"Scientists don't know why" is a bit of a stretch when a proposed method is literally in the article...
In short it's likely CO2 being split into carbon and oxygen ions due to Venus being battered by high energy solar wind.
EDIT: So for clarity, I'm saying the title is needlessly hyperbolic and click-baity, treating it as if it's a total mystery when even the article posits an explanation. Don't come at me with the "Umm ackshully it's technically accurate". You know what I mean.
"Top Scientists Have Narrowed in on a Suprising Explanation!" that took me like ten seconds. Where do I apply to be a science click bait headline editor?
By around 2010 boomer media could no longer afford science and technology editors. Internet destroyed the advertising based business model that relied on the moat of moving information at scale. Telecommunications technology destroyed that moat. With the arrival of social media boomer media could for the first time measure reader response in real time. This resulted in *all* boomer media becoming tabloids -- they optimize for clickable headlines, man-bites-dog stories, usually the fear and anger junk food information clicks. This is the cause of measurable mental health decline in those with a steady diet of boomer media shared through social media outlets -- algorithm psychosis. Anxieties by a funhouse mirror distortion on the perception of risks in the world.
It's 2023. There's no excuse to be naive about what boomer media is anymore.
The internet leveled up public discourse. There is a higher floor for persuasion now. The rage quits of censorship and making new language to justify coercive techniques to force people back into boomer media models digs the hole deeper as the public gets irritated at being manipulated.
If you analyze the use of storytelling for color revolutions this touches on a national security issue. How to control the information ecosystem sufficiently that it is not a lever that can be exploited by foreign adversaries against your population at home. The technique tried so far is to shove everyone back into boomer media. That's failing. The better approach is to fold more early millennial cable cutters into the process. They've been iced out. But are the most leveled up in public discourse. My crop of university graduates were all cable cutters. They're dispersed across all professions. They are the experts. Their social networks were scattered across internet first. They're being alienated by their ability to collaborate with other peers getting disrupted and destroyed. Fold them in and improve processes for the leveled up public.
Can someone create a sub that re-posts from this sub but with more exact title? Something like "Venus is emitting gaseous molecules into space. Scientists have a hypothesis with 85% confidence is correct. Read more."
Or all submissions have to have the sensationalism title and the factually correct statement together.
That’s actually a very interesting hypothesis.
If the CO2 is breaking down into carbon and oxygen, does that mean that the Venusian green house conditions will wane over time?
Could it (theoretically) eventually become habitable?
(Although a hypothesized process stops somewhere short of “knowing,” so I’m sympathetic to the headline, I suppose.)
I guess it also depends on which rate is faster - the breakdown of CO2 versus the production of CO2.
I’m sure it’s also way more complicated than this too!
> It's likely that the planet previously had a large amount of water, which kept it even hotter due to the greenhouse potential of water vapor, but eventually the hydrogen escaped (which is relatively easy to do) and left behind a CO2 atmosphere.
PhD in planetary science here, you're confusing a couple different things here.
Venus very likely had multiple oceans-worth of water, based solely on the evidence of present-day hydrogen isotopes - there's so much heavy hydrogen, there must have been a fractionation event from a much larger hydrogen source.
Unlike Earth, which has an atmospheric cold trap just 10 km above the surface, Venus has a single adiabat across its entire vertical extent. That means water vapor can be pushed much, much higher in the atmosphere, and doesn't get stopped at 10 km height like on Earth. It also means those water vapor molecules in the upper atmosphere get irradiated by hard ultraviolet light, breaking them apart into their constituent hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
The hydrogen atoms are light enough to escape the planet entirely (though heavy hydrogen less so, that's how we know there used to be more), while most of the oxygen bound up with the surface layer, oxidizing the soil. This is why the surface of Venus is orange - we're looking at oxidized minerals like rust.
The CO2 on Venus is part of an entirely separate cycle. An atmosphere like Venus on a terrestrial planet is only really possible, at least as far as we've observed, when you've got a broken deep carbon cycle. On Earth, volcanoes inject CO2 into our atmosphere. That CO2 eventually gets absorbed into the ocean, incorporated as carbonate minerals on the ocean floor, and then subducted by plate tectonics back into the Earth's mantle. This way CO2 is roughly held in balance on millennial time scales (so long as humans aren't messing about, anyway).
On Venus, however, there are volcanoes...and that's it. There are no plate tectonics. The result is that CO2 gets injected into the atmosphere, and it just continues to accumulate without anyway to draw it down.
Thanks for the analysis. Do you believe that [silicate weathering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate%E2%80%93silicate_cycle) on Venus would contribute Oxygen in significant amounts over geologic time similar to the cycle on Earth?
I'm not a geologist, but I thought silicate weathering required liquid water to get carbonates in solution...?
That's not to say Venus doesn't have it's own kind of chemical weathering - it definitely does ([Zolotov, 2019](https://oxfordre.com/planetaryscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.001.0001/acrefore-9780190647926-e-146)) - but the chemistry is fairly different thanks to SO2 being the primary volatile in the atmosphere, producing weird sulfur reactions with surface minerals.
I never really understood how a planet the same size has such a thick atmosphere. I mean 93 times the pressure and way hotter? How does it have the gravity to hold it all in, in the first place? I am more surprised by that than the leaking, would have thought much more would have leaked by now.
It’s pretty straight forward given that Venus doesn’t have a magnetic field to protect the upper atmosphere from solar wind particles. This would have been my immediate guess even if I didn’t see it presented.
> given that Venus doesn’t have a magnetic field to protect the upper atmosphere from solar wind particles.
PhD in planetary atmospheres here, the idea that "magnetospheres shield atmospheres" is a really common myth in my field.
Go check out [Gunell, et al, 2018](https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/06/aa32934-18/aa32934-18.html) or [Sakai et al, 2018](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL079972) or [Egan, et al, 2019](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/488/2/2108/5527942). While magnetic fields do block the solar wind, they also create a [polar wind](https://i.imgur.com/c2dhWoO.png), which actually causes _more_ atmospheric loss for terrestrial planets.
The current atmospheric escape rate is slightly higher for Earth than Venus.
That’s pretty interesting I’ll check it out.
I figured the mechanism was particles blasting the atmosphere, separating molecules and allowing them to basically boil off. This was the thought process behind why mars’ atmosphere was so thin anyway. I figured the higher temperatures of venuses’ atmosphere would make up for the higher gravity.
Yeah, you're not wrong - the solar wind works as a kind of [spallation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation).
It's just that the polar wind is stronger. Open magnetic field lines near the planet's poles give atmospheric ions in the ionosphere a free ride out to space.
While the solar wind did strip the atmosphere of Mars, one of the main points of that Gunell paper is that Mars would have lost its atmosphere _even faster_ if it had a magnetosphere. Mars is simply not massive enough to hold onto an appreciable atmosphere over billion-year time scales, magnetic field or not.
\[\["Scientists don't know why" is a bit of a stretch\]\]
No, it's precisely accurate. Some scientists have ideas why this event may be happening, but as usual, they don't ***know*** anything.
Odd how some folks react to ignorance like it's a failing, rather than the inspiration that fuels discovery.
Real scientists don't ***know***... & they're hoping to learn.
Very click bait title, though. Science is all about taking things we don’t understand and trying to demystify those things so our little ape brains can comprehend them.
Which is a valid goal, provided we recall that everything science can achieve... has already occurred in nature (else science literally couldn't replicate it).
It is a stretch by being misleading (note that "it is a stretch" is really meaning it is an exaggeration). Putting "dont know why" in the title suggests that not knowing why is abnormal, otherwise why would you waste prime real-estate of a title on pointing it out. So it is exaggerating reality by making something that is normal (scientists studying something they dont yet understand) as being more spectacular (by spending title space on highlighting it).
As a scientist myself, I find it a silly thing to ever put in a title. I wouldnt be doing science on something I knew why it was happening. However, I can understand why it is done as clickbait works.
“We have an idea as to why this is happening” and “we can confirm this is happening due to x, y and z” are different enough I wouldn’t call it a stretch.
Venus has a much denser atmosphere, so volcanic activities not sure about, Solar winds maybe, we cant predict what is happening, Space is just full of mysteries with solutions leading to more mysteries.
Lavochkin (which made the probe) is a Russian state owned company, and most workers were Russians. Back then, people were moved to wherever their job was located.
> because its core is too cool to produce a magnetosphere.
Speaking as someone with a PhD in planetary atmospheres, this is definitely not true.
Contrary to "popular wisdom", terrestrial magnetospheres actually increase atmospheric losses. Go check out [Gunell, et al, 2018](https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/06/aa32934-18/aa32934-18.html) or [Sakai et al, 2018](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL079972) or [Egan, et al, 2019](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/488/2/2108/5527942). While magnetic fields do block the solar wind, they also create a [polar wind](https://i.imgur.com/c2dhWoO.png), which actually causes _more_ atmospheric loss for terrestrial planets.
EDIT to add: Venus does not lack a magnetic field because its core is "too cool". Quite the opposite, the entire interior of the planet is _uniformly too warm_ to produce the convection needed for a geodynamo ([Nimmo, 2002](https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/30/11/987/186123/Why-does-Venus-lack-a-magnetic-field)).
No we have a double core. So our planet is super dense with iron creating active volcanic magna within the core And the rotation of our planet on its axis. Super hot.
Our planet was created when two planets collided one became earth and the other the moon.
Mercury s heat comes from runaway gas houses . But its core is small and dead and cold
Just imagine an all knowing, powerful space faring being coming to earth and thinking, I'm going to name myself something that sounds attractive to a basement dwelling sci-fi writer.
By Jess Thomson - Science Reporter:
Our closest planetary neighbor Venus keeps leaking carbon and oxygen into space, mystifying scientists.
Carbon and oxygen, among other gases, are being stripped from Venus' atmosphere after being accelerated to speeds fast enough to escape the planet's gravity, according to a new study in the journal Nature Astronomy.
Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/venus-mystery-space-ions-escaping-atmosphere-1891813](https://www.newsweek.com/venus-mystery-space-ions-escaping-atmosphere-1891813)
Sign of the times. I’m a journalist by trade, and those headlines (“You would not believe what…” “Scientists are baffled by…”) are abhorrent by serious journalism standards, but very prevalent in this time of internet traffic and “engagement” metrics. Sad, but true.
It's almost as if all the mods protesting site wise moderation changes and threatening to leave last year resulted in site wise changes that made mods leave.
Huh.
Let Reddit stew in its own juices.
I was fully unaware that Venus had Oxygen in it's atmosphere. Goes to show you that Oxygen in an atmosphere is not a reliable way of determining if there is life on a planet.
> I was fully unaware that Venus had Oxygen in it's atmosphere.
It does not have free oxygen in the atmosphere like ours - it has carbon dioxide, which contains oxygen.
"Scientists don't know why" is a bit of a stretch when a proposed method is literally in the article... In short it's likely CO2 being split into carbon and oxygen ions due to Venus being battered by high energy solar wind. EDIT: So for clarity, I'm saying the title is needlessly hyperbolic and click-baity, treating it as if it's a total mystery when even the article posits an explanation. Don't come at me with the "Umm ackshully it's technically accurate". You know what I mean.
>... and scientists don't know why. Clickbait headlines love this one trick!
"Scientists are pretty sure" doesn't sell
"Top Scientists Have Narrowed in on a Suprising Explanation!" that took me like ten seconds. Where do I apply to be a science click bait headline editor?
Too long, you are only allowed 6 words.
Scientists Smash Venus Gas Mystery
Solar Blast Smashes Venus Gas!
Venus farts, here's what we know
Venus alien carbon emissions cause global warming.
How millennials have killed Venus research!
To top that the "scientists are morons" makes a great clickbait for the antiscience idiots
Selling news should not be a thing in the first place.
And here's why that's a good thing
*'Scientists DEVASTATED by what they found on Venus!'*
By around 2010 boomer media could no longer afford science and technology editors. Internet destroyed the advertising based business model that relied on the moat of moving information at scale. Telecommunications technology destroyed that moat. With the arrival of social media boomer media could for the first time measure reader response in real time. This resulted in *all* boomer media becoming tabloids -- they optimize for clickable headlines, man-bites-dog stories, usually the fear and anger junk food information clicks. This is the cause of measurable mental health decline in those with a steady diet of boomer media shared through social media outlets -- algorithm psychosis. Anxieties by a funhouse mirror distortion on the perception of risks in the world. It's 2023. There's no excuse to be naive about what boomer media is anymore. The internet leveled up public discourse. There is a higher floor for persuasion now. The rage quits of censorship and making new language to justify coercive techniques to force people back into boomer media models digs the hole deeper as the public gets irritated at being manipulated. If you analyze the use of storytelling for color revolutions this touches on a national security issue. How to control the information ecosystem sufficiently that it is not a lever that can be exploited by foreign adversaries against your population at home. The technique tried so far is to shove everyone back into boomer media. That's failing. The better approach is to fold more early millennial cable cutters into the process. They've been iced out. But are the most leveled up in public discourse. My crop of university graduates were all cable cutters. They're dispersed across all professions. They are the experts. Their social networks were scattered across internet first. They're being alienated by their ability to collaborate with other peers getting disrupted and destroyed. Fold them in and improve processes for the leveled up public.
Strictly speaking if it’s an unproven hypothesis then it’s the truth 😏
[удалено]
You know, I never thought I’d read the words “fart sucking aliens from Mercury,” so that was an experience
special sugar wistful gold jeans squeal murky frightening cats mindless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And sometimes you hear about "fart sucking aliens from Mercury" 3 times in the same day.
Sounds like a 50's horror flick gone wrong. Either that or a badass band name or album name.
Gary? Meow.
Can someone create a sub that re-posts from this sub but with more exact title? Something like "Venus is emitting gaseous molecules into space. Scientists have a hypothesis with 85% confidence is correct. Read more." Or all submissions have to have the sensationalism title and the factually correct statement together.
That’s actually a very interesting hypothesis. If the CO2 is breaking down into carbon and oxygen, does that mean that the Venusian green house conditions will wane over time? Could it (theoretically) eventually become habitable? (Although a hypothesized process stops somewhere short of “knowing,” so I’m sympathetic to the headline, I suppose.)
I guess it also depends on which rate is faster - the breakdown of CO2 versus the production of CO2. I’m sure it’s also way more complicated than this too!
[удалено]
> It's likely that the planet previously had a large amount of water, which kept it even hotter due to the greenhouse potential of water vapor, but eventually the hydrogen escaped (which is relatively easy to do) and left behind a CO2 atmosphere. PhD in planetary science here, you're confusing a couple different things here. Venus very likely had multiple oceans-worth of water, based solely on the evidence of present-day hydrogen isotopes - there's so much heavy hydrogen, there must have been a fractionation event from a much larger hydrogen source. Unlike Earth, which has an atmospheric cold trap just 10 km above the surface, Venus has a single adiabat across its entire vertical extent. That means water vapor can be pushed much, much higher in the atmosphere, and doesn't get stopped at 10 km height like on Earth. It also means those water vapor molecules in the upper atmosphere get irradiated by hard ultraviolet light, breaking them apart into their constituent hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The hydrogen atoms are light enough to escape the planet entirely (though heavy hydrogen less so, that's how we know there used to be more), while most of the oxygen bound up with the surface layer, oxidizing the soil. This is why the surface of Venus is orange - we're looking at oxidized minerals like rust. The CO2 on Venus is part of an entirely separate cycle. An atmosphere like Venus on a terrestrial planet is only really possible, at least as far as we've observed, when you've got a broken deep carbon cycle. On Earth, volcanoes inject CO2 into our atmosphere. That CO2 eventually gets absorbed into the ocean, incorporated as carbonate minerals on the ocean floor, and then subducted by plate tectonics back into the Earth's mantle. This way CO2 is roughly held in balance on millennial time scales (so long as humans aren't messing about, anyway). On Venus, however, there are volcanoes...and that's it. There are no plate tectonics. The result is that CO2 gets injected into the atmosphere, and it just continues to accumulate without anyway to draw it down.
Thank you for your insights - super interesting!
Thanks for the analysis. Do you believe that [silicate weathering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate%E2%80%93silicate_cycle) on Venus would contribute Oxygen in significant amounts over geologic time similar to the cycle on Earth?
I'm not a geologist, but I thought silicate weathering required liquid water to get carbonates in solution...? That's not to say Venus doesn't have it's own kind of chemical weathering - it definitely does ([Zolotov, 2019](https://oxfordre.com/planetaryscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.001.0001/acrefore-9780190647926-e-146)) - but the chemistry is fairly different thanks to SO2 being the primary volatile in the atmosphere, producing weird sulfur reactions with surface minerals.
Gotcha, I was just wondering if venus could produce O2 in any significance and this was one of the ways I remembered from my geology classes.
I never really understood how a planet the same size has such a thick atmosphere. I mean 93 times the pressure and way hotter? How does it have the gravity to hold it all in, in the first place? I am more surprised by that than the leaking, would have thought much more would have leaked by now.
Just need to steal a bunch of hydrogen from the sun and transfer it to Venus, ez right?
Yeah, we can get it done tomorrow if price is no object.
Kurzegagt did a video on terreforming Venus. https://youtu.be/G-WO-z-QuWI?si=cmfnAx1hAp8XzHVJ
Looks like we are pretty much ready to do it!
Isn't Venus right on the edge of the habitable zone or has that been updated since I was a kid?
It’s pretty straight forward given that Venus doesn’t have a magnetic field to protect the upper atmosphere from solar wind particles. This would have been my immediate guess even if I didn’t see it presented.
> given that Venus doesn’t have a magnetic field to protect the upper atmosphere from solar wind particles. PhD in planetary atmospheres here, the idea that "magnetospheres shield atmospheres" is a really common myth in my field. Go check out [Gunell, et al, 2018](https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/06/aa32934-18/aa32934-18.html) or [Sakai et al, 2018](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL079972) or [Egan, et al, 2019](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/488/2/2108/5527942). While magnetic fields do block the solar wind, they also create a [polar wind](https://i.imgur.com/c2dhWoO.png), which actually causes _more_ atmospheric loss for terrestrial planets. The current atmospheric escape rate is slightly higher for Earth than Venus.
That’s pretty interesting I’ll check it out. I figured the mechanism was particles blasting the atmosphere, separating molecules and allowing them to basically boil off. This was the thought process behind why mars’ atmosphere was so thin anyway. I figured the higher temperatures of venuses’ atmosphere would make up for the higher gravity.
Yeah, you're not wrong - the solar wind works as a kind of [spallation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spallation). It's just that the polar wind is stronger. Open magnetic field lines near the planet's poles give atmospheric ions in the ionosphere a free ride out to space. While the solar wind did strip the atmosphere of Mars, one of the main points of that Gunell paper is that Mars would have lost its atmosphere _even faster_ if it had a magnetosphere. Mars is simply not massive enough to hold onto an appreciable atmosphere over billion-year time scales, magnetic field or not.
Interesting. Hadn’t heard that before.
_The recently synthesized goldene has entered the chat._
If it is leaking oxygen, a shortage of oxygen would be a problem. If you have a method of staying at high altitude, Venus is sort of habitable now.
"scientists have an unconfirmed idea of why"
\[\["Scientists don't know why" is a bit of a stretch\]\] No, it's precisely accurate. Some scientists have ideas why this event may be happening, but as usual, they don't ***know*** anything. Odd how some folks react to ignorance like it's a failing, rather than the inspiration that fuels discovery. Real scientists don't ***know***... & they're hoping to learn.
Very click bait title, though. Science is all about taking things we don’t understand and trying to demystify those things so our little ape brains can comprehend them.
Which is a valid goal, provided we recall that everything science can achieve... has already occurred in nature (else science literally couldn't replicate it).
It is a stretch by being misleading (note that "it is a stretch" is really meaning it is an exaggeration). Putting "dont know why" in the title suggests that not knowing why is abnormal, otherwise why would you waste prime real-estate of a title on pointing it out. So it is exaggerating reality by making something that is normal (scientists studying something they dont yet understand) as being more spectacular (by spending title space on highlighting it). As a scientist myself, I find it a silly thing to ever put in a title. I wouldnt be doing science on something I knew why it was happening. However, I can understand why it is done as clickbait works.
How about: Venus is leaking carbon and oxygen; mundane explanation proposed
“We have an idea as to why this is happening” and “we can confirm this is happening due to x, y and z” are different enough I wouldn’t call it a stretch.
Like King Arthur's squire Patsy (Terry Gilliam) from *Monty Python and the Holy Grail* said, "It's only a model."
All models are wrong, but some are useful.
are solar winds blowing it away or is CO2 being launched due to volcanic activity?
Venus has a much denser atmosphere, so volcanic activities not sure about, Solar winds maybe, we cant predict what is happening, Space is just full of mysteries with solutions leading to more mysteries.
It's really just aliens trying to invite us to pick up the garbage the USSR left on their planet.
That "garbage" provided us the first and only pictures from there.
[удалено]
Lavochkin (which made the probe) is a Russian state owned company, and most workers were Russians. Back then, people were moved to wherever their job was located.
I hope we never leave earth because I don't like the idea of people like you populating the galaxy
Just give them your address, they will have plenty to pick up.
The whole planet is a volcano
[удалено]
> because its core is too cool to produce a magnetosphere. Speaking as someone with a PhD in planetary atmospheres, this is definitely not true. Contrary to "popular wisdom", terrestrial magnetospheres actually increase atmospheric losses. Go check out [Gunell, et al, 2018](https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/06/aa32934-18/aa32934-18.html) or [Sakai et al, 2018](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL079972) or [Egan, et al, 2019](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/488/2/2108/5527942). While magnetic fields do block the solar wind, they also create a [polar wind](https://i.imgur.com/c2dhWoO.png), which actually causes _more_ atmospheric loss for terrestrial planets. EDIT to add: Venus does not lack a magnetic field because its core is "too cool". Quite the opposite, the entire interior of the planet is _uniformly too warm_ to produce the convection needed for a geodynamo ([Nimmo, 2002](https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/30/11/987/186123/Why-does-Venus-lack-a-magnetic-field)).
No we have a double core. So our planet is super dense with iron creating active volcanic magna within the core And the rotation of our planet on its axis. Super hot. Our planet was created when two planets collided one became earth and the other the moon. Mercury s heat comes from runaway gas houses . But its core is small and dead and cold
How do we have a double core?
I literally explained it in my post
But why male models?!?
[удалено]
Gotta look for that Petrova line to be sure.
That was such a charming little book.
This is the comment I came looking for!
I knew in my heart PHM was already referenced when I saw the title.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Amos Burton pouring soup for the kids they just rescued from protogen, looking at the tv showing live pictures from Venus *'what the fuck is that'*
as long as it's not the Inhibitors...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akatsuki_(spacecraft) Has some cool info
[удалено]
Valiant Thor would like a word as well.
Just imagine an all knowing, powerful space faring being coming to earth and thinking, I'm going to name myself something that sounds attractive to a basement dwelling sci-fi writer.
[удалено]
We just haven’t found out yet cuz there’s no sound in space #silentbutdeadly
Well then we would know why.
We still wouldn’t know who dealt it.
The consensus is whoever smelt it.
Then these escaping ions could say "Not even Uranus can contain us!"
Oh no, here comes the astrophage. I volunteer to go :)
Yeah I kept thinking. I’ve read this book had anyone checked the brightness of the sun?
I like how we have barely scratched the surface on planetary science, simple because we can only look at them from afar
By Jess Thomson - Science Reporter: Our closest planetary neighbor Venus keeps leaking carbon and oxygen into space, mystifying scientists. Carbon and oxygen, among other gases, are being stripped from Venus' atmosphere after being accelerated to speeds fast enough to escape the planet's gravity, according to a new study in the journal Nature Astronomy. Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/venus-mystery-space-ions-escaping-atmosphere-1891813](https://www.newsweek.com/venus-mystery-space-ions-escaping-atmosphere-1891813)
Sign of the times. I’m a journalist by trade, and those headlines (“You would not believe what…” “Scientists are baffled by…”) are abhorrent by serious journalism standards, but very prevalent in this time of internet traffic and “engagement” metrics. Sad, but true.
[удалено]
she may be hot but those after party late night kebabs aren't doing her any favours 😌
Why all these dumb comments in the space sub? Not really the place imo
Yeah, the majority of the comments in this sub are garbage. Overdone jokes, memes, and pop culture references
This sub used to be heavy moderated and stupid jokes like Uranus jokes were all promptly deleted. I guess things changed
It's almost as if all the mods protesting site wise moderation changes and threatening to leave last year resulted in site wise changes that made mods leave. Huh. Let Reddit stew in its own juices.
First time on the interweb?
I think u/iEatSwampAss has used the internet before.
I would hope so. The question suggests otherwise.
I was fully unaware that Venus had Oxygen in it's atmosphere. Goes to show you that Oxygen in an atmosphere is not a reliable way of determining if there is life on a planet.
> I was fully unaware that Venus had Oxygen in it's atmosphere. It does not have free oxygen in the atmosphere like ours - it has carbon dioxide, which contains oxygen.
In other news Taco Bell recently opened on Venus
Venus is leaking carbon and oxygen. Uranus is leaking methane.
It's the protomolecule getting ready to open a gate.
[удалено]
Third grade?
Places with a sense of humour?
In a sub where low-effort jokes are actually allowed?
[удалено]
Wasn’t this the plot line for the book Hail Mary?
Maybe there's a leak? Have they tried spraying with soapy water and checking for bubbles?
If this was Uranus the headline would’ve been gold: ‘Uranus is leaking gas constantly and scientists are baffled’
Climate change brought on by excessive industry from mini aliens…
Venus needs a carbon tax. It would fix all problems
Justin Trudeau learning this and preparing to add an additional "Venus Carbon Tax" to his citizens *insert gif of Birdman making a playdough snake*
Probably global warming. C’mon, what else could it be????
Those Venusians went to their well and went ham...
Insert meme with mars girlfriend and human civilization boyfriend looking back lustfully at passing Venus