Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Giant canyons discovered in Antarctica

14 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Still Waters

Scientists have discovered three vast canyons in one of the last places to be explored on Earth - under the ice at the South Pole.

The deep troughs run for hundreds of kilometres, cutting through tall mountains - none of which are visible at the snowy surface of the continent.

Dr Kate Winter from Northumbria University, UK, and colleagues found the hidden features with radar.

Her team says the canyons play a key role in controlling the flow of ice.

And if Antarctica thins in a warming climate, as scientists suspect it will, then these channels could accelerate mass towards the ocean, further raising sea-levels.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44245893

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
third_eye

Time to invest in a chain of swimwear and bikinis catering to the Eskimos

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
Posted (edited)

Extraordinary!

Imagine the fossils down there... if we could only reach them. Serious money to do it though, I suppose.

Edited by pallidin
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paperdyer

So Climate Change may do some good.  Looks like "Stargate SG-1" may not have been too far from the mark about Antarctica, except for ETs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
3 hours ago, paperdyer said:

So Climate Change may do some good.  Looks like "Stargate SG-1" may not have been too far from the mark about Antarctica, except for ETs.

SG-1 had some great writers!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carlos Allende

_(Kurt Russell & monstrous husky creature look up from playing cards)_

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

I keep reading the headline as cannons!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Monk
Posted (edited)
On 25/05/2018 at 1:21 PM, Still Waters said:

 

And if Antarctica thins in a warming climate, as scientists suspect it will, then these channels could accelerate mass towards the ocean, further raising sea-levels.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44245893

And the Whacky Warmists were telling us in 2000 that British children won't know what snow is in 2010.

Edited by Black Monk
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calibeliever
On 5/26/2018 at 9:40 AM, Black Monk said:

And the Whacky Warmists were telling us in 2000 that British children won't know what snow is in 2010.

I remember that, lol. And in 2001 most real climate scientists told those whackos to sit down and shut up. If your models make a prediction within a certain range, someone always grabs up the most extreme (and improbable) end of that range and publishes it with !!! at the end of a sentence to sell papers. Then when it doesn't happen everybody says "See? they don't know anything" ... sigh. Al Gore, sensational headlines and paid for "experts" have made being a climatologist a very challenging job over the last 2 decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skulduggery

I clicked on this thinking it was giant crayons that were discovered in Antarctica. The magic's gone, now. SMDH

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa
On 5/29/2018 at 11:05 AM, Calibeliever said:

I remember that, lol. And in 2001 most real climate scientists told those whackos to sit down and shut up. If your models make a prediction within a certain range, someone always grabs up the most extreme (and improbable) end of that range and publishes it with !!! at the end of a sentence to sell papers. Then when it doesn't happen everybody says "See? they don't know anything" ... sigh. Al Gore, sensational headlines and paid for "experts" have made being a climatologist a very challenging job over the last 2 decades.

Actually, none of the climate models of the 90's and early 00's predicted measured observations within their so-called 95% confidence intervals.  It's a total failure of climate science modeling.  And as of yet, they have not shown to be able to predict the future any better or show that any current or historical temperature observations are not just part of normal non-anthropogenic climate variations.  The science has a LONG way to go before people spend trillions trying to prevent something they can't even model accurately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calibeliever
12 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Actually, none of the climate models of the 90's and early 00's predicted measured observations within their so-called 95% confidence intervals.  It's a total failure of climate science modeling.  And as of yet, they have not shown to be able to predict the future any better or show that any current or historical temperature observations are not just part of normal non-anthropogenic climate variations.  The science has a LONG way to go before people spend trillions trying to prevent something they can't even model accurately.

We don't know everything, so let's not do anything. We know a lot. The scientific principle behind the 95% confidence rating you're referring to relates to the idea of causation and correlation. It implies the confidence that an effect is real vs a misunderstood coincidence. It had nothing to do with the reliability of one model vs another. You're just mixing up ideas. And poorly related facts presented as a logical argument is a political tactic to keep the dull-minded sedated. This is the problem I have when discussing this topic with people who have no real knowledge of the subject. Or of science for that matter. 

We know that human activity is significantly altering our atmosphere and we have the power to slow that down. The fact that we can't nail "exactly" how is no reason to suddenly feel like everything's ok and sit on our heels. And the "trillions" (citation?) you're talking about are going to be spent whether you feel they should or not, if for no other reason than fossil fuels aren't sustainable long term and countries are moving to lessen their dependence on them. If that is helped along by good PR about us not treating the earth as a toilet, all the better in my book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
On 5/26/2018 at 9:40 AM, Black Monk said:

And the Whacky Warmists were telling us in 2000 that British children won't know what snow is in 2010.

Unfortunately, a climate scientist, David Viner, said just exactly that.  What he was thinking is beyond me.  Climate change CAN happen that fast, but it hasn't done so in about 10,500 years, so one wouldn't expect it to occur in just ten.  Even the Pleistocene/Holocene transition took about 40 years.  BUT:  climate change is happening and the results are becoming more visible each year.  That "Beast from the East" that did in Viner's prediction was the result of the Polar Vortex being pushed southeast from its new winter home over Greenland by north-flowing warm currents in the Pacific.  So Viner was right about climate change happening.  What he was wrong about was the particular manifestation of it.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Noxasa said:

Actually, none of the climate models of the 90's and early 00's predicted measured observations within their so-called 95% confidence intervals.  It's a total failure of climate science modeling.  And as of yet, they have not shown to be able to predict the future any better or show that any current or historical temperature observations are not just part of normal non-anthropogenic climate variations.  The science has a LONG way to go before people spend trillions trying to prevent something they can't even model accurately.

If one is going to refer to climate models, one should use the current ones and not ones that are 25 years out-of-date.  General Circulation Models (what most people think of as "climate models") have come a long way since then.  Today's models couldn't even run on 1990s computers.

Note that the most-conservative of the four forecasts made by the IPCC First Assessment Report, actually happened.  The IPCC published four scenarios.  The most-extreme one is what the newspapers like to report and climate change deniers like to ridicule, but the IPCC never said which of its scenarios would actually happen.  That one did is proof that they were right.

 

As for spending TRILLIONS on climate change:  The US is converting to wind NOW because wind is cheaper than any other form of electric power (Fourteen states now generate more than 10% of their power from wind; the US is approaching 20% of its power generation using wind.).  I drove from Oklahoma City to Boise last week.  There is almost no place between Oklahoma City and Denver where one cannot see windmills.  I gave up counting at 3000 windmills.  In addition there are five wind farms in Wyoming visible from I-80 and eight more in south Idaho visible from I-84.  Oklahoma's Wind Catcher is now the largest wind farm in the world.  All this will reduce the price of electricity.  Switching to wind from coal saves about seven cents per kwh.  Solar is now running neck-and-neck with oil.

The development of perovskite will allow electric power to be generated by roofing shingles (or any flat surface).  That technology is about five years away and will make solar cheaper than gas.  We're going to beat this thing and save money on electricity while doing it.

 

AND:  "Joule" published an article last week about converting CO2 from the air to burnable fuel oils.  Cost is about $74 per ton of carbon.  That's cheaper than gas.

A high school graduate dropped out of college in his Freshman year because he had worked out a filter to remove plastic from sea water.  His ship sailed about six weeks ago on a trial voyage.  A plastic company has offered to buy anything he can produce.  Cleaning up the oceans is going to make him and a German company rich.

 

We will solve the global warming problem and people will get rich doing it.  It will be inventors, scientists and engineers who do it, not politicians.  And not climate-change deniers.  Cleaning up the earth is going to be cheaper than what we're doing now.

 

We might have to put a crowbar in our wallets, though.  New Orleans and Houston are very vulnerable to flooding and if we don't build some dikes, the problem will get worse.  And Manhattan, London, Venice, Washington, DC (It used to be a cypress swamp and Trmp is only adding alligators.) could use some work, too.  And some low-lying island nations will probably disappear altogether.  And some place, like Los Angeles, will need to build desalinization plants, or curtail their growth.  That will be expensive.

Most of these things are already happening.  Better climate forecasts will be forthcoming within a few years, allowing us to tell say when these things will happen.  But they are already happening - one doesn't need a climate model to know that if the water keeps rising, somebody will have to move.

 

Climate change is already in progress.  Hurricane Hugo was a result of climate change.  I don't know about Irma and Maria.  BTW:  Hugo dumped over three FEET of rain in just two days.  That's a probable world record (The runner-up was California's Noahkian Storm of 1862.).

The Polar Vortex has relocated to Greenland every winter since 2007.  That's new and it has been producing New England's nasty winters.  It takes 30 years to say that this is a climate change, but we're already ten years in.  It moved a little farther east last winter, pushed by warm currents in the Pacific.  That's what brought David Viner's snow to England.

And Oklahoma has sent most of our tornadoes to Dixie Lane.  Good for us - bad for them.  There will be winners as well as losers in this contest.

 

Climate change isn't something that may happen in the future.  It's happening now.  And it's getting worse.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.