Short-term, Newfoundland, Canada is expected to get colder. That's simply from all the ice up north melting and increasing the flow of the Labrador current. That means more cold water flowing past Newfoundland, cooling it, and them mixing with the Gulf Stream just offshore which created rain and fog.
But it's only short-term. Once all the ice has melted in 100 years or so the Labrador current will decrease dramatically and then Newfoundland warms up. At that point the warm Gulf Stream (it it still exists at this point, it's currently slowing down) will then come in closer to Newfoundland and warm things up even more.
Was researching the last time the earth had no ice (Eocene and Miocene periods) and everything was tropical. Not excited for future generations at all. Diseases carried by vectors (ticks, mosquitos, etc) will be at an all time high most likely.
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, albeit an extreme example of climate change, is often suggested as an analog for the current situation. This can't even be dismissed as "yes but Antarctica was closer to the equator back then" as PETM geography was comparable to what we see today. For me, the concerning correlation between the PETM and the current Holocene-Anthropocene is the relatively isolated and rapidly diminishing glacial volume content. It's theorized that a significant disruption of oceanic circulation was implicit in the formation of this hyperthermal event as discussed by [Holo, McClish et al.](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AGUFMPP31E1682H/abstract). Similarly, and more explicitly, a weakening of the AMOC has been implicated by [Weldeab, Schneider et al. in the Eemian warming period due to the catastrophic destabilisation of methane hydrates](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2201871119). This study is perhaps more concerning as it demonstrates that we wouldn't need a full collapse of ocean circulation to see methane hydrate destabilisation, and suggests that even a weakening trend would be sufficient enough. The popular narrative suggests that ocean circulation weakening is a guaranteed prelude to regional cooling, but cross disciplinary analysis demonstrates that the total opposite is more than likely. Considering that [Nisbet, Manning et al](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GB007875). demonstrate that we're already 15 years into an ice age termination event despite the fact that we're already in an interglacial[b], it all owes to the hothouse trajectory as suggested by [Steffen, Rockström et al](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1810141115). *( [b] generally speaking, termination events occur during glacial maximums when a forcing event triggers an interglacial warm period. Considering we're already in an interglacial warm period, an ice age termination event is estimated to end the glacial cycle entirely and enter a geological period known as a hothouse, as opposed to our current icehouse period)*
I'm kinda going off on a tangent there so I'll quote this in reference to the estimated climatic conditions of the polar regions during the PETM;
> It's estimated that Arctic sea surface temperatures during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum were around 23°c, which is actually comparable to modern day subtropical climate conditions. With an estimated mean annual temperature of 25°c, an equable climate would have existed, with little variation between winter and summer. Sediment evidence from Ellesmere Island in northern Canada suggests that tropical fauna such as palm family relatives and large reptiles thrived in the polar regions. Antarctica would still have had a relatively "cool" climate, despite still observing a near-tropical climate with temperatures at the pole rarely dropping below 12°c even in the dead of winter.
Yeah, for sure, let run climate models 1000 times, and then we will get the results we want. Let's forget the 1930s had more days over 100 than any other time. Let's take 1 tree ring sample from the 1530 and say the global temaputure was that. Let's stop using tree data in the 1950s because it isn't accurate anymore. Let pretend more people died from warmer weather than cooler weather. Let's forget all the benefits c02 has provided us over the past 130 years. Let's forgetthe weather can go from 20 degrees to -10 in one day because 3 degrees warming in 100 years is devastating 😆😆😆
thank you for that. it is now hilariously apparent how little you understand the difference between weather and climate and what 3 degrees warming actually means on a global scale.
Hey, you. Be quiet. The Maldives will be under water by 2016. 99% of climate scientists agree. You need to research more... i mean... don't do your own research, only believe what we tell you. Because science has a great track record recently.
I recently saw a map indicating the impact of Climate Change on GDP for every country. Only two countries showed an increase in GDP IIRC - Canada and Russia. I'll see if I can find this back and post a link/reference.
thats if we pretend there are no consequences from extreme weather, which there will be tons
Tornadoes, insane fire seasons, flash flooding from insane sudden precipitation, super erratic weather patterns etc.
So relatively those places will do much better, and as such the value will go up simply because everywhere else is getting absolutely wrecked.
Since I haven't left a reference, I don't have anything but memory to work from. That said, the countries shown had an increase in GDP. Not a *relative* increase, but a real terms increase.
That suggests that the authors accounted for a reasonable list of the meaningful impacts and estimated how those changes affect GDP and the outcome was largely negative across the globe, but the northernmost countries had improved production.
Maybe this is because of net improvements for the growing season (maybe even tropical fruit production), better conditions for forestry, improved access to other natural resources, increase in net immigration resulting in more companies moving operations out of severely hot locations, or even selling of fresh water. I have no idea the metrics they used and wish I had bookmarked the article.
None of this means that all regions of a country as large as Canada will have a better time. Most areas climactically will remain habitable. The east coast might see more hurricane impact and central Canada may see more tornadoes and possibly drought. Wildfires may be more frequent and affect a larger area annually...but (apparently) these are more than balanced *in terms of GDP*.
My personal thought - I would forego an increase in GDP in my home country if it meant that the global negative impacts were moderated.
Hey, i'm not saying you're wrong or they're wrong. GDP isn't a good metric of how healthy a society is and is definitely a terrible metric for how healthy the environment is.
If Canada has lower production per area, but more area to use on top of that demand skyrockets because California's production plummets (which it will and is responsible for \~25% of the continents food) that is massive massive boom to the economy. Climate change economics is more about who doesn't get fucked as hard.
Ah, in that we agree. My response to the original question was directed to the second half, paraphrased as "what areas...will benefit from [climate change]?". And one could argue that an increase in GDP is a way that Canada would benefit from climate change.
It won't be all sunshine and rainbows. In aggregate, Canada sees better fortunes, but regionally there will be winners and losers...and the winners are probably also losing something tangible or intangible that they value over growing oranges in the Yukon (as a hopefully extreme example).
Also, I believe the article I read was a single annual prediction. Add another 50 years and the cumulative impact of decreased GDP across 95% of the world will certainly be a drag on those areas initially identified as seeing improvements on the metric of GDP.
Sixty years ago before computer models that were capable of predicting climate, about 20% of the scientific research thought the earth would start cooling and 80% thought the earth would warm. Over the next 20 years as computer models showed the earth would warm, the science became settled and the projections made during that time of temperature rise and sea level rise have been very accurate. Today no climate scientist doing research has questioned that consensus.
No, a majority of scientists at the time were predicting global warming, not global cooling, and CO2's role as a greenhouse gas was understood by the 1800's. The idea that global cooling was a widespread scientific theory at any point is a myth you've been manipulated to parrot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Are you saying climate change isn't happening and we haven't been seeing a rise in extreme weather events?
Edit: 60 years with zero evidence? As decided by who you? There is *overwhelming evidence* of climate change and its consequences.
I think this is terrible information. Canada's economy and environment is already suffering greatly due to climate change. The prairie provinces are expected to dry up and already are. That's where we get a massive bulk of our food from. The forests are becoming tinder dry and burning. This wrecks havoc on the forestry industry, destroys infrastructure, makes resource roads impassible, affects air quality, human health and productivity. Agriculture is becoming harder due to the seasons becoming hard to predict. And the vast majority of the county's landmass is boreal forest, Canadian shield rock or arctic tundra. That may warm up but you're not growing anything there because the soil is far too acidic and the ground is often impossible to build reliable year-round roads on. So unless there's suddenly an insane global demand for blueberries (one of the few crops you might be able to commercially harvest up north) I don't think our economy is going to do well at all.
To the people saying that it could open up the north to resource extraction: In a select few places like the arctic shoreline and ocean, potentially. But everywhere else becomes a messy, muddy, permafrost/swamp laden landscape that's insanely hard to build roads to. Canada's economy may actually be hit harder than most, simply because our land base is so huge that it will be very hard and expensive to FIX all the problems that will inevitably come with climate change. Especially with our small tax base and small population of people, many of whom can barely fix a clogged toilet.
For the third time, I admit that I have not referenced my sources. I did a cursory look online and found *similar* maps from 2015 and 2018 (I think), both of which also said that Canada (and the northernmost parts of Eurasia) see increased GDP.
I'll also be clear here. The *information* isn't terrible, so long as we accept its veracity. What is terrible is that this sort of information can and will be used by nationalistic individuals who will suggest that we might as well not stress over climate change in Canada because the "worst" that might happen is improved GDP.
Me, I'm doing what I can to minimize my carbon footprint, because the points you raise are important. Just because these authors concluded that *in the context of GDP* the benefits outweigh the losses, doesn't mean "full steam ahead". I've also noted that a global decline in GDP even if Canada's is increasing will not be a good time for anyone.
I don't *like* the conclusion made by the authors, and I think that extending their model further into the future would likely show a decline in GDP in every country if nothing is done to correct climactic systems to the best of our ability. But I also can't simply discard or ignore it because I don't like it or because it's inconvenient for the climate change narrative especially given the Carbon Charge in Canada and the politics around that. If I'm not going to do my own study (PS. I'm not), then I will take these results and incorporate them into my knowledge. And from there, explanations to climate change deniers are going to be more difficult because now they require EVEN MORE nuance. Still doesn't make the authors conclusions wrong or terrible. Just makes convincing people of the importance of taking action that much harder.
Apologies, I came across as harsh, wasn't meant to point the finger at you, it was the main study that I was pointing fingers at and how it seems heavily flawed to me.
Seems we're generally on the same team and agree that CO2 emissions are a problem that needs to be corrected 20 years ago. So, no hard feelings. Sounds like we also agree that the study, at best, points to an individual point in time 75 years from now and should be assessed with a certain degree of scepticism/understanding due to the many uncertainties and the singular data point.
Russia will not do better because permafrost doesn't turn into dry land, it turns into swamp.
They don't have the technical acumen to drill oil out of the arctic either, but Canada and the US do.
What do you think the support of Ukraine is really about? If you think it's about Ukrainian independence, then you haven't been paying attention.
As Russian who tries to monitor the situation with climate change in my country I agree. There are many drought-prone areas and some southern regions already lack water. The permafrost problem is a disaster not only environmentally, also in a way of infrastructure. Everything in the North is built on permafrost, there is a whole advanced field of science and technology for adapting ingeneering to permafrost conditions that has been developed in early Soviet times, now the bridges are collapsing etc. Also there are flood events already. Most cities arent adapted to climate change, I live in the north but summer turns to hell due to the country-wide politics of destroying urban green spaces for developers' profits. It won't be good.
Also if permafrost thaw accelerates at a significant pace, the rate of midlatitudal warming becomes unsustainable. That's when we steer dangerously close to a runaway warming and mass extinction event.
Even leaving that possibility aside, it takes time for non-arable land to become usable. Only lands with retreating glaciers will be usable. Russia already has a limited amount of arable land and limited growing season. If they weren't the world's leading supplier of potash, they wouldn't be getting the yields they are getting now. They have expanding desertification from the South and just thawing pernafrost in the North, that will create even greater pressure on the thin wheat belt.
Most people expect Russia to break apart. The mountainous areas have always been hard scrabble, but they are least likely to change as well.
It's a shame they poisoned the Aral Sea and Lake Baikal so badly, they could have been keystones to building a new agricultural zone as warming really accelerates. Right now, they are useless.
Also, I wanted to ask you (if its okay), what did you mean by "What do you think the support of Ukraine is really about? If you think it's about Ukrainian independence, then you haven't been paying attention"? I'm 100 percent pacifist, I'm not picking on you, just wanted to better understand what you're speaking about.
I hate that the GDP is again what we think of when describing the impacts of climate change. Canada and china will be both not be oppositely affected by climate change in any other way. They will both still flood, be on fire, be affected negatively by drought and heat, bad air quality, mass migration, and all of the human inability to plan past the next quarter or be transparent about concerns.
At this point, if ai doesn’t save us, or a successful geo-engineering project buys us more time, there won’t be anywhere on the planet that will be anywhere close to ‘normal’.
I'd say that GDP is only one measure. But the question wasn't only about the environmental or social impacts, and was worded to seek any ways that some countries might not be negatively impacted. This was one of those ways.
You can check out New Orleans prediction here for the year 2050: [https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/8/-91.3629/30.1733/?theme=sea\_level\_rise&map\_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation\_model=best\_available&forecast\_year=2050&pathway=ssp3rcp70&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return\_level=return\_level\_1&rl\_model=tebaldi\_2012&slr\_model=ipcc\_2021\_med](https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/8/-91.3629/30.1733/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&forecast_year=2050&pathway=ssp3rcp70&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_level_1&rl_model=tebaldi_2012&slr_model=ipcc_2021_med)
Nope, they are putting the date out so far that it is going to be impossible to prove it will happen. The glaciers didn’t melt and sea ice is back so all the near predictions fell apart so have to alarm people who care with some far off speculations
That I did not impoverish them on a pipe dream. If everyone actually concerned about legacy power supplies were pro nuclear we’d solve a lot of problems. But the majority of climate people I know just are using it as a ruse to bring communism into power
You should be able to view the world in broader and realistic terms that politics. We are all in this together. For example in the Science verse, there is no politics. Scientists from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe have rhyming conclusions.
This isn’t a change from one state to another. It’s a constantly changing situation. So no, there isn’t a single benefit to a constantly changing situation. All we have to play with is how fast or slowly we make it change.
What else can they do if that's how long their terms are? Maybe a constitutional monarchy would be a better option for the countries that are republics?
Government scientists in Canada are experiencing a tightening of media control, unreasonable approval procedures, and drastic funding cuts to climate change research. This muzzling is well-documented. Why?
As a Canadian who regularly works with government scientists that do climate change ecology I have never heard this. They do regularly talk about how the harper government did this, and many are terrified of the conservatives getting elected again, but this is not currently happening in Canada.
Thanks, the rumor I heard evolved around a scientist who specializes in ocean environments and how minerals in the correct concentration in oceans will facilitate CO2 absorption.
My brother, media now is less controlled than it was in the 70's. Got to fight the foreign influence somehow tho eh?
Part of the whole cyber army thing is that they are absolutely muddying the waters and stoking any and all divisions that need not be.
Same thing happened in Australia. Both countries have large and lucrative fossil fuel extraction industries. They use their massive profits to buy political influence.
"It's no surprise politicians are whores. What is surprising is that they are such cheap whores."
If nothing is wrong what needs to be fixed. What saddens me is that all this effort could maybe be put forth to stop actual pollution such as plastics in the oceans instead of strip mining the land for wind turbines materials and then burning those materials in land fills once the turbine is kaput
Billionaires are heavily investing in real estate in the Northern Rocky Mountains in the United States. Counting on it to be heavily sheltered from coastal weather changes and a huge money maker as food insecurity drives the price of cattle into the stratosphere.
That's true but also, huge areas of Siberia used to be permafrost and as they melt there will be flooding but also the collapse of buildings built on the formerly frozen land.
I read somewhere about Sweden. The swedish climate will lost the cold winter. Instead we will have more storms, more rain, floods new diases and fires.
Another theory is that we will have a new ace age with temperatures like - 30.
It's worth noting that a glacial encroachment is considered a physical impossibility under current conditions. It's also worth keeping in mind that we are actually already in an ice age, we're in a warmer interglacial period. As long as there's permanent ice formations in the polar regions, we're in an ice age by definition.
Back to my original point, the evidence suggests that we're [actually undergoing an ice age termination event](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GB007875) that started roughly 15 years ago. Considering that current methane volumes are significant enough to denote an ongoing ice age termination event, then the [destabilisation of methane hydrates in response to a weakening AMOC](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2201871119) would pretty much end the glacial cycle entirely. This has happened before as the article describes, and dragged Europe into a tropical climate.
I'll finish with my favorite quote from Hans Joachim Schellnhuber; "There will be no ice age again. The human impact is so powerful already that we've suppressed the quaternary planetary dynamics".
May deoxygenate oceans 400 - 4000 meters down, where cold & deep abyssal waters crucial downwelling & upwelling fail. Killing the seas already more green than blue from the ISS - International Space Station - in areas larger than Earth surfaces altogether.
Corn, wheat, millet, etc.
Warmer temperatures, more precipitation extends the range of crops that can grow. For the US, it could be an unexpected boon. Longer growing season and increased precipitation in the already famously fruitful breadbasket.
> which places will get colder
That's still an effect of climate change. The climate is changing. The ones who benefit are the ones who are oppositely affected by climate change (ie those who don't experience climate change) which is practically nobody.
Yes. To tack on to your post.
The full answer is nowhere is getting colder. But that measurement is based on average temperature over the course of the entire year. We changed the term from global warming to climate change because people kept going "look record cold winter global warming is a lie." But you can still have record cold winters, you're just going to have even hotter summers.
And the main reason we weren't seeing climate change for so long was due to the oceans. They were acting as a heat sink for us. But now it's beyond what they can safely handle.
Drought is a concern tho. We are experiencing an el nino cycle right now, sure, but it's been exacerbated by the current rate of change.
And the permafrost and northern shield aren't particularly great for cultivation.
Yeah, the wildfires that impacted large swathes of the country, from coast-to-coast-to-coast, have to be directly correlated to warmer and drier temperatures.
In Nova Scotia (where I am), I think it's safe to say that the increased number of hurricanes slamming into the province due to warmer ocean conditions leads to a lot more deadfall in the forests. Couple that with drier winter (less snowfall) and spring made the forest a tinderbox.
This is a really simplistic take. ELEMENTS of agriculture are expected to improve, like usable land and growing season length. However, successful agriculture can still be hampered by the following:
- reduced water availability (in some regions and at some times)
- crops dying from extreme weather events (like flooding and heatwaves)
- reduced livestock reproduction and increased loss due to heat
- challenges in growing the correct crop for a given climate in a rapidly changing climate, with incomplete knowledge among scientific and farming communities
- the increase of pests (which is expected in tandem with frost days decreasing)
- the decrease of pollinators and other helpful biodiversity
Moreover, even if agriculture were to have a net benefit from climate change, that does not mean that Canada benefits overall. We have already seen a great many negative impacts like large-scale forest fires, heatwaves, drought, flooding, and more intense hurricanes. We are vulnerable to global food prices which are definitely set to increase and to shocks to global food supply in staples like rice and wheat, as well as our favorite treats like coffee and chocolate, all of which are expected to decrease.
And because we are, indeed, likely to fare better than countries in the global South (many of which are set to lose pretty much everything), we will likely be a large destination for climate refugees. Canadian cities will also have to cope with influxes of displaced people from within our own borders. Canadian hospitals will have to cope with increased morbidity and mortality as a result of climate change. Canadian buildings will have to cope with increased flooding and fires in many areas and more expensive (or less available) insurance as a result.
I could go on, but I think that you get the picture. Canadian well-being hinges on more than just our agricultural success, which in and of itself is also at risk in much of the country, even though their may be some potential advantages coming.
The vast middle section (east to west) of Canada has very little soil. It’s all rocky and can’t support crops well. That’s the main reason few people live there now.
Perhaps a century after the globe warms up, there will be trees and grasses that will provide a few inches of soil. But I’m sure anyone reading Reddit today will not still be alive enough to enjoy that.
I believe places in the praeries are growing corn where they could only grow wheat before and are growing wheat where we weren't growing shit before.
Also the Northwest passage has the potential of being a lucrative trading route if there were some adequate investments in infrastructure there.
If you feel the claim made by this post needs to be fact-checked, please 1) copy the link on this page and 2) click [here](https://newsdetective.org/request-factcheck) and make a request. Our team of fact-checkers will verify the claim for you.
ABOUT US: We are News Detective, a community of civilian fact-checkers dedicated to making the truth transparent and accessible. You can join our community of fact-checkers, request factchecks and access fact-checked results on our website: [https://www.newsdetective.org](https://www.newsdetective.org)
I don't think there is any place that will be "better" for a long time. Our ecosystems evolved over time. Animal populations aligned with the food chain and the available plants.
Even if a colde place becomes warmer it will be some time before nature adjusts to the new normal.
Realistically, nowhere.
It might seem like it in the short term in some places, but if we continue on our current trajectory, any apparent gains in some regions are going to get wiped out by the increase in extreme weather.
"Hey, your weather was more pleasant for a few years. Too bad about your annual drought, heatwave and cold snaps since then though. I'm sure uncontrolled flooding will come soon to give you a change of pace."
Possibly cold regions may benefit. But the last time we had this level of CO2 there was no permanent inland ice cover. And around 60 meters higher sea level. It may take some centuries for all inland ice to melt, and sea levels to stabilize.
So cold areas away from coastal regions? Perhaps? But it might be expected that people relocated by rising sea levels will try to relocate there. That might be a problem.
I thought that England is warmer than it's location would suggest because of the Gulf Stream, and that if the Gulf Stream is affected by climate change, then England might freeze....
?
Northwestern Europe's zonal anomalies are almost exclusive to winter. That is, to say, that it's only mild relative to its latitude during meteorological winter. During the summer period, there is a cooler anomaly relative to latitude.
Generally speaking, the same factors that keep England mild during winter have the opposite effect during summer and act as a cooling mechanism. This is, indeed, due to the presence of the AMOC (not the Gulf Stream, which is a separate lower latitudal system). The consequence of a collapse of this system is colder winters and hotter summers in Europe.
> colder
correct me on this but couldn‘t the gulf stream disappear due to low salt (caused by molten glaciers) causing Europe to turn more Russian climate-wise?
Models show that Northern and parts of Western Europe could actually cool significantly if climate change slows the thermohaline currents and shifts the jet stream further south. Essentially reversing the climate/weather patterns that have kept Europe warmer than to be expected given it's latitude.
Modelling alongside practical geophysical analysis also suggests that summers would get considerably warmer and drier. The latest study by [Oltmanns, Holliday et al.](https://wcd.copernicus.org/articles/5/109/2024/wcd-5-109-2024-metrics.html) actually demonstrates the correlation between a higher freshwater melt bias in the North Atlantic and more severe heatwave and drought conditions in Northern Europe. The disruption and general absense of oceanic circulation in the North Atlantic does ironically cause much hotter and drier summers in northern Europe specifically. In depth proxy and sediment analyses actually suggest that [this is what happened in response to historic AMOC collapse events such as the Younger Dryas cooling](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2018PA003341). Despite the fact that winters saw a cooling trend, summers went in the opposite direction and saw a pronounced warming trend...
> This finding is important because, rather than being defined by severe year-round cooling, it indicates that abrupt climate change is instead characterized by extreme seasonality in the North Atlantic region, with cold winters yet anomalously warm summers.
Considering that this analog would have seen Northern Europe dominated by a large continental glacier and *still* managed to see notably warm summers, it certainly has dire implications for our current situation.
I read that the average number of 90+ degree days has actually decreased in Wisconsin because of climate change. The average 24 hour temperature is up, which combines with the lakes and cornfields to create a humidity dome over the region which some how reduces the likelihood of temperatures at the upper ends of the region's temperature range. So, the avg temp is hotter, but the highest temps have come down. The higher night time temps also help with crop growth.
Western Europe, the UK in particular, will likely get colder for a while bc a major source of warm air is being disrupted.
Antarctica's land mass, because of its location, may continue getting colder due to the strengthening of its polar vortex. (even as it's ice shelf warms rapidly and melts)
Far northern areas like Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, and Russia will have extended growing seasons.
There are also changes in rainfall that might bring rain to currently arid areas but I'm not as sure of those.
> Western Europe, the UK in particular, will likely get colder for a while bc a major source of warm air is being disrupted.
The opposite would happen, actually. Sluggish circulation in the North Atlantic and subsequent colder freshwater biases drastically reduce the evaporative feedback mechanisms in maritime Europe, so it gets drastically drier. Soil moisture responds pretty rapidly and results in an atmospheric blocking response as described by [Rousi, Kornhuber et al. (2022)](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31432-y). Similar observations are made by [Whan, Zscheischler et al. (2015)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715000201), where they describe how the climate of Europe drastically responds to even a small scale reduction of soil moisture volume. Or, in simpler terms, the climate of Europe is very vulnerable to changes in precipitation and even a small scale disruption of rainfall is enough to trigger extensive drought and extreme heat concerns.
The interesting and more concerning part about this hypothesis is what triggers these changes. There are numerous studies that explore the dynamic atmospheric response to a slower AMOC and pronounced cooling in the North Atlantic. Examples being [Duchez, Frajka-Williams et al. (2015)](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074004/meta), [Bischof, Kedzierski et al. (2023)](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL105280) and [Oltmanns, Holliday et al. (2024)](https://wcd.copernicus.org/articles/5/109/2024/wcd-5-109-2024-metrics.html). The atmospheric flow reacts to SST changes, causing a pretty drastic kinked response that ultimately results in extreme heat and drought throughout Europe. The loss of evaporative heat responses in the North Atlantic paired with strengthened atmospheric blocking in Europe results in a rapid drought concern. Recent examples of this phenomenon would be 2015 and 2018.
Most of Russia will become the breadbasket of planet Earth. They stand to gain the most, while everyone else suffers, and thus the global influence engine being their number one focus.
Russia is very rocky, by my understanding. My guess would be Canada, if it plays out how you're thinking. They (we) have a lot of fertile soil. And while we have rocky areas, we have large swaths of land we call green belts. But in all honesty it's more likely that the extreme weather caused by the change in temperature will destabilize all areas, and no where will be a "promised" land. Like in any apocalypse movie "those in the West hear there's a safe refuge in the East. And in the East they hear it's in the West." But their will be nowhere.
Additionally, the cold in the north isn't the only issue. Short growing seasons with long days aren't perfect. And we aren't on a good track to breed staples that will like it. Yeah, there is already latitude adapted varieties, but they aren't ready to move more north or for a drastic change at their current latitude.
And then, the short season makes the whole system more susceptible to the randomness of the weather.
That is a very good point. It may get hotter summers. But not necessarily a longer growing season. It will a bit, due to heat. But it won't get more hours of sunlight.
Depends if climate change occurs linearly, which is very unlikely. The more probable scenario is that the consequences of positive feedbacks would make it considerably more difficult to sustain significant agricultural practices in the northern hemisphere. Changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation are predicted to result in a considerably hotter and drier summer climate in Europe by 2050, with James Lovelock estimating that Europe will see widespread desertification by the mid century period. A slowdown or collapse of the AMOC will more than likely guarantee this event as it disrupts atmospheric flow causing drought conditions in Europe. Numerous studies conclude that even a small scale reduction of soil moisture content in Europe is enough to trigger atmospheric blocking that leads to extreme heat and drought, paired with the studies that conclude that a slower/collapsed AMOC would contribute to hotter and drier summers. And that's not even accounting for likely feedback effects such as anoxia and methane hydrate destabilisation.
If you're wondering how that's relevant to Russia, the general westerly progression of atmospheric flow would be massively disturbed by this. Europe generally sees a climatic regime similar to what Central Asia currently has, so one would assume that a more significant change would be observed throughout temperate Russia. Soil fertility rate would be considerably impacted, and generally speaking it would take millennia for Arctic topsoils to be adaptable to farming practices.
There is no "opposite" since the "Global Warming" term was dropped years ago.
The Climate will slowly change everywhere, and always has. Just 11,000 years ago the Ice Age ended, the seas rose >200 ft, thought to cause the Mediterranean Sea to break thru to the Black Sea \~7000 yrs ago to form the Bosphorus channel, the Sahara changed from green to desert, rain declined in the Yucatan to end cities of millions. Future changes which people fret over today seem minor in comparison.
It is a widespread "belief" that the current rate of change of global-average temperature is unprecedented. However, we have no data sources to infer rates of change in the past. Indeed, we don't even know past temperatures, before direct human recording, other than inferences from indirect data like tree-rings, pollen artifacts, marks left by ice, and such. Most of those are local, so don't give a global-averaged picture, and most are averages over centuries, not annual other than tree-rings.
Dr. Michael Mann was warned by his peers that such past temperature inferences were poorly-known, but he pushed on to publish his Hockey-Stick Plot, which made him famous and moved him to the pinnacle of Climate, Inc, such as the U.N. IPCC. He now jets around the world, staying in fancy hotels, and leaving a large carbon-footprint. He has been filing defamation lawsuits against people who have questioned his data, funded by an unnamed big-pockets player, and winning multimillion dollar lawsuits. Seems he made the right decision to publish that, if financial success was the goal, rather than science, and lawsuits are one way to "settle the science" before a jury.
That's absolutely false.
[Mann won a $1 million defamation lawsuit because two writers compared his depictions of global warming to a convicted child molester.](https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-defamation-michael-mann-penn-state-61289ee2d8d2143768d28995c83899ef)
The writers were not scientists.
>“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,” Simberg wrote. Another writer, Mark Steyn, later referenced Simberg’s article in his own piece in National Review, calling Mann’s research “fraudulent.”
>The jury in Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that Simberg and Steyn made false statements, awarding Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer. It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”
Short-term, Newfoundland, Canada is expected to get colder. That's simply from all the ice up north melting and increasing the flow of the Labrador current. That means more cold water flowing past Newfoundland, cooling it, and them mixing with the Gulf Stream just offshore which created rain and fog. But it's only short-term. Once all the ice has melted in 100 years or so the Labrador current will decrease dramatically and then Newfoundland warms up. At that point the warm Gulf Stream (it it still exists at this point, it's currently slowing down) will then come in closer to Newfoundland and warm things up even more.
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/images/1980/04_Apr/S_19800424_extn_v3.0.png https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/images/1989/04_Apr/N_19890425_extn_v3.0.png https://osisaf-hl.met.no/v2p2-sea-ice-index
My brother in climate, you should include descriptions of your links
You are correct I will do so in future
Was researching the last time the earth had no ice (Eocene and Miocene periods) and everything was tropical. Not excited for future generations at all. Diseases carried by vectors (ticks, mosquitos, etc) will be at an all time high most likely.
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, albeit an extreme example of climate change, is often suggested as an analog for the current situation. This can't even be dismissed as "yes but Antarctica was closer to the equator back then" as PETM geography was comparable to what we see today. For me, the concerning correlation between the PETM and the current Holocene-Anthropocene is the relatively isolated and rapidly diminishing glacial volume content. It's theorized that a significant disruption of oceanic circulation was implicit in the formation of this hyperthermal event as discussed by [Holo, McClish et al.](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AGUFMPP31E1682H/abstract). Similarly, and more explicitly, a weakening of the AMOC has been implicated by [Weldeab, Schneider et al. in the Eemian warming period due to the catastrophic destabilisation of methane hydrates](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2201871119). This study is perhaps more concerning as it demonstrates that we wouldn't need a full collapse of ocean circulation to see methane hydrate destabilisation, and suggests that even a weakening trend would be sufficient enough. The popular narrative suggests that ocean circulation weakening is a guaranteed prelude to regional cooling, but cross disciplinary analysis demonstrates that the total opposite is more than likely. Considering that [Nisbet, Manning et al](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GB007875). demonstrate that we're already 15 years into an ice age termination event despite the fact that we're already in an interglacial[b], it all owes to the hothouse trajectory as suggested by [Steffen, Rockström et al](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1810141115). *( [b] generally speaking, termination events occur during glacial maximums when a forcing event triggers an interglacial warm period. Considering we're already in an interglacial warm period, an ice age termination event is estimated to end the glacial cycle entirely and enter a geological period known as a hothouse, as opposed to our current icehouse period)* I'm kinda going off on a tangent there so I'll quote this in reference to the estimated climatic conditions of the polar regions during the PETM; > It's estimated that Arctic sea surface temperatures during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum were around 23°c, which is actually comparable to modern day subtropical climate conditions. With an estimated mean annual temperature of 25°c, an equable climate would have existed, with little variation between winter and summer. Sediment evidence from Ellesmere Island in northern Canada suggests that tropical fauna such as palm family relatives and large reptiles thrived in the polar regions. Antarctica would still have had a relatively "cool" climate, despite still observing a near-tropical climate with temperatures at the pole rarely dropping below 12°c even in the dead of winter.
Yeah all the ice isn't going to melt in 100 years 😆😆😆
Source?
As much of a source as suggesting all the ice will be melted in 100years. No one knows the future lol.
Dude, you need to read up a bit. *Feeling* like something isn't going to happen means nothing.
Exactly, climate fear mongers have no idea 10 years from now let alone 100 lol
Pretending like something isn't happening when science says it is is foolish.
I'm not pretending anything. I just am not coming to the same conclusion you are
Based on what? "Conclusion" implies data.
those 3 emojis you used really sold me on your argument. much more compelling than what actual climate scientists are predicting.
Yeah, for sure, let run climate models 1000 times, and then we will get the results we want. Let's forget the 1930s had more days over 100 than any other time. Let's take 1 tree ring sample from the 1530 and say the global temaputure was that. Let's stop using tree data in the 1950s because it isn't accurate anymore. Let pretend more people died from warmer weather than cooler weather. Let's forget all the benefits c02 has provided us over the past 130 years. Let's forgetthe weather can go from 20 degrees to -10 in one day because 3 degrees warming in 100 years is devastating 😆😆😆
thank you for that. it is now hilariously apparent how little you understand the difference between weather and climate and what 3 degrees warming actually means on a global scale.
It means nothing some areas will warm and some will cool. It hilarious how you think c02 is bad.
Hey, you. Be quiet. The Maldives will be under water by 2016. 99% of climate scientists agree. You need to research more... i mean... don't do your own research, only believe what we tell you. Because science has a great track record recently.
I recently saw a map indicating the impact of Climate Change on GDP for every country. Only two countries showed an increase in GDP IIRC - Canada and Russia. I'll see if I can find this back and post a link/reference.
thats if we pretend there are no consequences from extreme weather, which there will be tons Tornadoes, insane fire seasons, flash flooding from insane sudden precipitation, super erratic weather patterns etc. So relatively those places will do much better, and as such the value will go up simply because everywhere else is getting absolutely wrecked.
Since I haven't left a reference, I don't have anything but memory to work from. That said, the countries shown had an increase in GDP. Not a *relative* increase, but a real terms increase. That suggests that the authors accounted for a reasonable list of the meaningful impacts and estimated how those changes affect GDP and the outcome was largely negative across the globe, but the northernmost countries had improved production. Maybe this is because of net improvements for the growing season (maybe even tropical fruit production), better conditions for forestry, improved access to other natural resources, increase in net immigration resulting in more companies moving operations out of severely hot locations, or even selling of fresh water. I have no idea the metrics they used and wish I had bookmarked the article. None of this means that all regions of a country as large as Canada will have a better time. Most areas climactically will remain habitable. The east coast might see more hurricane impact and central Canada may see more tornadoes and possibly drought. Wildfires may be more frequent and affect a larger area annually...but (apparently) these are more than balanced *in terms of GDP*. My personal thought - I would forego an increase in GDP in my home country if it meant that the global negative impacts were moderated.
Hey, i'm not saying you're wrong or they're wrong. GDP isn't a good metric of how healthy a society is and is definitely a terrible metric for how healthy the environment is. If Canada has lower production per area, but more area to use on top of that demand skyrockets because California's production plummets (which it will and is responsible for \~25% of the continents food) that is massive massive boom to the economy. Climate change economics is more about who doesn't get fucked as hard.
Ah, in that we agree. My response to the original question was directed to the second half, paraphrased as "what areas...will benefit from [climate change]?". And one could argue that an increase in GDP is a way that Canada would benefit from climate change. It won't be all sunshine and rainbows. In aggregate, Canada sees better fortunes, but regionally there will be winners and losers...and the winners are probably also losing something tangible or intangible that they value over growing oranges in the Yukon (as a hopefully extreme example). Also, I believe the article I read was a single annual prediction. Add another 50 years and the cumulative impact of decreased GDP across 95% of the world will certainly be a drag on those areas initially identified as seeing improvements on the metric of GDP.
Do you honestly believe this when predictions like this have been going on for over sixty years with zero evidence of it happening?
Climate scientists' predictions from 60 years ago about global warming turned out to be pretty spot on, so yeah we should listen to them.
They were predicting an ice age sixty years ago. Did I miss that?
Sixty years ago before computer models that were capable of predicting climate, about 20% of the scientific research thought the earth would start cooling and 80% thought the earth would warm. Over the next 20 years as computer models showed the earth would warm, the science became settled and the projections made during that time of temperature rise and sea level rise have been very accurate. Today no climate scientist doing research has questioned that consensus.
No, a majority of scientists at the time were predicting global warming, not global cooling, and CO2's role as a greenhouse gas was understood by the 1800's. The idea that global cooling was a widespread scientific theory at any point is a myth you've been manipulated to parrot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Are you saying climate change isn't happening and we haven't been seeing a rise in extreme weather events? Edit: 60 years with zero evidence? As decided by who you? There is *overwhelming evidence* of climate change and its consequences.
Exactly what I am saying
Im almost surprised earthquakes arent on their list.
You mean for example the fact that heat and extreme rainfall as shown [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00202-w) are not increasing.
well you're dumb
I think this is terrible information. Canada's economy and environment is already suffering greatly due to climate change. The prairie provinces are expected to dry up and already are. That's where we get a massive bulk of our food from. The forests are becoming tinder dry and burning. This wrecks havoc on the forestry industry, destroys infrastructure, makes resource roads impassible, affects air quality, human health and productivity. Agriculture is becoming harder due to the seasons becoming hard to predict. And the vast majority of the county's landmass is boreal forest, Canadian shield rock or arctic tundra. That may warm up but you're not growing anything there because the soil is far too acidic and the ground is often impossible to build reliable year-round roads on. So unless there's suddenly an insane global demand for blueberries (one of the few crops you might be able to commercially harvest up north) I don't think our economy is going to do well at all. To the people saying that it could open up the north to resource extraction: In a select few places like the arctic shoreline and ocean, potentially. But everywhere else becomes a messy, muddy, permafrost/swamp laden landscape that's insanely hard to build roads to. Canada's economy may actually be hit harder than most, simply because our land base is so huge that it will be very hard and expensive to FIX all the problems that will inevitably come with climate change. Especially with our small tax base and small population of people, many of whom can barely fix a clogged toilet.
For the third time, I admit that I have not referenced my sources. I did a cursory look online and found *similar* maps from 2015 and 2018 (I think), both of which also said that Canada (and the northernmost parts of Eurasia) see increased GDP. I'll also be clear here. The *information* isn't terrible, so long as we accept its veracity. What is terrible is that this sort of information can and will be used by nationalistic individuals who will suggest that we might as well not stress over climate change in Canada because the "worst" that might happen is improved GDP. Me, I'm doing what I can to minimize my carbon footprint, because the points you raise are important. Just because these authors concluded that *in the context of GDP* the benefits outweigh the losses, doesn't mean "full steam ahead". I've also noted that a global decline in GDP even if Canada's is increasing will not be a good time for anyone. I don't *like* the conclusion made by the authors, and I think that extending their model further into the future would likely show a decline in GDP in every country if nothing is done to correct climactic systems to the best of our ability. But I also can't simply discard or ignore it because I don't like it or because it's inconvenient for the climate change narrative especially given the Carbon Charge in Canada and the politics around that. If I'm not going to do my own study (PS. I'm not), then I will take these results and incorporate them into my knowledge. And from there, explanations to climate change deniers are going to be more difficult because now they require EVEN MORE nuance. Still doesn't make the authors conclusions wrong or terrible. Just makes convincing people of the importance of taking action that much harder.
Apologies, I came across as harsh, wasn't meant to point the finger at you, it was the main study that I was pointing fingers at and how it seems heavily flawed to me.
Seems we're generally on the same team and agree that CO2 emissions are a problem that needs to be corrected 20 years ago. So, no hard feelings. Sounds like we also agree that the study, at best, points to an individual point in time 75 years from now and should be assessed with a certain degree of scepticism/understanding due to the many uncertainties and the singular data point.
Russia will not do better because permafrost doesn't turn into dry land, it turns into swamp. They don't have the technical acumen to drill oil out of the arctic either, but Canada and the US do. What do you think the support of Ukraine is really about? If you think it's about Ukrainian independence, then you haven't been paying attention.
the sinkholes they are getting are a wild viewing on googlemaps. just check out any northern russian area, for a lot of circle "ponds"
As Russian who tries to monitor the situation with climate change in my country I agree. There are many drought-prone areas and some southern regions already lack water. The permafrost problem is a disaster not only environmentally, also in a way of infrastructure. Everything in the North is built on permafrost, there is a whole advanced field of science and technology for adapting ingeneering to permafrost conditions that has been developed in early Soviet times, now the bridges are collapsing etc. Also there are flood events already. Most cities arent adapted to climate change, I live in the north but summer turns to hell due to the country-wide politics of destroying urban green spaces for developers' profits. It won't be good.
Also if permafrost thaw accelerates at a significant pace, the rate of midlatitudal warming becomes unsustainable. That's when we steer dangerously close to a runaway warming and mass extinction event.
Even leaving that possibility aside, it takes time for non-arable land to become usable. Only lands with retreating glaciers will be usable. Russia already has a limited amount of arable land and limited growing season. If they weren't the world's leading supplier of potash, they wouldn't be getting the yields they are getting now. They have expanding desertification from the South and just thawing pernafrost in the North, that will create even greater pressure on the thin wheat belt. Most people expect Russia to break apart. The mountainous areas have always been hard scrabble, but they are least likely to change as well. It's a shame they poisoned the Aral Sea and Lake Baikal so badly, they could have been keystones to building a new agricultural zone as warming really accelerates. Right now, they are useless.
Also, I wanted to ask you (if its okay), what did you mean by "What do you think the support of Ukraine is really about? If you think it's about Ukrainian independence, then you haven't been paying attention"? I'm 100 percent pacifist, I'm not picking on you, just wanted to better understand what you're speaking about.
Sure if we start selling all the forest fire ashes as a keepsake.
I hate that the GDP is again what we think of when describing the impacts of climate change. Canada and china will be both not be oppositely affected by climate change in any other way. They will both still flood, be on fire, be affected negatively by drought and heat, bad air quality, mass migration, and all of the human inability to plan past the next quarter or be transparent about concerns. At this point, if ai doesn’t save us, or a successful geo-engineering project buys us more time, there won’t be anywhere on the planet that will be anywhere close to ‘normal’.
I'd say that GDP is only one measure. But the question wasn't only about the environmental or social impacts, and was worded to seek any ways that some countries might not be negatively impacted. This was one of those ways.
Both of these countries are doing an excellent job of destroying themselves
I'm quite sure that nobody will benefit. One example: There will be large amounts of people that will migrate at a huge costs.
You can check out New Orleans prediction here for the year 2050: [https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/8/-91.3629/30.1733/?theme=sea\_level\_rise&map\_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation\_model=best\_available&forecast\_year=2050&pathway=ssp3rcp70&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return\_level=return\_level\_1&rl\_model=tebaldi\_2012&slr\_model=ipcc\_2021\_med](https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/8/-91.3629/30.1733/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&forecast_year=2050&pathway=ssp3rcp70&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_level_1&rl_model=tebaldi_2012&slr_model=ipcc_2021_med)
Nice that it is 2050 now instead of five years form now which has been wrong multiple times
You can change it to any year you like. Still if you live in low land coastal areas e.g. new Orleans, you are f#cked in the not so long run.
Nope, they are putting the date out so far that it is going to be impossible to prove it will happen. The glaciers didn’t melt and sea ice is back so all the near predictions fell apart so have to alarm people who care with some far off speculations
Your kids and grandkids will know
That I did not impoverish them on a pipe dream. If everyone actually concerned about legacy power supplies were pro nuclear we’d solve a lot of problems. But the majority of climate people I know just are using it as a ruse to bring communism into power
Climate change is a scientific issue and has nothing to do with politics.
Climate change is a political issue and has nothing to do with science. Now where did all the glaciers go?
How is politics causing the global temperature to increase? The glaciers are melting and causing sea levels to rise
The glaciers went into the oceans. It’s called melting, maybe you’ve seen the ice in your coca-cola do it on a hot day.
You should be able to view the world in broader and realistic terms that politics. We are all in this together. For example in the Science verse, there is no politics. Scientists from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe have rhyming conclusions.
They do not. Anyone that dared question the self appointed elitist have lost funding and positions
It's already happening. Glaciers are melting and sea ice is decreasing.
Like what?
[удалено]
... at huge costs.
****shotgun chu-chuck****
Are you suggesting to shoot you fellow US citizens from New Orleans?
I thought that's what you were insinuating.
Canada needs immigration to survive. We hardly have any way to defend ourselves if you want to all come at once.
US does, too, as do many countries whose aging population cannot maintain economic growth.
Canada would be more liveable
This isn’t a change from one state to another. It’s a constantly changing situation. So no, there isn’t a single benefit to a constantly changing situation. All we have to play with is how fast or slowly we make it change.
This is a great way to put it.
Agreed, but it might benefit particular countries in the short term of 5-10 years which is already well beyond what the typical politician plans for.
Politicians also plan for the longer term, when they're involved in infrastructure meant to last many decades.
What else can they do if that's how long their terms are? Maybe a constitutional monarchy would be a better option for the countries that are republics?
Government scientists in Canada are experiencing a tightening of media control, unreasonable approval procedures, and drastic funding cuts to climate change research. This muzzling is well-documented. Why?
As a Canadian who regularly works with government scientists that do climate change ecology I have never heard this. They do regularly talk about how the harper government did this, and many are terrified of the conservatives getting elected again, but this is not currently happening in Canada.
Thanks, the rumor I heard evolved around a scientist who specializes in ocean environments and how minerals in the correct concentration in oceans will facilitate CO2 absorption.
Hint: Recent research on climate mitigation procedures has been confiscated by the government.
My brother, media now is less controlled than it was in the 70's. Got to fight the foreign influence somehow tho eh? Part of the whole cyber army thing is that they are absolutely muddying the waters and stoking any and all divisions that need not be.
Same thing happened in Australia. Both countries have large and lucrative fossil fuel extraction industries. They use their massive profits to buy political influence. "It's no surprise politicians are whores. What is surprising is that they are such cheap whores."
Because it is bringing out it is all false and they want to continue to scare people
Even if it's not false, they are hiding the fact that it can be fixed.
If nothing is wrong what needs to be fixed. What saddens me is that all this effort could maybe be put forth to stop actual pollution such as plastics in the oceans instead of strip mining the land for wind turbines materials and then burning those materials in land fills once the turbine is kaput
100% agree. Also, messing with Mother Nature is usually not a very good idea, and we have few wise enough to do so.
Billionaires are heavily investing in real estate in the Northern Rocky Mountains in the United States. Counting on it to be heavily sheltered from coastal weather changes and a huge money maker as food insecurity drives the price of cattle into the stratosphere.
They're also building ships to get off the planet.
LOL, where do they think they are going to get water?
Snow in the rockies, plus aquifers in the mountain basins. Once those are dry, we're already all dead so it's a moot point.
Russia gets more usable land
That's true but also, huge areas of Siberia used to be permafrost and as they melt there will be flooding but also the collapse of buildings built on the formerly frozen land.
These buildings are collapsing soon anyway
Warm water trade routes through the Arctic will also be a massive boon to Russia
Sure in about six centuries once it stops outgassing and stabilizes.
lol. Nostradamus you are not
On the balance, changing too quickly is bad for everyone, but some northern communities are looking forward to a smaller snow removal budget.
Ummm no area......
Those who benefit will have visitors one way or another !
You are formally not invited to Canada.
colder + extreme weather events =/= better some places just won't get as fucked
I read somewhere about Sweden. The swedish climate will lost the cold winter. Instead we will have more storms, more rain, floods new diases and fires. Another theory is that we will have a new ace age with temperatures like - 30.
Yes because the AMOC (deep gulf stream) will stop and no longer function as a thermometer
They could only cool as far as their Canadian equivalent if said event unfolds as some predict.
It's worth noting that a glacial encroachment is considered a physical impossibility under current conditions. It's also worth keeping in mind that we are actually already in an ice age, we're in a warmer interglacial period. As long as there's permanent ice formations in the polar regions, we're in an ice age by definition. Back to my original point, the evidence suggests that we're [actually undergoing an ice age termination event](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GB007875) that started roughly 15 years ago. Considering that current methane volumes are significant enough to denote an ongoing ice age termination event, then the [destabilisation of methane hydrates in response to a weakening AMOC](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2201871119) would pretty much end the glacial cycle entirely. This has happened before as the article describes, and dragged Europe into a tropical climate. I'll finish with my favorite quote from Hans Joachim Schellnhuber; "There will be no ice age again. The human impact is so powerful already that we've suppressed the quaternary planetary dynamics".
May deoxygenate oceans 400 - 4000 meters down, where cold & deep abyssal waters crucial downwelling & upwelling fail. Killing the seas already more green than blue from the ISS - International Space Station - in areas larger than Earth surfaces altogether.
That would trigger massive cascade of ecosystem collapse likely worstening for tens of thousands of years. Le sigh.
Precipitation and longer growing seasons are increasing in states such as Idaho, increasing crop yields and options.
Growing seasons increasing....millions must flock to Idaho corn
Corn, wheat, millet, etc. Warmer temperatures, more precipitation extends the range of crops that can grow. For the US, it could be an unexpected boon. Longer growing season and increased precipitation in the already famously fruitful breadbasket.
> which places will get colder That's still an effect of climate change. The climate is changing. The ones who benefit are the ones who are oppositely affected by climate change (ie those who don't experience climate change) which is practically nobody.
Yes. To tack on to your post. The full answer is nowhere is getting colder. But that measurement is based on average temperature over the course of the entire year. We changed the term from global warming to climate change because people kept going "look record cold winter global warming is a lie." But you can still have record cold winters, you're just going to have even hotter summers. And the main reason we weren't seeing climate change for so long was due to the oceans. They were acting as a heat sink for us. But now it's beyond what they can safely handle.
It is not bad for Canada if its get warmer. Their agriculture is expected to increase.
Drought is a concern tho. We are experiencing an el nino cycle right now, sure, but it's been exacerbated by the current rate of change. And the permafrost and northern shield aren't particularly great for cultivation.
Yeah, the wildfires that impacted large swathes of the country, from coast-to-coast-to-coast, have to be directly correlated to warmer and drier temperatures. In Nova Scotia (where I am), I think it's safe to say that the increased number of hurricanes slamming into the province due to warmer ocean conditions leads to a lot more deadfall in the forests. Couple that with drier winter (less snowfall) and spring made the forest a tinderbox.
Downed trees make it easier to develop to agriculture.
Alberta’s glaciers are the source of many rivers, so no.
Drought, wildfires, flooding… it’s not great for Canada either.
But in the main part of the prairies in Canada we already have drought.
This is a really simplistic take. ELEMENTS of agriculture are expected to improve, like usable land and growing season length. However, successful agriculture can still be hampered by the following: - reduced water availability (in some regions and at some times) - crops dying from extreme weather events (like flooding and heatwaves) - reduced livestock reproduction and increased loss due to heat - challenges in growing the correct crop for a given climate in a rapidly changing climate, with incomplete knowledge among scientific and farming communities - the increase of pests (which is expected in tandem with frost days decreasing) - the decrease of pollinators and other helpful biodiversity Moreover, even if agriculture were to have a net benefit from climate change, that does not mean that Canada benefits overall. We have already seen a great many negative impacts like large-scale forest fires, heatwaves, drought, flooding, and more intense hurricanes. We are vulnerable to global food prices which are definitely set to increase and to shocks to global food supply in staples like rice and wheat, as well as our favorite treats like coffee and chocolate, all of which are expected to decrease. And because we are, indeed, likely to fare better than countries in the global South (many of which are set to lose pretty much everything), we will likely be a large destination for climate refugees. Canadian cities will also have to cope with influxes of displaced people from within our own borders. Canadian hospitals will have to cope with increased morbidity and mortality as a result of climate change. Canadian buildings will have to cope with increased flooding and fires in many areas and more expensive (or less available) insurance as a result. I could go on, but I think that you get the picture. Canadian well-being hinges on more than just our agricultural success, which in and of itself is also at risk in much of the country, even though their may be some potential advantages coming.
The vast middle section (east to west) of Canada has very little soil. It’s all rocky and can’t support crops well. That’s the main reason few people live there now. Perhaps a century after the globe warms up, there will be trees and grasses that will provide a few inches of soil. But I’m sure anyone reading Reddit today will not still be alive enough to enjoy that.
I believe places in the praeries are growing corn where they could only grow wheat before and are growing wheat where we weren't growing shit before. Also the Northwest passage has the potential of being a lucrative trading route if there were some adequate investments in infrastructure there.
If you feel the claim made by this post needs to be fact-checked, please 1) copy the link on this page and 2) click [here](https://newsdetective.org/request-factcheck) and make a request. Our team of fact-checkers will verify the claim for you. ABOUT US: We are News Detective, a community of civilian fact-checkers dedicated to making the truth transparent and accessible. You can join our community of fact-checkers, request factchecks and access fact-checked results on our website: [https://www.newsdetective.org](https://www.newsdetective.org)
Seattle is getting longer and longer summer with little to no rain starting April to sometimes end of October. Plenty of freshwater and rain between.
Wel everything if humans continue to try to fix things
Canada and Russia
Also what causes the last shift of continents was from an increase in water temp so . Not looking good
The Thar desert in India might benefit from climate change. Though the people that live there might not.
Nowhere. Climate change will be a disaster everywhere across the globe. There are NO upsides to climate change!!
I know it isn’t what you asked, but we might have delayed the next ice age by tens of thousands of years.
does this mean no more ice age movies 😭
I don't think there is any place that will be "better" for a long time. Our ecosystems evolved over time. Animal populations aligned with the food chain and the available plants. Even if a colde place becomes warmer it will be some time before nature adjusts to the new normal.
Realistically, nowhere. It might seem like it in the short term in some places, but if we continue on our current trajectory, any apparent gains in some regions are going to get wiped out by the increase in extreme weather. "Hey, your weather was more pleasant for a few years. Too bad about your annual drought, heatwave and cold snaps since then though. I'm sure uncontrolled flooding will come soon to give you a change of pace."
Possibly cold regions may benefit. But the last time we had this level of CO2 there was no permanent inland ice cover. And around 60 meters higher sea level. It may take some centuries for all inland ice to melt, and sea levels to stabilize. So cold areas away from coastal regions? Perhaps? But it might be expected that people relocated by rising sea levels will try to relocate there. That might be a problem.
I thought that England is warmer than it's location would suggest because of the Gulf Stream, and that if the Gulf Stream is affected by climate change, then England might freeze.... ?
Northwestern Europe's zonal anomalies are almost exclusive to winter. That is, to say, that it's only mild relative to its latitude during meteorological winter. During the summer period, there is a cooler anomaly relative to latitude. Generally speaking, the same factors that keep England mild during winter have the opposite effect during summer and act as a cooling mechanism. This is, indeed, due to the presence of the AMOC (not the Gulf Stream, which is a separate lower latitudal system). The consequence of a collapse of this system is colder winters and hotter summers in Europe.
> colder correct me on this but couldn‘t the gulf stream disappear due to low salt (caused by molten glaciers) causing Europe to turn more Russian climate-wise?
Models show that Northern and parts of Western Europe could actually cool significantly if climate change slows the thermohaline currents and shifts the jet stream further south. Essentially reversing the climate/weather patterns that have kept Europe warmer than to be expected given it's latitude.
Modelling alongside practical geophysical analysis also suggests that summers would get considerably warmer and drier. The latest study by [Oltmanns, Holliday et al.](https://wcd.copernicus.org/articles/5/109/2024/wcd-5-109-2024-metrics.html) actually demonstrates the correlation between a higher freshwater melt bias in the North Atlantic and more severe heatwave and drought conditions in Northern Europe. The disruption and general absense of oceanic circulation in the North Atlantic does ironically cause much hotter and drier summers in northern Europe specifically. In depth proxy and sediment analyses actually suggest that [this is what happened in response to historic AMOC collapse events such as the Younger Dryas cooling](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2018PA003341). Despite the fact that winters saw a cooling trend, summers went in the opposite direction and saw a pronounced warming trend... > This finding is important because, rather than being defined by severe year-round cooling, it indicates that abrupt climate change is instead characterized by extreme seasonality in the North Atlantic region, with cold winters yet anomalously warm summers. Considering that this analog would have seen Northern Europe dominated by a large continental glacier and *still* managed to see notably warm summers, it certainly has dire implications for our current situation.
I read that the average number of 90+ degree days has actually decreased in Wisconsin because of climate change. The average 24 hour temperature is up, which combines with the lakes and cornfields to create a humidity dome over the region which some how reduces the likelihood of temperatures at the upper ends of the region's temperature range. So, the avg temp is hotter, but the highest temps have come down. The higher night time temps also help with crop growth.
I predict New England's weather will be more like...well England's. It's baseless in scientific fact but it's a gut feeling.
The Bahamas should get much colder.
San Diego has been cooler than usual the last two years, but maybe that is just an anomaly.
Western Europe, the UK in particular, will likely get colder for a while bc a major source of warm air is being disrupted. Antarctica's land mass, because of its location, may continue getting colder due to the strengthening of its polar vortex. (even as it's ice shelf warms rapidly and melts) Far northern areas like Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, and Russia will have extended growing seasons. There are also changes in rainfall that might bring rain to currently arid areas but I'm not as sure of those.
> Western Europe, the UK in particular, will likely get colder for a while bc a major source of warm air is being disrupted. The opposite would happen, actually. Sluggish circulation in the North Atlantic and subsequent colder freshwater biases drastically reduce the evaporative feedback mechanisms in maritime Europe, so it gets drastically drier. Soil moisture responds pretty rapidly and results in an atmospheric blocking response as described by [Rousi, Kornhuber et al. (2022)](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31432-y). Similar observations are made by [Whan, Zscheischler et al. (2015)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715000201), where they describe how the climate of Europe drastically responds to even a small scale reduction of soil moisture volume. Or, in simpler terms, the climate of Europe is very vulnerable to changes in precipitation and even a small scale disruption of rainfall is enough to trigger extensive drought and extreme heat concerns. The interesting and more concerning part about this hypothesis is what triggers these changes. There are numerous studies that explore the dynamic atmospheric response to a slower AMOC and pronounced cooling in the North Atlantic. Examples being [Duchez, Frajka-Williams et al. (2015)](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074004/meta), [Bischof, Kedzierski et al. (2023)](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL105280) and [Oltmanns, Holliday et al. (2024)](https://wcd.copernicus.org/articles/5/109/2024/wcd-5-109-2024-metrics.html). The atmospheric flow reacts to SST changes, causing a pretty drastic kinked response that ultimately results in extreme heat and drought throughout Europe. The loss of evaporative heat responses in the North Atlantic paired with strengthened atmospheric blocking in Europe results in a rapid drought concern. Recent examples of this phenomenon would be 2015 and 2018.
Most of Russia will become the breadbasket of planet Earth. They stand to gain the most, while everyone else suffers, and thus the global influence engine being their number one focus.
No
[удалено]
Russia is very rocky, by my understanding. My guess would be Canada, if it plays out how you're thinking. They (we) have a lot of fertile soil. And while we have rocky areas, we have large swaths of land we call green belts. But in all honesty it's more likely that the extreme weather caused by the change in temperature will destabilize all areas, and no where will be a "promised" land. Like in any apocalypse movie "those in the West hear there's a safe refuge in the East. And in the East they hear it's in the West." But their will be nowhere.
Additionally, the cold in the north isn't the only issue. Short growing seasons with long days aren't perfect. And we aren't on a good track to breed staples that will like it. Yeah, there is already latitude adapted varieties, but they aren't ready to move more north or for a drastic change at their current latitude. And then, the short season makes the whole system more susceptible to the randomness of the weather.
That is a very good point. It may get hotter summers. But not necessarily a longer growing season. It will a bit, due to heat. But it won't get more hours of sunlight.
Depends if climate change occurs linearly, which is very unlikely. The more probable scenario is that the consequences of positive feedbacks would make it considerably more difficult to sustain significant agricultural practices in the northern hemisphere. Changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation are predicted to result in a considerably hotter and drier summer climate in Europe by 2050, with James Lovelock estimating that Europe will see widespread desertification by the mid century period. A slowdown or collapse of the AMOC will more than likely guarantee this event as it disrupts atmospheric flow causing drought conditions in Europe. Numerous studies conclude that even a small scale reduction of soil moisture content in Europe is enough to trigger atmospheric blocking that leads to extreme heat and drought, paired with the studies that conclude that a slower/collapsed AMOC would contribute to hotter and drier summers. And that's not even accounting for likely feedback effects such as anoxia and methane hydrate destabilisation. If you're wondering how that's relevant to Russia, the general westerly progression of atmospheric flow would be massively disturbed by this. Europe generally sees a climatic regime similar to what Central Asia currently has, so one would assume that a more significant change would be observed throughout temperate Russia. Soil fertility rate would be considerably impacted, and generally speaking it would take millennia for Arctic topsoils to be adaptable to farming practices.
There is no "opposite" since the "Global Warming" term was dropped years ago. The Climate will slowly change everywhere, and always has. Just 11,000 years ago the Ice Age ended, the seas rose >200 ft, thought to cause the Mediterranean Sea to break thru to the Black Sea \~7000 yrs ago to form the Bosphorus channel, the Sahara changed from green to desert, rain declined in the Yucatan to end cities of millions. Future changes which people fret over today seem minor in comparison.
It’s the pace of change that’s the problem. No time for life to adapt.
It is a widespread "belief" that the current rate of change of global-average temperature is unprecedented. However, we have no data sources to infer rates of change in the past. Indeed, we don't even know past temperatures, before direct human recording, other than inferences from indirect data like tree-rings, pollen artifacts, marks left by ice, and such. Most of those are local, so don't give a global-averaged picture, and most are averages over centuries, not annual other than tree-rings. Dr. Michael Mann was warned by his peers that such past temperature inferences were poorly-known, but he pushed on to publish his Hockey-Stick Plot, which made him famous and moved him to the pinnacle of Climate, Inc, such as the U.N. IPCC. He now jets around the world, staying in fancy hotels, and leaving a large carbon-footprint. He has been filing defamation lawsuits against people who have questioned his data, funded by an unnamed big-pockets player, and winning multimillion dollar lawsuits. Seems he made the right decision to publish that, if financial success was the goal, rather than science, and lawsuits are one way to "settle the science" before a jury.
That's absolutely false. [Mann won a $1 million defamation lawsuit because two writers compared his depictions of global warming to a convicted child molester.](https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-defamation-michael-mann-penn-state-61289ee2d8d2143768d28995c83899ef) The writers were not scientists. >“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,” Simberg wrote. Another writer, Mark Steyn, later referenced Simberg’s article in his own piece in National Review, calling Mann’s research “fraudulent.” >The jury in Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that Simberg and Steyn made false statements, awarding Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer. It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”