[HN Gopher] Rising temperatures erode human sleep globally
___________________________________________________________________
Rising temperatures erode human sleep globally
Author : Kaibeezy
Score : 160 points
Date : 2022-05-22 07:03 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cell.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cell.com)
| arisAlexis wrote:
| this doesn't make much sense. It would mean people near the
| equator sleep worse or that someone used to the North moving to
| California will experience worse sleep. Sounds like p-hacking
| random study.
| voxl wrote:
| It could be as simple as the relative change is one people
| aren't yet used to. If you grow up in 100 degree weather your
| whole life you get used to it. Probably there is some delta of
| time where we would adapt to any change in temp, but if the
| temp itself is constantly increasing then maybe our adaptation
| can't keep up as well
| jawarner wrote:
| You ever toss and turn at night because it's just too hot to
| sleep? Someone moving from the North to California would likely
| experience that. I know I did when I moved to Texas and my air
| conditioning unit broke down.
|
| The authors say there is adaptation to the local climate so
| someone living near the equator might still get good sleep. The
| data is based on weather, and it checks out; it's hard to sleep
| on a hot summer night.
| xwdv wrote:
| So the takeaway is just adapt.
| arisAlexis wrote:
| It'd hard to sleep for you not Africans. 1C difference can't
| make such a difference since we can adapt. I am all for
| climate change but the title of the study sounds meh.
| Qem wrote:
| I spent the first half of my life living 7 degrees south of
| the equator, in a city where temperatures in the hot season
| routinely go near 40o Celsius. I can tell first hand, it
| wrecks your sleep. Sleeping in a mattress is unbearable, even
| under low humidity and with a fan, your underside gets too
| hot, and the entire night is spent flipping in the bed. The
| only effective adaptation available to poor people, without
| AC, was to sleep in hammocks as a default. It avoids getting
| your underside too hot.
| joemaller1 wrote:
| Can we also talk about light pollution? Birds aren't sleeping
| either.
| beebeepka wrote:
| True. There are some parks with all kinds of exotic birds for
| human attraction. I get every time seeing all the projects
| lighting up the ponds and trees. Absolute madness.
|
| And sound pollution, too. Fucking vehicles, man. I live in a
| busy city and in my estimates night traffic is at least 90%
| pleasure.
|
| How do I know? Only idiots force their engines during the day,
| and at night I mostly hear idiots
|
| Inconsiderate fucks.
| jokoon wrote:
| It's hot this week in france and I had very poor sleep.
|
| I have been thinking to move into the mountain, in a city where
| the weather is much cooler in the summer.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Well, while their title alone leads to a "no shit, Sherlock?"
| response, because it's quite clear that it's hard to sleep in
| abnormally hot days (but there isn't anything there about the
| impact of global warming that it wants to push), that is really a
| data-mining study that found a correlation inside a huge amount
| of possible variables.
|
| That means the study itself is a solid base for further
| examination, but meaningless for any real world conclusion.
| Comevius wrote:
| There are plenty who thinks that people who can't buy an air
| conditioner are lesser and don't deserve one. Bootstraps and all.
|
| I like to look at the bigger picture, this will cause further
| instability in the world, which is bad for all of us. Besides the
| consumption of those who can afford an air conditioner drives
| climate change. You may be handing over the money in the shop,
| but it's the entire planet that subsidizes your purchase power,
| which is not cool, literally not cool.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "this will cause further instability in the world,"
|
| What will? How?
| Comevius wrote:
| Climate change, what else would we be talking about?
| giantg2 wrote:
| I don't see lack of air-conditioning causing instability.
| Other aspects of global warming, sure.
| samatman wrote:
| People who own computers capable of posting on hacker news
| don't get to tell the global south they can't install AC.
| glouwbug wrote:
| A 6502 could post on hacker news
| scrollaway wrote:
| Air conditioners nowadays can and should be bought as
| reversible heat pumps. It adds nothing to the purchase price
| and it replaces gas heating as a much more efficient way to
| heat a building.
|
| We should be installing heat pumps everywhere. Power
| consumption may go up in summer but would go way down in winter
| as efficiency is greatly increased. Unless your point is that
| poor people don't deserve heating any more than they deserve
| cooling...
| xunn0026 wrote:
| Last I checked a heat pump is considerably more expensive
| than an air conditioner. And a regular air conditioner can
| probably only heat when the outside is not freezing.
|
| I would actually want to get a heat pump but it's basically
| prohibitive. Would be nice to replace them with a "cheaper"
| air conditioner unit.
| zionic wrote:
| The cost increase is marginal, but the benefits are
| enormous.
|
| Modern heat pumps work well down to -20F. If it's that cold
| I don't want to live there.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Are there no places in the world without a need for central
| heating?
|
| If your only space conditioning load is air conditioning, you
| don't need to have a reversing valve and defroster.
| eru wrote:
| > There are plenty who thinks that people who can't buy an air
| conditioner are lesser and don't deserve one. Bootstraps and
| all.
|
| This sounds like a strawman.
| Comevius wrote:
| It does, but people do a good job at making a strawman of
| themselves. These bootstrap folks are out there, and they are
| here. And I'm not just talking about the libertarians, plenty
| of liberals have trouble seeing the bigger picture. When it's
| painful to do that, we don't do it. You don't need to live in
| Nazi Germany to be have to ignorant for your own good,
| cognitive biases like just-world fallacy are enough. Climate
| change is plenty enough, it creates a lot of uncertainty and
| it brings the strawman out of people. Our defense mechanisms
| are rather predictable.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Idea: could this be an evolved trait? Could it be that sleeping
| less during hot weather was an evolutionary advantage?
|
| Maybe spending more time asleep during the winter, presumably
| when food/resources are scarce, lowered energy needs and so
| increased survivability. In hot climates, predators are more
| active at night. Maybe our aversion to sleeping during hot nights
| evolved from a need to stay awake when the lions/tigers/bears
| were out looking to eat us? That could be why I find it easier to
| sleep out in the sun in the middle of a summer day (siesta) than
| I do at the same temperature during the night.
| herf wrote:
| They've identified several correlates due to weather (cloud
| cover, rain, wind, day length), but then I can't find where they
| correct for these in talking about effect sizes. All of these
| effects then "add up" to make the nearly 10-minute variation in
| sleep duration.
|
| Also, sleep isn't only about duration - most sleep scientists
| would want to know about sleep efficiency too. This is "time
| asleep / time in bed". If you wake up more when it's cold, then
| there is a reason for shorter sleep when it's warm. Similarly,
| you'd ideally correct for air conditioning and factors like this
| on an individual level, but they don't seem to have this data.
|
| Activity before bed, and the light that gets into your bedroom in
| the morning are certainly correlated with heat. It's important to
| investigate how these variables interact.
| gwern wrote:
| > The elderly, women, and residents of lower-income countries are
| impacted most
|
| If small increases in global temperature can impact sleep enough
| to care about, then that is a much stronger additional argument
| for economic growth( to make AC, which can reduce night
| temperatures by a _lot_ , affordable and universal) than it is
| for trading growth for some small avoidance of further temp
| growth. The latter is how I expect most people will read this
| result...
| dotancohen wrote:
| What about all the non-human
| primates/mammals/vertebrates/animals affected?
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I don't see your argument at all. I see this as a powerful
| reason why even seemingly small changes in temperature can have
| a huge impact on human life. If this was the literal only
| issue, that could be an argument. But it's not. It's one of
| many.
|
| My hope is that people will read this and say "it's not just
| the animals, the plants, crops, drought, it's people directly
| affected too". Although I apparently overlooked the "fuck the
| environment, fuck the poor, get AC" argument.
| sokoloff wrote:
| The study suggests that nighttime temps over 25degC are
| detrimental to sleep. One of the most obvious ways to get
| nighttime temps well under that is via AC.
|
| It doesn't seem outrageous nor "fuck the poor" to ask the
| question "is there a reasonable path to get AC more widely
| deployed to help more people sleep better?"
| zionic wrote:
| Solar panels + heat pump (an AC that can cool or heat your
| home) completely solves this problem.
|
| We have simple solutions to this issue, the only thing to do
| is make it more affordable.
| starkd wrote:
| It's not about "fuck the environment". That's an extremely
| uncharitable interpretation to take of your neighbors. People
| are willing to to sacrifice, but only IF they see it as a
| meaningful sacrifice that actually does something. Sort of
| like why recycling rates are going down because more and more
| people realize most of winds up in the landfill anyway.
| gumby wrote:
| AC heats up the planet though (just think of the
| thermodynamics: not only to you pull out the heat and expel it
| outdoors, but that takes energy, which ends up as heat exhaust
| as well).
|
| People need cool air, no question, but it's not a free lunch.
| We need to cool the climate as well.
|
| (BTW I do believe everybody should have access to as much
| energy as the OECD countries use per capita. Sadly even this is
| controversial)
| ephbit wrote:
| > AC heats up the planet though ..
|
| It doesn't.
|
| The name heat pump explains it pretty well. It "pumps" heat
| from one place to another. In case of your AC from inside the
| building to outside. Yes, it generates additional heat from
| the electricity it uses.
|
| But ...
|
| It doesn't matter how you use energy on earth (except for
| mostly weird examples), because basically except for these
| weird examples, almost 100 % of the used energy will end up
| as heat anyway. It doesn't matter through what cascade of
| transformations the energy ends up as heat, whether you use
| electricity to boil water, or to power an EV, or to power a
| heat pump, almost 100 % of the input power will end up as
| heat anyway.
|
| What are some weird examples? You convert captured solar
| energy into chemical energy (for example pure carbon or
| hydrocarbons) and store the chemicals forever, then you've
| prevented some of the captured energy from being turned into
| heat. Another would be to emit electromagnetic radiation into
| outer space. Or you could carry rocket fuel into space and
| just dump it there, unused.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| That's not correct. Every transformation has efficiency
| loss. If you pipe the same amount of energy through a less
| efficient process, less useful work gets done for that
| amount of energy. Therefore to hit your target of useful
| work via an inefficient process, you'll have to send more
| energy through it, and thus more energy also goes to waste
| (heat).
| ephbit wrote:
| You're writing past what I wrote.
|
| > Every transformation has efficiency loss.
|
| I didn't deny that.
|
| > If you pipe the same amount of energy through a less
| efficient process, less useful work gets done for that
| amount of energy. Therefore to hit your target of useful
| work via an inefficient process, you'll have to send more
| energy through it, and thus more energy also goes to
| waste (heat).
|
| The point in the post I was replying to wasn't about
| efficiency.
|
| The question was, whether heat pumps heat up the earth.
| They don't.
|
| Why?
|
| Because the energy that's used to power heat pumps would
| (as I've explained) have ended up as heat anyway.
|
| If you use fossil fuels as energy source to power heat
| pumps, then yes, you convert chemical energy to thermal
| energy. But it doesn't matter if you use that fossil
| energy to power a heat pump or to power an EV or a
| computer, the energy always ends up as heat. So it's not
| the apparatus "heat pump" that's a problem, but the fact
| that someone is using fossil energy at all. No, heat
| pumps don't heat up the earth. Using fossil fuels does.
|
| If you were to power the heat pump using solar energy,
| you'd mostly leave the earth's energy balance untouched.
|
| The main point where you then interfere with the earth's
| energy balance is through altering the way that radiation
| gets absorbed/reflected/emitted by the solar panels as
| opposed to no solar panels being put up.
|
| Some processes that indeed heat up the earth are: -
| radiation from the sun (and earth) gets partially trapped
| by the atmosphere (absorbed/reflected)
|
| - nuclear fission processes produce energy that gets
| converted to heat through a cascade of processes
| zionic wrote:
| Waste heat from AC is nothing compared to the ~1.3kw per
| square meter of solar irradiance.
|
| Side note: We really need better solar panels!
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The "elderly, women, and residents of lower-income countries"
| is about 80% of humanity.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Also coincidentally, the exact people the ruling elite gives
| zero fucks about.
| throwrqX wrote:
| By the sounds of the comments here I must be the only person who
| can sleep in 33c (91.4f) degrees and not be bothered at all.
| dsq wrote:
| I definitely sleep less well in the hot, humid, summer than in
| winter. When it's cold you can add layers. When it's hot you
| reach a limit of zero layers of clothing/coverings and then have
| to move the heat and humidity elsewhere artificially via A/C. I
| also think (this is my subjective opinion, I have no proof) that
| cold reduces swelling and inflammation, thus making for easier
| breathing during sleep.
| starkd wrote:
| My guess is very few people are willing to go back to pre-A/C
| days. Especially in automobiles. And any attempt to persuade
| people to give them up is going to be met with forceful
| pushback. It's now a luxury few will be willing to give up.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| Just having a regular fan helps a lot. Very little energy
| usage, very cheap. I bought a new fan a few weeks ago, one that
| is nearly soundless in its lowest setting. Even the slight
| breeze made by the lowest setting already makes a huge
| difference compared to stale hot air. It also uses an order of
| magnitude less energy than an A/C, and costs an order of
| magnitude less to purchase+install (100 EUR vs 3000 EUR).
| samatman wrote:
| Do you have a heat pump for heating?
|
| If you do, you get A/C for 'free', and if you don't, you're
| wasting so much energy in the winter that you can never make
| up for it by 'making do' with a fan rather than proper air
| conditioning.
|
| Signed, some guy who was in Belgium for the heat wave in 2018
| and thinks Europeans should just suck it up and put in heat
| pumps. Sweltering in the summer and burning gas directly in
| the winter isn't virtuous.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Everyone who has heat pumps knows they can cool, the issue
| is getting one because they kinda cost like 5x as much as
| an equivalent AC unit for some goddamn reason and the only
| difference is the reversing valve. I suspect the market
| needs some EU regulation so the manufacturers stop price
| gouging based on marketing bullshit.
| farisjarrah wrote:
| On amazon in the US you can get either a 12,000 btu
| through-the-wall AC unit for about $700 or a 12,000 btu
| wall ductless mini-split(heat pump, so AC and heat) for
| about $850. For either of those you can find models for
| cheaper or more expensive. I just chose general middle of
| the road prices. So the cost is no longer 5x, the prices
| are becoming a lot more comparable for heat pumps vs
| regular ac units. Also, if you check out the efficiency
| ratings, for most mini-splits these days, you'll make up
| the cost difference in your electrical bill vs a run of
| the mill AC unit in the medium to long run.
| eropple wrote:
| Your mention of through-wall models reminded me: I've
| been wondering for a while why I can't get window-mounted
| heat pumps at a reasonable price. I recognize the
| limitations on insulation, but as I'm not yet at a spot
| in my renovation where I can do heat pumps
| comprehensively and seeing as how I'm looking for another
| air conditioner for the first floor of my house, buying
| one that's reversible seems like an obvious thing. (Maybe
| like that around-the-window Midea model? That seems kind
| of obvious to me, but I am not an engineer.)
|
| This startup has a neat idea, and I hope to see more
| about it - https://www.gradientcomfort.com/ - but $2000
| feels like it's not competitive.
|
| And if anyone happens to know of one (and not an AC that
| will just do electric heat) available in the USA, I'd be
| grateful to hear about it. Amana will sell me one - for
| $1300 for 12K BTU, and that sounds...high.
| eru wrote:
| > If you do, you get A/C for 'free', and if you don't,
| you're wasting so much energy in the winter that you can
| never make up for it by 'making do' with a fan rather than
| proper air conditioning.
|
| Eh, depends on what you are heating with in winter.
|
| A friend of mine lives in a rural area and basically gets
| firewood for free. Even the best heat pump can't beat that.
|
| (Heat pumps are still great in general. And much better
| than using electricity directly to heat.)
| samatman wrote:
| If your labor has no value, sure.
|
| There's something satisfying about trading labor directly
| for something like heat that you normally have to buy.
| Exercise is good for you, sustainability and resilience
| are virtues, and so on.
|
| But heating even a modest space with wood is a Lot of
| Work.
|
| Also, it's still quite energetically inefficient, but
| that's a technicality here I feel, energy isn't
| completely fungible (it does salvage my sentence, which
| was about energy). The carbon accounting would be
| interesting to spitball but fiendishly hard to do fairly.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I have been researching heat pumps, in my case air-to-
| water, so I could get very cold water "cheaply" in the
| summer, but it's still a massive project to turn that into
| AC.
|
| I probably can't make it work, because I need a bit too
| high water circulation temps to meet the heating load at
| 12degF/-11degC and the up-front economics are significantly
| worse due to not enough experienced installers/general lack
| of competition in the air-to-water space. (Our gas prices
| are low enough and electricity high enough that the payback
| period is lengthy.)
|
| If I had existing ducts, air-to-air heat pumps would make a
| lot of sense (and would give AC automatically), but
| hydronic distribution doesn't afford "free" AC.
| dahfizz wrote:
| How does an air to water heat pump work? Do you live in a
| climate that gets below freezing in the winter?
| sokoloff wrote:
| I live in the Boston area (temps well below freezing in
| winter). Freezing is managed by either a monobloc design
| using glycol in the outdoor loop (more common) or by
| sending only refrigerant in/out of the building (less
| common) and having the heat transfer take place inside.
|
| If you use glycol, you'd typically use a plate heat
| exchanger inside and still use water as the main hydronic
| distribution medium (out to radiators in my case or to
| floor warming in other installs), but this gives up a
| small amount of efficiency and some maximum heating
| capacity. (If the max leaving glycol temp is
| 130degF/55degC, your max water temp will be a few degrees
| below that after the heat exchanger.)
|
| The split units (refrigerant lines in/out of the
| building) can go directly to water, meaning a max leaving
| temp of 130degF can go directly to the radiator loops.
| samatman wrote:
| I don't know if you watch Technology Connections already,
| but his videos on this are really good. He lives in the
| Chicago area.
|
| I get the sense that you've evaluated this thoroughly and
| it actually won't work for you, that does happen.
|
| We get bitter cold as well as sultry summers, and I have
| an AC which I keep thinking about replacing with a heat
| pump, just because it bothers me aesthetically that I
| can't run it backward for the intermediate months when
| it's cold but not _that_ cold. The bill would be cheaper
| but the depreciation on replacing a perfectly good AC
| would take a long time to balance.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I haven't, but will check his channel out. In return,
| I'll recommend Heat Geek (based in UK). (Edit to correct:
| I actually had seen at least one his videos from my
| YouTube history. That reinforces my recommendation for
| "if you like him, you'll likely enjoy Heat Geek as
| well".)
|
| In terms of "can it work for me?" it's like most things:
| if you hit it hard enough, it'll fit, but the low cost of
| replacing a boiler with a boiler, the high cost of
| electricity in MA, and the dearth of A2W heat pump
| companies (both competing to supply equipment in the US
| and locally installing) makes it uneconomical, not
| thermodynamically impossible. (It's right on the edge but
| inside of the latter; via experimentation this winter, I
| determined that my 2 lower levels can maintain temp down
| to 10degF with a leaving water temp cycling between
| 125-135degF, while the converted attic needs 135-145degF
| at 10degF OAT. Most A2W heat pumps max out at
| 55degC/130degF leaving water temp, and even at that level
| are necessarily giving up efficiency and heating capacity
| as compared to a 45degC or 50degC LWT.)
|
| Obviously, improving insulation would change those
| figures, but in a structural brick house with complex
| interior wall finishes, adding radiation in the attic and
| supplementing the heat pump with an electric boiler below
| 15degF OAT would be wildly cheaper, especially since the
| COP at those temps is well under 2 and the runtimes under
| 15degF would only be around 50-75 hours per year.
|
| It could work, and would allow us to get rid of local
| fuel combustion entirely, but even after a $10K
| government incentive, it would be at a cost that is still
| a multiple of what gas-for-gas replacement ($2.5K
| government incentive) and running for 15 years would cost
| and with the risk of having an uncommon system that only
| a few companies understand and can service. Perhaps the
| boiler after this next one will be replaced by a heat
| pump; I hope things develop in that direction.
|
| We may end up adding some mini-split (air-air) heat
| pumps, mostly to provide AC and dehumidification in the
| summer (replacing window shaker units), but those would
| also be quite economical to heat with in the long
| shoulder season (40-60degF OATs).
| Brybry wrote:
| When it's very hot fans actually make you hotter[1][2] though
| the science isn't yet settled on what exact conditions fans
| are not appropriate for[3].
|
| [1] https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/6594/
|
| [2] https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/faq.html
|
| [3] https://sci-
| hub.st/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31382270/
| Qem wrote:
| Fans work fine for hot, dry climates, by increasing your
| sweat evaporation rate. When coupled to evaporative cooling
| (fans that pump a little water to evaporate into the wind),
| they work even better. But in hot, _humid_ climates, they are
| worthless. Climate change is increasing both average
| temperatures and humidity in many places. Heat and humidity
| are a killer combo.
| aitchnyu wrote:
| I'm in a coastal city in India and I really appreciate fans
| when the clouds trap the sunlight and its hottest just
| before it rains.
| eru wrote:
| If you live in a place like London, where it gets hot in
| summer but many places still don't have A/C, a fan can work
| wonders.
|
| Here's the magic trick to cool your home down quickly:
|
| During the day your house heats up. In the evening your home
| is likely warmer than the night air. Many people try to open
| the window and put the fan close to the window to blow cold
| air in.
|
| What works much better is pointing the fan out of the window!
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| I'd love to open the windows in summer nights.
| Unfortunately anti-social people love to ride reaaaally
| loud motorbikes in the middle of the night.
| eru wrote:
| With this technique you can quickly cool your house down
| and then close the windows again perhaps an hour later.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I installed a whole house fan in my previous place.
| Automatic louvers in the attic and a massive blower that
| I could open downstairs windows, turn the fan on and it
| would pull air in from the windows, push it into the
| attic, and out the louvers.
|
| Not only did it quickly replace the indoor air with
| cooler outside air, it would also ventilate the attic,
| preventing it from quickly reheating the upstairs. I
| could run it for 5 minutes and get the desired effect,
| maybe 10 minutes in an unusually hot spell.
| masklinn wrote:
| > With this technique you can quickly cool your house
| down and then close the windows again perhaps an hour
| later.
|
| Not unless you wake at 3AM to implement it. In summer, by
| the time most people go to bed the temperature has not
| dropped significantly yet.
| eru wrote:
| Well, that depends on location, I guess.
|
| Where are you talking about?
|
| I used the technique I described in eg London, Sydney and
| parts of Germany. Most of the time, temperatures had
| dropped quite a bit by 22:00. (But not always.)
| twothamendment wrote:
| That depends on where you live. I used to live in a place
| where the lows are night were still very warm. Most of
| the night was too hot. Just before sunrise there was a
| moment when outside air was worth bringing in - but it
| was only long enough to cool the air in the house, not
| the mass of the house itself.
|
| Now I live in a cooler climate. The highs can still get
| as high in the day, but it does cool of at night - nearly
| as soon as the sun goes down.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| This - create a negative pressure space inside the house.
| Then open other windows throughout the house to equalize
| that pressure. By pushing air out one window, you're
| effectively creating a breeze from many windows. It's also
| easier to push a large volume of air out of a window than
| to try and pull a large volume of air from outside a
| window.
| zionic wrote:
| This is the last thing you want to do. By creating a low
| pressure zone in your home humid outside air will seep in
| through every crack, gap, and uncaulked seam in your
| house.
|
| Such a system is basically a mold incubator. The correct
| method is to:
|
| 1) have central HVAC
|
| 2) have an energy recovering ventilator (ERV), zhender is
| a good brand.
|
| #2 Constantly cycles fresh air throughout your home and
| it's intake is controllable and filtered.
| [deleted]
| inetknght wrote:
| > _What works much better is pointing the fan out of the
| window!_
|
| I just remember: hot goes to cold. So pushing the hot air
| toward the cold air is more efficient. If that means
| pushing the hot air inside the home toward the outside then
| sobeit.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I don't see that it matters much which way the fan is
| blowing. What matters is the air exchange, which is about
| creating an airflow.
|
| If you have a multistory house you can open windows at
| the top and bottom, the warm air will tend to flow out
| and pull cool air in the bottom. In that situation if you
| have a fan, it would make sense to have it blowing air in
| on the lower level, or out on the upper level.
|
| If you have a single level, the fan will just create a
| slight pressure difference in one direction or the other.
| You just need to open several windows, preferably on
| opposite sides of the room, and if you use a fan to pull
| cool air in that creates a positive pressure inside the
| room, which will force the warm air to be exhausted
| through the other open windows. If the fan is blowing
| warm air out, then the room pressure will be negative
| relative to the outside, and cool air will be pulled in
| through the other open windows.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Yeah can confirm that's doable, unfortunately it's very
| disruptive since you need to keep light levels down before
| opening windows and during it otherwise your place becomes
| mosquito and moth central.
|
| The silver lining is that it will get better eventually
| since bugs are dying off rapidly but for now it's either
| eye strain or buying nets for every window.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| You don't have insect screens on your windows? That's
| just standard where I live. Every house has them on every
| window.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| I don't have them for my front windows because then the
| window cleaner, who cleans every month, can't do his job.
| dsq wrote:
| Oh, absolutely. I use a fan from April through May. Come
| summer with 35-40 degrees and 80-90 percent humidity, as is
| the case for six to eight months of the year in many places,
| no fan will help, only true-blue A/C.
|
| Moving air also helps against mosquitoes, I have read!
| dotancohen wrote:
| Mosquitoes identify us by our CO2 emissions. So getting rid
| of the CO2 bubble coming out of our noses does a good job
| of masking us from the mosquitoes.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| I have also noticed that whenever I turn on a fan, there's
| less chance that I end up with a mosquito bite next
| morning.
| WaxedChewbacca wrote:
| an9n wrote:
| I suppose we could do something crazy like, I don't know, moving
| somewhere cooler?
| GuB-42 wrote:
| And move the whole city with you? Otherwise you will find
| yourself in the middle of nowhere with not much to do and not
| much to support you.
|
| That's actually a big problem with global warming, maybe the
| biggest problem. Raising waters? Just move coastal cities on
| higher grounds. Some countries will actually benefit from
| global warming, I think that's the case for Canada, just move
| there.
|
| But that's not how it works, you can't move around millions of
| people and hundreds of years worth of infrastructure just like
| that.
| racl101 wrote:
| As a hot sleeper I can attest.
|
| I'm the guy who will crack a window open in -15 degree (celsius)
| (5 degree F) and think: perfect.
| Proven wrote:
| jawarner wrote:
| The gist: On hotter nights people get less sleep, this being
| especially the case for people who are poor (limited access to
| AC?) and who already live in hot climates (100->110 deg is more
| noticeable than 70->80).
|
| It's nice data. They gave sleep tracking watches to 47,000
| subjects for a few years, and this is what came out of it.
|
| Their climate change angle is suspect. It probably helps publish
| to be relevant to a real-world problem. But their final paragraph
| undermines the projections they try to make: people adapt to the
| long-term weather patterns, and they'll likely partially adapt to
| climate change occurring over the course of 50 years. Of course
| it's still relevant from a health equity standpoint to consider.
| junon wrote:
| > Their climate change angle is suspect. It probably helps
| publish to be relevant to a real-world problem.
|
| Is, uh... is climate change no longer a real problem?
| jawarner wrote:
| If you don't mind I made a clarifying post:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31470654
| junon wrote:
| Makes sense, I think I interpreted your original comment
| differently than intended as well.
| jawarner wrote:
| The fact that heat stress affects different populations
| with such different impacts is super important to climate
| policy and diplomacy and geopolitics. The authors in this
| case identified a concrete, statistically sound
| demonstration of disparate impact of heat stress.
|
| That's something I wish I had emphasized in my top-level
| post.
| dahfizz wrote:
| That is an extremely uncharitable take. OP is clearly saying
| climate change is an issue, but is not particularly relevant
| to the issue of human sleep.
| masklinn wrote:
| > people adapt to the long-term weather patterns, and they'll
| likely partially adapt to climate change occurring over the
| course of 50 years.
|
| Can you explain how populations of countries slowly creeping on
| routine 35WBT are supposed to adapt exactly?
| sokoloff wrote:
| I hope and expect they'll consider dehumidification and air
| conditioning (which naturally "includes" dehumidification) as
| part of the adaptation strategy.
|
| (I'm not suggesting that we give up on global warming, but if
| a people are facing 35degC WB, AC/dehumidification is going
| to have to be part of the answer, because the next 5 years of
| climate is already cast and the only other short-term
| alternative is "well, move" which is far less practical or
| empathetic.)
| tjoff wrote:
| > _The gist: On hotter nights people get less sleep, this being
| especially the case for people who are poor (limited access to
| AC?)_
|
| Forcing a large part of the world where noone has an AC to get
| an AC (at least those that can afford it) is going to do
| wonders for the environment.
|
| I'm quite sensitive to heat and the quality of life
| improvements from an AC are immeasurable, though I live in an
| apartment and can't really get one (have a crappy portable one
| for emergencies). I suspect that the climate impact of the ACs
| are going to create a strong stigma against it where they are
| not strictly necessary.
| kortilla wrote:
| > Forcing a large part of the world where noone has an AC to
| get an AC (at least those that can afford it) is going to do
| wonders for the environment.
|
| Heat pumps are better than any other kind of heater
| efficiency-wise. Getting a mini split is good for the
| environment whether or not you use it to cool.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> Forcing a large part of the world where noone has an AC to
| get an AC (at least those that can afford it) is going to do
| wonders for the environment_
|
| Sure, but then why does the US get a pass on being super
| environmentally unfriendly by running heating or AC at full
| blast everywhere while also having buildings with very poor
| insulation (by European standards at least; the single pane
| windows with no outdoor blinds I had in Miami Beach would be
| illegal in most of EU) and no outdoor sun shades to block the
| sun energy entering the building, choosing instead to vent it
| out via AC after it had already entered, or just straight up
| wasting energy (Las Vegas casinos run the AC basically
| outdoors), while other, usually poorer countries, should just
| suck it up and learn to live without AC?
|
| I get that the US is capital and resource rich and can afford
| to be wasteful with almost everything, but the climate impact
| is still global.
| tjoff wrote:
| Why would they get a pass?
|
| We are all doing a terrible job of it. Don't get me wrong,
| the US is worse than most but I don't see that as an
| argument for others to not give a fuck.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> Why would they get a pass?_
|
| Because it seems the US isn't doing much on this front
| IMHO, despite being the richest country in the world,
| therefore having enough capital to improve and set
| examples. Especially with Trump pulling the US out of the
| Paris agreement. Granted, Biden rolled that back, but
| still, the deed was done and it sent a bad message to the
| rest of the world on how the US feels about the
| environment on the world stage.
|
| _> the US is worse than most but I don't see that as an
| argument for others to not give a fuck_
|
| Because, usually rich countries should set an example
| first before talking down to poorer countries about
| saving the environment. Otherwise, how can we expect poor
| countries to want improve their environmental impact if
| even the rich countries who can afford the expenses that
| come with being environmentally friendly, don't actually
| give a fuck about the environment?
|
| This is the same inequality as fat-cats telling the
| working class they need to tighten their belts and suffer
| austerity to save the economy while they get more tax
| breaks, bonus payments and government handouts.
| tjoff wrote:
| I agree. But that still isn't an argument to not do what
| we can.
|
| And there are other rich countries than the US that do
| better. ... no it isn't enough but we are gaining
| momentum. And that is about the only positive thing I can
| say at the moment.
| dahdum wrote:
| > the single pane windows with no outdoor blinds I had in
| Miami Beach would be illegal in most of EU)
|
| Was this a while back or very old building? My
| understanding is impact windows are required less than one
| mile from the coast. Beyond that insurance drives their
| adoption as premiums rise significantly without wind
| mitigation.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| 2018 Miami Ocean Drive
| twothamendment wrote:
| Building codes in the US are laughably sad. I've built 3
| homes in 2 states and never built to code. I always
| encourage people who are building to view code as the
| minimum, but who wants a minimally good home? Apparently
| most people. The big builders want to put something up at
| the lowest cost. Building codes need to be raised to a
| higher level. It saves money in the long run and is better
| for everyone.
| moffkalast wrote:
| The south of the US is at the same latitude as north
| Africa, so I think it's somewhat understandable.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > I get that the US is capital and resource rich and can
| afford to be wasteful with almost everything,
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
|
| The US has been reducing CO2 emissions year on year for a
| while now.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| And yet, according to that chart, it's still 50% to 150%
| more polluting per capita than some EU countries like
| France, Austria and the Netherlands.
| lm28469 wrote:
| It's still incredibly wasteful. I remember studying in
| the LA area not so long ago and I had to bring a sweater
| to class even though it was 30c+ outside
| Maursault wrote:
| > they'll likely partially adapt to climate change occurring
| over the course of 50 years
|
| We will adapt by moving indoors to controlled environment, but
| it's not like we will evolve. At some point, the global
| mammalian birth rate is going to plummet because it will be too
| hot for sperm. Mammals won't physiologically adapt to that in a
| mere 50 years, but those able to live in controlled temperature
| indoor environments should be able to continue procreating. But
| when prolific procreators' (such as rabbits and squirrels)
| populations plummet, we should not ignore it.
|
| I really don't understand why we can't stop Global Warming...
| _now._ The contributors to Climate Change are not typical
| citizens, it 's instead various industries. Why are we more
| concerned about those industries, construction, glass,
| shipping, energy, than we are about the human global population
| (and all the other living things)?
| jawarner wrote:
| There are physiological adaptations as well. People in hotter
| climates are still going to get good sleep. It's just when
| there are hotter temperatures than people are used to that
| sleep is impaired, and also that adaptive mechanism only
| works so well, and there is disparate impact for people in
| different climates. At a certain point, there are heat waves
| or very hot temperatures that simply aren't conducive to
| human life.
|
| 100% agree about the urgency to make an economic system that
| is compatible with climate stability and thus with human
| life.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > On hotter nights people get less sleep, this being especially
| the case for people who are poor (limited access to AC?)
|
| As someone who's fought multiple property management companies
| over dead AC's I can confirm: it is difficult to sleep when
| you're seeping into your own puddle of sweat. And there's no
| real way to properly cool a space this humid I've ever heard
| of.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| And if it's too humid to cool off with sweat, you just die
| chess_buster wrote:
| This might become a reality for people in india at the
| moment... :(
| hammock wrote:
| I'm inclined to agree with you and it makes me wonder, why
| should global warming be a more favored subject than health
| equity?
| masklinn wrote:
| > why should global warming be a more favored subject than
| health equity?
|
| Because global warming is a large driver of health inequity
| _and a billion other issues as well_?
| jawarner wrote:
| Their angle was health equity in the context of global
| warming and how it impacts different populations to various
| degrees. That's a common trend in global warming related
| issues. Their argument is fair enough.
|
| My issue with the paper was specifically with the projections
| they made, which extrapolated the effect on sleep caused by
| the weather all the way to effects on a 50-year interval
| caused by warming trends. But by the authors own admission
| people can physiologically and technologically adapt -- at
| least partially -- over long enough time periods. To be frank
| I think it's a way to make a compelling headline. They have
| the statistical tools they have, it would be incredibly hard
| to account for long-term adaptation, and so they come up with
| some statistical estimate of the long-term trend. I see why
| they did it, but from a readers perspective it's okay to be
| critical.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| This comment won't do well right now but I suspect in the future
| we may come back to this idea. I believe more work needs to go
| into automation of forming/welding frames for underground homes
| as the temperature is rather constant under ground. _3D printed
| /molded?_ Some locations will need specially built units that can
| handle moisture. I have probably binge-watched too many
| mining/tunneling videos but I could see this technology becoming
| affordable to the consumer through technological optimizations,
| maybe? Anyway moving the home under ground could provide
| additional room above ground for a garden or parking spots.
| Underground homes would also be tornado resistant. Another
| advantage is energy efficiency or moving towards being carbon
| neutral. There are concrete / shotcrete companies making carbon
| absorbing material now.
|
| I am thinking of the real world example of Coober Pedy, AU [1]
| They have subterranea hotels, mines, homes, recreation facilities
| and more. If I ever went to AU that would be my first stop.
|
| Anecdotally my home is partially earth bermed and even on _hot_
| days _hot being around 101F_ it is cool in my home and I do not
| even own a HVAC unit. One of the many reasons I moved was due to
| heat and sleep issues.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coober_Pedy
| clajiness wrote:
| Time to start a radon mitigation company!
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I suspect that if a subterranea home were built so poorly
| that radon gas is infiltrating the walls then so would water.
| Both would have to be factored into the design. Modern
| bunkers are designed to keep radon gas out and are equipped
| with high flow ventilation systems. High pressure shotcrete
| or some similar material should more than suffice to keep
| gasses and water out.
|
| Radon is a problem in traditional brick and mortar basements
| as those walls are typically just one layer of brick and
| mortar. Water and radon can easily penetrate through micro-
| cracks that develop over the years in traditional basements.
| twothamendment wrote:
| "I suspect that if a subterranea home were built so poorly
| that radon gas is infiltrating the walls then so would
| water."
|
| I'm no expert, but your statement makes me ask... Why then
| do we have homes with basements that have radon problems,
| but not water problems? I don't think the two problems are
| always related.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Water infiltration depends on the amount of water and
| type of soil and the drainage designed into the basement.
| e.g. layers of concrete and rows of shale/rocks for
| drainage. Not all basements are equal. The amount of
| radon depends on the quantity of uranium and thorium in
| the soil/dirt. So you are right they are not always
| related but the mitigating controls can be potentially
| related. Some construction companies just focus on
| maximizing profits in my opinion and some individual home
| builders will use construction dirt that contains low or
| no uranium or thorium.
| fy20 wrote:
| In the summer you'll want the surrounding ground to take away
| the heat, but in the winter that will be too cold, so you'll
| need to heat your home. There will be some (well quite a lot
| actually, as you don't have any insulation if you want ground
| cooling in the summer) waste heat transfering into the
| surrounding earth. Over time that will heat it up, so in the
| summer it'll be less effective at cooling.
|
| This is actually why the London Underground is so hot in the
| summer. It wasn't always like this, but over time the ground
| surrounding the tunnels has heated up.
|
| https://citymonitor.ai/transport/londons-tube-has-been-runni...
| proto-n wrote:
| Well, when you reach the ~23c sweetspot, can't you just stop
| heating in the winter?
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Underground homes would also be tornado resistant
|
| earthquakes are another problem though
| LinuxBender wrote:
| True, though it appears to be the same liquefaction risk that
| above homes are subject to. [1] Geological surveys would be
| more important and I suspect compensatory insurance would be
| harder to acquire. That said if the automation brought the
| cost of these units down far enough then perhaps only
| liability insurance would be required as the unit could
| potentially be recycled if it were designed with that in
| mind. One could rent an excavator _at $150 to $400 /hr
| depending on size required_ to remove the top soil. If the
| rooms were modular then the excavator could lift or maybe
| even drag out the damaged room to be swapped out. If not
| modular then a crane would be required.
|
| There are bomb shelter companies designing underground
| facilities that can withstand earth movement and allow the
| occupants to escape harm. I won't link to those companies as
| I feel they are over-priced and this could be done much more
| efficiently with advancements in automation and recycled
| materials. For small facilities like homes I believe this is
| a mostly solved problem.
|
| A harder problem in my opinion would be a commercial mine due
| to the size/scale. Steel I-Beams and steel plates throughout
| a lengthy/deep mine would be very expensive as opposed to the
| wire mesh and 8' anchor bolts and shotcrete used today. A
| modular home would be far less likely to cross liquefaction
| and plate fault boundaries.
|
| [1] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2467
| 96741...
| lm28469 wrote:
| Reading things like that really makes me think that we'll
| literally do _anything_ rather than tackle the root cause.
|
| Soon enough people will work on de orbiting earth further away
| from the sun rather than stopping living unsustainable
| LinuxBender wrote:
| I fully support tackling the root causes. That said I can not
| do that by myself and my experience interacting with
| governments has unfortunately made me a bit cynical.
|
| What I as an individual can most certainly do is install a
| modular home under ground if a company were inclined to make
| one, preferably out of recycled material. I could rent an
| excavator tomorrow _as they are closed on Sunday_.
|
| I have a theory that if enough homes were underground that
| would substantially reduce the load on the power grid _from a
| lack of HVAC use_ , freeing more capacity for EV vehicles and
| buying more time for power companies to upgrade the power
| grid and reducing overall carbon emissions world wide.
| Perhaps power companies could lobby governments to make under
| ground homes affordable, modular, carbon neutral and most
| importantly safe. The wealthier and more influential people
| could even have underground garages to protect their
| expensive toys from the environment and theft.
| pkdpic wrote:
| Agreed if you mean WE as a hypothetical union of all
| individual humans and human institutions. But all of this
| makes a lot more sense to me if you distinguish between
| individuals and institutions. Institutions (companies /
| governments / Unions / HOAs / PTAs w/e) seem like they're
| impossible for any individual to control except by collective
| action which is just more institutionalization thats
| impossible for individuals to control. Individuals can make
| decisions to do things like install solar panels on their
| house, invest in a heat pump, buy an electric car, live in
| walkable areas, plant a garden, NOT work for or purchase
| things from institutions they disagree with, build an
| underground house etc within the confines of what
| institutions will allow. I don't think theres any more that
| we can do, the rest seems like subjugating guilt narrative bs
| and self-satisfied collective action virtue posturing.
|
| There is no WE imho, its individual human beings against
| global industrial institutions. Collective action just
| propagates more destructive / uncontrollable institutional
| behavior. Federated / decentralized individual action
| propagated through federated / decentralized communication
| networks.
|
| Anyway I can barely remember to brush my teeth or buy
| groceries so what do I know.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| thing is the root cause is a coordination problem, it's
| impossible to get 8 billion people to tackle any issue
| unilaterally, so we are left with solutions that allow
| individuals to opt in to a future where survival is not
| dependent on everyone else
| forgotusername6 wrote:
| Living underground tackles the one issue that no green
| revolution is going to fix - space. Above ground space is
| fixed and the population will continue to rise. We can build
| upwards or downwards but upwards blocks light, which is also
| a fixed quantity.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| living space isn't remotely a concern, if we all (the whole
| world) lived in a single mega-city as dense as NYC it would
| be about the size of Texas
|
| light also isn't much of an issue, we could power the world
| with a solar array the size of New Mexico
|
| fertile farm land, stable temperature, and distribution are
| much much much larger issues
|
| living underground might be good for reducing electricity
| needs for heating and cooling, or avoiding certain natural
| disasters... but probably isn't very useful for much else
| orev wrote:
| Most of the US is solving this by building sideways (i.e.
| sprawl). It's far cheaper than digging down, at least in
| the short term.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > but upwards blocks light
|
| Also known as "shade," which is a nice thing to have when
| temperatures are rising.
| stormbrew wrote:
| Also the buildings themselves still get the light and can
| funnel it into living/working spaces or just turn it into
| electricity. Sure it's shadier at ground level in a tall
| dense city but like, I'm pretty sure it's more feasible
| to build km-ish tall buildings that still manage to post
| some light down to street level than it'll ever be to
| build living space that goes equivalently deep.
| 88913527 wrote:
| If space above ground is fixed, space below ground is also
| fixed. Seems like a tautology to me.
| stormbrew wrote:
| If anything there's probably less useable space under the
| (land) surface than above it.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Partially earth beamed falls under passive solar design. That's
| actually got real potential for helping us meaningfully
| mitigate these issues.
| kortex wrote:
| Underground construction is really hard to do correctly.
| Partial earth bermed foundations as you mentioned are a good
| compromise, especially if the earth is built up. But even then,
| drainage and soil pressure are big engineering concerns.
|
| Also you have no control over how much thermal interface you
| have. My office is on the first floor on a slab. It's great in
| the summer and freezing in the winter, despite a carpet.
|
| Digging down becomes increasingly expensive vs equivalent
| volume building up.
|
| Why not just use ground source heat pumps? It's much easier to
| bury some tubes than habitable spaces. It's easier to move
| heat/cold where you need it. You aren't forced into a fixed
| thermal flux.
| oliveshell wrote:
| And that's without even mentioning light.
|
| Sure, sunlight can be piped down underground for natural
| lighting, but I'd really miss being able to see trees and
| blue sky from my office desk.
| blip54321 wrote:
| I'm really not sold on the costs of digging down being all
| that high, long-term.
|
| I'm 100% sold on it being expensive today, but I can come up
| with ways to drive them /way/ down with automation. The
| critical thing is:
|
| 1) You don't need materials.
|
| 2) You don't need to transport anything other than a digger
|
| I agree it's hard, like engineering a CPU was hard, but I
| think Elon's got the right idea with the Boring Company. It's
| not /fundamentally/ expensive. Fundamentally, building in-
| place with available materials should, some day, be _cheap_.
| eropple wrote:
| _> 1) You don 't need materials._
|
| In this context, you do. You need material structural
| stability (which is nontrivial, even for partially bermed
| structures; digging down further is a different story too)
| and for human habitation. Even above-ground you see
| retaining walls everywhere in places like New England
| because dirt likes to move. Worse, you'll need relatively
| expensive materials, and ones that are OK with contact with
| a lot of moisture. Maybe plastics can be the answer to some
| degree, if ones that are structurally sound and not tasty
| to microorganisms can be employed en masse, but the default
| answer is probably steel, and that won't last forever (or
| even all that long).
|
| Beyond that? People aren't generally high on dirt walls and
| floors. And smoothing stone to presentation levels in-
| place, ensuring regularity, etc. is not a trivial task.
|
| It could be done, don't get me wrong. But we have wear and
| decay problems _above_ the surface that probably pale in
| comparison.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| _Underground construction is really hard to do correctly._
|
| I agree it is harder to do correctly and costs more. It's an
| investment that if done right could outlast any above ground
| home. But that is quite a loaded caveat on my part, _done
| right_. That 's why I envision this being done in a factory
| and very specific instructions and compliance requirements
| that if adhered to should produce more predictable results.
| The bunkers I see people building today are all custom one-
| off designs and I _think_ that is where they get into
| trouble.
|
| I do like the idea of heat pumps. That would be a balanced
| trade-off for those that do not want to mess with putting in
| a home under ground.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| > _It 's an investment that if done right could outlast any
| above ground home._
|
| I would think this was true, but what I've learned so far
| suggests it's not...
|
| Underground, you're not finding refuge from harmful forces
| on your structure; they exists there too. Things shift,
| things crack, things leak, humidity causes problems, the
| whole exterior now endures a chemical interface with the
| surroundings (and all your Vault-Tec steel _will_ corrode
| at some speed determined by the nature of the local media).
|
| If you're lucky enough to have near-surface bedrock where
| you are, digging into that is probably your best bet, but,
| even then, it seems like an uphill battle.
| t-3 wrote:
| Underground houses are really cool, but we can get the same
| effect by building above ground with thicker walls. No AC
| needed when building with adobe.
| wunderlust wrote:
| Dan Huberman, professor of neurobiology at Stanford, has some
| good info on sleep in his podcast and website, in case anyone
| just wants to learn a little more about sleep.
|
| https://hubermanlab.com/toolkit-for-sleep/
|
| https://hubermanlab.com/master-your-sleep-and-be-more-alert-...
| mrtri wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-22 23:02 UTC)