Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

Tholzel · 2005-04-02 08:49:23

Who can fail to have noticed in their glowing accounts of the search for signs of past water on Mars, that NASA never mentions the other side of the story? Every press release begins or ends with the hope that the Rovers will find signs of abundant liquid water in Mar's dusty past. In many cases it's not even a hope, it's just a question of when they will find this evidence. And who can blame them? Look at the Martian satellite photos of arroyos, river delta flows etched in the sand, and all the analogues to heavy--even torrential--water flow in the past.

Then you learn that if caused by liquid water, these flows must have occurred millions of years ago, and it hits you: How can these ancient flows look so recent and unweathered, and why aren't more of them pocked with millions of years' worth of meteorites?

My suspicion is that they ARE recent; that there may never have been any significant liquid water on Mars and that the arroyos, and river deltas are nothing more than the flow of a slurry of very fine, crystalline Martian sand and liquid CO2.

If dry ice (frozen CO2) is held undeground by the pressure of dirt above it, and the temperature rises in the summer enough to melt it, the result will be an explosive release of the gas/liquid that will flow downhill like a raging torrent of water, carrying huge blocks of rock and debris with it, and carving out flow channels exactly like a water flood. Once released and flowed-out, the CO2 will evaporate. There are suspicious outflows (deltas) where one would expect signs of pooling of the great flow, but there is no evidence of standing water at all. The sedimentation being used as an excuse for water-layering can as well have been caused by airborn layering due to the annual planet-wide dust storms.

For a continuation of this line of thought, see: http://www.velocitypress.com/pages/wate … n_mars.php

srmeaney · 2005-04-02 10:33:07

Considering that the Pressure holding the CO2 in the ground would cause it to be 'Liquid' or even 'gaseous', crust failures would result in a geyser of CO2 and even bulges beneath layers of surface. Certainly, the surface may be overcome even as a 'Soil glacier', pushed aside as Liquid CO2 boils to the surface and flows down hill.

RobS · 2005-04-02 13:17:33

This issue has been discussed in the professional scientific literature. There have been different scientists at different times arguing in favor of liquid CO2. These positions have never been definitively disproved, but they also have never gained traction among the professionals; in other words, they can't be disproved, but they also can't be proved, and they seem very unlikely, so they simply have never been taken too seriously. We know Mars has water today and we know that CO2 is much, much harder to liquify than water. So Occam's razor argues on favor of water and against CO2.

-- RobS

mars2015 · 2005-05-23 08:46:43

Then explain this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/428 … 285119.stm

Tholzel · 2005-07-24 19:10:05

Then explain this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/428 … 285119.stm

There is nothing to explain. Those are a bunch of claims, nothing more. If you substitute the word "CO2" for "water" the results would be exactly the same.

For the full story, see: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-wat … -00k1.html

Tholzel · 2005-07-26 12:13:33

This issue has been discussed in the professional scientific literature. There have been different scientists at different times arguing in favor of liquid CO2. These positions have never been definitively disproved, but they also have never gained traction among the professionals; in other words, they can't be disproved, but they also can't be proved, and they seem very unlikely, so they simply have never been taken too seriously. We know Mars has water today and we know that CO2 is much, much harder to liquify than water. So Occam's razor argues on favor of water and against CO2.
-- RobS

The reason the anti-water crowd can't get any traction is because of the huge investment NASA has in getting a manned mission on the road. And they'll only get funding for this if there Mars had a watery past with the possible occurance of life--real life, not a bunch of microbes.

reddragon · 2005-07-27 10:24:24

In the thin Martian atmosphere of today, liquid CO2 on the surface would evaporate very quickly. It wouldn't flow well, certainly not across any great distance. And CO2 coming out of the ground would erupt forcefully out into the air, not flow out in a river. Furthermore, most of the large outflow channels and valley networks do not look very recent and have been dated to Noachian or early Hesperian times (within the first half of Martian history), when Mars was probably warm enough and had a thick enough atmosphere to allow liquid water to exist on the surface for long enough to carve these features. Also, riverbeds and flood channels are not the only evidence for water. Opportunity and Spirit have provided geological and chemical evidence, such as the "blueberries", for surface water in the areas they are exploring. We keep learning more about Mars's past, and we keep seeing more signs for water. CO2, as the major agent of erosion, presents many more problems than does water and is thus a less likely explanation.

Tholzel · 2005-07-27 11:40:13

In the thin Martian atmosphere of today, liquid CO2 on the surface would evaporate very quickly. It wouldn't flow well, certainly not across any great distance. And CO2 coming out of the ground would erupt forcefully out into the air, not flow out in a river. Furthermore, most of the large outflow channels and valley networks do not look very recent and have been dated to Noachian or early Hesperian times (within the first half of Martian history), when Mars was probably warm enough and had a thick enough atmosphere to allow liquid water to exist on the surface for long enough to carve these features. Also, riverbeds and flood channels are not the only evidence for water. Opportunity and Spirit have provided geological and chemical evidence, such as the "blueberries", for surface water in the areas they are exploring. We keep learning more about Mars's past, and we keep seeing more signs for water. CO2, as the major agent of erosion, presents many more problems than does water and is thus a less likely explanation.

This states the orthodox position very nicely. But metaphors are being mixed. If we are talking about today, then, yes, CO2 would evaporate very quickly--except that it is very cold, so it may not evaporate that quickly. (All one needs is an hour or so of outrushing liquid CO2.). If we are talking about when Mars had a denser atmposhere, then CO2 would evaporate less quickly, except that it was warmer, so evaporation would be hastened.

What may have happened in great profusion is that solid CO2 is trapped beneath the surface by the pressure of earth (dirt) above it. As waning vulcanism and tectonic shifts cracked the surface, as meteors struck, as the temperature rose, large areas of CO2 would suddenly find explosive release, and rush out, upward or in crevasses--sideways, carrying huge blocks of earth along. Being a liguid even for 10's of minutes--which is clearly very possible--was all it would take to carve torrential riverbeds.

Rather than simply deny this possibility, please read http://www.velocitypress.com/pages/water_on_mars.php and especially the references to "White Mars" at the bottom of the page. (In fact read White Mars--its on the web and fascinating.)

One key element is the amazing fact that many of the alluvial plains appear virgin--they do not have any impact craters on them, suggestiong very recent creation. A creation by rushing fluid that is only possible from CO2.

The Blueberries can just as likely have been created by a leaching effect of a thin damp film of surface water, or barely subsurface water--not necessarily oceans or lakes. (No one is saying thatere is no water on Mars, just that the amount of liquid surface water was never more than a miniscule amount, can certainly never huge rives, lakes, seas and oceans.

Tholzel · 2005-07-27 11:40:47

In the thin Martian atmosphere of today, liquid CO2 on the surface would evaporate very quickly. It wouldn't flow well, certainly not across any great distance. And CO2 coming out of the ground would erupt forcefully out into the air, not flow out in a river. Furthermore, most of the large outflow channels and valley networks do not look very recent and have been dated to Noachian or early Hesperian times (within the first half of Martian history), when Mars was probably warm enough and had a thick enough atmosphere to allow liquid water to exist on the surface for long enough to carve these features. Also, riverbeds and flood channels are not the only evidence for water. Opportunity and Spirit have provided geological and chemical evidence, such as the "blueberries", for surface water in the areas they are exploring. We keep learning more about Mars's past, and we keep seeing more signs for water. CO2, as the major agent of erosion, presents many more problems than does water and is thus a less likely explanation.

This states the orthodox position very nicely. But metaphors are being mixed. If we are talking about today, then, yes, CO2 would evaporate very quickly--except that it is very cold, so it may not evaporate that quickly. (All one needs is an hour or so of outrushing liquid CO2.). If we are talking about when Mars had a denser atmposhere, then CO2 would evaporate less quickly, except that it was warmer, so evaporation would be hastened.

What may have happened in great profusion is that solid CO2 is trapped beneath the surface by the pressure of earth (dirt) above it. As waning vulcanism and tectonic shifts cracked the surface, as meteors struck, as the temperature rose, large areas of CO2 would suddenly find explosive release, and rush out, upward or in crevasses--sideways, carrying huge blocks of earth along. Being a liguid even for 10's of minutes--which is clearly very possible--was all it would take to carve torrential riverbeds.

Rather than simply deny this possibility, please read http://www.velocitypress.com/pages/water_on_mars.php and especially the references to "White Mars" at the bottom of the page. (In fact read White Mars--its on the web and fascinating.)

One key element is the amazing fact that many of the alluvial plains appear virgin--they do not have any impact craters on them, suggestiong very recent creation. A creation by rushing fluid that is only possible from CO2.

The Blueberries can just as likely have been created by a leaching effect of a thin damp film of surface water, or barely subsurface water--not necessarily oceans or lakes. (No one is saying thatere is no water on Mars, just that the amount of liquid surface water was never more than a miniscule amount, can certainly never huge rives, lakes, seas and oceans.

rgcarnes · 2005-07-27 13:52:01

Tholzel,

This URL seems to be a good one, providing tools to scientifically evaluate, and perhaps, prove or disprove your position statements. It would be interesting if the math works out. There are a couple of built in calculators for CO2 conditions included in this site:

http://www.airliquide.com/en/business/p … p?GasID=26

Best Wishes,

Tholzel · 2005-07-27 14:00:47

Tholzel,
This URL seems to be a good one, providing tools to scientifically evaluate, and perhaps, prove or disprove your position statements.

Your CO2 site is excellent--but way over my head. As a professional propagandist, I rarely take positions; I am just advocating a point of view that is too often glossed over by the Mars enthusiasts here.

In 1956, When Pan Am was taking reservations for the first passengers to Mars, I signed up. So I would like nothing better than for us to find the first BEM.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-07-27 20:20:58

Hi Tholzel.
This part of your recent post interests me:-

One key element is the amazing fact that many of the alluvial plains appear virgin--they do not have any impact craters on them, suggestiong very recent creation. A creation by rushing fluid that is only possible from CO2.

I understand your point and I'm familiar with the "White Mars" hypothesis, which was championed by Dr. Nick Hoffman, a fellow Australian. But I think I detect a flaw in your logic.
You correctly state that the lack of craters on Martian alluvial plains indicates a young surface but you then make the jump to a CO2 mediated cause for the features rather than aqueous. The dearth of craters means the surface is probably 'only' some 5-10 million years old; it doesn't mean they were formed last weekend. Events involving the flow of water could certainly have occurred in the last few million years on Mars. Our knowledge of past climate swings on the Red Planet is woefully lacking and, for all we know, episodes of raised atmospheric pressure, together with accompanying temperatures considerably higher than those we see today, may happen on a regular basis. Large numbers of strata in sedimentary material and polar ice are evidence of the kind of frequent swings in climate I'm talking about. And crater-free wind-sculpted dunes in the Olympus caldera, at an altitude of 27 kilometres above datum, seem to be telling us that Mars' atmospheric pressure has been very much higher in relatively recent times than it is today.
All this indicates that recent fluvial events are not only possible but even highly probable on Mars. In fact, many craters and slopes today show strong signs of active flows of what is most likely briny water.

Given the highly specialized circumstances under which liquid CO2 could be responsible for the features you speak of, and given the good evidence for recent conditions conducive to water erosion events, CO2 is not required as an erosional agent and is, indeed, very much more unlikely than water to have been such an agent.

I strongly agree with RobS that Occam's Razor falls heavily on the CO2 hypothesis for the reasons I've outlined above. In my opinion, it's an exotic solution which the problem doesn't call for.

Tholzel · 2005-07-28 08:25:18

[/quote]Given the highly specialized circumstances under which liquid CO2 could be responsible for the features you speak of, and given the good evidence for recent conditions conducive to water erosion events, CO2 is not required as an erosional agent and is, indeed, very much more unlikely than water to have been such an agent.

I strongly agree with RobS that Occam's Razor falls heavily on the CO2 hypothesis for the reasons I've outlined above. In my opinion, it's an exotic solution which the problem doesn't call for. [/quote]

I agree that the water theory is stronger than the liquid CO2 theory. My gripes are two:

1) Until recently NASA has not even breathed a word about alternate possibilities for the apparent liquid flows than water. This has obviously been to paint the most optimistic picture possible in order to secure funding for manned Mars mission. If water is currently present, it presents the tremendous possibility that there is alien life even now. And if water was abudnent a long time ago, at least we should be able to find traces of it. That is certainly a thrilling possibility.

Lately, however, they have interjected the possibility of wind-born deposits accounting for the layering. Although they are still careful not to stess it, if wind-layering is the case, than water layer isn't. Either their scientific conscience got the better of them, or people like me who openly question this monoply fascination with the water on Mars theory have got to them. (As I say, I look at this from the propagandist's point of view, not the scientific because, as I have learned early on, "Politics ALWAYS trumps common sense"--at least in the short term.) And the politics of obtaining funding for a manned mission is intense--certainly the most important thing on NASA's executive agenda.

2) With the enormous amount of money the rover program is costing the US tax payer, why is NASA holding on to all the details of the information they are gathering. It seems to me this information should be public, or at least released freely and willingly to American scientific institutes. Instead, it seems to be horded much like the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls--which was kept in the firm grasp of a self-selected academic elite who held on to the originals for decades, while working on them to their own benefit.

If this inforamtion was freely available, many on this board seem to have the qualifications to assess the information, rather than just guess at it. My dear friend Occam is always brought in as a last resort!

Tholzel · 2005-07-28 08:25:58

[/quote]Given the highly specialized circumstances under which liquid CO2 could be responsible for the features you speak of, and given the good evidence for recent conditions conducive to water erosion events, CO2 is not required as an erosional agent and is, indeed, very much more unlikely than water to have been such an agent.

I strongly agree with RobS that Occam's Razor falls heavily on the CO2 hypothesis for the reasons I've outlined above. In my opinion, it's an exotic solution which the problem doesn't call for. [/quote]

I agree that the water theory is stronger than the liquid CO2 theory. My gripes are two:

1) Until recently NASA has not even breathed a word about alternate possibilities for the apparent liquid flows than water. This has obviously been to paint the most optimistic picture possible in order to secure funding for manned Mars mission. If water is currently present, it presents the tremendous possibility that there is alien life even now. And if water was abudnent a long time ago, at least we should be able to find traces of it. That is certainly a thrilling possibility.

Lately, however, they have interjected the possibility of wind-born deposits accounting for the layering. Although they are still careful not to stess it, if wind-layering is the case, than water layer isn't. Either their scientific conscience got the better of them, or people like me who openly question this monoply fascination with the water on Mars theory have got to them. (As I say, I look at this from the propagandist's point of view, not the scientific because, as I have learned early on, "Politics ALWAYS trumps common sense"--at least in the short term.) And the politics of obtaining funding for a manned mission is intense--certainly the most important thing on NASA's executive agenda.

2) With the enormous amount of money the rover program is costing the US tax payer, why is NASA holding on to all the details of the information they are gathering. It seems to me this information should be public, or at least released freely and willingly to American scientific institutes. Instead, it seems to be horded much like the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls--which was kept in the firm grasp of a self-selected academic elite who held on to the originals for decades, while working on them to their own benefit.

If this inforamtion was freely available, many on this board seem to have the qualifications to assess the information, rather than just guess at it. My dear friend Occam is always brought in as a last resort!

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-28 11:41:08

Two points, Tholzel, welcome to New Mars, btw.

First, it was my feeling that "water on Mars" theories were actually considered "equal" to other theories, even with the overwelming MOLA data indicating the extremely large ice caps and obvious lowland erosions. Even after the MOLA data, and you can search these forums for "MOLA," "water" and other such keywords and see us discussing these things here, NASA was reluctant to say "water on Mars."

Only with the rovers proving sedimentary deposits has NASA actually truely come out with the water on Mars position.

This is of course, how science should work, but I feel that if anything, they were being too cautious.

Second, yes, it's true that NASA would have an agenda about water, but NASA has been remarkably forthright with data products from the rover missions, you typically get new images every single day, all of which are near-PDS quality. This is a problem that was with MOC, and many people complained about it, and it got fixed. Deep Impact, and Cassini had similar data release exhedules (in fact, I actually feel somewhat spoiled by the data that we've recieved from NASA, but have lacked from the European space agency).

Whatever conclusions that NASA scientists themselves are making, can, and will, be questioned by the scientific community. Just because NASA's officials and science people have a bit "more say" than everyone else in the media (being on a high profile project tends to do that) doesn't change the fact that science still plows ahead.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-07-28 22:29:53

Josh:-

Only with the rovers proving sedimentary deposits has NASA actually truely come out with the water on Mars position.
This is of course, how science should work, but I feel that if anything, they were being too cautious.

Thanks, Tholzel, for that reply.

And thanks also for your input, Josh.
I think your summary of the recent history of NASA's position on Martian water is fair comment and I agree with your take on it. Rather than being 'gung-ho' about water on Mars for reasons of political expedience, I think NASA has been dragging its feet a little bit.

If they're plugging the H2O-on-Mars angle now, good luck to them. I hope they succeed in bringing about a crewed Mars mission sooner rather than later. As I've said elsewhere at New Mars, wasting tens of billions of dollars and tens of years of precious time scratching around on our bone-dry, hard-vacuum, radiation-seared Moon is something I'd rather avoid if possible.

Tholzel · 2005-07-29 06:12:12

Shaun Barrett wrote:

Josh:-
As I've said elsewhere at New Mars, wasting tens of billions of dollars and tens of years of precious time scratching around on our bone-dry, hard-vacuum, radiation-seared Moon is something I'd rather avoid if possible.
That's true from a science point of view, but certainly not so from an engineering viewpoint. Living for a month or more in a hard vacuum is an excellent test for living for a month or more in a near vacuum. And rescue is a lot closer!

Shaun Barrett · 2005-07-30 21:50:05

Good heavens, Tholzel!
Your English is just sooo good it never even occurred to me to question your linguistic origins. You have every right to be proud of your fluency, considering your command of English is superior to at least half the people I know who claim it as their first language! :!:

I congratulate you.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-04-02 08:49:23

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#2 2005-04-02 10:33:07

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#3 2005-04-02 13:17:33

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#4 2005-05-23 08:46:43

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#5 2005-07-24 19:10:05

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#6 2005-07-26 12:13:33

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#7 2005-07-27 10:24:24

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#8 2005-07-27 11:40:13

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#9 2005-07-27 11:40:47

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#10 2005-07-27 13:52:01

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#11 2005-07-27 14:00:47

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#12 2005-07-27 20:20:58

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#13 2005-07-28 08:25:18

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#14 2005-07-28 08:25:58

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#15 2005-07-28 11:41:08

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#16 2005-07-28 22:29:53

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#17 2005-07-29 06:12:12

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#18 2005-07-29 07:26:16

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#19 2005-07-29 15:46:21

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#20 2005-07-29 15:50:21

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#21 2005-07-29 16:35:08

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#22 2005-07-29 19:44:04

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#23 2005-07-29 22:24:01

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#24 2005-07-30 07:27:48

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

#25 2005-07-30 21:50:05

Re: Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2

Board footer