Talk:Antarctica

Archives
March 2003 to December 2005 January 2005 to January 2006

Drake Passage?

On the Drake Passage page it says that the passage was opened 41Mya in the late Eocene - "^ Helen Briggs. "Fossil gives clue to big chill", BBC News, 21 April 2006. Retrieved on 2007-11-01. " The Antartica page puts it at 25Mya. Can we get some agreement on this? Batmo (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)B82mo

Bold text==Currency== It should be noted that the currencies of the ruling countries are used in the claims. Also, the unofficial Antarctican Dollar should be mentioned in the table at the top-right of the arcticle. C ya all l8er... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.126.160 (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the currency of the base's home country is generally used at each base. For instance, McMurdo Station uses US currency despite being within New Zealand's Ross Dependency. So New Zealanders passing through McMurdo Station on the way to Scott Base have been advised to purchase US dollars for any purchases they need to make there,[1] despite theoretically still being in New Zealand territory. -- Avenue (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

HI

Two Continents?

I recall reading that if it were not for the ice cap Antarctica would be two continents and not one. If this is true, then it should be noted. Can't find a reputable source though. Anyone know? 4.142.45.181 06:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)eric

There's a diagram showing Antarctica without the ice cap in the Geology section. The peninsula area and much of Wilkes Land becomes an archipelago, and the rest is a continent of sorts. I'm not sure if that counts as two continents or not.--Efil's god 12:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Government & international cooperation

It's not accurate to list the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat as the government or even the de facto government of Antarctica, although it certainly plays a role in managing the continent.

The secretariat is an administrative office, set up by the dozens of governments that get together annually to make decisions under their Antarctic Treaty about governing the continent. They set up the secretariat to implement their consensus decisions, and they decide what the secretariat does - it doesn't govern in its own right. It would be better to refer to Antarctic Treaty Parties or the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting as playing the role of government.

You are right, and your suggested wording seems adequate. Apcbg 07:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all governments are signatories to the treaty...so why could this even be considered a government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.87.109 (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Sport boys le ganò al cienciano

Why doesn't Russia claim it?

Considering they were the ones that found it.

-G

Perhaps it's because Antarctica is inhabitable and you would have to travel across the entire indian to get there.

68.49.1.207 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Italic text== transfer from minor to major review ==

Please see the listing for the reason. Tony 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC) you must mean uninhabitable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.251.253 (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC) --76.194.229.95 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bumbershoot

I just took the paragraph below out of the article. Not a chance it's true...it is, however, mildly amusing. --Aelffin 16:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The first manned flight to Antarctica is credited to Edgar Bumbershoot, a quadraplegic who could only operate his plane with an assortment of pulleys and strings which he pulled with his teeth. Amazingly, he made the journey successfully, only to be so overwhelmed with excitement at its completion that he used one of his pulleys to pull himself out of the plane so he could touch the Antarctic ground. Unfortunately, being a quadraplegic, he could not get back into his plane and froze to death.

Vandalism

Watch out for Vandalism there was alot the last 2 weeks, that is why i made a revert. The Green Fish 09:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sport?

I saw an "Antartica RC" rugby kit. Is this a joke, or do they actually have a sanctioned (or unsanctioned) side? It might be interesting to note. - Plasticbadge 02:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rugby has been played in Antarctica for many years, between members of the Scott Base rugby team and the McMurdo rugby team. The games are played on a full size field on the snow covered Ross ice shelf. Im not sure if there is a cont. wide team. The main article does not need this info. Snowwayout 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nazis?

I heard that in the 30's there was a nazi expedition to Antarctica in which they claimed it for themselves. This true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.168 (talk • contribs).

lol, and the significance of Antartica to Germany would have been? The asnwer is no.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk • contribs).

Yes, it is true. See New Swabia. lolx0rz. TomTheHand 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

Under flora, fungus is not mentioned. However, this is scientifically inaccurate. My suggestion:

1. Find more information on the fungus of Antarctica.
2. Create a new subsection under "Flora and fauna" for fungi.
3. Rename the section to "Biota", "Organisms", etc. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 01:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't they list all of the life on Antartica?

Probably too much. I wonder, since there've been quite a lot of an animals and plants discovered lately (including new species), if there could be a link to a new site showing some of this stuff off. Brian Pearson 23:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Too Many Pictures?

There seems to be a few too many pictures in this article, that or they need to be better distributed. The main problem is under the exploration section, which is set up so two pictures appear before any text causing a large blank area between the title "Exploration" and the rest of the text. I don't want to arbitrarily remove a picture, any agreement on which one should go or where to move one if we want to keep them all? --The Way 04:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Claus Expedition: Whimsical vandalism, folks!

I noticed the sentence about a "long-forgotten" Claus expedition. Mr Tambourine Man added this whimsical tidbit of vandalism just before this article was featured back in April of this year ('06). This was Mr Tambourine Man's only contribution.

See the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Mr+Tambourine+Man&page= which dates from April 6;

and especially:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mr_Tambourine_Man late on April 8.

As of this writing, I have yet to track the changes that susbsequently were made to this sentence since April. Anyone who would like to step through half a year of diffs is welcome to do so.

 Schweiwikist   (talk)  15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: See this version, which was updated by an anonymous editor. Popups made this easy to find.  Schweiwikist   (talk)  18:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch! I thought the sentence was suspicious too, but I wasn't bold enough to do anything about it. --Apoc2400 06:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent

FA class for an article of top importance... THIS is the kind of thing Version 1.0 readers will want to see! If you have contributed significantly to Antarctica, feel free to put this barnstar on your page:

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png		The Geography Barnstar
		For commendable contributions to Antarctica, you have earned this Geography Barnstar! Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 14:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll proofread the article soon. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 14:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Frequent vandalism

It seems this page gets a lot of vandalism. Is there any way for editors or others to protect this page? A302b 07:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Timezone

Probably an odd question, but what timezone(s) are used in Antarctica? Does the entire continent use UTC, or is it divided into 24 zones? Koweja 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the the brits want the peninsula to use UTC-3, and much of the rest has no time zone. see http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/~savalle/net/tzonemap.html Speciate 07:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)speciate

My experience (McMurdo, South Pole, Terra Nova Bay, Dumont d'Urville, and Dome C Stations) is that the stations generally use something close to the time zone that they are in, based on their longitude. There are of course exceptions. South Pole has its choice as its buildings span all longitudes; they use the same time zone as McMurdo (New Zealand time, UTC+12 or UTC+13 in summer) for logistical convenience. Their have been winters in the past when South Pole switched to US Mountain time to better communicate with the US Antarctic Program folks in Denver. Dome C and DDU use their local standard time zones. StephenHudson 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

There now is a proposed WikiProject for Antarctica at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Antarctica. Any individuals in joining should indicate such there, and we will see if there is enough interest to create such a project. Badbilltucker 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Article is biased in it's political part. USSR and US during cold war agreed not to make territorial claims nor to recognize them in Antarctida, but in the article i can only see that it was smth like an exceptional nobility act of US. Please correct this part of the article.

Political chapter is biased

During cold war USSR (Russia) an US agreed not to make any territorial claims nor to recognize them for the time being. But in article it looks like exceptional act of US nobility. Plz correct this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.159.244.170 (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

The similar positions of Russia and the USA have nothing to do with nobility, it was an act of nations that did not wish to make and enforce sovereignty claims of their own at the time when other nations tried that, but at the same time they reserved the right to make such claims in the future, and explicitly rejected all claims i.e. the USA and Russia effectively prevented possible attempts by other nations to enforce claims. Such a course of action matters in international law; undoubtedly, that behaviour of the USA and Russia helped pave the way towards the Antarctic Treaty. Apcbg 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

South Orkney Islands

The map that states which countries have claimed the various parts of Antarcta, seems to be inaccurate. It states that the South Orkney Islands is controlled by Argentina which it most certainly is not! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.164.165 (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

South Orkney Islands

The map that states which countries have claimed the various parts of Antarcta, seems to be inaccurate. It states that the South Orkney Islands is controlled by Argentina which it most certainly is not! Please could you explain this and correct it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.164.165 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

The map says no such thing. It shows an Argentine station on those islands, like it shows several stations of other stations elsewhere. The claims are marked by coloured delimitation lines. Apcbg 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel de Castilla

USer:Xareu bs added [2], sourcing this to http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/01/10/ciencia/1168421707.html. Which I can't read as its in Spanish. Gabriel de Castilla doesn't mention it. It looks entirely speculative to me, and the google translation [3] says the same: Also it is where is the island Livingston, chosen by Spain to install his first scientific base in 1988, located next to the beach where it assumes that they went to stop the shipwrecks of the “Gabriel de Castilla”, ship of the Spanish Navy that at the end of century XVIII was dragged by a weather. Those Spaniards to whom the Antártida swallowed could be, against their will, the first settlers. Spain has been looking for for years the test of that event, but not yet it has been.

William M. Connolley 12:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, there are blank spots in the early history of Antarctica, conjectures accepted by some historians and rejected by others while supported by very scarce or virtually nonexistant historical evidence. The quoted article however is not even in that category; unfortunately its author has messed everything up: Gabriel de Castilla was person not ship, he did not wreck in Antarctica but returned safely, and he did not live in the XVIII but in XVI-XVII Centuries. All that is known about his voyage to the south is a couple of sentences recording evidence by a Dutch sailor who took part in it. Nothing and nobody (excepting the confused author of that article) relates Gabriel de Castilla with any wreckage at any particular island (he didn't wreck after all). Yes Spanish archeologists have been doing research on Livingston Island (cf. Livingston Island:History) for some years, for good reasons too, looking for evidence of the Spanish gunship San Telmo lost in September 1819 together with its crew and troops numbering 644 men. Nothing to do with Gabriel de Castilla though. Apcbg 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot (obrigado) for this information. I found it very interesting.--Xareu bs 14:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete request for Província Brasileira na Antartica

I've deleted the recent edits by Stokage, which added a mention of a supposed Brazilian claim between (the editor's text) "250°E to 300°E" (?!?). I've also asked for a speedy delete of the article Província Brasileira na Antartica (created today by the same editor) on the following basis:

"There is no evidence on Google or reputable Antarctic pages; the article contradicts Brazil Antarctic Geopolitics, itself cited for contradicting Antarctic territorial claims; the article contains what appear to be nonsense claims about thousands of inhabitants, snowboard championships, and a village of five thousand people named "Qjaskwalla"."

If anyone knows of any reason why this should be taken seriously, please let me know, and I'll pull the SD request. However, given the number of apparent fallacies in the article, and the amount of vandalism that occurs here, it seems pretty suspicious. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That article is a joke of course; there is no Brazilian sovereignty claim but a declared 'zone of interest' (not much promoted) which is in Western Antarctica, very far from the funny claim. Apcbg 08:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no Brazilian claim William M. Connolley 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BA!

1.6?

In one section it ssys that the average thickness of the ice sheet is 1.6 Km, in another 1.6 Miles. Does anyone know the correct thickness of the ice sheet?Richbank 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)richbank

Hello! I think this might be difficult to pin down (given the estimated volume of ice) and, hence, sources vary: a perusal of these sources indicates: "1.6 km (1 mi)", "6,500 ft (2,000 m)", "1.5 miles (2.45 km)", and (vaguely) "thousands of feet thick". My geographical dictionary indicates that the ice sheet averages 1 mi (1.6 km) in thickness. To be safe yet accurate, I revised the introduction to read "at least 1.6 km", which is accurate no matter what value is ultimately correct. Quizatz Haderach 13:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely there is some uncertainty, but just saying 'at least 1.6 km' seems to give it too much uncertainty. If you take the numbers for ice volume from Climate of Antarctica and divide by the ice-sheet area you get 2.45 km, and even if you divide that volume by the area of the continent, including rock and ice shelves, you get about 2.1 km. I would suggest 'between 2.0 and 2.5 km', or at least 'between 1.6 and 2.5 km' to put an upper limit on it. Any objections/suggestions? StephenHudson 19:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm; I would suggest including an agreeable figure we can cite. The above lesser figure is from a geographical dictionary (and the current version at least provides for some wiggle room); I would not object to revising figures based on the morphometric data (from Drewry, 1983) in the Climate of Antarctica article -- 2.16 km, representing the average thickness of the sheet which includes ice shelves and rises -- or another authority and updating said figures wherever they might appear. Since we are dealing with an average, though, I'd much prefer to indicate '(around) x', 'at least x', or 'x +/-y' as opposed to 'between a and b'. Quizatz Haderach 21:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have since made editions of 'around 2.2 km' in a number of spots. Quizatz Haderach 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1850 m: Matthew B. Lythe, David G. Vaughan, and the Consortium BEDMAP (2001). "BEDMAP: A new ice thickness and subglacial topographic model of Antarctica". JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH. 106 (B6): 11335–11352.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Same source gives a volume of 25.4 million km^3, which is notably lower than the 1983 work cited in Climate of Antarctica. Dragons flight 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe in light of this, I'll defer to my prior comments/position and not have to pull my hair out too much. :) Quizatz Haderach 05:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Antarctic Flora

I removed the link to the Antarctic Flora article. That is a paleobotanical article about trees etc that lived on Antarctica a long time ago, not about current flora of Antarctica.

Ordinary Person 05:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone put the link back in...

Stop doing that!

The section is about the Flora of Antarctica. The palaeobotanical article "Antarctic Flora" is about a particular botanical development tens of millions of years ago. It is not appropriate to have a link to that article in this section.

Perhaps a good idea would be to create a separate detailed article, perhaps called Flora Of Antarctica, in which more detail on that topic can be added.

Ordinary Person 06:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Image

If you look at the picture of Antarctia without it's ice-shield, it looks like a bunch of Islands. If you go somewhere here on the Wiki, you'll find information about Antarctica stating that in millions of years, the islands will become a lush rainforest. But the thing is, the Scientists didn't think about continents/islands colliding, creating mountainous areas.

Recently discovered predator?

I thought I read in the papers some years ago of a newly discovered predator in Antarctica. It has a forehead and snout richly supplied with blood vessels, and has a high body temperature. It uses that to help burrow through ice. Apparently, a group of them will go burrowing under the ice where a penguin is standing, undermining it until the penguin falls through. Then they attack and eat the penguin. Can anybody shed any light? 140.147.160.78 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

This is nonsense. Dragons flight 17:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are thinking of the fictional Hotheaded Naked Ice Borers. This was a hoax perpetrated by Discover Magazine in its April 1995 issue: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/aprilfool/comments/864/ Wbrameld 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh great! You're absolutely right. I followed that link, and I remember that picture. OK, I've been had. 72.66.108.162 03:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Turns out the Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer has a Wikipedia article. So I've linked your reference to it. Thanks for sorting me out (hangs head in shame). 72.66.108.162 03:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

references

Does anyone mind if I convert the existing references to use the Wikipedia:Citation templates? Mahanga^{Talk to me} 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Which ocean?

After some back-and-forth between Southern Ocean and World Ocean, the lead now refers to the "big three" for clarity. The term "World Ocean" isn't terribly common, especially for the general public. Personally, I prefer leaving "Southern Ocean", but if there is consensus that it is not official, I think "Pacific" etc. is more helpful. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the prior wording. All these details are in the Geography section of the article -- in the introduction, we do not need to complicate and repeat everything that's noted elsewhere. This is a concise article about the continent, and it is important to demonstrate that Antarctica is surrounded by one and/or three oceans. The fact that the terms World Ocean (or global ocean) may be uncommon is beside the point, and this is debatable since typical definitions for 'ocean' indicate it being a continuous body of water surrounding the Earth -- that article merely iterates and elaborates the same point accurately (listing and exhibiting the major oceanic constituents) and may be of similar utility to readers. As well, the term Southern Ocean, while it may be more common and precise, remains unofficial. I am open to tweaking the introductory wording, though. Quizatz Haderach 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "World Ocean" in favour of the more generic "Pacific/Atlantic/Indian" for now. "World" being less common is directly relevant to this discussion - there is no point in using an unfamiliar term when we can do better. Before we restore either version, though, it would be best to see what other editors think. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is the current version is not better and excludes other equally valid interpretations -- the Southern Ocean may not have official status but is nonetheless fairly common, and the current version is rather inaccurate if that is taken into account (i.e., it may not be washed upon by the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans). The use of World Ocean is impartial and all-inclusive no matter how one interprets the concept: one may consider it to comprise one ocean, include just the three 'big' ones, those plus the Arctic, and or those plus the Southern Ocean. I invite added input; when timely, though, I propose and am prepared to merely edit in 'surrounded by the (southern)(waters of the)(global) ocean' or similar, since all details are already in the Geography section below. Thoughts? Quizatz Haderach 02:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not accurate to say that "World Ocean" is impartial, especially if you're downplaying "Southern Ocean" on the basis that it isn't "official". ("World Ocean" would seem to have even less of a formal standing.) I would suggest leaving the current version (listing the three majors) pending input, as it at least has the benefit of being easily understood by the majority of readers. "Surrounded by the (global) ocean" would just make the lead more vague. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, World Ocean (or global ocean) is the most impartial and accurate, it's just the least common. Other variants to date -- including the current lead -- may be more common but are unsatisfactory and arguably inaccurate. I'd rather be vague than that and, again, details are in the section below. I invite added input but needn't wait for it; per above, I will be changing the lead when timely. Quizatz Haderach 02:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you claim it's "the most impartial", when the term itself doesn't appear to have any official standing? Even the discussion at the Ocean article had questions as to whether that term was overrepresented in the article's lead. I would strongly suggest that it would be best to wait for additional input, in the interests of achieving consensus. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing it and I invite added input, but I am not sitting on my hands. A number of reliable sources have been provided regarding the concept of the global ocean (use lower case if you will), and yet others allude to this in their definitions of ocean ( [4] [5]). And there is no consensus for the current version (which is arguably inaccurate) as opposed to others, so (when timely) I will boldly edit with this in mind ... Quizatz Haderach 03:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think waiting a few days for input from other editors is considered "sitting on your hands" - especially when what you are proposing is, in your own terms, "vague" and "uncommon". If you have a solid, reputable organization using the term (and not just alluding to it) that is one thing. However, removing text that is clear and understandable, and replacing it with something vague and unofficial, may not be the best approach. (Sorry to be blunt.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The text remains inaccurate and unclear (particularly for those who contend for the existence of not just the 'big three oceans'), so I'm doing no disservice in replacing it and being more precise. And (sorry to be blunt) but, even though days haven't passed yet, you haven't apparently taken the time to consult the references in the articles which clearly use the terms or to understand the concepts therein. For instance, the link for the UN Atlas of the Oceans clearly uses the term World Ocean numerous times and also indicates the term Southern Ocean is unofficial; the entry for "ocean" in the Columbia Encyclopedia also describes the "ocean" that way (title in upper case, though lower case in text); other related references also live on that same webpage, including entries which define it as a 'single continuous body of water'. And the various viewpoints already live in the Geography section of the article. Until you can clearly demonstrate why the versions you have added should be maintained, I see little reason to. Quizatz Haderach 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As well, this germane journal article entitled "Maps of the whole world ocean" indicates the following upfront: "That the world ocean is a continuous body of water with relatively free interchange between its parts is of fundamental importance to oceanography." Quizatz Haderach 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's no consensus on what to call the surrounding ocean, how about we avoid naming it at all (at least in the lead section)? Instead we could simply describe it: "Antarctica is surrounded by frigid and tempestuous ocean waters" or something similar. -- Avenue 04:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer that (or similar) to the current version, which is arguably inaccurate anyway. Quizatz Haderach 01:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is under discussion, I've placed Avenue's text in for now. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tweaked it somewhat ("frigid and tempestuous" sounds unencyclopedic to me and is otherwise not really useful); however, please note that other attempts to equitably reconcile various viewpoints have yet been unsatisfactory, and (unless otherwise demonstrated) may be changed again shortly. Quizatz Haderach 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on the discussion, and avoid overdoing the links to Wikipedia guidelines. Repeated suggestions that opposition to your preferred choice reflects a POV stance won't help to resolve this matter. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your ignorance of links to cited information during this discussion and insistence on substandard, subjective text without real backing will not solve this matter, either. And I have provided a number of reasoned choices based on citations, whereas you have not and are simply being argumentative. Until you discuss matters within the norms of Wikipedia guidelines and something new arises, I can't reply to your commentary further and will wait a few days before changing the article. A bientot. Quizatz Haderach 14:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Quizatz, where I take issue with your position is in your insistence on using the term "World Ocean" as if it were the "name" of the ocean. This article is about the continent of Antarctica, and we are discussing the body (or bodies) of water that surround it. I have already looked through the links you suggested, and some others as well. "World ocean" is used as a concept, and as an expression of how the waters are not separate and distinct - not as the name. Based on your arguments here, we would need to go through every article relating to land masses and reword them - for example, saying that North America and Europe are separated by the World Ocean instead of by the Atlantic. Obviously, that's not going to happen - but why should Antarctica be treated any differently than the other continents? The uncertainty here lies in whether to refer to the surrounding waters as the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, or as the Southern/Antarctic Ocean. Your argument that using P/A/I is possibly incorrect is tied to the "Southern" question - either it is the Southern Ocean, or it is not. We can't say that P/A/I is incorrect, and then say that the reason it is considered incorrect is "unofficial" and thus incorrect. I certainly have no problem with the concept of the "world ocean" for the purposes of understanding the interconnected nature of Earth's water. After all, it only makes sense, much like we wouldn't consider the presence of political borders to affect geological processes. However, "World Ocean" is not the name of a body of water - and treating it as such will only create confusion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, your continual reversion of MY prior comments on this talk page will be reverted -- I alone will refactor my comments (and have), and otherwise stand by them.

Second, I have taken issue with your position and your arguments. Antarctica should be treated differently than other continents because, given its location, it alone is surrounded by those unique, southerly oceanic waters that may be referred to in a number of ways. While Southern Ocean is fairly common and not inaccurate (I've no basic objection to using it), it remains unofficial; considering this, noting that Antarctica is surrounded by the 'big three oceans' would be inaccurate -- thus, neither can or should be noted on their own. (So, yes, solely using one or the other may be partial and incorrect.) On the other hand, usage of ('southerly') world ocean (upper or lower case) -- while it may be relatively uncommon -- IS a certainty (reference where the term is used in direct relation to Antarctic oceanography), unquestionably accurate, and (given the above) most impartial. Even so, it is also accurately used as a name for the ocean in toto, and some of the sources provided render it that way (i.e., in upper case) -- this may be somewhat akin to the variable rendition of 'Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.' And please note that I do not insist on capitalising the term (a prior conciliatory edit rendered global ocean in lower case) or using it solely, but I insist that it somehow be included in the lead. Reputable sources HAVE been provided throughout that use the term (as requested) and as a name, so (yes) you continue to glaze over those or pass them off. Thus, unless you or someone else has something else to add, I will be changing the lead to reflect this simply and impartially. Quizatz Haderach 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not "reverting your comments" - I am removing material I consider personally insulting, and will continue to do so, as is my right per Wikipedia guidelines. The alternative would be to issue a warning to you about keeping discussions focused on the subject, and not the people involved. However, I really do not want to have to resort to such formal steps, and would rather pursue this as a civil discussion. If you wish to restate the offending material yourself, I would certainly appreciate it as it would avoid this back-and-forth cycle. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have remained focused on the topic ... and I will continue to restore these deletions of comments. Simply put, you have been argumentative throughout, asking for references or making assertions while ignoring references since provided or pointed out that have addressed them ... all the while, providing none. Don't perpetuate mis/perceptions by continuing them -- if you want to not be 'insulted', demonstrate that you're paying attention or don't comment. I will comment hereafter only when necessary. And if you continue to remove comments while being polemic, that may constitute disruption and will be dealt with appropriately. Quizatz Haderach 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't make this personal. I have been listening to your point of view, and I have been responding to it. This is not worth arguing over. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you listening? YOU are making it personal: pay attention and don't ask for references for notions that have already been provided or pointed out repeatedly. Quizatz Haderach 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You're really being quite unfair. You're completely disregarding my concerns about the insinuations you've made against me, and you have also repeatedly rewritten your comments above to make your replies look "better" after the fact. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfair? Please: I am merely copyediting MY comments to more clearly demonstrate my points or to correct for typos. If you are unable or unwilling to do the same or to substantiate the issues at play, that's not my concern. And I am not disregarding anything -- it is because of your concerns that I have had to reiterate notions, and will continue to call them as I see them. Anyhow, until you demonstrate a clear reason for remaining argumentative, I am ending my involvement in this discussion. Quizatz Haderach 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to read this Wikipedia guideline about talk page etiquette, which states "Changing or deleting comments after someone replied is likely to cause problems, because it will put the reply in a different context.". The section also outlines ways in which to avoid those problems. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted, and I'll perhaps use the draft feature more, but this is merely a guideline (as indicated atop that page) and notions expressed herein remain unchanged. Quizatz Haderach 20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Southern Ocean/World Ocean/something else

This has been going back and forth between Quizatz Haderach and me for a few days - I'd like to hear what others think. If it works for the editors, I'd suggest that QH and I keep our discussion to the previous section, and this new section be reserved for thoughts and comments from the rest of the group. (As such, I'm not going to post my opinion here.)

The question: How to refer to the waters surrounding the Antarctic. Is it the "world ocean" (or variations on that theme), the "Southern Ocean" (or Antarctic Ocean or other related terms), the southern waters of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans, or something different? Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What "correctness" it has, I don't know, but I would usually refer to it as the Southern Ocean. Just my 2 cents. Dragons flight 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I will iterate the issue here, but briefly. The challenge is how to describe this accurately, yet equitably and concisely in the introduction. Antarctica is unique among the continents because, given its location, it alone is surrounded by those southerly oceanic waters that may be referred to in a number of ways. Above all, the ocean is noted in various texts as a single, continuous body of water subdivided into a number of principal components (the three-plus commonly-named oceans). While Southern Ocean is fairly common and not inaccurate, it remains unofficial (according to the UN Atlas of the Oceans); the last session of the International Hydrographic Organisation named the fifth ocean, but the basic draft hasn't been internationally approved yet. Considering this, noting that Antarctica is surrounded by the 'big three oceans' (Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian) may or may not also be correct. Thus, neither of these can or should be noted on their own.

On the other hand, noting that Antarctica is surrounded by the [southerly waters of the] world ocean (global ocean) (upper or lower case, which that article notes upfront) -- while relatively uncommon -- is certainly valid (reference where the term is used in direct relation to Antarctic oceanography), accurate, and (given the above) impartial. It is also accurately (though rarely) used as a name for the ocean in toto, and some of the sources provided throughout render it that way (i.e., upper case in the UN Atlas of the Oceans link above). While capitalising the term or using it solely is unnecessary (a prior conciliatory edit rendered global ocean in lower case with Southern Ocean), I believe this notion must somehow be included in the lead. Also, throughout, note that all of these perspectives are in the 'Geography' section of the article. Quizatz Haderach 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Southern Ocean is a valid official name recently approved by the authoritative international body responsible for the naming of ocean features, the IHO. Naturally, such changes take some time to find their place in publications that are updated infrequently, so the above references to editions preceding the IHO decision are misplaced — in my opinion anyway. Apcbg 09:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be a valid name, but without corroboration -- and I see none -- the assertion that it is official is disputed. The naming of Southern Ocean occurred in 2000. However, according to the IHO, the third edition of Limits of Oceans and Seas (1953) (which delimits bodies of water) "is the last approved edition; however, it needs revision and is out of print. ... A preliminary revision of [this publication], dated 1986, radically different from the 1953 version, is widely cited on Internet websites. [The CIA World Fact Book contains] some information from this draft, which has not yet been internationally approved." And in that listing of principal oceans and seas, the Southern Ocean remains unlisted. This also perhaps explains why Southern Ocean hasn't fully caught on yet and is still frequently not used or cited in publication -- e.g., the National Geographic Atlas of the Ocean (2001) treats the Southern Ocean as essentially a footnote. Anyhow, the UN ocean atlas above clearly and explicitly indicates it remains unofficial (and there's no reason to believe it's invalid), so contrassertions are -- well -- misplaced ... in my opinion anyway. And, this changes nothing: regardless, the current article notes this term and others to promote clarity. Quizatz Haderach 12:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The 1953 edition deals with the precise limits of the oceans and seas, it does not define oceans. The publication of a new edition is by no means a necessary condition for the IHO decision to come in force. The IHO decision is valid since its adoption. Your reference to a UN atlas is questionable as you fail to provide the date of publication of that atlas; by the way the quoted page in that atlas refers to yet another -- undated -- single source, the Russian hydrographic office. The statement in that Russian / then UN source was probablly valid when made, but you have to show that it is valid today which you haven't, and cannot, because the name is official by virtue of the IHO decision. There is no other authoritative body in the naming of ocean features but the IHO. I do not object to the present wording but to a faulty reasoning. Apcbg 13:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon digging, I believe the foreword of the UN atlas was written/translated in January 1998; I'm unsure of the rest of the content. Relatedly, however, this does not invalidate the term or notion of World Ocean ... which is one point of contention.

As well, your first point makes no sense and the basic premise of your argument is questionable. You contend that Limits of Oceans and Seas delimits, but strangely does not define, the oceans. Read the approved 1953 document carefully -- on p. 6, the IHO purposely "omitted" the Southern Ocean. While later decisions may have changed this, this has not been demonstrated clearly -- the burden of proof is on you and like editors to demonstrate that the term Southern Ocean is currently official and authoritative. Thus, please provide reputable references from the IHO defining the oceans and indicating that the term Southern Ocean is official. I see a lot of argumentation/supposition, but still nothing that directly supports this assertion -- and if this is incontrovertible, it shouldn't be difficult to cite. Second-hand sources may be insufficient, since a number of sources do name it as the fifth ocean and yet others -- current ones, despite challenges and your reasoning -- exclude it or indicate otherwise. Again, despite the dedicated entry in the current 2006 CIA World Fact Book, the parallel listing of oceans and seas from that volume (predicated on the 1986 IHO briefing, still unapproved) excludes it. Lastly, this raises the question of whether the IHO is truly authoritative in this respect (e.g., International Oceanographic Commission; Australian definition of the Southern Ocean which differs from that indicated above), so the only true virtue herein is that of patience.

In any event, I'm glad that the current wording is agreeable -- again, I've no real objection to noting Southern Ocean, but (given the above and attempts to reconcile apparently contradictory information) I challenge its authority and contend it can't be noted alone in the introduction in this context at this point. I will accept whatever a consensus arrives at and can be convinced otherwise, but that hasn't happened yet. :) Quizatz Haderach 18:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What a relief it has gone beyond just two eds - good to see others in there too - from a non expert and interested observor - I would vote for Southern Ocean SatuSuro 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SatuSuro as I've never heard of "World Ocean" in my life and, originating from the Northern Hemisphere, the name completely fails to convince me. :o) --Ibn Battuta 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK -- belatedly, I will relent from including this notion in the introduction of this article for now ... Thanks for the feedback. Quizatz Haderach 00:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

image really at night?

inverse night? or just a day?

I'm wondering about the image of the Endurance at "night"... Yes, I know it says it's a night photograph both in the caption and at the Library of Congress page... but...

• The image is remarkably well-lit; even the mast's of the ship, considerably further away than the foreground, are still very bright
• I'm not familiar enough with the history of flashes, but at least the magnesium-potassium flashes supposedly were prone to exploding; I don't know if Shackleton would've wanted that on his ship (but maybe the ingredients could be transported separately and then be mixed on the spot?); or else he maybe still used the magnesium-only flashes, again, I don't know enough, but wonder...
• The light clearly comes from the side; now, that could be due to the fact that the early flashes were just material that burnt for several seconds--so Shackleton (or whoever took the photograph) maybe just had someone light it there because of the effect on shades etc.; again, the view of an "expert" on the history of flashes would seem interesting; at least, the large angle between the photographer's view and the light source are remarkable.
• Old pictures are sometimes filed as inverse images (don't know why, maybe they just got the negatives, whatever)
• The picture simply looks just as good when inverted--dark foreground, which could be explained by the light conditions, but apart from that, simply a regular picture during daytime.

So much for my musings. Any ideas? --Ibn Battuta 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Either way - what's that something behind the ship?

Thanks for your streams of consciousness! :o) I've asked at the Commons, and having found that the expedition has taken at least some night photographs, it might actually be one of them... Just to satisfy your insatiate appetite for information about this picture. --Ibn Battuta 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the photo was taken during the Antarctic summer, there would have been daylight in the nighttime hours. ---Ransom (--69.105.84.54 23:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

ANTARCTICA POPULATION

There is in fact a stable population of about 130 people living in the Antarctic pensinsula. It is called "Villa Las Estrellas", and it is a chilean settlement.

You OUGHT to put this information in this article. And it´s not vandalism.

Here is the article in spanish:

Villa Las Estrellas es junto a la base argentina "Esperanza", la única población estable en la Antártica. Fue inaugurada el 9 de abril de 1984, y pertenece a Chile. Forma parte del complejo de la Base Presidente Eduardo Frei Montalva, dependiente de la Fuerza Aérea de Chile, el que está conformado por el Centro Meteorológico Antártico Presidente Eduardo Frei Montalva, la Base Aérea Teniente Rodolfo Marsh Martin y la Villa Las Estrellas.

La villa está compuesta por aproximadamente 15 casas que habitan familias de funcionarios de la Fuerza Aérea de Chile, de la Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil, científicos y profesores, todos los cuales permanecen entre uno y dos años en el lugar. La población varía de unos 80 habitantes en invierno a más de 150 en verano.

La villa sirve como cabecera de la comuna Antártica Chilena, la que junto a la comuna de Cabo de Hornos, forman la provincia Antártica Chilena. Para los efectos administrativos y electorales, la comuna Antártica, forma una agrupación comunal con la de Cabo de Hornos, por lo que no elige autoridades propias.

Infraestructura

Entre sus instalaciones la villa cuenta con:

Escuela F-50 "Villa Las Estrellas": dos profesores son los responsables de impartir la educación primaria (1º a 8º grado de Enseñanza General Básica) a los aproximadamente 15 niños de Villa Las Estrellas, en esta escuela que depende del Ministerio de Educación. Cuentan con el apoyo de modernos equipos de computación, lo que le permite estar incorporada a la Red Enlaces.

Hospital: depende de la Fuerza Aérea de Chile y cuenta en forma permanente con un médico y un enfermero. Está dotado de moderno instrumental: equipo de rayos X, laboratorio, quirófano, equipo de anestesia, esterilizador y farmacia. Hay dos camas para hospitalizados y se dispone de una clínica dental.

Mediante un proyecto tecnológico que se está implementando recientemente con personal del Instituto Antártico Chileno y de la Universidad de Chile, en casos de urgencia -mediante un enlace satelital- se pueden enviar fotografías de afecciones a la piel o de anomalías oculares, imágenes de electrocardiogramas, radiografías, etc., a centros de salud especializados ubicados en Santiago, o entidades de Argentina, Alemania e Italia, vinculados al proyecto, los que colaboran en el diagnóstico y sugieren el tratamiento. El equipamiento que dispone el hospital permite efectuar ciertas operaciones de urgencia.

Oficina de Correos: esta oficina depende de la Empresa de Correos de Chile y durante el verano es atendida por uno de sus funcionarios; en invierno, está a cargo del comandante de la base. Toda la correspondencia dirigida a las bases chilenas y extranjeras del sector llega a las dependencias de Punta Arenas y desde allí es remitida a la Villa Las Estrellas. Aquí, el encargado la clasifica y distribuye vía avión o helicóptero a sus destinatarios. Por su parte, la correspondencia que sale de la Antártica se centraliza en esta base y se remite a Punta Arenas desde donde se distribuye a las diferentes ciudades y países.

Bancos: una sucursal del Banco de Crédito e Inversiones opera durante todo el año a cargo de un funcionario de esa entidad bancaria. Los servicios allí prestados sirven a nacionales y exranjeros, normalmente científicos, que depositan o giran dinero habitualmente. También existe una sucursal del BancoEstado.

Iglesia: hay una capilla católica, ("Santa María Reina de la Paz") que es visitada por los habitantes de las diversas bases de la isla Rey Jorge.

Gimnasio: de moderna construcción, ofrece facilidades para la práctica del tenis, beibifútbol, básquetbol y vóleibol. Dispone de máquinas de ejercicios, mesas de ping pong, camarines y sauna.

Andarivel: un andarivel de arrastre de cien metros de largo permite desarrollar actividades de ski en las cercanías de la base.

Supermercado: abastecido de los alimentos necesarios, es utilizado principalmente por las familias de Villa Las Estrellas.

Biblioteca Pública Nº 291: cuenta con un significativo número de libros y revistas que están a disposición de quien lo requiera.

Radio F.M. "Soberanía": emite en la frecuencia de 90.5 MHz. Funciona durante el día proporcionando música e informaciones a todas las bases del sector. Difunde también ciertos programas culturales y de entretención realizados por el personal y sus familias.

Hostería "Estrella Polar": se ubica en las cercanías del aeródromo y tiene capacidad para 80 personas. Es utilizada por personal de la Fuerza Aérea, visitas y científicos nacionales o extranjeros.

Bazar: una pequeña tienda de venta de recuerdos es administrada por algunas de las señoras de la villa; el producto de las ventas es a beneficio del Consejo Nacional de Protección a la Ancianidad (CONAPRAN).

Oficina del Servicio de Registro Civil e Identificación de Chile: el jefe de la base, dado el caso, se desempeña como oficial de Registro Civil con todas las atribuciones inherentes a este cargo.

Teléfonos: para la base y el aeródromo, existe enlace telefónico via satélite; además, para los habitantes del sector hay un teléfono público operado con monedas y tarjetas de prepago.

Antena de telefonía móvil: desde 2005 existe una antena de telefonía móvil perteneciente a la empresa chilena Entel PCS.

Servicio de Internet.

Estación repetidora de Televisión Nacional de Chile.

Our article at Villa Las Estrellas states that it is a research base - albiet one with some families - and is listed at List of research stations in Antarctica. I'm not sure why it would require specific mention on the main Antarctica page. -- Chuq (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Unclaimed Territory

Not knocking the article. I learn a lot. In any event, the article contains this sentence (which is, of course, footnoted to its source): “The area between 90°W and 150°W is the only part of Antarctica, indeed the only solid land on Earth, not claimed by any country.” I can think of an exception to this: the West Bank (exclusive of East Jerusalem, which, whether one agrees with the claim or not, is at least claimed by Israel). Wikipedia's own article on the West Bank notes: “From 1948 until 1967, the area was under Jordanian rule, though Jordan did not officially relinquish its claim to the area until 1988. It has been occupied by Israel following the conclusion of the Six-Day War.[1] With the exception of East Jerusalem, it was not annexed by Israel. The West Bank is currently considered under international law to be de jure a territory not part of any state.” No other country--not even Israel (with the exception noted) or Jordan -- claims the West Bank territory as being de jure its own. Perhaps the exception could be noted... some student someplace will cite the Wikipedia for the proposition that this wedge of Antarctica is the only unclaimed solid land on earth... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.197.146.171 (talk • contribs).

The sentence remains correct in spirit, since the State of Palestine claims the West Bank (among other areas). The State of Palestine is also one of the countries included in our List_of_countries, so it's not clear to me that the sentence is even technically incorrect. But if you'd prefer some other wording, please feel free to suggest it. -- Avenue 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The size of california just melted in antartica

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/16/antarctica.melting.reut/index.html wow

yeah wow, call me a sceptic, but, if 2007 satellite technology were available in the year 1850 or 1750 or any other 50 what's to say they wouldn't show exactly the same thing?! That ICE melts, and re-freezes, even huge chunks the size of California!. A few modern, pretty, colourful fancy graphs and the argument is done and dusted. Or just spin it for the ratings doom and gloom cable-network style. I'm not saying for a minute that global warming isn't happening presently, it has to be going some direction, the Earth is warming or cooling in cycles, and they're a lot longer than 30 year cycles.--Dean1970 04:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC) p.s please sign your edits. Thanks.

Polar ocean 'soaking up less CO2'

even more bad news http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6665147.stm

Religion?

Should there be a blurb about religion? I seem to recall at least one Russian Orthodox Church on Antarctica. 71.93.238.14 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here it is - Trinity Church, Antarctica. I added it to the See Also.71.93.238.14 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done an article entitled "Religion in Antarctica" that covers most aspects of this. If someone could link to it from the Antarctica main article (probably under "population" or under a new section "religion" or "demographics") it would be appreciated... Thanks. Gdr05a (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to Religion in Antarctica in the article on demographics, which describes the people there. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does this page receive so much vandalism?

It's not a particularly obvious vandalism target. Any theories?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

IF the ice caps were to melt the whole world will be under water...and globle warming couses them to mealt and indestry couses glouble warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.156.197 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dogs not allowed on Antarctica

I watched a TV series about modern remakes of the Amundsen & Scott expeditions, using the original equipment, clothes, sleigh dogs, etc, but where the actual trip took place on Greenland since dogs (they claimed) are not allowed on Antarctica. Is this correct? Does anybody know why? --KYN 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Because no alien species whatsoever are allowed in Antarctica, the sole exception (partial) being Homo Sapiens. Apcbg 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the background of this "alien species" ban, who made the decicion, why and when? --KYN 20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be two parts to the dog and alien species ban. The ban on alien species is to keep them from taking hold in an environment that has evolved without them (if polar bears were introduced to the Antarctic coast and they managed to survive, they could devastate the penguin population, which raise their young unprotected on the ice since they have no natural predators out of the water). Introduced species have caused environmental problems around the world. For some time dogs were exempted (humans and food still are), but then there was concern that canine diseases might be transmitted to seals, leading to the removal of all dogs by 1994. Read more on these British Antarctic Survey pages: [6] and [7]. StephenHudson 02:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The survey pages were very enlightening, thanks! --KYN 08:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Arctos?

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)

The name Antarctica is a romanized version of the Greek compound word Αntarktiké (Aνταρκτική), meaning "Opposite of the Arctic". The word Arctic comes from the Greek word arktos (άρκτος) , which means bear. This is due to the location of the constellation (a group of stars) Ursa Major, the "Great Bear", above the Arctic region. Mick gold (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Basic notes

Quick Antarctic Statistics Area: 1.4 times bigger than the USA, 58 times bigger than the UK 13,829,430 km2 5,339,543 miles2 Ice-free area (0.32% of total) 44,890 km2 17,330 miles2 Largest Ice Shelves Ross ice shelf: (about the size of France) 510,680 km2 197,974 miles2 Ronne-Filchner ice shelf: (about the size of Spain) 439,920 km2 169,850 miles2 Mountains Transantarctic Mountain chain: 3,300 km 2,050 miles Highest 3 mountains: Mt. Vinson - 4,892 m / 16,050 ft (sometimes called "Vinson Massif") Mt. Tyree - 4,852 m / 15,918 ft Mt. Shinn - 4,661 m / 15,292 ft Ice Antarctica has 70% of all the world's freshwater frozen as ice - and 90% of all the world's ice. M km3 - Million cubic kilometres Thickness Mean 1,829 m / 6,000 ft Mean thickness East Antarctica: 2,226 m / 7,300 ft Mean thickness West Antarctica: 1,306 m / 4,285 ft Maximum ice thickness: 4,776 m / 15,670ft Lowest point - Bentley subglacial trench, depth below sea-level 2,496 m / 8,188 ft Volume Total: 25.4 M km3 / 6.09 M miles3 Grounded ice sheets 24.7 M km3 / 5.93 M miles3 Ice shelves: 0.7 M km3 / 0.17 M miles3 Peninsula ice: 0.1 M km3 / 0.024 M miles3 Population About 4,000 on scientific bases in the short summer 1,000 total in winter, around 25,000 summer tourists - and this place is 1.4 x bigger than the USA! There are NO permanent residents and NO native population. Discovery and Exploration Antarctica was imagined by the ancient Greeks, but not even seen until 1820. The first time anyone set foot on Antarctica was in 1821. The first year-round occupation - overwintering - was in 1898. The South Pole was first reached in 1911. Climate 3 factors rule in Antarctica - cold, wind and altitude. Antarctica holds the world record for each of these three things. The temperature falls as you leave the coast as the continent slopes upwards and temperature falls as you go higher. Temperature: Lowest recoded on earth - Vostok station -89.2°C / -128.6°F Average summer temperature at South Pole -27.5°C / -17.5°F Average winter temperature at South Pole -60°C / -76°F Wind: Mawson station in Antarctica is the windiest place on earth. Average wind speed: 37 kmh / 23 mph Maximum recorded gust: 248.4 kmh / 154 mph Landforms Antarctica has many landforms - it's a continent! But for the benefit of your geography teacher, here's a few main ones: glacier coral reef desert mountain plain plateau valley nunatak

Birds

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)

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)

Thise line is patently untrue

"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)

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)

Ice Sheet Thickness

Is the notion that the average thickness of the ice sheet is 1.6 km thick absolutely correct? [8] Britannica lists it as 2 km. --203.34.37.64 (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Area

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)

Also, this comparison from the introduction to the Geography section:

"It covers more than 14 million km² (5.4 million sq mi), making it the fifth-largest continent, about 1.3 times larger than Europe."

would put Europe's area at ~2.4M sq mi. It should read "0.3 times larger", "1.3 times as large", or something equivalent. "30% larger" might be the most straightforward way of putting it. 76.174.27.252 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ozone hole

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)

Preliminary research showed that the theory that emission of CFCs is the most important factor for the ozone hole may be incorrect. See: http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/~jclub/journalclub_files/Schiemeier.Ozone.nature.2007.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.130.159.184 (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Claus expedition vandalism: potential showcase example

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)

antartica ice break

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)

Contradiction in Effects of Global Warming section

Someone pointed out that this section seemed to contradict itself by stating that ice is both melting and relatively stable. While it is confusing, it isn't actually a contradiction because it is saying the ice shelves are melting/breaking up, while the sea ice is stable or expanding. These two kinds of ice are very different (sea ice is less than 5 m thick and formed on the ocean, while ice shelves are 100s of meters thick and formed on land), and are created and destroyed by different processes. I tried to briefly clarify this while cleaning up the section, and removed the tag.StephenHudson (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On the same subject I have just arrived here to weave this research into the article. Looking at the section as it stands I suspect this will generate at least a modicum of debate as to the weight to give different views of what is actually happening. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No arguments from me on your edit. I think it's pretty established, not very controversial, and not very surprising, that the mass balance of the Antarctic ice cover is not well known. (I say not surprising since we are talking about cm-scale changes over a largely uninhabited continent and since there are the offsetting effects that warming would be expected to bring: increased melting near the coast, but increased snowfall over the interior, most of which still would never melt.) I'm not sure that article shows new or more convincing evidence of this fact, but it shows it in a reasonably solid fashion and is a reliable source. StephenHudson (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The bit that contradicts the existing article is the the conclusion

We show that 72% of the Antarctic ice sheet...is a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm yr Basically the author is saying that the (temporary) build up in the East exceeds (at present) the (permanent) melting in the West. This is not to deny Global warming - it is just contradicts the present article a bit. Lucian Sunday (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added the information, hopefully the article has the right balance? Lucian Sunday (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Countries interested in participating in a possible territorial division of Antarctica

Dear Edubucher, I disagree with your approach, and would suggest that you bring Ecuador and Uruguay back. Wikipedia is not the place to compare the strength of various countries' territorial interests in Antarctica (that's 'Original Research'); it suffices to know from the quoted sources that all these countries (their governments or parliaments) have formally reserved the right to make sovereignty claims. Apcbg (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The approach that I have done is correct:

Only Peru has reserved the right territoral in Antarctica at the time they acceded to the Antarctic Treaty, since neither Ecuador or Uruguay did.

Peru is the only country where the constitution contains the rights of Peruvians in Antarctica.

Peru has been the only country where their territorial interests with the support of the United Nations, through its secretary general, Javier Perez de Cuellar.

It is for these and other arguments that section of Antarctica from Wikipedia in Spanish, has not been taken into account either Ecuador or Uruguay to this list.--Edubucher (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Edubucher, your criteria derive from unacceptable POV, and to cap it all you apply them inconsistently. Indeed, Brazil, Russia and the USA have neither references to Antarctica in their constitutions, nor UN Secretaries General of their own nationality to promote their Antarctic territorial interests in the UN, hence they ought to have been removed under your criteria; however, you keep them while removing Ecuador and Uruguay only. That wouldn't do. (And here the Spanish Wikipedia is no argument you know.) I am not going into repeated reversals, leaving this issue to be settled by other interested editors. Best, Apcbg (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Apcbg, and will change the article back to the wording of the version that includes Ecuador and Uruguay, though I will add {{fact}} tags and put the whole lot into alphabetical order. The added wording to the Peruvian one tries to justify the claim where other nations' do not, and this is a problem. Regarding the fact tags, I've seen the Chilean document and IMO this does still require further verification beyond that. Pfainuk talk 19:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I also believe that those reservations of rights need better sourcing. Apcbg (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I should be clear on this, because of this edit [9] which I have reverted. We do not make any attempt to explain the justification behind the claims of the US, Russia, Brazil, Ecuador or Uruguay to rights in the Antarctic. Nor indeed the claims of those that actually claim territory - New Zealand, Australia, France, Norway, the UK, Chile and Argentina. Per NPOV we should not treat Peru any differently to those twelve other countries. Pfainuk talk 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I put the references in the Peruvian case, as shown in the Ãs template, but wanted to emphasize that the references 47 and 48 are given to the cases of Peru, Ecuador and Uruguay, but even so put a single source in peru. greetings --Edubucher (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't accept that reference because on principle blogs aren't reliable sources. Nonetheless I have moved those two sources so that it is clearer to what they apply. I still think there ought to be reliable sources for this that aren't related to the Chilean government or military (since as Apcbg says, such a claim is a Big Deal), but I am prepared to accept my current revision for now. Pfainuk talk 17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)