A recent article by the Associated Press (AP) “With the prediction of the world's warm Europe Carryed with dozens of media. [emphasis, links added]
This story is wrong, because the research depends on the climate model of known scientific defects, and combines some terrible statistical predictions to make the results appear life.
SETH BORENSTEIN of the Associated Press wrote:
A new study states that unless countries have become better in reducing carbon pollution and adapting to hotter, it is expected that at the end of this century, extreme temperatures (mainly heat) in Europe are expected to kill up to 2.3 million people.
At present, the cold temperature kills Europe more than a large number of high temperatures. However, teams from the London School of Health and Tropical Medicine used different situations of climate simulation and studied the mortality rate of 854 cities. They found that with the heating of cold death, their death slowly decreased, but the heat death soared rapidly.
The premise of the article is in a recent study published in natural medicine that the study warned that unless the implementation of serious emissions, Europe may face 2.3 million examples related to heat each year.
This terrible prediction shouted with headline news to draw a catastrophic future for the entire mainland.
However, careful inspection shows that this projection is based on the RCP 8.5 scene, which is an extremely and discipied emission pathway.
The continuous dependence on this outdated model is not only misleading-It actively distorts climate debate.
The foundation of this research, the computer climate model RCP 8.5 assumes the out of control of the out of control, the stagnant technological progress and the impossible future of population growth.
Even other reviews from peer review have shown that this model is not only impossible, but also impossible, but also running is too hot, and it cannot even satisfy today's reality, as well as incredible high -temperature output in the future.
Under the RCP8.5 model scheme, global carbon dioxide emissions must be three times before 2100 years, which increases the global temperature by more than 4 ° C. But this is reality:
These facts make RCP 8.5 unlikely-this is a fantasy of climate dangerism. However, it continues to use such research, expansion risk and misleading decision makers.
The study wrongly assumes that Europeans will not be able to adapt to height temperature and ignore the ability of humans to innovate and adjust.
Historically, the society has adopted air -conditioning, improved architectural design and urban greening technologies to reduce the risks related to heat. By ignoring these reality, the study depicts the static crowd that cannot be adapted, which is not realistic and irresponsible.
In addition, although the death related to the heat is emphasized, the study easily omit a greater problem with cold death.
At present, as the winter becomes gentle, the cold Europeans are far more than Europeans, and the warm climate may lead to a decrease in the number of deaths related to weather. But this background does not conform to the description of the forthcoming disaster and is often excluded from discussions.
In order to grasp the true meaning of climate change, considering heat and cold is essential. Now we are from climateThe
- In Europe, the number of deaths related to cold deaths exceeds 10 times.
- The warm winter has reduced the mortality of cold diseases in many regions.
- Adaptive measures (such as affordable heating and cooling) are still the most practical solutions to solve thermal and cold risks.
Ironically, the climate policy inspired by such research may deteriorate the cold -related death. For example, the increase in a net drive policy of zero -driver has increased energy costs (such as gradually eliminating natural gas or expensive renewable energy sources), making disadvantaged groups unable to afford heating.
The purpose of continuing the use of RCP 8.5 in research is a clear purpose: fear to sell. The forecast of the end of the world has produced headlines, mobilizing funds and providing reasons for expensive climate policies.
But this method has hardly solved the challenge of the real world. Instead, it distorts the public's views and focuses on incredible the worst cases. These studies are more likely to cover up the possibility and management results.
It further misleads policy makers, and they transfer resources to extremes that combat assumptions, rather than meet the energy and adaptation needs of the real world.
Finally, research like this erode scientific trust. When the public knows that RCP 8.5 is an outdated thinking relic, it may destroy confidence in the entire climate science.
The prediction of the study is rooted in the RCP 8.5 scenes that are related to the flawed and discredited RCP 8.5 scenes related to the heat.
If we want to protect the crowd from the infringement of death, the solution is not the modeling of the alarm, but the practical adaptation strategy. Expansion of air conditioners that can be affordable, designing cities to reduce urban heat island effects and improve public health systems to better handle heat waves.
At the same time, decision makers must admit that warming is not all bad news-winter will reduce death and energy demand.
Balanced, evidence -based methods are essential for the risk of managing climate change without succumbing to hysteria.
The prediction of the study is rooted in the RCP 8.5 scenes that are related to the flawed and discredited RCP 8.5 scenes related to the heat. This is not science, but scary research.
By exaggerating risks and ignoring human adaptability, this research disadvantage is greater than benefits.
We should not focus on impossible world -end scenes, but we should focus on the policies of toughness, innovation and pragmatic policies to solve the risks related to heat. The public should get a climate discussion that is rooted in reality, rather than a narrative of fear driven on outdated models.
Read more in climate realism
