Phosphine gas detected in Venusian atmosphere (Now with Poll!)

[ViaCrucis]

Purported phosphine on Venus more likely to be ordinary sulfur dioxide -- ScienceDaily

@sjastro
@SelfSim
@essentialsaltes
@JohnDB
@Nithavela
@FrumiousBandersnatch

Ya'll could notify anyone you discussed with I left out. I didn't read that many posts, as I just emailed by chemist father right off the bat, and he quickly explained why it would be more likely a non-biological origin. (he had accidentally made phosphine himself once! But...now this result it is merely sulfur dioxide is just funny...)

I think I was like many others, pretty confident that a non-biological explanation--or even a mistake such as it turned out to be--was the most likely explanation. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I was hopeful in the back of my mind. So it is kind of a bummer.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SelfSim]

As an aside, elsewhere I have been discussing this phosphine issue. Even with this latest sulfur dioxide finding, a woo-ist persists with zealot-like fervour in questioning it: 'How do you know this is right?, It hasn't been through peer review yet .. How you know the phosphine paper is wrong?'
Groan!
(This poster would be more at home in the C&E forum at CFs).

 

[sjastro]

The latest explanation for phosphine gas on Venus.
Phosphine in Atmosphere of Venus Points to Explosive Volcanic Activity | Astronomy, Planetary Science | Sci-News.com

 

[SelfSim]

The latest explanation for phosphine gas on Venus.
Phosphine in Atmosphere of Venus Points to Explosive Volcanic Activity | Astronomy, Planetary Science | Sci-News.com

Yep .. (noticed it yesterday). Makes sense.

This study seems to still be at odds with those concluding that it wasn't phospine at all that was detected in the original discovery announcement.
I think there needs to be some kind of consensus annoucement(?)
Y'know like maybe an IAU vote on it or something(?)

 

[Halbhh]

Yep .. (noticed it yesterday). Makes sense.

This study seems to still be at odds with those concluding that it wasn't phospine at all that was detected in the original discovery announcement.
I think there needs to be some kind of consensus annoucement(?)
Y'know like maybe an IAU vote on it or something(?)

Yeah, imagine you've been working on a theory about how phosphine might be generated, and then a group publishes a paper suggesting the signal looks like probably not phosphine.... What do you do then? You probably publish anyway, but say 'if' --
“It is of value to ask why phosphine is in the Venusian atmosphere, if it is there,” said Cornell University’s Jonathan Lunine and doctoral candidate Ngoc Truong.

And that might be useful to consider if a future detection is real.

 

[sjastro]

Y'know like maybe an IAU vote on it or something(?)

No way given the Pluto issue the IAU are in the same league as KAOS, SMERSH and SPECTRE.

 

[SelfSim]

Yeah, imagine you've been working on a theory about how phosphine might be generated, and then a group publishes a paper suggesting the signal looks like probably not phosphine.... What do you do then? You probably publish anyway, but say 'if' --
“It is of value to ask why phosphine is in the Venusian atmosphere, if it is there,” said Cornell University’s Jonathan Lunine and doctoral candidate Ngoc Truong.

And that might be useful to consider if a future detection is real.

But way less value than using the actual data underpinning that future announcement.

 

[Halbhh]

But way less value than using the actual data underpinning that future announcement.

Well, it seems mostly this kind of complex system science proceeds by a lot of little (even very small) steps, much duplication, plenty of not taking something important into account, some modeling more useful and some less , and it not clear for quite a while often.

 

[SelfSim]

Well, it seems mostly this kind of complex system science proceeds by a lot of little (even very small) steps, much duplication, plenty of not taking something important into account, some modeling more useful and some less , and it not clear for quite a while often.

Planetary models advance on the basis of hard, (verified), data, which is then used to constrain speculative ideas.
The other way is just back-to-front reasoning, which then just contributes to the noise factor.

 

[Ophiolite]

Planetary models advance on the basis of hard, (verified), data, which is then used to constrain speculative ideas.

Some planetary models advance on this basis. Others simply proceed, not in a good direction, on the basis of other factors. I'm sure you can think of an example or two.

 

[SelfSim]

Some planetary models advance on this basis. Others simply proceed, not in a good direction, on the basis of other factors. I'm sure you can think of an example or two.

Yeah .. I suppose some would say even a speculative model is better than none at all ... but do they really progress scientific understanding?
(Tell ya, we just can't help but model stuff, then believe them, all in the absence of good data, eh?!)

 

[Ophiolite]

Yeah .. I suppose some would say even a speculative model is better than none at all ... but do they really progress scientific understanding?

Speculative models are a valuable component of the scientific method - the one you often appear to insist does not exist. They provide targets for testing and thereby give form to investigations.
Those were not the speculative models you were seeking. I was referencing models that arguably contaminate thinking. Bode's Law springs to mind.

 

[SelfSim]

Speculative models are a valuable component of the scientific method - the one you often appear to insist does not exist.

Some ambiguity in your accusation there.
Where have I insisted that speculative models don't exist?

 

[Ophiolite]

Some ambiguity in your accusation there.
Where have I insisted that speculative models don't exist?

You have insisted that the scientific method does not exist (except in the mind of philosophers and, perhaps, mislead, or incompetent scientists).

 

[SelfSim]

Speculative models are a valuable component of the scientific method - the one you often appear to insist does not exist.

Some ambiguity in your accusation there.

Where have I insisted that speculative models don't exist?

You have insisted that the scientific method does not exist (except in the mind of philosophers and, perhaps, mislead, or incompetent scientists).

Thank you for clarifying.
Just closing the loop of my initial slight misunderstanding there, and of relevance to this thread and your accusation, I would say that the example of aerial biospheres in the high-altitude cloud decks of Venus, where conditions have some similarity to ecosystems that produce phosphine on Earth, is one such speculative model. It objectively exists, according to the OP paper (and I concur with that). It was possible to describe it as a testable hypothesis also, as we saw in the OP paper.

In general, speculation may initiate the formation of testable hypotheses. This is then followed by testing, results and conclusions. This is the core scientific method I realise. In the domain of science, of course, that method is also realised by following its own, (ie: the same), method, thereby making 'the scientific method' one of science's operational definitions.

Hopefully this suffices in refuting your accusation, which was apparently a belief based one?

 

[SelfSim]

As an update, it appears Sara Seager (etal's) team has now produced yet another speculative hypothesis/model centered around the anomalous 'tentative' detection', (whatever that means), of trace levels of ammonia in Venus' atmosphere:
Production of ammonia makes Venusian clouds habitable and explains observed cloud-level chemical anomalies

This research provides a transformative hypothesis for the chemistry of the atmospheric cloud layers of Venus while reconciling decades-long atmosphere anomalies. Our model predicts that the clouds are not entirely made of sulfuric acid, but are partially composed of ammonium salt slurries, which may be the result of biological production of ammonia in cloud droplets. As a result, the clouds are no more acidic than some extreme terrestrial environments that harbor life. Life could be making its own environment on Venus. The model’s predictions for the abundance of gases in Venus’ atmosphere match observation better than any previous model, and are readily testable.

The presence of trace levels of atmospheric ammonia (pH: base) is argued as being capable of neutralising the concentrated sulphuric acid at the ~50km altitude.

The paper is highly dependent on an assertion of controversial, decades-old 'tentative detections' of trace ammonia, (supposedly), by both the Venera 8 (launch: 1972) and Pioneer Venus (launch: 1978) probes. (Difficult to find the papers reporting that tentative 'detection').

The release of the above paper, also corresponds with the announcement of 'a suite of scrappy, privately-funded missions set to hunt for signs of life' in Venus's atmosphere, (news release words there), currently scheduled for a launch date in 2023.

Is this yet another example worthy of another @sjastro post reported, IAU attack on the original phosphine detection?

 

[Ophiolite]

Hopefully this suffices in refuting your accusation, which was apparently a belief based one?

Your are confused: it is hope that is belief based. I suspect that I made an observation, not an accusation, but I really have no interest in helping you with your problems. I stumbled across this post by accident, as I have you on Ignore, a situation I am happy to return to. (And that is an example of a belief.)