“More habitable than Earth” is a high bar

Here’s a headline: These 24 planets may be more ‘habitable’ than Earth, astronomers say

Let’s take a look at the actual post …

Researchers identified these planets based on a list of specific criteria. Among them, the planets’ presence in the host star’s “goldilocks zone,” or the habitable orbit around a star where liquid water can exist thanks to the right temperature. Not only does the right surface temperature matter for the existence of water, but a surface temperature about 41 degrees warmer than that of Earth would be more suitable for life, thanks to the combination of higher temperatures and the presence of moisture.

Also, when it comes to planets, bigger is better. A planet that’s even 10% larger than Earth means it has more habitable land. Plus, one that has even 1.5 times our planet’s mass means it can keep its interior heating longer through radioactive decay, and would also have even stronger gravity to sustain an atmosphere (and hold down moisture) for a longer period of time.

FORTY-ONE DEGREES WARMER? Wow, that does not instantly strike me as “more habitable.” Even if you’re talking F instead of C, which I assume they are, that would have made the dawn temperature today, right here where I am, 93F. It would make the temperature of an ordinary August day, oh, say, about 132F. Who exactly defines that as “more habitable?”

You know, that would also put summer temperatures in ALASKA at 96F to 120F. Wow! What an improvement.

Okay, obviously if the entire biosphere evolved in this super-warm environment, those organisms would all find these conditions perfectly fine. But let’s say that one of these worlds is beautiful and filled with complex life and I would love to visit and observe and take notes — but the world also has 1.5x Earth gravity and is 41F warmer, I would definitely require a nice, air-conditioned habitat to which I could retreat to recover from the “more habitable” conditions.

Please Feel Free to Share: