Michael Le Page, biology features editor, writes:
Parts of our home planet Earth could start to become too hot and humid for people to survive in 300 years or so if we fail to limit global warming. So says a startling study published last week in PNAS, which most of us journalists seem to have missed until now. We also seemed to have missed Danny Bloom's wake up call about the need to plan and pre-build so-called polar cities to serve as climate refuges for those few survivors of the coming Long Emergency, which Bloom dubs The Great Interruption (2500 - 3500 AD)
Some regions would start to become too hot and humid for human habitation with a global temperature rise of 7 °C, the paper says. With a rise of 11 °C or more, most of the human population as currently distributed would either have to move or rely on air conditioning to avoid dying of heat stress.
"Right now we have air conditioning for comfort. Under these circumstances you would be using it for survival," lead author Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney told Discovery News. "We're not saying it's going to happen soon, but to ignore it seems foolhardy."
The problem is that we cannot survive if our skin temperature exceeds 35 °C for more than a few hours. Although many people live and even work in temperatures of 45 °C or more, sweating keeps their skin cool as long as it's not too humid.
Put in technical terms, human survival depends on a wet-bulb temperature of less than 35 °C. This is the temperature recorded by a thermometer covered in a wet cloth and kept well ventilated.
"The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan," Sherwood told USA Today.
At the moment, virtually nowhere on Earth has a wet-bulb temperature of more than 30 °C. But with a global rise of 11 °C, huge areas would have wet-bulb temperatures of more than 35 °C for part of the year. According to the climate model used by the team, these regions would include much of the eastern US, the entire Indian subcontinent, most of Australia and part of China.
Projected regional wet-bulb temperatures for an average global temperature increase of 12 C. Humans cannot survive wet-bulb temperatures over 35 C (Image: Steven C. Sherwood/Matthew Huberb)
"If warmings of 10 °C were really to occur in [the] next three centuries, the area of land likely rendered uninhabitable by heat stress would dwarf that affected by rising sea level," write Sherwood and co-author Matthew Huber of Purdue University in Indiana. "Heat stress thus deserves more attention as a climate-change impact."
How likely are we to reach such a point? Well, under business-as-usual scenarios the current prediction is for a 4 °C to 7 °C increase by 2100. In other words, in the worst-case scenario if we carry on as we are, some of our children might just live to see small parts of the world start to become too hot for human habitation.
In fact, the same limits would apply to all mammals, including livestock. If that is true, mammals would have died out in large parts of the world during past warm periods like the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago. This may well have happened, say Sherwood and Huber - fossil records of tropical regions are too poor to tell one way or the other.
The pair did not consider other warm-blooded animals. Birds have a body temperature of 40 °C (and presumably the same was true of some dinosaurs), so in theory they should be able to survive slightly higher wet-bulb temperatures.
tags : air conditioning climate change global warming heat stress temperature polar cities danny bloom James Lovelock Deng Cheng-hong
132,055 Comments
polarcityman on May 10, 2010 11:59 PM
Huber and Sherwood are correct. It's curtains by 2300, surely by 2500. And the need to plan and pre-build polar cities in the north AND in Tasmania and NZ is now. NOW. Polar Cities -- http://pcillu101.blogspot.com -- can save humankind from extinction. Maybe. Think about it. But basically, our goose is cooked, 500 years down the road, perhaps by 2300 as the authors suggest. Those is denial, wake up. Those who get it, shake your neighbors. We have work to do if we want the human species to survive past 2500 AD. Maybe we don't care? I do. Plenty of others do too.
hax9000 on May 11, 2010 4:50 PM
How is this a bigger danger than living in a cold climate where 6 months out of the year you have to run the heat non-stop and going outside can cause frostbite and death by exposure?
Ecocampaigner on May 11, 2010 5:12 PM
There's a certain convenience to making predictions so far into the future that no one who hears it can do anything to prove or disprove it. These fatalistic cries of alarmism do nothing but work against those of us trying to get action now.
Michael Le Page on May 11, 2010 5:16 PM
Re hax9000:
Er, because in cold climates you can survive indefinitely without heating as long as you have the right clothes, food and shelter.
When the wet-bulb temperature exceeds 35 C, you'll die in a few hours if you go outside or if the air conditioning fails.
Re Ecocampaigner:
It would be perfectly possible to refute this study by, for instance, showing that people could survive wet-bulb temperatures over 35 C. There's nothing fatalistic about this either - the point is we can avoid this
pete on May 11, 2010 5:41 PM
Correction. Human as defined by today's standards. Human beings are highly adaptable, and 2300 is almost 300 years. As noted elsewhere, much of the planet is "too cold" for humans to survive for several months of the year without frostbite/exposure deaths. Yet, those areas are packed with people. We will adapt, change our environment, or die out and be replaced by something different. No biggie.
M on May 11, 2010 6:30 PM
One word..."Move to Polar Cities, Danny Bloom is right!"
Give me a break! This is one more example of taking a premise and making it a fact. Truth is we have no idea what the weather will be like in 300 years. Our best scientists can't even predict the weather 2 weeks out let alone 300 years. If you buy this idea please contact me...I have some future beach front property in Fargo, N.D. I'd like to sell.
Sam on May 11, 2010 6:34 PM
"no biggie"
Any concern can be belittled by adopting a grander and more "enlightened" standpoint, I guess. "So lots of people may die? Life will go on! So lots of ecosystems die? Geology will go on! Don't be so small-minded!"
Personally, I am a little concerned about my children—as well as other people's children and other living things..
another Pete on May 11, 2010 7:19 PM
Surely, if one has concern for the children of others, and living things in general, and is a believer of the new cabon religion, they would not have had children of their own.
Alexandre Couto de Andrade on May 11, 2010 7:48 PM
I think that we will be able to prevent that with geo-engineering.
Besides, I cannot help asking how reliable such a long term prediction can be.
Karl on May 11, 2010 10:42 PM
"There's a certain convenience to making predictions so far into the future that no one who hears it can do anything to prove or disprove it." - Ecocampaigner
There's also a certain convenience to the fact that we won't be around to suffer the worst consequences of our shortsighted behavior.
Besides, it's no problem. Our descendants can just spend half the year underground IN POLAR CITIES. They'll still be able to survive on the surface in winter. Drill baby drill!
Ann O'Malley on May 11, 2010 10:52 PM
hax9000, you can wear a coat in cold weather, but what can you do to go outside if it's too hot to survive even when you are naked?
Scientific Earthling on May 12, 2010 12:51 AM
We are currently living through the sixth extinction. Our current rate of loss of species exceeds the loss rates estimated for the fifth extinction. What makes anyone think the Homo sapien will be around in 300 years? With loss of biodiversity it is almost impossible.
Sorry guys, you who are worried about your kids etc. Our species is facing rapid certain extinction. The sad thing is we brought it on ourselves.
Fran on May 12, 2010 2:43 AM
You people making the comments - are you out of your minds??? This is preventable. Denial isn't appropriate here.
Mike on May 12, 2010 10:32 AM
In 300 years we will have colonised most Earth like planets within a 50 light year radius of home so I am not that concerned about the long term future of humanity. Plus in 300 years we will have technology that we can only dream of now (and plenty of that we can't) and I assume some geo-engineering to reverse warming will be included. If not, we are doomed. Oh well.
geoduck on May 12, 2010 1:58 PM
It will never happen. Any such rise in average temperature will be canceled out by nuclear winter from the war for domination of Antarctica.
Chris on May 12, 2010 2:17 PM
It is easy to scoff about apparently cinematic future scenarios- the fact is, the physiology and projections are reasonable and worthy of discussion, not someone's imagination at work.
I agree that in 300 years we will have advanced, we may not even be based on temperature-limited flesh any more. But make a list of the things you love, then consider which of those will be left if things go on as they are. Look at all the childrens' books based on tigers, gorillas and pandas which are virtually doomed in the here and now.
Cheers, Chris
Ray Bee on May 12, 2010 3:14 PM
Why should we worry? If governments can control the climate as suggested by the author, then government action can be postponed for at least another 150 years.
This should not stop the author doing his bit now. He should avoid the use of airconditioning, use candles, become a vegetarian, and walk or ride a push bike whenever he wants to go places. Furthermore, he should minimise doing damage to productive real-world employers, by remaining an academic.
Perhaps he may manage to hide his gullibility, by not publishing any more warmist papers.
Mark on May 12, 2010 4:42 PM
Law of Thermodynamics in a closed system does not support this model. The Earth/Sun is a closed system. Translated the article is poppycock.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Global Warming and Polar Cities: Future Temperatures Could Exceed Livable Limits, Researchers Find
Fairly reasonable worst-case scenarios for
global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming
centuries and the need to build polar cities to house survivors of climate chaos in order to continue the human species after 2300 AD, according to research findings from Purdue University and
the University of New South Wales, Australia, and additional polar cities ideas from Danny Bloom. (http://pcillu101.blogspot.com). Sadly, only a few people grasp all this, and most people could not be bothered. So go back to your fun and games, people of Earth. The future? You don't really care. That's the truth. But read the truth below, too:
Researchers for the first time have calculated the highest tolerable
"wet-bulb" temperature and found that this temperature could be
exceeded for the first time in human history in future climate
scenarios if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate.
Wet-bulb temperature is equivalent to what is felt when wet skin is
exposed to moving air. It includes temperature and atmospheric
humidity and is measured by covering a standard thermometer bulb with
a wetted cloth and fully ventilating it.
The researchers calculated that humans and most mammals, which have
internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will
experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at wet-bulb
temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said
Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences
who co-authored the paper that will be published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences.
"Although areas of the world regularly see temperatures above 100
degrees, really high wet-bulb temperatures are rare," Huber said.
"This is because the hottest areas normally have low humidity, like
the 'dry heat' referred to in Arizona. When it is dry, we are able to
cool our bodies through perspiration and can remain fairly
comfortable. The highest wet-bulb temperatures ever recorded were in
places like Saudi Arabia near the coast where winds occasionally bring
extremely hot, humid ocean air over hot land leading to unbearably
stifling conditions, which fortunately are short-lived today."
The study did not provide new evaluations of the likelihood of future
climate scenarios, but explored the impacts of warming. The challenges
presented by the future climate scenarios are daunting in their scale
and severity, he said.
"Whole countries would intermittently be subject to severe heat stress
requiring large-scale adaptation efforts," Huber said. "One can
imagine that such efforts, for example the wider adoption of air
conditioning, would cause the power requirements to soar, and the
affordability of such approaches is in question for much of the Third
World that would bear the brunt of these impacts. In addition, the
livestock on which we rely would still be exposed, and it would make
any form of outside work hazardous."
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change central estimates
of business-as-usual warming by 2100 are seven degrees Fahrenheit,
eventual warming of 25 degrees is feasible, he said.
"We found that a warming of 12 degrees Fahrenheit would cause some
areas of the world to surpass the wet-bulb temperature limit, and a 21-
degree warming would put half of the world's population in an
uninhabitable environment," Huber said. "When it comes to evaluating
the risk of carbon emissions, such worst-case scenarios need to be
taken into account. It's the difference between a game of roulette and
playing Russian roulette with a pistol. Sometimes the stakes are too
high, even if there is only a small chance of losing."
Steven Sherwood, the professor at the Climate Change Research Centre
at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who is the paper's
lead author, said prolonged wet-bulb temperatures above 95 degrees
would be intolerable after a matter of hours.
"The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat
even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in
front of a large fan," Sherwood said. "Although we are very unlikely
to reach such temperatures this century, they could happen in the
next."
Humans at rest generate about 100 watts of energy from metabolic
activity. Wet-bulb temperature estimates provide upper limits on the
ability of people to cool themselves by sweating and otherwise
dissipating this heat, he said. In order for the heat dissipation
process to work, the surrounding air must be cooler than the skin,
which must be cooler than the core body temperature. The cooler skin
is then able to absorb excess heat from the core and release it into
the environment. If the wet-bulb temperature is warmer than the
temperature of the skin, metabolic heat cannot be released and
potentially dangerous overheating can ensue depending on the magnitude
and duration of the heat stress.
The National Science Foundation-funded research investigated the long-
term implications of sustained greenhouse gas emissions on climate
extremes. The team used climate models to compare the peak wet-bulb
temperatures to the global temperatures for various climate
simulations and found that the peak wet-bulb temperature rises
approximately 1 degree Centigrade for every degree Centigrade increase
in tropical mean temperature.
Huber did the climate modeling on supercomputers operated by
Information Technology at Purdue (ITaP), Purdue's central information
technology organization. Sherwood performed the wet-bulb calculations.
"These temperatures haven't been seen during the existence of
hominids, but they did occur about 50 million years ago, and it is a
legitimate possibility that the Earth could see such temperatures
again," Huber said. "If we consider these worst-case scenarios early
enough, perhaps we can do something to address the risk through
mitigation or new technological advancements such as building polar cities in the northern regions for climate refugees and Earth holocaust survivors in 2300 AD that will allow us to
adapt."
global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming
centuries and the need to build polar cities to house survivors of climate chaos in order to continue the human species after 2300 AD, according to research findings from Purdue University and
the University of New South Wales, Australia, and additional polar cities ideas from Danny Bloom. (http://pcillu101.blogspot.com). Sadly, only a few people grasp all this, and most people could not be bothered. So go back to your fun and games, people of Earth. The future? You don't really care. That's the truth. But read the truth below, too:
Researchers for the first time have calculated the highest tolerable
"wet-bulb" temperature and found that this temperature could be
exceeded for the first time in human history in future climate
scenarios if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate.
Wet-bulb temperature is equivalent to what is felt when wet skin is
exposed to moving air. It includes temperature and atmospheric
humidity and is measured by covering a standard thermometer bulb with
a wetted cloth and fully ventilating it.
The researchers calculated that humans and most mammals, which have
internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will
experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at wet-bulb
temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said
Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences
who co-authored the paper that will be published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences.
"Although areas of the world regularly see temperatures above 100
degrees, really high wet-bulb temperatures are rare," Huber said.
"This is because the hottest areas normally have low humidity, like
the 'dry heat' referred to in Arizona. When it is dry, we are able to
cool our bodies through perspiration and can remain fairly
comfortable. The highest wet-bulb temperatures ever recorded were in
places like Saudi Arabia near the coast where winds occasionally bring
extremely hot, humid ocean air over hot land leading to unbearably
stifling conditions, which fortunately are short-lived today."
The study did not provide new evaluations of the likelihood of future
climate scenarios, but explored the impacts of warming. The challenges
presented by the future climate scenarios are daunting in their scale
and severity, he said.
"Whole countries would intermittently be subject to severe heat stress
requiring large-scale adaptation efforts," Huber said. "One can
imagine that such efforts, for example the wider adoption of air
conditioning, would cause the power requirements to soar, and the
affordability of such approaches is in question for much of the Third
World that would bear the brunt of these impacts. In addition, the
livestock on which we rely would still be exposed, and it would make
any form of outside work hazardous."
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change central estimates
of business-as-usual warming by 2100 are seven degrees Fahrenheit,
eventual warming of 25 degrees is feasible, he said.
"We found that a warming of 12 degrees Fahrenheit would cause some
areas of the world to surpass the wet-bulb temperature limit, and a 21-
degree warming would put half of the world's population in an
uninhabitable environment," Huber said. "When it comes to evaluating
the risk of carbon emissions, such worst-case scenarios need to be
taken into account. It's the difference between a game of roulette and
playing Russian roulette with a pistol. Sometimes the stakes are too
high, even if there is only a small chance of losing."
Steven Sherwood, the professor at the Climate Change Research Centre
at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who is the paper's
lead author, said prolonged wet-bulb temperatures above 95 degrees
would be intolerable after a matter of hours.
"The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat
even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in
front of a large fan," Sherwood said. "Although we are very unlikely
to reach such temperatures this century, they could happen in the
next."
Humans at rest generate about 100 watts of energy from metabolic
activity. Wet-bulb temperature estimates provide upper limits on the
ability of people to cool themselves by sweating and otherwise
dissipating this heat, he said. In order for the heat dissipation
process to work, the surrounding air must be cooler than the skin,
which must be cooler than the core body temperature. The cooler skin
is then able to absorb excess heat from the core and release it into
the environment. If the wet-bulb temperature is warmer than the
temperature of the skin, metabolic heat cannot be released and
potentially dangerous overheating can ensue depending on the magnitude
and duration of the heat stress.
The National Science Foundation-funded research investigated the long-
term implications of sustained greenhouse gas emissions on climate
extremes. The team used climate models to compare the peak wet-bulb
temperatures to the global temperatures for various climate
simulations and found that the peak wet-bulb temperature rises
approximately 1 degree Centigrade for every degree Centigrade increase
in tropical mean temperature.
Huber did the climate modeling on supercomputers operated by
Information Technology at Purdue (ITaP), Purdue's central information
technology organization. Sherwood performed the wet-bulb calculations.
"These temperatures haven't been seen during the existence of
hominids, but they did occur about 50 million years ago, and it is a
legitimate possibility that the Earth could see such temperatures
again," Huber said. "If we consider these worst-case scenarios early
enough, perhaps we can do something to address the risk through
mitigation or new technological advancements such as building polar cities in the northern regions for climate refugees and Earth holocaust survivors in 2300 AD that will allow us to
adapt."
An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress could lead to climate chaos in 300 years, and the need for polar cities as well, to save humankind from extinction
Researchers find future temperatures could exceed livable limits by 2300 AD; polar cities might be needed to save the human species from extinction so that breeding pairs of humans can survive in nothern climate refuges for a 1000 to 10,000 year period called The Great Interruption.
May 4, 2010 Scary Version : It's not a pretty picture. But whoever said life could go on like this forever? No one.
WEST LAFAYETTE, Indiana USA Lower 48 before the deluge, before millions seek shelter in northern Climate refuge.
- Reasonable worst-case scenarios for global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming centuries, according to research findings from Purdue University and the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Researchers for the first time have calculated the highest tolerable "wet-bulb" temperature and found that this temperature could be exceeded for the first time in human history in future climate scenarios if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.
Wet-bulb temperature is equivalent to what is felt when wet skin is exposed to moving air. It includes temperature and atmospheric humidity and is measured by covering a standard thermometer bulb with a wetted cloth and fully ventilating it.
The researchers calculated that humans and most mammals, which have internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at wet-bulb temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences who co-authored the paper that is currently available online and will be published in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Although areas of the world regularly see temperatures above 100 degrees, really high wet-bulb temperatures are rare," Huber said. "This is because the hottest areas normally have low humidity, like the 'dry heat' referred to in Arizona. When it is dry, we are able to cool our bodies through perspiration and can remain fairly comfortable. The highest wet-bulb temperatures ever recorded were in places like Saudi Arabia near the coast where winds occasionally bring extremely hot, humid ocean air over hot land leading to unbearably stifling conditions, which fortunately are short-lived today."
The study did not provide new evaluations of the likelihood of future climate scenarios, but explored the impacts of warming. The challenges presented by the future climate scenarios are daunting in their scale and severity, he said.
"Whole countries would intermittently be subject to severe heat stress requiring large-scale adaptation efforts," Huber said. "One can imagine that such efforts, for example the wider adoption of air conditioning, would cause the power requirements to soar, and the affordability of such approaches is in question for much of the Third World that would bear the brunt of these impacts. In addition, the livestock on which we rely would still be exposed, and it would make any form of outside work hazardous."
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change central estimates of business-as-usual warming by 2100 are seven degrees Fahrenheit, eventual warming of 25 degrees is feasible, he said.
"We found that a warming of 12 degrees Fahrenheit would cause some areas of the world to surpass the wet-bulb temperature limit, and a 21-degree warming would put half of the world's population in an uninhabitable environment," Huber said. "When it comes to evaluating the risk of carbon emissions, such worst-case scenarios need to be taken into account. It's the difference between a game of roulette and playing Russian roulette with a pistol. Sometimes the stakes are too high, even if there is only a small chance of losing."
Steven Sherwood, the professor at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who is the paper's lead author, said prolonged wet-bulb temperatures above 95 degrees would be intolerable after a matter of hours.
"The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan," Sherwood said. "Although we are very unlikely to reach such temperatures this century, they could happen in the next."
Humans at rest generate about 100 watts of energy from metabolic activity. Wet-bulb temperature estimates provide upper limits on the ability of people to cool themselves by sweating and otherwise dissipating this heat, he said. In order for the heat dissipation process to work, the surrounding air must be cooler than the skin, which must be cooler than the core body temperature. The cooler skin is then able to absorb excess heat from the core and release it into the environment. If the wet-bulb temperature is warmer than the temperature of the skin, metabolic heat cannot be released and potentially dangerous overheating can ensue depending on the magnitude and duration of the heat stress.
The National Science Foundation-funded research investigated the long-term implications of sustained greenhouse gas emissions on climate extremes. The team used climate models to compare the peak wet-bulb temperatures to the global temperatures for various climate simulations and found that the peak wet-bulb temperature rises approximately 1 degree Centigrade for every degree Centigrade increase in tropical mean temperature.
Huber did the climate modeling on supercomputers operated by Information Technology at Purdue (ITaP), Purdue's central information technology organization. Sherwood performed the wet-bulb calculations.
"These temperatures haven't been seen during the existence of hominids, but they did occur about 50 million years ago, and it is a legitimate possibility that the Earth could see such temperatures again," Huber said. "If we consider these worst-case scenarios early enough, perhaps we can do something to address the risk through mitigation or new technological advancements that will allow us to adapt."
Writers: Elizabeth K. Gardner, 765-494-2081, ekgardner@purdue.edu
Greg Kline, 765-494-8167, gkline@purdue.edu
Sources: Matthew Huber, 765-494-9531, huberm@purdue.edu
Steven Sherwood, +61 (2) 9385 8960, s.sherwood@unsw.edu.au
Related Web site:
Matthew Huber's Climate Dynamics Prediction Laboratory
ABSTRACT
An Adaptability Limit to Climate Change Due to Heat Stress
Steven C. Sherwood, Matthew Huber
Despite the uncertainty in future climate change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature Tw, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. Tw never exceeds 31?C. Any exceedence of 35?C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7?C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11-12?C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12?C are possible from fossil fuel burning. One implication is that recent estimates of the costs of unmitigated climate change are too low unless the range of possible warming can somehow be narrowed. Heat stress also may help explain trends in the mammalian fossil record.
Featured News
Lake sturgeon have genes from parasite, signs of human STD
New imaging suites offer more diagnostic capabilities for animal health
Purdue Band breaks with tradition, selects three drum majors
Purdue showcases five students who are launching their dreams
Purdue campuses to host spring commencement ceremonies
Purdue students create wood-based vehicle to aid African nations
Biofuels take spotlight at Frontiers in Bioenergy Symposium
More News »
Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature T(W), is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. T(W) never exceeds 31 degrees C. Any exceedence of 35 degrees C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 degrees C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11-12 degrees C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12 degrees C are possible from fossil fuel burning. One implication is that recent estimates of the costs of unmitigated climate change are too low unless the range of possible warming can somehow be narrowed. Heat stress also may help explain trends in the mammalian fossil record.
May 4, 2010 Scary Version : It's not a pretty picture. But whoever said life could go on like this forever? No one.
WEST LAFAYETTE, Indiana USA Lower 48 before the deluge, before millions seek shelter in northern Climate refuge.
- Reasonable worst-case scenarios for global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming centuries, according to research findings from Purdue University and the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Researchers for the first time have calculated the highest tolerable "wet-bulb" temperature and found that this temperature could be exceeded for the first time in human history in future climate scenarios if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated.
Wet-bulb temperature is equivalent to what is felt when wet skin is exposed to moving air. It includes temperature and atmospheric humidity and is measured by covering a standard thermometer bulb with a wetted cloth and fully ventilating it.
The researchers calculated that humans and most mammals, which have internal body temperatures near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, will experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at wet-bulb temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more, said Matthew Huber, the Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences who co-authored the paper that is currently available online and will be published in an upcoming issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Although areas of the world regularly see temperatures above 100 degrees, really high wet-bulb temperatures are rare," Huber said. "This is because the hottest areas normally have low humidity, like the 'dry heat' referred to in Arizona. When it is dry, we are able to cool our bodies through perspiration and can remain fairly comfortable. The highest wet-bulb temperatures ever recorded were in places like Saudi Arabia near the coast where winds occasionally bring extremely hot, humid ocean air over hot land leading to unbearably stifling conditions, which fortunately are short-lived today."
The study did not provide new evaluations of the likelihood of future climate scenarios, but explored the impacts of warming. The challenges presented by the future climate scenarios are daunting in their scale and severity, he said.
"Whole countries would intermittently be subject to severe heat stress requiring large-scale adaptation efforts," Huber said. "One can imagine that such efforts, for example the wider adoption of air conditioning, would cause the power requirements to soar, and the affordability of such approaches is in question for much of the Third World that would bear the brunt of these impacts. In addition, the livestock on which we rely would still be exposed, and it would make any form of outside work hazardous."
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change central estimates of business-as-usual warming by 2100 are seven degrees Fahrenheit, eventual warming of 25 degrees is feasible, he said.
"We found that a warming of 12 degrees Fahrenheit would cause some areas of the world to surpass the wet-bulb temperature limit, and a 21-degree warming would put half of the world's population in an uninhabitable environment," Huber said. "When it comes to evaluating the risk of carbon emissions, such worst-case scenarios need to be taken into account. It's the difference between a game of roulette and playing Russian roulette with a pistol. Sometimes the stakes are too high, even if there is only a small chance of losing."
Steven Sherwood, the professor at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who is the paper's lead author, said prolonged wet-bulb temperatures above 95 degrees would be intolerable after a matter of hours.
"The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan," Sherwood said. "Although we are very unlikely to reach such temperatures this century, they could happen in the next."
Humans at rest generate about 100 watts of energy from metabolic activity. Wet-bulb temperature estimates provide upper limits on the ability of people to cool themselves by sweating and otherwise dissipating this heat, he said. In order for the heat dissipation process to work, the surrounding air must be cooler than the skin, which must be cooler than the core body temperature. The cooler skin is then able to absorb excess heat from the core and release it into the environment. If the wet-bulb temperature is warmer than the temperature of the skin, metabolic heat cannot be released and potentially dangerous overheating can ensue depending on the magnitude and duration of the heat stress.
The National Science Foundation-funded research investigated the long-term implications of sustained greenhouse gas emissions on climate extremes. The team used climate models to compare the peak wet-bulb temperatures to the global temperatures for various climate simulations and found that the peak wet-bulb temperature rises approximately 1 degree Centigrade for every degree Centigrade increase in tropical mean temperature.
Huber did the climate modeling on supercomputers operated by Information Technology at Purdue (ITaP), Purdue's central information technology organization. Sherwood performed the wet-bulb calculations.
"These temperatures haven't been seen during the existence of hominids, but they did occur about 50 million years ago, and it is a legitimate possibility that the Earth could see such temperatures again," Huber said. "If we consider these worst-case scenarios early enough, perhaps we can do something to address the risk through mitigation or new technological advancements that will allow us to adapt."
Writers: Elizabeth K. Gardner, 765-494-2081, ekgardner@purdue.edu
Greg Kline, 765-494-8167, gkline@purdue.edu
Sources: Matthew Huber, 765-494-9531, huberm@purdue.edu
Steven Sherwood, +61 (2) 9385 8960, s.sherwood@unsw.edu.au
Related Web site:
Matthew Huber's Climate Dynamics Prediction Laboratory
ABSTRACT
An Adaptability Limit to Climate Change Due to Heat Stress
Steven C. Sherwood, Matthew Huber
Despite the uncertainty in future climate change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature Tw, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. Tw never exceeds 31?C. Any exceedence of 35?C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7?C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11-12?C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12?C are possible from fossil fuel burning. One implication is that recent estimates of the costs of unmitigated climate change are too low unless the range of possible warming can somehow be narrowed. Heat stress also may help explain trends in the mammalian fossil record.
Featured News
Lake sturgeon have genes from parasite, signs of human STD
New imaging suites offer more diagnostic capabilities for animal health
Purdue Band breaks with tradition, selects three drum majors
Purdue showcases five students who are launching their dreams
Purdue campuses to host spring commencement ceremonies
Purdue students create wood-based vehicle to aid African nations
Biofuels take spotlight at Frontiers in Bioenergy Symposium
More News »
Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature T(W), is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. T(W) never exceeds 31 degrees C. Any exceedence of 35 degrees C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 degrees C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11-12 degrees C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12 degrees C are possible from fossil fuel burning. One implication is that recent estimates of the costs of unmitigated climate change are too low unless the range of possible warming can somehow be narrowed. Heat stress also may help explain trends in the mammalian fossil record.
Climate Change - Uninhabitable Earth in 300 Years!
Climate Change - Uninhabitable Earth in 300 Years!
Mitch Marconi writes:
Climate Change - Could the Earth really be uninhabitable by 2300? With Polar Cities maybe needed to save humankind by 2500? Global warming experts are saying in 300 years temperatures would reach '21 degrees F' higher. This would make earth significantly hotter, so much it would be impossible to live in it normally.
According to research published by 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences', "The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan."
It's believed that if the temperatures do truly increase the earth would become too hot and the sea levels would rise and flood most lands we live on today. Matthew Huber, co-author of the study, said "We found that a 21-degree warming would put half of the world's population in an uninhabitable environment."
One of the major problems the earth faces with global warming is fossil fuels being burned allegedly by some scientists. If the continued amounts of fossil fuels are burned, there will be significant changes to the earth in the next century.
AND
Doyle Rice adds: Climate change could render much of world uninhabitable and polar cities might be needed to save the human species from extinction
PHOTO CAPTION: Pakistani youths cool off in a canal during a heat wave in June 2009, as temperatures soared to 117 degrees in some parts of the country. Extreme heat stress due to global warming could render much of the world uninhabitable in upcoming centuries, according to new research.
A worst-case scenario of global warming, in which temperatures would soar some 21 degrees, is that much of the world may simply become too hot for humans to live in, according to new research published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"We found that … a 21-degree warming would put half of the world's population in an uninhabitable environment,"says study co-author Matthew Huber of Purdue University.
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that the result of business-as-usual warming would be 7 degrees by 2100, eventual warming over several centuries of 25 degrees is feasible, says Huber.
The new research calculated the highest tolerable "wet-bulb" temperature that humans can withstand.
"The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan," says study lead author Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
The researchers found that humans and most mammals experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at a "wet-bulb" temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more.
(The more familiar air temperature is known as the "dry-bulb" temperature; wet bulb temperatures can be used along with the dry bulb temperature to calculate humidity.)
Researchers say that while wet-bulb temperatures of 95 degrees never happen now, they would begin to occur with global-average warming of about 12 degrees, calling the habitability of some regions into question.
"We show that even modest global warming could therefore expose large fractions of the population to unprecedented heat stress, and that with severe warming this would become intolerable," the authors write.
"If warmings of 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) were really to occur in next three centuries, the area of land likely rendered uninhabitable by heat stress would dwarf that affected by rising sea level. Heat stress thus deserves more attention as a climate-change impact."
By Doyle Rice
Mitch Marconi writes:
Climate Change - Could the Earth really be uninhabitable by 2300? With Polar Cities maybe needed to save humankind by 2500? Global warming experts are saying in 300 years temperatures would reach '21 degrees F' higher. This would make earth significantly hotter, so much it would be impossible to live in it normally.
According to research published by 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences', "The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan."
It's believed that if the temperatures do truly increase the earth would become too hot and the sea levels would rise and flood most lands we live on today. Matthew Huber, co-author of the study, said "We found that a 21-degree warming would put half of the world's population in an uninhabitable environment."
One of the major problems the earth faces with global warming is fossil fuels being burned allegedly by some scientists. If the continued amounts of fossil fuels are burned, there will be significant changes to the earth in the next century.
AND
Doyle Rice adds: Climate change could render much of world uninhabitable and polar cities might be needed to save the human species from extinction
PHOTO CAPTION: Pakistani youths cool off in a canal during a heat wave in June 2009, as temperatures soared to 117 degrees in some parts of the country. Extreme heat stress due to global warming could render much of the world uninhabitable in upcoming centuries, according to new research.
A worst-case scenario of global warming, in which temperatures would soar some 21 degrees, is that much of the world may simply become too hot for humans to live in, according to new research published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"We found that … a 21-degree warming would put half of the world's population in an uninhabitable environment,"says study co-author Matthew Huber of Purdue University.
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that the result of business-as-usual warming would be 7 degrees by 2100, eventual warming over several centuries of 25 degrees is feasible, says Huber.
The new research calculated the highest tolerable "wet-bulb" temperature that humans can withstand.
"The wet-bulb limit is basically the point at which one would overheat even if they were naked in the shade, soaking wet and standing in front of a large fan," says study lead author Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
The researchers found that humans and most mammals experience a potentially lethal level of heat stress at a "wet-bulb" temperature above 95 degrees sustained for six hours or more.
(The more familiar air temperature is known as the "dry-bulb" temperature; wet bulb temperatures can be used along with the dry bulb temperature to calculate humidity.)
Researchers say that while wet-bulb temperatures of 95 degrees never happen now, they would begin to occur with global-average warming of about 12 degrees, calling the habitability of some regions into question.
"We show that even modest global warming could therefore expose large fractions of the population to unprecedented heat stress, and that with severe warming this would become intolerable," the authors write.
"If warmings of 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) were really to occur in next three centuries, the area of land likely rendered uninhabitable by heat stress would dwarf that affected by rising sea level. Heat stress thus deserves more attention as a climate-change impact."
By Doyle Rice
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Jeff Jacoby is in big trouble now with his base. Good! TIme to move over to the other side, Jeff. Welcome!
What did Jeff do? He wrote a good oped column in the Boston Globe that said he does not like the Arizona law on immigration, and for writing that very good piece, he caught hell from his base of rightwing fanatic wingnuts who are all over him now for not being made of the right stuff. Good on ya, Jeff. I knew this would happen one day. You are at heart a liberal, a good man, a decent man. BRAVO.
MEA GULPA: Why I am Dropping the Leslie Buck Margalit Fox New York Times Obituary Case Since I don't have the smoking gun and it's time to move on and LET IT BE, Rest in Peace, Mr Buck, and apologies to all concerned, especially the Buck family, Margalit Fox, Bill McDonald and the Times LEGAL department and their very good PUBLIC EDITOR office, too. I was wrong. I am eating crow. I apologize.
However, at the same time as I issue the above MEA GULPA, I remain a bit suspicious of "inventors" and others who have claimed to be the
originator of something interesting.
There are those who have investigated a number of purported "inventors,"
some of whom were and some of whom were, on further investigation, probably
not. And these invention detectives always looked for patents, for instance, or design patents. And I could not find any evidence
of that for Leslie Buck. Even the 2002 trademark document from
Chicago does not prove that someone else designed the cup. So I am retiring this "case". I was wrong.
Until someone can prove that someone else designed the cup, as far as I am concerned, Leslie Buck designed it. Period. PERIOD. So what if it is not completely true in fact. It's a good story. That's good enough for me.
In fact, the Internet informs me that the 1996 Sun-Seninel of Fort Lauderdale published this:
"The design has been around since 1963," said Wayne Meadowcroft, Sherri's
vice president of sales and marketing. "At the time, most of the diners and
delis were Greek-owned, so the design, which was by an employee, Leslie
Buck, was a natural."
Also and much more interesting/devastating to my case was an article in the
NY Sun from 1996, about a design exhibition at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum in
NYC:
" Good design seems almost effortless, but great design is barely
noticeable. Take the paper clip, Helvetica, or the "Greek" coffee cup that's
a staple of every corner deli. Designed in 1963 by Leslie Buck, a Czech
immigrant and Sherri Cup Co. employee, the cup's familiar Greek motif is
both utterly banal and completely unforgettable."
All in all, Leslie Buck was probably was more responsible
for the creation of the Anthora (sic) design and cup than anybody else.
Is it an airtight case? No. Did he draw it
himself? Probably not.
The Times piece, however, was a bit overwritten. Well-written but over- written. Still, it's a classic already! Bravo! Bravo, Margalit Fox! I really apologize here and now. I hope you are reading this and that you accept my apology.
The editorial play of putting it on the Front Page, A1, was also a bit silly, but the case for Buck as designer of the iconic coffee cup was decent enough on the
face of it. So Bill McDonald, bravo!
And in the end it was a very nice and sweet obit. Case Closed. I apologize for even asking questions. I should have just shut up.
Personally, I would not have used words like "creator" in describing the subject of the story in regard to the product or invention. He was a salesman and marketing person, not an artist or inventor. It's likely and obvious to me that the company designed the product itself. But let it be.
I'm guessing that Leslie came up with the idea, maybe by himself or maybe as part of a team or a group of friends, and may have sketched his notion of what the product should look like, then handed it to an artist who finished the job. Who was that artist if there was one? His or her name ahs been lost in the mists of time. Midst of time, too.
Also I do no tblame the obit writer for the language used in her obit. Often, editors or copy editors will change or drop a word or two from an obit and distort the facts.
originator of something interesting.
There are those who have investigated a number of purported "inventors,"
some of whom were and some of whom were, on further investigation, probably
not. And these invention detectives always looked for patents, for instance, or design patents. And I could not find any evidence
of that for Leslie Buck. Even the 2002 trademark document from
Chicago does not prove that someone else designed the cup. So I am retiring this "case". I was wrong.
Until someone can prove that someone else designed the cup, as far as I am concerned, Leslie Buck designed it. Period. PERIOD. So what if it is not completely true in fact. It's a good story. That's good enough for me.
In fact, the Internet informs me that the 1996 Sun-Seninel of Fort Lauderdale published this:
"The design has been around since 1963," said Wayne Meadowcroft, Sherri's
vice president of sales and marketing. "At the time, most of the diners and
delis were Greek-owned, so the design, which was by an employee, Leslie
Buck, was a natural."
Also and much more interesting/devastating to my case was an article in the
NY Sun from 1996, about a design exhibition at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum in
NYC:
" Good design seems almost effortless, but great design is barely
noticeable. Take the paper clip, Helvetica, or the "Greek" coffee cup that's
a staple of every corner deli. Designed in 1963 by Leslie Buck, a Czech
immigrant and Sherri Cup Co. employee, the cup's familiar Greek motif is
both utterly banal and completely unforgettable."
All in all, Leslie Buck was probably was more responsible
for the creation of the Anthora (sic) design and cup than anybody else.
Is it an airtight case? No. Did he draw it
himself? Probably not.
The Times piece, however, was a bit overwritten. Well-written but over- written. Still, it's a classic already! Bravo! Bravo, Margalit Fox! I really apologize here and now. I hope you are reading this and that you accept my apology.
The editorial play of putting it on the Front Page, A1, was also a bit silly, but the case for Buck as designer of the iconic coffee cup was decent enough on the
face of it. So Bill McDonald, bravo!
And in the end it was a very nice and sweet obit. Case Closed. I apologize for even asking questions. I should have just shut up.
Personally, I would not have used words like "creator" in describing the subject of the story in regard to the product or invention. He was a salesman and marketing person, not an artist or inventor. It's likely and obvious to me that the company designed the product itself. But let it be.
I'm guessing that Leslie came up with the idea, maybe by himself or maybe as part of a team or a group of friends, and may have sketched his notion of what the product should look like, then handed it to an artist who finished the job. Who was that artist if there was one? His or her name ahs been lost in the mists of time. Midst of time, too.
Also I do no tblame the obit writer for the language used in her obit. Often, editors or copy editors will change or drop a word or two from an obit and distort the facts.
Interview with a Professional Obituary Writer
Interview with a Professional Obituary Writer On How A Newspaper Obit Might Have Gotten an Obit Wrong Despite the Best of Intentions
QUESTION: Dr Obit, did you read the recent obit about Mr So and So? I think it appeared on April 7.
ANSWER: Yes, I read it the day it came out.
QUESTION: Did you have any reservations about the obit?
ANSWER: None at all. I loved the piece!
QUESTION: It was a lovely piece, true, a very well written. A classic, almost. But I was wondering if you
swallowed the obit "fact", when some of the facts were based on hearsay and family lore?
ANSWER: Seemed true to me then and seems true to me now. What's your question, pesky man?
QUESTION: Well, Dr Obit, I am just wondering if it is possible the the "facts" might be otherwise....
ANSWER: Such as....
QUESTION: Well, I wrote an email to the reporter and I know he received it, because I have contacted reporters many times before and they always replied. But he did not reply to me, not once, and he apparently complained and sicked the legal department on me.
ANSWER: Really? Why? Were you threatening her or threatening a lawsuit against the paper? Or were you asking for a correction or a retraction? Why would he refuse to answer a fellow reporter's polite emails and sick the paper's lawyer on you?
QUESTION: I have no idea.
ANSWER: Seems strange to me. But let me tell you a few things, Grasshopper. First of all, the few people I know who have written to taht reporter have never received replies from him. A lot of reporters, editors and publishers receive so many emails that they don't answer many of them. So don't take it personally.
QUESTION: Okay, I won't. The lawyer's letter was friendly at any rate, and he even signed the letter with his first name and addressed me by my nickname. So I am not worried about the paper suing me.
ANSWER: Who said the paper is going to sue you? You mean ''NEWSPAPER VS PERSKY MAN''?
QUESTION: Nobody's suing anybody, Dr Obit. We are just chatting. The legal guy's been very sweet. And the ombudsman also sent me a nice email saying he would look into my pesky questions to see if there is anything to them. Just a routine form letter. And then he sent me a more personal letter.
ANSWER: Well, Pesky Man, pay attention, because it does appear that the reporter probably maybe might have forwarded your note to him to his superiors. Otherwise, how would a lawyer in Legal know about this? Also, unless you wrote directly to ombusman, it would seem reasonable that he or his superiors forwarded your message to the ombud office.
QUESTION: The ombud in her personal note to me asked me to back up my line of questioning.
ANSWER: Good! The message you received from her seems perfectly reasonable to me. The paper can't print a correction or clarification without some documentation.
QUESTION: But I do not want a correction in the paper or a clarification or a retraction.
ANSWER: I see. What do you want?
QUESTION: Nirvana.
ANSWER: Newspaper nirvana. Cute.
QUESTION: So what's next?
ANSWER: Well, Grasshopper, first, they'll want you to specify the errors in the obit, if there were any.
Then they'll ask: How do you know these are errors? Where's the documentation?
Are you personally connected to the issue?
And the biggie: Are you or someone else going to sue the paper for the error(s)? That might be the reason for the lawyer's involvement.
QUESTION: I see. Do you agree that obits should be fact-checked and vetted just like news stories?
ANSWER: Yes! Obits should be fact-checked and vetted the same as news stories. I expect the reporter found information in the paper's archives to support what he wrote ....
QUESTION: I'm not sure. According to the obit, it looked like he took the family lore as fact and repeated that as fact in his obit. I do not think he looked into the archives where an older story tells a bit of a different story. You know, family lore is a lot different from facts.
ANSWER: Use that as back up. Send the paper all the information you have amassed and ask them to check your facts against their facts? Do you want a correction in the paper? Or a retraction?
QUESTION: I have sent in the smoking guns I found online. There are three major points I found. We shall see. But Dr Obit, I want to make it clear to you, I do not seek a correction or a retraction in the paper. That would be embarrasssing to the family of the deceased, and I have no wish to hurt them at all at this time of mourning for their father and husband and loving brother. I am keeping the family out of this. I respect them, and I also mourn the death of their father. Really.
ANSWER: Well, Pesky Man with good intuition and good gumshoe digging skills online, let me tell you this, from my perspective as a veteran obit writer. Personally, I would not have used words like "creator" in describing the subject of the story in regard to the product or invention. He was a salesman and marketing person, not an artist or inventor. It's likely and obvious to me that the company designed the product itself.
QUESTION: Really? You agree with me?
ANSWER: I'm guessing that he came up with the idea and may have sketched his notion of what the prodcut should look like, then handed it to an artist who finished the job.
QUESTION: That's my gut reaction, too! We'er on the same page. Which page was the obit writer on?
ANSWER: I would not blame him for the language used in his obit. Often, editors or copy editors will change or drop a word or two from an obit and completely distort the facts.
QUESTION: You are right. There are several actors in this drama. I will keep digging. In a polite way, of course.
ANSWER: You know, sir, this all reminds me of an obit from the 1990s which carried the headline, "The creator of the Hokey Pokey." I don't know your age, Pesky Man, but in case you're not familiar with it, the Hokey Pokey is a dance that has been popular with children and adults in the U.S. since around 1948. The dance existed long before that in England and Australia. American soldiers were introduced to it during World War II.
QUESTION: I used to do the hokey pokey, too, as a kid growing up in the 1950s.
ANSWER: Jeez, you're THAT old? I thought you were in your 30s!
QUESTION: 1949er.
ANSWER: Anyway, to make a long story short, the "creator" of the Hokey Pokey did not actually create the dance. He got a U.S. copyright for the song he wrote about it. His obit never said he created or invented the dance. The newspaper editor who wrote the headline did that.
QUESTION: Dr Obit, you've been a great source of help here.
Thank you for your time.
ANSWER: No problem, sir. I got a deadline now to get back to, if you'll excuse the pun. An obit writer's life is never dull. People are dying every day.
QUESTION: Dr Obit, did you read the recent obit about Mr So and So? I think it appeared on April 7.
ANSWER: Yes, I read it the day it came out.
QUESTION: Did you have any reservations about the obit?
ANSWER: None at all. I loved the piece!
QUESTION: It was a lovely piece, true, a very well written. A classic, almost. But I was wondering if you
swallowed the obit "fact", when some of the facts were based on hearsay and family lore?
ANSWER: Seemed true to me then and seems true to me now. What's your question, pesky man?
QUESTION: Well, Dr Obit, I am just wondering if it is possible the the "facts" might be otherwise....
ANSWER: Such as....
QUESTION: Well, I wrote an email to the reporter and I know he received it, because I have contacted reporters many times before and they always replied. But he did not reply to me, not once, and he apparently complained and sicked the legal department on me.
ANSWER: Really? Why? Were you threatening her or threatening a lawsuit against the paper? Or were you asking for a correction or a retraction? Why would he refuse to answer a fellow reporter's polite emails and sick the paper's lawyer on you?
QUESTION: I have no idea.
ANSWER: Seems strange to me. But let me tell you a few things, Grasshopper. First of all, the few people I know who have written to taht reporter have never received replies from him. A lot of reporters, editors and publishers receive so many emails that they don't answer many of them. So don't take it personally.
QUESTION: Okay, I won't. The lawyer's letter was friendly at any rate, and he even signed the letter with his first name and addressed me by my nickname. So I am not worried about the paper suing me.
ANSWER: Who said the paper is going to sue you? You mean ''NEWSPAPER VS PERSKY MAN''?
QUESTION: Nobody's suing anybody, Dr Obit. We are just chatting. The legal guy's been very sweet. And the ombudsman also sent me a nice email saying he would look into my pesky questions to see if there is anything to them. Just a routine form letter. And then he sent me a more personal letter.
ANSWER: Well, Pesky Man, pay attention, because it does appear that the reporter probably maybe might have forwarded your note to him to his superiors. Otherwise, how would a lawyer in Legal know about this? Also, unless you wrote directly to ombusman, it would seem reasonable that he or his superiors forwarded your message to the ombud office.
QUESTION: The ombud in her personal note to me asked me to back up my line of questioning.
ANSWER: Good! The message you received from her seems perfectly reasonable to me. The paper can't print a correction or clarification without some documentation.
QUESTION: But I do not want a correction in the paper or a clarification or a retraction.
ANSWER: I see. What do you want?
QUESTION: Nirvana.
ANSWER: Newspaper nirvana. Cute.
QUESTION: So what's next?
ANSWER: Well, Grasshopper, first, they'll want you to specify the errors in the obit, if there were any.
Then they'll ask: How do you know these are errors? Where's the documentation?
Are you personally connected to the issue?
And the biggie: Are you or someone else going to sue the paper for the error(s)? That might be the reason for the lawyer's involvement.
QUESTION: I see. Do you agree that obits should be fact-checked and vetted just like news stories?
ANSWER: Yes! Obits should be fact-checked and vetted the same as news stories. I expect the reporter found information in the paper's archives to support what he wrote ....
QUESTION: I'm not sure. According to the obit, it looked like he took the family lore as fact and repeated that as fact in his obit. I do not think he looked into the archives where an older story tells a bit of a different story. You know, family lore is a lot different from facts.
ANSWER: Use that as back up. Send the paper all the information you have amassed and ask them to check your facts against their facts? Do you want a correction in the paper? Or a retraction?
QUESTION: I have sent in the smoking guns I found online. There are three major points I found. We shall see. But Dr Obit, I want to make it clear to you, I do not seek a correction or a retraction in the paper. That would be embarrasssing to the family of the deceased, and I have no wish to hurt them at all at this time of mourning for their father and husband and loving brother. I am keeping the family out of this. I respect them, and I also mourn the death of their father. Really.
ANSWER: Well, Pesky Man with good intuition and good gumshoe digging skills online, let me tell you this, from my perspective as a veteran obit writer. Personally, I would not have used words like "creator" in describing the subject of the story in regard to the product or invention. He was a salesman and marketing person, not an artist or inventor. It's likely and obvious to me that the company designed the product itself.
QUESTION: Really? You agree with me?
ANSWER: I'm guessing that he came up with the idea and may have sketched his notion of what the prodcut should look like, then handed it to an artist who finished the job.
QUESTION: That's my gut reaction, too! We'er on the same page. Which page was the obit writer on?
ANSWER: I would not blame him for the language used in his obit. Often, editors or copy editors will change or drop a word or two from an obit and completely distort the facts.
QUESTION: You are right. There are several actors in this drama. I will keep digging. In a polite way, of course.
ANSWER: You know, sir, this all reminds me of an obit from the 1990s which carried the headline, "The creator of the Hokey Pokey." I don't know your age, Pesky Man, but in case you're not familiar with it, the Hokey Pokey is a dance that has been popular with children and adults in the U.S. since around 1948. The dance existed long before that in England and Australia. American soldiers were introduced to it during World War II.
QUESTION: I used to do the hokey pokey, too, as a kid growing up in the 1950s.
ANSWER: Jeez, you're THAT old? I thought you were in your 30s!
QUESTION: 1949er.
ANSWER: Anyway, to make a long story short, the "creator" of the Hokey Pokey did not actually create the dance. He got a U.S. copyright for the song he wrote about it. His obit never said he created or invented the dance. The newspaper editor who wrote the headline did that.
QUESTION: Dr Obit, you've been a great source of help here.
Thank you for your time.
ANSWER: No problem, sir. I got a deadline now to get back to, if you'll excuse the pun. An obit writer's life is never dull. People are dying every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)