Martian Methane May Be Created By Lifeforms 297
Following our recent discussions about the growing evidence pointing to possible life on Mars, reader skywatcher2501 writes with news of a study that has ruled out one possible explanation for the levels of methane seen on that planet — that it might be replenished by disintegrating meteors entering the atmosphere. So two theories remain: either the gas is created as a by-product of reactions between volcanic rock and water, or it is a by-product of a lifeform's metabolism.
This must mean... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Excuse me" said Marvin the Martian.
Life on Mars (Score:2)
For those who aren't familiar with the idea, Earth's molten core creates a magnetic field that blocks the solar wind from the Sun. The solar wind would blow away Earth's atmosphere if it weren't there.
So, if Mars somehow got a molten core, by adding mass, or simply spontaneously, air would remain, then seas could form, etc.
The presence of methane from biologica
Re:Life on Mars (Score:5, Insightful)
Mars has about 1/2 the radius of the Earth and about 1/10th the mass, which means a significantly smaller gravitational field, even at the surface (about 1/3 the gravity at the surface, and remember that it falls off proportionately to the square of the distance from the center of mass).
While Mars doesn't have a magnetic field any more, I suspect that the reason that Mars's atmosphere is so much thinner than our own has more to do with the lack of mass and corresponding gravity well to hold the gases in than it does the solar wind blowing it away. Recall that Mercury has a magnetic field, and it doesn't really help the planet hold its atmosphere. And lest you think that's because it's so close to the Sun, and thus the subject of stronger solar winds, I'll point out that Ganymede also has a permanent magnetic field and a very thin atmosphere, but its surface pressure is so low that if it were created in a bell jar here on Earth, it would be considered a vacuum.
Re:Life on Mars (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Life on Mars (Score:4, Informative)
The same, unfortunately, applies to Venus--is inadequate to hold onto the kind of atmosphere we'd be interested in, and would even if its role were reversed with Mars (which would also mean it would be too cold). We on Earth have the sweet spot positionally, in mass, gravitationally, in density, and all the other variables you could think of. I'm happy for it too! : )
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[Titan is] definitely larger than both Earth or Mercury (thou only by ~1000km on its diameter)
No it isn't [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently those magnetic domes that were once thought to help retain atmosphere are now acting like ski ramps to help the solar winds blow off more air than if Mars had no magnetic field whatsoever. That's really gotta suck.
Of course, that doesn't preclude the existence of some form of extremophile.
After all, it's had millions of years to adapt to the changing environment that is Mars.
On the
Re: (Score:2)
Even more compelling (Score:5, Funny)
Methane concentrations peak in an area on the planet opposite the famous face on mars.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering if they have fingers to pull.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the fundamentalists? Do they count as adults?
Re:Even more compelling (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure which country that you live in, but where I live, the press and the scientists aren't controlled by the government.
The press is a much more complex subject. So I'll talk just about the scientists. Many of them are doing "pure research" of the sort that is unlikely to produce a profit in the near future, if ever. This covers the LHC and all sorts of other things. Because their work isn't expected to be profitable, those scientists are not financially self-sufficient. Most (nearly all?) of them receive government grants in order to fund their work. Who receives those grants and what kind of work gets funded depends ultimately on the politics of the time and the mainstream scientific theories of the time. So, you can only deny the control that government has over scientific research if you discount the power of the purse, and I submit that doing so would be a mistake.
I'll give a recent example. In 2001, George W. Bush used his political influence as President to decide that the government will not fund research on stem cells if those stem cells are derived from frozen embryos. This was pure politics and occurred not because of scientific objections, but because people with pro-life views had moral objections to this method of research. There were already existing stem cell lines that had already been harvested; regarding these from the point of view of pro-lifers the damage had already been done, therefore Bush did allow scientists to work on these existing stem cells. Whether you agree with that decision or not, it amounts to the political micromanagement of scientific research enforced by the power of the purse. So yes, the government has a great deal of control and they can exercise that in a purely budgetary fashion without passing a single new law.
crap (Score:3, Funny)
Now the ecozealots will decry our spoiling of the natural martial environment, and will protest any attempt at colonization or terraformation as the destruction of a precious natural world.
Re:crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Well from a purely scientific standpoint I'd say there's merit in preserving and studying life forms that have evolved in complete isolation from anything on Earth.
Wouldn't you?
Or did they? (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw recently that NASA was leaning towards judging structures on a few meteorites as organic in nature. Meaning, we could have been derived from, or seeded life on Mars. Multiple times.
Yes, they did (Score:2)
Parent poster wasn't really talking about abiogenesis but evolution (perhaps he used too strong words, "complete isolation")
Even if there was some exchange of material at the beginning, any lifeforms that subsequently conquered any of the two planets would be evolving in isolation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could, but be prepared to be sued by a so called "church".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is what is being ruled out. The location (deeo inside) and our understanding of atmospheric entry would mean these fossils would have to have been in the original rock, then atmospheric entry would have formed a coating that would provide a clear delineation between what came with it, and what got there later.
Also, the fossils would be of different minerals if Earth had provided the materials.
Re: (Score:2)
muahahahah!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Indeed. The scientific value of alien life is immense, rivalled only by its potential for deliciousness.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes solve everything like my neighbor working extra hard and having more money than I do. Now his house looks as crappy as mine and I am happy. Thank you Envy, best of all of the seven sins!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would think before we start transporting over all our microbes, we might actually want to make a reasonable attempt at determining whether Mars has some of its own. Certainly in the interests of biology and xenobiology this would be a critical bit of knowledge. We ain't always gonna be stuck just in this solar system, and if there are a few spots in our neighborhood that harbor life, to assure that we gain as much knowledge as possible about alien biology and ecology, it's in our best interests to not p
Re: (Score:2)
Ceres the newly reclassified "Dwarf Planet" is a far better place to set down roots, you don't need much to "take-off" from the surface maybe something slightly stronger than maneuvering jets. Plenty of water to sustain life and plenty of mass to build structures on. It is farther out than mars but it is a good mix between the convenience of an asteroid and the convenience of a planet. Plus you are further out from sun so less protection from solar flares is needed.
The only thing limiting it's coloni
Re: (Score:2)
I agree completely. The Moon, like Mars, is a big gravity well, and it's expensive and energy intensive to get on and off these things. The asteroids and planetoids are far more sensible, plus they likely have much easier to access volumes of valuable ores. Go to the Moon or Mars, and you're faced with all the standard geological and engineering problems of mining, with the added detriments that you are now also operating in an extremely hostile environment. For the Moon, solar radiation is going to mea
As a Mr. Skywalker once said: (Score:2)
Re:As a Mr. Skywalker once said: (Score:4, Funny)
I do hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
That it is life. I've said it before so I won't reiterate with a long post, but if there's life on Mars, that proves life isn't just unique to Earth. This planet isn't a fluke. If there's life on Mars, then it can be *anywhere*
What an amazing thing that would be.
Almost as good as the BBC TV series...
If that happens ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... get ready to hear this word a lot: "cross contamination" from the bombardment period.
I know - I know. I'm not advocating it - I'm just saying: Don't be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite possible.
If there is life on Mars as well as Earth, that would be a reasonable explanation of how.
However, it doesn't change the fact that if it's there, it could be *everywhere*. Cross-bombardment works everywhere else just as well as between Mars and Earth.
If we do find it, the next step of course is to go there and analyze it. Is it related to us? How far back? Does it even use DNA? What kind of ecosystem can exist in the conditions it's living in?
Of course, the first step is still to dete
Re: (Score:2)
The next step is to make sure that, in "go[ing] there and analyz[ing] it", we don't destroy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...though, from what I know about it, it kinda fits with recent "safety first" policy at NASA? :/
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost as good as the BBC TV series...
A little off on a tangent, but I was just watching another BBC series (Planet Earth - I know, I'm a little late to that party), and there are numerous extremophiles covered in it. I knew about some of them already, but I was particularly surprised at the bacteria and animals that live in naturally-occurring sulfuric acid.
I'd been doing a little reading about bacteria that live off of the sulfur cycle (as opposed to the carbon cycle) already because my multispectral phot [beneaththewaves.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Well perhaps... Perhaps Life is still unique in the universe. However some bacteria which came from mars went in spore form to earth and found it was a good place to grow, or the other way around. We could find life within our solar system. But that is it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we can do much more.
With proper telescopes, coming relatively soon, we will be able to determine the atmospheric composition of Earth-like planets.
Finding one with atmosphere similar to Earth is a very strong argument for existence of similar lifeforms.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The most compelling evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, is that they have not attempted to contact us.
That reminds me of the movie Aliens.
Ripley: "You know, Burke, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage."
Of course I think what would really deter intelligent life from contacting us is the fact that we have had the capability of feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating every last man, woman, and child on the planet since the Industrial Age and, for various reasons, have not done so. We also kill our own species more than any other c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I didn't really see that restriction per se,...
By the standards of a truly advanced interstellar civilization, we must be quite barbaric indeed. They would be wise to stay away from us, because if they are benevolent, then any interaction with us would likely be to their detriment.
(emphasis mine) ...just that you seem to equal being trult advanced interstellar civilization with being benevolent.
And one doesn't mean the other, that's what I was saying (as a matter of fact, from what we see on our planet, being benevolent is exactly the way to never expand, being consumed eventually)
As for the above long comment of yours...even its length and time it took to write makes me feel obliged to respond.
While the ideas you present are certa
Re: (Score:2)
What do you people require from a life-form before you consider it to be intelligent? Farting is not very high on my list. I'd say it's not even on my list, but it does at least imply that something is digesting something, so there is some degree of intelligence there, but I'd have to rate it very very low.
It has to be a lot smarter than a computer, because most people would currently define a computer as "not intelligent". Note that "smarter" doesn't mean "more FLOPS". It means smarter.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I don't equate extremely high, IMHO, chances of life being widespread in the Universe with the chances of it being intelligent.
However...don't forget that we are not the only intelligent specie on Earth. We consider many mammals, birds, even some cephalopods to be intelligent. Not human-level intelligence obviously, and nowhere near technical civilization levels required by current SETI methods...but still intelligent.
Re:I do hope... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Though the folks you mention are different in that they don't dismiss it on the grounds of ancient myths.
They explore the possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Questions: (Score:2)
...that would have to be a lot of life, no? Or would the gas have been created by long-dead/extinct lifeforms, and the gas is just that stable in the atmosphere?
Also, titan is almost literally drowned in Methane (as in, lakes and oceans of the stuff). There ain't that many meteors floating around for that volume, and there's no volcanic activity to speak of, IIRC.
Re:Questions: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Questions: (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that on mars all methane should vanish in months due to oxidizing soil. Therefore something must be replenishing it.
Its a more complicated problem than that. First of all, there is no viable explanation for a source, assuming no lifeforms on mars, no active volcanoes, not enough meteors... Secondly, methane is localized and produced at weird rates, almost like weather... errr growing seasons... Third, methane is photochemically unstable in UV, it should all disappear in a couple centuries, except it is measured as disappearing much more quickly, VERY coincidentally about the timeframe of one martian year, so grasping at straws, it must be "oxidizing soil" or something. Fourthly the ESA guys claim when they detect methane, it also coincidentally comes along with yummy water vapor (actually, probably fizzy carbonated water crossed with stinky swamp gas)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars#Methane [wikipedia.org]
Now it is refreshing after the quack climatologists basically making stuff up to "prove" their hypothesis, to see that real scientists studying mars are very carefully and appropriately skeptical about declaring martian life. But eventually Occams Razor kicks in and the complicated non-life workarounds become more ridiculous than admitting it makes more sense to assume there's life on mars. I think that tipping point is extremely close.
Underground methane leaking? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems possible that life existed in the distant past on Mars, leaving behind methane deposits much like oil and natural gas deposits here on Earth...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Underground methane leaking? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Underground methane leaking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Possible, but unlikely. Mars tectonics had stopped a loooong time ago.
And without plate tectonics it's pretty hard to imagine how geologic traps for organic material could have formed.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't methane be Carbon-dated like any other metabolic by-product?
Quick! We need some fundings! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Carbon offsets are for Methane too as Methane is C(H4)...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously the solution is to genetically engineer the bacteria in ruminant stomachs to produce no methane....
Is it possible? (Score:2)
Could it be possible that there was life on mars... and not any more? Those long dead critters are continuing to decay and release the gas.
Re:Is it possible? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes and I think it is also theoretically possible that there was life on mars until about half an hour after the first probe landed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Life on Mars would have been at its prime billions of years ago. Whatever is left now would have to be either fossilised and completely inert, or still reproducing.
Or migrated?
Re:Is it possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I doubt decay from dead things is producing the methane.
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be possible that there was life on mars... and not any more? Those long dead critters are continuing to decay and release the gas.
Coal, Oil wells, and NatGas wells are basically the same thing. If those deposits existed on mars, King Bush II and Haliburton would have been invading Mars for Oil rather than mostly innocent middle eastern countries for Oil. Therefore, theres no hydrocarbon fields on Mars. So, if the methane isn't from fossils, its from modern/current critters...
Methane is unstable on the order of centuries in the martian atmosphere, so they all died off VERY recently, not so "long dead" as you might think.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, decay is caused by living microbes breaking down the organic matter (and releasing methane). No life means no decay (in the metabolizing sense). Dead organic matter with nothing to cause decay would likely dry up and turn to dust or become fossilized.
option C (Score:5, Insightful)
"So two theories remain: either the gas is created as a by-product of reactions between volcanic rock and water, or it is a by-product of a lifeform's metabolism."
Or C: There is some, as of yet, unidentified method of methane production.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Undefined methods aren't "theories" you smartass.
Well, not yet they aren't. But I assume once the methods become identified (or "defined") they will spawn new theories.
The phrase "So two theories remain" strongly implies that these are the only two possible causes, when really there are probably others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I probably should have put...
there are probably other theories out there besides those two. And its always important to keep an open mind to other possibilities.
Personally, I tend to favour the water interacting with olivine (serpentization). The two main plumes of methane occur at points in Mars where there are cracks to the interior, and/or have a lot of exposed olivine. Of course, I am not a scientist, so I don't even give my own opinion much weight on the matter. Its possible that the presence of ol
Re: (Score:2)
"So two theories remain: either the gas is created as a by-product of reactions between volcanic rock and water, or it is a by-product of a lifeform's metabolism."
Or C: There is some, as of yet, unidentified method of methane production.
That's not a theory, it's a catch all.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If only the IPCC members had such depth of insight.
Re: (Score:2)
Taco Bell?
My Dog Live on Mars? (Score:2)
It makes enough methane for the whole planet, that's for sure.
Overlords (Score:2, Funny)
I, for one, welcome our new flatulent Martian overlords.
Simple explanation. (Score:2)
Just ask the USS Reliant to stop by (Score:3, Funny)
Another Proposed Answer: Olivine and Hydrothermal (Score:2)
On Earth, the predominate source of methane is considered biological in origin, and the presence on Mars has been considered a possible indication of life on Mars. Recently, at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference at The Woodlands, near Houston, Texas, researcher
Re: (Score:2)
I posted like I caught rabies on DU, how did I do?
Re:Another Proposed Answer: Olivine and Hydrotherm (Score:5, Insightful)
And ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the argumentum ad hominem.
Let us take a moment to ponder this posters ability to take a tone of superiority, all the while unawares of the stupendous amount of ignorance being displayed by his own statement.
Truly a remarkable creature.
Cows (Score:5, Funny)
Cows ruined their own planet before they came to earth millenia ago.
Its this migration that the child's nursery rhyme is referencing in the line "the cow jumped over the moon".
They're now doing the same to the earth.
don't really understand the point (Score:3, Informative)
The question isn't whether serpentinization is a source of methane, but rather whether it is the majority source or not. My take is that if the methane production was due to life on Mars, there'd be a lot more methane being produced than a few hundred tons a day. I don't see life on Mars staying in one place over millions much less hundreds of millions of years. But I suppose there's a chance it could happen that way (say if life on Mars is a relatively recent phenoma).
Re: (Score:2)
But I suppose there's a chance it could happen that way (say if life on Mars is a relatively recent phenoma).
Like, say for example, a recent visit from an alien probe managed to infect it with lifeforms from another planet? But who would send probes to mars? Must ponder that...
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine a situation analogous to deep sea vents, where you get "hot spots", or perhaps in the case of Mars, places where energy is plentiful enough to sustain ecosystems. In either case, the further you get away from such areas of accessible energy and resources, life becomes more sparse. It's also possible that Mars' harsher environment means organisms tend to metabolize much slower (we see this with organisms found deep below the surface).
It would be interesting, in the case of Earth, to figure ou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Several troubles with that idea. First, note that the Methane production rates quoted in the original article are much too small based on the observed Martian Methane plumes and their implications. Given that
- it's hard to see how serpentinization explains the observed intermittent methane plumes
- it doesn't explain at all the sink of the methane, which has to be very powerful (to explain the observed plumes)
- the production estimates by Lefèvre & Forget [nature.com] (Nature 460, 720-723 (6 August 2009)) are
The "lifeform in the gaps?" (Score:2)
Sounds a bit like the "God in the Gaps" line of reasoning. Well, to be fair, "lifeform creates methane" is testable and all ready been shown true on Earth. I guess I'm just cranky after debugging all night...
Wow, I almost wrote "to be fair", imagine the flame fest that would have started. What can I say, my fingers type the first word that matches phonically.
Global Warming disproven ONCE AGAIN! (Score:2)
Go ahead (Score:4, Funny)
Pull my tentacle.
Methane Sink is also uncertain (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither the source nor the sink of Martian methane is understood, as was discussed by Lefèvre & Forget in Observed variations of methane on Mars unexplained by known atmospheric chemistry and physics [nature.com] (Nature 460, 720-723 (6 August 2009)). Unlike the statement in the spacefellowship.com writeup, the observed methane plumes require a very quick absorption of methane on the surface, which means that the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is not " a few hundred years" but months or less, maybe even hours or less. Since the shorter the lifetime, the larger the production required to match the observed plumes, we don't know the methane production on Mars to within even 3 orders of magnitude.
We don't know the source, we don't know the sink, and we don't know the production rate, so I personally don't see how biology can be ruled out, despite the editorializing in Lefèvre & Forget.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
there are microorganisms living in the Martian soil that are producing methane gas as a by-product of their metabolic processes
Finally, someone that slashdotters can relate to!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... we're missing critical information in the report. The keep mentioning "levels of methane" but they don't tell us what these levels are
The usual [wikipedia.org] sources quote about 10 parts per billion of Methane in the atmosphere. Michael Mumma of Goddard Space Flight Center, with earthbound telescopes, says he's detected [spacedaily.com] up to 200 parts per billion near the equator. Recent observations suggest that the methane is released in plumes, one of which released about 19,000 metric tons [nasa.gov] of methane [space.com [space.com]].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cry me a river!!!
I didn't mean literally.....
Wait, are you one of them..... Stay away from me, water is pouring out of you, you are infected.......
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The Doctor" Told me...
Who?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly!
Re: (Score:2)
They will be Exterminated...
Exter-mi-nate...Exter-mi-nate...Exter-mi-nate...Exter-mi-nate...Exter-mi-nate...