Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad

Climate Change: Adaptation / Relocation

Login or register to post comments Last Post 1417 reads   32 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 32 total)
  • Wed, Apr 18, 2012 - 12:58pm

    #11

    JAG

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 26 2008

    Posts: 240

    count placeholder

    Tracking post for this thread

Tracking post for this thread

  • Wed, Apr 18, 2012 - 04:07pm

    #12

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 976

    count placeholder

    Plants that Naturally Repel Mosquitoes

JAG wrote:

Tracking post for this thread

Aww, c’mon, JAG. You could always put in your two cents, so it doesn’t just have a “tracking post”. I’m sure you have a lot to share!

Hopefully the new site will allow thread subscription without having to post.

That said, here’s a link to an article about 5 plants that naturally repel mosquitoes. Something to think about as summers get warmer and West Nile and other parasites become a more serious threat:

Five Plants that Naturally Repel Mosquitoes
There are few things more frustrating that trying to enjoy your time outdoors and instead spending it swatting away mosquitoes.  If you include in your garden certain plants that repel mosquitoes, you’ll have a garden that is as helpful as it is lovely.  These plants are also useful near sitting areas, such as patios and gazebos – consider including them in areas where children play or where your pets spend their time.
http://www.mosquitoinfo.info/five-plants-that-naturally-repel-mosquitoes/

The five are: Citronella, Marigold, Ageratum, Catnip, Horsemint (lemon bee balm).

Another article with more plants and other tips:

Plants That Repel Mosquitoes
It is important to note that it is compounds found within the plants that do the repelling. These compounds need to be released from the plant to unlock the mosquito-repelling qualities. Depending on the species of plant, they can be released by either crushing, drying, or infusing the plant into an oil or alcohol base that can be applied to skin, clothing, or living spaces. Others are best used as as a smudge, which releases the compounds in a smoke. Just standing near living plants that repel mosquitoes is often not effective.
http://www.wildernesscollege.com/plants-that-repel-mosquitoes.html

Poet

  • Mon, Apr 23, 2012 - 07:44am

    #13

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 976

    count placeholder

    Halloween Nor’easter Followed By Late April Nor’easter

I recall that some in New England were already thinking of planting early – or may have started – what with the unseasonably warm weather in March. But then…

April Nor’easter Dumps Rain, Snow on East Coast (April 23, 2012)
A spring nor’easter packing soaking rain and high winds churned up the East Coast, unleashing a burst of winter and up to a foot of snow in higher elevations inland and sparking concerns of potential power outages and a wild commute to start the work week in the Northeast.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/april-noreaster-dumps-rain-snow-east-coast-16192429

If weather gets more unpredictable, then perhaps it will start making sense to go for quick (“early”) crops and multiple seedling starts, just in case…

Poet

  • Thu, Jul 26, 2012 - 04:29am

    #14
    John Lemieux

    John Lemieux

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 02 2012

    Posts: 208

    count placeholder

    Climate re engineering

Given what is occuring recently in terms of frequent severe climate related events and the lack of any meaningful progress in reducing C02 emissions, it wouldn’t surprise me if in the next decade or so attempts will be made to artificially control the climate. I’m thinking about something like aerosols being injected into the upper atmosphere in an attempt to cool the climate. And I wonder if there is a very real possibility of something like this happening won’t it change the current projections of how climate change will effect the different regions of the US and the rest of the planet? I think that something like this will in fact have to be done eventually to prevent the northern permafrost from thawing and to slow or prevent other positive climate feeback occurances.

  • Thu, Jul 26, 2012 - 12:11pm

    #15

    gyrogearloose

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 08 2008

    Posts: 359

    count placeholder

    Conflicting data

So much conflicting data out there…..

One person says we will get wetter, another says it will get dryer…..

So I am ignoring it in my plannning.

That said, one thing that we all probably have similar beliefs on is that energy and resources are going to get more expensive in the future, so the house we are building is ‘over engineered’. Where the building code requires 3 units of bracing on a wall for wind loading, I put 10….. exterior cladding similarly overengineered. Insulation thicker than standard…… ( though ammusingly in the NZ building code, buildings that are not connected to a network untility ( ie off grid ) and do not rely on non renewable energy sources for heating do not have to comply with the energy efficience requirements so technically we could put no insulation in ! )

The reason is in that in the past, if your house took damage in a storm, you repaired it. In the future the ability to repair back to original state will be significantly impared due to costs and availibilty issues.

So we are investing  in todays cheap materials, but ‘storing’ them in the structure of the house. The alternative is  to stick the money in a bank……… cheeky

Space heating will be by solar thermal mass storage, with something like 50M^2 of collector area ( already have 40 M^2 of double glazed toughened glass units picked up for a song)

Off grid can be done on the cheap if you know how. So many people over complicate things. I am a KISS sort of guy. If you don’t have it it wont break down….. If you do have it, make sure it can be fixed with a hammer and a bit of #8 wire !

Cheers Hamish

 

 

  • Sat, Aug 11, 2012 - 08:39am

    #16

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 828

    count placeholder

    Geoengineering

John,

You may be right. There are lots of back of the envelope or drawing board geoengineering ‘solutions’ that have been proposed or that are being researched. The problem with all of them (that I have heard of to date) is that they are myopic in focusing on the perceived problem of ‘too much heating’ without considering the side effects of the ‘treatments’.

The high aerosol release that you mentioned is designed to mimic a more or less continuous high powered near-equitorial volcanic eruption gas influx to the stratosphere (the last one we had was Pinatubo in 1991). The climate effects come primarily from the sulfer dioxide (estimated at somwewhere between 17-20 million tons) that spreads across the globe as sulfuric acid droplets. The global temperature effects were a drop of roughly 0.5 C. Trying to maintain such a phenomenon creates a multitude of problems even if the quantities of material can be injected into the upper atmosphere. First, the materials fall out of the atmosphere within  months to a few years. We would have global acid rain. Second, the particulates catalyze the destruction of ozone. The ozone layer is right where these materials would be released to be effective. The one global environmental success story was the mobilization to reduce the CFCs that were destroying the ozone layer (remember the ozone hole in Antarctica). That is on track to recover by around 2050 if we don’t destroy it with something like this. Reduced ozone means increased rates of skin cancer, blindness and untold effects on worldwide vegetation (likely worse than the warming effects we face). Lastly, even if we develop a non toxic, non ozone destroying, highly reflective material we still have untold knock on effects. At a minimum the temperature of the stratosphere is raised and the amount of sunlight at the Earth’s surface is reduced. The biggest effects would be at the tropical latitudes where the sunlight is most intense.Less sunlight means less growth for plant life. Less equitorial heating changes the climate dynamic for the whole planet since the crux of the climate system is the transfer of heat from the energy rich tropical latitudes to the energy poor high latitudes through both air and  (mostly) ocean currents.

We are now experiencing the effects of a massive climate experiment that we’ve unleashed on the planet. After decades of studies we are starting to understand to some degree what this may cause. It seems the height of folly to intentionally set off another global experiment, the ramifications of which we have no clue about. Whether it is dimethyl sulfide injections from the oceans to try to make more clouds, or iron fertilization of reaches of the polar oceans to stimulate carbon uptake into the oceans, all of these methods have consequences which are rarely mentioned or considered. I certainly have no faith that existing climate models can accurately estimate the multitude of impacts of these changes.

The major problem with the geoengineering solutions (like the aerosol injections) that I have seen is that they are treating the symptom and not the problem. Our problem is not to much sunlight bringing energy down to the planet surface. Our problem is that our greenhouse gas  inflated atmosphere can’t release heat fast enough back to space. The planet needs a giant distributed heat sink but I have not seen that solution proposed yet.

Mark

 

  • Sat, Aug 11, 2012 - 08:39am

    #17

    Mark Cochrane

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 24 2011

    Posts: 828

    count placeholder

    Geoengineering

John,

You may be right. There are lots of back of the envelope or drawing board geoengineering ‘solutions’ that have been proposed or that are being researched. The problem with all of them (that I have heard of to date) is that they are myopic in focusing on the perceived problem of ‘too much heating’ without considering the side effects of the ‘treatments’.

The high aerosol release that you mentioned is designed to mimic a more or less continuous high powered near-equitorial volcanic eruption gas influx to the stratosphere (the last one we had was Pinatubo in 1991). The climate effects come primarily from the sulfer dioxide (estimated at somwewhere between 17-20 million tons) that spreads across the globe as sulfuric acid droplets. The global temperature effects were a drop of roughly 0.5 C. Trying to maintain such a phenomenon creates a multitude of problems even if the quantities of material can be injected into the upper atmosphere. First, the materials fall out of the atmosphere within  months to a few years. We would have global acid rain. Second, the particulates catalyze the destruction of ozone. The ozone layer is right where these materials would be released to be effective. The one global environmental success story was the mobilization to reduce the CFCs that were destroying the ozone layer (remember the ozone hole in Antarctica). That is on track to recover by around 2050 if we don’t destroy it with something like this. Reduced ozone means increased rates of skin cancer, blindness and untold effects on worldwide vegetation (likely worse than the warming effects we face). Lastly, even if we develop a non toxic, non ozone destroying, highly reflective material we still have untold knock on effects. At a minimum the temperature of the stratosphere is raised and the amount of sunlight at the Earth’s surface is reduced. The biggest effects would be at the tropical latitudes where the sunlight is most intense.Less sunlight means less growth for plant life. Less equitorial heating changes the climate dynamic for the whole planet since the crux of the climate system is the transfer of heat from the energy rich tropical latitudes to the energy poor high latitudes through both air and  (mostly) ocean currents.

We are now experiencing the effects of a massive climate experiment that we’ve unleashed on the planet. After decades of studies we are starting to understand to some degree what this may cause. It seems the height of folly to intentionally set off another global experiment, the ramifications of which we have no clue about. Whether it is dimethyl sulfide injections from the oceans to try to make more clouds, or iron fertilization of reaches of the polar oceans to stimulate carbon uptake into the oceans, all of these methods have consequences which are rarely mentioned or considered. I certainly have no faith that existing climate models can accurately estimate the multitude of impacts of these changes.

The major problem with the geoengineering solutions (like the aerosol injections) that I have seen is that they are treating the symptom and not the problem. Our problem is not to much sunlight bringing energy down to the planet surface. Our problem is that our greenhouse gas  inflated atmosphere can’t release heat fast enough back to space. The planet needs a giant distributed heat sink but I have not seen that solution proposed yet.

Mark

 

  • Sun, Aug 12, 2012 - 12:27am

    #18

    FAlley

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 02 2010

    Posts: 49

    count placeholder

    Drought effects

Having just done some work in Oklahoma, currently residing in Arkansas, and having recently visited Illinios, Missouri and Iowa, I can certainly agree with the governor of Illinois, who recently called this summer’s drought-affected region a national disaster area. It will be one thing for these corn-producing states to bounce back from if this is a freak event; if it’s the new normal, I see a drastic relocation of crop producers northward, the effects, consequences and feasibility of which I can scarcely pretend to guess at.

  • Mon, Aug 13, 2012 - 10:17pm

    #19

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 976

    count placeholder

    Moooving North…

Good one, FAlley.

I think now is a good time for Southwest, Texan and Midwest farmers to consider selling and moving north to cooler and wetter climes. Before the stampede and refugees like we had during the 1930s Dust Bowl.

New England, the Rockies, the Pacific Northwest. Even Canada.

Mmm. Canadian beef and pork.
http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1251899760841&lang=eng

Poet

  • Mon, Aug 13, 2012 - 11:05pm

    #20
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1374

    count placeholder

    Poet

Quote:

I think now is a good time for Southwest, Texan and Midwest farmers to consider selling and moving north to cooler and wetter climes. Before the stampede and refugees like we had during the 1930s Dust Bowl.

I think that the Great Lakes states and provinces (you remember, the old rust belt) are about to see a resurgence.  20% of the world’s surface fresh water is a powerful incentive to re-establish a thriving agricultural economy.  Of course, there will be bloody (figuratively hopefully) battles fought to divert the water south.  The Great Lakes states and provinces have been preparing for the conflict for decades.  Hopefully, they can prevail over those who have drained the Ogallala acquifer and stretched other water resources beyond their capacity to regenerate.  The Great Lakes are a treasure to be preserved.

Doug

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 32 total)

Login or Register to post comments