Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - retiredbill

Pages: [1]
1
Permafrost / Re: This is not good.
« on: September 14, 2014, 03:17:11 AM »
Bruce, thanks for your insights. Of course, using draft animals during
a drought doesn’t make sense. I was assuming the use of inexpensive pasture land
but was concerned about the competition of using the same land for growing food. Is
there much land that can best be used for pasture?

If I understand your position on agricultural technology, there will be sufficient PV panels,
electric motors,  biodiesel-powered tractors, etc. to last around 100 years. Plenty of time
to replenish a stock of draft animals. I don't know about other transportation needs. I
envision a rapid decline in cars, trucks, railroads. But there may be sufficient leeway to
replace them with animals.

2
Permafrost / Re: This is not good.
« on: September 03, 2014, 09:12:57 AM »
Bruce Steele, also off-subject, but in Reply #72 you mentioned you had 2 horses. Do you use them for utilitarian purposes? In another thread I wondered if horses could be used for agriculture/transportation post-collapse as they had been before invention of the internal combustion engine.

3
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 30, 2014, 12:54:49 AM »
Cars and trucks, as well as boats and other forms of personal transportation have been mentioned
in several threads. However, internal combustion engines using fossil fuel have only been
around for a hundred years or so. Prior to that, horses (and mules, donkeys, etc.) were the
main means people used to get around.

When the collapse of civilization occurs, what happens to personal transportation? Today there are
only a small number of horses around. How long will it take to increase their numbers? And since
hunger will be a major problem, will draft animals instead be killed for food? Up until collapse, fertile land
will be used for human food, not for the feed necessary to raise horses.

I wonder if any form of agriculture will be possible without the use of animals. Another reason to think
 that life post-collapse may be subsistence-based.

4
The politics / Re: Empire - America and the future
« on: August 08, 2014, 11:38:48 AM »
Were it not for empire building, wouldn't it make sense to give Ukraine to Russia? Ukraine has
some nice farm land but is a basket-case financially. Let Russia spend it's money keeping
Ukraine afloat.

5
Science / Re: Mauna Loa CO2
« on: April 23, 2014, 06:26:01 AM »
I'll ask this question here for want of a better thread:
 Is there a website which reports CO2 equivalents like NOAA's ESRL does for CO2?
I've seen 450 ppm mentioned but haven't had any success with Google finding a site.
Thanks, Bill

6
Thanks for the reply, Bruce. I should have looked in the sea ice forum to begin with. Or searched
 for the term "arctic vortex".

7
Arctic background / What airflow, if any, is replacing the Arctic vortex?
« on: February 07, 2014, 03:07:11 AM »
This winter, much cold air is entering the northern US from the Arctic vortex. It seems that some airflow must
 be replacing the cold air entering the US. Where is the flow entering the Arctic and what effect
 is it having since it has to be warm? Or is the flow so small overall that it is having no appreciable effect
 on the Arctic?

Thanks, Bill

8

...

Now the times up. No more ff for you. I'm cutting you off cold turkey. Those few areas that have gone a long way toward getting the energy they need from non-fossil sources will feel the least pain from this immediate halt of this energy source.

...

I've thought alot about what would happen if we actually did go cold turkey on ff. Utter chaos would
result in the US and most other developed countries. It would be like a natural diaster on a national
scale. Millions of people would starve because they did not have refrigerators and could not cook food.
They could not drive to grocery stores. Grocery stores could not open without electricity. Police and
firemen could not respond to emergencies.
 
No health care. No communciations. But plenty of death and destruction. All of the consequences of
CC expected by 2100 crammed into a few weeks or months.

9
Walking the walk / Re: The Crux of Rapid Collapse
« on: August 29, 2013, 07:56:11 PM »
I'll second, or third, the sentiments of ritter about the existence of others who
also see the end of our technological civilization. A while back, I was wondering if I was
the only one and made a few posts about the inevitable future. Since then, I've almost
stopped posting because many people had been more concise and reasoned on
the topic e.g. JimD who has clearly devoted much thought to the subject.

As to carrying capacity, I think the more primitive the present-day life style, the
closer the population is to the limit. Inuits and aboriginals will suffer less from CC
then most other people, unless the Inuits don't get wiped out by sea level rise or
the disappearance of ice and the wildlife the ice supports.

10
Policy and solutions / Re: Future Governmental Structures
« on: August 19, 2013, 12:33:40 AM »

I just came across an article discussing the Muslim refugee problem coming out of Myanmar.


There was a segment on the refugee problem on the Newshour last week.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/rohingya_08-15.html

People would pay for safe passage out and then be held for ransom on some island. Those who couldn't
pay ransom would be sold as slaves on fishing boats.

But how many such situations are due to climate change and how many to religious persecution
not related to climate change? Or ongoing practices brought to light by modern communications? I'm
not sure we can tell unless the causative factor is crop failure or sea level encroachment. I'm reminded
of the saying that everything looks like a nail to someone with a new hammer.

11
The rest / Re: Verbal images of the Breakdown in Greece
« on: August 17, 2013, 12:50:13 PM »
I, too, didn't think Greece has shown much violence. But then I get most of my international news from CNN, BBC World News America and the PBS Newshour.  People in Greece haven't started going hungry due to climate change. That should up the ante when it happns.

While we are talking about Europe, I'm waiting to hear more about the effects of climate change on Venice. How much longer will it remain viable aa a city?

12
The forum / Re: [Solved] How to embed a video ?
« on: August 17, 2013, 12:32:05 PM »
I thought video embedding was working - at least - I used to see plenty of video clips (eg to Youtube embedded within posts).

Now I just see a reserved blank spot - in Firefox? Did something stop working or get switched off? Or is it just me?

I'm using Firefox (22.0) and I can view the video in #19 above just fine...

13
Consequences / Re: Highly unlikely Worst Case Scenarios
« on: August 10, 2013, 12:06:02 AM »

I'm glad my casual interest in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice brought me to this blog. The
other threads have got me to focus my thinking on the future effects of climate change.

It makes no difference whether Sen. Inhofe is a CC change denier or a CC believer. It makes
no difference whether the XL Pipeline is built or disapproved. It makes no difference
whether someone drills for oil in the Arctic or doesn't.

The standard of living as defined by most Americans is in for a catastrophic decline and
nothing is going to change it. Theoretically people could do something to mitigate
the destruction. But no one will because no one has started to take effective action to
reduce CO2 emissions. If a concerted effort had been undertaken 20 years ago, or even
10 years ago, then we would not be in the predicament we are in today.

It's true that 7, or 8, or 9 billion people will die of starvation or illness or destruction in the next 50
years. Or 100 years. Or 150 years.

Now that the long, broad future is clear, we can get back to discussing the short, narrow future.
How many thousands of electric cars will sell in the next 10 years. How many mega-watts of
solar electricity will be generated in the next 20 years.

I've been composing my thoughts over the past several days. Yesterday, Tnioli posted his take
on what will happen in the immediate future. It joins other postings with a common theme:
the destruction of everyday life as we know it.

Now that I've had my say, I feel better. Back to our regularly scheduled programming. Let some
optimistic people continue searching for answers.

14
The forum / Re: test message
« on: July 17, 2013, 03:18:49 AM »
Testing posting a new message without separately logging in to the forum.

15
Suppose Obama had given the speech most of us would have written? He would only have raised
the ire of Congress and naysayers. Same result. Too little, too late. I'm more interested in whether
Obama DOES anything. Too often in the past, about too many topics, he gives a great speech
and never follows up with action.
I'm waiting for him to run the White House on 100% alternative energy...

16
Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 22, 2013, 04:25:24 AM »
I have been writing from the viewpoint of an American, being that I am a US citizen
and have never spent time abroad. It may true that a severe drop in living
standards won't devastate people in some other countries. They may stoically put
up with a new life style. And even in the US, after a few generations the people
may forget about the past high standard of living and come to expect a hunter/gatherer
existence as a new 'normal'. Youngsters today may think it inconceivable that people
lived without computers, TV sets, central heating, electricity, and automobiles. 200
years ago, none of these would have been missed.

I credit this tread with giving me insight into how other cultures may adapt to climate
change. It really doesn't matter whether the population of the planet is 7 billion or 1 million
people. Life with go on, in some fashion or other. It might look bad to us now, but we won't be
alive to regret it.


17
Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 19, 2013, 12:38:36 AM »

As per what I wrote in #76 - what would you tell a younger person like me to do, given you're telling me you personally are not prepared to make any real sacrifices to give us a future? Can you see the dangers in the message being sent out here - by both nations and individuals?

I wouldn't tell you what to do, since you know your age and beliefs. If I was 50, I'd act differently than
if I was 25. Basically, the younger I was, the more action I would take e.g. moving to a place
less likely to be impacted if I was 25. The dangerous message being sent out by most nations and
individuals is that climate change is either not happening or future generations will be able to cope
with it.

18
Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 18, 2013, 09:51:10 PM »
Rather than go to the trouble of quoting a previous message, I'll paraphrase:

People took actions on CFCs so action on climate change is possible.

True, but there was almost no cost or inconvenience to reducing CFCs. The change was less
than switching from incandescent bulbs to CFLs or LEDs. People may accept a 1 or 2 MPG
mandated automotive efficiency improvement, but they will not forgo gas-powered cars voluntarily.

We shouldn't think that just because people are willing to make small, ineffective changes,
they will also be willing to reduce their standard of living appreciably. Change in attitudes will
come, but not quickly enough. It took more than 20 years to reduce smoking in the US and
cigarettes were actually killing and damaging a large number of people.

19
Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 18, 2013, 07:50:14 AM »
It would be nice if laws were passed and people felt a moral responsibility for
climate change.

It would be even nicer if 10 years ago laws were passed and people took effective
action to reduce climate change.

But without a compelling reason, people are not going to do much. By the time people
are forced to do something in response to the destruction caused by change,
it will be too late to avoid collapse of civilization. Optimists are free to hope for the
invietable not to happen.

20
Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 16, 2013, 11:27:01 PM »
So how do we overcome denial? I don't think we can. There are too few
of us who are willing to sacrifice our standard of living to try and
convince others of the validity of science and climate change. I know
that I won't do anything that will impact my standard of living. I'm
65 and I don't believe that there will be major impacts from climate
change until around 2050 or 2075. If I was only 25, I sure would look
at things differently and would have begun preparing by now.

So why won't you do anything that would impact your standard of living? As you say - for those of us who are younger, we face a future where it is very hard to see how our standard of living won't be impacted far worse than anyone today would need to accept in the name of a solution (excepting that once you're dead, I'm not sure standard of living applies.


The American dream is a high standard of living. Americans don't want their living standard reduced unless
 we are directly attacked e.g. rationing was accepted during WWII because of Pearl Harbor. Since almost
 no one else is voluntarily reducing their standard, I feel no compunction to do otherwise. By the time we
 feel attacked by climate change, it will be too late to take effective action. The 'attack' will not take place
 until  after I'm dead.

21
Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 11, 2013, 05:39:07 AM »
We believe that climate change will cause major disruption
to our standard of living and will impact mankind adversely.
We also wonder why people don't listen to us and take corrective
action while there is still time.

Other people believe that the world is going to end soon and some
even predict specific days and times. We scoff at these people and
say they are 'unscientific'. But they still believe that the world
is going to end.

Perhaps the general populace looks at us the same way that we look
at doomsayers. We think the difference is that we know science is on
our side. We have faith in science that many other people may not have.

So how do we overcome denial? I don't think we can. There are too few
of us who are willing to sacrifice our standard of living to try and
convince others of the validity of science and climate change. I know
that I won't do anything that will impact my standard of living. I'm
65 and I don't believe that there will be major impacts from climate
change until around 2050 or 2075. If I was only 25, I sure would look
at things differently and would have begun preparing by now.

By 2040/2050, when the number and severity of climate events will get
the attention of enough people to make a difference, it will be too
late to avoid collapse of our technological civilization. There are no
effective mitigating strategies once the tipping point has been passed.
Those people still living will have to hope that our species will not go extinct.

22
Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: April 06, 2013, 07:53:18 AM »

I'm curious - if the vast majority of humanity is to die off within the coming decades (and in my projection a majority within half a decade or less) - if you are one of the ones who dies, do you care whether the species is extinct or not? Isn't it your personal doomsday anyway?

I consider total extinction an outlier scenario only likely to be triggered by something like truly apocalyptic methane feedback. I am not aware of any good science giving me a clear picture on how likely this is, and also lack any other information to try to infer from. I'm assuming it to be an essentially unlikely scenario on that basis - but this link seems to have quite a lot of stuff (arguably a bit speculative in places) about it:

http://killerinourmidst.com/

So very worst case is loss of the ozone layer, large releases of hydrogen sulphide (as toxic as hydrogen cyanide) from anoxic oceans, and a question about the oxygen content of the atmosphere. Theoretically there might be paleoclimatic precedent to get the world to a state where survival is literally impossible everywhere - but - I have no reasons to expect it to be a likely out come - and even if it was - so what? It's a contradiction in terms to plan for extinction.

I'm 65 so I likely have only 20 +/- 5 years left. I certainly don't expect to be around the 40
years until the dire effects of climate change begin to become evident. If I was only 20, I'd
seriously have to plan my life with change in mind. And I don't know what my mindset would
be facing a future of adversity instead of betterment.

I don't expect humans to go extinct. But to those who are used to a technologically comfortable
life, living a subsistance lifestyle might seem to be a doomsday scenario.

23
Consequences / Re: Best case scenarios - Be optimistic!
« on: April 06, 2013, 03:30:23 AM »
Holding to the spirit of the thread (and not being sarcastic again because there
is no sarcastic smiley here), the best we can hope for is a series of volcanic eruptions,
each of which will cool the planet for a period of time.
 
Having enough people decide to take effective action to actually mitigate the effects
of climate change would be like the US Conference of Catholic Bishops declare
that God didn't exist. Possible, but highly improbable.

24
Consequences / Re: Best case scenarios - Be optimistic!
« on: April 05, 2013, 02:07:46 PM »
God takes pity on us and removes all excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  He refills the
aquafiers with fresh, clean water and dissociates toxic waste and spent nuclear fuel. He then
sits back and watches us f_*k things up again...

25
Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: April 05, 2013, 12:00:05 PM »
( beginning of posting deleted)

I've spectulated that humans will be reduced to hunter/gatherer status
in around 200 years. Technology will vanish when the abundant food, energy
and natural resources required to sustain it disappear. By the time people
get around to seriously replacing fossil fuel with renewable energy, it will
be too late to prevent a dystopia.

That is quite a conservative timescale.

200 may be too long, but I don't think it will be less than 100. It will take that long for
oceans to rise 10 feet, which will be necessary to stifle international trade.

Changing tact slightly, 'doomsday' is mentioned in various posts. Is doomsday the extinction
of the human race? Or only starvation of 6 or 7 billion people? I think humans will survive in
a few scattered pockets, but I don't consider that outcome to be doomsday. Doomsday to
me would be the extinction of the human race.

26
Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: April 04, 2013, 11:45:25 PM »
A fascinating thread...

When we stop burning fossil fuels, what will we use to grow more food than we produce
today? How will we transport food to population centers? Isolated areas will always
be able to grow food for local inhabitants. But where will the goods and services
those inhabitants need come from? Isolated areas don't have hospitals or heavy industry, either. 

I haven't heard the term "High Tunnels" before but they appear to be similiar
to small greenhouses or large cold frames. Will the locals be able to produce
the plastic required for the tunnels? Or any required metal fixtures?

I've spectulated that humans will be reduced to hunter/gatherer status
in around 200 years. Technology will vanish when the abundant food, energy
and natural resources required to sustain it disappear. By the time people
get around to seriously replacing fossil fuel with renewable energy, it will
be too late to prevent a dystopia.

Pages: [1]