Internal human body temperature has been quoted as 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit for the nearly 80 years I can remember and we have used - for at least 50 years - 37 degrees Celsius which is precisely the same temperature. The conversion is simple although why anyone uses Fahrenheit - or feet and inches - is beyond me. Must be something in the air? :)
This is very scary, but more than a little misleading.
First, let's take stipulate that higher temperatures will mean more high heat-index days. The question is: how many high heat-index days, and how many more than we'd have if we stopped warming now? Current estimate is for 1 more degree C (or 1.8 degrees F) of warming by the end of the century, so I'd be very surprised indeed if the number of high heat-index days increases by much. It's also worth noting that most of the measured warming comes in the form of higher night time low temperatures, rather than higher daytime high temperatures, so the increase in high heat-index days is likely even more modest than simply raising all temperatures by 1.8F.
Which raises the larger point: some amount of continued warming is already baked in the physics (if climate science is to be believed). Poor, hot countries need prosperity more than they need a stop to warming, because prosperity will give them the capability to accommodate warming, while continued poverty will interfere with adapting. Any agenda which interferes with poor areas becoming prosperous condemns far more people to misery and death than whatever warming we will see in the foreseeable future.
If there were a way to achieve carbon neutrality without lowering standards of living, I'd be all for it.
But there isn't, yet. This is why the goal of zero net carbon emissions worldwide is not only unlikely, but cruel.
Thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid that there are many people who aren't inclined to rational discussion. They bought into the predictions of doom in the early years (which never had a scientific basis), and are convinced of the need for urgent, drastic action. Anything else is a distraction.
Eh? Your 'answer' will see 5-6K increase in temperature- we're heading for 3K now - and 60metre sea level rise. Not for a long time of course - long after humans have disappeared. Not for nothing does the American military refer to global warming as a threat multiplier.
More to the point - do you think there is any pathway that can alleviate poverty in the poor countries of the world that does not involve more carbon emissions? Even if such a pathway exists, how do you think you can convince people in these countries to follow them?
How bad will it be? It will be worse than we can imagine, because it won't be imaginary, it will be real.
Why do I think so? Because methane.
My takes on the issue are all on my substack and in published essays you can find linked to off my substack. Short answer is, no, I think at this point we're fucked, mostly due to the decisions and actions taken by anticommunist Cold Warriors. Actions have consequences. Our actions we take now will have consequences for the future, and so we should overthrow the oligarchy and install a dictatorship of the proletariat. But it will be too late to avert the worst of the physical impacts of climate change.
Would be interested to know the signs and symptoms of heating beyond what is tolerable in the human body. How does heat stroke, death from heat present? Without measurements of environmental heat and humidity, and absence of a thermometer that measures body temperature, how is a person in a third world nation for example to know when to seek immediate relief?
Heat stroke, approaching mortal danger, typically shows faintness and dizziness, with stopping sweating. Once sweating stops, the victim needs body temperature lowered quickly, typically by pouring cold water over the body, or immersing in cool water. Drinking is OK, as long as the patient is conscious enough to not have danger of choking.
Terrific article with great info that we should all understand. Climate change is happening; the results will be costly to alleviate everywhere, and many places that are presently home to people will become unlivable sooner than we think, imo.
That was the main reason for my reply here. But I somewhat apologize for my need to point out a math error (retired math teacher here). The math is described correctly (including rounding 32 to 30 which might make for an easier mental calculation), but the equation was shown with a missing set of parentheses (remember PEMDAS, aka the Order of Operations):
Brian Smith makes a simple (and IMO) valid point: given that temperatures will continue to increase and that even poor people in the developed world can afford AC, we should do more to ensure everyone in the world has reliable access to AC.
The responses are comical. Jed asks "Do you get paid by the oil companies for this erming?" and Dennis confidently asserts that Brian's approach will lead to 5-6C of warming and 60-meter sea level rise.
My plea to advocates of quick decarbonization: please answer Brian and others with proper arguments and references. Otherwise you're only preaching to the choir and you won't convince many more people. If you want to make substantial changes to the way we get energy and live more generally, you need broad public support. Thank you!
Please realize that writing this substack is not my job. Writing this is a hobby and I write about things I find interesting. If you find it interesting, great! If not, then please unsubscribe (if you don't know how, let me know and I'll take of it for you).
But the thing you can't do is COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. I don't complain about your hobbies, do I? I understand your frustrations, but please direct them in a way that's useful.
Internal human body temperature has been quoted as 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit for the nearly 80 years I can remember and we have used - for at least 50 years - 37 degrees Celsius which is precisely the same temperature. The conversion is simple although why anyone uses Fahrenheit - or feet and inches - is beyond me. Must be something in the air? :)
This is very scary, but more than a little misleading.
First, let's take stipulate that higher temperatures will mean more high heat-index days. The question is: how many high heat-index days, and how many more than we'd have if we stopped warming now? Current estimate is for 1 more degree C (or 1.8 degrees F) of warming by the end of the century, so I'd be very surprised indeed if the number of high heat-index days increases by much. It's also worth noting that most of the measured warming comes in the form of higher night time low temperatures, rather than higher daytime high temperatures, so the increase in high heat-index days is likely even more modest than simply raising all temperatures by 1.8F.
Second, air conditioning is hardly an exotic treat reserved for the rich. As of 2020, 90 percent of US households used air conditioning (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=52558#:~:text=Nearly%2090%25%20of%20U.S.%20households%20used%20air%20conditioning%20in%202020&text=According%20to%20the%20most%20recent,use%20air%20conditioning%20(AC).) For the poor who use public housing, or publicly-funded housing like Section 8, the rich are already paying for their air conditioning.
Looking at poorer and hotter places, 99 percent of residences in Singapore use air conditioning. (https://www.coolearth.com.sg/growing-demand-aircon-usage-singapore/#:~:text=Almost%2099%20per%20cent%20of,Singapore%20own%20an%20air%2Dconditioner.) Air conditioning has made a huge improvement in standard of living for areas that are naturally hot, and improving prosperity has been crucial to the spread of air conditioning in developing countries (which are mostly in pretty hot places).
Which raises the larger point: some amount of continued warming is already baked in the physics (if climate science is to be believed). Poor, hot countries need prosperity more than they need a stop to warming, because prosperity will give them the capability to accommodate warming, while continued poverty will interfere with adapting. Any agenda which interferes with poor areas becoming prosperous condemns far more people to misery and death than whatever warming we will see in the foreseeable future.
If there were a way to achieve carbon neutrality without lowering standards of living, I'd be all for it.
But there isn't, yet. This is why the goal of zero net carbon emissions worldwide is not only unlikely, but cruel.
FWIW I think you're making a valid point and the responses you're getting are comical: https://substack.com/@tianwen/note/c-17433203.
Thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid that there are many people who aren't inclined to rational discussion. They bought into the predictions of doom in the early years (which never had a scientific basis), and are convinced of the need for urgent, drastic action. Anything else is a distraction.
Eh? Your 'answer' will see 5-6K increase in temperature- we're heading for 3K now - and 60metre sea level rise. Not for a long time of course - long after humans have disappeared. Not for nothing does the American military refer to global warming as a threat multiplier.
Do you get paid by the oil companies for this erming?
it's gonna be way worse than you think.
How bad will it be? Why do you think so?
More to the point - do you think there is any pathway that can alleviate poverty in the poor countries of the world that does not involve more carbon emissions? Even if such a pathway exists, how do you think you can convince people in these countries to follow them?
How bad will it be? It will be worse than we can imagine, because it won't be imaginary, it will be real.
Why do I think so? Because methane.
My takes on the issue are all on my substack and in published essays you can find linked to off my substack. Short answer is, no, I think at this point we're fucked, mostly due to the decisions and actions taken by anticommunist Cold Warriors. Actions have consequences. Our actions we take now will have consequences for the future, and so we should overthrow the oligarchy and install a dictatorship of the proletariat. But it will be too late to avert the worst of the physical impacts of climate change.
Reading this reminds me of Kim Stanley Robinsons Ministry For the Future.
Would highly recommend to anyone interested in climate. Also recommended by Obama if that counts for anything
Yeah, 100%
Would be interested to know the signs and symptoms of heating beyond what is tolerable in the human body. How does heat stroke, death from heat present? Without measurements of environmental heat and humidity, and absence of a thermometer that measures body temperature, how is a person in a third world nation for example to know when to seek immediate relief?
Heat stroke, approaching mortal danger, typically shows faintness and dizziness, with stopping sweating. Once sweating stops, the victim needs body temperature lowered quickly, typically by pouring cold water over the body, or immersing in cool water. Drinking is OK, as long as the patient is conscious enough to not have danger of choking.
Terrific article with great info that we should all understand. Climate change is happening; the results will be costly to alleviate everywhere, and many places that are presently home to people will become unlivable sooner than we think, imo.
That was the main reason for my reply here. But I somewhat apologize for my need to point out a math error (retired math teacher here). The math is described correctly (including rounding 32 to 30 which might make for an easier mental calculation), but the equation was shown with a missing set of parentheses (remember PEMDAS, aka the Order of Operations):
98-30/2 actually equals
98 - 15, which = 83.
Correctly written:
(98 - 30) /2, which equals
68 / 2 = 34.
Thank you for the very interesting essay, Andrew!
Yup, left out a parenthesis. Fixed. Thanks!
Brian Smith makes a simple (and IMO) valid point: given that temperatures will continue to increase and that even poor people in the developed world can afford AC, we should do more to ensure everyone in the world has reliable access to AC.
The responses are comical. Jed asks "Do you get paid by the oil companies for this erming?" and Dennis confidently asserts that Brian's approach will lead to 5-6C of warming and 60-meter sea level rise.
My plea to advocates of quick decarbonization: please answer Brian and others with proper arguments and references. Otherwise you're only preaching to the choir and you won't convince many more people. If you want to make substantial changes to the way we get energy and live more generally, you need broad public support. Thank you!
Please realize that writing this substack is not my job. Writing this is a hobby and I write about things I find interesting. If you find it interesting, great! If not, then please unsubscribe (if you don't know how, let me know and I'll take of it for you).
But the thing you can't do is COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. I don't complain about your hobbies, do I? I understand your frustrations, but please direct them in a way that's useful.