I Red-orange skies and wildfires

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter fog37
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The red-orange skies during recent wildfires are primarily caused by the scattering of sunlight by smoke particles. Smaller smoke particles scatter shorter blue wavelengths more effectively, resulting in a predominance of red wavelengths in the light that reaches the observer. Additionally, larger smoke particles contribute to wavelength-independent scattering, enhancing the overall red-orange appearance of the sky. This phenomenon is similar to the effects seen during sunrise and sunset, where the sun's light passes through more atmosphere, filtering out shorter wavelengths. The combination of these scattering processes explains the striking color of the skies observed during the wildfires.
fog37
Messages
1,566
Reaction score
108
TL;DR Summary
Reason why skies are red-orange due to the recent wildfires
Hello and happy Sunday.

I am trying to fully understand what causes the red-orange sky color during the recent and tragic wildfires on the west coast.

In general, sunlight encounters airborne particles in the normal sky (assuming no clouds or smoke). The air particles (I guess they are truly molecules, not really particles) are smaller in size than any of the wavelengths of sunlight in the visible spectrum. Given that particle size < wavelength, the smaller blue wavelengths are scattered more than the red wavelengths (Rayleigh scattering, inverse 4th power wavelength dependence). The extra scattering suffered by short wavelengths essentially removes more blue radiation from the starting sunlight beam that red radiation. This means that particles in normal sky (no fog or smoke) make the sky appear blue (short radiation) and the sunlight beam contain less blue radiation. Removing from the forward direction is scattering. Question: in which direction should point a spectrometer to verify that sunlight has less of blue wavelength component? Should we point it straight toward the sun? That would probably damage the device though...

When sunlight instead interacts with particles having size > wavelengths of visible light, scattering becomes wavelength-independent and all wavelengths are equally scattered.This is what happens with clouds which are white. So clouds are an example of wavelength-independent multiple scattering. Question: what if we had Rayleigh (wavelength dependent) multiple scattering? Would the overall effect be a more pronounced Rayleigh scattering?

Orange-red skies: in the case of the orange skies caused by the recent wildfires, the sky looks orange-red because (I believe):
a) sunlight is first "reddened" by Rayleigh scattering caused light being scattered by smoke particles with size< lambda. These smoke particles remove a larger portion of the blue energy from the beam. The beam has mostly red light.
b) The now reddened sunlight beam then collides with an area of smoke particles with sizes both smaller and larger than the visible wavelengths of light. Overall, wavelength-independent multiple scattering takes place and the sky becomes red-orange.

Is my understanding correct? Thank you as usual.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/...northwest-caused-by-smoke-from-siberian-fires

I searched your question on google and this is what I found.

"The smoke particles from the fires allow sunlight's longer wavelength colors like red and orange to get through while blocking the shorter wavelengths of yellow, blue and green. Those longer wavelengths give the sky a red or orange tinted appearance. Similarly, during sunrise and sunset times when the sun is near the horizon, sunlight has to travel through more of Earth's atmosphere to get to you. The additional atmosphere filters out the shorter wavelengths and allows the longer wavelengths to get through, providing reds and oranges during those times. "
P.S. Particulate matter in wood smoke has a size range near the wavelength of visible light (0.4 – 0.7 micrometers). So it makes sense that the visible light having a longer wavelength can circumvent the smoke particles and therefore be detected by your eyes.

1600010641552.png


1600010564349.png
 
  • Like
Likes fog37 and Hamiltonian
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top