Re-analysis of the 267-GHz ALMA observations of Venus: No statistically significant detection of phosphine · HackerPapers discussions

Re-analysis of the 267-GHz ALMA observations of Venus: No statistically significant detection of phosphine — mentioned by gus_massa

Wed, 04 Nov 2020 00:43:49 GMT

The idea is that you want to split your data as a sum of three parts: (a) a smooth function that is not interesting (b) noise (c) a big unexpected peak in an interesting part There is a nice preprint posted a few days ago: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.09761 https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.09761.pdf They reanalyze the data than in the phosphine paper. --- If you look at figure 3, they have the data that is the skyscraper-like line, and they use a polynomial of degree 3 to approximate the signal, that is that curved unhappy smooth line. The smooth line is (a), when you subtract this smooth function…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Re-analysis of the 267-GHz ALMA observations of Venus: No statistically significant detection of phosphine — mentioned by gus_massa

Mon, 02 Nov 2020 01:17:58 GMT

I was more convinced that the original paper may have problems by https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.09761 From that preprint: > We find that the 12th-order polynomial fit to the spectral passband utilised in the published study leads to spurious results. Using a 12th-order polynomial fit is very suspicious? And I think that it is very interesting to see Figure 2, top-left. The signal is very noisy and the polynomial fit is not convincing. That graph is a very big red flag.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Re-analysis of the 267-GHz ALMA observations of Venus: No statistically significant detection of phosphine — mentioned by _Nat_

Sat, 24 Oct 2020 10:53:38 GMT

[A study](https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.09761) posted 2020-10-19 challenges the claim that phosphine was detected in Venus's atmosphere. [The original claim](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1174-4), posted 2020-10-14.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Re-analysis of the 267-GHz ALMA observations of Venus: No statistically significant detection of phosphine — HN submission

Thu, 22 Oct 2020 03:12:35 GMT

No statistically significant detection of phosphine on Venus

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Re-analysis of the 267-GHz ALMA observations of Venus: No statistically significant detection of phosphine — HN submission

Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:38:50 GMT

Re-analysis: No statistically significant detection of phosphine on Venus

4 points; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Re-analysis of the 267-GHz ALMA observations of Venus: No statistically significant detection of phosphine — HN submission

Wed, 21 Oct 2020 01:53:54 GMT

Re-analysis of ALMA observations of Venus: No significant detection of phosphine

5 points; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.