3 ms·

For countries like Russia and to lesser extend Canada the models show that they will benefit from the global warming. Basically they will get more agricultural

by _0w8t 4y ago

For countries like Russia and to lesser extend Canada the models show that they will benefit from the global warming. Basically they will get more agricultural land and ice-free Arctic will open more transportation routes. Plus they will need to use less energy for heating in winter. On the other hand as the article shows the models can be wrong and even very wrong. For example, it can be that the ricing temperature in fact triggers the new ice age and that can arrive in matter of decades. Of cause, this is very speculative, but since we cannot reliably predict consequences of raising CO2 levels, that can not be excluded.

sofixa 4y ago
For Russia it's not that simple. The melting permafrost in Siberia will destroy a lot of infrastructure built into it, and the wildfires there from the last couple of summers have been devastating.
- _0w8t 4y ago
  The problem with permafrost is not that it melts, but rather that it melts during summer and freezes during winter. To build on it one has to drive piles into the ground and build on top of those. Then there are two cases. First is when the piles can reach bedrock. Then the fact that the layer of melted permafrost will be deeper in summer does not matter. As I understand this is strongly preferred in Russia even if means to move the building site. The second is when there is no suitable bedrock or it is too deep to reach it with piles without making things too expensive. Then the piles are driven just into the permanent permafrost. But this is problematic even without the warming of climate. The piles conduct heat and melt permanent permafrost around them sinking the building unevenly. Previously this was just accepted. So piles were driven as deep as practically possible and let the building gradually sink under assumption that in 20-30 years the things will have to be rebuild or abandoned. But nowadays the piles are refrigerated. This way they can be more shallow and more permanent. So rising temperature is not necessary threatens the infrastructure. It will gradually make buildings on piles that do not reach the bedrock more expensive to operate as the cooling of piles will need more energy.

by _0w8t 4y ago

sofixa 4y ago

For Russia it's not that simple. The melting permafrost in Siberia will destroy a lot of infrastructure built into it, and the wildfires there from the last couple of summers have been devastating.

_0w8t 4y ago
The problem with permafrost is not that it melts, but rather that it melts during summer and freezes during winter. To build on it one has to drive piles into the ground and build on top of those. Then there are two cases. First is when the piles can reach bedrock. Then the fact that the layer of melted permafrost will be deeper in summer does not matter. As I understand this is strongly preferred in Russia even if means to move the building site. The second is when there is no suitable bedrock or it is too deep to reach it with piles without making things too expensive. Then the piles are driven just into the permanent permafrost. But this is problematic even without the warming of climate. The piles conduct heat and melt permanent permafrost around them sinking the building unevenly. Previously this was just accepted. So piles were driven as deep as practically possible and let the building gradually sink under assumption that in 20-30 years the things will have to be rebuild or abandoned. But nowadays the piles are refrigerated. This way they can be more shallow and more permanent. So rising temperature is not necessary threatens the infrastructure. It will gradually make buildings on piles that do not reach the bedrock more expensive to operate as the cooling of piles will need more energy.