Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: Read the books

re: Read the books
Michael Gmirkin — (archived)

Well, having looks up your article from 2001 online:

http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/mars/Carbon_Dioxide.html

It's interesting reading, but so far it's not helping your case...

"In liquid form, both can dissolve other compounds, but very different ones. Water is good at dissolving ionic compounds such as sea salt, while CO2 dissolves light organic molecules that water cannot shift. In theory, therefore, if we examine areas of Mars where liquids have flowed, we should be able to tell chemically whether the dissolved salts are the normal compounds we expect from saline water, or more exotic compounds indicating that liquid CO2 has been in action. So far, however, we don't have definitive evidence, but the Viking and Pathfinder surface chemistry data seem to fall somewhere in between pure water and pure CO2 models."

So, okay, we hypothesized that either liquid water or liquid CO2 on theirown were the "fluid forces" that sculpted the face of mars. But when we looked, neither on their own appeared to be the source. Rather we saw a mix of both, yeah?

Fine, we moved onto the next theory. What if it's some kind of carbonated mix:

"CO2 and water also interact with each other in interesting ways. CO2 gas dissolves in liquid water - we are familiar with carbonated drinks where this principle is used to give tongue-tingling tastes to the liquids. We don't just feel the bubbles popping on our tongues, but also taste the weak acid formed by dissolved CO2 - scientists call this Carbonic acid and over thousands and millions of years, lightly carbonated water can dissolve some rocks like limestone. Paradoxically, it also reacts with other types of rock to form limestone, so a complex carbonate cycle exists on Earth, and should also on a formerly wet Mars. The most important sign of this is that we expect to find thick deposits of limestone rock on the floors of former lakes and oceans on Mars. For some reason we have not yet found these deposits. They can't be simply buried, because impact craters dot the surface and act as boreholes to probe the subsurface. Perhaps some surface chemistry is altering the carbonates faster than they are being exposed by erosion, or perhaps they simply are not there to be found? The 2001 Mars Odyssey orbiter is carrying the latest in a series of Infra-Red radiometers, looking for the signature of carbonate rock. Perhaps this instrument will succeed where others have failed before, or perhaps this is becoming a futile search and we should try to explain why the carbonate is missing."

Okay, so you're saying what, that we thought we were dealing with carbonates since we weren't dealign with water or CO2 liquids alone. But there were certain features we were looking for to confirm our theories: IE, we expected to find carbonates reacting with rocks to form limestone deposits or other similar carbonate-formed materials. Notably: "For some reason we have not yet found these deposits. They can't be simply buried, because impact craters dot the surface and act as boreholes to probe the subsurface."

Let me repeat that. We hypothesized, then we checked the hypothesis and DIDN'T find the supporting evidence to confirm the hypothesis. So now we have some muddled mess where "Perhaps some surface chemistry is altering the carbonates faster than they are being exposed by erosion, or perhaps they simply are not there to be found?" I favor the latter. IE, the evidence is just not there to be found, because the basic assumptions are wrong.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (86 posts)