Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: active geyser vs passive spot

re: active geyser vs passive spot
Michael Gmirkin — (archived)

And I think I already addressed the whole why they form in spring thing... These are pre-existing features on the SURFACE of the planet. As the CO2 sublimates, they're simply re-revealed each spring. The more CO2 ice sublimates, the more spiders we see. When CO2 gets re-deposited as dry ice, presto, hidden spiders. Change-o, in spring we see them again. I'm mostly addressing what caused them in the first place.

And of course they're cold, as Nasa's thermal imaging noted 'cause the ground under the CO2 ice is just as cold as the CO2 ice itself. That's just basic physics, yeah? Averaged temperatures and all that rot... IE, if you put ice over ground, the ground will end up being just as cold as the ice...

I'm just addressing the processes that initially formed the spiders and streaks. Though I wouldn't doubt if new streaks and spider formation is an ongoing process in much the same manner as in the past.

----------
On another note: addressing the prior post...

Don't get me wrong, I actually appreciate Nick's input, be it ever so brief and slightly brusque/dismissive. I agree also that there's a lot to consider, and it might take time to assimilate it. I'll grant you that. It's a bit of a leap from current "understanding." But I really do appreciate the quality of discussion. Each counterpoint is good, and I like counterpoints 'cause they make me critically examine things from a different perspective. It also helps me flesh out the theory in my head by considering other explanations or points of contention and how to address them within the model. So fr I think the model holds up pretty well. Though I'd point out again that catastrophic and non-catastrophic discharges act a bit differently and catastrophic discharges may not follow the same exact path as non-catastrophic wandering dicharges. So, there may be preferential association but sans a "bulls eye," which the model would actually NOT expect. sure a dust devil might once in a while incidentally cross the exact center of where the arc discharged, but I wouldn't say that it should have to happen each and every time. Else, the tornado and lightning photo couldn't have happened. ;o]

Under your interpretation of the model, the lightning should have occurred inside the tornado only (I consider Tornados, land spouts, dust devils and water spouts to all be manifestations of the same charge sheath vortex formation), or along its wall. However, that's not the case. The two discharges are part of the same system but took different paths to ground. Thus they're associated but NOT directly overlapping, as you can see. Food for thought.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/images05/050322dustdevils.jpg

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (86 posts)