Comments on: Maybe Sulfur Dioxide, Not Carbon Dioxide, Kept Mars Warm

By: Mass Extinctions | Maybe Sulfur Dioxide, Not Carbon Dioxide, Kept Mars Warm

Mass Extinctions | Maybe Sulfur Dioxide, Not Carbon Dioxide, Kept Mars Warm — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:45:49 +0000

[...] Maybe Sulfur Dioxide, Not Carbon Dioxide, Kept Mars WarmUniverse Today – However, life on Earth has survived many pole-reversals in the past, though the transition periods may have been responsible for mass extinctions. [...]

By: Physical sciences news, 12/17/07-12/23/07 | Math Discussions

Physical sciences news, 12/17/07-12/23/07 | Math Discussions — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:01:36 +0000

[...] Mars• Fire and Brimstone Helped Form Mars Oceans• Possible solution to Mars enigma• Maybe Sulfur Dioxide, Not Carbon Dioxide, Kept Mars Warm• Greenhouse clue to water on Mars• How Mars Could Have Been Warm And Wet But Limestone [...]

By: AndrÃ© van Marweijk

AndrÃ© van Marweijk — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:15:35 +0000

Simplifying: Mass extintions on earth have in common that sulfur consuming organisms predominated for a "short" time period over carbon consuming organisms, with an ventual resurgence and predominance of "us" in the overall time. Maybe the reverse is appliable to Mars.
The "god of War" is more suitable a name than we might have thought of.

By: Jon

Jon — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:52:22 +0000

this is interesting

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:09:01 +0000

It sounds as though there won't be much hope of eventually terraforming Mars. With an abundance of sulpher dioxide rather than carbon dioxide, and no surface water, there is little chance that any type of plant life could take hold. No plants means no oxygen, and the lack of magnetic field means that there is nothing to hold it in place anyway.

So why are we going there? Wouldn't it be more useful to learn how to mine the asteroid belt, for example?

By: nick

nick — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:12:46 +0000

PETS'S A DUMMY: IF YOU GET EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING THEN PURE SPECULATION IS IMPOSSIBLE

By: Win Scott

Win Scott — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:27:59 +0000

According to many planetary geologists, Mars dies several billion years ago when it's magnetic field dissipated due to a cooling of it's molten core, resulting in a slow-down of the processes which generate electrical currents within the core. With it's magnetic field strength severely reduced, Mars's atmosphere was bombarded by radiation and solor winds, and without the magnetosphere to deflect the radiaiton from space, eventually most of the atmosphere was ripped away, exposing the surface to even more radiation.

Geologists on Earth report that our own magnetic field strength has nose-dived more than 10 percent in the last 100 years. But this appears to be too fast a change to indicate that the field is dying… more likely a precursor to a reversal of the magnetic poles, which has happened on an average of every 300,000 years, but hasn't happened since we've been around. The last pole-reversal happened about 750,000 years ago. When the shift gets into full swing, our magnetic field may be reduced in strength by as much as 90 percent for a period of as much as 300 years until the poles stabilize. This could mean loss of atmosphere and greater exposure to radiation from space. However, life on Earth has survived many pole-reversals in the past, though the transition periods may have been responsible for mass extinctions.

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:35:24 +0000

The entire universe is a mystery. We'd like to think we know but unfortunately we don't. We need to send serious probes to Mars to research the poles and drill the surface for water and other signs of life to really speculate what is happening and has potentially happened in our Solar System , Galaxy and Universe.
Even then, it is only pure speculation

By: tmayes1999

tmayes1999 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:01:48 +0000

there is a good chance of sulphur metabolizing archea bacteria on mars.
it could be source of methane gas
underground there too.
tim

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:36:30 +0000

If that be the case,did the poles shifting cause the loss atmosphere,maybe phoenisx will give us a few clues,of why Mars started living a dies a quick death.

By: Asmita

Asmita — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:40:03 +0000

the presence of sulphur in water indicates acidic environment when water flowed…this can also signify the presence of archaebacteria and the likes of it ( or rather their fossils) , if life ever flourished there.

or maybe some super modified acidophile did survive!

By: Duane

Duane — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:51:20 +0000

Hmmm. Something to think about should we ever make it to the surface of the red planet. Wouldn't any water found be close to battery acid in toxicity?

Also, all that sulphur: Makes me wonder if Mars doesn't smell too good. Better pack a few air fresheners….