This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Amundsen鈥揝cott South Pole Station article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
鈥淭he South Pole sees the Sun rise and set only once a year. Due to atmospheric refraction, these [?] do not occur exactly on the September equinox and the March equinox, respectively: the Sun is above the horizon for four days longer at each equinox.鈥
What is the writer trying to say? 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:8408:3A4F:7532:F9A3 ( talk) 23:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I find the timing of this picture highly implausible. August is well within the Southern Hemisphere winter, and thus the sun surely would not be well above the horizon at the South Pole as per this picture. Canopus1968 ( talk) 09:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm calling bullshit on sunrise and sunset once a year. I live in Alaska, and in Barrow there are only 60-70 days of no sunrise during the winter, around the winter solstice, and 60-70 days of no sunset during the summer, around the summer solstice. So, the time of year when there are "normal" sun cycles are around the equinoxes.
-David N. -Will check back for further discussion. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 198.91.8.12 ( talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool article, thanks contributors! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I changed the main photo for several reasons:
The aerial photograph I replaced it with provides a good overall picture of the South Pole station geography and I think it should definately should be included somewhere in this page. It may not be suitable as a the main photo because the thumbnail is difficult to decipher. Perhaps it could eventually be moved farther into the article and replaced with a picture of the completed new station. JHG 04:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can someone correct the 74 deg celcius error? I'm guessing it was a bit colder than that during 1956/1957. Otherwise a great read, thanks. -- Csnewton 16:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Beginning in the mid 1980s, most seasonal (summer) South Pole personnel have been housed at a cluster of heated retrograde Korean war tents."
Somehow I doubt it is even possible to live in a tent at the south pole, and what is a retrograde tent? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it seems incredible to the reader. This section of the article needs MUCH expanding and explanation IMHO. -- Deglr6328 04:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's a photo of one of the Jamesway tents in summer camp. -- Amble ( talk) 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I just visited the link for the weather at the station at the bottom of the article, and it says that the high temperature is going to be 17掳 F on both this coming Tuesday and Wednesday. However, the articles says that the record high is 鈭13.6掳 C (7.52掳 F) and low is 鈭82.8掳 C (鈭117掳 F).
Is the weather site wrong, the article wrong, or are these really higher that previously recorded temperatures (perhaps global warming...)?
Thanks, BCorr| 袘褉邪泄械薪 02:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
"It currently lies within 100 meters (330 feet) from the Geographic South Pole, and drifts towards the pole at the rate of about 10 meters per year."
Does the station drift towards the pole, or does the pole drift towards the station? If it's the former, does it drift on its own, together with the ice pack, or does the continent drift as a whole?-- Itinerant1 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Geographic poles do not drift, magnetic ones do. The artificial geographic pole marker (striped barber pole) drifts due to the station being located on an ice cap, which is a huge glacier slowly working its way towards the ocean. Continental drift occurs at a speed much too slow to make a noticeable difference over 50-100 years. Even seismically active locations such as Baja California or Vancouver Island drift at less than 1cm/year. Thewalrus 22:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, based on these numbers, it would now be 10 meters on the other side of the pole. Jxmorris 18:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Jxmorris ( talk 鈥 contribs)
In the intro, it says "Snow accumulation is about...3 in/yr." Yet under the Elevated Station, it says "In a location that receives 8 inches of snow per year...". Well, which is it? -- MPD01605 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the food supply/agriculture must be mentioned. I know that the station has a small hydroponics unit for a start. I've already located the record of the memorandum about the hydroponics unit, and would appreciate someone with better qualifications than I writing about it. -- Iamdalto 02:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions "isolated". Does that mean isolated from outside world or from each other? -- Voidvector 15:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The article states this: "The station is completely self-sufficient, and powered by three generators running on JP-8 jet fuel."
If they require restocked jet fuel, doesn't that make them not self-sufficient? If they were wind or solar powered you could claim that I'd think, but not if you have to have jet fuel shipped in from somewhere else. -- BHC ( talk) 鈥擯receding comment was added at 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be helpful here 67.87.184.150 ( talk) 03:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Am I to understand that that "barber pole" marker in the photos nominally marks the position of the actual South Pole? (Allowing for the normal factors that cause the position of the South Pole to vary.)
If so, I think we should mention this, for example in the photo captions. --
201.37.230.43 (
talk)
01:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
"The greenhouse is the only source of fresh fruit and vegetables during the winter." They get enough sunlight in the winter for this, or use artificial "grow lights"? -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 01:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The station is not on the south pole, as close as it is. What is the longitude of the station, thus determining which national claim it might fall within if such claims ever became permanent and recognized? Every 30.864 metres is a second of latitude, so if the center of the building is 92.6 metres from the actual pole (I don't know exactly how far it is - I just dropped in that figure), the latitude of the station would in fact be 89 degrees, 59 minutes, 57 seconds South Latitude. GBC ( talk) 15:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
They are just randomly placed throughout the article with no thought to the text or section they are in. Images are good but when the text is about the station use an aerial (the whole) not a picture of the entrance or bury a great aerial shot at the bottom of the page. Or when the "dome" is mentioned there are no images of the dome.
Articles that have intelligent images are stronger than well written articles with a random selection of pictures that do little to help the reader understand the text.
My suggestion is either marry the right images with the correct sections, or place the images in chronological order. Don't just have them in a random sequence or because they "look good". 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 109.156.28.225 ( talk) 11:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The section of Renee Nicole Doucer contains the following:
This assertion is entirely unsourced. None of the three sources for that paragraph say anything about cargo needing to be removed. Unless I am missing something, it doesn't even make any sense. Cargo is shipped to the station. Doucer was evacuated from the station. "To" and "from" are two different events. The statement in question is saying that cargo that was to be dropped off at the station had to be removed (i.e. dropped off) so there was room for the people on the return trip. Why would you fly cargo to a destination if you weren't already planning to remove it from the plane?
I don't want to change it because I concede that I may be missing something here. If that is the case, it means this sentence needs to be revised to actually make sense. Primium mobile ( talk) 13:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
In the article there is a picture of the geographic south pole sign that has only the US flag shown ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geographic_Southpole_crop.jpg). I wanted to ask if there shouldn't aslo be a Norwagian flag from historical reasons as is shown on newer pictures. Im not sure because i pointed this out a while ago but the change was undone.
If there indeed should be a Norwegian flag, please, repair this article. New image is available here: http://photolibrary.usap.gov/Portscripts/PortWeb.dll?query&field1=Filename&op1=matches&value=GEOSOUTHPOLE%20SIGNFLAGS.JPG&catalog=Antarctica&template=USAPgovMidThumbs . 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.89.59.7 ( talk) 15:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a US station. But all countries with (suspended) claims seem to be welcome.
If a special mention is needed for Norway, there should also be one for the United Kingdom. It is Amundsen-Scott Station, after all, memorialising the great race for the Pole.
2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:8408:3A4F:7532:F9A3 ( talk) 23:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I would query the showing of ANY national flag. The photo is of the South Pole sign which marks a spot pointedly owned by no nation. To show any national symbol is to infer a claim by that nation. Therefore, I believe that the photo be replaced with one not showing the US flag, or the existing photo be cropped to remove the flag? kimdino ( talk) 18:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Ice thickness is stated wrong in this article: The station stands at an elevation of 2,835 meters (9,301 ft) on the interior of Antarctica's nearly featureless ice sheet, which is about 2,850 meters (9,350 ft) thick at that location. The reference for this section http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/support/southp.jsp says: The station stands at an elevation of 2,835 meters (9,306 feet) on Antarctica's nearly featureless ice sheet, which is about 2,700 meters (9,000 feet) thick at that location. The station, which is 850 nautical miles south of McMurdo Station, is drifting with the ice sheet at about 10 meters (33 feet) each year. Somebody obviously did a copy & paste, but it seems the ice thickness was corrected since then. I corrected it and Benfxmth reversed my edit to reinstate the error. While logic in my description was wrong, as Netherlands show that you can actually can be over land when below zero elevation, my correction was still valid as it matches the reference. I suggest to undo the undo to correct the false value again. Christoph194 ( talk) 11:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The somewhat science fair project of a Foucault pendulum (in the stair case "beer can") is still mentioned in the List but should be mentioned here, too, as it is a special place (one of the two most effective ones, the poles) and the set is well understood by many people. My contribution of 19th Nov. 2014 has been reverted these days. Experiment happened in south-winter (means: darkness outside), not north-winter, as the article has been written Oct. 2001. -- Helium4 ( talk) 17:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Taking the high road first, two points. First, there's simply no way to justify having the pendulum in a list of astrophysics projects, which is where it was. And second, while the South Pole may be important to the concept of the pendulum, and that may justify mention of the South Pole on the pendulum pages, the pendulum is completely unimportant to the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, so it's hard to justify it being talked about here. There are plenty of far more important science projects that have been or are at the Pole that are unmentioned or barely mentioned on this page. The most important seismic recording site is at Pole, and it's important in part for exactly the same reason that the pendulum is, that there are no rotational modes to deal with, and, unlike the pendulum, it's STILL at the Pole, but it's not mentioned. Lots of auroral and magnetospheric instruments have been at the Pole for decades and are not mentioned. The cleanest air in the world is sampled at the Pole: not mentioned. The only ozone balloons launched directly into the ozone hole are from the Pole: not mentioned. My point is that to take a single, somewhat dubious, experiment of almost 15 years ago and highlight it in an article that's about the station, not the science at the station, makes no sense at all.
On the lower road, and the reason I said "science fair", if you read the description and results of the pendulum, it's not exactly journal-level research. There are no actual data points, just a rather bizarre account of working toward the final answer, which of course was already known before the project was initiated, and is then simply presented. With an enormous error bar on it. It's funny that in the "talk" page on pendulums, someone wonders if the period recorded was 24 hours or 23.93 hours (a sidereal day). Kind of hard to answer that when your result is +/- 50 minutes! 157.132.22.150 ( talk) 05:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Amundsen鈥揝cott South Pole Station. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. 鈥 cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amundsen鈥揝cott South Pole Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.globalnews.ca/plane+carrying+3+canadians+missing+in+antarctica/6442794393/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Amundsen鈥揝cott South Pole Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
What happened to the section related to the time when the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station was partially located in a dome (1976-2003)? AmigaClone ( talk) 08:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The last few edits have centered around a disagreement over whether a podcast warrants inclusion in the In popular culture section.
I invite 64.98.124.43 to share their thoughts here, especially if they feel I've been unfair in my summary. What do all of you other Wikipedians think?
-- Mockingbus ( talk) 06:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
One of the sources used for the climate box, pogodaiklimat, used for averages and records, seems to have discrepancies between some of the months and what this article says? Can anyone confirm that for me? 122.107.80.18 ( talk) 11:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
In the introduction:
"... it is then continuously dark for the next six months, with approximately two days of averaged dark and light, twilight, namely the equinoxes."
That would appear to say that twilight lasts for only a couple of days at the equinoxes; in between, complete darkness ensues. This is a common misconception, often said by people who should know better.
Actually, there are two weeks of "civil twilight" -- when the ground is still well lit -- on either side of the "night", and then more weeks of "nautical twilight" -- when one can easily see light in the sky. This page shows a correct answer:
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/south-pole Chassimmons ( talk) 20:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I reverted [1] edits crediting the design of the station to Guillermo Trotti and students. The text was sourced to trottistudio.com, but I cannot find any evidence from third-party sources that Trotti and his students designed the station that was built. See for example [2] and [3], which credit Ferraro Choi and Associates. It does seem to be the case that Trotti and his students won a related design competition (although I can't find great sourcing for that either), but I don't see evidence that their design was used for the elevated South Pole station. -- Amble ( talk) 18:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Amundsen鈥揝cott South Pole Station article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
鈥淭he South Pole sees the Sun rise and set only once a year. Due to atmospheric refraction, these [?] do not occur exactly on the September equinox and the March equinox, respectively: the Sun is above the horizon for four days longer at each equinox.鈥
What is the writer trying to say? 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:8408:3A4F:7532:F9A3 ( talk) 23:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I find the timing of this picture highly implausible. August is well within the Southern Hemisphere winter, and thus the sun surely would not be well above the horizon at the South Pole as per this picture. Canopus1968 ( talk) 09:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm calling bullshit on sunrise and sunset once a year. I live in Alaska, and in Barrow there are only 60-70 days of no sunrise during the winter, around the winter solstice, and 60-70 days of no sunset during the summer, around the summer solstice. So, the time of year when there are "normal" sun cycles are around the equinoxes.
-David N. -Will check back for further discussion. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 198.91.8.12 ( talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool article, thanks contributors! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I changed the main photo for several reasons:
The aerial photograph I replaced it with provides a good overall picture of the South Pole station geography and I think it should definately should be included somewhere in this page. It may not be suitable as a the main photo because the thumbnail is difficult to decipher. Perhaps it could eventually be moved farther into the article and replaced with a picture of the completed new station. JHG 04:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can someone correct the 74 deg celcius error? I'm guessing it was a bit colder than that during 1956/1957. Otherwise a great read, thanks. -- Csnewton 16:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Beginning in the mid 1980s, most seasonal (summer) South Pole personnel have been housed at a cluster of heated retrograde Korean war tents."
Somehow I doubt it is even possible to live in a tent at the south pole, and what is a retrograde tent? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it seems incredible to the reader. This section of the article needs MUCH expanding and explanation IMHO. -- Deglr6328 04:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's a photo of one of the Jamesway tents in summer camp. -- Amble ( talk) 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I just visited the link for the weather at the station at the bottom of the article, and it says that the high temperature is going to be 17掳 F on both this coming Tuesday and Wednesday. However, the articles says that the record high is 鈭13.6掳 C (7.52掳 F) and low is 鈭82.8掳 C (鈭117掳 F).
Is the weather site wrong, the article wrong, or are these really higher that previously recorded temperatures (perhaps global warming...)?
Thanks, BCorr| 袘褉邪泄械薪 02:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
"It currently lies within 100 meters (330 feet) from the Geographic South Pole, and drifts towards the pole at the rate of about 10 meters per year."
Does the station drift towards the pole, or does the pole drift towards the station? If it's the former, does it drift on its own, together with the ice pack, or does the continent drift as a whole?-- Itinerant1 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Geographic poles do not drift, magnetic ones do. The artificial geographic pole marker (striped barber pole) drifts due to the station being located on an ice cap, which is a huge glacier slowly working its way towards the ocean. Continental drift occurs at a speed much too slow to make a noticeable difference over 50-100 years. Even seismically active locations such as Baja California or Vancouver Island drift at less than 1cm/year. Thewalrus 22:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, based on these numbers, it would now be 10 meters on the other side of the pole. Jxmorris 18:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Jxmorris ( talk 鈥 contribs)
In the intro, it says "Snow accumulation is about...3 in/yr." Yet under the Elevated Station, it says "In a location that receives 8 inches of snow per year...". Well, which is it? -- MPD01605 00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel that the food supply/agriculture must be mentioned. I know that the station has a small hydroponics unit for a start. I've already located the record of the memorandum about the hydroponics unit, and would appreciate someone with better qualifications than I writing about it. -- Iamdalto 02:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The article mentions "isolated". Does that mean isolated from outside world or from each other? -- Voidvector 15:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The article states this: "The station is completely self-sufficient, and powered by three generators running on JP-8 jet fuel."
If they require restocked jet fuel, doesn't that make them not self-sufficient? If they were wind or solar powered you could claim that I'd think, but not if you have to have jet fuel shipped in from somewhere else. -- BHC ( talk) 鈥擯receding comment was added at 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this would be helpful here 67.87.184.150 ( talk) 03:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Am I to understand that that "barber pole" marker in the photos nominally marks the position of the actual South Pole? (Allowing for the normal factors that cause the position of the South Pole to vary.)
If so, I think we should mention this, for example in the photo captions. --
201.37.230.43 (
talk)
01:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
"The greenhouse is the only source of fresh fruit and vegetables during the winter." They get enough sunlight in the winter for this, or use artificial "grow lights"? -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 01:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The station is not on the south pole, as close as it is. What is the longitude of the station, thus determining which national claim it might fall within if such claims ever became permanent and recognized? Every 30.864 metres is a second of latitude, so if the center of the building is 92.6 metres from the actual pole (I don't know exactly how far it is - I just dropped in that figure), the latitude of the station would in fact be 89 degrees, 59 minutes, 57 seconds South Latitude. GBC ( talk) 15:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
They are just randomly placed throughout the article with no thought to the text or section they are in. Images are good but when the text is about the station use an aerial (the whole) not a picture of the entrance or bury a great aerial shot at the bottom of the page. Or when the "dome" is mentioned there are no images of the dome.
Articles that have intelligent images are stronger than well written articles with a random selection of pictures that do little to help the reader understand the text.
My suggestion is either marry the right images with the correct sections, or place the images in chronological order. Don't just have them in a random sequence or because they "look good". 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 109.156.28.225 ( talk) 11:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The section of Renee Nicole Doucer contains the following:
This assertion is entirely unsourced. None of the three sources for that paragraph say anything about cargo needing to be removed. Unless I am missing something, it doesn't even make any sense. Cargo is shipped to the station. Doucer was evacuated from the station. "To" and "from" are two different events. The statement in question is saying that cargo that was to be dropped off at the station had to be removed (i.e. dropped off) so there was room for the people on the return trip. Why would you fly cargo to a destination if you weren't already planning to remove it from the plane?
I don't want to change it because I concede that I may be missing something here. If that is the case, it means this sentence needs to be revised to actually make sense. Primium mobile ( talk) 13:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
In the article there is a picture of the geographic south pole sign that has only the US flag shown ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geographic_Southpole_crop.jpg). I wanted to ask if there shouldn't aslo be a Norwagian flag from historical reasons as is shown on newer pictures. Im not sure because i pointed this out a while ago but the change was undone.
If there indeed should be a Norwegian flag, please, repair this article. New image is available here: http://photolibrary.usap.gov/Portscripts/PortWeb.dll?query&field1=Filename&op1=matches&value=GEOSOUTHPOLE%20SIGNFLAGS.JPG&catalog=Antarctica&template=USAPgovMidThumbs . 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.89.59.7 ( talk) 15:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a US station. But all countries with (suspended) claims seem to be welcome.
If a special mention is needed for Norway, there should also be one for the United Kingdom. It is Amundsen-Scott Station, after all, memorialising the great race for the Pole.
2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:8408:3A4F:7532:F9A3 ( talk) 23:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I would query the showing of ANY national flag. The photo is of the South Pole sign which marks a spot pointedly owned by no nation. To show any national symbol is to infer a claim by that nation. Therefore, I believe that the photo be replaced with one not showing the US flag, or the existing photo be cropped to remove the flag? kimdino ( talk) 18:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Ice thickness is stated wrong in this article: The station stands at an elevation of 2,835 meters (9,301 ft) on the interior of Antarctica's nearly featureless ice sheet, which is about 2,850 meters (9,350 ft) thick at that location. The reference for this section http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/support/southp.jsp says: The station stands at an elevation of 2,835 meters (9,306 feet) on Antarctica's nearly featureless ice sheet, which is about 2,700 meters (9,000 feet) thick at that location. The station, which is 850 nautical miles south of McMurdo Station, is drifting with the ice sheet at about 10 meters (33 feet) each year. Somebody obviously did a copy & paste, but it seems the ice thickness was corrected since then. I corrected it and Benfxmth reversed my edit to reinstate the error. While logic in my description was wrong, as Netherlands show that you can actually can be over land when below zero elevation, my correction was still valid as it matches the reference. I suggest to undo the undo to correct the false value again. Christoph194 ( talk) 11:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The somewhat science fair project of a Foucault pendulum (in the stair case "beer can") is still mentioned in the List but should be mentioned here, too, as it is a special place (one of the two most effective ones, the poles) and the set is well understood by many people. My contribution of 19th Nov. 2014 has been reverted these days. Experiment happened in south-winter (means: darkness outside), not north-winter, as the article has been written Oct. 2001. -- Helium4 ( talk) 17:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Taking the high road first, two points. First, there's simply no way to justify having the pendulum in a list of astrophysics projects, which is where it was. And second, while the South Pole may be important to the concept of the pendulum, and that may justify mention of the South Pole on the pendulum pages, the pendulum is completely unimportant to the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, so it's hard to justify it being talked about here. There are plenty of far more important science projects that have been or are at the Pole that are unmentioned or barely mentioned on this page. The most important seismic recording site is at Pole, and it's important in part for exactly the same reason that the pendulum is, that there are no rotational modes to deal with, and, unlike the pendulum, it's STILL at the Pole, but it's not mentioned. Lots of auroral and magnetospheric instruments have been at the Pole for decades and are not mentioned. The cleanest air in the world is sampled at the Pole: not mentioned. The only ozone balloons launched directly into the ozone hole are from the Pole: not mentioned. My point is that to take a single, somewhat dubious, experiment of almost 15 years ago and highlight it in an article that's about the station, not the science at the station, makes no sense at all.
On the lower road, and the reason I said "science fair", if you read the description and results of the pendulum, it's not exactly journal-level research. There are no actual data points, just a rather bizarre account of working toward the final answer, which of course was already known before the project was initiated, and is then simply presented. With an enormous error bar on it. It's funny that in the "talk" page on pendulums, someone wonders if the period recorded was 24 hours or 23.93 hours (a sidereal day). Kind of hard to answer that when your result is +/- 50 minutes! 157.132.22.150 ( talk) 05:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Amundsen鈥揝cott South Pole Station. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. 鈥 cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amundsen鈥揝cott South Pole Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.globalnews.ca/plane+carrying+3+canadians+missing+in+antarctica/6442794393/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Amundsen鈥揝cott South Pole Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
What happened to the section related to the time when the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station was partially located in a dome (1976-2003)? AmigaClone ( talk) 08:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The last few edits have centered around a disagreement over whether a podcast warrants inclusion in the In popular culture section.
I invite 64.98.124.43 to share their thoughts here, especially if they feel I've been unfair in my summary. What do all of you other Wikipedians think?
-- Mockingbus ( talk) 06:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
One of the sources used for the climate box, pogodaiklimat, used for averages and records, seems to have discrepancies between some of the months and what this article says? Can anyone confirm that for me? 122.107.80.18 ( talk) 11:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
In the introduction:
"... it is then continuously dark for the next six months, with approximately two days of averaged dark and light, twilight, namely the equinoxes."
That would appear to say that twilight lasts for only a couple of days at the equinoxes; in between, complete darkness ensues. This is a common misconception, often said by people who should know better.
Actually, there are two weeks of "civil twilight" -- when the ground is still well lit -- on either side of the "night", and then more weeks of "nautical twilight" -- when one can easily see light in the sky. This page shows a correct answer:
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/antarctica/south-pole Chassimmons ( talk) 20:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I reverted [1] edits crediting the design of the station to Guillermo Trotti and students. The text was sourced to trottistudio.com, but I cannot find any evidence from third-party sources that Trotti and his students designed the station that was built. See for example [2] and [3], which credit Ferraro Choi and Associates. It does seem to be the case that Trotti and his students won a related design competition (although I can't find great sourcing for that either), but I don't see evidence that their design was used for the elevated South Pole station. -- Amble ( talk) 18:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)