Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 12, 2015
Why Care about Global Warming? Droughts, Poor Harvests, and Social Upheaval
In both industrialized countries and developing countries there may be those who ask “why should we care about global warming?” After all, many people may not feel that they are affected by warming, and may pay scant attention to reports showing the effects of extreme weather and climate events. Also, political leaders, especially in developing countries, may place higher priorities on economic development than on greenhouse gases emissions.
Global warming has proceeded ever more rapidlyover the last century. Warming occurs by virtue of the greenhouse effect due mostly to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-active gases added to the atmosphere by human activity. Many recent accounts have catalogued the progressive warming and the resulting harms caused by extreme weather and climate events.
Here we focus on new reports from the technical literature on severe droughts in various parts of the globe and on the harmful effects that they produce.
Drought is characterized by a net loss of moisture from soil. This involves assessing the difference between precipitation, which adds moisture, and the combined effects of evaporation from the soil and loss of moisture by plant transpiration to the atmosphere. In drought conditions more moisture leaves the soil than enters it. It is frequently accompanied by untypically low precipitation and/or untypically high surface air temperature.
Droughts have led to important economic damages in many regions of the world and a geopolitical crisis in Syria. This post considers four current reports of drought and its socioeconomic and geopolitical consequences. The droughts are directly or indirectly associated in the reports with global warming brought about by humanity’s burning of fossil fuels for energy. The reports are summarized here. More extensive information on each is given in the Details section at the end of this post.
- Colin Kelley and coworkers report on the worst drought in recorded history in Syria and neighboring countries just prior to the “Arab Spring”. The drought was serious enough that large numbers of farmers left their villages and migrated to Syria’s cities. This caused major social and political turmoil and is considered to be a contributing factor to Syria’s civil war. Human-derived greenhouse gases contributed to the drought.
- Moore and Lobell analyze changes in crop yields and climate change across Europe. Large scale decreases in yields were found in many localized regions, which correlated with increased temperatures and decreased precipitation over the 20 year period studied.
- Diffenbaugh and coworkers examine the recent drought in California, likely the worst in 1000 years. By simulating the region’s climate in model calculations the authors find that the extra amount of greenhouse gases added by human activity likely resulted in higher temperatures and reduced precipitation in the region. This factor also contributes to a high risk of continued severe droughts.
- Cook and coworkers assess drought conditions in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Assuming that unrestrained emission of greenhouse gases will continue, the risk of severe droughts in these regions is projected to be extremely high, by various measures between about 69% and 97% in the second half of this century.
Analysis
Why Should We Care About Global Warming? Earlier predictions concerning the harms that global warming inflicts on regions of the earth are already coming true, causing damages that affect socioeconomic wellbeing and can lead to political upheaval. Projections of future warming also include worsening harms, including in various regions extremes of heat and consequent droughts, or extremes of precipitation and consequent flooding, and secondary effects on human wellbeing and health. All these effects impose significant monetary costs both in seeking to avoid them and in adapting to their impacts.
Droughts. The journal articles summarized here focus our attention on the effects that droughts linked to global warming have already caused in various regions of the world. Most singularly, the record drought in Syria and ensuing agricultural failures beginning in 2007-8 led to major internal migration of displaced farmers to cities. This is considered to be an important factor contributing to that country’s social unrest after the Arab Spring. The U. S. Department of Defense’s report “2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap” includes “[i]nstability within and among other nations” as a potential effect of climate change having military implications. Indeed, the U. S. is now conducting military operations tangential to the Syrian civil war.
Global warming had negative impacts on agricultural productivity in Europe between 1989 and 2009. Lower harvest yields have the potential to drive up commodity prices affecting the cost of food. OXFAM GB published its briefing report “Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices” in 2012. The report models projected world commodity price increases to 2030 in response to projected global warming, showing both long-term increases for staples, and the higher increases foreseen in cases of climate “shock” involving short-term responses to extreme climate events. For wheat, maize and rice, increases between 107% and 177% are predicted by 2030, of which one-third to one-half is attributed to global warming.
Man-made global warming is contributing to record droughts in California, and in the America Southwest and Central Plains. California alone provides about 11% of America’s farm produce. The New York Times reported on Feb. 27, 2015 that as the state enters its fourth year of drought the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation can provide only 15% of the water requested by farmers this year. Only one-fifth the normal amount of water is available, due to very low winter snowpack accumulations. The drought has already cost California $2.2 billion in lost agricultural revenue, as well as thousands of jobs. The Central Plains produce about 40% of the world’s corn, and 10% of its wheat. Prolonged drought would materially impact crop yields in this region. Climate Central states “[f]ood supplies could be disrupted and price shocks could reverberate through global markets” in response to the unprecedented droughts foreseen by Cook and coworkers when modeled by unconstrained future emissions of greenhouse gases.
Conclusion
The reports presented here catalog major, even unprecedented, occurrences of drought brought on by humanity’s history of greenhouse gas emissions over the past century. They further project even more severe drought conditions when assuming continued unrestrained emissions.
The extent of global warming and its consequences are determined by the total accumulated level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. For carbon dioxide, this amount cannot be lowered by any currently available technology, so the world is already locked in to the extreme patterns we are currently experiencing. In order to minimize further warming all nations of the world must come together to implement rapid, meaningful reductions in annual emission rates in order to keep the future accumulated greenhouse gas level as low as possible.
Details
Drought in Syria preceded the unrest that became the civil war. Colin Kelley and coworkers examined “[c]limate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought” (Proc. Natl Acad. Sci., published online before print March 2, 2015). The Fertile Crescent (roughly encompassing Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, and Iraq along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers) has undergone its most severe drought since recordkeeping began. The winter of 2007-8 was the driest in recorded history and marked the beginning of a three year drought period marked by the lowest rainfall, high to highest annual mean temperatures, and low to lowest values of a standard drought index used by climate scientists. The drought caused serious agricultural and social dislocations in Syria, with loss of livestock and serious decreases in crop yields. The authors found statistically significant decreases in long term winter rainfall (-13%) and measurements of groundwater content, and an increase in annual surface temperature compared to the global average, especially in the last 20 years.
These dire conditions led as many as 1.5 million people to leave the land and migrate to cities. The migrants added to Syria’s social burdens, since its population has swelled from about 4 million in 1950 to about 22 million now. The expanding population increases the demand for water under the drought, made worse by the effects of an earlier drought in the 1990s. Syria also absorbed 1.2 to 1.5 million refugees from the war in Iraq just before the drought period. These factors produced significant social unrest, just prior to the rise of the Arab Spring in other Arab countries.
The authors conclude that these climate disruptions exceed expectations from only natural long term variability, stating “the long-term …trends and the recent increase in the occurrence of multiyear droughts and in surface temperature is consistent with … [man-made greenhouse warming]”. This conclusion is reinforced by modeling of rainfall, which showed with statistical significance that “natural variability [combined with carbon dioxide greenhouse warming] is 2 to 3 times more likely to produce the most severe 3-year droughts than natural variability alone”.
What started as nonviolent protests in Syria against unemployment, corruption and major inequality degenerated into repression and the outbreak of the civil war which still goes on. The authors make clear that while it is not possible to establish a direct link between the drought and these events, they believe it likely was a contributing factor. The authors cite recent scientific publications “establishing a link between climate and conflict”.
Reduced agricultural harvests in Europe. Frances Moore and David Lobell analyzed “[t]he fingerprint of climate trends on European crop yields” (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 112 no. 9, pp. 2670–2675, 2015). The “fingerprint” refers to mapping of geographic localization of changes in yields of important staple crops, together with changes in climate (generally, temperature increases and reduced rainfall amounts) in the same regions. These are compared with expected temperature and precipitation trends evaluated using climate models for the same regions.
The authors found that, averaged over the entire expanse of the European continent, crops yields between 1989 and 2009 fell for wheat (2.5%) and barley (3.8%), while yields of sugar beets and maize (corn) increased very slightly, compared to yields expected from models omitting the changes in climate. The authors point out, however, that these continent-wide averages don’t represent the fingerprints well; in many regions crop yields fell (as represented by color-coded regions on the maps) by 20% to 40%, 40% to 60%, or in a few regions by more than 60%. These results are especially pronounced for wheat and maize, and occur mostly in regions of Portugal, Spain, Italy, France and Greece. The robust statistical methods employed in this work permit strong correlation of the changes in staple yields to the increase in temperature during the growing season over the 20 year interval studied, as well as to decreases in precipitation.
Long term drought in California. Noah Diffenbaugh and coworkers have studied how “[man-made] warming has increased drought risk in California” (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., published onlinebefore print March 2, 2015). They observe that California has been suffering a long term drought from December 2012 to September 2014. It is characterized by record low precipitation and has been accompanied by extremely high temperatures, which may be the most severe set of conditions in a millennium. The high temperature contributes to drought conditions by altering the seasonal timing of mountain snowpack melting and increasing evaporation and transpiration.
Using an objective quantitative drought index the authors conclude that statistically significant drought conditions occurred twice as frequently during the recent two decades than over the century preceding. They find that warmer temperatures are an important factor in the recent twenty years in which droughts occur. Simultaneous occurrence of lower than normal precipitation, significant changes in standardized drought indices and warm temperatures has been more frequent in the last two decades than in the preceding century.
The authors compared regional climate model simulations that omitted man-made greenhouse gas contributions to warming with simulations that added the greenhouse gases, beginning about 1885. The models show with high statistical significance that since 1976 inclusion of man-made greenhouse gases produces a warming trend considered alone, as well as simultaneous occurrence of decreased precipitation and a warming trend. These simulations “suggest[] that human [activity causing atmospheric warming] has caused the observed increase in probability that moderately dry precipitation years are also warm”, leading to drought conditions.
The authors extended the model simulations to project behavior up to 2070, assuming no significant measures to reduce emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. They find with high significance that the probabilities for occurrence of years that are both very warm and very dry are exceptionally high, approaching 100%.
The authors conclude by pointing out that focusing on low precipitation without considering warming “misses a critical contributor to drought risk….[T]he risk of severe drought in California has already increased due to extremely warm conditions induced by [man-made] global warming”.
Severe droughts are projected for the United States in this century. Benjamin Cook and coworkers foresee “[u]nprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains” (Sci. Adv. 1, e1400082 (2015); published electronically 12 February 2015). The authors studied measurements of climate in the United States based on tree ring variations going back to the year 1000 CE. This permits characterization of periods of drought throughout this interval. They also performed regional projections for drought through the 21stcentury using an ensemble of climate models and the assumption that worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases will continue growing without significant constraints. The models were calibrated by applying them to generate the drought characteristics for the historical record from 1931 to 1990. Three characteristics were evaluated, a standardized index of drought, as well as evaluations of soil moisture content to depths of 30 cm (11.8 in) and 2 m (6.6 ft). This calibration reproduced the historical tree ring record with a high level of statistical significance, giving confidence that the simulations would provide valid results when projected into the future.
The graphic below presents the authors’ results.
Historical tree ring record of climate from 1000 to the present (brown), smoothed with a 50-year window. Modeled results for summer season moisture balance from 1850-2099 give the climate moisture index (red), and the 30 cm (pale green) and 2 m (dark green) simulations for soil moisture. (Gray lines show excursion in the simulations from individual climate models.)Source: Cook and coworkers, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400082.
The results shown in the graphic are remarkable for the severity of the drought conditions projected through this century (although it should be noted that the projections have not been smoothed over a 50-year window as the historical record was). Recalling that the models assumed no significant constraints on future greenhouse gas emissions, it is seen that both regions, the Southwest and the Central Plains, are forecast to have extreme and apparently unrelenting drought conditions after 2050, to extents not seen in the 1000 year historical record up to the present. The drought in the Southwest is projected to be more severe than in the Central Plains.
The risk of an 11-year drought in the 2050-2099 period is about 84 to 98% in the Central Plains, and about 92-97% in the Southwest. The risk of a 35-year drought is about 69 to 88%, and 84-89% for the two regions, respectively. The authors state that the severe drought conditions are “driven primarily by the [earth system’s energy] response to increased greenhouse gas concentrations …, rather than by any fundamental shift in ocean-atmosphere dynamics” (i.e., rather than by ongoing naturally occurring earth system processes). The authors note that these projections are characterized by greater certainty than expressed in recent work by others.
In conclusion, the authors project “a remarkably drier future that falls far outside the contemporary experience of natural and human systems in Western North America, conditions that may present a substantial challenge to adaptation….[T]he loss of groundwater and higher temperatures will likely exacerbate the impacts of future droughts, presenting a major adaptation challenge….”
62 Comments on "Why Care about Global Warming? Droughts, Poor Harvests, and Social Upheaval"
Rodster on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 7:19 pm
There’s a YT video about arctic methane emergency 500-5000 gigatons of methane release
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATIm8Ov1Fks
MSN Fanboy on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 7:26 pm
We should watch the oceans for signs of true climate chaos.
When we destroy the base of the food chain we destroy ourselves.
Plantagenet on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 7:33 pm
Obama’s failure to take the steps he promised in his 2008 campaign to fight climate change is disgraceful. Combined with his stupid personal quarrel with the Chinese delegation that scuttled the Global climate change treaty set to be signed at the Copenhagen UN climate treaty meeting in 2010, and his recent bilateral agreement with China allowing them unlimited CO2 emissions, obama has singlehandedly stumbled into supporting the addition of more CO2 to the atmosphere then almost any other human being.
Rodster on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 7:36 pm
“We should watch the oceans for signs of true climate chaos. When we destroy the base of the food chain we destroy ourselves.”
According to Guy McPherson we have loss between 40-50% of phytoplankton due to ocean acidification. There’s your food source right there.
redpill on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 7:48 pm
Another great thing about phytoplankton is that they produce about half of our oxygen. Guess we could learn to breathe nitrogen in a pinch.
TemplarMyst on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 7:52 pm
Rodster,
I gave half a thought to starting a forum thread on Nature Bats Last covering technical matters. After a few posts and comments on the site I realized Guy and the gang are not interested in a discussion of his interpretation of the data. They are into acceptance and hospice.
Which, don’t get me wrong, is fine if you are into that sort of thing!
My plan had been to review the other peer reviewed literature available, rather than just the material he has included in his essay.
What I think he is missing is that not all the feedback loops are negative (reversing the normative “positive” nomenclature, if you don’t mind).
It’s Gaia vs Medea. There are biological responses to the physical changes we are making which are mitigating some of them. Question will be whether we’ve overwhelmed those too.
I think we’re damn close, and Guy may be right, perhaps we’re over. But I still feel it’d be worth the effort to look at carbon removal at scale.
We ain’t yet, but we ought to.
GregT on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 8:05 pm
Temp,
There really is little point at looking at CO2 removal, when we continue to put even more of it into the environment every year.
400 ppm and still rising. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
We won’t see the effects of what we have done already, for another 40 years or so. The time to stop isn’t now, it was 25 years ago, when CO2 was still at 350ppm.
TemplarMyst on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 8:23 pm
Greg,
All the more reason to be looking at it, IMO. I base that on the wide variations in carbon you can find in the ice core data, and, further back, the PETM thermal maximum.
Based on these kinds of data points, and yes, they are open to interpretation, carbon levels can increase and decrease quite rapidly.
The mechanisms are not clearly understood, but the isotopic analysis indicates the potential for wild swings on short time horizons.
What causes that? Can we better understand it? Can we leverage it to our advantage?
Davy on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 8:26 pm
Temp, the big fat smelly girl in the room is population. Whatcha goin to do about tat? No effort can succeed with population where it is let alone attempting to grow.
It is about hospices and acceptance. Nature is running her cycles despite feedbacks whether negative or positive. We have had a good run as a faux exceptional species now it is time for our normal adjustments. It has happened to most other species and now it is our turn. In fact it has happened to us before per our DNA research we had a bottleneck 70k years ago.
TemplarMyst on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 8:26 pm
Greg – P.S. sorry I couldn’t finish the thought on the Pakistan thread. Work intervened in a fierce way. I’m actually just glad I’ve got work. Not all are so lucky. As a result, the periodic fierce doesn’t bother me much, but it does make PO time take a back seat.
TemplarMyst on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 8:29 pm
Davy,
I’m about as concerned with population as anyone here. It’s quite disconcerting.
What I’m wondering is how best to hit peak. From my read of sociology higher living standards lead to smaller families, so I’m leaning in that direction. Well, leaning quite heavily, actually.
On the economic level we have to adjust to smaller pops at some point. A steady state economy is not an impossibility, but it ain’t in the cards.
Yet.
Davy on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 8:44 pm
Great temp, but unfortunately it appears too late to raise living standards because living standards are likely approaching a contraction. Meanwhile population continues to attempt growth and in the process further damages an already damaged ecosystem, economy, and social fabric.
Temp you are a sober cornucopian. What I mean is you are optimistic answers can be found and implemented in time to save BAU and mankind. Yet, you acknowledge serious problems. That is better than can be said for many corns who believe all is well enough to continue progress. I have to give you a hand clap and say good luck friend.
TemplarMyst on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 8:51 pm
Davy,
Well, thanks, I think. But I’m actually fairly pessimistic, as you can read if you scan between the lines of what I write.
I mean, I’ve come to embrace nuclear power not because I think it is an ideal solution.
It’s more a measure of the desperate circumstances in which I think we find ourselves…
redpill on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 9:01 pm
Templar,
Interesting point regarding nuclear power, and I agree with it.
In James Hansen’s book “The Storms of My Grandchildren”, he makes a similar case for it being a lesser evil than the continued reliance on coal. His views on expected sea-level change could be called somewhat worrying.
Of course, it could be all of the grant money riches making him talk funny like that!
TemplarMyst on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 9:06 pm
redpill,
I’ve been pretty heavily influenced by Hansen. Also Vaclav Smil.
And yeah, grants can make people talk funny, but for folks who publish numbers, like they both do, at least one can look at em and come to ones own conclusions.
My conclusion is we’re in deep. Time to pull out the heavy artillery.
Makati1 on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 9:07 pm
Still some dreamers here who think that a world of 7,200,000,000+ people can change in a few years or even decades because “we should”. My 70 years tells me that we aren’t going to do anything until Mother nature does it for us, and it will be painful and deadly.
Example of why nothing will be done: “Florida bans use of ‘climate change’ by state agency: report”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-usa-florida-climatechange-idUSKBN0M51P520150309
Florida is probably the first state to get changed by the climate in a drastic way, but they don’t want to cause people to think and maybe move out to a more elevated area. So, they try to legislate climate change away, like the price of a dog license’.
All those of us, who see the signs, can do is try to prepare to ease the fall when it happens. For instance, move out of Florida … lol.
TemplarMyst on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 9:12 pm
Makati1,
And as some of us dreamers have said, you may be right. However, my reading of the population numbers is that the curve has started to bend, albeit quite slowly. Almost imperceptibly, but it has started I think.
And yeah, there is a whole lot of ignorance out there. Not surprisingly, IMO, it is most noticeable amongst our political class as of late.
Wasn’t always that way.
Plantagenet on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 9:30 pm
Nuclear power doesn’t emit CO2. Shutting down nukes to switch to NG (as New England did after they shut down the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant and shifting to coal-fired plants as Germany did after their shut down their nukes greatly increases CO2 output and just take us all closer to environmental catastrophe.
Rodster on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 10:16 pm
It’s already the middle of March and we’re already getting mid to upper 80’s here in Florida. 2015 is shaping up to be a really hot year in the sunshine state.
Go Speed Racer. on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 10:18 pm
It does not matter if we run out of oxygen. The rich can simply purchase their oxygen, and flow it into the cabin of the Bentley. The poor, who cannot afford oxygen, are welcome to breathe what comes out the tailpipe of the Bentley.
GregT on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 10:49 pm
Temp,
“My conclusion is we’re in deep. Time to pull out the heavy artillery.”
I conclude the same as you, but my take is somewhat different. It is time to stop digging ourselves in even deeper.
redpill on Thu, 12th Mar 2015 11:10 pm
Templar,
I was being sarcastic at the end there.
Hansen is as legit as they come in my book. He may be wrong, and the grandkids better hope he is, but I believe he speaks from the heart.
Keep eyes on Sao Paulo, the next test bed for how people react to water scarcity.
dubya on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 12:05 am
There is a relevant Jewish Fairy Tale about this:
http://biblehub.com/niv/genesis/41.htm
Or did we miss the 7 years of Plenty?
Apneaman on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 12:17 am
We are already in the midst of an environmental catastrophe. The human toll is mostly being ignored by willfully ignorant privileged folks who’s first priority is keeping BAU going with a green sticker on it. The climate refugees, war, food and water shortages and the resulting death and suffering we read about happening to “3rd worlders” is our future. Our wealth and resiliency has limits and we will soon be broken too. The order of suffering at home will be a smaller version of what we see globally. Our poor will go first, but it will get to a point where no amount of money and power will protect the elite. Bill Gates and the other 1%ers will be like T-Rex vs the meteor. Mother nature – the great equalizer. Climate change and eco system collapses are nonlinear.
Earth Has Crossed Several ‘Planetary Boundaries,’ Thresholds of Human-Induced Environmental Changes
Crossing these boundaries increases risk of large-scale disruption of nature, says international team of researchers
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/earth-has-crossed-several-planetary-boundaries-thresholds-human-induced-environmental-changes
Climate Change Kills 5 Million People Every Year
http://mic.com/articles/21419/climate-change-kills-5-million-people-every-year
Apneaman on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 12:31 am
Professor Kevin Anderson on the prospects for a global climate deal in Paris, 2015
video
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hlltd_professor-kevin-anderson-on-the-prospects-for-a-global-climate-deal-in-paris-2015_creation?start=22
Apneaman on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 12:33 am
Entering the Middle Miocene — CO2 Likely to Hit 404 Parts Per Million by May
https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/entering-the-middle-miocene-co2-likely-to-hit-404-parts-per-million-by-may/
Apneaman on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 2:14 am
The Fate of Trees: How Climate Change May Alter Forests Worldwide
By the end of the century, the woodlands of the Southwest will likely be reduced to weeds and shrubs. And scientists worry that the rest of the planet may see similar effects
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-fate-of-trees-how-climate-change-may-alter-forests-worldwide-20150312
Makati1 on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 4:32 am
So, if the current generation of breeders (~2,000,000,000 of us,) only parented one child per couple or ~1,000,000,000 kids in the next 20 years, the population would drop by ~600,000,000 total. At that rate, to get to ~1,000,000,000 total that the earth can support would take about 100 years. I don’t think we have that long. Do you?
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/broker
Rodster on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 4:41 am
” the population would drop by ~600,000,000 total. At that rate, to get to ~1,000,000,000 total that the earth can support would take about 100 years. I don’t think we have that long. Do you?”
May I remind everyone that we are at a point of NO RETURN. The problem is the financial and banking system the central planners created require exponential growth with regards to MONEY and POPULATION.
You need an exponential birth rate to maintain the system known as BAU. If there’s little to no growth, the system collapses.
That is why you see all the central banks frantically printing money to avoid a global financial meltdown.
That video I posted explains that nothing will change if we don’t change how money works. Since the upper 1 percent don’t want to give up their money, control and power, BAU will continue to march on until the entire system collapses. However long that takes.
MSN fanboy on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 7:42 am
Lol.. Arguing over which side the titanic will capsize on. Climate change will ensure human population remains under 5000000 peeps. Question is, how will we get to that number… I’m betting on energy starvation, mass civil unrest and war. Not particularly in that order
Davy on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 7:47 am
MSNboy, what region of the UK are you in? Are you optimistic for your local?
J-Gav on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 8:23 am
” … a major adaptation challenge” is correct, except it should be in the plural.
Richard Ralph Roehl on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 10:07 am
Global warning? Actually the more accurate term of the ongoing phenomenon is GLOBAL CLIMATE OSCILLATION.
And it’s too late to stop the inevitable! The EXPONENTIAL growth of the human baboony population and the global consumer economy condemns humanity (ewe-man-unkind) to suffer a major EXTINCTION EVENT before the end of the 21st century.
J-Gav on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 11:30 am
RRR – What you say is potentially true. I’ve entertained the possibility that Century 21 is ‘the end’for some time, slicing and top-spinning it back and forth as if in a game of ping-pong.
But if asked whether I really know, my answer would have to be ‘negative.’ In other words, the ‘inevitable’ you refer to remains unclear for us mere humans.
That we must one day disappear from the planet is certain. When and in what circumstances is not yet discernible as far as I can tell. To my way of thinking, any and all efforts made to put that day of reckoning off as long as possible are welcome.
Davy on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 12:05 pm
Gav, surely small bands of humans will eak out a living in a narrow band of geography somewhere at some point as worst case scenario. A nonlinear phenomenon like a species bottlenecks is not something we have much experience to draw from. A globalized economy in collapse is anyone’s guess with no references. All we can do is make educated guesses. These are still guesses and all over the place.
Lot will depend on climate and population trends. IMHO it comes down to how and when our population and consumption rebalances. Maybe something will happen that will result in a new civilization when the smoke clears. With the smoke just starting who knows those answers.
J-Gav on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 12:26 pm
Davy – That’s kinda the way I see things too. Lots of uncertainties but at least some potential for breaking through when “the smoke clears”, as you put it.
The spectrum goes all the way from Derrick Jensen’s (why not?) violent revolution to Chris Hedges’resolutely non-violent revolution to Charles Eisenstein’s (and others’) spiritual global mind re-set out of necessity … to Guy McPherson’s “too late now, fuggetaboudit humanity!” take. And there are others in various interstitial positions.
Sort of makes it hard for a body to situate itself, doesn’t it?
In the end, I guess it’s down to individual gut feelings … but ideally within a socio-cultural context that provides basic support for everybody. Are we capable of that?
J-Gav on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 12:42 pm
Makati: Things will change “because we should.”
That’s a fair reminder of 18th C Scottish philosopher David Hume’s contention that it’s “impossible to derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.”
On the subject of miracles, he further stated: “Consider what is the greater probability – that the laws of nature have been temporarily suspended (in your favor) or that you are laboring under a serious misapprehension.”
Perk Earl on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 1:03 pm
This is what small inhabited islands fear most; cat. 5 hurricane direct hit last night
http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/deaths-reported-cyclone-pam-slams-into-vanuatu-6254887
There have been unconfirmed reports of deaths in Vanuatu after tropical cyclone Pam turned towards the capital, making landfall overnight.
The category five with winds over 250 km/h made a direct hit on several small islands and the eye passed over the eastern side of Efate island, home to capital city Port Vila.
It appears communications are down and there’s fears for the 250,000 residents of Vanuatu, many of whom live in basic structures.
Davy on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 1:04 pm
My gut says location, location, and relocation. It is pretty evident the blighted neighborhoods of Detroit are not very promising. Cross the state and on the west side of Michigan and we have well positioned locals. There is solid small agricultural communities on a great body of water.
How much migration and mad-maxing goes on depends on the degree and duration of descent. No one here can make that judgment call of where, when, how. This will be a random multifaceted systematic occurrence. There are so many possibilities both man-made and natural. I feel one point is pretty certain and that is it is going to happen sometimes, somewhere, and sooner than later.
The inevitability of this is what is amazing now. So many sheeples and cornucopians are totally bought into the progress of man towards the stars in ever greater technological achievements. What could be further from reality? This societal attitude is the greatest hoax man has ever perpetrated on himself. We are talking all the way to the top. Even TPTB that have all the latest and greatest at their disposal still are committed to technological progress. It is beyond reason and is a defining element of the hubris and fantasy of our large evolutionary dead-end brain.
So, I say look to your local and think location and then evaluate the need for relocation. This is my pitch because the most important element of survival in the coming descent is a local that has sustainability and resilience in the face of a collapsing BAU. Food, water, lower population densities as a shortish of a longish list. You may be stuck when SHTF. Get the frig out of a bad local now if that is where you are at. That is the first order of business in my doom and prep handbook. Waiting on a collapse to move is like trying to play the market high. That is a fools game. Don’t be a fool with you and your family’s lives.
Davy on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 1:10 pm
does not look good for your local PERK:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-13/nasa-scientist-warns-california-has-one-year-water-left
BobInget on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 2:16 pm
Detroit, Davy may be more ideally situated then
Los Angles. Further North, plenty of water,
cheap living spaces. Best of all, great big buildings that need tenants.
If I were younger I’ve head to Detroit and do what we did in Seattle during the 1970’s when
Boeing laid off thousands. Some smart alack
put up a sign instructing the last person to leave
‘turn out the light’.
We bought, in turn, houses, apartment houses, hotels, ‘fixed’ them up with my wife, rented
the units, held for one year, for tax reasons and
swapped for buildings of greater value.
Seattle changed character when Microsoft came in to Renton. Boeing started to sell airplanes again. Recently one hotel I bought for
$250,000 sold for over $5,000,000.
Had Bill Gates moved to Detroit instead, it might be a different story.
Davy on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 2:40 pm
Yea, Bobby, good point!
MSN Fanboy on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 2:48 pm
DAVY: MSNboy, what region of the UK are you in? Are you optimistic for your local?
No Davy, I reside in the midlands and I know full well if BAU grinds to a halt I will die.
England may be one of the worst places for a B.A.U. collapse. OVERPOPULATION/ LOW BIODIVERSITY/ ENERGY DEPENDANT/ SOCIAL INCOHESION / DEBT/ BALANCE OF PAYMENTS/ SERVICE JOBS (RELIANT ON DEBT)/ SEA LEVEL RISE/ GLOBAL WARMING (MORE RAIN…GREAT) / THE NANY STATE COMBINED WITH A SOMETHING FOR NOTHING CULTURE PREDICATED ON DEBT/ LIES/ ASSET BUBBLES (WHICH IS ALL WE CAN DO IN THE U.K.) B.A.U.
its still surprising just how ignorant the British are… dumbed down in the same manner as you yanks.
In America you have SPACE, in England it is a can of worms.
I suppose we deserve it, it was our coal that began this suicidal pact of industrialisation.
BUT NO DAVY/// I will have a bit of bother if collapse occurs in the next 5 years,
im not prepared
and I cant own guns to protect what I prepared
and I cant get away back to nature because
human beings are everywhere on this island
Richard Ralph Roehl on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 3:38 pm
An inevitable MAJOR extinction event (before the end of the 21st century) does not augur total extinction. Read my posts more carefully. Again! Let me emphasize and reiterate a MAJOR extinction event.
And inevitable is a proper term to employ here. The term (inevitable) is bolstered by the ever increasing degradation of the planet’s biosphere (land, sea, and water)… that CANNOT be reclaimed or repaired in a non geological time frame.
Let me count the ways! At least some of them.
1. GMO frankinfood technology
2. 400+ Fukushima time-bomb nuke plants on the planet.
3. The Islamic bomb
4. Acid oceans with all major fisheries in major decline or collapsed.
5. 7.25 billion baboony consumers on the planet… when only one billion were here in 1900.
6 Global climate oscillation.
7. Violent resource wars.
8 Willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance (denial).
The list is almost endless.
So… one more time (and the reason FB has shut down my account five times this year: It is INEVITABLE… that humanity (a.k.a.: ewe-man- unkind) shall face an a MAJOR extinction event before end of the 21st century.
Richard Ralph Roehl on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 3:54 pm
Location? Location? Location?
There is no safe location on this planet for you… or your children and grandchildren.
The current EXPONENTIAL growth of baboony consumers on Earth says 9 to 10 billion by 2050! 18 to 20 billion by 2100! 50 to 60 billion by 2150!
Yeah! Think of Florida trying to sustain a population of 500,000,000 baboony consumers.
We better think bigger than location and fossil fuels. I suggest we think escape into ‘espace’… or suffer a MAJOR EXTINCTION EVENT within the next 75-100 Earth years.
Davy on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 4:14 pm
Richie I think you are in LA (I could be wrong) that is a suck place to be in a collapse let alone the next earth quake. Thats what I mean.
Apneaman on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 4:23 pm
3R, I got it covered. Instead of wasting my time and money prepping, I have been making hefty monthly payments to Ray Kurzweil for a reserved upload spot to the Singularity. I know they have not exactly got the thing up and running yet, but it’s in times like these when one must practice the utmost faith.
ghung on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 4:25 pm
Relax, Richard. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
Perk Earl on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 6:11 pm
“does not look good for your local PERK:”
Thanks for the concern, Davy. It all depends of course on what water district one lives in. We got a lot of rain here that filled our reservoirs, so no worries for us. What is troublesome for us and the rest of those eating CA grown foods, is the central valley is the worst hit by the drought. Farmers there are digging water wells, tapping into the water table which keeps dropping. For now they have legacy water, but at some point there needs to be enough to percolate down and fill them up again.
The long term problem is it doesn’t rain like it use to. It use to rain fairly regularly throughout winter, and now it is more sporadic, random. Too many long periods of several weeks without rain in the winter. So the long term prognosis is not good for CA or Sao Paulo.
GregT on Fri, 13th Mar 2015 6:39 pm
The long term prognosis isn’t looking all that promising for anywhere on this planet. The weather anomalies that we have been experiencing already, are only expected to get more extreme.