this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
139 points (70.9% liked)

science

15038 readers
191 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 94 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

We, or I might have to accept that a species, no matter how intelligent on an individual basis, is doomed to go extinct when the collective intelligence is not able to mitigate long term consequences.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Our next filter to overcome as a civilisation

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No society should have any businesses or individuals that are ultra rich. It's one thing to surround yourself with materialistic goods and services, but to use that wealth as power and control over a huge majority is evil. I suspect when the ultra rich have proper self-repairing droves of service robots, worker drones and obedient AI, they won't have use for most of us - I am not being hyperbole in writing this...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 59 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I've watched Sabine for awhile, she's a really great science reporter who keeps things simple and pretty brief. Just a note though, I feel like she sometimes takes very skeptical and conservative views on some subjects where she doesn't really have any expertise. It also makes me kind of uncomfortable how she seems to be obsessed with Elon Musk, she mentions him in basically every video.

Despite all that, she's pretty great, check her out, just keep in mind she talks about a lot of things she isn't an expert in.

[–] [email protected] 74 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I followed her for a few months but eventually stopped because I found her too inconsistent and sensationalized in many of the videos. Generally I've liked her physics coverage, but most other topics I feel like I'm doing myself a disservice listening to her. A lot of her material seems like Facebook meme quality content with a physics professor aesthetic

[–] [email protected] 48 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I had to unfollow her, her sensationalistic thumbnails and stupid video titles are way too much for me to handle.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Agreed.

Even with the physics stuff if it's something I am familiar with, she just shits all over it. She acts like the general public / media understanding of a topic is what the people doing the work actually think. No, we are REQUIRED to write a blurb for the media department. The media department runs with it and publishes press releases which are 50% BS to start with. Then the general media picks it up (if they pick it up, mostly nobody cares) and the BS factor gets pushed to 11.

Like it's good to set the record straight and educate people what a topic is really about, but it can be done in a respectful and non-condescending / non-confrontational way. She just likes to shit on everything for no reason and usually doesn't even go into the details, just surface level. It's like an armchair quarterback but for science nerds.

Usually I don't watch any of her non physics content, it's way too cringe for me (especially the non funny jokes, like is the joke meant to be not funny and that's the joke or?) and the whole Elon Musk thing feels like an obsession mixed with algorithm feeding mixed with hello fellow kids. The face filters she uses is also very weird and uncanny valley. When I do sometimes see something non-physics and it's a topic I know, I get the same vibes, like very surface level, Facebook meme quality (great description @zynlyn ). And a lot of the times she gets stuff wrong and almost never goes back to correct any of it or take videos down where it's proven to be total BS. Like the video she did on trans people which was panned by basically everybody and debunked by many people knowledgeable on the subject from different angles. That's still up and it most definitely should not be, or have big disclaimer.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] copymyjalopy 57 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, ever since she decided to weigh in on the transgender "debate" with a "science says you don't exist" take I've moved on. That and the really odd "Yay Capitalism!" Video.

It's always important to evaluate whether the speaker is an actual expert in the field they're talking about or are they an expert in a different field and just think they can speak to subjects outside their field with the same authority.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And her autism video. I don’t understand why she feels the need to have a say in subjects she has no expertise in.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (12 children)

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.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago

I can't say much about this paper, but I like Sabine. She can be like judge Judy sometimes but I'd rather hear a hot take than a tepid one.

Friends of mine have complained how she's strayed away from physics videos towards more general science. She can also be a little condescending towards string theorists' research interests

Other people might get uncomfortable when it comes down to her videos on free will.

For this paper however, it seems Climate targets in recent years have been under estimating global warming and have to accelerate their models each year. She seems worried this opens up the possibility of 4-6C of warming.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I no longer trust Sabine when it comes to anything but physics.

She has proven time and again to oversimplify and assume her correctness in topics she has on expertise on.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Her video on nuclear reactors was awful. She just neglected facts, that didn't fit her narrative.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Her videos that touch on some psychology/sociology topics are even worse. As a psychologist I disagree with everything she says whenever she is not talking about her very narrow niche of expertise.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (5 children)

WTF is praying going to do?!?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you know anything about Sabine she is definitely not a religious person. She is definitely not praying there. It's a common hand gesture of fear and hope.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maybe authorities don't care about climate change because they plan on making it a moot point by 2050.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 ✌️

[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›