Wow, that´s fascinating! A polar fox with GPS on his way. I never thought, that they are going so far.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Observe the documented duplicity, flip flopping, political chicanery and procrastination of our corrupt politicians over more than a decade concerning climate change.
"It was once a bipartisan issue, but now one of America's major parties acts like climate science doesn't exist. This is an updated version of a video we published in 2016"
I guess oil money is paying off.
[iframe1]yzDjjUAt3zc[/iframe1]
"It was once a bipartisan issue, but now one of America's major parties acts like climate science doesn't exist. This is an updated version of a video we published in 2016"
I guess oil money is paying off.
[iframe1]yzDjjUAt3zc[/iframe1]
F
Frylock
Sorry to go off topic and bring Trump into the conversation but look at the look on his face in that picture
Does that look like the face of a guy with anything but bad intentions??
oh look! a butterfly!
confront the reality!
Research Article
On the balance between plasma and magnetic pressure across equatorial plasma depletions
J. Rodríguez‐Zuluaga
C. Stolle
Y. Yamazaki
H. Lühr
J. Park
L. Scherliess
J.L. Chau
First published: 25 June 2019
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA026700
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1029/2019JA026700
PDF
Abstract
In magnetized plasmas such as the ionosphere, electric currents develop in regions of strong density gradients to balance the resulting plasma pressure gradients. These currents, usually known as diamagnetic currents decrease the magnetic pressure where the plasma pressure increases, and vice versa. In the low latitude ionosphere, equatorial plasma depletions (EPDs) are well‐known for their steep plasma density gradients and adverse effect on radio wave propagation. In this paper, we use continuous measurements of the magnetic field and electron density from the ESA's Swarm constellation mission to assess the balance between plasma and magnetic pressure across large‐scale EPDs. The analysis is based on the magnetic fluctuations related to diamagnetic currents flowing at the edges of EPDs. This study shows that most of the EPDs detected by Swarm present a decrease of the plasma pressure relative to the ambient plasma. However, EPDs with high plasma pressure are also identified mainly in the vicinity of the South Atlantic magnetic anomaly. From the electron density measurements, we deduce that such an increase in plasma pressure within EPDs might be possible by temperatures inside the EPD as high as twice the temperature of the ambient plasma. Due to the distinct location of the high‐pressure EPDs, we suggest that a possible heating mechanism might be due to precipitation of particle from the radiation belts. This finding corresponds to the first observational evidence of plasma pressure enhancements in regions of depleted plasma density in the ionosphere.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA026700
confront the reality!
Research Article
On the balance between plasma and magnetic pressure across equatorial plasma depletions
J. Rodríguez‐Zuluaga
C. Stolle
Y. Yamazaki
H. Lühr
J. Park
L. Scherliess
J.L. Chau
First published: 25 June 2019
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA026700
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1029/2019JA026700
PDFAbstract
In magnetized plasmas such as the ionosphere, electric currents develop in regions of strong density gradients to balance the resulting plasma pressure gradients. These currents, usually known as diamagnetic currents decrease the magnetic pressure where the plasma pressure increases, and vice versa. In the low latitude ionosphere, equatorial plasma depletions (EPDs) are well‐known for their steep plasma density gradients and adverse effect on radio wave propagation. In this paper, we use continuous measurements of the magnetic field and electron density from the ESA's Swarm constellation mission to assess the balance between plasma and magnetic pressure across large‐scale EPDs. The analysis is based on the magnetic fluctuations related to diamagnetic currents flowing at the edges of EPDs. This study shows that most of the EPDs detected by Swarm present a decrease of the plasma pressure relative to the ambient plasma. However, EPDs with high plasma pressure are also identified mainly in the vicinity of the South Atlantic magnetic anomaly. From the electron density measurements, we deduce that such an increase in plasma pressure within EPDs might be possible by temperatures inside the EPD as high as twice the temperature of the ambient plasma. Due to the distinct location of the high‐pressure EPDs, we suggest that a possible heating mechanism might be due to precipitation of particle from the radiation belts. This finding corresponds to the first observational evidence of plasma pressure enhancements in regions of depleted plasma density in the ionosphere.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA026700
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Anchorage, Alaska hit 89 degrees F, (32 deg C), Thursday to break the all-time highest temperature ever recorded: Campbell Creek hit 91 degrees F, (33 deg C)
M
moose eater
They're coastal in Anchorage, right on Cook Inlet, which typically equates to more moderate summers and winters, due to the stubbornness of the thermal mass in larger bodies of water, aided by the Japanese Currents, etc.
Those temps are temps you're more apt to see in the Interior of Alaska where I am, where we've in the past been close to 100 f. (we were over 90 f at my home the other day). (**Alaska's 2.5 x's the size of Texas, with what I regard as about 8-9 different climates or sub-climates in the State).
Trends of things to come?? Seems that way.
They're getting ready to evacuate another subdivision or 2 near Shovel Creek, having up-graded their evac circumstances a day or 2 ago..
"A hot time in the old town tonight!"
trends?
when are seasonal variations trends?
sounds like you'll need for the 'trend' to continue to escape seasonal variation.
while quite warm in Alaska, just down the coast we're experiencing July-ber and i'm still layering long sleeves...this is a trend... been doing so for the last decade.
as moose indicated:
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Those temps are temps you're more apt to see in the Interior of Alaska where I am, where we've in the past been close to 100 f. (we were over 90 f at my home the other day)."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]sounds like a trend and not something extraordinary or extreme.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]he did mention the different climate zones, so being in the right place one could make that assumption.
[/FONT]
when are seasonal variations trends?
sounds like you'll need for the 'trend' to continue to escape seasonal variation.
while quite warm in Alaska, just down the coast we're experiencing July-ber and i'm still layering long sleeves...this is a trend... been doing so for the last decade.
as moose indicated:
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Those temps are temps you're more apt to see in the Interior of Alaska where I am, where we've in the past been close to 100 f. (we were over 90 f at my home the other day)."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]sounds like a trend and not something extraordinary or extreme.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]he did mention the different climate zones, so being in the right place one could make that assumption.
[/FONT]
M
moose eater
Thanks Trich.
To clarify, I'm not close enough or attentive enough to comment on Anchorage; I go there for shopping, and since Fairbanks got a Costco, that's less and less, too.
In Fairbanks, we're seeing cooler, more damp summers than years ago (overall; as in averages), and warmer winters than 30-40 years ago.
As stated, I don't miss the years when we got 3-6 weeks of -30 to -65 f. at all.
While the changes in overall averages or patterns may, in the end, hold some dire outcomes, in the interim, my circulation isn't equipped to deal with the extremes we once had for the colder months.
So there are definitely overall trends here, re. the specifics I mentioned, but the changes to the colder parts of the winter here are not missed by me. My days of sitting outside at -55 f. on hard-pack snow, doing a brake job on a truck... are -LONG- in the rear-view, and I'm glad for that.
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
I posted that because it's just yet another anomaly. Like 1.5 meters of hail in guadalajara Mexico, 8 millon people in India with no water in the reservoirs or South Africa cities in the same boat.
Take it for what it is.
Take it for what it is.
"Daily record highs will be challenged in Fairbanks on Monday and Tuesday of next week, though the all-time record high in the city will likely stand," Adamson said, referring to the 99 degree mark set 100 years ago.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...igh-in-anchorage-on-independence-day/70008741
Denver weather: Coldest first half of a year since 1983
2019 has featured all sorts of cold and wacky weather. It’s the coldest start to a year since the 80s.
Through June 30, Denver’s January-through-June average temperature of 43.8 degrees made it the coldest start to a calendar year since 1983. The average temperature for that time period is 46.0 degrees.
While 2.2 degrees below average might not sound like a lot, it is relatively uncommon to have temperatures fluctuate more than two degrees above or below normal over a longer time period like six months.
The biggest departure from average has come from average daily high temperatures. Through the end of June, Denver’s average annual high temperature was just 56.7 degrees, or about 3.4 degrees below average.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/06/denver-weather-coldest-first-half-year/
you don't suppose those anomalies are because populations have begun paying attention, cherry-picking instances, and using them in the defense of whatever stance they have accepted fits them best?
trends, becoming cycles of anomalous events.
looked at the antarctic temps the other day, they appeared to above normal also.
charge and discharge of earths electric circuit creating 'noise' in weather patterns.
that's what all these aberrent instances out of normalcy are...noise.
seasons come and go, ebb and flow, like tides. like the moon phases, they have peaks and valleys...and like geography, some peaks are higher and some valleys lower than the last or next.
one aspect of the system does not explain it's entirety.
it's summer, still the furnace came on this morning.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...igh-in-anchorage-on-independence-day/70008741
Denver weather: Coldest first half of a year since 1983
2019 has featured all sorts of cold and wacky weather. It’s the coldest start to a year since the 80s.
Through June 30, Denver’s January-through-June average temperature of 43.8 degrees made it the coldest start to a calendar year since 1983. The average temperature for that time period is 46.0 degrees.
While 2.2 degrees below average might not sound like a lot, it is relatively uncommon to have temperatures fluctuate more than two degrees above or below normal over a longer time period like six months.
The biggest departure from average has come from average daily high temperatures. Through the end of June, Denver’s average annual high temperature was just 56.7 degrees, or about 3.4 degrees below average.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/06/denver-weather-coldest-first-half-year/
you don't suppose those anomalies are because populations have begun paying attention, cherry-picking instances, and using them in the defense of whatever stance they have accepted fits them best?
trends, becoming cycles of anomalous events.
looked at the antarctic temps the other day, they appeared to above normal also.
charge and discharge of earths electric circuit creating 'noise' in weather patterns.
that's what all these aberrent instances out of normalcy are...noise.
seasons come and go, ebb and flow, like tides. like the moon phases, they have peaks and valleys...and like geography, some peaks are higher and some valleys lower than the last or next.
one aspect of the system does not explain it's entirety.
it's summer, still the furnace came on this morning.
M
moose eater
We've unofficially been near or at 100 f numerous times, outside the City, Trich.
Over in Carcross Yukon Territory in 1978, I was climbing Nares Mtn to set up a camp about 1/3 of the way up the mountain, for an International volunteer work group we hosted then. When I got back down from carrying a larger pack and a rifle up the slope, I was informed that Carcross was the hot spot of Canada that day, at 99 f.
We've had hotter weather in the Interior regions of the sub-arctic for a long time now, but fewer of them these days than we once did.
Over in Carcross Yukon Territory in 1978, I was climbing Nares Mtn to set up a camp about 1/3 of the way up the mountain, for an International volunteer work group we hosted then. When I got back down from carrying a larger pack and a rifle up the slope, I was informed that Carcross was the hot spot of Canada that day, at 99 f.
We've had hotter weather in the Interior regions of the sub-arctic for a long time now, but fewer of them these days than we once did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYFPEwp8ltQ
[YOUTUBEIF]oYFPEwp8ltQ[/YOUTUBEIF]
Anthony Watts presents "Government Gatekeepers and the True Temperature Record” at the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC July 11, 2015.
[YOUTUBEIF]oYFPEwp8ltQ[/YOUTUBEIF]
Anthony Watts presents "Government Gatekeepers and the True Temperature Record” at the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC July 11, 2015.
NEWS FLASH:
The EPA is banning the refrigerant using in all home central air conditioners.
I think it's called R22...effective 1 JAN 2020
If you need A/C refrigerant? ...you got until the end of the year!
(the new stuff won't work in old models, that's not new installed, like new houses)
PS: Buy stock in A/C companies
I think we need more lead-in time on this> I'm gonna send a message: to "Mitch the Bitch"=R KY
The EPA is banning the refrigerant using in all home central air conditioners.
I think it's called R22...effective 1 JAN 2020
If you need A/C refrigerant? ...you got until the end of the year!
(the new stuff won't work in old models, that's not new installed, like new houses)
PS: Buy stock in A/C companies
I think we need more lead-in time on this> I'm gonna send a message: to "Mitch the Bitch"=R KY
Space Weather Impacts On Climate
Space Weather Impacts On Climate
All weather on Earth, from the surface of the planet out into space, begins with the Sun. Space weather and terrestrial weather (the weather we feel at the surface) are influenced by the small changes the Sun undergoes during its solar cycle.
The most important impact the Sun has on Earth is from the brightness or irradiance of the Sun itself. The Sun produces energy in the form of photons of light. The variability of the Sun's output is wavelength dependent; different wavelengths have higher variability than others. Most of the energy from the Sun is emitted in the visible wavelengths (approximately 400 – 800 nanometers (nm)). The output from the sun in these wavelengths is nearly constant and changes by only one part in a thousand (0.1%) over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
At Ultraviolet or UV wavelengths (120 – 400 nm), the solar irradiance variability is larger over the course of the solar cycle, with changes up to 15%. This has a significant impact on the absorption of energy by ozone and in the stratosphere. At shorter wavelengths, like the Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV), the Sun changes by 30% - 300% over very short timescales (i.e. minutes). These wavelengths are absorbed in the upper atmosphere so they have minimal impact on the climate of Earth. At the other end of the light spectrum, at Infrared (IR) wavelengths (800 – 10,000 nm), the Sun is very stable and only changes by a percent or less over the solar cycle.
The total wavelength-integrated energy from sunlight is referred to as the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). It is measured from satellites to be about 1365.5 Watts/m2 at solar minimum to 1366.5 Watts/m2 at solar maximum. An increase of 0.1% in the TSI represents about 1.3 Watts/m2 change in energy input at the top of the atmosphere. This energy is scattered, reflected, and absorbed at various altitudes in the atmosphere, but the resulting change in the temperature of the atmosphere is measurable. It should be noted that the change in climate due to solar variability is likely small, but more research needs to be done.
There are other types of space weather that can impact the atmosphere. Energetic particles penetrate into the atmosphere and change the chemical constituents. These changes in minor species such as Nitrous Oxide (NO) can have long lasting consequences in the upper and middle atmosphere, however it has not been determined if these have a major impact on the global climate of Earth.
The duration of solar minimum may also have an impact on Earth's climate. During solar minimum there is a maximum in the amount of Cosmic rays, high energy particles whose source is outside our Solar system, reaching earth. There is a theory that cosmic rays can create nucleation sites in the atmosphere which seed cloud formation and create cloudier conditions. If this were true, then there would be a significant impact on climate, which would be modulated by the 11-year solar cycle.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/impacts/space-weather-impacts-climate
i was noticing that in their graph they included 'aerosols' in the measurement of greenhouse gases.
isn't that a departure from "gases"?
last paragraph about 'gcr's nucleating clouds reveals a mechanism mostly ignored in mainstream literature and the IPCC reports.
their mandate was/is to portray CO2, precisely anthropogenic CO2, as culpable in climate change, while disguising or hiding exculpatory evidence.
this isn't a conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact.
Space Weather Impacts On Climate
All weather on Earth, from the surface of the planet out into space, begins with the Sun. Space weather and terrestrial weather (the weather we feel at the surface) are influenced by the small changes the Sun undergoes during its solar cycle.
The most important impact the Sun has on Earth is from the brightness or irradiance of the Sun itself. The Sun produces energy in the form of photons of light. The variability of the Sun's output is wavelength dependent; different wavelengths have higher variability than others. Most of the energy from the Sun is emitted in the visible wavelengths (approximately 400 – 800 nanometers (nm)). The output from the sun in these wavelengths is nearly constant and changes by only one part in a thousand (0.1%) over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
At Ultraviolet or UV wavelengths (120 – 400 nm), the solar irradiance variability is larger over the course of the solar cycle, with changes up to 15%. This has a significant impact on the absorption of energy by ozone and in the stratosphere. At shorter wavelengths, like the Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV), the Sun changes by 30% - 300% over very short timescales (i.e. minutes). These wavelengths are absorbed in the upper atmosphere so they have minimal impact on the climate of Earth. At the other end of the light spectrum, at Infrared (IR) wavelengths (800 – 10,000 nm), the Sun is very stable and only changes by a percent or less over the solar cycle.
The total wavelength-integrated energy from sunlight is referred to as the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). It is measured from satellites to be about 1365.5 Watts/m2 at solar minimum to 1366.5 Watts/m2 at solar maximum. An increase of 0.1% in the TSI represents about 1.3 Watts/m2 change in energy input at the top of the atmosphere. This energy is scattered, reflected, and absorbed at various altitudes in the atmosphere, but the resulting change in the temperature of the atmosphere is measurable. It should be noted that the change in climate due to solar variability is likely small, but more research needs to be done.
There are other types of space weather that can impact the atmosphere. Energetic particles penetrate into the atmosphere and change the chemical constituents. These changes in minor species such as Nitrous Oxide (NO) can have long lasting consequences in the upper and middle atmosphere, however it has not been determined if these have a major impact on the global climate of Earth.
The duration of solar minimum may also have an impact on Earth's climate. During solar minimum there is a maximum in the amount of Cosmic rays, high energy particles whose source is outside our Solar system, reaching earth. There is a theory that cosmic rays can create nucleation sites in the atmosphere which seed cloud formation and create cloudier conditions. If this were true, then there would be a significant impact on climate, which would be modulated by the 11-year solar cycle.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/impacts/space-weather-impacts-climate
i was noticing that in their graph they included 'aerosols' in the measurement of greenhouse gases.
isn't that a departure from "gases"?
last paragraph about 'gcr's nucleating clouds reveals a mechanism mostly ignored in mainstream literature and the IPCC reports.
their mandate was/is to portray CO2, precisely anthropogenic CO2, as culpable in climate change, while disguising or hiding exculpatory evidence.
this isn't a conspiracy theory, this is conspiracy fact.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682619300471
Relationships between the solar wind magnetic field and ground-level longwave irradiance at high northern latitudes
Author links open overlay panel
John E.Frederick,
Brian A.Tinsley,
Limin Zhou
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2019.105063Get rights and content
Highlights
•Downward longwave radiation measured at Alert, Canada, shows responses to the interplanetary magnetic field.
•Upward longwave radiation responds similarly a day later.
•The phenomenon is consistent with solar wind inputs to atmospheric electricity affecting cloud microphysics.
Abstract
Longwave irradiances measured from two sites at different geomagnetic latitudes show different responses to changes in the east-west component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF By). At Barrow, Alaska, geomagnetic latitude 69-70oN, neither downward longwave irradiance from the atmosphere nor upward longwave irradiance from the ground show a significant correlation with By. However, at Alert, Canada, geomagnetic latitude near 87oN, a negative correlation that is marginally significant at the 95% level of confidence exists between By and downward longwave irradiance measured 3 days later. On average, a +3.5 nT increase in By is followed by a daily-mean downward longwave irradiance that is smaller by −0.60 ± 0.60% than would exist for a constant By. Similarly, daily-mean upward irradiance at a lag of 4 days is −0.51 ± 0.30% smaller than would exist otherwise, where error bars denote the 95% confidence range. The difference in upward irradiance corresponds to a surface cooling at Alert of approximately 0.33 ± 0.19 K. These results are qualitatively consistent with a previously proposed mechanism in which the interplanetary magnetic field perturbs the ionosphere-to-ground potential difference and the downward atmospheric current density over limited regions near the geomagnetic poles, altering local cloud properties. We find that the atmospheric longwave emission is altered on a time scale of 3 days, with a change in surface temperature appearing one day later, attributable to the thermal inertia of the surface. When one moves from the geomagnetic latitude of Alert (3° from the north geomagnetic pole) to the latitude of Barrow (∼20° from that pole), any connection between By and longwave irradiance becomes too small to isolate from the natural background variability.
paper here:
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2019.105063
Relationships between the solar wind magnetic field and ground-level longwave irradiance at high northern latitudes
Author links open overlay panel
John E.Frederick,
Brian A.Tinsley,
Limin Zhou
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2019.105063Get rights and content
Highlights
•Downward longwave radiation measured at Alert, Canada, shows responses to the interplanetary magnetic field.
•Upward longwave radiation responds similarly a day later.
•The phenomenon is consistent with solar wind inputs to atmospheric electricity affecting cloud microphysics.
Abstract
Longwave irradiances measured from two sites at different geomagnetic latitudes show different responses to changes in the east-west component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF By). At Barrow, Alaska, geomagnetic latitude 69-70oN, neither downward longwave irradiance from the atmosphere nor upward longwave irradiance from the ground show a significant correlation with By. However, at Alert, Canada, geomagnetic latitude near 87oN, a negative correlation that is marginally significant at the 95% level of confidence exists between By and downward longwave irradiance measured 3 days later. On average, a +3.5 nT increase in By is followed by a daily-mean downward longwave irradiance that is smaller by −0.60 ± 0.60% than would exist for a constant By. Similarly, daily-mean upward irradiance at a lag of 4 days is −0.51 ± 0.30% smaller than would exist otherwise, where error bars denote the 95% confidence range. The difference in upward irradiance corresponds to a surface cooling at Alert of approximately 0.33 ± 0.19 K. These results are qualitatively consistent with a previously proposed mechanism in which the interplanetary magnetic field perturbs the ionosphere-to-ground potential difference and the downward atmospheric current density over limited regions near the geomagnetic poles, altering local cloud properties. We find that the atmospheric longwave emission is altered on a time scale of 3 days, with a change in surface temperature appearing one day later, attributable to the thermal inertia of the surface. When one moves from the geomagnetic latitude of Alert (3° from the north geomagnetic pole) to the latitude of Barrow (∼20° from that pole), any connection between By and longwave irradiance becomes too small to isolate from the natural background variability.
paper here:
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2019.105063
St. Phatty
Active member
I have been baking a combination of long grass and madrone leaves in a solar oven - the dashboard of my truck, parked in the sun - to try and approximate the extreme, extreme fire conditions that have been occurring more often the last few years.
I have a hunch that eventually the landscape begins to resemble a pan of gasoline. In other words, a simple spark is enough to ignite it.
In the forest, the sun is baking the top layer of leaves, with an intensity of about 70 watts per square foot.
If you do the math - and account for the very light weight of dry leaves - you will find that you have 70 watts of radiation, heating about 70 grams of leaves.
To keep the math easy, let's just say the dried leaves have the same specific heat & weight at water.
So they would go up (maybe) 1 degree C for every second they are exposed to a radiation input of 1 joule per gram. (watt = 1 joule per second.)
(The way the metric system is designed, the math is easier if you state material constants by comparing the material to water.)
So how hot do those leaves baking in the sun eventually get ?
Do they begin producing wood gas, at lower temperatures like 300 F ?
My hunch is that at some point, the Governor needs to order a General (voluntary) "Staycation" Shutdown = for the General Public.
The same way that industrial activities are limited after 10 AM or 1 PM. That is for extreme fire conditions.
But what happens in extreme, extreme fire conditions ?
I suspect that part of the answer involves asking the public to voluntarily stay at home and, avoid making sparks.
The fire in Redding last year was started by a couple who was trying to do all the right things. They were towing a trailer, got a flat tire, pulled off the road.
Their wheel hit a transition in the pavement, and that generated a few sparks. That started the whole 300 square mile inferno.
I have a hunch that eventually the landscape begins to resemble a pan of gasoline. In other words, a simple spark is enough to ignite it.
In the forest, the sun is baking the top layer of leaves, with an intensity of about 70 watts per square foot.
If you do the math - and account for the very light weight of dry leaves - you will find that you have 70 watts of radiation, heating about 70 grams of leaves.
To keep the math easy, let's just say the dried leaves have the same specific heat & weight at water.
So they would go up (maybe) 1 degree C for every second they are exposed to a radiation input of 1 joule per gram. (watt = 1 joule per second.)
(The way the metric system is designed, the math is easier if you state material constants by comparing the material to water.)
So how hot do those leaves baking in the sun eventually get ?
Do they begin producing wood gas, at lower temperatures like 300 F ?
My hunch is that at some point, the Governor needs to order a General (voluntary) "Staycation" Shutdown = for the General Public.
The same way that industrial activities are limited after 10 AM or 1 PM. That is for extreme fire conditions.
But what happens in extreme, extreme fire conditions ?
I suspect that part of the answer involves asking the public to voluntarily stay at home and, avoid making sparks.
The fire in Redding last year was started by a couple who was trying to do all the right things. They were towing a trailer, got a flat tire, pulled off the road.
Their wheel hit a transition in the pavement, and that generated a few sparks. That started the whole 300 square mile inferno.
M
moose eater
25 fires reported in the Anchorage area in one day, either yesterday or the day before.
The bizarre lack of comprehension among homo-sapiens, where cause and effect are concerned, had the Fire Marshall and others 'reminding the general public to please honor the burn ban.'
You can't make this shit up... Well, you could, but....
The bizarre lack of comprehension among homo-sapiens, where cause and effect are concerned, had the Fire Marshall and others 'reminding the general public to please honor the burn ban.'
You can't make this shit up... Well, you could, but....
New Particle Formation in the Atmosphere: From Molecular Clusters to Global Climate
Shan‐Hu Lee
Hamish Gordon
Huan Yu
Katrianne Lehtipalo
Ryan Haley
Yixin Li
Renyi Zhang
First published: 25 June 2019
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029356
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1029/2018JD029356
PDF
Tools
Share
Abstract
New particle formation (NPF) represents the first step in the complex processes leading to formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Newly formed nanoparticles affect human health, air quality, weather, and climate. This review provides a brief history, synthesizes recent significant progresses, and outlines the challenges and future directions for research relevant to NPF. New developments include the emergence of state‐of‐the‐art instruments that measure prenucleation clusters and newly nucleated nanoparticles down to about 1 nm; systematic laboratory studies of multicomponent nucleation systems, including collaborative experiments conducted in the Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) chamber at CERN; observations of NPF in different types of forests, extremely polluted urban locations, coastal sites, polar regions, and high‐elevation sites; improved nucleation theories and parameterizations to account for NPF in atmospheric models. The challenges include the lack of understanding of the fundamental chemical mechanisms responsible for aerosol nucleation and growth under diverse environments, the effects of SO2 and NOx on NPF, and the contribution of anthropogenic organic compounds to NPF. It is also critical to develop instruments that can detect chemical composition of particles from 3 to 20 nm and improve parameterizations to represent NPF over a wide range of atmospheric conditions of chemical precursor, temperature and humidity.
Key Points
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029356
Shan‐Hu Lee
Hamish Gordon
Huan Yu
Katrianne Lehtipalo
Ryan Haley
Yixin Li
Renyi Zhang
First published: 25 June 2019
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029356
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1029/2018JD029356
PDFTools
Share
Abstract
New particle formation (NPF) represents the first step in the complex processes leading to formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Newly formed nanoparticles affect human health, air quality, weather, and climate. This review provides a brief history, synthesizes recent significant progresses, and outlines the challenges and future directions for research relevant to NPF. New developments include the emergence of state‐of‐the‐art instruments that measure prenucleation clusters and newly nucleated nanoparticles down to about 1 nm; systematic laboratory studies of multicomponent nucleation systems, including collaborative experiments conducted in the Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets (CLOUD) chamber at CERN; observations of NPF in different types of forests, extremely polluted urban locations, coastal sites, polar regions, and high‐elevation sites; improved nucleation theories and parameterizations to account for NPF in atmospheric models. The challenges include the lack of understanding of the fundamental chemical mechanisms responsible for aerosol nucleation and growth under diverse environments, the effects of SO2 and NOx on NPF, and the contribution of anthropogenic organic compounds to NPF. It is also critical to develop instruments that can detect chemical composition of particles from 3 to 20 nm and improve parameterizations to represent NPF over a wide range of atmospheric conditions of chemical precursor, temperature and humidity.
Key Points
- Recent progresses include development of new instruments and observations of multicomponent nucleation and NPF at various locations.
- There is a lack of understanding of the fundamental chemical mechanisms responsible for NPF in diverse environments, especially in megacities.
- There is a need to develop NPF parameterizations to represent a wider range of pollutants over all atmospheric conditions of temperature and humidity.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029356
M
moose eater
Trich, I'm trying to read your posts again, albeit (once again) with 3+ hours of sleep, and it's admittedly over my head.
I'm trying to understand many of your posts, but frankly, whether the grayness of my head, or ignorance, or ... lack of familiarity with what you're sharing, I feel lost half or more of the time.
If you could do a lay-person translation, perhaps in brief, at the bottom of the post, then I can see what your read is, and then go back and forth between that and what you've posted in copy, I can maybe make better sense of it.
I saw your criticism/critique of the study allowing aerosols to be measured with CO2 gas. That part I -think- I understand.
Thanks.
I'm trying to understand many of your posts, but frankly, whether the grayness of my head, or ignorance, or ... lack of familiarity with what you're sharing, I feel lost half or more of the time.
If you could do a lay-person translation, perhaps in brief, at the bottom of the post, then I can see what your read is, and then go back and forth between that and what you've posted in copy, I can maybe make better sense of it.
I saw your criticism/critique of the study allowing aerosols to be measured with CO2 gas. That part I -think- I understand.
Thanks.
moose
the last article posted explains, or tries to prove, that they have no way of knowing
what in particular causes cloud nucleation and resultant raindrops, and suggests more research needed.
previous to that, were articles suggesting cloud nucleation caused by increased galactic cosmic rays allowed into atmosphere more readily because a reduced magnetosphere.
also paper showing the IPCC ignoring cloud/clouds contribution....essentially saying clouds cannot be modeled accurately so the cloud contribution is added to the anthropoegenic source. diurnal variation of cloud effects disregarded.
i've read your posts, you're no dummy. just read them slowly and patiently and you can grasp a great deal of it without 3 letters after your name.
it helps to have some interest in disproving the negative spin that we are doomed.
earth is a huge magnet, spinning in an electric field, that produces its own magnetic field (magnetosphere) which protects earth from powerful radiation of GCRs and SCRs (solar cosmic rays) that emanate from our sun. a couple of those papers insist cloud nucleation is caused by GCRs and SCRs, which leads to increased cloud cover.
admittedly you only recently joined the conversation so disparity of clarity is a given.
i've been saying that everything is electric...many people got a charge out of that.
the last article posted explains, or tries to prove, that they have no way of knowing
what in particular causes cloud nucleation and resultant raindrops, and suggests more research needed.
previous to that, were articles suggesting cloud nucleation caused by increased galactic cosmic rays allowed into atmosphere more readily because a reduced magnetosphere.
also paper showing the IPCC ignoring cloud/clouds contribution....essentially saying clouds cannot be modeled accurately so the cloud contribution is added to the anthropoegenic source. diurnal variation of cloud effects disregarded.
i've read your posts, you're no dummy. just read them slowly and patiently and you can grasp a great deal of it without 3 letters after your name.
it helps to have some interest in disproving the negative spin that we are doomed.
earth is a huge magnet, spinning in an electric field, that produces its own magnetic field (magnetosphere) which protects earth from powerful radiation of GCRs and SCRs (solar cosmic rays) that emanate from our sun. a couple of those papers insist cloud nucleation is caused by GCRs and SCRs, which leads to increased cloud cover.
admittedly you only recently joined the conversation so disparity of clarity is a given.
i've been saying that everything is electric...many people got a charge out of that.
