News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Seems arbitrary to exclude Antarctica.
Excluding it means we're talking about the portion of Earth that humans can actually live on
I realize it's a convenient landmass with one name, but there are other parts of the earth with very low population densities because they are so inhospitable, and it's not because they are dry.
It's convenient because it's the only continent without a native population. If you want to make an alternative calculation based on population density go for it.
There is no other landmass of relevant size without any human habitation.
Including Antarctica just wouldn't make sense.
This is an article about how the places humans live in are drying out.
Literally no one is permanently living in Antarctica. Some people stay there for a year, but they are 100% supplied with resources produced elsewhere.
And the continent is incredibly huge, so including it would skew the numbers.
Replying to myself with some facts I had to look up.
Antarctica seems to have about 14.2M sq km of land, almost all of which is permanently covered with ice. The total land area on earth is about 148.9M sq km. That makes Antarctica 9.5% of the land mass. So 40% (a bit round) drylands excluding Antarctica would mean 36% drylands including Antarctica. I'm suspicious of the 40% number, but the Guardian thinks I've read too many articles with an ad blocker recently.
Finding how much land outside of Antarctica is covered with ice is harder. One thing that tips the balance to Antarctica is that there isn't nearly as much land at the North Pole, although there is a lot of sea ice.
I found multiple estimates of Greenland ice area here. Seems like about 1.7M sq km may be a reasonable and recent estimate. That alone is 12% of the land mass of Antarctica. There are about 200,000 glaciers of various sizes elsewhere, but the largest seem to be under 10,000 sq km, so it's a bit daunting to total them up. They're also often measured by length rather than area, and in sub-polar regions they will change in size throughout the year. Ice caps on islands, meanwhile, may be larger than the land they sit on. So that's going to make it hard to determine land covered by ice.
If I try to find out the total amount of land not permanently covered by ice, if there is any inaccuracy or inconsistency at all the subtraction of one large number from another could give a wildly incorrect result.
Those calculation difficulties may be reason enough to treat Antarctica as special because of convenience, as I mention elsewhere. Is that a valid reason to write 40% instead of 36%? Sure, for lay writing.
Antarctica doesn't really count as land. Except the coast, the actual land is inaccessible, it's all covered in ice.
For now, anyway. Its melting is accelerating.
You're more correct than you know: even when it does all melt, what seems now to be a single continent is actually going to be more like a big archipelago:
(Not sure if isostatic rebound will eventually bring it all above sea level or not.)
I mean, yes, there's land there, but it's less than people think.
But they could count the land area of Antarctica in the calculation. There's no need to count the varying ice area.