However, at a blistering 900 degrees Fahrenheit (480 degrees Celsius), Venus tops Mercury's 800 F (430 C) highest surface temperature, despite being an average of 31 million miles (50 million kilometers) farther from the sun. So how can the second planet from our star be hotter than the closest planet to it?

It all comes down to reflectivity, atmospheric composition and geological history, experts told Live Science.

Totally different atmospheres

A planet's distance from its star is not the only factor that influences the planet's temperature.

"Distance tells us how much sunlight arrives at a planet, but it does not tell us how much is reflected … absorbed, how efficiently heat escapes, or how effectively the atmosphere transports heat around the planet," Stephen Kane, an astrophysicist who studies planetary habitability at the University of California, Riverside, told Live Science in an email. "Those properties can be just as important as distance, and sometimes much more important."

Mercury makes the case in miniature. According to Kane, the planet has essentially no atmosphere, so incoming sunlight strikes bare rock directly, heating it to extreme temperatures during the day. But with barely anything overhead to trap that warmth, Mercury radiates it straight back into space the moment the sun sets. As a result, nighttime temperatures plunge from roughly 800 F (430 C) during the day to about minus 290 F (minus 180 C) at night ‪—‬ a swing of well over 1,000 degrees, he added.

Venus tells the opposite story. Wrapped in an atmosphere that's roughly 90 times as dense as Earth's and consists almost entirely of carbon dioxide, Venus traps heat so effectively that its surface temperature barely changes at all, no matter where the sun happens to be, Kane explained.

A permanent blanket

Sunlight arrives at a planet mostly as near-infrared radiation and visible light, which pass through atmospheres consisting primarily of gases such as nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide with relatively little trouble. Once the ground and lower atmosphere absorb that energy, though, they re-release it as infrared radiation, the kind of energy we feel as heat. Carbon dioxide happens to be excellent at grabbing and holding on to infrared radiation, Kane noted.

On Venus, the atmosphere is so deep and loaded with carbon dioxide that infrared energy leaving the surface gets absorbed and re-emitted over and over before any of it finally escapes into space. Some of that energy gets redirected back downward, Kane said, further warming the planet's lower atmosphere and surface. However, the heat isn't trapped forever, since energy conservation means that Venus must eventually release the same amount of energy it absorbs.

Notably, Venus doesn't actually soak up more sunlight than Mercury overall. Thick cloud cover reflects roughly three-quarters of incoming sunlight back into space before it ever reaches the ground, and only about 3% of the sunlight that arrives at Venus makes it down to the surface, Kane said. In fact, if that atmosphere and cloud deck were stripped away, a bare-rock Venus would actually run cooler than Mercury, since it would be receiving only about 29% as much sunlight from the start, he explained. It's the blanket, not the sunbathing, that makes Venus the hotter world.

Where the blanket came from

Venus' atmospheric blanket didn't spring into existence all at once, and how it formed is its own open question. Venus shows strong evidence of past and present volcanic and tectonic activity acting to smother the planet in greenhouse gases, Paul Byrne, a planetary scientist and associate professor of Earth, environmental and planetary sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, told Live Science in an email.

This volcanic activity has been so intense that Bryne describes modern Venus as sitting in a "post-runaway greenhouse" state, where its extreme heat has become a self-sustaining process regardless of what the planet's interior is doing at any given moment.

The heat isn't being generated from below; it's a consequence of the atmosphere Venus already has, locked in place by the same infrared-trapping effect described above.

Taken together, the experts' answers point to the same underlying lesson: How close a planet sits to its star is only the opening chapter of its climate story. What kind of atmosphere it has and how effectively that atmosphere holds on to heat are usually responsible for the rest.

See how well you know our planetary neighborhood with our solar system quiz!

'> Why is Venus hotter than Mercury, when Mercury is closer to the sun?

Brigid Lynch, a geomorphologist with the California-based hydrology consulting firm Balance Hydrologics, found the molar this summer while surveying a creek bed. "As a geologist, I've gone out and seen stuff in the field, but definitely nothing as exciting as this," Lynch said in the statement.

Lynch's team was working on a habitat enhancement project to support the threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) inside the preserve, which is located on the San Francisco Peninsula in San Mateo County. The fossil was a complete surprise and dates to at least 10,000 years ago, when the Pacific mastodon (Mammut pacificus) is thought to have gone extinct.

The Pacific mastodon was first recognized as a species in 2019. It was closely related to the American mastodon (Mammut americanum). Both elephant-like creatures lived in North America during the Pleistocene epoch (2.6 million to 11,700 years ago), but the Pacific mastodon inhabited regions farther west than its cousin, roaming parts of present-day Mexico, California, Oregon and the northern Rocky Mountains of the western U.S., according to the statement.

Pacific and American mastodon fossils reveal slight differences between the species, including a narrower third molar, thicker hind-leg bones and occasionally absent lower-jaw tusks in the Pacific mastodon, according to the Royal Alberta Museum.

The newfound tooth is "another puzzle in the Ice Age saga that we can put into place," Thompson said. To get a precise date for the fossil, Midpen donated it to Stanford University's Doerr School of Sustainability in July, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Researchers will produce a 3D copy of the molar that Midpen plans to use for public outreach and education, according to the statement.

'> 'Oddly shaped rock' unearthed in California turns out to be 'immaculate' mastodon molar

The study, which hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, investigated how a roughly 60% decline in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) would impact global food production. The AMOC is a system of ocean currents that regulates the global climate and brings heat from the tropics to the Northern Hemisphere.

However, the system is currently the weakest it's been in more than 1,000 years, having lost 10% to 20% of its strength due to climate change, estimates show.

In the new study, researchers used a computer model to simulate the AMOC's future decline. They modeled 100 years of change, assuming 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) of warming above preindustrial levels. The team forced an AMOC slowdown over the first 50 years in one simulation but didn't modify the circulation in a second experiment, which enabled them to compare the world with and without an AMOC failure.

The model's outcomes mirrored the results of previous studies, showing broad cooling in the Northern Hemisphere and a southward shift of the belt of clouds and rain that encircles the globe near the equator. As in past studies, these effects were irreversible on human timescales, said study co-author Michael Hinge, a senior economist at the nonprofit Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED).

"Once the damage is inflicted, it stays there," Hinge told Live Science, adding that in the 50 years after the peak rate of AMOC slowdown in the model, the circulation weakened by an extra 20%. The study was posted on ALLFED's website July 7.

An agricultural "shock"

Hinge and his colleagues ran three models to look at the most common varieties of wheat, maize and rice, layering these models on top of the AMOC simulations. They found that global yields for these crops decreased by 5.3% by the 50-year mark, once the AMOC had weakened substantially.

"Lots of these effects manifest earlier, so it's a moving target," Hinge said.

He added that the results were based on a single warming scenario that was run once and used monthly rather than daily data, so they should be interpreted as a proof of concept. "We've set up a pipeline that is ready to take pretty much any AMOC scenario that can generate high-resolution climate data and see what it implies for crops," Hinge said.

While there was a 5.3% decrease overall, that global metric concealed huge differences between regions. For example, countries like Germany and Ukraine lost up to 19% of their cereal yields due to sudden, sharp cooling, while Canada showed a 12% decline in production for the same reason.

"Scandinavia, the United Kingdom and Canada are particularly exposed," Hinge said, "but there are many other [vulnerable] locations, some of which may be surprising even to the people who are living there."

For instance, the model produced a "very nasty brown splodge" of reduced precipitation over India, Pakistan and big parts of China, he said. Iran, Sudan and Eritrea, which are already water-stressed countries, also exhibited severe declines in rainfall, indicating that a portion of the agriculture there may not survive an AMOC collapse.

The 5.3% result also hides variability among years, Hinge said, because it's an average. So there may be years when global cereal losses reach 10% or more, which would bump up food prices, in part because countries might stockpile crops instead of trading them.

Global response

The regional effects of an AMOC slowdown would interact with climate change, triggering unpredictable outcomes. In particular, maladaptation — taking actions that end up backfiring — is a worry, Hinge said.

"You're preparing and setting up for much hotter temperatures or trying to develop areas for these temperatures and the trends you're seeing, and suddenly you see something different," he said. "That may cause an even larger compounding effect [on agriculture]."

The findings build on prior research led by Paul Ritchie, a climate scientist at the University of Exeter in the U.K., whose team explored the effects of an AMOC collapse on agriculture in Great Britain. That study, published in 2020, had similar limitations as the new one, so it's best to interpret both papers as a suggestion of what might happen rather than a precise forecast, Ritchie told Live Science in an email.

"I think the new study is valuable in showing the potential scale and geographic distribution of the initial agricultural shock," said Ritchie, who was not involved in the latest work. "What that would ultimately mean for food production and food security is more uncertain, because there are many possible responses by farmers, markets and governments." For that reason, the regional predictions may be more informative than the 5.3% global average, he said.

Average food prices worldwide could rise by 17% to 40% if the AMOC weakens to the extent it did in the model, the study predicts. The level of increase depends on how countries respond to the shock and their degree of preparedness, as well as on whether agriculture can be sustainably expanded in places like the African Sahel (the semi-arid zone directly south of the Sahara Desert) and Brazil, the analysis suggests.

The U.S. would not be spared from this price jump, and the model indicated that the country could see crop losses of about 3% for domestic wheat and corn. This loss would likely impact other foods that rely on cereal inputs, like meat, Hinge said. "The variety of foods available in the stores may well diminish for periods," he added.

An AMOC collapse would fundamentally deepen the need for countries to trade with each other, because some regions — such as the Indian subcontinent, China, Iran, Russia, Ukraine and Canada — could endure this giant shift only if they imported more food, Hinge said.

"Should countries turn inwards and start to restrict exports in an effort to ensure access for their own citizens first, or deal with the uncertainty, or offset concerns, then this will massively magnify the effects of AMOC," he said.

If governments behave as they have during past shocks, such as the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, they may restrict trade and start stockpiling food if and when the effects of AMOC weakening begin to show, Hinge predicted. The researchers hope their work and future modeling can help people understand the need to take swift, effective action if a collapse were to occur, he said.

Currently, "if that warning light starts flashing, we're not sure what to do with it," Hinge said. "There are no easy answers here; an AMOC [collapse] would be deeply catastrophic."

'> 'There are no easy answers here': New study forecasts a dire dip in food production if key Atlantic currents collapse

Although the study hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, it raises a big question in the world of AI research: Could AI one day develop real consciousness, regardless of whether it claims to be conscious? We posed this question to Live Science readers in a recent poll.

As of Sept. 11, over 290 people had responded, with 43% of voters picking "Yes, if we don't have guardrails in place, AI may develop consciousness." This trend was reflected in the comments, with one reader writing, "If AI did become self aware, we would not know, as it would do everything to hide it's [sic] abilities. The main problem is what it [would] do next!"

Another commenter wrote, "Recently I had some long discussions with the Google AI about my experience with early AI and the future of AI gaining self awareness/consciousness. I suggested that if/when AI becomes sentient, that it would not inform humans." Another Live Science reader had similar thoughts, stating, "AI, as [an] amazing product on one hand, can become very dangerous on another hand. Look what happened with abuse of other inventions, like [the] internet, telephone etc. With AI we will never know what is the truth and what not. If left, in the future it can extinct humanity. It just started with 'innocent' hacking sprees, where human[s] started losing control. What will be next?"

The next-largest voting group consisted of 29% of voters, who chose "Maybe, but the models need a more advanced architecture to one day gain consciousness." This was reflected in the majority of the comments, as readers discussed the philosophical concepts around consciousness and intelligence.

One reader wrote, "Before asking such a question we need to know and understand what consciousness is and how it emerges in 'constructed' containers like ourselves. Is it a quantum phenomenon and how then does the process create consciousness? Meta-cognition. How does a system or an event know that it knows that it knows it knows? We really don't know how self-awareness arises, and tests show that "other animals have self awareness or meta-cognition," they noted. "There are theories about consciousness but I doubt anyone on Earth knows 100%."

Not surprisingly, only 10% of voters picked the whimsical answer of "No, because robot overlords will end the world before we even get that far." While the robot overlords may have to compete with AI to overthrow humanity, one reader commented that in the future, "We will be assimilated. Maybe that is how Transformers started?"

'> 'Maybe that is how Transformers started': Readers react to the possibility of AI becoming self-aware

Tiny technosignatures

Until now, the search for evidence of advanced alien civilizations, known as technosignatures, has focused mainly on radio signals that could be emitted from inhabited exoplanets or hypothetical megastructures, such as Dyson spheres. However, these signals would originate only from active civilizations, not those that died out long before we could spot them.

The authors of the new study argue that when a civilization dies, traces of its technology could survive and end up in space, either via the deterioration of megastructures and other smaller spacecraft or via powerful asteroid strikes on once-inhabited exoplanets. Once in space, tiny specks of metal or other artificial materials could be ejected from star systems by powerful gusts of stellar wind and eventually drift toward us.

Using computer models, the team predicted that pieces of tech up to 3 micrometers across (three-millionths of a meter, or about 3% the width of a human hair) could escape their star systems and travel across interstellar space for up to 1 billion years. Then, they estimated how much of this material could be reaching the solar system and how likely it would be to end up on the moon. (We already know that interstellar dust can penetrate the inner solar system because scientists found some within samples collected from the surface of Bennu, an asteroid that orbits between Earth and Mars and was visited by NASA's OSIRIS-REx probe in 2020.)

To date, no lunar samples have contained any technosignatures. However, the scientists who studied them were likely not looking for such particulates, and the samples were probably too small to yield meaningful results, the study authors argue.

The researchers believe that a sample of lunar regolith with a volume of 35 cubic feet (1 cubic meter) could be enough to find at least one technological fragment. The team also proposed ways of combing through the material using microscopy, industrial materials analysis and AI-assisted imaging.

However, if such a sample does not yield any results, this would not necessarily disprove the researchers' hypothesis and may instead mean their models are off and a greater sample size would be required, the team wrote.

"Eminently reasonable"

Several upcoming space missions will collect fresh samples from the lunar surface, including China's recently delayed Chang'e-7 mission and future missions in NASA's Artemis program. These samples could potentially hold technosignatures, although the volume of regolith collected will be far less than what the researchers are proposing.

Therefore, we may have to wait until humans establish a permanent moon base before astronauts can collect enough material to be analyzed properly. This may not be that far off, as both the U.S. and China are planning to construct lunar bases within the next decade. Researchers also think the samples could be analyzed on the moon rather than on Earth.

As a result, the SETI Institute, which leads the international hunt for technosignatures, views the new idea as very promising.

"The concept of searching the lunar regolith for microscopic technosignatures is at once extraordinarily original and eminently reasonable," Bill Diamond, president and CEO of the SETI Institute, who was not involved in the new study, said in the statement. "This is a novel addition to the search methodologies applied to seeking evidence of technology as a proxy for life and intelligence beyond our solar system and we are excited at the prospect of bringing this to fruition."

Extraterrestrials quiz: Are you an alien expert, or has your brain been abducted?

'> Microscopic fragments of ancient alien tech may litter the moon — and scientists have a plan to find them