discussing

The two most important weather models in the world are discussing whether Santander is going to freeze next week. And the cold is winning

by

Where has all the cold gone? So far this fall (with the sole exception of Siberia), temperatures have been relatively mild on all continents. And it seems that the situation is going to continue like this: it is true that the forecasts speak of a progressive decrease in temperatures in the southeast of Canada, the eastern United States and northern Europe; but no model paints a scenario that is particularly cold (except some very long term prediction). However, all eyes are on the polar vortex. If the models are right, it is very possible that the vortex will experience an unprecedented disturbance in November, leading to an interesting weather period starting in December. “There is no way this is fulfilled.” While November continues with its strange meteorology, the models draw increasingly strange scenarios. At this point in the week, we cannot rule out that on the 18th and 19th we have a more than considerable winter storm with the ‘beast from the east‘looming over Western Europe. In the next few hours we will have a war between models: The American marks a cold entry on Santander, the European said no. Little by little, the two seem to be converging towards a cold scene. It’s too early to say, but in a very few hours the daisy will be shedding its leaves. Anyway, the central issue is that all of this is minute sin. The breaking of the vortex. Except for that event in the middle of next week, autumn will continue to be very warm and mild on almost all continents. However, this could change if sudden stratospheric warming appears. That is, the vortex breaks. Sudden stratospheric warming? To understand it simply, we have to remember that the atmosphere is a kind of “lasagna of air layers” and each of them follows its own logic. That is, they work quite differently and independently. As far as it affects us: the circulation of air in the troposphere (the one closest to the surface) and the circulation in the stratosphere (the layer directly above) are related, yes; But, in general terms, they each do their own thing. During the “sudden stratospheric warming“, a part of the troposphere warms rapidly and, as a consequence, invades the stratosphere, causing a profound alteration of the circulation at high altitude. That is, for a few days, everything turns upside down. And what happens? The most common consequence of this is that the polar vortex weakens and may break down. The polar (arctic) vortex is a current of air that runs from west to east around the north pole and contains cold air at high latitudes. When this current is strong and stable, preventing it from flowing towards places like Spain. If the vortex It destabilizes and its winds lose strength (due to, for example, “sudden warming”), it is relatively common for cold air masses to escape on their way south. What if it doesn’t break? In reality, the vortex does not even need to break. It only needs to move from the Arctic region to lower latitudes. By moving a huge mass of cold air with it, the result is always very similar: an icy cold that can turn any country upside down (even the best prepared ones). And that seems to be what we are going to see. It’s hard to know if it will affect us or not, but there’s no doubt that the late fall weather is getting “interesting.” Image | Meteociel In Xataka | The last hope of winter in Spain is desperate, but increasingly possible: the breaking of the polar vortex

We have been discussing the change of time for years and we have managed to be in exactly the same place where we were

by

Almost every year for almost 20, Someone has taken To the United States Congress the idea of ​​ending the change of time. In Europe, We have spent hours and hours engaged in the discussion of what to do with him. Many countries, in fact, They have sent it to the history drawer (Others, on the other hand, They have recovered it again). I am still surprising that such a simple thing can unleash such great passions. Passions and, above all, reasons. Because there are hundreds of researchers trying to understand which time policy is better. That is why we talk about it again: because the Internet has filled with holders that ensure that “a study reveals that the change of time contributes to thousands of brain infarctions.” It’s true? What do we really know about the subject? How can the time change affect our health? The body has an internal clock of (approximately) 24 hours that helps regulate our physical and mental functioning. And not, It is not a way of speaking: As is in charge of innumerable physiological processes, the time we eat depends on that clock, to which we sleep, it even determines when we go to the bathroom. Ignore your permanent tick can cause discomfort or even a certain moment, serious diseases. Is What we call circadian rhythm. With this in mind, during this century, scientists have suspected that the hourly change should have some impact on those rhythms and, moreover, on health. The problem is that one thing is to intuit that impact and a different one is to be able to prove it. And what has this last study done? Stanford Medicine researchers They have compared how they affected circadian rhythms and general health in different different time policies (the winter schedule, summer and schedule with biannual change). To do this, based on the local exit and sunset hours, they analyzed the real exposure to the light under each time policy, the circadian impacts and the socio -health characteristics of each American county. It is not easy and has a high statistical component (and, in some segments, speculative), but it is an interesting exercise What have you discovered? In general terms, The team found that “maintaining the standard schedule or summer schedule is definitely better than changing twice a year.” According to their data, the winter schedule “would avoid about 300,000 cases of stroke per year and reduce obesity in 2.6 million people.” The summer schedule, meanwhile, “permanent would achieve approximately two thirds of the same effect.” And why would it happen? “When there is light in the morning, the circadian cycle is accelerated. When there is light in the afternoon, it slows down … explained Jamie ZeitzerProfessor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Standford. “The more light exposure is received at inappropriate times, the weaker the circadian clock is. All these factors that influence the life cycle – for example, the immune system and energy – do not synchronize so well,” He continued. The question we must ask ourselves, according to these researchers, is what time policy helps to better adjust circadian rhythms. And the answer, at least for the US set, is that most people would support a lower circadian mismatch with the winter schedule. Does that mean that winter schedule is better? Actually, no. It is possible that it is the most complete study to date, but (As the researchers themselves recognize) There are many factors that researchers did not take into account and that, by itself, can reduce gain very substantively. But even giving the methodology good and accepting that citizens behave as researchers suppose, we would have to reproduce the analysis in Spain (or our reference countries) to know what the final result would be. After all, The countries that change the time are a minority And it makes sense to think that there are scenarios in which the time change could help reduce that circadian mismatch. One of the problems of countries as large as the US (or realities as diverse as EU) is that making joint decisions is difficult. And then? I’m afraid that we are a little better than before, but almost in the same place: we still have no remotely if it is good or bad, and that we attribute more and more things. Image | Sonja Langford | NCI In Xataka | The “Spanish Ornitorrinco” exists and is on the verge of extinction: the very rare animal that only lives in the Peninsula

We have been discussing whether it is a good idea or not bassinally during long flights. Crews are clear

by

May not reach the level of the debate of whether the tortilla It must or should not carry onionbut when we talk about airplanes there are A dilemma that arises in virtually long flights: barefoot or not barefoot? Is it justified to take off your shoes to make a transoceanic flight of more than eight hours more? Is it uncivic? Is it unsafe? To start, do companies allow it? The debate jumps From time to time In networks. And surprising analysis and Surveys That is good to keep present. Travel and shoes. If you take the train or plane frequently, especially for long journeys, you will have seen it A few times (You may even do it yourself): There are passengers who, according to the trip, take off the shoes to be more comfortable. There are those that stay in socks. And others that directly leave their naked foot. It is a relatively common stamp. Just as it is to see how other passengers from the car or plane begin to look at those feet with anger. Click on the image to go to Tweet. A figure: 56%. It may seem a minor issue, but the flights (and train trips) with or without shoes is relevant enough for companies that have dedicated themselves to studying the topic thoroughly. An example is the Kayak platform, which in 2023 published A report with “the tacit rules” of air trips in which he collected the opinions of passengers on issues such as the use of support and players or telephone calls One of the issues he asked in his survey was the footwear in the planes. Are you okay if the flight is long? He obtained two answers, to each more striking. The first is that at least among the Americans there is no A clear opinion on whether it is correct or not take off your shoes on the plane. 56% believe that passengers must remain shoes, but as Slide Kayak itself That supposes that there is another 44% that differs from that opinion. Moreover, according to their data one in five people believe that it is fine to go to cleaning without shoes. Socks, the red line. In what is much more unanimity is that, although a traveler removes the shoes, heels or shoes, what he should never do is get the socks. 76% Of the surveyed by kayak it does not see that people dare of that garment in the airplanes. The percentage exceeds even those who consider that phone calls should not be made inside the plane or that to listen to music or watch movies you have to wear headphones. “It is unpleasant”. In other countries opinions are much more categorical. A while ago Jetstar made a similar survey Among more than 20,000 travelers and found that the majority “unworthy” that there are people who walk barefoot through the airport. The idea only convinces 6% of Australians and 9% of the Japanese. “An airport or plane is not a private living room,” says Zarife Hardy, responsible for the Australian School of label. “Remove your shoes in crowded spaces is coach for others.” In your opinion, you can get your shoes acceptable if we talk about long journeys, during which the traveler spends hours and hours in her seat, but Zariffe remembers That does not mean that I should be with the naked foot. “Wait for the plane to be flying and wear socks or slippers,” he advises. Education question … and personal hygiene. There is another reason why we should think twice if we should get our shoes on a plane. We may win comfort, but in the long run you can carry more serious problems. Especially if we are still barefoot when we want to go to cleaning. “On long -term flights I have realized that people (often children) walk barefoot towards or inside the bathroom,” Explain Jagdish Khubchandani, Professor of Public Health at New Mexico State University. “It is a very antihigienic trend with infection potential if someone has cuts or wounds.” “Sometimes it’s not water”. In case there were doubts about it, Leysha Pérez, regional flight assistant, even went further in An interview with Business Insider in which I explained why moving barefoot through a plane may not be the best idea in the world: “Sometimes what you see on the bathroom floor is not water. Surely body fluids are what you step on.” There are airline crew that directly They confess That “they would never” go barefoot to a bathroom, however long the flight is. “Walking on the barefoot or socks is disgusting,” They underline. And what do companies say? There are cases where traveling barefoot is not even an option. The reason: the airlines themselves prohibit it in their use policies. For example, American Airlines establishes Clearly that all its clients must dress in “appropriate” aboard their ships, and if there were doubts about it adds: “No bare feet or offensive garments are allowed.” Something similar occurs with Hawaiian Airlines, which remember that your staff can refuse to transport a client if you do not meet “the Hawaiian standards of clothing.” And that, clarifies, implies wearing “safety” shoes. Images | Kenny Eliason (UNSPLASH) In Xataka | We have been binding to the suitcases to identify them at the airport for years. Your employees warn that it is a bad idea

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.