The reduction of sea ice in Antarctica can have detrimental effects on wildlife, particularly species that rely on sea ice for breeding, resting, and foraging, such as seals, penguins, and krill. Reduced sea ice limits access to food sources and safe breeding grounds, leading to population declines and alterations in food webs. Additionally, loss of sea ice can disrupt the balance of ecosystems and impact biodiversity in the region.
Without mining in Antarctica, there would be a reduced risk of environmental damage, such as pollution and habitat destruction, to this fragile and pristine ecosystem. It would help preserve the unique wildlife and landscapes found in the region, as well as prevent any potential conflicts over resource extraction in the area.
The North and South Poles would be located at the same positions as they are currently, with the North Pole at the top of the Earth and the South Pole at the bottom. Antarctica's position would not affect the locations of the poles.
You would say "El cielo es azul" in Antarctica, as you would in any Spanish-speaking region.
At 80 degrees south latitude and 80 degrees east longitude, you would be near the coastline of Antarctica, in the southernmost part of the continent. This area is characterized by extreme cold temperatures, ice shelves, and unique wildlife such as penguins and seals.
If a volcano were to erupt on Antarctica, it could potentially melt a large amount of ice, leading to increased water flow and potential flooding. The ash and gases released during the eruption could affect the atmosphere and climate. The remote location would likely limit immediate human impact.
In some ways yes: without the Antarctic Treaty many humans probably would have continued destroying Antarctica. However if we don't do something about global warming it might have just delayed their execution. However in the division of countries for certain parts of Antarctica there are a few countries that prohibit this and allow that, meaning animals in different parts of Antarctica are affected in different ways. All in all yes it did affect the wildlife. But for the better or the worse is up to you.
It wouldn't
Affect? Affect? Not affect- disaster!
because of its wildlife and because if antartartica melted the sea level would rise.
Scientists go to Antarctica to study the local wildlife, perform experiments in the local conditions, and observe the affects that humanity has on this part of the world (global warming, etc).
Without mining in Antarctica, there would be a reduced risk of environmental damage, such as pollution and habitat destruction, to this fragile and pristine ecosystem. It would help preserve the unique wildlife and landscapes found in the region, as well as prevent any potential conflicts over resource extraction in the area.
Well, the same thing that happens every where else. A general natural break down in the area in which all the surrounding wildlife would be affected.
The economy's production possibilities would drop if there was a reduction in the number of hours worked each day. Since, production is dependent on labor, there would be less products produced.
The North and South Poles would be located at the same positions as they are currently, with the North Pole at the top of the Earth and the South Pole at the bottom. Antarctica's position would not affect the locations of the poles.
Answer Hi Wildlife in Antarctica will eventually become extinct if all the ice melts from global warming, as the temperatures would be too high for them to handle and there would be no land mass cold enough for them to exist on. Unless they manage to evolve in time (which is not likely), this would be the result. bye
if you kept them in your house as a pet, then they would die... they need to be in wildlife to live!
It would have zero effect.The length of a day is determined by one's location on the planet.