I am happy to note that Emily is happy to note that New Scientist magazine — and Ron Levin, the researcher — have retracted the claim of puddles on Mars.
Here is my original take on this. I think the magazine did the right thing in retracting the original article, including adding an explanation. However, I have to note this from the story:
The reporter had tried to contact numerous outside researchers, including those on the MER rover mission, for their analysis of the claim, but his calls were not immediately returned.
I would suggest, then, that if not enough solid sources were able to be contacted, the story wait a while to get those analyses before being published. Remember, the claim that extant liquid water exists on the surface of Mars would be huge news, so all due diligence must be observed before publishing! That might save everyone some trouble and embarrassment.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
If you look at the retraction article you’ll notice something in the panoramic picture that is very interesting in itself. The rocky slope clearly shows horizontally stratified layers. Layers of this type look very much like those left behind by a body of water. I suppose they could have been formed by multitudes of sand storms, or repeated pyroclastic activity (like from meteoric impacts), but I don’t see the usual cross-bedding. Has anyone read an official explanation of these layers?
June 12th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
The thing I don’t understand about NS’ treatment of the story is WHY they couldn’t bother to wait for some outside commentary on the Levin paper.
Mind you, the paper was first presented in March — 2 full months ago. Given that, what’s the hurry? Saying “his calls were not immediately returned” makes it sound as though there was a mad rush to get the story published.
June 12th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
I added an anonymous comment to the New Scientist retraction article with a link to Emily Lakdawalla’s original explanation. There were some comments trying to keep open the possibility of the original claim by suggesting that the “water” was sublimating at the surface.
In those commenters’ defense I will note that the New Scientist retration does not make it clear that the blue-colored photo is a false color image.
June 13th, 2007 at 5:33 am
It sure would have been nice to find those puddles though.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Puddles, smuddles, liquid water in a near vacuum would be highly unlikely. Atmospheric pressure on Mars is so low, liquid water would evaporate almost as soon as it hit the surface at any temperature much above 0 degrees C.
The original observation of recent liquid water had to do with mineral deposits that showed up between one orbital observation of a crater wall and the next. The assumption was that this COULD have been caused by water seeping from a fissure and evaporating. No mention(by NASA) was ever made of “puddles” of water,,,
Glad they published a retraction but of course they would be inclined to cover their bums. It’s human nature to try to avoid criticism.
Gary 7
June 13th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Ranking the News Agencies…
Those of us who have cause to dislike Time Magazine now also have cause to snicker. The University of Maryland’s International Center for Media and the Public Agenda (that’s a mouthful) has just released a study of how “global media …