Coal Trains: Bad for the Northwest Environment

There has been a lot of discussion about  to greatly increase the number of coal trains passing through Washington State, trains that would move coal mined in Wyoming and Montana to ports where it would be loaded on to ships destined for Asia.   A number of local groups are opposing this idea and recently the Seattle City Council voted for a motion against the trains.

Folks,  coal trains and coal export to Asia are poor ideas and bad for the environment on a number of levels.  

Those who have read this blog know I am no global warming radical...and on a number of occasions I have spoken against those exaggerating the local threat of increased greenhouse gases.  But anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is a very serious issue and the earth will warm considerably during the next 50-100 years because of increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases (e.g., methane). Coal is one of the worst fossil fuels, in terms of production of CO2 per unit heat produced, and it is dirty, resulting in lots of particles and toxic gases in the atmosphere.

So here we are in the U.S, driving our hybrid cars, expending large amounts of money on renewable energy sources, insulating our homes and business, and working in a dozen other ways to lessen our carbon footprint.   And at the same time we plan to mine tens or hundreds of millions of tons of coal a year and ship it to China?  This makes no sense.   And it costs energy--lots of energy--to ship the coal to our ports and then across the widest ocean in the world, and then to move it to where it is needed in Asia.

But is is far worse than that.  Each coal car is a huge source of coal dust--Burlington Northern estimates about 500 lb of coal dust is lost per car during the trip.   Thus, we also have a substantial local public health problem as local communities near rail lines are covered by a veil of particulates that can cause serious respiratory problems for those with asthma and other health issues.  In fact, some of us at the UW are sufficiently interested in this that we plan on measuring these dust levels over the summer as some of the coal trains lumber by.  And the diesel trains that  pull all these coal cars are THEMSELVES big pollution sources....diesel engines produce a toxic collection of substances that irritate the lungs and even cause cancer.

Want to see the coal dust blowing off a coal train? Click on this image to see a video of a coal train in British Columbia...you will see HUGE amounts of dust blowing off into a scenic river basin:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jixOquzgNqk

Even worse...once the coal gets to China they burn it, producing all sorts of particulates and gases that then moves across the Pacific to worsen regional air quality problems here in the Northwest.  In fact, Professor Dan Jaffe, of UW Bothell, has documented the substantial contribution of Asian pollution to our background pollution levels (see here for one story on this).

So coal trains will greatly contribute to increased global warming and will undermine the health of Northwest residents both from the coal dust blowing off trains and the air pollution that the coal will produce in Asia and which will blow back across the Pacific into our area.

And one more thing---more coal trains will lead to more traffic in many Northwest cities, since there are numerous train crossings on major local roads.


I know what some of your are thinking....if we don't supply the coal, the Chinese will just purchase it elsewhere--with the same impact on global warming and cross-Pacific pollution.  And we lose a big sale!

 I just don't buy it. China is choking is its own pollution, reducing the lifespan of its citizens.  They need encouragement to move away from dirty coal, and facilitating their dependence on this fuel so we can make some money is ethically unacceptable.  You can make good money selling drugs to the addicted, but is it the right thing to do?  Certainly not.  There is a lot of talk about "Clean Coal" in the coal industry, but it is all hype--coal is dirty and no one has developed a technology that can economically remove the CO2 or lessen the air pollution problems it produces.

 Here is the U.S., we are slowly weaning ourselves from coal, particularly as natural gas becomes so cheap and renewable energy is becoming more widespread.  I believe the world is making a major mistake in moving away from nuclear energy.   Nuclear power can be accessed in a safe, clean way and the dumb mistakes of previous installations should not prevent it from taking a valuable role in providing massive amounts of power during our transition to renewable sources.  Yes, radiation is a danger, but so are the proven health and greenhouse warming dangers of burning fossil fuels.  Here is a figure relating the death rates per unit energy for coal, oil, and nuclear, based on statistics found here:

I have looked at a number of sources, and the results are consistent:  nuclear, even with the mistakes made at some locations, is far safer than burning fossil fuels.

Portland is Hot, But Seattle is Cool

As we enter the warm portion of the year,  differences between Portland and Seattle temperatures are again becoming evident.  Seattle has a far more maritime climate than Portland and thus is considerably cooler during the summer.   In fact, the Willamette Valley as a whole has a far more continental climate than the Puget Sound basin. 

To illustrate this situation, consider some topographic maps.  Seattle is clearly open to the influence of cool waters, with Puget Sound at its front door and a sea level path to the Pacific Ocean.  With water next store and high pressure offshore, constantly pushing marine air into the Puget Sound interior, it is hard to get the Puget Sound lowlands in the 80s or 90s during the summer.  Only when we have strong offshore and downslope flow can Seattle and vicinity get toasty.

But Portland and the Willamette Valley are another story!  The Willamette River or even the Columbia is no Puget Sound, and the Willamette Valley is surrounded by mountains or high hills on all sides, thus isolating it from the marine influence during the summer--a period when the Pacific cool, marine layer is relatively shallow and unable to surmount the terrain.  Thus, it is far easier for Portland to bake...and it is not unusual for the high temperatures from Portland to Eugene to be 5-10F warmer than Seattle...sometimes much more.

Lets begin by looking at the monthly average maximum temperatures at Seattle, Portland, and Salem.
Consider July.   In that month Seattle has an average high  of 75, Portland gets to 79, and Salem, a torrid 82F.  Not need to head to Hawaii...drive down to Salem.  But look at the winter high temperatures...there is very little difference among these three stations...and that is not surprising. With strong, deep flow coming off the Pacific and lots of clouds, we all suffer with cool, wet conditions.

But the mean monthly temperatures tell only part of the story...what about the extremes? Below is a plot of daily means and  extremes...lets consider the daily extreme high temps (yellow colors).  Seattle has only gotten above 100F once---103F in July 2009.  But for Portland, daily records above 100F are numerous and above 90F commonplace over most of the summer....very different than Seattle!

Lets illustrate with last summer:  here is the plot of temperatures at Portland (green line) and Seattle (red line for July 1, 2011 to Sept 1, 2011.  Portland is warmer on virtually every day, sometimes by as much as 10F.  They just don't have Seattle's natural air conditioning.  But they do have better food trucks, several of which sell cooling drinks and ice cream.

And if you think the Willamette Valley is warm during the summer...it is nothing compared to the next basin to the south...the one including Medford and Ashland.  They laugh at 100F temps down there....but that is a story for another day, and one that includes fog during the winter.

Extraordinary Skill for Extended Weather Forecasts

How far into the future are weather forecasts skillful? 

By that I mean:  how far into the future can we forecast specific weather features--perhaps the intensity and position of a low pressure center or the position of a front or whether they will be rain during the early morning hours.   Such forecasts contrast with climate prediction, where we attempt to predict the general nature of the weather over a period...say the average temperatures for the spring.

Lately we have increasingly seen forecast skill extend well past a week...and in some cases, extending to nearly two weeks....and in this blog I will show you a few examples.

A lot of research was done on this topic--determining the limits of predictability-- both from  theoretical and modeling perspectives.  For example, meteorologists such as Edward Lorenz and Joseph Smagorinsky would run weather forecast models many times, each starting from a SLIGHTLY different beginning--well within observational error.  They would see how long it would take before the forecasts would become very different.  Generally, it took about two weeks, but there is nothing unique about that period.   Sometimes forecasts would diverge after a few days, while in other situations the forecasts held together much, much longer.  The implication is that during some periods we find that forecast skill, even with a perfect forecast model, is lost quickly, while in other periods we might skillfully predict the weather for weeks.

The ability of a small change in the initial forecast state to eventually cause a big change in a forecast is known as the butterfly effect, since the atmospheric disturbance of a butterfly flapping its wings would eventually alter a forecast a long time into the future.

In the early days of forecasting, when our forecast models were crude and our observational resources were few, weather prediction could not get close to the theoretical limits.  But during the last decade or so, with the availability of satellite data, fast computers, and far better computer models, prediction skill has extended further and further out in time.   In the 60s-80s we were lucky to skillfully forecast out 2-3 days.  In the 90s 3-4 days.  And in the 2000s, 4-5 day forecasts were often quite skillful.  But recently, we have seen highly skillful forecasts consistently at 5-7 days, and occasionally approaching two weeks.

Want to see some examples?  Here is a 360 hr forecast (15 DAYS) from a National Weather Service ensemble weather prediction system for the height of the 500 mb pressure surface.  Specifically, it shows the predicted anomaly (difference) from normal of the mean of a large collection of forecasts (the ensemble).  Note the HUGE (orange color) high height anomaly in the north Pacific.

 Next, here is a 192 hour (8 day!) forecast valid the for same time.  The feature is still there.

Finally, here is a 24-hr forecast verifying at the same them..this should be pretty much exactly what happened.....the feature is still there...albeit distorted a bit.  You will note that the 192 hour forecast

 got a number of other features correct...or nearly correct...as well.

Or examine the 240 h (10 day) forecast by the European Center for Medium Range Forecasting and compare it to the 24 hour forecast for the same time.   The images below show 500 hPa heights and 850 hPa (around 1500 meters) temperatures.  Not perfect, but a number of features are very similar...useful forecast skill there!

Or a recent example--a forecast at 500 hPa made 7.5 days ago for today at 5 PM....and a 12-h prediction for the same time.  A lot of the same features, although there are some minor differences in phasing and amplitude.

The general consensus is that we will see such skill extend out further in time, by at least one day per decade.   There is a limit to this extension of forecast skill...but there is much we can do to improve our predictions more--so improvements should continue for a while.

So when people ask you how far into the future meteorologists can predict the weather, a good answer is:

2-3 days with excellent skill

3-4 days with moderate, but useful skill

5-6 days with marginal skill

..and occasionally skill extending out 7-10 days.

Yes...sometimes forecasts go wrong in less than a day...but is considerably less frequent than a decade ago.

Strong Thunderstorm Hits Portland

 For the second day in a row,  convection and thunderstorms developed over the Cascades and rolled into the western lowlands...in this case hitting southwest Washington, Portland, and the northern Willamette Valley.   Mark Albright, past WA state climatologist, reported that an observer in downtown Vancouver just W of I-5  reported 0.40 inches of rain in 5-minutes from 19:29 to 19:34 PDT 26 May 2012.  The highest hourly amount from the Portland Hydra network (46 sites) seemed to be the 1.34 inches over one hour from 19:00 to 20:00 PDT reported at Hayden Island just west of I-5.  This is extraordinarily heavy precipitation--heavier that the downpour that hit Seattle in December 14, 2005.....the event that flooded parts of the Madison valley.  Most gutters simply can't handle this intensity.

Take a look at the Portland radar at 7:26 PM Saturday....see those reds?...that is torrential rain.

Here is the storm total precipitation from the radar...you can see the track of the heavier rainfall.

Did the models get it right?....unfortunately, not....again they failed.  As proof, take a look at the forecast 24 h precp ending 5 AM Sunday....not good.  This summer I plan on examining this event in detail....hopefully finding the origin of this failure.  But convection is hard to forecast, particularly weakly forecast convection.

Here are two good youtube videos of the event:


First one.
Second one

Falling Trees, Thunder, Strong Winds and a Problem Forecast

This morning I didn't plan on biking home in strong winds, rumbling thunder, light rain and a blocked bike trail....but it happened.  During the second half of the afternoon thunderstorms developed over and to the west of the Cascade crest and then moved over the Puget Sound lowlands.  Strong outflow from the thunderstorms produced gusts of 30-40 mph, causing branches from the well-leafed trees to break off and descend upon surprised local residents. (the leaves enable the winds to do more damage to the trees than would have been the case a few months ago).

This is what was waiting for me on the Burke Gilman trail around 7 PM...and much of the trail was covered by small branches and torn off leaves.

The winds came up suddenly as the thunderstorm cells approached...here is the wind observations on the Evergreen Point floating bridge:

 It should also be considered that there is considerable danger when there are strong wind and you are near big trees.  The strong winds were over when I entered the wooded portion of the trail...and I was still a bit nervous.  People have been killed and injured by falling trees--even in cars--so you got to be watchful.

Thunderstorms often have strong winds associated with downdrafts produced by rain falling out of the storms.  Not only does the rain drag the air downward, but evaporation cools the air, making it more dense and thus heavy.....allowing the air to accelerate towards the surface where it is forced to spread out as a fast current.  The transition to these strong outflow winds is called the gust front.   Not only can it knock down branches or trees, but there can be danger on the water if you are in a sailboat.   I was involved in a legal case once where some fell off a sailboat when a gust front hit--there didn't make it.

The cam on top of the atmospheric sciences roof showed the building cumulus over the Cascades at 3:15 PM--that was a sign of what was to come.



The visible satellite imagery illustrates the development from space.
First, at 1 PM, cumulus started developing over the mountain, but the lowlands were clear and sunny.

By 4 PM, the convection had intensified and started to shift over the eastern side of the lowlands.  North Bend was getting a thunderstorm at this time.

The Camano Island radar at 3 PM and 5 PM picks up the cells moving west.  For most locations the showers were light and and some the rain evaporated before reaching the surface.

The national lightning network picked up quite a number of discharges...here is a sample over a thirty-minute period ending 5 PM.

 

The precipitation reaching the ground was pretty minimal, although a few locations in the foothills got a tenth or so (precip for the six hours ending 9 PM Friday)

I found a wonderful video from Snohomish showing precipitation falling out of the clouds...called virga.  Find it here.

The UW WRF model clearly underplayed the precipitation (see below)...it appears it underestimated the amount of convection---something that we need to diagnose and perhaps improve.   Convection is hard ... particularly weakly forced convection like this.

 

The NWS NAM model and the European Center model had a bit more, but failed to move it over the lowlands as well.  Because the models missed the intensity of the convection and its movement over the lowlands, the official forecast this AM gave little clue to the storms that reached the metro area.  We've  got more work to do!