Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese


Forum Home Forum Home > General Discussion > General Discussion > Off Topic Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - sixth mass extinction event
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Online Discussion: Tracking new emerging diseases and the next pandemic.

sixth mass extinction event

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Online
Points: 13886
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2017 at 3:20pm
Yes Fukushima still throwing out Millions of Rads ,everyday ,who Knows what damage on a cellular level 

thats doing not only to Humans, but to the wildlife,

i expecting Goddizzila to pop out of the Ocean ,

sorry if that seems a little Light hearted ,

but i am serious.......
12 monkeys!!!!!
Back to Top
Dutch Josh View Drop Down
Senior Adviser Group
Senior Adviser Group


Joined: May 01 2013
Location: Arnhem-Netherla
Status: Offline
Points: 23832
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dutch Josh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 13 2017 at 10:33pm
https://paulbeckwith.net/2017/07/14/abrupt-climate-mayhem-now-in-spite-of-main-stream-climatologist-posturing/ Paul Beckwith getting angry about scientists with all the pieces of the puzzle refusing to do their job. 


Of course less pressure from land-ice on Greenland and Antarctica means that that landmass will rise up-causing seismicpressure. Under Antarctica-proberbly also Greenland-may be volcanic areas that will get more active causing (sharp) increase in melt. 

In a worse case scenario sealevelrise globally could be "significant" in 24 hours after a major volcanic eruption in those areas. Glaciers/iceplates giving way will mean more landice moving faster into the ocean. 

Most nuclear reactors-needing cooling water-will get effected by climate change (drought=lack of cooling=fire, flooding=faillure of cooling mechanisms, radiation leak). 

I do not want to think to much about the future-lets enjoy the present !
Que sera, sera, Whatever will be, will be, The future is not ours to see, Que sera, sera !
Back to Top
FluMom View Drop Down
Senior Admin Group
Senior Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: February 11 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 17391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FluMom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 14 2017 at 9:20pm
Guys it is all due to too many people. Climate change and the rest of it is due to too many people. If we had a killer flu or something like that the world would be just fine.

I look at electric cars that are good for the environment and that electricity has to come from somewhere...coal, nuke, gas. Wind would be the only eclectic power that is clean and there is not enough of that.

So until we kill a bunch of people all over the world we will have problems.
Always Be Prepared
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 23755
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2017 at 2:19am
Exactly!

Earth can, and does, heal from most things we do.  The big problems come from our numbers: it just can't heal fast enough.

We really do need a seriously nasty flu though.  There are about ten time as many of us as this planet can take.  It would have been better had we kept our numbers down by not breeding so much, by far the kinder option.  But, as we are not that smart, we can either die in huge numbers, ................................................... or die out.

What a stupid, unpleasant species we are.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
Dutch Josh View Drop Down
Senior Adviser Group
Senior Adviser Group


Joined: May 01 2013
Location: Arnhem-Netherla
Status: Offline
Points: 23832
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dutch Josh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2017 at 5:12am
Most of the enviromental damage is done by a small group. About 10% of the people can be blamed for 90% of the damage. So it is a small group of people flying a lot, making a lot of miles in dirty cars, eating a lot of meat etc....that need to change their habbits !

We do not need flu, or IS, or anything else drastic to spread dead and destruction ! Just common sense can do most !

Personaly I feel that keeping the number of children limited is taking responsibility for their future. When you want to have children (and can get them) they deserve the best. 
Que sera, sera, Whatever will be, will be, The future is not ours to see, Que sera, sera !
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Online
Points: 13886
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2017 at 4:25pm
to much carbon in the atmosphere,is the problem, 

all the worlds GREATEST minds should be put together ,

in  the desert somewhere maybe in the Middle of Australia ,we could call it 

"Save Manhatten Project"

my point is they did it to produce a weapon that kills 100,000s

so instead of writing books on Quantum this or that  which wont mean jacks...t if the planet is unliveable get on with saving the planet we all call home ,

ill kick it off ,how about venting the Co2 into space theres a great big vacume cleaner out there 

a ring of satalites with graphene tubes that suck out the CO2 and vent it into space.....

or maybe we should just grow more trees ,and stop mining the dead forrests for fuel.....





 


12 monkeys!!!!!
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Online
Points: 13886
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2017 at 5:45pm

Earth could become ‘practically ungovernable’ if sea levels keep rising, says former Nasa climate chief

Professor Jim Hansen says a carbon tax in which the proceeds were given to the public would leave the poorest 70 per cent better off

web-miami-aerial-get.jpgLow-lying Miami is particularly prone to flooding Getty

The Earth could become “practically ungovernable” because of sea level rise, Nasa’s former head of climate research, Professor James Hansen, has warned.

Professor Hansen, who was among the first scientists to alert politicians and the public to the risks posed by climate change, told New York Magazine that he doubted the atmosphere would warm by four or five degrees Celsius by the end of this century – the upper end of current projections, which would likely end human civilisation as we know it.

However he said the biggest problem would be sea level rise. Professor Hanson was an author of a scientific paper published last year which warned that continued high fossil fuel emissions could increase sea levels by “several meters over a timescale of 50 to 150 years”.

This is significantly higher than the latest expert report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which forecast a range from about 30cm to just under a metre, depending on emissions.

Asked to consider what the world would be like if the “scarier” projections of climate change for the end of the century became reality, Professor Hansen, former director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: “I don’t think we’re going to get four or five degrees this century, because we get a cooling effect from the melting ice. But the biggest effect will be that melting ice.

“In my opinion that’s the big thing – sea-level rise – because we have such a large fraction of people on coastlines, more than half of the large cities in the world are on coastlines.

“The economic implications of that, and the migrations and the social effects of migrations … the planet could become practically ungovernable, it seems to me.

“Once sea levels go up significantly, you won’t have stable shorelines. Just parts of the city will go under water, but then it doesn’t make sense to continue to build there … By the time you get to even one-meter rise, you’re going to be losing more land.”

The growing human population was a "problem", he said.

“That’s why you want to have energy that’s needed for people to eliminate poverty, because countries that have become wealthy have the population under control. But if you do begin to lose major cities [then] the planet becomes ungovernable,” Professor Hansen said.

But if the world did reach four or five degrees, the scientist said this would mean “the tropics and the subtropics are going to be practically uninhabitable”.

“It’s already becoming uncomfortable in the summers, in the subtropics, you can’t work outdoors. And agriculture, more than half of the jobs are outdoors,” he said.

Science news in pictures

  • He also reiterated the argument in favour of a carbon tax in which the proceeds were given back to the public – creating a windfall for more than two-thirds of the population.“If you made the price of fossil fuels honest by including a gradually rising carbon fee, then it actually spurs the economy and increases the GNP as you shift toward clean energies and energy efficiency. It creates potentially millions of jobs,” Professor Hansen said.“The way to spur the economy – to modernise the economy and modernise the energy structure – would be to give the money back to the public because a carbon fee is a progressive tax, in the sense that rich people have bigger carbon footprints.“So if you do give 100 per cent of the money to the public, 70 per cent of the public comes out ahead.”
12 monkeys!!!!!
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Chief Moderator
Chief Moderator
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 37491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2017 at 7:47am
Originally posted by FluMom FluMom wrote:

Guys it is all due to too many people. Climate change and the rest of it is due to too many people.


Yep - it's us. It'd nice to think that we'll wise up in time and see we're on a crash course with a destiny we're not going to like, but apparently a large brain doesn't automatically endow a species with the capacity to act responsibly - not at first anyway. I fully expect our actions and apparent lack of foresight to result in a global human die-off like no other we've ever seen if mankind don't get past the self-destructive, petulant child stage, and fast.

The ironic thing is that we know all about the importance of properly controlling animal populations - with one glaring exception. As China has found out, simply limiting the number of children after the fact doesn't work because you end up with an aging population supported by a much smaller and younger workforce. Dubbed "The Gray Wall Of China", it's a demographic crisis that initially addressed the issue of population growth, but brings with it a whole host of potentially insurmountable problems. We're probably not going to like what awaits us, especially as much of it will be our fault.

FluMom is right - the harsh truth is that depopulation has to occur across the board to maintain a healthy ratio of age ranges within a species. On the plus side, as Techno pointed out, the planet will heal itself just fine despite our best efforts to screw it up. In a couple of million years, the damage we've caused will have been erased from the face of the Earth.












"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 23755
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2017 at 8:36am
That is exactly how I see it JD and FluMom.  

Hopefully we will make some robots to deal with our grey wall.  Even if not, then the grey wall would still be the better option.  Poor care in old age - VS - not reaching old age, ....... or even middle age.  China may still have some problems, (who doesn't?) but their economy is booming, their society is progressing, albeit slowly, and their people seem optimistic and reasonably happy.

I know which senario I prefer.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Chief Moderator
Chief Moderator
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 37491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2017 at 9:22am
That brings with it another conundrum - what do we do, if and when we develop mechanization to the point where robots can replace just about every worker? Automation has already been the death of many jobs associated with manufacturing. It sounds like a utopia, but it could go either way.

And the prospect of smart AI quite frankly scares the crap out of me. How would a machine with an IQ in the thousands or higher, view it's far more stupid squishy creators?




"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 23755
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2017 at 11:27am
Yes, new problems.

Robots do not need to be that bright.  They already build cars, run diagnostics for more systems than I can count and replace us is loads of jobs. AI may be coming but it still has a huge way to go (thank God!) they are fast but thick now.  Most nursing of the elderly is fairly simple stuff.  Washing, cooking, doing the laundry, doing the washing, walking the companion dog/cat.  The care workers who today travel around to do those things would just need to travel around checking the programs were appropriate and that the robot functioned ok.

Stealing our jobs? - Tax them, just like other workers.  If a robot makes $20k for the company per year, take $5k.  Use that money to fund welfare, medicaid and give grants to start new businesses and the like.  People can always invent new jobs to fill their days. Art, crafts, rescearch, space expansion, or even "Big Brother" if that floats their boat.

Being us, we will probably mess that up in some spectacular way too.  But, that does not need to be the case.  We just need a visionary like Steve Jobbs or Werner Von Braun to move into No10 here or The White House there.  

Sadly, assuming we survive the heat, sulphur, drowning, methane, unbreathable air, war, famine, hurricanes, acidification of the oceans and the spread of the plagues, I fully expect the rise of the machines, grey goo or the new Luddites.  Keep on fighting folks.  Not everyone is stupid or blind, just most.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Senior Adviser Group
Senior Adviser Group
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 18130
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2017 at 2:02pm

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: “Not A Valid Representation Of Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data”


http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-in-new-report-not-a-valid-representation-of-reality-totally-inconsistent-with-credible-temperature-data_07142017


this is above my pay grade

anyone know anything about it ?


and meanwhile

the ice continues to melt.....

“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Online
Points: 13886
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2017 at 2:48pm
Terminator......funny how SF movies give us an insight to what might be.....

How about a mix of 12 Monkeys and the Terminator,where the AI develops and releases a very nasty Virus......

Leaves earth free of it's human infestation.......

12 monkeys!!!!!
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 23755
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2017 at 4:17pm
Whereas there was some real science in that report, Satori, the conclusions reached ignored most of it.  To paraphrase the guy who never made it to president, all the inconvenient bits were ignored.  For instance; the Met Office data: did show lower overall temperatures - but it also showed the same increasing temperature pattern the report denies.

I looked up the researchers who compiled the report.

Dr. James P. Wallace III appears to be something of a pariah in scientific circles

Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo Is a weatherman and as such must know something about the subject, however, everything I found about him, was written by him.  That does not give me much faith in his conclusions.

Dr. Craig D. Idso appears to have his research funded by Exon.  If that is not enough to judge his bias, then consider his most famous quote: "CO2 is not a polutant."  (In chemistry circles it is considered a toxin and a COT gas.)

None of them has claimed the Earth is flat, YET, just give them time.  That these idiots, liars, self publicists and pseudo-scientists (IMHO) still get quoted just proves how stupid our species really is.

It is true that the whole climate picture is massively complicated.  I am not sure the opposite arguments are wholly true either.  However, the weight of data and the collective of real scientific opinion does show an upward trend, which we contribute massively to.  How far this will go, how much damage will be done, whether or not we can mitigate it and whether or not it will kill all of us or just most is still to be shown.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Chief Moderator
Chief Moderator
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 37491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2017 at 9:37pm
"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Online
Points: 13886
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 19 2017 at 2:35pm
Energy and Environment

Climate change will force today’s kids to pay for costly carbon removal technologies, study says

  

New research suggests that if immediate and significant emissions reduction efforts are undertaken — amounting to a decline in global carbon output by at least 3 percent annually starting in the next four years — then less carbon extraction will be needed. (Martin Meissner/AP)

The longer humans continue to pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the closer we draw to leaving the next generation with an unmanageable climate problem, scientists say. A new study, just out Tuesday in the journal Earth System Dynamics, suggests that merely reducing greenhouse gas emissions may no longer be enough — and that special technology, aimed at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, may also be necessary to keep the Earth’s climate within safe limits for future generations.

The research was largely inspired by a landmark climate change lawsuit brought by 21 children against the federal government, which is scheduled to go to trial in February 2018, and will be used as scientific support in the case. In fact, its lead author, Columbia University climatologist and former NASA scientist James Hansen, is a plaintiff on the case, along with his now 18-year-old granddaughter.

The new paper argues that the Paris Agreement’s target of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of their preindustrial levels isn’t strong enough. During a previous warm period in the Earth’s history, known as the Eemian, or the last interglacial period, the planet experienced similar levels of warming, the authors note — and the resulting consequences included the disintegration of ice sheets and six to nine meters of sea level rise. 

Noting the dramatic changes that occurred during the last interglacial period, the paper calls for a more stringent target of bringing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels down from their current concentration of more than 400 parts per million to about 350 parts per million by the end of the century. This would bring global temperature closer to a 1-degree threshold, rather than 1.5 or 2 degrees, the authors say.

But the study has already come in from some criticism from other scientists, such as Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who told The Washington Post that some aspects of the study were “alarmist” and that if changes come slowly enough, society will be able to adapt to them. Trenberth said he disagreed that the 1 degree target is justified and thinks that even 1.5 degrees is “unrealistic.”

Hansen is no stranger to controversy. In 2015, he and more than a dozen colleagues published a highly contested paper in the open-access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, suggesting that sea level rise may occur more rapidly in this century than previously predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In the new study, the researchers suggest that allowing temperatures to creep into the Eemian range once again could eventually trigger the onset of certain slow-developing climate processes that may ultimately enhance global warming, once again inducing catastrophic ice melt, sea level rise and other harmful climate effects. For instance, continued loss of ice may reduce the Earth’s reflectivity, they suggest, allowing more solar radiation to warm the planet’s surface and melt more ice.

But to keep temperatures lower, the paper finds, would require not only significant emissions reductions efforts, but also the use of “negative emissions” technology, or special methods for pulling carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere.

Using models, the researchers suggest that if immediate and significant emissions reduction efforts are undertaken — amounting to a decline in global carbon output by at least 3 percent annually starting in the next four years — then less carbon extraction will be needed. A majority of it could be accomplished through basic changes in agricultural and forestry practices to promote greater storage of carbon in vegetation and soil.

On the other hand, the longer global greenhouse gas emissions are allowed to remain at high levels, the more carbon extraction will be needed to reach this target, requiring additional, costlier forms of technology. These may include the burning of biomass for energy, accompanied with carbon capture and storage technology, or technology that directly sucks carbon dioxide out of the air.

If humans immediately began reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by a relatively high rate of 6 percent each year, the researchers estimate that the carbon extraction technology needed to get down to 350 parts per million could cost anywhere from $8 trillion to nearly $18.5 trillion. And if no emissions reductions occur, these costs could rise above $500 trillion through the end of the century.

“Some consequences [of climate change] are already becoming inevitable, but as yet it could be moderate if we begin to reduce emissions rapidly,” Hansen said. “So that’s the objective — to try to get the global community to understand the importance of beginning those emissions reductions soon, and keeping the task that we’re leaving for young people one that they can manage.”

But Trenberth said of the paper that while “it is a good point that some slow feedbacks do not kick in until temperatures have been sustained at a certain level,” a great deal of the future human experience with climate change will depend not only on which thresholds we cross, but how quickly we cross them.

Energy and Environment newsletter

The science and policy of environmental issues.

< ="inline-newsletter-" style="-sizing: border-;">
< ="sign-up-btn -sign-up-btn" style="font-family: FranklinITCProBold, HelveticaNeue, "Helvetica Neue Light", "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 16px; margin: 6px 0px 0px; line-height: 16px; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 0px; : rgb25, 85, 165; color: rgb255, 255, 255; letter-spacing: 0.02em; width: 313.328px; height: 44px; border-width: initial; border-style: none; border-color: initial; border-radius: 4px;">Sign up

“If we can slow things down then a lot of adaptation can occur,” he said.

Other researchers are a little more cautiously accepting of the paper’s points.

Cristian Proistosescu, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Washington who was not involved with the new research (but who recently led a major study, himself, on the potential future impact of slow-developing climate modes) expressed some skepticism about using the Earth’s ancient history as an analogy for the future.

He noted that some of the conditions that were true during the Eemian — the existence of large ice sheets that have already disappeared, for instance — are not the same now. And because humans have not been around to witness some of the slow-developing climate processes that scientists fear will intensify in the future, there’s uncertainty about how and even whether they will affect future climate change.

But that would be the wrong way to think about it,” he added in an email to The Post. “The more important point is that we cannot rule out the very real probability that there are slow feedbacks — and risk is probability times cost. … Once you start thinking in terms of risks I would concur with Dr. Hansen that the current trajectory presents some unacceptable risks.”

12 monkeys!!!!!
Back to Top
Dutch Josh View Drop Down
Senior Adviser Group
Senior Adviser Group


Joined: May 01 2013
Location: Arnhem-Netherla
Status: Offline
Points: 23832
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dutch Josh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 19 2017 at 11:47pm
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/13/analysis/these-missing-charts-may-change-way-you-think-about-fossil-fuel-addiction 

The use of fossil fuel is still increasing-even faster than before. So CO2 will keep going up, oceans can not absorp much more....
Que sera, sera, Whatever will be, will be, The future is not ours to see, Que sera, sera !
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Chief Moderator
Chief Moderator
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 37491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 20 2017 at 9:20am
I'm literally at the point where I think climate change mitigation should be part of any serious prepper's long term preps. I think a world far different from ours is an unavoidable future in the next few decades, and you should realistically plan for it. Picking the right place to be is going to be the trick though - get out that crystal ball, and good luck.


"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Senior Adviser Group
Senior Adviser Group
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 18130
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 20 2017 at 2:40pm
Of course he did: Trump picked climate science denier for Ag Department's top science post

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/20/1682393/-Of-course-he-did-Trump-picks-climate-science-denier-for-Ag-Department-s-top-science-post

Trump going out of his way to appoint the worst people possible to every post in his failed administration
and doing everything he can to speed up the 6th extinction

IDIOT
“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 23755
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 20 2017 at 4:02pm
Originally posted by jacksdad jacksdad wrote:

I'm literally at the point where I think climate change mitigation should be part of any serious prepper's long term preps. I think a world far different from ours is an unavoidable future in the next few decades, and you should realistically plan for it. Picking the right place to be is going to be the trick though - get out that crystal ball, and good luck.
Up a hill - sea levels will be rising and flash flooding will be more common,
With trees - they help prevent drought, stop landslides and provide fuel,
With strong structures - winds will rise and earthquakes increase (isostatic readjustment),
With seed that will grow further north (south for the southern hemisphere) and fruit trees that will thrive and produce in hotter temperatures than you face now,
Grow resistant strains - as in survival situations pesticides will be unavailable,
Have good storage - weather prediction may fail with "weather weirding" and you will need back up supplies some years,
Arm to protect what you have - but also cultivate a support network you can rely on.  Survival is easier in groups: that is why our ancestors lived in tribes.
Store some fungicides and learn some simple medicine.  The hotter it gets, the more you sweat, the more you sweat the more fungi love you!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food:

Those of you who rely heavily on potatoes (great for limited space) go for the most blight resistant strain you can get and interplant it with ocu (ocu helps keep blight away and provides a fall-back starch source if the spuds fail.  Slugs hate them too.)  Move the crop each year and plant elsewhere.

If you garden at all, learn to polyploid your plants, they are stronger, better at resisting disease and more productive.

I am fascinated by medicine; especially nutrition: my husband is a botanical nut.  We have (after colossal research, trial and error and much arguing) come up with a minimum plant list for nutritional basics.

Whichever grain grows best in your area and any pea/bean/lentil you get the best crop from  Have a look at what the local farmers grow.  This will give you balanced protein and all the b vitamins (except 12).  If the legume you chose is a species of pea, the holmes can be fed to livestock and the tendrils and pods can be eaten too, increasing production in a limited space.

Oilseed rape (or better still kale) to provide green veg for both vitamin c (leaf) and oil (seed) get a red variety if you can as a source of beta carotene.  After pressing, the seed-cake makes an animal feed.

Sugar beet or beetroot, to supply gore sugar - this enables you to preserve the fruits of the wild plants in your area, or the produce of vineyards, orchards and the veggie plot (beta carotene).  Sugar cane works, but it fills the wrong role in a four crop rotation.  Any species of innula also works for this role, but less of the calories would be available to you.  Spuds can also fill the fourth role, but they cannot be used to make sugar for preserving, so you would also need a red or yellow veg that is clampable to provide the rest of the beta carotene if you go for spuds.

Those four plants can be used as a four crop rotation: keeping pests down and fertility up.  That simple process massively raised the yields and reliability of the farms of our ancestors.

There are two nutrients those plants fail to provide: vitamins d and b12.  Both can be supplied by the last crop: tempeh

Being a fungus, tempeh makes neither d nor b12 under normal circumstances.  However, as the culture is propagated year in year out, it develops accompanying bacterial cultures and these make b12.  Just like us, fungi make vitamin d to protect themselves from ultraviolet radiation.  So before cooking the tempeh you have just cut from the culture, put it out in the sunlight for an hour or so.

These basics are as boring as s**t and a more varied diet will be healthier, but you can survive on just them and a bit of foraging for the rest of your lives if necessary.  If pests eat your crops - eat the pests. SORRY!  

Caterpillars are not normally edible to us; chickens and ducks can eat them.  
Snails carry horrible diseases, so if you are going to eat them, keep them in a barrel of oatmeal for a day or too before eating and COOK THEM VERY WELL!  
Ducks can eat slugs without harm and they love them!  They will patrol your veggie plot for them and then lay eggs.  
Locusts are a particularly good food source.  If you have eaten them, as my husband has, they are quite pleasant and popular in some African countries.  
All birds are edible, but birds of prey carry nasty stuff and rot amazingly fast - best avoided.  
Cook any mammals very well to avoid  disease transmission.  The closer the relative, the more diseases you have in common.  That is why canibalism is such a stupid idea.
Be careful of river and near coastal fish (and the scavengers of those areas like seagulls) as they are quickly poisoned by polution and in a survival situation there will be no regulating bodies.



Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down