Wet and Mild: Caltech Researchers Take the Temperature of Mars’s Past
PASADENA, Calif.—Researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have directly determined the surface temperature of early Mars for the first time, providing evidence that’s consistent with a warmer and wetter Martian past.
By analyzing carbonate minerals in a four-billion-year-old meteorite that originated near the surface of Mars, the scientists determined that the minerals formed at about 18 degrees Celsius (64 degrees Fahrenheit). “The thing that’s really cool is that 18 degrees is not particularly cold nor particularly hot,” says Woody Fischer, assistant professor of geobiology and coauthor of the paper, published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on October 3. “It’s kind of a remarkable result.”
Knowing the temperature of Mars is crucial to understanding the planet’s history—its past climate and whether it once had liquid water. The Mars rovers and orbiting spacecraft have found ancient deltas, rivers, lakebeds, and mineral deposits, suggesting that water did indeed flow. Because Mars now has an average temperature of -63 degrees Celsius, the existence of liquid water in the past means that the climate was much warmer then. But what’s been lacking is data that directly points to such a history. “There are all these ideas that have been developed about a warmer, wetter early Mars,” Fischer says. “But there’s precious little data that actually bears on it.” That is, until now.
The finding is just one data point—but it’s the first and only one to date. “It’s proof that early in the history of Mars, at least one place on the planet was capable of keeping an Earthlike climate for at least a few hours to a few days,” says John Eiler, the Robert P. Sharp Professor of Geology and professor of geochemistry, and a coauthor of the paper. The first author is Itay Halevy, a former postdoctoral scholar who’s now at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel.
To make their measurement, the researchers analyzed one of the oldest known rocks in the world: ALH84001, a Martian meteorite discovered in 1984 in the Allan Hills of Antarctica. The meteorite likely started out tens of meters below the Martian surface and was blown off when another meteorite struck the area, blasting the piece of Mars toward Earth. The potato-shaped rock made headlines in 1996 when scientists discovered tiny globules in it that looked like fossilized bacteria. But the claim that it was extraterrestrial life didn’t hold up upon closer scrutiny. The origin of the globules, which contain carbonate minerals, remained a mystery.
“It’s been devilishly difficult to work out the process that generated the carbonate minerals in the first place,” Eiler says. But there have been countless hypotheses, he adds, and they all depend on the temperature in which the carbonates formed. Some scientists say the minerals formed when carbonate-rich magma cooled and crystallized. Others have suggested that the carbonates grew from chemical reactions in hydrothermal processes. Another idea is that the carbonates precipitated out of saline solutions. The temperatures required for all these processes range from above 700 degrees Celsius in the first case to below freezing in the last. “All of these ideas have merit,” Eiler says.
Finding the temperature through independent means would therefore help narrow down just how the carbonate might have been formed. The researchers turned to clumped-isotope thermometry, a technique developed by Eiler and his colleagues that has been used for a variety of applications, including measuring the body temperatures of dinosaurs and determining Earth’s climate history.
In this case, the team measured concentrations of the rare isotopes oxygen-18 and carbon-13 contained in the carbonate samples. Carbonate is made out of carbon and oxygen, and as it forms, the two rare isotopes may bond to each other—clumping together, as Eiler calls it. The lower the temperature, the more the isotopes tend to clump. As a result, determining the amount of clumping allows for a direct measurement of temperature.
The temperature the researchers measured—18 ± 4 degrees Celsius—rules out many carbonate-formation hypotheses. “A lot of ideas that were out there are gone,” Eiler says. For one, the mild temperature means that the carbonate must have formed in liquid water. “You can’t grow carbonate minerals at 18 degrees other than from an aqueous solution,” he explains. The new data also suggests a scenario in which the minerals formed from water that filled the tiny cracks and pores inside rock just below the surface. As the water evaporated, the rock outgassed carbon dioxide, and the solutes in the water became more concentrated. The minerals then combined with dissolved carbonate ions to produce carbonate minerals, which were left behind as the water continued to evaporate.
Could this wet and warm environment have been a habitat for life? Most likely not, the researchers say. These conditions wouldn’t have existed long enough for life to grow or evolve—it would have taken only hours to days for the water to dry up. Still, these results are proof that an Earthlike environment once existed in at least one particular spot on Mars for a short time, the researchers say. What that implies for the global geology of Mars—whether this rock is representative of Martian history or is just an isolated artifact—is an open question.
The research described in the PNAS paper, “Carbonates in the Martian meteorite Allan Hills 84001 formed at 18 ± 4 °C in a near-surface aqueous environment,” was supported by a Texaco Postdoctoral Fellowship, NASA, and the National Science Foundation.
###
Written by Marcus Woo
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting stuff. Very cool. Although I have to wonder what the orbit of Mars was like 4 billion years ago, and what the young sun was doing.
Interesting to see a temp for this famous meteorite. As for life on Mars, without an appreciable magnetosphere to protect delicate DNA/RNA/equivalent processes, I’m still thinking “no way” unless its microbial and well underground, out of the reach of our discovery capabilities.
Time to go to Europa.
good grief…..we can’t get the temp of the planet we’re on
“…was supported by a Texaco Postdoctoral Fellowship,…”
More filthy big-oil money given to climate change deniers…??
So a rock is “blast[ed . . .] off into space” from Mars (without any severe temperature changes) travels through space to Earth (without any severe temperature changes) and glides gently down to Earth (without any severe temperature changes). And we can gather the temperature of Mars to within ±4/291 from that. Science is a beautiful thing, ain’t it?
4 billion years ago Mars probably still had a molten core so there would have been a magnetosphere. It is when all that Iron solidifies that you have to worry.
I still cannot understand how we *know* that this particular rock is from Mars.
Four billion years old means that the carbonate formed during the same Hadean period on Mars that saw the continual bombardment of Earth by large comets and asteroids. It’s not too surprising that under these conditions Mars had a wet and warm surface; wet from cometary water and warm from the impact heating.
Stark carbonates are not particularly thermally stable. Strong heating drives off the CO2, leaving behind a metal oxide. So, just the fact that ALH84001 contains carbonates at all says that it could not have been heated very strongly.
The most common metal carbonates — calcium carbonate and sodium carbonate — are white. The ALH84001 carbonates look orange, which could mean they’re contaminated with iron oxide. Here’s a picture of ferrous carbonate, FeCO3, which is typically colorless but here contaminated with ferric iron giving it a brownish caste similar to the Mars carbonate. Notice that the Terran version is highly crystalline. The Mars version is a globule, probably amorphous or a microcrystalline agglomerate, which indicates a different depositional process.
More here about ALH84001, including why some scientists seem so certain it is from Mars:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/meteorites/The_Meteorite.shtml
Exactly Stark, exactly….
I’m with Stark on this one. I honestly can’t imagine any method this rock could have gotten from Mars to Earth that would have left much evidence of anything.
Excuse me, but what are the chances of an occurrence as the one described in the above article could happen;
– A small piece of the planet Mars’ surface is flung off into space, It navigates its passage to the planet Earth where it successfully transcends the atmosphere without as much as one small “melt Mark”, etcetera, etcetera —-
No wonder there are scientists who believe the Earth’s main heat-source is a trace gas called Carbon Dioxide.
Stupid ancient Martians drove too many SUVs rising CO2 and now there is no life on Mars.
ALH84001 is not a rock but a fossilized fewmet of Archelous, the great Sky Dragon prone to migrating from Sol’s third to her fourth planet over many eons when those worlds were new.
What’s that you say, Show us the evidence? Well, if evidence is your concern, Archelous and AGW are one. “The dragons we slay lie within us,” as Saint George well knew.
http://www.universe-galaxies-stars.com/mars.html
“Martian surface temperatures vary from lows of approximately -140 ºC (-220 ºF) during the polar winters to highs of up to 20 ºC (70 ºF) in summers. ”
So why is it a big deal to declare that it might have been 64º at some time in the past,
when we have actually measured 70º temps in our lifetime ?
Is it daring scientific boldness or merely attention seeking, obviousness ?
Like making a press release that says “Rocks are hard”, “Water is wet” “Winter is cold” etc.
{quote} In this case, the team measured concentrations of the rare isotopes oxygen-18 and carbon-13 contained in the carbonate samples. Carbonate is made out of carbon and oxygen, and as it forms, the two rare isotopes may bond to each other—clumping together, as Eiler calls it. The lower the temperature, the more the isotopes tend to clump. As a result, determining the amount of clumping allows for a direct measurement of temperature. {/quote}
By any chance is this ‘clumping’ rate influenced by any other environmental conditions other then temp… such as Atmospheric Pressure or Composition? Or GRAVITY? And did the scientists include that in their figures? Do they KNOW what the Atmosphere of Mars was like back then? Because it sure sounds like they are using the Temp they think the rock formed at to determine what the environment was like. Seams like circular reasoning.
Given that the Earth formed slightly later than Mars and then got hit by a Mars sized planet and forming the Moon, the speed at which life appeared has always been a bit of a puzzle.
Some have postulated that the early Mars would have been farm more amiable for abiogenesis. Life could originate on Mars, then be transplanted to Earth following a shallow strike on Mars and subsequent meteorite transference to Earth.
I do not buy the magnetosphere or ‘delicate’ DNA/RNA.
Firstly, we have no idea if Mars had a molten magnetic core 4.5 billion years ago.
Secondly, Surveyor 3 landed on the moon on April 20, 1967, it was visited on Nov. 12, 1969, by Conrad on Apollo 12. Conrad removed some cabling and placed it in a sterile bag.
Back on Earth, when placed in nutrient broth, Streptococcus mitis grew. Three years on the moon, and still alive.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast01sep98_1/.
Here is a bit of Mars as the origin of our solar systems abiogenesis.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_life09.htm
Anthony et al,
Does anyone have a reference for martian surface temperature over the last 30 years? or more?
I recall reading that mars had been warming coincidentally with the earth. It ought to be leveling off now or in a cooling phase. Any links out there?
So let me see… Assuming the rock is indeed from Mars, its initially formed about 4 billion years ago at about the same time the planet is formed and is believed to have come from some way underground. One would tend to think the whole planet would have started out quite hot as all the pieces crash together and coalesce to form the plant. And at some point would have cooled through 18C whether there was ever warmth or water there or not.
Using 18C as a formation temperature for structure in a 4 billion year old rock that has been though the process of blasting off mars, floating around at varying completely unknown distances from the sun for billions of years and burning up in our atmosphere …as a proxy for Mars’ temperature is “Science” at its absolute worst.
Re: “I still cannot understand how we *know* that this particular rock is from Mars.”
A 2005 article from The New Scientist helps answer this, although they don’t elaborate much.
“Birthplace of famous Mars meteorite pinpointed”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8004
The G. E. Pease reference is better than the one I cited for general info on its origins
October 12, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Here is the abstract page from an October 2000 article in Science showing that the interior of the ALH84001 meteorite experienced temperatures no higher than 40 C before, during, and after its ejection from Mars.
Here is the abstract page from a November 2007 Science paper showing that relatively small bolide impacts can launch about 10 million 10 cm chunks of Mars rock into space.
Here is the abstract page from a Science article showing that the bolide-induced ejection of small pieces from terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars), following impact, occurs pretty readily and that the meteors can be readily captured by alternative planets due to orbital resonances.
This Wiki article summarizes how a certain class of meteorites are known to be from Mars: They all have unusual isotopic ratios different from other meteorites and different from Earth rocks, but similar to one another and similar to Mars rocks measured by the Viking lander. Some of these meteorites have trapped rare gas inclusions that are virtually identical to the ratios in the Mars atmosphere. Here’s the Science Mag abstract page describing this finding.
At the end, there’s little reason to doubt that rocks get ejected from one planet and captured by another. There’s little reason to doubt this can happen without a large heat shock — at least to the internal part of the rock. And there’s little reason to doubt that the ALH84001 meteorite is from Mars.
The finding is just one data point—but it’s the first and only one to date. “It’s proof that early in the history of Mars……
So, one data point from a blasted rock that was violently ejected from a forming Mars, travelling deep through cold space, and then plunging violently through a non-present-age climate that was probably much thicker than today – PROVES something…. ?
I may be a science noob.. but.. does one data point really prove anything?
Why are they certain that this rock didn’t get ejected from earth and come back in its orbit to impact?? They aren’t. They are simply practicing wishful thinking.
“The meteorite likely originated just below the surface of Mars”
They are not sure?.