• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Change Could Make Parts of Middle East Uninhabitable

bubbabgone said:
Yeah that got my attention too.
Sounds like another terminology change like global warming to climate change.
Click to expand...

It's a tacit admission of failure, but if we dwell on such things people get upset, and then they call you names and stuff. Hurts my feelings and all.
 
humbolt said:
Perhaps you could reveal the content of the models to substantiate your suppositions, then. If they are to become uninhabitable either way, perhaps you can put a real number on something somewhere somehow. That would be, ah, refreshingly scientific.
Click to expand...

Read their report. They will be able to explain their own models a hell of a lot better than I can.

As for "putting a 'real' number" on it, are you asking for a year wherein the area would become uninhabited? They include the "real" number of the nightly temperature that they associate with uninhabitable.
 
humbolt said:
That would be scenarios, rather than predictions. The predictions didn't work out, but, but the scenarios, the scenarios are different. They aren't predictions. See?
Click to expand...
Its just ****ing comical beyond words to see these guys tripping over themselves to post the ridiculous bull**** that gets spread time and time and time again only to watch them tap dancing in the ashes to explain why their bull**** scenarios turned out to be bull**** scenarios but REALLY...they werent REALLY making predictions or stuff like that...

“We're stuck in our own experiment,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition admitted in a statement quoted in media reports, almost comically insisting that ice in the region really is melting despite all of the objective and anecdotal data literally all around them. “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.” In reality, sea ice in the Arctic is up 50 percent above last year, and in Antarctica, this year saw a new record — the largest sea-ice covering since records began.
BcwLlK9CIAEkzeQ.jpg
 
bubbabgone said:
"Gimme more time."
Click to expand...
Dood is classic. Pay attention to their guesses! They are 'scientists'. But...wait...not THOSE 'scientists'. **** them...what do THEY know?
 
MrT said:
Read their report. They will be able to explain their own models a hell of a lot better than I can.

As for "putting a 'real' number" on it, are you asking for a year wherein the area would become uninhabited? They include the "real" number of the nightly temperature that they associate with uninhabitable.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a "no". It's simply a scenario, and one that has been repeated throughout history. The regions in question have expanded and contracted over history, at times have become lush, and at other times have been uninhabitable, or nearly so. What do you suggest to mitigate this?
 
humbolt said:
I'll take that as a "no". It's simply a scenario, and one that has been repeated throughout history. The regions in question have expanded and contracted over history, at times have become lush, and at other times have been uninhabitable, or nearly so. What do you suggest to mitigate this?
Click to expand...
I read the title of the thread,
Climate Change Could Make Parts of Middle East Uninhabitable
Click to expand...
and thought parts of the middle east have been uninhabitable since the beginning of human history.
 
humbolt said:
From the OP:

The researchers created two models -- one in which global temperatures are capped by reductions in greenhouse gases, and another, a “business as usual” model where nothing is done to stem climate change.Under both scenarios, the future of the region is not good, they say, adding that “climate change can result in a significant deterioration of living conditions for people living in North Africa and the Middle East, and consequently, sooner or later, many people may have to leave the region.”

Seems like the region is screwed either way according to their models, but they continue undaunted, claiming that climate change "can result in significant deterioration..." WTF?
​
Click to expand...

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

It's known as "business as usual" in today's world. Always keep bad news at the forefront, which justifies throwing lots of money at it so it looks like someone cares, even though they, like King Canute, certainly shouldn't be expected to do anything about it except issue commands that nature obey mankind's demands! :thumbdown:
 
humbolt said:
I'll take that as a "no". It's simply a scenario, and one that has been repeated throughout history. The regions in question have expanded and contracted over history, at times have become lush, and at other times have been uninhabitable, or nearly so. What do you suggest to mitigate this?
Click to expand...

You should take it as a "no." It's pretty ****ing obvious that I am not going to break down the specifics of their models for you.

Again, we have to talk about the rate of change. Humans live on a timescale of about 80 years. So if the changes between the time periods that you're discussing is a gradual change over 10,000 years, then you're discussing an irrelevant point. Currently we are adjusting the climate at rates of roughly 50-100x the natural process. So when a specific area like the entire middle east moves from desert to uninhabitable within 100 years (as opposed to 10,000 years), there are going to be a lot of problems.
 
polgara said:
Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

It's known as "business as usual" in today's world. Always keep bad news at the forefront, which justifies throwing lots of money at it so it looks like someone cares, even though they, like King Canute, certainly shouldn't be expected to do anything about it except issue commands that nature obey mankind's demands! :thumbdown:
Click to expand...

Nature is already obeying mankind's commands by warming significantly and rapidly due to human pollution.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Thats some quick thinking there. On the plus side, they have had LOTS of opportunities to practice excuses as to why their dire climate predictions have constantly failed.

But...you know...as long as they are 'experts'....
Click to expand...

There's too much money on the table. They'll say anything.
 
apdst said:
There's too much money on the table. They'll say anything.
Click to expand...
Why not? Their true believers will swallow anything.
 
VanceMack said:
Why not? Their true believers will swallow anything.
Click to expand...

The true believers see the result of global warming laws: more government control over the private sector, which is their primary objective, anyway.
 
MrT said:
You should take it as a "no." It's pretty ****ing obvious that I am not going to break down the specifics of their models for you.

Again, we have to talk about the rate of change. Humans live on a timescale of about 80 years. So if the changes between the time periods that you're discussing is a gradual change over 10,000 years, then you're discussing an irrelevant point. Currently we are adjusting the climate at rates of roughly 50-100x the natural process. So when a specific area like the entire middle east moves from desert to uninhabitable within 100 years (as opposed to 10,000 years), there are going to be a lot of problems.
Click to expand...

It was dryer in that area in the 1940's than it is now. It seems the rate of change varies significantly, and sometimes within a very short time frame historically. If and when a direct connection between the climate in this region - or any region of the planet for that matter - and CO2 emissions can be conclusively demonstrated, I'll be a believer. To date, nothing but predictions have been offered based on a theory which would be marvelous, had not all the predictions based on that theory failed to materialize. Obviously, there's more going on than we have discovered to date.
 
apdst said:
The true believers see the result of global warming laws: more government control over the private sector, which is their primary objective, anyway.
Click to expand...
Well...that and their announced goal of' "wealth" redistribution. Most of what comes from the IPCC and the UN really is just a means of trying to funnel cash into impoverished nations with the assumption that countries like the US can afford it.
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
 
VanceMack said:
Well...that and their announced goal of' "wealth" redistribution. Most of what comes from the IPCC and the UN really is just a means of trying to funnel cash into impoverished nations with the assumption that countries like the US can afford it.
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
Click to expand...

Global warming fulfills every liberal wet dream for the past 100 years.
 
humbolt said:
It was dryer in that area in the 1940's than it is now. It seems the rate of change varies significantly, and sometimes within a very short time frame historically. If and when a direct connection between the climate in this region - or any region of the planet for that matter - and CO2 emissions can be conclusively demonstrated, I'll be a believer. To date, nothing but predictions have been offered based on a theory which would be marvelous, had not all the predictions based on that theory failed to materialize. Obviously, there's more going on than we have discovered to date.
Click to expand...

Here are two studies linking specific climatic events to climate change. I am sure that you've seen the articles before and rejected them as "inconclusive," but I figured I would give it another shot.

Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012?2014 - Williams - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library - California Drought
Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought - Excessive Drought in the Fertile Crescent
 
MrT said:
Here are two studies linking specific climatic events to climate change. I am sure that you've seen the articles before and rejected them as "inconclusive," but I figured I would give it another shot.

Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012?2014 - Williams - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library - California Drought
Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought - Excessive Drought in the Fertile Crescent
Click to expand...

I take a look at them later today, and thanks for taking the time. Variations in the jet stream seem to have a more pronounced effect in the region we are discussing than they do elsewhere on the planet.
 
MrT said:
You should take it as a "no." It's pretty ****ing obvious that I am not going to break down the specifics of their models for you.

Again, we have to talk about the rate of change. Humans live on a timescale of about 80 years. So if the changes between the time periods that you're discussing is a gradual change over 10,000 years, then you're discussing an irrelevant point. Currently we are adjusting the climate at rates of roughly 50-100x the natural process. So when a specific area like the entire middle east moves from desert to uninhabitable within 100 years (as opposed to 10,000 years), there are going to be a lot of problems.
Click to expand...

th
 
MrT said:
Here are two studies linking specific climatic events to climate change. I am sure that you've seen the articles before and rejected them as "inconclusive," but I figured I would give it another shot.

Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012?2014 - Williams - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library - California Drought
Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought - Excessive Drought in the Fertile Crescent
Click to expand...

"Fertile Crescent" ... mmmm I love it when you talk dirty.
 
MrT said:
Here are two studies linking specific climatic events to climate change. I am sure that you've seen the articles before and rejected them as "inconclusive," but I figured I would give it another shot.

Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012?2014 - Williams - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library - California Drought
Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought - Excessive Drought in the Fertile Crescent
Click to expand...
I am guessing you think that the population of the Fertile Crescent nearly tripling since 1980 has nothing to do with the
water consumption.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/e...pop_totl&idim=country:SYR:IRQ:SAU&hl=en&dl=en
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom