Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Why do you favour that explanation, Mac?

This kind of organic matter found by Curiosity is most likely synthesised by life (or at the very least, life can't exist without it). There are other possible explanations for it being there (simple random chemosynthesis being the most plausible), but for me, with the various discoveries having been made I think the odds are in favour now.

 

Regarding the timeframe, I might be a little off on that wrt to it might have been much longer before that it existed, but I'm certainly willing to stake a chance that at some point since Mars came into being, microbial life existed there.

[Buce]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/27/aliens-exist-survival-universe-jim-alkhalili

 

Aliens may not exist – but that’s good news for our survival

Jim Al-Khalili

A new study suggests that we could well be on our own in the universe. Yet loneliness might have its advantages

 

In 1950 Enrico Fermi, an Italian-born American Nobel prize-winning physicist, posed a very simple question with profound implications for one of the most important scientific puzzles: whether or not life exists beyond Earth. The story goes that during a lunchtime chat with colleagues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the issue of flying saucers came up. The conversation was lighthearted, and it doesn’t appear that any of the scientists at that particular gathering believed in aliens. But Fermi merely wanted to know: “Where is everybody?”

 

His point was that, since the age of the universe is so great and its size so vast, with hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way alone, then unless the Earth is astonishingly special, the universe should be teeming with life. This might include intelligent species advanced enough to have the knowledge and technology necessary for space travel. They ought to have colonised the entire galaxy by now. So where are they all?

More recently, the late Stephen Hawking argued along similar lines. He said, “To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational.” Hawking was articulating the same popular argument as Fermi – that the sheer vastness of the universe all but guarantees we have company.

In recent years, scientists have begun to take the subject more seriously again. One of the most exciting areas of research in astronomy has been the discovery of extra-solar planets, worlds orbiting stars other than our sun. Many of them even appear to be Earth-like in size and climate. Astronomers now believe there are billions of these other worlds, many of which will have conditions suitable for life. The probability of life, maybe even intelligent life, existing on at least one of them must surely, therefore, be overwhelming.

Now however, scientists at the wonderfully named Future of Humanity Institute in Oxford have poured cold water on Hawking’s and others’ optimism. They have carried out a thoughtful statistical analysis by dissecting a mathematical relation known as the Drake equation, which allows us to calculate the probability of extraterrestrial life based on the combined probabilities of all the ingredients for life being in place.

Let me make clear at the outset that the Drake equation is not very scientific, for the sole reason that some of the factors that need to be fed into it are pure guesswork at this stage. Not the least of these is the big question: given all the things we believe are necessary for life (a source of energy, liquid water and organic molecules), how likely is it that life will emerge?

 

The authors of the new study offer two insights, one pessimistic and the other more cheery. The first is that Fermi’s paradox is easy to resolve. The reason we have not had any messages from ET is because, well, there is no ET out there. They calculate the probability we are alone in the universe to be in the range of 39%–85% and the probability that we are alone in our own galaxy to be between 53% and 99.6%. Basically, don’t hold your breath.

Biologists, of course, hate all this silly speculation. They quite rightly point out that we still do not properly understand how life originated here on Earth, so how can we possibly have any confidence in anticipating its existence or nonexistence elsewhere? There are some who argue that life on Earth appeared pretty quickly after the right conditions emerged almost 4bn years ago, which was when our planet had cooled sufficiently for liquid water to exist. Doesn’t that mean it could easily appear elsewhere too? Actually, no. A statistical sample of one tells us nothing. It is quite possible that biology is a freak local aberration, the product of a chemical fluke so improbable that it didn’t happen anywhere else in the observable universe.

So where do we stand? Well, there are reasons to believe that we may have an answer in the coming decade or two, one way or the other. Astrobiologists are about to search exoplanets for the gases produced by microbial life using sophisticated next-generation space telescopes. There is also the possibility of finding microbial life closer to home, under the ice of several of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

I did say that the study also provided some cheer. Some have claimed we have not found ET yet because intelligent life (including us) always annihilates itself before it can successfully develop the technology for interstellar travel or communication. But maybe the silence is simply because no such alien civilisations exist. So, as the authors put it, pessimism about our own future is therefore unfounded. We may be alone, but we may just survive.

• Jim Al-Khalili is professor of physics and professor of the public engagement in science at the University of Surrey

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/27/aliens-exist-survival-universe-jim-alkhalili

 

Aliens may not exist – but that’s good news for our survival

Jim Al-Khalili

A new study suggests that we could well be on our own in the universe. Yet loneliness might have its advantages

 

In 1950 Enrico Fermi, an Italian-born American Nobel prize-winning physicist, posed a very simple question with profound implications for one of the most important scientific puzzles: whether or not life exists beyond Earth. The story goes that during a lunchtime chat with colleagues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the issue of flying saucers came up. The conversation was lighthearted, and it doesn’t appear that any of the scientists at that particular gathering believed in aliens. But Fermi merely wanted to know: “Where is everybody?”

 

His point was that, since the age of the universe is so great and its size so vast, with hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way alone, then unless the Earth is astonishingly special, the universe should be teeming with life. This might include intelligent species advanced enough to have the knowledge and technology necessary for space travel. They ought to have colonised the entire galaxy by now. So where are they all?

More recently, the late Stephen Hawking argued along similar lines. He said, “To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational.” Hawking was articulating the same popular argument as Fermi – that the sheer vastness of the universe all but guarantees we have company.

In recent years, scientists have begun to take the subject more seriously again. One of the most exciting areas of research in astronomy has been the discovery of extra-solar planets, worlds orbiting stars other than our sun. Many of them even appear to be Earth-like in size and climate. Astronomers now believe there are billions of these other worlds, many of which will have conditions suitable for life. The probability of life, maybe even intelligent life, existing on at least one of them must surely, therefore, be overwhelming.

Now however, scientists at the wonderfully named Future of Humanity Institute in Oxford have poured cold water on Hawking’s and others’ optimism. They have carried out a thoughtful statistical analysis by dissecting a mathematical relation known as the Drake equation, which allows us to calculate the probability of extraterrestrial life based on the combined probabilities of all the ingredients for life being in place.

Let me make clear at the outset that the Drake equation is not very scientific, for the sole reason that some of the factors that need to be fed into it are pure guesswork at this stage. Not the least of these is the big question: given all the things we believe are necessary for life (a source of energy, liquid water and organic molecules), how likely is it that life will emerge?

 

The authors of the new study offer two insights, one pessimistic and the other more cheery. The first is that Fermi’s paradox is easy to resolve. The reason we have not had any messages from ET is because, well, there is no ET out there. They calculate the probability we are alone in the universe to be in the range of 39%–85% and the probability that we are alone in our own galaxy to be between 53% and 99.6%. Basically, don’t hold your breath.

Biologists, of course, hate all this silly speculation. They quite rightly point out that we still do not properly understand how life originated here on Earth, so how can we possibly have any confidence in anticipating its existence or nonexistence elsewhere? There are some who argue that life on Earth appeared pretty quickly after the right conditions emerged almost 4bn years ago, which was when our planet had cooled sufficiently for liquid water to exist. Doesn’t that mean it could easily appear elsewhere too? Actually, no. A statistical sample of one tells us nothing. It is quite possible that biology is a freak local aberration, the product of a chemical fluke so improbable that it didn’t happen anywhere else in the observable universe.

So where do we stand? Well, there are reasons to believe that we may have an answer in the coming decade or two, one way or the other. Astrobiologists are about to search exoplanets for the gases produced by microbial life using sophisticated next-generation space telescopes. There is also the possibility of finding microbial life closer to home, under the ice of several of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

I did say that the study also provided some cheer. Some have claimed we have not found ET yet because intelligent life (including us) always annihilates itself before it can successfully develop the technology for interstellar travel or communication. But maybe the silence is simply because no such alien civilisations exist. So, as the authors put it, pessimism about our own future is therefore unfounded. We may be alone, but we may just survive.

• Jim Al-Khalili is professor of physics and professor of the public engagement in science at the University of Surrey

Interesting stuff. Barely scratches the surface of the various concepts surrounding the Fermi Paradox, though.

[The Bear]

We are limiting our assumptions to our own galaxy too I think. Signals from other species that we can detect may only be used for a very short window before they develop other forms of communication. 

 

I'm also in favour of the annihilation theory. And the window for detecting these species is very short in cosmic terms. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, The Bear said:

We are limiting our assumptions to our own galaxy too I think. Signals from other species that we can detect may only be used for a very short window before they develop other forms of communication. 

 

I'm also in favour of the annihilation theory. And the window for detecting these species is very short in cosmic terms. 

Honestly, the real reason could be any one of those in the Paradox, or a combination of them, or none at all. 

 

To really know we need more information, and for that we need to get out there.

[Buce]

8 minutes ago, The Bear said:

We are limiting our assumptions to our own galaxy too I think. Signals from other species that we can detect may only be used for a very short window before they develop other forms of communication. 

 

I'm also in favour of the annihilation theory. And the window for detecting these species is very short in cosmic terms. 

 

 

Why?

[Suzie the Fox]

Roswell happened, so there must be aliens.  

[The Bear]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Why?

Just my personal opinion. Nature (as far as we know it) is a messy, ruthless and destructive beast. 

[leicsmac]

On 27/06/2018 at 11:03, Buce said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/27/aliens-exist-survival-universe-jim-alkhalili

 

Aliens may not exist – but that’s good news for our survival

Jim Al-Khalili

A new study suggests that we could well be on our own in the universe. Yet loneliness might have its advantages

 

In 1950 Enrico Fermi, an Italian-born American Nobel prize-winning physicist, posed a very simple question with profound implications for one of the most important scientific puzzles: whether or not life exists beyond Earth. The story goes that during a lunchtime chat with colleagues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the issue of flying saucers came up. The conversation was lighthearted, and it doesn’t appear that any of the scientists at that particular gathering believed in aliens. But Fermi merely wanted to know: “Where is everybody?”

 

His point was that, since the age of the universe is so great and its size so vast, with hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way alone, then unless the Earth is astonishingly special, the universe should be teeming with life. This might include intelligent species advanced enough to have the knowledge and technology necessary for space travel. They ought to have colonised the entire galaxy by now. So where are they all?

More recently, the late Stephen Hawking argued along similar lines. He said, “To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational.” Hawking was articulating the same popular argument as Fermi – that the sheer vastness of the universe all but guarantees we have company.

In recent years, scientists have begun to take the subject more seriously again. One of the most exciting areas of research in astronomy has been the discovery of extra-solar planets, worlds orbiting stars other than our sun. Many of them even appear to be Earth-like in size and climate. Astronomers now believe there are billions of these other worlds, many of which will have conditions suitable for life. The probability of life, maybe even intelligent life, existing on at least one of them must surely, therefore, be overwhelming.

Now however, scientists at the wonderfully named Future of Humanity Institute in Oxford have poured cold water on Hawking’s and others’ optimism. They have carried out a thoughtful statistical analysis by dissecting a mathematical relation known as the Drake equation, which allows us to calculate the probability of extraterrestrial life based on the combined probabilities of all the ingredients for life being in place.

Let me make clear at the outset that the Drake equation is not very scientific, for the sole reason that some of the factors that need to be fed into it are pure guesswork at this stage. Not the least of these is the big question: given all the things we believe are necessary for life (a source of energy, liquid water and organic molecules), how likely is it that life will emerge?

 

The authors of the new study offer two insights, one pessimistic and the other more cheery. The first is that Fermi’s paradox is easy to resolve. The reason we have not had any messages from ET is because, well, there is no ET out there. They calculate the probability we are alone in the universe to be in the range of 39%–85% and the probability that we are alone in our own galaxy to be between 53% and 99.6%. Basically, don’t hold your breath.

Biologists, of course, hate all this silly speculation. They quite rightly point out that we still do not properly understand how life originated here on Earth, so how can we possibly have any confidence in anticipating its existence or nonexistence elsewhere? There are some who argue that life on Earth appeared pretty quickly after the right conditions emerged almost 4bn years ago, which was when our planet had cooled sufficiently for liquid water to exist. Doesn’t that mean it could easily appear elsewhere too? Actually, no. A statistical sample of one tells us nothing. It is quite possible that biology is a freak local aberration, the product of a chemical fluke so improbable that it didn’t happen anywhere else in the observable universe.

So where do we stand? Well, there are reasons to believe that we may have an answer in the coming decade or two, one way or the other. Astrobiologists are about to search exoplanets for the gases produced by microbial life using sophisticated next-generation space telescopes. There is also the possibility of finding microbial life closer to home, under the ice of several of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

I did say that the study also provided some cheer. Some have claimed we have not found ET yet because intelligent life (including us) always annihilates itself before it can successfully develop the technology for interstellar travel or communication. But maybe the silence is simply because no such alien civilisations exist. So, as the authors put it, pessimism about our own future is therefore unfounded. We may be alone, but we may just survive.

• Jim Al-Khalili is professor of physics and professor of the public engagement in science at the University of Surrey

Coming back to this, I've recently read the paper that this article is based on. One line in the abstract stands out for me.

 

"When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty..."

 

Why is this new representation any more realistic than previous ones before it? I see nothing in the paper that proves this and using probability distributions with respect to the Drake Equation is hardly a new thing.

 

Honestly, this study is interesting but it's as speculative as any that have come before it rather than any kind of definitive.

[SpacedX]

36 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Coming back to this, I've recently read the paper that this article is based on. One line in the abstract stands out for me.

 

"When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty..."

 

Why is this new representation any more realistic than previous ones before it? I see nothing in the paper that proves this and using probability distributions with respect to the Drake Equation is hardly a new thing.

 

Honestly, this study is interesting but it's as speculative as any that have come before it rather than any kind of definitive.

The universe is so massive both in spatial and temporal terms I really don't understand why we should expect to have been visited or contacted by alien life forms. Particularly since humans have only been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history. Given that the first radio signals were sent at the turn of the last century, we have only made our presence known through the expanding bubble of transmissions. This means that at 117 light-years away from earth — the edge of a radio ‘sphere’ which contains many star systems — our very first radio broadcasts are beginning to arrive. At 80 light-years away, television signals are being introduced. Star systems at a distance of 60 light-years are now entering the ‘Twilight Zone’. Because of this inverse square law, any terrestrial radio signals become indistinguishable from background noise at around a few light-years from earth. 

 

However, signals can be focussed and amplified which is precisely what SETI is designed to detect. Signals sent long before the dawn of mankind or even the formation of the solar system could yet arrive from civilisations or species that have long ceased to exist. Assuming the Hubble constant, the universe is something like 96 billion light years across - I'm convinced that it is teeming with sentient life, but if extra terrestrial life is discovered by mankind, it will likely be in the form of single celled organisms - and given the reliance on oxygen to produce energy, Europa would be a good place to look (where even multi cellular organisms could have evolved). There are several places in the Solar System which could possibly support life which does not require free oxygen, such as Mars, Enceladus and Titan. 

 

I don't believe that our current species will ever venture out of the solar system other than unmanned probes in the wake of the Voyager programme. If we are to colonise other systems and even galaxies, the dissemination of AI will be our legacy. 

Edited 1 July 2018 by Line-X

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Line-X said:

The universe is so massive both in spatial and temporal terms I really don't understand why we should expect to have been visited or contacted by alien life forms. Particularly since humans have only been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history. Given that the first radio signals were sent at the turn of the last century, we have only made our presence known through the expanding bubble of transmissions. This means that at 117 light-years away from earth — the edge of a radio ‘sphere’ which contains many star systems — our very first radio broadcasts are beginning to arrive. At 80 light-years away, television signals are being introduced. Star systems at a distance of 60 light-years are now entering the ‘Twilight Zone’. Because of this inverse square law, any terrestrial radio signals become indistinguishable from background noise at around a few light-years from earth. 

 

However, signals can be focussed and amplified which is precisely what SETI is designed to detect. Signals sent long before the dawn of mankind or even the formation of the solar system could yet arrive from civilisations or species that have long ceased to exist. Assuming the Hubble constant, the universe is something like 96 billion light years across - I'm convinced that it is teeming with sentient life, but if extra terrestrial life is discovered by mankind, it will likely be in the form of single celled organisms - and given the reliance on oxygen to produce energy, Europa would be a good place to look (where even multi cellular organisms could have evolved). There are several places in the Solar System which could possibly support life which does not require free oxygen, such as Mars, Enceladus and Titan. 

 

I don't believe that our current species will ever venture out of the solar system other than unmanned probes in the wake of the Voyager programme. If we are to colonise other systems and even galaxies, the dissemination of AI will be our legacy. 

 

Yep, agree with pretty much all of that. I think I've mentioned before that I'd lay good money that simple microbial life can and will be found on other bodies in our own Solar System (Enceladus and Europa being the obvious two candidates).

 

With respect to sentient and/or intelligent life...well, for me that comes down to someone somewhere finding a way to get round the rules of relativity and either travel or communicate at FTL velocities. Without that...the Universe is simply too big and the timescales too long; civilisations would be born, thrive and die in their own little corners of the Universe without ever knowing that any others exist.

[The Bear]

I think as long as humans keep existing long enough we'll eventually travel to other stars. Technology and physics will eventually come up with ways of travelling faster than light IMO (warping of space is one from Star Trek that is theoretically possible with enough energy) and the desire to explore will never evolve out of humans. 

 

We just need to survive as a species long enough for it to happen. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, The Bear said:

I think as long as humans keep existing long enough we'll eventually travel to other stars. Technology and physics will eventually come up with ways of travelling faster than light IMO (warping of space is one from Star Trek that is theoretically possible with enough energy) and the desire to explore will never evolve out of humans. 

 

We just need to survive as a species long enough for it to happen. 

 

The method used in Event Horizon (and shamelessly aped in Interstellar) where manipulating gravity to bring the spacetime location to you rather than the other way round is probably the most plausible idea right now, yes. 

 

That last sentence is sadly very pertinent, however.

[leicsmac]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/07/03/hot-planet-all-time-heat-records-have-been-set-all-over-the-world-in-last-week

 

I'm sure it's nothing to worry about and this record won't continue to be broken, though.

[The Bear]

I noticed in that a temp of 50.2C in Pakistan in April was recorded. Imagine enduring that. Even at night it was probably still 30C+!!

[Guest]

On 01/07/2018 at 12:10, leicsmac said:

Coming back to this, I've recently read the paper that this article is based on. One line in the abstract stands out for me.

 

"When the model is recast to represent realistic distributions of uncertainty..."

 

Why is this new representation any more realistic than previous ones before it? I see nothing in the paper that proves this and using probability distributions with respect to the Drake Equation is hardly a new thing.

 

Honestly, this study is interesting but it's as speculative as any that have come before it rather than any kind of definitive.

Anything involving the Drake equation.is always no more than pure speculation.

 

 

5 hours ago, The Bear said:

I noticed in that a temp of 50.2C in Pakistan in April was recorded. Imagine enduring that. Even at night it was probably still 30C+!!

If the wet bulb temp reaches any more than the temp of the human body it can only survive for about 9 hours. I think ive got that right. 

[davieG]

Is killing the boom the key to supersonic air travel?
By Tim Bowler
Business reporter, BBC News
20 July 2018

Ever since Concorde's retirement many have dreamed of reintroducing supersonic travel
There have been proposals to return to faster-than-sound commercial flight ever since Concorde retired 15 years ago. But now those plans look closer to being realised.

Three US aerospace firms - Boom Supersonic, Aerion Supersonic and Spike Aerospace - are racing to be the first to slash travel times across the globe, with passenger jets that can travel faster than Mach 1 - the speed of sound (761mph or 1,225km/h at sea level).

All plan to have their aircraft in regular service by 2025.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44795639

[Buce]

 

A spectacular Lunar eclipse due this Friday:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/22/longest-lunar-eclipse-century-uk-celestial-thrill

[Buce]

 

Darwin comes to town:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/23/darwin-comes-to-town-how-cities-are-creating-new-species

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44875508

 

Interesting study.

[Buce]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is probably a chat for the sci/tech thread, but I'll elaborate briefly: IMO you can't expect to survive for any length of time by a geological standard (a few tens of thousands of years is nothing, really).  In the long term, without developing tech you're just waiting for any supervolcanic eruption

 

 

 For a supervolcanic eruption to be sufficient to wipe out the entire species worldwide, surely it would have to be of such magnitude that technology wouldn't protect us against it?

 

Quote

 

 

any pandemic

 

 

Ironically, that only became a possible cause of extinction after we moved out of the Stone Age and increased population levels. Pandemics require contact between populations.

 

Quote

 

, any impact event

 

 

See Supervolcanic event.

 

Quote

 

, any drastic change in climate

 

 

Again, a change in climate sufficient to wipe out the species worldwide would not be survivable with technology either; ironically, technology is the leading cause of just such an event, happening now.

 

Quote

 

or any more well-adapted species

 

 

There are no such species more adapted to the entire planet and all its environmental extremes than Stone Age man.

 

 

Quote

 

[leicsmac]

37 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 For a supervolcanic eruption to be sufficient to wipe out the entire species worldwide, surely it would have to be of such magnitude that technology wouldn't protect us against it?

 

 

If a supervolcanic eruption was big enough that its effects were global, the only defence that Stone Age man had (migration) wouldn't work. With tech, we can establish at least some safe havens where food and potable water as well as other resources could be stored/generated in enough quantities to keep a viable population going until the dust clears and at least some of the Earth is capable of repopulation.

 

37 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Ironically, that only became a possible cause of extinction after we moved out of the Stone Age and increased population levels. Pandemics require contact between populations.

 

 

Only if the vector is human. If some waterborne or insect/animal-borne disease developed and had the combination of easy transmission and high mortality rate, it could easily become unstoppable against a population that had no capacity to develop a cure or vaccine for it before any of them could become naturally immune.

 

Modern tech, though in some ways elevates the risk factors by having constant human travel and interaction, also mitigates that risk through knowledge and applied medical tech to catalogue, limit and develop cures for possible pandemics.

 

37 minutes ago, Buce said:

(Impact event)

 

1

This one's an easy one: for a Stone Age pop, rocks fall and everyone dies.

 

For a population utilising the tech we have now, we have already catalogued over 90% of all potentially civilisation-ending asteroids and are closing in on the remaining 10%. We know where they are and where they'll be in a century, with all the time in the world to develop a strategy to move one off course should it be found to be on a collision course with Earth. Even failing that, the same answer as supervolcanic event applies viz. possible survival habitats should the worst occur.

 

37 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Again, a change in climate sufficient to wipe out the species worldwide would not be survivable with technology either; ironically, technology is the leading cause of just such an event, happening now.

 

 

Modern tech has (in all likelihood) exacerbated the climate change problem, but it's going to happen anyway - at some point, the current interglacial period is going to end and a new glacial period will begin just as it has on and off for the last couple million years whether we use tech or not.

 

Now, ancient man has gotten through a few of them already, but again tech might help at least maintain civilisation in places that get colder and prevent mass migration to warmer areas which could result in civilisation-ending unrest. No tech, and everyone has no choice but to run to a place where the cold won't kill them.

 

37 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

There are no such species more adapted to the entire planet and all its environmental extremes than Stone Age man.

 

 

 

And that's because of the earliest tech man developed, simple tools. With those, man could kill from afar or up close with efficiency, treat their meat in a way that meant they didn't get sick (fire), hunt in new and creative ways that other animals couldn't adapt to. And over time, that tech has only become more sophisticated - There's a reason mankind is responsible for the sixth great extinction event. It's because of that tech that we have been able to adapt to this world and those extremes you mention, not in spite of it.

Edited 23 July 2018 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44952710

 

Whoa.

[SpacedX]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44952710

 

Whoa.

Read this earlier today - the value of remote sensing (my line). The Planum Australe has been of great interest and scrutiny for an extended period of time. 

Frigid and pure water ice, or carbon dioxide ice, could also explain a brightly reflective subsurface anomaly like this, but the research team have apparently conducted simulations and found that the reflectivity profile did not match their results as well as liquid water. Saying that, the temperature of the body is estimated to sit at around 205 Kelvin (-68.15 Celsius, or -90.67 Fahrenheit). (NB. Bucey - got my scale right this time). That is way below the point of freezing, even for hypersaline Antarctic lakes, which remain liquid above 260 Kelvin (-13 Celsius, or 8.6 Fahrenheit) owing to their salt content.

In spite of this, the water could still hypothetically remain liquid. Salts of sodium, magnesium, and calcium are ubiquitous on Mars -and have been detected on the surface.

 

Incidentally, this comes at the same time as the blood moon this Friday when coincidentally Mars is in opposition making its closest approach to Earth in the last 15 years and will appear redder and more intense than usual - together with the red giant Antares (Greek for the rival of Mars) because it is often mistaken for the red planet. Like Betelgeuse, Antares is at the end of its life and will imminently self-destruct as a supernova ...being 604 light years from earth may already have done so. 

 

[leicsmac]

54 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Read this earlier today - the value of remote sensing (my line). The Planum Australe has been of great interest and scrutiny for an extended period of time. 

Frigid and pure water ice, or carbon dioxide ice, could also explain a brightly reflective subsurface anomaly like this, but the research team have apparently conducted simulations and found that the reflectivity profile did not match their results as well as liquid water. Saying that, the temperature of the body is estimated to sit at around 205 Kelvin (-68.15 Celsius, or -90.67 Fahrenheit). (NB. Bucey - got my scale right this time). That is way below the point of freezing, even for hypersaline Antarctic lakes, which remain liquid above 260 Kelvin (-13 Celsius, or 8.6 Fahrenheit) owing to their salt content.

In spite of this, the water could still hypothetically remain liquid. Salts of sodium, magnesium, and calcium are ubiquitous on Mars -and have been detected on the surface.

 

Incidentally, this comes at the same time as the blood moon this Friday when coincidentally Mars is in opposition making its closest approach to Earth in the last 15 years and will appear redder and more intense than usual - together with the red giant Antares (Greek for the rival of Mars) because it is often mistaken for the red planet. Like Betelgeuse, Antares is at the end of its life and will imminently self-destruct as a supernova ...being 604 light years from earth may already have done so. 

 

Sending you a DM soon.

 

A hypersaline liquid water lake sounds like the most plausible explanation to me, then. Might be the same on Europa and Enceladus - sodium, after all, isn't the only salt that can be held in water. Perhaps there are additional unknown factors that might contribute to it being liquid?