….
Who knew? Climate change causes horrible wildfires but these dump aerosols in the sky which causes cooling which will in theory, stop more bushfires. It’s another feedback loop the models got wrong.
One author even admits the models “have to take fires into account” — which is the same as saying that their robust settled science of the last thirty years was wrong.
It has all the hallmarks of high quality astrology. The science writing is full of colorful vagaries like “vast amounts of energy”, and “overwhelming evidence” without ever spelling them out. There is spooky inference: we “suspected the world might be witnessing something new”. And then there are the vague predictions: if we scale these fires up by (pick a number) we either set off a nuclear winter or we are turbo-charging climate change. That provides excuses for the next fail in any direction.
If only the ABC had real science reporters they could have asked real questions.
h/t Eric Worrall, WattsUpWithThat (and RicDre)
Super-outbreaks of fire thunderstorms could change Earth’s climate, Australian and US experts warn
-
-
-
-
- Fire thunderstorms during Australia’s Black Summer released as much energy as about 2,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosions
- Clusters of fire thunderstorms may be powerful enough to change the climate, scientists say
-
-
-
Fire thunderstorms — which occur in pyrocumulonimbus clouds — not only create their own weather system but may also be powerful enough to actually change the climate, according to scientists from Australia and the United States.
A “super-outbreak” of fire thunderstorms — also known as pyroCb events — during Australia’s Black Summer fires of 2019-20 released the energy of about 2,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons, according to a study published recently in the journal Nature Climate and Atmospheric Science.
“The energy released was just vast,” said Rick McRae, somewhat innumerately, from the University of New South Wales.
The Hiroshima counting system sounds frightening, but every second the Sun dumps 2,700 Hiroshima bombs of energy on the Earth at the top of the atmosphere. So the entire Black Summer of bushfires in Australia produced less than one extra second’s worth of energy from sunlight on Earth.
“Of course, we don’t have anything on the scale of an atomic exchange when it comes to these forest fire events,” Dr Fromm said.
“But, with these events [such as the Black Summer super-outbreak], you have a scalable phenomenon.
“So, if you scale it up 10, 50 or 100 times, you could see if you would get a nuclear-winter-sized plume and [consequent] effects.”
But, ultimately, he said the evidence was overwhelming.
“You reach a point where you can’t stay sceptical, because there is such a body of evidence saying things are changing. You have to try [to] get ahead of the curve rather than just stick with what you’re used to,” Mr McRae said.
He can’t stay skeptical, he says. No kidding…
Short-term cooling from the aerosol effect, but long-term warming because of the lost carbon into the atmosphere. There is considerable concern in the forestry community that northern boreal forest may never recover from the seemingly continuous fire and insect/pathogen attack events. The environment may be changing faster than the trees can adapt.
146
The Northern Boreal forest are very healthy and expanding. Why?
The limit of agriculture and trees is temperature, in the Northern and Southern high latitude regions. When the planet warms the boreal forest expand. When it cools the boreal forest contract. This is not the warmest period in the last 11,000 years. The boreal forest have contracted when the planet cooled.
This is how the temperature and CO2 has changed in the last 11,000 years. From Richard Alley’s paper that analyzed the Greenland Ice Sheet core two. A second core was drilled because the climatologists did not have an expanation for the cyclic warming that later was found to correlate with solar cycle changes and geomagnetic field changes.
This is from Richard Alley’s paper.
https://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
These warming periods are called (named after proxy temperature scientists) Dansgard-Oeschger (D-O) warming periods. What caused the past D-O warming periods at which time the Greenland Ice warms up and the Antarctic Ice Plateau cools. That is called the polar see-saw. Hey. That strange polar see-saw warming is exactly what we have observed now. Weird.
In Canada, every summer there are strange forest fires ‘lit’ that have been strategically lit to cause smoky skies in cities or to burn towns. Starting forest fires for propaganda reasons, is what ecoterrorists do. And they fly them in to lit the forest fires. And it appears there is some advanced analysis of summer wind patterns, to determine where to start the fires.
Every forest in the world, will burn, when the forest is dry. In British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Washington, Oregon, California, and so on every summer, there are long dry periods. Every summer. And then the rains come. These are not rainforest, where there is daily rain. Does that make sense?
The problem is natural fires forest fires (caused by lightning which is the largest ’cause’ of fires) year after year. Causes more and more underbrush, dead leaves, twigs built up. So when the unavoidable forest fire happens, it burns uncontrollable and is too hot so the forest is slow to recover. It is interesting I have hiked in controlled burn of a Coniferous forest in the Canadian Rockies (at higher altitudes there are only coniferous trees) and was surprised at the extraordinary amount of wildlife that was in the burn section.
Coniferous trees produce a poison that stops insects from attacking them. Which is the reason why there is so little wild life in coniferous forest as compared to a deciduous forest.
So what is needed is controlled burning to emulate, safety, natural forest fires that use to burn all summer before humans/smokey the bear started to stop forest fires from occurring.
370
“In Canada, every summer there are strange forest fires ‘lit’ that have been strategically lit to cause smoky skies in cities or to burn towns. Starting forest fires for propaganda reasons, is what ecoterrorists do.”
Yup, many years ago I used to be a Marxist Greenie loon. I know exactly how they think. I never lit a fire to save the planet back in the day, but I can guarantee it’s the greenies who are lighteng the now.
330
There was a lull in BLM protests in early September. On the day Portland police put out a notice that they had free police to help in other cities, and the next, were the days when most of the Oregon fires started. It’s that obvious.
60
Coniferous trees produce a poison that stops insects from attacking them.
Have you been to the Canadian interior since the mountain pine beetle managed to cross the Cascades? Yet another event where climate change is at least a partial cause.
https://www2.unbc.ca/releases/2007/climate-change-and-mountain-pine-beetle
128
“Have you been to the Canadian interior since the mountain pine beetle managed to cross the Cascades? Yet another event where climate change is at least a partial cause.”
Yes, I have and yes I saw it, from the Rocky Mountaineer, mainly caused by winters that weren’t quite cold enough to wipe out the bark beetle, now there is an opportunity to harvest those infested trees and turn them into biochar and spread it on farmland.
251
“Coniferous trees produce a poison that stops insects from attacking them”
Yes, It takes a special beetle that has adapted to eat pine bark.
Basic ecology 101, Its that simple, simon.
90
Edmonton is near the edge of the infestation. These beetles supposedly die when it get below -40, both F and C. Excuse me if I feel that this number was pulled from their Kyber.
There have been 3 years in the past 11 that the airport at Edmonton went below 40. Three more got down to -39 C.
It never got near -40 at an older Edmonton station for three years from 1940 to 1942, lowest temperature -36.7C . This was similar to 2015 to 2017 that led to the outbreak.
And the outbreak of a native beetle is unprecedented?
Historical Edmonton data
Recent airport
51
See, our planet healed itself.
And we didn’t have to pay carbon taxes to do it.
140
Perhaps bordering on facetious, but by “lost carbon into the atmosphere”, do you mean the smoke particulates?
100
I think he meant CO2, but like most of those who espouse “carbon driven climate change” he does not appreciate the difference.
10
Short-term cooling from the aerosol effect, but long-term warming because of the lost carbon into the atmosphere.
Yet overall neutral because what doesnt burn, either rots or becomes fuel for the follow on fires.
Unless there is a carbon sink in the soil,, whatever gets adsorbed from the atmosphere is eventually re-emitted on a short time scale
90
Yep, all those “carbon offset” plantations are a total con to anyone who takes the time to realise that trees don’t live forever.
40
And apparently because carbon doesn’t accumulate substantially in the soil, then forests as ‘carbon sinks’ turn into ‘carbon emitters’ as they rot or burn in the return cycle.
Understandably global warming retards forests-as-sinks and accelerates forests-as-emitters
Will it ever reach balance
00
I have known for decades that “old growth” forests are carbon neutral.
The only way to make them sinks is to log them on a continuous cycle and use the milled timber structurally. A home with good timber frames and floors stands for 100 years.
Maybe making paper packaging and then sequestering it in landfill helps a little but “landfill” is a dirty word.
20
Jo,
you forgot the unprecedented quantities of UNPRECEDENTED
200
Personally I object to the phrase “It has all the hallmarks of high quality astrology”. I don’t think it is any where near high quality.
230
Sounds like an insult to astrology…….
120
“unprecedented”…… since 2003. Whoopy-doo !
1960, fires burnt a magnitude more area.
1939, was pretty horrific too.
Anyone that thinks pyro clouds weren’t created by these fires is historically naive at best.
150
LOL,
No warming from all that released CO2, (no science you have produced backs that up, because you haven’t produced any)
No warming except during the fires, from all that energy released by burning.
Where does all that energy go. ??
You seriously haven’t thought anything through, have you simon.
Or you have zero comprehension of atmospheric actions.
140
His comprehension is not zero.
It goes past that into negative territory because he’s pushing inaccuracies and counter scientific concepts.
120
Simon, are you aware that the annual burn average has dropped over the past 100 years. And in areas like the United States, it has dropped more then 50 percent.
170
It is the fire intensity not the area burnt which is the key variable here. And yes, forest management is part of the issue. Foresters wised up a long time ago about control burning but lack of funding and public perception makes management challenging.
117
Where are the fires this year, simon.
I thought the world was meant to be getting warmer?
Where did all the energy from the very dry year last year?
Is one very dry year, with massive build-up of fuel, an indication of “climate change”?
Or is it just “Australia” !
150
Fire intensity is pure BS and anyone who suggests that it has to do with CO2 is a mendacious twit. Idiots buy this sort of guff because they know no better. Fires burn hotter with more O2 and fuel load. End of discussion.
70
Fire intensity is a function of weather (wind, temperature, humidity), topography, and fuel load (amount, arrangement, types, dryness).
I’m not sure what your problem is. You can do courses on the calculation of fire weather indices. It’s a well studied subject.
07
It has actually been studied. Wind is much more important than a degree or two warmer. In fact, humidity and temperature are only important for drying of fuel and build up of fuel. Fire fronts are too hot for a degree hotter to make the dry fuel any more combustible.
Australia’s forests drying out sufficiently for a bush fire is far from unprecedented. One camp fire set off Australia’s biggest bushfire over 150 years ago. There was a major bushfire in the Blue Mountains, set off by homeless men,in July way back when CO2 was perfect.
Australia’s forests have been sufficiently dry, hot and windy for a major fire many times without a fire. The Adelaide hills in 2009 were more dangerous than around Melbourne but no firebug and no idiot for it to happen.
To pretend that arson is a constant variable is indefensible incitement of ecowarriors.
70
Study it!? I’ve lived it all my life sonny. The last thing we need is some useless theoretician to tell us what we know already. Your like need a good clip over the ear.
70
Wow, fire intensity? Simon, the mega burns in the past dwarfed any current burns, not just in average, but in mega entire tree fire storms. Now on a shorter perspective yes, the intensity has increased due to human activity and decisions, stopping logging, even health thinning logging, reduced controlled burns, and fire suppression, reducing undergrowth clearing, all have Led to millions of acres of dense forest undergrowth that is responsible for the recent increase in wildfires. ( which is still substantially below past wildfire burns even with subtracting the greater control burns of the past.
CO2 has zero to do with it. Yes, CO2 causes greater growth, countered by the forests surviving droughts greener and less dry then they would be in a 280 ppm CO2 world.
50
“The environment may be changing faster than the trees can adapt.”
And pigs might be evolving to grow wings. !
Yet again, a simply meaningless statement from Simon, with absolutely zero science to back it up.
210
A simple literature review will show you that there is real concern in the forest research community. Rod Keenan is the Australian expert on the topic. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13595-014-0446-5
06
His concern is not CO2 based, or should not be as there is zero CO2 cause, and zero global increase in fires not due to suppression, overgrowth, and wacky environmentalist suppression of controlled burns and Forrest thinning with ecological timber harvesting.
Also most fires are caused by people. There are a hell of a lot more people now.
50
Yes, lots of concern.
Also frustration at being unable to stand up and scream …
… witch!/warlock! Burn them at the stake
Burning fossil fuels is one thing
Loving with carbom neutrality of the landscape is a whole different problem
10
Your link is based on baseless unscientific supposition, based on models and maybes.
Starts with the “Climate Change™” furphy and just keeps on with the claptrap from there.
The number of times the words “projected”, “may” is hilariously anti-science.
You mean like they have for the last millions of years ??
Pigs might grow wings. !
Post science not superstition, Simon. !
Climate is not changing in any way that is different from the past.
Human CO2 is not a cause of the highly beneficial slight warming in the last 200 or so years. You have produce zero evidence of that.
The whole world and biosphere has benefited massively from that warming.
It is cooling the world really needs to worry about.
20
Further more, The tropics will be least affected by any “projected” future warming.
Vast areas of currently unusable ice covered areas would become available, for species expansion.
You do know that the warm areas where there is sufficient water have the largest species diversification, don’t you.
Seriously, this fool’s concentration on “climate change™” mantra, makes him seem almost as simple-minded as you !
10
Warmer temperatures plus more CO2 = more forests. Simple.
111
Sorry no. CO2 also makes all bio life far more drought resistant and greener. So a shorter dryer forest burns horribly as well.
Numerous international studies point to more people ( the primary cause of fires) and reduced control burns, reduced ecological logging, fire suppression and populated forests as the clear primary cause of a two decade increase in fires. The recent increase is however a substantial reduction in the great past fires and average annual burns, even after subtracting the greater control burns of the past.
Sometimes simple is simply wrong.
20
100% correct about the reduced control burns. To successfully manage our forests, they need to control burn around 10% every year. But NSW and Victoria currently control burn less than 2% pa. WA burns around 8%.
20
Fear! Like the covid panic the plebs have been alarmed by something that only rearly is catastrophic.
Just spent couple hours sitting in a fire truck watching a fire “threaten a home”. Years gone by owner would have sat on verandah and watched knowing a much bigger threat in few months was being removed. Dispersion was cast on the person who probably lit it and despite his good results he had to deny it.
00
People were saying exactly that in the mid-980s too, radical hysteria doom claims were all the rage at that time too, but that at least had the excuse of a broad lack of knowledge and ignorance. Today their really is not even that excuse, it’s really just a willful decision to play the fool and try to deceive people with the usual counterproductive, “The End is Nigh!” BS, to try to scare-up public money out of dimwits.
The authorities used to put a bounty on the head of snake-oil salesmen with false fears and equally false remedies used to steal people’s money.
And as usual the knee-jerk hysteria to every such claim proved to be complete bollocks. The forests survived and regenerated as always, just like the reefs survived and regenerated always, and the sub-Saharan rapid and accelerating ‘desertification’ scare of the mid-1970s turned into global-greening ever since. And the Brazilian jungle also didn’t turn into a dust-bowl apocalypse yet despite having just 10 years remaining for every year during the past 40 years.
Greenie-doomer hysterical concern-trolling really is tedious and obviously a delusional ‘world view’ state of mind, built-up from an endless melange of figments of imagination.
Try to give it a rest, Simon.
70
Simon, the trees have already adapted. They never stop adapting.
And “Never” is a very long time.
In our area some eucalyptus trees have been doing it tough for maybe 40 years. On stringybarks the outer branches die, some trees die.
A “red box” that I estimate to be about 50 years old and had been doing it tough in the time that I knew it suddenly died completely. I had a look at it, and the sap wood had been completely eaten out by grubs. I haven’t seen the grubs, and don’t know which insect they belong to. But it seems that at the moment those grubs are adapting better than those trees are. Grubs adapt too, you know.
Big, older trees still look OK, but young stuff are struggling.
Our daughter took us to Tasmania recently to see their big trees. I recommend the trip. At “The Big Tree'” near The Dip Falls, I saw scattered trees that I expect would be in the order of 1,000 years old or maybe more, and a lot of younger growth that I would not expect to be 200 years old. On thinking later I don’t recall any trees between those ages. I would like to go back for another look.
Near Geeveston at The Skywalk there were trees of all ages, many killed by the recent fires. I missed because I didn’t read enough seeing the tallest (99 metre) tree, which is apparently near Geeveston and readily accessible.
40
Resulting from greens pyrophobia.
00
Who are you talking about? What did they actually claim? Was it based on data that could be checked?
20
Reading the actual paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00192-9 is far more illuminating than the WUWT misinterpretation.
219
I’m not really impressed by the authors who set the premise that the fires are only as a result of “climate change”, whilst apparently deciding not to consider (lack of) land management as a cause – right in the abstract, no less.
“…As the second record-setting stratospheric pyroCb event in the last 4 years, the Australian super outbreak offers new clues on the potential scale and intensity of this increasingly extreme fire-weather phenomenon in a warming climate…”
I hope Nature publishes a study into how said areas are regenerating over time, compared to the sites of other fires. That’d be interesting to read. Is it better, or worse than other locations? Who knows? but it’d be interesting to find out how much (or how little) CO2 is reabsorbed by regenerating bushland.
210
There are many trees dependant on fire for reproduction, sp fire can’t be only result by CC.
Or the Firehawks, learned during evolution use fire for hunting.
110
Have read it, and laughed.
They seem to think all these things are “new” and “unprecedented” just because they haven’t observed then during their 20 or so years or so on the planet.
It really is a sort of juvenile naivety !
180
I grew up about 20km WSW from our local town.
On a clear day about 45 years ago a neighbour did a big burnoff of bulldozer heaps of timber on about 40 hectares. It sent up a big cloud of smoke which turned into a raincloud. From that cloud my sister in town registered 14 points, or 3.5 mm of rain.
The vastly bigger Sir Ivan fire a few years back created thunderstorms which lit new fires about 20 or 30 km in advance of the primary fire. Fortunately they were promptly extinguished.
40
I don’t read WUWT because many things posted there are annoyingly poor quality. It upsets me too much
Having fallen upon the realization that for each unit of land carbon-in = carbon-out I don’t see any benefit to smoke induced winter nor excess release of carbon into the atmosphere. Notice that this is unaffected by barren earth or luxurious growth. It is all balanced to zero
My hopes that vegetative sequestering in the soil leads to fossil fuel beds appears dashed nothwitstang huge carbon and fossilized beds having formed in the past and new bogs are disvovered when people have bothered to look for them.
What remain of the net zero carbon flow (conservation principle) is the lateral flow of carbon by runoff or transportof biomass.. Flooding erosion and glaciation can play a roll here. it would seem such scouring activity would enhance carbon sequestation, which doesn’t seem to be allowed by scientists in the know
Why not call wildfires for what they are. It destroys habitat and cooks poor creatures, notwithstanding that such habitat destruction and organism loss is fundamental to the ecology itself. It may not be pretty but it’s life
Finally I point out that fires produce convection flow which transports heavy Co2 higher into the atmosphere. Windmills by means of wake turbulance do that too. Etc etc.Yet even these processes are a one shot deal. They do not affect the propensity of land to release or capture carbon over a long interval of time. Hmm …
92
Simon, shows us your power, list the WUWT assertions, and refute.
120
Simon, “ still waiting for greenhouse”. Defend your assertions.
00
Simon,
I think one (or more) of the authors read somewhere that volcanic eruptions cause cooling, and said “here is a way of covering up the failure of our model forecasts”.
And if these effects were observed in 2002, why has they only surfaced now with the evidence of global cooling causing people to be sceptical about the coming heat death unless we waste lots of money?
And curious minds ask – are you the lead troll now? Taking over from Peter F so he can recover from rejection as our Climate Saviour?
140
Simon is no troll
18
Yes, . Like Peter, it is his soul-less reason for being here.
…. to troll with mindless inanities.
50
Back in the day, on a green left blog, they reckoned I was a ‘concern troll’. Technically, a troll is someone who is consistently off topic. Simon, Leaf and Mr Fitzroy are not trolls.
11
Cue : “In the hall of the mountain king” Edvard Grieg.
20
Can that be my theme?
22
If the hat fits …
00
Failure to list the flaws in something he insults and attempts to marginalize is troll behavior.
I admit he may not turn to stone In sunlight, but his assertions do.
10
so the warming observed to date is a result of the reduction in fires.
better start burning again.
90
“Fire thunderstorms could change the weather, and even the climate…”, “The 2019-20 fires released so much energy it could change the climate…”
So, how much did the climate change following the great Australian fires of the 1960’s which were actually about 10 times bigger and destroyed 10 times more forest et al, in one go? Anyone… anyone?
Hmm, just as I thought – crickets!
I have come to describe just about every government or “expert” report about just about any subject, as follows;
All is politics, and it’s all bullsh!t.
[FYI, full keyword bull… sends you to the Bin.] LVA
110
well it did cool down. Suited those crickets.
20
La Niña perhaps?
00
Hundreds of thousands of windmills. A total shutdown of air traffic and car traffic for a very long time. Wildfires of always unprecedented size in dry areas where people have recently built houses among real flame trees. And what is spectacularly missing? Any sign of a change in CO2 levels other than business as usual. Look at the second graph.
They have “for the comparison with pre-industrial times the Mauna Loa weekly data have been first deseasonalized by subtracting the observed average seasonal cycle, and then subtracting 280 ppm. (Where’s that exponential curve) But I would challenge anyone to spot any impact of man, apart from the implied and utterly assumed impact of ‘industrialization’. However try and find any impact of man at all. Including bushfires.
It’s a classic case of confirmation bias but in making the fundamental assumption that industrialization controls atmospheric CO2, they have inadvertently demonstrated that nothing we do has any effect. Even volcanoes and gigantic fires, say in Indonesia, Australia, Russia. It’s as if humans are irrelevant to the planet, but Hollywood says that is not true.
190
I keep going back to the NOAA graph. Amazing.
Having endured Michael Mann’s skyrocket graph of CO2 for thirty years, it’s nice to see an NOAA graph of actual CO2 which is a dead straight line.
Where’s the runaway, tipping point, exponential growth? Not for the last 50 years. And of course, where is any evidence of human activity? Or even a volcano event like Mt. St.Helen’s enormous eruption in 1980? Not a sausage.
It’s enough to make you think there is so much CO2 already in the ecosystem that more doesn’t matter. There’s no deviation and recovery to equilibrium. There’s no evidence of any source of CO2 other than the oceans which are stuffed with highly soluble CO2.
61
What dead straight line. I see the known annual flux and the rock steady continues increase
That we are adding man made CO2 to the atmosphere us not controversial. How much our man made CO2 contributes to the mean rise can be debated. Personally I think humans deserve some credit for feeding and greening the planet
30
Our contribution is tiny. The only way it could possibly increase is that our CO2 refuses to be absorbed by the oceans. CO2 is in equilibrium, like all other gases. Fish breathe too.
10
It is complicated. It was debated at WUWT by scientists, with informed skeptics on both sides. The human influence perspective being that yes, although the human contribution is small, it is cumulative, with about 1/2 of the human contributions retained each year. As such, a 10 percent decrease in human production, meaning a five percent decrease in the annual above absorption retainer, is a very small number easily washed out in ocean cycle T flux etc…
I have seen detailed analysis that the smoothed annual growth chart is slightly exponential. It can be seen just by looking at it. I wish we had accurate global measures from the time we came out of the LIA. That would be more telling.
However I take no dog in this fight. CAGW is easily defeated along far easier to debate lines, and the benefits of CO2 are very large indeed, and increasing in a linear fashion, while the MIA harms of CO2 are failing to manifest, and the ability of CO2 to warm decreases exponentially.
00
Not it’s not complicated. “it is cumulative, with about 1/2 of the human contributions retained each year.” is demonstrably, categorically wrong, as provable by any scientist. It has been known, demonstrated, published since 1958. And it’s not debatable, by scientists or anyone else. Please point me if you could to the scientific fact.
20
I found this article interesting, mainly as they’ve owned up and more or less said they’ve got no idea how our climate works.
This from none other than:
Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes at The University of Melbourne.
“The impact of climate change on how such individual weather patterns move is at the very limit of science.
“It’s kind of like having a jigsaw but most of the pieces are missing,” Dr King said.”
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/no-scientific-consensus-yet-on-whether-warming-arctic-may-lead-to-more-extreme-weather/ar-AAMptpW?ocid=msedgntp
80
https://climateextremes.org.au I had no idea the ivory tower nutters had developed this sort of pathology until searching on the preposterous “Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes at The University of Melbourne” you mentioned and finding this CLEX page. I suppose it’s all of a piece with the latest update to the national curriculum promoting aboriginal mathematics.
20
“But there is some indication that there might be more persistence of weather systems, as the jet stream may be allowing them to remain in place for longer. This could be contributing to some extreme weather events.”
Blocking high pressure, caused by a meandering jet stream, was responsible for the Australian bushfires and US wildfires.
10
And my simple observation that sea surface temperature controls CO2, that warming increases CO2 would mean seasonal CO2. Consider the usual graph with the little bumps, “the seasonal cycle, which is mostly caused by photosynthesis and respiration of ecosystems on land”.
More confirmation bias.
Compare the graph with the graph of ocean temperature at the same location. I have deliberately chosen a tourist temperature guide, not a Climate Change graph. Look at the peaks and troughs. And the idea of measuring in Hawaii is because it is so far from any vegetation, industry, CO2 generation, people, animals. But it seems they have to subtract that out.
50
And if the ocean surface is slowly warming as you would expect from the known solar cycles and ocean oscillation, you would expect exactly wnat has been observed. But of course it’s CO2 heating the oceans. Now how does that work with infrared back radiation? CO2 has enough trouble heating the air in the last 20 years.
80
Here’s another of my bugbears… In a land built on mining nobody can find a hole to bury our waste. If a potential landfill site is found, some precious petal will find a reason it can’t be used, meaning we are forced to find other methods of dealing with our waste such as recycling, and that’s a good thing, up to a point where the taxpayers, many pensioners are hurting.
The attached article is littered (sorry, couldn’t help it) with terms like: Couldn’t be contacted for comment, we were asked to leave the premises… etc.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/special-report-the-recycling-myth-big-oil-s-solution-for-plastic-waste-littered-with-failure/ar-AAMHqDO?ocid=msedgntp
50
The article mentioned here totally ignores the fact that many countries successfully incinerate all their waste, including sewerage. There is an excellent paper that points out how effective this process can be. Waste should never be buried as it can leak toxic substances into the environment for a very long time.
10
Rick and I went to school together, and studied at uni together, worked on fire ecology together.
So he has way more than 20 years of fire experience.
said Rick McRae, somewhat innumerately, from the University of New South Wales – firstly none of you would grasp the mount of energy released to cause a pyrocb event. And documenting those is extremely difficult.
Secondly Rick is not from UNSW despite what the article says.
But the gold medal for misinterpretation or just downright ignorance is this –
“You reach a point where you can’t stay sceptical, because there is such a body of evidence saying things are changing. You have to try [to] get ahead of the curve rather than just stick with what you’re used to,” Mr McRae said.
Like all good scientists Rick maintained an open mind (i know this will be a stretch for you lot, maintaing an open mind I mean) but it was Rick who proved the pyrocb event in the 2003 fires in Canberra, and 18 years later he has lost his scepticism.
Amazing that you rip into him for that, given that you maintain that you are genuine sceptics,
Of course if you replace sceptic with right wing ideologues it makes sense
And as I said yesterday, using a third hand option piece posted on WUWT instead of going to the source is as about unsceptical as you can get.
219
“Rick and I went to school together”
That explains the commonality of ignorance, and the juvenile naivety !
I bet that, like you, he has never had an open mind, ..
Your mind remains totally closed to reality.
131
I think it’s worse than that. His mind is completely open to BS, and as a result is full of it.
110
“firstly none of you would grasp the mount of energy released to cause a pyrocb event.”
And where did all that energy disappear to, PF.. ?
You have released your grasp on yourself, and are now grasping at thin air, and missing.
80
What is amazing is that your mate, in his juvenile naivety, thinks these things only started happening in 2003. !
He seems to be infected with the same arrogance and lack of historical perspective as you are.
101
Rick has confirmation bias, grant money doesn’t come easy.
‘ … right wing ideologues …’
Speaking on behalf of the utopian socialists, we are definitely not right wing ideologues. Science should be above politics, but unfortunately its not.
Do you honestly believe pyrocb events didn’t happen before 2003?
90
Right wing ideologues make sense because as the name implies they are right.
30
Nail on the head Peter with articles that are reports of reports. They add nothing except an opportunity for people to vent their preconceived notions. Many a time I’ve gone back to the original article and posted a comment about the actual research (even providing the link missing from the OP) following 100 or so outraged comments from the skeptics, none of whom bothered.
310
No problem with reports. I trust the information given therein as reasonably correct. Moreover it requires special skill and specific knowledge ability to argue contrary. It is hard work to meaningfully understand, let alone criticize a paper
Yet what is supposedly nothing is everything when it comes to how reports are presented.
You say – They add nothing except an opportunity for people to vent their preconceived notions
Bull’s eye! This exactly how scientists play politics with each other. It’s all in the spin, That seemingly minor background context that changes everything
Scientists furiously pratice what you accuse the posters here of doing. The spin on how the facts are interpreted. No one is the wiser
70
So Gee aye cannot counter a word said in the WUWT comments, just her own preconceived idea.
GA’s comment adds absolutely nothing to rational discussion.
20
“and posted a comment about the actual research”
And that comment has almost always been empty and trite.
20
Leaf what we require is an evenly balanced debate, more voices from the green/left to take on the right. Clarence would be in seventh heaven.
A red and blue team battling it out, incisive, brilliant and humorous, so that people swarm here to be entertained. Most importantly, they have the opportunity to make up their own minds on the most important issues of our time.
It might manifest if we focussed a little harder.
10
I wish there was at least one of these left-wing climate stooges that was even remotely capable of putting up a science based argument.
When asked for actual science they go AWOL !
You can’t do it on climate propaganda sites, they censor you immediately you start showing them the facts and reality.
20
Definitely they have no conception of climate change, with the AGW bible under their arm they feel that god is on their side.
00
The question is Geeaye, did it prove a C02 AGW catastrophe was occurring at any point, then, or since?
No.
So … you know, unlimited skepticism is obviously warranted when encountering such hysterical claims, without any exceptions
50
“did it prove a C02 AGW catastrophe was occurring at any point, then, or since”
No, that has never been proven.
It remains a scientific myth, a fantasy !
A non-science conjecture.
10
No reasons for skepticism?
https://notrickszone.com/2021/07/29/there-were-23-global-warming-jolts-many-times-faster-and-greater-than-modern-during-the-last-glacial/
20
Your comment makes me think you didn’t understand mine. I was saying the skeptics (by name) were just accepting the report without looking at what was being reported on. In this scenario I was the skeptic (by action).
14
You defended Peter’s glib willful gullibility.
I showed such skepticism is entirely appropriate.
40
“You reach a point where you can’t stay sceptical,”
And once you reach that point you are no longer a scientist.
70
“But the gold medal for misinterpretation or just downright ignorance is this”
Yes, your comment almost invariably are !!
30
Many a time I’ve gone back to the original article and posted a comment about the actual research (even providing the link missing from the OP) following 100 or so outraged comments from the skeptics, none of whom bothered.
Yes this is your strength Gee Aye. Just don’t expect others to do what you do well
Egad, I just realized you do everything … and the biggest problem with climate change science and the allied engineering and economics and stuff is that it doesnt do everything. Coverage is fragmented and sparse
11
he lost his scepticism of what? and are you sure he is not sceptical of AGW? it is not obvious to me
this is the problem of the hijacking of the term “climate change”. nobody knows what ‘the science’ says when the terms used could mean natural climate change or some sort of card carrying human co2 molecules’ effect on the climate.
the study seems to be correct in its application of science, but the implications made with terms like ‘climate change’, ‘more extreme’ is now something only related to AGW, so the authors should, at least in some part, attempt to clarify the terms used. dont blame sceptics for this, it is purely proponents of AGW that cause this deliberate ambiguity.
40
From the source Nature article …
Ref 67
This is weak appeal for temporal coupling for increased pyroCb outbreaks across years.
01
‘Analyses of ice core records, charcoal measured in lake and marine sediments, and tree rings suggests that fire activity varied considerably over the last 500 years but that generally fires peaked around 1850 before declining to present day levels.
‘The study published in Nature Communications, suggests there has possibly been a reduction of fire emissions of between 45 to 70 per cent globally since the Industrial Revolution.; (Science Daily)
60
Carbon (sic) induced pyroclastic fires?
Undeniable further evidence that no amount of solar panels or windmills can prevent/stop doomsday global warming.
50
How interesting. One could say the left are now saying carbon cause fires, not the other way around. Typical of their up-side-down logic. Let’s call it for what the renewables industry is; the biggest scam of all times. PM Morrison should resign and be replaced by someone who recognises that fact.
80
2000 Hiroshimas, not buying it.
30
I agree. At the time of the fires, I estimated that the amount of fuel burnt could have powered the entire Australian economy for 2 years. That would be 12E18 Joules. A Hiroshima is 6E13 Joules. So the fires were equivalent to 200,000 Hiroshimas. Just a minor error in the climate science world.
60
200,000 Hiroshimas is about the same as the energy received from the Sun in 1.3 minutes.
https://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/sun-dumps-500-times-as-many-hiroshima-bombs-of-energy-as-climate-change/
60
Rectified by a hat and sunglasses.
30
I am currently doing a study on ToA sunlight tied to Earth’s orbit. I am yet to confirm this as I have only taken a detailed look at a few years over the last centuries but, so far, it appears 2020 had the highest ToA sunlight in recent history. And I am talking about a few Hiroshimas here – more to come in a few days.
Your 1.3 minutes sort of indicates the feasibility of solar collectors for energy recovery. I currently have the sun exposed shutters wide open trying to get some heat into the house. I curse any cloud right now. Who would have thought that water in the atmosphere in the form of cloud could reduce heat input.
30
Hiroshima is a poor measure of energy. 15,000 tons of TNT equivalent. While that is roughly what was dropped on London in the Blitz, the atom bomb released that in a second with a similar amount of damage. 30% of London was destroyed in six years, not six seconds. However a natural disaster like a forest fire can be many times that.
Mount St. Helens released 24 megatons of thermal energy, 7 of which was a direct result of the blast.
And there are 20 new volcanic explosions a day, a subset of the 50 ongoing actively erupting volcanoes.
Though not as close to Hollywood and news services and the ageing hippie/tree change movement.
40
Bushfire are not too shabby when it comes to energy release. Some of the fires that established their own weather were burning at 100MW per metre of fire front. There were single fire fronts of at least 25km. So a single front is roughly 100 times more powerful than the entire NEM grid. Thats a lot of solar panel equivalents.
If South Australia’s big battery failed, it would need to discharge its full energy in 0.17 seconds to match the output of a 25km fire front. The battery stores around 0.008 Hiroshimas.
Another fun fact, the NEM consumes 1.5 Hiroshimas per hour. So would take 13,000 Hiroshimas each year just to supply electricity.
Still another fun fact, a 25km fire front could produce a Hiroshima ever 24 seconds. So if only 2000 Hiroshimas were produced then there would have only been one decent fire front for 83 seconds. I expect the majority of fire fighters would argue otherwise. Even 8,300 seconds, a tad over 2 hours of intense fire in the whole season, seems a bit on the low side. But then not all bush fires create their own weather.
I cannot find my original calculations but I expect I based it on around 50t/ha of wood equivalent fuel burnt over the estimated 13Mha.
30
The fact is Hiroshima was low-yield explosion and formed a tropospheric cloud that collapsed once it impacted the lower stratosphere, and only much higher yields propagate directly into the lower or middle stratosphere and disperse as a suspended layer. Bushfires don’t make it up there, all Pyro-CBs do is collapse back into the troposphere once they encounter the lower stratosphere, often before they get to it. In other words, the particulates do not distribute widely into the stratosphere at all, it actually ‘falls-out’ of the troposphere within days to a week, and the jetstream rapidly accelerates the process of dispersal, and capture into weather systems and precipitation.
50
According to the paper, smoke particulates entered the stratosphere.
‘More than half of the 38 observed pyroCbs injected smoke particles directly into the stratosphere, producing two of the three largest smoke plumes observed at such altitudes to date. Over the course of 3 months, these plumes encircled a large swath of the Southern Hemisphere while continuing to rise, in a manner consistent with existing nuclear winter theory.’
00
CB’s do too … and then they collapse … back into the Troposphere.
00
As I pointed out with the hand wringing over the poor corals, the Americans dropped 23 atom bombs on Bikini Atoll and now it is fine, the corals are fine, the fish are fine. What’s a few atom bombs given the extraordinary resilience of life on this ball of rock spinning in space? Forest fires are natural, common and regular events over millions of years. If 23 atom bombs in one tiny place can be utterly ignored, what difference can a short lived forest fire make? In six months it will be forgotten, like the floods in Europe.
80
And one of those bombs, a thermonuclear bomb, meant to be 15Kton like Hiroshima was in fact 15 Mega ton, 1000x Hiroshima. And the reef is fine, even the Guardian says so. And the climate did not change and nuclear winter did not start.
90
Plus isn’t it funny how the radiation didn’t permanently sterilise the area as would be implied by the LNT theory? Ditto Chernobyl.
Nuclear power is nowhere near the threat that the scaremongers would have us believe
101
It would have destroyed everything living. However life is resilient, especially small creatures which can colonize and adapt quickly. Humans cannot. We have to change our environment. Our lifespan is too long. The bigger the animal, the fewer and the more likely is extinction.
And we have only been on the planet in our modern form for around 100,000 years. And it would not be hard to be knocked back into the stone age, even made extinct. But the world is a very big place and it seems radioactive material gets locked up faster than anyone thought. Certainly the doubling of aerial C14 has almost vanished, showing that CO2 is rapidly absorbed by the oceans as it has a half life of 5400 years and utterly disproving the idea that we can alter CO2 levels.
40
Its unlikely that a nuclear fight might happen, even with mini nukes, so we can sign that to history. Biological warfare leaves the infrastructure in place, ready for colonisation.
The global cooling scare of the 1960s and 70s was based on particulates shrouding the earth, so this effort fits in the same category. Naturally the 1976 great climate shift changed all that.
The modern form of humans may have been around longer than 100,000 years.
11
My grandfather would have disagreed.
20
And neutron bombs leave all the infrastructure in place too. A lot of new weapons just kill all the people. Wuhan Flu was just a first trial of the new toys.
30
Theft, and no Godzilla’s appeared either!
00
Peter, I empathize with what you are saying. I have been there too +1
That being said …
Scientists are no more immune from mass hysteria than anyone else. It’s a real problem in science even if “support of the prevailing opinion” appears reasoned or innocuous. Try suggesting a fragment of an ‘activity’ which is inconsistent to the AGW world view and feel the vicious sting of rebuttal and ostracism. Nature is full activities and not all of them are hindered by, not support the AGW perspective. Why would ascientist even think that way? Frankly it’s ludicrous. It is mass hysteria in full flush
Moreover the arguments are delivered with intense emotion.The use of emotional blackmail isnt just tolerated,its encouraged. Scientists are no longer dispassionate researchers, they are ‘advocates’ doing outreach.
I personally have no problems with scientis being passionate subjectiveor biased. I consider such qualities to be inescapable. I get disheatened when I see people acting with such qualties, oblvious to their own limitation.
I think physics is wonderful
I see ecologists bravely go whene angels fear to tread
Back to fires … Its a percolation process through clusters. Surely intervals of overall waxing and waning can stretch across centuries. In this sense things are changing but to see it requires subtlty and not what is obviously apparent
Easy to lose sight of the forest for studying the trees. I am thankful that I know a unit area of land is carbon neutral. Doesn’t matter how the land is used, how it is manqged, how frequently or hotly it burns, nor how quickly it rots. What the land takes up, it loses
My argument here is very physical (objective) . It is a means of climbing out of and maintaining overview of what I see as being a confusing and complex situation
Global warming might effect fire ecology but fire ecology doesnt change global warming. If anything, more fires make things better but then there is that whole carbon sequestering in the soil thing … and runoffs .. and scouring .. and erosion … and soil build up …
40
“Global warming might effect fire ecology but fire ecology doesnt change global warming.”
You are no doubt more knowledgeable than me.
Global Warming?
What world temp do we hope to achieve and maintain?
If carbon neutrality is successful, then things start to cool, do we switch to carbon bias?
Warming bad cooling good?
Are we happy if the glaciers are advancing?
Is the climate of 1850 the perfect harmony of nature?
What is carbon neutral land?
30
carbon neutral means that the land gives up whatever carbon is adsorbed. on average this is balanced or net zero carbon* **
* There is vegetation and carbon in the soil but vegetation is constantly growing rotting and burning. Over time the amount of vegetation and soil carbon remains roughly the same but time extends to hundreds of years and to thousands of years but it still the same tonnage of vegetation and soil carbon remains.
** there can be a net carbon uptake which is not returned to the air but the carbon has to flow out of the land such as being buried downwardas as growing fossil fuel beds or being transported away such as harvesting wood pelletsor bundles of logs being carried away by flood or landslide
The carbon taken up by vegetationis rereleased back into the air through burning or rot. Thus no accumulation carbon by growing plants and no releasing carbon by burning plants because whatever their values, the one cancels out the other.. Thus and surprisinglyly it doesnt matter what does or doesnt grow. Doesn’t matter what does or doesnt burn. The ecology and fires on land will not effect carbon emission. The net effect of vegetation growth and carbon release is zero
Warming can effect the (fire) ecology. Hot air, humidity and preciptation make a difference.
Notice thst it doesn’t work in reverse because the vegetative uptake + release of carbon is neutral or net zero flux
Humans are incredibly good at adapting to environments. Even before the industrial revolution we lived in desert and arctic environments. With modern technology it’s much easier to cope Choose ate,perature between those twoextremes. If necessary we can grow crops indoor
There are so many parts to the puzzle of how many people and other species are on earth, on how we conduct ourselves and that things change and that most things are not forever.
I do not understand why grasslands exist. I do not understand why the interior of Australia is a cesert. Other continents have mountain ranges on their western extent
Just a simple virus or species of insect pest can wreak havoc on the flora and fauna of the planet. We change the world we live in whether we like it or not. That is just how it is. Its not so big a deal. No different than a virus or moth
10
Thank you for your thoughtful answer.
I am unworthy to critique your explanation.
However, if I stayed out of discussions for which I am unworthy, I would have little human contact.
How is carbon different than all the other elements in that humans must focus on keeping it ‘neutral’?
“Humans are incredibly good at adapting to environments” … seems to me that virtually every lifeform that ever existed has won this lottery and how those lifeforms conducted themselves has altered the environment.
“Just a simple virus or species of insect pest can wreak havoc on the flora and fauna of the planet”
This seems a simple statement of the evolutionary process.
To me it is a contortion to attribute fires to the small amount of global warming allegedly measured.
If we don’t know why deserts exist, it may hubris to think that we can craft the environment. (And to attribute fires to that small amount of warming allegedly measured.)
20
John, there are excellent reports on why fires have increased in the last two decades.
And yes, both the suppression of fires before that, the change in forestry management practices, and the influx of increased fire starters, people, are the cause.
Start in the 1940s moving forward 55 years…
Ever increasing fire suppression and fire fighting capacity
Until that changed, fire fighting capacity remained good, but controlled burns were reduced, reduced budgets reduced healthy cutting etc led to denser forests.
A reduction in good logging forest thinning practices in the last 20 years.
Ever more people, especially in the last 20 years led to more fires, both accidental and arson.
So overtime we had practices and conditions that initially reduced fires, created denser overgrown forests, and led to more fires over the past decade or two.
It is not hard to understand or research. At WUWT look for the blog Jim Steele. Some excellent articles on the issues.
20
If we don’t know why deserts exist, it may hubris to think that we can craft the environment. (And to attribute fires to that small amount of warming allegedly measured.)
Drop the hubris and I would agree with you
So many questions and far too few answers
The hunt continues
00
Prepare for another type of man made fire & explosion!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-30/tesla-battery-fire-moorabool-geelong/100337488
Lithium Batteries are SAFE?
Except from fire!
One 13 tonne container on fire and spreading! (About 60 containers all up at the site)
Prepare for a farking big blaze Geelong.
90
Ha I was just about to link this Dave, beat me to it.
I like this from the article “Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) said the battery had been isolated and disconnected from the main electricity grid and “there are no implications” for supply.”
Yeah no implications even if the bloody thing was supposedly working LOL.
I’d rather have dangerous CO2 emitting from coal or gas than that toxic poison in the air, makes an impressive virtue signal though.
50
As these batteries get a little bit of age on them….
… fire seems to becoming a sooner, rather than later, experience. !
50
Actually, these seems to be only in the testing phase.
They will lose 2 banks completely, hopefully they can stop it spreading.
30
Bummer!
Will be a test of their fire separation. Already appears the adjacent container is at least fire damaged.
Battery will never make a Hiroshima but still a decent fire.
One thing about the liquid metal batteries now being produced is that they have a propensity to cool and shut down if the insulated housing is damaged. They are easier to operate in very warm locations than cool location. They rely on the round cycle losses to keep them warm. If they are not cycled then they need heaters to stay warm.
40
Sorry, I posted below before I saw that.
10
The nuclear winter concept was politically motivated from the start.
10
But it has spurred some fun movies ! 🙂
10
Amazing how many of them have climate zombies in them, though 😉
10
Post-apocalyptic films based on human folly are unconvincing, a volcanic winter would have more credibility. There was one of those extraordinary events 74,000 years ago and humanity almost perished. No doubt, being crafty characters, some of our ancestors survived in places of refuge.
10
el G, you don’t watch that sort of film with even the remotest expectation that it will be either credible or convincing, do you ? 🙂
00
Interesting information on the Nuclear Winter hypothesis from Wiki of all places https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
00
***OFF TOPIC BREAKING NEWS***
GIANT TESLA BATTERY ON FIRE NEAR GEELONG, VICDANISTAN.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-30/tesla-battery-fire-moorabool-geelong/100337488
30
Do giant lithium batteries burn “better” if they are charged, not charged or doesn’t it make a difference?
10
And here we go again!
“14,000 Scientists Warn of Imminent Climate Tipping Points”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/29/14000-scientists-warn-of-imminent-climate-tipping-point/
10
I gather that there is already a song “And here we go again” but I doubt it is about tipping points.
Now here is a list of 41 0f them
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/07/thursday-open-thread-61/#comment-2448277
Which could be used to fuel a song modelled on Bill Bryson’s hiking song in honour of the Princes of Wales, (Notes from a Small Island IIRC) which goes
“I’m the eldest son of the eldest son of (for sufficient generations) of the man who (did something to) Nell Gwyne”
10
Thunderstorms do not make energy out of thin air. They largely redistribute energy around the atmosphere. (Some of the thermal energy convected upwards is converted to electric energy and comes back down.) Importantly, however, the flashes also send a lot of light energy out to space. So, as far as the Earth is concerned, thunderstorms must surely provide a net cooling effect!
10
Have the laws of physics been repealed?
“Aerosols”? By this, do the experts include “particulate matter” or just extremely finely dispersed liquid droplets?
Here’s a question:
Has anyone else noticed how, after “big” forest fires, it often rains?
How do we get “big” fires?
LOTS of fuel, preferably in “dry” conditions.
Notice how “big” fires create their own local weather; generating horizontal air movement (wind,) because the heat of the fire is shoving a large amount of super-heated air (and water-vapour and particulate matter) high into the shy.
This gets even more interesting when the rising column runs into a COLD atmospheric layer; then the crud spreads sideways and starts, slowly, to fall out of the sky.
An interesting parallel is a volcanic eruption; LOTS of super-heated gases, including water vapour, being heaved into the sky at great speed. The bigger the BANG, , the faster and higher all this stuff rises.
The really fine, low-density dust can, and DOES, hang around in the upper atmosphere for YEARS. Two things happen. A big and “shiny” enough layer WILL reflect sunlight. Read the accounts of the aftermath of Krakatau (correct spelling) in the 19th Century. That little number affected “weather” around the planet for a significant period. There is an interesting record of one of the effects left by English water-colour artists on the other side of the globe. Sunsets, of bizarre hues and intensities, night after night, quickly transcribed into paintings. many of which still exist. This sky-scape frenzy was also accompanied by “the year without Summer” across Europe. Crops failed, hungry and cold livestock and people died in significant numbers.
Krakatau was a tiddler in comparison to Toba and Tambora or Yellowstone. Then there was the monster that formed the Bay of Naples; a serious eruption of the same system that still drives Vesuvius, Etna ,etc. Naples is built on tens of metres of compressed and “cemented volcanic ash.
Old Gaia is a perverse old dragon.
See also: “The Tunguska Event”.
30
Asteroid evaporates before hitting earth, nevertheless there was an air burst which flattened the forrest over a 100 kilometre radius.
10
Volcanic lighting is caused by static electric buildup from friction of ash particles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_lightning
Not sure what causes firestorm lightning but there are a lot of particles involved. It might happen before ice crystal formation.
Firestorms and volcanic ash columns both rise into the sky and perhapseven punch through to the statosphere if there is sufficient bouyancy.. Once in the stratosphere aerosols and particles tend to remain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruption_column
I don’t see the process of wildfire firestorms punching through into the stratosphefe to be controversial.They are using ghe same methodsas are employed to monitor volcnic eruptions, The firestorm research piggybacking onto volcanic eruption column science
the recent 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption is famous for temporarily altering climate
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/
I do not agree that volcanic eruptions alter the climate. Theireffects last for years to decade(s) although their heat signature in the oceans can persist longer
What irks me about the claim that firestorms can alt
00
Premature duplicate. Please delete
00
Volcanic lighting is caused by static electric buildup from friction of ash particles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_lightning
Not sure what causes firestorm lightning but there are a lot of particles involved. It might happen before ice crystal formation.
Firestorms and volcanic ash columns both rise into the sky and perhapseven punch through to the statosphere if there is sufficient bouyancy.. Once in the stratosphere aerosols and particles tend to remain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruption_column
I don’t see the process of wildfire firestorms punching through into the stratosphefe to be controversial.They are using ghe same methodsas are employed to monitor volcnic eruptions, The firestorm research piggybacking onto volcanic eruption column science
the recent 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption is famous for temporarily altering climate
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/
I do not agree that volcanic eruptions alter the climate. Theireffects last for years to decade(s) although their heat signature in the oceans can persist longer
What irks me is the claim that intense burning occurs in the same region year over year because sufficient fuel remains and regenerates to maintain year over year over year intense heat fire risk.
It amounts to saying that hotter weather sustains a year over year over year boost in fuel.
Dont fires consume excess fuel on a year over year over year basis?
Most of all, the opening post paper spins a climate cooling effect as an evil Koala burning, global temerature rising soap opera. Makes a silk purse of a sow’s ear to win support of the proAGW colleagues.
The paper’s finding that pyroCb can be sufficintly bouyant and intense to inject aerosol into the Stratosphere is irrefutable
00
Suprised?
“COVID-19: Blatant propaganda and rampant dishonesty”
https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2021/07/covid-19-blatant-propaganda-and-rampant.html
30
No. Why? Because of this:
https://1000covidstories.com/
10
Large pronounced cold anom over Brazil today … fades over 3 to 4 days:
https://i.ibb.co/xY3cLJ3/2021-07-30-213949.png
ABC: “Snowfall blankets parts of southern Brazil as the polar air moves to coffee, sugar-producing regions”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-30/snow-blankets-parts-of-southern-brazil/100339282
Thermal anom(s) over North America in 3 days time, most of USA remains cool.
https://i.ibb.co/KGbG6S6/2021-07-30-213510.png
Ideal end of summer conditions for both Canada and USA.
20
Sorry mod, typo.
00
Does all this fire theory also apply to Lithium (Tesla) Giga battery fires. We’re going to get lots more of them so best the eco-nuts write a theory on the global warmcoolhotcold (delete as the daily changing fashion requires) effects. I hear Victoria State is cold today due to Tesla pyroclastic cloud shading!-)
30
Late in this thread, so here’s an Ivermectin “opinion” in the Wall Street Journal.
Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?
Ivermectin is a promising Covid treatment and prophylaxis, but the agency is denigrating it.
By David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper July 28
Search-up the bold phrase – other non-pay sources.
20
Here is a free link.
https://www.fr24news.com/a/2021/07/why-is-the-fda-attacking-a-safe-and-effective-drug.html
And here is some commentary on that article:
https://trialsitenews.com/wsj-brings-some-objectivity-to-the-media-asks-what-the-fdas-agency-is-with-ivermectin/
10
Meanwhile – another fire with photos
“What could go wrong. Victoria’s humungous battery is on fire”
https://catallaxyfiles.com/2021/07/30/what-could-go-wrong-victorias-humungous-battery-is-on-fire/
One could say “One hit before they go”
00
That is not the most auspicious beginning for a project meant to save Earth.
00