Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mars alive?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mars alive?


    NASA

    "Methane is quickly destroyed in the Martian atmosphere in a variety of ways, so our discovery of substantial plumes of methane in the northern hemisphere of Mars in 2003 indicates some ongoing process is releasing the gas," said Dr. Michael Mumma of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

    "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."

    "Right now, we don’t have enough information to tell if biology or geology -- or both -- is producing the methane on Mars," said Mumma. "But it does tell us that the planet is still alive, at least in a geologic sense. It's as if Mars is challenging us, saying, hey, find out what this means." Mumma is lead author of a paper on this research appearing in Science Express Jan. 15.

    If microscopic Martian life is producing the methane, it likely resides far below the surface, where it's still warm enough for liquid water to exist. Liquid water, as well as energy sources and a supply of carbon, are necessary for all known forms of life.

    "On Earth, microorganisms thrive 2 to 3 kilometers (about 1.2 to 1.9 miles) beneath the Witwatersrand basin of South Africa, where natural radioactivity splits water molecules into molecular hydrogen (H2) and oxygen. The organisms use the hydrogen for energy. It might be possible for similar organisms to survive for billions of years below the permafrost layer on Mars, where water is liquid, radiation supplies energy, and carbon dioxide provides carbon," said Mumma.

    "Gases, like methane, accumulated in such underground zones might be released into the atmosphere if pores or fissures open during the warm seasons, connecting the deep zones to the atmosphere at crater walls or canyons," said Mumma.

    "Microbes that produced methane from hydrogen and carbon dioxide were one of the earliest forms of life on Earth," noted Dr. Carl Pilcher, Director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute which partially supported the research. "If life ever existed on Mars, it's reasonable to think that its metabolism might have involved making methane from Martian atmospheric carbon dioxide."
    Scientific American....

    Mars Is Alive! (Geologically, Biologically or Both)

    A study in the journal Science finds that methane is being released at specific places on Mars--which means that Mars has geologic activity, biological activity or both.


    There’s definitely methane on Mars—and there are seasonal variations of how much is being released into the thin Martian atmosphere. Which means that Mars is still active geologically. Or that deep underground, something is or was alive. Or both. NASA and university scientists report the finding in the January 16th issue of the journal Science.

    Researchers studying the Martian atmosphere discovered and measured methane levels over the last few years, using telescopes with infrared spectrometers. These instruments identify chemical compounds by analyzing their unique light absorption properties.

    They found that Mars methane is being released as concentrated plumes at specific latitudes. Such plumes could come from various kinds of geological events. Underground bacterial communities could also be producing the methane. Or now-extinct living systems could have produced the methane long ago, with it only now being released through pores or fissures created by seasonal temperature variations.

    On earth, 90 percent of the methane in the atmosphere comes from the biochemical activity of life. The rest is produced by geochemical processes. The Mars methane’s specific isotopic makeup could reveal whether its origins are biochemical or geological.
    Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 18 January 2009, 20:19.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    Interesting science.

    On a lighter note, kinda reminds me of journey to the center of the earth. Only this time maybe we will find herds of Mars cows contentedly chewing away instead of dinosaurs.

    Comment


    • #3
      Just watched the Tim Burton film 'Mars Attacks' tonight.
      There is obviously life there!

      ACK ACKACK ACK ACKACKACK!
      Core2 Duo E7500 2.93, Asus P5Q Pro Turbo, 4gig 1066 DDR2, 1gig Asus ENGTS250, SB X-Fi Gamer ,WD Caviar Black 1tb, Plextor PX-880SA, Dual Samsung 2494s

      Comment


      • #4
        I think I've solved the problem as to the origin

        Brian (the devil incarnate)

        Comment


        • #5
          During the presser one of the bioscience people noted that the isotopic analysis is almost complete and that the paper should be published soon. While doing this that persons face had that 'cat that got the mouse' look, meaning to me that something very interesting was barely being held back.
          Dr. Mordrid
          ----------------------------
          An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

          I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

          Comment


          • #6
            Very interesting.
            Gee, I wonder where the next Mars probe(s) will be targeted?
            Chuck
            秋音的爸爸

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
              During the presser one of the bioscience people noted that the isotopic analysis is almost complete and that the paper should be published soon. While doing this that persons face had that 'cat that got the mouse' look, meaning to me that something very interesting was barely being held back.

              Arghhh, hurry!!! (here's hoping that ratios of carbon isotopes point clearly towards biological origin; though otoh...on Mars we can find only ~bacteria/etc., and I'm afraid that focus on Mars would draw the attention away from Europa...which could be way, way more worldview-breaking)

              PS. BTW Doc, I wonder...seems to me you are quite willing to accept the conclusions of atmospheric research of Mars made by those scientists...but not so in the case of Earth? How are you able to reconcile that?
              Last edited by Nowhere; 19 January 2009, 10:39.

              Comment


              • #8
                Because Mars methane is known by sensor measurement and GW theory is conjecture based on software models that don't include all the known variables. They also cannot do a 'rewind' prediction of the present vs. the known recent past.
                Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 19 January 2009, 12:18.
                Dr. Mordrid
                ----------------------------
                An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sooo...in your denial you assert that we don't have enough sensors/measurements on Earth, and also that models of Mars are waaay better than that of Earth, and we know every variable in case of Mars? (and surely more than enough of them to predict present condition on Mars based on recent past)

                  And c'mon, in the same way as you, based on their "beliefs"/wishfull thinking, people will object to conclusions that there is/was in recent past life on Mars... (if that will turn out to be in the announcement)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Measurements I don't disagree with, it's conclusions based on incomplete computer simulations that rub me wrong. Like statistics you can make simulations say anything, intentionally or otherwise, just as Disraeli (and many others) said.

                    Warming? In some places, but certainly not others. Man caused? I think the jury is way out on that one. In many pro circles the blinders are on, sometimes for political and not scientific reasons. I know a couple.

                    Then you have the anti-industrialists - pseudo anarchists who read Ted Kaczynski's manifesto, connected to its crazy theme and decided on a non-explosive methodology. One lives down the street and drives an Escalade

                    Sometimers it's financial, as with T. Boone Pickens who pushes wind and NG and has financial ties to companies who would gain from them being adopted. AlGore being another, but also many 'scientists' with relationships to large companies with a gigabuck or ten to make from going 'green'.
                    Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 19 January 2009, 13:59.
                    Dr. Mordrid
                    ----------------------------
                    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sigh.... time again for one of my trollish rants

                      There is no signs of "political" science around the mars phenomenon.

                      The GW pro side of the debate on the other hand is a clusterf... of "decided" science, "PC" science, the amazingly shoddy "science", the "try and bury any evidence that counter GW", the "blame the humans", the almost religious "humanity has sinned, repent", the inane argument that any solution that isn't complete and perfect and fixes it immediately is faulty and not to mention the MADNESS of carbon offset sales (the fact that people make money on the mess should make it pretty obvious that it's a big scam)!

                      And the worst thing is that the GW madness detracts from the really dangerous threat towards the environment: pollution!
                      If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

                      Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        And if you believe a recent study getting rid of pollution, in the forms of mist, particulates, SO2 etc., is one of the big reasons Europe,.and especially eastern Europe...has warmed over the last 3 decades. Reduced reflectivity etc.
                        Dr. Mordrid
                        ----------------------------
                        An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                        I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Technoid View Post
                          Sigh.... time again for one of my trollish rants

                          There is no signs of "political" science around the mars phenomenon.

                          The GW pro side of the debate on the other hand is a clusterf... of "decided" science, "PC" science, the amazingly shoddy "science", the "try and bury any evidence that counter GW", the "blame the humans", the almost religious "humanity has sinned, repent", the inane argument that any solution that isn't complete and perfect and fixes it immediately is faulty and not to mention the MADNESS of carbon offset sales (the fact that people make money on the mess should make it pretty obvious that it's a big scam)!

                          And the worst thing is that the GW madness detracts from the really dangerous threat towards the environment: pollution!
                          Thank you!
                          They're wasting funds and money, investigating cow farts instead of investing it in pollution reductions.
                          "For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm not going to reply in detail as I had my pacemaker changed yesterday and I'm suffering from a banal op that went slightly wrong.

                            Suffice it to say, for the moment, that if we drastically reduced the fossil carbon emissions from coal, oil and natural gas, we would, at the same time, drastically reduce the pollution and the suffering and deaths caused by such pollution, estimated at millions of deaths world-wide.
                            Brian (the devil incarnate)

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X