For those who don't have access to Scientific American, the publishers are now offering free online access to Jim Bell's article "The Red Planet's Watery Past," which was published in the December 2006 issue.

An excellent catch, as usual, Alex. I no longer subscribe to magazines that break their Table of Contents into pieces that are hidden amongst many pages of advertising, but I did go out of my way to purchase the hard-copy version of the December SCIAM...just to get his article. I really enjoyed reading his perspective, which mentioned a couple of new concepts that I hadn't heard before, but should have.

By the way, I'll mention that he also published an article in the November/December Planetary Report, titled "Photographing Mars." As an enthusiast who is not fully up to speed with all of the latest academic publications, I always find enlightenment in anything publiclly said or written by an insider.

Great, thanks.

So did I, since Scientific American originally wasn't offering free online access to the article; I just noticed the change last week.

Sorry for inserting the mini-rant, but it's a darn shame that they have succumbed to the commercialization tactics used by much lesser magazines. I started reading it in high school in the 60's, and it was instrumental in opening my eyes to all the wonders of science. I guess it still kind of performs that role, but in a diminished and somewhat cheapened way.

Oh well. I guess I managed to add to my rant without adding to the topic. But I did manage to not complain about how the important journals Nature and Science have changed over the years. I'll stop.

I am still amazed by the number of relevant links to references that you manage to post. It's no wonder that you have been labeled the "Reference Librarian."

Re: rant

Ditto. I have issues of SciAm dating back to the '50's and '60's packed away. Back then, it was a lite scholarly journal, nowadays it's yuppie science.

Thanks again, Alex, for the references.

--Bill

Terrific review article. This really painted the picture for me of recent discoveries and how they relate to a new paradigm.

One of the biggest Mars mysteries is what exhumed all this ancient terrain and where did all that sediment go? I wonder if some of the covering might have been a mixture of CO2 ice/dust/rock with the CO2 subliming away during a particulary warm period (but then, where did all the CO2 go?).

Thanks for the notice Alex.

It is a good article, and as CosmicRocker noted above, you should also read Bell's article in the latest issue of The Planetary Report.