Are other planets better than us at having oceans?

Some exoplanets might be better at creating and sustaining oceans than Earth, say researchers.

David A. Aguilar (CfA)
This artist's depiction shows a gas giant planet rising over the horizon of an alien waterworld.

Sen—New research suggests that some exoplanets are even better at establishing and maintaining oceans than our Earth. Oceans on super-Earths, exoplanets up to five times the mass, or 1.5 times the diameter, of our own planet, can last for billions of years, once they are established. 

A super-Earth is an extrasolar planet that is more massive than Earth, but less so than a gas giant like Uranus or Neptune, which hold up to 10 times the mass of our world. The first super-Earths to be found in a star's habitable zone, where liquid water could exist on a planet's surface, were discovered in 2007.

For other planets to develop life as we know it, those planets would need liquid water, or oceans. Geologic evidence suggests that Earth's oceans have existed for nearly the entire history of our world.

"When people consider whether a planet is in the habitable zone, they think about its distance from the star and its temperature. However, they should also think about oceans, and look at super-Earths to find a good sailing or surfing destination," says Laura Schaefer of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), and lead author of a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Seattle.

Earth is mostly rock and iron. Though water covers 70 per cent of Earth's surface, it makes up only about a tenth of a per cent of the planet's overall bulk.

"Earth's oceans are a very thin film, like fog on a bathroom mirror," explains study co-author Dimitar Sasselov (CfA).

However, studies have shown that Earth's water is not just on the surface. Our planet's mantle holds several oceans' worth of water. Earth maintains its oceans through planet-wide recycling as oceans are dragged underground by plate tectonics and subduction of the ocean seafloor, to return to the surface via volcanism (mainly at mid-ocean ridges). 

Schaefer's team used computer simulations to see if this recycling process would take place on super-Earths. They also studied how long it would take oceans to form after the planet cooled enough for its crust to solidify.

The team found that the oceans of super-Earths, two to four times the mass of Earth, would persist for at least 10 billion years (unless boiled away by an evolving red giant star).

The oceans on the largest planet (five times the mass of Earth) that the team studied didn't develop for about a billion years, due to a thicker crust and lithosphere that delayed the start of volcanic outgassing.

"This suggests that if you want to look for life, you should look at older super-Earths," Schaefer says.

"It takes time to develop the chemical processes for life on a global scale, and time for life to change a planet's atmosphere. So, it takes time for life to become detectable," added Sasselov.

According to the research, and assuming evolution takes place at a similar rate to Earth's, the search for complex life should begin on planets that are about five and a half billion years old, a billion years older than Earth.

Related Links:

Super-Earth crossing a Sun-like star is detected by ground telescope

Super-Earths are more like mini-Neptunes

Record three super-Earths found in star's habitable zone

Original story from Sen. © 2014 Sen TV Limited. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more space news visit and follow @sen on Twitter.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Are other planets better than us at having oceans?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today