by binarymax
2 subcomments
- We have a cherry blossom tree. It bloomed a week earlier than last year. We’re not in Kyoto but I did notice and it’s a bit strange. I also noticed some other blossoming trees that typically bloom for about a week, went green after 3 days.
by morkalork
4 subcomments
- A dataset curated by humans, spanning over a thousand years, is awe inspiring on its own. The first person to record their observation must have had no idea what they started. Are there others like this?
- So it's a reformatted version of: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/date-of-the-peak-cherry-t...
- It’s because things are going great, right? Right?
- This title is not true, they are blooming earlier than the earliest average.
The nature of an average is that it smooths out peaks.
by 1234letshaveatw
1 subcomments
- My fruit trees bloomed later this year. It has been a cold spring in my corner of the Midwest, colder on average and we are dropping below freezing the next few nights :(
- >Latest peak ever May 4 year 1323
What would have happened to cause that late of a bloom?
- It's entirely possible that modern horticultural techniques are resulting in the trees going dormant earlier, accumulating the required chill hours, and then breaking dormancy earlier. It's quite likely that the care of the trees has changed substantially from 1900 onward.
by childofhedgehog
0 subcomment
- I had visited to see the cherry blossoms in 2017 and felt that we were going too early but actually made it for the peak. It’s scary how quickly the dates are shifting.
I wonder what impact the earlier blooms have on the trees over the coming years, as this does not seem to be natural.
by globular-toast
0 subcomment
- Looks like this has been true since about 1960.
- Trees often bloom based on the surrounding climate and conidtions. Warmer bursts in early spring lead to early blossoms.
by cf100clunk
0 subcomment
- See also
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47721771
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47811668
by 21asdffdsa12
0 subcomment
- And the world changes away from oil- all it takes is two wars.
With one third to come, because the world kept regions economically afloat with energy subsidies for oil, which can not be stable without that.
And with that global warming, we have a nice little buffer against events that could cause a rapid cool down. Exterior caused like asteroid strikes and interior caused like regional nuclear exchanges. And nobody asked us, nobody consulted us, nobody explained anything to us and we land incredibly well with local minimum hell. The Delusional people deluding themselves about human nature can even continue to delude themselves further.
Its a disaster, but of all the worlds and all the disaster, its the best disaster.
by yeah879846
0 subcomment
- Now this is climate science I can get behind.
- Don't worry though guys, climate change isn't real. /s
1200 years is a serious timescale, I think humans generally struggle reasoning about long durations or very vast distances. Which leads to them instead postulating how all these other more present, more recent and nearer things can be to blame when what you really need to do is zoom out (in space and/or time).
by andrewstuart
0 subcomment
- [flagged]
- [flagged]
- Really disappointing first parse of the comments.
My average comment quality is pretty terrible, but these are on par.
by gla67890543
0 subcomment
- Global warming or global climate change? No mainstream media is talking about it now.
- 1200 years ago Kyoto was a small village. Not it is 3 million city with lots of concrete and asphalt. Cities are usually hot spots unlike small villages.
So what have changed?
by carabiner
5 subcomments
- Many factors in this. Heat islands from urbanization in Kyoto, different species bred for earlier blooming, etc.
Hacker News