Under-Polar Ice Cap Lake Imaged on Mars

12 miles across and one meter deep. Predictable hysteria about the imminent discovery of life under there.

Richard, what do you think?

The southern polar ice cap averages about 2km thick, consisting mostly of frozen carbon dioxide, which solidifies at -193℉.

-109.3

NoCoPilot wrote:

The southern polar ice cap averages about 2km thick, consisting mostly of frozen carbon dioxide, which solidifies at -193℉.

Where did you get this? I can't find it anywhere.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Richard, what do you think?

I feel so left out.

NoCoPilot wrote:

12 miles across and one meter deep. Predictable hysteria about the imminent discovery of life under there.

ON another thread, NoCoPilot wrote:

I got told, on another forum devoted to music, that I "don't respect those who disagree with me."

Now where would they get an idea like that?

The thickness of the ice cap I listed is for the much larger northern ice cap. The southern might be thinner.

Regardless, the point I was making was that this "lake" isn't sitting under a thin cap of ice, it's sitting under kilometers of frozen carbon dioxide. Mars probably has a molten core, but there do not appear to be any active volcanoes on Mars nor has Mars had plate tectonics in a few billion years. Therefore, I cannot explain why water trapped under a kilometer of frozen carbon dioxide (at -173℉) would be in a liquid state.

Regarding "respecting those who disagree with me" -- why should I respect people who believe in patent nonsense?

My question was where did you get that information? I find other data, but not that.

And of course, "patent nonsense" is any opinion other than yours.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/multimedia/cap-20080515.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_polar_ice_caps = this actually says the southern ice cap is 3km thick.  I missed that the first time.

BTW, anyone who disagrees with me is obviously wrong.  Ipso facto!

But yeah, a closer read says those ice caps are WATER ICE with a thin coating of carbon dioxide ice... so I was wrong.  Sue me.  The water ice still has to be -193℉ or below to sustain a coating of carbon dioxide ice, right?  Doesn't materially alter my conclusion.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The water ice still has to be -193℉ or below to sustain a coating of carbon dioxide ice, right?

No, it doesn't. And the thin coating of carbon dioxide ice sublimates in the warm season.

And I appreciate that nothing will alter your opinion - excuse: me your "conclusion."

I don't know if there is life anywhere else in the universe. You don't know either. I, however, am willing to admit that there is something I don't know.

I'd be thrilled if scientists found evidence of life, any life, elsewhere in the universe. Really I would.

However:

• It will probably be bacterial or microbial -- if any, and
  
• therefore of absolutely no use or interest to us, and
  
• Captain Kirk will not be able to have a tryst with it.

Therefore the press hysteria about finding life on other planets is entirely misplaced. I wish one-one hundredth of the column inches were devoted to efforts to communicate with sentient beings right here on Earth who are not human.

"The purported water lies an ADDITIONAL 1.5 km below the surface of the planet"

There is a bit of ambiguity in the articles, but the way I read it, the ice cap is about 3.7 km thick, while the "lake" is about 400 km from the ice cap and is only 1.5 to 2 km under the surface of the planet. Not under the ice cap. Am I reading that wrong?

Not sure.  It was poorly written, and I wondered about that myself.

Either way, the chance of life is slim. 2km underground it won't get any sunlight, and Mars isn't geothermally active. Without an outside source of energy like that, life isn't likely to get started.

Yes, I know on Earth there are lakes underneath some glaciers and those lakes contain microbial life. But those microbes are transplants, who have colonized that environment. They did not arise in a frozen environment without sunlight.

The thing about Mars is that (generally speaking,anyway) we don't expect to see life now. But there was a period of at least several hundred million years where Mars had a thick atmosphere and liquid water on the surface. And, if Earth's history is any guide, that was quite possibly long enough for life to get started. Now, if you are really keen on the idea of finding alien life, that means that Mars offers at least some hope in a couple of ways.

First, there may be some sort of micro-fossils around. That's not such a great hope, not only because such things would be rare to begin with, but also because they would be really difficult to identify. The analysis of meteorites that have made it to Earth makes this clear: some people think they include fossils, others think they are just normal geological results.

Second, there may be actual Martian microbes still surviving after all these years. Well, maybe, I guess. Life does tend to be tenacious, and if it did get started, it may have found a way to cling on through the long slow cool-down. It's hard to believe, but maybe. And if there's still liquid water around, that might be the best chance to find some stragglers.

NoCo wrote:

Yes, I know on Earth there are lakes underneath some glaciers and those lakes contain microbial life. But those microbes are transplants, who have colonized that environment. They did not arise in a frozen environment without sunlight.

Quite so. But that may be true on Mars, too.

Yes, there is a POSSIBILITY of some kind of microbes on Mars. Maybe came from the same source as the first life on Earth.

So.

Let's say we find it. Let's say it's DNA based.

Let's say it's below single-celled, like a virus or a prokaryote. Very primitive, very hardy. No signs of evolving since 3.9 billions years ago, when Earth and Mars shared an origin story.

Then what.

I can imagine NoCo asking Copernicus, "So what?"

He probably wouldn't answer. He didn't speak English.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Maybe came from the same source as the first life on Earth.

Why do you think that?

NoCoPilot wrote:

Let's say it's below single-celled, like a virus or a prokaryote.  Very primitive, very hardy.  No signs of evolving since 3.9 billions years ago, when Earth and Mars shared an origin story.

Then what.

Some people value knowledge without it having any immediately apparent practical application.

It's just conjecture, anyway. I don't think they have any plans for drilling a 2 km shaft on Mars. Certainly not in my lifetime, anyway.

_Howard wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

Maybe came from the same source as the first life on Earth.

Why do you think that?

Because I'm still operating under the assumption that life arose only once in the universe.  That's the statistical best bet.

_Howard wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

Let's say it's below single-celled, like a virus or a prokaryote.  Very primitive, very hardy.  No signs of evolving since 3.9 billions years ago, when Earth and Mars shared an origin story.

Then what.

Some people value knowledge without it having any immediately apparent practical application.

It's just conjecture, anyway. I don't think they have any plans for drilling a 2 km shaft on Mars. Certainly not in my lifetime, anyway.

You're FINALLY coming around to my way of thinking.  1.  It's all conjecture, i.e. probably not provable, and 2. knowing one way or the other would be "knowledge without application" anyway.  So it's a total fucking waste of time, like arguing over how many feathers are in an angel's wing.

NoCoPilot wrote:

1.  It's all conjecture, i.e. probably not provable, and 2. knowing one way or the other would be "knowledge without application" anyway.  So it's a total fucking waste of time, like arguing over how many feathers are in an angel's wing.

1. Conjectural does not mean unproveable.

2. "knowledge without application" now does not mean that it will never have an application.

"So it's a total fucking waste of time" - maybe, but I doubt it.

richard09 wrote:

1. Conjectural does not mean unproveable.

Wikipedia wrote:

In mathematics, a conjecture is a conclusion or proposition based on incomplete information, for which no proof has been found.

Brilliant.org wrote:

A conjecture is a mathematical statement that has not yet been rigorously proved. Conjectures arise when one notices a pattern that holds true for many cases. However, just because a pattern holds true for many cases does not mean that the pattern will hold true for all cases. Conjectures must be proved for the mathematical observation to be fully accepted. When a conjecture is rigorously proved, it becomes a theorem.

A conjecture is an important step in problem solving; it is not just a tool for professional mathematicians. In everyday problem solving, it is very rare that a problem's solution is immediately apparent. Instead, the problem solving process involves analyzing the problem structure, examining cases, developing a conjecture about the solution, and then confirming that conjecture through proof.

Unprovable -- unproved -- not a whole lot of sunlight there.

NoCoPilot wrote:

You're FINALLY coming around to my way of thinking.

No. No, I'm not. I don't understand your way of thinking. It seems to involve very little thinking.

I actually spent a bit of time pondering whether or not I should us the word conjecture, just to avoid the shit we have here. I guess I made the wrong decision.