The thermal environment of the human being on the global scale

Figures & data

Figure 1.  Thermal stress-related mortality as deviation from the expected value for selected European cities and areas 1986–1996 during different thermal stress categories (after 36 and 37). −3, strong cold stress; −2, moderate cold stress; −1, slight cold stress; 0, thermal comfort (no thermal stress); 1, slight heat load; 2, moderate heat load; 3, strong heat load, taking acclimatisation into account.

Table 1. Perceived Temperature, Predicted Mean Vote (According to 6), and corresponding thermal stress (Initial conditions without acclimatisation; negative values are ‘cold stress’ and positive values are ‘heat load’)

Thermal stress category	Perceived Temperature (PT) in °C	Predicted Mean Vote (PMV)	Thermo-physiological stress
4	PT ≥ + 38	Very hot	Extreme heat load
3	+32 ≤ PT < + 38	Hot	Strong heat load
2	+26 ≤ PT < + 32	Warm	Moderate heat load
1	+20 ≤ PT < + 26	Slightly warm	Slight heat load
0	0 < PT < + 20	Comfortable	None
−1	-13 < PT ≤ 0	Slightly cool	Slight cold stress
−2	-26 < PT ≤ -13	Cool	Moderate cold stress
−3	-39 < PT ≤ -26	Cold	Strong cold stress
−4	PT ≤ − 39	Very cold	Extreme cold stress

Figure 2.  Example of daily values of Perceived Temperature at 12 UTC (black line) for the weather station Lisbon (Portugal) from March to September 2003 36. Compared to Table 1 the coloured lines indicate the variable thresholds for the different thermal stress categories specifying acclimatisation.

Figure 3.  Mean annual frequency of comfortable conditions (no thermal stress) at 12 MLT (=noon) taking acclimatisation into account based on ECHAM4/T106-data 1971–1980.

Figure 4.  (a–d) Mean annual frequency of exceeding the threshold for (a) heat load, (b) moderate heat load, (c) strong heat load and (d) extreme heat load at 12 MLT taking acclimatisation into account, based on ECHAM4/T106-data 1971–1980.

Figure 5.  (a–d) Mean annual frequency of exceeding the threshold for (a) cold stress, (b) moderate cold stress, (c) strong cold stress and (d) extreme cold stress at 12 MLT taking acclimatisation into account, based on ECHAM4/T106-data 1971–1980.

Figure 6.  Difference of the mean annual frequency of comfortable conditions (no thermal stress) at 12 MLT between future and recent climate taking acclimatisation into account, based on ECHAM4/T106-data (2041–2050 and 1971–1980).

Figure 7.  (a–d) Difference of the mean annual frequency of exceeding the threshold for (a) heat load, (b) moderate heat load, (c) strong heat load and (d) extreme heat load at 12 MLT taking acclimatisation into account, based on ECHAM4/T106-data (2041–2050 and 1971–1980).

Figure 8.  (a–d) Difference of the mean annual frequency of exceeding the threshold for (a) cold stress, (b) moderate cold stress, (c) strong cold stress and (d) extreme cold stress at 12 MLT taking acclimatisation into account, based on ECHAM4/T106-data (2041–2050 and 1971–1980).

Table

M	metabolic rate (activity)
W	mechanical power
S	storage (change in heat content of the body)
Peripheral (skin) heat exchanges
Q H	turbulent flux of sensible heat
Q*	radiation budget
Q L	turbulent flux of latent heat (diffusion of water vapour)
Q SW	turbulent flux of latent heat (sweat evaporation)
Respiratory heat exchanges
Q Re	respiratory heat flux (sensible and latent)
Thermal environmental parameters
T a	air temperature
T mrt	mean radiant temperature
V	wind velocity relative to the body
E	water vapour pressure

Fanger PO. Thermal comfort, analysis and application in environment engineering. Danish Technical Press. CopenhagenDenmark, 1970

 Google Scholar

Koppe C, Jendritzky G. Inclusion of short-term adaptation to thermal stresses in a heat load warning procedure. Meteorol Z. 2005; 14: 271–278.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar