Slashdot Mirror
Being Outside Could Become Deadly In South Asia, Says Study (go.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: Venturing outdoors may become deadly across wide swaths of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh by the end of the century as climate change drives heat and humidity to new extremes, according to a new study. These conditions could affect up to a third of the people living throughout the Indo-Gangetic Plain unless the global community ramps up efforts to rein in climate-warming carbon emissions. Today, that vast region is home to some 1.5 billion people. While most climate studies have been based on temperature projections, this one -- published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances -- is somewhat unique in also considering humidity as well as the body's ability to cool down in response. Most of those at risk in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are poor farmworkers or outdoor construction laborers. They are unlikely to have air conditioners -- up to 25 percent in of India's population still has no access to electricity. In some areas that have been deforested for industry or agriculture, they may not even have very much shade.
For the study, the researchers carried out computer simulations using global atmospheric circulation models under two scenarios -- one in which the world comes close to meeting its goal of curbing emissions to limit Earth's average temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels, and one in it continues emitting at current levels. Both scenarios play out dangerously for South Asia. But with no limit on global warming, about 30 percent of the region could see dangerous wet bulb temperatures above 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) on a regular basis within just a few decades. That's nearly half a billion people by today's population levels, though the full scale could change as the population grows. Meanwhile, 4 percent of the population -- or 60 million in today's population -- would face deadly highs at or above 35 degrees C (95 degrees F) by 2100. But if the world can limit global warming, that risk exposure declines drastically. About 2 percent of the population would face average wet bulb temperatures of 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) or higher.
For the study, the researchers carried out computer simulations using global atmospheric circulation models under two scenarios -- one in which the world comes close to meeting its goal of curbing emissions to limit Earth's average temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels, and one in it continues emitting at current levels. Both scenarios play out dangerously for South Asia. But with no limit on global warming, about 30 percent of the region could see dangerous wet bulb temperatures above 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) on a regular basis within just a few decades. That's nearly half a billion people by today's population levels, though the full scale could change as the population grows. Meanwhile, 4 percent of the population -- or 60 million in today's population -- would face deadly highs at or above 35 degrees C (95 degrees F) by 2100. But if the world can limit global warming, that risk exposure declines drastically. About 2 percent of the population would face average wet bulb temperatures of 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) or higher.
The wet bulb temperature is above 31C most of the fucking time in Vegas. How many die? Hmmmm.
No it isn't, the average annul wet bulb temperature is 50.7 F (10.3C) and the average in July is 65F (18.3C). Don't forget Las Vegas is dry so there is considerable cooling by evaporation
Well, no. First of all, fixing access does not mean fixing affordability. You can build power stations and power lines all you want to get those people access, but that doesn't mean those people can suddenly afford the price of an AC unit and the cost to run it.
(wiki)
A quick google search for 'air conditioning price in India' tells me that the low end AC units sold start at around 19 500 rupiees, which at today's exchange rate is just slightly above 300 dollars.. So that's almost a year's salary for most of the poorest 200-300 million Indians to just afford the machine. And that's just the acquisition cost. The cheaper ones are usually ones with higher power consumption (this one which I used as an example for the price has a 3 star rating), but we shouldn't be too far off even with a 3 star rating for a 1 ton machine if we assume a power consumption of about 1 kWh.
The one good thing is that increasing warming makes solar cheaper and cheaper. According to this story from last year the prices have at times shrunk to 2.62 rupiees per kWh, roughly 4 US cents.So if you run the machine for the hottest part of the day, say from 10 to 17, that's 28 cents a day.
So for those living in poverty they need to spend about 1/5th of their income just to be able to operate the machine if they somehow managed to save enough money to actually buy one in the first place. Given that people with children especially tend to have other notable expenses, it's unlikely that many at those income levels will even be able to acquire such a machine. Granted, increasing supply will further bring prices down so this estimate is not fully reflective of the future, but I'm using these figures to highlight that 'fixing this issue' is just ever so slightly more complicated than just building a few solar plants and some power lines.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Also, Greenland would be quite nice.. and it's largely uninhabited.
Once the ice pack melts, Greenland will be largely underwater. Much of the actual land is below sea level.
From WP's Wet-bulb_temperature page:
Just temperature alone doesn't give the complete picture when it comes to risk. That's why TFA was specifically about wet-bulb temperatures, because when they're exceeded then you can't just "put up and endure it". You die if you have no artificial means of cooling yourself, as the body's only significant temperature reduction mechanism stops working, and that's not survivable for long.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The current estimates are that the inland ice will take millennia to melt, so you will have to be patient. Same goes for the arctic tundras - there will be a long time in which underground permafrost is melting, making the ground unstable, swampy etc. I take it you've never actually been to the high arctic? It does in fact get surprisingly warm in many areas during the summer, at which time you will experience the main feature of tundra + warm temperatures: insects in their hundreds of billions, all want to get to know you very intemately. Put in another way: if you walk around with your mouth open, you'll end up putting on weight. I don't know about you, but I would probably not want to live there.
> if we could trust humans not to fuck it up but we can't.
Citation needed. Nuclear has had its share of accidents (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima) but the death toll of these accidents pales in comparison to any other form of fossil fuel energy generation. Coal kills thousands per year through emissions. I would confidently bet that more oil refinery workers have been killed in accidents than people via nuclear accidents.
Nuclear is incredibly safe compared to all other forms of fossil fuels. While it's entirely possible to say that renewables may have an even lower fatality rate, it's whataboutism to compare them to nuclear. We need a carbon neutral energy source capable of providing base load (which renewables are terrible for) and we need it yesterday. Nuclear is the only technology that fits this bill.
I myself have never understood why environmentalists are against nuclear. Renewables alone will not save the planet. IMHO, environmentalists should accept some compromises in the short term (more nuclear) if they outweigh the long term consequences (we f--- the planet and die).
Also, Greenland would be quite nice.. and it's largely uninhabited.
Once the ice pack melts, Greenland will be largely underwater. Much of the actual land is below sea level.
No, it isn't. Greenland is way above sea level. Where do you get your information from?
Here's a nice set of maps of the shorelines if all the ice caps melted, for what it's worth: http://www.nationalgeographic.... Greenland is almost unaffected.
Fucking stop. Nuclear baseload is a myth, clean nuclear power is a myth, cheap nuclear power is a myth, and the only reason anyone accepted it in the first place was that it was supposed to be too cheap to meter which was always a lie.
Your ideas are fucking stupid because we can develop renewable capacity faster than we can develop nuclear capacity. If your assertion is that we need zero-emissions energy now, then building more nuclear plants is an idiot's move on all levels.
Stick your nuclear playboy script up your ass and whistle.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I met a Russian back packer from Siberia who thought global warming was a great idea.
He'll change his tune when he finds out how much of the stuff in Siberia is built on so-called permafrost. Hint: Permafrost isn't permanent, especially during global warming. It's already becoming a major issue in Alaska.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Absolutely! Solar cells virtually rain down upon us, we need only collect them each morning and *poof*, electricity!
There are, of course, a large number of solar panel manufacturers in India, and solar has supplied a significant amount of the electrical growth in India. I'm not sure if you're clueless, or just pretending to be clueless.
You might start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and then try http://www.greenworldinvestor.... http://www.wlivenews.com/top-1... https://www.bijlibachao.com/so...
Imagine having to manufacture them, the odd chemicals, by-products and waste, and the rare earths etc used for interconnects and circuitry to control them. THAT would be a monumental environmental disaster.
There have been a large number of people recently claiming that solar panel manufacture is an environmental nightmare, but as far as I can tell, none of these actually know anything about solar panel manufacture.
A good way to tell who is clueless and who isn't is to see whether they're claiming solar panels use rare earth metals. (They don't.)
Half a bonus point for at least saying that it's the "interconnects and circuitry to control them" that use rare earths. These don't either, but at least you have enough of a clue to know that solar panels don't use rare earths, so you know enough to be flailing around.