6 ms·

The hottest I ever felt was 114° in the DFW area in Texas. I cannot even fathom another 16 degrees. Even with low humidity, 130° is a killer. Even worse though

The hottest I ever felt was 114° in the DFW area in Texas. I cannot even fathom another 16 degrees. Even with low humidity, 130° is a killer. Even worse though are places in the world not quite as hot, but with high humidity, where the body cannot cope with cooling you down. If heat continues to go up, I wonder how many places on earth will become uninhabitable, and where will the people there then go? Maybe the future of humanity is underground, it does not take very far before the temperature is very pleasant. I recall walking down the path in Carlsbad Caverns when it was 100° outside, and the cave was at a constant 53° or so.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> The hottest I ever felt was 114° in the DFW area in Texas. I cannot even fathom another 16 degrees. Even with low humidity, 130° is a killer. Humidity makes a bigger difference than you might think. Death Valley at 130F and 6% humidity (the current Death Valley humidity) has a heat index similar to somewhere at 100F and 50% humidity (common humidity for DFW, Texas). Heat index isn't perfect, but 114F with DFW humidity might have felt significantly worse than 130F with Death Valley humidity.
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
I mean, we already air condition a lot. My guess is if an area is uninhabitable for a small portion of the year, we'll build more structures designed to convey people between buildings and their vehicles without people actually going outdoors, such that you just don't go outside when it's that hot. As a Chicagoan, I'd like to see more built that way just for the winter... That being said, underground is pretty efficient energy-wise, it'll just depend on whether or not that exceeds the costs of building underground, which is generally significant.
- irrational 5y ago
  When I lived in south Florida we would pretty much went from our air conditioned houses to our air conditioned cars to our air conditioned schools/stores/work. I’d usually wait until after midnight to go for a run since it was “cooler”.
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    Yeah, I've done a bit of that when traveling. I guess the question becomes: "what do we do when even the walk to your car is unsafe", which is a point we will reach the closer we get to temperatures that are actually enough to boil water. ;) I imagine being able to summon a car would become a key feature, for instance, since storing everyone's vehicles indoors is unlikely to be economical.
- jpindar 5y ago
  Something like the Minneapolis Skyway? It has it's good points and bad points. Like a mall, it's sort of a public space - but not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Skyway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Skyway_System
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    Yeah, I'm jealous of the Minneapolis Skyway. IIRC, there's an underground area in Chicago that is similar.
agumonkey 5y ago
tiny digression, I'm regularly amazed at how a simple tree can make a hot spot liveable.. one mango tree in front of my grandmother's house is our lunch spot because it's just slightly cooler, slightly windier, when the rest is burning also whenever it's burning.. I go in the forest, it's a lot chiller obviously.. my point is nature was good a finding solutions for that when possible. Turning light into energy for plants while making cool shadows underneath
- analognoise 5y ago
  At high enough humidity, shade won't save you - evaporative cooling (your body sweating) does not work. There is a temperature/humidity line across which a perfectly healthy person, sitting in shade and drinking unlimited water, will die. That's why this is terrifying. There's no "gee nature is great a tree will save us" about this.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    I was not talking about this limit case but the range between normal and this.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
irrational 5y ago
It was 115 (though our car said it was 119) two weekends ago in Oregon. Of course, that was the weekend we had arranged to move houses. All day outside lugging boxes and furniture was no bueno.
nemo44x 5y ago
130 is a medium rare steak. You could literally let your steak sit outside all day and end up with a perfectly cooked steak - although I suspect it would be gross and probably loaded with bacteria.
- cycrutchfield 5y ago
  Nice, open-air sous vide. At a constant 130 F, after 2-3 hours the steak should be fully pasteurized and nicely medium rare.
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    I was thinking that too but I also was concerned that new bacteria would join the party since it’s not in a bag? Could throw it on the asphalt I guess and maybe get some browning to boot.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > At a constant 130 F, after 2-3 hours the steak should be fully pasteurized and nicely medium rare. 2 hours at an internal temperature of 130 for pasteurization (and still only rare.) The problem is the effects of the bacterial activity in the time it takes to reach and hold at 130, which when your cooking medium is dry air at 130 is...quite a while.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > 130 is a medium rare steak No, 130 is just plain rare. Medium rare is ~145. > You could literally let your steak sit outside all day and end up with a perfectly cooked steak Well, no, because... > although I suspect it would be gross and probably loaded with bacteria. Yeah, it would be rotten, not “perfectly cooked”, even if you are aiming for rare.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  Indeed, I am preparing my medium-rare steaks in sous-vide at 130f. Of course heat transfer is widely different between air and water, thats why no one is actually preparing steaks that way, but just thinking that the air temperature is equivalent to the steak cooking temperature shows how hot it is and how bare survival depends on active cooling.
alasdair_ 5y ago
It was 118 degrees in my town a bit outside of Seattle last week. Utterly insane for a place known for being cold and rainy.
nostrademons 5y ago
Climate change is going to shift habitable zones northward. There are vast swaths of currently uninhabitable Canadian & Russian permafrost that are about to become pleasant grasslands. Check out a Koppen climate classification map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification#/media/File:K%C3%B6ppen-Geiger_Climate_Classification_Map.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classifica... The largest areas on earth are Dfc (subarctic), Dwf (hot desert), and EF (ice cap). The pleasant areas - C?? and D?[ab] - are relatively small parts of the earth surface. If climate change lifts the cool-summer zones of earth (those ending in c or d) into warm-summer, it has a lot more headroom to increase human-habitable areas than the heating of already-hot areas. Climate change will likely be good for humanity and fatal for a significant portion of humans. These are not mutually-incompatible statements.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> The hottest I ever felt was 114° in the DFW area in Texas. I cannot even fathom another 16 degrees. Even with low humidity, 130° is a killer. Humidity makes a bigger difference than you might think. Death Valley at 130F and 6% humidity (the current Death Valley humidity) has a heat index similar to somewhere at 100F and 50% humidity (common humidity for DFW, Texas). Heat index isn't perfect, but 114F with DFW humidity might have felt significantly worse than 130F with Death Valley humidity.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

I mean, we already air condition a lot. My guess is if an area is uninhabitable for a small portion of the year, we'll build more structures designed to convey people between buildings and their vehicles without people actually going outdoors, such that you just don't go outside when it's that hot. As a Chicagoan, I'd like to see more built that way just for the winter... That being said, underground is pretty efficient energy-wise, it'll just depend on whether or not that exceeds the costs of building underground, which is generally significant.

irrational 5y ago
When I lived in south Florida we would pretty much went from our air conditioned houses to our air conditioned cars to our air conditioned schools/stores/work. I’d usually wait until after midnight to go for a run since it was “cooler”.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Yeah, I've done a bit of that when traveling. I guess the question becomes: "what do we do when even the walk to your car is unsafe", which is a point we will reach the closer we get to temperatures that are actually enough to boil water. ;) I imagine being able to summon a car would become a key feature, for instance, since storing everyone's vehicles indoors is unlikely to be economical.
jpindar 5y ago
Something like the Minneapolis Skyway? It has it's good points and bad points. Like a mall, it's sort of a public space - but not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Skyway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Skyway_System
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm jealous of the Minneapolis Skyway. IIRC, there's an underground area in Chicago that is similar.

agumonkey 5y ago

tiny digression, I'm regularly amazed at how a simple tree can make a hot spot liveable.. one mango tree in front of my grandmother's house is our lunch spot because it's just slightly cooler, slightly windier, when the rest is burning also whenever it's burning.. I go in the forest, it's a lot chiller obviously.. my point is nature was good a finding solutions for that when possible. Turning light into energy for plants while making cool shadows underneath

analognoise 5y ago
At high enough humidity, shade won't save you - evaporative cooling (your body sweating) does not work. There is a temperature/humidity line across which a perfectly healthy person, sitting in shade and drinking unlimited water, will die. That's why this is terrifying. There's no "gee nature is great a tree will save us" about this.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  I was not talking about this limit case but the range between normal and this.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

irrational 5y ago

It was 115 (though our car said it was 119) two weekends ago in Oregon. Of course, that was the weekend we had arranged to move houses. All day outside lugging boxes and furniture was no bueno.

nemo44x 5y ago

130 is a medium rare steak. You could literally let your steak sit outside all day and end up with a perfectly cooked steak - although I suspect it would be gross and probably loaded with bacteria.

cycrutchfield 5y ago
Nice, open-air sous vide. At a constant 130 F, after 2-3 hours the steak should be fully pasteurized and nicely medium rare.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  I was thinking that too but I also was concerned that new bacteria would join the party since it’s not in a bag? Could throw it on the asphalt I guess and maybe get some browning to boot.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > At a constant 130 F, after 2-3 hours the steak should be fully pasteurized and nicely medium rare. 2 hours at an internal temperature of 130 for pasteurization (and still only rare.) The problem is the effects of the bacterial activity in the time it takes to reach and hold at 130, which when your cooking medium is dry air at 130 is...quite a while.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> 130 is a medium rare steak No, 130 is just plain rare. Medium rare is ~145. > You could literally let your steak sit outside all day and end up with a perfectly cooked steak Well, no, because... > although I suspect it would be gross and probably loaded with bacteria. Yeah, it would be rotten, not “perfectly cooked”, even if you are aiming for rare.
_ph_ 5y ago
Indeed, I am preparing my medium-rare steaks in sous-vide at 130f. Of course heat transfer is widely different between air and water, thats why no one is actually preparing steaks that way, but just thinking that the air temperature is equivalent to the steak cooking temperature shows how hot it is and how bare survival depends on active cooling.

alasdair_ 5y ago

It was 118 degrees in my town a bit outside of Seattle last week. Utterly insane for a place known for being cold and rainy.

nostrademons 5y ago

Climate change is going to shift habitable zones northward. There are vast swaths of currently uninhabitable Canadian & Russian permafrost that are about to become pleasant grasslands. Check out a Koppen climate classification map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification#/media/File:K%C3%B6ppen-Geiger_Climate_Classification_Map.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classifica... The largest areas on earth are Dfc (subarctic), Dwf (hot desert), and EF (ice cap). The pleasant areas - C?? and D?[ab] - are relatively small parts of the earth surface. If climate change lifts the cool-summer zones of earth (those ending in c or d) into warm-summer, it has a lot more headroom to increase human-habitable areas than the heating of already-hot areas. Climate change will likely be good for humanity and fatal for a significant portion of humans. These are not mutually-incompatible statements.