<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Mars results: no liquid water?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:57:22 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: contrarian</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/comment-page-1/#comment-49351</link>
		<dc:creator>contrarian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:52:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/#comment-49351</guid>
		<description>andy said - Well what a pity that a planet can only apparently be considered interesting if it has/had liquid water.

There is a certain context you are missing here. This whole website has a subtext and agenda in which any the existence of a supreme creator, the validity of the biblical creation account (no matter how metaphorical) and Intelligent Design, must be undermined and ridiculed in every single blog entry. The existence of water on Mars opens the possibility of life developing outside of the biblical narrative, which in turn  downgrades the insanely miniscule statistical probability of the development of life processes to within the random range.

That is why every time a microscopic bubble is located in a rock that MIGHT have originated from Mars in some wildly improbable meteoric cataclysm, it is trumpeted that this MIGHT have originated from a metabolic degradation of Martian bacterial doody, which in turn obviously means that life can develop any old damn place without a god, whether on Mars or on that outdated applesauce in your refrigerator.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>andy said &#8211; Well what a pity that a planet can only apparently be considered interesting if it has/had liquid water.</p>
<p>There is a certain context you are missing here. This whole website has a subtext and agenda in which any the existence of a supreme creator, the validity of the biblical creation account (no matter how metaphorical) and Intelligent Design, must be undermined and ridiculed in every single blog entry. The existence of water on Mars opens the possibility of life developing outside of the biblical narrative, which in turn  downgrades the insanely miniscule statistical probability of the development of life processes to within the random range.</p>
<p>That is why every time a microscopic bubble is located in a rock that MIGHT have originated from Mars in some wildly improbable meteoric cataclysm, it is trumpeted that this MIGHT have originated from a metabolic degradation of Martian bacterial doody, which in turn obviously means that life can develop any old damn place without a god, whether on Mars or on that outdated applesauce in your refrigerator.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: No Liquid Water In Mars? &#124; homeboyastronomy.com</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/comment-page-1/#comment-49350</link>
		<dc:creator>No Liquid Water In Mars? &#124; homeboyastronomy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/#comment-49350</guid>
		<description>[...] Plait from Bad Astronomy writes about the new results of Mars research. Last year scientists announced thatÂ most probablyÂ there has been liquid water on Mars. Now they [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Plait from Bad Astronomy writes about the new results of Mars research. Last year scientists announced thatÂ most probablyÂ there has been liquid water on Mars. Now they [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mundhir</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/comment-page-1/#comment-49349</link>
		<dc:creator>Mundhir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:07:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/#comment-49349</guid>
		<description>Just as I thought ..no liquid H2O
Now lets see what Phoenix Mission will bring us</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just as I thought ..no liquid H2O<br />
Now lets see what Phoenix Mission will bring us</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buzz Parsec</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/comment-page-1/#comment-49348</link>
		<dc:creator>Buzz Parsec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/#comment-49348</guid>
		<description>Eric, TorbjÃ¶rn and CR...  Yes, but it gets more complicated...

Glaciers can certainly transport and drop huge boulders long distances, leaving them strewn about the surface (ask me, I live in New England :-)  but getting them to sit on the surface of sediment is a little trickier.  That&#039;s where the ice bergs floating on a sea idea comes in.  A glacier would tear up the surface destroying any sedimentary layers and then when it melts, deposit everything (sand, mud, rocks, boulders) in a big jumble.  A sea might deposit uniform or seasonal sediments for millions of years building up a deep layer of sedimentary rocks.  When the climate is right, ice bergs floating on the sea can then deposit large boulders on top of the undisturbed sediment.  So it depends on what we are looking at.  If the boulders are on the surface of the sediment, then it might mean a surge of ice berg formation as the climate cooled and glaciers formed, before everything froze up solid.  If the boulders are partially buried in sediment, then it could be there was a prolonged period of ice bergs with seasonal deposits (spring or summer runoff transporting mud to the sea which forms sedimentary layers, everything freezes (at least at the surface in the fall and winter, so little happens, then in the spring the glaciers at the edge of the sea melt back some releasing another crop of ice bergs that drop more rocks and boulders, repeat for a few million years.)  If the boulders are resting on or in a jumble of other material, then no sea or ice bergs are involved, just a glacier or floods.

BTW Eric, I think you are thinking of the Spokane Flood in the Grand Coulee region of Washington State (12-18000 years ago according to the USGS web site.)

BTW, I&#039;m not a geologist, just watch a lot of TV.  :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric, TorbjÃ¶rn and CR&#8230;  Yes, but it gets more complicated&#8230;</p>
<p>Glaciers can certainly transport and drop huge boulders long distances, leaving them strewn about the surface (ask me, I live in New England <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' />   but getting them to sit on the surface of sediment is a little trickier.  That&#8217;s where the ice bergs floating on a sea idea comes in.  A glacier would tear up the surface destroying any sedimentary layers and then when it melts, deposit everything (sand, mud, rocks, boulders) in a big jumble.  A sea might deposit uniform or seasonal sediments for millions of years building up a deep layer of sedimentary rocks.  When the climate is right, ice bergs floating on the sea can then deposit large boulders on top of the undisturbed sediment.  So it depends on what we are looking at.  If the boulders are on the surface of the sediment, then it might mean a surge of ice berg formation as the climate cooled and glaciers formed, before everything froze up solid.  If the boulders are partially buried in sediment, then it could be there was a prolonged period of ice bergs with seasonal deposits (spring or summer runoff transporting mud to the sea which forms sedimentary layers, everything freezes (at least at the surface in the fall and winter, so little happens, then in the spring the glaciers at the edge of the sea melt back some releasing another crop of ice bergs that drop more rocks and boulders, repeat for a few million years.)  If the boulders are resting on or in a jumble of other material, then no sea or ice bergs are involved, just a glacier or floods.</p>
<p>BTW Eric, I think you are thinking of the Spokane Flood in the Grand Coulee region of Washington State (12-18000 years ago according to the USGS web site.)</p>
<p>BTW, I&#8217;m not a geologist, just watch a lot of TV.  <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CR</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/comment-page-1/#comment-49347</link>
		<dc:creator>CR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 2007 06:37:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/#comment-49347</guid>
		<description>I can&#039;t remember which specific programs I&#039;ve seen (many years ago) which have the footage, but I&#039;ve seen footage of huge (say, 8-10 feet across or so; &quot;atuomobile sized&quot; and larger) bolders being carried along by floodwaters from flash flooding. I also recall seeing massive (house-sized) bolders moved by galcial outflow; the people filming the event were almost stranded by the outlow washing around the area they were standing. Anyway, it&#039;s certainly possible for water to move large boulders.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t remember which specific programs I&#8217;ve seen (many years ago) which have the footage, but I&#8217;ve seen footage of huge (say, 8-10 feet across or so; &#8220;atuomobile sized&#8221; and larger) bolders being carried along by floodwaters from flash flooding. I also recall seeing massive (house-sized) bolders moved by galcial outflow; the people filming the event were almost stranded by the outlow washing around the area they were standing. Anyway, it&#8217;s certainly possible for water to move large boulders.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tukla in Iowa</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/comment-page-1/#comment-49346</link>
		<dc:creator>Tukla in Iowa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:01:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/#comment-49346</guid>
		<description>*your* mind...

[curses the lack of preview]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*your* mind&#8230;</p>
<p>[curses the lack of preview]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tukla in Iowa</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/comment-page-1/#comment-49345</link>
		<dc:creator>Tukla in Iowa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/09/20/new-mars-results-no-liquid-water/#comment-49345</guid>
		<description>Is there liquid water or isn&#039;t there?  Make up you&#039;re mind, NASA!  We&#039;re at war!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there liquid water or isn&#8217;t there?  Make up you&#8217;re mind, NASA!  We&#8217;re at war!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
