Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat(wired.com)
wired.com
Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat
https://www.wired.com/story/extreme-heat-tolerance/
295 comments
The thing to think about, is how poorly developed, rural places, without ACs or stable grids, are much more likely to experience heat waves with universally fatal wet-bulb temperatures. Places like parts of India or Bangladesh with high population densities, too.
Further more, I think, we also need to consider how non-survivable conditions to humans, may play out for other animals we depend on. The cows, chicken, sheep and goats? All dead. But consider also the impact on ecosystems, when birds and predators may die in large quantities in a short time - these ecosystems may completely collapse. Great impact on food security in affected regions. Not to mention disease dynamics when pathogens experience body-like conditions outside the body, and all the decay and death around. I am not sure all plants would make it either, since they need evaporation of water from their leaves, too, to transport nutrients from the soil upwards - and with halted transport, may not be able to fight fungi and so on.
Now, this threat may not come as a gradual trend, but may introduce itself as single (first) freak heat-wave killing hundred thousands of people all at once. A whole region may get the message their land is not habitable for humans anymore. Imagine the migration pressure as a consequence. I don't think a poor country could ever properly adapt to frequent non-survivable temperatures sustainably...
Further more, I think, we also need to consider how non-survivable conditions to humans, may play out for other animals we depend on. The cows, chicken, sheep and goats? All dead. But consider also the impact on ecosystems, when birds and predators may die in large quantities in a short time - these ecosystems may completely collapse. Great impact on food security in affected regions. Not to mention disease dynamics when pathogens experience body-like conditions outside the body, and all the decay and death around. I am not sure all plants would make it either, since they need evaporation of water from their leaves, too, to transport nutrients from the soil upwards - and with halted transport, may not be able to fight fungi and so on.
Now, this threat may not come as a gradual trend, but may introduce itself as single (first) freak heat-wave killing hundred thousands of people all at once. A whole region may get the message their land is not habitable for humans anymore. Imagine the migration pressure as a consequence. I don't think a poor country could ever properly adapt to frequent non-survivable temperatures sustainably...
As opposed to our current icehouse phase, plants have thrived during intense greenhouse periods of global climate.
"Earth has been in a greenhouse state for about 85% of its history... Earth is now in an icehouse state, and ice sheets are present in both poles simultaneously."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Eart...
"Earth has been in a greenhouse state for about 85% of its history... Earth is now in an icehouse state, and ice sheets are present in both poles simultaneously."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Eart...
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Over those billions of years, the sun has gotten ~40% hotter, which counteracted the reduced atmospheric greenhouse effect. We can't directly compare our current climate to billions of years ago with just atmospheric conditions.
Also, I notice you said "plants have thrived", and not "major staple crops have thrived". Toxic algae bloom has its own sort of natural beauty I guess, but rice and wheat are both temperate crops and won't be able to grow near the equator if it gets much hotter.
Please note that while hotter temps would warm up croplands near the poles, heat is not light and the tropics are so valuable for farming because they receive more light, not because they're hotter.
Also, I notice you said "plants have thrived", and not "major staple crops have thrived". Toxic algae bloom has its own sort of natural beauty I guess, but rice and wheat are both temperate crops and won't be able to grow near the equator if it gets much hotter.
Please note that while hotter temps would warm up croplands near the poles, heat is not light and the tropics are so valuable for farming because they receive more light, not because they're hotter.
Also, there's far less area of land near the poles, despite of what Mercator would have us believe.
That is a lie, there is much more land to the north than at the equator. Not as much as Mercator might make you believe, but it is still way more since it is mostly water around the equator.
https://www.ecoclimax.com/2016/08/land-mass-at-each-longitud...
https://www.ecoclimax.com/2016/08/land-mass-at-each-longitud...
We're not talking about the overall greenhouse situation, but particular regions experiencing high wet-bulb temperatures, or intense heat waves, and acute plant resilience in relation to human survivability.
I am very aware some plants can manage and adapt. But for example there is a difference between C3 and C4 plants in regard to heat tolerance and distribution. The question is, can all plants manage in a given region, in a given moment of time, with a shift in competitive advantage for certain organisms around? Geological or evolutionary time scales are irrelevant, here, since we're talking about the years to come - a human life time.
A temporary disturbance of a single factor may kill an ecosystem. For example eutrophication in lakes may lead to algae bloom, killing all other plants, fish and animals around. Or the extermination of the wolf, or another top predator, leads to overgrowth of deer, or another important prey animal, which then will eat all the young trees, which leads to receding forests, leading to increased soil erosion by wind, and leading to decreased rainfall, which ultimately leads to desertification or aridification.
An instant 10% increased fitness for some opportunistic fungi could wreak havoc in a particular ecosystem. 10% decreased fitness for a local tree species, too. A general loss of diversity may lead to bad adaptability for periodic stress events.
But you won't find evidence of these isolated catastrophes in fossils or drill cores. You don't see the farewell messages from all those species who didn't make it.
I am very aware some plants can manage and adapt. But for example there is a difference between C3 and C4 plants in regard to heat tolerance and distribution. The question is, can all plants manage in a given region, in a given moment of time, with a shift in competitive advantage for certain organisms around? Geological or evolutionary time scales are irrelevant, here, since we're talking about the years to come - a human life time.
A temporary disturbance of a single factor may kill an ecosystem. For example eutrophication in lakes may lead to algae bloom, killing all other plants, fish and animals around. Or the extermination of the wolf, or another top predator, leads to overgrowth of deer, or another important prey animal, which then will eat all the young trees, which leads to receding forests, leading to increased soil erosion by wind, and leading to decreased rainfall, which ultimately leads to desertification or aridification.
An instant 10% increased fitness for some opportunistic fungi could wreak havoc in a particular ecosystem. 10% decreased fitness for a local tree species, too. A general loss of diversity may lead to bad adaptability for periodic stress events.
But you won't find evidence of these isolated catastrophes in fossils or drill cores. You don't see the farewell messages from all those species who didn't make it.
Did the livestock and cultivated plants we depend on for food exist during the greenhouse states? Did humans? There’s no doubt the earth and life will survive, but our civilization may see extreme turbulence (100s of millions of people dying). How much turbulence before our sophisticated society collapses? We don't know for sure but I rather not find out.
>100s of millions of people dying
This seems optimistic to me. With the state of play of current politics across the globe, I think its going to be a ~billion once you tabulate second order effects.
Already under current changing patterns of climate, there are areas of the world that if power simply went out for an extended period of time millions of people could die, and those areas are growing every year
This seems optimistic to me. With the state of play of current politics across the globe, I think its going to be a ~billion once you tabulate second order effects.
Already under current changing patterns of climate, there are areas of the world that if power simply went out for an extended period of time millions of people could die, and those areas are growing every year
It would also appear that icehouse periods last significantly shorter than greenhouse periods.
No doubt, if I assume everything reported on Wikipedia is accurate, humanity has never had to sustain itself in the face of a greenhouse period, given we only existed approximately 2.8 million years ago, and in "modern" form for only ~300,000 years.
That should give more pause than it does to society writ large, but alas, because humans are generally poor at long term planning and thinking, it appears we are dooming ourselves to be ill prepared.
No doubt, if I assume everything reported on Wikipedia is accurate, humanity has never had to sustain itself in the face of a greenhouse period, given we only existed approximately 2.8 million years ago, and in "modern" form for only ~300,000 years.
That should give more pause than it does to society writ large, but alas, because humans are generally poor at long term planning and thinking, it appears we are dooming ourselves to be ill prepared.
Crops need water, stable climates and human intervention. Global heating is driving desertification, droughts and more extreme weather events.
Great, but I don't really care about plants. Did humans thrive too?
The 2003 heatwave killed 70.000+ in Europe. But nobody seems to remember/know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heatwave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heatwave
The issue there is a lot of homes throughout europe at the time had no air conditioning, just heaters. This included things like nursing homes.
They were basically relying on the fact that historically above 90F (32C) temperatures were unheard of.
Now it's so common that there's been a rush to install AC and heatpumps throughout.
https://www.eurodev.com/blog/europe-hvac-market
They were basically relying on the fact that historically above 90F (32C) temperatures were unheard of.
Now it's so common that there's been a rush to install AC and heatpumps throughout.
https://www.eurodev.com/blog/europe-hvac-market
Most of the deaths happened in southern Europe, where temperatures above 32 °C are common in July and temperatures reaching 40 °C are not unheard of.
They're pushing heatpumps out of some misplaced effort to reduce emissions, not to improve climate control in homes. Nobody I know in Germany has AC except commercial buildings and rich people. They couldn't afford to run it anyway with the highest electricity prices in the world.
And also made European forests a net CO2 producer for the year, IIRC.
Photosynthesis doesn't work well at high temperatures, so instead plants switch to respiration, burning their stored sugars for energy while taking in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. Which, you know, is why plants produce those sugars in the first place, not to magnanimously produce oxygen/scrub CO2 for us.
Heat-waves, with lots of days over 40C/100F, will also wreak havoc on our agriculture.
Photosynthesis doesn't work well at high temperatures, so instead plants switch to respiration, burning their stored sugars for energy while taking in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. Which, you know, is why plants produce those sugars in the first place, not to magnanimously produce oxygen/scrub CO2 for us.
Heat-waves, with lots of days over 40C/100F, will also wreak havoc on our agriculture.
Extreme cold kills far more.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessiv...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessiv...
You know what's wild? Global Warming will create more extreme cold events in places that don't have them! Why? Because global warming is causing the jet streams to weaken and cold air in the arctic escapes more to the south.
Isn't that interesting?
Isn't that interesting?
richrichie(1)
hackerlight(2)
This is the plot of the Ministry for the Future [0]. Power failure during a prolonged wet bulb temperature above 35°C, millions of dead.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future
Is it a plot? It's an event that happens in chapter 1 and paints a "this is what will happen" scenario. The whole chapter is available here: https://www.orbitbooks.net/orbit-excerpts/the-ministry-for-t...
Kind of being pedantic about definition of "plot" or "plot point".
Isn't this whole book about climate change?
And the character experiences a climate 'event', that impacts the direction of the story? Changes their perspective?
"There's a common misconception that a plot point is anything that happens in a story. In this way, people often confuse a plot point for a story beat. Story beats are the smallest units of storytelling, allowing you to break down a story into small parts without looking at individual paragraphs or sentences.
A plot point, on the other hand, marks a major turning point in the plot. So a story beat and a plot point will overlap, but not every story beat is a plot. There are far more story beats than plot points in a given story."
https://blog.reedsy.com/guide/plot/plot-point/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_point https://kindlepreneur.com/plot-point/
Isn't this whole book about climate change?
And the character experiences a climate 'event', that impacts the direction of the story? Changes their perspective?
"There's a common misconception that a plot point is anything that happens in a story. In this way, people often confuse a plot point for a story beat. Story beats are the smallest units of storytelling, allowing you to break down a story into small parts without looking at individual paragraphs or sentences.
A plot point, on the other hand, marks a major turning point in the plot. So a story beat and a plot point will overlap, but not every story beat is a plot. There are far more story beats than plot points in a given story."
https://blog.reedsy.com/guide/plot/plot-point/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_point https://kindlepreneur.com/plot-point/
> Kind of being pedantic about definition of "plot" or "plot point".
> Isn't this whole book about climate change?
Wouldn't that be called the theme of the book? There are several interwoven plots, the main one being the story of the Ministry and of the people working for it.
> Isn't this whole book about climate change?
Wouldn't that be called the theme of the book? There are several interwoven plots, the main one being the story of the Ministry and of the people working for it.
Guess that is why I used "Pedantic".
Just arguing around definitions of words at this point. What is a "plot" versus "theme" versus "just an incident" verses "plot point".
If you want to say there are several 'plots', thus the book's 'plot', is not climate change, because climate change is really an overall 'theme', but not a plot.
I took the previous discussion to mean, that there was an event with a wet-bulb incident, and this one 'incident' could be a 'plot point' in one of the plots. And guess overall theme of the book is around climate, which is on display with the wet-bulb 'plot'?
So guess, if you are saying I was incorrect because there are several 'plots', thus I can't say "the plot of the book is climate change". Ok. I'm ok with using the word "theme" instead.
Edit:
Guess I would say the 'plot' of "World War Z" is a 'realistic interpretation of a zombie outbreak'. But, it was all short stories, so not really a 'plot'. But a theme.
Maybe the word plot is problem. Means one thing in vernacular, but does mean something more detailed to an English major.
Just arguing around definitions of words at this point. What is a "plot" versus "theme" versus "just an incident" verses "plot point".
If you want to say there are several 'plots', thus the book's 'plot', is not climate change, because climate change is really an overall 'theme', but not a plot.
I took the previous discussion to mean, that there was an event with a wet-bulb incident, and this one 'incident' could be a 'plot point' in one of the plots. And guess overall theme of the book is around climate, which is on display with the wet-bulb 'plot'?
So guess, if you are saying I was incorrect because there are several 'plots', thus I can't say "the plot of the book is climate change". Ok. I'm ok with using the word "theme" instead.
Edit:
Guess I would say the 'plot' of "World War Z" is a 'realistic interpretation of a zombie outbreak'. But, it was all short stories, so not really a 'plot'. But a theme.
Maybe the word plot is problem. Means one thing in vernacular, but does mean something more detailed to an English major.
Some times there are intelligent discussions on HN... This isn't one of those times.
I agree.
The term of art is "inciting incident," I believe.
Which is why we need a home solar revolution.
The grid is going to have to undergo huge evolution, but increasingly corruption and political gridlock make that unreliable.
Plus home solar empowers you from centralized control and functions as the only free market alternative to the regulatory captured grid infrastructure.
Home storage with sodium ion and hopefully in 2-4 years sodium sulfur will drop costs 50%.
Also, your car an function as a secondary battery storage.
The grid is going to have to undergo huge evolution, but increasingly corruption and political gridlock make that unreliable.
Plus home solar empowers you from centralized control and functions as the only free market alternative to the regulatory captured grid infrastructure.
Home storage with sodium ion and hopefully in 2-4 years sodium sulfur will drop costs 50%.
Also, your car an function as a secondary battery storage.
Yes. Also radiative cooling. Lawns literally suck here too, we need more trees and bushes, biomass fixation, in personal homes, for shade and drought resistance. And massive, diverse reforestation to replete ground water reserves and stabilize the local weather.
We also need to massively invest in poor countries' ability to survive too. Or else conflicts will spread to us regardless of our own resilience.
We also need to massively invest in poor countries' ability to survive too. Or else conflicts will spread to us regardless of our own resilience.
I'm convinced that there is a contingent in society that has crossed both side of the political spectrum that is increasingly less empathetic to assisting poorer regions of the world as the negative effects of climate change start setting in, and its only going to grow
Its anecdotal, but my very progressive friends (think: Bernie Sanders type voters) have over time subtly started expressing opinions that are regressive to world assistance.
Namely, an attitude that nations should reap what they sow. They equate ecological devastation in poor countries almost solely to the inability of those countries leaders to do anything effective or sustaining. While they aren't wrong per se, its in ignorance or disregard of other broader factors.
All this is to say, I hold little hope that poor countries will receive much aid from richer ones unless they already have something useful to trade
Its anecdotal, but my very progressive friends (think: Bernie Sanders type voters) have over time subtly started expressing opinions that are regressive to world assistance.
Namely, an attitude that nations should reap what they sow. They equate ecological devastation in poor countries almost solely to the inability of those countries leaders to do anything effective or sustaining. While they aren't wrong per se, its in ignorance or disregard of other broader factors.
All this is to say, I hold little hope that poor countries will receive much aid from richer ones unless they already have something useful to trade
The world is definitely going to heavily deglobalize. Globalization of general trade piggybacked specifically on the US Navy securing petroleum shipping.
With the bakken shake and alternate energy vastly decreasing the geopolitical significance of oil shipping, and the possible demographic and totalitarian collapse of China, manufacturing will near shore in the coming decades.
If the human race was capable of proactively mitigating global warming effects on the poor, it would be capable of mitigating global warming itself. Since we cannot, the poor are going to be some object to a simpler, cruel calculus.
We saw this in the Syrian crisis which is about 1/100 the scale of probable displacements to come
With the bakken shake and alternate energy vastly decreasing the geopolitical significance of oil shipping, and the possible demographic and totalitarian collapse of China, manufacturing will near shore in the coming decades.
If the human race was capable of proactively mitigating global warming effects on the poor, it would be capable of mitigating global warming itself. Since we cannot, the poor are going to be some object to a simpler, cruel calculus.
We saw this in the Syrian crisis which is about 1/100 the scale of probable displacements to come
I can understand why even Bernie Sanders type voters start "victim blaming".. all humans are selfish creatures, and we sure don't want to give up our comforts more than we'd like. Recycling, switching to EVs and LEDs, well, most people are comfortable with that. Never fly to Rome or Thailand again? "But I need to..!", some will say. And sooner or later we'll start justifying their selfishness by saying it's not our fault that Indians are dying in heatwaves (then again, technically it's not my singular fault, maybe the fault of the system that's given me a comfortable life plus luxuries like trips to Rome and Thailand...)
>Never fly to Rome or Thailand again
I know this isn't the point of your reply, which I agree with the point its making, but I often wonder if there is a way to do green sailing both economically and fast enough that taking say, a 3 day sail to other countries becomes the norm rather than flying everywhere, baked into the experience of a vacation as it were.
Even if we could simply limit air travel to critical business only, it'd be a dramatic step in the right direction on multiple fronts (pollution, reducing C02 emissions etc)
I know this isn't the point of your reply, which I agree with the point its making, but I often wonder if there is a way to do green sailing both economically and fast enough that taking say, a 3 day sail to other countries becomes the norm rather than flying everywhere, baked into the experience of a vacation as it were.
Even if we could simply limit air travel to critical business only, it'd be a dramatic step in the right direction on multiple fronts (pollution, reducing C02 emissions etc)
Generally, ships are incredibly effective means of transportation. "Green", or not.
At least in northern Europe, you are often confronted with this sentiment of condemning oh-so-bad imported fruits from afar (Checkmate, Avocado!), when really most of the CO2 emissions are due to the first and last few kilometers of travel by fossil-fueled trucks. The thousands of kilometers across the ocean are almost negligible. Eating an apple grown in New Zealand or northern Germany makes almost no difference in regard to CO2.
Really, the downside of ships is not the CO2 emissions at all. Sail, or not. We don't use them as much for personal transportation, because they are slow as fuck in comparison to trains, busses/cars and planes. Most people just don't want to spend a week or two looking at the same endless water, when crossing the Atlantic. (If you want to travel the world like this, maybe reach out to a container line!)
On land, we need more cheap and frequent high speed trains connecting countries! Night trains and busses with beds and all again, too.
At least in northern Europe, you are often confronted with this sentiment of condemning oh-so-bad imported fruits from afar (Checkmate, Avocado!), when really most of the CO2 emissions are due to the first and last few kilometers of travel by fossil-fueled trucks. The thousands of kilometers across the ocean are almost negligible. Eating an apple grown in New Zealand or northern Germany makes almost no difference in regard to CO2.
Really, the downside of ships is not the CO2 emissions at all. Sail, or not. We don't use them as much for personal transportation, because they are slow as fuck in comparison to trains, busses/cars and planes. Most people just don't want to spend a week or two looking at the same endless water, when crossing the Atlantic. (If you want to travel the world like this, maybe reach out to a container line!)
On land, we need more cheap and frequent high speed trains connecting countries! Night trains and busses with beds and all again, too.
Self driving EV semis will do the job of night trains with low zero carbon. Self driving on highways should be very achievable with route specific AI, convergent infrastructure like sensors and more wildlife fences and networked status reporting.
Last mile delivery trucks will be the first commercial vehicles to electrify.
The real downside of long haul shipping is the race to the bottom arbitrage of loose environment regulations and enforcement.
Last mile delivery trucks will be the first commercial vehicles to electrify.
The real downside of long haul shipping is the race to the bottom arbitrage of loose environment regulations and enforcement.
> Self driving EV semis will do the job of night trains with low zero carbon.
I hope not. Individualistic traffic is still much worse than mass transport trains. Do robotaxis for the last mile instead.
> The real downside of long haul shipping is the race to the bottom arbitrage of loose environment regulations and enforcement.
Fun fact, tho, dirty exhausts from ships have been substantially cooling the climate before regulation kicking in.
I hope not. Individualistic traffic is still much worse than mass transport trains. Do robotaxis for the last mile instead.
> The real downside of long haul shipping is the race to the bottom arbitrage of loose environment regulations and enforcement.
Fun fact, tho, dirty exhausts from ships have been substantially cooling the climate before regulation kicking in.
Also. Termination Shock, Stephenson.
In Texas there was AC failures, and people needed Earth Suits (like a space suit with air conditioning) to survive.
In Texas there was AC failures, and people needed Earth Suits (like a space suit with air conditioning) to survive.
Ministry For The Future was far too optimistic. Termination Shock presents how late stage capitalism and the accelerationists would team up to make money on half-baked science to save the planet. The West will probably be fine but we're going to make Mao and Stalin look like amateur hour mass murderers when we finally save our own butts.
I grew up poor and without AC in Minnesota where we regularly get spells of 100°F+ (37.7°C) at VERY high humidity thanks to all the lakes. It’s survivable, it’s absolutely not pleasant though and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
Fans and wet rags help some. I used to fill a 2-liter bottle with cold water and hold it against my chest. A lot of sleepless nights. When we got a local second run $2 movie theater, it was a literal godsend.
Fans and wet rags help some. I used to fill a 2-liter bottle with cold water and hold it against my chest. A lot of sleepless nights. When we got a local second run $2 movie theater, it was a literal godsend.
You do not understand the issue at hand. Whatever you experienced was way less severe, because evaporative cooling obviously was still possible. There is a point where you simply cannot cool yourself passively. That's the point where survival is at risk regardless of health.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature
Having a rag of cold water on you will cool you regardless of evaporation. It is a thing that is cooler than the environment. The water from our taps at least is a pretty constant like 50°F
So you have a supply of water at 50°F - that’s 10°C (an optimistic temperature in many places). And you are using it to try to maintain a body temperature around 37°C. Let’s assume you do so by transferring heat from your body into the water enough to raise its temperature by 25°C - that’s probably overly optimistic given that it will also be warmed by the environment and the rate of transfer will be reduced as the temperature increases, but it’s a working number.
The specific heat capacity of water is about 4kJ/kg/°C so a liter of that cold water can absorb 100kJ of energy in the process of warming up. Once it’s warmed up it can’t do any more cooling.
Your body, when not working hard, produces about 200W of heat. That’s 200J per second.
So that liter of water can absorb your body’s heat output from about 500 seconds of being alive. That’s a little over eight minutes.
So that means the cooling needs for one human for one day can be met by about 170 liters of cold, 50°F water. That’s about 44 US Gallons.
If, however, that water can evaporate - well, the latent heat capacity of vaporization of water is over 2 thousand kJ per kg.
That’s why the wet bulb temperature matters. If water can’t evaporate, that cold water can’t absorb body heat except by just warming up.
The specific heat capacity of water is about 4kJ/kg/°C so a liter of that cold water can absorb 100kJ of energy in the process of warming up. Once it’s warmed up it can’t do any more cooling.
Your body, when not working hard, produces about 200W of heat. That’s 200J per second.
So that liter of water can absorb your body’s heat output from about 500 seconds of being alive. That’s a little over eight minutes.
So that means the cooling needs for one human for one day can be met by about 170 liters of cold, 50°F water. That’s about 44 US Gallons.
If, however, that water can evaporate - well, the latent heat capacity of vaporization of water is over 2 thousand kJ per kg.
That’s why the wet bulb temperature matters. If water can’t evaporate, that cold water can’t absorb body heat except by just warming up.
The Great Lakes region of the US and Canada is a truly special place when it comes to fresh water. The experiences in this area can't be extrapolated to elsewhere. You can get hypothermia in the middle of a summer heatwave if you spend too much time in the water more than 1km from the shore. Even if you stay at your local beach, most people would find the water uncomfortably cold. In Chicago today, the high temperature is going to be around 18° or 19° C. The surface temperature of the water at the beach is slightly less than 4° C.
> Your body, when not working hard, produces about 200W of heat. That’s 200J per second.
Minor quibble, 2000 (kilo)calories / 1 day = ~100 Watts.
Minor quibble, 2000 (kilo)calories / 1 day = ~100 Watts.
Fair - I took a number for an active, awake human. You don’t produce that wattage all the time; resting and sleeping have much lower heat output; average power over a day is probably more like 100W (hence that being a reasonable average ‘healthy calorie intake’ number which I assume is where your 2000kCal comes from.)
Focused resting probably reduces it even further. You're not just "not working hard" in a situation like this, you are barely moving and probably slowing down your metabolism if anything.
Hmm, taking this in the opposite direction, what if you stop relying on water for evaporative cooling?
What if I cover myself in alcohol or gasoline some other easily-vaporized substance? Would that still evaporate at a satisfactory rate when the wet bulb temperature is high?
What if I cover myself in alcohol or gasoline some other easily-vaporized substance? Would that still evaporate at a satisfactory rate when the wet bulb temperature is high?
Depends. Are you a smoker?
It looks like Puron (the replacement for Freon) is non-toxic (and non-flammable), but it also wouldn't be a liquid at any temperature you'd need cooling at. I'm guessing there are other chemicals which have vaporization temperatures in the 150-200 degree range, and are neither toxic nor flammable, but assuming ethanol works it has the advantage of being fairly easy to come by in a pinch.
Thank you for doing the math!
At least in my area in central Europe, 10°C would be wildly optimistic in summer. I also presume when submerged in cold water, your body will start heating up, at first. So there is probably only a narrow temperature window for effective cooling. Not to mention, you may have to work and be awake to exchange the water, and being constantly wet for a prolonged time may come with it's own set of health problems.
I imagine there could be a situation with a deadly wet-bulb temperature, but below body temperature, where a large body of water may work to cool the body by convection, no?
At least in my area in central Europe, 10°C would be wildly optimistic in summer. I also presume when submerged in cold water, your body will start heating up, at first. So there is probably only a narrow temperature window for effective cooling. Not to mention, you may have to work and be awake to exchange the water, and being constantly wet for a prolonged time may come with it's own set of health problems.
I imagine there could be a situation with a deadly wet-bulb temperature, but below body temperature, where a large body of water may work to cool the body by convection, no?
A large body of cool water works great at moving heat way from you, obviously - an ‘acre foot’ of water is 1.2 million liters - 300,000 gallons. So a fairly small one acre lake that’s ten feet deep has 12 million kg of water, which can absorb 48GJ of heat before it rises in temperature by a single degree.
The big question though is how long will that lake remain cooler than the air in the face of wet bulb temperatures around body temperature. Thermal equilibrium will win in the end.
The big question though is how long will that lake remain cooler than the air in the face of wet bulb temperatures around body temperature. Thermal equilibrium will win in the end.
Yeah, but the question rather is, would let's say 32°C water, 5°C temperature gradient, work to cool the body, if completely submerged? When ambient conditions are deadly wet-bulb 32°C, would it still cool the water to its original 32°C?
So, my thinking would be, if the heat transfer from the body to the water and from water to air (through large surface) is sufficient. In a shaded pool, so all heat transfer from the outside is by convection and conduction.
I guess, if it would be sufficient cooling, you could also "just" drink the water and remove hot sweat from the skin, or dispose urine, instead. In theory, never mind electrolytes.
So, my thinking would be, if the heat transfer from the body to the water and from water to air (through large surface) is sufficient. In a shaded pool, so all heat transfer from the outside is by convection and conduction.
I guess, if it would be sufficient cooling, you could also "just" drink the water and remove hot sweat from the skin, or dispose urine, instead. In theory, never mind electrolytes.
In Atlanta the tap water in summer is more like 22°C (72°F), which is coincidentally the average nighttime temperature.
I could imagine that a place where the nighttime temperatures are in the mid 30s (°C) would not have any cooler water available.
I could imagine that a place where the nighttime temperatures are in the mid 30s (°C) would not have any cooler water available.
Last summer there were reports of the water of Florida's beaches being bath-tub warm...
Because Minnesota is a cold place. Many of the places where 'wet bulb' events are most likely to happen have only hot water available.
The tap water in Phoenix can exceed 100 degrees, people will fill a bathtub in the morning so their home A/C and evaporation will cool it off by the evening.
Even river water in India or Southeast Asia can exceed 100 degrees. There is no cold water to wet the rag with unless you have a deep well or refrigeration.
The tap water in Phoenix can exceed 100 degrees, people will fill a bathtub in the morning so their home A/C and evaporation will cool it off by the evening.
Even river water in India or Southeast Asia can exceed 100 degrees. There is no cold water to wet the rag with unless you have a deep well or refrigeration.
> The tap water in Phoenix can exceed 100 degrees, people will fill a bathtub in the morning so their home A/C and evaporation will cool it off by the evening.
Eww! They probably have chlorine in their water, huh? I imagine, otherwise the microbial game would be out of control.
Eww! They probably have chlorine in their water, huh? I imagine, otherwise the microbial game would be out of control.
What you describe is not universal. I recommend you visit Phoenix in July and open a "cold" water tap.
Do you believe everyone has that available on tap?
Heat is far more easily managed than -20 deg C.
Cold deaths being far more than heat deaths proves that point as well.
It's true the cold is more deadly, but heat is more dangerous. A 50F delta from room temperature is dangerous for heat but easily manageable for cold. Unfortunately, cold deltas from room temperature can easily be 100F, which is less survivable than extreme heat.
Guessing here but doesn't most people die to cold due to an accident, emergency of some sort or drunkenness? Ie a problem for you, not for the society at large.
If you live in a place that gets a bit below freezing every winter -20 is not a problem. I recently survived -33C and have rarely experienced less than -20C, life went on as usual, like going to the store and working.
But if the areas in the article suddenly had -20C that would be a better comparison on how bad it would be.
If you live in a place that gets a bit below freezing every winter -20 is not a problem. I recently survived -33C and have rarely experienced less than -20C, life went on as usual, like going to the store and working.
But if the areas in the article suddenly had -20C that would be a better comparison on how bad it would be.
> I recently survived -33C and have rarely experienced less than -20C, life went on as usual, like going to the store and working.
Was it -33C at the store and at the office?
Try living outside at -33C without the opportunity to go inside.
I'll take heat, every time. Cold is a killer.
Was it -33C at the store and at the office?
Try living outside at -33C without the opportunity to go inside.
I'll take heat, every time. Cold is a killer.
You think people living in those regions in the article can just go inside to solve their problem?
With shirt off, drinking plenty of water, a mechanical fan (or even a manual handheld Japanese style) I can easily live “outdoors” in mid forties for days. No problem.
-20 with no heating (not carbon friendly in such zones), i will be dead in a few days.
-20 with no heating (not carbon friendly in such zones), i will be dead in a few days.
I dont think you understand what the article is talking about.
Wet bulb temperature is the lowest temperature to which air can be cooled by the evaporation of water into the air (sweating, evaporative cooling).
If that temperature exceeds the body's max temperature, the clock starts ticking. If you stay, you die. It's not just very hot.
If that temperature exceeds the body's max temperature, the clock starts ticking. If you stay, you die. It's not just very hot.
The point is that at some sufficiently high humidity, fans and wet rags do not help any more, at all! Combine that with sufficiently high temperatures, and it's not survivable. And will kill people with weak circulatory systems (i.e. the elderly and babies) quite a bit earlier.
It also causes long-term damage (e.g. loss of kidney function) to healthy individuals. This is an issue that’s been tracked for a decade in mesoamerican field workers.
Yes, the fan cannot cool. But have your ever experienced the cold water tap being cooler than the ambient air temperature? They mean that they soak a rag in cold water, from the tap, and then apply that to themselves. This will 100% help cool the person down. You could run a cold bath, take a cold shower, even drink the cold water (but not too much too cold!) If you have cold water, you can survive.
That only works if the water pipelines are underground and all the above-ground plumbing is shaded. If the water heats up on its way to the faucet it's useless.
That's a big "if" in rural areas of third world countries, though.
I don’t think of Minnesota as a place where 100f+ occurs with regularity or for sustained periods. A brief search confirms my assumptions, but I’m happy to be proven otherwise.
There are parts of the US where 100f is reached by midday and persists past sunset for over a month, with high humidity.
There are parts of the US where 100f is reached by midday and persists past sunset for over a month, with high humidity.
Actually getting over 100f is decently rare in Minnesota. I’d guess most summers we do, but not for extended periods. We often get a few weeks where the high is in the upper 90s.
However, our humidity can get extremely high - basically as bad as it gets in our country. Our record seems to be a dew point of 88, and the highest ever recorded in the US is 90 (in Louisiana).
The corn sweat is the biggest contributor, but all of our lakes don’t help either.
However, our humidity can get extremely high - basically as bad as it gets in our country. Our record seems to be a dew point of 88, and the highest ever recorded in the US is 90 (in Louisiana).
The corn sweat is the biggest contributor, but all of our lakes don’t help either.
Like Dallas in 2023, for example.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2023/11/05/2023-texas-summer...
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2023/11/05/2023-texas-summer...
You are talking about Minnesota but your description is identical to that of Atlanta, Houston, and any number of other southeastern US cities during the first half of the 20th century. A/C became widespread in the US first in the South, because it made indoor work possible in the afternoons. During that time (first half of 20th century), Northerners still considered A/C optional because the hot season was relatively short. A/C has been considered non-optional in the American South for the last 50 years. (In fact, I often find that when I visit the South in the summer I need to bring a sweater because it's not uncommon for indoor spaces to be ridiculously cool.)
Those days are over. Now Minnesota is like Atlanta in 1950, and Atlanta in the summer is now dangerous. Phoenix in summer is now deadly. A/C is a life-and-death issue in the southern half of the US (unless you're on top of a high mountain). A long absence of A/C in those places will kill you, and I don't mean figuratively.
Those days are over. Now Minnesota is like Atlanta in 1950, and Atlanta in the summer is now dangerous. Phoenix in summer is now deadly. A/C is a life-and-death issue in the southern half of the US (unless you're on top of a high mountain). A long absence of A/C in those places will kill you, and I don't mean figuratively.
For what it’s worth, it turns out a most of our humidity is from corn fields, not our lakes. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/07/22/feeling-sweaty-minn...
It’d be nice if they could genetically modify corn to pump out less water, though I don’t know if that’s feasible.
It’d be nice if they could genetically modify corn to pump out less water, though I don’t know if that’s feasible.
Good thing the problem is as easily solved by going 6 ft underground, or getting in a cold bath.
Patna India typically has weather like this for two months a year and probably a million people live there without A/C (just fine): https://weatherspark.com/y/111069/Average-Weather-in-Patna-I...
Patna India typically has weather like this for two months a year and probably a million people live there without A/C (just fine): https://weatherspark.com/y/111069/Average-Weather-in-Patna-I...
We had a run of five days at 45 C and near 50% humidity here in W.Australia last month - bit unpleasant.
Later in the month the days that were 30 C and 90% humidity felt worse when working.
Later in the month the days that were 30 C and 90% humidity felt worse when working.
I've experienced 30-35 degrees at 70%-90% humidity while cycling. It's totally unlike 45 in a dry climate.
The former makes you feel like the activity ceiling is much lower, and cooling down through natural means is much slower. Sweating just doesn't work that well. That was at a wet bulb temperature of ~28 degrees.
The former makes you feel like the activity ceiling is much lower, and cooling down through natural means is much slower. Sweating just doesn't work that well. That was at a wet bulb temperature of ~28 degrees.
Unpleasant? Ken oath. It started to push the limits of my AC.
If you've got a well and your well water is always significantly below body temperature one thing that might be worth considering is installing a hand pump. You could then at least draw a bath and sit in the tub to remain cool.
That works by contact with something colder than you. It does not rely on evaporation and so is not affected by high humidity.
That works by contact with something colder than you. It does not rely on evaporation and so is not affected by high humidity.
Much of Queensland's population lives on the coast, so those who can tolerate the sun could at least seek some reprieve in the ocean.
As long as cold water is running, people can also use tap water to cool themselves down, though it will turn into a swampy mess when none of it evaporates. Perhaps public shaded pools with a cool water source will become critical public infrastructure to help people survive heat waves if the electricity goes out.
If it's above 32 degrees and 100% humidity at all hours though, it would be pretty miserable as you wouldn't have anywhere to sleep (unless you have a car with A/C, and masses running their cars overnight will just contribute that much more to the climate change)
As long as cold water is running, people can also use tap water to cool themselves down, though it will turn into a swampy mess when none of it evaporates. Perhaps public shaded pools with a cool water source will become critical public infrastructure to help people survive heat waves if the electricity goes out.
If it's above 32 degrees and 100% humidity at all hours though, it would be pretty miserable as you wouldn't have anywhere to sleep (unless you have a car with A/C, and masses running their cars overnight will just contribute that much more to the climate change)
Brisbane checking in. Wish we were near the coast.
:(
Is anywhere in the Brisbane area more than 45 minutes from a cold body of water suitable for swimming in? I don't think there are crocodiles near Brisbane.
No crocs near us. There's quite a lot of lakes for freshwater swimming and when the rain is right, rock pools.
The sea is about 45 minutes away but only rock beaches.
But we have the famous beaches of Sunshine Coast (Noosa) and Gold Coast (Tallebudgera amongst others) around 90 minutes away.
The sea is about 45 minutes away but only rock beaches.
But we have the famous beaches of Sunshine Coast (Noosa) and Gold Coast (Tallebudgera amongst others) around 90 minutes away.
In the context of needing to cool down for survival reasons, during a heat wave + power outage + 100% humidity, I suppose it doesn't matter whether the beach you have access to is rocky or not.
I took the original message as being, if you're near the sea, the air around you is cooler so the environment it's self is less harsh.
Though I can guarantee on a hot day, 2.5 million people aren't making their way to beaches or water holes to cool off. And Brisbane is a sweaty place in Summer.
Though I can guarantee on a hot day, 2.5 million people aren't making their way to beaches or water holes to cool off. And Brisbane is a sweaty place in Summer.
Interesting as large swaths of humanity would die if utilities (electricity, water, gas) shut down for long periods of time. I would have died at least twice this winter for example.
It is scary - but I suspect the headline temperatures/humidity aren't the only story. We can build passive structures to regulate peak temperatures - caves and windowless insulated boxes with high thermal mass, for instance. As long as the average temperatures (day and night) over a few days or a week are survivable, active cooling isn't strictly necessary.
>We can build passive structures to regulate peak temperatures - caves and windowless insulated boxes with high thermal mass, for instance. As long as the average temperatures (day and night) over a few days or a week are survivable, active cooling isn't strictly necessary.
Survival is a consolation, but if we need to start living in caves and windowless insulated boxes, then those are not very reassuring news...
Survival is a consolation, but if we need to start living in caves and windowless insulated boxes, then those are not very reassuring news...
But we managed to deliver a lot of value to shareholders before then.
Shareholders being about 100 billionaires
Make a visit to one of the cold-as-hell regions of the world and take a look at how traditional houses look. Window sizes, wall thickness. Look at the energy usage needed to survive the climate. If people organise themselves, they can both survive and thrive in extreme conditions. Even just as isolated individuals.
Regions with high humidity and high temperatures also have huge rivers and waterfalls for cooling, irrigation and hydroelectric power plants to run millions of AC Units and build AC factories.
Regions with high humidity and high temperatures also have huge rivers and waterfalls for cooling, irrigation and hydroelectric power plants to run millions of AC Units and build AC factories.
>If people organise themselves, they can both survive and thrive in extreme conditions. Even just as isolated individuals.
You mean like Siberia and Alaska are "thriving"?
You mean like Siberia and Alaska are "thriving"?
I've never been there, so I wouldn't know. They're doing pretty well from what I've heard. How about Norway? How about Ontario or Minnesota?
Generally areas of high humidity have low diurnal variation (its just as hot and wet at night as it is during the day), so unless you have A/C or similar, insulation/thermal mass will not do much as the heat and humidity will find its way in over time.
Its hot-dry climates where it gets cool overnight where thermal mass is most important (the thermal mass warms up during the day and radiates heat at night, when outside cools down).
In hot-wet climates, if you want passive comfort, your best bet is to make a big roof and then encourage cross-ventilation so the wind provides some cooling.
Its hot-dry climates where it gets cool overnight where thermal mass is most important (the thermal mass warms up during the day and radiates heat at night, when outside cools down).
In hot-wet climates, if you want passive comfort, your best bet is to make a big roof and then encourage cross-ventilation so the wind provides some cooling.
Not really sure most will want to live like the folks in the Silo TV series.
You say long term... I have walked 10 minutes or so in ~35/90, closer to the end of that was not certain if I will pass out on the street at any time. The body is unable to sweat off.
It's one thing in cloudy weather with wind and rain but in sunny clear weather it felt deadly
It's one thing in cloudy weather with wind and rain but in sunny clear weather it felt deadly
> is that such weather is not survivable long term [1] without air conditioning
I seriously doubt it. I grew up in an area that frequently hit 35C with close to 100% humidity, and I didn't even have an electronic fan before 9 years old. And multiple cities with 10s of millions people had the similar condition too. It was not pleasant but let me assure you, more people died of cold than heat, orders of magnitude more. In a poor country, or an Asian country more than 100 years ago, 10s of thousands of people in a single city would die in a snowy winter. Not having air conditioner? Seriously, that's a first-world problem.
I seriously doubt it. I grew up in an area that frequently hit 35C with close to 100% humidity, and I didn't even have an electronic fan before 9 years old. And multiple cities with 10s of millions people had the similar condition too. It was not pleasant but let me assure you, more people died of cold than heat, orders of magnitude more. In a poor country, or an Asian country more than 100 years ago, 10s of thousands of people in a single city would die in a snowy winter. Not having air conditioner? Seriously, that's a first-world problem.
> 32° and 100% humidity
> is not survivable long term
32C is only 89F, which isn't hot at all.
Coming from the tropics where 90s(F) with very high humidity is common, I can't see how that is not survivable. I walked to school and back home in that weather every day and it wasn't a big deal. We never had air conditioning, too poor for that.
> is not survivable long term
32C is only 89F, which isn't hot at all.
Coming from the tropics where 90s(F) with very high humidity is common, I can't see how that is not survivable. I walked to school and back home in that weather every day and it wasn't a big deal. We never had air conditioning, too poor for that.
32 deg C is a mild summer in many parts of the world and most of that world does not have 24/7 electricity, even from coal.
Incidentally, pro tennis players descend in Melbourne during the peak of Australian summer and play best of 5 sets (men) in the heat where temperatures reach high forties (deg C) and even fifties.
Incidentally, pro tennis players descend in Melbourne during the peak of Australian summer and play best of 5 sets (men) in the heat where temperatures reach high forties (deg C) and even fifties.
Of course, high temperatures on their own are fine. The temperature is not the only factor, it is the humidity. Wet-bulb temperature is the key indicator.
I don't believe the Sunshine Coast ever reaches 100% humidity unless it's raining, which cools the region.
The sun does a great job at making sure humidity is at least always below 80%.
Also, those temperatures are very tolerable for most people, in most of Australia. It's just that they're uncomfortable.
The sun does a great job at making sure humidity is at least always below 80%.
Also, those temperatures are very tolerable for most people, in most of Australia. It's just that they're uncomfortable.
Can confirm. Its disgusting.
I am also a grumpy fart right now because the night time temperature has not dropped below 20degrees since, like, November[1]. If I tried to aircon that like I do most of the day time, I would wake up a sinusy coughing mess...
Sure, 30degrees and 90+ humidity is survivable, but only just.
[1] https://7news.com.au/news/brisbane-set-to-break-record-of-da...
I am also a grumpy fart right now because the night time temperature has not dropped below 20degrees since, like, November[1]. If I tried to aircon that like I do most of the day time, I would wake up a sinusy coughing mess...
Sure, 30degrees and 90+ humidity is survivable, but only just.
[1] https://7news.com.au/news/brisbane-set-to-break-record-of-da...
<Sure, 30degrees and 90+ humidity is survivable, but only just.>
And how could you get any work done? I worked in the oilfields when I was in my early twenty's, if the temp was over 100F, less work got done because we didn't want to die. I knew men who got heat stroke, they were never the same again. I myself got heat exhaustion several times, it took a few days to recover. Our bodies can only take so much, no matter how tough you are, wet rags and frequent breaks don't always work.
And how could you get any work done? I worked in the oilfields when I was in my early twenty's, if the temp was over 100F, less work got done because we didn't want to die. I knew men who got heat stroke, they were never the same again. I myself got heat exhaustion several times, it took a few days to recover. Our bodies can only take so much, no matter how tough you are, wet rags and frequent breaks don't always work.
I also live in Brisbane, ie same area. Two examples of getting work done:
1. I was happing working in 36°C in November, but the temperature dropped to around 30°C after December and the humidity went up to near 100%. I got saturated in my own sweat on 50 meter walk to the work site. I worked outside for 1 hour stints, then retreated to aircon.
2. But not everyone could do that ... and in Brisbane, they died on the job. https://qnt.cfmeu.org/news/workers-walk-cross-river-rail-aft... I'm 64 and never head of seen of such a thing happening locally before. Remember, this is in Australia, a rich first world country, aircon everywhere, with some of the best medical resources on the planet (free).
On the news they were tell us we are seeing higher sustained humidity that Singapore, with higher temperatures. The government weather bureau predicted 20mm of rain over one night, and we got 200mm. Their explanation is while they have over 100 years of data, they had never seen this much moisture in the air before and so their models were untrained.
The Bureau said driver behind this is we get most of our moisture / rain fall from the Coral Sea, which is part of the Pacific. The El Nino on top of global warming has driven sea surface temperatures 1.5°C above normal. 1.5° - it sounds so small. What is terrifying is it is small. At the same time in Newfoundland the sea temperature was 8.5°C above normal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/07/28/ocean-temp... I guess the only reason people are still alive there in the average temperature is lower.
1. I was happing working in 36°C in November, but the temperature dropped to around 30°C after December and the humidity went up to near 100%. I got saturated in my own sweat on 50 meter walk to the work site. I worked outside for 1 hour stints, then retreated to aircon.
2. But not everyone could do that ... and in Brisbane, they died on the job. https://qnt.cfmeu.org/news/workers-walk-cross-river-rail-aft... I'm 64 and never head of seen of such a thing happening locally before. Remember, this is in Australia, a rich first world country, aircon everywhere, with some of the best medical resources on the planet (free).
On the news they were tell us we are seeing higher sustained humidity that Singapore, with higher temperatures. The government weather bureau predicted 20mm of rain over one night, and we got 200mm. Their explanation is while they have over 100 years of data, they had never seen this much moisture in the air before and so their models were untrained.
The Bureau said driver behind this is we get most of our moisture / rain fall from the Coral Sea, which is part of the Pacific. The El Nino on top of global warming has driven sea surface temperatures 1.5°C above normal. 1.5° - it sounds so small. What is terrifying is it is small. At the same time in Newfoundland the sea temperature was 8.5°C above normal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/07/28/ocean-temp... I guess the only reason people are still alive there in the average temperature is lower.
>And how could you get any work done?
Drink (hopefully cold) water and cover up from the sun. I grew up doing manual labor in a climate like this. People adapt, but there are of course limits.
Children die sometimes being pushed too hard in athletics, etc. The majority of people however simply put up with it.
Drink (hopefully cold) water and cover up from the sun. I grew up doing manual labor in a climate like this. People adapt, but there are of course limits.
Children die sometimes being pushed too hard in athletics, etc. The majority of people however simply put up with it.
You're allergic to air conditioning? I don't understand.
AC's tend to build up a lot of mold which grows in the condensation and blows it around. People with sinus and allergy issues get stuffy and inflamed. This is why I avoid using the AC and prefer a fan along with opening a window.
ACs tend to dehumidify the interior space. If they're properly installed all the condensation will drain outside. For window-mount ACs, you may need to shim them to get them to sit at the correct angle. For split ACs, the drain tube needs to be angled to allow water to flow out through the wall.
> ACs tend to dehumidify the interior space.
Right. It condenses on cooler surfaces INSIDE the AC unit and drains outside.
Right. It condenses on cooler surfaces INSIDE the AC unit and drains outside.
That's not normal, your AC is broken or has a plug in the drain if it's a window mount unit.
If it's central air, you're just mistaken.
If it's central air, you're just mistaken.
Sigh. The water condenses on cooler surfaces INSIDE the AC unit and drains outside. This is why mold grows on the squirrel cage and the walls of the blower housing. Even happens on wall mounted split units.
That's a typical summer night in NYC. We did not have AC one summer, it was VERY unpleasant. I couldn't sleep, but - probably not fatal if you chug tons of water.
At that humidity level you can't cool by sweating.
We've had days like that in southern Sweden, near the coast with very high humidity.
I'm starting to go crazy over us not having ACs, and windows that are really hard to get working well with a portable ac.
Retirement homes celebrate getting ice cream machines, but still lack AC and the deaths during summer are significantly higher =/
We've had days like that in southern Sweden, near the coast with very high humidity.
I'm starting to go crazy over us not having ACs, and windows that are really hard to get working well with a portable ac.
Retirement homes celebrate getting ice cream machines, but still lack AC and the deaths during summer are significantly higher =/
Europe in general needs to get with the program. The States have AC'd everything - busses, elevators, train stations, etc.
Ice coffee in Europe is not a thing! Ask for it and you will be looked at funny. And even the "cold" drinks from the fridge in a store are just below room temperature.
I don't get it.
Ice coffee in Europe is not a thing! Ask for it and you will be looked at funny. And even the "cold" drinks from the fridge in a store are just below room temperature.
I don't get it.
There are historical reasons for it, including the (at least historically) milder climate, and much higher cost of energy. In many older buildings there are also space and architectural constraints.
I expect these objections will fall away in future years as summer heat gets more intense. Those who can afford A/C will install what is often seen as a conspicuous luxury and energy-wasting convenience, and those who can't will envy rather than despise them, as the culture continues its shift towards individualism.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/08/europe-franc...
I expect these objections will fall away in future years as summer heat gets more intense. Those who can afford A/C will install what is often seen as a conspicuous luxury and energy-wasting convenience, and those who can't will envy rather than despise them, as the culture continues its shift towards individualism.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/08/europe-franc...
What are you talking about? Literally every gas station sells chilled iced coffee.
Just like all coffee shops and most supermarkets.
And under EU law fresh food fridges must target 4C and not exceed 8C, only food pantries are allowed go to 18 degrees.
I agree with the ACs, but then again in houses it usually wasn’t necessary until now. Most public spaces do have AC, and public transportation with AC are also quite common, at least in the developed parts of the EU
Just like all coffee shops and most supermarkets.
And under EU law fresh food fridges must target 4C and not exceed 8C, only food pantries are allowed go to 18 degrees.
I agree with the ACs, but then again in houses it usually wasn’t necessary until now. Most public spaces do have AC, and public transportation with AC are also quite common, at least in the developed parts of the EU
Why do you say things which are simply untrue? Doesn't sound like you ever visited here.
> Ice coffee in Europe is not a thing!
What?! How long haven't you been here?? I can't remember not having wide varieties of iced coffee, frapuccinos etc. in basically any cafe I've been to in at least 10 years... Europe is not a single place though, so perhaps you mean a certain part of Europe (I am familiar with France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Poland, Belarus and a few more surrounding these countries)!?
What?! How long haven't you been here?? I can't remember not having wide varieties of iced coffee, frapuccinos etc. in basically any cafe I've been to in at least 10 years... Europe is not a single place though, so perhaps you mean a certain part of Europe (I am familiar with France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Poland, Belarus and a few more surrounding these countries)!?
I ordered an ice coffee in Lviv and I was told - "this is not a thing". Lviv has hardcore coffee culture, too. After that I did not dare order it in other countries.
So, are we talking a nice pint of ICED coffee, with ice cubes jiggling in it?
So, are we talking a nice pint of ICED coffee, with ice cubes jiggling in it?
So an anecdote from one coffee shop in one city that doesn't get that hot and you apply that to all of Europe
First of all bunch of countries in Europe straight up have Starbucks where Americans can order their usual "americano", "sugar with caffeine" and "sugar with caffeine on ice" drinks that you call coffee. Second of all you definitely can get iced coffee in Ukraine (including Lviv), I guess the place you went to just didn't serve it.
Maybe, if we wouldn't have AC'd everything we wouldn't be in this pickle. Cooling costs energy and it's not like the USA is generally a hot country. Just a thought.
I'm from Montreal. The heat you have experienced is completely unlike humid heat. Your sweat cools you down. I've spent two weeks in 45 degree dry heat and did just fine with a wet shirt and a twist of the throttle.
Wet bulb temperature is the lowest temperature to which air can be cooled by sweating. Evaporative cooling does not work well if the air is nearly saturated with humidity. Humid heat feels a lot hotter because of that.
If the wet bulb temperature is 28 degrees, it means that drenching yourself in water in front of a fan will only cool you down to 28 degrees.
If it exceeds your maximum body temperature, you slowly die from heat stroke, no matter how much you sweat.
Wet bulb temperature is the lowest temperature to which air can be cooled by sweating. Evaporative cooling does not work well if the air is nearly saturated with humidity. Humid heat feels a lot hotter because of that.
If the wet bulb temperature is 28 degrees, it means that drenching yourself in water in front of a fan will only cool you down to 28 degrees.
If it exceeds your maximum body temperature, you slowly die from heat stroke, no matter how much you sweat.
Try living in Goa in the monsoon season. Or even rewatch Apocalypse Now or basically any Vietnam war movie.
I assure you, even 36C/100% is survivable.
I assure you, even 36C/100% is survivable.
>I assure you, even 36C/100% is survivable
Survivable is a pretty low bar.
Also, "survivable but kills babies, the elderly, and the sick in much greater numbers than they die today" doesn't have the same shine as survivable for everybody...
Survivable is a pretty low bar.
Also, "survivable but kills babies, the elderly, and the sick in much greater numbers than they die today" doesn't have the same shine as survivable for everybody...
It is a guaranteed death if continued for more than a brief while. With evaporative cooling not functioning and the temperature too high, you have no effective way to cool down. Any burning of calories, even without exertion, will heat you up.
The science says otherwise, but specific populations are likely better adapted to higher temperatures than the average.
An extended period of 36C/100% is going to pose serious danger for most people
An extended period of 36C/100% is going to pose serious danger for most people
Yes that is true. I am very good at tolerating very high heat. But like you said, past the bulb temperature nothing can save you if you don't have something colder to exchang heat with.
People need sometime to build tolerance to a given temperature. Someone who lives in Manaus or Belem do Para, Brazilian Amazonia would have a hard time getting used even to daily averages around 40F, and vice-versa.
No, the temperature being described here is extremely lethal within hours even to heat-adapted people.
While you're correct, I suppose that people who live in already warm areas with high humidity to tend to build more resistance, and would be the "last to die" compared to people from, say, Europe.
> people who live in already warm areas with high humidity to tend to build more resistance
There is no resistance to chemistry. Your proteins stop folding properly above a certain temperature. Others irreversibly change shape, like an egg’s albumen solidifying. Your body expends extraordinary effort to keep its temperature in a narrow range, one far from the outside temperature, for good reason.
There is no resistance to chemistry. Your proteins stop folding properly above a certain temperature. Others irreversibly change shape, like an egg’s albumen solidifying. Your body expends extraordinary effort to keep its temperature in a narrow range, one far from the outside temperature, for good reason.
That's ridiculous. People don't die when "proteins stop folding". They die much, much earlier. The less resistance you have, the earlier you die.
> People don't die when "proteins stop folding". They die much, much earlier.
When? Why?
Heat kills becauses it unfolds proteins. If that happens in your heart, you get a heart attack--that's the proximate cause of death. The ultimate cause remains, however, unless we're talking about charring or vaporising heat, your proteins misfolding.
The other common way to die from heat is dehydration, which kills by altering your electrolyte imbalance which causes arrythmia. But that can be countered through hydration. (Until the proteins in your gut start misfolding.)
Side note: I didn't say you die because your proteins stop folding. I said you die because your proteins stop folding properly.
> less resistance you have, the earlier you die
The resistance comes in the form of heat-shock proteins [1], which "enable excess heat to be stored temporarily" [2]. Above 40°C, your HSR proteins start misfolding. There is no resistance nor acclimation beyond that limit. Our chemistry doesn't permit it.
Variations exist in the 40 to 45°C regime in terms of tolerance duration, but that's irrelevant when we're talking about climate. Above 40°C / 104° F wet-bulb temperature, everyone without access to cooling will eventually die. You can't build resistance to it because that literally involves evolving proteins which, to my knowledge, don't exist in mammals.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shock_protein
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4515708/
When? Why?
Heat kills becauses it unfolds proteins. If that happens in your heart, you get a heart attack--that's the proximate cause of death. The ultimate cause remains, however, unless we're talking about charring or vaporising heat, your proteins misfolding.
The other common way to die from heat is dehydration, which kills by altering your electrolyte imbalance which causes arrythmia. But that can be countered through hydration. (Until the proteins in your gut start misfolding.)
Side note: I didn't say you die because your proteins stop folding. I said you die because your proteins stop folding properly.
> less resistance you have, the earlier you die
The resistance comes in the form of heat-shock proteins [1], which "enable excess heat to be stored temporarily" [2]. Above 40°C, your HSR proteins start misfolding. There is no resistance nor acclimation beyond that limit. Our chemistry doesn't permit it.
Variations exist in the 40 to 45°C regime in terms of tolerance duration, but that's irrelevant when we're talking about climate. Above 40°C / 104° F wet-bulb temperature, everyone without access to cooling will eventually die. You can't build resistance to it because that literally involves evolving proteins which, to my knowledge, don't exist in mammals.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shock_protein
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4515708/
Well no because people in already warm humid areas will be the first to experience this sort of heat, plus they tend not to have widespread air conditioning, plus they tend not to have the wealth necessary to fix the problem of no widespread air conditioning.
The last to die will be the people who are most harmful to the environment on a per-capita basis. Before then, you’ll have socioeconomic disruption in warm countries, creating masses of people fleeing to cooler climates, creating political openings for xenophobes and unsavory characters throughout the western world who will take it as a key goal to preserve our right to pollute, now return to step 1, cycle repeats and amplifies.
The last to die will be the people who are most harmful to the environment on a per-capita basis. Before then, you’ll have socioeconomic disruption in warm countries, creating masses of people fleeing to cooler climates, creating political openings for xenophobes and unsavory characters throughout the western world who will take it as a key goal to preserve our right to pollute, now return to step 1, cycle repeats and amplifies.
[deleted]
Survivable for many, but still dangerous. 36C is at the limit though. 35C is already dangerous
The average daily high for Goa in July is like 30C. No, 36C at 100% for an extended period (6-8 hours) is extremely, extremely lethal. Could some people survive it? Probably. But yeah, exaggerating how hot Goa is to dismiss the problem is sort of exactly the problem.
Millions of people already live in these conditions (temperature in the low 30s, constant high humidity) in the tropics so I am skeptical about that study.
It sucks for me in those conditions but a lot of locals say they're used to it. The general strategy without AC is to minimize activity during the hottest part of the day and keep a fan on you.
It sucks for me in those conditions but a lot of locals say they're used to it. The general strategy without AC is to minimize activity during the hottest part of the day and keep a fan on you.
With high enough heat, a fan will only make things worse, no?
I can only report what I see, which is that in many parts of the world including where I live, it's always in the 30s, humidity levels are high, a lot of people can't afford air con, and there are no mass heat deaths.
If they don't have access to AC they run fans all the time, and they stay indoors or in the shade.
In fact in the cold months where it dips under 30 the local news always runs a story or two about the (small) wave of cold deaths. (I think usually in parts of the country where it gets down to 15-20 at night)
Today it was 35 in the afternoon and about 70% humidity. I went outside for a swim. There were probably over a million people in my city who were sitting outside all day because their jobs required it. It was a somewhat hot but otherwise completely ordinary day. If you said they're on the brink of heat death they'd say you're crazy.
It may be that people who sit in air conditioned offices in cold countries are translating that one study into some hysteria. It may be they will have the "opportunity" to learn to live in a hot climate like the rest of us, rather than die by the millions.
If they don't have access to AC they run fans all the time, and they stay indoors or in the shade.
In fact in the cold months where it dips under 30 the local news always runs a story or two about the (small) wave of cold deaths. (I think usually in parts of the country where it gets down to 15-20 at night)
Today it was 35 in the afternoon and about 70% humidity. I went outside for a swim. There were probably over a million people in my city who were sitting outside all day because their jobs required it. It was a somewhat hot but otherwise completely ordinary day. If you said they're on the brink of heat death they'd say you're crazy.
It may be that people who sit in air conditioned offices in cold countries are translating that one study into some hysteria. It may be they will have the "opportunity" to learn to live in a hot climate like the rest of us, rather than die by the millions.
I can report that the science is pretty solid.
35° at 70% (your peak today) is wet-bulb 29.8°.
45° at 20% (desert) is wet-bulb 24.3°.
32° at 100% is wet-bulb 31.8°.
At 100% sweating is useless. You can't lose heat through evaporation.
https://www.mit.edu/~eltahirgroup/calTW.html
35° at 70% (your peak today) is wet-bulb 29.8°.
45° at 20% (desert) is wet-bulb 24.3°.
32° at 100% is wet-bulb 31.8°.
At 100% sweating is useless. You can't lose heat through evaporation.
https://www.mit.edu/~eltahirgroup/calTW.html
Thank you for that. I guess where I have a problem is the notion that 2.2 degrees higher on the wet bulb than where we were earlier this week is going to lead to millions of deaths. Like, this is the tropics, it's always hot. It's been a lot hotter than it was this week, and yet there was no extinction event. It's very hard for me to parse this idea from an Internet forum filled with white dudes in air conditioned NA/EU offices saying that millions of us are going to die because the weather will be basically the same as it's always been here. There has got to be some breakdown in the logic between the observations about the wet bulb and the conclusion that humanity will go extinct because it can't sweat or whatever. There are like a billion people sweating in temperatures around what this study says will kill them.
Bezos said if your data and anecdotes disagree, it's usually your data that is wrong
If the wet bulb temp is above (say) 40C, definitely yes.
I can only reply with my experience, if you had access to water to put on your body in a hot area with a fan, you would get some evaporation. If there's no easy access to water, then shade, IMO, is the best option. Hot, blown air on a very hot day is almost painful.
So do any of the people who downvoted this into oblivion actually live in the tropics? I mean I don't know about 35 at 100% humidity, but like 32 at 75% humidity is the daytime average for some months where I am, and it gets higher when there are heat waves, and many people don't own fans. None of this is new. No mass heat deaths yet. But hey there's one study so the apocalypse is around the corner right
Fun fact I remember reading in some studies: increased heat increases tendency for violence.
Ah, not the ones I had in mind, but these will do:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/16/two-new-s...
https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/308Readings/Anderson2001...
Ah, not the ones I had in mind, but these will do:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/16/two-new-s...
https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/308Readings/Anderson2001...
Entirely obvious for anyone living in a city that both heat and the full moon have a tangible effect on that.
Its hot during the day, so people come out at night and can see if there's a full moon. Considering that it's still night, people may be drinking and can be generally up to no good.
full moon?
citation needed please
citation needed please
Here's one:
"The incidence of crimes reported to three police stations in different towns (one rural, one urban, one industrial) was studied to see if it varied with the day of the lunar cycle. The period of the study covered 1978-82. The incidence of crimes committed on full moon days was much higher than on all other days, new moon days, and seventh days after the full moon and new moon".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1444800/
And here's a different take from Finland:
"Conclusions Contrary to current scientific opinion, an association exists between moon phases and homicides, and contrary to what has been previously assumed, homicides declined during the full moon, especially in earlier decades. However, the causality of the association remains elusive"
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/1/e022759
"The incidence of crimes reported to three police stations in different towns (one rural, one urban, one industrial) was studied to see if it varied with the day of the lunar cycle. The period of the study covered 1978-82. The incidence of crimes committed on full moon days was much higher than on all other days, new moon days, and seventh days after the full moon and new moon".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1444800/
And here's a different take from Finland:
"Conclusions Contrary to current scientific opinion, an association exists between moon phases and homicides, and contrary to what has been previously assumed, homicides declined during the full moon, especially in earlier decades. However, the causality of the association remains elusive"
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/1/e022759
[deleted]
Explanation?
This is why I think we should be seriously considering atmospheric aerosol injection already. Not sure why there aren't more large government funded studies of this.
Before we start filling our atmosphere with theoretical solutions, shouldn't we reduce as much of emissions and consumption and possible?
We humans consume an insane amount of natural resources. We have built many of our societies around global interdependence. We produce a constant flood of stuff that is consumed quickly and discarded.
We could make a big impact simply shifting to more local economies. For example, a recent lead poisoning issue in the US was tracked back to apple sauce pouches sold at the dollar store. Little could be done legally because of how complex the supply chain was. I don't remember all the details, but multiple countries were involved from growing the apples, processing the apple sauces, packaging, etc.
We don't need such insane systems all powered by energy consumption. We just need local sources of damn apples for our kids to snack on.
We humans consume an insane amount of natural resources. We have built many of our societies around global interdependence. We produce a constant flood of stuff that is consumed quickly and discarded.
We could make a big impact simply shifting to more local economies. For example, a recent lead poisoning issue in the US was tracked back to apple sauce pouches sold at the dollar store. Little could be done legally because of how complex the supply chain was. I don't remember all the details, but multiple countries were involved from growing the apples, processing the apple sauces, packaging, etc.
We don't need such insane systems all powered by energy consumption. We just need local sources of damn apples for our kids to snack on.
It was apparently intentionally-tainted cinnamon in apple sauce pouches, but confirms your point about the complexity of food supply chains making it more likely for bad stuff to get in: https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaks-foodborne-illness/investi...
Oh that's an important update I hadn't seen, thanks!
This would take decades at least, we need something else in our back pocket in case millions start to die from heat exhaustion. Even if somehow we stop all CO2 emissions today, the earth will continue to warm for like a couple more centuries.
What would take decades? Nearly every business switched to work from home in a matter of weeks because the fear of a pandemic gripped most politicians. Why couldn't we do that now to reduce our use of oil?
The fact is we have a massive amount of waste in the system that we just aren't willing to give up. How much could be saved if we didn't expect that every McDonalds in the country could provide the exact same menu anytime, anywhere? Or if we stopping buying new cloths just to kill time? Or if we no longer had holiday traditions based entirely on consumerism of gifts that almost certainly weren't built to last and we didn't need in the first place?
None of this has to be all or nothing, but it does require societies to tilt the scales on how highly we prioritize modern economics and convenience. We don't have to get rid of all use of oil, cars, gift giving, etc. We just need to decide that reducing our use as much as possible is worth the effort.
The fact is we have a massive amount of waste in the system that we just aren't willing to give up. How much could be saved if we didn't expect that every McDonalds in the country could provide the exact same menu anytime, anywhere? Or if we stopping buying new cloths just to kill time? Or if we no longer had holiday traditions based entirely on consumerism of gifts that almost certainly weren't built to last and we didn't need in the first place?
None of this has to be all or nothing, but it does require societies to tilt the scales on how highly we prioritize modern economics and convenience. We don't have to get rid of all use of oil, cars, gift giving, etc. We just need to decide that reducing our use as much as possible is worth the effort.
I don't mean to be rude, but are you aware that CO2 emissions continue to _increase_ year after year? That despite the world's apparent effort, we have actually made _no_ progress in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions globally? Given this reality, how do you expect to achieve your goals in a reasonable time-frame?
Our use of oil has also continued. We like to collectively talk about reduction but its incremental at best, and not enough to keep up with increased consumption elsewhere or actually meaningfully reduce anything.
> Given this reality, how do you expect to achieve your goals in a reasonable time-frame?
In the context of this thread, there's a bit of a false dichotomy here. You're asking why I should expect that people can choose to make a meaningful reduction in consumption as an alternative to filling the atmosphere with theoretical solutions that have never been tested before and who's impacts are unknown.
Are you proposing that because people don't care enough to reduce consumption we should just let the authorities in charge spray a bunch of chemicals into the atmosphere and hope it works?
> Given this reality, how do you expect to achieve your goals in a reasonable time-frame?
In the context of this thread, there's a bit of a false dichotomy here. You're asking why I should expect that people can choose to make a meaningful reduction in consumption as an alternative to filling the atmosphere with theoretical solutions that have never been tested before and who's impacts are unknown.
Are you proposing that because people don't care enough to reduce consumption we should just let the authorities in charge spray a bunch of chemicals into the atmosphere and hope it works?
There is no false dichotomy because we absolutely should be reducing our emissions as much as possible and I never said otherwise, it's just that it probably won't be enough to achieve any significant cooling effect in a reasonable time scale to prevent the scenario described in TFA. It's possible we will see mass death in the coming decades due to extreme heat events. I am just saying we should be preparing alternative courses of action rather than putting all our eggs in the hope basket.
Wouldn't it still be leaning on that hope basket to intervene in the entire atmosphere with an untested solution that may help slow or reverse climate change, but may also have unintended side effects that actually make things worse?
One interesting example from very recent research. In just the last couple of years we began enforcing reduced sulfur emissions from diesel motors in international waters. The expectation was that would help with climate change, how couldn't it? Well it turns out that ocean temperatures actually rose in the open ocean where almost all traffic is diesel. The research I suggesting that the sulfur was actually helping to block out some of the sun's energy and was acting as a cooling agent. The well thought out and well reasoned approach to diesel emissions back fired and made things worse.
One interesting example from very recent research. In just the last couple of years we began enforcing reduced sulfur emissions from diesel motors in international waters. The expectation was that would help with climate change, how couldn't it? Well it turns out that ocean temperatures actually rose in the open ocean where almost all traffic is diesel. The research I suggesting that the sulfur was actually helping to block out some of the sun's energy and was acting as a cooling agent. The well thought out and well reasoned approach to diesel emissions back fired and made things worse.
> we began enforcing reduced sulfur emissions from diesel motors in international waters. The expectation was that would help with climate change, how couldn't it
Nice story, but the drive to reduce SOx and other particulate emissions is not because of climate chance but because of localized health concerns: because of the respiratory impact of SOx and soot to the lungs of people on coastlines and in port cities.
By the way, Dieselgate is a similar story - the illegally-increased SOx, NOx and particulate emissions of those diesel engines were created in order to decrease fuel consumption and thus climate change impact. Cracking down on Dieselgate helped people living near the car exhausts but hurt the climate as a secondary effect...
Nice story, but the drive to reduce SOx and other particulate emissions is not because of climate chance but because of localized health concerns: because of the respiratory impact of SOx and soot to the lungs of people on coastlines and in port cities.
By the way, Dieselgate is a similar story - the illegally-increased SOx, NOx and particulate emissions of those diesel engines were created in order to decrease fuel consumption and thus climate change impact. Cracking down on Dieselgate helped people living near the car exhausts but hurt the climate as a secondary effect...
Everything I have seen related to sulfur emmisions reduction of diesel engines used in international waters referenced the environmental impacts not respiratory impact. There aren't many humans out in the middle of the ocean, the problem being solved was the massive amounts of diesel emissions being pumped into the atmosphere from the international shipping industry.
Dieselgate was a very different problem to solve. VW was caught lying on emissions tests to avoid regulations meant to reduce emissions in populated areas like large cities.
Dieselgate was a very different problem to solve. VW was caught lying on emissions tests to avoid regulations meant to reduce emissions in populated areas like large cities.
As a counterpoint, the latest IPCC model saw a reduction in the worst case scenario. We seem likely to have missed the 1.5°C average warming cutoff, but the worse case (8.5°C iirc) seems unlikely as well.
Frankly it's not one or the other, it's both at the same time as much as possible because we're extremely late to this party.
How do we control that? The medical industry has the challenge of having to intervene to a late stage illness with multiple interventions that must be titrated appropriately. They have the benefit of a much smaller scale though, and they've researched and learned from past cases.
How do we intervene in the entire planet with multiple modes of change without making things worse?
I reach for the solution of removing impact as much as possible mainly because it feels much safer. We can reduce our current level of impact and we're really just getting out of the planets way. There's plenty of risk with regards to human cost as we remove and simplify systems, but at least that's the impact falling more directly in the species that caused the problem in the first place.
How do we intervene in the entire planet with multiple modes of change without making things worse?
I reach for the solution of removing impact as much as possible mainly because it feels much safer. We can reduce our current level of impact and we're really just getting out of the planets way. There's plenty of risk with regards to human cost as we remove and simplify systems, but at least that's the impact falling more directly in the species that caused the problem in the first place.
Well there are risks of course, and it will most likely make things slightly worse for a while with less solar power and smaller crop yields with less sunlight, but there's really no other way to fix this mess.
The simple fact is that removing all of our impact in terms of just stopping release of C02 and methane (as impossible that would be to achieve with our entire society built on energy dense fuels and entrenched interest in keeping it that way) would not be enough at this point. We are cumulatively increasing atmospheric energy retention while also reducing reflectivity and both of those are more or less permanent for a while. Safe or not we'll need to add more reflectivity to give the ecosystem time to recover. Carbon capture won't help in the short term either, the oceans have absorbed too much already and will start releasing it if atmospheric ppm falls below the absorbed density.
To continue your medical analogy, you've got a smoker with lung cancer and having him quit smoking and moving to the country isn't going to be enough to save him, the damage is done. He needs some goddamn chemotherapy or he'll end up like Steve Jobs.
The simple fact is that removing all of our impact in terms of just stopping release of C02 and methane (as impossible that would be to achieve with our entire society built on energy dense fuels and entrenched interest in keeping it that way) would not be enough at this point. We are cumulatively increasing atmospheric energy retention while also reducing reflectivity and both of those are more or less permanent for a while. Safe or not we'll need to add more reflectivity to give the ecosystem time to recover. Carbon capture won't help in the short term either, the oceans have absorbed too much already and will start releasing it if atmospheric ppm falls below the absorbed density.
To continue your medical analogy, you've got a smoker with lung cancer and having him quit smoking and moving to the country isn't going to be enough to save him, the damage is done. He needs some goddamn chemotherapy or he'll end up like Steve Jobs.
It sounds like we likely agree that there is some level of reduction that would work, but that unrealistic that people will be willing to go that far.
Where we may be talking past each other a bit (sorry if I am) is the risk and reward of untested, theoretical solution that impact the entire planet.
> To continue your medical analogy, you've got a smoker with lung cancer and having him quit smoking and moving to the country isn't going to be enough to save him, the damage is done. He needs some goddamn chemotherapy or he'll end up like Steve Jobs.
While I agree here in theory, we know the general side effects and efficacy of chemotherapy. We also know the scale of impact when it doesn't work.
We aren't so lucky with global interventions like releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. We only have theories of what may happen, but we're talking about the entire planet and everything on it. We don't know what the real effects will be, or as they say - we don't know what we don't know.
As for Steve Jobs, I never really understood the idea of him as a cautionary tale. He knew what his diagnosis was, what treatments were available, and what would likely be the outcome. He exercised the ability to decide what to do with his own life and body. I hope everyone is that lucky.
Where we may be talking past each other a bit (sorry if I am) is the risk and reward of untested, theoretical solution that impact the entire planet.
> To continue your medical analogy, you've got a smoker with lung cancer and having him quit smoking and moving to the country isn't going to be enough to save him, the damage is done. He needs some goddamn chemotherapy or he'll end up like Steve Jobs.
While I agree here in theory, we know the general side effects and efficacy of chemotherapy. We also know the scale of impact when it doesn't work.
We aren't so lucky with global interventions like releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. We only have theories of what may happen, but we're talking about the entire planet and everything on it. We don't know what the real effects will be, or as they say - we don't know what we don't know.
As for Steve Jobs, I never really understood the idea of him as a cautionary tale. He knew what his diagnosis was, what treatments were available, and what would likely be the outcome. He exercised the ability to decide what to do with his own life and body. I hope everyone is that lucky.
I think this is a type of project where the results will never be fully possible to predict, but the same goes for what happens if we do nothing. It impacting the entire plant is kind of irrelevant imo, basically everything we do these days impacts the entire planet anyway and we don't lose much sleep over it.
The way I see it, we can either act and run the risk of getting it wrong and making a bad situation worse, or doing nothing and guaranteeing a bad situation. On a very basic level any risk is worth it if we know that the alternative must be avoided at all costs (e.g. guaranteed death). I don't think the end result will be extinction if we do nothing but reduce emissions, but there it be a major enough calamity to justify the risk of doing some things we can't fully test.
> He exercised the ability to decide what to do with his own life and body.
And later regretted it before he died. I just hope we don't regret our inaction as well.
The way I see it, we can either act and run the risk of getting it wrong and making a bad situation worse, or doing nothing and guaranteeing a bad situation. On a very basic level any risk is worth it if we know that the alternative must be avoided at all costs (e.g. guaranteed death). I don't think the end result will be extinction if we do nothing but reduce emissions, but there it be a major enough calamity to justify the risk of doing some things we can't fully test.
> He exercised the ability to decide what to do with his own life and body.
And later regretted it before he died. I just hope we don't regret our inaction as well.
This feels very similar to the arguments for pushing on with AI research. The argument usually ends that we must default to intervening because the risk of inaction is too high.
> And later regretted it before he died. I just hope we don't regret our inaction as well.
Yep that's very true, I also hope people don't regret their decisions (I wouldn't necessarily classify it as inaction, that sounds like the default should be to act).
> And later regretted it before he died. I just hope we don't regret our inaction as well.
Yep that's very true, I also hope people don't regret their decisions (I wouldn't necessarily classify it as inaction, that sounds like the default should be to act).
Who should pay for it? No one really wants to spend money on something like that.
People don't want to spend 0.1% of GDP to help survive people in Ukraine and you think they care how hot is there for the people of Australia?
People don't want to spend 0.1% of GDP to help survive people in Ukraine and you think they care how hot is there for the people of Australia?
Don't we collaborate on things like LHC, ITER, international space-station etc?
Aerosol injection is not very expensive.
On a planetary scale, literally everything is very expensive.
Is there any evidence to support the case that sending more weapons to Ukraine will spare lives?
If so. Shouldn't we prioritize sending weapons to the people of Gaza first, since their casualty numbers are much higher?
If so. Shouldn't we prioritize sending weapons to the people of Gaza first, since their casualty numbers are much higher?
Sending aid to Ukraine isn't just a thing we do for fun. It's the tradeoff for them giving up their nuclear arsenal. We said we'd have their backs. Money is probably better than sending people's kids.
Perhaps. I'm just curious about the casualty projections. Casualties with weapons, and casualties without.
If sending more weapons results in lives saved, then this would be an excellent argument for arming Gaza with modern weapons. In terms of children saved the effect could be sizeable.
If sending more weapons results in lives saved, then this would be an excellent argument for arming Gaza with modern weapons. In terms of children saved the effect could be sizeable.
I don’t know how much this is bias on my part, but sending weapons to Gaza feels more equivalent to arming anti-russian partisans in the alternate reality where the march on Kyiv wasn’t a failure and the Ukrainian government collapsed.
It depends on do you want to send weapons to terrorists or not.
Sending long range weapons together with F-16 can help to destroy missiles and other long range weapons Russian terrorists use daily on Ukrainian cities.
By sending enough 155cm shells Russian advance could be stopped, which mean less cities will be grounded. Because that is the only way Russian occupational army could advance: by total destruction of everything.
Sending long range weapons together with F-16 can help to destroy missiles and other long range weapons Russian terrorists use daily on Ukrainian cities.
By sending enough 155cm shells Russian advance could be stopped, which mean less cities will be grounded. Because that is the only way Russian occupational army could advance: by total destruction of everything.
This scenario seems similar to the Gaza situation. Perhaps if the Gazans had patriots lives could be saved.
"Sir you should stop drinking and smoking or your liver and lungs will die"
"It's ok I'll get a liver and lungs transplant :)"
We'll really do everything before we consider stopping the root cause lol. And heat isn't even the only issue we're facing
"It's ok I'll get a liver and lungs transplant :)"
We'll really do everything before we consider stopping the root cause lol. And heat isn't even the only issue we're facing
I think it's more like, you have a viral infection and it's causing a high fever, and that fever is about to kill you. Should the doctor try and bring the fever down or go and research a cure for the virus? Sometimes you have to treat the immediate symptoms first because curing the underlying condition will take too long.
Who do you trust to determine the right amount of aerosol? Some areas will be harmed by temperature increases, some will benefit. Who decides who benefits? This is a classic Tragedy of the Commons. We are underequipped to cooperate.
I believe this was the plot of the movie Snowpiercer.
I would be a bit worried about accidental side effects; atmospheric alteration on a large scale seems like a dangerous game.
I would be a bit worried about accidental side effects; atmospheric alteration on a large scale seems like a dangerous game.
> atmospheric alteration on a large scale seems like a dangerous game.
Were already doing that...
Were already doing that...
Yes, but we are doing the bad kind of alteration. The good kind of alteration is completely untested. /s
And book Termination Shock.
One Billionaire took it upon himself to seed sulfur in upper atmosphere.
And Not for global warming, but in The Matrix, humans darkened the skies to fight the machines.
And Not for global warming, but in The Matrix, humans darkened the skies to fight the machines.
Termination Shock is an excellent book, I'd highly recommend it if you're interested in the genre of "climate fiction" as I am. It deals with the effects of extreme heat in Texas; the rising sea levels in the Netherlands; how unpredictable weather patterns could affect the bread basket of India and the people living there; and much more. Easily one of my favorite books of the last few years.
I have zero confidence in that working without side effects worse than the disease.
Why? It's relatively well studied. Volcanoes erupt all the time and we've done it extensively ourselves as well: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shippin...
This is why we should study it...
The scientific litterature and IPCC’s summaries warned about these phenomenon.
When 2 billion people will be living under wet bulb temperature that can’t be tanked by the body it’s going to be a mess worldwide.
People who live in the humid tropics are already on a knife's edge. A small increase makes the heat intolerable and you will see either mass death or mass waves of immigration. "Just build aircon" doesn't work when you're talking about people with intermittent (or no) electricity and who have an annual income equal to a single aircon unit.
Exactly.
All the more reason to urgently develop the world to at least the level of Malaysia / Thailand (or ~Western Europe ca. 1950). If we quit fossil fuels cold turkey it is those very same people in the tropics that will starve. But making that connection requires thinking about second order effects, a tall order for the degrowth cult.
I want to continue growing, just replace fossil fuels with renewables or nuclear in all developed countries, and subsidize the same for poor countries who haven't historically emitted much and don't have the wealth to transition themselves. There isn't this false dichotomy of degrowth vs growth. We can grow our economy without growing emissions.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/fatal-heat-humi...
The medium-term problem for these hot countries is that extreme heat negatively impacts education and economic productivity. Whenever there's a heatwave (which will become more frequent) they have to keep their kids home. Worker producitivity is negatively impacted. It's terrible for their economic development. The US and Australia and Canada continuing to pump more fossil fuels instead of simply building renewables does nothing help the average person in Sri Lanka living under 30+ degree heat. It is actively physically harming them in a very real way. It's an indirect, diffuse form of physical assault.
The long-term problem for these hot countries is that wet bulb temperatures will make it literally uninhabitable unless you have electricity and aircon, which many don't. This is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. If we keep emitting, temperatures will keep rising, until the point that this becomes true. It is causality.
I want conservatives to think about this latter point because the consequences are mass immigration to colder countries, primarily the US and in Europe. Then the side-effect of that will probably be a rise in authoritarianism in these colder countries as a reaction to the mass immigration. None of this benefits anyone.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/fatal-heat-humi...
The medium-term problem for these hot countries is that extreme heat negatively impacts education and economic productivity. Whenever there's a heatwave (which will become more frequent) they have to keep their kids home. Worker producitivity is negatively impacted. It's terrible for their economic development. The US and Australia and Canada continuing to pump more fossil fuels instead of simply building renewables does nothing help the average person in Sri Lanka living under 30+ degree heat. It is actively physically harming them in a very real way. It's an indirect, diffuse form of physical assault.
The long-term problem for these hot countries is that wet bulb temperatures will make it literally uninhabitable unless you have electricity and aircon, which many don't. This is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. If we keep emitting, temperatures will keep rising, until the point that this becomes true. It is causality.
I want conservatives to think about this latter point because the consequences are mass immigration to colder countries, primarily the US and in Europe. Then the side-effect of that will probably be a rise in authoritarianism in these colder countries as a reaction to the mass immigration. None of this benefits anyone.
Thank you for the response and sorry if my comment was excessively snarky. I think we share the same concerns and have the same goals and even mostly agree on practical steps to get there. I've just seen and heard too many degrowth advocates (that really want to return to 19th century economy with 21st century populations) recently and it's really worrying me.
> and subsidize the same for poor countries who haven't historically emitted much and don't have the wealth to transition themselves.
Yes! With a fraction of the money sloshing around various "charities" and NGOs, mostly spent on salaries, you could build solar with storage for millions of people. Of course in practice it would be really complicated, you have to make sure the right people run the systems and there will be bad cases of corruption. But it really is the least we could do.
> The US and Australia and Canada continuing to pump more fossil fuels
The funny thing is that the market is turning even Australia and Texas into solar superpowers. Ever since solar became the cheapest form of generation both have seen an incredible boom in solar, with almost no policy incentives. This is a huge win for the planet, if people want to build solar because the incentives align they will just do it without costing larger society any (political) capital.
> It is actively physically harming them in a very real way. It's an indirect, diffuse form of physical assault.
I follow the logic and agree about the causality chain, but this is a road it's best not to go down. It quickly turns into personally blaming people for things they had no control over. That has never been a good way to persuade people. Imo it's also a lazy deflection, since humanity has never really paid any attention to its resource usage. The only difference is that Industrial societies gained the capability to affect the planet on such a large scale.
> and subsidize the same for poor countries who haven't historically emitted much and don't have the wealth to transition themselves.
Yes! With a fraction of the money sloshing around various "charities" and NGOs, mostly spent on salaries, you could build solar with storage for millions of people. Of course in practice it would be really complicated, you have to make sure the right people run the systems and there will be bad cases of corruption. But it really is the least we could do.
> The US and Australia and Canada continuing to pump more fossil fuels
The funny thing is that the market is turning even Australia and Texas into solar superpowers. Ever since solar became the cheapest form of generation both have seen an incredible boom in solar, with almost no policy incentives. This is a huge win for the planet, if people want to build solar because the incentives align they will just do it without costing larger society any (political) capital.
> It is actively physically harming them in a very real way. It's an indirect, diffuse form of physical assault.
I follow the logic and agree about the causality chain, but this is a road it's best not to go down. It quickly turns into personally blaming people for things they had no control over. That has never been a good way to persuade people. Imo it's also a lazy deflection, since humanity has never really paid any attention to its resource usage. The only difference is that Industrial societies gained the capability to affect the planet on such a large scale.
> The funny thing is that the market is turning even Australia and Texas into solar superpowers.
I think the market is too slow by itself. There's a technical reason for this. Externalities are mispriced, causing market failure. Markets may get there by themselves eventually, but not as quickly as they should.
Australia is set to become a solar superpower partly because the center-left government got into power. The center-right is hostile to renewables even though Australia is perfectly situated. This wasn't always the case, the center-right used to be somewhat favorable to renewables until they got radicalized by the usual stuff.
Likewise with the US, the IRA's renewables provisions only got passed because the center-left is in power. Renewables will still grow with Trump in power due to state-level subsidies, but far slower than what would otherwise happen.
My primary concern with all this is this human, political side. Solving this problem is as much a persuasion exercise as a technology exercise. We need to somehow get the political right to drop their defenses. They are blinded by their dislike of lefties and Greta Thunberg and so on, that they are not thinking rationally about the objective market failure that needs to be corrected.
Further on this, we need to present a new narrative to the degrowthers. The degrowth left sees a mutually exclusive trade between growth and climate change. Which is sort of true if conservatives get in power and don't change their belief system.
What's needed is a sustainable growth narrative where you give conservatives their growth and you give the left their lower emissions. It is not that hard to implement if people could just stop being so politically radicalized.
I think the market is too slow by itself. There's a technical reason for this. Externalities are mispriced, causing market failure. Markets may get there by themselves eventually, but not as quickly as they should.
Australia is set to become a solar superpower partly because the center-left government got into power. The center-right is hostile to renewables even though Australia is perfectly situated. This wasn't always the case, the center-right used to be somewhat favorable to renewables until they got radicalized by the usual stuff.
Likewise with the US, the IRA's renewables provisions only got passed because the center-left is in power. Renewables will still grow with Trump in power due to state-level subsidies, but far slower than what would otherwise happen.
My primary concern with all this is this human, political side. Solving this problem is as much a persuasion exercise as a technology exercise. We need to somehow get the political right to drop their defenses. They are blinded by their dislike of lefties and Greta Thunberg and so on, that they are not thinking rationally about the objective market failure that needs to be corrected.
Further on this, we need to present a new narrative to the degrowthers. The degrowth left sees a mutually exclusive trade between growth and climate change. Which is sort of true if conservatives get in power and don't change their belief system.
What's needed is a sustainable growth narrative where you give conservatives their growth and you give the left their lower emissions. It is not that hard to implement if people could just stop being so politically radicalized.
I'm all for growth for the tropics. Developed countries have to all chip in so that they grow with green electricity grids and no fossil fuels.
Smol nit: immigration means moving into a country. In your example we'll see a lot of emigration, people moving out of the country. You emigrate from one country and thereafter you immigrate into another.
Mnemonic: IN=IMmigrate, EXIT=Emigrate
Mnemonic: IN=IMmigrate, EXIT=Emigrate
Even smaller nit: Isn't it basically two sides of the same coin in this context? I'm not sure what the intent was in the previous post, but it could just as well be from the perspective of someone living in a desirable country worried about a lot of immigration of less fortunate people.
My interpretation was that countries with growing cimate problems will start seeing more and more immigration, which is wrong. It'll see more and more emigration.
I used to live in a subtropical region when I was a child in the 90s and it's pretty remarkable how hot the winters are today over there. That experience alone taught me that no way the climate change is not real. It's a bit like with the economy, you feel something is pretty wrong, but a lot of people for one reason or another will deny and try to brush it off, then after many years you get to see articles about how tough times have been in the last X years.
Sleep underground during the day, crawl out at sunset and work through the night
Do you think everyone already has basements?
Cold kills more people according to the literature [1]. Heat deaths are rising, cold deaths are falling. Not in the same places though. Countries near the equator are going to suffer more than countries at higher latitudes.
Demand for air conditioning is expected to more than triple by 2050 (consuming as much electricity as all of China and India today). [2]
[1] https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/hot-cold-and-deadl... [2] https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/hotter-climat...
Demand for air conditioning is expected to more than triple by 2050 (consuming as much electricity as all of China and India today). [2]
[1] https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/hot-cold-and-deadl... [2] https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/hotter-climat...
> Demand for air conditioning is expected to more than triple by 2050
Which further exacerbates the problem. Another unfortunate feedback loop for us.
Which further exacerbates the problem. Another unfortunate feedback loop for us.
Though demand for heating should be falling simultaneously, no? I wonder what the net CO2 tradeoff is there. At least historically with burning fuels to create heat, that likely contributed more per unit of degree-change than AC, however with Heat pumps now that's probably either a wash or reversed, if I had to guess.
Yeah, there is a lot more energy spent for heating, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/homes.php. Climate change is a problem, but this narrative that poor people near the tropics will needs to use some energy, the world is ending is kinda gross. Even with ACs they will only use a fraction of the energy of people living in Finland or Canada. Plus, the energy they do use will have a lower carbon footprint.
Cooling by a degree takes less energy than heating by a degree (not to mention it's electric). Cooling a house from 35 (outside) to 23 (inside) takes is better for "the environment" than heating one from 11 to 23.
What’s the basis for this claim?
Maintaining a fixed temperature difference across a wall with a fixed thermal conductivity takes the same amount of energy no matter which side of the wall you want to keep the heat.
On the other hand, any inefficiencies in your heat transfer capability, any incoming solar radiation, and any other activity going on inside a space (like lighting, cooking or refrigeration, or just people metabolizing their breakfast) tend to add heat to it.
So maintaining a cooler temperature on the side where you’re trying to do stuff seems likely to be more inefficient than heating it.
Maintaining a fixed temperature difference across a wall with a fixed thermal conductivity takes the same amount of energy no matter which side of the wall you want to keep the heat.
On the other hand, any inefficiencies in your heat transfer capability, any incoming solar radiation, and any other activity going on inside a space (like lighting, cooking or refrigeration, or just people metabolizing their breakfast) tend to add heat to it.
So maintaining a cooler temperature on the side where you’re trying to do stuff seems likely to be more inefficient than heating it.
Why wouldn’t running a heat pump in reverse to heat a room be ~same energy as running it in forward to cool a room?
I suspect you’re comparing an airconditioner against a resistive heating unit.
I suspect you’re comparing an airconditioner against a resistive heating unit.
Yes with heat pumps you're 100% correct but right now most of the US north does not use heat pumps to heat their house while the vast majority of the south US does use A/C which is way better per degree of temperature change than say heating oil which the vast majority of New England still uses.
fta: "Our best hope in the face of inevitable rises in heat? Cooperation. “We’ve built forecasting systems that will warn us when disasters are incoming by working together at enormous scale. We must continue to do the same.”
This sentence basically says "we don't need to make less disasters, just better handle them".
This sentence basically says "we don't need to make less disasters, just better handle them".
To me it says "we'll never succeed at making fewer disasters given how we've done so far, so we better learn to handle them better."
I've heard this argument used to say climate change isn't happening, because there are less deaths.
Hurricanes aren't getting stronger, because there are less deaths.
But ignores we are getting better at predicting land falls and evacuating.
Responding to disasters 'better', doesn't mean disasters are not getting worse.
And there is some diminishing return, eventually the disasters will overwhelm the ability to respond.
Hurricanes aren't getting stronger, because there are less deaths.
But ignores we are getting better at predicting land falls and evacuating.
Responding to disasters 'better', doesn't mean disasters are not getting worse.
And there is some diminishing return, eventually the disasters will overwhelm the ability to respond.
It's pretty clear attempting to get numerous bad actors to fix their polluting behaviour isn't going to make things happen any faster (and is in any case a monumentally different task). So we must deal with the problem after it occurs, instead.
Well, the global system has a lot of mass. It'll take time to fix the things we've messed up. To survive in the interim while we do that, there'll need to be some harm mitigation measures.
Or we can't make less disasters so we better handle them.
We all know this, but what's the point when not enough is being done to make our habitat better or at least not make it largely inhabitable.
And in some cases, looking at Australia, it's gone full throttle CO2, like it's not sitting in a glasshouse already.
Countries stock up on masks to prepare for future pandemics.
What can/do they stock up on to prepare for extended heat waves? Ground water reserves? Generators and fuel? Underground shelters?
What can/do they stock up on to prepare for extended heat waves? Ground water reserves? Generators and fuel? Underground shelters?
I don't know about countries, but I'd look into a ground source off grid heat pump.
's/look into a/look into an extremely reliable/'
(At least in my part of America, HVAC equipment failures under season-maximum loads are extremely common. And if failure = death...)
And maybe keep kinda quiet about it, too. If your nice & friendly neighbors are facing death by heat stroke, they could grow considerably less nice & friendly.
(At least in my part of America, HVAC equipment failures under season-maximum loads are extremely common. And if failure = death...)
And maybe keep kinda quiet about it, too. If your nice & friendly neighbors are facing death by heat stroke, they could grow considerably less nice & friendly.
We have solar and a battery and I think about this sometimes. Air conditioners are very noisy and solar panels are on display for anyone to see. People know. It's not an actual, safe off-grid solution during a major event when you're in the middle of suburbia.
> What can/do they stock up on to prepare for extended heat waves?
Power.
Power.
We're basically boiled frogs, except we're the ones applying the heat.
Humanity? Really? If so, it's because of such newspeak. To be clear, it's primarily The West and primarily greed (i.e., profits at all costs) that are conducting this experiment. What is this? A reprint of a press release from Big Oil and Big Ag? And Big Gov?
Most of the billions didn't choose it. A good chunk of the billions aren't even aware.
Shame on you Wired for diluting the accountability and giving those who should be blamed a free pass.
Sheeshhhhhh. Humanity? My arse.
Most of the billions didn't choose it. A good chunk of the billions aren't even aware.
Shame on you Wired for diluting the accountability and giving those who should be blamed a free pass.
Sheeshhhhhh. Humanity? My arse.
Classic HN irony, down voted...which only proves the point being made. That is, from too early a biased \ distracting narrative has been rolled out; most just feel in line and parroted that mindset as good zombies do. Yes Virginia, they even roam the sacred intellectual grounds of Planet HN.
In short, we can't solve a problem, when we can't even have The Problem properly described, scooped, attributed to, etc. To blame "Humanity" *is* a step in the wrong direction. It is naive, at best.
In short, we can't solve a problem, when we can't even have The Problem properly described, scooped, attributed to, etc. To blame "Humanity" *is* a step in the wrong direction. It is naive, at best.
Don't worry, our lawmakers will save us.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/08/florida-bill...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/08/florida-bill...
Can we just declare political entities who push climate negative policies an existential threat to humanity and neutralize them?
If only everybody everywhere voted for left-wing parties instead of right-wing populists...
If only everyone voted for parties who don't deny science...
And there's the rub, we humans can be so stubborn about issues we don't understand. Ignorance can be cured, but wisdom must be earned.
Ah yes, our two most sacred institutions: democracy and science, neither of which have a (literally) actionable plan to solve the problem at its source: human behavior.
The twin hills that humanity may die on if something doesn't happen to wake people up to their foolishness.
The twin hills that humanity may die on if something doesn't happen to wake people up to their foolishness.
We have a large number of actionable plans that happen to reduce profits for very rich organizations that hence spend a lot of money to prevent their implementation.
Your "actionable" makes assumptions about the true nature of several things, one of them being democracy.
I can make a semi-actionable plan to fly, but if I am not able to achieve flight via the plan, in fact, my plan is not fully actionable, so this fully part is a pretty big deal.
What if you people are wrong? Like, what is it about certain topics that cause having backup plans to be a bad idea? Why are there certain topics that people are determined to not contemplate, even if they are literally existential threats?
If we can't talk about the topics themselves, could we at least talk about the second order mass psychological phenomenon, or is that off limits too? I pose this as a question to humans in general, sorry if I'm taking it out on you individually.
I can make a semi-actionable plan to fly, but if I am not able to achieve flight via the plan, in fact, my plan is not fully actionable, so this fully part is a pretty big deal.
What if you people are wrong? Like, what is it about certain topics that cause having backup plans to be a bad idea? Why are there certain topics that people are determined to not contemplate, even if they are literally existential threats?
If we can't talk about the topics themselves, could we at least talk about the second order mass psychological phenomenon, or is that off limits too? I pose this as a question to humans in general, sorry if I'm taking it out on you individually.
By your definition plans can only be determined to be actionable post hoc after they are completed?
Risk can be predicted/estimated, for example:
> If only everyone voted for parties who don't deny science...
So here we have a prediction of risk, that itself contains non-disclosed/perceived risk.
We are welcome to behave however we'd like of course, and we will be rewarded accordingly. Some people like to put their/our faith (which is what it is) in one basket, others like to have a multi-prong, layered approach.
> If only everyone voted for parties who don't deny science...
So here we have a prediction of risk, that itself contains non-disclosed/perceived risk.
We are welcome to behave however we'd like of course, and we will be rewarded accordingly. Some people like to put their/our faith (which is what it is) in one basket, others like to have a multi-prong, layered approach.
People from Middle East and Northern Africa who have been living in harsh conditions for the last several THOUSAND years send regards to all climate change researchers.
They face dry heat, not humid, extreme heat. These are different problems. Dry heat easier to solve.
You mean the desert people, like the people living in complete opposite conditions to high humidity?
Can we make the conditions for them even harsher? Does that not seem like a problem?
[deleted]
...and the rest of Africa, Indonesia and northern South America too. Talk about eurocentric...
My understanding is that such weather is not survivable long term [1] without air conditioning. A power failure would be disastrous.
[1] https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/humans-cant-endure-t...