[David Freedman (OP)]

Given the of scientific undertakings (and tourism) undertakings often by different countries, has any measurement of the environment impact been assessed. Considering much of it is diesel machinery. Also the bigger ships that are designed to breakthrough thicker ice. Surely this will increase the ice breaking up and melting faster.

[evan_au]

There was a nuclear reactor operating at one Antarctic base for a decade. But due to maintenance problems, it was replaced by diesel generators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station#Nuclear_power_(1962%E2%80%931972)

On a global scale, the population of Antarctica is so low (under 5,000) that their greenhouse emissions are negligible, even if they do consume somewhat more energy than the average for their home nations.
- Of more concern from the local population is pollution from oil spills, rubbish and the risk of invasive species
- The greenhouse emissions of the rest of the world are also significant, which will continue to break up the ice sheets that are important for algae, krill, and whales

[David Freedman (OP)]

I certainly have recognise the problem with the rest of the worlds emissions. And definitely the problems with pollution, invasive species etc. What I do wonder about is the amount of experiments that are done by different on the same subject. A perfect example of the race between different countries for the 4 mile deep ice core. Surely this form of competitiveness multiples the effect on the environment. As does the drive to more runways for jet airliners for supplies that will also increase tourism. Thankfully Australia just stopped their plans for the biggest one ever. If other industries are scrutinised for there impacts impact on the environment and their emissions that contribute to global warming, why shouldn't the activity on the Antarctic come under the same scrutiny. The fact that there "blown away " isn't relevant as all emissions are blown somewhere. Answers are much appreciated. Dave

[David Freedman (OP)]

Thanks for the information on the permafrost found that informative.

[alancalverd]

Every settlement and tour operator in Antarctica is acutely aware of the quantity of diesel and jet fuel they use - it's the key to survival and a major cost element. Problem is that it is pretty much inevitable as long as people want to be there. Dtata is hard to come by but 100,000 kWh per capita per annum  is pretty normal for arctic regions.

[evan_au]

the race between different countries for the 4 mile deep ice core

If different countries collect their ice cores from different parts of Antarctica, then they will provide different perspectives on the history of Antarctica. Overall, more ice cores provide more information than a single ice core - they provide a context so that they can be interpreted together.

However, one laboratory has drilled 86 ice cores down to 2.5km at the South Pole, in order to construct a neutrino telescope.
Ice at this depth is very transparent, and allows sensitive photomultiplier tubes to detect the tiny flash of light that occurs in the rare rare event that a neutrino interacts with an atom.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory

There is also a submillimeter microwave telescope at the South Pole, taking advantage of the extremely low humity (water vapour in the air absorbs microwaves from space).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole_Telescope

[syhprum]

Whats this all about ?

[alancalverd]

If different countries collect their ice cores from different parts of Antarctica, then they will provide different perspectives on the history of Antarctica.

I was intrigued to read that a European drilling on the opposite side of the continent pretty well replicated the Vostok (400,000 years) findings and showed similar cyclic trends going back to 800,000 years, at which point they struck bedrock, suggesting that there was no ice on Antarctica a million years ago.

[Bored chemist]

If different countries collect their ice cores from different parts of Antarctica, then they will provide different perspectives on the history of Antarctica.

I was intrigued to read that a European drilling on the opposite side of the continent pretty well replicated the Vostok (400,000 years) findings and showed similar cyclic trends going back to 800,000 years, at which point they struck bedrock, suggesting that there was no ice on Antarctica a million years ago.

Or they hit the top of a mountain.

[gem]

HI all,

So BC,

Or they hit the top of a mountain

I'm not sure what your point is there given Alan's post.

I believe he was making the point of  coral conditions, are you referring to seamounts ?