Re: WI: Antarctica was on the North Pole -

chornedsnorkack_at_hushmail.com
Date: 03/04/05 

Date: 4 Mar 2005 09:11:36 -0800

Alfred Montestruc wrote:
> chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:
> > 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 exists 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.
>
> You are correct my mistake.
>
> However that really makes my point. I do not think anyplace that can
> be inhabited by much of any sort of meaningful life that could
support
> travelers could live in a place with a mean temperature that low, or
> even like say -30 C. Not even for trips in the hottest part of the
> summer.
>
Which is because the summer temperature at the top of e. g. Dome C is
on average -28 Celsius, see
http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/MeteoDdU.html.
>
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Nor to plants that grow on the north shore of alaska that reindeer
> graze on.
>
Er, they are. Look at the temperature data of Dumont d Urville station.
They do not actually give the yearly average, but it is above -10, I
expect. And I expect that the yearly average is also higher than on the
North Slope of Alaska. But Antarctic is bare and devoid of plants,
animals and people, while North Slope of Alaska is vegetated and
settled.

North Slope of Alaska is slightly closer to pole than the East
Antarctic coast. But the -10 C yearly average in Antarctic would mean
-20 in winter and below 0 in midsummer - meaning, the snow does not
melt, the ground does not melt, little plant life and therefore no
herbivores and no people, whereas on North Alaska, at a similar
latitude, the winter might have averages of -30, but summer average of
+5 would mean tundra plant cover, reindeer and human settlement.

> You may note that in the higher elevations of the mountains in
> Greenland or Alaska or even northern scandinavia, that plants do not
> grow well. They grow more and better on the coast near the sea where
> the mean temperature is higher.
>
No, they grow more and better at low altitudes, where the summer
temperature is higher. Yes, they grow better at the shore near sea than
on mountaintops - but they grow even better in the low altitude
sheltered valleys inland or at the heads of fiords.
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Right, and if you have land that is near a pole, far from the sea or
> open bodies of water, not too much grows there, and you do not have
too
> many grazing animals.
>
Er, I argue that land near the pole, at low altitude and far from
glaciers or frozen water bodies would warm up in summer.

> By the way, the only animals that live in Antarctica AFAIK are birds
of
> various sorts that stick close to the coast, and mainly live off fish
> and other seafood. Much as a large fraction of the large animal life
> in the arctic (seals, polar bears and so on).
>
Yes. Because the summer temperatures in Antarctic are near and below
zero.
>
> > 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.
>
> But they did so because they stopped moving because they were too
cold.
> They could not press on with the outdoor temperatures that low.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I think you are at least in part mistaken. IIRC most large arctic
> mammals migrate south or to the coast in the winter.

I do not think so - I think they migrate away from the coast. The
reason being that while it is warmer at the coast, there is also more
snowfall, and more wet snow or thaw refreezing to ice that blocks
access to vegetation. In inland valleys, they find lower temperatures -
and meagre cover of dry, loose snow so they can dig out the plants.

> Show me a cite of
> reindeer staying the whole winter in a place that has a yearly
average
> temperature anything like -55 C or even -20 C. Those -70C places
you
> cite were IIRC minimums, and probably not seen even every year for a
> low temperature on a single night.
>
> I will grant you that reigndeer could probably survive a few nights
> with minimum temprature as low as -70 C, but not too many, and I
think
> some of the weaker members of the herd will freeze to death on nights
> that cold.
>
>
> > And so do humans prepared for the situation, even
> > Stone Age hunter-gatherers.
>
> Not places with yearly average temperatures of -55 C, or even -30 C I
> wager.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> You do not see that (trees plants) in places with yearly average
temperatures > that low, and that is what you would see in places well
inland and above the > arctic or antarctic circle. I would like to see
evidence relating the
> minimum yearly average temperature of places that have significant
plant life > (on earth, or elsewhere but stating what planet if you
know any LGM ;-)).
>
LGM? What does this stand for?

Quantcast