Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Once again the Week In Review-Science Edition over at Dr. Judith Curry’s website brings up interesting news. It appears that the first of July was hot in the UK, and among others the airport at Heathrow set a record high temperature for the date.. This led to a bit of a flap over in the land of the Anglo-Saxophones.
The British newspaper The Telegraph said that they thought the record was bogus. They theorized that it was caused by jet exhaust and wind changes, which seems quite reasonable to me. In response, the Met Office swung into action and posted up a page on their “Carbon Sense” blog saying that no, it was a break in the clouds that did it, the extra sun raised the temperature. Here’s their money graph:
Figure 1. Graph of solar radiation and temperature at Heathrow for the hottest hour on July 1, 2015
They used this graph to claim that it’s the sun, stupid … but the first problem is, according to their graph, about twenty minutes after the peak in temperature, the clouds parted a bit and the solar input jumped up again to nearly as high as it had gone before … but the temperature didn’t change in the slightest. Well, that’s not entirely true. The second time the sun strength increased, the temperature went down. If the temperature spike early in the record were from the sun, does it make sense to you that a subsequent solar spike twenty minutes later would lead to no warming at all?
The second problem is that the sun strength stayed high, but the temperature started dropping before the succeeding decrease in sun strength.
In any case, they kindly provided the data used in the graph, kudos to them for that, plus the wind direction and strength data so we could see that it’s the sun, stupid … except for one detail. They are using that graph and data to claim that it is the sun, not the wind direction as claimed by the Telegraph, that caused the temperature spike.
With the data we can see that the third problem with their claim is that, for at least this short period, the correlation of temperature with wind direction (0.63) was 50% stronger than the correlation of temperature with sunshine (0.42). So their own data, specially provided to back up their claims, actually disagrees with their claims.
Of course, this means nothing about the longer term. However, for the short-term period around the temperature spike, they certainly have not established their case, so we’re still left with the question of what caused the temperature peak.
Some insight into this question comes from the UK Met Office. They’ve kindly provided these examples of the highest record-setting temperatures in the UK on the first of July, 2015 (see the 7 July 2015 entry here )
Figure 2. Highest temperature records set on the first of July, 2015
Now, looking at Figure 2 we have two possibilities. Either a) human actions are increasing the surface air temperatures recorded at Heathrow, or b) by an astounding historical coincidence, the UK’s largest airport was built precisely on top of the warmest spot on the island … I’m going with a) myself, although YMMV.
So being an inquisitive type of fellow, I decided to take a back-of-the-envelope look at just how much actual thermal energy is released at Heathrow. This doesn’t include the heating effect of all those square metres of runway asphalt, but it’s a start.
A bit of research shows the CO2 released at Heathrow by the actual burning of fuel on the ground and in takeoff and landing (under 3,000 feet [900 m] elevation) is about 1.6 million tonnes of CO2/year. Most of this is in the form of jet fuel, which sounds all high-techy but which is actually kerosene.
Using the conversion factor for kerosene of 71.5 kg of CO2 per gigajoule of energy, this converts to 2.24E+16 joules/year, or 6.13E+13 joules per day, of heat solely from the burning of the fuel.
Now, how much would this release of energy warm the air? Well … how much air are we considering? Heathrow covers a large area, 1227 hectares. So let’s figure the air above Heathrow up to the 3,000 feet elevation under which they’re counting the CO2 emitted.. That’s about 1.12E+10 cubic metres of air, or about 1.43E+10 kg of air.
The specific heat of air is easy, it’s about 1 kilojoule per kilogram per degree C. And we can probably figure that about 30% of the energy is used to produce mechanical work, with the rest lost as heat.
So, imagine that we could put a transparent air-tight dome over Heathrow 3,000 feet (900 m) tall, and one day we burned 6.13E+13 joules worth of kerosene inside the dome, and 70% of that energy went into heat … how much would that raise the air temperature?
Short answer? It would give about a 3°C temperature rise, which is 5.4°F.
Now, of course as soon as the air is warmed by jet exhaust it starts rising, and the heat moves constantly upwards and outwards and cool air mixes in at the bottom, so there is no average 3°C temperature rise on the surface.
But obviously, looking at Figure 2, including warming from all sources there is something like a degree or so of peak temperature increase from the urban heat island at Heathrow.
What is this from? While some is from the acres of hot asphalt runways cooking in the sun, in part it’s from the actual burning of the fuel. Have you ever been caught by the blast from a jumbo jet, even from far away? I have, many times. It smells like kerosene, and it’s warmer than the surrounding air, sometimes much warmer. When one of these blasts hits you, you can easily feel the difference in temperature … and so can the airport thermometer.
With that in mind we can see how desperate the UK Met Office is in their defense of the record. Consider this quote from Dr Mark McCarthy, head of the Met Office’s National Climate Information Centre:
Nor does it make sense to think that a passing breeze could have carried a waft of heat from a nearby aircraft, as Homewood suggests. McCarthy tells Carbon Brief:
“We have checked with [air traffic control] and confirmed that the north runway, which is closest in proximity to our observing station, was being used for landing aircraft. Therefore, landing aircraft would most likely have had idle engines by the time they reached the eastern half of the runway, where our observation station is sited.”
Had passing aircraft generated turbulence, that would help mix the air close to the ground. This would be more likely to lower the air temperature than raise it, McCarthy says.
I fear Dr. McCarthy has not spent enough time out on the tarmac … first, after landing jets do not have “idle engines”. They use their engines to move around the airport, blowing hot air out behind them as they go. And every time they stop, it takes a big blast of hot air to get them moving again. And second, while it is possible for jets to reduce the ground temperature because of the turbulence from their wings, in general, guess what?
Burning about a million gallons (3.4 million litres) of kerosene per day in one location generally does NOT lower the air temperature as McCarthy implies.
Here’s part of the problem. This shows the location of the meteorological station at Heathrow.
Figure 3. Location of the meteorological station at Heathrow Airport is shown by the white circle. The large runway across the middle is the “north runway” referred to by Dr. McCarthy in the quote above. Note the jet at the bottom for scale.
As you can see, the met station is about 150 metres (500 feet) from the north runway. The difficulty comes after landing and slowing down, when the jets turn off of the eastern end of the runway by the met station on one of the side taxiways. At times in that process, their jet exhaust will be pointed directly at the temperature measuring station. Indeed, when jets turn off on either of the two right-hand taxiways in the picture above, their jet exhaust is pointed directly at the met station for the entire trip down the taxiway … and did I mention that the wind was from the south and southeast during the time of the temperature record, blowing from the taxiways towards the met station?
So … did jet exhaust cause the large spike in Heathrow temperatures on 1 July 2015 that created the new record? I’d say:
a) we don’t know, although it certainly seems plausible and winds were in the right direction, and
b) it certainly can’t be ruled out by what the Met Office has shown, but in any case
c) it doesn’t really matter because jet fuel and runway tarmac assuredly warms Heathrow in general, so any Heathrow records are not very reliable or meaningful.
One final thought for you. Heathrow proudly proclaims that from 2012 to 2013 it decreased its CO2 emissions by 11,923 tonnes of CO2. Cue the applause.
However, during the same period, China increased its emission rate by 358,304,399 tonnes/year of CO2. This means that the increase in Chinese CO2 emissions, not the amount of the emissions themselves but the amount of the increase in emissions, is about 40,874 tonnes per hour… which means that all of Heathrow’s proud one-year accomplishment of emission decreases during all of 2012 was wiped out by China in the first 17 minutes after midnight on January 1, 2012.
Dust in the wind …
Regards to all,
w.
As You May Know: If you disagree with someone, please quote the exact words you disagree with so we can all understand the nature of your objection.
Heathrow Airport Details: Over at the Talkshop, tchannon has a good description of the physical layout of the airport here.
Update from the Comments: First, a number of folks mentioned thrust reversers, which I’d forgotten to consider, and the fact that they blow the warm jet exhaust to the sides … in other words towards the met office.
Also, someone talked of the importance of winds. This is very true.
Wind is indeed important, at times crucial. And even if the speed is constant, the direction can be critical. I was going to include the following but the post was getting long. Another example of met office guys not getting out enough.
Now, any swabbie sailor like myself would look at that and say “Yep, that wind is swinging quite a bit”. It looks pretty typical for a wind regime, the wind direction tends to sway from one side to the other once or twice in an hour or so, which this does.
How much is it swinging? Well, it swings from a minimum of 130° (about southeast) to a maximum of 180° (south) during the hour. This is a not insignificant range of no less than fifty degrees.
And the largest rate of swing was a change of fifteen degrees in five minutes … so I’d have to disagree with Dr. McCarthy when he says:
“We’ve looked at wind data and there is no sudden change in wind direction at Heathrow around the time of the record.”
All the best to you all,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Howdy Willis
Correct following “warning” To “warming”. Under the first graph>
“sense to you that a subsequent solar spike twenty minutes later would lead to no warning at all?”
Thanks, Dahlquist, fixed. My motto is, “Perfect is good enough”, any assistance in that direction is always appreciated.
w.
Willis
A similar very odd spike happened in Brisbane Australia on November 16 2014, famously the day of the G20 Climate summit in that city. The temperature was nowhere near reaching the ‘highly anticipated’ predicted new record (of about 42C) and was hanging in the low-mid 30C’s in the middle of the day and early afternoon but ‘magically’ the temperature shot up in about 20 minutes late in the afternoon to hit about 39C. I was watching it develop that day on the BOM website. I don’t know whether the BOM has the archive for the measurements which were taken that day every 10 min publicly available online (I can’t find them now) but here is the summary for that month and you can note the information it gives for November 16 2014:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201411/html/IDCJDW4019.201411.shtml
In Brisbane, one can get sudden hot gusts from the interior hitting parts of the city while others sections remain 10 degrees cooler. But again an odd coincidence.
Another correction Willis, for an otherwise excellent article. As a first nation Briton, a Gaidheal, I would point out that it is not entirely an land of “Anglo-Saxophones”, and that some of us original Brits still survive.
Paul Mackey July 20, 2015 at 4:13 am
Way cool … are you a descendant of the guys who painted themselves blue and buried their dead in wheel-barrows and snorted woad? And just what is “woad” when it is at home, anyhow?
Enquiring minds want to know …
w
Willis Eschenbach:
There are many British people whose ancestry includes the Celts and they are mostly in Wales, Scotland and Cornwall (i.e. the ‘Celtic Fringe’).
They used the indigo dye called woad as a war paint. It was a good war paint because its antibiotic properties reduced fatalities from wounds.
Woad is made from the woad plant (i.e. isatis tinctoria) and you can obtain more information on woad than you could want from the ‘All About Woad’ web site and its links.
Richard
Not to mention thrust reversers on landing…bit of fuel burned then, too!
I was just going to mention that, you beat me to it. Yeah, those screaming jet engines I hear and feel after landing must be “idling.” Does working for the Met office cause a massive abandonment of any logic or common sense, or is that a prerequisite for the job?
And consider too that when the wheels hit and the thrust reversers open and the engines spool up to 80% or whatever you ‘re blasting a big cloud of hot air a thousand feet to either side of the aircraft on the landing roll, until the crew decides to close them and taxi off.
Here is an interactive view of the met office station at heathrow whereby you can scroll around to see the full extent of the Tarmac and number of jets
http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/search?site=EGLL&Get+information=Get+information&lang=en
It can be noted the very busy roads and large amount of industrial activity immediately around the perimeter.
Records have been kept here since 1948 when this was a tiny RAF airfield. Since then it has grown many thousandfold and it is nonsensical to try to claim any records for such a large area of Tarmac together with the related infrsastructure. Most likely a jet caused the increase in heat although it must be said it was very warm in the area for July 1st
This was due to a heat plume that came up from morocco and Spain for a couple of days. It was not nationwide, here in the southwest it was no more than fairly warm. It was by no means hot.
Britain itself is only the size of new York state and is one big heat island. The met office take uhi into account in its records but probably not enough. The London area is a huge chunk of uhi in its own right and is commonly four or five degrees warmer than other parts of the country. Heathrow must be a uhi imposed on an uhi.
Tonyb
Oh, good catch, I didn’t even think of that …
w.
Concrete runways. Big jets with 300 psi tires tend to sink into asphalt on hot days.
Thrust reversers are only used at high power during the initial, high speed part of a landing, as they are inefficient at lower speeds. Most airline policies keep them deployed during the entire rollout, but at idle power after the aircraft is slowed. At the higher speeds, the exhaust is swept backwards, so you don’t get much sideways effect beyond the runway edge.
Twin engine, tail mounted engines deflect exhaust vertically.
Yes, most jets pull 70% N1 rotation speed with reverse thrust. That does not equate to 70% of full power, but it is still a great deal of thrust and heat. So if there was a northerly component to the wind it would easily arrive at the met station.
And the jetblast travels a long way. I was blown over by a 747 manoevering onto a stand on the opposite finger to where I was. And yes, it was hot.
70% N1 isn’t much above idle thrust.
A normal reverse of 70% N1 is just under 50% thrust. An 80% N1 max reverse gives well over 50% thrust. There are problems with pulling more thrust, including air reingestion, dust and stone damage, and aircraft vibration.
Thank you for your fine efforts. I enjoyed it as usual.
Coincidences, such as this, happen. What are the chances that Lou Gehrig would contract Lou Gehrig’s disease?
Or that meteorites always seem to land in craters?
@ur momisugly Jer0me, +! (if allowed more it would be at least +100)
I am certainly non-expert in the field of airport siting, but intuitively, I would think the sites chosen would tend to be
1) On high ground
2) Open to the sky
So, from #1, I would think the area would generally tend cooler due to higher elevation, but #2 would tend to make it warmer due to lack of shade, yet cooler due to winds. If the surrounding grassland were regularly watered – which seems likely since you wouldn’t want dust clouds – evaporation might tend to make it cooler. No doubt, this list is not comprehensive for all influences.
All in all, I don’t know how it would all fall out. But, I wouldn’t completely discount the possibility of either a warm or a cool bias.
Why high?
Flatter, and in relation to human habitation, probably trending lower. That’s a big ‘probably’; I can think of many exceptions and even more reasons for exceptions.
=================
So the planes could make a gradual descent to the runway?
It’s easier to live on broken terrain than it is to land planes on it. Hence hills for living, lower, flatter for landing. This is highly speculative, but a fun furrow to follow.
=====================
Easier to build on the flat than the hills, too, though. The numbers exist; let them be run.
================
Bart
Heathrow is in flat terrain to the west-south-west of London. I’m pretty sure the average elevation of the area can’t be much more than 20m above MSL (I used to live within a couple of miles of the end of the runway).
To the west is the M25 London orbital motorway and then semi-rural land (variously grassland, reservoirs and small towns, plus the River Thames), while to the north and south are London suburbs and to the east is London ‘proper’ Other than to the west, the airport perimeter is built up with variously industrial / distribution warehouses and medium rise hotel buildings.
For Britain, the prevailing wind is westerly or south-westerly, with this being the case for about 90% of the time (hence our strongly Atlantic maritime weather). However, TonyB (Climatereason) makes the good point that on this particular day the south-east of England had southerly to south-easterly winds blowing from the near Continent, bringing unusually hot and dry air up from central France. It was unusually hot for much of England, and on the face of it the temperature record for July was broken in that the Heathrow temperature sensor recorded a higher temperature than has ever previously been recorded in England. The questions are 2 fold:
1 – Is this record comparing ‘apples and oranges’, in that the temperature sensor at Heathrow is undoubtedly affected by UHI and microsite effects, and doubly so in this instance where the warm air reachin Heathrow had passed over a substantial part of London?
2 – To some extent, so what? Records are broken occasionally, and we know the weather system for the first couple of days of July was unusual. A very marginal breaking of a high temperature record no more proves climate science than the breaking of a low temperature record disproves it.
Actually, looking at the ‘month by month’ records, it is interesting how spread record highs are through time – including ties, there are 18 records holders, with 1 in the 1900s, 1 in the 1920s, 6 in the 1940s (3 being different sites on the same day), 1 in the 1950s, 1 in the 1960s, 2 in the 1970s, 1 in the 90s, 3 in the 2000s (2 being different sites on the same day) and 2 in the 2010s so far. Seems a pretty random spread really – maybe a slight hint of more recent records, but that could perhaps be explained by variously UHI and simply having more weather stations measuring temperatures in potentially hot places, or by a gently increasing underlying temperature trend.
“Heat row” is not a standard meteorological station – it cannot be, as the protocol states that such a station shall be surrounded by grassland! Not fuming jet engines and black low-albedo tarmac. The “Heat row” station is just another blunder station, which is good to have for the CAGW-crowd.
The pilot landing aircraft with turbofan engines, immediately they touch down, opens the flaps and moves the covers and guns the engines in order to slow down! Ever landed in one? That reverse thrust is engine power. The mechanics of the operation causes the hot blast to move sideways away from the aircraft.
Thanks, Crispin. I hadn’t thought about the jet blast going to the side. Somehow in my head the “thrust reversers” did exactly that, but no, in fact it diverts it generally in a forward-facing cone extending up, down, and to both sides of the engines … and the “down” portion of that has to go somewhere.
This would set up a sheet of ground level wind, with the sideways wind velocity generally remaining high down to ground level due to the conical nature of the reverser exhaust. The reverser forces jet exhaust into the area between the between the ground and the engines and wings, so it escapes forwards and sideways.
Well done,
w.
Jet blast raises temps everywhere, ever been on the deck of a Nimitz Class carrier during a scramble? It can get very warm in all directions even when you’re moving at 8 knots into a 6 knot headwind.
Unless you’re backing out of a gate with reverse thrust, the forward component of the exhaust is always less than the forward speed of the aircraft, so the exhaust ends up going backwards after it leaves the immediate area of the engine. Somewhat explained by my comment above – 4:17 pm
The airport diagram you show gives away a very possible event, There is a fast exit taxiway just after the met observation position. These taxiways are preferred as the aircraft can expedite its exit from the runway rather than be at a slow taxiing speed to take a more right angled exit taking up more runway time. An aircraft that landed long could easily be increasing its reverse thrust to try to slow enough to make its preferred (sometimes declared) exit; right at the time it is upwind of the automated observation station. It would be simple (although behind a paywall for non-government or NATS) to identify landings at the time of the observation and even obtain a replay of the aircraft using the North runway at the time of the observation. It is not in the Met Office interest so they will not do it; but anyone with access to the NATS Heathrow movement recordings could easily obtain the data. I would suspect a long landing by a 4 jet aircraft such as a 747 with extra reverse thrust giving a ‘bubble’ of hot air to the observation station.
turboprops don’t have TR but the often change prop orientation and power up to slow down.
we used to back sf340b out of gate area using props if tugs were all tied up.
not sure how many turboprops land there though so may not add anything.
I had thought of that and dismissed it. There are a lot of planes landing at Heathrow; it’s quite busy.
If it happened once it would happen all the time.
My guess is a patch of hot tarmac warmed the air above it and that was stable for a while to allow it to get very hot. Then a plane and a gust of wind pushed it through the Stevenson Screen.
It was a hot day. The reading was accurate. But the record is obviously meaningless (it’s Heathrow!)
So I think the real question is why the MET Office don’t just say the record is real and meaningless.
WIllis- after reading almost all of your essays over the past few years, I just wonder if your brain is wired just a little differently. 🙂 As always, entertainingly written and easily understood. Poor Dr. McCarthy wiggling best he can until it blows over, so to speak.
Between 1957 and 2014 the 10 year mean July temperature differential between Heathrow and CET increased by approximately 0.96c.
July also happens to be the busiest month at Heathrow (in terms of passenger numbers).
The temperature differential for June (the third busiest month) increased by 0.95c compared with an annual average increase of 0.784c.
This does not prove the increase in temperature is due to aircraft activity but I struggle to think of another explanation.
Blogger Clive Best @clivehbest lists the planes passing During the peak in temperature.
https://twitter.com/clivehbest/status/622496979831001088
Nice one, Clive
Heathrow is always significantly hotter than anywhere nearby at any time of the year. I live about 12 miles away.
St James – in the heart of London with all of its Urban Heating – is just 14 miles or so as the crow flies from Heathrow airport and on the day in question was more than 1 degC Cooler than Heathrow.
It is normal for TV weather forecasts to predict London temperatures as 2 and even 3 deg C Higher than the surrounding rural areas.
The Met office have long appeared to me to be totally committed warmists and propagandists.
The Met office have long appeared to me to be totally committed warmists and propagandists … but they pretend not to be.
Their town to countryside figures vary by as much as 10°C (clear nights) but they manipulate the data by 0.1°C to allow for UHI effect.
Now, does that seem to you to be good science?
I agree. I have made similar comments in the past, and again on the Heathrow July 1 temperature. Of late the Met Office has increasingly quoted Heathrow or St James’ Park, central London, as the warmest place but both are heat islands. I’ve no doubt in my own mind that the Heathrow temperature on this occasion reflected both heat from the acres of tarmac and jet engines.. This should have been made clear. The Stevenson screen is ill-placed and should be moved well away from the runways and engine exhausts.
I’m surprised that Dr McCarthy thought that jet engines were idle when the plane landed. The power surge when they turn off the runway is huge with massive gusts of heat.
Heathrow is the 3rd busiest airport in the world.
Aircraft movements are allowed not 24 hrs/day, but only between 04:30 and 23:30.
Jet engine emissions occur not just during take-offs and landings, but also during taxiing.
..and slowing down on landings
ATC did not tell the MET that the engines would be in idle at that point….the MET made that up
They would have been in full reverse at that point…….
It isn’t as simple as that. Reverse thrust is bad for the engines and used only when necessary, usually on short runways or when the airplane is heavy. On long runways it might enable the pilot to shorten the taxi to the gate but that of course depends on where the gate is relative to the runway.
For small aircraft, yes, they will try not to use reverse thrust. But it is not that simple. ATC may want you off at the third exit, because of another an aircraft close behind, so you have to stop faster. Or your allocated stand may be on the east side, and you don’t want to taxi 2 miles in the wrong direction.
Plus most of the large aircraft will be using reverse most of the time. LHR is not that long, for a 747 or 330.
Billy Liar July 18, 2015 at 1:12 pm
If Clive Best information is correct about the time of the temperature spike a BA 747/400 from SFO landed on the North runway on ‘easterlies’. The BA terminal 5 is to the West of Heathrow, so a reduced roll out would reduce the taxiing considerably. I would expect the aim was to take the fast exit just at the end of the landing zone for westerlies and reverse thrust and braking would be increased to ensure the exit could be made. This would be directly upwind of the observation station. Anyone who has stood at the boundary fence of Heathrow knows that there are occasional warm bursts from the aircraft operating there.
There are some excellent meteorologists and forecasters working in the Met Office, but their reputation is being sullied by activists desperate to maintain a ‘global warming’ hypothesis that is looking closer to complete falsification with each passing year.
Joe Public July 18, 2015 at 12:04 pm
“Heathrow is the 3rd busiest airport in the world.”
For passengers yes. For Aircraft no. It is currently the 10th busiest in terms of planes.
Out of interest the following graphic shows how passenger numbers have increased at a far larger rate than the increase in the number of flights:
The first passenger flight was 1 pilot, 1 passenger, compared to the average now of 2 pilots and 150 passengers. Heathrow is one of the most efficient airports in terms of passengers per plane.
When aviation passenger numbers increase this is often considered bad while every other form of transport this is considered good!
Hmm. Didn’t like my link
If this doesn’t work then go here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Heathrow_Airport
and down to Traffic and Statistics
I remember a few years ago we had the hottest day ever in Britain – and again it was at Heathrow. I live in West Wales and it amused me because here in Wales it was overcast and there was some slight drizzle. This year it happened again, at Heathrow we had the hottest patch of hot air ever recorded in Britain, and here in Wales, about 200 miles west, we had overcast skies and light rain
Julian,
The the hottest patch of hot air ever recorded in Britain generally comes out of Exeter not Heathrow!
LoL
“We have checked with [air traffic control] and confirmed that the north runway, which is closest in proximity to our observing station, was being used for landing aircraft. Therefore, landing aircraft would most likely have”…
been riding their clamshells and buckets the hardest
Willis, another good article, could you please apply to run the Met Office; they are desperately in need of an injection of logic and common sense!
@Andrew, ‘an injection of logic and common sense!”. Seemingly the two hardest commodities on this planet these days. There are days I just tear my hairs out when I read/ listen/watch the warmist crowds come up with another doozie! This one about Heathrow is mind boggling. And thanks Willis, another Saturday night laugher, I just cannot believe these “academics/scientist can sleep at night, look their family in the eyes and for that matter have the guts to show up for work the next day!.
@Andrew, ‘an injection of logic and common sense!”. Seemingly the two hardest commodities on this planet these days
The two rarest commodities these days. There can never have been a period in recent history when so many politicians have been so completely stupid and inept.
What were once the yhree great powers USA, UK and France are now plague by the three most stupid legislature
Wind speed is important. Sometimes it takes a little breeze to blow away the locally produced heat, so when the wind drops to calm you get a spike in the heat. This is clear in other locations, such as the North Pole.
I know they work very hard to build the thermometers in such a manner that they are not influenced by sunshine, but up at Faboo (my name for the North Pole Camera Buoy) the buoy itself creates a pool of water on the sea-ice. The melting must be caused by a tiny micro-climate of warm air. Then, on the rare occasions when it is sunny and the wind drops to a dead calm, that micro-climate isn’t blown away and the temperature immediately rises roughly 2° – 3°, and then as soon as even a slight 2 – 4 mph breeze starts back up, the temperature drops back down.
I don’t see what is so hard about being humble, and simply confessing our manner of collecting temperatures includes the effect of man-made objects. It is downright silly to pretend we have a perfect system that can measure down to hundredths of a degree.
https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/arctic-sea-ice-breaking-up-is-hard-to-do/
Thanks, Caleb. Wind is indeed important, at times crucial. And even if the speed is constant, the direction can be critical. I was going to include the following but the post was getting long. Another example of met office guys not getting out enough.
Now, any swabbie sailor like myself would look at that and say “Yep, that wind is swinging quite a bit”. It looks pretty typical for a wind regime, the wind direction tends to sway from one side to the other once or twice in an hour or so, which this does.
How much is it swinging? Well, it swings from a minimum of 130° (about southeast) to a maximum of 180° (south) during the hour. This is a not insignificant range of no less than fifty degrees.
And the largest rate of swing was a change of fifteen degrees in five minutes … so I’d have to disagree with Dr. McCarthy when he says:
I’ll add this to the end of the head post.
All the best,
w.
Remember the record at Eureka a few years back? Same thing. Change in wind direction caused a short term spike. In that case the local meteorogist pointed it out to his credit.
This is the power of a jet engine, what would it do to the thermometer?
“If these engines run at full power for more than 20 seconds, they will start to rip up the runway.”
Waste of good cars. /Mr L
Au contraire. C’est une Citroën 2CV.
Yeah Mythbusters did it with a bus behind a 747 and you wouldn’t want to be in it let alone the warmup taxi-
‘which means that all of Heathrow’s proud one-year accomplishment of emission decreases during all of 2012 was wiped out by China in the first 17 minutes after midnight on January 1, 2012.’
The obsession with ‘reducing carbon footprint’ by organisations such as Heathrow and all Government funded establishments, from hospitals to universities, is one of the more ludicrous activities in the UK masquerading as meaningfully reducing the risk of a man made climate Armageddon. The National Health Service, for example, contributes 3% of the UK’s carbon output, which in turn is only 1.5% of global output. Nevertheless, this cash strapped institution is quite pointlessly spending £millions p.a. on reducing its carbon footprint. The lunacy is just mind boggling.
A new profession of carbon accounting has been created on the back of all this CAGW nonsense. The reporting requirements for ‘carbon’ imposed on utility companies in the UK have to be seen to be believed.
A new profession of carbon accounting has been created on the back of all this CAGW nonsense.
I sometimes wonder whether that’s the aim – job creation. Same goes for unreliables, inefficiency breeds jobs.
Green jobs
The irony is it’s our harnessing of fossil fuels that has permitted this sort of increasingly marginal pursuit and make work programs for boofheads increasingly detached from the means of production and economic scarcity. However there’s the fallacy of composition awaiting us should we all decide to bite the hand that feeds us so well.
Are there no thermometers just outside of the airport area that could be used to check how reliable the Heathrow station data is? I would think they would want to test this just to see how much UHI there is at airports like Heathrow.
I looked up a few on Accuweather:
St Albans 98°F
Reading 98°F
Windsor 98°F
Aylesbury 98°F
Looks like 98 was a common local reading.
In Towns and after conversion by AGW supporters at Acc weather
TonyB has pointed out below that Accuweather seems to be simply echoing Heathrow temperatures and attributing them to he local towns. If so, these figures don’t help – sorry about that.
If you had an ounce of brains, you’d wonder about that.
According to Accuweather, those four towns are IDENTICAL to Heathrow for every day from 28th June to 18 July. Their Junes are identical, too. So, clearly the Heathrow figures are simply pasted over every nearby town. … And Bedford,
and Huntingdon, and Sawtry – 66 miles North of Heathrow, but Yaxley (6 miles further North) was 5 Celcius cooler!
Clearly Accuweather temperatures are worthlless.
The higher solar radiation at Heathrow would cause an increase in THE FIRST DERIVATIVE of temp, not an instant rise in temp. Thus, if that was a significant factor, the solar radiation peak would correspond to the temp ramping up. Since it actually ramped down near the end of that radiation peak, the radiation obviously had virtually nothing to do with the temp.
This is all obvious to any student of differential equations.
“This is all obvious to any student of differential equations.”
Yes, or course. The fact that it is the opposite of what is experienced by anyone who has ever walked across a large paved surface during a hot sunny day is inconsequential compared to what math sophistry can tell us.
No, walking across a large paved surface on a hot sunny day would confirm exactly what I wrote. If you “experienced” it at different times of the day, you would notice the temp rising. It’s hotter later in the day.
Note: I am agreeing with Willis, specifically, this part:
“They used this graph to claim that it’s the sun, stupid … but the first problem is, according to their graph, about twenty minutes after the peak in temperature, the clouds parted a bit and the solar input jumped up again to nearly as high as it had gone before … but the temperature didn’t change in the slightest. Well, that’s not entirely true.”
You seem to have copped an attitude because you think I’m disagreeing with him.
I suppose I may have missed exactly what you were saying, and hence “copped an attitude”. For that I shall “do you a solid” and apologize.
I also should have quoted this sentence: “…the radiation obviously had virtually nothing to do with the temp.”, rather than the one I did, because I was mostly opining that the rays of the mid afternoon sunshine on one of the most direct sun angle days of the year almost certainly had some affect on the temperature recorded that day, although almost surely not the only factor.
I really do not know how to isolate the jet wash component of that recorded temp, on that day and in that place.
But I do know that I am not sure one has to isolate such a component, in order to be reasonably certain that recording climate data in places with increasing amounts of paving and structures, or any sort of changes in land usage… is absurd. Particularly if the data collected is then used to make any sort of sweeping conclusions about anything other than the effects of urban sprawl.
On that we absolutely agree. Heathrow is a ridiculous place to measure temperature in the first place. The bad siting of thermometers all over the US has been Anthony’s signature issue. He should win major award for it , but who are we kidding?
Meanwhile, the time scale in Figure 1 above is in minutes. That highlights the absurdity of the whole thing.
Thanks, Willis, as always, for your common-sense analysis.
Here, as elsewhere, one senses a whiff of desperation, as Nature fails to stick to the CAGW Party Line….
Willis, just a heads up….might not mean much…but a 1/10th of a degree doesn’t mean much anyway
They just resurfaced the northern runway and tarmac…makes it blacker/hotter…..last winter
…this was it’s first summer resurfaced
“We have checked with [air traffic control] and confirmed that the north runway, which is closest in proximity to our observing station”…and tarmac
Met likes to claim that all things are the same…..but not when you add brand new black asphalt
Heathrow finished resurfacing the north runway in Oct 2014…this would have been the first summer with new black asphalt
http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/briefings/final.ad.PDF
Tarmac? Black asphalt?
Tarmac is crushed rock and tar. Major commercial airports are not likely to be resurfacing runways with either tarmac or black asphalt unless those runways are for lightweight aircraft only. In Alaska, asphalt supports 737s. But an asphalt runway isn’t likely to survive many takeoffs of 970,000lb 747s.
Resurfacing often involves use of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC). One form of PCC is concrete mixed with fly ash from coal-burning power plants. Coal ash increases both strength and weather resistance.
verdeviewer July 18, 2015 at 3:38 pm
Tarmac? Yes:
Heathrow’s Southern Runway resurfacing in timelapse
Stephan Skinner:
Where in the video does it say that the runway is being resurfaced with tarmac?
I see a earlier coating being removed and replaced. Do you think cool music in a video made to promote the contractor who did the work makes everything good?
Looks like an asphalt lift. The first trucks sprayed a tack coat, then the big dump trucks came in and poured hot asphalt mix into the paver. You can see steam coming off, so it isn’t concrete.
They do not steamroll concrete, they bull float it.
It is true in some places. Here in Florida, and most places I can recall here on the East Coast where I do most of my air travel, airports are all concrete.
But even in places where asphalt is used, it is often applied over a concrete foundation. This is how streets are constructed in Philly, and have been for many years.
Obviously there are cost and performance tradeoffs among the various surfaces, and which surface is used is dictated by some calculation of how best to optimize some characteristics rather than others. Examples likely include durability under various conditions, installation and maintenance costs, surface characteristics including friction, rolling resistance, and traction, and how the expected range of weather conditions may affect each of these characteristics.
Although the word has come to be a general reference to airport surfaces, rather than the specific paving material:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-tarmac.htm
verdeviewer July 18, 2015 at 7:28 pm
“Where in the video does it say that the runway is being resurfaced with tarmac?”
I think you already have your response. Resurfacing takes place during the short time the airfield closes. As you can see from the video that the machines are laying a tarmac/bitumin composition whatever and this runway is ready to use as soon as all the equipment is off. Concrete takes days to set and is not flexible. I understand there to be several layers and as the original WWII runways and taxiways were concrete there might be some concrete buried underneath the surface layers of tarmac (I don’t know). However, the loads today on these surfaces are so far in excess of anything that a WWII bomber could give that I would guess these runways are more complex (than concrete) and deeper than the originals.
Anyway, nice comments about the music and its funny because when I found this video it was the music that convinced me. Yes, in fact cool music does make everything good.
I sit corrected. They’re replacing asphalt. As can be seen with Google Earth, both runways are topped with asphalt. (Aprons are concrete. Can’t leave an A360 sitting on asphalt.)
Construction may be similar to the proposed third runway:
300mm aggregate topped with 500mm concrete topped with 400mm asphalt.
Runways at SEA, SFO, BUR, LAX, PHX, and JFK in the US and Orly in France are concrete.
SEA is replacing an old runway this year with concrete panels underlayed with asphalt. Estimated life: 40 years. The concrete runway it replaces had an estimated life of 20 years when it was built in 1969. Since 1995, about 15% of its concrete panels have been replaced.
The video soundtrack really was appropriate. Did you notice it ended with what sounded like a puking frog? I imagined the smell!
Yes, it seems the media refers to any pavement on which an aircraft sits as “tarmac.” The media is good at mislabeling things. All it takes is one lousy article to create a terminological consensus.
It’s all just patent nonsense of the sort the Met Office Warmistas have been peddling since that venerable institution was hijacked by politicized “scientists”.
The entire LHR met station data set is useless – except as proof of the impacts of UHI and jet engines on local climate.
This announcement by the Met Office was purely “politically” motivates – it’s all part of the run-up to Paris later this year. 2015 has to be a record year, the hottest evaahhhhh!
I call BS.
Anyone into their military history looking at that list of other sites breaking records that day may recognise a couple of Battle of Britain airfields.
Bloke down the pub
Group 11?
mike
Not only Battle of Britain, there are 6 airfields in that list, 2 of them inactive.
Does Heathrow have any cameras of the runway area whose recordings might be available? There might also be some amateur videos, but those will be hard to locate… unless there are popular viewing spots that one could visit on the same day of the week, and ask around.
An ounce of calculation (Willis), dispels a ton of hot, defensive windbaggery (McCarthy and UK met office)
As a matter of interest, being an RAF brat, some of those stations leaped out at me: Wittering, Cranwell, Markham and Waddington are all operating Rpyal Air Force stations – some shared with the USAF (flight operations, that is.). Manston is a former RAF station, now a civil airport though not, currently, servicing large aircraft.
Oops, ‘Royal’…Bugrit!