Slashdot Mirror
Persian Gulf Temperatures May Be At the Edge of Human Tolerance In 30 Years (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: According to a new climate study the Persian Gulf may become so hot and humid in the next 30 years that it will reach the threshold of human survivability. Ars reports: "Existing climate models have shown that a global temperature increase to the threshold of human survivability would be reached in some regions of the globe at a point in the distant future. However, a new paper published by Jeremy Pal and Elfatih Eltahir in Nature Climate Change presents evidence that this deadly combination of heat and humidity increases could occur in the Persian Gulf much earlier than previously anticipated."
The Persian Gulf is actually hotter and more humid. One city in Iran had the heat index soar to 163 degrees this past summer.
Yes, it gets very hot in parts of the US in the summer. The Gulf Coast states are very humid. It can get just as hot in the Plains, and the evapotranspiration from crops like corn can raise the dewpoints into the low 80s at times. I've experienced this living in Nebraska. But it still isn't as hot and humid as the Persian Gulf.
The other difference is that there's widespread air conditioning in the US. People still die, but it's mitigated because of the air conditioning. There's far less availability of air conditioning in the poorer countries of the Middle East. Sure, the wealthy nations like Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE have plenty of air conditioning. But the same can't be said in places like Iraq and Yemen. Add to it a severe water shortage and there's potentially a big problem. The weather is worse than anywhere in the US, and the socioeconomic issues make it even worse.
Step 1 - make up mind for emotional reasons
Step 2 - find sources that agree with this position
Step 3 - ignore sources that contradict this position
Step 4 - shitpost on Slashdot and display ignorance
There is no 'profit' step.
No we weren't. The "coming ice age" thing was an article written in the popular press and was never supported by climate science.
In reality, climate science was already talking about anthropogenic global warming way back in the 1970s.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Those cities are currently, probably, about as bad as the Middle East when worst cases are considered and, currently, are not particularly close to "limit of survivability" levels.
Some bits of Northern India are currently amongst the "worst" areas. The ME is geographically close but currently not so bad as they're drier.
But if the ME gets wetter then the problems there could get worse to the point where it's impossible to survive without aircon.
http://www.city-data.com/forum...
35C wet bulb temperature is about the limit of survivability. You don't die instantly but unless you get somewhere cooler (lower wet bulb temperature, not necessarily absolute temperature) you will die.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
I think this is a fine point to interject. I am not, nor do I claim to be, a climate scientist. I am, on the other hand, a mathematician. My career was based on modeling from very large data sets. I modeled vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It's akin to attempting to model chaos.
I'll try to keep this simple.
See, you collect a whole bunch of data - everything from weather to time of day to a single individual can have an impact on the throughput of traffic. Then, you crunch this data and you end up with a model and can make predictions on it. Well, you shouldn't. This is why I'm retired today. See, you don't actually make predictions at that point. Instead - you return to the actual data and go out and make physical observations to confirm that your modeling of the existing data is accurate. If it's not then you change your algorithms AND manipulate the data until it matches reality.
Then, and only then, when you've managed to get them "close enough" can you make meaningful predictions and accurate proposals for things like route changes or configurations. You do, indeed, manipulate the data and the math used to crunch that data (an example is dropping outlying data points or optimizing for a specific period of time) until the data matches what you can verify as existing. The world is more than data points... At some point, it becomes so complex that there's absolutely zero chance at achieving perfection. That will not happen.
Now, I don't know shit about climate. I don't know if they're doing this right or wrong or if we're all going to die tomorrow. But I do know that massaging numbers and tweaking models to reflect reality is actually a damned good thing to do. In fact, doing so is why I'm retired and the company is still alive today. Not doing so is why you get some pretty screwed up traffic patterns that looked good on paper but suck in reality. That's what they get for hiring the least expensive companies. Yes, it takes more time, yes, it is more expensive. However, it's not at all unusual to manipulate data to make a model match reality. In fact, if you want to do a good job, it's pretty much a requirement and no - it will never be perfect. We simply can't account for all eventualities. You aim for a 95th percentile or greater in traffic modeling (even less for pedestrian traffic) and call it good.
So, there are probably all sorts of legitimate complaints about climate science. Data manipulation is not one of them. I'd be much more concerned to find out that they were relying on raw data without any manipulation and then comparisons with reality to determine which adjustments need to be made. If no adjustments had to be made, I'd call it straight up bullshit.
Err... End rant! Carry on with the bitch fest but, really, unless you've attempted to model a chaotic system, you're probably not actually aware of the process. I can assure you that, mathematically, this must be a similar process to what I'm most familiar with. If they were working with raw data that had not been manipulated then you'd probably end up with predictions of the climate being toadstool hamburger no later than last purple Wednesday. It's not a perfect world and there are near infinite data points to be considered if you want to try for perfection - good luck with that.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Without the discoveries of the Arabs and Africans before them our current civilization would be nothing.. Civilization come and go, ours will eventually decline as well. Even our civilazation has only done better than ancient Arabia and Africa by a few hundred years. Eventually war tore them apart, and could easily do the same to us.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
No we weren't. The "coming ice age" thing was an article written in the popular press and was never supported by climate science.
In reality, climate science was already talking about anthropogenic global warming way back in the 1970s.
In reality, scientists have been talking about since the 19th century. Svante Arrhenius developed the first climate model demonstrating how increases in CO2 from can warm the planet, and he did that back in the 1890's.
~X~
Err not not really. There is plenty of debate about the causes. It is a long way from settled science.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
All of science is a model. Every single thing in science is a model.
Atomic theory? That's a model. Ecosystem balance? Models. Why is the sky blue? We have a model for that. How do eyes and brains turn light into vision? We have an answer, and the answer is a model. How do the planets move? That's a model.
Models are the way we know about the world. We put in the evidence, and out come predictions. We judge the model by the accuracy of the predictions.