|
|
sci.geo.geology |
> >>> Florian wrote: > >>>>>> Leave the energy question on the side, and look at the chronology of > >>>>>> <http://www.esa.int/images/ChronologyModel_v02_H.jpg> > >>>>>> It looks like the frequency of major events has increased. That is at > >>>> George, confused as usual. Guess what? impact craters are NOT volcanic > >>> I read it the same as George. > >> LOL, the numbers represent the age of each Episode. Next time, read the > >> <http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMCPLM5NDF_index_0.html> > > You are right. Wow! That should have been obvious to me. > Yeah, I made the same mistake. For future reference, Florian. It would help > Geore George wrote: Yeah, Florian, ..It's all your fault.
> "Paul" <P...@comcat.net> wrote in message
> news:-KqdnRjmQ7SeaH_anZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@comcast.com...
> > Florian wrote:
> >> Paul <P...@comcat.net> wrote:
> >>>> George <Geo...@george.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> major volcanic events:
> >>>>>> odd with the statement that the activity on Mars is gone forever.
> >>>>> Umm, increased? Only if you read the graph upside down. According to
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> graph, between 3.7-4.2 bya there were some 3,500 volcanic episodes.
> >>>> <eyes rolling>
> >>>> episodes...
> >>> According to the legend, the little volcano pics with numbers represent
> >>> "Major Episodes of Volcanic Activity."
> >> full paper which was cited a few articles above ;-)
> > Definite brain glitch.
> if you posted a link to the entire article so we can know the context of the
> graphs you are referrring to.
> But you are right in the sense that the graph See? George is right all along.
> doesn't show a decrease in volcanic activity. But it doesn't show an
> increase either. It only shows that the volcanic activity has been widely
> distributed and sporatic in time as indicated by continued loss of craters
> due to lava flows.
> The article makes the point that all the internal heat You really are a Doozy, George.
> within Mars may not have yet dissipated, but it doesn't say that it is
> currently active. Only suggests that there could be further activity on the
> planet. I think it is possible that some very minor activity could occur in
> the furture. But there certainly is no evidence that large scale vulcanism
> has occurred in recent times. It certainly appears to make the case that
> although Mars may still be tectonically active, it is subtle, probably order
> of magnitude less active than Earth, which would indicate that Mars interior
> certainly isn't the dynamo that Earth's interior is.
Who can't even spell his own name.