Extreme Heat conference cancelled due to extreme heat warning
lse.ac.uk290 points by rendx 6 hours ago
290 points by rendx 6 hours ago
Europeans don’t get scolded enough for their resistance to air conditioning. In terms of accounting for preventable deaths, Greece has 2x more heat-related deaths per capita annually than Mississippi has gun deaths.
By comparison, the worst US state for heat related deaths, Nevada - a literal desert - has >10x fewer deaths per capita than Greece.
Well yeah, because it requires re-engineering the entire built environment!
Heat waves only became a serious problem in Europe in the last decade. The vast majority of buildings predate the need for air conditioning by several decades - and in plenty of cases by several centuries. The buildings are designed around being livable in a pre-climate-catastrophe climate without needing air conditioning - which is perfectly achievable if you aren't stupid enough to build a city in the middle of a desert.
Adapting all those buildings and streets will take time. Blindly putting AC everywhere and forcing everyone to drive from building to building in an ACed car isn't going to work, that kind of wasteful behavior is how we got into this situation in the first place. You need to redesign the heat management, and you need to start with things like mandating shades to prevent heat from entering buildings in the first place, and planting trees to avoid the heat island effect.
AC will indeed be needed to deal with the final heat peak when outside night temperature is in excess of 30C, but it isn't the one-size-fits-all solution for every heat-related problem it might seem at first glance. If your AC needs to run for more than a few days per year, you've seriously screwed up.
An AC unit essentially requires just a small hole in the wall and a bracket to hold the compressor unit. Europeans have walls don't they? I'm European and I have a wall that could host an AC unit. The barrier is regulatory not engineering.
By all means install an AC unit to deal with the worst of it. Just install shades as well when you've got the scaffolding out so you can install a smaller, cheaper, and less energy-hungry one.
Unfortunately I personally live in a highrise, and in a rental unit, so that "small hole and a bracket" definitely isn't an option for everyone.
Is this actually illegal in many places? I proposed this to my parents in Germany and they seemed to be under the impression that they could install one but their village is getting a village-wide heat pump system this fall that can also cool in summer, so they are just sitting this summer out as is.
I highly doubt there are many (if any) places with "installing any kind of AC is illegal" laws.
On the other hand, there are plenty of noise-related laws preventing you from installing an AC loud enough to be a nuisance for your neighbors. But that's solved by getting one with proper sound isolation, or placing it in such a way that the noise doesn't travel to the neighboring properties.
Similarly, you aren't allowed to install an AC on the facade of a protected historical building. But that can be solved by installing it on the rear of the building (where it is invisible), or by placing the unit itself indoors and using hidden air vents.
There's also the issue of landlords and HoAs banning you from making modifications, but that's not really a matter of legality.
This is completely ridiculous you just need to let people use AC properly and it will solve most of the problem with people dying. That doesn’t mean you need to go from place to place in AC or never be out of AC, but every person in southern Europe should have an AC unit in their bedroom and deaths will go down substantially.
Another thing that would help is if Europe stopped being so averse to new construction so that people could build new buildings with central AC that matches the current reality of its climate and demographics, rather than the climate and demographics of last millennium.
> you just need to let people use AC properly (..) every person in southern Europe should have an AC unit in their bedroom and deaths will go down substantially.
Yes, exactly: install AC where it truly helps and where it is truly needed. That's the point I was trying to make. Most of the rest is solved far more efficient by things like installing shades. In other words: don't go all-out on giant whole-home AC without first stopping the huge inflow of new heat.
> if Europe stopped being so averse to new construction
We're not, there's plenty of new construction over in Europe.
The difference is that European buildings are built to last, so structurally there's no need to tear them down after a couple of decades. They are perfectly usable for another half-century after a minor renovation (including retrofitting AC!), so why destroy a charming historic district for absolutely no reason?
That doesn't mean buildings are never torn down, of course. Right now a lot of post-WWII rental units are being replaced by new construction, as they are architecturally nothing special and renovating them to modern standards is simply way more expensive than replacing them entirely.
> "Another thing that would help is if Europe..."
Europe is a continent with a lot of different countries, all with different laws and regulations. Even the ones who are in the European Union have different rules and regulations.
So please realize that any blanket statements about Europe work as well as making one about the Americas (ie North/South).
Even now planners are forcing people to build horrible ovens that make no accounting for heat. The planners in Ireland laughed when I talked about over heating in our self built house due to lack of eaves.
> Blindly putting AC everywhere
... actually works just fine. How do you think mass AC adoption in the US happened? Window units work just fine. Fancy splits and central ducting can come later.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.
Look at the population graph of a city like Las Vegas. It basically didn't exist before the invention of AC.
Window units don't work in most of Europe because our windows aren't compatible with them. If they were, I would have one.
And again, it doesn't solve the core cause. If you want to cool down your home, your first step should be to stop heat from entering. If you can get the same result from €900 of shades and €100 of AC as from €1000 of AC, you'd have to be stupid to go for an energy-guzzling AC-only approach.
I was under the same impression about window units till recently as well. However, I learned that there are units with hoses and foam seals that just require to put the window on tilt and then the hose goes out at the top and the surrounding area is sealed with the foam. Not as good as a minisplit but it works and is DIY.
This might sound ridiculous to you but in the U.K. we generally don’t have tilting windows. They are really common in Germany though.
Wouldn’t someone that has to pay for an AC’s power bill be more aware of the cost-benefit analysis of energy efficiency over someone that doesn’t?
You know what is worse than sweltering under a heatwave?
To hear Americans jump at the chance to comment about Europeans and their AC usage. Jesus it’s like they have found their little pet peeve to vent all their frustration towards. Perhaps because we grumble every week there’s a school shooting and you feel you have to take petty revenge somehow. Every thread on social media is Americans whining about ACs in Europe, or lack thereof.
Don’t you guys have anything better to do than feel superior because most of us simply cannot have AC, for one reason or another? Meanwhile you have voted for a president that says climate change is a hoax and is investing in coal, for Heaven’s sake, and still here you are, gloating.
If I could have installed an AC unit where I live, I bloody would have.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I haven’t had a good nights sleep in a week, and won’t for another week.
> us simply cannot have AC
Im really curious how this works. Do standalone units not exist?
Same question. Electricity and logistics are really the only physical barriers. With solar and a single mini split couldn't you essentially prevent heat death with some very high probability?
Freezing to death in winter should be a harder problem at this point right?
Electricity and logistics solve the heating just as well. You can use the same device if you want to. Heat pump is just an AC run in reverse, literally all you need is a little valve to reverse the flow.
The numbers don’t lie.
They do. Heat related deaths are reported differently
Isn't it that European numbers show excess deaths whereas US numbers are for cases where it was officially recorded as a heat death?
You know fans are a thing, right? Buy a good column fan, place close to legs or torso. Both the noise and evaporation cooling will help tremendously.
> To hear Americans jump at the chance to comment about Europeans and their AC usage
A lot of Americans would be indifferent if it wasn't for Europeans (mostly Germans ime - Southern, Central, and Eastern Europeans are indifferent to supportive) who often try to act all superior about not using ACs or heat pumps because they supposedly "cause colds" or are somehow "unnatural" or try to make it a moral action despite a large portion of Americans using GreenTech to subsidize AC spend.
TBH, a lot of distaste Americans have for "Europeans" is basically a distaste for DACH residents weird sense of superiority (especially racial - you guys don't realize it but you tend to treat Black, Asian, and Hispanic Americans negatively until we wave our passport and Amex Gold/Plat). Most other Europeans are much more pleasant to be around with.
I think USA'n suffers more from discomfort than European, and the gp comment is an attempt at explaining that.
this is also my experience as a north American, sweating is a no-go and they clutch AC at 18C.
What’s worse are Europeans that kowtow to their politicians and suffer for no reason whatsoever.
You can install an AC if you get the right politicians in that will change the laws. If you don’t have AC it’s your own fault.
Sorry what? There's no reason that you can't install AC in your home/office in Europe, and many are doing so. It just hasn't been needed very much til recently.
There is, unfortunately. You cannot install AC, with an outside unit, without approval of your landlord. Lots of people are renting, e.g in Germany. Of course, one can get an indoor unit an seal the window. But it is heavy and takes up a lot of space in a small urban rental..
There's no European law against AC. It's just expensive energy because it's got carbon taxes in it.
There are atleast some restrictions in localities I.e. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/12/portof... or parts of Portugal.
Also at a certain point if you ban or heavily restrict energy production to the point that no one can afford to run AC, it is a de facto ban.
Genuine question: Do we have data that collaborates the theory that AC's prevent heat deaths and it's not due to confounding variables like the air in Nevada being dryer (dry heat is more bearable than wet heat) or the people in Nevada having year round higher temperatures and just being more acclimated?
Has been on my "to research" list for a while. I agree with you that Europeans should stop being so stingy with AC (speaking as an European who still hasn't an AC, but not much longer), but I do wonder how much they actually do to prevent heat deaths.
Because, how many heat deaths happen at home where people would potentially have AC? As far as I can tell (pre researching it) most, if not all, heat deaths I am aware of, happen outside. So the question would be: What is the effect of having a cool 22C home in regards to suffering heat deaths outside. Does it make it better, because your body can cool down? Does it maybe make it worse, because you step into a harsh difference when leaving it? (The last one is probably an easy no, since plenty of countries with high AC rate don't seem to have that issue).
(Or just general damages from heat, not just heat deaths)
The most bizarre thing to me is that here in the Netherlands I can get a subsidy for a heat pump if it heats radiators, but not if it’s a multi split air to air heat pump. Because the latter also happens to be an air conditioner. It makes no sense.
And then the same people who moralise air conditioning will burn tons of gas all winter for heat.
Oh, and sensible design choices like eaves that block light from windows in summer are blocked by planners in many cases, bizarrely. The houses are brick ovens.
Anyway I got AC installed here in Utrecht last week, really enjoying it
The US is generally much closer to the equator and warmer than Europe, hence air conditioning has been a requirement for much longer.
https://vividmaps.com/comparing-latitude-of-europe-and-ameri...
US states like Texas and Florida have no latitude equivalent in Europe. Los Angeles is farther south than all of Spain.
At the same time, the UK, much of Germany, and Poland are farther north than any state in the US lower 48.
And yet, even here in Oregon many of my coworkers only got window AC units during a heat wave a few years ago. But let's not break the narrative of all US vs all of Europe.
Heat related deaths predominantly kill the elderly. That may save lives overall because of their voting behavior leading to more deaths.
Living in London and Dublin, what I've observed is that we get the following contradictory statements:
- "We don't need AC, It's only hot a few times during the year." - "Oh what a terrible heat, global warming is getting worse every year."
Pair to that the fact that in many places windows don't open all the way due to bureocratic regulations and many interior designs are very questionable in terms of air flow and you get some unpleasant scenarios.
Northern Europe will actually get colder with global warming... Well, only on average, the heat waves in the summer will stay.
But it's always funny how many people don't really realize how soon the AMOC will likely collapse (probably within the next 30 years - definitely within the next 70 years) and just unlivable most houses will consequently become, as what we currently consider an extreme winter would consequently become a mild one... The infrastructure just hasn't been built for -20°C
The Day After Tomorrow (2004) predicted this.
It's not a good movie though, the entertainment value may be debatable - but it did not give a realistic scenario to the AMOC collapse.
It's only slightly related insofar an amoc collapse would make winters in Europe more severe (not in USA) - but it's only "inspired by" such a scenario and should not be seen as a plausible future prediction
It seems like a bidirectional heat pump would be a good solution, since the same device can be used to heat the building when it's cold. And a lot of europe (including the mentioned UK and Greece) don't often get cold enough that a heat pump is inefficient.
The uk gets cold enough that a air to water heatpump is a better heating solution.
For the wind out ones with the chain at the bottom, you can open up the box and remove the limiter that stops it opening all the way. They make the same opener for ground level and highrises with just a limiter keeping it mostly closed when installed high up.
TIL there will be 35 degrees Celsius in London today. I thought that basically never happens. I remember people telling me a few years ago that they are lucky to ever get 30 degrees.
I live in Las Vegas and one year at the start of summer my AC went out. It took a week to order the part needed and make the fix. I lived out of casinos for that week (using HotelTonight to get a different place each night) and it was pretty fun. I gained 10lbs. That said, AC's are a necessity out here.
I live a few hours outside Las Vegas and it's a lot more survivable than you would think given primitive technology and some knowledge.
I have one of those portable evaporative coolers and they don't need much power (50-100W). I have one and measured ~110F input and 78F on the output side using nothing more than water and a fan, pretty remarkable. The trick is staying out of direct sunlight, and the body can cool itself well with the same mechanism. Sweating is extremely effective due to the low humidity.
I'd probably invest in a secondary AC and a generator/battery to power it. That heat is brutal.
Absolutely. In the northeast US we have triple redundancy on heat, because it’s potentially life-threatening to have the heat go out in a blizzard with subzero temps. I’d treat cooling redundancy as similarly important in Nevada, especially if not very mobile.
US citizens don’t get scolded enough for having elected (twice!) a president who denies human-induced global warming.
AC would not be so much needed if we started reducing pollution and greenhouse gases.
Air conditioning only works for things inside of buildings. Not so good for the plants and animals our lives depend on.
And it raises the heat outside of buildings. Not so good for people who have to be outside, think first responders etc.
"just turn on the AC and keep burning the world down" isn't really the answer.
>And it raises the heat outside of buildings.
No it doesn't. Seriously, where does this meme even come from? It should be pretty obvious just from a solar insolation map that AC is just noise vs the sun. The energy usage is tiny vs vehicles or non-heat pump heating and only electric. What changes temperature overall is the balance of thermal retention by the atmosphere vs radiation into space, hence why net increases in GHG are so dangerous. And at the ground level similarly how heat is dumped to atmosphere. Greenery, whites, shade etc is good, asphalt, mass standard glass is bad (hence many cities being heat islands). Old, leaky units sure, we absolutely should work to reduce that. But it's astonishing how people claim AC makes the outdoors hotter so consistently.
This simulation claims otherwise (though I agree it's hard to believe):
> A significant degradation of external thermal comfort can also be seen in the simulations, as heat released by AC systems warms the outside air (see figure 3). The temperature increases due to AC depend on the time of day and on the characteristics of the heat wave, mainly its intensity. On average, the duration spent under high heat stress conditions in the streets is increased by about 20 min per day because of AC.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6a24#...
The way AC works is by transferring heat from one place (inside) to somewhere else (outside), and it takes energy to do this which produces even more heat, which is generally in the outside part of the AC system. This isn't something you can engineer away either, it's a result of the second law of thermodynamics.
Is that increase small compared to other things, like surfaces that absorb more solar radiation? Maybe. It depends on a lot of factors, but the amount it increases the heat of the outside is certainly non-zero.
The difference in ambient temperature due to air conditioning pumping heat outside is unmeasurably low. If all the power a city uses went to AC, it'd still be negligible compared with the sun irradiation on its surface.
Over the scale of an entire city, it might be negligable, I don't know, I haven't done the math. My guess would be it is measurable, but not a lot, probably less than a degree. But the GP said "no it doesn't" increase heat. I'm just saying that even if it is a very small amount, it does increase heat.
And if you stand near an AC unit, you can definitely feel heat coming from it.
You can reason it out (in a way that might make Fermi proud) pretty easily: a very large AC unit can be powered by a very small (relative) solar panel, where the solar panel is maybe 20% efficient. Thus, solar irradiation is substantially higher than AC power usage.
> No it doesn't.
Yes, it does. It may be small temperature increase but AC use increases outside temperatures. It is just physics.
Here is a simple diagram: https://www.lozierheatingcooling.com/filesimages/heatPump.jp...
This effect is temporary. Otherwise one could run their AC once for a few minutes and then it'd be cold inside your home for the rest of the year until you turn up heating.
In reality equilibrium is restored quickly (and the thermal mass we're cooling/heating here is insignificant anyhow).
That heat goes out into the world, it doesn’t just disappear
The house being cooled by aircon is within the same world as everything else is.
This doesn't mean that there's zero heat added locally (as many seem fond of suggesting): The compressors and circulation blowers and fans don't run for free, and every Joule of electricity they consume is ultimately converted to a Joule of heat in a process that wouldn't occur in the absence of aircon. That's not zero.
But in very broad strokes, it's not very significant. It's somewhat akin to running a refrigerator inside of a kitchen.
With aircon, the refrigerator is the size a whole house. That certainly sounds huge, and it is huge. But that refrigerated building is inside of a room that is the size of the Earth's atmosphere, which is very obviously vast in ways that kitchens simply are not.
It doesn't really matter. Millions of homes with aircon don't mean much when the atmosphere is millions of times bigger than they are.
Eventually radiates out into space ;-) It doesn’t disappear, but we don’t need to care much about infrared passing Alpha Centauri.
Eventually yes, perhaps. But first heat gets trapped in Earth's atmosphere, because pollution and greenhouse gases make it hard for it to dissipate into space. It's called global warming, and no - it's not a hoax.
Except we have an lot of greenhouse gases that are really good at reflecting that infrared back down to earth.
The process of moving heat from your house outside also creates excess heat, because no AC system is completely efficient (and it can't be because of the second law of thermodynamics).
Give a chart with actual numbers on the increase in temperature versus the sun. Not a diagram from an elementary science textbook on how air conditioners work.
I’m not debating that the sun is stronger heating source. I’m just saying air-conditioning increases climate change because it uses fossil fuels and also the law of thermodynamics dictates that he will be created in this instance.
Air conditioners don't need to use fossil fuels. Solar power and AC work really well together because peak solar energy is exactly when you need AC the most.
No heat is created either, that would explicitly violate the first law of thermodynamics. An air conditioner powered by solar energy (or anything solar powered) ends up releasing the exact same amount of "excess" heat as the sunlight would have if it hadn't been absorbed by the panels.
They don't always overlap well -- certainly, not exactly. Thermal lag is a thing, and it is promoted by increases in both insulation and mass.
As an example of thermal lag: My present home doesn't have aircon upstairs. I've got a room with a west-facing window up there, and I just happen to chart temperatures in that room.
The daily temperature peaks in that room during the warmer months tend to happen at night -- sometimes, as late as midnight. The daily temperature minimums tend to happen around noon.
This suggests that solar power is least-useful for that particular room when solar availability is greatest. It doesn't overlap very well at all.
(I'm still looking into installing fairly modest solar rig, though, just to help offset my own baseload when I can and maybe make extended power outages more survivable.)
> An air conditioner powered by solar energy (or anything solar powered) ends up releasing the exact same amount of "excess" heat as the sunlight would have if it hadn't been absorbed by the panels.
Sure. But solar panels are intentionally designed to absorb a lot of energy. So if you are putting the panels over a dark surface, like asphalt, you'll probably have a net zero effect on heat. If you put them over something light colored, you are now converting more visible light that would have been reflected into space into heat. To be clear, that is still a lot better than burning fossil fuels, but it isn't completely free either.
You gotta take entropy into account too. Sunshine is high grade energy, infrared is low grade. Reflecting high grade energy is a huge waste. You could even (in theory) run a solar powered space-ir-dumper and end up with net cooling of earth.
> I’m just saying air-conditioning increases climate change because it uses fossil fuels
It would actually be a much better global warming mitigation strategy to install bidirectional heat pumps (A/C in the summer, heat in the winter) that runs on electricity (which is increasingly produced using renewables) and then get rid of fossil-fuel burning furnaces.
> it’s just physics
> provides diagram with zero evidence that AC meaningfully influences temperature
Clap, clap.
It does on my balcony where the fan pumps to, which has made doing any gardening difficult, but to the overall outside temperature it's just a drop in the ocean.
Sure. And each car is just a drop in the ocean of CO2. And each plane flight. And smoking one cigarette.
Humans have a really hard time understanding compounding risk. But there are billions of us. How many billions of drops can you handwave away?
8 billion people running a 2000 watt AC continuously for 8 hours a day = 5 trillion watts of heat. (Only the electricity consumed by the AC is turned into new heat. The heat from inside the house would have moved outside anyway, at the same rate, since it's an equilibrium)
The sun = 175 quadrillion watts of heat.
So I would say, the heat from running ACs is not significant. It's also additive with all the other existing forms of energy use we have. Unlike greenhouse gases, which are multiplicative.
When you enact 0.1% changes through a population, that's still a 0.1% change.
"If we all do this little thing" thinking is utter nonsense. If all of human consumption or contribution to warming or what-have-you is 1000, applying a change that lowers that to 999 is not doing anything more than that.
This here is not even a 0.1% thing. You could probably get a better result by telling people to read ebooks rather than hardback. It's just absurd.
It is worth noting that if the Air Conditioner is powered by electricity that came from solar panels, the net heat produced compared to letting the sun heat solar panel colored ground is exactly 0.
Air Conditioners do not produce a net heating effect unless you power them by burning fossil fuels.
Not net zero exactly, since it’s a flows and rates problem, not static equilibrium. So it could even be strongly positive effect or negative effect based on how quickly the heat gets radiated back into space depending on how the wavelengths interact with the surroundings and the atmosphere.
Our current cities and infrastructure are designed to be black heat sinks to soak up heat and hold onto it and ground level. But there is research into what would happen if we flipped that design around.
> "just turn on the AC and keep burning the world down" isn't really the answer.
This is an outdated attitude. PV solar panel output correlates really well with air conditioning demand, no need for storage. Overcool your thick-walled masonry buildings during the day as a form of energy storage.
It's just a heat transfer. Refrigerant inside the evaporator picks up heat and transfers it to the condensing unit outside.
They don't create heat. It was there in the first place, just a different location.
Yes heat pumps move heat that already existed from the cold side to the hot side, but they also consume some energy to fight entropy, meaning they pump more heat to the hot side than they remove from the cold side. This is a net heat gain, equivalent to the energy consumed in running the AC. The value may be considered negligible compared to other sources, but it can still be on the order of 500w per room, which adds up quickly if everyone is doing it.
Of course air conditioning is reasonably well suited to be a solar load during peak hours, but in most parts of the world if everyone just installed AC units like are common in many parts of the US it would mean a huge amount of extra fossil fuels burnt.
They don’t create energy, but they do create heat. It’s entropy, can’t avoid it.
"just turn on the AC and keep burning the world down" isn't really the answer
It is, because we're not going to be here forever, so might as well make the best of it. Trying to stop entropy by making everyone's lives worse is ultimately futile, but a certain group of activists have certainly been trying...
That kind of thinking kills more people each year in Europe than guns do in the USA. Let that sink in.
It's not an apples to apples comparison. 80%+ of deaths because of heat in Europe are 65+ years old.
When you start handling that range you've to take into account that these people are going to die because of something, save a guy from heat here and that's an extra death because of cancer 4 years later.
Now I'm not saying it's a thing to be ignored, but be wary of playing quick and dirty with statistics.
So the stats say we need to encourage more guns and shooting deaths in the US...
Maybe Europe should sell guns to the states - ideally sold in €
I have a proposal to place a small, intelligent demon in every windowsill in the UK...
Weirdest argument to keep letting 100k grandmas die from heat every summer I’ve ever heard.
They're not saying dont do it, just that its not really a total solution
100k grandmas die from heat every summer because of our ignorance of climate change and a propaganda machine that denies that it is real.
Is this an argument to do nothing and let people die because there exist awful people in the world that want to profit from climate change? You can do walk and chew bubble gum in this fight.
Well, until recently Greece was struck by a savage “restructuring” and “reforms” package that left people without pensions or even chemotherapy when in need. I don’t think aircon is the priority for many of them
Absolutely this. Arrogance isn't going to hold against the sun. It's very stupid of EU to ignore the fact this is how hot it will be from now on, and 1000 year old dwellings using only windows to cool are no longer acceptable living standards.
> Arrogance isn't going to hold against the sun.
You mean against human-induced global warming.
Keep dying from the heat while the oligarchs live their lives in villas near expensive lakes.
The thing about rich people is their life is only possible by paying enough people to fight entropy. Robotics isn't advanced, and nobody rich is even close to being smart enough to be able to maintain equipment on their own.
No, I mean against the sun. Humans can try and engineer a way out of this in 100 years, but they can't stop the sun.
It's certainly legitimate to question the role of solar variability in climate change, and it's absolutely something that has been looked at seriously.
The consensus, with increasing solidarity, from the 1990s through until now is that the sun is much the same as it has ever been for the majority of modern human civilised life and has contributed minor amounts to the observed changes of the past century; those changes primarily driven by human caused change to the insulation properties of the atmosphere.
\1 Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts. The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged. The next crucial question was whether a rise in the Sun's activity could explain the global warming seen in the 20th century?
By the 1990s, there was a tentative answer: minor solar variations could indeed have been partly responsible for some past fluctuations... but future warming from the rise in greenhouse gases far outweighed any solar effects.
\2 Couldn't the Sun be the cause of global warming?
If the Sun were to intensify its energy output then, yes, it would warm our world. Indeed, sunspot data indicate there was a small increase in the amount of incoming sunlight between the late 1800s and the mid-1900s that experts estimate contributed to at most up to 0.1°C of the 1.0°C (1.8°F) of warming observed since the pre-industrial era.
However, there has been no significant net change in the Sun’s energy output from the late 1970s to the present, which is when we have observed the most rapid global warming.
\3 The Basics of Climate Change: https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/Sure the sun is a proximal cause…
But are you really going to tell me that you me that tho evidence that temperatures are getting warmer is bunk? For starters check out the top diagram here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#
Would you argue against the physics of greenhouse gases? https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-pinpoint-the-quant...
Are you too young to have noticed climate changes over time in your life?
Edit: And the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphe...
The sun is the source of global warming and has been since the Precambrian. No, I would not argue against the science of the greenhouse effect and I'm older than you are. What are you even trying to state?
This is an uncharitable take on the original comment which literally said:
> the fact this is how hot it will be from now on
That sounds to me like an acknowledgement that, in fact, the climate has changed.
"Climate Change" is a term loaded with implication that humans are solely responsible
> But are you really going to tell me that you me that tho evidence that temperatures are getting warmer is bunk?
It's not bunk but there is a lot of lying by omission and lying with statistics. In the worst cases politicians use Climate Change to make very specific and incorrect predictions that aren't substantiated by the science (i.e. the ridiculous prediction that the polar ice cap would melt by 2014).
You can just pick up a book or an old newspaper to realize that hot weather has happened before. I live right outside the hottest place on the planet Earth and nearby Death Valley recorded 134F (57C) in 1913.
> hot weather has happened before
Obviously, which is why it is called climate change. It doesn't mean "there were no hot day ever before", it means "there will be way more hotter days, and on average they will be significantly hotter".
Pick up any recent newspaper and look at the number of "hottest month X in recorded history" articles, or "once-a-decade heat waves happening 4 years in a row" ones. That's climate change.
> the ridiculous prediction that the polar ice cap would melt by 2014
Have you tried going skiing recently? Where did the glaciers go?
Pick up any recent newspaper and look at the number of "hottest month X in recorded history" articles
Those are always lying. They didn't look far back enough, because that would require a lot more effort than they're willing to; or actually, one should wonder whether they're deliberately being manipulative.
Agree
Especially as air conditioning are heat pumps.
Would have helped solve the large dependency on natural gas heating for free as a byproduct!
In the UK my understanding is there are large subsidies for installing heat pumps in new builds - but you lose the subsidy if you include the cooling part.
NB: a friend in construction explained this to me so I could be wrong but it would explain why even pretty fancy new apartments with heat pumps have no cooling.
Same in France. The trick is to wait for a control visit, and then turn on the cooling.
>resistance to air conditioning
Where is this meme coming from? I'm in Poland atm. Half of my neighbours have aircon. I dont just because I'm on the ground floor and the max temp is 25.5C Every new apartament building is build with holes ready for AC.
I think it's more that air conditioning is (currently) prohibitively expensive. The few people I know that have it spent several thousands of euros on their installations. That's not something most people have lying around.
You'd think the government could subsidize aircon like they did solar for years, and both of those things combined would translate to very pleasant summers spent in energy neutral air conditioned homes.
It's strange what people think is expensive. Double glazing is very expensive but no one in Europe would go without it. Aircon is not expensive within the context of a house's construction costs.
Double glazing safes heating and cooling cost though. A large part of the cultural difference and willingness to spend on AC comes from the fact that central Europe only in recent decades got so hot.
Of course thinking a cold is caused by being cold doesn't help either...
>> Double glazing is very expensive but no one in Europe would go without it.
This isn’t true. I’ve lived in 3 places in London with single glazing. They’re surprisingly common. All new properties come with it but the majority of our housing stock is old.
There’s also little comparison between air con and double glazing. One will be helpful for 4-6 months of the year and reduce my energy bills. The other will be necessary at most 1-2 weeks a year and will cost me thousands of pounds up front. Most people simply can’t afford that.
Unless the aircon is a heat pump, in which case it’s also useful in the winter, it’s more efficient and carbon neutral if your electricity grid is decarbonised.
If most people can’t afford a heat pump, why do we entertain the idea of making them pay an order of magnitude more to better insulate their home, which doesn’t even work in the end?
You’ve been misinformed by European media. Please do your research, it’s all online.
I don't think you have any conception of how little money most people have. Why would I spend £15-20k I don't have on a heat pump so I can get 'free' air con when my house is already heated via another method? Most people don't have £500 spare for a portable air con unit.
On top of that, until a few months ago, government subsidies for heat pumps didn't apply to the versions that include air con so anyone who did get a heat pump didn't get that version.
>> why do we entertain the idea of making them pay an order of magnitude more to better insulate their home
We don't. There have been various schemes over the last couple of decades where people could have this done for free or at very low cost.
>> You’ve been misinformed by European media. Please do your research, it’s all online.
I suggest you do the same.
Something needs to be done with the heat. The common euro talking point: aircon doesn’t solve the problem, let’s insulate instead (an order of magnitude more expensive). Apparently you entertain an even more absurd idea: let’s just do nothing, because everyone is too poor. That’s just wrong, plenty of home owners or real estate owners have the means to foot the bills, especially if regulation mandates or subsidises heat pumps.
Besides that, just know you’re participating in a system of belief that needlessly kills thousands each year (and many more to come, if you believe as I hope that climate change is real). Just dwell on it a little. Thousands dead because of ideological comfort and resistance to change, which in and of itself is a weird form of climate skepticism.
If you answer this, please address each of my points from both comments. You have adressed none so far.
You don't need to get central A/C or mini splits. You can use an efficient Window unit (not those single ducted portable units that are just barely better than nothing. if portable do dual ducted for efficiency) Those window units are available at Walmart in the US for a couple hundred apiece. Presumably hypermarts like Carrefour would carry them or some places that serve home improvement.
For some reason it's very hard to find window units for sale in the UK, single-duct portables are the only thing available for cheap (although it's a fairly easy mod to convert one to dual-duct).
Probably because the UK - similar to most of Europe - does not use the US vertically sliding sash window type, does it? The typical "walmart window AC" does just not really exist in (most of) Europe, because the windows for it don't exist, afaik.
Edit: Turns out, sash windows are more commonly found in the UK (compared to other European countries), but still not as common as in the US. So, UK = not as hot (so far), thus still probably not worth it (yet) as a market.
Why are the windows different, actually? They don't seem to be smaller overall, just skinnier and taller?
But you should still be able to get two tubes fitted into any kind of window with the right seals. If you were really up for renovations you could get closeable exhaust holes punched through your brick or something maybe.
Living in the US I honestly miss the German windows that swing open. You can open the entire window whereas sliding windows can only ever open halfway.
I also sometimes miss being able to stick my head out the window but that's a tradeoff about screens and in the end of the day I prefer not to have to worry about bugs.
Sash windows are just not as common. Seems like they are in the UK somewhat, though numbers I found vary, but overall in Europe they're pretty uncommon.
And yes, there are options for tubes/ducts for the more common window types. Like tilt-and-turn windows, horizontally sliding or all the other kinds of inward or outward opening windows - but most of them are the ducted portable units the original comment was speaking of, which aren't great. There are also some better portable split units, but those are pricier and the install is not as easy. (They're great though.)
one issue with tilt and turn is getting window screens for them. It's possible but mostly they get installed on the inside if you have the proper wall spacing that allows window to function without interfering with the screen. mini splits are great but it's much more money than a simple window unit or portable unit.
Efficient window unit?
Best of the best is about 15-16 SEER
That's entry level central HVAC efficiency
Minisplits are far higher, 20+
If I don't have $30K to $50K to invest in an HVAC for the home, the next best is a relatively efficient Window unit that costs low hundreds and will help me stay alive in the heat. However enticing the price of a single duct portable unit is, do not buy it. It's a complete waste. If you go portable, go with the dual ducted one --but it's still not as good as a Window unit (which I would hope is obviously less efficient than a properly specced HVAC unit.
> It's a complete waste.
That's completely false. They work just fine despite not being terribly efficient at least provided you install them correctly (but that caveat naturally applies to any window unit).
In fact despite the low efficiency using only one in a single room is likely far cheaper than cooling the entire house. It's the same principle as an electric space heater versus a whole home heat pump.
Of course running a minisplit only in the one room would be substantially better but for a 1 kW unit the difference is less than $1 per day (unless you're subject to the California electric grid I guess).
You can do a perfectly good, very efficient mini split for USD $5k. Avoids the leaks of window of portable units. And if you're feeling fancy you can get it as a cold climate heat pump. They're great options for retrofitting - can do multiple indoor air handlers, etc., for far less than $50k
I’m extremely happy with my single duct unit for cooling my bedroom in Berlin for the 3-6 weeks a year it is required.
You don't even need an expensive AC. If you can't afford one, you can just get an evaporative cooler[1] for $100 or lesser[2]. Possibly even cheaper if you don't mind buying a second-hand unit.
Those really only work in very dry climates. So some of Europe, but not places like the UK where the conference was cancelled.
The main reason high heat causes issues in Europe is due to the high humidity, so you can't get rid of body heat as your sweat won't evaporate. It's why 35C in the shade might be perfectly fine in Nevada but absolute hell in the UK.
For exactly the same reason an evaporative cooler isn't going to work: there's no "space" in the air for the water to evaporate into.
Went to Germany during the recent heat wave and few of the public buildings and none of the private ones had AC. I found the whole endeavor much more very stressful because of the heat.
As a European I agree, at least for Western Europe.
It's not just the resistance but the price. There is tremendous price gouging in the AC industry. The real cost of a mini split system is the low hundreds of dollars but good luck finding one for that price in Europe. If it were regulated as a life critical technology and not as a luxury then it could be substantially cheaper.
Low thousands (or very high hundreds), perhaps. It’s still one fairly heavy outdoor unit, a moderately bulky indoor unit, insulated pipes and control wires between, a circuit (wiring and an overcurrent device) and a disconnect, and a couple hours of labor from two tradespeople.
That’s unlikely to be sustainable for an out of pocket of a low hundreds figure.
Are you echoing rants from Levels? He has a point but the death rate stats he posts comparing US to EU are bogus, incomparable measures. These places record heat related deaths differently which accounts for a large part of the difference. If you have better sources on this than he does, please share.
I thought the Europe number was even just excess deaths and not recorded hear deaths at all whereas the US number was only officially recorded heat deaths.
Do you think there is a correlation between air conditioning and climate change denial?
I wouldn't be surprised.
There are people who think it's a good idea to aircondition service station forecourts. I find the irony of the situation tragically absurd. There's a little of that in the comment you are responding to.
I don't mean to pick on an irrelevant detail, but I genuinely don't know how to parse ">10x fewer deaths per capita." Does it mean "fewer than 1/10 as many deaths per capita," i.e., the ratio (heat related deaths in Nevada per capita)/(heat related deaths in Greece per capita) is less than 1/10?
I completely agree. Historically AC has not been necessary for the one to two days a year it was needed, but that world is gone now and the situation has changed and the widespread adoption of AC is now necessary.
Its going to be a huge challenge because the buildings are not designed with that in mind, many buildings are hundreds of years old making these sorts of renovations notoriously difficult and expensive, but it has to start because climate change is only going to get worse and worse.
Is it that hard to drill an 8cm hole to run some refrigerant pipes through the wall?
Yes!
Most of Europe has a "registered building" system, where buildings above a certain age are considered historic. Renovating those buildings is an extremely difficult, expensive, and bureaucratic process. You generally need to preserve the period-appropriate look and materials. An AC unit sticking out of a wall won't pass muster.
Even newer buildings are problematic. an acquaintance of mine lives in an upper-middle-class apartment complex that was finished two or three years ago, and their architect has some claim in the contract that prevents residents from installing AC units to "preserve the building's unique look."
The US is build around privately-owned housing (and hence creature comforts) a lot more than we are, so AC is a lot easier to implement there.
>Most of Europe has a "registered building" system, where buildings above a certain age are considered historic.
It feels weird to have to mention this, but although there are a lot of historical buildings in Europe, it's not the norm.
Population grows. There was a noteworthy war not that long ago. The vast majority of buildings are not that old.
If you rent the place and your landlord doesn’t want it you’re out of luck. If you own the place and your neighbors don’t like the noise of your AC you’re out of luck too. If your building is one of the many buildings protected for historic reasons only God can help you.
That's not the only thing required to properly install an ac unit. Do you genuinely believe people die rather that drill a hole? Lile that's the blocker? What a weird take
So you are saying temperature has risen enough to warrant an AC now? Due to climate change? I thought climate change was on aggregate ~1C difference but my data is a decade old the last time i looked into it
Pretty easy to look this stuff up rather than depend on decade old memory. Temperature in Europe is rising much faster than the worldwide average. Here it says +2.3C by 2022 - that is significant.
The relevant data is number of days per year with temperature above X degrees. That number has risen quite a bit over the last decades.
The average temperature across the entire globe averaged over a year does not mean that each day is subject to the exact average added to it.
Global warming intensifies differences in weather patterns. Hotter hots, colder colds, more intense storms, etc.
Seeing as it's so commonly misunderstood I wonder if "catastrophic climate variance" wouldn't have been a better term in hindsight.
I'm not sure a more complicated term would prevent people who don't want to understand the issue from finding new ways to not understand it.
People don't know what variance is.
Most people have an intuitive understanding of what an average is, but "distance from the average" is mystifying to them.
Ok fine I hear you, in that case how about catastrophic climate chaos? It's even alliterative.
And if you're trying to sell the public on the numbers of what's concerning, those numbers should be able to communicate the changes they expect.
"This number is small but it means BAD THINGS" isn't a very good message
In the UK and other European locations maybe this is related to some of the highest electricity costs in the world.
There are practical reasons why it isn’t widespread:
1. Energy is very expensive relative to the U.S. 2. Houses are old old and retrofitting air conditioning is very difficult 3. Houses are more than 1 story with many small rooms making portable and window mounted units unsuitable for a whole house
All modern apartment buildings in London are built with air conditioning because a central air system and district power make it cost efficient.
If you visit a hot place like Dubai or Bangkok, there are endless indoor malls with air conditioning that serve as a place to shop and a third space. Much of Europe doesn’t have that.
The U.S. specifically is also very car-centric. You walk out of your air conditioned house into your air conditioned car and drive to your air conditioned mall. Much of Europe… isn’t. People walk, you can’t avoid the heat.
Yes, certainly, there is a cultural resistance to air conditioning but adding air conditioning to homes isn’t going to stop people dying, homes are the least consequential part of heat in day to day life. Health advice in a heatwave is pretty much: don't go outside.
Some buildings in Southern Europe have thick as hell walls which isolate from both heat and cold (the North can be really chilly near the Atlantic, and freezing away from the Mediterranean).
That's a misconception. They are poor insulators, but they moderate temperature well. If the temperature outside is cold but sunny, the walls absorb heat from the sun during the day and retain it during the night. However, when you require heat input (cloudy days, average temperature less than desired interior temperature), the stone conducts it very well to the outside and you need much more power input than even crappy US stick-built houses with R-15 insulation. It's just that Southern Europe's climate is usually so mild it doesn't seem like it's more comfortable, but this situation demonstrates its inferiority well.
I think there's a bit of a definitional skew happening here. The data isn't that good around this stuff.
Heat as the primary factor, vs heat related deaths is significant.
Heat is a system stressor. There's plenty of people having heart attacks and dying from weight related issues that probably got pushed over the edge by a hot day in Nevada that are missed in official stats.
I can't imagine this is significant unless there is a demonstrated reporting bias between the US and Europe. Otherwise I'd assume it's a wash
There was a good More Or Less (uk radio programme) episode about this last week. Essentially, the European statistics on this tend to be based on excess mortality during hot periods, while US stats currently are much more about what words are used on death certificates. Very different measures and hard to compare.
You can compare modeled heat deaths across different countries, Western Europe is still significantly higher. Eg Figure 3C in https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7618246/
It doesn't affect life expectancy much, because most deaths are among the elderly (70% over 80 IIRC).
There is. In Texas, if a field worker has a heart attack on a hot day it’ll be reported as a heart attack.
In France, the same exact situation would be reported as a heat casualty leading to heart attack.
Had the US not used air conditioning so much we probably wouldn't have this heatwave right now.
Oh but what's the problem, just add more air conditioning! :facepalm:
> Had the US not used air conditioning so much we probably wouldn't have this heatwave right now.
Sure we would, since AC has nothing to do with it.
I think they’re arguing we’d be doing something about global warming instead of rage baiting each other from the comfort of our cool houses on social media while ignoring it, like we’re doing.
Well, not really ignoring it, more like making it worse while setting giant piles of bills on fire.
I don't know, for example... https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2024/08/28/air-conditionin...
But climate change is bullshit, right?
If we were more exposed to the hot weather with no way to escape it maybe we would actually do something about climate change.
By creating and artificial climate in all or our homes we are so disconnected from the world that we think technology will fix it.
Just wait fro the wildfires to blow up this week in the western US. AC will not help.
Five downvotes, the blindness of Americans about their lifestyle is dismaying.
Aicon is reasonable for areas where it's required, but "solving" things in areas where for millenia it wasnt required simply removes the pressure to act. This would be the opposite of what's required right now, which is decisive and heavy action on something we've been inactive on for way too long.
Letting people suffer to get political advantage isn't right, even if it's for a good cause.
We don’t need to make that choice, since collectively people inflict these things on themselves anyway. It’ll be interesting to see whether it leads to any sensible action. The cynical narrator in me says “it won’t.”
Nothing that European countries can do will remove the need for more air conditioning.
Americans don’t get scolded enough for their abuse of AC. In terms of accounting for preventable waste of energy, US guzzles more electricity on cooling than most countries do on everything else.
Are you going to also scold Americans for using heat in the winter?
Our continent has more extreme weather than Europe... we've adapted accordingly because we value human lives. Have you?
When you refuse to build climate-appropriate homes with things like isolation and instead guzzle giant amounts of fossil-powered energy to compensate for it? Yes. That's not adapting, that's brute-forcing.
AC is sorely lacking in the EU, e.g. right now I have one in my office but not in my bedroom and nights are horrible, but I do read a lot about people overdoing it quite a bit with AC, aiming at 18-20°C during 30s outside which is a huge energy expenditure when a healthy human should be perfectly fine at higher temperatures
Spain's continental climate has both subzero Winters and scorching Summers.
And they had 101 people die of heat-related issues last month. [1] 3,832 Spaniards died in 2025 alone from heat. In 2022, 4,789 died, the all-time high.
The entire United States had 2,325 heat-related deaths in 2023, which is the all-time high.
Do the math (US pop 340M vs Spain 49M) and it gets really ugly.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/spain-records-h...
Yes, but we’re at least not dying of sweat.
We do a lot of things wrong but AC isn’t one of them.
(Unless you’re in the PNW where they never needed it before recently, and somehow continue to build units without it)
Interesting, so that's the price you put on a life? And people say Americans are heartless capitalists.
"Abuse" -- what a BS term. It's used just as desired; how can that be "abuse"? Because we do what we want rather than what you want us to want?
I wonder what the global temperature rise would be right now if everyone in Europe had air conditioning since it was invented. Probably about half a degree hotter - so about two degrees total warming?
Depends on the countries, France has had low carbon electricity for a very long time.
That said F-gases would have been an issue, EU only recently banned them.
Also most of Europe truly didn't need AC for a long time, growing up temperature above 30C was exceptional and I didn't even know the term tropical night (nighttime temperature above 20C).
(Now that places are getting 10+ consecutive days above 30 with peaks close or above 40)
"Extreme Heat" seems to be 37-40 degrees Celsius which is bafflingly mundane to me as an Australian who grew up in rural New South Wales. We'd pack 30 kids and a teacher into an un-airconditioned classroom with just a ceiling fan and the windows open in that temperature.
I imagine the buildings there just aren't built to support that heat plus the body height of hundreds or thousands of attendees?
People tend to rely on air temperatures when in reality the lethality of heat is probably more linked to the wet-bulb temperature.
The human body has a natural resting temperature of about 37°C, and metabolism of course generates more heat constantly, so we constantly have to shed that heat. When the temperature is low, we can rely purely on conducting the heat into the atmosphere to shed the heat (which is probably why internal body temperature is higher than the atmosphere!). At higher temperatures, conduction is less efficient, or sometimes even adds heat load into the system (at above 37°C, obviously), so we start relying on evaporative cooling (i.e., sweat) to cool us down.
The wet-bulb temperature is the minimum temperature that can be reached by evaporative cooling. So when the wet-bulb temperature is in the mid-30s °C… people start to become literally unable to regulate their core body temperature, and the heat is lethal. Wet-bulb is largely a combination of the temperature and humidity, but unfortunately, it's not typically reported in most weather reports, so people go off of the air temperature (and the humidity) that is reported.
Which is a long-winded way of saying "the humidity matters a lot for how much a given temperature is bearable." I don't know what environment you come from purely by rural New South Wales, but my first guess is the semi-arid and thus low-humidity bush regions of the state, which means the apparent wet-bulb temperature of 37-40°C would be a lot lower than the equivalent 37-40°C for most of the humid continental climates of Europe.
Dew point is a much better measure of the oppressive, muggy, sweltering feeling than humidity. The dew point in Australia ranges in the 5ºc - 15ºc range at which 30ºc after sunset feels vastly different, way cooler than South East Asia where the dew point is constantly above 24ºc.
Looking just at ambient air temperature is an easy mistake to make. I used to be like that, always surprised why people whine so much near the coast in winter with their comfortable numbers and thinking I’m superhuman compared to them. I stopped when I learned first-hand that their negative 17 degrees feel as bad as our negative 30.
If you live in a town in New South Wales where the average humidity is less than 50% in the wettest (or, should I say, least dry) season, you might not understand what it feels like in London where the average doesn’t dip below 65% any time of year.
Today London will feel at least 4 degrees Celsius hotter than Hong Kong. The latter is already an extremely unpleasant place to be in these conditions (and had in fact its own very hot weather warning issued), and unlike London it has a very strong culture of air conditioning.
4 degrees might seem like not a lot, but heat extremes are a tricky beast. Once your body cannot evaporate heat fast enough, you’re literally toast.
Humidity makes a big difference in how stressful the temperature is (wet bulb temperature accounts for this somewhat). The age of the attendees and the tendency of the building to heat would also be factors.
I guess it's different if you are used to it. 40 degrees is absolutely not normal here. Even 35 is very unusual.
We need a humidity comparison to go with temperature.
I grew up in a humid city and summers were unbearable. Now I live in a dry climate and 30°C is pretty comfortable.
Temperature Humidity Index. Or as they now call it for normies, "feels like temperature"
Yeah we ve reached stupid levels of weather scare. France did have some extreme temperatures over 42, but 40 is a typical Mediterranean heat wave, not Armageddon
Euro buildings are built to keep heat in. Aus buildings are leaky tents.
That should actually help you also with AC: Keep the cold in, and reduce the electricity costs
For some reason they seem allergic to AC - see the rest of this thread.
COST. People don’t have the money to spend installing aircon to save themselves from a couple of weeks of discomfort per year.
I don’t get it. How much do AC units cost in EU? I can buy one for, like, $200-300.
and regulatory hurdles in many locations, you can't really install AC in many buildings because there's nowhere to put the external unit
At the point there is a noticeable mortality spike, it’s not just a few weeks of discomfort eh?
Still doesn’t solve the cost factor. If you don’t have the money you don’t have the money. And if you barely have the money you’re probably going to take the risk because the risk is still very low.
And that was after running around a semi-arid playground playing 'tips' or touch footy during recess and lunch!
No worries as they'd had their vegemite for brekkie providing all the salt they need to offset the constant sweat. None of this soft modern electrolyte bullshit, just beer dregs on toast.
40C in the Atlantic Spain with the Foehn effect (weather for today and tomorrow) would make 30C in Australia a joke.
The humidity here it's hell. You feel 35C like ~42C in dry climates.
A lot of it is acclimatization. In Taipei this morning, at 9:30 it’s already 31C and 73% humidity, forecasted to hit 37C by noon. My first year living here this was unbearable, but now it’s tolerable. It’s just summer, not a spurious heat wave.
How does the humidity in rural New South Wales compare to London?
Depends, In northern NSW, the heat it humid, in the south / west it's usually dry. It gets hot, like opening a oven door, but it's not a wet humid heat that kills you.
I imagine people who lived in the UK for generations have genes that are adapted to a more mild, cooler climate.
https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/fulltext/S0168-9525(20)...
[flagged]
I tolerate heat well, I feel very comfortable at 28C but I get cold easily. My sister is happy at 18C and starts overheating at 25C. Not everyone is the same.
I've always assumed there is some sort of "acclimation" period, maybe even related to the conditions you grew up in. I much would rather spend a time outside in -40c (with proper outerwear) than 40c. I'm relatively healthy but I feel like my body shuts down at anything above 36c
My understanding is that full heat acclimatization requires elevated core body temperature for 30-60 minutes a day for several weeks to really kick in and it’s easily lost during winter. Someone going largely from air conditioned to air conditioned building during the summer months may not even build up much of a passive acclimatization.
I don’t do as well in heat so for the summer hiking months in California I have to do a two week sauna or hot bath protocol, otherwise I struggle really badly during the season. YMMV of course.
Same. There definitely seem to be strong genetic factors (just based on my personal experience TBF). I also notice I adapt substantially after two to three weeks of consistent exposure. But it does have to be consistent - hiding out with AC 24/7 prevents it.
That’s because you pay attention to your body and you’re not in denial. Above 37 degrees, your body cannot regulate itself, and it starts being seriously uncomfortable before that. Going outside for a run when it’s 40 is unbelievably stupid.
Thousands will die, but one guy went jogging at 40 degrees outside so it’s okay.
the British are notoriously sensitive to heat. They'll call 30 Celsius weather a heat wave.
I'm from Portugal and I start losing it at 25. 30 degrees is insane.
Last summer my house got to 39, and I didn't have AC (it was broken). I think I'm still recovering.
I had 40 Celsius today at around 9pm. Middle of the night now and it’s 34. It’s as cool as it’s going to get before it starts heating up again tomorrow. Where I live there are no laws on max temperature in residential housing so the owner (I’m renting) doesn’t have to do anything about it. Never mind the poorly insulated, black slate roof (I’m on the last floor) or lack of AC (I’d have to foot the bill anyway).
That’s normal where I live in the Southeast US from late May to late September. Plus 60-99% humidity, I can see the air in the mornings.
There’s something about 85F/30C and 80%+ humidity that prevents the temp from going much higher for a longer period of time.
Yep, 9:30p here and it's 82F/80% humidity. Still pretty mild compared to the deep summer months (Jul/Aug)!
> Hosted in collaboration with the Zurich Climate Resilience Alliance.
Their climate resilience seems low.
> The event will finish with a fire side chat
Is this a prank?
A fire side chat does not mean there will be an actual fire
It's corpo speak for "a more casual discussion"
Reminds me of "dermatology convention in Hawaii": https://youtube.com/shorts/1uRxIe1dXGU
So calling for the conference and cancelling it raises awareness of extreme heat? Well played
Unlike all of the things referenced in the Alanis Morrisette song, this is actually ironic
This may be overly simplistic, but if we shut down the AMOC would that help Europe balance out the temps and solve its heat problems?
It'll be -20 Celsius in winter and +40 Celsius in summer and everyone will die in both seasons so yes, no more heat problem when everyone dies.
Apparently, NOT a theonion article
Recently - from YT recommended - I learned about Glauber's salt (sodium sulfate).
Glauber's salt is a PCM phase-change material that melts at 90F / 32.4C and starts absorbing thermal energy.
It's either terrible planning or the most persuasive presentation they’ve ever given.
[dead]
At first I thought it was just virtue signaling. But no, its the venue.
>Venue: LSE Shaw Library, Houghton St, Old Building, London
https://halls.lse.ac.uk/story/25006031/deal-with-the-uk-weat...
> LSE halls (like most houses in the country) don't have air conditioning, it can be quite suffocating.
I blame LSE. Uni should provide safe and comfortable environment for students.
> At first I thought it was just virtue signaling.
Maybe examine the reflex to dismiss out of hand without evidence?
Everyone should provide a safe and comfortable planet for everyone. Instead we said this is fine, as we literally set ourselves on fire, and then literally melted our faces off
Uni is just preparing the students for the realities of the real world =[