It's 70 Degrees Warmer than Normal in Eastern Antarctica. Scientists Flabbergasted (msn.com) 134
"The coldest location on the planet has experienced an episode of warm weather this week unlike any ever observed, with temperatures over the eastern Antarctic ice sheet soaring 50 to 90 degrees above normal," reports the Washington Post.
"The warmth has smashed records and shocked scientists." "This event is completely unprecedented and upended our expectations about the Antarctic climate system," said Jonathan Wille, a researcher studying polar meteorology at Université Grenoble Alpes in France, in an email. "Antarctic climatology has been rewritten," tweeted Stefano Di Battista, a researcher who has published studies on Antarctic temperatures. He added that such temperature anomalies would have been considered "impossible" and "unthinkable" before they actually occurred.
Parts of eastern Antarctica have seen temperatures hover 70 degrees (40 Celsius) above normal for three days and counting, Wille said. He likened the event to the June heat wave in the Pacific Northwest, which scientists concluded would have been "virtually impossible" without human-caused climate change.
What is considered "warm" over the frozen, barren confines of eastern Antarctica is, of course, relative. Instead of temperatures being minus-50 or minus-60 degrees (minus-45 or minus-51 Celsius), they've been closer to zero or 10 degrees (minus-18 Celsius or minus-12 Celsius) — but that's a massive heat wave by Antarctic standards. The average high temperature in Vostok — at the center of the eastern ice sheet — is around minus-63 (minus-53 Celsius) in March. But on Friday, the temperature leaped to zero (minus-17.7 Celsius), the warmest it's been there during March since record keeping began 65 years ago. It broke the previous monthly record by a staggering 27 degrees (15 Celsius). "In about 65 record years in Vostok, between March and October, values ââabove -30ÂC were never observed," wrote Di Battista in an email....
University of Wisconsin Antarctic researchers Linda Keller and Matt Lazzara said in an email that such a high temperature is particularly noteworthy since March marks the beginning of autumn in Antarctica, rather than January, when there is more sunlight. At this time of year, Antarctica is losing about 25 minutes of sunlight each day.
"The warmth has smashed records and shocked scientists." "This event is completely unprecedented and upended our expectations about the Antarctic climate system," said Jonathan Wille, a researcher studying polar meteorology at Université Grenoble Alpes in France, in an email. "Antarctic climatology has been rewritten," tweeted Stefano Di Battista, a researcher who has published studies on Antarctic temperatures. He added that such temperature anomalies would have been considered "impossible" and "unthinkable" before they actually occurred.
Parts of eastern Antarctica have seen temperatures hover 70 degrees (40 Celsius) above normal for three days and counting, Wille said. He likened the event to the June heat wave in the Pacific Northwest, which scientists concluded would have been "virtually impossible" without human-caused climate change.
What is considered "warm" over the frozen, barren confines of eastern Antarctica is, of course, relative. Instead of temperatures being minus-50 or minus-60 degrees (minus-45 or minus-51 Celsius), they've been closer to zero or 10 degrees (minus-18 Celsius or minus-12 Celsius) — but that's a massive heat wave by Antarctic standards. The average high temperature in Vostok — at the center of the eastern ice sheet — is around minus-63 (minus-53 Celsius) in March. But on Friday, the temperature leaped to zero (minus-17.7 Celsius), the warmest it's been there during March since record keeping began 65 years ago. It broke the previous monthly record by a staggering 27 degrees (15 Celsius). "In about 65 record years in Vostok, between March and October, values ââabove -30ÂC were never observed," wrote Di Battista in an email....
University of Wisconsin Antarctic researchers Linda Keller and Matt Lazzara said in an email that such a high temperature is particularly noteworthy since March marks the beginning of autumn in Antarctica, rather than January, when there is more sunlight. At this time of year, Antarctica is losing about 25 minutes of sunlight each day.
It's CRIMINAL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be 3rd paragraph of the /. posting, or second paragraph of the quoted material.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I see what you're saying. I could kinda-sorta agree it's the 4th paragraph. Poor thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's CRIMINAL (Score:5, Funny)
Units are for pussies.
- Mars Climate Orbiter Team
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Units are for pussies. - Mars Climate Orbiter Team
Which one was wrong?
It wasn't metric, it wasn't imperial. It was programmers who weren't as smart as they thought they were.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have had some kind of test for that before launching, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have had some kind of test for that before launching, anyway.
Exactly! Must have been a pucker string moment when the software team had to report their findings on that screwup.
I suspect they learned a lesson - seems the JSWT had a lot of dry runs.Of course at that price tag..
Re: (Score:2)
And by the way it is Fahrenheit.
Using Fahrenheit means a bigger number and a more dramatic headline.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you are writing in America it makes sense to use Fahrenheit, but in this case, since it was reporting on a scientific publication, or at least quoting a bunch of PhD's, it was not clear that Fahrenheit was the default unit, since no modern scientific paper would use Fahrenheit.
They should use Kelvin - any measurement system that goes negative is dopey. Celsius is every bit as stupid and unwieldy as Fahrenheit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, negative temperatures are possible even in Kelvin.
Pretty flakey stuff, as NASA describes it, https://cryo.gsfc.nasa.gov/int... [nasa.gov] more an energy state game than an actual temperature. Interestingly, that rare system that can have a negative Kelvin temperature is usually hotter than systems at zero K.
Second of all, even if some kind of logical case can be made for Kelvin, that logic does not change the fact that a lot of people are just used to Celsius and if you start giving them weather forecasts in Kelvin, or having thermostats use Kelvin, they are just going to be pissed off.
I couldn't agree more. I mainly use Kelvin as an example when some of our European friends get spun up about metric and the units they use. But you hit it on the head. "A lot of people are just used to Celsius" Same with Fahrenheit, which is what we use out here
Re: (Score:2)
The Celsius scale uses degrees and degrees are something that can be negative.
Degrees are useful for other stuff too, like navigating with a sextant and clock. Or figuring out the cuts to make to get a certain slope in a roof that you're building. Both cases can involve negative numbers, 90 degrees minus 135 degrees for example.
Kelvin uses an absolute unit, so no negatives, better for some things, worse for others like quickly seeing the temperature relative to freezing.
Re: (Score:2)
And by the way it is Fahrenheit.
Using Fahrenheit means a bigger number and a more dramatic headline.
Shoulda used Kelvin then! 8^)
Actually, I kinda wonder why in the pursuit of one measurement system to rule them all, Kelvin isn't promoted over C or F?
Re: (Score:2)
Degrees are more useful in everyday life. much simpler to say it is 4 degrees below freezing rather then 268K.
Degrees are useful in other fields like geometry (navigation, carpentry etc) where you may deal with negative numbers.
Kelvin or Celsius doesn't really matter when we say it is 40 above normal in Antarctica and 30 above normal at the same time at the N pole.
Re: (Score:2)
Using Fahrenheit means a bigger number and a more dramatic headline.
Shoulda used Kelvin then! 8^)
That does not help for the headline: - temperatures hover 70 degrees (Fahrenheit) above normal - temperatures hover 40 degrees (Celsius) above normal - temperatures hover 40 degrees (Kelvin) above normal
There is a Fahrenheit based Kelvin scale as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I'd say it's criminal that you missed "reading for context" (what's that, 3rd grade?) so badly that "70 degrees in Antarctica" wasn't OBVIOUSLY going to be in Fahrenheit.
Really? You thought it might actually be 70 C?
Re: It's CRIMINAL (Score:2)
Somewhere that can reach -65, then yes, just above freezing sounds plausible to many people.
Re: It's CRIMINAL (Score:2)
Big oil has known about this problem since the 60s and 70s, but chooses to do nothing.
Bullshit.
You're attempt to deflect any individual responsibility relies on "big oil" actively suppressing the damage done by burning gasoline/diesel/etc... We non-Big Oil people knew about the effects of greenhouse gases including those from ICE vehicles since the early 70s.
If you doubt this, check into the first earth day and the claims swirling around at the time regarding Global Cooling.
The first Earth Day was in 1970, and the founder of Earth Day described its origin here:
https://time.com/5570269/earth. [time.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember hearing anything about climate change until maybe the mid/late 80's.
The model was developed in the 1950s, and it was accepted by many scientists by the 1970s.
There were congressional hearings and big press coverage in 1988. That is when I recall hearing about it.
That primary productivity in the oceans is iron-limited, and the simple act of adding iron could boost that productivity, thereby sequestering many tons of CO2.
Iron fertilization of the oceans has been tested and appears to work, but it is not politically correct to advocate even continued research, much less large-scale application. The rationale is that people will see it as an "easy fix" that may diminish the urgency of reducing fossil fuel consumption.
Re: It's CRIMINAL (Score:3)
The rationale is that people will see it as an "easy fix" that may diminish the urgency of reducing fossil fuel consumption.
...that and the f-ing elephant in the room, which is messing with a complex ecosystem on a massive scale.
There are plenty of much smaller examples, like eradicating a small insect here, introducting a rodent there, which ended up in massive backfiresi terms of fauna equilibrium.
Messing with the world's oceans , of which large parts we still don't undetstand, but which are responsible for the most oxygen we breathe, doesn't even qualify as a bad idea anymore; it's outright an "Wile-y Coyote & Roadrunner
Re: (Score:2)
That article does not in any way support the idea that the link between CO2 and climate change was recognized in the 70's.
I learned it in school, I came to school 1973, and it was around 1977 as it was a topic in science class.
Re: (Score:2)
That article does not in any way support the idea that the link between CO2 and climate change was recognized in the 70's. Do you have another link? I was born in the late 60's and I don't remember hearing anything about climate change until maybe the mid/late 80's. There was something called the iron hypothesis. That primary productivity in the oceans is iron limited and the simple act of adding iron could boost that productivity, thereby sequestering many tons of CO2.
You're using the "I haven't heard of it, so, it only started when I heard of it."
One thing Kenh is wrong about - the date. Try the 1820's when Joseph Fourier first noted a possible issue, John Tyndall identified that Carbon Dioxide and water vapor trapped energy in the atmosphere in the form of heat.
So like it or not, the energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere are not only sollid physics, but are long known.
This is happening, and as we've gathered knowledge, we only prove it.
In my fai
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I saw that in wikipedia. But there was no consensus behind it for a long time and so I don't think it was taught very much to students. As far as credit where credit is due, yeah. But as far as it being an idea that is out there and being discussed among non scientist population, not so much.
What kind of world requires consensus to define truth?
The energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere have been known for 200 ywars, or 150 if you want to get pedantic. We fucked around, now we find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, let's say you are not a scientist. One scientist says carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. A large number of other scientists say it will not because the numbers that the first scientist is using are inaccurate. Where does that leave you as a non-scientist? This is what happened to Arrhenius (at least that is what wikipedia says).
When someone claims to be against what is settled physics, I like to look at where the money is coming from. But back to the early 1800's, atmospheric composition effects were more of a mental exercise than settled science. There was room for a bit of controversy. While looking up the concept of the Sun's composition, knowing it was contemporary with what we're talking about I came upon this gem from the Scientific American archive https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com] 1863!
Yes - some things aren't settle
Re: (Score:3)
I'll try to make this easier for you: science isn't about *truth*; it's about *evidence*. That doesn't mean that the *truth* isn't important. Heterodox scientists who believe something to be true despite the evidence play an important role in shifting the scientific consensus over time. But the fact that some scientists always disagree doesn't mean any opinion is just as good as any other. For policy you follow what the vast majority of scientists think the evidence supports; they may be *wrong*, but d
Re: (Score:2)
it was believed CO2's absorption spectrum was the same as water's, and since water is abundant in the atmosphere, increases in the trace gas CO2 couldn't cause significant change. These were both disproved in the late 1950s. Roger Revelle showed the rate at which the ocean could absorb CO2 was too slow to prevent CO2 levels increasing, a *chemistry* result that has over the decades been proven correct by atmospheric measurements of carbon. More precise spectrometers also showed that CO2's absorption spectrum was close to water, but did not overlap.
I still see a few people claiming they overlap.
Now Earth Day; I was a young adult during the 1970s, so I remember what people were worried about. It wasn't warming; in fact aerosol-mediated cooling dominated greenhouse warming from the 1940s until the mid 1970s, so the globe was actually *cooling*.
It was about 0.3C cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, but globally only 0.1C.
People weren't worried about global warming because the consensus, driven by decades of measurements, was the the globe was cooling.
The 1970s consensus among scientists was that there was warming. https://dpiepgrass.medium.com/... [medium.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well of course they *overlap*, to the degree that if you didn't have a precise spectrometer you wouldn't know that CO2 can absorb significant energy in the infrared that water does not.
The consensus was *emerging* in the 1970s because that's the way papers were breaking. I remember because my wife was geophysics graduate student in the 1980s and I read about it in her Eos [eos.org] subscription. In the early 80s the warming consensus was still an emerging thing. Consensus seldom changes instantly because somebody
Re: (Score:2)
The consensus was *emerging* in the 1970s because that's the way papers were breaking. I remember because my wife was geophysics graduate student in the 1980s and I read about it in her Eos [eos.org] subscription. In the early 80s the warming consensus was still an emerging thing. Consensus seldom changes instantly because somebody published a paper; people have to argue about it for some time so consensus lags evidence by a bit. First people attack the emerging consensus with broad strokes, and as the years wear on they are increasingly reduced to nitpicking.
It was already the dominant position in the early 1970s amongst those studying climate trends. When does the dominant position become consensus? Hansen in 1988 should really have been the end of the establishing of consensus. Hansen's projections are still pretty much on the mark, although even ones from the early 1970s have done fairly well. But Hansen laid it out pretty clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
It becomes the consensus when a burden of proof is on one side of the question but not the other.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, actually it looks like Edward Teller, for example, called attention to CO2 levels potentially causing global warming way back in 1959. So, no need to provide any additional links. I am satisfied that some people were raising the flag prior to 1970.
If you didn't catch my earlier links - try the 1920's. proven in the 1890s.
Re: It's CRIMINAL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're attempt to deflect any individual responsibility relies on "big oil" actively suppressing the damage done by burning gasoline/diesel/etc...
"Individual responsibility" is from the big tobacco playbook, much like the questionable research that preceded it.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you doubt this, check into the first earth day and the claims swirling around at the time regarding Global Cooling.
Yes, do [scientificamerican.com]
> The first Earth Day was in 1970, and the founder of Earth Day described its origin here:
And doesn't mention cooling or warming, so not sure what's up with that.
Re: It's CRIMINAL (Score:2)
Don't blame big oil for making money from you: it's your choice if you buy their product. You could start by walking and cycling more. What, you chose to live somewhere you're dependent on driving or someone else driving to deliver things? And that's big oil's problem how? Start being a leader instead of a follower.
Why is this considered unexpected? (Score:2)
Climate scientists have been saying for a long time now already that the highest relative warming is nearer the poles.
Re: (Score:2)
Only unexpected by the eternally clueless. These people are forever surprised when scientifically sound predictions actually turn out to be, you know, scientifically sound.
Re: Why is this considered unexpected? (Score:3)
You mean like these unscientific people:
"This event is completely unprecedented and upended our expectations about the Antarctic climate system," said Jonathan Wille, a researcher studying polar meteorology at Université Grenoble Alpes in France, in an email. "Antarctic climatology has been rewritten," tweeted Stefano Di Battista, a researcher who has published studies on Antarctic temperatures. He added that such temperature anomalies would have been considered "impossible" and "unthinkable" before they actually occurred.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like these unscientific people:
"This event is completely unprecedented and upended our expectations about the Antarctic climate system," said Jonathan Wille, a researcher studying polar meteorology at Université Grenoble Alpes in France, in an email. "Antarctic climatology has been rewritten," tweeted Stefano Di Battista, a researcher who has published studies on Antarctic temperatures. He added that such temperature anomalies would have been considered "impossible" and "unthinkable" before they actually occurred.
Obviously not a good scientist if he things "unthinkable" and "impossible" have a place in Science. Well, that or he just likes grandstanding, benefiting nobody. All this shows is that we still know too little about the climate and everything we do not know may well turn out to make things to come even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
He added that such temperature anomalies would have been considered "impossible" and "unthinkable" before they actually occurred.
Note the conjunctive.
It is in fact unthinkable that he himself did not consider it. He basically is paraphrasing the thinking of ordinary people.
That the poles - or any cold area - is getting dramatically warm, we observe since 30 years or more. The areas I live in Germany at, had no real winter since decades. With some luck, 5 days snow. The worst combination of everything: tempe
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. If this is for what non-experts expected, I agree to that.
Re: (Score:2)
The climate scientists are surprised that this is happening at this time of year and at both poles (30K higher then normal at the north pole).
Basically they've underestimated things by quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
All this shows is that we still know too little about the climate and everything we do not know may well turn out to make things to come even worse.
Exactly. We've had enough experience with the inadequacy of climate models that anyone who is "shocked" by this news - scientist or not - is probably also "thick".
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the models, if anything, are likely too conservative.
But if you believe thermodynamics somehow functions differently on Earth, then do detail out your models
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the models, if anything, are likely too conservative.
But if you believe thermodynamics somehow functions differently on Earth, then do detail out your models
I think the statement you replied to was "too conservative" as well.
And that is just the thing: If the models are accurate, we are already pretty badly screwed. If they are too conservative, this may well go up to "end of civilization" and may also include "end of humans on earth". If they are too pessimistic, we still will be screwed, just not as hard. Of course the yes/no crowd is not equipped mentally to even begin to understand such "subtleties".
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously not a good scientist if he things "unthinkable" and "impossible" have a place in Science. Well, that or he just likes grandstanding, benefiting nobody. All this shows is that we still know too little about the climate and everything we do not know may well turn out to make things to come even worse.
A scientist can be gobsmacked without being incompetent. When are they going to start using "Scientists are Gobsmacked!" 8^) I uttered a writ of "Holy Shit!" when I read the story. Chilling, ironically
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why is this considered unexpected? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only unexpected by the eternally clueless. These people are forever surprised when scientifically sound predictions actually turn out to be, you know, scientifically sound.
As similar situation is happening in social media, where weird stuff gets posted about "so and so was unknown and not getting her due!"
I read a story recently how Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin was horribly treated, never getting any respect, and that was proof of something.
Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin? Seriously, one of the most gifted, hard working and acknowledged astronomers ever put on this earth, and "no one knows about her"? Maybe if one's education is from Keeping up with the Kardashians, Naked and Afraid
Re: (Score:2)
It's unexpected because of the magnitude of the heatwave. It broke all-time records by double digits. While the high latitudes are warming faster than most, this is an order of magnitude beyond what one would expect based on the previously known trends. It shows that the climate system around the Antarctic has become much more chaotic very suddenly, and makes previous projections seem hopelessly conservative.
When the ice melts... (Score:2)
we'll be able to join the rest of the flat earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'll finally get a chance to use the Stargate! Or, maybe even better, the Control Chair!
Re: When the ice melts... (Score:2)
"But if you bring up the now proven Hunter Biden child porn laptop..."
In the tub... relaxing... nothing pressing... hadn't heard that one before. Oh, what the hell. Let's look it up.
You... fucking... retard.
Degrees of separation? (Score:1)
Units, Slashdot, units. Kelvin?
Re: (Score:2)
W I N D !! (Score:3)
Please check your maps, especially a polar projection. Vostok is fairly close to water, and the southern pole get alot of wind (check here [nullschool.net]. All's it takes is a shift, and you go from 220K up to 270K.
Re:W I N D !! (Score:5, Interesting)
The climate studies folks really need to admit the southern hemisphere has a ton of things to show us as the instrumentation increases with better data services to the region.
Re: (Score:2)
You lost me at antierotic! :)
Re: (Score:1)
"Antierotic interior"
Reminds me of a....
Oh dear...
At least a dozen witty comments spring to mind almost instantly but I think I'd better bite my tongue (as a gesture of solidarity with the antierotic).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing that it took all of recorded history for the wind to change. The only explanation I can think of is the polar ice walls that surround Earth were stopping the wind. Probably was a Judenlasersatellite that melted them. Nothing else makes sense.
Re:W I N D !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing that it took all of recorded history for the wind to change.
It is especially easy when all of recorded history is half a century.
Re: (Score:2)
Man... somebody better go tell the aviators, sailors, and meteorologists of the world that they're wasting their time measuring the wind every day. Checking it once on their 18th birthday should be enough. They'll be retired before the wind changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Please check your maps, especially a polar projection. Vostok is fairly close to water, and the southern pole get alot of wind (check here [nullschool.net]. All's it takes is a shift, and you go from 220K up to 270K.
Wind is the immediate cause yes, but that doesn't mean global warming isn't the ultimate cause.
Global warming causes wind patterns to change, some of the cold snaps this past winter were due to global warming weakening the jet stream and allowing the polar vortex to expand past the north pole. I wouldn't be surprised is something similar is happening here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
??? I might believe a weaker polar vortex that allows the surface (warmer) Screaming Sixties winds in. Polar vortex is what drives the 220K from altitude. Strong polar in the northern hemi and weaker in the south might be plausible.
The interaction between the polar vortex and climate change is pretty well documented [ucdavis.edu], though again, I brought it up as an example more than a cause.
I don't know if what's going on in Antarctica has anything to do with the northern polar jet stream, but climate change can certainly cause drastic temperature shifts by affecting jet streams.
Re: (Score:1)
That is what most people don't know, mitigating facts are left out of narratives.
First of all scientists have known about this for decades it's just not put out to the public until it can be used to HELP the narrative not cause doubt on it. The East snow has been meting to the winds and being redeposited on the West. Until just recently (last 2 years) there was actually a yearly net gain in ice/snow volume while it's coverage area gets smaller.
1. We are in the middle of a deep (possibly a long deep due t
Re: (Score:2)
That seems like many things concocted together and a humblebrag. True, that greening due to incresed CO2 is a real phenomenon [nasa.gov] (about 70% of the reason) but the article attributes also increased rainfall (due to global climate change) as one of the causes. Is the greening enough to compensate for warming?
Also what has the motion of the north magnetic pole to do with climate?
Re: W I N D !! (Score:2)
All of these "facts", yet not a single link or citation. I tend to be very wary of those whose declare themselves "experts" in something and then declare facts without supporting evidence. True experts demonstrate authority with references, not pats on the back about how many hours of experience they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Please check your maps, especially a polar projection. Vostok is fairly close to water, and the southern pole get alot of wind (check here [nullschool.net]. All's it takes is a shift, and you go from 220K up to 270K.
Wind is the immediate cause yes, but that doesn't mean global warming isn't the ultimate cause.
Global warming causes wind patterns to change, some of the cold snaps this past winter were due to global warming weakening the jet stream and allowing the polar vortex to expand past the north pole. I wouldn't be surprised is something similar is happening here.
This! this is how in periods of generally increased temperatures, odd warm or cold spells can occur. Coriolis happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Please check your maps, especially a polar projection. Vostok is fairly close to water, and the southern pole get alot of wind (check here [nullschool.net]. All's it takes is a shift, and you go from 220K up to 270K.
Squeals in delight! Kelvin smiles upon us.
Are they sure... (Score:4, Funny)
That would be (Score:1)
How come ... (Score:2)
there's a huge pile of encrypted code visible at the bottom of this discussion this page?
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind. It's gone again.
Obviously fake science (Score:2)
Real scientists use Kelvin or Celsius scales, and don't faff around with archaic units.
That's what they think (Score:2)
Pointless US Measurements (Score:2)
Please do not quote temperatures in Fahrenheit, a measurement that most of the planet has no concept of understanding of.
0 degrees = water freezes; 100 degrees water boils [at sea level of course].
You can be clever and move to Kelvin for extra geek points.
Re: (Score:2)
Right because something can't be two things at once. Better tell the French that Versailles can no longer be French, it can only be a great work of architecture!
Welcome to planet earth, it's a diverse place and despite the opinions of some who want everything done their country's way many of us very much enjoy the differences between countries even though some can seem strange to others and sometimes cause confusion.
I welcome you to come to the US where you can tell us all how stupid we are for using Fahren
Wait, you mean they don't have a theory? (Score:2)
Scientists are flabbergasted? How the hell is that possible? Seems like they always have a theory that's not really a theory turned into a model turned into supposed fact designed to get the plebs to change their lifestyle and lower their standard of living.
Only for Americans (Score:2)
For the rest of the world it's just 40 degrees warmer.
Fahrenheit (Score:2)
Fahrenheit is kind of cringe.
What? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
What about COVID, breast cancer and Lupus?
I haven't heard about COVID in 4 hours and breast cancer activism has been silent for 2 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ya, the nerve of them scientists putting their temperature gauges down there in Antarctica where they record those numbers that embarrass you. I'll bet you figure your doctor telling you to stop doing something because it will kill you makes you think he only wants to preserve you for the fees you pay him to tell you when you are screwing up.
Re:This is what happens. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, VA is highest $464K/year (Score:1)
https://www.federalpay.org/emp... [federalpay.org]
Re: (Score:2)