Talk:Gliese 581g

Unencyclopaedic speculation

I think this is clearly unencyclopaedic speculation and should have no place in the article. The source is not even scientific, it's simply a statement by the managing director of a jewelry company.[1] Why is his speculation credible and notable? Offliner (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, does not belong in an encyclopaedia article no matter how "interesting" it may be. However more importantly the text has been lifted direct from the source without proper citation (It's too large for that to be legitimate anyway), therefore it is copyright violation. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Too Optimistic Wording

I don't mean to throw a damper on this awesome article (I think that the subject is really interesting), but I found the wording in some of the sections presupposed things that weren't even referenced. In the atmospheric section there was a whole bit about how the atmosphere behaves even though in the last section it clearly said that we cannot detect the atmosphere of a planet with current methods. I neutralized the context, and I hope that we do eventually get a way to find out if there is an atmosphere, but until we do, anything more is speculation, and that does not belong in Wikipedia, even from scientists. I suggest that the editors of this article don't let their hopes mess with their objectivity and critical perspective (See WP:BIAS and WP:CRYSTAL)...--Novus Orator 06:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding the maintenance tag to this article and either remove what you personally feel is problematic or leave it alone. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

NO is wrong. The stuff in the atmos section is not speculative, it describes the current state of the research William M. Connolley (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If that section reflects the current state of research, I shudder to think what planet (literally) those researchers were getting their ideas from. I might remind the UFO/ET editors of what those same scientists thought Venus was going to be like before the Space Age cleared things up. My objections still stand. Maybe someone who is not so Goo-Goo Ga-Ga over this planet could do some WP:V editing...--  Novus  Orator  09:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A few updates on climate modelling

I made a few updates to the section on atmospheric effects and on temperature, mainly to reflect my modelling results which were just published in ApJL. These results better define the conditions under which a planet having the orbit of 581g would actually be habitable. Since they are peer-reviewed results, and I stuck to what was actually in the paper, I figure these updates should be fairly uncontroversial. I also changed the vague discussion in the Temperature section suggesting a massive planet might have a more massive atmosphere, which misses the main point of the way silicate weathering and outgassing determine the CO2 content of a planet in this orbit.

The table of temperature, and the general discussion of temperature, need big improvements. My paper fills in the "Venus Greenhouse Effect" box, but I didn't want to just stick in that number since the temperature you get depends a lot on whether you assume the planet as Venus-like clouds. Further, in the thin-atmosphere case, representing the planet by a single mean temperature is misleading, as the substellar point actually gets hot enough to support liquid water even if the atmosphere is thin. Perhaps we should discuss what to do about the temperature section before proceeding. It requires too many structural changes for me to just go in and make a few minor tweaks.

Lorax2000 (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your interest & your work in the area, but I'm afraid you're in a COI for adding your own work on the page... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just getting the ball rolling. I confined myself to a straightforward description of what the paper says. Now that y'all are aware of it, anybody can read the paper and modify the entry, or for that matter delete if it for some bizarre reason it would be deemed irrelevant to the subject. My judgment is that the COI in a case like this was pretty minimal, but I specifically identified myself as the author in these comments in case anybody felt that needed to be addressed. Lorax2000 (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to review it just yet, but as long as your edits are neutral and significant (in other words, not an obscure self-reference) you should be ok. In the future, however, try proposing any potential COI edits on the talk page before making them. This will help smooth out the process. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This was actually my first attempt at editing a Wikipedia page, and I hadn't even noticed the function of the Discussion section until I had already done the edits. The thing that really needs major surgery, though, is the section on Temperature, but most of what needs to be done there applies pretty much to any tide-locked planet, and the best way to proceed would be to figure on something uniform to do across the whole category, rather than just doing an ad-hoc revision here. The main problem is that the categories in the table don't give sufficient scope to deal with the variety of climate characteristics or atmospheric characteristics that it should. Lorax2000 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lorax2000, do you have a free-access PDF copy of your paper at [2]? Tom Ruen (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am in the middle of doing some updates on my personal web site (linked via the author reference in the citation to the paper), specifically bringing the publications page up to date. I will put a free-access version there once I'm done with the updates, and link it in the references when available. Lorax2000 (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I just did the update of my personal web site and put a free-access version of the paper there. That should help in the discussion of the points I have raised. My site is linked to the author name in the citation of the ApJL paper, but I haven't yet edited the reference to provide a direct link to the free-access version. It is best if the default link point to the official publisher's site, since that is archival, so I'll need to figure out how to put in a separate link to the free-access version. The paper is right at the top of the publication list at http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/publist.html . Lorax2000 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't believe there was anything like ill intent; just wanted to advice "not the best idea". Caesar's wife, y'know. :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent analysis of published data / 581d vs. 581g / Question

The way this article presents the subsequent analysis of the data (the Andrae et al., Gregory and Anglada-Escudé papers) makes it seem that this is a sequence of events which ends with the current situation being that the planet is thought to exist. This is not the case. Icalanise (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused when i'm reading this article. I still don't know whether or not we have found this planet. Do we know for sure this planet exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trongphu (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/first-habitable-planet-2030_n_862785.html) says 581g was found not to actually exist, and describes 581d using similar terms... What gives? Alphachimera (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

See also (http://www.space.com/10897-alien-planet-gliese-581g-great-debate.html) Alphachimera (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Guess this is the final nail in the coffin: Extended HARPS data set does not find any signs of the planets f or g [3]. — JyriL ^talk 08:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's right, this planet is imaginary and proven to be false by Jyril's link above. The extended HARPS radial velocities are much more sensitive than the combined Harps / Hires set. Plus there was an error in the original analysis.

Having this article on Wikipedia in its current condition is misleading since it contains a large amount of information that has been proven to be false.

However, as soon as I started to make corrections indicating this, someone undid the changes.

This entire article needs to be rewritten.Martin Cash (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If the planet has been proven not to exist, then the article is about the research and trial and error, and should be kept, but rewritten. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - and at the moment - I agree - might be best to keep the article - but updated to current cited findings - @ Martin Cash - my mistake - I wasn't aware of your thinking til now - restored main article to your original edit - hope that helps - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Brief followup - and if interested - updated the lede sentence (and related "discovery status" in the "Planetbox") w/ the following:

Gliese 581 g ... is an extrasolar planet (which may be "unlikely" to exist according to one recent study)< ref name="Forveille">Forveille, T. (2011-09-12). "The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets XXXII. Only 4 planets in the Gl~581 system". arXiv:1109.2505v1 [astro-ph.EP]. {{cite arXiv}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)"...Our dataset therefore has strong diagnostic power for planets with the parameters of Gl 581f and Gl 581g, and we conclude that the Gl 581 system is unlikely to contain planets with those characteristics..."</ref>...

in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the planet confirmed or not? Reading the literature is not, but appears as confirm on the article Quantanew (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that all the confirmation talk is coming from the "discovery" team then I would say the question is still up in the air. The paper claiming confirmation is actually a riposte to a paper by another team which showed no evidence of the planet. The planet won't really be confirmed until Vogt's peers accept his teams analysis or at least cannot robustly challenge them. Until then the planet is still not confirmed. As usual there are plenty of editors that have a complete lack of understanding of how science works and the ability to reason, which is why the Wikipedia articles at present are bastardised. ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You lied, ChiZeroOne, see in Talk:Gliese 581 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Gliese 581. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the planet status to "Unconfirmed". In agreement with your assessment. Quantanew (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Artists Impression in Infobox. POV ?

The biggest issue with the artists impression is that it depicts seas and areas of land as being green. This makes the assumption not only that oceans must exits (this certainly cannot be assumed just by being in the habitable zone), but also of Earth based life as the only reason that the Earth appears partly green is due to the abundance of photosynthetic organisms with chlorophyll. Not only might it be less likely for such organisms to evolve around a red dwarf where the terminator gets much less direct and intense light, but it may not even have a green pigment. The infobox should not contain an artists impression as it is thoroughly misleading and really presents a strong POV of the habitability of this planet. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, an artist's impression of this object is far more likely to mislead than provide accurate information. However more to the point the current image is copyright violation as the the image is copyright, not PD-USGov-NASA as claimed. This was already discussed by myself on the talkpage and removed but it appears someone has re-uploaded it to wiki and added it here. Here's the commons deletion discussion where it was deleted first time round. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Update needed

In a new paper, Vogt has revised g's minimum mass downward to 2.2 M_E. I think the article should be updated to reflect this. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

While another paper claims that "the recently announced putative planets f and g are likely just illusions of the red noise", putting even d's existence in doubt. No consensus in sight... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is these "detections" are right at the limit of what is possible to pull out of the data, increased datasets can only help to a point, that slight changes in assumptions radically alter the interpretation. We'll likely have to wait for technological developments, e.g. a permanent laser comb spectrograph on HARPS, before the issue is resolved. Until then we can only report the to and fro. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Zarmina

glise 581g is also called Zarmina [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrykjancesarz (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Similarity to Bryyo from Metroid Prime 3?

This article mentions the planet is tidal locked and one side is forever day the other night, it later says the day side would be a scorching desert and the other icy cold, this is very similar to Bryyo from Metroid!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it dead yet?

Another nail in the Gliese 581 g coffin... [6] 46.126.77.137 (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Article needs updating now. --Artman40 (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Radius?

The planet's radius is listed in the infobox as 0.29 R☉, with R☉ linking the to the page Solar radius. This defines a solar radius to be 695,500 kilometres! How does this reconcile with the text which states that the planet is not much bigger then Earth? I assume I'm missing something. 212.9.31.12 (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That's under Parent star. — Reatlas (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hah! What a maroon (I am). 212.9.31.12 (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Self-Contridictions

I've noticed that this article keeps contradicting itself. Says one thing, than says the opposite about something.

Example: First it says it's -37 C, then later on in the article it says Gliese 581g has an average of -64 C !

Can someone help me out here? -Zoower

It's not a contradiction, you are just taking the values out of context. For a start nowhere does it say Gliese 581 g has a temperature of exactly -37 °C or -64 °C, it gives ranges of estimated temperatures. But the main point is that these values relate to different models of temperature. I've highlighted the crucial points in bold;

"It is estimated that the average global equilibrium temperature (the temperature in the absence of atmospheric effects) of Gliese 581 g ranges from 209 to 228 K (−64 to −45 °C, or −84 to −49 °F) for Bond albedos (reflectivities) from 0.5 to 0.3 (with the latter being more characteristic of the inner Solar System)."

Then;

"Adding an Earth-like greenhouse effect yields an average surface temperature in the range of 236 to 261 K (−37 to −12 °C, or −35 to 10 °F)."

So if it was assumed Gliese 581 g had no atmosphere (because this is a simple calculation that relies on the fewest unknowns) then the average temperature would be −64 to −45 °C. However that is unrealistic as given its mass range it probably retains at least a modest atmosphere, so the second range represents a more realistic estimate. Hope that helps. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no proof of any Extraterrestrial planets at all

They could be all just a "cosmic masquerade" - a magnetic outbursts from the local star. Our Solar system could be alone in the whole universe with planets.

Not true. There are at least 12 confirmed planets that have been directly imaged.[7] and probably more at this point since that link is from 2012. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be some confusion here about the nature of scientific explanation. — Aldaron • T/C 12:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing or incomplete sentence

On/in the last paragraphs of this page the last sentence is incomplete. How can we change this or rectify the meaning of said sentence? Thanks Labtek00 (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Labtek00 (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gliese 581 g. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ksta.de/html/artikel/1284751479322.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gliese 581 g. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101002020745/http://news.sciencemag.org:80/sciencenow/2010/09/astronomers-find-most-earth-like.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/astronomers-find-most-earth-like.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505101639/http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl+581 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl+581
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0237

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gliese 581g. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/astronomers-find-most-earth-like.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl%20581
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707084938/http://www-mgcm.arc.nasa.gov/mgcm/HTML/WEATHER/surface.html to http://www-mgcm.arc.nasa.gov/mgcm/HTML/WEATHER/surface.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)