Talk:Antarctica/Archive 2

message: I remember reading that the name "Antarctica" was based off the combination "Anti-Arctos" meaning no bears/polar bears, can anyone verify this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.120.37 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Arctos? 

message: The article states "The Snow Petrel is one of only three birds that breed exclusively in Antarctica." and then goes on to list six species of penguin that breed there. So what are the other two exclusively breeding birds? Do we take it that four of those penguins also breed elsewhere?--Shantavira|feed me 09:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the articles for the various penguins, it seems that the only two that breed exclusively in Antarctica (>60°S) are the Emperor Penguin and Adelie Penguin. This page agrees. -- Avenue (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birds 

message: "Various countries claim areas of it, although as a rule, no other countries recognize such claims".
While MANY countries do not recognise the claims, there are also countries that do. This statement does not gel with the "Australian Antarctic territory" entry which lists the countries which recognise the Australian claim - THis hardly makes sense if "as a rule no other countries recognise such claims"70.189.213.149 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect what was meant was that no countries without claims have recognised any claims, not that no countries have recongnised any claims. I've reworded it to make this clearer, and given a source for mutual recognition. -- Avenue (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thise line is patently untrue 

message: Is the notion that the average thickness of the ice sheet is 1.6 km thick absolutely correct?  Britannica lists it as 2 km. --203.34.37.64 (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see section 1.6? above to read a little more about why this number is uncertain and how the current wording came about.  Of course the average ice thickness may not be all that informative as a thickness--most of the ice sheet is either thicker or thinner than this number, ranging from 0 to over 4 km.  Having said that, a definitive reference would be nice.  StephenHudson (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That section has a reference at 1.85 km, why does the article still say 1.6 with no citation?  Dragons flight (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps because the last person to edit it didn't want to choose one reference as being better than others.  I agree that the Lythe et al. 2001 is probably the best current reference available, but there are also others (1.83 km from BAS, 2.1 km from BAS and NASA, and the ones discussed above).  I may try to change all refs to the ice sheet thickness to the 1.85, and cite Lythe, if there are no objections and I get a chance.  Where appropriate, I could also mention the uncertainty and give other refs.  Otherwise, you are, of course, free to edit it.  StephenHudson (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice Sheet Thickness 

message: The area is given in an estimate for square kilometers with ~5 significant digits, but the area in square miles is ~10 significant digits.
This is like 98.6, and probably should be corrected.
-MAS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by M a s (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area 

message: The article states that the Antarctic ozone hole "continues to grow to this day." That is false. The ozone hole is in fact shrinking; see: http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_050916_ozone_hole.html
Tvdog (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When preliminary results conflict significantly with a well-established consensus, WP:UNDUE indicates that it is inappropriate to include them until such a time as they may gain a greater foothold in the relevant scientific community. - Eldereft (cont.) 08:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The article referenced actually questions the exact chemical pathways that allow the chlorine from CFCs to result in ozone destruction, while strongly stating that these new findings do not call into question the role CFCs play in creating the ozone hole.  That and the fact that the results are unpublished (as a reviewed article) and not duplicated, suggest it should not be included here, or should be mentioned lightly as indicating some uncertainty about the exact mechanism by which CFCs deplete the ozone.  I think it would also be better addressed in the ozone hole article than here. StephenHudson (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozone hole 

message: Curious why the page was locked, I checked the discussion and the Claus vandalism caught my eye. Vandalism is fairly common and various types exist, "blanking" (sabotaging pages by deleting chuncks) is the worst, "silly vandalism" (stupid sentences) is most common and "sneaky vandalism" (embedded in the text) is sometimes the most persistant. I googled the claus expedition and hordes of sites mention it with the same frases, meaning they possibly took it from here. It is a sweet example of sneaky vandalism that I would like to quote (not in wikipedia). Is it definetely a vandalism or is it a real in-joke name for an expedition? --Squidonius (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claus expedition vandalism: potential showcase example 

message: The article says that the Wilkins Ice Shelf is being held by a 6km thread. This article at science daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080613104743.htm says that it is being held by a 2.3 km thread currently. Can some one change it? I know how to change it but not how to link it to the news article for reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.232.229.131 (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  antartica ice break 

message: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/wildlife/land_animals/index.php
can this link be used for the statement in the fauna section,which says almost all land fauna is invertebrate
the statement here is "Few terrestrial vertebrates are resident in Antarctica and those which do occur are limited to sub-Antarctic islands."
can anyone cite this,because it seems i have a problem with inline citationsShanbhag.rohan 05:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The BAS looks pretty reputable to me. I've added the source. Franamax (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  land fauna citation 

message: As it gets colder than dry ice does that mean that dry ice forms, does it rain dry ice?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJ (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no carbon dioxide snow.  The reason is the same as why there is water vapor in the air below the boiling point (when water "should" be liquid, not gas) without always having rain or clouds.  In order to cause condensation of water or carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by lowering the temperature, the temperature has to drop to the point where the vapor pressure is equal to the partial pressure of water vapor or CO2 in the atmosphere.  In the case of water vapor, this temperature is called the dew point.  The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to the fraction of air molecules that are CO2, currently about 387 out of every million molecules in air, times the air pressure.  So in the interior of Antarctica, where the high elevation makes the air pressure at the surface about 650 mb (65% of sea level pressure), the partial pressure of CO2 is about 0.000387×650=0.25 mb, or about 0.19 mm of Mercury (mm Hg).  Looking at this plot of vapor pressure for CO2, you can see that the vapor pressure is 0.2 mm Hg at a temperature of about −140°C, or −220°F.  This is the temperature when dry-ice precipitation or frost would form, and is much lower than any temperatures found in Antarctica.  I hope that helps, despite being a bit technical.StephenHudson (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dry Ice 

message: According to the article's info box, Antarctica has an ice-free area of 280,000 km², almost as large as Germany. Is there a map which shows these ice-free parts? All the maps in this article colour the continent in white completely.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The McMurdo dry valleys near McMurdo Sound are visible in the composite satellite image :File:Antarctica_6400px_from_Blue_Marble.jpg, but they look pretty small. -- Avenue (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: This map from the UN Environment Programme tries to show the ice-free areas.  They're the brown regions scattered around, including the tops of the Transantarctic Mountains along the Ross Sea coast.  It's best to look at one of the higher resolution images on the page, either the PNG or PDF.  The ice-free areas are difficult to accurately show on most maps because it isn't one area the size of Germany, but hundreds of small regions scattered around the continent.  StephenHudson (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your answers. It's funny that the mountain tops are ice-free in Antarctica, exactly the opposite of the other continents.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice-free areas 

message: Currently, this article states that there are no permanent residents in Antarctica, which is incorrect.  I think a discussion should be brought up as to whether or not the permanent resident of the priest in this church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Church,_Antarctica that of others (see Religion in Antarctica)and others should be mentioned as permanent residency in Antarctica.
:Well, now that one priest is listed, but the intro to the article still claims there are no permanent residents. A bit of a contradiction. noroom (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this statement to be highly misleading ("there is only one permanent resident in Antarctica"). The article cited does NOT state that. It simply states that the temple has a permanent priest in residence. There is no evidence to state that there is only one person living permanently in the entire continent. I think it's probably less misleading to state that we don't know how many are in residence there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.70.252 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, except when I read an external article on this, I only saw "permanent priest". That's not the same as a "resident priest", it just means that one priest is assigned to the church. In other words, I haven't seen a reliable source stating that even one person lives in Antarctica year-round. Franamax (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanent Residents in Antarctica 

message: The article reads "the validity of these claims are generally not recognised universally", with a footnote leading to the CIA World FactBook. This shouldnt be taken seriously, I suppose. How can someone say that the validity of territorial claims is gennerally not recognised by pointing out 
the opinion of a single country? It should, even if the affirmative is true (which I dont think it is), at least acknowledge the opinion of those states that have signed the antartic treaty.LtDoc (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial Claims 

message: In this section, several temperature increases in the scale of °C (Celsius) are described, and converted to °F (Fahrenheit) as they were temperatures, not temperature increases. This has to be corrected to represent increases in the Fahrenheit scale correctly. The error is that while a temperature of 1°C almost equals 32°F, a temperature increase of 1°C does not correspond to a temperature increase of 32°F. Centigrade degrees are 9/5 times "larger" than Fahrenheit degrees. Also, Fahrenheit degrees consider the water freeze temperature as 32°F and its boiling temperature as 212°F, while in centigrades that's 0°C and 100°C respectively. One can notice that there are 180 degrees from 32°F to 212°F, 1.8 times the 100 degrees from 0°C to 100°C. That been said, a temperature change of 1°C in the Celsius/Kelvin scale corresponds to a change of 1.8°F in the Fahrenheit/Rankin scale. A quick example of this explanation:
Temperature at time	°C                	°F
Midnight           	20°C              	68°F
Increase to noon   	12°C              	21.6°F
Noon               	20°C + 12°C = 32°C	68°F + 21.6°F = 89.6°F
David Valadez (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the 3 cases of the error that I found.  The problem came from the written out conversion being switched to the convert template, which either can't handle temperature changes, or needs an option to be given (I'm not familiar with the template).  StephenHudson (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in temperature conversion in "Effects of global warming" section 

message: I've just read an interesting News Feature in Nature Vol. 460 No. 7257 pp. 792-795  (email me for a copy if it's not accessible for anyone).
It suggests that recent climate change in Antarctica may be primarily due to ozone depletion. Loss of UV absorption in the stratosphere due to ozone depletion cools the stratosphere by 6 deg. C and this intensifies the wind vortex around the ice cap. As a result, the continental interior is shielded from global warming effects, the periphery of the continent warms up (esp. the AP) and sea-ice increases.
Anyone else familiar with this theory? And would it make a useful addition to the article? Franamax (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is worth adding this. There are several papers that suggest ozone depletion may be very significant to the Antarctic climate. The important thing is to try to not overstate a single paper and certainly not a news article, so I would suggest use all of the various qualifications that they state in Nature. I will have a look at this in the next couple of days if I can find some time. Polargeo (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and written a text-only bit on this. Polargeo, I know you will work your usual magic on this (or revert it if it's all wrong). I need to put in some ref's, but it's very quite late at night for me right now. The only sources I can supply are the Nature article cited above, the Solomon paper from Science (which yes, we wouldn't want to flog too heavily) and the Turner paper from Geophysical Rev. Letters. Those last two are pretty dense to my understanding, so I'd personally prefer to rely mostly on the Nature News report - luckily there are some actual experts hanging out here! :) Franamax (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. This needs the refs added in. Also 6 degrees less! Where and over what time frame? Needs to be a bit more precise as the Antarctic has not been generally cooling over the last 50 years. Polargeo (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I put in at least one ref, though I probably used the wrong  template, will keep working at the others. The 6-degrees, I can only assume is relative to baseline for "normal" ozone concentration, the timeline I would assume would be directly correlated with ozone decrease, but yeah, I'll have to do some more reading to discern this. The first paper on ozone depletion to my mind came out mid-70's, so I'm not sure at all whether there are retrospective studies modelling the last 50 years. I don't have access to the Turner study, maybe you could shoot me a copy? The Thompson/Solomon paper seems to be saying ~10K temperature decrease , but timeframe and portion of the atmosphere - yep, some more reading is needed here. :) It's so much easier when you just read the news summaries! So - work in progress I suppose... Franamax (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to be careful. The 10K is for the lower stratosphere during October and November, that is 6 miles up and at the time of year the ozone hole is at its largest, also a 2001 paper so worth checking on follow up research. There is no way there has been 6 degrees of cooling as an annual average in any place on the surface of Antarctica over decadal timescales. I will try to find what is actually stated but need to work out which reference this comes from. Polargeo (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will send you a copy of the Turner paper ASAP but I am travelling at present. I don't think it is worth spending too much time on the specific results but certainly mention it as it does add to the body of work on ozone influence on Antarctic climate. I know John Turner and most of the other authors by the way. Polargeo (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozone depletion and climate change 

message: The header says "Countries" -- present tense -- that have a claim on Antarctica.  Nazi Germany has not been a country for more than 50 years; it is hardly present tense.  Let's just drop it, okay?  
*"Nazi Germany also maintained a claim to Antarctica, known as New Swabia, between 1939 and 1945. It was situated from 20°E to 10°W, overlapping Norway's claim. The claim was abandoned after the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HAJ1300 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the paragraph.  It's a curious historical footnote, but it was unsourced and undoubtedly many different nations have made such claims. The current section appears to be about present claims to Antarctic territory, which are generally being mediated by the UN (to my knowledge). Of course I'm always willing to be reverted, or maybe this item could be sourced and moved to a more appropriate section? Franamax (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Current claims are suspended under the Antarctic treaty, but not dropped. Seems to be a status quo has been reached. The Antarctic treaty requires all countries with claims (and other treaty countries) to agree before anything can be put into action. The treaty bans various things such as new claims, military activities and mineral extraction. I think they are all keeping the UN at arms length because they don't want their influence to be further watered down. The Nazi claim would fit nicely into History of Antarctica Polargeo (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we drop Nazi Germany's claims? 

message: Is there any list of internationally recognized names of Antarctic geographical features?  Is there any global governing body which assigns or approves toponyms, publishes maps and charts, etc.?  Is there any treaty or international agreement that covers the naming of geographical features or handles disputes?  Or is it pretty much a free-for-all, with every country assigning their own names and hoping they stick? Robert K S (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of geographical features 

message: A testable model addressing the issue of East Antarctica ice sheet stability?
A considerable portion of E. Antarctica ice (average of 1.6 km height) rests on bedrock of 2000+ ft above sea level. Ice and water tend to flow down hill. Also at least 150+ sub-glacial lakes, and also ice streams, have been detected at the base of such ice sheet. How stable is such basal environment? We have a current partial snapshot of such watery world; but no temporal context of 50, 100, or 15,000 yrs. of Holocene. Would such basal world seem isolated from topside weather and climate? Might circum-polar current temperature have any indirect effect? Or does just mass of ice sheet account for such watery world? If the latter were so, then glacial vs inter-glacial period would seem to have no relavency, other than adding or subtracting mass. How might one ascerntain whether or not all of E. Antarctica melted or sustained catastrophic fracturing (ice cube effect); resulting in elevated sea level of perhaps ~180 ft.? Might a 10,000+ ft core sample from the Isthmus of Panama indicate whether or not breaching of such isthmus has occurred, due to elevated sea level? Such 50 mi isthmus (maximum elevation of 84 ft.) formed 3 million years ago, from sea bottom uplift, together with subsequent erosive fill. Would such a core suffice to cover enough glacial and inter-glacial periods; giving an adequate sample? Would any evidence of oceanic sediment, current flows, foraminifera etc. be consistent with breaching of such isthmus; hence consistent with significant sea level elevation, consistent with E. Antarctica dissolution? Would there be any other possible causes of significant sea level elevation? Might we thus have a historical record of whether or not E. Antarctica is stable; using the Isthmus of Panama as our proxy?
If the Isthmus of Panama were opened by significant rising sea level, then Gulf of Mexico waters might egress to Pacific. This would then seem to disrupt the Gulf Stream. Hence one could also obtain sea bed cores from south more proximal aspect of Stream to see if there has been disruption of flow. This could be compared to Panama Isthmus findings, and also could serve as a proxy for significant sea level increase from East Antarctica dissolution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.149.20 (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is not believed to have collapsed in the last 10 million years or so. Ice streams are not liquid water, they are relatively fast moving parts of the ice sheet. The subglacial lakes exist because of the huge ice mass sitting on the land. High pressure and thermal insulation which traps the geothermal heat causes melting at the base of the ice. Polargeo (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Antarctica stability 

message: This link provides some brief information about Antarctica's TLD, and there's a Wikipedia article about .aq, but I didnt see any mention of it in the article (although I might have missed it). Could we squeeze a brief mention of it into the article's intro?
—ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 13:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the infobox already. That should suffice. Any detailled information on the .aq can go into the .aq article. Polargeo (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctica's top-level web domain 

message: The description/caption for the picture focuses on illegal fishing of Patagonian Toothfish.  The caption is misleading, pulls neutrality into question, and is not relavent to the article for Antarctica.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.88.29.34 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The caption accompanying the picture of the Arctic Cod  

message: A request for comment related to this article has been opened  here. Any thoughts are appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC: Infobox map

message: I've just added a link to a history of New Zealand's relationship with Antarctica which features on NZHistory.net.nz. It is quite comprehensive and is written by a professional historian. It includes many images, and some interactives and videos. I hope this is acceptable. Jamie Mackay (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New external link

message: Under the Research section of the article, the last sentence states "with the ban of CFCs in the Montreal Protocol of 1989, it is believed that the ozone hole will close up over the next fifty years," but in the Ozone depletion section, it goes on to say that the ozone hole was first noticed in 1985 and "has tended to increase over the years of observation". So it is not currently decreasing in size, or at least there's no indication of that. Deleting that sentence from the research section, although it is relevant if true, would avoid this current contradiction, even if in the future the hole does in fact begin to close up. I didn't want to remove it because it is an important statement of fact, but it might not be correct after all, or at least readily apparent during this time. roastedpepper 17:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with predicting that once CFC levels come down the ozone hole will close, though we really should offer a citation for that.  CFCs accumulated in the atmosphere over decades and it will take decades for them to leave the atmosphere.  Just as the weather provides for warm days and cold days, the ozone hole has good years and bad years, but I could still predict that the winter will be colder than summer.  See ozone hole for more about our understanding of the dynamics of ozone depletion.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ozone Depletion Contradiction 

message: * Antarctic photos
Elosodelamariola (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Besides the fact that you would need to have those uploaded first, those images are all copyright. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Elosodelamariola, 2 May 2010 

message: There are excessive amounts of images scattered around the article, unrelated to the sections placed. It makes it hard to read and hard to follow. Consider cleaning up images. I would, but I have trouble deciding which images should stay and which should go, and how to organize the ones that stay. Andrew Colvin | Talk 08:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a quick look, and didn't notice anything obviously out of place. Did you have any particular images in mind? Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 10:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Particularly the ones surounding the geography, geology, and climate sections. Maybe it's not that bad, but it feels overwhelming when reading. Andrew Colvin | Talk 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image mess 

message: The Antarctica article (under "Fauna") lists the midge Belgica antarctica's size as 12 mm (0.5 inches). However, the Belgica antarctica page lists the creature's size as 2-6 mm. This is a pretty significant difference, and one article needs to be corrected.12.124.197.66 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks.-gadfium 21:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgica antarctica 

message: The Larsen B ice shelf collapsed in 2002, not in 2003 as it says in the article. 2002 is also the year given in the relevant reference.[89]
194.66.0.142 (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: - , thanks! TFOWR 16:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 194.66.0.142, 1 November 2010 

message: (an Estonian-born captain in the Russian Imperial Navy), Edward Bransfield (a captain in the Royal Navy)
change to
(an Estonian-born captain in the Russian Imperial Navy), Edward Bransfield (a Ireland-born captain in the Royal Navy)
or 
(a captain in the Russian Imperial Navy), Edward Bransfield (a captain in the Royal Navy)
188.112.165.9 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK; changed to 1st one you suggested. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 188.112.165.9, 21 December 2010