In my mind Antartica should be almost exactly like the north pole. Obviously its not. Up until around a hundred years ago (before anyone actually stepped foot on Antarctica) "they" only assumed Antarctica was there because if the North Pole was there and the earth is a sphere Antarctica SHOULD be there. The North and South poles should have close to the same average temperature, but its not like that.

Antarctica has thousands of square miles, most of it far from the moderating influence of the ocean. Comparing a continent with an island is like comparing central Australia with New Zealand.

Well, one could ask why Australia is a continent and Greenland is no longer considered one, no?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=australia+size

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=greenland+size

I'm saying there should be lower lands and more fertile lands, along with lakes, rivers, etc etc based on where you are on the continent.

You say this, but again provide no reasoning as to why this should be. You just "feel" it, so it automatically should be true?

It doesn't make sense that it's so much colder than the north.

As has already been explained to you, much of Antarctica is land, rather than ice-covered ocean. This means it is less sensitive to temperature changes, meaning it will generally be colder. Haven't you ever noticed that as you go further inland, even at the same latitude, the weather can get colder in the winter? The same is true here.

Size has nothing to do with being a continent.

So you're saying New Zealand is just as much of a continent as Australia or Asia?

I've given multiple reasons, and this is not just about how I "feel".

Bullshit. You've made claims and you've stated things, but you've failed to provide anything approaching real reasons.

and I'm saying that explanation could very well be bullshit. So...

Yes, you're saying that. And not much else.

Nope, but you compared size and you're wrong

A continent is one of Earth’s seven main divisions of land.

Is Greenland one of the seven main divisions of land? No? Then size matters. Once again, you are wrong. Even by your own link!

I've given my evidence and reasoning in OP and all over in this thread.

Nope. You've made claims many many times, but that's it. Just because Greenland fits your mental picture of what Antarctica should be like, doesn't make that the truth.

You've been given evidence for why Antartica is the way it is, repeatedly, but have refused to accept the reasoning and stuck to your guns claiming that Antarctica should be a paradise of waterfalls, lakes, and rivers.

Of course it's cold as balls there, not denying that.

Congratulations! This is progress. Now explain to me why an area that has an average temperature far below freezing should have "My point being is that there are lakes, waterfalls, mountains, greenery in the summer, etc etc. "

Why would this be possible when "summer" there might hit 40f?

And do each of these locations have the same humidity, temperature, and land conditions as Antarctica? It's rather hard for anything to grow when the dirt is covered by tens or hundreds of feet of snow and ice.

You keep providing examples of conditions that, while they are similar, as missing several key conditions that you seem to refuse to acknowledge.

Also, I notice you seem to have dropped the claim of waterfalls, lakes, etc that you were spouting with much energy earlier.

You claim they exist in other places with "cold as shit" weather, but do they exist where the average temperature is not just below freezing, but -49F below freezing? You seem to fail to understand the magnitude of just how cold it gets down there...

None of the places you insist on comparing Antarctica to get that cold on average. It's a simple fact.

How do you know it gets -49F?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=average+temperature+of+antartica

And you seem to miss the point where I said the average temperature is -49F. I never said it was the coldest place in the world, but all of the places in your article get far warmer than that on average.

I've given my evidence and reasoning in OP and all over in this thread.

No, you've declared a small island and a large continent must behave the same. You've never said why you believe that.

Why should a small island in warmer waters behave the same as a large continent in colder waters?

Those places have latitudes between ~10 degrees south and ~50 degrees south. The equivalents in the northern hemisphere are Panama and the English Channel, respectively. Hardly near Antarctica.

Greenland isn't exactly on the pole, and it is pretty icy anyway. Antartica is not as cold or barren as they'd like you to think.

They don't want people near Antarctica unsupervised because of undisclosed military bases, and lately a city discovered beneath the ice, a crashed ET craft and giant humanoids with long skulls. Covered extensively in the Corey Goode - David Wilcock series Cosmic Disclosure.

These things should be found on Antarctica as well

You keep making this claim, but then fail to back it up with anything approaching reasoning or evidence. You just expect your audience to think the same way you do.

Indeed, see my replies to them further down. Only interested in trying to push some sort of conspiracy.

Congratulations - you've found a single island off the coast of Antarctica, and you expect that to represent an entire continent?

No, you gave me a photo when I asked for reasoning. The photo you gave me is evidence of none of your claims, when considered in the context that several people have provided you. You just refuse to accept it, and instead insist that reality should match your "feelings".

rolls eyes A "glimpse"? Is that what you call "no explanation whatsoever"?

An island is not equivalent to a 5.4 million square mile continent by any reasonable measure whatsoever. Never mind the *fact that's further north than any part of the continent whatsoever.

So, by your twisted example of "reasoning", because a continent is big, it must automatically have waterfalls, lakes, and other such features? Even if it's average temperature is well below freezing?

Greenland is also further south than Antarctica. How hard is that to understand? Thus disproving the "both are very similar" nonsense.

Greenland goes from 83 degrees north to 53 degrees north. The vast majority of Antartica is below 63 degrees south, and much closer to the south pole. Trying to compare the two is an exercise in futility, which might explain why you continue this nonsense.

Barring geologic activity such as volcanoes or hot springs, yes! How hard is that to understand?

I have a feeling there's a LOT about Antarctica we're not being told. That being said, I have no concrete reason to explain what you're noticing. Greenland seems to cover a similar portion of the northern polar region.

I remember noticing this article last year. Not much of a source, but it's interesting to consider the effect of an "anomaly" under the surface. Be it a gigantic asteroid or an underground UFO base. :)

http://nypost.com/2016/12/29/massive-anomaly-lurks-beneath-ice-in-antarctica/

I was looking at your post about this on C_S_T and I agree it does seem shady. But are you suggesting that Antarctica isn't at the South Pole? Just trying to understand your thoughts cause this is very interesting.

I completely agree with you something doesn't add up. Like why is the South Pole colder? Why is there land at the South Pole but water at the North Pole? Why does vegetation grow like you said near the north but apparently nothing can grow in the South? Why are they guarding Antarctica? I'm no flat earther either but you can't not ask these questions and be skeptical of what's really down there or going on ya know

Just looked up why the South Pole is colder and apparently the reasoning is because it sits on an ice sheet. That doesn't really make sense to me why it would be colder. Maybe I'm being dumb. If the North Pole is the same distance from the equator as the South why isn't the North Pole sitting on a giant ice sheet like the South? Am I making sense lol?

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/67ct46/okay_if_we_are_truly_living_on_a_sphere/dgph4nu

Land and currents.

That doesn't really make sense to me why it would be colder

............ice is cold and makes things around it colder

I know that lol. What I don't get is why the sheet of ice in the South Pole is much larger than the sheet in the north? Does it really have to do with currents and such? Im genuinely curious not trying debunk anything I'm just having touble understanding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Circumpolar_Current

Because the North Pole is actually a sheet of ice over mostly ocean, warmer water from the low latitudes can bring heat from the equator up to the pole, increasing the overall temperature.

At the South Pole a massive landmass prevents the warmer water from the higher latitudes from reaching the ice sheet. This means it never warms up and is now miles thick.

What you're essentially doing is wondering why ice doesn't melt in your freezer even though it melts in your fridge.

As you look deeper you'll find that a lot of things don't add up. But, they never considered that people would ask questions and think critically.

Antarctica is land covered by a very thick permanent ice sheet so the surface is at a high altitude. There's also the current which surrounds and insulates it from warmer waters.

The arctic has a permanent ice sheet in places, but it's much thinner. It's mostly sea ice over water which has a higher capacity for heat than land.

I get that but why does the antarctic have such a larger sheet of ice covering it?

Because it's colder in the first place since it's a massive continent (land) and the currents. So the ice formed and got really thick.

The Arctic and Antarctica aren't two opposites, they're really different. For an analogy look at how climates differ at the same latitude.

The explanation of one being a MASSIVE CONTINENT and the other being an ocean doesn't explain why they're really different?

A continent is land. An ocean is water.

Sorry but you're either stupid and don't get very basic geographic facts, or you're being willfully ignorant because what I'm saying contradicts whatever your conspiracy angle is? I don't get you.

I'll go with both then.

Snap quiz...

Where is this?

Hint: It's not Greenland.

What... that Greenland and Antarctica do share common features? That doesn't appear to be your point at all.

There are buildings in Antarctica?! You lied to me, Putin_loves_cats!

I don't understand what you're not getting, sorry.

This is continental scale geography. You can't compare Antarctica to anywhere else. Nepal and Texas are on the same latitude (I think) so why are they so different?

No. That doesn't make any sense.

Wait until he hears about iceland...

Antarctica reaches a height of about 9,000 ft, and this significantly drops the temperature if you were to compare it to the North Pole. Greenland also has a high elevation inland, but those areas like Antarctica are very cold. The warmer areas are at sea level.

^{Mouseover or click to view the metric conversion for this comment}

Technically, Antarctica should look more like Greenland and not a vast barren frozen waste land, no?

Err... no? Why should it look the same?

Once again, you use a picture of an island as far north of Antarctica as you can get and still be part of it to represent the entire continent. As long as you continue to use that picture, I'm going to call you on the bullshit of it.

Do you even read the links that you post? Again, you are posting links that discuss islands and the coast, and expecting that to represent the interior of a continent that is 5.4 million square miles. Does your cognitive dissonance really extend that far?

Yet you continue to claim that Antarctica should have lakes, waterfalls, etc just because Greenland has them. I'm not seeing any understanding from you that the environment is drastically different.

Maybe because in the case of Antarctica the dirt is covered by tens or hundreds of feet of ice and snow?

Care to provide the context behind this picture? Ten to one, it's close to the coast, and the conditions vary too much for typical trees to get a toehold. Just because this one picture at this moment in time shows exposed dirt doesn't mean it's like this for most of the year.

You keep expecting out-of-context pictures to be your "proof", but they aren't. Nine times out of ten, they just expose your complete misunderstanding of the geography of the area.

I fucking get it now!!! There is no reasoning with you! You are are a fucking flat earther. No fucking wonder it was like arguing with a two year old! LOL!!!!