this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
137 points (70.7% liked)

science

14671 readers
283 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year 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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 34 points 9 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 9 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 9 months ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

She had a terrible video about trans healthcare as well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

About capitalism and economics too

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah. Just because she's capable of interpreting large data models, that doesn't make her an expert on every field that uses data. And her pretending she is makes her a worse scientist even in her own field of study.

Edit;

ALSO how is she a scientist AND 'not worried' about climate change until she saw these numbers? How hard is it to accept that there is a field of thousands of researchers who are all screaming about climate change?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Personal theory: she is a conservative scientists. They exist. She has a hard time reconciling her world view with her professional career. Thus the weird videos over sensitive topics that are apologetic about the conservative worldview. Hence why I don't trust her whenever she is talking about anything but neutron interactions in nuclear physics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I think that theory makes a lot of sense.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

About philosophical topics such as free will too.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Even on physics you can't trust her necessarily.

She's prone to pushing fringe theoretical physics ideas without contextualizing the degree to which they are fringe.

Not a bad resource for physics explanations and discussion - just take with a grain of salt.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Agreed, used to really enjoy the videos, but saw the same thing. Rebecca Watson does some good videos taking Sabine to task on this.