Hacker News Reader

Comment by agumonkey | Hacker News Reader

1) I'm sure climate change models took this into account but is it worse than predicted ?

2) And if it releases land and resources.. how happy will Russia to increase their economy through uses of gas/oil ? (not helping permafrost)

View on HN

IIRC CMIP5 models(used for IPCC AR5 2014) did not account for permafrost melt or changes in soil chemistry. Shortly after AR5 was released I remember reading an article or two describing how these exclusions resulted in under-predicting climate change. There were three emissions scenarios under CMIP5, and we are surpassing the worst. Put that in your pipe...

"We see places in Northern Europe, Russia as you say, Northern and Central Eurasia and Canada. These are the types of countries that could actually benefit from some amount of warming in terms of sort of increasing economic growth and economic productivity. " https://www.climateone.org/audio/climate-winners-and-losers

Permafrost melting doesn't really release land and resources; the main resources were actively mined there while it was permafrost and if it's frozen for part of the year and not frozen for a few months then it doesn't make mining significantly simpler.

if anything, it destroys the existing infrastructure there which often (especially for transport and pipeline paths) relies on the permafrost as a permanent solid foundation.

Ok, so the main issue would be potential greenhouse gas release from melting ?

Yes, it's an additional feedback loop - more warming melts more permafrost, releasing more methane that causes more warming. Due to this stopping/slowing climate change is going to be more difficult.

Russia is eagerly waiting for the day the north sea passage opens. They welcome this with open arms.

Putin did shit-talk renewable energy recently. I'm sure he's happy with all the gas that's being burned. The time when Russia runs out of gas won't be his problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com