Siberian town in arctic circle hits 101°F (38°C)
forbes.com
forbes.com
https://books.google.com/books?id=N0FLSOmeFPsC&pg=PT59
Bottom line: records are extremely rare if events occur at random. If new records become far more common than the harmonic series predicts, then this is telling us that annual climatic events are no longer independent annual events but are beginning to form part of a systematic non-random trend.
2020: 100.4 degrees (unverified, as described in the article)
How significant is this newly reported record temperature?
Is it conceivable that the warm day in 1915 reached 100.4 degrees?
Maybe we've changed
- the amount of reporting of records
- the way we measure (thermometer and other equipment changes)
- the frequency of measurement (periodic to continuous)
- the immediate area (urbanization, equipment use)
- the number of measurements (every location gets a chance for a record update)
- the precision of reporting
One reason why climate research is so hard is because of the variability of historic temperature data.
That's your interpretation, kbutler wrote nothing like that.
Oh, and then rounded up to 101F apparently just for the headline.
Honestly, who rounds 100.4 to 101?
But more charitably, I could also see people going past worrying to denial/dismissal
To accept it and and work from there to adapt and mitigate is terrifying. I think you can probably say the same about climate change.
Additionally, I think you could draw a line that these denials are influenced by those protecting their "salaries"
Guess what- the coal industry is going out of business anyway. Those dinosaurs will die anyway - the problem is with “jobs will be lost” argument they are also dragging the future of rest of the humanity with them.
Coal's life may be limited, but in the coming 50 years it's just going to grow significantly.
1988 Canadian environment minister: No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.
Many more https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-o...
It's a "bootleggers and baptists" combination of those who want to remake the world governance and true believers who want to save the world from the perceived danger.
Two of our current greatest threats threats to human life reduced to political wedge issues.
Sure, we should take some precautions from now on, but this level of hyperbole is ridiculous.
If anything, this pandemic was a good wake up call to be a bit more careful in our modern super-connected world. We should prepare in case a truly dangerous bug comes along. The hyperbole actually goes against this, see Cry Wolf.
You see the death stats and calculate a %. Once a medicine is invented the stats of injuries (both physical and financial) would trickle in. Several survivors have lost legs, lung and kidney function.
SARS and swine flu were the wake up calls. This is real deal. And yes, if we don’t learn next will be worse.
Exaggerating the impact of covid is only going to throw more fuel on the fire for people inclined towards viewing the whole thing with a great deal of skepticism. All these white lies and misleading statements add up and the result won't be improved public discourse.
Disease and climate were the issues being referenced. Taking it to mean, specifically, covid-19 is obviously not such an issue.
Or/and you forgot what happened in New York? Just imagine that in every bigger city at once.
Humans can't sweat fast enough to maintain homeostasis.
https://www.weather.gov/safety/heat-index
Hasn't happened yet for sufficient periods in any substantially populated impoverished area, but when it does, well, the horror will be incalculable.
https://ksi.uconn.edu/emergency-conditions/heat-illnesses/ex...
Low hydration is also a factor, and when you consider than millions of USA-ians may not be able to afford their water bill, well...
https://www.consumerreports.org/personal-finance/millions-of...
Of course there's still differences on how much that matters. A healthy person can sustain a longer period of time with a slightly elevated temperature. A person with health problems may have issues much earlier. But in the end... with wet bulb temperature noone can survive without external cooling for longer periods of time.
The summer almost feels milder here. Anecdotally of course.
However the wet-bulb temperature[1] is, as the name implies, the temperature a thermometer covered in water-soaked cloth. If the water evaporates, it will cool the thermometer down, and as such will read less than a regular (dry-bulb) thermometer.
For example, if the dry-bulb temperature is 35C and the relative humidity is 75%, then the wet-bulb temperature would be about 31C[3]. This means the body can still evaporate sweat to cool down, albeit not by much.
If you got both a wet-bulb and a dry-bulb thermometer side by side, you can use it to calculate the relative humidity[2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygrometer#Psychrometer_(wet-a...
[3]: https://www.psychrometric-calculator.com/HumidAirWeb.aspx
Slip on a shirt, Slop on the 50+ sunscreen, Slap on a hat[0]
And who in his right mind would sunbath at 38 Celcius, especially when you're not used to it. We went past 40 last here in the Netherlands, but I guess moving north for cooler weather is out of the question now.
Sorry couldn't resist :)
If you like stable warm weather, your sweetspot is probably Brisbane, where it never really gets too hot or cold (rare exceptions).
Historically, Aboriginal people didn't really expand their population much, not that the barrenness of most of the landmass helped, while white/ other people have only been on the island for ~240 years.
Sri Lanka doesn’t seem too isolated.
Also the seatbelts! Oh god the seatbelt buckles in summer
Singapore is always hot and humid, but places of all latitudes can be hotter for a short period, but usually with low humidity.
So San Jose (Silicon Valley) has a couple weeks of over 100 F weather each year. But almost no humidity.
Uh, you meant Fahrenheit, right?
> Verkhoyansk holds the record for both the hottest and the coldest temperatures ever recorded above the Arctic circle, with 38.0 °C (100.4 °F) and −67.8 °C (−90.0 °F) respectively.
The record high is 38.4°C, and record low is −64.4°C, which is a historical range of 102.8°C (185F), although presumably not in the same year.
(Source: was born in Siberia).
My knowledge is limited, if there's a meteorologist reading this comment, please enlighten us on the topic.
I'll grant you that Barnaul certainly knows of 35c+ temps, but arctic circle? Heat records have been broken. Source: broken heat records.
It happened one time, I am not sure if this statement is warranted. In 1937, Montana recorded the hottest temperate it ever recorded when it reached 117 degrees in Medicine Lake.
Not saying this was a fluke, but it could have been. It happens all the time.
Actual details from the article: This past weekend, a small Russian town in the Arctic Circle hit ... 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit
How can Forbes justify using this headline?
Re: "A small Russian town" lol, Do you propose that temperatures were different 50km away?
There is a massive heat wave rolling through NORTHERN Siberia right now, and it's not been confined to one town nor is this "record" the only broken heat record.
Southern Siberia, like the Altai region, hit's such temperatures regularly, but that's Novosibirsk and south. What we are referring to here is unprecedented, so let's please stop acting as if ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE wasn't a factual reality threatening mammalian life on earth.
However, no one is communicating well here, and you're not a moderator on this thread.
I find it hard to believe someone with those credentials would be unfamiliar with mathematical concepts.
It's a shame because the article doesn't need to "hype" up the temperature. It would have gotten my interest regardless
It's entirely reasonable to judge a publication on the basis of a headline not matching the article. It is not at all reasonable to judge the article's author concerning a headline they did not write, had no say in and probably did not even seen prior to publication.
Forbes is now a content host - when you see an article from forbes.com/sites/xxxx, that means that it's essentially a blog from a rando that Forbes selected as a 'contributor'.
See https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/the-forbes-contributor-mod...
> Contributors have access to the same publishing platform as Forbes's own journalists, a platform which was built by Forbes itself. And keeping the system simple is vital, Federle said, to allow them "to focus on the journalism", and not get distracted by technicalities. > Second is the Most Popular section, which Federle explained is "algorithmically generated" and "driven by velocity engine" which looks at social shares and comments to rank stories. > "We've taken our platform and will shrink wrap it down to a product they can plug into their platform. This is a new business for us."
For some reason it has been consistently 8 to 15 degrees cooler than normal everyday this summer here in Kuwait. Not as extreme a difference but still strange weather. November 2018 Kuwait saw its largest flood event on record and then 10 days later there was a second flood that was 2 to 3 times greater than that record setter.
[0]: https://www.ecowatch.com/wildfires-siberia-russia-2645912533...
Either we accept record highs as an evidence for climate change, but also accept record lows as an evidence against, or we refuse both based on the statement that "weather is not climate".
https://scijinks.gov/polar-vortex/#:~:text=A%20polar%20vorte....
The concern of arctic residents is if the weather is hot enough, for long enough, to melt the permafrost. That has numerous repercussions, including emissions, transportation and wildlife.
For example, any highways or pipelines on top of permafrost will dislocate if permafrost melts.
But overall, Canada is in favor of glabal warming. Most of our land mass is not arable with the current climate.
Source: Canadian, eh.
Conversely, Canada is not expected to be a great beneficiary of climate change (except for the Northwest Passage becoming passable), because most of what is not currently used isn't because of temperature, but because it is muskeg.
By contrast, practically all of Florida would be gone with that rise.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield
[2] https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-...
Source: I live rural on farmland in greenbelt in Ontario.
From David Wallace-Wells's "The Uninhabitable Earth":
In 1879 the naturalist John Wesley Powell [..] divined a natural boundary running due North along the 100th meridian. It separated the humid—and therefore cultivatable—natural farmland of what became the Midwest from the arid, spectacular, but less farmable land of the true West. The divide ran through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, and stretches north into Manitoba, Canada, separating more densely populated communities full of large farms from sparser, open land that was never truly made valuable by agriculture. Since just 1980 that boundary has moved fully 140 miles east, almost to the 98th parallel, drying up hundreds of thousands of square miles of farmland in the process.
Maybe it won't turn into desert exactly but it won't be productive for growing food.
There are expected to be agricultural impacts:
> The Midwest is a major producer of a wide range of food and animal feed for national consumption and international trade. Increases in warm-season absolute humidity and precipitation have eroded soils, created favorable conditions for pests and pathogens, and degraded the quality of stored grain. Projected changes in precipitation, coupled with rising extreme temperatures before mid-century, will reduce Midwest agricultural productivity to levels of the 1980s without major technological advances.
I know you're responding to a comment talking about climate refugees ... the HN comments often jump quickly from realistic scenarios to Mad Max.
But even the projected impacts are significant. Other concerns are impacts to the Great Lakes and to extreme heat events. All covered in the link, which is really very good.
I don't know if you live there or keep in touch with people there. The changes in snow and rain patterns since my childhood in the 70s/80s seem noticeable to me -- although I'm open to correction since I haven't looked at the numbers and this kind of change is not covered in the above report. I don't remember rain in February in Kansas, for instance, but it happens now.
I realize that Global Warming != Warming Winters because climate is more complex than that, and odd weather has always been a staple of Michigan on account of the Great Lakes, but this just felt unprecedented, and a bit concerning if it continues in this direction.
Right, sure, the guy with a "PhD from Duke University where I studied the geology and climate of the Amazon", understands less about climate and weather than you do.
Do you truly not understand that this is extremely basic stuff to everyone except the Climate Change "Sceptics"? They really do have this bizarre habit of quoting schoolkid level science as though it's some amazing insight they've just discovered.
Please do not act as if they are dumb fks. That is not the case.
I'm familiar with Curry's "work". I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt, but then she went from warning about caution to outright lies. Frankly, I'd rather someone who was honestly stupid than Judith Curry who knows she's lying, but does it anyway.
See: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm
Oh, FFS, I just read through her last few entries. She's got worse. Now it's the Anthony Watts technique of linking to articles with suggestive headlines without commentary. Example: "Misconceptions of global catastrophe [link]". Now, that article is about the real issues that will arise from Climate Change, and about people's misconceptions about them, but she knows very few people will actually read the article, and will instead take the wrong implication from the title.
Soils under boreal forests are not good farm land.
Thin soils over the Canadian shield are not good places to plant crops. Or Northern Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, wouldn't be mostly forests.
Mass forest fires don't make good ranch or farm land.
Climate is not the obstacle for agriculture moving further north in Canada -- the Canadian shield is.
And Canadians aren't making use of the farm land we have already. We used to be a net food exporter, now we are a net importer. Which hasn't been great during the COVID crisis.
Overall Canadians (but not the major opposition party, or most Albertans) are very concerned about climate change and not "in favour" (spell it right if you're Canadian, please). However they fear the economic reprocussions that result. Like most people.
Source: Canadian, eh. Also Ipsos polling https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/new-survey-canadians-views-clima...
I feel this is clickbait (at least the title). Continental climates fluctuate a lot. One day breaking a record could simple be a statistical outlier. A poke around the records does show that the entirety of June so far has been well above average, and that this is not normal. But I guess "global warming slowly driving more extreme high temperatures in artic siberia" doesn't get as many clicks.
June 2020 weather records for Verhoyansk: http://www.pogodaiklimat.ru/monitor.php?id=24266&month=06&ye...
> It is well known that the poles warm faster as a result of climate change. For example, the average increase in temperature on Earth over the past 40 years is 1.44°F. In comparison, the Arctic has warmed by more than 3.5°F during the same period, more than double the global average.
My area saw the hottest and driest spring ever recorded last year, but this year we had some rain and temperatures were modest (despite still being above average overall).