You know that I like to spread my love around, and much of it goes to Emily Lakdawalla, who writes the blog for the Planetary Society. She is a great writer, and her chops as a trained scientist give her insight into the topics on which she writes.
Emily writes about Mars quite a bit, but today she takes on some Mars pseudoscience in a manner that has made my love blossom.
The magazine New Scientist sometimes likes to walk the edge of mainstream science, and I think that’s fine as far as it goes, but you have to be very careful lest you tread over the cliff. Unfortunately, they have literally done this in a recent issue. An article discusses the claim that some scientists have found evidence for puddles of water on the surface of Mars. As you might expect, this would be huge news if true.
Unfortunately, it ain’t. True, that is.
Emily goes to town on the claim, showing incontrovertibly that it’s false. The "puddles" claimed to be pooled water on the martian surface lie along one of the steepest cliffs seen by the rover — it’s called Burns Cliff, after all. If you know of a way for water to pool at an incline, please let me know. I’d like to start a water skiiing franchise.
Again, read Emily’s blog for details. But I want to add something here. New Scientist is, in general, a good magazine. I enjoy the articles, and have several friends — competent journalists all — who write for it (in fact, I wouldn’t mind writing for NS and — full disclosure — I’ve pursued that in the past). But this particular article was poorly researched; the author should have done more due diligence to find out what was going on in the image. Instead, he simply repeated the claim made by the "scientist" and only got a minimal reaction from other scientists. I’ll note that the claimant, Ron Levin, has for years been making, ah, unusual statements about Mars, saying the sky should really be blue, and so on — not Hoagland-level insanity, but still not supported by evidence.
Emily, with the help of a few others who habituate the wonderful forum Unmanned Spaceflight, quickly and easily debunks this claim. How hard would it have been for the article author to make a few more phone calls, get more information? Had this been some minor claim then it would not have been a big deal, but a story about evidence of water on Mars — with a false-color picture showing blue smooth surfaces — demands a lot of field work before being printed. Also, some blame can be laid at the feet of whatever editor chose the article title: "Mars rover finds “puddles” on the planet’s surface".
I’ll note that this claim of puddles was not published in a scientific journal; it was made at a conference. Emily has some choice words about that as well; Levin’s claim was so easily shown wrong that it’s difficult to understand how it got to be presented at all.
This situation reminds me of another tempest in a teapot Mars story from 2005. Compare how this story in New Scientist about puddles compares to an article New Scientist published in 2005 about possible evidence of life on Mars. They’re night and day.
I think at this point having the puddle article up on their site is embarrassing for New Scientist. They should either retract it (with a correction) or follow up on it with further research.
June 11th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Spotted “Burns Cliff†straightaway and got interested.
I’ve put up a few of NASA’s Mars rover photos on my website but projected into 360 panoramas, including Burns Cliff. If you’re interested, here are the two Burns Cliff photos (they might take time to load though as the server seems to be a bit slow today):
http://www.metalvortex.com/panoramic/mars/mars_burns_cliff.htm
http://www.metalvortex.com/panoramic/mars/nasa_mars_rover_opportunity_at_the_wall.htm
And if you want some really great images of the two rovers, try these two!
(try zooming out and then looking “down”)
http://www.metalvortex.com/panoramic/mars/erebus.htm
http://www.metalvortex.com/panoramic/mars/summit.htm
Enjoy.
June 11th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Thanks for the Kudos Phil
I think we tore the Levin and Lyddy conclusions apart comprehensively. And we’ve not even started with the Mini-TES data yet 
Emily as ever gets the point across forcefully but with more style than I could ever manage!
Doug
June 11th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
As one of those inhabitants of Unmanned Spaceflight.com I have to say I was both astounded by the NS coverage and very, very disappointed in it too. I’ve grown up with NS, trusting it, looking to it for guidance on everything from cosmology to shuttle missions, and have always thought I could rely on it to be honest and straight with me.
But this… well… I can’t help feeling badly let down by this whole pantomime.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
A while back, I wrote up the sordid story of what happened when New Scientist ran a brains-wide-open story about a pseudoscientific “space drive”. Turns out, a lot of people had gripes about New Scientist, and not just in the astronomy category, but also physics, linguistics and computer science.
June 11th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I don’t have the expertise to comment on cosmology or technology or biology issues, but in my experience, New Scientist is totally incapable of distinguishing between real and pseudoscience when it comes to Earth and Planetary sciences. When I was a grad student we got free subscriptions for a couple of years through some deal, and every geology-related article consistently demonstrated a complete ignorance of basic geologic principles. Their coverage of other sciences my be better- I wouldn’t know- but they just don’t get how terrestrial planets work.
June 11th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I decided to check and see what the pre-eminent woo-meister had to say about this, so I took a look at Enterprisemission.com. (That’s the website of Richard Hoagland, for anyone who isn’t familiar. I was surprised not to find anything about the ‘discovery’ of liquid water on Mars, but was amused (sort of) to discover this little gem:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Bees/thebeesneeds.htm
Apparently, the recent outbreak of Colony Colapse Disorder in honeybees is tied into the changing physics in our section of the Galaxy – (and of course NASA is keeping this fact a secret – shhhhh, don’t tell anybody).
I’m almost sorry I don’t work 2nd shift anymore, and don’t have a 1-hour commute home, to listen to George Noory – even though the laughter was almost as much of an impediment to my driving skill as sleepiness…
June 12th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Phil, does your wife know you still have a crush on Emily?
She’s got a kid, ya know.
AS for umsf, it’s wonderful so long as you kiss Ellison’s ass and his
cronies. Otherwise it’s just another online personality cult, and the
overlording personality is a man-child with limited imagination who
wouldn’t even be recognized by the scientific community if he
didn’t have the internet to play with.
NOte that somehow he got a cover story in the latest Planetary
Report, even though the Planetary Society is supposed to feature
only articles written by real space experts – meaning someone who
has actually worked on and made real contributions to space
missions. I don’t consider playing with your Photoshop being
a real space expert. Emily and Doug are real good friends -
hmmm, I wonder if that had anything to do with his getting
published? Naaaah. They wouldn’t make such a breach in
integrity like that.
Clearly the quality of the Planetary Society has taken a nosedive
in the last few years. I suppose we should be grateful that their
publication isn’t a serious science journal but a rah-rah rag for
their limited and inclusive activities. No wonder the Society and
umsf get along so well with each other.
Don’t fall into their trap, Phil, or your quality will go down the
tubes, too. There are plenty of real space professionals out there
you can get your info and images from.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Hmmm. I don’t think ted’s very happy boys and girls, do you..?
I’m not going to comment on the character slurs against Doug – no need to; people who know him know what he’s actually like. Besides, “sticks and stones” and all that – but I am going to stand up for UMSF, just because many people reading this won’t be aware of what it actually is, and might actually believe some of that previous post and be put off joining or just taking a look at the Forum.
Which would be a shame, because in stark contrast to the rather bleak and dark picture painted by the previous poster, UMSF is in fact a world-respected forum where space enthusiasts mix freely and respectfully with engineers, scientists and decision makers from ALL the major planetary science missions. So, instead of “cronies”, if you wander over to UMSF and pull up a seat at the bar you’ll be rubbing shoulders with people actively involved in the planning, operating and science gathering of such missions as MER, New Horizons, Cassini/Huygens and others. Hardly the kind of people to subscribe to an “online personality cult”.
As for using Photoshop, well, there are imaging experts on UMSF who use Photoshop and other programs to create original images out of “raw” or previously published NASA images. The most popular are the images created using NASA’s raw Mars rover images, with the full approval and support of the MER team. Such is the high standard of work there that members of UMSF have had their images accepted by such respected publications as Aviation Week, shown on TV programs and featured on websites such as APOD.
As for the relationship between The Planetary Society and UMSF, they have a good relationship because their members share both a love of space exploration and a commitment to “spreading the word” about it and its worth – just like the people who visit Bad Astronomy, I think.
Some people don’t like UMSF because it is, compared to other “wild west” forums, not a very welcoming place for people who delight in being rude, or confrontational. A little respect is asked for, from everyone, and if that respect isn’t shown then… well, there are other forums, everyone knows that. So, if you want to go somewhere where debate is encouraged, but flames and argument are not, where science is valued more highly than bad plot ideas from the X-Files, and where you can actually talk to people who drive rovers on Mars, or fly probes around Titan – the “real space professionals” referred to in that previous post, then it’s a good home. If you want to rant about Faces on Mars, or insist that only you know The Truth about something, or just get a kick out of winding people up, then you’re probably in the wrong bar. But hey, a little further down the street there’s another bar.
None of which ted would agree with, I’m sure, for whatever reason, and that’s a shame, but no-one can be friends with everyone, can they?
June 12th, 2007 at 8:23 am
As I recall, the “liquid water on Mars” evidence was a photo of precipitates on the side wall of a crater, which implied that water had flowed there recently and left the precipitates as a marker when it evaporated. Suggestive but not inclusive evidence,,,
GAry 7
June 12th, 2007 at 11:06 am
So tell me, Stu – how long have you been Ellison’s bitch?
June 12th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Very dignified ted, very dignified. I’m smiling imagining how many people are shaking their heads in disbelief at your rudeness and immaturity right now, but at the same time disgusted by it because many kids read the BA’s blog for info about space news items, and I’m sure their parents appreciated your language.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I’ll weep in my sleep tonight.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“Ron Levin, has for years been making, ah, unusual statements about Mars, saying the sky should really be blue, and so on ”
Ron Levin was actually there in the control room when Viking sent back its first pictures of Mars, and nearly got kicked out of there when he changed the monitors back to true color after NASA techs forced the sky to a reddish color. And he’s right, the sky really is blue (Rayleigh scattering works the same on Mars, physics is the same everywhere). That is, unless you believe that the red-white-and-blue flag on Viking was actually purple-white-and-orange, as the NASA techs set it in the images, and which case go ahead and believe that the sky is red – but explain why the laws of physics behave differently on Mars and why Rayleigh scattering doesn’t work there.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2007/06/no-puddles-on-mars.html
Claims retracted by Levin. Something of a victory for common sense!
June 12th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
[...] is my original take on this. I think the magazine did the right thing in retracting the original article, including [...]
June 13th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Ed Minchau, you know about Martian dust in atmosphere, riiight?
June 13th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Smoke from the forest fires in southern Georgia are producing some really spectacular RED sunsets. So much for the blue sky syndrome. There isn’t enough H2O in the Martian atmosphere to produce a blue sky but there is a fair amount of dust,,,
Gary 7
PS.Ted, sleep well and LOOOONG.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:36 am
ted, you are welcome to your own opinion, you are even allowed to share that opinion. But the BA has two rules for conduct. 1: Address the claims, not the person. 2: watch your language; children read this board.
Your posts come close to violating both of those rules. Phil can make his own determination of whether you have crossed the line or not, but consider this a friendly reminder from the community. Play nice or go away.
Gary Ansorge, the prior evidence for liquid water on Mars, the precipitate trails, are something else entirely. The flap at this point is over a color shifted image of a close up of a crater wall with some flat surfaces that are interpreted by one pair of analysts as resembling pooling liquid water. Completely different issues.
Ed Minchau, you have your facts reversed. The first images from Viking did show a blue sky, but those were the images with the purple, white, and orange American flag. That is why NASA color shifted the image and obtained the red sky.
As for the physics, a much thinner atmosphere means much less Rayleigh scattering. The sky would appear a lot less blue and more black, like the daytime sky on the Moon. (Something of a hybrid – faint blue near the horizon and darker as it gets more overhead.) However, there is a lot of red Martian dust in the Martian sky, dominating the visual scene with more reddish colors.
June 13th, 2007 at 10:06 am
You did it, Doug – you’re a real live scientist now!