Heat Waves (4) A Climate Case Study:
Heat Waves (4) A Climate Case Study:
In the last article I wrote that the extreme events of 2011 were providing us with the opportunity to think about climate and how to cope with a warming world. The U.S. is experiencing an extreme heat event this week (Masters @ WU). This heat wave is the consequence of a strong, stationary high pressure system over the central U.S., and it will move to the east over the next few days. Back on July 14th The Capital Weather Gang did a nice write up on the forecast of the heat wave. At the end of this blog are links to my previous blogs on heat waves and human health.
When thinking about weather, climate, and extreme events an important idea is “persistence.” For example, a heat wave occurs when there are persistent high temperatures. Persistent weather patterns occur when high and low pressure systems get large and stuck; that is, they don’t move. In the Figure below, you need to imagine North America and the United States. There is a high pressure center over the proverbial Heartland. With blue arrows I have drawn the flow of air around the high pressure system, and in this case moist air. There is moisture coming from the Gulf of Mexico and, in fact on the date when this was drawn, from the Pacific. This is common in the summer to see both the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific as sources of continental moisture.
Figure 1: Schematic of a high pressure system over the central United States in July. While generic, this is drawn to represent some of the specifics of 2011. The green-shaded area is where there have been floods in 2011. The brown-shaded area represents sustained drought in the southern part of the nation.
At the center of this high pressure system there is a suppression of rain, because the air is moving downward. This sets up a situation where the surface heats from the Sun’s energy. There is not much mixing and cooling, because of the suppression of the upward motion that produces rain. Hence, if this high pressure system gets stuck, then there is persistent heat. This is a classic summer heat wave.
Let’s think about it some more. There is lot of moisture being drawn around the edge of the high pressure system, and this moisture contributes to the discomfort of people. People – just a short aside about people: if we think about heat and health, then we are concerned about people’s ability to cool themselves. It is more difficult to cool people when it is humid because sweat does not evaporate. Suppose that in addition to this moisture, there is a region where the ground is soaked with water from flooding. Then on top of already moist air coming from the Gulf, there is local evaporation into the air being warmed by the Sun. If on the interior of the high, where the rain is suppressed, there is hot, wet air, then it becomes dangerous heat.
It’s not easy to derive a number that describes dangerous heat. But in much of the eastern U.S. a number that somehow combines temperature and humidity is useful. Meteorologists often use the heat index. It’s the summer time version of “it’s 98 degrees, but it feels like 105.” For moist climates, the heat index is one version of the “it feels like” temperature. Jeff Masters tells me that in Newton, Iowa yesterday, July 17, 2011, the heat index was 126 degrees F. (see here, and 131 F in Knoxville, Iowa on July 18)
Another measure of heat and humidity is the dew point; that is, the temperature at which dew forms, and effectively limits the nighttime low. The dew points in Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are currently very high and setting records. Here is a map of dew point for July 19, 2011.
Figure 2: Exceptionally high dew points centered on Iowa.
Now if I was a public health official, and I was trying to understand how a warming planet might impact my life, then here is how I would think about it. First, the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific are going to be warmer, and hence, there will be more humid air. This will mean, with regard to human health for the central U.S., heat waves will become more dangerous, without necessarily becoming hotter. It is also reasonable to expect heat waves will become more frequent and last longer, because those persistent, stuck high pressure systems are, in part, forced by the higher sea surface temperatures. If I am a public health official here is my algorithm – heat waves are already important to my life, and they are likely to get more dangerous, more frequent, and of longer duration. But by how much? Do I need to know by how much before I decide on a plan for action?
If I think about the air being more humid, then I might expect to see trends in the heat index. I might expect to see trends in dew points, and trends in the nighttime minimum temperatures getting higher. (That’s where a greenhouse effect really matters.) I worry about persistent heat, warm nights, and the inability of people and buildings to cool themselves. I worry about their being dangerous heat in places where people and emergency rooms are not used to dangerous heat – not acclimated to heat – not looking for heat-related illness.
Let’s go back to the figure. Rain is suppressed in the middle of the high pressure system, but around the edge of the high pressure system it will rain; there will be storms. (see Figure 3 at the end) The air around the edge of high is warm and very wet. Wet air is energetic air, and it is reasonable to expect local severe storms. (See Severe Storm on Lake Michigan) And if the high pressure is persistent, stuck, then days of extreme weather are possible. If this pattern sets up, then there is increased likelihood of flooding. If I am that public health official, then I am alerted to the possibility of more extreme weather and the dangers thereof. But, again, can the increase of extreme weather be quantified? Do I need to quantify it before I decide on a plan of action?
Still with the figure - what about that region of extended drought and the heat from the high pressure system? Dehydration becomes a more important issue. As a public health official, I start to see the relation of the heat event to other aspects of the weather, the climate. I see the relation to drought. I see the flood, and it’s relation to the winter snow pack and spring rains.
So what I have presented here is to look at the local mechanisms of the weather – what are the basic underlying physics responsible for hot and cold, wet and dry – for moist air? If I stick to these basic physics, and let the climate model frame the more complex regional and global picture, what can I say about the future? Do I have to have a formal prediction to take action? Here in 2011, I see drought and flood and hot weather and warm oceans that interact together to make a period of sustained, dangerous heat. It does not have to “set a record” to convey the reality of the warming earth. It tells me the type of event that is likely to come more often, of longer duration, and of, perhaps, of greater intensity. If I am a public health planner, then I can know this with some certainty. The question becomes, how do I use that information in my planning?
r
Figure 3: Radar loop showing precipitation around the edge of the large high pressure system in the middle of the continent. July 19, 2011.
Previous Blogs on Heat Waves
Hot in Denver: Heat Waves (1)
Heat Waves (2): Heat and Humans
Heat Waves (3): Role of Global Warming
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 — Blog Index
the Earth's current climate scenario may be influenced by the progress of humans. but I'm not sure its CO2 that is the end-all-be-all reason behind such changes.
heat afterall is an engine of life. past history shows extinction events are influenced by radical drops in temperature within a timeframe.
the last great extinction event 65 million years ago is theorized now to be somewhat of a global double-whammy, large space impact combined with geological alterations caused by tectonic activity, producing a change to climate.
Every event plays a roll in the climate future.
whether by the hands of man or by nature, the Earth is constantly vulnerable to change.
there is just not enough time for man to understand all he sees and experiences. For every million things that effect one large thing, there are a trillion other things that effect the million things effecting that one large thing.
its deep, i know.
The Risk: WMD Proliferation 20% likelihood of an attack involving a nuke in the next 15 years.
The Response: Trillions on weapons, billions on non-proliferation
The Risk: International terrorism Although acts of terrorism are highly likely to occur, the targeted nature of the phenomenon usually limits the scale of destruction.
The Response: A trillion-dollar global "war on terror"
The Risk: Systemic economic crisis
The Response: Massive stimulus spending, increased financial regulation.
The Risk: Rapid climate change The IPCC places the likelihood that the global climate is warming because of human activities %u2014 chiefly the burning of fossil fuels that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere %u2014 at 90 percent or greater, an incredibly rare degree of certainty on any subject in the scientific world. There is also great certainty about the severe impacts those changes will have, should they go unaddressed.
The Response: Relative to the risk, feeble
Bottom line: "The US government has invested trillions of dollars in efforts to prevent and mitigate the risks of weapons of mass destruction, global terrorism and systemic economic crises, because the consequences of inaction are considered unacceptable. These investments were made despite significant uncertainty about the frequency with which these catastrophic events might occur. When it comes to climate change, the consequences of failing to appropriately manage risks are also unacceptable. Meanwhile, the scientific community is as close to certain as humanly possible about the prospects for global crisis. Without action, the overwhelming scientific consensus asserts, a climate catastrophe that threatens billions of lives will almost surely occur. Such a dire and certain security threat calls for an urgent and financially significant response from US policymakers. Simply put, climate change is a serious threat to the United States and the world. Military leaders understand it, the national security community understands it, and it's time our civilian leaders responded accordingly."
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a nontechnical online magazine that covers global security and public policy issues, especially related to the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. It has been published continuously since 1945, when it was founded by former Manhattan Project physicists after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago. The Bulletin's primary aim is to inform the public about nuclear policy debates while advocating for the international control of nuclear energy. It is currently published by SAGE Publications.
One of the driving forces behind the creation of the Bulletin was the amount of public interest surrounding atomic energy at the dawn of the atomic age. In 1945 the public interest in atomic warfare and weaponry inspired contributors to the Bulletin to attempt to inform those interested about the dangers and destruction that atomic war could bring about.[1] To convey the particular peril posed by nuclear weapons, the Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock in 1947. The original setting was seven minutes to midnight. The minute hand of the Clock first moved closer to midnight in response to changing world events in 1949, following the first Soviet nuclear test. The Clock is now recognized as a universal symbol of the nuclear age. In the 1950s, the Bulletin was involved in the formation of Pugwash, an annual conference of scientists concerned about nuclear proliferation, and, more broadly, the role of science in modern society.
Throughout the history of the Bulletin there have been many different focuses of the contributors to the Bulletin. In the early years of the Bulletin it was separated into three distinct stages.[6] These stages, as defined by founder Eugene Rabinowitch in "The Atomic Age" were Failure, Peril, and Fear. The "Failure" stage surrounded the Bulletin's failed attempts to convince the American people that the best and most effective way to control them was to eliminate their use. In the "Peril" stage, the contributors focused on warning readers about the dangers of full scale atomic war. In the "Fear" stage, the unsuccessful attempts at deterring readers from supporting the disarmament of nuclear weapons led many, including the contributors to the Bulletin, to question the patriotism of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_of_the_Atom ic_Scientists
FAILURE, PERIL, FEAR...All of the ingredients for a successful 501 C corp publication.
agreed
healthy economy menas healthier population
compare human life expectancy from 1979-2011 worldwide to any other 32 year period in history.
FAILURE
PERIL
FEAR
nice graphic Buster
If that's true, and if you believe it, then that's all the more reason to be concerned enough about warming to do something about it, don't you think? In many pieces--and not just the one to which I linked--scientists have expressed their worries; isn't it time to get on board?
Did you not actually read the piece? Yes, it mentions "fossil fuels"; you can do a page search for it. And in case you haven't been keeping up, it's called "global warming"; the global part means it's effecting us all, not just here in the U.S.
I really am indulging myself replying to you because I think you are an idiot. But, quickly:
The biking plan is fine so far. Hopefully more on that next summer.
Batteries are recycleable.
Zero runoff is correct. If your neighbor had runoff going into your yard, would you think you had the right to complain? We all live togather and the cost from preventing pollution in runoff would be passed on to the consumer. People have always complained about things like public education, sanitary laws, etc. but they are better than not having them. When ws the last time you are in a restaurant that was not inspected?
I thought you'd like Walmart. I lived in Kodiak when Walmart came and the standard of living went up for most of the community due to lower prices. Walmart is neutral to positive for small communities; if the community is really a community, it survives just fine.
As for the Astros game: 20 miles is pretty doable. 80 miles on an electric scooter isn't so much problem. Niether are poles and luaggage really. For dates, public transport, cabs or even bikes. That is the point of raising the taxes on gas so high: you can chose to spend it but for single person trips, take your electric bike.
By debt, I meant national debt.
I agree there are no easy solutions for trucks within the first few years but later on:
automated driverless low profile vehicles. they are fully capable of being electric. Electric busses exist and so the battery capability is there, etc., same thing with smaller container boats.
micro canals: closed tubes that act like those old bank teller pneumatic tubes only horizontal and using water.
Finally, for trucks, shipping only the parts that need to be shipped, i.e. raw materials. Everythign else can be done locally. that still leaves local transportation but that is a much eisier problem to solve.
Wind, water and solar all work. they will work better in coming years. I don't understand the self righteous/happiness tone from the frognews crowd stating they won't work.
Fortunatly, not all countries are as corrupt and bass-ackwards the US has become. Many are developing these technologies. Soon we ('we' because I am US till I die and proud of it even if I think the GOP is to politics what crotchless panties are to acting success), anyway, soon we will be like the high school hero who is too cool to bother to listen in class and then ends up working for the other kids.
Since you have, without obvious thought, derided all my solutions, what are yours? Remember the goal is to solve the problem.
You got me. I am the editor of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and after realizing you were on to me, I logged on and made a quick change to cover my tracks.
Sigh...
yupper, I like your style.
Fair comment. I don't know. Mining isn't my thing. I imagine that there are ways if people really wanted to but that is a hope not an answer.
I don't know that answer.
But get on board what? Is there some sort of other planet to zoom to?
If all of a sudden man stopped burning fossil fuel, does the Earth have the ability to naturally resettle its atmosphere to exact levels scientists believe is "normal"?
Why not invest in artifical re-forrestation on a massive scale? Why stop fossil fuel production? Why not counter balance?
How are you going to tell the continents to stop moving?
How are you going to tell the Sun to stay relatively calm?
Is there evidence that preventing arctic ice from melting, as impossible as it seems, is a longterm benefit to life on Earth?
This AGW complex is worthy of fantasy science fiction litterature.
Here is something scary. Although Southern Arctic Ice area was very close to a record since 1979 shown on this graphic in 2010
Global Arctic Ice area shown on this graphic is at a record low high level this year since 1979.
I'll take the planet I know instead of the gamble on the one that happens if AGW is true.
Aside from simple esthetics of living like adults instead of fat little kids, what's the cost of fixing this one?
Sigh...
the key words are gamble and if
the future of the world may be up to the next species of human.
the key words are may be
above all, I think our species will continue to thrive dispite any climate changes that are forseen. If something drastic happens, which is very possible because that's just the mantra of the universe, all bets are off. Either way, we have no choice but to keep on keeping on.
One particular blogger on this site dismissed the idea with a ridiculous comment that the earth's core and the unbelievable amount of heat stored there could not have an effect on climate. Simply because that would further destroy the illogical and unscientific belief of his that CO2 could be having such a great effect. These article demonstrates how great the heat is in the earth's core and mantle and how its escape could be affecting the climate. All of that heat has to be warming the oceans.
Link
Link
fossil fuel has only been around as long as life has.
if there were no forces of heat and pressure to produce hydrocarbons, then we would not be here.
CO2, no matter how much or how little, luckily, has been around at least as long as life on Earth.
and to think man has the audacity to label himself the king of change
thank you Sun
I think most people who are worried about global warming aren't labeling humans as anything great, rather the opposite. They are worried that we have about as much importance to the universe as ants on a floating log do. If the log rolls over, we all die. Or most of us do.
I think it is the people who cannot conceive of a world without humans that have the grandeur complex, even if subconsciously.
Keeping on doing what? Are you saying if global warming is happening, we shouldn't do anything?
You do realize that heat in Earth's interior has been there for billions of years, don't you? Even through many glacial periods. What would suddenly be releasing it now, and doing so in an entirely undetectable way?
Okay. Well, I'm confused. On the one hand, we've got one person on here for some reason bringing up my construction industry pedigree, and now you've linked to one of the goofiest denialist articles I've ever read. "Joseph A Olson, author is a Registered Engineer involved in construction, who has a lifelong commitment to functional mass transit and to vast improvements in auto efficiency and safety, and is also opposed to political manipulation thru FALSE SCIENCE." (What does it take for ClimateRealists to consider a person an expert? A pulse? That would explain the love affair some have with Anthony Watts, I suppose...)
The guy writes of a mysterious force called "geo-nuclear". Hmmm. After reading it, I'm more inclined to go with my "Cleats and Spiked Shoes" theory of global heat escape.
Without the sun we would have a snowball Earth that's for sure. Thankfully it's energy output is pretty stable and we are the perfect distance from it. If it were to emit more energy our oceans would boil away. Likewise if it were to emit less energy the oceans would freeze. You can say the Earth and Sun are in equilibrium to one another in that we are the correct distance from the suns energy output to keep our oceans in a liquid state.
Here is another analogy that is similar. Lets use a fossil fuel power plants steam cycle as an example.
You have the generator the steam turbine and the boiler. The Boiler can produce well over one million pounds of superheated steam per hour at 2000 pounds per square inch at 1000 degrees F. Lets say that can give about 200MWs of electrical generation. Now the pressure,temperature and steam flow from the boiler can remain stable and not fluctuate one bit as long as the load on the generator is stable. That equilibrium represents a certain amount of fuel and air flow also.
Now lets throw a wrench into the steam cycle. Let's double the insulation on all the steam pipes and on the boiler. What would happen to the steam cycle?
Less heat would escape to the atmosphere so you would still have to make the 200MW's which would mean the boiler would still produce the same pressure,temperature and flow to the turbine to get the 200MW's of generation. However, it would burn less fuel and consume less air making it more efficient because the insulation is trapping more heat and so less fuel and air is needed to produce the same amount of power making it more efficient.
Now Lets increase the load on the generator. What happens? Lets say the load dispatcher wants an increase of 5MWs on the generator. The DC current on the 2 pole rotor is increased a certain amount and this is instantly transferred to the stator and is converted to AC power. Locked in and rotating at 3600 rpm that gives you 60 cycle ac power to the stator. The Flyball Governor on the Steam Turbine holds the turbine speed constant at 3600 rpm. Initially the new load on the generators rotor slowed the turbine down maybe 1 rpm but the flyball governor takes over and emits more steam from the boiler to keep the speed at a constant 3600 rpm.
So when that happens the boiler pressure drops. However, there is a control system on the boiler that
is set to maintain set point for steam pressure on the boiler 2000 psi and 1000 degrees. The control system senses a drop in pressure and it then calls for more air first then fuel to make up for the small loss of pressure bringing it back to 2000 lbs.
The lesson here is once equilibrium is upset a change occurs weather it is a change in insulation on boiler or a change in the insulation of the Earths atmosphere.
Not only billions of years ago but billions of years ago it was much hotter. It has been cooling ever since and will continue to do so until there is no more heat left but that is also billions of years into the future.
Arctic also sees heat wave, on course for record ice melt
Area of sea ice the size of Pennsylvania melts every day, data show
By Andrea Mustain
OurAmazingPlanet
updated 7/20/2011 7:06:47 PM ET
This year could be well on its way toward earning a dubious spot in the record books. Arctic sea ice has melted away with astonishing speed in the first half of July, at an average rate of about 46,000 square miles per day, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo.
That's equivalent to an area roughly the size of Pennsylvania melting into the sea every 24 hours.
"That's relatively fast," said Julienne Stroeve, a research scientist at the NSIDC.
Already, sea ice extent — how far ice extends across the ocean — this year is below the extent for the same time in 2007, a year which, in September, saw the lowest sea ice coverage ever recorded.
As of July 17 this year, sea ice covered 2.92 million square miles of the frigid Arctic Ocean. That may sound like a lot, but it's 865,000 square miles below the 1979 to 2000 average.
However, Stroeve said, much of what happens in the coming days depends on the weather."Unless things change in the next few weeks, we might have a new record for July," Stroeve told OurAmazingPlanet. "Certainly overall, we think the ice is thinner overall leading up to this season than it was in 2007."
The ebb and flow of Arctic sea ice is a yearly occurrence. Each fall, as Northern Hemisphere temperatures drop, ice extends outward, away from the land and out over the ocean; each spring, with the onset of warmer weather, the ice recedes. However, the reach of the sea ice has declined steadily since satellite records began in 1979.
Researchers have found that the earlier Arctic ice begins to melt in the spring, the greater the overall melt for the year as a whole.
In 2011, in the Chukchi Sea, near Alaska, and the Barents, Kara and Laptev Seas, near Finland and Russia, NASA researchers found melt began two weeks to two months earlier than the 1979 to 2000 average.
Story: Polar bear cubs die as ice melts, swims get longer
This year, much of the Arctic has been in the grip of a warm spell.
Like the conditions that sparked the heat wave running roughshod over huge parts of the United States, a high pressure system has been parked over the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, since June, bringing warmer temperatures to the Arctic as a whole. Air temperatures at the North Pole are a full 11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit (6 to 8 degrees Celsius) warmer than usual.
In addition, high pressure systems are associated with clear skies, Stroeve said, so the ice is often at the mercy of the sun's rays for the full Arctic day, prompting further melting.
Although Stroeve said a change in the weather could dramatically change the ultimate fate of the Arctic's sea ice for 2011, she said a new record isn't out of the question.
"It's too early to say we're going to have a new record low," Stroeve said, "but I would say it's certainly possible with the way things have been going."
Link
but what are we going to do?
seriously, what do you think we should do to keep a planet's climate to our liking?
keeping on breathing, eating, replicating, evolving.
everything we know, as a species, is rooted in learning by catastrophe. but here we are, a post iceage humanoid that has endured through thousands of years of warming, and hopefully can endure more. because however or whoever or whatever you want to believe is the reason for global warming, its warming and there's nothing 7 billion people can do about it. either cope or be destroyed, those are the only choices the universe gives us.
Man has never seen heat waves like the ones of 65 million, 210 million,240 million and 550 million years ago. God help us if we do. Why you think God made man in a cold climate?
well the continental formation today allows for a sort of loop current for the world's oceans from pole to equator.
perhaps God's plan is to change land masses' climates like leaving fields fallow. Except on a time scale of millions of years. theoretically the isthmus of panama will eventually sever from south america and the GOM will flow freely again. that's not good news for a pole with no solid continent.
its happened before. it'll happen again.
Link
maybe that panama canal that brought us economic prosperity is slowly having an influence on polar circulation.
Link
I think ole Hansen has you pinned!
by Andrea Mustain
Date: 20 July 2011 Time: 04:38 PM ET
Link
Good then in the meantime we can get millions of years of good clean kinetic energy electrical power from both the Gulfstream and Yucatan currents and possibly Loop Current.
I'm all for it.
Preferred Stockholder
How can anyone call it "record melt" when it's only 30 years of data? Yet another deceiving term by the warmists. In the 1920s, the North Pole was ice-free.
But was the rest of the North Arctic Ice free then also along with the North Pole?
cold = bad
No, it wasn't. Not remotely close. There were a handful of stories from sailors working inside the Arctic Circle north of Europe who reported that after a period of strong winds and warm weather, one area that generally had ice temporarily had none. No, as mentioned here before, research has shown that neither Arctic Sea ice extent or thickness have been this low since at least the beginning of the Holocene--that is, at least 10,000 years.
Folks need to wake up and smell the GHGs...
Too much warm too quickly = catastrophic
Viewing: 301 - 351
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 — Blog Index