The 8-Bit Guys house in Texas

[james_s]

From when I was little, I remember we always shutting off the water of our garage in winter and reopening it in summer, it's kind of a no brainer if you know "its gonna get cold" to me tbh 

If you live somewhere like I do where it predictably dips into freezing territory for significant periods of time over the winter then yes this is a no-brainer. If you live somewhere where freezing weather is rare then I can understand not thinking of it. If you live somewhere that has poisonous insects and snakes you'd probably think it a no brainer to check your shoes before putting them on, and check under the bed and in closets and such for snakes, but it wouldn't even occur to me unless someone mentioned it, it's not impossible to get those things here but it's exceptionally rare.

[Nominal Animal]

If you live somewhere like I do where it predictably dips into freezing territory for significant periods of time over the winter then yes this is a no-brainer. If you live somewhere where freezing weather is rare then I can understand not thinking of it. If you live somewhere that has poisonous insects and snakes you'd probably think it a no brainer to check your shoes before putting them on, and check under the bed and in closets and such for snakes, but it wouldn't even occur to me unless someone mentioned it, it's not impossible to get those things here but it's exceptionally rare.

Agreed; well put, too.

Where I live, there are no poisonous insects (except perhaps bees and wasps, if you count those; any poisonous arachnids there are physically cannot bite humans) and the only poisonous animal is asp (which is only dangerous if you are allergic; a simple bee sting kit with antihistamine and epinephrine will counteract any bite); so the critters in Australia, especially arachnids, scare me.

Then again, Puumala hemorrhagic fever is endemic here in bank voles.  It is an orthohantavirus, spread mainly via powdered bank vole droppings (so for example when sweeping a hut where bank voles have nested or pooped in).  Most Finns tend to have some sort of genetic protection against it, and only get high fever and temporary renal problems; kids rarely get any symptoms, and having had the infection once, you have a lifelong immunity against it – and about 5% of Finns have today, with most Finns having very little to no contact with bank voles.  Because the virus also causes increased porosity/permittivity of blood vessels, it can be dangerous for some, but in any case the fatality rate is under 0.1%, so fatalities are exceedingly rare; statistically about one person per year.

Yet, an Israeli researcher doing research on bank voles, died of Puumala virus in Finland in 2014.

You can imagine the shitstorm the media whipped up about how dangerous it is.. completely disregarding the fact that it isn't dangerous to Finns because of our genetics.  I bet that >99% of Finnish rodent researchers have had "vole fever" – as the virus is called here –, and just didn't realize how dangerous it can be to those without inherited genetic protection against it.  (Inherited, because of relatively isolated Finnish genetics, and because in the times when most Finns lived in villages or forests a few hundred years ago, probably all children had it in childhood, and the genetic protection is such that it is usually symptomless or very mild when had as a child – AFAIK child mortality is exactly zero, no known cases at all –, and gives a lifelong immunity.)

I bet the fellow researchers knew that, because even I was told about it as a kid in early eighties living out in the boonies.  Perhaps they underestimated the risks, or more likely, it just never occurred to them.  (I mean, the research station did have top notch protections: suits, breathing masks, well insulated test enclosures, and so on; they weren't negligent or careless, the research station is top notch.  They just did not realize how dangerous it could be to someone without the same genetic heritage.)

Because that's what we humans are like; we just aren't adept at dealing with issues that are likely to only occur once or twice in our lifetimes, or anything outside our immediate experience.  So don't be too harsh; you and I make the same mistakes too.

[unixb0y]

If you live somewhere that has poisonous insects and snakes you'd probably think it a no brainer to check your shoes before putting them on, and check under the bed and in closets and such for snakes, but it wouldn't even occur to me unless someone mentioned it, it's not impossible to get those things here but it's exceptionally rare.

That’s actually a good point and a good comparison 

[Ian.M]

OTOH if the insects are swarming and covering the path to your front gate, and you've seen a few inside your house, wouldn't you be more careful?

Where I grew up, we might get a hard winter with snow lying for more than a day or two maybe once a decade.   Most winters it would only get cold enough to occasionally find a skin of ice on any small containers or sheltered puddles of water open to the sky outside if you got up early enough.  Even though those with northern roots in the family had moved south three or more generations earlier, we still knew to drain or otherwise protect anything vulnerable to frost damage if a significant freeze was forecast.  I've had to deal with one burst pipe due to frost in 50 years, and it was actually a neighbor's one that was external and ineffectively insulated.

[rdl]

Typical of the weather here, last week everything was encased in ice, today we hit 83 F.

[ajb]

OTOH if the insects are swarming and covering the path to your front gate, and you've seen a few inside your house, wouldn't you be more careful?

There's a difference between knowing that it's cold and knowing that several kinds of household pipes can burst if they freeze.  Just like there's a difference between knowing that venomous critters exist in an area and knowing that some of them like to hide in dark places like shoes and in bedding.  There's also a difference between "knowing" something and being cognizant of it during a generally stressful situation.

[Siwastaja]

I'd much rather deal with -15C temperatures than 40C temperatures. It's a lot easier to warm up than it is to cool down.

-15C is quite OK. You can heat with COP=2 to 3 with an ordinary heat pump, air-to-air or air-to-water. Moderately sized small family house can be practically insulated for some 3-5kW average heat consumption. You can still go outside and do normal outside stuff (which you can't do at +40degC) with enough clothes on no problem. I don't enjoy it; many do.

At -30C, things start to get tricky. You are left with ground source heat pumps which are expensive to set up; or direct heating with electricity at COP=1; or burning fossil fuels. And you need 5-10kW of heat even for a very well insulated house. Additionally breathing the air hurts (or at least doesn't feel right) which you can't fight against with any amount and quality of clothing (this is highly personal though, some are fine; I'm not), so can't enjoy being outside. So it's similar to that of +40degC: you are locked inside, on the mercy of modern day life support systems, heating or cooling.

I have an old house with some old plumbing. I have developed a habit that whenever I leave for a few days, I close the supply valve so that an old pipe won't burst, or if the pipes somehow freeze which is unlikely, the amount of damage is very limited (a few litres of water somewhere, vs. almost unlimited supply if allowed to flood for days).

Note there are really unpredictable things you can't practically protect against; like a hurricane hitting your home with a flying car. You can build a 1" thick steel wall around your home and make it a bunker, but it's not practical. But weather is statistical. With statistics, you can also extrapolate, add error margins, so on... What's happening in Texas is not unpredictable; it's the opposite, it has been completely predictable, statistically speaking. No one can say when it happens, but it's highly probable it does happen at least once within the lifetime of the buildings. Also, protecting pipework from freezing is not rocket science, it's not very expensive; it's completely practical. It's all about risk management. Save a bit here and there ignoring the "quite unlikely" events. Then you pay the price for doing that choice.

Insulation pays off in reduced cooling bills in hot climates. It also helps when it's suddenly cold. Finally, insulation slows down the cooling significantly during power outage. Having most pipes run inside the insulated envelope of the house, and properly and carefully insulating any pipe lengths that go outside of the house is the key, and this isn't expensive. Underground, they are protected by the insulating soil layer; some half a meter is enough in an environment where the cool season is short. In an well insulated house, a day or two long power outage is not a disaster, and pipes won't burst.

Crawl spaces are problematic for plumbing. If ventilated through openings and/or uninsulated, they become nearly as cold as the outside air. All pipework must be properly insulated.

[rsjsouza]

-15C is quite OK. You can heat with COP=2 to 3 with an ordinary heat pump, air-to-air or air-to-water. Moderately sized small family house can be practically insulated for some 3-5kW average heat consumption. You can still go outside and do normal outside stuff (which you can't do at +40degC) with enough clothes on no problem. I don't enjoy it; many do.

Generalizations are always a problem. Everything is very relative to what you are used to and have equipment for. At -15°C you can't do anything outside unless you have proper shoes or gloves - otherwise, the cold will bite your fingers off. At 40°C you can have cold water, work almost naked and cool of every few minutes under a shade, but you can also have a terrible time with insulation.

Insulation pays off in reduced cooling bills in hot climates. It also helps when it's suddenly cold. Finally, insulation slows down the cooling significantly during power outage. Having most pipes run inside the insulated envelope of the house, and properly and carefully insulating any pipe lengths that go outside of the house is the key, and this isn't expensive. Underground, they are protected by the insulating soil layer; some half a meter is enough in an environment where the cool season is short. In an well insulated house, a day or two long power outage is not a disaster, and pipes won't burst.

The major problem is to retrofit houses built decades ago where insulation and efficiency concerns were never taken into consideration - this accounts for the vast majority of reaidences in the metroplex I live. Sure, I personally have the resources to pay up a decent contractor/engineer to analyze my house and propose a few methods to fight this, but I would imagine that not many will be able to do so - especially in a year where many lost their income.

[Siwastaja]

Generalizations are always a problem. Everything is very relative to what you are used to and have equipment for. At -15°C you can't do anything outside unless you have proper shoes or gloves - otherwise, the cold will bite your fingers off.

As always, you should just prepare for the rare-yet-predictable events, especially when it is simple and not that expensive. So buy some clothes, gloves, shoes, all that winter gear. It doesn't need to be fancy, doesn't need to be trendy, and what's best, if you are in a normally warm climate, it sees so little use it lasts for half of your lifetime (as long as you give up about the idea of being trendy).

I don't want to blame anyone not doing this. It's also the failure of the whole society that we spend our lives discussing about completely irrelevant matters such as Kim Kardashian's arse, yet forget about what's really important for our survival. Media could help people get information about important matters, not just entertainment.

The major problem is to retrofit houses built decades ago where insulation and efficiency concerns were never taken into consideration - this accounts for the vast majority of reaidences in the metroplex I live. Sure, I personally have the resources to pay up a decent contractor/engineer to analyze my house and propose a few methods to fight this, but I would imagine that not many will be able to do so - especially in a year where many lost their income.

Yes, retrofitting more insulation only pays for itself when you do that during other maintenance requiring tearing down the walls anyway.

This isn't a practical tip of any sort and probably unhelpful, just an observation: I don't understand why substandard houses were built a few decades ago. We had all the knowledge and understanding back then, as we do now. Somehow it seems human kind periodically loses the understanding of the most basic needs. Or just go outright crazy.

For example, here, the authorities basically forced people to bury the wooden structures a few dozen cm under the ground level, inside cold and wet concrete, from approx. 1965 to approx. 1990 in a structure called "fake foundation", creating a completely man-made mold disaster which affects basically half of the buildings in Finland for no reason whatsoever except someone thought buildings look better if they look like they sunk half a meter into the ground. At the same time, said authorities required that roofs must have no angle, obviously a winning idea in a climate where it snows every winter. The practical implementation consisted of a few layers of asphalt shingles, a solution which would work in a warm climate, or with a considerable roof angle, but with completely flat&level roof where water sits in pools, exposed to dozens of water freezing - melting cycles every winter, lasted for maybe one year then leaked into the completely unventilated roofing structures and insulation - where plastic film finally prevented the leak from being detected and spread the water everywhere.

So even if you wanted to build properly (and normally! we always knew how to do it!), it was not allowed. Many of these buildings are in acceptable conditions thanks to a better-than-average soil properties (this is, by luck), but most are generating health issues as we speak. Why? No reason. 1970's to 1980's was some strange time; we live in a cold country and the oil crisis was just behind, yet people tore down and refurbished old, well engineered (70-80% efficiency) fire places (that were designed for heating), replacing them with decoration fire places with nearly 0%, in worst cases below 0% heating efficiency, because they were more "trendy" back then. Just like building with timber in wet sand.

[rsjsouza]

Generalizations are always a problem. Everything is very relative to what you are used to and have equipment for. At -15°C you can't do anything outside unless you have proper shoes or gloves - otherwise, the cold will bite your fingers off.

As always, you should just prepare for the rare-yet-predictable events, especially when it is simple and not that expensive. So buy some clothes, gloves, shoes, all that winter gear. It doesn't need to be fancy, doesn't need to be trendy, and what's best, if you are in a normally warm climate, it sees so little use it lasts for half of your lifetime (as long as you give up about the idea of being trendy).

I agree with you in principle, but the TCO starts to become prohibitive when you have a limited house space used by clothes that only need to be drawn every 4~5 years or so.

This isn't a practical tip of any sort and probably unhelpful, just an observation: I don't understand why substandard houses were built a few decades ago. We had all the knowledge and understanding back then, as we do now.

I don't either. Regarding foundation, whwre I live the typical construction here is built on a slab of concrete that "floats" on the soil. It would be somewhat self-leveling if it wasn't for the fact the soil has a pesky tendency of becoming porous when dry. That brings tremendous forces that crack the slab and cost thousands of dollars to fix. That or you keep dripping water all around your house year round, with the cavest that you may have accumulated moist that seeps through the slab.
Builders don't give a crap to a problem that will take 15, 20 years to manifest itself.

[Siwastaja]

I don't either. Regarding foundation, whwre I live the typical construction here is built on a slab of concrete that "floats" on the soil. It would be somewhat self-leveling if it wasn't for the fact the soil has a pesky tendency of becoming porous when dry. That brings tremendous forces that crack the slab and cost thousands of dollars to fix. That or you keep dripping water all around your house year round, with the cavest that you may have accumulated moist that seeps through the slab.
Builders don't give a crap to a problem that will take 15, 20 years to manifest itself.

Here, the great idea that was followed (and forced) for over 30 years was: excavate some soil, maybe one foot deep. Pour some concrete here, so the top is still under the top soil. Leave placeholder gaps for all outside and inside walls; add styrofoam thermal insulation and then pour another layer of concrete on the top of that insulation, so that the top of this upper slab is on the ground level or an inch above it. Now fix some timber in the gaping canyons so that the wood lies directly on the lower slab, which is cold and moist below the ground level. Build the walls on the top of this wet timber.

Why do it like this? No one knows. Oh and the result looks so ugly that people ask why this building is lacking the foundation. The solution: create a decorative concrete "fake foundation" on the front of the building so it looks like the building is founded above ground, yet you can walk in through the cutout in this fake foundation. It was even explicitly called fake, yet someone thought it's a good idea!

[Zero999]

The west of England is milder and wetter, than the east, because the west is closer to the Atlantic and the east is nearer to the continent. A similar pattern repeats over North America, from west to east.

Not very similar, though:
https://nelson.wisc.edu/sage/data-and-models/atlas/maps/avgwintemp/atl_avgwintemp.jpg

The basic pattern of warmer in the west and colder in the east prevails over north America and Eurasia. The main difference is the mild temperatures extend further west into Europe, than they do into North America. There are a few reasons for this. Europe is a peninsula, with inland seas, America has the Rocky Mountains, which block the prevailing mild westerlies, so they don't get so far inland. The Rockies also send the jet stream on a north-west, to south-east trajectory, which results in the generation of intense low pressure systems and an increase in strength, as it hits the Atlantic, on eastern seaboard. This intense jet stream powers across the Atlantic, delivering mild air into Europe.

I do not know what is the main driver, but I definitely would not claim the Gulf Stream is irrelevant.  (Note, neither did Zero999; they just said it is not the main driver.)  The average winter temperature difference between Nunavut, Canada; Southern Greenland; and Iceland, breaks the "east-west part of continent dictates it" assertion, as they are all surrounded by ocean.

They're surrounded by cold ocean and are downwind of the frozen Arctic ocean and continent. Greenland has a mountainous interior and cold air sinking and flowing to the exterior makes it extremely cold. The Russian Far East is also very cold, despite being a peninsular.

The main reason I am wary of any simple explanations, is that Medieval Warm Period occurred, between c. 950 and 1100 Common Era.  During this time, Vikings in (the southernmost tip of) Greenland had cattle, sheep, and goats, and only a quarter of their diet was seafood.  By 1300, three quarters of their diet came from seal hunting, as livestock just couldn't handle the harsh winters.  We do not know why it occurred: all we know is correlation, and can only guess (and try to simulate to ascertain) the causation.

I agree. I don't like simple explanations, which is why it makes no sense when people say Europe is mild because of the Gulf Stream. The reality is much more complex than that. Ocean currents play a role, but only a small part.

I grew up in Finland, north of the arctic circle (so about 6° further north), and for example potatoes, carrots, rutabaga, and onions grow just fine even at 330m above sea level there. (At the bottom of a couple of fell lakes, well above the treeline, there are still rather large tree trunks from the Medieval Warm Period, too.)  So, it is not a small difference in winter temperatures; it is a clear difference that affects the entire biome.

The exact circulation patterns in the North Atlantic are rather interesting,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/North_Atlantic_currents.svg

Yes, interesting how the North Atlantic current misses all but most Northern Europe. The cold currents around Greenland and Eastern Canada help to push the July 10°C isotherm further south, although that's not he only reason.

Finally, comparing to the 10°C July mean isotherm (red line),

we can see that the summer mean temperature differs quite a bit from the winter mean temperatures in eastern Siberia and Alaska.  This supports the reasoning for continental effect on the climate (continental winters being colder, summers hotter).  However, the way Bering Sea summers are much colder than say Iceland clearly undermines that reasoning.  In other words, simple theories based only on the polar jet stream, or only on the Gulf Stream, are doomed to fail even a cursory examination.

The pattern of colder on the east coasts fits the summer pattern quite well though:the Labrador Sea is pretty cold in summer.

The atmospheric circulation patterns for January and July are very revealing. Note how the high and low pressure areas are influenced by the landmasses? In the northern hemisphere wind blows clockwise around high pressure and anti-clockwise around low pressure.

In the northern winter, the strong Icelandic (polar) low, Bermuda (also often called the Azores high in Europe) (subtropical) and Siberian high help to push south-westerly winds over Eurasia. Areas to the east of the large landmasses experience a much colder climate because the polar lows deliver northerly winds. In North America, the pressure pattern is similar, but not exactly the same, which accounts for the differences in temperatures.



In summer the areas of high pressure in the subtropics move northwards and the polar lows weaken, giving more settled weather. Areas of low pressure sit in the middle of the continents, bringing about the monsoons.


Also note that there's very little land in the mid-latitudes in the southern hemisphere, so there's less blocking and the wind direction is just flat westerly.

Here's the site I got the charts from. It has a lot more information about the global atmospheric circulation pattern.
https://slideplayer.com/slide/677125/

It's been disproven a long time ago that the Gulf Stream is the main driver for mild European winters. The west of England is milder and wetter, than the east, because the west is closer to the Atlantic and the east is nearer to the continent. A similar pattern repeats over North America, from west to east.

Yes, it's the jet stream which governs our weather. It's true it's affected by sea surface temperatures, but the correlation isn't direct. A warm North Atlantic doesn't necessarily mean milder winters for Europe. The temperature of the North Pacific, has a greater impact.

Links to sea surfaces temperature anomalies, at the end of Novembers 2010 and 2015, which preceded the coldest and mildest Decembers ever recorded in the UK. The Atlantic was much warmer at the end of 2010, than 2015. The difference was the Pacific was much colder in 2010, especially the north.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.11.29.2010.gif
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.11.30.2015.gif

Of course there are many other factors. The weather has changed from cold in the first half of February, to near record breaking warm this week, because the jet stream has moved northwards, due to the North Atlantic oscillation flipping to the positive phase and now the wind is now coming from the Azores, rather than Svalbard. The sea surface temperatures haven't changed much and Gulf Stream didn't go way when it was cold and return now it's milder.

NOAA seems quite convinced of the importance of the Gulf Stream: https://scijinks.gov/gulf-stream/

And you can't really decouple the two: http://www.actforlibraries.org/jet-stream-gulf-stream-polar-shifts-and-climate-changes/

On the other hand, there's a lot of new evidence to show the Gulf Stream doesn't have as much effect, as previously thought.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=gulf+stream+myth

I agree it's impossible to decouple the two, but noting the above about how the land & sea interface, govern the global air circulation patten, suggests it's not so important. I agree that if the Gulf stream changed, it would affect the European climate, I very much doubt it would plunge us into the freezer, as many scaremongers say. The land and sea won't move that much, so the basic atmospheric circulation pattern won't change drastically.

[Renate]

I see "Canadian high", but I don't see any "Rocky Mountain High".

[Zero999]

I see "Canadian high", but I don't see any "Rocky Mountain High".

What you mean by that statement?

Mountains can block winds and affect the jet stream, if they're high enough. Another example of this is, the Himalayas block cold air from North Asia, preventing it from reaching South Asia, which is why such places have much milder winters, than southern Texas, which is on a similar parallel. It's also another reason why the US west coast doesn't experience the same level of extreme cold, as the south.

[Cubdriver]

[rsjsouza]

Just an update I saw today... Quite good video.

[mac.6]

A blog post of NXP on Austin fabs impact:

https://www.nxp.com/company/blog/through-the-storm-the-complex-process-of-restarting-a-semiconductor-facility:BL-RESTARTING-SEMICONDUCTOR-FACILITY