...analysis of the Martian atmosphere that raises the possibility of life or geologic activity...

a_lost_packet_ · Jan 17, 2009

I'm not sure if this article has been posted yet:<h1 class="story">Mars May Still Be A Living Planet, Methane In Atmosphere Reveals</h1>ScienceDaily (Jan. 16, 2009) — A team of NASA and university scientists has achieved the first definitive detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars. This discovery indicates the planet is either biologically or geologically active.The team found methane in the Martian atmosphere by carefully observing the planet throughout several Mars years with NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility and the W.M. Keck telescope, both at Mauna Kea, Hawaii. The team used spectrometers on the telescopes to spread the light into its component colors, as a prism separates white light into a rainbow. The team detected three spectral features called absorption lines that together are a definitive signature of methane...an interesting bit:..."We observed and mapped multiple plumes of methane on Mars, one of which released about 19,000 metric tons of methane," said co-author Geronimo Villanueva of the Catholic University of America in Washington. "The plumes were emitted during the warmer seasons, spring and summer, perhaps because ice blocking cracks and fissures vaporized, allowing methane to seep into the Martian air."... (Emphasis mine)That's a big... gas release.  So, if this turns out to actually be the first evidence of life outside of Earth, how will history write it?"Man Discovers Extraterrestrial Life: Farts show the way" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

rlb2 · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> All areas contain some volcanic rocks too, but any area on Mars as large as these are likely to do so, so it may not be particularly relevant.  Also no areas are Amazonian, the youngest epoch of Mars history.Two areas are of similar age, Noachian, the oldest epoch on Mars.  Deep plumbing is also present in two areas.  Sytris is a large Hesperian volcanco, Nili Patera, and Nili Fossae, as its name shows, has deep cracks and trenches.The latitude and altitude support the photochemical model.The absence of young substrate and the presence deep plumbing in two cases supports geological origins.The high altitude and the age restriction argues against surface life as a cause, but the association with deep plumbing would be consistent with a deep biosphere.  The absence of methane with younger deep plumbing systems does argue against deep life however.Methane feeders could however occur in all sites in the sub surface.Jon Posted by jonclarke</DIV>Syrtis Major - has volitile-rich SubstrateTerrae Sabae – subsurface hydrogen detected Nili Fossae – Hydrated Minerals I don’t think the elevation change from 9 milibars Phoenix Landing site and 5 millabars Terra Sabae makes that much difference to rule out biological source for the methane, both locations are close to the triple point of water however as I claimed for many years now, way before the Phoenix Lander set down, water can form just below the top surface on Mars and wherever there is a sufficient enough pressure and a heat source, (solar radiation). The Phoenix Lander found this out, it shouldn’t have been a surprise to them but it was.  Pools of water can form under thin ice sheets, permafrost and other surface material where the venting trapped gas and water vapor can build up pressure raising the pressure enough for water to form.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

silylene · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The team detected three spectral features called absorption lines that together are a definitive signature of methane...an interesting bit:..."We observed and mapped multiple plumes of methane on Mars, one of which released about 19,000 metric tons of methane," said co-author Geronimo Villanueva of the Catholic University of America in Washington. "The plumes were emitted during the warmer seasons, spring and summer... Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV>I do think that the words 'plumes' and 'were emitted' are unfortunate, and are examples of assuming a cause without a proof. Assuming that methane is formed on about 10% of the Martian surface, and over a 90 day warm period, that the generation level is 13g/km^2/day, or about 0.000013 g / m^2/day.  I do think this is not too much for a photochemical generation source.Of course if all that came from one or a few vents, that would be a HUGE amount !calculation= 19,000*2000/2.2 / (144798500*0.10) / 90 * 1000g = 13 g/km^2/day13 /1000/1000 = 0.000013 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> petet = silylenePlease, please give me my handle back ! </div>

JonClarke · Jan 17, 2009

"Plumes" and "emitted" reads fine to me.  There are plumes from specific source regions that disperses in the atmosphere.  This is true regardless of orgin. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I do think this is not too much for a photochemical generation source.Of course if all that came from one or a few vents, that would be a HUGE amount !...Posted by petet</DIV>"We observed and mapped multiple plumes of methane on Mars, one of which released about 19,000 metric tons of methane.."As I see it, that's one plume's estimated release during one observed emission.  That's quite a bit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

silylene · Jan 17, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"We observed and mapped multiple plumes of methane on Mars, one of which released about 19,000 metric tons of methane.."As I see it, that's one plume's estimated release during one observed emission.  That's quite a bit. Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV> I know.  I wonder on the spatial and time resolution of the observations.  The paper will be interesting! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> petet = silylenePlease, please give me my handle back ! </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know.  I wonder on the spatial and time resolution of the observations.  The paper will be interesting! Posted by petet</DIV>I wondered that as well.  So, I went digging.  I haven't found the emission rates mentioned anywhere else except the NYTimes article.  Maybe they went "digging" or got a post-press copy of the Paper? <h1>Paper Details Sites on Mars With Plumes of Methane </h1> In early 2003, a plume of methane gas rose from the surface of Mars. The big unanswered question is, What belched?  Subsurface Martian cows are highly unlikely. But scientists are seriously considering the possibility of bacteria. A team of researchers reported Thursday that the bursts of methane originated from three specific regions in the planet’s northern hemisphere, where it was midsummer. The gas came out at a rate of 0.6 kilograms a second, the scientists said, and the plume contained 19,000 metric tons of methane. “This is the first definitive detection of methane on Mars,” Michael J. Mumma of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., the leader of the research team, said at a news conference, “and the first definitive maps and identification of active regions of release.” The findings appeared in a paper published online Thursday by the journal Science... (Emphasis Mine) So, the rate is 0.6 kg ps for a total of 19.000 metric tons. That would be something on the order of a year to emit that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

centsworth_II · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, the rate is 0.6 kg ps for a total of 19.000 metric tons. That would be something on the order of a year to emit that? Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV> Yeah.  That would be an entire spring and summer on Mars. Unfortunately, scientists can misspeak and reporters can misreport.  I guess we'll have to wait for less contradictory facts and figures to emerge from the scientific publications. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"We observed and mapped multiple plumes of methane on Mars, one of which released about 19,000 metric tons of methane.."As I see it, that's one plume's estimated release during one observed emission.  That's quite a bit. Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV>Does anyone have numbers for methane release from terrestrial ecosystems?19,000 tonnes per year would be a big gas seep from a reservoir on Earth.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Syrtis Major - has volitile-rich Substrate</DIV>Are you sure?  What's the evidence?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Terrae Sabae – subsurface hydrogen detected </DIV>Are you sure?  What's the evidence/  How much?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nili Fossae – Hydrated Minerals </DIV>Hydrated minerals don't mean much by themselves.  There are lots of hydrated minerals in places without methane plumes - Meridiani for instance.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don’t think the elevation change from 9 milibars Phoenix Landing site and 5 millabars Terra Sabae makes that much difference to rule out biological source for the methane, both locations are close to the triple point of water...</DIV>They may be close to the triple point, but one site is above and one below it.  That makes all the difference in the world. The pressure at Sabea is almost half that of the pheonix site, and the solar irradiance much higher.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>wever as I claimed for many years now, way before the Phoenix Lander set down, water can form just below the top surface on Mars and wherever there is a sufficient enough pressure and a heat source, (solar radiation). </DIV>Enough pressure, that's the rub. Where the site is below the triple point there is only enough pressure if the system is isolated from the atmosphere.  What evidence do you have that the shallow subsurface (a few decimetres is all that solar heating will reach) is isolated from the atmosphere?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Phoenix Lander found this out, it shouldn’t have been a surprise to them but it was.  </DIV>It is not yet confirmed that Phoenix observed liquid water.  And Phoenix was above the triple point of water brines, not below.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pools of water can form under thin ice sheets, permafrost and other surface material where the venting trapped gas and water vapor can build up pressure raising the pressure enough for water to form.   Posted by rlb2 </DIV>Again, what evidence do you have that this isolating process is occuring at these locations?Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 18, 2009

From the online article:At northern mid-summer, theprincipal plume contained ~19,000 metric tons of methaneand the estimated source strength (≥ 0.6 kg s–1)------(Previous reports of methane-MW)Spectral data from MarsExpress contain five unidentified spectral features between3000 and 3030 cm–1, of which one coincides with theexpected position of the CH4 Q-branch (11, 14 ,21). The data span all seasons and extend over several years, but low S/Nratios require averaging the spectra over two of the three keydimensions (longitude, latitude, time)--------------(From these earth based observations-MW)Combining data for theentire region mapped during northern summer brings the totalmethane to 42,000 tons, or 6 ppb if spread uniformly over theplanet. However, the mean mixing ratio displayed in earlyspring equinox in 2006 (profile a, Fig. 2C) was only 3 ppb(SOM-3). If methane is not removed by other means, theimplied destruction lifetime is ~ 4 Earth years if the 2003event was singular, to as little as ~0.6 Earth years if the eventrepeats each Mars year. In either case, the destruction lifetimefor methane is much shorter than the timescale (~350 years)estimated for photochemical destruction [e.g., (12)]. Another process thus must dominate removal of atmospheric methaneon Mars and it must be more efficient than photochemistry bya factor ≥100. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

silylene · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From the online article....Another process thus must dominate removal of atmospheric methaneon Mars and it must be more efficient than photochemistry bya factor ≥100. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>There was a journal article 2-3 yrs ago which predicted that some of the dusts lofted by the dust devils derived from soils in regions which contain peroxides and superoxides would rapidly oxidize methane to CO2.  I'll try to find it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> petet = silylenePlease, please give me my handle back ! </div>

rlb2 · Jan 18, 2009

Ron - Syrtis Major - has volitile-rich SubstrateJon - Are you sure?  What's the evidence?Ron - Terrae Sabae – subsurface hydrogen detected Jon - Are you sure?  What's the evidence/  How much?Ron - Nili Fossae – Hydrated Minerals Jon - Hydrated minerals don't mean much by themselves.  There are lots of hydrated minerals in places without methane plumes - Meridiani for instance. Rons answer - Squible notes – I got that strait from the horse’s mouth, the NASA team presented that information at the briefing but I don’t understand where they got their information. The areas where it does come from are within regions of the planet that have been found to have had liquid water in the past. Beyond that, however, the three plume sources seem to have little in common. The authors note that Terra Sabae has sub-surface hydrogen, Nili Fossae has hydrated minerals, and Syrtis Major has a volatile-rich substrate. Of course, it's possible that there are small regions within these areas that do share some geochemistry. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090115-mars-makes-methane-sign-of-life-or-geology-at-work.html  Ron - I don’t think the elevation change from 9 milibars Phoenix Landing site and 5 millabars Terra Sabae makes that much difference to rule out biological source for the methane, both locations are close to the triple point of water...Jon - They may be close to the triple point, but one site is above and one below it.  That makes all the difference in the world. The pressure at Sabea is almost half that of the pheonix site, and the solar irradiance much higher. Ron’s answer - If it is subsurface water production then it could be a perfect vacuum above the surface and still water can exist below all you need is pressure and a heat source and something to come in-between the surface and vacuum (ice sheet, permafrost, soil etc). It wouldn’t take much of a pressure above 6.1 millibars (triple point of water) to form water in a subterranean environment under the right conditions. Ron -wever as I claimed for many years now, way before the Phoenix Lander set down, water can form just below the top surface on Mars and wherever there is a sufficient enough pressure and a heat source, (solar radiation). Jon - Enough pressure, that's the rub. Where the site is below the triple point there is only enough pressure if the system is isolated from the atmosphere.  What evidence do you have that the shallow subsurface  Ron’s answer – I actually did a ad-hock test in my garage several years ago in a make-shift vacume chamber at around 4 millibars or less of pressure inducing a heat source to bring the temperature just above freezing to prove to myself that it can be done, a small film of water formed below the thin ice layer similar to what happened at the Phoenix Landing site years later. Note anyone could have done this in the lab……………. Jon - (a few decimetres is all that solar heating will reach) is isolated from the atmosphere? Ron’s answer - that is not true heat from solar irradiance on Mars can reach up to a meter below, UV, and some can reach father below the surface especially if rocks which can store that energy transfer it thermally down into the regolith. Ron - The Phoenix Lander found this out, it shouldn’t have been a surprise to them but it was.   Jon - It is not yet confirmed that Phoenix observed liquid water.  And Phoenix was above the triple point of water brines, not belowRon’s answer – Yes the atmosphere was but just below the surface is where it happened. It wouldn’t take much to simulate it in a lab, which should have been done way before Phoenix left earth……….. Ron - Pools of water can form under thin ice sheets, permafrost and other surface material where the venting trapped gas and water vapor can build up pressure raising the pressure enough for water to form. Jon - Again, what evidence do you have that this isolating process is occurring at these locations?  Ron’s answer – right now all I can tell you is it was done in my garage years ago, if you don’t believe that then get or make a vacuum chamber and try it out for yourself. Keep in mind above the surface the tripple point of water is 6.11 millibars the tripple point is different for brine. By the way I don’t have a geology degree but I do have 3 engineering degrees; Mechanical, Civil, and Architectural so I do somewhat know a little bit about what I am saying…...  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

nimbus · Jan 18, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does anyone have numbers for methane release from terrestrial ecosystems?19,000 tonnes per year would be a big gas seep from a reservoir on Earth.Jon Posted by jonclarke</DIV> I don't know if this answers your question, but I found this and thought of your post: “At northern mid-summer, methane is released at a rate comparable to that of the massive hydrocarbon seep at Coal Oil Point in Santa Barbara, Calif.”   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jan 19, 2009

There is quite a bit “out there” on oil and gas seeps.  Much of the work has focussed on marine examples as these are the easiest to detect.  Also as the two are almost inseparable on Earth, there is a strong emphasis on oil, which may not be relevant to Mars!Coal Oil Point (marine) http://www.bubbleology.com/seeps/SeepMapFrame.htmlUSGS seeps pages http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/what.htmlRemote sensing of seeps (mostly marine) http://www.npagroup.com/oilandmineral/offshore/oil_exploration/index.htmHyperspectal signatures on onshore oil seeps http://www.earthsearch.com/pdf/oilseeps.pdfNote that the reported gas seeps on Mars are <60,000 tonnes per year.  Annual methane production on Earth from all sources is of the order of 400-640 million tonneshttp://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/06/meetings2.html .  Of this about 30% is from seeps and other geologic sources.  So the Mars methane production is about one ten thousanth of Earth's. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

centsworth_II · Jan 19, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is quite a bit “out there” on oil and gas seeps....on Earth, there is a strong emphasis on oil, which may not be relevant to Mars! Posted by jonclarke</DIV> And then again....  Even if it is eventually determined that Mars methane is the product of life, the question remains: Is it from current life or stored methane from ancient, long gone life?  And if there is stored methane on Mars from ancient life, could there be stored oil as well?  Of course there are a LOT of questions to answer first before the discussion goes there in earnest.  Unless someone wants to pick it up in the Unexplained forum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

JonClarke · Jan 19, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And then again....  Even if it is eventually determined that Mars methane is the product of life, the question remains: Is it from current life or stored methane from ancient, long gone life?  And if there is stored methane on Mars from ancient life, could there be stored oil as well?  Of course there are a LOT of questions to answer first before the discussion goes there in earnest.  Unless someone wants to pick it up in the Unexplained forum. Posted by centsworth_II</DIV>I think the next thing to do is to see if we can actually identify vent sites.  And see if we can diffrerentiate between surface and photochemical origins.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Jan 19, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At the risk of showing my ignorance, do any of the current orbiters have the ability to measure methane concentrations?  And if so, is there any plan for them to do so.  IMHO these high methane concentrations, as much as 3PPM at some locations, should be a top priority for further investigation.  For one thing, as the earth based observations are limited to about 100 km per pixel (according to Jon's post), it would sure be nice if they could be measured more accurately, in terms of locating the source, from one of the orbiters. Posted by robnissen</DIV>I emailed a friend who is part of the CRISM team and he saids that they have the spectral coverage but not the sensitivity to detect methane.  It is at ppb levels after all.  I would assume the same applies to OMEGA.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Jan 20, 2009

For those interested in the technical details about the confirmation of methane release on Mars but (like me) do not have access to Science Express ,you can read a preprint of the Mumma et al paper at http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/Mumma_et_al_Methane_Mars_wSOM_accepted2.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

BoJangles · Jan 20, 2009

They wont declare life on mars until they have the little blighters multiplying in a test-tube. No matter what they find. I guess we will have to let science take its course <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jan 20, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For those interested in the technical details about the confirmation of methane release on Mars but (like me) do not have access to Science Express ,you can read a preprint of the Mumma et al paper at http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/Mumma_et_al_Methane_Mars_wSOM_accepted2.pdf Posted by jonclarke</DIV>Thanks!So, what's the chances of NASA sending something to investigate this directly?  They may not be able to actually sample to the depth they may suppose life would exist, if any.  However, wouldn't an analysis of the soil in areas where high concentrations of methane have been observed yield further clues?  Would the analysis of topsoil give any indication of the source of the methane if it was geologic/biotic in origin?  Or, would such data most likely be inconclusive? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

BoJangles · Jan 20, 2009

I guess they could look at their isotopic ratios, seems it works for everything else. Though what they would need to look for in this respect are way beyond my knowledge. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

JonClarke · Jan 21, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks!So, what's the chances of NASA sending something to investigate this directly?  They may not be able to actually sample to the depth they may suppose life would exist, if any.  However, wouldn't an analysis of the soil in areas where high concentrations of methane have been observed yield further clues?  Would the analysis of topsoil give any indication of the source of the methane if it was geologic/biotic in origin?  Or, would such data most likely be inconclusive? Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV>Reduced iron, managanese minerals, carbonates, etc could be detected by IR and Mossbauer spectrometers, and XRD.  High levels of solid organics should be detected by IR spectrometers.  Low levels of organics by GC-MS, various organic lab on a chip technologies.  MSL carries such instruments, so does ExoMarsNHili Fossae was a target for MSL until last year.  It dropped off because it was high and dangerous.  With methane, water vapour plumes and carbonates all discovered since then, I would not be surprised if a lot of thought will go into seeing if it is possible.  Nilli Fossa is also an ExoMars target.Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

exoscientist · Jan 24, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you MW.Did they have data that photolysis takes 'centuries' or is this a conjecture?  Actually it would need to be a steady state effect:  methane is both being produced and being lost.  The concentration observed reflects the chemical kinetics of these two processes.The map of methane production shown (I recall we went over this before, in the pre-Pluck SDC, and indeed in the pre-crash SDC also!) gives the highest methane production in the Martian equitorial band.  This is exactly what would be expected if it were a photochemical process, since this would occure in the areas of highest irradiance.The photochemical process I posted, and gave mutliple references for, in these forums in the pre-pluck days (maybe someone can look up the threads) was a photoreduction of CO2 catalyzed on metal oxide dust surfaces.  The dusts (TiO2, for example, this works with several types of oxides) serve as catalysts for this effect.  in fact, I would expect areas in which the dust is uplifted due to winds or dust devils to expose more dust catalyst for methane photoproduction.  So you may see the highest rates where there is both high irradiance, and higher concentrations of exposed metal oxide dusts.  In fact, I once referenced a paper which found some atmospheric photoreduction chemistry occuring on the dusts from the soil surfaces in Chile'se Atacambra desert, which is a rather good stand-in for the Martian conditions.There is also a literature paper (maybe I can find it) which Jon sent me which relied on a direct photochemical mechanism using the high energy irradtion available in the upper Martian atmosphere.  Who knows, this may work too!Until i see more, I am very unconvinced of the need for a biogenic methane source.  i will await reading their paper to see how they dismissed photochcmeical generation. Posted by silylene</DIV>  Silylene, it's possible the authors of the methan paper are unaware of the photochemical explanation. Have you written them about it?    Bob Clark   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 24, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  Silylene, it's possible the authors of the methan paper are unaware of the photochemical explanation. Have you written them about it?    Bob Clark  Posted by exoscientist</DIV> They were aware of it, see my quotes at the top of this page. They did proper background research as would be expected for submission to a peer reviewed journal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

...analysis of the Martian atmosphere that raises the possibility of life or geologic activity...

a_lost_packet_

Guest

rlb2

Guest

silylene

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

silylene

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

silylene

Guest

rlb2

Guest

nimbus

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

exoscientist

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page