Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Temperature Hits 100 Degrees in Arctic Town in Siberia (gizmodo.com) 117

An anonymous reader quotes Gizmodo: A freak heatwave has been scorching most of the Arctic for weeks now, but it broke records Saturday when the temperature hit 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit in a town in Siberia, one of Russia's northernmost regions.

It's likely the hottest temperature ever recorded north of the Arctic Circle, CBS meteorologist Jeff Berardelli wrote on Twitter, though the recording is still pending verification... Last month, Siberia reported temperatures almost 40 degrees above normal for this time of year. (Also, parts of the region caught on fire...)

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Temperature Hits 100 Degrees in Arctic Town in Siberia

Comments Filter:
  • by LiquidPaper ( 69881 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @05:38PM (#60210008)

    For the rest of the world, that exactly 38 degrees. Most probably that was the temperature reported, and converted with tooo many decimals to the old, imperial system.

    • by Rei ( 128717 )

      And I thought it was abnormally hot on my land today (hit 22C / 72F). And it's not even July yet. The record high at Reykjavík is only 25,7C, and they're nearly 100 meters lower altitude.

      Thankfully it was very windy, which kept it comfortable. 38C would be horrible.

      • by rduke15 ( 721841 )

        Googled it before I saw your title. Indeed, it's 38 rest-of-the-world degrees:

            https://www.google.com/search?q=100.4+fahrenheit+to+celsius [google.com]

      • Quebec has been in a 35C~38C heatwave for almost a week now. Next week doesn't bode too well either.

        • Yes, 2 heatwaves before summer was never heard of, and in general an heatwave here is 3-5 days, but we have a 7 days one now

        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          And ~600km to the south we've only been in the high 20's to low 30's, and had an abnormally cold spring. So cold that a lot of farmers here were worried about frost into the 2nd week of June. I actually did have frost last week, when it got down to 2C here in Southwestern Ontario. The weather this year has a lot to do with stalled high pressure. In Montreal, QC today and tomorrow the temps will be low-to-mid 30's. In London, ON today and tomorrow the temps will be high 20's to mid 20's, with temperatur

        • by gmack ( 197796 )

          I didn't notice until I went to the Lachine canal this weekend. Nearly dehydrated.

    • In other words, 310 in SI units.

    • That was helpful.

    • by nagora ( 177841 )

      For the rest of the world, that exactly 38 degrees. Most probably that was the temperature reported, and converted with tooo many decimals to the old, imperial system.

      Fahrenheit isn't strictly imperial, it predates it and imperial had to adopt it ("imperial" is a specific system, not just any old set of weights and distances). No one's really sure what Fahrenheit was thinking when he chose the scale, although there are 180 degrees between melting and boiling of water but how he thought that was going to be helpful isn't very clear. On the other hand, 100 degrees between melting and boiling isn't terribly helpful in any way either, even for the sort of people who can only

      • As a general observation, 0 - 100 Fahrenheit is the temperature where people can (and do) live most of the year.

        Places where the temperature routinely is outside of that range are (were) generally considered inhospitable to human life

      • by jbengt ( 874751 )
        Fahrenheit was thinking that 0F was the equilibrium temperature of a mixture of salt, ice, and water, but he got it wrong because it takes long time to reach true equilibrium. And he used 96F as the normal body temperature and 32F as the freezing point of plain water, giving him nice divisions of 32 each.
        It's more complicated than that, but that's allegedly the basic story.
    • Americans are shocked to learn the "correct" human body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, and not 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, a mathematical conversion of it, with attendant improper suggestion of the accuracy of the additional digits.

      It's like those stories that say "1 mile, or 1.609 kilometers", in reverse. Unless the context is a highly accurate measurement, like a track meet or mile markers, they probably mean 1 mile +/- a tenth, or a half, making the extra accuracy in the km conversion utterly pointless

    • by mark-t ( 151149 )
      For Siberia that would be 38C as well.
  • Weather is not climate. Cool, though.
    • by Layzej ( 1976930 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @06:33PM (#60210150)
      Here's [wordpress.com] the temperature trend for the town in question.
    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      True, weather's not climate.

      OTOH, one of the predictions of the climate models is a slower jet stream which is more likely to leave a heat wave or cold snap sitting in one place for longer...which will cause it to be more intense. So it's consistent with the climate models, at least at that rough level of analysis.

      To get climate you need to look at multi-year histories, which a link above offered.

      • by Layzej ( 1976930 )

        one of the predictions of the climate models is a slower jet stream which is more likely to leave a heat wave or cold snap sitting in one place for longer...

        There is not a consensus on that. In general, models “predict a general decrease in blocking occurrence [carbonbrief.org] in the future”

        “The dynamics of blocking is focused up at jet-stream level in the atmosphere and here models predict the strongest warming in the tropics. This strengthens the jet-stream winds, making it harder for blocks to form.”

        • by HiThere ( 15173 )

          Have you got a link to that that referenced a site I would recognize, like AAS or ScienceNews or some such. I don't recognize "www,carbonbrief.org", and the name sounds...chosen for political appeal.

          If I've got the wrong model, or one that's uncertain, I'd really like to know it, but there are a lot of untrustworthy sources out there.

          • by Layzej ( 1976930 )

            You should bookmark CarbonBrief. They are fairly well recognized and have been the recipients of many awards.

            Did you read the article? It's very well sourced. The quote i provided was from Prof Tim Woollings, associate professor of physical climate science at the University of Oxford, Oxford joint chair of the Met Office Academic Partnership, and author of a book on the jet stream.

            Read the article. There's much more to it than the quote. They outline a number of exceptions and caveats, but it's rea

            • by HiThere ( 15173 )

              OK, I checked a few papers that I have a better basis to judge, and that does seem like a generally reliable source. So I'll read that article now.

            • by HiThere ( 15173 )

              From the linked article:

              For example, he says, âoeover the North Atlantic region in summers, the jet stream becomes wider and shifts to the north, leading to an increase in the size of the Euro-Atlantic blocking eventsâ. And over the North Pacific region in winters, âoethe jet stream becomes wider and faster and shifts to the north, all together leading to larger blocking events over the western Pacific Ocean and eastern North Americaâ.

              and earlier:

              Using two climate models and the RCP8.5 scenario, the researchers project that the area of blocking events could increase by up to 17% and 7% in the northern hemisphere summer and winter, respectively (by 2076-2100, compared to 1981-2005). For the southern hemisphere, projections indicate a decline in block area in summer (up to 2%) and an increase in winter (up to 8%).

              So it isn't exactly disagreeing with my points. It did talk about a decreasing number of "blocking events", which is, I guess, reasonable if they last longer and cover a larger area. I didn't notice anything about average speed of the jet stream, though it did talk about it speeding up seasonally, however to me that implies that it also slows down seasonally.

              Talking about a warmer arctic it says:

              This could weaken the jet stream, making it more susceptible to developing the large meanders that allow blocks to form.

              Which is what I asserted based on a study about a decade ago. It does agr

  • I suppose a lot of Russian novels will lose a little something in a hundred years, when Siberia is considered a blissfully cool and lush vacation spot.

  • by abhikhurana ( 325468 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @05:54PM (#60210054)

    From a geopolitical perspective, Global Warming can make many parts os Russia habitable and arable, plus open up the Arctic sea route all year around. So should Russia be unhappy about this heatwave? Are there some downsides for Russia specifically? Of course, the wider world may not like the consequences, but if you were Putin, would you do anything to stop it?

    • by GrumpySteen ( 1250194 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @06:21PM (#60210128)

      The giant-ass sinkholes [independent.co.uk] from the permafrost melting seems to be a wee bit of a downside

    • Is that a rhetorical question? Of course this suits Russia very well.
    • It won't, for the same reason solar power is not economical so far up north - not enough sunlight.

    • by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @07:52PM (#60210348) Journal

      So should Russia be unhappy about this heatwave?

      Yes, Russia should be unhappy. Russia, like Canada, will almost certainly benefit initially from global warming as more areas open up to farming and shipping in the Arctic opens up. However, further south, this will mean areas becoming far less habitable and that is going to start hurting countries to the south of Russia - like China and India - who have massive populations. If crops start failing in those countries they are going to have to do something to stop their citizens starving and with all that largely uninhabited, newly arable land that it is when Russia will start to have a really serious problem.

      Canada is likely going to end up with the same problem with the US if global temperatures keep climbing. We'll have the farmland that the US needs to feed itself and a similar disparity in population.

      • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @09:49PM (#60210678) Journal

        Canada is likely going to end up with the same problem with the US if global temperatures keep climbing. We'll have the farmland that the US needs to feed itself and a similar disparity in population.

        The only farmland in the US that might become useless for farming because of global warming is stuff on the edge of the Mojave desert, around the edges of Texas and New Mexico, and maybe in Utah.

        Or maybe the opposite: to know for sure, you'd have to correctly predict rainfall changes that will result from AGW, and we still can't do that.

      • by caseih ( 160668 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @11:45PM (#60210984)

        This is already happening in Canada. There are many of our prime farming areas that after experiencing drought are now experiencing several years of wet weather. So bad that some farmers in some areas have not been able to harvest last years crops that over-wintered, let alone plant anything. These areas are few right now, but increasing in number, and widely scattered across the prairies. Harvests are getting steadily more difficult as uncertain weather arrives earlier, and late springs push back the harvest dates. Ironically, many farmers are still unconvinced about climate change, even though we see the effects nearly every day. I suppose this skepticism comes from seeing our hard work get wiped out in a matter of minutes by mother nature, so it's hard to believe that anything we can do has any impact on mother nature who does what she wants we think. And on an individual level that's probably correct, but in aggregate, we definitely have a large effect! Even in my area, just irrigation over the last 30 years has altered the local weather, making things more humid, leading to more hail storms.

        In my lifetime I've seen a pretty dramatic change in weather patterns. Chinook winds are nearly non-existent in the winter now. Summer rain storms used to arrive from the east (the east wind would bring them), and the west wind brought hot dry conditions. Now the east wind is the hot dry wind a lot of times and the storms all come from the west now. Storms also seem to move slower and drop more precipitation and cause more damage. The old timers keep saying things like, well when we get back to a normal weather pattern, things will work out great. But I've no idea what normal weather is anymore. I'm lucky to farm in a pocket of climate that, although changing, is more stable than other areas.

        • Yes, what is normal? Just south of Jacksonville Fl. is the town of Orange Park, you can guess why the name. The 1800's were much warmer then the mid 1900's. All the orange trees there froze in 1956, I was 4 and remember the trees in my front yard being killed and I live 40 miles south of there. By the mid Sixty's all the orange packing plants in my area closed. As a farmer I was very interested in the weather. We grew spring potatoes planted in late January. At the turn of the century farmers in my area pla

    • by dryeo ( 100693 )

      Muskeg (think peat bog) does not make good farm land

    • Global Warming can make many parts os Russia habitable and arable

      They don't care. At all.

      Russia has vast lands, which it cannot populate — they barely maintain their population [worldometers.info], forget growing it...

      Sizeable cities still don't have running water either, BTW.

    • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Russia stands to get warm water Atlantic and Pacific ports, new trade routes both east and west, access to a lot of resources in the arctic, and probably do okay on arable land. Of all countries, they've got among the most to gain and least to lose.

    • by cusco ( 717999 )

      Siberia has enormous forests that have been burning in recent summers, damn right there are down sides for Russia.

    • From a geopolitical perspective, Global Warming can make many parts os Russia habitable and arable, plus open up the Arctic sea route all year around. So should Russia be unhappy about this heatwave? Are there some downsides for Russia specifically?

      When the climate changes so do the farming methods, crops, and the location of the best farmland. In 100 years a warmer Russia (or Canada) probably has better yields. But in 10-20 years? You're largely just upping the odds of major crop failures.

      Of course, the wider world may not like the consequences, but if you were Putin, would you do anything to stop it?

      Russia is a very big country with a lot of borders and a lot of ethnic and religious minorities who empathize with people outside Russia. Putin will try to exploit instability when it comes but I doubt he welcomes it, the last thing he wants is a refugee crisis or c

  • by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @05:59PM (#60210076)

    Climate: Challenge accepted.

  • by ffkom ( 3519199 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @06:05PM (#60210086)
    I am totally not inclined to go on vacation where it isn't nicely warm, so Siberia has never been on the list of places to visit for me. But hey, if they get nice warm Summers, now, too, that may change after all. Do they have any nice Hotels on the beaches, there?
  • As expected (Score:5, Informative)

    by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @06:13PM (#60210108)

    Climate change is faster in the polar regions.
    To anyone who knows anything about it, this is not surprising.

    • To anyone who knows anything about it, this is not surprising.

      And to everyone else, just how did you convince that many people to vote for you in an election?

  • by mfearby ( 1653 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @06:49PM (#60210178) Homepage

    The rest of the world and the whole scientific community uses Celsius for temperature measurements. Most of us outside the US (and perhaps the UK) have no real understanding of Fahrenheit. 100 degrees to me means boiling water.

    • I convert that in my head. What's your problem?
    • I lived in Windsor, Ontario for a couple of years. While the street signs and such are metric, the radio and TV is mostly from across the river in Detroit, so the temperature is most often given in Fahrenheit.
  • No, this is not a big deal. A little bit of CO2 heating up the arctic pole is nothing to be concerned about.
    Sheesh.

    38+C. We get that 1-2 x each year IN DENVER. If Siberia is heating up like this, I hate to think what we will be hitting in Denver, Dallas, or Miami in the future. And yet, so many of the nations REFUSE to drop their emissions.
    • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Sunday June 21, 2020 @07:20PM (#60210278) Journal
      Fairbanks, AK has hit -66 deg F and 99 deg F in the past. A typical year sees swings from -40 deg F in the winter, to 85 deg F in the summer. Brutal place to live...
    • You do know that Siberia is over 30% larger than entire USA dont you?
    • And yet, so many of the nations REFUSE to drop their emissions.

      Air travel records were being broken up until last year. Even in such “green” places as Seattle. How many flights have you taken in the past couple of years?

      Why are the climate change proponents jetting all over the world while wringing their hands and complaining that other people are jetting all over the world?

      You don’t need to wait for someone else to act before you do.

      “Progressives” could make a change, by th

      • "âoeProgressivesâ could make a change, by themselves. Especially since they use more energy on average than âoeconservativesâ."

        Big business is responsible for most emissions. Most big businesses are owned by conservatives.

      • Air travel is less than 2% of emissions. Focusing there is a joke.
        Instead, electricity, land based vehicles, and buildings are the main sources of CO2. These are moving in right direction, general, but just about every nation has issues, mostly related to big business. America stopped adding new coal, but continues to replace these with a mix of AE, combined with Nat gas. At best, this is so-so. America's CO2 from electricity continues to drop. But we need to replace that Nat gas, along with old coal plant
  • The cliche Russian punishment of "you'll be sent to Siberia" has morphed into the ultimate vacation destination in Russia. Good for you guys! Just burn down a few more million acres of primitive forest. And dump more than double the millions of gallons you have already spilled into waterways and you might be the new Cancun ...

  • Kind of stupid that it does not say where. Just "in Siberia".. Siberia is HUGHE! So you cant really compare it to a part of USA like Alaska or Miami just because its a "part" of Russia. Its more like saying "Yesterday in North America the temperature was ..." Siberia have an area of 13.1 m2 or 5,100,000 sq mi, compared to USA with a mere 9,8km2 or 3,796,742 sq mi... spanning most of Eurasia and Northern Asia.
    • Kind of stupid that it does not say where. Just "in Siberia".. Siberia is HUGHE! So you cant really compare it to a part of USA like Alaska or Miami just because its a "part" of Russia. Its more like saying "Yesterday in North America the temperature was ..." Siberia have an area of 13.1 m2 or 5,100,000 sq mi, compared to USA with a mere 9,8km2 or 3,796,742 sq mi... spanning most of Eurasia and Northern Asia.

      oh my. it ate the formating it should be Million km2 in the size there.

    • While I agree with the accuracy, TFA does state Verkhoyansk. and that's only 25km2.

UNIX enhancements aren't.

Working...