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

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

279 Comments
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).

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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”

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
🙂

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

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.

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/

1 2 3 4