Sorry, I claimed it first.

For one giant scotch and water

Just nuke the whole place from orbit...

My uncle said that I could have it.

Yarr, there's oil in them thar ice!

We all know who owns the area up there...

Link (new window)

Hi Subby, and welcome to today's geography lesson.

The Antarctic contains the South Pole and there really is some land there.

As I'm sure Subby's 9th-grade geography teacher once told him...welcome to FAIL.

The Treaty expires in 2009 and no new treaty is in place. The fight over the poles may not be a cold war.

I recommend reading "Cold Rush: The Coming Fight for the Melting North" in the September issue of Harper's. You can read a review of the article here.

I'm confused, are they fighting over who gets to try to keep it from melting? Seems like an awful waste of time fighting over something that likely won't even exist in a few years.

/Amazed that the US Gov isn't in there fighting over it.
//They're pretty big on wasting time lately.
///Slashies

Alas, as I am sure Subby will point out once he reads this, the FAIL really belongs to me - even though the Arctic and Antarctic are different places, the headline is correct as written; all those countries are indeed claiming ice.

/types faster than he thinks some mornings

Oh ANTartic, right, shiat.

/Crawls over to the corner and goes back to sleep.

rikdanger: moops: Sorry, I claimed it first.

Do you have a flag?

We don't need a bloody flag, this is our country, you bastard!

Jon Snow: The Treaty expires in 2009 and no new treaty is in place. The fight over the poles may not be a cold war.

I recommend reading "Cold Rush: The Coming Fight for the Melting North" in the September issue of Harper's. You can read a review of the article here.

The Melting North? Are you positive that this is about Antartica? 'cause its the other way. And what treaty in 2009? If I remember right, the 1959 treaty is effective until 2041... (not sure why I always remembered that date at school and none other)

We should leave the Antarctic to the penguins and the Elder Things.

/Tekeli-li!

Fark the topic, that's a cool picture.

rikdanger: Do you have a flag?

I am getting sick of all these "claims" on international waters, the Arctic, Antarctica, and the such. I wish the U.S. would just lay claims on all these areas and say, "You know what? If you disagree, come take it biatches."

/Problem solved

While I appreciate the quick corrections re: "antarctic", I find myself surprised that no-one's told subby that there ain't no "ice" on the "seabed".

So, there's an Earth Science FAIL as well.

Tyrone Slothrop

I think I love you.

How do we reconcile these seemingly unreconcilable things?

Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO2 and climate (pops)

We examine four CO2 emissions scenarios for the period 1750-2150. The first case, labeled the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario, assumes continuation of the ~2% annual growth of fossil fuel CO2 emissions that has occurred in recent decades (EIA, 2006; Marland et al., 2006). This 2% annual growth continues for each of the three conventional fuels until half of each reservoir has been exploited, after which emissions are assumed to decline 2% annually.

The second scenario, labeled Coal Phase-out, is meant to approximate a situation in which developed countries freeze their usage rate of coal by 2012 and within a decade developing countries similarly halt increase in coal use. Between 2025 and 2050 it is assumed that both developed and developing countries will linearly phase out emissions of CO2 from coal usage. Thus in Coal Phase-out we have global CO2 emissions from coal increasing 2% per year until 2012, 1%/year growth of emissions between 2013 and 2022, flat emissions from 2023-2025, and finally a linear decrease to zero CO2 emissions from coal in 2050. These rates refer to emissions to the atmosphere and do not constrain consumption of coal, provided the CO2 is captured and sequestered. Oil and gas emissions are assumed the same as in the BAU scenario.

The third and fourth scenarios include the same phase-out of coal, but investigate the effect of uncertainties in global oil usage and supply. The Fast Oil Use scenario adopts an alternative approach for calculating the peak in global oil emissions/usage, following the method of Wood et al. (2003). It assumes that 2% annual growth in oil use continues past the midpoint of oil supplies, until the ratio of remaining reserves to emissions decreases to 10 from the current value of ~50. This scenario causes 'peak oil' to be delayed 21 years to 2037. Finally, the fourth scenario, Less Oil Reserves, uses the same trends as in Coal Phase-out but omits the oil reserve growth term. This fourth scenario may be most relevant to a situation in which a high price on carbon emissions discourages exploration of oil in remote locations.

Governments are acting as if oil and natural gas exploration and production will go on indefinitely. But governments are also dickering with limitations on CO_2 emissions. How can these two policies be reconciled?

Carbon Capture and Storage seems to be the only way. (pops)

Technology for capturing of CO2 is already commercially available for large CO2 emitters, such as power plants; however, capture is meaningless without storage. Storage of CO2, on the other hand, is a relatively untried concept and as yet (2007) no large scale power plant operates with a full carbon capture and storage system.

Geologic Sequestration seems to be the only significant option. (pops)

Oil and Gas Reservoirs. In some cases, production from an oil or natural gas reservoir can be enhanced by pumping CO2 gas into the reservoir to push out the product, which is called enhanced oil recovery. The United States is the world leader in enhanced oil recovery technology, using about 32 million tons of CO2 per year for this purpose. From the perspective of the sequestration program, enhanced oil recovery represents an opportunity to sequester carbon at low net cost, due to the revenues from recovered oil/gas.

In an enhanced oil recovery application, the integrity of the CO2 that remains in the reservoir is well-understood and very high, as long as the original pressure of the reservoir is not exceeded. The scope of this EOR application is currently economically limited to point sources of CO2 emissions that are near an oil or natural gas reservoir.

I wrote my master's thesis on the Antarctic Treaty and I am getting a kick out of these responses

/really
//yeah I know . . . who cares about Antarctica,

Subby only makes the claim that Canada, Russia, and some other damn country are claiming ice...nowhere in the title does subby say that they are claiming Antarctic ice...

The geographical FAIL is not his to bear on this day.

Dude we should TOTALLY move there and claim it's our country of Farkland.

Revenant52: Subby only makes the claim that Canada, Russia, and some other damn country are claiming ice...nowhere in the title does subby say that they are claiming Antarctic ice...


Orly?

TFH: Defying the 1959 territorial treaty, Britain claims rights to a vast Antarctic seabed, joining Canada, Russia, and some other damn country in claiming ice

Revenant52: The geographical reading FAIL is not his Revenant52's to bear on this day.

Seriously, dude, you've out-rotskied rotsky.

Teafortwo: The Melting North? Are you positive that this is about Antartica? 'cause its the other way.

I referenced the Cold Rush article because BOTH poles are being squabbled over (re: The fight over the poles may not be a cold war).

And what treaty in 2009? If I remember right, the 1959 treaty is effective until 2041... (not sure why I always remembered that date at school and none other)

I read that in New Scientist, but apparently that was incorrect.

It appears as though the treaty is more or less indefinite?

i'm fairly sure the headline refers to us Canadians and the Russians claiming ice... not claiming the ice that "joins" them.

The South Pole may have oil,but the North pole has SANTA!!!

From the BBC article Link (new window) "The claim, which the spokeswoman stressed is still being prepared in advance of a May 2009 United Nations deadline, could extend Britain's stake for Antarctic waters by more than 1,000 square miles (2,590 sq km) and is permitted under the Law of the Sea Convention."
"It would be a claim in name only, we wouldn't act because doing any mineral exploitation contravenes the treaty."
"The move does signal Britain's willingness to join the current rush by countries to try to secure their potential oil and gas rights to seabeds should circumstances change. "

Hi Deucednuisance!

TFH: Defying the 1959 territorial treaty, Britain claims rights to a vast Antarctic seabed, joining Canada, Russia, and some other damn country in claiming ice


I suppose you think the headline actually reads:

Defying the 1959 territorial treaty, Britain claims rights to a vast Antarctic seabed, joining Canada, Russia, and some other damn country in claiming Antarctic ice


Please note the difference between the two bold sections. One is real, the other only exists in your mind. There is a big difference in the meanings of each.

Deucednuisance
Revenant52: The geographical reading FAIL is not his Revenant52's to bear on this day.

Thank you for pointing this out. Unless you crossed out the incorrect word...in which case, you get a FAIL.

Shall we go another round, or are you finished?

When I was a kid I used to look to Antarctica as something really cool - there was this huge landmass that the world was sharing with each other. The Cold War was in full swing, ideology kept everyone from seeing eye-to-eye, yet we all agreed that we had an equal claim on Antarctica, to use it together for research and the betterment of mankind. It was a nice respite from the realities of the day. But with this recent bickering over ownership rights over Antarctica (not to mention the Arctic, as well), those Utopian days are as far away as the "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" commercial. A pity.

I'm from Antarctica and I'm getting a kick out of these posts...

Shall we go another round, or are you finished?

Perhaps you could be so kind as to expound on the conjunctive properties of the word "joining" within a single sentence, the predicate of which is "Antarctic ice"?

None of which is found on the "seabed" in any case.

I can see your reading, and mine (and most everyone else on the planet's) as well. Which speaks to the point of the carping. Subby's headline is very poorly written.

You wouldn't happen to be the subby, wouldja? I mean, this is Fark. We're supposed to be snarky. Why so defensive of poor persecuted subby?

I believe (going on my rusty 5th grade English here) we essentially have a run-on sentence. The way I see it, Antarctic supports the subject, seabed, in the first fragment. In the next fragment, the subjects are Russia,Canada,some other damn country, the verb is "claiming" and the object is simply "ice," no adjective or modifier attached. In order for a conjunction to link two nouns and apply the same adjective to both, it has to be some kind of special conjunction (correlative/subordinate/who knows). "Joining" is not a conjunction, it is a verb. (What is Britain doing? It is "joining") Otherwise, we have separate subjects, separate objects, separate verbs.

Point taken, there is no ice on the seabed, and the headline indeed makes Grammer National Socialists writhe in anguish.

My original comments were hinted in Dorsai's direction and not a defense of subby...but I myself FAILed to notice he had recanted.

/Also claim ice
//In my freezer

Dear UK,

The Empire is dead.
Deal with it.

Sincerely,
The ROW

Well, those of us who have seen John Carpenter's The Thing already know what's going to happen in Antarctica.
Weird gross alien shiat, angry Norwegians, Kurt Russell with a sombrero, and a guy named Windows.

unclejimbo827: rikdanger: moops: Sorry, I claimed it first.

Do you have a flag?

We don't need a bloody flag, this is our country, you bastard!

Sorry, no flag - no country. Those are the rules I just made up.

Interesting thing I read somewhere once. Not only is Antarctica this giant continent, but once the ice melts, it'll actually rise further out of the ocean due to the loss of weight.

Awesome. You suckers swelter in your stupid overpopulated old world during the heat waves. My descendants will be chilling in their pools down in good ol Antarctica.