Victoria Crater (APOD 2 Oct 2006)

[Dr. Skeptic]

No, that has already been explained by others far more qualified and many times. It does not evaporate because the relative humidity is nearly 100%. The air is already loaded with as much moisture as it can carry, and even with advection there cannot be any more evaporation. Just as you can only dissolve so much sugar in water, you can also only carry so much moisture in a mass of air. Afterwards, no more sugar will dissolve, and no more water will evaporate.

I would need to write a book to cover all the errors in you facts, logic and false assumptions, so I'll pick one.


So if I put out a glass of H2O on the surface of Mars it would not evaporate?

It would boil, freeze and evaporate away exactly the way dry-ice (CO2) does in the Earth's atmosphere (sublimation), no matter how many salts are in it.
What is the humidity in your freezer, have you ever noticed you ice cubes getting smaller?

You maybe able to fool the ignorant with you pseudoscience, but your logic is offencive to the educated. Every one of your arguments is given a pseudo spin, half truths, false assumption, and a product of an overly active imagination.

I strongly disagree with you not because I'm "fed" anything, If you want to show me proof, show me an ecosystem. On Earth solar energy is harvested by photosynthesis in plants at about a 10,000 to 1 mass ratio to support animal life. A few rocks with perfectly good inorganic explanations that somewhat resemble something that could have been created organically. I want to see evidence of organic compounds coating the rocks this life would feed from or other residual compounds that could only be created by presents of life ... that would be real science. If you were a real scientist you would know that your theory is a gross over statement of the available evidence.

[aichip]

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

I would need to write a book to cover all the errors in you facts, logic and false assumptions, so I'll pick one.

Yes, let's address the issue of assumptions. OF course, you are making the first mistake of associating the results of numerous techical papers by reputable researchers with me, and then simply ignoring them so they will go away, but that is another issue. Assumptions first.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

So if I put out a glass of H2O on the surface of Mars it would not evaporate?

It all depends on the temperature of the water, obviously.

If I have a cup of water at room temperature and I place it in a vacuum chamber and remove most or all of the air, it will certainly boil. The key here is room temperature.

If I have that same cup of water and it is raised to 77° C (or about 170° F) and carry it to the peak of Everest, it will boil. Or put another way, water at that temperature cannot exist long on top of Mt. Everest.

Now, by direct experimentation, we see that the triple point for water at 6.1 millibars is 0.01° C, and that means that if the atmospheric pressure is greater than 6.1 mb, then water can exist as a liquid. But there is more. In a quote from the paper by Dr. Gil Levin, we see:

A word is in order about the applicability to liquid water on Mars of the triple point of water and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures lest they be applied incorrectly. The 6.1 mb pressure and 0.01° C temperature phase diagram coordinates identifying the triple point were determined for water as a closed, single component system, and in a pure state (that is, no substances other than water are present). On Mars, water exists in an open, multi-component system with atmospheric gases and extensive soil solutes. However, the laws of physics dictate that, when the atmosphere is saturated with water vapor, no net evaporation takes place. Under these conditions, when the temperature is between 0° C and the boiling point, and the total atmospheric pressure is at or above 6.1 mb, any water in the soil will be present in liquid form

The entire paper is here: http://mars.spherix.com/spie2/spie98.htm

The IAU defines zero elevation for Mars thus:

Zero elevation: Since Mars has no oceans and hence no 'sea level', a zero-elevation surface or mean gravity surface must be selected. The datum for Mars is defined by the fourth-degree and fourth-order spherical harmonic gravity field, with the zero altitude defined by the 610.5 Pa (6.105 mbar) atmospheric pressure surface (approximately 0.6% of Earth's) at a temperature of 273.16 K. This pressure and temperature correspond to the triple point of water.

Now, it is a fact that at the altitude of Meridiani (which is a couple of kilometers below zero elevation), the atmospheric pressure is typically 7.5 millibars and even reaches as high as about 11 millibars when summer arrives. The boiling point of water can range to as much as 10° C or 50°F during the course of the year, and rarely drops as low as the triple point. So a cup of chilled water will not boil nor can it, due to the laws of physics.

The assumption you have made is a simple one- room temperature. Your experience is such that you only imagined a cup of water at your familiar room temperature, which clearly cannot exist on the surface of Mars because it is above the boiling point. Chilled water can exist easily, however. Now let's also add the salts that are present in the soil and suddenly we have a range that is at least 30 degrees C wide for the existance of liquid water on the surface. That range changes seasonally but Meridiani is below zero elevation and as such liquid can remain as long as the temperatures permit.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

It would boil, freeze and evaporate away exactly the way dry-ice (CO2) does in the Earth's atmosphere (sublimation), no matter how many salts are in it.

Sorry, I have just proven you wrong. Be man enough to admit it. You are the one who made unwarranted assumptions. Physics dictates that liquid water can exist on Mars in the Meridiani Planum area, and that has been demonstrated amply by many scientists. You are simply refusing to admit this fact.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

What is the humidity in your freezer, have you ever noticed you ice cubes getting smaller?

Yes, it is called sublimation and it is driven by the introduction of dry, chilled air and advection. Freezers these days are typically "frost free". Do you know why?

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

You maybe able to fool the ignorant with you pseudoscience, but your logic is offencive to the educated. Every one of your arguments is given a pseudo spin, half truths, false assumption, and a product of an overly active imagination.

I am not trying to fool anyone. I am presenting the facts. Your lack of understanding and refusal to accept the truth is the problem. What makes you so unhappy is the fact that you cannot find a single flaw in my material or reasoning, and that is why you resort to insults. My findings are solid, and they violate your picture of reality. I will not apologize for the facts.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

If you want to show me proof, show me an ecosystem.

I am limited to what the rovers can image, and what images are released. However, I did present images of fossilized leaves, along with the literally hundreds of fossil organisms on my site. It is a shame that the rovers have no manipulators, no water sensors, no chemical sensors, no halogen lamp for spectral reference, no soil moisture sensors... yet, they have returned a wealth of information. The images and the APXS data, along with the mini-TES data, have proven very useful.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

I want to see evidence of organic compounds coating the rocks this life would feed from or other residual compounds that could only be created by presents of life

I would love for the rovers to have had organic sensors. Too bad that these were considered unimportant. But at least the pyrolitic release experiments on Viking found 7 of 9 soil samples had organic matter. That is a good positive indicator. Also too bad that NASA pretty much ignores that data.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

If you were a real scientist you would know that your theory is a gross over statement of the available evidence.

If you were a scientist, you would realize that you have failed to admit that you have been proven wrong numerous times now. Two such issues were the presence of sodium and carbon in the soil of Mars. Another is the fact that liquid water can exist at Meridiani. I have made my living as a "real" scientist for years. Your opinions really don't mean much to me in the face of the facts.

Have a nice day.

[Dr. Skeptic]

It all depends on the temperature of the water, obviously.

Obviously not, once again you are wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

Liquid H2O cannot exist on the surface of Mars. At that atmospheric pressure H20 at any temperature will boil, even saturated with salts ice will evaporate, The boiling point of H2O on Mars is < 0° C. Ice will also quickly evaporate, any exposed H20 will evaporate. Do you even know what sublimation means?

For ice to persistently exist it needs to be continually replaced ≥ the rate of evaporation, where would this H2O be coming from atop the rim of a crater?

At 100% humidity, H20 will precipitate out of the atmosphere leaving a uniform frost covering all surfaces as the temperature drops, as the temp again rises surface sands will evaporate away their frost coverings, over time, leaving the surface sand with uniform % of H2O. If there were layers of sand saturated or containing a high % of H2O, it could not be seen from the surface. The only way your theory could be correct is if the topology were only day old and if Mars was much more active atmospherically and/or geologically.

[eyecapitain1]

What you are saying is that the wind "preferentialy"deposited grains of singular consistancy at some levels,then came back to deposit smaller lighter grains,and then came back to add more heavy grains in another layer,and so on. Then came back after these strata "settled" and carved out the faces so we can see the clearly defined strata we now see on the crater rim?
This makes no sense to me at all. The wind should be moving the lighter grains more easily and the larger should be settling to the bottom. Wind would not produce strata in dry sand.(Case in point,The Sahara). Just sort them from heavy to lite and there would be a single demarcation and an intermixing of grains at the boundery.
Everything about the sands of Meridiani speaks of moisture being present in substantial volume. From the tight packing and crisp detail seen in the rover wheel tracks to the flow paterns seen literaly all over the meridiani planum so far explored by opportunity.
Wind is not the only mechanism working there. Why is it so hard to believe there is enough water on Mars surface today to be a working factor? It's clear that Meridiani was once a seabed! The sedimentary rocks are absolute PROOF this is a fact. And why would that water leave completely after the atmosphere thinned from global cooling?
The ground was saturated from the time the planet cooled sufficiently to form up a hard crust.
It's silly to think that the water that once comprised a vast ocean over two thirds of the planet would all simply "go away" ,as the planet core cooled and atmosphere thinned.
We KNOW where the oxegen in the Martian atmosphere went. The iron in the soil combined with it to give us the pretty rust red sand we see today.
We KNOW that a great deal of the hydrogen formerly locked in compound with O2 was split from compound by uv from the sun and lost to leakage off the top of the atmosphere to be snatched away by the solar winds.
We also know that the ground is STILL full of H2O from the many spectral scans of the entire planet. We also KNOW there is ample water in vapour hanging around in the atmosphere. There are cirostratus clouds in nearly every picture of the Martian sky. Spectral data of them taken by the HST proved them to be mostly WATER ICE.

What Aichip has suggested as a model makes perfect sense from a standpoint of observation of the area and KNOWN mechanics of the same actions right here on Earth. Frost heave and grain sorting are KNOWN to occure in the manner suggested.

[Dr. Skeptic]

A change in the prevailing winds do to the topology changes created by the deposition of material causing erosion not uniform to the original deposition is a superior interpretation of the evidence. A complete and unbiased observation of the photo, one would see the darker material most likely blown from the crater floor is also clearly exposed in the foreground after the lighter material has eroded away. From experience I know that the % of H2O in the differing stratus is equal, if I am wrong this would be a very unique site different from all of the previous Rover stops and the known history of Martian climate would need to be rewritten.

[aichip]

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

So if I put out a glass of H2O on the surface of Mars it would not evaporate?

I replied:

It all depends on the temperature of the water, obviously.

Dr. Skeptic then wrote:

Obviously not, once again you are wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

So here you are stating that the temperature of the water has nothing to do with whether it will boil or not. You don't know what you are talking about, or you are obviously a troll. The temperature of water in combination with the ambient pressure are the factors that determine whether it will boil or not. Boiling occurs when the energy of the water molecules is sufficient to escape Van Der Waals forces and become a vapor. Since you are denying this, you are clearly wrong.

Not only that, but you have completely ignored the technical references and statements of fact that they contain, documenting the experiments done that quantify the conditions on Mars and whether or not water will boil there. All you do is state "not so!" but then fail to provide any evidence or substantiation. You are definitely a troll.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

Liquid H2O cannot exist on the surface of Mars.

Wrong, and proven so. Read the references and if you feel so inclined, do the experiments. That is the only way you will know for certain, since you refuse to believe what other scientists have found out that way.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

At that atmospheric pressure H20 at any temperature will boil, even saturated with salts ice will evaporate

Wrong. The triple point is 0.01° C at 6.1 mb of pressure. Meridiani is at a higher pressure, and therefore (again, proven by experiment and by numerous researchers and scientists) water can in fact exist under those conditions, given that it is below the temperature at which it will boil. This can range up to 10° C or 50° F at the location of Opportunity.

Addition of salts extends the range that it will remain liquid in both directions - hotter and colder. Salts in solution form brine which has a significantly depressed freezing point, and also means that it takes more energy to make the water boil, thus extending its liquid range. This is basic chemistry, and again proven many times by many people. Repeating over and over like a child "it cannot be" does not make it so. You are a troll.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

The boiling point of H2O on Mars is < 0° C.

Again, wrong and proven to be wrong.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

Ice will also quickly evaporate

No, it will not. It will melt first. If it changes directly to vapor, it has undergone sublimation, not evaporation.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

any exposed H20 will evaporate

Wrong. Read the referenced papers. They are factual.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

Do you even know what sublimation means?

Of course. The question is, do you?

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

For ice to persistently exist it needs to be continually replaced

Prepare for a shock. See APOD for 20-July-2005:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050720.html

That is water ice in that crater. That is roughly 8 cubic kilometers of water ice. I do not see it being replenished, but the relative humidity on Mars stays right at 100% almost always. That is more than sufficient to prevent both evaporation and sublimation.

Or, look at this - APOD, 28-Feb-2005:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050228.html

Frozen sea on the equator of Mars. Dust is covering it, and it succeeds in preventing both evaporation and sublimation. Again, you are proven wrong and by APOD itself. Do you trust the content of APOD?

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

At 100% humidity, H20 will precipitate out of the atmosphere leaving a uniform frost covering all surfaces as the temperature drops

Where have you been? This is observed all the time on Mars. Frost in the morning, which vanishes as the sun heats it. Here is more frost:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990112.html
Note that they show the erosion must be less than a year old. In other words, comparable to what we see on Earth.

So let's summarize.

I have proven that there is sodium on Mars, something you refused to accept even when I provided the technical papers and even NASA's own statements. I have proven the existence of carbon in the soil, which I also proved with technical papers and references directly from NASA. I have now proven that liquid water can exist on Mars given the present day conditions, also with technical papers and (if you look back through the Meridiani posts) references from NASA as well. You still refused to believe it.

I have now provided numerous links proving you wrong once again. Your responses have been childish "I say it's not so!" with nothing to back your position up or give it any substance. You are unwilling or unable to prove yourself. You are a troll and will remain a troll, and I will now ignore you. I will not do your research for you because a wise person does not cast his pearls before the swine.

Enjoy your brutish, childish existence and stay out of the way while the adults get something done. For the rest of the forum members, let's get down to business. As always, I invite serious intellectual discussion with rational and technically correct references.

[eyecapitain1]

Well Done Aichip!!!
Let's see if skeptic has enough actual functioning neurons to "git while the gitting is good".
LMAO.likely not.

[eyecapitain1]

Where have you been? Over the last two years opportunity's cameras have photographed HUNDREDS of dunes with clearly defined strata.
"Uniformity?" The saturation of sand will NOT be uniform but in a gradient. More at the lower levels(where there is more sand) and less at the top. GRAVITY and particle count assure this. Remember that water has surface tension and is cohesive. Moreso when in a salt brine solution. Ever used a syphon?.Same principal applies here.
"Blown" from the crater floor? What's that got to do with anything? The material we see in the floor is exatly the same in apearance as the sand dunes on the flats. Remember that the entire planet was engulfed in a year long GLOBAL dust storm just prior to the arrival of both Spirit and Opportunity. I'm betting the sands at Meridiani are pretty close or exactly the same as the rest of the sea basins on Mars.
I'm inclined to agree with Aichip in his assesment that you are a "troll" and not realy worthy of any more of our time.
"Superior?" Let's put that to a vote. Good people of this forum chime in. Has Skeptic provided one hint of proper scientific assesment of these topics or simply continued to make ambiguous statements founded on nothing more than his "say so"? To say nothing of his abrasive manners!

[Dr. Skeptic]

Once again, more pontification proving you do not have the scientific background to correctly interpret data. There is no proof of H2O in that crater, because it is your proclamation, that does not mean it is science or that it is present. You and I both know that your theory(s) would never hold up to peer review. By your responses it is apparent you cannot assess the scientific nature of the problems with your theories. It is not worth my time to spend hours trying to explain why your interpretations are in error when your responses is rant babbling around the point.

This is a science site, educated readers find your postings reprehensible and if your pseudoscience being the butt of the jokes around the water-cooler is disagreeable to you, it is time to move on. There are many other web places for you to go that would relish your science and conspiracy theories and may even add fresh augmentations to your story.

I am here only to stop the propagation of bad science.

[Dr. Skeptic]

So here you are stating that the temperature of the water has nothing to do with whether it will boil or not. You don't know what you are talking about, or you are obviously a troll. The temperature of water in combination with the ambient pressure are the factors that determine whether it will boil or not. Boiling occurs when the energy of the water molecules is sufficient to escape Van Der Waals forces and become a vapor. Since you are denying this, you are clearly wrong.

You obviously did not read what I wrote - H20 will boil at 0°C or 1,000°C, in a liquid state even saturated with salts - liquid H2O will ALLWAYS BOIL in the ambient Martian atmosphere. So yes, the temperature of the H2O is irrelevant! (Troll)

Science 101

[Qev]

From what I understand, the vapor pressure of water at around 2C is roughly equivalent to the atmospheric pressure of Mars, meaning water below this temperature would not boil (although it will evaporate over time). So no, water will not always boil at the ambient pressure on the surface of Mars.