This article is an instant headache. Terrible explanation of the data.
Basically, the planet is a gas giant tidally locked in an orbit 1/25 the distance of Mercury. One side is absolutely blasted continuously by the sun at over 2k degrees F. The water molecules are being flung to the dark side at 5000mph, where they cool down to 1100F.
So, one side is continuously blasted to some point of density and the other side is more like a traditional gas giant with density layers and circulating gas as opposed to being blasted in one direction. No methane was detected, so wind speeds must be over 5k mph to keep it from rising. Unless there is no methane or some other process is keeping it below the surface.
Thank you, with this explanation it actually sounds more fun and interesting. Also it's obital period is 20 hours, it's just amazing to think how this planet is almost touching the sun it's orbiting (relative to Mercury).
Disclaimer that this is just intuition.
The surface gasses are blasted back to the backside, they cool, condense, force lower layers forward until they reach the surface of the front.
It’s a gas giant, so its atmosphere has plenty of water. “ WASP-43 b is a "hot Jupiter" type planet with an atmosphere mostly made from hydrogen, water, and helium. It orbits its star (named WASP-43) at a very close 1.3 million miles, only 4 percent of the distance between our sun and its closest planet, Mercury. The close proximity to its star has led to it becoming tidally locked, which means one side always faces toward the star and the other always faces away—just like the moon orbiting the Earth.”
Webb was able to make measurements that confirmed there are no clouds on the daytime side of the planet.
Ya, the title is actually misleading and didn't mean what I thought exactly. Given it's a gas giant, I don't think you could say it doesn't have clouds. It just is clouds.
The title doesn't appear to make any sense whatsoever.
> I think they mean always sunny everywhere, as in no clouds. Which is less exciting, becAuse it means no water, or similar system.
Did you ever stop & consider that water can exist without clouds?
> A whole planet can’t ever be sunny at the same time
[First of all, through god all things are possible... so jot that down.](https://youtu.be/C9JgZ45ENl4?si=IyHIbTWJvKw6UiHz)
It's not just the damn headline this time.
This planet (allegedly) has no clouds. This is something that JWST is capable of detecting, but this paper reeks of, "we got this really fancy data from JWST but it's a total non-result so we gotta talk about it somewhere." This is worse because it's likely completely false. Even 1 component atmospheres are likely to have clouds (Mars's most common cloud is CO2 ice) and just because JWST doesn't pick them up doesn't mean they're not there.
Signed, a very annoyed planetary scientist who's tired of seeing garbage come out the exoplanet community.
This seems like a problem with science journalists in this case rather than exoplanet scientists. The paper doesn't say anything about "sunny", only that water on the star side appeared to be all vapor and night side was clouds, and the implications for atmospheric modeling.
This is the same kind of science reporter that will make entire articles excitedly talking about "super blood moon"s and "pink moons" that is meaningless to anybody but the completely clueless.
Why are headlines about astronomy research always complete dogshit?
Is there no other publication besides Newsweek that reported on this? It’s not as bad as some of the bot articles that crop up here every day but this sub has a massive problem with quality control.
The planet announcement thing has really lost it's luster for me. Wow, you found another gigantic planet with 5000 mph winds that is not habitable or likely to have life. It's like someone who collects rocks wanting to show them to me every time the find one. Call when know you find a planet with a breathable atmosphere with certainty. Everyone understands that there are plenty of lifeless gigantic planets in the universe.
[Dimethyl sulfide](https://www.nasa.gov/universe/exoplanets/webb-discovers-methane-carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-of-k2-18-b/) which is made by phytoplankton on Earth
Interesting. Hydrogen atmosphere...I'm wondering how that would react with a rocket. Typically you need to combine hydrogen *with* something to blow it up, and obviously meteorites will hit the planet and haven't exploded the thing yet Oppenheimer style, so I'm guessing you can land there, but only very, very carefully.
There is no combustion or fire without free oxygen. Even if there were trace amounts as soon as you finished blowing up your ship’s oxygen supply, the reaction would stop.
The first thing I did when I opened this was to ctrl+f for 'Philadelphia' -- So if it helps, I was beat by both Cthulhu and a Pancake Weasel.
Also, 'Pancake Weasel' was not a phrase I expected to write today.
I thought the name of our star was Sun. That is why it is sunny in our solar system.
Wouldn't another solar system have a different name for their star (let's say 'Bob' for instance) thus making their cloudless day time not 'sunny' but 'bobby'?
Not sure if this is an attempt at humor, but, no, referring to the central star of another planetary system as that system's sun (lowercase 's') is a correct usage of the word. Using "sunny" in the context of an popsci article about an exoplanet also has an unambiguous meaning.
(I think?) You have a planet that is perpetually half day half night in the same areas of the planet. Not rotating on an axis? Or rotating in such a way throughout it's orbit that it always faces the sun one way?
By Jess Thomson — Science Reporter |
Astronomers have mapped the weather on a planet hundreds of light years away, and found that it always has clear skies on the side facing its sun.
This distant exoplanet, named WASP-43 b, is a hot gas giant orbiting a star around 280 light years away from our solar system, and dramatic weather patterns have been detected, including winds of up to 5,000 mph at its equator, according to a new paper in the journal Nature Astronomy.
Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/exoplanet-weather-detected-james-webb-space-telescope-1895638](https://www.newsweek.com/exoplanet-weather-detected-james-webb-space-telescope-1895638)
Just assuming but I think it would look kinda like when you take a straw and blow air through it real hard at the thick foam of a drink. It leaves a space while the rest of the foam piles up to the sides?
At least that's what my mind says.
Because, it turns out, not all star systems are patterned like ours. It just so happens in this other star system elements of gasses starting gathering into a planet very close to the star.
So like planets without an atmosphere..?
Dont we have a few of them in our solar system?
Or did they mean its sunny all day long? Like a planet that is surrounded by many suns and there fore has no night?
...
The closest planet to Earth, Mercury ([Source before someone disputes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SumDHcnCRuU)) is also sunny every day, and is about .0 light years away.
I know very little about astronomy/meteorology besides the basics, so can anyone describe or point me to a description of what 5000mph winds would be like on Earth? Feels like there's material there for a short Kurzgesagt video or a XKCD What if?
1. Unless planets are somehow not orbiting a star, or are somehow actively being blocked by another planet, they would be lit by their star every “day”. Near 100% of planets orbiting a star.
2. The sun is the name of our star. Unless this planet is being lit up by our sun, it’s not “sunny”
2. Being pedantic and being wrong at the same time is always fun. Our moon is called "moon" and yet there are plenty of other "moons" out there. Words can have more than one meaning or even change the meaning depending on the context (a star is a shape and a physical object in our language for example).
The same is true for our sun, the term "sunny" isn't restricted to a specific sun, I don't know why you'd even suggest something that ridiculous.
Youre wrong, but being smug and wrong at the same seems fun to you.
Being correct IS fun for me though, so lets do this.
1. Moon IS the scientific term for **all moons**. In English we generally dont refer to the moon with its own name as we do with other moons such as Titan. We generally refer to it as "The Moon" as, well... we only have one that fits the definition in our orbit. The Moon (big M) DOES have a Latin name (Luna) that we do use to refer to it indirectly, as in "the Lunar surface", which we would say in relation to our moon only. Luna is the name and it is a Moon by scientific definition.
2. Planet IS the scientific term for **all planets**. In English we refer to our planet as the Earth. Earth is the name and it is a planet by scientific definition.
3. Star IS the scientific term for **all stars**. In English we refer to our star as the Sun (Sol in latin). We also refer to this name indirectly as in "the Solar System" which we would say in reference to only our system revolving around the Sun. We call other stars by their own names such as Sirius, Betelgeuse, etc. Sun is the name and it is a star by scientific definition.
We would not refer to these other stars as the Sun as they are no more "the Sun" than their planets are "the Earth". Thus referring to anything as "Sunny" is incorrect by its definition:
# sunny
# [adjective](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjective)
sun·ny [ˈsə-nē ](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sunny?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=s&file=sunny001)sunnier; sunniest[Synonyms of *sunny*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/sunny)
1\*\*:\*\* marked by brilliant sunlight **:** full of sunshine
2\*\*:\*\* [CHEERFUL](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheerful), [OPTIMISTIC](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimistic)a sunny disposition
3\*\*:\*\* exposed to, brightened by, or warmed by the sun
# [adjective](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjective)
>We would not refer to these other stars as the Sun as they are no more "the Sun" than their planets are "the Earth".
Not a native English speaker? Or just feeling chippy today?
While I am loathe to defend the quality of anything Newsweek publishes, criticism of "sunny" in this context is baseless. "The Sun" ≠ "a sun".
"The Sun" (definite article, uppercase 'S') refers to the star central to our solar system. An exoplanet's sun (lowercase 's') is a standard, acceptable, and understood way to refer to the star about which the planet revolves.
This article is an instant headache. Terrible explanation of the data. Basically, the planet is a gas giant tidally locked in an orbit 1/25 the distance of Mercury. One side is absolutely blasted continuously by the sun at over 2k degrees F. The water molecules are being flung to the dark side at 5000mph, where they cool down to 1100F. So, one side is continuously blasted to some point of density and the other side is more like a traditional gas giant with density layers and circulating gas as opposed to being blasted in one direction. No methane was detected, so wind speeds must be over 5k mph to keep it from rising. Unless there is no methane or some other process is keeping it below the surface.
Thank you, with this explanation it actually sounds more fun and interesting. Also it's obital period is 20 hours, it's just amazing to think how this planet is almost touching the sun it's orbiting (relative to Mercury).
Which planet is it? I've never heard of a gas giant tidally locked to the sun.
[WASP 43b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASP-43b). It's a hot Jupiter.
Jupiter reading that comment like 'Iiiim a hot Jupiter 💅🏻'
A ton of them are. Especially if they're close to the sun.
I'll be honest, I appreciate the real responses but I was just being an ass because the sun is our star in our solar system.
I’m trying to do the math in my head for 5k mph (to km/h) but honestly it’s probably too fast to even comprehend
Mph to km/h is *roughly* 8/5ths. So 8k km/h.
Why would there even be wind currents if one side is always under heat without ever cooling down to let air/water back into it?
Disclaimer that this is just intuition. The surface gasses are blasted back to the backside, they cool, condense, force lower layers forward until they reach the surface of the front.
Pretty sure Mars and Mercury are both sunny every day as well
So is the Earth. Hell, Pluto is sunny every day.
[удалено]
The sun never sets on the british empire
"Because God never trusted the British empire in the dark"
Yet there are parts of Russia the sun barely rises…
-007 has entered the chat (in the shadows)
Yep. The British empire is in the east and the sun sets in the west ;p
I think they mean always sunny everywhere, as in no clouds. Which is less exciting, becAuse it means no water, or similar system.
It’s a gas giant, so its atmosphere has plenty of water. “ WASP-43 b is a "hot Jupiter" type planet with an atmosphere mostly made from hydrogen, water, and helium. It orbits its star (named WASP-43) at a very close 1.3 million miles, only 4 percent of the distance between our sun and its closest planet, Mercury. The close proximity to its star has led to it becoming tidally locked, which means one side always faces toward the star and the other always faces away—just like the moon orbiting the Earth.” Webb was able to make measurements that confirmed there are no clouds on the daytime side of the planet.
Ya, the title is actually misleading and didn't mean what I thought exactly. Given it's a gas giant, I don't think you could say it doesn't have clouds. It just is clouds. The title doesn't appear to make any sense whatsoever.
No it's because it's another flat planet
> I think they mean always sunny everywhere, as in no clouds. Which is less exciting, becAuse it means no water, or similar system. Did you ever stop & consider that water can exist without clouds?
Not OP, but speaking for myself, I can confidently say "No."
I mean I have a lot of rain here. Maybe we are on different Earths? That says it’s always sunny everyday, no rain.
I'm fairly certain it's always sunny somewhere on Earth every day.
I think I've seen that show
It's Always Sunny on the Third Rock from the Sun.
Yes,but not the whole Earth.
A whole planet can’t ever be sunny at the same time… unless there are two suns.
It could be a flat planet with nothing on the backside. /s
> A whole planet can’t ever be sunny at the same time [First of all, through god all things are possible... so jot that down.](https://youtu.be/C9JgZ45ENl4?si=IyHIbTWJvKw6UiHz)
Science… is a liar sometimes.
The new planet is just sunny during the days. It’s dark and rainy every night
That's what I took the headline to mean and not just your normal two star system.
"It's Always Sunny On WASP-43b"
That's because it's flat and they have now found a second flat planet
That's...every planet or planetoid or planetary body or structure that doesn't have an atmosphere.
Uranus is probably the only planet that isn't sunny every day, because sun doesn't shine in Uranus /s
But it does shine out of Mars.
[удалено]
Mercury is not tidally locked. It's in what's called "[Spin-Orbit Resonance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance)"
What kind of lotion are we talking here?
No. It isn't.
Every onset orbiting the sun would be. Dont know how it can be that “sunny” on a planet nowhere near “The Sun”
Because words have more than one context-dependent meaning. Except for "knowhere" which is not a word.
There is even a state in the USA which fullfils this
Mars has some crazy dust storms but I believe mercury is quite sunny.
Is it mandatory to come up with braindead headlines?
It's not just the damn headline this time. This planet (allegedly) has no clouds. This is something that JWST is capable of detecting, but this paper reeks of, "we got this really fancy data from JWST but it's a total non-result so we gotta talk about it somewhere." This is worse because it's likely completely false. Even 1 component atmospheres are likely to have clouds (Mars's most common cloud is CO2 ice) and just because JWST doesn't pick them up doesn't mean they're not there. Signed, a very annoyed planetary scientist who's tired of seeing garbage come out the exoplanet community.
I’ll write the next one: JWST detects planet that may be a gas giant, this planet was not previously detected by Hubble.
This seems like a problem with science journalists in this case rather than exoplanet scientists. The paper doesn't say anything about "sunny", only that water on the star side appeared to be all vapor and night side was clouds, and the implications for atmospheric modeling. This is the same kind of science reporter that will make entire articles excitedly talking about "super blood moon"s and "pink moons" that is meaningless to anybody but the completely clueless.
I'm annoyed alongside you. My condolences.
Every day we stray further from the English language
Missed a full stop. 👍 (J/k)
Good old [Muphry's law.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law).
[удалено]
Why are headlines about astronomy research always complete dogshit? Is there no other publication besides Newsweek that reported on this? It’s not as bad as some of the bot articles that crop up here every day but this sub has a massive problem with quality control.
The planet announcement thing has really lost it's luster for me. Wow, you found another gigantic planet with 5000 mph winds that is not habitable or likely to have life. It's like someone who collects rocks wanting to show them to me every time the find one. Call when know you find a planet with a breathable atmosphere with certainty. Everyone understands that there are plenty of lifeless gigantic planets in the universe.
There was an article just yesterday about a planet James Webb is analyzing that has an atmosphere and chemicals that only life produces (on Earth).
Is it oxygen, because if it is O2 that is a truly astonishing find.
[Dimethyl sulfide](https://www.nasa.gov/universe/exoplanets/webb-discovers-methane-carbon-dioxide-in-atmosphere-of-k2-18-b/) which is made by phytoplankton on Earth
Interesting. Hydrogen atmosphere...I'm wondering how that would react with a rocket. Typically you need to combine hydrogen *with* something to blow it up, and obviously meteorites will hit the planet and haven't exploded the thing yet Oppenheimer style, so I'm guessing you can land there, but only very, very carefully.
There is no combustion or fire without free oxygen. Even if there were trace amounts as soon as you finished blowing up your ship’s oxygen supply, the reaction would stop.
Missing an opportunity not calling it Philadelphia.
Dang it, the one time I thought of something witty and Cthulhu beats me to it!
The first thing I did when I opened this was to ctrl+f for 'Philadelphia' -- So if it helps, I was beat by both Cthulhu and a Pancake Weasel. Also, 'Pancake Weasel' was not a phrase I expected to write today.
As an Irish person, that sounds lovely. Hell of a commute though.
I'll take that over Dublin Bus any time.
I thought the name of our star was Sun. That is why it is sunny in our solar system. Wouldn't another solar system have a different name for their star (let's say 'Bob' for instance) thus making their cloudless day time not 'sunny' but 'bobby'?
Not sure if this is an attempt at humor, but, no, referring to the central star of another planetary system as that system's sun (lowercase 's') is a correct usage of the word. Using "sunny" in the context of an popsci article about an exoplanet also has an unambiguous meaning.
No, i mean, yeah with the 'bobby' part, bad humor i suppose, but i was actually wondering. Thanks.
“Astronomers have mapped the weather on a planet hundreds of light years away, and found that it always has clear skies on the side facing its sun”
What does that even mean? Isn’t it sunny everyday everywhere
(I think?) You have a planet that is perpetually half day half night in the same areas of the planet. Not rotating on an axis? Or rotating in such a way throughout it's orbit that it always faces the sun one way?
Tidally locked planets are very common, if this is what they meant then weird to announce it like it’s something uncommon.
Like Uranus?
By Jess Thomson — Science Reporter | Astronomers have mapped the weather on a planet hundreds of light years away, and found that it always has clear skies on the side facing its sun. This distant exoplanet, named WASP-43 b, is a hot gas giant orbiting a star around 280 light years away from our solar system, and dramatic weather patterns have been detected, including winds of up to 5,000 mph at its equator, according to a new paper in the journal Nature Astronomy. Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/exoplanet-weather-detected-james-webb-space-telescope-1895638](https://www.newsweek.com/exoplanet-weather-detected-james-webb-space-telescope-1895638)
Gas giant without a cloudy sky? How does that work?
5,000 mph winds will kinda push them to the dark side? Isn't this the planet that's losing a ton of mass to solar winds as well?
Just wondering what that looks like. Like are there gaps down to the center core?
Just assuming but I think it would look kinda like when you take a straw and blow air through it real hard at the thick foam of a drink. It leaves a space while the rest of the foam piles up to the sides? At least that's what my mind says.
My guess is that the heat on the day side doesn't allow for condensation of clouds, but the cooler night side would.
I was told on good authority that it's always sunny in Philadelphia.
Okay, so we know where NOT to look for the vampires.
To think that our own Jupiter could've ended up like this...
I choose to interpret that they found a planet with Danny Devitos face and a giant hand making a wave motion.
Can someone ELI5: if it’s so close to its sun, why is it a gas giant and not a terrestrial planet like mercury?
Because, it turns out, not all star systems are patterned like ours. It just so happens in this other star system elements of gasses starting gathering into a planet very close to the star.
So like planets without an atmosphere..? Dont we have a few of them in our solar system? Or did they mean its sunny all day long? Like a planet that is surrounded by many suns and there fore has no night?
Article says it has an atmosphere but the clouds are on the night side only.
Only 280?? Time to give my Millenium Falcon a tune-up and go for a little ride.
Could we please keep the shitpost out of this sub
... The closest planet to Earth, Mercury ([Source before someone disputes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SumDHcnCRuU)) is also sunny every day, and is about .0 light years away.
Can it be "Sunny" without "The Sun" which is the name of our star. It's also day and night at the same time on that planet! How special!
Don't tell the British tourists. It'll be benidorm 2.0
I know very little about astronomy/meteorology besides the basics, so can anyone describe or point me to a description of what 5000mph winds would be like on Earth? Feels like there's material there for a short Kurzgesagt video or a XKCD What if?
Pretty sure it is sunny every day on earth too
1. Unless planets are somehow not orbiting a star, or are somehow actively being blocked by another planet, they would be lit by their star every “day”. Near 100% of planets orbiting a star. 2. The sun is the name of our star. Unless this planet is being lit up by our sun, it’s not “sunny”
2. Being pedantic and being wrong at the same time is always fun. Our moon is called "moon" and yet there are plenty of other "moons" out there. Words can have more than one meaning or even change the meaning depending on the context (a star is a shape and a physical object in our language for example). The same is true for our sun, the term "sunny" isn't restricted to a specific sun, I don't know why you'd even suggest something that ridiculous.
Youre wrong, but being smug and wrong at the same seems fun to you. Being correct IS fun for me though, so lets do this. 1. Moon IS the scientific term for **all moons**. In English we generally dont refer to the moon with its own name as we do with other moons such as Titan. We generally refer to it as "The Moon" as, well... we only have one that fits the definition in our orbit. The Moon (big M) DOES have a Latin name (Luna) that we do use to refer to it indirectly, as in "the Lunar surface", which we would say in relation to our moon only. Luna is the name and it is a Moon by scientific definition. 2. Planet IS the scientific term for **all planets**. In English we refer to our planet as the Earth. Earth is the name and it is a planet by scientific definition. 3. Star IS the scientific term for **all stars**. In English we refer to our star as the Sun (Sol in latin). We also refer to this name indirectly as in "the Solar System" which we would say in reference to only our system revolving around the Sun. We call other stars by their own names such as Sirius, Betelgeuse, etc. Sun is the name and it is a star by scientific definition. We would not refer to these other stars as the Sun as they are no more "the Sun" than their planets are "the Earth". Thus referring to anything as "Sunny" is incorrect by its definition: # sunny # [adjective](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjective) sun·ny [ˈsə-nē ](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sunny?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=s&file=sunny001)sunnier; sunniest[Synonyms of *sunny*](https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/sunny) 1\*\*:\*\* marked by brilliant sunlight **:** full of sunshine 2\*\*:\*\* [CHEERFUL](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheerful), [OPTIMISTIC](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimistic)a sunny disposition 3\*\*:\*\* exposed to, brightened by, or warmed by the sun # [adjective](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjective)
We sometimes use "sun" for other stars as well. Here's an example from NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/where-sun-sets-twice/
>We would not refer to these other stars as the Sun as they are no more "the Sun" than their planets are "the Earth". Not a native English speaker? Or just feeling chippy today? While I am loathe to defend the quality of anything Newsweek publishes, criticism of "sunny" in this context is baseless. "The Sun" ≠ "a sun". "The Sun" (definite article, uppercase 'S') refers to the star central to our solar system. An exoplanet's sun (lowercase 's') is a standard, acceptable, and understood way to refer to the star about which the planet revolves.
Imagine typing this much to demonstrate that you didn't read beyond the headline.
The headline is whats wrong LMFAO. I sure can write, but you clearly cant read.
Why should I care about any planet light-years away?
Newsweek is now on my list of outlets to completely disregard.