In a giant version of the Sandy Hook 'crisis actors' hoax, it is clear that China is now proposing to kill or displace millions of its citizens and to strike a fatal blow to its own food supplies, all with the aim of at last convincing red-blooded Americans to accept the lie that climate change is real:
Abstract North China Plain is the heartland of modern China. This fertile plain has experienced vast expansion of irrigated agriculture which cools surface temperature and moistens surface air, but boosts integrated measures of temperature and humidity, and hence enhances intensity of heatwaves. Here, we project based on an ensemble of high-resolution regional climate model simulations that climate change would add significantly to the anthropogenic effects of irrigation, increasing the risk from heatwaves in this region. Under the business-as-usual scenario of greenhouse gas emissions, North China Plain is likely to experience deadly heatwaves with wet-bulb temperature exceeding the threshold defining what Chinese farmers may tolerate while working outdoors. China is currently the largest contributor to the emissions of greenhouse gases, with potentially serious implications to its own population: continuation of the current pattern of global emissions may limit habitability in the most populous region, of the most populous country on Earth.
The new analysis assesses the impact of climate change on the deadly combination of heat and humidity, which is measured as the “wet bulb” temperature (WBT). Once the WBT reaches 35C, the air is so hot and humid that the human body cannot cool itself by sweating and even fit people sitting in the shade die within six hours.
A WBT above 31C is classed by the US National Weather Service as “extreme danger”, with its warning stating: “If you don’t take precautions immediately, you may become seriously ill or even die.”
The research, published in the journal Nature Communications, found fatal WBTs of 35C would strike the north China plain repeatedly between 2070 and 2100, unless carbon emissions are cut. Shanghai, for example, would exceed the fatal threshold about five times and the “extreme danger” WBTs would occur hundreds of times. Even if significant carbon cuts are made, the “extreme danger” WBT would be exceeded many times.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
The research, published in the journal Nature Communications, found fatal WBTs of 35C ...
Ok, hold up. I have a pretty good recollection of the most boring class from Architetcure School...Mechanical Systems...whereas we learned the difference between dry bulb temperature (typical thermostat) and wet bulb (thermostat in wet cloth) temperature.
So, a wet bulb temperature is solely dependent on water saturation in the air...100% humiditiy means the "wetness" does not evaporate when spinning the bulb (thermostat) through air and thus wet bulb would equal dry bulb (due to no evaporative cooling). In other words 35C/95F in a high humid environment is not anywhere near being fatal, especially sitting in the shade. Otherwise every July and August south of the mason-dixon is, and has been, "extreme danger".
Me thinks a bit of hyperbole is in play here, because the WBT of 35C presents a danger to vulnerable infants and elderly only when sustained for +6 hours...or approximately 4% of the population for the area in SE Asia. But granted, 35C is a heatwave to the UK.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31 °C. Any exceedence of 35 °C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 °C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11–12 °C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12 °C are possible from fossil fuel burning. One implication is that recent estimates of the costs of unmitigated climate change are too low unless the range of possible warming can somehow be narrowed. Heat stress also may help explain trends in the mammalian fossil record.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
The "debate" over climate science should really have been the canary in the coalmine with respect to idiotic people deciding they'll believe only what's comfortable to them. The post truth phenomenon could only happen as widely as it has in a country like America where people have an unrealistic sense of their own "special-ness."
Facts aren't a matter of opinion. If you deny accepted science, you're basically a infant in full tantrum. When people tell me climate change is a hoax, I have no motivation to show them the facts. I just want to tell them to grow the “F” up and quit being a baby.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Yeah, I get it, but instead of relying on your oblivious understanding of PNAS or an arbitrary "argument" posted to PNAS, I suggest you exercise the third option. Learn about WBT yourself and then make an informed decision about your position. I would hate to think you would do otherwise. But, you might be weary and prefer to let someone else tell you what facts mean and don't mean.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Subgenius or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences?
Hard one, that ...
... Learn about WBT yourself and then make an informed decision about your position. ...
Yup. I do that by the process of critically reading scientific research published in reputable journals with good review processes, such as (for instance), Nature and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Of course that process is a hard one, and it is not guaranteed to lead you direct to a large shiny object labelled 'The Truth'.
But it's a damn sight more likely to reduce your level of ignorance than paying attention to subgenius's recollections of this one course he took, and his silly pictures of people in heatwaves.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Says the moron who likely has never walked a mile in 73 degree weather, let alone ran 26 miles in it.
While many London locals struggled through the 24.1C temperature, those who are living from other parts of the world can’t seem to fathom how it could be the “hottest” for the Brits...
While the said temperature may be normal for others who experience mostly hot weather, it is unusual for the Brits who are used to winter and barely see the sun. Their reaction to heat may be “too much” for some but it shouldn’t be a debate whether the incident should be turned into a laughing matter or not when it seriously might’ve caused the death of someone.
Please don't let's diverted into talking about the perception of temperature by Londoners - which is obviously what subgenius wants us to do.
The topic is a serious one: the prospect that possible temperature rises may affect a currently densely inhabited and highly productive part of China in a way that makes it impossible for people to be normally active outdoors for much of the year.
If you don't want to discuss the implications of what may happen in China, try a more example closer to home that you may find relevant to the general topic:
At a public meeting not far from the California town of Redding last year, the US congressman Doug LaMalfa said that he “didn’t buy” human-made climate change.
“I think there’s a lot of bad science behind what people are calling global warming,” he said on another occasion.
In recent days, the outskirts of Redding have been ravaged by the Carr wildfire, and scientists have directly connected the blaze, which has claimed six lives and dozens of properties, to climate change. Yet LaMalfa sounds unswayed.
“I’m not going to quibble here today about whether it’s man, or sunspot activity, or magma causing ice shelves to melt,” he told the Guardian on Tuesday, citing discredited alternative explanations for rising temperatures.
Can climate-driven natural disasters shift attitudes about climate change? In Redding, the weeks to come may provide a somber test case.
As of Tuesday evening, the Carr fire was 27% contained, and it was one of sixteen wildfires burning in California.
Like LaMalfa, the citizens of Redding are far more skeptical about climate change than the average American is. In 2016, a team from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that only 35% of Redding residents believed that global warming would harm them personally, five percentage points lower than the national average, and 12 points less than the average Californian.
“Experience is an important part of determining one’s belief on climate change, but not necessarily the determining one,” said Christopher Borick, director of the National Surveys on Energy and Environment, which has carried out long-term studies on attitudes to climate change and other environmental issues.
But he said partisan affiliation was still a more powerful influence on beliefs about climate. “If you gave me one factor to explain someone’s belief, I’d ask you what party they belong to,” he said. “Among Republicans, about half think there’s evidence of climate change, but only a third think it’s anthropogenic in its roots.”
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
