Talk:Biosphere/Archive 1

Paragraph structure
What is this, "Cliffs Notes". What happened to writing in paragraphs? - Marshman 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to be difficult here, but the following seems more appropriate for Oceanography or the like and at best remotely pertinent here (which is sort of why we have hyperlinks):

Ocean and atmosphere connections
Oceanography is intimately linked to understanding global warming and other global environmental concerns.

''Our planet is invested with two great oceans; one visible, the other also visible; one underfoot, the other overhead; one entirely envelopes it, the other covers about two thirds of its surface.''
 * Matthew F. Maury (1855) The Physical Geography of the Seas and Its Meteorology.

Also see: Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research

I moved it back here. Also, is that a quote (Maury, 1855) ?- Marshman 22:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wilderness - Article Improvement Drive
Wikipedians watching this page may be interested to vote for Wilderness in the Article Improvement Drive. Kind regards, Jtneill - Talk 03:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

BIOS-3
Why was BIOS-3 numbered 3? Did the Soviets really fail to talk about it at all? I would have thought they would have been talking about it a lot since it appears to have been relatively successful. Or did the creators of BIOS-2 just not notice BIOS-3 when naming BIOS-2? Nil Einne 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Super-Dave
I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure the biosphere wasn't discovered by Super-Dave, or perhaps if indeed he did discover the biosphere, he's worthy of an article of his own? I'm going to assume that the first line of this article is vandalism... Sk8a H8a 00:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bebs
Okay, I see where everyone in this project was going, but did they seriously think that it was going to work? Eventually, you will run out of oxygen, so it was a waste of millions of dollars.

Oh, come on. Did you not actually read the article? why do you think that they had the algea? it takes their CO2 and turns it into oxygen, and we turn the oxygen into C02, see the article on Photosynthesis. 64.39.149.198 00:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Biosphere 1, 2, 3, and J
Um, why does this section start talking about biomes, when it really has nothing to do with biospheres 1, 2, 3, or J? I think that it needs a new section on biomes, but I don't have time to do it myself... ROBO 64.39.149.198 00:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hyperbaric Biosphere
I have removed content related to the Hyperbaric Biosphere project. It is unbalanced considering the summary treatment of other, more notable, Biosphere projects. If it can meet notability criteria, Hyperbaric Biosphere should be a stand-alone article. If notable, it deserves no more than one-sentence in this article. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it a couple of times, seems an/several anons want it there but don't want to discuss. Vsmith (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Edited accordingly, per User:Paleorthid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.130.171 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, we're making progress. How about the main point of Paleorthid's suggestion - create an independent article if it is notable? Meanwhile, I've cut the proposed expansion bit and the spam link it included as a reference. Also removed the Dr. as we don't include such titles in Wikipedia articles. Now, how about some reliable sources to show notability - as this is a scientific concept, we'll need peer reviewed material covering the research. The link to a creationist promo/sales site just won't work here. Vsmith (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad link ?
The following link is in the "Biosphere 1, 2, 3, and J" section:

"Biosphere 3 (aka BIOS-3) - Experiment to be conducted starting Jan 2008 in the Gary C. Comer Geochemistry building at Columbia University's Lamont Campus in Palisades, New York."

However, when I follow the link, the article says:

"BIOS-3 was a closed ecosystem at the Institute of Biophysics in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia, in what was then the Soviet Union."

Which is correct ? StuRat (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've concluded that the description in the link is wrong and have changed it to match the article to which it points. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Biosphere J?
I can't find definitive information on this one anywhere. If it can't be cited, it needs to go. --profg 06:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was an experiment in Japan, and internet information is very hard to find on it, but it is real.. There are sure to be published citations about it somewhere.
 * "Japanese team led by Kenjii Nitta developing Biosphere J" from History of Biospheres
 * Paywalled reference found by searching on "Biosphere-J Nitta": doi:10.1016/j.asr.2005.03.100 (note Keiji vs Kenjii spelling variations) --Paleorthid (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The information of a system named as "Biosphere J" is very rare because the system is usually called with other name. See "Dynamic Simulation of Pressure Control System for the Closed Ecology Experiment Facility" which is a report by NITTA Keiji et al(1998).  And the system(in Japanese, in English but not same as Japanese version) at Aomori Prefecture.  (Institute for Environmental Sciences) --Janus01 (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope of Introduction
I rewrote the intro, since as a non-specialist I found the last version confusing. I suggest it could use some broad descriptions, such as approximations of the biosphere's extent and total mass, to be elaborated in the appropriate sections. Maybe a simple explanation of how it's used in the various disciplines, if that's possible. I thought the rest was a little too specific for the intro, although the evolutionary history of the biosphere would make a good section in itself. Yellowdesk60 (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Restored previous version with reference. Please don't remove named references, at least not without fixing other refs that depend on it.
 * The article could be expanded, but the intro seems OK to me. Perhaps a biologist should weigh in here. Vsmith (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the ref problem, I'm new at this. My concerns: jargon, ambiguity, and controversial material. e.g. ecosystem is specialized, and could be replaced with 'life.' 'Sum' and 'zone' leave open what kinds of measurement are meant: total mass in kg, 3-D shape of the zone of life, geographic area? I focused on who uses the term (geoscientists and ecologists), and how. There seem to be at least two valid uses, and this wasn't clear. There's some controversy about considering all of life as a system (Gaia and bio/geophysiology), and the evolution sentence is ambiguous there. Without clarifying if the biosphere evolves as a single entity, this sentence just says that life has evolved for ~3.5by, and started at the beginning. It will still need expansion, especially to make explicit the different senses in different disciplines. Yellowdesk60 (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Something perhaps to add to "Specific biospheres" section
Theoretically, planets in other star systems light-years away have biospheres of their own. In fact, they must, as it is statistically impossible for us to be alone in the Universe.

Even within this star system, the extinct Martian Biosphere was a biosphere that existed alongside the Earthling Biosphere. Sadly, the Martian Biosphere became extinct before the Earthling Biosphere entered its Phanerozoic Eon (current eon). The long-extinct Martian Biosphere never evolved beyond unicellular life. Even so, we know it existed, however, due to fossils found through microscopic analysis of Martian rocks.

There may even be a surviving unicellular biosphere sharing a star system with our own, on Jupiter's moon Europa. (Interestingly, "Europa" is the Ancient Greek word for "World," so it would be all the more fitting if indeed this moon turns out to be an inhabited world.) Though covered in ice, Europa is believed to be a volcanically active moon, and it may have geothermal vents to bring up warmth and nutrients on which unicellular life could survive or even thrive.

While Earth almost certainly has the only biosphere with multicellular organisms in this star system, statistics dictate that there must be other biospheres in the Universe with multicellular life. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Biospherics
On the page John P. Allen, we are told that Allen is a proponent of the science of biospherics, which redirects to this article. But there is no paragraph here describing what biospherics is. However, the term biospheric science does appear to exist  -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There used to be a paragraph mentioning biospherics, but it was deleted long ago in an act of vandalism. I've restored it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Bias
I find that this article is incredibly biased towards the theory of evolution and the "old earth" theory. Thus breaking rules of attempting to write "unbiased" articles. Just sayin'. 99.170.102.174 (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Content is based on verifiable information determined by what the preponderance of reliable sources say. In this case, the sources make abundantly clear that the scientific consensus is overwhelming—nearly unanimous, in fact. You are, of course, free to propose specific changes that adhere to the core content policies. Rivertorch (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Link to Ecosphere and Gaia
Links to the Ecosphere and Gaia Hypothesis pages is missing in the "See also" section, and any mention of the Gaia Hypothesis is entirely missing from the piece.

The Canadian ecologist Stan Rowe who created or at least developed the concept of ecosphere has significant discussion of the limitations of the biosphere concept due to the focus on "organisms and their surrounds ... often said to comprise a communal fourth sphere ... biosphere--a term apt to mislead by suggesting the preeminence of organisms" []. In this and other writings Rowe sees the inclusion by ecosphere of both the biological and physical elements, mentioned on this page in passing reference, as having significant implications.

(Further down in that same piece Rowe writes, 'Glimmerings of ecological comprehension suggest that the fragments studied in physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, theology, and the other disciplines are indeed parts, that evolutionarily and functionally what have been named atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and all the associated protoplasmic bundles that "biosphere" comprises have no separate reality except as wrong ideas implanted by a crude culture in infantile heads. Humanity has used its consciousness to think the world to pieces.' Whew!)

Also missing from the cross references here is the Gaia Hypothesis, which was developed through the collaboration of James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis. Lovelock and Magulis, neither of whom "was aware of Vernadsky's work[,]... retraced his steps" in their Gaia Theory, with references only appearing in the decade after their original publication (Lovelock quoted in Grinevald's introduction to the 1997 translation of The Biosphere, p 34). Margulis wrote, "Whereas Vernadsky's work emphasized life as a geological force, Lovelock has shown that Earth has a physiology: the temperature, alkalinity, acidity, and reactive gases are modulated by life" (Margulis in Preface, Ibid., p. 16). Margulis furthermore was involved in the 1997 translation and was the lead author of the preface, and she also has discussion of the development of the biosphere concept in her own books (which is where, being an anthropologist, I only first learned about it). Curiously, the Gaia Wikipedia entry, though it uses the term biosphere in its definition, doesn't hyperlink it to this page or give indication of the precedence of Vernadsky's development of the concept and only subsequent addition to the Gaia Hypothesis. It seems surprising that this original source, with its preface, introduction and vast text notes, was not used here in this entry (I won't reduplicate the full reference found in the Vernadsky entry).

In the future, if somebody doesn't get to it first, I'll work on further developing the Ecosphere page, which only supplies the most minimal information as of yet, and then work on cross referencing this page with Ecosphere and Gaia pages. Stephen Mikesell 22:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singing Coyote (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipediaes,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Biosphere. 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/20080623204421/http://www.eoearth.org:80/article/Biosphere to http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biosphere
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709103140/http://www.sage.wisc.edu/atlas/ to http://www.sage.wisc.edu/atlas/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation
Only issues with citation I noticed was where it says, "it is likely that the limit of life in the 'deep biosphere' is defined by temperature rather than absolute depth" and the final three sentences of the "Extent of Earth's Biosphere" section. The comparison of the amount of mass from bacterial carbon and the supposed mass of the United Kingdom I feel is awkward and out of place. Regarding any potential bias in this article, it appears that nearly all the citations are to science journals about the topic, so information from those sources is good. The rest of the citations are for a few media outlets like New York Times and BBC, which could potentially have a small bias towards any topic but the article does a good job of including that those statements are made by the respective media source.ODonsky (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Image gallery
I moved the gallery of images into a new subsection of Earth's biosphere. It was too intrusive coming before the definition of Biosphere. Ideally, some text should be added. Also, a single caption for all the images isn't adequate. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

New paper about the biosphere (PNAS)
The biomass distribution on Earth maybe it's time to update the article? --RaphaelQS (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Untitled
Uhm. I'm not genius at ecology, but I do believe that someone has seriously messed with this page. I just cleaned out a silly face and an explicit irrelevant sentence, but I believe the quote for Suess's definition has definitely been messed around with. - GML

It says a biosphere is part of a planet's terrestrial structure. Isn't that to assume that only a planet "Earth-like" can hold life? -Adrian

It said nothing about size!!!! the dick it good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.79.41 (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing subsection about affects to the biosphere by humans
see e.g. https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/scientists-have-found-half-of-the-worlds-trees-have-disappeared-thanks-to-humans/news-story/c2b929856d59d0f97cb41236fec91953 which has https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30991125 as source--So9q (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DemiT22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)