Slashdot Mirror


Warming Up Mars With Greenhouse Gases

fembots writes "Scientists are thinking of using the same toxic stuff (Octafluoropropane) already blamed for global warming here to put some life back on Mars. It would take hundreds of years but eventually ice sheets would melt, grass would grow here, and temperatures would hit 50 degrees along the equator of the planet. Martian organisms might be revived too - if there are any."

521 comments

  1. Human ingenuity by bigwavejas · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wait a minute here... You're telling me some of the toxic gases environmentalists have been screaming bloody murder about can actually be useful? Bwaaaahahaha - Greenpeace and Sierra club, Eat Crow! This is a perfect example of thinking outside the proverbial "box." Less complaining and more human ingenuity, well done!

    --
    "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
    1. Re:Human ingenuity by initnull · · Score: 0

      Those gazes are still harmfull to earth.

    2. Re:Human ingenuity by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 1

      *looks at the ground* OH MY GOD!! I'M KILLING IT!! >.> YOu said the gazes were harmful...

    3. Re:Human ingenuity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but not if you're piping the gases to Mars!

    4. Re:Human ingenuity by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      I hate it when people give me the "Global Warming look". That gaze really is harmful to my feelings.

    5. Re:Human ingenuity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait a minute here... You're telling me some of the water the life guards have been nagging me about not getting in my lungs can actually be used for swimming? Bwaaaahahaha - CPR-wimps, Eat Crow!

    6. Re:Human ingenuity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While we're on the topic of Greenpeace and the Sierra, they're two examples of a good thing gone wrong. Between Greenpeace protesting Oil tankers and in doing so potentially causing the disasters by positioning their boats in front of tankers, forcing them to take drastic measures to avoid a collision... AND the Sierra club prohibitting old growth clearing, which led to the destruction of thousands of Yellowstone forest.. both of them have lost site of their mission.

    7. Re:Human ingenuity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Those gazes are still harmfull to earth.

      No, they are an essential part of our venusiforming project.

    8. Re:Human ingenuity by hungrygrue · · Score: 0

      Useful in causing drastic planitary warming, yes. Given that a rise in temperature of the same amount here on earth would make the planet uninhabitable, though, I think that a bit of complaining, and action, is very much in order and very much appropriate.

    9. Re:Human ingenuity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That would be a long pipe, shit-for-brains.

    10. Re:Human ingenuity by EternityInterface · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Lost in space, and what is is worth?
      The president just forgot about earth"

      (Your post in another way)

      Slashdot: Surving by killing stuff

      "Lol! You're telling me you have to destroy life to survive? Greenpeace aha - your the absurd animal killings for vanity - furs and makeup just lost all credibility!" *goes back to eating his varied omnivorous bacon sandwich*

      --
      the sun is god
    11. Re:Human ingenuity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "potentially causing the disasters by positioning their boats in front of tankers"

      That's your personal fantasy. (attention ==> "Potentially")

      "the Sierra club prohibitting old growth clearing, which led to the destruction of thousands of Yellowstone forest."

      The horrendous fires were caused by years of DROUGHT.
      "Old Growth Clearing" would not have helped AT ALL.
      AND, in addition, "Old Growth Clearing" is pure corporate double-speak BuIIshit. It was anotehr name for "Let's get around the environmental laws and log the fvckin shlt out of the public lands.

    12. Re:Human ingenuity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Just a brief correction:

      Octafluoropropane is not 'toxic', in the strict sense of the word. The word toxic generally refers to something that causes injury to living organisms "as a result of physicochemical interaction", which Octafluoropropane doesn't. It's possible to suffocate while breathing Octafluoropropane, as it is with any gas mixture that doesn't contain enough Oxygen, but it isn't toxic.

      http://www.airliquide.com/en/business/products/gas es/gasdata/index.asp?GasID=47

    13. Re:Human ingenuity by khrtt · · Score: 1

      "Old Growth Clearing" would not have helped AT ALL.

      I thought they start small forrest fires sometimes to get rid of the "old growth" and prevent large uncontrollable fires. I thought it was a common and valid technique. Logging usually implies cutting live trees, not dry rotten wood.

    14. Re:Human ingenuity by bigwavejas · · Score: 1

      Sorry to inform you, the fact that they weren't allowed to clear some of the old growth trees, made the fire burn much hotter than it would have burned otherwise. The cost was it utterly KILLED trees, they typically are able to regrow after a fire, but not this time.

      --
      "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
    15. Re:Human ingenuity by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      Fires are part of the natural life cycle of a forest. Some species of plant and insect are actually dependant on fires, otherwise they won't/can't breed.

      And yes, trees usually do die when they burn. For the most part the new forest grows from seeds which originate from surviving trees in nearby areas. Of course, some tree species are able to regenerate after a fire.

    16. Re:Human ingenuity by ccarson · · Score: 1

      Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineerand during my studies in sub-atomic physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be effected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? I've been bouncing this idea in my head for a while now and I can't see why this MAY not be true.

    17. Re:Human ingenuity by bigwavejas · · Score: 1

      Is it natural for a cigarette to be thrown from a passing cars window? I don't think mother earth had expected that. Here's an interesting article about how Sierra club has lost sight of reality http://www.pushback.com/Wattenburg/articles/NowThe yHaveBurnedLosAlamos.html

      --
      "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
  2. Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Send CmdrTaco to Mars after he eats a burrito.

  3. SimEarth by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 5, Funny

    I remember the game SimEarth had you do something like this in order to make it livable. Of course, I nuked everything that moved, but that was a different story. Why are we trying to terraform mars?

    1. Re:SimEarth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that there's more land to live on, plain and simple.

    2. Re:SimEarth by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And so that we have a base of operations when the time comes to terraform Earth.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    3. Re:SimEarth by innerweb · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Providing an atmosphere is nice, but will not make Mars *liveable*. The bigger concern is the lack of a radiation shield like Earth. Even if the people live in safe housing, plants and crops would be hard to cover in large enough quantities to be useable. The magnetic field surrounding the Earth and the ozone layer do protect us (mostly) from the harmful radiations of space (our Sun and others).

      How are we going to protect Mars form that? Until we figure out a way to do that, the rest is rather useless (on Mars). How are we going to increase the gravity of Mars to prevent the Atmosphere from leaking off very fast? True, it will take a long time in our standards, but how much can be leaked off before it is not useable again?

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    4. Re:SimEarth by Neoprofin · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why not?

      Maybe because you don't feel justified spending the resources, or expanding the plague that is humanity to other planets, and that's perfectly justified.

      I, for one, think it's a neat idea, and I don't see anybody else using all that space, If there is I guess we'd find out pretty soon.

    5. Re:SimEarth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like cake!

    6. Re:SimEarth by xtermin8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Earth didn't have an ozone layer until plant life started to produce mass amounts of oxygen. There might be some way of speeding up that process. I see the big problem as being- not enough water. Underwater life doesn't need an ozone layer to thrive. Humans would still have to carry around breathable oxygen, but that would be a minor inconvenience.

    7. Re:SimEarth by tratten · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why are we trying to terraform mars?
      I for one would like the extra 39 minutes and 35.244 seconds each day. (If the time is added to my spare time, that is...)

    8. Re:SimEarth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go underground.

    9. Re:SimEarth by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >> when the time comes to terraform Earth

      Some would suggest that we're already doing that, just not very efficiently or accurately.

    10. Re:SimEarth by EpsCylonB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ther earth has too musch water, 2 thirds of the earths surface is covered by it, and if global warming continues that will increase. If we could find an energy efficient way of moving water out of the earths gravity well (space elvator perhaps ?) then we could drench the martian surface.

      Every problem has a solution.

    11. Re:SimEarth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      How are we going to protect Mars form that?... How are we going to increase the gravity of Mars to prevent the Atmosphere from leaking off very fast?

      Seems easy enough... slam phobos into it to add mass & get it's core melted and spinning. Then you just have to wait for the surface to cool again.

    12. Re:SimEarth by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      If we could find an energy efficient way of moving water out of the earths gravity well (space elvator perhaps ?) then we could drench the martian surface.

      Go to Mars and burn some hydrogen ?

    13. Re:SimEarth by Dipster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Gravity has little to do with how thick an atmosphere is. Look at Venus: gravity is at 98% of Earths yet has an atmosphere 90 times denser. All this at an even closer distance to the sun where the solar wind is magnitudes stronger. Magnetic fields, seismic activity, and the presence of water have far more influence than just the strength of gravity.

    14. Re:SimEarth by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of water on Mars, frozen underground and in the icecaps, meanwhile trying to move water to Mars would be slow (you can't pipe it, unless you can find a way to build a pipe through the sun, so you would have to use ships). There's also plenty of CO2 (which last time I checked is another essential ingredient of oour atmosphere) in the icecaps as well. What we need is to warm the planet up enough to melt those ice caps, the less stuff we have to move to mars the better, then we need a good understanding of what organisms were involved when this planet was being transformed from "ball of magma" to livable. Many of those organisms still live somewhere on earth they tend to the ones that live in extreme environments like the the bottom of the ocean or the change from freshwater to saltwater in certain bodies of water.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    15. Re:SimEarth by einhverfr · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem I think is the thin atmosphere. Once you can get plants growing, you still have to contend with the fact that there isn't a whole lot of air there.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    16. Re:SimEarth by nizo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Naw, just alter the trajectory of an icy comet and bingo, instant big pond. You would probably want to do this before setting up a mars base, unless someone else beat you to a prime spot already.

    17. Re:SimEarth by berzerke · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...How are we going to increase the gravity of Mars to prevent the Atmosphere from leaking off very fast?...

      Actually, Mars has enough gravity to support a nice atmosphere. Gravity isn't the problem. Solar storms are. Mars lacks a magnetic shield (currently) like Earth has. It's that magnetic shield that stops solar storms from ripping off part of the atmosphere. See also the fourth non-bold paragraph.

    18. Re:SimEarth by ill+dillettante · · Score: 1

      I am wondering if a smallish magnetic field placed between the sun and mars could be used to deflect any radiation resulting from solar storms? I would imagine that it would be easier than trying to create a new magnetic field on mars.

    19. Re:SimEarth by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      easy, smack a comet or two into it, voila! lots of water!

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    20. Re:SimEarth by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      an atmosphere would stop most of the radiation, the worst thing with no magnetic field is that we'd not be able to keep that atmosphere without somehow refilling (don't ask me how)it every now and again since the solar wind will slowly but surely rip away the atmosphere.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    21. Re:SimEarth by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

      There's some interesting research described on the web on protecting space-craft with magnetic fields. It sounds like it may be barely doable to protect a small crew willing to live in a cramped space. A field much larger sounds currently impractical. Three other problems: 1) A magnetic field doesn't block solar wind, it just defects it around the field, after which the stuff gets right back on course, so there wouldn't be a shadow protecting Mars. 2) Solar protons come from all directions, as does galactic background radiation. 3) Even if you could create a shadow from the sun's radiation, the size of the protecting shade gets bigger as you get closer to the sun, not smaller. So, the idea is fun, but I think it's currently impractical. Of course, so is terra-forming Mars... perhaps we just need to think bigger :-)

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    22. Re:SimEarth by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1

      OK, you got me wondering: How many comets of what size would it take to put enough water on the surface of Mars to make it similar enough to Earth?

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    23. Re:SimEarth by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 0

      Do you know anything about plants? They produce this gas called oxygen.

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
    24. Re:SimEarth by ill+dillettante · · Score: 1
      Thanks for shooting down my idea :)

      As you seem to know more about this than me can I ask a couple of questions

      1. I can understand that the solar wind will just wrap around a single magnet field (like a planet), but what about a more complex lens-like arrangements using multiple fields?

      2. Are the solar protons coming from the non-sun direction high or low energy? If they are only low energy they might not be too much of a problem.

      3. Wouldn't a magnetic field closer to the sun need to be weaker (and hence would be bigger) to effectively "shade" mars?

    25. Re:SimEarth by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > How are we going to increase the gravity of Mars to prevent the Atmosphere from leaking off very fast?

      That part's doable. To increase the gravity, we only need to increase the mass. Conveniently, there's a (reasonably) nearby asteroid belt full of chunks of matter that are small enough we can move them, but they add up to more than enough mass to increase that of Mars to the desired level.

      There are other problems that we have to solve, though, before we can usefully terraform Mars. The radiation-shield issue you point out is one of them. Where to get enough atmospheric nitrogen (without siphoning off too much of Earth's atmosphere, which we still need) is another.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    26. Re:SimEarth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just one... aprox. the same mass as the earth ocean combined

    27. Re:SimEarth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conveniently, there's a (reasonably) nearby asteroid belt full of chunks of matter that are small enough we can move them, but they add up to more than enough mass to increase that of Mars to the desired level.

      By my calculations, the total mass of the asteroid belt is about 2% the mass of Mars. Not very significant.
    28. Re:SimEarth by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Shush! Supporting colonization for any reason is wrong, even if it's in direct response to someone asking.

    29. Re:SimEarth by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

      Sorry about being so negative... I don't know much more about radiation in space, so it's hard to make good guesses. However,
      1. I think I was wrong about dipoles not creating a shadow. For at least one charge polarity, I'd expect particles to simply be deflected away.
      2. I did read that solar protons are omni-directional, however, I've had difficulty finding good info on this on the web. One site I visited stated that after a solar flare, about 70% of protons come more or less directly from the sun.
      3. To shade Mars, the area needing to be blocked becomes larger as you get closer to the Sun, because the Sun is much bigger than Mars.
      There's also a problem in that the shade would naturally want to orbit faster than Mars if it were closer to the Sun.
      An interesting issue would be the force on a huge loop of super-conducting wire. I think the tensile strength of the wire becomes a limiting factor even at tiny currents, but I'll need to look into this.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    30. Re:SimEarth by smithmc · · Score: 1

        And so that we have a base of operations when the time comes to terraform Earth.

      It also gives us a planet to practice on, besides our own.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    31. Re:SimEarth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure do, Anonymous Coward, you sure do....

    32. Re:SimEarth by smilindog2000 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I've had some time to think about it... This is a fun idea, regardless of how practical...
      One idea I had was that the force pulling the wire loop apart could be offset with gravitational pull, if you ran a wire in space in orbit around Mars. One kicker is the current required. According to this web site:
      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magneti c/curloo.html#c2
      A loop with the same radius as Mars that could generate close to the .5 gauss magnetic field we have here on Earth would need almost 300,000,000 amps of current. Putting Mars in the middle would reduce this, since there's clearly a lot of iron in Mars, but at even 1/10th of this, we'd still need 30 million amps. The best I've read about on the web for a single superconducting wire has been 20,000 amps/cm^2, so we'd need about at least 150 strands of 1-cm cross-sectional area super-conducting wire, stretching for over 10 thousand kilometers. It'd be a bit like those huge cables holding up the Golden Gate Bridge, but made of super-conductors instead of steel, and it'd have to be MUCH longer... Sounds fun!
      Of course, if ANY portion of the wire EVER rose to above around 100 degrees Kelvin, the whole thing would instantly vaporise, if not worse.
      I guess that doesn't mean that a magnetic deflector shield closer to the Sun couldn't do the job with a lot less material, using lots of smaller loops rather than one large one, but you still have the problem of the omnidirectional radiation.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
    33. Re:SimEarth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We just need to melt the core and make sure there's enough nickel/iron to start up the magnet. Maybe a good use for all our nuclear waste, throw it in a Martian sinkhole.

    34. Re:SimEarth by ill+dillettante · · Score: 1
      This is almost becoming a good idea :-)

      I guess as long as you shaded the wire then it should never get over 100K. Maybe we could mine one of mars moons to get the required metal. Couldn't we also use lots of smaller wires carrying less amps instead of one massive cable?

      I am also wondering if we could create a huge fresnel len out of the cables and put it between the sun and mars to de-focus the solar wind instead of just trying to build a magnetic field around mars?

    35. Re:SimEarth by lgw · · Score: 1

      The difference with Venus is: Venus doesn't (meaningfully) spin on it's axis. Without alternating between day and night, the oceans just boil off.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    36. Re:SimEarth by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      a lot, and slamming them down migt actually not be recommended, better to try to split them up so the samll pieces evaporate on the way down in the atmosphere. Mind you mars do have a fair amount of water already. question is how much we need to add or if we need to add any at all.

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    37. Re:SimEarth by paulpas · · Score: 1

      Use foam from the space shuttle to shield it.

      --
      -PMP-
    38. Re:SimEarth by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Do you know anything about plants? They produce this gas called oxygen.

      And this affects atmospheric pressure how? Especially given the fact that they use up this thing called Carbon Dioxide.

      In fact, I suspect that you have a net decrease of gasses due to plant life. I doubt that this is substantial enough to matter, but it will certainly not turn Mars into a second Earth....

      Pressurized domes and O2 masks will probably still be required AFAICS....

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  4. go humans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    1 planet down, 9x10^10000 to go!

  5. Sustainable? by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you warm up Mars, how long before all the atmosphere cooks off because the gravity is lower? To me it seems like trying to blow up a balloon that already has a small hole in it.

    1. Re:Sustainable? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Yup. What it needs is for someone to slam a few of the larger asteroids from the nearby asteroid belt into it to add some mass (and some instant heat). Also a few large comets swinging in from the Koopers belt would also be nice. Those tend to have a lot of water in them and Mars could use a bit more water in it's mass.

    2. Re:Sustainable? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If you warm up Mars, how long before all the atmosphere cooks off because the gravity is lower? To me it seems like trying to blow up a balloon that already has a small hole in it.

      I wonder if they could not replenish water and other gases by smashing asteroids into Mars. Using the incremental repeated momentum-exchange encounter approach (I forgot the real name for the technique, anyone?) we now have the ability move giant asteriods without big rockets. However, it takes hundreds if not thousands of years.

      However, the kind of large-scale leakage you are talking about takes thousands if not millions of years anyhow.

    3. Re:Sustainable? by snilloc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly. If you melt the ice you won't have lakes, you'll have water vapor slipping into space. At least ice can be harvested by any future human colonists.

    4. Re:Sustainable? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I've read, the atmosphere should be much thicker then it is now given martian gravity. However, because of a very weak magnetic field, solar wind has slowly erroded away at the atmosphere and blow it out to space. If true, Mars may remain dead forever unless we can reactivate the almost-solidified core.

      Note: Please no mention of the movie CORE. It sucked ass.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Sustainable? by CrazyDuke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, if I remember correctly, Mars has it's problems not because of it's size or mass, but because it has a weak magnetic field. Because of that, every solar storm that smacks into the planet shears off some of it's atmosphere. Linky.

      Saturn's moon Titan has a radius of about 2570km and a mass of about 1.35e23kg and has a thick atmosphere. Linky

      Mars's radius is about 3397km and has a mass of about 6.42e23kg and has a thin atmosphere.Linky

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    6. Re:Sustainable? by mp3phish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good point.

      But it is not just the low(er) gravity on mars that lets its atmosphere deplete faster. It is a lack of volcanos. Without a continuous replenishment of gasses from within the core into the atmosphere, no planet can sustain an atmosphere. No matter how much gravity is holding it down. There will always be a stastically significant number of particle to reach escape velocity in the correct direction in the upper atmosphere.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    7. Re:Sustainable? by saleenS281 · · Score: 3, Funny

      harvested for what? I hope you didn't mean for drinking. You have no idea what kind of organisms exist in martian "water" or if there's any way to kill said organisms. Sounds like a good way to win yourself a darwin award to me.

    8. Re:Sustainable? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      You would have to drop an awful huge number of those asteroids onto Mars to appreciably change its mass. You might get more luck by somehow slowing the orbits of Mar's moons so that they merge with the main body of Mars, but I suspect that it would take quite a while for the resultant mess to cool down to the point to be useful for terraforming.

    9. Re:Sustainable? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Saturn's moon Titan has a radius of about 2570km and a mass of about 1.35e23kg and has a thick atmosphere.

      It is believed that Titan is internally heated by tidal forces with Saturn, squeazing out gasses from inside in the process. Mars aint so lucky. Then again, maybe Titan was once significantly larger, but lost mass due to atmosphere bleed. Thus, there may be a tradeoff.

    10. Re:Sustainable? by tomjen · · Score: 1

      Well, you dont know if they are dangerous or not do you?

      That being said, if they are alive now, they are properly geared towards cold temperatures, and therefor cannot live in you stomach.

      --
      Freedom or George Bush
    11. Re:Sustainable? by laymil · · Score: 1

      Kuiper Belt.

      Not Koopers belt.

    12. Re:Sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Sounds like 50:50 between killing you and giving you awesome mutant powers.

    13. Re:Sustainable? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry. I caught it just after I hit submit. I wish slashdot had an edit feature.

    14. Re:Sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, REI sells filters.

      I have an R-O system in my home.

      What have you been drinking?

    15. Re:Sustainable? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > If you warm up Mars, how long before all the
      > atmosphere cooks off because the gravity is
      > lower?

      Probably only a few hundred million years. Hardly makes it worth doing, does it?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    16. Re:Sustainable? by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      I wish slashdot had an edit feature.

      It does. Ever notice the English Nazis running here trying to appear intelligent? Not a very good editing system, but editing nevertheless.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    17. Re:Sustainable? by doormat · · Score: 1

      . If true, Mars may remain dead forever unless we can reactivate the almost-solidified core.

      Sounds like a plot for a bad B-movie.

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    18. Re:Sustainable? by Verteiron · · Score: 2

      Mars's moons are tiny. There are asteroids bigger than Phobos and Deimos combined.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    19. Re:Sustainable? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      No good. You need a tide system to slosh the seas around to keep the waters from becoming stagnant.

    20. Re:Sustainable? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Interesting

      if Mars is tectonically dead, then this would be an advantage for building bases INSIDE the planet.

      Put large fields of solar panels and wind turbines on the surface for power, and bring everything you need for indoor hydroponics.

      It would be feasible (although not cheap) and faster than terraforming.

      I bet that if you look around Mount Olympus, you could find large cave systems that can be used as a starting point.

    21. Re:Sustainable? by Aeiri · · Score: 1

      I wish slashdot had an edit feature.

      I also wish Slashdot had editors. Get those two things and we will have a better site ;)

    22. Re:Sustainable? by systemic+chaos · · Score: 1

      There was a documentary a few years back about this very problem with dead native creatures.

      I think it was called Something Something The Spirits Within.

    23. Re:Sustainable? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      About 10 million years, according to this comment.

    24. Re:Sustainable? by NicklessXed · · Score: 1

      Oxygen may be a problem in this scenario, though.

    25. Re:Sustainable? by Explo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Phobos and Deimos are so small that they would hardly be causing any significant tides.

      Phobos is the larger and closer of the moons of Mars, but unless I miscalculated, it has about 6 million times less mass than our Luna. While it orbit has significantly smaller diameter (average of about 9000 kilometers vs. 384000 kilometers), it still has far less gravitational pull (probably hundreds of times less, but I'm too lazy to calculate it as it's time to sleep in order to be functional tomorrow at work :)

      --
      Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
    26. Re:Sustainable? by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      ...should be much thicker then it is now given martian gravity.

      Even the best spell checker would not find this type of error. Remind me to check if "DigiShaman" is listed as the author or editor of any important technical manuals. Like emergency safety instructions for a Mars-bound vessel, for example.

    27. Re:Sustainable? by tantrum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Oxygen may be a problem in this scenario, though.

      use solarcells, break down ice into hydrogen and oxygen..

      Boom, and you'll have both stored energy and air to inhale.

      a lot easier and cheaper than trying to put trees on the damn planet

    28. Re:Sustainable? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      A couple of thousand comets from the Oort Cloud would probably do the trick, providing both atmosphere and water. However, the small size of Mars and the fact that it's core has cooled down means that any terraforming effort is by definition a temporary thing. Although "temporary" here means something on the order of millions of years, so from our perspective "temporary" might as well be "forever".

      The real question is why bother? Terraforming Mars might be a cool thing to do, but it'd be far less costly to settle Mars without terraforming it.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    29. Re:Sustainable? by Mateorabi · · Score: 1
      > Boom, and you'll have both stored energy and air to inhale.

      Actualy that should read:
      "...and you'll have stored energy or air to inhale." For each H2, O2 pair that you create you can either recombine for electrical energy, or let your body use the O2. Unless you have a way to fuse the H2 that's left over into He. Though if at any point anything really does go "Boom" you've got other problems. :-)

      --
      "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

    30. Re:Sustainable? by ahodgson · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn, I wish someone had invented a technique for sterilizing drinking water.

    31. Re:Sustainable? by kcarlin · · Score: 0

      Not much tidal potential in Phobos & Deimos. Fortunately the solar tides will help some.

      --
      Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
    32. Re:Sustainable? by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Thanks! I have now completed my collection.

      I also express my gratitude for learning me a new word.

    33. Re:Sustainable? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Your stored energy only goes so far though. If someone releases all the hydrogen and lights a match it will recombine with all the oxygen, leaving none left to breath. Unless you were talking about fusing it into helium... what ratio of helium to other gases is required to maintain a squeaky voice without actually killing you by displacing the oxygen?

      Better I think to use plants to extract the carbon out of the C02 in the atmosphere but leave the oxygen.

      Too much oxygen isn't really good for you either, is there nitrogen around to buffer it?

    34. Re:Sustainable? by Cili · · Score: 1

      your numbers suggest that the gravitational attraction from Phobos on the Martian surface is roughly 1000 times smaller than the moon.
      Nevertheless, there are seas on Earth that harbor life without significant tides. Ex: The Caspian Sea, The Black Sea, etc.

    35. Re:Sustainable? by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      Further evolution on Mars is much easier if we can provide a similar environment to ours and populate it. There's not much chance of any Earth organism larger than a microbe surviving native Mars conditions; after a serious terraforming effort, most Earth organisms will be able to settle on Mars with varying effectiveness. (I wonder how cheetahs would adapt to the lower gravity...)

      That's the primary reason, imhoe.

    36. Re:Sustainable? by MPHellwig · · Score: 1
    37. Re:Sustainable? by slyborg · · Score: 1

      Average insolation at Mars orbit is much higher than at Titan, so the atmosphere of Mars has a much higher kinetic energy and thus even its larger mass is not enough to have it retain a Titan-density atmosphere.

      Whether or not it has a magnetosphere, its atmosphere will leak away to space due to thermal boil-off. Solar wind accelerates the process by imparting additional kinetic energy to kick loose atoms already near escape at the top of the atmosphere.

    38. Re:Sustainable? by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      Two words: Nuclear Weapons.

    39. Re:Sustainable? by shokk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A lot of this was all covered in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. It seems like there was lots of good science in those books.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    40. Re:Sustainable? by n54 · · Score: 1

      But why waste resources in this way? As many others have pointed out the synthetic atmosphere will bleed away. Yes it will happen over a very long timescale and can be offset by continuing to create the atmosphere but this will only ensure that even more resources are wasted unless one either finds a feasible way to strenghten the magnetosphere or something more esoteric. Why waste all that effort on a gravity well instead of using all those resources on (possibly quite large) space habitats which are not at the deep end of a gravity well? (The last argument holds true even if the atmosphere bleeding is stopped).

      Btw you could still get your flying cheetahs if you so want to in a habitat :)

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    41. Re:Sustainable? by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1

      Most asteroids are also tiny. In fact, Phobos and Deimos are believed to be captured asteroids by some astronomers. I've seen estimates that suggest that all the asteroids put together wouldn't produce a body as large as Mercury.

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
    42. Re:Sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like a good idea for a movie.

      Two weeks.

    43. Re:Sustainable? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      You need a tide system to slosh the seas around to keep the waters from becoming stagnant.

      I'm not an oceanologist, but I think currents are driven by temperature differences, not tides, except in a few narrow bays. But lack of tides would make considerable differences to coastal areas.

    44. Re:Sustainable? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Better I think to use plants to extract the carbon out of the C02 in the atmosphere but leave the oxygen.

      The Martian atmosphere is about 1/1000th of earth pressure at sea level; that does add up to a lot, but not nearly enough in itself.

    45. Re:Sustainable? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      The real question is why bother? Terraforming Mars might be a cool thing to do, but it'd be far less costly to settle Mars without terraforming it.

      If it happens at all, we'll have had settlements on Mars long before terraforming has had much effect. Diverting megatonnes of comets could be a very cheap method of pumping up the atmosphere, though it would take decades from landing a robot engine to splashdown. I think there's plenty of comets to supply all our space colony needs for a few million years, by which time we can start on the gas giants and make our Ringworld.

    46. Re:Sustainable? by patio11 · · Score: 1
      Meanwhile, the Martians are thinking: "Damn, I wish someone had invented a technique for turning water into something other than an instantly lethal poison."

      Oh, Signs, you so had me going until that last bit...

    47. Re:Sustainable? by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      > > Boom, and you'll have both stored energy and air to inhale.

      >Actualy that should read:
      >"...and you'll have stored energy or air to inhale." For each H2, O2 pair that you create you can either recombine for electrical energy, or let your body use the O2. Unless you have a way to fuse the H2 that's left over into He. Though if at any point anything really does go "Boom" you've got other problems. :-)


      I was going to mod you down, but I couldn't find "-1 Pedantic" or "-1 Insufferable Know-It-All" in the drop-down.

      Honestly, did you really think he was talking about breaking down only two water molecules? There's more than that, you know - and if you use more, you can have both stored energy and air to inhale!

      The "Boom" thing was amusing, though. Keep it up, and eventually you can quit your day job.

      I shake my bottom at your lower Slashdot ID.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    48. Re:Sustainable? by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

      "But why waste resources in this way?"

      Hmm..that sentence indicate a certain biased view on the matter from the start, I'm afraid. I mean, I'm sure that there are many people who would feel building spacehabitats or anything space-related is already a 'waste'.

      Anyway, within the context that in general this is worth the effort, I would make the claim that humans are a planetary species, and thus will thrive best on a planetary surface, preferably with an earth-like ecology.

      I don't see how spacehabitats (though of course useful on itself) could actually be a replacement for it, especially when talking about large numbers of people who want to settle. I mean; why don't all people live on boats on this planet, for instance? There is 2/3 more sea then there is land, after all. Yet, people prefer to live on land, even islands, instead of making boats from resources of those islands, and then living on boats or floating cities. I see planets as the islands in space, and spacehabitats as the boats.

      Sure, boats have their use, but in the end, if you want to colonise and become settlers in space, you'll need to get terraforming.

      --
      --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    49. Re:Sustainable? by FridayBob · · Score: 1

      Perhaps even worse, Mars has a magnetic field that's something like less than 1/7th that of Earth. That doesn't sound like much of a shield against potentially harmful levels of solar and cosmic radiation; the first thing any astronauts would have to do if they ever get there is build (dig) a radiation shelter. A thicker atmosphere would help a little, but probably wouldn't be enough.

    50. Re:Sustainable? by fdiskne1 · · Score: 1

      Quoteth Captain Kirk, "When Stage Two was to be completed, it was to be underground. It was to be underground."
      -- Kirk on the Genesis Project - Star Trek II, The Wrath of Kahn

      --
      But why is the rum gone?
    51. Re:Sustainable? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > If you warm up Mars, how long before all the atmosphere cooks off because
      > the gravity is lower

      That's something we can fix. There's an asteroid belt located conveniently nearby, filled with chunks of matter small enough we can move them. Drop a bunch of those onto Mars until its gravity reaches the desired level. We have the technology (albeit perhaps not the financing) to do that now.

      There are other problems, though. For instance, it would be significantly beneficial to have Mars in a "trojan" orbit near one of the Earth/Sun Lagrange points, but we do not possess the technology to put it there. It would be awefully nice if Mars had a lot of atmospheric nitrogen, like Earth does, but how could we arrange that? Radiation belts and magnetic fields similar to those of Earth would be really nice, but we don't know how to arrange such things. Oh, and then there's the thing about water -- there's a lot of speculation, but we still don't really know that Mars has any significant amount of it, and it certainly doesn't have, in liquid form or otherwise, anywhere near the quantity we've grown used to on Earth.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    52. Re:Sustainable? by shicklin · · Score: 1

      One word: Radiation

    53. Re:Sustainable? by n54 · · Score: 1

      Unless something is done to either dramatically decrease the amount of bleeding from a would-be martian atmosphere or alternatively somehow manage to efficiently recycle the escaped atmosphere so that most of it just doesn't go riding on the solar wind out of the solar system, well, unless something like that is proposed and done it is hard to call it anything but waste. I don't mean waste in the sense that someone disagrees with it being worth doing in the first place, I mean waste as in throwing useful stuff away, and volatiles at that - the very stuff most in demand in any future space colonisation, planetary or not.

      As for bias I guess one could call it that although it doesn't really say much about anything other than that you don't agree. I do have a preference for space habitats over terraforming, at least when it comes to the idea of terraforming mars, mainly because I see little logic in escaping a gravity well as a species just to plummet down into the next gravity well you come across.

      However if one actually found a way to create a strong martian magnetosphere or similar I wouldn't have any objection to the idea although I would personally still prefer to stay out of the deep gravity wells if I got the choice :)

      I wouldn't mind living on a self-sustained floating city/manmade island big enough to have it's own ecosystem and weathersystem, a space island which could position itself for as much free and clean energy as it wants until the sun dies out or there becomes so many of them as to form a rudimentary Dyson sphere.

      I see no point in going into space solely to continue being a "planetary species".

      A possible starting point included for your conveniance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_habitat

      Aim for the high ground :)

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    54. Re:Sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Most asteroids are also tiny. In fact, Phobos and Deimos are believed to be captured asteroids by some astronomers.

      Astronomers are capturing asteroids now?? Golly, what will they think of next!

    55. Re:Sustainable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Honestly, did you really think he was talking about breaking down only two water molecules?
      > There's more than that, you know - and if you use more, you can have both stored energy and air to inhale!

      Way to miss the point...

      Tell me, Mr. Brainiac, if you inhale the O2, what are you going to burn the H2 with??

    56. Re:Sustainable? by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

      "Unless something is done to either dramatically decrease the amount of bleeding from a would-be martian atmosphere or alternatively somehow manage to efficiently recycle the escaped atmosphere so that most of it just doesn't go riding on the solar wind out of the solar system, well, unless something like that is proposed and done it is hard to call it anything but waste."

      Well, as yet, there is no certainty of the cause of the current thin atmosphere of Mars. There are in fact more then one hypothesis as why it is as it is today. Low gravity not capable of holding the atmosphere, solar winds which blow away the atmosphere but also big meteor impacts which, in combination with the low gravity dramatically reduced the atmosphere - or none of the above.

      It is therefor a bit early to say what is the actual cause (for instance, if further research would indicate that Mars had a much stronger field, yet continued to lose it's atmosphere, then this theory may lose its worth.

      Furthermore, even when we would be able to only resurect a considerable atmosphere for a short amount of time, that 'short' would still be millions of years, a timescale which, for humans, is long enough to be worthwhile.

      Another consideration is, that *small* meteorites and comets (or even just dust and ice-particles) falls from space onto the earth; This amounts to several tons a year, and at least partially compensates for loss of atmosphere. If we could establish a steady stream of small cometparticles on Mars, we might increase the longlevity of the atmosphere considerably. (Ok, with todays' technology this would be hard, but since we have millions of years before it becomes problematic...)

      I can see the charm of space habitats too, mind you, and I would certainly like to see a 'generation ship', that would be cool. But, if one is really talking about mass-settlement, I don't think this can be done by simply building space-habitats. Humans *ARE* gravity dwellers, after all, and we - at least in our current form - thrive best on the surface of suitable ecologised gravity wells. ;-)

      One can, ofcourse, make artificial gravity on space-habitats, but I seem to remember an article explaining the difficulty with this as the space-habitat grows larger; when the length is more then 16 km, the internal torque forces would tear it apart. If that conclusion was right, then it becomes clear it isn't a viable means for massive settlement in space. I mean, what, in a cilindre of 16 km, how many humans can live there - compared to the billions on a planetary surface (at least, potentially)?

      Anyway, as long as people thrive on planets, and they can get *out* of the gravity well when they chose too, I see no real problems. Besides, the two things don't really seem mutual exclusive anyway, so we could do both ;-).

      As for it being 'waste', ah well, you're correct that there is always a bias in regard to this. Even if Mars could only be suitable for hundredthousand years, before it's atmosphere becomes to thin again, I wouldn't call it a wasted effort. But I guess this is relative.

      --
      --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    57. Re:Sustainable? by kcarlin · · Score: 0

      So ironic to be provided such a convenient example. Imagine an editors feature implemented in the same fashion, with the same dull, humorless mod "call girls" putting words in your mouth. Clearly the next generation mod technology should factor in the moderations a user agrees/disagrees with to determine what will be graded up, in the current arrangement the over half of the best data is rated zero or below. Something closer to an Amazon personalization model. Friends and Foes is a start, though the feature has some obvious drawbacks (influence trading, retaliation). Moronic mod wars skewing the results. "R2! I can't hold them! Quick, flamebait Darth Maul!!!"

      --
      Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
  6. The Truth ABout This Subject... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have expected this quality from Zonk.

  7. Greenhouse gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mars atmosphere is already 95% greenhouse gas - CO2.

  8. 50 degrees? by sound+vision · · Score: 3, Funny

    50 degrees? Damn that's chilly!

    (Surely you mean celsius, try to be clear. Next time the number might not be so obvious. You could end up crashing a space probe or something.)

    1. Re:50 degrees? by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think if we went to 50C it would be a little too far. 50F is actually very livable with a little extra clothing. Hell, -50F would be a paradise compared to most places in space.

    2. Re:50 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

        Surely you mean celsius,



      No I am pretty sure it is Farenheit 'cause I don't think much plant life could survive at 50 centigrade.

    3. Re:50 degrees? by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      Between 50 Celsios, and 50 Fahrenheit, I think that I, and any other warm blooded organism on the planet, would prefer 50 degrees Fahrenheit.

    4. Re:50 degrees? by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      No I'm pretty sure they mean Fahrenheit. 50C would be too hot for most people, quite overdoing it when you are causing the heating yourself. 50F is 10C, chilly but perfectly livable with a jacket. I guess you're not from a northern climate?

    5. Re:50 degrees? by ultranova · · Score: 4, Informative

      50 degrees? Damn that's chilly!

      (Surely you mean celsius, try to be clear. Next time the number might not be so obvious. You could end up crashing a space probe or something.)

      No, that doesn't make sense either. Earth, which is half the distance from Sun and has thousands upon thousands of tons of water vapor in the atmosphere to cause a greenhouse effect can barely hit 50 degree Celsius at the equator (according to NASA the highest temperature ever recorded on Earth (discounting the craters of erupting volcanoes and such, obviously) is 136 Fahrenheit, which, according to Google, is 57.8 degree Celsius, and was measured at Al' Aziziyah, Libya in September of 1922), so there's no way Mars could possibly reach it.

      Since this can't be Kelvin either (because that would be colder than it is now - cold enough to liquidate nitrogen, actually), the unit remains unknown.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:50 degrees? by Nikkos · · Score: 1

      50 degrees? Damn that's chilly!

      After going through a -40F streak in Northern Minnesota, you'll find us wearing shorts in 50F

    7. Re:50 degrees? by colonic · · Score: 5, Funny
      After going through a -40F streak in Northern Minnesota

      I think you meant -40C... :-)

    8. Re:50 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fifty degrees Celsius seems unlikely, and there is no such thing as "fifty degrees Kelvin" -- it's just "fifty Kelvins." Furthermore, fifty degrees Fahrenheit is not really that cold, especially since Mars is farther from Sol than is Earth.

    9. Re:50 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent deserves to be modded up as funny, but I doubt many people got the joke. -40F and -40C are the same temperature.

    10. Re:50 degrees? by David+Horn · · Score: 0

      the highest temperature ever recorded on Earth (discounting the craters of erupting volcanoes and such, obviously) is 136 Fahrenheit, which, according to Google, is 57.8 degree Celsius, and was measured at Al' Aziziyah, Libya in September of 1922),

      Kind of a kick in the teeth for the global warming doomsayers, isn't?

      --
      PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
    11. Re:50 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That temperature across the planet would kill billions of people.

    12. Re:50 degrees? by Razor+Sex · · Score: 1

      According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars, http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AlbertEydelman .shtml and http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/resources/ mars_data-information/temperature_overview.html (the latter are the first 2 results on Google for "mars temperature"), Mars can already reach about 20C/70F near the equator. With that in mind, 50C doesn't seem too high, especially for an equatorial plane. Still, it's strange to think that Mars could be as hot as the heat record in Phoenix (though 45C is pretty common).

    13. Re:50 degrees? by trippinonbsd · · Score: 1

      Notice: Fahrenheit and Celsius are not units. Stop using them that way. A degree is a unit. Kelvin is a is unit. So 50C, 50F, or 50K are the three options.

    14. Re:50 degrees? by parasonic · · Score: 0

      Actually, the units are degrees Celsius and degrees Fahrenheit. It would be 50C, 50F, or 50K.

    15. Re:50 degrees? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      All you need to say is -40 degrees.
      (Since that is the same for both celcius and Fahrenheit, and the other 2 temperature scales (Kelvin and Rankine) are both absolute scales, you can't have negatives.

    16. Re:50 degrees? by dynamo52 · · Score: 1

      -40C+-40F

      I'm sure this parent knew

      --
      Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
    17. Re:50 degrees? by dynamo52 · · Score: 1

      I meant -40C = -40F I wish slashdot had a preview feature

      --
      Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
    18. Re:50 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we're all employee's of NASA, we don't know the diffrence between F and C.

    19. Re:50 degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jacket? I guess you're not from a northern climate yourself. 50F is when it's warm enough for shorts.

    20. Re:50 degrees? by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Or possessives and plurals, for that matter.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    21. Re:50 degrees? by unigolyn · · Score: 1

      Notice: please review your sentences before hitting 'Submit'. The last two sound like Zero Wing.

    22. Re:50 degrees? by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      You do understand that global warming is about average temperatures, don't you? You understand what you're blithely dismissing right?

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    23. Re:50 degrees? by Redwin · · Score: 1

      Southern Tunisia, mid august can get to about 50 centigrade. Cacti in the desert for example probably hit conditions near that as well.
      I agree with you though about it being farenheit. 10 centigrade is pretty hot compared to space. :-) Then again, I wonder how quickly that temprature drops as you move away from the equator.

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    24. Re:50 degrees? by Murasaki+Skies · · Score: 1

      It does.

      --
      Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
    25. Re:50 degrees? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Kind of a kick in the teeth for the global warming doomsayers, isn't?

      Close. More like you sticking your foot in your mouth.

      Across the global enviornment we are talking about a huge number of complex interactions, but it is entirely possible for global warming to lower peak temperatures. If fact it will lower average temperatures in some areas.

      If you rip the door off of your freezer and rip the door off of your oven and leave it sit for a week, well the inside of your oven will cool down by about a hundred and fifty or two hundred degrees while you get hit with probably more than fifty degrees of "kitchen warming".

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    26. Re:50 degrees? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Distance from the sun and the greenhouse effect are not the only factors that affect surface temperature.

      Off the top of my head, I can think of several other factors.

      Length of day: Positive correlation with daily peak temps; not sure of the effect on average temos.
      Albedo (reflectiveness): The amount of sunlight converted into heat will depend on reflectiveness. The lack of surface water (high reflectivity) on Mars would cause more sunlight to be converted to heat energy.

      Considering that Earth is more than half covered by water, I think this could be a HUGE factor in planetary temperatures.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    27. Re:50 degrees? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I went on a 30F streak back in college, and would have felt frozen if it weren't for the whiskey.

      Frostbite in the nether regions would be pretty uncomfortable.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  9. Martian organisms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Martian organisms might be revived too - if there are any. They could also reveal themselves and destroy Earth after we get to curious about their planet and start destroying it too.

    1. Re:Martian organisms... by sound+vision · · Score: 0

      Realistically, the bacteria would be foreign to us, and might kill most humans who came in contract with it. Think Indians (excuse me, Native Americans) and smallpox. We have no resistance against Martian bacteria.

    2. Re:Martian organisms... by PhilixDMA · · Score: 0

      Like H.G. Wells novel War of the Worlds the alien bacteria would probably kill us. Likewise it would protect us from alien invaders!

    3. Re:Martian organisms... by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Smallpox evolved to use humans as a host, and those humans who were long exposed to it (europeans) had, in turn, evolved a resistance to it. When smallpox was introduced to North America, it was still able to use the humans there as a host, however those humans had not developed the resistance, which is what made it so deadly to them. Martain bacteria, on the other hand, never evolved to use humans, or anything remotely like humans as a host and would thus most likely be completely harmless to us.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    4. Re:Martian organisms... by Transcendent · · Score: 1

      and would thus most likely be completely harmless to us.

      A virus and bacteria are completely different. The virus has to mutate to penetrate the protien membrane around our cells. The bacteria just needs to sit and multiply, while our immune system goes nuts trying to kill it.

    5. Re:Martian organisms... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Although when you think about it, every micro-organism on earth has evolved to fill a unique ecological niche. Might not the harsh conditions on Mars have created organisms that have evolved to fill EVERY ecological niche? With resources so scarce there, who knows but that there might be some sort of very adaptable viruses or bacteria analogues that would swiftly take advantage of the moveable feast that is humanity...

      Although to go from experience here on earth, most of the most dangerous stuff is in very dense ecospheres, like jungles etc. Deserts generally have not a whole lot.

  10. So how is there now by Quirk · · Score: 5, Funny
    "It would take hundreds of years but eventually ice sheets would melt, grass would grow here,

    One has to assume you're there, quite the feat; and, let me be the first to say, I welcome our grass growing, and smoking, Martian Overlords.

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
    1. Re:So how is there now by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      grass would grow here

      If we were to form a utopian planet from what we have on earth, what life organisms would we take there? And skip the jokes of not taking humans.

      On one hand we could create a very controlled and disease free ecosystem. On the other hand, we could just try everything and see what starts to grow there. I think it'd be impossible to prevent many bacterias from entering the ecosystem because they'd come borne on humans.

    2. Re:So how is there now by fruey · · Score: 1

      Somebody already sold me some Martian Grass. It's already available. Or maybe the guy was so wasted he said "Martian" but really mean "Moroccan". In which case it was Freudian, because the market for Moroccan is decidedly bad since the police started running after anything vaguely arabic...

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    3. Re:So how is there now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      skip the jokes of not taking humans.

      I think the joke would be taking humans to a utopian paradise, I mean even when God did it paradise got all messed up ;)

    4. Re:So how is there now by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I would probably start with life that is relatively primitive, on the grounds that it evolved under extremely simple conditions and therefore should have the minimum requirements for survival.


      Bracken, for example, would likely be a good thing to send. The Wollemi Pine and other trees that predate flowers (and therefore don't rely on insects) would also be good candidates. As the atmosphere would likely remain thin, flying insects probably wouldn't work too well, but there are flowering plants that pollenate by beetle - those would seem to stand a better chance.


      It would likely remain extremely cold and rocky - ideal conditions for the Bristlecone Pine which actually thrives under near-unendurable conditions. Just about any plant (or algae) that can handle a cold desert on Earth will likely do well on the fringes of a terraformed Mars and may well help to maintain the boundaries.


      Once a basic ecology is in place, you can add to it (slowly!) to build up to something that can sustain large animals, but I don't think you can really attempt to do this in one go. Part of the problem with Biosphere 2 was that it was too small to be self-sustaining, but the other part was that they tried to run through the necessary steps far too fast, thus introducing unwanted organisms and also not allowing what was there to properly adjust.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:So how is there now by Squalish · · Score: 1

      Introduce these species without a crapload of bioengineering - putting a forest of them through a few hundred generations of a cold desert in a hypobaric chamber filled with nothing but a few millibars of CO2 - and you'll have nothing but dead biomass shipped to mars at $10k/kg.

      --
      People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
    6. Re:So how is there now by FredThompson · · Score: 1

      Ants, you need ants. No picnic is complete without them.

      Don't forget cockroaches. They make a great hors doeurve with a delicate crack-squish consistency. You can even keep them as pets. Just ask Joe.

  11. What if they like to eat humans? by qloops · · Score: 1

    Do we really want to wake up the Martian Organisms?

    1. Re:What if they like to eat humans? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do we really want to wake up the Martian Organisms?

      In all likelyhood, if Mars has microscopic life, the Earth has probably already been infected with it. Calculations show that spores can survive certain meteor impacts and be transported to Earth in the process. Our life may have even originated on Mars. Earth was too valcanic for stable life formation early on, but due to its smaller size Mars may have been mild and wet at that time. Thus, life may have formed on Mars while Earth was still bubbling, but the roles switched later on and Earth did "more" with the stolen life when Mars cooled and dried out.

    2. Re:What if they like to eat humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      may have been mild and wet at that time

      Reminds me of your mom, except that she was wild and wet.

    3. Re:What if they like to eat humans? by Analog+Squirrel · · Score: 1
      and Earth did "more" with the stolen life when Mars cooled and dried out

      Ahh... the American Dream in action... millions of years before there were "Americans" to dream... heh

      --
      I'd rather be flying
    4. Re:What if they like to eat humans? by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      pft the Martian organisms are already awake.
      They are too cunning to be spotted by our rovers,
      and will not sit idly by while we attempt the terraforming of their planet. Anyone who has ever read Ray Bradbury knows that Martians are hostile to colonists!

      Rather that terraforming a whole planet and radically
      altering something we know next to nothing about (for instance destroying the undetected biodiversity that probably already exists on Mars), why not try to build a greenhouse for people...

    5. Re:What if they like to eat humans? by BigDumbAnimal · · Score: 1

      If you think "In all likelyhood" some spores grew on Mars, got blasted off the planet by an impact, survived thousands of years in space to travel millions of miles to earth, survived re-entry, landing, and were able to do anything useful, then you must spend every dime you make on lottery tickets.

    6. Re:What if they like to eat humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i saw a movie like this once: Mission to Mars. It had that Gary Sinese guy in it that stayed and partied with the "Martian" which was really just his great-great-great..ad infinium... grandma.

    7. Re:What if they like to eat humans? by Alsee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or perhaps you should read the science.

      It is known for a fact that asteroid impacts do blast rocks into space from both earth and mars, and that they can and do land on the opposite planet. It is known for a fact that this has happened countless times, and would have been particularly common during the early days of the solar system. It is known for a fact that such a "space launch" can be cool and gentle enough inside some of the rocks that a microorganism could and would survive the launch intact. It is known for a fact that the interior of a meteor can remain cool enough through reentry that bacteria could and would survive. It is known for a fact that inert bacteria have been exposed to the vacuum and radiation of space for over a decade and then cheerfully sprang back to life with no ill effects at all once reexposed to water. Dust-like fragments can slow in the thinnest region of atmosphere and simply drift to the ground.

      lottery tickets

      Well lets see how many lottery tickets we;re lookign at here. There were probably several tens of thousands of large asteroid impacts over millions of years during the early days of the solar system, each of which would have launched on average many thousands or millions of fragments into space. We're looking at a history of probably billions if not trillions of individual lottery tickets. And guess what? When you're sitting on that many lottery tickets it is not merely a CERTAINTY that you will get a winner, it is a certainty that you will get MULTIPLE winners.

      Really the only question here is whether life arose on mars. His point that mars was viable for life *long* before earth was viable for life makes it a very persuasive possibility. It would help explain how life on earth appeared almost the instant the earth cooled enough to have a solid surface. That is much less surprising if you consider life may have taken a few hundred million years to first appear on mars and then landed on earth's brand new skin.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  12. Obligatory Calvin & Hobbes Quote by burtdub · · Score: 0

    The surest sign that there's intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

    1. Re:Obligatory Calvin & Hobbes Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know? - the distances involved are so vast that it would take ages for any kind of communication to happen. Also, given that it's so difficult to know what forms alien life may take, maybe intelligent life would be wary of communicating its existence in case it attracts the attention of an aggressive and technologically more advanced...

    2. Re:Obligatory Calvin & Hobbes Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahem, that should have read:

      How do you know? - the distances involved are so vast that it would take ages for any kind of communication to happen. Also, given that it's so difficult to know what forms alien life may take, maybe intelligent life would be wary of communicating its existence in case it attracts the attention of an aggressive and technologically more advanced life form...

    3. Re:Obligatory Calvin & Hobbes Quote by FinalCut · · Score: 1

      uhm. let's see - it was a Calvin and Hobbes reference. A comic; hence a JOKE.

      sheesh.

      Spaceman Spiff has much work to do.

  13. 50 Degrees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy mother of... well, if the idea is to turn it into a desert world, 50 degrees sounds reasonable.

    So I take it, then, that they do have proof now that sandworms used to live on the planet and can be revived? Sweet.

  14. What a fascinating idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it needs a catchy name. How about.. uhhh.. well let's see... something to do with change.. changing something.. and like.. planets.. you know, the earth.. so.. changing the earth... Ah! I have it!

    "Terraforming"?

    Brilliant! Man, I bet my name will go down in history for having given a title to this new concept.

    1. Re:What a fascinating idea! by XXIstCenturyBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Brilliant! Man, I bet my name will go down in history for having given a title to this new concept.

      I'd be surprised, you posted as "Anonymous Coward". Bad luck...

  15. You are WHERE? by ArmorFiend · · Score: 1, Redundant
    eventually ice sheets would melt, grass would grow here, and temperatures would hit 50 degrees along the equator of the planet.


    So ... how did you get to mars again?!? Lemme guess, your submission about how you got to mars using a trebuchet and an old diving bell running linux got rejected by the editors because of a too-large number of grammatical errors!
    1. Re:You are WHERE? by ampathee · · Score: 1

      More like too FEW grammatical errors ;)

    2. Re:You are WHERE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who runs their diving bell on linux, I take offense at your comment.
       

    3. Re:You are WHERE? by idonthack · · Score: 1

      Or, just one missing T.

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
  16. Or... by iignotus · · Score: 2, Funny

    You could just put two or three of those 7gHz Pentum 4's on there without any cooling. That should warm everything up in a few hours.

  17. Van Allen belt? by davidsheckler · · Score: 1

    I believe Mars lacks earth's Van Allen belt as it has no molten core to create it. The massive amount of radiation would mean engineering plants and animals to survive it.

    1. Re:Van Allen belt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or engineer moles which still do need surface life to survive

    2. Re:Van Allen belt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The massive amount of radiation would mean engineering plants and animals to survive it.


      No, just let evolution find the solution.

    3. Re:Van Allen belt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant magnetic field, not van allen belt.

    4. Re:Van Allen belt? by Ian+Bell · · Score: 1

      The Van allen belts are a direct result of Earth's magnetic fields.
      They are a torus of charged particles from solar winds etc. trapped by the magnetic field.

  18. This is fawked. by Concrete+Nomad · · Score: 0

    We can't cure cancer. We can't cure AIDS. We can't even get along with each other. Why are we playing "God" on a planet several thousand miles away? Unless we plan of funking things up here we should save are resources and energy on something more productive.

    1. Re:This is fawked. by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 5, Funny

      "...planet several thousand miles away"

      I might agree with spending a little more money on education.

    2. Re:This is fawked. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1, Informative

      If Europeans had waited until Europe was fixed before exploring and colonizing the rest of the world....things would really suck right now.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    3. Re:This is fawked. by cabjf · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't know. The Native Americans would probably have been ok with that.

    4. Re:This is fawked. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Except they're not native. They migrated from Asia.

      So they literally are "Indians" eh? And you thot Columbus was a lost dultz.

    5. Re:This is fawked. by mp3phish · · Score: 1

      why would things suck right now? Because the USA would have never been invented? Maybe we wouldn't have a global superpower invading foreign countries to keep their oil prices down so we can all drive around SUV's on 2 hour commutes every day.

      Shit look at europe, they are all driving around cooper mini's and they aren't complaining about rollovers.

      you are so self centered.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    6. Re:This is fawked. by agent+dero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      pardon me, but you never read about the British Empire did you?

      How about the Spanish colonization of the Americas? Conquistadors (sp?) anybody?

      Don't blame the inherent corrupting ability of power on a specific nationality without looking back at history, and how almost every set of people is guilty of it at one point or another.


      while you may not be self centered, you certainly are ignorant...

      --
      Error 407 - No creative sig found
    7. Re:This is fawked. by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      I think the people of Asia, Africa, North and South America, and Australia wouldn't feel like they'd missed out.

    8. Re:This is fawked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean like it does in Africa at this very point?

      go ahead mod me flamebait, i'm just not really grateful to Europe for stripping my people of their dignity

    9. Re:This is fawked. by Teun · · Score: 1
      Why are we playing "God" on a planet several thousand miles away?
      'cause we can?

      The rest is difficult.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    10. Re:This is fawked. by aaqubed · · Score: 1

      Yeah. It'd really suck if the Europeans weren't able to exploit the resources and the (mostly slave) labor of the rest of the continents. Who knows, maybe a predominantly non-white society might actually have gotten somewhere! Good thing we never let THAT happen.

      --
      Need help - license plate reverse lookup. NY plate CSE-2960. Guy almost hit me, blamed me, pissed me off.
    11. Re:This is fawked. by noerobert · · Score: 0

      Well, he is writing from Mars (grass would grow here), so maybe he found a route that is only a few thousand miles.

    12. Re:This is fawked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep.
      There wouldn't be "Americans", you know the scum Europe was tired of which fled overseas to try a better 'world'.

    13. Re:This is fawked. by SupaKoopa · · Score: 1

      they're more native than you or I are.

    14. Re:This is fawked. by Rosonowski · · Score: 1

      re: your sig.
      email me, I might be able to help you with something. *might* be able to help.

      --
      01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
    15. Re:This is fawked. by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      >>>Unless we plan of funking things up here ...

      Plan on? We're already in the process. We're rapidly destroying our environment in the name of short-term profit, and I really don't think that we'll stop until it's too late. Even if we do stop, eventually the earth is going to become way to overpopulated, and another planet will be very useful. We can't populate it yet, but we need to work on the technology so we can when we need to.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    16. Re:This is fawked. by mp3phish · · Score: 1

      while you may not be self centered, you certainly are ignorant...

      I am ignorant because I did not post about the british empire? I guess I can't expect a zealot to infer that someone who posts on slashdot might have read a history book at some point in his life.

      Pointing to the history of the british empire doesn't make anything in my above post "right" or "acceptable". And the british empire certaintly doesn't give anybody the right to behave as said.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    17. Re:This is fawked. by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Oh Jesus Christ fucking Buddha with a stick... it's comments like these that make me wish comment moderation wasn't capped at +5.

    18. Re:This is fawked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look at Europe? what do you want me to see?
      the wealth of India and Africa stripped to the bone so they could finance the Industrial Revolutions that made Europe such a wonderful place to live and in turn Africa and most parts of India shitholes that barely sustain what i guess could be considered a normal life there, given the circumstances.

      USA wasn't the first country to "invade foreign countries" and it won't be the last, so kinda pointless just pointing them out.

  19. Could well be 50F. by cduffy · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't say the right number is obvious at all -- 50F is livable even for us fragile humans. (Not that the Martian atmosphere, such as it is, would be accomodating without a lot more work).

    Now, 50K, yes, *that's* chilly.

    1. Re:Could well be 50F. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K is suck a wank unit of temperature. (The reason being:) Well, it's not even a unit, it's just C with a different offset.

  20. It won't work, and why bother anyway? by IAmMaxHarris · · Score: 0
    Global warming on Earth is not a sure thing at all. I think it's downright silly to propose this kind of thing for Mars, which is probably not the best place to colonize anyway.

    More attention should be paid toward colonizing Venus instead.

    1. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      Confucius say: Man who colonize Venus is high on acid.

    2. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Hey man, i got a cheap flat earth theory to sell, you seem to be interested.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    3. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by orzetto · · Score: 4, Informative

      The link you provide, among other things, says that forest area is not decreasing, which is a blatant lie popularised by master jester Bjørn Lomborg (who by the way has no knowledge of climatology nor statistics) in his "skeptical environmentalist". The lie is originated by the plotting of forest area as published by FAO since the end of WW2, without correcting for the fact that countries were continuously joining the FAO and that first estimates were not precise, and had no conventional definiton of "forest area". The myth is well debunked here.

      The author is a CS professor, not a climatologist. His credibility is quite low on this issue. The fact that he disagrees with pretty much any climatologist on the planet is also a pointer.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    4. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by IceCreamGuy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, ok. I guess that's why permafrost in Siberia is melting; because the temperature is staying the same and there's no such thing as global warming. I heard that's why they call it permafrost, because it changes a lot. And it's not like the theory of global warming is based on very basic and fundamental theories of thermodynamics and heat exchange, theories like "if energy goes into a system and does not go back out, the total energy of that system increases." Good thing that's not the case. I also heard that if you coat your processor and heatsink with maple syrup it makes it run cooler. Seriously. That's a scientific fact.

    5. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he may be high on acid but on venus it rains acid, only not the good kind

    6. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Whether or not global warming is ocurring on Earth is completely irrelevant to this proposal.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last figure I heard was that, at the time of the original colonies, the North American continent had something like 20-30% forest cover. Today it's closer to 40%.

      Just because you THINK you know everything...

    8. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

      Right now on Earth you can find organisms that will survive and even reproduce under martian conditions. We also have numerous lifeforms that can survive quite handily in various layers of the venusian atmosphere (tho not on the ground). Admittedly most of these extremophiles are single-celled creatures, but they CAN survive. I for one feel that (wo)mankind should take every possible opportunity to spread life wherever we can. The question of whether there is already some form of life there, especially on Mars (just because we can more easily envision it) is indeed a bump on the road that must not be ignored. Nonetheless, I think one of the most noble projects we can undertake that isn't self-serving would be to give other planets and future lifeforms a head start over just plain chance. Life may not be able to start under venusian conditions, but once it gets a foothold life can be pretty tenacious. I'd like to call this an obligation or a moral/ethical imperative, but that would take a MUCH longer discussion than would fit in a comment on slashdot. We keep calling Venus a woman, we know she's hot, so lets give her some of our seed! (Now THAT was for the /. crowd).

      --
      On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    9. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1, Troll
      I guess that's why permafrost in Siberia is melting; because the temperature is staying the same and there's no such thing as global warming.

      Just to be nit-picky: without disputing that global warming is happening, there is a flaw in your reasoning. Melting permafrost in Siberia by itself is not proof of global warming -- it is proof of local warming in Siberia. To prove global warming you need multiple data points around the globe. Is the permafrost in Alaska melting? In Canada? In Greenland? In Norway? In European Russia? In Patagonia? In the South Georgia Islands? In the Antarctic Peninsula?

    10. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by laodamas · · Score: 1

      The question is not whether global warming exists (If it didn't earth would average 33C colder). The real question is: What is the magnitude of human emitted Greenhouse gasses retaliative to natural greenhouse gas emitters (volcanos, meteorites, etc.)?

      Colonizing Venus is crazy. Mars has almost everything we need already frozen in its atmosphere to create a successful colony today, even without terraforming. It is also easier to create global warming than it is to reverse it.

    11. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by delong · · Score: 1

      More attention should be paid toward colonizing Venus instead

      We could do both in one shot. Venus' atmosphere is too thick - a runaway CO2 greenhouse. Mars' atmosphere is too thin - and too cold.

      In the future, we could "mine" the atmosphere of Venus, and "seed" the atmosphere of Mars. Thin one, thicken the other. Either approach takes centuries.

    12. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by plj · · Score: 1

      Everybody out there read the NASA's PDF that parent's Venus link refers to before you reply and comment it.

      It does not propose altering the current atmosphere of Venus. It proposes establishing cloud cities floating on it.

      Parent's opinions regarding global warming are most likely totally baseless, but the said paper about colonizing Venus seems to be very insightful. Or at least interesting.

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
    13. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by orzetto · · Score: 2, Informative
      The last figure I heard was that, at the time of the original colonies, the North American continent had something like 20-30% forest cover. Today it's closer to 40%.

      Now that's an impressive talking out of one's ass. So:

      1. What is the source of these numbers?
      2. How could they make a survey of North America at the time of the 13 colonies, when they did not have any access to most of it? Satellites are a pretty recent thing.
      3. Even if they could make a survey, what was their definition of "forest cover"? Any indication of density?
      4. Even if the survey would have been possible, and the definition consistent with e.g. FAO's, what would lead us to conclude that an increase in the North American continent could compensate for the rest of the globe? Britain, for instance, has almost no more of its forests (there is no such thing as Sherwood forest anymore).
      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    14. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lomborg is right. You and the other junk science fuckheads are wrong. Period. Now please fucking DIE already!

    15. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by Lucky_Norseman · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for any of the other places, but it is a fact that the Norwegian glaciers are shrinking, which is proof of a local warming in Norway.

    16. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by mr+i+want+to+go+home · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

      Happy now? Time to stop the denial then.

    17. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      The real question is: What is the magnitude of human emitted Greenhouse gasses retaliative to natural greenhouse gas emitters (volcanos, meteorites, etc.)?
      Not really. Attributing blame is unlikely to achieve anything useful. The significant questions are: "is the current climate changing?", and "can we and should we do anything about it?". The answer to the first one seems to be yes. The answer to the second one is complex. What will the consequences of continued climate change be? Can we have a significant effect (this is where your question comes in)? What are the economic consequences of the changes to our behaviour that would be necessary and how do they compare to the consequences of not changing our behaviour?
    18. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by mr+i+want+to+go+home · · Score: 1
      Sorry, and I should also point out that I'm not trying to suggest that you are disputing global warming, rather - this is a common kind of argument by those who are in denial ("it's local warming, doesn't mean global warming!").

      And for those who believe it is a natural warming cycle, well that's not quite right - the cycle of ice ages means that if anything we should be experiencing a period of cooling. We have had an above average length balmy period (12,000 years). We should be seeing signs of cooling, not warming.

    19. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by YeEntrancemperium · · Score: 1

      Haha, I think not buddy. Go fuck yourself, our Earth is dying. Wake up.

    20. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not denying anything. Just the opposite. You did notice the bold print right? My nit-pick (clearly labelled as such) was simply in the misuse of the scientic method. You can't use a single data point to make a generalized broad statement. I would have been happy with a statement something like "permafrost all over the globe is melting" which would have supported the conclusion, rather than the single-pointed "permafrost in Siberia is melting."

      That is all.

    21. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

      Oops, thanks for the apology. That is the way I read it. I replied above before reading this. You are indeed correct that that method of argument is used to appempt to disprove global warming. But that's not what I was trying to imply. Cheers!

    22. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by n54 · · Score: 1

      Well put.

      And further, if we decide to do something then what has the highest likelihood of achieving that aim? A continued high rate of technological innovation governed largely by capitalistic incentives or a massive reduction of energy consuption based largely on treaties? Which will be the fastest and most effective in the long term outside of simply killing people or condemming them to live in squalid conditions?

      The answer is probably a bit of both though technological innovation is the only way not to get stuck in a blind alley imho.

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    23. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that we are going to have a tough time determining if we can do anything about the climate change if don't attribute blame and determine where the problem lies.

      If natural greenhouse gas emitters are blowing out 99% of the greenhouse gases then human behavior is an insignificant factor. In that case we need a technical solution and not a behavior change.

      If human emissions are the primary source then a behavior change is in order.

    24. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      You are well aware that base research is not performed by corporate interest right?

      The USA's government heavily founded base research in the 60s and early 70s mostly because of the sputnik shock. The current electronical achievments are directly related to that research period, most of what we have in electronics as of today is a refining of those discoveries. The research stopped because of the increased costs, which is at least partially attributed to the oil crisis. Corporate science is refining, not discovering. There is also the very interesting subject of the japanese miracle: that they managed to be one of the leading technological innovators from a post WW2 losing nation with no industry whatsoever. In the 40-50s they bought second hand technology and refined that and sold the product. In the 60-70s they aquired quite recent technology and refined that, but the USA's economy didn't feel the pressure from japanese electrical products that much, because the USA was doing base research. In the 80-90s Japan developed cutting edge technology from their previous research and managed to be the pioneers in electronics, and the USA couldn't compete any more effectively because the USA no longer had the superiority in technology. There is also an interesting aspect of japanese efficiency which is mainly due to lacking resources on their islands. It forces and forced them to be efficient with resources.

      There is also the difference in corporate spirit. The so called 7 dwarfs, the 7 largest companies in japan actively cooperate with the government in dividing up research and sharing it with each other. They kind of think long term. With that spirit in the recent years they are able to perform base research aswell, albeit not that huge scale like in the 70s in the USA.

      My whole point with this huge historical perspective is that american corporatism did not drive technological innovation, it drived technological refining and that's a very different thing. The technological innovation stopped in the 70s and it is recently picked up by the Japanese and EU.

      I only answered half of the topic yet: it is alright that corporatism doesn't drive scientific progress, but then why does a treaty do that?

      The treaty's goal is to try to decrease the human factor in global warming. The way it does that is simple: must is a great incentive. Japan was forced to be efficient and that inspired a whole new branch of research into miniaturization and efficiency. Participating countries in the treaty realise that by doing research and sacrificing a short term economic advantage they are gaining a lot in long term, not only by having a livable planet, but by the long term advantages research gives. The treaty is supposed to be an incentive, not a rigid prohibition.

      Given these reasons, which i'm sure politicians are aware of it is totally impossible to understand the viewpoint the USA and Australia is taking on this issue. The only possible explanation is very strong corporate influence on the politics, and that is kind of well documented both in the case of the Bush administration and aswell with Howard.

      Please take a look at what wikipedia says about the issue aswell.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    25. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      It seems to me that we are going to have a tough time determining if we can do anything about the climate change if don't attribute blame and determine where the problem lies.
      Yes and no. Certainly knowing what's causing the current situation is vital, but at the moment people are focusing on that issue rather than the big picture. There's not enough attention being paid to the "what can we do" side of things, particular by the media. Essentially the blame game is getting in the way.
      If natural greenhouse gas emitters are blowing out 99% of the greenhouse gases then human behavior is an insignificant factor. In that case we need a technical solution and not a behavior change.
      Probably both. We know our current fossil fuel usage is not sustainable (economically) and even if it's not the primary cause of the current warming trend it's certainly contributing. The sooner we find alternate fuels the better really.
      If human emissions are the primary source then a behavior change is in order.
      That might not be enough. Even if we are the primary cause, cutting our emissions to zero might not be enough to actually reverse the process even now (things like the Siberian permafrost thaw could be enough to keep the warming cycle going). So again I wouldn't be suprised if both a technical measures and behavioural change is necessary. What I am sure of is that time is running out.
    26. Re:It won't work, and why bother anyway? by n54 · · Score: 1

      I respecfully disagree with you, not completely but still substantially. I'd like to start with your main statement:
      "You are well aware that base research is not performed by corporate interest right?"

      I find this to be a way too absolute statement, there are companies/commercial interests, private and semi-private interests (like universities) who do a significant amount of basic and fundamental scientific research either on their own or in conjunction with others be they other private enterprices, organisations, or the government.

      But yes, U.S. governmental grants are an important source of funding for basic scientific research just like in other countries. I'm norwegian myself and a lot of norwegian scientists and academics wish they had as good a working relationship with the private sector as many U.S. universities have because it somewhat alleviates the bitter fight for governmental grants in relation to both fundamental science and, as you call it, technological refining (no, Norway is not a poor nation; it's the richest nation in Europe - but any government has to prioritize).

      One can of course argue about the benefits and detriments of private funding of any kind of science but that is a long and seperate discussion.

      In addition you seem to argue that basic science is more relevant than technological refinement into products/working solutions when it comes to addressing climate change. I say one without the other does us absolutely no good, I'll use the recent Slashdot topic "World's Largest Solar Array to use Stirling Engine" as an example http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/ 12/0047242&tid=232&tid=137. What good would it do if one only had the fundamental scientific research but not the technological refinement into a working prototype and product? Or if you had a working unit but no clue as to why it worked worse/better than other things? I'm sure you agree that both are needed and that both cost money, and in addition that the process of making those solar arrays using sterling engines was in all likelihood an iterative process including both fundamental and practical science and engineering. In addition as a at least partially private company they have a strong inherent incentive to be efficient and make a profit.

      Btw how can you possibly say that technological innovation stopped in the U.S. during the seventies? The U.S. has been and continue to be a large source of both technological innovation and basic scientific research: american multinational companies aren't among the biggest by chance, neither are american universities among the most revered internationally by chance. This is not to say that things were dead in their tracks in other parts of the world, absolutely not. However if you are in doubt about these things then think of companies and industries like Xerox, IBM, Apple, pharmacautics etc. and have a look at the amount of peer-reviewed research published from the U.S. - all before, during, and after the seventies.

      Your next argument is that a treaty drives scientific progress. Yes and no, it depends upon the treaty. It might provide incentives for the use of cleaner technology (this is after all what the Kyoto treaty attempts to do), which in turn might help drive scientific progress. However in my opinon Kyoto is not crafted in a way to actually achieve any of these things to a significant degree as it stands - but this is an extremely long discussion and I just realized that if I'm going to have to explain all the faults of the Kyoto treaty this is going to be an insanely long post. I do not believe the Kyoto treaty as it now stands will have any significant impact wheter or not the U.S. ratifies it, if one goes "the Kyoto way" the treaty will have to be much stricter and include China in a sensible way as well as developing nations (I think the link you gave from Wikipedia was very well writ

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
  21. Cosmic rays?.... by Piranhaa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well we already know the cosmic rays will kill us eventually. So why don't we first think of a way to block these rays better than current methods THEN figure out about making the planet inhabitable by life? Why would we try to start life on Mars if life is unable to survive? Seems kind of retarded to me

    1. Re:Cosmic rays?.... by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Given the amount of time it would take to terraform Mars I can't see why both projects couldn't be run simultainously

    2. Re:Cosmic rays?.... by Teun · · Score: 1
      Our kind of life developed without the strong cosmic radiation present on Mars.

      Why would Martian life not develop a resistant strain?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    3. Re:Cosmic rays?.... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      If developing resistance to Cosmic Rays (in the amounts in question) is relatively as easy as developing complex eyes from photosensitve spots, then organisms might adapt to be resistant. That's 'might' as in even then there are no guarantees an ecology can adapt as fast as the radiation levels may be increasing, and life may just go belly up instead.
              In the same way, if adapting is only as hard as adapting to a new germ or an organic toxin, we humans might be able to shortcult natural selection and make a vaccine against hard radiation.
            A number of radiation medicine type experts have told me making something like a vaccine against hard radiation is precisely as difficult as making a vaccine against 50 caliber machine gun rounds.
            Organisms just don't adapt to some things. Cheetahs sprint at 70 MPH, but nothing organic flies at Mach 5. Meteors have been falling on Earthly organisms, and volcanos erupting on them, for 3 billion years or so, but we still don't see lifeforms drinking molten lava or surviving in primary impact zones.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    4. Re:Cosmic rays?.... by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      I've never heard someone describe the adaptation of eyes from photosensitive spots as 'easy'. The problem is that you have to imagine a scenario where there is a linear progression of mutations in which the end product is an eye and each successive mutation is beneficial enough to be passed on. Then after imagining this scenario you have to believe that this is how it actually played out, instead of being dead-ended somewhere along the way where there was no possible single mutation that would be beneficial in itself, and also progressed toward complex eyes.

      Personally I find it about a billion times easier to believe that a linear series of mutations could bring an organism toward being completely resistant to radiation.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    5. Re:Cosmic rays?.... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      On Earth, we have complex eyes (some of us), and we don't have "complete" radiation resistance (although some bacteria have a lot more than us higher organisms). I don't know of any other place offhand where it's different (maybe you do). You're arguement seems to sum up to a claim that the state of affairs in the only sample we can actually study is wildly anomalous, and if we could only see what's going on on a billion other planetary ecologies, we'd realize what a fluke Earth is. Maybe, but you're probably going to have to invent a stardrive to find any real proof of your intuition.
              Several of your assumptions are just plain wrong (not trying to be offensive here, but it's hard to put it any more politely). For example vertebrate eyes obviously didn't develop by a "linear progression" of mutations at all, or they would be built in the same way as complex invertebrate eyes such as the octopi's. On Earth, nature (or whatever) has independently developed complex eyes along no less than 5 paths, which means there were at least that many possible routes to success, and probably some more that didn't get used.
          Second, what's so hard about imagining a scenario? Even a very lousy eye is some use. An eye that only works in very bright light, or that only registers movement is still more useful than nothing. A frog dodges swooping birds with an eye that only registers a big gray blur at best, and even a frog with worse than usual eyes still has some chance of dodging. A poor quality eye may not spot an insect prey three feet away, but sometimes the possesser of that eye gets lucky and gets to within two feet range, where its eyes help, at least more than its competitor's eyes with only one foot range help that competitor.
              As the proud posessor of a pair of corrective lenses to drag 20/200 nearsightedness up to 20/25, I can assure you there are still natural selective pressures operating on this ecology, and I'm just relieved I'm able to dodge some of them personally.
              Third, why do we need to imagine the development doesn't dead end anywhere? Aren't there thousands of mammal types that dead-ended on developing stereo vision to keep their eyes on the sides of their heads? More that don't have color vision? Bees have very complex compound eyes - why don't all insects have thousands of eye-cells, and why are there some with only 7 cells/eye or so. Why do Horseshoe crabs have 9 eyes, counting the spots on the ventral surface near the tail that are very rudimentary - they have the genes for good compound eyes, so why build some of the simpler versions too?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  22. That's great. by fafaforza · · Score: 1, Funny

    Let's wake up whatever is fast asleep under that cover of ice.

    Have we not learned from cartoons, and sci-fi and horror movies about Mars?

    1. Re:That's great. by mp3phish · · Score: 2, Funny

      If anything has taught me well, it was DOOM and DOOMII that we need not wake up the zombies of marz.

      They will surely frag us to death.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
  23. Damn those farting cows by krinkelkrok · · Score: 1

    The atmosphere consist of 95.3% carbon dioxide. Hmmm. What other planet was it that had problems with this?

    1. Re:Damn those farting cows by ZSpade · · Score: 1

      You're thinking methane, cows don't fart a notable ammount of carbon dioxide.

      --
      Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
    2. Re:Damn those farting cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> cows don't fart a notable ammount of carbon dioxide.

      Just how the hell do you think they add the fizz to Mountain Dew then?

  24. please one planet at a time by sucati · · Score: 1

    do we have to f up another planet? can't we just stick to f'ing up earth?

    1. Re:please one planet at a time by Ziggy7273 · · Score: 1

      Well if we fuck up this planet it would be pretty tough to survive without a backup.

    2. Re:please one planet at a time by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      do we have to f up another planet? can't we just stick to f'ing up earth?

      Yeah, let's just huddle like spineless cowards on the planet of our birth, deathly afraid to touch anything for fear of that hideous monster - CHANGE!

      The solar system is ours to do with as we please. The whiners are more than welcome to stay on Earth, while those who don't believe in an eternal, unchanging stasis can go forth and alter other worlds according to their desires.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    3. Re:please one planet at a time by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1
      do we have to f up another planet? can't we just stick to f'ing up earth?

      f that.

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    4. Re:please one planet at a time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All except Europa....

  25. Well, there are other problems... by Steamhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Have they also figured out how to jumpstart the planet's magnetic field so that Cosmic Rays don't just strip the planet of it's atmosphere again?

    1. Re:Well, there are other problems... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Have they also figured out how to jumpstart the planet's magnetic field so that Cosmic Rays don't just strip the planet of it's atmosphere again?

      I found the giant jumper cables, but Jupiter won't cooperate, something about wanting a giant Hummer logo.

    2. Re:Well, there are other problems... by mp3phish · · Score: 1

      Well haven't you ever seen The Core? In that movie all they had to do was take the core of their nuclear reactor in their vehicle and throw it out into the core of the earth.. Not to mention that when he tried to lift it with a chain it broke the chain because it was too hot. So he had to lift it with his hands instead which definately could take the heat...

      Then just shoot a missile at it until it blows up and shotts you back through a volcanic pipe into the ocean floor where you can pretend to be a dolphin or whale. Then the whaler ship will try to harpoon you and find you and the day is saved...

      God I loved that movie.

      --
      Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
    3. Re:Well, there are other problems... by Splab · · Score: 1

      Didnt they solve that in "The Core" or something like that - just bring 7 nukes to the plantes core and blow em up - that should fix everything....

    4. Re:Well, there are other problems... by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would take hundreds of thousands of years -- or more likely, many millions of years -- to lose the atmosphere. If we'll still care after that time, we'll just terraform Mars again, or just keep doing some minor maintenance all the time.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:Well, there are other problems... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about a bunch of aliens who wanted to put a logo on Jupiter.

    6. Re:Well, there are other problems... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about a bunch of aliens who wanted to put a logo on Jupiter.

      Was it by chance red/brown and eye-shaped?

  26. 50 what? by HermanAB · · Score: 0, Redundant

    50 Kelvin? That is freakin cold. 50 Celsius? That is freakin hot.

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
    1. Re:50 what? by SorcererX · · Score: 1

      It did say "degrees" so that rules out Kelvin atleast. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    2. Re:50 what? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Yes, those funny Americans really luuurve their old British Imperial Units of measure. I'm surprised that they don't have 12 dimes to a Dollar... ;-)

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    3. Re:50 what? by Triple+Click · · Score: 1

      50F? That is freakin reasonable.

    4. Re:50 what? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      50 Farad? That is a freakin huge capacitor, not a unit of temperature... ;-)

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  27. Why don't they smash Venus into Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet the end result would have a pretty moderate climate.

  28. I call bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to have nutrients in the soil for grass to grow. There are places on Earth where practically nothing lives, like Atacama in Chile. How do they plan on dealing with the radiation too?

    1. Re:I call bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As to the nutrients, just beam some GWB speeches. It is loaded with BS.

      seriously, we have bacteria here that will do fixation for the nitrogen content (directly from N2). As for radiation, well, there are plants that actually thrive in the amount of radiation that is hitting the mars surface. The real issue is that it will not be just one thing that is hitting the plants but a multitude of things. Radiation, wild changes in temperatures, high winds, low atmosphere, high UV, etc.

  29. Odd. by rootedgimp · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It would take hundreds of years...


    So, what took our planet (loosely theoretically) a couple billion of years to do, could be (again loosely theoretically) done there in a matter of hundereds? (I realize that theoretically the larger portion of the time it took for life to develop here had more to do with variable chances than it did with the atmosphere, although atmosphere is included in those variables)

    It just seems to me that the world of science has recently turned more into a smorgishboard of unfulfilled promises and reluctance to realize that we cannot even figure out 90% of the problems with our own people, on our own planet, so why should we be trying to conquer others?
    1. Re:Odd. by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ``It just seems to me that the world of science has recently turned more into a smorgishboard of unfulfilled promises and reluctance to realize that we cannot even figure out 90% of the problems with our own people''

      I've identified a number of negative developments in recent times, but this isn't one of them. I think science has always been about unfulfilled promises. That's the whole thrill of it. I can be the first to prove the 3n+1 conjecture! That is, of course, assuming there is a proof to be found.

      I read that, by the end of the 19th century, scientists thought they had pretty much figured it all out. But then Einstein turned the (scientific) world on its head with the relativity theory, and now we have quantum mechanics, which gives a much weaker sense of having it all figured out.

      In a broader meaning, science can be taken to be the search for the workings of nature, and that would probably include certain religions. The fact that many people view any religion as a bunch of unfulfilled promises is telling. As is the fact that I see people who have "lost faith" in science and turned to some other framework to explain the world to them.

      Science really is just another belief system, which has enough things reasonably explained so people think it's going to lead them to the whole truth. It isn't. Science can only explain what can be measured, and perfectly accurate measurements just don't exist. Any theory we have can only ever be falsified, never proven. So we use it, until a counterexample comes along.

      What separates science from traditional religions is that the falsification principle is deeply encoded in it, and finding counterexamples is seen as a greater sign of progress than is finding confirmations. That said, many scientists believe their beliefs to be right in favor of any contradictory ones, which is perhaps more dogmatic than typical religious people, who would claim that what they believe is true in a metaphorical rather than literal sense.

      Hmm, writing this post felt strangely good.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    2. Re:Odd. by wilgamesh · · Score: 1

      some will argue that the reason for exploration is to 'solve' the problems that plague us now.
      there are no compelling reasons why we should 'solve' all our problems before exploring new worlds. is world hunger a problem? i believe we've been solving that even as we continue to explore new worlds. is industrial pollution a problem? one could go back to take a look at coal-powered england in the 1800s for perspective.

      i'm not sure why one would tie up 'solving' our contemporary problems with exploration, i.e. terraforming mars.

      unless you think we're going to fantastically botch up the terraforming- which, i will add in defense, that's a technological problem, not a philosophical one which you pose.

    3. Re:Odd. by rootedgimp · · Score: 1
      In a broader meaning, science can be taken to be the search for the workings of nature, and that would probably include certain religions. The fact that many people view any religion as a bunch of unfulfilled promises is telling. As is the fact that I see people who have "lost faith" in science and turned to some other framework to explain the world to them.

      Science really is just another belief system, which has enough things reasonably explained so people think it's going to lead them to the whole truth. It isn't.


      I agree with you on most everything except some of the above, I believe that Science and Religion can totally coexist and back eachother up on many many levels.

      Example: Scientist Robert V. Gentry, in the 60's or 70's, completely invalidated the 'Billion year earth' and Evolution theory with the shocking discovery that Granite had to be created instantly, as opposed to being created over the course of billions of years cooling down from lava. You might be thinking "Oh BS, if that were the case, we wouldn't be teaching evolution in school as the primary theory." Thats what I thought too. See for yourself.

      Some of his other more recent, and shocking, work was censored (more like deleted off a gov funded public website, twice, then his password changed) by fellow 'open minded scientists' because they knew it would turn the scientific world completely upside down.

      You should watch his videos, they are from like the 70s or 80s, and ittl make your head spin when you see what kind of evidence they have to show, considering after that sort of groundbreaking research we should have never been teaching this totally bunk theory of evolution.
    4. Re:Odd. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      so why should we be trying to conquer others?

      Because human beings aren't the Borg. Some of us may not be interested in space, while others might. The former group can stay home and do whatever it is they wish to concentrate their energies on, while the latter can venture forth into the solar system and colonize it. Neither group has any business forcing the other to give up their goals.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    5. Re:Odd. by innerweb · · Score: 1
      I do not think the realm of real science is to blame. Most scientists I know do not like the *hype* and would love to solve the social problems. But, you can not change a person unless they want to change. Some psuedo-scientists are out for profit and without a moral compass, but they are looking for business and revenue, not science.

      I think the worlds of business, politics and press are to blame. Probably joe average as well. People want it now. People seem to (most people) not support things that take more than a few years to happen, so they do not pay attention to things that take a few decades, or worse centuries.

      If people did not demand so much hype and storytelling (infotainment), then maybe life would be less fiction and more truth. I doubt I will live to see the day that happens, but I can hope.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    6. Re:Odd. by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Well, geez, if one wacko says it, it must be true.

    7. Re:Odd. by rootedgimp · · Score: 1

      Had you bothered to review any of the links yourself, rather than going against it simply because it is against what you were taught at school by the mislead, you would have discovered that it isn't, as you put it, 'one wacko', but the entire scientific community through their inability to disprove it for the last several years (read, decades.).

      Robert Gentry's has worked for years at the Oak Ridge National Lab and has had much scientific data published in magazines and reports such as:
      Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters
      Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Physical Review Letters,
      Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science

      All of which are publications that are printed for peer review, so other scientists can hold the data to scrutiny and try to recreate the project given the provided data.
      Why is it that the 'open minded' are open minded to anything so long as it doesn't deal with them having to be heald accountable for their actions?

    8. Re:Odd. by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Scientist Robert V. Gentry, in the 60's or 70's, completely invalidated the 'Billion year earth' and Evolution theory

      Polonium Halo FAQs: "Professional geologist Tom Bailleul takes a second look at Gentry's claimed polonium haloes, arguing that there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style."

      You should watch his videos,

      As a rule of thumb, any "scientist" who presents his theories on videos is almost certainly full of shit.

    9. Re:Odd. by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Not to disagree too much with yor overall point, but it sounds as if you haven't yet been exposed to more current theories of the operation of science than those of Popper and Kuhn.

      Science is a belief system, but not "just another" belief system. It is the belief system that is demonstrably in better accord with evidence than any other belief system. This is because it is not a belief in any particular a priori facts or theories but in the process of verification of the consistency of theory with all observations. This is not merely a process of falsification of inadequate theories. See Bayes' Theorem supplants positivism for more.

      Insofar as "scientists" beliefs are based on science, they should be far more secure in those beliefs than "typical religious people", because by definition the evidence supports the scientific position, whereas religious positions have been forced back to asserting truth in a "metaphorical" sense, not because they have not claimed to be the literal truth for so long as anyone would believe them, but because they have in many crucial instances been proven false by the observations of science. While science won't and can't lead us to the whole truth, it will always provide stronger proof of its assertions than any competing way of knowing about reality.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    10. Re:Odd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not even that long...

      Just send up President Scharzennegger to go underground and activate the ancient martian oxygen-generation system.

      That should fill the atmosphere with oxygen and pressurize it in less time than it takes for your eyeballs to explode out of your head.

    11. Re:Odd. by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      I did read some of it. I then did a quick search and found:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html

      Which rather completely debunks the entire model. Just because you really, really want to believe the wacko doesn't make him less of a wacko.

  30. Organisms awakened? by CupBeEmpty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I despite the general "far fetchedness" of this article. I think the wackiest part is that somehow we might revive organisms on Mars. Mars has been the way it is for a pretty long time now. Any organisms that might live there would be very specially adapted to their (probably very hostile) environment. Mostl ikely we would just kill anything that was living there.

    It would pretty much be like going down to the geothermal vents under the ocean and plugging them with concrete to make it more habitable down there, then expecting that to "revive" the organisms living down there.

    1. Re:Organisms awakened? by Gax · · Score: 1

      >I despite the general "far fetchedness" of this >article. I think the wackiest part is that >somehow we might revive organisms on Mars.

      What about the Shadow vessel buried under the surface?

    2. Re:Organisms awakened? by gerf · · Score: 1

      You do realize that there are bacteria on Earth within rock, buried hundreds of feet down, everywhere on Earth. The ice caps have bacteria thousands, maybe millions of years old, that are still viable.

      Bacteria make these wonderful little spores, if they know they're SOL for a long time. These spores can survive a helluva long time. For some to survive a few million years wouldn't be surprising.

    3. Re:Organisms awakened? by CupBeEmpty · · Score: 1

      It is true that bacterial spores can last a long time. Anthrax spores have been viable after more than 20 years within the human body. Anthrax is also endemic in the soil in many places and may even survive 100+ years. However, bacterial spores are viable on a timescale of tens of years, not the hundreds of thousands or millions that Mars has been hot/cold and dry. We cannot even extract DNA from anything older than several thousand years. It definitely WOULD be suprising if Martian bacteria survived on the million year timescale, incredibly surprising. It is possible (I mean everything has a non-zero probability) that all of a sudden native Martian life will flourish if we provide the right conditions, but it is definitel very improbable.

    4. Re:Organisms awakened? by Bob+of+Dole · · Score: 1

      Righto, that's there, but we beat it eventually.
      Haven't you seen the rest of the series?
      Evil President (I think we both know who'll fit that role) makes a deal with the Evil Mars Aliens, and the space station people have to stop him and the aliens.

      (Sure, the ISS is a bit smaller, but it'll work, right guys?)

  31. 50 C == 122 F by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    The story submitter most definitely meant Fahrenheit, not Centigrade.

    1. Re:50 C == 122 F by BorgHunter · · Score: 1

      No, the submitter had no idea either. It's the author of the piece's fault, as they absolutely failed to mention what units they were using. If we were to take them literally, the temperature would be equal to 5pi/18 radians, and that doesn't make sense. We can only assume that the author of the piece meant 50 degrees Fahrenheit, as that is what seems most feasible.

      --
      "Excuse me, did you say 'Trekker'? The word is 'Trekkie.' I should know; I created them." -- Gene Roddenberry
    2. Re:50 C == 122 F by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Funny
      No, the submitter had no idea either. It's the author of the piece's fault, as they absolutely failed to mention what units they were using

      It was on CBS News, so undoubtedly they were using American units. In this traditional system, used by all popular media when translating scientific stories for the unwashed, the unit of area is the "football field" (also of length, depending on context), "Rhode Island" or "Texas"; the unit of weight is "the Volkswagen", unit of money is "mile-high stack of dollar bills", unit of data is "New York phonebook", or "Library of Congress", etc. Though for 50F, the official American equivalent is, I believe, slightly warmer than a witch's tit.

  32. better article by ars · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a better article on the subject:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/05020 4115304.htm

    --
    -Ariel
  33. Is it safe? by MasterMynd · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking that it would be a good idea that before we start pumping life back into Mars we first verify that it is truly a dead world and if there are any martian bacteria that it won't harm people. Rather than continuing down the path of 'is it possible' we should continue down the path of 'is it safe as well as possible'. We don't want a virus hitting the human race that is unstoppable. The Black Plague in time died out, since we don't know anything about any Martian bugs that may or may not exist, we should err on the side of caution.

    1. Re:Is it safe? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > We don't want a virus hitting the human race that
      > is unstoppable.

      You clearly haven't a clue as to what a virus is.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Is it safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I do, it's whatever makes you feel bad. Like yesterday, I had the Hangover virus.

  34. and existing organisms- if any? by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    they'd be killed before discovery--right?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  35. martian atmosphere by The_Rook · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ok, mars has one third the gravity of earth, and no magnetic field to protect it from the solar wind. exactly how thick of an atmosphere or air pressure at ground level can mars support?

    --
    when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
  36. Victory Begins at Home by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yes, after our resounding success in monkeying with the Earth's atmosphere (sometimes passed off as "human activity is too puny to affect the environment that much"), we're moving on to an entire other planet to destroy^Wimprove. In the same breath as we mention the local life we haven't yet found, we lie about enhancing it, when really we'll be destroying it. How stupid are we, really? Only the future knows.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Victory Begins at Home by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Moderation 0
          50% Troll
          50% Interesting

      What is truly amazing about the TrollMod envirocaust deniers is that they have now abandoned any semblance of debate or reason. They merely haunt conversations, lurking with hidden daggers to silently, unaccountably attack anyone who calls out the sleazebags destroying our human chances of survival. That's a major collapse of their once-proud public braying. Perhaps their subspecies will be extinct in time for the rest of us to work together to survive.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  37. In related news by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....250 years ago Bwizopp Gnis'uen, a famous martian scientist came up with an idea how to colonize that cold blue planet.

    "This great plan will allow us to finally colonize that pesky blue planet and in the meantime allows us to get rid of that ape infestation over there.

    It would be hugely expensive to invade, so the brilliance of the plan is to let those apes do it for us. They will never suspect a thing.

    All we have to do is to tell them about the huge reserves of so called "oil" in the ground. The timing is crucial, because if we would tell them too late, they would discover a much easier way to generate energy. That would be a disaster, but it won't happen. When they realise what's going on it will be too late already."

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:In related news by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 3, Funny
      ....250 years ago Bwizopp Gnis'uen, a famous martian scientist came up with an idea how to colonize that cold blue planet.
      Oh great, now Scientology is going to DMCA Slashdot again!
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  38. eh Wait by pooly7 · · Score: 1

    eh Wait ! Earth see currently someglobalwarming du to human activitiesandirresponsible behavior... Just send all those oil company on Mars ! That's right, why trying to warm Mars, when the probleme will be to cool down the Earth !

  39. i'll be home in time for corn flakes by bmeteor · · Score: 2, Funny

    once the reaction starts, it'll spread to all the turbinium in the planet. Mars will go into global meltdown. That's why the aliens never turned it on.

    as campy as that movie was, I still like it.

    1. Re:i'll be home in time for corn flakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, I just got done watching that movie about 20 minutes ago. :)

  40. Is this a dupe? by Skiron · · Score: 1

    Total Recall? It's been done already!

  41. Go for it Bones........ by Crook+C-Digital-Art · · Score: 0

    According to myth the Earth was created in 6 days. Now, watchout! Margarita Marinova will do it in 6 minutes! Really. I'm sure the benefit of wrecking another planets climate will far outweigh the benefits of actually learning what Mars is all about.

  42. A big moon by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Tidal stresses.

    Start smacking asteroids into Phobos and Deimos, bump them gradually into higher orbits, persuade them to collide. Obviously it'd take a while and lots of asteroids.

    Could do the same to Mars itself, gradually slow it down into a lower orbit and add mass.

    --
    Deleted
  43. Nukes by kevlar · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered why we can't just nuke the polar caps or bombard it with asteroids to produce enough water vapor to make it at least have liquid water. I assume it'd cool off and re-freeze at some point, but I wonder if there's a critical limit where the atmosphere would be thick enough to absorb heat from the Sun and keep the water/co2 from refreezing.

    1. Re:Nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always wondered why we can't just nuke the polar caps

      Ya, because nuclear fallout makes the planet that much more hospitable.

    2. Re:Nukes by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      actually, during Reagan's time, we researched heavily into very low radiation nukes. No doubt we blew a few small ones (in spite of nuclear bans). It would probably be just a few small nukes that would do the trick.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Nukes by kevlar · · Score: 1

      Nuclear fallout occurs for a mere tens of years. Uranium 238 might have an extremely long half life, its all fissioned away in the nuclear reaction. Hence the reason why people are able to live and/or visit fallout locations, such as Hiroshima, Nagasaki and all the H-bomb ground zeros in Nevada or New Mexico or where ever they are.

  44. Life there may not be like life here by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ``It would take hundreds of years but eventually ice sheets would melt, grass would grow here, and temperatures would hit 50 degrees along the equator of the planet. Martian organisms might be revived too - if there are any."''

    Or, by so drastically changing the environment, we might kill the life that's there. For all I know, life on other planets may function according to very different mechanisms than life on Earth. Most of what we know is about lifeforms that do their magic with oxygen, water, and carbohydrates. Is it so hard to imagine there would be other combinations that work?

    There are many interactions between molecules in terran lifeforms that we barely understand. We don't know what the bulk of our DNA is good for, and I think the same goes for large parts of the human brain. With such a poor understanding of terrestial life, what makes us think we can make informed decissions about possible life on other planets?

    Oh, I get it. _We_ want to populate Mars with _our_ kind of life, so that someday _we_ might live there, after _we_ have ruined our own planet. The blurb about reviving Martian organisms is just to pretend we care for their survival, rather than just our own comfort.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Life there may not be like life here by incom · · Score: 0, Troll

      You do know a life destroying comet could come at anytime don't ya? I will not allow some fucked up nihilist to stop the human race in it's tracks waiting for extinction.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    2. Re:Life there may not be like life here by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      `` You do know a life destroying comet could come at anytime don't ya?''

      Yeah, but Bruce Willis is going to save us!

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    3. Re:Life there may not be like life here by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      There's another, even bigger problem with this whole thing that I see: although it might be (comparatively!) easy to start a greenhouse effect, how do you stop it once you get to the point where Mars has become habitable for us (temperature-wise, at least)? How do you prevent it from becoming a deadly hell like Venus?

      Also, there is, of course, the fact that temperature is just one problem. For example, Mars' atmosphere is (IIRC) only about one hundredth of the pressure of Earth's. That certainly is nowhere near enough to support human habitation, and given Mars' much smaller size, it's not immediately clear to me that it would be able to permanently hold a thicker atmosphere, either.

      These problems seem to be wholly unaccounted for, so AFAICT, the whole thing's little more than intellectual masturbation.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    4. Re:Life there may not be like life here by markass530 · · Score: 1

      I called cartman, and he is on his way to exterminate your hippy ass.

    5. Re:Life there may not be like life here by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      The blurb about reviving Martian organisms is just to pretend we care for their survival, rather than just our own comfort.

      You can go all weepy over the possible extermination of some microorganisms which may or may not exist, but I think most of us really won't give a shit if the payoff is another habitable planet.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    6. Re:Life there may not be like life here by thesymbolicfrog · · Score: 1

      The tree-huggers I can accept. The Animal Liberation Front I can accept. I can even accept pot-smoking hippies, as long as they don't smoke by me. However, you are now trying to extend rights to *microorganisms* that may or may not be alive on Mars. Congratulations, you've just invented a new type of minority. Take the rest of the day off. :)

    7. Re:Life there may not be like life here by Shihar · · Score: 1

      1) Mars will never be like Venus unless we really go out of our way to make it so. Venus is the way it is because it has an active core. It doesn't matter what we do to Mars, it will never spew its guts into the atmosphere again. Run away green house effects are really not something to worry about. The only thing that is going to get into the Martian atmosphere is what is held in ice and what we add.

      2) Mars can hold an atmosphere, just not forever (without help). The time scale it would take for a martial atmosphere to evaporate off is in the millions of years. Worrying about what will happen in a million years is rather fruitless. Anything could happen in a million years. Most likely, in a million years we won't care about the Martian atmosphere, and if we did, we would be able to restore it without much effort.

      This is intellectual masturbation, but even horny 14 year old boys need to start somewhere. There are good reasons to colonize Mars. The two top reasons that come to my mind is the potential scientific growth and sociological growth it would promote. A challenge for science and a chance to start a new society could led to a hell of a lot of learning.

  45. Prime Directive anyone?? by Drew+Curtis · · Score: 1

    I don't think those bacteria have warp capability yet, we should let them evolve in peace!

  46. 'Here?' by dhilvert · · Score: 1

    Colonization plans are proceeding swiftly, I see.

  47. Toxicity of OFP by cyberfunk2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Octafluoropropane is not really all that toxic.

    According to the MSDS (Material Saftey Data Sheet), the only real toxicity to worry about is asphyxiation, no worse than nitrogen or argon gas.

    Greenhouse gases != toxic (at least not implicity).

    MSDS link
    http://www.scottecatalog.com/msds.nsf/d118573c489f 39cc852569af00702e6f/26e5bede95a1fefb85256ef50045e 0e4?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,76-19-7

  48. Toxic stuff? by NReitzel · · Score: 2, Informative

    As a practicing chemist, I need to take exception to the characterization of octafluoropropane (perfluoropropane) as "toxic stuff." The very reason that such fluorocarbons hang around for a very long time is due to the strength of the fluorine-carbon bond and the extreme inertness of the molecules.

    PFP may be many things, but "toxic stuff" it ain't.

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

  49. This is fembots, reporting live from Mars by fbg111 · · Score: 1

    grass would grow here

    Um, since grass already grows on earth, then is "here" Mars? Wow, NASA's Mar's plans are a lot further along than I realized...

    --
    Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
  50. NASA's new slogan by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

    Travel the galaxy. Visit exotic planets. Fart on them.

  51. Soo ummm by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    What about planet Earth? Are we just gonna go planet jumping when it not cost effective to fix the one we are on now?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  52. Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative
    ...toxic stuff (Octafluoropropane)...
    It isn't toxic. Here's the MSDS .
    ...already blamed for global warming...
    And it isn't to blame for global warming: there isn't enough of it released to matter. CO2 is to blame for global warming.
    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by maxume · · Score: 1

      It isn't even clear CO2 is much of a problem. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html makes some interesting claims about the effects of CO2. It attributes most global warming to H2O. Wild stuff. Be sure to note that Cato is more wacko libertarian than they are wacko right wing.

      Perhaps with 60 years of sort of ok measurements of some places and lets say, I don't know, 25 years of reasonable global data(satellite imagery), we can't even say anything about the climate of the planet?

      Sure there are ways of estimating historical global temperatures using ice and plant growth and stuff like that, but how accurate are those estimates? If the error is even as low as plus or minus 2 degrees, we can't say shit about what temperatures would be without human influence. The data we do have suggests that temperatures have only climbed a small amount(a degree C or two) since the start of the burning, err, industrial revolution.

      From a global perspective, it is probably reasonable to talk about temperature change using some sort of time average, averaging across somewhere between 50 and 500 years. The last ten years, scientifically speaking, don't mean shit.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by erikdalen · · Score: 1

      It isn't toxic?
      From the page you linked:
      Symptoms include rapid respiration, muscular incoordination, fatigue, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, unconsciousness, and death.

      --
      Erik Dalén
    3. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      CATO is not a reliable source.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    4. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. All irrigation projects should be stopped...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    5. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by maxume · · Score: 1

      I don't have either the information or inclination to say whether cato is reliable, but I don't doubt your claim. However, from the top of the article:

      Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

      If the article is somehow misused or not representative of his original publication, someone should let him know. If Richard S. Lindzen isn't reliable, why is he still at MIT?

      I don't seek to assert that the claims in the article are correct, just that they merit consideration, and the whole concept of global warming is not necessarily a fact, or due to CO2. We don't know yet, but the article presents a valid, well argued view on the situation. Read it. Cato sicken you? MIT PDF google cache of pdf

      To be fair, Article questioning Lindzen's integrity.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Because once you have tenure there is little they can do to you. Short of academic fraud you can make all sorts of wild, unfounded, or simply off-the-beaten path claims you like.

      As for CATO your own,, has an entry. One of the external links of interest is available but is available here.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    7. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by maxume · · Score: 1

      I don't find Lindzen's article any more unfounded than anything else I have read about global warming, just on the other side of the debate.

      The fact that Exxon-Mobil likes him so much, and the insinuations that he gets major amounts of funding from big energy are definitely sources of discomfort.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Octafluoropropane sounds to me like it might come under the chlorofluorocarbon umbrella--which means it is an ozone destroyer, not a greenhouse gas. Any chemists here know for sure?

    9. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Excellent article. Thanks. Beyond the sound scientific reasoning and data, The Gallup poll of climate scientists showing only 18% of scientists in the field believe global warming has been observed was especially revealing.

      I would like to point out, though, that attributing nearly all of the greenhouse effect to water vapor isn't wild stuff at all. The fact that the only major greenhouse gas is water vapor is undisputed by both sides of the climate debate. In fact, the proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory believe that the contribution of water vapor is even greater than the skeptics. The proponents believe that the warming caused by CO2 is magnified by the increased humidity, while the skeptics believe that there is either no positive feedback or perhaps negative feedback resulting from increased cloud cover when humidity temporarily rises.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    10. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      So what's your point? that sourcewatch link shows the Cato Institute to have overwhelmingly exemplary views on personal liberty and policies that affect liberty. It also shows only 16% of their income comes from foundations and corporations. Your second link consists of a few lines of unsupported name-calling plus some links to ... whatever.

      What support is there for your implication that this MIT professor is making "wild, unfounded" claims? I read his article, and found it well reasoned and informative.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    11. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      The second link is to a copy of what's linked from the original wikipedia article but is offline. It would help to actually read some of the content referenced there.

      Yes, of course you did. That's the point. To those not reasoning or particularly informed on an issue or the technical background it seems reasonable. It's not unlike astroturfing. Read some of the afore-mentioned, or other critiques of their reports by other academics.

      I said "wild, unfounded or simply off the beaten-path". I do lean towards the former,
      but I did not say it.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    12. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article was written in 1992, and there have been a lot of advances in our modeling of climate since then. Also, as a general principal, I'm suspicious of articles that mix a broad-stroke 'everyone else is wrong' argument with attacks on the motivation and character of people who hold opposing (or mainstream!) views. Maybe Lindzen was just predicting the Internet....

      Lindzen is correct, water is a major greenhouse gas, but he neglects to point out that the amount of water in the atmosphere is relatively immune to human intervention. The amount of water that evaporates from the oceans and falls as rain every day is much larger than anything humanity is doing. Also, the hydro cycle runs fairly quickly--IIRC, a water molecule stays in the atmosphere for an average of two months or so. So, any human inputs to atmospheric water are (1) dwarfed by the natural ones; and (2) rain out after a few months, rather than accumulating.

      On the other hand, the amount of CO2 emitted by natural sources is the same order of magitude as human emissions, and a CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere for decades or more. So our emissions have been accumulating since the start of the industrial revolution, and have been able to make a noticable change in the amount of CO2 in the air.

    13. Re:Journalists Garble The Facts As Usual by Mark+Gordon · · Score: 1

      No chlorine involved; it's strictly a fluorocarbon.

      Yes, it's tough on ozone. It's also a highly effective greenhouse gas. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

      Bear in mind that Mars has no ozone layer, making the effect of C3F8 on ozone irrelevant in a Martian context.

  53. It's works! by trintron · · Score: 1

    Preliminary tests here at Earth show that it actually works.

    Next stop, Mars..

  54. Go visit Africa by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Funny

    Offer yourself to the lions. After all, they're natural and wouldn't dream of hurting another living creature would they?

    Guess what. It's survival of the fittest.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Go visit Africa by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ``It's survival of the fittest.''

      Yes, but what exactly constitutes "fittest" is hard to define. Surely money-grabbing corporatist leaders are more fit than poor people who spend all the energy they use on staying alive, in the sense that the former's offspring will be far more likely to survive. But in the long term, they are poisoning the planet to the extent that it basically can't harbor them anymore. Sure, they'll be the last to go; the poor will suffocate before they do, but, as a wise man once said, "then you will find that money cannot be eaten".

      I, personally, care more about being kind to others than about having a long and luxurious life for myself. The idea that I'm making somebody else's life a little better is worth more to me than showing off with a new car or wearing the latest fashion. I may die young, but at least I'll die in the knowledge that I've made some people happy.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    2. Re:Go visit Africa by jmv · · Score: 1

      Guess what. It's survival of the fittest.

      Wow! It's the best reason I've ever heard for killing all other species on earth.

    3. Re:Go visit Africa by Myrkridian42 · · Score: 1
      Surely money-grabbing corporatist leaders are more fit than poor people who spend all the energy they use on staying alive... But in the long term, they are poisoning the planet to the extent that it basically can't harbor them anymore.

      And they will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

    4. Re:Go visit Africa by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Look at it this way. Among everything out there, living or dead, on other planets and across the universe, this is who we are as a species. If we end up killing ourselves off, then I guess we were one of the ones that didn't "deserve" to survive. That said, I don't believe we're headed down that path, as you seem to think. Maybe it's the altruistic individuals like yourself who sustain the rest of us--I don't know. Sucks for you, but it bodes well for humanity.

    5. Re:Go visit Africa by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what exactly constitutes "fittest" is hard to define.

      No, from a Darwinist point of view it is not hard to define "fittest" Your' argument attempts to place ethics into evolution. Evolution is a mechanism, it has no ethics...good or bad. Money grubbing corporatist leaders will out survive the poor but they will be outlasted by money grubbing corporatists who realize the value of a sustained working class ( this is an evolutionary support for social reform mechanisms BTW ).
      Your' decision to put kindness first is refreshing but will have ultimately no bearing on evolution. Our decision to terraform will be an evolutionary one, species use whatever methods they have to adapt to change. We now have a much broader base of technology to add to those methods and if we squish a few martian bugs along the way, well that's nature at it's finest.

      BTW, whoever modded you flamebait needs to broaden their perspective and try communicating as opposed to modding whatever they disagree with. Yours is an informative though different opinion.

    6. Re:Go visit Africa by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what exactly constitutes "fittest" is hard to define.

      Wow, then I guess it's a good thing that this concept is self-defining.

    7. Re:Go visit Africa by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "Surely money-grabbing corporatist leaders are more fit than poor people who spend all the energy they use on staying alive, in the sense that the former's offspring will be far more likely to survive"

      If you look at demographics on Planet Earth, you'll find that the people whose genes are most likely to be represented in future generations are, in fact, those poor people. Who have vast numbers of children. And who outnumber the rich by many millions, even by billions.

      Sure, given an offspring of an individual rich folk and an offspring of a poor folk, the poor folk is likely to have a shorter life.

      But their reproductive potential is absolutely *huge*.

      The future gene pool of the human race 'resides' in the slums and ghettos of the world.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    8. Re:Go visit Africa by khallow · · Score: 1
      And they will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

      Depends on the kind of revolution. You can starve out urban revolutions, which seem to be the most common kind.

    9. Re:Go visit Africa by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      I only mod down stuff that bashes Linux if it's not true (and having six years of experience of Linux, I know when something is blatantly not true), otherwise I leave it alone and let the microsofties mod it up...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    10. Re:Go visit Africa by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      Sure, given an offspring of an individual rich folk and an offspring of a poor folk, the poor folk is likely to have a shorter life.

      But their reproductive potential is absolutely *huge*.

      The future gene pool of the human race 'resides' in the slums and ghettos of the world.

      oh shit... the ghost of Eugenics still lives... with reaasoning like that, the slippery slope to mass sterilisation & death camps for the undesireables is just a few bills away...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    11. Re:Go visit Africa by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "the slippery slope to mass sterilisation & death camps for the undesireables is just a few bills away"

      Actually what I'm saying is that, by definition, the vast realms of the slum dweller are far more successful than their wealthier, better-neighborhood cousins.

      More successful maybe even by orders of magnitude.

      Obviously by evolutionary measures, humanity is better serviced, its survival better guaranteed, by those slum-dwellers. I bet their immune systems are a lot better adapted too (when they don't have AIDS).

      Not making a value judgement, just pointing out the reality of the situation. Its a numbers game. The poor have the numbers, the rich do not.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    12. Re:Go visit Africa by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 1

      Surely money-grabbing corporatist leaders are more fit than poor people who spend all the energy they use on staying alive, in the sense that the former's offspring will be far more likely to survive.

      The probability of survival is irrelevant. What counts is the amount of genes transmitted, which is related to the number of surviving offspring.

      Poor people have more children than rich people. Populations in poorer countries grow much, much faster than in richer countries. Therefore, in terms of raw evolution, poverty is a selective advantage !

      Thomas-

    13. Re:Go visit Africa by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      >> It's survival of the fittest.

      Yes, and that is *precisely*, why every time we send a probe there, they shoot it down. I'd imagine them to be expecting us already. Besides, humans are frail and delicate, and require a very specific -- and universally rare -- set of conditions for survival.

      I know on whom I'm putting my money!

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
    14. Re:Go visit Africa by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      Due to /. restrictions mods can't communicate in a discussion they are moderating unless they log on as an AC on a different computer.

      Exactly, so if they feel the need to dispute something they should post a rebuttal instead of modding. If I mod something as flamebait, other people may not read it. If I reply with positive Karma (which most mods have) my opinion is heard as a contrasting viewpoint.

    15. Re:Go visit Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "they can't" didn't get through?

    16. Re:Go visit Africa by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      What part of "they can't" didn't get through?

      The part where you said "they can't". As someone who does not post anonymously, I often have mod points. You always have a choice wether to mod or participate. Except when you have already started modding, but you should have an idea if you want to mod or participate prior to modding. If moderating is taken seriously it works well. However, if people use it for personal belief screening it is simply a hassle. They can post if they want read the FAQ thoroughly and you will notice that. They can't moderate AND post in the same topic.

    17. Re:Go visit Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FNORD

    18. Re:Go visit Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "The part where you said "they can't". As someone who does not post anonymously, I often have mod points. "


      Well guess what. If you were participating in the same discussion you were moderating, those moderations were thrown out.

  55. Nice little girl. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Too bad she didn't think this through. Even though our Earth plants do 'eat' CO2 and release O2, on Mars O2 will fly off into the space, but our Earth plants DO NEED O2 to breath. So... good luck with that idea.

    She is fun though (obviously a Russian born.)

    1. Re:Nice little girl. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      You're the one who didn't think it through. It would take millions of years for enough gas to escape to matter.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Nice little girl. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      you don't get it, do you? The plants need O2 to live. There is no O2 on Mars on the first place, so the plants will not survive. All the O2 that they will make in the few hours of their short lives there will disappear into the space on the same day it was produced.

  56. Boil it by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Water turns into steam, steam is a gas. Cool the steam in another, clean drinking vessel.

    --
    Deleted
  57. Hundreds of years projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with this project is one of continuity - it is not at all clear that societies will stay stable enough for such a project to succeed. For instance, if things keep going in the same direction, within a few decades the US might be a fundamentalist country - pretty much like Saudi Arabia, only of the Christian persuasion - in which science would be relegated to the realm of the devil, and, therefore, verboten.

  58. It's NOT toxic by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Octafluoropropane is NOT a toxic gas in the sense that it directly damages the health of people, animals, etc when breathed/ingested (its a class 2.2 hazard: non-toxic, non-flammable gas). Like most fluorocarbons (refrigerants, Halons etc.), it is a very inert gas which presents a hazard only in that it can displace oxygen and lead to asphyxiation. But a mixture of 20% O2 and 80% octafluoropropane would probably be quite breathable, although it might feel uncomfortably dense to breath (this mix being about 6 times denser than normal air).

    The only real danger of these gases in the atmosphere is that they can breakdown under UV bombardment in the upper atmosphere and generate ozone-destroying chemicals (not a big issue on Mars as it lacks appreciable ozone in the first place). Also, high temperature combustion of fluorocarbons can produce some nasty byproducts, but the inertness of the chemicals makes this very hard to do.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:It's NOT toxic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Like most fluorocarbons (refrigerants, Halons etc.), it is a very inert gas which presents a hazard only in that it can displace oxygen and lead to asphyxiation. But a mixture of 20% O2 and 80% octafluoropropane would probably be quite breathable, although it might feel uncomfortably dense to breath (this mix being about 6 times denser than normal air).

      That risk of asphyxiation is significant. We've all seen people breathe in helium to make their voices high-pitched. Some people do the same with argon...very carefully. It's also a noble gas; the only significant difference is the density. That makes it much harder to get out of your lungs (and thus, oxygen back in). See this page:

      Argon is nontoxic and largely inert. It can act as a simple asphyxiant by displacing the oxygen in air to levels below that required to support life. Inhalation of argon in excessive amounts can cause dizziness, nausea, vomiting, loss of consciousness, and death. Death may result from errors in judgment, confusion, or loss of consciousness that prevents self-rescue. At low oxygen concentrations, unconsciousness and death may occur in seconds and without warning.
  59. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  60. Yeah, right by Cally · · Score: 1

    Pardon my scepticism, but how the fsck are these nutters planning to compensate for the incoming solar radiation which is - what, 25%? 20% - as bright as it is here on Earth? "Why, genetic engineering!" Yeah, right. An unpopular opinion amongst the SF film nuts around here, I know, but it's never going to happen outside of 'speculative fiction'.

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    1. Re:Yeah, right by lxs · · Score: 1

      The magic number is roughly 43% , about the same as a cloudy day on earth. Human Martians may develop S.A.D, but it's not a major problem for colonization.

      Mars is nearer than you think.

      Here's a quick calculation to support my statement:
      Mars is 1.52 times farther from the sun than the earth. Light intensity falls off with the square of the distance (the sun is roughly a point source at these distances) ,so the local sun brightness is 1/(1.52^2) =0,4328 compared to Earth

    2. Re:Yeah, right by Cally · · Score: 1

      Surely that should be the *cube* of the distance? Electromagnetic radiation propogates in three dimensions after all... accepting your figures for Mars' orbit, 1/(1.5^3) is 0.29 - something under a third. Anyway, that's not the same as a cloudy day on earth. Apart from anything else, the Martian atmosphere, tenuous as it is, does absorb and reflect some percentage of incident light due to dust particles and thin traces of various gases. Hmmm, the Mars rovers' site would probably have some definitive info on that.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    3. Re:Yeah, right by lxs · · Score: 1

      No. it's the square of the distance. Imagine a sphere with the sun at it's centre. The total amount of light from the sun passes through the surface of the sphere regardless of it's radius.

      Now the surface of the sphere is a constant (4*pi) times the radius squared, while the total flux stays constant, which means that when you move twice as far from the centre, you have to divide the total amount of light by a surface that is 2^2 times as big, giving an inverse square law.

      If you still don't believe me, Wikipedia has a nice writeup with diagrams

      excerpt: The intensity of light radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.

    4. Re:Yeah, right by Cally · · Score: 1
      ok, I'll take your word for it... you sound like you know what you're talking about. And your explanation actually makes sense.

      Anyway, I still maintain that Mars terraforming just ain't going to happen.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  61. Hmmmmm... by lunchlady55 · · Score: 1

    I can TOTALly RECALL a plan to make Mars livable. But then again I might just be dreaming of the RED PLANET. (Or killer kung-fu guerrilla para-millitary robots from a planet near Mars)

    =P

    "Release Greenhouse Gasses on Mars" == "Last thing we have to worry about"

  62. It's all funny until someone loses an eye by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Bringing ancient Martian organisms back to life is all fun and games until one of them jumps on someone's face and sucks their brains out.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  63. Dr. Erik Clacey's Study by laodamas · · Score: 5, Informative

    The idea is to initiate a run-away greenhouse effect on Mars using a super-effective Greenhouse gas that is safe and easy to produce on Mars. 10-20*10^9 Kg of C2F8, a greenhouse gas 12,000 more effective than CO2, would seem to do the trick. Assuming that 10% of all sunlight reaching Mars could be trapped, Mars could be warmed enough to reach the triple point of CO2 within 100 years. This would release the CO2 (and hopefully water) frozen within the Martian Regolith into the atmosphere and possibly add enough atmosphere to allow for human exploration with only an oxygen mask a few yars later. At this point martian life, if it does exist, should flourish. If it does not we can start populating the planet with Earth species without nasty Mars life preservation debates.

    This is not an easy process. Our CFCs, in the Martian atmosphere, would last for thousands of years, so VERY careful monitoring would be required in order to prevent us from terraforming a Venus.

    Mars does not have a magnetosphere so our terraformed atmosphere would only have a life of about ten million years before evaporating.

    I have notes of the ongoing Mars Society Conference here if you want more information on the current state of manned Mars exploration.

    1. Re:Dr. Erik Clacey's Study by delong · · Score: 1

      Mars does not have a magnetosphere so our terraformed atmosphere would only have a life of about ten million years before evaporating

      10 million? Good enough for human use.

    2. Re:Dr. Erik Clacey's Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't get octopropane's molecular formula (C3F8) right, how can I believe anything else you say?

    3. Re:Dr. Erik Clacey's Study by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      "If you can't get octopropane's molecular formula (C3F8) right, how can I believe anything else you say?"

      If you can't get octafluoropropane's name right, why should you criticize someone else?

      BTW, it's more commonly known as perfluoropropane.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    4. Re:Dr. Erik Clacey's Study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      10 million? Good enough for human use.

      You must be a short-term-only thinking American.
    5. Re:Dr. Erik Clacey's Study by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I think this is a bad idea.

      1) It takes a long time. Meaning, the chance that in that time a better approach may be find is very likely.

      2) Mars nees a magnetic field. Gases defrosted are going to be lost to solar winds and radiation. Not immediately, but eventually. The freezing of the planet was all that saved some small bit of the original light elements.

      3) Sounds expensive. What about a "super algae"?

      4) I'd rather have a base on the moon and develop interstellar vehicles there.

      We really need to look at global warming on earth first. I was reading an article about Southern Siberia melting. The methane bubbling up from the ground and the loss of reflective snow are causing it to warm faster. The expectation is that this will release as much methane as all other sources combined. This is called a "tipping point". Current theories of global warming look at all things remaining the same and adding X amount of greenhouse gas and calculating warming. Events like melting permafrost change ground absorption and liberating more greenhouse gas are not part of the prediction. Also, the Antartic ice fields breaking off are causing glaciers to slide into the ocean and raise ocean water levels... without melting. Past assumptions only looked at ice melting. So, what other "Tipping Point" events have we not guessed at? When are we at the point where we can't reverse Global Warming?

      This really needs to be Job 1 of the government, Job 2 should be realizing that we have hit Peak Oil and that the rate of oil coming out of the ground is going to slow while demand increases.

      Perhaps solar reflectors in outer space shading the planet and sending energy down via coherent light might help? But really, we need to focus on the important things. Mars can wait. If we wanted to use it to test out ideas to save our planet (rather than release a super algae on earth that has irreversable consequences) than I'm in.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  64. Global warming is just a theory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jury is still out folks.
    It's amazing that US goverment & NASA would buy this
    mumbo jumbo science.

  65. Because it's our job by garyebickford · · Score: 1

    ... and we're almost done here!

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  66. You can't be serious by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
    Oh, I get it. _We_ want to populate Mars with _our_ kind of life, so that someday _we_ might live there, after _we_ have ruined our own planet.

    Are you seriously saying that our kind of life, the Slashdot-reading, Internet-communicating kind of life is equal or less than equal to some proto-bacteria that may or may not exist on Mars? I take it then that you don't kill bacteria when you find it in your house or on your body since the bacteria on your toilet or in your armpits has just as much an equal right to life as you do.

    1. Re:You can't be serious by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      just had a flashback of this southern-type guy with a shotgun going: 'come here, bacteria, bacteria, bacteria, right here. Bull's eye!'

      I say kill everyone.

    2. Re:You can't be serious by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``I say kill everyone.''

      Patience, my friend. Your wish will be fulfilled.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    3. Re:You can't be serious by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``Are you seriously saying that our kind of life, the Slashdot-reading, Internet-communicating kind of life is equal or less than equal to some proto-bacteria that may or may not exist on Mars?''

      No, not really. I'm just stating that we are arrogant enough to wipe out other lifeforms and take their land, because we've destroyed our own. Or even because we don't feel our own is good enough for us anymore. Or just because we can.

      There are various degrees here, and different people will make different judgments about what they find right, wrong, or inevitable.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    4. Re:You can't be serious by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``I take it then that you don't kill bacteria when you find it in your house or on your body since the bacteria on your toilet or in your armpits has just as much an equal right to life as you do.''

      Come on man, I'm a hacker! Of course I don't kill the bacteria in my house and in my armpits!

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    5. Re:You can't be serious by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      I'm just stating that we are arrogant enough to wipe out other lifeforms and take their land, because we've destroyed our own.

      Those "other lifeforms", assuming they're even present, are at best bacteria. There's hardly any arrogance in the act of destroying bacteria. We do it every day, and deliberately, in order to make our own lives safer or easier. There's zip wrong with that. Why you insist that Mars bacteria is somehow more deserving of life than the bacteria growing in your crotch is beyond me.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    6. Re:You can't be serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's not why. Martian bacteria are almost certainly non-sentient, and therefore do not mind if we take their land. Even if they do, we don't really care, because they're bacteria.

      The *much* better reason to not kill them all before we get there is that (supposing they exist) they are the only life we would have found off this planet, and *possibly* independently developed. The research opportunity would be astounding. It could answer a number of open questions about life, and the possibility of finding more or creating more.

      They're bacteria. It's not exactly "their" land, because they are certainly not complex enough to understand the idea of property ownership. You don't need to resort to emotional "nice"-ness arguments to justify not wiping them out.

  67. What's wrong with that? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with having a new planet to explore (or even exploit)? Wouldn't you rather have all the toxic heavy industry on Mars and off this planet if it could be done?

  68. Impressive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A story with two completely different subjects of fiction: Martian life, and global warming! Add in some WMDs and cold fusion and you've got a hit string of Jurassic Park sequels.

  69. Opportunity and Spirit kinda look like lawnmowers by ZipR · · Score: 1

    ... so perhaps growing grass on Mars has been in the planning for a while now.

  70. "Greenhouse" effect != green planet by D4C5CE · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "grass would grow [t]here"
    Last time I checked, grass would not grow at 7.5 millibar, on a "soil" of iron oxide - or in other words, on what seems similar to an old junkyard in near-vacuum conditions for most organisms from Planet Earth...

    Maybe the key to making that story seem plausible lies in using quite a different kind of "grass"? ;-)

  71. Time frame by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
    Mars O2 will fly off into the space

    Not in the short term. Perhaps over the course of a few hundred thousand years, yeah sure, but there's a lot of living one can do in that amount of time.

    You know, the edge of the Sun will eventually envelop the earth when its supply of helium runs out and it expands in a few million years as well, but that doesn't stop me from planting new tomato plants in the back yard each year simply because the earth is doomed to be evaporated at some distant point in the future. Perspective, people!

    1. Re:Time frame by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Informative

      O2 will fly off to space in the course of a few hours. Mars is not massive enough to hold pure O2 in the atmosphere. The velocity of O2 molecules at Marsian temperature and pressure is greater than the escape velocity, so O2 will disappear almost instantly. There is no perspective and this has nothing to do with the Sun.

    2. Re:Time frame by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      Note that they are not advocating trying to produce a breathable atmosphere, merely an atmosphere thick and warm enough to allow exploration using only oxygen masks.

    3. Re:Time frame by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Note that plants need oxygen to breathe, please explain to me how these plants will be breathing without oxygen? Yes, they produce oxygen by converting CO2 to O2 while 'eating', but they need O2 on the first place to breathe.

    4. Re:Time frame by LastNickAvailable · · Score: 0

      Well the bacteria which are supposed to sleep in the ground use a different metabolism which does not use oxygen and will come useful in this cas.

    5. Re:Time frame by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      the girl was definitely talking about algae, grass and some 'rough' weeds, not bacteria.

    6. Re:Time frame by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      the girl was definitely talking about algae, grass and some 'rough' weeds, not bacteria.
      No. The reporter mentioned grass, the researcher did not. This article does not mention grass or other Earth life, so I think we can assume that the reporter got carried away. I expect that introducing Earth life is not part of the plan (or at least not expected to work).
    7. Re:Time frame by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Margarita Marinova says you are wrong herself right there in that video. (Watch through a commercial first tho.)

    8. Re:Time frame by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
      The velocity of O2 molecules at Marsian temperature and pressure is greater than the escape velocity

      The point of the whole endeavor is to increase both temperature and pressure over the long run and not keep it at current levels.

    9. Re:Time frame by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      Ok fair enough. But she specifically addresses the fact that it will be a C02 atmosphere and yet still believes they can find plants which will grow. So you are simply disagreeing that it is possible to find plants that will survive in a atmosphere with little or no oxygen, right?

    10. Re:Time frame by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I am saying that today we do not have plants like that in nature and even worse, O2 will fly out of the planet's atmosphere because Mars cannot hold it.

    11. Re:Time frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So just dig a big hole and fill Mars with dark matter. Or crash a black hole into it. Or a brown dwarf. Hell, ask Red Dwarf to crash into it. ... seriously, a good (yet depressingly-bad-news) post). My snarkiness is just 'cuz that beats thinking about work tomorrow.

    12. Re:Time frame by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      Even if you're right about the plants that doesn't make any difference because the goal of this exercise is to make the planet more habitable for us and increased atmospheric pressure and average temperature will do that regardless of whether it's enough for unprotected life to survive. So basically your original comment, which btw was gratuitously condescending, still isn't relevant. And I assume by now you've realised she's not Russian?

    13. Re:Time frame by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > > The velocity of O2 molecules at Marsian temperature and pressure is
      > > greater than the escape velocity
      >
      > The point of the whole endeavor is to increase both temperature and
      > pressure over the long run and not keep it at current levels.

      That makes the above-stated problem worse, not better, because the increase in temperature increases the velocity of the molecules, significantly, and the pressure only keeps the bottom ones in; it pushes the top ones up and out, and more gravity is required to hold them in.

      Before we can usefully give Mars anything like Earth's atmosphere, we need to increase its mass and thus its gravity. The most obvious way I can come up with to do that is drop a bunch of asteroids onto it. That's an expensive project, but we do have the technology to make it feasable, given enough funding. We're talking *lots* of funding, though, probably enough to bankrupt the US government, the EU, *and* Microsoft. In other words, it's probably not going to happen until we develop a way to do it more cheaply than we currently can.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    14. Re:Time frame by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      She is american at this point, I said she is Russian born. Her name and accent are too obvious to me (I am from Ukraine myself.)

      But do, go ahead and explain to me how will the methods she proposed increase the atmospheric pressure if none of the living plants will survive on Mars even for a week without breathing?

      If the goal is to create a mutant plant, that doesn't breathe oxygen, she didn't state that in her proposal.

    15. Re:Time frame by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      She is american at this point, I said she is Russian born. Her name and accent are too obvious to me (I am from Ukraine myself.)
      Bulgarian born according to the article. I guessed you were Eastern European, but that still leaves a lot of options.
      But do, go ahead and explain to me how will the methods she proposed increase the atmospheric pressure if none of the living plants will survive on Mars even for a week without breathing?
      The idea is to increase the global temperature to the point where the southern ice cap (primarily CO2) melts. That's what will provide the pressure increase.
      If the goal is to create a mutant plant, that doesn't breathe oxygen, she didn't state that in her proposal.
      If they could get the temperature up above freezing (and IIRC they did think that would be possible on the equator during summer) they might be able to use aquatic plants. But as I said, I don't think open life is the primary point.
    16. Re:Time frame by Inthewire · · Score: 0

      Disagree - more molecules present means more barriers to exit.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    17. Re:Time frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nasa did a experiment that showed Martian Regolith with high Iron Ore concentrations can absorbe carbon dixoide at low temprature. Simply put they stuck some Iron ore in a jar with a high CO2 atomosphere and lowered the temprature. The pressure dropped. They heated it back up and it returned to normal presure. The current thinking is maybe it did not blow out to space after all....in fact thats one of the primary missions for a human mars trip. To build a greenhouse to test the theory.

    18. Re:Time frame by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Disagree - more molecules present means more barriers to exit.

      From a physics perspective, that doesn't make even a small amount of sense.

      Yes, the molecules lower down would likely run into molecules higher up
      and bounce back down, but when they do that, it transfers kinetic energy to
      the ones they bounced off of and sends them further up and further out.

      More molecules means a thicker atmosphere, which means the top of it is
      higher up, which means more molecules leaving the atmosphere, unless there's
      enough gravity to pull them back. Id est, the more atmosphere you give Mars,
      the faster it escapes, until before long it's right back down where it was.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  72. In other news by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

    Our spy from the Council Chambers has apparently been caught and executed. When asked about it, K'Breel denied any knowledge, but did comment that all spies from the Third Planet had finally been found.

      Rumor has it that TripMaster Monkey, one of the reporters who regularly attend the Chambers, could not be found anywhere in his regular haunts. Martian authorities are investigating.

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  73. See you at the party, Richter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    QUAAAAAAID!!!

  74. Re:Opportunity and Spirit kinda look like lawnmowe by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
    ... so perhaps growing grass on Mars has been in the planning for a while now.

    Marijuana does grow in remarkably hostile places.

  75. Won't happen by vwidiot · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is postulated that the only reason cosmic rays don't eradicated us from this planet is due to the magnetic field generated by the molten core of the earth which acts as a giant electric dynamo. Mars has no such protection as any volcanic activity has ceased long ago.

  76. why? by pbjones · · Score: 1

    we have almost completely stuffed up the Earth, why stuff up another planet?? We can survive here with just a little commonsense and care, why try to change a whole plant just for us?

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
    1. Re:why? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      Why are you saying such strange things.
      1. We haven't 'stuffed up' the Earth. I live on it. It's a very nice place.
      2. There are something like 10^11 stars in the galaxy. As we've been discovering, many of them have planets. There are probably countless places where humans can live out there. Why shouldn't we go and live on them? Most humans aren't secluded hermits who close themselves off from reality.
      3. Why change a planet for us? Why not? Do you see anyone else out there staking a claim? There are billions of other planets out there. Who cares about Mars which is one piddly speck of dust compared to the immensity of the universe.
      I think you need to get a bit of perspective.
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  77. It will never work. by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Any attempt to build a remotely useful atmosphere on Mars will be futile, as the planet lacks a strong enough gravity to hold on to a useful amount of atmosphere in the absence of a magnetic field that can help deflect the solar wind from taking it away.

    Inexorably, Mars' atmosphere is being lapped away by the constant barraging of the solar wind. If we thicken it up, by whatever means, it will simply thin down again because the gravity on the planet isn't strong enough to compensate for it.

  78. It would not make a difference. by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ever listen to the president speak? And that was the best diploma that money could buy.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  79. You'd trust a source that starts off... by jd · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...with the letters MS?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  80. Not exactly by _defiant_ · · Score: 1

    As someone else has already pointed out, there is a difference between a virus (smallpox) and a bacterium. But it's false to think that every virus on earth causes disease in humans: when was the last time you were sick with feline leukemia? Any new, random virus probably won't be dangerous to humans. Some of our most deadly diseases come from millennia of close contact with domesticate animals, something you probably aren't going to find on Mars.

    Bacteria are the same way. There are probably over a million different species and yet only a small percentage of those cause disease in humans. In fact, some of them even help humans with tasks like digestion! The odds of a random bacteria on Mars being harmful is incredibly small. Hell, we might even find one that colonizes our mouthes and stops tooth decay.

    I wouldn't worry about viruses and bacteria when deciding to teraform Mars.

  81. What's wrong woth that? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
    Or just because we can.

    What's wrong with that? It would be a fair fight. Didn't you see "War of the Worlds" man? Bacteria can put up a pretty good counter-attack. They might even win.

    1. Re:What's wrong woth that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you see "War of the Worlds" man?

      I heard someone wrote a book based on it.

  82. My Site is devoted to this by jimktrains · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't mean this to be shameless advertising(, because we don't make money off of this, the pennies we make from cafepress is put towards server expenses).

    http://www.redcolony.com/ We accept articles from people and have a active forum with 16yros up discussing this very topic on scientific grounds. The site is about sharing ideas and getting the public excited about colonizing and sxploring (and terraforming) the Red Planet. I hope any visitors enjoy their stay.

    --
    "You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
  83. 50C? !!!WTF? by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    Does that actually sound good to anyone? Leave it to human beings to go screwing with things they shouldn't. Trust me, I love technology and I'm no luddite, but there are things I believe we shouldn't mess with.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  84. From Margarita Marinova herself by pauljlucas · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I had the same question, so I e-mailed her. Here's my question:
    So even if you add more of an atmosphere to Mars, what would prevent it from leaking off into space just like it's already done to get Mars into the state it's in now? Due to Mars' lack of a magnetic field, the solar wind would just strip away the atmosphere.
    Within minutes, I got a reply from her:
    Hi Paul,

    you're right, even if we thicken Mars' atmosphere, it will eventually disappear again. The lack of magnetic field is probably not the biggest problem (it's likely to have been more of a problem in the past when the solar wind was likely stronger), but you would definitely have the formation of Carbonates in the newly formed lakes and rivers that would take sequester the CO2.

    The important point here though is timescales. If people really wanted to do it, terraforming (at least the first stages) could definitely be accomplished in about 100 years. That's a reasonable timescale in the life of humans. The disappearance of the Mars atmosphere, on the other hand, would take *at least* millions, and probably tens of millions, of years. That timescale is much longer than human experience and therefore I would argue is not that important. We are going to be so different in a million years, with such totally different capabilities and needs, that the fact that Mars will then again become inhabitable I think is unimportant.

    Margarita.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    1. Re:From Margarita Marinova herself by mlrtime · · Score: 1


      The disappearance of the Mars atmosphere, on the other hand, would take *at least* millions, and probably tens of millions, of years


      Sheesh, always thinking about short term gains and not long term affects... when will they learn?

    2. Re:From Margarita Marinova herself by Minwee · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So what she's saying is "We can do this, it will work for a while, and by the time it falls apart it will be somebody else's problem because we'll all be long gone."

      I think I can stand behind that kind of reasoning.

    3. Re:From Margarita Marinova herself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A stone age arrowhead will require sharpening after 15000 years. But of course you could have convinced those people they shouldn't make arrows, because they would stop being sharp in year 2005.

    4. Re:From Margarita Marinova herself by Kizor · · Score: 1

      Odd, that. To me it sounded like "This large potential resource can only stay usable for a limited time."

      Given that limited here equals ~1'000'000, I think I can stand behind that kind of reasoning.

    5. Re:From Margarita Marinova herself by Orkie · · Score: 1

      No, what she is saying is that by the time the atmosphere goes again, we will likely have the ability to stop it.

    6. Re:From Margarita Marinova herself by p4ul13 · · Score: 0

      No, I think the grandparent was making one of those new-fangled "jokes" that we've been hearing about.

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    7. Re:From Margarita Marinova herself by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      You know what would really help this thread?

      Sarcasm.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    8. Re:From Margarita Marinova herself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what would really help this thread?

      Sarcasm.


      Oh, yeah. That's a *really* good idea.

    9. Re:From Margarita Marinova herself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.

      So what you are saying is that in order to create a magnetic field for mars, we need to very heavily nuke it's core to get the core spinning?

  85. chemical production and refining on mars by Barbarian · · Score: 1

    Besides the obvious difficulties with temperature and low atmospheric pressure, chemical processes on Mars may be problematic. The lower gravity makes distillation towers quite impractical.

  86. Why? by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be cheaper to just stripmine Mars with robots and use the raw materials for space habitats? It wouldn't take so darn long either.

  87. Excuse me, miss by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

    You really have to watch out for sources that start off with MRS. --ducks.

  88. "Red Planet" by FortKnox · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the whole plot and premise of Robert Heinlein's "Red Planet"??

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  89. Mods? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

    Who modded this flamebait? Is there some sort of ban on speaking sense in this place?

    1. Re:Mods? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      Depends on the topic. I guess my post was modded flamebait, because it can be contrued as an attack on the Bush government. Other posts of mine have been modded flamebait, because they were critical of Java.

      Overall, the mod system is a boon (just compare the quality of the topmost posts on Slashdot to the topmost posts on popular sites without a scoring system). But it can be abused, and some people will use it to suppress opinions they don't agree with. Such is life.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  90. Radiation eh.. by logic+hack · · Score: 1

    If Metroid Prime has taught me anything its that exposure to massive amounts of normally deadly radiation can yeild amazing results.

    I for one welcome our Elite Pirate overlords.

  91. stooooopidest thing read/heard in 89 days by Sjobeck · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I recently started marking days & things heard of stupdendous stupidity on my calendar in a way to track just how much stupidity is around me. I went back and checked my calendar and it is official, I have not heard or read of anything as stooopid as this in 89 days.

    Wow.

    I wonder how long I will have to go to top this?

    On another bend on this same idea, how come people want to work on problems in the universe when we are killing and starving each other to death here on this forgotten mudball hurtling through space right this second. These people, in my (not so ) humble opinion ought to be ashamed of themselves for wasting the money it took to hatch this idiocy was not sent to Niger.

    1. Re:stooooopidest thing read/heard in 89 days by Inthewire · · Score: 0

      All that energy spent on your calendar could have been spent strangling yourself.

      Why spend money on an internet connection when there are starving children on the planet?

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
  92. But the Bush administration says . . . by indytx · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    there's no such thing as global warming.

    Stupid sci-fi readin' scientists.

    --
    Make love, not reality television.
  93. As a good politically-correct socially-liberal guy by FFFish · · Score: 1

    I want to say "oh noes!!1 we can't go wrecking another planet!"

    However, given the choice between putting humans on Mars to live, versus leaving Mars as-is for whatever precious-snowflake bacterial organisms live there... I'm gonna have to vote for humans.

    Sorry, Martian bugs, but disallowing ourselves use of an entire planet out of some wimpy "do no harm" philosophy is just silly. Terraform ho!

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  94. Two Questions by piecewise · · Score: 1

    1. Isn't there a risk of killing organisms that might be living (or thriving even) under CURRENT conditions that we haven't found? Life has a funny way of living, you know.

    2. Is there a way to speed this cycle up? If it's just about increasing temperatures, surely there's a way to kick things up a notch. 300 years seems like a long time in the human sense... and the way the Republicans are running the country (read: the world), we might need a backup plan(et) sooner than that!

    --
    The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
  95. Total War: Mars Vs Earth by snotclot · · Score: 1

    Imagine once they finish terraforming Mars, and humans go settle there. Then the Earth starts taxing Mars heavily for terraforming/transportation/initial fees, and the Martian humans get pissed off and separate from Earth. Then a huge war starts, and then the Martians discover Gundanium, and then these giant robots... ok, wrong forum :D

  96. This kind of meddling by glomph · · Score: 1

    This kind of external meddling is how the Earth got started! Thanks guys, what a nice mess you've created.

  97. Missing something? by Rickler · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mars's atmosphere is primarily CO2. Atmospheric pressure on Mars is approximately 1% of that on Earth. Sorry, but even someone with little knowledge like me knows that trying to fill a planet with a denser sea of air is impossible. Earth has about .03 percent CO2 in the air. We have billions of combustions autos and power planets all over and we haven't even put a dent in that figure.

    --

    The human race is artificial intelligence created using object orientated programming.
  98. Fat chance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll round that up an hour and add it to your required overtime.

  99. Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this is something to pursue. Let's face it, the Earth ain't gonna grow with human population needs. Doesn't work that way. If we can 'grow' a suitable planet eslewhere to colonize, I think that would be humanity's next manifest destiny. But, we must be careful and not create the plague of all mankind from bacteria on a foreign planet. [to put a /. spin on it]

  100. Great idea. by BumpyCarrot · · Score: 1

    Once the colonists have started producing these gases, what's going to stop them?

    Cue the "let's not mess up another planet" argument.

    --
    Do you see what I did there?
  101. Dangers by Eternauta3k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IANARS (I am not a rocket scientist) but I do work for NASA. Although it may dissapoint you, these ideas which keep showing up on papers and slashdot are just that, ideas. Of the thousands of ideas for the Apollo project, only one (the cheapest and most rational) made it. Therefore, you should expect these things to either never happen, or take 50+ years.

    --
    Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  102. Yay, thanks for the info by HishamMuhammad · · Score: 1

    Who says one can't learn new useful things on Slashdot?

  103. why not venus? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    might be quicker and easier to "precipitate" out the atmosphere, somehow

    i'm not saying i know how, but what i am saying is that mars doesn't make as good a candidate for colonization than venus does for a number of reasons no one is bringing up: gravity for one: venus's gravity is much like earths, mars i think is 1/3

    i mean say what you want about how hard it would be to "precipitate" the venutian atmosphere... but then you have to admit to what you are saying about doing to mars is a lot longer in time spent, and just as hard

    it seems to me it is always easier to "destroy": make components of the atmosphere precipate out into something dense, than it would be to "create": put density where there initially is none

    with such a weak atmosphere and gravity, what atmosphere can one hope to build on mars?

    meanwhile, you can suck a lot out of the venutian atmosphere chemically, in the right series of manipulation, that would merely become liquid water, sulfur compounds, carbon compounds... do it the right way and you could terraform an atmosphere a lot more similar to earths in a lot less time

    of course what i am proposing is hard... and mars isn't?

    also no one brings up that they both don't have a magnetic field: yikes, cancer from irradiation... but the colonies can be protected somehow

    but venus has always seemed to be a better terraforming candidate to me than mars, but mars has this hype machine surrounding it

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:why not venus? by Ringthane · · Score: 1

      I read something similar to this (using airborne micro-organisms) in Adrian Berry's _The Next 10,000 Years_, I think. The idea was to precipitate the water vapor out of the Venerian atmos, preferably by using oxygen-producing life-forms... Cool book. Also extremely cool is )_The Iron Sun_, in which Berry postulates building a black hole to use as a terminal in a cosmic subway. He oughta turn it into a novel...

      --
      Friends help you move... Real friends help you move bodies...
    2. Re:why not venus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Difficulties in reducing the tremendous atmospheric temperatures and pressures aside, Venus is not an especially good place for colonization. due to it's extended day, modern Earth plants would have great difficulty surviving long, as they've evolved to function in a 24 hour day, roughly half in daylight, and the other in darkness.

      That's not to say that such plants cannot be genetically manipulated to be able to survive a Venusian day, but during the extended period of darkness, they would ne grow, and would be useless as a source of food.

      Artificial lighting and blocking of the natural light to make a more Earth-like experience is not really feasible.

      Lets not even get into the fact that Venus has no water, unlike Mars. Terraforming Venus would be a much more difficult undertaking than doing so on Mars.

  104. CO2 is *thought* to be to blame, by *some* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CO2-causes-global-warming pill is quite hard for some to swallow. It's still very much a theory. I refer you to Wikipedia.

    Of particular note are the lists of proponents and opponents to global warming theory; for instance, David Bellamy, a known environmentalist, was not able to swallow that pill. There are other commonsense things to consider, too. Such as the fact that the vast majority of CO2 released into the atmosphere comes from volcanoes, not burning fossil fuels.

  105. Martian spy alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm... Margarita Marinova wishes to go to Mars... Birthplace Bulgaria? I think not!!!

  106. Actually its the magnetic field... by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

    Its the lack of a magnetic field on Mars strong enough to deflect solar particles that will 'cook' the atmosphere away. More accurately, it will be blasted away with a planet-wide shotgun blast every second.

    But the end result will be the same.

    No sustainable atmosphere

  107. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The obvious thing to do is create a pipeline between earth and mars and vent our excess greenhouse gases through it to Mars. All research should be directed towards this end.

  108. To this I say... by Assassin+bug · · Score: 1

    "nyah nyah, yak NYAK NYAK!!!" Oh, you don't understand... Well check this out!!

  109. Asinine environmentalists by n54 · · Score: 1

    First of all the link he provided says that forest area is stable in industrialised countries and that in addition the volume of wood within this stable area is actually increasing in those countries. It then goes on to say that the situation is different in developing countries where about 0.8 percent is converted to agricultural use per year.

    All this was in the first paragraph of text which you have obviously either not read or simply not understood.

    You say: "The author is a CS professor..." but perhaps if you actually read his, John McCarthy's, statements they might not be in such contrast to your FAO link? If you read http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry 2/index.jsp?siteId=101&sitetreeId=1191&langId=1&ge oId=0 there doesn't seem to be any outright contradictions as there is a positive net change in forest area in the non-tropics which would include most industrialised nations. Your link to lombog-errors.dk completely misses the point of what John McCarthy wrote as he goes as far back as to 1850 when talking about deforestation.

    Anyway the author is not Bjørn Lomborg, nor is any of the links and references to him, even so you want him to be your scapegoat and so you write:

    "...Bjørn Lomborg (who by the way has no knowledge of climatology nor statistics)..."

    It's hard to take you seriously when you manage to be totally wrong about things that are so easy to check up on. Are you being willfully wrong? Your case would be better if you stopped injecting such nonsense.

    First from his own site which should of course be taken with a few grains of salt. It has a biography at http://www.lomborg.com/biograph.htm:
    "Bjørn Lomborg is an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus." and of course it makes perfect sense that an assistant professor of statistics knows nil about statistics... (sarcasm).

    Let's check with a source that strives for factual objectivity, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomborg:
    "He taught as an associate professor, lecturing in statistics, in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus." this too confirms that he ought to know a thing or two about statistics.

    Read the Wikipedia article in full; it might surprise you and make you understand why some people dislike the decidedly unscientific attitude prevalent among many so-called environmentalists.

    Choice quotes from the Wikipedia entry:

    "12 March 2004: The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) have finally ended their case, rejecting the original complaints. They have decided that the original decision is invalid and has ended any further inquiry." i.e. they completely exhonerated Bjørn Lomberg.

    "Having reached the conclusion that the concrete accusations against Lomborg largely don't hold, it is legitimate to question the approaches of Lomborg's opponents. Using some historical examples it is argued that almost all opponents use discussion tactics, which come very near to those of dogmatically driven pseudo-scientists"

    So we have a guy who uses the knowledge he has in statistics to substansiate his scepticism about environmentalist claims, because of this he is more or less immediately hung out to dry and flamed by people who later on is caught with their pants down and their dicks in the pie - /* start sarcasm */ but oh! wait! Those are the good guys who think they're about the save the world, of course there is absolutely no way they could be misguided or *shudder* wrong, not in the least bit... /* end sarcasm */

    --
    this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    1. Re:Asinine environmentalists by orzetto · · Score: 1

      Lomborg has no qualification as a statistician. I assume Kåre Fog's website is credible as I have personally looked up some of the examples there presented and have personally checked that Fog's claims to Lomborg's dishonesty hold. I suggest you check it for yourself before spouting more corporate propaganda.

      The text from the Wikipedia entry you quote is from the Heidelberg Appeal Nederland, an highly biased source (of course you "forgot" to mention the Wikipedia page was quoting that). Lomborg's "exhoneration" came from a political body, not a scientific one. Furthermore, the main case for Lomborg was that his objective dishonesty was not sufficiently proven in the papers—i.e., it had not been excluded he was simply an ignorant fool. The incorrectness of his conclusions was never a topic in discussion.

      Lomborg taught a course in statistics, but that does not amount being a statistician. Bunches of professors in school teach history, and are not historians for that. Quoting Lomborg's own website is plain useless, as the guy is just short of a compulsive liar.

      Lomborg's field is rather "political science", and he has only one publication in a peer-reviewed journal (which, in the same link as above, is also reported being unlikely, other than unrelated to climatology).

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    2. Re:Asinine environmentalists by n54 · · Score: 1

      Lol!

      I quoted text to the same effect from both Lomborgs site (which I said should be taken with a grain of salt) as well as Wikipedia, the quoted text were largely identical in information. I recommended you read the whole Wikipedia entry. The quotes I made from Wikipedia were from both HAN as well as DSCD.

      And all you do is come up with stuff like this?:

      "...check it for yourself before spouting more corporate propaganda." - do you comprehend anything I've written?

      "...an [sic] highly biased source (of course you "forgot" to mention the Wikipedia page was quoting that)." - a page I recommended you read in full... that's some excellent "hiding" on my part lol

      "Lomborg's "exhoneration" came from a political body, not a scientific one. Furthermore, the main case for Lomborg was that his objective dishonesty was not sufficiently proven in the papers--i.e., it had not been excluded he was simply an ignorant fool. The incorrectness of his conclusions was never a topic in discussion." - are you talking about HAN or DSCD or perhaps both here? One of the quotes were attributed to DSCD at the Wikipedia entry; you do know what DSCD is and the role it played right? And do you realize just what you are saying with the last sentence? It is hard to believe you do...

      "Lomborg taught a course in statistics, but that does not amount being a statistician. Bunches [sic] of professors in school teach history, and are not historians for that." - are you saying they teach history without having the faintest clue about history? More to the point: are you saying that an associate professor of statistics would be teaching statistics without having a clue about statistics?

      "Quoting Lomborg's own website is plain useless, as the guy is just short of a compulsive liar." - I quoted nothing from his site that wasn't supported by Wikipedia, did you miss out on that? If this has triggered some sort of revision war at Wikipedia you can check the quotes in the post you replied to as well as in the Wikipedia revision history.

      "I assume Kåre Fog's website is credible" - it seems you assume a whole lot of stuff, about him, about Lomborg, about me, and I'm sure it doesn't stop there.

      Thank you for making me laugh :)

      You obviously cherish lomborg-errors.dk since you link so much to it. Here is a collection of various critique and correspondence at Lomborgs site so that people can look at it from both sides: http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
  110. Worry more about ours than theirs by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    Consider a germ which has never seen multicellular life, has never fought any sort of immune system, considers light or rock ores to be food, and expects carbon dioxide to be a crunchy mineral. I doubt it would try to infect a human!

    The germs that are likely to be a problem on Mars are the ones we bring along for the ride. E Coli and some radiation bombardment to stir the pot, and that could do you in quite nicely. If anything I'd bet on mined water (versus recycled) as the healthy stuff.

  111. Re:50C? !!!WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its 50F

  112. Problems with Terraforming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There's only really one technical problem with terraforming Mars: it's mass.

    It has a thin atmosphere for a reason. It's low mass results in two things, a shallow gravity well, and a lack of a global magnetic field.

    Over time, interaction with the solar wind has stripped off the upper portions of the atmosphere. We see this happening with Venus as it lacks a global magnetic field. The reason that it's atmosphere is so dense to this day, is that it has a relatively deep gravity well. Earth has both. Mars has niether. It is believed that most of the nitrogen that was initially present in it's atmosphere was the largest casualty of this intereaction.

    While it's true that the things being proposed would have some short ter, bennefit, in the long run, anything we put into the Martian atmosphere will be lost to space eventually unless Mars either gains enough mass to get a deeper gravity well (possible, but not with current technology, or within reasonable timeframes), or has it's globabl magnetic field reactivate (again possible, but not with any technology we can currently concieve).

    Still, it has the resources that could potentially support a population of billions, and certainly millions, and is a good choice for colonization as many other of its charateristics are similar enough to those of the Earth, that Earth life could adapt to at least enclosed environments (24 hour day, allowing for modern plants to live there, likely enough gravity to prevent atrophy of muscle and bone, etc.).

  113. Re:50C? !!!WTF? by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the spoiler. Speaking of spoilers. I've got a spoiler for you: You will die alone.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  114. Mass elusion by NetSettler · · Score: 1

    How are we going to increase the gravity of Mars to prevent the Atmosphere from leaking off very fast?

    Well, presumably, once those Martian ski slopes open, many bodies will be attracted (and many will insist on bringing their super-massive SUV's, thus guranteeing a continual healthy supply of greenhouse gases). The tourist trade will snowball, and ...

    --

    Kent M Pitman
    Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

  115. Eden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the religous fanatics in the garden of eden lions were vegitarians. Something about lions laying down with lambs. My translation would be that the lion laid down next to the lamb because it was full from eating it's mate and wanted to keep the other lamb close when it got hungry again.

    "And God created Lions so there was something to eat all the bloody lambs".

  116. Statistically only 50% have died ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I'm not so sure about that one, here's to hoping Kurzweil, DeGrey and various transhumanists are spot on :)

    Completely OT I'm going to add you as a friend as it was nice to see someone who understands scientific principles (some post you made recently somewhere).

  117. Very distressing by jfengel · · Score: 1

    There are frequent postings to Slashdot of the "Hey, let's go take over Mars!" variety, and the crowd always seems pretty enthusiastic about completely wiping out any chance of learning what the surface might have to teach us.

    I'll complain, and they'll respond with something about a "backup planet", and I'll say that we've made it this far, we can wait a few hundred more years, and they'll say it has to happen RIGHT NOW because ya don't believe, we're on the eve of destruction. But you just know that they really just want to go there themselves, even though this couldn't possibly happen before they got too old, or dead.

    So I'll just let it all go with a sigh and be thankful that this isn't actually going to happen.

  118. Please mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice save for "the Saga", would have modded you up if I could.

  119. Send Your Farts to Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the cost of one fart a day, you can save the life of a starving Martian microbe. By sending your farts to Mars you are not only saving the life of a Martian microbe you are helping to reduce greenhouse gasses on Earth. Call now 1-800-PASS-GAS. And we'll send you a picture of your very own Martian microbe. You'll get hourly progress reports if it splits or is some kind of deep freeze.

  120. Mars stinks by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 1

    No -- really.

    If you could fill the Martian air with enough O2 so that you could go outside and breathe it, the odor of sulfur would still be unmistakable. The whole place would smell distractingly like rotten eggs. On your trip back, people would say "you've visited Mars recently, haven't you?" Mars will need a lot of work even after it is livable just to get rid of the smell.

    Trees would make it look nicer in the meantime, but they would look better inside enclosed greenhouses, where the smell of a pine forest would likely be very much sought after by the cavern dwellers, and the O2 they produce can be kept from escaping the planet's atmophere.

    As to Biosphere 2, all of the pictures I've seen of it make me think that it needed a larger proportion of ocean in order to come to a CO2/O2 balance. Maybe that's what the Mars caverns will need? Large greenhouse-enclosed ponds? They could either use concentrator mirrors to raise the temperature, or if the scale is too large, be stocked with Antarctic sea creatures to keep a balanced environment while there are no people there (and while we still have any Antarctic sea creatures left).

  121. less difficult by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    Mar's atmosphere is 1/150th of Earth's

    mostly CO2

    what does that mean to you?

    again, what i'm saying is that as a general rule, is that it easier to "destroy" than it is to "create"

    so i'm saying it SHOULD be easier to precipitate out aspects of venus atmosphere than it is create atmosphere that simply doesn't exist on mars

    that seems to outweigh your length of day observation

    both terraforming prospects are VERY hard, but, to me, venus just seems somewhat easier in a very crude approach towards what final conditions you can expect and have no control over and what you are given to work with initially

    venus is just more similar to earth than mars is

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:less difficult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In niether case is what is being done considdered destroying. There is a lot of easilly accessible info on the net to prove my points. Terraforming Mars will be the easier of the two, and I don't expect you to take my word for it. Look it up.

    2. Re:less difficult by Inthewire · · Score: 0

      Venus's proximity to Sol is terrifying from a solar wind / hard radiation standpoint.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
  122. Not likely by Zaak · · Score: 1

    Realistically, the bacteria would be foreign to us, and might kill most humans who came in contract with it. Think Indians (excuse me, Native Americans) and smallpox. We have no resistance against Martian bacteria.

    We have oxygen. In large quantities. Anything living on Mars is anaerobic. Oxygen is a poison to obligate anaerobes.

    The worst case that is even remotely plausible is that we'll get a new form of tetanus. It's much more likely that any Martian bacteria would simply find our high pressure, high temperature, oxidizing environment to be completely inhospitable.

    TTFN

  123. Reviving organisms ? by mjtg · · Score: 1
    Scientists are thinking of using the same toxic stuff (Octafluoropropane)...

    Martian organisms might be revived too - if there are any.

    Martian organisms might be revived, or they might be finished off by the octaflouropropane :-).

  124. Endospores can survive millions of years by jeti · · Score: 1

    This article provides a nice overview of how robust bacteriae and their spores can be.

  125. The wikipedia article on terraforming by andymar · · Score: 1
  126. NO MAGNETOSPHERE = NO LIFE by macraig · · Score: 1

    Since Mars has no magnetosphere, that being the reason why Mars has almost no atmosphere to speak of now, why even bother trying to create one? It'll all just blow away again. Further, it's not like ANY living thing is gonna be takin' a stroll on the Martian surface even if the temp was a balmy 50 degrees... because it would get fried by the solar radiation! Again, it's that pesky lack of a magnetosphere.

    Perhaps, instead of farting around with greenhouse gases, they should be figuring out a way to use detonated subterranean nukes or some other wild scheme to re-melt Mars' mantle and core, and with luck restart the magnetosphere.

    NO MAGNETOSPHERE = NO LIFE

  127. Refutations instantly found with Google by Savantissimo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is a page with thorough refutations: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

      This attack from Gentry is amusing in its unconscious self-reference: "What is most revealing about Wise's attempts to cast doubt on the primordial nature of these halos is that he repeatedly ignores the published scientific evidence which contradicts what he is attempting to establish."

    Te simple fact is, Gentry starts with what he "knows" must be true and bends all facts to support his cranky thesis. If you read his explanation of the cosmic microwave backround as being due to a supposed shell of hot Hydrogen over 3 billion light-years away with the Earth at the precise center, his discredibility should be obvious.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  128. Martian organisms might be revived - or not by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

    Martian organisms might be revived too - if there are any.

    Anything might happen, but don't you think it a very earthocentric attitude to assume that Martian life will do better if we just make things a bit more like they are on Earth? I mean, martian life might just be more adapted to, you know, living on Mars.

    --

    My Karma: ran over your Dogma
    StrawberryFrog

  129. Old stuff by zlogic · · Score: 1

    I've seen this idea about three years ago on BBC World. The documentary was from a series named something like Future Fantastic.
    However the concept is cool and I really mean it.

  130. So, we can just screw it up by mseidl · · Score: 1
    So we can just fuck it up before we get there. Great thinking, then when we get there, we can just say, "We didn't do it, it was like this when we got here." This has to be coming from the US, one of the few countries that thinks global warming is from people leaving on their heaters when people are out of the house. Bush, just says,
    "It's ok, y'all have , stuff, i mean, shoot, what was that word, ugggh, god, Rove, can you give me a hand here, ugggh, god. If you fool me once, you are a , what. umm, how damn. what. I forgot. What are we talking about? Aw, fuck it. You going to do that last line rove?"
  131. Just prove that it's possible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by starting with something simpler. There are several deserts here on earth and the conditions are already much better than on mars. There is air, much more water can already be found on the same planet, there exist already some plants and animals which seem to be able to live here.

    Before i'd accept that any cent is spend on terraforming mars, first i'd really like to see if it's possible in a much simpler environment. That would even be useful...

  132. Total Recall anyone? by james_bray · · Score: 1
    --
    http://www.reeb.freeserve.co.uk
  133. Oh no... by dzfoo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh no... We're ruining *another* planet??!

    And then you all complain when martians, or any other extraterrestial species, come to exterminate us...

    jeez.

            -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  134. roof up the deep valleys by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    No need to teraform, just find many deep wide and long valleys, and just make a big-ass roof on em thats seethru, drop down two walls and you have a massive massive area that can be habited and plants grown.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:roof up the deep valleys by XPACT · · Score: 1

      That bigass roof needs to be really strong. What will happen when a meteor shower strike? There is no thik atmosphere to burn the meteorites.

  135. Bigger problem by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    I think the biggest thing preventing getting plants to grow is a lack of atmospheric nitrogen.
    Normally, bacteria in the soil take nitrogen from the air and convert it into forms that plants can use. Without nitrogen, no plants will be growing there. This element is an essential part of amino acids and proteins to sustain the plants as well as the animal consumers of the plants (us).
    Now, since nitrogen is a very common element, I'm sure there is some there awaiting discovery in various compounds, but I seem to remember the atmosphere is mostly CO2.

    Guess we'll be carrying water and amonium nitrate with us.

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    1. Re:Bigger problem by daeley · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest thing preventing getting plants to grow is a lack of atmospheric nitrogen.

      That and the lack of seeds. ;)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  136. Not enough water by dpilot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Mining the Oort" by Poul Anderson

    Deflect comets and crash them into Mars. He even goes into a fair amount of detail about the orbital herding needed, and how to make the crashes as "non-catastrophic" as possible. In the book there were already settlements on Mars that had to be avoided, as well as keeping the crashes from ejecting much of the freshly delivered comet.

    In another similar book, they allowed the comet crashes to create a fairly large, deep valley. Easier to get a usably dense atmosphere much sooner in a limited space than on an entire planet.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Not enough water by thc69 · · Score: 1
      "Mining the Oort" by Poul Anderson
      According to google, it's by Frederik Pohl -- important info for anybody who is heading out to the library to read it...
      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    2. Re:Not enough water by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I can never keep those two straight. It just seems to me that neither one can spell, "Paul." I realize that Pohl is a last name, but it still sticks in my head as a misspelled Paul, and gets confused with Poul.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  137. terraforming mars within a few years by cahiha · · Score: 1

    A quick way of terraforming mars that has been suggested and that would supposedly work with current technology is to use nuclear explosions to spread dust over the polar ice caps. The result would be that they absorb more solar radiation and supposedly melt within a few years (you have to keep exploding devices). You can read more here. The nuclear approach strikes me as more practical than the synthesis of large amounts of octafluoropropane.

    (Incidentally, it's hard to see why this particular person got cited; the idea of using greenhouse gases to terraform mars certainly didn't come from her.)

  138. Chia Mars! by Snufalufagus+Prime · · Score: 1

    A cost effective alternative to terraformation! Okay I haven't worked out the details yet, but here's the starting point: http://www.marcm.net/chiamars.htm

    --
    "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." -Groucho Marx
  139. grass would grow here by hode · · Score: 1

    grass would grow here

    Is the author reporting from Mars?

  140. Bumper Sticker by Sir+Codelot · · Score: 1

    Earth First! We'll Ruin the Other Planets Later.

    --
    I have a truly marvelous proof of the Riemann hypothesis which this sig is too short to contain...
  141. Mars already has "Global Warming" by graybeard · · Score: 1

    So it must be true that human activity is increasing CO2 levels on Mars, right?

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html

  142. What are you -- Hawaiian? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    What sort of tropical paradise do you live in where 50 degrees Fahrenheit is something to worry about? Is it really that much of a burden to throw on a jacket and stop wearing shorts? I mean, are you even aware of what temperatures snow forms at?

    50 degress Celcius doesn't make any sense either. That's 122 degrees Fahrenheit, which is usually lethal to humans without extreme preparation.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  143. Insightful? by sean.peters · · Score: 1
    the Sierra club prohibitting old growth clearing, which led to the destruction of thousands of Yellowstone forest..

    So what you're saying is that we should have destroyed the forest in order to save it? Prohibiting logging of old growth forests doesn't lead to giant fires. The practice of extinguishing all small fires does that. Old growth forests don't need to be "thinned" - all that would accomplish is creating openings in the canopy, which lets in lots of sunlight, which in turn causes lots of underbrush to spring up - thereby INCREASING the danger of fire.

    Sean

  144. Creating a new Industry by paulpas · · Score: 1

    Instead of releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Create some high pressure storage method and just ship them to Mars every 26 months. Just make the ships launch and crash in to the planet and release the gases. Maybe it'll take a few years off the few hundred necessary to melt the ice caps. Maybe it'd make all of us more likely to hug trees and justify the ignorance of our manifest destiny.

    --
    -PMP-
  145. It'll never happen. by macserv · · Score: 1

    Everybody knows Cohaagen won't start the reactor because it makes air. Why would you want to go to Mars anyway? I think you'd be much happier with one of our Saturn cruises.

  146. EARTH IS DYNAMIC: DEAL WITH IT!!! by jameskojiro · · Score: 0

    Seems like all the enviromentalists wasnt is a static earth that doesn not change what so ever!!! If a leaf bends on the plain, they want someone to go out there and bend it back! Why don't they just spray the whole damned planet with acrylic and freeze the whole planet in time if they want it to be static so badly? This is like binding the bones on people so they can't grow cause their parents want them to be a kid forever! Earth is constantly changing and we are part of that change, deal with it!!!!!

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  147. Red Planet.... by diilbert · · Score: 1

    Ever see the movie Red Planet ? That did not work out so well... I wonder if the same is in store for us now :)