[X] My Assistant

[dvandorn]

Back in the Paolo's Plunge thread, someone recently made a statement to the effect that the idea of an early wet, warm Mars has gone from a proposition to a belief. The statement made it clear that this was a bad thing -- that the concept of an early wet, warm Mars is keeping us from seeing how the planet's histopry has actually played out.

I'm responding to that statement here since I don't want to continue to hijack the other thread. But I feel the following two points must be made:

1) Mars was once warm enough (and had a thick enough atmosphere) to support flowing liquid water on its surface.

2) Mars was once wet enough for that liquid water to form well-developed river drainage systems and for enormous floods to scour thousands of square kilometers of its surface.

Those two statements aren't theoretical. Observed landforms verify them with primary, empirical evidence of river channels and catastrophic flood plains.

Those are statements of fact, not belief. My own feeling is that we must proceed from that point and not continually try and postulate a Martian history which cannot account for these proven facts.

Also, to the comment made several times that the LHB was responsible for the stripping of Mars' atmosphere, I must point out that several reputable studies have shown that the interaction between the solar wind and Mars' upper atmosphere is sufficient to have reduced an atmosphere as dense as Earth's to what we see today over the course of three billion years. And that neither Venus nor Earth seem to have had their atmospheres stripped during the LHB.

Just a few points I felt needed to be made at this juncture.

-the other Doug

[SickNick]

Back in the Paolo's Plunge thread, someone recently made a statement to the effect that the idea of an early wet, warm Mars has gone from a proposition to a belief. The statement made it clear that this was a bad thing -- that the concept of an early wet, warm Mars is keeping us from seeing how the planet's histopry has actually played out.

I'm responding to that statement here since I don't want to continue to hijack the other thread. But I feel the following two points must be made:

1) Mars was once warm enough (and had a thick enough atmosphere) to support flowing liquid water on its surface.

2) Mars was once wet enough for that liquid water to form well-developed river drainage systems and for enormous floods to scour thousands of square kilometers of its surface.

Those two statements aren't theoretical. Observed landforms verify them with primary, empirical evidence of river channels and catastrophic flood plains.

Those are statements of fact, not belief. My own feeling is that we must proceed from that point and not continually try and postulate a Martian history which cannot account for these proven facts.

Also, to the comment made several times that the LHB was responsible for the stripping of Mars' atmosphere, I must point out that several reputable studies have shown that the interaction between the solar wind and Mars' upper atmosphere is sufficient to have reduced an atmosphere as dense as Earth's to what we see today over the course of three billion years. And that neither Venus nor Earth seem to have had their atmospheres stripped during the LHB.

Just a few points I felt needed to be made at this juncture.

-the other Doug

What you say may well be true, but it's also misleading.

let us restate the observations:-

2a) The erosion patterns in e.g. Warrego Valles are almost impossible to produce without liquid water and precipitation (which could be snow, with basal melting trickling down snow-covered gullies)
2b) The catastrophic floods in various areas of Mars are most easily explained by Mars being WARM enough to melt subterranean ice in a once-only local event
1) Given the above, Mars must have been at least locally and transiently warm and wet enough for liquid water.

Now let's look at the rest of the context. ESA have published a very useful and compelling chronology of the role and activity of water on Mars, as seen from planetwide distributions of mineralogy:-

1- A widespread and active (but not necessarily permanent) water system producing clays - Back in the Noachian
2- A limited water system with strong acid brines producing sulphates - Back in the early Hesperian or late Noachian
3- An extended and planet-wide aridity lasting to the present day - some 3.5 billion years. Local exceptions occur associated with volcanic heating and consequent floods, but little if any chemical evidence results.

The simplest way to interpret all this is in a scenario where the stable state of Mars is arid and frigid, at almost all times. Back in the Noachian, major impact events caused atmospheric transients (lasting tens of years to thousands of years) during which the atmosphere was kicked into a metastable state with liquid water activity. Essentially, after the Noachian, no impact was big enough to cause a global ocean and rain. After the Hesperian, there was nothing left. Thisd model was originally proposed in concept form by myself but developed more carefully by Teresa Segura.

Essentially, we're looking at the evolution of Mars *as it accretes*. During THIS time, the system is energetic enough to enable liquid water (Recall that on earth, at the same time, the atmosphere was beleived to be superheated steam, or even silicate vapour! Mars is colder - there is "only" liquid water, but it's as stable on Mars as superheated steam is on Earth, imho...)

[sjbradshaw]

This is a fascinating discussion, and it makes me wonder if anyone here could offer their thoughts on the following question.

If we assume for the sake of argument that infrequent large impacts can produce a temporary warm or wet Martian environment, how long would such conditions last? In particular:

- How dense would the resulting temporary atmosphere credibly be? 0.1 bar, or more?
- What would it comprise - CO2 liberated from frozen deposits, or vaporised rock?
- What would be the process by which the Martian environment reverted to its steady state?

Thanks for any insight you may be able to provide,

Simon

[marsbug]

My uneducated guess: To produce heating over a long time or large scale an impact would need to trigger vulcanism on a global scale. So I'd think the chixelub impact, where a ten KM body hit mexico leaving a crater 200 odd km across, and maybe triggered vulcanism in the deccan traps on the other side of the earth, as a reasonable hand waving lower limit. As to how long it would last, I'd guess hundred to tens of thousands of years, but not hundred of thousands or millions unless the impact was really huge (just a stab in the dark). I doubt vapourized rock could comprize an atmosphere that would be cool enough for water, so vaporised ices and volcanic gases are the likely candidates. As the vulcanism or residual heat from a really big impact dies down i imagine the surface becomes cooler, gases making up the temporary atmosphere freeze out and atmospheric pressure drops back toward 0.01 bar. And Nick it's good to see you posting here again.