4 ms·
The problem isn’t just the fire. It’s the strange weather patterns that bring smoke down to areas that have never seen conditions like that. Was the warm ocean
by op00to 3y ago
The problem isn’t just the fire. It’s the strange weather patterns that bring smoke down to areas that have never seen conditions like that. Was the warm ocean keeping the jet stream from its typical shape?
- swader999 3y agoSmoke in New York from Canadian boreal fires happened in the May 2010 fire and the May 1870 Saguenay fire. In 1870 parts of Europe were covered in smoke from the Canadian fire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saguenay_Fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saguenay_Fire
- ip26 3y ago1870, 2010, 2023, ????
- _ea1k 3y ago1870, 2010, 2023, 2146, ????
- runarberg 3y agoSo what is you point here? That warming planet is not likely to increase the rate of New York suffering smokes? Honestly this would put New York in a pretty special place as forest fires are set to increase a lot, and smokes are expected to distribute in higher density to wider areas. This is pretty observable on the West Coast already, where we have a brand new Smoke Season in the early to late autumn in the Pacific North West. But realistically New York will not be this lucky, and the chances of the next smokes coming as distantly apart as per-industrialization is probably close to 0. I’m not a climate scientist but I bet we will for sure see several more smokes coming to New York before the end of the century (just like we have on the West Coast in the past 5 years).
- _ea1k 3y agoMy point is that sequences like that are insufficient to draw conclusions.
- runarberg 3y agoMaybe so, but I don’t think your parent was drawing any conclusions, just pointing out the very likely scenario that these smokes will happen with increased frequency, or at least, that’s how I understood it.
- bequanna 3y agoThese weather patterns aren’t new or all that strange. This set of conditions periodically occur over time. The difference is that now people have hyper awareness of uncommon but normal weather events. Cue confirmation bias.
- op00to 3y agoThe Omega Block is a "strange" weather pattern compared to the usual configuration of the jet stream. It is unusual and surprising. I didn't say it was new, rare, or uprecedented. It's possible for a weather event to be "normal" (something we see from time to time) but also triggered or more likely ehanced by anthropogenic climage change. Hurricanes aren't anything new, and devastating hurricanes earlier and later in the season aren't even "new". The fact that we've seen it before doesn't mean that humans aren't making it worse. It doesn't need to be raining locusts for things to be really messed up.
- bequanna 3y ago> It doesn't need to be raining locusts for things to be really messed up. Fair enough, but what is the metric for calling something "due to climate change"? Because it seems to me that currently the blame for every drop of rain that falls above (or below) average is directly ascribed to the evil people in the suburbs driving their cars.
- op00to 3y agoRight, well. In that case, I suppose we shouldn't do anything at all. The issue isn't that something is "due to climate change". This is a false choice: "either it's due to climate change, or it's not". The extra energy in the atmosphere doesn't pick and choose where to apply itself. Every weather pattern is affected by climate change. Everything has its gain knob turned up a little more each year.
- letsawaytoday 3y ago[flagged]