Now, just as an aside... I'm wondering. Which pole is closes to the sun when MArs is at Perihelion and which is closest at aphelion? I'm going to laugh if the south pole is relatively aligned to the sun near perihelion. Anyone know why? Can you take a guess based on my priorstatements why I'd say that MIGHT be important, if true?

Holy, crap, I even called it!

http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/MartianSunTimes/docs/mars_stats.html

If we look under seasons, the Martian southern hemisphere's summer DOES occur when Mars is at Perihelion.

Do you know why this COULD BE significant? If the south pole is aligned to the sun at the point when Mars is closest to the sun in its eliptical orbit, what does that mean for the amount of radiation/charged particles it's receiving through its weak magnetosphere and atmosphere?

Consider this way: If we make speheres around the sun, and one is at an orbit of Mars' perihelion and one is at the orbit of Mars' aphelion, consider the implication... The amount of radiated energy that gets to a specific point or region in space is what, something akin to a cube root function? It's been a while, so I DO apologize for my not exactly recollecting. But basically, we're dividing in three dimensions, the total output of a star. And the further away an object is, the less energy it receives. Right? Can someone do the calculations for me that knows the math better?

My point being, that since Mars orbit is eccentric/eliptical, when mars is at perihelion its south pole is aligned closer to the sun, thus getting more energy imparted than the north pole due to axial tilt. But in addition to that, it's getting more energy because Mars itself is closer to the sun. Whereas, when Mars is at aphelion the north pole is closer to the sun, assuming the axis of rotation doesn't vary over the course of an orbit by much. As the article states:

(http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/MartianSunTimes/docs/mars_stats.html)

"The orbit of Mars is very elliptical compared to Earth's , and is 36 million miles closer to the sun at perihelion than at its farthest point from the sun, at aphelion."

and

"When Mars is at perihelion, there is greater solar radiation and a greater temperature difference between the lower and upper arts of the atmosphere. "

Could this be the reason that the south pole displays such characteristic Lichtenberg patterning. If the south pole is aligned to the sun, it will obviously be getting a much higher dose of solar radiation than the north pole. Moreso because it is 36 million miles closer to the sun than the north pole when the north pole is aligned to the sun. Do you see yet what I'm talking about? This is why the north pole likely has much less if any spidering. Because it is not exposed to as high a dose of solar radiation at any point in its eliptical. It gets less radiation/heat when it's at aphelion. And the north is in winter when the planet is at perihelion, so it won't ever get that high level of radiation from the sun. The south pole is hotter and more charged FOR A REASON. Am I the only one who gets it? Hopefully not any more.

Seriously though, on what order of magnitude is the difference in the amount of radiation the south pole gets when aligned at perihelion versus how much radiation the north pole gets at aphelion? Considering a difference of 36 million miles closer/further away from the sun? Or shoudl I say, what is the difference in the amount of radiation reaching an object 36 million miles further away from the sun than another given the orbits being at Mars' perihelion and aphelion?

Anyone have some numbers? Are they significant?

http://meridiani2.usc.edu/faq/mars.html#3

"Mars orbits the Sun in an elliptical orbit, sometimes getting closer to the Sun, sometimes getting farther. However, it does not come any closer to the Sun than 206,600,000 km (128,400,000 miles), nor does it go farther from the Sun than 249,200,000 km (154,900,000 miles)."

Okay, so we've got appx 128 million miles and 154 million miles as the approximate distances, with about 26 million miles difference between perihelion and aphelion.

To put that in perspective:

Aphelion is 120% the distance from the sun that perihelion is. Or, conversely, perihelion is only 83% of the distance to the sun that aphelion is. Is that a significant distance in solar/astronomical terms?

26 million miles is approximately 16% of the full distance to greatest aphelion. Or it's approximately 20% further than the nearest perihelion. Aphelion is fully 1/5 again the distance at perihelion. I THINK that's a significant distance in terms of how much radiation and charged particles the planet will receive at any particular orbital distance. Seriously though, anyone have exact numbers that knows what the difference of received radiation at points at those orbital distances would be? I'd love to know. (Of course one source says 36 million miles closer, one says only 26 million miles closer, I assume it's somewhere in the middle of all that, in which case the percentage differences might be even slightly higher than I've VERY ROUGHLY estimated).

Funny how things kind of fit into place once you know what to look at/for. Remember, I predicted that the south pole would be aligned at perihelion because if its thermal/proposed electrical behavior before I even looked it up... And it makes sense in the model as to why the southern hemisphere generally seems to be warmer in summer than norther hemisphere during its summer. It also makes sense as to why the south would be more preferentially charged than the north. It's literally getting a TON more radiation at perihelion than the north gets at aphelion. Now ain't that a simple model?