Scientists Discover 91 Volcanoes Below Antarctic Ice Sheet (theguardian.com) 181
Reader schwit1 writes: Scientists have uncovered the largest volcanic region on Earth -- two kilometres below the surface of the vast ice sheet that covers west Antarctica. The project, by Edinburgh University researchers, has revealed almost 100 volcanoes -- with the highest as tall as the Eiger, which stands at almost 4,000 metres in Switzerland. This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt more ice in region affected by climate change, the report added. Geologists say this huge region is likely to dwarf that of east Africa's volcanic ridge, currently rated the densest concentration of volcanoes in the world. And the activity of this range could have worrying consequences, they have warned. "If one of these volcanoes were to erupt it could further destabilise west Antarctica's ice sheets," said glacier expert Robert Bingham, one of the paper's authors. "Anything that causes the melting of ice -- which an eruption certainly would -- is likely to speed up the flow of ice into the sea.
Worry worry worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
However, he pointed to one alarming trend: “The most volcanism that is going in the world at present is in regions that have only recently lost their glacier covering – after the end of the last ice age. These places include Iceland and Alaska. Theory suggests that this is occurring because, without ice sheets on top of them, there is a release of pressu
Re:Worry worry worry (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's anthropogenic vulcanism! Humans drive volcanic activity, and too many tourists stepping on Yellowstone is going to cause "The Big One".
This goes along with anthropogenic earthquakes, anthropogenic sunspots, and anthropogenic cosmic rays, which can all be correlated to human activity of some sort.
We are not simply insignificant bags of mostly water on a tiny rock at the edge of an insignificant galaxy in the middle of an uncaring and massive universe, we are the ultimate drivers of the cosmos!! /sarc
Re: (Score:2)
It's anthropogenic vulcanism! Humans drive volcanic activity, and too many tourists stepping on Yellowstone is going to cause "The Big One".
This goes along with anthropogenic earthquakes, anthropogenic sunspots, and anthropogenic cosmic rays, which can all be correlated to human activity of some sort.
We are not simply insignificant bags of mostly water on a tiny rock at the edge of an insignificant galaxy in the middle of an uncaring and massive universe, we are the ultimate drivers of the cosmos!! /sarc
Precisely!
Re: (Score:2)
This is typical of climate change types.
Exactly!
Just like I am SURE that all those cans of hairspray and vented refrigerator coils caused the volcanos, too...
Oh, and don't forget the cow-farts!
Re: (Score:2)
If a bunch of superheated steam and molten rock can squirt it's way up all the way from the mantle it's not the last km of ice (which is much easier to melt than rock) that will stop it.
But the last few km of ice might have enough weight to change the way how the magma is coming up.
I really wonder why /. readers always think scientists are idiots and miss the obvious. Facepalm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did not see any scientist questioning any other scientist.
I only saw an idiot making an idiotic post.
Perhaps you should revise the way how intelligent posting works.
Re: (Score:2)
a) There's far more concern over Greenland's melting than Iceland or Alaska
b) If the volcanoes pre-date the glaciers - then why is the ice melting now? That implies increasing heat. If much of that new heat is actually from increasing vulcanism rather than climate (I've seen no evidence about proportion) then that is itself a concern - is an eruption imminent?
Re:Worry worry worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Ice isn't going to stop Lava, and if you watched videos of Mt. St Helens erupting , blowing thousands of tons of mountainside into the *air* for *miles* a relatively thin sheet of ice isn't going to be a deterrent.
Applying the principle of occam's razor; Increased global geothermal activity has been melting the glaciers. Heat beats Ice.
Re:Worry worry worry (Score:5, Funny)
Heat beats Ice.
I think Jon Snow is banking on this.
Re: (Score:3)
Until the white walkers turn one of the dragons. I wonder if the zombie dragon will breath ice?
Re: (Score:2)
Well crap, I never even considered that happening. That'd be pretty horrifying. Draugr Dragons!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes Occam's Razor does lead one to the wrong conclusion however.
The concern is not that once the 'ice seal' over these volcanos gets sufficiently thin or melts entirely the volcanos will be free to erupt. Anyone who suggested such a thing would, quite rightly, be laughed out of the geology lab.
In reality, large amounts of water, and ice, actually gets quite heavy. Heavy enough to deform the crust in fact. Now, ask yourself, what happens when the ice that's built up over these volcanos starts to melt?
M
Re: (Score:2)
This feels like a situation of 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?'
While you have a logic point regarding the weight deforming the crust, I think it's an secondary effect of the venting prior and may have predicated the more recent in crease in eruptions.
Venting in the mid Atlantic ridge as an example:
https://link.springer.com/arti... [springer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure exactly what is the chicken and what is the egg, but it's quite well established that the weight of water or ice deforms the land. There's lots of geological evidence of uplift after glaciers melt, and you can see the same on a smaller scale in places like California today where groundwater depletion is causing uplift. The effect has also been linked to seismicity, so it's not that big a leap to volcanism.
http://www.nature.com/nature/j... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't contesting water / ice weighing on land and deforming it. I was postulating that it was super-heated venting that melted the ice to reduce the weight thereby increasing volcanic activity to increase the rate at which the ice was melting.
The Chicken and the egg idea I tossed out there was the question whether it was global warming that caused the ice to melt to increase volcanic activity in the area, vs venting of super-heated water that melted the ice to increase the volcanic activity. Probably not
Re: (Score:2)
> the chicken or the egg?'
Can we get that stupid cliche at least updated.
You DO realize dinosaurs laid eggs millions of years _before_ chickens, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Based on a bit of evidence, both anecdotal and archeological, my bet is Chickens are ancient T-Rex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You get one instance of Volcanic activity and you conclude "must be more volcanos!" Aren't we guilty here of having a conclusion and fitting facts just like Global Climate Change proponents re accused of?
It's possible that these volcanoes have been going on for centuries and the loss of ice is uncovering them.
It's also possible that the loss of the WEIGHT of glaciers is acting like an unstopped plug, and allowing more vulcanism due to a release in pressure.
In fact, studies of prior warming periods show a 5-
Re: (Score:2)
studies of prior warming periods show a 5-fold increase of vulcanism.
Read that again a few times. If I understand you correctly you believe volcanos become more active because the air or water gets warmer. Rather than the air or water gets warmer because there's more volcanoes spewing mass amounts of heat into the atmosphere / oceans.
If it's the former, you're stating volcanic activity is increased by a few hundredths of a degree of air temperature. Or you're saying the reduction of pressure on the plates caused ( by hot jets melting the ice first ) the increase of volcanoes
Re: (Score:2)
I also know that any single eruption of a volcano dwarfs our contribution to CO2 output from all nations put together.
You know wrong. It is well known that all volcanic eruptions taken together emit less than 1% as much CO2 as humans per year. The biggest eruption of the past 100 years, Pinatubo in 1991 emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2. Total volcanic emissions per year are around 250 million tonnes per year. Human emissions are on the order of 30 billion tonnes per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course those numbers are for the mass of the CO2, but thanks for your concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Read that again a few times. GP claimed that volcanoes became much more active during warming periods, which is very far from saying that warmer air itself causes volcanoes. If correct, it's an observation, not an explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies. I confused your statement with someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Also,
These things haven't sprung up recently. You don't get massive volcanoes over-night. It takes hundreds of years to build. Yes these have been here for some time. They may have been dormant all this time. But if the ice was sitting on them that ice would have been moving, and grinding them down.
That means the ice was floating and putting no more pressure on the sea floor than anywhere else under the sea. my take is these have recently become active.
One more thing. If a change in temperature is all it ta
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the scientists looking for volcanoes below the Antarctic ice sheet could be competent geologists chasing their next government grant?
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason to worry about glacier covering being lost due to the end of the last Ice Age. You might as well worry about asteroids.
I DO, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3)
There is no reason to worry about glacier covering being lost due to the end of the last Ice Age. You might as well worry about asteroids.
That is sort of like saying 'My gas tank is empty because I am out of gas.'
By definition, our _current_ ice age will end when we no-longer have locations with year-round Ice in both the northern and southern hemisphere(ie glaciers and ice-caps)
Chicken, or the Egg? (Score:3, Interesting)
Which came first?
It is very well possible that geothermal activitie at the base of these ice sheets is responsible to the degradation of the ice sheet, no?
You don't need a volcano to erupt to melt ice.
Re: (Score:2)
Geothermal activity under these ice sheets has been continuing for hundreds of times the duration of any human-written books (including books written by people who think their mushrooms are god). Any unusual changes noticeable in a century of observation are something that can be laid at the feet of human-induced biosphere changes.
(BTW, I make my living from the oil indu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Volcanoes are driven by the molten mass that is the core of the Earth which is around 6,000 C. Can you please explain how trace amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are going to affect the core of the Earth. Volcanoes happen when fissures in the Earth's crust open from seismic activity and such and open a channel to the surface. If a large enough channel opens, the ice won't stand a chance.
Global warming has zero affect on volcanoes but you idiots will try anything when imitating Chicken
Re: (Score:2)
The only way that I see reason as to why anthropogenic climate change causes an increase in volcanic activity is the following point of yours.
Volcanoes happen when fissures in the Earth's crust open from seismic activity and such and open a channel to the surface.
We do know that glacial ice can compress the earth's crust. It is not inconceivable that melting ice reduces this compression to the point that channels that had once been sealed due to compression are now open.
Re: (Score:2)
After reading this, I feel this would be fuel for climate deniers. By showing these naturally occurring volcano are what is melting the ice. And not the Ice keeping them cool enough to not go off.
The Science reporting and bringing up climate change, before we have done a lot of research is politically dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Not untrue, but that's not a claim that the actual paper makes (it's journaist-ese).
This is a study of GPR and thru-ice radar results. Noone is claiming they're likely to erupt soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Needs more money for studies I guess.
I really wonder why people write bullshit like this.
You don't get magically more money just because you discover something or are worried ...
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally. Edinburgh is one of the best established universities in the UK (several centuries longer than that irritating rebellion in the penal colonies), and anyone who works there would need some years of poor work before being concerned over their jobs. It's not America, did you notice?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm the GGGP AC, and I'd just like to point out that childish over reactions like these diminish all anonymous voices by training everyone else to ignore them.
Too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We just need a big rock to put into the caldera to plug it up. Oh, and a big 'mission accomplished' sign then we know issue is over.
Domino effect (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
"The most volcanism that is going in the world at present is in regions that have only recently lost their glacier covering – after the end of the last ice age. These places include Iceland and Alaska. Theory suggests that this is occurring because, without ice sheets on top of them, there is a release of pressure on the regions’ volcanoes and they become more active."
Not entirely unimportant, I think.
Re:Domino effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And why would volcanoes around the globe be more active?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
People assume scientists are stupid. And while scientists can act as stupidly as anyone else, generally they're not as dense as laymen seem to think they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Domino effect (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone has motivations. And one of them most people have (scientists more than most) is not to look stupid.
The point of worrying about it is that that's their job.
Re: Domino effect (Score:2)
To predict how it will impact the area and, potentially, the globe. That's why they worry. They worry because it may impact our future in negative ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could be that the volcanoes are more active recently and thus recently lost their glacier covering.
That's one possibility. The article states that the scientists haven't yet established how much, if any, activity there is in those volcanoes. Knowing the activity level is pretty important, and we can't draw any conclusions without that missing information.
I would not be the least bit surprised, though, to discover that the volcanoes are currently completely inactive.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not be the least bit surprised, though, to discover that the volcanoes are currently completely inactive.
Keyword there is "currently." Dormant, and even extinct, volcanoes have a history of moving suddenly to the "active" category.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They are solid all the way down to the surface of the land.
Re: (Score:3)
Ice sheets are sitting on the land. The remnants of ice sheets floating on the ocean are called ice shelves.
I don't know how much energy an individual seamount gives off but all the volcanoes and other geothermal features on the Earth emit about 1/10,000 as much energy the Sun does. That's not enough to have any effect on AGW. And there is no evidence that the level of geothermal activity has changed significantly in the recent past.
Volcanoes can have local effects of course and those under the ice sheet
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about how much energy from the Sun reaches the Earth. The geothermal heat flux is about 0.087 Watts/square meter compared to about 340 W/m^2 from the incoming solar radiation. Geothermal heat flow. [wikipedia.org]
Due to Global Warming (Score:5, Funny)
Man caused the volcanoes to form under the ice by allowing cows to pass gas.
MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS (Score:2, Insightful)
Notice that all the posts (like mine) that are skeptical of global warming have been censored to -1. Science advances when people find problems with current theories and new theories have to be developed to explain the evidence. However, in the case of global warming, all the evidence against it is censored and the researchers have their character attacked. It's a shame that quality research is censored and science is being prevented from advancing in this area.
Re: (Score:3)
Try to post again then, with that evidence and good arguments you promised. If being AC suits you, go for it, otherwise a new account with a pseudonym starts off at a slightly higher score by default.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, in the case of global warming, all the evidence against it is censored
There is no evidence against it.
And because of that mods are tired to see idiots (like you) claiming there would be.
And hence we mod idiotic anti global warming and more so idiotic anti human caused global warming posts down.
What else would you do when a forum is flooded with complete nonsense?
Re: (Score:2)
I notice how global warming alarmist claim that the basis for climate change is very well understood. Then we see new surprises like this that change the equation. All those claims about how good our global warming models are, yet none of them factored in what may be happening right now under those ice sheets. Not to say AGW doesn't exist, but don't be so darn sure you've got it all figured out. Listen to the critics, some of them actually have good points but you'd rather dismiss them all based on those that don't.
Murphy was an optimist.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice how global warming alarmist claim that the basis for climate change is very well understood. Then we see new surprises like this that change the equation. All those claims about how good our global warming models are, yet none of them factored in what may be happening right now under those ice sheets. Not to say AGW doesn't exist, but don't be so darn sure you've got it all figured out. Listen to the critics, some of them actually have good points but you'd rather dismiss them all based on those that don't.
What is "happening right now under those ice sheets" has essentially zero effect on climate models. The total geothermal energy coming out of the Earth is about 1/10,000 of the energy we get from the Sun and there's no indication that the geothermal heat flux has changed significantly in the recent past.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The results are not reproducible.
You made that up. That is the problem with climate science.
Heck, they are going around saying now that climate science is "special" and does not need to be falsifiable.
They are basically redefining the definition of SCIENCE.
http://theconversation.com/cli... [theconversation.com]
Re: MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS (Score:2)
At its core, it is reproducible. Put more energy in, get heat. Greenhouse gasses trap energy. We can reproduce this all day, every day.
Re: MODERATORS ARE CENSORING POSTS (Score:2)
I see. You are being disengenuous.
Or you dont understand the complexity of the subject matter.
The earth ia not a closed system.
And CO2 IR blocking properties are logarithmic.
You pretending its simple and reducing the subject matter to a high school level science experiment means one of two things:
1. You are disengenuous or a liar;
2. You have no understanding of the subject matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest it is you who hasn't any understanding of the subject matter. I, on the other hand, have run a number of the models myself. Yup, you can download 'em and the data - it's not even all that hard. I'm used to modeling large data sets. I freely admit that I'm not a climate scientist - but I am a scientist, specifically, I'm a mathematician. I'm gonna guess I'm a bit more well versed than you, call it a hunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither are the results of astronomy. Much like climate science, we can look at things while they're going on but we can't experiment with them. Are you saying astronomy isn't a real science? It's been considered a real science for centuries, so I'm not sure what definition you think is being redefined.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of CO2 added by industry is very small compared to natural releases, about 5% according to the IPCC website. If you increase the temperature of the ocean naturally (increases in volcanic activity, for example), the water temperature increases, the dissociation constant of water increases, the pH drops, and more CO2 is discharged into the air, which affects the CO2 mass balance equation you describe (as well as increasing the discharge of methane and other dissolved gases as it is well known gaseous solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature for most gases).
Do not trivialize the scientific method by declaring the cause defended by another position noble and just. Yes, reduce pollution, but always question and be willing to be questioned.
I think you're confusing the annual natural cycle of variation in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere with the year to year increase in the average level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The year to year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is a little less than half the total CO2 emitted by human activity. Most of the rest is being absorbed into the oceans.
It is well known that gaseous solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature. But it is also well known that the dissolved gas concentration in a liq
Re: (Score:3)
The evidence available to us debunks the theory that Co2 will cause runaway heat. Its simple as that.
If you could provide this evidence I'd be much appreciative.
Thanks, in advance...
Re: (Score:2)
We're burning lots of fossil carbon, and putting more CO2 into the air. There's more CO2 in the air now than there was, because we put it there (isotopic analysis confirms this). CO2 causes global warming, as has been known for over a century. You could change the analogy to not believing evolution depends on natural selection, I guess.
Also, there seem to be plenty of idiots around who deny that we're experiencing global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there is far more wealth and power in the fossil fuel industries that prefer to ignore AGW. I can't imagine that if some scientists had a serious challenge to the current climate theory they wouldn't be throwing money at them to bring the information to the fore.
Re:Due to Global Warming (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Informative? ROFL!
/*Thinks for a moment*/
Naturally - this angers the volcano gods. They can only be appeased through sacrifice.
Or maybe you know something I don't.
Could you perhaps expand on this a little, blessed prophet of the new age?
Of course (Score:2)
"This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt more ice in region affected by climate change,..."
Not even sure what that means in english, but yes, of course, there must be some way to connect volcanic eruptions (handwaving) & climate change, right?
Predictive analytics (Score:2)
Sea temperature models are so predictive they didn't even need to know about 100 volcanoes. Also, please don't consider what other major variables we may not fully understand
Re: (Score:2)
Of course these volcanoes are under the ice sheet, not under the ocean. And regardless there aren't enough volcanoes in the ocean to significantly affect sea temperatures (except very locally around the volcano). The total geothermal heat flux is 1/10,000 of the energy coming in from the Sun so the effect is minuscule.
This is ACTUAL evidence of climate change (Score:3)
But not the man made variety. This is evidence of NATURAL climate change. In order for nearly 100 volcanoes to be underneath 2km of ice, what happened? Climate change. Once upon a time, that area was presumably very hot and with frequent volcanic activity. Some type of climate change occurred, a very radical one and all the volcanoes froze underneath all that ice.
There is no "natural" homeostasis for climate. Any suggestion of the like is really just human beings wanting to keep the climate ideal to their species' preferences indefinitely. Believe it or not, that is actually unnatural. It goes directly against the principles of entropy at work in the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
>. Some type of climate change occurred
Yeah, plate tectonics pushed the continent over the south pole. It used to be much closer to the equator.
"Some 200 million years ago, Antarctic continental crust was joined with South American, African, Indian, and Australian continental crust making up a large southern land mass known as Gondwana (the southern part of the supercontinent called Pangea). After this time, Gondwana slowly split apart to create Antarctica as a separate continent, and Antarctica has gra
Re: (Score:2)
>. Some type of climate change occurred
Yeah, plate tectonics pushed the continent over the south pole. It used to be much closer to the equator.
"Some 200 million years ago, Antarctic continental crust was joined with South American, African, Indian, and Australian continental crust making up a large southern land mass known as Gondwana (the southern part of the supercontinent called Pangea). After this time, Gondwana slowly split apart to create Antarctica as a separate continent, and Antarctica has gradually moved away from the other southern continents towards its present polar position."
http://discoveringantarctica.o... [discoverin...ica.org.uk]
Yes I'm aware of that and that further supports my claim. You just describing the more specific contributing factors to the natural climate change. Thank you for that.
Re: (Score:2)
You are engaging in a logical fallacy.
No. Where did I say all climate change is natural? You are actually engaged in a cognitive bias thinking that I claimed something that I didn't because you are inferring something about what I'm thinking without actually knowing what I'm thinking.
Some climate change is natural, and in fact we've been experiencing natural cooling climatic conditions for 8000 years. The current climate change is not likely to be natural, is likely to be costly to adapt to, and may induce changes to the climate which are very damaging.
The way I read this particular bit "The current climate change is not likely to be natural" you can re-word it like so "At some point climate change became all unnatural and is no longer natural." The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim true. I would
Re: (Score:2)
Are you looking for a medal? Because you won't like the one you've earned.
You're coming off like a climate change denier (and you should know what I mean by that without me adding a 'wall of text' qualifier).
The choices appear to be that you're trolling, you're ignorant, or you are fundamentally incapable of understanding how to communicate with your audience. So you can think yourself oh-so-clever for being technically correct while everyone misunderstands you, or you can improve the clarity of your comm
What's up with the map? Made by idiots. (Score:2)
The map of Antartica has an "East" and "West" half. There is no such thing. Everything not in the center is in the South. The part that is close to South America is just as much West as it is East. The part that is closer to Australia is also just as much West as it is East.
A helpful map of Antartica would have arrows pointing towards South America, Africa, and Australia.
But the words East and West has no business being on a map of the Antartica, or of the North Pole. Also, while you could put the w
Re: (Score:2)
You could say the same about any place in the world. The "western" world is just as much east of the "eastern" world as it is west. If you live in America and you want to get to China you fly *west*.
So that we can talk about direction we specify everything relative to the (mostly) arbitrary reference of the prime meridian. That makes China east and the US west. It also makes the Antarctic have an eastern part (which is in the eastern hemisphere) and a western part (in the western hemisphere).
Re: (Score:2)
The map of Antartica has an "East" and "West" half. There is no such thing. Everything not in the center is in the South. The part that is close to South America is just as much West as it is East. The part that is closer to Australia is also just as much West as it is East.
However, people that actually study antarctica apparently have a different opinion:
"Although the Antarctic Ice Sheet is a continuous mass of ice, but it is sometimes helpful to think of it as two separate masses known as the West Antarctic and East Antarctic ice sheets, which are separated by the Transantarctics. Ice on the west side of this line flows west, while the opposite happens east of the divide." [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
You are a nitpicking idiot.
And you fail at nitpicking: Everything not in the center is in the South. You meant North here.
And if you would look on a map of Antarctica, you would easy understand which part is east and wich part is west. Facepalm.
There is even a part of Antarctica that is explicitly named west antarctica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I hope you never get lost there or have at least correct longitude/latitude information in case you insist that you are "just north" of the south pole ... m
Re: (Score:2)
Names are different than directions. I checked the map and the wiki page and the part the article's map called "West" is not near "West Antartica". So they are doubly wrong, and you as well for defending their stupidity.
And you are exactly why the internet has a bad name. You admit I am generally correct, providing me with even more so, but dislike my topic, so you hope I die and call me a moron.
Thank you for personally filling the world with more useless hate. Good luck with your hate filled life.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, look at the map.
Draw a vertical line in the middle (actually from longitude 0 towards longitude 180)
Left side is west, right side is east.
Argue as long as you want. That is how people navigating there are using the map.
West Anarctica is the north west peninsula ... you must have problems with your eyes.
No idea hat you mean with hate, the only thing I hate is stupidity :D especially regarding stuff that could save your life if you get over your stupidity.
Again: if you crash there in a helicopter around
Re: (Score:2)
The South Pole is neither east nor west. The log sheet of USS Nautilus going over the North Pole had a little dash in the longitude field. Once you move north from the South Pole (easy to do if you're not already frozen), you have a longitude that will be either east or west (or 0 or 180, I guess). Antarctica is not the South Pole except for a set of measure zero, so there is an East and a West Antarctica.
The actual paper (not a newspaper article) (Score:2)
Read. Enjoy!
Re:Map with topo data showing volcanoes (Score:5, Funny)
Sigh. After all these years of avoiding that, you finally got me, and at work no less.
Re:Map with topo data showing volcanoes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Map with topo data showing volcanoes (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And translating you (Score:2, Insightful)
You improperly read and pull any old shite from your anus to fling at science because it shows a problem your politics would rather ignore and cannot handle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To all of you, who increasingly reject science as false (without knowing what you are talking about): If you want to call yourselves honest, please stop using anything science has given you. Don't look at weather forecasts - they are produced by the same basic models as climate calculations. In fact, get rid of television, computers, mobiles, air conditioning - anything electric, really - don't use clothes, medicine etc etc. All of these are the products of scientific theories that are no more certain than
Re: (Score:2)