Hole Bigger Than The Grand Canyon Discovered In Antarctica

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampent ... nd-canyon/

First Greenland, now Antarctica. I wonder how similar holes have yet to be discovered.

This must be one of the two polar openings that lead into the interior of the Hollow Earth., where the UFOs come from.


Beware! Here there be Shoggoths.

It's not a hole, it's a valley, which according to the article is still packed with glacial icepack.

FWIW, The Barranca de Cobre in the state of Chihuahua, Mex. is also much bigger than the Grand Canyon, and is accessible by a very cool passenger train.

I study climate. This is one of many of the worst developments we had hoped never to hear in our lifetime.
Climate change is hitting this "wrong planet" much faster than everyone had hoped it would.

When do you suppose we will have actual genuine climate science, instead of the doctrine of models that can be fit to data to promote any agenda?

How about if we pay higher taxes?, I understand that's the only thing that can save us from Global Warming.

When do you suppose we will have actual genuine climate science, instead of the doctrine of models that can be fit to data to promote any agenda?[/quote]

Depends where you look, friend. There is a ton of crap out there being promoted by politicians and industry (the richest corporations in the world). This is the same crap that you have been eating.

However, when you look to the science, you see that over 97% percent of scientists "agree". Meaning, their data matches. They aren't in any debate about whether or not it is happening. Rather, they are trying to assess just how bad it is going to be, whether or not it is already too late to stop it (the runaway effects ( "positive feedback loops" ), and what we might be able to do to mitigate some of its effects.

How about if we pay higher taxes?, I understand that's the only thing that can save us from Global Warming.[/quote]

Sounds like you know a lot about something I somehow haven't heard of before, Nambo. What is this tax system that has been proposed? Or, are you referring to Fee and Dividend, or Cap and Trade, (neither of which functions as a tax).
I am aware of a plethora of strategies which would need to be undertaken, aside from economic strategies of moving money around.

Or, maybe you were just trying to be a smart ass, tooting "neoconservative" propaganda, and playing the fool.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about global warming. I hear it can only make the temperature go up by about five degrees Celsius, which is still well within survivable levels. I mean, think about it, if your summers were five degrees hotter you wouldn't die right? Sure, maybe it might cause a bit of aridification which might kill a few million people with famine but... if only a few million die out of billions, that means my only one in a thousand will die. I like those odds.

And who causes the most global warming? Environmentalists of course. They want to shut down all the nuclear power plants and halt the production of new ones because they're afraid of a bit of radiation. So instead of getting electricity from nuclear power plants we end up burning fossil fuels instead. Environmentalists want us to get our power from wind and solar but they don't provide baseline power so we still burn coal and gas most of the time. They think so long as they get a fraction of their power from green sources, eh... close enough. Same with their cars. They just drive those Prius cars which still derive all of their energy from petroleum distillate. Why are they hybrids then? Because they recapture about one percent of their energy through regenerative breaking. As we know, environmentalists think causing a bit less pollution is as good as causing none at all. In their mind having a Prius is the same as having an electric car.

Another source of green power? Hydro electric dams. Environmentalists are against those as well because they might drown a few squirrels or something. Don't they know if they sacrifice a few scenic valleys they could save many others? Think how much green electricity we could generate if we came up with a sensible plan like putting a dam across Gibraltar Straight. The environmentalists would probably find fault with that too.

These decedent environmentalists we only eat organic food and then they complain about land clearance when organic farming processes (a misnomer I think because all farming is organic) are so inefficient they take up twice as much land and produce no health benefits at all. And then they're against genetic engineering which could allow us to increase yields and further reduce land clearance and prevent famines and blindness from vitamin A deficiency. But environmentalists don't like genetic engineering. They probably don't like any form of modern technology. Some of the smarter ones say super-crops may out compete natural flora, resulting in a loss a loss of biodiversity but crops aren't better at surviving than natural flora, they simply produce higher yields at the expense of survivability, which is why they have to be tended by farmers instead of growing by themselves. After all, if genetic alteration produced super plants then wouldn't millenia of selective breeding have already produced the same effect?

That's what a few of the smart ones say but most environmentalists are not so smart. They say they will never eat GM food because they think it will harm them when they've already been eating it for years. They say we need to study the effects on health when most of the world's population have already been exposed to no ill effect. In their warped minds, they think the so-called franken genes will mix with their genes. In truth genes are so delicate they cannot survive the digestive process and besides, it has never been in our nature to absorb genetic material from our food. Even the most natural sources of food still contain non-human genetic material (hopefully) which would still represent foreign genetic material so why would we have evolved to take on the traits of our lunch? We have better ways of ensuring genetic diversity.

And most of these beret wearing hipster environmentalists use Macs instead of PCs. It takes more resources to own a Mac than a PC. You can't upgrade it, you have to buy a new one. The cases are hermetically sealed and the RAM is soldered to the board. With their all-in-one desktops you can't even buy a new computer without also buying a new screen and vice versa. Apple must be stopped. Their terrible ergonomics have caused many deaths from carpel tunnel syndrome and their frustrating interface has angered many people until they had heart attacks.

Well here in the UK it was indeed getting warmer, at least the winters were, then they put up car tax on bigger vehicles to combat Global Warming, and you know it actually worked! the temperature hasn't gone up at all for about 19 years now, in fact its getting a lot colder, even as far as April last year it was still freezing cold.

I think we are going to have to cut taxes here as its going to far in the other direction, we dont want to start an Ice age!

Ya'll go ahead and have some fun acting like you know what what you're talking about. You'll trick *some* people!

For anyone who is interested in a sincere exchange about climate science, pm me. Or start your own thread, of course, if you are willing to surrender your thread to the climate denial cult.

I have little patience for the wise guys who refuse to consider or address anything is offered to them which doesn't fit their story about reality, and who post litanies of emotionally over-charged and scientifically unfounded declamations.

The latest predictive models suggest it only requires a 4C increase to wipe out all terrestrial life.

Of course because if we've already experienced one degree out of five of our anticipated warming, if the temperature had gone up one degree already, then obviously the winters should now be boiling in a country known for relatively cold winters and occasional sub-zero temperatures. Raising the temperature by one degree is enough to make it go from freezing to roasting right?



I'm not quite sure I buy this runaway greenhouse thing. Did that happen in the Cretaceous? No. Life thrived. The earth bloomed. If we entered a new tropical era many species would go extinct but the ones that replaced them would prosper.

I doubt it will be the end of all human life. We have a tendency to survive in dire circumstances after all. It surely couldn't be the end of all life. Even extremophiles? Bacteria that lives far underground or creatures that take their energy from hydrothermal vents. It's very hard to kill all life. Think of how life managed to survive the snowball earth. Even after the Earth is swallowed by the sun our legacy shall spread across the cosmos. The only force that is guaranteed to destroy all life is the heat death of the universe. Not even Univac can save us.

Okay so maybe I was being half sarcastic before but I feel like I have to take half measures when I'm surrounded by such madness on both sides. Climates deniers to the right of me and climate exaggerators to the left of me. Global warming is real and there's nothing we can do about it so we might as well just enjoy it. We've already released so many greenhouse gases than any reduction from now on wouldn't make a significant difference.

Driving smaller, more efficient cars won't help. If we use half as much petrol per year than it will last twice as long and we'll end up burning the same amount. Small cars are actually part of the oil companies plan to make more money. That's right, buying less petrol from them actually causes them to make more money. They've calculated how much the average family can afford to spend on petrol per week. If the Smiths can afford to spend $100 per week and they buy a smaller car now the oilco can charge them the same $100 per week for half as much petrol. The petrol holds out of twice as long so now oilco makes the same profit per year for twice as many years. It's sort of like limiting the supply of diamonds to make them more expensive.

I feel I'm the only sane man between all these liberals and conservatives. Neither side of the climate change debate actually seems to care about climate change and with all these Amish conservatives and Luddite liberals I'm certain neither side gives a damn about science. Both sides of the debate only care about one thing. Politics. preaching or denying climate change has turned into nothing more than a way to promote liberal or conservative ideals respectively. After all, the climate doesn't care whether or not your taxes go up.

I wouldn't expect much scientific inquiry from what the GOP has turned into nowdays but I'm surprised that environmentalists promote just as much pseudoscience and seem to be opposed to any technology invented after about 1940, even if it could help their cause. Environmentalists should know that science could help prove them right and yet all I see are environmentalists who are anti-science.

Narcissistic rubbish.
Real science is being done by real scientists at thousands of real scintific institutions around the planet. The one I know best is here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/o ... te-physics

You think you're the only one! Ridiculous. Honestly.

Of course I know I'm not literally the only one. I wasn't suggesting there's anything wrong with real climate scientists or that they don't exist in the first place. I was referring to the general culture, both sides, not just stuff in the media but now nearly everyone seems to be reacting to it, one way or the other. See the debate above for an example. We've got climate deniers on the one hand but these climate exaggerators are just as bad since they discredit their own cause.

What I hate most of all is how both sides have become heavily politicized. Not for scientists obviously but in the popular culture and in the minds of our policy makers (though I don't think politicians can help but think politically). Your average joe doesn't seem to understand that scientific outcomes aren't determined by politics. They don't even agree or disagree with climate change due to scientific analysis but simply due to whichever political tribes they happen to belong to.

It doesn't seem to matter too much anyway since even accurate climate models only token efforts are made to reduce greenhouse emissions and nothing will be done about the past centuries of industrial activity. Our not so mad scientists seem reluctant to use climate engineering. I guess they're too busy with their ethics committees.

So it seems nothing will be done except to create a pop science media storm. We'll just ride it out over the next few centuries and we'll probably survive. There's no need to see the glass as half empty. I'm optimistic that no more than a few million people will be killed and the rest of us will get off lightly with survivable levels of suffering.

People won't be able to change their lifestyles*.

Ironic that my disability (ASD) has made me carbon positive.

*
stop having kids
stop driving (live close to work)
rain water and backyard farms
go easy on the power
whatnot

People just won't do that.