Most active commenters
  • (4)
  • panstromek(3)
  • dao-(3)
  • flanked-evergl(3)

←back to thread

480 points riffraff | 41 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
1. topato ◴[] No.44461309[source]
Did it actually say it will DOUBLE the CO2 concentration? Definitely past the point of no return. I guess us millennials WILL actually see the worst climate change outcomes WELL within our lifetimes...
replies(9): >>44461393 #>>44461407 #>>44461467 #>>44461507 #>>44461657 #>>44461694 #>>44461862 #>>44462190 #>>44462905 #
2. ◴[] No.44461393[source]
3. trhway ◴[] No.44461407[source]
In my home town back in Russia they now easily grow the stuff of my unreachable back then in USSR childhood dreams - apricots, cherries (the large sweet ones). The children there though don't do backcountry skiing like i did 40+ years ago because there is no snow these years there. And Russia pumps out fossil fuels without any care. They feel that things like opening of the Northern Passage and more agriculture on the previously hardly suitable lands are great for their future (they aren't climate change deniers, they are believers. Like everybody else there, I was taught about climate change as a clearly established scientific fact in the 6th grade in 1985).

So, until somebody brings out 10+ aircraft carriers and enforces global climate accord, i don't see any progress happening here.

replies(3): >>44461461 #>>44461830 #>>44461837 #
4. panstromek ◴[] No.44461467[source]
The keyword here is "Long term" I suppose, that can mean anything. I couldn't actually find where this claim comes from. The referenced paper doesn't seem to say anything about doubling CO2 concetrations.
replies(2): >>44462028 #>>44462180 #
5. trhway ◴[] No.44461471{3}[source]
I don't think Russia is unique here. I was talking about it because i know it. i can't talk this way about say China or Argentine (or basically any other country except may be US where 25+ years of residence give me some knowledge to talk about).
replies(1): >>44461538 #
6. dao- ◴[] No.44461532[source]
In climate science parlance it means it's a conservative guess and will likely happen faster than anticipated.
replies(1): >>44461569 #
7. defrost ◴[] No.44461538{4}[source]
FWiW and with no judgement attached .. Russia will likely be benefited more by AGW climate change than many other countries.

Already people anticipate vast cattle ranches, cowboys and and rodeo clowns across Siberia.

replies(1): >>44462391 #
8. ◴[] No.44461596{4}[source]
9. lynx97 ◴[] No.44461614{4}[source]
30 years ago I learnt in school in chemistry class that earths oil reserves will be used up in 30 years.
replies(3): >>44461633 #>>44461649 #>>44461902 #
10. dao- ◴[] No.44461621{4}[source]
This is just not true. We're watching ocean currents collapse in real time. You're the frog getting boiled being angry at the thermometer. Wake the f- up.
replies(1): >>44463754 #
11. panstromek ◴[] No.44461633{5}[source]
That was true back then though. It boils down to how oil "reserve" is defined, which is all about oil we know how to extract.
replies(1): >>44461655 #
12. lgeorget ◴[] No.44461645{4}[source]
The Tuvalu Islands are disappearing under water to the point that the population has to plan their emigration, that's one catastrophe.
replies(1): >>44461755 #
13. ykonstant ◴[] No.44461647{4}[source]
The coral reefs... :(
14. dao- ◴[] No.44461649{5}[source]
School chemistry means it was a ~20 year old prediction 30 years ago, based on known oil deposits 50 years ago.

It would have been a hopeful prediction from today's perspective, as we would necessarily have stopped pumping and burning oil by now, but unfortunately we haven't.

15. lynx97 ◴[] No.44461655{6}[source]
It didn't turn out to be true though. "True back then" seems like a weird way to phrase "wrong".
replies(1): >>44461678 #
16. globular-toast ◴[] No.44461657[source]
It's fine... Gen Alpha will figure it out by asking AI.
replies(1): >>44463010 #
17. panstromek ◴[] No.44461678{7}[source]
No, it wasn't wrong, because "oil reserves" are defined as: "quantities of crude oil and natural gas from known fields that can be profitably produced/recovered from an approved development", which means they change over time, when we find new oil or develop new technologies. And that's also what happened.
replies(1): >>44461870 #
18. zamalek ◴[] No.44461694[source]
> Definitely past the point of no return.

We don't really know at what point that is. It's probably something we can only identify in hindsight. I find it bewildering that our approach is basically FAFO.

19. michaelhoney ◴[] No.44461751[source]
are you seriously asserting that climate scientists are in it for the money?
replies(1): >>44462337 #
20. vixen99 ◴[] No.44461755{5}[source]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

'Net increase in land area of 2.9%'

'Land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size.'

'Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics.'

replies(1): >>44462255 #
21. Morizero ◴[] No.44461782{4}[source]
Who you going to believe, politicians or your own lying eyes? https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/repeat-photograp...
replies(1): >>44463695 #
22. ndsipa_pomu ◴[] No.44461830[source]
I see the major problem isn't that there will be just warmer temperatures, but that the climate will become unpredictably changeable. For the moment, it can be beneficial for agriculture in some areas, but it's likely that our global food production will have to massively change to take into account times of drought and flooding that will destroy crops in some areas. Whereas now we can just grow crops in fields, we may have to grow food in greenhouses just to be able to provide the plants with consistent growing conditions.
replies(2): >>44462132 #>>44462398 #
23. Ringz ◴[] No.44461837[source]
> So, until somebody brings out 10+ aircraft carriers and enforces global climate accord, i don't see any progress happening here.

If we look at the enforcement and outcomes of former climate action „plans“ this is unfortunately a valid option.

24. ndsipa_pomu ◴[] No.44461845{4}[source]
I've seen for myself the remarkable retreat/melt of glaciers in Norway.
replies(1): >>44463765 #
25. SwtCyber ◴[] No.44461862[source]
The timeline isn't some far-off sci-fi scenario anymore. Millennials and Gen Z are basically the frontline generations
26. polotics ◴[] No.44461870{8}[source]
Also maybe at one point accept that "Oil" with an EROEI dangerously getting to below the 1.0 mark is not the same "Oil" as was talked-about 30 years ago: if your shale sands have to get burnt with local coal or natgas to get a pipeline-able liquid, but the total energy spent on the process is about as much as will be dispersed by combustion engines down the line... then you're treading very murky waters indeed.
27. palmfacehn ◴[] No.44461902{5}[source]
Here's an article which is nearly 30 years old. Neo-malthusians remain just as undeterred by your observation as they were in 1997.

https://www.wired.com/1997/02/the-doomslayer-2/

replies(1): >>44466272 #
28. SwtCyber ◴[] No.44462028[source]
Still serious, but yeah, the headline might be running ahead of the data a bit
29. bertili ◴[] No.44462180[source]
If it "Short Term" becomes obvious that we are past the point of no return it doesn't really matter if "Long Term" units is 100 or 1000 years. Most future living things will be suffering. There could have been more future things than past things to enjoy this beautiful planet.
30. chneu ◴[] No.44462190[source]
We've been past the point of no return since the mid-90s.
31. chki ◴[] No.44462255{6}[source]
Also: "Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration"
32. ◴[] No.44462337{3}[source]
33. ◴[] No.44462391{5}[source]
34. bbarnett ◴[] No.44462398{3}[source]
There are a lot of variables here, and one is the sun. The other is time.

We can certainly, even without genetic engineering breed crops more suited for shorter growing time frames.

There are a lot of corn hybrids, some mature fast, others far slower. Some require more sun, others less. For example, some of the faster growing varieties only take 60 days to mature, others 100+. But here's the thing. Those are 60 "good weather" days. As in not too much cloud, not too unseasonably cold or warm, reasonable amounts of rain and water, and so on.

As corn takes time to grow and mature, it doesn't matter how much sun you throw at it, it still only grows so fast. Up North, even if it's warmer, you still need enough sun too. Compressing the sun around the summer solstice doesn't help. Giving it 22 hour long days of sun doesn't just magically make the corn grow 2x as fast as an area with 11 hours of usable sun.

And the spring is still "rainy season". Some crops can't take too much rain.

Where I live, a local farmer grows traditional yellow corn, as some prefer it over newer, 'peaches and cream' hybrids. But some years? It just doesn't mature. Too much cloud, or other inclement weather (too hot, too cool, to much sun, etc) and being further north means there is little wiggle room in the growing season.

I guess my point is, Northern areas will require only certain crops. That's fine of course, and it will indeed feed people, but some crops won't be on the table.

One thing that may have already helped Russia, is the extensive work the Soviets put into breeding crops to grow further north:

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2020/04/fruit-trenches-cul...

While I do not doubt the weather is more mild in Russia these days, it's also quite erratic. At least it is here in Canada. Some winters mild, then bam a winter of "old". So I wonder if the above breeds have given Russia a leg up on taking advantage?

replies(1): >>44463232 #
35. lm28469 ◴[] No.44462905[source]
At double the current ppm it'll start to impact our cognitive abilities, we're not doing much about it now but wait until the average joe drops another 10 IQ points...
36. delijati ◴[] No.44463010[source]
vibe coding a solution ... |-(
37. ivan_gammel ◴[] No.44463232{4}[source]
Russia exports agricultural products. The productivity has dramatically increased after privatization of agricultural sector and of course they are using those breeds plus some advanced tech sometimes. I have seen a research on how to automate watering during drought in mid-2000s, and that was literally saving the crops. Also the governance is relatively efficient in this sector.
38. flanked-evergl ◴[] No.44463695{5}[source]
Politicians, almost without fail, subscribe to climate hysteria, as that allows them to do whatever they want and claim they are doing it for the climate. It's a perfect boondoggle for them.
39. flanked-evergl ◴[] No.44463754{5}[source]
From MIT climate portal 2024: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-would-happen-if-atlanti...

> “The likelihood that the AMOC collapses, let's say, before the end of the century, according to numerical models and our understanding, is pretty small. Most likely the weakening will be modest,” he says.

40. flanked-evergl ◴[] No.44463765{5}[source]
Not exactly a catastrophe. But I did hear that the summer this year in Norway is particularly harsh. I hope you get some days this year when it's possible for you to go outside without getting heat stress. It's important to stay safe out there.
41. BlueTemplar ◴[] No.44466272{6}[source]
Wow, was Wired... trolling ?! Did they seriously believe they could convince opponents with this ?

(But it was probably just preaching to the choir...)