would a side effect of climate change being left unchecked be Antarctica becoming habitable?

Answer 1

No. Quite the opposite.

If you accept the "consensus" view of global climate change as put forth by the IPCC, then you can read the IPCC AR4 and find that Antarctica is NOT included in their calculations for global warming. If it had, then the amount of warming that has been reported would be much lower, since Antarctica is undergoing net cooling and net increase of polar ice.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf

"It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM.4). The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing."

In other words, when Antarctica is included, it makes the overall global warming look more like a natural occurrence.

Answer 2

No. It's long been a desert. Little precipitation, although what falls stays there as ice now. No fertile soil.

It could get warm, but it will still be a lifeless desert.

Campbelp2002 - The problem is that things like coastlines were very different when the Earth was warmer. The economic cost of unreduced global warming in rich countries would send the world into a Depression that would make the 1930s look like good times.

In poor countries already struggling to feed themselves people _will_ die of starvation. Not all, but not just a few. Countries like Bangladesh, with much low lying agricultural land, are particularly at risk.

DeusExMachina - It's true that mainland Antarctica has a low rate of warming right now. But the Antarctic Peninsula has a high rate of warming. There are local variations around the world in how fast global arming is happening, but it's not like Antarctica "isn't affected" and won't warm.

Answer 3

The short answer would be no.

Antarctica is extremely cold. The extreme temperatures at the permanently-manned South Pole station are -14 to -81?C, and at Vostok -21 to -89?C. Near the coast above-freezing temperatures occasionally occur, and they are common on the Palmer Peninsula. But the annual mean is below 0 deg C everywhere.

I don't think that an additional 5 to 10 degrees fahrenheit would suddenly make Antarctica a desirable place, unless you want to live on rocks, covered in ice for 11 months a year.

Answer 4

It would probably take some time after most of the ice melted before conditions would be right for plants and animals to form a viable ecosystem.

As a side note if Antarctica did lose its ice you could expect some serious problems as nations try to grab a slice. Already many nations have territorial claims on various portions of the continent but most have agreed to postpone acting on those claims and cooperate in scientific research. But if the ice melts and Antarctica's resources become accessible you can be pretty sure that all bets will be off. There will be a scramble to assert land claims and possibly wars.

Answer 5

That's one of the exciting things for the scientists, sad as it is. They are finding that huge major ecosystems have been living beneath the ice all along. These are being seen for the first time, as this ice has been there since prior to the FIRST ice age, not to mention the last. Whether any of those new species will survive isn't knowable at this point, but it seems unlikely to me. Its estimated the altitude of most of the continent will increase by about 4 miles as its relieved of the weight of the ice. This land hasn't been temperate since Pangea. Whether it will be sterile, or have endemic species emerge, perhaps from frozen seeds, or whether it can be seeded with foreign floral and fauna are all big questions. It's happeneing so fast we'll get to see the answer to those questions in our lifetime.

Answer 6

Nobody is predicting the warming will go that far. Certainly no scientists. Certainly not Al Gore. But I suppose if it did then it would. It was habitable millions of years ago, when natural warming at that time made it that way. I really think people are over reacting to the whole global warming thing. Even if it got warmer than the wildest predictions, it would not be warmer than the Earth has been in the distant past. And life in that distant past time thrived in the warm climate. It wasn't bad for life at all. Global warming is just NOT going to kill people. It just isn't.

Answer 7

Not really. In theory--if global warming got bad enough for long enough, the Antartic iceca would melt ant the continent would warm up ennough to be habitable.

But--first, its almost certain that global warming will not be that bad. Second, it would take centuries.

Third--it wouldn't matter to us because most of the rest of the Earth would be so hot --not to mention a sea-level rise of about 300 feet--that most of the surface of Earth woud be unhabitable. A few humans might survive--but our civilization would be long gone by the time things reached that point.

Answer 8

YOU MUST BE KIDDING? BEFORE ANTARCTICA IS HABITABLE ALL NORTH AMERICA WILL BE UNDER WATER. BANGLADESH WILL BE THE FIRST OVER-POPULATED AREA TO GET THE GLOBAL WARMING AX.
WHERE WILL ALL THOSE WHO SURVIVE GO? I HOPE THEY DON'T COME HERE. I LIKE MY PRIVACY.

Answer 9

A whole new land rush. Where do I By a boat or a ark.

Answer 10

everyone's going to give me thumbs down, but i don't care. anyways, the answer is anarctica isn't affected by global warming. i had the link to it, but i've lost it. i'll edit it in if i find it.