December 7, 2006 7:20 AM
Is the red planet a wet planet?
A Mars probe built by Lockheed Martin has sent pictures that seem to suggest muddy water has gushed down crater walls at some point during the past seven years, reports Jim Erickson.
The gully-washers left behind bright streaks of sediment that weren't there when the two sites were first photographed in 1999.Researchers with NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft say the fresh gully deposits provide the strongest evidence yet that liquid water occasionally flows on the Red Planet.
"This is a squirting gun for water on Mars," team member Ken Edgett said at a news briefing Wednesday.
Some scientists expressed caution, saying the evidence is not conclusive and that dust or sand avalanches couldn't be ruled out as a cause.
If confirmed, the detection of present-day surface flows is a wrecking ball that will topple the age-old view of Mars as a frigid desert where little has changed for eons.And since liquid water is required by all known forms of life, the discovery suggests that Mars may be habitable today and provides targets for future missions to search for microorganisms.
Finally, if Mars harbors bodies of accessible, near-surface water, astronauts may some day be able to harvest it.
Should this discovery change the future of space exploration? Should NASA aim its sights more toward Mars instead of building a permanent outpost on the moon?
For all the skeptics, here's conclusive proof of life on Mars:
December 7, 2006
8:32 AM
Space King writes:
There is no water on Mars now, so there is no point to go there. Let us not spend trillions to go see this dead (albeit pretty) red planet.
BTW anyone notice that this "discovery" came just a few days after NASA proposed to build a space station on the moon. Can we say propaganda?
December 7, 2006
8:37 AM
Rocket man writes:
Space King,
Notice that the experts are basing their opinions on photos with a resolution less than the average cell phone can take?
These gullies could be the product of many phenomona, water being just one of the explainations. This is a case of seeing what you want to see.
December 7, 2006
8:49 AM
Roger McGuinn writes:
Hey, Mr. Spaceman won't you please take me along
I won't do anything wrong
Hey Mr. Spaceman won't you please take me along for a ride?
December 7, 2006
8:50 AM
Space King writes:
RM,
Also notice that there is supposed to be a shuttle launch in the next few days. These things happen in 3s! Don't worry it is just NASA trying to justify their existance when every sane person knows that they are nothing but wasters of tax money!
December 7, 2006
9:11 AM
jay writes:
Considering that we've had increasinng evidence of ice and water on Mars for years...I think I'll leave the granular details to the scientists in the know.
December 7, 2006
9:14 AM
Space KING writes:
JAY,
Ya, thats a good idea, because "experts" can never be wrong. Lets spend trillions on a suspicion that there is water. Good idea!
December 7, 2006
9:20 AM
Rocket man writes:
S.K,
Hey, let us suppose there is water. So what! that could mean there is life right? However, what scientist fail to tell you is that the life will be premortal, single cell orgainisms at best. The environment of Mars will not host life as we know it, i.e. life that we could possibly interact with. I think there is too many people out there still expecting to find "little green men" on Mars lurking below the surface just waiting to be discovered. To many Arnold S. movies people!
December 7, 2006
9:29 AM
R804 writes:
Hey Space Dink & Pocket-Rocket,
You bet the experts can be wrong. Science is never absolute. But, unlike you flat-worlders, some of us still have a sense of wonder. Even discovering micro-organisms on a planet outside of our own would have major merit and would vastly add to our understanding of how early like may have even been formed on this planet. Try being a little less cynical.
December 7, 2006
9:37 AM
jay writes:
Space King,
Of course science is fallible...but much less so than layman conjecture.
Pardon me if I defer to the scientific evidence on the matter and allow our best minds to move forward without the hinderance of undecated back seat driving.
December 7, 2006
9:46 AM
Space King writes:
R.M,
Funny how people have to attack us, rather than believe that space exploration is a HUGE waste until it is proven to show some benefit other than fulfilling some 'teky's' fantasy about space travel.
December 7, 2006
9:57 AM
Rocket Man writes:
C.A.A,
I have always believed that you are a true moron, but now that you have spoken about Martian ice for decades, you have now removed all doubt. There is no Martian ice, and by the way, those really powerful pictures that you believe are taken with such a high resolution are in fact not! Now, for your benefit, I would even concede that the pictures taken may initially be a high resolution, but by the time they have traveled through millions of miles of space, the picture naturally deteriorates so that you are left the grainy, black and white, streaked, and inconclusive photos that you see in the RMN story. Nice try bone head, but once again your post only proves your ignorance as human being and your lack of reason!
December 7, 2006
9:58 AM
R writes:
Space King,
No one is "attacking" you. Let's not be a complete drama queen here. It's just that history is riddled with the likes of you who marginalize the fruits of progress with a narrow point of view.
December 7, 2006
9:58 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Sure, let's ignore space exploration.
While we're at it, let's never leave Europe...That whole "New World" is just a myth anyway.
Let's also never try to develop medicine either. Nothing wrong with the leeches we've got. Bleeding a patient always works.
And do not even bother me with this "electricity" crap. My candles work just fine.
Progress was never made by embracing the status quo.
December 7, 2006
9:59 AM
jay writes:
SK, if you think that the space program hasn't produced any "benefits" for humanity, you need to do some more reading on the subject and then get back to us.
December 7, 2006
10:05 AM
jay writes:
If you don't believe that there have been "benefits" produced by our space program, then you obviously don't know much about the subject at hand. I would hope you'd do a little more research before making such claims.
December 7, 2006
10:11 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
This story suggests the presence of muddy waters in some Martian craters...Does this mean that henceforth, the Red Planet will now be known as the Blues Planet...?
December 7, 2006
10:19 AM
rocket man writes:
OK,
so lets assume that what we see is water, and that there is life on Mars, so then what? Are we to spend trillions to explore single cell orgainisms and amembas?
December 7, 2006
10:25 AM
benn writes:
I for one am excited by this project. Besides the obvious potential benefits that exploration provides to all humans, I am excited because we need a national goal. I can only think of one thing that would make a better national goal, and that would be developing renewable energy.
This is great though, provides a direction for us to head, and hopefully will help respark American interest in science and math.
I know that this story alone won't do all that, but it is a step in the right direction!
December 7, 2006
10:26 AM
rocket man writes:
OK,
so lets assume that what we see is water, and that there is life on Mars, so then what? Are we to spend trillions to explore single cell orgainisms and amembas?
December 7, 2006
10:26 AM
Anonymous writes:
$16.45 billion=NASA's annual budget....at that pace it would take over 100 years for them to burn through "trillions".
December 7, 2006
10:27 AM
R writes:
Space King,
No one is "attacking" you. Let's not be a complete drama queen here. It's just that history is riddled with the likes of you who marginalize the fruits of progress with a narrow point of view.
December 7, 2006
10:31 AM
R writes:
OOps! Sorry for the re-post. My bad.
December 7, 2006
10:33 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Jay,
I think if you look at ROI, Military, Computer, Communications and Medical research return far more than the celestial exploration ever will. I think that those who are interested should fund it themselves. We derive far more good from research directed at our daily practical lives on terra firma.
December 7, 2006
10:37 AM
sk writes:
right, let's let the 'experts' lead us. They can't be wrong, I mean, look at global warming. There is no dissension about that, just read the MSM. Ask Algore.
The
Biggest
Threat
to
The
World.....shrieeekkkkkk!!!!!
We need to go "To Infinity...and Beyond" because global warming is going to ruin this world so we need to transport to another galaxy.
December 7, 2006
10:45 AM
benn writes:
SK,
Global warming is real, yet you choose to ignore it.
There were always be dissenting opinions, but you latch onto those despite the fact a VAST majority of experts and researchers claim that global warming is happening.
Even if it isn't (which it is), what harm could come from reducing pollution and developing renewable energy? It can only reduce our dependence on foreign oil, prevent unnecessary destruction of our natural areas, create new jobs and industries and drive innovation. Seems like a good thing to me, rather then continuing to puruse oil or other nonrenewable resources.
December 7, 2006
10:51 AM
David Hakala writes:
"If you don't believe that there have been "benefits" produced by our space program, then you obviously don't know much about the subject at hand."
Well, it's certainly been good for the careers of William Shatner and Carl Sagan. :-)
If there is or can be life on Mars, I think we should let it find us and spend the savings on improving life here on Earth.
December 7, 2006
10:51 AM
jay writes:
Hogar,
Think about how many military and communications applications have been gleaned from our space program....smart weapons anyone? Cell phones?
I do agree that we should divert some gov't funding to private firms for space travel R&D....as we've done for two hundred years to nuture innovation in new industries.
sk,
Global warming and evolution aren't in dispute outside of circles with ideological differences with the science. For those with no iron in the fire...both are pretty clear cut.
December 7, 2006
10:59 AM
Space King writes:
I have to agree with Ben on premise, for it is a good idea to reduce pollution and develop renewable energy souces; however, it is too bad that he has been sucked into the Global warming propaganda. Anyone ever hear of an ICE AGE? The natural cycle of the earth is to cool down, warm up, cool down, warm up, etc. Do you really think that the small fraction of time that humans have been on this planet that they are interupting this timeless cycle. Give me a break; that is just people thinking that humanity is the center of the universe and that all of our problems must have universal impact. Please, let the egos go.
Perhaps we should go to mars if for no other reason then to deflate the notion that humans are the center of life for the universe
December 7, 2006
11:09 AM
rocket man writes:
Global warming...my god people, wake up and smell the coffee. There is no gloabl warming. In fact, it is more likely that there is life on mars than there is global warming. These people who beleive it to be "fact" probably also believe that Elvis is still alive
December 7, 2006
11:17 AM
jay writes:
wow
December 7, 2006
11:22 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Looks like we're up to our collective ass in problem avoidance again today. Keep those heads in the sand, and remember that global warming is all one big conspiracy!
December 7, 2006
11:31 AM
David Hakala writes:
"Think about how many military and communications applications have been gleaned from our space program....smart weapons anyone? Cell phones?"
Think about how many dollars could have been saved by pursuing those inventions directly, without hoisting millions of tons of crap into orbit and paying 100 times what a rubber gasket is worth.
"Smart weapon" is pretty oxymoronic, BTW.
December 7, 2006
11:36 AM
jay writes:
Hakala...as I've said many times...I agree with hybrid system of assisting private innovation with public funds...but I refuse to get into the group think that mandates that everything can be done better in the private sector. Our healthcare system is a perfect example.
Smart weapons really is an oxymoron though.
December 7, 2006
12:26 PM
JW writes:
"These people who beleive it to be "fact" probably also believe that Elvis is still alive"
Yea! Those idiots believe in the myth of the "Thermometer" too! Hahahah! Imagine...someone dumb enough to actually believe temperature can be measured! LOL!
I wont even start on these fools who think its possible to measure the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and compare it to 600,000 years of history. Thats complete FANTASY!
December 7, 2006
1:03 PM
Rocket man writes:
JW,
I know, can you beleive that people would beleive such nonsense! OH the planet is warming up, Oh it must be the 120 years of automobiles and industrial pollution, not the fact that one volcano spews as much CO2 as all the cars in history have ever produced, (and thats only 1 volcanno) give me a break. I suppose you believe in the little green men too huh!
Live long and prosper
December 7, 2006
1:09 PM
JW writes:
RM,
My post was sarcasm.
"Oh it must be the 120 years of automobiles and industrial pollution, not the fact that one volcano spews as much CO2 as all the cars in history have ever produced,"
You are going to need a credible link before Im going to believe this. Ive seen the data. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere skyrocket in the last 100 years, to levels they havent been at in the last 600,000. On a graph, the spike is really quite telling.
December 7, 2006
1:12 PM
jay writes:
It is a good thing that the vast majority of climatologists look at the scientific evidence rather than listen to the chirping from Rove's footsoldiers....
Damn you guys are entertaining though.
December 7, 2006
1:13 PM
Rocket Man writes:
JW,
try the National forestry center website, it calculated the levels of H, CO2, and CO after the MT. st Helens explosion, and calculated the mega tons of gases that escaped from the explosion. It was estimated that it was equvilant to the gases produced by all cars since the invention of the automobile.
Of course, Rush Limb. in his program also cites these facts, but many do not believe him when he sites it, but you can see his sources on his website too.
December 7, 2006
1:18 PM
Space King writes:
What’s going on, I thought we were talking about the non-water found on Mars not the non-existence of global warming!
BTW, climatologist are prone to be wrong and politically motivated too guys. For everyone you produce that says one, there is another that will say the opposite.
If we are going to engage in this fantasy of Global warming debate, lets at least keep it on the level of rational rather than anecdotal
December 7, 2006
1:30 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Ok, let's just suppose for a moment that global warming does not exist (which it does)
Using present energy technology makes our society (and economy) dependant on : Oil
We are presently fighting a war, and have lost 3K troops to ensure a supply of : Oil
In 1991, we fought a war to ensure a supply of: Oil
In 1973, 1979 and 1980, we were in gas lines and our economy went to hell over: Oil
The only reason we are presumably trying "to bring democracy" (yeah, right) to Iraq, is because they have: Oil
Anyone beside me starting to see a pattern here? Getting away from oil just makes sense, even if you ignore global warming (which is real)
December 7, 2006
1:38 PM
al gore writes:
Sorry guys I was wrong, there is no global warming; I, like most Democrats, was just trying to find an issue that might get me elected rather than just hound on the Republicans.
BINGO!
December 7, 2006
1:58 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
Whatever happened to the "life on Mars!" asteroids discovered in 1996?
That dropped off the headlines faster than a rocket at escape velocity.
It's hard to trust NASA after such publicity stunts in the name of Science. Is their budget up for review soon?
December 7, 2006
1:58 PM
JW writes:
Terry Gerlach is a U.S. Geological Survey scientist who studies volcanic gases.
"Compared to man-made sources, though, volcanoes' contribution to climate change is minuscule, Gerlach said.
Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.
Nothstein, of the state energy office, says the Centralia coal plant puts out about 28,000 tons a day. Statewide, automobiles, industries, and residential and business heating systems emit nearly 10 times that amount.
On a global scale, the difference is even more dramatic, said Gerlach, who often gets calls from power-plant operators and oil-company executives who believe nature is just as responsible for global warming as man. His answer always disappoints them.
"I tell them the amounts don't even come close and I usually never hear from them again."
Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year — or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions."
From;
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html
December 7, 2006
2:05 PM
SPACE KING writes:
No LIFE, NO WATER, NO GLOBAL WARMING, NO NASA
December 7, 2006
2:08 PM
sk writes:
ummm JW
"You are going to need a credible link before Im going to believe this. Ive seen the data. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere skyrocket in the last 100 years, to levels they havent been at in the last 600,000. On a graph, the spike is really quite telling."
Could YOU provide a link to the graph that has 600,000 years of data? Now that, would be interesting seeing is how the 'data' only goes back a fraction of that. Maybe you are a time traveler, or maybe you can make it up, you know, fake but accurate.
December 7, 2006
2:09 PM
Space King (the real) writes:
I didn't do that last post, but in fairness, it about sums up my points. But lets not bogart someone else's name on the blog, OK
December 7, 2006
2:13 PM
sk writes:
gr8fuldud, I don't think global warming is a conspiracy. I believe those scientist truly believe that there is a problem and that they can solve it. That doesn't mean that there is or they can. Man's ego is bigger than reality.
Just go back to the mid-70's and Global Cooling. oh....they were wrong then? But they thought they were so right.
December 7, 2006
2:14 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Take a look, I know its only Wikipedia, but the data is consistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2#Concentrations_of_CO2_in_atmosphere
December 7, 2006
2:18 PM
JW writes:
"Could YOU provide a link to the graph that has 600,000 years of data? Now that, would be interesting seeing is how the 'data' only goes back a fraction of that. Maybe you are a time traveler, or maybe you can make it up, you know, fake but accurate. "
That, or scientists could take Ice core samples from Antartica which do give data on atmospheric conditions for about the last 600,000 years.
Damn man, I feel like Im in the middle of a "Who is the Most Stupid Contest" and losing badly.
Oh, and here is your link moron.
http://faculty.uca.edu/~jmurray/CO2/CO2-Pages/Image3.html
December 7, 2006
2:18 PM
jay writes:
"BTW, climatologist are prone to be wrong and politically motivated too guys. For everyone you produce that says one, there is another that will say the opposite."
There is simply no other way to say this any simpler. Scientific facts aren't political. Thousands of scientists the world over agree that humans are contributing to global warming. There is no "one to one" ratio refuting of this information. The debate is literally thousands to few. If you chalk up the dissenters whose positions have been thoroughly peer-reviewed....that ratio drops even further. Don't kid yourselves footsoldiers...there isn't a debate...only dissent from a few with political irons in the fire.
Education is your friend. Knowledge is power. Do a little reading (not on Rush's website) and you might restore some credibility on the matter.
This is a good book to start with:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
December 7, 2006
2:24 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Even if you want to ignore the scientific data, can't you at least agree that it makes FAR more sense to look at wind, solar, geothermal, which are renewable, as opposed to oil, which the Earth is just not making any more of???
I did a month of Katrina relief, and I had to laugh at all the pissing and moaning that we did as a nation (and especially in the gulf coast region) when oil and gas prices spiked...What are people thinking, that oil will stay low for as long as they own that unneeded SUV?
December 7, 2006
2:26 PM
sk writes:
jay, don't be silly. Scientiest are not the noble profession that you make it out to be.
It is about funding. FUNDING.
There is not a 1 to 1 ratio but there are more scientists that disagree than you think. Their voices have been silenced by the politics of the left. The intolerant left who declare the debate closed.
The debate is not closed no matter what Algore says.
December 7, 2006
2:38 PM
sk writes:
JW, you need to work on your vocabulary, your sixth grade education is showing.
That graph went back to 1000 AD. I asked for one that went back 600,000 years. What? there isn't one?
You just gave me .00166 of the data that you claimed. I could argue about that data but why bother.
December 7, 2006
2:44 PM
sk writes:
gr8fuldude, I agree with you about non-renewable research and the need for it.
I was somewhere on the net where they were debating whether oil is still being produced by nature. I should have bookmarked that. The premise was that not all oil was made by fossils or dinosaurs.
December 7, 2006
2:47 PM
JW writes:
Here you go SK.
http://condor.wesleyan.edu/soconnell/ees123/spring_lectures/climate_ice_cores/sld040.htm
This one only says 500K. My bad. Also, the spike isnt as visible.
And you are still wrong.
December 7, 2006
2:47 PM
Anonymous writes:
I took a year of Climate and Oceanography back in '02. We approached the subject totally unbiased, and by the end of the courses it was utterly clear there was global warming. We didn't need to read opinions on each side until we had reached our own conclusions. That data doesn't lie, the methodology (as JW said, core samples from antarctica) is near flawless.
There is no doubt that it is occurring. Again, you are correct that there is natural fluctuation, but what we have seen for the last 100 years is not natural. It is off the charts.
You are right that some scientists are politcally motivated, but I find it hard to believe that scientists the world over are somehow involved in a vast politcal conspiracy.
The fact of the matter is that you are plain wrong. You cling to a tiny few number of scientists who claim global warming isn't happening, while ignoring a vast array of scientists and PEER-REVIEWED research that claims the contrary.
What would it take for you to believe global warming was occurring? For Rush to say it? For Bush to say it?
This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but somehow it turns out that way. We need to realize that the problem is fixable, but we need to start acting soon.
December 7, 2006
2:48 PM
benn writes:
I took a year of Climate and Oceanography back in '02. We approached the subject totally unbiased, and by the end of the courses it was utterly clear there was global warming. We didn't need to read opinions on each side until we had reached our own conclusions. That data doesn't lie, the methodology (as JW said, core samples from antarctica) is near flawless.
There is no doubt that it is occurring. Again, you are correct that there is natural fluctuation, but what we have seen for the last 100 years is not natural. It is off the charts.
You are right that some scientists are politcally motivated, but I find it hard to believe that scientists the world over are somehow involved in a vast politcal conspiracy.
The fact of the matter is that you are plain wrong. You cling to a tiny few number of scientists who claim global warming isn't happening, while ignoring a vast array of scientists and PEER-REVIEWED research that claims the contrary.
What would it take for you to believe global warming was occurring? For Rush to say it? For Bush to say it?
This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but somehow it turns out that way. We need to realize that the problem is fixable, but we need to start acting soon.
December 7, 2006
2:51 PM
JW writes:
Oh, and SK, I know the Graph just shows 160. If you read below, it says the vostok cores yeild data for the last 500k. But the graph for the last 160 makes the point.
December 7, 2006
2:53 PM
jay writes:
Again sk, there is no scientific debate...only dissent from folks like you who have political reasons to do so. Of course scientists themselves are fallible...which is why in these type of instances...the educated among us put their faith in scientific data and facts...neither of which are beholden to the political arena. The scientific data and facts say you are wrong...that should be enough for you to wonder why you would believe a handful of non peer-reviewed people over thousands of peer-reviewed scientists relying on scientific data to back up their conclusions.
December 7, 2006
2:59 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Even if you want to ignore the data.
Even if you want to ignore the present evidence.
Even if you want to think you know more than scientists.
Even if you don't mind seeing guys die every day to ensure a supply of oil.
Even if you don't mind paying more, since price and supply are inextricably tied together.
Even if it was completely safe to transport (think Exxon Valdez)
Even if you want to believe that Global Warming is a myth created by the likes of Greenpeace, who btw, has a lot less money than Exxon/Mobil, and can buy far fewer scientists.
Even if you want to ignore all that, let me ask one question: Does it make any sense at all to base our economic life on a commodity whose biggest supplier is a region of the world who largely hates America?
Can anyone in the class answer that?
December 7, 2006
3:05 PM
sk writes:
JW, so I went and looked at your link. You know what I see, 2 ice ages and two warming periods including the one we are in. No need to see a spike, 100 years in 500K is a drop.
Now, if we as humans are causing global warming now, what caused it back 250,000 years ago?
*crickets*
*crickets*
Or is it a natural occurence and will happen regardless of what we do.
Why does 'man' have to believe that they can cause or fix anything that God made?
December 7, 2006
3:09 PM
sk writes:
gr8fuldude, I agree with that. So how about the Dhimmicrats letting us drill for more oil in our own hemisphere until we get some more renewable?
There is also nuclear power like what they use in Europe. So many misconceptions in the US of A about that.
December 7, 2006
3:15 PM
Anonymous writes:
Nevermind sk
We should have known after you blatantly refuse to accept science that you were a biblethumper
refuse to believe the science all you want
December 7, 2006
3:15 PM
Space King writes:
So the non-water, non-life on mars debate is dead ?
December 7, 2006
3:19 PM
jay writes:
No it's not dead Space Cadet, but until you come up with better evidence than some of the best minds on Earth...I think you're pissing in the wind.
December 7, 2006
3:20 PM
sk writes:
I prefer the term Chrisofascist Nazi. ThankUverymuch.
December 7, 2006
3:37 PM
Carrie McCandless writes:
Wet Planet?!?
Did somebody call me?
I should probably volunteer to go there...
December 7, 2006
3:58 PM
Space King writes:
Jay,
What evidence? a few grainy pictures showing some changes on the surface of the planet? That hardly constitutes proof.
Is it not also likely that some other steller phenomonon caused these purported changes on the surface?
Or is it not likely that this story in conjunction with the moon base story is just NASA's feeble attempt to drum up support for their launch that is scheduled this week.
December 7, 2006
4:09 PM
JW writes:
"You know what I see, 2 ice ages and two warming periods including the one we are in."
Sigh. Take a look at it again. Yes, two warming periods including the one we are in. BUT (and this is why bashing me for the 1000 year graph because it wasnt a 600k year graph makes you an idiot) the graph is so long at 160k, you cant see the spike unless you really look, mostly because its happend in the last 150 years. If you notice, those two warming periods are similar. Now look closely at the very end of the second, which is right now. See the SLIVER of RED that jumps TWICE AS HIGH as the levels for the two warming periods? NO? Youre an idiot. Its there. Current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are twice as high as the the highest levels recorded in 600k (or 500k if you prefer) of ice cores.
December 7, 2006
4:14 PM
jay writes:
Spacey,
I simply don't see the conspiracy theory in this reporting...sorry.
We've known for quite some time that there is ice on Mars....which as you may have guessed...is hard water.
Water.
On Mars.
No Conspiracy.
December 7, 2006
4:15 PM
Anonymous writes:
boo
December 7, 2006
4:17 PM
Space King writes:
Where? where is this water? where is the ice?
Its not a conspiracy, but it is bumpkis
December 7, 2006
4:27 PM
benn writes:
SK,
JW is right about his graph. There is clearly an arrow point to where the tip of the current CO2 levels are. It says 'Industrial Revolution'
December 7, 2006
4:29 PM
jay writes:
You know, it's not as if google is some magical device whose ways were lost in antiquity.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/28may_marsice.htm
December 7, 2006
4:30 PM
sk writes:
Jay, your graph show cooling and warming trends going back some 500K years or so you believe, no? So over this time these natural changes occured without our emissions spike or no spike, it still went to Ice Age and back. Why is it so important to blame us now for what has happened forever especially when it will cost trillions and do very little?
Shouldn't the bleeding heart in you want to spend that money on the sick and elderly?
I'm all for recycling and conservation but I believe the debate over Global Warming isn't over despite the open-minded declarations of it's demise.
December 7, 2006
4:32 PM
benn writes:
SK is right,
God made the earth only 7 thousand years ago, so of course there won't be any graphs going back that far.
December 7, 2006
4:34 PM
benn writes:
http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var.jpg
How about this graph?
December 7, 2006
4:41 PM
jay writes:
sk,
That wasn't my graph you are referring to...but I'm smart enough to understand JW's point about the clearly defined effect of human impact during the latest period of warming.
Furthermore, the "it will castrate us economically to act" as been debunked as effortlessly as the premise that global warming doesn't exist at all.
This is a great report that you should consider reading before making any more unfounded claims.
The report states that:
Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.
In contrast, the costs of action — reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change — can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.
The transition to a low-carbon economy will bring challenges for competitiveness but also opportunities for growth. … Markets for low-carbon energy products are likely to be worth at least $500bn per year by 2050, and perhaps much more. … [F]rom implementing strong mitigation policies this year, shifting the world onto the better path: the net benefits would be of the order of $2.5 trillion. This figure will increase over time. This is not an estimate of net benefits occurring in this year, but a measure of the benefits that could flow from actions taken this year; many of the costs and benefits would be in the medium to long term.
Great reading for those who would rather rely on facts and figures than opinion and conjecture....
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/8AC/F7/Executive_Summary.pdf
December 7, 2006
5:19 PM
JW writes:
SK,
In addition to looking at the report Jay put out here, you should see "An Inconvienient Truth" Yea yea, I know, its by that liberal sob Gore. Its still got a bunch of UNBIASED info, which you can actually verify for yourself, without going to those nasty bs liberal sites to do it.
And one of the things he talks about is the fact that we currently have the technology to cut our emissions to pre 1970's level without economic tradegy.
Here is something that points out the absolute bs nature of that "its too expensive" crap. American car makers are having problems making money for a great many reasons, but one of the reasons is that their emissions standards suck. In fact, CHINA has better emissions standards than we do. Think about that for a second, then tell me its too expensive.
December 7, 2006
6:11 PM
JW writes:
"Then how come Beijing is a polluted mess JW?"
Oh yea! You are totally right CAA! Cars are the only source of polutants on the earth!
Jackass.
December 7, 2006
6:48 PM
David Hakala writes:
JW says: "I agree with hybrid system of assisting private innovation with public funds...but I refuse to get into the group think that mandates that everything can be done better in the private sector."
WTF does that have to do with spending $1000 on space exploration to realize only $1 in mundanely useful spin-offs?
December 7, 2006
7:18 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Jay,
I have no problem with military and communications applications of space technology. I am concerned about a trillion dollar program to Mars to look for water and life. I just don't see the benefit to that in the same light as I do the military and communications gains here which has direct benefit to our everyday lives. I don't have a problem with the space station, but the moon base and mars just don't have an up side in my mind. I won't lose and sleep over it either way.
December 7, 2006
10:31 PM
benn writes:
David,
I understand your fear of cost. That is one of the main problems with capitalism in general. Everything must run for a profit, thereby running the risk of creating stagnation in certain areas because they are too costly to begin exploration or research in.
That is the beauty of government and government programs. They don't have to run at a profit. They can run at a loss, even a huge loss, but still provide added benefits to society. The can spend things on 'the good life' to quote Aristotle, without fear of losing investors.
Is that a good mandate to run a whole system of government on? Probably not, but there needs to be some moderation where we can have some programs, even expensive programs funded because they provide something good. And often times once the initial expensive work is done, then the private sector can take over and propel further innovation.
I know that conservatives refuse to believe anything like that, but we would be in a world of hurt without such programs.
Now, the real question is if space exploration is worth that expenditure. Personally, I think it is. Yes it is expensive now, but who knows what possible biological life could be found on Mars, or minerals, or resources in general. I don't think we can even fathom the possibilities of what we could learn or find from space exploration, which is what makes it so great.
Personally, I hope it we continue forward.
December 8, 2006
7:41 AM
JW writes:
"This is the last thing I'll say off topic about Beijing. It's pollution comes not just from cars; but smokestack industries supplying you with cheap plastic crap at Mal-Wart as China's environmental laws are nowhere near as stringent as the US'."
Strange. Since you know this, I wonder why I had to deal with your bs?
Their environmental laws in general do suck. Their emissions standards for cars are better than we have in the USA, environmentally speaking. This does point to the fact that we dont have to polute so much, and can polute less without undue economic hardship, which is what my original post was about.
And I dont need much feeling behind the "jackass" in that post. It wasnt meant to be that forceful. More just a general statement. Also, when I say it, its more in imitation of Johnny Depp from "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".