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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 09 2017, @12:38PM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 09 2017, @12:38PM (#491144) Journal

    You still don't understand the Wager. It is not fallacious.

    Sorry, but what gave you that idea? I think my reasoning is more than ample counterevidence.

    Perhaps you should consider Rawls' MinMax principle instead?

    What makes you think that my approach is worse than yours? We've done mitigation already. It hasn't been a boon for the worst off. There's a history here of bad ideas with negligible impact on global warming, but making food and energy more expensive for the worst off.

    And optimizing for the worst off doesn't help those who aren't. I don't buy that this principle is at all useful, particularly when used by top-down people who don't have a clue what they're doing.

    And quit poo-pooing the science, the possible catastrophe is proven possible enough for all non-right-wing nut-job persons of science!

    You do realize you are wrong here? The actual studies indicate that while a very high percentage (at least 90%) "researchers" by whatever criteria the research uses, do indeed agree that there is human-generated global warming, but only a minority think that it could be catastrophic. For example, from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (referring to this study [oup.com]):

    When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.

    When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @07:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09 2017, @07:11PM (#491238)

    I think my reasoning is more than ample counterevidence.

    Obvious, but that does not a rebuttal make! Truly you have a dizzying intellect! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1n5CQe1krI [youtube.com]