Claim: 170F (76c) Heat waves will make Persian Gulf Uninhabitable by 2100

UAE-heat

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A new study claims that, by the end of this century, some cities in the Persian Gulf will be uninhabitable by humans, thanks to extreme temperatures up to 170F (76c).

The abstract of the study;

Future temperature in southwest Asia projected to exceed a threshold for human adaptability

A human body may be able to adapt to extremes of dry-bulb temperature (commonly referred to as simply temperature) through perspiration and associated evaporative cooling provided that the wet-bulb temperature (a combined measure of temperature and humidity or degree of ‘mugginess’) remains below a threshold of 35 °C. (ref. 1). This threshold defines a limit of survivability for a fit human under well-ventilated outdoor conditions and is lower for most people. We project using an ensemble of high-resolution regional climate model simulations that extremes of wet-bulb temperature in the region around the Arabian Gulf are likely to approach and exceed this critical threshold under the business-as-usual scenario of future greenhouse gas concentrations. Our results expose a specific regional hotspot where climate change, in the absence of significant mitigation, is likely to severely impact human habitability in the future.

Read more: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2833.html

Unfortunately the main study is paywalled, but according to the press release in Time Magazine;

Temperatures could reach 170ºF

A number of cities in the Persian Gulf region may be unlivable the end of the century due to global warming if humans do not curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to new research.

The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, projects that by the end of the century heat waves in Doha, Abu Dhabi and Bandar Abbas could lead to temperatures at which humans physically cannot survive over a sustained period of time by around 2100. The threshold, estimated around 170ºF, takes into account heat and humidity that prevent humans from exercising natural functions that allow the body to cool.

“Such severe heat waves are expected to occur only once every decade or every few decades,” said study author Elfatih A. B. Eltahir, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “But when they happen they will be quite lethal.”

http://time.com/4087092/climate-change-heat-wave/

According to Wikipedia, the hottest temperature ever recorded was 57c (134F) in Death Valley, in 1913. 76c (170F) might not seem like much of a leap from 57c, but the cities Doha, Abu Dhabi and Bandar Abbas are all coastal cities which experience substantial Summer rainfall.

Summer rainfall and storms are natural air conditioning. When temperatures soar, evaporation, convection and storm activity remove vast amounts of excess heat from the surface and transport the heat straight up to the edge of space. The heat laden water vapour keeps rising until it condenses – the vapour simply punches straight through the bulk of the world’s greenhouse blanket, soaring into the upper reaches of the troposphere, until it finds a height at which it can dump its vast store of heat.

thunderstorm big

Anyone who has spent time in the tropics, who has seen the towering thunderheads which form in Summer, has experienced this cooling phenomenon in action. The air is always very perceptibly cooler after a major thunderstorm.

Abhu Dhabi, Bandar Abbas and Doha aren’t going to run out of “coolant” – as coastal cities, any evaporation is immediately replaced from the inexhaustible waters of the world’s oceans.

If the world warms, what is surely more likely than implausibly high maximum heatwave temperatures, is that the temperature would stay about the same, but Summer rainfall would increase.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
279 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rodzki of Oz
October 27, 2015 2:57 am

Lucky they’ve got all that oil money so they can build massive underground air-conditioned cities.

George E. Smith
Reply to  Rodzki of Oz
October 27, 2015 10:38 am

They can always build a Dubai version of Coober Pedy.
But they better be quick, because I believe the Persian gulf will be uninhabitable, and uninhabited. by about 2020; due to all the crazies trying to solve one of history’s unsolvable problems; the ruckus in Abraham’s household.
g

JohnKnight
Reply to  George E. Smith
October 27, 2015 3:48 pm

Perhaps if this rukus in the house of Siants can be resolved soon, many seemingly unsolvable problems can have a final solution, George.

Reply to  Rodzki of Oz
October 27, 2015 10:46 am

Hmm. They have painted Iran red too. Having spent time in Tehran looking out the window at the snow on the mountains, and looking up the ski resorts; I wonder if any of these “modellers” realize that there are high mountains in Iran and skiing and it gets cold in the north in the winter:
http://www.iranski.com/

Frank Sharkany
Reply to  Rodzki of Oz
October 28, 2015 3:16 am

Well, as someone who is actually in Abu Dhabi at the moment for a temporary work assignment, let me tell you, it’s already pretty hot here. July and August can be brutal. 113F in the shade is a nice day. My co worker used a heat sensing gun to measure his cloth car seat just after he opened the door, got a 180F. Sweet.

JJM Gommers
October 27, 2015 2:58 am

Paris is closer and closer, the more climate Armageddon is piling up.

ferdberple
Reply to  JJM Gommers
October 27, 2015 5:48 am

The problem is that people take the warming that is projected for the polar regions and apply it to the tropics. CAGW is not projected to warm the tropical regions, it is projected to warm the polar regions.
The tropics cannot warm because the extra energy goes into increased evaporation, and you end up with the infamous tropospheric hot spot that is the signature of CAGW. The only problem is that this hot spot, predicted by all the models, is completely absent in reality. It isn’t happening.
And while in any other branch of science this would be proof that the theory behind Global Warming is wrong, there is quite simply too much money to be made for anyone to look seriously at the science.

Steve R
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 6:05 am

The Persian Gulf is not located within the tropics.

MarkW
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 6:10 am

That’s way more warming than even the polar regions are supposed to get.

ferdberple
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 7:05 am

The Persian Gulf is not located within the tropics.
==========
You are repeating yourself. The Persian Gulf is the same latitude as Northern Mexico. Mazatlán, La Paz and Cabo San Lucas.
Places where ‘mericans flock in winter. Only thing is these places can be downright cold in winter.
Here is what Saudi Arabia looks like in winter:comment image

Luke
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 7:58 am

Perhaps you missed the news but the tropospheric hotspot has been confirmed with satellite measurements.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007;jsessionid=0D93B50D6FDBA673186C8BDE654F9A49.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org

ulriclyons
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 8:08 am

“CAGW is not projected to warm the tropical regions, it is projected to warm the polar regions.”
Wells there’s the rub. In fact increased forcing of the climate by increases in GHG’s are expected to increase positive AO/NAO, that will only cool the AMO and the Arctic region.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 8:21 am

“We present an updated version of the radiosonde dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2), now extended through February 2013, following the method used in the original version (Sherwood et al 2008 Robust tropospheric warming revealed by iteratively homogenized radiosonde data J. Clim. 21 5336–52). This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model that includes both natural variability, trends, and time-changing instrument biases, thereby avoiding estimation biases inherent in traditional homogenization methods. One modification now enables homogenized winds to be provided for the first time. This, and several other small modifications made to the original method sometimes affect results at individual stations, but do not strongly affect broad-scale temperature trends.”
Iterative homogenization upon homogenization, then homogenize the winds, then homogenize the result, apply a few more adjustments and the data now resembles exactly what the climate models say it should. Surprise surprise. We’re right!
That’s good for laughs. This stuff is getting more obscure than string theory. Pretty soon we’re going to need to create a new mathematics for climate data. First, take the actual data from the device measuring it and throw that away. Completely useless. Now take the models, apply numerous transformations, filters, randomizers and some homogenization and you have the cleaned climate data.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 8:41 am

@Luke:
Your link says it reached its conclusions with “iteratively homogenized” ‘data’:
As with other efforts to homogenize radiosonde data, results here may be affected by sampling limitations and inhomogeneities not successfully removed. However, we argue…
…that WE NEED MORE GRANT MONEY, STAT!
Your linked paper tries to contradict thousands of radiosonde balloon datasets and satellite measurements showing that the “hotspot” does not exist as predicted:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg
Sorry, but they are just grant trolling.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 9:39 am

ferdberple said:

Places where ‘mericans flock in winter. Only thing is these places can be downright cold in winter.
Here is what Saudi Arabia looks like in winter:

You do understand the difference between hail & snow…right? That is hail in the pix…not snow. Hail occurs quite frequently when the temperature is way above freezing.

tty
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 9:53 am

“Perhaps you missed the news but the tropospheric hotspot has been confirmed with satellite measurements”
Perhaps you should have tried reading the paper first. It specifically does not use any satellite data but rather something called “Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data”.which apparently means fiddling around with the data until you get the result you want.

George E. Smith
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 10:45 am

“””””…..
Steve R
October 27, 2015 at 6:05 am
The Persian Gulf is not located within the tropics. …”””””
Well Steve, you are the first person to even hint at that.
Ferd mentioned the tropics; but never mentioned the Persian Gulf.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 10:51 am

DB Stealey:
It worse than you think:
This method, in effect, performs a multiple linear regression of the data onto a structural model that includes both natural variability, trends, and time-changing instrument biases,… (My bolding)

Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 11:44 am

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)
Steven C Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant
Published 11 May 2015 • © 2015 IOP Publishing Ltd • Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10
Abstract
We present an updated version of the RADIOSONDE dataset homogenized by Iterative Universal Kriging (IUKv2).

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 12:08 pm

The Persian Gulf is at the same Latitude as South Florida, a place which does have an Koppen A climate, which means…wait for it…TROPICALl.
It rains every day in Summer, here. and would there too but they only have water on one side.
The Persian Gulf interior regions and the Arabian Peninsula are in fact just on the threshold of getting enough heat to have daily rains in Summer. The cap layer is breached in many areas, but holds on in others.
Note that during the warmer-than-now climate optimum periods, the much of the middle east was a lush zone of perfect growing conditions.
All those people did not get attached to a desert…they got attached to land which became a desert when it cooled.
This is why cool periods lead to war in those places…not enough food and arable land is left.
Oh, and BTW…there have been BLIZZARDS each Winter in the Saudi desert, and in Egypt for the past several years, dropping FEET of snow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbyPv8J-Hv8&index=72&list=PL00u99IRraJtn38lgAequUjcZR_uFnkdY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e8SazOPMV0&index=68&list=PL00u99IRraJtn38lgAequUjcZR_uFnkdY

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 12:10 pm

That is strange.
Mods, I posted four separate links and yet they were all transformed into the same video in this series.

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 12:13 pm

Try again with original news stories of the blizzards:
http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/708621

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 12:15 pm

Here is a story of some people who froze to death in the Sinai, but the blizzard was far more widespread:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/94505/Egypt/Politics-/UPDATE–At-least-three-Egyptian-hikers-dead-after-.aspx

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 12:19 pm

And who could forget this one, in which eight FEET of snow fell in Southern Italy last Spring, and did so in about 24 hours. This part of Italy is a stones throw from Greece, Libya, and Sicily:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/capracotta-snow-italy-photos_n_6847562.html

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 12:20 pm

Here is the first one, in 2013, in Cairo and spreading throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East:
http://news.sky.com/story/1182209/egypt-sees-first-snow-storm-in-years

Wim Röst
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 2:54 pm

Appy Sluijs, paleoclimatologist in an interview talking about the short extreme Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum (PETM), ~55 million years ago and about research he did in the pole region:
http://www.npowetenschap.nl/site/artikel/Voorspellen-met-hulp-uit-het-verleden/6540
(translated by me from Dutch)
‘Imagine, palms around the North Pole. Worldwide the temperature was on the average 15 degrees higher than now. In the tropics it was only 5 degrees warmer, while at the North Pole it was at least 30 degrees warmer than in the present situation. (…)’
WR: In the tropics it was only 5 degrees warmer, at the poles 30 degrees. Overall (whole earth) 15 degrees. This tells not only that the main difference in temperature was for the poles, but also that the tropics didn’t warm more than only 5 degrees – in a real extreme situation.
P.S. I think Appy Sluijs was talking about this research: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/abs/nature04668.html

Goldrider
Reply to  JJM Gommers
October 27, 2015 6:47 am

Yep, they’re piling it higher and deeper, all right. No one who made it through a 7th-grade science fair is fooled.

Reply to  JJM Gommers
October 27, 2015 8:10 am

Aye, it’s a proper hockey stick.

Menicholas
Reply to  JJM Gommers
October 27, 2015 12:17 pm

Here is the first one, in 2013, in Cairo and spreading throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East:
http://news.sky.com/story/1182209/egypt-sees-first-snow-storm-in-years

Expat
Reply to  JJM Gommers
October 27, 2015 1:21 pm

The Persian Gulf will never get hotter than 50c for the simple reason that the thousands of outside laborers are allowed off work when it hits 50. Obviously that will never happen.
In my time working there it did get incredibly hot and the humidity was almost 100%. There is also a very fine sifting of dirt coming out of the air. Hell on Earth is what it is in summer – and I was in the good part.

garymount
October 27, 2015 3:00 am
QV
Reply to  garymount
October 27, 2015 3:43 am

“felt like”

George Tetley
Reply to  garymount
October 27, 2015 3:45 am

garymount
So “the dead wood news ” has lost its wisdom in the forest, And as big as Canada’s forests are they are not likely to find it, If India had temp. as high as that there would be 10-20 million Indians less, India is a country that has so many people, 1,300,000,000 yep billion , with more that 400 per km2 ( that’s the whole country ) and a 50m2 apartment in a large city may house as many as 20-40 people ( air-conditioning? what’s that? )

ferdberple
Reply to  garymount
October 27, 2015 7:07 am

the “national post” is a newspaper? sounds more like the post office.

MarkW
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 10:24 am

Reminds me of the time Winnie the Pooh went looking for the north pole.

ferd berple
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 10:38 am

Winnie the Pooh went looking for the north pole
============
and he found it! just like global warming. if you don’t look too close, you will find whatever you seek.

George E. Smith
Reply to  garymount
October 27, 2015 10:48 am

I found somewhere an all time official high of 136.8 F in some North Africa location circa 1922 I believe.

Menicholas
Reply to  George E. Smith
October 27, 2015 12:28 pm

Funny things happened in the period 1921-1922…it was the hottest ever on record at the time, with melting glaciers all over the world, and yet, nearly 100 years later, NASA “discovers” it to be the coldest period of the past 150 years:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/another-smoking-gun-of-nasa-fraud/

Mike T
October 27, 2015 3:14 am

I’ve experienced a record of 49C in two different coastal locations in Western Australia, and there wasn’t a thunderstorm in sight for relief, with the hot dry winds coming from the desert inland, RH 5%. I’ve heard it said that any new record max will be set at a coastal location, as inland parts of Australia have a slight amelioration effect from altitude. Having said that, I call BS on claims of 76C in the Middle East. There is a huge jump from the Oz record of 51C or so, and the US record of 57C, to 76C.

Francisco
Reply to  Mike T
October 27, 2015 6:44 am

I wouldn’t necessarily call it BS. When I lived there my thermometer recorded 62ºC, while the official one never went past 50ºC.
You see, the law states that if temperatures reach over 50ºC outside work has to stop.
If the release the real temperature records, I am sure we’ll see a spike.

ferdberple
Reply to  Mike T
October 27, 2015 7:09 am

my thermometer recorded 62ºC
============
what does a thermometer on a paved road in summer read?

tty
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 10:04 am

Frequently about 75-80ºC. My own personal record is 52ºC in Mojave in July, the thermometer was in shadow, but not in a cage, so there was probably some radiation effect. A friend of mine in the oil business claims that he has experienced 61ºC on an inland oilfield in Oman, once again not measured with a properly housed and calibrated thermometer.
And 76 degrees in coastal locations like Abu Dhabi is probably physically impossible. You wouldn’t get a “sea breeze”, it would be a gale!

Evan Jones
Editor
October 27, 2015 3:16 am

Well, it said it reached 47C — which felt like 74C. Which is pretty much how some folks are doing this science these days.

garymount
Reply to  Evan Jones
October 27, 2015 5:08 am

When I looked at my newspaper on that day the headline said 74. It didn’t say feels like. I thought did they mean F? Then I thought surely they must have accidentally switched the two numbers. On further investigation of the story inside, I discovered “feels like”.

QV
Reply to  garymount
October 27, 2015 5:17 am

Which newspaper was that?

garymount
Reply to  garymount
October 27, 2015 5:42 am

The newspaper was The Vancouver Sun, on their front page no less (is how I remember it, can’t find the article yet).

Reply to  Evan Jones
October 27, 2015 7:44 am

The paper discusses wet-bult rather than dry-bulb temperature. The 74C number is the dry-bulb-equivilent heat stress of the projected wet bulb temperature.
The general idea is that human heat tolerance is affected by temperature and humidity, and the Gulf States have an unfortunately high level of both.

Menicholas
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 27, 2015 12:30 pm

Since 74 C would be quickly fatal, how is it is possible to have a survivable temp that “feels like” 74?
Meaningless nonsense.
Oh, wait…I know…It felt like they were gonna die?

AndyG55
October 27, 2015 3:29 am

And when the coming cooling trend starts to bite, will these moronic twerps shut the **** up !!!

MarkW
Reply to  AndyG55
October 27, 2015 6:12 am

no

RH
Reply to  AndyG55
October 27, 2015 7:25 am

Sadly, no. They will ignore any cooling just as they’ve ignored the “pause”. If/when cooling becomes undeniable, they will simply say it is caused by industrialized nations burning fossil fuel, and the solution will still be Marxism.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  RH
October 27, 2015 8:41 am

They must discredit any natural cycles and impose linear trends on climate if their agenda is to be implemented.
It has to become a dogma of mother gaia infected with ugly humanity, who must get on our knees and beg for our future to be spared from our accidental foray into usage of the forbidden element FIRE, and releasing the evil genie of CO2 to take control of temperature, which Gore told us was always stable before the scourge of human industrial activity.

October 27, 2015 3:29 am

The idea of 170F in Arabia and closure of cities is extremely unlikely, but if it were to occur, a beneficial spin-off would be a significant cut back in the organisation of Islamic Jihadism in the rest of the World.

VicV
Reply to  ntesdorf
October 27, 2015 6:36 am

With 170F predictions will come justification for even more invasion now of Europe and N. America. This will likely be used by Islamists for more Jihadism.

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  ntesdorf
October 27, 2015 7:34 pm

Those that invented the algorithm that produced this temperature spike must have failed to model for sea winds on Dubai as has been commented.
However if the local Arabian states,among the biggest producers of oil and gas in the world take the bait, they may cut their production ensuring some success in negotiations at the climate conference.
They may even get guilty and pay up.

AndyG55
October 27, 2015 3:36 am

does anyone have any longish term, raw temperature data from Abu Dhabi?

Akatsukami
Reply to  AndyG55
October 27, 2015 8:42 am

Weather Underground?

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  AndyG55
October 27, 2015 9:00 am

Maybe Garfield could put a thermometer in with the kitten.

October 27, 2015 3:38 am

Is there any material that can be heated to that temperature when put in the sun light? If yes, please show the demonstration.

MarkW
Reply to  dev bahadur dongol (@DevDongol)
October 27, 2015 10:27 am

Direct sunlight, or can we use a magnifying glass?

billw1984
October 27, 2015 3:44 am

It’s worser than we thoughter!

Leo Smith
Reply to  billw1984
October 27, 2015 5:34 am

Its worser than the worsest thing there ever was!

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 27, 2015 6:14 am

It’s worser than the worsest thing that any one ever thoughter of.

Reply to  Leo Smith
October 27, 2015 8:49 am

It’s even worse than that, doubled and squared…

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 27, 2015 9:14 am

Doubled and squared
Singled and paired
worser than worst
So you better be scared!

DD More
Reply to  billw1984
October 27, 2015 11:50 am

Bill, not only “worser than we thoughter”, but all the ‘world’s windmills and all the world’s solar panels couldn’t put the green blob back together.’
region around the Arabian Gulf are likely to approach and exceed this critical threshold under the business-as-usual scenario of future greenhouse gas concentrations.

October 27, 2015 3:47 am

Assuming the lapse rate is 8 deg C per kilometer so at 7 KM it will be a comfortable 20 deg C. They need to get building more proper skyscrapers not the tiddly little ones they currently waste their oil money on.

MarkW
Reply to  son of mulder
October 27, 2015 6:15 am

Does bottled O2 come standard? Or is that extra?

higley7
October 27, 2015 3:48 am

Poppycock.
A warmer planet only means longer summers and shorter, milder winters. There is no evidence that all warming means higher temperatures. In fact, we know that there is a 22 deg C cap on planetary temperatures. Simply longer warmth raises the temperature average the amount predicted. Longer summers means longer growing season and more food. More CO2 means more food. Where’s the downside to that?

Simon
Reply to  higley7
October 27, 2015 11:15 am

higley7
Can we please have a reputable reference for your “In fact, we know that there is a 22 deg C cap on planetary temperatures.”
Otherwise I’m afraid I need to call BS on it.

Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 11:21 am

Simon,
If I thought you could learn, I’d post lots more references like this:
http://www.kogagrove.org/sams/agw/images/paleomap.png
But your mind is closed, so that’s for other readers.

dsiegel
Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 11:27 am

(To the bit bucket with you, impostor. -mod.)
..

Reply to  dsiegel
October 27, 2015 11:35 am

You’re not that stupid, are you? The provenance is in the address bar.
Come to think of it, “David”, you probably are as ignorant as Simon.

dsiegel
Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 12:10 pm

(To the bit bucket with you, impostor. -mod.)

Simon
Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 1:27 pm

DB
And DB if I thought you were going to post a references that had even a sniff of credibility I would happily read it. The one you give is by some random who is into electronics. I could find a graph buy a guy who is into collecting stamps. So what? And …..does it not seem odd to you that a planet could not go over 22C irrespective of how much energy or GHG’s it is exposed to. If not, it explains a lot.

Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 1:32 pm

Simon me boi,
As I clearly and accurately stated, your mind is closed to anything that does not feed your confirmation bias. I could post more charts that show the same thing, in fact I have them. Would you like to see them? Just say the word, and I’ll post them just for you.
As for the planet not going above a particular temperature, I am an observer of facts and evidence. I don’t make baseless assertions like you do (“…a planet could not go over 22C irrespective of how much energy or GHG’s it is exposed to”).
I don’t purport to have all the answers. But I can certainly see when a conjecture or hypothesis has been falsified by the real world. That’s the difference between skeptics and climate alarmists: skeptics acccept what Planet Earth is clearly telling us, while alarmists assume a conclusion, then try to find factoids to make those factoids fit their preconceived beliefs.

Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 2:11 pm

Simon sez:
…if I thought you were going to post a references that had even a sniff of credibility I would happily read it.
See what I mean about a closed mind?

Simon
Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 1:40 pm

DB
Nothing would make me happier…. but please, no jugglers, car salesman, fishmongers or pie makers. References from the climate specialists only.
But before you do, just consider this. The average temp is at present between 14-16C. If we got to 22C we would be in Shite street, well and truely. Even you you must see that.

Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 1:53 pm

Simon, stop it. You’re scaring yourself, and it isn’t even October 31st yet.
The planet has been ≈22ºC for many millions of years, without any adverse effects. In fact, warmth is better for the biosphere. It’s the great stadials (Ice Ages) that are the killers.
As for “jugglers, car salesman, fishmongers or pie makers”, I don’t frequent Hotwhopper, so I don’t read what they’re saying.
If you have any questions about the charts, .pdf files, papers, or any other links I post, by all means question them. But that doesn’t mean you should make your uneducated assertions to me. I didn’t produce the links; they’re posted for your edification. Argue with the authors if you can falsify their data.
As for “Even you must see that”, no, what I see is that cold kills; warmth is beneficial. More CO2 is also beneficial. Doubling CO2 would be entirely a good thing. You wouldn’t even know it happened if someone didn’t tell you. About all you would notice would be the your declining grocery bill.
See, Simon, they’ve got you scared. Terrified is more like it, from reading your comments. You are afraid of something that has never even been measured! AGW is just too minuscule to measure. But just the thought of it has you wetting your Depends. Why? Do you really think the climate alarmist clique isn’t lying for loot? It’s a very common motivation. Read The Rainmaker, you’ll see how it works. Elmer Gantry made it rain! Just like your HE-ROes are making the Arctic ice cap disappear…
not.

dsiegel
Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 1:57 pm

(Snip. Into the bit bucket, faker. -mod)

Simon
Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 2:02 pm

DB
“The planet has been ≈22ºC for many millions of years, without any adverse effects. In fact, warmth is better for the biosphere. It’s the great stadials (Ice Ages) that are the killers.”
We have never lived in a world with an average temp above (or much below) 16C. In fact our time here is largely due to the fact we have lived through relatively stable temps.
“If you have any questions about the charts, .pdf files, papers, or any other links I post, by all means question them. But that doesn’t mean you should make your uneducated assertions to me. I didn’t produce the links; they’re posted for your edification. Argue with the authors if you can falsify their data.”
No no no… If you think a chart/graph is accurate and honest, then by all means post it. If you don’t, then why would you? You are only ridiculing your self publicly.
And … Um … there were no links….

Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 2:31 pm

I watch amused, as Simon keeps digging his hole:
We have never lived in a world with an average temp above (or much below) 16C.
That’s only because homo sapiens sapiens is a relatively recent invention. But for a hundred million years and more, the planet was much warmer, and the biosphere thrived with life and diversity. Ice Ages are the killers, not global warmth.
As for links, sorry I have to explain this, but I was referring to the links I regularly post. Argue with the authors if you don’t agree with their data or their conclusions. And I notice that you rarely link to anything. Instead, you assert your beliefs. No wonder you’re losing the argument.
And:
If you think a chart/graph is accurate and honest, then by all means post it.
I wouldn’t post anything I didn’t think was honest. I could never get away with posting anything dishonest, even if I was inclined to, like John Cook. This is the internet, and if I did that the alarmist crowd would jump all over it with their facts and evidence, setting me straight. I wouldn’t like that, so I keep everything aboveboard.
But Simon, all you do is argue using baseless assertions, and insults (“the New Zealand Climate Clown Cranks”), and with your endless questions. But I note that you never accept any answers.
It’s a hallmark of the alarmist contingent that you always ask questions, but you never answer questions. Alarmists never accept any answer provided to them, no matter how detailed or well referenced. It’s like water off a duck’s back: there are no facts, no matter how well proven, that can possibly change your mind. “Dangerous AGW” is your eco-religion. Science has nothing to do with your beliefs.
Simon, your mind is made up and closed tight. You really don’t want to learn anything if it contradicts your religion. All you do is assert your personal beliefs, no matter how silly they are. You always tell everyone ‘that’s the way it is’, when all it does is provide skeptics with amusement. Because really, Simon, you don’t have a clue.

Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 2:15 pm

http://static5.drsircus.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/global5.png
This is essentially the same graph from Ruddiman 2001. It also shows CO2 plot. The Kogagrove graphic further above is originally from New Scientist in 2014.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 2:41 pm

DB
All very well and good… but…. the original discussion was around providing specific, detailed, reliable information the planet can not move above 22C. I’m assuming that because you have defaulted to your usual side tracking (warm is good cold is bad… blah blah blah) that you can’t. Am I right or not? Can you provide it or can’t you? No more side stepping DB…..

Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 2:46 pm

Am I right or not?
Not.
Simon, you are asserting that the planet cannot go above ≈22ºC. Therefore, you have the onus of showing that it can, or that it will.
Me, I’m very skeptical, based on the geologic evidence showing that over 4+ billion years, that seems to be about the upper limit.
See, skeptics have nothing to prove, Simon. But please, keep digging your hole. It’s very amusing.

Simon
Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 3:53 pm

DB
“Simon, you are asserting that the planet cannot go above ≈22ºC.”
Um… no … I’m saying it could and it is ridiculous to think it is not a possibility. But I will say again this only came about because higley7 said our temp is magically capped at 22C. I called BS on it, then you waded in with the graph from the electrical guy (which proved nothing more than an electrical guys can draw graphs).

Simon
Reply to  Simon
October 27, 2015 11:46 pm

Menicholas
higley7 said “In fact, we know that there is a 22 deg C cap on planetary temperatures. ” I want to know how he knows that? Where did he read it?
It makes no sense at all that a planet would be restricted to a temperature. If you think it does, then explain your thinking. And while you are at it, try telling Venus and Mercury there is a cap on temperature.

Menicholas
Reply to  higley7
October 27, 2015 10:27 pm

Simon, your calling BS on it is not backed up by anything.
It is traditional for the BS caller to refute the contention he or she is calling BS on.
Offering a baseless and unfounded opinion based on nothing more than your imagination is not a refutation.
It is not anything but your opinion.
You do not even make any real arguments.
You sound like someone who believes that repeating something over and over makes it turn into the truth.

jim
October 27, 2015 4:03 am

I thought that the OBSERVED warming was mainly at night away from the tropics.

ferdberple
Reply to  jim
October 27, 2015 5:56 am

correct. there has been very little change in maximum temperatures in the past 60 years. What has increased is the minimum temperatures, in the colder regions. The temperatures in the tropical regions are unchanged.
In effect, CO2 is making the temperatures on Earth less variable, which is exactly what one would expect. As we see on Venus, the high CO2 atmosphere has almost no temperature difference between night and day, even though night times last more than 100 earth days. If earth rotated as slowly we would freeze and fry with our low CO2 atmosphere.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 8:42 am

True. This actually is the result of the increase in water vapor. Most of the records being set over the past 2 decades are for record high minimums.
One expects this and also an increase in heavy downpours and flooding………………more precipitable water available for the same weather systems(no brainer) as well as the massive increase in plant growth, crop yields and world food production from increasing CO2.
That increase in plant productively also contributes towards an increase in evapotranspiration in growing seasons(year round in the Tropics) this warms temps at night a tad more but also cools temps during the day a tad more.
Let us not forget about the elephant in the room……….the increase in low clouds that HAS occurred from this well measured increase increase in water vapor……….this blocks solar radiation and is a negative feedback to daytime warming(but as mentioned, at night increases temps/traps heat).
UV, SW radiation coming from the sun during the day, is much more powerful than LW radiation going out(day and night)

Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 9:11 am

Come on. You are trying to bring reality to a mythical argument. If you mention that highs haven’t gone up then the fantasy disappears. I just imagine that I’m a 20 something and I forget every hot or cold day, every storm I’ve ever experienced and just focus on what I’m feeling today me me me what I feel. And I feel that it’s hot or cold and it must be the hottest or coldest day ever. After all no one told me about it being hot or cold or stormy or floods or droughts before today.
This is the ultimate me generation. The earth we all know was a balmy moderate 72F before 1945. The data will soon be adjusted to show this fact we know from our personal experience that this is the hottest and stormiest time ever and that hurricanes and extreme events of any type never happened before mans pumping co2 or more precisely since I was in my new 20 something life was born. Floods, droughts, infections all are recent phenomenon. How come your parents and schools never mention these things happening before? We all know they didn’t happen and are exaggerations of senile people.

Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 9:23 am

It’s interesting that if you look at the temperature record (adjusted or not) that the temp increase from 1910 to 1945 was very linear and smooth compared to the period 1978->. This latter period has a definite shape of a flat line roughly with a bump in 1998 and then a flat line implying that whatever caused the bump in 1998 was an anomaly or if it is somehow related to co2 that the effect is more of a periodic or occasional bump in temps rather than linear which means whatever cases the runup in 1910> was something else.
In any case it’s clear whatever has caused the warning from 1945 it is now roughly halfway to 2100 and given the logarithmic effect of co2 unless we continue to put out exponentially increasing co2 forever which is of course impossible we can have at most 0.4C more temp rise by 2100. Any other estimate would have to explain why and to show proof in the form of real data and science that it’s going to be different. Since there is no basis I know or have heard for how the climate system will suddenly explode I believe it is impossible to project more than 0.4C on the next 85 years. So. 170F seems pretty ridiculous.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ferdberple
October 27, 2015 3:23 pm

I agree with Jim that most of the warming has been at night and in the Winter, particularly at high latitudes. However, I would disagree with your claim “there has been very little change in maximum temperatures in the past 60 years.” Please see my past article on an analysis of the BEST temperatures in this blog. However, to get back to the thrust of this article, I’d like to point out the implication of the forecast is that it is derived from model averages, and not projections specifically of high temperatures. There seems to be little acknowledgment of the different behavior of the highs and lows among those who are predicting catastrophe.

Bloke down the pub
October 27, 2015 4:07 am

Abhu Dhabi, Bandar Abbas and Doha aren’t going to run out of “coolant” – as coastal cities, any evaporation is immediately replaced from the inexhaustible waters of the world’s oceans.
And as we are always being told by the climate alarmists that cagw will lead to higher sea levels, we can show that the ocean will cover more of the land and temperatures will actually drop. Or not, as the case may be.

Bubba Cow
October 27, 2015 4:11 am

more lack of imagination from the MSM and liberal propagandists – they completely missed the fear monger for even more refugee Muslims instead expecting they will just fry in place … perhaps the UN is getting last pick from the press release internship pool – a cash flow problem in the run up?

Jared
October 27, 2015 4:27 am

This is very sound science. Could, might, and possibly are great qualifiers. We might see 200 degree temps by 2050. We could see daily temps over 150 for 40 straight days in 2100. Possibly 20 hurricanes will hit Florida at the same time on August 25th of 2047.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jared
October 27, 2015 5:09 am

And sharknadoes!

Leo Smith
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 27, 2015 5:36 am

Can you jump a sharknado?
it took less than $200,000 in the box office across 200 screenings.[6][7] The film is followed by two sequels, Sharknado 2: The Second One and Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No!. The third sequel Sharknado 4 will air July 2016
Uh… OK. Thanks wikipedia…

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 27, 2015 6:17 am

It had already played on TV a couple of times before it hit the big screen.
Though not many more saw it then.

George E. Smith
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 27, 2015 10:57 am

Lydia Ko just made $350,000 playing a few rounds of golf in Taiwan.
So nutz to sharknadoes.

Menicholas
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 27, 2015 10:39 pm

I had to look:
“A freak cyclone hits Los Angeles causing man-eating sharks to be scooped up in water spouts and flood the city with shark-infested seawater. Bar-owner and surfer Fin sets out with his friends, Baz, Nova, and George, to rescue his estranged wife, April, and their teenage daughter, Claudia, after the bar and boardwalk is destroyed in flooding. While heading to April’s home, the group stops in a freeway to save people as flooding causes sharks to attack. George is killed and the group learns of a tornado warning. They arrive at April’s house just before the first floor is flooded and shark-infested. Collin, April’s boyfriend, is eaten by sharks, but the rest of the group escape unharmed.
Fin stops the car to save the children stuck in the bus from the assaulting sharks. Afterwards, the bus driver is killed by a piece of flying debris. While Nova is driving the car, a shark lands on top of the car and rips the roof off. Fin’s hand is cut and the group abandons the car before it explodes. They steal another car and meet up with Fin and April’s son Matt, who is found taking shelter at his flight school. As the tornado hits, his instructor is sucked out. They borrow equipment from a nearby storage and Matt and Nova become attracted to each other. Matt and Nova decide to stop the threat of the incoming “sharknadoes” by tossing bombs into them from a helicopter. Two are destroyed, but they are unable to stop the third one.
As Nova fights off a shark that had latched onto the helicopter, she falls out of the helicopter and directly into another shark’s mouth. Matt is heartbroken. Baz is also lost in the storm along with two friends of Matt. Ultimately, Fin destroys the last sharknado with a bomb attached to his car and the sharks begin to plummet toward the ground. One falling shark flies directly toward the remaining members of the group. Fin jumps into its mouth with a chainsaw and cuts his way out. He emerges carrying an unconscious but otherwise unharmed Nova. Matt is reunited with Nova, and Fin gets back together with April”

asybot
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 27, 2015 11:16 pm

@menicholas, thanks for the time saver!

chris y
Reply to  Jared
October 27, 2015 5:23 am

Jared-
“We might see 200 degree temps by 2050.”
This is starting to approach GISS Hansen’s boiling oceans certainty (runaway Venus effect) if all available fossil fuels are burned.
But Hansen’s boiling oceans was predated by another climate expert.
At an AGU conference in 1973, physicist (why is it always a physicist?) Dr. Howard Wilcox predicted 200 feet of SLR by 2123, and boiling tropical seas by 2173.
“Given the present rate of energy use increase, Wilcox said that after two centuries water at the surface level of tropical seas would be boiling.”
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/10/1973-agu-scientists-predicted-200-feet-of-sea-level-rise-and-boiling-seas/
To be fair, the oceans could start boiling because water temperature reaches 100 C, or because sea level atmospheric pressure has dropped below 0.5 psi such that the boiling point is reduced to around 25 C.

QV
Reply to  chris y
October 27, 2015 5:43 am

Is that not already happening when the sea evaporates?

richard verney
Reply to  chris y
October 27, 2015 8:22 am

There must come a time when the increase in volume caused the expansion of water caused by rising temperatures is off-set by a reduction in volume caused by an increase in evaporation which in turn was caused by that very temperature rise.
I guess that Wilcox did not do the necessary calculations or he would have realised the absurdity of his 2123 and 2173 figures.

Menicholas
Reply to  chris y
October 27, 2015 10:43 pm

“Is that not already happening when the sea evaporates?”
When someone mops a floor, the film of water evaporates. It does not boil. Boiling is a specific process, distinct from simple evaporation.

Editor
October 27, 2015 4:40 am

Yet more badly researched drivel. Do these idiots never learn? The ordinary man in the street is not going to believe this!

Paul
Reply to  andrewmharding
October 27, 2015 5:34 am

“The ordinary man in the street is not going to believe this”
Don’t be so sure. “scientists say…” still carried a lot of weight, and not everyone wants to be a demonized skeptic.

ferdberple
Reply to  Paul
October 27, 2015 6:07 am

scientists said that butter was bad for us. that we needed to switch to margarine. so we switched and we had an epidemic of heart disease. and scientists told us it was because we are eating fat. so we stopped eating fat and we had an epidemic of diabetes.
now we know the problem is that what we really had an epidemic of bad scientists. butter wasn’t bad for us. what was bad is the trans-fats in margarine. this caused heart disease. but the scientists got it wrong and said it was all fats. it was bad science that caused the epidemic in diabetes and heart disease.
millions of people have been killed and disabled as a result of bad science in the past 60 years. bad science over butter versus margarine. bad science over fats versus trans-fats.
and the evidence was starting the scientists in the face the whole time. the US servicemen killed in WWII and the Korean War told the story. No heart disease in WWII in young men. advanced heart disease in men as young as 18 in the Korean War. the difference was in the artificial food introduced in WWII. we were not genetically adapted to eat trans-fats.

Paul
Reply to  Paul
October 27, 2015 8:29 am

Thanks ferdberple, I agree with you. But your post clearly shows when “scientists say” something, people do listen.

ferd berple
Reply to  Paul
October 27, 2015 10:20 am

But your post clearly shows when “scientists say” something, people do listen.
==============
most of those people are now dead from needless heart attacks and/or diabetes and/or ulcers. no doubt the “cure” for global warming will get the rest.

Catcracking
Reply to  Paul
October 27, 2015 12:27 pm

Ferd…
You are absolutely right. Go to the market and try to buy Yogurt that is not low far or no fat. Possible but tough. It is impossible to re educate those who have been indoctrinated my the government and MSM. Children are fed low or no fat milk based on irrational fears of fat being unhealthy. I know of one family that gave their children soda instead of milk!
Removing fats from our diets means more carbs which causes weight gain with all the medical problems.
Now the UN is attacking red meat along with processed foods like bacon. Pretty soon the administration will be issuing a no red meat regulation. Some schools have already cut out meats in school lunches pushing pasta and other carbohydrates.
I fear this is just another erroneous government study with an agenda, possibly reducing methane emissions by the herds. The MSM has already begun supporting the mantra

StarkNakedTruth
Reply to  Paul
October 27, 2015 2:28 pm

…and don’t forget the 97% consensus thingy. That’s certainly a qualifier for me!

Menicholas
Reply to  Paul
October 27, 2015 10:55 pm

I think yoghurt is all low or no fat because it is made from milk. Even whole milk is only 3-4% fat.
Greek yoghurt is becoming very popular, and contains 10% fat. Fat must be added to the milk to get this percentage.
Interestingly, I once worked at a supermarket for a few months as the dairy manager.
Being he observant type, i noticed something after a few weeks that really caught my attention: I began to see that the people who bought yoghurt were the healthiest looking people, as a group, that I had ever seen in my life.
I never ate it before that…but have eaten it ever since.

asybot
Reply to  Paul
October 27, 2015 11:46 pm

@cattracking , re your 12. 27 pm post, yogurt’s etc. The scare tactics put on by the various health experts/ government “scientists” and so on are nothing but that, scare tactics. The fallacies regarding our foods I think are even worse than the CO2/Climate Change/ and now this article. It has become so unbelievable that many of us should ignore most of these claims especially 3 weeks away from COP21 ( agenda 21 or something like that?)
{ As an aside and serious, please, if Mr. E. Worral reads this post? Can you tell me where that picture was taken? A number of years ago my wife took a picture ( I almost did say “shot”) of a very similar storm with almost the same exact back ground @ 50 N , 124.19 W.} .
A beautiful thunderstorm they seem to happen at times even this far north and west away from oceans and deserts, tropical areas and so on. I am getting tired of all of this, a few months ago they were screaming for rain in California and now there is “disastrous” flooding, the same for Texas, “dry as a bone ” a year or so ago, no water for anybody, cattle dying and so on, and now : trains are being de-railed, cars are “swept away” and so on.
Look I am not saying that these things are “fun” events but for instance where is the follow up on the Carolina floods and all of these events from just a few weeks ago ? Patricia anyone?, that was one of the most over hyped “events” EVAH. were are these experts now?
They screw ups are washed (no pun) under the table because they do not fit COP21.

Menicholas
Reply to  Paul
October 28, 2015 6:46 am

Right now I am sitting in my truck while the remnants of Patricia soak SW Florida and my truck with unseasonable rains.
But we like it…usually the spigot turns off on October 1st.
Which it did this year too.
Where I live, climatology makes weather fairly predictable, but only in general.
We went from flooded to bone dry topsoil in the past three weeks.

Jeff Id
October 27, 2015 4:44 am

To go where no man has gone before!!!!
beyond stupid we find ridiculous.

mkelly
October 27, 2015 4:47 am

Wadi(s) exist for a reason. Heavy rains along the coast. These temps will not happen. Silly money wasting study.

Bruce Cobb
October 27, 2015 4:48 am

Methinks these climate clowns doth project too much.

AnonyMoose
October 27, 2015 4:49 am

The abstract refers to wet-bulb temperature, so it can’t be directly compared to dry-bulb temperature.

Victor Frank
Reply to  AnonyMoose
October 27, 2015 5:21 pm

Wet bulb temperatures are LESS THAN (or equal to (for 100% RH) dry bulb temperatures. The numbers being referred to are equivalent to dry in their effect on a sweating human. Really guys, haven;t you ever used a wet bulb thermometer?

Menicholas
Reply to  Victor Frank
October 27, 2015 10:58 pm

No.
I just look up the dew point.
Or calculate it from the RH on the hygrometer.
🙂

Steve Case
October 27, 2015 4:54 am

I had always thought that the tropics were beastly hot. Now that I’ve been there a few times at a few different places, I know that such is not the case. Cool mornings and rain in the afternoon is a common pattern.

Steve R
Reply to  Steve Case
October 27, 2015 6:00 am

The Persian Gulf region is not in the tropics.

ferdberple
Reply to  Steve R
October 27, 2015 6:11 am

The Persian Gulf is the same latitude as Northern Mexico. Hit in summer, cool in winter. Here is what Saudi Arabia looks like in winter:
http://artnaz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/saudia-arabia-snow-storm-3.jpg

ferdberple
Reply to  Steve R
October 27, 2015 6:17 am

Lawrence of Arabia wrote of delivering gold on camel-back to the tribes in Saudi Arabia during the first world war. See The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. It does seem strange with all this “warming” that the Saudis still have snow. Perhaps praying for global warming will help.
http://artnaz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/saudia-arabia-snow-storm-2.jpg

Steve Case
Reply to  Steve R
October 27, 2015 6:51 am

Thanks for the geography lesson, obviously I never looked. )-:

Katherine
Reply to  Steve R
October 27, 2015 8:18 am

, technically “the Tropics” is defined as the regions of the earth between the latitudes 23°27′ north (Tropic of Cancer) and 23°27′ south (Tropic of Capricorn).comment image
As can be seen in the above map, the Persian Gulf is north of the Tropic of Cancer.
For your reference, the Persian Gulf has this shape:comment image
It’s the Red Sea that lies partly in the Tropics.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Steve R
October 27, 2015 9:43 am

Your second picture is of the temple mount in Jerusalem, Ferd. Dome of the Rock (gold dome foreground) Al Aqsa mosque (silver dome in the background).

ferd berple
Reply to  Steve R
October 27, 2015 10:25 am

But your post clearly shows when “scientists say” something, people do listen.
==============
most of those people are now dead from needless heart attacks and/or diabetes and/or ulcers. no doubt the “cure” for global warming will get the rest.

ferd berple
Reply to  Steve R
October 27, 2015 10:35 am

Persian Gulf is north of the Tropic of Cancer.
===================
The Persian Gulf is pretty much the same latitude as the Gulf of California. Sailed there quite a bit. Very nice in summer. Sitting in the water in a beach chair, armed only with an umbrella and a cooler of beer. Great fishing for Dorado and Sierra Mackerel. Can be quite cold in winter, especially during “Northers”. Too cold for much swimming that time of year. Anywhere outside the tropics, I avoid winter when sailing. Freeze your ass off going upwind.

ferd berple
Reply to  Steve R
October 27, 2015 10:41 am

Lawrence of Arabia wrote
============
he delivered the gold on camel back in the snow.

Katherine
Reply to  Steve R
October 28, 2015 6:07 am

, well, surprise surprise! If you checked the map, you would have found that the Gulf of California is also north of the Tropic of Cancer. According to Wiki: The International Hydrographic Organization defines the southern limit of the Gulf of California as: “A line joining Piastla Point (23°38’N) in Mexico, and the southern extreme of Lower California”.
So at the very most, the Gulf of California is subtropical, in other words, “outside the tropics.”

October 27, 2015 4:56 am

Add it to the list of doomsday predictions that fail miserably.

Mib8
Reply to  wickedwenchfan
October 27, 2015 9:30 am

Oh, I don’t know. With the fine, ultra-portable furnaces we were making a few decades back, we could warm them up very quickly and quite a bit more, with the effects more or less localized to the Iranian theocrats’ dachas… More or less, within a few miles.

RH
October 27, 2015 4:57 am

Every religion needs its Armageddon, and the Green religion is no different. Repent climate sinners!

StarkNakedTruth
Reply to  RH
October 27, 2015 2:31 pm

….and don’t forget to drop a few sheckles in the plate for good measure.

October 27, 2015 5:06 am

Sounds like they would be getting their just deserts.** Hoist with their own petro-tard, so to speak.
**http://grammarist.com/spelling/just-deserts-just-desserts/

Admad
October 27, 2015 5:28 am

Paris?

Leo Smith
October 27, 2015 5:32 am

Two points of interest
1/. Driving back from Chichen Itza thright the Quintana Roo I saw the external gauge on the hired car drop from 35C to 27C in less than three minutes as a massive thunderstorm dumped a load of cold water on the rainforest. 35C at Chichen Itza is a lot harder to handle than 50C in the Mojave desert because of humidity.
2/. There is a theory that the ‘Garden of Eden’ – the ‘cradle of civilisation – existed where the Persian gulf now is, as at that time (end of the ice age) sea levels were much much lower than they are and that was a very nice Mediterranean style climate. Rising temperatures, falling rain fall, and later rising sea levels drove the population to abandon hunter gathering and develop agriculture (“mankind’s greatest mistake”*). The myth of the expulsion from the garden of Eden is a story of that process.
I do not advocate the theory – merely mention that it exists.
Oddly unless people was driving 4x4s around that time, far greater climate change happened without human intervention.
*http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 27, 2015 6:22 am

If you think dying at 40 and running the risk of being killed by wild animals are starving every time the rain fails to fall is the life for you, go ahead. I for one am grateful that our ancestors sought better food supplies and as a result started on the road to civilization.

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 10:13 am
MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 10:34 am

commieBob: I agree completely

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 10:40 am
Leo Smith
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 10:17 pm

Hey! Don’t shoot me: I am only the messenger.
I mention that such theories exist. Not that I espouse them.
BTW there is no reliable evidence as to what age hunter gatherers lived to, but there is plenty of evidence that grinding corn wore you out by 30.
The Kalahari bushmen are not especially short lived, nor are the Australi8an aborigines. Ex of alcoholism and civilisation of course

sciguy54
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 27, 2015 6:52 am

Leo
Point 1 is a nice example. In the semi-tropical southeastern US, a temperature drop of 10° C after a few minutes of rain from a thundershower is commonplace.
This past spring I recall a sunny afternoon of 90°+ F punctuated by a thunderstorm, and within a few minutes it was 70° with thumb-sized clear ice chunks stacked on the lawn, 100% coverage. An hour later I was waiting at the bus stop wearing a light jacket and plenty of ice remained on the grass because of the cool temperatures and deep cloud coverage. I would guess most models consider this an “anomaly”. But in tropical and semi-tropical areas, these anomalies are very commonplace. Its just how the biosphere works.

steveta_uk
October 27, 2015 5:40 am

57C = 330K, 76C=349K, using t^4 power law, that gives a 25% increase in outgoing energy. Where does that energy come from?

Paul
Reply to  steveta_uk
October 27, 2015 5:58 am

“Where does that energy come from?”
Has to be from man-made CO2, why even ask?

MarkW
Reply to  steveta_uk
October 27, 2015 6:23 am

That law assumes that the insulation is constant.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 7:44 am

I assume you mean insolation which is solar radiation that has been received, not the fiberglass kind.

Paul
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 8:33 am

“…not the fiberglass kind.”
The worst type of home insulation.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 10:35 am

I meant insulation, as in the ability to inhibit heat transfer.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 12:42 pm

MarkW October 27, 2015 at 10:35 am
“I meant insulation, as in the ability to inhibit heat transfer.”
thank you.

Steve R
Reply to  steveta_uk
October 27, 2015 4:48 pm

Merely details.

David Jay
Reply to  steveta_uk
October 28, 2015 10:01 pm

Steve:
I have been talking about t^4 for years, but very few will engage the subject – even on skeptic sites.
I believe that t^4 is planet earth’s ultimate thermostat.

timetochooseagain
Reply to  David Jay
November 2, 2015 3:26 pm

The Stefan Boltzmann law is where the zero feedback sensitivity comes from.
Outgoing radiation scales as εσT^4. In the long run this has to balance the incoming, non reflected solar radiation: (1-α)*S/4 (~240.5 W/m^2 at present) where S is the “solar constant” which averages about 1361-2 W/m^2. At the current average effective radiating temperature of the Earth’s surface, the line tangent to the curve of outgoing radiation (ie the derivative with respect to temperature) is about 0.3 K/W/m^2 so the forcing from a doubling of CO2 (roughly equivalent to decreasing ε by ~.01) increases the equilibrium effective radiative temperature of the surface by ~1.1 K assuming no dependence of ε or α on temperature.
The Stefan Boltzmann law is present in all climate models, the reason it does not stabilize their temperatures is that models have dependences of ε and α ie “feedback” which increase the size of the temperature change necessary to restore balance between incoming and outgoing radiation.
So yeah, it’s a natural balancing mechanism, which prevents the Earth’s temperature from running away to infinity. But it’s not sufficient by itself to determine the full climate response to increased CO2 and it doesn’t rule out, by itself, a large sensitivity.
I don’t know why you’d have any trouble finding people willing to explain or talk about it, though.

Proud Skeptic
October 27, 2015 5:44 am

Sounds like good news to me. These people seem to be nothing but trouble these days.

MarkW
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
October 27, 2015 6:24 am

They’d be even more trouble once they moved to your neighborhood.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 9:46 am

Thank God for oceans! Europe should be quaking in their boots. Not only do they believe in all the AGW stuff but they are the place Mid Easterners go first.

Pamela Gray
October 27, 2015 5:51 am

Well of course. Payback’s a bitch. We plan on frying ISIS. They ought to feel right at home there. If only it were true.

hunter
October 27, 2015 5:54 am

The quality of the fear mongering is really going down, even as the volume of cliamte hype and fear goes up dramatically.

H.R.
Reply to  hunter
October 27, 2015 6:15 am

hunter writes:
“The quality of the fear mongering is really going down, […]”
The alarmists disappoint.

knr
Reply to  hunter
October 27, 2015 6:30 am

True which is why ,ironically, is it something that sceptics should encourage, the more alarmist , madder and shriller it gets the better . And the fun part is their simply to arrogant to notice that the reason that they are hoping in pain around is because they shot a whole in their own foot.

mpaul
October 27, 2015 6:05 am

A few years ago I moved from Philadelphia to California and experienced 5.6 degrees of climate change as a result. This is about 3X the toxicity limit established in the literature. Fortunately, I’m symptom-free at the moment. But every day is a struggle here in California.
The problem is that the above paragraph is ridiculous. Humans would simply adapt to a slightly warmer climate. This stumped the alarmist for a time. They had no good counter argument. We should now expect to see numerous papers being funded whose aim will be to manufacture the headline “…exceed a threshold for human adaptability”.

ferdberple
Reply to  mpaul
October 27, 2015 6:24 am

Folks in the outback of Australia adapted to the high temperatures by building their houses underground. Ozzies in the outback aren’t thought of as the brightest lights in the sky, so it does seem strange that they could come up with a solution that somehow escaped all these brilliant scientists.

CBeaudry
Reply to  mpaul
October 27, 2015 9:01 am
getitright
Reply to  CBeaudry
October 27, 2015 10:38 am

they actually inserted a version of the “Hockey Stick” in one of their graphs! Seems a bit behind the times.
Perhaps it is true and they were sucking up too much CO2 themselves during the analysis and write up.
OR..perhaps they were confused and were using CO instead!
what happens when New Yorker’s used to drink big Slurpees of Pepsi and Coke, did any of that CO2 get ingested into the body?

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  mpaul
October 27, 2015 12:09 pm

Your comment reminds me of a line from a GWPF paper criticizing UN predictions of calamity.
Something along the lines of, “what these predictions fail to take into consideration – is that people are not potted plants”.
Anyway – it made me laugh!!

MarkW
October 27, 2015 6:09 am

Let me get this straight, the world itself is only going to warm 2 to 5C, but the Arab peninsula is going to warm about 20C? According to the “models”?
These guys are getting more desperate by the minute.

richard
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 6:37 am

“The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4 °F (1.0–3.0 °C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22 °F ”
birds , bees , flowers and trees are already surviving in these hotter temps in the city that are hotter than the expected 2 degree rise by the end of the century.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 7:29 am

Maybe maybe not, Perhaps they are factoring in all the “Nukes” that will be acquired and used by then.
michael 🙂

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MarkW
October 27, 2015 7:47 am

So if that part of the world warms by 20C, other places have to cool to keep the “average global temperature” in line with only 2C-5C warming.

Editor
October 27, 2015 6:11 am

Eric, I wonder if the study uses the MIROC simulations of global surface temperatures.
KNMI has recently deleted them from their Climate Explorer because:
“24-sep-2015 Deleted the MIRO-ESM and MIROC-ESM-CHEM Txx as it reached 80 °C in the deserts.”
See:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/news.cgi?id=someone@somewhere&all=all
Cheers.

GTL
October 27, 2015 6:21 am

Ugh, you can’t fix stupid, not even with duct tape.

Menicholas
Reply to  GTL
October 28, 2015 6:54 am

But crazy glue on thier lips and fingers would make them much less unpleasant to be around.

jimheath
October 27, 2015 6:25 am

I’m quite partial to hot models but this is ridiculous.

knr
October 27, 2015 6:26 am

by 2100 by which time by ‘lucky chance ‘ none of those that made this claim will be around to be reminded of this BS and ask how they got it so wrong , now who says climate ‘scientists’ never learn anything .

richard
October 27, 2015 6:33 am

“A number of cities in the Persian Gulf region may be unlivable ”
so probably won’t happen.

emsnews
Reply to  richard
October 27, 2015 7:21 am

A lot of Persian Gulf region cities are already barely habitable.
Before air conditioning, there were virtually no cities in any of the desert regions there! These all sprang up in recent times. Back in the pre-air conditioner era, most children died before age 18 and many women died in childbirth, life was very tough back then.
Today, huge cities rise where it is very hard to maintain a city without modern energy systems. Ditto for US desert cities.
My grandfather came to Tucson way back when it was a territory. No one wanted to be posted there in the calvary due to the hot desert climate. My grandfather told us stories how he and his friends used various schemes to stay cool in summer, that is, dig a pit and cover it with brush and then a canvas.

LarryFine
October 27, 2015 6:40 am

“Heat waves will make Persian Gulf Uninhabitable by 2100”
Finally some good news out of the alarmists!

Hugs
Reply to  LarryFine
October 27, 2015 8:03 am

You mean finally peace in Middle East? No, not plausible…

jmichna
October 27, 2015 7:02 am

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m relieved at this climate modelled projection news… I fully expected Eltahir to portend a temperature rise to 96°C rather than just 76°C. The ME dodged a bullet. MIT must be so proud.

Resourceguy
October 27, 2015 7:12 am

Time is running out to get in your scare headline before the Paris climate fest. Late entries and moderate, sane sounding “studies” will not be accepted.

Ralph Kramden
October 27, 2015 7:12 am

using an ensemble of high-resolution regional climate model simulations
I’m glad to see the alarmists haven’t lost their sense of humor. Basing a study on climate models is a pretty good joke.

Troe
October 27, 2015 7:17 am

It seems that the majority of climate studies start with “if” and proceed from there. To a layman that does not make sense. If “if” isn’t working out can we get a refund on public monies spent. Probably not as the research itself is a backdoor funding mechanism for local economies, universities complexes, and high power computing.
In the USA we have seen a persistent loss middle class jobs in the private sector. Unable to generate such jobs through the market politicians have increasingly turned to public (often borrowed) funding of public positions in that pay range. Funding junk science meets that goal. Bigger computers, more buildings, and more people to staff it all. The bureaucratic state is like an Egyptian temple complex or European cathedral in that sense. The economics are divorced and sometimes at odds with the religious underpinnings.
Same as it ever was right. I submit that this is why we need a concerted campaign to tackle the Augean stables of climate science funding. It is inconceivable that Dr. Shukla’s gold is a one off. People understand greed and it’s many manifestations all to well. Lets turn over the tables of these modern money changers.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Troe
October 27, 2015 7:52 am

Troe October 27, 2015 at 7:17 am
“It seems that the majority of climate studies start with “if” and proceed from there….”
I think you should make it “if, according to climate models,” .

ShrNfr
October 27, 2015 7:19 am

For as long as the schmuck on the street “thinks” that a temperature of 100 F is twice as hot as 50 F, these charlatans with their models will continue to find support.

emsnews
Reply to  ShrNfr
October 27, 2015 7:26 am

I grew up in the deserts of Arizona and Death Valley.
50 degrees was FREEZING COLD. When you acclimate to heat, it hurts when it is cool. My hands would literally tingle with cold and be quite painful.
When I moved to upstate NY where it goes below zero, I got acclimated to that and now, if it is below 40 I work with no gloves because it is ‘warm’ and below zero is ‘cold’ but not freezing. It amused my dad to have me say, ‘It is a warm day today’ in winter when it was above 10 degrees.

MarkW
Reply to  emsnews
October 27, 2015 10:40 am

My first winter in Iowa, I was amazed at how the locals would start wearing shorts and tee-shirts when the temperature got up to freezing.

October 27, 2015 7:23 am

This is proof beyond a doubt that having a PhD is correlated with being a moron.

knr
Reply to  markstoval
October 27, 2015 9:50 am

The grant money keeps flowing in, they continue to enjoy events like the Paris gig at someone else’s expense and they don’t actually have to do any hard work, now whose the moron?

MarkW
Reply to  markstoval
October 27, 2015 10:40 am

They have converted a disability into a profitable career. Nothing dumb about that.

highflight56433
Reply to  markstoval
October 28, 2015 8:49 am

That’s actually a good (or unfortunate) point. How did mankind reach modern time before the invention of the doctoral degree? I will say that in my observation of “professionals” is there is a narrowing of the mind. It happens because the university system of hiring is a measure of “doctored professors”, who of course must have a uniqueness that fits the process. The outcome is observed from the outside that they are morons that live in a tiny tube of knowledge; trapped in their own creation…even though many of the “doctored” are quite brilliant, so are many others who have avoided the “established” higher education realm. Examples abound. Cheers! Scotch for everyone…

Walt D.
October 27, 2015 7:30 am

Yet another “If the broken climate models that have never predicted anything right before, suddenly started to work” article. Idle speculation.

Matt G
October 27, 2015 7:38 am

Absolutely no chance of this happening, the claim is just so ridiculous it’s not even funny anymore. The propaganda is strong when so much rubbish is accepted for the cause in climate non-science.
There is a big question mark over even if the current world record will be broken by 2100. Although they made a good job of removing previous records higher than this one. Maximum temperatures are hardly rising at all and in some areas not even rising especially from 60N to 60S.
Maximum temperature records occasionally occurring in local regions have only slightly beaten previous records, but only within around the global warming temperature rise since the 19th century. For this ridiculous record temperature claim to be even possible, global records based on this will have to rise about 20 c. Global temperatures have never been 35 c during the last billion years. Even the ridiculously wrong climate models only predicted global temperatures at worse in the past about 7 c warmer. (now more like 2 c)

Paul Westhaver
October 27, 2015 7:42 am

The Persian Gulf is already uninhabitable.
1) War
2) Pirates
3) Sand…(no water)
4) no beer

ShrNfr
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 27, 2015 7:57 am

But most importantly, no bacon.

emsnews
Reply to  ShrNfr
October 27, 2015 9:20 am

And some extremely frustrated men who impose ridiculous rules on women.

MarkW
Reply to  ShrNfr
October 27, 2015 10:41 am

More insecure than frustrated.
Secure people don’t need to control those around them.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 27, 2015 11:42 am

Paul Westhaver
October 27, 2015 at 7:42 am
Only parts of the Persian Gulf are an issue and quite inhabitable. Depends on what you are used to – Bedouin, Sheikh or tourist; and what part of the Gulf you are in. I made several business trips to Iran. No issues even in the southern desert. Biggest risk then (and probably still is) was earthquakes.
War is north of the Gulf at the moment. (Although I do wonder how far south Russia intends to go.)
Pirates near some of the Gulf states are rare as the UAE doesn’t necessarily try to arrest them like the American and Canadian sailors in the area – bullets are quicker. (Well, their special forces arrested this bunch: http://gulfnews.com/opinion/editorials/armed-action-will-keep-high-seas-safe-1.787068 )
For the rich, the UAE is a very nice place. I had the opportunity to be invited over to compete at the World Championship Endurance Ride (horses) in the UAE in 1999 … and I used to fly through Dubai regularly traveling between Africa and S.E. Asia on business. It’s a rather nice place and driving in the sand can be quite the sport. They do have beer and any other drinks you care for. They know their oil is running out and are transforming to a financial centre although it is creating large debt. It is a pretty amazing place, not that I could afford it on my own, but still a great business stop over. Not sure what will happen when the oil and gas reserves dry up although oil and gas are down to 25% of their GDP.
Nice snorkeling and surfing, friendly people. Quite modern compared to countries further north. And I bet they don’t give a darn about CAGW. A degree added on to 45C is hardly noticeable.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ae.html

Jannie
October 27, 2015 7:45 am

Is this going to be a problem? By then they will all be living in Europe anyway.

Latitude
October 27, 2015 7:48 am

author Elfatih A. B. Eltahir, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…
well, thank God for tenure Elfatih

October 27, 2015 7:50 am

If often useful to read the paper in question rather than second-hand news reports. Here is the abstract:
A human body may be able to adapt to extremes of dry-bulb temperature (commonly referred to as simply temperature) through perspiration and associated evaporative cooling provided that the wet-bulb temperature (a combined measure of temperature and humidity or degree of ‘mugginess’) remains below a threshold of 35 °C. (ref. 1). This threshold defines a limit of survivability for a fit human under well-ventilated outdoor conditions and is lower for most people. We project using an ensemble of high-resolution regional climate model simulations that extremes of wet-bulb temperature in the region around the Arabian Gulf are likely to approach and exceed this critical threshold under the business-as-usual scenario of future greenhouse gas concentrations. Our results expose a specific regional hotspot where climate change, in the absence of significant mitigation, is likely to severely impact human habitability in the future.
35 C wetbulb is not 76 C drybulb.

Hugs
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 27, 2015 8:08 am

’35 C wetbulb is not 76 C drybulb.’
Why not? Couldn’t it be?
Point taken about reading the abstract, and not relying on media coverage.

Matt G
Reply to  Zeke Hausfather
October 27, 2015 8:24 am

35 C wetbulb is not 76 C drybulb.

It is at 6.6% relative humidity being a typical very dry desert like conditions.

Steve R
Reply to  Matt G
October 27, 2015 4:58 pm

Surely you realize that is not even plausible?

Hugs
Reply to  Matt G
October 28, 2015 7:51 am

“Surely you realize that is not even plausible?”
76C with RH 60% sounds like a pretty decent sauna. Definitely fatal in the long sit, but healthy people can take it for hours with no harm. Unless they take too many beers to accompany them. Completely implausible as weather. Funny that you ask.
Oh, it was 6.6%. Well, even I can stand that. You hardly notice it as long as you don’t work, and do drink enough. Beer is actually better than plain water in keeping you hydrated as long as it is not strong in alcohol content. Also completely implausible as weather in shade behind a stevenson screen.

Steve R
Reply to  Matt G
October 28, 2015 9:42 am

Hugs;
My questioning of the plausibility was in reference to the Sun’s ability to add that much energy (35C Wet Bulb, 76C dry bulb) to the atmosphere anywhere on planet earth (at sea level). Whether you can survive a short time in such conditions was not what I meant (though I would remind you that 35C Wet Bulb is dangerously close to body temperature, you will eventually die if the wet bulb temperature is equal to or greater than your body temperature no matter what the relative humidity is.)

Steve R
Reply to  Matt G
October 28, 2015 10:02 am

Hugs:
I might add, to your first mention of the Sauna. You said a 60% relative humidity at a temperature of 76C might be a decent sauna. I seriously doubt anyone could survive such an extreme for more than a minute, and certainly would die if they tried to breath! The Wet bulb temperature of such a combination would be 60C! Far above your body temperature! Water vapor could actually condense in your lungs! The amount of heat contained in such air is easily 5 times greater than the amount of heat contained in 76C air with 6.6% Relative humidity (which in itself is pretty extreme)

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
October 28, 2015 6:34 pm

Surely you realize that is not even plausible?

Yes you are correct it is impossible, the highest dew points around the world rely on ocean, lakes or rivers to produce the higher energy water vapor.
I estimate you would require a 7.5% increase in solar energy compared to levels now.

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
October 28, 2015 6:58 pm

……with 6.6% Relative humidity (which in itself is pretty extreme)

29 March 1965
A relative humidity of 4% was recorded at Ringway and on Great Dun Fell. Huddersfield recorded 10% and Aberporth and Tynemouth 11%. These low humidities are likely to be caused by a descent of air from a great height; an example of subsiding air in an anticyclone which was able to reach the surface.
7% relative humidity is actually fairly common in deserts and can be lower.
Below reports a extremely low relative humidity of 1.6% with a dew point of -39.9 C at Altnaharra, Scotland.


Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
October 28, 2015 7:07 pm

“Below reports a extremely low relative humidity of 1.6% with a dew point of -39.9 C at Altnaharra, Scotland.”
Sorry ignore that I forgot it was later discredited and the true reading was around 7/8%.

Steve R
Reply to  Matt G
October 29, 2015 9:52 am

Matt G
You quoted only a portion of the statement. It is not that 6.6% RH is extreme, it is the combination of 76C at 6.6% RH which is extreme, and only in the sense that such a combination would be extremely dangerous to your health (obvious enough) and also in the sense that such conditions, in earths atmosphere, at sea level pressure, should not be expected until our sun begins its end of life red giant stage. There is not enough hydrocarbons on the planet to cause such an extreme. Its simply impossible.

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
October 29, 2015 11:49 am

Steve R,
I see, thanks for clarifying.
Yes you are indeed correct, not possible on this planet until at least 7.5% increase in solar energy. That’s the idea as a ridiculously impossible air temperature is needed to achieve such high wet bulb temperatures without also ridiculously high SST’s or surface water body in the immediate vicinity.

Chris Lynch
October 27, 2015 7:54 am

I take it everyone has noticed how these apocalyptic predictions are being pushed further and further into the future. No risk of the embarrassment and well deserved ridicule that James Hansen and pals suffered by making ridiculous predictions that ‘matured’ in their own lifetime!

knr
Reply to  Chris Lynch
October 27, 2015 9:47 am

Correct it perhaps the one way that climate ‘scientists’ have got better , making sure they not be around to answer for their claims being falsified by reality. That is of course where they cannot ‘change reality ‘ to match their claims .

MarkW
Reply to  Chris Lynch
October 27, 2015 10:43 am

I can see these guys, while staring at a mile high glacier covering Chicago:
“If we don’t get CO2 under control soon, we’re all gonna die!!”

KA
October 27, 2015 7:55 am

There needs to be a website where these ‘studies’, article, and “report” can be logged along with the authors names and who funded the “studies”, “articles”, and “report”. To allow those to profit from lies (forecasting the future by twisting English to make money) is just wrong on so many levels.

CheshireRed
October 27, 2015 7:56 am

Weapons-grade lies from the climate coneratti delivering a wall of egregious nonsense. Paris beckons! Yawn.

richard
October 27, 2015 8:11 am

now is the time to invest in Romania-
“Companies form the Persian Gulf are interested in investing in Romania’s maritime and waterway transport, as well as in agriculture and energy projects, Mihai Daraban, president of the Romania’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry told a press release, after the working visit he paid in Qatar and United Arab Emirates during May 22-27. The Romanian economic delegation also included minister of Economy, Commerce and Tourism, Mihai Tudose, Agricultura minister Daniel Constantin”

Frank K.
October 27, 2015 8:15 am

This is a model study. GIGO…

ulriclyons
October 27, 2015 8:22 am

“If the world warms, what is surely more likely than implausibly high maximum heatwave temperatures, is that the temperature would stay about the same, but Summer rainfall would increase.”
Surface warming in itself it not a useful measure unless you can ascertain whether that surface warming is directly forced, or a negative feedback.
The sensible approach is to note that the Persian Gulf region becomes drier during El Nino and positive Indian Dipole episodes. And with El Nino being directly associated with negative NAO/AO, that implies a reduction on forcing of the climate, such that El Nino episodes increase during solar minima, and near permanent El Nino conditions exist through glacial periods.
While increased forcing of the climate due to increases in GHG forcing are expected to increase positive NAO/AO, which by all rights should increase La Nina and negative I.D.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

richard
October 27, 2015 8:32 am

off topic but fun nonetheless –
1936- “North-West Passage After 80 Years New Route for Canadian Grain Ships..
….This year it is believed that the
freeze that will close the pack ice for
the winter will not occur until the
middle of October- Hence it is prob
able that the chartered ships will be
able to make two voyages during the
time. Hundreds of thousands of
bushels of wheat, probably millions,
will arrive in Europe by this cheaper
route in 1936
THE C. B. PEDERSEN,
An Australian Grain Ship.
in the Hudson Bay, and has been
greatly assisted this year by the heat
wave over the United States and parts
of Canada”
Vs
“The hazardous Northwest Passage is open for business. The MV Nunavik left Canada’s Deception Bay on September 19 and rounded Alaska’s Point Barrow on Tuesday – without an icebreaker escort.
Owned by shipping firm Fednav and built in Japan, the Nunavik is the first cargo ship to make the trip unassisted, although technically, she is rated as a Polar Class 4 vessel, and can withstand year-round operations in first-year ice.
Her successful voyage underlines the huge role global warming is playing in international trade”

JimS
October 27, 2015 8:38 am

I wonder what else the climate alarmists will cook up before the Paris UN Climate Change Conference. I can hardly wait. And, they get these papers peer reviewed too and look all official and scientifiky and stuff. I bet there is a backlog for the journals to pump out, and probably a contest or two as to whom publishes the most scary climate “science” paper.

MarkW
Reply to  JimS
October 27, 2015 10:45 am

There were rumors a few years back that there was one more batch of ClimateGate e-mails still to be released.

Alx
October 27, 2015 8:44 am

Oh yeah, and in 2100 Las Vegas will have moved to the moon and Lunar Casino vacation packages will be at all time low cost. Think I am wrong? Prove it.
And that is the issue, anyone can make any prediction on anything 100 years out, there is no way to prove or disprove it.
BTW who predicted 30 years ago, that most of the civilized world would be walking around with miniature globally connected computers in our pockets that act as cameras, camcorders, global phones, with instant access to untold terabytes of information across the globe? Oh nobody did, so much for predicting events natural or man-made 100 years out.

JimS
Reply to  Alx
October 27, 2015 8:59 am

Here is a graphic of a prediction made I think in 1955 as to what would happen in 1965. Even in just 10 years, we can be sooooo wrong with our speculations:
http://peterlarson.org/wp-content/uploads/3949834600_0a7487f402_b1.jpg

emsnews
Reply to  JimS
October 27, 2015 9:37 am

Darn. I would LOVE to have that saucer!

highflight56433
Reply to  Alx
October 28, 2015 9:02 am

Yes, and try to get an accurate 10 day forecast! All that work resulting in constant failure. No wonder the modelers are living in cloudy predictions, sucking tit of climate change $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.99

Steve P
October 27, 2015 8:56 am

Matt G
October 27, 2015 at 7:38 am
Yes. “the hottest temperature ever recorded was 57c (134F) in Death Valley, in 1913.”
So reduced to its simplest form, what we can see of the author’s argument would seem to be that since it reached 57c in Death Valley more than 100 years ago, it will reach 76c in the Persian Gulf by 2100.
Are Persian Gulf cities flirting yearly with the all-time record? Maybe that critical information is lurking behind the paywall, but methinks I detect a fight of logic.

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
October 27, 2015 9:05 am

Pardon me! The Death Valley reference came from Wikipedia, and was cited by Eric Worrall, but it does not appear to be any part of the authors’ rationale for soaring temperatures in the Persian Gulf.
I just didn’t see any evidence to support the authors’ claims.

Matt G
Reply to  Steve P
October 27, 2015 10:42 am

Are Persian Gulf cities flirting yearly with the all-time record?

No, not even close and many temperatures in the region don’t even reach 50 c on a yearly basis.
The record temperature in Persian Gulf region was based in Sulaibya, Kuwait 53.6 °C. (128.5 °F)
This temperature is still 3 c short of the world record temperature and very difficult to beat any by this amount.

October 27, 2015 9:00 am

Eric, it would appear that the rainfall statistics for the region are not in line with your comment but there certainly is high humidity in summer to keep the temp in check. Unless of course you are used to absolutely no rain at all over the 4 summer months then 2 cm or so, if lucky, would indeed seem like a flood.
This seems like a study to lure tourists to the area now rather then later. That would be good for the area’s financial reserves which have taken a hit this year. Despite everything going on further north and south it is a fascinating region, so people book your trip.
And with hardly any rain even in winter you can leave the heavy rain gear and umbrella at home.
Based on this study those snow pictures in Saudi Arabia are now, will be, a thing of the past.
Phone 1800 ‘REAL’ STUDIES.

Mike Smith
October 27, 2015 9:06 am

The region will most likely be uninhabitable because of the Iranian nukes. CO2 and weather will be of little consequence.

emsnews
Reply to  Mike Smith
October 27, 2015 9:39 am

After WWIII, warm weather will be the least of our worries and then there is the Nuclear Winter problemo.

Leo Smith
Reply to  emsnews
October 27, 2015 10:24 pm

Mythtakes aboundeth here.
Nukes dont make places uninhabitable and nuclear winter is a load of codswallop.

Dick of Utah
October 27, 2015 9:40 am

Judging from the map at the top, the heat wave will also make Pakistan completely evaporate.

Mjw
October 27, 2015 9:41 am

If Abu Dahbi hits 170F it is going to be almost impossible to get a spot on the ski slope.

Coeur de Lion
October 27, 2015 9:52 am

Oh how I remember pedalling around Singapore dockyard with my Wanchai Burberry on the handlebars! Cooling downpour imminent. Eheu fugaces

Jaakko Kateenkorva
October 27, 2015 10:24 am

That’s nothing. I can enjoy 90 ºC for hours. It’s a bliss with a pint of cold beer, some grilled sausages, a good quality shower and a swimming pool.
The image is from Wikipedia, but you get the idea.

October 27, 2015 10:27 am

You only get a “cooling downpour” if the wind delivers rain bearing systems to your area. As is well understood the largely land-locked Middle East has a prevailing northeasterly wind during its hottest months that keep the areas dry. If the surface air is moist, who cares: if it can’t convect because it is capped by a temperature inversion then you won;t get your rains. So the region can stay dry while still heating up. The only thing that will alter this is if the ITCZ moves north to the region and that will require further AGW/a reversal of the current trend in the Milankovic cycle or 2012 style True Polar Wander.

October 27, 2015 10:28 am

No worries, Ski Dubai alone has 22,500 square meters of indoor ski area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_Dubaicomment image

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
October 27, 2015 12:04 pm

They took all the snowballs, and put ’em in a snow museum
And they charged all the people a dollar and a half just to see them
No, no, no
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you got ’til it’s gone
They paved over a desert and put up a paradise…

601nan
October 27, 2015 10:37 am

No bacon, booze or borads! No wonder they’re frustrated. At least they have a lot of oil money (but not so much as a year ago with the falling spot prices).
Abu Dhabi: Tomorrows forecast calls for a high of 34 C (98 F) with surface winds at 11 kph (8 mph) from the northwest. That’s not bad at all. Deal with it.

October 27, 2015 10:38 am

These horrifying results were brought to you courtesy of RCP 8.5, the coal-burning slow-tech, high population, “business as usual” scenario. It’s the gift that keeps on giving (to alarmists).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nclimate2833-s1.pdf
For an explanation of why RCP 8.5 is a useful “worse case” scenario, but not “business as usual”, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/21/is-our-certain-fate-a-coal-burning-climate-apocalypse-no/

Steve P
October 27, 2015 10:41 am

Back to reality, I checked Wikipedia’s list of world records for this sampling:
Kuwait, 53.6 °C (128.5 °F), Sulaibya, 31 July 2012
Iraq, 53.0 °C (127.4 °F), Ali Air Base, 3 August 2011
Qatar, 50.4 °C (122.7 °F), Doha, 14 July 2010
Saudi Arabia, 52.0 °C (125.6 °F), Jeddah, 23 June 2010
Turkey, 48.8 °C (119.8 °F), Mardin, 14 August 1993
Tunisia, 55.0 °C (131 °F), Kebili, 7 July 1931
Nigeria, 46.4 °C (115.5 °F), Yola, 3 April 2010
South Africa, 50.0 °C (122 °F), Dunbrody, 1918
India, 50.6 °C (123 °F), Alwar, 10 May 1956
Pakistan, 53.5 °C (128.3 °F), Mohenjo-daro, 26 May 2010
Bangladesh, 45.1 °C (113.2 °F), Rajshahi, 30 April 1972
Myanmar, 47.0 °C (116.6 °F), Myinmu, 12 May 2010
Australia, 50.7 °C (123.3 °F), Oodnadatta, 2 January 1960
Philippines, 42.2 °C (107.96 °F), Tuguegarao, 12 April 1912
Singapore, 36.0 °C (96.8 °F), Singapore, 26 March 1998
China, 50.3 °C (122.5 °F), Xinjiang, 24 July 2015
Japan, 41.0 °C (105.8 °F), Shimanto, 12 August 2013
Bolivia, 46.7 °C (116.1 °F), Villamontes, 29 October 2010
Canada, 45.0 °C (113 °F), Saskatchewan, 5 July 1937
Mexico, 52 °C (125.6 °F), San Luis Río Colorado, 6 July 1966
United States, 56.7 °C (134 °F), Death Valley, 10 July 1913
Germany, 40.3 °C (104.5 °F), Bavaria, Summer 2015
France, 44.1 °C (111.4 °F), Conqueyrac, 12 August 2003
Russia, 42.3 °C (108.1 °F), Belogorsk, 12 July 2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records

Matt G
October 27, 2015 11:01 am

Very controversial that this record below was left to stand, when the previous Libya world record of 58 c in 1922 was recently removed.
Tunisia, 55.0 °C (131 °F), Kebili, 7 July 1931
The conditions and instruments around that period were hardly no different. If this one was to stand than the Libya one should also stand. The temperature not matching other places has not stopped other dubious records from counting.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1

Steve P
Reply to  Matt G
October 27, 2015 11:45 am

There is also doubt in a few minds about that 1913 Death Valley 56.7 °C (134 °F) record:
Christopher C. Burt, the weather historian writing for Weather Underground who shepherded the Libya reading’s 2012 disqualification, believes that the 1913 Death Valley reading is “a myth”, and is at least four or five degrees Fahrenheit too high, as do other weather historians Dr. Arnold Court and William Taylor Reid. Burt proposes that the highest reliably recorded temperature on Earth is still at Death Valley, but is instead 53.9 °C (129 °F) recorded five times: 20 July 1960, 18 July 1998, 20 July 2005, 7 July 2007, and 30 June 2013.
–ibid

Resourceguy
October 27, 2015 11:14 am

Is there a suggestion not to wear black robes? That would help.

SergeiMK
October 27, 2015 11:20 am

Very misleading headline
Zeke Hausfather has already posted on the actual words.
If the human body core temperature reaches approx. 40°C that person dies. If the humidity is 100% then evaporation from a body is matched by condensation – no heat is lost by the evaporation.
at 100% humidity and 40°C a human dies.
As no-one seems to have read Zeke’s words I will repeat what the article says:
…used high-resolution climate models to look at a measurement known as the “wet-bulb temperature,” which takes into account both heat and humidity. Researchers chose to look at the wet-bulb temperature because of its direct impact on human health — for humans to maintain a healthy inner body temperature, the wet-bulb temperature cannot exceed 35°C (95°F). If the wet-bulb temperature does exceed that threshold, humans have a difficult time getting rid of metabolic heat, leading to hyperthermia and potentially death.
A wet bulb is exactly what it say a thermometer bulb surrounded by a wet cloth. Water evaporates from the cloth cooling the bulb which then records a lower temperature.
At 100% humidity the loss of heat via evaporation is zero. and dry and wet bulbs will read the same. If all the surrounding atmosphere is at the same humidity and wet and dry temperature then no matter how you blast air past your body – it will NOT cool!
your body is a source of heat. You have to be able to transfer this heat away to survive. Presumably their 35°C (less than 40°C) allows for the fact that the core temperature will be hotter than the skin temperature (there will be a thermal resistance between core and skin)
many died in India during a heat wave with high humidity for this reason.

Matt G
Reply to  SergeiMK
October 27, 2015 11:49 am

It is not really misleading because you require nearly 4 times less energy to maintain a very dry atmosphere compared with torrential rain to maintain the same temperature. A very dry region where thunderstorms suddenly appear reduce very dry air temperatures between 40-50 c significantly lower than 35 c bulb temperatures. In the same scenario the very dry desert area needs to be 76 c with torrential rain to increase the humidity to 100% and maintain a 35 c bulb temperature.

Reply to  SergeiMK
October 27, 2015 11:52 am

at 100% humidity and 40°C a human dies.

How long would it take? Normal body temperature is about 37 °C. At 100% related humidity there is about 50 grams of water in a kilogram of air. I tend to run my bath slightly moister and hotter than that.

Matt G
Reply to  SergeiMK
October 27, 2015 11:56 am

These represent the highest wet bulb temperatures reached across the planet. The example above with 76 c very dry air to 35 c wet bulb though changes regarding proximity to oceans and high SST’s.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D9-JNTtRKgs/S-LSq2apPUI/AAAAAAAAAv0/PsL0-FmE3Cs/s1600/Picture+929.png

Steve P
Reply to  Matt G
October 27, 2015 12:06 pm

The most humid cities on earth are generally located closer to the equator, near coastal regions. Cities in South and Southeast Asia are among the most humid. Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, and Singapore have very high humidity all year round because of their proximity to water bodies and the equator and often overcast weather. Some places experience extreme humidity during their rainy seasons combined with warmth giving the feel of a lukewarm sauna, such as Kolkata, Chennai and Cochin in India, and Lahore in Pakistan. Sukkur city located on the Indus River in Pakistan has some of the highest and most uncomfortable dew point in the country frequently exceeding 30 °C (86 °F) in the Monsoon season.[16] High temperatures couple up with bizarre dew point to create heat index in excess of 65 °C (149 °F)
[…]
Appleton, Wisconsin registered a dew point of 90 degrees F on 13 July 1995 with an air temperature of 104 degrees resulting in a heat index of 149 degrees; this record has apparently held and in fact the highest dew point measured in the country bounced amongst or was tied by locations in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa during the preceding 70 years or more with locations in northern Illinois also coming close. Dew points of 95 degrees are found on the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia at certain times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
October 28, 2015 1:36 pm

“Just recently the Minnesota State Climate Office issued a statement declaring the 88° dew point temperature measured at Moorhead (on the Red River across from Fargo, North Dakota) between 7pm and 9pm on July 19, 2011 as a new all-time state record for the highest such reading ever observed.” – 2011
Not seen a dew point with official stations above 88 f in USA. The 88° Dew Point Measured at Moorhead, Minnesota on July 19, 2011 is the current record. The wet bulb hardly any different than the dew point and in this was 88 f.
The hottest sea surface temperatures ever recorded anywhere in the world have been 98° in the Persian Gulf and 96° in the Red Sea. Hence, dew point’s up to 95 f are only applicable to extremely small regions here due to very high SST’s not representative anywhere else in the World. Even more restricted than mentioned because only next to the coasts and are not seen on map above due to scale being too small to see.

indefatigablefrog
October 27, 2015 11:59 am

I recently found myself watching a documentary on the examination of historical, archeaological and geographical evidence for the possible location of the “Garden of Eden” described in the Bible.
Here’s a short clip from a similar documentary. (Not the one that I watched).
It starts with the words: “He discovered that Saudi Arabia had not always been a desert – During an interglacial period, Arabia was much wetter than it is today”.
No shit, Sherlock…
Anyway, this silly clip then goes on to claim that 6000-7000 years ago the waters of the Gulf were 150m lower than today. I suspect that this is a simple error and that they meant to say 150feet lower.
The documentary that I watched claimed 200ft lower, 6000 years ago.
I looked up the topic and found a paper claiming 100-120 meters relative rise since 18,000 years ago.
Suffice to say, this rapid rate of change flies in the face of alarmist claims that relatively trivial observed modern changes are clear evidence of the catastrophic influence of minor GHGs.
Even the lower figure of 200feet equates to an average ascent of 0.4inch per year. Above the maximum claimed global average of 3.4mm for today.
Anyway, documentaries about subjects that are related to climate but not part of the CAGW disinformation machine, should be more careful about accidentally giving credence to the claims of skeptics!!! (sarc)
P.S. I am not a Christian and do not wish to propose support for the literal truth of Genesis.
I include the following clip, purely for the merit of the presentation of non-AGW climate change extremes:

October 27, 2015 12:30 pm

SergeiMK
October 27, 2015 at 11:20 am
Hmm. I am sure you are technically correct but does it actually happen?
Having spent a fair bit of time above +40 in deserts, since I am alive, I can only assume the humidity was less than 100%. So, the question must be: How often, if ever, would you have +40C and 100% humidity? I have ridden my horse in the Persian Gulf surf at +40C and it was actually quite pleasant. We didn’t die so I assume the humidity wasn’t really high under the blue skies in the ocean.
Doesn’t look like it happens in the US (the NOAA heat index only goes to 110F and 40% humidity and an HI of 136):
https://ams.confex.com/ams/89annual/techprogram/paper_149894.htm

October 27, 2015 12:34 pm

Steve P
October 27, 2015 at 12:06 pm
Ok, you covered it with 95% and 149 HI. What did it say about deaths caused by these instances? Curious.
Thanks.
Wayne

Steve P
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
October 27, 2015 6:41 pm

Wayne Delbeke
October 27, 2015 at 12:34 pm
“What did it say about deaths caused by these instances? Curious.”
I don’t know what you mean by “it.” If you’re referring to the Wikipedia article I quoted, “it” didn’t address mortality, nor did I. I always try to look at the numbers first, such as they are, to see if the argument holds any water.
So It is curious, that of the cities cited by the Wiki article for having a high heat index, none are in the Persian Gulf.
Futher, Appleton, Wisconsin is a long way from any ocean.

Dodgy Geezer
October 27, 2015 12:35 pm

…A new study claims that, by the end of this century, some cities in the Persian Gulf will be uninhabitable by humans…
Nice to see that they’ve learned NOT to predict a catastrophe in THEIR lifetimes…

Resourceguy
October 27, 2015 1:59 pm

Does this mean there is a sale going on for office space in the world’s largest skyscraper?

Andrew
October 27, 2015 3:02 pm

What’s uninhabitable about a freak heatwave every few decades? Stay indoors, keep aircon on. The tropics experiences about once a week conditions that are uninhabitable by humans in open air (a tropical cyclone). That doesn’t make them deserted.

October 27, 2015 3:10 pm

This is just more scaremongering; red meat for the alarmist cult.
Global T has been much higher at times, without any adverse effects on the biosphere. But most of the time, it has been much colder:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47brotherthebig/04images/Antarctica/415k-year-temp-graph.jpg
Another view:comment image
Over the past 4+ billion years, global T has varied between ≈12ºC and ≈22ºC:
http://www.kogagrove.org/sams/agw/images/paleomap.png
We are currently much closer to 12ºC. (Actually, just above ≈14ºC).
Warmer episodes are much rarer than cold times:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SsVwqCgB-LI/AAAAAAAABKo/U92CnYMmeSU/s1600-h/Vostok-400Kd.jpg
The alarmist narrative that temperatures will skyrocket is based on pseudo-science and regional cherry-picking. But it is unprecedented in the planet’s history. There has never been ‘runaway’ global warming, even when CO2 was 18 – 20X higher than now.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/GeoColumn.gif
There are always heat waves in the Persian Gulf. Just like the Antarctic is always very cold. But there is no global warming. That stopped almost twenty years ago. The alarmist crowd would have been much better off making the scare over global cooling. That is the real concern.

Curious George
October 27, 2015 4:02 pm

Note that these “scientists” don’t make any predictions. Wisely, they stay with projections. Projections are just projections; they are automatically true – “In 2000 I projected a temperature rise of 1 degree in 2015. It did not happen; fortunately it was not a prediction, and it undoubtedly was a valid projection based on data available in 2000”.

James at 48
October 27, 2015 5:27 pm

Perhaps the Sahara and other semi-tropical desert zones might start to green. But I think that is wishful thinking. I doubt the warm period will actually last long enough for that.

October 27, 2015 5:57 pm

According to Wikipedia, the hottest temperature ever recorded was 57c (134F) in Death Valley, in 1913.

Enrico Fermi was a strong advocate of “back of the envelope” calculations as a simple check on whether you are in the realm of reality. His example, IIRC, was a class asked to calculate the volume of the fruit in a bowl, and got answers smaller than an atom and larger than the Hoover Dam. Whereas a quick check: What’s the volume of a simple cube containing that fruit bowl? would have given the students a clue their answer was baloney.
This is a similar case. ~20C more than the highest T EVER recorded? The emission of radiation from Earth in the CO2 wave band is determined by the height at which CO2 is so thin that a photon emitted there has a “clear line of sight” to outer space. Since temperature decline with height is limited by the adiabatic lapse rate, if it is 20C hotter down here, it has to be 20C hotter (or something near to that) up there – actually, maybe even more, since with so much more H2O around, the wet adiabatic lapse rate being less, the temp. might of necessity be even hotter. But if photons at that height are still able to “see” outer space, then radiation of energy will be massive, since emission is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. So photons there cannot “see” outer space if this allegation is correct. We have to go higher, until radiation loss from the planet equals the energy balance. That is the level at which T is the same as it now is. So he is saying that the CO2 conc. will be so high that we have to go higher far enough to drop T by a full 20C before a photon can “see” outer space? How many doublings of CO2 will that entail? This is beyond impossible.
And BTW, I am assuming no change in the radiation from the water layer. But if that goes up, as Le Chatelier’s principle insists it must, then even less radiation must be emitted by the CO2 layer, meaning even more doublings. They should have their physics degree confiscated.

Steve R
Reply to  Ron House
October 27, 2015 7:29 pm

76 C That is about the temperature estimated to have occurred in the Mediterranean basin some 5 km below sea level during the Messinian Salinity Crisis at the end of the Miocene when the Straights of Gibraltar closed and the Mediterranean dried up to a few hypersaline puddles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis

jdgalt
October 27, 2015 6:23 pm

I would love it if this were true. Because it’s the only way those horrible tyrannies and the culture that demands them are ever likely to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Steve P
October 27, 2015 7:55 pm

“but the cities Doha, Abu Dhabi and Bandar Abbas are all coastal cities which experience substantial Summer rainfall.”
Well, not really. In fact, none of these cities gets much summer rain.
According to Wikipedia, Bandar Abbas averages 171.4 mm (6.748″) rain, but most of that falls between Dec. and Apr. The other two places are bone dry. Doha gets about 75.2 mm (2.961″), none of it in the Summer, while Abu Dhabi manages just 57.1 mm (2.249″), again with very little in the Summer.
Record highs for Doha
Record high °C (°F)
Jan 31.2 (88.2)
Feb 36.0 (96.8)
Mar 39.0 (102.2)
Apr 46.0 (114.8)
May 47.7 (117.9)
Jun 49.0 (120.2)
Jul 48.2 (118.8)
Aug 48.0 (118.4)
Sep 45.5 (113.9)
Oct 43.4 (110.1)
Nov 38.0 (100.4)
Dec 32.2 (90)
Year 49.0 (120.2)
Record high for Abu Dhabi is 49.2°C (120.6°F)
For Bandar Abbas it is 51°C (123.8°F)
“In the summer, Bandar Abbas sees some of the highest average dew points of any city in the world, averaging 27 °C (81 °F) and frequently exceeding 30 °C (86 °F). As a result, heat indices generally top 50 °C (122 °F) for most days during the summer. This immense humidity causes summer diurnal ranges to be quite low, and is a result of air flow from the warm waters of the Persian Gulf.”
–Wikipedia

Steve P
Reply to  Steve P
October 27, 2015 9:29 pm

Steve P
October 27, 2015 at 10:41 am
In my sample listing of hot cities upstream…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/27/claim-170f-76c-heat-waves-will-make-persian-gulf-uninhabitable-by-2100/#comment-2057701
I reported the record for Doha:
Qatar, 50.4 °C (122.7 °F), Doha, 14 July 2010
(from Wikipedia’s list of weather records)
But the entry for Doha itself reports record high is 49.2°C (120.6°F)
WUWT?
Note too that more than a few records on Wiki’s list were set in 2010.
The best weather record data also includes length of record, previous record(s), and number of times record has been broken over period of data.

Svend Ferdinandsen
October 28, 2015 4:49 am

To reach 140F equal to 60c they need 100 to 150W/m2 ekstra downwelling radiation relative to 35c to compensate the upwelling from the hot soil. That is very close to impossible.

amirlach
Reply to  Svend Ferdinandsen
October 30, 2015 6:25 pm

What if there was one hundred BILLION W/m2 of downwelling radiation?
“Dr. Evil: Okay, here’s the plan. We get the warhead and then hold the world ransom for… 1 MILLION W/m2!
Number Two: Sir, strictly speaking, a million dollars will not go very far these days. Virtucon alone makes over 9 billion dollars a year.
Dr. Evil: Really? Okay then… we hold the world ransom for one… hundred… BILLION W/m2!!!”

Corey S.
October 28, 2015 5:36 am
Steve R
Reply to  Corey S.
October 28, 2015 8:32 am

You must be a subscriber, All I get with that link is an abstract and an invitation to view the article for a fee.

Ed
October 28, 2015 6:56 am

“We project using an ensemble of high-resolution regional climate model simulations…” Gosh, what could possibly go wrong here? Years ago I saw a stock market projection that said the DJA would be at about 200,000 by now.

timetochooseagain
November 2, 2015 3:37 pm

Let’s use climate models to project something we know climate models are especially bad at projecting, and then scare the crap out of people with it! Brilliant!
No seriously. The modelers admit that their models generally are not good at getting the absolute value of temperatures correct, which is why they always want comparisons to be done with anomalies
(Well, that, and we’re not too good at measuring absolute temperatures on a global scale, either, so we can’t even tune models to get the right average absolute surface temperature)
So we know models don’t have the right absolute global temperature, generally speaking.
Then, modelers admit they aren’t very good at projecting at regional scales like this.
Finally, they admit that climate models aren’t good at projecting weather. So we’re supposed to believe a model projection of the frequency of days certain cities will have absolute temperatures above a certain threshold? Something even modelers admit models can’t do?
This is a joke, right?