Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Coldest Spot On Planet Earth Identified

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the bring-a-jacket dept.

Science 182

Thorfinn.au sends this news from NASA: "What is the coldest place on Earth? It is a high ridge in Antarctica on the East Antarctic Plateau where temperatures in several hollows can dip below minus 133.6 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 92 degrees Celsius) on a clear winter night. Scientists made the discovery while analyzing the most detailed global surface temperature maps to date, developed with data from remote sensing satellites including the new Landsat 8, a joint project of NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., joined a team of researchers reporting the findings Monday at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. Researchers analyzed 32 years' worth of data from several satellite instruments. They found temperatures plummeted to record lows dozens of times in clusters of pockets near a high ridge between Dome Argus and Dome Fuji, two summits on the ice sheet known as the East Antarctic Plateau. The new record of minus 93.2 C was set Aug. 10, 2010."

cancel ×

182 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Epic Fail. (0, Offtopic)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 10 months ago | (#45653493)

The forgot to check the hearts of the congresscritters voting to end unemployment benefits as a Christmas gift, after having to cut the school lunches and food stamps. They would find it way colder than Antarctica.

Re:Epic Fail. (0, Offtopic)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 10 months ago | (#45653559)

Yes, because 99 weeks of warning that the benefits would run out simply aren't enough. Hey, here's an idea that will no doubt go over well in this venue - let's just pay people indefinitely! Why should it ever run out?

Re:Epic Fail. (0, Offtopic)

Scottingham (2036128) | about 10 months ago | (#45653625)

I hope your house gets overrun by rioters.

Re:Epic Fail. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654271)

You're a dick AND you didn't refute anything GP said. Which makes you a retarded dick.

Re:Epic Fail. (-1, Offtopic)

fredrated (639554) | about 10 months ago | (#45653689)

Yeah, because a warning guarantees you locate a job.

Re:Epic Fail. (1)

MrNJ (955045) | about 10 months ago | (#45653883)

There are no guarantees in life...

Yet disproportionate number of UI recipients find jobs within 1 month prior or after their benefits end date.

Re:Epic Fail. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654055)

Yet disproportionate number of UI recipients find jobs within 1 month prior or after their benefits end date.

What exactly is a "disproportionate" number, and why is it disproportionate? Please, hard facts only, and none of this "well, just look at the number. It's obvious they were just sitting on their asses."

After all, "40% of all 'sick' days are taken on either a Monday or a Friday" sure looks like proof of sick day abuse. But once you realize that there are 5 working days in a week, and 2/5 == 40%, it actually makes perfect sense that, on average, 40% of all sick days will be taken on either a Monday or a Friday.

Re:Epic Fail. (-1, Troll)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#45653885)

Hey, here's an idea that will no doubt go over well in this venue - let's just pay people indefinitely! Why should it ever run out?

You might be surprised that the Welfare State in the US costs about $1T/yr, while paying everybody getting benefits a flat rate of $850/mo would cost half of that, and studies have shown that they would almost always do better.

Welfare is as much a jobs program for bureaucrats as it is charity, to the overhead tune of 100% - that's quite a management ratio!

Meanwhile the Swiss are threatening to enact a guaranteed minimum income of $2800/mo. A couple could get $67K/yr for just existing. I've raised a family on less than that per year - I can hardly see the point of working for pay given that offer.

Re:Epic Fail. (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 10 months ago | (#45653947)

You haven't raised a family with today's costs on $67k/ year. You could probably buy a house for less than that when you started a family. Now, that'd be a mobile home with no extras.

Shit, I make 3/4 of what my father did when he was working, but I'm a LOT poorer.

Re:Epic Fail. (5, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 10 months ago | (#45654285)

We have been systematically funneling money away from people who would spend 90% to 100% of their income (the poor) towards the ones who would save/invest 90% to 99% of their income (the rich). We tax physical labor more (earned income tax) and treat investment income (dividend, capital gains) leniently. This has been going on for 30 years. Under the guises of Supply-side economics, trickle down theory or Reganomics. The result is capital markets are sloshing with excess investment. Companies are sitting on 2 trillion dollars of cash not knowing what to do or where to invest.

The solution is to pay attention to Demand-side economics, where we stop coddling the rich (the self proclaimed job creators) and tax them. If you believe in free markets, you should know that if this captialist won't create the job another capitalist will come along and create that job. They keep telling labor, "If A does not do the job, B will. No one is indispensable". Same thing is true for them too. If A is not willing to invest when there is a job to be done, B will. No single capitalist is indispensable. We have excess capital, and lack of demand. Create demand, jobs will follow.

Of course, all it takes is a few well placed media stories about "gun control" or "gay agenda" or "baby murders" and all the people who actually would stand to gain, gain a lot in fact, would vote against their own best economic interests.

Re:Epic Fail. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654539)

It's always fun to hear someone whine that I'm voting against "own best economic interest". Because you obviously know what's best for me. You know all about my situation and plans for the future.

Excuse me, time to go back to my job, which was NOT provided by some OWS turd, but by a 1 percenter.

Re:Epic Fail. (4, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 10 months ago | (#45654955)

Someday you would realize, your job is created by the people consuming the product you make. If this particular investor did not create your job, some other investor would. That is the free market theory. No particular employee, including you is indispensable. No particular employer, including me, is indispensable. There is excess capital right now in the world financial market. They don't know what do with or where to invest. They chase the latest fad and create booms, bursts and bubbles. There is no one willing to borrow my money. They are offering me 2% or less for 2 year bonds. Supply side has run its course. Creating more incentives for investments would be very counter productive. There was a time, when we needed to encourage investments, may be 30 or 40 years ago. But right now we need to stop coddling the investors and job creators and fund the consumers, the demand siders to create long term prosperity.

I have tons of investments, not quite 1 percenter but quite high and getting there. And real long term viability of my investments, not next quarter or year or even decade depends on not screwing the economic base of this country.

Re:Epic Fail. (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 10 months ago | (#45654789)

If companies can't invest in themselves, maybe they're not very good at what they're doing.

Re:Epic Fail. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654427)

$67k/yr would be a huge (30%-ish) raise for me.

I live comfortably, have a nice house, a paid-off car (2008 model, not fancy, but not crap), and plenty of disposable income. And I'm in the process of selling my house and buying a slightly bigger one with a bit of land around it.

If you're burning through more than $67k/yr and are struggling to make ends meet, you either live someplace with a terribly high cost of living, or you way overspend for your income level. You might also try moving away from the coasts, where prices aren't idiotic.

Re:Epic Fail. (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 10 months ago | (#45654589)

You might try having more than one person.

Try having a wife & two kids, thus 2 cars, saving for 2 colleges, and a wife who grew up poor and so wants to spoil her children. I live near enough to schools for my kids to walk to elementary, middle & high school. Thus housing is pricier than if I lived a few miles away.

But yeah, $67k/person would be fucking awesome. Our household income would be $268k! Sweet!

Re: Epic Fail. (2)

nbritton (823086) | about 10 months ago | (#45654335)

Giving people a stipend like Sweden is one of the better ideas I've heard in a long time, instead of working to further a few individuals private interests, people would now have the time to dedicate to their own interests, which would be much more diverse and generally non-profit motivated. Myself, for instance, would use my time to further medical research in compounds that can't be patented.

Socialism isn't the answer, but at the same time capitalism isn't ether. We control the world at this point in our evolution, cooperation is critical now, and there is no other way forward.

Re:Epic Fail. (3, Insightful)

tchdab1 (164848) | about 10 months ago | (#45654233)

I wonder how Switzerland's guaranteed minimum income initiative is working out? Is everyone quitting their jobs to live in minimal-standards misery?

Re:Epic Fail. (2, Insightful)

seven of five (578993) | about 10 months ago | (#45654717)

The only cure for ignorance is education. Therefore, I recommend you find out first hand what it's like to be laid off and hunt for a job for months on end before passing judgement on others.

Re:Epic Fail. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653567)

Exactly. The CONservatives that voted against expanding the detectable gun ban are pretty damn cold. They want more guns in schools, courthouses, and airplanes where they can be used to murder people, especially children.

Re:Epic Fail. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653589)

Yes.

And, instead, they should vote to stop spending money on meaningless research like this. I mean really: Who cares. Science should just go get a job and support /itself/ for a change. It's not like science ever helped anyone. Stupid americans.

Re:Epic Fail. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653813)

http://capitolcommentary.com/2010/08/18/do-unemployment-benefits-increase-unemployment/

Anecdote evidence, I have friend who has turned down several offers, that while they don't pay quite as much initial as he would was making at his last job they do pay better then unemployment*. But It's less work to meet the requirements for "looking for a job" then it is actually work a job. Keep in mind that people won't be going hungry though they might have to downgrade their lifestyle to live on welfare. I don't make as much money as he did but I am better off financially because he has lived a lifestyle with the goberment and parents as his only safety nets. You start to feel stupid for being financial responsible though I realize I could claim Unemployment regardless of my savings. Ideally, yes we could offer long time unemployment issuance with a good pay but only if people weren't smart, lazy, greedy as I like to say.

*Some of this required moving and a few of them where through friends.

Re:Epic Fail. (0)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#45653833)

The forgot to check the hearts of the congresscritters voting to end unemployment benefits as a Christmas gift, after having to cut the school lunches and food stamps. They would find it way colder than Antarctica.

Well, yes, now Maggie Thatcher is gone. My, but her heart was cold as the depths of space itself.

Re:Epic Fail. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654997)

No, the coldest spot on Earth is inside my ex-wife's chest.

I'm surprised... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653495)

I would have guessed "inside Dick Cheney's heart".

Re:I'm surprised... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653683)

That was the researchers' first thought too. But no matter how long they spent looking for it, they just could not find the damn thing, apparently it resides at a "secure undisclosed location".

Re:I'm surprised... (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 10 months ago | (#45653771)

They said "coldest", not "evilist".

Re:I'm surprised... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#45653841)

I would have guessed "inside Dick Cheney's heart".

Ah, but his burns with capitalism! Nothing, but nothing warmed the cockles of his heart like the 8 billion no-bid contract given to the company he was once CEO of.

Re:I'm surprised... (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 10 months ago | (#45653907)

Nothing, but nothing warmed the cockles of his heart like the 8 billion no-bid contract given to the company he was once CEO of.

Name one other company that even offered (let alone could deliver - never mind competitively, price-wise) what Haliburton specialized in doing. Please, go ahead.

While you're hunting down that non-existent company, please also discuss on the no-bid contract awarded to the company that so gloriously just executed Healthcare.gov, despite there being all kinds of competition (to say nothing of companies with competent track records) willing and able to do the job.

Re:I'm surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654027)

My left asscheek can offer better services than Halliburton provided. Specifically, my left asscheek offers the services of "stay at home and don't go around the world murdering hundreds of thousands of people for a quick buck." If the US had been using my left asscheek's services instead of Halliburtons, we, and the whole world, would be in better condition today. Yes, Halliburton offers all sorts of unique services for hoovering up your tax money --- which everyone would be far better off not calling on.

Re:I'm surprised... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#45654273)

I would have guessed "inside Dick Cheney's heart".

Which one? The bastard goes through 'em like Paul Reubens goes through Kleenex. [wikipedia.org]

Cool! (5, Funny)

jonyen (2633919) | about 10 months ago | (#45653501)

That's a great place for a datacenter!

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653545)

and all frigid women

Re:Cool! (4, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 10 months ago | (#45653645)

Our data centers on snow covered mountains are the hardest to keep cool. Snow is an excellent insulator.

Re:Cool! (1)

cyn1c77 (928549) | about 10 months ago | (#45653763)

Snow is an excellent insulator, but also really likes to keep things at 0 C or colder. So if you put your heat exchangers on the roof, you can basically guarantee that they will always be exchanging heat with an atmosphere that is 0 C or colder.

If you are more intelligent with your design and run your heat exchangers hot enough to melt any snow, you can then radiate directly into the antarctic air and really dump some serious heat quickly.

Re:Cool! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653877)

What do you think will happen to all the runoff, Einstein? You'll wind up with your radiator encased in an ice bubble, and a foot of water in your datacenter.

That was a dumb response (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654035)

What do you think will happen to all the runoff, Einstein?

It runs down the drains that double as the heat exchangers and off the building?

Are you really that dumb or do you beat yourself in the head with rocks every day to meet your personal goal?

Re:That was a dumb response (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654291)

Are you really that dumb or do you beat yourself in the head with rocks every day to meet your personal goal?

Modded you up for supplying my new sig

Re:Cool! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653953)

Is it the snow or the altitude that's causing your cooling woes (or maybe both)? Cooling performance will be negatively impacted with increased altitude and lower air pressure. Telecom equipment environmental operating requirements (like those defined in GR-63/NEBS, for example) often allow equipment to be derated when operated above certain altitudes (e.g. 1800m in the NEBS case).

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653963)

Then build it above ground in a manner that snow would be hard to accumulate surrounding the building?

You're doing it wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654211)

Open the window!

Re:Cool! (1)

Fluffy the Destroyer (3459643) | about 10 months ago | (#45653757)

They got weather stations that wont work properly. I highly suspect the datacenter can do better

Almost the coldest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653505)

The other contender might be a bit colder:

http://www.caninecryobank.com/

Re:Almost the coldest (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 10 months ago | (#45654147)

I'll see your cryonics and raise you "a fraction of a Kelvin" [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Almost the coldest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654445)

Yeah, but they don't keep Spot on ice there.

Re:Almost the coldest (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 10 months ago | (#45655233)

My rubidium collection is named Spot, you insensitive clod!

Pretty sure my basement is colder (1)

igaborf (69869) | about 10 months ago | (#45653513)

I may have to get a pair of wool socks.

Re:Pretty sure my basement is colder (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#45653849)

I may have to get a pair of wool socks.

Wigwams at CostCo. $12 for a set of 3 pair!

I do not work at CostCo, nor own stock, I merely worship there

Visit East Antarctic Plateau! (1)

CaptainStumpy (1132145) | about 10 months ago | (#45653515)

Guaranteed coolest vacation you will ever take

F? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653543)

Seriously, you'd think a site calling itself "news for nerds" would use scientifically sound units to report on a scientific result.

Re:F? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653571)

But then the nerds would have nothing to argue about, and nerds love arguing about pedantry.

I'd guess that the units thing was deliberate, just to keep them happy that they've got some nits to pick.

Re:F? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653767)

Agreed. If I had written it, I would have used the Rankine scale to keep everyone happy.

Re:F? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654181)

Seriously, you'd think a site calling itself "news for nerds" would use scientifically sound units to report on a scientific result.

You mean Planck units? Certainly not something based on an arbitrary choice like the freezing and boiling point of H2O. At least an alien life form would likely arrive at Planck units and understand their significance. There's no telling whether or not they'd think water was the most important thing, or how they'd chop it up into degrees since they probably decided to use something much more "scientific" like a hexidecimal numbering system, and chop it up into 0x100 degrees. Once again though, that assumes they regard H2O phase transitions as the best m measure...

Re:F? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654491)

Try this [wikipedia.org] and this [wikipedia.org] for your 'arbitrary choices.' The 273.16 factor is historical rather than arbitrary and has the neat advantage of avoiding all the shitty weird constants you need to make imperial units do anything of value.

Makes sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653547)

My ex-wife always said she wished she could live in the Antarctic.

That is fucking cold. (5, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 10 months ago | (#45653579)

Considering CO2 freezes at -78C... Yikes. That's cold...

Re:That is fucking cold. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653697)

Considering CO2 freezes at -78C... Yikes. That's cold...

Sounds like a good place to set up a mars simulator.

Re:That is fucking cold. (5, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#45653807)

Wow. So, what happens the atmospheric CO2 in that case? Would it precipitate as "dry ice" snow?

Surface temps - radiated temps. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653931)

Wow. So, what happens the atmospheric CO2 in that case? Would it precipitate as "dry ice" snow?

Ecellent question.

If it's atmospheric temps then "dry ice" shoud precipictate. Yes?

Then again, if it's radiated temps, that's differnet. Yes?

Re:That is fucking cold. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654219)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

It is close to being able to create solid CO2, but the pressure at the altitude might have caused it to remain a cold gas. I'm also not sure how much CO2 is at that location. It isn't China bad down there.

Re:That is fucking cold. (4, Informative)

careysub (976506) | about 10 months ago | (#45654885)

Wow. So, what happens the atmospheric CO2 in that case? Would it precipitate as "dry ice" snow?

Vapor pressure of carbon dioxide at -100 C: 100 mm. Actual partial pressure of CO2 on average in Earth's lower atmosphere: 0.3 mm. Partial pressure of CO2 in exhaled breath: 38 mm. So no, no dry ice snow - the vapor pressure is still too high. At around -110 C the possibility of "dry ice frost breath" becomes possible. It would have to be near -140 C before CO2 would start condensing out of the air.

Re:That is fucking cold. (5, Informative)

amaurea (2900163) | about 10 months ago | (#45654985)

CO2 freezes at 78 C at a partial pressure of 1 atmosphere. That means that if the atmosphere were 100% CO2, and we were at sea level, but still at -93 C, then there would be CO2 snowing out of the atmosphere. However, the partial pressure of CO2 is much lower than 1 atmosphere simply because so little of the atmosphere is CO2. Since only 0.0397% of the air is CO2, and the local pressure (due to the high altitude) is about 0.65 atm, the partial pressure will be 2.6e-5 atmospheres. At that partial pressure the CO2 freezing temperature is less than -140 C [wordpress.com] (I couldn't find a diagram that went quite far enough down in pressure).

The physical reason for this is that there are two competing processes involved. CO2 molecules bumping into a solid speck of CO2 and getting stuck (freezing), and CO2 molecules shaking loose from a solid (sublimation). But the former process proceeds faster the more CO2 gas there is, i.e. the more often these collisions happen. Hence the dependence on the partial pressure.

Re:That is fucking cold. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654153)

There is a colder spot on earth, but it is not natural:
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/microkelvin/ [ufl.edu]

On the plus side: Free Dry Ice! (2)

Flyskippy1 (625890) | about 10 months ago | (#45653651)

Well, as this is cold enough for Carbon Dioxide to freeze, I imagine it gets a cool witch's cauldron effect when it warms up for the summer...

Re:On the plus side: Free Dry Ice! (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | about 10 months ago | (#45654243)

I too was wondering if it snows CO2 flakes.

It would have to precipitate first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654409)

It gets well below zero in the deserts of Africa, but there's not enough water to precipitate out, therefore no snow.

Same here.

Cold isn't enough: more CO2 than it can hold at that temperature is needed.

How long can you survive there? (1)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | about 10 months ago | (#45653655)

If an average man were naked at that spot - how long until he dies?

Re:How long can you survive there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653801)

You wouldn't die, you would just wait for cryogenics to catch up.

Re:How long can you survive there? (4, Interesting)

barakn (641218) | about 10 months ago | (#45653983)

At temperatures even warmer than that, people need special snorkels with heat exchangers to avoid freezing their lungs. Death would be by asphyxiation in mere minutes unless blood freezing in the skin caused some sort of high blood pressure event that triggers a heart attack first.

With or without (2)

justthinkit (954982) | about 10 months ago | (#45654023)

With or without a woman present?

my girlfriend's vagina! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653669)

kidding, i don't have a girlfriend....

Re:my girlfriend's vagina! (1)

careysub (976506) | about 10 months ago | (#45654903)

And we have suspicions as to why...

So, surmised, not identified (-1)

holophrastic (221104) | about 10 months ago | (#45653687)

"from space, we think this might be a very cold place, but we really have no freakin' clue what goes on there, since we've never been anywhere near it, and we don't intend to ever go there"

thanks for the guess. I don't care. Let me know when you discover that the standing air you said gets colder over time actually holds its heat, and that's why you didn't sense any of it from space. let me know when you discover the next in a long line of mysterious and unimaginable natural phenomena that changes every measurement you've ever made -- again.

stop reporting evidence as proof, please. the two are totally and completely independent.

Re:So, surmised, not identified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45655137)

Relax, everything will be ok.

Re:So, surmised, not identified (1)

xevioso (598654) | about 10 months ago | (#45655141)

You are a complete idiot.

What's is the resolution of this satellite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653715)

How small of a pocket can we detect?

How long until AGW Deniers cite this... (0)

george14215 (929657) | about 10 months ago | (#45653729)

as proof of their position? Cue them in 3, 2, 1...

Re:How long until AGW Deniers cite this... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654073)

Here comes the faggot brigade, who will take a minute to stop sucking the cock du jour, flip a wrist and lisp, "You do know that here IS a difference between climate and weather, right?"

Pretending in their faggoty way that if there were a new record high temperature, they would not be all hysterical and saying "I told you so! It's ManBearPig!!!". Those types of homosexuals get their panties in a twist whenever there is a hurricane or a tornado or some such. But when it goes against their need to think humans have fucked the earth, suddenly, it's simply "weather".

Re:How long until AGW Deniers cite this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654333)

What will it take to get warmers to take a second look at their theory and say "maybe we need to re-evaluate what's happening" instead of "settled science"? A fucking 100 foot tall glacier about to run into your house?

Evidence that cannot be explained (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654447)

It's already had 100+ years of second lookings. All that's needed is evidence that cannot be explained by the physics.

Nothing even approaching that has ever happened.

Even the "last 15 years it's been flat!" bullshit (it hasn't been flat, for a start) doesn't. Because for such a short period, the error in determining the trend is still easily within the IPCC trend calculations. Therefore doesn't prove them wrong.

But I notice that you didn't answer the question, but merely ignored it and made it those who accept reality's "problem" to address, yet failed completely to say why it needs "a second look". Why not take a first look, moron?

Re:How long until AGW Deniers cite this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45655083)

Go home Al Gore. You're drunk.

Coldest *Natural* Spot... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653787)

Pretty sure we've made colder temperatures in labs...

correction. . . . (1)

jafac (1449) | about 10 months ago | (#45653837)

uh, you meant on a clear SUMMER night, right?

Re:correction. . . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654105)

Seasons are relative. Because it's summer where you live, it doesn't mean it's summer everywhere. August is winter in Antarctica.

Re:correction. . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654737)

August is winter at the South Pole. It took them a few months to release their findings or to get media attention.

Coldest spot on earth is inside Dick Cheneys heart (0, Troll)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about 10 months ago | (#45653843)

But unfortunately due to a combination of global warming and Cheney's gay daughter coming out, Cheney has lost the world record to East Antarctic Plateau.

My ex-wife's heart (4, Funny)

bstarrfield (761726) | about 10 months ago | (#45653861)

Certainly the coldest spot on earth... just saying.

Re:My ex-wife's heart (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654301)

Were you married to Ann Coulter? Gross...

Re:My ex-wife's heart (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654393)

If he was, he wouldn't be referencing her heart as the coldest spot on Earth. Evidence suggests it would be her vagina.

No slashdot article can be complete... (0)

tompaulco (629533) | about 10 months ago | (#45653875)

No slashdot article can be complete until the remark about how much colder that place was before AGW kicked in.

Re:No slashdot article can be complete... (4, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 10 months ago | (#45654269)

No slashdot article can be complete until the remark about how much colder that place was before AGW kicked in.

Actually, it could be *warmer* before AGW.

AGW has an annoying effect of moving weather away from moderation to extremes. So the cold gets colder, the warms get hotter, the temperate drier or wetter (droughts/floods), etc.

That's the main effects of climate change - the weather starts hitting the extremes. You get drought, followed by extensive flooding, followed by drought, etc. Summers get hotter still, winters get even colder.

My exes soul (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45653897)

beats that

From a friend of someone down there (2)

G3CK0 (708703) | about 10 months ago | (#45654123)

A friend of a friend just posted this on FB and I thought it was really interesting: "We know someone who is down there right now. They actually have to have heaters in their refrigerators to keep them from getting too cold."

Re:From a friend of someone down there (4, Interesting)

hubie (108345) | about 10 months ago | (#45654259)

A friend of mine winter-overed twice in Antarctica. They would play soccer at the South Pole and every now and again they would have to throw the ball in the microwave to warm it up and re-inflate it. Also, on New Years Eve they would go out every hour and have a drink at midnight in a different time zone. :P

This Proves Global Warming is a LIE! (0)

0xG (712423) | about 10 months ago | (#45654253)

Of course, I don't think so.
But someone from the deep south is bound to say it (and be interviewed on Fox as an "expert").
So I thought I'd beat them to it...

Not a silent 'C' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654721)

How can an expert on the subject not know how to pronounce the continent's name? The first 'C' in Arctic (and Antarctica) is NOT silent!

Does the record count? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654809)

Does the record count if it was measured by a satellite instead of by a ground station? What are the rules, anyway?

Mining CO2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45654967)

So why doesn't someone just mine the dry ice that should exist at the spot?

The second coldest place on Earth (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45655051)

is yo momma's cunt.

Coldest spot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45655117)

Michelle Bachmans' vagina obviously,

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?