Marsian Oceans

soph · 2003-01-27 21:04:30

our climate has been much hotter and much cooler. i think our goal should be to figure out how to modify climates, not just on mars or other planets, but here, on earth. we need to be able to avert the next ice age, and the next jungle age, if we are to survive as a species.

sure, its "altering the ecosystem" but these "eco-protectors" forget that we are a species, which means that we must be sure of our survival. after all, what should we care about the earth's health if we arent here to enjoy it?

im all for being ecologically responsible, but not the point where it threatens us as a species. if we can keep the living conditions on earth to human-friendly levels, its a good thing.

Palomar · 2003-01-28 09:30:15

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!", cried Chicken Little.
It isn't.
P.S. I strongly support any serious and sensible moves to
shift humanity away from reliance on fossil fuels. If safe
nuclear reactors are the way to go, so be it. But, ideally,
better solar energy technology is what I'd like to see
developed as soon as practicable.
I have no shares in oil companies and I'm not in love with
President Bush! But I do object to science being
prostituted for the sake of petty politics.
P.P.S. This has been slightly off-topic but could be related to
Terraforming in as much as we need to understand our
limitations as well as our capabilities when it comes to
climate modification.

*Yep. Chicken Little finds many reasons to squack...and, generally speaking, that squacking turns into mega-$$$ for alarmists seeking to exploit the gullible for their own personal profit. And the alarmist material continues to be churned out, by both religious and secular sources alike. I guess the doomers-and-gloomers can't get enough of it.

And I agree with Shaun's postscripts as well.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-01-28 19:05:05

Thank you kindly, Ma'am. (As you can see, I found a nice new soap box while I was away! )

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-29 00:07:46

Shaun, your post doesn't ?debunk? the importance of the Great Ocean Conveyor. The page you cited (one must note that the words used on that page are somewhat disingenuous, claiming that the Gulf Stream has little effect, while further down on the same page noting that the Gulf Stream accounts for ?much of the other half? of heat released) merely explains that the Gulf Stream (which I must stress is just the South Atlantic part of the Great Ocean Conveyor) doesn't have as much of an impact to the warming of Europe as we once thought (although it's still a large number, half). If the report is right (I have no reason to believe that it isn't), it just shows that the Gulf Stream could be more sensitive. Think about it, what was a drop of one percent in our models of salt water transference before, would now be two percent (in other words, a ton of salt loss now only has to be half a ton to have the same effect, make sense?). This may explain the Little Ice age, and why it occured. The Gulf Stream is more sensitive to climatic changes.

Sorry for so many parenthesis in that paragraph.

Now, to approach your typical anti-environmentalist post, I don't think anyone in the scientific community has suggested that Earth would turn into this hellfire Venusian depot (which is a common misrepresentation of the effects of global warming). The scientific community has always considered the effect of water with regards to global warming. Just because the effect of the Gulf Stream has been shown to be less means very little in my mind, this doesn't debunk anything important (if the GOC was debunked, so to would the laws of thermodynamics!).

I don't think you take a ?neutral? position here, because it seems that always take a side which is inherently anti-environmentalist. What's funny, is that you use the same argument environmentalists use when they make their case; that we don't have a ?coherent view.? (This is the most common thing I have to deal with when arguing with deep ecologists.) Except they use this approach to push a hands off agenda, while you, laughably, say the same thing to insult them!

I think our view is as coherent as it needs to be. We have to reiterate again and again on these forums what science is, it seems. Simply because our model changes does not mean that the models before it were invalid (as long as they were based on valid data). It just means the model is more accurate in and of itself. So, we have evidence that the Gulf Stream is less responsible for the warming of Euorpe. That's great. That changes nothing with regard to the as of yet proven connections between the Great Ocean Conveyor and planetary weather.

What I find alarming, is that because lobbiests use scientific findings to their interests (anti-global warming people use evidence of rising waters and so on, pro-fossil fuel people use evidence of temperatures not rising in certain places and so on), people automatically throw away the nonperferred sides evidence without considering it. Shaun here is pretending like the GOC model is totally irrelevant now simply because he found something else to substantiate European warming. I can't say that this approach is unfair, because lobbiests have been shown to hire crackpot scientists to make data for them, but I do think it's a very disturbing trend.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-01-29 03:29:01

Josh, I had a premonition that you'd have something to say about this.

All I am trying to point out is that our models of Earth's climate don't work. I never implied that new models shouldn't be created and I never implied that previous work was of no use. Even incorrect hypotheses teach us something - that's self-evident.
The fact remains that our climate hypotheses are primitive. Earth's climate is orders of magnitude more complex than the simple computer models we have currently. And the research I cited is an indication that even the parts we fondly imagine we know well, are susceptible to major reappraisal.

There's nothing shameful or wrong in this - it's the scientific process at work.

What is shameful and wrong is the way the term 'global warming' is creeping into the media and politicians' statements every time there's a storm, a heat wave, or a cold spell.
It's become the reason for everything, from floods in the Mississippi basin to droughts in Australia. And the fact is we honestly don't have any way of knowing whether there's a connection or not!!

'Global warming' has become a tool in the hands of environmentalists, Luddites, anti-globalisationists, and doomsday-merchants all over the world. (And maybe even anarchists, too.)
I'm not debating whether any or all of these groups are intrinsically good or bad. What I'm trying to get through to people is that using 'global warming' as though it were a well-understood process based on irrefutable facts, something akin to, or even better established than, Darwinian evolution, is gross intellectual dishonesty.

In the past century, the world's average temperature is purported to have risen by 0.7 deg.C. As I have pointed out elsewhere, many of the routine daily temperature readings taken during that time have come from small "weather stations" which were originally positioned outside towns and villages or on leafy village greens. In the intervening decades, the spread of tar and cement has resulted in many of these stations becoming engulfed by cities full of high-rise buildings and cars.
Clearly, the data's value is compromised by this. Do we still place our faith in it? Personally, I'm sceptical.

Does this mean I want to ignore the possibility of global warming? No. It's a factor to consider.
Then should we base our every decision on 'global warming' as though it's God's Law? Absolutely not!
My forlorn hope is that all the politically motivated groups in the world will stop their conveniently uncritical use of scanty scientific data about Earth's climate. That's all.

Josh, your scathing ridicule of my intentions in all this, and your disingenuous portrayal of my post as a "typical anti-environmentalist" one, betrays far more about your prejudices than it does mine.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-29 05:27:28

I'm glad that you knew I'd reply. I just wish you wouldn't have reiterated the same stuff you've already said, leaving me to be confused as to what you're trying to say.

You seem blame the science itself for the media and lobbiests throwing about the term global warming (which, might I add, is a scientific fact, and shouldn't be encompased in quotations as though it were not). If the media makes a claim about global warming that is not backed up by scientific evidence, then obviously I think it's dispicable. Personally, I don't speak for the media. I don't even watch the news, to be quite honest. I read what I know in scientific papers.

But let me get back to the fact of global warming. Simply because our climate models are not totally accurate (which is actually quite debatable with the creation of Earth Simulator, and I would happily argue otherwise), does not mean that global warming does not exist (which you laughably try to pass off as true). We don't even need a climate model to know that N ammount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere creates X ammount of insultion as long as Y ammount of CO2 isn't absorbed. This is the irrefutable evidence you so deseprately need. What's funny is that for years the fossil fuel industry has been spreading FUD (in the form of ?environmentalists are wackos, don't listen to them?), via crack science for years, and these days they acknowledge that global warming is occuring (ironically, much like the cigarette companies lied for years that cigarettes weren't addictive, and only recently came out with the truth). Can I send out a collective ?duh??

The only thing we don't know, is what the effect of global warming has upon the ecosystem. This is why we speculate quite often about disasters, and try to connect them with global warming, among other things. Sometimes it's dishonest, and people try to make connections where there are none, or there couldn't possibly be one. Other times, it's quite applicable, and the connection is obvious. To ignore either case, though, is not part of the scientific process.

What you're arguing, though, it seems, is that since ?our models are not accurate,? we ?don't know? if global warming is ?occuring,? and we can't ?make a decision? either way, because doing so would be ?dishonest.? Well, I would argue, and let me take the side of environmentalists for a second; I would argue that if our models were so innacurate (I personally believe they aren't of course), the only just, honest, sane approach would be hands off. ?We could destroy our planet!!?

And I should note that the physical evidence for global warming isn't really in local readouts. The real damning evidence is in satellite observation of the planet. The planet is getting warmer. CO2 levels are rising. This is fact, Shaun.

My hope is similar to yours, of course. But I don't care if political groups use their evidence to their ideological advantage, as long as the evidence is factual, and not based within lies and distortions. Indeed, the very article you linked had some level of shameful wordage, which could have been done away with. Welcome to the world of sensationalist journalism (if not science, at times), where the smallest bit of information is exaggerated, and the truth is rarely conveyed to the public in a rational manner which resembles the scientific process at all.

To you, global warming is a ?factor to consider.? To me, global warming is a ?fact or two, to consider.?

And BTW, I wasn't calling your post a typical anti-environmentalist post, I was calling it [one of] your typical anti-environmentalist posts. I could go about counting posts if you'd like, but I'm sure there are at least half a dozen pertaining to the evil environmentalist. And I stand behind my comments with regard to you. If you found them ridiculing, then I'm sorry.

soph · 2003-01-29 05:45:31

Its not anti-environmentalist josh. i believe he did say that we should be environmentally responsible. i believe he was saying that global warming is used as a political ploy more than a scientific fact...which at this point we dont have enough evidence to prove.

if global warming is so bad, why has the earth naturally been hotter and colder than it is now, which less intense sunlight?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-29 06:33:34

soph, he basically suggested that environmentalists ?prostitute science for the sake of petty politics,? with very little basis in reality (maily due to the fact that he himself doesn't think global warming is a real issue, because our models aren't perfect and that somehow magically destroyes all the scientific evidence to suggest global warming is occuring). Though it may be true that some of the more extreme groups do cause harm, I cannot find any harm in environmentalists encouraging cleaner approaches. The vast majority of pro-environment people are quite rational when it comes to these sorts of issues. Pollution and inefficiency are going to be the greatest hurdles in the coming decades.

I'm almost tempted to search the forums for the posts I mentioned. They were just annoying me, and I finally had to respond to one of them. They basically go along the lines of bashing crackpots from preventing progress from occuring in whatever form. I can't say I blame him as I've made similar posts before about blatant corporatism and so on, but I think it's exaggerated, and the benefits from environmentalism is much greater than the supposed harm.

One should note that no one is saying global warming is so bad, we simply don't know what will happen; a rise in sea level would prove to be very damaging to economies, and a mini ice age could prove disastorous. People make speculation one way or the other, and this is what annoys Shaun (or so it seems). That people look at the subject so perplexed and throw out so many ideas. I personally think the main models are correct. That sea levels will rise, and that a mini ice age could occur due to the shutting down, or slowing of the GOC. This is Earth's natural way of fixing itself. Kind of like a heater which overheats and lets steam out.

In closing. We know that global warming is occuring. This is a fact which can be proven quite easily by gas laws. We just don't know the effects of this warming, and how far it will go. Whether or not it will reach equilibrium or not, whether or not the oceans will rise, and whether or not the GOC will stop function because of it. But because we don't know these things, doesn't mean it's not happening, and doesn't mean that people who put individual effort in stopping it are doing anything inherently wrong.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-01-29 17:12:05

You're a good man, Josh Cryer! (Despite your breezy and dismissive insults - part of the arrogance of youth, perhaps. I remember suffering from the same complaint myself! )

It's a good thing there are people like you out there, ever vigilant in the war against the excesses of capitalism and the excesses of CO2 production. Both noble causes.
It gives people like me, with a slightly narrower definition of what constitutes a threat to the world, a warm fuzzy feeling of security.
Just as long as you don't hound yourself into a state of continual worry and ruin your health.

I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on a few points and try to concentrate on what we do see eye to eye about. Say, like the colonisation and terraformation of Mars, for instance!
:;):

Nirgal82 · 2003-01-29 21:07:44

Well seeing as how this thread is about Martian Oceans lets get down to some geologic evidence.

Anyone want to do some looking on the MSSS MOC gallery and look for evidence of a present sea?
The gallery divides the thousands of images by date and mars chart.
Any takers? Write back telling us all what area or timeperiod you are going to focus on, so others can search other areas. This, I think, will help spread out our search a little.

By the way,
I recently read an article describing many dendritic drainage patterns in the region between Schiaperelli and Flaugergue Basins. This is very VERY strong indication of prolonged periods of rainfall. I have yet to learn much about how atmospheres behave, but I have trouble imagining cloudy rainstorms without oceans to evaporate enough moisture into the air to supply it.
Also many of the craters in this region appear filled with sediment that is not windborne, indicating that they may have contained lakes in the past.
So keep that in mind when searching for evidence of a previous sea.

Odyssey found copious amounts of water, more in the north than in the south, anyone have a figure on that? I heard its somewhere around volume of the indian ocean, and most of it a meter below the surface.
I'm sure that this lends support to an ancient sea. And it also may give us no choice when it comes to a future sea on Areoformed Mars. We would probably have to go through a tremendous amount of trouble to hold back all this water.
Besides, when it starts raining there, ocean or no ocean initially, the water has got to drain somewhere...

-Matt

soph · 2003-01-29 21:18:22

like we discussed before, martian oceans should be involved in our planning of colonies. we should know where the water will go before we set up large bases...like you said, we could set up bases in the future water areas, but our main bases should be safe of flooding, but near possible lakes or rivers for obvious reasons.

anybody know if water would be less dense in martian gravity? would this allow deeper water travel, and perhaps even development?

Phobos · 2003-01-29 21:55:30

anybody know if water would be less dense in martian gravity? would this allow deeper water travel, and perhaps even development?

Water on Mars would have a higher surface tension than does water on Earth. Small marine animals would probably have a hard time living in Martian waterways as would any marine animal that depends upon the rhythm of the tides for any reason.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-29 22:10:40

Oh Shaun, you should know that I am not worried about many things (except maybe my bet with clark). I don't have the strength or will to be an activist, but I'm not going to complain when I see people doing things which I can't see any harm in doing. It's up to everynoe else to convince me what they're doing is harmful.

Nirgal82, you can get a better discussion of Mars' oceans in the following thread: http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....25;t=12

Sorry that we seem to hijack threads so often.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-01-30 01:03:41

Hi Nirgal82!
This doesn't really tackle your post directly, but I've just finished putting forward another 2 cents worth of speculation about the possible size of a future Martian ocean in 'Water on Mars'. It's part of the discussion Josh has kindly provided a direct link to in his last post here. (Many thanks, Josh! )
It doesn't address the issue of where the shoreline might end up, but it does address the possible average depth of the water.
Just in case you're interested!

Hi Soph!
Density is defined as mass divided by volume.
Water is highly incompressible, so the same number of water molecules are going to take up pretty much the same volume whether they're on Earth (1g and 1000 mb sea-level pressure) or on a terraformed Mars (0.38g and, say, 500 mb sea-level pressure).
The same number of water molecules are not going to vary in mass either, since the mass of anything is independent of the gravitational field it's in.
So, technically, water on Mars will be the same density as water on Earth.
But, of course it will be lighter! So submarine craft will be subjected to less pressure at a certain depth on Mars than they would be at the same depth on Earth. Here at sea-level, we have one atmosphere of pressure, and you can add one more for roughly each 10 metres you descend below the surface. On Mars at sea-level, you'll have 0.5 of an atmosphere, plus one atmosphere for roughly every 26 metres you descend.
Presumably, this would allow for less structural strength requirements in submersible craft and submarine dwellings etc. But my knowledge of marine architecture is effectively zero, so I'm obliged to stop right there!

Greetings Phobos!
I was away for a while and it looks like you must have been away lately yourself, since I haven't seen your name much since I returned. In any event, howdy-doo-dee and welcome back!

Phobos · 2003-01-30 22:05:13

But, of course it will be lighter! So submarine craft will be subjected to less pressure at a certain depth on Mars than they would be at the same depth on Earth. Here at sea-level, we have one atmosphere of pressure, and you can add one more for roughly each 10 metres you descend below the surface. On Mars at sea-level, you'll have 0.5 of an atmosphere, plus one atmosphere for roughly every 26 metres you descend.

I'm no expert on this type of thing, but it seems likely submerged vehicles and especially animals on Mars would have a more difficult time staying submerged in a Martian ocean. A bottom dwelling fish like a halibut would probably have to work harder to keep from floating up than they would on Earth.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-30 22:10:03

Hmm, interesting point. But since fish are mostly water, is that really an issue?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-01-31 00:32:11

I probably know even less about piscine physiology than I do about marine architecture! But, being among friends and not being too concerned about making a fool of myself (too late to worry about that, I hear you all cry! ), I think I'll comment on the fish thing!

It all boils down to buoyancy, doesn't it? When you submerge yourself in water here on Earth, your weight is reduced by an amount equal to the weight of the volume of water your body displaces. Since the human body (and presumably a fish's body) is predominantly water, you become virtually weightless. If you fill your lungs with air before diving, you become positively buoyant (you rise slowly to the surface), if you exhale completely, you become negatively buoyant and slowly sink. You could probably judge it fairly well and achieve neutral buoyancy if you practised a bit.
Anyway, the gravitational field you're in has exactly the same influence on your body as it does on the water your body displaces. So, on Mars, while your body weighs less, so does the volume of water your body displaces - in the same proportion. It seems to me, then, that achieving neutral buoyancy in a pool or ocean on Mars should be just as easy (or difficult) as here on Earth.
If we can do it, I imagine the fish would be at least as good at it as we are!
My money's on the fish having no trouble at all.

Maybe Terran marine life, of all Earthly creatures, would be the least troubled by a switch to 0.38g, since they're used to a world of virtual weightlessness anyway.

[Waits nervously to be shot down in flames by passing ichthyologist!! ]

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-01-27 21:04:30

Re: Marsian Oceans

#27 2003-01-28 09:30:15

Re: Marsian Oceans

#28 2003-01-28 19:05:05

Re: Marsian Oceans

#29 2003-01-29 00:07:46

Re: Marsian Oceans

#30 2003-01-29 03:29:01

Re: Marsian Oceans

#31 2003-01-29 05:27:28

Re: Marsian Oceans

#32 2003-01-29 05:45:31

Re: Marsian Oceans

#33 2003-01-29 06:33:34

Re: Marsian Oceans

#34 2003-01-29 17:12:05

Re: Marsian Oceans

#35 2003-01-29 21:07:44

Re: Marsian Oceans

#36 2003-01-29 21:18:22

Re: Marsian Oceans

#37 2003-01-29 21:55:30

Re: Marsian Oceans

#38 2003-01-29 22:10:40

Re: Marsian Oceans

#39 2003-01-30 01:03:41

Re: Marsian Oceans

#40 2003-01-30 22:05:13

Re: Marsian Oceans

#41 2003-01-30 22:10:03

Re: Marsian Oceans

#42 2003-01-31 00:32:11

Re: Marsian Oceans

Board footer