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
That question is often ignored. Computer models and predictions are proved wrong all the time by RANDOM occurances.
Could glaciers and sea ice melting, even rises and drops in CO2, actually be healthy for a planet made of rock and metal with water covering 70.8% of the surface?
Nahh..people that get their checks for writing books on record keeping since 1979 know better.
would you sell them to different oil companies so they can continue to produce AND cool the Gulf at the same time?
Now you equate NOAA/NASA graphs as garbage. What graphs do you have? I would like to compare.
Not necessarily oil companies but perhaps them also along with other green energy companies. I would like NOAA/NASA computer models to determine how much cooling is necessary to restore the climate back to pre-industrial revolution temps and to determine how much generation would also be needed to get Co2 levels back to between 250-300ppm in the atmosphere. That way the summertime Arctic Ice would return to normal extent prior to the industrial revolution. That's my agenda.
The phrase climate change more accurately encompasses the full spectrum of changes to the climate system - warming, changes in precipitation patterns, wind patterns, extreme weather events, etc.
And if you look at the scientific community the phrase climate change has had a long history of use. The IPCC issued its first report in 1990 - note the CC in IPCC stands for Climate Change.
"C02 is C02, whether it is volcanic or from burning coal."
True, but what's your point. Climate scientists would point out that there is no trend in CO2 from volcanic activity, while the amount from fossil fuels continues to increase. And that the amount from volcanoes is several orders of magnitude less than the amount from the combustion of fossil fuels.
The best estimate is that volcanoes produce about 200 million tons of CO2 annually. Humans produce about 26.8 billion tons of CO2 annually. Volcanoes produce less than 1% of what humans do. The amount produced by volcanoes is well within the bounds that natural systems could absorb (oceans, forests, etc.), the amount produced by humans exceeds that which natural processes can deal with and therefore the amount in the atmosphere increases.
Not out of the realm of possibility with Pascal and Bernoulli.
It's not about money it is about people. I could care a less about the money. Although,I could make a new safer world with it.
Tunnels can do that easy! How much cold air you want? You don't even have to pull it down they make cold air.
its amazing if a few thousand miles of floating pipes can effect and change a 4.6 billion year old miracle in progress.
that would truely be man-made interference
but possibly very beneficial to man
because science is only worthy of recognition when man is the prize winner
forget about all of those out of control reindeer populations in the tundra thanks to the pipeline
hey Buster, if you become the man that saved a bunch of rich people's coastline, I'll be proud to have engaged in conversation with you. Do you accept small donations and will you reference me as a prefered stockholder if you hit it big?
I can envision what they do but computers would tell me more about what can or can not do. It is just an idea I have. One that many scientists have told me to get computer modeled. But yes for this to work investors would be key. I am sure that all stockholders are preferred. Thanks for your kind words.
No I want Prefered Stock...higher dividend returns
How much do you think it takes to get the idea modeled by an accredited science organization?
I'd start figuring out a business model too, lol
I did send the idea off to Shark Tank. I don't think they are interested or they would have called me by now.
They actually can prove what big oil has been doing when they start the cooling process and we see temps fall and big oil is no longer needed except for war. That is the saddest part of the whole thing.
Big Tunnels will help us keep the oceans cool as we keep firing the fossil.
Now that I think about it, you might want to patent the concept now if you haven't yet.
Pretty sure Gulf Oil companies will want you to be their friend.
I bet the price of oil sort of dictates the price of huge million dollar tunnel construction.
you might want to consider partnering with Big Oil.
remember, its all in the name of science, not money.
just as long as we get rich.
so let's expand on Buster's concept and make it happen so we can all put this CO2 nonsense to rest
Yep! They can do that too but is that to our advantage? If we can regulate the climate better that way then what is the harm? Right now it is out of control and unregulated.
Hindustan Times Article...
Not all big corporations. Just those that wantonly and willfully pollute, lie about that pollution, pay for politicians who well help allow them to continue that pollution, and just generally put profits ahead of people. Yeah, just those ones...
but the U.S. tax payers bailed out the Big U.S. Auto makers. And those machines pollute. Oh but that's union jobs. pollution is worth that, just not thousands of shareholders of oil companies.
makes perfect sense to me.
why?
and forget the arguments of the last presidential election where all we heard was 'it takes soooooo long to build a reactor or a refinery' garbage.
guess what those drones run on. not a coiled up rubberband and plastic propellar.
Besides GHGs gasses trap the heat from nukes also.They do not discriminate as to where the heat comes from. Perhaps, for the next few thousand years. Gulfstream Kinetic energy has them beat too.
And look what happened in Fukushima. Did I spell that right?
Unfortunately the process of catagenesis is a theorical one and once more SCIENCE is developed into the field, then we can produce synthetic hydrocarbon. Vast containers of decaying algae in super-heated, nuclear power driven pressure vats. Man litterally farming his oil.
And this is bad science? come on!
In the end when you burn it it still makes GHG's right?
Your tunnels will not work! You have posted this nonsense on many fora (thanks Nea)and no one endorses your claims. It is a physical impossiblity. The energy available from a 6 mph velocity at your tunnel inlet cannot come close to lifting a unit volume of water 1100' even with a surface eductor. Please show us the calculations that proove otherwise.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?i d=nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-2011-07-18
or
What keeps the Earth cooking? 44 trillion watts of continuous heat!
ScienceDaily (July 19, 2011) — Indianapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, Buffalo, Richmond and Providence -- cities scattered across the eastern half of the United States -- have something in common, all have coal-fired power plants. A new study from the School of Science at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis is among the first to investigate mercury deposits in industrialized city soil near this type of facility.
The study, which appears in the July 2011 issue of the journal Water, Air & Soil Pollution, reports that measurable amounts of the mercury emitted by coal-fired power plants is deposited in local soil and subsequently enters regional watersheds, contaminating fish and making them unsafe for human consumption.
Previous research on the spread of environmental mercury has focused on waterways. The IUPUI researchers looked at land, testing soil samples, detecting hot spots of mercury contamination in central Indiana specifically tied to local coal-fired power plants by chemical signatures. Winds blew the mercury contaminated soil to the northeast and the natural flow of waterways brought the mercury back to the southwest, far into bucolic appearing areas frequented by anglers.
While wind patterns vary by cities, the process in various urban areas is similar with mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants contaminating soil that is then transported downstream. Since cities have a high percentage of impervious surfaces like roads and parking lots, the mercury enters waterways rapidly.
"Mercury from coal-fired power plants has been found in the ice at the North and the South Poles, so the fact that these noxious emissions are swept far away to other areas or even continents, with global environmental impact, is well known. What had not been previously shown is the impact of the mercury on the environments in cities, suburbs and rural areas near specific coal-burning power plants," said senior author Gabriel M. Filippelli, Ph.D., professor of earth sciences at the School of Science at IUPUI.
Coal-fired power plants produce electricity at a relatively low cost. This is false economy, according to Filippelli, who directs the Center for Urban Health at IUPUI, because these cost figures do not factor in the impact of these plants on human health. He is a pioneer in the emerging field of medical geology and served as the first elected chair of the Geological Society of America's Geology and Health Division.
Mercury poisoning can cause permanent neurological damage in humans. Pregnant women and their fetuses are especially susceptible to mercury, much of which enters the body through consumption of contaminated fish.
"We are fouling our local as well as global environment and little has been done to stop it. It all comes down to the choices we make to produce energy. As we gain a better understanding of the deposition and risk patterns of mercury from using dirty coal as our primary energy source in the Midwest, we hopefully will be better able to stop or decrease the emission of this neurotoxin and halt the damage it is causing humans," said Filippelli.
Carrie Lynn Hatcher, a former graduate student in the School of Science at IUPUI, now at the University of Toronto, is the co-author of "Mercury Cycling in an Urbanized Watershed: The Influence of Wind Distribution and Regional Subwatershed Geometry in Central Indiana, USA."
The study was supported by the School of Science at IUPUI and the IUPUI Center for Urban Health.
In a November 2010 publication, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reported that mercury concentrations in Indiana watersheds "routinely exceeded criteria protective of humans and commonly exceeded criteria protective of wildlife." One in seven fish in Indiana contain mercury in levels not fit for human consumption.
Maybe some of this heat is responsible for variations in climate???? No, that would be too logical. Of course it's C02.
It is a very simple formula that Pascal found long ago.
Force 1 is greater than force 2.
Written as F1>F2.
He explained it beautifully also. ANY pressure differential then flow occurs.
Link
All I need to know is F1>F2. Energy is conserved in the pipe as long as it doesn't leak.
No, it's definitely the heat at the center of the Earth. It's been there for billions of years, and sometimes a little comes out. It escapes to the atmosphere through what geologists call MFHVs (Magic Fairy Heat Vents" that open spontaneously every 25,000 years or so, then close abruptly some years later. The recent heating of late, however, is allowing that heat to escape to the atmosphere for a different reason:
Spiked and cleated athletic shoes.
Used to be, golfers and football players wore shoes with shorter cleats, and this allowed only partial perforation of the planet's outermost skin, the SHHM (Subcutaneous Heat-Holding Membrane). But over the past thirty years, cleats and spikes have gotten longer, and those longer spikes are allowing full puncture of the SHHM, and now that heat is rapidly escaping into the air from golf courses, football pitches, and baseball fields everywhere. (In fact, climatologists estimate that this month's Women's FIFA World Cup alone let more heat into the sky than all the CO2 that man has ever released combined.)
Now, athletes have explained that the longer cleats provide "better traction". Right. Just listen to Beck, Watts, or Singer, and they'll tell you the truth: those longer cleats are simply to allow the air to heat up as part of a socialist takeover.
In closing, consider this: why do you think it is that liberals are so eager to make sure the NFL doesn't sit out the season? Can you answer that?
It's kinetic energy doesn't lift it pushes at the inlet and it pushes more than at the surface due to its greater density. In other words it carries with it more energy.
img src="
Link
Watts is being forced to reach ever further, isn't he? The doofus calls it a "seminar", when the literature says "analysis". I've been to one of these. You take a few minutes from your lunch to go to the conference room where a couple of Nike reps stand you in front of a couple of cameras, you swing a golf club three times, and they promise to help you correct your swing for a few easy payments.
And Watts is attempting to turn this into Watergate. Go figure. Guess he's given up on the losing battle of convincing people that the earth isn't getting warmer, so now he's inventing stuff.
Some things will never change.
Never did get an answer from Ricky as to why the success of the coral reef restoration projects in light of a reported ever increasing hostile enviroment.
Guess that wouldn't promote his agenda.
Sometimes silence speaks volumes.
So how is it you know more than NOAA about coral reefs?
Viewing: 51 - 101
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