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.
As long as authoritative people call global warming "Just Weather"...
As long as we vote said authoritative people into office...
Our hope lies in education. Lots of it. Regardless of anything.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
That's like someone having terminal cancer and just taking pain killers to 'fix' it. You have the fix the root of the problem, if you really want things to be fixed. That means halting global warming. And that means drastic action to limit Carbon and Methane emissions by humanity's machines and realistically a healthy dose of atmosphere engineering at this point to pull those molecules out of the air.
How does this solve the problem for people working outside, exactly? You know: farmers, construction workers, police officers etc.
We need to put an end to climate change denial - by environmentalists. Their advocacy of renewables as the only solution to climate change is based on there being just the right amount of climate change. Enough for us to have to abandon fossil fuels, but not enough that we have to do it immediately thereby leaving us enough time to develop renewable technologies.*
The projections are growing more and more dire. Environmentalists need to stop using climate change as a means to advance their renewables agenda, thereby putting the survival of humanity (and a bunch of animal species) at risk. We need to phase out fossil fuels ASAP and switch over to the only power generation technology available which can provide enough base load cheaply enough to satisfy our modern needs - nuclear.
Once we've switched to nuclear and have arrested global warming, then we can work on developing renewables. And as renewables improve in scalability, come down in cost, and battery technology improves allowing us to even out time-variances in renewable production, then we can start using renewables to phase out nuclear plants. Their current tactic of blocking nuclear power, thereby leaving fossil fuels and renewables as our only choices, is literally playing chicken with the survival of the human race. It's like being on a sinking ship but preventing anyone from using the life rafts, insisting that the only solution is that everyone needs to learn how to swim in the short time we have.
*(This is why a lot of climate change deniers don't believe environmentalists about climate change. They figure if environmentalists really believed climate change threatened our existence, they wouldn't be advocating half measures which will take decades to develop and implement. They'd be advocating eliminating fossil fuels immediately, without caring what replaces it short-term as long as it doesn't emit CO2. But since they are opposed to nuclear, climate change deniers logically reason that the environmentalists are lying about climate change.)
they are in the lower caste, no one cares.
While I definitely agree climate change, especially in this region, is a major problem, I think their definition of "deadly" is a little off the mark. I spent several weeks in India in April, when the temperatures routinely topped 40C(104F) and occasionally reached 45C (113F). It was clear the locals found it hot, but it didn't seem to affect the frenetic pace of commerce in the cities I visited. Then again, that was pre-monsoon, so the humidity wasn't as high.
You can only survive those temperatures if relative humidity is below 100%. At 100% relative humidity, even 36-37C is in fact deadly, because the body has no way of dissipating excess heat, and eventually you die of a heart attack.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
What has me even more concerned than this study is not that 1.5 billion people may find themselves living in an inhospitable region, but the reaction people will have to it. Will they just roll over and die by the hundreds of millions? Somehow adapt using new training, technology, and wealth they don't have today? Perhaps they might simply start a war over the fact they can't live within thier sovereign territory and feel they need others resources to live? Several of these countries have nuclear weapons and many aren't super stable on a good day. Its not far fetched that the consequences of resource wars could be far more severe than the actual climate differences itself.
Why talk about how horrible the end of the century is going to be in Asia climate-wise while we still cannot predict the weather for the weekend?
It turns out to be much easier to predict the average temperature over a large area for a long term than the instantaneous temperature at a single location at a single time.
I can tell you the average height of American males with pretty good confidence (177 cm)-- but I can only guess how tall you are, and with a very high error.
Well... he didn't suggest we NOT give painkillers to those with terminal cancer. This would be one of those "in addition to" sort of things. But his analogy sucks. You don't fix terminal cancer. Kinda... by the definition of "terminal". And yeah, killing the pain and giving them a comfortable send-off is about all you can do. I'm.... pretty sure the Earth doesn't have a "terminal" case of warming. If it does, then anything we do, good or bad, is pretty pointless.
But I get what you're saying: "Doing anything about global warming is just a political agenda". Like it's just politics for politics sake. That kinda sucks. And there IS a lot of that. But it'd be wrong of me to simply dismiss the policy of my opponents as "just a political agenda". I fully understand why they want to kick out all the illegal immigrants, or have a strong military, or disrupting the governments South America that got too cozy with communism. There are concern and fears. Some of them legitimate, some of them bullshit.
Sure, "We need to do something about global warming" is on the agenda of the democrats/liberals/progressive/Not-Your-Team. Whatever. But the reason it's on that list is because there's a legitimate concern that we're setting ourselves up for a massive clusterfuck where a ton of people die. Is "Drastic action to limit carbon and methane" on that agenda? You know, as a "what we going to do about it?" sort of thing? Eh, there's not a consensus on that. If you want to attack or call to question THIS specific plan, go for it. That sort of debate is useful and informative. At least when it's not low effort "so how many people do you want to die?" sort of partisan hacks. Better debate topics would be "How do you get China to play along?" and now "How do you get Trump to play along?" and "How do you convince others to conserve while you yourself are wasteful? Because I'm looking at you USA's CO2 per capita". And that loops back around to the article with "Meanwhile India is really green per capita... But oh look they might start dying from it".
Anyway, none of that doesn't exclude Indian rural electrification. That will help, but it won't solve the bigger problem.