Nereid said:
*SNIP
When we do get the go ahead, I'd like to start with a) references to scientists' work, as reported by Hoagland, and b) colours.
Starting with a).
Here’s how Hoagland reports the three recently announced detections of methane in the atmosphere of Mars:
“Dr Michael Mumma, of the Center for Astrobiology at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, announces -- at the annual meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences -- the preliminary results of a new, far more sensitive Earth-based search for methane in the atmosphere of Mars. Utilizing NASA’s Infrared Telescope Facility in Hawaii (below, left), and the “Gemini South” Telescope in Chile (below, right), Mumma and his team carried out a detailed new infrared survey of the Red Planet early in 2003 … with remarkable result.[/color]”
[photos]
“Mumma’s preliminary analysis (below) reveals a methane concentration of about 10.5 parts per billion. Under current Martian temperatures and pressures, this translates to about 90,000 tons ….[/color]"
[gap]
“A few months later, a second team -- this one headed by Vittorio Formisano, of the Institute of Physics and Interplanetary Science in Rome – announced their independent discovery of Martian methane. The new detection was made by the Planetary Fourier Spectrometer (PFS), aboard ESA’s Mars Express spacecraft .
According to Formisano, the results were obtained by averaging over 1700 atmospheric scans, made of the planet between January and February, 2004.
Then, a few days later, a third team reported its separate discovery of methane on Mars as well – this time led by Vladimir Krasnopolsky, of the Catholic University of America in Washington DC . Krasnopolsky and his team used the Canada-France-Hawaii 3.6 meter telescope (below, right) to accomplish their detection … again, at about 10.5 parts per billion. The Krasnopolsky team will formally present their results at the European Geophysical Union's meeting in Nice, France, in late April.[/color]” http://www.enterprisemission.com/_articles/04-13-2004/Methane_on_Mars.htm
Hoagland provides a link for each of the team’s results, as well as including what appears to be the poster which Mumma et al used at the Division of Planetary Sciences meeting. Only the third link – to Krasnopolsky’s work – is an indirect source.
Looks pretty straight-forward, yes? There’s even a copyright notice on the photo of the Canada-France-Hawaii 3.6 meter telescope.
Well, Hoagland didn’t include photo credits for the photos of the ITF or Gemini South telescopes, even though they appear to have been taken from the official websites of each, and even though both sites clearly give a photo credit for the respective photos.
Then there’s “Mumma’s preliminary analysis (below) reveals a methane concentration of about 10.5 parts per billion[/color]”.
Perhaps Mumma’s team did find a concentration of “about 10.5 parts per billion” … but I couldn’t see it in the material Hoagland provided.
and “Krasnopolsky and his team used the Canada-France-Hawaii 3.6 meter telescope (below, right) to accomplish their detection … again, at about 10.5 parts per billion.[/color]”
Perhaps Krasnopolosky and his team did find a concentration “at about 10.5 parts per billion” Again, I couldn’t see it in the material Hoagland provided.
So, where did the “10.5 parts per billion” come from? The only reference I could find was in the
“Krasnopolosky” link Hoagland provided: “"We have been able to detect a very small quantity of methane," says Formisano. "It's around 10.5 parts per billion."[/color]” {Formisano, remember, is head of the Institute of Physics and Interplanetary Science team (in Rome)}
Does it matter that Hoagland apparently confused the source of reported figure? Not once, but twice? What do you think?
(to be continued)
