Mars Images Reveal Evidence of Ancient Lakes 128
Matt_dk writes "Spectacular satellite images suggest that Mars was warm enough to sustain lakes three billion years ago, a period that was previously thought to be too cold and arid to sustain water on the surface, according to research published today in the journal Geology. Earlier research had suggested that Mars had a warm and wet early history but that between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago, before the Hesperian Epoch, the planet lost most of its atmosphere and became cold and dry. In the new study, the researchers analysed detailed images from NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is currently circling the red planet, and concluded that there were later episodes where Mars experienced warm and wet periods."
We'll Never Know For Sure (Score:2, Insightful)
At the risk of being serious... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How do they determine those dates? (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrary to what the "internet" likes to tell you, many people question what scientists say because they want to see actual proof to support the claims rather than just additional layers of theories and educated "guesses".
And the people who are legitimately intellectually curious rather than simply delighting in taking jabs at the "scientific orthodoxy" don't universally phrase their questions as "Do you know what you're talking about or are you making shit up that supports your preconceived notions?"
"How do they determine those dates?" is a fine question, one I am curious about as well. "Gee, in the scientific method I'm used to, you have to have a known reference. Do they have one? Have they been following the scientific method?" kinda makes you sound like the kind of person you are implying you aren't. Maybe you're just being defensive, or using modding reverse-psychology. But really, just leave that part out.
Re:How do they determine those dates? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry to post off topic to your sig, but universal helthcare is socialist. whether or not it is a good thing remains to be seen.
NO. It's a social program, but it not socialist. Unless you consider the police, army, judicial system and public schools also to be socialist.
Socialism is very different than social programs.
Re:How do they determine those dates? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm probably going to get modded down or flamed for being a heretic for daring to question modern scientific orthodoxy
Ah, the classic cry of the rebel without a clue.
Listen up, kid: you are not an iconoclast. You are not boldly speaking truth to power. You are not Martin Luther nailing his theses to the cathedral door. You are not a special snowflake.
Everyone who has ever worked in this project has thought of, and answered, every single one of your questions long ago. And those answers are easily available with a small amount of digging, which you would do if you had any interest in the actual answers instead of just self-aggrandizing puffery.
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you were generating the same % of gas annually, would it not be in equilibrium?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is so special about humans manipulating measuring equipment versus robots?
We do it better.
Re:Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
Because people can wander around navigating the terrain a lot better and quicker. Now imagine the person is in fact a geologist. They can immediate analyze what they are seeing, move around looking for interesting things, all the time E.g. "Ooh, that's an interesting rock". WHACK. "Hmm, look at that...". Now compare that to an incredibly slow robot that has to inch around, take a picture, send data home, have it processed here, wait, wait, wait. Experts here decide to move the robot 2 feet to the left. wait wait... Robots can't jump into craters or climb hills without massive planning, analysis and Earth based simulations. That takes weeks. Geo Joe can just wander off and start his science work.
Re:Ohh so (Score:3, Insightful)
Adding CO2 and water to Mars is going to involve industry. And energy. Shitloads of both. Industry is going to involve, by necessity, many of the chemicals you mention, either to run the machinery or as a byproduct of it. Therein lies the problem. Mankind isn't going to wait around for hundreds of years for a long, slow, low-energy terraforming system to work, so by the time we've turned the dial to 11 for enough years to have reached a semi-breathable atmosphere, it'll be polluted.
Now add in your comment about "maintaining our lifestyle". If you typed your post on a computer while wearing clothing in an enclosed space with heat, congratulations, that requires all the chemicals you mentioned above and more.
Even if the Earth's population stopped growing right now, we likely cannot maintain the lifestyle we enjoy now in the US and Europe, and there'd be no way in hell we can extend that same lifestyle to the rest of the planet. Add in the resources necessary to start terraforming Mars and the time it will take for it to complete, and we'll be loading Mars up with more people than it can sustain during the entire process. As soon as Mars has an atmosphere that can grow a few crops and support 50,000 people, we'll dump a half million there in the false hope it'll relieve the population pressures on Earth. And both planets will be overpopulated continuously until we figure out how to overpopulate another planet.
Robinson's "Mars" series, mentioned in the post you replied to, is an excellent read. Robinson has an interesting and thoughtful, if just a tad hopelessly optimistic at the end, view of how terraforming might play out. It's a relatively well-researched (or seemingly so) series, with a lot of interesting theories on approaches to terraforming, and plays out a very human approach to it.