Misplaced Pages

Talk:Earth Similarity Index: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:48, 3 April 2016 editDavidbuddy9 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,246 editsm →Improvements to the article← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:02, 17 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,727,927 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Astronomy}}. 
(159 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Astronomy|class=start}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
⚫ {{WikiProject Astronomy |importance=Low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(366d)
|archive = Talk:Earth Similarity Index/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 1
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
}}


== Venus ?? == == ESI Values Out of date ==
The Schulze-Makuch, Méndez ''et al.'' peer reviewed formula relies on an estimate of ''surface'' temperature, which is massively affected by atmospheric composition and greenhouse effects.


The Earth Similarity Index<ref name=esi>{{cite web|title=Earth Similarity Index (ESI)|url=http://phl.upr.edu/projects/earth-similarity-index-esi|publisher=Planetary Habitability Laboratory}}</ref> page maintained by Abel Méndez at the ], lists both a simplified and peer-reviewed formula for the Earth Similarity Index. The disparity over Venus between 0.44 to 0.78 is related to use of the simplified (0.78) or peer-reviewed (0.44) formula.
How on Earth (excuse the pun) did it go from 0.44 to 0.78 ?? --] (]) 06:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
: The value for Venus is wrong here (second-ranked is Mars not Venus). See example calculation in ] or referenced in . The values in are calculated different. --] (]) 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
:: The docs.google.com documents seem to be all broken. A copy of the table can be found in slide 7. It is written in German, but for the table this should not matter. --] (]) 16:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


I suggest the following standard basis to form the list:
Venus is listed as having different values on different Misplaced Pages pages. All the pages are backed by contradictory citations. I tried to add a note about the dispute to the actual page so that people wouldn't think the number here is authoritative, but that edit got reverted. A request for an expert was added to this page in 2014. That request has yet to be answered, so please someone add a note that the number is disputed. I apparently lack the standing to even note this contradiction. ] (]) 18:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
* Use the data from The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia<ref name=exoplanetenc>{{cite web|title=The Extrasolar
Planets Encyclopaedia|url=http://exoplanet.eu/|publisher=Paris Astronomical Data Center}}</ref> which is the largest maintained exoplanet and exoplanet candidate catalog, including atmospheric constituents if known and enough information to guesstimate obscure but relevant things like the rotation rate of the host star and Stellar Soft X-ray (SXR) Luminosity.
* Use the Schulze-Makuch, Méndez, ''et al.'' formula as written in the peer-reviewed paper. The ESI wiki article draws heavily upon the publish paper, and so it is the authoritative reference.
* Failing sufficient atmospheric information, assume the Absorptivity (The fraction of the IR upwelling from surface that is absorbed within the atmosphere) is equivalent to Solar System siblings. For example, for planets massive enough to retain H2O in an atmosphere, and above the ] therefore susceptible to a runaway greenhouse effect then the absorptivity is 1.98 (like Venus). For planets massive enough and young enough to retain a magnetic field or otherwise likely has the protective benefit of a magnetic field with sufficient mass to retain an atmosphere against stellar wind and hydrodynamic loss then use an absorptivity of 0.8 (which covers Earth and Mars but also Saturn's Titan and Neptune's Triton. Otherwise for inner planets above the ] too small to otherwise retain H2O in an atmosphere assume 0.08 (like Mercury), and for all other terrestrial planets assume 1.6+/-0.4 (ie the dwarf planets and all other major moons).


The results will be identical for Solar system bodies as found in Schulze-Makuch ''et al.'' paper and quoted in a BBC article<ref name="BBC">{{cite news|title=Most liveable alien worlds ranked|date=November 23, 2011|accessdate=April 10, 2016|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15863549|publisher=]}}</ref>, however some of Schulze-Makuch ''et al.'' numbers for Venus like planets are likely different. Schulze-Makuch ''et al.'' does not appear to have accounted for ] or other atmospheric physics in their paper.
NEVER MIND. I just discovered that another user did actually verify the numbers and set them right! :-) ] (]) 18:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


But this is all moot because of the above suggestion probably falls foul of the ]. Failing someone writing a journal paper on ESI updating the values based on latest understand and more recent exoplanet discoveries then the only publicly and freely available consistent reference is the BBC article<ref name="BBC">{{cite news|title=Most liveable alien worlds ranked|date=November 23, 2011|accessdate=April 10, 2016|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15863549|publisher=]}}</ref> list. Individual articles quoting an ESI for a single or small subset of planets/exoplanets is useless because of varying assumptions, varying ESI formula and inclusion or exclusion of various developments in atmosphere science.
== Habitability or not ? ==

Citation: ''"ESI is not a measure of habitability, ..."''

but the article is in category "Planetary habitability" and "Search for extraterrestrial intelligence". --] (]) 22:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

== Higher than Venus or Mars ==

] No they haven't. The table goes down to 0.53. The top of the article says Venus 0.78, Mars 0.64 or 0.70. Even ] above says Venus 0.44, Mars 0.70&nbsp;– and I don't think "higher ESI than Venus or Mars" means "either higher than Venus, or if not, then higher than Mars" because that could be simplified to just "higher than Venus". Should we qualify the "determined" statement, or shorten the table? It's a contradiction if we don't do either one. ] (]) 22:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

== ESI is not the same as PLANET HABITABILITY INDEX ==

Someone has gone substituted PHI figures in for the ESIs in the tables. The two are completely different measures.--] (]) 01:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


== Updated ESI Moon list to match Planet list == == Updated ESI Moon list to match Planet list ==
Line 78: Line 81:
!<small>Year of<br/>discovery</small> !<small>Year of<br/>discovery</small>
|-style="font-weight:bold" |-style="font-weight:bold"
| {{NA|sort=0}} || {{hs|!}}] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=1.00 |sph=0.72 |hzd=-0.50 |hzc=-0.31 |hza=-0.52}} || warm terran || {{yes|mesoplanet}} || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} | {{NA|sort=0}} || {{hs|!}}] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=1.00 |sph=0.72 |hzd=-0.50 |hzc=-0.31 |hza=-0.52}} || warm terran || {{yes|mesoplanet}} || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}}
|- |-
| {{nts| 1}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.86 |sph=?? |hzd= -0.75 |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm subterran || {{yes|mesoplanet}} || 136.8 || {{partial|Unconfirmed}} || | {{nts| 1}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.86 |sph=?? |hzd= -0.75 |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm subterran || {{yes|mesoplanet}} || 136.8 || {{partial|Unconfirmed}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 2}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.559 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 2}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.559 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 3}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.362 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 3}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.362 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 4}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.338 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 4}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.338 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 5}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.289 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 5}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.289 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 6}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.271 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm? asteroidan or subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 6}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.271 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm? asteroidan or subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 7}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.262 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 7}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.262 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 8}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.256 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm? asteroidan || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 8}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.256 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm? asteroidan || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 9}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.242 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 9}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.242 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 10}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.222 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm? asteroidan || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 10}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.222 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || warm? asteroidan || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 11}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.211 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 11}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.211 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 12}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.104 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 12}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.104 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 13}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.094 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 13}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.094 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 14}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.094 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran or asteroidan? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 14}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.094 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran or asteroidan? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
| {{nts| 15}} || ] || {{HabPlanetScore |esi=0.074 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} || | {{nts| 15}} || ] || {{User:Waldyrious/HabPlanetScore|esi=0.074 |sph=?? |hzd= ?? |hzc=?? |hza=??}} || cold? subterran? || || {{N/A|0}} || {{N/A|non-exoplanet}} || {{N/A|prehistoric}} ||
|- |-
|} |}
Line 115: Line 118:
--] (]) 16, January 2015 --] (]) 16, January 2015


{{reflist talk}}
==Kepler-452b==
as today, the NASA official Kepler web site does not report the mass of the planet
http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/
so while the planet radius is know with good approximation, the density is unknown. Many speculating web site report values from 5 EM to <1. So the ESI index for 452b reported in the article is completely arbitrary, remove it from an enciclopedia--] (]) 19:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:{{ping|Efa}} I have implemented the ESI value for ] that was provided by PHL. I also moved it (]) below ] again to match PHL. If there are any more issues than let me know and I will look over the data. ] (]) 15:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

== What is going on with the table? ==

Just as a note hypopsychroplanet and hyperthermoplanet could have ]s living on them! Thats why they were originally labled <code>Partial</code> instead of <code>No</code> and Mercury is considered Non-Habitable. ] (]) 16:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

== Clarification of Key to table ==


== Intentional orphaning ==
The key for the table in the Planets with relativiely high ESI section lists possible values for the pClass but doesn't include megaterran, the entry for #8, K2-3d. Where does it fall in the range?
According to Tom.Reding, this is "Intentional orphaning" however, that is not a neutral description of what is going on. See ]. ] (]) 12:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
⚫ ] (]) 23:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


@ ], and possibly elsewhere more surreptitiously. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 03:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
== Improvements to the article ==
*ESI is marginalized in the community and is a fairly ] concept which lately has not been subject to peer review. We need to treat it appropriately and not let Misplaced Pages be used as a ] for an idea that has not gained traction in the relevant epistemic community. ] (]) 10:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
**According to me, and your recent edit history:
**# 9 edits ] to Keplers, KOIs, and K2s
**# 2 ] to Gliese objects,
**# ] from ]
**# ] from ]
**# ] from ]
**# ] from ]
**# ] from ]
**# and topped off with ].
**Of which most&mdash;certainly the removal from article prose&mdash;should be reverted, due to your irrational bias against ESI. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span>&nbsp; 14:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
:::Please stop personalizing things. If you think I have an "irrational bias" against ESI, we can discuss that elsewhere. But the fact of the matter remains that there is a severe lack of peer-reviewed sources about ESI. Shoehorning it into articles that have good sources none of which mention ESI is opposed to the editorial guidelines I've been outlining above. The way to demonstrate that ESI should be included is to present a reliable source which connects ESI to the article in question. In all the cases you outline, there was no citation to a reliable source and, in some cases, the citation was to a source that did not mention ESI at all! ] (]) 14:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


== Slow-mo edit conflict ==
Remove ] and ] is extremely important for articles about ], which this idea is. We need to contextualize it ''properly.


Thus, , which I think does an admirable job describing this topic. We can add more sources as we may. by an IP is unsourced and has been removed for nearly a year. Seems to be no rationale for restoring it that I can find.


⚫ ] (]) 19:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
05:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


:Bonus points for this person threatening to report me for "removing that contains citations"... when all I did was fix phrasing that referenced the table that no longer was there. And they seem to be extremely passionate about this one single article. Is blocking them really not an option here? ] (]) 16:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
: {{ping|I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc}} If you looked at many of your AfD's that you opened up or even read your talk page, people are reminding you that you don't understand what ] is. According to you all sources need to be peer reviewed. Unfortunately all of your TfD's don't make sense that you made Earlier this month you do not need to have peer reviewed papers to justify what shades of red to green it should be for numbers ranging from 0 to 1. And no is not admirable its either a stub or a start much smaller than the previes version, and Ironically you pulled the equation how to calculate it! And then you go around looking for templates complaining that the ESI is purely Original research WOW. April Fools happened 2 days ago ok it's over get over it. PS. you stated that it was "vetted by experts" where is the peer reviewed paper please? Or else thats ]! <span style="border:2px solid #090E0E;padding:0px;"><font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;">]</font>] </span> 05:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::It's a bit too "slow-mo" for it to be an option. If it escalates, we can take it to one of the relevant noticeboards. ] (]) 17:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:02, 17 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earth Similarity Index article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAstronomy Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

ESI Values Out of date

The Schulze-Makuch, Méndez et al. peer reviewed formula relies on an estimate of surface temperature, which is massively affected by atmospheric composition and greenhouse effects.

The Earth Similarity Index page maintained by Abel Méndez at the University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo, lists both a simplified and peer-reviewed formula for the Earth Similarity Index. The disparity over Venus between 0.44 to 0.78 is related to use of the simplified (0.78) or peer-reviewed (0.44) formula.

I suggest the following standard basis to form the list:

  • Use the data from The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia which is the largest maintained exoplanet and exoplanet candidate catalog, including atmospheric constituents if known and enough information to guesstimate obscure but relevant things like the rotation rate of the host star and Stellar Soft X-ray (SXR) Luminosity.
  • Use the Schulze-Makuch, Méndez, et al. formula as written in the peer-reviewed paper. The ESI wiki article draws heavily upon the publish paper, and so it is the authoritative reference.
  • Failing sufficient atmospheric information, assume the Absorptivity (The fraction of the IR upwelling from surface that is absorbed within the atmosphere) is equivalent to Solar System siblings. For example, for planets massive enough to retain H2O in an atmosphere, and above the Komabayasi-Ingersoll Limit therefore susceptible to a runaway greenhouse effect then the absorptivity is 1.98 (like Venus). For planets massive enough and young enough to retain a magnetic field or otherwise likely has the protective benefit of a magnetic field with sufficient mass to retain an atmosphere against stellar wind and hydrodynamic loss then use an absorptivity of 0.8 (which covers Earth and Mars but also Saturn's Titan and Neptune's Triton. Otherwise for inner planets above the Komabayasi-Ingersoll Limit too small to otherwise retain H2O in an atmosphere assume 0.08 (like Mercury), and for all other terrestrial planets assume 1.6+/-0.4 (ie the dwarf planets and all other major moons).

The results will be identical for Solar system bodies as found in Schulze-Makuch et al. paper and quoted in a BBC article, however some of Schulze-Makuch et al. numbers for Venus like planets are likely different. Schulze-Makuch et al. does not appear to have accounted for Komabayasi-Ingersoll Limit or other atmospheric physics in their paper.

But this is all moot because of the above suggestion probably falls foul of the No-original-research policy. Failing someone writing a journal paper on ESI updating the values based on latest understand and more recent exoplanet discoveries then the only publicly and freely available consistent reference is the BBC article list. Individual articles quoting an ESI for a single or small subset of planets/exoplanets is useless because of varying assumptions, varying ESI formula and inclusion or exclusion of various developments in atmosphere science.

Updated ESI Moon list to match Planet list

I was thinking about moving the list of moons to the HabPlanetScore format for lists. I would like to know if its a go or no. (Yeah its a bit messy but the missing info will get filled in eventually).--User:Davidbuddy9 (talk) 16, January 2015

ESIs of non-planets

The Moon, Io and Earth shown to scale. Although significantly smaller, some of the Solar System's moons and dwarf planets share similarities to Earth's density and temperature resulting in relatively high ESIs. It is theoretically possible for Earth-sized extrasolar moons and other non-planets to have high ESIs.

The ESI can be applied to objects other than planets, including natural satellites, dwarf planets and asteroids, though comparisons typically draw lower global ESI due to the lower average density and temperature of these objects, at least for those known in the Solar System.

The following non-planetary objects have relatively high global ESIs:

# Name ESI SPH HZD HZC HZA pClass hClass Distance (ly) Status Year of
discovery
— Earth 1.00 0.72 -0.50 -0.31 -0.52 warm terran mesoplanet 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
1 HD 222582 b m 0.86 ?? -0.75 ?? ?? warm subterran mesoplanet 136.8 Unconfirmed
2 Moon 0.559 ?? ?? ?? ?? warm? subterran? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
3 Io 0.362 ?? ?? ?? ?? cold? subterran? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
4 Callisto 0.338 ?? ?? ?? ?? cold? subterran? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
5 Ganymede 0.289 ?? ?? ?? ?? cold? subterran? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
6 Ceres 0.271 ?? ?? ?? ?? warm? asteroidan or subterran? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
7 Europa 0.262 ?? ?? ?? ?? cold? subterran? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
8 4 Vesta 0.256 ?? ?? ?? ?? warm? asteroidan 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
9 Titan 0.242 ?? ?? ?? ?? warm? subterran? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
10 2 Pallas 0.222 ?? ?? ?? ?? warm? asteroidan 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
11 Iapetus 0.211 ?? ?? ?? ?? cold? subterran? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
12 Titania 0.104 ?? ?? ?? ?? cold? subterran? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
13 Enceladus 0.094 ?? ?? ?? ?? cold? subterran? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
14 Pluto 0.094 ?? ?? ?? ?? cold? subterran or asteroidan? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric
15 Triton 0.074 ?? ?? ?? ?? cold? subterran? 0 non-exoplanet prehistoric

Of these, only Titan is known to hold on to a significant atmosphere despite an overall lower size and density. --User:Davidbuddy9 (talk) 16, January 2015

References

  1. "Earth Similarity Index (ESI)". Planetary Habitability Laboratory.
  2. "The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia". Paris Astronomical Data Center. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 15 (help)
  3. ^ "Most liveable alien worlds ranked". BBC. November 23, 2011. Retrieved April 10, 2016.
  4. pg 143. Multivariate and other worksheets for R (or S-Plus): a miscellany P.M.E.Altham, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge. January 10, 2013

Intentional orphaning

According to Tom.Reding, this is "Intentional orphaning" however, that is not a neutral description of what is going on. See WP:ONEWAY. jps (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Talk:Earth analog#Removing see also, and possibly elsewhere more surreptitiously.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing things. If you think I have an "irrational bias" against ESI, we can discuss that elsewhere. But the fact of the matter remains that there is a severe lack of peer-reviewed sources about ESI. Shoehorning it into articles that have good sources none of which mention ESI is opposed to the editorial guidelines I've been outlining above. The way to demonstrate that ESI should be included is to present a reliable source which connects ESI to the article in question. In all the cases you outline, there was no citation to a reliable source and, in some cases, the citation was to a source that did not mention ESI at all! jps (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Slow-mo edit conflict

This preferred version by an IP is unsourced and has been removed for nearly a year. Seems to be no rationale for restoring it that I can find.

jps (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Bonus points for this person threatening to report me for "removing that contains citations"... when all I did was fix phrasing that referenced the table that no longer was there. And they seem to be extremely passionate about this one single article. Is blocking them really not an option here? MinMinnH (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
It's a bit too "slow-mo" for it to be an option. If it escalates, we can take it to one of the relevant noticeboards. jps (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Categories: