Hauntingly Freakish Siberian Wildfires Now Flicker to Life in April

This past winter has been ridiculously warm for large sections of Siberia. From the Yamal Peninsula to Lake Baikal to the thinning ice of the Arctic Ocean and back down to the Sea of Okhotsk, temperatures have ranged from 4 to nearly 7 degrees Celsius above normal throughout the entire first quarter of 2017.

(4th Consecutive year of extreme Siberian cold season warmth brings with it the heightened risk of early wildfires. Image source: NASA GISS.)

Climate reanalysis shows these far above average temperatures extending well into April. And, as a result, the Arctic chill that typically settles over this often-frozen region has been greatly reduced throughout winter and on into early spring.

2017 marks the 4th consecutive year of excessive winter warmth for this section of our world. A human-emissions-driven rise of abnormal heat that brings with it consistently earlier thaws, disruptive permafrost melt, and the freeing of new, deep-running, peat-like fuels for wildfires. A fuel that can smolder on through winter to again mar the land with new surface fires once the thin covering of snow draws back. An event that is occurring earlier and earlier as the decades and the great outpourings of oil, gas, and coal based carbon into the atmosphere wear on.

(Multiple wildfires and hotspots visible in this Sunday, April 22nd LANCE MODIS satellite shot of Siberia.)

On Saturday, April 22nd, the same day that tens of thousands of people marched to support climate scientists besieged by amoral corporate and political powers linked to the fossil fuel industry, multiple small fires flared along the thawing edge of that greatly warmed Siberia. A number of the more western blazes, intense enough to emit smoke plumes visible in these LANCE-MODIS satellite shots, appeared to have already expanded to over 1,000 acres.

By Sunday, the fires sparking closer to Lake Baikal further east had also grown their own series of tell-tale smoke plumes. One particular blaze in central Siberia appeared to have produced a 2.5 x 6 mile long burn scar in just one day (about 10,000 acres).

(40×60 mile section of Central Siberia on April 23 of 2017 shows large wildfires burning near the thaw line. Image source: LANCE MODIS.)

This year’s early wildfire eruption in Siberia comes after 2014, 2015, and 2016 wildfire outbreaks during similar timeframes and following similarly abnormal warm periods. These fires tended to crop up south of Lake Baikal or closer to the China-Russia border. This year, the early fire outbreak appears to have emerged both further north and generally along a wider expanse than during past years.

If past years are any guide, we can expect the present fire season’s early start to produce blazes that continue through September and that peak sometime during late June through August. The fires will tend to be very large and will probably range as far north as the Arctic Ocean.

(By summer, wildfires in Siberia are now capable of repeatedly producing massive smoke plumes like this 2,500 mile long monstrosity that was visible from 1 million miles away in space during a 2014 event. Image source: LANCE MODIS.)

These fires will gain ignition from new Arctic thunderstorms. They will be fed by new fuels such as thawing permafrost and trees harmed by northward invading species or by climates warming at rates far faster than they can handle.  And they will be capable of casting off gigantic smoke plumes that encircle the higher latitude reaches of the globe.

Instances of this kind are the upshot of new climate change related impacts. We wouldn’t have expected such a vast amount of Arctic and near Arctic burning over a 5 month fire season during the 19th or 20th Centuries. But the new very large cold-region fire outbreaks are happening in a world at around 1.2 C hotter than 1880s averages and warming. And, unfortunately, if we keep warming, we can expect a considerable worsening of these already troubling events.

Links:

NASA GISS

LANCE MODIS

Siberian Wildfires in April

Tens of Thousands turn out for Science March

Hat tip to Wili

Hat tip to Colorado Bob

Advertisements
Leave a comment

68 Comments

  1. Erik Frederiksen

     /  April 24, 2017

    “unfortunately, if we keep warming, we can expect a considerable worsening of these already troubling events.”

    Unfortunately decade to decade warming for the near term is practically guaranteed by the planet’s energy imbalance.

    This makes the problem a devilish one to address.

    Reply
    • Devilish indeed.

      Reply
    • bostonblorp

       /  April 24, 2017

      Yep.. when I read articles about scientists considering cloud reflectivity manipulation as a possible means to help save the Great Barrier Reef I can only imagine a continual reactive whack-a-mole series of efforts.

      Make it rain in Siberia, make the clouds whiter over populated areas, make cirrus clouds different to encourage energy radiation to space… and so on. While the whole thing continues to careen out of control.

      Reply
      • Doesn’t do anything to address ocean acidification — which also hits ocean life hard. Adds its own set of problems due to mucking with precipitation patterns. Imagine a relative rapid and generally uneven cooling of an atmosphere that has just been loaded up with excess moisture due to warming. Depending on particulate, it hits the ozone or may create toxic fallout. Alterations and rain patterns and probably continued hits to species may well enhance ocean eutrophication. Add in the fact that model studies show the added potential to negatively impact billions.

        Finally, when you consider the fact that any cooling is temporary — on the scale of a year or two — and that you need to maintain and then continuously increase the aerosol loading to have continued effect and it really starts to look like a non-solution that generates additional problems. Right now, due to aerosols, we have approx 0.4 C of additional warming that is mashed (this Century). If we increase that masking — say to 1 C — then the potential wrenching effect to climates from that kind of uneven energy imbalance and potential return to high forcing if/when operations cease is considerable.

        Reply
  2. Erik Frederiksen

     /  April 24, 2017

    These Northern fires are also troubling because they are one of many global warming impacts which are darkening the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet, increasing heat retention and melt rate.

    The ash from these fires, impurities exposed from surface melt, increased microbial activity and supraglacial lakes which appear black from space.

    That’s a troubled ice sheet.

    Reply
    • The brown carbon from the smoke also heats the local atmosphere and serves as lightning enhancing particulate and cloud condensation nuclei for deluges. It really enhances a number of extremes altogether.

      Reply
      • Erik Frederiksen

         /  April 24, 2017

        I didn’t know that, so many interrelationships. On the subject of the implications for the Northern ice with these fires, a recent paper in Nature raises the question of the impacts on non coastal communities from increased migration from the coast as it is abandoned.

        “Many sea-level rise (SLR) assessments focus on populations presently inhabiting vulnerable coastal communities, but to date no studies have attempted to model the destinations of these potentially displaced persons. . . .

        I find that unmitigated SLR is expected to reshape the US population distribution, potentially stressing landlocked areas unprepared to accommodate this wave of coastal migrants—even after accounting for potential adaptation.”

        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3271.html

        Reply
        • This is a considerable issue when you include the fact that most of the dense population centers are close to shore and therefore rather close to sea level. You can pretty easily get into a situation where you upend 10 or 30 percent or more of the total US population within the course of a generation or two.

        • Erik Frederiksen

           /  April 25, 2017

          I imagine that a lot of these coastal migrants will be somewhat destitute having not been able to find buyers for there houses.

  3. Cate

     /  April 24, 2017

    Horrendous. RS. We are keeping fingers crossed the lingering snowpack makes some difference up here this summer—but not that hopeful.

    In other news: the UK govt will fund research into “carbon removal initiatives” including “direct extraction.” CCS at power plants, and enhancing the ability of soils to absorb carbon.

    http://e360.yale.edu/digest/uk-launches-research-program-into-co2-capture-technologies

    Reply
    • Thanks for the update, Cate. Over the past few weeks, there’s been a cooler dipole over NE Canada. So there’s that. Siberia this year has been very warm during winter. Freakish warmth for a non El Nino year and a post La Nina period — no matter how weak.

      I’m glad to see them working on atmospheric carbon capture. And adding CCS to fossil fuel based power plants will probably hasten the transition to renewables as well (it’s pretty costly and it impacts water usage which isn’t so great when you’re already facing water stress, but it is better than dumping the carbon into the atmosphere). We’ll probably need some direct atmospheric extraction (materials, BCCS, land use change etc) as well.

      Reply
  4. Erik Frederiksen

     /  April 24, 2017

    How about a song?

    Reply
  5. coloradobob

     /  April 24, 2017

    Malfeasance

    Sunday News Shows Mostly Silent On March For Science, Perpetuating The Dearth Of Coverage On Climate Change

    Nonetheless, Sunday news shows generally ignored the events that attracted hundreds of thousands of protesters. ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and NBC’s Meet the Press failed to mention the March for Science at all, according to a Media Matters review. CNN’s State of the Union only had a brief headline about the demonstrations, and Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday only dedicated about one and a half minutes to the story.
    https://mediamatters.org/blog/2017/04/23/sunday-news-shows-mostly-silent-march-science-perpetuating-dearth-coverage-climate-change/216150

    Reply
    • Thanks for this, Bob. Rescued from the spam trap, as it were.

      What is the matter with these news organizations? History is happening right before their eyes. Scientists are being persecuted by the present administration, scientists and people are showing up in protests en-masse to support them and the mainstream TV media just looks the other way. This continues a ridiculous trend of denial that has carried over from past presidential elections and includes an amazing and deepening dearth of TV media coverage of the climate crisis. It also enables bad actions by the present administration (as if they needed any more enablement..)

      Shameful.

      Reply
  6. Ryan in New England

     /  April 24, 2017

    I think this may have been posted in an earlier thread, but I just read it and thought I’d re-post it. It’s a great article about the housing market bubble in Florida that is on the verge of bursting due to sea level rise. It blows my mind the level of development that is still occurring just a couple feet above sea-level. These condominium skyscrapers will be useless by 2050, but they’re being built all over South Florida. People are still building and remodeling and buying homes right on the water, that will need to be abandoned in a couple decades. Billions and billions and billions of dollars being invested as we speak on property and infrastructure that won’t be functional when kids born today are graduating college.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-19/the-nightmare-scenario-for-florida-s-coastal-homeowners

    Reply
    • coloradobob

       /  April 25, 2017

      RiNE –

      Joe Romm picked up on this one as well . It’s a $1.2 trillion dollar zeppelin searching for a thunderstorm .

      Reply
    • Suzanne

       /  April 25, 2017

      We are marching to Mar-a-Lago for the People’s Climate March, this Saturday on the Lunatic’s Day 100 of being POTUS. His precious Mar-a-Lago will be destroyed due to SLR decades sooner thanks to his CC Denial policies.. I wonder if he even gets the irony?

      Florida is ground zero for SLR..and Miami Beach has already spent 500 million dollars on pumps and raising streets. People as far north as the WPB area are dealing with King Tides, higher than they have ever been…sea water coming not just over sea walls, but up through storm grates. And like I have posted…getting a 30 year mortgage for waterfront property is becoming difficult for some..and will eventually be impossible. And homeowners insurance? LOL…

      Reply
    • Suzanne

       /  April 25, 2017

      Joe Romm has a column on this Bloomberg piece worth reading…The S. Florida coastline is without a doubt the “canary in the coal mine” for the U.S. when it comes to “seeing” the effects of Climate Change. “Sea Level Rise is not coming…it is here”.
      https://thinkprogress.org/bloomberg-coastal-real-estate-638716394641

      Reply
    • There’s this emerging understanding that you can only do so much to fight sea level rise — especially in places like South Florida (which is even more vulnerable due to the porous limestone base). 6.7 million people reside in South Florida alone. But it’s not just a South Florida issue. Cities up the coast on barrier islands and low lying land are also immediately vulnerable. And at present GHG concentrations (if they are maintained at such high levels) pretty much all of Florida is eventually underwater. If these cities and the state are to have any chance of surviving long-term and prospering short to medium term, the world will need to stop emitting carbon soon and to start drawing down the high excess overburden. The same can be said for pretty much any low-lying coastal state or region. And pretty much all of the U.S. Gulf and East Coast including places like Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Tampa, Miami, Ft Lauderdale, Daytona, Jacksonville, Savannah, Charleston, Myrtle Beach, Wilmington, the Outer Banks, Elizabeth City, Hampton Roads, Ocean City, Delaware, Sandy Hook, New York City, Boston, DC and so many others are under the gun.

      Reply
  7. coloradobob

     /  April 24, 2017

    Four big reasons why deniers started believing in climate change

    It began, like many things on Reddit, with a simple question: “Former climate change deniers, what changed your mind?” More than 600 posts later, AskReddit was able to not only offer insights into that question, but also shed some light on why people initially rejected the consensus view held by 97% of climate scientists that the Earth is rapidly warming because of human activity.
    Yale Climate Connections analyzed 66 answers describing the motivation behind the conversion. The biggest reason was a slow acceptance of clear scientific evidence.
    Top four reasons climate deniers changed their mind on Reddit

    https://qz.com/966586/four-big-reasons-why-deniers-started-believing-in-climate-change-according-to-a-yale-university-analysis-of-reddit/

    Reply
    • From the article:

      “Scientific Panel Recommends Anti-Pollution Solution to Global Warming” and “Scientific Panel Recommends Nuclear Solution to Global Warming.” For conservative individuals (” hierarchical individualists” in the study) who doubted climate change, the second article was far more effective at convincing them that humans caused global warming. Kahan suspects this is because the science was presented in an existing pro-industry narrative.

      So this, in my opinion,is one of the primary reasons why it’s so important to support alternative energy as an industry. Sure, you or I or any other liberal out there will, at the end of the day get up in arms about ideological issues surrounding growth. But building new competitive industries is absolutely part of the climate solution. And this is one avenue that will tend to appeal to traditional conservatives as long as they’re not fully wrapped into a fossil-fuel centered frame of reference. This represents a bit of a carrot that can be presented to conservatives on the issue.

      The article also mentions that much of climate change denial is social. And I think anyone here would probably nod their heads vigorously on that count. In my view, on the social count, you’ve got people who’ve basically been brow beaten by a number of blow hards. And that’s why it’s pretty important to take the blow hards down a peg or two socially speaking. It’s the prominence of these perceived leaders that pulls the rest of the denyosphere along. And that’s where a bit of well applied social shaming can come into play. The stick as it were.

      Add in the fact that the science is extraordinarily solid and that most deniers don’t have a leg to stand on and instead come across either as bullies or as people who can’t put together a coherent argument.

      Due to lack of ability to filter comments like I do here, I run into this all the time on Facebook. I’ve gotten to the point where I just delete anti-factual comments and, in the case of people who really go off the rails, I just ban them altogether. This may sound cruel. But it’s a social signal that their behavior is unacceptable. And I think that’s very important in a purely open but mostly identity-ambiguous forum like web-based social media where bullies and trolls get more cover and access than they would in normal environments.

      See the exchange with Chris Roberts on the second post from the top:

      https://www.facebook.com/robertscribbler/

      Finally, it’s worth noting that the fossil fuel industry has a dog in this hunt. And for years now there’ve been internet bots and paid PR people out there trying to shape opinions on climate change in order to provide cover for special interests. So a decent number of people you encounter will be from this group or misinformed by this group.

      Reply
      • Stevan

         /  April 25, 2017

        Once green dollars approach fossil fuel dollars in ad buys, you will see the media attitudes change. That is another reason it is critical to have growth in green industries. Exxon, et al, present themselves as green, but their actions betray them. All they are doing is slapping a glossy green coat of paint on the turd.

        Reply
        • Ed

           /  April 30, 2017

          Great point. US media is a commercial industry, and therefore driven by the bottomline — with truth, balance and social service secondary considerations at best.

  8. phil s

     /  April 25, 2017

    Is there still a chance the Adani Charmeachle coal project won’t go ahead?

    The risk of the controversial Adani Carmichael coalmine becoming a stranded asset has increased in the last 12 months, according to a new report.

    The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), says the Carmichael project is likely to be “cash flow negative” for the majority its operating life, even with concessional loans

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/24/adani-coalmine-at-heightened-risk-of-becoming-a-stranded-asset-report-says

    Reply
    • phil s

       /  April 25, 2017

      Last week an announcement of a mega solar farm, now another possible development in Queensland, and a much better option for creating jobs than a great big coalmine:

      An international consortium is looking at setting up a high-tech battery factory in regional Australia.

      The consortium is led by Boston Energy and Innovation chairman Bill Moss and backed by Kodak has signed a memorandum of understanding with Queensland’s Townsville City Council to investigate the financial viability of building a “cutting-edge” battery manufacturing plant in the city.

      The proposed plant would produce 250,000 car batteries per year, or one million home battery units, or support 300 microgrids to power small towns.

      http://www.energycareer.com.au/news/battery-factory-considered-for-far-north

      Reply
    • Thanks for this, Phil. I think this accurately depicts the difference between the old and the new and the serious choices that are now before all of us.

      Reply
  9. coloradobob

     /  April 25, 2017

    Global warming making oceans more toxic, breaking climate change research shows
    Date:
    April 24, 2017
    Source:
    Stony Brook University
    Summary:
    Climate change is predicted to cause a series of maladies for world oceans including heating up, acidification, and the loss of oxygen. A newly published study demonstrates that one ocean consequence of climate change that has already occurred is the spread and intensification of toxic algae.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170424153809.htm

    Reply
    • In the end, the health of life on Earth is dependent on the health of the oceans. Warming and a number of related factors have both harmed ocean health and resulted in mass extinctions in the past. And it’s pretty obvious that from the present carbon fuel addiction and carbon fuel pushing is setting up a blow to the world oceans that, if it continues, will be the worst in all of Earth’s deep history.

      Reply
  10. coloradobob

     /  April 25, 2017

    Dancing on the edge of disaster –

    Despite global warming, trout are thriving in the northern Rio Grande

    Wildfires are deadly to fish because ashes wash into rivers and streams, increasing the ammonia content of the waters to lethal levels. The Whitewater-Baldy Fire, which burned nearly 300,000 acres of southwest New Mexico’s Gila Wilderness in 2012, and the Silver Fire that clawed through more than 130,000 acres of the Gila in 2013, killed a lot of fish and threatened to wipe out New Mexico’s native Gila trout.

    https://www.abqjournal.com/992229/warmth-strong-runoff-mean-the-fishing-is-good.html

    Reply
  11. Eric Thurston

     /  April 25, 2017

    From the Guardian. Research on the potential for steel smelting slag heaps to sequester CO2.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/23/can-slag-heaps-help-save-the-planet-carbon-dioxide-capture-climate-change

    Reply
    • coloradobob

       /  April 25, 2017

      Good read.

      Reply
    • From the article:

      “Our calculations suggest that we might produce between 100bn and 200bn tonnes of slag cumulatively by the end of this century,” added Renforth. “That has the potential to remove 50-100bn tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere, we believe.”

      So the issue is that you can achieve a drop from approximately 10 to 11 billion tons of carbon hitting the atmosphere every year to around 2-4 billion tons of carbon hitting the atmosphere every year under a renewable energy transition that includes present technology. If you remove fossil fuels from aviation, materials production and agriculture as well, that range drops to 1-2 billion tons per year.

      If you change land use from agriculture alone, you can get very close to carbon nuetral after that. If you add in a reasonable amount of biofuel carbon capture and storage, you can get to around -0.5 to -1.5 billion tons of carbon per year. If you add in this slag based removal and other forms of atmospheric capture, it’s conceivable that you could get to -3 billion tons per year or more net negative. This probably pulls down about 0.7 ppm CO2 per year on net but fights against an Earth System feedback that is probably putting back about 0.1 to 0.4 ppm CO2 per year on net under the more moderate warming scenarios.

      I think that if you look at responses to global warming and the carbon build-up, you’re going to be looking at an energy transition that aims at replacing pretty much all fossil fuel emitting infrastructure with renewables (and a possible lesser degree of CCS) as a foundational response that basically knocks out 8-9 billion tons of carbon hitting the atmosphere each year. The supplemental responses need to draw down an additional volume of carbon in the range 1-2 billion tons per year to hit net zero, 2-3 billion tons to hit net negative, and probably 3-5 billion tons to hit a safety zone that allows for Earth System feedbacks.

      Atmospheric carbon capture’s impacts, in the end, therefore need to be in the range of 30 to 55 percent of the net potential mitigation from a renewable energy transition as carbon draw down. This is a considerable challenge, but one I believe we can meet. But we should be clear that the cornerstone to this effort is a strong transition away from fossil fuel based emitting energy infrastructure and that renewables provide the clearest path forward on that count from an economic and efficiencies based standpoint..

      Reply
    • I want to also re-iterate that while CCS added to fossil fuel infrastructure could be helpful, so far the technology just has presented more of a moral hazard. For example, in many cases CCS in natural gas and coal plants has been used as an injection gas for oil wells in fracking or other enhanced oil recovery processes. In other words, carbon captured in power generation is being traded for carbon that is not captured when burned in an internal combustion engine or jet turbine. As a result, this has created a loop hole in which industry can conceivably claim carbon credits on power generation but where, on net, more carbon is actually being produced and hitting the atmosphere long term.

      It’s these kinds of inherent moral hazards related to fossil fuel profitability and the base incentive to endlessly extract and burn that have caused me to basically throw up my hands on them as an energy source. The best way to ensure that this carbon does not hit the atmosphere is to replace these systems, en masse, with non emitting renewable energy infrastructure and transportation designs. And with about 130 to 150 GW of new renewable power sources now being constructed each year and with growth trends still in the positive, this direct replacement of fossil fuels has already started.

      The only way, in my mind, that fossil fuels can compete with renewables is if they can somehow avoid the urge to extract and burn to open air. To actually permanently sequester the carbon and not use the captured carbon as a means to simply force more carbon out of the ground and ultimately into the atmosphere.

      Reply
  12. Bob

     /  April 25, 2017

    Oil Sands pollution underreported by 4.5X. Now there is a surprise. The fox was doing the measurements.
    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/pollution-canadas-oil-sands-underreported-21383

    Reply
    • coloradobob

       /  April 25, 2017

      Lie, deny, rinse, repeat.

      Reply
      • Allan Barr

         /  April 25, 2017

        The ever rising levels of CO2 while claims are made that emissions have stabilized kinda tend to confirm your Lie, Deny, Rinse and repeat Bob. It flows into the claims that natural gas aka methane are cleaner than coal, when in fact they are both dirty. Hopefully the exponential increase in EVs and Renewables will make some impact on the ever rising levels of CO2 and CH4. https://thinkprogress.org/bombshell-study-high-methane-emissions-measured-over-gas-field-may-offset-climate-benefits-of-decf0bf388da

        Reply
        • I think the carbon emissions plateau reporting is probably valid at this time. The trend jibes with power switching (renewables and nat gas are replacing coal worldwide). Net atmospheric methane gains, unlike CO2, are not at record high rates despite the fact that fracking and leaky gas infrastructure is clearly a problem. And it is worth repeating, yet again, that record rates of emissions at plateau would absolutely support the rates of atmospheric CO2 gain we see now during a warmer ocean phase in which CO2 draw down rates tend to be crimped.

          What I will say is that the dalliance with natural gas is not really as helpful as many suggest. That we should be going all out for renewables. But the overall trend to replace coal is a positive one that is absolutely having a depressing effect on global carbon emissions.

    • So this study found that the volume of volatile organic compounds released as gas from these tar sands facilities was in the range of 50 ± 14 to 70 ± 22 tons per day or approximately 20,000 tons per year. These include heat trapping gasses like methane, for example, but also just simply toxic stuff the likes of which tend to increase chronic disease rates.

      It just goes to show that industry cannot be trusted to self-moderate and self-report as we have seen time and time again. That responsible regulations are necessary to hold industry to account. But in the case of tar sands, the industry shouldn’t be there in the first place. It’s vastly harmful. And as bad as the pollution and toxicity problem is, the billions of tons of carbon that are being extracted from the Earth and directly burned over the lifetime of these facilities represents an even greater risk than the hundreds of thousands of tons of other toxic substances (VOCs) that are also spewed out as a result of operations.

      Reply
  13. coloradobob

     /  April 25, 2017

    Reply
  14. coloradobob

     /  April 25, 2017

    Reply
  15. coloradobob

     /  April 25, 2017

    [Industry executives:] Screw the Earth and every living thing on it.

    Reply
  16. coloradobob

     /  April 25, 2017

    Giant piles of money

    Reply
  17. wili

     /  April 25, 2017

    Thanks for the hat tip. Another grim indication that the worm has turned, or that many worms are in the process of turning, or…oh, never mind…

    Reply
  18. Suzanne

     /  April 25, 2017

    Front page online at NY Times this morning:

    Reply
    • Thanks for this, Suzanne. Worth noting that renewable energy produces about x2 to x4 the number of jobs compared to the fossil fuel industry on a per dollar invested basis.

      Reply
  19. Cate

     /  April 25, 2017

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-climate-warming-ice-report-1.4083728

    “A new international report shows that Arctic temperatures are rising higher and faster than expected, and the effects are already being felt around the world. The Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic assessment was written by more than 90 scientists from around the world who compiled the latest northern research on how climate change is affecting the Arctic ice and ecosystems.”

    One of the report authors, Dr David Barber of the U of Manitoba, is probably Canada’s pre-eminent “Arctic guy”, as he calls himself. When Dr Barber speaks, we all need to listen. He said “one of the most surprising results of the research is that there is now open water even during the winter in the Arctic Ocean.” Increased heat from open waters is rising into the atmosphere, weakend the polar vortex and affecting worldwide weather patterns.

    Lots more details in the article, which also contains a link to the full report, released in advance of the Arctic Council meeting on May 11.

    Reply
  20. wili

     /  April 26, 2017

    My dog

    he turned to me

    and said

    best head back

    to Tennessee

    jed

    Reply
  21. Anne

     /  April 26, 2017

    Nothing to see here, move along please.

    From The Siberian Times 25 April
    Nuclear town on fire, with residents ‘choking’ from smoke

    Facilities for producing weapons grade plutonium believed safe despite fierce flames caused by wildfires

    Pictures that were exchanged in the local ‘Accidents Zheleznogorsk’ community showed how close the fire was to living areas. Zheleznogorsk, also known as Atom town and Iron City is 62 kilometres north-east of regional capital Krasnoyarsk.
    It is understood there is no immediate threat to the nuclear plants in the town.
    ‘All details about the fires are in Moscow, as Zheleznogorsk is closed city and it doesn’t report to us’, a journalist from TVK6, a Krasnoyarsk-based TV company, was told by the local Ministry of Emergencies. A local newspaper reported that wildfires engulfed an area of 400 hectares, apparently starting from dry grass catching fire.
    Fire brigades had to make more than 30 trips to stop the flames spreading further.
    Latest reports say the situation is ‘normal’, although nearby Krasnoyarsk announced regime of ‘unfavourable meteorological conditions’ because of heavy smoke coming from Zheleznogorsk.

    http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/nuclear-town-on-fire-with-residents-choking-from-smoke/

    Reply
  22. T Dougherty

     /  April 26, 2017

    “…visible from 1 million miles away in space during a 2014 event…”

    The ISS is 400 km from Earth. The moon is ~385,000 km from Earth. How could smoke be observed from ~1,600,000 km away?

    Reply
  1. Early Season Russia-Siberia Wildfire Outbreak Expands Due to Heat | robertscribbler
  2. Early Season Russia-Siberia Wildfire Outbreak Expands Due to Heat | RClimate

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

%d bloggers like this: