I think the thing that's hard about European heatwaves is the relative lack of air conditioning. In the US, it's been my experience that far more houses have an aircon than is typical in Europe.
We just broke down and bought an airconditioner for the office, we're working out of the library today. It's too hot to do work effectively right now.
Heres an official flightplan from an some acutall atmospheric programs. The last on the list just startet at 22.july.
If they test tropical aerosols, then its no wonder, why its so hot. Theres the list http://www.halo.dlr.de/
If they do research with tropic aerosols, yes. But if you klick on it, page not found. So, ant say it for 100%. There was a NASA takes it to the MAX jetfuelresearch, started Jan. 2018 over germany. They did nothing else, then testing different fuels, with different effect on atmosphere. https://www.nasa.gov/aero/nasa-takes-international-aviation-... I dont like these things, because they can cause unpredictable consequences.
Is there any more to this analysis than a correlation? I.E. That there was something that happened in the general area some time period ago?
I'm talking about things like thermodynamic carrying capacity, total mass of the test, prevailing wind patterns with estimates of where the aerosol might be now?
A simple bayesian analysis for the current facts: what's more likely to have caused the warming - a test that generated injected a small amount of mass into the air, or the massive increase of CO2 over the last several decades?
Based on these two comments, it seems like you're putting too much emphasis on correlation, and not enough analysis in to some actual thermodynamics.
If you do have access to deeper analysis, please post them. I would be interested in learning something new.
Sorry for the late answear, didnt saw it. In this case, its a mix of both. I am not a scientist, so i cant make any analysis. But i read a lot in few last months. I searched for answears i could not find directly. And a small amount of mass(particles) into the air, can cause very big effects. Massive increase of co2 is warming, yes. And when u test tropical aerosols, warming will increase. Different aerosols have different effects on the atmosphere. And the heigt where they were injected also plays a role. As i done my private research, i came to the point, there must be more than only one sort of co2. And i was right.
10 comments
[ 51.4 ms ] story [ 899 ms ] threadhttps://www.france24.com/en/20190725-europe-france-germany-h...
But Warsaw is 27C, Minsk 21C, Smolensk 18C, Moscow 22C. So not entire Europe is baking in heatwave only the Western part.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/o...
The same circulation is responsible for chilly summer in Eastern Europe. So, not all bad.
We just broke down and bought an airconditioner for the office, we're working out of the library today. It's too hot to do work effectively right now.
And its actual and last program: http://www.halo.dlr.de/science/missions/southtrac/southtrac....
I'm talking about things like thermodynamic carrying capacity, total mass of the test, prevailing wind patterns with estimates of where the aerosol might be now?
A simple bayesian analysis for the current facts: what's more likely to have caused the warming - a test that generated injected a small amount of mass into the air, or the massive increase of CO2 over the last several decades?
Based on these two comments, it seems like you're putting too much emphasis on correlation, and not enough analysis in to some actual thermodynamics.
If you do have access to deeper analysis, please post them. I would be interested in learning something new.