Research paper referenced in the video that makes Dr. Hossenfelder very worried:
Global warming in the pipeline: https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889
Abstract
Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change yields Charney (fast-feedback) equilibrium climate sensitivity 1.2 ± 0.3°C (2σ) per W/m2, which is 4.8°C ± 1.2°C for doubled CO2. Consistent analysis of temperature over the full Cenozoic era—including ‘slow’ feedbacks by ice sheets and trace gases—supports this sensitivity and implies that CO2 was 300–350 ppm in the Pliocene and about 450 ppm at transition to a nearly ice-free planet, exposing unrealistic lethargy of ice sheet models. Equilibrium global warming for today’s GHG amount is 10°C, which is reduced to 8°C by today’s human-made aerosols. Equilibrium warming is not ‘committed’ warming; rapid phaseout of GHG emissions would prevent most equilibrium warming from occurring. However, decline of aerosol emissions since 2010 should increase the 1970–2010 global warming rate of 0.18°C per decade to a post-2010 rate of at least 0.27°C per decade. Thus, under the present geopolitical approach to GHG emissions, global warming will exceed 1.5°C in the 2020s and 2°C before 2050. Impacts on people and nature will accelerate as global warming increases hydrologic (weather) extremes. The enormity of consequences demands a return to Holocene-level global temperature. Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and (3) intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance to phase down today’s massive human-made ‘geo-transformation’ of Earth’s climate. Current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.
My basic summary (I am NOT a climate scientist so someone tell me if I’m wrong and I HOPE this is wrong for my children), scientists had dismissed hotter climate models due to the fact that we didn’t have historical data to prove them. Now folks are applying hotter models to predicting weather and the hotter models appear to be more accurate. So it looks like we’re going to break 2C BEFORE 2050 and could hit highs of 8C-10C by the end of the century with our CURRENT levels of green house gases, not even including increasing those.
EDIT: Adding more sources:
Use of Short-Range Forecasts to Evaluate Fast Physics Processes Relevant for Climate Sensitivity: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019MS001986
Short-term tests validate long-term estimates of climate change: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01484-5
You must log in or # to comment.
Okay, so, as others have expressed in this thread, I don’t completely trust Sabine as a science communicator. Can someone who knows what they’re talking about about shed some light on this paper and/or Sabine’s video?
I am an environmental geologist, and while I’m not going to debunk or refute the paper or author (someone more up on their game than me can), I will say that the lack of historic data was always a variable that could be reliably solved for eventually. Our fossil evidence and understanding of global tectonics was already allowing it to be unraveled back when I was in college 20 years ago.
So from a modeling standpoint, if you can repeatedly replicate what you know conditions were like in the non-ice/warm periods, you can reliably infer what the CO2 (or just overall greenhouse gas mixtures) had to have been (I won’t get into why we know it was like that, paleontologists will talk your ear off about it any day)! From there you can develop models with very robust and accurate inputs to predict how long it will take to reach those levels at current pace. Every year the trend line gets more and more granular as well because we have so much data.
Idk if/how that impacts this particular study, but it should give OP some background and trust in the modeling that’s based on data we don’t/didn’t have.
The problem I have with data is how do we know it’s not being manipulated?
Are the people doing these studies gathering this data in their own, or is it corrupt before it even gets to them?
I don’t trust anything or anyone at this point. I am not denying climate change one bit because we can all see it. But I just don’t know if I can trust the data.
What data set specifically are you saying you don’t trust? Just saying you’re skeptical of “the data” is a bullshit cop-out. Pick a specific data set and offer a specific critique of the methodology used to produce it.
If they gather their own data, how do you know they are doing so correctly? It’s easy to fuck up data collection in hundreds of small ways.
How do you know the sensors they use are accurate? Maybe they are biased, or the manufacturer explicitly modifies them.
How do you know the computer equipment they use is working as intended? Maybe someone hacked their system to bias their data.
There are thousands of such questions you can ask about any approach. The answer to all of them is simple: we’ll never be 100% sure, but through enough eyes on the process and enough variability in measurements (both the how and the who), you can trust the average results.
But I just don’t know if I can trust the data.
well damn good thing we’re not leaving decisions up to you.
No instead we should leave decisions up to people like you who blindly believe anything that’s put in front of them.
👍
Your attitude is exactly the reason why we got into this situation in the first place.
how many fucking decades of data do you need?
your attitude is exactly why the next generation will curse yours. you sit around with your head up your ass waiting for the perfect data while the WORLD IS LITERALLY COOKING. You want more data? go smell the rotting dolphins in what used to be the amazon. Go smell the evaporated glaciers in Pakistan.
You want more fucking data, aw, if only there were SOME WAY TO KNOW IT’S HOTTER THAN IT’S EVER BEEN you absolute muppet.
ROFL you have the emotional capacity of a child.
Learn to read first before you spout off like a moron.
Blocked.
thank god I’ll never have to deal with your stupidity again.
Try starting at https://www.ipcc.ch/. Essentially the centre point for all climate change data aggregated in one place using data from 1000s of scientists around the world many working independently. In case you can’t trust something with government association? Then think: why would all the world’s governments lie about the ‘end of the world’? (so to speak) Especially whilst they’re also being lobbied by big oil etc. - it just wouldn’t happen. If you can’t trust ‘pop news’ sources anymore (the most probable source of disinformation) then you’re just going to have to go deep into the science!
Also remember that scientific knowledge is ever evolving and what was understood last week may now have been superceded by more recent studies. This could be a part of the source of your lack of ability to trust the data.
Money. If ever you have to ask why someone would do something against their own interests… the answer is money.
Go do your own research I guess.
You don’t trust “the data” but can’t articulate anything on the subject whatsoever indicating you’ve never as much as looked at “the data” that you’re skeptical of. Or narrow down what aspect of “the data” you don’t trust. Or what methodology makes you skeptical of “the data”. Or what research method was used in obtaining “the data”. Or the repeatability of the experiments being used to test “the data.” Or the peer reviewing of “the data”. Or the credibility of the publishers of “the data”.
You sound like someone that doesn’t have the first clue how any of “the data” is generated, so instead of educating yourself or actually digging in to any of it, you blanket disregard it as untrustworthy.
Downvoted out of principle for the ridiculous clickbait YouTube title/thumbnail. I can’t stand them, and I don’t care that it helps them get more engagement with the algorithm, the algorithm sucks.
Agreed, 15 minute videos with two minutes of info in them are an absolute scourge on Lemmy
Especially on an science based community, article or gtfo
Agreed, 15 minute videos with two minutes of info in them are an absolute scourge on Lemmy
Are you stating that generally, or in reference to Sabine’s video that OP linked? If it is the latter, I would question if you even watched her video.
Of course I didn’t! I see a video with a thumbnail like that, I’d rather hammer nails into my feet than watch it 😂
I get it though. If it is your job and you are struggling than I get why you would do that. Maybe now it goes viral and maybe now it gets sustainable. It is a hard game and don’t hate the player.
Ironic conversation with someone close, we were strolling nearby a river. Comments about river being dirty, talks about people on this area lack of dicipline. After awhile buys a bottle of water then proceed to throw plastic beside the road, nearby the river. Me Surprised Pikachu face.
A dark sense of hope here: At least some of us are able to adapt quickly.
It is insane that there are scientists out there that weren’t worried about climate change until now. And dissappointing that Sabine was apparently one of them.
This lady is fantastically entertaining, thank you for the discovery!
Shame about the climate, hopefully whatever takes over after humans can live in harmony with its environment ✌️
She’s fine, as long as you don’t take what she says at face value. Or automatically accept it. She has felt compelled to make videos on topics she really had no standing or need to. Packed with misinformation and false premise. When it comes to physics related things. Like climate change, she’s probably fine. But if you want to see something so bad and wrong it’s beyond cringe. Go check out her videos on trans issues and capitalism at least. I used to enjoy watching her and her schtick. But since then I have not watched a single new video of hers. Because she’s not that Entertaining. And if she doesn’t bother to make sure the information she’s presenting is correct and just talks from her fee fees. What the point.
I’ll check those out!
When it comes to topics like particle physics and other physics related things. She’s pretty decent. It’s what she studied, it’s what she does. So she tries to be cautious and responsible when it comes to that. Unfortunately that doesn’t apply to other subjects. Which is why you have to be careful with anyone, not just her. But those videos definitely did sour me on her.
Get over it. Those videos happened and every single fucking time there’s a new video some blowhard brings those up. This video has absolutely nothing to do with those videos. This is about climate change. It’s a very informative video. What are your criticisms of this video?
We bring it up for a reason. When it comes to science content, we want accuracy and factualness. You are okay with lies and fantasy. That’s a you thing. so you do you.
It’s not like it’s even a rare or unheard of thing either. Other YouTubers like scishow regularly correct themselves. When they find out the information they presented was inaccurate. Sabine could do that too. But to my knowledge she hasn’t yet. And that’s the problem.
Even then it wasn’t like she simply misplaced the decimal point or misstated something accidentally. It was horribly inaccurate shit takes. At odds with history, psychology, biology etc. Further, this sort of content was completely out of her wheelhouse. If she wanted to express her personal held feelings and emotions surrounding these topics. It would have been better on a second channel. Devoted to that sort of thing. It’s hard to take someone’s science channel seriously when they stop doing science and start doing propaganda. That’s all.
It’s just really telling that you are more at odds with people who have lost respect for her over her lack of professionality. As opposed to her for not being professional.
I’m not at odds with people who don’t respect her. I’m at odds of people bringing up the same two videos over and over again. Should she have made those videos? No. We both agree with that. Does she owe an apology video for that? No, I don’t believe she does. YouTube is not a scientific journal, it’s a media outlet. Her main contribution to the channel is educating us on science and explaining things in ways we can understand. I accept that she will make mistakes sometimes because she is trying to put out way too much content than she has knowledge for. Unfortunately that’s how YouTube works, you either put out content or you lose algorithm power.
What I don’t have respect for is scientists who try to put people down just because they made a few mistakes and don’t go groveling and make a sorry video about it. It’s an insufferable and arrogant, snobbish attitude. Absolutely unnecessary. Point out the mistake and move on. I’m not a scientist and I greatly benefit from watching her videos because it helps me understand. Then I read comments like yours that make her sound like a hack. It makes me severely upset that we pick on a few bad videos instead of acknowledging the hundreds of useful videos. Absolutely ridiculous. I have no respect for rabid people like that and that’s what made me write that comment. And then at the end you take a shot at me for deciding to speak out about it. Fitting snobbish behavior. Have a good life
Well then to quote someone you might know, “get over it”. I believe that was you? Am I quoting you right?
If you want to be upset at someone, be upset at her for making and never having retracted the videos. As long as they’re out there people are going to point to them as reasons why she is not a reliable narrator. If she just wants to be a talking head, reading science, headlines etc. And giving insight as a particle physicist or a personal view of things from a particle physics standpoint. I’m all for it. That wasn’t what those videos were. They were well out of her wheelhouse. She was using it as a false appeal to her authority to push her feelings, not the facts.
If she wants to start a second channel to post her shit takes. Then she should do it. (By the way, I’m told it’s more than just the two videos now. There’s at least a third or possibly even a fourth one.) Keep the professional stuff all on one channel and all the ignorant bigoted stuff on a separate channel. She could call it something catchy like Sabine takes instead of shit takes. But I’m not going to point anyone to her channel or recommend anyone visit her channel as long as she mixes in bullshit like that with actual insightful analysis.
Again, if you have issues with me not liking her character. That is between you and her. It is not a me problem.
Damn, as if the outlook wasn’t already bad enough
🤷♂️
Agreed, there are much better sources for info on this incredibly important topic
Indeed. It was a flippant response from me, but I haven’t got much patience for these articles any more.
deleted by creator
Lol, Sabine is an Elon Stan. Learn to read, the criticism towards her are valid and most comments are well thought out and carefully written nuance. The only oversimplistic and unhelpful cringe platitude in this thread is your comment.
deleted by creator
Dear lord, what a crybaby. Go get your diapers changed, you’re stinking the place.
Because maybe people are feeling like this is all very questionable.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not denying climate change on a larger scale, I’m just saying that most of the studies that were used to say there’s climate change and to push policies such as reducing the production of meat are, most likely, made to support such policy changes that in reality aren’t driven by climate change but by some other economic / market factor.
Take a look at this: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2XW1LX/
Meme comparing jugs of water and ice does not prove sea level rise is a hoax The meme is not proof that melting ice sheets do not cause sea levels to rise, however, and does not accurately represent the change in volume when land-based ice melts into the oceans. “The correct analogy for land ice melting isn’t showing ice floating in a glass of ice water, it’s adding a whole bunch of new ice to the glass,”
While the meme clearly fails to take in account all that mass of ice that sits on land it still has some truth to it because people like Al Gore said “I predict all ice caps will melt by 2014” something that we now know wasn’t true.
Details, as usual, are very important and people like Al Gore carefully cherry-picked them in order to build their arguments and sell a view of the world that wasn’t close the reality of things. We’ve been on this path with governments, public figures and large companies for a while now and people are just fed up of it all - that’s why she gets downvotes on her videos.
You’re wrong. Meat production produces a lot of methane and carbon. It’s also pretty poor for land and water usage.
