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This discussion has been archived.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 aristarchus on Saturday April 08 2017, @11:56PM (2 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday April 08 2017, @11:56PM (#491014) Journal

    Back at ya, Runaway! I just want to know how it is that you can "see" all these tornadoes that we "didn't" see since we didn't have Doppler, but were there anyway since there has been no change in the incidence of such storms since climate change is not real. You see, you are the one claiming that data exists that we don't have, but would have had, if only we had had what we have now. Total bogus assumption, based on no evidence. (Oh, only Runaway ever says "FFS", which I think means "Following Further Supposition". Thank goodness we now have the technology to detect the old bugger when he's "cloaked". )

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @03:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @03:58PM (#491181)

    And this is the group we deal with... Bunch if stupid hits who drop logic and reason for deeply ingrained propaganda.

  • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Sunday April 09 2017, @07:09PM

    by Sulla (5173) on Sunday April 09 2017, @07:09PM (#491236) Journal

    Russians behind every post!

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam