Should have taken warning..

Few seem to realize how much our survival is at stake. If a 76% decline of insects was observed in 27 years in German nature reserves, the ‘decline’ would reach 100% in 36 years (conservatively, ignoring ecosystem collapse feedbacks). Meaning *all* insects in these nature reserves could be gone by 2027. Oh, and plants are in decline too. These are all assuming linear decline rates, while all we observe is exponential rates of change. That‘s not good.

If 60 percent of the world’s fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have disappeared in the last 45 years, wouldn’t the remaining 40% also disappear in the coming 30 years? We’re not significantly changing that course of events, are we? And wouldn’t we, humans, then be part of those remaining 40%? If not: What bees do we expect pollinate our crops? Are we going to create sufficient artificial biospheres in time for it to actually function as a stable fake-earth, a replacement habitat? Do we know enough to get the details right? Where are we getting the resources and funding for that? Who gets to go inside that fake-earth when wet-bulb temperatures or radiation levels become too high? We can’t shut down all our nuclear facilities in time for it not to cause extinction level dosages worldwide, can we? There’s no miracle cure for thyroid cancer, or protection of the water-column against cesium-137 and iodine-131.

Maybe I’m overreacting, maybe I’ve “flipped a bit”, as they say in IT. But I keep evaluating this possibility and keep coming back to the fundamental and quantitatively convincing case:
We have built a life of growth and prosperity based on finite (and soon-to-max-out) resources with no equal replacement in sight. This is uncharted territory, and the fact that generations have experienced the fossil-fueled upswing holds no predictive power over our future. Just because growth has been thematic does not mean it will always be there. The failure of most people to treat this possibility seriously is disheartening, because it prevents meaningful planning for a different future. We can all hope for new technologies to help us. But this problem is too big to rely on hope alone, and in any case, no practical technology can keep growth going indefinitely.
In my lifetime human population has more than doubled, from 3.5 billion when I was born to almost 7.7 billion now. Yet during the same time more than 300 billion trees have disappeared and not been replenished/replaced. In fact, for every new born human about 100 trees go down and won’t come back. That’s just not going to be sustainable in any way, it’s a recipe for disaster.


Will the skies indeed turn red because of bulk methane releases from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf? See this educational article explaining why: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-2/Blue-Skies-and-Red-Sunsets

“If you think this is all a tad extreme, the man who led the work, Professor Gerardo Ceballos from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, wrote: The situation has become so bad it would not be ethical not to use strong language.

To end this post, I’ll quote from an interview Nick Breeze had with Dr. Natalia Shakhova, one of the few humans on the planet ‘in the know’:

How can the changes observed more recently in a three decade period be conclusive?
Dr. Shakhova: For the permafrost, three decades is not a huge period of time, because the processes, the consequences of which we are studying right now and have to deal with, started long long ago. This was triggered by natural warming associated with replacement of the cold climate epoch with the warm interglacial period and followed by permafrost inundation by sea water. Scientists agree that submerged permafrost would eventually start degrading, but how soon and at what pace this degradation would occur became the major point of disagreement between them.
It was suggested by some scientists that subsea permafrost would keep its integrity for millennia, which means that in the areas submerged less than 1000 years ago (as we investigated in our study) it should not have occurred yet. Our study proved that not only has it already occurred, but it has been progressing to higher rates, which have almost doubled since this degradation started.
It is most likely that we are now dealing with the consequences of when natural warming is enhanced with anthropogenic warming and together they are accelerating the pace of natural processes. This appears to be continuing the processes of permafrost degradation at levels that we have never observed before.
(updated august 2018)

This is MY boomstick!

How fed up is the public at large with this nuclear bullshit and these existential threats of the powers that be?

I’m surprised nobody ever started crowdfunding a hitman to eliminate *all* those who still perform nuke tests. These child-like ‘leaders’ keep thinking about these exploding bombs and tests as if there are walls surrounding them, as if they take place on different planets. We’ll all suffer the consequences, no matter where they’re being used. These nuke tests *already* impact the ozone layer and give rise to skin cancers worldwide, not to mention the local effects of radiation. They ruin all our motivations, incite depression, cause cancer, destroy future prospects for life on our planet. Would be interesting to see what happens if you’d crowdfund hits for this publicly. Should possible crimes against humanity be punished with the death penalty? Fighting fire with another very low casualties fire is probably the only option with these idiots. Jack Bauer would have chosen this in a heartbeat.

Where to go for survival?

The most asked question I get, from those assuming I’m better informed on this subject than they are, is “So where do I move to survive all this?”. I’ve been researching this (human survival) on several separate occasions the past two decades. One crucial requirement is the lack of seismic destruction, either by tsunami or by living on top of tectonic hazardous areas. So, scratching that off the list leaves the areas that will suffer the least from a warming planet. One would assume that would be the polar regions, but that’s a big mistake. Both poles are going to suffer immensely from warmer than normal surface (and ocean) temperatures. Aside from the soil being practically dead from the fast changes in temperature, there’s not much organic life that survives ice to heat in the currently observed time-spans.
I’ll elaborate more on all this as time passes, and will update this message/article, but for now I’ll post my findings thus far, the short-cut to a valuable answer to the question without the background info;

I’d advice the Heard & McDonald islands and/or the Falkland Islands. They’ll stay coldest the longest in the future, as do the seas around them, so if you’re lucky there’s still a food-source in the oceans too. The Falklands are probably going to be flooded with migrants from Argentina by then, and for that spot I’d hint at the NE-part of the islands. But the other option, somewhere around here, is my personal best bet for longest possible human survival. Be sure to build shelter somewhere on high ground on the NW part of the island, so you’ll be safe in case the Mawson Peak volcano erupts. And bring some seeds and soil to start up some new microbial freshwater life there. It all looks dead there now, but I assure you, it will be a thriving jungle there soon enough.

My personal biggest hurdle regarding migration is to get my loved ones to move with me, to where I would rather be and go, or to figure out a compromise we can all live with. It takes some more disasters for most of us to realize how soon we need to leave densely populated areas like Amsterdam (or The NL for that matter, with 416 humans/km2, a ridiculously unsustainable density). Although the Heard & McDonald islands is a top-of-the-bill prepping bet, my best kept secret, a favorite, realistic and most of all viable migratory option is moving to Estland/Estonia; Full of atheists, smart people, a strict but intelligent humane government, lots of resources, fertile land, naturally protected surroundings, and in reach over land (by car, even) from where we are now, in case planes suddenly stop flying because they can’t handle the storms or water vapor.

The above is disregarding the predicament hard to skip, namely radio-activity from the isotopes spread by unmanned molten down nuke plants everywhere. Perhaps in a few years we’ll have a working pill against that. One can hope and dream about surviving on other planets, but the straws to hang on to for that are getting thinner by the day. As is the world’s ice, making it harder to predict our options in the near future. As I like to often put it, there are two basic premises that overrule all others;
What goes on in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic.
The flywheels we’ve set in motion are not going to be easy to bring to a standstill.