Carbons not the only greenhouse gas
Just sayin'...
Data from NASA's Curiosity rover on Mars has left scientists scratching their heads. On the one hand, the bot appears to have found evidence that water once flowed on Mars, but on the other hand, the readings suggest there couldn't have been. The problem stems from carbon dioxide, or rather the lack of it. Curiosity has been …
exactly, and I'm happy others can see that, too.
NASA scientists need to get their collective heads out of their "man-made-climate-change" asses and look at REAL SCIENCE instead of desperately seeking for proof of the PSEUDO-science, specifically for evidence on Mars to fit their inaccurate models.
instead, the model should FIT THE DATA.
And then the mystery will be solved!
Perhaps it was the WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere that kept the planet warm, back when it had enough of an atmosphere to allow for liquid water on the surface AND clouds in air.
"Another climate change denier I see. You believe in a static earth don't you?"
NO, I believe in _REAL_ science. And if you continue to be a "MMGW is pseudo-science" DENIER, then take a peek at THIS:
NOAA Scientists manipulated temperature data
yeah, the U.S. gummint is NOW part of "the conspiracy" of MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
So is it ANY surprise that NASA scientists would be DESPERATELY SEEKING 'proof' on Mars?
Can I respectfully suggest that the Mail on Sunday is not a journal in which a rational person would place much faith. It's sort of pathetic how as the evidence mounts up and the ice melts, the only thing the paid climate denier shills can do is shout louder. Basically science doesn't care about your conspiracy theories*. It cares about careful observation, careful analysis and what actually happens.
* Actually I guess the psychologists might. Have you ever thought about why this makes you, personally, so angry? Do you own an oil well, or are you trying to sell beach front real estate? If not, why are you angry about this and not about the many and myriad places where really bad things are being done with your money?
Umm... CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas! (Newsflash for those who are swallowing the political line). Top 3 greenhouse gasses, from strongest to weakest are: Methane(CH4), Water(H20), Carbon Dioxide(C02). - you can even look that up!
You can even bother to look these up below:
Concentration of Methane is in parts per billion, not parts per million - so it doesn't even factor in.
Carbon Dioxide is currently listed around 400ppm.
Water is highly variable - but at 37% humidity and 70degrees F, or 21.1 degrees Celsius - comes in at about 9,200ppm.
Therefore:
Water is both a significantly stronger greenhouse gas AND comes in significantly higher concentrations. So much so, that Carbon Dioxide is a non-player.
I think you may have meant to say 'flat earth' not 'static earth', because the 'Climate' always changes and to believe otherwise would mean you believe in a 'static earth'!
This post has been deleted by its author
The catch is that the air pressure on the surface of Mars is only around 600 Pa. That's near water's Triple Point of 273K & 611Pa. And since the surface temperature of Mars right now is well below 273K, and that the surface temperature has mostly gone UP over history, this would suggest no possibility of liquid water being on Mars (below the Triple Point pressure-wise, a substance would sublimate and deposit directly between solid and vapor as temperature varied). This isn't just a matter of temperature but of pressure as well. In order for liquid water to have existed on the surface of Mars, the atmospheric pressure down there MUST have exceeded 611 Pa at some point. When if ever was it that way, and what were the component gasses that weighed down and provided that pressure?
It would not only have to be much thicker but also contain lots of greenhouse gases (in order to take the surface temperature above freezing of 273K, a very consistent quality concerning ice). Catch is, most greenhouse gases we know like carbon dioxide and methane contain carbon in them, which would then be dissolved in the water to produce carbonates, which as the article notes are conspicuously missing. There aren't that many alternatives, perhaps ozone and dinitrogen monoxide. There's also the question of what happened to...whatever they were.
And that is the entire question : what was in it ? Because apparently it wasn't carbon dioxide.
So the situation is :
1) there has been liquid water on Mars
2) for water to become liquid, there has to be a certain amount of atmospheric pressure and a certain temperature
3) the Sun was never hot enough to provide the temperature component, so there had to be greenhouse gas involved
4) evidence suggests that carbon dioxide is not that gas
It is a conundrum, no doubt about that.
You fall down at 1.
They assume there had been liquid water because theyinterpret surface features through a model based on the geological processes that take place on earth. It has coloured their thinking.
They should be asking "what can cause this? ", but instead they're asking "how can we make this fit our supposition?" That is a dangerous path for science.
Liquid water is not always entirely water.
I seem to recall that water heavily doped with perchlorates can remain liquid(-ish) even in martian-type environments, and a fair bit of perchlorate-type chemistry had been discovered on Mars.
I find myself wondering if there could have been some Chlorine-based gasses that could act as a warming blanket.
In regards to the water conundrum, there are large swathes of water ice on Mars:
Which would suggest if the temperature were high enough it would be liquid.
Now what evidence do we have of the surface pressure of the atmosphere on Mars at that time?
The evidence presented suggests a low concentration of Carbon molecules in the atmosphere, but it does not state the pressure, which suggests we do not know.
It is widely suggested that the solar wind has stripped Mars of it's atmosphere.
If the atmospheric pressure was higher on Mars (potentially supported with ground sourced energy) it may have had liquid water, the observational evidence certainly suggests it did.
"They assume there had been liquid water because theyinterpret surface features"
there is other evidence as well, the frozen tidal bulges being the most compelling. I can't remember exactly where I heard about that, but it was based on the detection of possible subterranean (or subMARSenean) ice using some method of detection from orbit. Apparently there's a bit of a 'bulge' around the equator in the thickness of the ice that suggests tidal bulges. But even if that's completely wrong, there's a lot of other evidence as well, much of which is discussed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_ocean_hypothesis
(yeah wikipedia, but it has references)
"When if ever was it that way, and what were the component gasses that weighed down and provided that pressure?"
well, it's all conjecture for sure. you have canyons and what not that were apparently cut by flowing liquids (assumed to be water). And you have frozen water underground in places that suggest that tidal bulges were at one time present on mars, suggesting the presence of oceans. Of course we'd need a time machine to go back a few million years (let's say), but then there's the discussion of how Mars may have had a thicker atmosphere: The same way EARTH does.
a) volcanic activity putting gasses into the atmosphere (generally absent on Mars now)
b) a strong magnetic field preventing solar wind from blowing all of the atmosphere away (not so much on Mars, now)
Mars has sufficient gravity (as I understand it) to supprt an atmosphere, but without 'a' and 'b', it slowly dwindles to the point it is now. That's the theory, anyway. It's a good model, because it fits the data. And, so does WATER VAPOR as a greenhouse gas, keeping the temperatures up. You know, like on a cloudy night on earth, it's WARM. The water vapor IS a greenhouse gas, and the word 'perhaps' was in my original paragraph as a tweek. In fact, I've made the claim that water vapor (because of infrared absorption spectra and its concentration in earth's atmosphere) has up to 100 TIMES THE EFFECT of CO2. CO2 _does_ work on Mars, because CO2 absorbs IR for temperatures below about -50 (C or F, pick one) extremely well, but for temperatures ABOVE that, it's as clear as glass (and has very little effect).
Anyway, this hyperfocus on CO2 being a greenhouse gas is the major FLAW in their theory.
The catch is that the air pressure on the surface of Mars is only around 600 Pa. That's near water's Triple Point of 273K & 611Pa. And since the surface temperature of Mars right now is well below 273K, and that the surface temperature has mostly gone UP over history...
Be wary of extrapolating averages into universal facts. The average pressure on Mars is indeed too low to support liquid water, however there are a number of deep land lows where the pressure is substantially higher, well over 1000Pa in places. Similarly, the temperature is a little low on average, but we know that the temperature e.g. at noon on the equator is warm enough to be quite comfortable even in a t-shirt and shorts. These are well established facts derived from actual measurements, not theory. On your own premises they are enough to dismiss your concrete assertion of "no possibility of liquid water being on Mars".
Water vapour is a short term greenhouse gas that relies on temperature and pressure to determine how much of it is active. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not reliant on temperature and pressure to determine how much of it is active. That is the reason why we try to limit our CO2 production rather than our H2O production.
Water vapour could have been the greenhouse gas but then we would need something else driving the temperature and pressure up. Maybe Mars' core was a highly radioactive, short half-life, very dense element that artificially drove up the temperature and gravity but now no longer exists but was enough to cause water vapour to be the greenhouse gas.
"That is the reason why we try to limit our CO2 production rather than our H2O production."
You miss the humor in that statement. HOW can you LIMIT H2O PRODUCTION (atmospheric H2O I assume) when H2O _FLOODS_ the planet? 3/4 is covered by water, last I looked...
And have you looked at the infrared absorption spectrum of CO2 lately? I don't see it absorbing ANY IR ENERGY above about -50 deg (F or C). Not very effective holding in the FROZEN TEMPERATURES, except maybe to keep Antarctica from getting frozen CO2 snow like Mars might get on occasion...
All of the water that is in the gas phase is active. This can be related through partial pressures or even humidity level (% humidity). As a gas, water is very simply a greenhouse gas - no complexities. Water changes from a greenhouse gas to a much more complex behavior when it condenses into clouds - becomes rain etc. The process releases a significant amount of energy in the phase change, much more than raising its temperature from 0C to 100C (over 5 times the amount). Therefore water is also capable of transporting 'heat' energy to the upper atmosphere to be radiated as blackbody radiation into space through evaporation followed by condensation. Clouds also reflect from IR to visible light radiation (yes, IR is part of the EM spectrum that includes what we humans can see as visible - just sits on the longer wavefront end). This reflection includes reflection from the sun back into space, as well as IR radiation from the ground back to the ground. Carbon Dioxide and Water as a gas work by absorbing IR radiation - not reflecting. Water is the 'wild child' in the equation, and can't be dismissed so easily.
Yes it looks like they are missing something.
Which suggests we are about to discover something new to add to climate models for all planets.
I will note 2 points.
Below triple point water sublimes from solid to vapour but doesn't water vapour act as a greenhouse gas, even if it's not "concentrated" into droplets?
How deep would carbonate deposits have to be to be invisible from space? Is there enough time for that cover to blown over or otherwise form on them?
Looking at the photo of the sedimented lake bed, I wonder if they have modeled alternatives to the formation of that feature in the rock. Maybe it is just sediment from past wind blown dust that has been buried and under huge pressures for millions of years and then exposed and eroded by wind and extreme temperature changes to form a feature that looks like a lake bed.
" Maybe it is just sediment from past wind blown dust that has been buried and under huge pressures for millions of years and then exposed and eroded by wind and extreme temperature changes to form a feature that looks like a lake bed."
I'm not sure if it's possible for a wind-blown deposit to look like a lake bed. Dunes lead to cross-bedding which is pretty distinctive, see the pictures in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-bedding . I'm not familiar with loess but the same source suggests it's not stratified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loess . Possibly wind-blown deposition effects could happen on Mars but I'd expect that these two would be readily recognisable to geologists.
Any Martian dropstones presumably would have been ice-wedged off local rock outcroppings, fall onto the lake ice, and eventually get thru the ice and to the bottom. If the ice sheet moves at all (which can happen) then the stones can be transported some distance before deposition. Also glaciers can carry stones, but the glacier must then be floated on liquid water in order to achieve a proper dropstone effect.
Volcano bombs can also become dropstones, with or without ice over the liquid water.
Since we're talking billions of years ago and since some newer theories of solar system formation have Jupiter moving around quite a bit, could Mars not simply have been in an orbit closer to the Sun, thus explaining both the liquid water evidence and the lack of expected carbonites?
I was thinking similar thoughts. We really don't know all that much and what we do know is based on local knowledge which include molten core, magnetosphere, large amounts of water and a thick atmosphere.
Other have mentioned that the liquid may not have been water, or at least a water solution we might not have looked for yet, but Mars has suffered at least one enormous collision with another object. Maybe a water ice comet? There a multiple possibilities but then that's what science is about. Proposing hypothesis which may fit the facts, then gathering the facts, and more facts, and seeing if we can make a theory that fits, adjusting the theory when new facts emerge.
Some commentards, one shouty one in particular, doesn't seem to understand the difference between hypothesis, theory and facts, let alone the relationship between them. I may have just posted a load of rubbish above. I don't claim to be a scientist.