should Antarctic lake count in records?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I recall reading a Nat’l Geographic which mentioned that there had been a large lake discovered in the Antarctica which is in the top [insert number here] in surface area of all lakes, but was only discovered relatively recently because it is under a thick sheet of ice.

Now, personally, I don’t really think this would qualify as a lake at all. Its an underground reservoir.

Ice is a mineral, just like any other surface mineral. Other minerals flow just like ice, only slower. Some are even softer on the moh’s scale than ice is.

After all, if you count underground reserviors, there are probably extremely large ones (such as Florida’s) that should count with respect to surface area.

So, should this particular lake not count as a “lake”, or am i missing something here?

2

Moderator’s Note: I think this is more of a “What’s your opinion?” than a debate, so I’m moving it to IMHO.

3

I always thought that ice was just frozen water, but apparently it is classed as a mineral. In that case, you may have a point about the Antarctic lake not counting as a “lake”, but surely there would be lakes on the list that are frozen over for at least some portion of the year - do they stop counting during those seasons?

I also wonder what the proposition is with places like Lake , which is one of the largest drainage basins in the world, but is only really full once every eight years or so.Eyre

JB

4

Sorry, that should be Lake Eyre

JB