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

Tholzel · 2005-07-31 07:24:15

Good heavens, Tholzel!

I blush...

Tholzel · 2005-09-19 12:03:20

Then explain this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4285119.stm

Gladly. Here is a paragraph from that site:

Large reserves of water-ice are known to be held at the poles on Mars but if this discovery is confirmed by follow-up observations, it would be a first for a region at such a low latitude.

(Notice the "but if this discovery is confirmed" clause of the assertion? In other words, the same old stuff. The REALLY REALLY hope there's been a lot of water on Mars.)

SpaceNut · 2005-09-23 11:36:21

Well as this topic indicates Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2 it however is being disputed by the evidence to the contrary.

WUSTL Mars Team Describes Water Detection At Gusev Crater

Led by WUSTL earth and planetary scientists, a large team of NASA scientists has detailed the first solid set of evidence for water having existed on Mars at the Gusev crater, the exploration site of the rover Spirit.
During its traverse from landing site to the Columbia Hills, Spirit dug three trenches, allowing researchers to detect relatively high levels of magnesium sulfate comprising more than 20 percent of the regolith - soil containing pieces of small rocks - within one of the trenches, the Boroughs trench.
The tight correlation between magnesium and sulfur indicates an open hydrologic system - these ions had been carried by water to this site and deposited.
"Also, we saw very high chlorine in the coating and very high bromine levels inside the rock. The separation of the sulfur and chlorine tells us that the deposition of chlorine is affected by water."
While the multilayer coatings on rock Mazatzal indicates a temporal occurrence of low-quantity water associated with freezing and melting of water, the sulfate deposition at trench sites indicates the involvement of a large body of water.

Tholzel · 2005-09-24 16:11:04

Well as this topic indicates Mars never had water - So-called water flows are liquid CO2 it however is being disputed by the evidence to the contrary.
WUSTL Mars Team Describes Water Detection At Gusev Crater

Led by WUSTL earth and planetary scientists, a large team of NASA scientists has detailed the first solid set of evidence for water having existed on Mars at the Gusev crater, the exploration site of the rover Spirit.
During its traverse from landing site to the Columbia Hills, Spirit dug three trenches, allowing researchers to detect relatively high levels of magnesium sulfate comprising more than 20 percent of the regolith - soil containing pieces of small rocks - within one of the trenches, the Boroughs trench.
The tight correlation between magnesium and sulfur indicates an open hydrologic system - these ions had been carried by water to this site and deposited.
"Also, we saw very high chlorine in the coating and very high bromine levels inside the rock. The separation of the sulfur and chlorine tells us that the deposition of chlorine is affected by water."
While the multilayer coatings on rock Mazatzal indicates a temporal occurrence of low-quantity water associated with freezing and melting of water, the sulfate deposition at trench sites indicates the involvement of a large body of water.

Actually, all these little factoids that are flashed at us every now and then remind me of the creationist arguments for the Great Watch Maker. They are nits tossed about with great authority, but never within a complete argument that can be examened, test and refuted. When are the pro-water advocats going to wrap up their water arguement in a single ball and hand it to the workd in its entirety? When is NASA going to release the datas it has been collecting so non-NASA scientists can examen it?

Until that happens, these half-baked claims are nothing more than flirtatious glances slyly held out to thrill the pro-water crowd with the possibility of a (ahem!) deeper future envolvment. But not now...

Rxke · 2005-09-25 04:54:07

there are a lot of papers that will get published vry shortly. Squires detailed some of that in an interview with the author of unmannedspaceflight.com (it's on his board in mp3)

Of course, all this is about water in the past, not current situation...

JonClarke · 2005-09-26 02:38:02

Actually, all these little factoids that are flashed at us every now and then remind me of the creationist arguments for the Great Watch Maker. They are nits tossed about with great authority, but never within a complete argument that can be examened, test and refuted. When are the pro-water advocats going to wrap up their water arguement in a single ball and hand it to the workd in its entirety? When is NASA going to release the datas it has been collecting so non-NASA scientists can examen it?
Until that happens, these half-baked claims are nothing more than flirtatious glances slyly held out to thrill the pro-water crowd with the possibility of a (ahem!) deeper future envolvment. But not now...

There is a vast literature on the direct spectroscopic detection of ice, water vapour, and hydrated minerals on Mars extending over many years. Likewise there are many papers on the presence of hydrogen in the Martian regolith, almost certainly indicative of water ice and hydrated minerals. There is also considerable geomorphic evidence for past water flows, the literature for this goes back more than 30 years. There are also modelling studies that show that liquid water is episodically stable over large areas of the Martian surface even now. Have you read any of this?

Jon

Tholzel · 2006-02-05 17:52:25

"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.""

Hmmm. then what about this?:

"The Opportunity team continues working with an engineering test rover on Earth to determine the safest way to attempt to drive the rover out of the dune where it's currently parked on Mars. In the meantime, Opportunity is collecting science data with its instruments and cameras."

[" Currently parked ," NASA terminology to describe Opportunity which is stuck in a Martian sand trap and can't get out. May 3 , 2005. (Similar to the term "hard landing" to refer to a crash.)]

(Ha--now, May 8th , they still can't bring themselves to utter the words "stuck." Trying to get out is referred to as " Testing Rover Mobility in Challenging Soil.")

Well finally, May 10th, this admission: " (Engineers) plan the best way for the rover Opportunity to drive off of a soft-sand dune that the rover dug itself into the previous week.

May 20th, Finally, a full confession: "Opportunity continues to make inch-by-inch progress toward getting out of the dune where it has been dug-in since sol 446 (April 26)."

May 24th: (Hope springs eternal.):"The rover has been hindered by soft sand for nearly three weeks. Traction is difficult in the ripple-shaped dune of windblown dust and sand Opportunity drove into on April 26. Since it began trying to get out, the rover has advanced only 11 inches." ("Hindered" is a good one. "Stuck" is what it is.)

Tholzel · 2006-02-05 18:04:14

"There is a vast literature on the direct spectroscopic detection of ice, water vapour, and hydrated minerals on Mars extending over many years. Likewise there are many papers on the presence of hydrogen in the Martian regolith, almost certainly indicative of water ice and hydrated minerals. There is also considerable geomorphic evidence for past water flows, the literature for this goes back more than 30 years. There are also modelling studies that show that liquid water is episodically stable over large areas of the Martian surface even now. Have you read any of this? "

Well, of course. But have you read any of my rejoinders? I keep bringing up the tenor and slant of these pro-water claims. If you read these articles carefully, you willusually see some subtle disclaimers such as: "If these findings can be substantiated," Based on initial findings," and the one you never read (I haven't) "Based on similar results on Earth."

However, I admit that NASA has opened up a little bit. Occasionally one sees a tiny mention that the water layer could also be wind-born deposits-layering. But to my knowledge, the CO2 hypotheses has never seen the glare of print.

BTW, as to your anguish that I am not following the party line, let me include a letter to the editor of the WSJ on that subject, sent a few days ago:

Wall Street Journal, 02-Feb-06

A lot of heat would be replaced with light in scientific debates (such as the Hurricane Debate) if, after giving the technical evidence of opposing sides, you then gave the political leanings of the scientists involved. Few scientists, if any, discover facts that contradict their politics. Revealing their political bent will be just the additional evidence we readers need to weigh more accurately any bias in their "scientific" claims.

SpaceNut · 2006-02-05 20:29:43

Is it possible that the time of day for getting out of the sand trap is Mars solar day. ???

Why not try moving the rovers near midnight when the surface should harden up just a little bit.

Tholzel · 2006-02-06 08:27:49

Belinda pointed us to this fine site:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Expres … U8E_0.html of photos from the Free University of Berlin (where I studied foir a while).

One thing that strikes me is that the flow channels in these photos cannot have been made quickly--as they would have been had they been carved out by an explosive outpouring of liquid CO2. There is just toom much removed terrain. UNLESS it was much colder on Mars in the past, due to the dusty interplanitary debris that shielded the sun. I read somewhere that that may have been as much as 50%. So the question of the day: Is there a temperature-pressure regime in which C)2 woulod remain liquid for, say, years, and could that have occurred on Mars?

If not, then the channels shown above do not seem likely to have been carved by CO2. (Of course we could have bioth types of channels--water and CO2-carved channels.

JonClarke · 2006-04-22 01:46:34

Well, of course. But have you read any of my rejoinders? I keep bringing up the tenor and slant of these pro-water claims. If you read these articles carefully, you willusually see some subtle disclaimers such as: "If these findings can be substantiated," Based on initial findings," and the one you never read (I haven't) "Based on similar results on Earth."

Unfortunately youyr rejoinders don't address the basic issues that only water can produce the geomrophological, sedimentological, mineralogical and geochemical features in question.

However, I admit that NASA has opened up a little bit. Occasionally one sees a tiny mention that the water layer could also be wind-born deposits-layering. But to my knowledge, the CO2 hypotheses has never seen the glare of print.

First of all it's not a question of "NASA" it's a question of the hundreds of independent researchers who say that there is good evedience for water on Mars.

Secondly, if you think the CO2 hypotheses has never seen print, you are very much been mistaken. It has been presented in several papers.
Jon

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-07-31 07:24:15

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

#27 2005-09-19 12:03:20

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

#28 2005-09-23 11:36:21

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

#29 2005-09-24 16:11:04

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

#30 2005-09-25 04:54:07

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

#31 2005-09-26 02:38:02

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

#32 2006-02-05 17:52:25

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

#33 2006-02-05 18:04:14

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

#34 2006-02-05 20:29:43

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

#35 2006-02-06 08:27:49

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

#36 2006-04-22 01:46:34

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

Board footer