Arctic Records Its Hottest Temperature Ever (cbsnews.com) 100
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: Alarming heat scorched Siberia on Saturday as the small town of Verkhoyansk (67.5N latitude) reached 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit, 32 degrees above the normal high temperature. If verified, this is likely the hottest temperature ever recorded in Siberia and also the hottest temperature ever recorded north of the Arctic Circle, which begins at 66.5 degrees North. The town is 3,000 miles east of Moscow and further north than even Fairbanks, Alaska. On Friday, the city of Caribou, Maine, tied an all-time record at 96 degrees Fahrenheit and was once again well into the 90s on Saturday. To put this into perspective, the city of Miami, Florida, has only reached 100 degrees one time since the city began keeping temperature records in 1896.
Verkhoyansk is typically one of the coldest spots on Earth. This past November, the area reached nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit below zero, one of the first spots to drop that low in the winter of 2019-2020. Reaching 100 degrees in or near the Arctic is almost unheard of. Although the reading is questionable, back in 1915 the town of Fort Yukon, Alaska, not quite as far north as Verkhoyansk, is reported to have reached near 100 degrees. And in 2010 a town a few miles south of the Arctic circle in Russia reached 100. As a result of the hot-dry conditions right now, numerous fires rage nearby, and smoke is visible for thousands of miles on satellite images.
Verkhoyansk is typically one of the coldest spots on Earth. This past November, the area reached nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit below zero, one of the first spots to drop that low in the winter of 2019-2020. Reaching 100 degrees in or near the Arctic is almost unheard of. Although the reading is questionable, back in 1915 the town of Fort Yukon, Alaska, not quite as far north as Verkhoyansk, is reported to have reached near 100 degrees. And in 2010 a town a few miles south of the Arctic circle in Russia reached 100. As a result of the hot-dry conditions right now, numerous fires rage nearby, and smoke is visible for thousands of miles on satellite images.
Not a suprise (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Not a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn Trump.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
While we're on the subject of Trump and Russia, how about we open up the books on Trump's loans from Russia laundered through Deutsche Bank? How much is he in hock to Putin and his goons?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
OK, you've convinced me. I should never vote for Democrats and Republicans.
Just kidding. I already knew they were corrupt.
But thanks for the reminders.
Re: (Score:1)
yeah, He's been warning us about Trump for 40 years. We should have listened.
Re:Not a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
*Anthropogenic* climate change, but yes. Quite well backed by science, see for example https://climate.nasa.gov/evide... [nasa.gov].
And we should not give mr Trump the whole blame for it, but yes, he sure contributes to make it far worse in several ways, when he and his party have the possibility (and many would say, obligation) to instead take immediate action to stop it and save lives and livelihood in both the US and globally.
And to picky readers: Climate != weather, but warmer climate in general increase the probability of extreme weather.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, climate change is the worst man-made problem Russia, and much of the world, face at the moment, and not dictatorship.
Re:Computer Models Are Not Science. (Score:4, Interesting)
Is this an attempted troll post? In the majority of cases, modern science is totally impossible without the use of computer models. To take an example which is not quite the same as climate science, weather forecasting is totally reliant on accurate computer models. Are you suggesting that weather forecasts are pseudo science?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations, you just backed yourself into the claim that Newtonian mechanics are not science.
Re: (Score:1)
Congratulations, you just backed yourself into the claim that Newtonian mechanics are not science.
The magical words are "under these conditions". Under certain conditions Newtonian mechanics always work. Currently, the only known conditions, under which these climatic models work, are an incredible, albeit short, stroke of luck.
Re: (Score:2)
No. There are dozens and dozens of different models, and they all show the whole thing.
Re: Computer Models Are Not Science. (Score:1)
As the above poster said, science != models. Which is not to say models are worthless but their value should always be questioned.
If two predictive models do not provide the exact same output, then at least one of them is simply wrong. Possibly both. But there's no way to know that until after the fact. And even if one got it perfectly right that is not a guarantee it will provide future correct results.
Re: (Score:3)
Except the output of the various models does not match.
Which is why the quoted results come with error bars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean to tell us if you use different sets of data you will get different results? Astounding! You should write a paper on this phenomenon. You must be the first person to recognize this behavior.
Re:Computer Models Are Not Science. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not magical words, they're a farce. Newtonian mechanics cannot predict where a ball will land in a pachinko machine, much less the get-out-of-jail-free card that you think that you're playing with respect to relativity.
The real world is not the approximation used in Newtonian mechanics. The ball does not always land in the same slot given the same starting conditions. The shell does not always land in the same spot given the same firing solution and charge.
The fact that you people cannot conceive of chaotic systems and approximations, even when faced with them in the very things that you will unquestionably consider to be "science," then finally become aware of the same factors in other things that you consider to be "not science," is your failing, not a failing of the scientific method.
Re: (Score:2)
The real world is not the approximation used in Newtonian mechanics. The ball does not always land in the same slot given the same starting conditions.
What
The problem is there's no such thing as the same (Score:3)
Some systems (like Pachinko, and weather) have sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and also sensitive dependence on fine differences in intermediate conditions.
And the universe doesn't repeat any process exactly. There's always a fine difference.
Some systems cancel out fine differences, and converge in behaviour. Some diverge because of the fine differences.
But there are mathematical and scientific modelling techniques that can get useful
Re: (Score:2)
It is perfectly possible to estimate the result of chaotic systems. It comes out as ranges of options instead a single outcome.. FUNNY ENOUGH: that is exactly how models work.
Also global warming isn't a chaotic system. The weather is, but so is boiling water, it still gets hotter when you heat it.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Ever heard of monte-carlo simulations?
Stop being obtuse, the people doing this work knew these things better than you do, you can not add anything to the conversation that isn't already known and handled or bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you selected it for your account name, so you obviously agree that it's true.
Re: (Score:3)
Is this whole conversation an ironic joke I fail to understand?
Several generations of people around the world have contributed to the CO2 problem. You're greatly exaggerating the effect Trump had and could have on this massive problem.
You really think Trump and his party have the possibility to just "stop it"?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, if only the U.S. were the world, or everyone else's CO2 emissions would stay where they were emitted.
CO2 emissions continue to increase year over year. [statista.com]
God, you're a dishonest fuck.
Re:Not a suprise (Score:5, Informative)
You didn't specify "our" or "U.S." emissions, now did you? You went right for the big lie.
And yes, Trump's interference [foreignpolicy.com] with the U.S.'s own reductions in our CO2 emissions satisfies the original poster's point. But you want to give Trump credit for the CO2 reductions that he's opposing so that he can play to his coal buddies.
You really are a dishonest fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that I specifically mentioned and linked to Trump's U.S. coal policy, but you do you Lynnwood.
BTW, maybe if Trump actually onshored his production of clothing from the Asia Pacific it'd reduce their CO2 emissions. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You were the one who referred to "interfering in the actions of other sovereign States." All you. Keep dodging that Trump coal policy problem. Distraction might just save you, but probably not.
Going to comment on that AIRS satellite data anytime soon?
Re: (Score:1)
he and his party have the possibility (and many would say, obligation) to instead take immediate action to stop it and save lives and livelihood in both the US and globally.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. There is no action anyone (or even everyone) in the United States could take to immediately stop climate change, and it is also not clear that doing so would save lives.
Re:Not a suprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Read again, or perhaps I can make it more clear: There is no action to immediately stop climate change.
But, there are lots of actions that can (and probably ought to) be done immediately, to help stopping climate change as soon as possible - ideally at 1.5 degrees C.
Like cap and trade schemes as in the EU (with strictly shrinking allocations), climate budgets making back-casting calculations to reach the Paris agreement goals in time, climate review of major projects with federal regulation / funding (like oil pipes and highways), taxes on jet fuel, stricter vehicle emission standards, federal funds for city transformation to a less car-based transportation system, better right to repair and consumer rights (to make manufactured things last longer), investments in solar and other non-fossil energy sources, climate aid to help less developed nations ...
Re: (Score:2)
As tempting as it is to let you blame Obama, he had shit to do with the Shale Revolution. In fact, he did everything he could to discourage it.
Shale Fracking was done on private land and still largely is today.
Re: Not a suprise (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No. [factcheck.org]
Limiting Fracking [nytimes.com] is a primary goal of the Democrat Party.
Re: (Score:2)
And so are you.
Obama had nothing to do with creating the shale oil industry. It existed before his time in office. In fact, fracking existed before he was born, though in the last few decades the development of accurate horizontal drilling and increasing oil prices have made it practical to exploit oil shales that were not previously economical.
Re:Not a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Trump is not *personally* responsible for climate change or the coronavirus epidemic, although he contributed to the latter.
The problem is the kind of thinking that he represents: if you pretend a problem doesn't exist, it will go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is not *personally* responsible for climate change
Actually no, as a policy leader in a country with one of the highest energy usages in a world he is definitely personally responsible for climate change. He's not *exclusively* responsible, but he is most definitely personally responsible.
Re: (Score:3)
He may be responsible for some future greenhouse emissions, but not very much for what's in the atmosphere *already*.
One of the saving graces of Trump's complete cluelessness is that it has taken his administration so long to figure out how things work. For example Trump just rolled back Obama era CAFE standards; a competent conservative president would have had those on the chopping block back in 2017. So in a backhanded way you can credit him with three years of vehicle carbon emission reductions.
A lit
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Trump is certainly responsible for the lack of coordinated response to SARS-CoV-2 virus, thereby making it much more of a pandemic in the U.S.. And that's a gift that keeps on giving because the fed. gov. under his direction has given up the ghost about doing anything to help stop it.
The alleged administration and Trump are also bigly supporters of carbon-spewing industries. So while they were not guilty of the previous rise in CO2 emissions, they currently are very guilty of helping to increase those
I don't feel fine. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Lenny Bruce would be afraid today.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
"Arctic Records Its Hottest Temperature Ever *Recorded*"
The biggest problem dealing with climate change is lousy reporting.
Recorrected (Score:2, Insightful)
You used forms of the word "record" twice in one sentence. That is redundant and bad writing.
Re: (Score:1)
True, but it's more accurate. I'll take clumsy and clear over clever and vague.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You're one of those assholes who responds to "can I use your bathroom?" with "of course you CAN use my bathroom, but I didn't say you MAY." Aren't you?
Vinal? (Score:2)
If I read the title correctly, then vinal albums in the Arctic are the hottes they've been? Vinal has a melting point of around 180F, so as long as they don't get THAT hot, they should be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I read the title correctly, then vinal albums in the Arctic are the hottes they've been?
Just wait until they get a hold of my mixtape...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you telling us that your spellchecker doesn't know the spelling of vinyl?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm an idiot farmer with a 9th grade education, who never owned a record player. However, now that I know how to spell vinyl, I might try to change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so what? I was trying to insult your spellchecker, not you.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't insulted. I thought I did run the spell-checker, but I guess I didn't. Goes back to my being an idiot. No worries, my whole post was intended to be a mockery of the stupid wording in the title, which I read wrong anyway. So, despite your careful warning (in your slashdot name), I was.
Terrible contextualisation (Score:5, Insightful)
For what it's worth, Siberia is massive, and most of it is south of the Arctic Circle.
And to put that in perspective, Miami is famously on the sea, and coastal areas typically have less extreme temperatures than inland areas because water has a large specific heat capacity and so moderates temperature changes.
Re: (Score:3)
And as for Miami, I've been there in the summer. It may not technically be 100F, but it sure can feel like it.
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, Siberia is massive, and most of it is south of the Arctic Circle.
But it notes:
Which excludes the parts south of the Arctic Circle from this record
maybe we'll get an awesome positive feedback amp (Score:2)
Let's cook that methane out of the tundra, I know many here thought floating cities in the atmosphere of Venus were the exciting big thing NASA should be focusing on. But we won't even need rockets and breakthrough propulsion to do it here on the blue marble (heh, not for long), we can focus on those balloon cities. I'm stoked, we'll have rivers of lead, zinc and tin, w0h00.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's cook that methane out of the tundra, I know many here thought floating cities in the atmosphere of Venus were the exciting big thing NASA should be focusing on.
Hey, thanks for the shout out!
But we won't even need rockets and breakthrough propulsion to do it here on the blue marble (heh, not for long), we can focus on those balloon cities. I'm stoked, we'll have rivers of lead, zinc and tin, w0h00.
Turns out that no real climate models show that we can plausibly hit the amount of runaway greenhouse effect needed to boil the oceans and flip the Earth to a Venus-like state. Venus is an interesting case to test the models against a very very high level of greenhouse effect (and a planet to which we really should send another mission, so we can find our more), but it's several orders of magnitude away from anything we're doing to Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst the Arctic and Antarctic will get real melty and cause flooding across the globe. That rise is sea level and temperatures will generate a large amount of cloud cover which will cool the planet. So goes way out of control, sea levels up about 1.5m, then a surge in cooling and everything kind of hangs there, maybe drops a little for quite some time. Earth becomes quite the humid place in many areas and it will hang there for some decades until the next surge and then things could get a bit more hairy,
Re: (Score:2)
actually the most potent greenhouse gas by far is water vapor, more water in atmosphere makes higher temperatures.
The sea level rise to even a tenth of a meter would be over a century, your 1.5 meters worry is silly. It's not like people will sit on their front porch while water laps at their feet, and then decide to move a few decades later. The rich will just make real estate deals and more developments, they'll get richer.
Fail in TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
The Arctic Circle is currently at [wikipedia.org] 66d 33' 48.1" north of the Equator. Fort Yukon, Alaska [wikipedia.org], is also above the Arctic Circle. Fort Yukon reached 100 deg F [wikipedia.org] in 1915. Claiming that you have an accuracy of 0.4 deg F (0.22 deg C) over 105 years on a singular measurement so that you can decide which was hotter? Really? Can we see the temperature recording for the day to ensure it wasn't a weird 1 minute blip in temperature?
Re: (Score:2)
Can we see the temperature recording for the day to ensure it wasn't a weird 1 minute blip in temperature?
Can you please just let scientists science and fuck off with your negative bullshit already.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. I am a scientist, and I "science". Science is supposed to be inherently skeptical; if you cannot show your data and your processes, the claims should be taken with a boulder of salt.
And I understand that accuracy and calibration matter, and if you cannot guarantee accuracy to at least half the claimed precision - you cannot claim it. So unless you can show the thermometer used to record that temperature of 100.4 deg F is accurate to 0.05 deg F (about 0.03 deg C) - you cannot claim that temp. You ca
You dont understand. (Score:2)
Let me rephrase the previous post for you.
'Think what we damn well tell you to think, and be happy about it, otherwise you are a NAZI and will be stomped under our boots. Only NAZIs question what We say'
Does that make it more clear?
Re: (Score:3)
Did you even read the summary?
Although the reading is questionable, back in 1915 the town of Fort Yukon, Alaska, not quite as far north as Verkhoyansk, is reported to have reached near 100 degrees.
Which implies the 100 degrees from Fort Yukon has much greater error bars than the more recent reading, and almost certainly not +- (as readings are not necessarily distributed as a Gaussian around a central value) by an equal amount.
Can we see the temperature recording for the day to ensure it wasn't a weird 1 minute blip in temperature?
There are standards for recordings and the standard for recording devices wouldn't register a 1 minute blip, or if something was used that could it would be smoothed to meet the standard. How do we know it wasn't a weird one minute blip in 1915 (e
But I can see it's not climate... (Score:2)
Because actually greens ran around lighting cigarettes under the weather station thermometers, while breathing out frozen breaths....
And the global warming deniers, presumably paid by the petrochemical industry, will go on and on about how we can't possibly be doing this (they having never lived, say, in a large US city before the EPA existed).
Fahrenheit? (Score:4, Informative)
Can't you people write "-60F"?
Which, for the rest of the world BTW, equals -51 Celsius.
Re:Fahrenheit? 100F means 37.7C. (Score:3)
A subsidary of Atlantic Records? (Score:2)
Arctic Records Its Hottest Temperature Ever
This is misleading --
They should have had a "-" after Arctic Records and they totally forgot the name of the artist or band!
Why post this ? (Score:3, Informative)
Why do imperial measurements still bother me? (Score:3)
What I don't understand is why after decades of this it still annoys me so much? Is the jadedness of years of seeing this offset by the onset of grumpy old man syndrome to the extent that I actually sat down a wrote this whinging rant?
Bullshit (Score:1)
I'm calling bullshit on this.
June 25, 2020 8:35 AM EST
Ever is a pretty long time, even for "scientists" (Score:1)