Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 14 2019 10:19pm

jonescg wrote:
Jul 14 2019 7:54pm
That paper is a clanger :lol:

Published in a bit of a no-name journal with three volumes to its name. Also, the language used in the paper is not like any journal I've read - it's clearly quite emotive and gunning for a goal.

One blogger's view of the author:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/0 ... y-phd.html
I believe the correct term is "right wing whacko", he's the Timothy McVeigh of deniers.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 14 2019 10:31pm

One day...possibly ? ...you will learn to play the ball, rather than the man . :roll:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 15 2019 1:40am

Berry's a kook. He's of the natural variation hand waving that's been addressed in numerous studies over the last 20 years. He just doesn't acknowledge the fact that the rate of increase now is orders of magnitude faster than the Earth has ever seen. And it's directly correlated to the use of fossil fuels.

It's certainly possible that the observed increase in CO2 is due to natural variation. It's just highly improbable. You have to ignore the rate of increase and rely on coincidence.

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 782
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Jul 15 2019 8:31am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 12 2019 7:07pm
Here is something to warm the blood at the next Alarmist cult meeting.. :wink:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
....We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
No need to respond ,...i know you wont accept anything against your beliefs .
I see that draft copy of a paper is making the rounds on all the denialist propaganda sites. But you know where I don't see it? I don't see it in any peer reviewed publications. Here is a review of that paper by a legit climate scientist: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ind ... te-change/.

No need to respond ,...i know you wont accept anything against your beliefs .

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 782
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Jul 15 2019 8:46am

furcifer wrote:
Jul 15 2019 1:40am

It's certainly possible that the observed increase in CO2 is due to natural variation. It's just highly improbable. You have to ignore the rate of increase and rely on coincidence.
I agree with you on a lot of things, but gotta correct you here. No, it is not possible that increased CO2 since the 1800s are due to natural variation. Not even remotely possible. The isotopic signature of the CO2 has the direct signature of fossil fuels. We also have very good estimates of the total CO2 generated each year from fossil fuel burning. A simple mass balance is enough to proove that most of this increase is due to fossil fuels; deforestation and cement production also contribute. Also the accompanying decrease of oxygen in the atmosphere also balances with the amount of oxygen that would be required to burn all that fossil fuel. Only a tiny fraction of the observed increase--less than 1%--could be explained by natural sources.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2848
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 15 2019 10:59am

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 15 2019 8:31am
I see that draft copy of a paper is making the rounds on all the denialist propaganda sites. But you know where I don't see it? I don't see it in any peer reviewed publications.
Yeah, I've been seeing several denier articles appearing recently on feeds like Google News and Flipboard. Something must have gotten the nuts all riled up.
--bill von

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 15 2019 11:02am

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 15 2019 8:46am
I agree with you on a lot of things, but gotta correct you here. No, it is not possible that increased CO2 since the 1800s are due to natural variation. Not even remotely possible. The isotopic signature of the CO2 has the direct signature of fossil fuels. We also have very good estimates of the total CO2 generated each year from fossil fuel burning. A simple mass balance is enough to proove that most of this increase is due to fossil fuels; deforestation and cement production also contribute. Also the accompanying decrease of oxygen in the atmosphere also balances with the amount of oxygen that would be required to burn all that fossil fuel. Only a tiny fraction of the observed increase--less than 1%--could be explained by natural sources.
If memory serves, it's the rise in Carbon 12/13 ratio that is being used to identify it as anthropogenic. And these ratios have varied over the course of history, namely in the Holocene era. On it's own it suggests a rapid rise in sequestered carbon and not a smoking gun. If I remember correctly.

There isn't a single piece of irrefutable evidence per se, there are multiple studies that reinforce the narrative. All combined they form an extremely high probability. This is why you will see Deniers trying to revert back to over simplified models to support things like natural variation, sun activity etc. Forget everything that has happened in the last 40 years and go back to 1960's science.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2848
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 15 2019 11:55am

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 15 2019 8:46am
I agree with you on a lot of things, but gotta correct you here. No, it is not possible that increased CO2 since the 1800s are due to natural variation. Not even remotely possible. The isotopic signature of the CO2 has the direct signature of fossil fuels. We also have very good estimates of the total CO2 generated each year from fossil fuel burning. A simple mass balance is enough to proove that most of this increase is due to fossil fuels; deforestation and cement production also contribute. Also the accompanying decrease of oxygen in the atmosphere also balances with the amount of oxygen that would be required to burn all that fossil fuel.
Agreed.

The only way around the mass balance issue would be to propose that:

1) We burn gigatons of carbon.
2) Those gigatons of carbon (now in the form of CO2) are released to the atmosphere.
3) Some completely unknown process sequesters all those gigatons of CO2 in a place we can't detect
4) Some second completely unknown process, unrelated to process 3), then releases a very similar amount of CO2 with the same isotope signature, again from a source we can't detect.

So there's a _possibility_ but it is so vanishingly small as to be effectively impossible.
--bill von

User avatar
Dauntless   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7724
Joined: May 29 2010 1:49am
Location: Coordinates: 33°52′48″N 117°55′43″W

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Dauntless » Jul 15 2019 12:33pm

Any sufficiently advanced technology is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC!
- Arthur C. Clarke

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 782
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Jul 15 2019 1:40pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 15 2019 11:02am

If memory serves, it's the rise in Carbon 12/13 ratio that is being used to identify it as anthropogenic. And these ratios have varied over the course of history, namely in the Holocene era. On it's own it suggests a rapid rise in sequestered carbon and not a smoking gun. If I remember correctly.
It is also the absence of C-14 in co2 from fossil sources meaning the carbon source has not been exposed to cosmic rays for more than 100s of thousands of years. So global reduction in delta C-14, especially observed in industrialized areas, is a clear sign of fossil CO2 source. The decreased oxygen concentration is also consistent with combustion of that amount of fossil fuel.

Bill's explanation above is also compelling proof. That is, we know for certain that that CO2 was generated from trillions of tons of fossil fuel burning. We know that the increased concentrations in the air and oceans is consistent with that mass of new carbon being added to the system along with deforestation and cement production. So, if the increased concentration is from some natural source, where is all the CO2 that we created from burning fossil fuel? I don't mean to imply there is no uncertainty, but the uncertainty is more along the lines of whether it is 98% due to us, or 99% due to us.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 15 2019 4:01pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 15 2019 1:40pm
furcifer wrote:
Jul 15 2019 11:02am

If memory serves, it's the rise in Carbon 12/13 ratio that is being used to identify it as anthropogenic. And these ratios have varied over the course of history, namely in the Holocene era. On it's own it suggests a rapid rise in sequestered carbon and not a smoking gun. If I remember correctly.
It is also the absence of C-14 in co2 from fossil sources meaning the carbon source has not been exposed to cosmic rays for more than 100s of thousands of years. So global reduction in delta C-14, especially observed in industrialized areas, is a clear sign of fossil CO2 source. The decreased oxygen concentration is also consistent with combustion of that amount of fossil fuel.

Bill's explanation above is also compelling proof. That is, we know for certain that that CO2 was generated from trillions of tons of fossil fuel burning. We know that the increased concentrations in the air and oceans is consistent with that mass of new carbon being added to the system along with deforestation and cement production. So, if the increased concentration is from some natural source, where is all the CO2 that we created from burning fossil fuel? I don't mean to imply there is no uncertainty, but the uncertainty is more along the lines of whether it is 98% due to us, or 99% due to us.
Yes, the C14 count is the icing on that cake. I knew there was another part to the equation.

I think we're in agreement actually, it's just a bit of wording. I'm very much in the habit of saying anything is possible. It's just more diplomatic. I don't play the lottery, when people ask why I don't say it's because it's a tax on the least fortunate, and when they say "you gotta play to win" I don't point out the odds of me finding a winning ticket are almost the same as buying one, I just say "anything's possible". But it isn't.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5259
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jul 15 2019 4:38pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 15 2019 8:31am
Here is a review of that paper by a legit climate scientist: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ind ... te-change/
Great link :thumb:

"In short, this paper is a great example of pseudoscience. It would not pass any serious peer-review, but it can seem persuasive to a lay public, especially one that is eager to believe its conclusions. In other words, this looks more like political fodder than a serious scientific paper."

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 15 2019 11:52pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 15 2019 8:46am
furcifer wrote:
Jul 15 2019 1:40am

It's certainly possible that the observed increase in CO2 is due to natural variation. It's just highly improbable. You have to ignore the rate of increase and rely on coincidence.
I agree with you on a lot of things, but gotta correct you here. No, it is not possible that increased CO2 since the 1800s are due to natural variation. Not even remotely possible. The isotopic signature of the CO2 has the direct signature of fossil fuels. We also have very good estimates of the total CO2 generated each year from fossil fuel burning. A simple mass balance is enough to proove that most of this increase is due to fossil fuels; deforestation and cement production also contribute. Also the accompanying decrease of oxygen in the atmosphere also balances with the amount of oxygen that would be required to burn all that fossil fuel. Only a tiny fraction of the observed increase--less than 1%--could be explained by natural sources.
Your collection of assumptions, estimates, and oversights, is simply mind boggleing !
If you actually understood half as much as you claim to , you would not make such statements as .
“The isotopic signature of the CO2 has the direct signature of fossil fuels. ”...
“Only a tiny fraction of the observed increase--less than 1%--could be explained by natural sources.”
So, what exactly is that isotopic signature (data), and how does it show that 99% of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic ? .....Even the IPCC have only declared 40% is anthropogenic !
And incase you didnt bother reading previous posts, mr furcifer kindly posted a series of graphs..backed up by ice core data, that clearly showed 8% of the CO2 increase occurred before any anthropogenic input .?
Why do you assume all the change of Oxygen levels is due to Fossil fuel burning ? ..That is just too simplistic in a global system
For example,.. What about the reduction of oxygen generation due to that deforestation you mentioned ?.. never mind our lack of accurate data on the major sources/sinks of the oxygen cycle ?...do you really think we know that within the error range that would cover the change in atmospheric CO2 ??
Obviously , more CO2 means more O2 consumed.....BUT that does not automatically mean it is the only possible explanation for reduced O2 in the atmosphere
https://www.livescience.com/56219-earth ... ining.html
So, pony up your isotopic proof of anthropogenic CO2 being 99% of the 120+pp increase in CO2.. ..
..... Or do as your cult buddies keep doing and change the topic to avoid answering . :roll:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 12:47am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 15 2019 11:52pm
So, what exactly is that isotopic signature (data), and how does it show that 99% of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic ? .....Even the IPCC have only declared 40% is anthropogenic !
Source?

I'm pretty sure you are confused hill. Even the hard line deniers are going 50/50. 40% is more along the lines of what percentage is going into the atmosphere not including land and sea.

This would be a significant departure from AR5:

"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

This would be greater than 95% certainty that 100% of the warming is due to anthropogenic sources. This doesn't exactly address the isotopic argument, but there's really not a way I can see that one doesn't follow the other.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5259
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jul 16 2019 3:08am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 15 2019 11:52pm
Your collection of assumptions, estimates, and oversights, is simply mind boggleing !
If you actually understood half as much as you claim to , you would not make such statements as ...
You speak very authoritively for somone with no training, credentials, experience or credibility. Some might suggest you speak with the certainty of a fool?

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 16 2019 4:25am

Punx0r wrote:
Jul 16 2019 3:08am
You speak very authoritively for somone with no training, credentials, experience or credibility. ...
I have a very distinct advantage over you...
I am not hampered by the wearing of those alarmist “blinkers” that filter out common sense and prevent you seeing the bleedin’ obvious when its put in front of you !
I am also detecting a pattern in alarmists...
You all seem to have similar habit of making assumptions and drawing rash conclusions from them.
... ...YOU.. have NO CLUE what my “training, credentials, experience ” etc are !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 16 2019 4:43am

furcifer wrote:
Jul 16 2019 12:47am
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 15 2019 11:52pm
So, what exactly is that isotopic signature (data), and how does it show that 99% of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic ? .....Even the IPCC have only declared 40% is anthropogenic !
I'm pretty sure you are confused hill. Even the hard line deniers are going 50/50. 40% is more along the lines of what percentage is going into the atmosphere not including land and sea.
Hard line deniers are going 0/100
The % of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is exactly what we were discussing
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 16 2019 6:16am

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 15 2019 8:31am
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 12 2019 7:07pm
Here is something to warm the blood at the next Alarmist cult meeting.. :wink:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
I see that draft copy of a paper is making the rounds on all the denialist propaganda sites. But you know where I don't see it? I don't see it in any peer reviewed publications. .
…Everyone in physics puts their papers up on the ArXiv. That has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the claims in the paper.

From Cornell University (www.library.cornell.edu/arxiv)…

“ArXiv
The world’s premier e-print repository in physics, math, computer science and related disciplines enabling scientists worldwide to share and access research before it is formally published. Cornell University Library has provided operational support and stewardship for this open-access service since 2001.”

Of course, if you were a scientist, you would know that
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 8:03am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 16 2019 4:43am
Hard line deniers are going 0/100
The % of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is exactly what we were discussing
Yah, so that's 95% and not the 40% you're made up.

From AR4 to AR5 the probability that the rise in CO2 levels world wide rose from "most likely", to "very likely". If you look at the appendix in the reports there terms are explained for reader comprehension.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 16 2019 9:05am

Have a break, and let this soak in...
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 9:48am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 16 2019 9:05am
Have a break, and let this soak in...
If AGW doesn't actually exist why is he talking about it? Ack, eleventy too sheeple :mrgreen:

Citing people that actually accept the facts is a step forward hill. Well done!

It's about time we talked about reality in this thread.

I don't have a lot of time to go over the video so bare with me. I skipped ahead to the thumbnail in the video.

There is a ton of information on how climate model simulations work, and how error propagates through the models. This is why the models are run, MILLIONS of times. And this is why the predictions vary. And this is why there are error bars.

And this is why there is a discipline called "statistics", which is a complete separate branch of science. So if you think climate scientists should be responsible for studying how the studies are studied, you're barking up the wrong tree. This gentleman should be aware of this so, while I agree with the premise he's being disingenuous.

One other thing to point out, is climate scientists don't tend to be the alarmists with the "doom and gloom". Much more often I think you will find it's environmentalists running with the climate studies and citing outliers in the study to...well alarm people.

And I will note your goal post shifting. Nice try bro. Trying to equate consensus on anthropogenic CO2 to model predictions. This is exactly why things are being stalled by propagandists right now. We've spent too much time proving something to deniers that only misinterpret science and jump to conclusions that aren't being made. Shame on you.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 16 2019 10:10am

You should have watched all the video..
Then think about what you are saying.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2848
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 16 2019 10:48am

So Greenland is now . . . on fire. A huge brush fire is burning there now due to hot and dry conditions.

Fun side effect of this - ash from the fire will fall on Greenland's ice sheet, darken it and cause faster melting.

From Universe Today:

========================
There’s A Fire in Greenland… Again. It’s 10 Degrees Hotter Than Normal
JULY 15, 2019 BY EVAN GOUGH

As global warming ramps up, expect to see Greenland in the news a lot. That’s because its ice sheet is under threat of melting. But that’s not the only reason. The other reason is fire.

We know that Greenland, like the rest of the globe, is warming. And it’s ice is melting and contributing to rising sea levels. But fire activity is increasing there, and that’s another indication of, and result of, climate change.

Back in August 2017 a wildfire burned in western Greenland near Sisimiut, the second largest city in Greenland. It sparked a conversation among scientist about increasing fire activity there.

At the time, Stef Lhermitte of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, presented data showing that MODIS, and instrument on NASA’s Terra satellite, had detected far more fire activity in Greenland in 2017 than during any other year since the sensor began collecting data in 2000.

This one was first detected on July 10th by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) instrument on the LandSat 8 satellite. The OLI captured the image below in both visible light, and in thermal to show the actively burning fire.

The fire is located near Queqqata Kommunia, a small town of about 10,000 people. It’s just east of Sisimiut. The fire is burning near a hut on the Arctic Circle Trail, so it was likely caused by a hiker. There are no trees in the area, so it’s not a forest fire by any means. The area is covered with wetlands and shrublands.
====================
--bill von

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 11:38am

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 16 2019 10:10am
You should have watched all the video..
Then think about what you are saying.
He clearly contradicts everything you have stated in this thread. Have you watched it? Or are you just posting links you think support your own delusions?

Again, he openly supports AGW theory. And what he's pointing out doesn't seem to be anything new. And he doesn't disprove the general, prevailing thoughts on AGW; increased anthropogenic CO2 levels aren't going to be good for the planet.

See what people like you don't understand and can't put into context are things like variability in cloud cover. It doesn't even matter if the cloud cover averages out a bit higher over a 10 or 20 year period, if the swings in climate over the 5 or 10 years bad years in that period ruin crops, damage property and infrastructure etc. we're also screwed.

This is typically why people that talk about the subject tend to avoid "global warming" and prefer "climate change". It's the overall effect of disturbing the balance and affecting variability in the weather over decades that's potentially the problem.

It's a pretty good analysis and other than missing the mark a bit in the overall context it seems pretty sound. Unfortunately it's doesn't say what you think it says at all.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 602
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 16 2019 11:38am

billvon wrote:
Jul 16 2019 10:48am
So Greenland is now . . . on fire. A huge brush fire is burning there now due to hot and dry conditions.

Fun side effect of this - ash from the fire will fall on Greenland's ice sheet, darken it and cause faster melting.

From Universe Today:

========================
There’s A Fire in Greenland… Again. It’s 10 Degrees Hotter Than Normal
JULY 15, 2019 BY EVAN GOUGH

As global warming ramps up, expect to see Greenland in the news a lot. That’s because its ice sheet is under threat of melting. But that’s not the only reason. The other reason is fire.

We know that Greenland, like the rest of the globe, is warming. And it’s ice is melting and contributing to rising sea levels. But fire activity is increasing there, and that’s another indication of, and result of, climate change.

Back in August 2017 a wildfire burned in western Greenland near Sisimiut, the second largest city in Greenland. It sparked a conversation among scientist about increasing fire activity there.

At the time, Stef Lhermitte of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, presented data showing that MODIS, and instrument on NASA’s Terra satellite, had detected far more fire activity in Greenland in 2017 than during any other year since the sensor began collecting data in 2000.

This one was first detected on July 10th by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) instrument on the LandSat 8 satellite. The OLI captured the image below in both visible light, and in thermal to show the actively burning fire.

The fire is located near Queqqata Kommunia, a small town of about 10,000 people. It’s just east of Sisimiut. The fire is burning near a hut on the Arctic Circle Trail, so it was likely caused by a hiker. There are no trees in the area, so it’s not a forest fire by any means. The area is covered with wetlands and shrublands.
====================
Alaska and parts of upper Canada too. Massive fires.

Post Reply