The World Bank warned that India could become one of the first places where wet-bulb temperatures routinely exceed 35 °C. Which of the following statements best reflect(s) the implication of the above-said report?

Answer: (b) II only

A wet-bulb of 35 °C means the body can’t shed heat by sweating, which threatens survival.

Statement by statement

1. ✗ NOT the implication These may well happen with climate change, but wet-bulb temperature is about heat plus humidity and what they do to the body. The report’s point was heat stress, not floods or cyclones.

2. ✓ CORRECT — the direct implication Wet-bulb temperature is what a thermometer wrapped in a wet cloth reads, so it includes humidity. Our skin is about 35 °C. A wet-bulb of 35 °C is the theoretical upper limit for the human body to shed heat, even in shade with unlimited water; danger starts well below it.

The idea

The body cools itself by sweating: sweat evaporates and carries heat away. Evaporation needs air that can take up more water. In very humid air sweat stays on the skin and cooling stops. Wet-bulb temperature measures this combined effect of heat and humidity.

Air is hot and humid → Sweat cannot evaporate → Body heat is not removed → Core temperature rises → Organs fail within hours

Why the others are wrong

(a) Floods and cyclones are not what a wet-bulb warning is about.

(c) Statement I is a generic climate line, not the implication of THIS report.

(d) Statement II is exactly the implication.

The trap

Statement I is a generic “climate disaster” line. It isn’t wrong about climate risk, but it isn’t what this report implies. When a question asks for the “implication”, pick the direct link.

Also know

The warning came in the World Bank report Climate Investment Opportunities in India’s Cooling Sector (2022). India’s policy answers are the India Cooling Action Plan (2019) and city Heat Action Plans; Ahmedabad’s (2013) was the first in South Asia.