The earth-science equivalent of an urban legend
January 18, 2024 1:10 AM Subscribe
This is not to say that there is no climatological mystery to be explained. The countries of northern Europe do indeed have curiously mild climates, a phenomenon I didn't really appreciate until I moved from Liverpool to New York. I arrived in the Big Apple just before a late-summer heat wave, at a time when the temperature soared to around 35 degrees Celsius. I had never endured such blistering temperatures. And just a few months later I was awestruck by the sensation of my nostrils freezing when I went outside. Nothing like that happens in England, where the average January is 15 to 20 degrees warmer than what prevails at the same latitude in eastern North America. So what keeps my former home so balmy in the winter? And why do so many people credit the Gulf Stream? from The Source of Europe's Mild Climate
This is fucking fascinating.
posted by From Bklyn at 2:05 AM on January 18 [8 favorites]
posted by From Bklyn at 2:05 AM on January 18 [8 favorites]
"Why hadn't anyone done that before? Why had these collective studies not already led to the demise of claims in the media and scientific papers alike that the Gulf Stream keeps Europe's climate just this side of glaciation? "
Max Planck: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth" . . . Science progresses one funeral at a time
posted by BobTheScientist at 2:23 AM on January 18 [27 favorites]
Max Planck: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth" . . . Science progresses one funeral at a time
posted by BobTheScientist at 2:23 AM on January 18 [27 favorites]
My partner was coffeehouse friends with the author's collaborator David Battisti, and she would occasionally regale me with second hand accounts of his Jeremiads against the idea that the Younger Dryas could possibly have been caused or intensified by an impact event.
This article was published in 2006, and I wish I could offer a more definitive statement, but those stories could well have come from the period when the research the article was based on was taking place.
I do still see YouTube thumbs showing dramatic depictions of Woolly Mammoths on the run from the mushroom cloud of a major meteorite impact with an invocation of the Younger Dryas in the caption, and I get the idea that the impact theory of the Younger Dryas now involves multiple simultaneous impacts over a wide geographic area, but beyond that, I have no idea how the controversy may have come out.
posted by jamjam at 2:25 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
This article was published in 2006, and I wish I could offer a more definitive statement, but those stories could well have come from the period when the research the article was based on was taking place.
I do still see YouTube thumbs showing dramatic depictions of Woolly Mammoths on the run from the mushroom cloud of a major meteorite impact with an invocation of the Younger Dryas in the caption, and I get the idea that the impact theory of the Younger Dryas now involves multiple simultaneous impacts over a wide geographic area, but beyond that, I have no idea how the controversy may have come out.
posted by jamjam at 2:25 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
This article was published in 2006
I hadn't even noticed that; I thought it was new. Man, they laid it all out and yet still, nearly twenty years later, the urban legend persists. Fantastic link, chavenet—thanks!
posted by rory at 2:59 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
I hadn't even noticed that; I thought it was new. Man, they laid it all out and yet still, nearly twenty years later, the urban legend persists. Fantastic link, chavenet—thanks!
posted by rory at 2:59 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
Roland Emmerich is a massive liar.
posted by biffa at 4:15 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
posted by biffa at 4:15 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
This subsequent review gives some perspective:
Some have argued that Europe's moderate winter temperatures relative to the zonal mean can be explained largely by the winter release of heat accumulated during summer warming of the North Atlantic's shallow surface layer, and these scientists have inferred a subordinate role for ocean heat transport relative to the predominant southwesterly winds blowing toward Europe (Seager et al. 2002). Evidence from climate simulations led Seager (2006) to argue that it is time to toss the “urban legend” of a Gulf Stream control on Europe's anomalously warm winter climate in the rubbish bin. Others have contended that a view that underplays the role of Gulf Stream heat transport in the climate system misses fundamental processes of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system (Rhines et al. 2008). Although some controversy remains with respect to the Gulf Stream's role in setting the zonal asymmetry in Northern Hemisphere climate, neither perspective dismisses the part that the Gulf Stream plays in influencing Northern Hemisphere climate relative to a world with a more sluggish current.posted by Not A Thing at 4:29 AM on January 18 [14 favorites]
It seems like calling it an "urban myth" is a bit harsh, considering that, if I'm reading this correctly, a) it was the accepted explanation among scientists right up until this person's PhD thesis, and b) the Gulf Stream was still shown to be part of the explanation for Europe's warmer temperatures.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this isn't moving it from "total explanation" to "totally bogus", it's moving it from "total explanation" to "partial explanation".
posted by clawsoon at 5:17 AM on January 18 [21 favorites]
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this isn't moving it from "total explanation" to "totally bogus", it's moving it from "total explanation" to "partial explanation".
posted by clawsoon at 5:17 AM on January 18 [21 favorites]
I think the "urban legend" is meant to be that Northwest Europe would freeze over without the Gulf Stream -- something I had certainly always been led to believe. The contention is that the effect of the Gulf Stream is relatively minor when compared to the other causes.
posted by kyrademon at 5:36 AM on January 18 [5 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 5:36 AM on January 18 [5 favorites]
Huh. I had somehow managed to assume that there must be a Pacific equivalent of the Gulf Stream, because indeed Seattle is more temperate than Siberia.
So I guess I learned two things today.
posted by nat at 5:49 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
So I guess I learned two things today.
posted by nat at 5:49 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
It seems like calling it an "urban myth" is a bit harsh
It seems to have worked like one. The article doesn't deny that the Gulf Stream has a warming effect, but it indicates that the effect is on coastal regions on both sides of the Atlantic. The idea that Liverpool is mild compared with Edmonton at the same latitude because of the Gulf Stream, though—nah. And that idea really is prevalent here in the UK.
I was fascinated to see just how much the Rockies affect climate not only in North America but also in Europe—not because of ocean currents, but because of air currents. But the most eye-opening part of the article for me was its opening, pointing out when and how the Gulf Stream myth originated: it was one man's best guess in the mid-19th century, and has been received wisdom ever since. That alone should ring massive alarm bells.
I'd always assumed that "the Gulf Stream is what makes Northern Europe warm" was a product of oceanographers' and climate scientists' findings since, say, the mid-twentieth century. Nope. One guy a century earlier, in a single book. Science has progressed a fair bit since its publication four years before The Origin of Species.
posted by rory at 6:27 AM on January 18 [8 favorites]
It seems to have worked like one. The article doesn't deny that the Gulf Stream has a warming effect, but it indicates that the effect is on coastal regions on both sides of the Atlantic. The idea that Liverpool is mild compared with Edmonton at the same latitude because of the Gulf Stream, though—nah. And that idea really is prevalent here in the UK.
I was fascinated to see just how much the Rockies affect climate not only in North America but also in Europe—not because of ocean currents, but because of air currents. But the most eye-opening part of the article for me was its opening, pointing out when and how the Gulf Stream myth originated: it was one man's best guess in the mid-19th century, and has been received wisdom ever since. That alone should ring massive alarm bells.
I'd always assumed that "the Gulf Stream is what makes Northern Europe warm" was a product of oceanographers' and climate scientists' findings since, say, the mid-twentieth century. Nope. One guy a century earlier, in a single book. Science has progressed a fair bit since its publication four years before The Origin of Species.
posted by rory at 6:27 AM on January 18 [8 favorites]
Windy.com is great for watching the jet streams, with the altitude slider on the right set around 200hPa. It makes it really clear how its wobbling drives the variable weather here in Britain.
posted by lucidium at 6:27 AM on January 18 [9 favorites]
posted by lucidium at 6:27 AM on January 18 [9 favorites]
Max Planck: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out[…]"
Not just scientific innovation, this is true for all academia.
posted by jabah at 6:28 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
Not just scientific innovation, this is true for all academia.
posted by jabah at 6:28 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
Right… I periodically forget that my understanding that any one-sentence explanation of anything in science is going to necessarily omit a whole lot of relevant detail - and that what we teach kids about science or how the world works in grade school is necessarily just a first, simplified approximation - is something I learned as a kid only because I had the privilege of an exceptionally good early science education; and that many folks are either not taught that, or worse are instead taught to take the simple statements as full fact (maybe even having had a teacher mark them as wrong if they have a more complex, more accurate answer). So although I was taught in high school or a little earlier about air currents working together with ocean currents (and have followed climate science news enough to have a sense that there are some further details even that I know I don’t yet know about), so when I think of impacts of the Gulf Stream I also implicitly include related climate systems and currents and assume we’re not just talking about the ocean current in isolation in most cases, I’m probably quite unusual in that.
posted by eviemath at 6:57 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 6:57 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
rory: how much the Rockies affect climate not only in North America but also in Europe
Eddy the Butterfly flapping his wings in Honduras would like a word.
posted by BobTheScientist at 6:59 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
Eddy the Butterfly flapping his wings in Honduras would like a word.
posted by BobTheScientist at 6:59 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
Roland Emmerich's "science" being wrong/insanely wrong was always part of the appeal of his movies, I thought. Anyway Day After Tomorrow came out in 04, so the assumption about the Gulf Stream was maybe the least-wrong bit?
posted by emjaybee at 7:03 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
posted by emjaybee at 7:03 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
But the most eye-opening part of the article for me was its opening, pointing out when and how the Gulf Stream myth originated: it was one man's best guess in the mid-19th century, and has been received wisdom ever since.
Happens a lot it seems. Something I try to keep in mind when there is a report of someone doing experiments of the "Is water wet " variety.
posted by Mitheral at 7:25 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
Happens a lot it seems. Something I try to keep in mind when there is a report of someone doing experiments of the "Is water wet " variety.
posted by Mitheral at 7:25 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
I appreciate this article because I had not re-examined this factoid. I remember how surprised I was long ago when a classics teacher told us that Rome was on the same latitude as Boston, where we were freezing just then. He credited the Gulf Stream, but since it wasn't science class, we didn't go into it. I just filed it away.
The fear of the Gulf Stream stopping has been part of my anxiety pile for years now, where meteors used to be. I mean, there could still be meteors, but we're not paying huge sums of money to drag meteors closer to the earth to make money from them ... yet.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:33 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
The fear of the Gulf Stream stopping has been part of my anxiety pile for years now, where meteors used to be. I mean, there could still be meteors, but we're not paying huge sums of money to drag meteors closer to the earth to make money from them ... yet.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:33 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this isn't moving it from "total explanation" to "totally bogus", it's moving it from "total explanation" to "partial explanation".
This is my understanding too. But the pressure to write "previous explanation was ^+**WrOng%%+! !!" is really huge. I wrote a paper for my postdoc that would be well summarized by your quote, and it was frustrating to see how playing up the critique could rather clearly increase the impact and reach of the work.
This is a really big problem. Science is supposed to undermine and self-correct, but the situation in modern US academics puts *far* too much emphasis, incentive, and reward on flashy firebrand, "old-understanding-is-so-fucking-wrong" type blurbs. And almost nobody outside the narrow field sees the follow up and critiques of the over-stated criticism, so I'm really glad that turned up in this thread. Thanks Not A Thing!
posted by SaltySalticid at 7:41 AM on January 18 [12 favorites]
This is my understanding too. But the pressure to write "previous explanation was ^+**WrOng%%+! !!" is really huge. I wrote a paper for my postdoc that would be well summarized by your quote, and it was frustrating to see how playing up the critique could rather clearly increase the impact and reach of the work.
This is a really big problem. Science is supposed to undermine and self-correct, but the situation in modern US academics puts *far* too much emphasis, incentive, and reward on flashy firebrand, "old-understanding-is-so-fucking-wrong" type blurbs. And almost nobody outside the narrow field sees the follow up and critiques of the over-stated criticism, so I'm really glad that turned up in this thread. Thanks Not A Thing!
posted by SaltySalticid at 7:41 AM on January 18 [12 favorites]
North America's wild swings in temperature are kind of outliers - the Net Zero design considerations for the US literature talks about this at length.
I'm not looking at the report right now, but if I recall correctly, Germany has average temperature fluctuations as wide as Portland Oregon, which for the US is fairly temperate.
And cloud cover/solar radiation differences are wild too: even the most northern frosty cold states like Maine get way less cloud cover than northern Europe - I think NYC compares to Seville Spain, which is southern Spain and very southern Europe. And the majority of the US is far sunnier than that. Even a cloudy city like Seattle WA is far sunnier than London.
Some areas in the US have like 110-120 degrees F worth of temperature variation throughout the the year.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:42 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
I'm not looking at the report right now, but if I recall correctly, Germany has average temperature fluctuations as wide as Portland Oregon, which for the US is fairly temperate.
And cloud cover/solar radiation differences are wild too: even the most northern frosty cold states like Maine get way less cloud cover than northern Europe - I think NYC compares to Seville Spain, which is southern Spain and very southern Europe. And the majority of the US is far sunnier than that. Even a cloudy city like Seattle WA is far sunnier than London.
Some areas in the US have like 110-120 degrees F worth of temperature variation throughout the the year.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:42 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
Some areas in the US have like 110-120 degrees F worth of temperature variation throughout the the year.
I live in Fairbanks, AK, and we usually hit 80F once or twice a summer (maybe 5 or 6 days) and we usually hit -40F at least once (although that’s getting less common). For sure -35F, though, and often one of the 80+ days is more like 85F. So that’s an expectation of 120 degrees of change across the seasons for us! I’m guessing other places in the interior of the continent are similar.
posted by leahwrenn at 8:05 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
I live in Fairbanks, AK, and we usually hit 80F once or twice a summer (maybe 5 or 6 days) and we usually hit -40F at least once (although that’s getting less common). For sure -35F, though, and often one of the 80+ days is more like 85F. So that’s an expectation of 120 degrees of change across the seasons for us! I’m guessing other places in the interior of the continent are similar.
posted by leahwrenn at 8:05 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
> Something I try to keep in mind when there is a report of someone doing experiments of the "Is water wet " variety.
I think that's very sensible, and I wish was taught more in science literacy to the public.
I've done (had to do) "water is wet" studies. They're often useful for settling arguments like this, converting something that is "common sense" to a number we can put parameters and limits of uncertainty on. I have no regrets that I've done so either, indeed those publication have become some of my more cited papers.
Sometimes you need to test the obvious because we've also had cases where the obvious works in a narrow window, but things turn unexpected when you have other sets of conditions applying. So dose-response, ANOVA and factor-type experiments can be very useful in mapping out the "space" of what sets of conditions have what sets of effects. That's often not obvious.
posted by bonehead at 8:05 AM on January 18 [9 favorites]
I think that's very sensible, and I wish was taught more in science literacy to the public.
I've done (had to do) "water is wet" studies. They're often useful for settling arguments like this, converting something that is "common sense" to a number we can put parameters and limits of uncertainty on. I have no regrets that I've done so either, indeed those publication have become some of my more cited papers.
Sometimes you need to test the obvious because we've also had cases where the obvious works in a narrow window, but things turn unexpected when you have other sets of conditions applying. So dose-response, ANOVA and factor-type experiments can be very useful in mapping out the "space" of what sets of conditions have what sets of effects. That's often not obvious.
posted by bonehead at 8:05 AM on January 18 [9 favorites]
Well, I didn't expect to see the name of my intro to geology professor (Wallace Broecker, who was at Columbia but for some reason adjuncted at Rutgers at the time) or the name of one of my neighbors pop up in a link on Metafilter today, but I'll take it.
In reference to the subject, I'm with SaltySalticid here.
posted by mollweide at 8:10 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
In reference to the subject, I'm with SaltySalticid here.
posted by mollweide at 8:10 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
SaltySalticid's comment is one reason I'm really grateful to be largely outside of the publish-or-perish system. We've had to fight to get some of those papers past reviews as not being "novel" enough. And yet, years later, they're more cited than many of the others from our peers at the time. Sometimes someone needs to put a stake in the ground and prove (or put limits on) what "everyone knows".
posted by bonehead at 8:13 AM on January 18 [5 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 8:13 AM on January 18 [5 favorites]
Unless I'm misunderstanding, this isn't moving it from "total explanation" to "totally bogus", it's moving it from "total explanation" to "partial explanation".
I dunno. It demotes the gulf stream from the primary cause of the difference to about 10% of the difference. So a simplified, high school level explanation wouldn't even bring up the gulf stream, and instead would talk about maritime vs. continental climates. Maybe I'm influence by how much I've heard "gulf stream" and the "England would be like Canada" myth over the years.
But suppose I show up a half-hour late, and say it was because I hit traffic. If, in fact, I left 27 minutes later than I planned and had a 3-minute slowdown, I think my excuse is totally bogus. It is "partially correct" only in the strictest technical sense.
posted by mark k at 8:19 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
I dunno. It demotes the gulf stream from the primary cause of the difference to about 10% of the difference. So a simplified, high school level explanation wouldn't even bring up the gulf stream, and instead would talk about maritime vs. continental climates. Maybe I'm influence by how much I've heard "gulf stream" and the "England would be like Canada" myth over the years.
But suppose I show up a half-hour late, and say it was because I hit traffic. If, in fact, I left 27 minutes later than I planned and had a 3-minute slowdown, I think my excuse is totally bogus. It is "partially correct" only in the strictest technical sense.
posted by mark k at 8:19 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
Balmy, balmy, balmy. I said it too much and now it's lost all meaning.
posted by Czjewel at 8:23 AM on January 18 [7 favorites]
posted by Czjewel at 8:23 AM on January 18 [7 favorites]
But the most eye-opening part of the article for me was its opening, pointing out when and how the Gulf Stream myth originated: it was one man's best guess in the mid-19th century, and has been received wisdom ever since.
To be fair, “you only use 20% of your brain” was pulled out of some self-help writer’s ass in the 1920s, and yet….
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:33 AM on January 18 [5 favorites]
To be fair, “you only use 20% of your brain” was pulled out of some self-help writer’s ass in the 1920s, and yet….
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:33 AM on January 18 [5 favorites]
It demotes the gulf stream from the primary cause of the difference to about 10% of the difference. Yeah, and later authors quoted above say that's not widely agreed upon, and that while there is ongoing research and debate about the extent of that impact, both sides agree the thermohaline circulation is important. That's not really matching up with the example of leaving 27 minutes late imo.
This reminds me of another big problem in science communication, where one group says "warming by x degrees predicted" and another says "warming by 0.85*x degrees predicted", and then some asshat writes a headline "Even ExPeRts can't agree on climate change!!!" Ten percent can be a hell of a lot in dynamical systems, and radically change the ensuing cycles. The fact that the Atlantic conveyor not the primary driver of temperature differences between NYC and London doesn't mean that it's not super important for EU climate.
My point isn't that this linked work is wrong. I think it's great and I'm glad it was shared! I also don't have any authority in this field, I just dabble in climate stuff tangentially to my work. This just has a very familiar feel of something that happens all over science, and I think it's good to have a lot of caution reading somewhat sensational take-downs like this, and not blindly accept the new thing until you've read a bit wider context and ideally waited for follow up work too.
posted by SaltySalticid at 8:46 AM on January 18 [5 favorites]
This reminds me of another big problem in science communication, where one group says "warming by x degrees predicted" and another says "warming by 0.85*x degrees predicted", and then some asshat writes a headline "Even ExPeRts can't agree on climate change!!!" Ten percent can be a hell of a lot in dynamical systems, and radically change the ensuing cycles. The fact that the Atlantic conveyor not the primary driver of temperature differences between NYC and London doesn't mean that it's not super important for EU climate.
My point isn't that this linked work is wrong. I think it's great and I'm glad it was shared! I also don't have any authority in this field, I just dabble in climate stuff tangentially to my work. This just has a very familiar feel of something that happens all over science, and I think it's good to have a lot of caution reading somewhat sensational take-downs like this, and not blindly accept the new thing until you've read a bit wider context and ideally waited for follow up work too.
posted by SaltySalticid at 8:46 AM on January 18 [5 favorites]
Unless I've missed a number somewhere, it doesn't even demote it to 10% of the difference between the coasts.
"Removal of the oceanic heat transport globally in our modeling exercise warmed the equator and cooled everywhere else...The cooling over land areas was more modest, typically less than 3 degrees."
"The transport of heat taking place in the North Atlantic warms both sides of the ocean and by roughly the same amount, a few degrees. This leaves the much larger, 15-to-20-degree difference in winter temperatures to be explained by other processes."
The 3 degrees is the "few degrees" that the process warms up both sides. It's a bit pointless to say that a 20-degree difference is "much larger" than a 3-degree uplift. The difference has to be explained by other processes, presumably all of it.
posted by doiheartwentyone at 9:00 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
"Removal of the oceanic heat transport globally in our modeling exercise warmed the equator and cooled everywhere else...The cooling over land areas was more modest, typically less than 3 degrees."
"The transport of heat taking place in the North Atlantic warms both sides of the ocean and by roughly the same amount, a few degrees. This leaves the much larger, 15-to-20-degree difference in winter temperatures to be explained by other processes."
The 3 degrees is the "few degrees" that the process warms up both sides. It's a bit pointless to say that a 20-degree difference is "much larger" than a 3-degree uplift. The difference has to be explained by other processes, presumably all of it.
posted by doiheartwentyone at 9:00 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
Some areas in the US have like 110-120 degrees F worth of temperature variation throughout the the year.
Local temperatures in the interior of BC where I live can span 70C (160F) over the course of a year. Designing climate appropriate housing is challenging.
posted by Mitheral at 9:07 AM on January 18 [3 favorites]
Local temperatures in the interior of BC where I live can span 70C (160F) over the course of a year. Designing climate appropriate housing is challenging.
posted by Mitheral at 9:07 AM on January 18 [3 favorites]
"Why hadn't anyone done that before? Why had these collective studies not already led to the demise of claims in the media and scientific papers alike that the Gulf Stream keeps Europe's climate just this side of glaciation? "
The same reason that people are so hard done by hearing Pluto isn't a planet anymore. If your scientific education isn't "how to be a scientist" and more "here are a handful of facts you've memorized about how things work" then it's going to be tough to accept that one of those supposed truths has changed.
That common knowledge will never change on the individual level. But those people will die out, and the new common knowledge will take over
posted by thecjm at 9:20 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
The same reason that people are so hard done by hearing Pluto isn't a planet anymore. If your scientific education isn't "how to be a scientist" and more "here are a handful of facts you've memorized about how things work" then it's going to be tough to accept that one of those supposed truths has changed.
That common knowledge will never change on the individual level. But those people will die out, and the new common knowledge will take over
posted by thecjm at 9:20 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
Seattle had its first year spanning the 0° - 100° F interval within the last few decades, but I think it’s worth noting that Seattle is around a degree south of Paris and four degrees south of London.
posted by jamjam at 9:22 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
posted by jamjam at 9:22 AM on January 18 [1 favorite]
Scientists are under a lot of pressure to get their number of papers up, to get their citations up, to generally demonstrate their "impact". This is especially true for tenure track academics. It not only gets job promotions, it gets funds from granting agencies to get those papers done.
In the past 20 years journals have seen increases in submissions to nearly unsustainable levels. Criteria have gotten stricter too as there are more submissions than slots to publish papers too. One of those criteria is "novelty". Papers have always had to be original and not covering previous ground, but novelty often is taken to imply a special new flashy result that could be made into a cover article.
I think that pressure has largely relegated the less flashy but still important work to both lesser journals, and in some cases made it difficult to publish all together. Scientists respond to that pressure by looking for projects and results that will meet the journal and reviews criteria. The work may go undone in the first place as the market (grant applications and paper acceptances) for it is increasingly unsympathetic to it. As reviewers and authors are simply two sides of the same coin, this is a case of community pressure increasingly forcing results on itself, chasing relatively fewer publication opportunities in a every growing field, for again often shrinking research dollars.
At least in my informal analysis.
posted by bonehead at 9:43 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
In the past 20 years journals have seen increases in submissions to nearly unsustainable levels. Criteria have gotten stricter too as there are more submissions than slots to publish papers too. One of those criteria is "novelty". Papers have always had to be original and not covering previous ground, but novelty often is taken to imply a special new flashy result that could be made into a cover article.
I think that pressure has largely relegated the less flashy but still important work to both lesser journals, and in some cases made it difficult to publish all together. Scientists respond to that pressure by looking for projects and results that will meet the journal and reviews criteria. The work may go undone in the first place as the market (grant applications and paper acceptances) for it is increasingly unsympathetic to it. As reviewers and authors are simply two sides of the same coin, this is a case of community pressure increasingly forcing results on itself, chasing relatively fewer publication opportunities in a every growing field, for again often shrinking research dollars.
At least in my informal analysis.
posted by bonehead at 9:43 AM on January 18 [4 favorites]
I'm not quite sure I understand what this is saying. So I think what's happening is, all else being equal, Portland ME and Seattle WA would have roughly similar climates, both being at similar latitudes and being directly adjacent to the coast. BUT, because the Rockies cause a large deflection in air flow, more polar air comes South, making everything colder on the East Coast?
posted by ockmockbock at 10:09 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
posted by ockmockbock at 10:09 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
In summary, weather is extremely complicated and hard to understand because of the enormous number of variables.
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:10 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:10 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
ockmockbock I think that's it, and furthermore that warm air does eventually move back up to it's "normal" latitude by the time it hits Europe which is why it has the milder temperatures.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 10:20 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 10:20 AM on January 18 [2 favorites]
Science progresses one funeral at a time
Well that's the second saddest thing I've heard today.
posted by tigrrrlily at 12:21 PM on January 18
Well that's the second saddest thing I've heard today.
posted by tigrrrlily at 12:21 PM on January 18
To be fair, “you only use 20% of your brain” was pulled out of some self-help writer’s ass in the 1920s, and yet
I always assumed the 20% figure was the result net of Sturgeon's Law.
posted by nickmark at 12:47 PM on January 18 [1 favorite]
I always assumed the 20% figure was the result net of Sturgeon's Law.
posted by nickmark at 12:47 PM on January 18 [1 favorite]
I live in Fairbanks, AK, and we usually hit 80F once or twice a summer (maybe 5 or 6 days) and we usually hit -40F at least once (although that’s getting less common). For sure -35F, though, and often one of the 80+ days is more like 85F.
I once gave a talk at a conference hosted in my town of Minneapolis, explaining to attendees (energy efficiency wonks from various other parts of the country, many of them folks who think temperature graphs don't need to go below 15 F) what "it gets cold in Minnesota" really means. Fairbanks was one of my examples of other places that also get cold, along with Minot ND, Bozeman MT, and Gale Crater, Mars. My next slide followed that with "but nobody lives there"; the combined population of Alaska, North Dakota, Maine, Wyoming, Montana, and Vermont is lower than Minnesota's.
Turned out one of the conference organizers was in my audience, and his daughter lives in Fairbanks. But he was a good sport.
And yeah, MN is another place where a 120-degree annual temperature swing is entirely normal.
posted by nickmark at 1:04 PM on January 18 [2 favorites]
I once gave a talk at a conference hosted in my town of Minneapolis, explaining to attendees (energy efficiency wonks from various other parts of the country, many of them folks who think temperature graphs don't need to go below 15 F) what "it gets cold in Minnesota" really means. Fairbanks was one of my examples of other places that also get cold, along with Minot ND, Bozeman MT, and Gale Crater, Mars. My next slide followed that with "but nobody lives there"; the combined population of Alaska, North Dakota, Maine, Wyoming, Montana, and Vermont is lower than Minnesota's.
Turned out one of the conference organizers was in my audience, and his daughter lives in Fairbanks. But he was a good sport.
And yeah, MN is another place where a 120-degree annual temperature swing is entirely normal.
posted by nickmark at 1:04 PM on January 18 [2 favorites]
Continentality - "In climatology, the degree to which a point on the earth's surface is in all respects subject to the influence of a landmass; the opposite of oceanicity (or oceanity) ... An index of continentality, or coefficient of continentality, k, has been formulated by V. Conrad as follows:
k=(1.7A/sin(φ+10))-14
where A is the difference between the mean temperature (°C) of the warmest and coldest months and φ is the latitude of the place in question.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:20 PM on January 18 [2 favorites]
k=(1.7A/sin(φ+10))-14
where A is the difference between the mean temperature (°C) of the warmest and coldest months and φ is the latitude of the place in question.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:20 PM on January 18 [2 favorites]
I'm not looking at the report right now, but if I recall correctly, Germany has average temperature fluctuations as wide as Portland Oregon, which for the US is fairly temperate.
The climate of Portland, Oregon pretty closely tracks that of Berlin, Germany. There's enough mountainous regions of Franconia, etc, that I would not generalize to the whole German climate.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 3:00 PM on January 18
The climate of Portland, Oregon pretty closely tracks that of Berlin, Germany. There's enough mountainous regions of Franconia, etc, that I would not generalize to the whole German climate.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 3:00 PM on January 18
I had somehow managed to assume that there must be a Pacific equivalent of the Gulf Stream, because indeed Seattle is more temperate than Siberia.
I don't know about Seattle, but here in the Bay Area, the California Current is no urban legend. Step even ankle-deep into the Pacific and you will feel its frigid effect. It's easy to believe it's responsible for San Francisco's cool, foggy climate.
posted by ryanrs at 3:14 PM on January 18 [2 favorites]
I don't know about Seattle, but here in the Bay Area, the California Current is no urban legend. Step even ankle-deep into the Pacific and you will feel its frigid effect. It's easy to believe it's responsible for San Francisco's cool, foggy climate.
posted by ryanrs at 3:14 PM on January 18 [2 favorites]
Good point, ryanrs. That’s not the right direction though— certainly that coldness isn’t warming SF! I thought the point about the Gulf Stream was that it brought warm water further north?
posted by nat at 5:20 PM on January 18
posted by nat at 5:20 PM on January 18
I think the warm water turns north, as the Alaska Current. So places like Sitka, AK get warmer winters.
posted by ryanrs at 5:34 PM on January 18 [1 favorite]
posted by ryanrs at 5:34 PM on January 18 [1 favorite]
Just wait. The solution posited to global warming will be to level the rockies. Perhaps it can help with the perfectly flat Kansas project.
posted by maxwelton at 10:15 PM on January 18
posted by maxwelton at 10:15 PM on January 18
those people will die out, and the new common knowledge will take over
flat earth ftw
posted by flabdablet at 9:11 PM on January 20
flat earth ftw
posted by flabdablet at 9:11 PM on January 20
« Older perfectly coordinated aerial turns (SLYT) | All the Garbage I Found on Substack Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Kattullus at 1:36 AM on January 18 [11 favorites]