Arctic Sea Ice and Arctic forest fires.

Forest fires in the northern semi-deserts.
Help wanted. …

Contributing to actual theories instead of being distressed about nonsense is generally a good way to start some research.
(Next to asking divine help that is.)

Most people seem to be content with the idea that glowballs is all down to oil production. While it is true that gas flares in regions LPG is not collectable is wrong, nobody is going to stop the rich and powerful doing what powerful rich people do.

Also nothing can be done about forest fires in the northern semi-deserts. But we might try to understand them:

First of all denaturing a landscape changes the climate for a while.

If grassland burns, damage is only for a year or two depending on overall climate cycles. And can be considered as part of the natural annual cycle.

When a forest burns it can change things for decades. It is still natural but water depletion and draining wells IS a contributing factor.

It appears that the Canadian and Russian northern forests have been burning a lot recently and it also seems to correspond with Arctic ice levels.

I just don't know how to go into all the data on the subject; so am limited to popular articles from Earth Observatory. Maybe some on here will be interested in finding out more?

When a forest burns, the spring weather changes from scotch mist and tree-top dust devils where the snow lies undisturbed late into spring. It changes into open snow fields. And when it rains or the snow melts it is a virtual land-slide into the sea.

Not only does ice go straight in unimpeded but carries away with it all the loose lying soil exposed with the burning of the leaf litter.

The Arctic must therefore darken in spring until the silt falls below significant depth. God knows what that does to the layers of different heat and salinities in the ocean.

Meanwhile in the scars and strips between bogs and marshes, where the dry regions have become open field or desert, the snow fall will change the regional reflective index.

No longer leaf insulated from the sun, the ground reflects direct sunlight back into the upper atmosphere as far as cloud height. (If any.)

Once all the open tundra is gone, large herbivores will starve or move, or eat the bark on remaining trees. "Ring bark-ing" will kill more trees in low predator zones than where the wolf and bear population is good.

Fortunately there aren't too many people living in Alaska and maybe the Canadian wildlife has better management. I don't know. All out war in the lower latitudes has contributed known amounts to climate change. Think of the DustBowl of the 1930's that was a very long time before oil burning became the ogre it is said to be these days.

My difficulty now is getting hold of drought data. More especially since I have a great antipathy towards climate data centres. Anyone know how I can compare ice levels with Taiga conditions?

It's beyond me at the moment.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Arctic Sea Ice and Arctic forest fires.

  1. See what sensible people are up against:Originally posted by Union of Concerned Scientists:

    High temperatures and thawing permafrost are probably contributing to the rising frequency and severity of boreal forest fires in western Siberia. In 2003, a fire of unprecedented scope claimed 47 million acres of forest, releasing enormous amounts of stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    Forest fires produce plant food and aerosols that provide rain.Carbon dioxide isn't a problem. not in the quantities found in earth's atmosphere.What really matters is how the 47 million acres affect the Arctic Ocean and the way that snow fall on the land affects heat input or the lack of it.Why have the untied scientist combined to miss that?And talk about empty headed theories about carbon dioxide?They are lost sheep.Headlessly, endlessly milling and burning fat.But even the figure 47 million acres is suspect. an acre is defines as as much as a man can plough with one horse in one day. Which isn't much in late winter.And none at all in high latitudes.but it has become 4840 square yards in standard imperial measurement. That is just over 4000 square meters.But it applies to a region that is full of wetlands that can't burn or won't lose leaf-litter and top-soil. Drier land will be denuded so imagine it is about half of the quoted figure overall until a better description is presented by these scientific clods.

  2. Read it for yourself:http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/western-siberia.htmlThere isn't anything on the page you couldn't see from a single satellite picture-or gain more knowledge from.In fact it is quite the reverse. You could actually become brainwashed into thinking this stuff is useful and follows research by neutral parties.It doesn't do the first and I suspect the latter isn't true either. There are some footnotes that may lead to scientific papers but who knows how they have been slanted. I want facts and figures, dates and data I can use.Not propaganda.Or fact sheet handouts.These things are about as useful as religious tracts are at getting you to heaven.

  3. This is an extract from one of the footnotes. You normally have to pay someone for this type of data, despite it being tax payer funded free information, because of publishing copyrights. Originally posted by Environmental Research Letters:

    Part of: Focus on Climatic and Environmental Change in Northern Eurasia.Abstract:Forest fires are frequent in the Siberian taiga and are predicted to increase in frequency as a result of increased fire risk under drought conditions, and prolonged fire seasons caused by climate change. There is, however, some uncertainty as to the extent to which drought influences forest fire frequency at a regional scale. Here, we present an analysis of satellite derived soil moisture anomaly data from ERS-1/2 (ERS: Earth Resources Satellite) scatterometer data and burned area maps from MODIS/AVHRR/ATSR (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer/Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer/Along-Track Scanning Radiometer) over Central Siberia for the years 1992–2000. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship of remotely sensed soil moisture deviations from the long-term mean and fire within the boreal biome on a sub-continental scale.Results show that wet surface soil moisture conditions limit the extent of burned area. They can prevent the outbreak of fires but the magnitude of a negative (dry) deviation does not determine the maximum size of fire affected areas.It is known from the literature, however, that an ignition is more likely to occur under low surface wetness conditions, such as those that we observed during July and August in both permafrost and non-permafrost regions. Although the burned area under drier conditions in July is lowest over non-permafrost, the actual number of fires is as high as over continuous permafrost.Approximately 80% of all events occurred under such conditions during that month. The fire size was below 50 km2 under moist conditions. Larger burned areas have in general not been detected when the surface wetness deviation exceeded +5%.

    The full paper is available as a PDF at:http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045021/pdf/1748-9326_4_4_045021.pdfI wonder why the largesse. Who is funding this stuff?

  4. harder and harder to discerne between propaganda and fact. I try to use, noaa and other places looking for current weather, and study past trends as..like it was fricken hot here this year.

  5. Mother earth, is a great cleanser, but everything has its course. We often, mistaking think it was made for us..she will survive, to find a way. Maybe not we as a species, if we dont try to take care of her, as she has us. But who knows? I am grateful, it bothers me when others feel no need to take care of home, our nurturer, and giver of life.

  6. Originally posted by Unasia:

    harder and harder to discern between propaganda and fact. I try to use, NOAA and other places looking for current weather, and study past trends as… like it was fricken hot here this year.

    Unfortunately there is a political war going on between so called environmentalists and some industry led government ministers.How right or wrong they are isn't any of my concern. All I want to know is what affects the way the ice on the Arctic Ocean behaves.I am pretty sure it IS related to the Taiga and to the tropical storms we have. Which comes first?If they are related propaganderers are going to insist it is this or that.And we cant afford to let any vested interests make serious mistakes. I absolutely hate politics.The reports of fires is misrepresented as you can see from reading up about regions like taiga: Originally posted by Wikipedia:

    Taiga soil tends to be thin and poor in nutrients due to the cold. Fallen leaves and moss can remain on the forest floor for a long time, limiting organic contribution to the soil.Acids from evergreen needles create spodosol, or podzol and only has lichens and mosses on it.

    From there it isn't hard to work out that forest fires are more than good for the soil but desirable.With that in mind and a belief that there is a grand design behind nature then you drop on to theories about what happens next.In the tropics tributaries rich in silt and soil can run side by side down the main river with clean fresh water from tributaries that for hundreds of miles.Without a reason or method to mix they don't. Why should they.Now consider:The Arctic Ocean is one of the richest marine environments we have.How does that work?The only thing that I can come up with is that mixing and ice goes hand in hand.That's as far as I have got.

  7. Originally posted by NASA:

    10 years of data 2001 to 2010 from NASA's orbiting Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System Experiment (CERES) were combined with estimates of the heat content of Earth's ocean from three independent ocean-sensor sources.Analysis found the satellite and ocean measurements are in broad agreement once observational uncertainties are factored in. They found the conclusion of missing energy in the system isn't really supported by the data.Earth has been accumulating heat in the ocean at a rate of half a watt per square meter (10.8 square feet), with no sign of a decline. Inconsistencies from 2004 and 2009 between satellite observations and measurements of the upper 700 meters of the ocean were evidence of "missing energy."

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/missing-energy.html

  8. Originally posted by Unasia:

    Its interesting, and amazing, as we find how much we don't know. Time is vast, and no matter how you slice it, our observations narrow

    The thing is we are the only creatures on the planet interested in finding out.That makes us the only known creatures (outside heaven) in the whole universe, capable of doing anything about it.But maybe that is a bad thing. I have yet to hear how less ice in the Arctic isn't a good thing. They say that the North East Europeans once colonised Greenland.But maybe they were just there for the fishing. A long way to go in an open boat that though. But a whaling station would have been a money spinner.This is an era that scorns the idea of a god looking after us. But who is there otherwise to make it?Or will a bigger monkey make it all go away.We have intuition and with a little logic (if the faith is lacking) we can put things together if we are not brain-dead. We are the only creatures that gamble and make guesses. Maybe that is why we have the ability to take risks?To find out how things work.We are the only creature willing to help other creatures, despite all evidence to the contrary.When you think about it our short lifetimes and short attention spans and our limited knowledge should make us want nothing to do with higher learning.Yet here you are. Thinking about it.You want your bumps read, boy!

  9. Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    Abstract:Forest fires are frequent in the Siberian taiga and are predicted to increase in frequency as a result of increased fire risk under drought conditions, and prolonged fire seasons caused by climate change.

    Originally posted by CIA:

    Russia has thousands of rivers and inland bodies of water, providing it with one of the world's largest surface-water resources.Most belong to the Arctic drainage basin in Siberia. 84% of Russia's surface water is located east of the Urals into the Arctic and Pacific oceans.Forty rivers longer than 1,000 km are east of the Urals, including the three major rivers that drain Siberia to the Arctic Ocean: the Irtysh-Ob' system (5,380 km), the Yenisey (4,000 km), and the Lena (3,630 km.) Their basins cover about 8 million square km,discharging nearly 50,000 cubic meters of water per second into the Arctic Ocean. The northward flow means that source areas thaw before the areas downstream, creating vast swamps such as the 48,000-square-kilometer Vasyugane Swamp in the centre of the West Siberian Plain.The same is true of other river systems, including the Pechora and the North Dvina in Europe and the Kolyma and the Indigirka in Siberia. Approximately 10 percent of Russian territory is classified as swampland.

    http://countrystudies.us/russia/23.htm

  10. I came across this snipped of an heavily laced with glowballs article on insect pestilence: Originally posted by Wikipedia on the Mountain pine beetle:

    The outbreaks may be a consequence of global warming.Previously, cold spells had killed off bark beetles which are now attacking the forests. The longer breeding season is another factor encouraging beetle proliferation. The combination of warmer weather, attack by beetles, and mismanagement during past years has led to a substantial increase in the severity of forest fires in Montana.According to a study done for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‎ by the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Science, portions of Montana will experience a 200% increase in area burned by wild-land fires, and an 80% increase in air pollution from those fires.

    People aught to be required by law state just how much integrity they have before they are allowed to mention words like pollution and global-warming in print.The fact is that fires kill more of the pets than cold weather does. And that in cycles of drought the ravages of fire can improve the environment enormously.Why they had to use state: "and an 80% increase in air pollution from those fires." at the end like that when it is is both obvious there is no smoke without fire or fire in forests without smoke, beggars me.Meanwhile here in Blighty it just got warm after a few cold days. Time I went to see what is on the NEIC charts.

  11. Originally posted by Wikipedia on Taiga:

    Because the sun is low in the horizon for most of the year, it is difficult for plants to generate energy from photosynthesis. Pine, spruce and fir do not lose their leaves seasonally and are able to photosynthesize with their older leaves in late winter and spring when light is good but temperatures are still too low for new growth to commence. Dark green needles limit the water lost due to transpiration and increases their absorption of sunlight. The freezes prevent roots absorb water, so desiccation can be a severe problem in late winter for evergreens.Moss (Ptilium crista-castrensis) cover on the floor of taigaPeriodic stand-replacing wildfires (every 20 to 200 years) clear out the tree canopies, allowing sunlight to invigorate new growth. For some species, wildfires are a necessary part of the life cycle in the taiga; some, e.g. Jack Pine have cones which only open to release their seed after a fire.Grasses grow where they can find and mosses and lichens thrive on the damp ground and on the sides of tree trunks, however the taiga has low biological diversity.

    It seems to consist of fuel and fires. But that is about as diverse as anything can divert.

  12. Originally posted by The Register:

    So, all in all, probably not time to panic yet:The sea ice around the coasts of Antarctica on average covers roughly the same amount of sea as the north-polar sea ice does: it's just as important, though you wouldn't know it by looking at the world's press right now. Arctic ice has been shrinking since satellite measurements began. And the Antarctic ice has been growing steadily.

    Originally posted by Steffen Tietsche of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology:

    We examine the recovery of Arctic sea ice from prescribed ice-free summer conditions in simulations of 21st century climate in an atmosphere–ocean general circulation model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two years.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/21/arctic_antarctic_sea_ice_record/The usual suspects can be found disagreeing as usual on here:http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2012/09/21/arctic_antarctic_sea_ice_record/Some of them have been too incensed to read the article.Why are people like that?

  13. The British Government has got a data sheet online about its projections for the Arctic:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/171/17102.htmIt seems like a proviso for a worst case scenario:28. There is growing evidence that the damaging effects of climate change are being felt strongly in the Arctic. The ice-cap is retreating. In September 2012 it had reached its lowest extent since satellite records began, and new evidence shows that it is also thinning faster than previously thought. The general view that the ice-cap is not at risk of a summer collapse in the next few years may need to be revisited and revised. A collapse not only threatens the unique ecosystems there, but would have damaging ramifications for regional and global climate. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/171/17105.htm#n16I haven't read the thing but what I have read of it seems to be misguided platitudes trying to run between environmentalism and business. Specifically crude oil business.I am left wondering what the oil companies and the oil tanker business is actually up to in the Arctic. Iron eating bacteria seem to be capable of making a real mess of pipe lines and I don't doubt tanker captains feel the same way about the sludge that builds up on the tanks of their ships.How much of that sort of defecation is being poured onto the Arctic surface?It is well known that wells produce sludge that, in more sensible climates, is just poured out in the desert -or soon to be desert.Some papers from Indonesian colleges on the impact of such gunge in their oil regions can be readily found online. Western ideals are much more restrictive. (You never hear about what Shell is doing in Nigeria these days, for example. (Massacres continued until all arguments ceased, no doubt?))I can't imagine that Russian principles are much better than those of Britain's, Holland's and North American ones. The industry is filthy at the best of times and the collection of gas restricted to regions where shipping it is easy.How much petroleum gas is being burned in the Arctic?

  14. Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    During winter(???) monthly mean temperatures…

    I know what seasons are summer and winter but it would be a far better idea to name each month concerned. This is supposed to be scientific data. It's pretty lame to use terms like winter and summer.

  15. ​​​​Originally posted by COMNAP:

    Antarctic Information​The Antarctic ice sheet is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 6.5 million square miles (14 million km²) and contains 7.2 million cubic miles (30 million km³) of ice (70m of water in the world’s oceans.)In East Antarctica the ice sheet rests on a major land mass, in West Antarctica the bed is in places more than 1 1/2 miles (2500m) below sea level. It would be seabed if the ice sheet were not there. A small area (less than one percent) is free of ice and the continent contains some of the most spectacular mountain ranges anywhere in the World. The most extensive are the Antarctic Peninsula, 1700km, and the Transantarctic Mountains, 3000km. The highest mountain, Vinson Massif in the Ellsworth Mountains, peaks at 4897m.Around the coasts of Antarctica, temperatures are generally close to freezing in December–February, or even slightly positive in the northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula. During winter(???) monthly mean temperatures at coastal stations are between −10°C and −30°C but temperatures may briefly rise towards freezing when winter storms bring warm air towards the Antarctic coast. Conditions on the interior plateau are much colder as a result of its higher elevation, higher latitude and greater distance from the ocean. Here, summer temperatures struggle to get above −20°C and monthly mean temperatures fall below −60°C in winter. Vostok station, a high plateau research station, holds the record for the lowest ever temperature recorded at the surface of the Earth (−89.2°C).

    https://www.comnap.aq/Information/SitePages/Home.aspx

  16. Quote from Wikipedia:Large parts of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet sit on a bed which is below sea level and slopes downward inland.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s