Terrifying heat maps reveal the countries that will become too HOT to live in if global temperatures increase by just 1.5°C
What arrant nonsense! Amid the large daily temperature variations common in many parts of the world, an increase of 1.5 degrees would hardly be noticed.
I grew up in tropical Australia (FNQ) where a 38 degree Celsius (100F) daytime temperature was not uncommon. And it was usually humid too. We coped perfectly well. And we mostly had fair skin, blue eyes and spoke English. But we drank a lot of cold beer.
But I will concede that a degree of acclimatization may be needed to live comfortably in FNQ. Two generations of my family before me had CHOSEN to live in that area
The mistake made by the authors below may be thinking that residents of the Northern USA are typical of the human race
These frightening heat maps reveal the countries that could soon become too hot to live in if global temperatures increase by as little as 1.5°C (2.7°F).
Some 2.2 billion people in Pakistan and India's Indus River Valley, 1 billion in eastern China and 800 million in sub-Saharan Africa would be among those facing heat that is beyond human tolerance, researchers say.
That could extend to eastern and central parts of the US if temperatures on Earth were to rise by 3°C (5.4°F) above pre-industrial levels.
Residents in Florida, New York, Houston and Chicago would all have to endure dangerous and stifling levels of humidity, while extreme heat could wreak havoc among those living in parts of South America and Australia, according to the new study by Penn State University.
Humans can only endure so much heat before putting themselves at risk of a heart attack or heat stroke.
Record-breaking heatwaves across the US, Europe and China this summer once again threw the spotlight on just how much heat is too much for people.
Last year, researchers from Penn State revealed how the upper temperature limit for human safety was much lower than first thought.
Previously it had been thought that a wet-bulb temperature of 95°F (35°C) – equal to a temperature of 95°F at 100 per cent humidity, or 115°F at 50 per cent humidity – was the upper limit.
At this point the human body would no longer be able to cool itself by evaporating sweat from the surface of the body to ensure a stable body core temperature.
However, the latest research suggests the upper limit is actually 87°F (31°C) at 100 per cent humidity or 100°F (38°C) at 60 per cent humidity.
The key point to note is that it is not just about what the thermometer says. Instead, it is the combination of heat and humidity - known as the 'wet-bulb temperature'.
This is a direct indicator of how well sweating is cooling the body and is measured by attaching a wet cloth to the bulb of a thermometer.
In human history, temperatures and humidity that exceed human limits have been recorded only a handful of times — and only for a few hours.
In parts of India, Pakistan, eastern China and sub-Saharan Africa, residents would have to endure high-humidity heatwaves if global warming is not curbed.
These can be particularly dangerous because it means the air cannot absorb excess moisture, which in turn limits the amount of sweat that evaporates from the human body.
What is particularly worrying, the researchers said, is that many of the areas that would be worst affected are in lower-to-middle income nations who likely wouldn't have access to air conditioning.
In the worst-case scenario of global temperatures rising by 4°C (7.2°F), the port city of Al Hudaydah in Yemen – which is home to more than 700,000 people on the Red Sea – would be almost uninhabitable.
That is because residents would have to endure temperatures exceeding the limits of human tolerance on 300 days of the year.
'The worst heat stress will occur in regions that are not wealthy and that are expected to experience rapid population growth in the coming decades,' said co-author Matthew Huber, of Purdue University.
'But this research shows that humid heat is going to be a much bigger threat than dry heat.
The new study has been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
*****************************************************
That pesky ozone hole refuses to shrink
The Greenies thought they knew how to close it but their methods have not worked. The hole has never co-operated. It just fluctuates in its own sweet way regardless
A hole in the ozone layer three times larger than Brazil has opened up over Antarctica.
Europe’s Copernicus Sentinel-5P satellite shows that the ozone hole is one of the largest on record, according to the European Space Agency (ESA), and measured 26mn square kilometres on September 16, 2023 – roughly three times the size of Brazil.
Satellite data revealed that this year's ozone hole expanded to about twice the size of Antarctica. The eruption of Tonga's underwater volcano in early 2022 is a possible cause for the unusual size of the ozone hole, say scientists.
The ozone layer in Earth's atmosphere is approximately 15 to 30 kilometres above the surface and protects the planet from harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun. Ozone is a type of oxygen molecule with three atoms instead of the usual two that absorbs the sun's radiation.
The discovery of significant ozone holes above Earth's polar regions was made in 1985. Researchers found that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a common chemical used in aerosol cans, packaging materials and refrigerators at the time, were reacting with ozone in the atmosphere, leading to ozone depletion. In response, the international community banned the use of CFCs in 1989, allowing ozone levels to gradually recover.
However, gaps in the ozone layer still appear above the polar regions during each hemisphere's winter months. This occurs when cold air creates polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), which are exceptionally high clouds composed of tiny ice cr
*************************************************
In blow to Germany's green agenda, conservatives and right-wing populists win regional elections
After key regional elections on Sunday in Germany conservatives and right-wing populists are celebrating.
But the results are a blow for all three parties in Chancellor Olaf Scholz's left-wing-led national coalition. The ramifications will be felt across Germany.
A quarter of voters were able to go to the polls in regional elections in two of Germany's largest and wealthiest states, Bavaria and Hesse.
In both regions, conservative and right-wing populist parties used the election campaign to bash Olaf Scholz's national government over migration and energy policy. It paid off.
In Hesse, according to initial predictions, the conservative incumbent CDU scored 34.5% of the vote, a substantial gain on its solid win last time.
The far-right AfD also upped its previous score by a couple of percent to a predicted 18%, which would be the AfD's highest score in a western German state election and put the party in second place.
All three parties in Scholz's national coalition have slipped a couple of percentage points, with both the Greens and Olaf Scholz's centre-left SPD at around 15%, and the free-market liberal FDP hovering at 4.9% and may miss the 5% threshold to stay in parliament.
In Bavaria the incumbent conservative CSU, who has led the regional government almost continually since 1946, won the most votes. Although with only 36.7%, according to predicted results, it's the party's worst result since 1958.
The CSU looks set to stay in power, but will need to stay in coalition with the right-wing populist Freie Wähler (Free Voters). Having scored their best result yet, at a predicted 15%, the insurgent Free Voters will feel emboldened and are already demanding another ministry.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67049498?mc_cid=4ff0792b62&mc_eid=cc88839e92
************************************************IPCC Global Warming Reports Underestimated Role of Sun in Warming: Study
Reports on global warming issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underestimate the role of the Sun in the warming process while falsely laying blame on human beings, according to a study published last month.
In 2021, Ronan Connolly, a scientist at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Science (CERES), and his colleagues published a review raising concerns about multiple reports issued by the IPCC. The IPCC reports concluded that global warming since the mid-20th century was essentially human-driven, dismissing natural causes behind the process. The 2021 review was disputed in a 2022 article by two climate researchers who claimed that the review was “flawed,” that it “should not be treated as credible,” and that the IPCC’s decision to rule out solar activity as a major driver behind climate change “remains intact.”
In a Sept. 27 study published in IOP Science, a team of 20 climate researchers led by Mr. Connolly sought to debunk the 2022 article and reaffirm the 2021 review. It found that the IPCC may have “substantially underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming,” according to a recent post by CERES.
The 2021 review noted that the IPCC reports had two major flaws:
For their analysis, the IPCC reports used global surface temperature data that was “contaminated by urban warming biases,” meaning that only temperature records from urban regions were considered. Urban areas tend to be warmer than the countryside due to human activity and various structures. Though urban areas only represent a small percentage of land, these places make up the majority of thermometer records used in estimating global temperatures.
The IPCC reports used only a small data set from a large pool of data related to Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), which measures the radiant energy emitted by the sun falling on Earth’s atmosphere. And this small data set used by IPCC mostly came to two conclusions—there have been very few TSI changes over the past centuries or that TSI has slightly decreased since the 1950s.
By analyzing data showing a rise in temperatures in urban regions and little to no change in Total Solar Irradiance, the IPCC reports blamed human activity for global warming, dismissing the sun’s role in the process.
In the 2022 article, the two climate researchers criticized the 2021 review, noting the following:
The mathematical techniques used in the review were inappropriate, and a different set of techniques should have been used.
The TSI records considered in the review were not up-to-date.
In the Sept. 27 study, Mr. Connolly and his team addressed these issues, finding “even more compelling evidence that the IPCC’s statements on the causes of global warming since 1850 are scientifically premature and may need to be revisited,” said the CERES post.
The Study
In the 2022 article, the climate researchers used just a single surface temperature record, which only contained data from urban regions. Meanwhile, the IPCC’s recent 2021 global warming report only considered one Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) data set in their calculations.
The Sept. 27 study took a more comprehensive approach and avoided these limitations of the IPCC’s 2021 report and the climate researchers’ 2022 article:
It used five surface temperature records—(a) only rural weather stations, (b) all available stations whether urban or rural, (c) only sea surface temperatures, (d) tree-ring widths as temperature proxies, and (e) glacier length records as temperature proxies.
It also used 27 updated TSI records, all covering the period between 1850 and 2018.
The study found that depending on the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) dataset and surface temperature records used in the study, the conclusion as to what is driving global warming can change.
Some combinations of TSI and surface temperature records suggested that warming can be explained as being “mostly natural,” like solar activity. Other combinations suggested it was “mostly anthropogenic,” or human-driven. Some suggested warming was “both natural and anthropogenic.”
“While each of us has our own scientific opinions on which of these choices are most realistic, we are concerned by the wide range of scientifically plausible, yet mutually contradictory, conclusions that can still be drawn from the data,” the study said.
Talking about the results, Dr. Willie Soon, an author of the study, said that “if the IPCC had paid more attention to open-minded scientific inquiry than trying to force a premature ‘scientific consensus,’ then the scientific community would be a lot closer to having genuinely resolved the causes of climate change,” according to the CERES post.
Mr. Connolly highlighted the importance of remaining unbiased when conducting research. “In scientific investigations, it is important to avoid beginning your analysis with your conclusions decided in advance. Otherwise, you might end up with a false sense of confidence in your findings. It seems that the IPCC was too quick to jump to their conclusions.”
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment