4 ms·

> I'm fairly sure that living standards will be lowered by floods No, it won't as badly. Doomerism is not a valid rational point of view. Most of all, floods

> I'm fairly sure that living standards will be lowered by floods No, it won't as badly. Doomerism is not a valid rational point of view. Most of all, floods would happen anyway, so you'll have floods + lower standards of living, including much worse emergency services. we are not at the brink of extinction and people lived and prospered in almost unhabitable lands long before we had the technology to regulate the temperature. like for example Northern United Kingdom. But are also living today in the middle of deserts, with no AC. Of course we should cut on emissions werever it is possible, worst offenders being fossil fuels. Edit: on a side note the reason why your proposal will never work is because cutting on emissions is actually easy. For example let's stop keeping pets at home. Pets that usually eat a lot of red meat. It is feasible, won't lower living standards and won't cost much to society. Now convince people that their cat eats more meat in a year than a Chinese average person and that's not sustainable.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> we are not at the brink of extinction and people lived and prospered in almost unhabitable lands long before we had the technology to regulate the temperature. It's relatively simple (though not necessarily easy) to live in a cold area if you have access to furs and fuel. Trying to survive in an area where the wet bulb temperature is over 35 degrees will require reliable air conditioning and working outside will become virtually impossible for humans. > Edit: on a side note the reason why your proposal will never work is because cutting o. emissions s it's actually easy. For example let's stop keeping let's at home. Pets that usually eat a lot of red meat. It is feasible, won't lower living standards and won't cost much to society. Now convince people that their cat eats more meat in a year than a Chinese average person and that's not sustainable. That reads as gibberish.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > It's relatively simple (though not necessarily easy) to live in a cold area if you have access to furs and fuel. there must be a reason why the coldest areas on the Planet are deserted... > Trying to survive in an area where the wet bulb temperature is over 35 degrees And yet ancient Egyptians did it 4 thousands years ago. > That reads as gibberish My phone has an Italian dictionary. Fixed it.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    > And yet ancient Egyptians did it 4 thousands years ago. Have you any evidence of Egypt having those kinds of wet bulb temperatures back then? It's physically impossible to survive high wet bulb temperatures even with an unlimited supply of water without some other form of cooling (i.e. not based on air movement such as fans) as water/sweat evaporation isn't effective. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature: > Even heat-adapted people cannot carry out normal outdoor activities past a wet-bulb temperature of 32 °C (90 °F), equivalent to a heat index of 55 °C (131 °F). A reading of 35 °C (95 °F) – equivalent to a heat index of 71 °C (160 °F) – is considered the theoretical human survivability limit for up to six hours of exposure.
    - iamegypt 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        Those figures that you quote are not wet bulb temperatures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature > The wet-bulb temperature (WBT) is the temperature read by a thermometer covered in water-soaked (water at ambient temperature) cloth (a wet-bulb thermometer) over which air is passed. At 100% relative humidity, the wet-bulb temperature is equal to the air temperature (dry-bulb temperature); at lower humidity the wet-bulb temperature is lower than dry-bulb temperature because of evaporative cooling.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        iamegypt 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
      > Have you any evidence of Egypt having those kinds of wet bulb temperatures back then? Have you got evidence of climate change causing those kinds of wet bulb temperatures in large populated areas?

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

> we are not at the brink of extinction and people lived and prospered in almost unhabitable lands long before we had the technology to regulate the temperature. It's relatively simple (though not necessarily easy) to live in a cold area if you have access to furs and fuel. Trying to survive in an area where the wet bulb temperature is over 35 degrees will require reliable air conditioning and working outside will become virtually impossible for humans. > Edit: on a side note the reason why your proposal will never work is because cutting o. emissions s it's actually easy. For example let's stop keeping let's at home. Pets that usually eat a lot of red meat. It is feasible, won't lower living standards and won't cost much to society. Now convince people that their cat eats more meat in a year than a Chinese average person and that's not sustainable. That reads as gibberish.

peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> It's relatively simple (though not necessarily easy) to live in a cold area if you have access to furs and fuel. there must be a reason why the coldest areas on the Planet are deserted... > Trying to survive in an area where the wet bulb temperature is over 35 degrees And yet ancient Egyptians did it 4 thousands years ago. > That reads as gibberish My phone has an Italian dictionary. Fixed it.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > And yet ancient Egyptians did it 4 thousands years ago. Have you any evidence of Egypt having those kinds of wet bulb temperatures back then? It's physically impossible to survive high wet bulb temperatures even with an unlimited supply of water without some other form of cooling (i.e. not based on air movement such as fans) as water/sweat evaporation isn't effective. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature: > Even heat-adapted people cannot carry out normal outdoor activities past a wet-bulb temperature of 32 °C (90 °F), equivalent to a heat index of 55 °C (131 °F). A reading of 35 °C (95 °F) – equivalent to a heat index of 71 °C (160 °F) – is considered the theoretical human survivability limit for up to six hours of exposure.
  - iamegypt 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      Those figures that you quote are not wet bulb temperatures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature > The wet-bulb temperature (WBT) is the temperature read by a thermometer covered in water-soaked (water at ambient temperature) cloth (a wet-bulb thermometer) over which air is passed. At 100% relative humidity, the wet-bulb temperature is equal to the air temperature (dry-bulb temperature); at lower humidity the wet-bulb temperature is lower than dry-bulb temperature because of evaporative cooling.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - iamegypt 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
    > Have you any evidence of Egypt having those kinds of wet bulb temperatures back then? Have you got evidence of climate change causing those kinds of wet bulb temperatures in large populated areas?