Comment on “Cometary origin of atmospheric methane variations on Mars unlikely” by Roos‐Serote et al. 2016

Reply to comment by Fries on “Cometary origin of atmospheric methane variations on Mars unlikely”

“…In his comment on our paper, Fries [] questions the validity of the statistical argument we presented. He states that the use of nondetections of methane in the statistical analysis is flawed by false negatives that could result from the large variability of influx of meteoric material from any given meteor stream from year to year.…”

“…Fries [] states that the Mars Science Laboratory data are “less constrained, as it makes point‐location measurements well below the altitude where maximum amount of fresh‐disaggregated dust is deposited in the Martian atmosphere and therefore where the majority of infall‐derived methane may be generated.”…”

“…It is interesting to note that while on the one hand Fries et al [] employ the SAM/MSL observed methane spikes to support their hypothesis Fries [] on the other hand dismisses the same data set as being less constrained.…”

“…In conclusion, despite the limitation of statistical analysis due to lack of observations on meteor shower fluence, with the exception of Siding Spring discussed above, when taking into consideration all available methane data and predictions of all meteor streams at Mars and the fluence of Siding Spring, we find little evidence in support of correlation between meteor streams and methane plumes at Mars presently. Like Fries [], we look forward to continued observations with current and future assets. In fact, several SAM‐TLS observations have been carried out since the publication of our Roos‐Serote et al [] paper.…”