https://briankoberlein.com/2015/07/24/earth-2/ Brian Koberlein Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:13:36 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.0.3 https://briankoberlein.com/2015/07/24/earth-2/#comment-2588 Sat, 25 Jul 2015 14:31:18 +0000 https://briankoberlein.com/?p=5014#comment-2588 The strange thing is with implying is unremarkable the relatively large distance of 1400 ly to Kepler 452, when the latter likely explains that the press has remained relatively well-behaved. _Distance_ is the parameter with the most swing – from paramount to utterly irrelevant, in terms of how it is valued by some to elect an exoplanet “Earth 2.0 of the year”.

]]> https://briankoberlein.com/2015/07/24/earth-2/#comment-2587 Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:47:50 +0000 https://briankoberlein.com/?p=5014#comment-2587 There are various ways of rating planets. It really depends on what is valued more (size, temperature, star type, etc.) I did a basic post on the topic and wikipedia has an article on it as well.

]]> https://briankoberlein.com/2015/07/24/earth-2/#comment-2586 Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:26:43 +0000 https://briankoberlein.com/?p=5014#comment-2586 The popular press has been relatively well-behaved in its reporting of this; perhaps as a result of interpretive press releases. Based on the tempering of enthusiasm, this story left me casually wondering if there is a ‘confidence of habitability’ measure that we can apply to candidate planets, based on likely distributions of contributing factors. Further, I wonder how Earth would measure using that method.

]]>