Probable lakes on Titan

centsworth_II · Nov 15, 2006

"And that's the difference between someone who has been trained in the sciences, vs. someone who has not been well trained." -- stevehw33 "Those are not 'Lakes'. We do NOT know that they arose from bulk flow of liquids, nor do we know what they are created from. Nor is their composition known." -- stevehw33 "Once again, you fail to understand that “know” in science means “fits the available observations.” All the observations point towards these being lakes, there are no observations that point away." -- JonClarke "I'm not interested in the 'radar images of the surface of Titan for one reason. The key issue is the compositional data of what that surface is composed of. NOT the irrelevant radar images." -- stevehw33 "How convenient. This means you can ignore the topographic data that shows these features occur in low points. It allows you to ignore that they occur at the discharge points of dendritic channels. That they are extremely smooth, and each body occurs as a uniform elevation. It also allows you to ignore the fact they occur at those parts of Titan where conditions are most conducive to them forming." -- JonClarke And that's the difference between a trained geologist -- familiar with the science of natural planetary surfaces, their deposition and erosion -- and stevehw33. I already know what steve will say: Titan is not Earth. Astute observation. But the physics of surface alteration are universal. And the facts that H2O may be the major rock constituent and methane the major liquid constituent do not render useless all knowlege of land alteration processes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mikeemmert · Nov 16, 2006

Good morning, Calli <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> : My bookmark brings up Space Science and Astronomy. I have a shortage of window space this morning because I've got references to current news for Free Space, I wish I had several windows for this post, but I don't. So I will start off by quoting stevehw33:<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The same problem is there on the sufface of Titan. These surface AND subsurface features have NEVER been radared before. WE have NO standards which show us how such radar images do actually correspond to on site, known and tested findings on and below the ground. The system is NOT standardized on anything!! We do NOT KNOW what structures those radar images necessarily mean. That would entail radaring specific set sites in at least 2-3 areas, then drilling down and doing chemical analysis at those site & THEN comparing to what the radar images showed us. THAT gives standardization. And THEN when we radared a surface features we'd have a GOOD idea what the limits and capabilities were. One CANNOT proceed with OUT these standardizations of instruments, esp. when lookin at something No One Has Ever Seen Before! That's a real problem with these radar images. And if some think it's not, then well, that's very damaging to their case. And THAT'S the problem of standardization. It can give a hint, but radar of itself, does NOT,without careful and close correlation with KNOWN, observed detected structures on the surface give necessarily true data. The instrument MUST be standardized. That has NOT happened on Titan's surface & will not happen, until there is a rover there which can drill down and confirm, that is, STANDARDIZE what those radar images show.<hr /></blockquote>I chose this passage because the series of stevehw33 posts in this thread show a considerably higher standard of quality than the average stevehw33 post. He is somewhat of

mithridates · Nov 16, 2006

The problem with him is that he is a selective skeptic - skepticism and hyperbole don't go hand in hand. The hyperbole of course, is the constant "you have no scientific training and I do" type phrases that show that he's willing to throw evidence to the side when it suits him. I would prefer a poster who is skeptical in *all areas*, including the intelligence of the other posters on the board, as well as a healthy skepticism of the extent of one's own knowledge. With higher-quality posts however, I agree with you that he would fill a necessary role. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

centsworth_II · Nov 16, 2006

One thing I find...interesting, is that while berating others for making determinations on what he judges to be inadequate evidence, steve repeatedly makes statements like: 'there are no lakes..." or "there is no life....' For someone intent on revealing the uncertainties of scientific knowlege, and the falacy of presenting opinion as fact, he makes limited use of conditional language himself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mikeemmert · Nov 16, 2006

Hi, centsworth_II; I hope stevehw33 takes your comments seriously, but of couse he does have his own writing style and his own opinions. Meanwhile, I came back to check the poll I published. The last I checked, there were two votes. Of course I voted in my own poll, whaddaya think? That leaves one unknown. Whether you voted in it or not is secret, unless one chooses to disclose how he voted. This serves a good purpose, it gets real opinions. The results so far is that 100% of the two respondents thought the dark areas in the Huygens descent photos were liquid. Of course the actual result was that they were solid. So, who's the other guy? I checked "Who's Online" earlier today, and stevehw33 was on the boards, that was about an hour before this post. Could it be that stevehw33 secretly admitted that he thought it was liquid? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

MeteorWayne · Nov 16, 2006

I did not vote, becuse my opinion was I wasn't sure, and that was not a poll choice. I hate polls that only have yes/no, black/white choices. On offense intended. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Life is more complicated than one side or the other. Life is lived (by thoughtful people) in shades of gray, IMO. That's what has led to so many political problems in science and the world! Sometimes the other guy has a valid point which you should consider, so that makes an either/or choice not the best option. MW <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 old · Nov 16, 2006

But I would like to relay this to you: when the pictures came back from the Huygens descent, I was convinced the dark areas were bodies of liquid. They looked just like a lake or a sea. But Huygens actually landed on a dark area, and it turned out that it was a solid surface. Now, who here on this board will have the stones to admit that he was fooled, too? I always thought they were dried lakebeds, for chemical reasons I have discussed earlier in this thread and older threads. Liquid methane simply has a very narrow liquid temperature range, it has a low heat of vaporization, and doesn't dissolve ionic compounds so the possibility of freezing point depression is much less compared to liquid water. These three facts, taken together, in my opinion make it highly likely any liquid lake would be highly ephemeral. I also had plenty (and still have some) concerns over the attenuation of radar signal penetration to the lakebottom, and what ramifications this has on the apparent synthesized image (although Jon did find a reference that the radar has some ability to penetrate and image). On the other hand, they do look like liquid lakes to me and to many geologist experts (such as Jon). I can speak from my background as a chemist and a scientist, and take the conclusions with interest, enthusiasm and a balanced dose of skepticism. I'll keep an open mind, but I still think it is more likely than not that they are dry lakebeds, and not currently filled with liquid. A lot more information on the radar calibration, and a clear description of signal attenuation, and impact resultant synthesized image would help me feel more comfortable with accepting a liquid is present. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

brellis · Nov 16, 2006

Thanks for an entertaining, informative discussion on this thread. I'm learning just enough about geology to be really dangerous at a dinner table conversation! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> As a side note: in the Images of Mars thread we had a discussion comparing what we're seeing there to the aftermath of a volcanic eruption. We're already there with two rovers and a flotilla of orbiters, and we're still not absolutely sure what we're looking at! On the island of Lanzarote, there is at least one vast field of solidified lava flow. It's at least 150 years old, but up close it looks like black roaring rapids frozen in time. In this post "3488" describes his extensive tours of the Canary Islands, including Lanzarote. When I was there for a music festival in 1997, my host, Ildefonso Aguilar, took me to his house, which looked like it was being swept along these volcanic "rapids". Analogies are quite helpful to all of us, expert and novice alike, when attempting to describe something we're in the process of discovering. I hope Cassini lasts long enough to get a good reading of Titan when the season changes there, and I think it would be cool to crash it into Titan if we must do a controlled disposal. Why not have its final sequence be a SMART-1 style set of orbits that culminate with extreme closeups? Perhaps by then we'll be able to aim our space telescopes at Titan to observe the crash. I'm attaching an example of Aguilar's artwork. The landscape of Lanzarote is the model, the inspiration and the medium for his work. He incorporates sand and crushed lava from the island into his artwork. Imagine the day when someone gets to incorporate <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

robnissen · Nov 16, 2006

"I'll keep an open mind, but I still think it is more likely than not that they are dry lakebeds, and not currently filled with liquid." I think your wrong because it is my understanding that the radar images are showing the surface to be extremely flat, much flatter than a lakebed bottom would be. I believe the flatness shows that the lakes are highly unlikely to be anything but a liquid. If I'm wrong, please correct me. But that is my understanding.

MeteorWayne · Nov 16, 2006

As I understand it, the way radar would reflect from a methane, ethane, or other hydrocarbon soup makes it unclear that the reflections are from a "liquid flat" surface. The true key to a liquid surface would be some kind of a specular reflection; i.e. the sun reflecting off a liquid lake. Radar wavelengths are different than the light band. However I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Therefore, I'm not correcting you, just throwing my limited grasp into the pile with yours. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

JonClarke · Nov 16, 2006

Now your post is weaseling. This is simply sea lawyering and it's very clear to be so. I have repeatedly posted observations that are best explained by the presence of liquid methane. You have consistently refused to address these observations. Here they are again, with some additional ones: The fact that methane rain and soil moisture have been detected. The fact that the surface morphology shows evidence of methane runoff in the form of channels. That these channels drain into low lying areas that exhibit morphologies that resemble shorelines on Earth. These low lying areas are floored by dark material rich in complex organics consistent with methane transport and quite different from the water ice highlands. Some of these dark areas near the north pole are partly filled by a dark, semi-transparent (to radar) material that is extremely flat consistent with liquid. The only explanation consistent with these observations is the presence of a “hydrologic” cycle of methane including rain, runoff, “aquifers” and at least ephemeral lakes. How is this “weasling” and “sea lawyering.” If it is “weasling” and sea lawyering, then I am in good company, as the entire Titan science community appears to share this conclusion. However, refusal to acknowledge you have been wrong about what we know, refusal to address the actual points relevant to discussion, trying to divert it into other channels, long multiple posts and baseless accusations about the lack of credibility of those who disagree with your One CANNOT confirm these." Consistent with", is only an hypothetical. That has to be confirmed, by on site testing and we have been thru this before on Mars. Again you don’t understand how science works. The basic observations by Voyagers 1 & 2 was that the temperatures and pressures on Titan would support the presence of liquid methane, the presence of which was already known from telescopic observations. This i <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 · Nov 16, 2006

The other point, & we've visited this problem before on mars, is this. ANY instrumentation MUST be standardized. When runs a solution thru a machine for analysis, one MUST have standardized that machine. One runs thru a KNOWN and then sees if the machine has properly registered it. And then when we run thru an unknown, and we get an instrumental output of data, we KNOW the machine is registering it correctly. You misunderstand the role of standards. They calibrate that the instrument is working within certain limits. Blanks are run through chemical labs. Most spectroscopic instruments are calibrated against internal standards. Radars are tuned and calibrated. Now, and we've been here before with the MARSIS, if adn ONLY if, we have actually drilled down and confirmed that the MARSIS data is showing the same thing as the drilling sites regarding water, do we know, beyound any reasonable doubt that the MARSIS data corresponds to what we think it is. What you are talking here is ground truth. Ground truth is desirable but is not always possible. In such cases you have to work from first principles and from analogue materials. The whole science of spectroscopy astronomy operates like this. The whole purpose of MARSIS. The radar sees several km beneatn the surface. It is impossible to drill down this far and will be for many decades, perhaps longer. Radar is the only technology presently available to image the upper crust on Mars in the near future. We are in the same situation with the interior of the Earth. Are you saying we should not do such research until we can obtain in situ validation? There goes the whole science of deep earth geophysics, as well as MARSIS and SHARAD. The same problem is there on the sufface of Titan. These surface AND subsurface features have NEVER been radared before. WE have NO standards which show us how such radar images do actually correspond to on site, known and <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>

CalliArcale · Nov 16, 2006

No, please let's not. Get back to the topic, please. Other poster's intellectual capacity or debating styles are neither relevant nor productive. Several members have been spending a lot of effort discussing the pros and cons of certain debating styles, questioning other's worthiness for presenting opinions, and so forth. It's very unbecoming and is running a very real risk of destroying yet another thread about Titan. So please, can we just forget the personal ugliness and get on with discussing Titan? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

enigma10 · Nov 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The problems of remote viewing are legion. I know some supervisors who sit around watching on TV the work their employees are doing. The ones who really want to know what's going on are down there on the floor, checking.<hr /></blockquote> Actually, the ones that really want to know are the ones that do both. Employees act differently when management stands over thier shoulder vs remote viewing. Though this comparison is not related to the thread subject,and as a manager myself, i felt it prudent to point out the comparison was not fully accurate. The rest of your post though, reflects the need for more data before an absolute answer can be given concerning the nature of Titans surface. This is a most obvious conclusion from just your first post. The continuation of the replies , though, signifies only the reaffirmation of "insuficient data" concerning the subject. I agree, we need more Data. How do we get more? A lander? Ok. How do we get the money for that Lander? Sell the idea to send one? Great! Think "insufficient data" will make a good sale to the general populace? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

JonClarke · Nov 17, 2006

"a sufficient number of images is all that's needed....." adn there is teh problem. Without compositional analysis this is simply remote viewing. There is a clear methodolgocial flaw in this line of your reasoning. The error in your reasoning is that spectroscopy and radar reflection do give compositional information. Astronomical spectroscopy is the basis of almost everything we know about stars, and provides with much information about asteroids, moons, comets, and planets. Radar astronomy is used to study asteroids, planets, moons and the Sun. To say that thus is comparable with the “remote viewing” of occultists is risible. Looking like, consistent with, and suggests that" are NOT confirmations. That some believe so is simply not good science. We need a Titanian rover which can drill down a way and alos do compositional analysis to find out what it is. If those features are ICE, or EVEN some other mix, which cannot possibly EVER be flowing, then that certainly would change things, now wouldn't it? Methane rain and liquid methane in the soil were detected directly by Huygens. The fact you do not recognise this shows that you have not read the relevant research. There are many areas of science which are dependent on the collection of a volume of evidence that points to a likely conclusion. This is particularly the case with planetary science. In such cases qualifying conclusions with expressions like “consistent with” and suggests that” is standard practice. The fact that you refuse to recognise this is your problem, not that of the science. Why do we need a rover with a drill to confirm or disprove the presence of liquid methane on the surface of Titan? You only need to drill to sample the subsurface. This question is to do with what is on the surface. An orbiter or multiple flybys are quite adequate for this. The problem is, too much is being assumed here. adn frankly yo <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 · Nov 17, 2006

Steve To try and simplify things, here are five questions you should answer. Yes or no will be all that is needed. No waffling about scientific method, no dodging the question just yes or no. 1. Is methane present in Titan’s atmosphere? 2. Are the surface temperatures and pressures on Titan within the range of liquid methane? 3. Is it possible to discover aspects of the composition and structure of asteroids from radar studies without ground truth? 4. Is it possible to determine aspects of the composition, structure and morphology of dwarf planets from IR spectroscopy without ground truth? 5. Was it posible to something about the surface on Mars from Mariner 9 imagery without ground truth? 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>

brellis · Nov 17, 2006

I admire anyone with the courage to study spectroscopy. Imagine having to tell people you're a sectroscopist. What a tongue-twister! <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> A while back on this thread, someone said that on Mars the temperature range for water to remain liquid was only 20 degrees C. I did not know that, and I still don't get why. I'm gonna go back through the pages here, but if anyone could 'splain it, I'd be appreciative. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

brellis · Nov 17, 2006

Found it Jon Clarke: A similar situation exists on Mars, where, when present, the boiling and freezing point of pure water are less than 20 degrees apart, even in the lowest parts of the Martian surface. Is this true because of lack of atmosphere? thanks. brad <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 17, 2006

It is because of the lower atmospheric pressure lowering the boiling point. If you recall from baking class (or Good Eats) even here on earth you have to account for elevation since at 5000 feet, water boils over a dozen degrees below 212 F IIRC. I'll see if I can find the formula somewhere. Oh, here's a handy chart <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

centsworth_II · Nov 17, 2006

Water on Earth boils at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level. In Denver, Colorado, one mile above sea level, it boils at 94 degrees, and at the top of Mount Everest, it boils at 70 degrees. The pressure on Mars is much much lower than that on Mount Everest so I'm guessing that the twenty degree range of liquid water on Mars means that water on Mars boils at 20 degrees centigrade. Of course any salts dissolved in the water would change the values somewhat. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

brellis · Nov 17, 2006

thanks M.Wayne and cents. extrapolating, due to the high atmospheric pressure on Venus, there would be an extremely wide temperature range. could there be REALLY HOT water somewhere there? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better. </div>

silylene old · Nov 17, 2006

Actually, I think on Mars, at the lowest altitude (Hellas floor), water might have a higher liquid range than that, perhaps 60C. Yes, pure water would have a 20C range in Hellas. But water containing dissolved salts has a depressed freezing point and an elevated boiling point. It is likely that any water on Mars will be a brine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 17, 2006

It's just too hot there. Even under very high pressure, steam would be the best you could do. <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>

JonClarke · Nov 17, 2006

Melting snow and glacial ice would be nearly pure. Groundwater would probably be quite saline. So we could expect a range of salinities. 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 · Nov 17, 2006

Sure, if you crank the pressure up. Seafloor vents (black smokers) have water at temperatures of several 100 degrees and no boiling. But no planet in our solar system has the combination of abundant water high presures and high temperatures to get super hot surface waters. Other planets in other planetary systems might though. 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>

Probable lakes on Titan

centsworth_II

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

mithridates

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

silylene old

Guest

brellis

Guest

robnissen

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

enigma10

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

brellis

Guest

brellis

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

brellis

Guest

silylene old

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page