[X] My Assistant

[ngunn]

Somebody got their facts wrong, no doubt about that. But is this really the main news? Surely that's the images themselves and what those can tell us about Martian clouds? We should maybe think about how we look too. After all we're quick enough to complain when the rest of the media focus on a problem or failure rather that the magnificent achievements of space exploration. Agreed, errors should be noted, but that can be done in a friendly way. You all have had more dealings with ESA than I have and may have good reasons that I don't know about for being more vehement, or inferring particular motives, but it makes me a bit uncomfortable I have to say.

[nprev]

Either the writer has never ever heard of google, or they are intentionally sexing it up.

I think that's an accurate analysis; a mixture of both, probably. However, it should not be forgotten that it took NASA literally decades to learn how to "market" its discoveries (and don't ever think that's not necessary; recall the fact that people were calling TV stations and complaining that live moonwalk coverage was interrupting ancient reruns of I Love Lucy)--and they still have a long way to go.

ESA's trying, they just really screwed this up, and the writer of this release should be, at the very least, disciplined.

Just to be clear: I am not defending this article, nor these tactics; scientific accuracy and objectivity are of course paramount, now and forever. To me, this looks like one of the initial points on a very steep learning curve.

[tedstryk]

Just to be clear: I am not defending this article, nor these tactics; scientific accuracy and objectivity are of course paramount, now and forever. To me, this looks like one of the initial points on a very steep learning curve.

I would agree with this on a lot of their PR. This simply goes beyond that. The repeated emphasis of first direct detection, coupled with the idea that it changes the way we perceive the Martian surface is either a work of pure idiocy or a lie. Given how much of it comes from one of the scientists, I have difficulty believing it is pure ignorance. I think it is willful.

[MarsIsImportant]

Quoted directly from the second paragraph of the ESA article:

"Mars is not entirely a haven for Sun worshippers. Clouds of water ice particles do occur, for example on the flanks of the giant Martian volcanoes. "

This is before they get into the details of the story.

I hate to be put in the position of defending them, but the critics here are going too far. The ESA does acknowledge previous evidence of clouds. They have acknowledged other people's work related to the subject. What they have pointing out is that these particular clouds were found near the equator in an area where clouds of this type should not be expected. I think people have misinterpreted it as if they stated it was a unique discovery on Mars as a whole. My quote clearly shows that they did not say that.

Yet, They did not go out of their way to give specific references. When something is generally considered to be the norm in a particular field of study, specific references are generally not needed. Everybody knows that clouds have been seen on Mars many times before. That is kind of the point of not making the specific references. Perhaps they should have been more clear.

I didn't interpret the article as apparently many others did. Perhaps it did gloss over a few important points. But it certainly did not ignore them as some indicate.

[tedstryk]

In reality, the criticism is not at all over the top. Equatorial clouds on Mars, but have been routinely known and photographed from the ground since the early twentieth century. For example there are images depicting them in E. C. Slipher's Photographic Survey of the Brighter Planets. Carbon Dioxide clouds, not just water ice clouds, and certainly not just topography related clouds, have been studied extensively by previous spacecraft.

[MarsIsImportant]

Yes, but the point of the article was that before when these clouds were spotted, it was mostly assumed that they were CO2 clouds. The study confirms that they are CO2. It pointed out the problems with previous attempts at confirming that the clouds were CO2.

Granted, the article could have been written much better than it was. But much of the criticism is way over the top.

[tedstryk]

I understand what they are trying to say. But the idea that all previous detections were indirect simply is untrue.

[ElkGroveDan]

I think this brings us full circle back to the ESA Press Efforts thread. As we all recall Ted began it back in Nov., 2005 with a joke about their impending "major discovery announcement."

Some major discoveries will be announced, including:

Titan has an atmosphere
The Hellas and Argyre basins on Mars are of impact origin.
Mars has large volcanos in the Tharsis region.
Mars has two moons.

If only Ted had inserted the line "Mars has clouds" we would have smiled just the same back then, but here we are today facing that very announcement.

Good call Ted.

[n1ckdrake]

The criticism over this ESA news release is entirely justified.
Ice Clouds over Mars - http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap971013.html
Clouds over 'Endurance' on Sol 290 - http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/mer/images.cfm?id=1403

[edstrick]

“This is the first time that carbon dioxide ice clouds on Mars have been imaged and identified from above...”

Viking orbiters specifically detected very high altitude clouds that occurred in a recurring patch over mid-southern latitudes at one time of year. They were sharp textured and clumpy, casting <as I recall> distinct shadows that confirmed their height, and generally appeared way different from the water ice diffuse clouds and hazes. Atmosphere temperature data <very limted remote sensing 15 micrometer channel data and occultation profiles> suggested CO2 ice temps could be reached in that area at that season and elevation.

What is new here, and is a VERY significant improvement in previous science is the ability of a near infrared imaging spectrometer to clearly image and obtain identifying spectra on such clouds. The Press Release, however is cooked-up hype to to with some impressively good, but INCREMENTAL science.

[MarsIsImportant]

The article is simply not well written. Because of that, it is easily misinterpreted. That misinterpretation is not necessarily the readers fault. That goes back to the fact the article is not up to standard. That is a fair criticism. I did not want to defend the article at all because of that fact. Yet the criticisms here went far beyond that fair one.

You quote them saying CO2 clouds detected from above and IDENTIFIED. That's the problem. The article itself says that these type of clouds have been seen before. People have been giving all sorts of examples of various clouds being identified from above. So you say they lied.

But in context, it is clear to me that the writer meant 'confirmed'. There is a big but subtle difference. They were able to confirm it because of the new infrared imaging spectrometer and the large size of the particles within the cloud. They could separate the CO2 atmosphere from the CO2 ice in the clouds. Before, we couldn't be sure of that distinction; now we can. That means confirmation.

I don't remember them actually using that word 'confirmation' but that is what they meant. So the article is not well written. I wasn't trying to defend the article in of itself. It was clearly inaccurate in a number of ways. I was simply showing how criticism here has taken it a little too far in characterizing them (as in the ESA) as liars...or they are grossly ignorant. I don't think that is the case. The writer missed some of the subtleties in English and it came across as a pure 'puff piece'. That is still not excusable for a writer, but it is a far cry from calling the whole organization liars.

Edit: Another unfair criticism is that people have been giving examples where the clouds were thought to be water based clouds. That's not what the article was about. The article is talking about CO2 ice cloud detection at the equator (when they meant confirmation). It has been known for a while that CO2 ice clouds must form at NIGHT at the poles. This article points out a CO2 ice cloud at the equator during the day. Yet, people here keep giving examples of detections that claim water ice clouds, not CO2. That's not a fair criticism against the article. Yet, the article opened itself up to such criticism because it mentions previous water cloud detections near the beginning. That could also be easily misinterpreted itself. Many people have claimed in the past that these clouds were CO2, not water. This science confirms the clouds are CO2. ...I can relate to the confusion the article caused.

[djellison]

The article itself says that these type of clouds have been seen before.

It also says that an astronaut would have been surprised to see them. It infers that clouds were not known to exist.

Doug

[MarsIsImportant]

I agree. The article seems to contradict itself in some spots. It was not well written. So I understand why there was so much confusion.

[Doc]

This article seems to have been written by a seriously misinformed writer.
And I can't shake the feeling that ESA is trying to take all the credit for being 'martian clouds revolutionists'. Come to think of it, how can the knowledge of shadow-producing clouds be considered valuable to planetary climatology?

[tedstryk]

The thing that really concerns me is the quoted material from one of the OMEGA scientists, who seems just as out of line as the writer. One can only hope he is seriously misquoted.

CO2 Clouds have been directly detected before from above. It started with Mariner 6 and 7. The supposed subtle difference doesn't exist. OMEGA has done superb work at refining our knowledge of this work, but this is not revolutionary. The measured size is well within the range accepted since the 1970s. MGS TES indicated particles <=1.5 microns.