Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Monday July 19, @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This discussion has been archived.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: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday July 26, @04:00PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 26, @04:00PM (#1160028) Journal

    My claim, as is the geologists' is that Human climate change is tiny, and the rest is caused by something else.

    Tiny is a matter of opinion. But we can say that human climate change causes significant, observable changes in climate.

    For example, about 10% of the Earth's surface (about 40% of land area) has been modified for human use (such as agriculture, pastureland, roads, and urban areas) and we have significant movement and extinction of organisms which can affect climate on a continental scale (ant and rodent invasive species, large mammal extinctions, invasive plants that increase fuel load for wildfires - anything that can change albedo on that scale). As I've noted before, CO2 concentrations are higher now than we've observed from those ice cores (with isotope analysis indicating most of that new CO2 likely comes from human activity).

    We have a solid physical model that predicts about three quarters of the observed global warming of the past 150 or so years comes from human activity, given our estimates of human contributions to CO2 and other greenhouse gases concentrations in the atmosphere. On that last point, what's the better model? When climatologists add more complexity, they predict a lot more heating (the consensus of 3 C long term warming per doubling of CO2 is twice the warming predicted from the above model and some models predict a lot more than that). Nobody has a model that predicts less warming than the Arrhenius base model - not even the climate skeptics.

    There's not much point to data like the hundreds of millions scale data that ignores a variety of confounding factors (continental-scale geology, evolution of plant cover, and atmospheric pressure/density) as well as the absence of the human-driven dynamics of present day climate change.

    You provide a graph with the same climate change we have now, happening 7 times before there were any humans around.

    The fact that climate changes doesn't indicate the impossibility of significant human-caused climate change. Indeed, it shows the opposite, that such is possible.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Redundant=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Redundant' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 26, @07:26PM (5 children)

    by fakefuck39 (6620) on Monday July 26, @07:26PM (#1160123)

    >continental-scale geology, evolution of plant cover, and atmospheric pressure/density
    we know all of those things lol

    >observed global warming of the past 150 or so years
    yes, because when we're talking long-term climate change for an entire huge planet in a solar system, we want to look at the day to day, not the millions of years of history. again, lol.

    >climate changes doesn't indicate the impossibility
    and it doesn't indicate the impossibility of 5th dimension flying unicorns either. the autist's conclusion from this is apparently "see, proof of flying unicorns." you should start a religion for the tards.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 27, @05:28AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 27, @05:28AM (#1160290) Journal

      and it doesn't indicate the impossibility of 5th dimension flying unicorns either.

      Really? Sounds like it's not good for much then!

      The problem is that not demonstrating what you want to show is a more serious problem than those 5-dim unicorns.

      • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday July 28, @06:11PM (3 children)

        by fakefuck39 (6620) on Wednesday July 28, @06:11PM (#1160721)

        It takes a real dense dimwit to not realize the unicorn is your conclusion. You know, because you literally used that exact wording about impossibility. But I'm glad you agree with me that you're completely full of crap.

        >The problem is that not demonstrating what you want to show
        right - when the data demonstrates the opposite of what you want to show, you just call the data wrong or useless. whatever keeps you in your little world, refreshing tabs, switching vpn connections, and posting little ac freakout songs all over the place. the effort you make, just to talk online - knowing you make that effort, just for me, is very gratifying. thank you autistic incel - never change. are you watching japanese unicorn girl cartoon porn today, or does the japanese rubber doll need some lovin? do you think of creaming creimer when you make love to the doll?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 29, @05:22AM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 29, @05:22AM (#1160927) Journal

          It takes a real dense dimwit to not realize the unicorn is your conclusion.

          Apparently, it takes more commonsense than you have to notice that you're the one who brought up the unicorns.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29, @05:33AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29, @05:33AM (#1160930)

            me: you're arguing proving a negative, like that flying unicorns don't exist
            you: i'm autistic and have trouble reading when i don't take my pills. now go away, my asian rubber doll awaits sex
            me: yes, however the physical brain defect caused by your autism is not curable, and you will be a dense incel for the remainder of your days. what's it like to live in a brain fog, unable to understand basic sentences? what's it like having sex with dolls? what's it like to be insanely ugly and disgusting to the opposite sex?

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 29, @05:43AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 29, @05:43AM (#1160932) Journal

              me: you're arguing proving a negative, like that flying unicorns don't exist

              Except, of course, the scenario would be that you would give seven examples of flying unicorns being made naturally, and then arguing that somehow shows that humans can't make them too.

              In other words, climate change has nature cooties so humans can't do climate change.