New Record High Temperature At South Pole 387
New submitter Titus Andronicus writes "The South Pole experienced its highest-ever recorded temperature of -12.3C (+9.9F) on December 25, 2011, according to preliminary reporting from the Antarctic Meteorological Research Center at the University of Wisconsin."
Weather, not climate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
no, they should move the thermometers further away from the exhausts of the air conditioning units ...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Air conditioning units are something you find in warm climates. Just sayin...
Off-topic:
Having grown up in Scandinavia without any air conditioners or even fans, and moving to the US as an adult, I have come to the conclusion that at least part of the reason why Americans are so loud is to be heard over the air conditioning. Many of them are so conditioned (npi) that they're unaware how loud those things are, even the "quiet" ones. When they get someplace quiet, they feel a strong urge to add sound, beca
as an American... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:as an American... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh man! Thank GOD you beat that addiction. Fan dependence and ODing is a serious problem! Just ask any South Korean!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does is there such a hatred of air conditioning? I post like yours all the time. But nobody complains about heating. It's much more efficient to live in a warm area and have to cool the house 10 degrees than live in a cold area and warm it 60.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does is there such a hatred of air conditioning? I post like yours all the time. But nobody complains about heating. It's much more efficient to live in a warm area and have to cool the house 10 degrees than live in a cold area and warm it 60.
Because you can get quiet heaters. There's no such thing as a silent air conditioner.
Re: (Score:3)
Because you can get quiet heaters. There's no such thing as a silent air conditioner.
Central air can be silent. Small forced air heaters can be noisy. Ridiculous argument is ridiculous.
Re:Weather, not climate (Score:4, Informative)
Central air can be silent.
No, it can't. You have to move the air, which causes noise.
The difference between heating and cooling are many.
You can easily convert energy into heat, another form of energy. But you can't convert it into cold, which is the lack of energy. You have to generate heat to generate cold -- in fact, more heat than you generate cold, due to entropy.
Add to this that heat radiates, while cold doesn't. The best you can achieve is not reflecting heat back. So you need to distribute the cold, which takes fans and ducts, and invariably generates noise.
Unless you have a room with the ceiling consisting of peltier elements, this means moving the cold air from somewhere else to where you want it, and this generates quite a bit of noise. If you're used to 10 dB ambient sound levels when no one is talking, a "silent" central air unit of 30-35 dB sounds rather loud. I know, because I sit in an office with central air right now. Those who are conditioned to the sound won't hear it, but central air is far from silent.
People here can't hear a mosquito from across the room or their watch ticking on their arm, because it's never silent. In large parts due to air conditioning, including central air.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have to generate heat to generate cold -- in fact, more heat than you generate cold, due to entropy.
That's not true. An air conditioner is a heat pump, it moves heat from one place to the other, doesn't create it. A heater converts electricity in heat, so it creates heat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maxwell's demon (Score:3)
A heater converts energy from one form to another. i.e. electricity to heat.
A cooler is a heat pump - it moves "heat" from one point to another, hotter, point.
It is easier to get a high efficiency from a heater because most forms of inefficiency in a system turn out to be “waste” heat – i.e. what you want. Moving heat from one point to another is different. It’s though to get a highly efficient method of moving heat – unless you have demons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell' [wikipedia.org]
Re:Maxwell's demon (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true. An air conditioner is a heat pump, it moves heat from one place to the other, doesn't create it.
It does both, by necessity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
False. Well, just about anything causes some noise, but it does not need to be noticeable. Think for a second. Recording studios and TV stations need air conditoining, and have strict limits onthe amount of noise that is tolerable.
False. "Converting" energy into cold is the purpose of air conditioning
Re:Weather, not climate (Score:4, Funny)
Why does is there such a hatred of air conditioning? I post like yours all the time.
Can somebody translate that to human?
Re: (Score:2)
Why does is there such a hatred of air conditioning?
Nobody who lives in a hot and/or humid environment hates AC. Those who don't live in such an environment lack the experience to judge.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You should be happy that it was on at all while you weren't in the room. In Japan the whole room - air conditioner, lights, electrical outlets - cut off when you leave, because they are only enabled when your room key is in a slot just inside the door.
In general, making a few stereotypical assumptions, the air conditioners are probably "undersized" because A) Europeans don't mind a little sweat to conserve energy, and B) Europeans probably have less body fat to cool down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with the price of eggs in Mongolia?
Europe less extreme than US (Score:5, Insightful)
A First World country wherein thousands of people die simply because it was hot outside? What's wrong with this picture?
Perhaps you should ask the people in the Chicago? The difference is that a lot of Europe rarely (or at least it used to be rarely) gets hot enough to require air conditioning in contrast to parts of the US that trace their population growth to the invention of air conditioning due to the stifling heat (at least that's what Atlanta claimed in some of it tourist literature several years ago).
I would hazard a guess the the main reason for this is that the US is at a lower latitude that much of Europe and lacks the moderating influence of the ocean (no Mediterranean, Rockies block air from Pacific), but I am by no means an expert in such matters. Whatever the cause the US does seem to be, on average, hotter than much of Europe in the summer and colder in the winter. Europe does get hot but not for the prolonged months that the US seems to suffer. This means that not only is air conditioning a lot less common but heat waves occur far less frequently and are typically less severe so, when bad ones do happen, there are far more vulnerable people around because their population has not been reduced by frequent heat waves and there is little/no air conditioning available to help.....of course this does not explain the deaths in Chicago but I'll let you figure out why they happened.
Re:Weather, not climate (Score:4, Interesting)
No, 15,000 people decided to just randomly die at the same time for no apparent reason.
It just happened to correspond with a huge heat wave. There was zero correlation.
Next question...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But how do we know this? What is the basis for compensation. A man's hypothesis....
Few of these things are really fully testable in a scientific way. And when so many have been compromised, it does leaving evaluation to be questioned.
Remember, we're talking about a degree difference in temperature. Than dismissing any variance from these numerous weather gauges in inappropriate locations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No man! You *just don't "get it"*!
You forgot the first rule of a climate crisis situation!
In a climate crisis situation, anything that appears to support your idea that you're in a climate crisis is valid data. Anything that does not is pooh-pooh'ed away! Even if it's working off the same principle!
Re:Weather, not climate (Score:5, Funny)
It used to be that smoking was the leading single cause of statistics. But now the climate is gaining.
Re: (Score:3)
That was great....
I actually hyperventilated laughing. Kudos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You sound fun at parties.
~S
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no snow in Copenhagen.
Nearby even higher than that (Score:5, Informative)
"Here is an update on the South Pole and nearby Nico and Henry Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) record high temperatures recorded on 25 December 2011:
-- The prior record high temperature at South Pole was recorded on 27 December 1978, not on 12 December 1978, as misquoted in some sources.
-- Preliminary assessment of the record high at Nico AWS was -8.2C or 17.2F on 25 December 2011. This breaks the previous known record of -13.9C or 7F recorded on 4 January 2010.
-- Preliminary assessment of the record high at Henry AWS was -8.9C or 16F on 25 December 2011. This break the previous known record of -14.5C or 5.9F on 5 January 2010."
Disc golf (Score:5, Informative)
Time to play some disc [columbusdiscgolf.com] golf [dgcoursereview.com].
Dec 27, 1978 -13.6 C +7.5 F (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dec 27, 1978 -13.6 C +7.5 F (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, I sure remember it talked about at lot in elementary school.
Re:Dec 27, 1978 -13.6 C +7.5 F (Score:4, Informative)
Gee, I sure remember it talked about at lot in elementary school.
And yet, this does not contradict the prior statements in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
so was santa claus.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Igloo effect made it into my text books. I assume middle school texts are vetted by scientists?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not get too hasty here (Score:2)
Summer (Score:4, Insightful)
First, it's mid summer there. Second, there is no mention of the previous record so we have nothing to compare this "record" to. I have a friend who works there every year and his comments, from camp, last month was that they were battling storms and cold and hadn't been able to get too much work done. Finally, we have only been keeping track of temperatures there since 1956 so it's hardly worth getting into a tizzy over 60 years worth of record data.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, there is no mention of the previous record so we have nothing to compare this "record" to.
I guess you did not notice the post made about 20 minutes ahead of yours by gedankenhoren, which compared record high temperatures at two nearby Antarctic stations with their previous record highs:
-- Preliminary assessment of the record high at Nico AWS was -8.2C or 17.2F on 25 December 2011. This breaks the previous known record of -13.9C or 7F recorded on 4 January 2010.
-- Preliminary assessment of the record high at Henry AWS was -8.9C or 16F on 25 December 2011. This break the previous known record of -14.5C or 5.9F on 5 January 2010.
So at these stations (both close to the South Pole), the new record was more than 5.5C above the previous record.
Re:Summer (Score:5, Informative)
The previous record is a matter of record: +7.5F in December, 1978. A few summers ago, we had a very warm week and we hit +7.0F in the middle of several days of above-zero temps. While I'm not a Global Warming denier by any means, the specific cause of these record and near-record temps is weather - specifically large masses of warm(er) air coming in from the coast.
Normally, the weather at Pole is so predictable it follows a simple pie chart hanging up in the Meteorology office - the chart divides the wind direction into dominant categories such that you can look at the reading from the wind vanes and make a pretty good prediction of the present and impending weather (mostly, winds out of Grid North bring in clearer and drier air; winds out of Grid West are warmer and moister; and winds out of Grid South are infrequent and bring unsettled conditions). This is in part because most of the time, the air movement is katabatic, meaning it's rolling downhill, and the terrain around Pole favors winds from Grid North. While thermally-induced winds are not unknown, they aren't the dominant force. It takes a lot of energy to disrupt the usual patterns; that's part of what "Global Warming" means - the entire atmosphere has more (thermal) energy, so there's more available force to create disruptions on a global scale.
Re: (Score:3)
While thermally-induced winds are not unknown, they aren't the dominant force. It takes a lot of energy to disrupt the usual patterns; that's part of what "Global Warming" means - the entire atmosphere has more (thermal) energy, so there's more available force to create disruptions on a global scale.
Except you're not speaking of a global weather phenomenon, but a regional one. Further, even in the absence of human induced global warming there will be a lot of thermal energy in the Earth's atmosphere and in the weather of Antarctica in particular.
Re: (Score:2)
50 years in a 4.5 billion year history.
That's like comparing . to all of /.
Fossils (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are those global warming naysayers now, huh?
Don't worry, they won't be going anywhere.
Re:naysayers (Score:4, Interesting)
I all seriousness, I understand the folks who don't believe in global warming. I don't understand how they reach their conclusions, but what I guess I can't wrap my head around is how staunch they seem to be that global warming is absolutely not possible. It seems like they're vehemently trying to prove a negative instead of considering that even if all of the components of global warming aren't valid, there are parts that are worth considering as being problems that need to be resolved.
Re:naysayers (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, it's like this: global warming cause taxes, taxes are wrong and therefore global warming is wrong. QED.
Re:naysayers (Score:4, Interesting)
I all seriousness, I understand the folks who don't believe in global warming. I don't understand how they reach their conclusions, but what I guess I can't wrap my head around is how staunch they seem to be that global warming is absolutely not possible.
I find it odd that you characterize adherence to the "global warming" hypothesis as a matter of belief. I thought this was intended to be a scientific matter. If it's a matter of faith, then everybody can choose whether to believe in it or not, right? So what's your beef? Or are we having a religious war...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be better but I'm driving and typing...
I "know" this is bad for you health !
Re:naysayers (Score:4, Funny)
For instance, in physics labs I've proved a lot of physics to myself, and I "know" that bit of science ... Biology, on the other hand, is something I'm not terribly versed in ... I'm sure this sounds like a drunk college conversation, sorry. It'd be better but I'm driving and typing...
Not to worry. You're about to witness first hand a classic biologic experiment.
Say hello to Mr. Darwin for us ....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's simple- you have a group of people who say that they've done the science and have the answers. That group then says that noone should ever challenge their science or examine it (the science is settled). And that the only people who can perform the science are people who already agree with the conclusions and who are close friends to the current researchers - and if you come to any other conclusion then will be personally and professionally destroyed. When the real-world data is shown to be flawed, they
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is seriously stating that global warming research should not be held to scientific scrutiny. The only people making that baseless accusation are the people who actively deny it, usually for political or financial reasons.
My problem with the naysayers is that they consistently make broad sweeping claims without backing up their claims with results from independent peer reviewed studies that HAVE NOT BEEN FUNDED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS. They also consistently and embarassingly rehash tired strawman argu
Re: (Score:3)
"and if you come to any other conclusion then will be personally and professionally destroyed."
>> "I deleted the rest from the quote because there's not point. The above already shows you are insane or a paid-for-by-assholes troll."
The above proves that the above above was in deed correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Global warming doesn't preclude local cooling. In fact, it's a natural consequence as weather patterns change.
And no, the naysayers are not saying "Hang on a asecond, let's take a look at this", they're coming up with any number of reasons to not look.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, we came up with a lot of questions that were never answered very well. Like why were both Mars and Pluto exhibiting signs of global warming.
Seriously, two solar powered Mars rovers can't be causing that much pollution on Mars.
Re: (Score:3)
You are actively admitting that you have a financial incentive as an individual for man-made climate change to be untrue.
Sure, as long as you actively admit that you have an interest yourself. Those Greenpeace t-shirts aren't going to sell themselves...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I all seriousness, I understand the folks who don't believe in global warming. I don't understand how they reach their conclusions, but what I guess I can't wrap my head around is how staunch they seem to be that global warming is absolutely not possible. It seems like they're vehemently trying to prove a negative instead of considering that even if all of the components of global warming aren't valid, there are parts that are worth considering as being problems that need to be resolved.
It's the same people who visit that "Creation" museum in Kentucky and believe that dinosaurs were around at the same time as humans. Too bad we can't allow each of them to prove their theory by forcing them to live at the same time as their "pets" were roaming around on that sixth day. Wouldn't allow them firearms or the technology to make them (science is non-existant to them anyway). They just have to remember one universal rule...they don't have to run the fastest...just faster than the other person quo
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody has ever denied that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.
I see you've never heard of young earth creationists.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it make less sense to you than, say, religion? The two things seem pretty similar to me.
Maybe it's just me, but the next time I see some conspiracy theorist, denialist, or anybody else who has strong opinions on a controversial topic who makes a post along the lines of:
All followers of the church of x! Your pope (famous person who talks about x) has ordered that you pay indulgences in the form of (something related to x that costs money). And anyone who questions the ultimate truth of x is a heretic who shall be burned at the stake.
I may strangle someone. Not because I am part of the church of whatever x is, but because my tolerance for such deuchebaggery has dropped below the "gonna have to choke a bitch" mark. You haven't crossed that line yet, but you seem to have spotted it and shouted "hey, what's over there?"
Ideology is holding your common sense for ransom (Score:3)
You are making a very simple logical and scientific error. The position being advocated is that AGW is true because the preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggests that the probability that is is false is quite small. In fact, it is becoming vanishingly small as more and more observations are made. There reaches a point, in ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, that any reasonable person can take it for granted that it is true in every meaningful sense of the word.
Its pretty much the same reaso
Re:naysayers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:naysayers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nope. Read the primary research.
What are you trying to claim, here? That climatologists do NOT work with computer models? That they make predictions without any modeling? Sure, they collect data - you can't build a computer model without SOME real-world data to build it from.
What an outrageous claim! What "primary research" are you referring to? Temperature readings? Ice cores? Tree rings? That's used for the modelling, but it's just data collection, not "research".
Re: (Score:2)
really? what you've always said? That the earth ISN"T experiencing warming? That is what the naysayer say
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, the Earth goes through periods of climate upheaval. Fine.
Now, knowing that, why on Earth would we NOT want to minimize our own artificial contributions to the process? Wouldn't it be in our best interest to limit our hand in climate change? If global warming is a natural phenomenon, then we may be in for hundreds to thousands of years of progressive warming. In the interest of helping our species survive, wouldn't we want to manage our resources intelligently in order to better survive what you con
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, if some of this is happening naturally, then that just means we need to have a net reduction in CO2, below past where it was 1000 years ago.
I swear, we're in a crashing car, and scientists are blaming the driver, and insisting he needs to drive better. However, some people insist a tire just blew, it has nothing or almost nothing to do with the driver at all...and thus he doesn't need to drive better and we should crash?
Uh, no.
And even if we're going to crash no matter what, and can't fix it, sh
Re: (Score:2)
But by saying the planet is doing it on its own makes us seem insignificant like ants on a giant ball!
Re: (Score:3)
"It's just doing what it's always done."
This is patently false. Although there are cyclical events, except for a brief period in the Pleistocene, there is no evidence that warming and cooling of the climate are cyclical in nature. Beside, the rate of change during the Pleistocene was about 100 times slower than what is occurring now, so even if it were "cyclical" the nature of the cycle and consequently the cause must be entirely different.
One could make a much stronger case that the fossil fuels industry
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot's previous article was titled: "Sun Storms May Affect Radios, Cell Phones Today".
Ya think that shiny thing up there has anything to do with global warming?
Of course it does. It's where the heat is coming from.
Is it putting out more heat?
No.
So more heat is being trapped by the atmosphere?
Yes.
Why?
Because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Wow. Where is that CO2 coming from?
Burning fossil fuels.
Whoda thunk it. Maybe we'd better cut down?
Might be a good idea.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The summary says "highest-ever *recorded* temperature".
Detail records since 1950 (Score:5, Informative)
previous temp high was in Dec 1978, detail records have been kept since mid 1950's.
approximate annual average temperature records through ice cores date back about 800,000 years.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the farming and cities!
Re: (Score:2)
Right, we'll just pack up all the farmers whose lands have become inarable and ship them down to Antarctica to start their lives over, while simultaneously rebuilding every supply chain in the world. That'll certainly be less of an inconvenience than replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs!
Re: (Score:2)
While also moving 100 million people around the world inland, and all at the last minute because deniers keep blocking any effort to plan for it and make it an orderly transition.
Re: (Score:3)
and all at the last minute because deniers keep blocking any effort to plan for it and make it an orderly transition.
"Last minute" is several decades to several centuries long. That's the big problem with claiming urgency for global warming.
Re:This is good (Score:4, Interesting)
"..end suburban and rural living"
we don't.
we need to stop burnig fossile fuels.
Nuclear and SOlar can do that.
The only really massive change that needs to happen is people need to drive smaller vehicles, for shorter duration. Some thing that will get better with battery design improvements. which in the US is a big deal. But too bad.. I say that as someone who loves driving, love V8 engines and love going really fast.
But that time needs to end. Frankly, I would ban any SUV or large truck unless it is used commercially. I would put some strict regulations and rules on 'commercially'. Selling Avon door to door wouldn't count, for example.
I wouldn't take anyone SUV away, but I wouldn't let them buy a new one.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear and solar is going to take a LONG time to replace all the coal power plants, especially with the massive opposition to nuclear from quarters that include the current administration.
The only really massive change that needs to happen is people need to drive smaller vehicles, for shorter duration.
That's the end to suburban or at least anything resembling rural living.
Commuter / personal vehicle travel is actually a pretty small factor in CO2 emissions. It fact it appears that The major ones are coal power plants and freight transportation. Moving all that freight around is going to be even more critical as p
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Hi Moron,
Seriously, eliminating cars would not eliminate the problem. What about all those plastic bottles?
What about heat, manufacturing, etc.
All the removal of cars would do is extend things. As for SUVs, you do realize that some people need SUVs. If you need to carry more than 5 people your choice is mini-van or SUV. SUVs are safer, offer 4x4 for snow, etc.
FYI, my last V8 engine was more economical than the V6 option.
The problem is not size of cars. The different of 20mpg and 30mpg is nearly irrelevan
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the newly won land on Antartica can even offset the flooded land along the coats of the earth, if the ice on Antarctica is completely molten.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the newly won land on Antartica can even offset the flooded land along the coats of the earth, if the ice on Antarctica is completely molten.
Doubtful. Here's [wikimedia.org] a map of Antarctica with the ice removed, with the added assumption that sea level is unchanged by the removal of said ice sheets. Lakes are shown for interior areas below sea level (arguably lakes might not occupy all regions below sea-level, but might also occupy some areas which would be above sea-level).
Of course melting the Antarctic ice would add about 61m to global sea level (net, allowing for floating ice, etc.), or 68m if Greenland's ice sheets also melt. These estimates [wikipedia.org] would b
Re: (Score:2)
Best case: the ocean will be 25 feet higher in 75 years.
However In wouldn't count on it, because every year the ice sheet is melting faster then predicted.
If you studied glacier 100 years ago, you would see almost no change through your career. If you started 20 years ago you have see dramatic changes, and your career would only be about half way done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Soon we can turn Antarctica into a useful human settle-able land with farming and cities.
Only if you bring your own dirt. Antarctica doesn't have any.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine then. Maybe all this melting with get us the other gate.
Re: (Score:2)
So... will it be a new country or a new US state?
Re: (Score:2)
Soon we can turn Antarctica into a useful human settle-able land with farming and cities. Maybe Al Gore Warming isn't so bad.
Above modded +5 interesting???? How about funny?
Re: (Score:2)
Soon we can turn Antarctica into a useful human settle-able land with farming and cities. Maybe Al Gore Warming isn't so bad.
Well, even if you melt off all the ice, there isn't actually all that much _land_ that is above sea level hidden under Antarctica [gdargaud.net]. Because of the weight of the ice, most of the continent is under sea level. Once you melt the ice, it will slowly rise, like Canada is currently doing after the northern ice sheet melted at the end of the last glaciation. It's called an isostatic rebound [wikimedia.org], but I wouldn't buy land down there yet.