New Study Lays Out Hidden Backstory Behind Deadly Pacific Northwest Heatwave (phys.org) 55
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Last summer, a deadly wave of heat struck the Pacific Northwest, causing temperatures to soar more than 30 degrees Fahrenheit above normal and killing more than a thousand people. A new study has uncovered the sequence of events that precipitated the disaster, providing information that could further our understanding of heat formation on the North American continent. By reviewing large-scale weather conditions and formations before the heat wave, University of Chicago scientists discovered that a cyclone spawned an "anticyclone," which combined to produce and then trap heat near the surface of the region.
[...] Using data collected from satellites and on the ground, UChicago scientists set out to re-create the sequence of events. They found that in the week prior, a cyclone had formed over the Gulf of Alaska. Cyclones are large, spiral-shaped systems that form around a center of low pressure. (Think of the spiral clouds you see during hurricanes.) When clouds form out of water vapor, the process actually releases heat, which accumulated in the atmosphere. Then, as the cyclone moved slowly away, it triggered the formation of an anticyclone to the east -- a system that rotates slowly around a center of high pressure instead of low. These are known as "blocking" systems because they disrupt the normal eastward movement of weather systems. A blocking anticyclone acts like a blanket, trapping heat in a region. The result was a warm, stagnant column of air that made it difficult for surface heat to escape to the upper atmosphere as it normally does. The study has been published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
[...] Using data collected from satellites and on the ground, UChicago scientists set out to re-create the sequence of events. They found that in the week prior, a cyclone had formed over the Gulf of Alaska. Cyclones are large, spiral-shaped systems that form around a center of low pressure. (Think of the spiral clouds you see during hurricanes.) When clouds form out of water vapor, the process actually releases heat, which accumulated in the atmosphere. Then, as the cyclone moved slowly away, it triggered the formation of an anticyclone to the east -- a system that rotates slowly around a center of high pressure instead of low. These are known as "blocking" systems because they disrupt the normal eastward movement of weather systems. A blocking anticyclone acts like a blanket, trapping heat in a region. The result was a warm, stagnant column of air that made it difficult for surface heat to escape to the upper atmosphere as it normally does. The study has been published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Re: (Score:2)
Badly worded article.
s/understanding of heat formation/understanding of atmospheric heat formation
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Holy-Black-hole-in-the-centre-of-the-galaxy! is what's going on.
Re: (Score:1)
cyclones and hurricanes are electromagnetically driven by the sun. the sun is electromagnetically driven by the galaxy. so what's going on with the galaxy? hmmm.
Probably the same thing that has always gone on.
SSDC. Same Shit, Different Century.
One of these days we might actually learn something about cycles. Until then, back to your normally scheduled programming of endless clickbait for Greeds sake.
If THE asteroid was coming, Mass Ignorance would want to make a fucking movie about it first, just to wring out the last bit of profit before the predictable end.
Re:electromagnetic (Score:5, Insightful)
We know about cycles:
The sun's magnetic field completely flips approximately every 11 years.
We can easily detect solar flares and the amount of magnetism it's putting out.
We can detect background radiation, though I don't think that's ever changed significantly.
We can measure our own magnetic poles extremely easily (due for a flip on geological terms but haven't seen any proof that's started yet and still might not for centuries)
We measure the geothermal gradient around the world, though we're not the best at predicting earthquakes greatly in advance but we know which way the plates are moving.
We have agencies such as NASA, NOAA, Met Office Hadley, Japanese Meteorology Agency measuring global temperatures.
But when it comes to:
Hey do you think the massive amount of gas we are releasing into the atmosphere that is known for its property to trap heat has anything to do with the increase in heat? The increase in heat that has happened much faster than ever before in Earth's history.
A bunch of people just say - nah, it must be some cycle, have they tried checking the galaxy? If we need to stop Exxon and BP etc from polluting the Earth then greed wins!
Re: (Score:2)
No. I never said everything was all OK. We're not hanging out with Dino the Dinosaur for a reason.
I simply don't automagically believe every sell Greed will throw at Mass Ignorance to profit off a "solution" that likely isn't. Greed is far too predictable. So are humans.
Re: electromagnetic (Score:3, Informative)
The amount of effort people go to to be wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Hurricanes (tropical cyclones) on Earth are formed within the atmosphere by thunderstorms and angular momentum from the Earth's rotation, and draw up energy from the ocean surface.
What you described is called a Space hurricane, which are related to aurora borealis, but they won't destroy your house.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh its definately global warming, those low pressure regions are rpetty much a result of warming gulf currents, its not hard to see that when you throw extra energy into a system, Newton pretty much demands that *shit will happen*.
But also Chinese hurricane guns. And probably that Jewish space laser.
Wait wait wait (Score:2)
I live up here in the Puget Sound area. Yes it was bloody, miserably hot... but I don't remember the heat killing 1000 people.
Re: (Score:2)
Man that was fucked. I've never waved my arm outside the window going 70 and had it be significantly hotter than inside the car before.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember the heat killing 1000 people.
The heat must have affected your cognitive faculties. Maybe you were one of the fatalities. That would explain not remembering anything.
Re:Wait wait wait (Score:4, Informative)
Just to the north, in BC, that heatwave between June 25 and July 1 was responsible for just under 600 excess deaths. If you include the entire region of the pacific northwest/cascadia, 1000 in total seems to be probably a lowball figure.
Extreme heat events are unusual - I can recall maybe a time around 2010-2011 when it hit 40C (over 100F). It's come close after that, usually around 38 or so, but only during the hottest times and then it cools a bit.
Last year it broke that and I think it hit near 50C during the worst of it.
Enterprising people even stayed in hotel rooms because it was the middle of COVID so hotels were relatively empty and hurting for business. Some companies reminded their workers that their offices were air conditioned, thus offering a valuable perk in the return to the office (the region is such that most houses were not built with air conditioning in mind because generally speaking it only gets really warm for a week or so and that's it).
Re: (Score:2)
(the region is such that most houses were not built with air conditioning in mind because generally speaking it only gets really warm for a week or so and that's it)
Yeah, but we all need to be switching to heat pumps for heating anyway. Even if you burn natgas in a power station the efficiency increase is enough to make it not just cleaner, but actually lower-energy too. In comparison to resistive heating there is no comparison. And if you have a heat pump, you have an AC. Granted, they need to be ground source installations in the frozen north so that they work when it's really cold, and those are expensive. We've got to come together as a species if we're going to ma
Re: (Score:2)
Just to the north, in BC, that heatwave between June 25 and July 1 was responsible for just under 600 excess deaths. If you include the entire region of the pacific northwest/cascadia, 1000 in total seems to be probably a lowball figure.
Is there a demographic reason people in British Columbia are extraordinarily more frail than Americans?
The state of Washington has a population 20% higher than BC, yet the Washington Department of Health [wa.gov] only reported 100 heat-related deaths during the heat wave. Two-thirds of those Washington deaths were people over 65, so perhaps BC is overwhelmingly elderly?
Re: (Score:2)
Two-thirds of those Washington deaths were people over 65, so perhaps BC is overwhelmingly elderly?
No, it's because these deaths all occured
outside of major cities, where hardly anybody has AC.
Re: (Score:2)
I live up here in the Puget Sound area. Yes it was bloody, miserably hot... but I don't remember the heat killing 1000 people.
The reason you don't remember is because it took months to come up with the figures long after the fact. There were actually all of 200 deaths between Oregon and Washington and another 200 in Canada.
1000 is of the same nonsensical mumbo jumbo used to calculate number of people who senselessly die each year as a result of DST being switched on.
30 Fahrenheit? (Score:1)
Re:30 Fahrenheit? (Score:5, Funny)
Celsius is idiotic for describing temperature. It's not only linear but needs confusing decimal places too because it's not granular. WTF
Humans don't sense temperature in a linear fashion. Distance, weight, speed, sure, but not temperature.
Because water freezing at 32 degrees is completely intuitive...
Re: 30 Fahrenheit? (Score:2)
Re: 30 Fahrenheit? (Score:4, Insightful)
F is better for human perception. C is better for science. 100F and 0F are at either end of the spectrum and are miserable to be outside in. The weather temp range of Celsius is needlessly narrow
You mean the temperature scale you grew up with feels more intuitive to you???
Personally, 100F is 37.8C, which is a lot hotter than miserable. For me, 30C is hot and 33-35C is when I start thinking miserably hot. At the other end 0F is ~ -18C which equates to -20C which is really the start of what I'd call properly cold while -30C is damn cold.
Again, "human perception" is just what you're familiar with.
Re: (Score:2)
F is better for human perception. C is better for science. 100F and 0F are at either end of the spectrum and are miserable to be outside in. The weather temp range of Celsius is needlessly narrow
You mean the temperature scale you grew up with feels more intuitive to you???
No, we mean F has greater numerical resolution at the temperature ranges relevant to human functioning.
Humans can adapt to snowy climates or tropical climates, but the sweet spot of ambient comfort for most people is where the unclothed body needs to do very little labor to maintain pleasant homeostasis:
Fahrenheit 68-78
Celsius 20-25.5
Fahrenheit has a resolution of 11 simple integers to express nuances across that range.
Celsius only has a resolution of 6 integers to express nuances across that same range.
T
Re: (Score:2)
No, we mean F has greater numerical resolution at the temperature ranges relevant to human functioning.
Humans can adapt to snowy climates or tropical climates, but the sweet spot of ambient comfort for most people is where the unclothed body needs to do very little labor to maintain pleasant homeostasis:
The time when people really care about temperature is when they go outside, so freezing (and proximity to freezing) is very important for that.
Fahrenheit 68-78
Celsius 20-25.5
Fahrenheit has a resolution of 11 simple integers to express nuances across that range.
Celsius only has a resolution of 6 integers to express nuances across that same range.
Digital thermostats work in half-degree increments, so Celsius has a very similar 12 choices.
In theory is the .5 digit thing ideal? Probably not. But the 32 vs 0 for freezing seems to me a far bigger issue.
Either way, if the Celsius scale was somehow doubled so it was 12 integers then people would be finding some other excuse. It's all code for "the numbers don't fee
Re: (Score:2)
The time when people really care about temperature is when they go outside, so freezing (and proximity to freezing) is very important for that.
The overwhelming majority of human beings live in the band of latitude running from 5 degrees south of the Equator to 35 degrees north of the Equator. Basically, in between Algiers and Papua New Guinea. Heat is more important to more people for more months of the year than freezing. If not for the ancient tectonics which created the Himalayas and the Andes, snow would be an uncommon and brief experience for most humans alive today..
Fahrenheit 68-78
Celsius 20-25.5
Fahrenheit has a resolution of 11 simple integers to express nuances across that range.
Celsius only has a resolution of 6 integers to express nuances across that same range.
Digital thermostats work in half-degree increments, so Celsius has a very si
Re: (Score:2)
The overwhelming majority of human beings live in the band of latitude running from 5 degrees south of the Equator to 35 degrees north of the Equator. Basically, in between Algiers and Papua New Guinea. Heat is more important to more people for more months of the year than freezing.
Majority probably, but not overwhelming.
Oh, and the boiling point of water also matters since we boil water a lot. I actually just had to check what the boiling point of water is in Fahrenheit because my oven uses F and I have no intuition as to what those temperatures really mean.
You're just rationalizing what feels natural to you. Sure the integer granularity is slightly nicer, but water is REALLY important, and the 0/100 thing is a big feature.
Re: (Score:2)
The overwhelming majority of human beings live in the band of latitude running from 5 degrees south of the Equator to 35 degrees north of the Equator. Basically, in between Algiers and Papua New Guinea. Heat is more important to more people for more months of the year than freezing.
Majority probably, but not overwhelming.
Yes, overwhelming.
If not for Europe and the New York City megalopolis, the human population north of 40th parallel would be pretty desolate.
Coincidentally, the main reason this statistical fact feels counterintuitive to you is that latitude and land mass have the same kind of Zero-point offset discrepancy as Fahrenheit versus Celsius. The Equator is the geological Zero, but that's not as relevant to human experience because most of the surface south of the Equator is water. The planet's land-mass "zero poin
Re: (Score:2)
is where the unclothed body needs to do very little labor to maintain pleasant homeostasis:
Fahrenheit 68-78
Celsius 20-25.5
No one really wants to be naked around 25C - that is much to cold.
No idea where you live, though.
Re: (Score:2)
If you grew up in a country that uses C, then C is better for perception.
But it does not make F better for science.
Hint: 0C - water is freezing, snow is falling "if it rains" - what temperature is that in F, and what is the relevance?
Hint: 100C water is boiling - what actually is the temperature in F when water is boiling - and what is the relevance?
Do I need to say more about "human perception"?
If you think 100F is the equivalent of the normal human body temperature and it says anything about how the weath
Re: 30 Fahrenheit? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it escaped you that I'm not a native english speaker.
If you have a complaint, phrase it, instead of asking stupid questions.
Oh, it is childish that I used the word stupid? Sorry. Perhaps I meant "silly question".
Asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Because water freezing at 32 degrees is completely intuitive...
I have never understood this argument. I get that water and its behavior is a pretty important thing in the lives of well everyone. However most people also know that commonly encountered environmental temperatures are also below the freezing point of water as well. Anyone wanting to understand something as simple as why adding salts to prevent ice works and when it won't work needs to know this.
Kelvin is somewhat intuitive, zero being basically no heat energy present; but its not adjusted to numbers that
Re: (Score:3)
Having the same size degree as Celsius the unit is to large too meaning you are doing things like setting cooking implements and household thermostats it fractional degrees; also silly.
No one sets cooking implements to fractional degrees of Celsius. It's common to set the thermostat by a half degree which is perfectly fine and not silly in the slightest.
Is 32 an intuitive value for the freezing point of water - no but neither really would zero be, unless the system is concerned with only water (at standard pressure as well).
Like my garden, or the sidewalk.
Honestly if the Fahrenheit scale gets anything wrong for a day to day use application, its that zero is much to warm. It should probably have been shifted so that we rarely encounter subzero temperatures outdoors. Maybe make 100 below the new zero, that way we'd rarely need to bring signed numbers into the mix for daily life.
There's nothing wrong with negative numbers on a scale. Americans just have this obsession that Celsius is unintuitive because they're not used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
No one sets cooking implements to fractional degrees of Celsius. It's common to set the thermostat by a half degree which is perfectly fine and not silly in the slightest.
I tried really hard to parse this in a way that makes sense and is not obviously self-contradictory. In the end I'm sorry to say that I have failed.
Then that's on you.
Cooking doesn't require that level of precision.
As for the thermostat, room temp is 21C, though maybe you're more comfortable at 20.5 or 21.5. The .5 isn't a big deal and no one finds it silly.
In other words nothing wrong with fractions and negative numbers because humans can get used to anything even inferior scales like Celsius. When we use F scale in our lives we rarely need negative numbers or fractions. This is a clear unambiguous benefit over Celsius and pretending otherwise is to ignore reality.
Above zero means probably no snow or ice.
Below zero means snow and ice.
As someone in a climate with winter I find that pretty damn intuitive.
Re: (Score:2)
uh, the weather system is pretty concerned with water, it's the difference between rain and snow which have two very different impacts on our physical environment
Re: (Score:2)
According to Anders Celsius, water freezes at 100 degrees.
Blocking weather systems (Score:2)
Seem to be responsible for a lot of the extreme climate events that have been happening around the world - ie high pressure gets stuck and heat builds up or low pressure gets stuck and huge amounts of rain in the same place lead to floods. I've read in more than one place that - in the northern hemisphere at least - a lot of this is due to the jet stream slowing down and looping about a lot due to a lower temp differential between the atlantic/pacific and the arctic. Whether thats the case or just a theory
Not to dig on what tragedies occurred, but.. (Score:2)
"A blocking anticyclone acts like a blanket, trapping heat in a region. The result was a warm, stagnant column of air that made it difficult for surface heat to escape to the upper atmosphere as it normally does." ...otherwise known as the atmospheric mechanics behind a typical summer in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it was hotter then Death Valley here in BC and breaking Texas heat records, in a land where hardly anyone has air conditioning.
Warm day last June (Score:1)
But they knew all this before hand right? (Score:2)
Why did they need to study it? They knew all about the atmosphere so it seems they must have been able to look at the situation in real time and make the call on what was going on. So either they did know and this is a pointless study or they didn't know ... and that's kind of strange. What exactly are the gaps in knowledge about the atmosphere? Kind of important to know don't you think?