By Andy May
In another “How the hell did this paper pass peer-review?” incident we find yet another PNAS absurdity by Daniel Vecellio and colleagues (Link), that is described by a truly awful summary in Science Daily here. The paper tells us, correctly, that any wet-bulb temperature above 35°C is dangerous for humans. This particular temperature is dangerous because that is when our bodies lose their ability to cool themselves. The wet bulb temperature is the lowest temperature that air can be cooled to by the evaporation of water. Consider it our external body temperature, in direct sunlight, while sweating.
The table in figure 1 shows how this temperature relates to relative humidity and air temperature in the shade. Danger is reached around 36°C (97°F) at 55% relative humidity. Fortunately, while this situation can occur, it will not occur for long or over a wide area because deep convection will start spontaneously. Deep convection is a steep updraft, caused by warm, humid air (humid air has a lower density than dry air), rising rapidly and forming clouds. This process is nearly perpetual in the ITCZ or the intertropical convergence zone, which is where the Sun is directly overhead at noon, or the climatic equator. This zone encircles the Earth.
The values in black are dangerous for work or play outside in direct sunlight. For those who prefer Fahrenheit temperatures, 35°C is about 95°F, 37°C is about 98.6°F, and 32°C is about 90°F. For some perspective, I regularly play golf, in the summer, when the wet bulb temperature is 32°C. When I was younger, I even walked the golf course at those temperatures. Now I use an electric cart and have immediate access to shade. A little wind while driving the cart really helps. I should also note that, while I’m relatively healthy, I am 71 years old. Thus, Vecellio, et al.’s claim that a more realistic upper threshold is 30.6°C for “young, healthy subjects” is belied on every Houston area golf course (we have more than 80) every July and August.
As both articles note, time of exposure to high wet bulb temperatures is important, but clearly a four-hour golf game is OK, with lots of water and frequent breaks in the shade with a light breeze. The Science Daily article quotes the lead author of the paper (Vecellio) as saying: “Heat is already the weather phenomenon that kills the most people in the United States.” This is clearly not true, cold-related deaths far exceed heat-related deaths in the U.S. This CDC study confirms it.
So much for the awful Science Daily article, we return to the peer reviewed PNAS paper. The first problem we notice is that the authors conflate local warming, mainly in the tropics, with the consensus goal to limit global warming to 1.5-2°C. Tropical temperatures don’t change much even over very long geological periods of time, because they are limited by deep convection to less than 30°C, except for short periods and over land where humidity is generally lower.
This is explained well by Sud, et al. (Sud, Walker, & Lau, 1999), Newell and Dopplick (Newell & Dopplick, 1979), Willis Eschenbach (Eschenbach, 2021), and Rick Willoughby (Willoughby, 2021). As Sud, et al. explain, a sea surface temperature of about 28°C is sufficient to drive the surface air to cloud level. This process also occurs over land, but generally requires high relative humidity and higher temperatures. It is well known that average tropical sea surface temperatures over large areas are capped at 30°C (86°F) and that essentially all global warming happens in the higher latitudes, thus the idea in the paper that global warming somehow will push tropical temperatures to dangerous levels is unfounded and physically impossible as long as our oceans and lakes exist.
Our distant ancestors, the first primates, evolved about 56 million years ago during one of the warmest times in the Cenozoic Era. This was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when the global average temperature may have been ten degrees warmer than today. Primates not only evolved then, but they also thrived. They spread rapidly around the world according to the fossil record, that we exist today is a testament to their success. Mammal fossils, perhaps even primate fossils, can be found in the Polecat Bench section in Wyoming and in PETM sections in Europe. Clearly, during the PETM, the tropical temperatures could not have been much different than today.
To find another easily falsifiable PNAS paper, so soon after the Leah Stokes’ paper shows something is clearly wrong at PNAS.
The featured image is a photo of the PETM section in Polecat, Wyoming. It was taken by Mark Fisher.
Works Cited
Eschenbach, W. (2021, January 21). A Chain of Effects. Retrieved from Wattsupwiththat.com: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/21/a-chain-of-effects/
Newell, R., & Dopplick, T. (1979). Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature. J. Applied Meterology, 18, 822-825. doi:10.1175/1520-0450(1979)018<0822:QCTPIO>2.0.CO;2
Sud, Y. C., Walker, G. K., & Lau, K. M. (1999). Mechanisms Regulating Sea-Surface Temperatures and Deep Convection in the Tropics. Geophysical Research Letters, 26(8). Retrieved from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/1999GL900197
Willoughby, R. (2021, May 23). Ocean Surface Temperature Limit-Part 1. Retrieved from Wattsupwiththat: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/23/ocean-surface-temperature-limit-part-1/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
PNAS has clearly joined the long list of previously respected organisations which have been totally corrupted by climate alarmism. The history books of the future will describe this period as the worst example of mass hysteria ever recorded in human history.
“The history books of the future will describe this period as the worst example of mass hysteria ever recorded in human history.”
No doubt about it.
Not if the history books of the future are written by the climate zealots of today. History is written by the winners. That’s why we have to win today and not just leave it till tomorrow.
Thanks Andy. A clear and concise explanation which even most greens (those that can read) would be able to understand.
Their irrationality would preclude any understanding.
I appreciate the citing. A point regarding this statement:
This is only true if the total atmospheric water exceeds about 35mm. That is the atmospheric water threshold to form a level of free convection that is required to generate convective instability and high power updraft.
It is not uncommon for regions of central Australia, the Sahara and inland regions of the USA to have conditions where atmospheric water is less than 35mm so deep convection does not operate.
In Australia, we have had three years now where mid summer atmospheric moisture has exceeded the 35mm with regular deep convection over the land creating lower pressure than the surrounding ocean and drawn more water over land causing flooding. This is a tendency of La Nina conditions over Australia. (And it was in place before the Samoan Volcano)
The atmospheric conditions in Arizona this year were dry mid summer and there was not much atmospheric water until a convective storm rolled through. Attached shows water over Arizona is as low as 7.5mm in mid August but Hillary is winding up off Baja to correct that. You will not get clouds with only 7.5mm of water over a 25C surface – essentially perpetual clear sky.
Apart from this detail, I agree it is absurd. There are not many people living in deserts. Where they are, they are either accustomed to it or have air-conditioning.
I have personally experienced 46C RH20% during Day 5 of the Murray Marathon a five day endurance race with starts and finish every day. I did not finish and lost a couple of kilos. The table makes sense. They no longer compete on days if the temperature exceeds 40C – we are all getting soft.
Pictures speak…as attached
And following on from his grooming/pimping/abuse of that gormless Stokes girl (here at WUWT) – I sense that he really is getting desperate – to be doing ‘time’
Pictures do speak, but they don’t always tell the truth.. How many lies in the latest garbage from the propaganda machine?
No takers? well, “melting sea ice” will not raise sea levels at all, therefore no UK properties are at risk, and penguins in the Arctic? They are getting desperate..
Hi Andy,
Do you know of an equation that relates surface humidity to Wet Adiabatic Lapse Rate?
No, not off hand. There probably is one, at least an approximation or a limit. The adiabatic lapse rate varies a lot. I remember that Benestad calculated it globally, using weather ballon data, and came up with an actual average of 5 deg/km. I’ve heard that it varies from 2 to over 7, depending upon location, humidity, and time of day.
Hi Andy, not but sure if I had this discussion with you before, but your perception of the Adiabatic Lapse Rate seems wrong.
Both ALR’s, Dry and Wet (or Saturated) are ONLY VALID for air rising (or sinking) within an atmosphere that is in Hydrostatic Equilibrium, while no exchange of energy with the surrounding air takes place (Adiabatic Assumption).
So the (average) temperature profile of the atmosphere worldwide is not related to the ALR’s
The DALR is fixed at ~9,8K/km while the SALR varies with the moisture content of the air that delivers the latent heat of condensation that reduces the SALR to below the 9,8K/km of the DALR.
See if you find what you need in Poyet’s e-book on Rational Climate Science. There is a section on temperature that you might find interesting.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrice-Poyet/publication/347150306_The_Rational_Climate_e-Book_2nd_Edition/links/633d566eff870c55ce02574e/The-Rational-Climate-e-Book-2nd-Edition.pdf?origin=publication_detail#page72
Not an equation, but thermodynamic diagrams might help.
https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~snesbitt/ATMS505/stuff/09%20Convective%20forecasting.pdf
Many years ago I worked in a copper mine in Zambia and was told how the bricklayers repaired damaged brick work on the furnaces w3hile they were still operational. They had a team of bricklayers and they would cover themselves with sacking and thoroughly douse them with water.so enabling them to replace a couple of bricks, retire and repeat.
No doubt they were well paid but it was far more economic and less damaging to the furnace to do it live.
The real point is that inhuman conditions can be overcome by adaption and human igenuity.
And there are some people who are better at tolerating heat than others. My husband used to work in an industrial bakery and sometimes he had to service the conveyor belts in the oven room. The temp was 145 F in there and none of the other mechanics could spend more than about 15 minutes in there. My husband could spend a half hour in there working… All of the workers were given ice pack cooling vests, but still, that’s a really hot place to be working for any length of time, even without much humidity.
Travel to Phoenix, AZ in the summertime, as I have, and you’ll see roofers working in the full sunlight on top of roofs during 100°F / 105°F / and even 110°F temperatures. Roofing companies do not have to replenish their workforces every single day due to heat strokes. The companies and the workers are not stupid, they have more than adequate access to water and rest in the shade when needed. The only folks who will find the metro Phoenix area too hot for human occupation will be the gutless wimp PNAS researchers who go into death agonies when they can’t get A/C levels down to 62°F inside their offices and homes.
I live in Mesa in my younger days I applied coating to my foam roof is was nearly or above 100(should have done earlier in the spring.) I also use to go hiking on Sunday afternoons during the summer normal length of the Hike 4 miles. Real hot days shorter, always had water with me and generally was hiking place where that was some natural water and shade.
Normal human temperature is about 98°F but oceans rarely get above 86°C. If only there were some substance to immerse oneself in that would cool a body on days when the air is very hot and humid.
Do you mean 86°F there?
Eh, it’s true either way….
Yes sir, my bad.
86°F of course. Even warm seawater is colder than the body temperature of a normal human being.
From the article: “the lead author of the paper (Vecellio) as saying: “Heat is already the weather phenomenon that kills the most people in the United States.” This is clearly not true, cold-related deaths far exceed heat-related deaths in the U.S. This CDC study confirms it.”
It’s amazing how these “scientists” get this so wrong. All they have to do is look it up. How hard is that? The work has already been done for them.
I suspect some reference to locations in the tropics were examined. That is, locations that never get cold so all deaths occur when it is warm!
There is a paper by Gasparrini et al in the Lancet July 2015 -here is an extract
“Findings- We analysed 74 225 200 deaths in various periods between 1985 and 2012. In total, 7·71% (95% empirical CI 7·43–7·91) of mortality was attributable to non-optimum temperature in the selected countries within the study period, with substantial differences between countries, ranging from 3·37% (3·06 to 3·63) in Thailand to 11·00% (9·29 to 12·47) in China. The temperature percentile of minimum mortality varied from roughly the 60th percentile in tropical areas to about the 80–90th percentile in temperate regions. More temperature-attributable deaths were caused by cold (7·29%, 7·02–7·49) than by heat (0·42%, 0·39–0·44). Extreme cold and hot temperatures were responsible for 0·86% (0·84–0·87) of total mortality.”
I have seen another paper about the data from Australia and Brisbane in particular that shows a sudden change from warm to cold (eg a cold front with hail-more common in winter), kills people rather than warming for a few days (more common in summer).
And where are the peer reviewers?? That statement is begging to be checked.
The “peer” of a climate scientist, is obviously another climate scientist.
They are all part of the same scam.
I’ve lost track of the number of times that one troll or another has told me that only those who are climate scientists have a right to discuss climate scientists.
That’s why the opinions of global warming critics are meaningless, because none of them are “climate scientists”.
Another point is the definition of a “climate scientist”.
It appears that the only way to become a climate scientist, is to be anointed as such by one of the leading lights of the “climate science” movement. Background and education is irrelevant.
This recent study shows that the cold weather we have every year causes about 4.6 million deaths a year globally mainly through increased strokes and heart attacks, compared with about 500,000 deaths a year from hot weather. We can’t easily protect our lungs from the cold air in the winter and that causes our blood vessels to constrict causing blood pressure to increase leading to heart attacks and strokes.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
This study from 2015 says that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather and that moderately warm or cool weather kills far more people than extreme weather. Increased strokes and heart attacks from cool weather are the main cause of the deaths.
‘Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
From the article: “To find another easily falsifiable PNAS paper, so soon after the Leah Stokes’ paper shows something is clearly wrong at PNAS.”
Is Michael Mann the editor?
I asked around about how the National Academy works. Apparently, members of the National Academy of Science are de facto editors of the journal. Michael Mann got into the National Academy of Science via the back door. He was rejected by the regular science members, but somehow was specially elected by some social science/communication division, obviously very political. Then once a member he became an editor by default and probably has a way to get Penn State crap like this into PNAS. I’m an outsider and know little directly, but I have some friends who know a lot about what goes on there.
It is a travesty and proves that politics trumps science these days. Peer review is not to be trusted anymore.
I used to work in the can cooking area of a tomato cannery, which was consistently hotter than the allegedly deadly temperature. Gee whiz, another reason why I cannot be writing this, along with Ehrlich’s famines in the early 1970’s. I must be a zombie, or having an extended delusion.
The temperature is dangerous because your body is unable to cool itself naturally. This leads to higher risk of heat-related mortality. The fact that such temperatures are experienced by people today doesn’t mean that increasing the frequency of this kind of weather won’t increase risk, especially in regions too poor for air conditioning to be common.
It has been hot and humid for over 250 years in the south and South East USA yet many millions live there anyway.
Ever heard of Hotlanta?
“Ever heard of Hotlanta?“
That was about temperature!? Who knew?
Just to be clear, you don’t think heat related mortality is a risk in places where the temperature and humidity are too high for the body to naturally cool itself? I grew up in central Texas and worked outdoors in construction, I am acutely aware of how dangerous heat can be.
Gosh I didn’t know that…. (sarcasm) where I live it gets up to 105F even 110F in the summer every few years worked outdoors all day for 28 years with a lot of walking and digging trenching moving a lot of rocks, but I didn’t know about hot weather… (sarcasm) maybe you can stop making things up about what I posted.
People still chose to move down into the hot and humid south anyway which you seem to be overlooking and what I was talking about.
Nice of you to change the point from what SST actually said, to something you could attack more easily.
So you agree that this article by Daniel Vecellio et al is a total load of anti-science garbage…
.. that should never have been printed anywhere by a low-end junk magazine..
Oh wait.. that is what PNAS has become.
He isn’t here to defend a pile of crap paper he is here to try impressing us with his low-level understanding of the topic by telling us that we should be careful with our health as it can gets really hot which is insulting as several people have made clear in their comments, they are well aware of the dangers of high heat.
What a pretentious joke.
Thank you for restating the essence of the article. I don’t know what we would do without your contributions.
Numerous people in the thread are commenting, “I’ve been in places where it’s hot before, so heat isn’t dangerous!” So apparently repeating what is in the research paper is actually needed.
Now you are just flat out LYING since not here people make that statement what they say it that people have tolerance of the heat and humidity even try to mitigate some of it in dealing with it.
Do you expect a climate scientist to deal with facts?
He isn’t a climate scientist but a typical armchair warmist/alarmist.
What’s the difference between a climate scientist and a typical armchair warmist/alarmist?
The scientist is paid more.
You cannot grow tolerance to the heat beyond what the laws of physics and your body’s physiology allow.
Are you sure you are not a badly programmed AI since you AGAIN misunderstood an easy-to-understand statement which was about how people handle the heat.
When I worked all day in DRY heat that often-reached 105F, I would in the early afternoon get my work shirt soaking wet and cooled down and wear it that way, the heat even when it is 105-110F didn’t bother me at all which I repeated a couple more times before I got back to the shop and then home.
That is called mitigating the heat little child.
Great, in dry heat you can cool yourself via evaporation, in higher humidity your body’s ability to cool itself through evaporation is diminished. There is a point beyond which the ambient temperature is too high for your body to passively cool itself and beyond which humidity is too high to effectively wick away heat through evaporation. These are the conditions that are most prone to heat deaths. You can’t cool down unless you seek shelter someplace cool (e.g. in an air conditioned building). The article is claiming that the regions of the word experiencing these conditions for prolonged periods f the year will grow under continued global warming.
Yawn…. you have a bad habit of talking down to me since I have already made it clear on how I have addressed the heat in my 28 years on the job which indicate that I am well aware of the dangers and NEVER once had problems with it because I knew what I was doing.
I attended several seminars on how to handle the dry heat and how to look for signs of Heat Stoke and Heat Exhaustion and how to address it along with high end CPR training.
Stop talking down on me!
Wasn’t this you a bit earlier:
Gosh you are being obtuse as hell since you several times pompously schooling me and others about the dangers of hot weather to our health and have been told by others to YOU, they already understand even after you repeat it several times in the thread.
You at times show some basic snobbery because you keep assuming that many here who are scientists, Engineers and more educated people know little about the topics here with your unwarranted lecturing on something already known and understood.
You have now done the following, Lyng, Snobbish replies and misunderstood what others meant in their replies thus wonder if you ARE a little child in a grown person’s body.
I’m not schooling you at all, I’m trying to explain what it is that the paper is saying. You keep claiming that because you are experienced in dealing with working in hot conditions that it shouldn’t be an issue for anyone, ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of people die from heat-related causes every year. The paper is saying that the conditions leading to these kinds of deaths will increase under global warming.
Specifically, more regions of the world will start commonly experiencing conditions where sweat cannot regulate your body’s temperature effectively (this means that being outside without a mode of active cooling will eventually lead to heat stroke).
If you don’t disagree with the above, then you’re just arguing to be a contrarian.
“ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of people die from heat-related causes every year.”
IGNORANT of the fact that some 10+ times that number die from COLD each year. !
Projections made by agenda-driven models are totally meaningless, and the writers seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that the places that would warm , would be places that are currently COLD.
This is a GOOD thing,…. REDUCING the number of weather related deaths.
Certainly, raising the temperature in places that are cold, will not make any difference to heat deaths, just make them more habitable
Why is it that EVERY one of AJ’s posts is based on abject ignorance and denial of reality.
Why does he continue his deceitful, irrelevant and meaningless posts in his support of the AGW scam that is trying to destroy western society ?
LOL, you still have yet to support the awful paper pointed out in the article thus your time here bloviating has been an utter failure.
Cheers.
You are ignoring the well known fact that since water vapor and CO2 share most of the same absorption frequencies, it is all but impossible for more CO2 to raise temperatures in places with humid air. The more humid the air, the more impossible it becomes.
You and this paper are both taking a position that is clearly impossible.
That being, the belief that places that are currently warm and humid will get even more warm and humid in a world with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
The only places showing much warming at all, are the poles, and perhaps a few deserts.
The above article above show that that is all but impossible and the reason are well known. Are you not aware the tropics have not varied +-1C in 24 million years. You are showing yourself to be about as clueless as the people who produced the paper saying it was going to happen.
Mr. Luhman: As you see, Mr. J. is just a waste of comment space here. He picks out something, here the idea that it will get warmer, ties it to a truism like “excess heat is dangerous”, accuses those who say “higher temps have in fact been managed by humans” into “heat isn’t dangerous”. Then he tendentiously clings to the “commenters here deny heat is dangerous.” He’s got a very slim grasp of the issues, so he creates his own. When debunked, he plays whack-a-mole.
Whoop de do, yet another truism that nobody here has argued against.
Another useless and meaningless truism.
Sheesh, your on a role today. Are you trying for a record?
Bull crap beyond belief. Dude, you are obviously a city born and bred air conditioning freak. Farmers work in all kinds of heat during the summer. I put up many a day of 1000 bales from age 13 to 22 when I graduated college. Something you learn is that your body must become accustomed to sweating profusely. The first few days are dangerous. Plenty of water and cool down periods are needed until your body can properly handle 100+ degree days properly. Once acclimated, it was much easier to replenish fluids throughout the day.
You are continually denying that others here have experience with high heat and high humidity. That is a sure sign of childish behavior.
The laws of physics prevent sweating from cooling your body effectively in certain conditions. You can be as tough of a country-boy as you please and it will not change this fact.
I believe you when you say you have experience with high heat and humidity, I don’t believe you when you insinuate that anyone can learn to prevent heat stroke if they just toughen up enough. If that were the case no one would die of heat stroke and the global yearly number of heat-related deaths would be zero.
These same laws of physics also prove that when the air is humid, CO has no impact on temperature.
Your fears are based on nonexistent demons.
It’s not toughening up, it’s acclimatising. A week or so sounds about right, depending on age. It’s a lot easier for young adults.
Do those conditions exist in outdoors conditions, and for long enough to be dangerous?
And are they dangerous if one isn’t engaging in physical activity?
The traditional midday rests in hot climates, and buildings designed for passive cooling weren’t a coincidence.
Yes, and yes. See the recent work by Vecellio, et al., for more details. In particular:
People are accusing me of not attempting to defend the paper, but as near as I can tell in this thread, no one arguing with me has read the paper or understands what it is about.
What people are trying to tell you is that your insistence that the paper means something is wrongheaded. You have provided no evidence that there is a global Tmax increase that makes the paper worth quoting. The global anomaly has no information whereby you can assume a global Tmax increase!
Thanks. That ties in somewhat with the table which Andy May included in the head post. The Vecellio quote seems to indicate lower temperatures and activity levels, though.
I see Alan refuses to address the facts that I have presented. That his belief that CO2 is going to make humid places hotter and more humid, simply isn’t true. As usual, Alan simply ignores anything that goes against what he chooses to believe.
As usual, Alan insists on putting words into the mouths of those who disagree with him.
Whether he is simply incapable of understanding the topic, or he’s being deliberately dishonest, I leave as an exercise for the reader.
Typical strawman from you! Stop it!
My quote, that you show, does not have the word “toughen” in it. It does have “accustomed” in it. Do you have any idea of the difference?
You just keep showing that you have no personal experience in doing manual labor in the heat! Why don’t you take some time and study what the folks here who do have that experience have said instead of simply diminishing their personal knowledge. Your insistence of “knowing” more than these folks diminishes your arguments whether you know it or not.
Years ago I worked in construction in central Texas, spending summers installing hot applied modified bitumen roofing. I am very well accustomed to performing manual labor in the heat. And I am absolutely confident in saying that heat can be deadly, no matter how “accustomed” one thinks one is. One cannot out-accustom oneself to the laws of physics and human physiology. There are temperatures and humidities above which the human body cannot cool itself through sweat and passive cooling.
A grand total of nobody has made the claim that heat can’t be dangerous.
What is it with you and your absolute inability to debate honestly?
Duh!
A grand total of nobody has said that. What is it about global warming alarmists and their inability to actually argue against what other people have said, rather than these crudely constructed strawmen?
What EVERYONE has stated is that with proper precautions, high heat need not be deadly. Which is 100% true.
But it is deadly, and thousands of people die of it every year. If you make it a hotter, even more people will die of it. You can deny this until you’re blue in the face and it won’t change a thing.
I do deny it, because I actually understand both the physics and the physiology involved.
Fist off, most of those who die, were either already dying, or were doing stupid things.
Look at the statististics of who actually dies during heat waves. It isn’t the young and the healthy. The only times young and healthy people die is when they fail to prepare themselves for heat properly.
Beyond that is a huge FACT that you refuse to acknowledge. Since the absorption lines that CO2 has, are almost completely shared with water vapor, whenever there is a lot of water vapor in the air, it is impossible for CO2 to cause an increase in temperature.
Intelligent people inform themselves of all the facts, not just the ones that support whatever it is they want to believe. When are you going to start behaving intelligently?
You keep saying the global anomaly means higher Tmax temperatures, but that is not evidence. Others have tried to tell you to look at high temp records but it goes in one of your eyes and out the other without engaging a single brain cell.
Global anomalies are based on Tavg. Do you know what the base variance is of a daily Tavg? If you can calculate a sample tell us what it is. I’ll tell you right now it is so large as to make any further calculation meaningless. There is simply no way to know what component is changing by examining the global anomaly.
I wonder what the mortality rate was in iron and steel foundries or in glass making factories?
https://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/thermal/
Given that the planet was at least a few degrees warmer for much of human history…
… it is a wonder there are any of us here !!
Oh wait, it was the warm periods when humans thrived.
And the cold periods between when there was suffering and death.
Alan is only interested in facts that support what he wants to believe.
Perhaps this explains it.
Herz, N., et al.2023. Hippocampal activity predicts contextual misattribution of false memories. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences. 120 (40) e2305292120 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2305292120
“Applying multivariate decoding methods, we were able to reliably predict the contextual source of the to-be-recalled item. Our findings elucidate one of the hallmark features of episodic memory: our ability to distinguish between memories that were formed on different occasions.”
https://www.livescience.com/health/neuroscience/the-brain-has-a-tell-for-when-its-recalling-a-false-memory-study-suggests?utm
“However, it’s still unclear whether these electrical signatures are actually responsible for the false memories or just happen at the same time.”
If heat and humidity are so bad, then why do so many retired people move to southern states in the US? Humidity is brutal in the southeastern US, but for some odd reason, older people want to live there.
And why aren’t people dropping like flies in Florida? While the snowbirds go north in summer, there are plenty of people who live in the state year round. The central and southern portion of the state experiences dew points in the upper 70’s and 80’s + temps in the mid and upper 90’s in summer. But yet there’s no epidemic of people dying of the heat.
I’ll never forget a trip me and a friend took to Georgia ten years ago. The southern half of the country was in the grip of a heat wave and daily temps were around 110 degrees, with the typical sickening humidity of the south. We spent the day at Six Flags over Georgia. If we got too hot we’d duck into a gift shop or ride a water ride, but we didn’t get sick and we obviously didn’t die. There were plenty of people in the park and no one seemed to be suffering any ill effects from the heat.
The only effect I had was the next day I had tiny water blisters on my arms and on the tops of my feet from the heat (this wasn’t sunburn as my skin wasn’t red or sore). But I survived it, and I’m not a very heat tolerant person.
Texas is hot and humid, but over 100,000 Californians move here every year. Overall, about 600,000 people legally move here each year, plus probably a million or so illegally. It is a nice place to live, and the warmth feels better as you get older and less tolerant of the cold.
It’s not as simple as heat and humidity = bad. The problem is that there are conditions where temperature+humidity prevent your body from cooling itself naturally via sweat + ambient cooling to the air, forcing your body temperature to rise above what it needs to function healthily. If you can’t actively cool yourself down (e.g. go into an air conditioned space), after a few hours of exposure you will be at risk of heat stroke. You may not be aware of this, but there are places in the world, even very hot places, where air conditioned buildings are not ubiquitous. The fact that you’ve been hot and not suffered heat stroke does not mean that extreme heat doesn’t increase the risk of heat stroke.
ZOOOOOOMMMMMM!!! right over your head.
You completely misunderstood his post……. LOL.
Millions still move to those regions of high heat and humidity anyway which YOU don’t understand why.
Mr. tommy: Mr. J. is building up to, “you hate poor people.” He’s quite blissful in missing the point. Waste of space.
Yeah, he isn’t deep at all, but I tend to respond to such people, but I destroy people baloney far better in a forum format than in this limiting blog comment set up.
The body does acclimatise to heat, but heat stress is indeed dangerous. There are ways to cool down other than air conditioning.
The British Empire covered quite a bit of the wet tropics when Noel Coward wrote this
Curses – the link didn’t work 🙁 It was supposed to be to a youtube clip of “Mad Dogs and Englishmen”.
Yet for some reason, the people who live in those places aren’t dropping like flies from the heat. There’s a reason for that, one that apparently is too complicated for you to figure out.
People adapt.
Regardless, since it is all but impossible for more CO2 in the atmosphere to increase the temperature in places where the air is already very humid, the whole point is moot.
I am one who will take 116F over -50 F any day of the week. Been in both, -50 will kill you faster if you screw up. I one of those people who moved from cold to hot, lot easier working in 110 F than -20 done both.
Mark,
Minus 40 degrees F equals minus 40 degrees C as I discovered one day in northern Canada a bit colder than that. Within a fortnight, I was at Mt Isa Australia, over plus 40 C, or 104 F actually more like 45 C.
Nearly 100 degrees C difference and I think I survived. I stayed indoors in the cold part but worked normally in the hot part.
Geoff S
The more water in the air, the less impact CO2 is capable of having.
There are few places that have more water in the air than the tropics.
In other words, CO2 not only is not a problem in the tropics, it can’t be a problem in the tropics.
It’s already to hot for humans where volcanoes are erupting and lava is flowing.
“Mad Dogs and Englishmen” written and performed by Noel Coward accompanied by Ray Noble & His Orchestra, and recorded on September 19, 1932.
In tropical climes there are certain times of day
When all the citizens retire to take their clothes off and perspire.
It’s one of those rules that the greatest fools obey
Because the sun is far too sultry and one must avoid its ultra violet ray.
The natives grieve when the white men leave their huts
Because they’re obviously, definitely nuts.
Mad dogs & Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
The Japanese don’t care to.
The Chinese wouldn’t dare to.
Hindus and Argentines sleep firmly from twelve to one,
But Englishmen detest a siesta.
In the Philippines they have lovely screens to protect you from the glare.
In the Malay states there are hats like plates which the Britishers won’t wear.
At twelve noon the natives swoon, and no further work is done,
But mad dogs & Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
It’s such a surprise for the eastern eyes to see,
That though the English are effete,
They’re quite impervious to heat.
When the white man rides every native hides in glee.
Because the simple creatures hope he
Will impale his solar topee on a tree.
It seems such a shame when the English claim the Earth,
That they give rise to such hilarity and mirth.
Ha, ha, hoo, hoo, he, he, hm, hm.
Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
The toughest Burmese bandit can never understand it.
In Rangoon the heat of noon is just what the natives shun,
They put their Scotch or Rye down and lie down.
In a jungle town where the sun beats down to the rage of man and beast,
The English garb of the English sahib merely gets a bit more creased.
In Bangkok at twleve’o’clock they foam at the mouth and run,
But mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.
The smallest Malay rabbit deplores this foolish habit.
In Hong Kong they strike a gong and fire off a noonday gun
To reprimand each inmate who’s in late.
In the Mangrove swamps where the python romps
There is peace from twelve to two,
Even caribous lie around and snooze,
For there’s nothing else to do.
In Bengal, to move at all
Is seldom if ever done.
But mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun!