Lay People and accurate info

[vegana]

Hi.

I'm not a scientist but I did hear from my college professors in the Geography/Environmental Studies Department at San Francisco State in the early 1980s that habitat for humans and animals might collapse by 2060-2080. I'm well aware of all the eco-disasters in progress (eg: drought, deforestation, desertification, ocean acidification, soil demineralization, collapse of fisheries, plastic, toxins, radiation, fires, floods, stronger hurricanes/typhoons, insect decline, etc..etc..etc...)

Been following some climate/collapse groups on Facebook that run the spectrum from Guy McPherson (we're dead in 2 months) to Paul Beckwith (hopeful technology will fix it) to Michael Mann (very hopeful) and 350.org (LOL, they should update their name). 

I know things are dire. I pay attention daily to global climate/weather events via FaceBook (I know, I know...), TruthOut, The Guardian, Weather channel. I look at windy.com, etc. and NASA sites and satellite images.

Wondering where on Facebook (ridiculous, I know) and elsewhere aside from this forum (too technical for me, you might want to add a section for acryonyms, LOL) might be the most up-to-date and ACCURATE source of info.

I tend toward the soon/imminent catastrophic thoughts since I had trust and faith/love in the old college professors so long ago and I need to sell a home that is in a precarious location for quakes, landslides, fire, erosion, etc.  Been safe so far other than some slight retaining wall bowing out (portends disaster) but I don't think that it will stay safe after a Blue Ocean Event.

Also, if folks have any predictions about the future of the San Francisco Bay Area they would like to share, I'd love to hear it. Well aware many Bay Area cities (interior bay and coastal) are planning for up to 1-2' of inundation in 2050 and 3-6' by 2100.

Will humanity even see 2050?

Thanks for any reality check you can give.

amy

[oren]

Hi Amy,

I can't answer a lot, but I can at least answer one thing - there is indeed an acronym section hereabouts!
"Glossary ... for newbies and others"  https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,153.0.html

I agree the future is dire, but I think the imminent part is sometimes blown up. It's imminent in historic terms, but not in the news media term. I would expect the "stuff" to seriously hit the ventilation system in a few decades, or in other words, civilizational collapse starting mid-century.
Let me just add, when I started reading the forum I basically knew nothing, but persistence will give dividends and you may yet find you can actually follow the technical conversations without completely losing it.

[vegana]

Thanks so much. You sound optimistic.
Mid-century works for me.
:-)

[sidd]

My thoughts, but, as always, i could be wrong.

Re: site for accurate info: realclimate.org, skepticalscience.com

Re: "need to sell a home that is in a precarious location for quakes, landslides, fire, erosion, etc.  Been safe so far other than some slight retaining wall bowing out"

Sell quickly.

Re: future of the San Francisco Bay Area

Dire. Already degenerating into gated communities and hopeless underclass.

Re: Will humanity even see 2050?

Yes. Although the panic will have set in by then.

sidd

[Pmt111500]

I very much prefer SkepticalScience over the very technical RealClimate. Yep, 'imminent' here means usually 'when our children are adults', this is in stark contrast over 'imminent' 15 years ago when it meant 'when our grandchildren are adults'. The latest IPCC reporrt is too reticient on many fronts in my opinion, one reason why I'm here. There are not too many studies on weather systems without Arctic Sea Ice in summer so local predictions are also somewhat skewed. I've used the maps produced by the modelling teams as a guideline, but with an accelerated timeline. It's well known the models are too slow for some climate components, and Arctic Ice has been one of these, another reason to be here. Efforts to make this and glacier behavior in models better have produced some results similar in nature to what we're seeing. Maybe the next iteration of models can do better at local timelines of climate change.

Retaining wall bulging sounds nasty in itself, no need to mix up climate worries of future 10 to 30 years to the decision to sell it to someone who can afford to remake the wall.