Huge Canyon Discovered Under Greenland Ice

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Huge Canyon Discovered Under Greenland Ice

Posted by timothy on Thursday August 29, 2013 @08:54AM from the earth-the-present-frontier dept.

cold fjord writes with this news, straight from the BBC: "One of the biggest canyons in the world has been found beneath the ice sheet that smothers most of Greenland. The canyon — which is 800km long and up to 800m deep — was carved out by a great river more than four million years ago ... It was discovered by accident as scientists researching climate change mapped Greenland's bedrock by radar. The British Antarctic Survey said it was remarkable to find so huge a geographical feature previously unseen. The hidden valley is longer than the Grand Canyon in Arizona. ... The ice sheet, up to 3km (2 miles) thick, is now so heavy that it makes the island sag in the middle (central Greenland was previously about 500m above sea level, now it is 200m below sea level)."

137 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So just wondering... by Daetrin · 2013-08-29 08:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

In theory, if all the ice on Greenland melted, how long would it take Greenland to spring back up again? I'm presuming it wouldn't be instantaneous or even noticeable to a human on Greenland at the time (well, aside from the earthquakes that would almost certainly accompany such an event,) but are we talking years, decades, centuries, or longer?

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
1. Re:So just wondering... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-08-29 09:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  By "spring up", you mean floating the crust higher on the mantle? I thought that the north of Europe was even now still rising after the last Ice Age, and that's been quite some time.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re:So just wondering... by necro81 · 2013-08-29 09:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Centuries to millennia. Geologists are able to measure the ongoing rebound of North America from the retreat of the glaciers from the last ice age.
3. Re:So just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Millennia. The post-glacial rebound is still happening in North America from the last ice age, and that was 10,000 years ago. The New Madrid Seismic Zone is still active today, and experts agree that it has the potential to produce another very powerful earthquake.
4. Re:So just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Some places in Sweden are raising with 9mm/year so it could probably be noticed by humans over a lifetime.
5. Re:So just wondering... by mark-t · 2013-08-29 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  Why do you figure that the earth will not be inhabitable by humans? Consider that before the last major ice-age, the world was much warmer than it is now....
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
6. Re:So just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Michigan and Upper New York are still rebounding from the last ice age.
  It will take a while. Today, typical uplift rates are of the order of 1 cm/year or less.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
7. Re:So just wondering... by icebike · 2013-08-29 09:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  In theory, if all the ice on Greenland melted, how long would it take Greenland to spring back up again? I'm presuming it wouldn't be instantaneous or even noticeable to a human on Greenland at the time (well, aside from the earthquakes that would almost certainly accompany such an event,) but are we talking years, decades, centuries, or longer?
  It would be noticeable by humans over their life span.
  You see this (in smaller scale) in places in Alaska where receding ice caps and the glaciers that flow from them slowly recede up the valleys and vegetation changes appear in the wake.
  You also see the river flowing from the glaciers cutting deeper channels to the ocean. The glaciers flowed directly to the ocean earlier, now the glacier's nose is several miles upstream. The river channels "grow" high banks as you travel away from the glacier toward the ocean. This is a sign of uplifting land, (there are no longer and deposited soils being laid down in the area, yet the river banks grow steeper, and the river surface is within a few feet of mean high tide over the years.
  Its not much, but you can see it over a period of 30 or 40 years if you are observant. Surveyors can measure it these days (even without GPS), relative to mean high-tide in those places where survey markers were installed decades ago.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
8. Re:So just wondering... by Tastecicles · 2013-08-29 09:32 · Score: 2
  
  dunno, but there is a seesaw effect still in play in Western Europe; the most dramatic effect is seen along the length of mainland Britain. While Scotland is still rising after spending a while under a couple miles of ice, the South of England is sinking as it was largely ice-free during the last big freeze. The phenomenon is slow, it's taking a few thousand years for a complete oscillation, but geological evidence suggests that prior to the last ice age, the North Sea was bone dry (being several hundred metres above sea level!). It won't be very many hundreds of years before Loch Ness is physically isolated from the sea at either end and becomes a fully enclosed high saltwater lake!
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
9. Re:So just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  that would explain the weight loss i experience, yes i measure my weight loss at that scale you insensitive clod
10. Re:So just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  It would probably take at least tens to hundreds of thousands of years, given that in locations such as Canada and northern Europe that formerly had several kilometres of glacial ice on them are still rising today due to isostatic rebound. The ice was thickest in these areas about 100000 years ago and most of it had melted away by about 10000 years ago, but it's still rising. Total rise is on the order of several tens of metres depending upon location. Along Hudson's Bay (northern Canada) there are raised beaches all over the place on the land, marking the former location of the shorelines.
11. Re:So just wondering... by hydrofix · 2013-08-29 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  During the last ice age up to only 15,000 years ago, the whole of Scandinavia was covered under a very heavy glacial mass, causing the earth's crust to deform. In these areas, the earth is currently raising or rebounding at a rate of about 3-5 millimeters per year, or up to 10 inch (25 cm) in half a century (50 years). Such changes are indeed quite visible during a human life. An elderly person might recognize that a shore where he or she used to spend time as a child has visibly changed as if by a permanent low tide during their lifetime.
12. Re:So just wondering... by mrbester · 2013-08-29 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  The south of England, particularly the Weald and south coast from Dover to Selsey, was under the sea until the Cenozoic era, hence the chalk downs and cliffs made of crushed fossilised prehistoric sea shells. To say there must have been a few of them is an understatement; Beachy Head is 513ft high. And that's after tens of millions of years of erosion.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
13. Re:So just wondering... by X-Ray+Artist · 2013-08-29 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  I was hoping there would be a decent answer to this question. I was curious about the answer and this explains it best to me.
  
  --
  I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
14. Re:So just wondering... by NatasRevol · 2013-08-29 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Noticeable is an understatement
  That's 35 inches in 100 years.
  I hope it's even!
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
15. Re:So just wondering... by jopsen · 2013-08-29 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Noticeable is an understatement
  That's 35 inches in 100 years.
  I hope it's even!
  Or 9mm per year, 9cm per 10 years, 0.90m per 100 years, to be exact...
16. Re:So just wondering... by NatasRevol · 2013-08-29 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt the 9mm is exact, so your precision is ... not.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
17. Re:So just wondering... by khallow · 2013-08-29 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Why wouldn't humans exist? We're not talking of conditions that would kill humans after all. Just merely warm enough to melt ice on Greenland.
18. Re:So just wondering... by PurpleAlien · 2013-08-29 12:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  High Coast (Sweden) and Kvarken Archipelago (Finland)
  
  "The geomorphology of the region is largely shaped by the combined processes of glaciation, glacial retreat and the emergence of new land from the sea which continues today at a rate of 0.9 m per century."
  
  Source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/898
  
  --
  My blog, if you're interested: http://www.purp
19. Re:So just wondering... by riverat1 · 2013-08-29 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  The Canadian Shield is still rising from the end of the last glaciation around 12,000 years ago. Lake Champlain used to be part of the Champlain Sea until isostatic rebound caused it to rise above sea level around 10,000 years ago.
20. Re:So just wondering... by mevets · 2013-08-29 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  9mm/yr after how many years?
  The shape of the curve is probably more interesting; as the awkwardly phrased wikipedia page attests:
  ----
  Studies have shown that the uplift has taken place in two distinct stages. The initial uplift following deglaciation was almost immediate due to the elastic response of the crust as the ice load was removed. After this elastic phase, uplift proceeded by slow viscous flow so the rate of uplift decreased exponentially after that.
  -----
  I think it would be quite observable.
21. Re:So just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 16:24 · Score: 0
  
  Why did you use an apostrophe in the word "gets"?
22. Re:So just wondering... by jovius · 2013-08-29 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  At least it'll be less habitable, because the climate change at hand is a whole lot faster than what it has naturally been. The planet tries to accommodate the relatively quick input of energy (coming from the suddenly enhanced greenhouse effect and deforestation...), and in the process goes to extremes more often than before. The cycles in the past hundreds of thousands of years have been relatively stable and changes have been taking place in thousands of years. We are in the middle of a balance seeking process, and the new balance is unknown. The historical oscillations have been perturbed.
  What comes to to the original question the land in Finland rises 3 - 9 mm per year for example (although this may not all be from recovering from the ice age). The rise has even changed the direction of river flows. Islands of one archipelago gain new area about 1 km^2 per year. The total land area gains 7 km^2 year. 12000 years ago Finland was buried under 2 - 3 kilometers of ice.
23. Re:So just wondering... by evilmidnightbomber77 · 2013-08-29 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  It will be habitable for some number. It sure as hell won't be inhabitable by 7 billion humans though.
24. Re:So just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  I like how you flesh out your argument solely with assertion.
25. Re:So just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 19:40 · Score: 0
  
  We're actually still in an ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary Glaciation, which began 2.8 million years ago, and persists to this day. Before this ice age began, there were no humans, just australopithecenes that would eventually evolve into humans.
26. Re:So just wondering... by ianare · 2013-08-29 19:57 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  You are describing glacial retreat caused by global warming, which is not the same thing. As temperatures rise, the ice melts and retreats higher in elevation where it is colder. Also as a result of the warming effect, plants are able to take up residence in land formerly occupied by the ice sheet. In areas with permafrost, some of it will melt, leading to sinking and fractures in infrastructure. Climate change can happen very quickly, as we are seeing.
  An example of glacial rebound would be a fishing village in medieval times now being far from the coast, even though sea levels have risen since. Or of a sound being locked by rising land and turned into a lake. Rebound typically is not measurable within the frame of a single lifespan, more like hundreds to thousands of years. We are still experiencing effects from the melting of the last ice age.
27. Re:So just wondering... by DrXym · 2013-08-29 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  Earthquakes are still occur in Ireland, the UK and Scandinavia from glacial rebound. They are very minor quakes in modern times but they're still frequent events. I assume that Greenland would experience quakes and possibly quite violent ones to begin with.
28. Re:So just wondering... by Pav · 2013-08-29 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  Dr Iain Stewart has done some fantastic BBC documentaries on geology, and I believe he has answered exactly this question. The movement takes millenia, but sometimes there are huge earthquakes in the middle of nowhere far from plate boundaries. This may be the relevant documentary.
29. Re:So just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-30 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  The initial uplift following deglaciation was almost immediate
  This is why I really hate Wikipedia. It's not like the glaciers and ice just up and vanished one sunny morning, it can take hundreds or thousands of years for the ice to be gone. There is no such thing as an initial uplift following deglaciation, the crust uplifts as the ice goes away.
30. Re:So just wondering... by brian0918 · 2013-08-30 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  At least it'll be less habitable, because the climate change at hand is a whole lot faster than what it has naturally been.
  
  How do you figure? The global mean temperature has been flat for 17 years now. Where is this "whole lot faster" of which you speak?
31. Re:So just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-30 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  They won't exist by the time it get's that warm.
  
  Says the kid who never finished high school...
32. Re:So just wondering... by T.E.D. · 2013-08-30 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  The Northern parts of North America and Europe are still springing back up from the last Ice Age, 20,000 - 8,000 years or so ago.
  So it may take a little while.
33. Re:So just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-30 02:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  in finland Limingan lahti is famous place it has even "bird sighting places" and along the way to bird-tower theres signs where sealevel used to be... its quite remarkable how much land has risen from sea :D
34. Re:So just wondering... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-08-30 03:08 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The global mean temperature has been flat for 17 years now.
  Now you've shown him! He's so shocked by this that he won't even ask for sources and citations and will simply back out with his tail between his legs!
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
35. Re:So just wondering... by icebike · 2013-08-30 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  But it is the same thing, as any geologist will tell you. Its just on a smaller scale.
  A bazillion tons of ice is lifted from the land, and the land rebound upward. Entire icefields that feed the glaciers also reduce their mass.
  And it is clearly visible in a life time, not merely by observing land features previously hidden by the glacier, but also, as I mentioned, the
  increased height of the stream banks and surrounding land.
  Remember, there are no alluvial deposits taking place.
  The stream WAS and STILL IS at essentially sea level, so its not like it has any incentive to cut a deeper channel.
  Yet the banks grow higher as thae land pushes up.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
36. Re:So just wondering... by RockDoctor · 2013-08-30 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  In theory, if all the ice on Greenland melted, how long would it take Greenland to spring back up again?
  [...]are we talking years, decades, centuries, or longer?
  The Laurentide ice sheet (over NE Canada) melted fairly rapidly (a couple of centuries) around 9000 years ago, as indicated by deposits of ice-rafted debris in the middle of the North Atlantic (without iceberg transport, how are you going to transport mm-size sand grains to the middle of an ocean? Let alone fist-sized "drop stones".). There's also abundant evidence of fresh-water influxes into the North Atlantic at that time, from the melting ice and emptying of lakes ponded behind the ice. The fresh water leaves changed fossil communities of diatoms and other microflora and fauna.
  The region continues it's isostatic rebound to this day.
  Therefore your answer is "thousands of years". Potentially, it could be hundreds of thousands of years.
  If you were going to get all mathematical about it, you could make a case that the rebound would asymptotically approach "stability", and therefore would never actually get there. But in practice, there are sufficient external sources of variation in "sea level" that you'd need to be ignoring reality to swallow such an argument. If your (local) sea level is changing by -1mm/century because of continuing rebound, but there is a global increase in sea level of +1mm/century because of the opening of the Red Sea (with a mid-ocean ridge building along it's axis, displacing water), then in practice the isostatic rebound is no longer important.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
37. Re:So just wondering... by RockDoctor · 2013-08-30 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  [Wearing my hard hat that says "Geologist" on the front.]
  I've not seen substantive evidence that the New Madrid earthquakes were related to post-glacial rebound stresses. What is the source of the stresses in that part of central North America, I certainly don't know, and I've never seen any convincing arguments from someone who claims that they do know (but ... it's not my continent, so I may have missed something in the couple of years since I last looked).
  OTOH, the 1927 IIRC "Grand Banks" earthquake [EDIT : 1929 ; like I said, not one of my regular continents], which killed several people with falling masonry in Halifax [EDIT : and a lot of Newfoundland people by tsunami], and broke a number of trans-Atlantic communication cables by triggering density current underwater avalanches, has been ascribed to stresses from post-glacial rebound. The main grounds for this assignment being the orientation of the fault triggered and the sense of movement being appropriate for that stress field.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
38. Re:So just wondering... by RockDoctor · 2013-08-30 16:00 · Score: 2
  
  There are several exposed fault scarps in northern Sweden and Norway on otherwise polished flat (by the glaciers) landscapes which indicate that some of the isostatic rebound has taken place (almost) instantaneously.
  From http://www.sgu.se/dokument/service_sgu_publ/C836.pdf comes this caption:
  
  fig. 18. The Parvie fault at Lake Kamasjaure, some 70 km north of Kiruna. The c. 8 m high fault scarp forms steeply overhanging cliffs indicating reverse fault movement. See helicopter for scale.
  The whole publication is worth a quick scan, even if you're not a geologist. Impressive pictures.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
39. Re:So just wondering... by RockDoctor · 2013-08-30 16:34 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, but you're wrong on a number of counts.
  I'm a geologist who has spent most of the last 30 years working in the North Sea, and living and walking in Scotland.
  
  but geological evidence suggests that prior to the last ice age, the North Sea was bone dry (being several hundred metres above sea level!).
  Most of the North Sea has been a basin of marine deposition for the last 100-odd million years. The last time that the Northern North Sea was emergent was in the late Jurassic with the deposition of the Ness and Tarbert formations of the Brent group (economically hugely important ; there are several "elephant" oil field hosted in these units ; occasionally we see evidence of roots in the sands when we core them, indicating emergence). These were fed sands from the vicinity of Shetland, but the area has been subsiding in pace with sediment deposition since. The sea in this area is now typically over 100m deep.
  There is evidence (blocks of Chalk Group coccolithophore limestone floundered in lava vents in the volcano centres of Arran, Mull, Rum and Skye) that the whole of Scotland was submerged to a depth of dozens to hundreds of metres ("below storm wave base" in technical terms) by 70Myr ago.
  True, in the Southern North Sea the water is shallower, but that is a relatively small area, and to be honest, I count the whole lot ("Doggerland" and all) as just being a temporarily drowned part of the Rhine delta, with the Thames as a tributary of the Rhine which just happens to meet the sea before it runs into the Rhine. When you look at the thousands of metres of relative change of ground level versus sea level implied by those Chalk blocks hundreds of metres above present sea-level, it is hard to care about where the coast line is this million years.
  
  It won't be very many hundreds of years before Loch Ness is physically isolated from the sea at either end and becomes a fully enclosed high saltwater lake!
  Loch Ness is separated form the sea by around a 10-12m high ridge of bedrock through which the River Ness and Caledonian Canal cut for 10km. I've walked and cycled the canal towpath several times between Inverness town centre and a relative's home in the village of Lochend, at the end of Loch Ness (some Scottish place names are designed to use obfuscating language to confuse people about the areas geography). I've swum in Loch Ness on several occasions and can assure you of three things : it's fucking freezing ; it's fresh water ; and it's still fucking freezing. It's probably several thousand years since Loch Ness was isolated from the sea.
  Oh, and by the way, my relative has seen Nessie, and she's an idiot, therefore it is really really unlikely to exist. (Except as various fakes and frauds designed to rip tourists off, which is quite fine by me ; it's what they exist for.)
  If you think that the other end of Loch Ness is near the sea, then you really need to look at a map. Or spend 3-4 hours cycling from Fort William to Fort Augustus. I really don't recommend cycling from Fort Augustus to Inverness.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
40. Re: So just wondering... by gzuckier · 2013-08-30 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  And we had thriving human civilization then right?
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
41. Re:So just wondering... by brian0918 · 2013-09-03 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm?
I think I know what it is by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2013-08-29 09:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Is it where the Wunderland Treatymaker was test fired?

--
Mostly random stuff.
1. Re:I think I know what it is by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Is it where the Wunderland Treatymaker was test fired?
  Bonus points for Larry Niven reference!
Al Gore, you're wanted on line 1... by themushroom · 2013-08-29 09:00 · Score: 2

Now's the time when climate change could do some good... RAISE GREENLAND! Make it green land!

--
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
1. Re:Al Gore, you're wanted on line 1... by Kjella · 2013-08-29 10:14 · Score: 2
  
  And only 1031 years after it was named so in order to trick people into immigrating there, better late than never I guess.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Sooo, 4 mya Greenland wasn't ice-covered? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:03 · Score: 0

I guess the Earth must have been warmer, from all the mammoths driving SUVs.
All can be fixed.... by pollarda · 2013-08-29 09:04 · Score: 4, Funny

With a little global warming one of the world's greatest landmarks could be recovered, the sag in central Greenland would be fixed and a new source of income for Greenland could be tapped as tourists flock to this new "Grand Canyon" to go hiking, fishing, and camping.
1. Re:All can be fixed.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:18 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Based on my own experience, once there's sagging in the middle it never goes away no much how hard you try to burn off the weight.
2. Re:All can be fixed.... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-08-29 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  And the rest of Canada, Alaska, and Siberia. By that time we will have robots serving us sp it's all irrelevant. Bring on the robots as fast as possible.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
3. Re:All can be fixed.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  By the time that happened there would be no tourists! For the automation and "free markets" have left the plebs too poor to go on something they think was a myth once called vacation or retirement.
  Only a few highly specialized and born wealthy humans remain with their automaton workforce running bellow capacity for there was no customers nor capital system implemented that could buy their cheap to manufacture and as expensive as possible to sell products.
4. Re:All can be fixed.... by ChrisMaple · 2013-08-29 12:12 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  It's astonishing how quickly opponents of capitalism and freedom contradict themselves. If goods are cheap to manufacture, The manufacturer maximizes profits by changing the selling price in a series of decrements, in each decrement making new profits by selling to people unwilling to buy at the old price. Inevitably the price falls to a small multiple of the cost of manufacture, where most people who are interested can buy. For the rich owner of the means of production to fail to do so would mean that he is too stupid to maximize his profits.
  Historically, the concept of retirement for most people is a new thing, which has developed as the wealth made possible by capitalism has accumulated. Before that, people worked until they died.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
5. Re: All can be fixed.... by gzuckier · 2013-08-30 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't that be the Green Canyon?
  
  --
  Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
More info by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 09:05 · Score: 3, Informative

Giant Canyon Discovered Under Greenland Ice Sheet

While flying over the ice sheet, scientists over the past three decades have measured the depths of the canyon using a radar system that operates at frequencies transparent to radio waves—from around 50 megahertz to 500 megahertz. A pulse of energy is sent down to penetrate through the ice, bounce off the bedrock, and travel back to the radar system. (Also read: "'Shocking' Greenland Ice Melt: Global Warming or Just Heat Wave?")
'Grand Canyon' of Greenland Discovered Under Ice Sheet

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
1. Re:More info by JWW · 2013-08-29 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  frequencies transparent to radio waves
  What the heck??
2. Re:More info by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  No doubt that is referring to radar frequencies which will penetrate the ice.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
3. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  Ice is fairly transparent to certain frequencies of radio waves, as are most materials to varying degrees. Why do you think that wifi and cellphone signals can travel through walls? For conventional radar use in the atmosphere (say, for tracking planes) you're only interested in the "hard" returns/reflections from the very first interface between the air and some other material, but nothing stops you from continuing to record radio signals after the first reflection to see if there are any reflections from "deeper" interfaces further away. The same techniques can be used to actively scan through walls, or in this case through kilometres of glacial ice to see the reflection off bedrock. Ice is transparent enough that you can see a long way down, and the contrast between ice and bedrock is strong, so it shows up well. The same technique can be used on ordinary ground (ground penetrating radar), but the depths aren't as good due to greater attenuation in typical ground materials rather than ice, especially if liquid water or other conductive material is present. In mathematical principle it's a similar technique as is used for medical ultrasound images or seismic images except that instead of using sound waves you are using radio waves, and the reflections therefore come back a LOT faster (close to the speed of light).
  You want to know something *really* cool? You can even do it from orbit, around another planet.
4. Re:More info by HornWumpus · 2013-08-29 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Duh. He was ripping on the reporters English and lack of understanding.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Why is it by nayrbn · 2013-08-29 09:06 · Score: 1

that Greenland is called Green again?
1. Re:Why is it by Ioldanach · 2013-08-29 09:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  that Greenland is called Green again?
  Propaganda. Erik the Red named it that in 985 AD to get people to colonize it with him.
2. Re:Why is it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:24 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  And despite what you've been taught, it was a successful farming colony until the climate cooled and the route north of Great Britain became too hazardous.
3. Re:Why is it by CanHasDIY · 2013-08-29 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  I had always heard that the residents of Iceland named it, in order to trick Viking raiding parties.
  No citation, pure heresay.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:Why is it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  We did a quick survey on Slashdot, and found:
  1) Naming it that way is definitely the result of a false flag operation and/or extraordiary rendition.
  2) Sweden named it that to appease their masters in the US government.
  3) NSA! PRISM!
  4) It was named that way to confuse the US military's drone program, as the pilots will see icy terrain and assume it can't be Greenland.
  5) Naming it this way is a clear and unambiguous violation of human rights, and was probably done by your typical cop.
  6) Steve Jobs never would have named it Greenland, and this is a clear signal that Tim Cook taking over at Apple is a death knell for the company.
  7) Steve Jobs named it Greenland, in a clear attempt to claim that he invented the color Green, and the concept of 'dry land.'
  8) Steve Ballmer named it, and is sending a Microsoft employee to take over the government, in a clear attempt to destroy its economic value.
  9) Elon Musk once slept there, and Elon Musk invented every piece of 'green' technology known to man, so it's only natural that a site of such historic significance would be given this name.
  10) Timothy's an idiot.
  Unfortunately, each answer has received 10% of the vote, so there's no clear winner. But it's DEFINITELY one of those reasons - here on Slashdot, these are the only reasons things happen!
5. Re:Why is it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  That's the explanation that I was taught in school in Social Studies.
6. Re:Why is it by riverat1 · 2013-08-29 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think you'd have to say it was a marginal farming colony. I've never heard any indication they had enough surplus to export.
7. Re:Why is it by dwye · 2013-08-30 03:11 · Score: 2
  
  No, but they were successful enough to attempt settling Vinland, and to send roughly-yearly lumbering expeditions for a century after the Skralings chased them out. Their surpluses probably went into internal growth until the climate change suddenly made life untenable, there. If they had learned more from the eskimos they might have been able to keep going.
8. Re:Why is it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-30 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  now i realize why social studies students are arguing always so odd view points :D
9. Re:Why is it by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-09-01 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, but they were successful enough to attempt settling Vinland, and to send roughly-yearly lumbering expeditions for a century after the Skralings chased them out. Their surpluses probably went into internal growth until the climate change suddenly made life untenable, there. If they had learned more from the eskimos they might have been able to keep going.
  Surplus? They never made enough off of farming, and had to supplement with hunted animals, mostly seals, even when they arrived.
  http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2012/2012.11/greenland_norse_gorged_on_seals/
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
How much does flow direction matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:08 · Score: 0

How much does flow direction on a large land mass matter for climate? They say the river flowed north. There's something I've never thought about before. If the river flowed north, the glaciers probably flow north too (obviously much more slowly). That means that as the glaciers grew, more and more fresh water got pushed north where it would stay cold. Within certain limits, would this lead to a feedback effect?
How stable is the north-south aspect here? Could Greenland's continental divide by "tilted" by a large seismic or volcanic event? If it's just a subtle gradient, the pressure of the ice pushing the island down could have tilted the flow towards the south at times, throwing cold water into the north atlantic.
In general, what role does the direction of flow over land plan in our climate? What would things be like if most of the Mississippi valley drained into Hudson Bay?
1. Re:How much does flow direction matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-30 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  When you're standing on the south pole, every direction is north. Most rivers in both hemispheres flow towards the equator.
lol by slashmydots · 2013-08-29 09:11 · Score: 1

Well, I'm sure the hardcore LARPers are packing their bags already because that sounds so RPG/D&D cliche to me. Get your authentic adventuring rowboat and let's go!
Science schmience by Alsee · 2013-08-29 09:14 · Score: 3, Funny

was carved out by a great river more than four million years ago
More lies straight from the pits of hell.
Obviously this super-canyon was carved during Noah's flood.
Another Win for Flood geology!
-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
1. Re:Science schmience by cold+fjord · 2013-08-29 09:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It will be funny till they find Noah's Ark.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
2. Re:Science schmience by MightyMartian · 2013-08-29 10:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  http://www.chem.tufts.edu/science/franksteiger/grandcyn.htm
  AiG's claim was long ago debunked. At this point, the Weekly World News is probably a more reliable source of information than the lying mentally ill nutbars who write for AiG.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Science schmience by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Please don't conflate mentally ill with stupid.
4. Re:Science schmience by three333 · 2013-08-29 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Pits of hell melt ice,
  Plus too many syllables.
  Worst haiku ever.
  
  --
  Three is my favourite number
So how would this change GW models? by HighOrbit · 2013-08-29 09:18 · Score: 1

I've read and heard that the salinity of the ocean drives a large part of the currents. The entire premiss of the over-the-top disater film "Day after Tomorrow" was that warming would dump fresh water into the N. Atlantic shutting down the salinity driven currents (that draw the warm Gulf steam northward and thereby warm the N hemisphere) leading to a deep freeze in the N Hemisphere. Granted that was a bit of far fetched fiction. But does knowing that ice-melt will follow the canyon and dump into the relatively self-contained arctic instead of the N. Atlantic change real-word global-warming models?
1. Re:So how would this change GW models? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  The movie may be somewhat nuts, but the salinity driven currents have been shut down in the past, but probably not on too short of timescales. But in what way would some canyon buried under the ice have anything to do with which way ice-melt flows?
2. Re:So how would this change GW models? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Good question.
3. Re:So how would this change GW models? by RockDoctor · 2013-08-30 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  But does knowing that ice-melt will follow the canyon and dump into the relatively self-contained arctic instead of the N. Atlantic change real-word global-warming models?
  Not hugely, since the north-flowing glacier (and probably sub-glacial drainage in this region too) empties into the Arctic Ocean, as you say, but the main area for the formation of "North Atlantic Deep Water" is the area between Greenland, Iceland, Northern Norway, and Svalbard.
  There is noticeable (and fairly worrying) instability in the amount of such deep, cold, saline water being generated and flowing away south-west over the Greenland-Iceland Ridge, but that's more likely to be affected by flows from Scoresby Sound area than flows going off to the north of Greenland.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Accident? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-29 09:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

> It was discovered by accident as scientists researching climate change mapped Greenland's bedrock by radar.
If you discover a canyon while scanning the bedrock with radar, that isn't an 'accidental' discovery. An accidental discovery is when you're looking for a dropped contact lens and come across a canyon instead.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
1. Re:Accident? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly.
2. Re:Accident? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  If you discover a canyon while scanning the bedrock with radar, that isn't an 'accidental' discovery. An accidental discovery is when you're looking for a dropped contact lens and come across a canyon instead.
  Yes, I think you might call it "unexpected", because they didn't expect such a big canyon, but they sure as hell didn't find it by accident. Lots of work and planning over many decades went into mapping this canyon.
3. Re:Accident? by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-29 09:49 · Score: 2
  
  This year I accidentally arranged 100,000ish logic gates into a functioning circuit for use in microprocessor products made by my employer, by using the design tools and design processes available to me.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
4. Re:Accident? by LynnwoodRooster · 2013-08-29 14:44 · Score: 2
  
  This year I accidentally arranged 100,000ish logic gates into a functioning circuit for use in microprocessor products made by my employer, by using the design tools and design processes available to me.
  Quick, buy a lottery ticket! Your luck may run out!
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by Ioldanach · 2013-08-29 09:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

"If the Greenland ice sheet melts completely it will raise global sea level by 7 metres and swamp many major cities" (article)
Does this account for what would happen when Greenland floats back up?
1. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by shadowofwind · 2013-08-29 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  You're joking? Or assuming that the compression of Greenland is mainly water being squeezed out and not rock being compressed?
2. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by Ioldanach · 2013-08-29 09:43 · Score: 2
  
  If an area the size of Greenland is depressed 300 meters, I'd wonder if it is deformation of the Earth's crust and the whole thing could be pushed back up by internal pressures when the weight is gone. Not assuming anything, just wondering if that could happen and what the impact on sea levels would be if it did.
3. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  No, just the ice. But the effect of the rising land surface would be small on a global scale and would only slightly affect the sea level by comparison, because the volume of Greenland's bedrock surface below sea level is much smaller than the volume of melting ice above sea level. The effect of the isostatic adjustment would be a slight increase in sea level as the land rebounded and displaced the water formerly occupying the areas that were below sea level. It would also take tens to hundreds of thousands of years to occur, so its effect is pretty long-term compared to the melting.
4. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by mrvan · 2013-08-29 10:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The sea level rises because the stuff covering Greenland is ice. When it melts it flows into the ocean, raising sea levels. Greenland is around 2M km2, and the ice sheet is around 2km thick, so we're talking about 4 million cubic kilometers of water. Earth has around 361 sq kilometers of water, so spreading the water around the earth gives around 10 meters of ice on each meter of water, or around 9 meters of water. In other words, (1) greenland is huge, and (2) the sea level rise is purely ice flowing into sea and has nothing to do with geological changes.
  Greenland rebounding does absolutely nothing because the "extra" volume is not taken out of the ocean. The water doesn't suddenly jump back up on the land.
  (arctic ice melting does not affect sea levels because the weight of the ice is already displacing water. Antarctic ice and glaciers on land are in the same situation as greenland ice)
5. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  "If the Greenland ice sheet melts completely it will raise global sea level by 7 metres and swamp many major cities" (article) Does this account for what would happen when Greenland floats back up?
  Wow. Your post really got the attention of the nutters. Rebound is a very slow process taking hundreds of thousands of years. Parts of North America and much of Antarctica are still rebounding from the last glaciation.
6. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by cusco · 2013-08-29 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  No, nor for when Antarctica rebounds. It's such a slow process that i don't think it will make much difference unless you're looking at it on a time scale of centuries.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
7. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by dkf · 2013-08-29 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Greenland rebounding does absolutely nothing because the "extra" volume is not taken out of the ocean. The water doesn't suddenly jump back up on the land.
  Not true. You can get shifting in the surrounding rock as things move around, though the effects are complex. There's also the differences due to the change of the local gravity field; all that ice has a lot of mass and does currently attract plenty of seawater to it.
  I have no idea what the relative sizes of these effects are likely to be.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
8. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by Nidi62 · 2013-08-29 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget to take this canyon into account. When all the ice melts, the water will just fill up the canyon instead of all of it going into the ocean. Maybe I should set up a bottling plant there. A bunch of people will pay good money to drink "pure glacier water". I'll be rich :)
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
9. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by ChrisMaple · 2013-08-29 12:32 · Score: 2
  
  The rock and magma displaced when Greenland sank might (more or less) return from wherever it went. If that area were below the seabed immediately surrounding Greenland, the ocean in that area would get slightly deeper, partially counteracting the increased ocean level (probably about 1/3 in the long term.) However, islands near Greenland might sink along with the ocean floor.
  On the other hand, if the ocean floor near Greenland is relatively still, the closest islands might rise along with Greenland.
  I can imagine other mechanisms and affects, so it's by no means clear what will happen.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
10. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by Kjella · 2013-08-29 12:41 · Score: 2
  
  Not true. You can get shifting in the surrounding rock as things move around, though the effects are complex.
  It's earth's crust rising out of the mantle, if anything the surrounding seabed will rise slightly with it, certainly not the other way around.
  
  There's also the differences due to the change of the local gravity field; all that ice has a lot of mass and does currently attract plenty of seawater to it.
  Extremely minimal, even if you have 2km sideways pull from the ice there's 6400km of downwards pull towards the center of the earth so water doesn't gather much Heavy mineral deposits or a thick crust directly under the water is different, that adds more compression without trying to counteract the sideways forces.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
11. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by Thomasje · 2013-08-29 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Greenland rebounding does absolutely nothing because the "extra" volume is not taken out of the ocean. The water doesn't suddenly jump back up on the land.
  It is true that Greenland rebounding won't affect sea level, but not for the reason parent seems to imply. The real reason is that when a land mass is pressed downwards by an ice sheet, it sinks because it displaces material in the mantle. That mantle material is squeezed out sideways, and ends up raising adjacent land masses or ocean floor.
  When the ice sheet melts, the displaced mantle flows back, the depressed land rebounds, and the raised adjacent land or ocean floor sinks back.
  This effect is currently causing the Netherlands to sink at a rate of about five millimeters per year, while Scandinavia is rising at a similar rate. The rebound from the last glacial, in other words, is still ongoing, and quite significant. (Having to raise sea dikes by half a meter over a century, even without global warming induced sea level rise, is a pain in the ass and not something you can just ignore...)
  If Greenland losing its ice and rising causes no dry land to sink but only ocean floor, that floor sinkage will compensate for some of the sea level rise, but not quickly enough to help us save our coastal lands and cities.
12. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  I think the argument is that the additional water on top of the oceanic plates pushes those plates lower and magma pressure in turn pushes continental plates up (which are also lighter with the water).
  Of course this is on a geological time scale though, so you'll have to turn SimEarth up to max speed to see the effect.
13. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by riverat1 · 2013-08-29 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up. I was going to post the same thing. You can see the effect in North America because land north of New Jersey on the East Coast is still rising from the end of the last glaciation while south of NJ land is sinking in a seesaw effect.
14. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by dkf · 2013-08-29 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  There's also the differences due to the change of the local gravity field; all that ice has a lot of mass and does currently attract plenty of seawater to it.
  Extremely minimal, even if you have 2km sideways pull from the ice there's 6400km of downwards pull towards the center of the earth so water doesn't gather much Heavy mineral deposits or a thick crust directly under the water is different, that adds more compression without trying to counteract the sideways forces.
  I can't find the article I was thinking of right now, but this one is not too far off.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
15. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by RockDoctor · 2013-08-30 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Does this account for what would happen when Greenland floats back up?
  The major cities of Greenland (pop. 56000) will rise back above sea level.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
16. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by RockDoctor · 2013-08-30 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  As ChrisMaple points out below, there is very little compression of the rock itself. What is happening is that the relatively weak rock around 100-300km below the surface (the asthenosphere, from Greek "a-" (negator), "sthenos-" (strength) and "sphere" (sphere)) is displaced laterally, causing lifting of the seabed around the depressed continent. It flows back on a time scale of millennia because it has stiffness that would make toffee or asphalt look like water.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
17. Re:How accurate is the sea level rise figure? by shadowofwind · 2013-08-30 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks that's interesting.
  Though however large the effect is, I think it has to reduce the sea level by significantly less than the amount that's it raised by the added water.
So what? by AndyKron · 2013-08-29 09:28 · Score: 1

Who cares? Someone will just come along and fuck it up.
3km thick by agm · 2013-08-29 09:40 · Score: 1

I find the idea of ice 3km thick to be mind boggling!
1. Re:3km thick by TechyImmigrant · 2013-08-29 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Who on Earth could make enough gin to balance out that much ice?
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2. Re:3km thick by riverat1 · 2013-08-29 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's nothing. On Antarctica the ice is up to 4.8 km thick.
Huh. by Type44Q · 2013-08-29 09:51 · Score: 1

Huge Canyon Discovered Under Greenland Ice
And to think: they didn't even need to roll it in flour.
cha-ching...
"The British Antarctic Survey said...." by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 10:00 · Score: 0

"Ummmmm.... Are we lost?"
1. Re:"The British Antarctic Survey said...." by RockDoctor · 2013-08-30 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  More likely they said "When you've finished with our through-ice radar system, which we've been developing for several decades, can we have it back and continue our surveying work in Antarctica. Say, you use it in the Northern hemisphere summer and we'll use it in the Southern hemisphere's summer. And that way, it'll be in use 10 months of the year, not 4."
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Ha ha, I can see I've been modded as a Troll by Finallyjoined!!! · 2013-08-29 10:02 · Score: 0

How ironic.

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
1. Re:Ha ha, I can see I've been modded as a Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you said to look out for weirdos talking about toasted bread killing hedgehogs, so we modded down everyone talking about such crazy things.
2. Re:Ha ha, I can see I've been modded as a Troll by Kiwikwi · 2013-08-30 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  I can see I've been modded as a Troll. How ironic.
  And I can see that your understanding of irony is on roughly the same level as your understanding of global warming.
3. Re:Ha ha, I can see I've been modded as a Troll by Finallyjoined!!! · 2013-08-30 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  You're exactly the sort of twat I was trying to warn about.
  
  Hope your hair shirt is really uncomfortable.
  
  Note: Irony is nothing like steely!.
  
  --
  If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Wrong pole, I know, but by kruach+aum · 2013-08-29 10:06 · Score: 1

I hope to Cthulhu this means we'll discover shoggoths next.
1. Re:Wrong pole, I know, but by __aasqbs9791 · 2013-08-29 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe HPL should have started his stories out with a variation of the standard crime re-enactment disclaimer: "Some names and places have been changed to protect the sane."
Crayon? by steelfood · 2013-08-29 10:38 · Score: 2

First time I saw the title, I read it as "Huge Crayon Discovered Under Greenland Ice"

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Giant, ancient river delta means lots of oil by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 10:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

If there is a giant, ancient river bed across Greenland, that means it has a delta where it dumped into the ocean at its discharge end a long time ago. Find that ancient delta and drill for oil "downstream" of it. Petroleum, is primarily formed from zooplankton and algae getting buried under sedimentary rock for ages, and this process happened greatest where ancient river deltas (and even present deltas) are found.
1. Re:Giant, ancient river delta means lots of oil by proslack · 2013-08-30 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Geologist have though of this too.
  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5931/1175.full
  http://energy.usgs.gov/Miscellaneous/Articles/tabid/98/ID/64/Oil-and-Gas-Assessment-of-Northeastern-Greenland.aspx
  
  --
  
  Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
2. Re:Giant, ancient river delta means lots of oil by RockDoctor · 2013-08-30 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  The USGS estimate that 1/4 of the world's yet-to-be-discovered hydrocarbon reserves are in Arctic regions. In fact, there was a 3-day conference on precisely this topic at the Geological society in London a few years back - I attended.
  Rest assured : this is being worked on.
  Whether or not we as a species dare to actually locate, extract and burn this stuff is another question ; but the geology and oil industries are working on the "locate" stage.
  (That said, it's equatorial Africa for me for the foreseeable future ; but I've no objection at all to going back to Canada, or Arctic Russia, or Norway.)
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Marianas Trench by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-29 11:22 · Score: 0

I wonder how that compares with the Marianas Trench, if that could be considered a canyon.
SVS Video by Docasman · 2013-08-30 00:07 · Score: 1

Our friends at Goddard's Scientific Visualization Studio produced a short animation.
1. Re:SVS Video by RockDoctor · 2013-08-30 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  Nice! Thanks for that.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Duh - Hidden Valley! by modi123 · 2013-08-30 01:57 · Score: 1

So that's where sublime creamy sauce I coat my hot wings comes from! The Hidden Valley Ranch production site has been found!
Re: Please don't post stories about "Global Warmin by gzuckier · 2013-08-30 16:47 · Score: 1

I thought that was the entrance to the underground Nazi saucer base.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.