Is Mars Between Ice Ages?

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Is Mars Between Ice Ages?







"Mars is not a dead planet -it undergoes climate changes that are even more pronounced than on Earth." James Head, planetary geologist, Brown University
The prevailing thinking is that Mars is a planet whose active climate has been confined to the distant past. About 3.5 billion years ago, the Red Planet had extensive flowing water and then fell quiet - deadly quiet. It didn't seem the climate had changed much since. Now, recent studies by scientists at Brown University show that Mars' climate has been much more dynamic than previously believed.
After examining stunning high-resolution images taken last year by the Reconnaissance Orbiter, researchers have documented for the first time that ice packs at least 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) thick and perhaps 2.5 kilometers (1.6 miles) thick existed along Mars' mid-latitude belt as recently as 100 million years ago. In addition, the team believes other images tell them that glaciers flowed in localized areas in the last 10 to 100 million years - a blink of the eye in Mars's geological timeline.

This evidence of recent activity means the Martian climate may change again and could bolster speculation about whether the Red Planet can, or did, support life.

"We've gone from seeing as a dead planet for three-plus billion years to one that has been alive in recent times," said Jay Dickson, a research analyst in the Department of Geological Sciences at Brown and lead author. "[The finding] has changed our perspective from a planet that has been dry and dead to one that is icy and active."

In fact, Dickson and his co-authors, James Head, and David Marchant, a associate professor at Boston University, believe the images show that has gone through multiple Ice Ages - episodes in its recent past in which the planet's mid-latitudes were covered by glaciers that disappeared with changes in the Red Planet's obliquity, which changes the climate by altering the amount of sunlight falling on different areas.
NASA's Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions have provided evidence of a relatively recent ice age on Mars. In contrast to Earth's ice ages, a Martian ice age expands when the poles warm, and water vapor is transported toward lower latitudes. Martian ice ages wane when the poles cool and lock water into polar icecaps.

The catalysts of ice ages on appear to be much more extreme than the comparable drivers of climate change on Earth. Variations in the planet's orbit and tilt produce remarkable changes in the distribution of water ice from Polar Regions down to latitudes equivalent to Houston or Egypt. Researchers, using NASA spacecraft data and analogies to Earth's Antarctic Dry Valleys, reported their findings in the journal Nature.

"Of all the solar system planets, has the climate most like that of Earth. Both are sensitive to small changes in orbital parameters," said Head. "Now we're seeing that Mars, like Earth, is in a period between ice ages," he said. This evidence of recent activity means the Martian climate may change again and could bolster speculation about whether the Red Planet can, or did, support life.

Head and his team examined global patterns of landscape shapes and near-surface water ice Nasa's orbiters mapped. They concluded a covering of water ice mixed with dust mantled the surface of to latitudes as low as 30 degrees, and is degrading and retreating. By observing the small number of impact craters in those features and by backtracking the known patterns of changes in Mars' orbit and tilt, they estimated the most recent ice age occurred just 400 thousand to 2.1 million years ago.
Marchant, a glacial geologist who spent 17 field seasons in the Mars-like Antarctic Dry Valleys, said, "These extreme changes on Mars provide perspective for interpreting what we see on Earth. Landforms on that appear to be related to climate changes help us calibrate and understand similar landforms on Earth. Furthermore, the range of microenvironments in the Antarctic Dry Valleys helps us read the Mars record."

According to the researchers, during a Martian ice age, polar warming drives water vapor from polar ice into the atmosphere. The water comes back to ground at lower latitudes as deposits of frost or snow mixed generously with dust. This ice-rich mantle, a few meters thick, smooths the contours of the land. It locally develops a bumpy texture at human scales, resembling the surface of a basketball, and also seen in some Antarctic icy terrains. When ice at the top of the mantling layer sublimes back into the atmosphere, it leaves behind dust, which forms an insulating layer over remaining ice. On Earth, by contrast, ice ages are periods of polar cooling. The buildup of ice sheets draws water from liquid-water oceans, which lacks.
Dickson and the other researchers focused on an area called Protonilus Mensae-Coloe Fossae. The region is located in Mars's mid-latitude and is marked by splotches of mesas, massifs and steep-walled valleys that separate the lowlands in the north from the highlands in the south.
The team looked in particular at a box canyon set in a low-lying plain. Images show the canyon has moraines - deposits of rocks that mark the limits of a glacier's advance or the path of its retreat. The rock deposit lines appear to show a glacier that flowed up the box canyon, which "physically cannot happen," Dickson said.

Instead, the team deduced the ice in the surrounding plain grew higher than the canyon's walls and then flowed downward onto the top of the canyon, which had become the lowest point on the ice-laden terrain. The team calculated the ice pack must have been one kilometer thick by past measurements of height between the plain and the lip of the canyon. Based on the ice flow patterns, the ice pack could have reached 2.5 kilometers at peak thickness during a period known as the late Amazonian, the authors said.

The finding could have implications for the life-on-argument by strengthening the case for liquid water. Ice can melt two ways: by temperature or by pressure. As currently understood, the Martian climate is dominated by sublimation, the process by which solid substances are transformed directly to vapor. But ice packs can exert such strong pressure at the base to produce liquid water, which makes the thickness of past glaciers on its surface so intriguing.

Dickson also looked at a lobe across the valley from the box canyon site. There, he saw a clear, semi-circular moraine that had spilled from an ancient tributary on to the surrounding plain. The lobe is superimposed on a past ice deposit and appears to be evidence of more recent glaciation. Although geologists can't date either event, the landscape appears to show at least two periods in which glaciation occurred, bolstering their theory that the Martian climate has undergone past Ice Ages.

Posted by Casey Kazan.
Source




Unbelievable! Mars is going through changes "in recreant times" because it is now a "living planet" but earth is suffering from too much carbon (the amount of which has been demonstrated as insufficient to cause our warming); NOT the same solar cycle the other planets are going through, OH NO!!! We are the centre of the universe again it would seem...

What ever happened to scientists being sceptical? Why don't they face their own theories with the same scepticism they face everyone else's and especially those who don't have a PhD (inventors of the Internet excluded)? Is science like Whitehead proposed "the new Christianity?" :-?

I don't even know what to say... I once respected science :-(

Be warned everyone!!!! The earth can't be "saved" unless you accept "being green" into your life. Failure will result in the whole planet roasting!!! (in vengeful fire?) :roll:
 
Last edited:

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I guess we can lump that dummy Steven Hawking in with the the other sky is falling fear mongers.:roll:

Absolutely! He is one of your greatest gurus. I mean $hit! If he believes we all should right?

The trouble is though that that is precisely the same way Christian "faith" is spread. According to some research as much as 50% of clerics are atheists! I'll be 50% of scientists would say anything to avoid loosing funding or tenure.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Absolutely! He is one of your greatest gurus. I mean $hit! If he believes we all should right?

The trouble is though that that is precisely the same way Christian "faith" is spread. According to some research as much as 50% of clerics are atheists! I'll be 50% of scientists would say anything to avoid loosing funding or tenure.

Unless of course they beleive what you do.

Oh and science funded by the billion dollar carbon industry is all an the up and up right?

Hypocrite.:roll::lol:
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Unless of course they beleive what you do.

Oh and science funded by the billion dollar carbon industry is all an the up and up right?

Hypocrite.:roll::lol:

I don't believe. I know.

I know because the models have proved it. The margin of error is too great for carbon to be the reason for warming. It's just a fact.

Your green god has lied to you. ;-)
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
I don't believe. I know.

I know because the models have proved it. The margin of error is too great for carbon to be the reason for warming. It's just a fact.

Your green god has lied to you. ;-)


Sorry, but I'll believe people I have talked to rather than some internet nerd.

Btw, I'd like to see your evidence, perhaps I could run it by some real scientists.

By your eveidence I assume it's a study you have done on your own.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
I don't even know what to say... I once respected science :-(
Beats me how you get a conclusion like that from what you posted. All the sound and fury about global warming on earth is a political debate, not a scientific debate. News media rarely report scientific findings accurately, and it's in the nature of political debates to distort and misrepresent scientific findings in support of another agenda. Politicized science is usually bad science, and the global warming debate is highly politicized.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Beats me how you get a conclusion like that from what you posted. All the sound and fury about global warming on earth is a political debate, not a scientific debate. News media rarely report scientific findings accurately, and it's in the nature of political debates to distort and misrepresent scientific findings in support of another agenda. Politicized science is usually bad science, and the global warming debate is highly politicized.

I am just getting frustrated with the whole GW debate.

The court of public opinion is reacting hysterically and I'm going to have to pay a personal price. I am not interested in creating another economic bubble to soak up inflation. In my opinion part of a free market system is that there are inherent risks. People that benefit from the system should also loose sometimes.

I don't get to read what "real" scientists say. Everything I see comes through some filter and that right there is enough to justify my condemnation. If science is so willing to be a plaything for the ignorant then it has lost the credibility it once had - at least to me and millions like me.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
I am just getting frustrated with the whole GW debate.

The court of public opinion is reacting hysterically and I'm going to have to pay a personal price. I am not interested in creating another economic bubble to soak up inflation. In my opinion part of a free market system is that there are inherent risks. People that benefit from the system should also loose sometimes.

I don't get to read what "real" scientists say. Everything I see comes through some filter and that right there is enough to justify my condemnation. If science is so willing to be a plaything for the ignorant then it has lost the credibility it once had - at least to me and millions like me.

That opinion is soley based on not agreeing with what the consensous is and therfore is redundant.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
That opinion is soley based on not agreeing with what the consensous is and therfore is redundant.

So if during Hitlers reign I objected to Jews being herded up into camps, since my opinion would be against the consensus, my opinion would be redundant?

You better take that argument back into the shop Avro.

Your argument proves your basing your beliefs on faith and using ad populum for validation. That is a very scary way to live friend.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
I don't get to read what "real" scientists say.
You can, you just have to look in the right places, and I don't mean scientific journals. There are a lot of magazines on the newstands with good science reporting in them: Scientific American, Discover, New Scientist, Skeptic, Skeptical Inquirer, Astronomy, Sky and Telescope... My local Chapters bookstore has a rack 8 feet long of such stuff. It also has about 30 feet of shelving 6 feet high devoted to science. The Web, being largely unrefereed, unmanaged, and unedited, is probably the worst place to look for reliable information, unless you know of some reliable, credible sites, like Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy, Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column, Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch, Matthews and Doeser's Bad Archeology, the web sites for those magazines, stuff like that. Would you like to see the Reference folder in my bookmark list?
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Would you like to see the Reference folder in my bookmark list?

Very much. Thank you.

I do read the Skeptical Inquirer and the Skeptic but I have no way of really knowing what magazines are good and which are bad. I also read Science and American science.
 
Last edited:

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
So if during Hitlers reign I objected to Jews being herded up into camps, since my opinion would be against the consensus, my opinion would be redundant?

You better take that argument back into the shop Avro.

Your argument proves your basing your beliefs on faith and using ad populum for validation. That is a very scary way to live friend.


Yet you still haven't proved a thing other than you can beat your chest like an ape. Killing Jews was the consensous in Germany maybe, but not the world, at least you admit to a consensous, most of your ilk try to define what is a consensous.

Btw a few people in the world still believe that Jews should be exterminated but that dosen't mean they should be followed.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Actually I did already. Go back and read my original GW posts.

I'd like to start fresh, right here, I'd like to see your absolute proof, the proof that will herald in a new age of understanding of our planet all nestled between you ears like a little carbon nugget. Please....oh please enlighten us great wise one, unearth this knowledge that no other man possesses.:roll::lol::p
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I'd like to start fresh, right here, I'd like to see your absolute proof, the proof that will herald in a new age of understanding of our planet all nestled between you ears like a little carbon nugget. Please....oh please enlighten us great wise one, unearth this knowledge that no other man possesses.:roll::lol::p

OK... here it is... are you ready?

There are no experiments that demonstrate that carbon exclusively or is the greatest cause of GW. Models show a contribution but not a cause that is greater than other natural known causes of typical weather patterns. All there is is correlation. Thus the theory can not make a prediction - it can't even come close to making one! That means it isn't proved, it isn't even a theory, it is a hypothesis with strong correlated data to suggest it is true but that's it. I contend that other planetary bodies warming up are just as much proof of something else - what I don't know and don't really care. I am just trying to make a point about using crappy correlation instead of evidence backed by experiment and prediction.

I never said GW wasn't happening I just claim it's a natural cycle. The planet has been much warmer than this in the past and it wasn't because Jesus left his Hummer idling.

Alright, Avro can you handle that? Simple enough for you? I've only been saying it over and over again and over and over and over again :roll:

Did you get it this time?
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Of course Carbon isn't the sole cause, I never said it was.

Carbon emissions, methane, deforestation, nitrous oxide, city gridlock, water vapor in the atmosphere and permafrost.

Carbon of course being the primary cause, even if you look at the worlds population a hundred years ago to now as it increases so to does the concentration of C02 combine that with deforestation and we have higher temps as the Carbon traps the heat in our atmosphere in a little known phenomenon called the greenhouse effect.

Basic science really.

Btw you still proved nothing.
 
Last edited:

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
29,803
11,124
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Quoting "Scott Free" "I never said GW wasn't happening I just claim it's a natural cycle. The planet has been much warmer than this in the past and it wasn't because Jesus left his Hummer idling."

Now that's funny! Maybe we're contributing to accellerate a natural cycle? Maybe whatever
is going to happen, might happen a little bit sooner due to the human contrabution. Ha!!!
Jesus left his Hummer idling. That's rich.