|
Post by docstrangebrew on Oct 16, 2012 19:38:10 GMT 1
Okay hi folks, got a poser to consider here...
I presume most folks are aware of the 'controversy' surrounding Earth based and orbital data regarding the Martian atmospheric levels of Methane...
For those not, in short It seems that on a cyclic frequency methane levels spike on Mars in a bloom that occurs in several locations. The Martian summer is the bloom time...and in Martian winter it diminishes. The conventional explanation for Methane production in a planetary setting is simple.
Either it is a product of geological processes, or it is a direct example of biological activity. But, and here is the cracker, Mars has been considered for many years as a dead planet geological process wise, no registered tectonic movement, no volcanic activity betraying subduction zones, no discernible liquid core, ...in fact as dead as a cinder.
That leaves Microbiological, no one is suggesting Martian rabbits abound the slopes of Mount Olympus, for example!
Curiosity has a science package well capable of confirming this methane signature.
About one week after Curiosity landed the team instructed the rover to have a sniff of Martian atmosphere.
There was talk during and after the experiment that the first sniff would be more of a system shakedown, and get rid of any residual Earth air in the chambers, they had a pressure problem with flow dynamics which they rapidly solved.
Then they apparently did the first analysis.
They warned everyone that the result would take at least a week of work to present to the world.
Then silence...not another word for at least a month.
So listened to the regular NASA Curiosity press updates they do every Thursday.
And there it was revealed that they had actually done another three gulps during the last month and that they would have something definitely to say about that shortly, maybe they meant by the next update, but that was unclear.
If they registered a spike could that explain the weird reticence to comment for a month on SAM results it might also indicate the spike was some way above what is should be in PPM then expected. Also if it was a calibration problem they would admit it I think. And equipment failure is highly unlikely at this stage, again I think they would admit it, but they are not claiming anything of the sort as far as I am aware!
Of course if that is so, apart from seismological investigations which might scupper speculation somewhat, although unlikely that could well be the slam dunk that would indicate very heavily that we are not alone in the Universe!...we haz bugs!..little tiny ones, how cute!
There is always a chance that is not the case however, but what are the odds seeing as we have seen where the water flowed?
Up-date Oct 11
From NASA Media teleconference..
Asked directly for a result from SAM on the Methane...silence...then they ducked it! This is over a month and a half since those gulps were processed. So much for a week to ten days process time.
Summat' is afoot!...I think they have a CH^4 spike but do not want to admit that because then you will have idiots like me claiming that the anomalous reading might indicate that microbial life is indeed present on Mars!
Pandemonium would swamp the rest of the mission...maybe that is their thinking...makes the mission basically redundant apart from a very expensive geological survey. Simply because their mission objective is obsolete...Mars can and did provide a environment suitable to sustain life.
It just seems incongruous that a boasted openness about mission health from NASA results in a weird unwillingness to discuss the SAM result.
And this result is one of the highlights from several prospectives, it is an important measurement. I hope the reluctance to divulge is NASA rechecking and double checking after all the last thing they need is another ALH 84001 on their collective CV!
The delay might be significant in itself, the spike is indicative of more then they calculated from other observations, they got 'em selves a hot one!
If that is true then we have a significant finding, if they found no spike they would say that...no skin off their nose at all after all they are pursuing a mission objective of the likelihood of past life possibility on the red planet.
This is not supposed to indicate conspiracy or any such nonsense, but I do think the information might well be regarded as a 'delicate' matter, because know one could ever look at the Universe again with the attitude that we are here and there might be others...this result would probably declare quite blatantly there are 'others' we have proof that life can start or at least thrive under the most difficult of conditions.
Interesting times maybe! Excuses if I have bored you!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 17, 2012 17:46:00 GMT 1
Welcome Herr Doktor. There was a paper a few months ago in Nature about this. I can't remember who by, but the authors claimed to have shown that there was an adequate supply of methane in micro-meteorites and interstellar dust impacting on Mars to account for the amount observed there. The variable blooming they claimed was caused by the seasonal increase in UV radiation, photochemically releasing the trapped methane. Of course, better measurements of the concentration might invalidate this explanation.
Intriguing comment. The last I heard was that this was a ball still very much in play. Has it now been ruled out, and if so, why? Or perhaps you mean the brouhaha - not really their fault Clinton chose to milk it, I think.
|
|
|
Post by docstrangebrew on Oct 17, 2012 23:15:36 GMT 1
There was a paper a few months ago in Nature about this. I can't remember who by, but the authors claimed to have shown that there was an adequate supply of methane in micro-meteorites and interstellar dust impacting on Mars to account for the amount observed there. The variable blooming they claimed was caused by the seasonal increase in UV radiation, photochemically releasing the trapped methane. Of course, better measurements of the concentration might invalidate this explanation I think Frank Keppler was one of the contributors... I admit to have only scanned the paper and not in detail. And it certainly looks intriguing but seems to have failed to ignite a debate of any serious depth or clarity in the planetary science community, distinctly underwhelmed seems to be the flavour. It is certainly possible chemistry nonetheless... The paper's main title is...'Ultraviolet-radiation-induced methane emissions from meteorites and the Martian atmosphere' Thing is the observations, they try to question, are based of a 10 yearly cyclic blooming...how many meteorites decide to invade Martian air space on a yearly cyclic basis for 10 years? Recorded by Earth based photometry as well as orbital spectral analysis...seems as solid as it is likely to get. The collected data results are also well within the error bars that two vastly different methods likely generate. In fact almost identical in analysis. Claiming the observations are spurious and possibly faulty kindda seems like grasping at straws on this one. They admit themselves that the transition rates to be negligible during entry. And they only base their study on one type CM2 carbonaceous chondrite the Murchison meteorite. They 'assume' that any meteorites that do arrive have several % points of intact organic matter in the matrix, to make this idea tick they also 'assume' the arrival rate is very high! They also 'assume' it is all surface generated not subterranean. 'Stable hydrogen isotope analysis unambiguously confirms that the methane released from Murchison is of extraterrestrial origin. ' Which seems to beggar more questions then they try to answer. There is just far to much methane produced over to short a time for the premise to be viable is my untutored thoughts. I do not say it was invalid but the smart money seems to suggest the jury is certainly still out...that is far short of the extraordinary claim made by NASA in the early days, and as I mentioned is possibly the reason they are not rushing to release the SAM data this time around.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 18, 2012 11:32:36 GMT 1
Thing is the observations, they try to question, are based of a 10 yearly cyclic blooming...how many meteorites decide to invade Martian air space on a yearly cyclic basis for 10 years? I didn't read the paper very carefully either. Do you mean the cycle is ten years long, or that it's been observed to happen annually for ten years? If the former an obvious driver springs to mind, if we're talking about fluctuations in UV radiation. If the latter - what's the mystery? Mars has seasons too. And don't the observations of methane concentration vary with latitude? Also - meteorite density does vary predictably throughout the year, as we all know. Isn't the debate not whether the measurements are spurious, but what has caused them? And they only base their study on one type CM2 carbonaceous chondrite the Murchison meteorite. The Murchison meteorite has been analysed to be of Martian origin, I believe - or if not of similar genesis to those that land on Mars. The gravamen of the paper I think was that this meateorite did indeed contain large amounts of methane. The precise arrival rate of dust on Mars is no doubt open to a wide margin of error - but we more or less know how much arrives here, and Mars has a far thinner atmosphere. I think that was the paper's basis for their calculations. Beggar what questions? How methane exists extraterrestially at all? Well, far more complex organic molecules have already been observed in space. If we assume these must have been produced by yet more complex organic forms - capable of reproduction - then aren't we putting the chicken before the egg? Then I'm very surprised Nature published the paper. If their calculations are unbased on prior measurements, the peer reviewers would have recommended rejection as a matter of course. I would hope, at least.
|
|
|
Post by docstrangebrew on Oct 18, 2012 15:23:10 GMT 1
. Do you mean the cycle is ten years long, or that it's been observed to happen annually for ten years? Sorry I was unclear....The observations have been tracked for over 10 years by Earthly research and orbital craft I believe, and the cyclic regeneration appears to be based on the Martian seasons...a Martian year is equivalent to two Earth years roughly. It is not the UV fluctuations that matter in this scenario it is the frequency of incoming material. Yes that is the point of the original observations...or at least the tentative conclusion as to why the blooming is observed, a summer/winter driven phenomenon possibly. But that has nothing to do with UV action on organic matter in a meteorite matrix. That is not disputed. [/quote] And don't the observations of methane concentration vary with latitude?[/quote] Yes it does to an extent, but seems more concentrated in certain discrete hotspots. which seems to support the tentative conclusion of bacteriological source. Another point being methane is not a robust molecule its activation energy allows comparatively rapid dispersion and breakdown in atmosphere. That is why the observation over a 10 year period is so indicative of the Martian summer triggering a reaction that releases methane. It also discounts meteorites in showers largely because in arrival they do not seem to obey summer/winter timetables, at least that is the observation of Earth and the various showers it encounters. Exactly my point. Yes it is but they offer that as a reason to discount previous observations in order to promote their idea. Yep, I mentioned that, so statistically not bulletproof I would hazard, in relation to this research. Yes I believe so too. Possibly but it is rather a long shot even so, but a brave attempt to offer an alternative source. Yes that would seem so if the methane was extraterrestrial. I do not deny organic molecules have already been observed in space, but the point is that methane is detected in the Martian atmosphere, quite a lot as it happens, certainly far more then can be accounted by arriving material.. And certainly it would appear to be rather in excess of a UV induced chemical reaction on the odd speck of organic material found in any incoming meteorite. No not at all I do not dispute the science or infer that their method does not seem robust enough what concerns me is that it fails to account for the measured amount nor the apparent localized blooming. " A global level of 10 parts per billion and a lifetime of hundreds of years means that a few hundred tonnes of methane are entering the atmosphere each year: the work of a few thousand cows. But plumes of 60 parts per billion that live for less than a year imply a methane-production rate several orders of magnitude higher. "This is a big deal," says Sushil Atreya of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, a co-author of the 2004 Mars Express paper." There is one fly in my gritty ointment... 'Microbes could be living in deep groundwater below a permafrost zone, and their waste methane could percolate up and leak out. The methane could also come from chemical reactions in which buried volcanic rocks rich in the mineral olivine interact with water. A third possibility is that the methane is escaping from buried clathrates, deposits of methane ice formed long ago by one of the other two mechanisms.' So although I advocate biological...it is just as possible for the above quote to be more in line with reality. www.nature.com/news/2008/081021/full/4551018a.html
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 18, 2012 16:55:16 GMT 1
It is not the UV fluctuations that matter in this scenario it is the frequency of incoming material. But the estimated incoming material, given the intensity of UV radiation, and the demonstrated methane content, adds up to what is observed. That was the import of the paper, I believe. Very little atmospher on Mars, though. Which allows more dust to settle in the first place. But we can predict with high accuracy when certain meteor showers arrive every year, because that's their orbital position. Sorry - I'm getting lost. What idea, and who's promoting it? Who has discounted previous observations? I might dig it out. If it is a long shot then I doubt Nature would have published. Normally they're very demanding where mathematical calculations based on observational evidence goes - unless it's a paper supporting AGW, of course. But from whence does your "certainly" come from? It's not an odd speck though, as you say above. It's a helluva lot. I don't remember the localised blooming aspect - off the top of my head, given the paucity of Mars' atmosphere, this might be attributable to solar wind. Yes - that was the theory. But this new paper was very recent - I think it was in an edition in Spring, or early Summer. As I say, I didn't read the paper with much interest. I've got a feeling it was in the same issue as the amazing photographs of the atomic structure of a molecule. Well, it's all possible, no doubt. I'd like to hear some really solid evidence of water ever having been present first before I put these speculations on the same basis as the meteorite hypothesis. I'm not at all convinced by the recent sedimentary deposits by a once flowing stream proclamation. I know from other sciences that patterns produced by fluid dynamics can be remarkably similar - wind, water, solar bombardment, even simple landslide. It seems to me, as you intimated in your OP, that these NASA guys are often simply far too over-eager to jump to the conclusions they want. The same goes with any hint of temperature rises or sea-level rises or ice melts here. It all comes down to grants - damn the possible torpedoes, full speed ahead.
|
|
|
Post by docstrangebrew on Oct 19, 2012 13:43:52 GMT 1
But the estimated incoming material, given the intensity of UV radiation, and the demonstrated methane content, adds up to what is observed. That was the import of the paper, I believe The intensity of the UV varies infrequently but not by a great deal, I think that an average flux density is assumed for most UV calculations on Mars...but I might be in error it is a while since I studied planetary formation. It seems to me the import of the paper was to offer an alternative mechanism for the production of atmospheric methane...which they demonstrated, but is it enough to explain the observed quantity, that is a little less clear. Well there is enough resistance to make a heat shield glow, and atmospheric dust and wind storms are not unknown. And orbital research has shown sand dunes on a massive scale, so dust does not have all that leeway to settle it would seem. Well yes those have been tracked for many years, I have no idea if there are any greater influx in the summer or the winter on Mars. But it seems correlating showers with the observed methane blooming is a rather the first place the paper authors would have checked to corroborate their idea...they offer no such correlation from what I have read...albeit only scanned. A paper is published with an alternative mechanism for a phenomenon, it is usually stated why the conventional explanation is questionable to warrant the paper being published. In this case the authors chose to question the accuracy of the measurements recorded of the observed methane blooming that was observed by Earthly and orbital research gathered over ten years...a brave stance no doubt...but it is in scientific interest to indeed question reliable and established facts...that keeps science clean, and no problem. So Nature is demanding where mathematical calculations based on observed evidence but not on a paper supporting AGW? How very strange? So if it supports your POV fine but if not they are lax and untrustworthy? My my how very inconvenient...meanwhile back in the real world... Imperial College London found that the volumes of methane released by possible meteoric impact and UV interaction are too low to sustain the measured levels of the gas observed in the blooming season. Some 19000 metric tons were recorded in one plume alone. This is not from organic spiced meteorites. Question is would that be enough...seems increasingly doubtful. But I am sure you can make up your own mind. Solar wind...really? How does that work then? Matters not a jot when it was released..is it correct?...as I say doubtful as to a valid alternative to the mass of methane in production but as a mechanism it is seemingly accurate as far as it goes...scaled up to planetary environs then not so much I would say! Water once flowed on the Martian surface, chemistry, physics, geology, photography all support that claim. And the analogues on Earth are astoundingly precise in detail. I am sure NASA and JPL are devastated. But not on the scale witnessed. No not at all, I was trying to say because it walks like a duck squawks like a duck and looks like a duck. does not mean that the word duck should be the first thing out of their mouth. They are being reticent about SAM data with regards to atmospheric testing...they have not released, as yet, the results of the SAM analysis...in fact they decided to do three more 'gulps' of Martian atmosphere while still not revealing the results of the first one...I am simply wondering why? That is all...methinks it points to them having realised that they have a confirmation datum...I also consider it might be in their plans to do a fractional analysis of the isotopic ratio present...but as far as I know the experiment package in SAM that is capable of this task has not yet been fully commissioned...they want Game, Set and Match...and seem prepared to wait for it just a little longer...maybe a month yet...but it might well be a stunner.. My post was a heads up is all..I think they got summat' they are very pleased with. I think it is waiting for an experimental conclusion of repeat analyses, and I think they know that it is a game changer in space exploration...they want to be spot on! Very well thought out comment, no evidence of course but that is just a minor detail I am sure!...well you can always hack into a main frame somewhere they do the environmental science...they might have a smoking gun stashed in there by now admitting it is all a hoax...good luck with that!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 20, 2012 14:27:38 GMT 1
But the estimated incoming material, given the intensity of UV radiation, and the demonstrated methane content, adds up to what is observed. That was the import of the paper, I believe The intensity of the UV varies infrequently but not by a great deal, I think that an average flux density is assumed for most UV calculations on Mars...but I might be in error it is a while since I studied planetary formation. Mars has seasons, and latitudes: polar regions and an equator, just as we do. That was their conclusion, I think. Given that they're more or less in the right ballpark with their figures, I think direct evidence of a bacterial or proto-bacterial source is required before we can use the methane to infer it. The point is more extra-martian material can penetrate its atmosphere to release its methane there, rather than being burned up and released back into space. The methane is released by UV radiation, and the blooming is observed on a seasonal and latitudinal basis. If there have been more localised temporary eruptions of methane observed, then that might well correlate with orbital position, I'd have thought. But I haven't heard of such observations - how certain are they of such phenomena? All I've ever read is there's a polar and a tropical localisation. Ermm...well, yes, I suppose so. But in this case what you term the conventional explanation wasn't really conventional at all, was it? Life on Mars, basically. Merely by demonstrating a plausible non-biological source for the methane is adequate to bracket the previous proposed mechanism as unnecessary. They did? I don't remember that at all. I must go back to the library and dig it out. Yes, it is: very strange. That's right, that's what they decided. Worse than that: Maddox announced in an editorial that he would no longer publish any paper contending against the AGW hypothesis. However rigorous it might be. He said that as far as Nature was concerned AGW was now conclusively proven. You're right: very strange indeed. Link to that reasearch? Was this conclusion before or after the paper we've been discussing - which was Edinburgh, if I recall aright. The surprising discovery there was the previously unsuspected quantity of methane trapped in meteorites - many times more than hitherto assumed. "Increasingly" because of what observations? Huh? No, I don't need or wish to make my mind up about any scientific question. Vigilant eternal scepticism seems to me the requisite for a rational scientific attitude. Magnetic responsiveness is one obvious mechanism. Methane is non-polar, but hydrated clathrates aren't, and there's hundreds of times more water vapour in the Martian atmosphere than methane. Mars does not have an appreciable magnet field of its own, but it does have a magentosheath, produced by the bow-shock of its collison with the solar wind. According to its polar orientation, that would produce four localised differences in any magnetic interactions in its atmosphere. These too would vary by season and latitude, of course. Another mechanism would be by radiolyis of the atmospheric water. Another would be by ionic interaction with the water and the CO2, readily producing methane. And of course the other obvious source of such fluctuations produced by solar wind strength, and specific plasma density at any particular time, or location in space, is that meteorite material is mostly strongly magnetic in its own right. Of course its measurements of the amount of methane in the meteorite are correct. Well - that all depends on how much interplanetary material is landing on Mars, and being released by UV, doesn't it? The conventional estimates used by the Edinburgh team supported their proposed mechanism. Those estimates may be wrong; but it's unlikely that they're signifcantly wrong, I'd have thought. No, I don't think so. They don't rule it out, that's all. Unless there's been an outstanding discovery in the past year or two that has escaped my notice. Possible, of course: but, in all modesty, I'd like to think it unlikely. Analogues of what? Flow patterns? Very hard to distinguish from dust movement. Did you see the pictures? Were you convinced? A few stones lying about in what may or may not have been a stream-bed. Or it might have been a strata of dust long blown away. Nowhere near enough to declare it as evidence of once flowing water. Huh? "Scale" in what sense? These are fractal patterns - they're the same whatever the scale. Or you mean the quantity of observations? For flow? There is no quantity - that grainy photo of a putative stream-bed is it. You may be right - it would be an amzing discovery. I mean, I'm assuming you mean the confirmation datum you're supposing is that the methane is of biological origin? You may be right. I'll be very surprised, though, I admit. But that's because there's not a scrap of other evidence for it - and I'd have thought there would be by now, given that this is evidently a very active and ongoing biological process. Why has no bacterial presence been discovered before? The putative nano-bacterial fossil in ALH 84001 hardly seems adequate. And where's the ethane? What's happened to the ethane? If the methane's being produced by life, it's not as we know it, Jim. I can't follow this comment, sorry. No evidence of what? You;re not very clued up about the climate science debate, I gather? Well, guess what? You've lucked out and, thanks to the Marchesa, come to just the right place.
|
|
|
Post by docstrangebrew on Oct 22, 2012 10:42:34 GMT 1
Mars has seasons, and latitudes: polar regions and an equator, just as we do. And the nexus of methane production occurs during the warmer seasons... It can be argued that UV radiation peaks at that time at the surface and fair enough, but is can also be argued that the warmer season encourages biological activity much the same way as hibernation cycle occurs on earth amongst species. It is yet to be established if the volume of incoming debris offers enough matrix to present the data observed. It also poses the question of why the influx of material tends to 'hotspots' without fresh cratering being observed at those points. Clouds or showers of meteoritic material contains a variation in particle size it is not all 'dust' grains, Some meteors are bigger then others and some will leave a visible fresh crater when they strike, no such 'fresh cratering has been observed! If you are arguing the material deposited during the proto-martian epoch around 5 billion yrs ago that still does not explain the strength of production nor the frequency. The matrix would have surrendered what organics they contained long ago, but the rate of methane production still seems enormous compared to the material available at the surface. Well it is their figures that seem rather grandiose on one hand but no explanation on how that rate is seemingly maintained. I agree that definitive source is still required to answer the observation. And do not claim it definitely bacteriological, but it is a strong contender and would fit with observation. In the last decade it has become very clear that the so called 'goldie locks zone' of conditions required for life is not as tight as was once so blithely assumed. But it is not realising plumes of the stuff, as an observed seasonal act, the mechanics does not gell with the observed. Could be but volume is not accounted for, and certainly not year on year. Yes the 'hotspot' locations have been mapped, in fact I rather suspect that Curiosity landed in such an area particularly to get to the bottom of that conundrum. They are certain and observations from Earth and orbital craft are in total agreement. What can I say? it is there and apparently a hell of a lot, something is in a regular cycle and methane is the by product. If localized is the right word then the affected areas appear to correlate with the latitudes that Martian summer has an affect on, not so much polar which if it was a material influx responsible is not consistent with UV release, because polar regions receives as UV as well, it is debatable that 'showers' only land in the equatorial regions. Yes and no...Conventional in this sense and case is, and would be, not just conventional but a revelation but it is what the data suggests. I refute the term "adequate to bracket the previous proposed mechanism as unnecessary" It does nothing of the sort apart from suggesting an alternative mechanism for Methane release...but it still falls short of details and figures, I do not think it cuts the observed as an explanation. Not so much strange more paranoid I would suggest. Maybe because it is!... But if you want to tilt at that particular windmill that is your business and enjoy yourself. I personally find it a sterile and insipid reaction on behalf of AGW deniers. But it does not interest me much, when they have to resort to crass criminality and character assassination they lose the debate by default, and the deniers lost that debate long ago! www.world-science.net/othernews/091209_mars-methane.htmEarth and Planetary Science Letters was the publication forum... Dec 2009 so seemingly before the paper under discussion...seems it is a consideration and debate that is ongoing... A quote from the team proposing the latest UV release mechanism. As outlined in other answers in this post. Indeed a point, I am fairly sure it is entirely reasonable to be skeptikal about gravity or germ theory. Do not see the relevance with UV sponsored Methane realease in Martian meteoric surface debris. I am sure those affects have been considered and discarded as a prime source otherwise there would be more about those aspects in the literature. I am not saying they are irrelevant just not major contributors. Not seemingly relevant in the basic chemistry of UV release of methane proposed by the paper. Citation? Not significantly based on one meteorite no, but as an arch skeptic bit of a leap for you to declare it solid evidence. But you are apparently unaware of the localized blooming aspect of methane on the martian surface,,,not exactly up to speed there, but it can happen I suppose in the most au fait of commentators. With rills and channels? Strange dust then! I can tell you are not a geologist, but it seems NASA has a few of them with Phd's and all sorts..they seem happy enough bunnies,,,and seeing as it is geology 101 when it comes to stream beds and matrix analysis...I am fairly happy with that conclusion also, but then I am not as skeptikal as you! Ahh and not a physicist either...my my your credentials are looking shabbier by the paragraph. Well yes fair point...I would be pleasantly surprised also I admit. It is a long shot in many ways but one has to remain upbeat in the face of incredulity. I do not and never will claim absolute certainly in assuming biological origin, it would be a step to far even for my liberal skeptisism. But one thing is fairly certain the mystery will be somewhat supported or rejected when NASA release the SAM analysis, that is the make or break of the whole shebang and that is the well-spring of my excitement in this question...but it will be one way or the other. If it is a no show on Mars we always have Europa and a few more Jovian and Saturnus satellites to check out. Disagree! Technique, access, assets in place and knowledge! Agreed...almost a similar situation with the testing of one meteorite that has been earth bound for many decades and extrapolating from there. Ethane ? What?...oh! Organic Chemistry is not your strong point either...say it ain't so! About as clued as your grasp of Geology, Physics and Organic Chemistry I would say...the difference being I don't pretend to. I am glad you have a pen pal but dragging its ghost out to haunt this particular subject is not exactly a winning gambit I would think! Besides I cannot quite understand what I am supposed to think about that vague veiled threat...so in the absence of sense I would assume irrelevance. Most AGW deniers seem rather dumb anyway, but each to their own! And I am sure they have more then enough of a dumbed down audience to thrill with their brand of paranoid partisan gobbly gook, as they say one born every minute. I have no axe to grind on AGW and seeing as I not rabid enough to froth about liberal conspiracies and hidden agenda's tend to the fatalistic approach. It is happening, it cannot be stopped cos it is way past the metaphorical tipping point and I do not care if it is man made or other. I am not convinced man made pollution helps but I am not on a crusade.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 22, 2012 11:32:37 GMT 1
Phew! That's all right, then!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 22, 2012 19:40:29 GMT 1
Okay. So on the one hand we have an understood chemical process that accounts for the observations with out supposing there's life on Mars...
Granted. Without an orbiting satellite around Mars, impossible to establish that definitively though, isn't it? You have to work with estimates, based on measurements here, allowing for the thinner atmosphere on Mars.
I've asked you - what hotspots? You've ,emtioned "plumes" a few times now. Has there been any observations making these plumes more localised than latitudinal regions? How? What device made such precise observations?
Mars is barren. It's all dust, and rock. You nor anyone else would be able to date any impact crater merely by its appearance. But we're talking mainly about dust here - that's what mainly lands here, just like there.
I'm not. It's happening today. Here and there.
Enormous? Not really. It seemed so until the paper that showed the required amount of methane was contained in meteorite material.
Simply by ongoing daily arrival of interplanetary dust, I think, that's the idea.
Yes, there are always alternative explanations for observations. There's a profound explanatory principle invoked here though: Occam's Rasor. One explanation, demonstrated to be plausible in the laboratory, does not require the presence of life on a seemingly barren planet. The other does.
How so?
As I suggested, solar wind fluctuations might well account for such plumes, if they exist.
Sure? How are you so sure?
You could give a link to such definitive and certain mappings? Look - I'm not bullshitting you; this is sort of my specialist subject: trying to understand how the solar system works. I've never heard of such definitive discoveries. They may have slipped me by somehow, while I was monkeying about doing something more profitable; in which case: kindly give me the links to where I can correct my lapse in attention.
Paranoid? I have no idea what you're talking about now.
No "maybe" about it. If you're aware of any such conclusive proof, you should send it to the IPCC immediately, before they issue their new report. Because the last one concluded that "there is no signature fingerprint of AGW yet discernible." The assumption that it's occurring nevertheless is a political policy decision, basaed on the precautionary principle, (to be generous to these highly paid apparachiks), not one based on conclusive, or even persuasive, scientific evidence.
I am a simple humble seeker after truth, that's as far as my interest in the matter extends. What your or Nature's motivation for claiming "conclusive proof" where none exists might be is another matter, whih is up to you to decide for yourself. I'm just interested in the science, not your political credo, or millenial religious beliefs.
What debate are you talking about? The only crass criminlity and character assassination in this debate is not on the side of the "deniers", I assure you!
As I said - 2009, three years prior to the surprising discovery that meteorite material contains many times more methane than previously estimated. That paper and the calculations dependent on it are now out of the window. Knowledge moves on, you see.
You have this paper? Is it online? That's unuusual for Nature.
Personally, I'd question both of those assertions. Meteoric material often - in dust form at least, which is what we're talking about, predominantly - contains a large proportion of silicates. They're entirely translucent to infrared. Does infrared act in the same way as UV to release methane? Do you know? I don't, for certain. But I'd guess it does, given its polarisation through silica, and the tetrahedral molecular structure of the methane molecule. That's an analogue of water, and water reacts in prcisely this way - that is, far more responsively to polarised IR than non-polarised UV.
Keen? No. They're just being vigilantly sceptical, as good scientists should be.
Exactly. No observation could ever rule out the suggestion that some form of life exists on Mars. They might be hobbits, living in the core, living on the blue cheese which the dragon makes there.
Yes, you're right. You've observed gravity and understand all about it, no doubt, given your astonishing preternatural expertise about the causes of global warming? "Germ theory" - there's no such thing, my friend. Germs exist or they don't. We know they do, we've photographed them. Thus it's not a "theory" - it's an observation.
The relevance is according to your claim that "plumes" have been observed, localised on the Martian surface. Have they? I don't know - it's your claim.
It's relevant to any correlation with solar activity and methane production., if that methane is ascribed to meteorite arrival.
The paper I mentioned in response to your OP. Sometime in the Spring, in Nature, from a team in Edinburgh, or maybe Durham, I can't recall. My confidence that their measurements are correct is based on the fact that it's a straightforward laboratory experiment they've recorded. They'd have done it many times, and had the surprising result checked and verified many times. That's the way basic normal science works.
It would be contrary to scepticism to suppose there's anything special about one particular meteorite. Not entirely impossible, you're right - but unlikely. They should have done a check on other similar material, I agree, to be even more confident. I'm sure some lab must have done so by now.
I am, yes. That's why I asked you to provide a link.
Yes, it can. So can overstating your case.
Not at all. Almost impossible to distinguish. What you need are erosion patterns - that's somewhat easier to distinguish, empirically. But still extremely difficult. You're not aware of the furious dispute about the origin of the weathering patterns on the surface of the Sphinx?
No, you're not. I'm just interested in the evidence. I don't care what degrees you've got, frankly. I've a couple myself, and they don't mean a damn thing if I can't think.
I have no scientific "credentials", and yes, you're correct, I'm generally extremely shabby. So? What has that to do with anything? Sceince does not - or is not supposed to - work by authority, you know. What's your evidence, what's your reasoning? That's all that matters.
Interesting. Why "upbeat"? Would it matter if there was bacterial activity found on Mars? So what?
Well, fine. Look - my responding to your OP was not in any way meant to dampen your excitement or enthusiasm. It was more by way of welcoming you to our little forum. If I hadn't, you'd still be sitting there, worryingly sniffing your armpits.
There is extraterrestial life in the universe, almost certainly, based on probabilistic considerations alone, if that's what you're worried about.
And...?
Could be.
Not anywhere close to sililar really. One's a very simple chemical process, involving on ubiquitous non-oranic compounds.
Any bacterial production of methane we're aware of on Earth also invloves the production of ethane. It hasn't been observed in the Martian atmosphere.
You don't need to when you're the sole jealous guardian of the single piece of conclusive proof of AGW, I guess.
I'm confused now. What's happened to your conclusive proof? You're some sort of Baron Frankenstein maverick genius scientist who's discovered what the whole scientific community is lusting after, but you're jst not bothered anyway - que sera sera? Come on now - share your discoveries, Maestro!
|
|
|
Post by docstrangebrew on Oct 26, 2012 11:29:52 GMT 1
Sorry kidda been away from the computer in real world terms...but must hold off for a couple of days in replying to your last missive!
Also there is a distinct possibility that it will be rendered moot quite soonish.
NASA have not released a telecon update this week...highly unusual...but after the feeding frenzy of landing and first movements and photos maybe that is part of the wind down in the news campaign and they can concentrate on what they are there for and do some science. Maybe media interest is waning...I have no idea! But on the other hand ...I am not sure if I mentioned this earlier but I think NASA is collecting and confirming earlier atmospheric observations with the SAM suite of spectrometers and gizmos relating to isotopic ratios in the atmosphere!
That is exactly how they would react if the methane concentration was peaked in earlier obs!
Because they might have got a CH^4 peak but now want to work out why..Biological or Geological. This action would be conducive to announcing any such observation to the press. One thing to say we got a peak...the next question asked would be ...where from? and what caused it?
A shoulder shrug in front of world media would not be best policy...they want to issue a game set and match on the observation and fair enough!
At least that is my interpretation. They did sneak a clue in by a almost throwaway line...the SAM suite mass spectrometer is busy in analysis...hmmm....that is kindda a clue as to what is happening. And seems isotopic ratio analysis is the name of that particular game...they got summat'...now what specie is it!
But if nothing is announced in a few days I will answer in full your last post.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 26, 2012 12:36:19 GMT 1
they might have got a CH^4 peak but now want to work out why..Biological or Geological. This action would be conducive to announcing any such observation to the press. One thing to say we got a peak...the next question asked would be ...where from? and what caused it? Well, if it does turn out to be biological, it can only be from anaerobic methanogenesis, given the balance of CO2 and Oxygen in the martian atmosphere. A new form of methanogen, that does not - or has evolved so it no longer needs to - live off biomass. This would indeed be a thrilling and immensely valuable discovery, that would change our world. Effectively, given a bit of infrastructure spending, free natural gas. The removal of "excess" CO2 from our atmosphere, fed back as the "food" (the electronic engine) to this new pseudo-bacterial lifeform, producing endless methane and...water. I should think, given that it'd be the death-knell of the Oil Age, they'd want to analyse the DNA and grab the patent first!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 26, 2012 13:14:15 GMT 1
And corner the world's Sulphur market - or whatever the final electron-acceptor turns out to be.
|
|
|
Post by docstrangebrew on Oct 31, 2012 16:30:45 GMT 1
Well I waited until this weeks telecon was done and dusted.... There was no reference, apart from a curt..."We are not going to make a statement on the the data on Martian methane but stay tuned" When the question was asked about 'if results on this experiment were ready' And seemingly my 'paranoid ramblings' (which I hope are neither and if they come across that way I apologise) has started to raise questions elsewhere.... www.examiner.com/article/will-the-curiosity-rover-find-martian-methaneSo maybe next week is the reveal time, Dr. Michael Mumma of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center seems to confirm my suspicions almost word for word! By the by...ETHANE...not convinced that is required to nail the critter. It can be a product in certain reactions involving the production of methane but not in great quantity and not as a marker of life in any form. It is more a hydrocarbon bunny and feels more at home on Titan by the cut of its jib!
|
|