6 thoughts on “Peter Doran: Why Antarctica is Like Mars”
Through the wonders of science and paleo-climatology we know that the climate of the Antarctic has varied a lot through time, greenhouse gases have a lot to do with that…. I’m sure that Mars has encountered a rich history too, but it’s history now..
A slow day at Greenman Studios? An interesting post as far as it goes, but redskylite nails it with “…it’s history now…”. There is virtually NOTHING of significance to be learned on or about Mars that will help us deal with the existential threat we are now facing on Earth.
Dr. Doran and his colleagues may at some future point in time prove that there was life on Mars—-in the past when the environment there was more earth-like and would support life. And guess what? It will be made of the same materials and carry out the same life processes as we find in life on earth and will find everywhere else in the universe if and when we can get there. So what? To paraphrase, “Everyone is entitled to their own fantasies (opinions), but not to their own facts (chemistry)”
Undertaking science for the sake of science is important across all fields. Nobody can predict what new discoveries might come out of this work and if none do come out of it at least we will know because the science was undertaken.
Perhaps the equipment developed to undertake this science will have some future benefit in a completely different field…who knows? It happens all the time.
We all judge what we think is important research based on our own interests and biases but in the end it is important that research is undertaken to cover all the bases as we continually build up our collective knowledge.
Personally I think his work is important if only to produce analogues. They are important and you can never have too many in and some modelling doesn’t really work without them.
I would argue that undertaking science for the sake of science is truly important only in SOME fields. If Dr. Doran’s research leads us to a better understanding of what is occurring on the Earth, and helps us deal with AGW and other issues on this planet, it is certainly worthwhile.
Any connection it has with what has happened on Mars is irrelevant—-we are never going to go to Mars, and any “research” we want to do there for the “sake of science” can be done more quickly and cheaply by unmanned craft.
I would further argue that we should not spend a single penny on research on any other planets until we have put up every near Earth satellite that climate scientists, oceanographers, and planetary biologists-ecologists think we need so that we can fill in the many blank spots in our knowledge of Earth.
Basically, all we got from the moon missions was a few hundred pounds of rocks. It is true that advances were made in certain materials and technologies as part of the moon project, but we would likely have made most of those advances anyway.
You say, “Nobody can predict what new discoveries might come out of this work and if none do come out of it at least we will know because the science was undertaken. Perhaps the equipment developed to undertake this science will have some future benefit in a completely different field…who knows? It happens all the time”.
Yep, anything is possible, and I am reminded of the infinite number of monkeys pounding on typewriters and the possibility that they will come up with the complete works of Shakespeare if they keep at it long enough. Are you aware that many scientists undertake work in particular fields of study because not many others are working in them? They do that not just in the hope of making “discoveries”, but because they want recognition, promotions, tenure, grant money, and new things to publish, and it’s easier on the “fringes”. All well and good—writers do the same—-but a lot of it is self-indulgent, pie-in-the-sky, “I’ve always been fascinated with XXX since I was a kid” stuff and of little practical value or interest to anyone besides other scientists.
We don’t need to cover ALL the bases until we have covered those bases and gathered the “collective knowledge” that will determine whether man survives for long on this planet. The current BS about Pluto is a case in point—-there is NO reason for us to be studying Pluto, and doing so only encourages anal orifices like Ted Cruz to try to cut back on near earth NASA and NOAA satellites so that we can send missions “to the stars”.
Although Peter moves very quickly in this voluminous story, I came across this very interesting article on the Antarctica/Mars analogy today in the Astrobiology magazine ……
Through the wonders of science and paleo-climatology we know that the climate of the Antarctic has varied a lot through time, greenhouse gases have a lot to do with that…. I’m sure that Mars has encountered a rich history too, but it’s history now..
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730300-800-travel-back-in-time-to-an-arctic-heatwave/
A slow day at Greenman Studios? An interesting post as far as it goes, but redskylite nails it with “…it’s history now…”. There is virtually NOTHING of significance to be learned on or about Mars that will help us deal with the existential threat we are now facing on Earth.
Dr. Doran and his colleagues may at some future point in time prove that there was life on Mars—-in the past when the environment there was more earth-like and would support life. And guess what? It will be made of the same materials and carry out the same life processes as we find in life on earth and will find everywhere else in the universe if and when we can get there. So what? To paraphrase, “Everyone is entitled to their own fantasies (opinions), but not to their own facts (chemistry)”
Undertaking science for the sake of science is important across all fields. Nobody can predict what new discoveries might come out of this work and if none do come out of it at least we will know because the science was undertaken.
Perhaps the equipment developed to undertake this science will have some future benefit in a completely different field…who knows? It happens all the time.
We all judge what we think is important research based on our own interests and biases but in the end it is important that research is undertaken to cover all the bases as we continually build up our collective knowledge.
Personally I think his work is important if only to produce analogues. They are important and you can never have too many in and some modelling doesn’t really work without them.
I would argue that undertaking science for the sake of science is truly important only in SOME fields. If Dr. Doran’s research leads us to a better understanding of what is occurring on the Earth, and helps us deal with AGW and other issues on this planet, it is certainly worthwhile.
Any connection it has with what has happened on Mars is irrelevant—-we are never going to go to Mars, and any “research” we want to do there for the “sake of science” can be done more quickly and cheaply by unmanned craft.
I would further argue that we should not spend a single penny on research on any other planets until we have put up every near Earth satellite that climate scientists, oceanographers, and planetary biologists-ecologists think we need so that we can fill in the many blank spots in our knowledge of Earth.
Basically, all we got from the moon missions was a few hundred pounds of rocks. It is true that advances were made in certain materials and technologies as part of the moon project, but we would likely have made most of those advances anyway.
You say, “Nobody can predict what new discoveries might come out of this work and if none do come out of it at least we will know because the science was undertaken. Perhaps the equipment developed to undertake this science will have some future benefit in a completely different field…who knows? It happens all the time”.
Yep, anything is possible, and I am reminded of the infinite number of monkeys pounding on typewriters and the possibility that they will come up with the complete works of Shakespeare if they keep at it long enough. Are you aware that many scientists undertake work in particular fields of study because not many others are working in them? They do that not just in the hope of making “discoveries”, but because they want recognition, promotions, tenure, grant money, and new things to publish, and it’s easier on the “fringes”. All well and good—writers do the same—-but a lot of it is self-indulgent, pie-in-the-sky, “I’ve always been fascinated with XXX since I was a kid” stuff and of little practical value or interest to anyone besides other scientists.
We don’t need to cover ALL the bases until we have covered those bases and gathered the “collective knowledge” that will determine whether man survives for long on this planet. The current BS about Pluto is a case in point—-there is NO reason for us to be studying Pluto, and doing so only encourages anal orifices like Ted Cruz to try to cut back on near earth NASA and NOAA satellites so that we can send missions “to the stars”.
Although Peter moves very quickly in this voluminous story, I came across this very interesting article on the Antarctica/Mars analogy today in the Astrobiology magazine ……
http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/antarctic-offers-insights-into-life-on-mars/