Michael,
First, may I suggest a better question to bat about may be "if there is now mounting evidence for abundant liquid water once on Mars, where did it go and why?". I appreciate your pursuit of a competing hypothesis for liquid CO2, because I think in trying to suggest it, you and others on this list (Eugen, Jim, et al.) have made it obvious it's too much of a long shot.
BTW, us scientists do solicit funding, but most try to not let the facts get in the way. Most of our funding awards are peer reviewed, which although an imperfect and increasingly overtaxed process, still functions to weed out the crud. As you probably know, unlike religion, science is self-correcting and evolves through time. We are satisfactorily uncomfortable with our present knowledge state.
Gary
--- Michael Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So I'm still holding out for a possible CO2 sea/ocean/lake as an explanation for features that we, on our water planet, associate only with bodies of water. That doesn't mean that there haven't *also* been bodies of water on Mars, just that it doesn't look like the case is closed yet. Unless I've missed something.
-michael turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
== You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
As I understand it, the recent findings by the rovers indicate deposits of gypsum and salt, which dissolve in water, but not in supercritical CO2
=====
Sincerely
James McEnanly
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
== You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
