Safety in a Failing Economy

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Given this week's news about the biggest jump ever in greenhouse emissions, you may see folks sooner than later.

What's your water source/s? And what's your elevation?

I am 500 ft, however I also have a location scouted that is several 1000.

They seriously need to address the emissions problem worldwide. Do you have a link to the news?

I have a large creek that flows along the whole back side and a stopped up spring. It has rock steps that must be 100 plus years old where someone probably use to fetch water. It has dribbled and created a bog. It just needs to be cleaned out, dug some. I have a well but I'd like to get a hand pump.

[Stacy]

I've been reading this thread & loving it! I'm definitely subscribing.

[Sachita]

Stuff like this freaks me out

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/qu...lose-call.html

I mean come on... do we really think the government is going to tell us that it could hit? They wouldn't even if they could predict its general location. If it was to hit it would spawn huge trouble.

What I like about living tiny and simple is being somewhat nomadic. (I Know Stacy loves that!) so that you are able to move where you need and set up homestead. You could actually buy utility trailers and convert or used RV's but the biggest problem will be storage and taking things with you. I might be a large horse trailer.

[SoNotHer]

I put this in the breaking news thread as well. I knew inherently that the "worst case scenarios" were grossly underestimated.


http://news.yahoo.com/biggest-jump-e...183955211.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.

"The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing," said John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries — China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases.

It is a "monster" increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past.

Extra pollution in China and the U.S. account for more than half the increase in emissions last year, Marland said.

"It's a big jump," said Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab. "From an emissions standpoint, the global financial crisis seems to be over."

Boden said that in 2010 people were traveling, and manufacturing was back up worldwide, spurring the use of fossil fuels, the chief contributor of man-made climate change.

India and China are huge users of coal. Burning coal is the biggest carbon source worldwide and emissions from that jumped nearly 8 percent in 2010.

"The good news is that these economies are growing rapidly so everyone ought to be for that, right?" Reilly said Thursday. "Broader economic improvements in poor countries has been bringing living improvements to people. Doing it with increasing reliance on coal is imperiling the world."

In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.

Even though global warming skeptics have attacked the climate change panel as being too alarmist, scientists have generally found their predictions too conservative, Reilly said. He said his university worked on emissions scenarios, their likelihood, and what would happen. The IPCC's worst case scenario was only about in the middle of what MIT calculated are likely scenarios.

Chris Field of Stanford University, head of one of the IPCC's working groups, said the panel's emissions scenarios are intended to be more accurate in the long term and are less so in earlier years. He said the question now among scientists is whether the future is the panel's worst case scenario "or something more extreme."

"Really dismaying," Granger Morgan, head of the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie Mellon University, said of the new figures. "We are building up a horrible legacy for our children and grandchildren."

But Reilly and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver found something good in recent emissions figures. The developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8 percent below 1990 levels. The U.S. did not ratify the agreement.

In 1990, developed countries produced about 60 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, now it's probably less than 50 percent, Reilly said.

"We really need to get the developing world because if we don't, the problem is going to be running away from us," Weaver said. "And the problem is pretty close from running away from us."

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

I put this in the breaking news thread as well. I knew inherently that the "worst case scenarios" were grossly underestimated.


http://news.yahoo.com/biggest-jump-e...183955211.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.

"The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing," said John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

The world pumped about 564 million more tons (512 million metric tons) of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries — China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases.

It is a "monster" increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past.

Extra pollution in China and the U.S. account for more than half the increase in emissions last year, Marland said.

"It's a big jump," said Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab. "From an emissions standpoint, the global financial crisis seems to be over."

Boden said that in 2010 people were traveling, and manufacturing was back up worldwide, spurring the use of fossil fuels, the chief contributor of man-made climate change.

India and China are huge users of coal. Burning coal is the biggest carbon source worldwide and emissions from that jumped nearly 8 percent in 2010.

"The good news is that these economies are growing rapidly so everyone ought to be for that, right?" Reilly said Thursday. "Broader economic improvements in poor countries has been bringing living improvements to people. Doing it with increasing reliance on coal is imperiling the world."

In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.

Even though global warming skeptics have attacked the climate change panel as being too alarmist, scientists have generally found their predictions too conservative, Reilly said. He said his university worked on emissions scenarios, their likelihood, and what would happen. The IPCC's worst case scenario was only about in the middle of what MIT calculated are likely scenarios.

Chris Field of Stanford University, head of one of the IPCC's working groups, said the panel's emissions scenarios are intended to be more accurate in the long term and are less so in earlier years. He said the question now among scientists is whether the future is the panel's worst case scenario "or something more extreme."

"Really dismaying," Granger Morgan, head of the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie Mellon University, said of the new figures. "We are building up a horrible legacy for our children and grandchildren."

But Reilly and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver found something good in recent emissions figures. The developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8 percent below 1990 levels. The U.S. did not ratify the agreement.

In 1990, developed countries produced about 60 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, now it's probably less than 50 percent, Reilly said.

"We really need to get the developing world because if we don't, the problem is going to be running away from us," Weaver said. "And the problem is pretty close from running away from us."

I wish I could say that I'm surprised, but I'm totally not. *sigh*

[dykeumentary]

Originally Posted by Sachita

I am 500 ft, however I also have a location scouted that is several 1000.

They seriously need to address the emissions problem worldwide. Do you have a link to the news?

I have a large creek that flows along the whole back side and a stopped up spring. It has rock steps that must be 100 plus years old where someone probably use to fetch water. It has dribbled and created a bog. It just needs to be cleaned out, dug some. I have a well but I'd like to get a hand pump.

Sounds great!

What zone are you in? The permaculture people I studied with believe that the zone we are in will change, maybe even 2 zones in the next 10 years. Good to consider when planting trees.

I'm interested in water management with earthworks, but I'm not sure the little stirling engine tractor I will build will be able to bulldoze much...

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by dykeumentary

Sounds great!

What zone are you in? The permaculture people I studied with believe that the zone we are in will change, maybe even 2 zones in the next 10 years. Good to consider when planting trees.

I'm interested in water management with earthworks, but I'm not sure the little stirling engine tractor I will build will be able to bulldoze much...

I'm in zone 7.

I have lots of fruit and nut trees. Some have been here hundreds of years. I have cherry, apple, pear, plum, fig, goji berry, walnut, pecan, chestnut and I also have grapes and berries. Even if the zone changed I be ok.

[SoNotHer]

The zones have already changed, and we're adding on weeks to the growing season.

This animation details my area's migration from 5 to 6:

http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm

Here's another good source -

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9243405

Originally Posted by dykeumentary

Sounds great!

What zone are you in? The permaculture people I studied with believe that the zone we are in will change, maybe even 2 zones in the next 10 years. Good to consider when planting trees.

I'm interested in water management with earthworks, but I'm not sure the little stirling engine tractor I will build will be able to bulldoze much...

[SoNotHer]

From -
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-new...-your-backyard

23 March 2009
USDA revises its plant hardiness map, bringing climate change down to earth for millions of households across the country.

By Jennifer Weeks
for the Daily Climate

As winter retreats northward across the nation, gardeners are cleaning tools and turning attention to spring planting. But climate change is adding a new wrinkle, and now a standard reference – the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Plant Hardiness Zone Map – is about to make very clear how much rising temperatures have shifted planting zones northward.
Hopefully the new map will clear up a lot of confusion about what’s happening to the climate.

- Charlie Nardozzi, National Gardening Association.

The guide, last updated in 1990, shows where various species can be expected to thrive. A revision is expected sometime this year, and while the agency hasn’t released details, horticulturalists and experts who have helped with the revision expect the new map to extend plants’ northern ranges and paint a sharp picture of the continent’s gradual warming over the past few decades. The new version will have a wide audience: the National Gardening Association estimates 82 million U.S. households do some form of gardening, a number expected to increase as more Americans plant vegetable gardens to cut food costs.

USDAmap-450“Anyone involved with gardening, especially with perennials, uses the map to pick the right plants for their location,” says NGA horticulturist Charlie Nardozzi. “Shifting hardiness zones are a very tangible result of climate change, and people will see that change happening where they live over a short period of time.”

Familiar to anyone who has paged through a nursery catalogue, the USDA hardiness map divides North America into 11 latitudinal zones, each representing a 10ºF range of “average annual minimum temperature” - the coldest lows that can be expected in that area. Zones 2 through 10 are each subdivided into two sections - “a” and “b” - that represent 5ºF ranges. Zone 11 (southern Mexico and much of Hawaii) is tropical, with winter lows above 40ºF.

Reclassifying a gardener’s yard into a warmer area opens new options for planting flowers and shrubs that would probably not have survived local winters in the 1970s or 1980s. And the visual impact of a map, with inevitable comparisons to the 1990 version, is likely to make even non-gardeners ask what it means to live in zone 7 instead of 6.

By injecting climate change into one of America’s favorite pastimes, the revised USDA map could become an important public education tool. “Hopefully the new map will clear up a lot of confusion about what’s happening to the climate,” said Nardozzi.

* * *

USDA climate zones are based on measurements from the Commerce Department’s National Climatic Data Center, plus national sources in Canada and Mexico. Every ten years the data center calculates new U.S. “climate normals,” or 30-year average values, for meteorological elements such as temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days for thousands of U.S. weather stations.

group-500Station locations change and methods evolve, so the climate data center warns that comparing normals between different 30-year periods may lead to “erroneous conclusions” about climate change. Nonetheless, the center released an image in 2003 showing the difference between average minimum winter temperatures throughout the United States for 1961-1990 and 1971-2000. In nearly every part of the continental United States winter lows were warmer during the second period, rising as much as 2.5ºF in parts of the Rockies, the northern Great Plains, and central and southern California.

USDA is not describing what the new map will show, but outside experts say that the trend is for zones to shift northward. “Some places have definitely warmed, although others haven’t changed at all,” says Tony Avent, owner of North Carolina-based Plant Delights Nursery and an advisor for the revision.

They also describe the new map as much more sophisticated than the 1990 version, which was based on a data set covering only 13 years (1974 through 1986 for the U.S.). The revised map draws on 30 years of data and uses a complex algorithm to factor in other variables that affect local temperatures, such as altitude and the presence of water bodies.

“All we could really do earlier was draw a straight line between data points, but now we’re trying to input a lot of other information,” says USDA spokeswoman Kim Kaplan. “We’ll pick up more heat islands and cold zones, and the edges of zones will be defined more clearly.”
We always try to test the limits. All gardeners are in zone denial.

- Michael Dosmann, Harvard University’s Arnold Arboretum

The new map is being developed by Oregon State University’s PRISM Group, a team of modelers that also produces climate maps for other state and federal agencies. Unlike past versions, the 2009 map will be GIS-compatible, storing and linking layers of information in a digital version that can be read with widely available GIS (geographic information system) viewing programs. It will have a resolution of 800 square meters, so users will be able to zoom in on their home towns or zip codes and see where they lie within zones.

USDA commissioned the revision after a flap in 2003, when the American Horticultural Society released a draft update based on 16 years of temperature data. USDA had funded the project but rejected the update, which was configured differently and showed significant warming over the 1990 version, with many parts of the nation shifted into warmer climate zones. (The Arbor Day Foundation displays a modified version of the rejected map on its web site, along with an animation that shows the foundation’s estimate of warming since 1990.)

Some observers suggested that the Bush administration pulled the map because it showed the nation warming, but Kaplan calls that idea an urban myth. “There was no memo from the White House,” she says. “The draft was rejected because it wasn’t web-friendly and wasn’t layered in a standard GIS format. The data were never reviewed – formatting and technology issues got it bounced.”

Both the 1990 map and the aborted 2003 version are unreliable because they use too little data to show lasting trends, Avent contends. “The first time they got a cold data set and the second time they got a warm data set,” he says.

Avent points to Chicago, which lies on zone 5b on the 1990 map but shifted into zone 6 on the 2003 draft. “In 2004 Chicago had a -21º winter, “Avent said. “If Chicago gardeners had planted zone 6 plants, they would all have failed. When plants die customers give up gardening, and that’s the nursery business’s worst nightmare.”

Michael Dosmann, curator of living collections at Harvard University’s Arnold Arboretum in Boston and an advisor on the USDA revision, expects that the new map will be much more credible than either the AHS version or the current 1990 map. “I think we can have a lot of faith in it. The data set is very robust, and the modelers have done an amazing job,” says Dosmann. (Arnold Arboretum horticulturists produced early climate zone maps from the 1930s through the 1960s.) Like Avent, he predicts that the new map will show “some zone creep, but not the extremes in the Arbor Day map.”

* * *

Although it’s significant when hardiness zones shift, gardening experts emphasize that they are guidelines, not blueprints. “The map minimizes people’s odds of planting things that are likely to fail,” says Avent. For example, calla lilies are hardy in zones 8 to 10, so there’s not much point in planting them in Minneapolis, which lies in zone 4a..

harvest-350But there’s no guarantee that a plant rated hardy for zone 4 will actually thrive in Minnesota backyards. Every garden contains microclimates that influence what can grow there. Fragile plants may thrive in sunny protected corners, even if exposed areas of the same yard are ten degrees (i.e., a full climate zone) colder.

“To help plants succeed, you have to understand how they grow and site them carefully,” says Dosmann. “Plants can’t read the map, and they don’t always respect our zones.” Dosmann and his colleagues study the Arnold Arboretum’s microclimates intensively and try to work with them – for example, by planting less-hardy plants on warm south-facing slopes.

Once gardeners know what’s possible in their own flower beds, they can start to push the envelope. Boston lies in zone 6, but the Arboretum constantly tests species that are adapted to warmer areas, such as some hardy types of camellias. It does so not in response to climate change but as part of its mission to keep adding new plants to its collection.

“We always try to test the limits,” says Dosmann. “All gardeners are in zone denial.”

[SoNotHer]

500' is good; 1000' is better.

Do you know if you have springs? And did you say you have Bobcat or any digger?

Originally Posted by Sachita

I am 500 ft, however I also have a location scouted that is several 1000.

They seriously need to address the emissions problem worldwide. Do you have a link to the news?

I have a large creek that flows along the whole back side and a stopped up spring. It has rock steps that must be 100 plus years old where someone probably use to fetch water. It has dribbled and created a bog. It just needs to be cleaned out, dug some. I have a well but I'd like to get a hand pump.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

500' is good; 1000' is better.

Do you know if you have springs? And did you say you have Bobcat or any digger?

yes I have springs but no heavy equipment other then my vibrator. lol kidding

I can rent equipment

[SoNotHer]

Good one! I love it. That made me laugh...

You might want to create swale plumes, sillways and ponds beyond what you have. Anything to slow down the flow of water and retain it for harvesting:





I worked a deal with the company that created a two-acre horse fence for my farm in Maryland. They really cut the price of the fence in exchange for me letting them keep their equipment on my land over a season. Someone might work a similar deal with you in exchange for digging out some ponds and swales.

Originally Posted by Sachita

yes I have springs but no heavy equipment other then my vibrator. lol kidding

I can rent equipment

[Okiebug61]

Red and I are fortunate and paid our house off 5 years ago. We live on an 1 1/2 acres and have plenty of room to garden. I work with a guy who sells meat and pork and have our freezer stocked for sometime.

We have bills but if worse came to worse I could make enough money to keep the utilities on and the other bills would have to wait. We have 2 cars paid off and have kept them maintained so knock on wood for that.

We are both about pitching in whenever we can. We have good neighbors and I am confident that we would all help each other if it got really bad. Of course we would open our home to any of our community, family and friends if that was needed.

I have often wondered what we could do on here to help those who are in need of things. Any ideas?

[Blade]

http://www.no-dig-vegetablegarden.co...gardening.html

This article is about no till gardening. At the bottom of the page is links to raised gardens, strawbale gardening, square foot gardening, and lasagna gardening.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by Blade

http://www.no-dig-vegetablegarden.co...gardening.html

This article is about no till gardening. At the bottom of the page is links to raised gardens, strawbale gardening, square foot gardening, and lasagna gardening.

Or just ask me. lol
I've done almost all of them. To date my fav is still raised beds because you can double them as cold frames. Strawbales very good IF you don't get a lot of seed that sprouts once you start watering. You also need to think about watering a lot or set up irrigation. Square foot gardening is good for small gardens, however a sustainable plan would mean growing more and preserving some.

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

Red and I are fortunate and paid our house off 5 years ago. We live on an 1 1/2 acres and have plenty of room to garden. I work with a guy who sells meat and pork and have our freezer stocked for sometime.

We have bills but if worse came to worse I could make enough money to keep the utilities on and the other bills would have to wait. We have 2 cars paid off and have kept them maintained so knock on wood for that.

We are both about pitching in whenever we can. We have good neighbors and I am confident that we would all help each other if it got really bad. Of course we would open our home to any of our community, family and friends if that was needed.

I have often wondered what we could do on here to help those who are in need of things. Any ideas?

Since you have so much land why not organize a large shared garden project. My garden was not as large this year as it has been in the past, however any extra food, which there always is, I drop off at the food bank on my way to get Mia. Maybe there are a few people here in your area or other like minds that live close enough to share labor and resources. You can plan projects together, preserve together and come up with a good local plan to help some families in need.

Most food can be dried and preserved somehow. Just make sure you store properly and rotate and or mark dates.

[Okiebug61]

We had a straw bale garden this year but a drought hit us and we were not allowed any outside watering. The only thing that survived was the rosemary and the basil. I am hoping some friends will want to participate this next year.

[Sachita]

Here is a thread on Growing and Preserving. Lots of good info.

http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/foru...ead.php?t=1056


So lets start pulling it together.

You've got your tiny house and maybe even a tiny yard. You have part solar and part electric. What things do you think you'd need to run off solar? Let's say shit hit the fan, you had no money at all, therefore no electric. You want to reserve your solar panels and batteries for essentials. What are they?

You can catch water with a reservoir and depending on the time of year or tank it can have its own solar effect to heat. You can heat and cook with wood.

How about building a small glass green house attached to your tiny house? If you use poly you'll have to replace it in 4 years. Glass is forever. It can also help heat your house if done properly

[Sachita]

posted this in tiny homes


this is affordable and they have a lease buy program


http://parkcabins.com/

offers financing on their homes. What I like about them is they are super easy to convert into solar.

[Sachita]

this is also kind of cool although not as pretty

http://www.earthbagbuilding.com/


also good info


Natural Building:
How to Build an Affordable Eco-Friendly Home