Gliese 1214 b

The latest from Mr Thomas – Distant Watery Planet Looks Young – is perhaps of some note.

An artist's impression of a planet orbiting a red dwarf

You’ll see why in a minute. First, here’s how he begins:

A new analysis detailing the atmosphere of GJ 1214b—a planet located about 40 light years from earth and one that researchers have studied for about a decade—appeared in the March issue of The Astrophysical Journal. According to Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist and lead author Zachory Berta, “GJ1214b is like no planet we know of. A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.”

You probably heard the news reports. That quote is from this article; B.T.’s other source in this DpSU is The Atmospheric Chemistry of GJ 1214b: Photochemistry and Clouds (the arXiv link is here).

Brian goes on to give a (very) brief explanation of the situation. We have in Gliese 1214 b a planet 7 times more massive than Earth orbiting a red dwarf around a 70th of the distance from it that we do from our Sun. It’s also more than 200 degrees Celsius hotter, and has a rather steamy atmosphere. With that explained we can skip the next two paragraphs in this five paragraph article, right to the punchline:

A 2011 study of the GJ 1214b atmosphere reported that the planet orbits “a relatively bright” red-dwarf.

That’s a rather…odd line, which Thomas goes so far as to source with the only reference to the 2012 study in his article. But that’s not what I’m after – this is:

How long would it take for the solar wind from a bright star to blow away water vapor from such a nearby planet? And how long would it take for the sheer heat of GJ 1214b to eject water vapor from its atmosphere into nearby space, especially considering its fast orbit?

I don’t know Brian – do you? (Do any of my readers know for sure, come to think of it?)

The scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these. If planet GJ 1214b is as watery as astronomers say, then it presents a challenging puzzle for those determined to assign it an evolutionary age of millions or billions of years.

…And that’s it. If Brian does know, he’s not telling. Perhaps it’s time to do some research.

Not much, mind you: the first thing that came up (for me) in a google search of “red dwarf solar wind” was Living with a Red Dwarf from Astrobiology Magazine. As you can probably tell the article is on this very subject and more. To summarise the useful points:

  • Red dwarfs are now considered much more hospitable for life than they used to be.
  • UV light and Solar Flares can indeed strip off the atmosphere…if nothing is there to protect it.
  • But this is largely a feature of younger red dwarfs – after a few short billion years they settle down and will shine constantly for many, many billions of years longer. All you need to do is hold on for that long.
  • A magnetic field like ours would be sufficient to do that.
  • But if a planet is orbiting a red dwarf anywhere near the habitable zone it’s probably close enough to be tidally locked, meaning its core will rotate slower. Slower rotation will lead to a lesser magnetic field which could even shut off entirely.
  • To counter this, the planet in question needs to be bigger/more massive than Earth: a planet 2-10 times more massive than Earth could well be able to maintain a magnetic field big enough, long enough to protect its atmosphere the necessary 3 billion years or so.

Now as I’ve already said, Gliese 1214 b is seven times more massive than Earth. And the Astrobiology article does rather suggest that Brian’s claim that “[t]he scientific literature typically does not ask questions like these” is very much incorrect.

So why is this particular DpSU ‘notable’ in my eyes? Well, we have here fairly strong evidence that B.T. wont even google before he makes statements like this. As such, the hope for me when I write this blog is that when they read them at least some of his readers do.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Gliese 1214 b

  1. Normally when he talks about something “looking young” its because he’s able to misquote or take out of context some aspect of the study that could be construed to suggest something looks young.

    This time it’s just

    1. I say it looks young
    2. Nobody has contradicted me
    THEREFORE
    3. It is young.

    As if that logic wasn’t sketchy enough, premise 2 is basically hokum as your research suggests.

  2. Is Mr Thomas an imbecile or just a liar?

    He says Gliese GJ1214b has been studied for a ‘decade’. In fact it was discovered in December 2009.

    The phrase ‘clutching at straws and finding a needle in a haystack’ comes to mind.

    • And would you look at that – they’ve changed it!

      The line now reads “…researchers have studied since 2009”.

      And it looks like I remembered to take a screenshot of this one: here’s what it looked like originally, here’s what the article reads now.

      There’s no acknowledgement of the error, of course. Given the other content of the article, and the fact that there’s no need for deception on this point, I’d go for the ‘incompetent’ end of the spectrum myself.

  3. The latest noddy science from Mr Thomas (shown below is my email to the ICR):

    http://www.icr.org/article/6749

    Here are some more facts for you Mr Thomas.

    China and Mongolia were in the same positions as now at the time –
    around 4,300 years’ ago – that ‘Noah’s Flood’ is supposed to have taken
    place. These – extinct – plants were buried by masses of volcanic tuff.
    Not by water. And there has been NO major volcanic eruption in northern
    China during the past 6,000 years; I’ve checked online.

    “But they did not mention the possibility that the entire forest may
    have been transported like a giant sheet. Although the tall trees had
    been toppled, the collective root mass appeared intact. Perhaps it
    originally was a floating forest.”

    “Evolution maintains that these Permian plants existed 240 million
    years ago. But ironically, according to that same evolutionary
    timeframe, their fossils should no longer exist. The fossils and all of
    China should have completely eroded about 14 million years after they
    were deposited, assuming the evolutionary paradigm and known erosion
    rates. The study authors wrote, “Excavation was necessary to secure the
    stunning specimens of this flora because weathering occurs rapidly and
    destroys the fossils”. So, did China’s landscape experience no
    weathering for over 200 million years?”

    I DO NOT TRUST ARTICLES BY CREATIONIST SCIENCE WRITERS WHICH INTRODUCE
    IRRELEVANT SPECULATION IN ORDER TO MISLEAD, RELY ON PAST CREATIONIST
    FOOTNOTES FOR THEIR ‘ARGUMENTS’, AND THEN CONFUSE TWO DIFFERENT
    PROCESSES – EROSION AND WEATHERING – WITHOUT EVEN DEFINING EITHER.

    “…biblical history easily explains these “catastrophically preserved
    floras”. LIAR. Genesis never specifically refers to ANY volcanic
    eruptions until – possibly – when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.
    This eruption was an ancient regional disaster, not a ‘worldwide’ one.
    But China is nowhere near the Near or Middle East.

    It’s ironic that you should also post a verse from Peter about the
    wilfully ignorant, Mr Thomas. That is what you hope your READERS are.

    The verse in Peter says NOTHING about a volcanic eruption just before
    or during or just after Noah’s Flood. NOTHING. You are lying.

    I am sharing this at the BCSE Community Forum and with the blogger Eye
    on the ICR.

Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s