Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Smoke has caused temperature forecasts to go crazy

cliffmass.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 332 posts

Re: Smoke has caused temperature forecasts to go crazy

#31

Post by cmendel »

jackyinger wrote: post #25
mshenfield wrote: post #20

Cliff Mass spoiled himself for me with this asinine blog post comparing Seattle BLM protesters to brownshirts in Nazi Germany [0]. It feels icky to get behind someone who will use his platform to sling ridiculous accusations and accept no criticism [1]. It's a shame - his weather reporting is uniquely good and fun to read. [0] https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/08/seattle-city-in-fear-... [1] https://cliffmass.blogs…

I agree that he went off the deep end with that post. Let there’s be no mistake about that; I live on cap hill in Seattle and his analogy falls flat on its face for many reasons. But, I think we should allow ourselves the nuanced perspective of continuing to enjoy his weather posts even if we disagree with his politics. I think that we owe it to ourselves to be able to pick and choose information from a person rather…

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, are you advocating for continuing to follow a blog that is known to give misinformation because you like the writing style? Because if that is the case I would highly recommend changing your mind, the Bayesian prior has changed and unfortunately it is permanent.

Re: Smoke has caused temperature forecasts to go crazy

#32

Post by tsomctl »

londons_explore wrote: post #4
DocG wrote: post #3

Genuine question, are these fires big enough to stop them from happening for a while? Or should we expect another one next year? Edit: My original question was more in mind with does this have same effect as controlled burning / prescribed burning. Thank you all for replies :)

In % of land area burned, the fires are pretty small. Far less than 1% of the US land area burned this year. So, given the same weather conditions, you should expect more fires next year.

Also, when these fires burn mature forests, they don't actually burn the huge trees, just the smaller brush. However, they are so hot that they kill the huge, mature trees. So a couple of years later, you have a huge amount of dead trees ready to burn again.

Re: Smoke has caused temperature forecasts to go crazy

#33

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

ceejayoz wrote: post #21
VBprogrammer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be interesting from a purely educational point of view but it is of little practical relevance. Trees burning in wild fires release CO2 that was captured in the last couple of decades by the tree in the process of growing. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 which was captured millennia ago and buried deep underground. It's roughly the same as why melting icebergs cause sea levels to rise but rain will not.

It's of little relevance if the trees regrow. There are some signs these big fires may permanently damage the ecosystems in ways that prevent that. https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/forests-wildfires-1.44449...

Prehistoric fires are believed to have been much larger than the current ones. In California for example, this year's historic 3.4 million acres fall below estimates for average fire area, although I don't know if California is just unusually fire-prone.

Sources/readings: https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi... https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/re...

Re: Smoke has caused temperature forecasts to go crazy

#34

Post by Shivetya »

DocG wrote: post #3

Genuine question, are these fires big enough to stop them from happening for a while? Or should we expect another one next year? Edit: My original question was more in mind with does this have same effect as controlled burning / prescribed burning. Thank you all for replies :)

one percent or more burns each year, the extent is being exaggerated for political purposes but you can view the numbers[0] for yourself. How many millions of acres burn each year is heavily under estimated by the general public because we only see hysteria when it does get reported. This in no way discounts the loss of life and property. Just saying, if a politician is talking then listen to someone else

Now do take care going into how history [1] plays into the numbers as shown on Cato's page because the larger numbers in the 30s and 40s were over disagreements in proscribed burns. Yet the years before that pissing match weren't exactly fun.

[0]https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

[1]https://www.cato.org/blog/smokey-view-northwest

Re: Smoke has caused temperature forecasts to go crazy

#35

Post by deelowe »

fullstop wrote: post #24
revax wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI melting iceberg do not cause sea levels to rise, but glacier do. An ice cube melting in your glass water do not rises the level.

I don't think that this is technically true, since icebergs are made from fresh water and they melt in the salt water of the ocean. Fresh water is less dense, so it will take up a larger volume than that of salt water.

Where does the additional density come from that wasn't there already when the iceberg was floating?

Re: Smoke has caused temperature forecasts to go crazy

#36

Post by revax »

fullstop wrote: post #24
revax wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI melting iceberg do not cause sea levels to rise, but glacier do. An ice cube melting in your glass water do not rises the level.

I don't think that this is technically true, since icebergs are made from fresh water and they melt in the salt water of the ocean. Fresh water is less dense, so it will take up a larger volume than that of salt water.

Yes you are right but this is not enough to have a meaningful impact.

Re: Smoke has caused temperature forecasts to go crazy

#37

Post by cbsks »

cmendel wrote: post #31
jackyinger wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that he went off the deep end with that post. Let there’s be no mistake about that; I live on cap hill in Seattle and his analogy falls flat on its face for many reasons. But, I think we should allow ourselves the nuanced perspective of continuing to enjoy his weather posts even if we disagree with his politics. I think that we owe it to ourselves to be able to pick and choose information from a person rather…

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, are you advocating for continuing to follow a blog that is known to give misinformation because you like the writing style? Because if that is the case I would highly recommend changing your mind, the Bayesian prior has changed and unfortunately it is permanent.

Just because he gives misleading social commentary, doesn’t mean that his meteorological information is any less accurate.

Re: Smoke has caused temperature forecasts to go crazy

#38

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

londons_explore wrote: post #4
DocG wrote: post #3

Genuine question, are these fires big enough to stop them from happening for a while? Or should we expect another one next year? Edit: My original question was more in mind with does this have same effect as controlled burning / prescribed burning. Thank you all for replies :)

In % of land area burned, the fires are pretty small. Far less than 1% of the US land area burned this year. So, given the same weather conditions, you should expect more fires next year.

I'm not sure the US as a whole is the right comparison, since not all areas are equally prone to wildfires. Each of the West Coast states is above 1% of their land area burned, with California and Oregon pushing 3%.

Re: Smoke has caused temperature forecasts to go crazy

#39

Post by lacker »

dthal wrote: post #29

This blog post went up on Saturday, September 12. It says: >> MUCH cleaner air will push in by 4 PM Sunday over the coastal zone and will just reach Seattle late in the afternoon >> By 1 AM Monday, air quality will be hugely better in western Washington As of now (Tuesday) there is no sign of clearing. Here in Seattle we are still in the "very unhealthy" range for AQI.

Yeah, the weather forecasts for air quality have been quite inaccurate. Since Friday, the projections for Oakland CA have constantly been, “it’ll clear up in the next 24 hours.” Only now, Tuesday morning, has the AQI dropped below 100.

It seems like it’s just a harder problem than regular weather forecasting. Nobody has much experience with giant smoke clouds like this one. So I can forgive the weather service some inaccuracy. Just don’t rely on the AQI forecasts for much.

Re: Smoke has caused temperature forecasts to go crazy

#40

Post by [deleted] »

jackyinger wrote: post #25
mshenfield wrote: post #20

Cliff Mass spoiled himself for me with this asinine blog post comparing Seattle BLM protesters to brownshirts in Nazi Germany [0]. It feels icky to get behind someone who will use his platform to sling ridiculous accusations and accept no criticism [1]. It's a shame - his weather reporting is uniquely good and fun to read. [0] https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/08/seattle-city-in-fear-... [1] https://cliffmass.blogs…

I agree that he went off the deep end with that post. Let there’s be no mistake about that; I live on cap hill in Seattle and his analogy falls flat on its face for many reasons. But, I think we should allow ourselves the nuanced perspective of continuing to enjoy his weather posts even if we disagree with his politics. I think that we owe it to ourselves to be able to pick and choose information from a person rather…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN