6 ms·
The article talks about “wet bulb” temperature. That takes into account humidity. When the temperature is at or above body temperature our body relies on evapor
by RijilV 7y ago
The article talks about “wet bulb” temperature. That takes into account humidity. When the temperature is at or above body temperature our body relies on evaporation to cool.
The problem for many areas is it’s not a dry heat. I like many other people as you point out have lived in 35c and above areas just fine, but the humidity was very low - it wasn’t really that bad if you could avoid direct sun exposure and didn’t physically exert yourself much.
Once that humidity creeps up then it’s a problem.
- marcus_holmes 7y agoThen you turn the AC or fan on...
- jacobolus 7y agoThis article is focused on the situation where e.g. a tropical cyclone knocks out the power for an extended time, after which a heat wave sweeps through killing tons of people because the AC won’t run and the human body can’t physically cope with the temperature/humidity. The first sentence explains that the authors studied the “potential for a catastrophic cyclone-heatwave combo”. The rest of the article elaborates.
- marcus_holmes 7y agoyeah, but having travelled around some of these regions, the power is never reliable. The people who live there have adapted some amazing ways of adapting to it, and there are all sorts of jury-rigged solutions. I didn't mean to be so flippant. But honestly, this article deals with an incredibly unlikely combination of events in a very small area of the world, and is then labelled with "the human body is close to its thermal limits because of climate change". This kind of sensationalist crap is not helping anyone.
- jacobolus 7y agoYou might consider reading at least the abstract of the paper before responding with such dismissive hostility, especially when the subject relates to life-threatening risks to millions of people within the foreseeable future. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0525-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0525-6 > We show that ‘TC–heat’ events are already possible along densely populated coastlines globally but, to date, only an estimated 1,000 people have been impacted. However, this number could rise markedly with over two million at risk under a storyline of the observed TCs recurring in a world 2 °C warmer than pre-industrial times. Using analogues as focusing events we show, for example, that if the catastrophic 1991 Bangladesh cyclone occurred with 2 °C global warming, there would be >70% chance of subsequent dangerous heat. This research highlights a gap in adaptation planning and a need to prepare for an emerging TC–heat compound hazard. They also cite some past work you might find informative, e.g. https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.2257 https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.2...
- marcus_holmes 7y agoThanks for the link, really interesting. I haven't got the stats maths to get fully into it, but the bits I got are really interesting. I kinda stand by my statement though. 1000 people who might have been affected. "Millions" more globally (so a tenth of a percent of the population then?). Lots of uncertainty in the previous paper. But a headline that implies that this is happening to "the human body" and we're all at risk. I'm not blaming the scientists, or questioning the science, but the reporting of it is (still, even after reading more into it) sensationalist crap.
- neuland 7y agoI did not read the article. So maybe it covers this. But how is that different to living in New Orleans or Florida or a bunch of South America. It’s 90 with 80% humidity there all the time and people have lived there for hundreds of years without air conditioning.
- ceejayoz 7y ago90 with 80% humidity at 1 bar is a wetbulb temp of 84.6, a good ten degrees off from the danger zone.
- neuland 7y agoThanks! That makes it easy to understand.
- TheCoelacanth 7y agoThe difference is that instead of being 90 degrees, it's >120 degrees.