Climate Change Mega Thread

[Glacier]

People who are concerned about this year's record smashing fire season or this year's temperature records are science deniers who know nothing about the the difference between climate and weather.

Now, long term trends over decades, that is climate change. 100 years ago the fire burned once over every 18 years. Now it's every 50 years, so fire activity has no long term upward trajectory.

Arctic sea ices, yes. Receding glaciers in general, yes. Hotter temperatures, yes. Fewer colder temperatures, yes. Hurricanes, no. Precipitation in general, no.

That's how you do science, folks. Don't buy into the alarmist rhetoric by people who have a liberal arts degree.

[Drip_Torch]

Huh, well I'll be.

Apparently you can't be interested in an observation that's currently (June 10th data) sitting at around 4.81 sigma without being called an ignorant alarmist with a liberal arts degree. Check my math, but there's like a 1 in 1.3 million chance of that happening. You have a slightly better chance of being hit by lightning. They covered all that in trade school - right?

I don't know why that can't be interesting without triggering people. If you're not interested, just say I'm not interested, better yet, don't be interested. I'm sure there are some folks that will find it interesting, but I can certainly see why they wouldn't want to discuss it here.

Is this a weather forecast, or a projection based on current climate patterns? Serious question. I really want to know what the sciencey things take on it all is?

.

.
- I'm out. Apparently this data triggers far too much emotion.

[Glacier]

Huh, well I'll be.
.
- I'm out. Apparently this data triggers far too much emotion.

Interesting graph, and that is based on science as are short term weather forecasts. And dude, I was a page behind so hasn't even read your most recent posts , so the above was not directed at you. Only a general comment with respect to being frustrated by how the media is sensationalizing every extreme event.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy your evening.

[Drip_Torch]

I was a page behind so hasn't even read your most recent posts , so the above was not directed at you.

Fair enough. Perhaps you can understand how I could be confused by your post. The topic is Climate Change Mega Thread, not I'm frustrated with the media sensationalizing fires.

No harm, no foul - you have a good night too.

[Drip_Torch]

So for anyone that dares to follow along. (You're brave, very brave) There's a great synopsis and discussion article touching on the various drivers of the events we've been observing in the last couple weeks.

https://www.wfla.com/weather/climate-cl ... ing-point/

Most of it has been discussed, (most certainly not here), for a very long time and shouldn't be new, or surprising to anyone interested and following.

However there was one aspect that I hadn't considered as it was presented in this article.

Lastly, we should address a real wildcard. In January 2022, the underwater Hunga Tonga Volcano erupted in the South Pacific Ocean. The resulting explosion spewed large amounts of water vapor high up into the atmosphere where it still lingers.

This water vapor cools the upper atmosphere but warms Earth’s surface. It is an unexpected natural phenomenon.

Stratospheric injection of water vapour and particles is something I'm familar with in terms of PyroCB's and yet, I had never given any thought to Hunga Tonga's massive explosion. Just a side note from personal research... ten years ago, papers written on potential PyroCB overshoots would name significant events from all over North America, over a time frame of decades, then as things progressed years.

This year, last count I made there have been over 60 PyroCB events in Canada and from personal observation I can tell you a fair number have overshot into the Stratosphere. I can't help but wonder if this seemingly consistent, albeit quite smaller source isn't adding to things.

[The Green Barbarian]

EDITORIAL: More flights of fantasy on climate change

Every time Parliament debates the issue of climate change, the political rhetoric drifts farther away from reality.

On Monday, the House of Commons passed a motion by Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-Francois Blanchet that began by expressing support for — and solidarity with — Canadians impacted by wildfires across the country.

Then it wandered off into the world of magical thinking that promotes the idea there would be fewer wildfires in Canada if we were only paying enough in carbon taxes.

Predictably, the BQ motion said climate change is bad, although it meant human-induced climate change.

It said the Trudeau government must spend more to fight climate change, “stop investing in fossil fuels” and “develop incentives, while respecting the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, to promote the use of renewable energy and public transit.”

The Liberals supported the motion, which was bizarre because it was a slam at their environmental record.

It passed 210 to 115 with the Liberals, BQ and NDP in favour, the Conservatives against.

Since the Trudeau government boasts it has already committed more than $200 billion to fighting climate change since 2015, how much more of our money does it plan to spend?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s original strategy was to use profits from our oil and gas sector to fund Canada’s transition to green energy.

He said his national carbon tax/price would create the “social licence” necessary to build more pipelines. We all know how that turned out.

Finally, the Trudeau government refuses to do the math on climate change.

Between 2005 and 2019, Canada’s emissions decreased 1.1% while global emissions increased 23.6%. In China — the world’s largest emitter — they increased 74.8%.

Canada in 2019 accounted for just 1.5% of global emissions, down from 1.8% in 2005, a drop of 16.7%.

As Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux recently reported, our “emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change.”

The solution has to be global.

Then there are questions about Trudeau’s national carbon tax/price.

Between 2005 and 2020 — Trudeau’s national carbon tax/price was imposed on April 1, 2019 — Canada’s emissions decreased 10%.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/ed ... d7f7&ei=11

[Catsumi]

Drip said

This year, last count I made there have been over 60 PyroCB events in Canada and from personal observation I can tell you a fair number have overshot into the Stratosphere. I can't help but wonder if this seemingly consistent, albeit quite smaller source isn't adding to things.

Would you point out these events please, just a couple so I know what you're talking about.

I don’t recall seeing or hearing anything about them.

TIA

[Drip_Torch]

Drip said

This year, last count I made there have been over 60 PyroCB events in Canada and from personal observation I can tell you a fair number have overshot into the Stratosphere. I can't help but wonder if this seemingly consistent, albeit quite smaller source isn't adding to things.

Would you point out these events please, just a couple so I know what you're talking about.

I don’t recall seeing or hearing anything about them.

TIA

Sure, here's a look at a few of the recent ones.



I just finished looking at GOES 16 (east) to see if I could pull a good pic from today, but it's obscured by cloud and I'd have to explain the shortwave view and need you to take a jump of faith with me that you're not just looking at clouds. I hope the above serves as good example.

When they overshoot you can often see it in Hi Res radar, or by viewing with the "Clean IR window", with that you can get a good idea of the cloud top height. The other way I determine it, is looking at the jetstream and the different mid-level winds. Over the last few days with the fires up north, the plume and the Pyro CB will go north and then the overshoot into upper atmosphere will take off like a shot to the east in the 250 mb jet.

Hope that explains it?

[Catsumi]

Yes, got it.

I was thinking more along volcanic eruptions but guess that the super hot, ash and particle updraft stands in just fine as a substitute

[Drip_Torch]

Yes, got it.

I was thinking more along volcanic eruptions but guess that the super hot, ash and particle updraft stands in just fine as a substitute

That's right, sorry I'm probably sucking completely at explaining this. Every now and then I come across studies on PyroCb's that look at Stratospheric injection (Fire generated Cumulonimbus clouds) that have so much energy they push past the tropopause (The lid on the lowest level of our atmosphere) and inject particulate and water vapour into our Stratosphere.

That's why when I came across the article examining some of the drivers for these unusual warming observations we've had over the last couple of weeks, I had a little "hmm" moment when it got to the Hunga Tonga Volcano. It makes sense to me, given all the other articles I had read on PyroCb's. And, as I postulated perhaps the sustained, almost daily small occurrences with the Canadian fires are playing a roll too. (That's something a PHD will likely examine in the future and I know just the one that's following these fires closely.)

[Jlabute]

Canadian Wildfires came from rotten luck, not climate change, according to atmospheric scientists Clifford Mass.

these claims are inconsistent with peer-reviewed science, the observational record and our growing understanding of the meteorology associated with wildfire events.

The weather conditions in Quebec preceding the wildfire event were largely normal, and the high pressure over southern Canada, responsible for the warming, has no proven association with climate change.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/13/ ... isfortune/

[Catsumi]

Ok, so the gases and particulates can change or disturb upper atmosphere causing short term effects, or at least as long as the stuff stays up there. Maybe indefinitely, circling the globe as there’s no way for it to fall back to earth. Interesting.

[Drip_Torch]

Ok, so the gases and particulates can change or disturb upper atmosphere causing short term effects, or at least as long as the stuff stays up there. Maybe indefinitely, circling the globe as there’s no way for it to fall back to earth. Interesting.

The studies I've read in the past suggest long term, perhaps very long term, (or indefinitely.) It may depend largely on where it happens. To be honest with you the Hunga Tonga Volcano seemed counterintuitive to me, at least until I thought about how it was mainly an underwater eruption. There's no doubt that was a huge explosion that moved lots of particulate, water vapour (bad) and other organic gases.

Interesting, that's all I've been saying about the observations of the last two weeks.

Okay, just for fun I thought I'd ask a chatbot. Tell me about Stratospheric Injection associated with Pyro CB clouds.

Stratospheric Injection Associated with Pyro CB Clouds

Pyro CB clouds are a type of cumulonimbus clouds that are formed by intense wildfires or volcanic eruptions. They are also known as fire-breathing storm systems or fire thunderstorms. Pyro CB clouds can produce lightning, hail, strong winds and even tornadoes. But what makes them especially dangerous is their ability to inject large amounts of smoke and aerosols into the stratosphere, the second layer of Earth's atmosphere.

The stratosphere is located above the troposphere, where most weather phenomena occur. The stratosphere is typically stable and dry, with a temperature inversion that prevents vertical mixing. However, some events can disrupt this stability and transport air from the troposphere to the stratosphere. These events include volcanic eruptions, rocket launches, nuclear explosions and pyro CB clouds.

Pyro CB clouds can reach heights of 10 to 20 km, well above the tropopause, which is the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. The tropopause height varies with latitude and season, but it is usually around 8 to 12 km in the mid-latitudes. When pyro CB clouds overshoot the tropopause, they create a plume of smoke and aerosols that can spread horizontally in the lower stratosphere. This plume can have significant impacts on the climate, the ozone layer and the air quality.

The climate impact of pyro CB clouds depends on the type and amount of aerosols they inject into the stratosphere. Aerosols are tiny particles suspended in the air that can scatter or absorb solar radiation. Some aerosols have a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight back to space, while others have a warming effect by trapping heat in the atmosphere. Pyro CB clouds can inject both types of aerosols, such as black carbon (soot), organic carbon, sulfate and ash. The net effect of these aerosols on the climate is uncertain and depends on their size, shape, composition and distribution.

The ozone layer impact of pyro CB clouds depends on the chemical composition of the smoke and aerosols they inject into the stratosphere. Ozone is a gas that protects life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Ozone is formed by the reaction of oxygen molecules with ultraviolet radiation in the upper stratosphere. However, ozone can also be destroyed by certain chemicals that act as catalysts in the lower stratosphere. These chemicals include chlorine, bromine, nitrogen oxides and hydrogen oxides. Pyro CB clouds can inject some of these chemicals into the stratosphere, such as nitrogen oxides from lightning or hydrogen oxides from biomass burning. These chemicals can reduce the ozone concentration and create ozone holes.

The air quality impact of pyro CB clouds depends on the transport and dispersion of the smoke and aerosols they inject into the stratosphere. Smoke and aerosols can affect human health by causing respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. They can also reduce visibility and impair aviation safety. Pyro CB clouds can transport smoke and aerosols over long distances in the stratosphere, where they can persist for weeks to months. Eventually, some of these particles can descend back to the troposphere and affect regions far away from their source.

Pyro CB clouds are rare but extreme events that can have significant consequences for the atmosphere and life on Earth. They are expected to become more frequent and intense in the future due to climate change and human activities that increase fire risk and fuel availability. Therefore, it is important to monitor and understand these phenomena using satellite observations, ground-based measurements and numerical models.

It's actually pretty good, but I don't know that I would use the word "dangerous" - myself, based on my understanding, I'd use the word deleterious. And, well... they aren't all that rare right now.

[Jlabute]

Anomalous Oceanic Anomalies

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/14/ ... anomalies/

[Catsumi]

@Drip-torch

Gosh, after reading what AI had to say, the next question would have to be…

How is a carbon tax going to influence earth’s natural upheavals?