Along the lines of Glen O's answer, this answer attempts to explain the solvability of the problem, rather than provide the answer, which has already been given. Instead of using the meta-knowledge approach, which, as Glen stated, can get hard to follow, I use the range-base approach used in Rubio's answer, and specifically address some of the objections being raised.
The argument has been put forward that when Mark fails to answer on the first morning, he gives Rose no new information. This is actually true (sort of— see the last spoiler section of this answer). Rose could have predicted beforehand with certainty that Mark would fail to answer on the first day, so his failure to answer doesn't tell her anything she didn't know. However, that doesn't make the problem unsolvable. To see why, you must understand the following logical axiom: Additional information never invalidates a valid deduction. In other words, if I know that all of the statements $P_1,\dots P_n$ and $Q$ are true, and that $R$ is definitely true if $P_1, \dots P_n$ are true, I can conclude that $R$ is true. My additional knowledge that $Q$ is true, though unnecessary to deduce $R$, doesn't hamper my ability to deduce $R$ from $P_1,\dots P_n$. I will call this rule LUI for "Law of Unnecessary Information." (It may have some other name, but I don't know it, so I'm giving it a new one.)
The line of reasoning goes as follows:
Let $R,\;M$ be the number of bars on Rose's and Mark's windows, respectively. Before the first question is asked, both Mark and Rose know the following:
$P_1$: Mark knows the value of $M$
$P_2$: Rose knows the value of $R$
$P_3$: $M+R=20 \;\vee \;M+R=18\;$ ($\vee$ means "or", in case you're unfamiliar with the notation)
$P_4$: $M\ge 2\;\wedge\;R \ge2\;$ ($\wedge$ means "and")
$P_5$: Both of them know every statement on this list, and every statement that can be deduced from statements they both know.
To help keep track of $P_5$ I will say that I will call a statement $P$ (with some subscript) only if it is known to both prisoners (or neither); thus, $P_5$ becomes "the other prisoner knows every $P$ that I know."
Additionally, Mark knows that $M=12$ and Rose knows that $R=8$. Call this knowledge $Q_M$ and $Q_R$, respectively.
Finally, as soon as one of them is asked the question for $k^\text{th}$ time, they both know (and know that one another know, etc.) $P_{\leftarrow k}$:
$P_{\leftarrow k}$: The other prisoner could not deduce the value of $M+R$ given the information they already had.
After Mark doesn't answer on the morning of day one, both prisoners can deduce from $P_1, P_3, P_4, P_5,$ and $P_{\leftarrow 2}$ that $M\le 16$ (call this $P_6$). It is true that both prisoners have more information than this about the value of $M$, but LUI tells us that that doesn't invalidate the deduction. It basically just means that Rose won't be surprised when she gets asked the question. She already knows she will be.
By the following morning, both prisoners can deduce from $P_1\dots P_6$ and $P_{\leftarrow 3}$ that $4\le R \le 16$ ($P_7$), and that evening, they can deduce from $P1,\dots P_7$ and $P_{\leftarrow 4}$ that $4 \le M \le 14$ ($P_8$). Again, both prisoners know all of this already. (But the conclusions are still valid by LUI.)
On the next day, in a similar manner, they can deduce in the morning that $6 \le R \le 14$ ($P_9$), and in the evening that $6 \le M \le 12$ ($P_{10}$). Here's where things get interesting. Mark can deduce from $P_3$ and $Q_M$ that $R$ is either $6$ or $8$, but $R=6\wedge P_{10} \wedge P_3\implies M+R=18$ and $R=6\wedge P_{10} \wedge P_3\wedge\left[R=6\wedge P_{10} \wedge P_3\implies M+R=18\right]\implies \neg P_{\leftarrow 7}$. When he gets asked the question again on the following morning, he learns that $P_{\leftarrow 7}$ is true, and can thus deduce that $R \neq 6$ and therefore $R=8$ and $M+R=20$. This is actually the first time in the sequence that a $P_{\leftarrow k}$ provides any more information about the value of $M+R$ than the prisoner already has, but the sequence of irrelevant questions is necessary to establish the deep metaknowledge Glen talks about. In this formulation, all this metaknowledge is encapsulated in $P_5$. When a prisoner is asked a question, $P_5$ says that they can deduce not only $P_{\leftarrow k}$ but also that both of them know $P_{\leftarrow k}$ and, by repeatedly applying $P_5$, that both of them know that both of them know $P_{\leftarrow k}$ and so on. For any $P_{\leftarrow k}$, there is some level of "we both know that we both know" that can't be deduced from $P_1\dots P_5$ and $Q_M$ or $Q_R$ alone. This is the "new information" being "learned" at each stage. Really nothing new is learned until Rose fails to answer on the $3^\text{rd}$ evening, but the sequence of non-answers $P_{\leftarrow k}$ is necessary to provide the deductive path to $P_{\leftarrow 7}$.
In fact, viewing it another way, the fact that not answering provides "no new information" (and in fact doesn't provide any new direct information about the number of bars) is exactly why the puzzle is solvable, because
It says that the previous answer provided no new information. Because they both know that the number of bars is either $18$ or $20$ (only two possibilities), any new information about the number of bars (eliminating a possibility) will allow them to give the answer; thus, not answering sends the message "I have not yet received any new information," which, eventually, is new information for the other prisoner.
The "conversation" the prisoners have amounts to this:
Mark: I don't know how many bars there are.
Rose: I already knew that (that you wouldn't know).
Mark: I already knew that (that you'd know I wouldn't know).
Rose: I already knew THAT (etc.)
Mark: I already knew THAT.
Rose: I already knew $\mathbf {THAT}$.
Mark (To the Evil Logician): There are $20$ bars.
But how, you may ask, can a series of messages that provide their recipient with no new information lead to one that does? Simple!
The non-answers provide no new information to the recipient, but they do provide information to the sender. If I tell you that I'm secretly a ninja, you might already know that, but even if you do, knowledge is gained, because by telling you, I give myself the knowledge that you know I'm a ninja, and that you know I know you know I'm a ninja, etc. Thus, each message sent, even if the recipient already knows it, provides the sender with information. After several such questions, this is enough information that a message recipient can draw conclusions based on the sender's inability to draw any conclusions from the information they know the sender has.
Ok, fine, you might say, but what, exactly, is learned when Mark fails to answer on the first morning, and how can you prove this was not already known? Great question, thanks for asking. You see...
At this point, we have to resort to metaknowledge (I know she knows I know...) even though it can get confusing, However, I'll break it down in such a way as to hopefully satisfy anyone who still objects that there is (meta)knowledge available after Mark fails to answer the first question was not available before he did so. Specifically, After failing to answer the first question, Mark gains the information that Rose knows that Mark knows that Rose knows that Mark knows that Rose knows that Mark's window has less than $18$ bars. Now, that's a mouthful, so let's break it down into parts:
$R_0$:Mark's window doesn't have $18$ bars
$M_1$:Rose knows $R_0$
$R_2$:Mark knows $M_1$
$M_3$:Rose knows $R_2$
$R_4$:Mark knows $M_3$
$M_5$:Rose knows $R_4$
My claim is that A) Before he fails to answer on the first morning, Mark does not know $M_5$, and B) Afterwards, he does. Let's examine A) first:
To show that Mark doesn't know $M_5$ beforehand, we work backwards from $R_0$. In order for Rose to know that Mark's window doesn't have $18$ bars, her window would have to have more than $2$ bars. Since the rules (and numbers of bars) imply that they both have an even number of bars, in order for Mark to know $M_1$, he would have to know that Rose's window has at least $4$ bars. The only way for him to know that is if his window has less than $16$ bars. Thus, for rose to know $R_2$, she must know that Mark has no more than $14$ bars, which requires that she have at least $6$ bars. For Mark to know $M_3$, then, he must have no more than $12$ bars, so for Rose to know $R_4$ she must have at least $8$ bars, and for Mark to know $M_5$ he must have no more than $10$ bars. But he does have more than $10$ bars, so he doesn't know $M_5$ beforehand.
To see why Mark must know $M_5$ after he fails to answer the question, we must realize that they both know the rules of the game and one of the rules of the game is that they both know the rules of the game. This creates an infinite loop of meta-knowledge, meaning that they both know that they both know that they both know... the rules, no matter how many times you repeat "they both know". This infinite-depth meta-knowledge extends to anything that can be deduced from the rules. If Mark's window had $18$ bars, he could deduce from the rules that Rose must have $2$, and the tower must have $20$ in total. Because he doesn't answer, rose will be asked, and when she is, she will know that he couldn't deduce the answer, and therefore has less than $18$ bars. Because this is all deduced directly from the rules, rather than the private knowledge that either prisoner has, it inherits the infinite meta-knowledge of the rules, and Mark knows $M_5$.
So, Mark learns $M_5$. Does Rose learn anything? It's tempting to think that she doesn't, because she can predict in advance that Mark won't answer and therefore, one might think, she can draw in advance any conclusions that could be drawn from his not answering. However, as was shown above, by not answering, Mark learns $M_5$. Not answering changes the state of Mark's knowledge. This means that Rose's ability to predict Mark's behavior doesn't prevent her from gaining new information. She can predict in advance both what he will do (not answer) and what he will learn when he does it ($M_5$), but since he doesn't learn $M_5$ until he actually declines to answer, his failure to answer provides her with the information that he now knows $M_5$. Since he didn't know $M_5$ beforehand, the knowledge that he does is by definition new information for Rose. Rose already knew that she would know this, but until Mark doesn't answer, she doesn't actually know it (because it isn't true). By following this prediction logic out, it's possible to show that Rose knows (at the start) that Mark will be unable to answer until the $4^\text{th}$ morning, but not whether or not he'll be able to answer then. Mark, meanwhile, knows that Rose will be unable to answer until the $3^\text{rd}$ evening, but not whether or not she'll be able to answer then. As soon as one of the prisoners observes an event that they were unable to predict at the beginning, they can deduce from it something they didn't know about the state of the other's knowledge. Since the only hidden information is how many bars are in the other prisoners window, and they know that it must be one of two values, learning new information about that allows them to eliminate one of the values and find the correct result.
