Pete Bouchard alerts us that the two places are basically on fire and that the winds are pushing smoke from them in our direction.
Massachusetts rarely has wildfires of consequential size in the modern era, but we do have a lot of blow in smoke from places that are now burning over with some regularity in this new world order of Baked Alaska.
Given the number of places where we can get smoke from, this is becoming an occasional but more regular feature of our airshed.
This is NOT new. I can clearly remember a few occasions where we’ve had forest fire smoke blow in from Canada.
Makes for a great sunset.
She said it was increasing. I seem to remember that she works in a related field, too.
I've worked in air pollution and public health and climate and public health for 15 years now ... so, yeah.
It isn't new, but the wildfires are happening more often and in more places due to climate change, and are more severe than they used to be.
Here's a good roundup of what's going on: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/global...
And, while I didn't grow up here, I have lived in the area for 35 years - longer than many who were born here.
So you ARE a baby boomer! Good to know.
We aren't talking pretty sunset anymore. We are talking DEP shutting off the regulatory monitors because the smoke is so bad (but not anything they can regulate).
We are talking increased ER visits for asthma.
Been here for 45 years - this is getting more common and more intense.
Smoke from the fire reached New England and soot floated as far away as Greenland. Small communities were obliterated and more than 85 lives were lost. The absolute devastation left not only scars on the land, but also lasting and fervent opinions about how forests and wildfire should be managed. -- August 1910
You are the literally embodiment of every Boston boomer scumbag ever. Kudos on staying in character, though.
cliMaTe ChAnGe Is A hOaX aMiRiTe?
Really? Do you also whine about stereotypes and hate?
Smoke from distant forest fires, usually Canada, is nothing new in these parts. Prevailing winds often blow them right over New England and eastern MA metro Boston.
You left out the author's name, and the publication (a book? a magazine article?)
I don't see anyone making that claim anywhere in Adam's writeup, the linked post, or even in the comments here.
The Magoo is back from T for Texas. Had a great stint wrangling in the border lands.
from UHub in 2010:Say, what's that smell? Oh, that's Quebec burning
Oh, Canada: On fire again
But I'd love to understand. What's to be gained from denying climate change? Is it just fun to own the libs?
You have to be a pretty big tool to think improving the air and water is a bad thing.
That is unless you just like to see the world burn and hate people who are generally happier in life.
I come across as a climate change denier, even though I am not. My issue is that people are perhaps overeager to show evidence of climate change when perhaps there are other issues. In this case, people may claim that forest fires in Alaska or the wilds of Northern Ontario is an example of climate change, when in fact forest fires have been occurring in North America since before Europeans set foot on the continent. It's something that happens. In fact, people in the know do look to human intervention in forest fires, but it has little to do with the increasing amount of carbon in the atmosphere. In addition to people setting fires (intentionally or accidentally) there is also the feeling that attempts to provide "stewardship" to forests has made major conflagrations more common.
Overall, it is a hoot when people conflate weather and climate. The missus saw noted non-climate scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson a short while ago. Even he had to explain the difference to a room full of aghast science lovers that an active hurricane season is not, in of itself, evidence of climate change. So, when, 15 years ago, there was a march from Amherst to Boston to highlight "global warming" and the marchers faced snow during their mid-March journey, it was a lot of fun to mock them. The cult of climate change is strong, which makes it fun to tweak them. Just read the replies to this to see it in action.
My issue is that people are perhaps overeager to show evidence of climate change when perhaps there are other issues.
Why can’t both be true? The existence of other issues doesn’t have negate the evidence of human assisted climate change.
I find your second point interesting because it seems to me that climate change deniers usually conflate weather and climate. Like the southern congressman who brought snow to the house chamber to prove that climate change is fake. Or the president who tweets about “global warming” whenever there are cold temps in NYC over the winter.
No one is claiming that extreme weather is new. The data is showing that the frequency of extreme weather is increasing rapidly. That's the rub.
let me go ahead and put global warming in scare quotes, compare it to a cult belief structure and intentionally put the blinders onto the frequency of extreme weather.
You messed up my Bingo board by not pontificating about global cycles or whatever. Bonus points for omitting data points of any kind.
it was a lot of fun to mock them. The cult of climate change is strong, which makes it fun to tweak them. Just read the replies to this to see it in action.
So it really is about owning the libs.
For proving my point.
And yes, in 2004 climate change was known as something different, and to note the different phrasing, I used quotes. But hey, it's not their fault that Massachusetts hadn't warmed enough that late winter snow would be a thing of the past, but they tried.
By the way, "global cycles or whatever" is a real thing. Try learning something about el Nino/la Nina. I would say scientists knew about that back when Al Gore was at Harvard, but I mean, if it suits you to think they don't exist, I guess you can ignore it to satisfy your belief structure. Some people think the earth was created in 7 days roughly 4,000 years ago, too. Different strokes and whatnot.
You continue to type a lotta words that don't amount to much substance, the phrasing which of course is a hallmark of man-made climate change denial. Deflect, dismiss, deflect, dismiss.
You kinda keep toeing this line between climate denial and a somewhat tenuous grasp on science, when it suits your argument of course. Accuse the otherside of that which you are guilty or something, amirite?
You seem to be implying that "they" felt winters in 2004 in Massachusetts would be a thing of the past, its sort of a weird argument to make, some might even call it a strawman.
Hey, you know global warming is still used as a scientific term and of course is argued as being the cause of climate change that impacts the frequency of extreme weather events? You should try learning something about it, thats another climate denier talking point to try and nit pick about.
I can’t really help you.
Your problem seems to be that we do know how to read through the waves of nonsense to see that you are blowing so much smoke that DEP will be shutting down the PM2.5 monitors shortly ...
If you, like spin, can't figure out who I was referring to when I used the pronoun "they," I'd say that MIT should have put a bit of emphasis on the SAT verbal 35 years ago, and that the Oregon public education system was (and I do hope was) lacking when you went through it.
But yeah, forest fires sending smoke across the continent is a new thing.
And back to my original point about how easy it is to rattle people who connect everything possible to climate change...
Religious folktales about improbable "miracles" cited as a basis for lawmaking = church
Scientific understanding = cult
You're also the idiot who thinks first responders should Park their emergency vehicles in public garages and walk to their downtown destinations as opposed to say, parking their vehicles nearby in case of oh, I don't know, an emergency? All because you can't park in the same spots FIRST RESPONDERS park in. You fucking loser
I mean, except that I am advocating for using less petroleum, which produces carbon monoxide, which is a greenhouse gas.
If you've been patrolling this website for months on end looking for an excuse for trolling me about being against police cars parking on a pedestrian plaza, congratulations. Tell your mum what you did and she'll probably give you a star sticker.
Ever notice how much trash is on the ground? Or how many people dump chemicals to fertilize their yards? How about all the countries in the world which use rivers as sewers and don’t treat their waste water? What about corporate-owned ships dumping their sewage and trash in the sea when nobody is around?
Yeah humans want a clean environment but only a small percentage will go out of their way for this goal. Your local farmers market is not an accurate sampling of the human race. Self interest Uber Alles! I would allow a plane to drop Round Up on the entire Blue Hills Reservation if it meant I could get an $8k raise at work.
Assuming climate change is what they say (I have doubts, the “science” is observational and the historical track record for such predictions is poor), you would need massive joint cooperation with a worldwide Corp/gov/media apparatus to enforce such carbon restrictions. Exemptions would be abound. I don’t see it.
That is what it is about honey.
Your ignorance and talking points aren't reality. Reality is reality, and you are blind to it.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy