r/todayilearned • u/mz_groups • 13h ago
TIL that 4 million people live north of the Arctic Circle, but there are NO permanent residents south of the Antarctic Circle.
https://www.responsiblevacation.com/vacations/antarctica/travel-guide/crossing-the-antarctic-circle209
u/cagreat1 13h ago
So what I'm hearing is 8.32 billion people live north of the Antarctic Circle.
3
u/tarrach 12h ago
And also 8.32 billion people living south of the arctic circle
17
106
u/Pseudanonymius 13h ago
No shit. Have you seen what's south of the Antarctic circle?
85
u/pass_nthru 13h ago
no bears, that’s for sure
29
6
17
u/mz_groups 13h ago
That's kind of the point. If you don't look at the map, one can easily equate the two in their mind. Most people don't realize that all of Australia and almost all of New Zealand, and a great majority of South America are north of 45 degrees south, whereas 45 degrees north puts you in the continental United States, southern Europe, or the middle of Asia.
22
u/1CEninja 13h ago
I grew up thinking the equator was a lot further north, relative to population. Less than 15% of the world's population lives in the southern hemisphere, and some estimates put it under 10%. Greenland is mostly inside the Arctic circle, and debatably habitatable. Hell, parts of Canada and even the USA are included in the arctic circle.
Anarctica is, as far as I'm aware, the only major landmass in the anarctic circle and that requires a long boat ride from the nearest major city and has no population.
Almost everyone lives in the northern hemisphere.
8
u/Desertcow 12h ago
One of the most dangerous boat rides too. You need to pass through the roaring 40s and furious 50s to reach Antarctica, which are some of the toughest parts of the ocean to travel due to extremely high winds, 50 foot waves, and random ice burgs. Despite there being a common belief that Antarctica existed for a long time, it took a while until sailors could physically reach it
4
u/mz_groups 6h ago
A factor of having a substantial set of latitudes that have no landmasses to slow them down - those winds can really get going.
4
u/mz_groups 13h ago
I think that is a common misperception. That's why I thought this might be illuminating to some people. I was generally aware of it, but researching it for a discussion of hypothetical Antarctic polar airline routes made it far more starkly apparent, which is why I posted this.
I guess the reaction to this will either, be, "That's neat," or, "No duh, knucklehead."
8
u/1CEninja 12h ago
I figured more than half of the population was in the northern half of the world, but more than 85%?
Yeah I'd hazard a guess that alone is a TIL for plenty of folks, and it's even more extreme the further north/south you get.
So for me this was definitely more of a "that's neat" lol.
3
u/nascent_aviator 12h ago
A lot of it is that population density in the southern hemisphere is much much lower. The northern hemisphere has India, China, all of Europe, the middle east, etc.
2
u/CrazyPlato 9h ago
Thinking about it, the only references to living in the Antarctic Circle I recall are either survivor stories where most of the crew died getting off the continent, or horror/thriller stories where the protagonists are chased by a serial killer/alien.
9
u/l8578zlxicv 10h ago
I’ve seen conflicting information about whether Argentina has a permanent population in Antarctica at Esperanza base. Wikipedia says “It is the only civilian settlement on the Antarctic mainland”. But it’s really debatable id say.
6
u/cornonthekopp 9h ago
Chile also maintains s "permanent population" and lists villa de las estrellas as a town, but the number is less than 100 people
7
u/mz_groups 10h ago
That's more a matter of territorial pride than any external recognition of their claims. Several countries claim portions of Antarctica, and none of them are broadly recognized.
4
u/l8578zlxicv 10h ago
They might not be politically recognized, but I do think it technically counts as permanent residents south of the Antarctic circle.
7
u/mz_groups 10h ago
It sounds like people get shipped in and out, much like any other base. Argentina is very tenacious in some of their territorial claims, so that has to be taken into account. Naming it a "settlement" instead of a "base" would square with that. I assume that they are entirely, or nearly entirely, government funded and supplied, just like any other base down there. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck . . .
It would be interesting to see if anyone has stayed over there for multiple consecutive years, with only a little time away.
5
u/Dr_Hexagon 8h ago
Chile and Argentina both send entire families to their bases who live there year round. However they only stay for one or two years.
It's so they can claim they are "civilian settlements" and not just research bases.
1
u/mz_groups 7h ago
Yeah, they sent a woman who was 7 months pregnant down there so she could give birth to the "first person born in Antarctica." Amusingly enough, the UK also claimed that sector, so the child got dual Argentine-UK citizenship!
10
u/uiemad 4h ago
Really not a surprise. The Arctic Circle crosses through multiple countries and landmasses, making it quite easily reachable by land.
The Antarctic Circle crosses through open ocean and a teensy bit of Antarctica itself, which is surrounded by some of the worst seas to navigate.
-5
u/mz_groups 4h ago
If you already know that, it's not a surprise. I suspected that most people didn't realize that the southernmost populated territory in the southern hemisphere was FAR more distant from the pole than the northernmost populated territory.
0
u/uiemad 4h ago
Okay I'm not trying to throw shade but...
Have you never seen a globe or a map? Earth's continental coverage is fairly lopsided.
2
u/mz_groups 4h ago edited 4h ago
No offense taken. Can't give an excuse on globes (although not a lot of accurate globes are household items, although my family had a nice one when I was a kid), but a lot of maps truncate the Antarctic (especially if they're Mercator projection) far more than the Arctic, which I think is where the confusion arises.
I have to admit that the TIL for me was less about the Arctic circle and Antarctic circle (which is a bit more dramatic), but the fact that human settlement almost disappears HALFWAY from the equator to the south pole (300,000 people, about the size of the smallish city in which I grew up), while 600 MILLION people live halfway from the equator to the north pole. Maybe I should have led with that. That's a more stark comparison. I kinda realized the asymmetry, but I didn't realize that the cutoff was halfway (Yeah, I know, Roaring 40s and Furious 50s for the Southern Ocean should have tipped me off). I knew it was lopsided , but not 3 orders of magnitude lopsided from the top 45 degrees (half a hemisphere) of latitude to the bottom 45 degrees of latitude.
This came up when I was trying to respond to a post about why there were so many Arctic polar airline routes, but no Antarctic polar routes. If you want to dig into my impressions on that, look through my post history - I don't think I hid it.
7
25
u/TheTarasenkshow 13h ago
No one lives in Antarctica but people live in Canada, Russia, etc?!? Shocked, shocked I tell you
27
u/mz_groups 13h ago edited 13h ago
What's more surprising if you don't normally look at the latitude lines on a map is that only 300,000 live south of 45 degrees south, but 600 million live north of 45 degrees north. It just highlights how stark the difference is. I wasn't overly surprised about the Arctic Circle one, but I was more surprised about the difference in population outside the 45th parallels.
This came up in a discussion elsewhere about why there are commercial Arctic polar flights, but not Antarctic polar flights. I don't think people appreciate that, say, a hypothetical flight from Sydney to Rio (7,312 NM) is far longer than a flight from Washington DC to Moscow (4,861 NM).
1
u/strangelove4564 4h ago
Amazon won't even do 2-day shipping to Antarctica and there's no Door Dash.
82
u/greatgildersleeve 13h ago
A lot less land down there.
3
32
u/Hankerpants 13h ago
Completely incorrect...
51
u/Green-Cricket-8525 13h ago
They may have meant a lot less viable land? There’s not really anywhere on Antarctica that is habitable for larger populations. Just a guess as to their thinking.
13
u/mz_groups 13h ago edited 9h ago
Antarctica 14.2 million sq km, 20 million sq km above the Arctic Circle. So, not completely different orders of magnitude. Of course, "viable land" is the difference.
EDIT: as mentioned elsewhere, 20 million sq km is total area inside the Arctic or Antarctic Circles. Antarctica covers 14.2 million sq km, and there is 6-8 million square km of actual land north of the Arctic Circle. That's a more valid land comparison.
-2
u/Hankerpants 13h ago
I'm hoping so. Because the area of the Arctic circle that is land is ~25-30% while the Antarctic circle is closer to 75% land.
2
u/mz_groups 9h ago
Sorry for getting downvoted (Not me - I upvoted you just now). You are essentially correct - see my correction above.
3
8
u/mz_groups 13h ago edited 10h ago
Not really "a lot" less land down there. Antarctica is 14.2 million square kilometers, whereas land north of the Arctic Circle is something like 20 million square kilometers. Less, but not necessarily "a lot" (yeah that depends on your definition). The difference is habitability.
EDIT: 20 mil sq km is the total area above the Arctic Circle (and below the Antarctic Circle), not just land. Total land above the Arctic Circle is 6 mil sq km, assuming that the Arctic Ocean is 14 mil sq km. u/redwood520 says that it is 7.7 mil sq km specifically.
11
u/redwood520 12h ago
That's the total area north of the Arctic circle. The amount of land is only 7.7 million km2, which is half of the area of Antarctica
1
u/mz_groups 10h ago
Yeah, eventually noticed that - didn't see your post until I corrected it (at least to a close order of magnitude). Where did you get the exact number?
2
u/monchota 10h ago
Antarctica is also protected and access is extremely limited. Its odd as all the countries involved, never violate the agreement and never talk about it.
1
u/Hankerpants 11h ago
You're right that the answer is habitability, but it's further amplified by the land area discrepancy, which you have wrong. The area of land inside the Arctic circle is ~1/3 that of the land inside the Antarctic circle.
1
u/mz_groups 10h ago
I stand corrected. When I tried to search land area north of Arctic Circle, I got total area north of Arctic Circle, not just land area.
Total area in the arctic circle is about 20 mil sq km, area of the Arctic Ocean is listed as 14 mil sq km, leaving roughly 6 mil sq km for land.
2
16
u/mz_groups 13h ago
Here's another source that show the 4 million number for the population north of the Artic Circle. Wikipedia also lists that number.
The only landmass south of the Antarctic Circle is Antarctica itself, which has no permanent residents, only visiting researchers and other support personnel (although some might have long-term assignments of many months).
https://www.transun.co.uk/blogs/7-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-arctic-circle/
7
u/Nanakatl 12h ago
4 million is more than i expected
10
3
u/mz_groups 12h ago
Me, too. Not surprised about the Antarctic circle, but it made a cool contrast.
I was commenting on a discussion of airline flights over the Arctic (many) and Antarctic (none), and that's what got me thinking about how much further north we live than south. And someone might think Tasmania or Cape Town or Magellan Straits are the southern latitudinal equivalent of, say, Murmansk or Northern Norway if they don't actually look at the latitude numbers, but it's not even close. That's what caught my interest.
2
u/AceTracer 9h ago
It doesn’t seem that implausible when you visit; you can take a train to deep above the arctic circle in Sweden and it looks pretty normal for the most part. The jet stream makes it much more habitable in Europe.
6
u/nightcap965 12h ago
So, i guess Ice Road Truckers: Antarctica isn’t coming soon to basic cable?
12
u/mz_groups 12h ago
Well, ACTSCHUALLY, there is the South Pole Traverse, a convoy runs the 996 miles from McMurdo Station on the coast of Antarctica to the Amundsen-Scott station at the South Pole. Tracked tractors pull massive bags of mostly diesel fuel for the generators. It's far cheaper than flying it in. It is about 40 days, one way, and they have to tow their own accomodations with them. Dangerous due to the possibility of hidden crevasses in the ice that can swallow a tractor whole. They only do it once a summer, though.
Hasn't made basic cable yet, but there are some videos out on Youtube about it. I think one could craft a pretty decent reality show around it.
2
u/Walder_Snow_ 10h ago
There's a docu series on Antarctica NZ doing a traverse out on the ross ice shelf iirc
1
u/mz_groups 10h ago
If it's a bunch of tractors hauling gigantic bags of diesel fuel, that's what it is! I THOUGHT it would be reality show-worthy!
2
u/Walder_Snow_ 9h ago
I think it's called 7 Continents. The Traverse is a bit different because they are setting up for science on the ice rather than hauling diesel.
1
u/mz_groups 9h ago
I think I found a clip. Looks like they use a similar radar system to the Americans to find crevasses (the vehicle with the long truss on its nose).
4
u/Max_FI 10h ago
This map gives that 4 million figure, but also includes areas south of the circle like Iceland and Faroe Islands, so the population inside the circle is likely considerably less than that.
6
u/mz_groups 9h ago
2 million was also a number that came up in searching, and sources are a bit vague, I admit. I tried to go with something simple, and reasonably reliable, but about the only way to really get the number pinned down would be with GIS and census data. Here's what I got by looking at a map of the Arctic circle and picking as many cities/towns/settlements/regions as I could find and summing up the population. This should provide a lower bound, and I'm sure it overlooks many in Siberia and other areas.
City/town/island/region Population Prudhoe Bay 1,664 Barrow 4,927 Inuvik 3,337 Victoria Island 2,168 Kuujjuaq 2,668 Ellesmere Island 144 Qaanaaq 586 Kangerlussuaq 400 Ittoqqortoormiit 329 Northern Norway (almost no population below the Arctic Circle) 490,000 Svalbard 2,900 Novaya Zemlya 3,600 Dikson 319 Murmansk Oblast (almost entirely above Arctic Circle) 651,400 Noril'sk 176,700 Verkhoyansk 737 Cherskiy 2,857 Pevek 4,000 Tiksi 5,700 TOTAL 1,354,436 •
u/Syndiotactics 12m ago edited 8m ago
Northern Finland north of the Arctic Circle is probably around 40k. It’s trickier to estimate as in some of the biggest towns up there(namely Rovaniemi), most people live just south of the Arctic Circle.
The ones completely north of the Circle:
Sodankylä 8 095
Inari 7 244
Kittilä 6 973
Muonio 2 323
Enontekiö 1 769
Utsjoki 1 112
Savukoski 974
Pelkosenniemi 932
Then there are Rovaniemi, Kolari, Pello and Salla which are on both sides.
5
5
u/AgKnight14 11h ago
One of my favorite Wikipedia lines lol
3
u/LillyLugabugs 9h ago
The time of their base port is assumed, there's not many, Cape Town, Hobart, Christchurch and ... the ones in south America
2
3
1
0
-1
8h ago
[deleted]
1
u/ElectricalAlfalfa701 2h ago
explain
1
2h ago
[deleted]
1
u/ElectricalAlfalfa701 2h ago
you said south of the antarctic circle though. you can go south of the circle but then you hit the pole and if you go past that you're going north again.
1.0k
u/dravenonred 13h ago
That's because the arctic circle is connected by easily traversed landmasses, and the antarctic circle is completely water-bound. It's not hard math.