« Letter Re: Snap Shooting Skills |Main| Note from JWR: »
Letter Re: U.S. Climate Data Available Online
Jim,
I'm not sure if this has been covered here before, but here are a few links
to Government climate data and maps in the US. Microclimate data are represented
as well, to a degree limited by the number of stations:
Climate
Maps of the United States - Lookup Page
Monthly
Station Climate Summaries - By Station
U.S. Climate Normals
For those interested in wind speeds and patterns across the USA for whatever
reason, the map link above can be supplemented with the data
for the major population centers.
Thanks again for your hard work, - The DFer
JWR Replies: Thanks for sending those links. They are very
useful for both assessing the "livability" of various locales. Along with prevailing
wind maps (which are useful for radioactive fallout prediction), I consider
maps an essential planning tool. I strongly recommend that anyone considering
retreat locales should do
a climate study first.
It is notable that climate and growing season duration are what caused us to
rule out areas east of The
Great Divide when we went searching for the Rawles Ranch.
« Weekly Survival Real Estate Market Update |Main| Letter Re: The Best Way to Stock Up on Food at the Eleventh Hour? »
Letter Re: Climate Change Myth and Reality
Jim:
Regarding the recent Odd 'n Sods link to the article about "The Prophet
of Climate Change": This planet on which we live has been "globally
warmed" before,
during that episode of time sometimes referred-to as the "Medieval Warm
Period". This warming (which is acknowledged to have been even warmer
than our present-day) occurred without benefit of (the) Industrial Revolution,
or even of a large human population. It (the Warming) waxed into being beginning
around 750-850 A.D., waned, and then moved into the next bit of planetary-cycle,
often thought of as (the) "Little Ice Age".
This globe on which we all reside has seen these warm/cold cycles wax & wane
for long before humans became the (supposedly; insects are said to be more
widespread) dominant species. As I indicated above, the cycles have come and
gone with
little or no previous influence from humanity. Hysteria (and, making an "time
'honored'" institution of trading "carbon credits" worldwide)
aside, from where do these supposedly "experts" think that we humans
have put our planet into "irreversible" warming, and that "6
billion people will perish by the end of the century"?
The quicksand, as it were, of hysteria is that nobody thusly involved wishes
to be on the back-end of the proverbial horse. "Jumping on the bandwagon" is
a very old and time honored way of "proving" to ones' peers that
they (the jumper['s]) have "gotten with the program". I should know;
in my time I've shouted-down common sense, jumped on bandwagons, and altogether
told intelligent & common-sense to "take a hike". In my case,
however, I've come to my senses and decided to "Investigate, (but) not
pile-on the wagon of hysteria" (noted above, a sad-to-say, but increasingly-popular,
social-phenomena). Truly yours, - Ben L.
« Letter Re: The Importance of Proper Hearing Protection |Main| Notes from JWR: »
Poll Results: Why are You Preparing to Survive?
Here is the first round of responses to this question: Those who are well
educated enough to see a societal collapse of some sort or another in the making
fall into two groups, the merrymakers
and the preparers. The merrymakers don't see life worth living post-SHTF, so
they live it up now. We on SurvivalBlog are the preparers and have
chosen to survive, but why? Our children? To rebuild civilization?
Because the collapse will only be temporary? Because we can and we're
stubborn with a stronger than normal will to survive? The following
is just the first batch of responses. I plan to post at least one
more batch. Please send your responses (one paragraph or less) via e-mail,
and I will post them anonymously.
The survivalist is an optimist -- not
merely because he/she thinks he'll make it through the crisis, but because
of the
(possibly
subconscious)
hope
that
something good will emerge in the aftermath. It's the logic of any kind of
apocalyptic thought... Theological systems that have a conception of a climactic
struggle or an "end times" imagine that, after Armageddon, we'll
see the dawning of a new age. Not surprisingly, a lot of Hollywood movies follow
this script, too: After the aliens are defeated, for example, in "Independence
Day", mankind stands united, having put aside their differences; After
catastrophic weather changes in "The Day After Tomorrow," the planet
begins to heal itself, etc. Heck, this theme can be seen, too, in your fine
book, "Patriots". In the same way, I plan to live not only because
I'm stubborn and have a finely-tuned sense of justice -- and thus hate the
idea of turning over the planet to looters, thugs, and others who would prey
on the innocent -- but also because I'm both curious and hopeful about what
will emerge as society reconstitutes itself.
--
My modest preparation springs from the knowledge that I and the Lord are
the protectors of my family (there are five of us). Our ultimate trust is in
Him,
but it is on me to do what I reasonably can do to protect my family from in
the event of hardship and/or disaster. (After watching [Hurricane] Katrina,
it seems apparent that the government cannot do that.) Anyone reading your
web
site
thinks that
there is at least a fathomable chance that our nation's run of blessing/luck
will end (or be suspended) at some point in the future. Nothing lasts forever.
If and when that time comes, I would never forgive myself if my family suffered
unnecessarily because I did not take reasonable steps to prepare for such a
time. In addition to that, it's just plain fun to learn about this stuff. (Anyone
who says otherwise is lying!)
--
Because the alternative is inconceivable to me!
--
I’m currently going through some things in my life that are agonizing
(but subject to change) and make things feel almost hopeless for me at times,
yet every day I wake up again and thank God that he breathed the breath of
life into me. I won’t waste that breath. I’m motivated to prepare
to survive and overcome by many factors. Here are some examples:
I’m a 7th generation descendant of a settler in my current state and I’m
motivated to survive by the risks my settler ancestors took, the struggles they
went through, the multiple battles they fought in, the children they lost prematurely
and the price they paid to be here. I recently visited some of their graves for
the first time. I see it as my responsibility, honor and duty to live freely
and survive. The stock I am from is cut out for it.
I prepare to survive because I’m ultra conservative, at times feeling like
an endangered species or “minority” and I’m tenaciously defiant
to those who would like to see my “kind” exterminated. I am equipped
with a few trusted friends that are peers in regard my views (though mostly surrounded
by sheeple) and have inspired some to begin to prepare. I discern a negative
spiritual force is taking action to see my country’s sovereignty given
away. I am motivated to be a hindrance to that spirit. My country is worth saving.
I prepare to survive because as a young man I swore an oath to uphold and defend
the Constitution of the United States, despite the fact that there have been
some truly sorry individuals working to undermine that Constitution since before
I was born. I intend to see my oath fulfilled.
I prepare to survive because I read "Patriots", awoke to how fragile our economy
really is and saw how foolishly I’d been behaving in the past (assuming
life would always be normal) and am in the process of repenting of any residual
foolish, sheeple-like attitudes and habits I have.
I prepare to survive because I’ve been in a city where gasoline was temporarily
not available and walked through the local grocery store at 3:00 AM (less crowded)
and have seen the store shelves stripped of food for a short period of time.
It’s
pretty convincing you need to prepare when the fuel in the tank of your vehicle
and few 5 gallon cans (at the time) may be all you’ll have for a while.
I prepare to survive because if things ever Schumerize I have multiple skill
sets that can help a number of people in a number of survival situations. I believe
I was created to help people, when possible. I gather info, educate, discuss
and leave food for thought for those who are unprepared, but willing to listen
and consider my views on the subject.
--
Why an I preparing? For the simple reason that I live in the middle of the
midwest. Bad winters, heavy snow, and ice storms. The rest of the year heavy
rain , floods, tornados, et cetera. You can't depend on the government to
come through
when needed, so if you don't have what you need than you are SOL!
You have to
be able to get by on what you have or fabricate something to do the job needed.
I haven't depended on the government to help and I really don't think they
have the capacity any more if ever. It will be your self and friends and
neighbors
pulling
together that will make the difference. I prepare for me and mine so that we
may be able to help others if need be. I've traveled extensively in South America,
off the beaten path, and if you don't have what you need or can fabricate
it than you should not be there. The same goes for having all your ducks
lined
up at home.
--
I'm a Jesuit educated 38 year old Bachelor, Eagle Scout, USMC Gulf War Vet,
working for a major aerospace company in Seattle. The reason I'm preparing
is I inherited
~$500K from my grandfather, who sold the family farm in California to housing
developers. He worked hard for all of us and I don't want that blessing of
wealth to be squandered. I'm preparing because being prepared is what's been
beat
into my
head since I was a kid. You can't play the "victim" card on the Four
Horsemen.
--
Why do I prepare? Probably because I read too much science fiction as a
child! Probably because surviving is so much more interesting than succumbing.
Born
in the late 1950s, I remember bomb shelter salesmen and diving under my desk
during A-bomb drills. I always assumed something, a war, or a pandemic, could
change life as I knew it. It never occurred to me not to want to survive. Both
my parents were alive during the depression, and that contributed to not taking
food/housing for granted. Perhaps my uncle, who survived Bataan, or my aunt,
who was a prisoner of war in the Philippines, might also have had something
to do with my mindset?
--
Because I believe that life is worth living, and I have no intention of
simply "biting
the dust" unless I give it the old college try. I believe that trying
and ultimately failing is far better than not trying at all.
--
Bottom line: I owe it to my family to be prepared. I could not bear to look
into their eyes as they look to me for help and have to say "Sorry."
--|
I am a preparer. Not because I'm smarter than anyone else, but because from
what I see, there just is no other choice. I do it for my family; my beloved
husband who humors me but thinks I'm slightly nuts, my grown children who love
me but roll their eyes whenever I speak about what is happening around us.
look, I don't have any college degree or any fancy smarts, no one would call
me well educated. But I can see what I can see. I read, study, research and
from my angle, we are gonna be toast and I bet my surly one eyed cat that it
will be ugly. so I plod along doing the best I can when can. I don't have
a retreat, I don't have a bunker or fallout shelter, I don't have 10 acres
or two years worth of food. But I've got God. I keep plodding on doing the
best
with what I have and I know He takes care of the rest.Will we survive the whatever
that comes? Heck if I know. But I'm a fool if
I do not give it my best shot.
--
As a man of firm Christian beliefs, I believe all our days are numbered
and have value. In those number of days we are to protect and provide for our
our
own selves, our families and so on. Examples in scripture are numerous how
people were commanded to defend their homes, their cities, their neighbors,
and their land. Unless we (like some were) are destined to go into Babylonian
captivity I see no other proper choice.
--
I am taking what steps I feel necessary to survive in a societal collapse of
infrastructure because I realize that the more intricate a system of living
becomes, the more possible facets of failure are therefore created. As the
machine known as Society grows in scale and complexity, so do the required
aspects of its function; increasing the number of things
that can go wrong, thus eventually causing a critical failure of the system.
With the statistical (and historical) inevitability staring one in the face,
how can someone not do everything within
your power to be prepared?
--
I feel its my duty to four fathers, kids, grand kids, friends, although they
are getting harder to find these days, an it just feels like the right thing
to
do,also its interesting,fun, a great learning expense,i spend hours on your
site an i want to really thank you for it. I'm sure you make money off of it
an you should, but I'll bet you are the type of person that really believe
in what you do. I love my guns an have about 25 [of them], I try to go to
the
range at least three times a week, its the most relaxing time in my life ,by
myself or with someone, I'm sure a lot of people don't understand, I love
the military
weapons a lot, I have .303s, Mausers, and others. I'm proud of my beliefs,
thanks.
--
I consider preparing my Christian duty. I'm also stocking up lots of extra
food, clothing, and so forth for charity, which is also my Christian duty.
--
Myself, I am what would be called a "millennialist" based on my
beliefs from the Bible. The majority of mankind is stupid and sinful. Thousands
of years and we are still doing the same mistakes over and over. I do not believe
in any Gene Roddenberry vision where mankind, by its own efforts, rises from
the ashes and evolves into a benevolent
a Star Trek society. Nothing sort of divine intervention will save us in the
long run from permanent self-destruction----Now aren't I a cheerful one to
invite to a social gathering?;)
Just for the record, I'm not one of those nuts that believe in trying to hasten
or encourage the Second coming The world is dong a fine job all by itself.
--
While I had read about survivalism and planning for a couple of years, the
importance of having some sort of plan didn't hit me hard until I was living
in the South, had a new baby, and [Hurricane] Katrina hit. All of a sudden
the importance of having an evacuation plan, supplies, and a known destination
to retreat
to were very important. I am not as prepared as many of the readers, but I
know
where to go and what I'll do when I get there. Also, thanks to some great books
on small farming and some great advice on here I know how to avoid some real
pitfalls.
--
I’m preparing to survive for my wife and my children, because I can
and because it gives me a feeling of confidence. I say “because I can” since
most of my acquaintances don’t have a clue of the probable upcoming changes
in society, but of those that do have a clue they can’t prepare for survival.
They can’t prepare for survival because they’re financially tapped
out by having been brainwashed into living on credit today figuring somebody
else will take care of them tomorrow, but it won’t be me.
And it drives me nuts. A 45 year old single female friend of my wife owns a
boat, owns a camper, had two vehicles, bought a scooter and recently bought
a house within the last two years. When I first started preparing for survival,
my wife made a comment to her about it and her friend said when the SHTF “we’ll
all be as snug as a bug in a rug.” I said“What do you
mean we? I think you need to make your own preparations.”
I used to try and educate our acquaintances but have started taking more of
an inquiring approach with regards to what they think are the possible upcoming
changes in society. A couple we know refinanced their house to buy a travel
trailer but they only camp within 45 minutes of their house because they can’t
afford the gas and their tow vehicle is not reliable. I asked the husband what
he thought was coming in the future, he said he figured things were going to
get pretty bad. But then they just put down a deposit on a trip to Hawaii so
I’ve got to figure you just can’t help people like this.
And it’s not that I wouldn’t help anybody, I saw value in a comment
on your web site with regards to helping neighbors and I will. (Is it okay
if I only help the ones I like?). We live in a conventional neighborhood and
I
wish we didn’t but at this point it would take too much of our resources
to move to a property with more land. So our best defense is to bond with the
good neighbors but I don’t want all our irresponsible acquaintances coming
to live with us.
We have a good life and are lucky to be able to make preparations for what
may come. And I am thankful for every additional day I have to get better prepared.
--
I am preparing to survive because I believe the threats to our way of life
are manifold. We are in a global war. China strength's grows, our borders are
not protected. Our government is shredding the constitution. Natural disasters,
environmental concerns, the basic depravity and selfishness of man--its reason
enough. I was a volunteer during [Hurricane] Katrina. Not one person who
had preps, was sorry. Many other equivalent societies in this century have
fallen,
why is
America better ? It is inevitable, one disaster will prove the wisdom of preparing.
--
1. Life is worth living.
2. I want to be around if there is any defending of this nation to be done.
3. Who said one can’t prepare and merrymake? (I guess it depends on one’s
interpretation of ‘merrymake’).
--
It's something that was raised in me. Whether it was the Boy Scout's motto
of always being prepared, or just the human instinct of survival, if I see
something
on
the horizon, I won't back down. Not to mention I get to justify spending a
lot of money on camping gear and guns, my two favorite hobbies.
--
We are trying to prepare because it is the right and responsible thing to do
for our family, friends, neighbors, and country. If we all became part of the
solution, then there would be no problem.
--
Jim, I grew up in the bomb shelter/Cold War era. A neighbor two houses down
actually dug out their front yard to install a bomb shelter. My folks had a
rudimentary bug-out bag and we always kept a month's worth of food on hand.
Hey, for the 1950s, that was progressive thinking so I guess I come by being
into preparedness naturally.
I hold advanced degrees but my education does not get in the way of exercising
common sense. It is obvious that our complex society is too interdependent
to survive major interruptions and we have numerous examples to look at (the
L.A. riots, Hurricane Katrina, and such). To believe that a major interruption
of services could not occur is delusional. The empirical evidence is right
in front of us. The family which is prepared has far fewer worries.
Do I believe we are headed for TEOTWAWKI?
Not particularly. Do I believe that we will see significant disruptions that
will affect us for 10 days or so?
Yes, definitely. Disruptions lasting to 30 days or beyond? Less likely, but
I maintain a "year's supply" nonetheless. Also, my Church has preached
being prepared for years. Our leaders have constantly cajoled us to have a
year's supply of food and other necessities and my guess is they know something
we haven't heard yet.
--
Most pundits state that human beings are constantly evolving. The point they
have ignored or can't see is that the evolvement of the human race in the last
50 years has been a deterioration, not an advancement. We survivalists are,
quite frankly, throwbacks to the pure genotype that got us to this point in
time.
--
I prepare because the end is nigh (at least TEOTWAWKI), and there will be
a lot of merry-makers who suddenly changed their minds, post-collapse. If you're
prepared and you decide the going is too rough, you can always quit,but if
you're not prepared, your options are zero. You're done. Besides, my family
is Finnish, and we're stubborn SOBs. You can always tell a Finn, just not
much...
--
I prepare to survive because I see it as part of the natural cycle of human
civilization. Something in us wants to forget the lessons of what makes us
a great society and start living on borrowed riches and capabilities. Eventually,
that living beyond our means catches up with us via a natural disaster, economic
collapse or societal conflict.
If we were not to prepare to survive then we are doomed to fail and live miserably
under the dictates of someone else. If we prepare we are not guaranteed to
have prepared for the right situation, or enough, but at least we have a much
better than average chance. In the end, I am an optimist. No matter how bad
things get they will eventually get better. We can speed up our own recovery
and that of our community’s by preparing now. If we do not, then we may
end up wallowing in misery and struggling for the barest necessities. Is that
the kind of life God wants for us? I think not. I believe God wants us to live
wisely and prepare to prosper under all conditions. That takes discipline and
short-term sacrifice.
--
Jim, your blog rocks. I only hope that I can learn and earn fast enough to
take advantage of the incredible information that your forum provides before
TEOTWAWKI.
I have a beautiful 6 month old son who is totally innocent to the ways in which
TPTB (the powers that be) are systematically destroying nature, American Democratic
principles and threatening the survival of humanity. He deserves a chance in
this life, regardless of whether or not he'll ever get to visit Sam's Club,
get a college scholarship, drive a V-8 or own an iPod.
When things start to get dicey, and as the world as we know it begins to fall
apart - most likely permanently- he will be just coming up in age and entering
what should be the most wondrous years of a child's life.
For him, and for my future children, I will fill their youthful imaginations
with nature, tools, projects, outdoor adventure and practical knowledge. Before
I let the idiot-box and America's media-driven junk-culture destroy their understanding
of their place in God's kingdom (and the animal kingdom), they will know
what to eat and how to hunt it, how to garden, how to fix stuff and how
to avoid trouble in a society that in the future will eventually fail entirely
by trying to eliminate all risk of failure here in the present.
They will be encouraged to learn practical trades: veterinary sciences, engineering,
construction, medicine and alternative medicine, martial arts, food production
and off-the-grid technology solutions.
No bankers, real-estate agents, financial analysts, politicians or computer
graphic designers in this family, Jim. No sireeee bubba.
I have always believed that those people who want to throw God's gift of life
away through risk, recklessness, attempted suicide or plain old bad lifestyle
habits are doomed to live longer.
I have also questioned since1987 when the U.S.S. Stark got hit by our"allies" escorting
black gold in the Persian Gulf how long our cheeseburger-driven, cheap-oil,
fiat-money, fake-friends and fear of loss-driven society can keep going.
Therefore I will survive this impending paradigm-shift in human existence in
order to see my children prevail into adulthood, and for my morbid curiosity
to see how all this B.S. I have put up with my entire life winds-up in the
end
of my days.
It won't be easy however. Here in Texas, not
1 in 1000 people has a clue what might be coming in the next few years. Even
after [Hurricane] Katrina pushed a not-so-golden horde of 150,000 low income
welfare dependents onto the greater Houston area. I guess that bad stuff
only happens
to others,
right?
I'll be heading for the hills soon enough I hope, and taking my brood to
a more austere, self-sufficient and remote lifestyle before Sugar Land Texas
becomes a looter's paradise.
--
At first I prepared because it was an American act of self-reliance. Now,
after all the weird looks and puzzled expressions, I get to have the biggest
'I told you so' in my lifetime.
--
Great question. Do I have an answer? Yeah a couple. Peace of mind in these
troubled times is the main one. We buy insurance for everything except peace
of mind.
Our power goes off we start our transition to alternatives without a worry.
Lights, power,shelter, water, communication ability goes on. Food is here
to be eaten fuel to use without need to purchase, cash on hand no worries.
Another reason we do what we do is because "I" feel it's my responsibility
to my family. Part of my responsibility as a husband and a father is prepare
to take care of them no matter what happens next I can't sleep knowing I
could have, but I didn't. It's a philosophy of maintaining the status quo
to then have the time and resources to help others. It's about being "ahead
of the game." It's about
life and meeting it's changes head on, never stopping head down and moving
constantly
on forward to whatever it is that is next in life.
--
My reason is: why give up? I have fought to hard in this life to just roll
over
and die.
« Odds 'n Sods: |Main| Letter Re: Advice on Aftermarket Barrels for Glock Pistols »
Letter Re: Unexpected Climate Change
Dear Jim and Family,
The movie The Day After Tomorrow was on FX (cable TV channel)
tonight. The first hour is entertaining weather disasters and fun science
building
up,
the second hour was a travesty which insulted intelligent people and
scientists everywhere. But it was pretty, and it's just a movie. It's
okay for
it to be half cr*p as long as its entertaining.
The reality of climate change is much more interesting, and considerably
slower paced. This week I found a web site with a drought map which
is updated weekly. US
Drought Monitor. It is pretty darned interesting.
Another little reality is the West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington)
has its entire climate based on the Longshore Drift, which is powered
by the North Wind from Alaska. This wind causes upwelling of nutrient
rich cold water along the coastline to several hundred miles out on
the continental shelf. This water provides food for plankton, fish,
and birds. It also drops summer temperatures inland and reduces evaporation
along the coastline. Without this cool water current, there's no food
for the fish, no fish to catch, no salmon, and the weather starts to
resemble that of Baja Mexico. That sounds pretty good until you realize
that Baja has pretty dead water with not much in it. The ocean's equivalent
of a desert: oxygen poor, toxic thanks to algae blooms, and not healthy
for people either. This is happening now, and has been a problem for
the last 4 years, which (perhaps) coincidentally corresponds with years
of drought. The North Wind has started late each summer, usually after
high numbers of birds have died. Most of the Salmon are gone, for various
reasons but the oxygen problem is the main culprit. You'd think this
would be limited to California, since its a state which clearly offends
God, but Oregon is suffering too and there's a lot of
Christians up there. Its Eugene that gives the state a bad rep.
This isn't the best part. With warmer temperatures, the waters can
support unusual weather for the area: hurricanes. I say unusual because
they are such in the last few thousand years, however they're Not unusual
in the geologic record. As a geology student, I got to see the sedimentation
of hurricanes, event (storm) by event (storm) in coastal sandstones
called "Turbidite Sequences". Turns out that California (and
Oregon) used to get some pretty severe weather we normally associate
with Southern Mexico, Florida, and the Gulf Coast. I'm talking category
4-5 hurricanes every year. Yes that seems strange, but the winds control
the currents and the currents & winds control the weather. ANd
the weather controls the food supply, which controls population movements
and can turn a remote retreat location into a deathtrap.
Or something really weird can happen. Like summer rains and monsoons
can start flowing into California, along with those hurricanes. See,
normal California and Southwestern weather is brief winter rains followed
by months of spring, summer, and fall drought. In the old days, Northern
California got rain from October to May, and that was perfectly normal
weather. Nowadays is January to February, and the rainy season is punctuated
by long drying periods so the aquifers don't fill, the streams empty,
and it just resembles a desert. It sucks, but that's how it is. This
is a transitional period. Perhaps things will change back next year,
but perhaps they won't.
That leads to the weird thing. If we get summer monsoons, it changes
the whole climate in the Southwest. It means lightning in a state that
rarely sees any in the lowlands. It means tornados and hail. It means
thunderstorms and flash floods. It means living pasture in currently
dry regions, which is a real boon to ranching and dairy, but death
to the orchards. It means heavy rain in the lower reaches of the Sierras
and summer snowstorms. It also means rain reaching Nevada and the desert
regions of California and Arizona (and Utah), with storms coming from
the Southwest, via Hawaii, what we call the "Pineapple Express".
Imagine that happening a couple times a week all summer long in places
where it never used to rain, so the SW, starts to get like the SE.
Humid, wet, water soaking into the aquifers, rivers running, plants
changing. It also means that a lot of dry lakes fill, starting at salt
marshes and swamps but eventually able to host fish, deer, elk, mountain
sheep, migrating birds, antelope, willows, alders, cottonwoods. Land
in Nevada would become not only habitable but valuable. With the change
in direction of the weather, new banana-belts would also develop, as
they're based on direction of rainfall and spots downwind from mountain
ranges experience warming during storms on the far side. That's more
long-term.
In the short term, you'll see a few storms, and a few hurricanes creeping
north up Baja, a long way from Los Angeles, but as the ocean temps
rise on the California and Oregon coastline, the further north the
storms can go before breaking up. And like I said, there's evidence
in the geologic record of hurricanes striking the coast North of San
Francisco. It could be some time before that happens, or it could happen
in a dozen years, then more quiet for another dozen. Lots of factors
are involved making precise prediction foolhardy. In the meantime,
keep your eyes peeled for summer rain in California. It could be a
harbinger of a serious change in climate, perhaps for the better. Best,
- InyoKern
« Letter Re: Supporting SurvivalBlog |Main| Notes from JWR: »
Two Letters Re: Pondering Some Personal Consequences of Global Climate Change
Dear Jim and Family,
Wow, people sure are getting worked up and personal about climate change
aren't they? I agree that as survivalists we should do our best to
plan for reasonable emergencies. Cold weather gear in Central America?
Probably not. A larger cistern system than you think you need in the
desert or great plains? A good idea. Why? Climate change, whether caused
by man or not, makes for changing rainfall patterns. Maybe heavier
so your soil gets waterlogged and you get unexpected floods. In Hawaii
this may mean more hurricanes. Or maybe Hawaii turns into a desert
island with little rainfall and ends up collapsing like Easter Island
did. If the rain gets more brief and falls less often, aqueducts, which
keep your well full, could fail and you're suddenly out of water. Drought
has a very long history in North America in particular, topping several
advanced and complex civilizations: the Mayans, Hohokam, Mississippi
Mound Builders, and the Anasazi. In north america, climate can be accurately
mapped by tree ring growth and several other methods, and the region
has a tendency of a couple centuries of reliable weather, then a couple
decades of severe drought. We've had 150 years of reliable weather,
and I guess now we're going to have drought. The Mayan calendar maps
that to 265 year cycle of growth and destruction, which is purported
to end around 2012, which should be around 4 years into the Peak Oil
collapse.
A couple degree water temp difference means a huge difference in Cod
catch in the North Sea near Norway and Iceland. There are centuries
of records on those, if anyone is interested. A couple degrees can
mean glaciers grow or retreat, which they've been doing for millennia
before man began burning coal or oil. I think that the
IPCC report is inconclusive, but I'm a geologist and nobody asks
us about climate since our viewpoint is a lot longer than theirs and
our conclusions
don't make good headlines: "It's Interglacial.
Climate changes because its erratic until the next ice age begins." But
that's not as sexy as claiming the <s>sky is falling</s> world
is melting and everything will die. I'm pretty tired to explaining
this to ignorant masses who want to believe we're all going to melt
into the sea.
When all is said and done, climate change is something the governments
of the world have decided to accept as truth, regardless of whether
it
is or not. They are prepared to mandate "solutions" to "stop
warming", when their own vaunted report says that if we start
now with the most extreme measures (no CO2 emissions at all), it will
take 50 years to see any change.
As survivalists, we should be thinking about the political consequences
of that decision, such as banning the burning of firewood to cut CO2
emissions, outlawing internal combustion engines, perhaps even seizing
rural properties without active agriculture because the cost of transit
from this rural location makes it environmentally damaging under the
Kyoto protocols. Think about that. Are there alternatives to allow
your lifestyle to survive? Yes, but they'll be expensive and bid up
by demand. Electric cars actually cost around $40K, and are subsidized
by the government down to $22K. A mass release of electric cars to
the general public won't scale up for subsidies, so expect to pay that
$40K for
the first models. Instead of seeing the price drop, it will probably
rise with time as demand for the most efficient models and latest innovations
(and inflation) will bring it higher. As metals will cost more to make
thanks to the lack of fuels and restrictions on CO2 emissions, special
taxes are added on for a personal transport vehicle, and road taxes
and GPS tracking of mileage that gets very expensive. I can easily
see cars costing $70K (before inflation) by 2012. How many households
can afford that? I sure can't.
The IPCC report invites all sorts of oppression and we should fight
misuse and abuse of the data aggressively. They'll take your guns today
(UN says self-defense is illegal) so they can take your cars tomorrow
(personal vehicles release too much CO2, use precious fossil fuels/electricity),
then your furnace/fireplace (CO2), then your pantry. (Ration Cards).
You can see where that's going. Pretty soon you're living in Orwell's
1984. Letting government, and their politically motivated
scientists, tell me I can't burn wood, coal, or oil to heat my home
because it releases
CO2,
thus denying my right to survive the winter in a rural retreat, is
the same as a putting a gun to my head and telling me to obey and die.
I have real problems with that. Things like this convince me that the
UN is the enemy of the Free Man.
Even if the science behind the IPCC report is correct, the threat of
forcing First World countries to suffer like the 3rd World is too high
a cost, particularly when it means death for so many of us. Regardless
of effort applied, change will have to be endured over the next 50
years, so basically the rest of our lives. It is in our own best interests
not to abide by the Kyoto protocols and to adopt affordable alternative energy. Any changes we make must make economic sense and
the radicals
frothing at the mouth over the IPCC report want aggressive changes
made now, the kind that kill a lot of people. These are not people
we should be taking advice from.
So, think about rainfall totals, falling well levels, potential oppressive
laws, and how to deal with them all at your location while you try
and make a living under the radar with a modicum of both privacy and
comfort. Best, - InyoKern
Dear Jim,
I see that folk myths are becoming part of the Ad-hoc Working Group
(AWG) "science." Regarding: "Greenland!
Those who bought the stories they were told about it were sorely disappointed
when they arrived."
Repeating: there are currently Viking Era farms melting out of the
glaciers in Greenland, proving it was warmer then than currently. Greenland
was not a garden, but by the standards of the Norse it was quite viable.
The furthest north discoveries of artifacts are near 80 degrees north,
well above the ice line for centuries in between then and now. Greenland
was occupied for 450 years, by people who had boats as a standard.
Think of where the English word "Skipper" comes from, also "Starboard" and
many other nautical terms. If it had not been viable, they would have
left. The Inuit arrived around the year 1200, fully two centuries after the Europeans, and survived the climate change the other way--colder.
This is established fact.
"(freakish warmth in Greenland at some point is not a basis for
concluding that a world-wide trend was evident, as it wasn't) .
It's sad to see this myth persists."
As to there not being supporting evidence, here's a secondary source
linking to lots of others: See: http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm This
one smashes the notion that there was no Medieval Warm Period, with
evidence from the Antarctic,
Africa, North America, South America, Australia, the Pacific...all
supporting a period warmer than today, followed by the Little Ice Age,
and no measurable change in sea level.
The best quote from here is: As a prominent Finnish scientist remarked
about a historical military event in his country's distant history, "if
`anecdotal' ice is thick enough to carry a whole army, we can infer
the ice was both thick and durable as an objective conclusion based
on a documented historical fact."
To suggest that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
and Little Ice Age (LIA)
didn't exist is revisionism on par with Orwell's 1984. Any "scientist" claiming
so is a charlatan, plain and simple. Too many disciplines, from geology
to
geography to
botany to history to cartography all concur for them to be wrong on
such a scale.
~~~
The other point I shall address is:
"In another widely held misconception, the rise in sea levels
is not pegged to the weight of ice in the sea, but rather the melting
of land
ice and thermal expansion of the ocean."
This is an easy one (I had a physicist assist me, but my college math
and HVAC thermodynamics is well able to grasp it):
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/temp.html
The average temperature of the ocean surface waters is about 17 degrees
Celsius
90 % of the total volume of ocean is found below the thermocline in
the deep ocean. The deep ocean is not well mixed. The deep ocean is
made up of horizontal layers of equal density. Much of this deep ocean
water is between 0-3 degrees Celsius (32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit)!
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean
its volume is over 1340 million cubic kilometers
Average Depth: 12200 feet (3720 m).
www.mos.org/oceans/planet/features.html
A Calorie or kilocalorie is the amount of heat required to raise the
temperature of one kilogram of water one Celsius degree.
Although the metric unit of energy is the joule, heat is commonly also
measured in units called calories (there are about 4.19 joules in a
calorie)
Oceans volume: 1.34x1021 l
Oceans mass: 1.4x1021 kg
90% of the water is below the thermocline and can be ignored -
surface heating won't affect it.
Average surface water temperature: 17 C
Energy required to raise average surface water temperature to 22C
5x1.4x1020 KJ = 7x1021 KJ
Solar power input to the Earth is about 1050 W/m2 after counting the
amount reflected. Earth's cross-sectional area is 1.27x1014 m2, so
total solar power input is 1.33 x 1020 W
So 50 million seconds of solar output would do it.
Giving density at 17C as 1.024193346 kg/l
and at 22C as 1.020066461 kg/l
So our 10% surface water of 1.4x1021 kg has a volume of
1.36692940397x1020 l at 17C and 1.3724595931x1020 at 22C
which is a difference of about 5.5x1017 litres = 5.5x1014 m3
The surface area of the oceans is 3.61x1014 m
which give an approximate level rise of 1.5m or five feet, about 0.41%.
So, if the sun doubles in output for TWO YEARS, enough energy will
enter the system to raise the ocean level about 5 feet.
If we decreased the energy radiated from the Earth by 1% (a SIGNIFICANT
change for a system in equilibrium radiating on average as much as
it absorbs), and if all that extra energy went into the oceans, that
would raise the water temperature by 3C over 100 years, for less than
a 2 foot rise.
This disregards that the upper ocean is not a parallel-sided tank,
but slopes, that 30% of that energy would fall on dry land, and that
toward the poles much of it would be soaked up or deflected by atmosphere.
Also, in the last 3 billion years, the solar influx has INCREASED 40%
without catastrophe. http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/sol.html#solarconstant
This disregards additional cloud cover raising the albedo and reflecting
some of the incoming energy.
Atmospheric warming is irrelevant to sea level expansion (it can affect
surface ice), because the transfer rate from gaseous air to liquid
water is very low.
And yet, this is an idea that so-called scientists are endorsing? I
certainly hope not.
And there is certainly no consensus that warming is taking place to
the degree some argue:
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-MedievalGlobalWarming.html
Supports global warming. Says he doesn't trust Mann's paper.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/
http://www.nps.gov/archive/mora/ncrd/glaciers.htm some advance, some
retreat
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html Antarctic
ice may be increasing
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today.
For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 million years ago), average CO2
concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The
highest concentrations
of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly
7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods
during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.
To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period
was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly
12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth
should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer
than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth
temperatures and global warming."
~~~
One can say that the scientists working for the energy companies are "biased," but
bias works both ways. One could also say that those getting paid higher wages
by the private sector are competent. Those who can, do, and all that.
Certainly we are facing climate change. Certainly it will affect life, cause
local disasters and shift society. But the planet, life and even the human race
have withstood much worse with much less knowledge. - Michael
Z. Williamson
« Letter From David in Israel Re: Blue Water Sailing as a Retreat Option? |Main| Kanban: America's Ubiquitous "Just in Time" Inventory System--A Fragile House of Cards »
Letter Re: Pondering Some Personal Consequences of Global Climate Change
Jim,
The subject of Global Warming is one that creates an intense reaction
in people who have a political investment in opposition to it. As
you can see by the letters my comment generated, it made the writers
so angry that it actually interfered with their ability to read!
We, as survivalists, need to be acutely aware of when this happens
to us, as the ability to react to any information coolly and logically
is a cultivated adaptation that will give us a leg-up in stressful
situations.
In reply to M.W.A., I should probably expand on something about CO2
that I only touched on for brevity's sake. Contrary to how it might
seem to us laymen, not all CO2 is the same, which is why I talked about
man-made CO2's "distinct isotopic signature". The Carbon
component of Carbon Dioxide is composed of three different isotopes
(C14, C13, C12) and man-made CO2 has an identifiable ratio of these
isotopes. Lest anyone think that the proofs of Global Warming are generated
only by climate scientists, these isotopic ratios are recorded by those
in many varied scientific disciplines (such as oceanographers and geochemists)
and the results consistently concur with the basic premise, that increasing
man-made CO2 levels parallel with increasing global temperatures. The
collection of data like this has long been a characteristic of science
and has nothing to do with attempts to control anyone or anything,
as implied by M.W.A. As to the semantics of "Global Warming deniers",
we're speaking of a very small group of dissenters, almost devoid of
scientists (let alone ones working in the sciences associated with
the earth's climate). Even the Bush administration, after repeatedly
rejecting (and attempting to suppress) the conclusions of the scientific
community, just this week said that they wholeheartedly embrace the
U.N.'s IPCC report (which concluded that Global Warming is man-made)
and called the evidence for Global Warming "unequivocal".
Anyone who clings to the notion that this is nothing more than a ruse
invented by environmentalists belongs to a tiny minority at this point.
By the way, if M.W.A. would like to provide proof for his assertions
about making "climate change denial" a crime, I'm sure we'd
all like to see it.
I'm not sure where Michael Z. Williamson is getting his quote of raising
ocean temperatures "a few degrees" as it isn't in my letter
(or any other letter on your site) but his claim that "the Antarctic
is growing" is incorrect. There was a temporary mitigation of
the trend of ice loss due to some unusual precipitation but the first
ever gravity survey (GRACE) of the entire ice sheet by NASA has detected
significant Antarctic ice mass loss. "The mistake of one scientist" which
he claims is insane to suggest was not connected to the "Medieval
Warming Period" as Mr. Williamson misread, but rather the assertions
of the growth of glaciers worldwide (I urge him and anyone else confused
about this to re-read what I said). As I said about the so-called "Viking
era", there may have been regional anomalies but this does not
result in a conclusion of world-wide warming at that time (indeed,
the evidence suggests nothing of the kind). The "records from
the timeframe involved" don't actually "document" anything
other than an attempt by the Vikings to expand settlements there. When
I was a kid in school (in the distant past), we were taught a bit about
Viking history, including their early use of propaganda. One of the
most self-evident proofs of this is the very name of their colony:
Greenland! Those who bought the stories they were told about it were
sorely disappointed when they arrived. Instead of the fertile farmlands
(capable of growing vineyards?) they had expected, they found a cold
wasteland that was anything but green, ultimately incapable of sustaining
the small (and initially, quite hardy) colony there. If there were
warm periods in the area (and there is little to suggest that there
were), they were freakish and short-lived. It would be foolish to assume
that selectively chosen Viking literature on the subject of Greenland
is a worthy substitute for accurate documents about conditions at that
time.
As I implied in my previous letter, anyone who chooses to disregard
the overwhelming conclusions by the scientific community is more than
welcome to do so. I have no doubt that one could find some fantastic
real estate buys along the Mississippi coast, for example, and if you
feel that Global Warming is nothing but a hoax, there's no reason why
you shouldn't take advantage of a buyer's market. I wouldn't even have
dipped my toe into this controversy save for seeing disinformation
presented as fact. Keep in mind that ExxonMobil has contributed a huge
amount of money to support the distribution of non-peer reviewed papers
critical of Global Warming science and the establishment of friendly "think
tanks". In my mind, it's one thing to argue the concept based
on it's economic effects but it's highly unethical to distort (or outright
lie about) about the science involved. As survivalists, it would seem
logical for us to pay very close attention to the potential catastrophic
events that could domino when the climatic "tipping point" arrives,
rather than be distracted by a corporation intent on buying "the
best lies money can buy" to increase it's short term profits.
However, (as I keep saying), that's your choice to make. To me, there's
not much difference in how I prepare to survive, Global Warming simply
increases the impetus for me to do so. Best Regards, - Hawaiian K.
« Odds 'n Sods: |Main| Notes from JWR: »
Three Letters Re: Pondering Some Personal Consequences of Global Climate Change
JWR,
Both M.W.A. and Michael Williamson bring some sanity and reason to
the subject of climate change. Thanks for publishing their letters.
Weather/climate is probably the most complex system on earth. For anyone
to say they can tell with any kind of certainty what the climate on
earth was like millions of years ago is ridiculous and what is the
point. On a very basic level, the one universal truth about the weather/climate
is change, unending change. You could even make the case that change
is a universal physical law. The writers are correct to question the
motives of the climate change promoters. I believe most are socialists,
trying to get more control over our lives thru the politics of climate
change. As in the past, humans will have to adapt to any changes in
the weather/climate. Think about it, has the weather/climate ever been
unchanging, with or without man on the planet? Regards, - Keith
Jim:
I would suggest the www.iceagenow.com site for a balanced view of global
warming. However, I do believe we are heading for climatic upheaval
due to a cyclic pattern- go to www.thehorizonproject.com and order
their DVD for additional info. Many things seem to be converging. [You
can read] my two-cents worth at www.countdownto2070.com
Thank you, - Martin P.
JWR,
There is an awful lot of money being spent by Big Oil to contradict
the global warming research, and in particular their efforts to refute the
recent UN ICPP report. As I read the
21 page Summary for Policy Makers, the report really seemed to
want to avoid speculative consideration of methane feedback loops
or nonlinear warming effects,
i.e.:glaciers sliding into the ocean. My sense is that it was very
conservatively written. Any rise in ocean level has profound implications
for our
way of life and Peak Oil issues since refining in the US is mostly
at sea level. [Some ranting, snipped.] - Bruce F.
JWR Replies: The media hoopla over the UN report
has ignored mention that what has been released thusfar is just
a 21 page summary. The full 600+ page report won't be released
for several months. There is definitely a divergence of opinion within
the scientific
community on this issue. I think that
the
jury will
be
out for quite
some time. Draw your own conclusions. In my opinion, what we
should take away from all this debate is that
as well-prepared individuals, it is prudent to make preparations for
both short term weather changes, and if we can afford to do so, for
the possibility of
longer term climate change. (But again, the degree,
the direction, and even the cause of that potential change is still
a matter of conjecture and heated debate.) To illustrate my point,
let me digress: I had a
friend
named
Richard,
who
sadly
died
of
leukemia
at
age
45,
a couple of years
ago. He
was a
first class
eccentric,
but he had a sharp wit and was a lot of fun to be around. Richard
was a single man that traveled the world. He made his living as a computer
programmer
in
the States,
but he owned both a home on a small island in the Philippines and a
condominium in Thailand. (He only worked in the U.S. in alternating
six month contract stints to support his "travel habit".) As an adherent
of the
Art Bell/George Noory school of paranormal conjecture, Richard
was convinced that
severe climate
changes could
happen "any
time, and maybe even overnight" because of "pole shift." He was so
concerned that he
had all three of his homes stocked with arctic clothing. (N3B
extreme cold weather parkas, insulated boots, Wiggy's Ultima
Thule sleeping bags, the whole
works.)
Objectively, I think that Richard was over-prepared,
but in the back of my mind is a small but lingering doubt. What if
that ever
really happened?
What if Richard was right? I suppose that if I ever have a really big
budget (read: somebody in Hollywood ever sends me a big fat check for
my Pulling
Through screenplay), then I might buy a second retreat in
Central America, just in case. And I might even stock it with some
cold weather gear, in memory of Richard.
« Odds 'n Sods: |Main| Letter Re: Questions on Multipurpose Home Shelters »
Two Letters Re: Pondering Some Personal Consequences of Global Climate Change
Jim,
I have been reluctant to comment on the climate change hysteria, but
the recent letter by Hawaiian K was too much. There are several important
facts to remember on this topic: 1) We don’t have enough data
to determine whether we are in a long-term warming trend, or in a counter-cyclical
move in a long term cooling trend. Lot’s of people have ‘data’ but
no ‘facts’ have been established. Remember in the 1970’s
how the next ice age was right around the corner? 2) Even if we do
happen to be in a warming trend at the moment, there is no causal connection
between the activities of man, and the warming itself. Lots of circumstantial ‘evidence’,
but no causal connection. The earth is warming, and there is more CO2
in the air. Which causes which? Maybe there is a third factor, or fourth,
or a hundredth!!! There may be some kind of correlation between CO2
and atmospheric temperature, but that does not mean that one causes
the other. The environment is an extremely complex, dynamic system
and to think that there is a straight-forward, reasonably linear relationship
between the levels of one compound in the air and the overall temperature
of the entire atmosphere is simplistic in the extreme. Heck, these
guys can barely tell what the weather will be like next week, and we
are supposed to think that they can tell us what will happen in 100
years? 3) The entire environmentalist movement is about control, nothing
else. Environmentalism is a topic one group of people have used, repeatedly
and successfully, to get governments around the world to implement
social programs that sacrifice people in order to save bugs and weeds.
Obviously these programs are detrimental to individual freedoms. A
clue to the true intent of the ‘movement’ is contained
in the language they use. Even Hawaiian K called the rational, objective
scientists who have not bought in to the collective dogma of global
warming, ‘climate change deniers’. Clearly this language
is intended to imply that these guys are the same kind of whack jobs
as the ‘holocaust deniers’ and should be treated as such.
There have been stories recently about scientists who are losing their
jobs because they haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid, and even talk of
laws to make ‘climate change denial’ a crime! Clearly,
anyone who needs the force of law to protect their pet theory cannot
defend it against rigorous science in the open market. Will we soon
have a Global Warming Inquisition? The truth does not need a law to
defend it. And if you think this is just an American thing, you are
wrong. I spent a couple of weeks in Canada since the UN report came
out, and they are getting it bad up there! 24/7 coverage of how we
are all about to fry in our own juices while there is a negative 30
degree wind chill outside. (Just so everyone knows, I am an ‘Elvis
is dead denier’ and a ‘Loch Ness monster denier’ but
please try to keep it quiet.)
Obviously, survivalists want to plan for as many potential outcomes
as they can, and I am not discouraging anyone from taking the steps
that they think they need to take to protect their families. I would
just encourage people to examine the motives of climate change proponents
from the standpoint of the harm that the environmentalist movement
has caused, the individual rights they have denied, and the outcomes
that they have desired and produced in recent decades. - M.W.A..
Dear Jim,
The energy involved in raising the oceans "a
few degrees" to effect a sea-level increase would almost involve
the Sun going nova. I can calculate it if you like.
The Antarctic ice cap is growing, so there's no increase in water level
from there.
The current climate trends are available online and show a steadying
of the climate the last decade.
To suggest that the Medieval Warm Period is the mistake of one scientist
is insane. It's documented from ice core samples, and the fact that
Viking era farms in Greenland are melting out of the ice cap as we
speak. Not to mention the northern hunting grounds and other sites
the Norse used were, until quite recently, pack ice. Then there's all
those records from the timeframe involved, documenting the plants,
harvests, weather, etc.
That strikes me as more hand waving by the catastrophists. I had a
detailed debate with a student of this, an earnest young man in grad
school,
who pointed me to "one of the best papers on the subject." The
paper was full of "It seems to me"s and "I feel"s,
an admission that when satellite data was inconclusive, just because
it didn't contradict the assumptions made, it could be assumed the
assumptions were correct (the data didn't support the assumptions,
either), and a statement that any climate studies done before 1990
were "politically motivated" (Aren't they all?) and therefore
suspect.
So, by the admission of a shoddily written article that's purported
by a student to be "one of the best," the field is less than
two decades old.
Now, how long have physicists and astronomers been trying to describe
the universe?
I'm certainly concerned about long term effects to the environment,
and storms can cause damage lasting weeks, trends damage lasting years...but
I'm about as worried about a catastrophic climate failure as I am about
aliens landing. It's a huge planet and system, and people are very
small. Let's not, religious or not, give ourselves too much credit
in the face of God's greatness. - Michael
Z. Williamson
« Odds 'n Sods: |Main| Letter Re: Firearm Chamber Adapters »
Two Letters Re: Pondering Some Personal Consequences of Global Climate Change
Jim,
With regards to the recent flurry of postings on Global Warming (I
prefer this term to the Frank Luntz, focus group tested "climate
change", which is designed to remove anxiety about the issue
and thereby stifle any action on it), I wanted to clear up some common
misunderstandings that have been intentionally spread around to confuse
folks.
I live very close to the laboratory on the slopes of Mauna Loa that
first discovered the Global Warming trend over 30 years ago. After
a long search for truth on the subject, I've come to understand that
climate scientists are dealing with problems of almost unimaginable
complexity and as a group, are exceedingly conservative with regards
to predictive claims. I doubt that many of us who are non-scientists
can really appreciate what must go through a climate scientist's mind
when he/she encounters ill-informed individuals spouting off commonly
repeated misnomers about the CO2 levels of volcanoes (for example),
as though the scientists had somehow forgotten to factor major natural
data in! The little reported fact of the matter is that volcanoes produce
about 110 million tons of CO2 per year, an amount that is naturally
absorbable by earth and ocean. Man-made CO2, which has been rising
steadily since the dawn of the industrial revolution, is contributed
to the atmosphere at a rate of 10 billion tons per year (and is identifiable
by it's distinct isotopic signature). In another widely held misconception,
the rise in sea levels is not pegged to the weight of ice in the sea,
but rather the melting of land ice and thermal expansion of the ocean
(anyone who has ever tried to top off a warm gas tank with cool gas
from an underground tank on a hot Summer's day will see how the latter
works). The so called "Viking era" (also incorrectly called "the
Medieval Warm Period") is a myth that continues to be perpetuated,
based on misreadings of historical regional temperatures when applied
global-scale (freakish warmth in Greenland at some point is not a basis
for concluding that a world-wide trend was evident, as it wasn't) .
As to the claim that glaciers are increasing in size rather than retreating,
I'm afraid that this misinformation is based on the poor typing of
a single scientist (botanist David Bellamy) who, when trying to type "55%",
slipped on the shift key and put the number "555" into his
calculations (such is the rigor of the Global Warming deniers)! According
to the definitive source on the subject (World Glacier Monitoring Service),
most of the world's glaciers are in retreat.
You and I, as survivalists, can opt to try to ignore what's happening
to this planet and hope that the effects of it don't end up having
a lethal effect on us or someone in our family. On the other hand,
we might want to become proactive in some way, just in case. Many people
would reflect on their geographic area and how it might cause them
problems, for example, shore areas that could suffer destruction from
rising ocean levels, coastal areas from increased hurricane activity,
tornado prone areas becoming dangerous year round (as we're seeing
this year). It just seems like common sense to me to consider a couple
of aspects of your home's architecture, it's overall strength and it's
ability to deflect heat. Given the weather trends we're beginning to
see, I would think that there would be a sudden renewed interest in
earth sheltered and underground homes. Vast areas of the American south
and midwest could well become a landscape filled with splintered plywood
and and empty cement pads if current trends continue. We're also likely
to see massive crop failures (this might cause some of us to dig out
our calculators to figure out the weight and cost of lifetime supplies
of wheat) and civil unrest on a nation-wide scale.
We, as survivalists, should all be very careful about being too reactionary
to claims concerning Global Warming, simply because they don't fit
neatly into our political philosophy. The climate scientists I've come
to know are deadly serious people disinclined to represent their subject
in any but the truest way possible. Personally, based on what they've
told me, I'm going to completely reevaluate the way that my house is
currently constructed with an eye to making it significantly stouter.
By way of example, I'm considering the utilization of the Line-X blast-proof
coating (mentioned downthread) as a way of attempting to make my home
more hurricane resistant. It's also possible, with proper water-proofing
and termite prevention, that conventional homes could be retrofitted
with earth berms. I've even heard of roof-sized nets designed to attached
to earth anchors, to hold the roof on a home in hurricane conditions
(which might be workable with enough advanced notice). Obviously, windows
and lightweight doors will require superlative coverings, complete
with heavy hardware that is solidly anchored. As to the potential rise
in temperature, one might use a system of earth covered "cool
tubes" to bring cool air though vents in one's floor, which could
rise to a "solar chimney" placed high in the house for an
effective passive ventilation (approaching natural air conditioning).
There are fantastic ceramic roofing paints available that utilize Space
Shuttle tile technology to keep a normally hot roof as cool as the
surrounding air, resulting in dramatically cooler interior temperatures!
Water could become a rarer resource, so a strongly-built catchment
tank might end up being worth it's weight in gold.
I'm sure that the creative minds of the survivalblog community are
capable of expanding on this theme with solutions that are designed
for their particular circumstance. Hopefully, they'll share them with
us so that a bank of solutions might be available that will help us
all learn from their individual experiences. Best Regards, - Hawaiian K.
James,
I've been a regular reader of your blog for a couple of months now
and I'd like to point out something regarding one of the global warming
letters you published on Sunday, February 4th. The letter says, "Nor
is a sea level rise likely--fill a glass with ice water, let it melt,
and the level will drop, because ice is less dense than water".
There are two potential sources for sea level rise, melting ice is
one of
them. The problem isn't ice that's already in (or floating on) the
water, like the Arctic ice pack, it's ice that's sitting above sea
level, such as various glaciers, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice
sheets. The other source of sea level rise is the expansion of the
seawater already in the oceans. Like most other materials, water expands
as it gets warmer. If the average ocean temperature rose by a
few degrees, sea levels would rise even if the amount of water in the
oceans remained the same. Thermal expansion is actually a bigger potential
contributor to sea level rise than all of the world's the
ice sheets and glaciers combined. - Chris
« Odds 'n Sods: |Main| The CDC's New "Five Categories" for Pandemic Severity »
Three Letters Re: Pondering Some Personal Consequences of Global Climate Change
Dear Jim,
In response to this: "(See the movie The Day After Tomorrow regarding
tipping points). Discoveries of animals flash frozen solid with fresh grass
their stomachs points to the possibility of a very fast onset to global climate
change." The Day After Tomorrow was roundly slammed by scientists
and went beyond ludicrous, and the "flash frozen" animals are a myth
that has never been documented. The recovered frozen mammoths have all been
highly putrefied.
At present, the evidence of warming is mixed, with glaciers in Europe, South
America and Antarctica all increasing [in size]. Even with
the current Northern Hemisphere warming trend (Which leveled out a decade ago),
we're still quite cooler than during the Viking Era, when summer temperatures
in Greenland could reach 80 degrees F. Nor is a sea level rise likely--fill
a glass with ice water, let it melt, and the level will drop, because ice is
less dense than water (one of water's unique properties that makes it so useful
as a basis for life). The Earth has sustained life from the Carboniferous,
with double the current CO2 level and 35% oxygen [JWR Adds: Reader B.F. mentioned that the figure is acutally only about 21% oxygen], to deep ice ages with glaciers
as far south as 30 degrees latitude.
That said, SF raises very good points about shifting weather patterns, all
of which are cyclic. Tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, ice storms are all
potential crop killers. Volcanic eruptions and meteorite impacts have affected
the global environment (see The
Year Without A Summer) and are definitely things
to prepare for. The latter would be catastrophic, as the huge population of
Earth depends upon steady movement of harvested crops to keep people fed. (I
covered this as a military strategy in my novel "The
Weapon.")
Even in "normal" climate, I've seen snow flurries in San Antonio
in August, snow on Memorial Day in Chicago, and temperatures as low as 30 degrees
F in rural Ohio and Pennsylvania over July 4th weekend in quite modest hills
(Also T-shirt weather in January, but that's less of a threat). Breaking down
in those hills on a back country road means you might need a fire or warm clothing
at once.
I guesstimate that a local disaster (riot, tornado, earthquake) could last
days, a regional one (hurricane, major earthquake, political collapse) weeks,
and a global disaster (mega-volcano, large meteorite, infrastructure failure)
a year or more. Once we get into that, deaths from starvation are utterly certain
for those not prepared, until population reaches equilibrium with the available
food supply.
This reiterates that one's survival preparations should not be public knowledge.
Starving people have and will kill to feed themselves and their children. This
could be the ugliest of scenarios. - Michael
Z. Williamson
Dear Jim and Family,
This is in response to the post about climate change. I have a degree in geology,
though when I graduated there were no jobs. (Thanks, Bill!). There were some
good points raised, however I have to raise a flag over the "flash frozen
animals" thing: it's more of a myth than a fact. Yes a few mammoths
were found that way but the cause is only speculation. Far more likely they
got drowned by a small tsunami raised by a calving ice sheet. That whole
aspect of the movie showing superfreezing from the middle atmosphere is bunk. The
Day After Tomorrow wasn't a great film (unless you enjoy humor), however
one aspect of it was right: a flood of melted ice water (low salt content)
would either change or stop the Gulf Stream (shifting it South is most likely),
thus suddenly allowing Arctic storms into Europe. Temperatures would drop
considerably, which would actually provide much more habitat for fish but
ruin crops.
During the Little Ice
Age (see Wikipedia) from 1300-1850 AD, climate got very
erratic. Some years were too wet for crops. Some were too dry. Some years it
snowed in July. Some years the glaciers advanced several hundred yards. Other
years they retreated. We're between Ice Ages (and some geologists say that
the Pleistocene isn't over, this is just a minor retreat). For the scientifically
minded, the most recent warming began 20,000 years ago, and picked up a lot
around 8000 years ago, when things really started to melt. A lot of grass grew
and a lot of creatures died out, and the rest of them ran upon grassy plains
where our ancestors hunted them and made cave drawings and early agriculture,
Sumeria, Egypt, Greece. In the present its really dried out and all the grass
is gone. Lebanon has few trees but used to be covered in giant Cedars, which
grow well in wetter climates. Israel was also heavily treed and resembled Eastern
Arizona of today. Yes, rains and wind will probably change and after two years
of studying the Pleistocene (for the purposes of writing a novel about it)
... I don't know if it will get wet during the next ice age's arrival. I really
don't. It may dry out more and promote growth of desert. It will almost certainly
be bad for crops so agriculture is going to take a beating and food supply
will almost certainly be less. That's a real problem for a population of 6.5
billion, and not so great for a population of 2 billion either (if 4.5 billion
die from starvation).
One important piece of history to keep in mind: we survived the last ice age
with little more than stone tools and fire. We'll get through the next one
considerably better off. It's not like we'll forget iron working, and properly
made CD-ROMs (pressed, not burned) last for centuries. Consider how much useful
information will fit in a tiny space with a very basic computer to read them.
That's nothing to sneeze at. Imagine Wikipedia complete with engineering designs
and open source CAD software to help you develop it. Society won't fall very
far down the ladder if that's the case. That engineering knowledge will let
us continue to make firearms, steam engines, computers, electricity, food storage,
farming, genetic engineering, navigation, etc, without having to resort to
bows and arrows or wattle and daub houses. It's very unlikely to drop below
1950s technology, we'll just have to get by without cheap oil.
If climate change starts heading for return of the ice age, which is still
possible, the way to tell is rapid growth of glaciers in formerly dry northeastern
rockies. That's where the ice sheets began last time, according to best current
data. We think they began due to melting of the polar ice, which winds swept
up and deposited snow on these 19,000 foot elevation plateaus (currently dry).
The ice built up and flowed down slope, increasing reflected sunlight and eventually
cooling the globe. It's possible that while the ice caps remained wet (rather
than icy), the ice age was already beginning.
Keep in mind there are at least 34 identified feedback loops responsible for
Earth's climate, and that's without involving Divine Intervention. Eight of
these loops are based on orbit, volcanics, and magnetic field (plus solar storms),
all of which have a huge impact on climate. Based on the Milancovic cycle we're
about due to begin the next Ice Age, a point made in 1970 is that Global Cooling
would kill us all (sound familiar?). Warming is curious. Higher CO2 levels
are unprecedented. But the climate has been much warmer than
it is now and everything didn't die then, so I don't expect it will die now
either. Plants and animals will end up migrating to suitable habitat or dying
out. That's how it goes. And apparently there's quite a few new species trying
to come into being but they keep dying out due to human interference to "preserve" something
or other green nonsense. Best not to get worked up about it.
The tropics did not require cold weather gear, however ice was in tropical
environments, around subtropical plants because the ice moved faster than it
could melt during certain points of its advance stage. There's enough evidence
to support this quirky image: 70'F Florida type weather and plants next to
ice sheet a few dozen feet away. Yes, that's really weird, but there's evidence
to support this. The nice thing about ice ages is there's generally time to
get out of the way, same with volcanic eruptions. You get plenty of warning.
If things change, you can always built it yourself, or adapt otherwise. Everything
flows from the will to live and the fortitude to endure hardship to accomplish
that. Best, - InyoKern
James,
I'm tired of everyone playing the "fear" card in regards
to global climate change. Man's ability to adapt to different situations
and in fact thrive in them should not be underestimated. The fact that
man has lived in harsh northern environments has led to the development
of countless tools, technologies, and techniques that have benefited
all of mankind. In reference to the comments made by SF in Hawaii,
the frozen woolly mammoth couldn't put on a coat or jacket, we can.
Also I don’t know that an autopsy was ever actually performed
on that animal, I think everyone just assumed it froze to death but
as far as I know it might have died of an aneurysm! If ocean levels
ever rise fifteen feet I will personally go to SF's house and move
his belongings to higher ground. I do not believe there is enough water
on the planet to raise ocean levels anywhere close to fifteen feet.
At any rate it is downright foolish to try and take anything from the
movie "The Day After Tomorrow" other than entertainment,
and even the that was marginal. The climate will change, is changing,
and has always changed, the part mankind plays in all of this is miniscule
at best, and very likely totally insignificant. Whatever changes lie
ahead we will overcome them, that's why we are all here; to overcome
whatever hardships we may face. We will face these challenges with
strength, faith, truth, ingenuity, wisdom, justice, and communities
such as this on SurvivalBlog. If people want to do something for the
environment that's fine, but don’t be so foolish as to think
you are going to prevent global climate change. Reduce, reuse, and
recycle, these are good things no matter what your political stripe,
and buying quality instead of junk is always wise for the survivor.
- A. Friendly
« Letter Re: Veterinary Antibiotics |Main| Notes from JWR: »
Letter Re: Pondering Some Personal Consequences of Global Climate Change
James:
While the pundits assure us that global warming, if real
at all, won't affect us in our lifetime, other scientific models
suggest
explosive
climate shifts as 'tipping points' are reached. (See the movie The
Day after Tomorrow regarding tipping points). Discoveries of animals
flash frozen solid with fresh grass their stomachs points to the possibility
of a very fast onset to global climate change. While suddenly finding
yourself in an Arctic climate is likely not survivable, we must consider
if we have the flexibility to survive in a radically different or highly
volatile climate. Global warming can make warm places colder and cold
places warmer. Dry places wetter and wet places drier. Rather than
thinking of global warming as a 'warming' per-say (as in the end it
may even trigger an ice age), think of it as having the potential of
radically changing in any direction your historical weather pattern
and making weather very unpredictable. Questions to ponder are:
If it got much wetter/drier where I live what would happen? What if
the rain stops, or it rains 50 times more than it used to? If you rely
on catchment and the rain stops, then what? If you rely on a well in
an otherwise dry climate, are you prepared for flash floods? Do you
have proper drainage ditches?
If it got much warmer or much colder, do you have heirloom seeds for
temperate and tropical climates? Are you prepared to build a greenhouse
if temperature fluctuates from 70F to 6F in a matter of weeks (as it
did in New York City recently). Do your crops require a frost and what
if
you don't get one? Will your crops be killed by a frost and what if you
do get one? If you live in the tropics, do you have any cold weather
gear?
Warm weather can bring insect and vermin to an area that would otherwise
not survive. Could your crops deal with insects from another climate?
Witness the rising of malaria in locations that had until now been
at a high enough altitude to prevent mosquitoes from thriving in central
American cities. Alternatively, if you hope to add to your larder by
hunting game and migratory bird, what if the birds shifted their flight
path to accommodate a weather change? What if the local deer decided
en masse to move south (or whatever direction was warmer)? If you hope
to fish to augment your protein stores, what if the fish (which are
as we speak disappearing) left your shores or your waters became another
notorious 'dead zone'?
If it got much windier or less windy, then what? If you rely on wind
power and the wind patterns shift direction, can you move your system
to accommodate it? What if the winds stop entirely (unlikely as climate
changes tend to make for more wind not less), then what? If it got
much windier, can your wind generating equipment handle it? Can you
house survive a hurricane in a location where houses are not built
with hurricanes in mind? (Remember the recent Pacific Northwest windstorms?)
Would your crops suffer if your windbreak were suddenly on
the wrong
side of your farm?
If you rely on solar [power or water heating] and you go from a sunny location
to
clouds
all the time, then what? Do you have crops that can handle both high levels
and low levels of sunlight?
Do you have snow tires or chains for your car? What would you do if
your roads were covered in snow and ice? Do you have anti-freeze?
Where would a 15 foot rise in sea level put you? - SF in Hawaii
« Four Letters Re: Solar-Powered Versus Self-Winding Watches |Main| Note from JWR: »
Letter Re: More on Asteroid Impacts
Dear Jim:
For those who still think an asteroid impact is nothing to worry about, this
was just posted on the Australian survival site forum, http://www.aussurvivalist.com:
a 10 inch asteroid just hit the moon with the power of four tons of TNT, making
a crater just over 42 feet wide. The
event was captured on video.
Although it is acknowledged that this would have been unlikely to make it through
Earth’s atmosphere, the point is this goes on all the time, and Earth
being hit by one that makes it through is just a matter of time. It is also
believed that a
26 pound meteor landed recently in Northern Finland.
Early speculation was that it was much larger. - Rourke
JWR Replies: Rourke's letter (received July 2nd) deserves
even more attention after a
news story on July 3rd about a large asteroid a near miss ( Apollo Asteroid
2004 XP14). This one was estimated at 370 meter width,
and passed by Earth at only one lunar distance (LD), which by astronomical
standards is a
very close call. OBTW, for comparison, the asteroid that is thought
to have formed Barringer
Meteor Crater in Arizona was estimated to have been just 25 meters
in diameter.
« Letter Re: Advice on Silver Investing? |Main| Note from JWR: »
The Year Without A Summer (a.k.a. "Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death" and "The Poverty Year") By Tim P.
Since moving to Chenango County, New York in 2001, I have tried to do
a bit of studying on the history of the area. My father lived in Fulton – North
of Syracuse – as a boy and I spent the first 12 years of my life in Rhode
Island with trips to the Upstate region for camping, family visits, etc. so
I was not completely unfamiliar with the area. However, I had never really
studied the history of the region and some of the things that I have found
surprised me. I have always been fascinated by the catastrophes of the past – wars,
epidemics, natural disasters, etc. and tend to study them. They can teach us
about ourselves and of things to come. As they say, those who forget the past
are doomed to repeat it. What I have found is one of those things.
Many people may not be aware of it, but there was a summer here - shortly after
settlers first moved to this area - that was no summer at all. That summer
had a killing frost every month of the year. The cause of this calamity was
located practically on the other side of the earth from New York - Mount Tambora,
on the Island of Sumbawa in what is modern Indonesia. This volcano erupted
from April 5th through April 18th of 1815. During that time it ejected anywhere
from 25 to 43 cubic miles of debris into the atmosphere. Only
25 of the island's 12,000 inhabitants survived. As you will soon see the eruption
of Tambora had worldwide effects.
For comparison, the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 ejected 0.67 cubic miles
of debris – a piker! I was living 1,200 miles away from Mt. St. Helens
- near Denver, Colorado - at the time and we had a fine layer of ash on everything
and were informed that we should rinse things off before scrubbing them as
the finish on a car – for example – could be ruined if one tried
to scrub the ash off because it would act like sandpaper as it is essentially
small particles of glass and stone. People with allergies and lung conditions
were advised to avoid breathing the dust as it could aggravate their condition.
In any case, back to our story. The year 1816 started out to be a pretty easy
one. The winter was slightly warmer than normal and fairly dry by most accounts
I can find from New England and New York. When spring arrived, the temperature
dropped somewhat, but nothing too severe and it remained dry. It was so dry,
in fact, that local papers began to report on it. The Albany Advertiser stated
they had " ...no recollection of so backward a season...the length
and severity of drought checked progress of vegetation, grass withered."
The dry, cold weather pattern continued until early May which delayed the start
of planting in some places and the growth of crops that had been planted in
others. However, the people suspected nothing because - as we all know - strange
things can happen in springtime.
On May 12th a wave of cold air rolled down over the region – the northeast
from coastal Connecticut down into Pennsylvania and Virginia was gripped by
a frost. This weather lasted until around May 18. Then it moderated and with
the increase in temperature came rain - soon farmers began their yearly ritual
of planting. However, the warmth was only passing and on May 29th came a blast
of cold arctic air - so cold that there was an inch of ice on many bodies of
water. This too passed and those that hadn’t already started began their
planting in early June.
On the 5th of June New England was basking in temperatures in the high 70’s
and low 80’s. However, the weather was changing again. At the same time
- from Quebec to Pittsburgh - another cold front began to move in. This one
brought frosts with it as well. June 6th brought snow and cold to most areas.
It snowed for hours in Elizabethtown, NY and many places had killing frosts.
Wild birds roosted inside barns to try to stay warm and many died where they
sat. Newly shorn sheep died in the fields from the cold. Crops were killed
by the frost, most fruit trees lost their blossoms and many trees lost their
newly formed leaves. It was beginning to look very bad for the farmers of the
region. In fact, the Quebec Gazette warned: " . . . nothing which may
provide sustenance for man or beast ought to be neglected..."
After this cold front passed farmers rapidly began planting crops such as Barley,
potatoes and beets that could make it to maturity by the usual fall freezes.
Remember that this was before hybridized and genetically engineered crops that
mature more rapidly.
The rest of June brought warm temperatures. July started off well but on the
6th of July another cold front came that brought frost to many areas. Lake
and river ice was observed as far south as Pennsylvania and huge temperature
fluctuations accompanied the front. Some places experienced temperatures of
95 degrees during the day and dropped to below freezing within hours. Overall
it was a disaster for local farmers.
August had more of the same. On the 13th, frost returned again to central New
York and most of the crops that were growing were killed off. Even pastures
and hay were doing poorly. August 28th brought more frost and the drought continued.
By September farmers had all but given up, although some planted winter crops
to have them ready as soon as possible the next spring. Corn and other grain
prices soared. Oats, for example, rose from a high of 12 cents a bushel during
1815 to 92 cents a bushel in 1816! In the spring of 1817, the worst of the
shortage appeared. For example in DeRuyter, a farmer was forced to dig up some
of his newly planted potatoes to get food on the table. The town sent an agent
to Onondaga County to look for wheat and corn. When he returned and it was
learned that he had been successful, it brought a "great rejoicing to
the citizenry and tears to strong men's eyes."
The spring of 1817 brought some very high prices indeed. Corn was four to five
dollars per bushel (prices not seen again until the 1970’s - over 150
years later!), and in some places wheat sold for any price that was asked.
Many people barely survived and this brought about the great western migration
toward Ohio and Indiana as farmers sought places with better weather conditions.
The strange weather brought about all around the world that year also brought
us two classics of fiction. A woman named Mary Shelly and a man named John
Polidori were both vacationing at a literary gathering that summer on Lake
Geneva in Switzerland and were forced inside by the cold and dreary weather.
The group huddled around the fire and told each other stories to pass the time.
Both ended up publishing their stories. Mary Shelly’s was entitled “The
Modern Prometheus” which is better known as “Frankenstein” and
John Polidori’s was entitled “The Vampyre” better known to
many as the modern Count Dracula. Both have been immortalized in film a number
of times.
These days we do sometimes see some strange weather, but nothing like this.
In my experience, people tend to believe that weather and famines of this type
are things of the past and cannot happen any more, but we are not immune. In
fact, modern farmers support many more people per acre of land than those farmers
did in 1816 so we would, in fact, be in worse condition. How well will we fare
when God sends the next year without a summer our way?
« Letter Re: Defensive Shotguns on a Budget |Main| Letter Re: Alternate Sources for Pharmaceuticals »
A "Little Ice Age" Starting at Mid-Century?
The
UPI recently ran a news story from the RussianNovosti news service
about a Russian astronomer that has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini
Ice Age" in the middle of this
century, caused by low solar activity. See: http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r.
Here is an excerpt from the article: "Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo
Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday
that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global
warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century
reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported. The coldest period will occur
15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov
said. Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary
phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's
energy output and ultraviolet radiation. The Northern Hemisphere's most recent
cool-down
period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period,
known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and
forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist
said."
