The secret of why Mars grew cold and dry may be locked away in its rocks
The discovery by the Mars rovers of carbonate in sedimentary rock on the Red Planet has enabled planetary scientists to rewind the clock and tell the tale of how Mars' warmer, watery climate 3.5 billion years ago changed to the barren, dry and cold environment that it is today.
We know that, in the distant past, Mars was warmer than it is today and had liquid water on its surface. We can see evidence for this in the form of ancient river channels, deltas, lakes and even the eroded coastlines of a large sea in the north. Sometime in the past 3.5 billion years, Mars' atmosphere thinned and its water either froze or was lost to space. The question is, how did that happen?
NASA's MAVEN – Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN – mission arrived at the Red Planet in 2014 charged with studying the loss rate of Mars' atmospheric molecules to space. However, scientists know that the carbon in Mars' atmosphere, mostly in the form of carbon dioxide, cannot have been mostly lost to space. That's because the lighter carbon-12 would preferentially escape rather than the marginally heavier carbon-13 (the difference between the two being one extra neutron), but we don't see an excess of carbon-13 in Mars' atmosphere today.
The alternative is that Mars' atmospheric carbon must have rained out of the atmosphere and subsequently been locked away in the ground, in the form of carbonates embedded in sedimentary rock. The trouble is, searches for carbonates on Mars had always found nothing, until relatively recently.
Both current Mars rover missions – Curiosity climbing Mount Sharp in Gale crater and Perseverance exploring the river delta in Jezero Crater – have discovered carbonates, in the sedimentary rock that form Mount Sharp, and stretching tens of kilometers along the rim of Jezero.
Because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it can therefore regulate a planet's climate. Losing that carbon dioxide as it transforms into carbonate rocks would have had a drastic effect on Mars' climate.
To determine just how drastic, planetary scientists led by Edwin Kite of the University of Chicago modeled how losing its atmospheric carbon in carbonate rocks has affected how Mars' climate has changed over the past 3.5 billion years. This is coupled with the increase in solar luminosity as the sun brightens with age (in just over a billion years' time the sun will be too luminous and hot for life on Earth to survive). As the sun grew hotter, it breathed more heat onto Mars, increasing the planet's average temperature. This led to more precipitation, causing the carbon dioxide to rain out and become locked away as carbonate.
With the loss of the carbon dioxide's greenhouse effects, Mars cooled and grew drier. Intermittent spells of high temperatures and shallow liquid water were caused by orbital variations, similar to the Milankovitch cycles on Earth, which are periodic variations in the shape of Earth's orbit and the tilt of our planet's axis caused by the gravitational forces of the other planets, and which affect our long-term climate.
The difference between Earth and Mars is that our planet has been able to manage a continuous outgassing of carbon dioxide, mostly from volcanism, to maintain its presence in our atmosphere. Mars, which is about half the diameter of Earth, lost heat from its core more rapidly, which slowed down and ultimately – as far as we can tell – stopped Mars' volcanic activity. With no active volcanoes, or at least very few, there was nothing to replenish the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
These findings help explain the geological evidence of subsequent but increasingly less frequent bursts of liquid water on the surface of Mars during the past 3.5 billion years.
RELATED STORIES
— Early visions of Mars: Meet the 19th-century astronomer who used science fiction to imagine the Red Planet
— Is the US forfeiting its Red Planet leadership to China's Mars Sample Return plan?
— NASA's Curiosity rover takes a closer look at 'spiderwebs' on Mars | Space photo of the day for July 1, 2025
There is one caveat, which is that the study assumes that the abundance of carbonates at Gale crater is typical of the entire Red Planet. Carbonate samples need to be identified in many locations before we can say for sure that this was how Mars lost its greenhouse gas.
The research is published in Nature.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Harvard Business Review
19 minutes ago
- Harvard Business Review
Research: Being Well Connected Isn't Always Good for Your Career
Conventional wisdom says that when it comes to career opportunities, it's not about what you know, but who you know. And research has found, in fact, that prestigious connections do open doors and make people seem more capable than their peers—as if proximity to greatness implies a degree of similar excellence. But what impact do these star connections have after someone has landed a new job? In new research, we sought to find out. Our recent paper, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, investigated whether and how past connections with industry stars might shape long-term career evaluations and outcomes, particularly after an employee's objective performance data becomes available. Through an analysis of the careers of National Basketball Association (NBA) head coaches and an experiment with nearly 500 working professionals, we found that connections don't just help people land jobs: They continue to shape performance evaluations long after working relationships with stars have ended. How Ties to Titans Inflate Performance Expectations To begin our study, we examined the career trajectories of 179 NBA head coaches over 40 years. Professionals in the NBA, like many traditional firms, operate in high-stakes, performance-driven environments with clear career trajectories. This makes the NBA a useful context for studying career and talent decisions. We found that coaches who had previously served under legendary leaders, like Phil Jackson, for example, were less likely to be fired when their new teams performed worse than industry expectations, compared to coaches who weren't connected to stars. However, when connected coaches' teams performed exceptionally well, they were at greater risk of being fired, relative to head coaches who lacked any prior star connections. In other words, our study found that having a star connection helped buffer head coaches from the consequences of underperformance but could hurt them when they performed well. These effects lasted for up to nine years after a working relationship with a star coach had ended. To explore this dynamic further, we conducted a follow-up study with nearly 500 working professionals tasked with evaluating the performance of hypothetical new hires in the design industry. As evaluators, participants made an 'up or out' decision about each designer, one with a prior connection to an industry titan, and the other without such a connection. We found the same patterns arose: New hires with prior ties to an industry star were shielded when they underperformed, but their strong performance was often discounted. Although performance was presented as objective scores, participants' evaluations were skewed by the shadow of the industry titan associated with the connected designer. We also discovered that our participants, especially those who held more inflated expectations for star-connected designers, were significantly less likely to attribute star-connected employees' underperformance to low ability or low effort. Conversely, underperformance from a non-connected designer was attributed directly to the individual's ability and effort. Why Connections Influence Evaluations We believe that the answer lies in a psychological phenomenon known as balance theory. According to this theory, people strive for consistency in their beliefs and associations. When someone is linked to an industry star, evaluators set high expectations for the protégé and seek to maintain a positive image of them and their mentor. This leads people to rationalize evidence that contradicts their expectations, especially when the star-connected individual underperforms. Conversely, strong performance merely confirms what is already assumed and is therefore viewed as unremarkable. Consider Bob Nardelli, a protégé of the legendary General Electric CEO Jack Welch. After being recruited to be the CEO of Home Depot, Nardelli delivered strong financial results early in his tenure. However, he received little recognition and as ultimately forced out: In 2002, after announcing a 35% profit increase that beat Wall Street's expectations, the company's stock still dropped. Reflecting on this, Nardelli remarked: 'I can understand not getting rewarded, but I don't understand getting punished.' Of course, there could have been multiple factors contributing to Nardelli's downfall, including a leadership style that clashed with his company's entrepreneurial culture. Still, it is fair to speculate that his performance might have been judged against the towering expectations set by his association with Welch. Some Limitations As with any research, our findings should be interpreted with some caution. Our NBA field study focused on a male-dominated environment, which may not generalize to other industries with different make-ups. Additionally, the experimental study, although conducted with working professionals, relied on hypothetical scenarios, which may not fully capture the messiness of real-world evaluations. Still, the consistent patterns we found across our studies provides strong evidence that industry stars can, in fact, cast a long shadow on the future evaluations of their protégés. Strategies for Making Better Talent Decisions Whether you're an executive overseeing talent pipelines or an emerging leader navigating your career path, understanding how past ties to prominent figures can distort performance evaluations is essential. Prestige-by-association can create unrealistic expectations, offering not only unfair protection, but they can lead to blind spots and overlooked achievements. Here's how executive decision makers and rising leaders can respond: If you're evaluating rising leaders: Don't let reflected prestige cloud your judgment. Hiring star-connected people is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when their objective qualifications are strong. But be mindful that your (often unconscious) high expectations for star-connected employees can create blind spots in how you evaluate them, while others who lack star connections may be evaluated more critically. Before making key decisions (like promotions or dismissals), ask: Would I judge this person's performance the same way if I didn't know this person's background? What biases do their relationship with this star create? What expectations do I feel, because of this association? Create structured, criteria-based evaluation systems that focus on performance, behaviors, and competencies, minimizing the influence of what evaluators may already know about a person, such as their connections to industry titans or an elite MBA degree. Incorporate 360-degree feedback or use a promotion committee, as multi-source input can help reveal blind spots and social biases. If you're a rising leader: Own your accomplishments. Whether you're star-connected or not, it's important to take ownership of your achievements. Our study found that proximity (or distance) from stars can cause biases among evaluators. This makes it even more important to highlight specific outcomes you've delivered, challenges you've overcome, or innovations you've led that clearly demonstrate your individual contributions. If you do have a connection, it may be useful not to lean on it when it comes time for evaluations. . . . Prestigious connections are powerful. They can help you reach that important first rung on the career ladder. But the ongoing influence of star connections can distort how merit is evaluated and rewarded. In a world obsessed with who you know, let's not forget to focus on what people actually achieve.
Gizmodo
32 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
A 23-Year-Old Man Got Frostbite From Using Whippets
Here's another reason to stay away from whippets, just in case you needed one. Doctors this week have reported a strange case of frostbite via nitrous oxide. Doctors at the University of Virginia described the chilling injury in a paper published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine. The victim, a 23-year-old man, developed frostbite in his mouth and throat immediately after inhaling a nitrous oxide canister. Fortunately, the man was given supportive treatment and recovered no worse for wear. Inhaling Whippits Left a Man Unable to Walk Nitrous oxide gas has all sorts of legitimate applications, from acting as a medical sedative to helping create whipped cream. But it's also used recreationally to induce euphoric, if short-lasting, effects. Recreational users typically get their nitrous oxide from whipped cream canisters, which gave rise to the drug's common nickname of 'whippets' (you might also know it as 'whippits' or 'laughing gas'). Common side effects of whippets include dizziness, dissociation, and a momentary loss of motor control. But the compressed gas released from these canisters is also plenty cold, reaching temperatures as low as -40 degrees Fahrenheit. And that cold is certainly enough to trigger frostbite—the damage caused by ice crystals forming in our skin and tissues—in body parts inadvertently exposed to the gas while using whippets. According to the report, the man sought medical care after enduring two straight days of painful swallowing and hoarseness in his throat. A physical examination revealed swollen white blotches along the roof of his mouth, uvula, and throat, a potential sign of frostbitten tissue (a gnarly close-up of the frostbite can be seen here). He admitted to the doctors that his symptoms began right after he had inhaled nitrous oxide from a handheld canister. 'Had he not been forthcoming with that information, that probably wouldn't have been something that crossed my mind,' report co-author Michael Patrizio, associate director of acute care at UVA, told NBC News. 'I would have thought a viral infection—mono, strep throat—or an STI in the throat.' A Little Laughing Gas Can Help Treat Depression, Small Study Finds While whippet-induced frostbite isn't unprecedented, this case was a bit more unusual. Most injuries typically involve frostbite to people's thighs or hands. In some cases, they have been so severe that they required skin grafts and surgery to treat. But thankfully, the man in this case only needed over-the-counter painkillers and steroid paste to ease his symptoms until his mouth healed on its own. Here's hoping the painful experience taught the man an important lesson. Long-term recreational use of nitrous oxide is known to deplete the body of vitamin B12, which can lead to serious complications like paralysis and permanent neurological damage.
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
Ted Cruz's Bid to Reclaim Space Shuttle Discovery Could Cost $400 Million
At a time when money is too tight for NASA's science exploration endeavors, Texas senators are willing to pour millions into a risky process to relocate the Space Shuttle to Houston under the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill, which passed the Senate on Tuesday, includes a provision to move the Space Shuttle Discovery from the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum in Virginia to Space Center Houston. The Bring the Space Shuttle Home Act was added to the Senate's version of the bill as part of an additional $10 billion in funding for NASA. The bill sets aside $85 million to relocate the Shuttle and build a facility in Houston to house it, but the Smithsonian argues it would cost somewhere between $300 and $400 million to move the massive spacecraft across the country, according to the Houston Business Journal. The Smithsonian also raised concern that the Shuttle could be damaged during the relocation process given the 'extremely complex and difficult' move. The Discovery Relocation Act was first introduced by Texas Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn in April, calling on NASA and the Smithsonian to develop a plan to relocate Discovery. It provided no less than $5 million to move the Shuttle to its new home, and the remaining $80 million will go toward building its new display facility at Space Center Houston. Space Center Houston is the official visitor center for NASA's Johnson Space Center, home to mission control for the Space Shuttle program. All launches took place at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, but more than 100 Shuttle missions were managed from Houston. Discovery made its inaugural flight on August 30, 1984, and completed a total of 39 missions over the span of 27 years. Discovery was the first Shuttle to return to flight after both the Challenger and Columbia disasters in 1988 and 2005, respectively, leading recovery missions that breathed new life into the iconic program. Discovery also launched the Hubble Space Telescope in 1990 and helped in the assembly of the International Space Station. For the past 13 years, Discovery has been on display at the Smithsonian. Three other Shuttles are also on display in different parts of the country; Enterprise is at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in New York; Atlantis is at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida; and Endeavor is currently being set up for display at the Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center in Los Angeles. Considering its long history with spaceflight, Houston feels left out and wants a Shuttle of its own. After the Shuttle program ended in 2011, NASA selected the museums to display the retired spacecraft. NASA called on museums and science centers across the country to apply to host one of the Shuttles, and its selection criteria were based on national significance, ability to properly house the spacecraft, resources, and geographic distribution. Not everyone was happy, and the agency's process was highly scrutinized. At the time, 16 members of the Texas delegation wrote a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, referring to the selection process as the 'Houston Shuttle Snub.' However, NASA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed the agency's selection process and found no wrongdoing. 'We found no evidence that the White House, politics, or any other outside force improperly influenced the selection decision,' James Mitzelfeld, OIG investigative counsel, said in a video statement at the time. The Texans are still not happy, it seems. 'There's no question the Smithsonian is a national treasure, but it doesn't hold all the treasures that America has to show,' Cornyn said during a press conference on June 20, collectSPACE reported. 'It would be nice if there were more to go around, but since there are only four, we are going to get the one that we should have gotten back in 2010.'
