Are you sure that's how she and her followers see it? I'm not but not because I know any better but just because I really don't know her POV at all. I have to wonder if what they really mean is not that in 12 years everything collapses and "goes to hell in a handbasket" that exact year but rather that if we do nothing for another 12 years we will have passed a tipping point where truly serious disasters will occur eventually.

Maybe I'm projecting since I seriously doubt that scenario is very far off the mark. I am as close to certainty as I can get that ~20 years of no action will likely lead to many billions of dollars of unnecessary expense and millions of lives lost that could have been avoided. I am convinced Human Caused Global Climate Change is in the Top Five problems Humanity faces based on what we know, and I'm worried about what we don't know and how that could add to the problem. I am not imagining the end of the Human Race, and certainly not by any hard date, but I am concerned we may be facing a very serious analog to The Dark Ages. I'd rather we be safe than sorry.

I don't know if you read the article after they updated it or not. AOC tweeted in reference to a United Nations/IPCC estimate article about the various temperature increase targets we might probably certainly want to aim for.

Also, I don't think the quote of AOC accurately captures what she's talking about in the video interview thing. It's not a literal statement that the world is going to end in 12 years; it's used to express that there's an important issue (AGW) and yet people want to bikeshed how to avert it. I'm sure there's a larger context to the entire video/monologue or whatever it is, but that's not on my menu right now.

I don't know if I'm an AOC follower or not. Does it count if I follower her on Twitter? I didn't strain my comprehension by watching the video and immediately understood her point.

That seems a bit petty. She has an economics degree.

Also...

She's duping people by posting links to articles steeped in climate science data when called on it? How horrid! What will we do!

I'm reminded of the "seriously vs literally" thing for Trump, maybe it should be generalized to all politicians...

Regarding AOC's credentials of expertise (specifically in climatology or any releveant subject)

As I hope you've gathered from my posts I'm not affiliated with nor even fond of the US Republican or Democratic parties and further I'm unhappy with all of them that in general so few of them are intellectual and scientific. It has been said that many of not most people vote for candidates they simply like, that they would feel comfortable with having a beer. I think that is a ridiculous measuring stick.

It's just as ridiculous Ken to simply ignore factual, objective evidence to make a broad-brush statement like you just made. I don't know much about AOC but in just a few moments I found this

Now you and I both may disagree with specific conclusions she makes or even her general politics but to deny her any level of expertise or even just general "smarts" is both foolish and hysterically blind. You actually hurt your position by being so dismissive and so easily disproved. Whatever else she is, she is no dummy and possesses credentials that many politicians only wish they had and a few so out of touch that they think credentials and accomplishments don't matter at all.

As Myk267 pointed out the page you linked has been updated to include a link to the UN Report AOC confirmed was the source of her remark. Click on your own link and scroll to where you see "UPDATE" and you will see this link

https://t.co/KzawP5oI1M.

It appears I wasn't far off, that she was not being literal and di not mean that the world was going to end Bang! in 12 years but that the world as we know it would end as the UN Report clearly warns.

There's an old cliche that if upon arriving at work one colleague asks "You feeling allright? You don't look so good today" you can safely ignore that. However if 10 of your colleagues (and here's the kicker) WHO KNOW YOU inquire as to your state of health, you might be wise to go see a doctor.

It is entirely possible that the vast majority of experts have it all wrong, that we don't really understand the Carbon Cycle on Planet Earth and that all the data from all over confirming not only globally increasing temperatures but Man's pivotal role in that of upsetting a natural balance, is all misinterpretation due to ignorance of some important mechanism that we don't even yet see. BUT considering the preponderance, by far, of all our best efforts say that we are in grave danger how is it wise to just write that off with little or no concern and consideration?

That, BTW, is if it is an honest mistake. The whole idea that hundreds of thousands of experts can agree to keep a secret and collude in a conspiracy, which BTW powerfully affects the world they must live in too, is absolutely ludicrous and unsupportable, and certainly any remaining odds of it's likelihood not worth betting on with such grave consequences if one is mistaken. Only a fool bets against The House in the long term and the more we stand to lose, the more foolish we are.

Regarding the whole Hoax thing, try to imagine the possible outcomes of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. There's really only two important outcomes - Either it Succeeds or it Fails. If it Succeeds and we all have a healthier environment and cheaper energy, even if the ridiculously unlikely turned out to be true, that it was somehow the greatest conspiratorial hoax in all of human history, so what? We would nonetheless be demonstrably better off. IF, OTOH, we Fail, so what? It isn't like what fossil fuels we have will suddenly just vanish nor the technology to use it so going back would be the proverbial "falling off a log".

Now imagine it is not only not a hoax but not a mistake? That Future is VERY different and I submit one to be guarded against and avoided. You can forget experts if you like. It's really not a wise position but even if you do just consider yours and your loved ones possible futures... make it personal, and see what sort of decision would be prudent for you to protect yourself and those people and things you love. What have you got to Win and what have you got to Lose given the possible scenarios?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe if you'd lived in New Orleans and heard the reports of a Category Five hurricane approaching you'd have not chosen to head to relatives upstream but told your family "They're wrong. It's just the Weather Report, wrong as usual and probably overstated just to sell more viewers. We're staying. Well be fine. Trust me."

Hello guys and gals, and especially for this post I'm hoping some of the "hoaxers" are still checking in here, there has been considerable evidence that Anthropogenic Climate Change is so politicized that basically it is said that nobody can escape it. Well hang on to your hats. Here's some evidence I have not been lying nor self-deluded.

While I still trust that there is no hoax, that at worst, if The "Fors" are mistaken then it is an honest mistake and we would be wise to go on best estimates not to mention it would almost certainly be a good thing to stop burning fossil fuels ASAP, give any reasonable alternative.... BUT recently in my research on this I am exploring an avenue that may unravel the idea that CO2 is a major cause of climate change. I'll pause while you gasp

The recent discovery of the Greenland crater caught my interest because the very earliest Science that grabbed me was Astronomy. A favorite Uncle of mine gifted me every Christmas with Astronomy books from the time I was 6 years old. It might be an interesting aside that the first 5 Christmases were books that stated that The Universe was equal to one galaxy, our Milky Way. Yes I now know that Hubble first was published on this subject in 1929 but the very reason I am mentioning this is that it took that long, 20-30 years, for astronomy books to be corrected once improved telescopes and other advances made checking possible.

It is my opinion that it has taken the era of ground-observing satellites to discover just how many and how recently our Earth has been subjected to "earth-shaking" (and climate altering) impacts. I haven't come to any startling conclusions yet, but the discovery of the Greenland Crater and the recent tiny but nevertheless serious impact in Russia have me looking into the view of climate and indeed overall environment have been a smooth, gradual change and may instead be punctuated by erratic peaks and dips, where at least one of the causes was very likely cosmic impacts.

Again, it is highly doubtful that this would cause me to alter my vote but it would rather drastically change my concerns and emphasis.

Pretty picture. Makes a good wallpaper.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...ming/big-thaw/

Thanks, rokytnji, that's my queue to assure everyone I haven't gone crazy pseudoscience as I categorically deny the value of getting carried away and jumping to conclusions about The Sumerians, The Egyptians and Pyramids, Atlantis, and about 50 other areas of of would be history re-writers all jumping for glee over the Hiawatha crater. It is a giant clue but we have a LOT more actuql study to do even to nail down when it occurred. Since you are in the mechanic business you are undoubtedly aware of the phenomenon where if you tell a cuistomer his bike should be ready in one to three weeks, that customer hears "My bike will be done in seven days!".

The Hiawatha crtater could be as new as 12,000 years ago from the present but it could also me over 1,000,000 years old though preliminary studies conclude it is likely within the last 50,000 years. Conspiracy theorists jump to the earliest just like kids (and customers) counting the days till Christmas. It could easily be a decade or more before that widespread timeframe narrows. It undoubtedly will alter our view of history since it is certain that at least some of our ancestors were alive when this impact occurred. Some of these theorists are already exaggerating the size, mass and impact (both actual and overall effect) of Hiawatha since it is nowhere near the scale of the Yucatan impact that apparently aided in wiping out dinosaurs and paving the way for Us. It's 1/10th the impact. However that is quite enough to have nearly global effects. The largest, most powerful man-made explosion was on the order of 50 Megatons and it is initially estimated that Hiawatha was equivalent to about 14 of those at 700 Megatons. It may well have had a powerful effect on the Younger Dryas Phenomenon of rapid climate change, both up and down.

I'm just interested in seeing how this actually plays out. Shoot! I'm almost too old to jump let alone to conclusions.

Yeah, so far "smart money" is still on CO2.

I hate to take a chance of quelling your interest in this new direction, but I'm curious. For decades, we've been told that global temperature launched into a hockey stick shaped increase in temperature at about the same time we started burning of fossil fuels. That's recent recorded history.

So how can a 12,000 or even 50,000 year old event have any hope of explaining a recent trend?

And if, after further study, you become convinced that impacts play a much bigger role than CO2, is there any hope that Rev. Al Gore will become convinced as well?

Good questions, Ken Jackson. It seems to be not a difference of data but a different view. Let me explain. If we graph out average global climate change over the past few million tears, and we can do this quite accurately due to geology and ice cores to name a few, we get a fairly smooth curve that as you say, resembles a hockey stick in the shorter term but in the long term is a fairly smooth curve. After all we are only talking about a few degrees variation so the y-axis has to be done in extremely small increments of change per line on the graph to appear as the "hockey stick". However when we do that, if we also limit the x axis to 1,000,000 years or less, preferably say 50,000 - 100,000 years, then the curve isn't quite so smooth and there are some fairly wild deviations such as at the Younger Dryas period surrounding the 12,000 year ago mark. At this time there was a wild swing up, followed by a wild swing down, and then another swing back up and then back down to the norm.

Something caused that wild swing and though many are jumping to conclusions far too soon on far too little evidence, a cosmic impact does fit that profile perfectly and it is at least possible that the Hiawatha Greenland crater is an impact that is the 'smoking gun". Right now, since the crater is under a massive sheet of ice and only visible by radar we can't tell if it is 12,000 years old or 2,000,000. We do have some shocked quartz, nano-diamonds and other evidence of impact to study and maybe some methodology with which I'm unfamiliar but the point is it will take some time but we can narrow that timeframe down and it seems very important to me that we do exactly that. It is possible we have understimated the frequency and importance of impacts and we need a better yardstick to know for certain if that's so.

In short, this could affect how much weight we place on CO2 as the key factor in change. I'm reasonably confidant that it is an important factor but not at all certain of just how important. I just think we need to look at all possible factors to get the Big Picture as accurately as possible to make the smartest choices.

As for Al Gore, obviously I can't speak for him but I don't think the man is Evil Incarnate or a raging dummy. He could possibly be jumping at shadows but I have to agree that until you know what those shadows are, it's likely safer to jump than not. I'd like to think he would be convinced but on one level I barely care. He doesn't have the power to do anything but disseminate information that grabs some attention and I'm pretty sure that if we date the Greenland crater much more solidly to around 12,000 years ago, that will be a real game-changer and it would be in the news all over the place.

So... we shall see. One way or another we shall see. I'd just prefer it not be an unpleasant surprise.

i dont know what the future holds (nobody does), but there is evidence that this modern industrialized civilization is really fucking up this planet, and i dont expect a god/myth to come down from the sky to fix it, if it gets bad enough we humans could go extinct and drag a lot of other animals to the grave with us

Well. Since you mentioned wrenching enorbet.

Dogs water dishes need to be cleaned daily. Sunlight creates algae in standing water. A shot of bleach fixes this.

Algae blooms on shores can be harsh on local inhabitants.
In and out of the water.
Warmer pacific ocean might get real interesting real soon.

For sure. Warmer Atlantic ocean will be the bomb.

I see Australia gets a 100 year rain recently.
Might not have wait too long, I guess.

Now if we could only move the floods from Queensland to Tasmania they'd put the bushfires out.

I'm rather amazed that I haven't seen this synopsis before so I thought I should reproduce it here. It's wikipedia which while having it's faults does tend to sift out issues over time and this one has been up apparently for years perhaps most importantly represents an unusually balanced view for that very reason. I think it is a decent tradeoff and a useful source.

Anyway here's a section quote

This is the general state of Science on the matter. It's not what much of the public means when they use the term "theory". Now who wouldn't or won't bet on 10 to 1 odds?

Capitalism to the Rescue (Investors Include Bill Gates) - NY Times goes Proactive reporting Solutions in Addition to The Problem

Here is an evolving technology that may help reduce CO2 by making it profitable and at the same time provide new fuels to replace fossil fuels as well as provide an economic stimulus.



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/m...te-change.html

Ending climate change will never be profitable. The entire aviation and shipping industries runs on fossil fuels and the only alternatives are completely different technologies with vastly lower capabilities--airships (humongous, slow, low cargo capacity) and sailing vessels (much better than they were in the 19th century but small, slow, and only able to travel certain routes at certain times of the year--would you be willing to wait six months for shipping?). The internet consumes massive amounts of energy that renewables don't have the capacity to supply without turning the earth into a solar-farm wasteland--and maybe not even then. Ending climate change doesn't mean building more ____ so much as it means building less of everything. And since a capitalist economy depends on perpetual growth to keep expanding the pie so everybody can stay alive after the capital owners have all taken their cuts (and those cuts perpetually get bigger because the rate of profit on investment perpetually declines), that means every economy in the world must blow itself up, on purpose.

We don't have twelve years. We have negative twelve years, perhaps negative twenty. The "red line" was in the 1990s. Irreversible climate disaster is here, now. It is just not yet evenly distributed.