Jump to content

How To Prepare for Climate Change


dinneR

Recommended Posts

I just started reading this. Fascinating stuff.

https://www.nextavenue.org/how-you-can-prepare-for-climate-change/

He likes the NW and Great Lake States.

So, what would be your best bets? You're not the first to mention the Great Lakes.

In the book, I looked at fifteen 'climate haven' cities in the sense that they have no wildfires, no hurricanes and unlimited, clean, fresh water. And they tend to be in the Great Lakes area: Madison [Wisc.], Cleveland, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Buffalo, Duluth [Minn.].

But there's no place that's completely free. I mean even Madison, which is — I think when I become an empty-nester, that place is calling my name — even they have occasional floods. They have mosquitoes. I'd say these are minor compared to what people on the coasts of the U.S. are experiencing, though.

Book cover "How to prepare for climate change", Next Avenue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the concept of current geographic and regional weather patterns will matter very little in the future where, potentially, catastrophic changes to our ecology from climate change.

A recent model I saw from NOAA put is if roughly 40% of the current polar ice caps melt off, a high enough probability, that Florida is gone. Most of low lying GA will become an almost archipelago. 

 

I do think our main source of fresh water will become extremely important but counting on it to be similar in it's current ecology is short sighted. 

Personally I don't probably have to worry about it but know there is land in the more mountanious regions of western Turkey where my wifes family has land and I've recently invested in a small home to be built there. A bug-out spot if there ever was one. Now if only Erdogan can not run the country into the ground it might actually be useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, goldendesign said:

Now if only Erdogan can not run the country into the ground it might actually be useful.

I've been saying that since we last visited.  We want to return - often - but that guy is awful and a horrible step backward for Turkey :(  I kept thinking the moderate Turks would sort it out, but that hardly seems likely anymore.  What a loss - temporary hopefully.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worry about people's children.  It s my belief that things are going to be exponentially difficult about 10 years from now.  Sincerely hope that major changes are made.  I am ready to make changes.  I do try my best and am willing to make more changes and sacrifices.

  • Heart 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dirtyhip said:

I worry about people's children.  It s my belief that things are going to be exponentially difficult about 10 years from now.  Sincerely hope that major changes are made.  I am ready to make changes.  I do try my best and am willing to make more changes and sacrifices.

I really feel bad for the mess we're leaving our children.  Not just ecologically.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dirtyhip said:

I worry about people's children.  It s my belief that things are going to be exponentially difficult about 10 years from now.  Sincerely hope that major changes are made.  I am ready to make changes.  I do try my best and am willing to make more changes and sacrifices.

Next Avenue: We should make it clear at the outset that your book is a 'survival guide,' not a guide to shrinking your carbon footprint, right?

David Pogue: The climate has changed, past tense. This stuff we're seeing with the hurricanes and the wildfires — that's not an anomaly. That's what we've got from now on. So, trying to pretend that we can stave off all of it is folly.

I think these days, the advice is: We have to do both as hard and fast as possible. And that's my message through the whole book: You gotta mitigate — you gotta stop pumping carbon into the air and we also need to adapt, because we're foolish to think it's going to be back to 1980s weather within our lifetimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dirtyhip said:

I worry about people's children.

 

7 minutes ago, 12string said:

I really feel bad for the mess we're leaving our children.  Not just ecologically.

I gave up on that "worrying" or "feeling bad" for people's kids.  They (the parents and grandparents) don't seem to care about it, so why should I waste my energy on it?  It sounds selfish until you think how selfish it is for the parents to keep making things worse yet expect other folks to fix it (or simply worry) for them.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll pay a lot more attention to climate change predictions when they become more precise.

All I've seen phrase the predictions similar to "The sea may rise by 20 feet..." or "Temperatures might rise by 5C (or pick your number)..."

To me, if the sea may rise that means the sea may not rise too.  Or at least may not rise by 20 feet, anyway.  It means that the temperature might not rise either.

When those making the predictions start using language such as "The sea will rise..." or "The sea must rise..." that will get my attention enough to start looking seriously at the data and the research to see upon what they base their convictions.

Words like "may", "could", "might", and "probably" are not scientific words.  I understand people base these statements on computer models.  As I see it, if the results of the computer models are only good enough where you can't be more precise than "may", "could", "might", or "probably" then the models need more work.

Where the scientists or researchers believe in their work or that the models are true representation of how climate works, then shouldn't have to get all squishy with the predictions or in describing the results.  Make the commitment to the belief that the work is correct and the model is accurate, and announce the results with words that convey the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

 

I gave up on that "worrying" or "feeling bad" for people's kids.  They (the parents and grandparents) don't seem to care about it, so why should I waste my energy on it?  It sounds selfish until you think how selfish it is for the parents to keep making things worse yet expect other folks to fix it (or simply worry) for them.

The whole thing is so complex.  I think our previous generations thought they were doing good.  I dont think they intentially screwed up our climate.  I do feel that unfettered capitalism is partly to blame.  Greed and protecting the car industry at all costs was part of our downfall.  People having too many children was partly to blame as well.  Our planet can not support 8 billion people.  Religions limiting access to birth control was a super bad idea.  It isn't like people aren't going to have sex.  If a women needs birth control, she should have access.  

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Razors Edge said:

 

I gave up on that "worrying" or "feeling bad" for people's kids.  They (the parents and grandparents) don't seem to care about it, so why should I waste my energy on it?  It sounds selfish until you think how selfish it is for the parents to keep making things worse yet expect other folks to fix it (or simply worry) for them.

You not wasting your energy on it IS continuing to make it worse and expecting others to fix it.  So, by your own definition, selfish.

It's not "feeling bad" for my kids.  It's knowing they are going to have some rather severe difficulties in their lives in the future.  As a parent, that hurts me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dirtyhip said:

I dont think they intentially screwed up our climate.

you are probably correct.  Unfortunately, now that we know the damage we're doing, people not doing something about it -or worse - intentionally bloclking change out of greed or powerlust - ARE intentionally screwing up the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 12string said:

You not wasting your energy on it IS continuing to make it worse and expecting others to fix it.  So, by your own definition, selfish.

It's not "feeling bad" for my kids.  It's knowing they are going to have some rather severe difficulties in their lives in the future.  As a parent, that hurts me.

Definitely.  I embrace it now.  I figure I'm pretty far down on the "selfish ladder" but am certainly on it.  Lucky for the planet planet's inhabitants, I only have maybe another 50 years here to add to the problem.  In that time, maybe we'll see folks start pulling in a different direction, but until then, it's probably best for me to sit on the sidelines and let the folks with skin in the game try to sort it out (or double down on dropping things on the kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids' laps).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 12string said:

you are probably correct.  Unfortunately, now that we know the damage we're doing, people not doing something about it -or worse - intentionally bloclking change out of greed or powerlust - ARE intentionally screwing up the future.

I agree with the latter part of your statement.  It perplexes people on why I ride my bike to work daily.  Some of these days are exponentially hard.  I still do it.  When it gets really tough, i take a bus.  Our public transit needs to be greatly improvd, if we want change.  The bus service doesn't hit all the outlying areas.  Those people have to drive.  They need to work.  They need food and shelter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the rest of the world is going full tilt boogy to get what we already have I don't think we can do much to stop it.

India

Traffic jams in Indian cities aren't just frustrating – they're also  expensive

Malaysia

image.jpeg.7f8e04d029895dbbc95576817c0221c5.jpeg

China

Now This Is Gridlock: China Traffic Jam Lasts Nine Days : The Two-Way : NPR

Jakarta Indonesia

Indonesia Traffic Jam: 12 Die In Java Gridlock during Ramadan - YouTube

 

Moscow Russia

Pin on Travel!

Brazil

The COVID-19 crisis could show us how to cure our congested cities |  VentureBeat

Is it probable that it's already far to late..........short of returning to yesteryear by eliminating about half of the worlds population.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to some studies, Central Maryland is supposed to get minimally hotter summers and warmer winters due to global warming and rainfall may pick up slightly - all due to the dampening processes caused by the Chesapeake Bay.

When we get hurricanes, their winds are usually greatly diminished and it's the rain and flooding that are a problem - usually after we've had an unusually rainy month beforehand.  That's usually a once-a-decade problem and severe flooding in many locations occurs about every 30 years.

Personally, I think the U.S. Government should realize Americans - and people in a lot of other nations - are not going to do much to stop global warming until it's on top of us in a big way, so at least as much research should be done on how to deal with it as is being done on how to stop it.

For example, we already experience severe shortages or depletions of fresh water in many parts of the USA and we're letting in enough immigrants that our population will double or triple in the Century - it would barely budge without immigrants.  So desalination of water is going to be a very MAJOR thing!  Inexpensive ways to do it and to connect adjacent water systems will be necessary.  Also, 75% of fresh water use today is for agriculture, where at least half of the water is lost to evaporation. Research in ways to conserve and to make fresh water should be a big thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

If you come up with another idea that might work this late in the game the world will love you.

You mean easy, no one inconvenienced, cheap (profit generating), and sexy?  Sure, I got lots of cool plans I might share, but why the rush?  The science isn't settled :D and clearly this could all be being interpreted quite incorrectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Is it probable that it's already far to late..........short of returning to yesteryear by eliminating about half of the worlds population.

It is too late to undo a lot of the damage.  All the more reason to try harder now.  And a lot of the world isn't making much progress.  All the more reason for us to try harder.

DH's point is valid, and bigger than she stated.  There ARE people, and countries, who have to do things that harm the climate, at least until society provides them an alternative.  That happens when those of us with the resources try harder now.

And it's not about population.  It's about what the population DOES.  10 billion people using 100% renewable energy is multitudes of times better than 4 billion people burning oil.

If we're going to just throw up our hands and say it's too hard, we  might as well just nuke this rock now and save future generations a lot of pain.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To @MickinMD point, even during record drought we were having a hard time getting a desalination plant approved. 

After a decade of drought we had a historically wet winter followed by 2 average winters. Now that we aren’t bone dry we are back to our wasteful ways. It seems people forgot  we’ll be back in drought at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

You mean easy, no one inconvenienced, cheap (profit generating), and sexy?  Sure, I got lots of cool plans I might share, but why the rush?  The science isn't settled :D and clearly this could all be being interpreted quite incorrectly.

Prepare yourself to learn more about container living because the lowest common denominator is coming.

Image: Olympic Games 2016 Feature

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change is a global problem not just our problem.  If you believe that we can tell the rest of the world to cut back because they need to then you are blowing smoke.  If we cut back without them nothing gets better.

Just my opinion, but instead of imagining that we might prevent it we should be studying how to live with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, 12string said:

It is too late to undo a lot of the damage.  All the more reason to try harder now.  And a lot of the world isn't making much progress.  All the more reason for us to try harder.

DH's point is valid, and bigger than she stated.  There ARE people, and countries, who have to do things that harm the climate, at least until society provides them an alternative.  That happens when those of us with the resources try harder now.ossibly 

And it's not about population.  It's about what the population DOES.  10 billion people using 100% renewable energy is multitudes of times better than 4 billion people burning oil.

If we're going to just throw up our hands and say it's too hard, we  might as well just nuke this rock now and save future generations a lot of pain.

I think that population does play a part.  Top soil loss is a real danger.  We have to really put a focus on protecting that soil. The soil is what will provide us with food.  Assitionally, the bee is one of the most important beings on the planet and we are killing them with pesticides.  I think more and more of us should consider keeping a garden.  It may not be everything we need, but it can help. If everyone tried to do some, it could help.  People with apartments might have some issues.  Possibly parks could be partially converted for food gadens for community members. 

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dirtyhip said:

I think that population does play a part.  Top soil loss is a real danger.  We have to really put a focus on protecting that soil. The soil is what will provide us with food.  Assitionally, the bee is one of the most important beings on the planet and we are killing them with pesticides.  I think more and more of us should consider keeping a garden.  It may not be everything we need, but it can help. If everyone tried to do some, it could help.  People with apartments might have some issues.  Possibly parks could be partially converted for food gadens for community members. 

There is a chapter on gardening. I live in an apt and garden on my deck and in a community garden.

And it even affects what grows in our backyards. So, you have some strategies for that.

Gardening, it turns out, is the Number One most popular hobby in America — a shock to me. So yeah, there's a chapter called "What to Grow," and there are two aspects to it.

One is the "survival garden," how you can grow your own stuff — beans, and things you can put away for the winter and eat as necessary.

And if you are a gardener, how to make things grow in a time where the traditional techniques and timings don't work anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Climate change is a global problem not just our problem.  If you believe that we can tell the rest of the world to cut back because they need to then you are blowing smoke.  If we cut back without them nothing gets better.

Just my opinion, but instead of imagining that we might prevent it we should be studying how to live with it.

That's quite the Amero-centric view.  For the last 4 years, it's been the rest of the world trying to get us to cut back.

The Paris accord?  That's most of the world saying they will try, instead of just throwing our hands up and calling it a loss.

As for "us" cutting back - the US has the most available resources to develop non fossil fuel alternatives that the world can use.  We CAN make a greater impact than the rest of the world.  And make a ton of money doing it.

Of course we should be studying how to deal with it.  A big part of that study is doing whatever is possible to reduce the impact.  Because a lot of what's coming isn't stuff we can just "live with" .  The economic cost alone will cripple many societies.  Then there's no way to "live with" the damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, the title of the book is How to Prepare for Climate Change: A Practical Guide to Surviving the Chaos.

And from the interview:

Next Avenue: We should make it clear at the outset that your book is a 'survival guide,' not a guide to shrinking your carbon footprint, right?

David Pogue: The climate has changed, past tense. This stuff we're seeing with the hurricanes and the wildfires — that's not an anomaly. That's what we've got from now on. So, trying to pretend that we can stave off all of it is folly.

I think these days, the advice is: We have to do both as hard and fast as possible. And that's my message through the whole book: You gotta mitigate — you gotta stop pumping carbon into the air and we also need to adapt, because we're foolish to think it's going to be back to 1980s weather within our lifetimes.

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 12string said:

It is too late to undo a lot of the damage.  All the more reason to try harder now.  And a lot of the world isn't making much progress.  All the more reason for us to try harder.

DH's point is valid, and bigger than she stated.  There ARE people, and countries, who have to do things that harm the climate, at least until society provides them an alternative.  That happens when those of us with the resources try harder now.

And it's not about population.  It's about what the population DOES.  10 billion people using 100% renewable energy is multitudes of times better than 4 billion people burning oil.

If we're going to just throw up our hands and say it's too hard, we  might as well just nuke this rock now and save future generations a lot of pain.

We can try all we want but if the rest of the world doesn't we will be steamrollered.  I don't want to throw up my hands and say it's too hare.  I want to recognize reality and spend some time learning what we need to know to live with it.

We can't even get the cooperation of our own citizens let alone the rest of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain things may have to be banned.  It will be uncomfortable for many to adapt to the changes that we need to do.  I expect people will scream "taking our freedoms."

Maybe certain freedoms need to go away to save the future for the children.  Last time I flew was 2013, and it should be the last time I do it.  I would just love to see Italy.  It is my dream trip.  I don't see it in the cards.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

We can try all we want but if the rest of the world doesn't

This is then part you are missing.  The rest of the world IS.  We are the ones resisting.  Only China emits more greenhouse gases than us.  Cleaning up our act will have an impact, we won't get "steamrolled".  And it's not a case of getting Americans to do things, the government can affect this change without people having to choose to do the right thing.  If Americans can no longer buy fossil fuel stuff because nobody makes it anymore, that will get them to cooperate.

Yes, China and India are the main culprits in promising and not delivering.  And I don't trust them to do a lot.  Right now, we're dumping twice what India does into the air, so we can make twice the difference they do.  When China  sees the money to be made in clean energy they WILL follow. 

The part you're missing is that a large part of the population of the world will not be able to live with it, no matter how much we prepare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MickinMD said:

Personally, I think the U.S. Government should realize Americans - and people in a lot of other nations - are not going to do much to stop global warming until it's on top of us in a big way, so at least as much research should be done on how to deal with it as is being done on how to stop it.

 

It already is on top of us in a big way.  Spend a summer out west.  I no longer enjoy summer.  I dread it.  We have had smoky summers where you can't breathe for the last 10 years.  We had one glorious summer.  One.  That year had massive snowpack.  This year we are in a drought.  

I think we need to rethin fire surpression, tilling, and food production. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 12string said:

This is then part you are missing.  The rest of the world IS.  We are the ones resisting.  Only China emits more greenhouse gases than us.  Cleaning up our act will have an impact, we won't get "steamrolled".  And it's not a case of getting Americans to do things, the government can affect this change without people having to choose to do the right thing.  If Americans can no longer buy fossil fuel stuff because nobody makes it anymore, that will get them to cooperate.

Yes, China and India are the main culprits in promising and not delivering.  And I don't trust them to do a lot.  Right now, we're dumping twice what India does into the air, so we can make twice the difference they do.  When China  sees the money to be made in clean energy they WILL follow. 

The part you're missing is that a large part of the population of the world will not be able to live with it, no matter how much we prepare.

I hope you are right, but I fear you are dreaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 12string said:

This is then part you are missing.  The rest of the world IS.  We are the ones resisting.  Only China emits more greenhouse gases than us.  Cleaning up our act will have an impact, we won't get "steamrolled".  And it's not a case of getting Americans to do things, the government can affect this change without people having to choose to do the right thing.  If Americans can no longer buy fossil fuel stuff because nobody makes it anymore, that will get them to cooperate.

Yes, China and India are the main culprits in promising and not delivering.  And I don't trust them to do a lot.  Right now, we're dumping twice what India does into the air, so we can make twice the difference they do.  When China  sees the money to be made in clean energy they WILL follow. 

The part you're missing is that a large part of the population of the world will not be able to live with it, no matter how much we prepare.

China is the leading producer of solar panels and near the top of wind turbines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-refugees-the-quest-for-a-haven-from-extreme-weather-events/

Droughts are becoming more desperate every decade in our Western states, so you also want plenty of fresh water.

So, where does that leave you? The Great Lakes.

"The abundance of natural resources and fresh water in particular," said Keenan. "Cities like Buffalo, like Cleveland, like Toledo, Ohio, are really prime. There's a cultural capacity, there's a legacy, there's a history. There's infrastructure there. There's art."

That's a good point; there's more to a city than its weather. You also want good schools, fine hospitals, sports and culture, a reasonable cost of living, and a high quality of life.

At least one American city fits all of these criteria: Welcome to Madison, Wisconsin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

I'll pay a lot more attention to climate change predictions when they become more precise.

All I've seen phrase the predictions similar to "The sea may rise by 20 feet..." or "Temperatures might rise by 5C (or pick your number)..."

To me, if the sea may rise that means the sea may not rise too.  Or at least may not rise by 20 feet, anyway.  It means that the temperature might not rise either.

When those making the predictions start using language such as "The sea will rise..." or "The sea must rise..." that will get my attention enough to start looking seriously at the data and the research to see upon what they base their convictions.

Words like "may", "could", "might", and "probably" are not scientific words.  I understand people base these statements on computer models.  As I see it, if the results of the computer models are only good enough where you can't be more precise than "may", "could", "might", or "probably" then the models need more work.

Where the scientists or researchers believe in their work or that the models are true representation of how climate works, then shouldn't have to get all squishy with the predictions or in describing the results.  Make the commitment to the belief that the work is correct and the model is accurate, and announce the results with words that convey the same.

But you know in some areas of science...there's a bit of art in probabilities/ making predictions also. Even in some areas of engineering, prediction ....is abit of an art because Nature is unpredictable, despite all modelling and measuring instruments.  The difference is that some of our own human actions, repeated millions of times repeatedly could be suspect also. The biggest proof now during the pandemic, some of the bigger cities are experiencing cleaner air because of less cars on the road... though not directly climate change related, it is enormous proof in last 12 months.

So I guess dearie who has an engineering degree, is another logical kinda of person, worked his entire career for oil national firm....does believe in some truth of climate change.  The complexities of factors that contribute cumulatively ...to more air pollution, warming of air, etc. I think one has to live in the Far North or even not that far north and be a scientist there, measuring the rapid ice melt, etc. Last year a bunch of Canadian scientific researchers couldn't measure the ice thickness, because their instruments they left installed, were washed away/non-functional because the ice melted way faster than they anticipated when they returned to the site. First time ever.  

Different research effort:  New satellite that will monitor Earth's changing oceans ready to launch | CBC News

Greenland lost 532 billion tonnes of ice in a record melt last year, new study suggests | CBC News

This the faculty at our local university specializing in Arctic studies/research, probably just 1 of a few universities world-wide that specialize in polar, sub-polar regions:     Arctic Institute of North America | Advancing Knowledge for a Changing North (ucalgary.ca)

About ASTIS | Arctic Institute of North America (ucalgary.ca) database of different research. Of course, it covers different disciplines.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

I'd consider it a kindness if you could direct me to such information.  I'd like to review it, and perhaps it would change my views.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I suppose that this is the best in the public domain that we are going to see, with reference links to cross check it.

I have been aware for a while of the threat to the Newport News Shipyard to the "relative rise" of the sea level in the area caused in part by the sinking of the land along that part of the east coast combined with the approximate 8 inch rise in the global ocean mentioned in the previous article.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rising-seas-threaten-norfolk-naval-shipyard-raising-fears-catastrophic-damage-n937396

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Philander Seabury said:

Is it sort of like prepping for a nuclear bomb, kiss your ass goodbye?

I would expect normal living conditions to change, in some places rather dramatically. As pointed out, much of Norfolk VA, already subject to floods will become New Orleans without the levies. My first apartment in Oceanview was only a couple of feet above sea level and my last, sat atop a waist high seawall from the bay.  Larger storms are already topping those on occasion.  So IMO water level rise is pretty well predictable based on what is happening right now.  How that will effect local climates is more part of the modeling and predictive sciences, just like tomorrow's weather is.

Note however that Norfolk VA is a special example where an 8" rise in global sea lever is compounded by a gradual sinking of the continental land mass in that area and global currents that push the water a bit higher locally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.” -John Holdren

I dug into the book last night. It's full of good info.

Mitigation is important, but for some aspects it may be too late. The oceans have warmed and you can't just cool them off. Then you adapt. 

I picked up the book for the section on where to live. His advice, inland away from wildfire danger and places close to good fresh water. 

 

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...