Will extremely high temperatures due to climate change actually make parts of the world unlivable

Great Debates
1

Ok so, to start the discussion I know climate change is a serious issue. We need to be investing far far more into fixing it, and continuing to burn fossil fuels and relying on dropping giant ice cubes in the ocean is not a long term solution. The root cause of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is the main problem and we need to transition to cleaner energy and ways to remove greenhouse gases.

Having said that…

My understanding is that peak temperatures in desert areas like the southwest or the middle east could go 20F higher by mid/late century. So temperatures may peak at 130-140F.

People say this is unlivable, and it is, without technology. Siberia is unlivable without technology too, but people live in -60F weather all the time due to technology both inside and outside the home.

So I’m wondering if technological advances will make it so people can continue to live in hot desert areas with climate change.

For example UV reflecting umbrellas, or radiation reflecting clothing, or misting spray (in low humidity environments). Various kinds of heat transfer can be done with conduction. phase change gels that are incorporated into vests that you wear against your skin, and it pulls heat away from your body. battery operated devices that use the peltier effect. cooling vests that cycle water against your skin. Places these against parts of the body where large amounts of heat are generated can lower core body temperature.

Also changing the schedule so people are working more in the evening and night time, and not mid day.

A person walking around during midday like normal in these temperature will obviously die. But so will someone walking around like normal in Alaska and siberia too. But we have a wide range of technologies to contain body heat in cold temperatures, so why can’t we use a wide range of technologies to remove body heat in hot temperatures?

I know about the wet bulb temp, and how humans can’t really survive in 100% humidity above 90-95F or so, or above 120-130F in 0% humidity.

I have no idea how this would play out in areas that are both hot and humid. If an area is 125F and 80% humidity, thats much less survivable than 10% humidity. But I have no idea if technologies like cooling gel vests, UV reflective clothes and umbrellas, peltier devices worn on the neck/forehead/hands, etc would lower core body temp enough to avoid heat stroke

2

In a word, yes. Read this: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance | Science Advances.

The problem with adapting a population, not just a few key workers, is that nobody can afford to treat all their populace like astronauts with fancy personal protective gear, extensive training, never-failing electricity supplies, etc.

The poor and elderly and stupid and ignorant will always be with us. And those folks can’t be adapted.

3

People can live underground, it’s cooler there. But then you have rising sea levels. In short, people will adapt or die, same as they always have.

But still it’s a worthy thought exercise. Please carry on, I don’t last long in these great debates, but do enjoy reading them.

4

Do you want to ignore the lowlands that will be under the ocean, and the water shortages? I guess with enough energy we can desalinate the ocean, but that takes a lot of money. And the submerged lowlands will surely be uninhabitable.

5

Certainly true.

I think the bigger issue is the global destabilization that can happen as a result. How many wars will start as populations move and seek the one most important resource on the planet that they simply and absolutely cannot live without? Trouble is ahead.

That is one reason (among others) I like living in Chicago. We will probably be the last place on the planet with fresh water (and a few other big cities like Detroit or Buffalo or Toronto or Milwaukee to name a few). I am old enough I will (thankfully) never see those days but it still amazes me how many people flock to places like Arizona with serious water problems ahead. Indeed, I read a story a couple years ago of an old woman who fell on the street during the summer in Phoenix, could not get up and suffered 2nd degree burns to her face while the lied on the pavement.

Why does anyone want to sign-up for that mess? I will take a Chicago winter over a Phoenix summer any day. As will my brother who moved back to Chicago a couple years ago after 30 years in Phoenix. He repeatedly says how much happier he is to have gotten out of that mess even though Chicago has its own problems (not temperature related).

6

Cold is vastly easier and simpler to deal with than heat. You just need insulation and a heat source.

7

Is that true? While the temperature/humidity may get unlivable for us in the mid Atlantic won’t that be associated with lots of fresh water coming in from the Atlantic?(as storms that might wipe us off the face of the earth, but still fresh water)

8

I don’t want to minimize the issue, but there were parts of the world that were unlivable, and there are currently parts that are unlivable. Those areas are only ‘livable’ with the proper application of technology. Its not going to be anything really different except there are going to be a lot more areas that are unlivable unless we apply technology and live there.

So, yes, it will make places unlivable (without technology); but it won’t be anything we haven’t been able to solve should we absolutely wish to live in 50 degrees C or flooded environments.

9

I’m sure that global warming will make parts of Canada easier to live in. There will be winners and losers.

But people (and other living things) are generally adapted to what they are used to. Rapid change causes disruption and death.

10

I really do not know except to say we have the Great Lakes right next to us. Which, I think, are the largest bodies of fresh water in the world except for Lake Baikal in Russia (which is nutso in volume). I have read the Great Lakes have 20% of all surface fresh water in the world. That’s a lot and would take a long time to dry-up.

Maybe there are better places (northern Canada leaps to mind) but for major cities near fresh water I am not sure there are many better placed than around the Great Lakes.

Also, Chicago is far enough north that extreme heat should not be unbearable. It may get warmer and not great but still tolerable.

11

Either that didn’t happen or I remembered it wrong (can’t find that case). Still, this is near enough when it comes to the heat to make the point:

12

Adopting mass changes in lifestyle are difficult, but if the alternative is to abandon entire cities and entire nations, that is an even less likely decision. If given the choice between abandoning a city vs wearing an ice vest that uses circulating water stored in a portable cooler, most people are just going to wear the ice vest.

I guess to me the main question is would all these technologies make it possible to function in temperatures of 130-140F? I really don’t know. If you combine UV reflective umbrellas and clothes, various kinds of conduction based cooling vests/headbands, ingestion of ice slushies, etc could it make it so people could function outside during the day w/o suffering from heatstroke? I don’t know.

The goal isn’t to stay comfortable, its just to keep core body temperature regulated so people can function. If people can survive in these areas currently w/o these technologies, then could they survive later in this century with these technologies when the temperature is 10-20F higher in these areas.

13

Part of the question is, what do you mean by “function”?

The answer to your question may be quite different if you mean “walk down the street for ten minutes while moving from one air conditioned space to another” or if you mean “do serious farming or construction work.”

I don’t suppose that either crops or livestock would survive the temperatures being discussed, so you can take farming off the list — which would of course cause its own, and very major, problems; which you can add to those of wild species extinction; which, yes, will affect humans, even if that’s the only species you’re thinking of. There are lots of species, wild and domestic, which are adapted to climates cold in the winter but warmer for significant parts of the year; but not a whole lot that can survive and reproduce at 120+F year round. But it would be impossible to maintain those air conditioned structures, and transport systems among them, without outdoor construction/repair work.

Your proper comparison probably isn’t really to Alaska. It’s to Antarctica. There are humans living there — but only a few, and they need massive support from elsewhere.

14

Yes.

Saudi Arabia has mean daily high temps of about 110°F in July and August. That’s the hottest place i know of where people have survived historically. And it gets a lot cooler at night, typically down to 85°F. They don’t have much agriculture there. They do have a lot of construction.

I’m going to agree with @thorny_locust say another 20-30 degrees would make it Antarctica-level “habitable”.

15

I’m sure the people living around the Caspian and Aral Seas[1] thought the same thing once upon a time. Like, 50 years ago.

  1. both brackish I know but irrelevant to my point ↩︎

16

IIRC the Soviets siphoned off all water going into the Aral Sea. Even so it was less water than in the Great Lakes.

Fer sure, even if Canada and the US started today to drain them I would never live long enough to see it done. They are quite big. (I have had visitors agog when they see it…“lakes” are not this big in their minds).

17

Technology isn’t magic, it costs money to develop and to maintain. So a lot more technology will be a lot more expensive, supported by an ever-shrinking productive population. Also technology within the reach of current humans can help some with some problems (surviving in a hot climate) but not so much with others (trying to support a population where the ground is all 2 feet under water).

If some Star Trek-style energy technologies are invented in the nick of time, that might do it, although I would be more tempted to seek out a new planet that we haven’t fucked up yet.

18

If Google AI is to be believed, US annual fresh water consumption is ~1.3 trillion gallons. Canada’s is a rounding error. The Great Lakes’ water capacity is 6 quadrillion = 6000 trillion gallons.

Ignoring inflow, outflow, and evaporation, there’s ~6000 / 1.3 = 4,600 years’ worth of water there.

19

Even more time since the whole US does not have access to that water.

In theory pipes could be built but, currently, there is a compact between the US and Canada about the use of that water and it says the water can’t be used outside of the drainage that sends the water back.

Which is why I am never thinking about my water usage. Whatever I use goes back to the lake (ignoring evaporation and other losses). Chicago has a world-class water system. Someday I think people will care about that.

20

Ok, but 2 things.

Its worst in the southwest and middle east around May thru September. So that leaves 7-8 months a year with more livable temperature.

Also in theories these cities could become more nocturnal during the 4-5 summer months. And even during the summer months, it is more livable between around 9pm to 9am. If people had AC in the home and stayed home during the daytime, and went outside at night that would make it far more livable too.

I’m still not sure what will happen. But the idea that people will abandon entire cities or abandon entire countries, and live as refugees, instead of wearing ice vests when they go outside in summer or being more nocturnal, that doesn’t seem like the most likely outcome.