Can a powerful CME cause a comet to fragment?

[iantresman]

What I denied was that Encke's Comet would be likely to break up this way. Elenin is a much newer comet, and also a much smaller nucleus. The gravitational forces are much lower, and the gas forces are much stronger. It is very common for small new comets to break up. The CME may or may not have been "the straw that broke the camel's back", to use a rough analogy.

I would guess that's accurate, but I think we have to be careful with out probabilities. It's also unlikely that the next CME will black-out my town. But it's plausible.

[iantresman]

Hmmm... and that is kinda my problem: if he doesn't know what to include to make it acceptable to the petroglyph community, then that casts some doubt on his expertise.

Put yourself in his shoes. I assume that you have a science, or astronomy background, may even be qualified in the subjects. Suppose that you decide to research whether rock art may have a cosmic influence. I wouldn't doubt your scientific credentials, but I am sure that even if you "did your homework", you wouldn't claim any kind of expertise in petroglyphs. I don't think that would diminish your scientific standing, nor your existing areas of expertise. I wouldn't even doubt your ability to learn about petroglyphs.

Now what if you uncover some interesting science during your research? You know your science is sound, especially if "You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure". Do you publish?

[Strange]

Now what if you uncover some interesting science during your research? You know your science is sound, especially if "You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure". Do you publish?

Not without testing the idea on several people with as many years experience working with petroglyphs as I have in my area of expertise (hypothetically of course, as I don't have an area of expertise )

[iantresman]

(hypothetically of course, as I don't have an area of expertise )

Aren't you glad that people judge what your write, and not where you write them, and neither on your credentials too :-)

I hope my phrasing comes across correctly, it's not meant as a criticism in the slightest, nor attempting to diminishing you have written.

[tusenfem]

I would guess that's accurate, but I think we have to be careful with out probabilities. It's also unlikely that the next CME will black-out my town. But it's plausible.

If your town is on a modern power grid and not on something ancient as in north-eastern USA, than you have nothing to fear.

[tusenfem]

What I denied was that Encke's Comet would be likely to break up this way. Elenin is a much newer comet, and also a much smaller nucleus. The gravitational forces are much lower, and the gas forces are much stronger. It is very common for small new comets to break up. The CME may or may not have been "the straw that broke the camel's back", to use a rough analogy.

Okay, I am not an expert on comets (yet, starting to work on it now because of Rosetta), but I wonder if there is real evidence that there was increased outgassing, as that would imply an extra heating of the comet, which the CME certainly wll not provide. But I can envsion the following as I wrote in the other thread (CME = solar flare, maybe they should be merged):

I do not think that the interaction of the CME with the comet induced a increase in outgassing. There is a shock front passing through the coma of the comet and it will stirr up all the dust on the surface of the nucleus, which increases the reflectivity of the coma and subsequently the tail and that extra dust gets blown away and the comet dims again.

And the statement is "we think it may presage a folling apart of the comet" and not as you say "the comet appears to be breaking up". Although comets breaking up at perihelion, is not uncommon.

Just my well edumacated guess as a space(plasma)physicist.

[gdaniels99]

The article states:

Another Australian amateur Michael Mattiazzo has been taking images of the comet ... and he has noticed that the nucleus appears to be elongating. When that occurs, usually the comet disintegrates or splits apart. Above is an animation Mattiazzo created from images he took of Comet Elenin on August 19, 22, 23, 27 & 29.

Thus it seems the comet is not only dimming but elongating...i.e, breaking up.

The caption to the animation showing the brightening and dimming of the comet reads as follows:

Animation of 5 images taken Aug 19,22,23,27,29 displaying the nucleus of Comet Elenin in the process of disintegrating.

http://www.universetoday.com/88494/c...isintigrating/

Thus the article does suggest the dimming of the comet = disintegration. The dimming occurs immediately after the "brightening/outgassing" of the comet. If the "brightening" didn't cause the "disintegration" then the article should have went to greater lengths to make that point. But the point of the article seems to be that the three events are connected: CME/flare hit comet, comet brightens, comet begins disintegrating.

[kheider]

Comet Elenin is a wimpy magnitude 12 as seen by STEREO-A (limiting magnitude ~13):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40303621@N03/6148211279/

SOHO LASCO C3 limiting mag is about 7-ish so prospects for observing Elenin look extremely poor, even with Forward Scattering.
http://twitter.com/#!/SungrazerComet...03975484870656

Elenin still fits the post-fragmentation plot:
http://www.aerith.net/comet/catalog/2010X1/mag1.gif

Michael Mattiazzo (Sep 14 dimmer than magnitude 10.5):
http://members.westnet.com.au/mmatti/sc.htm

-- Kevin Heider

[antoniseb]

Okay, I am not an expert on comets (yet, starting to work on it now because of Rosetta), but I wonder if there is real evidence that there was increased outgassing, as that would imply an extra heating of the comet, which the CME certainly wll not provide. But I can envsion the following as I wrote in the other thread (CME = solar flare, maybe they should be merged):...

There didn't need to be significantly more heating. Once the comet nucleus started to split apart there was a large increase in surface area. There was briefly an increase in dust (don't know about gas, but that's implied). Now the comet is a bunch of chunks that are collectively producing little dust and gas.

[iantresman]

Agreed. It makes me wonder why none of his work has been published in journals more relevant to the other aspects of his theory.

Have just discovered the following, which appears in The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Expedition magazine, which according the Writer's Guidelines, is refereed.

• M. A. van der Sluijs & A. L. Peratt, 'Astronomical Petroglyphs - Searching for Rock Art Evidence for an Ancient Super Aurora', Expedition, 52. 2 (2010), 33-42. Click issue link for access to full text PDF.

Again, I am not making an assessment, nor condoning Peratt's work, only showing that it appears in a peer-reviewed publication of archaeology.

[gdaniels99]

It appears the Electric Universe proponents actually have the best explanation for how a CME can fragment a comet. Read here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10/06/comet-elenin—the-debate-that-never-happened/

[pzkpfw]

It appears the Electric Universe proponents actually have the best explanation for how a CME can fragment a comet. Read here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10/06/comet-elenin—the-debate-that-never-happened/

Please keep non-mainstream science out of the Q&A forum.

[Nereid]

It appears the Electric Universe proponents actually have the best explanation for how a CME can fragment a comet.

It would be interesting to discuss why you think this piece of non-science is "the best explanation"*, but we cannot have such a discussion here.

No one has, as far as I can tell, posted anything from the mainstream scientists in the Sungrazer Comet Project, on this topic. Here is a short article which provides some good insights: Big comet, big CME... big coincidence?

* after all, a strong case can be easily made that these ideas are not even pseudoscience, but anti-science

[gdaniels99]

The impact of the plasma in a CME can mess up the dust tail, I think, like blowing against cigarette smoke mixes things up, but not "rip it off" because the dust is neutral and not connected to anything, it is just trailing the comet in its orbit.

I just want to revisit this briefly now that we have the Comet Elenin-CME event as a real-world case study. The Universe Today article says this: "Another possibility is that merely the CME wiped away the coma — the bright cloud of particles around the comet — " http://www.universetoday.com/88494/c...isintigrating/

Which brings me back to my question: if the coma, which is neutral like the tail, can be "wiped away" can the dust tail also be "wiped away" and not simply "messed up."

[iantresman]

Is a comet's coma and tail neutral? See for example:

• Mihály Horányi, "Charged Dust Dynamics in the Solar System", Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Sept 1996, Vol. 34: 383-418 (Abstract)
  
• Mendis, D. A.; Hill, J. R.; Houpis, H. L. F.; Whipple, E. C, "On the electrostatic charging of the cometary nucleus" (1981) Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 249, Oct. 15, 1981, p. 787-797.

Comet's may certainly show an ion tail which I think is related to the coma. See the following which mentions "ion comas and ion tails":

• Ip, W.-H.; Axford, W. I., "Theories of physical processes in the cometary comae and ion tails", Comets, University of Arizona Press, 1982, p. 588-634. (Asbtract)

[gdaniels99]

Ian: so the implication of those articles is that the dust tail and coma are composed of charged particles just like the ion tail, correct? Thus if the ion tail can be blown away, the dust tail should also be able to be blown away. Is this a logical deduction or have I missed something?

Nereid: Sorry, just saw your post from awhile back. I guess what I should've said is the EU people offer "the only" explanation for how a CME can fragment a comet instead of saying "the best" explanation. Whether it's the best is far outside my area of expertise.

[tusenfem]

I just want to revisit this briefly now that we have the Comet Elenin-CME event as a real-world case study. The Universe Today article says this: "Another possibility is that merely the CME wiped away the coma — the bright cloud of particles around the comet — " http://www.universetoday.com/88494/c...isintigrating/

Which brings me back to my question: if the coma, which is neutral like the tail, can be "wiped away" can the dust tail also be "wiped away" and not simply "messed up."

I may have been a little too rough in my comment.

Indeed, dust can be charged, however, due to the fact that dust is heavy in comparison with the plasma) it is much less bound to the magnetic field. The larmor radius of a particle is linearly proportional to its mass. Here is a paper on cometary dust motion.

But I had something better to say in post 37, about the lighting up of the nucleus. So, the coma can be stirred up, and make the brightening, and then the dust gets partly blown away and partly remains behind in the cometary orbit. As the density of the plasma in the CME is still rather small, the interaction with the tail could be rather minimal, because also the density of the dust tail is, IMHO, rather small.

Ian: so the implication of those articles is that the dust tail and coma are composed of charged particles just like the ion tail, correct? Thus if the ion tail can be blown away, the dust tail should also be able to be blown away. Is this a logical deduction or have I missed something?

Nereid: Sorry, just saw your post from awhile back. I guess what I should've said is the EU people offer "the only" explanation for how a CME can fragment a comet instead of saying "the best" explanation. Whether it's the best is far outside my area of expertise.

The ion tail is much more bound to the magnetic field that the dust tail, that is e.g. the main reason that the dust tail and ion tail are in different directions.

About the EU, that is just a load of bunk, with lots of claims and little physics. However, that will not be discussed here anymore on the board. If you want to read about it, look up the stickies.

[gdaniels99]

Do you have a reference on that? I don't recall a CME being implicated in the 2007 Comet Holmes event.

OK, I've got new evidence that links the solar wind to comet outbursts...and outbursts to fragmentations. If the solar wind can create an outburst that leads to a fragmentation, then why not a CME? OK, here's the research about the solar wind/comet outburst activity:

Ptitsyna, N.G., Richter, A.K., & Breus, T.K. “The role of solar-wind velocity-waves in comet outburst activity.” Earth, Moon, and Planets, Vol. 37, No. 2, February 1987: pp. 161-170.

And here's information about the fragmentation of comet Holmes after its outburst:
http://www.space.com/4643-incredible...igger-sun.html

From the article: "But the comet is so far away—149 million miles (240 million kilometers), or about 1.6 times the distance from Earth to the sun—that even Hubble can't resolve its nucleus.

The offset nature of the coma, seen in ground-based images, suggests "a large fragment broke off and subsequently disintegrated into tiny dust particles after moving away from the main nucleus," Hubble astronomers said in a statement today. The comet's distance, plus all the dust, prevent Hubble from seeing any fragments, however."

Question: If the comet is so far from the sun, there's no way solar heat led to the outburst. And it's too far away from any large gravitational fields for that to have caused a large fragment to break loose. So only the violent outgassing could have led to the fragmentation. And the outgassing appears to have been the result of the solar wind...i.e., charged particles. So if the solar wind can cause a comet to fragment, why not a CME?

And here's the research that shows outburst activity leading to fragmentation of comet Holmes:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0915202246.htm

From the article: "They found numerous small objects that moved radially away from the nucleus at speeds up to 125 metres per second (280 mph). These objects were too bright to simply be bare rocks, but instead were more like mini-comets creating their own dust clouds as the ice sublimated from their surfaces.
'Initially we thought this comet was unique simply because of the scale of the outburst,' said Stevenson. 'But we soon realized that the aftermath of the outburst showed unusual features, such as these fast-moving fragments, that have not been detected around other comets.'"

Question: is the speed at which the fragments were ejected (280mph) fast enough to make them leave the orbit of the parent comet? If a similar event happened within the inner solar system, would the fragment continue to move in the orbit of the parent comet or could it leave that orbit potentially striking earth?

And a quote from astronomer Bill Napier about comet breakups: "Comet material is very weak and the tidal forces exerted by the Sun’s gravitational field are enough to generate a cascade of fragmentations. However this externally forced splitting is only a minor factor. Most splittings have occurred more or less anywhere along the orbital track of a comet, and it is clear that some other energy source must be involved. The nature of the source is unknown." Napier. The Cosmic Winter. p.140.

[Hornblower]

OK, I've got new evidence that links the solar wind to comet outbursts...and outbursts to fragmentations. If the solar wind can create an outburst that leads to a fragmentation, then why not a CME? OK, here's the research about the solar wind/comet outburst activity:

Ptitsyna, N.G., Richter, A.K., & Breus, T.K. “The role of solar-wind velocity-waves in comet outburst activity.” Earth, Moon, and Planets, Vol. 37, No. 2, February 1987: pp. 161-170.

And here's information about the fragmentation of comet Holmes after its outburst:
http://www.space.com/4643-incredible...igger-sun.html

From the article: "But the comet is so far away—149 million miles (240 million kilometers), or about 1.6 times the distance from Earth to the sun—that even Hubble can't resolve its nucleus.

The offset nature of the coma, seen in ground-based images, suggests "a large fragment broke off and subsequently disintegrated into tiny dust particles after moving away from the main nucleus," Hubble astronomers said in a statement today. The comet's distance, plus all the dust, prevent Hubble from seeing any fragments, however."

Question: If the comet is so far from the sun, there's no way solar heat led to the outburst. And it's too far away from any large gravitational fields for that to have caused a large fragment to break loose. So only the violent outgassing could have led to the fragmentation. And the outgassing appears to have been the result of the solar wind...i.e., charged particles. So if the solar wind can cause a comet to fragment, why not a CME?

And here's the research that shows outburst activity leading to fragmentation of comet Holmes:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0915202246.htm

From the article: "They found numerous small objects that moved radially away from the nucleus at speeds up to 125 metres per second (280 mph). These objects were too bright to simply be bare rocks, but instead were more like mini-comets creating their own dust clouds as the ice sublimated from their surfaces.
'Initially we thought this comet was unique simply because of the scale of the outburst,' said Stevenson. 'But we soon realized that the aftermath of the outburst showed unusual features, such as these fast-moving fragments, that have not been detected around other comets.'"

Question: is the speed at which the fragments were ejected (280mph) fast enough to make them leave the orbit of the parent comet? If a similar event happened within the inner solar system, would the fragment continue to move in the orbit of the parent comet or could it leave that orbit potentially striking earth?

And a quote from astronomer Bill Napier about comet breakups: "Comet material is very weak and the tidal forces exerted by the Sun’s gravitational field are enough to generate a cascade of fragmentations. However this externally forced splitting is only a minor factor. Most splittings have occurred more or less anywhere along the orbital track of a comet, and it is clear that some other energy source must be involved. The nature of the source is unknown." Napier. The Cosmic Winter. p.140.

My bold. That is like saying that at that distance from the sun, there is no way that solar heating could vaporize the volatile substances in any comet. We know from observation that such outgassing occurs even farther away.

My educated guess is that prolonged exposure to solar heating was weakening the crust until it finally broke and exposed previously bottled-up volatiles, which then flared up like the volatiles in fresh long-period comets encountering the Sun for the first time. This weakening would have been the result of gradual evaporation of the little bit of ice that was acting like cement and holding dust and small pieces of rock together.

[tusenfem]

Comets become active (i.e. start to outgas) at about 4 to 4.5 AU from the sun (i.e. just inside of Jupiter's orbit) through solar heating.

[gdaniels99]

We know from observation that such outgassing occurs even farther away.

But we don't know why. That's the question. Show me any research that says this outgassing is the result of solar heat. The link I provided above argues it's the charged particles of the solar wind that's responsible for this outgassing. If you have other research that contradicts this please share.

This weakening would have been the result of gradual evaporation of the little bit of ice that was acting like cement and holding dust and small pieces of rock together.

So far no evidence or very little evidence of ice has been found on any comet. In fact, photos show they look just like asteroids. The dirty snowball/snowy dirtball hypothesis has not been proven with actual data from comets. But even if there was ice....how will this ice evaporate that far from the sun? It would seem more ice would accumulate at that distance not evaporate.

[gdaniels99]

Comets become active (i.e. start to outgas) at about 4 to 4.5 AU from the sun (i.e. just inside of Jupiter's orbit) through solar heating.

Exactly. So there's not enough solar heat to form a dust tail on these distant comets...but somehow enough solar heat to cause extreme outgassing??? Um, Houston, we have a problem.

[TooMany]

Exactly. So there's not enough solar heat to form a dust tail on these distant comets...but somehow enough solar heat to cause extreme outgassing. Um, Houston, we have a problem.

Posted by antoniseb:

There was briefly an increase in dust (don't know about gas, but that's implied). Now the comet is a bunch of chunks that are collectively producing little dust and gas.

The conventional theory is that solar radiation heats the surface causing out-gassing (of what gas?) with entrained dust. So the brightness depends on the rate at which dust or ionized gas is emitted, which is limited by surface area. If the comet breaks up for any reason, the conventional theory would predict that the evolution of dust and gas would increase in proportion to the much larger surface area, the luminosity should increase. Unless the breakup is into extremely small parts that "evaporate", the pieces ought to survive and continue to evolve far more gas and dust than before and the remains should be bright.

So I'm puzzled as to why it would quickly dim after breakup, unless perhaps the comet was tiny to begin with and the breakup resulted in very small particles with a short lifespan.

[antoniseb]

... So I'm puzzled as to why it would quickly dim after breakup, unless perhaps the comet was tiny to begin with and the breakup resulted in very small particles with a short lifespan.

That's the answer. When the final breakup happens, the remaining ices quickly evaporate. This usually happens only when the comet IS already tiny.
BTW, one thing I haven't seen mentioned here (though I didn't reread the whole thread) is that comets are composed of ices of many different molecules (I presume in mixture), and that they evaporate at different temperatures. Out near Jupiter, you get a little bit of evaporation from newish comets as very low-boiling-point molecules blow off (Hydrogen or Methane for example). Older comets don't have much of those ices near their surface, but would outgas CO2, or Water, or Ammonia as they warm up, and also start venting the afore-mentioned gases from deeper down as the heat penetrates into the comet.

[Hornblower]

But we don't know why. That's the question. Show me any research that says this outgassing is the result of solar heat. The link I provided above argues it's the charged particles of the solar wind that's responsible for this outgassing. If you have other research that contradicts this please share.



So far no evidence or very little evidence of ice has been found on any comet. In fact, photos show they look just like asteroids. The dirty snowball/snowy dirtball hypothesis has not been proven with actual data from comets. But even if there was ice....how will this ice evaporate that far from the sun? It would seem more ice would accumulate at that distance not evaporate.

Exactly. So there's not enough solar heat to form a dust tail on these distant comets...but somehow enough solar heat to cause extreme outgassing??? Um, Houston, we have a problem.

I would suggest reading this Wiki article about comets in general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet

As always, Wiki is not the last word, but this one looks very good to me, and it gives dozens of references. It is in good agreement with everything I have read about comets over the past 50 years, and it reinforces my confidence in my previous post along with that of tusenfem. In my opinion whatever sources convinced you that there is little or no evidence for water ice in comets, or that simple solar heating cannot cause outgassing at the ranges in question, are pitifully ill-informed. The burden is on you to show, in appropriate technical detail, why you think they are more reliable than the numerous ones we trust.

[Swift]

gdaniels99,

You are very rapidly crossing the line from asking a question to advocating a non-mainstream position. And it is doesn't matter if you can find a reference or two to support your position, it is a non-mainstream idea.

You want to ask IF a CME can cause a comet to fragment or ask about particular pieces of information, that's fine. But if you continue to argue when given the mainstream answers, this thread will be closed or moved to our Against The Mainstream (ATM) forum.

[TooMany]

I would suggest reading this Wiki article about comets in general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet

I followed this link to Deep Impact results which seem to contradict the notion of a dirty snowball. Wouldn't it have to be much sturdier? I haven't found any quantitative breakdown of the composition. How much is frozen H20, C02 etc. and how does that compare with mineral content. Was the Deep Impact mission unable to make quantitative comparisons?

The Shoemaker comet must have been fairly large given the impact of the pieces on Jupiter. Was it's nature similar to Temple1? Temple1 has craters that must have been formed by relative large impacts, given the small effect of the Deep Impact. How would a body that sturdy get pulled apart by the very slight gradient of Jupiter's gravity? Didn't it break up many Jupiter diameters away from Jupiter? I guess we could use that distance to estimate the cohesive forces within the comet.

[tusenfem]

Exactly. So there's not enough solar heat to form a dust tail on these distant comets...but somehow enough solar heat to cause extreme outgassing??? Um, Houston, we have a problem.

"not enough heat" says who? At 4.5 AU the surface gets heated enough to start CO2 and H2O outgassing. In llittle quantities, so you may not see a coma yet, but i does start. Today is a holiday and I don't have my Rosetta papers at home. But e.g. Comet Holmes (if I am not mistaken) was well studied. Tomorrow I can send the links to the appropriate papers on comet outgassing as a function of distance from the Sun.

Naturally, when the comet just starts you would not expect any significant tail, that will grow with time.

So no there is no problem, there is just your mis-assumptions.

[tusenfem]

I followed this link to Deep Impact results which seem to contradict the notion of a dirty snowball. Wouldn't it have to be much sturdier? I haven't found any quantitative breakdown of the composition. How much is frozen H20, C02 etc. and how does that compare with mineral content. Was the Deep Impact mission unable to make quantitative comparisons?

The Shoemaker comet must have been fairly large given the impact of the pieces on Jupiter. Was it's nature similar to Temple1? Temple1 has craters that must have been formed by relative large impacts, given the small effect of the Deep Impact. How would a body that sturdy get pulled apart by the very slight gradient of Jupiter's gravity? Didn't it break up many Jupiter diameters away from Jupiter? I guess we could use that distance to estimate the cohesive forces within the comet.

There is a whole book on Deep Impact results edited by Chris Russell of UCLA.

[gdaniels99]

gdaniels99,

You are very rapidly crossing the line from asking a question to advocating a non-mainstream position. And it is doesn't matter if you can find a reference or two to support your position, it is a non-mainstream idea.

You want to ask IF a CME can cause a comet to fragment or ask about particular pieces of information, that's fine. But if you continue to argue when given the mainstream answers, this thread will be closed or moved to our Against The Mainstream (ATM) forum.

I'm not advocating anything. I am still at the question asking phase. But when people completely ignore a peer reviewed journal article I posted which states the solar wind is responsible for the outgassing and then don't back up their own assertions with links to research that supports those assertions then what option do I have but to challenge them on this????? How am I supposed to know this is a "mainstream answer" and not just someone's personal opinion if they provide no research that I can read to back up their claim? I'm sorry if those challenges come across as advocating.

But I will say this, you guys are starting to remind me of my sunday school teachers who scolded me for asking too many of the wrong questions which challenged their mainstream ideas. Had I never asked those questions I would have never left the church at age 12 and pursued science. Now here I am in the science world being scolded about "against the mainstream" ideas and warned I'll be excommunicated as a heretic if I continue down this path.

All people need to do is back up their assertions with links to research that supports those assertions and stop expecting people to take their word on faith. This is science not church.

Furthermore, I guess Donald Brownlee, head of NASA’s stardust mission, also expressed a non-mainstream idea when he stated, “It’s a mystery to me how comets work at all.” So it appears to me the mainstream ideas aren't satisfactory to even those with the most knowledge about how comets are supposed to work and would be threatened with excommunication for making such a comment since we all know Wikipedia explains exactly how comets work. He should just read up and educate himself!

So why don't we just have some humility and admit that even the experts don't know how comets work and asking more questions is the only way we'll ever figure this out. Establishing "official dogmas" that can't be challenged should be left to the Vatican.

And just one note on the wikipedia article. It notes: "They are often popularly described as "dirty snowballs", though recent observations have revealed dry dusty or rocky surfaces, suggesting that the ices are hidden beneath the crust." This reminds me of the story of Meteor Crater in Arizona when scientists INSISTED that all craters were volcanic in origin and that rocks didn't/couldn't fall from the sky. When they couldn't find evidence of any volcanism they just invented a whole new field of inquiry: cryptovolcanology- volcanism for which the evidence was hidden. !?!?!?!? So when scientists start telling me, "Hey trust us....those ices we've theorized, but can't find, are really there....they're just hidden....trust us on this" it immediately triggers my ** detector. Science is based on evidence not trust. So show me the evidence.