Slashdot Mirror


Sub-Ice Antarctic Lake Vida Abounds With Life

ananyo writes "It is permanently covered by a massive cap of ice up to 27 metres thick, is six times saltier than normal sea water, and at 13 C is one of the coldest aquatic environments on Earth — yet Lake Vida in Antarctica teems with life. Scientists drilling into the lake have found abundant and diverse bacteria, including at least one new phylum (full paper (PDF)). The find increases the chances that life may exist (or have once existed) on planets such as Mars and moons such as Jupiter's Europa."

122 comments

  1. As cold as 13C? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.

    1. Re:As cold as 13C? by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:As cold as 13C? by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

      TFA has the correct -13C, which is much more believable as "one of the coldest aquatic environments on Earth". For Americans 13C would be 55.4F, and -13C is 8.6F or 23.4F below freezing.

      And for the nerds 13C would be 286.15K whereas -13C is 260.15K

    3. Re:As cold as 13C? by ananyo · · Score: 2

      Apologies - typo in my submission.

    4. Re:As cold as 13C? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, boiling point and freezing points differ based on pressure. While many substances will freeze sooner at lower temperatures water behaves differently and actually lowers it's freezing point at higher pressures. Water can also exist in super cooled and super heated states, meaning it is very likely that liquid water could exist well below freezing.

    5. Re:As cold as 13C? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering the same thing. But if it's -13C(elsius), it would be frozen, and thus not "covered by" but rather "part of" an cap of ice. What am I missing? Is it the high salt concentration or something?

    6. Re:As cold as 13C? by daem0n1x · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is it the high salt concentration...?

      You hit the nail in the head.

    7. Re:As cold as 13C? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You hit the nacl in the head.

      There FTFY.

    8. Re:As cold as 13C? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2

      For once that Fahrenheit unit is kinda useful, you could at least use it!
      0F is more or less the coldest temperature you can achieve for a liquid mix of salt and water under standard pressure.
      So it's entirely possible for a salt lake to have an average temperature of 9F.

    9. Re:As cold as 13C? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about the mere 27 meters thick ice cap. the article is full of typo's and copied typo's.

    10. Re:As cold as 13C? by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 1

      Rrrrrrright... Fahrenheit...
      Why not put it in Rankine, Delisle, Newton, Réaumur and Rømer as well? Only the 'Merkens use Fahrenheit for god knows what reason. Maybe they cling onto it so they keep the brains sharp. Converting 3/7 cubic inch to gallon by head is just difficult... And more useful than sudoku's if I may add.
      Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_conversion_formulas

      --
      rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    11. Re:As cold as 13C? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it lack capitalizations at the beginnings of sentences and contain superfluous apostrophes?

    12. Re:As cold as 13C? by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      How is that useful? The kind of person that remembers the lowest temperature at which liquid brine can exist under standard pressure should have no problem remembering the number -13 as well.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    13. Re:As cold as 13C? by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      I meant typo in the summary, not the Wikipedia-Article.

    14. Re:As cold as 13C? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      For once that Fahrenheit unit is kinda useful, you could at least use it!

      Fahrenheit is a VERY useful scale, for humans (that is what it was designed for) I wouldn't go so far as to claim "for once .. kinda useful" in terms of science.

  2. first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first

    1. Re:first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even close, junior.

  3. 13 C is not cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And that's because the article says -13C and not +13C which is quite a bit of difference. It'd be cool if the editors actually did their editing work ;-)

    1. Re:13 C is not cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "And that's because the article says -13C and not +13C which is quite a bit of difference. It'd be cool if the editors actually did their editing work ;-)"

      It would indeed be cooler.

    2. Re:13 C is not cold by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      And that's because the article says -13C and not +13C which is quite a bit of difference. It'd be cool if the editors actually did their editing work ;-)

      I don't know. 13C is already a little cool in some parts of the country.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    3. Re:13 C is not cold by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      And that's because the article says -13C and not +13C which is quite a bit of difference. It'd be cool if the editors actually did their editing work ;-)

      I don't know. 13C is already a little cool in some parts of the country.

      In late November? Maybe in Texas or Arizona, but here in northwestern Missouri, it's closer to 13F than 13C.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  4. Missing a minus sign in the summary by NothingWasAvailable · · Score: 2

    "... and at -13 C is one of the coldest aquatic environments ..."

    1. Re:Missing a minus sign in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'abounds' is also a bit misleading.

      'to possess in such abundance as to be characterized by' for a bit of bacteria-slime?

  5. Re:Game idea... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

    Isn't that the plot of at least a Stargate-Episode, a movie and (I think) an Outer Limits Episode?!

  6. In other words by jovius · · Score: 2

    Lake Vida was cool before it was hot.

    1. Re:In other words by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      A lake called Vida is full of life. What's the big fucking deal?

  7. And Nazi Bases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazi bases in the arctic and alien wars.

  8. Not quite... by Troyusrex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The find increases the chances that life may exist (or have once existed) on planets such as Mars and moons such as Jupiter's Europa.

    So life on other planets is dependent on our knowledge? Sounds doubtful. It may increase our reason to believe that such life is possible, but not whether that life actual exists/existed.

    1. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe you're not clear on the concept of probability. This is used to reason about things of which we lack certain knowledge.
      Life on other planets is not dependent on our knowledge, but the probability of life on other planets definitely is.
      A clue that probability is being referred to is the use of the phrase "increases the chances".

    2. Re:Not quite... by mevets · · Score: 1

      Wow, a double whoosh. Awesome.

    3. Re:Not quite... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Until we actually observe it alien life is in an unfortunate state of both existing and not existing. Showing it is possible for it to exist gives us a reason to look for it which gives us a chance to observe it so it can finally exist for real. Hopefully nobody observes us before we get there or if they do then hopefully they find us actually existing otherwise we will not exist and so we can't actually go observe alien life and it will be stuck both existing and not existing forever. Then again, it may be that whenever we get a chance to observe alien life the universe will split into two universes, one with it existing and one with it not existing. Likewise when the aliens observe us two universes will result however we will only exist in one of them. Ideally we will observe aliens and they will observe us at the same time causing a loop where universes will keep splitting off because where we exist there are two universes but we cannot observe the aliens in the one where we do not exist but we can in the one where we do and they can observe us where they exist but not in the other. Thus.. with infinite universes continually splitting we will all exist in one form or another forever, when we die in a universe it is ok because we still exist in others. One thing thing this post does prove for certain... at least.. if you have chose to read this far and I do exist and Slashdot does exist and so this post does exist is that bullshit exists.

    4. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi guys. Looks like you went right by each other.

      I think the magic words you're both looking for are: "..our estimate of the probability.."

    5. Re:Not quite... by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So.. the aliens are cats?

    6. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life on other planets is not dependent on our knowledge, but the probability of life on other planets definitely is.

      The probability of life on other planets are not dependent on our knowledge. Probability is cold heartless mindless math. The probability that a loaded dice will show 6 migth be 1, i.e. a certainty. It's still 1 wheather you know it's a loaded dice or not.

      If you wan't to place a bet though, I'd say the odds tumbled.

    7. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that life exists in very cold lake IS relevant to whether life exists in other similar environments, in the sense that it reveals something about where life can be found in this universe. That fact and its implications do not depend in any way on whether we know the fact or not.

      Our discovery of the fact only affects our predictions about life in other environments, probably by changing them, and perhaps by making them more accurate.

    8. Re:Not quite... by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      I'll just link the raven paradox here in order to maximize the confusion.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    9. Re:Not quite... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes smart people can be really stupid. The paradox only exists in not understanding logic. Each link in a logic chain is dependent on the other links. Logic doesn't speak to truth but to relativity. Sometimes people confuse reality (well, actually, their subjective reality) with thought games... usually people who spend all their time in their mind. :)

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    10. Re:Not quite... by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      What?

      Logicians and mathematicians all agree that the paradox is true. Observing a non-black non-raven is positive evidence that all ravens are black. The "resolution of the paradox" lies either in arguing that this positive evidence increases the probability of all ravens being black by an extremely tiny amount, or in arguing that we only see the situation as paradoxical because we already know the outcome.

      Indeed, one finds the same situation in modern science: the only observed scalar particle is the Higgs boson. If we then observe a new elementary particle (say e.g. a sup quark, the supersymmetric partner of the up quark) which is not a scalar particle, this is further evidence that the Higgs is the only scalar particle.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    11. Re:Not quite... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      A non-black non-raven is proof of absolutely nothing unless you've already established a rule that all ravens are black. It's relative. There is no paradox when you've implicitly created the rules.

      They just seem to be baffled by the fact that creating a rule, i.e., creating a description/definition, has implications. The problem with logic is that it works with givens, and in reality there are no givens, we just have workable descriptions. Godel-Escher-Bach, rinse & repeat.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    12. Re:Not quite... by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      Au contraire, it seems to me that the paradox is stronger the more observations you make. For a situation like I described with the Higgs boson, there is nothing paradoxical about it.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    13. Re:Not quite... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      There's the problem, it SEEMS to you. You're trapped in the matrix and you don't know it.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    14. Re:Not quite... by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      This has been fun so far. How do you feel about the Halting problem?

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    15. Re:Not quite... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Well, I don't "feel" anything about it. It does seem intriquing... if you like getting lost (or finding the limits) in your own constructs. I wasn't familiar with it before you mentionned it, kind of gave up on math at 13 when I realized 2 important things. One, there are no such things as numbers in reality. Two, therefore all truths, and limitations, which are derivable from math are implicit in the axioms used in constructing the model.

      You see, the problem with numbers is that there doesn't exist 2 of anything in reality. The concept of 2 is derived from generalizations of reality imposed by the limitations of our sensory apparatus. The halting problem exists in part because of the existence of this unknown layer between reality and our description of it(LOD).

      I tend to think in reverse, start at the solution. Would the halting problem exist if every Atom knew it's capabilities and it's interaction result with every other Atom? The answer? Well, I'm still not finished my Lisp system, but here are somethings I've noticed. If an individual Atom knows of it's capabilities and restrictions, it will always know what to do in a given situation and therefore it can function as a known in any interaction, effectively reducing the complexity of determing whether it will halt or not. This 'knowing' can be easily granted in Lisp because code=data. The implementation problem is how does an individual Atom 'know' (besides individually programming) it's purpose and capabilities when it's being implemented in a system where all the limitation/interaction possibilities are not known? A learning observer has to be implemented dividing everything into absolute/relative, which can record and learn from it's interactions with other Atoms. Of course, the answer only becomes apparent once everything has interacted with everything else... now if only we could predict how long that would take we'd have a solution to the halting problem :)

      Since an observer with awareness has to be introduced, what if our universe is just Garbhodakasayi vishnu sleeping on the halting problem?

      Personally, what I believe is the halting problem only exists from our viewpoint within time and is a consequence of division of reality into interpretable units. After all, once you grasp the whole as a whole, there is no need to try and determine the boundaries of the whole using inferences of interactions between details.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    16. Re:Not quite... by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      Huh, interesting. Do you even think there are no "two electrons"? No, since electrons are fermions, lets say "two cooper pairs".
      As to the halting problem: yes, I think "waiting until everything has interacted with everything" captures the crux of it. If time and space were equal, there would be no problem. But in that case I do not understand how a being would exist in the first place.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    17. Re:Not quite... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      I've given a lot of thought to things like Cooper pairs and Bose-Einstein condensates. It's part of the reason for the system I'm building. Science, unfortunately, doesn't have a revision system. So errors corrected decades later, might only slowly propagate within the field and may not ever make it outside of the field as the fields have narrowed so much. On top of this, data and interpretation of the data are usually intermixed and given equal truth values. So I'm building a system that will cleanly seperate all data from interpretation to aid in creating more accurate and/or practical descriptions. After all, we as humans (unenlightened) will only ever live within the descriptions we create, and their practicality always constrained by our ability to interact with that description.

      As a totally unfounded belief, I think it has to do with Levels of Detail. The current description of a Cooper pair assumes that both electrons still exist, even though the data shows that everything that distinguished them as different disappeared. Same with BE condensates. So what if the math of reality is always: 1 = a distinguishable Atom; 1 + 1 = 1. Why must we assume that just because the electrons existed in the past and possibly in the future that they exist now? That's of course using a description that doesn't take into account probability fields and that most of the time electrons choose not to exist :)

      When we change level of detail to examine something that no longer exists within our level of detail are we then still examining the same thing? Where does Human exist or rather, at what level do we exist? What are the organizing principles of unity? Are they the same for all levels? Why is it so hard to think anything besides they must be the same, perhaps the answer is that they are absolute yet relative?

      Unfortunately too many questions not enough answers precisely because of all this mix up with data and their descriptions. I think Yoga has some congruent discriptions. Yoga, meaning union, is achieved by inner stillness. The 'cessation of movement' of the organizing principle "Me" results in union to a collective named "God" resulting in a transformation of your abilities. Pretty much like a BE condensate.

      Of course, in Yoga they teach you how to quiet the "gross" vibrations first, starting with the physical, emotional, mental. This is where the astute observer can attest to the truth of this. Anybody who has reached a high level of mastery over any of those states can see that those who lack mastery seemed to be possessed by multiple personalities, two left feet, inconsistent and/or illogical beliefs. As if distinct entities are acting, usually at cross-purposes, to create one big sad mess.

      Kids notice this right away. The jocks laugh at the nerds who can't seem to understand how to not move akwardly or even use their own eyes, but they make themselves feel better because those jocks can't grasp half the concepts they can. However, when mastered, there is no more conflict, all of ones energy can be harnessed and focused to the task at hand, becoming an effective tool ...to work yourself out of the mess in the other two fields because rarely are we so well balanced. :) Each state mastered lowers the noise level, changing the Level of Detail you are perceiving, to hear your true vibration arising from, essentially, a string in string theory.

      I only mention the yoga because they have an explanation for a how a being would exist in the first place. There is no reason why subjective truths shouldn't be congruent with objective truths. They are, after all, just descriptions of the same phenomena.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    18. Re:Not quite... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Sometimes smart people can be really stupid.

      Yes, and sometimes people who claim others are stupid are making a mistake. I won't go so far as to say you're being stupid.

      The paradox only exists in not understanding logic.

      It's about intuition. I think it's a fascinating and illustrative problem.

      Logic doesn't speak to truth but to relativity.

      Relativity to what? Logic is about finding truth.

      Sometimes people confuse reality (well, actually, their subjective reality) with thought games...

      Yes, but then those "thought games" can be very useful models of reality, and paradoxes serve to refine their usefulness.

    19. Re:Not quite... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You see, the problem with numbers is that there doesn't exist 2 of anything in reality. The concept of 2 is derived from generalizations of reality imposed by the limitations of our sensory apparatus.

      That sounds like a worthless proposition that seeks to deny everyday reality without any justification.

    20. Re:Not quite... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      True...

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    21. Re:Not quite... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Well, it depends on what you want to do. At 13 I didn't want to waste my time on a system that could eventually be 'solved' as the consequences of it's axioms were discovered. Infinite monkeys and so on. That isn't a problem to work on, it's like menial labour.

      Don't get me wrong, we need the monkeys. I just thought it would be more interesting to work on a unifying theory of science and spirituality, just because people seemed to view, and largely still do, that as ridiculous, impossible, opposites blah blah blah.

      But when you get right down to it, practical or not, there is no exact replica of anything else in the universe.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    22. Re:Not quite... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between not wanting to do math versus denying the basic reality of the number 2. As for "menial labour", that's bullshit. Mathematicians are clever. The naive, bunch of monkeys typing away approach doesn't work very well.

    23. Re:Not quite... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry. Please explain the basic reality of the number 2 to me as it seems to be so apparent to you.

      Children with meccano can be clever as well, but they're still limited by the building blocks they have at their disposal. Try not to take ridiculous things literally, there are such things as analogies, metaphors, etc...

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    24. Re:Not quite... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Please explain the basic reality of the number 2 to me as it seems to be so apparent to you.

      I'd like to better understand how you could deny such a basic concept that can be seen everywhere. I have two apples and give one to my friend. I have one apple left to eat. Repeat ad nauseam for just about any item. Numbers are used for counting sheep, money in your bank account, or the number of letters in this sentence. I could go on and on, and I'm sure you don't deny this.

      Now you can get into a philosophical debate about what it means to "really" exist, but I find that it's pointless. It's an undeniable part of our everyday reality, and that's good enough for me.

    25. Re:Not quite... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Ignorance is bliss. People can only see what they can understand.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    26. Re:Not quite... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You asked for my explanation, and I gave you one. As you provide no counter-point, I go back to my original statement: "That sounds like a worthless proposition that seeks to deny everyday reality without any justification."

    27. Re:Not quite... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      I'll be nice. Your explanation was already taken care of in my previous posts. If you failed to understand it, there's nothing I can do about that. But perhaps research the difference between descriptive categories and uniqueness. I'm using different words for the same concept, but that probably won't make any difference because people can't see what they don't understand.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    28. Re:Not quite... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If you failed to understand it, there's nothing I can do about that.

      Perhaps there's nothing you can do about it because the problem is with your ability to explain, or more fundamentally, your claims are specious.

  9. Excuse me? This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been a known fact for decades. I don't understand how this is news.

  10. Meanwhile, Lake Vita reeks of death by crazyjj · · Score: 2

    Sorry, Sony. You know it's true.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  11. Europa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attempt no landing there, ya douchebag!

    1. Re:Europa? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      ...of mostly water

  12. Re:Excuse me? This is news? by scorp1us · · Score: 2

    They only drilled into it this year. This couldn't have been known for years. its' been separated from the normal biome for hundreds if not millions of years.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  13. Re:Game idea... by crazyjj · · Score: 1

    And a plotline from that shitty Patrick Duffy show from the 70's, and probably a few Aquaman retcons too.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  14. Re:Excuse me? This is news? by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    EDIT: ...hundreds of thousands if not millions... Also read as several interglacials.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  15. Re:Excuse me? This is news? by scorp1us · · Score: 2

    EDIT: Never mind. I got this confused with Vostok, which actually has been drilled into this year. First reports are that Vostok is devoid of life, but that is only on initial inspection. I thought this article as a correction to that.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  16. HAL said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these worlds
    are yours except
    EUROPA
    attempt no
    landing there

  17. Re:Game idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure that's the basis of a Clive Cussler novel too.

  18. Re:Game idea... by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dallas?

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  19. Re:Game idea... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    There are few new things imagined by anyone. Most stories are rehashes of old stories, often mashups of all stories. How many versions of Romeo and Juliet are there, only with different names, different wordings, different characters' characteristics, time settings, etc?

  20. oh noes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    let's hope they won't dig up any shoggoths...

    1. Re:oh noes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's hope they won't dig up any shoggoths...

      Exactly what comes to mind every time I read about this Antarctic lake.

    2. Re:oh noes by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      let's hope they won't dig up any shoggoths...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Shoggoth_on_the_Roof

  21. summary Caveat by dywolf · · Score: 1

    It in no way increases the chance of finding life in those places.
    It merely increases our perception of the chance of finding life.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    1. Re:summary Caveat by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Kind of. The presence of life indicates that life is more likely to be present in cold lakes than if there were no life down there. "Chance" was a poor choice of words. "Likelihood" is better. "Chance" indicates that someone rolls the dice when we get there, and the presence or absence of life hangs on the dice roll. And lets not get into macroscopic quantum waveform collapse... :)

  22. Didn't start there though by Coisiche · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Antarctica wasn't always icebound. Once it would have been filled with life until plate tectonics moved it to the south pole. So there is a significant difference to the likes of Mars and moons orbiting the gas giants in that life under the ice first evolved under different conditions somewhere else and has adapted to the changing conditions as the land iced over.

    1. Re:Didn't start there though by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Mars wasn't always a frigid desert. Once it could have been filled with life and liquid water until it drifted further from the sun.

      Same goes for moons, but substitute closer to the sun with more geologic activity or greater tidal stresses... either of which could have caused significantly different environments than they have now.

    2. Re:Didn't start there though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars's environment didn't change because its orbit moved, it changed because it's core cooled down (being smaller than earth, it cooled faster), which caused it to lose its magnetic field, and then eventually its atmosphere. Mars is what you get when you have basically zero greenhouse effect - it'd be almost exactly the same situation if Mars was as close to the sun as the Earth. (Just as Venus would be just as hot, were it further away... that's what you get for having too *much* greenhouse effect)

    3. Re:Didn't start there though by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      Granted, but the point I was trying to make is that we know there was definitely life on the Antarctic continent before it became glaciated. Regardless of what environmental changes the other places might have gone through over the millennia, we cannot yet be certain that they ever supported life.

      Maybe Curiosity will find evidence on Mars but it's going to be a long time until that question can be answered for the gas giant moons.

    4. Re:Didn't start there though by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the method that caused climate change, the point still stands that Mars could have easily had a very different climate than it does today... so life could have had a similar environmental opportunity on Mars as it had on Earth (although maybe millions of years apart). That life could have then adapted in the same manner as the featured life in Antarctica.

    5. Re:Didn't start there though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is possible that we will send a mission within a decade. After all, the idea of red dragon is to make those kinds of missions cheap enough to do.

  23. Re:Game idea... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    Stargate? Kind of but no. There were ruins but Atlantis had been moved long ago and nobody lived there and nobody thought the world outside the ice was destroyed.

  24. Want is not relevant by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1, Interesting

    “It is quite remarkable that something wants to live in that cold, dark and salty environment at all.”

    It's not like the life there has a choice of where to live.

  25. Re:Probability abuse by INeededALogin · · Score: 5, Funny

    That means it is a statistical certainty that there is at least one planet somewhere that has at least one farm animal because: p = 1 - .5 x .5 x .5 ....

    Simple mathematics tells us that the population of the Universe must be zero. Why? Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is as close to zero as makes no odds, therefore we can round the average population of the Universe to zero, and so the total population must be zero.

    Thank you Douglas Adams:-)

  26. Re:Game idea... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

    No, I can remember an episode where SG-1 is trapped (and a little bit brainwashed) to work in a big city underneath a thick layer of ice. Told that they would be the only survivors of an apocalypse on the surface...which was a lie, of course. Star Trek Voyager did a copy of the episode where the crew was working in a big city. Can't find the episode right now, though.

  27. Re:Probability abuse by vikingpower · · Score: 0

    LOLz. This one provoked first the crack of a smile, then a wide grin, and finally a hearty laugh with me. Each phrase, starting with "Well given that ..." contains so many crap assumptions - that is exactly what makes it so funny.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  28. Only 2800 years? by morgauxo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    2800 years doesn't sound like a very long time for this lake to have had it's ice cap. 2800 years ago is still well within the range of human history! It's nothing to geology! So.. how was the lake uncapped 2800 years ago? I know that Antarctica was in a warmer, higher latitude before it moved to the polar region but 2800 years of continental drift should be what, between 100 and 1000 feet? Was there a warming trend back then even bigger than the one today? I wouldn't think there would be all that much evolution even during that short a time so if so the species we know survived it. That revelation sounds like a global warming denier field day! I'm not trying to hand them any arguments, I'm only trying to ask the question. What happened ~2800 years ago?

    1. Re:Only 2800 years? by SJHillman · · Score: 3, Informative

      It just said sealed for 2800 years... nothing about being in a warmer climate then. There's any number of things that could have caused it to be unsealed (which is not the same thing is completely open) up until ~2800 years ago. Maybe there was a subsurface channel connecting it to the ocean, maybe there was a chasm leading from the surface, maybe a meteor strike penetrated the cap.

    2. Re:Only 2800 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bacteria evolve very quickly. 2800 years is billions of generations for life in that lake.

    3. Re:Only 2800 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are currently in an intergalcial period, a warm period of 12,000 years (occasionally 24,000) that crop up every 40,000-120,000 years or so. This one is called the Holocene. The warmest period of the Holocene was 8,000 years ago, and the coolest points were about 1660 and 1850. We are 11,500 years into this interglacial.

      A quick overview of the Milankovitch Cycles (the shift of the climate cycles,) would put that right about the time of the end of the Subboreal and the Subaltlantic periods (our current/last 2500 years) where there was a distinct downstep in temperature. This is all normal for the Interglacials, a strong uptick in temperature, then decreasing temperatures for 10,000-12,000 years, then a decrease back down to the glacial norm of the Pleistocene.

      It looks like we have 500 to maybe 1,000 years (unless this is a double interglacial) and then we return to a Glacial Period, like the Wisconsin Glacial that had all of Canada and most of North American covered, and even Hawaii had Glaciers.

    4. Re:Only 2800 years? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Was there a warming trend back then even bigger than the one today?

      Yes. Maps from even more recent times show the coastlines of Antarctica that we can only recently confirm (through the ice sheets) with modern technology.

      Much of that three miles of ice on Antarctica was distributed throughout the climate. The Sahara wasn't a monstrous desert, for instance, and the Middle East was a font of life and commerce.

      But the real modern concern is property values in Western Europe, which are 'propped up' by the Gulf Stream. The present condition of the thermohaline cycle and the Arctic circulation keeps the heat from the Gulf of Mexico region flowing up to areas north of Quebec on that side of the Atlantic so they can grow fancy grapes and farm wheat instead of peat. In a warming climate, there's a very real chance that the cycle will change and the habitation of Northern Europe will be seen as a temporary feature.

      But the same people who hold much of that property wealth also stand to benefit from a power grab, even if it has little chance of changing the outcome. So, either way they win, so full speed ahead with the hellfire and damnation! (meanwhile actual scientific people want to move on to the next generation of clean power - 'amazingly enough' they block that)

      The real 'climate deniers' are those who refuse to ask 'cui bono?'.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Only 2800 years? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Some of the information I've heard indicates this (the Holocene) is probably one of the long (24,000 year) interglacials so it might be another 10,000+ years before the next glacial starts. However, the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere is probably causing enough warming that the next glacial is probably postponed indefinitely.

    6. Re:Only 2800 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sealed for at least 2800 years. As far as I can tell from wikipedia's article, in 2002 microbes were recovered and reanimated from core samples of the ice cap and these microbes/samples were ~2800 years old. The cap could be older if these samples weren't from the oldest part, I did not see a description of it's age/geology/origin.

      I'm curious about the seasonal inflows and outflows, it doesn't explicitly state where these are flowing. My first thought was they were underground and interacting with the brine, but more likely they're on the surface and refreeze as part of the ice cap.

    7. Re:Only 2800 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml the Antarctic plate moves about 2.05cm/yr. 2.05 centimeters * 2800 = 57.4 meters, or 188.32 feet (approximately).

      Good guess.

    8. Re:Only 2800 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You exaggerate. You should check your math before posting on the internet. 2800 years is 1.4 Billion minutes. So in order to get billions of generations, you would need a doubling time of well under a minute. You are off by two orders of magnitude. An E coli might be able to double in 20 minutes under ideal conditions, but in lab conditions, they tend to take 40 minutes. You are referring to many different species some of which are probably a lot slower, but none of which are probably much faster, especially in the cold. So let's say 40 minutes. That gets us 37 million generations, and the true number is likely to be smaller.

    9. Re:Only 2800 years? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      I've heard of those Antarctic maps but not from a reputable source. Have you?

    10. Re:Only 2800 years? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I've heard of those Antarctic maps but not from a reputable source. Have you?

      I've seen them. Nobody disputes their authenticity, only what they represent. I've literally read something along the lines of "the indicated land mass can't be Antarctica because it wasn't spotted until 1815". On Wikipedia or something.

      They seems to be largely compiled from Chinese maps. We know for a fact that China had massive seafaring prowess early in the last millenium and gave it up. The critics will say the maps could not be Antarctica, because even though they're drawn in Antarctica's position, and the outlines are generally correct, there is this error or that error. I read one such critique that said that it was a map of South America, because just this river and that river were duplicated, and if it was rotated, and this part left out ... even though South America is already on the same map. Or that there were legends of the land, so map makers drew it in and just got lucks.

      There are believers and non-believers. They seem to be much more vocal than the pragmatists. Personally, I think many of the rivers, lakes, and mountains are good matches, and the continent is where it's supposed to be on the map (within some margins of error for 500-year old maps). I think the burden of disproof is higher when the map says that it's Antarctica and people say, "but that's impossible!".

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  29. Re:Game idea... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    You're both right. There were at least 2 episodes regarding the former site of Atlantis in Antarctica, and there was also the slave labor episode. I could look them up, but they're boxed away at the moment.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  30. Water = Life by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everywhere we've looked on this planet, including sulfuric volcanic fissures miles under the surface, where there's water we've found life. Clearly this planet is infested with it.

    At some point finding life in a weird new liquid water-based environment on Earth has to cease being news.

    1. Re:Water = Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, there is a good reason why this is news. It means that there is greater variety in life than was expected. And yes, 30 years ago, when I got my degree in microbiology, nobody would have thought that life could exist in 100C+ or in 0C- water. It really is remarkable that we are finding these extremaphiles in these locations.

    2. Re:Water = Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. For example, there is the relatively recent discovery of an organism which can survive the temperatures used in a autoclave. (For those of you who don't know, autoclaves are used to sterilize surgical instruments. It heats things up until they reach a certain temperature, chosen because it was believed that nothing could survive at that temperature, because DNA is known to break down due to heat below that point.)

    3. Re:Water = Life by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      So for you "news" is anything that would have been surprising 30 years ago?

      Slashdot is a great place for you then.

    4. Re:Water = Life by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      There are weather events all the time on earth, yet weather events are in the news every single day. Do complain about meteorologists as well?

      No one said this was a shocking, groundbreaking discovery, only that it adds to what we already know.

      (Also, I'm a fan juvenile dicks making useless troll comments, so people like you have made Slashdot a fabulous place for me. Thanks!)

    5. Re:Water = Life by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Not everywhere. Lake Vostok so far appears to be dead.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    6. Re:Water = Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the sulfur reducing bacteria and their friends the archaea, likely some of the oldest species on the planet. They love the taste of iron.

    7. Re:Water = Life by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Yes, for my money, that's the bit in there that is news (although the language used indicates they still expect to find life there one day).

  31. Re:Game idea... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I thought rehashing At the Mountains of Madness as Prometheus was pretty ballsy.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  32. Re:Probability abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if he hadn't referenced HHGTTG, fucking idiots on this site would have been foaming at the mouth going ape shit to point out why his logic is flawed. People need to get a grip.

  33. As a portuguese... by closer2it · · Score: 1

    The summary title seems to come from the Department of Redundancy Department. :)

  34. Re:Probability abuse by plover · · Score: 1

    "First, assume we start with a spherical chicken..."

    --
    John
  35. And for the nerds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA has the correct -13C, which is much more believable as "one of the coldest aquatic environments on Earth". For Americans 13C would be 55.4F, and -13C is 8.6F or 23.4F below freezing.

    And for the nerds 13C would be 286.15K whereas -13C is 260.15K

    The REAL nerds would have thought 13 C referred to 3897301930.6 meters per second.

    1. Re:And for the nerds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The REAL nerds would have thought 13 C referred to 3897301930.6 meters per second.

      That would be 13c, not 13C.

    2. Re:And for the nerds... by perceptual.cyclotron · · Score: 1

      Or 8.113962545 x 10^19 e ...

    3. Re:And for the nerds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No dofus, you forgot your significant figures. The original measurement is reported to 2 significant figures, so any converted values must also contain only two significant digits.

  36. Re:Probability abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and given that it takes 1/2 a minute for 1/2 a chicken to lay 1/2 an egg... we see that it requires at least 1:01 minutes for a Slashdotter to post one.

  37. Re:Probability abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There can still be an infinite amount of planets with life. Please refer to the difference between the number of integers and the number of real numbers.

  38. Increasing chances by djh2400 · · Score: 1

    The find increases the chances that life may exist (or have once existed) on planets such as Mars and moons such as Jupiter's Europa.

    Isn't the find kind of irrelevant to the chances that life exists elsewhere? It's like saying that, if I lose two socks and find one 3 years later, then I therefore have an increased chance of finding the second sock sooner rather than later. The first has nothing to do with the second. The existence of life in one place on Earth has little to do with chances of finding life elsewhere, since they're two independent events.

  39. Re:Probability abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fraction of an infinite number is also an infinite number. For example, one half of all numbers are even. There are an infinite number of even numbers.

  40. I Wouldn't Count On It by sudon't · · Score: 2

    "The find increases the chances that life may exist (or have once existed) on planets such as Mars and moons such as Jupiter's Europa."

    Yeah, I wouldn't count on that. Life may be able to adapt to extreme environments, but I have serious doubts about it "spawning" in permanent sub-freezing conditions. Nevermind that we still have no idea whether or not life is unique to Earth. Let's not forget that the Antarctic once straddled the equator, giving life a chance to take hold, then adapt over its slow southward slide to the pole. And what djh2400 said.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  41. Re:Game idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was also the plot of the X-Files movie. (Well, if you allow "Antarctica" to actually be a giant flying saucer buried under the ice.)

  42. This isn't just about cold water by petsounds · · Score: 1

    The BBC article goes into more detail:

    Lake Vida, the largest of several unique lakes found in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, contains no oxygen, is acidic, mostly frozen and possesses the highest nitrous oxide levels of any natural water body on Earth.

    The abundance of different chemical compounds present in the lake led the researchers to conclude that chemical reactions were taking place between the brine and the underlying iron-rich sediments, producing the nitrous oxide and molecular hydrogen.
    [...]
    "It's plausible that a life-supporting energy source exists solely from the chemical reaction between anoxic salt water and the rock," said co-author Dr Christian Fritsen, also from the DRI.

    So this is not just a deep freeze; this is an extremely hostile environment for life, even by our current understanding of extremophiles.

    And this is why we need to be sending missions to the under-ice oceans of Europa or the hydrocarbon lakes of Titan, not yet another rock-hunting mission.

  43. The find doesn't increase chances.... by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

    "The find increases the chances that life may exist"...
    I don't think any find here on Earth can increase chances anywhere else.
    The chances of life existing elsewhere is unchanging. Regardless of what humans discover.
    I think it just increases the hope of those wishing for the discovery life on other planets.
    I personally think it's a false hope, although I'd be excited to be proven wrong.
    I also think it's dangerous to rely on a belief in life on other planets, as far as we know life here is rare and unique, and the idea that we can trash this planet, and escape to other worlds as a plausible scenario, or that we can erase all or some life here, and believe that life still exists elsewhere, stands a chance of being tragically incorrect.