6 ms·

I fear that this is the year "wet-bulb temperature" becomes a term regular households across the world become deeply familiar with. It may be as ubiquitous as t

by vichu 3y ago

I fear that this is the year "wet-bulb temperature" becomes a term regular households across the world become deeply familiar with. It may be as ubiquitous as the term "social distancing" became. I've always naively thought that climate disaster was still 10-20 years out, but it seems like it's going to begin in earnest now and instead be completely catastrophic after these next 10 years. What can I as an individual do? Move to Saskatchewan or Alaska? I already know from a friend in Alaska that the melting permafrost is causing many native villages to sink and collapse, and it's only gotten worse in the past few years. Check out this article on Newtok, AK by National Geographic from 2019: http://archive.today/1enHh http://archive.today/1enHh

AnonCoward42 3y ago
[flagged]
- kfrzcode 3y ago
  The end is (nigh++)!
kfrzcode 3y ago
Keep calm, carry on, adapt. Slow-moving crises are not crises, they're problems, not emergencies. ---- Here, have some literature, down-voters! ---- [1] Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr. [0] ---- We compare estimates of coastal and global averaged sea level for 1950 to 2000. During the 1990s and around 1970, we find coastal sea level is rising faster than the global average but that it rises slower than the global average during the late 1970s and late 1980s. The differences are largely a result of sampling the time-varying geographical distribution of sea level rise along a coastline which is more convoluted in some regions than others. More rapid coastal rise corresponds to La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean and a slower rate corresponds to El Niño–like conditions. Over the 51 year period, there is no significant difference in the rates of coastal and global averaged sea level rise, as found in climate model simulations of the 20th century. The best estimate of both global average and coastal sea level rise remains 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr−1, as found in earlier studies. [1] ---- Kemp et al. (1) note that recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports emphasize sub-2 °C scenarios. Simultaneously, IPCC reports also overemphasize catastrophic scenarios, as does broader discourse. For example, the cataclysmic Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5-8.5 (SSP5-8.5) scenarios—now widely considered implausible (2)—account for roughly half of the scenario mentions in recent IPCC Assessment Reports’ impacts (Working Group II) sections (Fig. 1A), similar to underlying scientific literature (3). The SSP3-7.0 emissions pathway, which Kemp et al. (1) use in their analyses, assumes a world in 2100 heavily reliant on coal and with no climate policy—an implausible future (3, 4). It projects vastly higher emissions than the International Energy Agency (IEA) stated policies scenario, which has continually been revised downward in recent years (4) (Fig. 1B). [2] ---- [0]: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200... [1]: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004GL021391 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200... [2]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2214347119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2214347119 Cherry-picked because hey, why not?
- _djo_ 3y ago
  This isn’t moving that slowly any more.
  - valval 3y ago
    It’s moving super slowly, and if nothing is done by the end of the century, we’ll be slightly worse off than we are now.
    - _djo_ 3y ago
      I can’t tell if you’re trolling, in denial, or just very naive. Climate change is already causing economic damage and the loss of lives. This isn’t some theoretical future problem.
      - valval 3y ago
        You should read some of Bjørn Lomborg's stuff.
        jules-jules 3y ago
        Maybe you should say hello to the people of Pakistan for a change.
    - r00fus 3y ago
      Uncontrolled fires in the arctic circle along with every continent aside from Antarctica? Yeah, that doesn't sound apocalyptic at all!
    - data_maan 3y ago
      If living in poverty, without access to various types of medication because our fragile supply chains broke is "slightly worse off", then sure, yeah, it's just going to be slight change
  - jovial_cavalier 3y ago
    Therefore... panic?
hunter2_ 3y ago
I am very familiar with how a wet-bulb thermometer works and some of the ways it's useful (like at altitude for weather forecasts, and as one of the ways to build a hygrometer) but I'm struggling to make the connection that you've made as to why it'll be a household term. Mind explaining?
- roflyear 3y ago
  At a certain wet bulb temp humans cannot cool themselves off - they die without access to some other means to get cool (like cold water, air conditioning, etc).
  - paranoidxprod 3y ago
    To add to this with an article I just found “The [wet-bulb] temperature reading you get will actually change depending on how humid it is,” says Kristina Dahl, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “That’s the real purpose, to measure how well we’ll be able to cool ourselves by sweating.” Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jul/31/why-you-need-to-worry-about-the-wet-bulb-temperature https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jul/31/why-you-need...
    - roflyear 3y ago
      Yes, wet bulb temp is in the context of humidity. Apparently 95f or 35c is the "limit" for humans - where many people will have health issues if they can't cool off otherwise.
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        "Health issues" may be under selling it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature > The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the shade, even with unlimited water, is a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C
  - kzrdude 3y ago
guerrilla 3y ago
I dount it'll help you much to move. We've got drought and fire here in Sweden already. Never rains anymore. Slaugherhouses fullbooked already becauae the probability of being able to keep the livestock fed and watered looks pretty bad already...
- roflyear 3y ago
  These issues are going to impact livestock around the world - which is a big contributor to global warming. I suppose some issues are self-correcting.
  - guerrilla 3y ago
    Yeah malnutrition and inflation will be great...
  - BasedAnon 3y ago
    If by self-correcting you mean 'killing enough humans until a new equilibrium is reached' sure
    - roflyear 3y ago
      Well, you don't need meat to survive.
- genman 3y ago
  I hope they make canned meat then.
- hammock 3y ago
  >Never rains anymore Sweden average rainfall seems to be trending up on a 100-year scale. https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/precipitation https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/precipitation > We've got drought and fire here in Sweden already Forest fires in Sweden are a complex dynamic and the risk factor from climate change is only one part. Here is an interesting discussion https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-020-01718-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-020-01718-2 Droughts in Sweden have been on a downtrend for the last 60 years, with quite a bit of variability. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214581822001847 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221458182...
kfrzcode 3y ago
There's literally nothing a "bottom-up" approach will do to effectuate any serious change on the climate. The climate is a dynamic system, and "climate change" is a tautology. At which point, ever, is any "climate" in a static state? Never, because systems are dynamic, and it's chaotic. Now, if anyone (the State powers and corporate interests) actually WANT to "solve" this "problem," it's, uh, very very clear where to start. Nuclear. But like many other scissor issues, it will continue to be used as a lever to slice apart groups so's they can fight each other. When was the last time you asked yourself "What made and or makes me confident in my belief that this is actually a crisis? Why?" Which papers and statistical analyses have you written? Are you "trusting the science?" Are you versed enough to truly understand how we'd even be able to measure this? Or is it just esoteric enough that it can be used as an engine of disruption, corruption, etc...
- uw_rob 3y ago
  Double pendulums are a great example of complex, chaotic, and dynamic system. Given an initial state, I wouldn't be able to predict the outcome. However, I could easily go over and smash the toy and then have a pretty good prediction of the outcome state. Anyone who is interested in having a deeper understanding of climate change I would recommend checking out IPCC AR6. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...
- defrost 3y ago
  Weather (short term local fluctuations) is chaotic. Climate (long term parameters) isn't. As an example of how this can be so, consider the classic images of spinning wingnuts in space ( Dzhanibekov effect | Tennis racket theorem ). The tumblings of the wingnut, moment to moment, are chaotic and unpredictable. The long term trajectory of the wingnut is clear to see, the centre of mass arcs in a smooth manner and the eventual impact point on the hull can be marked in advance. ( In answer to your question, I've spent decades in geophysics and related disciplines, I've measured gravity, ground radiation, cosmic radiation, continent scale tides to determine mean sea levels, etc. ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_racket_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_racket_theorem
concordDance 3y ago
Unless you live in the select few poor equatorial countries with high humidity and heat you have little to worry about personally. Climate change is a long term problem. We're going to see hundreds of millions of climate refugees before the end of the century, but the bulk will be after most of us are dead.
- momdad420 3y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
detrites 3y ago
> I've always naively thought that climate disaster was still 10-20 years out You can hardly be blamed for that, they've been saying it was one way or another since at least the 1970's. Literally none of their doomsday scenarios have occurred as stated yet. My bet is, rather than bovine farts and air for plant-life, the major climate driver will turn out to be what it always has been... 1 million earths-worth chaotic searing nuclear eruption, boiling atop hidden internal processes 4b+ years. And if there is a human aspect to it, I'd first investigate the large-scale weather-modifying experiments creating and directing precipitation in arbitrary and unaccountable ways over large landmasses for decades. Eg, look at China's. (Cue the brigade claiming sensible observations are madness because there's a "consensus"... among only scientists that agree...)
- sgu999 3y ago
  > And if there is a human aspect to it lol > sensible observations Please share how you've conducted your observations in a rigorous way, no one will blame you for it, that's how science progresses... > "consensus" lol
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36289143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36289143>
    - sgu999 3y ago
      Uh, thanks. I couldn't resist this time, I needed the reminder I guess!
  - detrites 3y ago
    I've observed that for the past 4.5+ billion years, the sole principle driver of the climate on our planet has been the million-earth sized nuclear reaction it's in orbit around. That the past 100 years of cows farting would suddenly have infinitely greater impact strikes me as absurd, and meshes well with the decades of failed predictions I've observed its purveyors making. That they will casually disregard, as entirely irrelevant, large-scale human deployments specifically targeted at changing the climate - that have succeeded in doing so - only supports this assessment. Finally, asserting a "consensus" only by ignoring or mocking any and all dissenting views is utterly pathetic and not indicative of science. It's more indicative of field capture by industry, politics and profits. Even the most cursory analysis of investment flows, or the personal investments of people promoting it and what they stand to personally gain from it (while taking private actions contradicting public claims) confirms this also. That everything the field claims about the future is based on "modelling" (which is another word for "imagining"), really just cements the level of "science" we're dealing with here. No wonder their "models" always fail. I'm not saying the climate isn't changing, and I'm not even saying we couldn't be causing it. I'm saying the current investigation into it is off-track, compromised, and historically incapable of coming up with any accuracy. Ie, if China can successfully, and continually, modify the climate across their entire continent using a large-scale tech deployment, how is it reasonable to exclude it from theories on anthropogenic climate? It makes no sense. (And if you aren't aware of China's weather modification programs, look them up. It's not "conspiracy theory", even CNN has reported on it.)

by vichu 3y ago

AnonCoward42 3y ago

[flagged]

kfrzcode 3y ago
The end is (nigh++)!

kfrzcode 3y ago

Keep calm, carry on, adapt. Slow-moving crises are not crises, they're problems, not emergencies. ---- Here, have some literature, down-voters! ---- [1] Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr. [0] ---- We compare estimates of coastal and global averaged sea level for 1950 to 2000. During the 1990s and around 1970, we find coastal sea level is rising faster than the global average but that it rises slower than the global average during the late 1970s and late 1980s. The differences are largely a result of sampling the time-varying geographical distribution of sea level rise along a coastline which is more convoluted in some regions than others. More rapid coastal rise corresponds to La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean and a slower rate corresponds to El Niño–like conditions. Over the 51 year period, there is no significant difference in the rates of coastal and global averaged sea level rise, as found in climate model simulations of the 20th century. The best estimate of both global average and coastal sea level rise remains 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr−1, as found in earlier studies. [1] ---- Kemp et al. (1) note that recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports emphasize sub-2 °C scenarios. Simultaneously, IPCC reports also overemphasize catastrophic scenarios, as does broader discourse. For example, the cataclysmic Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5-8.5 (SSP5-8.5) scenarios—now widely considered implausible (2)—account for roughly half of the scenario mentions in recent IPCC Assessment Reports’ impacts (Working Group II) sections (Fig. 1A), similar to underlying scientific literature (3). The SSP3-7.0 emissions pathway, which Kemp et al. (1) use in their analyses, assumes a world in 2100 heavily reliant on coal and with no climate policy—an implausible future (3, 4). It projects vastly higher emissions than the International Energy Agency (IEA) stated policies scenario, which has continually been revised downward in recent years (4) (Fig. 1B). [2] ---- [0]: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028492 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200... [1]: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004GL021391 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200... [2]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2214347119 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2214347119 Cherry-picked because hey, why not?

_djo_ 3y ago
This isn’t moving that slowly any more.
- valval 3y ago
  It’s moving super slowly, and if nothing is done by the end of the century, we’ll be slightly worse off than we are now.
  - _djo_ 3y ago
    I can’t tell if you’re trolling, in denial, or just very naive. Climate change is already causing economic damage and the loss of lives. This isn’t some theoretical future problem.
    - valval 3y ago
      You should read some of Bjørn Lomborg's stuff.
      - jules-jules 3y ago
        Maybe you should say hello to the people of Pakistan for a change.
  - r00fus 3y ago
    Uncontrolled fires in the arctic circle along with every continent aside from Antarctica? Yeah, that doesn't sound apocalyptic at all!
  - data_maan 3y ago
    If living in poverty, without access to various types of medication because our fragile supply chains broke is "slightly worse off", then sure, yeah, it's just going to be slight change
- jovial_cavalier 3y ago
  Therefore... panic?

hunter2_ 3y ago

I am very familiar with how a wet-bulb thermometer works and some of the ways it's useful (like at altitude for weather forecasts, and as one of the ways to build a hygrometer) but I'm struggling to make the connection that you've made as to why it'll be a household term. Mind explaining?

roflyear 3y ago
At a certain wet bulb temp humans cannot cool themselves off - they die without access to some other means to get cool (like cold water, air conditioning, etc).
- paranoidxprod 3y ago
  To add to this with an article I just found “The [wet-bulb] temperature reading you get will actually change depending on how humid it is,” says Kristina Dahl, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “That’s the real purpose, to measure how well we’ll be able to cool ourselves by sweating.” Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jul/31/why-you-need-to-worry-about-the-wet-bulb-temperature https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jul/31/why-you-need...
  - roflyear 3y ago
    Yes, wet bulb temp is in the context of humidity. Apparently 95f or 35c is the "limit" for humans - where many people will have health issues if they can't cool off otherwise.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      "Health issues" may be under selling it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature > The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the shade, even with unlimited water, is a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C
- kzrdude 3y ago

guerrilla 3y ago

I dount it'll help you much to move. We've got drought and fire here in Sweden already. Never rains anymore. Slaugherhouses fullbooked already becauae the probability of being able to keep the livestock fed and watered looks pretty bad already...

roflyear 3y ago
These issues are going to impact livestock around the world - which is a big contributor to global warming. I suppose some issues are self-correcting.
- guerrilla 3y ago
  Yeah malnutrition and inflation will be great...
- BasedAnon 3y ago
  If by self-correcting you mean 'killing enough humans until a new equilibrium is reached' sure
  - roflyear 3y ago
    Well, you don't need meat to survive.
genman 3y ago
I hope they make canned meat then.
hammock 3y ago
>Never rains anymore Sweden average rainfall seems to be trending up on a 100-year scale. https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/precipitation https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/precipitation > We've got drought and fire here in Sweden already Forest fires in Sweden are a complex dynamic and the risk factor from climate change is only one part. Here is an interesting discussion https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-020-01718-2 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-020-01718-2 Droughts in Sweden have been on a downtrend for the last 60 years, with quite a bit of variability. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214581822001847 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221458182...

kfrzcode 3y ago

There's literally nothing a "bottom-up" approach will do to effectuate any serious change on the climate. The climate is a dynamic system, and "climate change" is a tautology. At which point, ever, is any "climate" in a static state? Never, because systems are dynamic, and it's chaotic. Now, if anyone (the State powers and corporate interests) actually WANT to "solve" this "problem," it's, uh, very very clear where to start. Nuclear. But like many other scissor issues, it will continue to be used as a lever to slice apart groups so's they can fight each other. When was the last time you asked yourself "What made and or makes me confident in my belief that this is actually a crisis? Why?" Which papers and statistical analyses have you written? Are you "trusting the science?" Are you versed enough to truly understand how we'd even be able to measure this? Or is it just esoteric enough that it can be used as an engine of disruption, corruption, etc...

uw_rob 3y ago
Double pendulums are a great example of complex, chaotic, and dynamic system. Given an initial state, I wouldn't be able to predict the outcome. However, I could easily go over and smash the toy and then have a pretty good prediction of the outcome state. Anyone who is interested in having a deeper understanding of climate change I would recommend checking out IPCC AR6. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...
defrost 3y ago
Weather (short term local fluctuations) is chaotic. Climate (long term parameters) isn't. As an example of how this can be so, consider the classic images of spinning wingnuts in space ( Dzhanibekov effect | Tennis racket theorem ). The tumblings of the wingnut, moment to moment, are chaotic and unpredictable. The long term trajectory of the wingnut is clear to see, the centre of mass arcs in a smooth manner and the eventual impact point on the hull can be marked in advance. ( In answer to your question, I've spent decades in geophysics and related disciplines, I've measured gravity, ground radiation, cosmic radiation, continent scale tides to determine mean sea levels, etc. ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_racket_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_racket_theorem

concordDance 3y ago

Unless you live in the select few poor equatorial countries with high humidity and heat you have little to worry about personally. Climate change is a long term problem. We're going to see hundreds of millions of climate refugees before the end of the century, but the bulk will be after most of us are dead.

momdad420 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

detrites 3y ago

> I've always naively thought that climate disaster was still 10-20 years out You can hardly be blamed for that, they've been saying it was one way or another since at least the 1970's. Literally none of their doomsday scenarios have occurred as stated yet. My bet is, rather than bovine farts and air for plant-life, the major climate driver will turn out to be what it always has been... 1 million earths-worth chaotic searing nuclear eruption, boiling atop hidden internal processes 4b+ years. And if there is a human aspect to it, I'd first investigate the large-scale weather-modifying experiments creating and directing precipitation in arbitrary and unaccountable ways over large landmasses for decades. Eg, look at China's. (Cue the brigade claiming sensible observations are madness because there's a "consensus"... among only scientists that agree...)

sgu999 3y ago
> And if there is a human aspect to it lol > sensible observations Please share how you've conducted your observations in a rigorous way, no one will blame you for it, that's how science progresses... > "consensus" lol
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36289143 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36289143>
  - sgu999 3y ago
    Uh, thanks. I couldn't resist this time, I needed the reminder I guess!
- detrites 3y ago
  I've observed that for the past 4.5+ billion years, the sole principle driver of the climate on our planet has been the million-earth sized nuclear reaction it's in orbit around. That the past 100 years of cows farting would suddenly have infinitely greater impact strikes me as absurd, and meshes well with the decades of failed predictions I've observed its purveyors making. That they will casually disregard, as entirely irrelevant, large-scale human deployments specifically targeted at changing the climate - that have succeeded in doing so - only supports this assessment. Finally, asserting a "consensus" only by ignoring or mocking any and all dissenting views is utterly pathetic and not indicative of science. It's more indicative of field capture by industry, politics and profits. Even the most cursory analysis of investment flows, or the personal investments of people promoting it and what they stand to personally gain from it (while taking private actions contradicting public claims) confirms this also. That everything the field claims about the future is based on "modelling" (which is another word for "imagining"), really just cements the level of "science" we're dealing with here. No wonder their "models" always fail. I'm not saying the climate isn't changing, and I'm not even saying we couldn't be causing it. I'm saying the current investigation into it is off-track, compromised, and historically incapable of coming up with any accuracy. Ie, if China can successfully, and continually, modify the climate across their entire continent using a large-scale tech deployment, how is it reasonable to exclude it from theories on anthropogenic climate? It makes no sense. (And if you aren't aware of China's weather modification programs, look them up. It's not "conspiracy theory", even CNN has reported on it.)