Jump to content

Talk:Antarctica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Green Fish (talk | contribs) at 09:51, 18 August 2006 (Vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FARpassed Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5

Template:FAOL Template:Core topic

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:Todo priority

Australian stations

Felt the need to make the names of the Aussie bases less ambiguous. They were all named after explorers, so they are naturally ambiguous from day one. Davis already has a disambiguation pages due to the US place names. - Gaz 12:38 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

No problem, Gaz. You and I will disagree about some place names, no doubt, but these (I think) are clearly better for your change. Tannin

...and I am (after some research) about to rename them again. Seems the word "station" is appropriate in their names. See AAD home page. As a generality, I much prefer unambiguous names throughout. ie I would love to move [[Paris]] to [[Paris, France]]. I'm just not spoiling for a fight right now. (one day though...) - Gaz 13:30 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

Birth

The opening paragraph of this article claims that only one person has been born in Antarctica, but the "Demographics of Antarctica" article says there have been three. What do you think?

(William M. Connolley 16:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I don't like this piece of info being there, so prompted by your comment above I've removed it. It was wrong (the demog article lists names so is presumably accurate). And that kind of info belongs in demog anyway. But worse: the births-in-antarctica stuff are distasteful (and also completely pointless) political stunts designed to bolster political claims. So its best not over-publicised.
I've heard a succestion, that the first birth would have been already around the late 40's, with a member of the Soviet whaling fleet being the mother. Anyhow the claim about Palma sounds like Argentine propaganda. When there's no scientific success, it's the only way to get to the records with such nonsense. Could be removed as such.

Politically nonsense or not it is a na event that hold meaning in Antarctica and to the world. You people are a bunch of wanna be intellectuals with no common sense.

Copyrighted map?

The map appears to be from National Geographic magazine. I'm pretty sure that magazine has a copyright policy. Can someone verify or refute this? (And remove the map if necessary.) --Eitheladar 06:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outposts of Antarctica

This is bad grammar. An outpost of something is a small area offset from the larger, named area. Guam is an outpost of the United States. Any outposts of Antarctica would have to be established elsewhere by Antarctic citizens. I'm thinking of moving the category to Outposts in Antarctica. --Yath 07:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Little America

I just created a page for this, but don't really know whether it's already listed on Antarctica under another name... if somebody can help... [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 10:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Time Zone

I wonder if someone was to ask you "May I have the time, please?" What would you say? Maybe this is a stupid question but, what's the time zone for Antartica? How's time being calcualted down there? --Garlics82 19:52, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

So far as the Australian stations go:
See [1]. I'll integrate this into the article. -- Chuq 01:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Officially, it's GMT, although McMurdo Station uses Christchurch, NZ time. -- Dave Cohoe 06:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Antarctica article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Antarctica}} to this page. — LinkBot 09:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I would like to request a Tourism of Antarctica article, but I don't know where I would. I'll post this on the Economy of Antarctica talk page too. Theaterfreak64 00:40, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Missing Picture

At some point I saw a picture on Wikipedia (or maybe the Commons) of a mountain in Antarctica, and a field of bluish ice in the forground. The caption explained somethign about how the ice was blue from layers melting and refreezing, I believe. I have searched like CRAZY but I can't find the image again. Anyone know what I'm talking about? --Brian Z 04:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like Image:Lake_Fryxell.jpg I reckon. Worldtraveller 00:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I think you're talking about a "blue ice area" [2]. I thought it was formed when the overlying snow blows off (not by melting), but the ref I've just found says both occur.

Image:Lake_Fryxell.jpg was the one! Thanks so much Worldtraveller!. --Brian Z 04:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Altered Picture

Why is an altered version of the Lake Fryxell picture used? The original (http://photolibrary.usap.gov/AntarcticaLibrary/LAKEFRYXELL.JPG) shows a lovely sky with a few small clouds, while the altered version puts a larger expanse of obviously fake-looking digital blue sky gradient over everything. Based on my technical expertise as a reader of a Kim Stanley Robinson novel, I get the impression that little clouds are important down there, or at least, I think they make for a nicer picture. Would you agree? Mike Serfas 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area?

This article does not mention the size of Antarctica (surface area, km²). — Timwi 19:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, found it on de :-) — Timwi 19:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does the South Shetland page need its own Educative Links section? How is this different than the other external links, which appear to be educational as well? -- Dave C. 19:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I claim Antartica?

So, is it possible for two young navigators to claim the slice between 90 degrees and 150?

Can you donate some of your pictures of Antarctica to WP? We need more pictures of ice. Oh, and some snow too. (SEWilco 15:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]
No, you cannot, it must be a country that has dne something important there. ive been there (Argentinian Air force gave a little help) it is completely unusable and far from all countries (far from both Australia and South America) Argentino 11:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Everyking, Government of Dominion of Melchizedek has official recognition from UN member states so its claim has more authority, and its claim is much older than yours. Melchizedek's Ambassador, Dr. Dewey Painter has actually spent 6 months there. Please return the reference to the article.

DoM also claims a large section of Antarctica. None of these claims is recognized by any established government.Insert non-formatted text here

I, Nachomania, wish to claim 1000 acres of Antarctica, maily for camping/exploration/barbeques. The land will be owned by Canada, with me as its premier, and probable sole resident. Just want to make sure everyone knows. Ok? :) I wish! Also, I wish about the barbeque. I'll be in my backyard...anyways, you probably couldn't, becuase you're not a country, and, if you were, I don't think it would go to well in the world today. Land claims are more...BNA era at the latest, really. Ooh! Triangle character!Δ! I hope that answers your question! User:Nachomania 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I, Jimbo, contest your claim. I also claim ALL of Antartica for Canada, with ME as its Premier. Ohh, and I did so like a week before you did. So there, what are you gonna do about it :P

Literature, Cinema, and TV set in Antarctica

Why do we have a huge section that's just a list of non-important films and anime, that is almost as beg as the rest of the Article? --Mariano July 5, 2005 08:05 (UTC)

Fair point. I bet "Europe" doesn't have such a list. Trim it to just the important ones, or delete entirely? William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 10:53:19 (UTC).
Another alternative would be to put it in a separate article. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 5 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)
A hole article about things that name Antarctica? I think there's nothing important in the list to preserve. Perhaps some Paper or Article about Antarctic climate, fauna or anything like that, but it doesn't apply for any of these examples. -Mariano July 5, 2005 13:22 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's useless and should be deleted. Argentino 5 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
I don't see anything similar in Africa or Europe. Delete it. (SEWilco 5 July 2005 19:05 (UTC))

OK, I've removed it. For possible use, its pasted below. William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 21:03:57 (UTC).

"Pop culture references" was latest incarnation, pasted below. (SEWilco 18:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Well done! William M. Connolley 21:43:16, 2005-08-23 (UTC).

Literature, Cinema, and TV set in Antarctica

Pop Culture References

Prehistoric Antarctica

Why isn't there a section in the article about the history of the continent throughout pre-historic times? It has not always been Earth's freezer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.33.111.21 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 July 2005.

Melchisedek claim

Quoting from Washington Post article about Melchisedek:

"Melchizidek has leaders, laws, religion, a flag, a disputed homeland and an unreasonable territorial claim -- the textbook definition of your basic nation-state. Who's to say it's phony?" Unsigned by 68.121.47.161 Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

En.wikipedia.org does; this isn't the article to contest its status. El_C 02:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was looking for an article. Nothing much on the web, and nothing on the CIA's World Fact Book. :) -- Dave C. 05:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on Frank Zappa, I'm a big fan. Hugely underestimated guitarplayer, very fond of the instrumentals esp. (treacherous cretins).  :) El_C 05:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it melting?

Hakusa - Wiki addict: 19:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Isn't it melting due to global warming? And if so, can anyone tell me wheather it is true that scientists estimate there will be more animals on it than at can hold sometime in the future.[reply]

For most of it, no. Most of antarctica is sufficiently cold (see pix, Climate_of_Antarctica) that a small rise in T won't make it melt. In fact the prediction is that increased snowfall (warmer air -> more moisture -> more snow) outweights the melt, for the next 100 years. Apart from surprises. Only the antarctic peninsula is melting: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=146. Dunno about the animals: I'm not a bio. William M. Connolley 20:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sure the definition of "more animals than it can hold" is awkward. I wonder how it is predicted that animals which currently live on rock and ice would be affected by having more rock. Even if grass appears I don't expect sheep and coyotes to quickly affect Antarctic animals. (SEWilco 20:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Hakusa - Wiki addict: 20:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC) OK thanks very much.[reply]

The flag

Antarctica has no official flag. Its probably impossible to have one, since it isn't a nation state. Putting a flag on the ant page, with the title "flag of antarctica", is misleading (only if you click on the link do you get told, there is no flag). Why is there any reason to put this flag on the page? William M. Connolley 19:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I think it is better to delete it. Argentino 21:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In cases where there is no offical flag, the defacto flag or unoffical flag can be used eg Northern Ireland is a good example. The Flag of Antartica is slightly different since it does not relate to a politcal entity. However I believe the one used is in use in the continent from info provided at Flags of the World. Astrotrain 14:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I see no evidence that this is the defacto flag either. Antarctica is not an entity, so there is never any need to use the flag. Where do you see it used, and for what purpose? William M. Connolley 18:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

See Image:Antarc-flag2.gif for info provided on its usage. It seems to be an accepted flag in many quarters. Astrotrain 19:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone wanted to use a country template to summarize some info about the region. The flag can be mentioned in the text. (SEWilco 20:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Terra Australis?

The first sighting of Terra Australis was made by Captian James Cook in his first voyage(1768-1771). His mission was to discover the great southern land(Terra Australis) and he did so by discovering Australia. He called what he discovred Terra Australis Incognita this is where we get the word Australia from. His first actual sighting of Antartica was during his second voyage(1772-1775). He quickly added Antartica to Terra Australis Icongnita after this sighting.

I dont remember the story that way. i cant remember, however, where in this encyclopedia (it is so much divided in sections!) i read that Cook had seen dust upon icebergs and had deduced that there was land, so i went to the Argentine National Library, near my house and find in a book about cook, written by a guy "Longheatr" the same fact. I realy dont know what to beelive Argentino 19:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just report what the book says and create a citation (title, author, publisher, year) for the book for verifiability of the fact. If the library's catalog is not online you might have to visit the library again to get the information. Fill in the blanks in a {{book reference}} entry and it will be formatted for you (see the template's Discussion page for documentation). (SEWilco 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
yea, because i live to work for free for the encyclopedia, you know, maybe none of you dont work/study, but I do. The next time i go to the library i'll do it. Argentino 12:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery

I think there should be a section talking about the discovery of Antarctica, and about the speculation that Antarctica existed before it was even discovered. -- Phaldo 16:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be some mention of the Scott Expedition along side of the Amundsen one. It seems disrespectful to omit it as they lost their lives attempting the same thing as Amundsen.

A question about Antarctic land

===>Always wondered this... How much of Antarctica's surface actually contains land underneath? That is to say, what percentage of it is not simply an ice shelf? Justin (koavf) 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of Antarctica contains land beneath the ice, and there are even some areas McMurdo Dry Valleys with exposed land. The major ice shelves are Ross Ice Shelf, and Ronne Ice Shelf, with numerous smaller ice shelves flanking the coasts. A specific percentage? I don't know, but in 2001, the National Geographic produced the best map of Antarctica (satellite image-based) that I know of, in conjunction with the Byrd Polar Research Center [3]. Sorry, it's a commercial link for buying the map, but you can view it/zoom in by clicking on "More Views". It shows where these ice shelves are and how large, in relation to the continent. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Thanks for the speedy response. Justin (koavf) 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that a bit... some of the Antarctic land underneath the ice is actually below sea level. See http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/aedc/bedmap/examples/bed10.gif and http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/aedc/bedmap/. William M. Connolley 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Todo

I've added a todo table at the top of this page. Feel free to add or remove things. Gflores Talk 01:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did such a good job, I'm not sure I can add anything! Maurreen 03:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance

Does the layout look bad for anyone else? Do you see trapped white space? Maurreen 03:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the order of the sections or the placement of images and such? Also, what do you mean by "trapped white space"? Gflores Talk 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, on my screen, there are sections where the images or text trap a blank area -- an empty chunk of white space. That's the only problem I see, but it might be my browser. Maurreen 04:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple questions

Under economy:

"The environmental protection act that was added to the Antarctic Treaty prevents such struggle for resources. In 1998, a compromise agreement was reached to add a 50-year ban on mining until the year 2048, further preventing any economic system from taking place. The primary agricultural activity is the capture and offshore trading of fish."
  1. I made "Environmental" lowercase to match "protection act", but I'm not sure whether they should be capitalized.
  2. Instead of "...further preventing any economic system from taking place," would it be better to say something like "...further preventing limiting economic development and exploitation"?
Maurreen 04:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for proofreading. Gflores Talk 07:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: The picture labeled "Patagonian toothfish" is actually Antartic cod. I can't confirm this from personal education, but look at the file names and the article for Patagonian toothfish. --Mr Minchin Canada 22:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

layout

Does anyone else have a weird layout with the images, specifically in the flora/fauna section. image, that's how it looks to me. Of course, it could be just my resolution. Gflores Talk 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The layout looks good to me. Maurreen 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica in fiction/popular culture

I think that this article needs such a section to be truly comprehensive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical scope of Antarctica

This article covers the Antarctic Continent alone, while in the English language 'Antarctica' refers both to the mainland and the wider geographical region comprising also the islands and waters situated south of the Antarctic Convergence. (See Livingston Island for further details.) So the article should probably cover the rest of Antarctica as well. Apcbg 22:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currency

Does Antarctica have a Currency? If so, is it worth mentioning in the 'Economy' section? Liam Plested 01:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Each base may or may not use its national currency William M. Connolley 14:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population

I removed, and Gflores reverted back in, the stuff about who-was-born-first. I argue that:

  • this is all tedious politics
  • its out of place: there is an article about demographics; if it belongs anywhere, its there

William M. Connolley 14:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an interesting fact as it's the only continent in which we know who was the first person born there. It's not controversial or untasteful as you say. However, I do see it being a little long now, so maybe a good compromise is to still mention it but shorten it, so there isn't two whole paragraphs on 2 births. What do you think? Gflores Talk 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its all wrapped up in politics. The baby was imported to be born there for (completely pointless) policitcal ends; hence the "distasteful" bit (and the recent additions don't help...). I would rather it were out. But, AFAIK its a true factoid. Are we also going to include the first person to die there? :-) William M. Connolley 19:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The paragraph on the (historical) population of South Georgia is hardly politics in the sense you mean; the sealers and whalers were sent by no government but rather pursued their normal industry. Some of them used to live there for several decades (albeit none for more than one generation), some enjoyed normal family life with marriages, divorces, and children born and raised. Incidentally, I have met one such born and bred native South Georgian: Mrs. Jan Cheek of Stanley, until recently a Falkland Islands Councillor. As for the first persons to die in Antarctica, the earliest recorded grave is that of the sealer Frank Gabriel who died on 14 October 1820 on South Georgia, while the first people known to have died in Antarctica were most probably the 644 Spanish seamen and soldiers onboard the San Telmo believed wrecked off Livingston Island in September 1819. (The latter were sent by their government indeed, even if to fight colonial rebels in the Viceroyalty of Peru rather than conquer Antarctica.) Apcbg 22:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Russian priest, Father Gerogy, has a permanent home near his church, lives on the continent year-round, and has been stationed to the continent on an indefinite, and decidedly long-term basis. If that doesn't make him a permanent resident of the continent, how does one define permanent population in a meaningful way. The population should be listed as one permanent. User:suncrush

Flag of Antarctica?

Do correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think Antarctica has an official flag, the one with the UN blue shown is the proposed one. Should we include the flag here, or perhaps add a note to the side of the side noting it as only a proposition? --Shibo77 14:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flat earth viewpoint

I only thought of this while admonishing another user for doing something similar, but is it notable for this article that some Flat Earthers do not believe that Antartica exists. Perhaps a note in the geography section? savidan(talk) (e@) 01:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. GfloresTalk 02:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that? According to the Flat Earth article, the non-existence of Antarctica and/or the antipodes may have been a belief of some in the middle ages, although that claim is disputed. But in modern times there is no evidence anyone holds the belief that Antarctica doesn't exist. According to that article, there probably aren't even any Flat Earthers any more, since their association's founder died in 2001 they have not been around. Derek Balsam 03:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image in lead

Is it just me or does anyone else think the image in the lead section throws off the layout and makes it seem jumbled? It's been added and removed before, so I'd just like some input from other users with different monitor resolutions. GfloresTalk 02:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Geology of present-day Antarctica"

Antarctica without its ice-shield.

The whole section titled "Geology of present-day Antarctica" is fantastically bad. You couldn't possibly remove the icesheet fast enough to not add at least 100m of elevation from isostatic rebound, and once it comes to equilibrium you'd get over a km of uplift in some places. All of the attractive "fjords" and "basins" in East Antarctica would be above sea level even after accounting for ~70m of sea level rise. Nor would West Antarctica be nearly as fragmented as it rendered there. I realize the images says it ignores uplift, but it is still misleading because people are not given the right impression that after uplift East Antarctica would better resemble Australia than some criss-crossed mess of seas. Dragons flight 04:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support you if you correct it. --Mboverload 04:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, I've killed the worst paragraph and edited the figure caption. I may look at it again later. Dragons flight 08:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that I have contributed the worst paragraph of a fantastically bad section. Sorry for doing that. For those who still like the paragraph and don't want to dig into the history, here it is:
Without the ice-shield, the continent's shape would look fully different from how it is presented on common maps. West Antarctica would resolve into three major parts: the Antarctic peninsula, Marie Byrd Land, and Vinson massif. East Antarctica would consist in a landmass with huge bays (e.g. Aurora Subglacial Basin and Wilkes Subglacial Basin) and fjords (e.g. at the location of Amery Glacier and around the South pole). The East Antarctic landmass would be littered with lakes and endorheic seas, parts of their grounds being far lower than sea level. East Antarctica would look somewhat like Canada or Finland nowadays.
Neither the graph, nor the text suggest that removing the icesheet takes place, should be done, or could be done in a short period of time. Both graph and text simply show the bedrock as it is in fact now, according to the most recent meta-studies. It's a fact, and, to my mind, it's pretty interesting.
By the way, post-glacial rebound should not been overestimated; it is a slow process. In Northern Europe and Canada it was at most 0.075 m/yr, but most of the time it was only 0.025 m/yr. Of course, the ice-shield did not melt away instantly, so the rate would have been higher under such hypothetical conditions, but we are not talking about 100 m/yr.
The two phenomena sea level rise and uplift compete each other. Sea level rise (estimates are between 59 and 80 m) would happen instantly, so that the bassins, for a few months or years, would probably be even larger than displayed on the graph.
The lakes and endorheic seas would probably not be effected for a few thousand years until rivers would create valleys to drain them. So the Canada-like look would last for a pretty long time, independently of sea level rise and uplift.
So, after all, aren't there good reasons why to insert the killed paragraph again?
--Panda17 13:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Panda, you are mistaken on several issues. First, the uplift during unloading is a factor of several higher than post-glacial rebound. Secondly, the Laurentide ice sheet (North America) can conservatively be said to be unloading for at least 3 kyr (probably closer to 10 kyr). For reasonable rheologies, 3 kyr is long enough that ~50% of the ultimate total rebound occurs during the unloading process. For a site under several kilometers of ice, that's several hundred meters before the ice is totally removed. Unless you can imagine some way to magic away to ice a lot faster, there is no way that most of those "bays" would ever be below sea level by the time the ice has melted regardless of sea level rise. Dragons flight 15:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
;-) And I'm not mistaken on those issues not mentionned in the above reply...? Whatever - as to myself, I'll stop the thread here. If the majority of readers of this section consider the above worst paragraph useful, put it back into the article, maybe with some modifications. Otherwise, somebody should remove the map as well, to be consistent. For those still interested in Antarctic rock surface: see the map at [4] or the entire site at [5] by the British Antarctic Survey. The maps are based on the same data as the map presented here, with a precise description of the data collection/consolidation process. However, the maps don't use 0 elevation as a reference, and they don't fill hollows with lakes - which may make interpretation more difficult to non-academic readers, but the information is the same. A less sophisticated rock surface map is also published on the Antarctica Travel Map by International Travel Maps, Vancouver.--Panda17 03:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early 1513 AD Map

It was about to remove this section and its link in 'See also'. It does however appear that there is some notability to this claim. The map is called the Piri Reis map and the author of a book on the subject was Charles Hapgood. As the map article says: "Many scholars, however, dispute this conclusion, citing the fact that for centuries cartographers had been depicting a southern landmass on global maps based on the theoretical assumption that one must exist." If anything, this section could be subsumed into the Exploration section, but it doesn't deserve a section of its own (and not where it has been placed and formatted). --BillC 07:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did it myself, and someone else removed the inappropriate Amazon link. --BillC 09:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the South Pole really on land?

According to this image: [6], if we were to remove all the ice from Antarctica, the South Pole would be on a small isle (islet?) in one of the major bays in Antarctica's main "continent", or possibly between Antarctica's two major "continents". So it is really on land, in contrast to the North Pole, which floats above the sea. Is this true? JIP | Talk 09:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it would be a part of the continent as the continent would rise, if that was to happen. One estimate is, that f.e. during the last ice age Nordic countries would have been ~50 m deeper compared to the sea level.
Presently it is solid all the way from ice surface to bedrock, which is plenty to say it is on land, and if you removed the ice there would be enough uplift that it would still be above sea level (see the topic 2 above this). Dragons flight 03:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No of countries with claims

3rd para. "seven countries (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, India, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom) maintain territorial claims." Should it say 8, or should one of these not be in the list? Nurg 09:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just added India a few minutes ago. It was reverted because no claims were cited, so 7 is most likely correct. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

All of the measurements seem to be given in Metric, alienating Americans. This should be remedied. R'son-W 10:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Antartica is full of scientists, I would have thought metric would be common usage? I could be wrong. Maeve 10:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were the other way around, I guess you'd be as happy as lark with that, right? JIP | Talk 11:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mean WP:NPOV. At the very most, you're raising an issue over globalization. And, as others have pointed out, metric measurements are entirely appropriate for this article. --BillC 12:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am american and can't relate metric measurements well I fully support the use of the metric system on an article such as this. The scientific community uses the metric system, so a scientific article should use them, also.--Mboverload 04:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Anmerican too, and did what I thought was the 'wiki' thing - I added the Good Old American Measurements (Inside Parenthesis). It becomes a habit..- Only time I get testy about it is when they try to put the Metric first on American Stuff... Bo 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not really NPOV, but hardly worthly of a point all on it's own: The image in the Politics section is captioned "Logistics support by the Navy". Shouldn't the nationality of the navy in question be specified? Being a Brit, I assume it's the RN (recognising this bias), but my ship recognition skills just aren't up to the job! Great article BTW, congrats to all involved. M1rtyn 08:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact that Antarctic supply ship is the Vanguardia, Uruguayan Navy. Apcbg 09:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news

Some of the recent news needs to be incorporated into the article.

-71.96.234.140 05:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor crater

See "Big crater seen beneath ice sheet", BBC News.

What appears to be a 480km-wide (300 miles) crater has been detected under the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. The scientists behind the discovery say it could have been made by a massive meteorite strike 250 million years ago. If the crater really was formed at the time von Frese and colleagues believe, it will raise interest as a possible cause of the "great dying" - the biggest of all the Earth's mass extinctions when 95% of all marine life and 70% of all land species disappeared.

"Highest"

This was a WP:FAR concern. Can we source that? Marskell 21:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is covered with a ~3 km ice sheet. Just look at topo map. [7] The Himalayas and isolated peaks in other places are higher, but on a continental scale there is nothing even competing with the average height of Antarctica. Dragons flight 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great. As WP:V (more or less) says: the obvious should be sourced too. So throw a topo map down here maybe. Marskell 21:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I threw the ref in quickly. Marskell 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

transfer from minor to major review

Please see the listing for the reason. Tony 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [citation needed]


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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antarctica&oldid=70393568"