Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday April 08 2017, @02:09PM   Printer-friendly
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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by julian on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:51PM (1 child)

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 08 2017, @09:51PM (#490988)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by dry on Sunday April 09 2017, @03:28AM

    by dry (223) on Sunday April 09 2017, @03:28AM (#491058) Journal

    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.