Water Flowed Recently on Mars, NASA Scientists Say!

Retrying -
Water Flowed Recently on Mars, NASA Scientists Say

A number of years ago Allan Treiman of the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston looked into these so called gullies. His research, which stands as a beacon of scientific excellence in the field of Mars studies, examined the evidence for these gullies being caused by fluid outbursts. He demonstrated quite rigorously that these gulllies had none of the characteristics implied by a fluid formation but rather were much more likely to result from aeolian action. His paper is Treiman A.H. (2003) Geologic settings of Martian gullies: Implications for their origins. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2002JE001900. and can be obtained at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/treiman/.
see also a presetation at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/treiman/greatdesert/workshop/ztalks/gullies.ppt

Any return to the old "water model would have to address the issues raised by Treiman to have any scientific credibility.
A quote from Treiman "With so little data, you can theorize just about anything" applies to so much that purports to be Martian science. Instead anything that claims to show water on Mars gets great press coverage (prompted by NASA for political purposes) with however little evidence there exists. The scientific method of proposing a hypothesis then testing it seems to have been lost on Mars Instaed the Lovell method of "if you can see it, it must be there" still applies. Treiman's paper is a standout in the field.

This isnt anything new as far as I can tell - same story as the MSSS story of gullies form about 4 years ago

Dougt

Before jumping to "aolian" conclusions (for everything and anything) and religiously maintaining a "dry as a bone" viewpoint, how about doing some simple web searches on the spectra and molecular signature of water on Mars.

[Link]

Ever heard of "google"?

/R

marsman

O.K. O.K. This is an "aeolian" feature:

[link]

/R

marsman

That's not an aeolian feature. That's the result of retracting an air bag across a very fine-grained soil. Come on.

Yeah, I suppose the wind does in fact explain the sticky and cohesive quality of soil in Reply 4.

/R

marsman

It resembles like talcum powder, or something as fine as talcum powder. If you put your hand on a pile of talcum powder it makes a similar impression.

Then there are those mud flows down the sides of frost covered crater walls:

Marsman, read my comments again. I was expressing a view about the methodology of the science. If a hypothesis eg recent water flow is proposed, then one needs to follow through the consequences and look for those. Take a look at those articles by Treiman and see how the process works.
The arguement I have with water on Mars is not if there is any there but how and when it occured, and what effect it had on the surface geochemistry and geomorphology. For example, I still consider there is no irrefutable evidence for salt lakes on Meridiani. We see no evidence for lacustrine sedimentation, including layered mudstones or layered deposits of the least soluble sulfates at Eagle and Endurance craters. Salt-lakes are 3-dimensional objects where the surface being the most chemically active but, like an iceberg, there is action below. The subsurface holds the dense brines left after less-soluble salts are precipataed at the surface. In a salt-lake, this separates gypsum from magnesium salts for example by gravity. (On Mars Mg and Ca sulfates stay together, sympomatic of alteration or diagentic formation.) The surface holds dusts so typically we see a pattern of clay buidup during the wetter periods and salt deposition during drier periods. Just one little layered clay band on Meridiani would be enough but so far there is nothing. To me, thus far, meridiani is like Gusev - an alteration system with limit fluid. (Evidence is lack of diferential tranport of trace elements and existence of jarosite.) It seems to have been ignored but Meridiani, unlike Gusev, appears to have been accreting sediment for a long-time (see papaers by Hynek). This possibly happened when Mars was more volcanically active, accounting also for the input of acid. Then through internal heating, (radiogenic, chemical) there have been a lot of diagentic changes. The blueberries are part of that. Now the area is being seriously eroded exposing these altered sediments. So yes there is water on Mars but I consider it was very limited both in its amount and effects.

Prometheus,

your photo is erily similar to the Clarke Trees photo. The Clarke tree photo contains the same point fissures and accompanying, shaded halos, which everyone was mistaking for shadows. A comparison is in order.

JIM.

Sculptor,

Not Clark trees. Real recent mud flows. Checkout:

http://www.marsunearthed.com/Spec/Spec_40/SPGulliesThaw.htm

untill we observer it ourselves we can only theorize the water cycle of mars. Sure we have models that say this is what should happen but i am sure we will find suprises that we didnt relize.

BruceD, my reading of the Treiman article was not that the gullies did not show signs of fluid flow, but that they could be explained by dry flows.
There are several indications of fluid flow as mentioned in the original Malin/Edgett article: they are dendritic (like a tree branching), anastomatosing (channels break apart then come back together) and sinuous.
Treiman claims these features could be displayed by dry flows. But this doesn't prove the gullies were not made by liquid flow, only that, according to Treiman, liquid flow is not required to explain them.

Bob Clark

Most scientific papers are probably wrong.

This is an interesting bit of Epistemology!