Scientists Have Detected an Enormous Cavity Growing Beneath Antarctica

So glad we don’t have sea in Serbia.

I read that all the ice is moving to the Arctic and that the earth could turn over within the next few years as a result.

Turn over?

Do you mean a magnetic pole reversal?

1 Like

Scully and Mulder are on this.


The article refers to a greatly accelerated rate of overall global warming, resulting in more rapid massive polar ice melts, rapidly rising sea levels (in geological timeline terms), and the larger danger is, potentially, enough proportional desalinization of certain ocean areas so as to result in the increasing inability of the oceans to act as a dissipative heat sink, with worldwide warm water conveyance systems diminshing to the point of destabilizing the jet stream air movements, as well. A rapid run-up to global catastrophe in climate, etc. May already be well underway and irreversable. Three warmest winters on record in a row, currently, with shifts in established air currents accounting for the current weather anomaly across the nation.
Do this long enough, and the next ice age cannot be far behind, geologically speaking.
In other words, the default state for the earth is frozen, with biological and biochemical processes necessary to keep the thermostat and heat pump working. Oversimplication can be an art form…

So it’s not aliens carving out a base for themselves under the ice?


FWIW I’ve been eyeing sea level data for over a decade and as far as I’m aware it has not shown signs of acceleration for at least a few decades, still averaging just over 3mm/yr, or on pace for 0.3m by the end of the century, far less than the 1m+ predicted. (Not sure if or when it’s about to pick up, and of course if any major ice collapses from Greenland or Antarctica the steady trends could be irrelevant…)

1 Like

No it’s the secret Nazi base for studying long-abandoned alien technology… : ) Tongue in cheek.
Are we all geeks, or not?

This study predicts >2 feet within the next 80 years or so…

The bigger question is the potential change in “heat sink” capacity problem.

Yes and no… As I understand it, (and someone PLEASE correct me if I don’t) there’s been no acceleration in the raw data from 1992, it’s basically a straight line of 3mm/yr. But they realized, hey, there was an eruption in 1991 that lowered sea level, so part of the increase in the 90’s was just fluctuating back from that. So they used models to estimate that 0.5mm of the 90’s was post-volcano fluctuation, meaning the “background” increase was only 2.5mm, meaning that the 3mm of the next decade was an increase, not a steady growth.

But that means the rate of acceleration is entirely dependent, not on the actual data, but on the accuracy of the estimate of how much of the 90’s increase was related to the volcanic eruption.

Even with a 25-year data record, detecting acceleration is challenging. Episodes like volcanic eruptions can create variability: the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 decreased global mean sea level just before the Topex/Poseidon satellite launch, for example. In addition, global sea level can fluctuate due to climate patterns such as El Ninos and La Ninos (the opposing phases of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation), which influence ocean temperature and global precipitation patterns.

Nerem and his team used climate models to account for the volcanic effects and other datasets to determine the El Nino/La Nina effects, ultimately uncovering the underlying rate and acceleration of sea level rise over the last quarter century.

They’re actually saying, trust the hypothetical model which shows acceleration over the empirical data which shows no acceleration. Now that very well may be a reasonable model, but this is the kind of reasoning that drove me bonkers when I was a climate skeptic. It was a preponderance of empirical data (in categories other than sea level rise), not hypothetical models, that convinced me otherwise…

I’ve seen this kind of hypothetical alarmism backfire before, but sometimes it does lead to change… so, yes and no about sums it up.
Thanks for clarifying!