Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)

advances.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 414 posts

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)

#361

Post by DoreenMichele »

goatlover wrote: post #305
rstuart4133 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Extreme heat (including heat waves that exceed this threshold) happen semi-regularly The threshold is wet bulb 35 for 7 hours. That is when fit young humans can't survive. Older people die well before that of course. And no, it doesn't happen regularly. I wasn't aware it had happened at all, although others here say it has. But it has come close. From https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people...…

What city doesn't have running water?

The city can have running water while some people living there don't. Slums or homeless encampments are common the world over in large cities.

It means some people simply have no means to escape such heat and will likely die.

In the US, they sometimes open cooling centers during heat waves so homeless people and poor people have a place to go. I never went to such but they did that in Fresno and bus rides were free if you said you were going to a cooling center.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)

#362

Post by giantg2 »

Izkata wrote: post #330
giantg2 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? What part is unreasonable? I was specifically questioning things like where is the hot water coming from, people without tubs can't figure out how to save water, etc. Those claims sound overly pessimistic and simplistic to me.

It's not about saving water, it's about immersing yourself in water. You seem to have a different natural disaster in mind.

It is about conservation of water because as the person pointed out, you can't have a bunch of people running water continuously. You can store the water in a trash can or other large container. You can immerse yourself, or parts of yourself, in this water. You can even make a gravity shower to reuse the water since it's used for cooling and not cleaning. Replace the water when it gets too warm. This would greatly reduce the water usage compares to continual showers and provides a suitable substitute the previously mentioned bath tub when one is not available.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)

#363

Post by giantg2 »

numpad0 wrote: post #338
giantg2 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think it means evaporative cooling aka sweating is becoming useless. It won't be a huge stretch to consider that unsurvivable." This assumes there are no alternatives to evaporative cooling via sweat.

Indeed. Strapping on a pair of active CPU heatsink through a B6 sized aluminum cold plate to the back of waist helps immensely in that kind of climate. But it needs constant 12V/0.5-1A DC supply.

What are you even talking about?

My legitimate comments get downvoted and crap like this does not...

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)

#364

Post by gilbetron »

skeptic249757 wrote: post #322
gilbetron wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you posted this in the 90s, it still would be a terrible, uneducated post. Read this, all of it, then come back here and make your argument again: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

Resolving at least what is in my post is much easier than working through the IPCC's reports: It's simple, really simple, just as in my post: Observational data: The main observational data used to argue the dangerous effects of CO2 is just the 800,000 years of ice core data. But just looking at that data, as I explained in fine detail, that data does not support the claimed effects of CO2. Models. Again as I explain…

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...

"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the global climate system since pre-industrial times."

"The likely range of human-induced warming in global-mean surface air temperature (GSAT) in 2010–2019 relative to 1850–1900 is 0.8°C–1.3°C, encompassing the observed warming of 0.9°C–1.2°C, while the change attributable to natural forcings is only −0.1°C–0.1°C."

This is as far as I go to help educate you, as I remain unconvinced any efforts to do more would be helpful.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)

#365

Post by tomrod »

beervirus wrote: post #328
tomrod wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair. Cooling towers in commercial HVAC use evaporative cooling. Residential cooling doesn't, but still has to exchange heat to a system above the load it common transfers. I think it may be worse in these situations, but I am not sure.

Sure, but the water in commercial AC is just to cool the compressor coils. It still uses a phase change system like any other AC, so it’s not limited by the wet bulb temperature (although the warmer the ambient temperature is, the less efficient it is).

What is the efficiency rate at 35°C Wetbulb?

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)

#366

Post by exo-pla-net »

giantg2 wrote: post #310
exo-pla-net wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re-read the comment you're responding to.

I did... and?

You come off as browbeating him, accusing him of not knowing things, when he said a small thing that was fully accurate if not precise. That's why you're being downvoted.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)

#367

Post by skeptic249757 »

gilbetron wrote: post #364
skeptic249757 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resolving at least what is in my post is much easier than working through the IPCC's reports: It's simple, really simple, just as in my post: Observational data: The main observational data used to argue the dangerous effects of CO2 is just the 800,000 years of ice core data. But just looking at that data, as I explained in fine detail, that data does not support the claimed effects of CO2. Models. Again as I explain…

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... "It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the global climate system since pre-industrial times." "The likely range of human-induced warming in global-mean surface air temperature (GSAT) in 2010–2019 relative to 1850–1900 is 0.8°C–1.3°C, encompassing the observed warming of 0.9°C–1.2°C, while the change attributable to natural forcings is only −0…

I have seen that IPCC statement you quoted before and don't regard it as credible.

Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, just from what I wrote, from either data or models, there is no credible evidence that CO2 from human activities has had, is having, or will have a significant effect on temperature.

When there is credible evidence, I will pay close attention.

The IPCC can say "unequivocal" all they want, but that does not make their claims true.

Actually saying "unequivocal" is at best just a qualitative summary and no evidence at all.

So far, no one has any credible evidence that humans are significantly warming the earth, and in particular the IPCC has no such evidence.

If you want to point to where the IPCC has credible evidence, then fine, but just their claiming "unequivocal" means nothing.

But again, so far no one has any such credible evidence; in particular, the IPCC has none, and there is none to point to in their many long documents.

To explain further, the data from the 800,000 years has not changed. Data from just the last 150 years or so is not very much data. The models that have been tested by comparison with reality have nearly all failed. That's where we stand, including the IPCC.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)

#368

Post by beervirus »

tomrod wrote: post #365
beervirus wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the water in commercial AC is just to cool the compressor coils. It still uses a phase change system like any other AC, so it’s not limited by the wet bulb temperature (although the warmer the ambient temperature is, the less efficient it is).

What is the efficiency rate at 35°C Wetbulb?

Not that much different from the efficiency at 30 or 40.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)

#369

Post by n8cpdx »

knuthsat wrote: post #150
n8cpdx wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially in poor tropical countries that don't have a stable infrastructure to cool most people during such a heatwave Like California? They already can’t keep the lights on with rolling blackouts happening every year. If one of those blackouts happens during a severe heatwave, it could be serious. Not to mention the serious economic cost of having a third-world quality grid in what should be one of the union’s m…

I think California's air is too dry to get to the wet-bulb temp limit.

For now. I was seeing temps pretty close to 120 last year. It was dry, but who knows how the climate will change either the humidity or the high temps. 130+ doesn’t seem inconceivable and that gets pretty close to the limit.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)

#370

Post by numpad0 »

giantg2 wrote: post #363
numpad0 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Strapping on a pair of active CPU heatsink through a B6 sized aluminum cold plate to the back of waist helps immensely in that kind of climate. But it needs constant 12V/0.5-1A DC supply.

What are you even talking about? My legitimate comments get downvoted and crap like this does not...

That’s what I do when humidity is unbearable but air temperature is below body surface. Works ok.
Post reply on HN