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
Video:www.weatherbell.com
Joe Bastardi hired by start-up firm WeatherBell
By Jason Samenow
Bastardi joins renowned forecaster Joseph D'Aleo
Less than three weeks after resigning as AccuWeather's chief long-range forecaster, Joe Bastardi announced Friday that he has accepted the position of chief forecaster at WeatherBell, a fledgling weather consulting firm.
WeatherBell has also hired veteran meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, who served as the Weather Channel's first director of meteorology.
Based in New York City, WeatherBell Analytics LLC will offer meteorological products and services geared toward helping businesses manage weather risk. The company is funded entirely by angel investors.
continued....
So in your mind, the proven fact that the bottom (and all other) layers of the ocean are demonstrably warming doesn't refute your personal belief that the bottom layers of the ocean are cooling? Can you please tell us the seemingly impossible physics and logic behind that belief?
Seriously? Again? Look, frustration is no reason to be uncivil. That could earn you another ban, and--worse--force me and others to start ignoring you. Again.
July 20, 2011
FIRST thing you should know about the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - he's kinda touchy about the whole lordship thing.
The controversial British climate change sceptic appeared at the National Press Club yesterday to debate Richard Dennis, of the Australia Institute.
Among his statements about the ''non-problem'' of climate change - and the startling assertion that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - the peer brandished some evidence of his own.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Not evidence of anthropomorphic climate change, obviously, but evidence of his title.
This week the House of Lords published an impertinent ''cease and desist'' letter demanding Lord Monckton stop claiming to be a member of the British upper house (where hereditary peers are no longer guaranteed a seat).
Asked about this yesterday, Lord Monckton turned to the debate's moderator with what can only be described as a lordly air.
''Sir,'' he said, and whipped out his British passport, nestled conveniently in an interior pocket of his well-cut suit.
''Would you be kind enough to read out the words in this box on this passport page?''
The moderator was kind enough.
''The holder is the right honourable Christopher Walter Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,'' he recited.
Lord Monckton thanked him.
''The House of Lords says I am not a member of it. My passport says I am. Get used to it!''
Further, he said, ad hominem questions of such a ''futile and drivelling'' nature were beside the point.
Lord Monckton's point, driven home with plenty of vivacity and some charm, was that climate change is a ''non-problem''.
But it was somewhat over-shadowed by his theatricality (he once mocked the Australian accent with a deliberately mangled pronunciation of ''carbon tax''), the large fan club present (he was applauded loudly and two men gave him a standing ovation), and his mood switches when challenged on questions of evidence - be it of climate change, or of his aristocratic credentials.
In a sign of just how polarised the debate is, security guards were posted around the room, and the club's chief executive warned against shoe-throwing.
Dennis countered the Viscount by saying sensible people look at the evidence and act accordingly. He likened climate change action (which he says should come in the form of a price on carbon) to taking out insurance.
''We can bet the house in case Lord Monckton is right or we can insure the house in case he's wrong,'' Dennis said.
Sshhh. Don't mention the House.
See how this particular type of denialism works?
1) A denialist makes a statement that presents something as fact.
2) Someone produces actual data that scientifically refutes that statement.
3) The denialist responds by by saying, "What you said may be true, but it doesn't change my belief."
4) The responder, seeking clarification, asks the denialist if, indeed, he's going to stick by his original statement despite the fact that it's false.
5) The denialist says, "Empirical data may have proven it be false, but I don't believe it's false."
It's no wonder that so many preposterously and emphatically wrong myths continue to linger: the belief that cigarettes don't cause cancer, that the planet's not warming, that Anthony Watts knows more about climatology than my two-year-old niece, that tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy create jobs.
Simply incredible, if you ask me...
Well, that certainly explains a whole lot. ;-)
We want to have our own Fleet of Vehicles to use in a effort to streamline our Response times after a Disaster.
Logistics are 90% of what we do and having Trucks alongside our Inventory in the Atlanta Warehouse would allow us a faster response.
A Tax Credit Donation will allow us to expand and the donater a tangible Tax Credit as well.
Contact Paul Timmons/Presslord if interested.
Really?! Ohmigod, that is such a huge relief! You have no idea how very concerned tens of thousands of climatologists, biologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, farmers, etc., have been; this news will come as an ultra-pleasant surprise to them all! Of course, they may be disappointed when they find out that literally millions of hours of scientific research have all been for naught. And, too, they'll have a new concern: your statement invalidates the very laws of physics, so it'll be back to the drawing board for a lot of them and off to a bitter retirement for the rest. But in the grand scheme of things, I think you may have just made their day!
What do you expect no sun light gets there to warm it and any heat there will rise to the surface anyways!
I think American people want truth of which NOAA hands out all the time but FOX ignores that!
That after just a day or so of reading your comments, it is clear you have a habit just making stuff up.
Yes and they recently found more of that occurring in many spots in the ocean. Still that heat will make it to the surface because of convection currents and the simple fact that heat rises. That heat doesn't stay there long.
For a start.
Please,,continue...though.
Im Phascinated
True...though I'm surprised it took you an entire day to reach that conclusion. ;-) Not just anti-science, but un-science.
Dang nabbit Pat could you stop posting those NOAA graphs. The refuseniks can't stand all the NOAA data!
Well,Im kinda a stickler for the Facts and real data.
Hope ya doing fine. Hows fishing treating yas?
Preferred Stock
what do you say?
Sure! Sounds good to me.
Yes. Likewise.
I am in fantastic shape now and no C at all. Fishing is great. I caught a real nice bass this year on lake Arieta in Auburndale Florida when visiting my sister. That one didn't get away but I did release her though.
Link
The other obvious point to make is that staged debate does not solve scientific problems or change the rules of physics or chemistry.
A person with no scientific qualifications like Monckton who is attempting to challenge science need to actually do some science rather than put on a good show.
The fact that ALL the science he purports to present in his shows is utterly wrong doesnt seem to worry his cheer squad.
This is why they get called deniers rather than skeptics.
I would love to see a debate between him and NOAA instead of an economist.That would be hilarious.
Sometimes independent study makes one much more objective than being brainwashed by the universities. Medical schools are a prime example. Doctors graduate believing that drugs are the only remedy, because the pharma companies run the medical schools.
After reading you comments in Masters' blog on this very subject, I hereby award you 0 points for accuracy, but 100 points for persistence in the face of science. Few others could or would consistently spout such scientifically-baseless nonsense, and yet with such conviction. Kudos, my friend. Please enjoy another pina colada on me! ;-)
Counter to what the frustrated--and somewhat paranoid--denialosphere is saying, Heuer absolutely did not "gag" CERN's scientist. To the contrary, he asked them to present the results of CLOUD clearly and honestly and with no interpretive spin, especially before the paper comes out.
(Original German here)
Now, the phrase that
Flat-Earthersdenialists are in a tizzy about is the following: "Man muss sich darüber klar sein, dass es sich bei der Höhenstrahlung nur um einen von sehr vielen Parametern handelt", which, roughly translated, means "One must realize that cosmic radiation is only one of a great many parameters [that dictates the formation of clouds]" The denialist spin is that, gee, Heuer knows the results must disprove AGWT, so he's hedging his bets by saying that cosmic rays play only a small part. But another way of looking at it--and, based on Heuer's history, the likely answer--is that the results almost certainly bolster AGWT, and Heuer doesn't want the results lost in the pro-pollution Murdoch-ian echo chamber.Correct!
Especially when more of them get industrialized and become GHG emitters!
That's a big lie. Doctors know there are many other cures for ailments other than drugs. Such as radiation and surgery.
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
Well, we all shine on
Everyone, c'mon
-10
Link
Viewing: 151 - 201
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