About the heat wave in Canada and the rapid climate model attribution. We are desert adapted animals. It's in our DNA, and what we need to change for heat waves is behaviour. Even elderly and babies have the biology to live in hot deserts so long as it's dry.
What we need for heat waves is to adapt our behaviour.
This is not instinctive. Desert people will learn from their community.
- drink lots of water!
- ventilation
- blinds or window reflectors
- stay in shade
- go somewhere cool
- air conditioning redcross.org/get-help/how-t…
Although Lytton had record heat, it was also very dry, 15% humidity. Also though it was record heat in Lytton, temperatures above 40 C are not unusual. In dry summer conditions with Canadian long summer days and short nights, heat builds up in a heat trap far from the sea.
This is about local temperature not global temperature. When it was 20 C hotter than normal for that day in Lytton it was 15 C colder than normal in parts of central US. Can't find map for the actual day only day after sorry.
Although rare, places in southern California and nearby have been warmer than this in the past. The long summers in Canada make heat waves there more likely than you expect.
At 2 C warming the climate of Seattle will be similar to that of San Francisco today (sorry doesn't have Vancouver on this map)
(cites to all these graphics in blog post debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Heat-waves-in-… )
Humans need to be able to keep our body at 37 C for optimal health. To do this we need to cool our skin to 35 C as we need 2 C difference to avoid over heating. Minimum temperature our skin can achieve by sweating is the "wet bulb" temperature and depends on temp. and humidity.
Most places have maximum wet bulb temperature well below 35 C. That includes most deserts as they are very dry. But a few small hot spots already go above 35 C regularly.
This is one of them. Each dot is a day. It's been occasionally "too hot" for humans for a couple of hours at a time back to 1987.
However this is not literally too hot for most humans. If you don't have a fever already, then a wet bulb of 36.6 would mean you can't cool down to below 38.6 equivalent to a high fever. You won't die of a couple of hours wet bulb even well above 35 C but will feel unwell.
The highest body temperature anyone has had and survived according to the Guiness World Records is a remarkable 115.7° F or or 46.5°C! Discharged at "prior baseline status" after 24 days in hospital.
At 4.9 C then parts of the hottest paddy fields in China get "too hot for humans" in this sense. Workers would experience a fever for a few hours during the occasional hottest heat waves.
At 3 C then the world doesn't get to these 35 C wet bulb temperatures (apart from the rare hot spots mentioned). At 4.9 C (now unrealistic) potentially over a million person days could be over 35 C. Out of our 7.8 billion people.
Researchers found the heat waves were a 1 in 1000 year event according to their models even at current warming levels.
1933 record of 45 C is not surprising for Canada but the 49.6 C record is far higher than you'd expect without global warming, only once every 150,000 years.
Two possibilities.
1. a 1 in 1000 year event, more common as we warm up..
2. not modelling details of climate properly.
It is not so easy to model such details in the climate models.
1 in 1000 may seem impressive but statistically not very significant. There may be hundreds, or thousands of records of different climate variables that we measure every year. It wouldn't be surprising to have a "1 in 1000 year event" somewhere, of some variable, every year.
Strongest hurricane. Strongest tornado. Coldest cold snap in winter. Temperature record in Siberia. Temperature record in Australia, etc etc.
It's certainly reason to look closely at their models, but it is not at the level really of "evidence" that they are missing something.
In any case for human habitability it's not the temperature record we look at. It's the wet bulb temperature. Canada is an unlikely place to set a record there. Highest wet bulb temperatures so far < 27 C.
Hot but dry heat. Humans can easily cope - with adaptations of behaviour.
Climate action tracker make our pledges 2. C with optimistic targets, and "well below 2 C" is well within reach now with future commitments in COP26 and then in 2025 and 2030 as our technology and experience improves and pressure to act continues to mount. debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/With-statement…
Technology is helping. Solar panel prices dropped 10-fold in 10 years and continue to fall fast. They are now cost competitive with the lowest cost fossil fuels.
Gas fired electricity expected to cost twice as much as onshore wind or solar by 2025. Perovskite solar panels could halve the cost of solar before then. debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Perovskite-cou…
Debra Roberts for IPCC talking about 2018 report said each of us as individuals can help shape the future by our choices, such as energy, diets, transport we use, and choices as consumes directing where industry goes and goods are manufactured. debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/What-the-IPCC-…
I forgot to cover the fires, will add more tweets soon. The forest fires are normal in the Arctic region. Trees adapted to them. Most Canadian trees have a huge range e.g. Douglas Fir south to Mexico and Sugar Maple south to Missouri. It won't get too hot for them.
Mussel beds often have die offs in heat waves and will recover within a few years. I'll expand on all this soon.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
SHORT DEBUNK: Why NATO would hardly change if Trump is elected president and ignores all the US commitment to NATO
- and Europe is already well on its way to taking over funding to Ukraine
SHORT DEBUNK: Why Supreme Court was unanimous in decision that Trump's name had to stay on the ballot - also did not say he is immune for everything
- Judge Chutkan's preliminary ruling shortly after election day expected to say an 06 trial can go ahead doomsdaydebunked.miraheze.org/wiki/Why_the_S…
BLOG: Dare to Hope
- Climate Restoration
- Three ways to get CO2 levels back to pre-industrial 300 ppm by 2050
- potentially pay for themselves
- many more ways to remove CO2 in IPCC AR6 chapters 7 and 12
See: robertinventor.substack.com/p/dare-to-hope…
I wrote this blog post on Quora originally. Updated it and shared on my substack because so many seem completely unaware of AR6 / WG3 / Chapter 7 and Chapter 12 - even sometimes write articles on the topic of carbon sequestration that show they never so much as saw this figure.
The first part of the blog post is about several ways to get back to 300 ppm if we wanted to that even pay for themselves. The second part is a short summary of the IPCC sections on ways to remain at net zero through the second half of this century summarized in that graphic.
BLOG: Far right Republican Project 2025 is mostly an illegal fantasy - most of it can’t be done at all - “Schedule F” would face legal challenges and likely be struck down
CLICK HERE TO READ:
2/ This is impossible. I 'll do a new post when I get time. Most things require new laws and they can't get a far right majority in either house. Schedule F is the main executive decision option. If he tries again it is likely shot down as illegal. Meanwhile short thread.
3/ for LGBT things remember that the vast majority in both houses supported the respect for marriage act. So it is not possible for Congress to pass laws that remove the right for marriage for gay people never mind harsher restrictions.
1/n Yes we ARE headed for 1.7°C if countries keep to announced pledges
- most make realistic pledges and achieve or overachieve
- 77% of IPCC authors CAN be wrong if it is the remaining 23% who study how countries translate pledges into action
2/ About why climate scientists often are so pessimistic about action on climate change.
- hardly any study the economic models
- IPCC / AR6 had a cut off date just before the COP26 net zero pledges
- so couldn't evaluate the feasibility of India / China's net zero plans.
3/ The big IPBES report in 2019 was the only recent major study with a large element of social scientists and it was the most optimistic, saying we can achieve this transformative change, not just scientifically - that it is economically and socially feasible.
@GerogeBush6@mikestabile 1/ This is an inaccurate summary. It is about exceptions to the law not overturning it. There are many exceptions already itif.org/publications/2…
This case is specifically about how YouTube recommends videos to users (continues)
@GerogeBush6@mikestabile 2/n The case is about whether Google is liable if its algorithm recommends illegal content to users. It is NOT liable for hosting user generated illegal content - that's established. Video summary. c-span.org/video/?c503199…
1/4 Many people are misreading what Putin said in his annexation speech. He did NOT say Hiroshima and Nagasaki create a precedent for the world to use nukes today
- that would be a very radical
- that would reverse all Russian nuclear policy for decades.
2/4 It is very clear in context that Putin said
- the Allied carpet bombing in WW2 in Dresden, Hamburg and Cologne
- set a precedent for the use of the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They clip the video just before the second paragraph which makes that clear.
3/4 I go into it in my blog post using the official English translation of Putins' speech as published by the Kremlin.
I look at two other ways to intepret those two sentences, neither makes sense in the context of the paragraph that follows.