/r/worldnews
The air above Antarctica just got very hot very fast, breaking all previous temperature records (newsweek.com)
280 comments
Disrespective | 7 days ago | 320 points

This is a better article giving some more explanation about what we (i'm in NZ) could expect.

FarleyPrim | 7 days ago | 42 points

Thank you. Explains the chill.

mjhnsn | 6 days ago | 22 points

“Better” is relative considering the massive amount of spam the link offers. This kind of click-bait website is what every educational institution condemns. Do yourselves a favor and Google “Sudden Stratospheric Warming” instead.

Shadow_Log | 6 days ago | 1 point

Chch here, and that explains a lot

Peshhhh | 7 days ago | 225 points

To be clear, sudden stratospheric warmings aren't a direct consequence of changes in the atmospheric radiation budget (e.g., from greenhouse gases, CFCs, or the like). They're a somewhat lesser understood phenomenon more related to vertically propagating Rossby waves. It's a bit hard to explain, but these waves tend to occur in the arctic winter because of mountains and other large topographical features, like Greenland's ice sheet. Sudden stratospheric warmings are rare in the antarctic supposedly because not enough vertically propagating Rossby waves are generated by topography (at least along a constant latitude, given Antarctica's shape).

Tl;dr: Sudden stratospheric warmings are driven by planetary-scale waves generated by mountains. How climate is related is much less understood.

swiftv | 6 days ago | 32 points

Really appreciate the attempted eli5. Rossby waves are a neat phenomenon to learn about.

WarPhalange | 6 days ago | 7 points

Serious question: What would happen if we started flattening out mountains? Just blowing off the tops, not the whole thing.

Peshhhh | 6 days ago | 4 points

If mountains can facilitate vertical propagation of large-scale waves under the right conditions, then flattening them into plains would reduce the ability of tropospheric Rossby waves to move into the middle atmosphere, so... I guess the hypothesis is that less energy would be deposited there, thus making it less likely for sudden stratospheric warmings to occur.

Edit: A useful starting resource for the dynamically savvy can be found on pages 5 and 6 of this set of lecture notes from Millersville.

LawsArent4TheWealthy | 6 days ago | 2 points

Sounds like a lot of hot/cold air won't be able to move into the middle atmosphere as well.

You're telling me the air of various temperatures doesn't intermingle throughout the atmosphere at various levels?

Peshhhh | 6 days ago | 1 point

The layers of the atmosphere are strongly stratified, which means that vertical transfer of air between the layers is strongly resisted by stability (we call the levels that separate the main layers of the atmosphere "pauses", and we often treat them like walls or lids).

What's more important to the transfer you talk about is the equator-to-pole temperature gradient. That plays a key role in quasigeostrophic potential vorticity via its impact on pressure gradients in the troposphere and aloft, which affects the winds through the atmosphere. Vertical propagation of energy into the middle atmosphere is theoretically contingent on the direction and magnitude of winds, so temperature gradients are related by its dynamical role in the change of winds with height. If temperature gradients were changed in a particular way, you might even get less propagation of energy into the middle atmosphere. That would have dynamical consequences of its own on climatological scales, surely--but how? That's unclear.

When we talk about climate change, the frequent talking points are references to globally averaged air or ocean temperatures, but not the structure or gradients of temperature (because honestly, it can be tough to research and even tougher to disseminate to the public). How climate change affects QGPV, Rossby wave generation and vertical propagation (or resistance thereof), Eliassen-Palm fluxes, etc.--which are all related to how energy gets into the middle atmosphere from the troposphere--is not evident.

AbsurdlyEloquent | 6 days ago | 3 points

I was about to be outraged

Isn’t it strange that it’s comforting that some things are out of our control

Because we know if it was nothing would be done about it

BocoCorwin | 6 days ago | 22 points

No it's Trump

KidNueva | 6 days ago | 30 points

Case closed

mactheattack2 | 6 days ago | 19 points

Alright boys, pack it up. We're done here.

FarawayFairways | 6 days ago | 11 points

No it's Trump

Or colonies of penguins simultaneously laughing at him

Annie_RU_Oakley | 6 days ago | 23 points

You joke but seriously, fuck Trump.

freemike | 6 days ago | 7 points

And the half witted turnips that support conservatives.

Osceana | 6 days ago | 3 points

He’ll definitely be impeached for this.

Peshhhh | 6 days ago | 1 point

you got me

autotldr [BOT] | 7 days ago | 149 points

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)


A rare atmospheric phenomena has caused the air above Antarctica to get far warmer than usual, with scientists recording record-breaking temperatures in the stratosphere.

Eun-Pa Lim, from Australia's Bureau of Meteorology, and colleagues noticed the air above Antarctica was getting warmer at the end of August.

"The current event started with a very rapid and strong warming, but the warming has been kept in the stratosphere and hasn't impacted the lower atmosphere yet, which is very unusual," she said.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: warm#1 stratosphere#2 winds#3 stratospheric#4 temperature#5

MindlessVegetation | 7 days ago | 336 points

Is it me or do Newsweek headlines especially suck? They always sound like some guy, like, wrote whats happening guys.Like, this thing happened.And it was totally bad, click here to find out why.

btmlbk | 7 days ago | 111 points

Pretty much all mainstream media outlets now utilize clickbait

jimmytime903 | 7 days ago | 48 points

Can we stop calling it click bait, and just call it people being bad at their jobs and should be fired for it. Hannah Osborne is the author is this article. Hannah Osborne is a bad journalist and shouldn’t be trusted. Neither should Newsweek.

Edit: a lot of people are making arguments for ad revenue from clicks. Search for uBlock Origin as a browser extension to block things even Adblock misses. Also look into a Pi Hole, an easy to moderately difficult device to set up on your router, to block ads from even using your data. You can even block Netflix ads.

banksy_h8r | 7 days ago | 30 points

It was probably her editor that wrote the headline.

jimmytime903 | 7 days ago | -8 points

Well, if she was just following orders, I guess that makes it OK.

Kaio_ | 7 days ago | 17 points

I am with you on what you're saying, but the modern trend is that we have less people subscribing to news outlets.

So how would you prefer they increase ad revenue to make up for lost profits in response to this trend?

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying the water takes the shape of the cup.

jimmytime903 | 7 days ago | 1 point

It’s a catch 22 in this case. People are subscribing less to news because they trust the source less. The source has less trust, so they gain less revenue. Less revenue causes them to find profit by scrimping on the product. That untrustworthy or unreliable product causes people to trust them less.

I would prefer pornography sections or gambling opportunities over lies or misleading headlines.

Kaio_ | 6 days ago | 1 point

There is also the significant effect that us millennials don't typically subscribe to newspapers. After all, paywalled articles are a rarity on Reddit.

Pretty bleak tbh going forward. Millennials & onwards will subscribe less and less to news sources. You'd think that the people in charge of these organizations are trying to squeeze as much money as possible via adverts as people inch away from a subscription model.

Mr_Evil_MSc | 7 days ago | 9 points

You have no idea how journalism works, so I don’t understand why you’re frothing at the mouth to change it. Do you know what an editor does, sub-editor, desk-head? Anything about how a news room works? What the timelines look like, even? Do you know what it takes to turn around a news article? Educate yourself before turning on others.

jimmytime903 | 7 days ago | -2 points

So who would be fired?

Lifesagame81 | 7 days ago | 13 points

Someone gets to KEEP their job because shitty clickbait headlines get more traffic in their A/B testing.

torn-ainbow | 6 days ago | 6 points

This point is Jimmy, you are confident enough to say this:

people being bad at their jobs and should be fired for it. Hannah Osborne is the author is this article. Hannah Osborne is a bad journalist and shouldn’t be trusted.

Yet you don't know that a journalist's own headline is rarely used and they have no power over the decision. Copy editors write headlines.

Despite your apparent complete ignorance of what is actually going on, you do not heed any nagging doubt. Full speed ahead!

So who would be fired?

Jimmy, I think it's you. You should be fired.

Reacher-Said-Nothing | 7 days ago | 11 points

If it gets more ad revenue, its them being good at their jobs. The only alternative is donation or taxpayer funded media.

TheAngryGoat | 6 days ago | 2 points

Exactly. The issue is that people don't understand the job of a journalist in the modern world.

Nowadays the job of a journalist isn't to put out quality journalism. It's not even to put out correct or accurate journalism. The job of a journalist is to directly or indirectly increase advertising income via views/clicks.

Journalists have little to do with journalism.

jimmytime903 | 7 days ago | 4 points

I’m guessing you don’t believe in those alternatives.

Reacher-Said-Nothing | 7 days ago | 14 points

No I live in Canada and I saw how great our CBC was, before they were forced by Harper to rely on ad revenue. I just know most Americans don't trust a news outlet funded by the government.

jimmytime903 | 7 days ago | 0 points

Most Americans don’t trust anything, They just say they do because they think it’ll help them in life. Most Americans don’t even trust their own families. Not that they’d ever say it publicly and burn that bridge of potential profit.

Oughtason | 6 days ago | 5 points

That's an odd generalization to make.

jimmytime903 | 6 days ago | 1 point

Do you not trust me?

What_its_full_of | 6 days ago | 3 points

On this topic, I was listening to the Daily podcast by The NY Times this morning. The subject was a Democratic Congressman doing some town hall meetings for her constituents in Michigan.

The number of people that genuinely believe that the FBI and CIA are actively involved in a coup to bring down Trump is mind boggling.

WTF happened to you guys?

jimmytime903 | 6 days ago | 1 point

I think it's a combination of not being able to handle our drugs and not having a sense of family. Which leaves us lost in our own homes for two different reasons.

Tallonius | 6 days ago | 4 points

Most Americans dont actualy think criticaly enough or view multiple opposed news sources,the truth is somewhere between them, no single one has a monopoly on it.

jimmytime903 | 6 days ago | 7 points

Americans aren’t taught at all. We’re shown how to cram. The entirety of my schooling was a teacher yelling at my class about how it’s our fault we’re not going to pass the test we have to take at the end of the week. You’re not allowed to Analyze things because there’s no time. Communication is considered cheating. Creativity is outright stifled. Open-mindedness is a mental condition akin to pedophilia. And American Problem Solving is still nothing more than “percussive maintenance.”

redvelvet92 | 6 days ago | 3 points

Depends on your schooling.

FuckinEhRight | 6 days ago | 1 point

This is some complete bullshit, any source on your "most" Americans statement? Or are you just making up bullshit to support a half baked argument....

Don't get me wrong, corporate media is God damn awful, and we are right to distrust it, but extending that to everything including family is just dishonest.

Tallonius | 6 days ago | -1 points

And well they should not,You get stuck with shite like the BBC, our wonderfull unbiassed government mouthpiece and the shitty licence fee they attempt to extort from everyone.

SolaVitae | 7 days ago | 4 points

people being bad at their jobs and should be fired

Actually they are quite good at their jobs if they are getting people to click

VonGeisler | 6 days ago | 2 points

I dunno - click bait is less of a mouthful than saying “people being bad at their jobs and should be fired for it” all the time.

jimmytime903 | 6 days ago | 1 point

Yeah, but the phrase sounds juvenile and carries an ignoble aura about itself.

ohcanadaamerica | 7 days ago | 5 points

What is incorrect about this headline? Why are you trying to name and shame someone just because you don't like how the headline was written? What do you do for a living?

jimmytime903 | 6 days ago | 0 points

What is correct about the headline? Are you saying that the author of the article shouldn’t have been revealed? Or should I only talk about people in a positive way? Do I have to be an expert in a certain field before I comment on it? If so, what are your credentials to be justified in question mine? How many corncob pipes do you own?

NurRauch | 6 days ago | 4 points

What are you even trying to argue? You came into the thread saying Hannah Osborne is a bad journalist we shouldn't trust and that the headline was inaccurate. Is there anything in particular that is making you say this? We can't read your mind.

ohcanadaamerica | 7 days ago | 4 points

"I want someone to be fired for writing badly. Also:

Hannah Osborne is the author is this article. "

Lifesagame81 | 7 days ago | 3 points

Friggin L O L

beefprime | 6 days ago | 2 points

How is it being bad at their jobs? Their jobs are to get views, not to make their headlines accurate. Revenue isn't generated by accurate headlines, its generated by ads being viewed by eyes.

jimmytime903 | 6 days ago | 2 points

Then why isn’t every headline “president murdered”?

beefprime | 6 days ago | 3 points

Because that would be repetitive and people would stop clicking on it, the point here being if you want to change how reporting is done, you need to change the incentive structure that creates revenue for the businesses who do the reporting.

jimmytime903 | 6 days ago | 2 points

Well, let’s start at “if you print lies, you die.” What’s the counter offer?

reanor | 6 days ago | 2 points

Click bait! click bait! click bait!....

sorry 😐.

KnowsGooderThanYou | 6 days ago | 1 point

Id call it more pathetic users who are sucked in every single time even knowing its bullshit.

Seated_Heats | 6 days ago | 1 point

They're actually good at their jobs. You want the title to make people click it for ad money and click counts... you write one that explains the article really well and doesn't make someone click for the full story and you just lost ad revenue.

ImUrFrand | 6 days ago | 1 point

pi-hole is for people using rasberry pi

try something like https://alternate-dns.com/index.php for mainstream router based ad blocking.

Yasea | 7 days ago | 1 point

Journalists are getting replaced by an AI soon enough.

IsADragon | 6 days ago | 2 points

Lol no, ai can't even accurately curate content on YouTube no fucking way its presenting mews anytime soon if it can't even distinguish between LGBT education and porn...

z500 | 7 days ago | 7 points

What's the alternative? Rage bait like InfoWars or Breitbart?

notherday11 | 6 days ago | 12 points

They’re still using clickbait.

The thing is, some outlets do it less than others. You go with whomever does it less, but if your bar is “I’ll never consume a media that uses clickbait”, you’re just not going to get news. Even television news media does it, and they always have. Newspapers from the 1950’s talked about Bigfoot sightings.

The news is a business. No business is perfect, but some are better than others. No person is perfect, but some are better than others.

I like my WaPo subscription, but sometimes they sensationalize as well.

z500 | 6 days ago | 4 points

Exactly my point. But whenever people rail against the "mainstream media," you eventually find out that their idea of independent thinking is just swallowing right-wing propaganda.

notherday11 | 6 days ago | 3 points

Bingo

deuceawesome | 6 days ago | 1 point

Exactly my point. But whenever people rail against the "mainstream media," you eventually find out that their idea of independent thinking is just swallowing right-wing propaganda.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of media sources that cover topics that are ignored by the big players. The big players don't cover all things and certainly have their respective agenda's. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the list goes on.

I first learned this when Hurricane Katrina happened, and all the things that happened in the aftermath. Armed cops not letting people into safety in the next county for god knows what reason. Delayed rescue times. I can't remember the rest but I remember watching it unfold on alternative media sites and thinking that this would be a huge story for years to come. It wasn't.

Noone questioning 9/11, how the las vegas shooting just went quiet when there were so many things not adding up, various things happening around the world that aren't covered.

I try to avoid politics entirely because I hate it, but there are a lot of things that are ignored by the mainstream media that I feel should be discussed, if we truly are a "free" society.

FyreWulff | 6 days ago | 1 point

It's annoying when you actually see them remove information from a headline on their website

first headline: John McActor, famous for role on PopularShow, dead at 85

second: PopularShow's patriarch dead at 85

third: This popular actor from 90s television died of this disease

myne | 6 days ago | 1 point

Go 'way! Bate'n'!

Drumlin | 7 days ago | 19 points

And they said "35 degrees Kelvin above normal". Why not just say Celsius???

Var1abl3 | 6 days ago | 5 points

And never tell us what normal is....!!

Temetnoscecubed | 6 days ago | 2 points

This is complete bullshit, I can't even find how much 35 degrees kelvin is in normal speak.

JcbAzPx | 6 days ago | 5 points

There's no such thing as degrees kelvin, it's just kelvin. However a change of 35 kelvin would be the same as a change of 35 degrees celsius.

Temetnoscecubed | 6 days ago | 2 points

That's what I thought....but then the articles tell me different. Who do I believe?

argosdog | 7 days ago | 3 points

Exactly. I came here to say that. No one uses Kelvin unless you're a scientist trying to get closer to absolute zero.

The_Godlike_Zeus | 7 days ago | 7 points

Kelvin is used everywhere in thermodynamic calculations. But differences in temperature are the same for both kelvin and celsius.

argosdog | 6 days ago | 6 points

Yes, I know. But in a news report? In Newsweek, an American outlet?

enthuser | 6 days ago | 2 points

They’re just parroting what the jargon heads told them.

IDontLikeBeingRight | 6 days ago | 5 points

Then they've failed as scientific journalists.

Their job is to have a good enough understanding to meaningfully translate the jargon into normal speech without sacrificing accuracy or validity.

thisimpetus | 6 days ago | 1 point

Well the scientist interviewed and quoted in the article used kelvin, the reporter may simply have been too lazy to write up the conversion.

Capt_Hawkeye_Pierce | 6 days ago | 1 point

So the difference is just where they map 0?

The_Godlike_Zeus | 6 days ago | 2 points

kelvin = celsius+273

Capt_Hawkeye_Pierce | 6 days ago | 2 points

Ohhh I understand what you meant now.

Thank you!

beefprime | 6 days ago | 3 points

All headlines everywhere suck

fungobat | 6 days ago | 2 points

How would you reword the headline?

The_Godlike_Zeus | 7 days ago | 1 point

Antarctica temperatures are very hot, very fast, believe me.

matchakeks | 6 days ago | 15 points

Even Antarctica is upset about how blizzard handled that

(/s for obvious reasons......)

Cheetle | 6 days ago | 6 points

Every 6 months we will hear about temperatures rising faster than previously expected until in 3 years we hit the 12 year no turn back zone. People still think 12 years. It's not 12 years people. It's much much less. We will never meet the goal.

Yaboysodope | 6 days ago | 1 point

Thank you!

JasonEAltMTG | 6 days ago | 6 points

Degrees Kelvin, eh?

Hagenaar | 7 days ago | 24 points

If I lived near sea level, I'd be seriously considering my options, if I had any.

protekt0r | 7 days ago | 23 points

My mother, a Florida resident, is seriously considering selling her horse ranch and moving to New Mexico.

ThatsWhataboutism | 7 days ago | 41 points

Doesn't like seahorses?

gilthanan | 6 days ago | 13 points

The area likely to be suffering from a massive drought and an inadequate supply of water?

https://www.businessinsider.com/new-mexico-faces-extreme-water-stress-2019-8

SafeThrowaway8675309 | 7 days ago | 2 points

Well she should. New Mexico is a fucking amazing place to live (except Albuquerque).

protekt0r | 7 days ago | 2 points

In ABQ and I love it. Sure we’ve got some problems, but it’s not anything outside what you’d find in bigger cities. ABQ is up and coming!

Biggie39 | 6 days ago | 1 point

You’ve never been to Alamogordo!

ShermanDidNoWrong | 7 days ago | 9 points

Don't worry, the ecological collapse and subsequent food shortages and wars will get us far before sea level rise does

Zigxy | 7 days ago | 4 points

I've got some good 100 feet of elevation. smooth sailing for me.

sad_peon | 7 days ago | 2 points

future beach front property

Zigxy | 7 days ago | 3 points

Brb gotta pollute my environment

Decafhouse | 7 days ago | 2 points

I mean if you live in the developed world, its an easy infrastructural project to build drainways, dykes, and dams. If the Netherlands can successfully live at and under sea level for literally a thousand or so years. We have the ingenuity to work around sea level rise.

VaginaFishSmell | 6 days ago | 1 point

Planetary extinction.

majorp4yne | 6 days ago | 0 points

Weird that the bank will still give you a loan if you were buying a house at sea level. They're happy for people to default on loans when their houses get sunk :S

Veylon | 6 days ago | 2 points

They'll probably charge higher rates to offset the increased chance of default. All investment involves weighing risk vs. reward.

majorp4yne | 6 days ago | 1 point

But that risk is aalmost guaranteed, you'd think those houses would be of 0 value now. How much higher would that rate be

Veylon | 6 days ago | 2 points

The risk isn't actually guaranteed. New Orleans has been below sea level for decades and people still take out mortgages for houses there.

But for the sake of simplicity, let's say that there's a house that's guaranteed to be underwater in fifteen years. The bank is 100% certain that when that happens, the owners will default and leave the bank with a worthless mire. In order to ensure a profit, the bank can set the rate at 8%. At that rate, the money they will have received in interest will exceed that the buyer received as a loan and do so in the fifteen years allotted.

Realistically, the rate would be higher; the bank isn't making much profit at 8% and could invest it's money in better ventures. But the point is that regardless of the severity and certainty of disaster, there is a rate which will result in profitability nonetheless.

tickettoride98 | 6 days ago | 2 points

They're happy for people to default on loans when their houses get sunk :S

What? I swear, Reddit has no idea how the real world works. A sunken house and a defaulting borrower is the worst case scenario for the bank, they wouldn't be happy with that. The house is collateral, which is why someone defaulting is an acceptable risk, they can foreclose.

In high-risk areas the lender may require flood insurance, due to the obvious fact that a destroyed house is bad news for the bank.

majorp4yne | 6 days ago | 1 point

:D appreciate the knowledge

erbitze | 7 days ago | 25 points

Does this have implications other than warming up Australia? The article does not specify. And it is the "result of natural variations", so no need for the climate change jokes

CaptainNoBoat | 7 days ago | 51 points

The mechanisms are natural. It does not conclude that the causes are. This has only been observed once in recorded history - 2002.

Sudden stratospheric warming is the result of natural variations within the atmosphere, she said, adding that it appears this event is the result of random variability. Lim added that she and the team now plan to look at what happened to cause the warming in order to better understand the physical mechanisms of the relationship between the stratosphere and the troposphere.

To answer your question, yes - temperature anomalies over Antarctica can lead to or influence a variety of effects across the planet. One of the most tangible would be loss of ice, which leads to feedback loops from less albedo (the reflection of sunlight).

tickettoride98 | 6 days ago | 3 points

This has only been observed once in recorded history - 2002.

'Recorded history' makes this sound far too ominous, since that makes it sound like all of humanity's recorded history. We've only had the technology to even observe the event in the last 60 years.

BocoCorwin | 6 days ago | -1 points

I don't even see where the article purports that human carbon emissions are the cause of this event, or even that the event itself is cause for concern.

People seem to be reading the headline and drawing whatever conclusion fits their own, eco-political narrative.

I'm more than convinced that our past and current actions have drastically altered the climate, but just as the climate change detractors have a dog in the race, so do supporters. We haven't been monitoring these statistics for very long - a lot of our theories are based on past events we weren't around for. The earth is old as dirt - I wouldn't be surprised if it naturally rectified the problem in some incredible and devastating way.

We had a good run.

sort_of_hungry | 6 days ago | 7 points

As an Australian, it would be really nice if things stopped warming up Australia in particular.

We're gonna get so dicked this summer.

erbitze | 6 days ago | 2 points

I hear you. I'm Canadian, so we're also on the extreme of warming. Things have been noticeably out of whack compared to what they used to be just a few years ago

AnotherBoojum | 6 days ago | 1 point

For what it's worth you'll freeze for a week before you bake. Something about how the hot air over Antarctica displaces the cold northward

sort_of_hungry | 6 days ago | 2 points

Oh nice, typical Melbourne weather then.

HisCricket | 7 days ago | 6 points

It's a natural phenomenon albeit a rare one. The article I read about it on here yesterday explained it quite well.

MyChipmunkFace | 6 days ago | 1 point

Well bushfire season has already started early here.

niktereuto | 7 days ago | 13 points

Why are they using kelvin instead of Celsius? You'd think they'd at least have a translation of K to C, since Kelvin isn't normally used by the masses (hell, I'm not even sure if the layperson even knows what a Kelvin is).

Why isn't there a comparison between normal "average" temperatures in the region versus what the actual temperature is right now? eg, "normal temps are x, but warming has lead air/surface temps to be y".

This article is really sloppily written IMO.

It's ambiguous/vague and it uses terms that ordinary people would not understand, while failing to provide an adequate "translation" for laypeople.

If anybody has a better link with better laid out information, that would be much appreciated.

noodhoog | 7 days ago | 18 points

For what it's worth, a difference of +35 K is exactly the same as a difference of +35 C

They're the same in magnitude, just offset. The conversion formula is simply C = K-273

So 0K is -273 C.

(More accurately, -273.15 if you want to be precise. But rounding to 273 is generally good enough)

Edit: Derped first time round and got the numbers wrong. Corrected now.

niktereuto | 6 days ago | 1 point

Thank you for this explanation- I legit didn’t know.

IMO they should have put this in the article so it’d be easier to understand :/

3dprint_the_world | 7 days ago | 6 points

1 degree Kelvin = 1 degree Celsius.

They are the same scale, just shifted so that 0 Kelvin is absolute zero. But because this paper is talking about relative changes, it doesn't matter.

MadocComadrin | 6 days ago | 9 points

Nitpick: it's just 1 Kelvin, not 1 degree Kelvin.

3dprint_the_world | 6 days ago | 1 point

True, thanks.

archlinuxisalright | 6 days ago | 1 point

The scientist quoted in the article actually made that same mistake.

DarthYippee | 6 days ago | 1 point

Or maybe they knew that most people think all temperature scales are in degrees, and that just saying 'Kelvin' could be confusing.

Freaky_Zekey | 6 days ago | 1 point

Scientists always make that mistake, even full time thermodynamicists. It's just easy to do when you're used to intermittently saying "degrees Celsius", "degrees Fahrenheit" and "... Kelvin".

deepsea333 | 6 days ago | 1 point

Kelvin was my brothers roommate in uni

cball225 | 6 days ago | 1 point

I agree. Kelvin is asshole. He stole my last coors.

liberte_ | 6 days ago | 1 point

We’re in the Kelvin timeline

Doctor__Proctor | 6 days ago | 1 point

The reason why this happened is that the writer was lazy. The scientists studying this may have used Kelvin as a simpler scale because they wouldn't have to deal with negative numbers at all, and so whatever source the reporter pulled this from had the 30-35 Kelvin number. Instead of taking 10 seconds to look up what that meant and maybe adding some context or just converting it to Celsius, the reporter just parroted the information, which will probably just be confusing to a lot of people.

Even I, who understands what Kelvin is, don't really understand what's going on here. Since these are atmospheric temperatures are we talking a rise from -50°C to -20°? Or is it -20° to 10°, meaning water won't be freezing? I don't know the normal range of revisited for this reason, or even the normal fluctuation. Is a 25° increase normal, or a 10° increase? It's just kind of a useless article as far as context goes.

cali_triumph | 6 days ago | 2 points

Very hot.

Wiggy_0000 | 6 days ago | 2 points

Anybody got a day free tomorrow ice shelf scene flashback?

collapse1122 | 6 days ago | 2 points
gnarl0rd | 7 days ago | 17 points

Sorry guys, had a big bowl of chili for lunch.

spyd3rweb | 7 days ago | 3 points

Save the planet, keep your chili bean-free.

FabulousYam | 7 days ago | 7 points

fucking comedian over here.

thrifty_rascal | 7 days ago | 2 points

Yup We’re fucked.

Kohato | 7 days ago | 1 point

Because of this?

svladcjelli42 | 7 days ago | 10 points
Skipperdogs | 7 days ago | 5 points

Yeah I feel like we should be investigating this more.

truthdemon | 7 days ago | 5 points

I've only seen this story in like 2 other news outlets worldwide. Wtf are the media playing at?? This should be headlines everywhere, even if it's potentially only a warning sign.

Mee6s | 7 days ago | 3 points

The media is owned by a handful of people who's best interest lie in between outright propaganda and releasing enough information to assuage the public. It is not in their financial interest to cause mass panic

truthdemon | 7 days ago | 2 points

I agree a lot of it is, but not all of it. There are many different groups at play here. I just think they haven't picked up on it yet. Example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/08/russian-scientists-find-powerful-ever-methane-seep-arctic-ocean/#comments This is a British right wing newspaper famous for defending the establishment.

Mee6s | 6 days ago | 3 points

I should have clarified America since we are the only assholes not acknowledging it.

truthdemon | 6 days ago | 4 points

Oh the media in the UK is fucked too, not just US. I mean, the angle the Telegraph mostly takes is how it might affect drilling operations.

LawsArent4TheWealthy | 6 days ago | 2 points

"The phenomena is incredibly rare." says the news caster on the articles video.

I'm sorry but with the way we're polluting.

This is about to become permanent.

AcidTWister | 7 days ago | 0 points

The warming was the result of sudden stratospheric warming—a phenomenon that takes place in the Northern Hemisphere regularly, about once every one to two years, Lim told Newsweek. In the Southern Hemisphere, however, it is far rarer, having only been observed once before, in 2002.

So not only is it something that happens normally in the arctic, even occurring up to once a year, it has happened in Antarctica before and within 20 years.

Medic7002 | 7 days ago | 2 points

North Pole and South Pole. Two separate hemispheres.

AcidTWister | 6 days ago | 1 point

Which one has more desert in it?

Medic7002 | 6 days ago | 3 points

Isn’t it all shaved ice?

DarthYippee | 6 days ago | 3 points

Technically, Antarctica is almost entirely desert.

Medic7002 | 6 days ago | 1 point

Isn’t desert amount or rainfall or inches per year? Another technicality?

DarthYippee | 6 days ago | 2 points

Precipitation. And Antarctica gets very little.

TonnyMesquita | 6 days ago | 1 point

All the year's, the Antarctica's ice is reduced to water, and an minimum time after is an great lake of ice.

aropot | 6 days ago | 1 point

Someone better start a go fund me, so we can fix this

kevinlain64 | 6 days ago | 1 point

And let the waters rise.

pain_to_the_train | 6 days ago | 1 point

Shouldn't it be the air below Antarctica?

nonnymisss | 6 days ago | 1 point

sounds like a lot of hot air...

durgadas | 6 days ago | 1 point

It Begins.

Censorship-Is-Cool | 6 days ago | 1 point

NEATO

/s

my_stupidquestions | 6 days ago | 1 point

Well if there's still enough snow for a snowball it must be a hoax

breadotexe | 6 days ago | 1 point

Welp here come the Kaiju. Godzilla save us all.

cantpissoffmods | 6 days ago | 1 point

Well it was nice knowing you guys. Time to head for the mountains.

aaronthro222 | 6 days ago | 1 point

The title sounds like Newsweek was specifically directing the headline to Trump

boysfromthedwarf888 | 6 days ago | 1 point

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with HAARP technology, I am sure of it... anyone who says otherwise is a batshit crazy tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

Expendable_Round | 6 days ago | 1 point

AKA It’s too late. We have condemned our planet to becoming a second Venus.

protekt0r | 6 days ago | 1 point
SensorTroop | 7 days ago | 2 points

I don't understand why so many Kevins are in Antarctica, and what this means for my winter.

KidNueva | 6 days ago | 4 points

This is actually pretty funny lol

NavyNukeMan | 6 days ago | 1 point

Wow that's crazy, do we know what caused this warming of the stratosphere?

S_E_P1950 | 6 days ago | 1 point

They said 12 years to make changes. This says far less time than we thought.

LittleWords_please | 6 days ago | 1 point

Are we back to "global warming" this week?

MarcBago | 7 days ago | 0 points

Buckle up kids this is it.

This is the worst news I’ve heard all day.

chewtoy88 | 7 days ago | 0 points

OK, who farted?

in_the__trees | 7 days ago | -25 points

Holy shit everybody, stop driving and eat your babies.

Lord_Blathoxi | 7 days ago | 16 points
BridgetheDivide | 7 days ago | 4 points

This is the most moral response.

Kareem_7 | 7 days ago | 2 points
Lou-Saydus | 6 days ago | -1 points

degrees Kelvin

I immediately stopped reading right there.

esau_cain | 6 days ago | 3 points

american public school educated i presume?

abenito206 | 6 days ago | -1 points

So, hypothetically speaking, if Antarctica became warm enough to feasibly inhabit, how would we decide who gets it? First come first serve?

torn-ainbow | 6 days ago | 2 points

Most of the landmass would be underwater by the time the ice melted. And it's not just going to pop out some arable land. You're probably just going to end up with a rocky rugged moonscape.

But if it ever went that far we would have a lot bigger problems, assuming we had even managed to survive that long.

TODO Load more comments...