Slashdot Mirror
Climate-Exodus Expected In The Middle East And North Africa (phys.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Researchers of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and the Cyprus Institute in Nicosia have calculated that the Middle East and North Africa could become so hot that human habitability is compromised. The goal of limiting global warming to less than two degrees Celsius, agreed at the recent UN climate summit in Paris, will not be sufficient to prevent this scenario. The result is deeply alarming: Even if Earth's temperature were to increase on average only by two degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times, the temperature in summer in these regions will increase more than twofold. This means that during hot days temperatures south of the Mediterranean will reach around 46 degrees Celsius (approximately 114 degrees Fahrenheit) by mid-century. Such extremely hot days will occur five times more often than was the case at the turn of the millennium. In combination with increasing air pollution by windblown desert dust, the environmental conditions could become intolerable and may force people to migrate.
Tell them that if we don't take action soon, more Muslims will move to their neighborhood.
This is in the summary:
"the temperature in summer in these regions will increase more than twofold"
This literally means that if the temp averaged 90F it will then average 180F. That's a lot of climate change.
Could we, you know, maybe have something that makes sense? Like "the temperature in summer in these regions will increase twice as much as previously expected"?
Slashdot may have new owners but the editing hasn't quite gotten there yet.
A shift of a few degrees C is nothing compared to normal seasonal variation
For people, that is true. People are not going to die of the heat. But their crops and pastures will dry out. So the people will either move or starve. The problem is that there is no where to move to. Even Syrians, who are more educated and secular that most other Middle Eastern people, are not wanted anywhere.
Look at the seasonal variation of temperatures in Bahgdad.
A shift of a few degrees C is nothing compared to normal seasonal variation, even adjusting the topmost temperatures doesn't mean that much difference in reality.
Of course that's only kinda relevant if the temperature increases uniformly which it doesn't
In the Middle East and North Africa, the average temperature in winter will rise by around 2.5 degrees Celsius (left) by the middle of the century, and in summer by around five degrees Celsius (right) if global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase according to the business-as-usual scenario (RCP8,5).
That's ~9F, would you consider that change in your summertime average to be inconsequential? The average high in Baghdad in July is 44C, if the projection is right it will become 49C, I suspect there's a few places you start to consider uninhabitable at that point.
I stole this Sig
That isn't how a bell curve works. If you move a bell curve slightly to the left, the big change isn't in the average, but is in how much you have where you end up sampling from the extremes of the distribution. This is why for example, China doesn't have nearly as many top-tier soccer players as some much smaller countries, or how the best runners are almost all Kenyan even though the Kenyan isn't much faster than the average in most other populations. One very controversial example of this is how some populations (e.g. Ashkenazi Jews) have many more Fields Medal and Nobel Prize winners than one would expect naively, but if you move the average intelligence up just a tiny bit, you get a massive change in how many really brilliant people you have.
The frozen tundra, even if completely thawed out, isn't suitable for farming. You're going to have to stop breeding so much no matter how you slice it. 1 child per family will probably be the world-wide norm in the coming years.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
A shift of a few degrees C is nothing
Says the guy who grasps nothing.
The link you gave is using Celsius as scale, not Fahrenheit.
This article is about: if global average increases by 2C then at "hot spots" that might mean 20C or more.
If at those hot spots such peak temperatures are reached, then the normal seasonal variation has doubled. And the peak is so high that you can't live outside anymore, that is much difference in reality.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Tundra, even thawed out, doesn't have enough topsoil to make farming possible. So forget that idea. Russia is going to be nervous about Chinese climate refugees. Both have nukes, and both share a common border in certain areas.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The weather is nice where I am, so I don't think the problem is real
Then here's another third of the problem:
The weather is terrible where I am and it used to be fine
Followed by:
Oh, well, just because it's bad where you are doesn't mean global warming is real
Then the final third of the problem:
Oh hi we're climate scientists! Since you apparently aren't paying attention to what we're saying, we're going to say it louder and be more extreme to try to make you listen!
Followed closely by:
Oh, well, you're just being alarmists!
This is then exacerbated by extremists on both sides of the equation tossing around their conspiracy theories, pseudo-science, tree-hugging anti-human rhetoric, plain old-fashioned politicking, and the religious types who quietly tell you it's all part of "Gods plan", "the End Times are coming", and "soon there will be Heaven on Earth and none of this will matter anymore", or whatever other nonsense they spout. So nothing actually gets done to prove anything one way or another because everyone just keeps arguing. What will 'decide' if it's real or not will be if it either becomes Too Late To Do Anything About It (at which time everyone will continue to argue, this time about whose fault it is), or it just Goes Away On It's Own (in which case everyone will continue to argue, this time about who was wrong, who was right, and why).
You want the TL;DR version?
Doesn't matter, we're doomed one way or another, because humans are fucking stupid, especially in large groups
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Average high temp for a Tucson summer is 99 degrees, so no, 114 is not a cold day. In fact, there's only 7 days on record where it's ever reached that high.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Forgetting, of course, the amount of methane trapped in the permafrost in Siberia and Canada, which would greatly accelerate the warming, as methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There are benefits, but the costs overwhelm the benefits.
A malfunctioning septic system may see your lawn grow greener, but that's usually followed by a sewage smell and a very large bill to fix the problem.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Also Cold kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.
Except we're not talking about Baghdad getting uniformly 2C warmer, every day of the year. We're talking about 60 additional hot days in the summer with the rest of the year being roughly similar to today. Those sixty days would, almost own their own, raise the year-round average by more than 4C (not 2C). For that to happen the temperature increase on these days be closer to +20C, rather than +2C.
A lot of denialist reckoning does this kind of simplistic reckoning -- e.g., assuming 2C global warming means exactly 2C warmer, uniformly distributed in space and season across the globe. That of course would only amount to a trivial change. But what you're actually going to get is vast increases in extreme weather (hot AND cold) which averaged out across the globe.
Think of it this way: imagine we hold the global increase in temperature to 2C. The amount of additional kinetic energy per unit volume represented by that additional 2C, integrated over the immense volume of the atmosphere, works out to be a staggering amount of total energy, which will change the patterns of weather. Since that immense fluid is rotating, the additional energy cannot mix and diffuse out uniformly and neatly; instead it will drive massive eddies of hot and cold migrating out of their old geographic limits. You'll get all kinds of extreme weather both hot AND cold, it just all averages out to +2C temperature-wise.
To put that perspective, current estimates are that we're capturing an additional 8 x 10^21 joules of extra solar energy per year, every single year.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You seem to have a real issue with Carter... odd for the man who is probably the most productive ex-president in American history. The man only went and eradicated and entire disease from humanity since he left office, and he is a few months from eradicating a SECOND one.
But yeah... a president who actively avoided wars and were more focussed on saving lives than taking them and has the sense to employ highly skilled scientists to tell him how to solve problems rather than lobbyists (and continued to do so after leaving office - which is how he achieved the eradication of one disease and is on the verge of doing it again) ... can't have that !
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Scott Adams makes two great mistakes in that blog post: The first is that he blames science instead of industry for industry-led pseudoscientific disinformation campaigns (diet and tobacco specifically, and presumably also climate). He lays it all at the feet of science for failing to overpower these efforts with hardly a finger shaken at industry. He is saying that science has a credibility problem because of industry's lies. That's bullshit.
The second is that he fails to see that the wrongness of science is relative. Apparently until some extremely stringent rightness threshold is passed, science's answers are uselessly wrong, and telling people to cut down on fatty foods to prevent obesity was as wrong as telling them that they're fat because they're full of demons. That's also bullshit.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
How have the scientists lost all credibility? Their findings are fine - no one has managed to challenge them. The thing about science is it doesn't matter who pays for what - the findings must stand up to scientific rigour before they are accepted into the general body of knowledge.
It sounds like you don't understand the scientific method, and are looking for any excuse to stick your fingers in your ears. You are wasting your brain, but I think you know that, and simply don't care. What a wonderful example for future generations.