Comments on: Puddles retracted

By: Science After Sunclipse

Science After Sunclipse — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:30:26 +0000

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 …

By: Gary Ansorge

Gary Ansorge — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:53:14 +0000

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

By: OneHotJupiter

OneHotJupiter — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:33:45 +0000

It sure would have been nice to find those puddles though.

By: Arthur Maruyama

Arthur Maruyama — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:35:55 +0000

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.

By: Lorne Ipsum

Lorne Ipsum — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:06:15 +0000

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.

By: DTdNav

DTdNav — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:21:55 +0000

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?