Self-Sufficient Humans on Antarctica

[OP !d75etXAowg No.3274505]

How might humans live completely self-sufficiently on Antarctica? If humans ever want to colonize Mars we should be able to figure out how to colonize Antarctica. Plus if a full out nuclear exchange occurs Antarctica would be protected against most of the environmental and social fallout.

[Anonymous No.3274519]

Being that Antarctica is below the attic circle light levels are too invariable to be an effective demonstration long term of life on Mars. Also largely on ice not a good analog for martian surface. Humanity would not survive on Antarctica if nuclear war caused the rest of the planet to be unlivable.

[Anonymous No.3274516]

First we must terraform Antarctica via global warming.

[OP !d75etXAowg No.3274585]

>>3274519
But Antarctica has one attribute that would make it the ideal location to escape the repercussions of a nuclear war... no humans. Surviving a nuclear winter would be easy compared to surviving a planet full of 5 billion humans all willing to kill to take your stuff. It's like a zombie apocalypse except the zombies have use of their frontal lobe and shoot guns.

Plus most of Antarctica's winds are completely self-contained, thereby protecting inhabitants against radioactive debris. That is why Antarctica gets the least precipitation of any continent. On top of that a nuclear war is most likely going to happen in the Northern hemisphere... unless Argentina and Australia become the next nuclear superpowers.

[Anonymous No.3274592]

What about food? I doubt many humans could live off penguins. And what would they make tools and clothes out of?

[Anonymous No.3274596]

You'd need to engineer either a contained underground environment, or plant and animal life that can adapt to the surface.

You'd basically need to build up an ice ecosystem via genetic engineering for the latter.

[Anonymous No.3274613]

>>3274592
Hydroponics with artificial illumination. I hope vegetarianism doesn't bother you.

[Anonymous No.3274622]

Nazi remnant forces remained self-sufficient in underground bases in Antarctica until at least the late 1950's. With technology from the 40's.

I think we could manage.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274623]

>>3274592
If you have a power source, then you can grow your food in green houses with artificial lighting.

[Anonymous No.3274626]

>>3274516

Nope. The continental plate of Antarctica is below sea level because the ice is so god damn heavy it sank the land in to the earth

[OP !d75etXAowg No.3274634]

>>3274596
Antarctica has a HUGE seal population. It wouldn't exactly sustain New York, but a healthy population of humans would be more than doable. Plus there are fertile fishing grounds. As I understand it, the ocean currents around Antarctica are pretty separate from the rest of the oceans so the fish stock should remain one of the healthiest in the world.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274636]

>>3274626
If you're trying to say that the land surface is below sea level in much of Antarctica, I've never heard that. But even if it were true, it would rebound without the weight of the ice.

[Anonymous No.3274643]

>>3274636

The Hudson bay is an example of what happens when a glacier melts. Takes 1,000's of years for the land to rise back up.

[Anonymous No.3274646]

>>3274626
It wouldn't be as big as the continent we see on the maps of Antarctica without the ice, but it would create quite a few islands. Some of those islands will be pretty big too. I'm guessing New Zealand big at least.

[Anonymous No.3274651]

>>3274643
>>3274626
Geo major here, this is entirely correct.
philosopher's scone, you are an idiot. I don't know why people complain about EK when you're around just as much, and about twenty times denser. Fucking deserts, how do they work?

[OP !d75etXAowg No.3274652]

>>3274623
>>3274613
>>3274596
What are you going to use as a power source? How will you build the machinery? Where will you get the raw materials? Last time I checked there weren't many mines in Antarctica.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3274665]

>>3274651
Philosophers has been an aggressive idiot in the past, but he hasn't been too assertive with anything outright wrong itt. There is no need to call him dense.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274672]

>>3274651
The ice sheet covered almost all of North America. If you're really a geo major, you suck.

>>3274646
No, this is just wrong. ALL of Antarctica was there, and was wooded before its most recent glaciation roughly a million years ago. Antarctica has frozen over and thawed many times, and it has never gone missing.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274678]

>>3274651
Oh wait, you're the fucking moron who thinks that deserts are deserts because they're hot. LOLOLOLOL. You are not a geo major. You're a dipshit.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3274680]

>>3274672
> Antarctica has frozen over and thawed many times, and it has never gone missing.
Sauce

[Anonymous No.3274691]

>>3274680
>>3274672

That Antarctica thing IS bullshit. Current evidence does suggest the earth has gone through numerous cycles of massive continents forming and separating. There is no fucking way that anyone can prove that Antarctica was always in the southern hemisphere every time.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274693]

>>3274680
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=antarctica+glacial+history

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274705]

>>3274691
We know where the land masses have been over the last 700+ million years. Pic related. Antarctica has usually been in the Southern hemisphere, that doesn't really have anything to do with anything. Earth has gone from glaciated to completely ice-free many times in that time.

[Anonymous No.3274714]

>>3274665
You spoke too soon.
>>3274678
>thinking that all deserts are hot
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Dipshit yourself. You honestly think that deserts are hotter than their surroundings (other biomes at similar latitudes) because there is less plant life to convert solar radiation into chemical potential energy. We've been over this before; deserts are dry because of the way convection cells in the Earth's atmosphere work out, and they aren't really any hotter than wetter areas of similar latitudes.
>>3274672
Not sure what you're trying to say about Quaternary glaciation of North America...what you said may be true, depending on how much you mean by "most of North America", but it doesn't really relate to my point.
Antarctica has never gone missing, as you say, because normal recession of glaciers takes place quite slowly. If you lose a few hundred feet every hundred years, there's plenty of time for the landmass beneath the ice to slowly rebound.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274715]

>>3274691
Here's the last 200 million years. It has been in the southern hemisphere throughout that time, if that's important to you. The last ice-free earth period was between about 100 to 50 million years ago. The one before that was between 250 and 150 million.

[Anonymous No.3274718]

>>3274705

Okay well if that is the case which it very well may be, it doesn't disprove that the continental land mass of Antarctica wouldn't sit under sea level for a very long time post glacial melt.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274726]

>>3274714
Take a fucking geology class. Seriously. When a region goes from non-desert to desert, it generally gets hotter because of the lack of plant life. That is why the sahara is hotter than the surrounding non-desrtified regions.

Heat does NOT make places deserts, and not all deserts are hot. Dryness makes places deserts. E.g. Antarctica. Again, please take a class before you shoot off your mouth.

[Anonymous No.3274734]

Is there any harvestable seaweed in Antarctic waters? That sounds like an important thing to know.

Also, what about tools?! What are people going to make there stuff out of? Simple things like clothes and hand tools could be made out of Seal hide and bones, but I'm not sure if boats could be made out of nothing but seal flesh. Perhaps driftwood?

[Anonymous No.3274745]

>>3274726
>philosopher's scone says something stupid
>I correct him
>he calls me an idiot and repeats my correction of him
>mfw

[Anonymous No.3274752]

>>3274734
There's phytoplankton and that's about it. You could farm cold-tolerant fish (arctic cod, anyone?) pretty well, I guess.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274753]

>>3274718
Earth under pressure is very plastic.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/05/11/rash-of-earthquakes-in-maine-brought-to-you-by-
the-last-ice-age/

Around the latitudes of NY, the ground was 500 feet lower under the ice during the last glaciation.

I'd really like to see the data about the land surface being below sea level though, since so much of Antarctica is mountainous.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274759]

>>3274745
>tries to claim that he hasn't claimed all along that heat causes deserts, and started calling me an idiot because I said that dryness causes deserts.

Troll someone else please, thanks.

[Anonymous No.3274770]

>>3274726
Actually, the loss of plant life will tend to make an area slightly COOLER. Plants tend to be dark, and sand (being mostly composed of silicate minerals, rather than ferromagnesium minerals) tends to be light, so going from extensive plant cover to sand dunes will lead to a rise in albedo and hence a drop in temperatures. This picture clearly refutes your claim that deserts are consistently hotter than other biomes at similar latitudes.
I've taken three quarters of geo at the fucking University of Chicago. I know my basic shit; you clearly don't have a clue. Hell yes I mad.

[Anonymous No.3274776]

>>3274759
The cyclonic updraft around 35 degrees causes deserts. You're both wrong.

[OP !d75etXAowg No.3274783]

Plant's of Antarctica:
http://library.thinkquest.org/26442/html/life/plant.html

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274793]

>>3274770
>This picture clearly refutes your claim that deserts are consistently hotter than other biomes at similar latitudes.
You know very well I've never claimed that you fucking troll.

And it's clearly documented that regions in africa that have been desertified got hotter.

[Anonymous No.3274795]

>>3274759
I actually pointed that out way back in >>3274714
It's rather infuriating the way you say something stupid, get corrected, and then pretend like I said the stupid thing and you were the one doing the correcting. Confirmed for weak-ass troll.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274800]

>>3274770
Also, take a look a fucking death valley in your picture if desertfication causes cooling. Yes, I've been trolled again.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274801]

>>3274776
>implying all deserts are at 35 degrees.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274806]

>>3274795
You are fucking delusional. My ORIGINAL post said that dryness caused deserts not heat, which you did not know and called me stupid. If I've EVERY said something incorrect about deserts, all you have to do is post a link to it. All these threads are archived somewhere I believe.

[Anonymous No.3274808]

>>3274776
Excuse me, I've been talking about convection cells this whole time. Not my specialty (I tend to stick to the mineral side of earth science), but I've got the basic concept down.
Philosopher's scone is an idiot; the thread where we first discussed this, he was saying that the lack of photosynthesis in deserts made them hotter than they would otherwise be by consuming solar energy.

[Anonymous No.3274814]

>>3274806
>All these threads are archived somewhere I believe.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274817]

>>3274808
>I tend to stick to the mineral side of earth science

>has taken 3 quarters of geology
>has a sub-specialty

[Anonymous No.3274824]

>If humans ever want to colonize Mars we should be able to figure out how to colonize Antarctica.

not right

[Anonymous No.3274825]

>>3274808

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274826]

>>3274814
Whenever I click on a link that 404's in 4chan, the greasemonkey script I use takes me to another site where the thread has been duplicated...

[Anonymous No.3274827]

>>3274817
I'm going into paleontology. We don't do a whole lot with the atmosphere.
YES I have field experience. YES I have taken a fuck ton of bio and chem. YES I am taking more geo. NO you do not know shit about geology except what I've told you.

[OP !d75etXAowg No.3274831]

>>3274824
Why not? Mars is a hell of a lot less hospitable than Antarctica. If a self-sufficient colony can be made on Mars then it can be made on Antarctica.

[Anonymous No.3274834]

>>3274826
So bring me a link to the thread where we discussed this, and we can settle who is right and who can't find his butt with both hands.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274837]

>>3274808
>the thread where we first discussed this, he was saying that the lack of photosynthesis in deserts made them hotter than they would otherwise be by consuming solar energy.

That is correct. How about instead of name-calling, you provide evidence that contradicts this assertion, upon which I will happily concede that I am wrong.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274848]

>>3274827
AFAIK, you're the one who laughed when I told you there were cold deserts, and again called me an idiot for thinking that deserts could be cold. I then told you about the Gobi. And then Antarctica. Claiming to have studied the subject a lot just makes it worse.

[Anonymous No.3274866]

>>3274826
>>3274834
http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/sci/thread/3169807

[Anonymous No.3274867]

>>3274837
You want evidence? Okay, here's something for you. Plants don't actually convert all incident light into chemical energy. And you know what? Plants convert solar energy into chemical energy, but they also put that chemical energy to use, and that means that they lose energy to heat, as most biological processes rely on making certain key reactions exergonic, often by hydrolyzing a phosphoanhydride bond.
So the effect we REALLY want to worry about is that on albedo. Because plants tend to absorb radiation so well, they greatly reduce the amount of solar radiation that is reflected directly to space. The albedo of quartz sand is about 0.4, and the albedo of vegetation is about 0.2. That means that if you have a patch of desert and a patch of forest being hit with the same irradiance (in W/m^2) of incoming solar radiation, the desert will only absorb 3/4 as much energy in a given time as will the forest. BOOSH. You done making a fool of yourself yet?

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274872]

>>3274834
http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/sci/thread/3169807

Knock yourself out. I said the same things I've said here, which you don't believe but have not provided evidence against. You believe that the increased albedo causes deserts to be cooler than adjacent wooded areas, which is retarded beyond the telling of it.

[Anonymous No.3274873]

>>3274848
Please read my post at >>3274714 again.
Notice that I'm laughing at "thinking that all deserts are hot". Maybe you're not so much an idiot as a bad reader.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274881]

>>3274873
I was talking about the other thread.

You are the bad reader -- or more likely troll -- for pretending that I said that all deserts are hot, when I've been saying the opposite from the beginning.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274888]

>>3274867
That would be a lovely theory if deserts were cooler than adjacent wooded areas, which they are not.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274903]

>>3274867
The reason your theory is false is because the storage of energy by plants allows for a gradual release of energy in biological systems (and even long term chemical storage of some of it, depending on the ecosystem), as opposed to an immediate release to heat, which is what takes place in the desert. Thus deserts that are hot are hotter during the day and colder at night, while the vegetation provides a kind of heat ballast.

[Anonymous No.3274914]

>>3274888
This is pointless because you tend to get bands of desert at certain latitudes, and comparing the temperature of biomes at two different latitudes is an exercise in futility, because the major effect will pretty much always be from the intensity of solar radiation. Wetter coastal areas often adjoin deserts, but then you have to deal with the effects of ocean currents on temperature.
>>3274872
Okay, it looks like you thought that 3169887 was me. The only posts I made in that thread are 3169826 and 3169860. Okay, 3169887 can't find his butt with both hands, I'm right, you were right except for your blather about photosynthesis. I bet you think that photosynthesis alone was responsible for the oxygenation of the atmosphere, for all you know.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3274929]

OP, are you me? This is the kind of thread I usually make. Shit's extremely intredasting.

[Anonymous No.3274930]

>>3274903
Yes, deserts experience more extreme temperature variation over the course of a day. That's because quartz sand doesn't hold heat as well as organic-material-rich soil.
The thermal effects of photosynthesis aren't really such big players the way you think they are. Feel free to cite some research if you still think you're right; I'm always open-minded to science.

[Anonymous No.3274949]

>colonizing Antaractica

[Fizx !d75etXAowg No.3274956]

>>3274949
Because we can... or, that is, we are trying to figure out if we can.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274966]

>>3274914
>comparing the temperature of biomes at two different latitudes is an exercise in futility
But... I DIDN'T DO THAT. I'm comparing a desert (say the Sahara or Death Valley) IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT to a wooded or grassy areas. Please admit that during the day, in places like this where there is a lot of insolation, the desert area will be hotter.

[Fizx !d75etXAowg No.3274969]

>>3274929
And I'm the OP (check mah trippss yo).

I'm always trying to make up for my religion-thread transgressions by starting up sciencey threads like this. Transgressions aside, I'd make these threads regardless. I've got no one else to talk about random shit like this with. No one seems to find it intredasting.

[Science !!V9NwDn3l+KQ No.3274976]

>>3274914
see
>>3274825

For desertification

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274984]

>>3274914
> I bet you think that photosynthesis alone was responsible for the oxygenation of the atmosphere, for all you know.
Pretty much. I think that a couple billion years ago cyanobacteria evolved and oxygenated the atmosphere with photosynthesis. What do you think?

[mtp is a faggot !2coolforyou No.3274986]

­

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3274990]

>>3274930
Likewise, feel free to cite something that shows that photosynthesis plays less a role than I think it does. I am also open minded.

[Fizx !d75etXAowg No.3274996]

>>3274914
>I bet you think that photosynthesis alone was responsible for the oxygenation of the atmosphere
WHOA! Whoa! Whoa...
There is another source of oxygen? I have serious doubts. Are you telling me a planet with no life would have comparable levels of O2?

[Anonymous No.3275012]

>>3274996

A small amount oxygen could have come from the decomposition of water molecules, but yea, most of the oxygen in Earth's atmosphere had to come from photosynthesis.

[Anonymous No.3275053]

>>3274996
>>3274984
Photosynthesis isn't enough. You need photosynthesis FOLLOWED BY burial of massive amounts of (reduced) organic material. Otherwise it just rots and the oxygen comes back out of the surroundings.
There is some relatively small amount of oxidation due to photolysis of water (and even more so, methane) in the upper atmosphere, leaving reduced hydrogen to escape to space, though, like >>3275012 said.
>>3274990
I don't have any on hand. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this until one of us finds some data.
>>3274966
I know you didn't do that. But you're not GOING to find large forests and large deserts directly adjacent to each other latitudinally without the forest being on the coast.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3275077]

>>3275012
>A small amount oxygen could have come from the decomposition of water molecules
Yep, except that to maintain a balance of oxygen in the atmosphere you have to produce it faster than it is chemically consumed, which that wouldn't do. There is basically zero iron oxide in the geological record until cyanobacteria came onto the scene.

[Anonymous No.3275090]

>>3275077
You just restated his post.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3275101]

>>3275090
No, if I wasn't clear, I was adding the fact that oxygen isn't stable in the atmosphere and needs to be continually produced. It couldn't accumulate over time to 20% from something like the dissociation of water.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3275113]

>>3275053
> But you're not GOING to find large forests and large deserts directly adjacent to each other latitudinally without the forest being on the coast.
It doesn't have to be large. It can be a small oasis around a natural spring, or the vegetation that surrounds small streams.

[Anonymous No.3275118]

>>3275101
The last part of his post reads:
>but yea, most of the oxygen in Earth's atmosphere had to come from photosynthesis.
But you made no mention of that.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3275122]

>>3275118
I wasn't arguing with him; I was just adding a point. Sheesh.

[Anonymous No.3275156]

>>3275113
Very small areas like that are no good because then air circulation between the area in question and its surroundings starts to have a major effect on temperatures. (Basically, you get temperature gradients near the boundary between a hot area and a cool area. But if one of those areas is very small, pretty much all of it is near the boundary, so measurements would be not very useful. It'd be like cutting the crusts off of a slice of bread from a loaf that's a quarter of an inch square in cross section.)

[Anonymous No.3275170]

Antarctica is several orders of magnitude more easier for us to colonize than mars, It still gets more solar energy per year than mars and fleshbags like us don't have to worry about running out of oxygen or water.

[ႼЋïŁႣƧტƿḩЄƦṥ !Scone2booQ No.3275179]

>>3275156
Then go to where the vegetation starts surrounding the Nile river. I believe you will find the temperature starts dropping as soon as the vegetation starts.

[Anonymous No.3275222]

Shut the fuck up why is everything a fuckin argument to you stupid ass virgins. I was genuinely interested in this guys questions and thought that out of 72 post there might be a good portion of them dealing with the actual topic. Boy was that a dumb assumption. they should make a /deb/ debate forum for you people that get your kicks out of arguing all damn day. maybe you guys should go into Law instead of Math.

[Anonymous No.3275234]

>>3275122
Buuuut, you added a point that was already in his post.
Unless Cyanobacteria don't do photosynthesis.

[Anonymous No.3275259]

If we wanted to colonize antartica we would need a radical change in the philisiphinritivizi eeroinphe of the drevagial erriloe

This is clearly impossible as the ice has impacted terriangreion qualities in the land for millions of years.

[Anonymous No.3275317]

>>3274826
>>3274826
DO WANT... plz?