# Talk:Future of Earth

When will the sun explode 120.21.138.176 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If you mean as a type II supernova, the Sun has insufficient mass. Praemonitus (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@LesbianTiamat: rewrote part of the initial paragraph from:

An uncertain factor is the continuous influence of technology introduced by humans, such as climate engineering, which could cause significant changes to the planet. The current Holocene extinction is being caused by technology and the effects may last for up to five million years. In turn, technology may result in the extinction of humanity, leaving the planet to gradually return to a slower evolutionary pace resulting solely from long-term natural processes.
to:

A major factor is the continuous impact of humans on the environment, which is causing significant changes to the planet. The current Holocene extinction is being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the effects may last for up to five million years. In turn, human impact on the environment may result in the extinction of humanity, leaving the planet to gradually return to a slower evolutionary pace resulting solely from long-term natural processes.
I found this unacceptable because it appears to focus only upon a single issue. The current Holocene extinction is being caused by more than just greenhouse gas emissions; it's induced by technological changes. The 'Human influence' section instead demonstrates multiple potential long-term technological threats potentially causing massive changes, and these need to be summarized. The topic is the future of Earth, not the future of humanity. Hence I reverted. Praemonitus (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Jan 31, 2023, 16:06 - «Unexplained tagging of a peer-reviewed journal article as "unreliable". Please explain on the talk page. Undid revision 1136670457 by Alexander Davronov talk)»

@Praemonitus: The source (i.e. ) is not a "journal", is quite old, WP:PRIMARY, and I would say, mostly a speculative one. The latter is the reason I put the tag. Please see WP:DETAG. Best.
@Alexander Davronov: At least on Wikipedia, the International Journal of Astrobiology is listed as a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[1] Many opinions about the future are speculative, and the age of the article (2013) is in line with the other sources. If you have a particular issue with the information being sourced, I would suggest finding a reliable source that can supersede it. Praemonitus (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Praemonitus: Source and journal are not the same thing. Journal's reputation has little to do with the article's quality. The correlation is only significant when the journal is obviously a trashy one. The said source draws conclusions based on a latitude-based climate model. If there are reviews on that it would be best if authors of this wiki page provide it. Otherwise see WP:BURDEN. If judgements are speculative this should be specified. Right now it looks like it's 100% definite future of the earth meanwhile I'm sure things may happen differently on this time scale. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Alexander Davronov: Okay, well I'm not really sure what you're trying to say there. But I'm not persuaded that the specific source is somehow unsuitable for a speculative article of this nature. WP:NOTRS is intended for: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion." This source doesn't meet the criteria. Also, please see WP:DRIVEBYTAG. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
This is a not a problem of WP:VERIFIABILITY; What I'm trying to say is that "let's we don't pretend what is a described by the source is a real Earth's future". Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
To me what you're now suggesting is a type of personal WP:OR. You may want to take up your dispute with the authors of the paper. We're not here to settle academic disputes. For now the paper satisfies the criteria for use in Wikipedia. Praemonitus (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
We're not here to settle academic disputes Sure. All this WP:CRYSTALBALLing (i.e. 3 provision) should be either dropped or source upgraded. If not, I suggest to specify that source's judgements are drawn upon a single study so reader is aware. That's it. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL provision 3 is specifically directed at original research, while this article is based on reliable, published sources that already cover the topic. Hence, the answer is no. The sources are listed and are available for the reader to view and assess. I can't really say this conversation has been particularly constructive in terms of improving this article, so it may be time to focus elsewhere. Praemonitus (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I propose to add words like one study speculated/found that the life on earth ... next to the paragraphs where  source is used (e.g. intro). --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If your concern is specifically with that paragraph in the lead, then other sources apply. Not everything in the lead needs to be cited, per MOS:LEADCITE. That citation is only there for the final statement, but others may also suffice. See the "Climate impact" section. I remain unconvinced that the subject citation needs to be singled out for special treatment. Praemonitus (talk)

The Red giant stage section includes the following:

The drag from the solar atmosphere may cause the orbit of the Moon to decay. Once the orbit of the Moon closes to a distance of 18,470 km (11,480 mi), it will cross Earth's Roche limit, meaning that tidal interaction with Earth would break apart the Moon, turning it into a ring system. Most of the orbiting rings will begin to decay, and the debris will impact Earth. Hence, even if the Sun does not swallow up Earth, the planet may be left moonless.
This is followed by this statement in the Beyond and ultimate fate section:

Currently, the Moon is moving away from Earth at a rate of 4 cm (1.6 inches) per year. In 50 billion years, if the Earth and Moon are not engulfed by the Sun, they will become tidelocked into a larger, stable orbit, with each showing only one face to the other. Thereafter, the tidal action of the Sun will extract angular momentum from the system, causing the orbit of the Moon to decay and the Earth's rotation to accelerate. In about 65 billion years, it is estimated that the Moon may end up colliding with the Earth, due to the remaining energy of the Earth–Moon system being sapped by the remnant Sun, causing the Moon to slowly move inwards toward the Earth.
The two are contradictory, and the second assumes there is no change in the Earth-Moon system due to the expanded Sun. How do we reconcile them? Certainly the ring system scenario is more plausible than a gradual collision. Praemonitus (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I've seen a recent study that has been cited by some science blogs that the timeline for plant life could be extended until the temperature becomes too hot for photosynthesis. Is this notable or credible in any way and deserving of a mention in the article?
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.10714
@ DownwardSpiral1000 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think once it has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal (like Planetary Science Journal), it can be considered credible. An arXiv article by itself isn't peer reviewed. Praemonitus (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Here's a published copy - sorry
https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ad7856 DownwardSpiral1000 (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)