Thicker Atmosphere Still Would Have Left Mars Cold

Global 3-D climate simulations for plausible Martian atmospheres show that even with a much thicker CO2 layer, the greenhouse effect could not have warmed Mars above freezing. John Matson reports.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The greenhouse effect. It’s the mechanism warming the world as greenhouse gas levels rise. But it’s not all bad. If Earth had no greenhouse effect at all, it would be too cold for us altogether. Just look at frigid, dry Mars.

Many thought that if Mars had a stronger greenhouse effect, it might be more hospitable to life. It’s not a crazy idea. Mars has lots of carbon dioxide—much of it frozen. In the past, the CO2 as gas could have been in the atmosphere. And previous studies suggested that a denser CO2 atmosphere could have produced a warm and wet Martian climate.

But a new study throws cold water on that temperate Mars. Researchers ran global, 3D climate simulations for a variety of plausible Martian atmospheres. And even with a much thicker CO2 atmosphere, the greenhouse effect could not have warmed Mars above freezing. The study is in the journal Icarus. [Francois Forget et al., 3-D modelling of the early Martian climate under a denser CO2 atmosphere: Temperatures and CO2 ice clouds]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Mars has dry canyons and riverbeds, so water must have flowed at some point. But those flows may have been short-lived melting episodes triggered by volcanism or asteroid impacts. Because the idea of a balmy ancient Mars just got iced.

—John Matson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe