Siberian heatwave of 2020 almost impossible without climate change

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/siberian-heatwave-of-2020-almost-impossible-without-climate-change

by tannhaeuser • 6 years ago

88 126 6 years ago

skymer• 6 years ago

The title understates the authors' actual claim: "We found ... that this event would have effectively been impossible without human-induced climate change."

If someone wants to take the time to read the whole 35-page study, it would be interesting to know whether "human-induced climate change" is now just a synonym for "climate change", or is part of their research.

MCOfficer• 6 years ago

Unverified guess: it's to distinguish the rapid climate change happening since the 1850s from the slow, natural climate change that has been known to happen over millennia.

EGreg2• 6 years ago

I know we have been gaslighted a lot by the right wing about climate change, but honestly, what can we do about it? The current lockdowns and limits on travel achieved the largest drop in fossil fuel usage probably ever done in human history. As people choose to work from home, and as more people go vegan, these trends may continue. And?

We need carbon sequestration, maybe.

PS: will the sun entering a cooling period have any serious effect at all on Earth?

take_a_breath3• 6 years ago

==As people choose to work from home, and as more people go vegan, these trends may continue. And?==

Neither of these things are guaranteed to continue after COVID passes. More Westerners going vegan doesn’t automatically lower emissions if people in developing countries continue to grow their meat intake.

On the flip side, if people move out of urban cores and increase online shopping, those might have a negative impact on emissions.

Edit: Seems like people are misinterpreting the "negative impact on emissions". By that phrase, I meant that more personalized delivery and suburban living may very well lead to an increase in emissions. Apologies for the confusion.

zeroonetwothree• 6 years ago

Online shopping is way more efficient than in person shopping. Not only is the net transit time shorter, but stores are very costly in terms of energy use and logistics.

EGreg2• 6 years ago

People moving out of urban cores increases emissions, because they now have to build and heat/cool more homes, and most importantly — commute to work. Suburbia is probably one of the biggest contributors to fossil fuel usage.

Larrikin• 6 years ago

How does needing a car to go everywhere in a rural or suburban environment decrease emissions?

wizzwizz4• 6 years ago

More Westerners going vegan doesn’t automatically lower emissions if people in developing countries continue to grow their meat intake.

But it's surely an improvement over Westerners not going vegan, and people in developing countries continuing to grow their meat intake.

daliusd• 6 years ago

And there are many more ideas what can be done: https://drawdown.org/solutions

jl62• 6 years ago

Two kids max.

Plant-based diet.

Treat others kindly.

gspr4• 6 years ago

Two kids max.

Luckily, it's becoming increasingly clear that that part will sort itself out without any kind of draconian China-style laws to forcibly limit family sizes: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2

That the population is developing in manageable ways in most of the world is one of the good news that will really help us on our way. The recipe is well-known by now: give women control over their own bodies and their own lives, and provide a social safety net that at a minimum is strong enough that having a large amount of children as an insurance stops making sense. IT WORKS :-)

david422• 6 years ago

This I think is probably the most impactful, feasible changes that an individual can make. And I'll add in electric transportation to my wishlist.

mistrial9• 6 years ago

According to a 2017 Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board, the overall challenge in this part of the world breaks down into activity sectors, and then change or mitigation on the activity in those sectors. Ironically, you are speaking your concern at a time when there is actually a new chance for movement in the positive direction.

This particular report is easily found at the CARB website as scoping_plan_2017.pdf

tannhaeuser2• 6 years ago

For a start, we could look into investing corona-induced stimulus funds sustainably (rather than, say, subsidizing air travel). Only last year, Fridays for Future protests were a thing in many parts of the world. Today, it seems we're busy longing for yesterday. All the while the young FfF generation will have to pay back in one way or another. The perspective to take away something positive from coronavirus could go a long way towards political support for sustainability.

raxxorrax3• 6 years ago

I fear it would require redefining the goals of our economies. I don't see that happening in reality though. A CO2 tax can help a bit, but even that would not change rising emission levels too much. The costs would just be countered by more growth. It isn't just that everything gets a little too hot, we also generally use too many resources:

https://www.overshootday.org/

Working from home obviously helps, but transportation is almost inconsequential. I think it is responsible for around 15% of emissions and that includes every form of logistic emitter. Individual traffic doesn't help but wouldn't necessarily be an issue and people are dependent on it outside of the largest cities.

Agriculture on the other hand is one of the largest factors next to power generation.

If every developing country reaches the industrial stage, we will surely fail hard. So technological transfer to developing countries is a necessity, so they can skip this development state for greener alternatives. That is an obligation developed countries need to acknowledge.

Technological progress can help too, but I don't think it is a good idea to depend on it alone.

jeffbee2• 6 years ago

In the USA transportation is 30% of carbon emissions and in California, where at least some nominal progress has been made toward carbon emissions from utilities, transportation is over 40%.

bmn__• 6 years ago

I know we have been gaslighted a lot by the right wing about climate change, but honestly, what can we do about it?

Just don't listen to them? This isn't rocket surgery. Once you realise something is propaganda and false narratives, it becomes easy to avoid it or point out to others who might be more susceptible.

ericvanular• 6 years ago

Hey EGreg, we're generating ideas, sharing feedback, and building climate solutions over at https://collective.energy if you'd like to join a community of no-nonsense doers

zentiggr• 6 years ago

It feels to me like too many conservatives identify with the goal of simply having or making the most money, and damn any other consequences.

How do we demonize greed / powerlust, and make cooperative goals more attractive?

novaRom• 6 years ago

Global warming is more complex. For example, we have extremely cold summer with lowest night temperatures under 10°C even in July (average low of last years is at least 14°C).

mempko• 6 years ago

Worldwide , the summer is one of the hottest on record. It's only colder in parts of North America

alvarlagerlof• 6 years ago

Pretty damn cold here in Sweden too

rangibaby• 6 years ago

So far it’s noticeably cooler and wetter in the main island of Japan compared to the last few years

jacquesm2• 6 years ago

You are confusing weather and climate.

doublesCs2• 6 years ago

You are confusing weather and climate.

As a non-native english speaker, I wasn't aware these were different things, and you didn't clarify. Could you explain the difference insofar as it's related to this conversation? The dictionary didn't help much; they still look like synonyms to me.

Weather[1]

1 : the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness

Climate[2]

1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions

2 : a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b : the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors a climate-controlled office 3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weather

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate

qayxc2• 6 years ago

Sigh. It's local weather versus global climate.

In my country it's quite "cold" (for the season) where I live, whereas just 300km south it's hot summer weather as per usual.

Also saying the summer is extremely cold when it's not even over yet is quite a stretch - there's about 6 weeks left, 4 of which could just as well become hot.

pragmar• 6 years ago

You're right, but the Siberian heatwave is also a weather event. It's contextualized in climate science, but let's play it out. The article says carbon is a 600x likelihood multiplier. That's one region in one season. What is the likelihood of such an event in any region over 4 seasons? These sorts of stories promote misunderstanding of exactly your point.

kilotaras• 6 years ago

Your July experience is very likely just your local weather.

No data for July yet, but June was either 2nd or 3rd warmest on record depending on who reports data (EU Copernicus vs NOAA)

Previous months were:

January - warmest on record February - 2nd warmest March - 2nd warmest April - 2nd warmest, behind by only 0.01 Celcius May - warmest

See https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-maps

SwiftyBug• 6 years ago

It's unbelievable that we're still trying to convince people that human-caused climate change is a fact. We are doomed.

nforest• 6 years ago

At this point, a lot of (maybe even most) skeptics don't believe in man-made climate change simply because they strongly dislike the most prominent speakers against climate change, because they often also have liberal/progressive ideas. They see Bill Nye with his rap about gender and think "that's who thinks we're causing climate change ? I'm not believeing in that." It seems like climate change is a right wing vs left wing debate when it shouldn't be.

glial2• 6 years ago

What’s the solution?

ravenstine2• 6 years ago

Well that and Bill Nye's attempts to convince people of global warming have been totally unscientific, ranging from an "experiment" where he filled a sphere with CO2 and took the temperature, to literally igniting a globe and saying "the planet's on fucking fire".

Putting Nye aside, can anyone name an actually good public educator for climate change? I don't think I know of one that didn't go off the rails.

Then there's all the claims around climate change that simply turn out to be untrue. People said that polar bears were drowning because of global warming, yet the polar bear population isn't struggling to say the least. Glaciers were supposed to melt by now, and when they didn't, the signs that said they would were simply removed. Some cities and small islands were said to be at risk of sinking into the ocean by a decade ago, yet they remain dry. This doesn't even include some of the insane claims made by public servants.

I think that anthropogenic climate change is real, and a problem. But I don't think the average person is an idiot for distrusting what they're being told about it. They're regularly lectured by people who are wrong about climate change over and over again. Inversely to conservatives, most liberals I know don't actually understand science at all but treat it as a religion.

Public science communicators can start by no longer making predictions like "By 2020, there will be no more glaciers here." They've not proven to accurately predict anything at the decade-resolution, so they need to just stop doing it.

cowmoo7282• 6 years ago

We're still convincing a significant portion of the US population that covid-19 is real. Climate change is dramatically harder in two ways:

1. the timescale is decades and centuries, not weeks and months

2. there is a trillion dollar financial interest against fighting climate change

Given what we're seeing with covid-19 and how much harder climate change is to deal with, I'm not optimistic.

colmvp• 6 years ago

When I was younger, I believed all we needed was to give people information to get a better grasp on reality. That was my optimism about the potential good of the internet: the ability to access a wealth of information.

Now that I'm older and have spent a lot of years reading discussion boards, my stance is people will predominantly gravitate towards sources that justify their position regardless of whether their source(s) have been wrong before.

dtwest2• 6 years ago

No, the vast majority of Americans think covid-19 is real. Vox had a poll saying it was in the area of 1%. The issue is many don't want to be forced to wear masks, which is dumb and selfish, but not what you are saying.

Meanwhile as of 2019, over 20% of Americans doubt climate change, a much more significant number. This is far too high in my opinion, but it is steadily improving.

johnsea• 6 years ago

Climate change is hard because nothing easy can be done. We would have to dramatically change our life style, world population would have to decrease.

Don't see a "trillion dollar financial interest", it's the lifestyle of you and me and also the media/politics which both avoid difficult questions (why e.g. allow/encourage migrants from countries with totally irresponsible population dynamics?).

tomp2• 6 years ago

We're still trying to convince people that US police aren't killing blacks more than whites, and that the gender wage gap is a myth.

People will believe what's convenient for them and their lifestyles.

droopyEyelids• 6 years ago

I mean, some of this stuff gets confusing.

Here in Chicago we just had an episode where a white person was selling food by pushing around a little cooler like hispanic people typically do, and we all had to learn that only certain races can do certain types of jobs or else it's appropriation.

The killings thing has to be judged _per capita_ or else you get the wrong answer, and that of course make sense but the way you phrased it, it's tricky.

I think you have to remove the effects of childbearing, hours worked, and type of job to get the gender wage gap to show the real numbers, too.

Life isn't simple.

nabla92• 6 years ago

Climate change skepticism is largely Anglo-Saxon phenomenon. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/news/item/a... It exists in the fringe everywhere but only in the US and some other English speaking countries it's hotly debated issue.

This not by accident. There is a book everyone should know about: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" written by science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

The bottom line is connection between deniers of dangers tobacco smoking, acid rain, DDT, ozone layer hole, and climate skepticism. Small number of core people and think tanks. Physicists like Fred Singer, Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, ... The Heritage Foundation, George C. Marshall Institute,Competitive Enterprise Institute, ... with corporate backers that change with every issue.

nwienert2• 6 years ago

I think you and GP are both presenting a very narrow and biased view here.

The thing is, there’s a huge propaganda machine behind climate change. Backed by Hollywood, politicians everywhere on the left, universities.. there have been lots of distorted and hyperbolic claims made over years and years that didn’t turn out to be true. Lots of politicians making extreme claims that are just obviously false. I’ve personally seen nearing the order of hundreds of exaggerated claims that fall apart if you look in any detail, especially on MSM news sites.

Tons of pressure is put on scientists to match the narrative (multiple Climate scandals over decades where scientists were blackballed for misalignment or caught colluding to fudge numbers to paint a picture they admit they are trying to paint).

Just this year you have two books being published by left leaning scientists who basically say climate change has become a force beyond itself. Both cite data heavily. Both were attacked heavily by the press, or ignored. One was a former activist and leader in the cause originally, used to get a lot of attention and now has his posts literally deleted from Facebook.

To me it’s like this: when you hear the “dumb Americans” going on about climate change and you can’t believe how dumb they have to be to be skeptics... what you need to realize is they saw a lot of smoke, less fire, and they basically are tired of the left puffing the flames of everything they touch. Sure, there’s probably fire there. But how much can we tell? Our universities, the media, a lot of core institutions are actually not trustworthy. Skepticism is not irrational in the face of that.

I’m sure a lot of them would come around to admit some portions of climate change are legit, but it would take some really careful accounting. But they are in their own way calling out what they see as a bigger and more dangerous phenomenon: the distortion of fact gathering and science itself towards political gain. It’s an unfortunate reality. And really it’s hard to argue that isn’t true.

For reference, I am absolutely not a climate denialist but I would say I’ve burst my bubble that it’s so black and white after carefully looking at a lot of research. The main posts are likely true, the models have consistently overestimated our impact, and we focus on the wrong things more often than the real harms.

I totally get why people would be skeptical. Even smart people who have been right in contrarian ways have said exactly what I’m saying (look at Thiel).

So to simplify it down to “stupid righties” is always an error.

thecleaner• 6 years ago

Lets analyse the crowd who we must convince. These are either executives with vested interests who will not be affected by the current crisis or poor and uneducated people who have very little faith in the government or the social system. After all these people have all some point in time needed help from the government which was denied. This is open knowledge that governments are lobbied to pass laws in the interests of corporations. So people tend to lose faith. Same with society. These people have seen that they had to work very hard in life to just scrape by whereas there are others (some very young people) who just coast by. People not believing in climate change is not the problem it is the symptom of a society with very high levels of income inequality and lesser access to tools that lift people out of poverty. The cost of education just keeps rising every year and most manufacturing jobs are gone in post industrial societies. Without the tools to better your life conditions and diminishing access to tools of life improvement, when others ask these people to listen to a warning, of course they refuse.

dang• 6 years ago

Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

stormdennis2• 6 years ago

Seeing kids swimming in a lake in Siberia, they were having a good time at least. Also I'll long have fond memories of the year 2018. Being snowbound for a week (unprecedented here since 1947) and then a long glorious Summer. Bliss. BTW, I don't have a car any more (I've been solely remote working for 5 years), last time I flew was six years ago so yeah I'm doing my bit for the planet but I'm going to enjoy the good it brings and not worry about it.

kiliantics• 6 years ago

The only way we can really "do our bit" is by actively pushing for systemic change, not by making change on an individual level. Because, unless you make it easier for the average human (not the cushy middle class westerner that can work remotely) not to contribute to greater carbon output, it won't make a difference.

Rather than buying long-lasting products as an individuals say (instead of the fast-fashion or planned obsolescence products that most people buy), we could push for legislation that makes those products less available and helps people to buy more natural-resource-efficient-in-the-long-term products. Most people, who are not well off, have no choice but to buy the cheap stuff that breaks soon. Most people have to drive in a carbon-emitting car to work because there is no electrified public transit. Most investors prefer to build products in a cheap way that they can flip fast because it leads to greater returns. Until we can collectively reverse the logic of this system, we will not be "doing our part".

We need to be up in arms and posing real challenges to the people in power that could change this situation, until they do change it sufficiently. Protests have not been working, boycotts have not been working. There are not many options left apart from general strikes or all out revolt. As you can see, the youth have actually understood this and have been on a school strike for nearly 2 years. However, this is not a sufficient threat to those in power and it must grow and include everyone else before we will see meaningful change.

stormdennis2• 6 years ago

I'm not a consumer by nature. I spend less than €100 a year on clothes I'd say, I cut my own hair, I wear clothes over and over till they fall apart, I shower a couple of times a week. I'm not middle class by anything other than mentality maybe. The nearest public transport to me is a bus stop 2 miles away with a few buses per day. I coppice trees grow vegetables. The worst I do for the planet is eat meat and drink milk. To be honest I'm a bit tired of listening to lectures from people who in their own lives are green at the margins but think nothing of taking a flight.

eloff13• 6 years ago

I've been thinking that there are a very small number of countries that will hurt less from climate change, possibly even benefiting on the whole. Canada, Russia, the Nordic countries, maybe Mongolia.

Because these countries have relatively few vulnerable coastal cities, and a lot of land that's too cold to do much with. Yeah some places will get drier, but some will get wetter too (I think overall it gets wetter, but that doesn't mean much to people in areas that turn into deserts.)

Anyway I like to talk to people about it because I've noticed a very visceral reaction among progressives (translation: it gets down-voted on HN) that there could be any "winners" in climate change. It has to be all bad. They might well be right, but I think my point is still valid. Again, I'm not sure these countries will "win" but they'll be relative winners in a game full of negative prizes. If you disagree, engage with me, don't just click on the arrow.

cyberdrunk2• 6 years ago

Canada, Russia, the Nordic countries, maybe Mongolia.

Dunno about others, but the Internet says that Russia is worried about the warming, because it thaws the permafrost, which makes the ground in the cold wilderness unstable, which is very dangerous for all the resource extraction and transportation (pipelines) infrastructure that they have in Siberia. Once the now-rock-solid ground starts turning into a swamp, they will have trouble keeping the infra intact.

eloff13• 6 years ago

Yes, that's likely to happen. In Canada as well. But the cost of doing that seems minor compared to the value of so much forests and cropland expanding northward.

londons_explore• 6 years ago

If you had to rebuild every oil pipeline to be floating on a marsh rather than anchored in permafrost, the cost would be small compared to other numbers in global economics...

faitswulff• 6 years ago

"Win" may be subjective. Is it a win if your land is flooded by refugees or the subject of a land grab or other power plays by a global super power?

eloff13• 6 years ago

I don't see Russia or Canada having to fear that, for different reasons. Canada no doubt will take on many refugees on purpose, as it does now. Russia is untouchable thanks to their strong military and nuclear weapons. Neither border countries likely to have large numbers of climate refugees. Again though, win is relative here. These countries may still lose, just not as badly as everyone else.

jlos• 6 years ago

The historical averages for winters in my part of Canada has been rising for the past century, which I can only say I'm glad about.

However, some provinces, like Alberta, have already had increased insurance prices due to the more drastic weather patterns due to climate change. It's not a coastal province, but hail, floods, and fires are still extremely expensive.

eloff13• 6 years ago

Yes, more extreme weather effects will be bad. But it will be worse in other countries (think hurricanes and typhoons, monsoons, etc). I think that supports my point of relative winners.

jamil7• 6 years ago

We can only speculate. But we live in a globalised world so the countries you mention may suffer indirectly due to disrupted supply chains from water and food shortages and conflicts in countries hit harder. You then also have mass migrations of climate refugees flocking to areas with less extreme weather conditions.

eloff13• 6 years ago

Yes, but again, that makes them relative winners.

swiley2• 6 years ago

It seems strange that people aren’t buying more arctic coastal land as an investment IMO.

On the other hand it’s pretty hard to figure out who to buy it from and you’re literally betting on a combination of weather and geopolitics which seems a bit irresponsible.

jobigoud• 6 years ago

It seems strange that people aren’t buying more arctic coastal land as an investment IMO.

The rise in sea levels will be global though.

eloff13• 6 years ago

I think the majority of climate change effects are too slow to be able to invest in those trends. I've given that quite a bit of thought. Demographic investment is likely to payoff much sooner and has an even better "predictable results" quality to it.

lxmorj• 6 years ago

A great Canadian songwriter once wrote - “If you chose not to decide you still have made a choice”.

Capital needs somewhere to park, and it all come with risk. I don’t know a company that will be immune to the direct effects of climate change and the secondary geopolitical effects. How is land purchasing differently responsible than any other investment?

If that land may go up in value in the future, plenty of the current owners may be quite happy to realize some of that gain now with 100% certainty by selling to speculators.

screye• 6 years ago

Canada, Russia, Mongolia

To be fair, if you look at it from a land mass point of view, then it is far more land than 3 countries would imply.

Additionally, climate has a lot to be with more frequent unpredictable extremes. In the sense, you are right, that these countries will only be 'relative winners in a game full of negative prizes'.

Balgair• 6 years ago

Unfortunately, Mercator projection strikes again.

Though there is a lot of 'unused' land near the poles, there is still a lot of 'used' land near the equator. But map projections distort this, as all 3D-2D projections must.

Here's an example: https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/0...

Africa is set to grow to ~4B people by 2099, India to ~2B, by 2099. Those 'unused' areas my find a use one way or another.

fatbird• 6 years ago

I live in Vancouver, which is projected to get warmer and dryer, which any Vancouverite will tell you is a win. It's not that beneficial outcomes aren't possible, but it's not about specific wins, it's the overall outcome. In Vancouver, almost no one has air conditioning and most of the new housing is glass-walled condos that turn into ovens in the summar already. We already have sky-high rent and property values, so increasing the desirability of the lower mainland will only exacerbate the housing crisis.

Vancouver is a coastal city, so warmer weather will be paired with rising sea levels for which we haven't built. Forest fires have been a problem every summer in BC for the last decade. The mountain pine beetle has already been decimating our forests; previously they were held in check by cold winters, which are now a thing of memory and likely not to return any time soon.

And that's just Vancouver, BC. The prairies, breadbasket of Canada, have been seesawing between summers of drought and flooding.

It's not that there won't be some "winners", it's that the overall outcome is almost certainly more grim, at least in the short term, than the status quo.

eloff13• 6 years ago

I also live in Vancouver.

One could take the stance that climate change brings lots of change, and adjusting to change is painful, therefore mostly we lose.

Still I think none of that defeats my point that Canada will be a relative winner compared to other countries.

eggy• 6 years ago

I remember years ago this came up as a way for Russia (then the USSR) to increase its food supply as Siberia becomes a breadbasket, but more importantly more water freed up too. Yes, some coastal areas will have to move inland, and others may have drought, but there will be positives and negatives. The real question is what will the net result be, more negative than positive or vice versa?

eloff13• 6 years ago

Yeah, impossible to say. But it could be more positive, that's at least part of the realm of possibilities.

mhh__• 6 years ago

down-voted on HN

But HN is very "right wing" compared to say to say twitter or most subreddits.

And There may be some winners, but there may also be deaths and movement of people beyond any genocide ever seen.

eloff13• 6 years ago

That may well be true, but it's also aside from the point.

sershe• 6 years ago

This reminded me of my last Civ 6 game with Gathering Storm (an expansion that introduced disasters and global warming that can be extremely destructive...

1) Set disasters to maximum, map to old (flat), and with non-trivial amount of ocean.

2) Rush to flood barriers.

3) Build flood barriers while they are cheap (or ally the city-state that allows buying them with faith).

4) Burn coal until everybody drowns ;)

me_me_me• 6 years ago

Russia

Russia has nuclear power plants built on permafrost. You don't need foundations and cooling is easy, but...

Permafrost that is no longer perma and soon not even frost is a massive problem.

mtgp1000• 6 years ago

In places such as Siberia, a hotter climate can have devastating effects, not just on the local wildlife and people who live there, but also on the world’s climate system as a whole, for example through thawing permafrost, reduced snow cover and melting ice.

My biggest issue with climate alarmism is that sources universally consider only the negative outcomes of climate change. Thawing permafrost also opens up an enormous amount of arable and habitable land. Some species will benefit from warmer temperatures and extended ranges (and that's not just insects).

Not to mention that neither the change or the rate is unprecedented according to geologic data.

The world is very unlikely to end, human migration and economic impact will be gradual (≈100) years, and people need to consider that mitigation of climate change at this point is also not "free" when they ask people to go vegan (yeah, right).

fokinsean• 6 years ago

I saw this theory floating around. Haven't done much research but it sounds "plausible". Could Siberia warming be due to the ocean around it heating? The magnetic poles have been moving increasingly faster towards Siberia in the last few years. These poles move because of underground streams of the molten core deep below. Could these new flows potentially heat the earth's surface and the ocean above?

Siberian heatwave of 2020 almost impossible without climate change

Related Stories