El Fritz,

That's a nice picture but it's rather rare for a crater that small (90m) to have a flow like that. I agree that the fluid that induced the flow as the crater was formed is probably water but that doesn't preclude the co-existence of a substantial subsurface reservoir of CO2. Infact, it doesn't mean any water of any kind is in the area. If you look carefully at the Viking context image, even larger craters in the area don't have flow ejecta which one would expect from a large local region of "permafrost". It could've been an ice rich body that formed the crater.

You apparently harbor an overly simplistic view of the situation of volatiles on Mars. It's not a zero sum game or a binary choice of one or the other. I'll let Nick argue the technical details of his "pathetic little pet theory" if he hasn't already tried.

This pic was taken along the periphery of the Tharsis bulge, so the crater infilling could have been a volcanic process just as easily. In fact, if you look at the (I don't know what their called) flow ridges in the Viking context image, they're comming in with the local gradient of Tharsis.

"I'm really sorry to break it to you, but Nick's fundamental premises are fundamentally flawed, at almost every fundamental level. "

Hmmm, not quite right. Lets try this......

I'm really sorry to break it to you, but Thomas Lee Elifritz's fundamental understanding of Nick's fundamental premises are fundamentally flawed, at almost every fundamental level.

Ahhh, much better.

Nowhere do his models preclude the existence of water ice on Mars.

The thing I don't understand, if you apparently have no stake in this one way or the other, is why you're tossing out acrimonious postings like this.

Is this all you, with your extensive scientific background of reading this paper and solving that equation, can contribute to the discussion?

"Whoa, I like my weeners well done but this one is charcoal!"