Weather.

[bigpaul]

anyone got any of this snow the papers keep panicking about this week?
dull and overcast here, a few drips of rain but so far nothing white.

[Straight Shooter]

We had a tiny bit of sleet this morning for around five ten mins turned into light rain then fazzeled out , some sunny spells the turned grey , I think they said winter showers coming in tonight BP ……who knows ? .

[Straight Shooter]

Well the snow arrived last night, by this morning 4.5 inches , the roads are okay and traffic is running free ! It’s not sticking for long , starting to melt right now .

[bigpaul]

no snow here, we have heavy rain which is set in for all day.

[Sekwo]

(7 March 2023, 14:20)bigpaul Wrote: anyone got any of this snow the papers keep panicking about this week?
dull and overcast here, a few drips of rain but so far nothing white.

Typically the interglacial lasts about 10,000 years, and then ends with a sudden and dramatic drop in temperature. The current interglacial is 2000 years over due for its end.

When it happens, it isn't so much the drop in temperature, but the drying of the climate, that will totally destroy global agriculture. Realistically there won't be the land to grow the crops to sustain most of the population and perhaps 90% will die.

So, if you assume 1 in 2000 chance of the next ice-age starting every year, there's around a 5% chance of an ice-age starting in the lifetime of anyone born this year. That's the biggest risk most people face... yet you won't find a single academic or government employee working on the issue. Yet there are millions globally working to stop plants having CO2, which they love and may actually stop or curtail the next ice-age.

What it proves is that government perception of risk is inversely proportional to the real threat.

[bigpaul]

90% mortality rate is the average in any kind of major event risk calculation, the real death rate would probably be much higher as modern life has lost most of its connection to land and the growing of food, in the UK it has been said be are 4 generations removed from the land, a generation is usually taken as about 30 years.
most people are so reliant on modern food deliveries they would perish within a short time frame if ever these deliveries stopped.
government perception of risk is only about which party will win the next election.

[Sekwo]

(14 July 2023, 10:53)bigpaul Wrote: 90% mortality rate is the average in any kind of major event risk calculation, the real death rate would probably be much higher as modern life has lost most of its connection to land and the growing of food, in the UK it has been said be are 4 generations removed from the land, a generation is usually taken as about 30 years.
most people are so reliant on modern food deliveries they would perish within a short time frame if ever these deliveries stopped.
government perception of risk is only about which party will win the next election.

I wouldn't argue with the figure. I've literally drawn that figure out of the air, and it's my "order of magnitude" guess much farming land would still grow food. Basically, it looks like the interiors of most big land masses become arid deserts. That must mean all the wind and weather patterns change, so even areas outside the interiors, that are lush farming land now, may have their farming wiped out.

The only real evidence we have that not everywhere becomes uninhabitable, is that plenty of species do make it through the ice-ages. So somewhere, there's got to be inhabitable areas.

It is bizarre that the highest figure I saw for a death from covid was about 2% (before they started realising that many more people were being infected with a benign form, so it was really about 0.1%). And it was something like 0.01% or lower for young adults, yet, the likely probability of dying from the next ice-age is about 5% ... and people totally ignore it.

[bigpaul]

(14 July 2023, 16:05)Sekwo Wrote:

(14 July 2023, 10:53)bigpaul Wrote: 90% mortality rate is the average in any kind of major event risk calculation, the real death rate would probably be much higher as modern life has lost most of its connection to land and the growing of food, in the UK it has been said be are 4 generations removed from the land, a generation is usually taken as about 30 years.
most people are so reliant on modern food deliveries they would perish within a short time frame if ever these deliveries stopped.
government perception of risk is only about which party will win the next election.

I wouldn't argue with the figure. I've literally drawn that figure out of the air, and it's my "order of magnitude" guess much farming land would still grow food. Basically, it looks like the interiors of most big land masses become arid deserts. That must mean all the wind and weather patterns change, so even areas outside the interiors, that are lush farming land now, may have their farming wiped out.

The only real evidence we have that not everywhere becomes uninhabitable, is that plenty of species do make it through the ice-ages. So somewhere, there's got to be inhabitable areas.

It is bizarre that the highest figure I saw for a death from covid was about 2% (before they started realising that many more people were being infected with a benign form, so it was really about 0.1%). And it was something like 0.01% or lower for young adults, yet, the likely probability of dying from the next ice-age is about 5% ... and people totally ignore it.

the 90% is the usual estimate quoted on survival forums and given that 99% of the population dont prepare in any shape or form is probably accurate.
as for farming, most agribusinesses are based on mono cropping which uses copious amounts of chemicals, after some major event these chemicals wont be available, they are all imported, neither will the next years seed be available from the big seed companies so whether the weather patterns change is academic.

[Sekwo]

(14 July 2023, 16:42)bigpaul Wrote: the 90% is the usual estimate quoted on survival forums and given that 99% of the population dont prepare in any shape or form is probably accurate.
as for farming, most agribusinesses are based on mono cropping which uses copious amounts of chemicals, after some major event these chemicals wont be available, they are all imported, neither will the next years seed be available from the big seed companies so whether the weather patterns change is academic.

You make a good point about the chemicals. I once spoke to a farm who was thinking of growing "bio-fuels". He worked out that half his crop would be used on the farm to power the machinery etc. He didn't include fuel for the delivery vehicles and a lot of other energy needed to operate a farm, like the energy to manufacture the equipment.

If you take away modern petrochemicals, petrochemical fertilisers, petrochemical pesticides, herbicides, etc., and try to grow all your energy on the farm, there isn't a lot of land left to grow food.

There are a few places like the Nile where there is natural fertiliser from the floods, but realistically, if society breaks down, food production plummets. And if food production plummets, there is mass starvation. And, since the UK imports most of its food, and those producing the food will feed themselves first before exporting, it's not difficult to see which countries are going to have famines. Most people in the UK are oblivious to the serious risks we in the UK face, more than most other countries, if anything ever goes wrong.

[Pete Grey]

I think most of us here just prep for WHAT we can, as BEST we can, and not worry about things we CAN’T change.

That’s me anyway, Just try and cover as many bases as you can, makes sense.