With What Shall I Mend It, Dear Liza, Dear Liza?

Two years after Farman et al. (1985)’s findings were published, the ‘Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer’ was agreed. Under the Protocol, there are legally binding regulations to phase out (in other words, gradually reduce to nothing) the production and use of CFCs worldwide. The Protocol is now signed by 197 nations and continues to undergo revisions to set new targets for the CFC phase out process (The Australian Government: Department of the Environment, n/d). The original target was to reduce CFC production by 50% by 1999 (Hardy and Gucinski, 1989) but this progressed to a complete phase out by 1995 (The Australian Government: Department of the Environment). The Protocol does not only require CFCs to be phased out though. Other substances that can react with ozone are also targeted to be phased out. These substances are appropriately named as ‘ozone depleting substances’ (Weatherhead and Andersen, 2006). Furthermore, one fact to note is that the obligations for developing and developed countries are different. The total phase out target for developing countries is later than for developing countries, this reflects the fact that they may have a lower ability to adapt and find alternatives than developed countries.

How successful was the phase out?

There is wide consensus among academics, politicians, researchers and scientists that this protocol has been one of, if not, the most successful international treaty ever (for example, The Australian Government; Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations; Aronson et al. 2011; Fahey, 2013; Mӓder et al. 2010). Indeed, what these scholars and politicians consider a success is the way that the agreement has reduced emissions of CFCs. By banning the production of CFCs and phasing out their usage, fewer chlorine molecules are able to react with ozone. Therefore the total layer of ozone gas should be restored. For example, Mӓder et al. ran a regression to analyse the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol in protecting the ozone layer. The authors conclude from their analysis that their models have proven the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol and the ozone layer is indeed protected by the regulations that came out of the Protocol.

This evidence seems convincing, right? I thought it was, until I came across a video by the National Geographic, which can be accessed here (apologies I am unable to post it up on this blog). The video states that the ozone hole (not layer!) peaked in 2008. Therefore despite the widespread appraisal of the Protocol, levels of ozone have not actually been increasing since the ban of CFCs. Additionally, when NASA measures the amount ozone in Antarctica using satellites, the results are unexpected, and counter what scientists, politicians, and the general public, believe about the success of this regulation. For instance, figure 1 shows that the amount of ozone over Antarctica through the years has only been increasing since the Protocol, with 2014 spring levels still significantly lower than in 1979. This means that since the ban of CFCs, ozone depletion has continued!

Figure 1. Ozone levels in October 1979, 1989, 1999 and 2014. Adapted from ‘Map Archives' from NASA (2015). The depth of the ozone hole is measured in Dobson units. Purple and blue indicate low levels of ozone. Green and red indicate high levels of ozone.

What can explain this? Does this mean that banning CFCs was ineffective? Not necessarily. There are many factors that affect the levels of CFCs that remain in the ozone layer. These factors can limit the effectiveness of banning CFCs. For example, the ban was implemented approximately 50 years after CFCs first came into use. This means that 50 years’ worth of chlorine and bromine molecules are currently present in the ozone layer, despite having been emitted years ago. Thus, although Montreal has been effective at preventing further chlorine and bromine molecules from reacting with ozone, it has been unable to alter the composition of CFCs that are still present in the stratosphere. Current CFCs in the stratosphere remains a challenge to address unless the international community wishes to physically remove them from the stratosphere. I am definitely not suggesting that they do this as this task is impossible to carry out! The point I would like to make is that, unfortunately, humans’ past actions are leaving an unwanted legacy on the ozone layer which is beyond human control. Solomon (2004) states that lifetimes of CFCs can be between 50 and 100 years, showing that this legacy is going to exist for a long time and will prevent the ozone layer from fully recovering in the short term.

Another influence on the ozone layer is climate. Solomon mentions that a warm spring can result in less ozone depletion, and therefore a cold spring can lead to more ozone depletion. Given this trend, global circulations such as the Arctic Oscillation can affect the levels of ozone that are observed in Antarctica. As my post on 22 October explained, the Arctic Oscillation affects the climate in Antarctica and can be used to explain the extent of ozone depletion (Zhou et al. 2001). A further climatic factor that affects the level of ozone is temperature. Weatherhead and Andersen (2006:41) mention that ‘colder conditions in the lower stratosphere promote the formation of polar stratospheric clouds which contribute to severe ozone depletion’. These factors show that climate can interfere with levels of ozone, and that ozone levels are interconnected with a whole range of natural climatic systems. This makes the analysis of ozone complicated and challenging to understand. Furthermore, because of the range of factors that affect ozone, the true effect of the Montreal Protocol will never be fully known. This means that celebrating the success of the Montreal Protocol may be naïve.

Conclusions

Although the Montreal Protocol has successfully reduced emissions of CFCs, this is not enough to deal with the problem of CFCs. CFCs are still in the stratosphere which means that the hole in the ozone layer will be present until the end of CFC lifetimes. Furthermore, climate also affects ozone levels. These additional determinants of ozone levels complicate scientists’ understanding of ozone and so it is difficult to understand how successful the Montreal Protocol really is. As figure 1 shows, ozone levels are worse now than they were before the Montreal Protocol. Because of this, perhaps celebrating the success of the Protocol is premature.

I would like to end this post with a reference to the song indicated in the title. This folk song is a story about a hole in a bucket that needs amending. In order to fix it, many actions are required until the character trying to fix it cannot because he ends up back where he started and the story forms a loop. In terms of the ozone layer, the Montreal Protocol has found a solution in the long term. However in the short term, CFC molecules will continue to destroy ozone molecules until the end of the CFC's lifetimes. This means that no additional measures can be implemented to protect the ozone layer as these attempts will only lead us back to the same problem (i.e. the problem of having chlorine and bromine molecules that were emitted in the past in the stratosphere). This post therefore emphasises that human actions from the past can continue to have effects on the Antarctic environment. This means that measures taken in the present do not compensate for the negative impacts resulting from the past. Because of this, I believe that the Protocol has achieved all it can for the moment and only time will tell how effective it is at restoring the ozone layer to natural levels. For this reason, I will award a point to the positive side. Now the score is 7-5.

My next post will sadly be my last and this is where I'll summarise the key findings from my blog. Thanks for reading!

The Usefulness of Research Stations

Research centres in Antarctica are widespread. Figure 1 shows just how many research centres, permanent or otherwise are present in Antarctica today. In fact, there are approximately 4,000 scientists and technicians living and working in the station during the summer and approximately 1,000 working there during the winter (Gröndahl et al. 2009). Because the research population is in the thousands, human impact on the environment will be significant given the sensitivity of the Antarctic environment. Furthermore, it can be argued that the Antarctic is becoming disturbed due to permanent human residency and man-made construction (ibid).

Figure 1. All the research stations in Antarctica. Adapted from Antarctic Glaciers (2013)

Setting up centres in Antarctica are supposedly justified by their work on measuring:

• The ozone layer and patterns of change
• Atmospheric chemistry
• Global sea level changes
• Information on climate change

…and much more.

Before I explain the impact of these centres directly on the Antarctic environment, I want to give you a few examples that demonstrate the value of research centres.

Vostok

Information on climate change is found by taking ice cores and using them to infer past climate as well as current climate. A Russian station called the Vostok research station was established in 1957. A reasonably famous study undertaken in 1999 by the Vostok station was the use of ice cores to reconstruct the climate in the past 420,000 years (Petit et al., 1999). Ice cores enable the reconstruction of past environments because trapped are in the ice indicate past atmospheric conditions, i.e. concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane. These help determine what climate was like. The results from Vostok are shown in figure 2.

Figure 2. Results from the Vostok ice core. Data shows the climate record for the past 420,000 years. Main finding: anthropogenic activity has increased the levels of methane and carbon dioxide. Source: Petit (2007) in Knight (ed) 'Glacier Science and Environmental Change', p. 404.

The findings from this research project were relevant because they showed that carbon dioxide and methane levels now surpass levels in any of the past 400,000 years. Thus, this research presented solid evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

Halley Bay 

Another major finding from research stations in Antarctica was the hole in the ozone layer, found from research undertaken at the Halley Bay (now known as just Halley) research station in 1985 (Farman et al., 1985).

As can be seen, research centres have made significant contributions to climate, climate change and atmospheric conditions. The research conducted is not only for the purpose of human benefit, recall the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer. This shows that Antarctica is benefiting from the research. 

Having said this, in making some of these important discoveries, sometimes the condition of the Antarctic environment has been compromised and this is what I will explain in my next post.

How Krill Variability Affects Penguins

This post will focus on how krill variability in the West Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) and Scotia Sea affects populations of Adélie and chinstrap penguins via the food chain.

Whaling

As mentioned in my previous post, krill fishing has become one of the main drivers reducing krill population and increasing competition for krill. But this is not the only impact that humans have had on krill population. Indirectly, through the introduction of whaling and sealing restrictions, competition for krill is increasing, causing stress among krill population. In turn, this is causing a decline in the populations of Adélie and chinstrap penguins.

For example, the International Whaling Commission banned the whaling of blue whales in 1966 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, 2014) which is increasing the population of baleen whales (blue whales are a type of baleen whale) and therefore increasing demand for krill. This reduces available krill to penguins, particularly because blue whales’ diets consist mostly of krill (ibid). More competition for krill means that krill populations may decline even further than they have. Trivelpiece et al. (2011)'s research project in the South Shetland Islands in the West Antarctic Peninsula (see figure 1) discovered that Adélie and chinstrap penguin populations have declined more than 50% in the last 30 years, which is approximately during the same time that whaling bans were introduced in the Antarctic. 

Figure 1. Map showing the South Shetland Islands and the West Antarctic Peninsula. Source: Lenfest Ocean Program, (2011)

This suggests that humans have indirectly affected penguin populations via the food chain and the impact on krill population. Whaling bans therefore have a positive impact on whale populations, but a potentially negative impact on penguin populations. The fact that this happens demonstrates the interconnectedness of Antarctic wildlife and the importance of krill in the food chain. It also highlights the complexity of food chains. Food chain processes are natural and once humans alter these mechanisms, many species, not just one, are affected. Even if humans have good intentions (e.g. to protect whales), there can be negative indirect effects as well. 

Trivelpiece et al. (2011) further mention that the effect of a reduction in krill availability for penguins is predicted to increase as krill fishing increases. Humans, therefore, have a variety of impacts on whale, penguin and krill populations and these impacts are all holistic. The impact that humans have had on Antarctica is both positive (on whales) and negative (for penguins and krill). Because of this, I will classify the total impact as neutral, so for the first time in my blog, the impacts cancel out and the scores remain unchanged! Just to remind you, they stand at negative impacts 4, positive/ natural impacts, 2.

Next week I will explore an argument against anthropogenic causes, focussing on how natural climate variability can cause changes in krill population. Thanks for reading!

License to Krill I

Krill are small crustaceans that resemble shrimp and feed of diatoms. They are very abundant in Antarctica, in fact their total global combined weight ranges from 500 to 700 million tonnes (Voytek,1990)! Krill are small creatures as demonstrated by figure 1, which shows their size relative to a paper clip. Despite how small they are, they are essential for life in Antarctica. According to the National Geographic (2014), 'without krill, most of the life forms in the Antarctic would disappear'.

Figure 1. Size of krill relative to a paperclip. Source: The National Geographic (2014)

Why are krill so important?

Krill play an important role in the Antarctic food chain. Krill are at the bottom of the food chain which means that they are important food sources for whales, penguins, seals, fish, copepods and sea birds (Tomaselli, 2012). These animals make up the majority of those found in Antarctica. Because so many animals rely on krill, a change in krill availability may result in starvations among some of these Antarctic animals.

Figure 2 shows which animals feed on krill. Krill are consumed by Emperor penguins, Adélie penguins, crabeater seals, leopard seals, and baleen whales. It’s important to note that the figure does not show all of the animals feeding on krill, only a selection.

Figure 2: Antarctic food chain. Source: Voytek (1990)

Krill population

Given the importance of Antarctic krill in maintaining populations of marine and terrestrial animals, it is desirable to keep krill populations steady. But this not the case. In fact, humans are reducing the levels of krill in Antarctica, both directly and indirectly.

First I’ll explain the direct impacts on krill population. Krill populations are declining due to fishing. The Soviet Union began fishing Antarctic krill in the early 1960s (Aronson et al. 2011). In the 1970s and 1980s, many other countries followed (ibid). Krill are sought after because they are used as fish bait, fish feed in aquaculture and for aquarium trade (ibid). Furthermore, krill can be transformed into krill oil, which is a source of omega-3 and can have beneficial health impacts for us. Krill oil can help protect us against and lower the risk of suffering from health conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease, stroke, depression and osteoporosis (University of Maryland Medical Center, 2013; accessed 28 November 2014).

These health benefits incentivise pharmaceutical companies to fish Antarctic krill because there is a market for krill oil products. Below is a video published on YouTube by the pharmaceutical company, BioCeuticals, which catches krill to turn into krill oil. I've posted this video because it gives you a flavour of the use of krill to humans.

What is interesting to note about this video is the way the company justifies its activities. Phrases like “krill is found in great abundance all around the Antarctic continent” and "the estimated biomass of Antarctic krill is twice the biomass of the worldwide human population"  indicates that krill are plentiful anyway so fishing would not create any disastrous ecological impacts. Also, the fact that the company interviewed a WWF Director demonstrates that they care about krill levels in Antarctica and want to engage in fishing in a sustainable manner.

Despite what this company claims about sustainable fishing, Antarctic krill populations have been declining. Figure 3a shows this steady decline. Even though there have been fluctuations since the 1970s, the general trend is a decrease in krill. Figure 3b shows where the krill populations have been declining and to what extent. In figure 3b, the red area indicates where the largest declines have occurred, which has been in the North. This region also happens to be the most accessible for ships because it is close to Argentina, making visits likely. As the video above showed, large ships travel to Antarctica to catch krill and turn them into oil almost immediately (while on the ship).

Figure 3. Krill population decline. 
a) Krill density in Antarctica from 1976 to 2000
b) Krill density across Antarctica
Source: Atkinson et al.(2004)

Indirectly, humans are having an impact on krill populations via climate change. Climate change is causing an increase in sea surface temperatures which is affecting the spawning and nursery areas of krill (Atkinson et al. 2004). According to Hill et al. (2013), sea surface temperatures have been increasing by 0.2^oC every ten years, but this is predicted to increase to warming of between 0.27^oC and 1.08 ^oC by the end of this century. Warmer sea temperatures are causing reduced sea ice extent which is problematic for krill because sea ice forms a large part of krill’s habitat. Atkinson et al. (2004) explains that sea ice also shields krill from predators and fosters sea algae, which are a key food source for krill. Additionally, climate change is exacerbating the destruction of their habitat because winter sea ice duration is reducing due to warmer temperatures and warmer oceans, thus humans are indirectly having a negative impact on krill.

So in this post, hopefully my readers have understood the importance of krill for Antarctic animals that feed on krill and have realised what negative impacts we are having on them, both directly and indirectly. The new scores are negative impacts 4, natural/positive impacts 2. Next week, I will discuss another indirect effect that humans have had on krill population.

Holidaying in Antarctica

Antarctica has become a popular tourist destination over the years. First starting in the 1950s, expedition cruises take tourists to see the wildlife, unique scenery and geology, and visit research centres. Nowhere else on Earth can visitors can go to a continent totally surrounded by the sea and observe some of the world’s rarest species in some of the world’s harshest conditions. These are all reasons why tourism is gaining momentum and why the tourist season has increased to 173 days per year (Aronson et al. 2011). But how is the tourism industry affecting the wildlife in Antarctic?

Penguins

Before the 1950s, wildlife in Antarctica was not used to seeing humans in their habitats very much. Human activity was mainly focussed on research and so a lot of human activity was conducted in research centres – no one was actively looking for penguins or seals or whales. Now that they are, some penguin species are reacting to them, while others are not.

I found this funny cartoon, portraying this point:

Figure 1. Adapted from Antarctic-monument.org  

Seventeen species of penguins can be found on Antarctica. Of these, there are four penguin species that breed on the Antarctic continent itself: the Adelie, the Emperor, the Chinstrap and the Gentoo penguins (Antarctic Connection, 2014). Lynch et al. (2010) conducted a study on Petermann Island (see figure 3) which found that the Gentoo penguin has shown a reduction in breeding productivity in areas where tourists frequently visit. One explanation for this could be that they are less likely to establish a nest in areas that are frequently visited. Although correlation does not mean causation, it’s in my view that tourist visits has played a role in their population because visiting their habitats can be unsettling.

In spite of this, surprisingly Lynch et al. (2010) also found in their study that the Adélie penguin was not affected by frequent tourist visits in terms of breeding. This shows that the effect of tourist visits is species specific and therefore can be difficult to measure. Figure 2 shows the penguins.

Figure 2. Gentoo penguin (left) and Adélie penguin (right)

The Lynch et al. (2010) paper was very insightful to read. Even though I read it to learn about the impacts of tourism on the breeding productivities of the Adélie and Gentoo penguins, I also learnt about a new potential human cause of a trending population decline of the Adélie penguin. During their study, the authors realised that there was a tick infestation among the Adélie penguin colonies at Petermann Island in North West Antarctica, a popular tourist destination because of its proximity to the southern tip of Argentina. This is shown in figure 3. The fact that tourists frequently visit the Island can help explain the spread of this I. uriae parasite. The evidence leads me to believe that the I. uriae parasite was transported from another North Western Island because the authors point out that this was the first time they had witnessed it on Petermann Island since they started investigating penguins there twenty years ago. This demonstrates that tourist expedition cruises may have transported it from another island. The authors also mention that they can’t rule out that climate change could have created conditions allowing its existence in this region. Either explanation holds humans responsible, at least in part, of this occurrence.

Figure 3: Petermann Island

Invasive species

This leads me nicely to my next topic about how tourism causes the invasion of foreign species. Tourist ships tend to contain double hulls. This is a cause of concern because double hulls provide insulation against temperature reductions as ships make their way to Antarctica, allowing invasive species to survive. An example of an invasive species is the mussel species, Mytilus Galloprovincialis, which was observed to have survived in a sea chest on a supply ship by Lee and Chown (2007). Another invasion species found is a type of green algae called Enteromorpha Intestinolis which was discovered growing on Half Moon Island off the West Antarctic Peninsula, apparently because it was transported there by tourist vessels (Clayton et al., 1997; Aronson et al., 2011). These invasive species can be problematic because they affect the food chain, invade habitats and can potentially initiate and spread new diseases to existing marine wildlife. The latter effect is demonstrated by the tick infestation found on Petermann Island. 

All in all, it seems that tourism in Antarctica is having a somewhat damaging effect on wildlife. Understanding these impacts have actually put me off wanting to visit Antarctica for a holiday, then again, I don't think I would be able to survive the cold anyway! So far, the scores for negative human impacts verses positive/ natural impacts on Antarctica are 2-1.

Apologies for such as negative post! Sometimes the impacts of humans on wildlife are harmful and I am trying to shed light on this. My next post will be about oil spills from tourist ships and how this affects sea birds and other wildlife. So until then, thanks for reading!

Melting Ice - Larsen B

In my last post, I introduced melting sea ice as one of the major changes occurring to our planet, and one that is certainly affecting Antarctica at the moment. Today I’m going to discuss the melting ice in more depth.

Over the past 200 years or so, the human footprint on the world has become so apparent and so profound that we humans now ‘rival the great forces of Nature and are pushing Earth to a new planetary terra incognita’ (Steffan et al. 2007: 614). This has created to need for a new epoch away from the Holocene to one that is more reflective of human actions. “The Anthropocene” was termed to capture this. Although there is much debate about the precise time that this epoch started, e.g. at the start of the Industrial Revolution, or a few hundred years earlier (Zalasiewics, et al. 2011; Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000; Gale and Hoare, 2012), this epoch signifies that because of humans, Earth is becoming warmer, less biologically diverse, less forested, wetter and stormier (Steffan et al. 2007). The emission of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, into the atmosphere is creating a warming effect, i.e. the greenhouse effect, whereby the Earth will warm by 1.4 to 5.8^oC by the end of the century (Crutzen, 2002). I came across a very insightful TEDx talk in which Steffan Will goes into more depth explaining the origins of the Anthropocene which can be view here if my readers wish to learn more. 

Unsurprisingly, a warmer planet is troublesome for ice. Below is a graphic representation of Antarctica, displaying the continent's ice shelves and glaciers.

Figure 1. Source: Adapted from Rignot and Stanley (2002)

According to Pritchard et al. (2009), some glaciers are thinning at alarming rates. For example, Pine Island glacier is thinning by up to 18 feet per year, while the Smith glacier is thinning by 27 feet per year. This highlights the severity of warming occurring today. Glaciers in Antarctica are at risk of becoming less stable as the planet warms.

The circled ice shelf in Figure 1 is the Larsen B ice shelf. In 2002, it collapsed and fell apart. Cited by Schmidt (2011), this was predicted by Mercer (1968), who wrote that global warming caused by industrial pollution would lead to a collapse West Antarctica’s ice shelves. Figure 1 shows the levels of carbon dioxide emissions from 1850 onwards. The figure agrees with Mercer, showing that emissions have risen due to industrialisation. I have also included a diagrammatic representation of the change in global temperatures, shown in figure 3. Figures 2 and 3 are complementary in that they demonstrate the correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and global temperature rises

Figure 2: Total global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion initiated by industrialisation.
Source: Hardy (2003) 'Climate Change: Causes, Effects and Solutions', p. 13.

Figure 3: Variations in Earth's temperature for (a) the past 1,000 years and (b) the past 140 years, gathered from proxy measurements based on tree rings, corals, ice cores and historical records. Source: Hardy (2003) 'Climate Change: Causes, Effects and Solutions', p. 41.

A recent study by Rebesco et al. (2014) showed that the Larsen B ice shelf collapsed because of warmer air, partly by human activities and our effects on warming the planet. Their results show that the Larsen B ice shelf shattered in the following way:

• Warmer temperatures warmed up the air
• Warmer air melted ice during the summer months
• This water flowed into cracks inside the ice shelf
• As winter approached, all the water froze again and expanded in the cracks
• This caused the ice shelf to shatter from the increased pressure in the cracks

Below is a very short video capturing the Larsen B ice shelf collapse from satellite images in 2002, illustrating what happened visually. Unfortunately I can't post the actual video on the blog. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N61EP5zB8uU#t=28

To summarise this post, I’ve presented the view that the Larsen B ice shelf collapse was partly caused by humans because of human induced warmer air in Antarctica. The score for negative human impacts verses positive/ natural impacts is 1-0. In my next post, I will present some of the criticisms of the views presented in this post. 

Is it Really SOS Antarctica?

Welcome to my blog about how humans have affected Antarctica. In my first post, I will explain why I’ve chosen to write about this topic and go through some of the areas I will blog about in the coming months. 

So why have I chosen to blog about Antarctica?

Yesterday, The Guardian had a report about record levels of Antarctic sea ice. Meanwhile three weeks ago, the BBC reported on ‘unprecedented’ melting of the Antarctic Peninsula. Five months ago in May 2014, The Times reported that the amount of melting ice has doubled compared to ten years ago. Are you confused? Well I don't blame you! Antarctic sea ice has appeared in the news at least once a year for the last ten years. The topic pops up so frequently, all reporting different things, that it is hard to comprehend what is actually happening. The fact that Antarctic sea ice is in the news so often makes it apparent that climate change is one of the biggest issues the world is facing today. The impacts of climate change, as seen above, are confusing, but in particular the impact of anthropogenic climate change is more controversial which is why I have chosen to blog about it. I want readers to understand more about Antarctica because it is such a unique and fragile continent (see figure 1).

Figure 1. Antarctica from space shows how unique and fragile the continent really is. Source: The Guardian, 2014

What to expect?

By reading my blog, you will understand the complexity of climate change as throughout the next three months, I will present you with case studies, theories and research, citing from academic journals, books and news articles, that help explain the human impacts on Antarctica. One of the main impacts that humans have on Antarctica is our contribution to melting ice. I will present arguments for and against this view and various others using academic literature and scientific research, debating around these topics. Other effects that I will blog about include ozone depletion, marine/ terrestrial life and tourism. These effects will help me answer the question of whether it really is SOS Antarctica. Furthermore, throughout this blog I will keeps a score of the natural or positive human impacts versus negative human impacts because it is important to distinguish between the different effects. It will also help keep track of whether humans are actually causing Antarctica to become distressed.

This blog will go beyond climate change. I don’t want my readers to think of this blog as a climate change blog. Instead, the aim of my blog is to provide you all with an idea of the alternative ways that humans are affecting Antarctica. 

In this post I have introduced melting ice as one of the key environmental changes Antarctica currently faces. To end, below is a link to an interactive map showing the effect on all continents if all the ice in the world melted, including Antarctica. I would definitely encourage my readers to explore the effect on other continents, but in particular notice the significant loss in land mass predicted in Antarctica – how ironic that the melting of Antarctic ice will reduce its own land mass! That’s all from me today, I hope you enjoy exploring Antarctica with me over the coming months! 

National Geographic Interactive Map