URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Global Collapse
  HTML https://globalcollapse.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: General Discussion
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 161--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Climate Doom
       By: Phil Potts Date: April 28, 2021, 10:09 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden (outside
       of temperate zones). Overdue ice free arctic is a reason to give
       pause and ask why it is happening slower than predicted, or
       might not happen at all. We never seem to question how mercurial
       the earth is. If it takes exponential energy to heat and boil
       water, meaning a lot more energy to get it to boil at 100c from
       90c than to get to 90c from 80c, then overcoming heat loss from
       clear night skies may also not be linear. Deforestation and land
       clearing means less cloud more of the time over land. Does that
       mean more night time cold as well as more daytime heat, with a
       lesser net effect than only averaging the max temps to make
       predictions? They also need to factor in astronomical cycles on
       the Earth's orbit and axis for what impact they have in the next
       decades.
       #Post#: 163--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Climate Doom
       By: Digwe Must Date: April 29, 2021, 12:34 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Greetings Gentlemen
       Here, we deal directly with the effects of climate change every
       day.  The songbirds are gone.  Two of the tree species native to
       this area are in deep trouble.  We face more and more
       catastrophic wildfires all the time.
       There are factors at work that are only now being given the
       weight they deserve in climate science.  The Princeton paper of
       a few years ago that noted the IPCC reports did not account for
       the albedo from increasing cloud cover due to evaporation at
       certain latitudes is one example.  The Beufort Gyre is overdue
       to spill out into the Atlantic which will further slow the
       circulating currents that bring livable weather to northern
       Europe.  The  magnetic poles are moving at an increased rate and
       the magnetic field of the planet is weakening in response to
       solar changes. Increasing volcanic activity is throwing crap
       (technical term) into the stratosphere at an accelerating rate.
       These forces which are acting in opposition to anthropogenic
       climate change aren't going to calm things down.  We can count
       on ever more violent extremes being with us from now on.
       Even if human were not causing a warming planet, we are
       certainly killing the oceans and poisoning the fresh water and
       the air we all breathe.
       I agree that we must consume less. And we will, like it or not.
       Dramatically less. Regarding the planting of trees- that
       depends.  In many places trees must be planted to replace
       forests that have been denuded.  The benefits of reforestation
       in those areas are difficult to overstate.  However, many
       forests in the North American west are actually suffering from
       too many stems and too much brush.  Interruption of the fire
       cycle and other poor management techniques have left a fire
       prone, genetically inferior mess.  The world doesn't just need
       more trees.  It needs healthy forests and living soil.
       Meanwhile, the cherry blossoms are out two weeks early here. The
       wild turkeys are setting eggs a bit early and the maple sap ran
       weeks ahead of normal.
       I had to put down Hercules the ox last week.  He was my partner
       working in the woods for years. I would include a picture of him
       if I could figure out how.  He was a Brown Swiss steer that
       taped at 2,700lbs. - a very impressive, massively strong animal
       that didn't have a mean bone in his body.  I bring it up because
       part of what will necessarily transpire over the coming years is
       a return to biological solutions for our challenges wherever
       appropriate as opposed to mechanical or electronic responses.
       The 2019 plum wine is excellent.  I wish I could pour y'all a
       glass.
       #Post#: 164--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Climate Doom
       By: Nearings fault Date: April 29, 2021, 9:23 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The global climate battles baffle me. The west pretends its
       lifestyle must not change while ignoring that future emissions
       growth is going to come from other parts of the world. We
       rightly have guilt about our past so won't point the finger
       where it equally belongs. The developing world rightly want a
       share of the advantages of energy usage while ignoring that
       unlimited growth is what got us into this problem in the first
       place. Cognitive dissonance. I have decided to concentrate on my
       immediate universe to do what I can and influence through
       example.  I know I am fully enmeshed in the existing system
       whether it be kids, building, transportation patterns, food and
       I've stopped pretending I'm not. My personal climate change
       philosophy revolves around building in resilience to as many
       aspects of my life as possible. So how does that work out in day
       to day life.
       Housing: build as energy efficiently as possible spend the money
       now before deflation happens to limit your energy usage far into
       the future. Choose high durability finishes that require little
       maintenance planning for low energy senior years. Choose modular
       technologies that can be subbed out if they fail down the road
       and dont rely on a single technology. Generate as much energy
       yourself as possible understanding that a watt not used is worth
       2 or 3 watts generated.
       Financial: Live under your means in terms of square footage, car
       costs, discretionary spending. Spending money you don't have
       feeds the bankers and encourages the worst elements of our
       society. Dont take your financial advice from people who make
       money off your decisions. If you hate global corporations,
       mineral extraction, big ag, predatory banking dont surrender
       your savings to them and take responsibility for your choices.
       Big returns come with huge consequences to someone or somewhere.
       Food: I am an omnivore. I have grown large portions of my own
       food in the past but I'm evolving my view of this issue as a
       conscious effort to stop deluding myself. I am very good at
       building, fixing, and energy issues. I am an absolute failure as
       a subsistence farmer. 2 km from me I have an organic farm that
       is compost and horse powered... to not take advantage of that is
       delusional. I have several grass fed cattle operations around me
       and even have some true gems : local small slaughtering
       capacity. Not taking advantage of that is again delusional
       . I like to garden, like chickens, storing food, growing greens
       under light out of season but without a food community I would
       starve. We have started doing as much of our food purchases
       directly and locally. Organic from california cannot compete
       with conventional produce locally.
       Transport: I drive a 16 year old ford explorer that I try to
       keep maintained and running even if it makes less and less sense
       financially.
       It uses a lot of fuel but it will move 6 people in a pinch and
       easily move my family of 4 with gear. It will also pull anything
       I need for work which can be a few hundred pounds to several
       thousand.  I could invest several tens of thousands of dollars
       for a slightly more efficient vehicle but it violates many of my
       financial rules so no. I lower its emissions by not driving.
       When I work I only work local even if there is a financial
       penalty to it. My partner drives a 10 year old Mazda 3 which
       sips so little fuel a transition to electric would be pure
       hubris and defy all environmental and financial logic. I'm lucky
       in that I vacation where I live. I like to hike, camp, canoe
       trip, ski. All of those dont involve more that a few hours of
       travel. Consequently I have not flown in five years and dont
       want to anytime soon. I might take a flight to the Rockies to
       ski again someday but as a special experience.
       All of this adds up to a better life while shrinking my
       footprint dramatically. I feel no need to calculate it since you
       just cant please the armchair warriors and I feel no need to do
       it anymore. I'm an incrementalist but incrementalism over a
       lifetime is revolutionary....
       Cheers,  NF
       #Post#: 167--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Climate Doom
       By: RE Date: April 30, 2021, 2:20 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=Nearings fault link=topic=14.msg164#msg164
       date=1619706197]Transport: I drive a 16 year old ford explorer
       that I try to keep maintained and running even if it makes less
       and less sense financially.
       It uses a lot of fuel but it will move 6 people in a pinch and
       easily move my family of 4 with gear. It will also pull anything
       I need for work which can be a few hundred pounds to several
       thousand.  I could invest several tens of thousands of dollars
       for a slightly more efficient vehicle but it violates many of my
       financial rules so no.
       [/quote]
       You also would have to calculate all the embedded energy
       involved with replacing that vehicle.  For instance if you
       replaced it with an EV, the batteries for it have a huge
       embedded energy in their manufacture.
       RE
       #Post#: 170--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Climate Doom
       By: Nearings fault Date: April 30, 2021, 5:56 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=RE link=topic=14.msg167#msg167 date=1619767206]
       [quote author=Nearings fault link=topic=14.msg164#msg164
       date=1619706197]Transport: I drive a 16 year old ford explorer
       that I try to keep maintained and running even if it makes less
       and less sense financially.
       It uses a lot of fuel but it will move 6 people in a pinch and
       easily move my family of 4 with gear. It will also pull anything
       I need for work which can be a few hundred pounds to several
       thousand.  I could invest several tens of thousands of dollars
       for a slightly more efficient vehicle but it violates many of my
       financial rules so no.
       [/quote]
       You also would have to calculate all the embedded energy
       involved with replacing that vehicle.  For instance if you
       replaced it with an EV, the batteries for it have a huge
       embedded energy in their manufacture.
       RE
       [/quote]I totally agree. I doubt I'm going down the EV rabbit
       hole anytime soon... Consumer society is very tempting though. I
       found myself going over the specs for the Rivian and the Tesla
       Cybertruck... There Is no way in hell I would pay those prices
       but its eye candy. What does have my energy brain going is the
       coming cheap supply of lithium vehicle banks that will be
       hitting the off grid world in the next few years. What car
       companies consider worn out would still make awesome stand alone
       home systems ...
       #Post#: 171--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Climate Doom
       By: Nearings fault Date: April 30, 2021, 8:49 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I would be interested in how the brain trust reads this article.
       On one hand I see melting ice, species habitat destroyed,
       methane release from permafrost melting.
       Read deeper and I also see woody shrubs replacing moss and
       lichen and a deeper soil able to support much more carbon
       sequestering biomass... Do the models reflect a greening arctic
       able to absorb carbon? I dont know how to do the fancy pasting
       you guys do so it's just a link. Again, just looking for
       opinions I'm not staking some sort of position here
  HTML https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/thin-ice-labrador-summer-climate-changes-1.6005130
       #Post#: 173--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Climate Doom
       By: Nearings fault Date: April 30, 2021, 5:46 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=14.msg172#msg172
       date=1619821737]
       [quote author=Nearings fault link=topic=14.msg170#msg170
       date=1619780211]
       [quote author=RE link=topic=14.msg167#msg167 date=1619767206]
       [quote author=Nearings fault link=topic=14.msg164#msg164
       date=1619706197]Transport: I drive a 16 year old ford explorer
       that I try to keep maintained and running even if it makes less
       and less sense financially.  I could invest several tens of
       thousands of dollars for a slightly more efficient vehicle but
       it violates many of my financial rules so no.
       [/quote]
       You also would have to calculate all the embedded energy
       involved with replacing that vehicle.  For instance if you
       replaced it with an EV, the batteries for it have a huge
       embedded energy in their manufacture.
       RE
       [/quote]I totally agree.
       [/quote]
       And how would you calculate this embedded energy, and determine
       its value in a real world purchase? Does less embedded energy
       indicate a less expensive/practical/efficient vehicle, or more?
       [/quote]I honestly dont know anymore. I find the numbers are
       skewed to match whoever's point is being made. I think a vehicle
       that is maintained and replaced piece by piece and driven
       sparingly should have a lower carbon footprint regardless of
       fuel. Based on my research the current batch of electric
       vehicles will last the life of the battery. Maybe there will be
       a huge aftermarket that develops to refit the cars but
       everything about them is assembled for fit not for
       sustainability...
       #Post#: 175--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Climate Doom
       By: K-Dog Date: May 1, 2021, 2:07 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [spoiler][quote author=Nearings fault
       link=topic=14.msg173#msg173 date=1619822766]
       [quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=14.msg172#msg172
       date=1619821737]
       [quote author=Nearings fault link=topic=14.msg170#msg170
       date=1619780211]
       [quote author=RE link=topic=14.msg167#msg167 date=1619767206]
       [quote author=Nearings fault link=topic=14.msg164#msg164
       date=1619706197]Transport: I drive a 16 year old ford explorer
       that I try to keep maintained and running even if it makes less
       and less sense financially.  I could invest several tens of
       thousands of dollars for a slightly more efficient vehicle but
       it violates many of my financial rules so no.
       [/quote]
       You also would have to calculate all the embedded energy
       involved with replacing that vehicle.  For instance if you
       replaced it with an EV, the batteries for it have a huge
       embedded energy in their manufacture.
       RE
       [/quote]I totally agree.
       [/quote]
       And how would you calculate this embedded energy, and determine
       its value in a real world purchase? Does less embedded energy
       indicate a less expensive/practical/efficient vehicle, or more?
       [/quote]I honestly dont know anymore. I find the numbers are
       skewed to match whoever's point is being made. I think a vehicle
       that is maintained and replaced piece by piece and driven
       sparingly should have a lower carbon footprint regardless of
       fuel. Based on my research the current batch of electric
       vehicles will last the life of the battery. Maybe there will be
       a huge aftermarket that develops to refit the cars but
       everything about them is assembled for fit not for
       sustainability...
       [/quote]
       [/spoiler]
       I am driving this (the gas version, not the Diesel
       shown):
  HTML https://www.cstatic-images.com/car-pictures/maxWidth503/usb70mbc801a0101.png
       You can get them for $3,000 — $15,000.  Eddy has (or had) one
       too.  If you get a good one you have great value for the money.
       I don't care what the mileage of it is (it is actually pretty
       good.  27 MPG on the freeway).  What matters is how much I drive
       it.  Two trips a week in a fuel efficient car to the same place
       farts more CO2 out than one trip to the same place no matter
       what else you drive.  Plan your driving to minimize miles
       driven.  Save some money.  If people really cared about fuel
       efficiency, saying how much fuel a car uses at idle stuck in
       traffic or uses up when a 'Karen' uses it to drive through
       Starbucks without turning off the engine while as she waits for
       cars in front to move would be on the white sticker when it was
       sold.  Idle consumption is as important as knowing what the
       mileage is where I live.
       [img]
  HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Y91xN6zb_-XOvRUQ9DringHaE8%26pid%3DApi&f=1[/img]
       You know every car in that line has its engine running and you
       are NOT going to get through that line in 5 minutes.  Maybe they
       could have a car wash pull mechanism?  That would keep the
       engines off.  But I'm kidding.  No
       [shadow=gray,left]Diner[/shadow] would be in this line.  An
       average drive through at a fast food place I'll guess uses up
       fifty cents worth of fuel at todays prices unless there is no
       line.  With no line the odds of someone being smart enough to
       turn the engine off at the window is increased.  The answer is
       not to drive an electric.  The answer is cook at home and make
       sure everyone else does too.  Nobody likes the second part of
       that statement.  I don't.
       [img]
  HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.zcjqIv9ExwaikdEmzuR08wHaCJ%26pid%3DApi&f=1[/img]
       As things are  [shadow=gray,left]Diners[/shadow] would find
       another way to get our coffee fix.  If I could find a local
       boiled tree bark I liked as much that would be great.
       [img]
  HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F25%2F23%2Fe3%2F2523e3e40fdbb5d925419cf2942647a3.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[/img]
       The world will not and cannot conserve itself to salvation.  The
       general public has been propagandized with this idea because
       that is where capitalism wants things to go.  It keeps the
       existing arrangement going the longest.
       * Changing our ways is not in the equation but that is the only
       thing that could work.
       The equation:
       [img]
  HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quizlaw.com%2Fblog%2Fimages%2Fmath-problem.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[/img]
       Having 'Woman' in the equation is only humor, but a healthy guy
       will drive fifty miles to get laid.  100 miles round trip.
       #Post#: 177--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Climate Doom
       By: K-Dog Date: May 1, 2021, 2:43 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I think I blundered onto something:
       [quote]The world will not and cannot conserve itself to
       salvation.  The general public has been propagandized with this
       idea because that is where capitalism wants things to go.  It
       keeps the existing arrangement going the longest.  [/quote]
       [img]
  HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ft_original%2Fy7jtwugvbwepab240fxv.gif&f=1&nofb=1[/img]
       #Post#: 179--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Climate Doom
       By: Phil Potts Date: May 1, 2021, 3:06 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       We have had a growth dependent paradigm because of all currency
       being borrowed into existence. With a shift to commoditization
       and pricing of every aspect of nature, a new user pays system
       makes conservation profitable for bankers and billionaires who
       bought the air, water, wildlife, forest and farms. Depopulation
       with the great reset is then feasible in theory.
       Nobody goes anywhere to get laid when the risk v reward calculus
       is Russian roulette and if they do, they don't procreate if it's
       like using 3 chambered rounds... (as I type on a wireless
       internet cellphone  6 inches from my testicles).
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page