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.
...up to 25 percent in of India's population still has no access to electricity.
Fix this issue and your problem will be solved.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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)
I met a Russian back packer from Siberia who thought global warming was a great idea.
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.)
In a part of the world that has leeches raining from trees, 400 pound catfish, giant scorpions, spitting cobras, and oh yes, man-eating tigers.........eh, what were we worrying about again?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
> ...up to 25 percent in of India's population still has no access to electricity.
> Fix this issue and your problem will be solved.
Contrary to what you think, India knows electricity well, e.g. they are in Top10 worldwide regarding electrified railways, they have a huge 25kV AC based traction network.
Generating more electricity, however causes even more pollution. If you use hydro-carbons, CO2 will be released, further accelerating the AGW.
If you use nuclear, radioactive waste will be created and India already has a health problem, birth defects, etc. due to high radiation background in much of the country. (Scientists says it is caused natually by the ancient, thorium-rich bedrock, while vedic legends say there was an all out nuclear war there about 8000 years ago). Fusion energy is still promised 50 years into the future...
Hydro-electricity isn't very practicable in India, because the mountains are in the northern-most part but the population lives mostly in the southern tip of the vast subcontinent, so transfer losses would be too high even at 750kV AC. Furthermore, the northern region's borders and resources are contested by Pakistan and China and trying to build a dam there would probably ignite warfare.
Wind, I have no idea, but Asia usually experiences extremely strong weather phenomenon never seen in Europe, so one must wonder if those fancy "Made In Germany" fiber laminate wind pylons would topple in a monsoon?
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.
At around 35C wet bulb people will die, perspiration won't be able to carry away any heat. It won't even matter if you're in a shade.
Comparison with cold weather is off the mark. To survive cold you simply need to slow down heat exchange by wearing enough insulation (=warm clothes). There's nothing comparable for the heat, except air conditioning.
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
A wet bulb temperature of 36-37C isn't just deadly, it's rapidly deadly. Your core body temperature will be at least 2C above your skin temperature which cannot be below the wet bulb temperature.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Nah, we prefer to listen to liars who tell us what we want to hear, that we can continue driving the SUVs and use more fossil fuel per year than what formed in a million of years.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
My god man -
"Consensus"?!
"Experts"!?
That's NOT SCIENCE nor is it even rationality or based on reason.
There were plenty of "experts" in the "science" of phrenology. Didn't make it accurate or real.
There were and are plenty of "experts" in the "science" of astrology. Doesn't make it accurate or real.
There were and are plenty of "experts" with lots of valid "consensus" that ulcers were caused by stress and acid. Turns our that wasn't real or all.
The stock market will never go greater than 20,000
We've reached peak oil and oil production will drop off
bla-bla-bla
His quote is completely and totally accurate and you've proved it for him
"Lots of people seem to think that humanity is facing some sort of crisis of selfishness. I tend to feel that humanity is facing a crisis of intellectual integrity. People just cannot stand that someone with a different view might actually be right."
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.
Nuclear does not solve climate change. For every kWh produced, nuclear puts two kWh worth of water vapor, which is a "greenhouse gas", in the atmosphere.
That makes no sense. First, you can't measure water vapor in kWh. Second, although water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, water vapor in the atmosphere equilibrates on a time scale of days: it's called "rain".
You are right about nuclear having other problems, which may or may not be addressable. One problem is that current technologies won't solve the problem: in the long term, you'll either need to start up breeder reactors to produce enough fuel (something people don't want to do, because of weapons-potential), or switch to a new and unproven cycle such as thorium.
Probably doable. The problems are technically solvable. But whether they're politically and socially and economically solvable, I don't know.
Radioactive waste does not cause any health problems whatsoever if it is stored properly
Point to the radioactive waste that is being stored properly.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Transmission line losses for 1 GW over 1000 miles at 765 kV range from 5% to 11% (extrapolated from wikipedia).
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The worst you'll find in the entire US is gonna be around 81F wet bulb temperature, or around 27C, and that's at a yearly occurrence rate of 0.4%. TFA is on another level entirely from that.
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.
This is an informal fallacy called tue quoque, or 'appeal to hypocrisy'. If these people could themselves solve this problem then hypocrisy would be a valid argument. Since this is not the case it's simply a baseless personal attack.
But it's really not necessary to listen to others on the subject. The science is pretty accessible. Arrhenius 1896 lays out the basics, and it should be readable by anyone with a high school education. Equally instructive are the reasons why it was considered disproven for 50 years. Or are you somehow unaware that this issue was discovered by scientists over a hundred years ago instead of by recent celebrities?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.