The Days Ahead

Arctic News has an important update regarding what temperatures we can soon (**very soon) expect:

A Global Temperature Rise Of More than Ten Degrees Celsius By 2026?

I highly recommend you read this.


Need I remind ANYONE that 10°C is worse then catastrophic?

‘The extraordinary years have become the normal years’: Scientists survey radical Arctic melt

“We’ve lost about twice the size of the state of Alaska in terms of area,” said Meier, referring to the long-term trend in Arctic sea ice over the past several decades. “It’s also thinning as well, we’ve lost about 50 percent of the thickness. And this is happening more rapidly than even the most aggressive climate models.”

Related (but old news if you’ve been paying attention) with cool pictures and video:

Mystery of Siberia’s 200ft-deep craters solved: Enormous holes were formed by methane eruptions triggered by melting permafrost

Scribbler has a new article that is also timely (happening this very minute) and related:

Another Global Warming Enhanced Heatwave is on the Way — 111 Degree (F) Temperatures Predicted For Central US

Update: And if all this isn’t bad enough, read this in regards to what warming is doing to global oxygen levels:

When we run the numbers correctly it is clear that under 2 degrees warming ocean oxygen microbial consumption rates will increase by about 30%. And for 3 degrees warming (quite possible) a disturbing +50%. The effects of reduced solubility, increased microbial rates, and reduced vertical mixing from increased stratification are all effectively additive. It doesn’t look good.”

I’ve fixed the blog registration display problem (captcha failed to display correctly), sorry about the lateness of this repair.

A lot of changes have been made over on Food Assets, but something ‘weird’ is happening. One page (MRE’s) receives over 5000 monthly hits all by itself, but none of these visitors are actually buying any food, they’re just reading the information and moving on. Same thing has been happening on the shelf life page and several other high-traffic pages. Nobody is buying anything, sales are extremely slow and that’s why I’ve been “gone”. I still provide technical support and have been burning the midnight oil.

So far, nothing has worked for the site. Google pretty much wrecked the site rankings (something Google does quite often to everybody). Despite high enough traffic, there are extremely few people making any long term storable food purchases. This article might be the reason: Poorer than their parents? A new perspective on income inequality

Observers will note that the world continues to spin on its axis and humanity continues to engage in wanton death and destruction. Obviously, I’m referring to the senseless slaughter in France. I don’t want to jump on the bandwagon that always follows one of these crimes and won’t be posting any links here. Suffice it to say that this revolting insanity by radical extremists boil my blood. No punishment would be too great for those who engage in such atrocities.

The news is confirmed that the Zika Virus is sexually transmitted. This is a direct result of warming weather and increased evaporation causing the mosquitoes to move northward. It’s probably just the beginning of new disease vectors humans can expect.

There are going to be a lot of new ways to die in the days ahead. I’ve hinted at this before and what we’ve seen mid-way through 2016 is just a hint of what’s to come. Humans are going to tear each other part as their environment and resulting economic opportunities get destroyed. It’s all interrelated and much of it is going to be unavoidable. There are too many factions and divisions, encompassing billions of people for this to be any other way. In many, many ways, this outcome is already predetermined.

The media is going to try and fill our heads with more promises of democracy, but it will be anything but. Justice, fairness, safety and even comfort are going out the window now, to be replaced with fascism, extremism and violent reactionary upheavals.

This will not be a safe time to travel.


admin at survivalacres dot com

10 thoughts on “The Days Ahead

  • August 7, 2016 at 3:59 am
    I think the claimed 10oC rise in temperature is an exaggeration of what can be occur in such a short time frame for several reasons.

    1. For the average temperature to rise by 10oC the oceans would have to increase in temperature by an average of 10oC. I don’t believe there is a mechanism for transferring heat to the deep (3 kilometres) oceans that quickly.

    2. As oceans warm they tend to give off more water vapour, removing heat from the oceans and transferring it to the lower atmosphere. A warmer lower atmosphere would result in more water vapour at higher altitudes, where the latent heat of phase change would transfer heat to air molecules, which would in turn release more heat into space, increasing the rate of cooling.

    3. The 10oc scenario is dependent on loss of aerosols; the lack of availability of high quality fossil fuels which is anticipated to occur in the early 2020s could well result in increased use low grade coal, which could well result in increased atmospheric aerosols.

    4. A rise in ocean temperatures of 10oC implies all the ice on Greenland melting. The consequent rise in ocean level of around 7 metres would cause the ice sheets of Antarctica to destabilise and melt to the new ocean level. A humungous amount of heat would be required for the heat of phase change for such an enormous quantity of Antarctic ice.

    5. The release of methane may well be a ‘problem’ but it could well be that the OH oxidation mechanism [of CH4 to CO2] is not as easily overwhelmed as some commentators have suggested. Despite the alarm being sounded over 2010-2011, there is no indication of a substantial increase in atmospheric methane. One important factor which is still apparently unknown is the very short term or instantaneous forcing factor for methane (generally quoted values are for 100 years or for 20 years).

    I just cannot see such changes occurring in such the extraordinarily compressed time frame of a decade, particularly when it has taken many decades to raise the average temperature by 1oC (or even 1.4oC) that may have occurred this year. Also, it pays to remember that atmospheric CO2 has been as high as 2000 ppm in past geological ages when life was extremely abundant. We are currently at just over 400 ppm and increasing by perhaps 3 ppm or 4 ppm per annum.

    It will probably take until about 2026 or 2028 to reach the so-called upper safe threshold of 450 ppm.

    I could be wrong but no one has presented any evidence on other websites that I am. Paul Beckwith has recently indicated general agreement with my position.

    10oC by mid-century maybe.

    Obviously we will be a better position to judge how dire the predicament is a year or two from now.

    • August 7, 2016 at 10:16 am

      I found this last night –

      I don’t read McPherson’s site as a rule, but I did check last night. He gives a 8.21C rise based on Carana and his own estimates. He’s right about no scientists being willing to tell us everything they may know. The asinine witch hunts we’ve all seen haven’t gone away. I also came across a Dr. of Natural Medicine who is espousing “global cooling” based on a “cold spring” is some parts of the world. He’s dead wrong of course, increasing temperatures increases evaporation leading to increased precipitation of the form of rain, snow and ice and storms. A cold spring isn’t unexpected and is can be a sign of increasing global temperatures, especially when you consider what the global temperature record is actually telling us. The rising water vapor (and now reported cloud changes globally) and even the new “sub-tropical zone in England” just identified is alarming to say the least.

      It’s also known that extrordinairely fast shifts in global temperature have occurred before, in just a couple of years. This is a new discovery by science, whereas they thought it would take at least hundreds of years, then perhaps a few decades, but now they’ve come to realize that it really could happen in just a few years. This is a profound development and like all similar discoveries, it is going to take a while for the science community to come around.

      Except of course we don’t really have this kind of time available to us now. I think it is perfectly possible when considering the growing understanding, the escalating number of feedbacks and the recognition of “known unknowns” about the climate system and it’s complex interactions. If one thing I’ve learned is we keep picking the wrong expectations, they’re always off, always having to be updated (for the worse), and far sooner then “expected”. Our understanding remains flawed with gigantic missing pieces. If this trend continues as it has, say for the next 5 or 10 years, we already know “we will be wrong again”. We would do well to err on the side of caution in any case, but in the end, none of this is really going to matter. It’s already self-evident that whatever “time” we have left as a species isn’t what anybody thinks.

      • August 7, 2016 at 4:48 pm
        ‘I don’t read McPherson’s site as a rule, but I did check last night.’

        It is interesting that you have brought up McPherson because I supported his work until very recently and even organised a speaking tour. He has always been prone to exaggeration and citing non-scientific sources as supporting evidence for his narratives but we were able to rein him in and keep him on track by correcting his errors (such as that there was a 40 year time lag between the emission of CO2 and its effect) via the website.

        However, that all changed at the end of June, when McPherson announced a preposterous narrative of ‘no habitat for humans anywhere on Earth long before 2030’, which was based on his misunderstanding of some basic physics and chemistry and misinterpretation of at least two scientific papers. There had been a build-up to this because Daniel Drumright had challenged several matters in Guy’s narrative that just did not ring true, and there had been instances of Guy backtracking and declaring he had not said things that he clearly had said.

        His response to being challenged towards the end of June was to apply censorship and shut down the comments section of the site, and subsequently to add insults to his own commentary of events.

        There ensued a 5-day debate via email, in which Guy misquoted, carried out ad hominin attacks (something he had bitterly complained about when it applied to him), failed to provide scientific evidence for his narrative, and eventually failed to respond at all (having been proven wrong); he was resoundingly beaten on the basis of the science and his misuse/misunderstanding of it.

        Guy McPherson made numerous errors in his so-called analysis, including claiming that the current warming is due to CO2 (and not water vapour) and then going on to add warming due increased water vapour associated with doubling of atmospheric CO2 to his figures to come up with an 8oC rise in average temperature, which he claimed would occur ‘in a matter of a few years or a few months’.

        McPherson misrepresented the conclusions of Travis immediately after 9/11, claiming that there had been a rise in temperature due to clearing of the skies when in fact Travis had noted an increase in the range (colder as well as warmer). When I pointed out that clear night skies result in faster cooling McPherson ignored the factor. When I pointed out Global Dimming is primarily a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon and its loss in the Southern Hemisphere would result in much less impact than in the N.H. he misquoted me as saying it would have no impact.

        McPherson claimed that there would be a massive increase in temperature as a consequence of moistening of the Upper Troposphere, and misquoted from a website in order to support his argument. In reality temperatures in the Upper Troposphere are extremely low (around 200oK) and there is very little water vapour there.

        The whole nasty affair -the insults, ad hominin attacks and refusal to acknowledge errors- resulted in a large number of his previous supporters distancing themselves from him, and resulted in something of an implosion of NBL (much as happened with ‘Collapse of Industrial Civilisation’ for similar reasons).

        There could now be a ‘self-reinforcing feedback loop between McPherson and Carana, whereby each quotes the other. I do know that Paul Beckwith is not impressed and has distanced himself from McPherson.

        I agree that large shifts in temperature can occur, but 1oC per annum over the next decade is not credible when it has taken decades to rise the temperature by just over 1oC.

        I believe McPherson’s latest predication will join all the other failed predictions, including that industrial civilisation will collapse by 2013, and that the southwest of the US will become uninhabitable [for humans] within 5 years, i.e. by 2018.

        • August 7, 2016 at 10:22 pm

          Not sure if you are aware that the lag time on emissions has been shortened to as little as 10 years. The 40 year estimate is based on older science as I recall, but they’ve updated this to reflect newer data.

          I’m not privy (or particularily interested) in the McPherson saga. I’ve never been a fan or follower specifically because I developed my own conclusions and opinions years before even learning of him based upon my own research. Didn’t see any point in joining in or becoming a member, but did take exception to the hopelessness theme that took hold, written about before here on this blog.

          We all want validation (human nature) but there is nothing personal about collapse, or extinction or any of the unfolding events taking place. Point being is even the most credible scientist has been proven wrong, as has every author on the subject. I thought economic / resource collapse would have occurred before now (fracking never entered into my mind nor the bailouts handed out). Climate change become the the ELE event to watch for and still is. There isn’t anything bigger threatening humanity.

          I believe anyone under 60 will witness the full force of climate change events in their remaining lifetime (catastrophic effects). Their own children will suffer everything there is to come, and their grandchildren will “never grow old” (they will be among the last surviving humans). This is a timespan of 50 years or so where most humans and nearly every other life form, particularly mammals, fishes and amphibians will have died out. We can’t survive the temperatures science predicts (no food, starvation and dehydration comes first before heat stroke). But it doesn’t really matter when this actually happens — it’s more important to recognize that it could or even will happen.

          Whatever time remains, it is insufficient for resolution with what tools and technology (and willingness) we have today. It’s unlikely in my opinion that we will change any of this in time to avert catastrophic disaster.

          • August 8, 2016 at 12:37 am
            Again I basically agree.

            One ‘problem’ is that a paper hypothesising the effect of a pulse of CO2 got interpreted as applying to our present condition, which is clearly does not since we are not witnessing a pulse but a steady(and increasing) increase in atmospheric CO2.

            As far as I am concerned the effect of CO2 emissions is both instantaneous and cumulative.

            Convergent thinking: I began saying a few years ago that it will be those under 60 who will pay the price for all the madness we’re witnessing. The ***** who are in control couldn’t care less about their own children’s futures.

    • August 7, 2016 at 10:38 am

      “It will probably take until about 2026 or 2028 to reach the so-called upper safe threshold of 450 ppm. ”

      What does this mean? Are you suggesting that 450ppm is safe? If so, please explain how you think this is safe (and for what life forms).

      At 380 we noticed the accelerated melting of the polar caps (faster then replenishment), which began an effect upon thermohaline circulation and rising sea levels, which if everything stayed “static” (no more C02) would have still caused massive global disruptions. But at 400ppm we’re well into very dangerous territory, a 450ppm is beyond extreme. The known effects of our emissions combined is already 485ppm and still rising.

      There is something else too – I think “all of Greenland” is melting (now). The trillions of tons of lost ice (so far known) and the vast melting of the surface (97%) and the underground hidden reservoirs of meltwater are profound. At 400ppm – but this didn’t happen all at once, it began at xxppm decades back. This is perhaps one of the areas where conveying the meaning of current measurement fails, our emissions caused these things to begin long ago and once they’ve begun, they are largely irreversible.

      I for one, do not buy in the notion that we’ve got what it takes at any level to reverse what is now underway. But I also don’t think we should crawl off into a corner and whine until we die either. That is not my nature.

      • August 7, 2016 at 3:31 pm
        I used the term ‘so-called safe’ for 450 ppm atmospheric CO2 because people like Lord Stern (Stern Report) and many scientists involved in UNIPCC regarded 450 ppm as a level that CO2 could be stabilised at, and which would not cause catastrophic outcomes. Some still talk in terms of 500 ppm being safe, which is clearly absurd. The COP 21 Paris accord pledging to keep the average temperature increase below 2oC is nonsense, or what Jim Hansen described as fraud.

        I do not believe 450 ppm is at all safe, and in my opinion anything above 320 ppm is not safe because above 320 ppm is likely to cause an increase in average temperature, albeit very slowly. We broke through 320 ppm around 1962.

        This graph demonstrates that the average atmospheric CO2 level was around 230 ppm for most of the past 800,000 years, and that it did not exceed 300 ppm over that period.

        At around 405 ppm we are about 175 ppm above the long-term average and about 105 ppm above any previous 800,000-year peak.

        There is no evidence that atmospheric CO2 can be stabilised at 450 ppm because positive (causing additional melting) feedbacks have been triggered. In 2017 we should expect to see 413 ppm (or higher) during the seasonal peak, and ever higher values as time goes on.

        Of course the entire official narrative of stabilisation is predicated on fantasies about removing substantial quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere when in practice there is no mechanism for doing so, other than partially burning carbohydrates and distributing the charcoal (carbon) that is left: such a scheme is completely absurd when humanity is digging up millions of tonnes of coal (carbon) and burning it every day.

        With respect to the melting of the ice on Greenland, yes it is happening now, but the rate varies considerably. At this point, despite atmospheric CO2 being at a record high, the melt extent is reported as being below the 1981-2010 average:

        I agree that humanity does not have what it takes to prevent planetary meltdown -well the humanity that is trapped in the debt-slavery-consumerism ‘concentration camp’ established by banks and corporations certainly doesn’t: the continuing narrative is one of increased population, greater consumption, greater emissions, and faster degradation of the geochemical systems that make life-as-we-know-it possible. I regard the present dominant culture as utterly Orwellian (war is peace, ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery and all that) and insane. The game that is apparently being played is to keep the masses dumbed-down and consuming for as long as possible. It was not difficult to maintain that agenda until recently because banks and corporations ‘own’ the media and ‘own’ the politicians. However, the system is in the process of shaking itself to pieces: negative interest rates and impoverishment of the masses cannot be maintained for very long without something unravelling.

        • August 7, 2016 at 10:48 pm

          Somewhere on this blog there is a list of the assumption many of the science reports and analysis are making. I didn’t agree with the Stern Report as I recall, finding it optimistic whereas optimism definitely isn’t in the cards for any human alive today (imo). We are well past the safe zone, deep into the danger zone with C02 levels, and with many different feedbacks now being measured, we’re sure to accelerate the pace.

          It’s reports like this one on Greenland –
          that get me to view the current “mindset” of how fast Greenland is melting, versus how fast it is REALLY melting as being at odds with one another. Moreover, they’re only just now becoming aware of how much is being stored within the ice sheet itself as liquid water, and it is a lot more then they previously thought.

  • August 8, 2016 at 2:51 pm
    Will, classic comedy at its best: “I Am Che” (NBL, 2/12/2016)!

Leave a Reply