Mars Methane Mention at ESA Mars Express Press Conference

[JonClarke]

Exactly! Research on mars methane has been and is being researched. There are over 400 journal references to the detection of Martian atmospheric methane on the Scirus web site. The journals include Icarus, Science, Planetary and Space Science, Applied Optics, and many other leading journals. Obviously none of these scientists are aware that they are limiting their careers by doing this.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

The amount of methane detected is very small. I have seen reports that if all the methane was of biological origen, that the biomass on Mars would be less than either 20K or 20,000K tons (I can't remember which number was reported). Here is my question, if we can prove an abiotic source for ALL the methane in Mars atmosphere, does that PROVE that there can be NO current life (as we know it) on Mars? Or is it possible that life as we know it could exist, but produce no measurable methane?

 

[centsworth_II]

I'm sure there is a very wide range of methane production among organisms. I wonder what level of production was chosen to get the 20,000K tons figure, an average, or low level? I imagine the minimum methane production would be near zero, in dormant organisms. I would expect organisms living in very sparce conditions to have slow, efficient metabolism, and so very low level of methane production. I don't know if methane is necessarily produced in all known forms of metabilism. Could a large colony of mixed methanogens and methanophiles exist with little net release of methane? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

That is a good point. Organisms are generally part of larger communities, one species waste is another's food source. If (and it is a big if) the methane we are seeing is biogenic, what we are seeing may be the net production, not gross.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

there are scientists who don't even buy that the methane is exists at all. <br /><br />and if you research it, you must be on the anti-biotic side to be taken seriously. otherwise you have to go off the record. there are a few brave souls who dare submit papers to Nature and such, but they are most often denied publication. <br /><br />the thing is, the methane signatures that have been obtained thus far are most often exactly in the same locations as water vapor concentrations near the surface --this can make a case for olivine reactions with hydrogen, or a biotic signature. in either case, you've got water. not only, but the olivine theory virtually necessitates the existence of actual flowing water to facilitate the chemical reactions. <br /><br />so for haters of liquid water at mars, in any layer, then you must hate, too, the olivine/methane possibility. so now what are the other alternatives? ---biogenesis or ---what else? i'm not a chemist or geologist. someone tell me another methanogen variant without any water presence.

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">The old adage is that remarkable claims need remarkable evidence.</font><---- Sorry for interrupting, but it seems that, as we know it, LIFE is the precursor, and not the other way around. It is arrogant to think that Earth is the only body in our solar system that is a harbor for life; therefore there is life, and the burden of proof lies with those that think that we are, in fact, all there is, which is BS. As the old adage goes!

 

[dragon04]

I have no problem with speculating that life could possibly exist on Mars. Or in the oceans of Europa.<br /><br />But it IS just that, jatslo. Speculation. Tantalizing clues don't make it fact that life exists on or inside Mars or Europa.<br /><br />But you have to admit that just because methane exists in the Martian atmosphere, and that liquid water likely did exist or COULD exist in some form on Mars does not raise any certainty that there was or is life there. We know too little about the Ph and overall chemical composition of what water did or does exist on Mars.<br /><br />I hope there IS some kind of life on Mars. And Europa. I think you're confusing arrogance with prudence. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">I have no problem with speculating that life could possibly exist on Mars. Or in the oceans of Europa.</font><---- Individuals are speculating that life does not exist, and this is the same as including the planet Earth in the equation. Life does exist in our solar system and everything in our solar system is made of the same stuff, so we need to approach everything as if it contains life, because to do otherwise is speculation. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">But it IS just that, jatslo. Speculation. Tantalizing clues don't make it fact that life exists on or inside Mars or Europa.</font><---- Earth is a planet with life on it, Mars is a planet, so Mars is a planet with life on it, and anything else is speculation. Start talking about life, and the funds will come in by the truck load. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">But you have to admit that just because methane exists in the Martian atmosphere, and that liquid water likely did exist or COULD exist in some form on Mars does not raise any certainty that there was or is life there. We know too little about the Ph and overall chemical composition of what water did or does exist on Mars. </font><---- We know too little about the Ph and overall chemical composition to state that Mars does not have or had life as we know it, and to say otherwise is pure speculation.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I hope there IS some kind of life on Mars. And Europa. I think you're confusing arrogance with prudence.</font><---- There is life out there; prove that there is not.<br /><br />Prudent is wisdom in handling practical matters; exercising good judgment and/or common sense, and good common sense and judgment leads us to believe that life expands beyond our astrosphere and into our solar system. I have no reason to think otherwise; there is life everywhere I look. I squashed a bug just yesterday.<br /><br />Prudent is a careful in regard to one's own intere

 

[bonzelite]

+1

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"It is hard to imagine an abiotic answer that can explain a source fluctuation of short term that varies between max of 30ppbv and 250ppbv."</font><br /><br />Irregular fluctuations could be explained by release of ancient subsurface methane. But if the regular morning to evening variation that I heard mentioned holds up, it seems to require a connection to sunlight. So then the real contest would be between bio and photo genesis, not bio and geothermal genesis. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"I think you're confusing arrogance with prudence."</font><br /><br />I agree, some adventurous souls open their minds to explore strange and exciting possibilities. Good for them! But when they attack those who dare test those possibilities against the laws of nature, they are no longer participating in the scientific process.<br /><br /><br /><br />P.S. With the below as an example of Jatslo's logic, do you wonder why I have stopped trying to understand his posts and respond to them? <br /><br />"Earth is a planet with life on it, Mars is a planet, so Mars is a planet with life on it, and anything else is speculation." -- Jatslo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Organisms are generally part of larger communities, one species waste is another's food source."</font><br /><br />A community of organisms feeding off each others' wastes, resulting in little net release of detectable wastes resembles a perpetual motion machine. But I wonder how close such a community could get to that? Could the final waste gas be reduced to CO2 and H2O? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...if the regular morning to evening variation [of methane] that I heard mentioned holds up, it seems to require a connection to sunlight. So then the real contest would be between bio and photo genesis, not bio and geothermal genesis."</font><br /><br />Right now I'm inclined to doubt the existence of photosynthetic surface life on Mars. That would limit methane cycles dependent on the sun to non-biological photogenesis. <br /><br />(Yes, I know I'm talking to myself.} <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[exoscientist]

Silylene, is generation of methane through photosynthesis known to occur naturally on Earth?<br /> Perhaps it is not discussed because it doesn't occur naturally.<br /><br /><br /><br /> - Bob <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Silylene, is generation of methane through photosynthesis known to occur naturally on Earth? </font><br /><br />I assume you mean via an abiotic photochemical process?<br /><br />Probably not to a very significant extent on Earth, since from what I have read, the photoreduction process to form CH4 works best with deep-UV radiation (<280 nm). This wavelength of light is heavily absorbed in our atmosphere by ozone and other trace gases. On Mars however, deep-UV light would be plentiful.<br /><br />On a related subject here are quite a few references about photoreduction of N2 to form of ammonia and formaldehyde over catalysts (including desert sand), which were posted in this thread: http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=3562&page=4&view=collapsed&sb=9&o=0&fpart=all&vc=1 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

it seems the most romantic yet "safe" idea, 2nd in line behind life signatures, is the reaction of hydrogen with olivine via liquid water immersion to create the CH4 byproduct. it has to be perpetual. so the water must be there for this to exist. if you've got an olivine source, it needs water to fulfill this scenario. if you have biogenesis, that, too can be via a liquid source. either case you have liquid somewhere. <br /><br />unless you believe the outgassing of the CH4 is from "ancient" or fossilized leftovers, you have running water on mars. i tend to disbelieve the fossil thing because the CH4 is being perpetually replenished, as it decays very soon in the UV-saturated thin atmosphere. <br /><br />the perpetual replenishment of the CH4 is what has us all in a quandary. why is it even there?! even if there is no biogenetic origin, the question and it's answer are enigmatic regardless. because of the replenishment of the CH4, you could say, in a manner of speaking, that mars is alive. it's doing it's thing RIGHT NOW.

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">it seems the most romantic yet "safe" idea, 2nd in line behind life signatures, is the reaction of hydrogen with olivine via liquid water immersion to create the CH4 byproduct. it has to be perpetual. so the water must be there for this to exist. if you've got an olivine source, it needs water to fulfill this scenario.</font><br /><br />Therer is a lot of good evidence that at least in some locations of the Martian surface that there are substantial amounts of subsurface water. Indeed, the latest ESA results (other thread) list several new reports and analysis on this exact subject.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">the perpetual replenishment of the CH4 is what has us all in a quandary. why is it even there?! </font><br />Because olivine slowly degrades in the presence of heat, pressure and water (serpendization) to release CH4.<br /><br />Or because CO2 is slowly photoreduced to CH4 by UV light in the presence of H2O(g) over dusts containing common metal oxides every dawn to dusk? <br /><br /><font color="yellow">because of the replenishment of the CH4, you could say, in a manner of speaking, that mars is alive.</font><br />In a manner of speaking. Mars isn't living. However, it certainly remains geologically and chemically active! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

"Or because CO2 is slowly photoreduced to CH4 by UV light in the presence of H2O(g) over dusts containing common metal oxides every dawn to dusk?"<br /><br />--so the CH4 could arise without the olivine as an agent? hmm. that is interesting. that seems highly plausible, actually. could, then, this happen with mere water vapor? and not liquid? your idea seems to jibe more with vapor, as it reacts with surface ferrous oxide. <br /><br />"because of the replenishment of the CH4, you could say, in a manner of speaking, that mars is alive. <br />---In a manner of speaking. Mars isn't living. However, it certainly remains geologically and chemically active!"<br /><br />right. that is what i meant to say, then. <br /><br />how do you highlight stuff in color? <br /><br />

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"how do you highlight stuff in color?"</font><br /><br />Lots of info to see if you click on "FAQ" at the top of this page (below the advertizements). In FAQ, scroll down to "Can I use HTML in my posts?" to see how to use color, among other things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

cool. thanks.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">a test for jaundice.</font><br /><br /><font color="orange">cool. i've crossed over.</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="orange">"cool. i've crossed over."</font><br /><br />Great! Unfortunately, I think that the orange and yellow are the only two colors among the choices given that are easy to read.<br /><br />P.S. To all: Don't you hate it when you log on to SDC and see that a thread you have been following has a few new posts, only to find that the posts are trivial side comments not related to the post subject at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

yeah. it's a total buzzkill. just like my past few posts. <br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[exoscientist]

Silylene, perhaps tests for this photochemical production of methane could be made in Antarctica specifically when the ozone hole is largest.<br /><br /><br /><br /> - Bob <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Dusts or sand composed of certain metal oxides are required as a catalyst.<br /><br />Does the ozone hole coincide with the Antarctic summer, when the sun shines? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>