E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mark Webb / The Herald Dispatch / AP, file
In this Thursday, July 21, 2011 photo, Patrick Nelson wipes the sweat from his face while working on a project for Huntington Community Gardens as temperatures reach over 90 degrees in Huntington, W. Va.
WASHINGTON — Earth's increasingly hot, wet climate has cut the amount of work people can do in the worst heat by about 10 percent in the past six decades, and that loss in labor capacity could double by mid-century, U.S. government scientists reported on Sunday.
Because warmer air can hold more moisture than cooler air, there's more absolute humidity in the atmosphere now than there used to be. And as anyone who has sweltered through a hot, muggy summer knows, it's more stressful to work through hot months when the humidity is high.
To figure out the stress of working in hotter, wetter conditions, experts from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration looked at military and industrial guidelines already in place for heat stress, and set those guidelines against climate projections for how hot and humid it's likely to get over the next century.
Their findings were stark: "We project that heat stress-related labor capacity losses will double globally by 2050 with a warming climate," said lead author John Dunne of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton.
Work capability is already down to 90 percent during the most hot and humid periods, Dunne and his co-authors wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change. Using a middle-of-the-road projection of future temperature and humidity, they estimate that could drop to 80 percent by 2050.
A more extreme scenario of future global warming, which estimated a temperature rise of 10.8 degrees F, would make it difficult to work in the hottest months in many parts of the world, Dunne said at a telephone briefing.
Labor capacity would be all but eliminated in the lower Mississippi Valley and most of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains would be exposed to heat stress "beyond anything experienced in the world today," he said.
Bahrain-on-the-Hudson?
Under this scenario, heat stress in New York City would exceed that of present-day Bahrain, while in Bahrain, the heat and humidity could cause hyperthermia - potentially dangerous overheating - even in sleeping people who were not working at all.
Humans are endothermic creatures, which means they give off heat. If they can't get rid of it faster than they create it, they go into hyperthermia. Typically, humans cool off by doing less heat-producing activity, but it may get so hot and humid that even a sleeping person wouldn't be able to dissipate heat fast enough.
"This planet will start experiencing heat stress that's unlike anything experienced today," said Ronald Stouffer, a co-author of the study.
The only way to retain labor capacity, Dunne said, is to limit global warming to less than 5 degrees F.
Global average temperature has risen by about 1.2 degrees F compared to pre-industrial times. It is likely to rise another 1.8 degrees F by mid-century, Dunne said.
The way some workers already adapt to heat stress - taking a siesta during the hottest hours of the day, working outdoor jobs like construction at night when temperatures drop or ceasing work entirely during periods of peak heat and humidity — could migrate to places where heat stress is increasing.
The U.S. West Coast and Northern Europe are likely to be two of the regions that will be affected last by the trend toward more hot and humid climate, the scientists said.
Part of the issue is how well-adapted certain regions are to extreme heat stress, Dunne said.
As an example, he noted that some 70,000 people were killed during a disastrous 2003 heat wave in Europe, where heat stress was highly unusual. However, the same kind of stress was normal for a place like India, where a similar heat wave killed 3,000.
"It's very regionally dependent and highly determined by adaptation," Dunne said.
Leave a Comment:
Maybe the hydrocarbon burning systems promoters want to create a new Mars in our solar system, us. Any civilization that raises billions of offspring and does not leave a world for them to work and live a normal life in, deserves to turn into a new Mars maybe.
For those saying we do not need to take any actions for stopping global warming because it is just natural cause produced, well the world has been inhabitiable by living animals needing the same weather/temps we need for millions of years, so whatever natural impacts happened during that time did not stop us from surviving and prospering through that period. Are you sure we will be able to say that our activities will not impact us more than natural impacts in a few decades, willing to take that gamble? Keep an eye on who is buying the high ground and cold land masses, those may be the only inhabitable places by then.
Mars is cold.
I'm thinking you mean Venus.
"Keep an eye on who is buying the high ground and cold land masses, those may be the only inhabitable places by then."
Or migrating to it. Canada is now seeing more illegal's coming from Mexico than any other country. Not only have they opened new drug paths but farmers and menial labor employers are being bombarded by Spanish speaking people looking for work. China is the other country shipping its citizens to the end of the earth to find work. China is now the number one country for exporting workers. Mexico and South America would be number one but they don't consider their citizens exporting workers but instead they are refugees to countries they invade, never to come back.
Well that's two "sky is falling" stories I've read this morning. Not including the sequester story. Sounds like the government is getting ready to make a push for some kind of enviromental control. Scare everyone real good and they'll accept whatever we want.
There is only one problem with you doomsday scenario, no believes your bullsh!t except the feeble minded lemmings. You cried wolf too many times. And you were caught lying your a$$ off in emails that proved you cooked the books so to speak. If it is warming, the key factor is solar not humans. Now, the Climate Minister or whatever she calls her nut-ball self will agree with the article. So she can continue receiving a paycheck. You see, it's a watering trough that's for all the Charlatans to drink from at our expense. Just ask the Global Warming Horror Al Gore and go no further.
ROTFLMAO !!! .... is this story for real? Is it April 1st already? OMG, whatever is going to become of us? In a few more years we will be so non-productive, we won't even be able to take care of our own self-survival needs.
Some people have far too much available time on their hands to make these sorts of extrapolations.
You two are for real....rhetorical. Your comments are not even worthy of further thought.
Said the one who realizes he/she is one of the very gullible ones who foolishly buys into whatever garbage (agenda) the world's progressives and liberals want to push, on any given day.
as usual more BS from BO
Short ...... Sweet ....... and to the point!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-men
Carfreak.... So OUR president wrote this article now. What a clown you are. He probably also stole the newspaper from your lawn and is responsible for taking that parking spot you wanted as well.
I was wiping sweat 60 years ago because it was summertime and hot and still wipe today if im working and its summertime and 90 degrees....I bet people were doing the same thing 500 years ago ...it has to be global warming...LOL
As they say average global temp has risen 1.8 degrees, you may have just gotten use to it but the melting ice caps and rising water levels are telling a different story....keep your head in the hole, it will all go away.
You people just don't get it, yes the earth has gone through these cycles before but the rate of change, human numbers and inability to adapt or even find enough sutable space to run and hide will be our undoing.
It's also gotten 16+ degrees warmer since the last ice age.
So what's your point.
Yup, it's warmer now, than in the past, if you're only looking at recorded data which only goes back about 160 years. However, as most of us all know, the Earth has been here for Millions upon Millions of years. It's been a lot hotter here, and a lot colder here.
And guess what, it's gonna get hotter and colder again.
It will get warmer in the not so distant future, and eventually we'll head into another ice age, probably within the next 2,000-5,000 years.
Dougler... 160 years of recorded temps but ice cores provide us with the composition of the atmosphere from which temperatures and other phenomena can be inferred.
The earth has seen cycles of hot and cold but those cycles can be related to global events (massive volcanoes spewing enough ash to darken the sky for miles and miles, asteroids cause a similar effect, etc.) The RATE OF CHANGE is the concern here.
Science is not the enemy and when 98% of CLIMATE scientists agree that Anthr Global Warming is occurring then it is time to put partisan politics and nonsense aside and pay attention before it is too late.
I'm well aware of the other ways that determined climate and temperatures throughout our planets history.
Your number of climate scientists agreeing about global warming is a bit of an overstatement in the way you say it, though they are in the majority nonetheless.
I've looked at the numbers, I've read of both sides of the argument. It's my belief that Climate change/global warming does exist, however, the vast majority of it is natural. CO2 is not the cause of global warming and/or climate change, though it is certainly a contributor, though in such a minute amount compared to the overall greenhouse causing elements, that it's nearly irrelevant. And even if it were, we would be better off, and money would be better spent going towards coping and adjusting to said changes, as opposed to actually trying to eliminate them.
Regardless of the rate of change, the earth cools and warms at relatively regular intervals. To go into economic ruin to attempt to eliminate something that will most likely happen anyway is foolish and destructive.
Wrong... The "98%" comment is accurate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/21/trust-climate-scientists
there are more reputable sources where it is 97%-98% agreement among scientists who study the climate. Don't send me a link to the heartland society because they are a front for the fossil fuel industry... if you want to dispute this number find better sources.
CO2 is a major contributor because of the VOLUME of the emissions. Yes, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas but the volume is much less. By burning fossil fuels we have unlocked carbon that has been removed from the atmosphere over thousands of years. The delta between the time it takes to sequester the CO2 and the time it takes to produce and burn it is the problem... this pertains to my point of "rate of change".
Your point about spending money to cope as opposed to spending money to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels is ludicrous. How much have we/will we spend on natural disasters (Katrina, Sandy, BP oil spill, Exxon valdez, Kalamazoo river spill, etc. that comprise your "coping" costs? Transitioning to cleaner fuels (solar, wind, geothermal, more efficient engines, hybrids, etc.) CREATES jobs and new markets and, in direct opposition to your comment, does NOT, I repeat would not cause economic ruin.
We get triple digits in the Central Valley of California every summer.sometimes it lasts for an entire month.the people who do field work or work outdoors start their jobs earlier and are off earlier.Humans have always found a way to adapt.Staying hydrated and wearing a hat in hot weather is imperative.
The Earth has had warm and cold cycles. Except for the last few hundred-thousand years they have been without humans. The Earth will find a new 'normal'. It may very well be without 'us'. Enjoy what may be our last days. Go ahead and persist in the delusion that all existence is only for our benefit.
False. Temperatures have been steady for 17 years and RH is also steady per NOAA.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c014e5f8d5b09970c-pi
What is this, just another failed attempt to sway opinion on what "might happen" if positive feedbacks were in play as most climate models demand? And also the reason they have failed so spectacularly? This notion has been dead for at least 5 years now. Right along with the mid troposphere hot spot. You might want to try to get current climate information next time from a more unbiased source.
They just need more mexicans.
This article gave me heat stress.
Hotter? May be some places. Wetter? Again may be some places. However drought is a huge problem in a lot of this Country and two of the Great Lakes are a record low levles. Do I hear someone crying "Wolf" or are we once again cherry picking facts?
Due to dredging the St Clair river? Not exactly a drought issue.
You forgot the melting ice caps and melting snow caps in green land, rising sea levels...wish it were just cherry picking.
Greenland used to be Green.. Maybe it is just returning to its natural state..
When the object of a story is to perpetuate a myth, the facts are as usual absent...people that are into all the "save this don't change that" buffoonery don't take into consideration that mankind can't even control the house fly, mosquito, rats and mice...yet these people bellow out that they can be in charge of the climate if only...if only...if only...unfortunately they are just a modern day jesus...who never changed anything...
It is obvious you don't comprehend what you read and this is not the first story on this subject I am sure you have read.
I have never seen anyone with reason and common sense say they can be in charge of anything....and by the way it may already be too late, we may have past the tipping point.
The only buffoons I see are the ones who say this is a myth. I guess the ice caps are not melting or sea levels have not risen or average global temperatures have not gone up in the last 100 years.
It is not that the earth has not experienced a temperature rise or high sea levels, it is that it is occurring way too fast....and when was the last time we had 5 billion people on this planet.
People are just lazy. Lets just all just stay at home and collect a check, and never have to work. Must be nice.
Hysterical! 10.8 degree rise in temperature means humans don't need to worry as they won't exist.
I haven't noticed any diminished capacity in my work output.
The crews here in Ohio were definitely feeling it this last summer. They aren't used to it here. Also, it just takes so much water for any crops at these temperatures, because so much of it goes right into the hot air and blows away.
CO2 is a very, very poor greenhouse gas
While that may be true, the same can't be said for methane. Which will be the new emergency once the permafrost melt picks up in pace. If burning fossil fuels is partly to blame, stopping it at this point (which we won't) will not change the fact that our children will live in a world much different from the one we inhabit. The most likely scenario is that we will continue on the same path in search of ever greater profits without a passing thought of consequences of our actions.
Sorry folks, the cards of climate change have already been played for the most part, just read 'em and weep.
Prideful ignorance will not save your children and grandchildren from a climate tipped toward the "Venus solution".
Ah, what fools these mortals be!
Like the old saying goes, " If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen".
They blame the lack of moisture (droughts) on global warming. Now they are blaming moisture in the air on global warming.
If it doesn't snow it is global warming, if it does snow it is global warming.
2012 saw a new record for the most Antarctic sea ice extent. Which means it is colder. Bering sea ice (near Alaska) is well above normal. Which means it is colder.
While the United States (2% of the globe) was hot in 2012 the other 98% of the Earth was cooler than normal.
A new properly sited system of weather stations recorded temperatures that were 2 degrees cooler than the "record heat" that the current improperly sited system recorded. Which made 2012 1.9 degrees cooler than the record from the 1930s.
Not sure where they think any warming is still coming from.
We are entering 30 years of cooling.
economykiller = truthkiller, a liar and a fool.
economykiller, You better publish your grand insights in The Onion Magazine to give us all a good laugh!
About 8 years ago while reading the USDA publication “Global Warming and Agriculture, I noticed that the report used an emission scenario that was much less than actual in their calculations. Then, I began to notice that same error in many other papers on the subject and soonrealized the implications: understatement and scientific hedging means that climate change will occur more rapidly and sooner than expected. In addition, since these emissions are long lived, the impacts will be felt for thousands of years. This study makes the same mistake.
At the 2012 Cabot Lecture, Dr. Kevin Anderson (link below) clearly pointed the finger at scientists and governments for not accurately reporting how bad the climate situation truly is. He also explains why
we cannot meet the 2 degree C (3.8 F) target set by the world’s governments and its impacts on us today (i.e. catastrophic). His talk is timely in light of the recent report from the World Bank that found:
"Even with the current mitigation pledges fully implemented, there is roughly a 20% likelihood of exceeding 4°C by 2100. If they are not met, warming of 4°C could occur as early as the 2060s."
There isn’t any wiggle room left for any negotiation. Globally, we are nowhere close to meeting our mitigation pledges and long lived CO2 emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at an accelerating rate. Dr. Anderson is very animated and I think you will find it enlightening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U
Just as a point of reference..... cold weather messes over my productivity. I need a nap after awhile.