- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- worldnews@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- worldnews@sh.itjust.works
You must log in or register to comment.
Ok, so it doesn’t mention wet bulb temperature anywhere, so I went to figure it out. The first thing I was surprised with is apparently most of online calculators don’t take in values higher than 50C.
I couldn’t find the exact data about humidity for that day, but it has been 35-40%+ at a minimum for most days in that region, sometimes even reaching 90%.
So, 52C at around 40% humidity is 37.5C in wet bulb temp. The point of survivability is around 35, and most humans should be able to withstand 37.5 for several hours, but it’s much worse for sick or elderly. 39 is often a death sentence even for healthy humans after just two hours — your body can no longer lose heat and you bake from the inside. That’s like having an unstoppable runaway fever. And with that humidity it’s reached at 54C.
We’re dangerously close to that.
Just out of interest, what would be the wet bulb temperature at 90% humidity? I’m not familiar with that temperature scale.
Wet bulb temperature is basically converting to 100% humidity equivalent, so as you get closer to 100%, WBT approaches measured temperature. We use this metric because our bodies cool mostly via evaporation, and no evaporation is possible at 100% — the air is already fully saturated. So in general, WBT means minimum possible temperature that can be reached by evaporative cooling. Once your body loses the ability to cool, it rushes to match surrounding wet bulb temperature (or even exceed it, since we produce about 100W of heat energy by simply existing).
So 52C at 90% is about 50C WBT. Survivable for mere minutes for some, and probably for about an hour or so for most humans. Definitely not survivable for a full day.
By the end of the century, there’s going to be a lot of places abandoned to heat and sea level rise.
Incidentally, China is the single largest contributor of GHGs in the world. Their coal fired power generation is immense and incredibly damaging.
Because China is a country with the third largest land mass with the second largest population in the world. But per capita, they produce half of what an American does.
Both need to significantly reduce their emissions. We do not need deflection for either.
Thank you, I’m so sick of hearing it. It’s just another cop out from climate change deniers.
2 things about this; the planet don’t care about per capita numbers - 52.2 is gonna drop that population real quick. I doubt that would even slow their ruling class down
Second fuck is America a bad comparision. Those 2 will race to a scorched earth quicker than a nuclear war ever could
Exactly, the world doesn’t care. The average co2 footprint per person globally is around 5 tonnes and as we’ve noticed, that is way too much for our planet to handle, one estimate is that we would need to drop that to below 2.5 tonnes.
China at 7.5 per person is a lot closer to than Canada at 18, Australia at 17, US at around 15 or Russia at 12. EU on average is close at around 8 I believe.Per capita numbers are very, very important: they tell us where the low hanging fruit are. The people emitting the most per capita should be pressured most heavily to reduce emissions, because they’re the ones who are polluting most unnecessarily.
I agree with the idea, but there’s no getting out of needing heat in Canada.
Except we’re also setting high temperature records in Canada.
Even with that, it still pisses me off when I hear my fellow Canadians (mostly from a certain province that exports fossil fuel) saying “why should Canada do anything when these other countries are worse”.
Ok, doesn’t change that we need a ton of heat in the winter. An average 1.5 C change doesn’t matter much when we have to heat from -20 to +20, a delta T of 40 degs.
In a perfect democracy perhaps, but in the world we live in the power is in the hands of very few. Id also argue there’s too much noise using it to represent unnecessary pollution, as a single person running a generator in antartica would be horrible per capita - but quite so necessary. Larger populations have the benefit of larger systems, thereby operating more efficiently. A country could also reasonably just triple their population to increase their pollution “quota”, cause money - and a system that can be that manipulated isnt that reasonable of a system.
Looking directly at pollution on the other hand is more like looking directly at what causes the problem (climate change), and minimizing centralized sources of it would have a much more noticable effect. Especially those that have a greater population to landmass ratio (thereby having less untouched human areas) and so less so a positive effect on greenhouse gas removal.
Let’s frame this in inequality terms. Suppose (not the real numbers) we have the top 1% emitting half the greenhouse gases to fuel their lifestyles, and the bottom 99% emit the other half. You’re saying we should focus equally on the two groups when looking for emissions reductions???
I mean…… does Mother Earth give a shit if you’re a 1%-er?
Ok? Thats a great way to ignore the problem. How does it reduce emissions?
It’s not ignoring the problem, you are complaining that we are running out of food because that group of a billion people are eating too much when you have over twice as much food on your own plates, and saying the solution is that they should be forced to eat even less.
It is ignoring the problem. I’m complaining about the massive amounts of carbon China is pumping out and getting worse every year and you’re making excuses.
Classic tragedy of the commons. It’s no one fault. Everyone is doing it. Blah blah blah. None of this is lowering GHGs.
You have to measure per capita. A population 4 times the size of the US, you can’t compare straight numbers.
Their one child policy is probably the best thing that ever happened to reduce greenhouse gas emissions too.
Just imagine how summer temps will be in 10 years from today.
Hoooooo boy… it’s gonna be HOT eh
To put this into perspective, a humid 60°C are conditions where hyperthermia (getting too hot) can take effect within 10 minutes of exposure.
We’re 8°C from that point. We are within arms reach of creating conditions so hostile to human life that survivability for most people will be unimaginably low.
Gonna be a fun next century or so
Not if all the capitalists get their shit together and see that short term profits aren’t worth the mid term extinction of humanity.
Which should happen any moment.
Aaaaaaaany moment.
Oh, people have long since realized that they have to do something about it.
The problem is they’ve realized that it’s far cheaper to prepare for their own survival than fix the fuck ups of the world.
Self preservation is a strong motivator. It just has to make the right people uncomfortable enough to take action.
Self-preserver capitalists are more along the hoarding supplies and creating fortified bases variety. Even Steve Huffman got his laser eye surgery for prepper reasons, according to him. No idea how much that was just a cover story for the pure vanity.
But the amount of preppers in the tech world are increasing, and they’re not looking at ways of keeping anyone else safe but themselves and their families.
They would rather live underground in a bunker in luxury, then share just a litte percentage of their wealth that would benefit more people than themselves.
