Global warming could make Persian Gulf uninhabitable in 85 years

First topic message reminder :

Scientists looking at the impact of rising global temperatures on the Persian Gulf region have come to a disturbing conclusion. They say a “tipping point” will likely occur by the end of this century when heat in that part of the world will make it uninhabitable for humans.

The study, conducted by Elfatih Eltahir, a professor of civil and environment engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Dr. Jeremy Pal from Loyola Marymount University, was published Oct. 26 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Using “high-resolution versions of standard climate models,” an MIT statement explained, the researchers discovered that such major cities as Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Qatar could exceed a climatic “tipping point” that is incompatible with human life.

The tipping point is calculated by combining the effects of higher temperatures and humidity, which better reflect what the human body is able to withstand without access to artificial cooling, the statement says. This measurement is known as the “wet-bulb temperature.”

The tipping point is reached when someone must withstand six hours of unremitting heat at 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 degrees Celsius). These numbers are equivalent to the U.S. National Weather Service’s “heat index” of about 165 degrees Fahrenheit.

The Persian Gulf region would be particularly hard hit by climate change, the authors say. This is the result of a combination of factors, including the shallowness of gulf waters, low elevations, and cloudless skies. Because Persian Gulf waters are so shallow, water temperatures are unusually high and susceptible to a great deal of evaporation, which causes the atmosphere to be extremely humid.

This tipping point “has, as far as we know…never been reported for any location on Earth,” says Eltahir in the university statement.

The authors point out that these extreme conditions are of concern not only to the region’s many residents, but to the couple of million travelers who make the yearly Hajj, or pilgrimage, to Mecca.

http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/2015/10/27/rising-temperatures-make-persian-gulf-uninhabitable-2100/

Try to get the right-wingers to do something about climate change once this gets out!

It seems you can't educate the really stupid, and boy are you the really stupid.

So are you saying that The trees are wrong about what is an expected normal and natural environment for them to have lived in, require to survive in and reproduce in, for the last tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years..!?


Are you really saying that although the current temperatures and climatic conditions in their natural habitat is creating the very environment and circumstances that they have thrived in for millennia and require to continue to be successful in reproducing and surviving into the future, are wrong...!!!???


But you think a much cooler and inhospitable environment for them is 'right' and 'normal'...!?


Although if so, they would cease to continue to exist there...!?


And if had been the norm for that area, would never have even been there in the first place...!!!???






I find your logic and reasoning that allows you to ignore such blatant evidence to be quite bizarre...!


But I do find showing you up to be an idiot to be... most amusing!!!

Tommy, you are making yourself look a fool, yet again.  The life cycle of the trees has fuck all to do with the rise in temperature of the sea and the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.  You are talking about two different subject, but you are so unintelligent, you don't even realise it.

The relatively recent claimed rise in sea temp is also consistent with general rise elsewhere as we come out of the unusual cold period that caused the Thames to freeze, and we get back to more normal temps...

Unless you think that the trees are wrong and the much more recent period of colder temperatures are right... although this would have meant that the trees would never have still been here anyway... let alone even existed in the first place...!?


Do you know how old some of these trees actually are!!!???


Don't you realise that for them to exist and exhibit these requirements to survive and continue to exist means that the long term normal and natural surrounding environment must have been much more hot like now than colder as we have seen more recently since the Thames froze over...!?

In the face of overwhelming evidence, the lefties run away...

Have we been 'frazzled' yet?

The so called global warming,fashionista,Cumberbatch,Russel Brand,Charlotte Church,Corbynista,faux outraged loonie lefties proclaimed from their detached £10,000,000 London mansions that we would all be frazzled 1o years ago.

What happened?

Shady wrote:Have we been 'frazzled' yet?

The so called global warming,fashionista,Cumberbatch,Russel Brand,Charlotte Church,Corbynista,faux outraged loonie lefties proclaimed from their detached £10,000,000 London mansions that we would all be frazzled 1o years ago.

What happened?

Ignorance at its best

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:Have we been 'frazzled' yet?

The so called global warming,fashionista,Cumberbatch,Russel Brand,Charlotte Church,Corbynista,faux outraged loonie lefties proclaimed from their detached £10,000,000 London mansions that we would all be frazzled 1o years ago.

What happened?

Ignorance at its best

I thought you been banned???.............Cachulin.

Shady wrote:

Didge wrote:

Ignorance at its best

I thought you been banned???

Sorry can anyone translate country bumpkin for me?

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:

I thought you been banned???

Sorry can anyone translate country bumpkin for me?

WHOOOOOAAAAAA!!! That hit a nerve didn't it?

Last night when you & me were talking about the Sassy thread that's been locked,I was about to reply to you to let you know that I was going to follow your advice & drop the subject.But Eddie jumped in & locked the thread.

See,you can talk sense sometimes...........So I'll drop it.

Shady wrote:

Didge wrote:

Sorry can anyone translate country bumpkin for me?

WHOOOOOAAAAAA!!! That hit a nerve didn't it?

Last night when you & me were talking about the Sassy thread that's been locked,I was about to reply to you to let you know that I was going to follow your advice & drop the subject.But Eddie jumped in & locked the thread.

See,you can talk sense sometimes...........So I'll drop it.

Sorry I really cannot understand country Bumpkin talk, its all gibberish to me.

Can someone translate what this idiot is trying to say??

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:

WHOOOOOAAAAAA!!! That hit a nerve didn't it?

Last night when you & me were talking about the Sassy thread that's been locked,I was about to reply to you to let you know that I was going to follow your advice & drop the subject.But Eddie jumped in & locked the thread.

See,you can talk sense sometimes...........So I'll drop it.

Sorry I really cannot understand country Bumpkin talk, its all gibberish to me.

Can someone translate what this idiot is trying to say??

Did Eilzel tell you to say that?

Shady wrote:

Didge wrote:

Sorry I really cannot understand country Bumpkin talk, its all gibberish to me.

Can someone translate what this idiot is trying to say??

Did Eilzel tell you to say that?

Sorry still difficult to understand the yokel you are saying.

The idiots are bleating about forest fires in west USA as being a real tragedy, a new phenomenon, and evidence of the existence of and danger of 'climate change'...


But it turns out that the trees that have lived there for hundreds of thousands of years, actually need this hotter environment and regular fires to happen, to exist and for them to successfully reproduce and continue to survive!!!


This shows that the recent warmer temperatures are perfectly normal and natural in their part of the world!!!


And the previous cooler temperatures were in fact unnatural and abnormal!!!


We are returning to normal temperatures from an exceptional cold period in our history.


A return to normal... not a global warming catastrophe!!!


Also... it has been shown that rising co2 levels happen as a result of warmer temperatures... not a cause of higher temperatures!!!

Shady wrote:Have we been 'frazzled' yet?

The so called global warming,fashionista,Cumberbatch,Russel Brand,Charlotte Church,Corbynista,faux outraged loonie lefties proclaimed from their detached £10,000,000 London mansions that we would all be frazzled 1o years ago.

What happened?

Bump.

Still waiting for the penny to drop... thought the tree huggers would have been quicker to understand the blatantly obvious implications...

Still avoided see...

Come on Sassy... what about the trees!!!???

Still no answers eh...!?


Is It really getting warmer than ever before...!?


Or just getting back to normal temperatures after a couple of centuries of a relatively cold period...!?



The trees are telling us what we should be... but some refuse to listen...

Tommy Monk wrote:Still no answers eh...!?


Is It really getting warmer than ever before...!?


Or just getting back to normal temperatures after a couple of centuries of a relatively cold period...!?



The trees are telling us what we should be... but some refuse to listen...

tommy monk sings

I thought you were a little bit more knowledgeable and respectful of nature...!?



I pose a very simple question...


Are the trees (in question) a reliable indicator of what should be seen as normal temperature/climate/environmental conditions in their natural habitat, which they have lived in for many tens/hundreds of thousands of years, and which have actually evolved to not only withstand the heat from regular forest fires, but to also require the regular fire events to be able to successfully reproduce...!?


This can only mean one thing... it is normal to be warmer in their environment than it has in recent decades/centuries!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:I thought you were a little bit more knowledgeable and respectful of nature...!?



I pose a very simple question...


Are the trees (in question) a reliable indicator of what should be seen as normal temperature/climate/environmental conditions in their natural habitat, which they have lived in for many tens/hundreds of thousands of years, and which have actually evolved to not only withstand the heat from regular forest fires, but to also require the regular fire events to be able to successfully reproduce...!?


This can only mean one thing... it is normal to be warmer in their environment than it has in recent decades/centuries!!!

Umm NO!!!!
they come from places like Australia that DO BURN now currently at our current temperature.
Or over the million of years the tectonic plate they evolved on was closer to the equator and they were in one of the fire lands.

the evolutionary speed of trees is not really comparable as it is an incredible long scale with some trees 'genus lines' going all the way back to the age dinosaurs. No mammals do that, some insects, sharks, a few fish and crocodiles are about it in sentient life.

Tommy Monk wrote:I thought you were a little bit more knowledgeable and respectful of nature...!?



I pose a very simple question...


Are the trees (in question) a reliable indicator of what should be seen as normal temperature/climate/environmental conditions in their natural habitat, which they have lived in for many tens/hundreds of thousands of years, and which have actually evolved to not only withstand the heat from regular forest fires, but to also require the regular fire events to be able to successfully reproduce...!?


This can only mean one thing... it is normal to be warmer in their environment than it has in recent decades/centuries!!!

you pose a question then proceed from that question to draw an ridiculous, biologically and self evidently ridicuous answer that suits your agenda....

now as to FACT of the matter


A number of plants require their seeds to be heated to high temperatures in order to germinate

this is becasue they evolved in an eco system that was fairly regularly ravaged by fire

the basic existance of natural bush/forest fires are not related to global temperature but global HUMIDITY

thus during the last serious cold spell for instance the global humididty fell considerably due to moisture being frozen out of the air, in the form of snow and ice.

and it should also be remembered that withing what might be called "surviveable" temperatures many forrests are highly combustible in any case, due to the nature of the trees

pines etc are highly flammable AND the "litter" under them is immensely flammable....

many of the big pine forrests are i high mountainous regions where the cold air is frequently very dry

natuarl sources of ignition would be vulcanism and lightening.

once lit ancient pine type wouldland(which covered vast swathes of land) would burn uncontrolled untill a natural barrier stopped them

there would then be a "fire free" period in the area untill the trees had matured and accumulated sufficient litter and tree density for the process to start again


what IS happening is that global warming IS increasin some areas temperatures AND decreasing humidity which merely increases the chances of (as opposed to causing) a lightening strike to ignite a blaze

your example has NOTHING to do with past temperatures, and everything to do with what is an ecological niche

I.e montaine forrest prone to either vulcanism lightening strike or both

in australia these forrests are loaded withn gum trees and creostote trees which are so flammable they actually give off a flammable gas....

they are in an otherwise low humidity zone (the temperature is irrelevant since equally hot land areas with HIGH humidity dont suffer that same types of widespread regular fires)
hence all it takes in nature is one lightening strike in a mature forest and whump...up it goes.....


now ...Tommy....


thats the facts...you could verify that with a bit of reading and learning, but somehow I suspect you prefer your alternative universe


BUT....... pyriscent plants were NOT ordained to live in a hot climate.....they evolved to live in a "fire likely" i.e low humidity mass forested" area...

The trees are there and have been for countless millennia...


To have survived to now, their long term normal local climate must have been suitable to their requirements... ie much warmer and more fire prone than what is currently considered as normal for the area of their existence!


They are showing us this reality by still being around at all, and by their evolutionary characteristics.


These trees are not only able to withstand and survive in this warmer environment and the regular fires caused... But actually need the regular fires to clear lower plant life so their seedlings can grow successfully!


The recent cooler period which is considered as normal, is certainly not normal for the trees... the current warmer temperature is definately creating the conditions that they are so obviously used to, and obviously so when you consider what sort of conditions they require.


How can anyone claim to be right about what is normal by only seeing a very recent snap shot of things?

Tommy Monk wrote:The trees are there and have been for countless millennia...


To have survived to now, their long term normal local climate must have been suitable to their requirements... ie much warmer and more fire prone than what is currently considered as normal for the area of their existence!


They are showing us this reality by still being around at all, and by their evolutionary characteristics.


These trees are not only able to withstand and survive in this warmer environment and the regular fires caused... But actually need the regular fires to clear lower plant life so their seedlings can grow successfully!


The recent cooler period which is considered as normal, is certainly not normal for the trees... the current warmer temperature is definately creating the conditions that they are so obviously used to, and obviously so when you consider what sort of conditions they require.


How can anyone claim to be right about what is normal by only seeing a very recent snap shot of things?

to trees a millennia is short term. evolution takes a thousand generations so for trees that live thousands of years individually a basic evolutionary step takes at least millions years..


And P.S. it is not countless.

Tommy, one of the species of trees that have been there for so long, and are germinated by fire are Sequoias.  Some of them have been there over 3,000 years.  That is because, when there is a fire it burns mostly the stuff on the ground, which is when the seeds burst and germinate.  The huge trees themselves survive.  However, they only survive if they are in peak condition and get plenty of water inbetween the fires.   Now they are under threat, dying off.

The Giant Sequoias trees of California are among the oldest and largest living things on Earth. Some of these trees are more than 3,000 years old, and they grow to nearly 300 feet tall. They are living fossils. These trees are found only in the Sierra Nevada region of the state and nowhere else in the world.
Biologists from the University of California Berkeley recently carried out a study to find how the state’s historic drought is affecting these trees. They climbed high up into their green canopies for a detailed study. The result is not good news.

The researchers are saying that these trees are showing signs of stress. There are patches of brown and dead foliage everywhere. And they are appearing more than in past years. They have found that 75 distinct groves that grow mostly in the southern Sierra Nevada were in a critical condition.
“They’re beautiful, majestic trees”, says Koren Nydick, a National Park Service ecologist, who was a part of the research team. Koren says that we need to do much more to preserve these trees. People come from all over the world to see these iconic trees.
These trees have been through a lot of weather changes. They have endured droughts and wildfires. But the team from the University of California Berkeley is saying that there are definite signs of decay in this fourth year of drought in California. This is because of the record-low snow pack and some of the hottest temperatures recorded in the park.

Researchers believe that by taking stock of groves that are most vulnerable, they will be able to better manage the forest, particularly during the hotter and drier droughts of the future. For now, they want to collect data to identify the groves that must be thinned through prescribed burns to allow more sunlight and give certain trees a larger share of the scarce underground water. A single tree can require up to 800 gallons a day.

http://www.pressexaminer.com/californias-giant-sequoias-under-threat-from-drought/75268

Try actually reading the evidence, supplied by so many people to you, and stop sounding like a very old, very broken, record.  One that I might add, was crap in the first place.

Tommy Monk wrote:The trees are there and have been for countless millennia...


To have survived to now, their long term normal local climate must have been suitable to their requirements... ie much warmer and more fire prone than what is currently considered as normal for the area of their existence!


They are showing us this reality by still being around at all, and by their evolutionary characteristics.


These trees are not only able to withstand and survive in this warmer environment and the regular fires caused... But actually need the regular fires to clear lower plant life so their seedlings can grow successfully!


The recent cooler period which is considered as normal, is certainly not normal for the trees... the current warmer temperature is definately creating the conditions that they are so obviously used to, and obviously so when you consider what sort of conditions they require.


How can anyone claim to be right about what is normal by only seeing a very recent snap shot of things?

See tommy you are a cretin...with F..Kall knowlege of anything remotely science based....

it has nothing ,...at all...to do with temperature.....

the variations in global temp are NOT sufficient to make ANY difference to the potential fire risk....

the key is HUMIDITY

which can be changed by being colder as well as warmer..and even the wind direction....


I carefully explained it to you and you just ignore it...THAT is STUPIDITY....

it is impossible to argue with an idiot....it is even more impossible to argue wth an IGNORANT idiot

Veya... you are proving my point that conditions they require are more normal than the recent cold period a couple of centuries ago that some people are saying is normal...



"...River Thames frost fairs were held on the tideway of the River Thames at London in some winters between the 17th century and early 19th century, during the period known as the Little Ice Age, when the river froze over..."



We are now just coming out of THIS 'little ice age' and returning to NORMAL TEMPERATURES!!!


Why are some of you so blinded by bullshit that you can't accept simple truth based on well documented historical facts!!!???


As well as trying to tell me that the trees are wrong too!!!???


Unbelievable!!!



And Sassy... some of the trees are up to 3000 years old... and they have been there for hundreds of thousands of years!!!


Obviously for them to have survived successfully and for them to exhibit the characteristics they do, makes it blatantly obvious that what really is normal is the conditions they require in that location over hundreds of thousands of years... not what we have had a glimpse of over the last couple centuries...

Good grief, I think Tommy has just proved he's completely brain dead.

"...River Thames frost fairs were held on the tideway of the River Thames at London in some winters between the 17th century and early 19th century, during the period known as the Little Ice Age, when the river froze over..."



We have been coming out of THIS 'little ice age' and returning to NORMAL TEMPERATURES since then!!!

I see this simple fact has stunned the lefties into silence...!





They know the 'mini ice age' to be a fact... and they can see that claims are being made that temperatures have risen slightly since then... but they can't seem to comprehend the simple conclusion that the temperatures have just been returning to NORMAL!!!


Most amusing!!!

Nobody disputes that natural forces have driven warming and cooling in the past. You're ignoring two inconvenient facts:

1) What's driving warming now isn't natural -- it's people taking carbon sequestered in the ground and putting it in the air (to the tune of billions of metric tons per year).

2) The warming is happening over a shorter time period than ever recorded or surmised. There's real doubt that many living species can survive that.

Also:

However, viewed hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels (Bradley and Jones, 1993; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000).

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Plants love CO2...


It's more than a modest cooling to result in the river Thames freezing over!!!

And is disingenuous to claim that it was not relevant to overall global temp and somehow separate...


The fact remains that only in recent few decades there has been the necessary wide spread enough and accurate enough monitoring of temperatures across the world to give a relatively good say on what temperatures are... and what this shows is no real significant change that cannot be put down to just normal variations... the temp has not changed at all for the last 20 years!!!


The historical data for actual co2 levels is even more non existent!!!


This means that the claims are not based on any credible evidence... therefore are just spurious claims!!!


CO2 levels in atmosphere are less than 0.04% and have been found to be much the same throughout all recent studies that are deemed to be reliable and accurate... especially when you consider that each will also be giving their finding with a caveat of a 'margin of error factor'...


The evidence is just not there!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Plants love CO2...


It's more than a modest cooling to result in the river Thames freezing over!!!

And is disingenuous to claim that it was not relevant to overall global temp and somehow separate...


The fact remains that only in recent few decades there has been the necessary wide spread enough and accurate enough monitoring of temperatures across the world to give a relatively good say on what temperatures are... and what this shows is no real significant change that cannot be put down to just normal variations... the temp has not changed at all for the last 20 years!!!


The historical data for actual co2 levels is even more non existent!!!


This means that the claims are not based on any credible evidence... therefore are just spurious claims!!!


CO2 levels in atmosphere are less than 0.04% and have been found to be much the same throughout all recent studies that are deemed to be reliable and accurate... especially when you consider that each will also be giving their finding with a caveat of a 'margin of error factor'...


The evidence is just not there!!!

The evidence is there, you just refuse to accept it. Did you know, for example, that plants can only absorb so much CO2? It makes sense if you actually bother to think about it -- there's only so much air you or I could breathe, after all.

The Thames freezing over was an isolated, local event that really didn't have anything to do with what was going on in the rest of the world (although, like the British of today, I'm sure the British of that time thought anything going on in their country was of interest to the entire world).

Sarcasm again Ben? you just can't help it can you?

nicko wrote:Sarcasm again Ben?    you just can't help it can you?

Nope.

Plants thrive when you give them air with a bit higher level of CO2 than normal...

Have a look on a couple of gardening web sites if you don't believe me!!!


The Thames freezing over was not an isolated local event at all... it was a common event for around 2 centuries as a result of this whole period being unusually cooler than normal.


And It was as much a contributing factor of what would have been the overall global temperatures then, as every other measurement of temperature from everywhere else in the world is part of the calculation of global temperature is claimed to be now!!!





Do you really not understand how 'averages' are worked out...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Plants thrive when you give them air with a bit higher level of CO2 than normal...

Have a look on a couple of gardening web sites if you don't believe me!!!


The Thames freezing over was not an isolated local event at all... it was a common event for around 2 centuries as a result of this whole period being unusually cooler than normal.


And It was as much a contributing factor of what would have been the overall global temperatures then, as every other measurement of temperature from everywhere else in the world is part of the calculation of global temperature is claimed to be now!!!





Do you really not understand how 'averages' are worked out...!?

Plants love CO2, right?

More CO2 makes plants grow more, right?

It follows that a global rise in atmospheric CO2 will produce healthier plants globally, right?

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!



Try this simple experiment. Place a paper towel on a work surface. Add water a drop at a time. At first the paper will absorb every drop of water. Eventually, though, there must come a time when the paper is so loaded with water that any excess is not absorbed. This illustrates a fundamental principle of all systems:

any excess input to a system above the system's handling or processing capacity will not be processed.

Put another way, for any system, whether in engineering, biology, socio-economics or any other dynamic system whatsoever:
when any input quantity exceeds the ability of the system to forward or to process that input then the system will fail to operate as designed, intended or evolved.

http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/why_plants_cant_sequester_excess_co2

Before you comment here, I suggest you ask yourself, "Did I really think this through enough?"

Put another way, Tommy -- water is good for you, right? So go try to drink 10 gallons in one hour and see what happens to you.

Ben... a paper towel doesn't grow... plants do, and need CO2 to do so... and do more so when given a little more CO2!!!


Your comparison is no comparison...


Have a little look at some gardening web sites... you will find that what I say is well known fact!!!


And we are talking about such minor 'found' variations in samples as to all be well within margin of error...


Co2 in air consistently remains at just under 0.04%...

Tommy Monk wrote:Ben... a paper towel doesn't grow... plants do, and need CO2 to do so... and do more so when given a little more CO2!!!


Your comparison is no comparison...


Have a little look at some gardening web sites... you will find that what I say is well known fact!!!


And we are talking about such minor 'found' variations in samples as to all be well within margin of error...


Co2 in air consistently remains at just under 0.04%...

The paper towel isn't analogous to one plant -- it represents the entire plant biosphere of the planet. While some plants are growing, others die, and the system tends to stay about the same size from one season to the next.

You can't expect it to suddenly start absorbing more CO2 than it did the year before simply because more CO2 is now available.

Given that plants thrive more and grow more when provided with more CO2... then you are totally wrong!


Plus the claim that CO2 levels have really changed that much in last few centuries, when accurate measuring techniques are only recently happening, and simply never existed previously, makes any claim of change to be completely without foundation and therefore completely bogus!!!




Have you found out how 'averages' are worked out yet...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Given that plants thrive more and grow more when provided with more CO2... then you are totally wrong!


Plus the claim that CO2 levels have really changed that much in last few centuries, when accurate measuring techniques are only recently happening, and simply never existed previously, makes any claim of change to be completely without foundation and therefore completely bogus!!!




Have you found out how 'averages' are worked out yet...!?

So first, you need to figure out whether you're arguing that plants will take care of our excess CO2 emissions, or if our CO2 emissions are excessive in the first place. You can't argue both.

But no, you're not taking into account that while some plants might grow more with CO2 levels higher, other plants are just going to keep dying, and dead plants release more CO2. Your analogy might work if plants were immortal, but you're again not thinking it through logically and realistically.

I'm not saying CO2 levels in air are excessive at all... that is your argument...


And are you also now trying to claim that more plants are going to be dying off somehow...!?