Is Our Infrastructure Ready For Rising Temperatures? 416
Hugh Pickens writes "Megan Garber writes that last weekend, a US Airways flight taxiing for takeoff from Washington's Reagan National Airport got stuck on the tarmac for three hours because the tarmac had softened from the heat, and the plane had created — and then sunk into — a groove from which it couldn't, at first, be removed. So what makes an asphalt tarmac, the foundation of our mighty air network, turn to sponge? The answer is that our most common airport surface might not be fully suited to its new, excessively heated environment. One of asphalt's main selling points is precisely the fact that, because of its pitchy components, it's not quite solid: It's 'viscoelastic,' which makes it an ideal surface for the airport environment. As a solid, asphalt is sturdy; as a substance that can be made from — and transitioned back to — liquid, it's relatively easy to work with. And, crucially, it makes for runway repair work that is relatively efficient. But those selling points can also be asphalt's Achilles heel. Viscoelasticity means that the asphalt is always capable of liquefying. The problem, for National Airport's tarmac and the passengers who were stuck on it, was that this weekend's 100+-degree temperatures were a little less room temperature-like than they'd normally be, making the asphalt a little less solid that it would normally be. 'As ironic and as funny as the imgur seen round the world is, it may also be a hint at what's in store for us in a future of weirding weather. An aircraft sinking augurs the new challenges we'll face as temperatures keep rising.'"
Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of bus stops where buses are expected to sit for a while are paved with concrete because of this problem. When it's really hot out, buses sink into asphalt.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
While kids using buckled footpaths as skateboard jumps is impresive, it pales in comparison to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf0l3NO-35U [youtube.com] from Wisconsin just a few days ago.
Re: (Score:3)
There were several issues I had with that video but the biggest one was the person filming. At first they do a great job of holding their phone (I'm presuming it's a phone) steady so you can see the SUV launch into the air, but then they turn and twist the phone so it's all but impossible to watch what happens afterwards.
Folks, if you're going to film something like this, DO NOT TWIST THE CAMERA! Hold it steady and pan left/right so people can see what you're trying to show them. You don't have to be a f
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Informative)
Correction to the article, runways are made of thick concrete. Ramps and Taxiways are made of asphalt since they don't need to absorb the impact of an airplane landing gear traveling at 100+ MPH.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
Actually you have it the wrong way around. Most runways are asphalt with concrete landing areas while taxiways are concrete so aircraft can sit on them or long periods of time. Asphalt is used because it does not have expansion joints and is less susceptible to heaving. Here [antigoconstruction.com] is an example of a USAF airfield with just that configuration. Note that the taxi ways are a light colour while most of the runway is dark. In the text it explains exactly what kind of asphalt was used. Here is another example [goo.gl] in Alaska. Notice that the aircraft are sitting on concrete while most of the rest of the taxiways and runways are asphalt.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A highway engineer of my acquaintance told me that in states such as California it's common to use concrete topped w/ asphalt for intersections and a distance out to support the vehicles stopped for traffic lights. If you want to see what happens to heavily t
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)
Lots of bus stops where buses are expected to sit for a while are paved with concrete because of this problem. When it's really hot out, buses sink into asphalt.
I think the actual reason for the concrete is that the frequent stops by heavy vehicles "pull" the blacktop like taffy, making a wavy spot on the road.
You get the same effect at stop lights on highways/boulevards that carry a lot of heavy vehicles.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This particular issue, no. However, Canada has other issues [nytimes.com] based on receding permafrost and other effects. Climate change is expected to cost the Government of Canada about $5 billion in direct costs by the end of the decade and between $21 billion and $43 billion by 2050.
I expect the story is pretty much the same around the world, that countries are facing infrastructure costs related to the changing climate.
Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, a tarmac can simply be maintained for a longer life. I am not sure if ripping it off and rebuilding it would be socialism, but it would definitely be stupid.
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know things are heating up but really I remember 100+ temperatures when I was in my teens some 4 decades ago. A rise of 2 or 3 degrees since the 70's is hardly going to make asphalt flow like melted butter. Yes, I know it has serious implications for human existence on the planet but this kind of kooky sensationalism is what give climate change prophets such a bad name.
Re:Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I'm a climatologist, but ...
The whole global warming thing is a world wide weather change. Areas will experience different weather patterns than normal. Right now, we're experiencing hotter summers. Where I live, during the summer, we get heavy thunderstorms every afternoon. If we don't get those storms, the heat goes from ball melting hot, to "I'd rather hide in the oven" broiling.
Today, the outside high was only 99F (feels like temp "ball melting hot"). When the thunderstorms came in, it dropped to 85F (and feels like a sauna).
Our average high for this day is 90F. The historical high temp range is 77F to 96F. It hit 99, because the storms did not form as early as they normally would have.
If the days remain hot longer, inland areas will dry out. That, in turn, will cause fewer thunderstorms in those areas. We had this happen in the 1980's, except the highs only hit 95 to 102, and we're still a month away from our normal hottest month.
The storms are good enough to form in coastal areas, and we've already seen unprecedented flooding in coastal areas. That's from the water evaporating faster in the ocean, and drenching the coastal areas. Inland, they do receive some relief from these storms, but the water from even a hurricane will be gone in just a few days.
We live a few miles inland, and will be moving farther inland soon. 3 times in the last month, the roads have flooded enough to stop all vehicle traffic. Just a couple more inches, and the houses would have been in it. When one storm blew through, the actual flood waters were 2" below where they predicted, which put the water about 1" from entering the house.
Re: (Score:3)
While global warming is expected to aggravate a number of weather conditions both in degree and frequency, these weather conditions, such as extreme heat waves would still be expected to happen even in the absence of global warming.
That's not quite true. One of the major issues with global warming is that it is affecting the probability of these events occurring [washingtonpost.com] and making new events, which were effectively impossible, possible.
It's important to remember the climate change affects the probability of extreme events and changes the distribution of what events occur. For example, as the world warms, heat waves become ever warmer. Compared to a baseline of 1951-1980 weather we are already seeing seasons that are 4 sigmas above the base
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Informative)
Tarmac is formulated for specific climates, so that it heats and flows properly for the maximum temperature expected in that area. For instance, 25 years ago in the region where I live, a Hot day was around 80 degrees. So the asphalt mix used was intended for that sort of climate. Now that our summers mave many days in the mid-upper 90's, and a few that tweak 100, that asphalt is out of it's temperature range.
The reason that they use different mixes depending on climate is that the mixes that set will in a cooler climate, also have some resistance to frost heaving. The mixes that harden at a higher temp are more brittle at freezing temps.
This is probably more than anyone wants to know about asphalt paving or tarmacadam.
Otherwise, yeah, we are sure letting a lot of stuff fall apart.
Any mix for -18 to 38? (Score:3)
The reason that they use different mixes depending on climate is that the mixes that set will in a cooler climate, also have some resistance to frost heaving. The mixes that harden at a higher temp are more brittle at freezing temps.
So what's the solution for a place like Indiana that can reach both 0 deg F (-18 deg C) and 100 deg F (38 deg C)?
Re:Any mix for -18 to 38? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Chicago, we have a bigger swing than that by about 15 deg F. We've gone from less than -10 deg to 105 deg.
I swear, sometimes on the same day. Two weeks ago, we had very nearly a 50 degree swing in the course of 30 hours.
Last week, when we were over 100 all week long, there were pavement buckles all over the expressways. Thing is, we can make infrastructure that will last, but it means making it a priority higher than building an embassy in Iraq bigger than the Vatican.
Re:Any mix for -18 to 38? (Score:4, Insightful)
but it means making it a priority higher than building an embassy in Iraq bigger than the Vatican.
Heck, we can feed everybody in the world who doesn't have a secure supply of food for 1/10th the US military budget. But when was the last time Starvin Marvin donated generously to a PAC, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
Heck, we can feed everybody in the world who doesn't have a secure supply of food for 1/10th the US military budget. But when was the last time Starvin Marvin donated generously to a PAC, eh?
True, but then we'd need ten times the military budget to actually get it to the people who need it. If it was as simple as just giving people food, we'd already do it. Instead, if we hand out food, it gets collected and used or sold again by dictators, warlords, and corrupt officials and the people who need it never see the money or the food.
Re: (Score:3)
What a load of bollocks. Those are the current RECORD temperatures, the low in 1938 and the high in 1998. In no way is EDM hitting those extremes on a yearly basis. -25 to 25 is a far closer range to what you'd expect over a 10 year average.
Re:Any mix for -18 to 38? (Score:4, Informative)
So what's the solution for a place like Indiana that can reach both 0 deg F (-18 deg C) and 100 deg F (38 deg C)?
Building the road better, mostly. Layering is important. and drainage is critical. the larger the extremes, the more water you have to get well away from the asphalt.
Re: (Score:3)
The temperature ranges asphalt are supplied in do not have a constant width. They can be cold temperatures, warm temperatures, wide temperatures. Same goes for other weathering conditions. There are asphalt grades which are resistant to moisture, and others where a sudden prolonged storm will gouge out massive potholes.
The problem is different types of asphalt are made from different grades of crude, have different polymers blended into them, and are put through different production processes (like blowing)
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
I highly doubt in 25 years the average climate in your region has changes from highs of 80 to highs of 95-99. That would be a cataclysmically drastic climate shift. Even the most alarmist of IPCC scientists is looking at global warming on the scale of 2-3 degrees in 40-50 years. I really wish people would stop blaming hot days on global warming, it just makes us all look stupid. Keep this in mind the next time you have an unseasonably cold day :P
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
I highly doubt in 25 years the average climate in your region has changes from highs of 80 to highs of 95-99.
Parent didn't claim "average". They claimed higher summer peak temps. These can be offset by colder winter temperatures leaving averages little changed.
That would be a cataclysmically drastic climate shift. Even the most alarmist of IPCC scientists is looking at global warming on the scale of 2-3 degrees in 40-50 years.
Agreed.
I really wish people would stop blaming hot days on global warming, it just makes us all look stupid.
I really wish everyone pointing out changing weather patterns over the course of our lifetimes would stop saying it cannot be due to climate change. It makes us^W them look stupid.
Keep this in mind the next time you have an unseasonably cold day :P
You keep that in mind when re-reading the GP post: he said more hot summer days, you said he claimed averages.
Of course, I'm not saying the GP is correct about the amount of temperature swing, but it does jive with my personal experience and with scientific predictions.
Think again. (Score:4, Insightful)
I highly doubt in 25 years the average climate in your region has changes from highs of 80 to highs of 95-99. That would be a cataclysmically drastic climate shift. Even the most alarmist of IPCC scientists is looking at global warming on the scale of 2-3 degrees in 40-50 years. I really wish people would stop blaming hot days on global warming, it just makes us all look stupid. Keep this in mind the next time you have an unseasonably cold day :P
The 2-3 degrees increase is for the average global temperature. The sorts of changes of local seasonal high temperatures have already been seen in the 2003 and 2011 heat waves in Europe.
And while it is difficult to blame particular weather events on climate change it is clear that the last decade of very extreme outlier weather events is attributable to climate change. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22037-climate-change-boosted-odds-of-texas-drought.html [newscientist.com]
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Funny)
[snip flame war]
Remember the good ol' days, when polite folk talked about the weather because politics or religion might lead to an argument?
[maybe it's all the flame wars that's causing all the hot]
Re: (Score:3)
Problem #1 - mixed units. You're using degress in Farenheit, w
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nope. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. It is also why (in temperate regions at least - ie no real freezing) resealing work is ideally always done at the hottest time of the year.
There's an optimal viscosity for laying the stuff. So by sealing in summer they can then use a mix with the highest possible melting temp to hopefully avoid these sticky summer situations. Sealing roads etc when its colder requires a runnier mix, which then doesn't handle summers quite as well.
Of course places with a very wide seasonal temperature range make this much more challenging.
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is, what you gain at the upper end, you lose at the lower. Australia does indeed get those high temperatures, but the US gets much colder temperatures than Australia does (well, most of it). You need a compound that won't melt in the local summer, but not contract to the point of cracking in the winter.
As someone that has spent large portions of their life in both countries, it is interesting to see the difference in road engineering. Comparing Canberra Australia (temp range roughly -8 C to +40 C) a
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Our infrastructure was built 40 years ago and had a 25 year life expectancy. Every day that things dont simply fall apart is a blessing. Since apparently putting people to work rebuilding and improving things would be socialsim, so I guess there's nothing we can do about it.
FWIW, worries about our infrastructure started at least 30 years ago. The eternal problem is that politicians want their names associated with new stuff, but there's no glamour to be had for legislating money to paint rusty bridges or repave ragged-out highways.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the US still has a lot of frontier spirit, and isn't used to having a lot of legacy in their infrastructure or buildings.
The move to social security and universal health care is a sign of the same thing. Where in the past the US could rely on an influx of young healthy immigrants to keep things running and could afford not to care for the old and the sick, with the shift to much stricter immigration the US is much more dependent on the existing population for it's work force.
As the US ge
Re:Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what the soundbites you hear would have you believe. But it's bullshit. We, as a nation, spend tens of billions a year maintaining and upgrading existing infrastructure and building new infrastructure.
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
roads can't be traded like "generic trade goods" can. they don't work like TVs in boxes on trucks.
infrastructure is not a traditional product, and market models can get somewhat confused when dealing with immovable things that are used all the time and need maintenance.
if you look at private rail systems, they're a very mixed bunch. some do it better than others.
what prevents the selection and evolution you speak of are the little details like you can't just choose another city's infrastructure because they're better or more efficient. you're stuck with what you've got where you live, and there's very little incentive for the local monopoly to improve things if their bottom line is not going to be improved.
melbourne's rail system was privatized in the '90s, originally split to 3 companies who handled a third of the network each. they eventually all merged into the one, which was a multinational. they made more money in london than they did here, so they effectively trained up drivers here and offered them packages in london. they only bought new trains when their hands were forced. they hired goons to shake people down for ticket infractions. the fines for no ticket are higher than the fines for exceeding the speed limit by 20km/h +.
this company then got the arse when their contract was up for renewal. people were sick of them. the network had not had significant works in over a decade. another company moved in their place, and were left with the canonical "stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure" of a system. the previous tenant had left enough leeway in their contract that major works were not assigned explicitly to either state government or them, so they just didn't get done.
works are finally happening now, slowly. the public are absorbing the cost in a big way, road traffic is worse than it has ever been because people stopped taking the train.
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Roads, like all networks are a natural monopoly, and thus should be run by the state.
Unless you want to allow for competition that is by having a second road network constructed and maintained alongside the first. Then you could have a dupoly.
Services on networks should be privatized (bus services, mail services, electricity generation, internet service provision, telephone, etc) but the physical network structure itself should be in the hands of the public, via that trustworthy custodian, the government. If you don't like how they run things, vote in a new bunch.
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the UK's road system started off as private toll roads maintained by the people who charged tolls on them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust [wikipedia.org]
It was abandoned as being inefficient and the responsibility for the roads turned over to local government. So yes, roads 'should' be run by the state, but not as a natural monopoly, but just because it's actually more efficient to fund the roads through taxes than tolls.
Re: (Score:3)
Because you get the karma you deserve?
Because it's a content-less micro-rant against Government?
But mostly because he didn't actually offer any other solutions. If your counter-argument is that there are alternatives, but you don't list any alternatives, then you're not really arguing. You're just whining. A good debate would have you propose viable alternatives detailing their pros and cons.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be an asshat just because I answered your question in a way you didn't like.
And it's not that I hate him, I just think he's batshit crazy. And not to be a content-less hypocrite, here's why I think he's batshit crazy: He's absolutely fanatical about the free market. He's argumentative against anyone who holds a different opinion. He provides no real
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
It comes from the same place that the >$1Trillion bailout of bankers (who then took the money and set it on fire, and no it has not been "paid back"). At the moment it comes from being borrowed at an effective negative interest rate. It should come from printing money. Better yet, by minting several $1Trillion coins.
That is an insane fantasy. There is no "Free Market" mechanism for building infrastructure. We actually sort of had a "Free Market" infrastructure here in Chicago in the 19th century - until the city burned down because the infrastructure sucked. Do you know what the "Free Market" approach to toxic waste management is? Dumping it in the lake.
The vast majority of problems on a national scale do not have anything remotely like a "Free Market" solution, and that's assuming that there actually was something like a "Free Market" that could possibly exist. There is as much evidence that a "Free Market" could exist as there is for the existence of the pantheon of Greek gods or UFOs. OK, there's quite a bit more evidence for UFOs than there is for a "Free Market". And if you could have a "Free Market", it would suck so bad it would make your head spin. And you especially can't have a "Free Market" when the major players in the economy are legal constructs designed to deflect any kind of liability away from the people that own them. There has never been a "Free Market" in human history, especially not on a national scale. One of the first acts, of the first congress of the US (the one that had a bunch of Founding Fathers in it) was to put tariffs in place. The ink wasn't even dry on the Constitution when the Founders figured out that a "Free Market" was an impossible fantasy.
Free Markets do not exist in nature. Just plain "markets" don't even exist in nature - they require a government, some form of central control. There is no "Free Market" mechanism for enforcing contracts, for example.
It's unfortunate that they don't tell this to students until the 200-level econ courses, because by then the damage is done. That's how Ron Paul gets his fans.
Re: (Score:3)
As a libertarian, I do wish people would stop talking about free markets in infrastructure. It's stupid.
People, the key part of infrastructure is INFRA. It is those constructs that allow people to interact and is the FOUNDATION of a free market. How the hell can you have a free market, if the farmer is not able to get produce to the market because there is no road? A previous poster had it 100% correct. The construction of roads and communication networks is a proper and necessary role of government.
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Informative)
In the US, you can always tell the tollways from the freeways -- they're far less well maintained, as the private businesses which own them are interested in extracting as much profit as possible. Since there is no cost incurred from the delays, accidents and/or deaths caused by the poor road quality, the businesses simply don't bother with maintenance. It's the invisible hand of the market at work, not giving a flying fuck about the externalities.
News to us in Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
This is news to us in Dallas. Our international airport has been fine for many, many days of 105+ temperatures.
Clearly this is a case of poor engineering and substandard materials, not 'hot environment destroying asphalt'.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I was going to say the same thing about Phoenix. We have at least a couple months of almost continuous 100+ temps and never hear of issues like this.
Re:News to us in Texas (Score:4, Informative)
Re:News to us in Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:News to us in Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you think the air in Phoenix (1200 feet) is ever at thin as the air in Denver (5280 feet)? Just by eyeballing it appears the density altitude [wikipedia.org] in Phoenix at 115 F is about 4,000 feet.
Re:News to us in Texas (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably not, but I bet the Denver airport runways are longer than Phoenix's airport runways to compensate for the reduced amount of lift.
Re:News to us in Texas (Score:4, Informative)
You got me there. The longest of 3 runways at Sky Harbor/Phoenix is 11,489 feet (others 10,300 & 7,800 ft). At Denver International they have one runway that's 16,000 feet but the other five are all 12,000 feet, not that much longer than at Phoenix. To address another point that's been raised in this discussion, all of those runways at both airports are concrete.
Re:News to us in Texas (Score:5, Informative)
The performance of aircraft engines at various altitudes and temperatures are well-understood. Before anything the size of an airliner takes off the crew calculates exactly how much thrust is needed to complete the takeoff safely.
Things considered include:
1. Temperature
2. Altitude
3. Takeoff weight
4. Runway length (from start point to end of runway).
5. Any obstructions beyond the end of the runway.
6. Runway slope
7. Head/tailwind
8. Flap configuration
9. Ground conditions (wet, ice, etc - this matters if the takeoff needs to be aborted)
I might have missed something, but there are charts for every aircraft with any model of engines that allow you to look all this stuff up and determine if the takeoff can be performed safely. A safe takeoff is one where the aircraft can reach a safe speed and clear all obstacles should an engine fail right at the point of no return, and also where the aircraft can lose an engine right before the point of no return and stop before the end of the runway. None of this stuff is left to chance.
Usually there is a considerable margin beyond what is necessary for a safe takeoff, and in this case the pilots instruct the aircraft to use less than full thrust. That saves wear and tear on the engines, reduces noise, and also gets rid of the "Top Gun" effect when a jet powered to haul cargo takes off mostly empty.
If the air is too hot to take off safely on any available runway then the plane doesn't take off. Of course, they know that this will happen before they bother to load the plane - they would take on less cargo/etc if they could, or cancel the flight.
Re: (Score:3)
Sky Harbor (Score:5, Informative)
Sky Harbor (Phoenix airport) doesn't use asphalt runways for precisely this reason: archaeologists would be digging the bones of widebodied aircraft out of the tarpit centuries from now.
FWIW, the record temperature at Sky Harbor was 50C. They had to shut down the airport until it cooled off because the standard tables for flap settings didn't go that high. Now they do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, poor engineering.
Re:News to us in Texas (Score:4, Informative)
They've just mixed the asphalt for the expected climate instead of having the same mix that would be used in Dallas, or a different mix again for a hot tropical climate. Other expected problems are rails buckling and problems with elongation of power lines.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually rail lines aren't a problem -- they are stretched when installed so that when the air temperature is ~100 degrees there's no stress on the line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_stressing [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's cool for the rail that goes across the country, which is continuous, which (as per the Wikipedia article with no citations you referenced) is the kind of rail which is stretched during installation. All the rail I've ever seen up close is bolted... there must be plenty of rail for which this will be a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
No, continuously welded rails are a problem if the temperature is hotter than expected. Typically the rails are pre-stressed to cope with the hottest rail temperatures expected. In the case of extreme heatwaves, if the rail temperature gets higher than it was prestressed for, it's likely to buckle. Usually this happens while a train is going across it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the runways at DFW are almost three feet thick in some places and the tarmacs are all concrete or concrete block based as well, not asphalt. Asphalt is used at DCA/Reagan for aircraft taxi. Looking at the picture it looks like it got stuck on one of the taxiways probably at the end of the runway where on either end of the main runway there are large concrete marshalling areas where planes sit waiting to take off. I wonder what the takeoff weight was for that particular flight. I know on MD80s flyin
Re: (Score:2)
This is news to us in Dallas. Our international airport has been fine for many, many days of 105+ temperatures.
Yup, it's been designed for those heat ranges. The formulation of the paving changes depending on local climate. Places in the Northest still aren't all caught up to the warmer temps we get in th esummer now. In my area, most of the pavement mixes were designed for max temperatures in the mid 80's. Now that a typical summer is 90's and some times 100's, the old paving mix isn't up to the task. We would get frost heaves in the winter, and mixes that are more flexible at lower temps don't frost heave as much
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what happens in the Middle East. (Score:2)
I hear that temperatures there can be like 50 degrees celsius (or 120 fahrenheit).
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem in Montreal (Score:4, Funny)
Vehicules get stuck in potholes long before asphalt even has a chance to melt
Big rains - bigger culverts (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I like how Americans think they know what a 500 year event looks like. Sort of like asking a toddler what his future job is like.
They can use archaeological evidence to have a good guess, combined with power-law modeling. Other evidence that is useful is looking at the location of the edge of rivers' floodplains in the landscape, as you can bet if it's been there before then it will become keen on flowing there once again. (There are a few exceptions to that, but let's not worry too much about a repeat of the Missoula Floods any time soon.) For sure it's not going to be certain, but then it isn't likely to be anywhere else in the wor
"...in a future of weirding weather." (Score:5, Funny)
Stand back! This weather has the weirding way!
Re: (Score:2)
Glad I'm not the only one who thought of this.
Average temperature a few degrees higher (Score:2)
The average temperature is probably a few degrees higher, if a degree at all. Does insfrastructure have no tolerance at all?!
Re:Average temperature a few degrees higher (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Yawn. (Score:2)
We're having 114F in Phoenix today, peeps. It's routine this time of year.
Having aircraft sink into the pavement is no surprise when you're used to feeling the stuff squish under your shoes.
Why asphalt? (Score:2)
I thought all tarmac was asphalt. (the OP states "asphalt tarmac")
I do have to wonder why this airport chose to use it. I thought most airports used concrete for these surfaces. After all, airplanes are heavy---and have so few points touching the ground. Also,it has been known for years that asphalt gets soft when it heats up. Maybe in Alaska, but near DC---it's just the wrong material, not just now, but before "global warming" was a twinkle in Al Gore's eye.
Pffft, global warming. (Score:2, Funny)
Who cares about climate change. Excessive ecological regulation just harms Legitimate Business Interests, right?
(In other news, the forecast this week is schadenfreude with localized told-you-so.)
don't stand in one place (Score:5, Informative)
There is a reason that the area around the terminal is made of concrete and there are concrete pads placed at spots where airplanes sit. It is to allow them to stay in one place without sinking. While heat will hasten the effect, a fully loaded large airplane will sink into any tarmac. I ride motorcycles and on hot days my kick stand can dig through most tarmac quite easilly(I carry a small metal plate to spread the load on hot days).
The idea is to keep moving so one does not sink. Whoever let the heavy aircraft sit on tarmac instead of concrete is to blame for the issue and not the heat. Even on an average day for July I bet the aircraft would have sunk to some degree in three hours.
The solution to this problem is to not stand for more than a few minutes on tarmac. If the delay is longer, return to the gate or wait on a piece of concrete.
Re: (Score:3)
Here [antigoconstruction.com] is an example of a USAF runway that is mostly asphalt. Concrete does not work well where frost heaves can be an issue.
How long does it take to soften the asphalt? (Score:2)
What a silly perspective (Score:2)
The temperature at which asphalt re-liquifies (for lack of a better conversational term) is based purely on the balance of the ingredients. It can easily be adjusted for a warmer climate. Similarly, a different material with the same property over a wider range is just as easily fabricated.
On the other side, wider airplane tires would also weigh into the equasion, pardon the pun.
So don't let this article do what so many FUD-oriented pieces do. Don't let it take a rare occurance, use it to highlight an un
Wierd.... (Score:2)
Here in Phoenix, Sky Harbor International Airport gets much hotter than that, but we haven't had any issues of airplanes sinking. Some people say the effect of the heat is mitigated because of it being a dry heat, but to the best of my knowledge asphalt doesn't melt easier under high humidity.
Metling permafrost in Colo. closed major highway (Score:5, Interesting)
Yesterday, CDOT closed [thedenverchannel.com] US-24, about the fourth most important highway in Colorado, due to ice 100 ft. down that melted for the first time (since a railroad tunnel was constructed a century ago) and created a sinkhole.
Another scaremongering story (Score:5, Insightful)
World temperatures increased by a fraction of a degree but here we go, now airports are melting because of it. What an idiot conclusion telling me a lot of the mental state of the author.
In reality, the aircraft has been in the same spot for far too long. Additionally the consistency of the tarmac material might be sub-standard causing the melting point to be lower. I have seen roads here in New Zealand that had substandard tarmac on them turning to liquid in the hot sun. And New Zealand average temperate is actually dropping over the last decade.
Concrete is for serious runways. (Score:3)
"And, crucially, it makes for runway repair work that is relatively efficient. "
That's a nice way of saying "cheap", be it on runways or roads.
There's good reason Air Force bases use concrete in the vast majority of cases for runways, ramp, and taxiways.
Got asphalt "problems"? Dig that cheap shit up and recycle it by crushing (makes terrific residential driveways which stay packed but some foliage can penetrate, I've used it for many years) then man up and pour proper concrete instead.
There's no nice way to put it.
Re: (Score:3)
SAC bomber bases were in many of those locations. They took heavily loaded strategic bombers and tankers year-round.
Pour thicker concrete.
Short term fix (Score:3)
Paint it white to decrease it's heat absorption.
Longer term, use a higher temperature mix or switch to concrete like DFW and PHX. Concrete may be less ice tolerant, in which case, a relatively thin layer (~2") asphalt over concrete may be the best option. The concrete provides a solid base and will draw heat off the asphalt, while the asphalt provides an easier to refinish surface that can tolerate snow and ice fairly well.
The REAL Infrastructure Problems (Score:3)
just throwing it out there (Score:3)
Who cares? (Score:3)
The whole civil aviation is doomed to plummet due to oil scarcity.
Soft tarmac will be the least of its problems.
Re: (Score:2)
The other day, I stepped on dog shit. You know what means - global warming. It's clear as day how that comes about, unless you're a "denier".
It's true. Had there been no global warming you would have stepped IN dog shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Those places were probably built with the expectation of high temperatures, and used asphalt that would function properly at those temperatures and higher.
DC, however, is in that ugly latitude where you get freezing winters (-20C/0F) but burning summers (40C/100F), and (as a man living close enough to DC to die from the fallout when the bombs drop) the last few weeks have been extremely, abnormally hot, and they've maintained that high temperature for a long time. Part of it, I expect, is that even the nigh
Welcome to the new normal (Score:2)
Remember those 1 in 200 year storms/floods/heat waves they designed for.
They are going to be more frequent going forward, so your design is only good up to, say, a 1 in 20 year event.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's never been over 100 in DC before? (Score:5, Funny)
this has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with the expansion of the federal government.
Also, Drudge is reporting that the airplane was discovered to be a closet liberal, faking the whole thing to boost the whole fake AGW thing.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition - to the editor, or lack thereof, who allowed, or ignored, the article submission above - complete with excessive, overuse, of commas, and dashes - such as these - used excessively, to excess, throughout the submission - please stop.
Your ass. Commas, when used correctly, make long sentences a lot more readable. Using an unusually high number of commas in a particular piece of writing is not grammatically incorrect, nor is it stylistically incorrect. Sure there were a lot of commas in the submission, but they didn't get in the way of readability and they were not excessive.
It was also nice to see the correct use of dashes. What you indicated in your snarky comment was not dashes, they are hyphens. The dash is something of an endanger
Re:Earth won't turn into Venus! (Score:5, Informative)
Damnit, even the worst fearmongers tell us that temperatures will rise by 1 degree per 20 years. Even ignoring the fact that this kind of temperature rise is insignificant in terms of what we're talking about, that's decades or centuries to replace infrastructure.
Instead of worrying about asphalt on streets, I'm worring about brains already having melted in one-too-many climate change activists demonstration.
Get a clue.
"Temperatures will rise by an average of 1 degree" does not imply that temperatures will be ~1 degree higher each and every day. Quite the contrary, climatologists predict that the weather (including temperature) will be MUCH more volatile. That means you will have many days where the temp is >15 degrees above normal, in additional to crazier winter weather etc.
Basically, because the size of weather fluctuations are expected to increase, you will get more days of crazy temperatures that will take a toll on infrastructure.
Re:Earth won't turn into Venus! (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation... If the temperatures go up in an area, its global warming. If the temperatures go down in an area, its global warming. If the temperatures stay the same in an area, its global warming.
In other words, he is saying no matter what happens, weather wise, that is bad it is global warming and would not have happened if you just paid the government money for the CO2 that you create.
Actually, "global warming" just means more heat in the atmosphere and oceans, and more thermal energy means more stuff will happen.
It does *not* mean that every place will be warmer than before by the same amount. If melting ice from Greenland shuts down the Gulf Stream, northwest Europe will suffer horribly - from the cold.
OTOH, a given heat wave doesn't prove global warming any more than a given cold snap disproves it. What matters is the trend in the average... you know, those boring record-keeping and analysis things that scientists have to do.
For an amateur to get a rough idea without having to consult world-wide records collected over centuries, just count how many record daily highs and record daily lows you get over a long time span, like a year, and look at the ratio at the end. Most places - but not all - have been breaking many more record highs than record lows in recent years. And that trend was noticed before the current heat wave began.
Re: (Score:2)
that's decades or centuries to replace infrastructure.
It takes decades to find the cash and political will to replace infrastructure.
Actually building infrastructure takes years at most.