When it comes to heat, the human body is remarkably resilient — it’s the humidity that makes it harder to cool down. And humidity, driven in part by climate change, is increasing.
A measurement of the combination of heat and humidity is called a “wet-bulb temperature,” which is determined by wrapping a completelywet wick around the bulb of a thermometer. Scientists are using this metric to figure out which regions of the world may become too dangerous for humans.
A term we rarely hear about, the wet-bulb temperature reflects not only heat, but also how much water is in the air. The higher that numberis, the harder it is for sweat to evaporate and for bodies to cool down.
At a certain threshold of heat and humidity, “it’s no longer possible to be able to sweat fast enough to prevent overheating,” said Radley Horton a professor at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
Scientists have found that Mexico and Central America, the Persian Gulf, India, Pakistan and Southeast Asia are all careening toward this threshold before the end of the century.
“Humid heat risks are […]
Interesting, Stephan. (However, one needs access to the Washington Post to read the continuation of the article.) I wonder if it would help if we took the emphasis off “believing” in climate change and “believing” in the next psychological leap which is that humanity can do something to reverse it or at least buy some time—and instead, put the emphasis on the solutions themselves as being more economically sound in the long run, money-saving ventures, efficiency and safety ventures. The show-down between believers and anti-believers isn’t going to save the planet; we’ll burn up before we get everybody onto the believers’ side. There has to be a way to proceed without being encumbered by “belief.” Any ideas, Stephan?