Russian wake up call on global warming

[westwall]

You forgot the great wildfire outbreak of '03, in the LA basin.


Nasty!

Dude, there are SO MANY wildfires in the southwest US it would take me days to list them all.

I do agree though the 2003 season was a stone cold bitch.

 

[ekiosity]

"Russian wake up call on global warming

Russians are not used to heat waves"

So wait. When it's hot, it's global warming? That must mean that if it's not hot there is no global warming. Am I right on that?

 

[rdean]

This is old hat now Chris. No one seems to care. It's sad about the fires for sure but that is natural because there was SO MUCH SNOW due to the EXCEPTIONALLY COLD WINTER that there was tons more fuel to burn.

It is a natural and exceptionally predictable cycle. I suggest you look at the history of California and Australian wildfires. they are very well researched and they allways say two things. After a heavy winter the summer will be very dangerous due to more fuel. Then after the fires have burned everything out the mudslides follow.

Los Angeles is particularly prone to landslides after wildfires because the San Gabrial Mountains are beyond the angle of repose so mass wasting ensues at a prodigous rate when the rains come.

I suggest you read John McPhee's "The Control of Nature" for an excellent description of the geologic processes involved that is very readable by the layman.

The only reason there is "SO MUCH SNOW" is because there is "SO MUCH HUMIDITY".

Humidity comes from the evaporation of water from heated oceans which have no ice cover.

They have no ice cover because of "EXTREME HEAT", which of course, leads to "SO MUCH SNOW".

Funny how that works out.

The right believes that "evaporation" is "just a theory". They believe "Snow" is actually "intelligently created" from "cold". And this is why we have so few Republican Scientists.

Well this DEMOCRAT scientist says to get snow it first has to be COLD. Or did you forget that little variable? Yes warmth gives you more water vapor but if it only has a residence time of a few days your contention that the heat makes more water vapor when it is in fact really damned cold out doesn't hold too much water....now does it?

Or did you forget that little variable?

This is fun. Sometimes I like talking to someone who doesn't know how things work. I get to give them a "teaching moment".

Hot air rises. The increased humidity plus the increased heat takes the "water vapor" produced by extreme evaporation close to the stratosphere. Because it's so high up, it travels far inland, the extreme cold so far above ground coalesces the vapor into "snow". This results in large amounts of "snow".

Simple. In fact, it's so simple, I was embarrassed to have to explain it.

 

[Oddball]

Well, you have at least a little bit of a point -for a change- in that you oughtta be embarrassed.

But not for the reason you may have thought.

 

[westwall]

The only reason there is "SO MUCH SNOW" is because there is "SO MUCH HUMIDITY".

Humidity comes from the evaporation of water from heated oceans which have no ice cover.

They have no ice cover because of "EXTREME HEAT", which of course, leads to "SO MUCH SNOW".

Funny how that works out.

The right believes that "evaporation" is "just a theory". They believe "Snow" is actually "intelligently created" from "cold". And this is why we have so few Republican Scientists.

Well this DEMOCRAT scientist says to get snow it first has to be COLD. Or did you forget that little variable? Yes warmth gives you more water vapor but if it only has a residence time of a few days your contention that the heat makes more water vapor when it is in fact really damned cold out doesn't hold too much water....now does it?

Or did you forget that little variable?

This is fun. Sometimes I like talking to someone who doesn't know how things work. I get to give them a "teaching moment".

Hot air rises. The increased humidity plus the increased heat takes the "water vapor" produced by extreme evaporation close to the stratosphere. Because it's so high up, it travels far inland, the extreme cold so far above ground coalesces the vapor into "snow". This results in large amounts of "snow".

Simple. In fact, it's so simple, I was embarrassed to have to explain it.

Uhhh, if the residence time of water vapor is 9 days how does it impact the snow making capability when it gets cold months after the fact? Cue Jeopardy music.

 

[Chris]

August 7, 2010: The growing number of wildfires, caused by months of record setting heat, are out of control. Over 50,000 people are dealing with nearly a thousand of fires. Some 10,000 of those personnel are professional firefighters, a few thousand are military personnel and the rest are local volunteers. The fires have so far killed 40 people and destroyed about 2,000 buildings (mainly rural homes). The emergency services officials want more military personnel for fire fighting. The government has ordered that priority be given to protecting power plants, military bases and nuclear research facilities. More ominous is the fact that heat and fires have already destroyed 20 percent of the wheat crop.

Russia: Feeling The Heat

 

[westwall]

August 7, 2010: The growing number of wildfires, caused by months of record setting heat, are out of control. Over 50,000 people are dealing with nearly a thousand of fires. Some 10,000 of those personnel are professional firefighters, a few thousand are military personnel and the rest are local volunteers. The fires have so far killed 40 people and destroyed about 2,000 buildings (mainly rural homes). The emergency services officials want more military personnel for fire fighting. The government has ordered that priority be given to protecting power plants, military bases and nuclear research facilities. More ominous is the fact that heat and fires have already destroyed 20 percent of the wheat crop.

Russia: Feeling The Heat

You must live in a cave. Try looking up wildfires in the US southwest and Australia. It ain't no big deal except for those who lose their homes. And lets take a look at some historical fires shall we?

Santa Barbara Fire in 2008 destroyed 210 homes.

Santa Barbara County Fire (in the north county also in 2008) burned 88,000 acres

Santa Barbara 1989 8500 acres are burned along with more than 500 homes.

Oakland CA 1991 the Tunnel Fire (rated as a 107 alarm fire) consumes 1,520 acres and 3,354 single family residences, and 437 apartment and condo units at a estimated cost of 1.5 billion dollars. The human toll was 25 killed and 150 injured.

2006 in Victoria Australia 1 million hectares are burned.

Here is a copy from wiki for those who can't understand anything more complicated. As you will see bush fires are a necessary part of the life cycle of the flora, just like in the southwest US. What would you care to bet that they are neccessary for the Russian areas as well

"Bushfires in Australia, particularly in the southeast of the continent, are some of the most frequently and extensively occurring natural fires in the world. Many species of flora in Australia have evolved to rely on bushfires as a means of reproduction and they are an interwoven and essential part of life for all flora and fauna on the continent.

For many thousands of years, Aboriginal people have used fire for a variety of purposes. These included the encouragement of grasslands for hunting purposes and the clearing of tracks through dense vegetation. Throughout Australia's post-European history, from 1851–2009, there have been 815 human fatalities and 9,946 injuries. Bushfires have affected 1,311,050 people and made 31,942 homeless. The total accumulated cost of bushfires is estimated at $1,673,697,366.[1]

Bushfires in Australia occur all year-round and the season depends on the region, see below of a more detailed explanation.

Major firestorms that result in severe loss of life are often named based on the day on which they occur, such as Ash Wednesday and Black Saturday. Some of the most intense, extensive and deadly bushfires commonly occur during droughts and heat waves, such as the 2009 Southern Australia heat wave, which precipitated the conditions during the recent Black Saturday bushfires in which 173 lost their lives."


Then of course there are the historical Russian wildfires. This one too is lifted from wiki for the research impaired. I did however confirm it from other more reliable sources. You will notice the fire occured way back in 1921.

"Wildfires in Mari Autonomous Oblast, RSFSR occurred in the summer of 1921. Damage included 2,660 square kilometres of pine forest burned off, with serious repercussion for the economics of the area, already paralyzed by the Povolzhye famine. Fires led to 35 human and 1,000 cattle deaths, and 60 villages were destroyed. The effects of the fire were increased by strong winds."

So when you history challenged silly people get all hot and bothered about the current fires now you know why I yawn. And yes I lost a house in the 1989 Santa Barbara fire so i know how it feels.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmmm...... Interesting. Everyone stateing that global warming has nothing to do with the fires, then pointing out record fires that have occurred in the last 20 years. Talk about congnitive dissonance.

In the last decade Europe has had record fires, North America and Australia, also. But it is of course meaningless. Never let reality intrude on the dingbat ideology.

The NY Times Blows the Wildfire Story Climate Progress

The reporter, however, misses the real story. He mistakenly makes it seem like this wildfire season is somehow a unique event, and the opening sentence talks about large individual fires from 1949, 1988, and 1910. You would never know from this article that the U.S. record for wildfire acreage burned was set in 2005 (8.5 million acres), breaking a record just set in 2000.

 

[westwall]

Hmmmm...... Interesting. Everyone stateing that global warming has nothing to do with the fires, then pointing out record fires that have occurred in the last 20 years. Talk about congnitive dissonance.

In the last decade Europe has had record fires, North America and Australia, also. But it is of course meaningless. Never let reality intrude on the dingbat ideology.

The NY Times Blows the Wildfire Story Climate Progress

The reporter, however, misses the real story. He mistakenly makes it seem like this wildfire season is somehow a unique event, and the opening sentence talks about large individual fires from 1949, 1988, and 1910. You would never know from this article that the U.S. record for wildfire acreage burned was set in 2005 (8.5 million acres), breaking a record just set in 2000.

Try reading next time. You neglect to mention the 1921 fire storms that predate your latest "warming period"

"Wildfires in Mari Autonomous Oblast, RSFSR occurred in the summer of 1921. Damage included 2,660 square kilometres of pine forest burned off, with serious repercussion for the economics of the area, already paralyzed by the Povolzhye famine. Fires led to 35 human and 1,000 cattle deaths, and 60 villages were destroyed. The effects of the fire were increased by strong winds."

You folks require links because you can't read books so I posted what is readilly available because I don't care to waste too much time on you. But if you care to learn more head over to any Forest Service Hot Shot office and they can provide you with historical fire data for your region going back to the 20's.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Moscow, Russia (CNN) -- The Moscow skyline of the Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral vanished Friday as a blanket of thick, noxious smoke shrouded the metropolis, leaving many of the city's 10 million residents with sore throats and burning eyes.

On Friday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited a Moscow ambulance station, accompanied by top health officials. He was told that the number of emergency calls has increased by about 10 percent lately, related to the heat and smog.

The acrid smoke, from thousands of square miles of wildfires, drove carbon monoxide levels in Moscow five times higher than what is considered safe, the Russian Health Ministry said.

Residents were encouraged to stay indoors. Many who did not could be seen wearing masks as they walked outdoors.

In interviews with the state-run RIA Novosti news agency, health officials likened the pollution levels to smoking several packs of cigarettes a day.

Muscovites struggle to breathe as acrid smoke grips city - CNN.com

Let me get this straight, the fires in Russia, the largest country on the planet, are all caused by, and prove, that AGW exists and is going to kill us all next year.

Do I have the facts right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The only reason there is "SO MUCH SNOW" is because there is "SO MUCH HUMIDITY".

Humidity comes from the evaporation of water from heated oceans which have no ice cover.

They have no ice cover because of "EXTREME HEAT", which of course, leads to "SO MUCH SNOW".

Funny how that works out.

The right believes that "evaporation" is "just a theory". They believe "Snow" is actually "intelligently created" from "cold". And this is why we have so few Republican Scientists.

Well this DEMOCRAT scientist says to get snow it first has to be COLD. Or did you forget that little variable? Yes warmth gives you more water vapor but if it only has a residence time of a few days your contention that the heat makes more water vapor when it is in fact really damned cold out doesn't hold too much water....now does it?

Or did you forget that little variable?

This is fun. Sometimes I like talking to someone who doesn't know how things work. I get to give them a "teaching moment".

Hot air rises. The increased humidity plus the increased heat takes the "water vapor" produced by extreme evaporation close to the stratosphere. Because it's so high up, it travels far inland, the extreme cold so far above ground coalesces the vapor into "snow". This results in large amounts of "snow".

Simple. In fact, it's so simple, I was embarrassed to have to explain it.

You were doing so good in science until this post.

The snow melts on the way down unless the surface temperature is cold enough to prevent it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

August 7, 2010: The growing number of wildfires, caused by months of record setting heat, are out of control. Over 50,000 people are dealing with nearly a thousand of fires. Some 10,000 of those personnel are professional firefighters, a few thousand are military personnel and the rest are local volunteers. The fires have so far killed 40 people and destroyed about 2,000 buildings (mainly rural homes). The emergency services officials want more military personnel for fire fighting. The government has ordered that priority be given to protecting power plants, military bases and nuclear research facilities. More ominous is the fact that heat and fires have already destroyed 20 percent of the wheat crop.

Russia: Feeling The Heat

The heat is not causing the wildfires, unless you are going to say the temps are hot enough to spontaneously cumbust the flora in Russia. If it was that hot I am pretty sure someone would have mentioned it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmmmm...... Interesting. Everyone stateing that global warming has nothing to do with the fires, then pointing out record fires that have occurred in the last 20 years. Talk about congnitive dissonance.

In the last decade Europe has had record fires, North America and Australia, also. But it is of course meaningless. Never let reality intrude on the dingbat ideology.

The NY Times Blows the Wildfire Story Climate Progress

The reporter, however, misses the real story. He mistakenly makes it seem like this wildfire season is somehow a unique event, and the opening sentence talks about large individual fires from 1949, 1988, and 1910. You would never know from this article that the U.S. record for wildfire acreage burned was set in 2005 (8.5 million acres), breaking a record just set in 2000.

OK genius, explain to me how heat causes the fires. Wildfires are all caused by lightning strikes or careless humans, never by temperatures. A prolonged drought could contribute to dry conditions, thus exacerbating the fires, but it will not cause one either.

 

[westwall]

Hmmmm...... Interesting. Everyone stateing that global warming has nothing to do with the fires, then pointing out record fires that have occurred in the last 20 years. Talk about congnitive dissonance.

In the last decade Europe has had record fires, North America and Australia, also. But it is of course meaningless. Never let reality intrude on the dingbat ideology.

The NY Times Blows the Wildfire Story Climate Progress

The reporter, however, misses the real story. He mistakenly makes it seem like this wildfire season is somehow a unique event, and the opening sentence talks about large individual fires from 1949, 1988, and 1910. You would never know from this article that the U.S. record for wildfire acreage burned was set in 2005 (8.5 million acres), breaking a record just set in 2000.

OK genius, explain to me how heat causes the fires. Wildfires are all caused by lightning strikes or careless humans, never by temperatures. A prolonged drought could contribute to dry conditions, thus exacerbating the fires, but it will not cause one either.

And don't forget the excessive amount of fuel in the areas BECAUSE OF THE EXCEPTIONALLY HARSH WINTER that caused far more brush to grow because of all the water.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lightning strikes are a normal part of nature. So in an area that does not normally see extreme heat and aridity, this normal part of nature that would have, in a normal time, sparked a spot fire, now ignites huge conflagations. The temperatures do not cause wild fires, no more than cancer causes death.

 

[Old Rocks]

Moscow, Russia (CNN) -- The Moscow skyline of the Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral vanished Friday as a blanket of thick, noxious smoke shrouded the metropolis, leaving many of the city's 10 million residents with sore throats and burning eyes.

On Friday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited a Moscow ambulance station, accompanied by top health officials. He was told that the number of emergency calls has increased by about 10 percent lately, related to the heat and smog.

The acrid smoke, from thousands of square miles of wildfires, drove carbon monoxide levels in Moscow five times higher than what is considered safe, the Russian Health Ministry said.

Residents were encouraged to stay indoors. Many who did not could be seen wearing masks as they walked outdoors.

In interviews with the state-run RIA Novosti news agency, health officials likened the pollution levels to smoking several packs of cigarettes a day.

Muscovites struggle to breathe as acrid smoke grips city - CNN.com

Let me get this straight, the fires in Russia, the largest country on the planet, are all caused by, and prove, that AGW exists and is going to kill us all next year.

Do I have the facts right?

No, you have nothing right except proof of your inability to see reality.

As for you assinine hyperbole, have at it. It proves the depth of your intellect.

 

[code1211]

This is old hat now Chris. No one seems to care. It's sad about the fires for sure but that is natural because there was SO MUCH SNOW due to the EXCEPTIONALLY COLD WINTER that there was tons more fuel to burn.

It is a natural and exceptionally predictable cycle. I suggest you look at the history of California and Australian wildfires. they are very well researched and they allways say two things. After a heavy winter the summer will be very dangerous due to more fuel. Then after the fires have burned everything out the mudslides follow.

Los Angeles is particularly prone to landslides after wildfires because the San Gabrial Mountains are beyond the angle of repose so mass wasting ensues at a prodigous rate when the rains come.

I suggest you read John McPhee's "The Control of Nature" for an excellent description of the geologic processes involved that is very readable by the layman.

The only reason there is "SO MUCH SNOW" is because there is "SO MUCH HUMIDITY".

Humidity comes from the evaporation of water from heated oceans which have no ice cover.

They have no ice cover because of "EXTREME HEAT", which of course, leads to "SO MUCH SNOW".

Funny how that works out.

The right believes that "evaporation" is "just a theory". They believe "Snow" is actually "intelligently created" from "cold". And this is why we have so few Republican Scientists.

Looking down our nose at the inability of folks to grasp science are we? Here's a map the location of Chuvashia:

File:Map of Russia - Chuvash Republic (2008-03).svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note that the location of Chuvashia is about the most central part of the land mass shown. Think, "Nebraska". Might want to compare the dust bowl of the USA in the very warm 30's to this event in Russia.

Now, please explain again about the effect of warm oceans and precitation and concentrate on the reasons why the warm oceans cause lots of snwfall and no rain.

It might be helpful to mention how many scientists self identify as Republicans.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe the Russian need to find a way to harvest all that melting Arctic ice?

Maybe the fires because all the ice has already melted?

Maybe the fires start because it's Summer?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hmmmm...... Interesting. Everyone stateing that global warming has nothing to do with the fires, then pointing out record fires that have occurred in the last 20 years. Talk about congnitive dissonance.

In the last decade Europe has had record fires, North America and Australia, also. But it is of course meaningless. Never let reality intrude on the dingbat ideology.

The NY Times Blows the Wildfire Story Climate Progress

The reporter, however, misses the real story. He mistakenly makes it seem like this wildfire season is somehow a unique event, and the opening sentence talks about large individual fires from 1949, 1988, and 1910. You would never know from this article that the U.S. record for wildfire acreage burned was set in 2005 (8.5 million acres), breaking a record just set in 2000.

So how come you can never show us how a 200PPM increase in CO2 will cause a temperature spike in a laboratory setting?

 

[skookerasbil]

Another thread which identifies the environmental nuts as OCD hysterics. We had this same sh!t a few years back in Great Britain. Now its shifted over to Russia. So fcukking what? Last summer in NYC we had a day in early August where there was a high of 51 degrees. Never saw that in my life in 49 years. Does that mean the ice age is coming? Nope..........its called weather. This past month on NYC its been hot as sh!t, but in recent years, we've barely been above 90. So what?? Its a hot summer like some I remember long before the k00ks concocted this hoax called global warming.