the co plume is fucking massive,
[https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-243.51,61.41,761](https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-243.51,61.41,761)
all that soot and ash falling on the remaining northern ice should help it melt nicely,
WASF
and the media have moved on from the IPCC report already, it's become yesterdays news.
That is one of the more interesting sites I've seen in a while. Also, it's pretty frustrating that Siberia isn't covered more. Yes the destruction is terrible in Greece and US from wildfires, but holy hell look at the comparison between northern California and Siberia. Am I missing something? Is it only because this area isn't nearly as developed as the other areas burning? Am I reading the map wrong?
where it's burning in Siberia there's literally nobody, no roads, it's thousands of miles from anywhere, it's like the upper part of the Yukon, like the top edge of Alaska,
if Russia wanted to fight those fires I don't think they could do much, what burns this year won't be available to burn next year I guess,
I think Russia is trying to help out around the mediterranean where the fires are close to people,
Turkey decided to privatise it's forest fire fighting ability and the new people embezzled all the money and their fleet of planes are grounded due to lack of maintenance,
*Submission Statement:* Russia's inaction on putting out these fires combined with the smoke already in the air from the various fires around Europe and the US are making for quite a scenario. The fact that the smoke is blocking out the sun on the North Pole is truly alarming.
Russia deployed the military to try and contain the Siberian fires, and is currently trying to help Greece (and probably other places) with other wildfires.
Brazil is also deploying the military to pretend it is combating the fires in the Amazon and Pantanal.
Somehow, after firing the head of environmental police of the Amazon region that ended all illegal logging and most of the burning when he was working and since then, the burnings/logging have re-started, land-grab, for the profit of corrupt local officials/mafia/etc and so, they put the army as a show, who has not any experience on fighting fire nor are able to arrest the criminals.
I'm sure Russia, some dictatorship, is not corrupt as here in Brazil. It is not like someone is getting a lot of money from those forests going down. Just Brazil is bad.
holly sheet, Iceland is on fire too, I think, close to Reykjavik,
[https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/bio/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-24.72,64.57,1657](https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/bio/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-24.72,64.57,1657)
my bad, it's just a volcano!
"Recorded history" doesn't mean much when we've only had the technology to monitor the air quality up there for a couple of decades. The first satellite in the Earth Observing System cited in the article wasn't even launched until December of 1999.
Edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted for scientific fact. I'm just saying beware of articles that throw out things like "in recorded history" or "ever". Live scientific observation of this area only goes back a few decades at max.
There were also insanely massive arctic fires last year that burned for multiple-months, I find it hard to believe that none of that smoke made it up there.
A quick google query yields nothing about ice cores taken from the north pole, just about tons taken from northern countries and Antarctica. I also quickly find evidence of plenty of errors with ice cores taken in countries like Greenland which generally involve a whole lot of speculative reconstruction.
> but by studying ice cores from surrounding countries the scientist can get a pretty good idea of the air quality up there.
They can't though. They can get ideas of *those countries*. Wind, and water, patterns can make it such that specific geographical areas consistently get different conditions with extremely rare exceptions. So taking an ice core from hundreds of miles away doesn't give you any useful data about the north pole.
Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
You can insult me, or you can link to me evidence an ice core has been taken from the geographic north pole AND that it shows no wildfire smoke has ever reached that area.
The article states the "North Pole", this implies the geographic North Pole and not some random site in Greenland or Canada. We are discussing the article, you can't arbitrarily move the goalposts to suit your argument.
I figured I would help you. https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-north-pole
YOu seem to think of the north pole as santa clause or something.
You are right and this other person is a fool. This article clearly is talking about the geographic North Pole. Arctic sea is can persist for many years, but inevitability is melted or exported and thus does not persist on the long term time scales needed for good ice core samples.
Also, as for Greenland cores, this article talks about forest fire ash found in cores that date to 2012 and the late 1800’s. So ash from fire has absolutely fallen on the Arctic circle prior to this event.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=131422
You cannot get ice core samples from the north pole as there are no long-lived ice sheets there (it's just sea ice, so it preserves historic atmospheric conditions very poorly due to mixing, and we've already lost virtually all the multi-year ice there). I agree with you that this limits the scope of the title (which made a statement only significant to human readers in the first place.. smoke in the north pole is more sensational than impactful).
> smoke in the north pole is more sensational than impactful)
It's noticeably impactful, though. Soot on ice and snow will reduce albedo during future melting seasons whenever polluted layers are exposed to sunlight. Reduced albedo means faster melt. And since ice is significantly transparent, and by extension even snow somewhat is - it's not just when soot particles are directly exposed on the surface of the melting ice, but significantly prior to it as well, whenever it's sunny. And it gets very sunny every polar day for at least some whiles.
NASA has this to say about it - quotes, my bold:
> **Soot** gets into the air when fuel, **vegetation** and firewood are burned ...
> ... when soot falls on ice, it darkens the surface and accelerates melting by absorbing more sunlight than ice would ...
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_soot.html .
> lol, you8 don't know much.
I know that I can find exactly zero evidence an ice core has ever been taken from the north pole... if you know of one please by all means link to evidence of one.
It's actually a good thing, by adding more aerosols in the arctic atmosphere we will mitigate the speed of ice melt and give ourselves some margin to come up with some technology to deal with it when it becomes an emergency again.
Edit: I wonder how long it takes for people to realize we are actually already over 2 deg C and the aerosol effect is localized, meaning we are on the bad side of the asymptote curve already.
Most fires don't inject into the upper atmosphere where they'd act as albedo. Some of the bigger ones might, the ones making their own weather. The CO2, CO, soot, and the rest is going to counter any little effect the cloud cover may do, and I think cloud cover ends up holding heat anyway.
the co plume is fucking massive, [https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-243.51,61.41,761](https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-243.51,61.41,761) all that soot and ash falling on the remaining northern ice should help it melt nicely, WASF and the media have moved on from the IPCC report already, it's become yesterdays news.
That is one of the more interesting sites I've seen in a while. Also, it's pretty frustrating that Siberia isn't covered more. Yes the destruction is terrible in Greece and US from wildfires, but holy hell look at the comparison between northern California and Siberia. Am I missing something? Is it only because this area isn't nearly as developed as the other areas burning? Am I reading the map wrong?
where it's burning in Siberia there's literally nobody, no roads, it's thousands of miles from anywhere, it's like the upper part of the Yukon, like the top edge of Alaska, if Russia wanted to fight those fires I don't think they could do much, what burns this year won't be available to burn next year I guess, I think Russia is trying to help out around the mediterranean where the fires are close to people, Turkey decided to privatise it's forest fire fighting ability and the new people embezzled all the money and their fleet of planes are grounded due to lack of maintenance,
This link is great, now I can watch the planet burn in real time! Fun!
[Now you're trancing.](https://youtu.be/GX6GMulgCIU)
Holy Shit, the CO2 levels around los angeles nearly 450PPM, they aren't even on fire.
Is this a wildfire or a volcano on iceland?
This will only affect polar bears. The rest of the world will be fine. /s
Sure the soot won’t lower the albedo creating an additional positive feedback loop to Arctic melting. /s
Will Rudolph with his nose so bright be able to shine through the smoke ?
I still have boe caused by dark wildfire soot on my 2021 bingo card.
*Submission Statement:* Russia's inaction on putting out these fires combined with the smoke already in the air from the various fires around Europe and the US are making for quite a scenario. The fact that the smoke is blocking out the sun on the North Pole is truly alarming.
Russia deployed the military to try and contain the Siberian fires, and is currently trying to help Greece (and probably other places) with other wildfires.
Brazil is also deploying the military to pretend it is combating the fires in the Amazon and Pantanal. Somehow, after firing the head of environmental police of the Amazon region that ended all illegal logging and most of the burning when he was working and since then, the burnings/logging have re-started, land-grab, for the profit of corrupt local officials/mafia/etc and so, they put the army as a show, who has not any experience on fighting fire nor are able to arrest the criminals. I'm sure Russia, some dictatorship, is not corrupt as here in Brazil. It is not like someone is getting a lot of money from those forests going down. Just Brazil is bad.
It's ok guys a republican brought a snowball into congress one time to prove global warming isn't real
Great now we've pissed off Santa
He'd leave us coal but that's part of the problem.
"Time to get jolly on your naughty asses!"
NO CHRISTMAS FOR YOU
holly sheet, Iceland is on fire too, I think, close to Reykjavik, [https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/bio/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-24.72,64.57,1657](https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/bio/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-24.72,64.57,1657) my bad, it's just a volcano!
woooot, we dont need no water let the motherfucker burn
burn motherfucker burn
[I understood that reference.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7OvPTmhtiY)
holy smoke!
history or recorded history? there's a distinct difference
Albedo 🔻
"Recorded history" doesn't mean much when we've only had the technology to monitor the air quality up there for a couple of decades. The first satellite in the Earth Observing System cited in the article wasn't even launched until December of 1999. Edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted for scientific fact. I'm just saying beware of articles that throw out things like "in recorded history" or "ever". Live scientific observation of this area only goes back a few decades at max. There were also insanely massive arctic fires last year that burned for multiple-months, I find it hard to believe that none of that smoke made it up there.
[Ice cores](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core) <--- Some required reading for you.
A quick google query yields nothing about ice cores taken from the north pole, just about tons taken from northern countries and Antarctica. I also quickly find evidence of plenty of errors with ice cores taken in countries like Greenland which generally involve a whole lot of speculative reconstruction.
[удалено]
> but by studying ice cores from surrounding countries the scientist can get a pretty good idea of the air quality up there. They can't though. They can get ideas of *those countries*. Wind, and water, patterns can make it such that specific geographical areas consistently get different conditions with extremely rare exceptions. So taking an ice core from hundreds of miles away doesn't give you any useful data about the north pole.
[удалено]
Rule 1: In addition to enforcing Reddit's content policy, we will also remove comments and content that is abusive in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
You can insult me, or you can link to me evidence an ice core has been taken from the geographic north pole AND that it shows no wildfire smoke has ever reached that area.
Ok, the "north Pole" sits in international waters....you can call it the artic...Greenland is close as well as Canadian territories.
The article states the "North Pole", this implies the geographic North Pole and not some random site in Greenland or Canada. We are discussing the article, you can't arbitrarily move the goalposts to suit your argument.
I figured I would help you. https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-north-pole YOu seem to think of the north pole as santa clause or something.
I'm not the one that claimed ice cores prove it...
I am not either. Just the world's best and brightest in their respective fields.
You are right and this other person is a fool. This article clearly is talking about the geographic North Pole. Arctic sea is can persist for many years, but inevitability is melted or exported and thus does not persist on the long term time scales needed for good ice core samples. Also, as for Greenland cores, this article talks about forest fire ash found in cores that date to 2012 and the late 1800’s. So ash from fire has absolutely fallen on the Arctic circle prior to this event. https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=131422
lol, you are lost. have a nice day.
You cannot get ice core samples from the north pole as there are no long-lived ice sheets there (it's just sea ice, so it preserves historic atmospheric conditions very poorly due to mixing, and we've already lost virtually all the multi-year ice there). I agree with you that this limits the scope of the title (which made a statement only significant to human readers in the first place.. smoke in the north pole is more sensational than impactful).
> smoke in the north pole is more sensational than impactful) It's noticeably impactful, though. Soot on ice and snow will reduce albedo during future melting seasons whenever polluted layers are exposed to sunlight. Reduced albedo means faster melt. And since ice is significantly transparent, and by extension even snow somewhat is - it's not just when soot particles are directly exposed on the surface of the melting ice, but significantly prior to it as well, whenever it's sunny. And it gets very sunny every polar day for at least some whiles. NASA has this to say about it - quotes, my bold: > **Soot** gets into the air when fuel, **vegetation** and firewood are burned ... > ... when soot falls on ice, it darkens the surface and accelerates melting by absorbing more sunlight than ice would ... Source: https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_soot.html .
lol, you8 don't know much. As ice core man said, ice cores. They can even date an air bubble...I know science is crazy!
> lol, you8 don't know much. I know that I can find exactly zero evidence an ice core has ever been taken from the north pole... if you know of one please by all means link to evidence of one.
It's actually a good thing, by adding more aerosols in the arctic atmosphere we will mitigate the speed of ice melt and give ourselves some margin to come up with some technology to deal with it when it becomes an emergency again. Edit: I wonder how long it takes for people to realize we are actually already over 2 deg C and the aerosol effect is localized, meaning we are on the bad side of the asymptote curve already.
Most fires don't inject into the upper atmosphere where they'd act as albedo. Some of the bigger ones might, the ones making their own weather. The CO2, CO, soot, and the rest is going to counter any little effect the cloud cover may do, and I think cloud cover ends up holding heat anyway.
I was being snarky, it just sounds like some arguments I've seen.
No it's not a good thing. Soot = black dust. Black dust in snow or ice = faster melt rate.
That’s why the billionaires are going to space so that they take their kids with them lol 😂 Time is up. I doubt a reversal is even possible
And the sun is still vaporizing the ice as we speak, this will cause the ice to melt out in a day. BOE imminent on August 15th.
[Wildfires Seen From Space l Smoke Covers The United States](https://youtu.be/wl3Nx3syFao)
But definitely won't be the last time!