Earth's Rotation Is Slowing Down, And It Might Explain Why We Have Oxygen
Ever since its formation around 4.5 billion years ago, Earth's rotation has been gradually slowing down, and its days have gotten progressively longer as a result.
While Earth's slowdown is not noticeable on human timescales, it's enough to work significant changes over eons. One of those changes is perhaps the most significant of all, at least to us: lengthening days are linked to the oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere, according to a study from 2021.
Specifically, the blue-green algae (or cyanobacteria) that emerged and proliferated about 2.4 billion years ago would have been able to produce more oxygen as a metabolic by-product because Earth's days grew longer.
Check out the video below for a summary on the research.
"An enduring question in Earth sciences has been how did Earth's atmosphere get its oxygen, and what factors controlled when this oxygenation took place," microbiologist Gregory Dick of the University of Michigan explained in 2021.
"Our research suggests that the rate at which Earth is spinning – in other words, its day length – may have had an important effect on the pattern and timing of Earth's oxygenation."
There are two major components to this story that, at first glance, don't seem to have a lot to do with each other. The first is that Earth's spin is slowing down.
The reason Earth's spin is slowing down is because the Moon exerts a gravitational pull on the planet, which causes a rotational deceleration since the Moon is gradually pulling away.
We know, based on the fossil record, that days were just 18 hours long 1.4 billion years ago, and half an hour shorter than they are today 70 million years ago. Evidence suggests that we're gaining 1.8 milliseconds a century.
The second component is something known as the Great Oxidation Event – when cyanobacteria emerged in such great quantities that Earth's atmosphere experienced a sharp, significant rise in oxygen.
Without this oxidation, scientists think life as we know it could not have emerged; so, although cyanobacteria may cop a bit of side-eye today, we probably wouldn't be here without them.
There's still a lot we don't know about this event, including such burning questions as why it happened when it did and not sometime earlier in Earth's history.
It took scientists working with cyanobacterial microbes to connect the dots. In the Middle Island Sinkhole in Lake Huron, microbial mats can be found that are thought to be an analog of the cyanobacteria responsible for the Great Oxidation Event.
Purple cyanobacteria that produce oxygen via photosynthesis and white microbes that metabolize sulfur, compete in a microbial mat on the lakebed.
At night, the white microbes rise to the top of the microbial mat and do their sulfur-munching thing. When day breaks, and the Sun rises high enough in the sky, the white microbes retreat and the purple cyanobacteria rise to the top.
"Now they can start to photosynthesize and produce oxygen," said geomicrobiologist Judith Klatt of the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology in Germany.
"However, it takes a few hours before they really get going, there is a long lag in the morning. The cyanobacteria are rather late risers than morning persons, it seems."
This means the window of daytime in which the cyanobacteria can pump out oxygen is very limited – and it was this fact that caught the attention of oceanographer Brian Arbic of the University of Michigan. He wondered if changing day length over Earth's history had had an impact on photosynthesis.
"It's possible that a similar type of competition between microbes contributed to the delay in oxygen production on the early Earth," Klatt explained.
To demonstrate this hypothesis, the team performed experiments and measurements on the microbes, both in their natural environment and a laboratory setting. They also performed detailed modelling studies based on their results to link sunlight to microbial oxygen production, and microbial oxygen production to Earth's history.
"Intuition suggests that two 12-hour days should be similar to one 24-hour day. The sunlight rises and falls twice as fast, and the oxygen production follows in lockstep," explained marine scientist Arjun Chennu of the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research in Germany.
"But the release of oxygen from bacterial mats does not, because it is limited by the speed of molecular diffusion. This subtle uncoupling of oxygen release from sunlight is at the heart of the mechanism."
These results were incorporated into global models of oxygen levels, and the team found that lengthening days were linked to the increase in Earth's oxygen - not just the Great Oxidation Event, but another, second atmospheric oxygenation called the Neoproterozoic Oxygenation Event around 550 to 800 million years ago.
"We tie together laws of physics operating at vastly different scales, from molecular diffusion to planetary mechanics. We show that there is a fundamental link between day length and how much oxygen can be released by ground-dwelling microbes," Chennu said.
"It's pretty exciting. This way we link the dance of the molecules in the microbial mat to the dance of our planet and its Moon."
The research has been published in Nature Geoscience.
An earlier version of this article was published in August 2021.
New Jersey Hawk Develops Clever Hunting Strategy Using Traffic Signals
Your Sensitive Teeth May Exist So Ancient Fish Could Avoid Danger
Expert Explains Why We Need to Stop Giving Milk to Cats
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Scientists Investigate What Happens If You Snort Moon Dust
Wondering whether snorting Moon dust will kill you? Don't worry: science is on it. A recent study conducted by a team of Australian researchers and published in the journal Life Sciences in Space Research found that lunar dust is probably way less dangerous than space science previously feared — and, actually, might be less dangerous for humans than Earthborne air pollution. (Or, if you will: Earth dust.) For the study, the scientists focused on fine dust particles, or specks of dust that are tiny enough to tunnel far into the lungs. Using state-of-the-art simulations of lunar dust and testing those fabrications on human lungs, researchers determined that, like any dust, the lunar stuff can be irritating, but it doesn't put astronauts at risk of long-term oxidative stress or inflammation akin to what we might see from toxic air pollutants here on Earth. "Our findings suggest that while lunar dust may cause some immediate irritation to the airways, it does not appear to pose a risk for chronic, long-term diseases like silicosis, which is caused by materials like silica dust," Michaela Smith, a graduate student at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) and the study's lead author, said in a statement. The research has been billed as a relief for the astronauts and researchers embarking — maybe? — on NASA's Artemis missions, which seek to establish a long-term human presence on the Moon. Which, of course, is already a difficult assignment, given that the Moon isn't naturally hospitable for human life (with the no-oxygen thing and everything.) If Moon dust — which is, uh, basically the whole lunar surface — were indeed toxic, that would be a seriously tricky hurdle for scientists to climb. "The results," study coauthor and UTS scientist Brian Oliver said in a statement, "contribute to the safety case for returning humans to the Moon." As for the question of whether actually snorting Moon dust Jordan Belfort-style would be a sound idea, the researchers say you probably could. But while it's unlikely you'd experience long-term illness as a result, you should be prepared for discomfort. "Any dust, if you inhale it, you'll sneeze, cough, and have some physical irritation," Smith's statement continued. "But it's not highly toxic like silica, where you end up with silicosis from being on a construction site for 10 years. It's not going to be something like that." As the adage goes: just because you can, doesn't mean you should. More on the Moon: Scientists Investigating Small Orange Objects Coating Surface of the Moon
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Human skin stood up better to the sun before there were sunscreens and parasols – an anthropologist explains why
Human beings have a conflicted relationship with the sun. People love sunshine, but then get hot. Sweat gets in your eyes. Then there are all the protective rituals: the sunscreen, the hats, the sunglasses. If you stay out too long or haven't taken sufficient precautions, your skin lets us you know with an angry sunburn. First the heat, then the pain, then the remorse. Were people always this obsessed with what the sun would do to their bodies? As a biological anthropologist who has studied primates' adaptations to the environment, I can tell you the short answer is 'no,' and they didn't need to be. For eons, skin stood up to the sun. Human beings evolved under the sun. Sunlight was a constant in people's lives, warming and guiding them through the days and seasons. Homo sapiens spent the bulk of our prehistory and history outside, mostly naked. Skin was the primary interface between our ancestors' bodies and the world. Human skin was adapted to whatever conditions it found itself in. People took shelter, when they could find it, in caves and rock shelters, and got pretty good at making portable shelters from wood, animal skins and other gathered materials. At night, they huddled together and probably covered themselves with fur 'blankets.' But during the active daylight hours, people were outdoors and their mostly bare skin was what they had. During a person's lifetime, skin responds to routine exposure to the sun in many ways. The surface layer of the skin – the epidermis – becomes thicker by adding more layers of cells. For most people, the skin becomes gradually darker as specialized cells kick into action to produce a protective pigment called eumelanin. This remarkable molecule absorbs most visible light, causing it to look very dark brown, almost black. Eumelanin also absorbs damaging ultraviolet radiation. Depending on their genetics, people produce different amounts of eumelanin. Some have a lot and are able to produce a lot more when their skin is exposed to sun; others have less to start out with and produce less when their skin is exposed. My research on the evolution of human skin pigmentation has shown that the skin color of people in prehistory was tuned to local environmental conditions, primarily to local levels of ultraviolet light. People who lived under strong UV light – like you'd find near the equator – year in and year out had darkly pigmented and highly tannable skin capable of making a lot of eumelanin. People who lived under weaker and more seasonal UV levels – like you'd find in much of northern Europe and northern Asia – had lighter skin that had only limited abilities to produce protective pigment. With only their feet to carry them, our distant ancestors didn't move around much during their lives. Their skin adapted to subtle, seasonal changes in sunlight and UV conditions by producing more eumelanin and becoming darker in the summer and then losing some pigment in the fall and winter when the sun wasn't so strong. Even for people with lightly pigmented skin, painful sunburns would have been exceedingly rare because there was never a sudden shock of strong sun exposure. Rather, as the sun strengthened during spring, the top layer of their skin would have gotten gradually thicker over weeks and months of sun exposure. This is not to say that the skin would have been undamaged by today's standards: Dermatologists would be appalled by the leathery and wrinkled appearance of the sun-exposed skin of our ancestors. Skin color, like the levels of sun itself, changed with the seasons and skin quickly showed its age. This is still the case for people who live traditional, mostly outdoor, lives in many parts of the world. There is no preserved skin from thousands of years ago for scientists to study, but we can infer from the effects of sun exposure on modern people that the damage was similar. Chronic sun exposure can lead to skin cancer, but rarely of the variety – melanoma – that would cause death during reproductive age. Until around 10,000 years ago – a drop in the bucket of evolutionary history – human beings made their living by gathering foods, hunting and fishing. Humanity's relationship with the sun and sunlight changed a lot after people started to settle down and live in permanent settlements. Farming and food storage were associated with the development of immovable buildings. By around 6000 B.C. many people throughout the world were spending more time in walled settlements, and more time indoors. While most people still spent most of their time outside, some stayed indoors if they could. Many of them started protecting themselves from the sun when they did go out. By at least 3000 B.C., a whole industry of sun protection grew up to create gear of all sorts – parasols, umbrellas, hats, tents and clothing – that would protect people from the discomfort and inevitable darkening of the skin associated with lengthy sun exposure. While some of these were originally reserved for nobility – like the parasols and umbrellas of ancient Egypt and China – these luxury items began to be made and used more widely. In some places, people even developed protective pastes made out of minerals and plant residues – early versions of modern sunscreens – to protect their exposed skin. Some, like the thanaka paste used by people in Myanmar, still persists today. An important consequence of these practices in traditional agricultural societies was that people who spent most of their time indoors considered themselves privileged, and their lighter skin announced their status. A 'farmer's tan' was not glamorous: Sun-darkened skin was a penalty associated with hard outdoor work, not the badge of a leisurely vacation. From Great Britain to China, Japan and India, suntanned skin became associated with a life of toil. As people have moved around more and faster over longer distances in recent centuries, and spend more time indoors, their skin hasn't caught up with their locations and lifestyles. Your levels of eumelanin probably aren't perfectly adapted to the sun conditions where you live and so aren't able to protect you the same way they might have your ancient ancestors. Even if you're naturally darkly pigmented or capable of tanning, everyone is susceptible to damage caused by episodes of sun exposure, especially after long breaks spent completely out of the sun. The 'vacation effect' of sudden strong UV exposure is really bad because a sunburn signals damage to the skin that is never completely repaired. It's like a bad debt that presents itself as prematurely aged or precancerous skin many years later. There is no healthy tan – a tan doesn't protect you from further sun damage, it's the sign of damage itself. People may love the sun, but we're not our ancestors. Humanity's relationship with the sun has changed, and this means changing your behavior to save your skin. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Nina G. Jablonski, Penn State Read more: Old age isn't a modern phenomenon – many people lived long enough to grow old in the olden days, too How do the chemicals in sunscreen protect our skin from damage? It's a myth that sunscreen prevents melanoma in people of color – a dermatologist explains Nina G. Jablonski consults for L'Oreal and has received funding from the National Science Foundation, The Leakey Foundation, The Wenner-Gren Foundation, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and The Rockefeller Foundation.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Toxic algae blooms are lasting longer in Lake Erie − why that's a worry for people and pets
Lake Erie algal blooms, August 2011, along the southeast Lake Erie shore of Pelee Island, Ontario, Canada, 5 miles north of the international line. | Michigan Sea Grant Gregory J. Dick, University of Michigan Federal scientists released their annual forecast for Lake Erie's harmful algal blooms on June 26, 2025, and they expect a mild to moderate season. However, anyone who comes in contact with the blooms can face health risks, and it's worth remembering that 2014, when toxins from algae blooms contaminated the water supply in Toledo, Ohio, was considered a moderate year, too. The Conversation asked Gregory J. Dick, who leads the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research, a federally funded center at the University of Michigan that studies harmful algal blooms among other Great Lakes issues, why they're such a concern. bulletin_current 1. What causes harmful algal blooms? Harmful algal blooms are dense patches of excessive algae growth that can occur in any type of water body, including ponds, reservoirs, rivers, lakes and oceans. When you see them in freshwater, you're typically seeing cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae. These photosynthetic bacteria have inhabited our planet for billions of years. In fact, they were responsible for oxygenating Earth's atmosphere, which enabled plant and animal life as we know it. Algae are natural components of ecosystems, but they cause trouble when they proliferate to high densities, creating what we call blooms. Harmful algal blooms form scums at the water surface and produce toxins that can harm ecosystems, water quality and human health. They have been reported in all 50 U.S. states, all five Great Lakes and nearly every country around the world. Blue-green algae blooms are becoming more common in inland waters. The main sources of harmful algal blooms are excess nutrients in the water, typically phosphorus and nitrogen. Historically, these excess nutrients mainly came from sewage and phosphorus-based detergents used in laundry machines and dishwashers that ended up in waterways. U.S. environmental laws in the early 1970s addressed this by requiring sewage treatment and banning phosphorus detergents, with spectacular success. Today, agriculture is the main source of excess nutrients from chemical fertilizer or manure applied to farm fields to grow crops. Rainstorms wash these nutrients into streams and rivers that deliver them to lakes and coastal areas, where they fertilize algal blooms. In the U.S., most of these nutrients come from industrial-scale corn production, which is largely used as animal feed or to produce ethanol for gasoline. Climate change also exacerbates the problem in two ways. First, cyanobacteria grow faster at higher temperatures. Second, climate-driven increases in precipitation, especially large storms, cause more nutrient runoff that has led to record-setting blooms. 2. What does your team's DNA testing tell us about Lake Erie's harmful algal blooms? Harmful algal blooms contain a mixture of cyanobacterial species that can produce an array of different toxins, many of which are still being discovered. When my colleagues and I recently sequenced DNA from Lake Erie water, we found new types of microcystins, the notorious toxins that were responsible for contaminating Toledo's drinking water supply in 2014. These novel molecules cannot be detected with traditional methods and show some signs of causing toxicity, though further studies are needed to confirm their human health effects. We also found organisms responsible for producing saxitoxin, a potent neurotoxin that is well known for causing paralytic shellfish poisoning on the Pacific Coast of North America and elsewhere. Saxitoxins have been detected at low concentrations in the Great Lakes for some time, but the recent discovery of hot spots of genes that make the toxin makes them an emerging concern. Our research suggests warmer water temperatures could boost its production, which raises concerns that saxitoxin will become more prevalent with climate change. However, the controls on toxin production are complex, and more research is needed to test this hypothesis. Federal monitoring programs are essential for tracking and understanding emerging threats. 3. Should people worry about these blooms? Harmful algal blooms are unsightly and smelly, making them a concern for recreation, property values and businesses. They can disrupt food webs and harm aquatic life, though a recent study suggested that their effects on the Lake Erie food web so far are not substantial. But the biggest impact is from the toxins these algae produce that are harmful to humans and lethal to pets. The toxins can cause acute health problems such as gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, fever and skin irritation. Dogs can die from ingesting lake water with harmful algal blooms. Emerging science suggests that long-term exposure to harmful algal blooms, for example over months or years, can cause or exacerbate chronic respiratory, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal problems and may be linked to liver cancers, kidney disease and neurological issues. In addition to exposure through direct ingestion or skin contact, recent research also indicates that inhaling toxins that get into the air may harm health, raising concerns for coastal residents and boaters, but more research is needed to understand the risks. The Toledo drinking water crisis of 2014 illustrated the vast potential for algal blooms to cause harm in the Great Lakes. Toxins infiltrated the drinking water system and were detected in processed municipal water, resulting in a three-day 'do not drink' advisory. The episode affected residents, hospitals and businesses, and it ultimately cost the city an estimated US$65 million. 4. Blooms seem to be starting earlier in the year and lasting longer – why is that happening? Warmer waters are extending the duration of the blooms. In 2025, NOAA detected these toxins in Lake Erie on April 28, earlier than ever before. The 2022 bloom in Lake Erie persisted into November, which is rare if not unprecedented. Scientific studies of western Lake Erie show that the potential cyanobacterial growth rate has increased by up to 30% and the length of the bloom season has expanded by up to a month from 1995 to 2022, especially in warmer, shallow waters. These results are consistent with our understanding of cyanobacterial physiology: Blooms like it hot – cyanobacteria grow faster at higher temperatures. 5. What can be done to reduce the likelihood of algal blooms in the future? The best and perhaps only hope of reducing the size and occurrence of harmful algal blooms is to reduce the amount of nutrients reaching the Great Lakes. In Lake Erie, where nutrients come primarily from agriculture, that means improving agricultural practices and restoring wetlands to reduce the amount of nutrients flowing off of farm fields and into the lake. Early indications suggest that Ohio's H2Ohio program, which works with farmers to reduce runoff, is making some gains in this regard, but future funding for H2Ohio is uncertain. In places like Lake Superior, where harmful algal blooms appear to be driven by climate change, the solution likely requires halting and reversing the rapid human-driven increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Gregory J. Dick, Professor of Biology, University of Michigan This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
