comScore
Space Wednesday, January 30th 2013 at 8:35 am

New Definition Boots Earth Out Of ‘Goldilocks Zone’ for Habitable Planets

As researchers sift through reams of data looking for the telltale signs of planets orbiting other stars in our galaxy, special attention is paid to planets in the so-called ‘Goldilocks Zone’ that could conceivably support life. In the interest of improving and honing the search for Earth-like planets, a team of astronomers led by Penn State University has proposed some changes to the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ that they think paint a better picture of where life-sustaining planets would orbit in relation to their stars. There’s just one problem — that new definition kicks the Earth’s orbit nearly out of the new ‘Goldilocks Zone,’ meaning that we are all going to have to move to a planet that could support life, as this one clearly can’t. Get packing, everyone.

The ‘Goldilocks Zone’ is narrow belt around a star where an orbiting planet would be warm enough to support life, but cool enough that life wouldn’t just go around bursting into flames all the time, a factor that can significantly delay evolutionary development. The term was introduced nearly two decades ago, and hasn’t been substantively updated since then. That’s why Penn State researchers wanted to take a look at the zone with open eyes — and new data on how planetary atmospheres absorb heat from their stars.

Taking into account those new findings, the Penn State team suggests that the potentially habitable zone around planets should be pushed back, farther away from stars. That new definition could bring some farther away planets into the fold of life-sustaining planets, and goes down as great news for people who hope tauntauns are a real thing somewhere. But it also kicks some planets out of the hunt for life as too hot — including, oddly enough, our very own Earth, which we were pretty sure did a fairly good job of supporting life. Then again, what do we know?

According to the new definition, Earth is just a million kilometers from the “too hot” edge of the habitable zone, saved from being overheated only by its clouds. Clouds are just one factor that neither definition of the zone takes into account, as they can’t be seen from our vantage point, driving home the reminder that while the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ is a good place to start looking for other worlds that could support life, it’s still a big swing made with incomplete data, and by no means the end of the story.

(via New Scientist)

Relevant to your interests

Filed Under |
  • volcrush

    data fitting

  • Jack Bond

    Scientists at their finest.

  • http://twitter.com/nachtritter Duke Fleed

    Are you being sarcastic? I honestly can’t tell.

  • Anonymous

    Last week, Massachusetts in the USA on the North
    American continent of Planet Earth was too cold to support intelligent life, but I’m ok.

  • Idlethoughts

    Probably not, try not to dwell on it, this is pretty standard behavior for him.

  • Idlethoughts

    … Laurence, are you implying what I think your implying?

  • Jack Bond

    Don’t mind me. I’ve given up on having any opinion on anything “scientific”. Except that everyone is stupid and wrong. Even if they’re right, I can’t trust them, so I just snark from my little apathetic corner of the world. Don’t argue me because I don’t have a better explanation. I’m just a non-believer of everything. Like a super atheist.

  • the_silence

    If the earth is still in the “Goldilocks Zone” then what is the problem? It is supposed to define a region in which a planet has the largest chance to support life. So even if we are close to the edge as long as we are still in the zone what is the problem?

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, a little self-deprecating humor.

  • newshutz

    Our atmosphere is thinner than it should be, because of our abnormally large moon. A normal atmosphere for our size planet would cook.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=744738501 Brandon Vaughan

    I think you might fit the label nihilist better, not that it probably matters to you, being a nihilist and all. (I say this in jest, not spite!)