You can always just submit the gifted article link itself if you want to... unless you don't want it linked directly for some reason. I edited it in for now, but can reverse it if you would prefer...
You can always just submit the gifted article link itself if you want to... unless you don't want it linked directly for some reason. I edited it in for now, but can reverse it if you would prefer it not be directly linked.
As an interesting aside, DMS is a common flavor in beer, produced from s-methyl methionine precursor in the malt when the mash/wort is hot and then volatilized when it boils. It is the main flavor...
As an interesting aside, DMS is a common flavor in beer, produced from s-methyl methionine precursor in the malt when the mash/wort is hot and then volatilized when it boils. It is the main flavor attribute in Rolling Rock for example. It can get to levels that are undesirable when the power goes out in the brewhouse during a wort boil because you continue to create DMS but are unable to volatilize it up the stack. Since DMS smells like canned corn, you wind up with ultra-corny beer.
For the record, it's not even certain whether K2-18b is even an hycean planet, it may also be covered with magma oceans. Along with the fact that the results of this publication is not much higher...
For the record, it's not even certain whether K2-18b is even an hycean planet, it may also be covered with magma oceans. Along with the fact that the results of this publication is not much higher than 3 sigma is also not encouraging to me. Now, looking at page 7:
We first conduct a maximal retrieval using the JExoRES spectrum .... and N-bearing species in temperate H2-rich atmospheres, including hycean worlds (e.g., R. Hu 2021; N. Madhusudhan et al. 2021; X. Yu et al. 2021)
If I read this correctly, does this essentially assume a Hycean planet, or a planet of similar composition? It makes sense from a data analysis perspective but that is a pretty big assumption. Not a bad assumption from a scientific perspective per se, but this is not nearly as big as many people seem to make it. The paper does mention several times that it's difficult to distinguish some signals with the current data quality.
It feels a lot to me like 'good science, but overblown by media' the more I look into it. :\ Especially section 4.3 presents essentially a list of caveats of their own study.
Unfortunately in this case, the scientists involved with the study are contributing to the media frenzy. Compare what is said in the paper: To what the lead author says in the press release: And...
Unfortunately in this case, the scientists involved with the study are contributing to the media frenzy. Compare what is said in the paper:
While [the presence of molecules] DMDS and DMS best explains the current observations, their combined significance…is at the lower end of robustness required for scientific evidence’
That is just... wow. You're discrediting your own genuine, exciting finding by going full social media-hype with this. A potential signal from a potential Hycean planet is awesome, and this is how...
That is just... wow. You're discrediting your own genuine, exciting finding by going full social media-hype with this. A potential signal from a potential Hycean planet is awesome, and this is how you deal with it...?
I'm more used to see this from astronomers who are at the end of their career and decide to do an 'IT IS ALIENS'-kinda thing. Not like this.
I'm not an expert (maybe @gpl knows more), but I'm not sure that their modeling software makes any assumptions about the composition of the planet (other than the atmosphere). From what I gather,...
I'm not an expert (maybe @gpl knows more), but I'm not sure that their modeling software makes any assumptions about the composition of the planet (other than the atmosphere). From what I gather, they consider a set of candidate models (consisting of sets of molecules that may or may not exist in the atmosphere), compute the hypothetical spectra for these candidate models (fig 4), and then compare these models with the observed spectrum (fig 6).
So I am definitely not a subject matter expert either, but talking with colleagues who are a bit closer to this, I don't think this paper assumes much about the composition other than the...
So I am definitely not a subject matter expert either, but talking with colleagues who are a bit closer to this, I don't think this paper assumes much about the composition other than the atmosphere. But that's sort of the most important factor. K2-18b orbits its star a little closer than what is generally taken to be the "habitable zone". It could still be habitable if it has a high albedo, so that not all of the energy flux is absorbed, and if that is so then its atmosphere could be consistent with a Hycean world. But other analyses (for example, this paper which also remarkably came out yesterday) argue that the observed atmosphere on this planet is inconsistent with the high albedo values that would allow for a hycean world.
I believe the recent paper claiming this as a biosignature assumes things about albedo (and possibly other important factors) that allow for a hycean world and analyze the data in that context then. The same atmosphere, with other assumptions, would not indicate life. In other words, the atmosphere is sort of the whole ballgame vis a vis surface conditions (hycean paradise vs magmatic hell).
This isn't related to the subject in any way, but it really chaps my ass that so little attention is being paid to copy editing in even major outlets like the NYT. I studied for years with the...
Astronomers discovered K2-18b in 2015, using date [sic] from the Kepler Space Telescope. It was a type of planet commonly found outside our solar system, but one without any analog [sic] near Earth that scientists could study closely for clues.
This isn't related to the subject in any way, but it really chaps my ass that so little attention is being paid to copy editing in even major outlets like the NYT.
I studied for years with the hope of becoming a copy editor, and I couldn't find anyone willing to pay even a below-subsistence wage 15 years ago. I eventually gave up on publishing entirely and transitioned to being an electronics technician, and now it feels like déjà vu all over again, as the disposable consumerist mindset has almost completely supplanted the simple and sustainable practice of just fixing your shit.
I thought for sure that people would grow tired of the endless half-assed bullshit that our culture is drowning in and eventually gravitate toward craftsmanship and care in all things. After all, why bother doing anything unless you care enough to do it well? The answer to that is "we can earn an extra $0.009 per unit if we half-ass everything and design it for a two-year lifecycle," and that's apparently good enough. Vide: the recent tide of the AI slop economy that I sincerely hope is starting to turn.
Apologies if you read this rant. I'm launching into year two of unemployment due to layoff. My brains have gone beyond merely scrambled by depression and anxiety into the soft peaks stage. I'm hoping something lands in my lap soon before they completely over-whip my mental meringue.
And now for the nuance:
Dimethyl sulfide (DMS) can be produced abiotically
Other groups have not seen the same signal — we're not sure K2-18b has DMS
You can always just submit the gifted article link itself if you want to... unless you don't want it linked directly for some reason. I edited it in for now, but can reverse it if you would prefer it not be directly linked.
Ah, for some reason I thought the standard practice was to link to the normal one, but post the gift link here. Thanks for editing.
Nope, submitting gifted article links is fine, AFAIK. And NP. :) Thanks for sharing the gifted article. :P
That's for the more legally gray methods of paywall evasion.
As an interesting aside, DMS is a common flavor in beer, produced from s-methyl methionine precursor in the malt when the mash/wort is hot and then volatilized when it boils. It is the main flavor attribute in Rolling Rock for example. It can get to levels that are undesirable when the power goes out in the brewhouse during a wort boil because you continue to create DMS but are unable to volatilize it up the stack. Since DMS smells like canned corn, you wind up with ultra-corny beer.
The publication is now available.
For the record, it's not even certain whether K2-18b is even an hycean planet, it may also be covered with magma oceans. Along with the fact that the results of this publication is not much higher than 3 sigma is also not encouraging to me. Now, looking at page 7:
If I read this correctly, does this essentially assume a Hycean planet, or a planet of similar composition? It makes sense from a data analysis perspective but that is a pretty big assumption. Not a bad assumption from a scientific perspective per se, but this is not nearly as big as many people seem to make it. The paper does mention several times that it's difficult to distinguish some signals with the current data quality.
It feels a lot to me like 'good science, but overblown by media' the more I look into it. :\ Especially section 4.3 presents essentially a list of caveats of their own study.
Unfortunately in this case, the scientists involved with the study are contributing to the media frenzy. Compare what is said in the paper:
To what the lead author says in the press release:
And quotes the lead scientist is giving to the media:
Despite the fact that there are alternative mechanisms proposed, for example in the paper I link to in my other comment, among others.
That is just... wow. You're discrediting your own genuine, exciting finding by going full social media-hype with this. A potential signal from a potential Hycean planet is awesome, and this is how you deal with it...?
I'm more used to see this from astronomers who are at the end of their career and decide to do an 'IT IS ALIENS'-kinda thing. Not like this.
I suppose those "IT'S ALIENS" astronomers have to start somewhere...
I'm not an expert (maybe @gpl knows more), but I'm not sure that their modeling software makes any assumptions about the composition of the planet (other than the atmosphere). From what I gather, they consider a set of candidate models (consisting of sets of molecules that may or may not exist in the atmosphere), compute the hypothetical spectra for these candidate models (fig 4), and then compare these models with the observed spectrum (fig 6).
So I am definitely not a subject matter expert either, but talking with colleagues who are a bit closer to this, I don't think this paper assumes much about the composition other than the atmosphere. But that's sort of the most important factor. K2-18b orbits its star a little closer than what is generally taken to be the "habitable zone". It could still be habitable if it has a high albedo, so that not all of the energy flux is absorbed, and if that is so then its atmosphere could be consistent with a Hycean world. But other analyses (for example, this paper which also remarkably came out yesterday) argue that the observed atmosphere on this planet is inconsistent with the high albedo values that would allow for a hycean world.
I believe the recent paper claiming this as a biosignature assumes things about albedo (and possibly other important factors) that allow for a hycean world and analyze the data in that context then. The same atmosphere, with other assumptions, would not indicate life. In other words, the atmosphere is sort of the whole ballgame vis a vis surface conditions (hycean paradise vs magmatic hell).
This isn't related to the subject in any way, but it really chaps my ass that so little attention is being paid to copy editing in even major outlets like the NYT.
I studied for years with the hope of becoming a copy editor, and I couldn't find anyone willing to pay even a below-subsistence wage 15 years ago. I eventually gave up on publishing entirely and transitioned to being an electronics technician, and now it feels like déjà vu all over again, as the disposable consumerist mindset has almost completely supplanted the simple and sustainable practice of just fixing your shit.
I thought for sure that people would grow tired of the endless half-assed bullshit that our culture is drowning in and eventually gravitate toward craftsmanship and care in all things. After all, why bother doing anything unless you care enough to do it well? The answer to that is "we can earn an extra $0.009 per unit if we half-ass everything and design it for a two-year lifecycle," and that's apparently good enough. Vide: the recent tide of the AI slop economy that I sincerely hope is starting to turn.
Apologies if you read this rant. I'm launching into year two of unemployment due to layoff. My brains have gone beyond merely scrambled by depression and anxiety into the soft peaks stage. I'm hoping something lands in my lap soon before they completely over-whip my mental meringue.