Print 85 comment(s) - last by Rott3nHIppi3.. on Jul 11 at 3:08 PM

Matthew Huber of Purdue University  (Source:
The paper describes what would happen to humans and other mammals if global temperatures were to rise a certain amount over the course of this century

A Purdue climatologist has published a paper that questions, "How much warming can humans physically handle?"

Matthew Huber, a Purdue University climatologist, wrote a scientific paper that describes what would happen to humans and other mammals if expected rises in global temperature were to occur by the year 2100. Average estimates from certain models land in the 3 to 4 degrees Celsius range, while others predict 10 or even 20 degree hikes.

Using a measurement technique called "wet-bulb temperature," Huber and Sherwood were able to model what would happen to humans if the 3, 4, 10 or 20 degree increases were to occur by 2100. The wet-bulb temperature method consists of a thermometer bulb wrapped in wet cloth and ventilated, which represents the most perfect scenario for a human to withstand increasing global temperatures: a naked, healthy adult standing in the shade while drinking gallons and gallons of water. Any other scenario that strays from this perfect example would place heat-related stress on a person or mammal to some degree depending on the increase in global temperature.

"We intentionally were trying to explore the upper limit of what humans can possibly stand," said Huber. "Essentially we were assuming a perfectly acclimated person, in perfect health, not performing physical labor, and out of the sun, and were then asking, 'What would it take to kill them quickly?' A real person would be profoundly uncomfortable, miserable and/or sick long before we reach the limit discussed in our paper. Infants, pregnant women, and the elderly would be especially vulnerable long before we hit the limit discussed.

"Thus, the global mean temperature increase of about >10°C that causes widespread heat death in our paper probably is a significant overestimate of the threshold at which substantial harm [would come] to societies and individuals would suffer harm and/or reduced productivity. Put in more prosaic terms, large parts of the world would be violating OSHA and international health standards for work long before we approach this >10°C threshold. But we wanted to be sure we had a limit set by physical and thermodynamic laws and not by human ones (since those are mutable)."

According to Huber, it's most important for the world to set a goal of what temperature increase to avoid. He believes avoiding a 2 degree Celsius increase by 2100 would be impossible by this point, but maybe a 6 degree (and definitely 10 degree) increase is preventable if the proper actions are taken.

If a 10 or 12 degree global temperature increase was achieved by 2100, Huber said people would likely be dying in the streets or running to air conditioned-only locations. However, increased air conditioning can lead to power grid issues, and the grid is strained enough as it is.

What would the world be like if we hit a 12 degree Celsius increase?

"My nightmare," said Huber. "I'm in Oklahoma on a hot summer day. Under a heat lamp. Running. Wrapped in plastic."

There is much debate over whether climate models are correct or not, so Huber's method of basing his results of off many of them (which have varied results of 3 to 20 degree Celsius predicted hikes by 2100) have caused scientists to be skeptical.

"The models aren't perfect," said Huber. "The thing to ask is, are they biased to produce a world that is too warm or too cold in the future? For 30 years, climate modelers have compared simulations of past climate change (glacial intervals, greenhouse climates such as the Eocene) against data and found that models get the general climate right but that they are systematically biased to be somewhat too insensitive to forcing. In other words, what modeling of past climates tells us is that these models are—if anything—biased to underpredict future climate change."

Another question addressed is whether humans can adapt to the increase in global temperature. Huber seems to think some can through burrowing, staying near bodies of water, reducing activities and becoming more active at night.

"The most direct way for humans to respond physiologically, which would take thousands of years if at all (we are most likely to change our behaviors) is to get small and skinny, to decrease our volume and maximize our surface area so we can lose heat more effectively," said Huber.

Earlier this week, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said that manmade global warming has been overexaggerated, and that humans could easily adapt to rising global temperatures. He also blamed a lazy press, illiterate public and fear-mongering advocacy groups for the bad light placed on the oil industry.

"We have spent our entire existence adapting," said Tillerson. "We'll adapt. It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution."

Huber and Sherwood's paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Source: Mother Jones

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Stop with the scam
By HurleyBird on 7/2/2012 10:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
"Let's look again at economics. A major percentage of global GDP is based off of regions that are on coasts. When Earth's atmosphere takes on a higher PPM of CO2, the chance of major storms affecting economic activity increases, i.e. bad for business. Again this is akin to saying the chance of a major storm affecting a major economic sector rises from 0.1% to 0.2%, still no one wants to hear it."

Even for the "extreme weather" debate there are two sides. One states that increased energy in the oceans and the atmosphere will increase severity. The other side states that because AGW is predicted to warm the poles faster you'll end up with less severe weather. Both are reasonable arguments, and goes to show you that there are many different feedbacks at play.

The truth is that differentiating those negative and positive feedbacks from natural variability isn't an easy job. For all we know, some of the ultra-alarmist models might be correct but the signal from natural variability is more strongly negative than we think. Unlikely though. Conversely, a lot more of the warming we've already had could be down to nature than we suspect.

There is no conclusive evidence, which is why the debate ends up falling along political lines -- you can pick and choose the evidence that conforms with your political beliefs without being proven false.

People also forget that warming and increased atmospheric CO2 have positives aspects as well, such as increased plant growth, but in any given situation the media is going to report on what creates the most frenzy.

RE: Stop with the scam
By Shig on 7/2/2012 11:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
Great talking point. You've inevitably advanced the discussion to, what do we do now?

Pursuing fossil fuels was easy. The future energy resources will be increasingly difficult. Political talking points tend to focus on the easy short-term solutions, yet going forward they will become harder and harder.

Short term profit is relatively simplistic, prolonged and sustained growth/prosperity is the holy grail. It's politically easy to offer the former.

Whether you want to believe it or not, the era of cheap energy is over. Every form of energy will now come with ever increasing costs. There are no quick fixes or easy answers.

RE: Stop with the scam
By HurleyBird on 7/3/2012 12:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, but personally I'd rather the free market tackle the issue at the right time than have government intervene prematurely, wasting money in the middle of a recession. In any case, we've gotten too far off topic.

RE: Stop with the scam
By WalksTheWalk on 7/3/2012 5:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
I would that rather let the free market handle it as well, but there's a political point to be made; that the US is dependent on foreign energy and those nations possessing it aren't always our best allies. Given that, it does make some sense to help the process along from time to time.

I'm all for incentivizing companies to create viable solutions to the energy problems. I just don't think we need to throw governmental money into every little R&D program. There are more rational ways to go about it.

"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki