Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Future of the Earth/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:43, 30 August 2011.

Future of the Earth

 * Nominator(s): RJH (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the predicted future of the Earth, based on current scientific extrapolation. It disregards the possibility of large scale human intervention—the likelihood and effect of which is difficult to predict, or the impact of random mega-disasters. The latter is already covered by Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. It is presented as something of a survey of future trends, rather than presenting everything in great detail.

I am nominating this for featured article because it has already made its way through a pair of review processes (PR & GA) and I feel that it should satisfy the FA criteria. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for journals
 * I removed the one instance I saw.
 * FN 7: publisher?
 * Added.
 * Be consistent in how you notate authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In...")
 * I've modified the templates to use the multi-author and multi-editor fields. They should now be as consistent as the templates will make them.
 * Be consistent in how "et al" is notated
 * This should be fixed per the above.
 * Compare FNs 8 and 11
 * Fixed the spacing of initials. Not sure what else you mean.
 * USA or U.S.A.?
 * Fixed.
 * What is CRC?
 * It's an abbreviation for Chemical Rubber Company, or CRC Press as it is now called. CRC is part of the book title.
 * FN 25: check pagination
 * That's the format of the page numbering: 42–1, 42–2, and so forth. Not sure of a better way to indicate that.
 * Nitpicking, but be consistent in whether initials are spaced (ex. "E. F.") or unspaced (ex. "J.F.")
 * I took care of this.
 * FN 38: page(s)?
 * Added.
 * FN 40: formatting doesn't match other book sources
 * I moved it down to the Bibliography.
 * FN 49: can we omit the underscores here?
 * Looks like sfn works without underscores now, so I removed them.
 * Watch for small formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I caught the last of those by converting to 'citation' templates. Actually I had to switch back to 'cite book' because the sfn template doesn't work with citation. So there is one instance in the Bibliography section that is caused by a template quirk.
 * Thank you for checking the article. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't want to be the one who pours cold water on this project, but I am worried about two things in the nom statement. First: "The article has been left to germinate for a year and a half since the GA", and then the request for "feedback on how this article can be further improved". These do not give me confidence that any serious attempt has yet been made to match the article with the specific FA criteria. FAC nominators should be reasonably sure that their work meets these criteria before bringing it here; this is not a place for article preparation. On the basis of the nomination statement, and the fact that the last peer review was nearly two years ago, it looks to me as though the nomination is premature. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It was not my intention to express the belief that the article is not ready for FAC. Rather, it had more to do with the fact that this is something of an open-ended topic that will be subject to change as new understanding is achieved and new ideas presented. I modified my statement accordingly. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion the article is too small. There are many other things you can write in it. What about the possibility of colliding the Earth with another astronomical object? Section "Human influence" can be extended, there is no separate section about the future of Earth's atmosphere. I heared that it will disappear in 5 billon year, and perhaps it is the closest catastrophe we expected. --Heller2007 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated above, random, unpredictable risks to humanity and the planet are covered by Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. What would you suggest I add about the future impact of humanity that doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL and isn't covered by Conservation biology, Global warming and Human impact on the environment? As for the topic of the loss of the Earth's atmosphere and the eventual fate of the planet, these are covered. Both are determined by the changes in the Sun, so they are discussed in the Solar evolution section. RJH (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you say that this article should not contain the information about unpredictable risks, the article title do not precisely identify the subject. I think you'll agree that such risks is the part of the future of our planet. So, you should clarify the title or write a few words about such risks in article. As for "Human influence", I just suggest to expand this section, insert more statistic information, for example. --Heller2007 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I'll see if I can add a short summary section on unpredictable risks that have a long-term, global impact on the planet. As for human influence, it is unclear to me exactly what you are looking for here. A pro-environmentalism message would be PoV pushing, and it also seems too short term a perspective for this article. I take the view that, if humans go extinct during this century, most likely by 65 million years from now it will be as though we never existed. (See Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event for example.) I'll see if I can find something about the expected time for the planet to recover after we're gone. Any other outcome is too unpredictable. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a paragraph on known but unpredictable risks to humanity. RJH (talk)
 * An alien invasion by an extraterrestrial life form is not a real scenario for known risks that can have a global impact on the planet. It's more concerned with science fiction and not conserned with the natural world. Conversely, there are some theories that claim that it is impossible to reach from one habitable planet to another in space. It is better to remove this information from the article in my opinion. --Heller2007 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you find that objectionable, but not nanotechnology, genetically engineered diseases, an artificial superintelligence or, for that matter, colliding planets? Sorry, the answer is and should be no. First, it is covered by the citation. Second, notable public figures have commented on the possibility, including Stephen Hawking. Thirdly, your statement about it being impossible to reach another planet in space is false. See interstellar travel.


 * I've attempted to address your concerns. if you want me to take them further, then I would appreciate something more specific. Thank you for your remarks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, it's a really good and interesting article, you have done a great job, thank you for that. I'm just trying to fix some problems that prevent article from becoming a featured. As for alien invasion, it's really hard to believe for that simple reason that the travel time of such an interstellar travel is greater than a lifetime of tipical civilizations. But maybe you are right, it is covered by the citation so it has a right to exist. Nanotechnology, genetically engineering and so on are really working. But there is no any convincing evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial life forms, this is the difference. --Heller2007 (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Heller2007. I agree about the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life forms; at this point it's just a form of scientific extrapolation. But this is also true of much of the remainder of the article. As for the travel time problem, well there are conjectures about technology like von Neumann probes that could persist long after the originating civilization ends. In essence, the message is just that there's no way to really predict with absolute certainty what may happen if humans stick around. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments. I do not really like the lead. It simply does not summarize the article well. I think it should be rewritten. A number of more specific problems:
 * I've overhauled much of the lead, but will try to do more as points suggest themselves.
 *  loss of heat energy from the Earth's core It is not scientific. In addition, the heat flux from the core is only 1/7 of the total, not very significant (and the article's text says nothing about the core). A better way to communicate this idea is: "cooling of the Earth's interior".
 * Okay, I changed the wording.
 *  biochemistry at the Earth's surface I would say "chemistry".
 * Fixed.
 * Milankovitch theory predicts that the planet will continue to undergo glaciation cycles It should be mentioned that glaciation cycles will continue only for a few million years (not forever as this sentence implies), until Antarctica moves away from the pole.
 * While I can confirm that ice ages may occur when there is sufficient continental surface area located at the poles, I'm having trouble avoiding WP:SYNTH in trying to demonstrate this specific assertion. RJH (talk)
 * I modified the text to indicate that the glacial periods will continue until the quaternary glaciation comes to an end. RJH (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One billion to three billion years in the future, the steady increase in solar radiation caused by the helium build-up at the core of the Sun will result in the loss of the oceans and the cessation of continental drift. At the first glance, the solar radiation has nothing to do with continental drift. I know that it is due to loss of water, but a clarification is necessary.
 * I indicated that the presumed end of continental drift is caused by the loss of the oceans.
 * Outside the lead I found the following problems:
 * By the time the Sun begins to grow as a red giant, the orbit of the Moon will have expanded several days I do not understand what it means? Probably several times?
 * I decided to remove this sentence because I couldn't find a better source. The loss of the Earth's oceans might have some impact on the lunar tidal acceleration, but I haven't seen a source that treats that issue either. Best just to leave it out, I think. RJH (talk)
 * Other effects that can dissipate the Earth's rotational energy are friction between the core and mantle, tides in the atmosphere, convection in the mantle, and climate changes that can increase or decrease the ice load at the poles. The rotation of Earth is being slowed by Lunar and Solar tides only. The rotational energy is dissipated by friction including those between the core and mantle, the atmosphere and solid Earth. Convection in the mantle and pole ices can cause only minor short-term variations in the rotation rate. This sentence mixes friction mechanisms (calling them wrongly "other effects" that slow down the rotation) and real effects that cause minor variations of the rotational rate.
 * I modified the sentence to only cover friction effects. RJH (talk)
 * There is one glaring omission in the article: the fate of the liquid core. Will it freeze sooner or later? How this will influence magnetic field generation, dynamical properties of Earth? Will this lead to changes in the plate tectonic and volcanism? What will be consequences of the loss of the magnetic field?
 * Ruslik_ Zero 17:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ruslik0. I'll work on writing an improved lead and see what I can do to address your other concerns. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments. Nicely written, interesting topic. I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki...
 * Vulcanology could do with some expansion, in particular the impact of supervolcanoes and even less frequently but more seriously the creation of large igneous provinces such as the Deccan traps. The latest New Scientist has an interesting article on unusually hot blobs of "Ancient superhot Magma" under Africa and the Pacific.
 * C3 and C4. On the time scales we are considering the switch from C3 to C4 is just a matter of gradual evolution. As for life in the oceans I'm assuming you aren't just talking about life at Hydrothermal vents, so a mention of why photosynthesis could persist in water for longer than on land would be helpful.
 * In the short term the glaciation bit needs a little work, I'm assuming that the contrasting figures for a 5,000 and 50,000 to 130,000 delay in the next glaciation are because of contrasting projections and assumptions, if so this could do with clarification. I get the point that CO2 levels are liable to fall if we take humans out of the equation, but the carbon that we've extracted is going to take a while to get resequestered.
 * Supernovae, this section currently combines a frequency of every thirty years across the whole Milky way with risk/damage of events within 26 or 32 Light years and a probability of Supernovae being within 100 Lightyears. As the probability of a Supernova within 26 Lightyears is about sixty times less than within 100 lightyears this has a risk of being misleading.
 * Stellar encounters. This only mentions the possibility of a pass close enough to perturb the Oort cloud. There are also risks of closer encounters, much less likely, but whilst the odd Comet strike may cause a mass extinction, stellar near misses could see the Earth have its orbit radically altered or even be slingshotted into interstellar space.
 * Since the relevant halflives are well known I would have thought we could source some projections as to the rate of cooling of the earth's core. Also I'd be surprised if someone hasn't done some predictions as to what would happen if lack of water ended plate tectonics - that heat would get out eventually.
 * "However, no new species of existing large vertebrates are likely to arise" - I think you'll find that prediction is based on the next 100 to 1000 years, but your positioning it makes it look like a prediction for the next five million years, and on that timescale one would expect that many if not most large vertebrates of five million years time would be species that have not yet evolved.
 * On a more general note, where you talk about a previous event such as a local Supernova it might be useful to include evidence of past effects on Earth.
 *  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.