem I see if they are really planning to ignore water worlds is that there may be lots of islands we don't detect. Of course if it is determined the water is something like half the mass of the planet then this would not be likely.

I think it unlikely technological societies could develop without combustion, which means free oxygen in the atmosphere; I assume that is mainly what they are going to look for.

[spacecowboy342]

Dolphins!!!

There is a difference between intelligence and technological capability. Technological species seem unlikely on a water world, that does not exclude intelligence.

Yeah you are right there but as intelligent as dolphins are there is still an order of magnitude between them and us

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The problem I see if they are really planning to ignore water worlds is that there may be lots of islands we don't detect.

It's not a matter of ignoring water worlds. At the moment we are incapable of detecting water on a planet at all. For the foreseeable future all we be able to do is make a spectral analysis of the atmosphere (we can't do that yet, but the capability is only a few years away).

This is more a hypothetical process. If super-Earths are usually water worlds then there is a good chance we won't be able to detect life on them. Knowing that means that if a negative result is returned we know that it may be a false negative. Failing to detect signs of life in the atmosphere of super-Earths will not constitute proof that there is no life on super-Earths.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Yeah you are right there but as intelligent as dolphins are there is still an order of magnitude between them and us

Yes, but that hold true of every other species currently on Earth an us. My point, really, was to show that intelligence could evolve in an aquatic environment,

[spacecowboy342]

Yes, but that hold true of every other species currently on Earth an us. My point, really, was to show that intelligence could evolve in an aquatic environment,

Yeah, but I think my point holds, in that, as you point out we are orders of magnitude beyond every one of the other billions of species on the planet, and we are also the only ones who cook our meat. I don't think this is coincidence.

[taniwha]

"Super-Earths likely have more stable climates as compared to water-worlds, and therefore larger habitable zones where alien life could thrive"

But didnt life start in water to begin with? Thus even water planets should still be the same chance of life?

May be for intelligent life you need land more air thus bigger brain? Or am I missing something?

You raise a good point for what I like to call wet life. We know on earth that the abundance of life is dependant on water and the cycle thereof. Why it cant be the same on Exoworld? I think it can be.

Life took root more than four billion years ago on our nascent Earth, a wetter and harsher place than now, bathed in sizzling ultraviolet rays. What started out as simple cells ultimately transformed into slime molds, frogs, elephants, humans and the rest of our planet's living kingdoms. How did it all begin?

A new study from researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the Icy Worlds team at NASA's Astrobiology Institute, based at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., describes how electrical energy naturally produced at the sea floor might have given rise to life. While the scientists had already proposed this hypothesis -- called "submarine alkaline hydrothermal emergence of life" -- the new report assembles decades of field, laboratory and theoretical research into a grand, unified picture.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/m/news/news.php?release=2014-115