Climate Change & Survival.

[Robson Valley]

Climatologists and paleontologists are all the same = they profess all sorts of ideas, postulates and inspirations. So many, that by accident, somebody gets it right. That ensures their historical glory. "See? I told you so."

What's impressed and discouraged me has been to watch the glaciers in Banff and Jasper melt back over the last 50+ years.

For example, drive south from Jasper on the Icefield Parkway. Stop at the Crowfoot Glacier Lookout. You will wonder: "What the hell is that?" It used to be a crow's foot of 3 toes. Nowjust one toe and the stump of one other.

There was a so-called "mini-ice age" which encompassed eastern Canada and the NE part of the United States, back in the 1600's (my memory is poor). Two things: One, it didn't even last a century and Two, the average mean temp dropped less than 3C over that period. So some fool decided to name it a mini ice age. And it stuck better than ka-ka on your shoe.

 

[Coach]

Climate change is any change in the Climate. The worst example of climate change in the British record is the 1690s when it is said that around a quarter of the population of Scotland died in the colder period. Likewise, something like 4 out of 5 famines in Ireland occurred in colder years. Since the end of the global cooling scare, there have been over 1millon extra winter deaths in the UK.

The worst example of heat stress in the UK occurred in summer 2003 when (almost uniquely) there were 2300 extra deaths recorded. Globally cold is the main killer even in countries like India which we associate with high temperatures.

The current rate of rise of sea level is a few mm a year, which makes it an insignificant issue. Even people like Al Gore and Obama buy beach front properties.

Civil unrest is usually caused by economic disparity. The main cause of economic disparity globally, is the lack of access to fossil fuels suffered by most of the globe. Net Zero is an attempt to force that same poverty on people in the west ... particularly the poorest in society, who will be denied access to travel, consumer goods, etc, whilst the rich have relatively minor impacts. It therefore seems very likely that we will see a massive rise in civil unrest associated with that policy.

If we have the denial of cheap energy in the UK, and then see a return to the 1690s type of climate, we would literally see the cost of living being too high in the UK (i.e. people unable to afford to live). If we see the beginning of the next ice-age, the worldwide famine will mean it'll be a fight to the death.

'Rate of rise of sea level' is a myth. We have no way of measuring sea levels. The oceans are in constant flux affected by variables like wind, weather, air pressure, earths rotation, lunar and solar position relative to earth and each other etc. And as for melting ice caps raising sea levels it should be borne in mind that water expands as its freezing, its entirely possible that as the ice caps melt sea levels will drop!
In response to the original supposition of climate change however could I humbly offer a BBC 2 series Our Changing Planet - the photography is awesome, the content is at the same time inspirational and uplifting but in the next moment heartbreaking. And as one of the presenters says ' this will only work if We All work together...'
Accordingly I send a monthly amount to Fauna and Flora International, 'every little helps' as they say.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

And as for melting ice caps raising sea levels it should be borne in mind that water expands as its freezing, its entirely possible that as the ice caps melt sea levels will drop!

Water may expand when it freezes but it's mass remains the same. During a 'warm spell ' before the last age, around 125,000 years ago, when there was less ice on the planet, sea levels were over 5 meters higher than they are today & during the last ice age they were 122 meters lower than they are today. There is only a given quantity of water on Earth & when a percentage of that water is locked in ice form, sea levels are lower than during warmer climatic periods when ice caps & glaciation are less present. If all the world's current ice was to melt, sea levels would likely be around 50 meters higher than at present.
But melting ice isn't the only cause of rising sea levels, water also expands when it's heated & the oceans absorb a large quantity of the increasing global temperatures thus increasing their volume.

 

[Emerson]

Many ancient civilizations thrived then perished due to climate (and their own doing) Egyptian culture being one of the most popularized.

Another lesser known civilization in America was that of Cahokia. At one time it had a 20k plus population, larger than any city in Europe. Deforestation, climate change and many other factors such as diseases likely contributed to the downfall of Cahokia.

Climate change is nothing new, things need to change but real change never happens. Annually we all watch Tim Cook get on stage and explain how apple is so green and that things are going great, we just need to buy a new iPhone. Then a year later everyone is throwing a disposable useless mask in the trash until you could build the titanic out of them. Now we have a useless war in Europe setting fuel depots on fire and truthfully making the worst environmental impact since the Vietnam war.

 

[grizzlyj]

Not that it's totally relevant but here is the HSBC banker who recently got suspended for saying what he maybe shouldn't have. Screeching headlines took a small part of what he said, but one takeaway from it is humans will adapt. No comments on yt weirdly.

 

[saxonaxe]

He was last seen standing on a pile of firewood chained to a stake, with a Heresy notice hanging around his neck.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Of course humans will adapt & survive but not all of them. All that is needed is more technology & more concrete.

 

[Deleted member 56522]

The flipside is the mini ice age that will supposedly arive around 2030. That could be devastating to food production and stretch energy supplies to breaking point if it proves true.

We've been overdue for the flip into the next ice-age for several thousand years. The real question is this: why didn't the mini ice-age do a full flip and turn the world into a cold, dry frozen wasteland? And I don't have an answer, but it does look like a flip could occur anytime (in the next thousand years of so)

That was the concern of the 1970s. People were looking at the way SO2 pollution was depressing temperatures and seeing how the ash from volcanic activity seemed to cause global cold spikes, and they reckoned that a nuclear war could do the same: create a massive cloud of dust in the atmosphere, which would trigger the next ice-age. That's where they first got the idea of "runaway climate change". The idea is simple: a single event like a super-volcano or the largescale release of nuclear weapons could depress temperature so much, that we get into the runaway cooling zone of climate change, and then nothing will stop us going into an ice-age.

The problem for the (USSR funded) anti-nuclear groups trying to use climate apocalypse to change US policy (for the benefit of the USSR), is that after the clean air acts of the 1970s and lowering SO2-cooling, increasing aeroplane vapour trail warming (as shown when aeroplanes were grounded), and rising CO2, together with the warming phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation the threat of global cooling seemed to disappear, and people forgot the danger of global cooling.

But, then Russia became a major oil exporter, the threat of nuclear war went away, CND needed a new way to make a living and environmentalism had the answer ... and the outcome is that Russia changed to funding the (Old CND new) Green groups with the intention of just inverting the "global cooling" scare to focus western greens & (left wing) academics on "ending fossil fuel production" so as to end the west's domestic production of fossil fuels (very easy when the USSR controlled the coal unions ... and people like Thatcher hated the unions).

As recent events have shown, that policy was hugely successful and has left the west unable to fight a war with Russia. But, it also meant that academia has all but ignored the real threat of global cooling for the last 30 years.

 

[Coach]

We've been overdue for the flip into the next ice-age for several thousand years. The real question is this: why didn't the mini ice-age do a full flip and turn the world into a cold, dry frozen wasteland? And I don't have an answer, but it does look like a flip could occur anytime (in the next thousand years of so)

That was the concern of the 1970s. People were looking at the way SO2 pollution was depressing temperatures and seeing how the ash from volcanic activity seemed to cause global cold spikes, and they reckoned that a nuclear war could do the same: create a massive cloud of dust in the atmosphere, which would trigger the next ice-age. That's where they first got the idea of "runaway climate change". The idea is simple: a single event like a super-volcano or the largescale release of nuclear weapons could depress temperature so much, that we get into the runaway cooling zone of climate change, and then nothing will stop us going into an ice-age.

The problem for the (USSR funded) anti-nuclear groups trying to use climate apocalypse to change US policy (for the benefit of the USSR), is that after the clean air acts of the 1970s and lowering SO2-cooling, increasing aeroplane vapour trail warming (as shown when aeroplanes were grounded), and rising CO2, together with the warming phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation the threat of global cooling seemed to disappear, and people forgot the danger of global cooling.

But, then Russia became a major oil exporter, the threat of nuclear war went away, CND needed a new way to make a living and environmentalism had the answer ... and the outcome is that Russia changed to funding the (Old CND new) Green groups with the intention of just inverting the "global cooling" scare to focus western greens & (left wing) academics on "ending fossil fuel production" so as to end the west's domestic production of fossil fuels (very easy when the USSR controlled the coal unions ... and people like Thatcher hated the unions).

As recent events have shown, that policy was hugely successful and has left the west unable to fight a war with Russia. But, it also meant that academia has all but ignored the real threat of global cooling for the last 30 years.

If there is a "largescale release of nuclear weapons" there won't be any 'we' or 'us' left to worry about warming or cooling, the cockroaches and rats will inherit the remains and I doubt if they'll be bothered either way.

 

[Deleted member 56522]

If there is a "largescale release of nuclear weapons" there won't be any 'we' or 'us' left to worry about warming or cooling, the cockroaches and rats will inherit the remains and I doubt if they'll be bothered either way.

Nuclear weapons kill a lot of people when they hit a city, but most areas of a country are totally untouched. Radiation will cause illness and death, but as Chernobyl shows, life does carry on normally despite the radiation.

The fact that most people survive without problem, is why those like CND started pushing the idea of a "nuclear winter" causing climate problems as the thing that would kill everyone.

It's now flipped on its head, with those (Russian funded) groups who used to say "nuclear winter would occur even with a small nuclear exchange", now (in the new Russian funded form) saying that nothing can stop warming.

 

[Coach]

Nuclear weapons kill a lot of people when they hit a city, but most areas of a country are totally untouched. Radiation will cause illness and death, but as Chernobyl shows, life does carry on normally despite the radiation.

The fact that most people survive without problem, is why those like CND started pushing the idea of a "nuclear winter" causing climate problems as the thing that would kill everyone.

It's now flipped on its head, with those (Russian funded) groups who used to say "nuclear winter would occur even with a small nuclear exchange", now (in the new Russian funded form) saying that nothing can stop warming.

0ne (1) Russian Satan 2 will destroy All life in Britain in one go, and you can bet your last can of prepped beans Putin would hit us with more than one! If you think life would continue 'normally' after a nuclear war you are deluding yourself - Chernobyl was just a meltdown in a power station not a MIRV missile strike. It only took 1 asteroid to wipe out the dinosaurs , we wouldnt stand a snowballs chance in hell against several Satans.

 

[Deleted member 56522]

0ne (1) Russian Satan 2 will destroy All life in Britain in one go, and you can bet your last can of prepped beans Putin would hit us with more than one! If you think life would continue 'normally' after a nuclear war you are deluding yourself - Chernobyl was just a meltdown in a power station not a MIRV missile strike. It only took 1 asteroid to wipe out the dinosaurs , we wouldnt stand a snowballs chance in hell against several Satans.

The Satan 2 carries between 10 to 15 nuclear missiles. A typical nuclear has a kill radius around 10-20km. That could destroy a city. If it destroyed the largest 15 cities in the UK the number of deaths would be 16million, or a quarter of the population. To put that in context, the 1690s famines in Scotland brought on by a period of colder climate are thought to have killed about that percentage.

City​	Population​
London​	8961989​
Birmingham​	984333​
Liverpool​	864122​
Sheffield​	685368​
Bristol​	617280​
Glasgow​	591620​
Leicester​	508916​
Edinburgh​	464990​
Leeds​	455123​
Cardiff​	447287​
Manchester​	395515​
Stoke-on-Trent​	372775​
Coventry​	359262​
Sunderland​	335415​
Brent​	329100​
Total​	16373095​

 

[Coach]

The Satan 2 carries between 10 to 15 nuclear missiles. A typical nuclear has a kill radius around 10-20km. That could destroy a city. If it destroyed the largest 15 cities in the UK the number of deaths would be 16million, or a quarter of the population. To put that in context, the 1690s famines in Scotland brought on by a period of colder climate are thought to have killed about that percentage.

City​	Population​
London​	8961989​
Birmingham​	984333​
Liverpool​	864122​
Sheffield​	685368​
Bristol​	617280​
Glasgow​	591620​
Leicester​	508916​
Edinburgh​	464990​
Leeds​	455123​
Cardiff​	447287​
Manchester​	395515​
Stoke-on-Trent​	372775​
Coventry​	359262​
Sunderland​	335415​
Brent​	329100​
Total​	16373095​

According to Military.com Satan 2 can carry 10 heavy independant re.entry warheads each one capable of leveling an area the size of France! But dont let that worry you or the 16 million fried innocents that you calculate only 1 missile will take out, but what if Putin hit us with 4?? What percentage of the U.K. population would that kill?? and at what stage would you start worrying that you and yours might be amongst them??

 

[Deleted member 56522]

According to Military.com Satan 2 can carry 10 heavy independant re.entry warheads each one capable of leveling an area the size of France! But dont let that worry you or the 16 million fried innocents that you calculate only 1 missile will take out, but what if Putin hit us with 4?? What percentage of the U.K. population would that kill?? and at what stage would you start worrying that you and yours might be amongst them??

Military.com doesn't justify that figure but instead quotes newsweek, Newsweek don't justify it either instead citing defensenews, who don't justify it either.

So, let's work out the worst possible case: the largest nuclear bomb ever had a 50% chance of destroying an aircraft in flight at 28miles which encloses 2500 square miles. (But even a modest house would provide a lot more protection making area much smaller). But let's take the larger figure, for 15 of the largest warhead ever, the worst case is a total of 40,000square miles or 40% of UK land surface.

 

[Coach]

Military.com doesn't justify that figure but instead quotes newsweek, Newsweek don't justify it either instead citing defensenews, who don't justify it either.

So, let's work out the worst possible case: the largest nuclear bomb ever had a 50% chance of destroying an aircraft in flight at 28miles which encloses 2500 square miles. (But even a modest house would provide a lot more protection making area much smaller). But let's take the larger figure, for 15 of the largest warhead ever, the worst case is a total of 40,000square miles or 40% of UK land surface.

Fine,.. but what happens to your worst case if there are two lots of 15 - or even three?? But hey what are we worrying about - a cold snap is far more concerning. I mean incineration, radiation sickness, pestilence, disease, total breakdown of all government, services and society is far less bothersome than the possibility of a bit of cold weather. At least that would refridgerate the tens of millions of dead. And it would certainly be one way of "decreasing the surplus population".

 

[Deleted member 56522]

Fine,.. but what happens to your worst case if there are two lots of 15 - or even three?? But hey what are we worrying about - a cold snap is far more concerning. I mean incineration, radiation sickness, pestilence, disease, total breakdown of all government, services and society is far less bothersome than the possibility of a bit of cold weather. At least that would refridgerate the tens of millions of dead. And it would certainly be one way of "decreasing the surplus population".

I estimate that "cold snap" if it triggers then next ice-age will kill 90% of the entire population. Even a 100 satan 2s would likely kill far fewer than a billion on less than 10% of population.

 

[Coach]

I estimate that "cold snap" if it triggers then next ice-age will kill 90% of the entire population. Even a 100 satan 2s would likely kill far fewer than a billion on less than 10% of population.

But it wouldnt be just 100 Satan 2s would it?? It would be the whole nuclear arsenal of every world power.. and the almost certain annihilation of life on earth - 100%.
The missiles are real as is the threat, your 'next ice age' is nothing more than a distant theoretical possibility. A Satan will vaporise you before you can blink, an ice age will take years to set in giving mankind time to prepare , plan and adapt. Inuit do manage to live in the Arctic ... no one lives in a nuclear reactor.
Just checked some facts - 1947 and 2018 studies concluded that it would only take 100 warheads to finish the world , and there are up to 15,000 warheads out there.

 

[TLM]

Nah, we just have to mutate a bit.

 

[Deleted member 56522]

But it wouldnt be just 100 Satan 2s would it?? It would be the whole nuclear arsenal of every world power.. and the almost certain annihilation of life on earth - 100%.

You're totally nuts. Nuclear weapons might make a very big bang, but they only kill large numbers when aimed at a city. There just aren't enough to hit every small town or village.

In contrast, a new ice-age not only makes all the north uninhabitable, it also turns most food growing areas into deserts. And, even if you happen to be in one of the few areas where it isn't too cold nor too dry ... the whole planet goes into a form of "CO2 desert" where plant growth all but stops throughout the globe. Indeed, given the trend toward falling CO2 and longer ice-ages, this may literally be the last dance of life on earth before the globe goes into a perpetual snowball, where the only life on earth are a few sulphur eating bacteria at the bottom of the sea.

 

[grizzlyj]

TED talk on what a small scale nuclear war some way from the UK would do to the world.