Advice for Parents at the End of the World

Douglas Spence -
Software Engineer and
concerned citizen

by Douglas Spence

The state of things today

We are in the early stages of an abrupt climate shift, driven initially by the disappearing Arctic albedo from sea ice and land snowpack. There are multiple other positive feedbacks set to come into play in the near future. We may have passed the point of no return where not even an immediate decision to deploy geoengineering could buy more time - and even if we did manage to buy more time - the prognosis for it being used to prevent the problem still looks very poor.

There is every chance that this will lead to the loss of global civilisation - widespread conflict and famine and general unpleasantness on a global scale. It is likely that this process will start in earnest sooner than it is comfortable to contemplate and be far worse than most people are capable of imagining. It is likely most people will perish.

While I think one should not entirely give up on averting catastrophe I think a realistic world view requires that one accept the possibility of failure and work on handling it. So what to do?

Simple Steps

The first thing to do is to stop being a passive observer. I encounter an increasing number of people who seem to intellectually grasp that we're in a very serious mess but who change nothing in their lives. Instead they either push it to the back of their mind as a tomorrow problem, or passively consume information on the internet or television and stare transfixed as the crash unfolds. So the first thing is to start - today, not tomorrow. Even today is really a bit late, but tomorrow is to declare your future not to be worth your effort.

The second thing is to arrive at a basic strategy. I can't tell you what form that will take as it depends a great deal upon your situation - where and how you currently live. I can say that there is plenty of straight-forward survivalist advice out there that will give you a good starting point. The hierarchy of needs - food, water, shelter - and so on. You need to determine how you will achieve those in a collapse scenario. Be careful to be realistic in determining how you will achieve them. If your plan is to travel into the mountains and hunt wildlife remember millions of other people will have the same idea. It may not be a realistic plan. The basics of surviving are a pre-requisite to anything else. In my opinion the ideal is to get into a remote region where the ratio of population to natural resource is favourable and where it is effectively inaccessible to most other people.

The third thing is to understand the limitations of the usual survivalist type information. Much depends upon the specifics of the situation you are preparing for. Climate change is unique in two ways that are unhelpful in terms of common survivalist thinking. Firstly it is a long duration problem (for many thousands of years at the very least) and a lot of the survivalist thinking equips you for a short duration problem. Secondly climate change means that the very environment we depend upon may change radically around us. That means that even if you already knew how to live off the land for your area right now (for example which plants are safe to eat) that is not necessarily going to give you a longer term strategy. Do remember that no matter how much food you store and how many tools you own - all these things are finite and will wear out. It is better to be excellent at problem solving than at hoarding tonnes of gear. It is also selfish to your children to predicate your existence upon short term answers, leaving them to solve more problems later. Sound familiar? That's because that's the sort of thinking that led to the climate crisis - and we must change it!

Accordingly once you are happy you have planned for the initial collapse episode, you need longer term plans. I suggest learning about the earth system and understanding what is likely to happen in the areas you are likely to be inhabiting. You also need to consider how your children and grandchildren will live into the indefinite future. I think you should think about the even longer term future:

Seven generation sustainability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_generation_sustainability

Unfortunately it's easy to be lazy and short term. If our ancestors had cared about us seven generations ago - I am certain we wouldn't have these problems today. Accordingly, we must change this attitude if we value children. Those who do not will consign their descendents either to death or to the most primitive and brutal of existences.

Finally I strongly suggest you make sure you're on very good terms with your neighbours wherever you end up. The importance of community and social cohesion cannot be overstated. Make friends, not enemies.

A diverse range of seeds is essential - above examples scale up rapidly from low seed
numbers

On Children

It is beyond my comprehension at this point how anyone with children can NOT be preparing.

I would suggest that if you have children you start to help them become prepared - in ways that would make sense anyway. For example I believe children should know where food comes from. That means growing plants and raising and killing animals. They should also understand that if they value the ability to eat they should respect not only the world that provides those plants and animals but also the plant and animal itself. If one cannot respect something how can you look after it and in turn yourself?

I do not think you should lie to children, but on the other hand the truth should not be forced upon them either. Children usually have more flexible minds than adults and can arrive at their own understanding in their own time - if given as much truth as they reasonably ask for. We don't live in utopia and you can definitely be too protective. Particularly with younger children - make sure not to tell them things you don't want them to tell other people.

Make sure your children do not depend upon electronic gadgets and toys for emotional satisfaction. Help them to understand the simple beauty of nature and the real world. If they are old enough teach them the basic survival skills that count most. Perhaps the importance of clean water, how to make fire and how to respond to environmental stress in the form of dangerous heat and cold.

You and your children should be in good physical shape. That doesn't necessarily mean being a toned athlete but a basic standard of physical fitness is essential. A little stored body fat might actually be a good thing but certainly not enough to affect your fitness or mobility. A little of it could help you when you are starving. I would however note to all those who think an answer is to hoard lots of food - if you are obviously well fed while those around you starve, expect them to kill you and take your food. A modest stockpile is arguably a substantial advantage but only if used wisely.

It is essential to cultivate a practical and optimistic attitude. Instead of encouraging the all too common passive mindset of waiting for someone else to solve a problem (or of saying something is simply too hard) perseverance should be encouraged, and willingness to try. Ability to learn from failure is also important.

One of my pet peeves about how most people view the end of the world is they necessarily think the loss of civilisation and the descent of the world into violent conflict is a hopeless situation. They automatically think it will be dreadful and not worth trying to survive in. I can only say that I think the collapse itself will be a finite duration event (until the population is back within carrying capacity) and that the most important thing about being civilised is how people treat each other.

One can find happiness in small simple things if one is willing to accept it! Those things will never go away for those who value them.

What if you cannot survive?

Firstly, survival is mostly in the mind. In many cases your mental attitude is the biggest factor - not your physical limitations. A couple of examples:

• Juliane Koepcke
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke
• For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact, Unaware of WWII
  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/For-40-Years-This-Russian-Family-Was-Cut-Off-From-Human-Contact-Unaware-of-World-War-II-188843001.html

Secondly, if you genuinely think yourself unable to survive in a collapsed world, I can only suggest the following:

1. Do your absolute best to try to stop things from collapsing - this is by definition your best survival strategy 
2. Help someone else - if your good deeds can live longer than you, why not try to help future generations? 

Good luck.

Abrupt climate change and your delegation of responsibility

Douglas Spence -
Software Engineer and
concerned citizen

by Douglas Spence

Everyone reading this most likely knows that the ice in the Arctic is melting – much faster and sooner than expected or predicted a few short years ago. Many of you may know that within only years it will all be gone during summer and that the physics of the earth system dictates that this is a truly fundamental and far reaching change for a number of reasons grounded in basic physics – albedo and latent heat to name two in particular.

Some of you may also be aware of the poorly understood but potentially even more catastrophic threat posed to the earth system by methane clathrates – and a few of you may be aware of the significant and growing list of positive feedbacks that are now underway and moving closer to dramatic and abrupt step changes. We know – whether you think it will take five years or fifty years – that our interdependent and logistically complex civilization is on track to face unprecedented challenges that history teaches us have an excellent chance of destroying it. We also know that the foundations for civilization will be destroyed in the foreseeable future – the stable benign climate that nourished us for the last ten thousand years will be gone for the rest of human history if truly dramatic actions are not taken immediately.

While I have some appreciation for how fundamental and serious this situation is – this is not a point I intend to dwell upon. I would like instead to talk about psychology – particularly yours.

While I am sure some people who read this may be already doing extraordinary things to try to address the situation – it seems a fair assumption to me that most will not be. Too many people are satisfied to wring their hands about the hopelessness of the situation and to become absorbed by the idea of their personal powerlessness. They look to the leaders of the political and corporate worlds to protect their own interests while perhaps failing to understand that these people look after their own interests first and foremost. The person best able to look after your interests is usually – you.

Too many people want to believe that a token sacrifice is enough to be able to say they did their bit to save themselves and the children of the world from hell on earth. Unfortunately using energy efficient light bulbs, recycling and offsetting carbon dioxide for flights and things is not enough to fundamentally change the situation. It is a good start and should be lauded as such – but even if everyone did these things – we are still damned – and therefore must appreciate that a greater effort is required.

What I want to do is to talk about personal responsibility. The actions of the collective masses of society including corporations and politicians start with individuals. If you cannot act proportionately to the problem to look after yourself and your family if you have one – how can you expect other people to do so?

My basic point therefore is that most people, even well informed people, are not acting to address the problem proportionately to the severity of the problem.

My second observation is that many people immediately destroy their own chances of greater action by various excuses that they use to destroy their effectiveness before they even tried. There is no surer route to failure than to never try in the first place!

If someone suggests to you that you communicate your concerns regularly to politicians and corporations by using telephones, letters and internet forums – do you start to do this or do you say that your voice is too little and that it would be a waste of time? Imagine for a moment the difference between everyone assuming it is a waste of time and countless millions of people deluging those with the power in our society with their demands?

If someone suggests you go on protests and demonstrations to highlight the issue and face arrest – do you say that you can’t take that risk, implicitly saying that you do not think the cause merits it? It is easy for the authorities to arrest a few hundred people – but again – they cannot arrest millions.

Do you tell people that the mess cannot be fixed and that geoengineering is bound to fail because we already made so many mistakes as a species? Do you justify ignoring the problem as you are happy to conclude it is hopeless and insoluble? If so, do you accept the idea that you are actively condemning yourself and your family and other people around you with whom you could cooperate to realize a better chance of a future – if only you stopped being defeatist from the outset?

I am saying that now is an excellent time to take stock and to realize that the keys to defeat and therefore victory lie first and foremost in your own mind.

I am not giving a prescription for any specific action – merely to point out that almost everyone reading these words can act more on these issues.

Here are a few notable examples of people I would say are acting in ways many people would conclude to be impossible and dismiss even the thought of attempting:

The author of this blog (http://jasonexplorer.com/about/ ) travelled all around the world using only muscle power taking over 13 years and travelling over 46,000 miles. He started as a virtually unemployed window cleaner and made it an awe inspiring platform from which to talk about sustainability.

Then there is the author of this blog (http://climate-change-action-plan.blogspot.com/ ) and many other blogs working tirelessly and without personal reward to educate and inform people. He makes sure not only to explain how serious the problem is but also to inform people of the solutions that we may still have a tiny amount of time left to implement to provide a collective hope for the billions of people living today.

Finally there is the author of this blog (http://deusjuvat.wordpress.com/about/ ), who is working on a plan that tries to face the consequences of civilization failing and promoting an aspiration to ensure that even in the very worst outcomes there remain some hopes for a future for our species. This starting from a position as a minimum wage worker.

I believe that the difference between an ordinary person and an extraordinary person is quite simple. In most cases it is quite simply the difference between being prepared to act and preferring to conform to the mold defined by social expectations where authority and responsibility are meekly delegated to other people.

We face an extraordinary challenge and we need extraordinary people to face it.

Please consider seriously – what can you do?

Never underestimate what one person can do.

When the sea ice is gone

How long do you think it will take for most sea ice in the Arctic to disappear? How much change in temperature you think this would result in? 

Below an educated guess from some of the members of the Arctic Methane Emergency Group. 

Professor Peter Wadhams

Peter Wadhams Sc.D., Professor of Ocean Physics
and head of the Polar Ocean Physics group at the
University of Cambridge, U.K., researching effects
of global warming on sea ice, icebergs and oceans

My own view of what will happen is:

1. Summer sea ice disappears, except perhaps for small multiyear remnant north of Greenland and Ellesmere Island, by 2015-16.
2. By 2020 the ice free season lasts at least a month and by 2030 has extended to 3 months.
3. September sea surface temperatures are already elevated by 6-7°C over continental shelves of Arctic. As shrink back continues, the newly exposed surface water over abyssal depths warms up less in a single summer (say 2-3°C) because of deeper surface water layer (150 m) than over a shelf (50 m).
4. The 6-7°C warming over the shelves causes offshore permafrost to shrink back and vanish over about 10 years. During this time there is elevated methane emission from offshore and from onshore warming, and global warming rates increase by about 50%.
5. Result is that bad effects forecast for end of century (4°C warming worldwide, 10°C in Arctic) actually occur by about 2060. Speed of change is catastrophic for agriculture; warfare and population crashes ensue.
6. Late in the day, the rapidly disintegrating civilised world tries desperate technofixes for warming and resource depletion, e.g. widespread use of nuclear power (thorium cycle), geoengineering. This may work, and bring us back from the brink of destruction after heavy losses.

Paul Beckwith

Paul Beckwith, B.Eng, M.Sc. (Physics),
Ph. D. student (Climatology) and
Part-time Professor, University of Ottawa

My projections for our planet conditions when the sea-ice has all vanished year round (PIOMAS graph projects about 2024 for this; I forecast 2020 for this) are:

• Average global temperature: 22°C (+/- 1°C)
  (rise of 6-8°C above present day value of about 15°C)
• Average equatorial temperature: 32°C
  (rise of 2 °C above present day value of 30°C)
• Average Arctic pole temperature: 10°C
  (rise of 30°C above present day value of -20°C)
• Average Antarctica pole temperature: -46°C
  (rise of 4°C above present day value of -50°C)
• Water vapor in atmosphere: higher by 50%
  (rise of 4% over last 30 years, i.e. about 1.33% rise per decade)
• Average temperature gradient from equator to North pole: 22°C
  (decrease of 28°C versus present day value of 50°C)
• Very weak jet streams (driven by N-S humidity gradient and weak temperature gradient as opposed to existing large temperature gradient)

- Result: very fragmented, disjointed weather systems

- Basic weather: tropical rainforest like in some regions; arid deserts in others with few regions in between

Note: This scenario would require significant emissions of methane from the Arctic. Without this methane, the scenario would still occur but would take longer. Disclaimer: Best guess and subject to rolling revisions!

Peter Carter

Dr. Peter Carter, MD, Canada
climate-emergency-institute.org

If methane is the main driver of natural end glacial warming rather than carbon dioxide, projections of global temperature increases are out by orders of magnitude.

On sea ice:
According to Tim Lenton’s opinion that 2007 was the tipping point, the start of ice free summers would begin @2015 on a new linear trajectory. As we know the trajectory is not linear, it would probably be earlier. As most of the models project possible abrupt loss, I assume it could be any year now.

Whatever the additional warming may be [because of already unavoidable committed warming], the multiple cascading Arctic positive feedback domino effect is already unstoppable except by cooling. 

Sam Carana

Already now, temperature rises and levels of greenhouse gases are higher in the Arctic than elsewhere. The prospect is that we'll lose most sea ice within a few years, resulting in a lot more sunlight to be absorbed, adding to the temperature rise in the Arctic. 

This would push up Arctic temperatures by over 10°C within a few decades, but in some places such rises could occur in a matter of years, rather than decades. 

Most worrying is that such intense local warming in the Arctic can cause large abrupt methane releases from sediments. This would add a lot of additional warming that would result in massive crop losses globally, threatening global fresh water supply and causing extinction at massive scale. 

Clearly, action must be taken to reduce the danger that this will eventuate.


John Nissen 

John Nissen, MA (Cantab) Natural Sciences, 

Director of Cloudworld Ltd, U.K., Chair of
Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG)

Of late, I have been basing my estimates of Arctic warming on a current rate of 1 degree per decade, doubling after sea ice collapse, and doubling again when ice is gone for five or six months of the year. Looking at PIOMAS data, I think we can safely assume 2015 for the first doubling, and around 2020 for the second doubling. This means that between 2015 and 2020, the rate would be 2°C per decade, i.e. 1°C per 5 years. After that, it would double to 4°C per decade, up to 2030. That gives 5°C warming over 15 years.

I am now wondering whether 1°C per decade is too small, since Peter says that the water has warmed 6-7°C. However 1°C per decade is already at least 5x global warming, reckoned to be at less or equal to 0.2°C per decade.

If today, there has been 0.8°C global warming temperature rise, then, by 2030, global warming will be around 1.2°C, neglecting methane and Arctic warming. If we take Flanner's higher figure of ~4 W/m2 increase, for the Northern Hemisphere, when sea ice has gone, then that is ~2 W/m2, globally. According to Hansen net the current net forcing imbalance is under 1 W/m2, producing the 0.2°C per decade, and nearly 1.0 degree global warming temperature rise by 2020. With complete loss of snow and ice, we'd only be doubling the global warming rate. Suppose we double the rate from 2020 to 2030, then the global warming temperature rise would be around 1.4°C by 2030.

A temperature rise of 1.4°C doesn't seem too bad, but then we have the disruptive effect of the Arctic warming disrupting the NH weather systems. This is already having a serious effect, so could be pretty catastrophic by 2020, let alone 2030.

Now we add in the methane, and there's more uncertainty, except things are going to be worse, and could be a lot worse, especially if that 50 Gt of methane comes out of ESAS this decade. That could send global forcing up to around 9W/m2 (averaged over 20 years?), and warming rate up to 2°C per decade, giving us over 3°C global warming temperature rise by 2030 in the worst case. So we'd be well beyond the so-called safety limit of 2°C!

I agree with Peter that some dramatic increase in methane emission is inevitable, so my conservative estimate would be an additional 400 Mt per year by 2020. This would nearly double the methane forcing by 2030, from current 1W/m2 (including indirect effects) to around 2W/m2. This would add a temperature rise of 0.1°C, taking the total from 1.4 to 1.5°C.

So my conclusion on global warming temperature rise is between 1.5°C and 3°C by 2030, while the Arctic warms at least 5°C above current temperatures. We must not go there! Geoengineering is essential!

BTW, the warming in the Arctic would guarantee collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet this century, adding ~7 metre sea level rise and probably triggering the collapse of the WAIS adding a further 7 metres or so.

 Douglas Spence - Software Engineer,
interested party and concerned citizen 

Douglas Spence 

Now

1. Even with the Arctic ice in the present state increasingly extreme weather is already moving us closer to a point of increasing risk to agricultural output.

2. For the last few years extreme weather has worsened year on year and since we have positive feedback processes in progress we have no reason to suppose this will do anything but accelerate rapidly.

2012-13

3. I expect significant to majority sea ice loss to occur in either 2012 or 2013, and expect this to dramatically worsen the weather, causing immediate stress to global food supplies. Combined with weak economic conditions we will see stress in countries dependent on food imports or aid triggering more "Arab spring" moments in previously stable regimes. Movement of refugees will cause knock on effects in neighbouring regions.

4. Modern civilisation is fragile and dependent on global supply chains that can be disrupted both by weather and politics. We will experience an increasing incidence of problems maintaining normal operation in technologically advanced societies. There is the potential for conflict in the Arctic as new resources open up.

5. Other positive feedbacks such as methane release and forest burn off will accelerate.

2014-15

6. I expect total sea ice loss will occur during summer in either 2014 or 2015. By this time I expect agricultural output to have declined to a point where food supplies are inadequate and famine and conflict are rife. Farmers will not know what to plant or when and even acquiring seed from other climatic regions may be problematic.

7. Social conditions will be comparable to the Holomodor. People will try to eat anything and everything - earthworms, insects, each other - even in some cases their own children. Nation states will fragment and reform into smaller and increasingly violent competitive groups fighting over rapidly diminishing resources. Maintaining the supply chains required for the operation of modern technology including agriculture will be largely impossible.

8. If we see widespread war before nation states fragment there is a possibility of the use of nuclear and genetically enhanced biological weaponry. Whether through war or famine the human population will be in freefall.

2016+

9. The climate will continue to worsen as more heat flows into the system and this will become the new threat to survivors as population density becomes too low to sustain conflict. Most survivors will be eliminated, leaving the human race on the brink of extinction. A majority of the planet will cease to be habitable. The deserts will greatly expand, though this will help balance the planets thermal budget. Very few people will live to see the Arctic sea ice entirely gone throughout the year or the ruined cities drowned in the rising sea.

10. Assuming the collapse is as rapid and severe as I expect – I would expect the human population to collapse below the new carrying capacity of the planet and therefore for resource pressure to lighten once a sufficient number of people die (granted with few useful resources left and uncertainty about precisely which regions would be good prospects).

Finally

Theoretically there will be some isolated and scattered areas where the climate is still habitable, resources are sufficient and some form of agriculture can be practised. If small groups of people make it to these areas, there is a theoretical chance over many generations to recover civilisation, albeit at great disadvantage.

Disaster taxa will rapidly proliferate into the empty ecosystem, leaving the return of biodiversity to occur over a few million years, bringing the sixth great mass extinction to a close.

NB Since we are at a point where weather is a key effect, allow +/- 1 year for (good/bad) luck.

Malcolm Light

Malcolm Light, PhD, University of London
Earth science consultant

If left alone the subsea Arctic methane hydrates will explosively destabilize on their own due to global warming and produce a massive Arctic wide methane “blowout” that will lead to humanity’s total extinction,  probably before the middle of this century. AIRS atmospheric methane concentration data between 2008 and 2012 (Yurganov 2012) show that the Arctic has already entered the early stages of a subsea methane “blowout” so we need to step in as soon as we can (e.g 2015) to prevent it escalating any further.

The Arctic Natural Gas Extraction, Liquefaction & Sales (ANGELS) Proposal aims to reduce the threat of large, abrupt releases of methane in the Arctic, by extracting methane from Arctic methane hydrates prone to destabilization.

After the Arctic sea ice has gone (probably around 2015) we propose that a large consortium of oil and gas companies/governments set up drilling platforms near the regions of maximum subsea methane emissions and drill a whole series of shallow directional production drill holes into the subsea subpermafost “free methane” reservoir in order to depressurize it in a controlled manner. This methane will be produced to the surface, liquefied, stored and transported on LNG tankers as a “green energy” source to all nations, totally replacing oil and coal as the major energy source. The subsea methane reserves are so large that they can supply the entire earth’s energy needs for several hundreds of years. By sufficiently depressurizing the Arctic subsea subpermafrost methane it will be possible to draw down Arctic ocean water through the old eruption sites and fracture systems and destabilize the methane hydrates in a controlled way thus shutting down the entire Arctic subsea methane blowout.