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.
So you'd rather have the infinitely easier problem to remedy of providing electricity to everyone be put on the back burner in order further some political goal of yours? Tell me, just how many people would you have die to further your agenda?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
How does this solve the problem for people working outside, exactly? You know: farmers, construction workers, police officers etc.
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.)
they are in the lower caste, no one cares.
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
> ...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?
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
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.
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
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."
Fix this issue and your problem will be solved.
It won't be "solved," but, indeed, giving access to electricity would indeed be a useful thing to do for many reasons.
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
The clear solution to the problem of lack of electricity in remote parts of India is photovoltaic solar panels. For a country with a million villages that aren't on the electric grid-- and a country with a very unreliable electric grid-- the distributed nature of solar arrays is a good feature.
And solar panels are now cheap enough that it actually is economically feasible to use them for this.
and realistically a healthy dose of atmosphere engineering at this point to pull those molecules out of the air.
Sorry, you're moving out of science and into science fiction. Carbon dioxide is only 400 ppm in the atmosphere. That's enough to absorb outgoing infrared, but ppm levels are hard to distill out of the atmosphere.
It is much, much easier to sequester CO2 from emissions, where the concentration is high. Once you've diluted it into the atmosphere, it's not easy to remove.
Massive plantings would do it. But you have to then sequester the plants afterwards, since if they then decay there's no point.
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.
The one good thing is that increasing warming makes solar cheaper and cheaper.
What is the basis for that (ridiculous) statement? The increased warming isn't coming from an increase in solar radiation. You can argue that "global warming" makes solar a more attractive power source, even if "marginally" more expensive to produce than fossil fuels. But "climate change" is not going make solar "cheaper and cheaper".
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Meh. Third world problems.
No sig today...
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.
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.
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.