I think you misunderstand my concern. I know that the atmosphere is not going anywhere in the short term by exactly the factors you described. What concerned me on the probe data is the long-term. For example, if the water continues decomposing as the probe detected without having something to replace it, then sometime in the future the planet really will not have any more water (ignoring here the possibility of underground ice, as we do no have enough data about this yet). And if in the distant future someone could change the atmosphere for something breathable, the data suggest that it would be a job that would last a short time in planetary scales (so, bad for permanent colonies).

To begin this brief conversation, If you are so sure of what you say you would not be posting as AC. That said, there is a huge difference between criticism and stupid insults. Criticism is healthy, clueless insults are not.

The norm is to ignore ACs, but ... I wonder why humanity allows a piece of shit with no imagination, no dreams, no ambitions, hateful, stupid, coward and ignorant as you living among us. Never say "never", AC... I am dismayed by the news that Mars may be airless in the distant future, but I'm far from giving up as you.

So, in the long term the tendency is Mars losing their atmosphere and become a rock without air. Bad news for terraforming plans and long-term colonies :-(

Hum... Correcting myself, after reading TFA (i know, I know, bad idea) I have not seen anywhere the author wrote something clearly against compatibility, seems to me a misinterpretation of the anonymous who created the summary.

Paul Chiusano is in the wrong job or is too young to remember why we geezers are so concerned about compatibility.

Thanks. I also think that is very good when people is civilized.

Oh boy, another one who thinks he is the almighty smartass... I answered the question from Dr. Manhattan, dude. You just failed miserably to understand. And honestly I'm not going to spend my time trying to explain given that the tone of your reply suggests to me that you're not the least bit interested in hearing.

I can not be used as a basis for suspecting that I'm too much rational (and not quite human). But I also observed what men do in a similar situation and have not found the same level of divergence between what they say and their actions

Good point. And so now I wait to see what will be the results of the researchers when they do the same with male rats.

Correct.

Why moderated this guy as +1 funny? What he says is true. And I would add that to be possible freedom of will you (reader of tihs post) need to know that part of your behavior is biologically determined, to be able to differentiate it from your rational thoughts and so be able to choose when to obey or not your instincts.

As others have said, you take hasty conclusions based on nothing. I said nothing about men simply because they are not the focus of this topic (after all, the study described in the article does not say if the same thing happens in the case of males, if he said so I would have included men in the subject).

As the others realized I did not say anything about the men because the focus of the topic in this case are women. But if you prefer so, I do not think somehow that men always make purely rational decisions. But having said that, I noticed based on the evidence and simple observation that it is much easier for it to happen in females.