SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the heel-the-feat-or-else-feel-the-heat dept.
Given the rising number of extreme weather events, . In an investigation recently published in Nature Climate Change, scientists looked into how quickly benefits of climate mitigation strategies—meaning dropping CO2 emissions—reduce the risk of heat waves.
The researchers answered these questions using climate-model simulations. These models can be run with different levels of emissions, some assuming a very aggressive mitigation scenario with lowered emissions, others assuming emissions that are unchecked, producing significant increases in emissions over time. By comparing model runs with different levels of emissions, the researchers were able to develop an understanding of the time required for effects of mitigation plans to be noticeable.
In particular, the team focused on extreme events that occurred on average once every 10 years when emissions continue to rise unchecked. They then introduced different levels of emissions mitigation until the probability of such an event is half as likely, occurring only once every 20 years. Using this method, the scientists determined that for many regions, it takes less than 20 years of emissions reductions to drop the probability of extreme hot weather by more than 50 percent after mitigation has begun.
Climate change is god's will, isn't it?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:31PM (5 children)
Climate change is god's will, isn't it?
Actually, to the science deniers it is ... unless there is profit to be made on it and then it God's plan (for them).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Saturday April 08 2017, @03:04PM
Well, just declare it God's punishment for polluting His creation.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday April 08 2017, @06:37PM
Well, if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old and the fossils were put there by Satan to test your faith, you're not going to be impressed by arguments about releasing carbon sequestered 300 million years ago...
Mind you, it would also help considerably if anybody who didn't know the difference between "heat" and "temperature" would butt out of the argument...
(Score: 2) by julian on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:51PM (1 child)
Even if people don't believe we are affecting the climate, don't people still find pollution undesirable for health and aesthetic reasons? Would you rather live in a city with choking smog or a city with bright blue skies and clean air to breathe?
And if it's all about the economy for you, then there are still good reasons to be anti-pollution. It's bad for business. It's bad for tourism. It's bad for the health of the work force.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday April 09 2017, @03:28AM
These are people that argue that CO2 is not pollution as it is beneficial to plants, much as shit is beneficial to plants.
They have a point as many substances are only pollution in larger quantities, unluckily they take their point and run with it without considering that even oxygen is deadly in large amounts, little well water where a couple if inches can kill.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday April 09 2017, @09:27AM
You mean like how Al Gore set himself up to be a carbon billionaire [telegraph.co.uk] while having the brass balls to say flying solo in Lear jets, driving around in a fleet of 10 MPG SUVs and living in a house in TN with its own indoor basketball court that uses more power than a dozen family homes is "carbon neutral" because he pays himself carbon credits from his own company, the equivalent of moving money from your right pocket to your left, you mean like that?
Of course the REAL "inconvenient truth" that those that worship at the feet of AGW refuse to acknowledge is this....how are you gonna kill all those third world people? You can't let them live ya know, because even if the entire western world froze its carbon output do you REALLY think they are gonna agree to keep living in mud huts and shitting in fields? Nope they want the same things you have, fridges and computers and cars, cellphones and TVs and all the other luxuries and they certainly aren't gonna accept they have to live like animals just so your fat ass can keep your iPod and air conditioning....so what are you gonna do with them?
Because if your plan doesn't have a concrete and actually doable plan on dealing with the rapidly growing and modernizing third world? Well then just like Rev Al its nothing but magic beans to make corps like Goldman Sachs even more stinking rich [nakedcapitalism.com] by pulling a reverse Robin Hood and stealing from the poor while they just pull a Rev Al and buy carbon indulgences from their own shell companies and declare themselves free of the "carbon sin" and thus can keep on living as fat and spoiled as they always have been.
Is dumping crap in the air bad? Of course it is, but all we have been peddled by those in power is snake oil and bullshit. Rev Al and his pals are still making mad money dumping toxins in places like China and Indonesia while they tell YOU to do without, its all a scam. But until we are willing to sit down as a race and make some VERY hard choices that will have VERY nasty repercussions? Well that is all we are gonna get, magic carbon stopping rocks for several billion dollars from fat old guys living like kings, a little indulgence slip that does jack shit except lighten the one receiving the slip of their cash, no different than the indulgences of old.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.