Antarctica

[Doctor Fate]

Well, since there is no science oriented forum here I guess I'll take a shot at this here? Hmm.

Why exactly IS Antarctica so cold? Like, yeah, obviously it's at the very bottom of the planet, which means the sun's rays have a harder time reaching it... but there's got to be other factors involved. What else is it about Antarctica that makes it so inhospitable to life?

Do you think we humans will ever be able to colonize or otherwise make use of Antarctica beyond simple research? :what:

Really curious, because Antarctica has always fascinated me. :whoops:

[Rainstorm]

It's the same reason that the North Pole is so damn cold.

The intensity of the suns rays at the poles are so low that even during the Winter and Summer Solstices (Winter for Antarctica), it adds very little heat to the air down there. The sun also remains very low in the sky, so it spreads out the heat it gets even more, causing even less heating to be received.

Also, the white snow reflects much of the heat we get at the poles, which is a third big factor.

I think we will eventually be able to colonize there, but I don't see many people that would want to go there, besides scientists.

[Giles]

Unlike the Arctic region, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by an ocean which means that interior areas do not benefit from the moderating influence of water.

With 98% of its area covered with snow and ice, the Antarctic continent reflects most of the sun's light rather than absorbing it.

The extreme dryness of the air causes any heat that is radiated back into the atmosphere to be lost instead of being absorbed by the water vapor in the
atmosphere.

During the winter, the size of Antarctica doubles as the surrounding sea water freezes, effectively blocking heat transfer from the warmer surrounding ocean.

Antarctica has a higher average elevation than any other continent on Earth which results in even colder temperatures.

There you go :)

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/index.shtml

[Sage]

Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but was some sort of treaty not signed by a number of nations a number of years ago agreeing to only use the continent for scientific research and never colonize it?

[Giles]

Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but was some sort of treaty not signed by a number of nations a number of years ago agreeing to only use the continent for scientific research and never colonize it?

I think so. Doesn't mean there won't be a war over it at some point, it wouldn't surprise me.

[Bric]

I think so. Doesn't mean there won't be a war over it at some point, it wouldn't surprise me.

But why would anyone want to colonize Antarctica?
As fas as i know, there is no reason for that

[Mal]

Space, mostly. You could probably set up a good few power plants over there. *shrugs* I have to be honest though, seems like more effort than it's worth.

[Iron Man]

well, it was believed that before pangaea separated, antarctica was able to support life because it was near the equator

[Giles]

Space, mostly. You could probably set up a good few power plants over there. *shrugs* I have to be honest though, seems like more effort than it's worth.

Space, power, oil, money.

Space = power stations
power = strong country and government etc..
oil = power ^
money = everything

[Bric]

"Although coal, hydrocarbons, iron ore, platinum, copper, chromium, nickel, gold and other minerals have been found, they have not been in large enough quantities to exploit. The 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty also restricts a struggle for resources. In 1998, a compromise agreement was reached to place an indefinite ban on mining, to be reviewed in 2048, further limiting economic development and exploitation. The primary economic activity is the capture and offshore trading of fish. Antarctic fisheries in 2000–01 reported landing 112,934 tonnes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Economy

even if there were no resttrictions for mining, antarctica doesn't have a lot of minerals...
and space isn't worth the effort

[Giles]

"Although coal, hydrocarbons, iron ore, platinum, copper, chromium, nickel, gold and other minerals have been found, they have not been in large enough quantities to exploit. The 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty also restricts a struggle for resources. In 1998, a compromise agreement was reached to place an indefinite ban on mining, to be reviewed in 2048, further limiting economic development and exploitation. The primary economic activity is the capture and offshore trading of fish. Antarctic fisheries in 2000–01 reported landing 112,934 tonnes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Economy

even if there were no resttrictions for mining, antarctica doesn't have a lot of minerals...
and space isn't worth the effort

Hmm... I wasn't aware of that.

[Mal]

It's pretty much just ice. The north pole is frozen over, antarctica is just solid ice. There isn't a lot of anything.

This is the bit where one of you tells me I've been lied to and it's not just ice at all. Meh.

[Giles]

It's pretty much just ice. The north pole is frozen over, antarctica is just solid ice. There isn't a lot of anything.

This is the bit where one of you tells me I've been lied to and it's not just ice at all. Meh.

You've been lied to! It's chocolate, not ice!

[Jove]

Space, power, oil, money.

Space = power stations
power = strong country and government etc..
oil = power ^
money = everything

What.

I get that slight feeling that you have no idea what the hell you just said.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

well even if antarctica was allowed to be mined australia has most of the territory, so australia would benefit the most.

[Zephyr]

Nice to see a new topic in here = ]
I've always wanted to go to Antarctica myself.

Treaty aside, I have no doubt that we have the technology and resources to colonize in Antarctica. It would be expensive though since it'd be starting from scratch. And there'd be the issue of, "Is it it's own country, or does somebody else own it?", which would cause a lot of arguement. Though one could assume whoever ships resources to these colonies 'owns' it. The other problem I foresee is getting enough people who are willing to go there for permanent residency, and keeping people there for generations. The weather down there can get pretty crazy:

qz2SeEzxMuE

[Giles]

What.

I get that slight feeling that you have no idea what the hell you just said.

Your slight feeling is wrong :)

[obiwan94]

Just add more info...I always wondered why Antarctica is colder than the Arctic, and while yes, the dry cold air and reflection of the snow, and the angle of the suns rays have an affect on it...apparently the main reason is that Antarctica has the highest average altitude of any continent (3 km in a bunch of places) and that most of the north pole is warmed by the ocean, whereas south pole is land...soo...no warming. Btw the coldest recorded temperature was −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) :eek: (Wikipedia for the winz)

[Whisper]

don't ever depend on Wikipedia for accurate information. The mere whisper of its name in any post secondary institution will have you laughed off the campus.

[Antares]

Antarctica is inhospitable because it is cold.
It is cold because...it doesn't get much direct sunlight, the land is completely permafrost, and maybe...because it doesn't have much volcanic activity under it...and it has weird weather cycles...its cold and windy quite often down there...although I am not sure specifically what the weather patterns are.

[Giles]

Antarctica is cold, white and horrible.

/thread

[Bric]

don't ever depend on Wikipedia for accurate information. The mere whisper of its name in any post secondary institution will have you laughed off the campus.

I'm not an idiot, i checked the references before posting here.
And wikipedia isn't that crap you are saying. Most of the small articles have a lot of wrong information, but Antarctica is a featured article. And i doubt you can find one mistake in a featured article.

[Giles]

I'm not an idiot, i checked the references before posting here.
And wikipedia isn't that crap you are saying. Most of the small articles have a lot of wrong information, but Antarctica is a featured article. And i doubt you can find one mistake in a featured article.

Well, you probably can... Wikipedia is just a combination of know-it-all baboons.

[Whisper]

I'm not an idiot, i checked the references before posting here.
And Wikipedia isn't that crap you are saying. Most of the small articles have a lot of wrong information, but Antarctica is a featured article. And i doubt you can find one mistake in a featured article.
Jesus, I was giving some advice why is this site such a pissing contest now. Dude, first of all what do you mean YOU? I was talking to another member (account).
Yes you can, Wikipedia is easily edited and altered, It doesn't matter what references there are at the bottom of the page man. The content in the page can still be changed and the reference left. That's probably the only thing Wikipedia is REALLY good for, the references. You can use those links and GO to THOSE sites to find out the information, ex: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html#People

Wikipedia is too easily altered by anybody. Even if there are checks in place to try and curtail it, it still happens. Not to mention some of the material posted by professionals themselves aren't peer reviewed (You'll find some sites are, some aren't).

What I'm saying is with the vastness of the net now. Avoid Wikipedia for any kind of debate or school work because you can't depend on the information.


Wow way off topic.

[Bric]

Jesus, I was giving some advice why is this site such a pissing contest now. Dude, first of all what do you mean YOU? I was talking to another member (account).
Yes you can, Wikipedia is easily edited and altered, It doesn't matter what references there are at the bottom of the page man. The content in the page can still be changed and the reference left. That's probably the only thing Wikipedia is REALLY good for, the references. You can use those links and GO to THOSE sites to find out the information, ex: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ay.html#People


Wikipedia is too easily altered by anybody. Even if there are checks in place to try and curtail it, it still happens. Not to mention some of the material posted by professionals themselves aren't peer reviewed (You'll find some sites are, some aren't).

What I'm saying is with the vastness of the net now. Avoid Wikipedia for any kind of debate or school work because you can't depend on the information.


Wow way off topic.

1-i am the one who used wikipedia in the debate, so i obviously assumed you were talking to me.

2-Of course I don't just look if there are ANY references, i click their links and check if it makes sense. Wikipedia is incredible because it connects information from several sites, which would take me years to find site by site.

3- Most featured articles are watched by editors. If there's a problem, it is quickly fixed.

Wikipedia is trustable if their references are trustable, so why not using it?

Really way off topic, so i think this discussion should be finished now.

[Giles]

To be fair Bruno, I think you should just leave it. This discussion wasn't supposed to be about the reliability of the sources of the information - more so about the actual information.