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

Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 296 posts

Re: Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat

#241

Post by thworp »

hackerlight wrote: post #208
thworp wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the more reason to urgently develop the world to at least the level of Malaysia / Thailand (or ~Western Europe ca. 1950). If we quit fossil fuels cold turkey it is those very same people in the tropics that will starve. But making that connection requires thinking about second order effects, a tall order for the degrowth cult.

I want to continue growing, just replace fossil fuels with renewables or nuclear in all developed countries, and subsidize the same for poor countries who haven't historically emitted much and don't have the wealth to transition themselves. There isn't this false dichotomy of degrowth vs growth. We can grow our economy without growing emissions. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/fatal-heat-humi... The medi…

Thank you for the response and sorry if my comment was excessively snarky. I think we share the same concerns and have the same goals and even mostly agree on practical steps to get there. I've just seen and heard too many degrowth advocates (that really want to return to 19th century economy with 21st century populations) recently and it's really worrying me.

> and subsidize the same for poor countries who haven't historically emitted much and don't have the wealth to transition themselves.

Yes! With a fraction of the money sloshing around various "charities" and NGOs, mostly spent on salaries, you could build solar with storage for millions of people. Of course in practice it would be really complicated, you have to make sure the right people run the systems and there will be bad cases of corruption. But it really is the least we could do.

> The US and Australia and Canada continuing to pump more fossil fuels

The funny thing is that the market is turning even Australia and Texas into solar superpowers. Ever since solar became the cheapest form of generation both have seen an incredible boom in solar, with almost no policy incentives. This is a huge win for the planet, if people want to build solar because the incentives align they will just do it without costing larger society any (political) capital.

> It is actively physically harming them in a very real way. It's an indirect, diffuse form of physical assault.

I follow the logic and agree about the causality chain, but this is a road it's best not to go down. It quickly turns into personally blaming people for things they had no control over. That has never been a good way to persuade people. Imo it's also a lazy deflection, since humanity has never really paid any attention to its resource usage. The only difference is that Industrial societies gained the capability to affect the planet on such a large scale.

Re: Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat

#242

Post by thworp »

triceratops wrote: post #221
thworp wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage you to take a crash course in Mooré, go to Burkina Faso and spread the word to the people. "You will not improve your cirumstances, any more prosperity will destroy the planet." I'm sure they will appreciate your wisdom, almost as much as Cubans appreciate their very eco-friendly economic circumstances. Good Luck.

Cubans are richer than the Burkinabe.

I apologize for my parent comment, it was terrible. I just don't know how to respond to the the broad idea complex that we need less/no economic growth. The way I see it there are two ways it could go. Either the poor countries don't develop or we somehow transfer the economic resources from away from the countries that are currently rich. Non-development is cruel, redistribution is impossible politically and there is also a chance that the recipients go the way of South Africa.

Re: Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat

#243

Post by pcthrowaway »

LilBytes wrote: post #50
pcthrowaway wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of Queensland's population lives on the coast, so those who can tolerate the sun could at least seek some reprieve in the ocean. As long as cold water is running, people can also use tap water to cool themselves down, though it will turn into a swampy mess when none of it evaporates. Perhaps public shaded pools with a cool water source will become critical public infrastructure to help people survive heat waves…

Brisbane checking in. Wish we were near the coast. :(

Is anywhere in the Brisbane area more than 45 minutes from a cold body of water suitable for swimming in? I don't think there are crocodiles near Brisbane.

Re: Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat

#244

Post by JumpCrisscross »

brabel wrote: post #232
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who live in already warm areas with high humidity to tend to build more resistance There is no resistance to chemistry. Your proteins stop folding properly above a certain temperature. Others irreversibly change shape, like an egg’s albumen solidifying. Your body expends extraordinary effort to keep its temperature in a narrow range, one far from the outside temperature, for good reason.

That's ridiculous. People don't die when "proteins stop folding". They die much, much earlier. The less resistance you have, the earlier you die.

> People don't die when "proteins stop folding". They die much, much earlier.

When? Why?

Heat kills becauses it unfolds proteins. If that happens in your heart, you get a heart attack--that's the proximate cause of death. The ultimate cause remains, however, unless we're talking about charring or vaporising heat, your proteins misfolding.

The other common way to die from heat is dehydration, which kills by altering your electrolyte imbalance which causes arrythmia. But that can be countered through hydration. (Until the proteins in your gut start misfolding.)

Side note: I didn't say you die because your proteins stop folding. I said you die because your proteins stop folding properly.

> less resistance you have, the earlier you die

The resistance comes in the form of heat-shock proteins [1], which "enable excess heat to be stored temporarily" [2]. Above 40°C, your HSR proteins start misfolding. There is no resistance nor acclimation beyond that limit. Our chemistry doesn't permit it.

Variations exist in the 40 to 45°C regime in terms of tolerance duration, but that's irrelevant when we're talking about climate. Above 40°C / 104° F wet-bulb temperature, everyone without access to cooling will eventually die. You can't build resistance to it because that literally involves evolving proteins which, to my knowledge, don't exist in mammals.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shock_protein

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4515708/

Re: Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat

#245

Post by chiefalchemist »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #162

Humanity? Really? If so, it's because of such newspeak. To be clear, it's primarily The West and primarily greed (i.e., profits at all costs) that are conducting this experiment. What is this? A reprint of a press release from Big Oil and Big Ag? And Big Gov? Most of the billions didn't choose it. A good chunk of the billions aren't even aware. Shame on you Wired for diluting the accountability and giving those who s…

Classic HN irony, down voted...which only proves the point being made. That is, from too early a biased \ distracting narrative has been rolled out; most just feel in line and parroted that mindset as good zombies do. Yes Virginia, they even roam the sacred intellectual grounds of Planet HN.

In short, we can't solve a problem, when we can't even have The Problem properly described, scooped, attributed to, etc. To blame "Humanity" *is* a step in the wrong direction. It is naive, at best.

Re: Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat

#246

Post by jameshart »

saalweachter wrote: post #227
jameshart wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you have a supply of water at 50°F - that’s 10°C (an optimistic temperature in many places). And you are using it to try to maintain a body temperature around 37°C. Let’s assume you do so by transferring heat from your body into the water enough to raise its temperature by 25°C - that’s probably overly optimistic given that it will also be warmed by the environment and the rate of transfer will be reduced as the t…

Hmm, taking this in the opposite direction, what if you stop relying on water for evaporative cooling? What if I cover myself in alcohol or gasoline some other easily-vaporized substance? Would that still evaporate at a satisfactory rate when the wet bulb temperature is high?

Depends. Are you a smoker?

Re: Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat

#247

Post by scruple »

bell-cot wrote: post #192
tejohnso wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about countries, but I'd look into a ground source off grid heat pump.

's/look into a/look into an extremely reliable/' (At least in my part of America, HVAC equipment failures under season-maximum loads are extremely common. And if failure = death...) And maybe keep kinda quiet about it, too. If your nice & friendly neighbors are facing death by heat stroke, they could grow considerably less nice & friendly.

We have solar and a battery and I think about this sometimes. Air conditioners are very noisy and solar panels are on display for anyone to see. People know. It's not an actual, safe off-grid solution during a major event when you're in the middle of suburbia.

Re: Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat

#248

Post by saalweachter »

jameshart wrote: post #246
saalweachter wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, taking this in the opposite direction, what if you stop relying on water for evaporative cooling? What if I cover myself in alcohol or gasoline some other easily-vaporized substance? Would that still evaporate at a satisfactory rate when the wet bulb temperature is high?

Depends. Are you a smoker?

It looks like Puron (the replacement for Freon) is non-toxic (and non-flammable), but it also wouldn't be a liquid at any temperature you'd need cooling at. I'm guessing there are other chemicals which have vaporization temperatures in the 150-200 degree range, and are neither toxic nor flammable, but assuming ethanol works it has the advantage of being fairly easy to come by in a pinch.

Re: Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat

#249

Post by codebolt »

triceratops wrote: post #222
codebolt wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who frequents poorer regions of West Africa, that is exactly what I had in mind. Economic growth driven by increased use of hydrocarbons could massively help the populations there.

Giving a starving person bags upon bags of sugar, and literally nothing else, will definitely help in the near term.

Making sure they can't have stable electricity, affordable transportation or otherwise decent infrastructure sure won't either.

Re: Humanity Is Dangerously Pushing Its Ability to Tolerate Heat

#250

Post by api_or_ipa »

flightster wrote: post #152

Cooling by a degree takes less energy than heating by a degree (not to mention it's electric). Cooling a house from 35 (outside) to 23 (inside) takes is better for "the environment" than heating one from 11 to 23.

Why wouldn’t running a heat pump in reverse to heat a room be ~same energy as running it in forward to cool a room?

I suspect you’re comparing an airconditioner against a resistive heating unit.

Post reply on HN