Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by mrpg on Thursday August 23 2018, @06:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the smoke-gets-in-your-lungs dept.

GeekWire:

After enduring days of record-setting, eye-watering levels of smoke in the air, the Seattle area is in for relief, thanks to a shift in wind patterns. But the debate over whether this is the "new normal," the old normal or the abnormal is likely to play out for months and years to come.

The National Weather Service is predicting a rise in onshore air flow, sweeping plumes of wildfire smoke toward the east (sorry about that, Wenatchee) and moderating temperatures. Thursday's high temperatures in the Seattle-Olympia area are expected to be 12 to 17 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than today's .

[...] In his latest blog post , University of Washington atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass explains the mechanism behind this week's smoky skies: An express train of lower-atmosphere winds delivered smoke from fires in the North Cascades and southern British Columbia directly into Puget Sound.

[...] Is this a taste of the new normal in an era of global warming? Not necessarily. Mass has argued persuasively that the wildfire trend actually marks a return to the "old normal" after nearly a century of aggressive fire suppression and forest mismanagement.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 24 2018, @04:50AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 24 2018, @04:50AM (#725623) Journal
    I had a goof in my last reply to this paragraph.

    Argument from authority isn't a fallacy when the people engaged in the argument have no other evidence or expertise to fall back on. More to the point, if you're going to contradict the relevant authorities on a subject, you'd better have something pretty darn compelling evience in order to be credible.

    But we have plenty of evidence and expertise to fall back on. I already discussed some of that in my other reply with my point about large uncertainties in critical parameters of climatology. That uncertainty is an accepted part of climatology. But the consequences of it, such as huge uncertainty in the timing of temperature increases by up to centuries, are suspiciously downplayed.