Is Wildfire Smoke Making Our Fog More Persistent?(cliffmass.blogspot.com)
cliffmass.blogspot.com
Is Wildfire Smoke Making Our Fog More Persistent?
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/10/is-wildfire-smoke-making-our-fog-more.html
34 comments
And that's just the particles. The more or less toxic chemicals which burned during the wildfires and add to that "aroma" aren't recorded.
Here in the Bay Area it wasn't nearly as bad, still the smog didn't exactly smell of cedars.
Here in the Bay Area it wasn't nearly as bad, still the smog didn't exactly smell of cedars.
Note this sensor only counts particles without regard for size and then estimates distribution of particles based on an equation.
[deleted]
Which does it actually measure?
It's just an emitter and detector with a fan pushing air between them. It counts any particle large enough to block the light source. If you look up the sensor there is a datasheet which describes how they arrive at the counts.
Just out of curiosity, what was the last straw? Anyone still living in Paradise seems to have the tenacity of a barnacle.
Cliff Mass is a skilled meteorologist, and I owe my interest and knowledge of local Puget Sound weather to his excellent blog.
However, readers ought to know that he has an unpleasant (and dangerous) habit of using his meterologically-derived platform to opine about issues that he has no knowledge about, such as the recent anti-racist protests [0]. These posts have led to two public radio stations in Seattle terminating his segments (KUOW and KNKX).
He obviously has the right to these kinds of posts, but his skill in delivering these largely poorly-researched messages to a general public audience is incredibly amateurish, especially given the trust he's garnered as a scientist.
As a scientist myself, I take particular issue with the way he presents topics regarding climate change. He makes very reasonable academic critiques about atmospheric models that are entirely un-interpretable by an untrained public (e.g. without the formal context required to understand that a scientist's job is to provide specific critique, and that those critiques don't always invalidate an entire research effort). These posts are picked up by climate deniers and suddenly "UW Scientist Says Climate Change is a Hoax!". Here's an example [1].
[0]: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/08/seattle-city-in-fear-...
[1]:https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-global-warming-exi...
However, readers ought to know that he has an unpleasant (and dangerous) habit of using his meterologically-derived platform to opine about issues that he has no knowledge about, such as the recent anti-racist protests [0]. These posts have led to two public radio stations in Seattle terminating his segments (KUOW and KNKX).
He obviously has the right to these kinds of posts, but his skill in delivering these largely poorly-researched messages to a general public audience is incredibly amateurish, especially given the trust he's garnered as a scientist.
As a scientist myself, I take particular issue with the way he presents topics regarding climate change. He makes very reasonable academic critiques about atmospheric models that are entirely un-interpretable by an untrained public (e.g. without the formal context required to understand that a scientist's job is to provide specific critique, and that those critiques don't always invalidate an entire research effort). These posts are picked up by climate deniers and suddenly "UW Scientist Says Climate Change is a Hoax!". Here's an example [1].
[0]: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/08/seattle-city-in-fear-...
[1]:https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-global-warming-exi...
"(and dangerous) habit of using his meterologically-derived platform to opine about issues that he has no knowledge about"
The link you shared on the first point looks to be him saddened and lamenting the violence and destruction in his city. His sharing opinion on that is dangerous? But media celebrities, athletes, etc are fine?
The link you shared on the first point looks to be him saddened and lamenting the violence and destruction in his city. His sharing opinion on that is dangerous? But media celebrities, athletes, etc are fine?
I'm not sure I understand your comment. Cliff Mass is not an athlete or celebrity, he's a meteorologist.
As I mentioned, all people have the right to share their opinions on their personal blogs. Cliff Mass does so flippantly, seemingly without consideration of the potential misinterpretations possible given his large audience.
Just because one can write something and publish it, doesn't mean they should. Especially for a large audience.
Also, the article you mention compares Seattle in August to Kristallnacht.
As I mentioned, all people have the right to share their opinions on their personal blogs. Cliff Mass does so flippantly, seemingly without consideration of the potential misinterpretations possible given his large audience.
Just because one can write something and publish it, doesn't mean they should. Especially for a large audience.
Also, the article you mention compares Seattle in August to Kristallnacht.
Cliff Mass' audience (which includes me, someone who uses his forecasts for special events), likely has above average levels of education, and are better-equipped than the average citizen to interpret his writings. We are talking about a weather blog, not a re-cap of Keeping up with the Kardashians! Mass' blog audience doesn't seem particularly large, or uneducated, so it's a bit paternalistic to say that they can't handle a new view.
This post is not about climate change. Should we not read anything by this guy if he has expressed an opinion you don’t like?
Actually, if you consider excess wildfire smoke to be a component of climate change, the author is actually expanding our understanding of changes to the climate in this piece...
Actually, if you consider excess wildfire smoke to be a component of climate change, the author is actually expanding our understanding of changes to the climate in this piece...
Can confirm. There was an incredible amount of fog yesterday, and it lingered all day. It also killed all wind seemingly (or maybe vice versa?). The water was eerily dead still in the Puget Sound even late in the afternoon, except for tidal changes from my observation. There were also odd areas of the water which seemingly accumulated logs and other debris with no movement towards shore or away from it. A unique weather day for sure.
As always, a very informative post from Cliff Mass. For those unfamiliar, he’s a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington in Seattle, and somewhat of a local legend.
As always, a very informative post from Cliff Mass. For those unfamiliar, he’s a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington in Seattle, and somewhat of a local legend.
During the height of the 400+ particle count "hazardous" air quality warnings here in the Willamette Valley there was a fog that didn't lift for at least a couple days. Thickest I've ever seen in the area.
It's odd that we don't seem to have scholarship on this when it seems to be a somewhat common occurrence.
It's odd that we don't seem to have scholarship on this when it seems to be a somewhat common occurrence.
I am also in the Willamette Valley and was just thinking today about the thick fog and warmish temps we’ve been having.
Fog is definitely a part of life in fall and winter where I’m at, but having so much when the daytime temps hit 65-75deg is weird.
Fog is definitely a part of life in fall and winter where I’m at, but having so much when the daytime temps hit 65-75deg is weird.
I think the title should be changed to indicate that "our fog" refers to the Seattle area (for people who don't know who Cliff Mass is)...
Coastal California has also been seeing persistent out of season fog so I think it’s applicable.
Can confirm this--we had meaningful fog along the coast near Refugio State Park until at least 3p yesterday, when it normally burns off by at least noon. Obviously, that's just one day, but it general it seems to be more common since the fires, and I've noticed some similar oddness as far down as Ventura
Must have been up there for the weekend swell? Stuck to Dev's myself, the persistent fog seemed to chase off the crowd that was there Saturday :)
Not me personally, but I did see a couple surfers out! I was there for a kelp forest a couple miles up the 101 that I frequent for diving/spearfishing.
If you don't mind carrying your board down a rough path, then you'll never have a crowd!
If you don't mind carrying your board down a rough path, then you'll never have a crowd!
Seems to be happening in California, too. I was thinking it was a combination of less sunlight, more particles, and more water (from the combustion reaction), but that last one may be insignificant.
Mind somewhat blown by the phenomenon of "ship tracks" presented in the article.
I knew we could seed clouds to induce rainfall, but apparently we can make them more reflective too.
So, let's discuss my idea for a huge fleet of diesel-powered drones where the exhaust gases will be used to induce very reflective cloud formation to tackle global warming.
I knew we could seed clouds to induce rainfall, but apparently we can make them more reflective too.
So, let's discuss my idea for a huge fleet of diesel-powered drones where the exhaust gases will be used to induce very reflective cloud formation to tackle global warming.
Shiptracks are pretty cool, not only as a really great 'natural experiment' on cloud processes, but also as they are a meteorological formation that was only discovered with the advent of weather satellites.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jas/article/23/6/778/17319/Anom...
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jas/article/23/6/778/17319/Anom...
Broadly speaking, the preferred approach to albedo modification seems to be sulphate aerosols in the higher atmosphere.
A notable secondary approach is to modify built-up areas like cities to be more reflective: mixing recycled glass into pavement, using light colored roofs, and other passive modifications. This has the special advantage of reducing the urban heat island effect, reducing emissions associated with cooling.
A notable secondary approach is to modify built-up areas like cities to be more reflective: mixing recycled glass into pavement, using light colored roofs, and other passive modifications. This has the special advantage of reducing the urban heat island effect, reducing emissions associated with cooling.
Globally sure, but it would be nice to have something more localized. Maybe we could dim an area over warm ocean in front of a hurricane or something.
Wouldn’t it be easier to start with something like roof tops and start making roofs reflective?
> So, let's discuss my idea for a huge fleet of diesel-powered drones where the exhaust gases will be used to induce very reflective cloud formation to tackle global warming.
So this is how we get the sky from Highlander II (1991)(electromagnetic shield, so not really) and the Matrix
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/12377/in-the-matri...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander_II:_The_Quickening#...
So this is how we get the sky from Highlander II (1991)(electromagnetic shield, so not really) and the Matrix
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/12377/in-the-matri...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander_II:_The_Quickening#...
This is already being researched albeit in a much more subtle manner. Essentially add very mildly reflective gases to the mid/upper atmosphere to reduce solar radiation and combat climate change.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/harvard-group...
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/harvard-group...
Hailing from a place which experiences 200+ ug/m3 of PM 2.5 each season it's hard for me to tell what sort of mixture of fog and smog we are having on a given day - they vary only slightly in colour.
But smog definitely significantly reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the ground and that can be felt.
EDIT: the unit should have been ug/m3, not ppm.
But smog definitely significantly reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the ground and that can be felt.
EDIT: the unit should have been ug/m3, not ppm.
In my area, it's easy to tell - the winter smog (from burning coal and god knows what else) stinks.
What is that in the standard raw metric of air quality in micrograms / cubic meter?
Assuming soot, 200ppm = 100μg/m3, but I double checked my source and turns out it indicates in μg.
Yes, remember the London Fog. That was coal smoke induced.
--- Inside ---
PM1.0: 4 µg/㎥
PM2.5: 5 µg/㎥
PM10.0: 5 µg/㎥
^-- Dual MPR "2900" / MERV "14" filters 25x356x610mm (1x14x24") with fan on @ 50% duty cycle
--- Outside (as of writing) ---
Looks gray like "fog" during the day, but it's UFPs.
PM1.0: 31 µg/㎥
PM2.5: 57 µg/㎥
PM10.0: 75 µg/㎥
--- Outside (recorded on 28 Sep 2020, sky completely obscured dark as night and the sun red like blood) ---
PM1.0: 815 µg/㎥
PM2.5: 893 µg/㎥
PM10.0: 920 µg/㎥
Data collection method: 15 minute sliding-window avg
Data collection sensor: Plantower PMS5003 (same as on the PurpleAir PA-II)