Is Our Infrastructure Ready For Rising Temperatures?

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.'"

Comments

Nothing new

[Narmi]

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.

Nope.

[Kenja]

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.

Re:Nope.

[ThatsMyNick]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you probably started as a run of the mill Republican but dude you are now a foaming at the mouth extremist. You won't even pay taxes to maintain the fucking roads? Get real man.

Re:Nope.

[mug funky]

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.

[vivian]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[PopeRatzo]

Where do you think that money to put people back to work building infrastructure comes from?

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.

But who would invest in such infrastructure? I don't know; that's the point of allowing a Free Marketâ"an environment where there are robust processes of variation and selection that give rise to the evolution of society, allowing society to adapt to the needs of the moment.

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:Nope.

[Black Parrot]

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:Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

2-3 degrees in the oceans.

Takes LOTS of heat.

Acidification already going beyond scariest predictions. Nature is buffered. Change is slow in buffer zone, fast once the buffer gives.

Re:Nope.

[amiga3D]

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.

[Maow]

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.

Re:Nope.

[DerekLyons]

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.

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.

[JWSmythe]

    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.

News to us in Texas

[Aranykai]

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:News to us in Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if the materials were chosen for expected temperatures that are no longer the norm. Washington D.C. has not historically had "many, many days of 105+ temperatures", so why would engineers waste money designing for such a scenario? A quick Google search for 'average temperature US cities" turns up one table showing a 5.8 degree difference between average July temp in Washington D.C. vs. Dallas TX.

Re:News to us in Texas

[mythosaz]

High temperatures thin air.  Thin air makes for less lift.  Less lift makes for dangerous takeoffs.

Another scaremongering story

[dinther]

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.

Re:Earth won't turn into Venus!

[Black Parrot]

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:Any mix for -18 to 38?

[bill_mcgonigle]

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?

Think again.

[ukemike]

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