What is it with those weird metrics?
<i>147,000 square feet across</i>, this is what science communication picks up from the paper?<p><i>The major axis of the TJBH at ~10 mbsl was estimated to be ~151.8 m and was oriented ~10.76° clockwise from the north, similar to the main direction of geological faults in the region. The minor axis, perpendicular to the major axis, was ~124.4 m across. The surface area covered by the blue hole is ~13,690 m2 (1.4 ha) with an external perimeter of ~492.7 m. The structure of the blue hole can be described as a conic shape that is north-skewed with a volume of ~1 million m3.</i><p>Why not about 140m (450 ft) diameter?<p>The full open access article is here:<p><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1141160/full" rel="nofollow">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1141...</a>
Worth pointing out, the image in the article is actually of the 'Great Blue Hole' off the coast of Belize, which is about twice the diameter but half the depth[1] of the one in the paper.<p>Also quite the opposite of 'recently discovered'; it has been one of the best known diving spots in the world for over 50 years, and one of the very few ocean floor features that I can recognize by eye...<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blue_Hole" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blue_Hole</a>
What is it with articles like these still using language like "discovered"<p>> Guided by tips from fishermen, scientists from Colegio de le Frontera Sur explored a tropical estuary off the southeastern coast<p>> the scientists names their new discovery the Taam ja' Blue Hole, using the Mayan language phrase<p>Clearly the locals have known about this already. If your argument is that the difference is when it's published in some scientific paper then that's also contradictory to:<p>> the new blue hole was discovered in 2021, the researchers only recently detailed their findings in a study published in Frontiers in Marine Science<p>"Discovered in 2021" pretty obviously means Western people here. If it was about "scientific description" then we would've said 2023.<p>It reminds me of that one white person that traveled to Mexico and "discovered" a variety of corn that produces a mucus-like goo that traps nitrogen from the air itself instead of using bacteria. This variety had an indigenous name and the people who've been growing it for thousands of years could trace back their entire lineage of people who've developed the variety specifically to grow in those low-nitrogen conditions
Very cool. I will note that it is significantly less picturesque than the stock photo used in the article.<p><a href="https://explorersweb.com/taam-ja-blue-hole-mexico/" rel="nofollow">https://explorersweb.com/taam-ja-blue-hole-mexico/</a>
What makes blue holes so fascinating, in my opinion, is the historical perspective they provide.<p>These were once deep air-filled vertical shafts, formed by the longterm erosional/dissolutional power of falling water under the influence of gravity. Speleothems like stalactites prove that they formed in an air-filled environment.<p>In other words, the present-day sea level at the Yucatan Peninsula was formerly at least 275m lower; and/or the present-day surface was at least 275m higher. The paper attributes this to "glacio-eustatic changes", which is the equal-and-opposite-reaction involving lowered sea level (increased global glaciation) and the buoyant rising of the regional continental crust since the mass of additional sea water has been removed.
I'll see your blue hole and raise a "Blautopf" near where I grew up:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blautopf" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blautopf</a><p>Rayleigh scattering on nanoscale limestone particles!
> Our knowledge of blue holes is limited by accessibility issues, sometimes due to opening being too small or the depths being so great, and sometimes due to limited oxygen in the water, making it dangerous to explore without specialized equipment.<p>I'm curious why lack of oxygen is a problem? We don't breathe water, so why should oxygen content matter?
At first I assumed this was the one near Belize, which is quite well known in the scuba diving community [1]. In fact, the picture on this post is probably of that one. However, this new one is over twice as deep!<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blue_Hole" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Blue_Hole</a>
Google maps - <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/DddfusRBWZ6WtCV19" rel="nofollow">https://goo.gl/maps/DddfusRBWZ6WtCV19</a><p>Easier to see on Google Earth on a less windy day. Search "Taam Ja’ Blue Hole"