Re: WI: Antarctica was on the North Pole -

chornedsnorkack_at_hushmail.com
Date: 03/03/05 

Date: 3 Mar 2005 09:01:12 -0800

Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:
> > Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> > > chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:
> > > > Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> > > > > doktorf wrote:
> > > > > > This effectively makes North America, oh, let's call it
"Arctica"
> > > > > > and Eurasia a supercontinent. There might be narrow seways
> > > > > > between the land masses, but we could reasonably expect
them to be
> > > > > > frozen for a good part of the year. It is also reasonable
to expect > > > > > > that the presence of Arctica would make the
existence of the Bering
> > > > > > land bridge irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Depends, even in summer stone age people traveling north of
the
> > > > > arctic circle will need supplies. Nothing exists to supply
travelers
> > > > > using stone age technology to travle across far from the sea.
 No
> > > > > food for 500+ miles and very real danger from exposure will
make use > > > > > of this land for travel by stone age people
impractical.
> > > > >
> > > > > What can they hunt? Anything that lives on that land must
have plant
> > > > > food to eat. What plants will grow in a place that sees 6
month
> > > > > long winters of serious hard freezes and mostly no light,
with a very
> > > > > short growing season? Yes some plants will grow in the far
arctic,
> > > > > but this is near the sea which moderates temperature, and
assures
> > > > > rain/snow fall and so fresh water.
> > > > >
> > > > Er, vice versa!
> > > >
> > > > In summer, which is what matters for the plants (in winter they
will
> > > > hibernate no matter whether it is -5 or -50), the Arctic as it
now
> > > > exist makes the climate harsher, not more moderate!
> > >
> > > No. The proximity to the sea and the fact that open water, or
the water > > > under the *** of ice, acts as a huge heat sink/source
that when the
> > > temperature dropps below 0 C, it has an enormous reserve of heat
to give > > > up to keep temperatures at or near 0 C, will moderate
temperature.
> > >
> > Er, no.
>
> Er yes -- learn some basic thermal physics.
>
> Heat flows from higher to lower temperature, the phase change from
> water to ice
>
> http://www.physchem.co.za/Heat/Latent.htm#fusion
>
> The latent heat of fusion of ice is 334 kJ/kg (kiloJoules per
kilogram
> converted)
>
> While the heat needed to raise one kilogram of water one degree C is
> 4.186 Joules/gram or 4.186 kJ/kg.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html
>
> The temperature at which pure water at sea level pressure freezes is
0
> degrees C, while salt in the water depresses that a bit (not much) it
> clearly takes a hell of a lot of heat removal from the water to get
it
> to freeze.
>
> The salt sea water acts during winter as heat *source* that tends to
> keep the air and ground in contact with it near zero degrees C.
>
> Temperature on the antactic plane far from the sea can sink very far
> below zero. The lowest recorded was at Vostok station on 24 August
> 1960 of -88.3 degrees C (see first below web site),

Er, yeah. And the minima are about -70 at the top of the Greenland ice
***. But they are also -70 in the Oimyakon and Verhoyansk valleys -
which are forested and inhabited areas.

> and can average -55 degrees C in the winter

My impression is that this is the yearly average.

> far from the sea, while near the sea averages of -5 C are seen
(second below > web site).
>
> http://ireland.iol.ie/south-aris/climate.htm
> http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap03/antarctica.html
>
>
> > The ice on sea acts as a huge heat sink, it has enormous
> > reserves of cold to give up to keep the temperatures at or near 0
C.
>
>
> That is during the spring, and temperatures of about 0 C are not all
> that flipping dangerous to living things.

To warm-blooded mammals, that is.

But they are very important for green plants - in that region, every
degree counts. If you have 0...-5 Celsius, soil snow-covered and more
wet snow falling, people may find it easy to manage, but plants just
can't grow. At 0...+5 Celsius after the snow has melted, some plants
can grow, but not very well.

It will make a huge difference if eliminating the sea ice heat sink in
spring/summer allows temperatures of 10...15 Celsius, or more.

> -55 C will kill you, fast even with good personal gear if you are
stuck
> outdoors. That is what happend to the first british expedition to
the south > pole, the weather turned colder than predicted for a week
or more and they
> died on the march back as a result.
>
One thing is that they ran out of fuel. Yes, -55 C is dangerous. But
there is a difference between -55 on top of Antarctic or Greenland ice
***, or on the barren grounds of Canadian Arctic, and -55 C in the
forests of inland Yukon or Mackenzie valley or Yakutia. Warm-blooded
mammals like muskoxen, reindeer, elks and wolves easily endure -55
degrees outdoors. And so do humans prepared for the situation, even
Stone Age hunter-gatherers. All that is required is that there should
be enough summer warmth to support plants to last herbivores through
the winter, and trees to provide firewood.
>
> > >
> > > Contrast this to Antarctic land far (say 100 miles +) from the
sea, and
> > > at elevations of several hundred, to several thousand feet. In
that
> > > case the soil
> >
> > But there is little soil in inland Antarctica.
>
> Depends on your definition of soil, if you mean soil like in north
> america, then no. If you mean not very organtic rocks sand and dirt,
> then that is a bunch of crap.
>
Well, yes, there are some nunataks, mountaintops projecting out of the
ice in Antarctic. But they are small patches surrounded by extensive
glaciers. I expect that in summer, the heated surface would serve as a
heat source, but that due to small area of individual nunataks, the
maxima would still stay low because of cooling influence of surrounding
glaciers. I also expect that larger areas of bare ground, if they
existed, would support even warmer climate.