Near the end, the article states "The researchers behind the simulations in this new study found that nitrogen plays a huge role in determining the overall temperature of a planet — and, therefore, its habitability. What's even more complicated: it's not a simple relationship, more nitrogen doesn't necessarily just make a planet warmer. "
The report here was refreshing for me to read. A report that does not appear to promote abiogenesis everywhere in the universe
Another new report on planet habitability is out, 'Can super-Earth interior dynamics set the table for habitability?',
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-super-earth-interior-dynamics-table-habitability.html
Interesting report on modeling interiors of super-earths, some 1.5 to 2.0 earth radii in size. I did a MS SQL query using descriptive statics. 581 are reported at
http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/ The average orbital period is 17 days, min 0.28 days, max 385 days. Most exoplanets like this are close in, at least the confirmed population reported today.
https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html, this site list 641, average period 16 days, min 0.28 days, max 385 days.
If the modeling looks at interiors and magnetic fields for habitability for these 1.5 to 2.0 earth radii size exoplanets, orbits need to be examined too, especially if many orbit close to their host stars. Now the space.com report shows issues with nitrogen for habitability too. It is good to define boundaries and constraints for the *cosmic imperative of abiogenesis* creating life throughout the universe
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram