Good day, everyone.
Quite some time have passed since my last post here. Interesting things happened in Arctic, namely large increase in ice's volume and extent since August 2013 (relative to same periods of 2012, that is). One thing i suspect, - but can't prove, - is that a big geoengineering effort started in Arctic in early August 2013. An attempt to "re-freeze" it, so to say. Nearly two years ago, i've seen one excerpt out of one "not meant to be public" talk between some few Arctic specialists (scientists), discussing dynamics of Arctic ice retreat, and one of them mentioned that "we have to to start it" no later than 2013, otherwise "it" would definitely have "no significant chance of success". I never had a chance to learn what "it" he was talking about is, - but it is difficult to imagine anything else other than large geo-engineering process of some sort, given the context.
If this is the case, then 2014 might continue re-freezing. I say "might" - and not "will", - because of current (very high) methane readings in Arctic. Relatively recent estimate by Shakhova says that conservative figure for ESAS alone is 17 teragrams (megatons) of methane annually; seeing massive methane concentrations between Norwegia and Greenland this Novermber, which are definitely times more intense, in terms of amount of methane emissions, than what happened during November within ESAS, i tend to think that for whole Arctic, the figure is much above 100 teragrams annually for 2013 and onwards. If this doubles or triples in 2014, - which i guess is possible due to near-bottom temperature in shallow (<100 meters) waters getting much above methane hydrate stability maximum (due to mixing), thus destabilizing methane hydrates which are close to the sea floor - then even massive geoengineering effort in Arctic could be either weakened, or completely negated by additional methane-induced warming.
But, if 2014 will have methane emissions comparable to 2013, then i guess that any significant re-freezing geo-engineering done there during 2014 - will result in further re-freezing (possibly well above 2007's levels), which would - for me, at least, - be a clear confirmation that large geo-engineering action is going on in Arctic.
Both bad and good consequences are to happen out of any massive "let's cool it down!" geo-engineering done in Arctic. The most obvious good is that Earth - and in particular, our technological civilization, - gets more time before collapse. Our species gets better chance to avoid complete extinction. Nice, isn't it. One of bad things, though, is exactly same as the former above: more time before collapse of modern technological civilization - means even more damage, total, which said civilization will inflict upon biosphere of Earth. One other bad thing, - assuming that Arctic geo-engineering effort will be kept secret from vast majority of Earth human population, - is that Arctic re-freezing (artificially caused by geo-engineering) would be a major argument in hands of climate-change-deniers.
Meanwhile, none other than IEA recently released their estimate for observable future temperature rise (in their annual report for 2013). It's very much about quite "worst" scenarios becoming truth: IEA says we are likely to get to +3.6C by 2035 (
http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/iea-world-energy-outlook-highlights-energy-sector-trends-predicts-3-6c-temperature-increase/ ). This basically equates to shutdown of vast majority of existing industries and collapse of most of civilization by ~2040 at latest (both magnitude and _speed_ of this sort of change are improtant; modern global civ could probably survive +3.6C warming if it'd be over, say, 300 years; but over 30 years, it is very unlikely to survive as a whole). It might happen earlier, of course, due to ongoing, increasing instability in politics and economics (which when things get bad equals military action, up to nuclear-weapons conflicts). Pakistan, which was already hit by massive disasters (repeated catastrophic floods) - is a nuclear-armed country, for example.
And to comment earlier post,
I'd agree it's certainly a good time to be preparing, given the extensive efforts and timescales and resource requirements of serious plans. It ought to also be noted that the human environment of existing societies is very hostile (albeit in some measure unintentionally so) to any serious planning for continuity by minor (ie average person or citizen) actors. Most people are bound by laws that will essentially seriously degrade their prospects if they comply.
...
Indeed, time to prepare - is now. And i agree with you about "most people"; however, not primarily because of reason you gave - bound by laws, - but primarily because of the other reason: namely, that most people - are not fit to become part of small "survivors" societies. Small relative to present 7-billlions population, that is. Presently existing in "developed" and also much in "developing" countries (already) culture of consumption - should i say, mindless consumption, - renders "most people" being unable to overcome difficulties and challenges of existance in lower-tech, hard-work societies (which surviving "oases" of civilization will inevitably be). In other words, "most people" existing - are too weak. "Good quality of life", so long being a goal and feature of "modern societies", - weakens most of us. Both physically but most importantly, intellectually. Yet, this all does not reduce the validity of my earlier post, in my opinion - because survival of "oases" of civilization is not about "most people" at all; it is very minority, relatively very few people, who are needed to make it happen. "Minor actors" who "plan for continuity" - if among them are ones smart enough to plan _properly_ - i.e. effectively, in a way which will indeed work, - then these ones are also smart enough to circumvent the law. This includes doing most, or even all, preparations in a very subtle, secret manner. Like the author of "Beyond Collapse: Surviving and Rebuilding Civilization from Scratch" puts it, - don't tell about preparations to your friends, don't even tell your family, don't even tell any much to anybody who is helping you to prepare; reveal only bits and pieces which you absolutely need to reveal; disquise your preparations as going to picnics, as "innocent" hobbies, as sport activities, etc.
...
Given that is the case, I'm not sure it's really time to start moving on such a scale - one could spend the extra time before collapse refining preparation and improving ones prospects, whereas as soon as you start to move you will add extensive drag to your operations - even if you somehow have the means to obtain a location to move to and to support yourself there. It is of course very hard to select any single location that will be empirically viable, and hence I prefer the idea of being mobile (at least initially).
...
In my earlier post, i was talking about "moving out" as a society, - dozens thousands (or more) humans from all corners of the globe, ones both willing and able to live humbly and to get through much trouble, for the sake of surviving through incoming thermal maximum, - forming a number of settlements which will intentionally be designed to be self-sustainable (thus relatively low, ~19th-century on average, level of technologies), durable, remote and protected against most threats (both human-made and environmental threats). You here talk about individual survival. On this level - yes, of course, mobility is the key. Without exceptional ability to travel, individual / family's chances to survive during collapse of modern civiliazation - are very close to zero. But, where you expect to settle down (sooner or later, you'll _need_ to settle down, as every known mobility methods is finite)? In a wilderness? Not a good idea; you and yours would end up doing just Lykovs did at best, - surviving for a few decades, gradually losing your intellectual and reproducing abilities, eventually dying out. No. You'll _need_ to get part of some larger group of humans. Settled group. I.e., you'll need to join some society. There are two possibly beginnings for such a society: it's either starts before the collapse of modern global civilization, or it starts after it. We can hope the latter is possible, but we can't count on it: it's always much harder to settle a new village / town / region than to just maintain already existed settlement, specially having no already-functioning settlements supporting you. Famous settlers in North America - conquerors of the "wild west" in USA, - we backed up by quite productive "east"; first european settles in North America - were supported by much settled Europe (both the case with Vikings and with guys like Columb); etc. In a post-collapse world, such support is likely to be absent. This is one of the reasons i say it's really needed to have some "designed to survive collapse of global civilization" places way before collapse happens. Another reason to it - is higher overall level of technologies and better overall security, resource base and social structure, all possible to create and maintain if "survivors' " societies are to be found well before the collapse, rather than after. Because, it's definitely easier to create a functioning society / permanent agriculture / security / etc while still having all the modern means of travel, communication, industrial power, - than without those.
Sure thing, no matter whether such societies will be created before collapse or not, - relatively large number of humans will manage through initial stages of collapse. In the worst case, all survivors (of the collapse) will go through such a phase. So yes, preparation for it is important and needed. And yes, moving out to some remote location right now as an individual (or as a family) - seems yet premature as of now. But time to start building up places and infrastructures for future "oases of remaining civilization" - is, in my opinion, already now. Perhaps, some few places are already being built, too - for example, re-purposed from "good old days" Yamantau (
http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/mount-yamantau-is-russia-preparing-for-the-unthinkable-t652.html ). Note, this (and some other) sources say it's about 60.000 people; according to one of my sources (which i am not willing to share here), correct figure is 40.000 people in full autonomy for half a year; 60.000 is max possible number of inhabitants in an event of much shorter (than half a year) autonomous housing.
