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
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.
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
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.
Can you give 1 video that debunks her trans one?
Edit: I was downvoted for this. I should mention that I am Not anti trans. There are no buts about it. My must shared video is probably the one by Robert Sapolsky, where he talks about trans people. I was just asking for curiosity.
https://youtu.be/pjlkj-gDt7s?si=WbamhpOJ4HGRcB6p