> I'm fairly sure that living standards will be lowered by floods
No, it won't as badly.
Doomerism is not a valid rational point of view.
Most of all, floods would happen anyway, so you'll have floods + lower standards of living, including much worse emergency services.
we are not at the brink of extinction and people lived and prospered in almost unhabitable lands long before we had the technology to regulate the temperature.
like for example Northern United Kingdom.
But are also living today in the middle of deserts, with no AC.
Of course we should cut on emissions werever it is possible, worst offenders being fossil fuels.
Edit: on a side note the reason why your proposal will never work is because cutting on emissions is actually easy. For example let's stop keeping pets at home. Pets that usually eat a lot of red meat. It is feasible, won't lower living standards and won't cost much to society. Now convince people that their cat eats more meat in a year than a Chinese average person and that's not sustainable.
> we are not at the brink of extinction and people lived and prospered in almost unhabitable lands long before we had the technology to regulate the temperature.
It's relatively simple (though not necessarily easy) to live in a cold area if you have access to furs and fuel. Trying to survive in an area where the wet bulb temperature is over 35 degrees will require reliable air conditioning and working outside will become virtually impossible for humans.
> Edit: on a side note the reason why your proposal will never work is because cutting o. emissions s it's actually easy. For example let's stop keeping let's at home. Pets that usually eat a lot of red meat. It is feasible, won't lower living standards and won't cost much to society. Now convince people that their cat eats more meat in a year than a Chinese average person and that's not sustainable.
> And yet ancient Egyptians did it 4 thousands years ago.
Have you any evidence of Egypt having those kinds of wet bulb temperatures back then? It's physically impossible to survive high wet bulb temperatures even with an unlimited supply of water without some other form of cooling (i.e. not based on air movement such as fans) as water/sweat evaporation isn't effective.
> Even heat-adapted people cannot carry out normal outdoor activities past a wet-bulb temperature of 32 °C (90 °F), equivalent to a heat index of 55 °C (131 °F). A reading of 35 °C (95 °F) – equivalent to a heat index of 71 °C (160 °F) – is considered the theoretical human survivability limit for up to six hours of exposure.
> One 2015 study concluded extremes are likely to approach and exceed 35C in the region around the Arabian Gulf towards the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in, posing questions for human habitability there.
> In 2020, research found that some coastal subtropical locations have already experienced WBTs of 35C, albeit only for a few hours.
> “Previous studies projected that this would happen several decades from now, but this shows it’s happening right now,” said lead author Colin Raymond, a climate scientist at Nasa’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “The times these events last will increase and the areas they affect will grow in direct correlation with global warming.”
> The study also found that globally, the number of times that a WBT of 30C was reached – still considered an extreme humidity and heat event – more than doubled between 1979 and 2017. There were about 1,000 occurrences of a 31C WBT, and about a dozen above 35C, in Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Australia.
not evidence of something that would kill hundred of millions of humans.
But, more importantly,
The oft-cited 35C value comes from a 2010 theoretical study.
Simply put: nobody knows the real threshold and nobody put it to test.
I'm no denier in any way, but doom prophecies are usually wrong, they are used to scare people into action, but are based on the idea that nothing changes.
For example, planting trees is effective against heat waves, it's cheap and it's being done extensively, everywhere you look
China will aim to plant and conserve 70 billion trees by 2030 as part of the global tree movement
The 35C value is suggested as an upper limit. Lower WBTs have already been shown to be deadly amongst the more vulnerable.
I agree about tree planting being a sensible precaution to take - preventing sun from reflecting off tarmac and concrete is going to help at least a bit as well as the other benefits.
> The wet-bulb temperature (WBT) is the temperature read by a thermometer covered in water-soaked (water at ambient temperature) cloth (a wet-bulb thermometer) over which air is passed. At 100% relative humidity, the wet-bulb temperature is equal to the air temperature (dry-bulb temperature); at lower humidity the wet-bulb temperature is lower than dry-bulb temperature because of evaporative cooling.
No, it won't as badly.
Doomerism is not a valid rational point of view.
Most of all, floods would happen anyway, so you'll have floods + lower standards of living, including much worse emergency services.
we are not at the brink of extinction and people lived and prospered in almost unhabitable lands long before we had the technology to regulate the temperature.
like for example Northern United Kingdom.
But are also living today in the middle of deserts, with no AC.
Of course we should cut on emissions werever it is possible, worst offenders being fossil fuels.
Edit: on a side note the reason why your proposal will never work is because cutting on emissions is actually easy. For example let's stop keeping pets at home. Pets that usually eat a lot of red meat. It is feasible, won't lower living standards and won't cost much to society. Now convince people that their cat eats more meat in a year than a Chinese average person and that's not sustainable.