Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Monday July 19 2021, @04:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the 35°C-TW dept.

How hot is too hot for the human body?:

Some climate models predict that we're going to start hitting wet-bulb temperatures over 95 °F by the middle of the 21st century. Other researchers say we're already there. In a study published in 2020, researchers showed that some places in the subtropics have already reported such conditions—and they're getting more common.

While most researchers agree that a wet-bulb temperature of 95 °F is unlivable for most humans, the reality is that less extreme conditions can be deadly too. We've only hit those wet-bulb temperatures on Earth a few times, but heat kills people around the world every year.

[...] Heat acclimatization builds up over time: It can start in as little as a few days, and the whole process can take six weeks or longer, Hanna says. People who are more acclimatized to heat sweat more, and their sweat is more diluted, meaning they lose fewer electrolytes through their sweat. This can protect the body from dehydration and heart and kidney problems, Hanna says.

Acclimatization is why heat waves in cooler places, or heat waves early in summer, are more likely to be deadly than the same conditions in hotter places or later in summer. It's not just that places like Canada and Seattle are less likely to have air conditioning, although infrastructure is another big factor in how deadly heat waves will be. Residents of cooler places are also just less acclimatized to the heat, so wet-bulb temperatures below 95 °F can be deadly.

Wet-bulb temperature


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @11:04AM (13 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday July 19 2021, @11:04AM (#1157836)

    Your reference is not a peer-reviewed paper. I didn't have time to read it, but the corresponding address is a hotmail address! So not credible. I wonder what the timecube folks have to say about AGW.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @12:15PM (12 children)

    by fakefuck39 (6620) on Monday July 19 2021, @12:15PM (#1157853)

    i didn't link any paper. my reference is a google image search for 'co2 vs temperature millions years'
    the image i picked is the one that looked pretty. they all show the same thing. i first blindly believed in human-made climate change. my dad, a geologist with a doctorate in chemistry, did not. i made fun if him, then did some research. strangely, prettt much no geologist believes in human-made climate change. the do believe in humans being a tiny, supersuper tiny contributor to it. why? because all the graphs look like the one i linked, showing weak correlation, not cause and effect.

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @01:24PM (11 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday July 19 2021, @01:24PM (#1157866)

      > my dad ...

      good for him

      > i didn't link any paper

      The image you posted comes from this self-published article:

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280548391_Global_Warming_and_Climate_change_causes_impacts_and_mitigation [researchgate.net]

      It is not reliable.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @02:00PM (5 children)

        by fakefuck39 (6620) on Monday July 19 2021, @02:00PM (#1157876)

        not sure what to tell you here, try reading my last reply again i guess. fox news shows a photo of the whitehouse, you go 'it is not a reliable source so it's not the whitehouse.'

        this is a standard chart, same from any source, because it's data the world has had for like a hundred years. it hasn't changed, but i'm sure you won't even bother to google, because you'd rather have it unanswered than spend 10 seconds to prove yourself wrong.

        https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-539be9f47112048e24a6d516d068161c [quoracdn.net]

        here's the same chart. google has about a thousand more of it, from a thousand sources. it's literally in a bunch of geology textbooks.

        you want to be dense, i'm not here to convince you of anything. i also see you left the point about Your chart unansweted. Your chart literally shows humans don't cause climate change. it shows the change we have now, has happened 7 times in the last million years -before all our emissions.

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @03:43PM (3 children)

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday July 19 2021, @03:43PM (#1157894)

          > you won't even bother to google

          I didn't find it on search, sorry.

          Do you have a graph that shows e.g. air pressure on a similar time scale?

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @04:22PM (2 children)

            by fakefuck39 (6620) on Monday July 19 2021, @04:22PM (#1157916)

            yeah, yeah, you didn't find it, even thought different versions of this graph are half the images returned for when you google temperature vs co2 millions of years. i believe you.

            >Do you have a graph that shows e.g. air pressure on a similar time scale?
            nah, but I got a photo of a dumb faggot being purposely dense. I stuck it to your mirror.

            • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @04:51PM (1 child)

              by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday July 19 2021, @04:51PM (#1157933)

              Sinking into trolling...

              • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 19 2021, @06:11PM

                by fakefuck39 (6620) on Monday July 19 2021, @06:11PM (#1157966)

                when I encounter someone like yourself, who is being purposely dense, and is unable to have a discussion - yes. At that point, when you claim you can't find something in a google image search where half the results on the page are the chart in question? Yes, since you started trolling, your only purpose for me at that point is someone to entertain me and to shit on. You've put on clown makeup and are now complaining about being treated as a clown. Which is very entertaining to me.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 19 2021, @04:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 19 2021, @04:20PM (#1157912)

          you go 'it is not a reliable source so it's not the whitehouse.'

          *it's not a reliable source so it may or may not be the whitehouse. it's a house and it's white but is it THE white house"

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Socrastotle on Monday July 19 2021, @02:33PM (4 children)

        by Socrastotle (13446) on Monday July 19 2021, @02:33PM (#1157882) Journal

        He is mostly right. The exact CO2 levels on a geologic time scale are not well understood, but do not seem to support the notion that CO2 levels drive temperature changes. You can find various papers discussing the topic by searching for something like 'geologic CO2 levels'. Here [nature.com] is one. One thing you might also notice even in the graphs of contemporary times is that CO2 changes tended to follow [nasa.gov] temperature changes rather than vice versa. The idea is that our impact on the atmosphere has now changed the relationship with CO2, normally a product of feedback systems (e.g. - temperature goes up, melts frozen gases, increases CO2 levels, etc), is now the primary driver itself rather than Milankovitch cycles and other normal reasons the planet regularly cycles through extremes of hots and colds.

        The entire idea of CO2 driving temperature came largely from Venus as well as a basic understanding of how CO2 (and greenhouse gases in general) work. They do not react to high frequency energy (such as much of the energy coming from the sun) but tend to reflect lower frequency energy, such as the infrared energy emitted by the Earth after absorptions. It's the exact same way a greenhouse works. Light enters the greenhouse through the windows, which do not reflect much high frequency (UV) light, its absorbed, and then reemitted primarily as infrared energy but the windows are opaque to infrared energy, so it gets trapped and you get a nice warm area, even during cold days outside. Same reason the inside of your car is dramatically hotter than the outside, but can be cooled by simply covering the windows.

        I don't have much an opinion one way or the other beyond a general disdain for model based science, which is the entirety of current climatology. Models do not tell you whether something is right or wrong; quite the opposite - they can work to affirm invalid views. For instance when we assumed the Earth was the center of the universe, we were nonetheless able to predict the normal cycles of the models using painfully complex models that involved absurd assumptions such as celestial bodies doing figure 8s (as the sun appears to do if you map its position each day), going in reverse, and so on. But in spite of every single assumption being wrong, the model was able to derive the position by simply correlating it over time. And the so the model, which worked in spite of the assumptions, worked to offer undeserved validation to the assumptions.

        • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 19 2021, @03:32PM (1 child)

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday July 19 2021, @03:32PM (#1157891)

          > general disdain for model based science

          I agree to a point - but in the end, science is an endless loop of model vs data.

          • (Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Monday July 19 2021, @06:41PM

            by Socrastotle (13446) on Monday July 19 2021, @06:41PM (#1157974) Journal

            Indeed, but bad models can completely freeze this loop. And while there are many important aspects to good science including testability, and creating novel predictions, I think the most important is simply falsifiability. How do you falsify geocentricism given the technology available to those at the time? You simply cannot. Any deviation could be quite reasonably dismissed as minor imprecisions in the epicycles [wikipedia.org]. After all if it gets everything 99% right, how could that 1% really matter?

            The problem is that when a model cannot be falsified it becomes easy to simply assume it must be true, and at worst needing of greater refinement. And so more and more is built upon it, and at some point it goes from the *assumption* that it must be true, to the *demand* that it must be true because so much comes to be invested in it. Scientific careers become built and completely invested in it, centuries of scientific literature becomes contingent upon it, and political authorities (in the past this would have been the Church) integrate the idea into their very existence. Geocentricism, for instance, was adopted by the Church as evidence of the uniqueness of man and of Earth.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 19 2021, @04:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 19 2021, @04:56PM (#1157937)

          Nothing in science tells you whether you are "right" or "wrong," only that you are or are not (or can't tell) consistent with observation and experience. All science is model based. Models can be "wrong" if they fail to describe observation, like how the Rayleigh=Jeans law broke down as you approached ultraviolet light, but some models describe things pretty well even though they might be very complicated. Even models that are obviously wrong can be useful if they are used where the model is accurate, such as over a narrow range where the relationship is linear, or basically anything that engineers deal with in their everyday work, where classical physics based models are more than sufficient to do the job.

          Regarding physics based climate models, I tend to put a lot of value into what they predict, especially if many independently built models generally point in the same direction. You have to act on the best information you have available, and if most of the models are suggesting dramatic changes are in store over relatively short time scales, it would be very irresponsible to claim that since we don't know if these models are "right" that we should not do anything. Perhaps if you only had one model, but regarding climate models, that is far from being the case.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 28 2021, @04:25AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 28 2021, @04:25AM (#1160565) Journal

          The exact CO2 levels on a geologic time scale are not well understood, but do not seem to support the notion that CO2 levels drive temperature changes.

          On that timescale. There are two key differences between studying over that and studying over the past 150 years or so. First, no humans in those geological records so you are comparing random dynamics to a very specific change from human global industrialization. Second, there are all kinds of confounding factors that don't manifest in 150 years, such as continental scale geology, evolution of plant cover, and the pressure and density of the atmosphere.

          I don't have much an opinion one way or the other beyond a general disdain for model based science, which is the entirety of current climatology. Models do not tell you whether something is right or wrong; quite the opposite - they can work to affirm invalid views.

          Then you aren't doing science.