Status quo: zero in the time frame for this question on our resolution site (link 1; still at the total of 69 as of 1 February - but the simple reason for that should be, that there has been no data update since then (!)) as stated on top of the site). According to link 3 it seems to have been 67 on 8 January on the same site (conservative 28 plus optimistic 39).
According to "more info", 5 have been added in 2023. That looks like a good starting point for base rate (in a sense of giving 2024 50:50 to reach at least that again). Anything before July 2022 could not be ckecked closer by James Webb telescope, because it was not operational before, so data before 2023 might be artificially lower. According to link 4, only in December 2023 they gave it the first try to explore the atmosphere of an exoplanet, so there´s quite some upwards potential from that side IMO.
Further upwards potential might be new types of potentially habitable planets found (e.g. link 2) or technical progress.
Will need to check later, if really two ones have been added in January, which would of course shoot base rate upwards (IF the author ot that article indeed got the data 28+39 on 8 January from that site, which I expect to be the case, both categories conservative and optimistic seem to be one up as of 1 February, which would have been a huge step in January ). Starting this with 75%, considering that a conservative guess regarding the above mentioned points.
Great catch that 2 planets seem to have been added to the lists between Jan 8 (previous update) and Feb 1 (latest update); it is an information not directly obtainable from the English Wikipedia page, but the German version you have linked to seems to retain it.
Since there are only 5 habitable worlds added in 2023 and they are clearly marked as such in the resolution source, it is straightforward to identify these 2 latest additions by comparing the current lists with the ones in German Wikipedia; so, the 2 new additions in January 2024 are:
(I have argued below that what counts as discovery date seems to be the date of manuscript acceptance rather that the date of publication, and the details of TOI-715 B above seem to corroborate this, as the planet is reported as having been discovered in 2023 in the NASA archive and in our data)
Now, looking at the dates above, and recalling that both these planets were added to our resolution lists in January 2024, it becomes apparent that it took 6-8 months for these exoplanets from being confirmed as new ones to being added to the lists of potentially habitable ones...
This illustrates a mistake several of us here seem to have been doing so far (myself included 😟): trying to anticipate the 2024 numbers by looking only forward, i.e. to new exoplanets that will be confirmed in 2024; a mistake, because it is apparent from the above that we may very well have new additions to our resolution lists in the following months coming from the backlog of exoplanets that were confirmed in 2023 (and possibly even earlier?)...
IF the author of that article indeed got the data 28+39 on 8 January from that site, which I expect to be the case
Your big-if concern is fully understandable; but as we happen to know that the HWC people had tweeted since Dec 5 that they were going to update their lists on Jan 8, I, too, expect this to be the case 😉 - plus that this distinction to conservative and optimistic samples seems unique to HWC, and it is also not included in the English Wikipedia page.
(Now, look at what a combination of seemingly innocent info from the German Wikipedia -not included in the English version- and a tweet can reveal...! 😯)
---
Buried in a rather long comment of mine below, there is this:
Thing is, gaining the necessary familiarity with the specifics and the significant details of a forecasting problem in order to (hopefully begin to) understand such causal mechanisms and driving forces takes time (and collaboration!), and it can seldom (if ever) be assumed from the 1st (or 2nd...) sitting
Good job, and thanks for inadvertently providing a mini case study for what I tried to argue there! 👍
Now, I have to reconsider my own forecast upward...
Status quo: zero in the time frame for this question on our resolution site (link 1; still at the total of 69 as of 1 February - but the simple reason for that should be, that there has been no data update since then (!)) as stated on top of the site). According to link 3 it seems to have been 67 on 8 January on the same site (conservative 28 plus optimistic 39).
According to "more info", 5 have been added in 2023. That looks like a good starting point for base rate (in a sense of giving 2024 50:50 to reach at least that again). Anything before July 2022 could not be ckecked closer by James Webb telescope, because it was not operational before, so data before 2023 might be artificially lower. According to link 4, only in December 2023 they gave it the first try to explore the atmosphere of an exoplanet, so there´s quite some upwards potential from that side IMO.
Further upwards potential might be new types of potentially habitable planets found (e.g. link 2) or technical progress.
Will need to check later, if really two ones have been added in January, which would of course shoot base rate upwards (IF the author ot that article indeed got the data 28+39 on 8 January from that site, which I expect to be the case, both categories conservative and optimistic seem to be one up as of 1 February, which would have been a huge step in January ). Starting this with 75%, considering that a conservative guess regarding the above mentioned points.https://phl.upr.edu/hwc
https://www.ingenieur.de/technik/fachbereiche/raumfahrt/
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_potentiell_bewohnbarer_Planetenrevolutionaere-entdeckung-ozean-planet-koennte-bewohnt-sein/
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/james-webb-weltraumteleskop-auf-exoplanet-wasp-107bp-regnet-es-sand-a-b35a4168-2deb-4988-b431-33a16186797a
Great catch that 2 planets seem to have been added to the lists between Jan 8 (previous update) and Feb 1 (latest update); it is an information not directly obtainable from the English Wikipedia page, but the German version you have linked to seems to retain it.
Since there are only 5 habitable worlds added in 2023 and they are clearly marked as such in the resolution source, it is straightforward to identify these 2 latest additions by comparing the current lists with the ones in German Wikipedia; so, the 2 new additions in January 2024 are:
(I have argued below that what counts as discovery date seems to be the date of manuscript acceptance rather that the date of publication, and the details of TOI-715 B above seem to corroborate this, as the planet is reported as having been discovered in 2023 in the NASA archive and in our data)
Now, looking at the dates above, and recalling that both these planets were added to our resolution lists in January 2024, it becomes apparent that it took 6-8 months for these exoplanets from being confirmed as new ones to being added to the lists of potentially habitable ones...
This illustrates a mistake several of us here seem to have been doing so far (myself included 😟): trying to anticipate the 2024 numbers by looking only forward, i.e. to new exoplanets that will be confirmed in 2024; a mistake, because it is apparent from the above that we may very well have new additions to our resolution lists in the following months coming from the backlog of exoplanets that were confirmed in 2023 (and possibly even earlier?)...
Your big-if concern is fully understandable; but as we happen to know that the HWC people had tweeted since Dec 5 that they were going to update their lists on Jan 8, I, too, expect this to be the case 😉 - plus that this distinction to conservative and optimistic samples seems unique to HWC, and it is also not included in the English Wikipedia page.
(Now, look at what a combination of seemingly innocent info from the German Wikipedia -not included in the English version- and a tweet can reveal...! 😯)
---
Buried in a rather long comment of mine below, there is this:
Good job, and thanks for inadvertently providing a mini case study for what I tried to argue there! 👍
Now, I have to reconsider my own forecast upward...
cc @DimaKlenchin @MrLittleTexas @michal_dubrawski @cmeinel