Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A New Angle on Martian Methane

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the gassy-mysteries dept.

dusty writes "A recent hypothesis paper entititled 'Martian CH4: Sources, Flux, and Detection' delves into the production of methane on Mars. This hypothesis compares Mars with South Africa, and draws the conclusion that the radiolysis of martian ice and water while reacting with carbon dioxide can produce enough methane to account for recently observed concentrations. Methane is important because it is hard to explain. It has a short half-life and must be replenished frequently. As recently as 2005 the public line from NASA/JPL was that the methane could be produced by volcanism. Mars' dormant Olympus Mons is the largest volcano in the solar system but auspiciously quiet. A recent study from NOAA throws into question the whole idea stating, 'If Mauna Loa is a valid terrestrial analog, our findings suggest that volcanic activity is not a significant source of methane to the Martian atmosphere.'"

95 comments

  1. First, Uranus has dark spots on it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    And now we're here discussing Martian methane. Hooray for fart jokes!

    1. Re:First, Uranus has dark spots on it.... by kfg · · Score: 1

      Martian methane. Hooray for fart jokes!

      Marvin should cut back on the tacos, or he might destroy the Earth.

      KFG

    2. Re:First, Uranus has dark spots on it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't I just get the meta-moderate link on my front page? Why do I have to post some message in order to get the link? Will I have to do this everday until this is fixed?

    3. Re:First, Uranus has dark spots on it.... by Duodecimal · · Score: 1

      Did you try logging in, you thundering dumbass?

  2. Methane's short half life is a good thing.. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 4, Funny

    as anyone with 3 male roommates can testify to.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:Methane's short half life is a good thing.. by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of sci-fi shows that say the aliens breathe methane to live. Well since we fart methane and breathe oxygen, do martians breathe methan and fart oxygen?

      We could use each other as space suits.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    2. Re:Methane's short half life is a good thing.. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      "Hey Froolak, I have an EVA to do. Mind if I stick my head up your ass?"

      Um...I think I'll wait for body mods so that I don't require constant breathing in space.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    3. Re:Methane's short half life is a good thing.. by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't have to stick your head in there. Just put your face close enough and the aliens would do the same.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    4. Re:Methane's short half life is a good thing.. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of a way to maintain positive pressure around the various holes humans seem to carry around with their heads. I guess it would be easier to drive a space scooter if you could actually use optical receptors that aren't just registering Froolak's last meal.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:Methane's short half life is a good thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an amazing new twist to the practice of 69!

  3. Radioactive? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    It has a short half-life and must be replenished frequently.

    Methane has a short half-life? I thought only radioactive elements had "half-lifes". Either I am just dumb about this (entirely possible) or someone chose their words poorly.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    1. Re:Radioactive? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Informative
      I thought only radioactive elements had "half-lifes".

      The term can be applied to anything which decays with time, though radioactive decay would probably give the most attractive decay curve.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Radioactive? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      The article means half-life of methane in atmosphere of the Mars.

    3. Re:Radioactive? by MadCow42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      According to the article (first paragraphs even...), Methane is chemically broken down by sunlight over a few hundred years.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    4. Re:Radioactive? by B5_geek · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's been awhile since biology class, but I'll do my best.

      UltraViolet radiation/light breaks down the Hydrongen bonds in Methane (CH3) thus 'destabalising' the molecule.
      Mars has no ozone layer too, (which blocks a large % of ground-level UV)

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    5. Re:Radioactive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you probably wanted to say intramolecular C-H bond instead of hydrogen bond, which is a kind of intermolecular bonding...

    6. Re:Radioactive? by mykdavies · · Score: 2, Informative

      The concept originated in the study of radioactive decay, but applies to many other fields as well, including phenomena which are described by non-exponential decays.

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
    7. Re:Radioactive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1: "Half-life" doesn't necessarily refer to radioactive decay. It might be chemical decay, for example. That's probably what they're writing about, although I haven't read the article.
      2: Actually, radioactive carbon compounds are not uncommon. For example, C14 isotope is radioactive, with a half-life of 5730 years.

    8. Re:Radioactive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MadCow?

      Are you suggesting that because all the methane on Mars should be go by now, that it's all the result of result of Martian Mad Cows?

    9. Re:Radioactive? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Well, if you got that from Biology, no wonder it's a bit off! I'll give the chemist's take on it - you've got the UV bit right, but hydrogen bonds don't exist in methane, which is CH4 (CH3 is a methyl group) What it can do is break the covalent bonds between carbon and hydrogen atoms, splitting the molecule. I don't know for sure, but intuition tells me you'll get a CH3- anion, and a H+ cation. Not sure though, you might get a carbocation...

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    10. Re:Radioactive? by cyclopropene · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well you probably wanted to say intramolecular C-H bond instead of hydrogen bond, which is a kind of intermolecular bonding...

      Hydrogen bonds certainly can be intramolecular. Intramolecular hydrogen bonds are a significant part of what holds a folded protein in its shape.

      --
      Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
    11. Re:Radioactive? by cyclopropene · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know for sure, but intuition tells me you'll get a CH3- anion, and a H+ cation. Not sure though, you might get a carbocation...

      It's a "homolytic cleavage"--they split as two radicals:

      H3C-H ---> H3C. + .H

      --
      Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
    12. Re:Radioactive? by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The term can be applied to anything which decays with time, though radioactive decay would probably give the most attractive decay curve.

      You get the same curve from anything that has a probability of decay that is independent of time.

      If the probability of decay, destruction or loss for an individual atom is L per unit time, then for N atoms the rate of change of N is:

      dN/dt = -L*N

      and integrating gives N = No*exp(-L*t) where No is the number of atoms at some arbitrary t=0.

      So for any situation where you have a constant decay probability you will get the same curve. For methane in the Martian atmosphere the rate of decay is pretty much constant due to solar ultra-violet radiation breaking up the molecules. Therefore, if there were no source the amount of methane in the atmosphere would drop exponentially.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    13. Re:Radioactive? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Hubba, hubba! Check out the decay curves on that isotope! Wowzers!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    14. Re:Radioactive? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Once radiation breaks the (covalent) bond with one of the (four) hydrogen atoms in the methane molecule, the hydrogen won't last long. Hydrogen is light, floats to the top of the atmosphere, and gets lost into space. Water is at risk too, but it's a really tough molecule and we started with a lot of it (and it freezes and falls back down while it's still low enough in the atmosphere to have some protection from radiation).

    15. Re:Radioactive? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      AHA! See? Gay marriage is going to RUIN CHEMISTRY!

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    16. Re:Radioactive? by cyclopropene · · Score: 1

      AHA! See? Gay marriage is going to RUIN CHEMISTRY!

      Next thing you know every reaction will proceed via the "backside attack".

      --
      Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
    17. Re:Radioactive? by Conare · · Score: 2, Funny

      While radioactive elements give a more attractive decay curve, Methane smells more like decay, and is thus less attractive to those with curves.

      --
      Stop Continental Drift! Reunite Gondwanaland!
    18. Re:Radioactive? by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Ahh right, I knew that was a possibility from the initiation of Cl. radicals. I thought that the relative electronegativities of the halogens in CFCs was responsible for allowing homolytic fission - I presume that's something else, though, perhaps bond strength.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
  4. No life? by Life700MB · · Score: 3, Interesting


    All that looong summary and no mention of the most interesting posibility: that the methane is life-generated by bacteria and the like living under the Martian soil.

    --
    Superb hosting 200GB Storage, 2_TB_ bandwidth, php, mysql, ssh, $7.95

    1. Re:No life? by z0idberg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the point is that the source of methane could potentially have been produced by living organisms but there is no other evidence at all of living organisms. Hence the search for what else could be the source.

    2. Re:No life? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful
      methane could potentially have been produced by living organisms

      Given that we know the rate of destruction of Methane on Mars we also know the rate of production, which should make it possible to estimate the mass of Methane producing bacteria, assuming that is the source.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:No life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard that McDonalds had deforested large areas of equatorial Mars to graze cattle for hamburgers. Cattle emit methane.

    4. Re:No life? by tomatensaft · · Score: 1

      Well, easy to guess, that those scientists already did this, compared this to data about the amount of living organisms or their remnants detected so far and decided, that it is highly improbable, that they exist at all! Thus the search for other possible sources of methane...

    5. Re:No life? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      That would require a great deal of knowledge about the bacteria; mostly their metabolism and food sources.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    6. Re:No life? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      There are a number of Mars lander missions planned by NASA and ESA that will try to answer that very question. The new rovers will drill up to 100 cm under the surface and a new generation of chemical analyzers will look at the chemical results from that deep in the soil. It's likely that small microbes could live in the Martian soil using small amounts of water moisture trapped in the soil.

    7. Re:No life? by Transcendor · · Score: 1

      sorry to disappoint you: you don't have to have a lot of knowledge. Every biological production of methane (or any other substance) is in its nature a chain of chemical reactions. While the characteristics of life may differ on different planets, chemistry always stays the same- giving you at least the energy demand (or benefits) of a reaction that gives the detected amount of CH4 in an environment likes Mars' atmosphere from the substances there.
      To make an estimation about how much living mass would be able to produce such an amount of methane, one has to take into consideration that it is only can be the waste (final product) of the biological processes on mars - and if you consider that methane itself still has a lot of potential usable energy stored in its covalent electon bindings, you get an idea of how much raw material has to be processed every second to make up for the natural (photonically based) decay of methane. (methane reacts with oxygen as well as with sulfur as well as ammonia, water and halogens)
      Point is: If one assumes Mars' atmosphere to be rather stable the next (and past) 10^4 years, and if the production of methane there is caused biologically, then there has to be some kind of a closed substance cycle, that takes the decayed components of methane, and makes something biologically exploitable of it. Fact is: Chemistry doesn't know any reaction that could do this in such a large scale under the given circumstances, and if it was based on biological processes (like photosynthesis), it could only happen on the upper levels of Mars' atmosphere, and there in such a high density that it is almost impossible to ignore if one descends through atmosphere or looks at it from any closer orbit.

    8. Re:No life? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, it's not likely. Everything that we've come to learn about Martian regolith is that it's highly oxidative -- peroxides, superoxides, etc. Then factor in the problems we've known for a long time -- radiation, temperatures, lack of liquids, etc.

      If there's any life there, it must be extremely different from life on Earth to be able to withstand the oxidative environment. On Earth, Martian regolith would be a disinfectant.

      Besides, volcanism and this new theory aren't the only viable ones for methane production. Serpentization of olivine will do the trick as well. That is to say, if anywhere on the planet there is subsurface water saturated with CO2 in ever-common olivine-rich rock, it will produce methane.

      --
      Pinkypants -- my favorite!
    9. Re:No life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a Fox News exclusive, a typical local resident commented, "Ooh, that makes me SO mad!"

    10. Re:No life? by SirBruce · · Score: 1
      I think the point is that the source of methane could potentially have been produced by living organisms but there is no other evidence at all of living organisms. Hence the search for what else could be the source.
      Given that the ONLY experiment ever designed to specifically test for life on Mars had a POSITIVE RESULT, I think it's highly misleading to say that there is NO evidence for living organisms on Mars. Remember, just because there is evidence for something doesn't mean that something is true. It just means there is evidence that supports that conclusion. Other experiments done on Martian soil and Martian soil analogues suggest that the positive indication of life in the Viking experiment may have been caused by other nonbiological processes. There is evidence to support both arguments, but until recently NASA had no interest in approving a mission that would test for life for Mars, believing the question to already be settled.

      The Mars Phoenix lander may finally be able to shed some new light on the issue, but it will by no means be definitive. There is still a very real possibility that microbial life still exists in the soil of Mars.

      Bruce

    11. Re:No life? by SirBruce · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ahhh, the old "highly oxidative" argument.

      In truth, there has never been a test on a Martian lander designed to either confirm or identify the nature of this hypothetical strong oxidant. While there are theories that suggest that UV light should create such oxidants, the presence of a higly oxidant Martian surface has never been confirmed by experiment. Rather, it has been invoked as an EXPLANATION why certain other results, such a the Viking LRE, must be faulty.

      To date, no subsequent Mars probe has produced data that points to a strong global surface oxidation beyond the usual culprits of H20 and CO2 (which account for the rust).

      Bruce

    12. Re:No life? by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not only UV, but also dust devils. Experiments on simulated dust devils show that they produce about 200 times more H2O2 than UV does.

      H2O2 *has* been detected on Mars. In 2003, the IR TEXES spectrometer team detected 20-50 ppb of H2O2 in the atmosphere. The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope confirmed this. Since it doesn't last long in the atmosphere, this means that it's constantly being produced. H2O2 bound to dust particles would end up in the soil, so this observation is consistant with theory.

      In short, we have lab experiments creating H2O2 on Mars and observations confirming what we'd expect. What more do you want?

      it has been invoked as an EXPLANATION why certain other results, such as the Viking LRE, must be faulty

      Incorrect. It was initially proposed to *make sense* of the results of the Viking LRE. The results were inconsistent with any pre-test predictions.

      To date, no subsequent Mars probe has produced data . . .

      None of the surface probes thusfar have been *equipped* to detect peroxide or superoxides except in massive quantities. MSL, however, will be.

      --
      Pinkypants -- my favorite!
    13. Re:No life? by SirBruce · · Score: 1
      In short, we have lab experiments creating H2O2 on Mars and observations confirming what we'd expect. What more do you want?
      Better life detection experiments on the ground, like a new version of the LRE. As you point out, MSL will be helpful here, but it took NASA 30 years to revisit the issue.

      Bruce

    14. Re:No life? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      The problem is that when Viking did its soil sampling it did it only on the very surface of the topsoil, which may not have enough water and is too exposed to UV rays from the Sun to support even microbes. This is why I suggest drilling down 100 cm into the soil--at that point, there may be still enough water trapped in the soil to support primitive microbial lifeforms.

  5. Biggest Volcano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The solar system's biggest volcano is Loki on Jupiter's moon Io.

    1. Re:Biggest Volcano by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative

      The solar system's biggest volcano is Loki on Jupiter's moon Io.

      Nope. Its "the most powerful". While they might cover the same surface area, Olympus Mons stands much higher.

    2. Re:Biggest Volcano by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      While they might cover the same surface area, Olympus Mons stands much higher.

      Of course the real business with a volcano happens under ground and we don't know much about this part of either volcano.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:Biggest Volcano by kfg · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "The solar system's biggest active volcano is Loki on Jupiter's moon Io."

      KFG

  6. Beans... by teh+loon · · Score: 2, Funny

    It just goes to show that Martians like beans... A lot.

    1. Re:Beans... by Name+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      Beans, beans,
      The musical fruit.
      The more you eat.
      The more you toot.

      [Someone had to say it.]

    2. Re:Beans... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Beans, beans,
      They're good for your heart.
      The more you eat,
      The more you fart.

      There, corrected it for you.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Beans... by nebbian · · Score: 1

      Baked, beans,
      Are good for the heart.
      Baked, beans,
      Make you fart.
      The more you fart,
      The better you feel,
      So eat, Baked beans,
      For every meal!

      There, corrected it for you.

      --
      I am artificially intelligent.
  7. Mars vs South Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This hypothesis compares Mars with South Africa

    Hey, I'm from there! Hmmm, let me guess: ZA is... devoid of vegetation, ummm.... has raised carbon dioxide levels issues, and... ummm... is red?

    OK, now to read the article.

  8. PDF ALERT! by kbox · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    PDF ALERT! PDF ALERT!

    --
    God Be Gone
  9. This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we could directly synthesize methan from CO2 and H20, we could use the process to control the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere and produce fuel to recover part of expenses at the same time, without relying on fragile biological processes. Of course, thus obtained CH4 would soon be burned back in to CO2 and H20, but in the mean time, while stockpiled and transported, it would be out of the air.

    We desparately need a way to convert electric or thermal energy into chemical energy of hydrocarbon organic compounds on industrial scale, while using atmospheric CO2 as carbon source and byproducing oxygen. A sort of "electrosynthesis" or "termosynthesis", if you like. Then we just need to finish what we are already striving for: serious and abundant power source other then fossil fuel.

    (Sounds like a mission statement. I hope some sort of X-prize will be announced to make it happen)

    1. Re:This is interesting... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 4, Informative
      Ok,

      1. just turning C02 + H2O + energy -> CH4 + ...
        would be seriously dumb as CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas than C02, and stockpiling it would harder than just stockpiling the CO2 in the first place.
      2. and turning C02 + H20 + energy -> CH4 then burning the CH4 to get C02 + energy is just a nice way of wasting energy.
      3. You're not talking about a power source, just an expensive and dangerous power transmission medium.
      4. And finaly, what on earth do you mean by fragile biological processes? Artificial processes are way more fragile than biological ones.
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    2. Re:This is interesting... by dionoea · · Score: 1

      You can't power a rocket to take you back home with solar panels. You might be able to do so with stuff like methane. I think that this is the basic idea. I doubt that they need methane to power equipement destined to stay on the planet.

    3. Re:This is interesting... by hypoxide · · Score: 1
      and turning C02 + H20 + energy -> CH4 then burning the CH4 to get C02 + energy is just a nice way of wasting energy.
      Well, burning methane would produce CO2 + H20 and energy. It's a nice way of wasting energy if you have to produce the methane, but it's already there. So, it's a good source of energy (which could be stored or used) but also a good source of water (which is kind of a necessity for terraforming and/or human survival).

      So, if you ask me, I think the large, renewable supply of methane on mars is really an exciting thing that opens many possibilities for survival and inhabitance of the red planet.
      --
      Anything can, could, and will happen.
    4. Re:This is interesting... by chgros · · Score: 1

      You're not talking about a power source, just an expensive and dangerous power transmission medium.
      Dangerous? I think it's under control. We use this all the time. What about those natural gas pipes everywhere?

  10. Why does one get the impression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that if Martian life walked up in front of the rover camera holding a sign saying "we are here", these same folks would be trying to explain it as comm signal crosstalk?

    When did "science" become all about proving the conclusion you started out with?

    Welcome to the new Dark Ages.

    1. Re:Why does one get the impression... by splutty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhm. Since always? Science is the whole idea of making a (thought out or not) statement, and then setting about disproving it. If you fail to disprove it, you end up with the 'last option is that it's true' idea.

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    2. Re:Why does one get the impression... by OnyxIR · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree totally and welcome our new bacterial overlords.

      Science, particularly in the US, seems to be slipping back into its old habits. Dogma reigns supreme and dissident voices are quashed without cause or concern simply for going against the norm.

      A friend of mine used to argue that science was no different from religion, and scientists a new breed of priest. I hated his argument, but lately I have had to question how valid that may be.

      The question to ask then is, why would life on Mars recieve such scathing denials from the scientific community? Who benefits from from perpetuating the belief that there can be no life on Mars?

      Surely if one applies occams razor to the question, we must believe strongly in the possibility that Mars does indeed have the capability of supporting some forms of primitive life. This is especially easy to believe when one considers some of the habitats where life has been found here on earth. Buried thousands of meters in rock, volcanic vents 6Km below the suface of the ocean and boiling lakes of acid...

      --
      This sig is licensed under the Free Sig Foundation License, you may re-distribute it as long as you retain this notice
    3. Re:Why does one get the impression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > "Who benefits from from perpetuating the belief that there can be no life on Mars?"

      The most logical answer is just "common sense." It's been universally accepted that Mars is a barren planet for hundreds of years (mice in telescopes and canals aside). That builds a lot of inertia to overcome by anyone that wants to come along and change that belief.

      The other possibility is a roadblock that The Mars Society and The Mars Underground ran into a couple of years back. Their goal is to get NASA to Mars and eventually begin terraforming and colonization but a lot of there supporters turned on them when they realized they might destroy any life native to Mars if we completely re-engineered the martian environment.

      This inevitably lead to a wikipedia entry dedicated to it.

    4. Re:Why does one get the impression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, various kinds of extremopiles can most likely survive on Mars, but the $64 million dollar question is, how did they get there? IMHO, that's the kicker.

      1. I can think of three hypoth. off the top of my head.
      2. Paralled evolution
      3. Seeded from earth, via meteors
      4. Pansperma
    5. Re:Why does one get the impression... by Gospodin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's called: Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.

      Science isn't about believing anything is possible until proved otherwise. I think many scientists would agree that it's possible there is or was life on Mars. But life evolving independently anywhere other than Earth would be a major breakthrough for science, so they want to be very careful about claiming it until it is really, unquestionably proved. IMO this is just good science.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    6. Re:Why does one get the impression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Science is the whole idea of making a (thought out or not) statement, and then setting about disproving it.

      Er, no. "Conclusion" and "hypothesis" are two different concepts, hence the different names. "Science" that exists only to reinforce conclusions we have already agreed upon is no longer a search for knowledge.

    7. Re:Why does one get the impression... by OnyxIR · · Score: 1

      Good point, I cant disagree with that.

      I suppose a lot of it also comes down to what we want science to tell us.

      1. Men have a higher IQ than women on average... Yaaaay.
      2. Methane on Mars is NOT from farts... Boooo.

      Of course, this is just my opinion.

      --
      This sig is licensed under the Free Sig Foundation License, you may re-distribute it as long as you retain this notice
    8. Re:Why does one get the impression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>It's called: Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.

      No offense, but I've come to hate that phrase. The "logic" of it entirely depends on who gets to define "remarkable" (or, more often, "extraordinary"). It expresses one concept if they're defined as "consistent with evidence", but a completely different concept if they're defined as "consitent with accepted dogma", or the public's vague idea of "common sense". Neither of those has anything to do with finding new facts.

    9. Re:Why does one get the impression... by Gospodin · · Score: 1

      The problem is that "facts" are slippery creatures. People lie. Instruments are faulty. Methods are applied incorrectly. Relationships between variables are misunderstood. There are all sorts of reasons why what we think of as factual may be incorrect. To combat this science requires that experiments be repeatable under controlled conditions. Given enough trials, we tend to believe that the facts, at least, are correct. This establishes "dogma", if you like, but I would say it establishes a baseline of pretty-well-agreed-upon facts upon which theory may be based.

      Given this metaphysic, when a new "fact" comes along that doesn't match the framework, it's going to tend to be treated skeptically until bolstered with other supporting evidence, at which point scientists have no choice but to incorporate it. But more often than not the new "fact" turns out to be wrong and is rejected. A new "fact" is more extraordinary the more urgently it requires a change in existing theory.

      Karl Popper is a good reference to read for more about this kind of thing.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    10. Re:Why does one get the impression... by radarsat1 · · Score: 1
      Surely if one applies occams razor to the question, we must believe strongly in the possibility that Mars does indeed have the capability of supporting some forms of primitive life.


      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a misuse of Occam's Razor. The principle basically says that the solution that requires the fewest number of variables is most likely to be correct. So in this case, the existance of life on mars is a big "extra", if the presence of methane can be explained without it.
  11. Good science by Da3vid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "'If Mauna Loa is a valid terrestrial analog, our findings suggest that volcanic activity is not a significant source of methane to the Martian atmosphere.'"

    Man, I wish more of our scientific quotes sounded like this one. It lays it out straight and simple. Here is our source of info: analogy with Mauna Loa. Here is our assumption: we can project info from it onto Olympus Mons. Here is our conclusion: there is something else other than volcanic activity producing methane on Mars. I like how all that info was neatly packaged into a simple sentence. I also like how he admits the assumption... if. The thing that comes to mind are all the dinosaur shows explaining their day to day lives, zodiac signs and favorite take-out places.

  12. South Africa by Murgalon · · Score: 1

    "This hypothesis compares Mars with South Africa". Being from South Africa I take offense at this. How can you compare a dry harsh violent place such as Mars to our country ? Oh , wait...nevermind.

    1. Re:South Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, more methane producing organisms in SA. And: crime is much higher in SA

      [Ducks and runs]

  13. huh? by hb253 · · Score: 1

    Auspiciously quiet?

    --
    Self awareness - try it!
  14. Auspices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what may these auspices portend, pray tell?

  15. Methane adds to global warming by roguerez · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    On Mars, this may actually be useful for future colonization. http://www.verkiezingen2006.nl/

  16. Means it isn't producing any auspices by Flying+pig · · Score: 1

    Martian generals seeking to know the outcome of the next day's battle have to rely on chicken entrails rather than smoke plumes. Makes perfectly good sense to me.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  17. Olympus Mons by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1
    Nope. Its "the most powerful". While they might cover the same surface area, Olympus Mons stands much higher.

    True, Olympus Mons is absolutely huge. The summit is at 27 kilometres above the mean surface level on Mars and it covers a surface area the size of Arizona. It would be fantastic to be able to stand on that summit and enjoy the view.
    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  18. Thomas Gold by BenJeremy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Didn't Thomas Gold postulate that we'd find lots of methane on Mars? He had many intriguing theories on "deep life" - and recent evidence of "replenishment" of petroleum reserves, IIRC, while puzzling to geologists following the standard theories, would not have been a mystery to him.

    1. Re:Thomas Gold by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Did Gold predict methane on Mars? Most likely. He's predicted it just about everywhere else. Mostly, he's been wrong. One can make a pretty good case that if you shoot enough arrows you're bound to hit something occasionally.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Thomas Gold by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Didn't Thomas Gold postulate that we'd find lots of methane on Mars? He had many intriguing theories on "deep life" - and recent evidence of "replenishment" of petroleum reserves, IIRC, while puzzling to geologists following the standard theories, would not have been a mystery to him.

      Dr. Gold was also convinced that the Moon was covered in dust many meters deep - after the Surveyor landings showed that to be incorrect, he changed his belief to 'the moon is covered in dust with a crust just thick enough to support Surveyor, but not the LEM'. Dr. Gold was, not to put too fine a point on it, a raving lunatic who never let evidence stand in the way of a theory.
    3. Re:Thomas Gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      evidence of "replenishment" of petroleum reserves

      I'd like to see honest evidence of this "replenishment" other than "gee 50 years ago, we thought we could get a billion barrels of oil out of this field, now 50 years later we've got 20 new wells drilled twice as deep, and we're pulling 5 billion barrels a year, and the surveyors say there's billions more to go"

      We have new surveying technology, a better understanding of rock formations that harbor oil, and we can drill deeper wells and in places that we never thought possible before. The fact that we have more oil than we thought we had when we were "running out" in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and so on is due to that.

      If this guy wants to claim that oil comes from somewhere else and be believed, then he's going to have to demonstrate this process because we already cook dead plants into oil.

  19. Finish it... by TopShelf · · Score: 1

    The more you toot,
    The better you feel,
    So be sure to eat beans
    With every meal!

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  20. oxides easily by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Raw UV radiation causes methane to convert to more stable water and carbon dioxide.

  21. A source? by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Methane

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  22. Bullshit! by alexo · · Score: 1

    Everybody knows that Martian Methane is produced by Martian cows.

    1. Re:Bullshit! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      But are they happy cows? Did they vote for that guy who came to mars and had his eyes bug out?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  23. Quick, alert the DEA! by gronnsak · · Score: 1

    Time to take the War on Drugs to Mars. Can't have those evil martians poisoning our children! Oh, it's methANE, you say? Nevermind.

  24. Methane is CH4 not CH3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Carbon is a group IV element...

  25. methane on Uranus too? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    (Need to revive old thread :-)

  26. Mauna Loa by Squiffy · · Score: 1

    If Mauna Loa is a valid terrestrial analog, then Mars will soon be providing us with delicious macadamia nuts.

  27. !! TFA PDF Warning !! by weasel5i2 · · Score: 1

    Just a heads up, TFA is a bloaty PDF.

    --
    [BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY]: X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIR US-TEST-FILE!$H+H*
  28. What do you call "scathing denials"? by mangu · · Score: 1
    The question to ask then is, why would life on Mars receive such scathing denials from the scientific community?


    What do you mean? They have sent lots of missions to Mars, spent billions of dollars doing that, and still try again to find any sign of life.


    If scientists were so interested in denying the existence of life in Mars they wouldn't have had any need to send other spacecraft after the Viking missions in 1976. But they still keep trying, even if the data seems to indicate that Mars is lifeless and has always been so.


    we must believe strongly in the possibility that Mars does indeed have the capability of supporting some forms of primitive life.


    The problem is that the *capability* to support life is not the same as *existence* of life. I have no doubt that bacteria could survive and reproduce in some places on Mars. On Earth, we have even found life (Pseoudomoma Radiourans bacteria) inside nuclear reactors.


    However, even if evolution allows existing beings to adapt to hostile environments, it doesn't mean life will arise in those places. Life adapts to hostile environments, but it's logical to assume that the situation where life first came into existence on Earth was far more benign than anything that exists on Mars.

  29. Re: The relativity drive returns by noigmn · · Score: 1

    Send it to New Scientist, they'll print it.

    --
    Slashdot is powered by your submission.