Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Live Science)   In the winter of 1983, Russia's Vostok research station in Antarctica reached -128.6°F, the coldest temperature ever recorded. Scientists finally figure out how it happened   (livescience.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, temperatures, research station, degrees Fahrenheit, scientists, cloud cover, simulations, tropics, southern hemisphere  
•       •       •

13364 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Jan 2010 at 1:55 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-01-13 10:38:32 AM  
Hope they had sweaters.
 
2010-01-13 10:43:00 AM  
Cue Global Warming WHARGARBLLLLL in 3, 2, .......
 
2010-01-13 10:44:56 AM  
Right. Like I'm going to believe a bunch of climate scientists...
 
2010-01-13 10:50:40 AM  
So that's where Leona Helmsley was in 83'.
 
2010-01-13 10:51:40 AM  
"You see, son, when a Russian and a case of vodka love each other very, very much..."
 
2010-01-13 11:07:25 AM  
.....with a computer model developed to simulate the future evolution of the Antarctic climate, along with weather charts and satellite imagery of the area.

well, this is complete bullshiat, because they're using computer modeling and the same stuff they use to talk about global warming. Science. This can't be true.
 
2010-01-13 11:35:07 AM  
it took them 26 years to figure that out? i'm not a meteorologist, but if someone asked mewhy it got so cold, i would say, "well the warming winds that normaly gust over that spot wren't for some reason, and based on other wether patterns around the globe, it was probaby due to a circling cold front staying over the area."
 
2010-01-13 01:25:04 PM  
rhino33: it was probaby due to a circling cold front staying over the area."

I don't believe you understand how cold fronts work.
 
2010-01-13 01:33:53 PM  
i'm fairly certain colder temperatures have been recorded
 
2010-01-13 01:43:03 PM  

GAT_00: I don't believe you understand how cold fronts work.



obviously i don't. it's been 20 years since i took earth science but the explanation they gave for the coldest day seems like a pretty straight foward assumption that they would go with from day one.
 
2010-01-13 01:58:10 PM  
Easy, they must have brought my wife down there with them.
 
2010-01-13 01:59:04 PM  
I find it highly unlikely they recorded it in something as useless as Fahrenheit.
 
2010-01-13 01:59:52 PM  

veedeevadeevoodee: Scientists finally figure out how it happened

Hillary bared her cooch ?


I thought she had a penis
 
2010-01-13 02:03:13 PM  

Snarfangel: "You see, son, when a Russian and a case of vodka love each other very, very much..."


Was going to ask if vodak was involved
 
2010-01-13 02:04:20 PM  
Adding to this was the absence of a heat-trapping cloud cover and the presence of a layer of tiny particles of ice suspended in the air (known as diamond dust), allowing more heat from the continent's icy surface to be lost to space.

In other words, a temporary loss of greenhouse effect.
 
2010-01-13 02:05:25 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: veedeevadeevoodee: Scientists finally figure out how it happened

Hillary bared her cooch ?

I thought she had a penis snizz


FTFY
 
2010-01-13 02:05:37 PM  

cryinoutloud: .....with a computer model developed to simulate the future evolution of the Antarctic climate, along with weather charts and satellite imagery of the area.

well, this is complete bullshiat, because they're using computer modeling and the same stuff they use to talk about global warming. Science. This can't be true.


No, they're talking about weather, not climate. And I know they are two very different things. In fact they're hardly related at all.

"Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get."
 
2010-01-13 02:06:51 PM  

TheGreatGildersleeve:
In other words, a temporary loss of greenhouse effect.


combined with a wind pattern cutting off the area from its usual supply of not-nearly-as-frigid (not going to call it "warm", even though if it is relative to the air mass that they're discussing) air
 
2010-01-13 02:07:27 PM  
-128, the temperature at which Dick Cheney's heart beats.
 
2010-01-13 02:08:35 PM  

Kazan: TheGreatGildersleeve:
In other words, a temporary loss of greenhouse effect.

combined with a wind pattern cutting off the area from its usual supply of not-nearly-as-frigid (not going to call it "warm", even though if it is relative to the air mass that they're discussing) air


'Scuse me, do you have an old English book to help me diagram that sentence?
 
2010-01-13 02:09:42 PM  

Handsome B. Wonderful: I find it highly unlikely they recorded it in something as useless as Fahrenheit.


Celsius is just as arbitrary. Even the Kelvin scale is arbitrary, division-wise, although it does have the advantage of placing 0 at the absolute coldest temperature possible.
 
2010-01-13 02:10:25 PM  

walkerhound: Snarfangel: "You see, son, when a Russian and a case of vodka love each other very, very much..."

Was going to ask if vodak was involved


I originally read the Fark headline as "In the winter of 1983, Russia's Vodak research station in Antarctica..."
 
2010-01-13 02:11:25 PM  

TheGreatGildersleeve:
No, they're talking about weather, not climate. And I know they are two very different things. In fact they're hardly related at all.

"Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get."


well.. to say they're "hardly related" is inaccurate over a long time scale.. but on a day to day level it is pretty accurate.


think of the Climate Scientist as the accountant for a Casino, and think of Weather as a single play of a game.

the Accountant knows that, on average, the casino is going to win a certain percentage of the time. Just like the Climate Scientist knows that the prevailing influences on the weather in a certain location are going to force the average into a certain range.

However in an individual card game the casino might loose big, or in a particular day you could have weather that is massively out of normal.

Take Iowa's weather the last two weeks for a prime example.

Last Friday it got down to -17 F (-26 degrees variance from normal)
Right now it is 41F (+12 degrees variance from normal)

That's a 56 degree difference in absolute temperature, and a 36 degree change in variance!

Talk about unstable weather
 
2010-01-13 02:12:35 PM  

TheGreatGildersleeve:

'Scuse me, do you have an old English book to help me diagram that sentence?


lol

It was a combination of the temporary absence of the green house effect and the prevailing wind pattern being interrupted
 
2010-01-13 02:13:52 PM  

Handsome B. Wonderful: I find it highly unlikely they recorded it in something as useless as Fahrenheit.


F = C(5/9)+32
 
2010-01-13 02:18:57 PM  

dittybopper: Celsius is just as arbitrary. Even the Kelvin scale is arbitrary, division-wise, although it does have the advantage of placing 0 at the absolute coldest temperature possible.


While all measurement systems are indeed arbitrary, the fact that Celsius is tied to the important-to-everyday-life temperature range of liquid water AND one degree celsius is the dT for one joule of energy deposited into 1 cc of that water. It is far more user-friendly and practical than Fahrenheit. Thus, I say: much less arbitrary.

BTW: holy crap is that cold.
 
2010-01-13 02:20:39 PM  
In the winter of 1983, Russia's Vostok research station in Antarctica reached -128.6°F, the coldest temperature ever recorded. Scientists finally figure out how it happened

The temperature dropped?
 
2010-01-13 02:22:18 PM  

Kazan: TheGreatGildersleeve:
No, they're talking about weather, not climate. And I know they are two very different things. In fact they're hardly related at all.

"Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get."

well.. to say they're "hardly related" is inaccurate over a long time scale.. but on a day to day level it is pretty accurate.


think of the Climate Scientist as the accountant for a Casino, and think of Weather as a single play of a game.

the Accountant knows that, on average, the casino is going to win a certain percentage of the time. Just like the Climate Scientist knows that the prevailing influences on the weather in a certain location are going to force the average into a certain range.

However in an individual card game the casino might loose big, or in a particular day you could have weather that is massively out of normal.

Take Iowa's weather the last two weeks for a prime example.

Last Friday it got down to -17 F (-26 degrees variance from normal)
Right now it is 41F (+12 degrees variance from normal)

That's a 56 degree difference in absolute temperature, and a 36 degree change in variance!

Talk about unstable weather


Cool. Next week it's going to be 97.
 
2010-01-13 02:23:36 PM  

moistD: The temperature dropped?


Thank you Ollie Williams.
 
2010-01-13 02:24:53 PM  

pearls before swine:

Cool. Next week it's going to be 97.


lol

actually they're projecting a stabalization of approximately 4-6 degrees above normal.
 
2010-01-13 02:26:31 PM  
survival list:

1: vodka
2: vodka
3: survive
 
2010-01-13 02:26:50 PM  
I bet it was the other side of that time hole we opened over Norway.
 
2010-01-13 02:30:25 PM  
TheGreatGildersleeve: No, they're talking about weather, not climate. And I know they are two very different things. In fact they're hardly related at all. "Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get."
==============================================

Not really. Climate is the cumulative effect of all the weather a particular area gets. It can be used to predict the weather. Like, you can easily predict it's going to be a cold winter in Ohio. It's ALWAYS cold in ohio in winter.

Obviously, if you know the climate of an area you can pretty easily predict the weather. But, if you have say... global climate change... in 50 years the climate might be different. How do you quantify the change? By looking at all the weather the area had.
 
2010-01-13 02:34:17 PM  

47 is the new 42: walkerhound: Snarfangel: "You see, son, when a Russian and a case of vodka love each other very, very much..."

Was going to ask if vodak was involved

I originally read the Fark headline as "In the winter of 1983, Russia's Vodak research station in Antarctica..."


I read the same thing.
 
2010-01-13 02:36:46 PM  
Algore gave his first global warming speech, sucking the hot air out from the rest of the planet?
 
2010-01-13 02:36:49 PM  

Kazan: Take Iowa's weather the last two weeks for a prime example.

Last Friday it got down to -17 F (-26 degrees variance from normal)
Right now it is 41F (+12 degrees variance from normal)

That's a 56 degree difference in absolute temperature, and a 36 degree change in variance!


Meh. Montana had a 103-degree swing in 24 hours, and SD had a 49-degree swing in TWO FARKING MINUTES.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_temperature_extremes (new window)

BTW, the Vostok temperature is actually colder than dry ice.
 
2010-01-13 02:43:27 PM  

Handsome B. Wonderful: I find it highly unlikely they recorded it in something as useless as Fahrenheit.

You're probably right, but if the article gave the temperature in Kelvin, 90% of the people reading it would have no clue what that meant.
 
2010-01-13 02:45:51 PM  

factoryconnection: moistD: The temperature dropped?

Thank you Ollie Williams.


IT COLD!
 
2010-01-13 02:54:09 PM  
holy shiat; that's cold enough that the CO2 would have frozen out of the air.
 
2010-01-13 02:57:56 PM  

factoryconnection: dittybopper: Celsius is just as arbitrary. Even the Kelvin scale is arbitrary, division-wise, although it does have the advantage of placing 0 at the absolute coldest temperature possible.

While all measurement systems are indeed arbitrary, the fact that Celsius is tied to the important-to-everyday-life temperature range of liquid water AND one degree celsius is the dT for one joule of energy deposited into 1 cc of that water. It is far more user-friendly and practical than Fahrenheit. Thus, I say: much less arbitrary.

BTW: holy crap is that cold.


Farenheit and Celsius both designed their systems to be recreated by other 18th Century Scientists. Their reference points were equally arbitrary

Farenheit chose 0 as the freezing point of a supersaturated salt solution(at sea level) and 100 as human body temperature, equally graduations between these points (yes he was a little off on human body temperature)

Celsius chose 0 as the freezing point of pure water (at sea level) and 100 as the boiling point of pure water at sea level

Equally arbitrary points, but equally reproducable.
 
2010-01-13 03:09:18 PM  
advisable:

holy shiat; that's cold enough that the CO2 would have frozen out of the air.

No, but I had the same thought.
 
2010-01-13 03:19:05 PM  

factoryconnection: AND one degree celsius is the dT for one joule of energy deposited into 1 cc of that water.



Yeah, it's almost as if there was some kind of global consortium working behind the scenes to make all these units work together somehow...

By the way, it takes exactly 500 BTUs to heat 1 gallon of water 1 degree F. Nothing arbitrary about that either, and those units are just as easy for ordinary people to understand.
=Smidge=
 
2010-01-13 03:27:58 PM  

maxheck: advisable:

holy shiat; that's cold enough that the CO2 would have frozen out of the air.

No, but I had the same thought.


Interesting. Basically it is cold enough to freeze CO2, it's just that it any frozen CO2 would "freeze dry" (i.e. sublime). So no CO2 gets frozen OUT of the atmosphere.

But if someone had some dry ice in a solid sealed container, it would remain frozen. Pretty cool. /no pun intended
 
2010-01-13 03:33:23 PM  

factoryconnection: one degree celsius is the dT for one joule of energy deposited into 1 cc of that water


You mean 4.184 Joules of energy.

It takes 4.184 joules to raise 1 cc of water 1 degree Celsius.
 
2010-01-13 03:35:34 PM  
also known as one calorie (physics)


/one calorie (food) is a kilocalorie (physics, 10^3 calories)
 
2010-01-13 03:38:22 PM  

moistD: In the winter of 1983, Russia's Vostok research station in Antarctica reached -128.6°F, the coldest temperature ever recorded. Scientists finally figure out how it happened

The temperature dropped?


Don't be fatuous, moistD.

Also, where does this fit on the "Satan's asshole -> witch's tit" cold scale? "The temperature of hell on the day I finally mount Scarlett Johansson in coital triumph" seems close, give or take a degree or two.
 
2010-01-13 03:43:35 PM  
No, no, no -- you're all wrong. You see, it got so cold there because Antarctica is at the bottom of the world - just look at a globe. Every fifth grader knows cold air sinks, and warm air rises. So, it follows that all the warm air rose away from Antarctica and the cold air settled down there when the wind stopped.

And before you "science" sheeple call me a nutbar, the reason the Arctic is so cold is because cold air is more dense than warm air, so as it sinks from the Arctic, it blocks the warm air from rising to the top of the globe. And it gets less sun, because the lost tribe of Dan went there, and they clearly must have sold their souls to the devil for some reason or another.

I know it's true because Pat Robertson told me so.
 
2010-01-13 03:57:25 PM  

impaler: Interesting. Basically it is cold enough to freeze CO2, it's just that it any frozen CO2 would "freeze dry" (i.e. sublime). So no CO2 gets frozen OUT of the atmosphere.


Is that because CO2 deposition (frost) would only happen under pressure, or because there just isn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere for it to precipitate?

If I breathe onto a metal surface there, I'd imagine any frost that forms would contain a small amount of dry ice.
 
2010-01-13 04:01:51 PM  

factoryconnection: dittybopper: Celsius is just as arbitrary. Even the Kelvin scale is arbitrary, division-wise, although it does have the advantage of placing 0 at the absolute coldest temperature possible.

While all measurement systems are indeed arbitrary, the fact that Celsius is tied to the important-to-everyday-life temperature range of liquid water AND one degree celsius is the dT for one joule of energy deposited into 1 cc of that water. It is far more user-friendly and practical than Fahrenheit. Thus, I say: much less arbitrary.

BTW: holy crap is that cold.


It's not any less arbitrary than Fahrenheit, just more *CONVENIENT* because it's part of a whole coherent set of standards that makes the math simpler.

We could have just as easily decided that there are a 1,000 degrees between freezing and boiling, or 10.
 
2010-01-13 04:04:04 PM  

impaler: You mean 4.184 Joules of energy.

It takes 4.184 joules to raise 1 cc of water 1 degree Celsius.


God dammit... I knew I'd f that up.

Smidge204: Yeah, it's almost as if there was some kind of global consortium working behind the scenes to make all these units work together somehow...


That's the point... SI is an actual, interwoven system. The "English System" or whatever is nothing but difficult-to-remember and -convert measurements.

How many tablespoons in an ounce? How many square feet in an acre? Even a mile is a goof-ball figure... 5280 feet WHAT THE F*CK? This isn't a system, it is a hilarious prank!
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media

Stories from our partner sites:


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report