May 2025

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

6 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

The developing pall of smoke might help to mute temperatures somewhat as well. Will have to watch and see if it spreads any further east and south.

I would love to see some data on the amount of forest fires in the Canadian Tiaga forests historically. That area is basically uninhabitable so if fires are significantly increasing is size and frequency it’s a good climate change marker. I would think they have, so to the over the top patterns we have seen. And of course the smoke events here the last few years.

[LibertyBell]

9 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

The developing pall of smoke might help to mute temperatures somewhat as well. Will have to watch and see if it spreads any further east and south.

Is it very dry in Canada again this year?

It's every year now with these Canadian wildfires, they need to consider just chopping down all those trees to put a permanent end to the fires.

[LibertyBell]

Just now, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

I would love to see some data on the amount of forest fires in the Canadian Tiaga forests historically. That area is basically uninhabitable so if fires are significantly increasing is size and frequency it’s a good climate change marker. I would think they have, so to the over the top patterns we have seen. And of course the smoke events here the last few years.

It's just time to chop down all those trees.

 

[Stormlover74]

Very light rain so far. Barely wetting the ground

[winterwx21]

Only 58 degrees out there with the light rain coming down. Nasty day. 

[rclab]

53 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

It's just time to chop down all those trees.

 

Perhaps, Liberty, we should evaluate their advantages before …………………………..

As always ……

 

 

 

 

[Sundog]

@LibertyBell's ideas remind me of one of my favorite excerpts from the sequel book of The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy:

 

“If," ["the management consultant"] said tersely, “we could for a moment move on to the subject of fiscal policy. . .”
“Fiscal policy!" whooped Ford Prefect. “Fiscal policy!"

The management consultant gave him a look that only a lungfish could have copied.
“Fiscal policy. . .” he repeated, “that is what I said.”

“How can you have money,” demanded Ford, “if none of you actually produces anything? It doesn't grow on trees you know.”
“If you would allow me to continue.. .”

Ford nodded dejectedly.

“Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich.”
Ford stared in disbelief at the crowd who were murmuring appreciatively at this and greedily fingering the wads of leaves with which their track suits were stuffed.

“But we have also,” continued the management consultant, “run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut."
Murmurs of alarm came from the crowd. The management consultant waved them down.

“So in order to obviate this problem,” he continued, “and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and. . .er, burn down all the forests. I think you'll all agree that's a sensible move under the circumstances."

The crowd seemed a little uncertain about this for a second or two until someone pointed out how much this would increase the value of the leaves in their pockets whereupon they let out whoops of delight and gave the management consultant a standing ovation. The accountants among them looked forward to a profitable autumn aloft and it got an appreciative round from the crowd.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

[LibertyBell]

26 minutes ago, Sundog said:

@LibertyBell's ideas remind me of one of my favorite excerpts from the sequel book of The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy:

 

“If," ["the management consultant"] said tersely, “we could for a moment move on to the subject of fiscal policy. . .”
“Fiscal policy!" whooped Ford Prefect. “Fiscal policy!"

The management consultant gave him a look that only a lungfish could have copied.
“Fiscal policy. . .” he repeated, “that is what I said.”

“How can you have money,” demanded Ford, “if none of you actually produces anything? It doesn't grow on trees you know.”
“If you would allow me to continue.. .”

Ford nodded dejectedly.

“Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich.”
Ford stared in disbelief at the crowd who were murmuring appreciatively at this and greedily fingering the wads of leaves with which their track suits were stuffed.

“But we have also,” continued the management consultant, “run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut."
Murmurs of alarm came from the crowd. The management consultant waved them down.

“So in order to obviate this problem,” he continued, “and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and. . .er, burn down all the forests. I think you'll all agree that's a sensible move under the circumstances."

The crowd seemed a little uncertain about this for a second or two until someone pointed out how much this would increase the value of the leaves in their pockets whereupon they let out whoops of delight and gave the management consultant a standing ovation. The accountants among them looked forward to a profitable autumn aloft and it got an appreciative round from the crowd.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

I loved this series. Not on the level of the Foundation series, but very good.

But it's going to come down to this *idea* as being the ONLY viable option.  I'm not the only one voicing it either. As a matter of fact a physicist friend of mine in California told me last year that this is the only permanent solution to the wildfire problem: *pave over the area with asphalt.*

At some point, this will be done.

The Amazon needs to be preserved at all costs, the real problem are these boreal forests that are burning up more and more each year causing death and destruction. We're not going to stop using fossil fuels, so rather than dealing with burning fires every year this is the only other solution.  We can replace the trees with foliage that has a much lower risk of burning.

 

https://www.heavenlygreens.com/blog/plants-and-trees-that-resist-wildfires

 

What plants to choose?

Hardwood trees such as maples, redbud, California lilac, and fruit trees are less flammable than soft-wood conifers. “Juicy” agaves and aloes are far less likely to burn than junipers and other shrubs with high resin or sap content. (They’re so much snazzier-looking, too!) 

Trees and shrubs that are native to northern California are excellent choices for a fire-wise landscape. They are naturally drought-tolerant, so they fit nicely into your low water garden design. And there are so many natives – plus garden-friendly hybrid varieties – your biggest problem will be deciding which ones to use. Of course, there are many non-natives that are also fire-resistant. 

 

https://www.arborday.org/perspectives/are-some-trees-fire-resistant-actually-yes

 

So, what exactly makes a tree fire-resistant?

While all of the trees listed below are considered fire-resistant, each has its own characteristics that make it more likely to survive a fire. But there are some common features.

• Thick bark protects the inner layer of the tree that’s actively growing (known as cambium).
• High moisture content in the wood or leaves means they will not burn as intensely or as quickly.
• A lack of branches low to the ground prevents flames from climbing into the treetops.

[Monty]

22 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I loved this series. Not on the level of the Foundation series, but very good.

But it's going to come down to this *idea* as being the ONLY viable option.  I'm not the only one voicing it either. As a matter of fact a physicist friend of mine in California told me last year that this is the only permanent solution to the wildfire problem: *pave over the area with asphalt.*

At some point, this will be done.

The Amazon needs to be preserved at all costs, the real problem are these boreal forests that are burning up more and more each year causing death and destruction. We're not going to stop using fossil fuels, so rather than dealing with burning fires every year this is the only other solution.  We can replace the trees with foliage that has a much lower risk of burning.

 

https://www.heavenlygreens.com/blog/plants-and-trees-that-resist-wildfires

 

What plants to choose?

Hardwood trees such as maples, redbud, California lilac, and fruit trees are less flammable than soft-wood conifers. “Juicy” agaves and aloes are far less likely to burn than junipers and other shrubs with high resin or sap content. (They’re so much snazzier-looking, too!) 

Trees and shrubs that are native to northern California are excellent choices for a fire-wise landscape. They are naturally drought-tolerant, so they fit nicely into your low water garden design. And there are so many natives – plus garden-friendly hybrid varieties – your biggest problem will be deciding which ones to use. Of course, there are many non-natives that are also fire-resistant. 

 

https://www.arborday.org/perspectives/are-some-trees-fire-resistant-actually-yes

 

So, what exactly makes a tree fire-resistant?

While all of the trees listed below are considered fire-resistant, each has its own characteristics that make it more likely to survive a fire. But there are some common features.

• Thick bark protects the inner layer of the tree that’s actively growing (known as cambium).
• High moisture content in the wood or leaves means they will not burn as intensely or as quickly.
• A lack of branches low to the ground prevents flames from climbing into the treetops.

You really post some of the dumbest crap I've ever read. It's remarkable. Impressive, really. 

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

17 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I loved this series. Not on the level of the Foundation series, but very good.

But it's going to come down to this *idea* as being the ONLY viable option.  I'm not the only one voicing it either. As a matter of fact a physicist friend of mine in California told me last year that this is the only permanent solution to the wildfire problem: *pave over the area with asphalt.*

At some point, this will be done.

The Amazon needs to be preserved at all costs, the real problem are these boreal forests that are burning up more and more each year causing death and destruction. We're not going to stop using fossil fuels, so rather than dealing with burning fires every year this is the only other solution.  We can replace the trees with foliage that has a much lower risk of burning.

 

https://www.heavenlygreens.com/blog/plants-and-trees-that-resist-wildfires

 

What plants to choose?

Hardwood trees such as maples, redbud, California lilac, and fruit trees are less flammable than soft-wood conifers. “Juicy” agaves and aloes are far less likely to burn than junipers and other shrubs with high resin or sap content. (They’re so much snazzier-looking, too!) 

Trees and shrubs that are native to northern California are excellent choices for a fire-wise landscape. They are naturally drought-tolerant, so they fit nicely into your low water garden design. And there are so many natives – plus garden-friendly hybrid varieties – your biggest problem will be deciding which ones to use. Of course, there are many non-natives that are also fire-resistant. 

 

https://www.arborday.org/perspectives/are-some-trees-fire-resistant-actually-yes

 

So, what exactly makes a tree fire-resistant?

While all of the trees listed below are considered fire-resistant, each has its own characteristics that make it more likely to survive a fire. But there are some common features.

• Thick bark protects the inner layer of the tree that’s actively growing (known as cambium).
• High moisture content in the wood or leaves means they will not burn as intensely or as quickly.
• A lack of branches low to the ground prevents flames from climbing into the treetops.

Unfortunately there are only 3 dominant tree species in the Candian Tiaga. Balsim fir, Black Spruce and Larch. They are dominant because the can handle the extreme temperatures. They are all highly flamable. Until temperatures rise significantly (5c) that isn’t going to change.

My theory is that the beginning of substantial climate change is acting to dry the forests out. Normally they would remain rather wet and cool in the summer. 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Unfortunately there are only 3 dominant tree species in the Candian Tiaga. Balsim fir, Black Spruce and Larch. They are dominant because the can handle the extreme temperatures. They are all highly flamable. Until temperatures rise significantly (5c) that isn’t going to change.

My theory is that the beginning of substantial climate change is acting to dry the forests out. Normally they would remain rather wet and cool in the summer. 

Thanks, this explains why the fires up north are not going anywhere.  Do you think when the temperatures warm more those trees will be replaced with the more fire resistant trees that are prevalent farther south?

 

[Sundog]

2 minutes ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

Unfortunately there are only 3 dominant tree species in the Candian Tiaga. Balsim fir, Black Spruce and Larch. They are dominant because the can handle the extreme temperatures. They are all highly flamable. Until temperatures rise significantly (5c) that isn’t going to change.

My theory is that the beginning of substantial climate change is acting to dry the forests out. Normally they would remain rather wet and cool in the summer. 

You would think it would get wetter overall in a warming world in the far north. 

[LibertyBell]

8 minutes ago, Monty said:

You really post some of the dumbest crap I've ever read. It's remarkable. Impressive, really. 

you're not a literate person so I wouldn't expect you to understand any of it, fool Monty  you must live near one of those superfund sites that NJ is famous for, you're showing clear evidence of brain damage.

 

[LibertyBell]

Just now, Sundog said:

You would think it would get wetter overall in a warming world in the far north. 

No, it's not the case.  If the atmosphere can hold more moisture it also means the saturation point is higher, which means you actually need more moisture to get it to rain.

This is why you see cycles of drought and flooding further south.  So at some point the drought will give way to destructive flooding, but it hasn't reached that point yet.

 

[Sundog]

Central Park is 57 degrees, colder than the stations on the east end and the ones getting rain lol

Oooooooook

Manhattan is the coldest spot in the area ahahahahahaha

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, Sundog said:

You would think it would get wetter overall in a warming world in the far north. 

This is what I mean with climate change being non linear.  It's not getting wetter everywhere and even where it's getting *wetter* there are more cycles of drought too.  Our area has been and will experience more of this too.

With the atmosphere able to hold more moisture it also means that the trigger point that causes rainfall will also be higher.

 

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, Sundog said:

Central Park is 57 degrees, colder than the stations on the east end with an east wind lol

Oooooooook

Manhattan is the coldest spot in the area ahahahahahaha

it's a park and not an accurate barometer (pun intended) for the city.  If you want a better indicator for what Manhattan experiences you need to take those instruments out of the park.

 

 

[Wxoutlooksblog]

Heat cancel once again for next week. It looks as though the NYC Metro Region will wait a while longer to see its first 90 degree heat. The warmth will try to go over the top but another upper low will probably develop somewhere in the western Atlantic and keep the very warm/hot air from spreading into the northeast and mid Atlantic. Though we should not see the coolness of this week and last week with temperatures the first week of June mainly in the mid-upper 70s maybe a day or two up around 80. 

WX/PT

[LibertyBell]

2 minutes ago, Wxoutlooksblog said:

Heat cancel once again for next week. It looks as though the NYC Metro Region will wait a while longer to see its first 90 degree heat. The warmth will try to go over the top but another upper low will probably develop somewhere in the western Atlantic and keep the very warm/hot air from spreading into the northeast and mid Atlantic. Though we should not see the coolness of this week and last week with temperatures the first week of June mainly in the mid-upper 70s maybe a day or two up around 80. 

WX/PT

and most importantly, dry and sunny!

 

[TriPol]

2 minutes ago, Wxoutlooksblog said:

Heat cancel once again for next week. It looks as though the NYC Metro Region will wait a while longer to see its first 90 degree heat. The warmth will try to go over the top but another upper low will probably develop somewhere in the western Atlantic and keep the very warm/hot air from spreading into the northeast and mid Atlantic. Though we should not see the coolness of this week and last week with temperatures the first week of June mainly in the mid-upper 70s maybe a day or two up around 80. 

WX/PT

90 degrees? It won't make it to 60 today. And who knows what he rest of the week will be. Even the weekend looks like a wash out.

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, TriPol said:

90 degrees? It won't make it to 60 today. And who knows what he rest of the week will be. Even the weekend looks like a wash out.

Sunday will be fine.

Next week will be around 80, so not hot, but most importantly, it won't be raining.

 

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

16 minutes ago, Sundog said:

Central Park is 57 degrees, colder than the stations on the east end and the ones getting rain lol

Oooooooook

Manhattan is the coldest spot in the area ahahahahahaha

When I think of that thermometer, I think of a deep forest in lord of the rings New Zealand. Meanwhile 100 yards east it’s 10 degrees warmer on 5th avenue. 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

When I think of that thermometer, I think of a deep forest in lord of the rings New Zealand. Meanwhile 100 yards east it’s 10 degrees warmer on 5th avenue. 

it's why those instruments need to be relocated outside of the park to be more representative of the area.

How many of these ASOS are located in parks anyway? 99.99% of them are at airports, so there's no reason for us to consider data from a park to be comparable to the 99.99% of other ASOS locations.

Yes, we all know that their siting is flawed, but even moreso, why would we ever consider data from a park to be representative of a concrete jungle?

[lee59]

Maybe we should leave it in the Park so we can continue to make comparisons to times past. 

[FPizz]

43 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

No, it's not the case.  If the atmosphere can hold more moisture it also means the saturation point is higher, which means you actually need more moisture to get it to rain.

This is why you see cycles of drought and flooding further south.  So at some point the drought will give way to destructive flooding, but it hasn't reached that point yet.

 

Maybe people can stop causing the vast majority of the fires too, just a thought.   In nj, 97% of the fires are caused by people.  That's from a nws met.

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, FPizz said:

Maybe people can stop causing the vast majority of the fires too, just a thought.   In nj, 97% of the fires are caused by people.  That's from a nws met.

This is true, our most damaging fires are caused by the human animal.

It's not just NJ, but California too.  Not sure if this is the case in northern Canada though, where very few people live.

[lee59]

1 minute ago, FPizz said:

Maybe people can stop causing the vast majority of the fires too, just a thought.   In nj, 97% of the fires are caused by people.  That's from a nws met.

That is the thing, most fires are started by people or electrical wires. People now live in areas that were not inhabited in the past. 

[LibertyBell]

6 minutes ago, lee59 said:

Maybe we should leave it in the Park so we can continue to make comparisons to times past. 

we can't because of bad siting.  The only other thing I can think of is have a parallel set of instruments outside of the park and compare the two to each other.

We already have a mesonet so we already have the instruments to do a valid comparison.

 

[FPizz]

Just now, LibertyBell said:

This is true, our most damaging fires are caused by the human animal.

It's not just NJ, but California too.  Not sure if this is the case in northern Canada though, where very few people live.

I think i saw 85% were, but depends on the source.  Some say 50% human, 50% lightning/other.  I guess cc causes more lightning further north igniting the dry forests

[lee59]

7 minutes ago, FPizz said:

I think i saw 85% were, but depends on the source.  Some say 50% human, 50% lightning/other.  I guess cc causes more lightning further north igniting the dry forests

In California for example, 95% start by people or people related scenarios.