BS: Siberia on FIRE

Subject: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jul 20 - 02:39 PM

The heatwave of 100+ temperatures continues in Siberia and the thawed permafrost has caught on fire. The smoke is seen in Alaska.
100,000 hectacres has already burned but will continue without any response. The tundra is also rich in methane. I looked for more data but got a forbidden messsage. This used to happen every ~100,000 years but with climate change this will be more common.
They say they can see the smoke in Alaska.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jul 20 - 02:43 PM

Robo, Ebbie?

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jul 20 - 03:01 PM

If you can't find more info here's the reports from last year: BBC

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jul 20 - 05:21 PM

Don't be silly you can google heat wave Siberia and get the current pictures and stories. Russia is simply suppressing current detailed data.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jul 20 - 05:38 PM

I'm not being silly. You're the one who gave very little detail, and no links, and stated that I looked for more data but got a forbidden messsage. I was just showing where you could get more information.
Your claim: This used to happen every ~100,000 years but with climate change this will be more common. also appears to be just personal opinion. The World Weather Attribution page says: We note that even with climate change, the prolonged heat was a very rare event expected to occur less than once every 130 years. One hundred and thirty years is somewhat less than your one hundred thousand years.
If you're going to invent figures, make them reasonable. If you're quoting someone else's figures, at least let us see where you got them.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jul 20 - 06:06 PM

I do my own research and don't invent numbers. If you have done your research and are satisfied good for you. For those who care I prefer they do their own research and not assume my giving one source is all there is. I have had the same debate with Amos, but I don't think I said "Don't be silly". Here it is a kind expression and not an insult.
I doubt a week of 100 degree heat in Siberia is something as common as you claim.
Meanwhile the tundra conflagrates

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jul 20 - 06:57 PM

Nigel I haven't heard from you since March when you were first to respond to my emerging pandemic thread. Then too you claimed I was exaggerating. Yes I did misplace a decimal point but it was still life changing. Don't be a stranger over trivial matters and only post your claims of fraud regarding big events.
Oz had a pretty big fire that only ended until after the pandemic had started. Did you doubt that too?

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jul 20 - 10:12 PM

I just complimented Don'l in another thread by describing him as undeviatingly inaccurate.

I am in Southcentral Alaska. While it is possible that stuff like pollution and smoke can blow over, we usually get weather from West and West sou-west. I have heard of the hot weather in Siberia and the fears that the once entombed carbon dioxide is getting liberated all too soon, it is more likely that pollution drifts to the North Slope. Since I'm well over 500 miles from either Siberia or the North Slope, I don't see any of this in our unusually wonderful, sunny local weather. I've gone dog walking more in the Covid era than ever in my life. Since I don't have a dog, this is even more wondrous.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Jul 20 - 04:55 AM

Nigel I haven't heard from you since March when you were first to respond to my emerging pandemic thread. Then too you claimed I was exaggerating. Yes I did misplace a decimal point but it was still life changing. Don't be a stranger over trivial matters and only post your claims of fraud regarding big events.

"It was a typo". Like hell. After I pointed it out you went on the attack defending 'your' figures with no attempt to check their accuracy. If, as you say above, you do your own investigation, and present your own figures, please be honest enough to make that clear, rather than presenting your guesswork as if it may be something you've read somewhere.
In future I shall treat any statistics you quote as wholly made up, unless you provide some sort of link to their source.

Nigel , without your knowing incubation time and spouting nonsense from your state news service you have drawn an ill informed conclusion. No, I drew no conclusion, and our 'State news service wasn't spouting nonsense
This brand new mutated version does not obey the rules you have assumed. I thought I introduced the subject with appropriate levity.
Thats OK, I know the messenger is seldom believed.with good reason
In any disaster in the initial early stages, reported numbers are highly massaged.

You have a case in Scotland and Ireland already.

The new rules for locking down areas of China is unique and involves 20-35 million people during a holiday month. The Great Wall is closed along with all amusement parks, theatres etc.

Incubation is 5 days and will bloom starting this weekend.

Dave: Please disregard any warning containing a spelling error but please do not try to fly to WuHan province.

I suppose many Americans don't know that 8,000 have died from the common flu this season.
1 in 3 is not as bad as the Ebola death rate which has decreased this year.

Check the language from the CDC

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Reinhard
Date: 21 Jul 20 - 05:26 AM

I do my own research and don't invent numbers.

One of the key elements of research is verifiability. In which peer-reviewed scientific journal did you publish the results of your resarch? What are your sources? If you omit them, all you're stating are unproven assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jul 20 - 08:13 AM

Washington Post, Moscow Times, Nat. Geo., NYT and The Guardian are a good start. Looking for yourself is a good idea in this era of misinformation.

Dearest Nigel,
Writing 3 instead of .3 is not a typo amd I don't claim it to be.
Good luck with your new cause.

I for one found wildfires so close to the North Pole alarming.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Jul 20 - 09:03 AM

Washington Post, Moscow Times, Nat. Geo., NYT and The Guardian are a good start. Looking for yourself is a good idea in this era of misinformation.
Still no links, and the 'era of misinformation' needs people to spread misinformation. I suppose at least that gives you a purpose.

Writing 3 instead of .3 is not a typo amd I don't claim it to be.
No, you claimed it to be a misplaced decimal point. To most people, a typo.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jul 20 - 09:14 AM

Yep thats what matters.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Jul 20 - 02:51 AM

the thawed permafrost has caught on fire.
the release of methane doesn't help in this context.

And Goggling doesn't help much. Whatever YOU get as the results isn't guaranteed to be the same as ME. In fact it is so personalised it is certain to be different. And wildly so in some cases.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 20 - 04:44 AM

Perhaps climate denying isn't dead yet.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 20 - 08:20 AM

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/siberia-heatwave-forest-fire-climate-change/

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 20 - 08:47 AM

I guess we know who the climate deniers are now. They always attack the messengers.

Heatwaves in the Arctic over the past two years have also been associated with the emergence of extreme wildfires.

The new analysis, by an international team of scientists at the World Weather Attribution network, investigates the potential influence of climate change on the prolonged heat seen across the entire Siberian region from January to June.

“Attribution” is a fast-growing field of climate science that aims to quantify the “fingerprint” of climate change on extreme-weather events, such as wildfires, heatwaves and floods.

The results show the Arctic has started to experience events that “would have been almost impossible without human-induced climate change”, says Dr Sarah Kew, study author and a climate scientist at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. She told a press briefing this week:

“The analysis shows that climate change increased the chances of the prolonged heat by a factor of at least 600. This is actually among the strongest results of any attribution study conducted so far.”

Siberian heat

The researchers analysed two significant aspects of Siberia’s 2020 heatwave. First, they analysed the prolonged heat affecting the entire Siberian region from January to June. To do this, they looked at six-month average temperatures across an area covering most of Siberia (60-75N, 60-180E).

Temperatures this year were 7.5C higher than the average in the region from 1981-2010.

Average temperatures across Siberia from January to June 2020, when compared to average temperatures from 1981-2010. Deep red indicates higher than average temperatures. Black box highlights the study area.
Average temperatures across Siberia from January to June 2020, when compared to average temperatures from 1981-2010.

Across the six-month period, Siberian temperatures were more than 5C higher than average, according to the analysis. This is particularly remarkable given Siberia usually sees its highest temperatures in July, notes Kew.

The analysis finds “with high confidence” that the January to June 2020 prolonged heat was made at least 600 times more likely as a result of human-induced climate change and would have been “impossible without human influence”.

In a world without climate change, such extreme six-month average temperatures across Siberia would only be expected around every ~ 80,000 years, the analysis says.

Second, the researchers looked specifically at the potential influence of climate change on the 38C temperature record, which occurred on 20 June at a weather station in Verkhoyansk.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Jul 20 - 10:49 AM

Don'l when you get a number of numbers under your thumb you invariably squeeze too tight. I have yet to read anything where you attempt to explain something either scientific or technical with a hope of accuracy or correctitude.

I wish you'd argue against climate change for the time being. I'd feel that the world might have a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 20 - 12:49 PM

At least over simplified is comprehensible. Anything cosmological is my speculative take and virtually unscientific.

There is hope regarding climate change, it is called evolution of the species. The rest is location, location, location.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 20 - 02:06 PM

It should be easy for you to diagnose me robo. I have a case of Idon'tknowwhentoshutupism.

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jul 20 - 04:40 PM

What, on the Internet? I don't believe in it! Hehhehheh...

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Jul 20 - 05:52 PM

Let's be clear about one thing Don'l. When you write those short blurry newspaper clipping style posts that no one can figure out, you are the Don'l I know and love and always read. You treat facts and arguments like the uncollected dog crap in the park under your feet and that's just what they are!

Keep up the good work. Keep posting. Never let them see you sweat, and besides, that might mess up your keyboard!

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jul 20 - 07:05 AM

Robo you've teased for decades and have probably learned some things in the process but an indictment of dog crapism, probbly from your imaginary dog walks, is worthy of a PHd dissertation in chat board dynamics -CBD-PHD.

I have given only one link to the 'World Economic Forum'
Its a climate change friendly wannabe 'Forbes' that advises wealthy people on how to protect their fortunes and suggests investment strategy changes. A clever niche in my opinion. While I read the Moscow Times, NYT, the WP etc., the World Economic Forum had the best consolidation of the facts and issues of this climate change issue.

That link should be read and not all this fun BS about us.
Robo I noticed you did not even post once to Black Lives Matter,
hmmm

Subject: RE: BS: FIRE
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Jul 20 - 06:37 PM

Don'l now your posting agin me! Way to go! That's the spirit! Fill me with more confidence!

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jul 20 - 08:59 PM

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre dosen't matter since theatres aren't open anymore. Yelling fire in Siberia is much the same.

I'll gladly twist horns, bone pick, chew the fat or even eat my hat over a spat with robomatic.

WHAT I WON'T DO IS HAVE A UK POLITICS LIKE ARGUMENT
Perhaps they think it is an artform but I find the nigel critiquees
a waste of electricity.


Examples of UK Arguments

You just don't understand the issues.
David Cameron says that people who email their MPs “don’t understand the issues”. He means “They disagree with us”.
Their real arguement glossary
abrasive: disagrees with me
abusive: disagrees with me
ad hominem: disagrees with me
aggressive: disagrees with me
angry: disagrees with me
Use of hundreds of insults and personal name calling
Argument never changed anybody’s mind!: I'm putting my fingers in my ears and going "la la la".

NOR WILL I SAY 'YOU ARE...

arrogant: disagrees with me, asks for evidence, explains their point of view, has all the arguments, has all the data, is right – dammit!

Part of a small but vocal minority: people who disagree with me (usually socialists, liberals and other lowlifes)

attacking me: disagreeing with me (“I’m being attacked on Twitter!”)
bashing: criticising
bashing me because they find my views offensive: disagreeing with me
biased: biased in the wrong direction (usually to the Left)
bigot: disagrees with me
binary: Where X is true, Y is false.

Calm down!: Shut up!
carp, cavil: catch me out in a contradiction
clever-clever: cleverer than me, dammit!
closed mind: disagrees with me
communication problem: disagrees with me, won’t listen
compromise: give in
cynic: skeptic
NOR DO I BELIEVE
emotional, hostile, militant:
Everyone ELSE has a stupid opinion:

GLOSSARY OF STUPID ARGUMENT TERMS
experts, so-called experts, self-appointed experts: people with facts and figures that undermine my ideas
extreme: disagrees with me
forceful: argumentative
frank discussion: row
glib: tells it like it is
has an agenda: disagrees with me
healthy skepticism: doesn’t attack my favourite prejudices
hostile: disagrees with me, asks for evidence
I’d be a fool to waste my time arguing with these people: I have no arguments. I don’t like your tone!: You’re disagreeing with me. (Or: Oh no, I’m wrong!) I’m bored now: You’ve exposed my shaky logic and shown that my evidence is unreliable. in denial: won’t see things my way. Intolerant: disagrees with me
If you lose your temper, you’ve lost the argument: Even if reality bears you out. irrational and vituperative: disagrees with me, states facts that disprove my proposition
It’s not as black and white as you make out, there are shades of grey, it’s more nuanced: I wish to continue to hold two contradictory opinions that cancel each other out. (Or “I am going to say something so generalised that it’s meaningless, or so vague you can’t counter it.”) It’s time to move on: It’s time for you to shut up and stop complaining, even though we haven’t fixed what you are complaining about. keeping ideas in watertight compartments: holding self-contradictory ideas is impossible
Let’s agree to disagree: Let me be right. (Or “Let’s pretend your proposition doesn’t falsify mine.” In fact “Let’s pretend that two contradictory ideas can co-exist.”)
Let’s not bring politics into this: Let’s all agree with what I say.
Let’s stop this, shall we?: You appear to have minced me into small pieces. Likes the sound of his own voice: Someone else is talking!
metaphorical: made-up
metaphorically true: false
mindful: skeptical, critical (when addressing people who don’t know what those words mean, or think they mean “aggressive”).
moan: put a point of view I disagree with
not living in the real world: disagrees with me
Of silence and speaking, silence is best. (Salvator Rosa): Shut up and let me talk.
On attrappe pas les mouches avec le vinaigre (You don’t catch flies with vinegar): Excuse me, you forgot to massage my ego! And stop coming out with facts that demolish my argument!
opinionated: disagrees with me
outrage: faux outrage
over-excited: disagrees with me.
overthink: ask awkward questions, demand that I define my terms, object to moving goalposts (Or maybe “think”. Or maybe “women talking”, as usual.)
pedant: someone who assumes words have their primary meaning, and not the meaning Humpty Dumpty has given them
pedantry: How dare you point out that my facts are wrong?
People worship science, science is a religion: People are too respectful of science, science has data and evidence, I want to push some line that has no basis in fact at all.
pontificate: put forward a point of view I disagree with
preach: put forward a point of view I disagree with
quibble: see overthink
quibble (noun): question I can’t answer
rant: disagrees with me
Reality is more nuanced: Let’s lose this whole “right”, “wrong” thing.
reframing: distortion
rhetoric: clichés, euphemisms, weasels, manipulation
right in a different way: wrong

Make valid criticisms and complaints (If children do the same, it’s known as a “fuss”, or “silly fuss”.)
self-appointed guardians of rationalism: skeptics
self-proclaimed gurus of atheism: atheist She has strongly held opinions: She disagrees with men in public, the poor fool. shove an opinion in my face/down my throat: state an opinion I disagree with shrill and aggressive: states position too definitely, says things I disagree with, attacks my point of view, produces facts and evidence that disprove my POV
skeptic: attacks my favourite prejudices
snark: criticism
so-called: phenomenon I don’t like
Softly softly catchee monkey: See “mouches”.
split hairs: see quibble
straw man: How dare you point out the weaknesses of my argument!
strident: “Richard Dawkins is too strident” means “Richard Dawkins says what he thinks”. (Or even “Richard Dawkins’ views upset a lot of people.”) strong views: crazily right-wing views, like blaming women for domestic violence
subtle: deliberately ambiguous, hints (see nuanced) subtle and nuanced: statements that can be neither falsified nor confirmed (so we can carry on waffling until the cows come home, or the end of time, whichever is sooner)
subtlety, hints, subtext: obfuscation, misdirection
tact: Don’t disagree with the boss. Don’t argue with your bread and butter. Or the electorate.
take a more balanced approach: stop disagreeing with me
talk out of turn.They’re bad at communication: They don’t listen. They don’t understand what they hear. There’s a fine line between X and Y: X and Y are totally opposed and cancel each other out.
There’s always an off button!: Shut up. Stop complaining.
too good not to be true: false
use language artistically: Don’t say what you mean.
vicious, nasty, attack: debunk religion, spiritualism or quackery
We can never really “know” anything: I am losing.
What is truth?: You have data and I have none.
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must keep silent. (Wittgenstein):I’ve definitely lost.
Why can’t we both be right?: I don’t like this game any more.
Why do you always have to be right?: I’ve run out of arguments and data. Why must you get so angry about everything?: I forgot to pack the arguments and data.
Wankers are dominating the conversation!: They are talking as much as men. (Or “talking”.)
You are being too binary: You are disagreeing with me.
You have a religious belief that you know the Truth and reject any other opinion: Dammit, you’re disagreeing with me again!
You see things too much in black and white: Your views are directly opposed to mine. (Or perhaps “You insist on quoting the law!” Or opining that “You canna change the laws of physics!”)
You’re arrogant!: I’ve run out of words.
You’re entitled to your opinion: You’re wrong.
You’ve got no consideration for others!: You’ve got no consideration for me! The evidence is all around you!
Don’t you have a dictionary?
I’m not doing your research for you!
Don’t you know how to Google?
All mean “I did not base my position on evidence and have no idea where to find any”.
Or: “I am using this word to convey a subtext which may be racist or sexist but of course I’m not going to admit that.”
You need to learn your own language, you’re a terrible writer – and your photos are blurry!: You’re disagreeing with me, and asking me to define my terms, and asking for evidence

Now if we can save time by avoiding the above pitfalls you go first.

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 04:43 AM

"WHAT I WON'T DO IS HAVE A UK POLITICS LIKE ARGUMENT"

You can't, partly because you are totally Trump-obsessed and partly because US politics is so infantile. A lusty argument is good for the soul in spite of the many potential pitfalls. But it helps if you predicate your input on having your information accurate and on knowing what you're talking about. You should try it some time, instead of doing your cod-sarcasm when you're called out.

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 06:36 AM

See I knew that would hook you. :^/
I envy the passion and involvment of UK politics participants.
'Obcessed' is the wrong word. Its like saying early critics of the 3rd Reich were obcessed with Hitler.

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 10:50 AM

Don'l I have been nothing but welcoming to you. All I've pointed out (and that only occasionally with the full knowledge that it will not discourage you) is that the 'infantile' aspect of American politics that Mr. Shaw mentions is somewhat related to the infantalizer (sp?).

Your approach to posting is shall we say 'freeform' as to facts, events, your centricity to intimate knowledge of pretty much everything, and the inevitable mispellings, typos and numbers that are not accurate or relevant. Similar to the so-called commander in chief who you allegedly despise, you may in fact quote a lot of stuff that is true, but then you shade the overall effect with some inaccuracy which 'throws all in doubt'.

A lot of your stuff is FUN. A lot of it is randomly perceptive. I can read something of yours and find myself actually thinking. I enjoy your opinions whether or not I agree with 'em, and I often do, when they are presented as the emotionally charged thoughts that they are. BUT, a lot of your stuff is posted as if you expect to be believed down to the numbers and letters. Alas, you leave us hanging there because you are unreliable in that area. Reliably unreliable.

You remind me of what Randy Newman said about New Orleans: "It's a great place to visit but it's not a place to get your car repaired."

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: Mr Red
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 11:52 AM

Earth's climate ain't binary. It has a million factors - I counted (wanna argue?). Each factor is an analogue quantity. Now I have done regression analysis (well Excel did it to be honest) but I got to maybe 10 factors, and some of 'em were to the second degree (x², y*x² etc stylee) and there was no way I could encompass the whole of it in one comprehensive view.
The kind of thing where two factors interact and one was not a linear progression.

So consider if you will (all at once, all together) a million factors/combinations/permutations/interactions.

So Donuel's (when taken as a whole, not its constituent bits) schpiel does reflect the complexity thereof. Not that I have enough brain to take it all in in one fell swoop. Better seen as a stream of consciousness. Better by far than any alcohol fueled stream of unconsciousness which I perceive in trolls of this parish.   I wonder - will that get a reaction?

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 01:13 PM

Don'ls spiel has some appeal
But is it real?
If his zeal could make me feel
It had some real, I'd keep my meal!


If feelings heal
and Party Teal
keeps our world wide weal
On an even keel
by eating less veal
and growing more meal
We can save our big wide wheel
That would seal the deal
World bells will peel.

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 01:31 PM

Lets give climate change deniers the benefit of the doubt for another decade then, shall we. What's the worst that can happen. Total extinction of all life on this planet would be good riddance as far as the rest of the universe is concerned. All we need is for a few prokaryotes to survive and in another 3 billion years maybe something more deserving might evolve before the sun goes Nova. There will be no third chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 01:48 PM

As a victim of Donuel accusing me of being alcohol-fuelled when I was stone-cold sober, I'd remind you of the two-dimensional nature of Internet forums: what's missing compared with real life is seeing and hearing each other in the flesh, warts and all. I've seen accusations of alcohol-influenced posts many times down the decades, and, invariably, the accuser, who can't know who's alcohol-fuelled and who isn't, is simply desperately lashing out. Avoid the strategy. In real life you could be sued.

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 03:11 PM

Steve, I may resort to Reductio ads Absurdum arguments occasionally to illustrate a point; I like to call it irony or satire which I tend to do on faceache rather than here when I get fed up with trying to respond with reasoned debtate to people trotting out the same repetitive slogans, so I am not sure why I am being accused of ad hominem attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 04:34 PM

Well who's doing that? Your posts are always from the heart, and anyone ad-hominemising you is just a prick. Let me know who and I'll 'ave a word... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jul 20 - 08:52 PM

I have studied brain anatomy since I was 13 but I won't attempt brain surgury. Frankly I have little confidence in Ben Carson either.
While I like real mysteries, speculation, insights and predictions. Thinking ahead is what made Jules Verne great.
I have nothing to contribute to digital science or literture.
So Robo perhaps I should but I still don't know what you are good at or the opposite.

Anyone hear about a fire in Siberia?

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 04:52 AM

This day last year the UK has its hottest day ever recorded. This day this year, most places won't get past twenty degrees. Therefore global warming is a myth.

There's a heatwave in Siberia. Therefore global warming is true.

Damn, I'm confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jul 20 - 05:37 AM

I'd rather be confused than suffer a horrid backache. Physicality probably shapes opinions more than common sense. When climate change hurts more than ignoring it, on a daily basis, the older generations will get serious. By then its probably a little too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Jul 20 - 08:13 PM

Today (Wed 29JUL2020) while dogwalking in Anchorage the atmosphere was warm and as humid as I've ever experienced. Typically the air in central Alaska is dry as a bone. There was haze and a smoky smell in the puffs of light breeze. Word was that was indeed burning bits of Siberia we were sensing.

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jul 20 - 06:54 AM

I remember seeing debris from the Mt St Helens eruption fall from the sky in Rochester NY. It is a small world.

Subject: RE: BS: Siberia on FIRE
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jul 20 - 07:41 AM

The debris looked like a fine black rain against the sunset