Doomsday boat.

"Unfortunately the more likely scenario is one in which the climate itself is the enemy. In which case no amount of wilderness survival skills are going to make much difference. I'd have to move gradually north ."

Probably that is the wrong direction.
We are in an "interglaciene age" , between glaciation periods.

Since GLACIERS are a known part of the Earths recent history ,
and the computer generated hoax of global warming is long past believing , going South might be more realistic than surviving in solid ice for the rest of your life.

Take a book on Tropical Medicine , there is lots of stuff in the south that sees us as food!

FF

 

Oh please, can we at least pretend to deal with reality. An economic melt down is predicted by MIT researchers by about 2035 or so. Environmental collapse at somewhere between +4~6°C which is also likely to happen right around the same time. So social upheaval followed by environmental meltdown is our most likely scenario.

If anything the MIT study would be more in question than the facts of climate shift, which 98% of the people who study it agree is happening and is caused by man.

lets just forget our differences and stick to the subject. A Doomsday boat is unsurvivable in a climate shift event, or any other, at least according to those of us who've tried it, which leaves us either surviving in an enclave/target or finding the most far away corner possible to hang on as long as possible, on minimal supplies, hopefully with a few friends to help out along the way.

 

It's easy to deny science, just plug up your ears and scream I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA.... Personally, I grew up around a lot of scientists and I learned that they are seldom bullshi**ers, value fact and reason above all else to the point of absurdity, and work doggedly to prove themselves wrong, not right, because that is what science is all about, finding out where your own biases have led you astray in your logic and experiment, and correcting it. The science of climate change has been examined over and over and the same answer keeps staring us in the face, add methane and CO2 to our closed atmosphere in large amounts and the temperature goes up, a lot.
I moved 1000 miles north from where I was born and raised, and in my new home many of the older residents marvel at how the seasons have radically changed, the birds come at different times, the insects are different, it doesn't snow nearly as much, everything changed, just in the last 50 years.
Personally, I believe the survival situation will come gradually as our supply systems decay and fail from a combination of climate change, social-political regression and just plain greed as the profit takers take everything that is left.
Millions and millions of the 'not rich' will be fighting for a smaller and smaller piece of the world pie and it will be ugly, so I plan on going to a small hidden cove in SE Alaska with a southerly exposure and an old Indian midden indicating it's a good place to stay. Out front at low tide are 'clam gardens' built long ago by the locals, still producing big crops of bivalves for hundreds of years. Around the point is a fish weir, just needing the stakes replaced but the stone walls still there. Maybe I'll have time for art and culture like the original inhabitants.

 

You (and Catbuilder and PAR) are missing the point.

I have ALREADY relocated to one of those nice places.

There *is* no 'rough' city on this island.

There *are* no ravening hordes of suburban scum armed to the teeth.

Rural property owners in this country are far, far, far more likely to be armed, and know how to use those arms, than 99% of the people living in the cities.

Finally, absent truly massive pollution of all global water supplies, having water storage like mine is pretty irrelevant where I live. The water for the city is gravity-fed off of the mountain behind the city. There is no shortage and there isn't likely to be. There are 3 reservoirs in much closer proximity than I am. I have that much water because I built my house on top of my water tank. Another one of those differences between the USA & Australia - typically we store rainwater in tanks, you guys suck up groundwater from wells. What I have isn't unusual. Most of my neighbours have similar amounts stored. We all have small dams as well, for low level irrigation of gardens etc.

Your apocalyptic mental picture of the suburban hordes descending might have some applicability to US cities but it doesn't apply here where I live. Bataan's vision of hunkering in a nice cove somewhere is fine. Guess what, I've already done it.

PDW

 

Given that I use approx 9 kg a year and I know where you live, you're less than 2 km away from about 50 year's supply as long as you get in early. I don't think I'll lose too much sleep over people lusting after my 6 bottles...

You going to the Kettering junk sale AKA marine goods sale tomorrow? I'm going to drop by there in the morning to see what's on offer. If you're around, drop by here or give me a call - I think you've got my phone numbers.

PDW

 

Did you check to see if they've ever been right in the past? For example, they certainly saw the current financial crisis coming in 2007, or early 2008 at the latest -- right?

I've got a lot of respect for MIT, but when it comes to the soft sciences they're just as fallible as everyone else. On top of which, predictions like that are only made by macro economists -- which arguably is not a science at all, it's a political tool.

 

You got a point but there was a hitch, they used resource depletion as part of there measuring system to derive the most likely time frame. I'm sure there is a lot of guess work but its a study thats been going since the 70s and they've just updated there work, which is why it made the news again.

While I'm sure there is a lot of ifs and maybe's involved, these guys just "could" be onto something.

Oh and that last bust, was two major and very crooked things combined, that pretty much went down behind closed doors. A whole bunch of shady bank transactions designed to foist off bad mortgages onto competitor banks which triggered a change in the workforce, number of people working as well as the quality of what jobs were available. From which we have yet to really recover.

Since the shady transactions led to the die off in jobs it was likely pretty hard to predict unless there was some way to know that millions of slippery mortgages where being upgraded and sold off to the unsuspecting.

in either case your right tho
the economic collapse part of my last is the questionable part. The climate change part is about as certain as any theory has ever been. 98% is probably the largest consensus ever.

 

Thats a great idea. My son is visiting from Finland, so we could take a run down there as sightseeing as well as checking out the marine sale.

I found you phone no, so I will check on your movements when i know what we are doing tomorrow.

I was serious about that seat by the way - I bought it to chop up for steel, but it seems like a bit of a waste for that.

 

Actually, many people saw it coming. Here's an interesting perspective.

I don't discuss religion when there's a believer in the room.

 

"The climate change part is about as certain as any theory has ever been. 98% is probably the largest consensus ever. "

Real science is not put to a vote, it needs "proof".

99% believed in the flat earth,

None of the computer climate models actually work, outside the cells where they were created , with Gov "research" funding.

####

AN economic collapse is currently under way , Greece? Spain? Portugal? Ireland?Italy?

Best "cure" for the Euro would seem to be for Germany to depart , then the Euro can depreciate to 4 to 10 to the dollar , and Euroland will be competative again ,,, for a while.

AS long as politicians can get into office with public candy handouts , the end will stay near!

FF

 

Ahahhaahhaahahahahahhahahaha, "none of the computer models work", ah thats just to funny. . None eh, yikes, and where did you dream that up at ?

Climate models are working just fine

and its got nothing to do with religion, its just basic science. Thousands of researchers working tirelessly to "disprove" there various hypothesis and in the end discover the realities of our changing atmospheric chemistry. A very strong theory, Rapid Global Climate Shift is that stark reality that has emerged.

 

Perfectly said.

A couple more points;

Since when is science a consensus and not about proof. When you believe by faith it is a religion. Belief without proof is a religion. You might as well believe that dancing causes rain.

Climate models for a couple days are fairly reliable, take them out a month and they fall through their face. Taking them them out 100 years or more is just silly. Start dancing again.

The earth is not a simple lab experiment, we simply don't know how it works yet. Other factors like the SUN, and even microbes have more to do with climate than we understand. The ocean is full of methane, and it bubbles up all the time, volcanoes, meteoroids, all have drastic effects.

Lets worry about the real problems.
Half the world wants to rob us, kill us or otherwise destroy us, so they can have our prosperity. And then there are the people that feel guilty and want to give it to them. Yet, people like in Greece or France want everything for free but don't want to do the hard work.

So stick your head in the sand and blame global warming when you drown in your own delusions and call it science.

She blinded me with science....

 

Excuse me? "...people like in Greece or France want everything for free and don't want to do the hard work." Whatever you're smoking, I want some. The world's fifth largest economy, France, is not made by people who don't want to work. By making completely absurd, sound-bite, bumper sticker statements like this, anything else you might say with more worth is called into question.

 

In a moment, or maybe it has happened, China is the ultimate economical power and the US is the looser and in depth up to ears. So are you the new Greece?
Another matter are the theories, climate, economics what ever, as the word says they are theories and cannot be proven without empirical proof. The point with them is the fact that when they are proved to be true or false it's too late to react other way except damage control. Becouse of this we should take care and think about the worst case scenarios, either way, better safe than sorry... anyways IMHO

 

You've have to carefully read your own propaganda. A quick search shows that the referrenced IPCC Third Assessment Report was in 2001. The report you're quoting was 2007 -- six years later. So ... six years after the 3rd report, they are claiming "two decades" of "overall agreement" using models that "better simulate" those relied on six years earlier.

Don't you understand what they're saying? They are fitting the model to observation. I can design a model that predicts roulette if I can keep refitting it.

I want to give this discussion up -- but you're way off base in your statement that "climate models are working just fine." Way off base. BTW -- Why are you quoting a 2007 paper? We know they were fudging the record during that period. Are they still making these absurd claims?

Here's a report on weather modeling from a couple of honest scientists;

I'm sure these two researchers aren't giving up their quest -- and they may find it some day. What they're admitting is that it's irresponsible at this time to share their results with the public, because there are no logical conclusions that can be drawn from the models ... yet.