User talk:Ejtasker

Welcome!
Hello, Ejtasker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

CHZ
I saw your addition at the CHZ article and the justified revert: "The name of the CHZ has received criticism by the scientific community due to the term 'habitable' incorrectly suggesting a direct link between the orbit of a planet and the probability of supporting life." That is an incorrect interpretation of the actual criticism. "Habitability" refers to the physical environmental parameters (including liquid water at the surface). It makes no assumptions on the "probability of supporting life"; the Drake equation deals with that, not the CHZ. Note that a perfectly habitable planet can be uninhabited and lifeless. The authors suggest a better name that relates the likelihood of benign environmental factors without using the word "habitable" to avoid misunderstandings like this. You do have a point in that there is the suggestion by many to change the term, so lets find a way to explain it in better terms. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out and your comment. The main driver behind the linked references (e.g. the Nature Astronomy article which was a community statement on the topic ) was that the media (and occasionally scientific papers in related fields) frequently equate an orbit within the CHZ as meaning a newly discovered exoplanet is habitable (as it's right there in the name). However, the boundaries of the CHZ used in these cases only apply to the ability of an Earth-like planet (that is, one with our atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen, varying amounts of carbon dioxide and our surface pressure) to support liquid water on the surface. It simply doesn't apply to planets with different properties that orbit within this region (this is actually quite obvious, since Mars in within the CHZ but cannot support surface seas). That is why the community have been discussing a name change, and was the debate I was trying to highlight briefly. I am the lead author on the Nature statement, but it's very possible I expressed myself badly in the wikipedia edit in an effort to be brief! Ejtasker (talk)


 * Hello. Please let me help you navigate the intricacies of Wikipedia. Your point is quite valid and the excitement of habitable worlds spills from papers to media and into Wikipedia too, so there is a need in Wikipedia to mention this issue -briefly. I just crafted a paragraph/draft in my "sandbox", found here. I kept most of your references. High quality blogs are permited, but no Tweets. Please review it and EDIT IT at your convenience. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help! I've rephrased slightly (and put my suggestion below yours temporarily to avoid a merge conflict). Please use as you see fit. Ejtasker (talk)
 * I like your revision. Because of its [current] importance and length, I cannot justify a separate section for it; and I cannot place it in the introduction because it must be a summary of the text below. So I will have to add it somewhere in the body of the article. In the future, if the issue in the media evolves in significant ways, then we can expand more on it; and if it gets implemented (by scientific consensus?) then we would re-name the title of this Wikipedia article. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I completely bow to your judgement about where it belongs! I think it's great it's going to be mentioned and I very much appreciate your help and expert eye. Thanks again for reaching out to me: I confess I would have given up otherwise.


 * You are welcome. It is frustrating when people revert well-sourced and neutral information and resorting to BS arguments. A few tweaks was all it needed. It is my pleasure to make Wikipedia a bit better every day in topics related to habitability and astrobiology. Please feel free to contact me in the future, especially if it involves self-published information. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. I was wondering why the difficulty in changing to a more appropriate term. Since the CHZ is meant to denote an area or distance where a planet could have liquid water on its surface, it could be unambiguously named "circumstellar liquid water zone" or something similar that is restricted to this single parameter of interest.  What goes into play when proposing or establishing a new term in your field? I hope you guys come up with something less 'misleading'.  :-)  Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue is the amount of starlight (and therefore distance from the star) needed by a planet for the surface to be temperate enough for liquid water depends on the planet atmosphere, which we typically don't know for exoplanets. This is why the Earth can support liquid water on the surface in the habitable zone, but Mars (which is also in the habitable zone but has a much thinner atmosphere) cannot. You could pull Venus into the habitable zone, and its thick carbon dioxide atmosphere would still mean it was too hot for liquid water. This has been discussed at conferences, but it's hard to find a simple name that reflects the fact that habitable zone only works for the Earth: that is, a planet with our atmosphere of nitrogen, oxygen and adjustable levels of carbon dioxide, and surface pressure. "Earth's liquid water zone" would be good, but I think considered too long.
 * So on top of irradiance, we need to determine the individual planet's atmospheric composition and pressure (which we can't do yet). But still, the term should only refer to the potential of liquid water at the surface. I just hope the terminology is adjusted sooner, before the launch of the new space observatories dedicated to this; it would make our editing work so much easier at Wikipedia. Thank you and have a nice weekend. Rowan Forest (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)