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

131–140 of 414 posts

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

#131

Post by sershe »

Johnny555 wrote: post #37

Similar question to this that I've been wondering this wildfire season -- at what point is AQI (Air Quality Index) too severe for human tolerance? The scale tops out at 500, what happens to a person if the air is even worse than that? Some sensors near Medford, OR are reading in the upper 400's and even low 500's -- what happens if it hits what would be the 1000's if the scale went that high? I'm mostly thinking of p…

One of the previous years AQI 246 (in SF) was compared to smoking 11 cigarettes a day by some researchers. Assuming you do literally nothing to avoid it, 500 must be like smoking a ~pack a day. That is a typical, easy to track volume for many smokers; I used to smoke a pack a day for a couple years (gave up completely ~15 years ago)... it's not great statistically (and certainly make cardio harder from my experience), but it feels just like normal life and is low enough impact that many people never give up 0_o

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

#132

Post by mariusor »

hamburgerwah wrote: post #12

It's hilarious to me that people somehow think hot is MUCH more dangerous than cold. If you do any homework you will see which end results in more deaths.

And yet, a lot more populated areas on the globe are susceptible to heat waves than to cold waves.

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

#133

Post by princeb »

jakewins wrote: post #128
princeb wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.wbgt.sg/allstations

That is wet bulb globe temperature, not wet bulb temp. WBGT is calculated by adding together weighted WBT, globe temp and dry bulb temp. See: https://www.instrumentchoice.com.au/news/wet-bulb-temperatur...

Yes sorry I shouldn’t be conflating two different concepts. Wbt >35 is the fatal temperature. Wbgt black (>31-32 depending on source) is where physical activity is dangerous.

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

#134

Post by spikels »

rvn1045 wrote: post #34
boplicity wrote: post #2

Kim Stanley Robinson's recent book The Ministry For the Future starts with a very disturbing scenario: A heatwave with a "web bulb" temperature of 35 Celsius. It turns out, in those temperatures, even young and healthy people can't survive. Combined with power outages, as happens in the book, everyone living under such a heat wave will likely die. It's looking increasingly likely that such heatwaves are possible in t…

A lot of new technology could potentially solve this problem. There are certain types of roofs being installed called cool roofs that reflect heat and don’t absorb it that keeps the inside of building a little cooler.

Also air conditioning

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

#135

Post by trashtester »

jfoutz wrote: post #23
hamburgerwah wrote: post #12

It's hilarious to me that people somehow think hot is MUCH more dangerous than cold. If you do any homework you will see which end results in more deaths.

Huh. https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/ That's of course cherry picked. But I think the sucky part is increasing the variance of the temperature distribution. So the hot is hotter and the cold is colder, and both ends really suck.

According to this Lancet study, about 5M die from cold globally, annually, while about 500K die from heat:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

I found the article through this link: https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/07/climate_change_heat_r...

Interestingly, the emory link did not quote how many deaths were due to cold vs heat, but it did say that cold related deaths were going down and heat related deaths were going up.

By cherry picking just the part of the article that support a global warming narrative, but leaving out that cold is still, by far, the main danger, emory is seriously misrepresenting the science, imo.

Btw, the Guardian coverage for the same article is only slightly better:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/extreme-temper...

While it does mention that cold kills more, it does not mention that the ratio is 10:1 in the study.

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

#136

Post by sershe »

There are 4 broad scenarios according to which (or a combination thereof) the climate emergency will develop:

1) In a giant case of prisoners' dilemma, the humanity will coordinate worldwide and rise to the occasion, massively cut emissions, tax carbon, build out renewables, etc.

2) There will be massive technological breakthru-s in carbon capture and/or energy production and/or geo-engineering (and I am not talking about things like nuclear, where the tech is mostly there but the rising-to-the-occasion bit is missing).

3) Somehow, the models and projections would turn out to be overblown, or the more mellow of the serious models that project we lose N% GDP or whatever would turn out to be correct.

4) We're doomed, doomed!

Given the humanity's realistic record with (1) and (3)... either fusion works, or [0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRHOcWj--cs

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

#137

Post by yosito »

sershe wrote: post #136

There are 4 broad scenarios according to which (or a combination thereof) the climate emergency will develop: 1) In a giant case of prisoners' dilemma, the humanity will coordinate worldwide and rise to the occasion, massively cut emissions, tax carbon, build out renewables, etc. 2) There will be massive technological breakthru-s in carbon capture and/or energy production and/or geo-engineering (and I am not talking…

I think the most likely scenario is 5) The climate changes, and humanity adapts to live in the new climate.

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

#138

Post by pydry »

poorjohnmacafee wrote: post #116
andi999 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you use AC during nighttime you never get adapted to the heat. Try slowly phasing it out.

That's contradictory to leading sleep scientists like Matthew Walker, Peter Attia, etc. which is clear about need for chilly environment for sleep quality, eg < 21C. Granted, sleep science isn't oriented towards the genetics of the tropics yet, but there's plenty of evidence about temperature and sleep quality for more northern genetics anyway.

Weird. I slept just fine in 27-28 for years. Unless I had a cover anything cooler than that was uncomfortable.

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

#139

Post by trashtester »

briantakita wrote: post #33
hamburgerwah wrote: post #12

It's hilarious to me that people somehow think hot is MUCH more dangerous than cold. If you do any homework you will see which end results in more deaths.

There's a far larger area of the world which is too cold & dry for human tolerance, yet people survive & thrive there. Probably the same for places which are hot & humid. There are some interesting documentaries on Yakutsk, the "coldest city in the world".

Very few people live in the cold and dry areas, though. If you compare the population densities of places like Siberia or Canada north of the Arctic circle, I think you will struggle to find a single city.

Norway and Russia have a handful of towns near the cost north of the Arctic Circle, but that is largely due to the Gulf Stream keeping the temperatures more livable. Inland, temperatures are not very compatible with human life.

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

#140

Post by yosito »

Johnny555 wrote: post #37

Similar question to this that I've been wondering this wildfire season -- at what point is AQI (Air Quality Index) too severe for human tolerance? The scale tops out at 500, what happens to a person if the air is even worse than that? Some sensors near Medford, OR are reading in the upper 400's and even low 500's -- what happens if it hits what would be the 1000's if the scale went that high? I'm mostly thinking of p…

Anything over 100 and I'm feeling uncomfortable. Practically speaking what happens is you stay inside and get good air filters if you have to go outside.
Post reply on HN