Phosphine, a strong biosignature, has been detected in the atmosphere of Venus

[Colin Robinson]

Perhaps it's worth contextualising the reported phosphine by looking at whether other simple hydrogen compounds, such as methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃) and hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) have been detected in the atmosphere of Venus...

It turns out that space probe data has given apparent indications of all these compounds. Venera 8 (1972) found indications of NH₃. Pioneer Venus Large Probe (1978) found indications of NH₃ and H₂S.

These are the papers I found

Ammonia in the atmosphere of Venus

Venus methane and water

Composition of the atmosphere of Venus below the clouds


The apparent indications of NH₃ and CH₄ were treated with scepticism by scientists. But considering how little research has been done on Venus in the last few decades, can probe data from the seventies be disregarded?

If all these simple hydrogenated molecules are there, how does it relate to the phosphine finding?

Methane, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, like phosphine, are produced on Earth by micro-organisms in conditions which are anoxic (lacking O₂ molecules) yet comparatively oxidising (rich in oxygen compounds). The microbial chemistry breaks bonds between oxygen and another element (carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, or phosphorus), and bonds the C, N, S, or P with hydrogen instead. This makes oxygen atoms available for energy-producing reactions (anaerobic respiration).

So the apparent presence of CH₄, NH₃, and H₂S is consistent with the hypothesis that the apparent presence of PH₃ is due to life. But doesn't necessarily rule out geothermal activity either, as this can produce a range of hydrogen-rich molecules.

Another reason methane (CH₄) is interesting... Compared to other simple carbon compounds, such as CO₂, CH₄ is chemically more similar to biomolecules, which typically contain large numbers of carbon-hydrogen bonds (as well as carbon-carbon bonds).

[Colin Robinson]

Perhaps it's worth contextualising the reported phosphine by looking at whether other simple hydrogen compounds, such as methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃) and hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) have been detected in the atmosphere of Venus...

It turns out that space probe data has given apparent indications of all these compounds. Venera 8 (1972) found indications of NH₃. Pioneer Venus Large Probe (1978) found indications of NH₃ and H₂S.

I meant to write: Pioneer Venus Large Probe (1978) found indications of CH₄ and H₂S.

[Selfsim]

In the meantime, controversy has been unfolding over the 'apparent discovery' announcement:

The IAU (International Astronomy Union) have taken the discovery team to task, with the IAU having ancountered attacks from multiple sources, as well as the discovery itself being very much in question:
Controversy erupts among astronomers over whether phosphine really was discovered on Venus – Physics World

Synopsis is (my words): Possible parasitic effects ensuing from Greaves etal using a 12 order polynomial to remove the background continuum of thermal emission from Venus spectrum, (albeit for good reasons, ie: removal of 'instrumental artefacts'). This same refutation has been presented by two independent teams, now.

What is evident, is that this is yet another classic example of peer review doing its job.

The matter seems destined to reach a solid conclusion (ie: on the validity of the original announcement), with there being a way to resolve it using high altitude (airborne) observational measurements. (Which would be good news).

Definitely one worthy of keeping an eye on for further updates ..

[Roger E. Moore]

Two reports out in mid-November within a day of each other.

--------

https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.08176

Re-analysis of Phosphine in Venus' Clouds

Jane S. Greaves, Anita M. S. Richards, William Bains, Paul B. Rimmer, David L. Clements, Sara Seager, Janusz J. Petkowski, Clara Sousa-Silva, Sukrit Ranjan, Helen J. Fraser

We first respond to two points raised by Villanueva et al. We show the JCMT discovery spectrum of PH3 can not be re-attributed to SO2, as the line width is larger than observed for SO2 features, and the required abundance would be an extreme outlier. The JCMT spectrum is also consistent with our simple model, constant PH3-abundance with altitude, with no discrepancy in line profile (within data limits); reconciliation with a full photochemical model is the subject of future work. Section 2 presents initial results from re-processed ALMA data. Villanueva et al. noted an issue with bandpass calibration. They have worked on a partially re-processed subset of the ALMA data, so we note where their conclusions, and those of Greaves et al., are now superseded. To summarise: we tentatively recover PH3 in Venus' atmosphere with ALMA (~5{\sigma} confidence). Localised abundance appears to peak at ~5 parts-per-billion, with suggestions of spatial variation. Advanced data-products suggest a planet-averaged PH3 abundance ~1 ppb, ~7 times lower than from the earlier ALMA processing. The ALMA data are reconcilable with the JCMT detection (~20 ppb) if there is order-of-magnitude temporal variation; more advanced processing of the JCMT data is underway to check methods. Independent PH3 measurements suggest possible altitude dependence (under ~5 ppb at 60+ km, up to ~100 ppb at 50+ km; see Section 2: Conclusions.) Given that both ALMA and JCMT were working at the limit of observatory capabilities, new spectra should be obtained. The ALMA data in-hand are no longer limited by calibration, but spectral ripples still exist, probably due to size and brightness of Venus in relation to the primary beam. Further, spatial ripples are present, potentially reducing significance of real narrow spectral features.

-----

https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.15188

The statistical reliability of 267 GHz JCMT observations of Venus: No significant evidence for phosphine absorption

M.A. Thompson

In the light of the recent announcement of the discovery of the potential biosignature phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus I present an independent reanalysis of the original JCMT data to assess the statistical reliability of the detection. Two line detection methods are explored, low order polynomial fits and higher order multiple polynomial fits. A non-parametric bootstrap analysis reveals that neither line detection method is able to recover a statistically significant detection. Similar to the results of other reanalyses of ALMA Venus spectra, the polynomial fitting process results in false positive detections in the JCMT spectrum. There is thus no significant evidence for phosphine absorption in the JCMT Venus spectra.

[Roger E. Moore]

Would life on Venus be derived from life on Earth? Panspermia by asteroids once again raises its head.


https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.09512

Transfer of Life Between Earth and Venus with Planet-Grazing Asteroids

Amir Siraj, Abraham Loeb

Recently, phosphine was discovered in the atmosphere of Venus as a potential biosignature. This raises the question: if Venusian life exists, could it be related to terrestrial life? Based on the known rate of meteoroid impacts on Earth, we show that at least ∼6 × 10^5 asteroids have grazed Earth's atmosphere without being significantly heated and later impacted Venus, and a similar number have grazed Venus's atmosphere and later impacted the Earth, both within a period of ∼10^5 years during which microbes could survive in space. Although the abundance of terrestrial life in the upper atmosphere is unknown, these planet-grazing shepherds could have potentially been capable of transferring microbial life between the atmospheres of Earth and Venus. As a result, the origin of possible Venusian life may be fundamentally indistinguishable from that of terrestrial life.

[Roger E. Moore]

Two more papers closely related to the phosphine announcement. The second paper was written by some of the "phosphine discovery" team members.


https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.07835

On The Biomass Required To Produce Phosphine Detected In The Cloud Decks Of Venus

Manasvi Lingam, Abraham Loeb

The detection of phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus at an abundance of ∼20 ppb suggests that this gas is being generated by either indeterminate abiotic pathways or biological processes. We consider the latter possibility, and explore whether the amount of biomass required to produce the observed flux of phosphine may be reasonable. We estimate that the typical biomass densities predicted by our simple model are potentially orders of magnitude lower than the biomass density of Earth's aerial biosphere in the lower atmosphere. We briefly discuss how small spacecraft could sample the Venusian cloud decks and search for biomarkers.

=====

https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.06474

The Venusian Lower Atmosphere Haze as a Depot for Desiccated Microbial Life: A Proposed Life Cycle for Persistence of the Venusian Aerial Biosphere

Sara Seager, Janusz J. Petkowski, Peter Gao, William Bains, Noelle C. Bryan, Sukrit Ranjan, Jane Greaves

We revisit the hypothesis that there is life in the Venusian clouds to propose a life cycle that resolves the conundrum of how life can persist aloft for hundreds of millions to billions of years. Most discussions of an aerial biosphere in the Venus atmosphere temperate layers never address whether the life-small microbial-type particles-is free floating or confined to the liquid environment inside cloud droplets. We argue that life must reside inside liquid droplets such that it will be protected from a fatal net loss of liquid to the atmosphere, an unavoidable problem for any free-floating microbial life forms. However, the droplet habitat poses a lifetime limitation: Droplets inexorably grow (over a few months) to large enough sizes that are forced by gravity to settle downward to hotter, uninhabitable layers of the Venusian atmosphere. (Droplet fragmentation-which would reduce particle size-does not occur in Venusian atmosphere conditions.) We propose for the first time that the only way life can survive indefinitely is with a life cycle that involves microbial life drying out as liquid droplets evaporate during settling, with the small desiccated 'spores' halting at, and partially populating, the Venus atmosphere stagnant lower haze layer (33-48 km altitude). We, thus, call the Venusian lower haze layer a 'depot' for desiccated microbial life. The spores eventually return to the cloud layer by upward diffusion caused by mixing induced by gravity waves, act as cloud condensation nuclei, and rehydrate for a continued life cycle. We also review the challenges for life in the extremely harsh conditions of the Venusian atmosphere, refuting the notion that the 'habitable' cloud layer has an analogy in any terrestrial environment.

[Roger E. Moore]

First, more fallout from the phosphine announcement.


https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11826

A Precursor Balloon Mission for Venusian Astrobiology

Andreas M. Hein, Manasvi Lingam, T. Marshall Eubanks, Adam Hibberd, Dan Fries, William Paul Blase

The potential detection of phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus has reignited interest in the possibility of life aloft in this environment. If the cloud decks of Venus are indeed an abode of life, it should reside in the "habitable zone" between ~ 50-60 km altitude, roughly coincident with the middle cloud deck, where the temperature and pressure (but not the atmospheric composition) are similar to conditions at the Earth's surface. We map out a precursor astrobiological mission to search for such putative lifeforms in situ with instrument balloons, which could be delivered to Venus via launch opportunities in 2022-2023. This mission would collect aerosol and dust samples by means of small balloons floating in the Venusian cloud deck and directly scrutinize whether they include any apparent biological materials and, if so, their shapes, sizes, and motility. Our balloon mission would also be equipped with a miniature mass spectrometer that should permit the detection of complex organic molecules. The mission is augmented by contextual cameras to search for macroscopic signatures of life in the Venusian atmospheric habitable zone. Finally, mass and power constraints permitting, radio interferometric determinations of the motion of the balloons in Venusian winds, together with in situ temperature and pressure measurements, will provide valuable insights into the poorly understood meteorology of the middle cloud region.

==========

As a bonus, a full-color "white paper" with art, arguing for atmospheric probes of Venus, and a plain "white paper" arguing for greater study of Venus.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.12821

Deep Atmosphere of Venus Probe as a Mission Priority for the Upcoming Decade

James B. Garvin, Giada N. Arney, Sushil Atreya, Stephanie Getty, Martha Gilmore, David Grinspoon, Natasha Johnson, Stephen Kane, Walter Kiefer, Ralph Lorenz

This is a white paper submitted to the Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey. The deep atmosphere of Venus is largely unexplored and yet may harbor clues to the evolutionary pathways for a major silicate planet with implications across the solar system and beyond. In situ data is needed to resolve significant open questions related to the evolution and present-state of Venus, including questions of Venus' possibly early habitability and current volcanic outgassing. Deep atmosphere "probe-based" in situ missions carrying analytical suites of instruments are now implementable in the upcoming decade (before 2030), and will both reveal answers to fundamental questions on Venus and help connect Venus to exoplanet analogs to be observed in the JWST era of astrophysics.

----

https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01888

Venus as a Nearby Exoplanetary Laboratory

Stephen R. Kane, Giada Arney, Paul Byrne, David Crisp, Shawn Domagal-Goldman, Colin Goldblatt, David Grinspoon, James W. Head, Adrian Lenardic, Victoria Meadows, Cayman Unterborn, Michael J. Way

The key goals of the astrobiology community are to identify environments beyond Earth that may be habitable, and to search for signs of life in those environments. A fundamental aspect of understanding the limits of habitable environments and detectable signatures is the study of where such environments can occur. Thus, the need to study the creation, evolution, and frequency of environments hostile to habitability is an integral part of the astrobiology story. The study of these environments provides the opportunity to understand the bifurcation between habitable and uninhabitable conditions on planetary bodies. The archetype of such a planet is Earth's sibling planet, Venus, which provides a unique opportunity to explore the processes that created a completely uninhabitable environment and thus define the conditions that rule out bio-related signatures. We advocate a continued comprehensive study of our neighboring planet, to include models of early atmospheres, compositional abundances, and Venus-analog frequency analysis from current and future exoplanet data. Critically, new missions to Venus that provide in-situ data are necessary to address the major gaps in our current understanding, and to enable us to take the next steps in characterizing planetary habitability.

[Roger E. Moore]

Astronomy magazine overview on current state of phosphine-on-Venus research.

https://astronomy.com/news/2020/11/p...phosphine-data

[Selfsim]

Astronomy magazine overview on current state of phosphine-on-Venus research.

https://astronomy.com/news/2020/11/p...phosphine-data

Summary is:
1. Calibration Error:

And the debate isn’t over yet. As a result of the third study, staff scientists at the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile — one of the radio telescopes used to detected the original phosphine signal — found a calibration error in the data they had supplied to Greaves’ team. Speculation swirled for weeks after ALMA staff pulled the data from their public archive to reprocess it.

2. Now only 1 ppb (down from original 20 ppb):

On 16 November, Greaves’ team announced the results of their reanalysis using the corrected ALMA data. They once again found a phosphine signal — but at much reduced levels. In some areas of the planet, it may peak at around 5 ppb, but on average, phosphine is only present at 1 ppb — much less than the original detection of 20 ppb.

3. JCMT Observations still produce 20 ppb - reason unknown at present:

However, there is now a discrepancy between the data from ALMA and the other radio telescope Greaves’ team used — the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) on Mauna Kea. The detection from JCMT still stands at around 20 ppb. The researchers say more observations will be needed over a longer period of time to understand why.

4. All boils down to some unknown geological process (suprise, surprise .. Err, not!):

Perhaps the level of phosphine periodically rises and falls due to some unknown geological or atmospheric process — which would be exciting, even if it’s not alien life.

[Robert Hags]

Hello there. Recently I gained the information that the study of dust particles from the nucleus of Churymov-Gerasimenko comet showed the presence of solidphotosphorus in them. This means that all the chemical elements necessary for the emergence of life can be brought for Earth by comets. The presence of this chemical element in rokcs like apatite, allows it to move between different cosmic bodies. Therefore, such a mechanism can be considered as one of the answer to the question of why the Earth is so rich in the elements most necessary for the emergence of life.

The vast majority of biological molecules kniwn to humanity contain six key chemical elements. They are abbreviated as CHNOPS: carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), phosphorus (P) and sulfur (S). The life we know is impossible without these elements.

So that means that life may be everywhere, where there are acceptable conditions for it. What do you think?

[Selfsim]

This means that all the chemical elements necessary for the emergence of life can be brought for Earth by comets.

.. and so: ’all the chemical elements necessary for the emergence of life’, also comprise the Earth (and lots of other objects) .. which isn’t really saying much at all about how life emerges, eh?

The life we know is impossible without these elements.

Evidence please.

So that means that life may be everywhere, where there are acceptable conditions for it.

What it means is that the CHNOPS elements are widely distributed.
’Acceptable conditions’ which might produce life at some relevant level of detail, beyond Earth-life’s instance however, is currently unknown.

[Tom Mazanec]

Actually, Selfsim, the second argument ("The life we know is impossible without these elements.") is a pretty safe statement.

[Selfsim]

Actually, Selfsim, the second argument ("The life we know is impossible without these elements.") is a pretty safe statement.

I might agree that it can be used as the basis of a well constrained reasoned argument.

However, 'unknown' is the accurate (and honest) statement .. due to the lack of (objective) evidence necessary to eliminate the 'possibility' of it.
(The outcomes of future, well constrained, testable hypotheses are 'unknown', until testing is complete).
'Life as we know it', apparently also includes some hypotheticals.

[Noclevername]

I might agree that it can be used as the basis of a well constrained reasoned argument.

However, 'unknown' is the accurate (and honest) statement .. due to the lack of (objective) evidence necessary to eliminate the 'possibility' of it.
(The outcomes of future, well constrained, testable hypotheses are 'unknown', until testing is complete).
'Life as we know it', apparently also includes some hypotheticals.

The life we know exists. We can see it. We can measure its composition. It has these elements.

[Roger E. Moore]

The team that claims to have found phosphine in Venus's clouds doubles down on the claim, though there was not as much phosphine as they thought.


https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.05844

On the Robustness of Phosphine Signatures in Venus' Clouds

Jane S. Greaves, William Bains, Janusz J. Petkowski, Sara Seager, Clara Sousa-Silva, Sukrit Ranjan, David L. Clements, Paul B. Rimmer, Helen J. Fraser, Steve Mairs, Malcolm J. Currie

We published spectra of phosphine molecules in Venus' clouds, following open-science principles in releasing data and scripts (with community input leading to ALMA re-processing, now benefiting multiple projects). Some misconceptions about de-trending of spectral baselines have also emerged, which we address here. Using the JCMT PH3-discovery data, we show that mathematically-correct polynomial fitting of periodic ripples does not lead to "fake lines" (probability < ~1%). We then show that the ripples can be characterised in a non-subjective manner via Fourier transforms. A 20 ppb PH3 feature is ~5{\sigma} compared to the JCMT baseline-uncertainty, and is distinctive as a narrow perturber of the periodic ripple pattern. The structure of the FT-derived baseline also shows that polynomial fitting, if unguided, can amplify artefacts and so artificially reduce significance of real lines.

[Tom Mazanec]

What abiotic phosphine level is plausible?

[Selfsim]

The life we know exists. We can see it. We can measure its composition. It has these elements.

Agreed ... but you haven't addressed the non-CHNOPS based hypothetical biochemistry phenomenon.

Eg: CHNOPS-only constituents didn't stop Sagan from using the term 'life' in other non-CHNOPS contexts:

However, as Carl Sagan argued, it is very difficult to be certain whether a statement that applies to all life on Earth will turn out to apply to all life throughout the universe. Sagan used the term "carbon chauvinism" for such an assumption. He regarded silicon and germanium as conceivable alternatives to carbon; (other plausible elements include but aren't limited to palladium and titanium) but, on the other hand, he noted that carbon does seem more chemically versatile and is more abundant in the cosmos.

See also speculated non-carbon based biochemistries.

PS: Don't expect me to defend this stuff .. all I'm saying is that apparently objective evidence is needed to eliminate other 'possible' 'speculated' lifeforms(?) The point is that life beyond earth's (and its particular biochemical basis) is just .. well .. umm .. unknown.

[Noclevername]

Agreed ... but you haven't addressed the non-CHNOPS based hypothetical biochemistry phenomenon.

Eg: CHNOPS-only constituents didn't stop Sagan from using the term 'life' in other non-CHNOPS contexts:

However, as Carl Sagan argued, it is very difficult to be certain whether a statement that applies to all life on Earth will turn out to apply to all life throughout the universe. Sagan used the term "carbon chauvinism" for such an assumption. He regarded silicon and germanium as conceivable alternatives to carbon; (other plausible elements include but aren't limited to palladium and titanium) but, on the other hand, he noted that carbon does seem more chemically versatile and is more abundant in the cosmos.
See also speculated non-carbon based biochemistries.

We know what already works. So if we take as a postulate that extraterrestrial life could exist on the Solar planet most physically like and near Earth, it might make sense to use the only known form of life as a starting* guideline* on what to test for.

*Note that I said "starting" and "guideline". Both modifiers are important in this context. By all means, we must also expand examination outward from there. But analysis of data should always begin with the most plausible** scenarios.

**Note again, I am not saying that life on Venus is itself a plausible scenario. But if we examine the available data and design experiments with an eye towards finding out whether that hypothesis is correct, we will need to rule out the scenario of the biochemistry we know before before moving to less supportable and even more speculative alternatives.

PS: Don't expect me to defend this stuff .. all I'm saying is that apparently objective evidence is needed to eliminate other 'possible' 'speculated' lifeforms(?) The point is that life beyond earth's (and its particular biochemical basis) is just .. well .. umm .. unknown.

No one here said otherwise. We all want to make the unknown known. As I said in a prior post, the answer is... more research. More probes. More science.

[Selfsim]

.. But analysis of data should always begin with the most plausible** scenarios.

**Note again, I am not saying that life on Venus is itself a plausible scenario. But if we examine the available data and design experiments with an eye towards finding out whether that hypothesis is correct, we will need to rule out the scenario of the biochemistry we know before before moving to less supportable and even more speculative alternatives.

That scenario is ruled out by the available data as earth-life's biochemical constituents would be completely destroyed by Venus' atmospheric concentrated sulphuric acid (as explained .. and evidenced by Greaves/Seager own words in post #58).

As posted by @Roger E Moore, and the implication of @Tom Mazanec's subsequent question, the republished levels of any detected phosphine (by Greaves etal) rules out any 'plausibility' of that scenario ..

Nonetheless, I'll virtually guarantee the myth of atmospheric 'life', in the Venus context will continue, in spite of its evidenced implausibility.. because its basis is a pure belief.

[Noclevername]

That scenario is ruled out by the available data as earth-life's biochemical constituents would be completely destroyed by Venus' atmospheric concentrated sulphuric acid (as explained .. and evidenced by Greaves/Seager own words in post #58).

As posted by @Roger E Moore, and the implication of @Tom Mazanec's subsequent question, the republished levels of any detected phosphine (by Greaves etal) rules out any 'plausibility' of that scenario ..

Nonetheless, I'll virtually guarantee the myth of atmospheric 'life', in the Venus context will continue, in spite of its evidenced implausibility.. because its basis is a pure belief.

So you keep asserting.

ADDED: Just to clarify, "There might be life on Venus" is a hypothesis to be tested. Not a "myth" or "belief".

And if you have ""evidenced" data showing that there's no life on Venus, please present it.

Otherwise you're just misusing the terms of science.

[Selfsim]

ADDED: Just to clarify, "There might be life on Venus" is a hypothesis to be tested. Not a "myth" or "belief".

Ok then .. please cite the nature of the tests produced by this 'hypothesis'.
Namely, what bio-molecular and life-function test products could feasibly lead to a 'true' positive result, given that:

It is quite impossible for terrestrial metabolism to function in concentrated sulfuric acid ..

such as the minimum of 70% concentration of atmospheric H₂SO₄ at the cooler, (speculated) spore reactivation altitudes, proposed for sampling.

[Noclevername]

Ok then .. please cite the nature of the tests produced by this 'hypothesis'.
Namely, what bio-molecular and life-function test products could feasibly lead to a 'true' positive result, given that:such as the minimum of 70% concentration of atmospheric H₂SO₄ at the cooler, (speculated) spore reactivation altitudes, proposed for sampling.

I am not a biologist. Not even an astrobiologist! I couldn't design a test to save my life. And you probably knew that. Asking me, rather than a real expert, is disingenuous.

As for the terrestrial life versus hypothetical life, did you not read what I said re: starting points? Because I was sure I mentioned mentioned it was a starting point.

Oh, and incidentally...

if you have ""evidenced" data showing that there's no life on Venus, please present it.

Otherwise you're just misusing the terms of science.

[Van Rijn]

Earth's extremophiles such as Bacillus subtilis, typically go into a dormant state when exposed acidic environments, in order to survive.

During this dormant phase, the bacteria develops a protective endospore.

This Venusian lifeform however, is completely different because it somehow remains biochemically active, whilst in a sulfuric acid environment.
Concentrated sulfuric acid is a powerful dehydrating agent which destroys earthly organic matter.

The question is: How do these Venusian organisms survive, whilst remaining biochemically active?

I don’t make an assumption that there is Venusian life. Actually, I think it is unlikely. However, nature often surprises us, so I would not rule it out as with your “myth” comment or assume that Venusian life couldn’t have evolved adaptations that Earth life (with different selection pressures) didn’t.

It’s been argued that Venus had a much more Earth-like environment in the past, and life wouldn’t have been presented with current conditions immediately. I could imagine Earth-like life evolving protective shells or other protective features to the acid over time much as Earth life has to harsh environments. It need not necessarily have functional biomolecules exposed to the environment. It also need not necessarily be a bacterial analog. Earth has the archaea, bacteria, and eukarya and even if hypothetical Venusian life had the same basic chemistry as Earth life it wouldn’t necessarily have to fit in standard categories.

In short, it is dangerous to rule things out without investigation. I would be hesitant to make very strong statements until a fair number of samples of the Venusian atmosphere have been lab tested.

[Roger E. Moore]

"The Atlantic" has an article on this very topic as of today, by chance.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...m-over/617331/

[Noclevername]

Selfsim:

You are the one who used the term "evidenced". A blanket dismissal not based on observation, is not scientific evidence. Nor is an Appeal To Authority. You know the drill.

It seems likely that organic life could not adapt to pervasive sulfuric acid. But science is not concerned with our opinions of what's likely. We've been surprised many times before.

If you have actual evidence, please present it. If not, I request that you kindly withdraw the claim. How you respond is your choice.

[Selfsim]

Selfsim:

You are the one who used the term "evidenced". A blanket dismissal not based on observation, is not scientific evidence. Nor is an Appeal To Authority. You know the drill.

It seems likely that organic life could not adapt to pervasive sulfuric acid. But science is not concerned with our opinions of what's likely. We've been surprised many times before.

If you have actual evidence, please present it. If not, I request that you kindly withdraw the claim. How you respond is your choice.

Sigh ..

No need for me withdraw anything, as what I said was: there is (now) evidence of its implausibility .. not the least of which is:

(i) the decreased levels of phosphine subsequently announced by Greaves etal, due to the original errored (uncalibrated?) raw data (now down to only several ppb),
(ii) the exothermic nature of the 2SO₃ + 4H₂O → 2H₂SO₄+ H₂O. reaction and its effect on any active biochemistry and;
(iii) the known highly corrosive effects of H₂SO₄ on organic matter.

.. the myth of atmospheric 'life', in the Venus context will continue, in spite of its evidenced implausibility.

(Context is important y'know).

[Selfsim]

I could imagine Earth-like life evolving protective shells or other protective features to the acid over time much as Earth life has to harsh environments.

This is (roughly) the path Greaves etal originally took before coming up with an 'uplifted' (and 'down falling') Venusian spore-based lifeform.

At some stage, life requires its resources from the immediate environment it finds itself in. In the Venusian atmospheric case, that environment is highly toxic to all currently known life .. which leads to speculatation on life as we don't currently know it, or some other unknown (non-life) process producing trace atmospheric phosphine gas.

[Noclevername]

So you're just going to repeat your Selfsim? Got it.

I'm an empiricist, I prefer actual evidence, for or against. Let's go examine Venus and get some.

(I'll even let scientists design the tests.)

[Roger E. Moore]

Astrobiology’s Biggest Stories of 2020

QUOTE: ...The most controversial discovery of the year (2020) in regard to astrobiology was the claimed detection of phosphine in the lower clouds of Venus, which hinted at the presence of an aerial biosphere. Based on its hellish environmental conditions, most researchers would have considered that planet utterly lifeless. The attention suddenly paid to Venus was personally gratifying, because I published about the possibility of Venusian cloud life more than a decade ago. The paper did indeed stir up a lot of initial excitement, but how should we evaluate the claim a few months later?

The phosphine detection itself—though challenged from many sides—still stands, although at a lower abundance than initially claimed. My own first reaction to the claim may have been a bit optimistic. But finding phosphine—a molecule indicative of biology on Earth—is still astounding, especially because the gas had not been detected previously on any other terrestrial planet. But it’s far too early to claim we’ve found life on Venus. There are many unknowns about our “twin planet,” which remains largely alien to us. Many processes and chemical reactions are likely occurring in the Venusian atmosphere and on the surface that we don’t yet understand. At present, many of our conclusions are based on models, not actual observations. And the barriers to life in the Venusian atmosphere are formidable: How could it cope with the difficulties of being airborne, along with the hyperacidity, extreme lack of water, and a possible lack of critical nutrients? So, important as this claim is, the year ends with no clear answer—just a hope for future investigations.

https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-pl...020-180976585/

[Noclevername]

At some stage, life requires its resources from the immediate environment it finds itself in. In the Venusian atmospheric case, that environment is highly toxic to all currently known life .. which leads to speculatation on life as we don't currently know it, or some other unknown (non-life) process producing trace atmospheric phosphine gas.

Earth life has surprised us in this regard before, showing up in places where we thought it couldn't possibly survive. Extremophiles, life that harvests energy in uncommon ways, we didn't know until we found them.

Let's go find out what's really there. Design and send probes that actually examine in detail the atmosphere at the level where phosphene was found. Until and unless that is done, ruling out life is just as uncalled for as insisting that there is life.