[thworp]

In my experience the issue is not about taking it seriously, I've rarely met someone totally unconcerned in real life. The real issue is what to do about it, how to do it and in what timeframe.

With these wet bulb events and the breathless death counts in the media people get the impression that heat waves are bigger killers than cold winters, when it's the opposite (and if you include indirect and long-term deaths by an order of magnitude).

There are also some serious and well connected organizations advancing plans that I can only see as attempted mass murder. If your plan projects no cargo ships by 2035 you will kill millions from the fragility of food supply chains alone.

If you want to reduce fertilizer use, fine. Better targeting and smarter application can reduce the consumption by at least 30%. But if you want to use no fertilizer you will kill billions.

Even the more grounded and non-murderous proposals have some serious question marks. Electrify almost all energy use by running 300% overproduction of renewables, to be stored in batteries and pump storage that isn't even planned yet while at the same time increasing electricity demand by 400%? Yea sure that will get done in 30 years, no problem.

The climate doomers always insist that the extinction event will be caused by climate change destroying food supply. But crops can be bred, new areas can be cultivated and ressource use reduced. The fact that 6 billion of us only exists thanks to chemical fertilizer, mechanized agriculture and amazing seed variants is not open to argument though.

[zarzavat]

A “wet bulb event” is not just a heatwave. A heatwave is a sustained period of high temperatures. You can protect yourself from a heatwave by staying indoors, using a fan, drinking water, etc.

A wet bulb event is a period of complete local inhabitability due to the temperature/humidity rising above the threshold where the human body can cool itself by sweating. These events are so far almost unheard of.

Anyone who is in the affected area during such an event would only survive if they had air conditioning and uninterrupted power. Anybody without AC would die, unless they found some non-evaporative way to cool themselves.

It’s the most terrifying natural disaster conceivable.

[NotMichaelBay]

> Anybody without AC would die

Couldn't you just eat ice to keep cool? Heat from blood transfers to the ice as it melts and warms in the stomach, then it leaves the body completely through urination.

[aidenn0]

Yes, consuming below-ambient liquids can cool you off. This will likely involve some form of refrigeration.

Similarly you could put a giant block of ice in front of a fan and sit there; most people would call this a from of AC though.

[sokoloff]

Indeed, we even still colloquially quote/measure the cooling capacity of air conditioning in "tons".

A ton of cooling being defined as 12000 BTU/hr, or the rate implied by the latent heat of fusion of 1 ton of ice at 0°C being consumed via melting over 24 hours.

[p1mrx]

> Anyone who is in the affected area during such an event would only survive if they had air conditioning and uninterrupted power.

Could you survive in a basement?

[aidenn0]

The really short answer: If the wet-bulb temperature in your basement is sufficiently low, then yes. Otherwise no.

Note that for a small poorly-ventilated basement, the humidity will rise from respiration, thus increasing the wet-bulb temperature. For a well-ventilated basement, the air temperature will approach the outdoor temperature, thus increasing the wet-bulb temperature.

If you have a giant, well-shaded, pool of water, the water temperature will usually be below the peak air temperature (water has high thermal mass, so it will take a long time for it to come up to the ambient temperature, even at high humidity, where evaporation effects are negligible) so that's another non-AC method of staying cool.

In any event pools of water and basements don't scale to densely populated areas.

[ChatGTP]

Or in a river ?

[dredmorbius]

It would of course depend on the river and its own temperature.

Keep in mind that we're now seeing sea surface temperatures above 38°C (100°F).

If the river itself is slow-moving and is in an area of prolonged heat, it will also be warm.

The areas most prone to high temperatures often also have little surface water, or at least, not enough to shelter all persons affected.

Water refuges being too warm for human survival is an early plot point in Kim Stanley Robinson's Ministry for the Future.

[p1mrx]

It's a lot easier to build a basement than a river.

[ChatGTP]

I was actually serious ?

[jmcqk6]

> In my experience the issue is not about taking it seriously, I've rarely met someone totally unconcerned in real life.

The Republican Party just held their first primary debate among the presidential candidates. They were asked about climate change and only one of them was willing to recognize it as a problem, and my understanding is that she directed action towards China and India. The candidate leading the pack, Trump, was not present, but has called Climate Change a Chinese hoax.

If you are not encountering people like this in real life, you are living in a bubble yourself.

[ryandrake]

Anecdote: None of my conservative-leaning acquaintances believe that Climate Change is even a top-20 problem, let alone something that requires urgent nationwide or worldwide action. I believe the filter bubble is real.