Grand Canyon-sized valley found beneath Antarctica
Ice-penetrating radar was towed across the Antarctic ice sheet to reveal the massive valley below.
July 26th, 2012
01:47 PM ET

Grand Canyon-sized valley found beneath Antarctica

British researchers say they've discovered a massive rift valley beneath the Antarctic ice sheet that rivals the Grand Canyon in depth and is contributing to ice loss on the continent.

“If you stripped away all of the ice here today, you’d see a feature every bit as dramatic as the huge rift valleys you see in Africa and in size as significant as the Grand Canyon," the lead researcher, Robert Bingham, a glaciologist at the University of Aberdeen, said in a press release.

Fausto Ferraccioli, Bingham's co-author and geophysicist from British Antarctic Survey, said the valley allows warmer ocean waters to contact glacial ice, contributing to the melting seen on the continent.

“What this study shows is that this ancient rift basin, and the others discovered under the ice that connect to the warming ocean, can influence contemporary ice flow and may exacerbate ice losses by steering coastal changes further inland,” Ferraccioli said.

The work of the researchers was reported this week in the journal Nature.

The valley is in West Antarctica, which is losing ice faster than other parts of the continent, the researchers say.

“Thinning ice in West Antarctica is currently contributing nearly 10% of global sea level rise. It’s important to understand this hot spot of change so we can make more accurate predictions for future sea level rise,” David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey's Ice2sea program, said.

The researchers came across the valley, which lies below the Ferrigno Ice Stream, in 2010 during three months of fieldwork on Antarctic ice loss. The area had not been explored in five decades.

“For some of the glaciers, including Ferrigno Ice Stream, the losses are especially pronounced, and, to understand why, we needed to acquire data about conditions beneath the ice surface,” Bingham said in the University of Aberdeen release.

The team used ice-penetrating radar over a 1,500-mile flat stretch of ice sheet, an effort that revealed the massive valley.

“What we found is that lying beneath the ice there is a large valley, parts of which are approximately a mile deeper than the surrounding landscape," Bingham said.

In comparison, the Grand Canyon falls off 7,000 feet, or 2,100 meters, at its south rim in Arizona, according to the National Park Service.

Post by:
Filed under: News
soundoff (353 Responses)
  1. Shamim

    Too bad the Piri Reis map only shows northern Antarctica or this wouldn't be such a surprise 🙂

    July 27, 2012 at 11:47 am |
  2. MrApplesauce

    Buy your land in the Antarctic Valley now. It will be the most temperate place to live in a few centuries.

    July 27, 2012 at 11:36 am |
  3. Shamim

    Too bad the Piri Reis map only showed northern Antarctica or we wouldn't be so surprised 🙂

    July 27, 2012 at 11:27 am |
  4. jmissal

    Quick...ban continental rift valleys. They contribute to "global warming".

    July 27, 2012 at 11:22 am |
  5. anon

    Just wait til they reveal a technologically advanced city under all that Ice.

    July 27, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • Alex

      how do you know

      January 19, 2013 at 8:42 am |
  6. LT7890

    People have allready forgot that the O-Zone layer is that protective material thinner than a dime that keeps X-RAY and GAMMA Radiation from reaching planet Earth , A hugh portion of that has been destroyed by CFC's , Nuclear Radiation and Gasses from Volucanos , It appears that man has totally ignored this problem because it would cost to much to stop it , A very unpopular subject amoung billionairs .

    July 27, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • bob

      The ozone problem is pretty much solved, you may want to check your facts on that one.

      July 27, 2012 at 11:22 am |
      • itoddmoore

        The ozone layer hole and the supposed solution legislated into effect banning CFC's was one of several environmentalist triumphs – but th hole was in all likelyhood never due to human contributions. Yet we contine to pay the price for their folly to this day.

        July 27, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • Bill from GA

      Gee, I thought those changes in Air conditioners, aerosols, and stuff like that were actually helping. You know, old fashion 80's stuff.

      When I was young, we could play outside without sunscreen.

      July 27, 2012 at 11:43 am |
      • katmandont

        You must've grown up in the northern parts of the country–or have a really bad memory.

        July 27, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • Derp

      Derp Derp Derp Derp

      July 27, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Pppa

      Wasn't that the ozone hole that looked like Michael Jackson?

      July 27, 2012 at 11:54 am |
  7. Exporer 1

    It looks cold there.

    July 27, 2012 at 11:05 am |
  8. relians

    i sent them my old ice maker. maybe that will help?

    July 27, 2012 at 10:58 am |
  9. chuck

    Please whatever we do, we should not drill under the Ferrigno Ice Stream! Otherwise that guy who lives down there will get angry, turn green, and we will be forced to sit through another stupid Hollywood movie.

    July 27, 2012 at 10:38 am |
  10. DG

    Mark – just a journalistic point. If you are comparing two items, please do the reader a favor and use the same units of measure. You show a quote saying parts are approximately a mile deeper, and then say that this is compared to the Grand Canyon which is 7,000ft or 2,100 meters. Why bother to convert feet to meters if you leave the other side in miles??

    July 27, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • CT

      I think most people learn there are 5,280 feet in a mile somewhere around age 10.

      July 27, 2012 at 10:49 am |
      • DH

        I wasn't going to say anything, but CT is correct. You should have learned basic conversions when you were in middle or high school.

        July 27, 2012 at 11:09 am |
      • History Bear

        With the modern educational system are you kidding. Most of these are lucky to find the antartic let alone remember basic measurements. He has a good point. Quit mixing your units of measure.

        July 27, 2012 at 11:17 am |
      • ItsDaPoleece

        Maybe you fellas read a lot of awkwardly written news articles that typically require a lot of conversion between miles and feet/meters, but I sure dont. I realize we all learned this crucial conversion info somewhere around 4th or 5th grade, but I probably forgot it sometime in the 20 years that followed. The rest of the story was decently written, but that comparison was definitely an obvious lapse in judgment by this reporter. That's just my opinion though. 🙂 Overall the article taught me something I didn't know, and then surprisingly so did the comments. I'd say I fared quite well today.

        July 29, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
  11. Mark

    isn't this what happened in the first alien vs predator movie, big valley deep under antarctica where the queen of the aliens slept :O

    July 27, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • Emigdio

      I was thinking of "The Thing."

      July 27, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Chrono

      Can we not talk about Alien vs. Predator? Those movies were horrible.

      I seriously think that the studio bought a generic horror/scifi script that they couldn't get produced and said "Hey, lets add Aliens and Predators".

      July 27, 2012 at 11:01 am |
  12. Sean

    Reminds me of 'At the Mountains of Madness' by H.P. Lovecraft.

    July 27, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • absoluteabsence

      I was thinking the same thing, maybe they'll find some star stones – 'At the Mountains' is a great novelette!

      July 27, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • droz

      Ha! That's what I was thinking. Whatever you do, don't look back as you leave:)

      July 27, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • History Bear

      No No No, you got it all wrong. It's Middle Earth after the volcanoe blew and created a "nuclear" winter. Place used to look like New Zealand except with hobbitts.

      July 27, 2012 at 11:20 am |
  13. MNfree

    Oh the wonderful words of: could, possibly, maybe, might be, sort of, and almost. They can answer any question, without you being wrong! They are awesome.

    July 27, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • Reason

      Sometimes, one is not sure. Recognizing that is one of the prerequisites for scientific investigation. It is important to be able to say "I don't know".

      They don't know. They're trying to find out. Why is that a problem for you?

      July 27, 2012 at 10:48 am |
  14. JoeRepublican

    Good! All the more reason why we SHOULD make global warming real, not that it is. Let's strip mine it, set up a bunch of military bases, and start drilling for oil.
    Who am I kidding? I would have suggested that, valley or no.

    July 27, 2012 at 9:06 am |
    • Chrono

      No one can lay claim to Antarctica for anything other than scientific exploration.

      July 27, 2012 at 9:25 am |
      • Bad-Karma

        Until a country comes along and occupies it with enough force to keep anyone else from laying claim to it. At that point the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) is little more than useless paper.

        July 27, 2012 at 10:05 am |
      • CT

        They used to say the same thing about North & South America.

        July 27, 2012 at 10:51 am |
  15. Facts don't do what we want them to...

    July 27, 2012 at 8:55 am |
    • MAL

      Clearly you didn't actually read that article, or follow up. It was done in 2009. The Wilkins Ice Shelf they mentioned, that could melt away? Yeah, it did. And since then, sea ice on the Antarctic peninsula has been melting away at record rates. Do a little research, or maybe even read the article before you use it in an argument.

      July 27, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Germanicus

      Sea Ice has expanded in the past but the land locked ice has diminished. In fact melting land glaciers explain the cause of the increase in sea ice. Cold fresh water runoff underneath the continental ice in Antarctica will pour into the sea which will drop the temperature of the ocean adjacent to the continent and dilute the salivation of the coastal water which would raise the freezing point of the water.

      July 27, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
  16. patsy47

    I'm afraid you're misinformed on that point, sir. Fossil evidence proves that there were once "tropical" swamps and cold-blooded creatures living in Antartica. It wasn't always covered in ice.

    July 27, 2012 at 8:44 am |
  17. Paul

    Well, now that the ice is melting at an accelerated rate then soon we will be able to explore this wonderful valley. Amazing!

    July 27, 2012 at 7:39 am |
  18. Angela

    Someone mentioned Admiral Byrd. I love a good conspiracy theory! Google it, along with hollow earth, agarthIans, inter dimensional merkaba & crystalline earth, UFOs, Atlantis & Lemurian descendants, nazis & Antarctica, illuminati & greys vs. universal council of divine light, & light all ties together in it's own way. Gets a bit weird, but fun reads, never the less. Makes you think a bit more about the world as we know it.

    July 26, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
    • Hear Ye

      I think you need a hobby.

      July 27, 2012 at 8:10 am |
      • patsy47

        That IS her hobby! And a really neat one, IMHO.

        July 27, 2012 at 8:34 am |
    • jkflipflop

      Who knows? Maybe there really is some ancient civilization that we've completely forgotten about buried under all that ice. Antarctica used to be a rainforest, afterall.

      July 27, 2012 at 9:01 am |
      • Chrono

        That civilization would have to be very old considering that Antarctica has been like it is currently for the past several million years.

        July 27, 2012 at 9:40 am |
  19. Polli

    You know I have always thought it possible we have the mechanism of light all "traveling" light is possibly all wrong. then, and I am not a rocket scientist, but iI think, intuitively, that the power of the "Void" is more like a lattice like Jello....and moves like jello in a way so...that true "travel" can be assessed at faster speeds only by unlocking the immediate door to the next instant door and shuttingit behind....otherwise there is too much drag and hence...slow speeds...if you loook at it from this 'Packet theory-kind of like pillows in your way...and then unlocking to compltetely open unfetterd then there is no be removal of the item that causes the structure, ok, mass, will you eleiminate the drag that casues the heat...right? a key that opens the door instead of beating the door down...

    July 26, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • Tony L. - Atlanta

      Ok... what are you talking about?

      July 27, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • Exporer 1

      UHmmmm...that would be interesting if it made any sense. I don't know where to begin to tell you , well, from the first word it didn't make any sense.

      July 27, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Bob Bennet're actually not far off from Einstein's view of space or "void", rather than a jello analogy you'll hear references to the "fabric of the space-time continuum". I think you'd be off base on the heat & drag theory however since that is caused by movement through an atmosphere and there is no atmosphere in space.

      July 27, 2012 at 11:17 am |
    • Al Gore

      I agree 100%. You are not a rocket scientist.

      July 27, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
  20. Polli

    I thought the largest VOLCANO was under the ice this part of the Volcano????

    July 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
  21. Polli

    No body mentions the obvious things....1) more solar flares adn gamma rays that heats the core 2) removal of the earth's coolant-oil....just like in your car engine ...3) are we getting closer to the sun or is the sun heating up 4 ) Is the eartha ctually spinning faster or slower and we are getting hotter...maybe the mantel isn't but the rest is moving faster...5 ) are we getting closer tos ome other very hot object....kind of scary isn't it...suppose this Mayan calendar thing is the item which is causing all the heat, like a mintiature collpased star...shouldn't we know about that?? 5) vocanic activity increasing because of the earth contracting and starting more friction which in turn causes the earth to heat up....6) pobbibility of a black hole immenent we can't see....maybe we are so close to some immense gravitational friction in space...maybe the galaxy is rubbing on to speak and we are going to get hotter and hotter....7)maybe the sun is emitting more gamma rays or some other rays we don't know about....8) maybe we are getting too hot inside our core....7) maybe we are at the end of a cycle and we are going to stop, flip over or start turning the other way and the aearth's inner core has started to heat up becasue it is not turning enough, turning too much, or broken thru to the shallower crust all over the world....just a few things to think about...8) besides maybe we are being stretched out now by gravitatinal forces pulling on the earth in various directions.....I vote on the Mayan "warrior"...what if there is a dwarf that comes around of incredible colapse...would we have been able to detect long before it gets here and causes our earth to burn up or maybe 9)..maybe the cosmos aliens have aimed a solar ray at us and are waiting to see up burn and pop....Just thought I would mention the obvious.....

    July 26, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
    • uhhh

      You have too much time on your hands. Go outside and play!

      July 27, 2012 at 11:26 am |
  22. james

    So how much did it cost to find this out Huh? And so theres lots of valleys on the moon too.

    July 26, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
  23. ron

    Is there any possibility that the sun is actually gotting hotter, exclusive of our actions?

    July 26, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
    • Chrono

      That isn't scheduled to happen for the next few millions years.

      July 27, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • Robert

      Yes, humans are causing solar warming. Get rid of your car, now.

      July 27, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • JeramieH

      Let's say it is. Let's say the cause of global warming is truly irrelevant, only that it's happening. What do we do about it?

      July 27, 2012 at 10:12 am |
  24. juju

    No one is asking questions I find both interesting and disturbing: What are the Global Oil Moguls using to melt the Icebergs in Alaska? Are they doing this from under the sea or from the sky? Is it possible because of what they are doing that it is throwing everything out of whack? You know first cause. And how long have they been doing this? And have they done this anywhere besides Alaska IceBergs? Finally, since this info has been out since July 16th, –why isn't the media covering it big time? Or are they lost on the Bridge to Nowhere? Ck. out ANONYMOUS hackers target Exxon, Shell,....

    July 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
    • Al Gore

      Lex Luthor is doing it.

      July 27, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
  25. t-bird

    Global warming is happening, it just may not be caused by humans only. There seems to be this idea that it's a "one thing OR another" deal, not the (most likely) work of MANY forces at once. We may be contributing to it, but we're not the ONLY cause.

    July 26, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
    • D B in MO

      I believe that t-bird. That's one of our problems, it has to be OR all the time. Problems are rarely that simple. Many things can contribute independently and most likely are.

      July 27, 2012 at 9:30 am |
  26. Jeffision

    They discovered the opening to the underworld where the anti-santa lives. He emerges and whups buttt every couple of thousand years. Look out humans, you've been bad boys and girls and now anti-santa is coming to town.

    July 26, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
    • JeramieH

      If anti-santa is the one who delivers coal to stockings, I'm thinking – new source of coal.

      July 27, 2012 at 10:13 am |
  27. Sharp

    Cool science but do not be fooled: There is no such thing as Global Warming. Mitt Romney & Bush the Younger told me so.

    July 26, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
  28. No fool

    I find it comforting that significant numbers of people care enough about the planet and about their fellow-creatures to spend precious time sharing their views in a site like this one. To me, it's like reading the Letters to the Editor of not-so-local newspapers. I feel that the truth will emerge sooner or later and ... just hope it won't be too late. I don't think I have ever said here before. Besides, what is worth saying once usually needs to be repeated before it sinks in.

    July 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
  29. No fool

    I find it comforting that significant numbers of people care enough about the planet and about their fellow-creatures to spend precious time sharing their views in a site like this one. To me, it's like reading the Letters to the Editor of not-so-local newspapers. I feel that the truth will emerge sooner or later and ... just hope it won't be too late.

    July 26, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
  30. w l jones

    If had a deep cavern in the Antartic hot water in cold freezen water out there by balance it self out with tides.

    July 26, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
  31. qularknoo

    so exciting. change is a wonderful thing. and with all that ice melting the oceans will be cooled down and that will oppose the effects of global warming .... but in the long run ... imagine all the new fauna and flora that will emerge with the changes we are experiencing through evolutionary pressure ....

    July 26, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
    • Florida Bill

      You are not taking into account the decreased salinity of the ocean and the slowing down of the gyre that (the Gulf Stream is part of it) that circulates water around the planet. Ultimately you might be right it will result in cooling, but there will first be all kinds of natural catastrophes.

      July 26, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • mkat2

      Quick! Someone tell Al Gore! Ahhh, so it isn't 'man-made' global warming after all! Natural forces, just as I suspected!

      July 26, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
      • Sean

        The climate is changing; denying that is kind of silly since it always changes and will always continue to change. Sometimes the change is an advantage to humans (and other life) and sometimes it isn't. The contention about 'human-caused' climate change is valid; to postulate that humans have zero impact on the environment around us is silly.

        So, the real question isn't whether or not humans are 'responsible' for climate change; but what can we do to ensure that contribute to a habitable planet considering ALL the factors that contribute to climate change?

        July 27, 2012 at 9:08 am |
  32. dont believe the hype

    Someone said Antartica was always covered with ice. then I guess the Sahara Desert was always hot? Guess again. Approximately 50,000 yrs ago it was a large sea. This has been proven by the fact that whale bones have been found in the middle of the Sahara. The only thing that is certain about life is that it is uncertain. "1500 years ago we all KNEW that we were the center of the universe. 500 years ago we all KNEW the earth was flat. Just what will we KNOW tomorrow."

    July 26, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
  33. organically

    In spite of the endless proof of human induced climate change, some of the population is still in denial. There are two reasons for this (1) the occasional negative news story on the science of climate change, and (2) Rightist conservatives radicals and tea partiers either are deniers or simply do not care. There are deniers in every scientific fact. Climate change deniers threaten humanity. Reversing climate change is impossible at this point due to the international thirst for fossil fuels and our overall society living standard. This is not going to change. So, rather than talking about stopping climate change, let’s ignore the utopian deniers and begin a dialogue on how to adapt and stop dwelling on things like Solyndra and the pipeline.

    July 26, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • scott

      couldnt agree more.....adapt and overcome.We will be waste deep in water and the deniers will still be denieng{sp}...we had better learn how to live in a new world!!!!!

      July 26, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • CSJr

      Deniers. I think of them like frogs in a pot of water. Turn up the heat slowly and they dont even know about it until they are dead.

      July 27, 2012 at 8:27 am |
    • jkflipflop

      Lets just ignore the fact that we are currently in an ice age. Let's also ignore that in the Earth's natural state there isn't any ice at all on the surface of this planet. Let's also ignore the core sampling data that tells us it is time for the Earth to go back to it's natural state (which is an average temperature increase of 12 degrees centigrade worldwide).

      Humans are such arrogant imbeciles to think our little bit of being here has affected an entire planet.

      July 27, 2012 at 9:10 am |
    • Arthur

      Look the climate of the earth is always changing. Imagine, millions of years ago Saudi Arabia was on a tropical rain forest! More recently, the last Ice Age ended about 10 to 15 thousand years ago. Fifteen thousand years is a blink of the eye on the Earth’s geological time scale. Since the Ice Age ended, glacial ice around the world has receded and mankind's population has exploded. Something melted 2 to 3 thousand feet thick ice- more than one half mile thick solid ice! All you mankind global warming fanatics please explain the Ice Ages disappearing please. There were no coal fire plants or SUV's then and yet that very thick ice melted away. Our climate is controlled by larger forces than mankind. My guess is that the Sun's energy output is not constant as we think it is. Small fluctuations in solar energy output drives and changes the earth's climate. The earth's surface is 70 percent water, and the oceans heat content varies with the Sun's solar input, which in turn drives most of the large scale ocean and upper air currents around the world. I read yesterday that St Louis, Mo and the surrounding states were experiencing the hottest summer since 1921. Well back in 1921 there were many less buildings and air conditioning systems did not exist. Air conditioners exhaust their hot air to the surrounding outside area and buildings hold the daytime heating much more than trees and grass. Inversions develop and enough of the hot air gets trapped to impact the temperature readings. I live in NYC and it’s very common to see a morning temperature difference of 10 or more degrees between rural areas and the city. All these record average daily temperatures recorded this summer in the Midwest would be somewhat lower if there were the same number of buildings and streets as there were in 1921. The urban heat island effect artificially raises surface temperatures especially at night. I know NOAA “adjusts” the temperature measurements at all urban and suburban weather station sites, but those adjustments can never be done correctly. Studies have shown the net adjustment in most cases results in a positive temperature bias. So when they compute the daily average the resulting temperature value has been overestimated as compared to those temperature readings collected during the early part of the 1900’s when the US population and cities were much smaller. Take a look at Wien’s Law of Black Body Radiation to learn more of what I am taking about. Also back in the early 1990’s the NWS significantly reduced the number of weather monitoring locations in rural areas (in an effort to save money). As a result today’s USA weather station network consists of disproportionately more of urban thermometers. It’s a fact. So when they compute the daily averages they always show a net increase in temperatures as compared to average temperatures measured in the early part of the 20th century. Slick way to trick the public that there is “manmade” global warming. Please keep an open mind it spite of what they are teaching our children in school.

      July 27, 2012 at 11:20 am |
      • Fat Cat

        I'm not a science guru, but what you're saying is dead-on, Arthur. I used to wonder when I was a teenager why, when my boyfriend and I would be out riding his motorcycle late at night, it was so much cooler out in the country than it was in town. After living life for a few more years and paying a little "common sense" to how things just are, I realized that with more buildings and pavement in town to soak up the daytime heat, it took longer to cool down at night in the middle of town. Amazing what common sense can do for you!

        July 27, 2012 at 11:47 am |
      • Thomas

        True, mind-bogglingly simplistic and irrelevant.

        The fact that the climate has always been changing doesn't explain the drastic changes that have happened in the last 150 years. If it makes you feel better to keep your head in the sand, feel free. Won't change anything. As we fish the oceans out, wipe out the wildlife, and increase the overpopulation of the earth, it will take care of itself. Doesn't mean it will really be habitable anymore.

        July 27, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
      • Steve

        Arthur. When people say that there were trees in Antarctica and Saudi Arabia was a rainforest we have to remember that a major contributing factor of this was the fact of plate techtonics. Antarctica was not always near/at the south pole but had been neared the equator millions of years ago. This concept reducing the degree of temperature variation you would seem to imply.

        In terms of Solar fluctuations, yes historically there has been a strong correlation between this and the earth's temperature, but that discontinuity ended in roughly 1975 and thereafter in years when solar activity decreased, global temperatures have continued to increased.

        The city vs country comparison you state is interesting, but then we are not strictly talking about U.S. warming, but GLOBAL warming.

        Normally when the overwhelming scientific consensus warns of something I tend to take notice. Can they be wrong, sure, but generally the fringe tends to be wrong much much more than the majority, especially over decades which is what we are dealing with here. I tend to, with healthy skepticism, place more credibility on this scientific consensus than with the opposite discounting side which interestingly has a strong correlation with evolution deniers, religious fanatics (the bible can never be wrong), conspiracy theorists, the "government is evil" type of individuals and scientists working for the oil industry. I dunno but I just think the latter group has less credibility in my eyes. Add to this the fact that the latter were using the 1997 spike temperature data for years (until recently broken) claiming the world is actually cooling while not mentioning the longer term trend in an almost misrepresentative way and you can understand my much higher degree of skepticism with the deniers (who cherry pick data rather than take in the aggregate). Also include the record concentrations (PPM) of methane and CO2 in our atmosphere (ice records go 100,000's of years back) and the fact that we are cutting down trees while simultaneously pumping tonns of filth into the air I suspect this would be having some kind of an effect as scientists claim.

        Now as to the solution I am with Bjorn Lomborg in that carbon sequestration is a cure worse than the disease. You think the global economy is hurting now, wait til intense carbon sequestration laws would go into effect. We have the human ingenuity and techonology to solve this problem in a cost/benefit analysis way. I sway with the critics in this regard, but in general the global warming deniers are deluded.

        July 27, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
  34. rick

    The Ferengi Ice Stream?? I knew them damn Ferengis were up to something!

    July 26, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • Leonard Hofstadter

      No, its the Ferrigno Ice stream- the Hulk did it. Now the Ferengi's may have been financing it.

      July 27, 2012 at 11:53 am |
  35. Admiral "giving oholone the Bird" Byrd

    Hey Ohlone or whatever your name was... not worth scrolling up to spell correctly (given your lack of contribution to the page). Just wanted to spend 30 seconds to post what I found when I did my "search" to find out about Admiral "BYRD" (aka bird) and "Atlantis":

    This strange belief seems to be based on nothing more than the fact that Byrd referred to Antarctica as "The Land of Everlasting Mystery" and once wrote: "I'd like to see that land beyond the (North) Pole. That area beyond the Pole is the Center of the Great Unknown." Such evidence apparently suffices for the alternative scientist.

    July 26, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
  36. stanton


    July 26, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
  37. BGMchocolate

    For all the silly people yelling "Atlantis", it's not Atlantis. According to ancient eyewitnesses who supposedly visited Atlantis, Atlantis was a very modern metropolis. This includes paved roads and everything. All we have here is a canyon.

    July 26, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
    • jean

      We don't know what is under that ice, besides the canyon. I have a feeling that we have much yet to learn.

      July 26, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
  38. Mike

    Looks like AvP was on to something.

    July 26, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
  39. Ohlone G. Honson

    Supports Admiral Bird's story found in his diary, where he flew into this rift and went into the earth and found a super advanced civilization 1000's of years beyond ours. Look it up. Educate yourself. ATLANTIS.

    July 26, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • Brilliant

      You watch Sci-Fi channel quite often don't you..

      July 27, 2012 at 8:36 am |
  40. Tell The Truth Mister

    In simple terms, Earth (93million miles from the sun) sits between Venus (67million miles from the sun) & Mars (141million miles from the sun). Venus has surface temps of +860degrees(F). Mars has surface temps of -80degrees (F) and, by extrapolation, Earth should have surface temps of +350 degrees (F). We're doomed.

    July 26, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • JJM

      If I'm not mistaken, the radiation, (heat), drop off is expotential, not linear, so the temp on Earth would be a bit lower. Also, the high temp of Venus is caused more by the trapped greenhouse gases, than the proximity to the sun.

      July 26, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
      • LS

        so who created the greenhouse gases on venus? man or nature?

        July 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • sybaris

      But you do get a cookie for using extrapolation correctly

      July 26, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
      • E

        No, (s)he didn't.

        July 26, 2012 at 8:51 pm |
    • DJL

      What you are forgetting is that earth has an atmosphere. That's why we're not at 350 degrees (F).

      July 27, 2012 at 8:27 am |
    • Jobanyone?

      Omg its another who Googles more chit contest.

      July 27, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • jkflipflop

      Then you have to count exposed surface areas, average surface alibido, atmospheric composition, and internal thermic reactives into the mix.

      July 27, 2012 at 9:17 am |
  41. Pete Watkins

    Alien space craft located in antarctic canyon??

    July 26, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • DJL

      Don't go giving Spielberg any ideas!!! The last Indiana Jones film was bad enough... 😉

      July 27, 2012 at 8:28 am |
  42. freedom

    you are insane wayne, go find a doctor

    July 26, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
  43. Patrish

    30 years from now the 'coastal homes' will have the ocean coming in their front door. Florida coastline is working it's way toward Disney World.

    July 26, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
  44. BERGUS

    how exactly do you get to WEST antarctica? isn't everywhere except for the south pole, NORTHERN antarctica? confusion...

    July 26, 2012 at 5:48 pm |

      LOL that is a funny contradiction in terminology... but the answer is that Western Antarctica lies on the western Hemisphere (the half that contains the Atlantic Ocean and North and South America... Eastern Antarctica is on the half that contains Asia and Africa.

      July 26, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Astro-boy

      Good question!

      July 26, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Ian

      Well then – I guess you have horrors over South and West Virginia and South Carolina being in North America, yes? Good God some people are so clueless. What WOULD you call the western part of Antarctica? Paris? How about Tokyo?

      July 26, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
      • Ian

        and before you flame I totally get your point about everything being 'up', but really, it's still every point of the compass whatever direction you take from the pole . . .

        July 26, 2012 at 7:50 pm |
  45. angryoldguy

    What really saddens me, reading these "posts" is that the one thing that becomes clear, is that our school system has failed miserably! No one reads anymore, "too boring"! Science? Scientists are just a bunch of bumbling boobs, a lot of Nerds who read comic books and really know nothing (in comparison to some guy sitting somewhere on a bar stool) and waste money on damn fool worthless projects! The human race is on the edge of extinction and most are blissfully unaware they are about to be "history"! Kiss your butts goodbye, because by the time you realize something is wrong, it will be way too late!

    July 26, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
    • Ryan in Texas

      Other than a massive meteor strike, a cosmic gamma ray burst or a total nuclear war, I am unaware of anything that threatens our existence enough to put us anywhere near the "edge". If you are trying to say the Theory of Global Warming, keep in mind that even with the worse end of predictions for Global Warming, human population is expected to go up by 10 billion in the next 100 years. We forget how much of the Earth isn't really used due to it being too cold. Canada alone has area bigger than the US that is barely populated. And Russia has an area several times the size of the US that is also too cold. We also can't forget that while many people live in low lying coastal zones, they are not planted there like trees. They can move with the coastline.
      I would not be amazed if temps went up 1 degree C and Sea water levels went up 5 cm over the next century. That hardly would threaten anyone.

      July 26, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
      • Astro-boy

        That is if angryoldguy is writing about global warming and not about the potential we have to kill ourselves (like with total nuclear war, as you wrote).

        July 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
      • david

        I can show you data if you would like. You can run the stats yourself but then you would simply say I faked the data. Makes no difference to me. I know the data is real...and so do the others using it.

        July 26, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • Skeptic

      There's a difference between true science and junk science. Global warming theory is junk science, motivated by political agenda and power.

      July 26, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
      • Robert w

        Here we have a prime example of someone who likely failed 8th grade science and who likely continues to live in his mom's basement, mooching off his parents.

        July 26, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
      • ajk68

        Global warming had become climate change until this summer's unusually hot weather and drought.

        Global warming/Climate change has lost tons of credibility because it is an easy way to get research dollars. Anyone who disagrees with the hypothesis (and their are scientists at reputable universities) is ridiculed and ostracized.

        One key point that remains unproven is that if any warming is occurring that it is anthropogenic. The old adage applies, correlation is not causation.

        July 26, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
      • Ian

        Explain what happened in Greenland this week . . .

        July 26, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
      • humanbean

        And there's a difference between common sense and no sense, and you have none. Funny how people like you will trust science in their every day lives, yet deny it do to some BS you were fed by people who could care less about nothing on this earth but profit. Common sense says that if you take carbon out of the ground that took millions of years to produce and burn most of it within a couple hundred year period of time, you're gonna have a huge residual effect. Top that off with permafrost melt that will continue to release massive amounts of methane, and you've got huge problems. The planet is overpopulated. The over fished oceans are becoming more acidic, etc. etc etc.

        But you go ahead and keep regurgitating your little quotations there. You'll be one of the many fools in the end whining about why we didn't do anything about this when we had the chance. We're headed for a HUGE train wreck, and unfortunately, it can't be stopped.

        July 26, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
      • Arthur

        Look the climate of the earth is always changing. Imagine, millions of years ago Saudi Arabia was on a tropical rain forest! More recently, the last Ice Age ended about 10 to 15 thousand years ago. Fifteen thousand years is a blink of the eye on the Earth’s geological time scale. Since the Ice Age ended, glacial ice around the world has receded and mankind's population has exploded. Something melted 2 to 3 thousand feet thick ice- more than one half mile thick solid ice! All you mankind global warming fanatics please explain the Ice Ages disappearing please. There were no coal fire plants or SUV's then and yet that very thick ice melted away. Our climate is controlled by larger forces than mankind. My guess is that the Sun's energy output is not constant as we think it is. Small fluctuations in solar energy output drives and changes the earth's climate. The earth's surface is 70 percent water, and the oceans heat content varies with the Sun's solar input, which in turn drives most of the large scale ocean and upper air currents around the world.

        July 27, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • ajk68

      I just watched Omega-Man with Charlton Heston. Back in the 70's we were all going to turn into white-haired glassy-eyed jive talkers because of biological weapons.

      July 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • theoldfool1950

      It already is too late.The population is already to large and is growing daily. We can choose to live long and prosper or make things worse. Too many people, too many of them are stupid. Too many of them cannot see beyond their next meal. If we do not depopulate Nature will do it for us. The magic man in the sky says to go forth and multiply. The time for turning back is gone. Enjoy every day.

      July 26, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
  46. Finally


    July 26, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • Tommytim

      How much money was spent finding this Canyon?

      July 26, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • Prime Meridian

      mean while in the real world...

      July 26, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
      • Finally

        Well i was totally kidding.... but I do find it humorous how sure you are..... people like you said the EXACT same thing about Troy. Then one day someone found it. Everyone like you was so sure it was a city of myth only.
        Thank goodness not everyone is so close minded they dont stretch their imagination a little

        July 26, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
      • theoldfool1950

        It's about real life, not that humdrum thing you think is a life.

        July 26, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
  47. lauradet

    Let's all hope the ice never melts to actually reveal the valley or we will all be in a heap of trouble.

    July 26, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  48. dwhite0358

    Sound like a bunch of children posting on here! OMG. Where are the adults?

    July 26, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • Josh

      On Slate. CNN is the place with the collective IQ of 63 gathers to impress one another with verbal poo flinging contests. That said, boy do I understand what you mean...

      July 26, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • Astro-boy

      "Sound like a bunch of children posting on here! OMG."

      I can ignore the typo (Sound instead of Sounds) – I've done that myself. But using OMG when calling others children really diminishes your own standing.

      July 26, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
  49. dwhite0358

    What are we all children on here? Jeeze. OMG!

    July 26, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • This Guy^^


      July 26, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
  50. whatshesaid

    curious it's always about global warming, meanwhile a 10,000 degree orb of fire sits perked in the middle of our solar system in a cycle of swelling. No one ever thinks it MIGHT have something to do with the over all surface temperatures.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
  51. 60minuteman

    Antartica is at the South Pole. Exactly how do you determine what is WEST Antartica?

    July 26, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • Dustin Goldsen

      The South Pole itself is a point. Antarctica is a continent that is a couple thousand miles in diameter. West Antarctica would be that part of the Antarctica continent with points west of the Prime Meridian and east of 180 Degrees, the international date line. The other half of the continent is East Antarctica.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • Julius Henderson

      The prime meridian and the 180th meridian define the eastern and western hemispheres.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • iceman

      Hey 60minuteman, have a look at the CONTINENT of Antarctica (on which the SOUTH POLE is but a point)

      July 26, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
      • BERGUS

        so does that mean that if you're in asia and you're facing north, you need to turn right to go west?

        July 26, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • BD

      Buy a map, it'll be clear.

      July 26, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
      • PTpop

        Apparently when all you ever look at is flat maps, you assume the world is flat and when you get to the top and bottom there is no direction. LOL! Buy a globe, then it will be clear.

        July 26, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
  52. skinsrock

    Well I guess in a few years we will be able to see it 🙂

    July 26, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
  53. I'm ready

    I just bought tickets from a guy in Nigeria. I will be one of the first ones to take a tour of the valley as soon as the ice melts.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
    • dave

      huh? I was promised I would be first.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
      • Jaiden

        Sorry guys... The tickets are not refundable

        July 26, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • pod

      Were the tickets from Prince Jim Walter Dingus? I just got an email from him yesterday about some free passes to Disneyland and roughly 10MM in an account that was to be transferred to me SOON! Yippee!
      I <3419

      July 26, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
  54. Karen

    Maybe they'll find that space rover that hit the edge of the known universe recently.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • Why Do We Care

      Why do we care. Life is nothing but chemical as some would think. If that is the case all the chemicals will be still there here, even if life is not there in those chemicals. All the planets does not have life. Why should earth alone have it. Let's destroy all the life. Wait may be the rich people could live using some machinery. Any as Darwin told us only fittest should survive. All the poor people dont have a right to survive.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
      • Why Do We Care

        That comment is supposed to be somewhere else. Dont how it landed up here. 🙂

        July 26, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
  55. RepublicCONmen

    What BS is this? Its not global warming whatchamacall it. It is just another phase in earth's life. What is the big deal anyway? Is there OIL there? DRILLBABY DRILL? LETS build more battle tanks just in case aliens live there. Amen.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • BestYet

      This is hillarious! ROFL.

      July 27, 2012 at 8:46 am |
  56. sonic10158

    That's where Santa Clause's evil brother lives

    July 26, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Happy Dancing Gerbils Up A Teabaggers Butt

      Santa Cheney?

      July 26, 2012 at 4:32 pm |

      I like this better than the Lost World Dinosaur" scenario.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • texedit

      Evil Santa aklso known as IR Ess

      July 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
  57. Karen

    It will be interesting to see if any signs of civilization are found there, you know, other than interplanetary aliens.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  58. Bunsen Honeydew

    If you melt it, they will come.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  59. orion7x

    I'm waiting for the pyramids to be uncovered.... lol...

    July 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Chrono

      I think you've watched Alien vs. Predator one too many times.

      July 27, 2012 at 9:42 am |
  60. Bob

    Everyone knows this is valley where space aliens have a earth base.

    It's also where you can find Obamas birth certificate and Romney's tax returns.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:17 pm |


      July 26, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • lalaland


      July 26, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • bam

      except Obama showed his BC but OMG it was the short form... where Mittens showed his tax returns to McCain but refuses to show them to Commoners

      July 26, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
  61. palintwit

    They will undoubtably find the ruins of an ancient trailer park along with those of an equally ancient nascar track. Proof positive that teabaggers once inhabited the valley.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Andrew

      And died out from consistent inbreeding?

      July 26, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
      • Craig

        Dude, most tea party people I know are highly educated unlike the customer service reps filling the demo voter rolls. I work in a research lab where the average employee has a graduate degree. Only 1 of the 19 people are liberal and that 1 is right out of college which explains his stupidity. Contrast that with all the brainwashed libs in our customer service department.

        July 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm |

    I hope nobody falls through the ice.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
  63. DisBeliever

    15,000 years ago the great Lakes region of the US was under mile deep glaciers. By 6000 years ago, those glaciers melted, forming the present Great Lakes. That warming had to have been caused by the Neanderthal's consumption of fossil fuels. Right?

    July 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • Keith

      dinosaur farts,

      July 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
      • FMH

        Dinosurs lighting their farts!

        July 26, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
      • Keith

        maybe that is it

        July 28, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • Tell The Truth Mister

      Or was it Native Americans killing too many buffalo ?

      July 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
      • Keith


        July 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • dave

      Yes.. deff. alot of fossil fuels back then ALOT

      July 26, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • James R Hunt

      Does it matter the cause? Life is adaption and change. Species either adapt or they die. The understanding of reasons behind the change natural or man made will give us some option. Does it matter how we change what we do if it means our children may have a better world to adapt to?

      July 26, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
      • Jon Samuel

        Yes – you are correct. The history of this planet indicates huge warming and cooling periods. Thus we know we will need to adapt and change. But assumptions about cause of climate change do matter. Vast resources could be squandered in futility going after the wrong problem "source".

        July 26, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • Frank

      Nope, it happened over many tens of thousands of years, as opposed to what's happening in the span of only100 years now due to massive human overpopulation and your technological ability to to consume resources at a rate that no natural or geological event has ever seen before on Earth. Happy to have helped you understand the difference! 🙂

      July 26, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Dustin Goldsen

      The ebb and flow of glacial periods such as the one that covered the Great Lakes are caused by orbital mechanics. They match up with several periodic changes in the earths orbit in the 20,000 to 100,000 year range. The problem is that this recent change is happening much quicker and does not match the orbital changes. We should be cooling down now, not heating up.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
      • Tell The Truth Mister

        China better clean up it's act or we'll see this canyon real soon.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
      • Ryan in Texas

        Read what you wrote (20,000 to 150,000 year cycles). Ice Age was 11,000 years ago. We are still in the warming period going away from an Ice Age. Generally, 30,000 years is a timeline for ice ages (this is disputed). We really should not expect cooling for thousands of years. Also, there was a warm period about 1000 years ago. It doesn't fit within ANY global warming theory. We still have no idea why it happened. And we have no way of knowing if we are in the same type of period now. But I can assure you it wasn't man made 1000 years ago.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
      • HerpaDerp

        Except for the fact we have been cooling for the last 10 years.

        July 26, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
      • No fool

        According to my sources, climate changes are caused by shifts in the axis of rotation of the Earth. So said Velikovsky a few decades ago. And it had been said by others a very long time before him.

        July 26, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • Andrew

      god's wrath against man on Neanderthal action....

      July 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • Billy Gates

      Volcanic activity–changed the composition of the air as well. But I am thinking science isn't high on the list for most people posting in comments sections.

      July 26, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • Ian

      Who put out forest fires back then? Cavemen? Think about it . . .

      July 26, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
  64. xfiler93

    every other country on Earth will be there tapping the oil while Obumbles keeps us out of it. pathetic.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • palintwit

      What is your source of information?

      July 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Arick

      Lets say that oil exists there. It would be decades before anyone could get too it. Do you see why your comment is dumb?

      July 26, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • Andrew

      Maybe romney can bring the olympics there...

      July 26, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
    • Chrono

      The Antarctic Treaty prevents claims to the continent, including mineral mining.

      July 27, 2012 at 10:03 am |
  65. J.C.

    First the Russians, now the Brits. It's only a matter of time before they peek into one of these ice bound caverns and find DINOSAURS!!!!! WOOT WOOT for the Lost World.

    ...that or just a bunch of dino-sicles...meh.

    July 26, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      Or a McDonalds.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
  66. Jesus Christ Superstar

    Zecharia Sitchin discovered this decades ago

    July 26, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • dave

      Sure he did.. I bet he discovered another planet with life too right?

      July 26, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
      • Billy Gates

        Sitchin is an archaeologist and a translator. All of the stuff Sitchin wrote about (and he wrote about the stuff in the 70's and 80's) is from ancient texts. Boring reading–but if you are able to follow everything–fairly illuminating.

        July 26, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
  67. Samuel R. Preston, III

    They should name this place....Ice Valley.

    July 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
  68. WO WO

    This is where the predetor and aliens fight it out

    July 26, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
  69. Strategic Bob

    Amen, Brother, but I think you mean Fox News, not simply Fox.

    July 26, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • God'sDad

      Yes I did Bob. Good clarification. Regretfully they removed God's original post and therefore my reply as well. No sense of humor.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
      • God'sDad

        For those of you wondering about the context in this, God had said the discovery was earth's but ttt crack. My reply was that the earth's biggest "bc's" were found on a certain (news) channel. Bob was kind enough to clarify that point. Certain sensitivies must have been impugned as the originals disappeared into the electronic ether.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
  70. JackBQuick

    Let's tap it for oil samples !

    July 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
    • Drea

      So does this mean that the grand canyon was once under ice at one time instead of the theory it was the river that grooved it hundreds of years ago?

      July 26, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
      • joe

        Hundreds of years ago? Try 100's of thousands

        July 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
      • No fool

        Drea, about the Grand Canyon, I find it easier to believe that the river Found what we might call "a pre-existing condition" such as a fracture and went to work deepening it. That crack is said to be 12 miles wide in one place. I have a hard time imagining the kind of river that could have caused that "lesion" in the Earth's crust.

        July 26, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
  71. Ryan in Texas

    At one point there was no ice there. So did this form back then due to water runoff like the grand canyon, or is this a rift valley caused by techtonic plates?
    Also, where is the big predicted seawater rise? We have good formulas on water expansion and ice meltage due to global warming, but we are not seeing a rise in line with predicted warming. This is a really big deal that gets little press. If the Earth has warmed as much as claimed, there would be significantly higher sea levels. Considering how much easier it is to measure sea level vs. global temps, you have to wonder about the claims of warming. If in 10 years we don't see any large rise, I highly doubt Global Warming theories will still be around. (Other than the normal natural warming when we are going away from an Ice Age).

    July 26, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • Notso

      Sea levels would not necessarily rise. Think of a glass of water with ice on the surface when the ice melts the water level stays the same.

      July 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
      • dastreagus

        can't you apply that science to the story. It is the topography of the land under the ice that is this stories basis.

        July 26, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
      • cbc

        True, IF the ice is floating (as in the Arctic Ocean). Most Antarctic ice (and Greenland's as well) is on land, and will raise sea levels if melted.

        July 26, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
      • dastreagus

        I can see evidence of a rise in sea water just over a mile from my house. The spanish made a step that sits under a foot of water.

        July 26, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
      • Dan

        Not quite. If the ice is locked up on land (above sea level) when it melts it will go to the sea and the sea will rise. I'm not a proponent of global warming just a guy using common sense.

        July 26, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
      • john carson

        You are correct however That would only apply to Ice formations in the water. Most glaciers are sitting on top of land masses. In addition Ice formations that extend well above water levels and are connected to underwater land mass would also not fit into the Glass of water scenario. Stick a 8 inch chunk of ice that touches the bottom of a 4 inch high glass of water and make sure you have a absorbent towel underneath. Its going to overflow.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
      • bigubu

        Actually, when the ice melts the level is lower in a glass of water and ice. Water, unlike anything else we know of, expands when it is frozen, so when the ice in a glass melts the level of the water will go down.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
      • Ryan in Texas

        We accept temp. predictions from the same people that miss badly on their predictions of sea level rise. I'm just pointing that out. (Oh, and many places in the world are sinking due to subsidence, mainly from groundwater removal, but also from oil/gas removal). In places without that issue, it has risen just over 1/2 an inch in the last century. That is inline with the normal warming coming out of an ice age (ok a little higher than expected). In my book that means the jury is still out. We simply do not have enough data yet. Heck, global temp data only goes back 35 years. That is a speck in time, and not near enough to draw conclusions from.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • CosmicC

      If by "...we are not seeing a rise in line with predicted warming" you are mean the seas are rising faster than predicted, you are correct. Earlier predictions were that sea level rise would not be measurable for another 10-20 years, yet here we are with low lying island countries, such as the Seycelles, already feeling the impacts with high tides innundating populated areas. Were you expecting a tidal wave? The rate of increase is about 3mm/year right now. Even if that does not increase as projected, it's enough to wipe out most barrier islands on the east coast by the end of the century.

      July 26, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
      • Keith

        They come and go, no real loss. Others will form in time.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • Reverend Dondi J. Cook CAM (BATH)

      it's been there under our noses all along.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • Saint_John

      Except that we are not going away from another ice age. Ice cores from the Greenland Ice Shelf indicate periods of ice age in the range of 90,000 years alternating with 10,000 year warm cycles. We are approaching the end of the most recent temperate period. The periods of transition are marked by radical temperature swings at both extremes. A very cold winter may be in store for us. This following an extremely hot summer. Accelerated climate change (ie Global Warming) due to human influence is real whether we want to believe it or not. It matters little though as it's probably too late to do anything about it at this point. The current generation probably has little to worry about, but the next several may be the last if things don't pan out in our favor.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
      • Keith

        It will not make a bit of difference what you believe. The system is in motion and no one knows how to steer that ship.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:25 pm |

      This is where the math gets difficult. The current rise in sea level observed from tide gauges, of about 1.8 mm/yr. (20 cm 7.8" from 1880 – 2001). IF there were no acceleration in melting... you could extrapolate another 20cm by 2100. There are indications that Glacial retreat is accelerating. A 2007 IPCC4 report projected sea level to rise by 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1 to 23 in) Their projections were for the time period 2090–99, with the increase in level relative to average sea level over the 1980–99 period. This estimate did not include all of the possible contributions of ice sheets.
      More recent research from 2008 observed rapid declines in ice-mass balance from both Greenland and Antarctica, and concluded that sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be at least twice as large as that presented by IPCC AR4, with an upper limit of about two meters A literature assessment published in 2010 by the US National Research Council described the above IPCC projections as "conservative," and summarized the results of more recent studies. These projections ranged from 56–200 centimetres (22–79 in), based on the same period as IPCC 4.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  72. bacon

    where's HP Lovecraft when you need him?

    July 26, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
  73. snowdogg


    July 26, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
  74. K@thebeach

    Very interesting research article. Fascinating to think that someone was intuitive (or lucky!) enough to conceive this hypothesis, get a group together to go down there and prove it. if you look to the right of the study area indicated (the Ferrigno Ice Stream) there is an even larger rift/valley funneling more water under the ice, likely contributing to the accelerated thinning in that area.

    @ Rick DeBay – yes, we ('man") may be contributing to the faster pace of climate change, but nature cycles on its own, regardless of our puny selves. Also note – one major volcanic eruption throws more carbon and other pollutants into the Earth's atmosphere than ten years' of human effort.

    July 26, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • Kevin

      Sorry but the "volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans" myth has been thoroughly debunked. For example, the The US Geological Survey has reported that human beings produce 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes.

      July 26, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
      • Marco

        Don't try using facts on them, they have all taken their anti fact meds Fix news sent them.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      Not to mention that it is a different kind of Carbon. Volcanic Carbon is different from the carbon we get from burning trees and they are both different from the carbon that comes from burning fissile fuels. Air samples clearly show that the fossil fuel carbon is what is gunking up the atmosphere. It is us, sorry to spoil the FOX news anti-climate change parade.

      July 26, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
      • Hubert Boyd

        Carbon, as Carbon Dioxide, is indifferent as to the source. Carbon has three ( I think I remember!) isotopes, with slightly different atomic weights, but CO2 from any carbon is still just CO2. We can identify the source of the carbon, mostly, but the effects of the climate are the same. It is the carbon-oxygen bond that causes the problem, not the nature of the carbon nucleus. Hubert Boyd, aged but still sentient chemist.

        July 26, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
      • Hubert Boyd

        Sorry, ...the effects ON the climate... Typo strikes again.

        July 26, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
      • K@thebeach

        True, but volcanos also release a host of other noxious gases that humans don't contribute, such as all the 'hydrogens' – Chloride, Sulfide and Fluoride. Also Sulfer Dioxide.

        Climate change IS happening, and we ARE contributing to it, but we are NOT causing it.

        July 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm |

      "...humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do."
      Terrence Gerlach, volcanologist, with the Cascades Volcano Observatory, part of the US Geological Survey in Vancouver, Wash. (where I currently reside).
      Marie Edmonds, a volcanologist at Cambridge University agrees. While volcanoes are the most important natural source of atmospheric CO2, she noted, "The results show clearly that the amount is 100-150 times less than anthropogenic amounts."

      July 26, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • Andrew

      What other pollutants besides carbon?
      If you're going to make an assertion with some certainty, you should know what you're talking about and not simply repeating something you've heard based on your preferred political affiliation. Of course I understand the need not to stand up to anyone with any conviction and rebut them with facts – that's how it usually goes, right? Someone disproves you with facts so you turn to politics? or religion?

      July 26, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  75. jim reese

    A what, where.

    July 26, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
  76. Poncho's raincoat

    Imagine the creatures of our distant past that may be preserved in that frozen valley.

    July 26, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
  77. Brian from Texas

    Its the DECEPTICONs

    July 26, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
  78. Mtnmedic

    Post of the year!

    July 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
  79. silo

    shhh, dont wake Elvis.

    July 26, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
  80. CB

    Picky, but the valley is beneath the Antarctic ice, not beneath Antarctica.

    July 26, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • Frank Tillery

      Technically, Antartica is the name of the actual continent. If it (the valley) were below the actual contintent, we would not know about it. The Antartic is a polar region where the contintent (Antartica), and all of the ice is located.

      July 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
      • damniel

        I think CB said the same thing. Only he said it before you and used fewer words to do it.

        July 26, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • snowdogg

      Good catch!

      July 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
  81. Jerry

    I wish all that ice would melt so I could see how big this thing is.

    July 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
  82. HenryMiller

    "British researchers say they've discovered a massive rift valley..."

    How can a valley have mass? "Massive" is not a synonym for "big."

    July 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • jtucker4


      1: large in comparison to what is typical

      July 26, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • snowdogg


      Large and heavy or solid.
      Exceptionally large: "massive crowds are expected".

      July 26, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • J.C.

      hen/r-ie mil/ler


      1. D0uchb*g.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Florida Bill

      You are applying the scientific usage of the word mass to the common parlance use of the word mass....that's a no-no.

      July 26, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
  83. Global warming is not man made!

    How many of you here are real scientists? Exactly!

    July 26, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • snowdogg

      What difference does it make... man made or not... the effects of Global Climate Change are real, measurable and we need to devise a strategy for the continuance of humankind.

      July 26, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
      • RickV

        I recommend higher taxes and a larger, more intrusive, government.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
      • WordOrReason

        I recommed no government, anarchy, gut EPA and FDA, let the rich trickle down their fortune to the commoners as they hire their own food inspectors/servants.

        July 27, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • Drea

      They seem to know what their talking about!!!!!

      July 27, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
  84. Army SGT

    Since Antarctica surrounds the south pole, how can one area be called "western" antarctica?

    July 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • Answer

      We've split the world into northern and southern hemispheres (who half spheres cut by the equator). Likewise there is a western and eastern hemisphere split by the prime meridian. Western Antarctica is the part in the western hemisphere.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
    • Brad

      "West Antarctica" refers to the portion in the western hemisphere, adjacent to South America, including the Antarctic Peninsula. East Antarctica is the portion in the eastern hemisphere, adjacent to Australia. It's generally thought that the ice sheet might be at risk of collapse due to climate change only in West Antarctica, not East Antarctica.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • Army SGT

      Brad and Answer,

      Thank you, that makes a lot of sense.

      July 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
  85. cpc65

    Marshal, Will and Holly were onnnnn an expedition.......

    July 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
  86. Paul

    Well after the poles shift I will go visit it.

    July 26, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • Strategic Bob

      well, it may not be that much different. when the "poles shift" it refers to the orientation of the earth's magnetic field, not to the axis around which the earth rotates. the alignment of the magnetic north pole and the northern center of rotation is only a coincidence. when the "poles shift," Antarctica may still be located on one of the centers of rotation. or maybe Antarctica will have drifted, in the continental drift sense, off the center of rotation and be located in the temperate zone, or even on the equator, as it was in the far past.

      July 26, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
      • No fool

        According to the sources I mentioned a while ago -and which I reveal only to those wise people who buy my books- there are at least two types of axial shifts. Those that happen gradually. And the cataclysmic ones that devastate the planet. Let's imagine the oceans rolling over! Certainly, the magnetic field factor is involved. A couple of years ago, I was pleasantly surprised when, despite all the political correctness imposed upon it, PBS ran a program on planetary magnetic fields, saying that small changes had been recorded recently and that they might eventually lead to more pronounced changes in the behavior of the Earth. My other sources mention that remnants of coral reeves had been found near Greenland in the nineteenth century. And that fossils of sharks and crocodiles had been found in the Parisian Basin.

        July 26, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
  87. Bambam

    Glad to see all the Einsteins come out and post their brilliant observations.

    July 26, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • God'sDad

      They understand It's all relative.

      July 26, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
      • JRR

        heisenberg was there ... I think.

        July 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
      • SilentBoy741

        Am I detecting evidence of a Heisenberg uncertainty?

        July 26, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
  88. Jerome Horowitz

    Now we know where Jimmy Hoffa is!

    July 26, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
  89. Brad

    Can it be named, The Forgotten Vale?

    July 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
  90. Soon enough

    “If you stripped away all of the ice here today, you’d see a feature every bit as dramatic as the huge rift valleys you see in Africa and in size as significant as the Grand Canyon," the lead researcher, Robert Bingham, a glaciologist at the University of Aberdeen, said in a press release.

    So...give it a few decades then you mean?

    July 26, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
  91. Jimmy Joe Jim Bob

    Wait until they find the ancient temple and the aliens.

    July 26, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
  92. Speedy

    One would not think of a "valley" as having mass. Can a valley correctly be described as "massive"?

    July 26, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • Neil C.

      Umm, there's no such thing as empty space.

      July 26, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • jtucker4

      Since when is mass and massive of the same word.

      1: large in comparison to what is typical

      July 26, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • Brian Wright

      HP Lovecraft!!!

      July 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • 123elle

      You're trying to make the point, I believe, that a "valley" is an empty space, and so how could an empty space have mass - but the valley is created by and bounded by rock, so they are saying that the area enclosed by the rock is a massive area. Not that empty space has mass. Right?

      July 26, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
  93. Nodack

    Everybody is an expert.

    July 26, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • Frank Tillery

      You are so right, my friend. No matter what the subject matter of an article, there are always experts available to add to or be critical the information.

      July 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Keith

      At any given point of the day 90% of the people on the internet believe that they are in the top ten percent of intelligence. What that means is that at least 80% of us are wrong all the time.

      Experts are a dime a dozen, there are just as many eco-idiots as there are climate change deniers.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
  94. Badly-Bent

    Could the displacement of polar ice accompany a destabilization of the earths axis?

    July 26, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • rosie

      The weight of ice and water are the same for the same volume. But if the water were to shift to one place on the planet then yes there could be some effect. Water tends not to work that way though and it will simply spread evenly out and distribute in the ocean in a way that does not cause any shifting of the Earths axis.

      July 26, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
      • Aquaman

        Actually when water freezes it has more volume. This is why frost heaves do so much damage. Most liquids have less volume when they freeze but not water.

        July 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
      • cbc

        Aquaman: More voume, yes. That's why ice floats. More weight (technically, mass), no. Freeze one pound (or kilogram) of water, you get one pound (or kilogram) of ice.

        July 26, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
  95. js

    I do not understand something. How exactly is the rift valley contributing to more loss of sea ice now than before? Presumably the valley has been there all along, so how could there have been more ice previously? I think some parts of the explanation have been left out.

    July 26, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • Rick DeBay

      "...the valley allows warmer ocean waters to contact glacial ice, contributing to the melting..."

      There is a valley below current sea level. Warm sea water has traveled up this valley under the visible surface ice. This warm water then melts the ice. Without the water, the ice would be in contact with cold rock which does not circulate, bringing in heat.

      July 26, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • John

      I don't think they're saying it is contributing more now than before, they're saying it explains some ice loss they couldn't otherwise explain.

      July 26, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • Now whyY

      Because ocean temperatures are rising.

      July 26, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
  96. Rich

    Tobacco is NOT addictive
    -The Tobacco Industry

    Carbon emissions are NOT contributing to global warming
    -The Clean Coal Industry

    Global warming is NOT happening, and we have the scientists to prove it!
    -The Oil Industry

    July 26, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • BURTON45

      Hahaha... Face!!

      July 26, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • Joe Pub

      Paying for carbon credits will NOT help my company rake in billions of dollars.

      -Al Gore

      July 26, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
  97. mavsfan93

    the estabalishment media will continue to tell us that man made global climate change is a problem when IT IS NOT.

    July 26, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • David M

      I think it's a combination of man made and natural cycle, but it is certainly not only man made. We contribute to it, and may actually cause it to accelerate to some degree, but it's also a natural cycle of nature. Otherwise, how would they explain why the ice age ended?? That took some significant global warming, but they conveniently overlook that. Some people thrive on hype and have narrow vision.

      July 26, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
      • Rick DeBay

        The change in temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution (two hundred years) was much faster than the tens of thousands of years in your example.

        July 26, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
      • Cedar Rapids

        "Otherwise, how would they explain why the ice age ended?? That took some significant global warming, but they conveniently overlook that"

        actually the scientists in question dont conveniently overlook it at all. So many armchair scientists like to make comments about things being overlooked, not taken into account etc etc, as if the experts that do this for a living are going to slap themselves and go 'dur, how come we missed that over the last 30 or so years of research'

        July 26, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • Frank Tillery

      Establishment media? I don't know about that but this particular article did not directly note or infer that this was part of what you note as "man made global climate change". It does talk of warmer waters which is natural because if water were as cold as ice, it would be frozen.

      July 26, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Strategic Bob

      whether or not global climate change/global warming is caused by man, or only made worse by man, or even unaffected by man, it is very REAL. personally, I think we are making it worse, but climate has alwyas been changing, and it always will. but for you to say that it is not a problem is asinine. the first signs of global climate warming will be global climate WIERDING. more and more severe droughts will occur in areas that did not have them as frequently or as severely. agriculture will be disrupted. floods will increase in number and severity. sea level will rise, inundating some island chains (some Pacific Island chains are already being abandoned) and possibly forcing mass migrations from low-lying lands like Bangladesh (so stand by for the Bangladesh-India war). forget your ideologically-driven prejudices about the reality of human contribution to global warming and focus on the certain reality that IT WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS, no matter what forces are driving it.

      July 26, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
      • Marcia

        you are making it worse by all your hot air and breathing. Stop it!

        July 26, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
  98. jamesbrown

    this is truly amazing. Does anybody know where the nearest subway is?

    July 26, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Frank Tillery

      Restaurant or transit system?

      July 26, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
      • Laydownsally

        Did I just hear drums and a cymbal ? LOL !!!

        July 26, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • kj

      Yes I know where the nearest subway is – its the 4-5 line in NYC and it will soon be full of fresh water produced from the rift valley in Antarctica! Get you life vest on, I assume you never took swimming lessons.

      July 26, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
1 2


  • Elizabeth Landau
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer