This is all very interesting, Gary, but please
note that I've never argued that the current evidence for water chemistry is
flawed. I have no trouble with the conclusions arrived at so far about
water chemistry. And it's good to know that sediment can't form in CO2 (or
that, if it does, it's not common knowledge how it could - I'm not sure what's
been done in finding analogous processes, given how unlikely they might have
seemed until now.)
However, nothing you've said addresses my main
question: how does any of this evidence for water chemistry preclude formation
of larger-scale features on Mars through CO2 phase changes? Your ability
to tell me what's in a high school chemistry refresher is evidence
only that you have some time on your hands. The fact that you haven't
addressed the above question (repeated here for what may be the third time, in a
different form) tells me either that you haven't been reading (in which case,
why reply?) or that you're evading the question.
Hoffman's website carries the provocative
banner of Mars Without Water. By this, he doesn't mean "Mars has no
water." For one thing, the poles and the traces of water vapor in the
atmosphere are established facts - if he were saying "Mars has no water", he'd
be a total crank. Given, however, that he talks about small amounts
of water and the role that these amounts might play in White Mars (necessarily
almost negligible, given his thesis), you can't pin the crank label on
him. At least, not on that basis.
What he means is "Plausible Explanations for
Apparent Martian Hydrology that Don't Require Hydrology." No points for
diplomacy on his part, of course, but otherwise he's doing the right thing for
garnering attention. And the more that he's misinterpreted by people who
should know better, and who could think better, the more his provocation works
for him. He gets to point out that certain people are
engaged very superficial readings of his thesis, and only making themselves
look lazy, incompetent, or both.
If you want to make real progress against
White Mars, you have to do it in terms at least as scientific as Hoffman himself
- ideally, better. Off-the-point recitations from high school chemistry,
as if they were some killer blow, amount to shooting yourself in the foot -
precisely what he wants you to do.
-michael turner
|
Title: Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars Rocks
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... Michael Turner
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... Eugen Leitl
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... Michael Turner
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... Eugen Leitl
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... Michael Turner
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... James McEnanly
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... Gary McMurtry
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... Michael Turner
- Relevance for Europa (was Re: Standing Body of Wa... Michael Turner
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... Gary McMurtry
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... Michael Turner
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... James McEnanly
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... Eugen Leitl
- Enough Mars CO2 debate? Chris German
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars ... Michael Turner
- Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars Rocks Mark Schnitzius